At para. 6, the Appeals Chamber recalled the standard of review of decisions rendered pursuant to Rule 54bis of the Rules:

The Appeals Chamber recalls that Rule 54 and Rule 54bis allow a party in proceedings before the International Tribunal to request a Judge or a Trial Chamber to order a State to produce documents or information for the purposes of an investigation or the preparation or conduct of a trial. The Appeals Chamber considers that a Judge or Trial Chamber’s decision on a Rule 54bis request is a discretionary one.[1] Therefore, the Appeals Chamber will not conduct a de novo review of a Rule 54bis decision and the question before it is not whether it “agrees with that decision” but “whether the Trial Chamber has correctly exercised its discretion in reaching that decision.”[2] It must be demonstrated that the Trial Chamber has committed a “discernible error”[3] resulting in prejudice to a party. The Appeals Chamber will overturn a Trial Chamber’s exercise of its discretion only where it is found to be “(1) based on an incorrect interpretation of governing law; (2) based on a patently incorrect conclusion of fact; or (3) so unfair or unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of the Trial Chamber’s discretion.”[4] The Appeals Chamber will also consider whether the Trial Chamber “has given weight to extraneous or irrelevant considerations or that it has failed to give weight or sufficient weight to relevant considerations [. . .]” in reaching its discretionary decision.[5]

On 5 May 2009, the Appeals Chamber issued a judgement which, inter alia, upheld the conviction of Veselin Šljivančanin (“Šljivančanin”) for aiding and abetting torture as a violation of the laws or customs of war and added, Judges Pocar and Vaz dissenting, a new conviction for aiding and abetting murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war. The new conviction was based in part on the Appeals Chamber’s new factual findings concerning a conversation between Šljivančanin and Mile Mrkšić (“Conversation”).[1]

In an application for review filed on 28 January 2010,[2] Šljivančanin asserted that Miodrag Panić was prepared to offer testimony that invalidated Šljivančanin’s conviction for aiding and abetting murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war, and that the content of the Conversation that would be the subject of this testimony constituted a “new fact” in the context of Rule 119 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal.

At pages 2 and 3, the Appeals Chamber stated:

CONSIDERING that, pursuant to Article 26 of the Statute of the Tribunal (“Statute”) and Rules 119 and 120 of the Rules, for a party to succeed in persuading the Appeals Chamber to review a judgement, the party must first satisfy the following cumulative requirements:

a)     there is a new fact;

b)     the new fact was not known to the moving party at the time of the original proceedings;

c)     the failure to discover the new fact was not due to a lack of due diligence on the part of the  moving party; and

d)     the new fact could have been a decisive factor in reaching the original decision;[3]

[…]

CONSIDERING that what is relevant in evaluating an application for review is not “whether [a] new fact already existed before […] original proceedings or during such proceedings” but, rather, “whether the deciding body and the moving party knew about the fact or not” in arriving at its decision;[4]

CONSIDERING that, in “wholly exceptional circumstances”, review may still be permitted even though the “new fact” was known to the moving party or was discoverable by it through the exercise of due diligence if a Chamber is presented with “a new fact that is of such strength that it would affect the verdict”[5] and determines that “review of its judgement is necessary because the impact of the new fact on the decision is such that to ignore it would lead to a miscarriage of justice”;[6]

At para. 8 of its Decision, the Appeals Chamber recalled the standard applicable to Trial Chambers’ decision on trial management:

8. It is well established in the jurisprudence of the International Tribunal that Trial Chambers exercise discretion in relation to trial management.[1] The Trial Chamber’s decision in this case to reduce the time allocated to the Prosecution for the presentation of its evidence was a discretionary decision to which the Appeals Chamber accords deference. Such deference is based on the recognition by the Appeals Chamber of “the Trial Chamber’s organic familiarity with the day-to-day conduct of the parties and practical demands of the case.”[2] The Appeals Chamber’s examination is therefore limited to establishing whether the Trial Chamber has abused its discretionary power by committing a discernible error.[3] The Appeals Chamber will only overturn a Trial Chamber’s exercise of its discretion where it is found to be “(1) based on an incorrect interpretation of governing law; (2) based on a patently incorrect conclusion of fact; or (3) so unfair or unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of the Trial Chamber’s discretion.”[4]

