solelycarlymilo

RESEARCHARTICLEOpenAccessTheanatomyoftheMiloevitrial(2001–2006)HiradAbtahi1andGrantDawson2*IntroductionSlobodanMiloevihastheinfamoushonourofbeingthefirstpost-WorldWarIIformerheadofstatetobebroughtbeforeandtriedbyaninternationalcriminaltri-bunal.
1AsnotedbyHumanRightsWatch,"thetrialofMilosevicmarkedanendoftheerawhenbeingaheadofstatemeantimmunityfromprosecution.
Sincethenotherformerheadsofstate,includingSaddamHusseinandCharlesTaylor,havebeenbroughttojustice"(HumanRightsWatch2006,p.
1).
ItisdifficulttoenvisionamorecomplextrialthanthetrialofSlobodanMiloevi.
Notonlyweretheremanylegalissuesinrespectoftheproceedings—suchasMiloe-vi'sformerheadofstatestatus,hisdecisiontorepresenthimself,andhispoorhealth—butalsothreeseparatetrialsweretobeconductedtogetherintooneproceeding,encompassingfourarmedconflicts,thosethatunfoldedinSlovenia,Croatia,BosniaandHerzegovina,andfinallyKosovo.
ThelastoftheseinvolvedtheparticipationoftheNorthAtlanticTreatyOrganization(NATO)initsfirstarmedconflict.
Thisarticleguidesthereaderthroughthemajorphasesofthetrial.
"Guide"isanimportantwordinthiscontext,andonethatischosencarefully.
Theimmensityandcomplexityofthecaserendersitsomewhatimpene-trabletoapersonwhoisapproachingitforthefirsttimeandwhopossessesasincereinterestinactuallydelvingintothelabyrinthofproceedings.
Itisakintoamoun-taineerstandingatthebaseofamountain,lookingup,andnotbeingabletoseethetop.
Aguidewouldbead-visable.
ThisguidetotheMiloevitrialisthereforeintendedtoguidethereaderfromthestartofthepro-ceedingstotheveryend,whilehighlightingandexplain-ingthemoresignificantevents.
Eachoftheseeventscanthenbeexaminedinmoredetail,throughreferencetotheprimarydocumentation,whichisavailableonthewebsiteoftheInternationalCriminalTribunalfortheformerYugoslavia(ICTY),aswellascommerciallegalresearchtools,suchasLexis-NexusandWestlaw.
Duetotheultimatelackofresolutionofthetrialfol-lowingthedeathofMiloevi,itispossiblethatacaseofthissizeandcomplexitywillneverbeseenagain.
Buttheuniqueandnovelcircumstancesthatmadeuptheproceedingsservedinmanywaysasanexperimentalcauldronofproceduralandsubstantivelegalinnova-tions,whichshouldbe—andindeedalreadyhavebeen—exploitedforfuturetrialsofthiskind.
Withthepassingoftimeandtheinitiationofproceedingsagainstotherformerorservingheadsofstate,newgenerationsoflawyersandacademicsmaynotimmediatelyrealisehowunlikelytheMiloeviproceedingsseemedinthe1990sandhowfundamentallytheyimpactedoninter-nationalcriminaljustice.
Toaddressthis,thearticlepro-videsacondenseddescriptionofthemainphasesoftheproceedings.
ItwillfirstsetoutthecontextinwhichtheMiloeviproceedingsbegan,inordertoprovideade-tailedanalysisofthepre-trialphaseandtrialphase,be-foredescribingthefinalstagesoftheproceedings.
Prologue:fromtheformerYugoslaviatoTheHagueWhiletheriseandfallofSlobodanMiloeviandthesurroundinggeopoliticaleventshavebeendescribedelsewheremanytimes(see,e.
g.
SilberandLittle1996;Judah2002;Stephen2004),abrieflysketchedoverviewoftheprincipaleventsthatledtotheproceedingsagainstMiloevimayassistthosereadersnotimmedi-atelyfamiliarwiththem.
SlobodanMiloevi,whowasofethnicMontenegrinorigin,wasborninSerbiaon20August1941.
HegrewupintheSocialistFederativeRepublicofYugoslavia(SFRY)underTitoduringtheColdWar.
Alawyerbytraining,hewasappointedin1984asheadoftheBelgradeCommunistPartyand,2yearslater,headoftheSerbianCommunistParty(SilberandLittle1996,*Correspondence:dawsongrant@hotmail.
com2OrganisationfortheProhibitionofChemicalWeapons,JohandeWittlaan32,2517JRTheHague,TheNetherlandsFulllistofauthorinformationisavailableattheendofthearticle2016AbtahiandDawson.
OpenAccessThisarticleisdistributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttribution4.
0InternationalLicense(http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.
0/),whichpermitsunrestricteduse,distribution,andreproductioninanymedium,providedyougiveappropriatecredittotheoriginalauthor(s)andthesource,providealinktotheCreativeCommonslicense,andindicateifchangesweremade.
AbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4DOI10.
1186/s41018-016-0004-xpp.
42–43;Judah2002,pp.
50–54;Stephen2004,pp.
33–37;ICTYCaseInformationSheet).
On24April1987,MiloevitravelledtoKosovoPoljewherehegavehisfamousspeechtoagroupofKosovoSerbs,whowerecomplainingofmistreatmentbytheKosovoAlbanians.
MiloevienteredtheagitatedcrowdsofKosovoSerbsandmadehisfamousstatement,"Nooneshoulddaretobeatyou!
"ThisincidentsymbolisedwhatwouldbecomethereturnofacertaintypeofSerbiannationalismthroughoutthe1990s.
In1989,Kosovo'sautonomywasrevoked,andMiloeviwasappointedPresidentofthePresidencyoftheSocialistRepublicofSerbia.
On28June1989,Miloeviad-dressedacrowdofapproximatelyonemillionSerbsonthehistoricbattlefieldofGazimestan,600yearsaftertheBattleofKosovo.
Itwasthepinnacle,inmanyways,ofhispoliticallife,andheemergedasthesymbolicleaderofallSerbs.
Aseventswouldunfold,KosovowouldprovetobeforMiloevithesourceofhisriseandalsoofhisultimatefall(SilberandLittle1996,pp.
42–47;Judah2002,pp.
50–54;Stephen2004,pp.
37–39;HumanRightsWatch2006,p.
7).
ThepathtothecourtroomFromdeathtobirthTheSFRYdidnotsurvivethepassagetothe21stcen-tury.
Itsfairlyrapiddisintegrationbeganinthe1990s.
AftertheadoptionofthenewConstitutionofSerbiain1990,MiloeviwaselectedtothenewlyestablishedOf-ficeofthePresidentofSerbiainmulti-partyelections.
Oneafteranother,Slovenia,Croatia,andBosniaandHerzegovinadeclaredtheirindependencefromtheSFRY.
In1991,thewarsinSlovenia(albeitbrief)andCroatiabegan,alongwiththesiegeofVukovar.
In1992,Bosniafolloweditsneighboursontheroadtoindepend-encethroughareferendumandthenwar,withSarajevofallingundersiegeandthesettingupofdetentioncampsinApril.
Relayedthroughthemassmedia,theseevents'dramaticimagesledtopublicoutcry.
Actionwasdemanded(SilberandLittle1996,pp.
37–41;Stephen2004,pp.
82–85;HumanRightsWatch2006,p.
7).
2Laterthatyear,theUnitedNationsSecurityCouncildeterminedunderChapter7oftheUNCharterthatthesituationintheformerYugoslaviaconstitutedathreattointernationalpeaceandsecurityandpassedResolution771,declaringthatindividualswhocommittedoror-deredthecommissionofgravebreachesoftheGenevaConventionswereindividuallyresponsibleforsuchbreachesandcallingontheinternationalcommunitytocooperateinthecollectionofevidenceofthosecrimes.
TheSecurityCouncilthenaskedtheUNSecretary-Generaltoassembleandtaskagroupofexpertstoexaminethisevidence.
WhentheSecretary-Generalre-portedbacktotheSecurityCouncil,theCouncildecidedtorequesthimtomakeaproposalfortheestablishmentofaninternationalcriminaltribunal.
On25May1993,afterhavingreceivedthisproposal,theSecurityCouncilactedunderChapter7oftheUNChartertopassReso-lution827.
ThuswasborntheICTY(seegenerallyUNSCRes8271993).
3AstheICTYwastakingitsfirststeps,thearmedcon-flictsintheSFRYcontinued.
InJuly1995,theUNSafeHavenatSrebrenicawastakenbyBosnianSerbforces,andthousandsofBosnianMuslimswereexecuted.
Thefollowingmonth,NATObegantobombSerbpositions,andCroatianforcesdrovetheSerbpopulationfromtheKrajina.
InNovember,theDaytonPeaceAccordsweresignedbythewarringfactions,endingtheactivehostil-itiesintheconflicts(SilberandLittle1996,pp.
265–387;Judah2002,pp.
109–126;Stephen2004,pp.
52–76;HumanRightsWatch2006,pp.
7–9).
FrombombardmenttoindictmentDuringtheconflictsinCroatiaandBosnia,thestrategyoftheKosovoAlbanianleadershipintheSerbianprov-inceofKosovowasoneofnon-violentcivildisobedi-ence.
Ontheotherhand,throughthepoliceforcesoftheSerbianMinistryoftheInterior(MUP),BelgradegraduallyincreaseditspoliticalgriponKosovo(Judah2002,pp.
61–98;HumanRightsWatch2006,pp.
9–10).
TheDemocraticLeagueofKosovo(LDK)wasthedom-inantpoliticalpartyoftheKosovoAlbaniansandwasheadedbyIbrahimRugova,the"President"ofthe"RepublicofKosova",whichhadbeencreatedon19October1991whenthe"parliament"confirmeda22September1991"ResolutionontheIndependenceandSovereigntyofKosovo"andsubsequentreferendum.
AparallelgovernmentinKosovothereforeexistedalong-sidetheoneunderthecontrolofBelgrade(Judah2002,pp.
61–98,109–134).
InJuly1997,afterhavingservedtwotermsasPresi-dentofSerbia,SlobodanMiloeviwaselectedPresidentoftheFederalRepublicofYugoslavia(FRY)(ICTYcaseInformationSheet;Stephen2004,p.
138).
TheKosovoLiberationArmy(KLA)becameincreasinglyorganised.
In1998,theSerbianforcesbeganamajorcrackdownontheKLAwhich,consideringthebalanceofpowers,de-cidedtowageaguerrillawar.
AstheSerbianauthoritiesclaimeditwassimplyrootingoutAlbanianterrorists,theciviliancasualtiesmounted.
WhentheseeventswererelatedtotheWestbythemediaandalsobyinter-nationalobserversonthegroundinKosovo,publicsen-timentwasengaged.
TheconcernwastopreventanotherBosnia(Judah2002,pp.
135–163).
TalksbetweenNATO,theOrganisationforSecurityandCo-operationinEurope,Serbs,andtheKosovoAlbanianswereheldonandoffthroughout1998and1999butledtofewresultsontheground.
ThethreatofAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page2of35forcewasusedbyNATOtolittleavail.
InJanuary1999,45KosovoAlbaniansand9KLAmemberswerekilledinthevillageofRaak.
Thecircumstancesofthisincidentremainshroudedinmysterytothisday.
Somecalleditalegitimatepoliceactiontoeliminatefromthevillageter-roristswhowereresponsibleforanattackonthepoliceafewdaysearlier.
Otherscharacteriseditasamassacre.
Nevertheless,theNATOcountriesusedRaakandthefactthattheAlbaniandelegation,unliketheSerbs,signedtheRambouilletAgreement,asamajorimpetusfortheuseofairstrikesagainsttheFRY,whichbeganonMarch1999andcontinuedfor78daysintoJune(Judah2002,pp.
193–285;Stephen2004,pp.
140–145;seealsoUNSCRes12441999).
On22May1999,duringthebombingofSerbposi-tionsinKosovoandvarioustargetsinBelgradeitself,ICTYProsecutorLouiseArboursubmittedanindict-mentagainstSlobodanMiloevi—aswellasMilanMilutinovi,thePresidentofSerbia;Nikolaainovi,theFRYDeputyPrimeMinster;DragoljubOjdani,ChiefoftheGeneralStaffoftheYugoslavArmy(VJ);andVlajkoStojiljkovi,theMinisterofInternalAffairsofSerbia—-forallegedcrimescommittedinKosovo(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljko-vi23May1999).
4On24May1999,JudgeDavidHuntconfirmedtheindictment(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi24May1999).
5Onthesameday,awarrantforthearrestofMiloeviwasissued(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi24May1999).
On26May1999,theICTYProsecutor"madeherannouncementtotheworld"thatMiloevi,aservingheadofstate,wasindictedforwarcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanity(Stephen2004,p.
144).
FromelectionstodetentionShortlyafterDayton,studentprotestsresumedin1996and1997(Stephen2004,p.
156;Judah2002,p.
306).
BythetimeoftheceasefirebetweenNATOandtheFRYinJune1999andtherun-uptothefederalelections,severalpoliticalpartieswerechallengingMiloevi:theliberaloppositionheadedbyBelgrade'smayor,Zoranini;theliberalnationalistSerbianRenewalParty,headedbyVukDrakovi;andVojislaveeljoftheRadicalParty.
IthasbeensaidthatMiloevi,amidstcontinuedprotests,movedtheelectionsfromJuly2000toSeptember2000totakeadvantageofthedisorganisa-tionoftheopposition(Stephen2004,pp.
157–158;Judah2002,p.
306).
VojislavKotunica,alawprofessorconsideredtobea"compromisecandidate",wontheelection,butMiloevidisputedtheresults.
Theelectioncommissionan-nouncednewfigures,thusnecessitatingasecondroundofvoting.
Kotunicarefusedtoacceptthis,andanewflurryofprotestsensued(Stephen2004,p.
159).
On5October2000,protestorstookthefederalparliamentarybuilding,andMiloevifinallysteppeddownfromoffice2dayslater.
Kotunica,however,refusedtotransferMiloevitotheICTY,citingvariouslegalobjections,andannouncedthatMiloeviwouldstayinthepresi-dentialpalaceandbetriedintheFRYoncorruptioncharges.
InApril2001,Miloeviwasarrested,removedfromthepresidentialpalace,andincarceratedinBelgradeDistrictPrison(Stephen2004,pp.
160–162;HumanRightsWatch2006,p.
10).
ItisatthispointthattheUSdecidedtomakemonetaryaidtotheFRYcontin-gentuponMiloevibeingtransferredtoTheHague(Stephen2004,p.
164;Judah2002,p.
305).
ThetransferofMiloevitotheUnitedNationsDetentionUnit(UNDU)inTheHagueispoignantlyde-scribedbyChrisStephen:On28June2001,[…]Serbia'scabinetheldaspecialearlymorningsessionpresidedoverbyprimeministerZoranDjindji.
TheYugoslavPresident,VojislavKostunica,wasnotinformedofthemeeting.
Therewasonlyoneitemontheagendaandagreementwasreachedinamatterofminutes.
Ordersweresentoutoftheroomtothecommandersofapoliceunitwhichhadbeenbriefedonitsveryspecialmissionthenightbefore.
Theprisongovernorwascontacted,andherelayedtoMiloevithenewsthathewasgoingtobetakenawaythatevening.
[…]At6p.
m.
hewassittingaloneinhiscellwhentheprisongovernorcametotellhimtocollecthisthingsandpreparetoleave.
"Whereareyoutakingme"heasked.
"ToTheHague,"thegovernorreplied.
[…]Insteadofapoliceescort,thegovernorhimselfledtheformerpresidentdownthecorridor.
Aftergoingalittleway,hestoppedandsaid:"Warden,what'sthisIt'snotright,thisisakidnapping.
"Thegovernorinsistedtheykeepwalking,guidinghimthroughtheprisonandoutintotheyardwheretherewasapolicevanwiththebackdooropen.
Miloevigotin[…].
ThetransferwasconductedbythepoliceofSerbia,withnoinvolvementofeithertheYugoslavfederalpoliceorthemilitarywhichwereunderthecontrolofPresidentKostunica.
Hewouldlaterclaimthattheoperationwasillegalbecauseonlythestatehasthepowertotransferaprisoneroutofthecountry.
ButSerbia'sprimeminister,withabillionlifelineatstake,wasbeyondconsideringsuchniceties.
MiloeviwasdriventhroughBelgrade'searlymorningtraffictoapolicebasewithayardlargeenoughforahelicoptertoland.
[…]Gettingoutofthepolicevan,Miloevisaid:"Welldone,youlot,youcantakeyourmoneynow.
"AbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page3of35Ahelicopterwaswaiting,withtwomenandonewoman,[…]standingbyitssidedoor.
OneofthemenwasaHagueinvestigator,theotheraDutchpoliceofficerandthewomanwasatranslator.
Askedwhichlanguagehespoke,Miloevireplied,"Serbian,"andhiswarcrimesindictmentwasreadtohim,theinterpretertranslatingfromEnglish.
Thistooksometime,andMiloevilitacigarettewhilehelistened.
Finallytheinvestigatorsaid:"Iamarrestingyou.
YouarenowunderthejurisdictionoftheHagueTribunal.
"Hewashelpedaboardthehelicopter,andsomeonefoldedhisraincoatandplaceditunderhisseat.
Helookedup,andcalledtothepilotandco-pilot:"Howareyou,lads"Thepilotreplied:"Allright,MrPresident.
"Miloeviturnedtothegovernorandasked:"Warden,whereismyraincoat"TheseturnedouttobehislastwordsonYugoslavsoil(Stephen2004,pp.
165–167).
6ShortlyafterMiloeviwastransferredtoTheHagueandwhilehewasawaitingthecommencementofhistrial,hepassedhis60thbirthdayintheUNDU.
Hiswife,daughter-in-law,andgrandsonweregranted3-dayvisasfortheoccasion(BBC2001a,BBC2001b).
InthecourtroomICTYTrialChambersarecomposedofthreeJudges(StatuteofICTY,Art.
12),anduntil16November2001,thebenchinthepre-trialproceedingsintheMiloevi,whichwasassignedtoTrialChamberIII,consistedofPresidingJudgeRichardMay,JudgePatrickRobinson,andJudgeMohammedElHabibFassiFihri.
On23November2001,thePresidentoftheICTYassignedJudgeO-GonKwontoreplaceJudgeFassiFihri,whosetermhadexpired(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi23November2001a).
TheinitialappearanceofMiloeviwasawidelywatchedeventandwasdescribedbyoneSeniorLegalOfficerassuch:On3July2001,theeyesoftheworldwereonCourtroomIoftheInternationalCriminalTribunalfortheformerYugoslaviainTheHague.
SlobodanMilosevic,theformerPresidentofYugoslavia,wasabouttomakehisinitialcourtappearancetoenterapleaonchargesofwarcrimesandcrimesagainsthumanityinrelationtotheeventsinKosovoduring1998–1999.
Asthecourtroomofficialsenteredpromptly,thoseofusnotdirectlyresponsiblefortheconductoftheproceedingsfeltproudtobepartofhistoryinthemaking.
TheChamberofthreeJudges,presidedoverbyJudgeRichardMay,enteredmomentsafterwards.
Inapetulantmood,SlobodanMilosevicrefusedtoacknowledgetheauthorityofthecourtand,usingatacticthatwouldcontinuethroughoutthetrial,addressedJudgeMayas"Mr.
May".
Later,inresponsetoaquestionaboutprocedure,herepliedtartly:"That'syourproblem".
JudgeMayrefusedtorisetothebait,althoughfrommypositionattheRegistrybench,Icouldpicturehisraisedeyebrowandheartherhythmictappingofpenonnotebook,theonlyoutwardsignofirritationhewouldeverdisplay(Featherstone2006,p.
301).
Miloevi'srefusaltoaddresstheJudgesinthecus-tomarymannerwasnottheonlymanifestationofhisde-fiancetotheauthorityandlegitimacyoftheICTY.
Otherexamplesincludedrefusingtomakewrittenfil-ings,althoughtherewereexceptionstothisrefusal,es-peciallyduringtheDefencephaseofthecase(see,e.
g.
Prosecutorv.
Miloevi8July2005,p.
2).
7Healsore-fusedtoenterpleasofguiltyornotguiltytothechargesagainsthimduringhisinitialappearanceon3July2001(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi3July2001b,T.
4).
PursuanttoRule62(A)(iv)oftheRulesofProceduresandEvidence("Rules"),8theTrialChamberenteredpleasof"notguilty"onallcountsagainsthim.
Thepre-trialphase:testingthewatersSelf-representation,partIAthisinitialappearancefortheKosovoIndictmenton3July2001,MiloeviinformedtheTrialChamber,bothinwritingandorally,thathedidnotwanttoberepre-sentedbyalawyer(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi3July2001c,Registrypp.
3371–3372;3July2001b,T.
1–2).
Atthefirststatusconferenceon30August2001,theTrialChambernotedthatMiloeviwasentitledtorepresenthimselfandrejectedtheProsecution'ssuggestionthatitshouldimposedefencecounseluponhim.
AccordingtotheTrialChamber,"theAccusedha[d]arighttocounsel,buthealsoha[d]arightnottohavecounsel"(Prosecu-torv.
Miloevi30August2001a,T.
15–18).
Atthetime,thehealthconditionofMiloeviwasnotanissue.
Challengingthechamber:appointmentoftheAmiciCuriaeandofLegalAssociatesOn31August2001,theTrialChamberissuedanorderinvitingtheRegistraroftheTribunaltodesignateAmicusCuriae.
Indoingso,theTrialChamberrecog-nisedthat,pursuanttoRule74,9theappointmentofex-periencedlawyerstoassistMiloeviwasintheinterestsofsecuringafairtrial(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi30August2001b).
TheTrialChamberstatedthatthepur-poseoftheAmicusCuriaewasnottorepresentanac-cusedwhohadchosentodefendhimselfpursuanttoArticle21(4)(d)oftheStatutebuttoassisttheTrialChamberinthe"properdeterminationofthecase"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi30August2001b).
Suchassist-ancecouldtaketheformofmakinganysubmissionsAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page4of35properlyopentoMiloevibywayofpreliminaryorotherpre-trialmotions,makinganysubmissionsorob-jectionstoevidenceproperlyopentohimduringthetrialproceedings,cross-examiningwitnessesasappropri-ate,drawingtotheattentionoftheTrialChamberanyexculpatoryormitigatingevidence,andactinginanyotherwayconsideredappropriateinordertosecureafairtrial(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi30August2001b,p.
2).
On6September2001,theRegistrarappointedthreelawyerstoactasAmiciCuriae.
10Oneoftheirmainfunctionswastoprepareout-of-courtwrittensubmis-sions,whereastwoofthemwouldbemoreinvolvedwiththeday-to-dayproceedingsofthetrial,bothinandoutofcourt.
11TheRegistrarwasdirectedtoprovidetotheAmiciCuriaeallinformation,includingconfidential,thatwasprovidedtoMiloevi(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi19September2001).
TheroleoftheAmiciCuriaeintheMiloevicasewasinnovativeinthattheyfunctioned,inpracticalterms,asstand-bycounseltoaproseaccused.
Theywereseatedincourtonadailybasis,althoughnotdirectlyatthebenchwheredefencecounselwouldnormallysit.
DuetothefactthatMiloevirefusedtomakewrittenfilings,includingrespondingtoProsecutionmotionsforthead-missionofevidence,theAmiciCuriaeregularlymadewrittenfilingsopposingtheseProsecutionmotions,muchlikeadefencecounselwould.
TheyadoptedaroleofidentityofinterestwithMiloevianddidnotassumetheroleofdisinterestedthirdpartiesappointedtoassisttheChamberonly—althoughthepositionstheyadoptedintheiroralandwrittensubmissionwereaimedaten-suringthefairnessoftheproceedings,fromtheirownprofessionalpointofview.
On15November2001,theTrialChamberissuedanorderonMiloevi'srequestfortheRegistrytopermithimtomeetwithtwolawyerstoassisthim.
TheCham-berorderedthatthetwomenwouldbeconsideredtobe"legaladvisors"toMiloevi.
12TheTrialChamberalsoorderedthatMiloeviwouldbeentitledtocommuni-catefullyandwithoutrestraintwiththeminaccordancewithRule65oftheICTYRulesofDetention(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi15November2001).
13Inotherwords,Milo-eviwouldenjoyattorney-clientprivilegewithhistwoLegalAssociates.
TheroleoftheLegalAssociatesthroughoutthepro-ceedingswasasignificantone,eventhoughtheywereneverseenwithinthecourtroomandeventhough,ingeneral,theydidnotmakewrittenfilingsonbehalfofMiloeviduringtheproceedings.
ChallengingtheICTY:jurisdictionandlegalityInAugust2001,MiloevifiledtwomotionschallengingthejurisdictionandlegalityoftheICTY(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi9August2001;30August2001),whichweresupple-mentedbytheAmiciCuriae(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi16August2001;19October2001;13September2001).
On8November2001,theTrialChamberissueditswrittende-cision(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi8November2001).
14Inrejectingthemotions,theTrialChamberconsideredsev-eralissues.
TheAmiciCuriaeandMiloevichallengedthelegal-ityoftheICTYbyarguingthattheUNSecurityCouncilwasnotempoweredtoestablishaninternationalcrim-inalcourt.
