Chapter II International tribunals and court

1484 Legal questions

Chapter II

International tribunals and court

In 2006, the international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda worked towards complet-ing their mandates, while the International Crimi-nal Court saw the arrest and indictment of its first accused.

The International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 (icty) made significant progress towards accomplishing its mandate by 2010, by conducting multiple accused trials and implementing a number of reforms. In February, the Security Council amended the icty Statute, increasing the number of ad litem (short-term) judges from 9 to 12 and allowing for the ap-pointment of reserve ad litem judges for certain trials of multiple accused. In March, the remodel-ling of the three icty courtrooms was completed, allowing for up to 18 accused to be tried simulta-neously. However, a number of factors could affect the Court’s ability to meet its completion deadline, most notably the status of trials referred to national courts in the former Yugoslavia and the critical issue of six outstanding fugitives.

During the year, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994 (ictr) delivered six judgements and commenced four new trials. The Tribunal was on course to complete all ongoing trials by 2008 and all its work by 2010, de-pending on progress in current and future cases and on the availability of sufficient resources. In order to ensure continuity and ictr ability to implement its Completion Strategy, the Council, in June, ex-tended the mandates of 11 permanent judges whose terms of office were due to end in May 2007. In August and October, the Council also extended the terms of 18 ad litem judges.

The International Criminal Court (icc), in its third year of operation, began its first proceedings against one accused and continued investigations into situations of concern in three countries. Five warrants of arrest were outstanding.

International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

In 2006, the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (icty), established by Security Council resolution 827(1993) [YUN 1993, p. 440], con-tinued to implement its completion strategy [YUN 2002, p. 1275], adopting further reforms to ensure compliance with Council resolutions 1503(2003) [YUN 2003, p. 1330] and 1534(2004) [YUN 2004, p. 1292]. Those resolutions called on the Tribunal to take all possible measures to complete first-instance trials before the end of 2008 and all appeals before the end of 2010. During the year, icty amended or modified a number of rules in order to enhance the efficiency of proceedings, based on recommenda-tions made by a working group on speeding up ap-peals. In February, the Council adopted resolution 1660(2006) (see p. 1490), which amended article 12 and article 13 quater of the icty Statute, increasing the number of ad litem (short-term) judges from 9 to 12 and allowing for the assignment of reserve ad litem judges to specific trials of multiple accused. Despite those efforts to implement the completion strategy, icty President Fausto Pocar informed the Council on 15 December [S/PV.5594] that all trials of accused persons in custody would only be completed by 2009, and all appellate work could be concluded within two years of the end of the trials. However, a number of factors could influence that timetable, notably the success or otherwise of cases referred to national courts in the former Yugoslavia and the critical issue of the six outstanding indicted fugi-tives, in particular Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic.

By letters of 31 May [S/2006/353] and 16 November [S/2006/898], the Secretary-General, in response to Council resolution 1534(2004), transmitted as-sessments by the icty President and Prosecutor on progress made towards implementing the comple-tion strategy.

The Tribunal continued to develop the judi-cial capacity of national authorities in the former Yugoslavia, liaising closely with local judiciaries in the region and participating in efforts to strengthen their capacity to try war crimes cases. It also inten-

International tribunals and court 1485

sified its outreach efforts, with Tribunal staff par-ticipating in seminars and professional symposia and explaining cases in the successor States of the former Yugoslavia. Key materials were distributed in the region, and the Tribunal’s website served as a vital conduit for updated information on its work.

In March, Milan Babic and Slobodan Milosevic died in the United Nations Detention Unit (undu) in The Hague, Netherlands. It was established that Mr. Milosevic died of natural causes, while Mr. Babic committed suicide. Mr. Babic, who had been sentenced to 13 years in prison for crimes against hu-manity and violations of the laws or customs of war in 2004 [YUN 2004, p. 1277], was brought back to The Hague to testify in the case against Milan Martic. The Dutch authorities carried out independent in-quests in both cases and full internal inquiries into the deaths were launched by icty. Both investiga-tions concluded that there was no criminal conduct involved in either case. A consequent independent audit of undu by Swedish authorities expressed gen-eral satisfaction with the Unit’s operation and made a number of recommendations on ways to improve the conditions of detention of detainees and ensure greater clarity of management. Following the ter-mination of the Milosevic proceedings, the icty President reorganized the Trial Chambers to fully engage the judges of that Chamber as soon as possi-ble and to allow for the three trials of multi-accused to start much earlier than planned.

The activities of icty were covered in two re-ports to the Council and the General Assembly, for the periods 1 August 2005 to 31 July 2006 [A/61/271-S/2006/666] and 1 August 2006 to 31 July 2007 [A/62/172-S/2007/469]. On 9 October, the Assembly took note of the 2005/2006 report (deci-sion 61/506).

The ChambersThe judicial activities of the Tribunal’s three Trial

Chambers, which ran six trials simultaneously and three trials of multi-accused during the year, and of its Appeals Chamber, included first-instance and appeals proceedings against judgements, interlocu-tory decisions and State requests for review, proceed-ings regarding the Tribunal’s primacy and contempt cases. Icty had a total of 28 judges—16 permanent judges, including two judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ictr) serving in the Appeals Chamber, and 12 ad litem judges.

New arrests and surrendersIn 2006, no new indictments were issued by

the Prosecutor, except for those for contempt of

the Tribunal. In September, Domagoj Margetic, former editor of two Croatian weekly magazines, was charged for a second time with contempt of court for publishing information about protected witnesses in the Blaskic case [YUN 2004, p. 1282; YUN 2005, p. 1389]. He entered a plea of not guilty. The trial commenced on 30 November and a judgement was expected in early 2007.

Two accused who had been located and arrested in 2005 [YUN 2005, p. 1388], Milan Lukic and Dragan Zelenovic, were handed over to the Tribunal on 21 February and 10 June, respectively. Both cases, which concerned offences allegedly committee in Bosnia and Herzegovina, were before the Referral Bench. Mr. Lukic was indicted in 1998 for the killing of Muslim men, women and children in Visegrad and Mr. Zelenovic was indicted for tor-ture and rape in Foca.

Ongoing cases and trials The trial for contempt of Ivica Marijacic, a jour-

nalist and editor-in-chief of a Zagreb-based weekly publication, and Markica Rebic, former head of the Security Information Service of the Republic of Croatia [YUN 2005, p. 1389], took place from 17 to 19 January. On 10 March, the Trial Chamber found both accused guilty of disclosing informa-tion in a Croatian newspaper about a protected Tribunal witness in the Tihomir Blaskic case [YUN 2004, p. 1282], in violation of a closed session order. The Trial Chamber sentenced each of them to a fine of €15,000. Both accused filed a notice of appeal against the judgement on 20 March. On 5 April, Mr. Rebic filed a motion asking for a suspen-sion of the payment of the fines until the Appeals Chamber had rendered its judgement in the case. The request was granted by the Appeals Chamber on 7 April, with the decision applying equally to the co-respondent. In its 27 September judge-ment, the Appeals Chamber dismissed all appeals and affirmed the sentence imposed by the Trial Chamber.

On 23 February, in the case of Mitar Rasevic and Savo Todovic [YUN 2003, p. 1312; YUN 2004, p. 1277], who were, respectively, commander of the guards at the Kazneno Popravni Dom detention facility in Foca and deputy commander of the prison staff, the Appeals Chamber quashed the 2005 Referral Bench decision to transfer Mr. Todovic’s case to Bosnia and Herzegovina and returned the matter to the Referral Bench for further consideration. It sus-pended the execution of the Referral Bench’s ruling with respect to Mr. Rasevic until a decision on the form of the indictment and a confirmation of the operative indictment were issued. The prosecution


submitted a modified indictment on 7 April and both accused were jointly charged with persecu-tions, murder, torture, imprisonment, and enslave-ment, committed against Bosnian Muslims and other imprisoned non-Serbs between April 1992 and October 1994. On 31 May, the Referral Bench reordered the referral to Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 4 September, dismissing Mr. Todovic’s ap-peal, the Appeals Chamber affirmed the decision of the Referral Bench to refer the case to Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 3 October, both accused were transferred to Sarajevo.

In the case of Miroslav Kvocka and Others [YUN 2001, p. 1201], the defence of Mlado Radic, a police-man who was sentenced to 20 years in prison in 2005 [YUN 2005, p. 1389], submitted a request for re-view on 27 February. On 31 October, the Appeals Chamber dismissed the request in its entirety. In the case against Zoran Zigic [YUN 2001, p. 1201], the accused was transferred to Austria on 8 June to serve his 25-year prison sentence. On 26 June, the motion Mr. Zigic had filed requesting that the Appeals Chamber reconsider its 2005 appeal judge-ment [YUN 2005, p. 1389] and either order a retrial or acquit him of all convictions, except for those where he admitted his criminal responsibility, was denied.

In the appeal of Momir Nikolic, the Appeals Chamber delivered its judgement on 8 March. Mr. Nikolic, an assistant chief of Security and Intelligence in the Bosnian Serb Army, had pleaded guilty to persecuting Bosnian Muslim civilians in Srebrenica in 1995 and was sentenced to 27 years’ imprison-ment in 2003 [YUN 2003, p. 1313]. He appealed his sentence in 2004 [YUN 2004, p. 1281], arguing that the Trial Chamber made errors in determining it. The Appeals Chamber reduced the sentence to 20 years’ imprisonment, having accepted three of the twelve grounds for appeal: the Trial Chamber had wrongly considered Mr. Nikolic’s role twice when determining the sentence; the Trial Chamber re-lied significantly upon an incorrect translation of remarks made by Mr. Nikolic’s defence counsel dur-ing his closing argument; and the Trial Chamber erred when assessing Mr. Nikolic’s cooperation with the prosecution, and thus attached insufficient weight to that mitigating circumstance.

In the case against Ramush Haradinaj, a former senior commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army (kla), who surrendered to the Tribunal in 2005 [YUN 2005, p. 1388], the Appeals Chamber, on 10 March, denied the prosecution’s motion to set aside the Trial Chamber’s 2005 decision grant-ing Mr. Haradinaj provisional release, and instead amended that decision. The Trial Chamber had

ordered the accused to obtain agreement from the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (unmik) before appearing in public or engaging in public political activities. The Appeals Chamber added five conditions allowing the pros-ecution to be better informed of unmik decisions and asked for the decisions to contain a reasoned ex-planation of why an appearance had been granted. Mr. Haradinaj was jointly indicted in 2005 with Idriz Balaj and Lahi Brahimaj, former members of the kla, on 37 counts of crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war. On 26 April, the prosecution filed an amended indictment and the Trial Chamber confirmed it as the opera-tive indictment in the case on 25 October, ruling that the changes would not cause prejudice to the accused or delay the proceedings unduly. The pros-ecution submitted a revised second amended indict-ment on 10 November. The trial was still pending at the end of the year.

Following a trial that lasted from 2 December 2003 [YUN 2003, p. 1314] to 14 July 2005 [YUN 2005, p. 1390], the Trial Chamber, by a 15 March judge-ment, found Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura guilty for having failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or punish crimes committed by their subordinates; the accused were high-level commanders in the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. Hadzihasanovic was sentenced to five years in prison and Mr. Kubura to two and a half years. Both accused filed notices of appeal in April.

In the appeal of Milomir Stakic, the former president of the Prijedor Municipal Assembly, the Appeals Chamber rendered its judgement on 22 March. In 2003, Mr. Stakic was found guilty of participating in the murder, extermination and persecutions of non-Serbs in Prijedor in 1992, and was sentenced to life imprisonment, the maximum penalty [YUN 2003, p. 1313; YUN 2004, p. 1279]. In its judgement, the Appeals Chamber affirmed the Trial Chamber’s conviction of Mr. Stakic and also agreed with its decision to acquit Mr. Stakic of genocide and complicity in genocide. The Appeals Chamber also found that the Trial Chamber incorrectly failed to convict him for deporting and forcibly transfer-ring elsewhere the non-Serb population, and ad-dressed, on its own initiative, how to legally define his responsibility for the crimes he had committed. The Appeals Chamber found that Mr. Stakic par-ticipated in a joint criminal enterprise, the purpose of which was to commit crimes against the Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat populations of Prijedor; it also stated that the Trial Chamber had commit-


ted errors in determining his sentence, and reduced Mr. Stakic’s sentence to 40 years in prison.

