Sentencing and incarceration in the ad hoc tribunals

Stanford Journal of International Law

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 1-62

  De Roca, Inés Mónica Weinberg ^a   Rassi, Christopher M ^a  

^a Thompson Hine LLP ^*

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 49149103387     PISSN: 07315082     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (447)

1. See, e.g., Stephen M. Sayers, Defence Perspectives on Sentencing Practice in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 16 LEIDEN J. OF INT'L L. 751, 776 (2003).
2. The establishment of the ICTY was authorized pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 808, S.C. Res. 808, ¶ 13, U.N. Doc. S/RES/808 (Feb. 22, 1993). Resolution 827 established the ICTY and included the text of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia [hereinafter ICTY Statute]. S.C. Res. 827, ¶ 13, U.N. Doc. S/RES/827 (May 25, 1993).
3. For definitions of the crimes, see ICTY Statute, supra note 2, arts. 2-5.
4. Resolution 955 established the ICTR and included the text of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [hereinafter ICTR Statute]. S.C. Res. 955, ¶ 11, U.N. Doc. S/RES/955 (Nov. 8, 1994).
5. For definitions of the crimes, see Id., arts. 2-4.
6. The six convicted persons are Jean-Paul Akayesu, Jean Kambanda, Omar Serushago, Clément Kayishema, Obed Ruzindana, and Alfred Musema. All six were transferred to Mali to serve their sentences on Dec. 9, 2001. See Press Release, United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Former Prime Minister and Five Other Convicts Sent to Prison in Mali (Dec. 11, 2001), available at http://69.94.11.53/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2001/ index.htm. (last visited Jan. 27, 2008).
7. The Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Trials did, however, have to overcome many obstacles, most notably inconsistencies due to procedural unfairness and political bias. Allison Marston Danner, Constructing a Hierarchy of Crimes in International Criminal Law Sentencing, 87 VA. L. REV. 415, 440 (2001).
8. See also Otto Kranzbuhler, Nuremberg Eighteen Years Afterwards, 14 DEPAUL L. REV. 333, 345-46 (1964-65) (describing procedural difficulties faced by defense counsel at the Nuremberg War Crimes Trials);
9. Michael P. Scharf, Have We Really Learned the Lessons of Nuremberg?, 149 MIL. L. REV. 65, 66-70 (1995) (describing criticisms of Nuremberg);
10. see generally RICHARD H. MINEAR, VICTORS' JUSTICE: THE TOKYO WAR CRIMES TRIBUNAL (1971) (critiquing the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal);
11. George Blewett, Victor's Injustice in Tokyo, 4 AM. PERSP. 282 (1950) (same).
12. See MICHAEL P. SCHARF, BALKAN JUSTICE: THE STORY BEHIND THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMES SINCE NUREMBERG 10 (1997); Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals, available at http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/judcont.htm. (last visited Jan. 27, 2008).
13. See KELLY DAWN ASKIN, WAR CRIMES AGAINST WOMEN: PROSECUTION IN INTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMES TRIBUNALS 167-170 (1997);
14. see also Tokyo War Crimes Trial, www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/ arc/libraries/eastasian/japan/twct.htm (last visited May 16, 2007).
15. Mary Margaret Penrose, Spandau Revisited: The Question of Detention for International War Crimes, 16 N.Y.L. SCH. J. HUM. RTS. 553, 564-65 (2000) [hereinafter Penrose, Spandau Revisited].
16. ANTONIO CASSESE, INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW 429 (2003) (citing in Nadler and others, where a British Court of Appeal acting under Control Council Law No. 10 stated that, "Upon the conviction of any person of a crime against humanity under Law 10, a capital sentence is, in the opinion of the Court, the appropriate sentence where such person has unlawfully and maliciously killed another or where the inhumane conduct of such a person has materially contributed to the death of another. While in cases that fall within neither of these two classes a sentence of death will usually be excessive, there may, nevertheless, be other cases where the conduct of the convicted person is so grossly or persistently inhumane, on such a scale or so serious in its consequences that a capital sentence is proper although it is not proved that such conduct has either caused or contributed to a death" at 134-36).
17. GUENAEL METTRAUX, INTERNATIONAL CRIMES AND THE AD HOC TRIBUNALS 347-48 (2005).
18. Id. See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Judgement, ¶ 700 (Aug. 2, 2001) [hereinafter Krstić Trial Judgement].
19. METTRAUX, supra note 12, at 348. See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Elizaphan Ntakirutimana and Gérard Ntakirutimana, Case Nos. CTR 96-10 & ICTR 96-17-T, Judgement, ¶ 881 (Feb. 21, 2003) [hereinafter Ntakirutimana Trial Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Alfred Musema, Case No. ICTR 96-13-T, Judgement and Sentence, ¶ 1001 (Jan. 27, 2000) [hereinafter Musema Trial Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Georges Rutaganda, Case No. ICTR 96-3-T, Judgement and Sentence, ¶¶ 451-52 (Dec. 6, 1999) [hereinafter Rutaganda Trial Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR 95-1-T, Judgement, ¶ 9 (May 21, 1999) [hereinafter Kayishema Trial Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Sikirica et al., Case No. IT-95-8-T, Sentencing Judgement, ¶ 267 (Nov. 13, 2001) [hereinafter Sikirica Trial Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Zdravko Mucić et al., Case No. IT-96-21-Abis, Judgement on Sentence Appeal, ¶ 731 (Apr. 8, 2003) [hereinafter Celebici Appeal Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Stevan Todorović, Case No. IT-95-9/1, Sentencing Judgement, ¶ 31 [hereinafter Todorović Sentencing Judgement].
20. Prosecutor v. Jean Kambanda, Case No. ICTR 97-23-S, Judgement and Sentence, ¶ 16 (Sep. 4, 1998) [hereinafter Kambanda Trial Judgement]; Musema Trial Judgement, supra note 14, ¶ 981; Rutaganda Trial Judgement, supra note 14, ¶ 451; Kayishema Trial Judgement, supra note 14, ¶ 9; Krstić Trial Judgement, supra note 13, ¶ 700; Prosecutor v. Radislav Kristć, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Judgement, ¶¶ 36, 275 (Apr. 19, 2004).
21. Krstić Trial Judgement, supra note 13, ¶ 700; Prosecutor v. Vasiljević, Case No. IT-98-32-T, ¶ 278 (Nov. 29, 2002) [hereinafter Vasiljević Trial Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac et al., Case No. IT-96-23&23/1-T, ¶¶ 867, 879 (Feb. 22, 2001) [hereinafter Kunarac Trial Judgement].