5. The Trial Chamber has the discretion to decide whether to refer a case to a national jurisdiction and the Appeals Chamber will only intervene if the Trial Chamber’s decision was based on a discernible error.[1] As the Appeals Chamber has previously stated:

An appellant must show that the Trial Chamber misdirected itself either as to the principle to be applied or as to the law which is relevant to the exercise of its discretion, gave weight to irrelevant considerations, failed to give sufficient weight to relevant considerations, or made an error as to the facts upon which it has exercised its discretion; or that its decision was so unreasonable and plainly unjust that the Appeals Chamber is able to infer that the Trial Chamber must have failed to exercise its discretion properly.[2]

These provisions were reiterated verbatim in two subsequent decisions – The Prosecutor v. Gaspard Kanyarugika, Case No. ICTR-2002-78-R11bis, Decision on the Prosecution’s Appeal Against Decision on Referral Under Rule 11bis, 30 October 2008, para. 5 and The Prosecutor v. Ildephonse Hategekimana, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-E11bis, Decision on the Prosecution’s Appeal Against Decision on Referral Under Rule 11bis, 4 December 2008, para. 5.

At paras 9-11, the Appeals Chamber recalled the law applicable to review proceedings:

9. Review proceedings are governed by the following provisions of the Statute and Rules:

Article 26 of the Statute provides that:

Where a new fact has been discovered which was not known at the time of the proceedings before the Trial Chambers or the Appeals Chamber and which could have been a decisive factor in reaching the decision, the convicted person or the Prosecutor may submit to the International Tribunal an application for review of the judgement.

Rule 119 deals with the request for review and stipulates that:

Where a new fact has been discovered which was not known to the moving party at the time of the proceedings before a Trial Chamber or the Appeals Chamber, and could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence, the defence or, within one year after the final judgement has been pronounced, the Prosecutor, may make a motion to that Chamber for review of the judgement. If, at the time of the request for review, any of the Judges who constituted the original Chamber are no longer Judges of the Tribunal, the President shall appoint a Judge or Judges in their place.

Rule 120 provides for a preliminary examination and states that:

If a majority of Judges of the Chamber constituted pursuant to Rule 119 agrees that the new fact, if proved, could have been a decisive factor in reaching a decision, the Chamber shall review the judgement, and pronounce a further judgement after hearing the parties.

10. The combined effect of these provisions of the Statute and the Rules is that in order for a Chamber to proceed to the review of its decision, the moving party must demonstrate that:

there is a new fact;

the new fact was not known to the moving party at the time of the proceedings before the Trial Chamber or the Appeals Chamber;

the lack of discovery of the new fact was not due to a lack of diligence on the part of the moving party; and

the new fact, if proved, could have been a decisive factor in reaching the original decision.[1]

11. In "wholly exceptional circumstances", where the impact of a new fact on the decision would be such that to ignore it would lead to a miscarriage of justice, the Chambers may review their decision even though the new fact was known to the moving party, or was discoverable by it through the exercise of due diligence.[2] As stated in the Tadić Review:

the Appeals Chamber, whenever it is presented with a new fact that is of such strength that it would affect the verdict, may, in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice, step in and examine whether or not the new fact is a decisive factor, even though the second and third criteria under Rule 119 of the Rules may not be formally met.[3]

1.  The Appeals Chamber was seized for the first time of an appeal from a decision modifying the terms of a provisional release. While the Prosecution was putting forward arguments going to the provisional release itself, the Appeals Chamber noted that the Prosecution never appealed against the original decision but was only appealing against the decision modifying the terms of release. It therefore held that, being seized of the decision modifying the conditions of the provisional release and not of the original decision granting such provisional release, “[r] egardless of the decision today, the Accused will remain on provisional release, at the very least according to the terms of the Original Provisional Release Decision.” (para. 25). See also paras 40, 42, 56. 

473. Pursuant to Article 24 of the Statute the Appeals Chamber shall hear appeals from persons convicted by the Trial Chambers or from the Prosecutor on the grounds of an error of law invalidating the decision or an error of fact which has occasioned a miscarriage of justice. Where additional evidence has been admitted on appeal, the Appeals Chamber is required to determine whether the additional evidence actually reveals an error of fact of such magnitude as to occasion a miscarriage of justice.[1] In accordance with Rule 118(A) of the Rules and the relevant jurisprudence,[2] the test to be applied by the Appeals Chamber in deciding whether or not to uphold a conviction  where additional evidence has been admitted is: has the appellant established that no reasonable tribunal of fact could have reached a conclusion of guilt based upon the evidence before the Trial Chamber together with the additional evidence admitted during the appellate proceedings?[3] Where the Appeals Chamber finds that a reasonable trier of fact could have reached a conclusion of guilt based on the evidence before the Trial Chamber together with the additional evidence, it must uphold the Trial Chamber decision.