In the case of Fatmir Limaj, Haradin Bala and Isak Musliu, who were arrested in 2003 [YUN 2003, p. 311], the prosecution and Mr. Bala’s defence filed notices of appeal on 30 December 2005 against the Trial Chamber’s November 2005 sentencing of Mr. Bala to 13 years in prison for participating in the murder of prisoners and other crimes in Kosovo [YUN 2005, p. 1391]. On 29 March, the prosecution filed a motion of appeal against the acquittals, by the same judgement, of Messrs. Limaj and Musliu. The appeals were pending at year’s end.

Pavle Strugar, a former commander in the Yugoslav People’s Army, sentenced by the Trial Chamber in 2005 to eight years’ imprisonment [YUN 2005, p. 1389] for having failed to prevent at-tacks against civilians and the destruction of prop-erty in Dubrovnik in 1991 [YUN 2003, p. 1314; YUN 2004, p. 1279], returned to undu on 5 April, having received medical treatment in Montenegro; his provisional release for a period no longer than four months was ordered by the Appeals Chamber in late 2005. On 15 September 2006, both the prosecution and the defence withdrew their appeals against the Trial Chamber’s judgement, on the basis of “the exceptional humanitarian circumstances pertain-ing to Pavle Strugar, in particular his advanced age, poor state of health and general condition”. On 20 September, the Appeals Chamber declared proceedings closed in the case. Thus, Mr. Strugar’s sentence became definitive.

On 5 April, in the case against Milan Milutinovic, Nikola Sainovic, Dragoljub Ojdanic, Nebojsa Pavkovic, Vladimir Lazarevic and Sreten Lukic, the prosecution submitted the second amended joinder indictment following the defence challenge against a 2005 amended indictment [YUN 2005, p 1390]. On 17 May, the pre-trial judge ordered the prosecution to correct some typographical errors in the third amended joinder indictment (filed on 12 May), and to sever Vlastimir Dordevic, who was still at large, from the other accused in order that the trial could commence as scheduled. On 26 June, the Trial Chamber granted the severance and ac-cepted the redacted third amended joinder indict-ment as the operative indictment against the six ac-cused (Vlastimir Dordevic was assigned a new case number). The operative indictment alleged that the accused participated in a joint criminal enterprise, the purpose of which was, among other things, the modification of the ethnic balance in Kosovo to en-sure continued Serbian control over the province. They were indicted for crimes against humanity and for violations of the laws or customs of war.

The accused, all of whom had been provisionally released, returned to undu on 4 July. The trial com-menced on 10 July.

In the case against Jovica Stanisic, former head of the State Security Service (db) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serbia, and Franko Simatovic, commander of the db Special Operations Unit [YUN 2003, p. 1311], the Trial Chamber, on 12 April, ordered the prosecution to make some linguistic corrections and clarify certain sections of the second amended indictment from 2004 [YUN 2004, p. 1279]. On 31 May, the Trial Chamber ordered that the revised second amended indictment, filed by the prosecution on 15 May, be the operative indictment in the case. It charged Mr. Stanisic and Mr. Simatovic with four counts of crimes against humanity and one count of violation of the laws or customs of war.

On 12 April, the Tribunal’s Referral Bench re-ferred to Bosnia and Herzegovina the case of Pasko Ljubicic, the former commander of the Fourth Military Police Battalion of the Croatian Defence Council [YUN 2001, p. 200; YUN 2002, p. 1279; YUN 2003, p. 1313; YUN 2004, p. 1282; YUN 2005, p. 1391]. On 25 April, Mr. Ljubicic filed an appeal brief. The Appeals Chamber affirmed the referral decision on 4 July and, on 22 September, the accused was trans-ferred to Sarajevo.

Also on 12 April, the Trial Chamber found Vladimir Kovacevic unfit to enter a plea or stand trial; criminal proceedings against him could be re-instated should it be determined at a future date that he was again fit. Mr. Kovacevic, who was charged in 2001 with six counts of violations of the laws or customs of war [YUN 2001, p. 1200], was transferred to icty in 2003 [YUN 2003, p. 1312]. On 17 November 2006, the Tribunal’s Referral Bench referred the case to the Republic of Serbia for the ongoing mon-itoring of Mr. Kovacevic’s health and resumption of proceedings should he become fit for trial. On 1 December, the defence for Mr. Kovacevic filed a notice of appeal against the decision of the referral.

On 26 April, the trial began of six high-level leaders of the Bosnian Croat wartime entity of Herzeg-Bosna—Jadranko Prlic, Bruno Stojic, Slobodan Praljak, Milivoj Petkovic, Valentin Coric and Berislav Pusic. The six, who surrendered in April 2004 [YUN 2004, p. 276], pleaded not guilty to nine counts of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, nine counts of violations of the laws or customs of war and eight counts of crimes against humanity, all committed against Serbs and Muslims in the Croatian-held part of northern Bosnia in 1992 and 1993. They were granted provisional release on 17 August.


The Appeals Chamber, on 3 May, upheld the conviction and sentences of the accused Bosnian Croat commanders, Mladen Naletilic and Vinko Martinovic, who were sentenced in 2003 to 20 and 18 years’ imprisonment, respectively, for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war and crimes against hu-manity [YUN 2003, p 1312], and for their involvement in the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslim civil-ians in the Mostar area of Bosnia and Herzegovina between April 1993 and January 1994. Both the prosecution and the defence had appealed the Trial Chamber’s 2003 judgement. In its judgement, the Appeals Chamber dismissed most of the grounds for appeal raised by both sides. It also set aside, in part, some of the convictions entered by the Trial Chamber against the accused. However, taking into account the particular circumstances of the case, the form and degree of the participation of the accused in the crimes affirmed on appeal, as well as the seriousness of the crimes, the Appeals Chamber confirmed the sentences.

In the case of Milorad Trbic, initially charged jointly with Popovic and Others [YUN 2005, p. 1390] with one count of murder as a crime against human-ity, the prosecution filed a 4 May motion for referral to the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. On 16 June, the prosecution filed a motion seeking to sever Mr. Trbic’s case from Popovic and Others. On 26 June, the Trial Chamber ordered his case to be severed and the prosecution was ordered to file two new versions of the second consolidated amended indictment. The new indictment charged Mr. Trbic, on the basis of his individual criminal responsibility, with genocide and conspiracy to commit genocide, extermination, murder, persecutions and forcible transfer (crimes against humanity), and violations of the laws or customs of war. The referral motion was pending at year’s end.

Blagoje Simic’s motion for temporary provisional release to attend memorial services for his mother in Bosnia and Herzegovina was granted by the Appeals Chamber on 5 May. He was provisionally released from 10 to 25 May. In 2003, Mr. Simic was found guilty of a crime against humanity for perse-cutions he committed against Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilians when he was the highest-ranking civilian official in the Bosanski Samac municipality. He was sentenced to 17 years’ impris-onment [YUN 2003, p. 1315]. Both the prosecution and defence appealed the judgement in 2003. On 28 November 2006, the Appeals Chamber rendered its final judgement on the appeal of the accused and reduced his sentence to 15 years’ imprisonment. The Appeals Chamber found that Mr. Simic was not

informed that he was being accused of participating in a joint criminal enterprise until the prosecution had finished presenting its case, which rendered the trial unfair. It also reversed his conviction for perse-cution through cruel and inhumane treatment in the form of torture and beating. However, the Appeals Chamber upheld his conviction for aiding and abet-ting persecution against non-Serb civilians.

By an 8 May decision of the Trial Chamber, Ivica Rajic, a former Commander of the Second Operational Group of the Croatian Defence Council, was sentenced to 12 years in prison. In 2005, Mr. Rajic had pleaded guilty to four counts of willful killing, inhumane treatment, extensive de-struction and the appropriation of property in the area of Stupni Do in central Bosnia in 1993 [YUN 2005, p. 1391]. At year’s end, Mr. Rajic was awaiting transfer to the country where he would serve his sentence.

In the case against Zeljko Mejakic, Momcilo Gruban, Dusan Fustar and Dusko Knezevic, jointly charged in 2002 [YUN 2002, p. 1279] with crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war, the Appeals Chamber upheld the Referral Bench’s 2005 decision to refer the case to Bosnia and Herzegovina for trial [YUN 2005, p. 391]. On 9 May, the four accused were transferred to the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina; their trial commenced on 20 December.

On 31 May, in the case of Popovic and Others, following various motions alleging defects in the form of the consolidated amended indictment, the Trial Chamber ordered the prosecution to file an amended indictment. The second consolidated amended indictment was filed on 14 June. On 20 June, the Trial Chamber ordered Radivoje Miletic and Milan Gvero, who had been provisionally re-leased, to return to undu by 4 July. The Popovic and Others trial commenced on 14 July. The op-erative indictment jointly charged Vujadin Popovic, Ljubisa Beara, Drago Nikolic, Ljubomir Borovcanin and Vinko Pandurevic with genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, extermination, murder, per-secutions, forcible transfer and deportation, com-mitted during the period from July to November 1995; it also charged Radivoje Miletic and Milan Gvero with crimes against humanity and a viola-tion of the laws or customs of war. All the charges related to the mass murder and ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica after the fall of the former UN safe haven to Bosnian Serb forces in July 1995.

Dario Kordic, one of the leading political figures in the Bosnian Croat community during the war, was transferred to Austria, on 8 June, to serve the


25-year prison term handed down by the Tribunal in 2001 [YUN 2001, p. 1200] and affirmed by the Appeals Chamber in 2004 [YUN 2004, p. 1280].

On 20 June, the prosecution completed its case-in-chief against Milan Martic. The trial, for crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or cus-toms of war, had begun in December 2005 [YUN 2005, p. 1392]. On 3 July, the Trial Chamber stated that there was no basis on which it could enter a judgement of acquittal. The defence began pre-senting its case on 11 July and concluded it on 16 November.

In the case of Dragan Nikolic, commander of the Bosnian Serb-run Susica detention camp, the ac-cused was transferred to Italy on 21 June to serve his 20-year prison sentence [YUN 2003, p. 1314]. Mr. Nikolic’s sentence was reduced from 23 years by the Appeals Chamber in 2005 [YUN 2005, p. 389].

The Trial Chamber, in a 30 June judgement, found Naser Oric, a former senior commander of Bosnian Muslim forces in and around Srebrenica, guilty of having failed to take necessary and reason-able measures to prevent the commission of crimes by his subordinates in 1992 and 1993. Mr. Oric was sentenced to two years in prison and was entitled to credit for time spent in custody since 2003 [YUN 2003, p. 1311]; the judges therefore ordered that he be released as soon as the necessary practical ar-rangements were made. He was officially released on 1 July. On 31 July, both the defence and the prosecution filed notices of appeal against the trial judgement. On 16 October, the defence filed its ap-peal brief and, on 18 October, the prosecution filed the latest version of its appeal brief; both appeals were pending at year’s end.

The contempt proceedings against Josip Jovic, which had initially been due to begin on 3 July, were re-scheduled for 11 July due to the non-attendance in court of the accused. Mr. Jovic, a former editor-in-chief of a Croatian daily newspaper, was indicted for contempt of the Tribunal in the Tihomir Blaskic case for disclosing information in direct violation of a court order and was provisionally released [YUN 2005, p. 1388]. On 30 August, he was convicted of contempt and sentenced to pay a fine of €20,000. On 14 September, Mr. Jovic filed a notice of appeal against the judgement. The appeal was pending at the end of the year.

On 14 July, the Trial Chamber decided to join two cases involving Ante Gotovina [ibid.] and Ivan Cermak/Mladen Markac [YUN 2004, p. 1276] in one indictment and accepted the proposed amend-ments to the indictment. The three accused were charged with persecutions, deportation, inhumane acts, plunder of public or private property, wanton

destruction of cities, towns or villages, murder and cruel treatment, all allegedly committed against Serbs in 1995, during, and in the aftermath of a Croatian military offensive. At that time, Mr. Gotovina and Mr. Cermak were senior military commanders on the ground, while Mr. Markac was the commander of the Croatian Special Police. All three accused appealed the Trial Chamber’s decision. On 25 October, the Appeals Chamber confirmed the Trial Chamber’s decision, making the joinder indictment the operative indictment in the case. On 5 December, all the defendants pleaded not guilty to the charges in the amended indictment.

