Prosecutor V. Dusko Tadic: Waiting to exhale

Criminal Law Forum

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 2000, Pages 217-248

  Bohlander, Michael ^a,b,c,d  

^a International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia   (Netherlands)

^b Saarbrücken University ^*

^c SAARLAND UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^d UNIVERSITY OF EXETER   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 27244439200     PISSN: 10468374     EISSN: 15729850     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/A:1009410520019     Document Type: Article

References (90)

1. The case has also been extensively monitored by commentators. See, e.g., Deborah L. Ungar, The Tadić War Crimes Trial: The First Criminal Conviction since Nuremberg Exposes the Need for a Permanent War Crimes Tribunal, 20 WHITTIER L. REV. 677 (1999);
2. Jose E. Alvarez, Rush to Closure: Lessons of the Tadić Judgment, 96 MICHIGAN L. REV. 2031 (1998);
3. Jose E. Alvarez, The Likely Legacies of Tadić, 3 ILSA J. INT'L & COMP. L. 613, (1997);
4. Natasha A. Affolder, Tadić, The Anonymous Witness and the Sources of International Procedural Law, 19 MICHIGAN J. INT'L L. 445 (1998);
5. Kitty Felde et al., The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, 13 AMERICAN U. INT'L L. REV. 1441 (1998);
6. Dorothea Beane, After the Tadić War Crimes Trial, 27 STETSON L. REV. 589 (1997);
7. Mark R. von Sternberg, Yugoslavian War Crimes and the Search for a New Humanitarian Order, 12 ST. JOHN'S J. LEGAL COMMENTARY 351 (1997);
8. Mark S. Zaid, Trial of the Century?, 3 ILSA J. INT'L & COMP. L. 589 (1997);
9. Raymond M. Brown, A fronte praecipitium a tergo lupi, 3 ILSA J. INT'L & COMP. L. 597 (1997);
10. Paul Hoffmann, The Dusan Tadić Trial and Due Process Issues, 19 WHITTIER L. REV. 313 (1997);
11. Michael P. Scharf, The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, 60 ALBANY L. REV. 861 (1997);
12. Geoffrey R. Watson, The Humanitarian Law of the Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal, 36 VA. J. INT'L L. 687 (1996).
13. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case no. IT-94-1-AR72), Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Oct. 2, 1995, (1994-1995) I ICTY Judicial Reports 353, 105 I.L.R. 453, 35 I.L.M. 32.
14. For the procedural history of the appeal see Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Judgment, July 15, 1999, paras. 1 et seq.
15. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Order, September 10, 1999. Instead of giving explicit reasons the Appeals Chamber used rather terse words: "Considering that, for the purposes of this case, it is sufficient for the Appeals Chamber to decide, as it hereby decides, that it is competent to remit sentencing to a Trial Chamber and that in the circumstances of the case it is preferable to do so; [the Appeals Chamber] hereby decides in the light of the circumstances of this case to: remit the matter of sentencing the Appellant, in respect of the Counts referred to in sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) of the disposition of the Judgment, to a Trial Chamber to be designated by the President of the International Tribunal; adjourn the decision on the Appeal against Sentencing Judgment pending a determination by the Trial Chamber referred to in (1) above as to the appropriate sentence to be imposed in respect of the Counts referred to in sub-paragraphs (4) and (5) of the disposition of the Judgment."
16. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case no. IT-94-1-S/Tbis-R117), Sentencing Judgment, November 11, 1999. There were other concurrent sentences.
17. Prosecutor v. Erdemović (Case no. IT-96-22-A), Sentencing Appeal, Oct. 7, 1997, (1998) 111 I.L.R. 298, Joint Separate Opinion of Judges McDonald and Vohrah, para. 20 et seq., and Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Stephens, para. 5.
18. Ibid., Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Li, especially at paras. 18-26.
19. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case no. IT-94-1-A and IT-94-1-Abis), Judgment in Sentencing Appeals, January 26, 2000.
20. Ibid., at para. 69.
21. Ibid., at pp. 35 et seq. The Separate Opinion does not contain paragraph numbers.
22. Ibid., at pp. 50 et seq.
23. Prosecutor v. Kupreskić et al. (Case no. IT-95-16-T), Judgment, January 14, 2000, at paras. 637-748.
24. The Appeals Chamber ruled in favour of the Prosecutor on the factual disputes. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case No. IT-94-1-A), supra note 3, paras. 306 et seq.
25. Ibid., at paras. 29-36.
26. Ibid., at paras. 37-42.
27. Ibid., at paras. 45, 51-52, 53, 55.
28. Ibid., at paras. 68-74. Judge McDonald had dissented on this issue by opting for an "agency test" and found that the conflict was international in character at all times.
29. Ibid., at paras. 75-79.
30. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), [1986] I.C.J. Reports 14.
31. Ibid., at paras. 80, 98-107, 111-124, 137-141, 145.
32. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case No. IT-94-1-A), supra note 3, at paras 68-74 and 111.
33. U.N. Doc. A 35/10, at para. 34.
34. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Separate opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, July 15, 1999, page 159, para. 14.
35. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case No. IT-94-1-A), supra note 3, paras. 150-162.
36. Ibid., at paras. 164-169.
37. Ibid., at paras. 172-175.
38. Ibid., at paras. 176-177.
39. Ibid., at paras. 185-186, 192-196, 202-204, 220-222, 224, 226-229.
40. Ibid., at paras. 238-243.
41. Ibid., at paras. 248-252, 268-272.
42. Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993)", U.N. Doc. S/25704, para. 48; U.N. Doc. S/PV.3217, pp. 11-16.
43. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case No. IT-94-1-A), supra note 3, paras 293-295.
44. Ibid., at paras 300-304.
45. Ibid. The majority of the Appeals Chamber, at para 64, also set out the standard for appellate review of fact-finding and evaluation of the evidence, in which it was joined by Judge Shahabuddeen, supra note 23, paras. 28-32. The Appeals Chamber said: "The two parties agree that the standard to be used when determining whether the Trial Chamber's factual finding should stand is that of unreasonableness, that is, a conclusion which no reasonable person could have reached. The task of hearing, assessing and weighing the evidence presented at trial is left to the Judges sitting in a Trial Chamber. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber must give a margin of deference to a finding of fact reached by a Trial Chamber. It is only where the evidence relied on by the Trial Chamber could not reasonably have been accepted by any reasonable person that the Appeals Chamber can substitute its own finding for that of the Trial Chamber. It is important to note that two judges, both acting reasonably, can come to different conclusions on the basis of the same evidence."
46. Ibid., at para. 247 and in similar words at paras .281 and 315.
47. See: Phillip M. Kannan, Advisory Opinions by Federal Courts, [1998] 32 U. RICHMOND L. REV. 769, at 784,
48. and Neal Kumar Katyal, Judges as Advicegivers, [1998] STANFORD L. REV. 1709, at 1805.
49. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case no. IT-94-1-AR 72), supra note 2, at p. 455.
50. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case No. IT-94-1-A), supra note 3, paras. 300 and 303.
51. Prosecutor v. Delalic (Case no. IT-96-21-T), Decision On The Motion To Allow Witnesses K, L And M To Give Their Testimony By Means Of Video-Link Conference, May 28, 1997, at para. 16.
52. Prosecutor v. Rutaganda (Case no. ICTR-96-3-T), Decision on the Preliminary Motion submitted by the Prosecutor for Protective Measures for Witnesses, September 26, 1996.
53. Prosecutor v. Delalic (Case no. IT-96-21-T), Judgment, November 16, 1998, at para. 167.
54. Prosecutor v. Aleksovski (Case No. IT-95-14/1-A), Judgment of March 24, 2000, at paras. 85-115, and the appended Declaration of Judge David Hunt at pp. 81-83.
55. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case No. IT-94-1-A), Declaration of Judge Nieto-Navia, July 15, 1999, at page 148, para. 11.
56. Prosecutor v. Erdemović (Case no. IT-96-22-A), Sentencing Appeal, Oct. 7, 1997, (1998) 111 I.L.R. 298.
57. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case no. IT-94-1-S/Tbis-R117), supra note 5, at para. 28.
58. Prosecutor v. Erdemović (Case no. IT-96-22-A), Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Li, Oct. 7, 1997, at pp. 3 and 4.
59. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case no. IT-94-1-AR72), supra note 2, at para. 80.
60. Prosecutor v. Erdemović (Case no. IT-96-22-A), supra note 46, at para. 21 (emphasis added).
61. Ibid., at para. 22.
62. Convention on the Nonapplicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity (1970), 754 U.N.T.S. 73.
63. Prosecutor v. Erdemović (Case no. IT-96-22-A), supra note 46, at para. 26.
64. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case no. IT-94-1-S/Tbis-R117), Dissenting opinion of Judge Robinson, Nov. 11, 1999, at pages 4 and 5.
65. "Report of the International Law Commission to the General Assembly on the work of its forty-sixth session", U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1994/Add.1 (Part 2).
66. "Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May-26 July 1996", U.N. Doc. A/51/10.
67. "Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court", U.N. Doc. A/CONF.183/9.
68. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case no. IT-94-1-S/Tbis-R117), supra note 52, at pages 5-7.
69. Supra note 53, at p. 76.
70. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case no. IT-94-1-S/Tbis-R117), supra note 52, at page 6.
71. Ibid., at page 8.
72. Ibid., at page 10.
73. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case no. IT-94-1-A and IT-94-1-Abis), supra note 8, at para. 69.
74. Ibid., at pp. 37-38.
75. Ibid., at pp. 38-39.
76. Ibid. (emphasis added). Judge Shahabuddeen restated his position by referring to some other sources, basically harping on the same themes, on pages 40-42. They will not be dealt with here as the same objections apply that were already mentioned.
77. As was shown above, this was still true even in 1949 when the Geneva Conventions were adopted, for the prosecution of grave breaches. See Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case no. IT-94-1-AR72), supra note 2, at para. 80.
78. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case no. IT-94-1-A and IT-94-1-Abis), supra note 8, at pp. 43-47.
79. Ibid., at pp. 47-48.
80. Although this is, of course, methodologically impermissible, because we deal with normative, not scientific questions.
81. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case no. IT-94-1-A and IT-94-1-Abis), Dissenting opinion of Judge Cassese, Jan. 26, 2000, at paras. 3 and 4.
82. Ibid., at paras. 5-10.
83. Ibid., at para. 13.
84. Ibid., at paras. 14-16.
85. Ibid., at para. 19.
86. In Caballero Delgado and Santana, cited in Prosecutor v. Kupreskić et al. (Case no. IT-95-16-T), supra note 12, at para. 686.
87. Prosecutor v. Kupreskić et al. (Case no. IT-95-16-T), supra note 12, at paras. 637-748.
88. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case no. IT-94-1-A and IT-94-1-Abis), supra note 69, at para. 18.
89. I am grateful to William Schabas for pointing this out to me in his comments on a draft of this article.
90. Prosecutor v. Tadić (Case no. IT-94-1-A-R77), Judgment on Allegations of Contempt Against Prior Counsel, Jan. 31, 2000.