LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Sloan, J. (2003)
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
For years the majority of those individuals publicly indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) remained at large due to a lack of co-operation from states whose assistance was required to effect their arrest. In order to assist in this regard, various operations have been undertaken since 1997 by which UN and regional missions have taken steps to assist the ICTY in the difficult task of bringing accused before the Tribunal in The Hague. Such steps were taken in the case of Stevan Todorovic, who was captured and transferred to The Hague by means of an operation shrouded in secrecy and alleged to have involved illegal behaviour on the part of the NATO-led Stabilization Force. The following article discusses the nature of Todorovic's arrest (based on the limited facts available) and his various attempts to have his indictment dismissed due to the nature of his arrest. In so doing, it considers the state of the law regarding the appropriateness of an international judicial body proceeding with the trial of an individual brought before it by potentially illegal means. Although a plea agreement was reached in the case, with the result that the judicial consideration of the issues is limited, important issues are nevertheless raised in the arguments of the Office of the Prosecution and the defence counsel which are likely to recur in similar cases in the future.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 12. See Sentencing Judgment, supra note 3, at para. 5 et seq.
    • 13. According to the terms of the Plea Agreement, both sides agreed that the OTP would recommend to a Trial Chamber a sentence of not less than five years' and not more than twelve years' imprisonment and that neither party would appeal. Ibid., at para. 11.
    • 14. See J. Cogan, 'International Criminal Courts and Fair Trials: Difficulties and Prospects' (2002) 27 Yale Journal of International Law 111, at 127, where he remarked: 'Deputy Chief Prosecutor Graham Blewitt said, rather unconvincingly, that “Absolutely nothing has been sacrificed.” But Blewitt acknowledged that there had been a recent decline in the number of arrests by SFOR and that “[he] would not be surprised if [the Todorovi c´ case] had something to do with it”.'
    • 15. Prosecutor v. Slavko Dokmanovic´ , Decision on the Motion for Release by the Accused Slavko Dokmanovi c´, Case No. IT-95-13a-PT, T. Ch. II, 22 Oct. 1997.
    • 16. Case No. IT-94-2-PT, T. Ch. II.
    • 17. For a closer look at the Dokmanovi c´ case see M. Scharf, 'The Prosecutor v. Slavko Dokmanovic´ : Irregular Rendition and the ICTY' (1998) 11 LJIL 369.
    • 18. Consisting of Serbia and Montenegro.
    • 19. Bait for Dokmanovi c´ included the possibility of compensation for lands formerly held by him in Croatia as well as promised meetings with an OTP investigator regarding atrocities Dokmanovi c´ claimed were committed by Croatians in the Vukovar area.
    • 20. See Prosecutor v. Slavko Dokmanovic´ , supra note 15, at para. 13.
    • 21. In this regard he relied on Art. 9(1) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Art. 5(1) of the 1950 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, reproduced and discussed at note 152, infra.
    • 22. See Prosecutor v. Slavko Dokmanovic´ , supra note 15, at para. 57.
    • 28. As summarized by the Trial Chamber in Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic´ , Milan Simic´ , Miroslav Tadic´ , Stevan Todorovic´ , and Simo Zaric´ , Decision Stating Reasons for Trial Chamber's Order of 4 March 1999 on Defence Motion for Evidentiary Hearing on the Arrest of the Accused Todorovi c´, Case No. IT-95-9-PT, T. Ch. I, 25 March 1999, at 2.
    • 29. Ibid.
    • 30. Ibid. The OTP denied having 'prior information of any proposed operation to secure the arrest of the accused, and [stated] that it first learned of the accused's arrest on 27 Sept. 1998 when it was contacted by SFOR'. (Ibid.)
    • 31. Ibid.
    • 32. Ibid.
    • 33. Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic´ , Milan Simic´ , Miroslav Tadi c´, Stevan Todorovic´ , and Simo Zari c´, Decision on Appeal by Stevan Todorovi c´ Against the Oral Decision of 4 March 1999 and the Written Decision of 25 March 1999 of Trial Chamber III, Case No. IT-95-9-PT, A. Ch., 13 Oct. 1999.
