This week’s review has decisions from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). We have just a few decisions as summer brings with it a general lull in the work of the international tribunals. However, while the decisions themselves may not be the most interesting, their subject matter is. At the ICTY, Mr. Karadžić repeatedly tried to get the Tribunal to order the United States of America to produce information and individuals for testimony. At the STL, the defense challenged the existence and jurisdiction of the Tribunal and obtained the right to appeal the Trial Chamber’s decisions on those matters. Last week was a slow, but not uninteresting.
Prosecutor v. Karadžić
Decision On the Accused’s Second Motion for Subpoena to Interview President Bill Clinton
Decision on the Accused’s Fifth Motion for Binding Order (United States of America)
This pair of decision involved requests by the Accused to interview and obtain information from the United States (both testimony and documents). They were both denied on the grounds that he had failed to identify information that was relevant to his defense.
Prosecutor v. Šešelj
Decision on Amicus Curiae Prosecutor’s Motion for a Declaration that Vojislav Šešelj has Waived His Right to Appeal
The Appeals Chamber ruled that Mr. Šešelj had waived his right to appeal because he did not file his appeal brief’s in accordance with prior instructions, and that he hade been warned that failure to do so would result in his waiving his right to appeal.
Prosecutor v. Ayyash, Badreddine, Oneissi & Sabra
Decision Certifying for Appeal the “Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction and Legality of the Tribunal”
Decision certifying for Appeal the “Decision on Reconsideration of the Trial In Absentia Decision”
In both these decisions the Trial Chamber decided that the issues at hand (the legality of the Tribunal and whether to allow the trial in absentia to go forward) were issues that would be best decided by the Appeals Chamber at this stage. Interestingly, the scope of the appeal in the reconsideration decision was not set by the Trial Chamber. Instead, the Chamber held that it was certifying the decision, what issues were admissible on appeal therein was to be decided by the Appeals Chamber.
 21 August 2012.
 22 August 2012.
 IT-03-67-R77.3-A, 23 August 2012.
 Both Decisions are from STL-11-01/PT/TC, 23 August 2012.
 Decision #1.
 Decision #2.
 Ibid. at ¶ 6.