No presumption of innocence on appeal
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Decision on the Outcome of Proceedings - 29.06.2010 |
DELIĆ Rasim (IT-04-83-A) |
|
|
14. […] In this regard, the Appeals Chamber has clarified, although not directly in relation to the matter at hand, that the presumption of innocence does not apply to persons convicted by Trial Chambers pending the resolution of their appeals.[1] This interpretation of the Appeals Chamber’s jurisprudence is further consistent with the standard of review applicable in appellate proceedings whereby the appealing party has the burden of showing an error of law or of fact that invalidates the trial judgement, or leads to a miscarriage of justice, rather than attempting to initiate a trial de novo.[2] This burden is clearly different from the one operative at trial, where the presumption of innocence does apply and the Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. [1] See e.g., Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-A, Public Redacted Version of the “Decision on Vladimir Lazarević’s Second Motion for Temporary Provisional Release on the Grounds of Compassion” Issued on 21 May 2009, 22 May 2009, para. 9; Prosecutor v. Vujadin Popović et al., Case No. IT-05-88-AR65.8, Decision on Prosecution’s Appeal against Decision on Gvero’s Motion for Provisional Release, 20 July 2009 (public redacted version), para. 11. [2] Article 25 of the Statute; see also, e.g., Prosecutor v. Ljube Boškoski and Johan Tarčulovksi, Case No. IT-04-82-A, Judgement, 19 May 2010, paras 9 et seq.; Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milošević, Case No. IT-98-29/1-A, Judgement, 12 November 2009, paras 12 et seq.; Prosecutor v Mile Mrkšić and Veselin Šljivančanin, Case No. IT-95-13/1, Judgement, 5 May 2009, paras 10 et seq.; Prosecutor v. Momčilo Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Judgement, paras 11 et seq.; Prosecutor v. Milan Martić, Case No. IT-95-11-A, Judgement, 8 October 2008, paras 8 et seq.; François Karera v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-01-74-A, Judgement, 2 February 2009, paras 7 et seq.; Athanase Seromba v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-2001-66-A, Judgement, 12 March 2008, paras 9 et seq., all affirming, inter alia, the standard of reasonableness and deference to factual findings made in a trial judgement. |
ICTR Statute Article 24 ICTY Statute Article 25 | |