Source: http://cld.irmct.org/advanced-search/?p=40
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 23:50:05+00:00

Document:
7. As to Karadžić’s request for participation in the Rule 86 proceedings referred to in the Motion, the Appeals Chamber notes that the proceedings concern requests for variation of protective measures granted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia with regard to Prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances, when deciding whether to vary the existing protective measures, the Appeals Chamber considered it appropriate to seek information from the Prosecution. The Appeals Chamber did not consider it necessary to lift the ex parte status of the Rule 86 Applications in respect of Karadžić and invite him to make submissions because it did not consider that Karadžić would be in a position to supplement the witness protection information from the Witness Support and Protection Unit of the Mechanism or offer other information relevant to witness protection concerns of Prosecution witnesses. The Appeals Chamber emphasizes that the Rule 86 Applications concern the application of witness protection measures in domestic proceedings, not Karadžić’s appeal. For these reasons, the Appeals Chamber finds that Karadžić has failed to demonstrate that he has standing to participate in the Rule 86 proceedings identified in the Motion.
 In addition, the Appeals Chamber observes that the Practice Direction on the Procedure for Variation of Protective Measures allows for applications pursuant to Rule 86 of the Rules to be filed ex parte with regard to one or more of the parties in the proceedings, provided that the applicant provides an explanation of the good cause for filing the application ex parte. See Practice Direction on the Procedure for Variation of Protective Measures, para. 6. The Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the Rule 86 Applications evince good cause for their ex parte status as they contain information identifying domestic investigations and pre-trial proceedings.
DETERMINE that, pursuant to Rules 8(A) and 131 of the Rules, this matter shall be reported to the United Nations Security Council.
 See Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-AR108 bis, Judgement on the Request of the Republic of Croatia for Review of the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 18 July 1997, 29 October 1997, paras. 33-35.
 See Prosecutor v. Drago Josopivić, Case No. IT-95-16-R, Order Designating a Pre-Review Judge, 25 April 2002, p. 2 (emphasis added). See also Rule 135(B) of the Rules.
9. The Appeals Chamber recalls that legal officers assisting Judges at the Tribunal are not subject to the same standards of impartiality as the Judges of the Tribunal, and that judicial decision-making is the sole purview of the Judges. Legal officers merely provide assistance to the Judges in legal research and preparing draft decisions, judgements, opinions, and orders in conformity with the instructions given to them by the Judges.
10. Notwithstanding the above, in some cases, a prospective staff member’s statements or activities may be so problematic as to either impugn the perceived impartiality of the Judges or the appearance thereof, or, even if this were not the case, the Tribunal’s fundamental guarantees of fair trial. In this respect, the Appeals Chamber recalls in particular, that an unacceptable appearance of bias exists, inter alia, where the circumstances would lead a reasonable observer, properly informed, to reasonably apprehend bias. The Appeals Chamber further recalls that there is a presumption of impartiality which attaches to the Judges of the Tribunal and which cannot be easily rebutted.
37. When addressing whether the impartiality of the Judges in this case could be affected by the Impugned Staff’s involvement in the Karadžić case, the Trial Chamber found that, even though “there is a considerable degree of overlap between the Karadžić case and the present case”, “a properly informed and reasonable observer would not consider […] that the judges in the present case ha[ve] failed to maintain the high degree of integrity and impartiality to which they are sworn, even if they or the Impugned Staff had worked on both cases.” It added that a properly informed and reasonable observer would not expect that the Judges in this case would do anything other than rule fairly on the issues before them, relying exclusively on the evidence adduced in the present case, even if they or their staff had been exposed to evidence in both cases. The Trial Chamber concluded that the presumption of impartiality attached to the Judges in this case had not been rebutted on the basis that the Impugned Staff had worked on an overlapping case in which factual findings were made in relation to Mladić.
38. With respect to Mladić’s argument that the Trial Chamber failed to sufficiently reason its conclusions relating to the application of the reasonable observer test, the Appeals Chamber considers that Mladić’s arguments effectively amount to a challenge to how the reasonable observer test has been interpreted in the case law. The Appeals Chamber is of the view that Mladić’s argument reflects his disagreement with the jurisprudence relied upon by the Trial Chamber and set out in detail in the applicable law section of the Impugned Decision, as well as with the Trial Chamber’s reliance on this jurisprudence when assessing whether the Impugned Staff’s involvement in the Karadžić case could lead to an appearance of bias of the Judges in this case without explaining how the Trial Chamber erred in following this case law. The Appeals Chamber finds that Mladić fails to demonstrate an error in the Trial Chamber’s reasoning.
39. Moreover, the Appeals Chamber recalls that “‘mere assertions to the effect that a staff member may influence a Judge during deliberations or the adjudication process are not a sufficient basis, in and of themselves’, to create in the mind of a reasonable observer, properly informed, an appearance of bias or to rebut the presumption of impartiality of judges.” Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber does not consider that a staff’s previous work on an overlapping case is, in and of itself, sufficient to impugn the Judges’ impartiality or the appearance thereof. The Appeals Chamber therefore finds no merit to Mladić’s argument that a reasonable observer would consider that the fact that the Impugned Staff previously worked on the closely-related Karadžić case, is sufficient to rebut the impartiality of the Judges in this case.
