International criminal law developments in the case law of the ICTY

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CASE LAW
OF THE ICTY


International Humanitarian Law Series
VOLUME 
Editors-in-Chief
Professor Christopher Greenwood
Professor Timothy L.H. McCormack
Editorial Advisory Board
Professor Georges Abi-Saab
H.E. Judge George H. Aldrich
Madame Justice Louise Arbour
Professor Ove Bring
Professor Antonio Cassese
Professor John Dugard
Professor Dr. Horst Fischer
Dr. Hans-Peter Gasser
Professor Leslie C. Green
H.E. Judge Geza Herczegh
Professor Frits Kalshoven
Professor Ruth Lapidoth
Professor Gabrielle Kirk McDonald
H.E. Judge eodor Meron
Captain J. Ashley Roach
Professor Jiri Toman
e International Humanitarian Law Series is a series of monographs and edited
volumes which aims to promote scholarly analysis and discussion of both the theory
and practice of the international legal regulation of armed conlict.

e series explores substantive issues of International Humanitarian Law including,
• protection for victims of armed conlict and regulation of the means and methods
of warfare
• questions of application of the various legal regimes for the conduct of armed
conlict
• issues relating to the implementation of International Humanitarian Law
obligations
• national and international approaches to the enforcement of the law and
• the interactions between International Humanitarian Law and other related areas
of international law such as Human Rights, Refugee Law, Arms Control and
Disarmament Law, and International Criminal Law.


International Criminal Law
Developments in the Case Law
of the ICTY
Gideon Boas & William A. Schabas, editors

MARTINUS NIJHOFF PUBLISHERS
/


Published by:
Brill Academic Publishers
P.O. Box 9000, 2300 PA Leiden,



e Netherlands

Sold and distributed by:
Turpin Distribution Services Limited
Blackhorse Road
Letchworth
Herts SG6 1HN
United Kingdom
A C.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress
Printed on acid-free paper
Cover photograph: Audio-Visual ICTY
ISBN 90-411-1987-6
© 2003 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden,

e Netherlands

Typeset by jules guldenmund layout & text,

e Hague

Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprint Martinus Nijho Publishers
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, microilming, recording or otherwise, without written permission
from the Publisher.
Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill
Academic Publishers provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to e
Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers MA 01923,
USA. Fees are subject to change.
Printed and bound in

e Netherlands

Table of Contents

Foreword by Judge Richard May

vii

Preface

ix

Abbreviations

xiii

Table of Cases

xv

.

A Code of Evidence and Procedure for International
Criminal Law? e Rules of the ICTY
Gideon Boas

.

e Defence
Michael Bohlander



.

e Role and Status of the Victim
Pascale Chiflet



.

Accountability for Arrests: e Relationship between
the ICTY and NATO’s NAC and SFOR
omas Henquet

.

An Emerging Gender Perspective on International Crimes
Michelle Jarvis

.

Deining Human Rights in the Arena of International
Humanitarian Law: Human Rights in the Jurisprudence
of the ICTY
Gabrielle McIntyre

.

Crimes of the Commander: Superior Responsibility
under Article () of the ICTY Statute
Daryl A. Mundis











vi

Table of Contents

.

Decisions of National Courts as Sources of International
Law: An Analysis of the Practice of the ICTY
André Nollkaemper

Index




Foreword

When the history of the ICTY comes to be written, its contribution to the
jurisprudence of international criminal law will be seen as among its signiicant achievements. Like the builders of old, the pioneers of the Tribunal found
a quarry and turned it into the makings of a temple. However, at the time of
writing, the foundations are just being built. ere has been important work in
many disparate ields. Much has been done to deine the substantive law, for
instance, the elements of the crimes and the types of responsibility. A code of
procedure and evidence has been established and there have been important
decisions on such matters as hearsay and written evidence. e notion of fair
trial rights has been developed with decisions such as those on the right of the
accused to examine witnesses and equality of arms. A system for the protection of victims and witnesses has been set up, a development which may be
said to be unique and from which it is to be hoped others can learn.
But, there is no point in building a temple if nobody sees it or uses it. While
sterling work has been done in some quarters to collect, publish and publicise
the decisions of the Tribunal, and a certain amount of academic commentary
has been engendered, the fact remains that too many decisions go unheeded. If
they are given by Trial Chambers, and in some cases by the Appeals Chamber,
they may go into the iles and not be properly reported. e fate of oral decisions is even more summary. ere is thus, as yet, no comprehensive collection
of these decisions and no easily accessible way to get at them.
It is, therefore, particularly welcome that this analysis of developments in
the case law of the Tribunal is being published now. It is written by authors
with much experience of the work of the Tribunal and can, therefore, be relied
upon to shed light on its practice. Analysis of the decisions will help to publicise them. Discussion and criticism of the case law will contribute to its development. In the end, those who worked in the Tribunal will be able to say, as
the great architect said of his masterpiece: ‘si monumentum requiris, circumspice’
– if you want a monument, look around.
Richard May
Judge of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