    • 34. Ibid, at 2. The Appeals Chamber stressed that the issue before the Trial Chamber was not whether there was a kidnapping and what its legal effects might be, but whether there was an abuse of discretion on the part of the Trial Chamber in deciding not to grant an evidentiary hearing into the alleged kidnapping of the accused.
    • 35. Accused Stevan Todorovi c´'s Motion for an Order Requesting and Ordering the Ministry of the Interior of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to Provide Documents and Witnesses, filed on 21 Sept. 1999; Accused Stevan Todorovi c´'s Motion for an Order Requesting and Ordering Security Force for Bosnia and Herzegovina to Provide Documents and Witnesses, filed 22 Sept. 1999.
    • 36. See Prosecution Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal, supra note 26, Ann. A, at para. 6.
    • 37. See Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic´ , Milan Simic´ , Miroslav Tadi c´, Stevan Todorovic´ , and Simo Zari c´, Order Denying Motions for Orders of Assistance, Case No. IT-95-9-PT, T. Ch. I, 21 Oct. 1999.
    • 38. See Notice of Motion for an Order Directing the Prosecutor to Forthwith Return the Accused Stevan Todorovi c´ to the Country of Refuge, filed 21 Oct. 1999.
    • 39. See Prosecution Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal, supra note 26, Ann. A, at para. 7.
    • 40. Ibid. His decision to file a statement represented a change, as Todorovi c´ had previously been unwilling to file an affidavit or to testify absent special measures; see Prosecution Response to the Appeal Brief, supra note 4, at paras. 16 and 17.
    • 41. Accused Stevan Todorovi c´'s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed 15 Nov. 1999.
    • 42. Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic´ , Milan Simic´ , Miroslav Tadi c´, Stevan Todorovic´ , and Simo Zaric´ , Decision on the Application for Leave to Appeal against the Trial Chamber Decision of 7 March 2000, Case No. IT-95-9-PT, A. Ch. (Bench), 3 May 2000, at 3.
    • 43. See Prosecution Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal, supra note 26, Ann. A, at para. 12.
    • 44. See Decision on Motion for Judicial Assistance of 18 Oct. 2000, supra note 6, at para. 59.
    • 45. Ibid., at para. 3.
    • 46. Order on Defence Requests for Judicial Assistance for the Production of Information, issued 7 March 2000.
    • 47. See Decision on Leave to Appeal of 3 May 2000, supra note 42.
    • 3.1.5. The events following the 18 October 2000 Decision
    • 48. See Decision on Motion for Judicial Assistance of 18 Oct. 2000, supra note 6, at para. 4. The OTP's position on this point drew questioning from the Trial Chamber in reply to which it stated that it had complied with all orders of the Trial Chamber and had produced 'every document it ever had in its possession related to the arrest of Mr Todorovi c´'. Ibid., at para. 31.
    • 49. Todorovi c´ had received a 'letter from the Office of the Legal Advisor of SFOR, Colonel James M. Coyne, dated 24 March 2000, declining to provide the material sought and stating: “It is the position of SFOR that the ICTY has no authority to order SFOR to disclose any information”'. Ibid., at para. 5.
    • 50. Scheduling Order for Hearing on Defence Motion for Judicial Assistance, issued 1 June 2000, in which SFOR was directed to file a written response by 16 June 2000. See Prosecution Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal, supra note 26, Ann. A, at para. 22.
    • 51. SFOR did, however, submit a written response to the motion; see SFOR Submission, filed 10 July 2000.
    • 52. See Decision on Motion for Judicial Assistance of 18 Oct. 2000, supra note 6, at para. 7. Also on 25 July 2000, Todorovi c´ 'filed a Defence Notice to Trial Chamber as to Specific Relief Sought on Motion for Judicial Assistance and asked the Trial Chamber to issue an “Order and Subpoena Duces Tecum for the Commanding General of SFOR”, an “Order and Subpoena Ad Testificandum Directed to General Shinseki”, and a “Request for Judicial Assistance to United States of America”'. See Prosecution Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal, supra note 26, Ann. A, at para. 28.