See also paragraphs 30, 33.
 The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al., Case No. ICTR-98-42-A, Judgement, 14 December 2015 (“Nyiramasuhuko et al. Appeal Judgement”), para. 273, referring to, inter alia, Bizimungu et al. Appeal Decision, para. 9, Ildephonse Hategekimana v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR‑00-55B-A, Judgement, 8 May 2012 (“Hategekimana Appeal Judgement”), para. 20.
 Nyiramasuhuko et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 273; Bizimungu et al. Appeal Decision [The Prosecutor v. Casimir Bizimungu et al., Case No. ICTR-99-50-AR‑73.8, Decision on Appeals Concerning the Engagement of a Chambers Consultant or Legal Officer, 17 December 2009], para. 9.
 Bizimungu et al. Appeal Decision, para. 11.
 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Mićo Stanišić and Stojan Župljanin, Case No. IT-08-91-A, Judgement, 30 June 2016 (“Stanišić and Župljanin Appeal Judgement”), para. 43 and references cited therein.
 See, e.g., Stanišić and Župljanin Appeal Judgement, para. 44 and references cited therein; Nyiramasuhuko et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 273; Hategekimana Appeal Judgement, para. 16.
 Impugned Decision [Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić, Case No. IT-09-92-T, Decision on Defence Motion for a Fair Trial and the Presumption of Innocence or, in the Alternative, a Mistrial, 4 July 2016], para. 22.
 Hategekimana Appeal Judgement, para. 20, quoting Bizimungu et al. Appeal Decision, para. 10.
 Nyiramasuhuko et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 105 and references cited therein. See also Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Cases Nos. IT-95-5/18-AR72.1, IT-95-5/18-AR72.2, IT-95-5/18-AR72.3, Decision on Radovan Karadžić’s Motions Challenging Jurisdiction (Omission Liability, JCE-III – Special Intent Crimes, Superior Responsibility), 25 June 2009, para. 30.
 Impugned Decision [Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladić, Case No. IT-09-92-T, Decision on Defence Motion for a Fair Trial and the Presumption of Innocence or, in the Alternative, a Mistrial, 4 July 2016], para. 18. See also Impugned Decision, para. 14, referring to Bizimungu et al. Appeal Decision [The Prosecutor v. Casimir Bizimungu et al., Case No. ICTR-99-50-AR‑73.8, Decision on Appeals Concerning the Engagement of a Chambers Consultant or Legal Officer, 17 December 2009], paras 5, 9; Nyiramasuhuko et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 273; In the Case against Florence Hartmann, Case No. IT‑02‑54‑R77.5, Report of Decision on Defence Motion for Disqualification of Two Members of the Trial Chamber and of Senior Legal Officer, 27 March 2009 (public redacted version), para. 54.
 See United Nations Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, adopted by the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, 26 August - 6 September 1985, endorsed by United Nations General Assembly Resolutions A/RES/40/32 and A/RES/40/146 of 29 November 1985 and 13 December 1985, respectively (“U.N. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary”).
 See Prosecutor v. Mićo Stanišić and Stojan Župljanin, Case No. IT-08-91-A, Judgement, 30 June 2016 (public with confidential Annex C), para. 42; Prosecutor v. Nikola [ainović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-A, Judgement, 23 January 2014, para. 179; Prosecutor v. Milan Martić, Case No. IT-95-11-A, Judgement, 8 October 2008, para. 39; Prosecutor v. Anto Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Judgement, 21 July 2000, para. 177, n. 239. See also Prosecutor v. Vojislav [ešelj, Case No. IT-03-67-PT, Decision on Motion for Disqualification, 10 June 2003, pp. 2-3 (“Judges […] serve only the international community” and “disavow any influence by the policies of any government, including the government of their home country”); Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić et al., Case No. IT-96-21-T, Decision of the Bureau on Motion on Judicial Independence, 4 September 1998, pp. 7-9.
 See Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 217 A (III), Article 10 (“Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.”); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171, Article 14(1) (“All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”); European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14, 4 November 1950, Article 6(1) (“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”); American Convention on Human Rights, Costa Rica, 22 November 1969, Article 8(1) (“Every person has the right to a hearing, with due guarantees and within a reasonable time, by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal, previously established by law, in the substantiation of any accusation of a criminal nature made against him or for the determination of his rights and obligations of a civil, labor, fiscal, or any other nature.”). See also African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 27 June 1981, CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), Article 26 (“States parties to the present Charter shall have the duty to guarantee the independence of the Courts and shall allow the establishment and improvement of appropriate national institutions entrusted with the promotion and protection of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the present Charter.”).
 Case of Miguel Gonzáles del Río v. Peru, Communication No. 263/1987, para. 5.2.