Boas & Schabas, eds, International Criminal Law Developments in the Case Law of the ICTY, vii-viii.

©  Kluwer Law International. Printed in the Netherlands


This page intentionally left blank


Preface

e International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is a
profoundly important institution in the development of international humanitarian law and criminal law in general. Its arrival heralded a newfound willingness of the international community to bring to book perpetrators of war
crimes and gross or systematic violations of human rights.
ere have been precursors – the International Military Tribunal at
Nuremberg is the most celebrated – but the General Assembly’s call for the
creation of a permanent court in article VI of the  Genocide Convention
stalled during the Cold War. e idea of an international criminal court was
only revived in late-. en, as work on the project moved forward, the
world was plunged into a brutal conlict that focussed attention on issues of
impunity and accountability, and on the contribution that justice might be
able to make to peace. In May , the United Nations Security Council
established the ICTY.
During the course of its relatively brief existence, the ICTY has developed
many areas of law, and deined and explained legal norms, sometimes for the
irst time. Even if the legal issues with which it was confronted had already
been addressed judicially, the precedents were nearly half a century old. While
still relevant in many respects, these ancient authorities had to be read in light
of evolving international, human rights and criminal law. By , due process standards were more rigorous, and States were inally willing to punish a
broad range of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in internal
conlicts, and even in peacetime.
After nearly a decade of operation, the Tribunal is a vigorous and dynamic
institution, but nevertheless a temporary one. It is in “middle age”. Measures

are being taken to expedite proceedings, all of this with an eye on retirement.
And in parallel, the International Criminal Court is inally being established.
e new Court will owe a great debt to the ICTY, which has pioneered the
prosecution of international crimes in so many ways.
As the title suggests, the aim of this book is to discuss some of the
international criminal law developments that have taken place in the practice
and procedure of the Tribunal. It makes no claim to an exhaustive treatment of

Boas & Schabas, eds, International Criminal Law Developments in the Case Law of the ICTY, ix-xi.
©  Koninklijke Brill NV. Printed in the Netherlands


x

Gideon Boas and William A. Schabas

the issues. Rather, it is a contribution to a modest but increasingly substantial
body of literature.
e book contains eight chapters dealing with a range of issues. Chapter ,
by Gideon Boas, discusses whether the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of
the Tribunal represent a credible code of evidence and procedure for international criminal law. In doing so, the unique rule-making powers of the
Tribunal are analysed, together with the substance of some of its rules of
evidence. It considers the dialectic between the common law and RomanoGermanic systems of criminal law which is relected in the Tribunal’s Rules of
Procedure and Evidence, and contemplates the draft Rules of Procedure and
Evidence of the International Criminal Court.
In Chapter , Michael Bohlander reviews the law and jurisprudence of the
Tribunal concerning the position of the defence (the accused and counsel). He
considers recent e orts to regulate, and to self-regulate, the profession.
Pascale Chi et, in Chapter , focuses on the status, role and rights of
victims before the Tribunal, and analyses issues relating to victim protection,

participation and reparation. Chapter , by omas Henquet, concerns the
question of illegal arrest raised by some accused before the Tribunal, and
considers the agency principle applied in international and national laws and
the obligations of States under Article  of the Tribunal’s Statute. Chapter
, by Michelle Jarvis, analyses the recent emergence of gender perspectives in
international criminal law and the development and treatment of these issues
in the case law of the Tribunal.
Gabrielle McIntyre, in Chapter , examines the role of human rights
case law, beginning with the much-celebrated dismissal of precedents of
the European Court of Human Rights in one of the earliest decisions of the
ICTY. Daryl Mundis, in Chapter , examines issues of criminal responsibility under the Tribunal’s Statute. He analyses the jurisprudence of the Tribunal
relating to the responsibility of superiors as well as the development and
expansive use of the criminal law doctrine of joint criminal enterprise in the
Tribunal’s jurisprudence.
In Chapter , Professor André Nollkaemper looks at the development of
general principles of law by the Tribunal and, more particularly, the question
of whether the Tribunal can or should borrow such principles from national
legal systems and how it has done so.
roughout the book are threads concerning the development and
application of international criminal law not only by the ICTY, but also by the
ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the new International
Criminal Court. Liberal reference is made to the Statute and Rules of
Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court. Prospective
issues and di culties likely to confront that Court when it commences
operation in  are also considered.
e book is written by academics and practitioners. With one exception, all
of the contributors are current or former employees of the ICTY. Each article begins with the customary disclaimer, of course, although it goes without