TheTrialChambernoted,however,thatArticle41oftheUNCharterempoweredtheSecurityCounciltoadoptmeasurestomeetitsobligationtomaintainorrestoreinternationalpeaceandsecurity.
AsstatedbytheTrialChamberinitsdecision:TherelevantprovisionisArticle41oftheCharter,whichempowerstheSecurityCounciltoadoptmeasuresnotinvolvingtheuseofarmedforcetogiveeffecttoitsdecisionsinordertodischargeitsobligationunderArticle39tomaintainorrestoreinternationalpeaceandsecurity.
Article41listscertainmeasureswhichmaybetakenbytheSecurityCouncil.
ItisperfectlyclearthatthelistisnotexhaustiveandthatitisopentotheSecurityCounciltoadoptanymeasureotherthanthosespecificallylisted,provideditisameasuretomaintainorrestoreinternationalpeaceandsecurity.
…IntheChamber'sview,theestablishmentoftheInternationalTribunalwithpowertoprosecutepersonsresponsibleforseriousviolationsofinternationalhumanitarianlawintheformerYugoslavia,andwiththeobligationtoguaranteefullytherightsoftheaccused,is,inthecontextoftheconflictinthecountryatthattime,pre-eminentlyameasuretorestoreinternationalpeaceandsecurity.
Indeed,theroleoftheInternationalTribunalinpromotingpeaceandreconciliationintheformerYugoslaviaishighlightedinSecurityCouncilresolution827whichestablishedit.
TheAppealsChamberintheTadiJurisdictionAppealarrivedatthesameconclusionandconcludedthat"theestablishmentoftheInternationalTribunalfallssquarelywithinthepowersoftheSecurityCouncilunderArticle41"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi8November2001,paras.
6–7).
Second,Miloeviarguedthatthecreationofanadhoctribunalwithafocusonviolationsofinternationallawinonecountrytargetedthatcountry,corruptedjust-iceandlaw,andviolatedthemostbasiclegalprinciples.
Nevertheless,theTrialChambernotedthattheAppealsChamberhadheldthatadhoctribunals,andtheICTYinparticular,werepermissiblesolongastheyaffordedAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page5of35Miloevialltheguaranteesofafairtrial,assetoutinArticle14oftheInternationalCovenantonCivilandPoliticalRights.
Inthisregard,theTrialChambernotedthatArticle21oftheStatuteaffordedsubstantiallythesamerightsasArticle14oftheCovenant(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi8November2001,paras.
9–10).
15Third,theAmiciCuriaeimpugnedtheindependenceoftheProsecutor.
In1998,theSecurityCouncilurgedtheOfficeoftheProsecutor"tobegingatheringinfor-mationrelatedtotheviolenceinKosovothatmayfallwithinitsjurisdiction".
TheAmiciCuriaearguedintheirbriefthattheProsecutorlackedindependenceandhadthusviolatedArticle16(2)oftheStatute.
TheTrialChamberheld,however,thatinitiatinganinves-tigationatthebehestofanotherisnotindicativeofalackofindependence.
Alackofindependencewouldexistwheretheassessmentofevidenceandthedeci-sionwhethertoindictanindividualwerebasedonsomeoneelse'sinstructions.
Sincetherewasnosug-gestionthattheProsecutorhadacteduponthein-structionofanygovernment,body,oranyotherpersoninherdecisiontoindictMiloevi,therewasnofailureofindependenceandthusnoviolationoftheStatute(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi8November2001,paras.
12–17).
16Fourth,therewasanallegationofbias.
TheAmiciCu-riaecontendedthattheICTYwasincapableofprovid-ingMiloeviwithafairtrialorofprotectinghisfundamentalrights(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi19October2001,pp.
7–8).
Miloeviarguedthatthe"verypsych-ologyoftheenterpriseispersecutorial"(MiloeviMotion30August2001,pp.
7–8).
TheTrialChamberconstruedtheseargumentsasanallegationofbiasonthepartoftheICTYandoftheTrialChamberitself.
TheTrialChamberconsideredadecisionoftheAppealsChamberaccordingtowhichtherewerethreemeansofestablishingbiasandfoundthatonlyonewasrelevantintheinstantcase:thetestwhetherareason-ableobserver,properlyinformed,wouldreasonablyapprehendbias.
TheTrialChamberdismissedtheargu-mentsinceneithertheAmiciCuriaenorMiloevihadmetthistest(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi8November2001,paras.
18–22).
17Fifth,theAmiciCuriaecontendedthattheICTYlackedjurisdictionoverMiloevibecauseofhisstatusastheformerPresidentoftheFRY.
Article7(2)oftheStatuteprovided,"TheofficialpositionofanyAccusedperson,whetherasHeadofStateorGovernment…shallnotrelievesuchpersonofcriminalresponsibilitynormitigatepunishment"(StatuteofICTY,Art.
7(2)).
TheTrialChamberthereforeheldthattherewasnobasisforchallengingthisArticle,"whichatthistimereflectsaruleofcustomaryinternationallaw"(Pros-ecutorv.
Miloevi8November2001,paras.
26–34).
Finally,theAmiciCuriaearguedthattheICTYlackedjurisdictionbecauseMiloeviwassurrenderedunlaw-fully:itwasthegovernmentofSerbiathatsurrenderedhim,eventhoughthearrestwarrantwasdirectedtotheFRY(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi19October2001,para.
15).
TheAmiciCuriaealsoarguedthat,sincetheFRYdidnotallowextraditionofitscitizens,thetransferofMiloeviwasanabuseofprocessbecausetheinternalproceduresoftheFRYhadnotbeenfollowed.
Inreject-ingthischallenge,theTrialChamberreliedonRule58,whichprovidedthat"theobligationslaiddowninArticle29oftheStatute(whichrequiresthecooperationofallStates)shallprevailoveranylegalimpedimenttothesurrenderortransferoftheAccused…whichmayexistunderthenationallaworextraditiontreatiesoftheStateconcerned"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi19October2001,paras.
35–51).
18WithMiloevi'schallengestothejurisdictionoftheTribunaltotryhimdismissed,theproceedingsnowfo-cusedonpreparingthecasefortrial.
ScopeoftheindictmentsThethreeindictments:Croatia,Bosnia,andKosovoMiloeviwasinitiallyindictedalongwithotherhigh-levelmilitaryandpoliticalleadersoftheFRYandSerbiafortheeventsinKosovointhesummerof1999.
On5September2002,theTrialChamberseveredMiloevi'strialfromthatofhisco-accused,sothathecouldbetriedseparately(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi5September2002).
19Miloeviwouldbethesubjectofatrialdevotedsolelytohim,andhisindictedassociateswouldhavetowaitanother4yearsbeforetheirtrialwouldevenbegin.
20On29October2001,viaanoraldecision,theTrialChambergrantedleavetoamendtheKosovoIndict-ment,confirmingthattheSecondAmendedIndictmentwastheoperativeindictmentfortheKosovophaseoftheproceedings(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi29October2001).
21Inthatindictment,MiloeviwaschargedpursuanttoArticle7(1),individualcriminalresponsibility,andArt-icle7(3),superiorcriminalresponsibility,withmurder,asaviolationoflawsorcustomsofwar,andwithfourcrimesagainsthumanity:deportation,otherinhumaneacts(forcibletransfer),murder,andpersecutiononpolit-ical,racial,andreligiousgrounds.
Intheautumnof2001,followingtheelectionofCarlaDelPonteasthenewICTYProsecutor,JudgeAlmiroRodriguesconfirmedtheinitialCroatiaIndictmentagainstMiloeviandJudgeRichardMayconfirmedtheBosniaIndictmentagainsthim(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi8October2001;22November2001).
BothcasesweresubsequentlyassignedbythePresidentoftheICTYtoAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page6of35TrialChamberIII(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi9October2001;23November2001b).
On29October2001(MotionHearing29October2001,T.
123)and11December2001Hearing,11De-cember2001,T.
32(Bosnia),MiloevimadehisinitialappearancesontheCroatiaandBosniaindictments.
JustaswiththeKosovoIndictment,Miloevirefusedtoenterpleasofguiltyornotguilty.
Thesenewindictmentsallegedthat,from1991to1995,MiloeviwasresponsibleforthefurnishingofaidandsupporttotheSerbpopulationsduringthearmedconflictsinCroatiaandBosniaandplottedwiththeSerbleadersinthosecountriestosecureSerbcontroloverasmuchterritoryaspossible.
Themeansbywhichthiswastobeaccomplished,asallegedbytheProsecution,wasthekilling,torture,rape,andforcibledisplacementofthenon-Serbpopulations.
MiloeviwaschargedwithgravebreachesoftheGenevaConventionsof1949,vio-lationsofthelawsorcustomsofwar,crimesagainsthu-manity,and,inBosnia,genocide.
Morespecifically,intheCroatiaIndictment,MiloeviwaschargedpursuanttoArticle7(1),individualcriminalresponsibility,andArticle7(3),superiorcriminalrespon-sibility,with:Article2,GraveBreachesoftheGenevaConventionof1949:ninecountsofwilfulkilling;unlawfulconfinement;torture;wilfullycausinggreatsuffering;unlawfuldeport-ationortransfer;andextensivedestructionandappro-priationofpropertynotjustifiedbymilitarynecessityandcarriedoutunlawfullyandwantonlyArticle3,Violationsoflawsorcustomsofwar:13countsofmurder;torture;crueltreatment;wantonde-structionofvillagesordevastationnotjustifiedbymili-tarynecessity;destructionorwilfuldamagedonetoinstitutionsdedicatedtoeducationorreligion;plunderofpublicorprivateproperty;attacksoncivilians;de-structionorwilfuldamagedonetohistoricmonumentsandinstitutionsdedicatedtoeducationorreligion;andunlawfulattacksoncivilianobjectsArticle5,Crimesagainsthumanity:tencountsofperse-cutiononpolitical,racial,orreligiousgrounds;extermin-ation;murder;imprisonment;torture;inhumaneacts;deportation;andinhumaneacts(forcibletransfers)22AsfortheBosniaIndictment,MiloeviwaschargedpursuanttoArticle7(1),individualcriminalresponsibility,andArticle7(3),superiorcriminalresponsibility,with:Article2,GraveBreachesoftheGenevaConventionof1949:eightcountsofwilfulkilling;unlawfulconfinement;torture;wilfullycausinggreatsuffering;unlawfuldeportationortransfer;andextensivedestructionandappropriationofpropertynotjustifiedbymilitarynecessityandcarriedoutunlawfullyandwantonlyArticle3,Violationsoflawsorcustomsofwar:ninecountsofmurder;torture;crueltreatment;wantondestructionofvillagesordevastationnotjustifiedbymilitarynecessity;wilfuldestructionorwilfuldamagedonetohistoricmonumentandinstitutionsdedicatedtoeducationorreligion;plunderofpublicorprivateproperty;andattacksonciviliansArticle4,Genocide:twocountsofgenocideandcomplicityingenocide.
Article5,Crimesagainsthumanity:tencountsofpersecutionsonpolitical,racial,orreligiousgrounds;extermination;murder;imprisonment;torture;inhumaneacts;deportation;andinhumaneacts(forcibletransfer)Miloeviwasfacingthreemassiveindictmentsspan-ningthreearmedconflictsinthe1990s.
Whatwastooccurnext—thejoinderoftheindictments—affectedthecourseoftheremainderoftheproceedings.
JoinderoftheindictmentsOn27November2001,theProsecutionfiledamotionforjoinderpursuanttoRule49,inwhichitsoughttojointhethreeindictmentsagainstMiloeviintoasingletrial(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi27November2001;MotionforJoinder10December2001).
TheProsecutionassertedthatthefollowingconsider-ationssupporteditsmotionforjoinder.
First,itreferredtoRule49,whichprovidedthat,"[t]woormorecrimesmaybejoinedinoneindictmentiftheseriesofactscommittedtogetherformthesametransaction,andthesaidcrimeswerecommittedbythesameaccused"(Rule49oftheRules,IT/32/Rev.
2110December2009).
A"transaction"forthesepurposeswasdefinedinRule2asa"numberofactsoromissions,whetheroccurringasoneeventoranumberofevents,atthesameordiffer-entlocationsandbeingpartofacommonscheme,strat-egyorplan"(IT/32/Rev.
4410December2009).
TheProsecutionthereforearguedthatthethreeindictmentsconcernedthesametransactioninthecontextofacom-monscheme,strategy,orplanbecauseMiloevi'sover-allconductinattemptingtocreate"acentralisedSerbianstateencompassingtheSerb-populatedareasofCroatiaandBosniaandHercegovina,andallofKosovo"(Pros-ecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi27November2001,p.
5).
TheProsecutioncalledtheTrialChamber'sattentiontoparagraph6oftheCroatiaIndictment,paragraph6oftheBosniaIn-dictment,andparagraph16oftheKosovoIndictment,allofwhichallegedtheforcibleremovalofnon-Serbsfromtheterritoriesinquestion.
TheProsecutionalsoar-guedthatjoinderofthethreeindictmentswouldleadtoamorefairandexpeditioustrialforMiloevi.
IntheAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page7of35viewoftheProsecution,asingletrialwouldbeshorterandwouldprovideamoreconsolidatedtrialtimetable(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi27November2001,p.
4).
With-outjoinder,Miloeviwouldbelitigatingonetrial,whilesimultaneouslyconfrontingtwopre-trialphases(Pros-ecutorv.
Miloevi27November2001,p.
15).
Moreover,havingthreetrialsinsteadofonewouldrequirerepeatedtestimony,anddifferenttrialchamberswouldhavetoconsiderthedegreetowhichevidenceorfindingsfromonetrialneededbeincorporatedintoanother(Prosecu-torv.
Miloevi27November2001,p.
15).
TheProsecu-tionfurtherarguedthatasingletrialwouldpromotejudicialeconomy(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi27November2001,pp.
15–18).
Forexample,witnessestestifyingonhistoryorpolicywouldnothavetogiveevidencethreetimes(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi27November2001,p.
17).
TheProsecutionalsosubmittedthatthetraumatovictimswouldbelessenediftheyonlyneededtotestifyonce(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi27November2001,p.
18),andsecurityconcernswouldbefewerifthewitnessesonlyhadtotraveltotheICTYonce(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi27November2001,p.
18).
Finally,theProsecutionmain-tainedthatasingletrialwouldavoidinconsistency.
Inajointtrial,thesameTrialChamberwouldbedecidingis-suesofcredibilityandevaluatingtheevidenceandthere-forewouldhaveabetterchanceofavoidingconflictingfactualfindings(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi27November2001,pp.
18–19).
Asingletrialwouldalsoobviateconcernabouttheappealofonetrialjudgmentonthemerits,whilethesecondorthirdtrialwasstillongoing(Prosecu-torv.
Miloevi27November2001,pp.
18-19).
Intheirresponse,theAmiciCuriaenotedthatMiloevididnotrecognisetheICTYandthattherewerethereforenoissuesfortheAmiciCuriaetosubmitonthisissueonhisbehalf(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi5December2001,p.
6).
However,theAmiciCuriaedidpointoutthattheTrialChamberwouldhavetoconsidertheex-tremescaleofthesingletrialexerciseandwhethertheChamberwasableadequatelytodealwithit(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi5December2001,p.
6).
On11December2001,havingheardoralargumentsfrombothpartiesandtheAmiciCuriae(MotionHearing11December2001,T68etseq),theTrialChambergaveitsoraldecision.
TheChamberdecidedtojointheCroatiaandBosniaindictments,butrefusedtojointheKosovocasewiththeothers.
Inaddition,theKosovocasewouldbeheardfirst,withthejointCroatiaandBosniatrialfollowinglater(MotionHearing11December2001,T.
145).
Twodayslater,theTrialChamberissueditswrittendecisiononjoinder(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi13December2001).
TheTrialChamberheldthatthees-senceofthetestunderRule49onjoinderwasthede-terminationofwhethera"seriesofacts,committedtogether,formedthesametransaction"orwasapartofacommonscheme,strategy,orplanandthat,inexer-cisingitsdiscretionundertheRule,ithadtakenintoaccounttheentitlementofanaccusedtoafairhearingunderArticle21(2)oftheStatute;theinterestsofjustice,whichrelatedtotheaccusedaswellastotheinterestsoftheProsecutionandtheinternationalcommunityinthetrialofanyaccusedchargedwithseriousviolationsofinternationalhumanitarianlaw;andjudicialeconomy,suchastheavoidanceofduplicationofevidenceandtheavoidanceofhardshiptowitnesses(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi13December2001,paras.
28,38–40).
TheProsecutionwasnotsatisfiedwiththisdecisionandsoughtreviewbeforetheAppealsChamber.
TheAppealsChamberreversedthedecisionoftheTrialChamber.
On1February2002,theAppealsChamberorderedthatthethreeindictmentsagainstMiloevibetriedtogetherinonetrial(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi1February2002).
On18April2002,theAppealsChamberissueditsreasons.
ItheldthatRule49didnotrequirethattheeventsinKosovowerecom-mittedtogetherwiththeeventsinCroatiaandBosniainorderforallthetrialstobejoined(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi18April2002).
Inotherwords,acommonscheme,strategy,orplancouldincludetheachieve-mentofalong-termaimwhich,inthecaseofMiloe-vi,wastheforcibleremovalofthemajorityofthenon-SerbcivilianpopulationfromareasthattheSerbauthoritieswishedtoestablish(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi18April2002,paras.
14,20).
Thus,Miloeviwouldface66countsofgenocide,crimesagainsthumanity,andwarcrimesinaconsolidatedindictmentofanun-precedentedscopeandsize.
However,tosaythatMiloeviwasfacing66countsdoesnotadequatelycapturethesizeandscopeofthecaseagainsthim(seeAdditionalfile1).
23AttheTribu-nal,"counts"aresimplyatextualmeansbywhichtheProsecutionorganises"charges"inawrittenindictment.
AchargeisthevehiclebywhichtheProsecutionallegesthatanaccusedisresponsibleforacrime.
Intheindict-ments,asinglecountoftenreferredtocrimesindozensofmunicipalities,cross-referencedtoschedulesattachedtotheindictment.
Inaddition,thesamefactualscenariosareoftenchargedundermultiplecounts.
Thisallre-sultedinagargantuanpuzzleofcharges,whichcanbeestimatedbetween5000and6000individualcharges,eachofwhichexposedMiloevitocriminalresponsibility.
Thesizeandscopeofeachoftheindictmentsweredaunting.
Nowthattheyweretobetriedtogether,thesituationbecameevenmorepronounced.
Anearlyestimateofthetrial—whichwasprovidedatthestatusconferenceof30October2001—predictedthat,ifthethreeindictmentsweretobetriedtogether,theProsecutioncasewouldrequireapproximatelyAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page8of35500days(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi30October2001,T.
53).
TakingintoaccountthetimetheDefencewouldneedtopresentitscase,thetotaltimeforthetrialwasestimatedtotakeatleast3years(Prosecutorv.
Miloe-vi30October2001,T.
53).
TheProsecutionclarifiedinthemotionhearingof11December2001thattheesti-matedlengthofthetrials,ifseparate,wereintherangeof13monthsforBosnia,10monthsforCroatia,and9monthsforKosovo(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi11December2001,T.
99).
AlthoughtheProsecutionaverredthatthejointtrialwouldmeananoverallsavingsoftime(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi11December2001,T.
99),thescopeoftheevidenceitwouldseektoadducewasmassive.
Thenumberofwitnessesanticipatedforallthreein-dictmentswasestimatedearlyontobeapproximately600(MotionHearing11December2001,T.
89).
ItwasclarifiedlaterbytheProsecutionduringahearingon11December2001thatthenumberofwitnessesforallthreeindictmentswouldbe300(MotionHearing11December2001,T.
97).
Thetrial:noplainsailingTheprosecution'scase-in-chiefNotwithstandingthescopeandsizeofthecase,thepre-trialphase,whichlastedonly7months,wasrelativelybrief,andthetrialcommencedon12February2002(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi4February2002).
LengthofProsecutioncaseOn10April2002,theTrialChamberissued,propriomotu,anoraldecisiondirectingtheProsecutiontocon-cludeitscase,subjectto"theunexpected"eventssuchasillnessorotherunforeseencircumstances,within12months.
Thiswasinadditiontothe2monthsithadalreadyused.
TheTrialChamberexpressedtheviewthattheProsecutioncaseshouldnotcontinueformorethan14monthsintotal(Hearing10April2002,T.
2784etseq).
Sixdayslater,theProsecutionrequestedleavetofileaninterlocutoryappealofthisorderpursuanttoRule73(D).
24ItarguedthattheTrialChamberhadin-vadedtheindependenceoftheProsecutorprovidedforinArticle16(2)oftheStatute(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi16April2002a).
25On25April2002,theAppealsChamberissueditsde-cision.
Itheldthat,evenifRule73(D)hadbeenapplic-ableinthiscase,theChamberwasnotsatisfiedthattheconditionsforitsapplicationhadbeenmet(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi25April2002a).
On16May2002,theAppealsChamberissueditslegalreasons.
ItheldthateverycourtpossessestheinherentpowertocontroltheproceedingsduringthecourseofthetrialandthattheTrialChamber,inlimitingthetimethattheprosecutionhadtopresentitscase,hadnotinterferedwiththeindependenceoftheProsecution(Prosecutorv.
Miloe-vi16May2002).
26EvidentiarymattersThesheerscaleofthecaseledtoexperimentsinpro-ceduralmechanismsthatwouldallowthetrialtobecompletedwithinreasonableparameters.
Mostoftheseinnovationsrelatedtoreducingtheamountoftimeincourtthatwasrequiredfortheadmissionofevidence.
AdmissionofevidenceunderRule92bisRule92bishadbeenadoptedin2000bythejudgesoftheTribunalinordertoprovideavehiclefortheadmissionofevi-denceinlieuoforaltestimony,whencertainconditionsweremet.
27WhetherthisrulewastobeappliedintheMiloevitrialwasamatterthatwaslitigatedbythepar-tiesearlyonintheKosovophaseofthecase.
Afterhavingheardtheparties,theTrialChamberdecidedtoadmitthewrittenevidenceofmanywitnessesrelevanttotheKosovocase.
Indoingso,theTrialChamberstated,TheKosovoIndictmentexpresslystatesthattheProsecutiondoesnotintendtosuggestthattheaccusedcommittedanyofthecrimeschargedpersonallyinaphysicalsense.
Thephrase"actsandconductoftheaccused"inRule92bisisaplainexpressionandshouldbegivenitsordinarymeaning:deedsandbehaviouroftheaccused.
Itshouldnotbeextendedbyfancifulinterpretation.
Nomentionismadeofactsandconductbyallegedco-perpetrators,subordinatesor,indeed,ofanybodyelse.
Hadtherulebeenintendedtoextendtoactsandconductofallegedco-perpetratorsorsubordinatesitwouldhavesaidso.
Thefactthatconductisthatofco-perpetratorsorsubordinatesisrelevanttowhethercross-examinationshouldbeallowedandnottowhetherastatementshouldbeadmitted.
Consequently,havingexaminedthe23writtenstatements,theTrialChamberfindsthatthestatementsgotoproofofmat-tersotherthantheactsandconductoftheaccused(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi21March2002,para.
22).
TheholdingoftheTrialChambersetthestandardinICTYjurisprudenceforwhat"actsandconduct"meansunderRule92bis.
TheTrialChamberthenwentontorequirecross-examinationofthewitnessesbecause[a]nalysisofthestatementsrevealsthatallrelatetoallegedattacksbySerbforcesonKosovomunicipalitiesandtheresultingdeportationsandkillings.
Theaccusedhasputthisevidenceintoissueandvigorouslyputforwardacontrarycase.
Thereis,therefore,animportantissuefortheTrialChambertotry.
Theevidencerelatestoa"criticalelementoftheAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page9of35Prosecution'scase"or,putanotherway,toaliveandimportantissuebetweentheparties,asopposedtoaperipheralormarginallyrelevantissue(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi21March2002,para.
24).
JudgeRobinsonissuedaconcurringopinion,express-inghisviewthat,onceatrialchamberdeterminesthattheevidencegoestoa"criticalelement"oftheProsecu-tioncase,thechamberdoesnothavediscretiontoadmittheevidencewithoutallowingtheaccusedtocross-examinethewitness(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi21March2002).
28TheTrialChamberwouldagaintakeuptheseissueswhenitdealtwithaProsecutionmotiontoadmitwrit-tenevidenceinlieuoforaltestimonyinrelationtoacrimesiteinFoa,Bosnia.
On10January2003,theProsecutionrequestedtheadmissionoftranscriptsandaccompanyingexhibitsofevidencegivenby11witnesseswhopreviouslytestifiedintheKrnojelacandKunaraccasesinlieuofvivavoceevidence.
TheProsecutionalsosoughtanorderthatthetranscriptsbeadmittedwithoutcross-examination,asRule92bispermittedunderpara-graph(E).
TheProsecutionsubmittedthattheevidencedealtexclusivelywithcrime-baseeventsallegedtohaveoccurredintheFoamunicipalityandnotwiththeactsandconductoftheaccusedoracriticalelementofthecase.
On28April2003,theTrialChamberheardoralar-gumentsonthemotionandon8May2003renderedanoralruling.
On30June2003,theTrialChamberissueditswrittendecisiononthemotion,holdingthattherightofanaccusedtoexamine,orhaveexamined,witnessesagainsthimisnotanabsoluteone(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi30June2003,para.