22. METTRAUX, supra note 12, at 349 n.7.
23. Krstić Trial Judgement, supra note 13, ¶ 700.
24. Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Judgement in Sentencing Appeals, ¶ 69 (Jan. 26, 2000) [hereinafter Tadić Sentencing Judgement on Appeal]; Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Appeals Judgement, ¶¶ 243, 247 (July 21, 2000) [hereinafter Furundzija Appeal Judgement]; Kunarac, Case No. IT-96-23-T & 23/1-T, ¶ 851; Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Judgement, ¶ 511 (Mar. 15, 2002) [hereinafter Krnojelac Trial Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Darko Mrdja, Case No. IT-02-59-S, Sentencing Judgement ¶ 24 (Apr. 16, 2002).
25. For a detailed analysis of the ICTY and the ICTR jurisprudence summarizing these factors, see METTRAUX, supra note 12, at 350-51 nn.10-17. See also Sayers, supra note 1, at 761-64; James Meernik & Kimi King, The Sentencing Determinants of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: an Empirical and Doctrinal Analysis, 16 LEIDEN J. OF INT'L L. 717, 739-42 (2003).
26. See METTRAUX, supra note 12, at 351-53. See also Sayers, supra note 1, at 764-72; Meernik & King, supra note 20, at 742-46.
27. See, e.g., JOHN RAWLS, A THEORY OF JUSTICE 58-59 (1971).
28. See, e.g., Nancy J. King et al., When Process Affects Punishment: Differences in Sentences After Guilty Plea, Bench Trial, and Jury Trial in Five Guidelines States, 105 COLUM. L. REV. 959, 960 (2005).
29. For example, the Canadian Criminal Code requires "[a] sentence [to be] proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender." Canadian Criminal Code, R.S.C., Section 718.1 (1985). Further, the Penal Code of Finland states that, "[t]he sentence shall be determined so that it is in just proportion to the harmfulness and dangerousness of the offence, the motives for the act and the other culpability of the offender manifest in the offence." The Penal Code of Finland, Chapter 6, §4 (515/2003), available at http://www.finlex.fi/pdf/saadkaan/ E8890039.PDF (hereinafter Finland Penal Code). Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Eighth Amendment's "proscription of cruel and unusual punishments prohibits not only barbaric punishments, but also sentences that are disproportionate to the crime committed." Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277, 284 (1983). Note, however, that subsequent decisions have left the true reach of the Eighth Amendment's proportionality review unclear. See, e.g., Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957 (1991).
30. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 77.1(b) (1998).
31. Id. art. 76.1.
32. Prosecutor v. Delalić, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Judgement, ¶ 717 (Feb. 20, 2001); Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, ¶ 507.
33. Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, ¶ 237.
34. Delalić, Case No. IT-96-21-A, ¶ 756.
35. Special Rapporteur, Ninth Report on the Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind, U.N. GAOR, 43rd Sess., at 6, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/435 (1991),
36. quoted in William A. Schabas, War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity and the Death Penalty, 60 ALB. L. REV. 733, 745 (1996-1997) [hereinafter Schabas, Death Penalty].
37. See generally Schabas, Death Penalty, supra note 30, at 742-56.
38. Prosecutor v. Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Judgement (Nov. 20, 2006). ICTY figures are as of December 2007.
39. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR 96-4-A, Appeals Judgement (June 1, 2001) [hereinafter Akayesu Appeals Judgement]; Kambanda v. Prosecutor, ICTR 97-23-A, Appeals Judgement (Oct. 19, 2000) [hereinafter Kambanda Appeals Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Kayishema, Case No. ICTR 95-1-A, Appeals Judgement (June 1, 2001) [hereinafter Kayishema Appeals Judgement]; Rutaganda v. Prosecutor, ICTR 96-3-A, Appeals Judgement (May 26, 2003); Musema v. Prosecutor, ICTR 96-13-A, Appeals Judgement (Nov. 16, 2001); Niyitigeka v. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR 96-14-A, Appeals Judgement (July 9, 2004); Kamuhanda v. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR 99-54A-A, Appeals Judgement (Sep. 19, 2005) [hereinafter Kamuhanda Appeals Judgement]; Ndindabahizi v. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR 01-71-A, Appeals Judgement (Jan. 16, 2007); Gacumbitsi v. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR 01-64-A, Appeals Judgement (July 7, 2006); Muhimana v. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR 95-1B-A, Appeals Judgement (May 21, 2007) [hereinafter Muhimana Appeals Judgement].
40. Prosecutor v. François Karera, Case No. ICTR 01-74, Judgement (Dec. 7, 2007).
41. ICTR figures are as of December 2007.
42. Prosecutor v. Imanishimwe, Case No. ICTR 97-36-A, Judgement (July 7, 2006) [hereinafter Imanishimwe Appeals Judgement].
43. Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR 97-20-A, Judgement (May 20, 2005) (increased by ten years); Prosecutor v. Gacumbitsi, Case No. ICTR 01-64-A (increased from thirty years to life imprisonment); Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, Case No. ICTR 98-44A-A, Judgement (May 23, 2005) (reduced from life imprisonment to 45 years); Imanishimwe Appeals Judgement, supra note 36 (reduced from twenty-seven to twelve years). Prosecutor v. Ferdinand Nahimana et al., Case No. ICTR 99-52-T, Judgement and Sentence (Dec. 3, 2003) [hereinafter Media Trial Judgement] (reduced two sentences of life imprisonment to 30 and 35 years, and reduced a sentence of 35 years to 32 years).
44. Prosecutor v. Blagojević, Case No. IT-02-60-A, Judgement, passim (May 9, 2007) [hereinafter Blagojevic Appeals Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Judgement (July 29, 2004) [hereinafter Blaškić Appeals Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Judgement (Apr. 3, 2007) [hereinafter Brdanin Appeals Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Kordić, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgement (Dec. 17, 2004) [hereinafter Čerkez Appeals Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Judgement (Apr. 19, 2004) [hereinafter Krstić Appeals Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, Case No. IT-95-16-A, Appeal Judgement (Oct. 23, 2001) [hereinafter Josipović Appeals Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Kupreškić, Case No. IT-95-16-A, Appeal Judgement (Oct. 23, 2001) [hereinafter Santić Appeals Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Nikolić, Case No. IT-94-2-A, Judgement on Sentencing Appeal (Feb. 4, 2005) [hereinafter Nikolić Judgement on Sentencing Appeal]; Prosecutor v. Simić, Case No. IT-95-9-A, Judgement (Nov. 28, 2006) [hereinafter Simić Appeals Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Judgement (Mar. 22, 2006) [hereinafter Stakić Appeals Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Judgement in Sentencing Appeals (Jan. 26, 2000) [hereinafter Tadić Appeals Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Vasiljević, Case No. IT-98-32-A, Judgement (Feb. 25, 2004) [hereinafter Vasiljević Appeals Judgement].
45. Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-AR77, Judgement on Appeal by Anto Nobilo Against Finding of Contempt (May 30, 2001) [hereinafter Aleksovski Appeals Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-A (Nov. 30, 2006) [hereinafter Galić Appeals Judgement]; Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-A, Judgement (Sept. 17, 2003) [hereinafter Krnojelac Appeals Judgement].