36. [T]he notion of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt must be retained in the operation of Rule 98bis(B). This was recognised by Trial Chamber II’s decision in Kunarac.  The test applied in that case was correctly stated to be “whether there is evidence (if accepted) upon which a reasonable tribunal of fact could convict - that is to say, evidence (if accepted) upon which a reasonable tribunal of fact could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused on the particular charge in question. If the evidence does not reach that standard, then the evidence is, to use the words of Rule 98bis(B), ‘insufficient to sustain a conviction’”.[1] […]

37. The next question is how should the test of guilt beyond reasonable doubt be applied in this situation. The Appeals Chamber considers that the reference in Rule 98bis to a situation in which “the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction” means a case in which, in the opinion of the Trial Chamber, the prosecution evidence, if believed,[2] is insufficient for any reasonable trier of fact to find that guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. In this respect, the Appeals Chamber follows its recent holding in the Delalić appeal judgement, where it said: “[t]he test applied is whether there is evidence (if accepted) upon which a reasonable tribunal of fact could be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused on the particular charge in question”.[3] The capacity[4] of the prosecution evidence (if accepted) to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt by a reasonable trier of fact is the key concept; thus the test is not whether the trier would in fact arrive at a conviction beyond reasonable doubt on the prosecution evidence (if accepted) but whether it could.  At the close of the case for the prosecution, the Chamber may find that the prosecution evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt and yet, even if no defence evidence is subsequently adduced, proceed to acquit at the end of the trial, if in its own view of the evidence, the prosecution has not in fact proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

See also paras. 33–35, 68.

52. The Appeals Chamber recalls that when a party alleges on appeal that its right to a fair trial has been infringed, it must prove that the trial chamber violated a provision of the Statute and/or the Rules and that this violation caused prejudice which amounts to an error of law invalidating the trial judgement.[1] […] The Appeals Chamber would only reverse such a decision [related to the general conduct of trial proceedings] where it was demonstrated that the Trial Chamber committed a discernible error in rendering the decision, based on an incorrect interpretation of the governing law or a patently incorrect conclusion of fact, or where the decision was so unfair or unreasonable so as to constitute an abuse of the Trial Chamber’s discretion.[2]

37. The Appeals Chamber recalls that a judgement of acquittal shall only be entered pursuant to Rule 98 bis of the Rules “if there is no evidence capable of supporting a conviction”.[1] Moreover, the Appeals Chamber recalls that pursuant to Rule 98 bis of the Rules, a trial chamber is required to “assume that the prosecution’s evidence [is] entitled to credence unless incapable of belief” and “take the evidence at its highest”.[2] The Appeals Chamber notes that the evidence reviewed by the Trial Chamber, taken at its highest, indicates that Bosnian Muslims and/or Bosnian Croats suffered injuries, including rape and severe non-fatal physical violence which are, on their face, suggestive of causing serious bodily harm.[3] While the commission of individual paradigmatic acts does not automatically demonstrate that the actus reus of genocide has taken place, the Appeals Chamber considers that no reasonable trial chamber reviewing the specific evidence on the record in this case, including evidence of sexual violence and of beatings causing serious physical injuries,[4] could have concluded that it was insufficient to establish the actus reus of genocide in the context of Rule 98 bis of the Rules. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber failed to take the evidence at its highest.

At paras 304-306, the Appeals Chamber recalled the law applicable to circumstantial evidence, as enounced in the Čelebići Appeal Judgement and recently confirmed in Stakić:

304.    In the Čelebići Appeal Judgement, the ICTY Appeals Chamber set out the standard of proof applicable to circumstantial evidence as follows:

A circumstantial case consists of evidence of a number of different circumstances which, taken in combination, point to the guilt of the accused person because they would usually exist in combination only because the accused did what is alleged against him – here that he participated in the second beating of Gotovac. Such a conclusion must be established beyond reasonable doubt. It is not sufficient that it is a reasonable conclusion available from that evidence. It must be the only reasonable conclusion available. If there is another conclusion which is also reasonably open from that evidence, and which is consistent with the innocence of the accused, he must be acquitted.