In the case against Momcilo Krajisnik, a mem-ber of the Bosnian Serb leadership during the war, who was charged in 2000 [YUN 2000, p. 1221] with eight counts of genocide, crimes against human-ity and violations of the laws or customs of war in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1991 and 1992, the Trial Chamber, in a 27 September judgement, sentenced him to 27 years’ imprisonment. He was convicted of persecutions, extermination, murder, deportation and forced transfer of non-Serb civil-ians, but was acquitted of genocide, complicity in genocide and one count of murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war. The Trial Chamber also established the existence of a joint crimi-nal enterprise, involving Radovan Karadzic and other Bosnian Serb leaders, intended to “ethni-cally recompose the territories targeted by the Bosnian-Serb leadership by drastically reducing the proportion of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats through expulsion”. On 26 October, the prosecution filed its notice of appeal, asking for the sentence to be raised to life imprisonment, and its appeal brief on 27 November. The appeal was pending at the end of the year.

Miodrag Jokic was transferred to Denmark on 5 October to serve his seven-year prison sentence. Mr. Jokic, a former commander in the Yugoslav navy, who pleaded guilty to crimes committed during the 1991 attack on Dubrovnik, was sen-tenced by the Trial Chamber in 2004 [YUN 2004, p. 1280]. In 2005, the Appeals Chamber upheld the sentence.

On 23 November, the Appeals Chamber rejected the review of Tihomir Blaskic’s case requested by the prosecution in 2005. In 2004, the Appeals Chamber had reduced Mr. Blaskic’s sentence from 45 to 9 years’ imprisonment [YUN 2004, p. 1282]. The Appeals Chamber found in its judgement that the prosecution's request for review did not contain “new facts” in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, but rather additional evidence in relation


to facts considered earlier in the case. It concluded that a review of the appeals judgement was not war-ranted, thereby putting an end to the case.

The trial of Vojislav Seselj, charged with 14 counts alleging crimes against humanity and viola-tions of the laws or customs of war in the territory of Croatia, in large parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Vojvodina (Serbia) from 1991 until 1993 [YUN 2003, p. 311; YUN 2004, p. 1277], commenced on 27 November in his absence. Mr. Seselj had been on a hunger strike since 10 November and refused to appear in court. In the light of that situation, the Trial Chamber issued a 27 November decision terminating his self-representation status and once more assigned counsel to conduct his defence. On 1 December, given the medical situation of the ac-cused, the Trial Chamber ordered an adjournment of the trial until further notice. On 7 December, Mr. Seselj filed an appeal against the decision on imposed counsel and, on 8 December, the Appeals Chamber issued its decision to nullify the open-ing of the proceeding and ordered that the trial restart when Mr. Seselj was able to fully represent himself. Before the trial began, the Trial Chamber invited the prosecution to reduce the scope of the indictment against Mr. Seselj. Having considered the prosecution’s proposals in that regard, the Trial Chamber rendered an 8 November decision reducing the indictment by five counts and ruled inadmissible evidence in respect of crimes allegedly committed in five municipalities, thus reducing the indictment by approximately one-third.

On 30 November, the Appeals Chamber handed down its judgement in the case of Stanislav Galic, a former Bosnian Serb Army commander who was found guilty by the Trial Chamber in 2003 [YUN 2003, p. 1315] and sentenced to 20 years in prison. In its judgement, the Appeals Chamber allowed the appeal by the prosecution on the length of the sen-tence, quashed the sentence imposed by the Trial Chamber and instead sentenced Mr. Galic to life imprisonment. That was the first time the maxi-mum penalty had been rendered by the Tribunal’s Appeals Chamber. The Appeals Chamber also dis-missed all 19 grounds of appeal by Mr. Galic, who was awaiting transfer to the country where he would serve his sentence.

With regard to Mile Mrksic, Miroslav Radic and Veselin Sljivancanin, who were indicted in 1997 [YUN 1997, p. 1322] for alleged involvement in the execution of some 200 Croatians and non-Serb persons removed from Vukovar hospital in 1991, the prosecution concluded its case on 23 June and the defence made its case from 30 August until

8 December. The trial had begun in October 2005 [YUN 2005, p. 1391].

Judges of the Court

Ad litem judgesIn January, the icty President proposed that the

Security Council amend the statute of the Tribunal so that the Secretary-General, at the request of the President, could authorize the appointment of reserve judges from among the current pool of ad litem judges elected in accordance with article 13 ter of the statute, to be present at each stage of the proceedings and ready to step in should one of the original judges not be able to finish the case, thus preventing disruption to the proceedings or a retrial. The pool of ad litem judges should be in-creased from 9 to 12. Under the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, if two of the original judges assigned to a case were not able to be present during the en-tire proceedings, the trial had to start again from the beginning.

SECURITY COUNCIL ACTION

On 28 February [meeting 5382], the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1660(2006). The draft [S/2006/130] was prepared in consultations among Council members.

The Security Council,Reaffirming its resolutions 827(1993) of 25 May 1993,

1166(1998) of 13 May 1998, 1329(2000) of 30 November 2000, 1411(2002) of 17 May 2002, 1431(2002) of 14 Au-gust 2002, 1481(2003) of 19 May 2003, 1503(2003) of 28 August 2003, 1534(2004) of 26 March 2004 and 1597(2005) of 20 April 2005,

Having considered the proposal made by the Presi-dent of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Interna-tional Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 that the Secretary-General, at the request of the President, appoint reserve judges from among the ad litem judges elected in accord-ance with article 13 ter of the statute of the Tribunal to be present at each stage of a trial to which they have been appointed and to replace a judge if that judge is unable to continue sitting,

Convinced of the advisability of allowing the Secretary-General to appoint reserve judges to specific trials at the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia when so requested by the President of the Tribunal,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides to amend article 12 and article 13 quater of the statute of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and to replace those articles with the provi-sions set out in the annex to the present resolution;

2. Decides also to remain seized of the matter.


Annex

Article 12 Composition of the Chambers1. The Chambers shall be composed of sixteen perma-nent independent judges, no two of whom may be na-tionals of the same State, and a maximum at any one time of twelve ad litem independent judges appointed in ac-cordance with article 13 ter, paragraph 2, of the statute, no two of whom may be nationals of the same State.2. Three permanent judges and a maximum at any one time of nine ad litem judges shall be members of each Trial Chamber. Each Trial Chamber to which ad litem judges are assigned may be divided into sections of three judges each, composed of both permanent and ad litem judges, except in the circumstances specified in para-graph 5 below. A section of a Trial Chamber shall have the same powers and responsibilities as a Trial Chamber under the statute and shall render judgement in accord-ance with the same rules.3. Seven of the permanent judges shall be members of the Appeals Chamber. The Appeals Chamber shall, for each appeal, be composed of five of its members.4. A person who for the purposes of membership of the Chambers of the International Tribunal could be regarded as a national of more than one State shall be deemed to be a national of the State in which that person ordinarily exercises civil and political rights.5. The Secretary-General may, at the request of the President of the International Tribunal appoint, from among the ad litem judges elected in accordance with article 13 ter, reserve judges to be present at each stage of a trial to which they have been appointed and to replace a judge if that judge is unable to continue sitting.6. Without prejudice to paragraph 2 above, in the event that exceptional circumstances require for a permanent judge in a section of a Trial Chamber to be replaced re-sulting in a section solely comprised of ad litem judges, that section may continue to hear the case, notwithstand-ing that its composition no longer includes a permanent judge.Article 13 quater Status of ad litem judges1. During the period in which they are appointed to serve in the International Tribunal, ad litem judges shall: (a) Benefit from the same terms and conditions of service mutatis mutandis as the permanent judges of the International Tribunal; (b) Enjoy, subject to paragraph 2 below, the same powers as the permanent judges of the International Tri-bunal; (c) Enjoy the privileges and immunities, exemp-tions and facilities of a judge of the International Tribu-nal; (d) Enjoy the power to adjudicate in pretrial pro-ceedings in cases other than those that they have been appointed to try.

2. During the period in which they are appointed to serve in the International Tribunal, ad litem judges shall not: (a) Be eligible for election as, or to vote in the elec-tion of, the President of the Tribunal or the Presiding Judge of a Trial Chamber pursuant to article 14 of the statute; (b) Have power: (i) To adopt rules of procedure and evidence pursu-

ant to article 15 of the statute. They shall, however, be consulted before the adoption of those rules;

(ii) To review an indictment pursuant to article 19 of the statute;

(iii) To consult with the President in relation to the assignment of judges pursuant to article 14 of the statute or in relation to a pardon or commutation of sentence pursuant to article 28 of the statute.

3. Notwithstanding, paragraphs 1 and 2 above, an ad litem judge who is serving as a reserve judge shall, during such time as he or she so serves: (a) Benefit from the same terms and conditions of service mutatis mutandis as the permanent judges of the International Tribunal; (b) Enjoy the privileges and immunities, exemp-tions and facilities of a judge of the International Tribu-nal; (c) Enjoy the power to adjudicate in pretrial pro-ceedings in cases other than those that they have been appointed to and for that purpose to enjoy subject to par-agraph 2 above, the same powers as permanent judges.4. In the event that a reserve judge replaces a judge who is unable to continue sitting, he or she will, as of that time, benefit from the provisions of paragraph 1 above.

General Assembly action. In a May report [A/60/844], the Secretary-General informed the General Assembly that, in the light of the Security Council’s decision to increase the number of icty ad litem judges from 9 to 12 (above), estimated addi-tional requirements in connection with the appoint-ment of up to three reserve judges for the 2006-2007 biennium would amount to $896,600. The Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (acabq), in a May report [A/60/854], sub-mitted its comments on the revised estimates.

On 30 June, the Assembly requested the Secretary-General to report on any additional re-quirements arising from the appointment of the three reserve judges in the context of the second performance report for the biennium 2006-2007 (decision 60/560).

Extension of terms of officeIn identical letters of 27 March [A/60/741-S/2006/

199], the Secretary-General transmitted to the General Assembly and Security Council Presidents a request from the icty President that Judge Joaquin Martin Canivell (Spain) be allowed to continue to


sit in the Krajisnik case [YUN 2000, p. 1221] beyond the end of April and see the case through to its completion, despite the fact that the cumulative period of his service in icty would then attain and exceed three years. The Secretary-General stated that the request directly related to the Tribunal’s ability to implement its completion strategy [YUN 2002, p. 1275].


On 10 April [meeting 5407], the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1668(2006). The draft [S/2006/223] was prepared in consultations among Council members.

The Security Council,Recalling its resolution 1581(2005) of 18 January

2005,Taking note of the letter dated 27 March 2006 from

the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council,

1. Decides, in response to the request of the Secretary-General, to confirm that Judge Joaquín Canivell can continue to sit in the Krajišnik case beyond April 2006 and see the case through to its completion, notwithstand-ing the fact that the cumulative period of his service in the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Per-sons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 would then attain and ex-ceed three years;

2. Decides also to remain seized of the matter.

The Council President transmitted the text of the resolution to the General Assembly President by a 10 April letter [A/60/746-S/2006/231]. The Assembly, by decision 60/402 B of 13 April, endorsed the Secretary-General’s recommendation.

Office of the Prosecutor In 2006, no new indictments (except for con-

tempt of court) were issued. The Prosecutor focused her efforts on bringing the remaining accused at large to the Tribunal and, in that regard, on ob-taining the full cooperation of relevant countries, which resulted in several arrests and better produc-tion of documents. The Office continued to assist in furthering the reform of the judicial systems of the countries of the former Yugoslavia, to transfer cases to national courts and cooperate with the na-tional prosecutorial authorities on non-referred war crimes cases. Of the seven motions for referral on which icty was working during the year, three (in-volving seven accused) were granted on appeal and transferred to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Decisions on the other four motions (involving five accused) were pending at the end of the year.

The cooperation of the Government of Croatia remained swift and satisfactory and that of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina also con-tinued to be satisfactory. However, cooperation by Serbia and Montenegro was not complete, consist-ent or expeditious and no progress was made on any of the six remaining fugitives, all of whom had con-nections to Serbia. The cooperation of Republika Sprska (Bosnia and Herzegovina) was not fully suf-ficient either. Some significant archival collections had become available to the Office, but some other archives were still missing. The new Republika Sprska government confirmed its commitment to full cooperation and positive efforts were made to target the fugitives’ support networks, even if no arrests were actually made by the police. Despite a number of promises, the Serbian authorities failed to arrest Ratko Mladic, a priority target. However, the positive efforts of the President of the National Council for Cooperation resulted in waivers for in-terviews and access to documents. In May, staff of the Office of the Prosecutor received approval from the State for access to its archives.

In Kosovo, the Office relied on the support and assistance of the Kosovo Force (kfor) and unmik. Of particular concern were continuing problems related to the protection of witnesses in the case against Haradinaj and Others [YUN 2005, p. 1388] and the lack of full cooperation by unmik. The in-dependence of Montenegro in June had no immedi-ate negative effects on cooperation.

