14.     The Appeals Chamber turns first to Stanković’s challenge to the composition of the Referral Bench. Rule 11bis of the ICTY Rules does not require that a request for revocation be considered by a differently composed bench than the one that referred the case to a national jurisdiction. Indeed, Rule 11bis of the ICTY Rules simply refers to the “Referral Bench” throughout, which is defined in Rule 11bis(A) of the ICTY Rules as “a bench of three Permanent Judges selected from the Trial Chambers”. […]

12.     Where an appeal is filed against a decision denying a request for revocation of a referral, the issue before the Appeals Chamber is not whether the decision was correct, in the sense that the Appeals Chamber agrees with that decision, but whether the Referral Bench has correctly exercised its discretion in reaching that decision.[1] A party challenging such a decision must show that the Referral Bench: (i) misdirected itself either as to the legal principle to be applied, or as to the law which is relevant to the exercise of its discretion; (ii) gave weight to irrelevant considerations or failed to give sufficient weight to relevant considerations; (iii) made an error as to the facts upon which it has exercised its discretion; or (iv) its decision was so unreasonable and plainly unjust that the Appeals Chamber is able to infer that the Referral Bench must have failed to exercise its discretion properly.[2]

15. Turning to Stanković’s challenges to the Impugned Decision, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Referral Bench considered that Stanković filed the Revocation Request after the Appellate Panel in Bosnia and Herzegovina had affirmed his conviction.[1] The Referral Bench noted, however, that it “may revoke a referral order proprio motu in the circumstance of a grave violation left unchallenged by the Prosecution or untimely submitted”.[2] Thus, having examined Stanković’s submissions, the Referral Bench concluded that:

[i]n the absence of previously unidentified or grave violations of Stanković’s right to a fair trial, the Referral Bench considers that it would be contrary to the intention of Rule 11bis to order a case referred to the authorities of a State to be sent back to the Tribunal after the trial and appeal proceedings have concluded in that State.[3]

16.     The Appeals Chamber notes that Rule 11bis(F) of the ICTY Rules, Article 6(6) of the MICT Statute, and Rule 14(C) of the MICT Rules unequivocally provide that revocation of a referral order may occur only before the accused has been found guilty or acquitted by a national court. As recalled above, the proceedings against Stanković before the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina were completed in April 2007.[4] The Appeals Chamber further notes that, contrary to Stanković’s submission,[5] the panel of the State Court and the Appellate Panel of Bosnia and Herzegovina were composed of different judges.[6] Therefore, to the extent that Stanković argues that there is no final judgement against him due to irregularities in the composition of the Appellate Panel, his submission is unsubstantiated.

17.     Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Referral Bench correctly considered that it would be contrary to the intention of Rule 11bis of the ICTY Rules to revoke a referral order after the legal proceedings in the respective State have been completed. Absent any explicit legal basis for such revocation, the Appeals Chamber finds that it need not consider further whether the Referral Bench committed a discernible error in finding that there were no grounds to revoke the referral of Stanković’s case to the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The Appeals Chamber also considered whether the Trial Chamber erred in failing to give sufficient weight to the monitoring of proceedings in Rwanda by the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights (“African Commission”) and the remedy of revocation, which the Prosecution contends, sufficiently protects Kanyarukiga’s right to a fair trial. The Appeals Chamber opined:

38.    The Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber considered and gave sufficient weight to the information concerning the proposed monitoring system and the remedy of revocation. It further agrees that, while the African Commission indeed has the necessary qualifications to monitor trials,[1] these procedures and remedies would not necessarily solve the current problems related to the availability and protection of witnesses. Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber notes that both the decision to send monitors and the right to request a Trial Chamber to consider revocation lie within the sole discretion of the Prosecution.[2] Therefore, the Accused would not be able himself to trigger the operation of these “remedies”. The Appeals Chamber thus finds no error in the Trial Chamber’s conclusion in this regard.

37. The Appeals Chamber recalls that, in assessing the conditions of detention, a designated trial chamber should ascertain whether the laws governing detention incorporate relevant international standards regarding the treatment of prisoners.[1] In this respect, the Appeals Chamber notes that, in assessing the conditions of detention in Rwanda, the Referral Chamber discussed the guarantee in the Transfer Law[2] that any person transferred would be detained in accordance with the minimum standards of detention adopted by United Nations General Assembly Resolution 43/173, and that the detention would be subject to monitoring by a representative of the Tribunal or the International Committee of the Red Cross.[3] Mr. Uwinkindi has not demonstrated that the Referral Chamber’s consideration of this legal framework was a discernible error.