46. See Mary Margaret Penrose, Lest We Fail: The Importance of Enforcement in International Criminal Law, 15 AM. U. INT'L REV. 321, 376 (2000) [hereinafter Penrose, Lest We Fail].
47. See, e.g., Nikolić Judgement on Sentencing Appeal, supra note 38, ¶ 69.
48. Kambanda Trial Judgement, supra note 15, ¶ 25.
49. Id. This case provides one example of Trial Chamber treatment of the clause. The Trial Chamber took the initiative to commission a sentencing report from the Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und Internationales Strafrecht in Freiburg, Germany on [T]he range of sentences for the crimes, as laid down in the Indictment to which the Accused has pleaded guilty, applicable in (i) States on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, (ii) member States of the Council of Europe and (iii) other major legal systems; and the sentencing practice in relation to these crimes developed by (i) State courts in States on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, (ii) International or mixed courts and (iii) if available, the sentencing practice developed by other States mentioned above. This "fulfilled [the Trial Chamber's] obligations" to consider the sentencing practices of the former Yugoslavia. Id. ¶ 70.
50. William A. Schabas, Sentencing by International Tribunals: A Human Right's Approach, 7 DUKE J. COMP. & INT'L L. 461, 477-78 (1997) [hereinafter Schabas, Sentencing by International Tribunals].
51. See William A. Schabas, Perverse Effects of the Nulla Poena Principle: National Practice and the Ad Hoc Tribunals, 11 EUR. J. INT'L L. 521, 526 (2000);
52. Schabas, Sentencing by International Tribunals, supra note 44, at 478.
53. See Nikolić Judgement on Sentencing Appeal, supra note 38, ¶ 70.
54. See Schabas, Sentencing by International Tribunals, supra note 44, at 477-78.
55. Id.
56. See, e.g., Rutaganda Trial Judgement, supra note 14, ¶ 454 ("Reference to the practice of sentencing in Rwanda and to the Organic law is for purposes of guidance. While referring as much as practicable to such practice of sentencing, the Chamber maintains its unfettered discretion to pass sentence on persons found guilty of crimes falling within its jurisdiction, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the individual circumstances of the accused persons.").
57. Penrose, Lest We Fail, supra note 40, at 376. See also Prosecutor v. Delalić, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Sentencing Judgement, ¶ 1193 (Nov. 16, 1998) [hereinafter Delalić Trial Judgement].
58. Penrose, Lest We Fail, supra note 40, at 376.
59. See also Delalić Trial Judgement, supra note 50, ¶¶ 1193-96.
60. See supra text accompanying note 32.
61. See Rwandan Organic Law No. 8/96 (1996), cited in Kambanda Trial Judgement, supra note 15, ¶¶ 18-19 (Sept. 4, 1998) (setting out penalties for the commission of the crimes, and dividing the accused into four categories according to their acts of criminal participation: (1) "masterminds of the crimes" punishable by the death penalty, (2) perpetrators, conspirators or accomplices in criminal acts punishable by life imprisonment, (3) persons who commit a main crime but are also guilty of other serious assaults and are punishable by a short sentence, and (4) those who have committed offences against property, and finding Kambanda as a Category 1 defendant); Prosecutor v. Serushago, Case No. ICTR 98-39-S, ¶ 17 (Feb. 5, 1999) [hereinafter Serushago Sentencing Judgement]. See also Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR 96-4-T, Judgement, ¶¶ 46-49 (Sept. 2, 1998) [hereinafter Akayesu Trial Judgement]; Penrose, Lest We Fail, supra note 40, at 378.
62. See Rwandan Organic Law No. 8/96 (1996), cited in Kambanda Trial Judgement, supra note 15, ¶ 19. However, recently, Rwanda has been moving to ban the death penalty.
63. See, e.g., Rwanda Moves to Ban Death Penalty, BBC News, Oct. 13, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6047856.stm (last visited May 26, 2007).
64. Kambanda Trial Judgement, supra note 15, ¶ 24.
65. Rome Statute, supra note 25, art. 77-78.
66. See also CASSESE, supra note 11, at 217-18. Similarly, Article 78(3) of the Rome Statute states that a sentence should be issued for each crime, with a joint sentence for total period of imprisonment, in order to specify the specific penalty for each offense. See Rome Statute, supra note 25, art. 78(3).
67. Prosecutor v. Delalić, Case No. IT-96-21-A, Judgement on Sentence Appeal, ¶ 430 (Apr. 8, 2003).
68. For a discussion of the guiding principles and purposes in sentencing for international crimes, namely retribution, deterrence, reprobation, stigmatization, and rehabilitation, see for example, CASSESE, supra note 11, at 428; METTRAUX, supra note 12, at 345-46; ARCHIBALD, INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURTS 483-84 (Rodney Dixon, Karim A.A. Khan, & Judge Richard May eds., 2002); Sayers, supra note 1, at 759-60.
69. Kunarac Trial Judgement, supra note 16, ¶¶ 2-3.
70. Id. ¶¶ 15.
71. Id. ¶¶ 4-8, 862.
72. Id. ¶¶ 862, 871.
73. Id. ¶¶ 862, 871.
74. Id. ¶ 871; Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Case No. IT-96-23&23/1-A, Judgement, XII (B)(2) (June 12, 2002) [hereinafter Kunarac Appeal Judgement].
75. Kunarac Trial Judgement, supra note 16, ¶ 864.
76. Id. ¶ 865.
77. Id. ¶ 865-67.
78. Id. ¶ 867.
79. Id. ¶ 868-69.
80. Kunarac Appeal Judgement, supra note 65, ¶ 33.
81. Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement, ¶ 9 (Sept. 1, 2004) [hereinafter Brdanin Trial Judgement].
82. Id. ¶¶ 9, 291.
83. Id. ¶¶ 344, 357
84. Id. ¶¶ 152.
85. Id.
86. Id. ¶¶ 1116-40.
87. Id. ¶¶ 1096-1115.
88. Id.
89. Id. ¶ 503.
90. Id. ¶ 504.
91. Id. ¶ 503.
92. Id. ¶ 506.
93. Prosecutor v. Jelisić, Case No. IT-95-10-T, Judgement, ¶ 57 (Dec. 14, 1999) [hereinafter Jelisic Trial Judgement].
94. Id. ¶ 37.
95. Id. ¶ 38.
96. Id. ¶ 23.
97. Id. ¶¶ 58, 138.
98. Id. ¶ 37.
99. Prosecutor v. Jelisić, Case No. IT-95-10-A, Judgement, IV. Disposition (July 5, 2001) [hereinafter Jelisić Appeal Judgement].
