Multiple accused
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Decision on Death of Co-Accused - 24.09.2010 |
KAREMERA et al. (ICTR-98-44-AR50) |
|
|
17. […] [The Trial Chamber] correctly recalled that “[t]here is clear statutory language and jurisprudence which emphasize the individual nature of criminal responsibility in this Tribunal [and that] [e]ven if Accused persons are joined together into one trial, this in no way diminishes the Prosecution’s burden to prove each element of each crime individually against each of the co-Accused.”[1][…] 21. […] As noted above, the Trial Chamber explicitly recalled the principle of individual criminal responsibility and that the Prosecution must prove each element of each crime individually against each of the co-Accused.[2] To the extent that they are charged with joint criminal enterprise and may thus be held accountable for acts of others in accordance with the common criminal purpose, the Appeals Chamber notes that Nzirorera’s death does not affect the burden to be met by the Prosecution in relation to Karemera and Ngirumpatse. [1] Reasons for Impugned Decision, para. 14. [2] Reasons for Impugned Decision, para. 14. |
||
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Decision on Interlocutory Appeal - 25.05.2001 |
KVOČKA et al. (IT-98-30/1-AR73.5) |
|
|
21. Procedural equality requires that the concept of a fair trial be applied taking into account the interests of both parties. The Prosecution acts on behalf of and in the interests of the international community.[1] Thus, as the international community has an interest in the enforcement of such guarantee, it cannot be deprived of it by the mere circumstance that the Appellant would like to waive his own entitlement to a fair trial.
[1] Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, Decision on Prosecutor’s Appeal on Admissibility of Evidence, Case No.: IT-95-14/1-AR73, 16 February 1999, para 25. |
||