Request for a more severe sentence on appeal than that requested at trial

Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 23.01.2014 ŠAINOVIĆ et al.

1834. The Appeals Chamber recalls that trial chambers are vested with broad discretion in determining an appropriate sentence[1] and that it is incumbent on parties to present all information relevant to sentencing at trial.[2] The Appeals Chamber will only intervene where a trial chamber has abused its discretion.[3] The Appeals Chamber notes that in its Closing Brief and closing arguments, the Prosecution requested “sentences raging from 20 years to life imprisonment” with regard to all the Appellants, irrespective of the modes of liability charged.[4] The Prosecution cannot seek to have a more severe sentence imposed on appeal where, as here, the Trial Chamber, by exercising its discretion, imposed a sentence within the Prosecution’s requested range. Thus, the Appeals Chamber dismisses the Prosecution’s arguments concerning Šainović, Pavković, and Lukić who were sentenced to 22 years of imprisonment.[5] However, as Lazarević was sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment, below the 20-year minimum sought by the Prosecution, the Appeals Chamber will examine whether the Trial Chamber erred in its assessment of the gravity of his crimes.[6]

[1] Boškoski and Tarčulovski Appeal Judgement, para. 204; D. Milošević Appeal Judgement, para. 297.

[2] See Rules 86(C) and 101 (B) of the Rules [ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence]. See also Ntabakuze Appeal Judgement, para. 289.

[3] See supra, para. 1798.

[4] Prosecution’s Closing Brief [Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-T, Final Trial Brief, 15 July 2008 (confidential); public redacted version filed on 29 July 2008], para. 1100. See also Prosecution’s Closing Argument, 20 Aug 2008, T. 26947.

[5] See Trial Judgement, vol. 3, paras 1208, 1210, 1212.

[6] See Trial Judgement, vol. 3, para. 1211; Prosecution’s Closing Brief, para. 1100.

Download full document