The RegistryThe Registry continued to provide administra-

tive services and judicial support to the Chambers, the Office of the Prosecutor and the defence. It also managed undu, the Victims and Witnesses Section, the legal aid office and the interpretation and translation service. The Registry facilitated the implementation of the Tribunal’s completion strat-egy, including the action plan to relocate protected witnesses and their families. In addition to provid-ing legal advice on a vast spectrum of judicial and administrative issues, the Registry facilitated liaison with the UN Office of Legal Affairs, assisted in the transfer of accused, either to serve their sentences or to be tried by domestic criminal courts in the former Yugoslavia, and furthered cooperation with those courts in the context of the transfer of cases. In March, the Registrar and the Ambassador of the Czech Republic signed an agreement for the loan of prison staff to the Tribunal.

In order to accommodate multiple-accused trials, an important part of the completion strategy, the


Registry remodelled each of the Tribunal’s three courtrooms. The efficient completion of trials con-tinued to be facilitated by the use of the e-Court system during proceedings cont. The Registry also implemented a procedure to allow the secure use of computers by detainees, providing them with spe-cially configured Registry-owned computers.

The Tribunal continued to develop and improve its outreach programme. In November, it launched an undu video on its website to show scenes from within the facility. The Web Unit of the Media/Web/ Outreach Office continued to develop the Tribunal’s extensive website in English, French and Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian and to provide information in Albanian and Macedonian. The Section also maintained the Internet broadcast of courtroom proceedings in English, French and Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian and, in cases relevant to Kosovo, in Albanian. As of November, the Communication Section began to publish a twice-monthly bilingual newsletter (icty Digest/tpiy en bref).

Financing

2006-2007 bienniumThe first performance report of icty for the

2006-2007 biennium [A/61/585], submitted in re-sponse to General Assembly resolution 60/243 [YUN 2005, p. 1396], reflected a requirement of ad-ditional appropriations of $18.8 million, net of staff assessment, over the amount apportioned in resolu-tion 60/243. The Assembly was requested to revise the appropriation for 2006-2007 in the amount of $326,573,900 gross ($297,146,300 net) to the icty Special Account.

In December [A/61/633], acabq recommended approval of the revised appropriation for the 2006-2007 biennium.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY ACTION

On 22 December [meeting 84], the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Fifth (Administrative and Budgetary) Committee [A/61/656], adopted resolution 61/242 without vote [agenda item 130].

Financing of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious

Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former

Yugoslavia since 1991The General Assembly,Having considered the reports of the Secretary-

General, namely, his first performance report for the

biennium 2006-2007 on the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Vio-lations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 and his report on financial and any other implications result-ing from the introduction of a staff retention bonus at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia,

Having also considered the report of the Board of Audi-tors on the International Tribunal for the Former Yugo-slavia and the recommendations contained therein,

Having further considered the related reports of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

Recalling its resolution 47/235 of 14 September 1993 on the financing of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and its subsequent resolutions thereon, the latest of which were resolutions 60/242 and 60/243 of 23 December 2005,

1. Takes note of the first performance report of the Secretary-General for the biennium 2006-2007 on the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 and his report on financial and any other implications resulting from the introduc-tion of a staff retention bonus at the International Crimi-nal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia;

2. Endorses the conclusions and recommendations contained in the reports of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions;

3. Emphasizes the importance of implementing the recommendations of the Board of Auditors, and requests the Secretary-General to report on progress in the im-plementation of the recommendations of the Board in the context of the proposed budget of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for the biennium 2008-2009;

4. Also emphasizes the importance of the timely sub-mission of the performance reports on the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the related re-ports of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions in order to facilitate the proper consideration thereof by the General Assembly;

5. Decides on a revised appropriation to the Special Account for the International Tribunal for the Pros-ecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 of a to-tal amount of 326,573,900 United States dollars gross (297,146,300 dollars net) for the biennium 2006-2007;

6. Decides also, for the year 2007, to apportion among Member States, in accordance with the scale of assess-ments applicable to the regular budget of the United Nations for the year, the amount of 86,940,250 dollars gross (78,995,675 dollars net), including 10,718,300 dol-lars gross (9,418,200 dollars net), being the increase in assessments;


7. Decides further, for the year 2007, to apportion among Member States, in accordance with the rates of assessment applicable to peacekeeping operations for the year, the amount of 86,940,250 dollars gross (78,995,675 dollars net), including 10,718,300 dollars gross (9,418,200 dollars net), being the increase in assessments;

8. Decides that, in accordance with the provisions of its resolution 973 (X) of 15 December 1955, there shall be set off against the apportionment among Member States, as provided for in paragraphs 6 and 7 above, their respec-tive share in the Tax Equalization Fund in the amount of 15,889,150 dollars, including 2,600,200 dollars, be-ing the increase in the estimated staff assessment income approved for the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia for the biennium 2006-2007.Annex

Financing for the biennium 2006-2007 of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991

Gross Net (United States dollars)

Initial appropriation for the biennium 2006–2007 (see resolution 60/243) 305 137 300 278 559 400

Add: Proposed changes for the biennium 2006–2007 (see A/61/585) 21 436 600 18 836 400

Less: Estimated income for the biennium 2006–2007 (249 500) (249 500)

Proposed revised appropriation for the biennium 2006–2007 326 324 400 297 146 300

Assessment for 2006 (152 443 900) (139 154 950)

Balance to be assessed for 2007 173 880 500 157 991 350

Including:

Contributions assessed on Member States in accordance with the scale of assessments applicable to the regular budget of the United Nations for 2007 86 940 250 78 995 675

Contributions assessed on Member States in accordance with the rates of assessment applicable to the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations for 2007 86 940 250 78 995 675

On 22 December, the Assembly deferred consid-eration of the agenda item on financing of the icty to its resumed sixty-first (2007) session (decision 61/552).

International Tribunal for Rwanda

In 2006, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ictr), established by Security Council

resolution 955(1994) [YUN 1994, p. 299] and based in Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania, delivered six trial judgements. No new indictments were issued by the Prosecutor during the year.

In letters of 29 May [S/2006/358] and 30 November [S/2006/951], submitted in response to Security Council resolutions 1503(2003) [YUN 2003, p. 1330] and 1534(2004) [YUN 2004, p. 1292], the ictr President, Erik Mose, provided information on the Tribunal’s completion strategy. In his November letter, he stated that judgements had been delivered in the first instance in respect of 31 persons. Two cases were at the judgement-writing stage and trials involving 25 accused were in progress. Of 11 detain-ees awaiting trial, the Prosecutor would request the transfer of a maximum of 5 to national jurisdictions. A further 18 indicted persons were still at large. The Prosecutor intended to request the transfer of at least 12 of them to national jurisdictions for trial. The President estimated that, by the end of 2008, ictr could complete trials and judgements in the range of 65 to 70 persons.

On 8 September [S/2006/769], Rwanda informed the Security Council that a number of individu-als on the Tribunal’s staff, including some on de-fence teams, were alleged genocide suspects in the 1994 genocide in the country. Rwanda considered it unfortunate that the Tribunal was seen to be failing to distance itself from genocide suspects. A suspect named by Rwanda, Callixte Gakwaya, a defence counsel, was arrested by Tanzanian of-ficials on 1 September and released on 5 September. Following the arrest, the ictr Registrar requested clarification for the arrest, stating that the Tribunal had not received any prior notice of the intention to arrest. On 18 September, Mr. Gakwaya resigned from his position as lead counsel, stating that the al-legations made against him had hindered him from fully representing his client.

The activities of ictr were covered in two re-ports to the Council and the General Assembly, for the periods 1 July 2005 to 30 June 2006 [A/61/265-S/2006/658] and 1 July 2006 to 30 June 2007 [A/62/284-S/2007/502]. On 9 October, the Assembly took note of the 2005/2006 report (deci-sion 61/505).

The Chambers

Ongoing trials On 26 January, Mikaeli Muhimana, who was

found guilty of genocide and crimes against hu-manity in 2005 [YUN 2005, p. 1398] and sentenced to life imprisonment, filed his appeal upon receiv-


ing the French translation of the trial judgement. A decision by the Appeal Chamber was expected in May 2007.

In the joint trial against André Ntagerura, Emmanuel Bagambiki and Samuel Imanishimwe, referred to as the “Cyangugu” case [YUN 1999, p. 1222], the Appeals Chamber, on 6 and 7 February, heard submissions on the merits of the prosecu-tion’s appeal and the appeal of Mr. Imanishimwe, a former officer in the Rwandan Armed Forces. On 8 February, the Appeals Chamber rejected the prosecution’s appeal against the acquittals of Mr. Ntagerura, former Minister of Transport and Communications in the Interim Government, and Mr. Bagambiki, former Prefect of Cyangugu.

The trial of André Rwamakuba, Minister of Primary and Secondary Education in the 1994 Interim Government [YUN 2005, p. 1398], con-cluded on 9 February. On 20 September, he was acquitted of all charges against him (genocide, or alternatively, complicity in genocide, and crimes against humanity for acts allegedly committed be-tween 6 and 30 April 1994 in Gikomero commune and at Butare University Hospital). After assess-ing the evidence as a whole, the Trial Chamber found the prosecution witnesses not credible or reliable. It concluded that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the allega-tions against Mr. Rwamakuba. The Chamber also found that Mr. Rwamakuba’s right to legal assist-ance had been violated as a result of the Registrar’s failure to appoint Duty Counsel during the ini-tial months of his detention at the United Nations Detention Facility. It therefore ordered an appro-priate remedy; the decision on the remedy was pending appeal.

In the appeal by Sylvestre Gacumbitsi against his 2004 conviction for genocide and crimes against humanity [YUN 2004, p. 1287], the Appeals Chamber heard the submissions on the merits of the appeals of the prosecution and Mr. Gacumbitsi on 8 and 9 February. On 7 July, the Appeals Chamber al-lowed, in part, the prosecution’s appeal and entered a sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of Mr. Gacumbitsi’s life. Mr. Gacumbitsi, a bourgmestre in April 1994, had earlier been sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment.

In the case against Joseph Serugendo, who was arrested and indicted in 2005 [YUN 2005, p. 1397], the prosecution and the accused filed a joint plea agreement on 16 February, in which Mr. Serugendo pleaded guilty to direct and public incitement to commit genocide and persecution for his role in Radio-Télévision Libre des Milles Collines (rtlm) radio broadcasts in 1994. Mr. Serugendo was sen-

tenced, on 2 June, to six years in prison, his termi-nal illness and poor prognosis having been taken into account as a significant mitigating factor. Mr. Serugendo died on 22 August.

On 13 April, Georges Rutaganda, the Second Vice-President of the Interahamwe in Rwanda in 1994, who was handed a life sentence in 1999 [YUN 1999, p. 1221], sought reconsideration and review of the appeal judgement in his case. He alleged several errors in the assessment of the evidence against him and other perceived procedural irregularities, and referred to several alleged new facts that, he con-tended, undermined his conviction or mitigated his sentence. On 8 December, the Appeals Chamber dismissed the case, determining that it had no ju-risdiction to reconsider a final judgement and that Mr. Rutaganda had not identified any new facts in his case that would have resulted in a miscarriage of justice necessitating review.

Paul Bisengimana, the former bourgmestre of Gikoro commune, was convicted by the Trial Chamber on 13 April of aiding and abetting ex-termination as a crime against humanity. Mr. Bisengimana, who was arrested in 2001, pleaded not guilty in 2002 [YUN 2002, p. 1285] and then pleaded guilty in 2005 [YUN 2005, p. 1399], was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment, a higher sentence than the range proposed by the parties, in view of the offi-cial position of the accused and the large number of persons killed as a result of his crimes.

On 8 May, the defence closed its case against Tharcisse Muvunyi, the former colonel and com-mander of the École sous-officiers, whose trial had commenced in 2004. Closing arguments took place on 22 and 23 June. On 12 September, the Trial Chamber convicted Mr. Muvunyi of genocide, di-rect and public incitement to commit genocide and crimes against humanity. He was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Mr. Muvunyi filed his notice of ap-peal on 12 October, and the prosecution filed its notice of appeal on 17 October.

