Case Analysis: The Prosecutor v. Slavko Dokmanović. Irregular Rendition and the ICTY

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 11, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 369-382

  Scharf, Michael P ^a  

^a Center for International Law and Policy   (United States)

Author keywords

abduction; International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia; jurisdiction; luring; mala captus bene detentus

Indexed keywords

EID: 85009611460     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156598000284     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. See Prosecutor v, Slavko Dokmanovic, Decision on the Motion for Release by the Accused Slavko Dokmanovic, No, 1 r-95-13a-P'r, T.Ch. 11, 22 October 1997. Dokmanovic was mayor of Vukovar, the capital of Eastern Slavonia, and administrator of the Ovcara area at the time of the massacre. He is charged with six counts of grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, and crimes against humanity for his role in the massacre.
2. UNTAES was established on 15 January 1996 pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1037, UN Doc. S/RES/1037 (1996), to administer the region ofliastern Slavonia pending its return to the control of Croatia.
3. See Prosecutor v. Slavko Dokmanovic, Decision on the Motion tor Release by the Accused Slavko Dokmanovic, UNTAES was established on 15 January 1996 pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1037 note 1, para. 7.
4. 4-The addition of Dokmanoviii to the Indictment was not disclosed to the FRY.
5. See Pro.secutor v. Slavko Dokmanovi6, Decision on the Motion for Release by the Accused Slavko Dokmanovid, 4-The addition of Dokmanoviii to the Indictment was not disclosed to the FRY. note 1, paras. 8-10.
6. para. 11.
7. Id., paras, 16-18.
8. Id., para. 76.
9. Id., para. 88.
10. M, paras. 67 and 77.
11. Warcrimes Tribunal Rejects Appeal fiom Hospital Massacre Suspect, Agence France Presse, 12 November 1997 (LEXIS, Cumws File).
12. See Croatian Serb to Stand Trial for Vukovar Atrocity, Agence France Presse, 19 January 1998 (LEXIS, Curnws File); C. Lucassen, Serbian Defendant Hangs Self, The Boston Globe, 30 June 1998, at A2.
13. See I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 307 (1990).
14. See 1945 UN Charter, Art, 2(4).
15. See The Case of the S.S. “Lotus” (France v. Turkey), Judgment of 7 September 1927, 1927 PCIJ(Ser. A) No. 9, at 18.
16. Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits, Judgment of 9 April 1949, 1949 ICJ Rep. 4, at 35.
17. Military and Paramilitary Activities (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of27 Jtine 19S6, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14, at 106, para. 202.
18. Section 432(2) of the 1986 Restatement (niird) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, As Adopted and Promulgated by the American Law Institute at Washington, D.C., May 14, 1986, VoL I (1987).
19. V. Morris & M. Vrailas Bourloyannis, The Work oj the Sixth Committee at the I'orty-iiighth Session of the U.N. General Assembly, 88 AJIL 343, at 357-358 (1993).
20. Report of the Working Group on Afbitrary Detention, UN Commission on Human Rights, 50th Session, Agenda Item 10, UN Doc. E/CN. 4/1994/27 (1993). at 139-140.
21. 21-Id.,al 139.
22. Prosecutor v. Slavko Dokmanovic. Decision on the Motion for Release by the Accused Slavko Dokmanovic, 21-Id. note 1, para. 57.
23. Id.
24. para. 77.
25. See J, Paust et al. International Criminal Law: Cases and Materials 436 (1996).
26. Id., at 344-435 (describing such cases involving Canada, Cyprus, and the Bahamas).
27. Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters: XVth Congress of International Penal.aw Association Adopts Kesolulions, 10 International bntorcemcnl Law Reporter JS5, at 386 (1994) (emphasis added).
28. Prosecutor v. Slavko Dokmanovid, Decision on the Motion for Release by the Accused Slavko Dokmanovic, Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters: XVth Congress of International Penal.aw Association Adopts Kesolulions note 1, para 74.