24).
TheTrialChamberdecidedtoadmitseveralofthetran-scriptswithoutrequiringthewitnessestoappearforcross-examination.
Itdidsobecausetheevidencewaspurely"crimebase"evidencerelatingtothetakeoverofamunicipalityand,assuch,didnotinvolvesuchacriticalelementorimportantissueastorequirefurthercross-examination.
Insofarasitrelatedtoanissuebetweentheparties,itwasnotofsuchanaturethatitcouldnotbead-equatelycoveredbycross-examinationintheearlierpro-ceedings.
TheTrialChamberalsofoundthatthecross-examinationsintheearlierproceedingswereundertakenonbehalfofanaccusedwithasubstantiallycommoninteresttoserveasMiloevi,namelytoopposeandcon-testtheevidenceaboutthetakeoverofFoaandtoques-tionthecredibilityofthewitnesses.
Finally,theTrialChamberacceptedtheProsecutionsubmissionthatthecross-examinationinthepreviouscaseswasadequate,al-thoughobservingthat"quantityisnotameasureofthequalityofcross-examination"andthat"themeasurementofadequacycannotbecalculatedtoanicety"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi30June2003,paras.
39–42).
Inrespectofthesomeofthewitnesses,theTrialChamberalsonotedthatitwouldbeunreasonabletoin-sistupontheirreturntotheTribunaltogiveevidenceagain.
Severalofthewitnesseswerethevictimsofmul-tiplerapes,andfurthercross-examinationwouldruntheriskofre-traumatisation.
TheChamberheld,Cross-examinationshouldnotbepermittedmechanicallyandasamatterofcourse.
Wheretherightsoftheaccusedareprotected,asinthiscase,byearliercross-examinations,thebalance,ashere,shouldbestruckonthesideofthevictimsandwitnesses(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi30June2003,paras.
46–48).
TheChambermadeitclearthat,incircumstanceswhereissuesariselaterinthetrialthatcalledintoquestionas-pectsofthetestimonygiveninpriorproceedings,thewit-nesscouldbecalledandsubjectedtocross-examination(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi30June2003,para.
49).
JudgeRobinsondidnotagreewiththemajority'sdeci-siontoadmitthetranscriptswithoutgivingMiloevitheopportunitytocross-examinethewitnesses.
Heexpressedhispositioninalengthydissentingopinion.
AccordingtoJudgeRobinson,[t]hefacultyforaTrialChambertodeterminethatcross-examinationinaprevioustrialisadequatesuchthatcross-examinationinanongoingcasemaybedispensedwithis,inmyview,undulyintrusiveinrelationtotherightofanaccusedpersontodeterminehisowndefenceinasystemthat,despiteinnovativeproceduresdrawnfromthecivillawinquisitorialsystem,remainsessentiallyadversarial.
Theintrusive-nessofthisrolemayupsetthebalancebetweenthetwolegalsystemsonwhichtheTribunal'ssuigenerislegalsystemisbuilt(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi30June2003,para.
40).
JudgeRobinsonultimatelyconcludedthat,inallthecircumstances,adecisiontoadmitthetranscriptswith-outrequiringthewitnessestoappearforcross-examinationresultedinaprocedurethatachievedexpe-ditiousnessattheexpenseoffairnessandthuswasinbreachofArticles20and21oftheStatute(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi30June2003,para.
44(vi)).
AdmissionofevidenceunderRule89(F)Inadditiontothetime-savingproceduralmechanismsofRule92bis,theProsecutionrespondedtothetimeconstraintsplaceduponitbyattemptingtofindinnovativeproced-uralmethodsofintroducingevidencethatwouldutilisetheleasttimepossibleduringcourthearings.
ThenewmodalitiesinfactenabledtheProsecutiontointroduceAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page10of35hugeamountsofevidenceinwriting,ratherthanleadingitvivavocefromwitnessesonthestand.
AlthoughtheTrialChamberdisagreedwithsomeoftheappropriate-nessofthesemethods,itgrantedcertificationofinter-locutoryappealsinordertoensurethattheAppealsChambersetrightanyerrorsithadmade.
Thisis,infact,whathappenedinrespectoftheProsecution'sat-temptstoutiliseRule89(F)insuchamanner.
Rule89(F)providedthat,"[a]Chambermayreceivetheevidenceofawitnessorallyor,wheretheinterestsofjusticeallow,inwrittenform.
"TheprovisionhadbeenamendedinDecember2000inordertomodifytheprincipleoforalitythathadbeentherebefore.
Atthesametimeasthisamendment,theJudgesadoptedRule92bisinordertodealwiththeadmissionofaspecialkindofhearsayevidence,witnessstatementsandtran-scriptsfromprevioustrialsthatdidnotgototheactsandconductoftheaccused.
However,therewerestrictattestationrequirementsconnectedtotheadmissionofsuchevidence,withwhichtheProsecutionwishedtodispense.
TheProsecutionarguedthatstatementsofawitness,madeatanytimeandnotinaccordancewiththeattestationrequirements,wereneverthelesssubjecttoadmissionunderRule89(F),providedthatthewitnesswasavailabletoattestonthestandthatthestatementwasinfacthisandwasavailableforcross-examination.
InApril2003,theTrialChamberdeniedaProsecutionmotiontosubmittheevidence-in-chiefofsomeofitswit-nessesinwriting,withouttheneedtofulfiltheattestationrequirementsofRule92bis(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi16April2003).
TheTrialChamberheldinitswrittende-cisionthat"underthepresentRules,suchwrittenstatementsareonlyadmissibleunderRule92bisandbynoothermeans"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi16April2003,p.
2).
29InMay2003,theTrialChambercertifiedaninterlocutoryappealofitsdecision(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi6May2003a).
InSeptember2003,theAppealsChamberissueditsdecisiononthematter.
Itheldthat,wherethewitnesswaspresentbeforetheTrialChamberandorallyattestedtotheaccuracyofhisorherstatement,theevidenceenteredintotherecordcouldnotbeconsideredtobeexclusively"writ-ten"withinthemeaningofRule92bis.
TheAppealsChamberexplainedthatthetestimonyofawitnessconstitutedamixtureoforalandwrittenevidenceandthattheappearanceofthewitnessincourttoattesttoawrittenstatementwasacrucialfactorthatrenderedRule92bisinapplicable.
AccordingtotheAppealsChamber,thefactthatthereshouldbegreatersafe-guardswhentheevidencerelatestotheactsandcon-ductoftheaccusedwasafactorthataTrialChambercouldtakeintoaccountindeterminingwhethertoadmitwrittenevidenceunderRule89(F)orwhatweighttoattachtotheevidence.
Nonetheless,"theappearanceofthewitnessincourttoorallyattesttotheaccuracyofthetenderedstatementisanimportantsafeguardinitselfbecausethewitnessiscertifyingtheaccuracyofthestatementbeforetheCourtandisavailabletoanswerquestionsfromthebench"(Pros-ecutorv.
Miloevi20September2003,paras.
16,19).
TheAppealsChamberthusallowedtheappealbe-cause,asamatteroflaw,theRulesallowedforthead-missionofawrittenwitnessstatementunderRule89(F)whenthewitnesswaspresentincourt,wasavailableforcross-examinationandanyquestioningbythejudges,andattestedthatthestatementaccuratelyreflectedhisorherdeclarationandwhatheorshewouldsayifex-amined.
TheAppealsChamberreturnedthemattertotheTrialChamberforactioninaccordancewithitsdeci-sion.
TheTrialChambersubsequentlyadmittedwitnessstatementsunderRule89(F)solongastheinformationthereindidnotgotoMiloevi'sactsandconduct.
30ThejurisprudenceoftheAppealsChamberinthisinterlocutorydecisionwaslatercodifiedinanewlyadoptedRule—Rule92ter.
ThisRulequicklybeca-me—andremainstothisday—thestandardmannerinwhichthemajorityofwitnesses'evidencewasadmittedintheTribunal'scases,therebyreducingthetimeneededtoleadevidencefromwitnessesonthestand.
ItisnowrarefortheTribunaltohearfrom"pure"vivavocewit-nesses,andevenwitnesseswhoappearincourttogiveevidenceusuallyhavepriorstatementsortranscriptsad-mittedintoevidencealongwiththeirin-courttestimony,aphenomenonthathascometobeknownas"hybridwitnesses".
Rule92terhasalsobeenadoptedverbatimbytheJudgesoftheInternationalResidualMechanismforCriminalTribunals,thesuccessoroftheICTYandtheInternationalCriminalTribunalforRwanda(ICTR),asRule111(MICT/12012).
ThisproceduralinnovationwillthereforebeavailableforanytrialsconductedbytheMechanismofICTRfugitives,personsaccusedofcon-temptbeforetheMechanism,andanyre-trialsorderedbytheAppealsChamber.
Admissibilityofinvestigator'ssummaryevidenceTheProsecutionalsoattemptedtoadmitevidenceintheformofasummarybyaninvestigator.
On30May2002,theTrialChamberrejectedtheadmissionintoevidenceofasummaryofwitnessstatementsandothermaterialrelatedtoeventsallegedtohavetakenplaceinRaak,whichhadbeenpreparedbyaninvestigatoroftheProsecution(Hearing30May2002,T.
5940–5944).
Insodeciding,theChamberfirstreferredtoanearlierdeci-sionithadrenderedinrelationtoevidencethattheProsecutionhadproposedtobegivenbyoneofitsin-vestigatorswho,afterreadingaseriesofwitnessstate-ments,hadcometovariousconclusions.
TheChamberAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page11of35hadexcludedtheevidenceonthegroundthat"itwashearsayevidenceofnoprobativevalue,whichamountedtonomorethanarepetitionoftheProsecutioncase"(Hearing30May2002,T.
5941,referringtoHearing,T.
672–673).
Withthispriorrulinginmind,theChamberheld:Afurtherreasonmaybegivenforexcludingthistypeofevidence,atleastinrelationtotheconclusionsofthewitnesses.
ThatisthatforawitnesstogivehisorherconclusionsupontheevidenceistotrespassonthefunctionoftheTrialChamber.
ItisfortheTrialChambertodecidewhichevidencetoacceptandwhichtorejectandwhatconclusionstodrawfromtheevidence.
Therefore,anyevidencewhichtrespassesonthosefunctionsisnormallytobeexcluded(Hearing30May2002,T.
5941–5942).
TheProsecutionappealedthedecisionoftheTrialChamber,andtheAppealsChamberdismissedtheap-peal(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi30September2002).
AdjudicatedfactsInanotherattempttoadmitevidenceinthecaseusingtheleastamountoftimeincourt,theProsecutiontestedthelimitsofatrialchamber'sabilitytotakejudicialnoticeofadjudicatedfactspursuanttoRule94.
Paragraph(B)ofthisRuleprovidedthat,"[a]ttherequestofapartyorpropriomotu,aTrialChamber,afterhearingtheparties,maydecidetotakejudicialno-ticeofadjudicatedfactsordocumentaryevidencefromotherproceedingsoftheTribunalrelatingtomattersatissueinthecurrentproceedings.
"On25April2002,theProsecutionfiledamotion,pur-suanttoRule94(B),requestingthattheTrialChambertakejudicialnoticeoffactsrelatedtoeventsthatoc-curredinthemunicipalityofBrko(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi25April2002b).
31On5June2002,theTrialChamberissueditsdecision,holdingthatforafacttobecapableofadmissionunderRule94(B),itshouldbetrulyadjudicatedandnotbasedonanagreementbetweenpartiestopreviousproceedings,suchasagreedfactsunderpinningapleaagreement(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi5June2002).
Severalmonthslater,theProsecutionre-questedthattheTrialChambertakejudicialnoticeoffactsderivedfromfourcasesthathadbeenthesubjectofafinaljudgementonappeal:Prosecutorv.
Tadi,Pros-ecutorv.
Delalietal.
,Prosecutorv.
Kuprekietal.
,andProsecutorv.
Kunaracetal.
32InApril2003,theTrialChamberrendereditsdecision,inwhichitadmittedsomeofthefactsinquestionwhilerejectingothersonthebasisthattheycouldhavebeenthesubjectof"rea-sonabledispute"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi10April2003).
Laterinthatmonth,theTrialChambergrantedtheProsecution'srequestforcertificationofaninterlocutoryappealofthatdecision.
InOctober2003,theAppealsChamber"returnedthemattertotheTrialChamberforittoreviewthetakingofjudicialnoticeoftheadjudi-catedfacts"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi28October2003).
On6November2003,theTrialChamberaskedthepartiesandAmiciCuriaetomakesubmissionsontheef-fectoftheAppealsChamberruling(Prosecutorv.
Milo-evi6November2003).
TheAmiciCuriaesubmittedthattheProsecutionshouldbeputtothetaskofpersuadingtheTrialChamberthatarevisedandlessex-tensivelistoffactscouldbeadmittedwithoutcomprom-isingtherightofMiloevitoafairtrial(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi18November2003).
TheProsecutionadheredtoitsinitialapplication(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi26No-vember2003).
InDecember2003,theTrialChamberissuedanotherdecisiononthismatter.
Itheldthattheadmissionofad-judicatedfactsonawholesalebasiswouldraisethepos-sibilityofplacingaheavyburdenuponMiloeviinthepreparationandconductofhiscase.
TheTrialChamberwasalsoconcernedthatattemptsbyMiloevitorebutthesefactscouldabsorbconsiderabletimeandresourcesduringthecourseoftheproceedings,therebyundermin-ingjudicialeconomyandexpeditiousness(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi16December2003a).
TheTrialChamberad-mittedsomeofthefactssetoutbytheProsecution,re-latingtoFoaandPrijedor,anddecidedthattheycouldbechallengedbyMiloevi.
AdmissionofinterceptedcommunicationsInSeptem-ber2002,duringthecourseofawitness'stestimony,theProsecutionindicatedthatitwishedtoadmitaninter-ceptedconversationasevidence.
Miloeviobjected,ar-guingthattheconversationwasobtainedillegallyandthat"anythingthatisillegalcanbeintroduced"(Hearing27September2002,T.
10389).
Later,theTrialChamberheardoralsubmissionsfromMiloevi.
Hedidnotcon-testthatalltherecordingsweremadeontheterritoryofBosniaandwasnotchallengingtheauthenticityoftherecordingsatthisstagebutarguedthatallrecordingswereinterceptedillegallywithouttheauthorityofthestateagencyin-charge(Hearing30September2002,T.
10412).
InOctober,theProsecutionfileditsresponse,requestingthattheTrialChamberadmitintoevidenceanumberofinterceptedcommunicationsconcerningtheBosniaphaseofthetrial(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi31October2002).
On19Novemberand10December2002,theTrialChamberheldfurtherhearings.
Thereafter,anumberofinterceptedcommunicationswereledthroughdifferentwitnesses,includingawitnesswhowascalledtoverifytheprocedureandauthenticatealltheintercepts.
Inall,245interceptsweremarkedforidentification,pendingadmissionintoevidence.
TheTrialChamberthenturnedtothetaskofdecidingtheAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page12of35admissionoftheseinterceptsintoevidence.
On16December2003,theTrialChamberadmittedthe245in-terceptsintoevidenceonaprimafaciebasisandre-serveditsfinalrulingwithrespecttoadmissibilitysubjecttoadeterminationoftherelevanceandreliabilityoftheintercepts(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi16December2003b).
UpontheTrialChamber'srequest,theProsecu-tionsubmittedon19January2004itsanalysis(withre-specttorelevanceandreliability),andtheAmiciCuriaeon16February2004identified15interceptstobeassessedfortheirauthenticitybyacourt-appointedex-pert.
Thecourt-appointedexpertfoundthattheinter-ceptsweresubstantiallycompleteandthattherewasnoevidencethattheyhadbeentamperedwith.
InJune2004,theTrialChamberissueditsdecision,holdingthatsomeoftheinterceptswererelevantandsomewerenotandadmittingtheonesthatwere(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi14June2004,p.
3).
Rule70:conditionsplaceduponevidencebystatesRule70(B)providesthat,iftheProsecutionisinposses-sionofinformationthathasbeenprovidedtothePros-ecutoronaconfidentialbasisandusedsolelyforthepurposeofgeneratingnewevidence,thatinitialinforma-tionanditsoriginshallnotbedisclosedbytheProsecu-tionwithouttheconsentofthepersonorentityprovidingtheinitialinformationandshallinanyeventnotbegiveninevidencewithoutpriordisclosuretotheaccused.
33Paragraph(C)ofRule70providesthat,if,afterobtainingtheconsentofthepersonorentitypro-vidinginformation,theProsecutionelectstopresentasevidenceanytestimony,document,orothermaterialsoprovided,thetrialchambermaynotordereitherpartytoproduceadditionalevidencereceivedfromthepersonorentityprovidingtheinitialinformation.
Moreover,atrialchamberisprecludedbyparagraph(C)fromorder-ingtheattendanceofwitnessesorrequiringtheproduc-tionofdocumentsinordertocompeltheproductionofsuchadditionalevidence.
Paragraph(D)providesthat,iftheProsecutorcallsawitnesstointroduceinevidenceanyinformationprovidedunderRule70,thetrialcham-bermaynotcompelthatwitnesstoansweranyquestionrelatingtotheinformationoritsorigin,ifthewitnessdeclinestoanswerongroundsofconfidentiality.
Inpractice,theapplicationofthisprovisionoftheRulesofProcedureandEvidencewassomewhatobscure,untilitwasclarifiedbytheAppealsChamberduringtheMiloevicase.
InMay2002,theProsecutionrequestedtheTrialChambertoorder,pursuanttoRule70,that(i)arepre-sentativeofagovernmentfurnishingconfidentialinfor-mationbepresentincourtduringtheevidenceofaparticularwitness,(ii)theProsecution'squestioningbelimitedtoadetailedoutlineagreedtobythegovernment,and(iii)thescopeofcross-examinationbelimitedtothescopeofdirectexamination(Hearing30May2002,T.
5953).
InitssubmissionbeforetheTrialChamber,theProsecutionaskedforthewitnesstobeheardinaccordancewithparagraphs(C)and(D)ofRule70andthattworepresentativesoftherelevantgovern-mentbeincourtduringthetestimonyofthewitness,todealwithmattersofnationalsecuritythatmightarise.
On25July2002,theTrialChamberheldthat,inorderforparagraphs(C)and(D)ofRule70toapply,theevidenceofthewitnesshadtosatisfycertaincri-teriasetdowninparagraph(B)oftheRule.
IftheChamberwasnotsatisfiedthatthesecriteriaweremet,thenRule70didnotthereforeapplytotheevidenceofthewitness.
However,recognisingtherightofstatestoprotecttheirnationalsecurityinterests,theChamberorderedprotectivemeasuresdesignedtomatchthosesoughtbytheProsecutiononbehalfofthegovernment.
Specifically,theProsecutorwasorderedtotailoritsexamination-in-chieftoexcludeconfidentialinforma-tion,cross-examinationwasnottobepermittedbe-yondthesubjectmatterofevidence-in-chief,questionsastocredibilitywerepermittedonlyifanswerswerenotliabletorevealconfidentialinformation,andthetwogovernmentrepresentativeswerepermittedtobepresent(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi25July2002;seealso23October2002,paras.
10–11).
BoththeProsecutionandtherelevantgovernmentappealedthisdecision.
On23October2002,theAppealsChamberissueditsdecisionandheldthatthedetermin-ationof"whetherinformationhasbeenprovidedinaccordanceRule70(B)andsobenefitsfromtheprotec-tionsaffordedbythatRule"islimitedtoanassessmentof"whethertheinformationwasinfactprovidedonaconfidentialbasis"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi25July2002;23October2002,para.
29).
Onceascertainedthattheprospectivetestimonyofastateofficialwas"infactprovidedonaconfidentialbasis",thestatethenenjoyedthefullprotectionofRule70,andthetestimonymaynotbeintroducedintoevidencewithoutthestate'sconsent.
TheAppealsChamberthereforeinterpretedtheprovisionsofRule70tomeanthatastateisinfullcontrolofinformationitprovidestoapartybeforetheTribunal(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi23October2003a,paras.
25–29).
Inaddressingthepossibilitythatstatesmightwithholdrelevantinformationfromanaccused,theAppealsChamberobservedthatthereweretwosafeguardstoensureanaccused'srighttoafairtrialinthiscontext.
First,itheldthatatrialchamberdoeshavelimitedau-thoritytopolicetheapplicationoftherule,bydetermin-ingwhethertheinformationwas"infactprovidedonaconfidentialbasis";ifindoubt,thechambershouldheartheinformationproviderandtheprosecutionontheAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page13of35matter(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi23October2003a,paras.
26,29,31).
Yetthisenquiryisof"averylim-itednature"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi23October2003a,para.
29)anddoesnotincludeanyscrutinyastothebasisfortheconfidentiality,unlikecompelledstatedocumentsunderRule54bis(F)(i),whichwillbediscussedbelow.
Second,theAppealsChamberfoundthatRule70(G),whichempowersachamberto"excludeevidenceifitsprobativevalueissubstantiallyoutweighedbytheneedtoensureafairtrial",givesachamber"atooltoprotect[thefairtrial]requirementiftheRulehasbeenmisused"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi23October2003a,para.
26).
TherulingoftheAppealsChamberthereforeclarifiedthemeaningandapplicationofRule70,therebyprovid-ingmorecertaintytopartiesandstatesdealingwiththeprovisionofinformationinrelationtothecasesbeforetheTribunal.
Rule54bis:litigationbetweentheProsecutionandSerbiaandMontenegroovertheproductionofdocumentsThroughoutthetrial,therewasvigorouslycontestedlitigationbetweentheProsecutionandthegovernmentofSerbiaandMontenegro,formerlytheFRY,overtheproductionofdocumentsrelevanttothecoreproceedings.
34ThislitigationpursuanttoRule54bistookplacefromalmosttheverybeginningofthetrialandwasstillbeingpursuedatthetimeofMiloevi'sdeathandthesubsequentcloseoftheproceedings(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi14March2006).
WhentheSecurityCounciladoptedResolution827on23May1993,itexerciseditspowersunderChapterVIIoftheUNCharter,intheformofArticle29oftheStat-ute,toobligatestatestocooperatewiththeICTYinitsinvestigationsandprosecutions.
Moreover,stateswereenjoinedto"complywithoutunduedelaywithanyre-questforassistanceoranorderissuedbyaTrialCham-ber,including,butnotlimitedto…thetakingoftestimonyandtheproductionofevidence…"(StatuteofICTY,Art.
29;seeUNSCRes8271993;UNSCRes9551994).
TheUNSecretary-General,inhisreportaccom-panyingtheStatute,statedinrelationtoArticle29thattheestablishmentoftheICTYpursuanttoChapterVII"createsabindingobligationonallStatestotakewhat-everstepsarerequiredtoimplement"adecisionoftheTribunal(UNSC1993,para.
125).
35TheICTY'spowertoordertheproductionofdocu-mentsfromaStatewasconfirmedbytheICTYAppealsChamberinProsecutorv.
Blaki(Prosecutorv.
Blaki29October1997,para.
26)andwaslatercodifiedinRule54bis.
36Astate'sfailuretocomplywithanorderofachambercouldbereportedtotheICTYPresident,whothenmusttransmitthisreporttotheUNSecurityCoun-cilpursuanttoRule7bis.
Inpreparationforthetrial,andasearlyasDecember2001,theProsecutionhadissuedrequestsforassistancetotheFRY,intheformofrequestsfordocumentsandaccesstoidentifiedarchives(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi13December2002,paras.
1–4).
Afteroverayearofallegedpartialnon-compliancewiththeserequestsbytheFRY,and10monthsafterthetrialbegan,theProsecutionre-quested,inDecember2002,theTrialChambertoordertheFRYtoproducecertaindocumentsandgranttheProsecutionaccessto16archivesinthecontroloftheFRY(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi13December2002,paras.
1–5).
37TheProsecutionemphasisedthattheFRY'sfail-uretoprovidedocumentshad"seriouslyobstructedtheprogressofthistrial"becausetheuseofthere-questeddocuments"mayverysubstantiallyabbreviatethetrialproceedings—asintheeight-monthNurem-bergtrial…[which]focusedondocumentaryevi-dence"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi13December2002,para.
4,note2).
TheProsecutionalsoarguedthattheunavailabilityoftherequesteddocumentsprejudicedtherightsofvictims,aswellasMiloevi'srighttoafairtrial(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi13December2002,para.
7).
SerbiaandMontenegroopposedtheapplicationinawrittensubmissionandinformedtheChamberthatitwelcomedtheopportunitytoexamineitscooperationwiththeICTY,forexample,SerbiaandMontenegro'sin-dictmentandarrestofMiloeviin2001,aswellashistransfertotheICTYinJune2001(seeProsecutorv.
Miloevi7February2003,paras.
2–3).
Moreover,SerbiaandMontenegroarguedthatitcouldnotbeconsideredinnon-compliancewithrequestsforassistancepursuanttoArticle29oftheStatutebecausetheproductionofdocumentationwas"aprocess",ithadcompleted58%oftheProsecutionrequests,andthesituationhadtobeviewedinthecontextofthe"newdemocraticauthoritiesinherit[ing]atremendoustaskofreforminganadminis-trationshapedduring12yearsofMiloevi'srule"(seeProsecutorv.
Miloevi7February2003,para.
4).