The case against Michel Bagaragaza was subject to a motion for transfer to Norway in February. The ictr President had assigned the matter to a spe-cially constituted bench pursuant to rule 11 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. On 19 May, the Chamber denied the motion on the grounds that Norway lacked jurisdiction over the crime of genocide as pleaded in the indictment. On 1 June, the Prosecutor appealed the decision and filed an appeal brief on 23 June. On 30 August, the Appeals Chamber dismissed the prosecution’s ap-peal and noted that Norway’s jurisdiction over Mr. Bagaragaza’s crimes would be exercised pursuant to legislative provisions addressed to the prosecu-


tion of ordinary crimes; it held that the Tribunal could refer cases only to States with a capacity to charge and convict for those international crimes listed in the Tribunal’s statute. On 30 November, the Trial Chamber granted the prosecution leave to amend the indictment to add an additional war crimes count. Mr. Bagaragaza was a member of the Prefectural committee of the political party that established and controlled the Interahamwe militia in Gisenyi Prefecture and an honorary president of the Interahamwe militia in Kabuga, in Kigali-rural Prefecture.

In the case of Aloys Simba, a retired lieutenant colonel found guilty of genocide and crimes against humanity and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment in 2005 [YUN 2005, p. 1399], an appeal was lodged on 22 June, following an extension of the deadline for filing. The prosecution had filed its appeal of the judgement on 12 January. The Appeals Chamber was scheduled to hear the submissions on the merits of the appeals of both parties in May 2007.

In the joint trial against Pauline Nyiramasuhuko, Arsène Shalom Ntahobali, Sylvain Nsabimana, Alphonse Nteziryayo, Joseph Kanyabashi and Elie Ndayambaje, referred to as the “Butare” case, which began in 2001 [YUN 2001, p. 1208], the Ntahobali case closed on 26 June, except for one witness who was scheduled to testify at a later date. The defence case for Mr. Nsabimana, former Prefect of the Butare prefecture, commenced on 27 June and closed on 11 November; he was the third accused to present his defence in the case. The defence in the case of Mr. Nteziryayo, former Prefect of Butare, started on 2 December.

In the trial of Protais Zigiranyirazo, the prosecu-tion closed its case on 28 June. Mr. Zigiranyirazo, who was arrested in 2001 [YUN 2001, p. 1207] and charged with extermination or murder as a crime against humanity, had been a member of the Akazu, the inner circle of the late President of Rwanda, Juvénal Habyarimana. On 30 October, the Appeals Chamber granted Mr. Zigiranyirazo’s appeal of a Trial Chamber decision, which decided to hear a witness in person in the Netherlands while the ac-cused followed the proceedings by video-link. The Appeals Chamber held that the Trial Chamber erred in law in finding that the accused’s right to be present at his trial during the testimony of an appar-ently key witness against him could be met by video-link and excluded the testimony of the witness. On 30 November, the prosecution closed its case for a second time and the defence was expected to finish its case in late 2007.

On 6 July, the Appeals Chamber heard the sub-missions on the merits of the appeal of Emmanuel

Ndindabahizi, Minister of Finance of the 1994 Interim Government. Mr. Ndindabahizi was con-victed in 2004 of genocide and crimes against hu-manity and sentenced to life in prison [YUN 2004, p. 288]. A decision was expected in January 2007.

The joint trial of Edouard Karemera, Mathieu Ngirumpatse and Joseph Nzirorera concluded its third session on 10 July. The fourth trial ses-sion commenced on 26 October and concluded on 13 December. The trial had originally started in 2003 [YUN 2003, p. 1321] and was referred to as the “Government I” case [YUN 1999, pp. 1222 & 1223]. On 12 April, in a decision on jurisdictional appeals relating to the “Government I” case, the Appeals Chamber upheld the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to impose a third-category joint criminal enterprise liability on an accused for crimes committed by fellow participants in a joint criminal enterprise of a vast scope. The question of whether third-category joint criminal enterprise liability could be imposed for complicity in genocide, which had been raised in an earlier defence motion, was sent back to the Trial Chamber for decision. On 28 April, the Appeals Chamber dismissed Mr. Nzirorera’s interlocutory appeal, finding that the Trial Chamber had not abused its discretion in continuing the proceedings and in relying on the prosecution’s representations that the material sought was either not in its pos-session or not exculpatory. In a 16 June decision, the Trial Chamber was found to have erred in failing to take judicial notice of the existence of widespread and systematic attacks in Rwanda against a civilian population based on Tutsi ethnic identification, the fact that some Rwandan citizens killed or caused serious bodily or mental harm to persons perceived to be Tutsi, and that as a result of those attacks, large numbers of Tutsis were killed. The Appeals Chamber also considered that the Trial Chamber had erred by not taking judicial notice of the fact that an armed conflict of a non-international char-acter had existed in Rwanda at the relevant time and that genocide was committed against the Tutsi eth-nic group. On 1 December, the Appeals Chamber dismissed the requests of the three accused to re-consider its “Decision on Prosecutor’s Interlocutory Appeal of Decision on Judicial Notice” of 16 June, in which it had ordered the Trial Chamber to take judicial notice of three facts, including that be-tween 6 April and 17 July 1994 there was a geno-cide in Rwanda against the Tutsi ethnic group. The Appeals Chamber held that the appellants failed to demonstrate a clear error of reasoning in the de-cision or that reconsideration of the decision was necessary to prevent an injustice. In an additional decision related to the “Government I” case, the


Appeals Chamber found on 30 June that the elec-tronic database created by the Prosecutor for storage and retrieval of documents, allowing the defence to perform its own searches for exculpatory material, had not relieved the prosecution of its obligation to disclose all exculpatory material in its possession.

In the case against Casimir Bizimungu, Justin Mugenzi, Jérôme Bicamumpaka and Prosper Mugiraneza, referred to as the “Government II” case [YUN 1999, pp. 1222 & 1223], the defence for Mr. Mugenzi, Minister of Trade and Industry in April 1994, completed the presentation of its case on 29 August; the defence for Mr. Bizimungu, Minister for Health in the Interim Government, commenced the presentation of his case on 30 August.

On 12 September, Jean Mpambara, the former bourgmestre of Rukara commune, was acquitted of all charges against him. Mr. Mpambara was arrested in 2001 [YUN 2001, p. 1207] and was charged with genocide and extermination for his alleged involve-ment in attacks at three locations in his commune by aiding and abetting and participating in a joint criminal enterprise. The Chamber found that the evidence had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he instigated or positively assisted the attack-ers; in fact, it found significant evidence suggesting that Mr. Mpambara had made efforts to prevent violence and that his resources were limited.

The trial of Simon Bikindi, a well-known com-poser and singer of popular music, started on 18 September. The prosecution was expected to close its case in February 2007; it alleged that the accused participated in the anti-Tutsi campaign in Rwanda in 1994 both through his musical compositions and speeches he made at public gatherings. Following the withdrawal of the lead counsel for the accused by the Registrar, a new lead counsel was appointed and the defence case was scheduled to commence in September 2007. Mr. Bikindi was arrested in The Netherlands in 2001 and was transferred to the Tribunal in 2002. [YUN 2002, p. 1285]

In the joint trial of four former high-ranking Rwandan military officers (Théoneste Bagosora, Gratien Kabiligi, Aloys Ntabakuze, Anatole Nsengiyumva), known as the “Military I” case, the Appeals Chamber, on 18 September, al-lowed, in part, Mr. Ntabakuze’s appeal of a Trial Chamber decision on his request to exclude certain evidence as outside the scope of the indictment. The Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber had not erred in its articulation of the principles concerning defects in the indictment and clarified the approach for deciding whether an objection based on a defect in the indictment should be con-sidered timely. The Appeals Chamber instructed

the Trial Chamber to consider whether the extent of the defects in the indictment had materially prejudiced the accused’s right to a fair trial by hin-dering the preparation of a proper defence. On 25 September, the Appeals Chamber granted the ap-peals of Messrs. Kabiligi and Nsengiyumva against a Trial Chamber decision that denied their request for the disclosure of certain documents related to anticipated defence witnesses that were in the prosecution’s possession. The Trial Chamber was ordered to reconsider the defence request for the documents. On 4 October, the Appeals Chamber rejected the request of Mr. Ntabakuze to reconsider its “Decision on Prosecutor’s Interlocutory Appeal of Decision on Judicial Notice” rendered in the Karemera and Others case. The Appeals Chamber found that Mr. Ntabakuze had no standing to seek reconsideration of a decision rendered in another case. It held that, as a general principle, only a party to a decision could request reconsideration thereof.

The trial against Siméon Nchamihigo, a former Deputy Prosecutor in Cyangugu prefecture, com-menced on 25 September. At the time of his arrest in 2001, Mr. Nchamihigo was working at ictr, under an alias, as an investigator for the defence in the Samuel Imanishimwe case [YUN 2001, p. 1207]. In an amended indictment filed on 11 December, the prosecution charged Mr. Nchamihigo with four counts of genocide and crimes against hu-manity.

The trial of Emmanuel Rukundo, former mili-tary chaplain in the Rwandan Armed Forces, com-menced on 15 November. Mr. Rukundo, charged with three counts of genocide and crimes against humanity [ibid.], was arrested in Switzerland in 2001 and transferred to the UN Detention Facility.

The trial of François Karera began on 9 January and concluded on 24 November. A judgement was expected in 2007. Mr. Karera, former Prefect of Kigali-rural prefecture, was arrested in Kenya and transferred to ictr in 2001. He pleaded not guilty to charges of genocide or complicity in genocide and crimes against humanity [ibid., p. 1208].

In the joint trial of four former senior military officers (Augustin Ndindiliyimana, Augustin Bizimungu, François-Xavier Nzuwonemeye, Innocent Sagahutu), the prosecution closed its case on 7 December. All four accused were arrested in 2000 [YUN 2000, p. 1225] in a case consolidated as the “Military II” case.

On 13 December, the Trial Chamber found Athanase Seromba, a Roman Catholic priest of Nyange Parish in the Kivumu commune, guilty of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprison-


ment. Both parties filed a notice of appeal against the judgement. In a decision related to the Seromba case, the Appeals Chamber, on 22 May, found that the Tribunal’s statute and rules did not provide for an interlocutory appeal to the Appeals Chamber of a decision taken by the Bureau on questions of im-partiality of judges.

Joseph Nzabirinda, a former employee of Ngoma commune in Butare working as “encadreur” of youths, pleaded guilty on 14 December to aiding and abetting murder, a crime against humanity. The Chamber accepted his plea and the accused was ex-pected to be sentenced in February 2007.

Judges of the Court

Permanent JudgesOn 3 May, the Secretary-General, in identi-

cal letters to the General Assembly and Security Council Presidents [A/60/878-S/2006/349], trans-mitted a letter from the ictr President, recalling that the terms of office of 11 permanent judges of the Tribunal were to end in May 2007, and that a number of multi-accused trials under way were likely to continue beyond that date. If certain judges were not re-elected, some cases would have to start from the beginning with new judges. In order to ensure continuity and the ability of ictr to imple-ment its completion strategy, the Secretary-General requested that the terms of the 11 permanent judges be extended until 31 December 2008.


On 13 June [meeting 5455], the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1684(2006). The draft [S/2006/372] was prepared in consultations among Council members.