    • 53. 'On 1 Aug. 2000 the Accused filed Accused Stevan Todorovic´ 's Motion Requesting Judicial Assistance from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia [Serbia and Montenegro] to Provide Documents and Witnesses . . . and a statement in support thereof.' See Prosecution Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal, supra note 26, Ann. A, at para. 30.
    • 54. See Decision on Motion for Judicial Assistance of 18 Oct. 2000, supra note 6.
    • 55. See Prosecution Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal, supra note 26, at para. 22, where he is so described.
    • 56. An Appeal to the Appeals Chamber and an Application for Leave to Appeal directed to a Bench of the Appeals Chamber were both contained in a single filing by the OTP marked as having been filed on 25 Oct. 2000 (ibid.). The document was, however, determined by the Appeals Chamber to have been filed on 26 Oct. 2000, a difference that proved to be very significant; see note 64 and accompanying text, infra.
    • 57. See Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic´ , Milan Simic´ , Miroslav Tadi c´, Stevan Todorovic´ , and Simo Zaric´ , Decision and Scheduling Order, Case No. IT-95-9-PT, A. Ch., 8 Nov. 2000.
    • 58. These included Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, the United Kingdom and the United States. A communication was also filed on 2 Nov. 2000 by Denmark; however, it did not explicitly state whether it was seeking a review of the Trial Chamber's Decision. Ibid., at 2. For a summary of the arguments raised by the United States in its brief filed before the Appeals Chamber on 15 Nov. 2001, see S. Murphy, 'ICTY Order for Disclosure of Information by NATO/SFOR' (2001) 95 AJIL 401, at 402.
    • 59. See Decision and Scheduling Order, supra note 57, at 3.
    • 60. Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic´ , Milan Simic´ , Miroslav Tadi c´, Stevan Todorovic´ , and Simo Zaric´ , Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Filed by Prosecutor on 26 Oct. 2000 from Trial Chamber Decision Dated 18 Oct. 2000, Case No. IT-95-9-PT, A. Ch., 4 Dec. 2000.
    • 61. Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic´ , Milan Simic´ , Miroslav Tadic´ , Stevan Todorovic´ , and Simo Zaric´ , Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal filed by Prosecutor on 26 Oct. 2000 from Trial Chamber Decision dated 18 Oct. 2000, Case No. IT-95-9-PT, A. Ch. (Bench), 5 Dec. 2000.
    • 62. See Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal of 5 Dec. 2000, ibid., at 2. Rule 72(B)(i) of the Rules allows for interlocutory appeals as of right only against decisions on preliminary motions challenging jurisdiction.
    • 63. Particularly so, in view of the fact that, as the Appeals Bench points out, provision exists for the request of an extension of time under Rule 127 and the OTP did not ask for such an extension. See Decision on Interlocutory Appeal, supra note 60, at 2.
    • 64. A direction by the OTP to the effect that it 'deemed' the relevant dates to be different from those indicated by the Registry found little favour with the Trial Chamber. According to Rule 73(C), an application to a Bench of the Appeals Chamber for leave to appeal must be 'filed within seven days of the filing of the impugned decision'. The OTP felt entitled to 'deem' the date of the decision it was appealing to be 19 Oct. 2000, rather than considering it to have been filed on 18 Oct. 2000, as indicated by the Registry. The OTP further noted its view that its own document was filed in the 'late afternoon of 25 Oct. 2000' rather than on 26 Oct. 2000. See Prosecution Appeal and Application for Leave to Appeal, supra note 26, at para. 1, n. 2.
    • 72. There was considerable overlap between the arguments of the OTP and SFOR. With the exception of arguments 1 and 3, the arguments are primarily considered herein in the manner they were advanced by the OTP.