AfterarguingthatmanyoftherequeststhattheProsecutioncharacterisedasunfulfilledhadinfactbeenfulfilled,SerbiaandMontenegrorejectedthepropositionthatanythingintheStatuteorRulesprovidedalegalbasisuponwhichachambercouldgrantapartyaccesstostatearchives(seeProsecutorv.
Miloevi7February2003,paras.
5–6,8–17).
SerbiaandMontenegrofurther-morearguedthatArticle18(2)oftheStatuteandRule39didnotauthorisesuchanorderbyachamber(seeProsecutorv.
Miloevi7February2003,para.
14;StatuteofICTY;IT/32/Rev.
4410December2009).
38ItwasfinallyarguedbySerbiaandMontenegrothattheProsecution'sapplicationfailedtomeettherequirementsofRule54bis(A)(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi7February2003,paras.
18–32).
39AbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page14of35Inareply,theProsecutionsoughttoclarifythatitsrequestforaccesstogovernmentalarchiveswasnotademandforgeneralaccessbutratherarequest"tosur-veyarchivesinordertoestablishwhatdocuments,ifany,maybepertinenttoTribunalproceedings"(seeProsecutorv.
Miloevi27February2003,para.
3,note8;14February2003;19February2003).
Moreover,itarguedthataccesstoarchivescouldbeachievednotonlyunderRule54bisbutalsoviaasearchwarrantis-suedpursuanttoRules39and54andnotedthatsuchordershadbeenissuedforofficialgovernmentalbuild-ings,includingmilitaryfacilitiesandarchivesintheformerYugoslavia(seeProsecutorv.
Miloevi27February2003,paras.
8–16).
40AfterhearingtheProsecutionandSerbiaandMontenegroinMarch2003,theTrialChamberis-suedanoralordergivingSerbiaandMontenegro2monthstorespondtoaprioritylistofdocumentscompiledbytheProsecution(Hearing10March2003,T.
17526–17580;seeProsecutorv.
Miloevi6May2003b,para.
8).
InthewordsoftheProsecution,"SerbiaandMontenegroisactingasifitisanad-versepartytolitigationratherthanaStatepartyassistingtheInternationalTribunalinitssearchfortruthandreconciliationintheformerYugoslavia"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi20May2003,paras.
1,3,21–22,notes30–31(citingUNSCRes8271993;UNSCRes9551994);Jorda2002;delPonte2002).
Anotherhearingwasheld,whichresultedinaseriesofordersbeingissuedbytheChamberforSerbiaandMontenegrotoproducethousandsofdocumentsbyaparticulardeadlineorupdatetheChamberofthespecificreasonswhyitcouldnotdoso(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi3June2003,T.
21648–21693).
Amongthesedocumentswerethestenographicrecordingsofmeet-ingsoftheFRY'sSupremeDefenceCouncil(SDC),aswellasdocumentsrelatingtotheSupremeCommandandtheJointCommandforKosovo(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi5June2003;12June2003,AnnexA,p.
1,Rulings1–3).
41Whatfollowedwasaprolix,labyrinthineeffortbytheProsecutionandtheChambertoforceSerbiaandMontenegrotocomplywiththemanyordersthathadbeenissued(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi15September2003,pp.
2–3;17December2003,p.
2).
Afteratleast13decisionsoverthecourseofayearandwiththeProsecutioncasealmostatanend,itwouldhavebeenconceivablefortheTrialChambertobringtoanendtheseRule54bisproceedings,butinstead,theCham-bershowedawillingnesstocontinuethelitigationwellintoitssecondyear,byissuingadditionalordersfortheproductionofdocumentsandsupplementalreportingbyboththeProsecutionandSerbiaandMontenegro.
42Self-representation,PartIIAdequateassistanceAtthestartofthetrial,theTrialChamberturneditsattentiontoensuringthatMiloevihadadequateassistanceforhisdefence.
ItconsideredabriefoftheAmiciCuriaeregardingwhetherMiloevihadaccesstoadequatefacilitiestoconducthisdefence(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi5March2002).
TheChamberalsoconsideredaRegistryReportonthematter(Pros-ecutorv.
Miloevi18March2002).
Duringahearingon10April2002,Miloeviidentifiedtwolawyersasas-sociateswithwhomhewishedtocommunicate.
43Lessthanaweeklater,theTrialChambervarieditsorderof15November2001andgrantedMiloeviprivilegedcommunicationswiththem(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi16April2002b).
InOctober2003,theTrialChamber,uponthewrittenrequestofMiloevi,appointedathirdlaw-yerasa"LegalAssociate".
44On24April2002,theTrialChamberfoundthat,inaccordancewithArticle21oftheStatute,Miloevihadadequatetimeandfacilitiesforthepreparationofhisdefenceandthatitwassatis-fiedthat"allpossibleeffortswerebeingmadetoassisthim"(Hearing24April2002,T.
3737–3740).
InOctober2002,theTrialChamberinstructedtheRegistrytorevoketheappointmentofoneoftheAmiciCuriaeongroundsofapprehensionofbias.
ThatAmicushadgrantedinterviewstoseveralpublicationsinwhichitappearedthathehad"formedaviewofthecaseun-favourabletotheAccused".
45Approximatelyamonthlater,theTrialChamberdesignatedanewpersonasAmicusCuriaewithrespecttoquestionsofinternationallaw.
46TheTrialChamber'sfirstdecisiononassignmentofcounsel47DespitetheassistancetoMiloevifromthethreeAmiciCuriaeandthethreeLegalAssociates,fromabout1monthintothestartofthetrial,Miloevibegantoshowsignsofillhealth.
Thisresultedinhearingsbeingcancelledatthelastminuteanddelaysintheproceedings.
InNovember2002,theTrialChamberexpressedconcernaboutthecompletionofthetrialinthelightofthestateofMiloevi'sillhealthandthelengthandcomplexityofthecaseandorderedsubmis-sionsfromthepartiesonthematter.
48Aweeklater,theProsecutionfiledamotion,pro-posingthattheTrialChamberappointdefencecounselforMiloeviwiththesuggestionthattheAmiciCuriaebeappointedtotheroleofdefencecounsel(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi8November2002).
Miloevirejectedthesuggestionincourtafewdayslater(Hearing11November2002,T.
12837).
TheAmiciCuriaefiledtheirownsubmissionsonthemat-ter,indicatingthat"theinterestsofjusticedonotre-quiretheassignmentofcounsel,whichwoulddepriveAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page15of35Miloeviofhisrighttoconducthisowndefence"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi18November2002,p.
6).
InDecember,theTrialChamberorallyrejectedtheProsecution'sMotion,statingthat"[d]efencecounselwillnotbeimposedupontheAccusedagainsthiswishesinthepresentcircumstances.
Itisnotnormallyappropriateinadversarialproceedingssuchasthese.
TheTrialChamberwillkeepthepositionunderreview"(Hearing18December2002,T.
14574).
InApril2003,theTrialChamberissueditswrittenreasonsforthisdecision(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi4April2003,paras.
18–41),holdingthattheplainreadingofArticle21(4)(d)oftheStatuteprovidedforarighttodefendoneselfinperson,thisinterpretationbeingsupportedbytheessentiallyad-versarialnatureoftheICTYproceedings(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi4April2003,paras.
18–20).
TheChamberpointedoutthattheimpositionofadefencecounseluponanaccusedwhodoesnotwantonewasafeatureofinquisitorialsystems,butnotofadversarialsystems(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi4April2003,para.
21).
More-over,remarkedtheChamber,inRomano-Germaniclegalsystems,wherethecourtwasfulfillingamoreinvestiga-tiveroleinanattempttoestablishthetruth,itmayhavebeenappropriatetoappointdefencecounselforanac-cusedwhowishestorepresenthimself.
However,theim-positionofdefencecounselonanunwillingaccusedinanadversarialsystemwouldeffectivelydeprivethatac-cusedofputtingforwardadefence,becauseinadversar-ialsystemsitwastheresponsibilityofthepartiestoputforwardthecaseandforthecourttojudge(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi4April2003,para.
24).
TheTrialChamberdidobservethat"therighttode-fendoneselfinpersonisnotabsolute…,astheremaybecircumstanceswhereitisintheinterestsofjusticetoappointcounsel"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi4April2003,para.
40).
Forexample,anaccusedwhosebehaviourhadresultedinhisremovalfromthecourtroompursuanttoRule80(B),49"hasalsorelinquishedhisrighttodefendhimselfinperson".
TheTrialChamberheldthatatthatpointinthetrialnocircumstancehadarisenthatsup-portedtheimpositionofdefencecounselbutstatedthatitwould"keepthepositionunderreview".
TheTrialChamberalsoheldthat,"whileensuringthatthetrialisfairandexpeditious,aTrialChambermustalsoensurethattherightsoftheaccused,assetoutinArticle21oftheStatute,arenotinfringed"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi4April2003,paras.
40–41).
InordertolessenthephysicalburdenonMiloevi,theChambermovedtoascheduleoffourconsecutiverestdayseveryotherweekuntiltheendofSeptember2003(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi22September2004,para.
9).
FollowingrepeateddelaysinthetrialandwithsevenhearingdayshavingbeenlostinthemonthofSeptemberalone,on23September,theProsecutionfiledamotionrequestingahearingtodiscusstheimplicationsofMiloevi'srecurringillhealth(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi23September2003).
TheTrialChamberorderedboththeProsecutionandtheAmiciCuriaetomakewrittenlegalsubmissionsinrelationtotheproposalsmadebytheProsecutioninitsmotionandthereaftertomakesubmissionsatanoralhearingon30September(Pros-ecutorv.
Miloevi24September2003).
Afterconsid-eringtheparties'submissions,theTrialChambermadeanoralrulingtotheeffectthattheChamberwouldsit3daysperweek,givingMiloevi4daysofconsecutiveresteachweek(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi30September2003).
Miloeviwasnotpresentatthehearingduetoillness.
InterludeEndoftheProsecutioncaseOn2September2003,theTrialChamberheldastatusconferencetodiscusstheanticipatedconclusionoftheProsecution'scaseandthepreparationforthepresenta-tionofthedefencecase(Hearing,Pre-DefenceConfer-ence,02September2003,T.
25943-25945).
MiloeviwasexpectedtocontinuetopreparehisdefencecaseduringtheintervalbetweentheendoftheProsecutioncase-in-chiefandthecommencementofthedefencecase.
However,Miloevitookthepositionthattheamountoftimeheneededtopreparehisdefencecase"eventhebarestminimumofthetime…wouldhavetobeinexcessoftwoyears"(Hearing2September2003,T.
25944).
MiloevialsoremindedtheChamberthat"theoppositesideitselfdisclosedabouthalfamillionpages"ofmaterial(Hearing2September2003,T.
25943–25945).
On17September2003,theTrialChamberorderedthatthetrialwouldbeadjournedfor3monthsbetweenthecloseoftheProsecution'scase-in-chiefandthecommence-mentofthedefencecasetoenableMiloevitopreparehiscase(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi17September2003).
InJanu-ary2004,theAppealsChamberupheldtheTrialChamber'sdecision(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi20January2004).
On25February2004,theProsecution(viaawrittenfiling)resteditscase-in-chief,subjecttoseveralmatterspertainingtotheadmissionofdocumentsanditscaseinrebuttal(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi25February2004a).
TheTrialChamber,onthesameday,issuedadecision,confirmingthecloseoftheProsecution'scase-in-chiefandmakingseveralrulingsonoutstandingmotionsper-tainingtotheadmissionofdocumentation(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi25February2004b).
50TheTrialChamberallotted360h,or90sittingdays,toMiloeviforthepresentationofhiscase-in-chief.
ThiswasthesameamountoftimeastheProsecutionwasgiven,despiteMiloevi'spersistentclaimsthatheonlywasgivenhalfAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page16of35ofthetimethattheProsecutionwasgiventopresenthisevidence(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi25February2004c).
AmiciCuriaemotionforjudgementofacquittal51On3March2004,theAmiciCuriaefiledamotionrequestingthattheTrialChamberacquitMiloevionanumberofchargesintheindictments,pursuanttoRule98bis(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi3March2004,paras.
29–32).
ThisRule,atthetime,providedthat"[a]nac-cusedmayfileamotionfortheentryofjudgementofacquittalononeormoreoffenceschargedintheindict-mentwithinsevendaysafterthecloseoftheProsecu-tor'scaseand,inanyevent,priortothepresentationofevidencebythedefence"andthat"[t]heTrialChambershallordertheentryofjudgementofacquittalonmo-tionofanaccusedorpropriomotuifitfindsthattheevidenceisinsufficienttosustainaconvictiononthatorthosecharges.
"TheAmiciCuriaeargued,onMiloevi'sbehalf,thattheProsecutionfailedtoestablishtheexistenceofan"armedconflict"inKosovopriortothecommencementoftheNATObombingcampaignon24March1999,thusrequiringpartsoftheKosovoIndictmentdependentuponthislegalpreconditiontobedismissed(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi3March2004,paras.
29–32;see3May2004,paras.
17–75).
TheyalsoarguedthattheProsecutionhadfailedtoestablishthatCroatiawasastatebeforesometimebetween15Januaryand22May1992;thus,theconflictinCroatiawasnotofaninter-nationalcharacterbeforethattimeandallgravebreachescountsintheCroatiaIndictmentthatwenttoallegedcrimescommittedbeforethesedatesshouldbedismissed(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi3March2004,para.
95;see3May2004,paras.
122–153).
Next,itwasarguedthattheProsecutionhadnotadducedanyorsufficientevidencethatMiloeviplanned,instigated,ordered,committed,orotherwiseaidedandabettedintheplan-ning,preparation,orexecutionofagenocideorthathewascomplicitinsuchacts.
Alongtheselines,theAmiciCuriaesubmittedthatthemensrearequirementfores-tablishingthecrimeofgenocidewasincompatiblewiththemensrearequirementforthethirdcategoryofajointcriminalenterpriseandcommandresponsibility,asallegedintheBosniaIndictment(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi3March2004,paras.
161–162;see3May2004,paras.
225–439).
Finally,itwassubmittedthattheProsecutionhadnotadducedanyorsufficientevidenceinrelationto185separateallegationscontainedinthethreeindict-ments(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi3March2004,sectionsIII.
E,IV.
D,V.
C.
).
52Atthispoint,thePresidingJudge,RichardMay,whohadsteeredthetrialthroughthepre-trialphaseandthroughmostoftheProsecution'scase-in-chief,resignedeffectivelyon1June2004,duetoillhealth,andJudgePatrickRobinsontookoverasthePresidingJudgeofthetrial.
JudgeIainBonomywasappointedinordertomakeupthequorumofthreejudges(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi10June2004).
JudgeMay,nowknightedbytheQueenofEngland,passedawayashorttimelater(Simons2004).
InJune,theTrialChamberissueditsdecision,holdingthattheProsecutionhadadducedsufficientevidenceforaTrialChambertofindthatthereexistedanarmedcon-flictinKosovointheFRYpriorto24March1999(Pros-ecutorv.
Miloevi16June2004,para.
318).
TheTrialChamberalsofoundthattherewassufficientevidencethatCroatiahadbecomeastateby8October1991forthepurposesofRule98bisandthattheconflictinCroatiawasthusinternationalduringthetimeofthegravebreachescountsintheCroatiaIndictment(Pros-ecutorv.
Miloevi16June2004,para.
115).
ThemotionoftheAmiciCuriaewasthusdismissedintheserespects.
WithrespecttotheAmiciCuriaesubmissionscon-cerninggenocide,theTrialChamberdismissedthemotion—exceptfortheallegationsofgenocideinKotorVaro—andheldthattherewassufficientevidencethat"thereexistedajointcriminalenterprise,whichin-cludedmembersoftheBosnianSerbleadership,theaimandintentionofwhichwastodestroyapartoftheBosnianMuslimsasagroup,andthatitsparticipantscommittedgenocideinBrko,Prijedor,SanskiMost,Srebrenica,Bijeljina,KljuandBosanskiNovi"(Pros-ecutorv.
Miloevi16June2004,para232(1)).
TheTrialChamberalsofoundthattherewassufficientevi-dencetoholdthatMiloeviwasaparticipantinthatjointcriminalenterprise,theaimofwhichwasalsotocommitcrimesotherthangenocideandthatitwasrea-sonablyforeseeabletohimthat,asaconsequenceofthecommissionofthosecrimes,genocideofapartoftheBosnianMuslimsasagroupwouldbecommittedbyparticipantsinthejointcriminalenterprise(Pros-ecutorv.
Miloevi16June2004,para.
323(2)–(3)).
Fi-nally,theChamberfoundthattherewassufficientevidencetoholdthatMiloeviaidedandabettedgenocideorwasresponsibleforgenocidethroughthedoctrineofsuperiorresponsibility(Prosecutorv.
Milo-evi16June2004,para.
323(4)–(5)).
PresidingJudgeRobinsonappendedaseparateopinion,discussingthelegalstandardtobeappliedtoamotionforacquittal(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi16June2004,sectionVI,paras.
1–18).
JudgeKwonappendedadissentingopin-ion,withrespecttotheTrialChamber'sholdingthattheProsecutionhadadducedsufficientevidenceforaTrialChambertofindthatMiloeviwasresponsibleforgeno-cideunderArticle4oftheStatuteunderthetheoryofthethirdcategoryofjointcriminalenterprise(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi16June2004,sectionVII,paras.
1–4).
AbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page17of35Althoughthedecisiondismissedcertainallegationsre-latingtosomeofthecountsintheindictments,theef-fectoftheTrialChamber'sdeterminationswasthattherewassufficientevidencetosupporteachcountchal-lengedinthethreeindictments(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi16June2004,sectionVII,paras.
1–4).
Thetrialwouldthereforeproceedtothedefencephaseoftheproceed-ings(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi16June2004,para.
316).
ItisinterestingtonotethatthiswouldturnouttobetheonlydecisionoftheTrialChamberevaluatingtheevi-denceinthetrial,althoughthestandardofproofforthismotionwasonlywhethertherewassufficientevidenceuponwhichatrialchambercouldconvict,ratherthanwhethertherewasevidencebeyondreasonabledoubtre-gardingMiloevi'sresponsibility.
AmendingtheindictmentsInApril2004,theTrialChambergrantedtheProsecutionleavetoamendtheBosniaIndictmentandconfirmedthattheoperativeBosniaIndictmentwastheamendedBosniaIndictment,asamendedon22November2002(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi21April2004).
53On20July2004,theTrialChambergrantedthePros-ecutionleavefurthertoamendtheamendedCroatiaIn-dictment(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi20July2004;seealso11March2004).
Oneweeklater,theTrialChambermodifiedthisorderandgrantedtheProsecutionfurtherleavetoamendtheamendedCroatiaIndictment.
TheChamberalsoconfirmedthatthesecondamendedCroatiaIndictmentwastheoperativeindictmentfortheCroatiaphaseoftheproceedings.
54InJuly,theTrialChamberinvitedwrittensubmissionswithaviewofgivingfurtherconsiderationtowaysinwhichthetrialmightbeconcludedinafairandexped-itiousmanner.
Specifically,theTrialChamberwantedtoexplorethepossibilityofseveringoneormoreofthein-dictmentsandthenfinishingoneofthetrialsfirst,be-forethenproceedingtocompletetheothertwotrials(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi21July2004).
TheProsecution,theAmiciCuriae,andMiloeviallfiledsubmissionsonthismatter.
Theyallexpressedtheiroppositiontosever-ingtheindictments(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi27July2004a;27July2004b;Addendum6August2004).
Itwasprobablytheonlymomentinthetrialwhenthepartiesagreedonsomething.
TheTrialChamberdecidednottogivefurtherconsiderationtothematteratthattime(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi25August2004).
Self-representation,partIII:takingthecaseawayfromMiloeviOn27June2003,theTrialChamberorderedthatoneoftheAmiciCuriae'sappointmentsbeconcludedattheendoftheProsecutioncase.
TheChamberalsodecidedthattheothertwoAmiciCuriae(orsimplyoneofthem)weretobepresentforthefirst4weeksofthedefencecase(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi27June2003,paras.
3–4(a)).
Afterthis,theTrialChamberwoulddeterminetheirfu-turerole,ifany,inthetrial(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi27June2003,para.
4(b)).
Duringtheperiodleadinguptothecommencementofthedefencephaseoftheproceedings,a"ProSeLegalLiaisonOfficer"wascreatedinordertofacilitatetheinteractionbetweenMiloeviandhisLegalAssociateswithvarioussectionsoftheICTY,aswellasthePros-ecutionandChamber.
Thispersonhadresponsibilitiesspanningfromthemanagementofdocumentaryevi-denceonbehalfoftheDefencetocoordinatingtheap-pearancesofwitnessestobecalledbyMiloevitogiveevidencebeforetheChamber(see,e.
g.
Prosecutorv.
Miloevi8July2005,p.
2).
55MiloevicontinuedtoexperienceillhealthduringFebruary2004attheendoftheProsecutioncaseandthroughoutthetimeallocatedforthepreparationofhisdefence.
Bythatstage,thetrialhadbeeninterruptedduringthecourseoftheProsecution'scaseoveradozentimesonaccountoftheillhealthofMiloevi,causingthelossofsome66trialdays.
Thedefencecase,sched-uledtostarton8June,waspostponedonfiveoccasions,againonaccountoftheillhealthofMiloevi.
TheTrialChamberheardoralsubmissionsfromthepartieson5July2004onthismatter.
Atthathearing,therewasdiscussionofrecenthealthreports.
TheAmiciCuriaeraisedtwoissues:Miloevi'sfitnesstopresenthisdefenceatthistimeandhisfitnesstostandtrialatall(Hearing5July2004,T.
32143).
WhileholdingthattherewasnoevidencebeforetheTrialChamberthatMiloeviwasnotfittostandtrial,theTrialChamberconsideredthattherewasevidenceindicatingthatthehealthofMiloeviwassuchthathemightnotbefittocontinuetorepresenthimselfandthatthecontinuationofhisself-representationcouldadverselyaffectthefairandexpeditiousconductofthetrial.
Suchwasthecon-cernoftheTrialChamberthatitdecidedto"carryoutaradicalreviewofthetrialprocessandthecontinuationofthetrialinthelightofthehealthproblemsoftheAccused,whichareclearlychronicandrecurrentbasedonthemostrecentreportfromthedoctor"(Hearing5July2004,T.
32153–32154).
TheTrialChambersubsequentlydirectedtheRegistrartoidentifyacardiologistwithnopriorinvolvementinthetreatmentofMiloevi.
HewouldbeinstructedtoexamineMiloeviandconsiderallrelevantinformationpertainingtohisfitnesstocontinuetorepresenthimselfandthelikelyimpactonthetrialschedule,shouldhecontinuetodoso(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi6July2004).
56Inmid-July,theTrialChamberissuedanidenticalrequesttothedoctorwhohadbeentreatingMiloeviforcardiologicalproblemsforsometime(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi15July2004).
AbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page18of35Laterthatsummer,theTrialChambersoughtsubmis-sionsabouttherolethatcounselcouldtakeinensuringthefairpresentationofthedefencecase,inparticularintheabsenceofMiloevi'scooperationwithcounselorhisrefusaltogivetheminstructions(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi6August2004).
InAugust,writtensubmissionsontheissueofassigningcounseltoMiloeviweresubmittedbytheProsecutionandtheAmiciCuriae(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi26July2004b;19August2004;13August2004;Addendum6August2004).
Miloevimadenowrittensubmissions.
InSeptember,theProsecution,theAmiciCuriae,andMiloevieachaddressedtheTrialChamberinrelationtothefutureconductofthecase.
TheissuetobedecidedwaswhetherMiloevishouldbeassignedcounsel—againsthiswishes—inordertoensurehisrighttoafairtrial.
Havingheardallthesubmissionsandhavingconsid-eredalltherelatedfilingssubmittedduringthesummerof2004(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi26July2004b;27July2004a;19August2004;27July2004b;13August2004;Addendum6August2004),theTrialChambergavethefollowingoralrulingon2September:InitsreasonsforitsdecisionontheProsecutionmotionconcerningassignmentofDefencecounselof4April2003,theTrialChamber,whileholdingthattheaccusedhadarighttodefendhimself,alsoheldinparagraph40thattherighttodefendoneselfinpersonisnotabsoluteandthatitwouldkeepthepositionunderreview….
Thehealthoftheaccusedhasbeenamajorproblemintheprogressofthetrial.
IntheProsecution'scase,thetrialwasinterruptedoveradozentimesonaccountoftheillhealthoftheaccused,therebylosingsome66trialdays.
TheDefencecasethatwasscheduledtostarton8Junewaspostponedonfiveoccasions,againonaccountoftheillhealthoftheaccused.
TheTrialChamberrequestedDr.
vanDijkman,whohasbeentreatingtheaccusedforcardiologicalproblemsforsometime,andProfessorTavernierfromBelgium,whowasidentifiedbytheregistrarasacardiologistwithnopriorinvolvementinthetreatmentoftheaccused,toexaminetheaccusedandconsiderallrelevantinformationpertainingtohishealthinthecontextthatherepresentshimself,andreporttotheTrialChamberonthefitnessoftheaccusedtocontinuetorepresenthimselfandthelikelyimpactonthetrialscheduleshouldhecontinuetodoso.