The same standard was applied in theVasiljević, Krstić and Kvočka et al. Appeal Judgements in relation to the establishment of the state of mind of the accused by inference and, more recently, in the Stakić Appeal Judgement.

305.    As the ICTY Appeals Chamber made clear in the Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement, the Čelebići standard on circumstantial evidence has to be distinguished from the standard of appellate review. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Tribunal’s law on appellate proceedings, namely wheter “no reasonable trier of fact could have reached the conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt”, permits a conclusion to be upheld on appeal even where other inferences sustaining guilt could reasonably have been drawn at trial”.[5]

306.    It is settled jurisprudence that the conclusion of guilt can be inferred from circumstantial evidence only if it is the only reasonable conclusion available on the evidence. Whether a Trial Chamber infers the existence of a particular fact upon which the guilt of the accused depends from direct or circumstantial evidence, it must reach such a conclusion beyond reasonable doubt. If there is another conclusion which is also reasonably open from that evidence, and which is consistent with the non-existence of that fact, the conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt cannot be drawn.

The Appeals Chamber clarified that, under Article 25 of the Statute and according to Rules 120-123, a party may submit an application for review if it satisfies the following conditions: a new fact has been discovered which was not known at the time of the initial proceedings and which could not been discovered earlier through the exercise of due diligence; and this new fact could have been a decisive factor in reaching the decision. The Appeals Chamber emphasized that only a definitive judgement can be reviewed under the said provisions.

20. […] Pour obtenir la révision conformément aux articles 25 du Statut et 120 à 123 du Règlement, la partie intéressée doit au préalable satisfaire quatre conditions:

1) un fait nouveau doit avoir été découvert,

2) ce fait nouveau ne doit pas avoir été connu de la partie intéressée lors de la procédure initiale,

3) la non-découverte de ce fait nouveau ne doit pas être due à un manque de diligence de la partie intéressée, et

4) le fait nouveau aurait pu être un élément décisif de la décision initiale[1].

21. La Chambre d’appel réitère en outre que « seul un jugement définitif peut être révisé en vertu des articles 25 du Statut et 120 du Règlement, et [qu’]un jugement définitif est une décision qui met fin à une procédure »[2].

23. La Chambre d’appel rappelle que la Décision du 14 septembre 2000 a rejeté la révision ainsi que le réexamen de la Requête du 28 juillet 2000 aux motifs que l’Arrêt du 31 mars 2000 n’avait pas mis fin à la procédure, que le réexamen de ladite requête ne pouvait être utilisé comme pouvoir de révision dans les cas où celle-ci n’était pas prévue et qu’il n’était pas justifié en l’espèce ; elle a dirigé l’Appelant vers la Chambre de première instance en vue de lui soumettre, le cas échéant, des faits nouveaux de nature à établir l’incompétence du Tribunal[3].

11. [...] Rule 108bis was adopted to permit States directly affected by an interlocutory decision to seek a review where it is claimed that an interlocutory decision of a Trial Chamber has impacted upon its legal rights, such as when a State is ordered to produce documents or records from its archives. This provision is not available where the State claims that its legitimate political interests have been affected, or where it has a genuine concern that the facts alleged in the indictment are historically accurate.^[…] The time for the investigation into the truth of the facts alleged in an indictment does not arise until the trial.

12. Article 29 of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that all States shall cooperate with the Tribunal and comply without undue delay with any request for assistance or order issued by this Tribunal. In particular, Article 29(d) expressly provides that this general obligation includes a duty to comply with any such request or order relating to “the arrest or detention of persons”. Croatia’s role in complying with such a request or order is the purely ministerial one of executing the warrants and carrying out such arrest and detention as ordered by the Tribunal. A State which is ordered to arrest or detain an individual pursuant to Article 29(d) has no standing to challenge the merits of that order. 

The ICTR Appeals Chamber recalled the following:

9. Decisions relating to the general conduct of trial proceedings are matters within the discretion of the Trial Chamber. A Trial Chamber’s exercise of discretion will be reversed only if the challenged decision was based on an incorrect interpretation of governing law, was based on a patently incorrect conclusion of fact, or was so unfair or unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of the Trial Chamber’s discretion.