100. Jelisić Trial Judgement, supra note 84, ¶ 99.
101. Id. ¶ 139; Jelisić Appeal Judgement, supra note 90.
102. Jelisić Trial Judgement, supra note 84, ¶ 130.
103. Id. ¶ 132.
104. Id. ¶¶ 124-25.
105. Id. ¶ 129.
106. Jelisić Appeal Judgement, supra note 90, ¶¶ 122, 126, 131.
107. Prosecutor v. Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgement, ¶¶ 5, 7 (July 31, 2003) [hereinafter Stakić Trial Judgement].
108. Id. ¶¶ 470, 906.
109. Id. ¶ 906.
110. Id.
111. Id. ¶ 616, § IV, Disposition.
112. Id. ¶¶ 912-13, 915.
113. Id. ¶¶ 912-14.
114. Id. ¶¶ 916-17.
115. Id. ¶ 918.
116. Prosecutor v. Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Judgement, ¶ 416 (Mar. 22, 2006) [hereinafter Stakić Appeal Judgement].
117. Id.
118. Id. ¶ 423.
119. Stakić Trial Judgement, supra note 98, ¶¶ 921-22.
120. Id. ¶ 932, § V, Disposition.
121. Id. ¶¶ 911, 936; Stakić Appeal Judgement, supra note 107, ¶ 428.
122. Id. ¶ 392.
123. Id.
124. Prosecutor v. Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Judgement, ¶ 604 (Dec. 5, 2003) [hereinafter Galić Trial Judgement].
125. Id. ¶¶ 604, 607, 610-11.
126. Id. ¶ 606.
127. Id.
128. Id. ¶¶ 167-72.
129. Id. ¶ 769.
130. Id. ¶ 761.
131. Prosecutor v. Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-A, Judgement, ¶ 455 (Nov. 30, 2006) [hereinafter Galić Appeals Judgement].
132. Id.
133. Id.
134. Id.
135. Id. § XVIII.
136. Kambanda Trial Judgement, supra note 15, ¶ 40.
137. Id. ¶¶ 42, 44.
138. Id. ¶ 43.
139. Id. ¶ 61(B)(vi).
140. Id. ¶ 44, 61(B)(v)-(vii).
141. Id. ¶ 61(A)(i)-(iii).
142. Id. ¶¶ 50, 54, 62.
143. Id. ¶ 62.
144. Kambanda Appeals Judgement, supra note 33, ¶ 126.
145. Prosecutor v. Muhimana, Case No. ICTR 95-1B-T, Judgement and Sentence, ¶¶ 519, 520, 563, 583, 585 (Apr. 28, 2005) [hereinafter Muhimana Trial Judgement].
146. Id. ¶ 618.
147. Id. ¶¶ 604-15.
148. Id. ¶¶ 604, 612, 614.
149. Id. ¶¶ 606-07.
150. Id. ¶ 615.
151. Id. ¶ 604.
152. Muhimana Appeals Judgement, supra note 33, ¶¶ 229-31. The Appeals chamber noted that Muhimana made no sentencing submissions at trial and that his counsel failed to identify any specific mitigating circumstances during closing arguments. The Appeals Chamber therefore concluded that arguments regarding mitigating circumstances should have been presented at the Trial Chambers level and that the Appeals Chamber was an inappropriate forum at which such material should first be raised.
153. Id. ¶ 232.
154. Id.
155. Id.
156. Id. ¶ 233.
157. Id.
158. Id. ¶ 234.
159. Id.
160. Id. ¶¶ 234-35.
161. Akayesu Trial Judgement, supra note 53, ¶ 12.
162. Id. § 8.
163. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR 96-4-T, Sentence, ¶ 37 (Oct. 2, 1998) [hereinafter Akayesu Sentence].
164. Id. ¶ 36(ii).
165. Id. ¶ 35.
166. Akayesu Appeals Judgement, supra note 33, § V.
167. Kayishema Trial Judgement, supra note 14, ¶¶ 344, 376, 464, 516.
168. Id. § VIII.
169. Prosecutor v. Clément Kayishema and Obed Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR 95-1-S, Sentence, ¶¶ 14-16 (May 21, 1999).
170. Id. ¶¶ 21-22.
171. Kayishema Appeals Judgement, supra note 33, ¶ 366.
172. Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR 95-54A-T, Judgement and Sentence, ¶¶ 292-96 (Jan. 1, 2004) [hereinafter Kamuhanda Trial Judgement].
173. Id. ¶ 770.
174. Id. ¶ 764.
175. Id. ¶¶ 757-58.
176. Kamuhanda Appeals Judgement, supra note 33, ¶ 88.
177. Id. ¶ 363. 27
178. Krstić Trial Judgement, supra note 13, ¶¶ 425-76.
179. Id. ¶ 726.
180. Id. ¶ 697.
181. Id. ¶ 717.
182. Id. ¶ 700.
183. Id. ¶¶ 701-02.
184. Id. ¶ 703 n. 1486.
185. Id. ¶ 707.
186. Id. ¶ 709.
187. Id. ¶ 722.
188. Id. ¶ 724.
189. Id. ¶ 724.
190. Krstić Appeals Judgement, supra note 38, ¶¶ 272-73.
191. Prosecutor v. Semanza, Case No. ICTR 97-20-T, Judgement and Sentence, ¶ 555 (May 15, 2003) [hereinafter Semanza Trial Judgement].
192. Id. ¶ 559.
193. Prosecutor v. Semanza, supra note 37, ¶ 388.
194. Id. ¶ 560.
195. Id. ¶ 562.
196. Id. ¶ 563.
197. Id. ¶ 377.
198. Semanza Trial Judgement, supra note 182, ¶ 571.
199. Id.
200. Id. ¶ 573.
201. Prosecutor v. Semanza, supra note 37, ¶ 336.
202. Semanza Trial Judgement, supra note 182, ¶ 577.
203. Prosecutor v. Semanza, supra note 37, ¶¶ 397-98.
204. Semanza Trial Judgement, supra note 182, ¶ 578.
205. Id. ¶ 578.
206. Id. ¶ 590.
207. Prosecutor v. Semanza, supra note 37, ¶ 388.
208. Media Trial Judgement, supra note 37, ¶ 6.
209. Id. ¶ 1107.
210. Id. ¶ 1093.
211. Id. ¶ 1097 n.1155.
212. Id. ¶ 1097.
213. Id. ¶¶ 1096-97.
214. Id. ¶ 1100.
215. Id.
216. Id. ¶ 1102.
217. Id. ¶ 1100.
218. Id. ¶ 1103.
219. Id. ¶ 1107. (emphasis added). The Chamber considers that a term of years, being by its nature a reduced sentence from that of life imprisonment, is the only way in which it can implement the Appeals Chamber decision. Taking into account the violation of his rights, the Chamber sentences Barayagwiza in respect of all the counts on which he has been convicted to 35 years' imprisonment.
220. Id. ¶ 1104.
221. Prosecutor v. Nahimana et al, Case No. IT-99-52-A, Appeals Judgement, ¶¶ 636, 858 (Nov. 28, 2007) [hereinafter Media Appeals Judgement].