Bothdoctorsreportedthattheaccusedsuffersfromsevereessentialhypertensionandthathisconditionwassuchthatahypertensiveemergency,apotentiallylife-threateningcondition,coulddevelop.
Theyalsofoundthatoneexplanationforhismedicalconditionwashisfailuretoadheretotheproposedtherapeuticplan.
Bloodtestscarriedoutontheaccusedconfirmedthisconclusion.
Itisplainfromthemedicalreportsthattheaccusedisnotfitenoughtodefendhimselfandthat,shouldhecontinuetorepresenthimself,therewillbefurtherdelaysintheprogressofthetrial.
TheissuebeforetheChamberiswhethertherightofanaccusedsetoutinArticle21oftheStatutetodefendhimselfinpersonissubjecttoqualification,andifitis,whetherinthecircumstancesofthiscasethatrightshouldbequalifiedbyassigningcounseltorepresenttheaccused.
TheChamberissatisfied,onthebasisoftheTribunal'sStatuteandthejurisprudence,aswellasthelawofmanydomesticjurisdictions,thattherightofanaccusedpersontorepresenthimselfisnotunfettered,andinthecircumstancesofthiscase,itisbothcompetenttoassigncounseltotheaccusedandintheinterestsofjusticetodoso.
Weshall,therefore,doso.
ThefundamentaldutyoftheTrialChamberistoensurethatthetrialisfairandexpeditious.
TheconcernoftheChamberisthat,basedonthemedicalreports,thereisarealdangerthatthistrialmighteitherlastforanunreasonablylongtimeor,worseyet,mightnotbeconcluded,shouldtheaccusedcontinuetorepresenthimselfwithouttheassistanceofcounsel.
Ontheotherhand,theChamberissatisfiedthat,ifcounselisassignedtotheaccused,measurescanbedevisedtoensurethatthetrialcontinuesinamannerthatisbothfairandexpeditious.
Havingdecidedtoassigncounseltotheaccused,itwillbethedutyoftheChambertoensurethattheroleofassignedcounselissofashionedthatthetrialprocess,whilebeingexpeditious,willprotectthefundamentalrightoftheaccusedtoafairtrial(Hearing02September2004,T.
32357–32359;seeProsecutorv.
Miloevi22September2004).
FollowingthisoralrulingandinfurtheranceofitsdutytoensurethattheroleofAssignedCounselwassofashionedthatthetrialprocesswouldprotectthefunda-mentalrightofMiloevitoafairtrial,theChamberis-suedanorderinwhichitsetout,withspecificity,thefunctionsthattheAssignedCounselwouldundertakeandtherolethatMiloeviwouldplayinhisdefence.
AssignedCounselhadthedutytodeterminehowtopresentthedefencecaseforMiloevi,includingchoos-ing,preparing,andexaminingwitnesses;makingsub-missionsonfactandlaw;seekingordersfromtheTrialChamberthattheyconsiderednecessarytoenablethemtopresentthedefencecaseproperly;discussingwithMiloevitheconductofthecaseandendeavouringtoAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page19of35obtainhisinstructions;takingintoaccountofMiloevi'sviews,whileretainingtherighttodeterminewhatcoursetofollow;andactinginMiloevi'sbestinterests.
TheTrialChamberauthorisedMiloevi,withtheleaveoftheTrialChamber,tocontinuetoparticipateactivelyintheconductofhiscase,including,whereappropriate,examiningwitnessesafterAssignedCounselhaddoneso.
TheChamber,initsorder,remindedMiloevithathestillretainedtheright,atanytime,tomakeareason-ablerequesttotheTrialChambertoconsiderallowinghimtoappointcounsel(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi3September2004,pp.
2–3).
TheTrialChamberstatedthatitwassatisfiedthatAssignedCounselwouldmakedeterminedeffortstodis-cussthepresentationofMiloevi'sdefencewithhim.
ShouldMiloevifailtocooperatewithcounsel,thetrialwouldnonethelessproceed.
TheTrialChamberfurtherheldthat,ifsuchfailureonthepartofMiloeviresultedinmaterialrelevanttoMiloevi'scasenotbeingpre-sented,thenMiloevihadtobearresponsibilityandcouldnotpleadinjustice(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi22September2004,para.
70).
ThedefencecaseParametersofthedefencecaseOn25February2004,theTrialChamberorderedthatMiloeviwouldhavethesametimeastheProsecutiontopresenthiscase-in-chief.
TheProsecutionhadspentapproximately360hpresentingitscase-in-chieforap-proximately90sittingdays(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi25February2004,para.
1).
TheTrialChamberthenaddedtwothirdsofthattimeforcross-examinationofwit-nessescalledbythedefenceandadministrativematters,whichamountedtoapproximately240hor60sittingdays(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi25February2004,para.
2).
Miloeviwouldthereforehave150sittingdaysinwhichtopresenthiscase,aperiodthatwassubjecttoadjust-mentdependinguponthetimetakenincross-examinationandadministrativematters(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi25February2004,para.
4).
Atthepre-defenceconferenceof17June2004,anum-berofordersweremadeconcerningthemanagementofthedefencecase.
Miloeviwaslimitedto150sittingdaystopresenthiscase,regardlessofthenumberofwit-nesseshehadonhislist.
TheTrialChambernotedthatitdidnotseektolimitthenumberofwitnessesMiloe-vicouldcallbutratherencouragedhimtomakeuseoftheproceduresavailableunderRules92bisand89(F).
Miloeviwasorderedtoproduceaweeklylistofwit-nesses.
HewasorderedtodisclosetotheProsecutioncopiesofallexhibitsonhisRule65terlistwithin7days.
Miloeviwasrequiredtomakewrittenfilingswhenor-deredbytheTrialChambertodoso.
Hewasallowedtomakeanopeningstatementofnotmorethan4h,towhichtheProsecutionwasnotallowedtorespond.
Miloeviwasorderedtomakeaseparatewrittenappli-cationforeachwitnesswhomhewouldseektosub-poena.
Finally,Miloeviwasorderedtomakeawrittenapplicationfortheproductionofdocumentsorotherin-formationfromstatesandtocomplywithallproceduralrequirements;oralapplicationswouldnotbeconsidered(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi17June2004,paras.
1,3,9–10,12,18–19).
Incomplyingwithallofthesetasks,MiloevihadtheassistanceofAssignedCounsel,hisLegalAssoci-ates,andtheProSeLegalLiaisonOfficer.
Duringthepre-defenceconference,Miloeviin-formedtheChamberthatheanticipatedawitnesslistthatwouldinclude1631persons(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi17June2004,T.
32125)andthatbetween1300and1400witnesseshadagreedfortheirnamestobedisclosedtotheTrialChamber(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi17June2004,T.
32084).
Miloeviwasscheduledtocommencethepres-entationofhisdefenceon5July2004butwasunabletodosoduetomedicalconcerns(Hearing5July2004,T.
32135).
Hisopeningstatementwasnotpresenteduntil31Augustand1September2004(Hearing31Augustand1September2004,T.
32157–32298).
Aftertheopeningstatement,theTrialChamberadjournedfor4weekstoenablefurtherpreparationforthedefencecase.
Thetrialresumedon12October2004.
InaMay2005order,theTrialChambermadesomemodificationstotheuseoftimeinthedefencecase(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi19May2005).
Thetimeallo-catedtotheProsecutionforcross-examinationwasre-visedto216hor54sittingdays,being60%ofthetimeallottedtoMiloevi.
ItwasfurthermoreorderedthataseparaterecordoftimespentonadministrativemattersbekeptbutthatitshouldnotbecountedagainstthetimeallottedtoMiloevi(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi19May2005,para.
3).
TheTrialChamberclarifiedthat"administrativemattersarethosewhichdonotfallintothecategoryofproceduralissues"arisingfromexamin-ationofwitnesses,"includingdiscussionoftheadmissi-bilityofexhibitsandothermattersasdeterminedbytheTrialChamber"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi19May2005,para.
3).
Self-representation,partIV:givingthecasebacktoMiloeviAssignedCounselencounteredproblemsalmostimme-diatelyandcomplainedaboutthelackofcooperationfromwitnessesandfromMiloevihimself.
Forexample,AssignedCounselonlymanagedtocall5outofalistof140witnesses,manyofwhomrefusedtogiveevidenceinprotestagainsttheTrialChamber'sdecisiontoap-pointcounseltoMiloeviagainsthiswishes.
InOctober2004,AssignedCounselwrotealettertotheRegistrarseekingtobewithdrawnfromtheirpositionasCounselAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page20of35(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi27October2004a).
TheRegis-trardeemedthatitwasmoreappropriatefortheTrialChambertodecidethematter(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi27October2004b).
TheTrialChamberrendereditsde-cisioninDecember,holdingthatAssignedCounselwereneitherentitledtowithdrawnortoterminatetheirassignmentunilaterally(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi7December2004,para.
26).
Inaccordancewiththisdeci-sion,theRegistrardeniedtheAssignedCounsel'sre-quest(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi14December2004).
TheAssignedCounselthenturnedtothePresidentoftheICTYandaskedhimtoreviewtheRegistrar'sdecisiontorefusetheirapplicationtowithdraw.
Inade-cisionofFebruary2005,thePresidentheldthatthere-fusalofanaccusedtocooperatewithhislawyersdidnotmeanthattheRegistrarwasrequiredtowithdrawtheassignmentofcounselunderArticle19(A)oftheICTYCodeofConduct(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi7February2005a,para.
10citingparas.
53,54ofProsecutorv.
Blagojevi).
Infact,anyotherholdinginthepresentcasewouldineffectgiveMiloevithepowertorenderthedecisionthatcounselshouldbeassignedmeaninglessbysimplyrefusingtocooperatewiththeAssignedCounsel(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi7February2005a,para.
10).
InNovember2004,theAppealsChamberaffirmedtheTrialChamber'sdecisiontoimposeCounseluponMiloevi,butreversedtheTrialChamber'sorderonthemodalitiesbywhichthatrepresentationwouldfunction.
TheAppealsChamberheldthattheTrialChambershouldcraftaworkingregimethatminimisedthepracticalimpactoftheformalassignmentofcounsel.
SucharegimehadtoberootedinthedefaultpresumptionthatMiloevishouldtaketheleadinpre-sentinghiscasewheneverhewasabletodoso,suchaschoosingwhichwitnessestopresent,questioningthewitnessbeforeAssignedCounselisgiventheopportun-itytodoso,arguinganypropermotionhewished,giv-ingaclosingstatement,andmakingthebasicstrategicdecisionsaboutthepresentationofhiscase.
TheAppealsChamberstressedthatAssignedCounselshouldonlystepinwhereMiloevi'shealthpreventedhimfrompre-sentinghisowndefence(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi22September2004,paras.
19–20).
TheAssignedCounselwerethuseffectivelyreturned,bytheAppealsChamber,tothepreviousroletheyhadoccupiedwhiletheywereAmiciCuriae,whichwas,inessence,stand-bycounsel.
Miloeviwasbackincontrolofhiscase.
EvidentiarymattersAdmissionofdocuments:settingthegroundrulesAFebruary2005ordersetforththeTrialChamber'sgen-eralapproachtotheadmissionofdefenceevidenceduringMiloevi'scase-in-chief(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi7February2005b).
Inthisorder,theTrialChambersoughttolayoutgeneralgroundrulesforthecopiousamountsofevidencethatMiloevisaidhewouldtenderduringhiscase,muchofwhichhadnotyetbeentrans-latedintoaworkinglanguageoftheTribunal(Prosecu-torv.
Miloevi7February2005b).
Duringthedefencecase,theProsecutionattemptedtoadduceevidencetoproveitscaseagainstMiloevidur-ingitscross-examinationofMiloevi'sownwitnesses.
Thematterwaslitigated(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi15March2005)andresultedinarulingbytheTrialCham-berthat,althoughtheProsecutioncouldputmaterialtoawitnessduringcross-examinationinaccordancewithRule90(H)(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi17May2005),57itwasnotallowedtohavethematerialadmittedwhenadefencewitnesscouldoffernomeaningfulevidenceinrelationtothetenderedmaterial(Prosecutorv.
Miloe-vi17May2005,para.
9).
ThisrulingprecludedtheProsecutionfromadmittingalargebodyofmaterialthroughMiloevi'switnessesduringthedefencecase.
ApplicationtosubpoenaTonyBlairandGerhardSchrderInAugust2005,AssignedCounselfiledappli-cationsrequestingthatabindingorderbeissuedtothegovernmentoftheUnitedKingdomandtheFederalRe-publicofGermany.
AssignedCounselwantedtheUKandGermanytoarrangeforpre-testimonyinterviewsandtheappearanceincourtofUKPrimeMinisterTonyBlairandformerGermanChancellorGerhardSchrder.
Initsdecision,theTrialChamberfirstclarifiedthatthesubpoenaofastateofficialwasappropriatelybroughtunderRule54,ratherthantheprovisionsofRule54bis,whichweredevotedtothecompulsionofdocumentaryevidencefromastate.
TheTrialChamberthenarticulatedthelegalstandardfortheissuanceofasubpoenaadtestificandumassuch:themovingpartymustshowthatasubpoenais"necessary…fortheprep-arationorconductofthetrial",andthisincludesatwo-prongedtest:areasonablebasismustbeshownthattheprospectivewitnessislikelytogiveinformationthatwillmateriallyassisttheapplicantwithrespecttospecificis-suesinthetrial("legitimateforensicpurpose"require-ment),andthisinformationcannotbeobtainablethroughothermeans("lastresort"requirement).
TheTrialChamberfurtherclarifiedthat"anapplicantforasubpoenamustbespecificabouttheinformationsoughtfromtheprospectivewitnessandmustdemonstrateanexusbetweenthisinformationandthecaseagainsttheaccused".
TheTrialChamber,afterhavingexaminedindetailtheissuesinrelationtowhichtheAssignedCounselwishedtosubpoenaBlairandSchrder,decidedthattherewasnolegitimateforensicpurposeforthetheirtestimonynorwasitnecessaryinordertoensureAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page21of35thatthetrialwasfairandinformed(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi9December2005).
Havingfoundthattheapplicationfailedonitsmerits,theTrialChamberdidnotneedtodecidewhetherthestatusoftheprospectivewitnessesasseniorstateoffi-cialsgavethemimmunityfrombeingcompelledtoat-tendaninterviewortestifybeforetheTribunal(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi9December2005,para.
67).
ResurfacingoftheRule54bislitigationManyofthedocumentsadducedbytheDefenceduringthedirectexaminationofwitnessesledtheProsecutiontorequesttheChambertotakefurtheractioninrelationtopriorRule54bisapplications.
InAugust2005,almostayearafterthestartofthedefencecase,theProsecutionar-guedinarenewedRule54bismotionthatthetestimonyofBoidarDelirevealedthattheDefencehadbeenpro-videdwithextensiveaccesstoVJdocuments,documentsthathadbeenthesubjectofpriorlitigationbetweentheProsecutionandSerbiaandMontenegro(seeProsecutorv.
Miloevi24August2005,para.
2).
TheChamberorderedSerbiaandMontenegrotofilepubliclyanexplanationfor"whyitdidnotpreviouslyproduce,andtothisdatestillhasnotproduced,thetwo'JointCommand'documentstenderedbywitnessBoidarDeliduringhistestimony,despitethefactthat[apreviousdecisionhad]calledfortheproductionofsuchdocuments"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi31October2005,para.
4(a)).
TheChambernotedthatSerbiaandMontenegrowas"stillboundby[apreviousdecision]thatSerbiaandMontenegro'continueitseffortstolo-catetherequesteddocumentation'andproducesuchdocumentationtotheProsecution,andthatastatemustalwaysperformitslegalobligationsingoodfaith"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi31October2005).
58Miloevi'smotionforanextensionoftimeInDecember2005,theTrialChamberdeniedMiloevi'smotionforanextensionoftimeinwhichtopresenthisdefencecase(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi13December2005a).
Insodoing,theChamberheldthat,asof30November2005,Miloevihadused75.
35%ofthetimeallottedtohim.
DespiterepeatedwarningsbytheCham-bertousehistimetoaddressevidenceinrelationtoallthreeindictmentsagainsthim,MiloevihadledalmostentirelyKosovo-relatedevidence(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi12December2005,para.
16).
Moreover,despitehavingbeenurgedbytheChamberonseveraloccasionstomakeuseoftheproceduralmechanismsofRules89(F)and92bisfortheadmissionofwrittenevidenceinlieuoforaltestimony,heinsistedonleadingallevidencevivavoceincourt(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi12December2005,para.
16).
Prosecution'sattempttore-openitscase-in-chiefEarlieron,inJuly2005,aboutayearandahalfafterclosingitscase-in-chiefagainstMiloevi,theProsecu-tionhadsoughtthere-openingofitscaseinordertopresentsixnewwitnessesand50newdocuments(Pros-ecutorv.
Miloevi18July2005).
Thisevidencesubstan-tivelyfellintofivecategoriesrelated,accordingtotheProsecution,tokeyissuesinitscaseasfollows:aplantoethnicallycleanseBosniaofitsMuslimpopulationdat-ingfromatleast1992;theinvolvementoftheVJinthewarinBosniabetween1992and1995;theinvolvementofSerbia'sMinistryofInteriorintheBosnianwarbe-tween1992and1995,includingintheSrebrenicamas-sacre;VJpersonnelfilesofhigh-rankingmilitaryofficialsinvolvedinthewarsinBosnia;andVJinvolvementintheRaakmassacreinKosovoin1999(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi13December2005b,para.
16).
Afterarticulatingthelegalstandardforre-opening,theTrialChamberconductedadetailedanalysisofeachoftheitemsofevidencethattheProsecutiondesiredtotenderasevidence(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi13December2005b,paras.
7–15).
Thisanalysisincludedanexamin-ationofwhethertheitemshadbeennewlyobtained(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi13December2005b,paras.
20–23)andwhethertheProsecutionhasexercisedrea-sonablediligenceinrelationtotheevidentiaryitems(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi13December2005b,paras.
24–32).
Afterhavingfoundthatsomeoftheitemsmetthistest,theChamberthenwentontoassesswhetheritshouldexerciseitsdiscretiontoallowthere-openingoftheProsecution'scasefortheseitems,whichentailedweighingtheprobativevalueoftheevidenceagainsttheneedtoensureafairtrial.
TheChamberconsideredthattheexceptionalmeas-ureofre-openingtheProsecution'scase-in-chief—whichwascertaintocausedelayandwhichwasatalatestageofatrial(begunthreeandahalfyearsbeforethemotionwasmade)—waswarrantedonlywheretheprobativevalueoftheproposedevidencewasparticularlyhigh.
BasedupontheextensiveevidencealreadyadducedduringtheProsecution'scase-in-chief,theTrialChamberwasoftheviewthatnoneoftheitemsforwhichreasonablediligencewasestablishedhadsufficientprobativevaluetowarrantadmissionasthebasisofare-openedcase-in-chief.
Althoughmostoftheitemshadsomeprobativevalueinrelationtotheunderlyingoffenceschargedintheindict-ments,nonewasofsignificancefortheultimatelegalquestionofwhetherMiloeviwasresponsiblefortheallegedcrimes.
TheProsecution'srequesttore-openitscasewasthereforedenied(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi13December2005b,paras.
37–38).
JudgeKwonissuedaseparateopinionagreeingwiththemajorityintheoutcomeofthedecisionbutdisagree-ingwiththemajorityintheapproachtomaterialsintheAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page22of35possessionoftheProsecutionbeforethecloseofitscase-in-chiefandwithitsreluctancetoadopta"miscar-riageofjusticestandard"tosuchmaterial.
JudgeKwonalsodisagreedwiththemajority'sapplicationoftherea-sonablediligencestandardtocertainmaterial(Prosecu-torv.
Miloevi13December2005b:SeparateOpinionofJudgeO-GonKwon,para.
1).
Epilogue:fromTheHaguetotheformerYugoslaviaHealthAttempttobeprovisionallyreleasedInmid-November2005,pursuanttoanoralorderfromtheTrialChamber(Hearing15November2005,T.
46481–46484),59theRegistryreceivedandfiledre-portsofthreephysicianswhohadconductedmedicalexaminationsofMiloeviinearlyNovember.
60FollowinganoralrequestbyMiloeviforprovisionalreleaseinmid-December(Hearing12December2005,T.
47258–4725),AssignedCounselrequestedthattheTrialCham-bergrantMiloevi'srequestforthepurposeofmedicaltreatmentinMoscow(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi20December2005).
61InJanuary2006,theTrialChamberinstructedtheDefencetosubmitanyadditionalmaterial,includingtheguaranteesfromtheRussianFederation(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi11January2006,p.
3).
Oneweeklater,thiswasdone,alongwithapersonalundertakingfromMiloevi(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi22December2005).
62On23February2006,theTrialChamberdeniedtherequestonthebasisthatAssignedCounselhadmadenorealattempttodemonstratethatMiloevi'smedicalneedscouldnotbemetinTheNetherlands(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi23February2006,para.
17).
Moreover,theTrialChamberheldasfollows:Inanyevent,theChambernotesthattheAccusediscurrentlyinthelatterstagesofaverylengthytrial,inwhichheischargedwithmanyseriouscrimes,andattheendofwhich,ifconvicted,hemayfacethepossibilityoflifeimprisonment.
Inthesecircumstances,andnotwithstandingtheguaranteesoftheRussianFederationandthepersonalundertakingoftheAccused,theTrialChamberisnotsatisfiedthatthefirstprongofthetesthasbeenmet—thatis,thatitismorelikelythannotthattheAccused,ifreleased,wouldreturnforthecontinuationofhistrial(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi23February2006,para.
18).
DeathOn11March2006,Miloeviwasfounddeadinhiscell.
Asaresult,on14March2006,theTrialChamberoffi-ciallyterminatedtheproceedings(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi14March2006).
ByorderoftheICTYPresidentdated11March2006andpursuanttoRule33oftheRulesofDetention,JudgeKevinParkerwasassignedtoconductafullinquiryintothecircumstancessurroundingthedeathofMiloeviandtoreporthisfindingstothePresident.
Thiswasdoneon30May2006(Parker2006).
ThereportreferredtoanautopsyconductedbytheDutchForensicInstitute,confirmingthatMiloevidiedofnaturalcausesfromaheartattack.
TheautopsyresultsalsoindicatedthatnopoisonshadbeenfoundinMiloevi'sbody(Parker2006,p.
40,paras.
2,31,36,38–39).
Accordingtothereport,[n]othinghasbeenfoundtosupportallegationsreportedinsomesectionsofthemediathatMr.
Miloevihadbeenmurdered,inparticularbypoisoning.
TheresultsoftheindependentinvestigationbytheDutchauthoritiesdemonstratethatsuchallegationsareentirelyfalse.
(Parker2006,p.
40,para.
3).
ThislatterfindingwasmostlikelyrelatedtosomemediareportsspeculatingthatMiloevihadbeenmur-dered,inparticularbypoisoning.
Rule54bis:theendofthelitigationwithSerbiaandMontenegroInwhatwastobethelastdaysofthetrial,theProsecu-tionwasstillpursuingdocumentsfromSerbiaandMontenegroandrequestingtheTrialChambertoissuenewordersfortheproductionofthesedocuments.
InFebruary2006,itwasannouncedinopensessionthattherewastobeaclosedsessionhearingheldonmotionsmadebytheProsecutionunderRule54bisandonSerbiaandMontenegro'srequestforprotectivemeasures(Hearing2February2006,T.
47780–47782).
InMarch,theTrialChamberissuedadecisiongrantingmanyoftheProsecution'srequestsforreliefandorderedSerbiaandMontenegrotoproducevariousdocuments—or,intheeventofnon-production,toprovideexplanationsofthestepstakentolocatethedocuments(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi12April2006,para.
14).
On15March2006,SerbiaandMontenegromovedtheTrialChambertovacateorsuspendindefinitelyitsdecisionof9March,arguingthatterminationoftheproceedingsdeprivedtheorderofitspurposeandren-dereditwithoutanylegaleffect(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi12April2006,paras.
9–10).
TheTrialChamberdecidedthatitsdecisionwasnolongeroperativefromthedateoftheterminationoftheproceedingsandnotedthatthedecision's"statusatthattimewasthatithadnotyetbeencompliedwith….
Inlightofthis,itisnotnecessaryfortheChamberto'vacate'or'suspend'theeffectoftheDecision"(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi12April2006,para.
AbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page23of3519).
TheTrialChamberdismissedSerbiaandMontene-gro'smotiontovacateasunnecessary,thusbringingtoanendthelitigationovertheproductionofdocumentsbetweentheProsecutionandSerbiaandMontenegro,atleastintheMiloevitrial.
However,manyofthedocumentsthatwereproducedpursuanttoordersissuedbytheTrialChamberintheMiloevitrialendedupbeingusedinothertrials,suchasthePeriiandMilutinovietal.
trials.
ConclusionAtthetimeoftheterminationofthecase,Miloevihadabout20%ofthetimeremainingthathehadbeengiventopresenthiscase(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi12December2005,para.
16).
Asmentionedbefore,on12December2005,theTrialChamberhaddeniedamotionbyMiloeviformoretime,duetothefactthathehadsquanderedthetimehehadbeengiven,despitemultiplewarningsandguidancefromtheChamber(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi12December2005,paras.
16–26).
Thedefencecasewasthereforealmostatanend.
OneweekafterthedeathofMiloevi,tensofthou-sandsattendedafarewellceremonyinBelgrade.