Preface

xi

saying that these are personal views and they do not necessarily relect those
of the Tribunal or the United Nations. But clearly, the authors bring a unique
expertise and a certain amount of information and perspective that few who
have not had this experience will share. ose familiar with the literature will
know that a considerable amount of commentary on the Tribunal has indeed
been penned by insiders. is is both a strength and a weakness. Sometimes
the insiders are a bit too defensive, and have di culty standing back and testing the material with a su ciently critical and independent eye. Sometimes,
though, we are also left with the distinct impression that the Tribunal is a
hotbed of legal debate. By and large, the public is usually exposed to this in the
judgments and decisions of Trial Chambers and the Appeals Chamber. It is
only when lawyers who work or have worked within the Tribunal change hats,
so to speak, and write as academics, that we can glimpse the unpublished dissents and, perhaps, the precedents of tomorrow. But we will leave this assessment to the readers.
Gideon Boas, e Hague
William A. Schabas, Oughterard


This page intentionally left blank


Abbreviations

CSCE

Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe

ECHR

European Convention on Human Rights

ECtHR

European Court of Human Rights

ECMM

European Community Monitoring Mission

FRY

Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

HRC

Human Rights Committee

ICC

International Criminal Court

ICCPR

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

ICJ

International Court of Justice

ICRC

International Committee of the Red Cross

ICTY

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

ICTR

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

IFOR

Implementation Force

IHL

international humanitarian law

ILC

International Law Commission

IMT

International Military Tribunal

IMTFE

International Military Tribunal for the Far East

LRTWC

Law Reports of the Trials of the War Criminals


xiv

Abbreviations

NAC

North Atlantic Council

NATO

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

NGO

non-governmental organisation

OLAD

O ce of Legal Aid and Defence Matters

OSCE

Organisation for Co-operation and Security in Europe

OTP

O ce of the Prosecutor

PCIJ

Permanent Court of International Justice

POW

prisoner of war

SACEUR

Supreme Allied Commander Europe

SFOR

Stabilisation Force

SHAPE

Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe

TWC

Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military
Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 

UK

United Kingdom

UN

United Nations

UNCC

United Nations Compensation Commission

UNHCR

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNTAES

United Nations Transitional Administration for Eastern
Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium

US

United States

USA

United States of America

Table of Cases

International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
Prosecutor v. Ademi, Order on Motion for Provisional Release, Case No. IT--PT,  February . – 
Prosecutor v. Alagi , Decision, Case No. IT---PT,  September . – 
Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Appeal Judgment, Case No. IT--/-A,  March
. – , , , , , , , , , 
Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Judgment, Case No. IT--/I-T,  June . – ,
, , , , , , 
Prosecutor v. Blagojevi et al., Decision on Request for Provisional Release of
Accused Joki , Case No. IT---PT,  March . – , 
Prosecutor v. Blagojevi , et al., Decision on Application by Dragan Jokic for
Leave to Appeal,  April . – 
Prosecutor v. Blaški , Decision on the Admissibility of the Request for Review
by the Republic of Croatia of an Interlocutory Decision of a Trial Chamber
(Issuance of Subpoenae Duces Tecum) and Scheduling Order, Case No. IT--ARbis,  July . – 
Prosecutor v. Blaški , Decision on the Appellant’s Motions for the Production
of Material, Suspension or Extension of the Brieing Schedule, and
Additional Filings, Case No. IT---A,  September . – 
Prosecutor v. Blaški , Decision on the Application of the Prosecutor
dated  October  Requesting Protective Measures for Victims and
Witnesses, Case No. IT---T,  November . – , , 


xvi

Table of Cases

Prosecutor v. Blaski , Decision on the Defence Motion to Compel the
Disclosure of Rule  and  material relating to Statements made by a