222. Id. ¶ 943.
223. Id. ¶ 997.
224. Id. ¶ 883.
225. Id. Section XVIII. Disposition.
226. Prosecutor v. Blagojević, Case No. IT-02-60-T, Judgement, 1304 (Jan. 17, 2005) [hereinafter Blagojević Trial Judgement].
227. Id.
228. Id. ¶ 837.
229. Id. ¶¶ 835, 837.
230. Id. ¶ 837.
231. Id. ¶¶ 843-45.
232. Id. ¶ 849.
233. Id. ¶ 853.
234. Id. ¶¶ 858-60.
235. Blagojević Appeals Judgement, supra note 38, ¶ 142.
236. Id. ¶¶ 136, 142.
237. Serushago Sentencing Judgement, supra note 53, ¶ 27.
238. Id. ¶¶ 28-29.
239. Id. ¶ 27.
240. Id. ¶ 30.
241. Id. ¶ 32.
242. Id. ¶ 34.
243. Id. ¶ 35.
244. Id. ¶ 40-41.
245. Id. ¶ 36.
246. Id. ¶ 38.
247. Id. ¶ 39.
248. Serushago v. Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR 98-39-A, Reasons for Judgement, ¶ 21 (Apr. 6, 2000).
249. On July 7, 2006, the Appeals Chamber reversed the Trial Chamber conviction for genocide (and extermination as a crime against humanity) in the case of the Prosecutor v. Samuel Imanishimwe. See Imanishimwe Appeals Judgement, supra note 36.
250. Prosecutor v. Erdemović, Case No. IT 96-22, Sentencing Judgement, ¶ 13 (Mar. 5, 1998) [hereinafter Erdemović Sentencing Judgement].
251. Id.
252. Id. ¶ 11.
253. Id. ¶ 15.
254. Id. ¶ 23.
255. Id. ¶ 15.
256. Id. ¶ 16(i).
257. Id.
258. Id. ¶ 16(iii).
259. Id. ¶ 16(iv).
260. Id. ¶ 17.
261. Id. ¶ 17.
262. Prosecutor v. Kvočka, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Judgement, ¶ 707 (Nov. 2, 2001) [hereinafter Kvočka Trial Judgement].
263. Id. ¶¶ 708-09.
264. Id. ¶ 721.
265. Id. ¶ 723.
266. Id. ¶ 722.
267. Id. ¶ 723.
268. Id. ¶ 722.
269. Id. ¶ 724.
270. Prosecutor v. Kvočka, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Appeals Judgement, ¶¶ 719-24 (Feb. 28, 2005) [hereinafter Kvočka Appeals Judgement].
271. Kvočka Trial Judgement, supra note 253, ¶¶ 729-30.
272. Id. ¶ 731.
273. Id. ¶ 733.
274. Id. ¶ 732.
275. Prosecutor v. Rutaganira, Case No. ICTR 95-1C-T, Judgement and Sentence, ¶¶ 118-19 (Mar. 14, 2005).
276. Id. ¶¶ 121, 127, 131, 136.
277. Id. ¶ 145.
278. Id. ¶ 155.
279. Id. ¶ 158.
280. Id. ¶ 162.
281. Id. ¶ 147-52.
282. Id. ¶ 143.
283. Prosecutor v. Bisengimana, Case No. ICTR 00-60-T, Judgement and Sentence, ¶ 1 (Apr. 13, 2006).
284. Id. ¶ 120.
285. Id.
286. Id.
287. Id. ¶ 140.
288. Id. ¶ 202.
289. Id. ¶ 82.
290. Id. ¶ 202.
291. Id. ¶ 203.
292. Prosecutor v. Joseph Nzabirinda, Case No. ICTR 2001-77-T, Sentencing Judgement, ¶ 2 (Feb. 23, 2007).
293. Id. ¶ 9.
294. Id. ¶ 86.
295. Id. ¶ 62
296. Id. ¶ 62.
297. Id. ¶ 107.
298. Id. ¶ 108.
299. Id. ¶ 111.
300. Id.
301. Id.
302. Id. ¶ 116.
303. Mary Margaret Penrose, No Badges, No Bars: A Conspicuous Oversight in the Development of an International Criminal Court, 38 TEX. INT'L L.J. 621, 636 (2003) [hereinafter Penrose, No Badges, No Bars].
304. CASSESE, supra note 11, at 436.
305. Id.
306. Rome Statute, supra note 25, art. 103(1)(a).
307. ICTR Practice Direction on the Procedure for Designation of the State in Which a Convicted Person is to Server His/Her Sentence of Imprisonment ¶ 3a (May 10, 2000) (on file with authors) [hereinafter ICTR Practice Direction]; Prosecutor v. Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Order Designating the State in Which Radislav Krstic is to Serve His Prison Sentence, ¶ 7 (Nov. 11, 2004); Prosecutor v. Mrdja, Case No. IT-02-59-S, Sentencing Judgement, ¶ 108 (Mar. 31, 2004); see also VIRGINIA MORRIS & MICHAEL SCHARF, AN INSIDER'S GUIDE TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA 304 (1994).
308. ICTR Practice Direction, supra note 298, ¶ 3; see also MORRIS & SCHARF, supra note 298, at 305.
309. ICTR Practice Direction, supra note 298, ¶ 3.
310. Penrose, Lest We Fail, supra note 40, at 388.
311. Id. at 389 (referring to requests for assistance in the ICTR annual reports to the U.N.); see Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, Conference on War Crimes Tribunals: The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 13 AM. U. INT'L L. REV. 1422, 1426 (1998) (referring to former ICTY President Gabrielle Kirk McDonald's call for support from the international community as States are "expected, in fact required, to provide the structural and systematic support necessary to sustain the Tribunal.").
312. See ICTR, Third Annual Report, U.N. Doc. S/1998/857, A/53/429 ¶ 156 (Sept. 23, 1998), available at http://69.94.11.53/ ENGLISH/annualreports/a53/9828044e.htm.
313. See id. ¶¶ 153-58; see also ICTR, Fourth Annual Report, U.N. Doc. S/1999/943, A/54/315 ¶¶ 120-21 (Sept. 7, 1999), available at http://69.94.11.53/ENGLISH/annualreports/a54/ 9925571e.htm.
314. Italy was the first state to enter into an agreement on the enforcement of sentences with the ICTY (signed Feb. 6, 1997), followed by Finland (signed May 7, 1997), Norway (signed April 24, 1998), Sweden (signed Feb. 23, 1999), Austria (signed July 23, 1999), France (signed Feb. 25, 2000), Spain (signed Mar. 28, 2000) and Denmark (signed June 19, 2002), United Kingdom (signed Mar. 11, 2004), and just recently, Belgium (2007) and Ukraine (signed Aug. 7, 2007).