7. Decisions relating to the general conduct of trial proceedings are matters within the discretion of the Trial Chamber. The Impugned Decision, which ruled on the right of the accused to be present at trial, was such a discretionary decision to which the Appeals Chamber must accord deference. Such deference is based on the recognition by the Appeals Chamber of “the Trial Chamber’s organic familiarity with the day-to-day conduct of the parties and practical demands of the case.”[2] A Trial Chamber’s exercise of discretion will thus be reversed only if the Appellant demonstrates that the Trial Chamber made a discernible error in the Impugned Decision because it was based on an incorrect interpretation of governing law, was based on a patently incorrect conclusion of fact, or was so unfair or unreasonable as to constitute an abuse of the Trial Chamber’s discretion.

21. The Appeals Chamber reiterates that an appeal is not a trial de novo.  In making its assessment, the Appeals Chamber will in principle only take into account the following factual evidence: evidence referred to by the Trial Chamber in the body of the judgement or in a related footnote; evidence contained in the trial record and referred to by the parties; and additional evidence admitted on appeal.[1]

See also Separate Opinion of Judge Weinberg de Roca.

185.   In Kupreškić, the Appeals Chamber of ICTY stated the role of the Appeals Chamber in cases where the factual findings of a Trial Chamber are likely to be reviewed in light of new evidence.  ICTY Appeals Chamber held in the above-mentioned case that:

“Where additional evidence has been admitted, the Appeals Chamber is then required to determine whether the additional evidence actually reveals an error of fact of such magnitude as to occasion a miscarriage of justice.”[1] 

“[…] miscarriage of justice may […] be occasioned where the evidence before a Trial Chamber  appears to be reliable but, in the light  of additional evidence presented upon appeal, is exposed as unreliable.  It is possible that the Trial Chamber may reach a conclusion of guilt based on the evidence presented at trial that is reasonable at the time […] but, in reality, is incorrect.”[2]

“[…] The test to be applied by the Appeals Chamber in deciding whether or not to uphold a conviction where additional evidence has been admitted before the Chamber is: has the appellant established that no reasonable tribunal of fact could have reached a conclusion of guilt based upon the evidence before the Trial Chamber together with the additional evidence admitted during the appellate proceedings.”[3]

186.   It is the Appeals Chamber’s view that such principles are also applicable before ICTR when the admission of new evidence entails a review of the Trial Chamber’s factual findings.  The Appeals Chamber finds this to be the case in this instance.

426. The Appeals Chamber has granted in part a motion by Žigić to adduce additional evidence,[1] and has heard two additional witnesses and two rebuttal witnesses. In determining whether the additional evidence actually reveals an error of fact of such magnitude as to occasion a miscarriage of justice, the Appeals Chamber has set out the applicable test in the Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement:

The test to be applied by the Appeals Chamber in deciding whether or not to uphold a conviction where additional evidence has been admitted before the Chamber is: has the appellant established that no reasonable tribunal of fact could have reached a conclusion of guilt based upon the evidence before the Trial Chamber together with the additional evidence admitted during the appellate proceedings.[2]

In Blaskić, the Appeals Chamber cited and affirmed that test.  The Appeals Chamber noted that in the context of the Kupreškić case, the Appeals Chamber simply applied a deferential standard of review to the totality of the evidence admitted both at trial and on appeal, because the appellant had successfully established that no reasonable trier of fact could have reached a finding of guilt based on that evidence.[3]  However, as the Appeals Chamber in Blaškić further correctly noted, the Appeals Chamber in Kupreškić was not faced with the question of what test to apply where the outcome would be that in light of the trial evidence considered together with the additional evidence admitted on appeal, “a reasonable trier of fact could reach a conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”[4]  In that case, the Appeals Chamber in Blaškić concluded that “it should, in the interests of justice, be convinced itself, beyond reasonable doubt, as to the guilt of the accused, before confirming a conviction on appeal.”[5]  Consequently, the Appeals Chamber in Blaškić answered the question left open in Kupreškić, further developing the test first articulated therein. 

