Pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber summarily dismissed a number of Prosecution arguments on the ground that they exceeded the scope of its Notice of Appeal: (i) that the Trial Chamber erred in applying mens rea for the first category of JCE (Decision on ´Prosecutor’s Motion for Variation of the Notice of Appeal Pursuant to Rule 108’ of  17 August 2006); (ii) that the Trial Chamber erred in not taking into account the Appellant’s sadism and zeal as an aggravating factor (para. 319); (iii) that the Trial Chamber erred in According Weight in Mitigation to the Selective Assistance Provided by the Appellant to Members of his Family (paras 325-326); (iv) that the Sentence is Inconsistent with the Tribunal’s Sentencing Practice (para. 238); (v) that the Sentence is Inconsistent with the Rwanda’s Sentencing Practice (Decision on ´Prosecutor’s Motion for Variation of the Notice of Appeal Pursuant to Rule 108’ of 17 August 2006).

Brđanin’s appeal was characterized by a large number of factual challenges. The Appeals Chamber identified eight categories of alleged errors which were summarily dismissed (paras 19-31):

(1)   Challenges to factual findings on which a conviction does not rely,

(2)   Arguments that misrepresent the Trial Chamber’s factual findings or the evidence, or that ignore other relevant factual findings made by the Trial Chamber,

(3)   Mere assertions that the Trial Chamber must have failed properly to consider relevant evidence,

(4)   Mere assertions that no reasonable Trial Chamber could have reached a particular conclusion by inferring it from circumstantial evidence,

(5)   Arguments that are clearly irrelevant or that lend support to the challenged finding,

(6)   Arguments that challenge a Trial Chamber’s reliance or failure to rely on one particular piece of evidence, disregarding the remaining evidence,

(7)   Arguments contrary to common sense, and

(8)   Challenges to factual findings where the relevance of the factual finding is unclear and has not been explained by the Appellant.

The Appeals Chamber summarily dismissed a number of grounds on the following basis:

16. The Appeals Chamber recalls that it has an inherent discretion to determine which of the parties’ submissions merit a reasoned opinion in writing and that it may dismiss arguments which are evidently unfounded without providing detailed reasoning in writing. Indeed, the Appeals Chamber’s mandate cannot be effectively and efficiently carried out without focused contributions by the parties. […] As well, the Appeals Chamber may dismiss submissions as unfounded without providing detailed reasoning if a party’s submissions are obscure, contradictory, vague or suffer from other formal and obvious insufficiencies.

The Appeals Chamber further identified the following categories of errors that it would dismiss summarily, as outlined in paras. 18-27:

• Arguments that fail to identify the challenged factual findings, that misrepresent the factual findings or the evidence, or that ignore other relevant factual findings;
• Mere assertions that the Trial Chamber must have failed to consider relevant evidence;
• Challenges to factual findings on which a conviction does not rely, and arguments that are clearly irrelevant, that lend support to, or that are not inconsistent with the challenged finding;
• Arguments that challenged a Trial Chamber’s reliance or failure to rely on one piece of evidence;
• Arguments contrary to common sense;
• Challenges to factual findings where the relevance of the factual findings is unclear and has not been explained by the Appellant;
• Mere repetition of arguments that were unsuccessful at trial;
• Allegations based on material not on the record;
• Mere assertions unsupported by any evidence, undeveloped assertions, failure to articulate error;
• Mere assertions that the Trial Chamber failed to give sufficient weight to evidence or failed to interpret evidence in a particular manner.