Review of International Tribunal Decisions for the week of August 20, 2012

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.

International Criminal Law


Prosecutor v. Karadžić[1]

Decision On the Accused’s Second Motion for Subpoena to Interview President Bill Clinton[2]


Decision on the Accused’s Fifth Motion for Binding Order (United States of America)[3]

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[4]

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[5]

Decision Certifying for Appeal the “Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction and Legality of the Tribunal”[6]


Decision certifying for Appeal the “Decision on Reconsideration of the Trial In Absentia Decision”[7]

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.[8] 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.[9]

[1] IT-95-5/18-T.

[2] 21 August 2012.

[3] 22 August 2012.

[4] IT-03-67-R77.3-A, 23 August 2012.

[5] Both Decisions are from STL-11-01/PT/TC, 23 August 2012.

[6] Decision #1.

[7] Decision #2.

[8] Ibid. at ¶ 6.

[9] Ibid.


Leave a comment

Filed under Weekly Review

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s