315. See Press Release, ICTY, Duško Tadić Transferred to Germany to Serve Prison Sentence, U.N. Doc. JL/P.I.S./538e (Oct. 31, 2000), available at http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p538-e.htm[hereinafter Tadić Press Release] (describing the process of signing the ad hoc agreements).
316. Penrose, No Badges, No Bars, supra note 294, at 639.
317. CASSESE, supra note 11, at 436.
318. Rome Statute, supra note 25, art. 106(2). See also CASSESE, supra note 11, at 437.
319. See Council of Europe, Report to the Government of the United Kingdom on the Visit to the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man Carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 12 to 23 May 2003, Doc. No. CPT/Inf (2005) 1, ¶¶ 16, 19, 28 (Mar. 4, 2005), available at http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/gbr/2005-01-inf-eng.htm [hereinafter CPT Report - U.K. 2003].
320. See also U.S. STATE DEP'T, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES-2005, UNITED KINGDOM (2006), available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61683.htm;
321. AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL, AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL REPORT 2006: U.K., available at http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/gbr-summary-eng.
322. See generally U.S. STATE DEP'T, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES - 2005, ITALY (Mar. 8, 2006) available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61655.htm [hereinafter U.S. State Dept. 2005-Italy].
323. See generally U.S. DEP'T OF STATE, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES - 2005, SPAIN (Mar. 8, 2006), available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61676.htm [hereinafter U.S. State Dept. 2005 - Spain].
324. See CPT Report - U.K. 2003, supra note 310, ¶ 38.
325. See Council of Europe, Preliminary observations made by the delegation of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) which visited Norway from 3 to 10 October 2005, Doc. No. CPT/Inf (2005) 20, § III (Dec. 16, 2005), available at http://www.cpt.coe.int/documents/nor/2005-20-inf-eng.htm [hereinafter CPT Observations-Norway].
326. See U.S. State Dept. 2005-Italy, supra note 311.
327. See CPT Report - U.K. 2003, supra note 310, ¶¶ 12, 13, 15.
328. See generally U.S. State Dept. 2005 - Spain, supra note 312.
329. See CPT Observations - Norway, supra note 314, § III.
330. See Press Release, ICTR, Former Prime Minister and Five Other Convicts Sent to Prison in Mali (Dec. 11, 2001), available at http://69.94.11.53/ENGLISH/PRESSREL/2001/index.htm.
331. See U.S. STATE DEP'T, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AN LABOR, COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES - 2005, MALI, Section C (Mar. 8, 2006), available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61580.htm.
332. Agreement Between the Government of the Republic of Mali and the United Nations on the Enforcement of Sentences of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Mali-U.N., art. 6, Feb. 12, 1999, available at http://69.94.11.53/ENGLISH/agreements/mali.pdf.
333. U.S. STATE DEP'T, BUREAU OF DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR, COUNTRY REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS PRACTICES - 2005, BENIN, (Mar. 8, 2006), available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61554.htm.
334. Id.
335. th Session, 29 April-17 May 2002, ¶ 34 (c) (2002), available at http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/U.N.DOC/GEN/N02/647/07/PDF/N0264707.pdf? OpenElement.
336. See, e.g., U.S. State Department, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: Swaziland (2004), Section C (Feb. 28, 2005), available at http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/ hrrpt/2004/41629.htm.
337. See, e.g., id.
338. ICTY Weekly Press Briefing (July 25, 2001) available at http://www.un.org/icty/briefing /PB250701.htm.
339. Id.; ICTY Weekly Press Briefing (Oct 31, 2001) available at http://www.un.org/icty/briefing /PB311001.htm.
340. Daryl A. Mundis and Gaynor Fergal, Current Developments at the Ad Hoc International Criminal Tribunals, 4 OXFORD J. INT'L CRIM. JUSTICE 623, 628 n.33 (2006).
341. See, e.g., Wu Zongxian, Western Prisons and Chinese Prisons: Focusing on Differences, 11 EURO. J. OF CRIME, CRIM. L. AND CRIM. JUST. 93, 110 (2003).
342. On December 6, 2005, the ICTR Appeals Chamber dismissed Hassan Ngeze's requests to set aside President Mose's decision denying, as frivolous, Ngeze's request to consummate his marriage and to grant conjugal visits. Prosecutor v. Hassan Ngeze, Case No. ICTR 99-52-A, Decision on Hassan Ngeze's Motion to Set Aside President Mese's Decision and Request to Consummate His Marriage, (Dec. 6, 2005); Prosecutor v. Hassan Ngeze, Case No. ICTR 99-52-A, Decision on Hassan Ngeze's Motion Appealing the Registrar's Denial of Marriage Facilities (Jan. 20, 2005). A previous request was similarly denied by the Registrar, pursuant to Article 8(3)(c), who did not oppose Ngeze's right to marry, but found no authority to ensure that the marriage was consummated. The request was reconsidered by President Mose, who confirmed Ngeze's right to marry but found no authority or legal provision requiring consummation of marriage or conjugal visits. See Prosecutor v. Hassan Ngeze, Case No. ICTR 99-52-A, Decision on Hassan Ngeze's Application for Review of the Registrar's Decision of 12 January 2005, ¶ 19 (Sept. 14, 2005).
343. Id.
344. The concept of early release is not foreign to international war crimes trials. Rudolph Hess was the only major convicted person at Nuremberg or Tokyo who came close to fully serving his sentence, before he committed suicide in prison at the age of ninety-three. Moreover, all Tokyo prisoners were released well prior to expiration of their respective sentences. See Penrose, Spandau Revisited, supra note 10, at 575.
345. CASSESE, supra note 11, at 437.
346. Id.
347. See, e.g., Agreement Between the Government of the Italian Republic and the United Nations on the Enforcement of Sentences of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Articles 3(3), 8, Feb. 6, 1997, available at http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/italy.htm [hereinafter Italy-ICTY Agreement].
348. ICTY Statute, supra note 2, art. 28; ICTR Statute, supra note 4, art. 27.
349. Adama Dieng, Other Preparations for the Establishment of the Court: International Criminal Justice: From Paper to Practice - A Contribution From the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda to the Establishment of the International Criminal Court, 25 FORDHAM INT'L L. J. 688, 705 (2002).
350. ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rules 123-125; ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rules 124-126.
351. See ICTY Statute, supra note 2, art. 28; see also ICTR Statute, supra note 4, art. 29 (discussing the judicial process regarding parole and commutation of sentences within each tribunal).