    • 73. See Decision on Motion for Judicial Assistance of 18 Oct. 2000, supra note 6, at paras. 38-58. The argument occupied at least three-quarters of the Trial Chamber's legal reasoning.
    • 74. Initially the OTP also advanced the argument, but it later capitulated on the point. The OTP had originally 'contended that the power to order SFOR to produce documents was not a power that the Trial Chamber had . . . '. Later, however, it stated that 'although there were potential circumstances under which it would be appropriate for the Trial Chamber to make such an order, it was not appropriate in this particular situation'. Ibid., at para. 31.
    • 75. In support of this finding the Trial Chamber relied on Article 29 of the Statute of the ICTY (which obliges states to co-operate with the ICTY in its investigation and prosecution, including an obligation to arrest and surrender ICTY indictees), Rule 54bis of the Rules of Evidence (which provides for orders for the production of documents to be directed to states) and its previous jurisprudence (Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blasˇ kic´ , Judgment on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, Case No. IT-95-14-AR108, A. Ch., 29 Oct. 1997). Ibid., at paras. 37 and 38.
    • 76. Which includes a power on the part of SFOR to detain ICTY indictees and transfer them to The Hague. Ibid., at paras. 43-45.
    • 77. Based on a 'purposive construction of the Statute', the Trial Chamber found that 'Article 29 should . . . be read as conferring on the International Tribunal a power to require an international organization or its competent organ such as SFOR to cooperate with it in the achievement of its fundamental objective of prosecuting persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law, by providing the several modes of assistance set out therein.' Ibid., at para. 48.
    • 78. Ibid., at para. 58. The Trial Chamber noted its intention to follow an earlier decision in the Kordi c´ case involving documents requested 'from the European Community Monitoring Mission (ECMM) and then from its responsible authorities, the Presidency of the European Union Council and the Commission of the European Union. When no documents were produced in response to such formal requests, the Trial
    • 101. Ibid., at para. 28 (emphasis in original). An argument that in order to determine the suitability of the accused's proposed remedy the potential fairness of the trial must be considered 'in all the circumstances' with a careful examination of 'exactly which rights of the accused are said to have been violated', is not easily reconciled with the OTP's earlier argument that disclosure from SFOR on the facts surrounding Todorovi c´'s arrest was unnecessary, as the matter could be decided on the limited facts available.
    • 102. Ibid., at para. 30. As noted by the OTP, this is the very question left open in the Dokmanovi c´ case, see section 2, supra.
    • 103. A thorough analysis of the different approaches of state courts to illegal inter-state capture is beyond the scope of this discussion. For a good overview of the different approaches to the question of how national courts act in the face of an illegal abduction of an accused, see Lamb, supra note 90, 228 et seq.
    • 104. The Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann (Israel, District Court 1961, Supreme Court 1962), (1961) 36 ILR 5, at 57-76, 304-308; reproduced in part in C. Oliver, 'The Attorney-General of the Government of Israel v. Eichmann', (1962) 56 AJIL 805.
    • 105. United States v. Alvarez-Machain (USA, United States Supreme Court), 504 US 655 (1992). In addition, the OTP relied on 'references given in Oppenheim's International Law, Vol. I (9th edn, Jennings and Watts (eds.), 1992), 389 n. 16 [as well as] Karlshruher Kommentar zur Strafprozeßordnung (3rd edn, Pfeiffer (ed.), 1993 at 68' in support of this approach. See Prosecution Response of 22 Feb. 1999, supra note 70, at para. 31, n. 9.
    • 106. See Oliver, supra note 104, at 835.
    • 107. See M. Scharf, 'The Tools for Enforcing International Criminal Justice in the New Millennium: Lessons from the Yugoslavia Tribunal', (2000) 49 DePaul Law Review 925, at 968.
    • 108. Security Council Res. 196, UN Doc. S/4349 (1960).
    • 109. See Scharf, supra note 107, at 968.
    • 110. See United States v. Alvarez-Machain, supra note 105.
