To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.
On June 30, 2016, the Appeals Chamber for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia confirmed the convictions of Mićo Stanišić, former Minister of the Interior of Republika Srpska, and Stojan Župljanin, former Chief of the Regional Security Services Centre of Banja Luka, for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992. According to the press release, both appellants had argued that their right to a fair trial had been violated by the participation of Judge Frederik Harhoff in the proceedings. The Appeals Chamber disagreed, ruling that the judge’s disqualification in the Šešelj case “does not automatically disqualify him from other cases” and found that the appellants “have failed to demonstrate that a reasonable observer, properly informed of all the relevant circumstances, would reasonably apprehend bias on the part of Judge Harhoff in this case.” While the Appeals Chamber agreed with Stanišić’s argument that the Trial Chamber failed to provide a reasoned basis for its finding of his participation in a joint criminal enterprise (JCE), it conducted its own evaluation based on the Trial Chamber’s factual findings and underlying evidence and concluded that they supported beyond a reasonable doubt the ruling that Stanišić significantly contributed to the JCE. Similarly, the Appeals Chamber agreed with Župljanin that the Trial Chamber had “failed to provide a reasoned opinion by failing to make the necessary finding on the mens rea of the principal perpetrators,” but following an assessment of the Trial Chamber’s underlying findings and relevant evidence, the Appeals Chamber concluded “the Trial Chamber’s error does not invalidate the Trial Judgement.” Regarding the appellant’s argument that the Trial Chamber erred in finding the possessed the requisite intent to be liable under a JCE theory, the Appeals Chamber agreed that the Trial Chamber had committed factual errors, but concluded that “these errors do not impact the Trial Chamber's conclusion that both Stanišić and Župljanin possessed the requisite intent.”