352. With limited time remaining in the life of the tribunals, many questions remain as to what body will be in existence and have authority at the time such pardon, commutation, and/or parole decisions become necessary. As the length of incarceration will vary depending on the host state and domestic parole regulations, the sentences will definitely outlast the life of the tribunals, and limited consideration has been given to this issue. Penrose, Lest We Fail, supra note 40, at 389-90. However, based on the experiences of the authors, the tribunals have recently made this matter a priority in order to set up relevant mechanisms to address these concerns as they arise, as it is expected that sentences will need to be enforced and supervised at least until approximately 2030. Further, there will be continued need to address issues of commutation, pardon, early release, and to receive reports of inspection of prison conditions.
353. Mario Čerkez; Miroslav Kvočka; Milojica Kos; Dragoljub Prcać; Zdravko Mucić; Dragan Kolundžija; Tihomir Blaškić; Milan Simić; Miroslav Tadić; Simo Zarić.
354. Mladjo; Predrag Banovic; Milomir Stakić.
355. Miroslav Deronjić; Biljana Plavsić.
356. Ranko Cesić; Miodrag Jokić.
357. Hazim Delić; Esad Landzo; Zlatko Alekovski (now released); Anto Furundžija (now released); Momir Nikolić.
358. Goran Jelisić; Dragan Nikolić.
359. Drago Josipović (now released); Vladimir Santić; Darko Mrdja; Stevan Todorović (now released); Ivica Rajić.
360. Radomir Kovać; Zoran Vuković; Dragan Obrenović; Dražen Erdemović (now released).
361. Dragoljub Kunarac; Duško Tadić.
362. Radislav Krstić; Blogoje Simić.
363. Duško Sikirica; Damir Dosen (now released); Mitar Vasijević; Dario Kordić; Zoran Žigić.
364. See Prosecutor v. Vincent Rutaganira, Case No. ICTR 95-IC-AR, Decision on Appeal of a Decision of the President on Early Release (Aug. 24, 2006).
365. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Practice Direction on the Procedure for the Determination of Applications for Pardon, Commutation of Sentence and Early Release of Persons Convicted by the International Tribunal, IT/146 (Apr. 7, 1999).
366. International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Practice Direction on the Procedure for the Determination of Applications for Pardon, Commutation of Sentence and Early Release of Persons Convicted by the International Tribunal for Rwanda (May 10, 2000).
367. Thomir Blaškić was granted early release by ICTY President, Judge Theodor Meron effective August 2, 2004. On the same day as the Order, July 29, 2004, the Appeals Chamber overturned his forty-five year sentence and sentenced Blaskic to nine years with credit for time served. Subsequently, Blaškić completed, according to his counsel, approximately ninety percent of his sentence. Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14, Order of the President on the Application for Early Release of Tihomir Blaškić (July 29, 2004).
368. Id. ¶ 8.
369. Prosecutor v. Dragan Kolundžija, Case No. IT-95-8, Order of the President on the Early Release of Dragan Kolundžija (Dec. 5, 2001) (acknowledging that Kolundžija was detained at U.N.DU, President Jorda concluded that no provision of the ICTY Statute or the Rules precluded the Tribunal from ruling on Kolundžija's request for early release).
370. ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rule 125: In determining whether pardon or commutation is appropriate, the President shall take into account, inter alia, the gravity of the crime or crimes for which the prisoner was convicted, the treatment of similarly-situated prisoners, the prisoner's demonstration of rehabilitation, as well as any substantial cooperation of the prisoner with the Prosecutor.
371. Prosecutor v. Milojica Kos, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Order of the President for the early Release of Milojica Kos (July 30, 2002).
372. Prosecutor v. Mucić, Case No. IT-96-21, Order of the President in Response to Zdravako Mucić's Request for Early Release (July 9, 2003).
373. Prosecutor v. Simić, Case No. IT-95-9/2, Order of the President on the Application for Early Release of Milan Simić (Oct. 27, 2003).
374. Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-95-9, Decision of the President on the Application for Pardon or Commutation of Sentence of Miroslav Tadić (Nov. 3, 2004).
375. Prosecutor v. Zarić, Case No. IT-95-9, Order of the President on the Application for Early Release of Simo Zarić (Jan. 21, 2004).
376. Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvocka, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Decision on Application for Pardon or Commutation of Sentence, ¶ 12 (Mar. 30, 2005).
377. Id. ¶¶ 7, 12.
378. Id. ¶ 7.
379. Id. ¶ 8.
380. Id. ¶ 9.
381. European Union Memorandum on the Death Penalty, European Union Delegation of the European Commission to the U.S., available at http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/deathpenalty/eumemorandum.htm.
382. Finland Penal Code, supra note 24, Chapter 2, §2(1) (697/1991).
383. Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1, Order of the President on the application for the early release of Anto Furundžija (July 29, 2004), available at http://www.un.org/icty/furundzija/trialc2/ order-e/040729.htm [hereinafter Furundžija Order].
384. Library of Congress Country Studies: Finland, available at http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+fi0194). See Constitution of Finland, § 58(3).
385. Life prisoners serve longer sentences during Halonen's presidency, HELSINGIN SANOMAT, May 8, 2006, available at http://www.hs.fi/english/article/ Life+prisoners+serve+longer+sentences+during+Halonens+presidency/1135219810163.
386. Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Judgement, Disposition (June 25, 1999)
387. Id. ¶ 244.
388. Id. ¶ 191.
389. Id. ¶ 192(7). See ICTY Case Information Sheet, available at http://www.un.org/icty/glance/aleksovski.htm.
390. Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, Disposition (Dec. 10, 1998).
391. Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1, Order of the President on the application for the early release of Anto Furundžija (July 29, 2004), available at http://www.un.org/icty/furundzija/trialc2/ order-e/040729.htm [hereinafter Furundžija Order].
392. See ICTY Practice Direction, supra note 355.
393. Agreement Between the United Nations and the Kingdom of Spain on the Enforcement of Sentences of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Mar. 28, 2000), available at http://www.un.org/icty/legaldoc- e/index.htm.
394. Pursuant to Article 36(1) of the Spanish Penal Code, an individual may be sentenced to a maximum of twenty years' imprisonment. However, Article 57 allows for an additional ten years of sentencing for those convicted of more serious crimes such as homicide, torture, and sexual abuse, bringing the maximum sentence to thirty years' imprisonment. Ley Orgánica 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal, Titulo III, De Las Penas Capítulo I, De Las Penas, Sus Clases Y Efectos, Sección 2. De Las Penas Privativas de Libertad, Artículo 36 (1); Sección 5. De las Penas Accesorias, Artículo 57 (1).
395. Ley Orgánica 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal, Titulo III, De Las Penas Capítulo I, De Las Penas, Sus Clases Y Efectos, Seccion 2. De Las Penas Privativas de Libertad, Artículo 36 (2).
396. Prosecutor v. Stevan Todorović, Case No. IT-95-9/1-S, Sentencing Judgement, ¶ 115 (July 31, 2001).
397. Press Release, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, JP/MOW/984e (June 29, 2005), available at http://www.un.org/icty/ pressreal/2005/p984-e.htm.