Person known as X, Case No. IT--,  July . – 
Prosecutor v. Blaski , Decision on the Defence Motion to Dismiss the
Indictment Based on Defects in the Form ereof (Vagueness/Lack of
Adequate Notice of Charges), Case No. IT---PT,  April . – ,
, 
Prosecutor v. Blaški , Decision on the Objections of the Republic of Croatia
to the Issuance of Subpoena Duces Tecum, Case No. IT---PT,  July
. – 
Prosecutor v. Blaški , Decision on the Prosecution Motion to Set Aside the
Decision of the Appeals Chamber of  July , Case No. IT--ARbis,  August . – 
Prosecutor v. Blaški , Decision Rejecting a Request for Provisional Release,
Case No. IT---T,  April . – 
Prosecutor v. Blaški , Judgment on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for
Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of  July , Case No. IT--ARbis,  October . – , , 
Prosecutor v. Blaški , Judgment, Case No. IT---T,  March . – , ,
, , , , , , , 
Prosecutor v. Blaški , Opinion Further to the Decision of the Trial Chamber
Seized of the Case e Prosecutor v. Dario Kordi and Mario erkez dated
 November , Case No. IT---T,  December . – 
Prosecutor v. Blaški , Order Denying a Motion For Provisional Release, Case
No. IT---PT,  December . – 
Prosecutor v. Blaški , Subpoena Duces Tecum, Case No. IT---T,  January
. – , 
Prosecutor v. Br anin & Tali , Decision on “Motion for the Production of
Documents – Dzonli Testimony”, Case No. IT---PT,  April .
– 
Prosecutor v. Br anin & Tali , Decision on “Request For Dismissal” Filed by
Momir Tali on  November , Case No. IT---PT,  January
. – , , , 

Table of Cases
Prosecutor v. Br anin & Tali , Decision on Form of
Case No. IT---PT. – , 

xvii

ird Amended Indictment,

Prosecutor v. Br anin & Tali , Decision on Motion by Momir Tali for
Provisional Release, Case No. IT--,  March . – , 
Prosecutor v. Br anin & Tali , Decision on Motion by Radislav Br anin For
Provisional Release, Case No. IT---PT,  July . – , , 
Prosecutor v. Br anin & Tali , Decision on Objections by Momir Tali to the
Form of the Amended Indictment, Case No. IT---PT,  February
. – 
Prosecutor v. Br anin & Tali , Decision On Petition For A Writ of Habeas
Corpus On Behalf of Radoslav Br anin,Case No. IT--- PT,
December . – , 
Prosecutor v. Br anin & Tali , Decision on Prosecutor’s Motion for the
Protection of Victims and Witnesses, Case No. IT---PT,  July .
– , , , 
Prosecutor v. Br anin & Tali , Decisions On Motions By Momir Tali () To
Dismiss e Indictment, () For Release, And () For Leave to Reply To
Response Of Prosecution To Motion For Release, Case No. IT---PT,
 February . – 
Prosecutor v. Br anin & Tali , Motion for Protective Measures, Case No. IT--PT,  January . – 
Prosecutor v. Br anin & Tali , Order on the Legal Representation of the
Accused Momir Tali , Case No. IT---T,  March . – 
Prosecutor v. Br anin & Tali , Order Requesting Investigation of Conduct of

Co-counsel for Defendant Br anin, Case No. IT---T,  April .
– 
Prosecutor v. Br anin & Tali , Second Decision on Motions by Radoslav
Br anin and Momir Tali for Access to Conidential Documents, Case
No. IT---PT,  November . – 
Prosecutor v. Br anin & Tali , Decision On Motion To Dismiss, Case No. IT--PT,  October . – , 
Prosecutor v. Delali et. al. (“ elebi i”), Decision of the Registrar, Case No. IT--T,  July . – 


xviii

Table of Cases

Prosecutor v. Delali et. al. (“ elebi i”), Decision on Application for Leave to
Appeal By Hazim Deli , (Defects in the Form of the Indictment), Case No.
IT---PT,  December . – , 
Prosecutor v. Delali et. al. (“ elebi i”), Decision on Defence Application for
Forwarding the Documents in the Language of the Accused, Case No. IT--T,  September . – 
Prosecutor v. Delali et. al. (“ elebi i”), Decision on Motion for Provisional
Release Filed By e Accused Zejnil Delali , Case No. IT---T, 
September . – , 
Prosecutor v. Delali et. al. (“ elebi i”), Decision on Request by Accused Muci
for Assignment of New Counsel, Case No. IT--,  June . – 
Prosecutor v. Delali et. al. (“ elebi i”), Decision On e Motion To Allow
Witnesses K, L And M To Give eir Testimony By Means Of VideoLink Conference, Case No. IT---T,  May . – 
Prosecutor v. Delali et. al. (“ elebi i”), Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion
for the Redaction of the Public Record, Case No. IT---T,  June .
– 
Prosecutor v. Delali et. al. (“ elebi i”), Judgment, Case No. IT---T, 
November . – , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

