77. [W]e conclude that the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia have both internal and international aspects, that the members of the Security Council clearly had both aspects of the conflicts in mind when they adopted the Statute of the International Tribunal, and that they intended to empower the International Tribunal to adjudicate violations of humanitarian law that occurred in either context. To the extent possible under existing international law, the Statute should therefore be construed to give effect to that purpose.

A. Pleading Practices of the Prosecution

9. The interlocutory appeal of the Appellants does relate to issues that should have been raised in a preliminary motion filed pursuant to Rule 72 of the Rules. The first complaint is directed to the pleading practices of the Prosecution. In relation to each of the Counts challenged on this Appeal, the Appellants argue that the Prosecution failed to satisfy the first requirement of the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision by not identifying the rule of international humanitarian law alleged to have been breached, or indicating whether the legal basis for that count was the laws of war (conventional) or customary international law (customs of war).[1]

10. While the Appeals Chamber agrees that an accused is entitled to know the jurisdictional basis for the charge against him, the Appellants in this case did not complain of the Prosecution’s pleading prior to the commencement of this trial pursuant to Rule  72 of the Rules.[2] Given that it was clear at that time that the Prosecution was not expressly pleading the nature of the armed conflict, and that the Prosecution was proceeding on the basis that Article 3 applied to both international and non-international conflicts, it might be inferred that the Appellants saw a tactical advantage in waiting until this time. While the Appellants say that, during the pre-trial stage, they made no challenge to the pleading because of the holding of the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision regarding the application of Article 3 offences to both types of conflict, they also say that the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision did not establish the applicability of all Article 3 offences to non-international armed conflicts, because Tadić was not charged with any property offences under Article 3.[3] Hence, the Appellants’ reliance on the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision as a reason for not bringing a pre-trial motion challenging the Prosecution’s pleading is not persuasive. The Appellants knew at the time of the issuing of the Indictment that their argument would be that the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision did not establish the application of the Article 3 offences subject of Counts 5, 6 and 7 to non-international armed conflicts, and that complaint should have been made pre-trial.

11. The Appellants further complain that the Prosecution did not identify the legal basis for the Counts charged because it did not want to commit itself to proving that the armed conflict was either international or non-international.[4] This is also a complaint about the pleading practice of the Prosecution that should have been brought by the Appellants during the pre-trial stage. By not pleading the nature of the armed conflict in the Indictment, the Prosecution left the issue to the Trial Chamber to determine. The Prosecution also made it clear to the Appellants that it did not consider the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over Counts 5, 6, and 7 to be dependent on a finding that an international armed conflict occurred. If the Appellants required greater clarification than this, they should have filed a pre -trial motion pursuant to Rule 72.

1. Scope of Article 3

13. The Appellants’ challenge to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction over Counts 5, 6 and 7 of the Indictment stems from the Appellants’ interpretation of the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision regarding the scope of jurisdiction under Article 3 of the Statute. In the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision, the Appeals Chamber held that Article 3 confers jurisdiction over any serious offence against international humanitarian law committed in non-international or international armed conflict not covered by Articles 2, 4, or 5.[1] The Appeals Chamber prescribed a four-prong test to ensure that offences charged under Article 3 lie within the International Tribunal’s jurisdiction.[2] On appeal the Appellants argue that the jurisdictional grant embodied in the enumerated provisions of Article 3 only refers to the conventional law from which that text is derived. The Appellants claim that as that conventional law underpinning Articles 3(b), (d) and (e), charged in Counts 5, 6 and 7 of the Indictment respectively, relates to international armed conflicts and situations in occupied territory, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction over these offences in non-international armed conflicts.[3]

14. The Appellants’ position is an unnecessarily narrow reading of the Appeals Chamber’s jurisprudence with respect to the scope of the enumerated provisions in Article 3. In the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision, the Appeals Chamber stated, with respect to the list of enumerated violations, that “this list may be construed to include other infringements of international humanitarian law”,[4] demonstrating that the enumerated crimes of the list itself should be considered to encompass rules in addition to the conventional law from which their text originates.[5] Accordingly, properly understood, Article 3 confers jurisdiction over violations of rules that are expressed by the provisions of the Article, but which are not limited to the conditions of the rule’s origin in conventional instruments applicable to international armed conflicts only.[6]

See also para. 45.

37. […] The Appeals Chamber therefore finds that the customary international law rule embodied in Article 3(e) is applicable in all situations of armed conflict [international and non-international], and is not limited to occupied territory.[1]

38. The Appeals Chamber is satisfied that violations of the prohibition against “plunder of public or private property” under Rule 3(e) entail, under customary law, the individual criminal responsibility of the person breaching the rule. […]

See also the omitted portions of paras 37-38 where the Appeals Chamber discusses legal sources.