In reaching this conclusion, the Appeals Chamber in Blaškić underscored that such a standard of review is necessary in the interests of justice as well as for reasons of due process when considering a case before this International Tribunal because, if any lower standard were to be applied, “then the outcome would be that neither in the first instance, nor on appeal, would a conclusion of guilt based on the totality of the evidence relied upon in the case … be reached by either Chamber beyond reasonable doubt.”[6]    

The Appeals Chamber in Blaškić indicated, when summarizing the above test, the following two steps in a case where an error of fact is alleged and additional evidence proffered by the Defence is admitted: 

(i) The Appeals Chamber will first determine, on the basis of the trial record alone, whether no reasonable trier of fact could have reached the conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt. If that is the case, then no further examination of the matter is necessary as a matter of law.[7]

(ii) If, however, the Appeals Chamber determines that a reasonable trier of fact could have reached a conclusion of guilt beyond reasonable doubt, then the Appeals Chamber will determine whether, in light of the trial evidence and additional evidence admitted on appeal, it is itself convinced beyond reasonable doubt as to the finding of guilt.[8]

427. It has of course to be borne in mind that, as the Appeals Chamber has noted several times, the task of hearing, assessing and weighing the evidence is left primarily to the Trial Chamber:

The reason that the Appeals Chamber will not lightly disturb findings of fact by a Trial Chamber is well known. The Trial Chamber has the advantage of observing witnesses in person and so is better positioned than the Appeals Chamber to assess the reliability and credibility of the evidence. Accordingly, it is primarily for the Trial Chamber to determine whether a witness is credible and to decide which witness’s testimony to prefer, without necessarily articulating every step of the reasoning in reaching a decision on these points.[9]

428. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber will uphold a conviction on the basis that a reasonable trier of fact could have arrived at a conviction on the evidence on the trial record in two cases:

(i) if there is no additional evidence admitted;

(ii) if additional evidence is admitted, but upon further review, is found to be not credible or irrelevant, so that it could not have been a decisive factor in reaching the decision at trial.[10]

See also Separate Opinion of Judge Weinberg de Roca and Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen.

Background: the Prosecution disclosed to the Defence a judgement of a Rwandan court that implicated a Prosecution witness right before that witness testified. The Defence requested that the Trial Chamber stay the proceedings. In the present interlocutory appeal, the Appellant (Defence) argued that the Trial Chamber erred as a matter of law by failing to provide him with adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence in violation of his rights under Article 20(4)(b) of the Statute.

The Appeals Chamber recalled the standard of review with regard to adjournment and found that the Trial Chamber did not abuse its discretion in finding that, in the circumstances of the case, no prejudice resulted from the late disclosures. The Appeals Chamber held that a Trial Chamber can “control the progress of the proceedings as appropriate, provided that it does not encroach on fair trial rights”.

See paras 7-8:

7. The Prosecution’s obligation to disclose potentially exculpatory material is essential to a fair trial.[1] However, not every violation of this important obligation implicates a violation of an accused’s fair trial rights, warranting a remedy.[2] If a Rule 68 disclosure is extensive, parties are entitled to request an adjournment in order to properly prepare themselves.[3] The authority best placed to determine what time is sufficient for an accused to prepare his defence is the Trial Chamber conducting the case.[4]

8. Mr. Nzirorera raised the issue of his need for investigations arising from the late disclosure before the Trial Chamber.[5] In the Impugned Decision, the Trial Chamber expressly considered the impact of the late disclosure on Mr. Nzirorera’s ability to prepare for Witness UB’s testimony and determined that the late disclosure would not interfere with an effective cross-examination.[6] Furthermore, the Trial Chamber noted that it would provide appropriate additional relief on a case-by-case basis and indicated that it might be appropriate to recall the witness if further investigations warranted additional cross-examination.[7] In the present circumstances, the Appeals Chamber cannot say that the Trial Chamber abused its discretion in declining to stay the proceedings. The Appeals Chamber considers that in long and complicated cases, it is necessary for a Trial Chamber to exercise its discretion to control the progress of the proceedings as appropriate, provided that it does not encroach on fair trial rights.[8]

On 28 November 2007, Trial Chamber I denied a motion by Ante Gotovina for provisional release. It considered that, in the specific circumstances of the case, the guarantees offered by the Government of Croatia were not sufficient to satisfy the Trial Chamber that Gotovina, if provisionally released, would return to the International Tribunal when ordered. In this respect, the Trial Chamber found that, whereas the incentives not to appear for trial remain unchanged, such guarantees “were not sufficiently effective”.