    • 111. Ibid., at 661, where the Supreme Court cites favourably the case of Frisbie v. Collins, 342 US 519, 72 S Ct 509 (1952), rehearing denied, 343 US 937, 72 S Ct 768 (1952) where the quoted passage appeared at 552 (US) and 511 (S Ct).
    • 112. Ibid., at 669.
    • 113. Remarkably, the Supreme Court reasoned that the Extradition Treaty was not violated as it made no provision prohibiting its circumvention: 'the language of the Treaty, in the context of its history, does not support the proposition that the Treaty prohibits abductions outside its terms' (ibid., at 666).
    • 114. See Scharf, supra note 107, at 969, where Scharf notes that the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention specifically condemned the detention of Alvarez-Machain as being in violation of Art. 9 of the ICCPR. He also points out that in the aftermath of Alvarez-Machain, a resolution was sponsored at the General Assembly calling for an advisory opinion from the ICJ on the extraterritorial exercise of coercive power. See also C. Biblowit, 'Transborder Abductions and United States Policy: Comments on United States v. Alvarez Machain', (1996) 9 New York International Law Review 105, at 107, where he observed:
    • 142. Todorovi c´ had made repeated claims that the OTP was involved in his capture (see, e.g., Decision on Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, supra note 28, at 2, and Decision on Motion for Judicial Assistance of 18 Oct. 2000, supra note 6, at para. 33). However, the OTP's approach was to play down these allegations, at times denying that they existed and, at times, conceding they did exist but denying their veracity. If, as the OTP claimed, it had accepted Todorovi c´'s allegations 'at their highest' (see note 95 and accompanying text, supra), it is indeed strange that it felt entitled to leave out his allegations against it in this regard.
    • 143. 'SFOR points out that, in the current case, it is the Office of the Prosecutor, not SFOR, that stands analogous to the agents of a prosecuting State'. See Decision on Motion for Judicial Assistance of 18 Oct. 2000, supra note 6, at para. 19. Similarly, the United States, in its brief to the Appeals Chamber in this matter, considered the national jurisprudence regarding cross-border abduction. It noted that 'when agents of the prosecuting State have not been shown to be complicit, there are no grounds for [discretion on the part of the state court to decline jurisdiction over an individual captured in violation of another state's law]. In the current case, the OTP plays the same role as the agents of the prosecuting State, while SFOR and other entities and States have no such role' (emphasis added). (See Murphy, supra note 58, at 403.)
    • 144. Todorovi c´ makes this point when he challenges 'SFOR's assertion that it is the Office of the Prosecutor that stands analogous to state officials, asserting instead that it is SFOR, acting pursuant to its mandate from the Security Council of the United Nations, that stands in such a relationship'. See Decision on Motion for Judicial Assistance of 18 Oct. 2000, supra note 6, at para. 23 and n. 26, relying on Defence Reply to Submission made by SFOR, filed 17 July 2000, at 2-3.
    • 145. See Decision on Motion for Judicial Assistance of 18 Oct. 2000, supra note 6, at paras. 43-45. For a detailed discussion of the powers of arrest of the ICTY and the role of SFOR therein, see Lamb, supra note 90.
    • 146. See Separate Opinion of Judge Robinson, supra note 79, at para. 6 and n. 2. He concludes: 'It would be odd if the Tribunal had no competence in relation to the exercise of certain aspects of this quasi-police function' (ibid.).
    • 147. See supra note 145.
    • 148. Ibid., at 210, n. 153.
    • 159. Regarding the right to liberty and security of person under Art. 9(1) of the ICCPR (see supra note 151, for the text of this provision) the cases of Garcı´ a and Celiberti de Casariego (see supra note 115), while thin on reasoning, indicate that illegal interstate capture may well be a violation of the right not to be deprived of one's liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
    • 160. For the purposes of the motions only, the OTP conceded that the forcible removal from the FRY without the consent of the national authorities constituted a violation of the sovereignty of that country under international law. See Prosecution Response of 22 Feb. 1999, supra note 70, at para. 25.
