|Appeal Judgement - 27.09.2007||
LIMAJ et al.
143. With respect to the Prosecution’s submission that Haradin Bala’s subordinate role was counted twice when assessing the gravity of the crimes and when determining the factors in mitigation, the Appeals Chamber recalls that double-counting for sentencing purposes is impermissible. The Trial Chamber found in the section on the gravity of the offence that “Haradin Bala was not in a position of command“ and that his role was “that of a guard”. Similarly, in the section on the “aggravating and mitigating circumstances”, the Trial Chamber held that Haradin Bala “was not a person with any commanding or authoritative role in the establishment of the camp, and essentially performed duties assigned to him, as essentially a ‘simple man’.” Consequently, the Trial Chamber erred in considering twice in mitigation Haradin Bala’s subordinate role.
144. […] If the error is so slight as to be harmless, the Appeals Chamber may affirm the same sentence as imposed by the Trial Chamber: such is the case here. The Appeals Chamber has carefully reviewed the Trial Chamber’s reasoning and believes that the Trial Chamber’s double-counting error was, in fact, so insignificant that the Trial Chamber would have arrived at the same sentence of thirteen years even if it had not fallen into error.
 Deronjić Judgement on Sentencing Appeal, para. 107.
 Trial Judgement, para. 726.
 Trial Judgement, para. 732.