29. Arf.,para. 67.
30. See S. Kvans, international Kidnapping in a Violent World: Where the United States Ought to Draw the Line, 137 Military Law Review 187, at 197 (1992).
31. Amnesty International, International Criminal Tribunals: Handbook for Government Cooperation, At index: lOR 40/07/96, at 5S (August 1996).
32. See 1945 UN Charter, Arts, 25 and tUJ.
33. Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), UN Doc. S/25704 (1993). para. 126.
34. A'ee V. Morris & M. Scharf, An Insider's Guide to the International Criminal Tribunal tor the Former Yugoslavia 210-213 (1995).
35. See Amnesty International Handbook for Government Cooperation, An Insider's Guide to the International Criminal Tribunal tor the Former Yugoslavia note 31 (unpaginated Chart on State Cooperation with the Yugoslavia Tribunal).
36. Such states include the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Singapore, and Venezuela. See Amnesty International Handbook for Government Cooperation, Amnesty International Handbook for Government Cooperation note 31 (unpaginated Chart on State Cooperation with the Yugoslavia Tribunal).
37. Id
38. The procedure set torth in the IC'l'Y s Rules contemplates a reciuc.st for surrender transmitted to state authorities, and in the event of non-compliance, a report to the Security Council, which would determine what fiirther action is appropriate. See Arts. 20(2) and 21 of the 1993 Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible tor Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of ttie T'ornier Yugoslavia smce 1991, UN Doc. S/25704 (1993), Annex. See also Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Yugoslavia Tribunal (adopted on 11 February 1994, amended 5 May 1994 and 4 October 1994, revised 30 January 1995, further amended 3 May 1995, 15 June 1995,6 October 1995, 18 January 1996, 23 April 1996, 25 June 1996, 5 July 1996, and 3 December 1996), Kule 55 (bxccution ot Arrest Warrants), Rule 56 (Cooperation of States), Rule 57 (Procedure after Arrest), Rule 59 (1-ailure to Execute a Warrant), Rule 59 his (Transmi.ssion of Arrest Warrants), Rule 60 (Advertisement of Indictment), and Rule 61 (Procedure in Case of Failure to Rxecute a Warrant), UN Doc. IT/32/Rev.!0.
39. See Prosecutor v, Slavko Dokmanovic, Decision on the Motion for Release by the Accused Slavko Dokmanovi6, The procedure set torth in the IC'l'Y s Rules contemplates a reciuc.st for surrender transmitted to state authorities, and in the event of non-compliance, a report to the Security Council note 1, paras. 62-64.
40. The Resolution recognizes that the parties to the Dayton Accords are required to cooperate fully with the ICTY and have authorized IFOR “to take such actions as required, incltsding the use of necessary force”, to implement the Tribunal's uidei;,. See UN Due. S/RES/1031 (1995), paja. 5; see also Statements of the United Kingdom and the United States, UN Doc. S/PV.3607 (1996), at 8 and 20.
41. See UN Doc. S/RES/1037 (1996); 1995 Basic Agreement on the Region of Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium, signed on 12 November 1995, UN Docs. A/50/757 (1995) and S/1995/951-
42. See 1945 UN Charter, Art. 51.
43. See 1979 YILC, Vol. II (Part One), at 93-94; R. Lillich & J. Paxman, Sta/e Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens Occasioned by Terrorist Activities, 26 American University Law Review 217 (1977); and O. Sehacbter, The Extraterritorial Use of Force Against Terrorist Bases, 11 Houston Journal of international Law 309 and 312 (1989).
44. See UN Doc. S/RES/678 (1990), para. 2; see also UN Doc. S/RES/940 (1994), para. 4 (authorizing invasion of Haiti to restore tlie Aristide government).