, , 
Prosecutor v. Delali et. al. (“ elebi i”), Order on Motion of the Appellant,
Esad Landžo, for Permission to Obtain and Adduce Further Evidence on
Appeal, Case No. IT---A,  December . – 
Prosecutor v. Delali et. al. (“ elebi i”), Order on the Request by Defence
Counsel for Zdravko Muci for Assignment of a New Co-counsel, Case
No. IT---T,  March . – 
Prosecutor v. Delali et. al. (“ elebi i”), Judgment, Case No. IT---A, 
February . – , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Prosecutor v. Djuki , Decision Rejecting the Application for the Withdrawal
of the Indictment and Order For Provisional Release Filed by the Accused
Dordje Djuki , Case No. IT---T,  April . – 
Prosecutor v. Dosen & Kolundžija, Decision on Preliminary Motions, Case No.
IT---PT,  February . – , , 


Table of Cases

xix

Prosecutor v. Dosen & Kolundžija, Order on Motion of Accused Kolundžija for
Access to Certain Conidential Materials, Case No. IT---PT,  February
. – 
Prosecutor v. Erdemovi , Decision of the Registrar, Case No. IT---I, 
April . – 
Prosecutor v. Erdemovi , Decision, Case No. IT---I,  May . – 
Prosecutor v. Erdemovi , Judgment, Case No. IT---A,  October . – ,
, , , , , 
Prosecutor v. Erdemovi , Judgment, Case No. IT---A,  October . – 

Prosecutor v. Erdemovi , Sentencing Judgment, Case No. IT---S, 
November . – 
Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Decision of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
Counts  and  of the Indictment Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction,
Case No. IT--/-PT,  May . – 
Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Decision of the Trial Chamber on the Preliminary
Motion of the Defence, Case No. IT--/,  May . – 
Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Decision on Defence Motion to Strike Testimony of
Witness A, Case No. IT--/-T,  July . – 
Prosecutor v. Furundžija, Judgment, Case No. IT--/-T,  December .
– , , , , , , , , , , , , 
Prosecutor v. Gali , Decision on Application by Prosecution for Leave to
Appeal, Case No. IT---AR, December . – 
Prosecutor v. Gali , Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Rule 
bis(C), Case No. IT---AR.,  June . – 
Prosecutor v. Gali , Decision, Case No. IT---AR,  November .
– 
Prosecutor v. Gali , Order on Defence Motion for Provisional Release, Case No.
IT---PT,  July . – 
Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanovi , Alagi & Kubura, Decision Granting Provisional
Release to Enver Hadžihasanovi , Case No. IT---PT,  December
. – 


xx

Table of Cases

Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanovi , Alagi & Kubura, Decision Granting Provisional
Release to Amir Kubura, Case No. IT---PT,  December . – 

Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanovi , Alagi & Kubura, Decision Granting Provisional
Release to Mehmed Alagi ,  December . – 
Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanovi , Alagi & Kubura, Decision of the Form of the
Indictment, Case No. IT---PT,  December . – , , 
Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanovi , Alagi & Kubura, Decision on Appeal From
Refusal to Grant Access to Conidential Material in Another Case, Case
No. IT---AR,  April . – 
Prosecutor v. Hadžihasanovi , Alagi & Kubura, Decision on Prosecution’s
Motion for Review of the Decision of the Registrar to Assign Mr. Rodney
Dixon as Co-counsel to the Accused Kubura, Case No. IT---PT, 
March . – 
Prosecutor v. Jelisi , Decision of the Registrar, Case No. --A,  February
. – 
Prosecutor v. Jelisi , Decision of the Registrar, Case No. IT---PT,  April
. – , 
Prosecutor v. Jelisi , Judgment, Case No. IT---T,  December . – ,
, , 
Prosecutor v. Karadži & Mladi , Decision Rejecting the Request Submitted by
Mr. Medvene and Mr. Hanley III, Defence Counsel for Radovan Karadži ,
Case Nos. IT--R- & IT---R,  July . – 
Prosecutor v. Karadži & Mladi , Review of Indictment Pursuant to Rule 
of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Case No.: IT---R, IT--R,  July . – , 
Prosecutor v. Kordi & erkez, Decision on Appeal Regarding Statement of a
Deceased Witness, Case No. IT--/-AR.,  July . – , 
Prosecutor v. Kordi & erkez, Decision on Appeal Regarding the Admission
into Evidence of Seven A davits and One Formal Statement, Case No. IT-/-AR.,  September . – , , 
Prosecutor v. Kordi & erkez, Decision on Defence Application for Bill of
Particulars, Case No. IT---T,  March . – 

