2010-04-20, The Hague, The Netherlands. The Appeals Chamber, by majority, made a decision to hear a testimony of Miodrag Panic. The Defence argues that his testimony will invalidate Sljivancanin’s conviction for aiding and abetting murder as a war crime. The issue of whether the evidentiary hearing itself is justified (on the ground that the testimony is a ‘new fact’) will be dealt with at the same hearing.
Judge Pocar, in his dissent, objected to the Chamber’s decision on several grounds:
- the existence of a new fact which, if proved, could justify a review of the judgement must be established prior to an evidentiary hearing; and even if a hearing is necessary to decide this very issue, it should be strictly limited to a discussion between the parties as to the existence of a new fact. The majority’s procedure is problematic because the existence of a new fact is distinct from the content and relevance of such a fact;
- the principle of finality of judgments prohibits reconsideration of judgments;
- there is also a ’flood-gate’ concern because other convicted defendants may also start filing similar motions.
Decision | Reuters |
This entry was posted in ICTY and tagged aiding and abetting, Andresia Vaz, evidentiary hearing, Fausto Pocar, finality of judgments, flood gate concern, IT-95-13/1-R.1, Liu Daqun, Mehmet Guney, murder, new fact, Novak Lukic, Peter Kremer, reconsideration, review, Rule 107, Rule 119, Rule 54, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Stephane Bourgon, Theodor Meron, Veselin Sljivancanin. Bookmark the
permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
ICTY: Sljivancanin: Review Hearing Scheduled for June 3
2010-04-20, The Hague, The Netherlands. The Appeals Chamber, by majority, made a decision to hear a testimony of Miodrag Panic. The Defence argues that his testimony will invalidate Sljivancanin’s conviction for aiding and abetting murder as a war crime. The issue of whether the evidentiary hearing itself is justified (on the ground that the testimony is a ‘new fact’) will be dealt with at the same hearing.
Judge Pocar, in his dissent, objected to the Chamber’s decision on several grounds:
Decision | Reuters |