HewassubsequentlyburiedinhishometownPozarevac,intheabsenceofhiswifeandotherimmediatefamilymem-bers,whowerenotlivingintheformerYugoslavia.
Thenationalauthoritiesneitherallowedhimastatefuneralnordidtheyattendtheceremonies(BBC2006).
ThuscametoanendMiloevi'sjudicialjourney.
HavingleftBelgrade5yearsearlierforTheHague,hewouldnowrestbackintheformerYugoslavia—neitherconvictednoracquitted.
Despitethiseternaljudiciallimbo,itisimportanttoevaluatetheeffectsofthetrialuponinter-nationalcriminaljustice.
TheMiloeviproceedingsillustratedthechallengeofconductingcomplexcriminalproceedingsinvolvingalle-gationsofmasscrimes,whilestillendeavouringtoen-sureafairandexpeditioustrial.
Thesizeandscopeoftheindictmentsandthequestionofself-representationconstitutedamostfragilecombination.
TheeffortsoftheChambertotemporallydelimitthelengthoftheProsecutioncase-in-chief—andeventuallythedefencecase—canbeviewedas"classic"examplesoftheman-agerialjudgingsystem,asopposedtotheadversarialorinquisitorialsystemsoflaw(Langer2005).
ButwhenMiloevi'spoorhealthwasaddedtothemix,theresultsweretheinabilitytocompletethetrial(seeAdditionalfile2).
TheTrialChamber'stwoattemptstosevertheKosovocasefromCroatiaandBosniacaseswereprob-ablythebestchances,atlaterstagesoftheproceedings,tobringatleastoneofthecasestoaconclusion,buttheseovertureswererejectedbytheProsecution,Milo-evi,andtheAmiciCuriae(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi12December2005,para.
7).
DespiteMiloevi'sprotestationsthathehadbeenpro-videdwithinadequateresourcesinordertolodgehisde-fence,Miloevibenefitedfromawiderangeofassistanceoutsidethecourtroom.
TheextenttowhichMiloevi'sLegalAssociateswereinvolvedintheprepar-ationofhisdefencewasoftendemonstratedbythede-tailedknowledgethatMiloevihadofthewitnesses,whichwasdisplayedduringhiscross-examinationofthem.
Moreover,throughouttheProsecutioncase,MiloevihadthreeAmicusCuriaetoassisthimwithlegalsubmissionsandthecross-examinationofwit-nesses.
63TheChamberhadalsoassigned,duringMilo-evi'sdefencecase,twolawyersandadefenceteamtoassisthimwiththepresentationofhiscase,nottomen-tionthecreationofanentirelynewoffice—aProSeLegalLiaisonOffice—whichwasstaffedbyseveralper-sonstoassistMiloeviinpreparingandpresentinghisdefence(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi12December2005,para.
21).
AperusalofthepublicordersanddecisionsissuedbytheChamberrevealsthatMiloeviwasinfactreceivingaidfromanumberofdifferentindividualsthroughoutthecourseofthetrial.
Whenoneisthere-foretalkingaboutMiloevi"representinghimself",itisimportanttokeepinmindtherealityofthesituationandthefullpictureoftheassistancethatMiloeviwasreceivingfrommanydifferentquarters.
Infact,theelaboratearrangementsthatwereputintoplaceforMiloevi'spurported"self-representation"callintoquestionthemeaningoftheveryterm"self-repre-sentation".
Thelimitsofself-representationhavealsobeentestedinsubsequentcasesbeforetheTribunal,suchastheKrajinikandKaradicases(see,e.
g.
Prosecutorv.
Krajinik11September2007;Prosecutorv.
Karadi7May2009).
Itmaybethatanaccusedoptingfor"self-representation"ismoretobeunderstoodasretainingcompletecontrolovertheday-to-dayman-agementofhiscase,ratherthanasactuallydoingthelegalworkthatalawyerwouldnormallyconduct.
Beingrepresentedbyalawyercan,inthissense,beviewedasadelegationofcontrolofthecasefromtheaccusedtothelawyer,whereasself-representationkeepstheaccusedinthedriver'sseat.
Italso,however,placescontrolinthehandsofaperson,theaccused,whohasnoprofessionaldutiestothecourtortotheadministrationofjustice.
Itthereforecansetthestageforanabuseofthejudicialprocess.
AlthoughtheMiloevitrialwillforeverremainunfin-ished,theissueoftheutilisationoftherecordsoftheproceedingsshouldnotbeunderestimated.
AccordingtoHumanRightsWatch:Futuregenerationswillusetheevidencetounderstandtheregion'shistoryandhowtheconflictscametopass.
BecausenotruthcommissionhasbeenAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page24of35establishedtolookintotheeventsintheregion,theMilosevictrialmaybeoneoftheonlyvenuesinwhichagreatdealofevidencewasconsolidatedabouttheconflicts(HumanRightsWatch2006,p.
14).
Overanextendedperiodoftime,theTrialChamberdisplayedawillingnesstoengagewiththeProsecutionandSerbiaandMontenegroinaseriesofprocedurallyandsubstantivelycomplexcircumstancessurroundingamultitudeofdocuments.
Andyet,theChamberdidnotstrayfromitsimpartialroleasanarbiterinterposedbe-tweentwoopponents,balancingtheneedofthePros-ecutionfordocumentstoproveitscaseandSerbiaandMontenegro'sconcerns.
TheTrialChamber'sapproachresultedindocumentsbeingproducedtothePro-secutionbySerbiaandMontenegrothatotherwisewouldnothavebeenproduced.
MaterialsproducedintheMiloevicasehavebeenusedincasesbeforeotherinternationalcourts,suchasthegenocidecasebroughtbyBosniaandHerzegovinaagainstSerbiaandMontenegroattheInternationalCourtofJustice(BosniaandHerzegovinav.
SerbiaandMontenegro2007).
Fi-nally,materialsobtainedintheMiloevitrialwillbeofinteresttohistoriansandpoliticalscientistsseekingtogainanunderstandingoftheeventsthattookplacedur-ingthedissolutionoftheSFRY.
AlthoughMiloevi'strialnevercametoaconclusion,anotherICTYTrialChamberinasubsequentcasemadefindingsoffactbeyondreasonabledoubtregardingMiloevi'sinvolvementintheKosovoconflictin1999.
ThecaseofProsecutorv.
Milutinovietal.
—otherwiseknownasthe"MiloeviGeneralsTrial"—wastheori-ginalKosovocaseagainstMiloeviandhisco-defendantsMilanMilutinovi,Nikolaainovi,andDragoljubOjdani,whowereallindictedtogetherforcrimescommittedinKosovoduringtheNATObombingcampaigninthesummerof1999.
AfterMiloeviwasseveredfromthemulti-accusedtrialinordertobetriedalone(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi5September2002),hisco-defendantsweretriedlater,from2006to2009intheirowntrial,alongwiththreeotherdefendantswhowerejoinedtothecase.
Asaresult,theMilutinovietal.
casewasessentiallytheKosovocasewithoutMiloevi.
Assuch,Miloevifeaturedheavilyinthetrialandthrough-outtheextensivefour-volumeJudgement.
InthefinalfindingsoftheTrialChamber,itwasdeter-mined—beyondreasonabledoubt—thatMiloevishared,withtheothermembersofajointcriminalen-terprise,theintenttoforciblydisplacepartoftheKosovoAlbanianpopulation,bothwithinandoutsideKosovo,andtherebychangetheethnicbalanceintheprovincetoensurecontinuedcontrolbytheFRYandSerbianauthoritiesoverit(Prosecutorv.
Milutinovietal.
26February2009,vol.
3,paras.
466,781,1130).
TheTrialChamberalsofoundthattherewasaclandes-tineoperationtoexhumeover700bodiesoriginallybur-iedinKosovoandtransferthemtoSerbiaduringtheNATObombingandthatMiloeviwasinvolvedinorganisingthislarge-scaleoperation.
ThepurposeofthisoperationwastoconcealhundredsofbodiesfromtheinternationalrepresentativesandNATOgroundforces,whosepresenceonthegroundinKosovowasantici-patedfollowingtheNATObombing.
TheTrialChamberconcludedthatMiloeviknewthatthegreatmajorityofthecorpsesmovedwerevictimsofcrimesandwereci-vilians,includingwomenandchildren(Prosecutorv.
Milutinovietal.
26February2009,vol.
3,para.
87).
ButultimatelythemostimportantoutcomeoftheMiloevitrialisthatitdemonstrated,forthefirsttimeinthepost-WorldWarIIinternationalcriminaljusticesetting,theimplementationoftheconceptofaccount-abilityofheadsofstateforthecommissionofthemostseriouscrimesofconcerntohumanity.
Whileinthe1990sthiswasstillaquestionableendeavour,ithasnowbecomeanacceptedfact.
Today,"beingsenttoTheHague"hasbecomeanexpressionusedtorefertotop-levelmilitaryandpoliticalleadersbeingheldaccount-ablefortheirallegedmisdeeds.
FromthetransferofMiloevitoTheHaguetothelastdayofhistrial,thepublic—bothintheBalkansandtherestoftheworld—-couldwitnessdayafterdaytheappearance,theactions,andthereactionsofaheadofstateinaninternationalcriminalcourt,examiningandcross-examiningwit-nessesandinteractingwiththeProsecutionandtheJudges.
Andthiswasinthecoldlightofthecourtroom,ratherthanthroughthefiltersofthemediaandpolitics.
PracticalandlegallessonsmustbelearnedfromtheMiloeviproceedings.
64ButitwasthepiercingofthecorporateveilsurroundingheadsofstatethatconstitutestheultimateachievementoftheMiloevitrial.
Thedailygrindofthecourtroomofferedthepublictheunprece-dentedopportunityofscrutinisingaheadofstate'sconductinrelationtoastate'spoliticalandmilitaryap-paratus.
Bybringingsomeonepreviously"untouchable"tothecourtroom,theICTYchallenged—andultimatelydispelled—themythofimpunity.
Itisthisiconoclasticdeedthatchangedinternationalcriminaljusticeirrevers-ibly.
Andthiswasnominorfeat.
Endnotes1Thefirstheadofstatetobeconvictedbyasupra-nationalcriminalcourt,morespecifically,bytheInter-nationalMilitaryTribunal,wasAdmiralKarlDoenitzwho,followingHitler'sdeath,becameon1May1945theheadofstateoftheThirdReich.
SeeLillianGoldmanLawLibrary2008.
AbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page25of352SeealsoJudah2002,p.
65:"On16July1990theSer-bianLeagueofCommunistsofficiallytransformeditselfintotheSocialistPartyofSerbia(SPS)andelectedMilo-eviasitshead.
"3On19April1993,theSecretary-GeneraladdressedalettertothePresidentoftheUNSCinforminghimthatthereportwouldbemadeavailabletotheUNSecurityCouncilnolaterthan6May1993.
TheICTYwascon-sideredanadhoctribunalduetothemannerinwhichitwascreatedanditsspecifictemporalandterritorialjurisdiction.
Itiscommonlyconsideredthefirsttrulyinternationalcriminalcourttotryindividualsfortheallegedcommissionofinternationalcrimes,asopposedtothepost-WorldWarIItribunals,whosemembershipwasrestrictedtothealliedpowersthathademergedvictoriousfromthatconflict.
ThepersonaljurisdictionoftheICTYislimitedtoindividuals,asopposedtostates.
SeeStatuteofICTY,Arts.
1,6.
Thetemporaljurisdictionisovercrimesallegedtohavebeencom-mittedfrom1January1991(seeStatuteofICTY,Arts.
1,8),andthegeographicjurisdictionisovercrimesal-legedtohavebeencommittedontheterritoryoftheformerYugoslavia(StatuteofICTY,Arts.
1,8).
Finally,theICTYhasbothconcurrentandprimaryjurisdictionovernationalcourts(StatuteofICTY,Art.
9),unlikethelater-establishedInternationalCriminalCourt,whichoperatesjurisdictionallyupontheprincipleofcomplementarity.
4ThelastpageofthisdocumentissignedbyLouiseArbouranddated22May1999.
Thefilingdateindicateduponthecoverpageisthenextday,23May1999.
5On29June2001,thePresidentoftheTribunalassignedthecasetoTrialChamberIII(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljko-vi29June2001a),whichconfirmedtheamendedIn-dictmentagainstMiloevi.
Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi29June2001b(grantingleavetoamendtheoriginalindictmentbysubstitutingforittheproposedamendedindictment,whichwasannextotheMotionof29June2001,andconfirmingtheamendedindictment).
SeealsoCorrigen-dum,2July2001(correctingfootnotetwooftheabovedecisiontoread"MotiontoSubstituteProposedAmendedIndictment,29June2001").
6Accordingtotheorderfordetentiononremand,is-suedon3July2001,Miloeviwasarrestedon30March2001andwastransferredtotheUNDUinTheHagueon29June2001.
(Prosecutorv.
Miloevi3July2001a).
TheICTYwebsitestatesthatMiloeviwastransferredtothecustodyoftheTribunalon29June2001(seeICTYCaseInformationSheet);thismaybeduetothefactthatMiloeviultimatelyarrivedattheUNDUclosetomidnight,at11:00p.
m.
SeeHumanRightsWatch2006,p.
10.
7Notingthattheproseliaisonofficerhadfiledsubmis-siononbehalfofMiloevirequestingadmissionofdoc-umentstenderedasevidencethroughwitnessObradStevanoviandsettingforthargumentsinsupportoftheiradmissionintoevidence.
8ThisruleprovidesthattheTrialChambershall,if"theAccusedfailstoenterapleaattheinitialoranyfur-therappearance,enterapleaofnotguiltyontheAccused'sbehalf.
"(IT/32/REV.
21,Rule62(iv)).
9Rule74(AmicusCuriae)reads:"AChambermay,ifitconsidersitdesirablefortheproperdeterminationofthecase,inviteorgrantleavetoaState,organizationorpersontoappearbeforeitandmakesubmissionsonanyissuespecifiedbytheChamber.
"10ThesewereStevenKayfromtheUK,G.
BranislavTapukovifromtheFRY,andMischaWladimirofffromTheNetherlands.
TheyallhadpreviouslyservedascounseltothedefencebeforetheICTY(intheTadiandelebiicases).
11Forexample,theTrialChamberalsoinvitedtheAmiciCuriaetoassisttheTrialChamberbyraisinganydefencesthatMiloevimightproperlyraisebasedupontheevidence;makingasubmissionastotherelevance,ifany,oftheNATOaircampaigninKosovo;andidentify-inganypotentialwitnesseswhomtheTrialChambermaywishtocall.
SeeProsecutorv.
Miloevi11January2002.
12ThesewereRamseyClarkandJohnLivingston.
SeeProsecutorv.
Miloevi15November2001.
13Rule65(LegalAssistance)oftheRulesGoverningtheDetentionofPersonsAwaitingTrialorAppealbe-foretheTribunalorOtherwiseDetainedontheAuthor-ityoftheTribunalreads:(A)Eachdetaineeshallbeentitledtocommunicatefullyandwithoutrestraintwithhislegalrepresentative,withtheassistanceofaninter-preterwherenecessary.
(B)Allsuchcommunicationsshallbeprivileged,unlesstheRegistrarhasreasonablegroundstobelievethattheprivilegeisbeingabusedinanattemptto:i.
arrangeanescape;ii.
interferewithorin-timidatewitnesses;iii.
interferewiththeadministrationofjustice;oriv.
otherwiseendangerthesecurityandsafetyoftheDetentionUnit.
Priortosuchcommunica-tionsbeingmonitored,thedetaineeandhiscounselshallbenotifiedbytheRegistrarofthereasonsformonitor-ing.
ThedetaineemayatanytimerequestthePresidenttoreverseanydecisionmadebytheRegistrarunderthisRule.
(C)UnlesssuchlegalrepresentativeandinterpreterhavebeenprovidedbytheTribunalonthebasisoftheindigencyofthedetainee,allsuchcommunicationsshallbeborneattheexpenseofthedetainee.
(D)AllsuchvisitsshallbemadebypriorarrangementwiththeCom-mandingOfficerastothetimeanddurationofthevisitandshallbesubjecttothesamesecuritycontrolsasareimposedunderRule61.
TheCommandingOfficershallAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page26of35notrefusearequestforsuchavisitwithoutreasonablegrounds.
(E)SubjecttoSub-Rule(B)ofthisRule,inter-viewswithlegalrepresentativesandinterpretersshallbeconductedinthesightbutnotwithinthehearing,eitherdirectorindirect,ofthestaffoftheDetentionUnit.
14ThisfollowedanoralorderoftheTrialChamberdenyingtherequest.
SeeT.
42(30October2001):"JUDGEMAY:Thefirstmattertodealwiththismorn-ingisthepreliminarymotionorpreliminarymotions.
Wehavetakentheopportunitytoconsiderallofthemduringtheadjournment.
Allwillbedismissed,andweshallgiveourreasonsinwritingshortly.
"15CitingProsecutorv.
Tadi2October1995,para.
4516Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,CaseNo.
IT-99-37-PT,Deci-siononPreliminaryMotions,8November2001,paras.
12-17;StatuteofICTY,Art.
16(2):"[T]heProsecutorshallactindependentlyasaseparateorganoftheInternationalTribunal.
HeorsheshallnotseekorreceiveinstructionsfromanyGovernmentorfromanyothersource.
"17Prosecutorv.
Miloevi8November2001,paras.
18–22(citingProsecutorv.
Furundija21July2000,para.
174).
18CitingIT/32/Rev.
14,Rule58.
19Inaddition,thecaseagainstVlajkoStojiljkoviwasdismissedonaccountofthefactthathehadcommittedsuicideon13April2002inBelgrade.
SeeProsecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,Ojdani,ainovi,andStojiljkovi5September2002;ICTY2003,para.
114.
20TheMilutinovietal.
trialbeganon6July200621TheIndictmentcanbefoundinAttachmentAtoProsecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi16October2001.
22Itshouldbenotedthat,on4November2002,theTrialChambergrantedtheProsecutionleavetoamendtheCroatiaIndictmentandorderedthattheamendedCroatiaIndictmentbetheoperativeindictmentforpur-posesoftheCroatiaphaseoftheproceedings.
SeePros-ecutorv.
Miloevi4November2002.
23SeeAdditionalfile1tothisarticle,whichcontainsthetablesofthecountswithwhichMiloeviwascharged.
24Rule73(D)(13December2001)reads:(D)DecisionsonallothermotionsarewithoutinterlocutoryappealsavewiththeleaveofabenchofthreeJudgesoftheAppealsChamberwhichmaygrantsuchleave(i)ifthedecisionimpugnedwouldcausesuchprejudicetothecaseofthepartyseekingleaveascouldnotbecuredbythefinaldisposalofthetrialincludingpost-judgmentappeal;(ii)iftheissueintheproposedappealisofgen-eralimportancetoproceedingsbeforetheTribunalorininternationallawgenerally.
25Art.
16(2)reads:"TheProsecutorshallactindepend-entlyasaseparateorganoftheInternationalTribunal.
HeorsheshallnotseekorreceiveinstructionsfromanyGovernmentorfromanyothersource.
"26Accordingtothatdecision,thefactthattheTrialChamberrendersadecisionpropriomotudoesnotdenytheProsecutortherighttoseekleavetoappealpursuanttoRule73(D),providedthatthedecisionmeetstheotherrequirementsofRule73(D),anddoesnotexcludetheapplicationofRule73(B)ifthedecisionrenderedduringthecourseofthetrialisone"involvingevidenceandprocedure".
Itisonlythecharacteroftheimpugneddecision,andnotthatofitsconsequences,thatdeter-minestheapplicationofRule73(B).
SeeProsecutorv.
Miloevi,25April2002a,paras.
6–7,12.
27TheversionofRule92bis(entitled"ProofofFactsotherthanbyOralEvidence")inforceatthetimeoftheMiloeviTrial(adopted1Dec2000and13Dec2000)wasasfollows:(A)ATrialChambermayadmit,inwholeorinpart,theevidenceofawitnessintheformofawrittenstatementinlieuoforaltestimonywhichgoestoproofofamatterotherthantheactsandconductoftheaccusedaschargedintheindictment.
(i)Factorsinfavourofadmittingevidenceintheformofawrittenstatementincludebutarenotlimitedtocircumstancesinwhichtheevidenceinquestion:(a)isofacumulativenature,inthatotherwitnesseswillgiveorhavegivenoraltestimonyofsimilarfacts;(b)relatestorelevanthis-torical,politicalormilitarybackground;(c)consistsofageneralorstatisticalanalysisoftheethniccompositionofthepopulationintheplacestowhichtheindictmentrelates;(d)concernstheimpactofcrimesuponvic-tims;(e)relatestoissuesofthecharacteroftheaccused;or(f)relatestofactorstobetakenintoaccountindeter-miningsentence.
(ii)Factorsagainstadmittingevidenceintheformofawrittenstatementincludewhether:(a)thereisanoverridingpublicinterestintheevidenceinquestionbeingpresentedorally;(b)apartyobjectingcandemonstratethatitsnatureandsourcerendersitunreli-able,orthatitsprejudicialeffectoutweighsitsprobativevalue;or(c)thereareanyotherfactorswhichmakeitap-propriateforthewitnesstoattendforcross-examination.
(B)AwrittenstatementunderthisRuleshallbeadmissibleifitattachesadeclarationbytheper-sonmakingthewrittenstatementthatthecontentsofthestatementaretrueandcorrecttothebestofthatperson'sknowledgeandbeliefand(i)thedeclarationiswitnessedby:(a)apersonauthorisedtowitnesssuchadeclarationinaccordancewiththelawandprocedureofaState;or(b)aPresidingOfficerappointedbytheRegis-traroftheTribunalforthatpurpose;and(ii)thepersonwitnessingthedeclarationverifiesinwriting:(a)thatthepersonmakingthestatementisthepersonidentifiedinthesaidstatement;(b)thatthepersonmakingthestate-mentstatedthatthecontentsofthewrittenstatementare,tothebestofthatperson'sknowledgeandbelief,trueandcorrect;(c)thatthepersonmakingthestate-mentwasinformedthatifthecontentofthewrittenAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page27of35statementisnottruethenheorshemaybesubjecttoproceedingsforgivingfalsetestimony;and(d)thedateandplaceofthedeclaration.
Thedeclarationshallbeat-tachedtothewrittenstatementpresentedtotheTrialChamber.
(C)Awrittenstatementnotintheformpre-scribedbyparagraph(B)mayneverthelessbeadmissibleifmadebyapersonwhohassubsequentlydied,orbyapersonwhocannolongerwithreasonablediligencebetraced,orbyapersonwhoisbyreasonofbodilyormentalconditionunabletotestifyorally,iftheTrialChamber:(i)issosatisfiedonabalanceofprobabilities;and(ii)findsfromthecircumstancesinwhichthestate-mentwasmadeandrecordedthattherearesatisfactoryindiciaofitsreliability.
(D)AChambermayadmitatran-scriptofevidencegivenbyawitnessinproceedingsbe-foretheTribunalwhichgoestoproofofamatterotherthantheactsandconductoftheaccused.
(E)SubjecttoRule127oranyordertothecontrary,apartyseekingtoadduceawrittenstatementortranscriptshallgivefour-teendaysnoticetotheopposingparty,whomaywithinsevendaysobject.
TheTrialChambershalldecide,afterhearingtheparties,whethertoadmitthestatementortranscriptinwholeorinpartandwhethertorequirethewitnesstoappearforcross-examination.
28JudgeKwonissuedadeclarationexpressinghisviewinrelationtothegeneralissueoftheadmissionofwit-nessstatementsasevidenceduringtrial.
Prosecutorv.
Miloevi21March2002,para.
3(DeclarationofJudgeO-GonKwon).
29ItisalsotobenotedthatJudgeKwondissented.
30SeeProsecutorv.
Miloevi12January2004;9December2003.
AsnotedbyHumanRightsWatch,"[t]heAppealsChamber'sdecisionmarkedamajorshiftinhowevidencewaspresentedatthetrial.
"SeeHumanRightsWatch2006,p.
65.
However,theTrialChamber'sinterpretationofRule89(F)asprecludingevidencegoingtoprovetheactsandconductofanaccusedwastobe"overturned"aswell,withthecodificationoftheAppealsChamber'sdecisioninRule92ter.
On13September2006,thejudgesadoptedRule92ter(entitled"OtherAdmissionofWrittenStatementsandTranscripts"),whichprovidesasfollows:(A)ATrialChambermayadmit,inwholeorinpart,theevidenceofawitnessintheformofawrittenstatementortranscriptofevidencegivenbyawitnessinproceedingsbeforetheTribunal,underthefollowingconditions:(i)thewitnessispresentincourt;(ii)thewitnessisavailableforcross-examinationandanyquestioningbytheJudges;and(iii)thewitnessatteststhatthewrittenstatementortran-scriptaccuratelyreflectsthatwitness'declarationandwhatthewitnesswouldsayifexamined.
(B)Evidencead-mittedunderparagraph(A)mayincludeevidencethatgoestoproofoftheactsandconductoftheaccusedaschargedintheindictment.