The Security Council,Recalling its resolutions 955(1994) of 8 November

1994, 1165(1998) of 30 April 1998, 1329(2000) of 30 No-vember 2000, 1411(2002) of 17 May 2002, 1431(2002) of 14 August 2002, 1449(2002) of 13 December 2002, 1503(2003) of 28 August 2003 and 1534(2004) of 26 March 2004,

Recalling also that on 31 January 2003, the Gen-eral Assembly, by its decision 57/414 A and in accord-ance with article 12 bis, paragraph 1 (b), of the statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, as amended, elected from a list of candidates approved in resolution 1449(2002) the following eleven judges to a four-year term of office at the Tribunal, beginning on 25 May 2003 and ending on 24 May 2007: Mr. Mansoor Ahmed (Pakistan), Mr. Sergei Alekseevich Egorov (Rus-sian Federation), Mr. Asoka de Zoysa Gunawardana (Sri Lanka), Mr. Mehmet Güney (Turkey), Mr. Erik Møse (Norway), Ms. Arlette Ramaroson (Madagascar), Mr. Jai

Ram Reddy (Fiji), Mr. William Hussein Sekule (United Republic of Tanzania), Ms. Andrésia Vaz (Senegal), Ms. Inés Mónica Weinberg de Roca (Argentina) and Mr. Lloyd George Williams (Saint Kitts and Nevis),

Recalling further that when Judge Mansoor Ahmed re-signed, the Secretary-General, after consultations with the Security Council and the General Assembly and in accordance with article 12 bis, paragraph 2, of the statute of the Tribunal, appointed Ms. Khalida Rachid Khan (Pakistan), effective from 7 July 2003, for the remainder of Judge Ahmed’s term of office,

Recalling that when Judge Lloyd George Williams re-signed, the Secretary-General, after consultations with the Council and the Assembly and in accordance with article 12 bis, paragraph 2, of the statute of the Tribu-nal, appointed Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron (Saint Kitts and Nevis), effective from 8 April 2004, for the re-mainder of Judge Williams’ term of office,

Recalling also that when Judge Asoka de Zoysa Guna-wardana resigned, the Secretary-General, after consulta-tions with the Council and the Assembly and in accord-ance with article 12 bis, paragraph 2, of the statute of the Tribunal, appointed Mr. Asoka de Silva (Sri Lanka), effective from 2 August 2004, for the remainder of Judge Gunawardana’s term of office,

Taking note of the letter dated 3 May 2006 from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council,

1. Decides, in response to the request of the Secretary-General and notwithstanding the provisions of article 12 bis of the statute of the International Criminal Tribu-nal for Rwanda, to extend until 31 December 2008 the term of office at the Tribunal of the following permanent judges of the Tribunal:

Sir Charles Michael Dennis Byron (Saint Kitts and Nevis)

Mr. Asoka de Silva (Sri Lanka)Mr. Sergei Alekseevich Egorov (Russian Federation)Mr. Mehmet Güney (Turkey)Ms. Khalida Rachid Khan (Pakistan)Mr. Erik Møse (Norway)Ms. Arlette Ramaroson (Madagascar)Mr. Jai Ram Reddy (Fiji)Mr. William Hussein Sekule (United Republic of

Tanzania)Ms. Andrésia Vaz (Senegal)Ms. Inés Mónica Weinberg de Roca (Argentina)2. Requests States to continue to make every effort

to ensure that their nationals who serve as permanent judges of the Tribunal remain available to serve in their positions until 31 December 2008.

General Assembly action. On 13 June [A/60/906-S/2006/437], the Security Council President trans-mitted to the General Assembly President the text of the above resolution. The Assembly, by decision 60/422 A of 28 June, endorsed the recommenda-tions contained in the Secretary-General’s 3 May letter (see above).


Ad litem judgesIn identical letters of 25 August [A/60/989-

S/2006/688], the Secretary-General forwarded to the General Assembly and Security Council Presidents a request from the ictr President for the term of office of Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda) (an ad litem judge whose term was due to expire on 24 June 2007) to be extended beyond the three-year limit. The Secretary-General explained that Judge Bossa was involved in the Butare case, a complex multi-accused trial involving six accused, which was expected to continue into 2007. The extension of her term of office until the completion of that trial would ensure the steady progress of that process and simultaneously help to meet the target dates of the completion strategy.


On 29 August [meeting 5518], the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1705(2006). The draft [S/2006/690] was prepared in consultations among Council members.

The Security Council,Taking note of the letter dated 25 August 2006 from

the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council,

Decides that, notwithstanding article 12 ter of the stat-ute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and notwithstanding the fact that Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa’s elected term as an ad litem judge of the Tribunal will, in accordance with article 12 ter of the statute of the Tribunal, end on 24 June 2007, she shall be authorized, effective 28 August 2006, to continue to serve as a judge in the Butare case until its completion.

General Assembly action. On 29 August [A/60/992], the Security Council President trans-mitted to the General Assembly President the text of the above resolution. The Assembly, by decision 60/422 B of the same day, endorsed the recom-mendations contained in the Secretary-General’s 25 August letter (see above).

The Secretary-General, in identical letters of 2 October [A/61/509-S/2006/799], transmitted to the General Assembly and Security Council Presidents a letter from the ictr President requesting that the terms of office of 18 ad litem judges, which were to expire in June 2007, be extended until 31 December 2008. The extension would allow continuity in the trials in which the judges were involved and help to meet the deadline for the ictr completion strategy. Otherwise, elections would have to take place at the end of 2006 or in early 2007.


On 13 October [meeting 5550], the Security Council unanimously adopted resolution 1717(2006). The

draft [S/2006/803] was prepared in consultations among Council members.

The Security Council,Recalling its resolutions 955(1994) of 8 November

1994, 1165(1998) of 30 April 1998, 1329(2000) of 30 No-vember 2000, 1411(2002) of 17 May 2002, 1431(2002) of 14 August 2002, 1449(2002) of 13 December 2002, 1503(2003) of 28 August 2003 and 1534(2004) of 26 March 2004,

Recalling also that on 25 June 2003 the General As-sembly, by its decision 57/414 C and in accordance with article 12 ter, paragraph 1 (d), of the statute of the Inter-national Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, elected from a list of candidates approved by the Security Council the following eighteen ad litem judges to a four-year term of office beginning on 25 June 2003 and ending on 24 June 2007: Mr. Aydin Sefa Akay (Turkey), Ms. Flor-ence Rita Arrey (Cameroon), Ms. Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda), Mr. Robert Fremr (Czech Republic), Ms. Taghreed Hikmat (Jordan), Ms. Karin Hökborg (Sweden), Mr. Vagn Joensen (Denmark), Mr. Gberdao Gustave Kam (Burkina Faso), Tan Sri Dato’ Hj. Mohd. Azmi Dato’ Hj. Kamaruddin (Malaysia), Ms. Flavia Lattanzi (Italy), Mr. Kenneth Machin (United King-dom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland), Mr. Joseph Edward Chiondo Masanche (United Republic of Tanza-nia), Mr. Lee Gacuiga Muthoga (Kenya), Mr. Seon Ki Park (Republic of Korea), Mr. Mparany Mamy Rich-ard Rajohnson (Madagascar), Mr. Emile Francis Short (Ghana), Mr. Albertus Henricus Joannes Swart (Nether-lands), and Ms. Aura E. Guerra de Villalaz (Panama),

Recalling further that the Council, by its resolution 1684(2006) of 13 June 2006, extended the terms of eleven permanent judges serving at the Tribunal until 31 December 2008,

Recalling that the Council, by its resolution 1705(2006) of 29 August 2006, decided, notwithstanding the pro-visions of article 12 ter of the statute of the Tribunal, and notwithstanding the fact that Judge Bossa’s elected term as an ad litem judge of the Tribunal will end on 24 June 2007, to authorize her, effective 28 August 2006, to continue to serve as a judge in the Butare case until its completion,

Taking note of the letter dated 2 October 2006 from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council,

1. Decides, in response to the request of the Secretary-General and notwithstanding the provisions of article 12 ter of the statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, to extend until 31 December 2008 the term of office of the following ad litem judges of the Tribunal who were elected on 25 June 2003:

Mr. Aydin Sefa Akay (Turkey)Ms. Florence Rita Arrey (Cameroon)Ms. Solomy Balungi Bossa (Uganda)Mr. Robert Fremr (Czech Republic)Ms. Taghreed Hikmat (Jordan)Ms. Karin Hökborg (Sweden)Mr. Vagn Joensen (Denmark)Mr. Gberdao Gustave Kam (Burkina Faso)


Tan Sri Dato’ Hj. Mohd. Azmi Dato’ Hj. Kamaruddin (Malaysia)

Ms. Flavia Lattanzi (Italy)Mr. Kenneth Machin (United Kingdom)Mr. Joseph Edward Chiondo Masanche (United

Republic of Tanzania)Mr. Lee Gacuiga Muthoga (Kenya)Mr. Seon Ki Park (Republic of Korea)Mr. Mparany Mamy Richard Rajohnson

(Madagascar)Mr. Emile Francis Short (Ghana)Mr. Albertus Henricus Joannes Swart (Netherlands)Ms. Aura E. Guerra de Villalaz (Panama)2. Decides also, in response to the request of the

Secretary-General, to allow ad litem Judges Arrey, Bossa, Hikmat, Hökborg, Kam, Lattanzi, Muthoga, Park and Short to serve in the Tribunal beyond the cumulative period of service provided for under article 12 ter of the statute and until 31 December 2008;

3. Requests States to continue to make every effort to ensure that their nationals who were elected as ad litem judges of the Tribunal remain available to serve until 31 December 2008;

4. Decides to remain seized of the matter.

General Assembly action. On 13 October [A/61/548], the Security Council President trans-mitted to the General Assembly President the text of the above resolution. The Assembly, by decision 61/403 of 2 November, endorsed the recommenda-tions contained in the Secretary-General’s 2 Octo-ber letter (see p. 1499).

Office of the Prosecutor The Prosecutor continued to implement the com-

pletion strategy, in consultation with the President of the Tribunal. Further efforts were made to iden-tify States willing to try Tribunal indictees that were referred to them. In May, the first transfer request, brought by the Prosecutor under rule 11 bis, was de-nied by the Trial Chamber; the Prosecutor appealed that decision. During the year, various actions were taken to improve the prosecution’s information and evidence management capacity and implementation of prosecutorial best practices. In that regard, staff training and continuing education remained a pri-ority in the pursuit of the completion strategy. In March, the Prosecutor convened a strategic plan-ning workshop to assess how effectively the Office of the Prosecutor had implemented the completion strategy, while identifying areas for improvement in performance.

The RegistryThe Registry continued to support the judicial

process by servicing the Tribunal’s other organs

and the defence and by seeking support from States, international organizations and other stake-holders in the conduct of proceedings. During the year, it maintained high-level diplomatic contacts and drafted a number of agreements with States or international organizations to ensure their con-tinued cooperation with ictr. Outreach activities were stepped up, especially through judicial visits to the Tribunal and capacity-building training for members of the Rwandan judiciary and universi-ties. Ictr also planned an attachment programme of Rwandan judicial officials to the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry, to enable them to get first-hand experience in international humanitarian law. The attachment programme would also help Rwandan legal practitioners to acquire the expe-rience necessary for handling cases that could be transferred to Rwanda as part of the ictr comple-tion strategy. Diplomatic efforts continued, in order to relocate some acquitted persons who remained under ictr protection; in December, those efforts led to the successful relocation of one such person. The Press and Public Affairs Unit increased its monitoring and internal circulation of Tribunal-related media reports, updated information bro-chures and posters and continued to improve the Tribunal’s website.

Financing

2006-2007 bienniumIn response to General Assembly resolution

60/241 [YUN 2005, p. 1400], the Secretary-General submitted the first performance report of ictr for the 2006-2007 biennium [A/61/586]. The report requested an additional appropriation of $7.9 mil-lion, net of staff assessment, over the initial amount appropriated in resolution 60/241. The increased requirement reflected changes with respect to ex-change rates resulting from the weakening of the United States dollar vis-à-vis the euro and inflation ($4,432,100) and standard salary costs ($2,937,200). The Assembly was requested to approve a revised appropriation for 2006-2007 in the amount of $277,127,700 gross ($254,757,400 net) for the Special Account for ictr.

In a 14 December report [A/61/633], acabq rec-ommended approval of the revised appropriation for the 2006-2007 biennium, as recommended by the Secretary-General.


On 22 December [meeting 84], the General Assembly, on the recommendation of the Fifth


Committee [A/61/655], adopted resolution 61/241 without vote [agenda item 129].