Table of Cases

xxi

Prosecutor v. Kordi & erkez, Decision on Joint Motion to Strike Paragraphs
 and  and all References to Article () as Providing a Separate or an
Alternative Basis for Imputing Criminal Responsibility, Case No. IT--/
-PT,  March . – 
Prosecutor v. Kordi & erkez, Decision on the Joint Defence Motion to
Dismiss e Amended Indictment For Lack of Jurisdiction Based on the
Limited Jurisdictional Reach of Articles  & , Case No. IT--/-PT, 
March . – 
Prosecutor v. Kordi & erkez, Decision on the Motion of the Accused for
Access to Non-public Materials in the Lasva Valley and Related Cases,
Case No. IT--/-PT,  November . – 
Prosecutor v. Kordi & erkez, Decision on the Prosecution Application to
Admit the Tuli a Report and Dossier into Evidence, Case No. IT--/T,  July . – 
Prosecutor v. Kordi & erkez, Decision on the Registrar’s Withdrawal of the
Assignment of Defence Counsel, Case No. IT--/-T,  September .
– 
Prosecutor v. Kordi & erkez, Decision on the Review of the Indictment, Case
No. IT---I,  November . – 
Prosecutor v. Kordi & erkez, Judgment, Case No IT--/-T,  February
. – , , , , , , , , 
Prosecutor v. Kordi & erkez, Order for the Production of Documents by the
European Community Monitoring Mission and its Member States, Case
No. IT--/-T,  August . – 
Prosecutor v. Kova evi , Decision on Defence Motion for Provisional Release,
Case No. IT---PT,  January . – , , 
Prosecutor v. Kova evi , Decision Refusing Defence Motion for Subpoena,

Case No. IT---PT,  June . – 
Prosecutor v. Kova evi , Decision Stating Reasons For Appeal Chamber’s
Order of  May , Case No. IT---PT,  May . – 
Prosecutor v. Krajišnik & Todorovi , Decision of the Registrar, Case Nos. IT-&-PT and IT--/-T,  April . – 


xxii

Table of Cases

Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Decision on Prosecutor’s Response to Decision of 
February , Case No. IT---PT,  May . – , 
Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Decision on the Defence Preliminary Motion on the
Form of the Indictment,  February . – 
Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Judgment, Case No. IT---T,  March . – ,
, , , , , , , , 
Prosecutor v. Krsti , Decision on Preliminary Motion on the Form of the
Amended Indictment, Count -, Case No. IT---PT,  January .
– , 
Prosecutor v. Krsti , Judgment, Case No IT- --T,  August . – , ,
, , , , , , , , , , 
Prosecutor v. Kunarac et. al., Decision on Motion for Acquittal, Case No. IT--T and -/-T,  July . – 
Prosecutor v. Kunarac et. al., Decision on Request for Provisional Release of
Dragoljub Kunarac, Case No. IT---PT,  November . – 
Prosecutor v. Kunarac et. al., Decision on the Request of the Accused Radomir
Kova} to Allow Mr. Milan Vujin to Appear as Co-counsel Acting pro bono,
Case No. IT---PT & IT--/-PT,  March . – 
Prosecutor v. Kunarac et. al., Judgment, Case No IT-- & IT--/-A, 
June . – , , 
Prosecutor v. Kunarac et. al., Judgment, Case No IT---T & IT--/-T,