Followingthiscodification,thePresidentoftheTribunal,inhisbiannualreporttotheUNSecurityCouncil,deliveredon7June2006,statedthat,"[t]heintroductionofRule92ter,whichau-thorizesaTrialChamberundercertainconditionstoconsiderwrittenstatementsandtranscriptsofwitnessesinlieuoforaltestimonythatgoestoproofoftheactsandconductoftheaccused,hasalsohadasignificantimpactonproceedingsattheInternationalTribunal.
"Aftergivingaspecificexample,thePresidentreporttotheUNSecurityCouncilthatitwas"clearthatasub-stantialsavingsofcourttimeisresultingfromtheuseofRule92ter.
"SeePocar2007,para.
11.
HumanRightsWatchhasgenerallyconcurredwiththeaboveassess-ment,whilecautioningthatthevirtualeliminationofdirectexaminationofawitnessmayreducethejudges'abilitytoassesshisorhercredibilityandrecommend-ingthatthepublicbefurnishedwithcopiesofthestatementsofawitnessinadvanceofthetestimony,sothewitness'sevidencecanbeeasilyfollowedandunderstoodbythepublic.
SeeHumanRightsWatch2006,pp.
65–67.
31On9May2002,theAmiciCuriaeopposedthemo-tion.
SeeProsecutorv.
Miloevi9May2002.
32Prosecutorv.
Miloevi12December2002a,para.
1.
On6February2003,theAmiciCuriaeopposedthemo-tion.
SeeProsecutorv.
Miloevi12December2002b.
33Rule70(entitled"MattersnotSubjecttoDisclos-ure"),publishedintheversionof13December2001,reads:(A)NotwithstandingtheprovisionsofRules66and67,reports,memoranda,orotherinternaldocu-mentspreparedbyaparty,itsassistantsorrepresenta-tivesinconnectionwiththeinvestigationorpreparationofthecase,arenotsubjecttodisclosureornotificationunderthoseRules.
(B)IftheProsecutorisinpossessionofinformationwhichhasbeenprovidedtotheProsecu-toronaconfidentialbasisandwhichhasbeenusedsolelyforthepurposeofgeneratingnewevidence,thatinitialinformationanditsoriginshallnotbedisclosedbytheProsecutorwithouttheconsentofthepersonorentityprovidingtheinitialinformationandshallinanyeventnotbegiveninevidencewithoutpriordisclosuretotheaccused.
(Amended4Oct1994,revised30Jan1995,revised12Nov1997)(C)If,afterobtainingtheconsentofthepersonorentityprovidinginformationunderthisRule,theProsecutorelectstopresentasevi-denceanytestimony,documentorothermaterialsoprovided,theTrialChamber,notwithstandingRule98,maynotordereitherpartytoproduceadditionalevi-dencereceivedfromthepersonorentityprovidingtheinitialinformation,normaytheTrialChamberforthepurposeofobtainingsuchadditionalevidenceitselfsummonthatpersonorarepresentativeofthatentityasawitnessorordertheirattendance.
ATrialChambermaynotuseitspowertoordertheattendanceofAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page28of35witnessesortorequireproductionofdocumentsinordertocompeltheproductionofsuchadditionalevi-dence.
(Amended6Oct1995,amended25July1997)(D)IftheProsecutorcallsawitnesstointroduceinevidenceanyinformationprovidedunderthisRule,theTrialChambermaynotcompelthatwitnesstoansweranyquestionrelatingtotheinformationoritsorigin,ifthewitnessdeclinestoanswerongroundsofconfidentiality.
(Amended6Oct1995,amended25July1997)(E)TherightoftheaccusedtochallengetheevidencepresentedbytheProsecutionshallremainunaffectedsubjectonlytothelimitationscontainedinparagraphs(C)and(D).
(Amended6Oct1995,amended12Apr2001)(F)TheTrialChambermayorderuponanapplicationbytheac-cusedordefencecounselthat,intheinterestsofjustice,theprovisionsofthisRuleshallapplymutatismutandistospecificinformationinthepossessionoftheaccused.
(Amended25July1997)(G)Nothinginparagraph(C)or(D)aboveshallaffectaTrialChamber'spowerunderRule89(D)toexcludeevidenceifitsprobativevalueissubstantiallyoutweighedbytheneedtoensureafairtrial.
(Amended6Oct1995,amended12Apr2001).
34TheFRYchangeditsnameto"SerbiaandMontenegro"on4February2003.
SeeProsecutorv.
Miloevi7February2003,p.
2,note1.
35SeealsoProsecutorv.
Blaki10April1997,pp.
5–18.
36Rule54bis(entitled"OrdersDirectedtoStatesfortheProductionofDocuments")publishedinthe13De-cember2001versionreads:(A)ApartyrequestinganorderunderRule54thataStateproducedocumentsorinformationshallapplyinwritingtotherelevantJudgeorTrialChamberandshall:(i)identifyasfaraspossiblethedocumentsorinformationtowhichtheapplicationrelates;(ii)indicatehowtheyarerelevanttoanymatterinissuebeforetheJudgeorTrialChamberandneces-saryforafairdeterminationofthatmatter;and,(iii)ex-plainthestepsthathavebeentakenbytheapplicanttosecuretheState'sassistance.
(B)TheJudgeorTrialChambermayrejectanapplicationunderparagraph(A)inlimineifsatisfiedthat:(i)thedocumentsorinforma-tionarenotrelevanttoanymatterinissueinthepro-ceedingsbeforethemorarenotnecessaryforafairdeterminationofanysuchmatter;or(ii)noreasonablestepshavebeentakenbytheapplicanttoobtainthedoc-umentsorinformationfromtheState.
(C)AdecisionbyaJudgeoraTrialChamberunderparagraph(B)or(E)shallbesubjecttoappealwiththeleaveofabenchofthreeJudgesoftheAppealsChamberonthesamegroundsandconditionsassetoutinRule73(D)and(E).
(D)(i)Exceptincaseswhereadecisionhasbeentakenpursuanttoparagraph(B)orparagraph(E),theStateconcernedshallbegivennoticeoftheapplication,andnotlessthanfifteendays'noticeofthehearingoftheapplication,atwhichtheStateshallhaveanoppor-tunitytobeheard.
(ii)ExceptincaseswheretheJudgeorTrialChamberdeterminesotherwise,onlythepartymakingtheapplicationandtheStateconcernedshallhavetherighttobeheard.
(E)If,havingregardtoallcir-cumstances,theJudgeorTrialChamberhasgoodrea-sonsforsodoing,theJudgeorTrialChambermaymakeanordertowhichthisRuleapplieswithoutgivingtheStateconcernednoticeortheopportunitytobeheardunderparagraph(D),andthefollowingprovisionsshallapplytosuchanorder:(i)theordershallbeservedontheStateconcerned;(ii)subjecttoparagraph(iv),theordershallnothaveeffectuntilfifteendaysaftersuchservice;(iii)aStatemay,withinfifteendaysofserviceoftheorder,applybynoticetotheJudgeorTrialChambertohavetheordersetaside,onthegroundsthatdisclos-urewouldprejudicenationalsecurityinterests.
Paragraph(F)shallapplytosuchanoticeasitdoestoanoticeofobjection;(iv)wherenoticeisgivenunderparagraph(iii),theordershallthereuponbestayeduntilthedecisionontheapplication;(v)paragraphs(F)and(G)shallapplytothedeterminationofanapplicationmadepursuanttoparagraph(iii)astheydotothedeterminationofanap-plicationofwhichnoticeisgivenpursuanttoparagraph(D);(vi)theStateandthepartywhoappliedfortheordershall,subjecttoanyspecialmeasuresmadepursuanttoarequestunderparagraphs(F)or(G),haveanoppor-tunitytobeheardatthehearingofanapplicationmadepursuanttoparagraph(E)(iii)ofthisRule.
(F)TheState,ifitraisesanobjectionpursuanttoparagraph(D),onthegroundsthatdisclosurewouldprejudiceitsnationalsecurityinterests,shallfileanoticeofobjectionnotlessthanfivedaysbeforethedatefixedforthehearing,spe-cifyingthegroundsofobjection.
Initsnoticeofobjec-tiontheState:(i)shallidentify,asfaraspossible,thebasisuponwhichitclaimsthatitsnationalsecurityin-terestswillbeprejudiced;and(ii)mayrequesttheJudgeorTrialChambertodirectthatappropriateprotectivemeasuresbemadeforthehearingoftheobjection,in-cludinginparticular:(a)hearingtheobjectionincameraandexparte;(b)allowingdocumentstobesubmittedinredactedform,accompaniedbyanaffidavitsignedbyaseniorStateofficialexplainingthereasonsfortheredac-tion;(c)orderingthatnotranscriptsbemadeofthehear-ingandthatdocumentsnotfurtherrequiredbytheTribunalbereturneddirectlytotheStatewithoutbeingfiledwiththeRegistryorotherwiseretained.
(G)Withre-gardtotheprocedureunderparagraph(F)above,theJudgeorTrialChambermayorderthefollowingpro-tectivemeasuresforthehearingoftheobjection:(i)thedesignationofasingleJudgefromaChambertoexam-inethedocumentsorhearsubmissions;and/or(ii)thattheStatebeallowedtoprovideitsowninterpretersforthehearinganditsowntranslationsofsensitiveAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page29of35documents.
(H)RejectionofanapplicationmadeunderthisRuleshallnotprecludeasubsequentapplicationbytherequestingpartyinrespectofthesamedocumentsorinformationifnewcircumstancesarise.
(I)AnorderunderthisRulemayprovideforthedocumentsorinfor-mationinquestiontobeproducedbytheStateunderappropriatearrangementstoprotectitsinterests,whichmayincludethosearrangementsspecifiedinparagraphs(F)(ii)or(G).
OncedocumentshavebeenproducedtoapartybyaStatepursuanttoanorderunderRule54bis,theycanbeusedindifferentmanners.
Suchdocumentsmayingeneralinformaparty'spreparationfortrial,butoftentimes,apartywillwanttotenderasevidenceadocumentreceivedbyaState.
ItisthenthatthepartymustdemonstratethatthedocumentissusceptibletobeingadmittedintoevidenceattrialpursuanttoRule89(C),whichprovides,"AChambermayadmitanyrele-vantevidencewhichitdeemstohaveprobativevalue.
"SeeIT/32/REV.
21:Rule89(C).
Thisisbynomeansaproformamatter,becauseitisonlyafterdocumentsareadmittedintoevidencethattheyformpartoftherecordofthetrialandthuscanbetakenintoaccountforpur-posesofthejudges'deliberationsandfinaljudgement.
Moreover,documentsobtainedfromaStatecanoftenbeconsideredtohaveahighdegreeofreliability,thuspossessingahighprobativevalue.
37StatingthattheProsecutionhadissued57documentrequestsinconnectionwiththeMiloevitrial,ofwhich32werestillpending,Prosecutorv.
Miloevi13December2002,paras.
8–10(requestingaccesstoarchives).
38Art.
18(2):TheProsecutorshallhavethepowertoquestionsuspects,victimsandwitnesses,tocollectevi-denceandtoconducton-siteinvestigations.
Incarryingoutthesetasks,theProsecutormay,asappropriate,seektheassistanceoftheStateauthoritiesconcerned.
";Rule39:"Intheconductofaninvestigation,theProsecutormay:(i)summonandquestionsuspects,victimsandwit-nessesandrecordtheirstatements,collectevidenceandconducton-siteinvestigations;(ii)undertakesuchothermattersasmayappearnecessaryforcompletingthein-vestigationandthepreparationandconductofthepros-ecutionatthetrial,includingthetakingofspecialmeasurestoprovideforthesafetyofpotentialwitnessesandinformants;(iii)seek,tothatend,theassistanceofanyStateauthorityconcerned,aswellasofanyrelevantinternationalbodyincludingtheInternationalCriminalPoliceOrganization(INTERPOL);and(iv)requestsuchordersasmaybenecessaryfromaTrialChamberoraJudge.
"39Arguing,interalia,thatrequestsforaccesstoarchivesreveallogicalinconsistencywithspecificityrequirement.
40Rule54:"Attherequestofeitherpartyorpropriomotu,aJudgeoraTrialChambermayissuesuchorders,summonses,subpoenas,warrantsandtransferordersasmaybenecessaryforthepurposesofaninvestigationorforthepreparationorconductofthetrial.
"41Theseconddecisionwasinitiallyissuedonaconfi-dentialbasisbutsubsequentlymadepublic.
SeeProsecu-torv.
Miloevi15September2003,note3;18June2003.
42See,e.
g.
Prosecutorv.
Miloevi16January2004;17February2004(reportingoneffortstolocatefinancialdocumentationfromtheMinistryofFinanceandEcon-omyofRepublicofSerbia,documentationrelatingtoJointCommandforKosovo,documentationrelatedtoNoviSadCorps,letterfromRadovanKaraditoZoranLiliregardingdismissalofgeneralsofBosniaSerbArmy,anddocumentationrelatingtotrainingofvolun-teersinspecialunitsoftheYugoslavArmy);23February2004(reportingfurtheronfinancialdocumentation).
43ThesewereZdenkoTomanoviandDragoslavOgn-janovi.
SeeHearing10April2002,T.
2797.
44ThiswasBrankoRaki,SeniorLecturerattheFac-ultyofLawattheUniversityofBelgrade.
SeeProsecutorv.
Miloevi23October2003b.
45ThiswasProfessorMischaWladimiroff.
SeePros-ecutorv.
Miloevi10October2002,p.
4.
46ThiswasProfessorTimothyMcCormackfromAustralia.
SeeProsecutorv.
Miloevi22November2002a.
47Foracomprehensivesubstantivediscussiononjudi-cialdecisionsregardingself-representation,seeBoas2006.
48TheTrialChamberwasinformedbyUnitedNationsDetentionUnitthatMiloeviwouldnotbepresentincourtthatdaybecausehehadcomplainedofexhaustionandthatamedicalreportwasbeingobtained.
Hearing1November2002,T.
12727.
Miloevihadpreviouslybeenunabletoattendcourtduetoillhealthon18–28March2002,17–27June2002,and18–19July2002.
49Rule80(ControlofProceedings)reads:(A)TheTrialChambermayexcludeapersonfromthecourtroominordertoprotecttherightoftheaccusedtoafairandpublictrial,ortomaintainthedignityanddecorumoftheproceedings.
(B)TheTrialChambermayordertheremovalofanaccusedfromthecourtroomandcontinuetheproceedingsintheabsenceoftheaccusediftheac-cusedhaspersistedindisruptiveconductfollowingawarningthatsuchconductmaywarranttheremovaloftheaccusedfromthecourtroom.
50Anexampleofsomeofthesedocuments,subjecttotheadmissionofwhichtheProsecutionhadcloseditscase,weretheminutesandstenographicnotesoftheFRY'sSupremeDefenceCouncil.
InJune2004,afterthecloseoftheProsecutioncaseandbeforethestartofthedefencecase,theChamberissuedadecisionfindingthattheProsecutionhaddemonstratedtherelevanceoftwoAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page30of35sessionsoftheSDCmaterials,grantingpermissionforthemtobeadmittedintoevidence,andnotingthatitwouldissueanotherdecisionwithrespecttotheremain-deroftheSDCmaterialsinduecourse.
SeeProsecutorv.
Miloevi23September2004a,pp.
2–4(notingthattheTrialChamberissuedaconfidentialversionofitsdecisionon11June2004).
InSeptember,theChamberissueditsseconddecisionwithrespecttotheadmissibil-ityoftheSDCmaterials,inwhichitgrantedadmissiontotheremainderoftheSDCmaterials.
SeeProsecutorv.
Miloevi23September2004b,p.
4.
51Foracomprehensiveanalysisofthemotionforjudgmentforacquittal,seeGaparayi2004,pp.
737–766.
52InrespectoftheallegationschallengedbytheAmiciCuriaeinthethreeindictments,theProsecutionconcededthatforsomeofthemtherewasnoorinsufficientevi-dencetomeetthelegalstandardrequiredunderRule98bisanddidnotobjecttoajudgmentofacquittalbeingenteredinrespectoftheseallegations.
However,manyofthechallengeswerenotconcededbytheProsecution.
SeeProsecutorv.
Miloevi3May2004,p.
25,etseq(Kosovo),p.
61,etseq(Croatia),andp.
174,etseq(Bosnia).
53TheIndictmentcanbefoundinAnnexAofPros-ecutorv.
Miloevi22November2002b.
54TheIndictmentcanbefoundattachedtoProsecutorv.
Miloevi26July2004a.
55Notingthatproseliaisonofficerhadfiledsubmis-siononbehalfofMiloevirequestingadmissionofdocumentstenderedasevidencethroughwitnessObradStevanoviandsettingforthargumentsinsupportoftheiradmissionintoevidence.
56RequiringalsoRegistrartoidentifycounselwhomightbeassignedtocase.
57SeeRule90(H)ofthe13December2001versionreads:(i)Cross-examinationshallbelimitedtothesubject-matteroftheevidence-in-chiefandmattersaf-fectingthecredibilityofthewitnessand,wherethewitnessisabletogiveevidencerelevanttothecaseforthecross-examiningparty,tothesubject-matterofthatcase.
(ii)Inthecross-examinationofawitnesswhoisabletogiveevidencerelevanttothecaseforthecross-examiningparty,counselshallputtothatwitnessthenatureofthecaseofthepartyforwhomthatcounselappearswhichisincontradictionoftheevidencegivenbythewitness.
(iii)TheTrialChambermay,intheexerciseofitsdiscretion,permitenquiryintoadditionalmatters.
58Citing,ina"compare"signal,Prosecutorv.
Blaki29October1997,para.
68(citingNewZealandv.
France,p.
268,para.
46).
59Hearing15November2005,T.
46481–46484(Milo-evinotedthatthesethreephysicianswere"profes-sionalsfromRussia,France,andSerbia").
60Thesereportswerefiledconfidentially,buttheirexistenceandthefactthattheywerefiledbeforetheTrialChamberisamatterofpublicrecord.
SeeHearing15November2005,T.
46481–46484(discussionofproceduralmattersinopensession).
61TheProsecutionfiledanInterimResponseon22December2005;seeProsecutorv.
Miloevi22December2005a;seealsoProsecutorv.
Miloevi22December2005b.
62Althoughtheattachmentsthemselvesareconfiden-tial,theyaredescribedintheSecondAddendum,whichwasfiledpublicly.
SeeSecondAddendum,para5.
63See,e.
g.
Hearing02September2004,T.
25953:"JUDGEMAY:Well,hehasshownincross-examinationthathehasagreatdealofmaterialavailabletohim,verydetailedcross-examinationofalotofwitnesses,whichmusthavebeenbasedonmaterial.
"Later,duringthedefencephaseofthecase,theTrialChamberremarkedthatMiloevicouldreceiveandsenduncensoredmailandfacsimilemessagesfromandtohisLegalAssociatesonweekdays,conductunmonitoredcommunicationsbytelephonewithhisLegalAssociatesduringalldaysoftheweek,receivescheduledvisitsofhisLegalAssociatesduringweekdays,makeuseofthephotocopyingfacilitiesoftheUNDU,reviewvideoevidenceonVCRattheUNDetentionUnit,usehisownportablecomputerintheUNDetentionUnit,and,ifhesowished,installaprintertoit.
Prosecutorv.
Miloevi22September2004,para.
65.
Whileappearingincourt,Miloeviwasallowedtoaccessaprivilegedphonelineduringthetrialbreaksandcouldsendfacsimilesandusephotocopyingfacilitiesifurgentlyneeded.
Prosecutorv.
Miloevi12December2005,p.
10,note49.
64Foracriticaldiscussion,seeGrosscup2004,p.
355;Steinitz2005,pp.
103–123;HarvardInternationalReview2006.
AdditionalfilesAdditionalfile1:Tablesof"Counts".
ThefilecontainsthetablesofthecountswithwhichMiloeviwascharged.
(PDF97.
3kb)Additionalfile2:Quantitativedataonevidence.
NotwithstandingtheTrialChamber'sdenialoftheProsecution'smotiontoreopenitscase-in-chiefinrelationtotheBosniaandKosovoindictmentsinDecember2005(inJanuary2006,theChamberdeniedtheProsecution'smotionforcertificationofaninterlocutoryappealofthisdecision;Prosecutorv.
Miloevi18January2006),bythetimethetrialwasterminated,aprodigiousamountofevidencehadbeenpresentedbybothparties,inadditionto49,191pagesoftranscripts.
Thetablesinthefileattempttocapturethesheervolumeoftheevidence.
(PDF97.
4kb)CompetinginterestsTheauthorsdeclarethattheyhavenocompetinginterests.
Authors'contributionsTheviewsexpressedhereinarethoseoftheauthorsaloneanddonotnecessarilyreflecttheviewsoftheOPCW,ICC,ICTY,ortheUnitedNationsingeneral.
Bothauthorsreadandapprovedthefinalmanuscript.
AcknowledgementsThetitleofthisarticleborrowsfromtheseminalbookofTaylor(1992).
AbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page31of35Authordetails1PresidencyLegalandEnforcementUnit,InternationalCriminalCourt,OudeWaalsdorperweg10,2597AKTheHague,TheNetherlands.
2OrganisationfortheProhibitionofChemicalWeapons,JohandeWittlaan32,2517JRTheHague,TheNetherlands.
Received:25November2015Accepted:5January2016References"MiloeviMotion"(untitleddocumentfiledbytheaccused)(30August2001)Addendumto"ProsecutionSubmissioninResponsetotheTrialChamber's19July2004'FurtherOrderonFutureConductoftheTrial'"andalsoto"ProsecutionSubmissioninResponsetotheTrialChamber's21July2004'FurtherOrderonFutureConductoftheTrialRelatingtoSeveranceofOneormoreIndictments'"(6August2004)ApplicationoftheConventiononthePreventionandPunishmentoftheCrimeofGenocide(BosniaandHerzegovinav.
SerbiaandMontenegro)(Judgment)2007.
http://www.
icj-cij.
org/docket/files/91/13685.
pdf.
Accessed8Nov2015BBC(2001a)Milosevicgetsbirthdayvisit,20August.
,http://news.
bbc.
co.
uk/1/hi/world/europe/1500676.
stm.
Accessed15Jul2009BBC(2001b)Milosevicwifemakesprisonvisit.
19July.
,http://news.
bbc.
co.
uk/2/hi/europe/1443021.
stm.
Accessed15July2009BBC(2006)Miloeviburiedinhishometown.
18March.
http://news.
bbc.
co.
uk/2/hi/europe/4819158.
stm.
Accessed11Oct2015BoasG(2006)Therighttoself-representationininternationalanddomesticcriminallaw—limitationsandqualificationsonthatright.
In:Thedynamicsofinternationalcriminaljustice.
EssaysinhonoursofSirRichardMay.
MartinusNijhoffPublishers,LeidendelPonteC(2002)ICTY,AddressbytheProsecutoroftheInternationalCriminalTribunalsfortheformerYugoslaviaandRwanda.
Mrs.
CarladelPonte,totheUnitedNationsSecurityCouncil(30October2002)JJJ/P.
I.
S.
/709-eFeatherstoneY(2006)SirRichardMay:APersonalReflection.
In:AbtahiH,BoasG(eds)Thedynamicsofinternationalcriminaljustice.
EssaysinhonourofSirRichardMay.
MartinusNijhoffPublishers,LeidenGaparayiI(2004)TheMiloevitrialatthehalfwaystage:Judgementonthemotionforacquittal.
LeidenJournalofInternationalLaw17:737–766GrosscupS(2004)ThetrialofSlobodanMilosevic:Thedemiseofheadofstateimmunityandthespecterofvictor'sjustice.
DenverJInt'lL&Policy32:355HarvardInternationalReview(2006)CredibilityandlegitimacyofinternationalcriminaltribunalsinthewakeofMilosevic'sdeath.
InHarvardInternationalReview.
http://hir.
harvard.
edu/credibility-and-legitimacy-of-international-criminal-tribunals-in-the-wake-of-milosevics-death/.
Accessed27Nov2006Hearing(02September2004)Hearing(11November2002)Hearing(10April2002)Hearing(10March2003)Hearing(12December2005)Hearing(15November2005)Hearing(18December2002)Hearing(2February2006)Hearing(24April2002)Hearing(27September2002)Hearing(30May2002)Hearing(30September2002)Hearing(31Augustand1September2004)Hearing(5July2004)Hearing,11December2001,T.
32(Bosnia)HumanRightsWatch(2006)Weighingtheevidence,lessonsfromtheSlobodanMilosevictrial.
18(10(D))ICTY(2003)TenthAnnualReportoftheInternationalTribunalfortheProsecutionofPersonsResponsibleforSeriousViolationsofInternationalHumanitarianLawCommittedintheTerritoryoftheFormerYugoslaviasince1991totheUnitedNationsSecurityCouncilICTYcaseinformationsheet,http://www.
icty.
org/x/cases/slobodan_milosevic/cis/en/cis_milosevic_slobodan.
pdf.
Accessed15Jul2009IT/32/REV.
21RulesofProcedureandEvidenceoftheInternationalCriminalTribunalfortheformerYugoslavia(adopted1994)JordaC(2002)ICTY,AddressbyHisExcellency,JudgeClaudeJorda,PresidentofInternationalCriminalTribunalfortheformerYugoslavia,totheUnitedNationsSecurityCouncil(30October2002)JDH/P.
I.
S.
/708-eJudahT(2002)Kosovo,warandrevenge.
YaleUniversityPress,NewHavenLangerM(2005)Theriseofmanagerialjudgingininternationalcriminallaw.