Financing of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for

Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the

Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States

between 1 January and 31 December 1994The General Assembly,Having considered the reports of the Secretary-General,

namely, his first performance report for the biennium 2006-2007 on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwan-dan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994 and his report on financial and any other implications resulting from the introduction of a staff retention bonus at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the In-ternational Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia,

Having also considered the report of the Board of Audi-tors on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the recommendations contained therein,

Having further considered the related reports of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions,

Recalling its resolution 49/251 of 20 July 1995 on the financing of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and its subsequent resolutions thereon, the latest of which were resolutions 60/240 and 60/241 of 23 December 2005,

1. Takes note of the first performance report of the Secretary-General for the biennium 2006-2007 on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Vi-olations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Re-sponsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Com-mitted in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994 and his report on the financial and any other implications resulting from the introduction of a staff retention bonus at the Interna-tional Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the Interna-tional Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia;

2. Endorses the conclusions and recommendations contained in the reports of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions;

3. Emphasizes the importance of implementing the recommendations of the Board of Auditors, and requests the Secretary-General to report on progress in the im-plementation of the recommendations of the Board in the context of the proposed budget of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda for the biennium 2008-2009;

4. Also emphasizes the importance of the timely sub-mission of the performance reports on the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the related reports of the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budget-ary Questions in order to facilitate the proper considera-tion thereof by the General Assembly;

5. Recalls paragraph 9 of its resolution 60/241, and requests the Secretary-General to report thereon in the context of the proposed budget of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda for the biennium 2008-2009;

6. Decides on a revised appropriation to the Special Account for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwan-dan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994 of a total amount of 277,127,700 United States dollars gross (254,757,400 dollars net) for the biennium 2006-2007;

7. Also decides, for the year 2007, to apportion among Member States, in accordance with the scale of assess-ments applicable to the regular budget of the United Nations for the year, the amount of 71,124,250 dollars gross (65,656,200 dollars net), including 3,684,650 dol-lars gross (3,933,700 dollars net), being the increase in assessments;

8. Further decides, for the year 2007, to apportion among Member States, in accordance with the rates of assessment applicable to peacekeeping operations for the year, the amount of 71,124,250 dollars gross (65,656,200 dollars net), including 3,684,650 dollars gross (3,933,700 dollars net), being the increase in assessments;

9. Decides that, in accordance with the provisions of its resolution 973(X) of 15 December 1955, there shall be set off against the apportionment among Member States, as provided for in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, their respec-tive share in the Tax Equalization Fund in the amount of 10,936,100 dollars, including 498,100 dollars, being the decrease in the estimated staff assessment income approved for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda for the biennium 2006-2007.AnnexFinancing for the biennium 2006-2007 of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan Citizens Responsible for Genocide and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States between 1 January and 31 December 1994 Gross Net (United States dollars)Initial appropriation for the

biennium 2006–2007 (see resolution 60/241) 269 758 400 246 890 000

Add: Proposed changes for the biennium 2006–2007 (see A/61/586) 7 369 300 7 867 400


Proposed revised appropriation for the biennium 2006–2007 277 127 700 254 757 400

Assessment for 2006 134 879 200 123 445 000

Balance to be assessed for 2007 142 248 500 131 312 400

Including:

Contributions assessed on Member States in accordance with the scale of assessments applicable to the regular budget of the United Nations for 2007 71 124 250 65 656 200

Contributions assessed on Member States in accordance with the rates of assessment applicable to the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations for 2007 71 124 250 65 656 200

On 22 December, the Assembly deferred con-sideration of the agenda item on financing of ictr to its resumed sixty-first (2007) session (decision 61/552).

Functioning of the Tribunals

Staff retentionIn response to General Assembly resolutions

60/241 [YUN 2005, p. 1400] and 60/243 [ibid., p. 1396], the Secretary-General submitted an October report [A/61/522] on financial and other implications result-ing from the proposed introduction of a staff reten-tion bonus for ictr and icty. In a 2005 report [ibid., p. 1401], the Secretary-General had proposed that, as the Tribunals moved closer to the completion of their mandates and staff departures increased, a retention bonus should be introduced for staff in order to avoid disrupting the normal operations of the Tribunals and to ensure the timely completion of their mandates. He estimated that payments of such a bonus would total $11.2 million for ictr and $12.1 million for icty.

In a November report [A/61/591], acabq noted the improvement in turnover rates achieved through the implementation of numerous measures under the au-thority of the Secretary-General, such as extending the length of contracts of all staff in the Tribunals from one to two years. However, while recognizing merit in the requirement to retain necessary staff to ensure the continued smooth functioning of the Tribunals until the completion of their mandates, acabq stated that the Secretary-General’s proposal for a retention bonus was too broad and could lead to the creation of a new entitlement, which could be used as a precedent and have implications for the

common system as a whole. It recommended that the Assembly request the Secretary-General to fur-ther explore ways to apply the Staff Regulations and Rules to achieve the desired objective. He should also submit a comprehensive proposal on any ad-ditional measures that might be required within the time frame of the completion strategy in the context of the 2008-2009 budget submissions for the tribunals.

By decision 61/552 of 22 December, the Assembly deferred consideration of the item on fi-nancing of ictr and icty to its resumed sixty-first (2007) session.

Implementation of completion strategies

ICTYIn response to Security Council resolutions

1503(2003) [YUN 2003, p. 1330] and 1534(2004) [YUN 2004, p. 1292], the icty President submitted reports in May [S/2006/353] and November [S/2006/898] that assessed progress made in implementing the icty completion strategy.

In his May report, the President described the activities of two working groups—the Working Group on Speeding up Trials and the Working Group on Speeding up Appeals. He stated that the measures taken by the judges to amend the Rules of Procedure and Evidence in order to expedite the appeals process had had a substantial impact on the swift and fair disposal of interlocutory appeals and appeals from judgement by the Appeals Chamber. However, the Rules concerning appeals remained under the close scrutiny of the judges and further innovative ways of expediting the appeals process without sacrificing due process were constantly be-ing sought.

The Working Group on Speeding up Trials made specific recommendations on ways to enhance the efficiency of proceedings by making greater use of the existing Rules. The issuance of the Working Group’s final report, in February, led to an open dialogue between the judges, which culminated in an informal plenary of judges in April and the adoption of specific proposals. Those proposals were implemented by the judges and their enforcement had a fundamental impact on the way trials were conducted. To accommodate the trials of multiple accused, icty had all three of its courtrooms re-modelled. The new arrangement allowed up to 18 accused to be tried simultaneously and permitted simultaneous interpretation in four languages. New holding cells were created to accommodate the ap-


propriate number of accused persons for each of the courtrooms.

In accordance with the recommendations of the Working Group on Pre-Trial Proceedings, pre-trial judges played a much more active role in prepar-ing cases for trial and ensuring that cases were trial-ready. The use of the e-Court system in the Tribunal’s proceedings had also been a factor in the efficient completion of trials, resulting in significant savings in court time.

In November, the icty President confirmed that, despite the Tribunal’s best efforts, trials would run into 2009. Icty had seen decisive results in appeal and trial efficiency. However, six fugitives remained at large, including Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, both of whom were indicted in 1995 [YUN 1995, p. 1314]. If those two fugitives were not arrested immediately, the 2009 date for the completion of all trials was doubtful.

ICTRIn response to Security Council resolutions

1503(2003) [YUN 2003, p. 1330] and 1534(2004) [YUN 2004, p. 1292], the ictr President submitted reports in June [S/2006/358] and December [S/2006/951] that assessed progress made in implementing the ictr completion strategy.

The reports reviewed recent judgements and trials in progress; cases for transfer to national jurisdictions for trial; the actual number of per-sons brought to trial; and progress on the track-ing of fugitives. Although Council resolution 1503(2003) anticipated that the work of ictr and icty should be completed by 2010, the report noted that it was difficult to indicate a completion strategy for the ictr Appeals Chamber, as it was linked to the icty completion strategy. Recalling that most judgements rendered had been ap-pealed, the ictr President anticipated that the Appeals Chamber’s already heavy workload would continue to increase as the workload of the Trial Chambers decreased and the focus shifted to ap-peals. He stated that the number of judges at the Appeals Chamber would need to be augmented for there to be any reasonable prospects of com-pleting all appeals by 2010.

The cases involving 25 accused whose trials were in progress would be completed from 2007 onwards. Trials of the remaining 12 indictees (six detained and six at large) would commence as soon as Trial Chamber and court room availability permitted. It was estimated that by the end of 2008 ictr would have completed trials involving 65 to 70 persons.

International Criminal Court

In 2006, the International Criminal Court (icc), established by the Rome Statute [YUN 1998, p. 1209] as a permanent institution with jurisdiction over persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern (genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggres-sion), carried out investigations in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (drc), the Sudan (Darfur) and Uganda. Reports covering icc activities during the year were submitted to the General Assembly [A/61/217; A/62/314]. On 26 January, the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute re-elected five icc judges whose terms had expired, as well as a new judge, to serve nine-year, non-renewable terms. The judges began their terms of office on 11 March. Also on 11 March, the 18 icc judges re-elected Judge Philippe Kirsch as President of the Court, Judge Akua Kuenyehia as First Vice-President and Judge René Blattmann as Second Vice-President, all to three-year terms. As at 31 December, 104 States had ratified the Rome Statute and 139 had signed it.

A major development was the arrest and surrender to the Court in March of its first accused, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (drc) (see p. 1506). Although war-rants of arrest were issued in 2005 for five members of the Lord’s Resistance Army (lra) (Uganda), none of them had been arrested. As icc did not have its own police, it relied on the cooperation of States and international organizations to carry out arrests.

In 2006, the Court adopted the first version of its strategic plan, which provided a framework for the Court’s activities over the next 10 years, with emphasis on the objectives for the immediate three years. The plan set out how the Court would proceed to realize the aims of the Rome Statute, set a clear direction for its future, ensure continu-ous coordination of its activities, demonstrate its transparency and further strengthen its relation-ships with States parties and other actors. The plan identified three strategic goals for fulfilling the icc mission: ensure the quality of justice; become a well-recognized and adequately supported insti-tution; and serve as a model for public administra-tion. Thirty strategic objectives detailed the steps to reach those goals.

During the year, the Prosecutor received more than 96 communications relating to situations that fell within the jurisdiction of the Court. In addition to the situations under investigation, the Prosecutor


was monitoring five other situations around the world, including in the Central African Republic and Côte d’Ivoire.


On 20 November [meeting 56], the General Assembly adopted resolution 61/15 [draft: A/61/L.21 & Add.1] without vote [agenda item 74].

Report of the International Criminal CourtThe General Assembly,Recalling its resolution 60/29 of 23 November 2005

and all its previous relevant resolutions,Recalling also that the Rome Statute of the Interna-

tional Criminal Court reaffirms the purposes and prin-ciples of the Charter of the United Nations,

Emphasizing that justice, especially transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict societies, is a fundamental building block of sustainable peace,

Noting with satisfaction the fact that the International Criminal Court is fully operational and has achieved considerable progress in its analyses, investigations and judicial proceedings in various situations and cases which were referred to it by States parties to the Rome Stat-ute and by the Security Council, in accordance with the Rome Statute,

Recalling that effective cooperation and assistance by States, the United Nations and other international and regional organizations remain essential for the Interna-tional Criminal Court to carry out its activities,

Welcoming the continuous support given by civil soci-ety to the International Criminal Court,

Expressing its appreciation to the Secretary-General for providing effective and efficient assistance to the In-ternational Criminal Court in accordance with the Re-lationship Agreement between the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (“Relationship Agree-ment”),

Acknowledging the Relationship Agreement as ap-proved by the General Assembly in its resolution 58/318 of 13 September 2004, including paragraph 3 of the resolution with respect to the payment in full of ex-penses accruing to the United Nations as a result of the implementation of the Relationship Agreement, which provides a framework for continued cooperation between the Court and the United Nations, which could include the facilitation by the United Nations of the Court’s field activities, and encouraging the conclusion of supplemen-tary arrangements and agreements, as necessary,

Recognizing the role of the International Criminal Court in a multilateral system that aims to end impu-nity, establish the rule of law, promote and encourage respect for human rights and achieve sustainable peace, in accordance with international law and the purposes and principles of the Charter,

Expressing its appreciation to the International Crimi-nal Court for providing assistance to the Special Court for Sierra Leone and for granting a leave of absence to its Deputy Prosecutor for Investigations to enable him

to work for the International Independent Investigation Commission,

Reiterating the historic significance of the adoption of the Rome Statute,

1. Welcomes the report of the International Criminal Court for 2005-2006;

2. Welcomes the States that have become parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in the past year, and calls upon all States from all regions of the world that are not yet parties to the Rome Statute to consider ratifying or acceding to it without delay;

3. Calls upon all States that have not yet done so to consider becoming parties to the Agreement on the Privileges and Immunities of the International Criminal Court;

4. Encourages States parties to the Rome Statute that have not yet done so to adopt national legislation to im-plement obligations emanating from the Rome Statute and to cooperate with the International Criminal Court in the exercise of its functions, and recalls the provision of technical assistance by States parties in this respect;

5. Welcomes the effective cooperation and assistance provided to the International Criminal Court by States, the United Nations and other international and regional organizations, and calls upon them to continue providing such cooperation and assistance in the future;

6. Encourages States to contribute to the Trust Fund established for the benefit of victims of crimes within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, and of the families of such victims, as well as to the Trust Fund for the participation of least developed countries, and acknowledges with appreciation contributions made to both trust funds so far;

7. Emphasizes the importance of the full implemen-tation of the Relationship Agreement, which forms a framework for close cooperation between the two or-ganizations and for consultation on matters of mutual interest pursuant to the provisions of that Agreement and in conformity with the respective provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the Rome Statute, as well as the need for comprehensive information from the Secretary-General with respect to steps taken in the implementation of the Agreement;

8. Notes the establishment and operationalization of the International Criminal Court liaison office to United Nations Headquarters, and encourages the Secretary-General to work closely with that office;

9. Welcomes the report of the Secretary-General on the work of the Organization, in which reference is made to the important role of the International Criminal Court in advancing the cause of justice and the rule of law;

10. Recalls that, by virtue of article 12, paragraph 3, of the Rome Statute, a State which is not a party to the Statute may, by declaration lodged with the Registrar of the International Criminal Court, accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court with respect to specific crimes that are mentioned in paragraph 2 of that article;

11. Notes the work of the Special Working Group on the Crime of Aggression, which is open to all States on an equal footing, and encourages all States to consider


participating actively in the Working Group with a view to elaborating proposals for a provision on the crime of aggression;

12. Looks forward to the fifth session of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to be held in The Hague from 23 No-vember to 1 December 2006, as well as the resumed fifth session to be held in New York from 29 to 31 January 2007, and encourages the widest possible participation of States in these proceedings;

13. Takes note of the decision of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute at its fourth session, while recalling that according to article 112, paragraph 6, of the Rome Statute, the Assembly of States Parties shall meet at the seat of the International Criminal Court or at United Nations Headquarters, to hold its sixth session in New York in 2007, and requests the Secretary-General to provide the necessary services and facilities in accord-ance with the Relationship Agreement and resolution 58/318;

14. Invites the International Criminal Court to submit, in accordance with article 6 of the Relation-ship Agreement, a report on its activities for 2006-2007, for consideration by the General Assembly at its sixty-second session.