45. UN Doc. S/RES/827 (1993), para. 4 (requiring states to comply with arrest orders pursuant to Art. 29 of tiie ICTY Statute); UN Doc. S/RES/1031 (1995) (establishing IFOR); UN Doc. S/RES/1088 (1996) (establishing SFOR as the successor to IFOR); Rule 59 bis (A) of the ICTY's Rules of Procedure (authorizing the transmission of arrest warrants to an appropriate autliority or international body), UN Doc. note 39; see also J. Bunon, War Crimes During Operations Other Than War: Military Doctrine and Law 50 Years After Nuremberg and Beyond, 149 Military Law Review 199, at 203-205 (1995) (expressing the opinion that ICTY has the authority to issue orders that are binding on member states, including those participating in the NATO operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina).
46. Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Judgment on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, No, IT-95-ARI08 bis. Appeals Chamber, 29 October 1997, para. 36.
47. Letter dated 24 April 1996 from the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia addressed to the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/1996/319 (1996).
48. Id.
49. Statement of the President of the Security Council, UN uoc. S/fKS 1/1996/23 (1996).
50. Art. 18 oftlie 1993 Statute of the Intemationaf Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Statement of the President of the Security Council note 39.
51. Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Judgment on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, Statute of the Intemationaf Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia note 49, para. 26.
52. Id., para. 51.
53. Id., para. 78.
54. ICTY Rules of Procedure, Id. note 39, Rule 95.
55. See M. Cherif Bassiouni, International Extradition: United States Law and Practice 190 (1987).
56. See generally, M. Zaid, Military Might Versus Sovereign Right: The Kidnapping of Dr. Humberto Alvurez-Machutn and ihe ResutUng Fallout, 19 HuuhLun Juuiiml uf TiiLi;n]aUurial Law 829 (1997).
57. See Regina v. Horsefeny Road Magistrates’ Court (Ex parte Bennett), [1994] 1 App, Cas. 42 (Eng. HL 1993) (holding that a New Zealand citizen, forcibly returned to England from South Afiiua, uuuld utiLLLlii a sLaj uf Ltic ui iiiiiiiul piouccdiiigi agaiiiil liiiii in liiiglaiid).
58. UN Doc. A/47/249 (1992).
59. See V. Morris & M. Vrailas Bourloyannis, The Work of the Sixth Committee at the Forty-Ninth Session of the U.N. General Assembly, 89 AJIL 607, at 620 (1995).
60. RcpuiL uf Llic Wuikiiij Oiuu(j uii AibiUtijy DcLciiliun, The Work of the Sixth Committee at the Forty-Ninth Session of the U.N. General Assembly liuLc 20, aL 139-140.
61. 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 17!, Art. 9(1).
62. See Views of the Human Rights Committee Under Article 5(4) of the Optional Protocol to the IiiLi:iiml.iuiial Cuvciiaiil uii Civil tuiJ Pulkii-al Rights, UN Dul. A/36/40 (1981), at 176 and) 85.
63. See 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 312 UNTS 221, Art. 5.
64. See Stocke v. Germany, Judgment of 19 March 1991, Eur.Ct.H.R, (Ser. A). No. 199 (Annex, Opinion of iJie Conimisaioij, para, 167). The Trial Chamber in llie Dokmanovii case distln” guished Stocke v, Germany on the ground that “there was an extradition treaty between France and Germany, the procedures of which were clearly not followed”. See Prosecutor v, Slavko Dokmanovid, Decision on the Motion for Release by the Accused Slavko Dokmanovid, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms noLe 1, n. 86.
65. Report of Che Setrelary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), UN Doc, S/25704 (1993), para. 106
66. R. Higgins, Problems and Proccss; International Law and How We Use U 72-73 (1994).
67. UN Doc. S/RES/f38 (1960), para. 2.
68. P. ivlitchell, English-Speaking Jusilce: Evolving Responses lo Transnational Forcible Abduciion After Alvarez-Machain, 29 Cornell International Law Journal 383, at 422-423 (1996).
69. Id.
70. N. Milctictoh, UN Court to Try Suspect in Biggest Croatian Massacre, AAP Newsfced, !8 January 1998 (lexis, Cumws File).