AmJCompL53:835LillianGoldmanLawLibrary(2008)JudgementDoenitz.
http://avalon.
law.
yale.
edu/imt/juddoeni.
asp.
Accessed04Sept2015ProsecutorvMiloevi,CaseNo.
IT-99-37-PT,AmiciCuriaeBriefonJurisdiction,19October2001,atparas.
35-51(citingRule58,RulesofProcedureandEvidence,IT/32/Rev.
14)MotionHearing(Croatia)(29October2001)NuclearTestscase(NewZealandv.
France),I.
C.
J.
Reports1974ParkerK(2006)'Reporttothepresident,deathofSlobodanMiloevi'.
,30May2006.
http://www.
icty.
org/x/cases/slobodan_milosevic/custom2/en/parkerreport.
pdf.
Accessed8Nov2015PocarF(2007)'Letterdated15May2007fromthePresidentoftheInternationalTribunalfortheProsecutionofPersonsResponsibleforSeriousViolationsofInternationalHumanitarianLawCommittedintheTerritoryoftheFormerYugoslaviasince1991,addressedtothePresidentoftheSecurityCouncil'(16May2007)S/2007/283Prosecutorv.
Blagojevi(PublicandRedactedReasonsforDecisiononAppealbyVidojeBlagojevitoReplacehisDefenceTeam)IT-02-60-AR73.
4(7November2003)Prosecutorv.
Blaki(AmicuscuriaeBriefSubmittedbytheMax-Planck-InstituteforComparativePublicLawandInternationalLaw(Max-Planck-InstitutfürauslndischesffentlichesRechtundVlkerrecht)Heidelberg,GermanytotheInternationalCriminalTribunalfortheFormerYugoslaviaintheCaseofTheProsecutorv.
TihomirBlaki)IT-95-14-PT,pursuanttotheorderinvitingamicuscuriaebriefsof14March1997,IT-95-14-PT(10April1997)Prosecutorv.
Blaki(JudgementontheRequestoftheRepublicofCroatiaforReviewofTrialChamberIIof18July1997)IT-95-14-AR108bis(29October1997)Prosecutorv.
Furundija(Judgment)IT-05-17/1-A(21July2000)Prosecutorv.
Karadi(DecisiononInterlocutoryAppealoftheTrialChamber'sDecisiononAdequateFacilities)IT-95-5/18-AR73.
2(7May2009)Prosecutorv.
Krajinik(DecisiononKrajinikRequestandonProsecutionMotion)IT-00-39-A(11September2007)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi("ProsecutionMotiontoAmendtheBosniaIndictmentwithConfidentialAnnexB")IT-02-54-T(22November2002b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(AmiciCuriaeBriefonJurisdiction)IT-99-37-PT(19October2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(AmiciCuriaeMotionforJudgementofAcquittalPursuanttoRule98bis)IT-02-54-T(3March2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(AmiciCuriaeObservationsonthe"ProsecutionNoticeofAdjudicatedFacts,")IT-02-54-T(12December2002b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(AmiciCuriaeResponsetotheProsecutionMotiononJoinder)IT-99-37-PT,IT-01-50-PT,andIT-01-51-I(5December2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(AmiciCuriaeSubmissionsinResponsetotheTrialChamber's'FurtherOrderonFutureConductoftheTrialConcerningAssignmentofDefenceCounsel'dated6August2004")(13August2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(AmiciCuriaeSubmissionsinResponsetoTrialChamberFurtherDecisiononProsecutionMotionforJudicialNoticeofAdjudicatedFactsDated6November2003)IT-02-54-T(18November2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(AmiciCuriaeSubmissionsontheTrialChamber'sFurtherOrderonFutureConductoftheTrialRelatingtoSeveranceofOneorMoreIndictmentsdated21July2004)(27July2004b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ApplicationforLimitedRe-OpeningoftheBosniaandKosovoComponentsoftheProsecutionCase)IT-02-54-T(18July2005)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(BriefontheProvisionofAdequateFacilitiestoAllowtheAccusedtoPreparehisDefence)IT-02-54-T(5March2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisionAffirmingtheRegistrar'sDenialofAssignedCounsel'sApplicationtoWithdraw)IT-02-54-T(7February2005a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisionConcerninganAmicusCuriae)IT-02-54-T(10October2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisioninPartonProsecutionMotionforOrdersPursuanttoRule54bisAgainstSerbiaandMontenegro)IT-02-54-T(5June2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisioninRelationtoSeverance,ExtensionofTimeandRest)IT-02-54-T(12December2005)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisioninRelationtoSeverance,ExtensionofTimeandRest)IT-02-54-T(13December2005a)AbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page32of35Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononAdmissibilityofProsecutionInvestigator'sEvidence)IT-02-54-AR73.
2(30September2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononAdmissionofDocumentsinConnectionwithTestimonyofDefenceWitnessObradStevanovi)IT-02-54-T(8July2005)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononApplicationforaLimitedRe-OpeningoftheBosniaandKosovoComponentsoftheProsecutionCase)IT-02-54-T(13December2005b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononAssignedCounselApplicationforInterviewandTestimonyofTonyBlairandGerhardSchrder)IT-02-54-T(9December2005)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononAssignedCounselRequestforProvisionalRelease)IT-02-54-T(23February2006)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononAssignedCounsel'sMotionforWithdrawal)IT-02-54-T(7December2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononConfidentialProsecutionMotionforAdmissionofaTranscriptandStatementPursuanttoRules92bis(D)and89(F)forWitnessB-1805)IT-02-54-T(12January2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononInterlocutoryAppealontheAdmissibilityofEvidence-in-ChiefintheFormofWrittenStatements)IT-02-54-AR73.
4(20September2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononMotionforJudgementofAcquittal)IT-02-54-T(16June2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononNotificationoftheCompletionofProsecutionCaseandMotionfortheAdmissionofEvidenceinWrittenForm)IT-02-54-T(25February2004b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononPreliminaryMotions)IT-99-37-PT(8November2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononProsecutionApplicationforFurtherActioninRelationtoPreviousRule54bisApplications)IT-02-54-T(31October2005)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononProsecutionInterlocutoryAppealfromRefusaltoOrderJoinder)IT-99-37-AR73;IT-01-50-AR73;andIT-01-51-AR73(1February2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononProsecutionMotionforAdmissionofWitnessDeclarationofToreSoldalPursuanttoRule89(F))IT-02-54-T(9December2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononProsecutionMotionforJudicialNoticeofAdjudicatedFacts)IT-02-54-T(10April2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononProsecutionMotionforReconsiderationRegardingEvidenceofDefenceWitnessesMitarBalevi,VladislavJovanovi,VukainAndri,andDobreAleksovskiandDecisionProprioMotuReconsideringAdmissionofExhibits837and838RegardingEvidenceofDefenceWitnessBarryLituchy)IT-02-54-T(17May2005)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononProsecutionMotionfortheAdmissionofEvidence-in-ChiefofitsWitnessesinWriting)IT-02-54-T(16April2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononProsecutionMotionfortheAdmissionofTranscriptsinLieuofVivaVoceTestimonyPursuantto92bis(D)—FoaTranscripts)IT-02-54-T(30June2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononProsecution'sMotionforJoinder)IT-99-37-PT;IT-01-50-PT;andIT-01-51-PT(13December2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononProsecution'sMotionforJudicialNoticeofAdjudicatedFactsRelevanttotheMunicipalityofBrko)IT-02-54-T(5June2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononProsecution'sRequesttohaveWrittenStatementsAdmittedunderRule92bis)IT-02-54-T(21March2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononProsecution'sRequestforCertificationofAppealunderRule73(B))IT-02-54-T(18January2006)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononReviewofIndictment)IT-01-51-1(22November2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononSerbiaandMontenegro'sMotiontoVacateorSuspend9March2006DecisionandRequesttoRedactPartsofPublicVersionofDecision)IT-02-54-T(12April2006)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisionontheInterlocutoryAppealbytheAmiciCuriaeagainsttheTrialChamberOrderConcerningthePresentationandPreparationoftheDefenceCase)IT-02-54-AR73.
6(20January2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisionontheProsecutionApplicationforLeavetoFileanInterlocutoryAppeal)IT-02-54-AR73(25April2002a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisionontheProsecutor'sInterlocutoryAppealAgainsttheTrialChamber's10April2003"DecisiononProsecutionMotionforJudicialNoticeofAdjudicatedFacts")IT-02-54-AR73.
5(28October2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(DecisiononTwoProsecutionRequestsforCertificationofAppealagainstDecisionsoftheTrialChamber)IT-02-54-T(6May2003a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(Decision)IT-02-54-T(14December2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(FinalDecisiononAdmissibilityofInterceptedCommunications)IT-02-54-T(14June2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(FinalDecisiononProsecutionMotionforJudicialNoticeofAdjudicatedFacts)IT-02-54-T(16December2003a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(FirstAddendumtoAssignedCounselRequestforProvisionalReleasepursuanttoRule65withConfidentialAttachmentD)IT-02-54-T(22December2005b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(FurtherDecisiononProsecutionMotionforJudicialNoticeofAdjudicatedFacts)IT-02-54-T(6November2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(FurtherOrderonFutureConductoftheTrialRelatingtoSeveranceofOneorMoreIndictments)IT-02-54-T(21July2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(FurtherOrderonFutureConductoftheTrial)IT-02-54-T(19July2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(FurtherOrderonMedicalExaminationoftheAccused)IT-02-54-T(15July2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(Hearing)IT-02-54-T(3June2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(Hearing,Pre-DefenceConference)(2September2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(InitialAppearance)IT-99-37-I(3July2001b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(MotionHearing)IT-99-37-AR73,IT-01-50-AR73,IT-01-51-AR73(11December2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ObservationsbytheAmiciCuriaeontheImpositionofDefenceCounselonAccused)IT-02-54-T(18November2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OmnibusOrderOnMattersDealtWithatthePre-DefenceConference)IT-02-54-T(17June2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OralRulingbytheTrialChamber)IT-02-54-T(30September2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderAppointingAmicusCuriae)IT-02-54-T(22November2002a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderAppointingBrankoRakiasLegalAssociatetoAccused)IT-02-54-T(23October2003b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderConcerningAmiciCuriae)IT-99-37-PT(11January2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderConcerningProsecutionMotionConcerningtheImplicationsoftheAccused'sHealth)IT-02-54-T(24September2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderConcerningthePreparationandPresentationoftheDefenceCase)IT-02-54-T(17September2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderConcerningtheProvisionofDocumentstoAmiciCuriae)IT-99-37-PT(19September2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderConfirminganIndictment)IT-01-50-I(8October2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderforCommencementofTrial)IT-02-54-PT(4February2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderforDetentiononRemand)IT-99-37-I(3July2001a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderGrantingLeavetoAmendtheCroatiaIndictment)IT-02-54-T(4November2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderInvitingDesignationofAmicusCuriae)IT-01-51-PT(30August2001b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderofthePresidentAssigningaCaseToaTrialChamber)IT-01-50-I(9October2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderofthePresidentAssigningaCasetoaTrialChamber)IT-01-51-I(23November2001b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderofthePresidentontheCompositionofaTrialChamberforaCase)IT-99-37-PT(23November2001a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderonAdmissionofDocuments(IncludingExhibitsofWitnessesKostaMihajloviandedomirPopov)andDecisiononProsecutionMotionRegardingExhibitsandOtherPracticalitiesDuringtheDefenceCase)IT-02-54-T(7February2005b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderonAmiciCuriaeRequestConcerningtheManneroftheirFutureEngagementandProceduralDirectionsunderRule92bis)IT-02-54-T(27June2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderonFutureConductoftheTrial)IT-02-54-T(6July2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderonProsecutionFilingofAmendedAnnexItoCroatiaIndictment)IT-02-54-T(11March2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderonProsecutionRequestforLeavetoFileReply)IT-02-54-T(19February2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderontheAmendedBosniaIndictment)IT-02-54-T(21April2004)AbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page33of35Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderontheModalitiestobeFollowedbyCourtAssignedCounsel)IT-02-54-T(3September2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderReplacingaJudgeinaCasebeforeaTrialChamber)IT-02-54-T(10June2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderRe-SchedulingandSettingtheTimeAvailabletoPresenttheDefenceCase)IT-02-54-T(25February2004c)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(OrderTerminatingtheProceedings)IT-02-54-T(14March2006)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(Order)IT-02-54-T(16April2002b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(Order)IT-99-37-PT(15November2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(PreliminaryDecisionontheAdmissibilityofInterceptedCommunications)IT-02-54-T(16December2003b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(PreliminaryOrderonAssignedCounselRequestforProvisionalReleasefortheAccused)IT-02-54-T(11January2006)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ProsecutionApplicationforFurtherActioninRelationtoPreviousRule54bisApplications)IT-02-54-T(24August2005)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ProsecutionApplicationtoModifythe"SecondOrderGrantingLeavetoAmendtheCroatiaIndictment",andtoPermittheProsecutiontoFileaSecondAmendedCroatiaIndictment")IT-02-54-T(26July2004a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ProsecutionMotionforaHearingtoDiscusstheImplicationsoftheAccused'sRecurringIllHealth)IT-02-54-T(23September2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ProsecutionMotionforJudicialNoticeofAdjudicatedFactsRelevanttotheMunicipalityofBrko)IT-02-54-T(25April2002b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ProsecutionMotionforJudicialNoticeofAdjudicatedFacts)IT-02-54-T(12December2002a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ProsecutionMotionforReconsiderationoftheTrialChamber'sRefusaltoAdmitCertainProsecutionExhibitsDuringtheDefenceCase)(15March2005)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ProsecutionNotificationoftheCompletionofitsCaseandMotionfortheAdmissionofEvidenceinWrittenForm)IT-02-54-T(25February2004a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ProsecutionReplyto"AmiciCuriaeSubmissionsinResponsetotheTrialChamber'sFurtherOrderonFutureConductoftheTrialConcerningAssignmentofDefenceCounsel'dated6August2004")(19August2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ProsecutionResponsetoAmiciCuriaeMotionforJudgementofAcquittalPursuanttoRule98bis(PublicVersion))(3May2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ProsecutionResponsetothe6May2003SubmissionbySerbiaandMontenegroRegardingOutstandingRequestsforAssistance)IT-02-54-T(20May2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ProsecutionSubmissioninResponsetotheTrialChamber's21July2004"FurtherOrderonFutureConductoftheTrialRelatingtoSeveranceofOneorMoreIndictments")IT-02-54-T(27July2004a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ProsecutionSubmissionsinResponsetotheTrialChamber's19July2004"FurtherOrderonFutureConductoftheTrial")IT-02-54-T(26July2004b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(Prosecution'sApplicationforanOrderPursuanttoRule54bisDirectingtheFederalRepublicofYugoslaviatoComplyWithOutstandingRequestsforAssistance)IT-02-54-T(13December2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(Prosecution'sApplicationforLeavetoFileanInterlocutoryAppeal)IT-02-54-T(16April2002a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(Prosecution'sInterimResponsetoAssignedCounselRequestforProvisionalRelease)IT-02-54-T(22December2005a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(Prosecution'sMotionforJoinder)IT-99-37-PT,IT-01-50-PT,andIT-01-51-I(27November2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(Prosecution'sReplytotheSerbiaandMontenegroResponsetotheProsecution'sApplicationforanOrderPursuanttoRule54bisDirectingtheFederalRepublicofYugoslaviatoComplywithOutstandingRequestsforAssistance)IT-02-54-T(27February2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(Prosecution'sRequestforLeavetoFileaReplyRegardingOutstandingRequestsforAssistance)IT-02-54-T(14February2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(Prosecution'sResponsetoAccused'sObjectiontoAdmissionofInterceptedCommunications)IT-02-54-T(31October2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(Prosecution'sResponsetothe"PreliminaryProtectiveMotion"filed9August2001)IT-99-37-PT(16August2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(Prosecution'sResponsetothe"PresentationOnTheIllegalityofICTY"filedbytheAccusedSlobodanMiloevion30August2001)IT-99-37-PT(13September2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(Prosecution'sSubmissionoftheEffectoftheAppealsChamber'sDecisionof23October2003ConcerningJudicialNoticeofAdministrativeFacts)IT-02-54-T(26November2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(PublicVersionFifthDecisiononApplicationsPursuanttoRule54bisofProsecutionandSerbiaandMontenegro)IT-02-54-T(15September2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(PublicversionofFirstDecisiononAdmissibilityofSupremeDefenceCouncilMaterials)IT-02-54-T(23September2004a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(PublicVersionoftheConfidentialDecisionontheInterpretationandApplicationofRule70)IT-02-54-108bis&AR73.
3(23October2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(PublicVersionoftheConfidentialDecisionontheInterpretationandApplicationofRule70)IT-02-54-AR108bis&AR73.
3(23October2003a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(PublicVersionoftheConfidentialDecisionontheProsecution'sMotiontoGrantSpecificProtectionPursuanttoRule70)IT-02-54-T(25July2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ReasonsforDecisiononAssignmentofDefenceCounsel)IT-02-54-T(22September2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ReasonsforDecisiononProsecutionInterlocutoryAppealfromRefusaltoOrderJoinder)IT-99-37-AR73,IT-01-50-AR73,IT-01-51-AR73(18April2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ReasonsforDecisionontheProsecutionMotionConcerningAssignmentofCounsel)IT-02-54-T(4April2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ReasonsforRefusalofLeavetoAppealfromDecisiontoImposeTimeLimit)IT-02-54-AR73(16May2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(RegistryReportonPracticalFacilitiesAvailabletotheAccused)IT-02-54-T(18March2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ReportofSerbiaandMontenegroPursuanttoRulingsNos.
11and12ofthe"ThirteenthDecisiononApplicationsPursuanttoRule54bisofProsecutionandSerbiaandMontenegro"dated17December2003)IT-02-54-T(17February2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(RequestforProvisionalReleasepursuanttoRule65)IT-02-54-T(20December2005)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(RequesttotheRegistryRegardingProsecutionReportPursuanttoRuling9(a)oftheTrialChamber'sThirteenthDecisiononApplicationsPursuanttoRule54bisofProsecutionandSerbiaandMontenegro,Dated17December2003)IT-02-54-T(16January2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ResponsebytheAmiciCuriaetoProsecution'sMotionforJudicialNoticeofAdjudicatedFactsRelevanttotheMunicipalityofBrko)IT-02-54-T(9May2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(SchedulingOrderConcerningRecommencementoftheTrial)IT-02-54-T(25August2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(SecondDecisiononAdmissibilityofSupremeDefenceCouncil)IT-02-54-T(23September2004b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(SecondDecisiononProsecutionMotionforOrdersPursuanttoRule54bisagainstSerbiaandMontenegro)IT-02-54-T(12June2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(SecondOrderGrantingLeavetoAmendtheCroatiaIndictment)IT-02-54-T(20July2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(StatusConference)IT-99-37-AR73,IT-01-50-AR73,IT-01-51-AR73(30October2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(StatusConference)IT-99-37-PT(30August2001a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(SubmissionofSerbiaandMontenegroPursuanttotheChamberOrderIssuedattheOralHearingof10March2003Concerningthe"Prosecution'sApplicationforanOrderPursuanttoRule54bisDirectingtheFederalRepublicofYugoslaviatoComplywithOutstandingRequestsforAssistance")IT-02-54-T(6May2003b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(SubmissionoftheOfficeoftheProsecutorontheFutureConductoftheCaseintheLightoftheStateoftheAccused'sHealthandComplexityoftheCase)IT-02-54-T(8November2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(SupplementtoReportofSerbiaandMontenegroPursuanttoRulingsNos.
11and12ofthe"ThirteenthDecisiononApplicationsPursuanttoRule54bisofProsecutionandSerbiaandMontenegro"dated17December2003)IT-02-54-T(23February2004)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ThirdDecisiononProsecutionMotionforOrdersPursuanttoRule54bisagainstSerbiaandMontenegro)IT-02-54-T(18June2003)AbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page34of35Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ThirdOrderontheUseofTimeintheDefenceCaseandDecisiononProsecution'sFurtherSubmissionsontheRecordingandUseofTimeduringtheDefenceCase)IT-02-54-T(19May2005)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(ThirteenthDecisiononApplicationsPursuanttoRule54bisofProsecutionandSerbiaandMontenegro)IT-02-54-T(17December2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(WarrantofArrestOrderofSurrender)IT-99-37-I(24May1999)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(WrittenNotebytheAccused)IT-99-37-IRegistrypages(3July2001c)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi(WrittenResponseofSerbiaandMontenegroto"Prosecution'sApplicationforanOrderPursuanttoRule54bisDirectingtheFederalRepublicofYugoslaviatoComplywithOutstandingRequestsforAssistance")IT-02-54-T(7February2003)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,CaseNo.
IT-02-54-T,FurtherOrderonFutureConductoftheTrial,19July2004;FurtherOrderonFutureConductoftheTrialConcerningAssignmentofDefenceCounsel,6August2004Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,CaseNo.
IT-02-54-T,OrderRe-SchedulingandSettingtheTimeAvailabletoPresenttheDefenceCase,25February2004,para1.
Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,CaseNo.
IT-02-54-T,SecondAddendumtoAssignedCounselRequestforProvisionalReleasepursuanttoRule65withConfidentialAttachmentsEandFandReplytoProsecution'sInterimResponsetoAssignedCounselRequestforProvisionalReleasepursuanttoRule65withConfidentialAttachmentsEandF,22December2005.
Althoughtheattachmentsthemselvesareconfidential,theyaredescribedintheSecondAddendum,whichwasfiledpublicly.
SeeSecondAddendum,para.
5.
Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi(DecisiononApplicationtoAmendIndictmentandonConfirmationofAmendedIndictment)IT-99-37-I(29June2001b)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi(DecisiononReviewofIndictmentandApplicationforConsequentialOrders)IT-99-37-I(24May1999)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi(MotionforLeavetoFileaSecondAmendedIndictment)IT-99-37-PT(filed16October2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi(OrderofthePresidentAssigningaCasetoaTrialChamber)IT-99-37-I(29June2001a)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkoviIT-99-37-I(29October2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi(Prosecution'sMotionforJoinder)IT-99-37-PT;IT-01-50-PT;andIT-01-51-PT(27November2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi(PreliminaryProtectiveMotion,9August2001;PresentationontheIllegalityofICTY)IT-99-37-PT(30August2001)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,ainovi,Ojdani,andStojiljkovi,(Indictment)IT-99-37-I(23May1999)Prosecutorv.
Miloevi,Milutinovi,Ojdani,ainovi,andStojiljkovi(SubstitutedDecisiononMotiontoAmendIndictment)IT-99-37-PT(5September2002)Prosecutorv.
Miloevietal.
(Prosecution'sCorrigendumtoMotionforJoinderFiled27November2001("MotionforJoinder"))(10December2001)Prosecutorv.
Milutinovietal.
(Judgement)IT-05-87-T(26February2009)Prosecutorv.
Milutinovietal.
(SchedulingOrderforCommencementofTrial)IT-05-87-T(28June2006)Prosecutorv.
Milutinovietal.
IT-05-87-T(10July2006)Prosecutorv.
Tadi(DecisionontheDefenceMotionforInterlocutoryAppealonJurisdiction)IT-94-1-AR72(2October1995)UNSCRes1160(31March1998)UNDocS/RES/1160UNSCRes1244(10June1999)UNDocS/RES/1244Rule49oftheRules,IT/32/Rev.
21andnotIT/32/Rev.
44SilberL,LittleA(1996)ThedeathofYugoslavia.
Penguin,LondonSimonsM(2004)Richardmay,Milosevicjudge,diesat65.
,TheNewYorkTimes,http://www.
nytimes.
com/2004/07/02/world/richard-may-milosevic-judge-dies-at-65.
html_r=0.
Accessed30Sept2007StatuteoftheInternationalCriminalTribunalfortheformerYugoslavia(adopted25May1993UNSCRes827)SteinitzM(2005)TheMiloevitrial—live!
Aniconicalanalysisofinternationallaw'sclaimoflegitimateauthority.
JournalofInternationalCriminalJustice3:103–123StephenC(2004)Judgementday,thetrialofSlobodanMiloevi.
AtlanticMonthly,NewYorkTaylorT(1992)TheanatomyoftheNurembergtrials:Apersonalmemoir.
Knopf,NewYorkTheProsecutorv.
Miloevi(ReferralofRequesttoWithdraw,DeputyRegistrar)IT-02-54(27October2004b)TheProsecutorv.
Miloevi(WithdrawalofAssignedCounsel)IT-02-54-T(27October2004a)UNSC'ReportoftheSecretary-GeneralPursuanttoParagraph2ofSecurityCouncilResolution808'(3May1993)S/25704UNSCMechanismforInternationalCriminalTribunals(8June2012)MICT/1UNSCRes827(25May1993)UNDocS/RES/827UNSCRes955(8November1994)UNDocS/RES/955Submityourmanuscripttoajournalandbenetfrom:7Convenientonlinesubmission7Rigorouspeerreview7Immediatepublicationonacceptance7Openaccess:articlesfreelyavailableonline7Highvisibilitywithintheeld7RetainingthecopyrighttoyourarticleSubmityournextmanuscriptat7springeropen.
comAbtahiandDawsonJournalofInternationalHumanitarianAction(2016)1:4Page35of35