 February . – , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , 
Prosecutor v. Kupreški et al., Decision on Appeal by Dragan Papi Against
Ruling to Proceed by Deposition, Case No. IT---AR.,  July .
– 
Prosecutor v. Kupreški et. al., Appeal Judgment, Case No. IT---A, 
October . – , , , , , 
Prosecutor v. Kupreški et. al., Decision of the Registrar, Case No. IT---T,
 October . – 
Prosecutor v. Kupreški et. al., Decision of the Registrar, Case No. IT---T,
 January . – 


Table of Cases

xxiii

Prosecutor v. Kupreški et. al., Decision on Defence Request for Assignment of
Co-counsel, Case No. IT---PT,  May . – 
Prosecutor v. Kupreški et. al., Decision on Defence Requests for the Assignment
of Counsel, Case No. IT---PT,  March . – 
Prosecutor v. Kupreški et. al., Decision on Motion for the Provisional Release
of Zoran and Mirjan Kupreški or Separation of Proceedings, Case No. IT--A,  April . – 
Prosecutor v. Kupreški et. al., Decision on the Registrar’s Withdrawal of the
Assignment of Defence Counsel, Case No. IT---T,  September .
– 
Prosecutor v. Kupreški et. al., Decision on the Request,  June  by Counsel
for the Accused Santic to allow Mr. Mirko Vrdoljak to Examine the
Defence Witnesses, Case No. IT---T,  June . – 
Prosecutor v. Kupreški et. al., Judgment, Case No. IT---T,  January .

– , , , 
Prosecutor v. Kvo ka et. al., Decision on Defence Preliminary Motions on the
Form of the Indictment, Case No. IT---T,  April . – , 
Prosecutor v. Kvo ka et. al., Decision On Preliminary Motions Filed by Mla o
Radi and Mirošlav Kvo ka Challenging Jurisdiction, Case No. IT--PT,  April . – 
Prosecutor v. Kvo ka et. al., Judgment, Case No. IT--/-T,  November
. – , , , , , , , , , , , 
Prosecutor v. Ljubici , Decision on the Defence Motion on the Form of the
Indictment, Case No. IT---PT,  March . – 
Prosecutor v. Martinovi & Naletili , Decision on Vinko Martinovic’s Objection
to the Amended Indictment and Mladen Naletili ’s Preliminary Motion to
the Amended Indictment, Case No. IT--,  February . – 
Prosecutor v. Meaki et al., Decision of the Registrar, Case No. IT---PT, 
May . – 
Prosecutor v. Meaki et al., Decision of the Registrar, Case No. IT---PT, 
June . – 


xxiv

Table of Cases

Prosecutor v. Miloševi , Decision on Preliminary Motions, Case No. IT--PT,  November . – 
Prosecutor v. Miloševi , Decision on Prosecution Motion for Provisional
Protective Measures Pursuant to Rule , Case No. IT---T,
 February . – , , 
Prosecutor v. Miloševi , Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Joinder, Case No.
IT---PT; IT---PT; IT---PT,  December . – 
Prosecutor v. Miloševi , Decision on Review of (Bosnia) Indictment, Case No.
IT---I,  November . – 

Prosecutor v. Miloševi , Decision on Review of Indictment and Application for
Consequential Orders, Case No. IT---I,  May . – 
Prosecutor v. Miloševi , First Decision on Prosecution Motion for Protective
Measures for Sensitive Source Witnesses, Case No. IT---T,
 May . – 
Prosecutor v. Miloševi , General Dragoljub Ojdani ’s Motion for Access to
Transcripts and Documents, Case No. IT---T.  May . – 
Prosecutor v. Miloševi , Order Concerning the Provision of Documents to
amici curiae, Case No. IT---PT,  September . – 
Prosecutor v. Miloševi , Order Inviting Designation of amicus curiae, Case No.
IT---PT,  August . – , 
Prosecutor v. Miloševi , Order on amici curiae, Case No. IT---PT, 
January . – 
Prosecutor v. Miloševi , Order on Prosecution Motion for Variation, IT--T,  January . – 
Prosecutor v. Miloševi , Reasons For Decision on Prosecution Interlocutory
Appeal From Refusal To Order Joinder,  April . – 
Prosecutor v. Mrksi , Radi , Šljivan anin & Dokmanovi , Decision on Defence
Preliminary Motion on the Assignment of Counsel, Case No. IT--aPT,  September . – 
Prosecutor v. Mrksi , Radi , Šljivan anin & Dokmanovi , Decision on Motion
for Release by the Accused Slavko Dokmanovic, Case No. IT--a-PT, 
October . – , , , 