5. Rule 108 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“Rules” or “Rule”) provides a mechanism by which a State affected by a decision of a Trial Chamber may request review of that decision by the Appeals Chamber. For such a request to be admissible, the State in question must demonstrate that (i) it is directly affected by the Trial Chamber’s Decision and
(ii) that the decision concerns issues of general importance relating to the powers of the Tribunal.[1] Only when this two-pronged test is met will the Appeals Chamber consider the merits of the State request for review.[2]

6. In particular, the Appeals Chamber recalls that Rule 108 bis was adopted for a State to seek review of a decision that has affected its legal rights. This remedy is unavailable to a State which claims that a decision has affected its legitimate political interests.[3]

12. The Appeals Chamber finds that Croatia is not affected by the Decision, since the principle of sovereign equality enshrined in Article 2(1) of the United Nations Charter is not actually at stake. The Trial Chamber’s consideration on what effect to be given to a State’s guarantees does not affect a State’s legal right, as such guarantees are not dispositive of provisional release determinations. Rather, the Trial Chamber is required to assess all relevant factors relating to individual circumstances of an accused.[4] Here, the Trial Chamber’s decision to reject Gotovina’s request for provisional release was based on Gotovina’s individual circumstances, of which Croatia’s guarantees were only a part.[5] Thus, a Trial Chamber’s provisional release decision is emphatically not an assessment of the reliability of any particular government or the guarantees that it offers.

13. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber’s assessment of the guarantees cannot be said to have affected Croatia’s legal rights since Croatia has no legally cognizable interest either in securing Gotovina’s provisional release or in ensuring that a Trial Chamber will assesses its guarantee in one particular manner.

At para. 9, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTR, being seized for the first time of a Rule 11bis motion, applied the standard of review as set out by the ICTY Appeals Chamber.

9. This case is the first involving a referral under Rule 11bis in this Tribunal. However, the ICTY Appeals Chamber has considered referrals to national jurisdictions in cases under a similar legal framework.[1] Such case law is largely applicable in the context of this Tribunal as well. In assessing whether a state is competent within the meaning of Rule 11bis to accept one of the Tribunal’s cases, a designated Trial Chamber must consider whether it has a legal framework which criminalizes the alleged conduct of the accused and provides an adequate penalty structure.[2] The Trial Chamber’s decision on whether to refer a case to a national jurisdiction is a discretionary one, and the Appeals Chamber will only intervene if the Trial Chamber’s decision was based on a discernible error.[3] Accordingly, an appellant must show that the Trial Chamber misdirected itself either as to the principle to be applied or as to the law which is relevant to the exercise of its discretion, gave weight to irrelevant considerations, failed to give sufficient weight to relevant considerations, or made an error as to the facts upon which it has exercised its discretion; or that its decision was so unreasonable and plainly unjust that the Appeals Chamber is able to infer that the Trial Chamber must have failed to exercise its discretion properly.[4]

122. The Appeals Chamber recalls that it has found, Judge Afanđe dissenting, that the Trial Chamber erred in law in failing to make the necessary findings on the existence and scope of a common criminal purpose shared by a plurality of persons.[1] The Appeals Chamber further recalls that it has found, Judge Agius and Judge Afanđe dissenting, that the Trial Chamber erred in requiring that the acts of the aider and abettor be specifically directed to assist the commission of a crime.[2] In accordance with the well-established standard of appellate review, where the Appeals Chamber finds an error of law in the trial judgement arising from the application of a wrong legal standard, the Appeals Chamber will articulate the correct legal standard and review the relevant factual findings of the trial chamber accordingly.[3]

123. In light of the nature and scale of the errors of law identified by the Appeals Chamber in this case, Judge Agius dissenting with respect to the Error on Aiding and Abetting Liability and Judge Afanđe dissenting with respect to the Error on JCE Liability and the Error on Aiding and Abetting Liability, were the Appeals Chamber to conduct its own review of the relevant factual findings of the Trial Chamber, applying the correct legal standards, it would first have to turn to the Error on JCE Liability and make findings on the existence and scope of a common criminal purpose shared by a plurality of persons and then proceed to assess Stanišić’s and Simatović’s contribution and intent for JCE liability. Depending on the result of such an analysis, the Appeals Chamber might then have to turn to the Error on Aiding and Abetting Liability.