398. Prosecutor v. Dražen Erdemović, Case No. IT-96-22-T, Sentencing Judgement, ¶ 23 (Mar. 5, 1998).
399. ICTY, Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemović, Case Information Sheet, available at http://www.un.org/icty/glance/erdemovic.htm.
400. Norway Civil Penal Code, § 15, available at http://www.coe.int/T/E/Legal_affairs/Legal_cooperation/Conferences_and_high- level_meetings/European_Public_Prosecutors/00_Norway_Penal%20Code.asp.
401. Id. § 17.
402. Id. § 62.
403. Id. § 17.
404. Id. § 26; Norway, The Execution of Sentencing Act 2002, Section 42, available at http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/jd/dok/ lover_regler/reglement/2004/Act-relating-to-the-execution-of-sentences-etc-. html?id=420593 [hereinafter Norway Execution of Sentences Act].
405. Id. § 42. See also Lee Bygrave, Norway, in WORLD FACTBOOK OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ wfbcjnor.txt.
406. Norway Execution of Sentences Act, supra note 393, § 42.
407. Id.
408. Press Release, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, The ICTY President Grants Damir Dosen's Request for Early Release, C.C. / P.I.S. / 737e (Feb. 28, 2003), available at www.un.org/icty/pressreal/ 2003/p737-e.htm.
409. Id.
410. Austria Penal Code, § 18, available at http://www.sbg.ac.at/ ssk/docs/stgb/stgb1_16.htm.
411. Id. § 46(2).
412. Id. § 46(1).
413. Id. § 42(5).
414. Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB), Federal Law Gazette I, p. 945, p. 3322, § 38 (Nov. 13, 1998), available at http://www.iuscomp.org/gla/ statutes/StGB.htm [hereinafter German Criminal Code].
415. Id. § 57(1).
416. Id. § 57(2). See also Alexis A. Aronowitz, Germany, in WORLD FACTBOOK OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/ wfbcjger.txt.
417. German Criminal Code, supra note 403, §57a(1).
418. United Kingdom Criminal Justice Act 2003, Section 269(5), Schedule 21, at (4), available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/20030044.htm [hereinafter 2003 U.K. Criminal Justice Act].
419. There are several types of life sentence available to the criminal courts in England. See id. §§ 259-77.
420. Id. Schedule 21, § 269(5), at 5(1).
421. Id. Schedule 21, § 269(5), at 10, 11.
422. Id. Schedule 21, § 269(5), at 7.
423. The four categories of murder meriting a whole life sentence are: (a) the murder of two or more persons, where each murder involves any of the following - (i) a substantial degree of premeditation or planning, (ii) the abduction of the victim, or (iii) sexual or sadistic conduct, (b) the murder of a child if involving the abduction of the child or sexual or sadistic motivation, (c) a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, or ideological cause, or (d) a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder. Id. Schedule 21, § 269(5), at 4(2).
424. Criminal Justice Act, 1991, c. 53, §§ 33(2), 35(1) (Eng.), available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1991/Ukpga_19910053_en_l. htm.
425. See 2003 U.K. Criminal Justice Act, supra note 407, §§ 237-39 (the Parole Board takes this decision on the basis of reports prepared by prison and probation staff and others as appropriate on the prisoner's progress in custody), and §§ 269-77, scheds. 21-2;
426. see also U.K. Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, c. 43, §§ 28-34 (Eng.), available at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1997/97043 - a.htm.
427. 1994 Code Penal [Penal Code] arts. 132-23 (France), available at http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/codes_traduits/code_penal_textan.htm.
428. Id. arts. 221-23, 221-24, see also 2000 Code de Procedure Penale [Code of Criminal Procedure], art. 729 (France) available at http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/codes_traduits/cpptextA.htm (providing the minimum sentences to be served before early release can take place). Convicted persons can also request early release prior to the expiration of the minimum in certain circumstances. See id. art. 720-4-720-5. Article 730 of the France Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the situation of convicted persons is reviewed at least once a year if they satisfy the conditions laid down in Article 729. Id. art. 730, see also Jacques Borricand, France, in WORLD FACTBOOK OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ bjs/pub/ascii/wfbcjfra.txt (for commentary on the parole regime in France).
429. Brottsbalken [BrB] [Criminal Code] 26:1 (Swed.), available at http://wings.buffalo.edu/law/bclc/sweden.pdf.
430. Id. at 26:6.
431. The Swedish System of Sanctions, available at http://www.kw.se/ upload/Informationsmaterial/Sanctionssyst.pdf
432. Per-Olof H. Wikstrom & Lars Dolmen, Sweden, in WORLD FACTBOOK OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wfbcjswe.txt.
433. Lene Ravn, Denmark, in WORLD FACTBOOK OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEMS, available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wfbcjden.txt.
434. Danmarks Riges Grundlov[DRG] [Denmark Constitutional Act], art. 24, http://www.servat.unibe.ch/law/icl/da00000_.html.
435. See Italy-ICTY Agreement, supra note 336.
436. Codice Penale [C. P.] [Criminal Code] art. 176 (It.).
437. Id.
438. Code Pénal [C. PÉN.] [Criminal Code] art. 18 (Mali).
439. Id.
440. Rome Statute, supra note 25, art. 110(1), (2). See also CASSESE, supra note 11, at 437.
441. Id., art. 104.
442. ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence, art. 110 (2), (3).
443. This article does not address the issue of persons acquitted by the ICTR. Because ethnic and political tensions remain in Rwanda, many acquitted persons are unable to return to their home country without fear of violence or to face another trial by Rwandan national authorities. Without a home country to return to, acquitted persons must be transferred to a state willing to accept them as refugees. A total of five people have been acquitted at the ICTR (Emmanuel Bagambiki, Ignace Bagilishema, Jean Mpambara, André Ntagerura, and André Rwamakuba), and only two have been transferred to states willing to accept them as refugees. See Press Release, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Bagilishema Leaves for France, http://69.94.11.53/ENGLISH/ PRESSREL/2001/288.htm (stating that Bagilishema now lives in France);
444. See also Trial Watch: Jean Mpambara, http://www.trial-ch.org/en/ trial-watch/profile/db/legal-procedures/jean_mpambara_217.html (stating that Mpambara now lives in Mayotte, a French island in the Indian Ocean). The remaining individuals remain are in Tanzania, under the care of the United Nations. This situation must be compared with that of the ICTY, since those who have been acquitted can return to their country of origin. However, these matters deserve a separate examination that will not be conducted in this article.
445. Prosecutor v. Charles Taylor, Case No. SCSL-03-01-I, Amended Indictment (Mar. 16, 2006), available at http://www.sc-sl.org/Documents/SCSL-03-01- I-75.pdf.
446. UK Agrees to Jail Charles Taylor, BBC, June 15, 2006, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5082664.stm.
447. Prison Site Sought for Taylor, WASH POST, Apr. 6, 2006, at A24.