Assembly of States PartiesThe Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute

of the International Criminal Court, at its fifth session (The Hague, 23 November–1 December) [ICC-ASP/5/ 32 & Corr.1], adopted four resolutions.

In 2006, the Assembly adopted a plan of action for achieving universality and full implementa-tion of the Rome Statute. The plan set out how the Assembly and its States Parties would each continue to contribute to achieving universality in the com-ing years.

With regard to permanent premises for the Court, the Assembly requested icc to focus on the option of constructing purpose-built premises on the Alexander Kazerne site, with a view to al-lowing the Assembly to take an informed decision at its 2007 session. Icc should prepare: a detailed functional brief that would include user and safety requirements reflecting scalability in terms of staff-ing levels; cost estimates for the project, in con-sultation with the host State (The Netherlands); a provisional timetable and a summary of planning and permit issues; and a planning strategy for the site, also in consultation with the host State. The Assembly requested the host State, in consultation with the Assembly’s Bureau and icc, to propose the modalities for an international architectural con-cept competition. Icc was asked to establish and staff a project management structure in line with the programme budget for 2007.

In a resolution on the Court’s strategic planning process, the Assembly considered the Strategic Plan submitted by icc [ICC-ASP/5/6] and invited it to fur-ther develop the dialogue on the Plan already initi-ated with the Bureau. That dialogue should focus on the concrete implementation of the plan and include cross-cutting issues, such as location of the Court’s activities, position of victims, outreach and com-munication activities and the relationship between the Strategic Plan and the budget. Icc was invited to submit an update of the Strategic Plan to the Assembly’s 2007 session.

In connection with strengthening the icc and the Assembly of States Parties, the Assembly adopted a resolution that addressed: the Rome Statute and other agreements; institution-building; cooperation with regard to the implementation of the Rome Statute; and institutional matters regarding the Assembly of States Parties. The Assembly approved the draft headquarters agreement between icc and the host State, which was annexed to the resolu-tion. It welcomed the conclusion of the Cooperation Agreement between icc and the European Union (eu) and looked forward to the early conclusion of cooperation agreements with the African Union; other regional organizations were invited to con-sider concluding such agreements with the Court. The Assembly also welcomed the establishment of an icc New York Liaison Office, which was due to become operational in January 2007. Also annexed to the resolution was the plan of action of the Assembly for achieving universality and full im-plementation of the Rome Statute and nine recom-mendations on the arrears of contributions of States Parties.

As to financing, the Assembly approved the pro-gramme budget for 2007, with appropriations total-ling €88,871,800. It also approved the staffing table for the Court and established the Working Capital Fund for 2007 in the amount of €7,405,983.

The ChambersThe judicial activities of the Court were conducted

by the Chambers, which consisted of 18 judges, or-ganized in three divisions: the Appeals Division, the Trial Division and the Pre-Trial Division. The Presidency constituted three Pre-Trial Chambers: Pre-Trial Chamber I–the drc, and Darfur (the Sudan); Pre-Trial Chamber II–Uganda; and Pre-Trial Chamber III–Central African Republic. On 10 February, Pre-Trial Chamber I issued a warrant of arrest (unsealed on 17 March) against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (see below). On 13 July, the Appeals Chamber issued its first decision on the merits of an


appeal of the Pre-Trial Chamber on jurisdiction and admissibility, dismissing the Prosecutor’s applica-tion for extraordinary review of a decision by Pre-Trial Chamber I. In the underlying decision, Pre-Trial Chamber I had denied the Prosecutor leave to appeal its decision granting the applications of six victims to participate in proceedings.

Office of the Prosecutor

New arrests and surrendersOn 17 March, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, the al-

leged leader of the Union des patriotes congolais pour la reconciliation et la paix and commander-in-chief of its military wing, the Forces patriot-iques pour la Liberation du Congo, was arrested and surrendered to the Court in The Hague. Mr. Lubanga was accused of the war crimes of enlisting, conscripting and using children under the age of 15 to participate actively in hostilities. On 20 March, Pre-Trial Chamber I held a hearing to ensure that Mr. Lubanga was informed of the charges against him and of his rights under the Rome Statute. Subsequently, numerous hearings were held in re-lation to a host of pre-trial issues litigated for the first time before the Court. Mr. Lubanga was in-dicted on 28 August. A hearing to confirm the charges took place from 9 to 28 November; Pre-Trial Chamber I was expected to confirm charges of war crimes against Mr. Lubanga in early 2007. In addition to the prosecution and the defence, four victims participated in the hearing through their legal representatives, marking the first time in the history of an international criminal court or a tribu-nal that victims participated in proceedings in their own right, without being called as witnesses. The legal representatives presented their observations at the opening and closing sessions and attended the court sessions throughout the hearing.

InvestigationsThe Office of the Prosecutor continued in-

vestigations into three situations: the drc and Uganda—which were referred to the Court by the States Parties themselves—and Darfur, the Sudan, referred to the Court by the Security Council. The Office was also collecting information on five other situations of concern, including in the Central African Republic, following the referral by that State party, and in Côte d’Ivoire, a non-State party which had filed a declaration accepting the jurisdic-tion of the Court.

Its investigations in the situation in Uganda in-volved allegations of large-scale abductions, kill-

ings, torture and sexual violence. The majority of alleged abductees were children. The Office of the Prosecutor continued to conduct field missions to carry out investigative work in Uganda and assess the security of witnesses. It conducted 16 missions to interview witnesses and others and collect docu-ments and materials in preparation for the confir-mation of the charges in five outstanding arrest war-rants for alleged members of the Lord’s Resistance Army (lra) [YUN 2005, p 1404], accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes. On 1 June, at the request of the Court’s Prosecutor, Interpol (the International Criminal Police Organization) issued “red notices” alerting its member countries of the arrest warrants. By the end of the year, more than 12 months after icc had issued its first warrants of arrest in Uganda, the five accused remained at large. In addition to numerous missions to Uganda, the Office of the Prosecutor visited the drc and the Sudan in connection with the Uganda investiga-tion and established contact with other authorities to build support for arrest efforts. Cooperation with the Government of Uganda was critical for the suc-cess of the Office’s investigative efforts.

The investigation of the situation in the drc in-volved allegations of thousands of deaths by mass murder and summary execution since 2002, as well as large-scale patterns of rape, torture and use of child soldiers. Numerous armed groups active in the drc were allegedly involved in those crimes. The Office of the Prosecutor conducted 45 investi-gation missions to six countries to gather evidence and witness testimony in relation to the situation in the drc; the investigation led to the issuance of an arrest warrant and the subsequent arrest and sur-render of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (see above). The Office of the Prosecutor opened a second case in the drc investigation and continued to analyse the possibility of opening a third case.

In the Darfur region of the Sudan, the Office of the Prosecutor investigated allegations of the killing of thousands of civilians and widespread destruction and looting of villages, leading to the displacement of approximately 1.9 million civil-ians, as well as allegations of a pervasive pattern of rape and sexual violence and persistent targeting and intimidation of humanitarian personnel. The ongoing conflict had prevented the Office from in-vestigating on the ground in Darfur as the neces-sary security conditions did not exist to ensure the protection of victims, witnesses or staff members. It therefore focused its investigative activities outside Darfur, especially in Chad, where many victims and witnesses had fled. Since the Security Council’s re-ferral of the case to icc by resolution 1593(2005)


[ibid., p. 324], the Office had conducted more than 50 missions to 15 countries, screened more than 500 potential witnesses and collected and reviewed more than 8,800 documents. On 14 June, the Prosecutor submitted his third report on the Sudan to a closed meeting of the Security Council [S/PV. 5460] (see p. 291). He stated that, given the scale of the alleged crimes in Darfur and the complexities associated with the identification of the individuals bearing the greatest responsibility for the crimes, the Office anticipated the investigation and pros-ecution of a sequence of cases, rather than a single case dealing with the situation in Darfur as a whole. The Prosecutor also emphasized that the full coop-eration of the Government of the Sudan and other parties to the conflict was vital and that the coop-eration of organizations with a significant presence there would continue to be essential. In accordance with Council resolution 1593(2005), the Prosecutor reported on 14 December to a closed meeting of the Council [meeting 5589] on the status of the investiga-tion into the situation in Darfur (see p. 292).

The RegistryThe icc Registry provided judicial and admin-

istrative support to all organs of the Court and carried out its specific responsibilities concerning victims, witnesses, defence and outreach. It contin-ued efforts to develop understanding and awareness of icc and its activities by strengthening the Court’s public information capacity for outreach services in countries where the Court was active.

The Registry also provided security, admin-istrative and logistical support to the investiga-tions, including through field offices in the drc, Uganda, and Chad (in relation to the investigation in Darfur). Together, the Office of the Prosecutor and the Registry developed measures to ensure the safety of victims, witnesses and others at risk due to the Court’s investigations in all three situations. It also tailored situation-specific outreach strategies for each situation, which included bilateral meet-ings, workshops, seminars and training activities, and saw the distribution of some 500 copies of basic legal texts to representatives of legal communities and related facilities in both Uganda and the drc.

In 2006, the Court increased its outreach ac-tivities in northern Uganda and held informative meetings with over 120 local non-governmental

organizations, 150 cultural leaders, 60 local govern-ment representatives and 50 religious leaders from across that region, and with journalists and legal associations, such as the Uganda Human Rights Commission; it also disseminated information through local radio programmes, newspapers and other printed materials.

In the drc, the Court used radio and television to provide general information about its activities and about the case against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. Through partnerships with local radio stations in remote areas, the Court increased its ability to reach out to local populations affected by the situa-tion under investigation. In order to ensure effective participation of victims in proceedings before the Court, the Office of Public Counsel for Victims was established.

International cooperationIn 2006, icc substantially developed its frame-

work for institutional cooperation with the United Nations and with States, regional organizations and other actors. It took steps to further facilitate information-sharing and operational cooperation with the United Nations by establishing an office in New York.

On 29 March, icc signed an agreement with the International Committee of the Red Cross (icrc), governing visits by icrc to persons deprived of liberty pursuant to the jurisdiction of the Court. On 28 and 29 June, icrc made its first visit to the Court’s Detention Centre.

On 10 April, the Court concluded a cooperation agreement with the eu covering such issues as the sharing of classified information, the testimony of eu personnel, the waiver of privileges and immuni-ties, cooperation with the Prosecutor, the provision of facilities and services, including support in the field, attendance at eu meetings and cooperation on training for judges, prosecutors, officials and counsel.

The President of the Special Court for Sierra Leone and icc concluded a Memorandum of Under-standing related to the trial of the former President of Liberia, Charles Taylor, at the icc seat in The Hague. On 16 June, the Security Council adopted resolution 1688(2006) (see p. 242) in relation to the trial being held in the Netherlands.

Chapter II International tribunals and court

Documents

Transcript of Chapter II International tribunals and court