124. However, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Afanđe dissenting, is of the view that it would be inappropriate to conduct this analysis as it would have to analyse the entire trial record without the benefit of having directly heard the witnesses in order to determine whether it is itself satisfied with respect to the requirements of JCE liability and, depending on the result of such an analysis, with respect to the requirements of aiding and abetting liability. Indeed, the evidence on which the Prosecution relies to establish the common criminal purpose and the mens rea for JCE liability is of a circumstantial nature[4] and it would not be sufficient for the Appeals Chamber to focus on limited pieces of evidence or the existent findings in the Trial Judgement, which do not thoroughly address the evidence relevant to the common criminal purpose or the plurality of persons.[5] In this regard, the Appeals Chamber also notes the scale and complexity of the case, with a trial record containing 4,843 exhibits[6] and the testimony and/or written statements of 133 witnesses,[7] the contents of which span wide swaths of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina over a four and a half year time period (April 1991 – 31 December 1995) and pertain to multiple statutory crimes, numerous armed groups, and various high-ranking alleged JCE members.[8] Assessing this trial record in its entirety without having directly heard the witnesses would not allow the Appeals Chamber to fairly and accurately determine Stanišić’s and Simatović’s criminal responsibility.

125. In light of the above, in determining the subsequent course of action, the Appeals Chamber may exercise a certain discretion.[9] In accordance with Rule 117(C) of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber may order a retrial in appropriate circumstances.[10] In addition, the Appeals Chamber also has an inherent power to control its proceedings in such a way as to ensure that justice is done by remitting limited issues to be determined by either the original or a newly composed trial chamber.[11]

126. The Appeals Chamber notes that, of the three judges of the original Trial Chamber, who directly heard the witnesses at trial, Judge Picard and Judge Gwaunza no longer hold office at the Tribunal. Therefore, it is impractical to remit the case to the original Trial Chamber composed of the same three Judges, who would have been best placed to make the necessary findings on the basis of the original trial record. Should the case be remitted to a newly composed trial chamber to do this exercise solely on the basis of the original trial record, it would encounter similar difficulties to those which would be encountered by the Appeals Chamber as a result of not having directly heard the witnesses.

127. Accordingly, and recalling that an appeal is not a trial de novo,[12] the Appeals Chamber, Judge Afanđe dissenting, finds that this case gives rise to appropriate circumstances for a retrial pursuant to Rule 117(C) of the Rules. The Appeals Chamber stresses that an order for retrial is an exceptional measure to which resort must necessarily be limited. While the Appeals Chamber is well aware that Stanišić and Simatović have spent nearly five years and four years and eight months, respectively, in detention, it is of the view that the alleged offences are of the utmost gravity and considers, Judge Afanđe dissenting, that, in the circumstances of this case, the interests of justice would not be well served if a retrial were not ordered.

Pages 2-3:

CONSIDERING that, pursuant to Article 24 of the Statute of the Mechanism (“Statute”) and Rules 146, 147, and 148 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Mechanism (“Rules”) a request to have the Appeals Chamber review a final judgement will be granted, if the moving party shows that: (i) there is a new fact; (ii) the new fact was not known to the moving party at the time of the trial or appeal proceedings; (iii) the new fact could not have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence; and (iv) the new fact could have been a decisive factor in reaching the original decision;[1]

CONSIDERING that [REDACTED] contain new information of an evidentiary nature that relates to [REDACTED] that could not have been taken into account at trial or on appeal and therefore constitute a new fact,[2] which, if proved, could have been a decisive factor in reaching the original decision [REDACTED];[3]

63. [...] The Appeals Chamber emphasizes, however, that it will not lightly disturb on review a trial chamber’s credibility assessment, which was subjected to appellate review, based on a witness’s subsequent conduct occurring more than five years after their original testimony. To do so, would in fact provide incentives to convicted persons, or individuals close to them, to interfere with susceptible witnesses with the hope that it will not be discovered and the convicted person will be released or, if discovered, that the witnesses will then be so thoroughly discredited that their original testimony cannot be trusted and the convicted person will be released. To put it simply, an applicant bears a heavy burden in showing that the conduct of a witness, occurring significantly post trial testimony, taints their original testimony. [...]