    • 161. Ibid., at para. 48 (emphasis in original). See also ibid., at para. 32, where the OTP stated: 'A violation of State sovereignty is a violation of the rights of the relevant State, which is a third party to the proceeding, and an accused cannot normally invoke a remedy in respect of breaches of rights of third parties. To be entitled to a remedy, the accused would need to establish that this violation of a State's sovereignty also constituted some violation of the accused's own rights.'
    • 162. See Prosecutor v. Dusan Tadi c´, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, Case No. IT-94-1, AC, 2 Oct. 1995, at para. 55 et seq., where the Appeals Chamber held that individuals may invoke breaches of state sovereignty before the Tribunal in their own right.
    • 163. It was elaborated in the Prosecution Response to Motions for Judicial Assistance, supra note 26.
    • 164. See note 161 and accompanying text, supra.
    • 165. Surely an argument by the OTP that Todorovi c´'s arrest was not an illegal breach of the FRY's sovereignty because the ICTY was, by virtue of its creation under Chapter VII, the beneficiary of a specific exception under Art. 2(7), must be a tacit admission by the OTP that the conduct of the SFOR and/or others in effecting his arrest was Tribunal conduct. Of course such a concession would be entirely at variance with its earlier position. Seenotes 137-50 and accompanying text, supra.
    • 166. Art. 2(7) of the United Nations Charter provides: 'Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII' (emphasis added).
    • 167. See Prosecution Response to Motions for Judicial Assistance, supra note 26, at para. 13, where the OTP relied on the decision in Blasˇ kic´ , supra note 75, for authority. 'The principles barring encroachments upon sovereignty, which form the basis of the complaint raised by the defence, do not occur within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal' (ibid., at para. 21). The OTP also argued in this regard that 'some international laws are not binding on certain international institutions, such as this Tribunal, because some international laws are exclusively designed to regulate conduct between states and have no application to international institutions'. Ibid., at para. 13 (emphasis in original).
    • 168. See Prosecution Response to Motions for Judicial Assistance, supra note 26, at para. 21 (emphasis in original).
    • 169. The OTP noted that if the normal rules of non-interference with domestic jurisdiction of states applied, then the Tribunal's actions under Art. 1 (which deals with the ICTY's power to prosecute), Art. 7(2) (jurisdiction over sovereign heads of state), or Art. 9(2) (the ICTY's primacy over national courts) of its Statute would all result in breaches of the sovereignty of the FRY (ibid., at paras. 15-22).
    • 174. According to reports relied upon by the OTP itself, on 24 Nov. 2000, seven men were convicted of offences in relation to Nikolic´ 's transfer to Bosnia and Herzegovina by the District Court in Smederevo. See Prosecution Response to Defence Motion of 17 May 2001, supra note 172, at para. 5, citing Agence France-Presse, 'Seven Jailed by Yugoslav Court for Abducting War Crimes Suspect', 24 Nov. 2000.
    • 175. See Cvijanovic and Zimonjic, supra note 173. The report indicates that the police said that the payment came from 'unspecified “foreign services”'.
    • 176. He later made a further initial appearance on 18 March 2002 to plead to a second amended indictment, which was confirmed on 15 Feb. 2002.
    • 177. Motion for Relief Based Inter Alia Upon Illegality of Arrest following upon the Prior Unlawful Kidnapping and Imprisonment of the Accused and Co-related Abuse of Process within the Contemplation of Discretionary Jurisdictional Relief under Rule 72, 17 May 2001.
    • 178. See Prosecution Response to Defence Motion of 17 May 2001, supra note 172, at para. 7, relying on Motion for Relief based Inter Alia Upon Illegality of Arrest following upon the Prior Unlawful Kidnapping and Imprisonment of the Accused and Co-related Abuse of Process within the Contemplation of Discretionary Jurisdictional Relief under Rule 72, 17 May 2001, at para. 1.
    • 179. Ibid., at paras. 7-10.
    • 180. An agreement was reached between the parties to submit the following questions to the Trial Chamber for resolution:
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article