38. With respect to the monitoring of the detention conditions, the Appeals Chamber finds Mr. Uwinkindi’s assertions unpersuasive. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the conditions of detention are a relevant consideration in assessing the fairness of domestic criminal proceedings.[4] Thus, it was within the inherent authority of the Referral Chamber to extend the monitoring to this aspect of the referral of his case.[5] Mr. Uwinkindi’s challenge to the effectiveness of this monitoring by referring to the finite mandate of the Tribunal fails to account for the role that the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (“Residual Mechanism”) will play in ensuring oversight of referred cases.[6] Moreover, the Appeals Chamber is not satisfied that the Referral Chamber erred in not identifying the measures that would be taken if it received a report of mistreatment, as such measures could only be determined in a specific context.

52. […] the Appeals Chamber takes specific note of the provisions ordered by the Referral Chamber for monitoring the case,[7] and recalls that, should the interpretation of the Transfer Law set forth herein be proven incorrect, the Tribunal in any event retains the right to revoke the reference of this case to the Rwandan courts. In this respect, the Appeals Chamber notes that although the Referral Chamber requested the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (“ACHPR”) to monitor the referred case and submit reports every three months after its initial report,[8] nothing in the Impugned Decision precludes the ACHPR from making more frequent or interim reports, as appropriate. In this context, the Appeals Chamber considers that the submission of monitoring reports on a monthly basis is warranted until the President of the Tribunal or Residual Mechanism decides otherwise. The Appeals Chamber is confident that, should there be any violation of Mr. Uwinkindi’s fair trial rights, including Mr. Uwinkindi’s rights to call witnesses and to testify on his own behalf, it would be reported forthwith and a request for revocation of the referral would be made immediately.

83. The Appeals Chamber finds no error in the Referral Chamber relying to a considerable degree on the monitoring mechanism it had fashioned in ensuring that Mr. Uwinkindi’s trial will be fair and, if not, that proceedings would be revoked.[9] The Appeals Chamber recalls that a designated trial chamber has the discretion to order monitoring, and that it may take such a mechanism into account in concluding that the trial will be fair.[10] Moreover, the Appeals Chamber considers that a trial chamber has the authority to dictate the scope of the monitoring and the frequency and nature of the reporting.[11]

84. The Appeals Chamber is also satisfied that the Referral Chamber acted within its discretion in ordering the specific scope and guidelines imposed for the ACHPR’s monitoring in this case. Although the Appeals Chamber notes that the Tribunal lacks the authority to compel an independent organization which is neither a party nor an organ of the Tribunal to conduct monitoring,[12] Rule 11bis(D)(iv) of the Rules authorizes a designated trial chamber to order the Registrar to send monitors. In this case, the Referral Chamber specifically requested the Registrar to enter into a suitable agreement with the ACHPR and to seek further directions from the President of the Tribunal, should the arrangements prove ineffective.[13] Therefore, any difference between the monitoring ordered by the Referral Chamber and the initial expression of willingness by the ACHPR to provide monitoring can be resolved during this process or, if not, can be brought to the attention of the Tribunal for appropriate action.

85. […] Finally, the Appeals Chamber considers that Mr. Uwinkindi’s assertion that there are insufficient means by which he can seek revocation fails to appreciate that the Referral Chamber granted him standing to personally request this remedy, and this contention is therefore dismissed.

5.       Rule 142 of the Rules provides for the admission of additional evidence on appeal, and the Appeals Chamber finds that, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the ICTR and the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”), this provision is applicable to appeals of decisions issued pursuant Rule 14 of the Rules.[1] According to Rule 142(A) of the Rules, a motion for the admission of additional evidence shall clearly identify with precision the specific finding of fact made by the trial chamber to which the evidence is directed. For additional evidence to be admissible under Rule 142(C) of the Rules, the applicant must demonstrate that the additional evidence was not available at trial in any form, or discoverable through the exercise of due diligence.[2] The applicant must also show that the additional evidence is relevant to a material issue at trial and credible.[3] Once it has been determined that the additional evidence meets these conditions, the Appeals Chamber will determine in accordance with Rule 142(C) of the Rules whether it could have been a decisive factor in reaching the Impugned Decision.[4]

6.       Where, however, the evidence was available during the revocation proceedings or could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence, it may still be admissible on appeal pursuant to Rule 142(C) of the Rules if the applicant shows that the exclusion of the additional evidence would lead to a miscarriage of justice, in that, if it had been admitted at trial, it would have had an impact on the Impugned Decision.[5]

7.       In both cases, the applicant bears the burden of identifying with precision the specific finding of fact made by the trial chamber to which the additional evidence pertains, and of specifying with sufficient clarity the impact the additional evidence could or would have had upon the trial chamber’s decision.[6] An applicant who fails to do so runs the risk that the tendered material will be rejected without detailed consideration.[7]

See also para. 39.