 See U.N. Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, Principle 2 (“The judiciary shall decide matters before them impartially, on the basis of facts and in accordance with the law, without any restrictions, improper influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interferences, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”); The Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct, adopted by the Judicial Group on Strengthening Judicial Integrity as revised at the Round Table Meeting of Chief Justices, 25-26 November 2002, Value 1.1 (“A judge shall exercise the judicial function independently on the basis of the judge’s assessment of the facts and in accordance with a conscientious understanding of the law, free of any extraneous influences, inducements, pressures, threats or interference, direct or indirect, from any quarter or for any reason.”); The Burgh House Principles on the Independence of the International Judiciary, drafted by the Study Group of the International Law Association on the Practice and Procedure of International Courts and Tribunals, in association with the Project on International Courts and Tribunals, Preamble (“Considering the following principles of international law to be of general application: to ensure the independence of the judiciary, judges must enjoy independence from the parties to cases before them, their own states of nationality or residence, the host countries in which they serve, and the international organisations under the auspices of which the court or tribunal is established”). See also Code of Professional Conduct for the Judges of the Mechanism, MICT/14, 11 May 2015, Article 2.1 (“In the exercise of their judicial functions, judges shall be independent of all external authority or influence.”).
 See, e.g., Article 29 of the [MICT] Statute. Cf. also ICJ Advisory Opinion on Differences Relating to Immunity from Legal Process, paras. 60, 61, 67 (upholding the immunity of a United Nations Special Rapporteur against legal process in his national country); Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1989, p. 177, paras. 51, 61 (holding that United Nations Special Rapporteurs enjoy privileges and immunities in their relation with the States of which they are nationals or on the territory of which they reside).
 See United Nations Security Council Resolution 1966, U.N. Doc. S/RES/1966, 22 December 2010 […] (emphasizing that the Mechanism should be a “small, temporary and efficient structure”); See also Article 8(3) of the [MICT] Statute.
 See United Nations Security Council Report, Special Research Report, No. 3, 17 September 2010, p. 1; U.N. Doc. S/PV.6463, 22 December 2010, p. 3.
 See Articles 19 and 29 of the [MICT] Statute.
12. With the arrest of Judge Akay, proceedings on the merits of Ngirabatware’s Request for Review have necessarily come to a standstill. To move the case forward, as suggested by the Prosecution, by the substitution of a judge as a first reaction in response to the current situation is nothing short of violating a core principle that is fundamental to the administration of justice: an independent judiciary.
13. I have long maintained that upholding the integrity of our judicial system entails not exercising the powers conferred upon me as President arbitrarily and eschewing improper influences when determining the composition of judicial benches. It is […] evident […] that reassignment of Judge Akay onto another case is simply an unfair and myopic solution since it would similarly halt proceedings in that case. While pragmatic, this solution will undoubtedly impinge on the fundamental principle of judicial independence as it would allow interference by a national authority in the conduct of a case and the exercise of judicial functions. As such, it will have a chilling effect on the administration of justice. Moreover, the inherent authority of the Mechanism cannot be interpreted, as the Prosecution suggests,  to include taking substantive decisions on the merits of a case in the absence of the consideration by all of the members of the bench. Judge Akay’s views on this case matter to our solemn deliberations, and, in the present circumstances, decisions on the merits of this case cannot be taken even should they hold the support of a majority of the remaining judges. Moreover, it cannot be said that the integrity of the judicial system would be upheld if a replacement of a judge is viewed as a measure of first rather than last resort, especially where the avenues for the Government of the Republic of Turkey to implement the United Nations Secretary-General’s assertion of immunity have neither been fully explored nor exhausted, including the execution of this request made by Ngirabatware. In this regard, I note that Judge Akay’s release is also being sought pursuant to domestic legal proceedings in Turkey. An application before the European Court of Human Rights has also been filed.
15. This is not to say that judges can never be reassigned or replaced. But a judge has been arrested, immunity has been asserted, it has not been waived, and Judge Akay’s continued presence on the bench has the full support of the person who is seeking relief. Judge Akay is an essential member of this bench. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, his continued presence on the bench is essential to the preservation of judicial independence. To say Judge Akay can be replaced easily to facilitate the judicial process – at this initial stage and before other avenues have been exhausted – is to say we do not value judicial independence, value justice, value what is right.
 See supra [Prosecutor v. Augustin Ngirabatware, Case No. MICT-12-29-R, Order to the Government of the Republic of Turkey for the Release of Judge Aydin Sefa Akay, 31 January 2017], para. 9.
 See Theodor Meron, Judicial Independence and Impartiality in International Criminal Tribunals, 99 Am. J. Int’l L. 363-65 (2005).
 See [Prosecutor v. Augustin Ngirabatware, Case No. MICT-12-29-R] Oral Hearing, T. 17 January 2017 pp. 19, 27.
 See ECHR Ref. No. 59/17.
16. I recall that, while the Mechanism will not lightly intervene in a domestic jurisdiction, there is clear authority to order a state to terminate proceedings against individuals on the basis of the immunity they enjoyed as a result of their connection with the Mechanism. Such orders have been implemented. In the present circumstances, an order to Turkey to immediately cease prosecution and to release Judge Akay so that he can continue to exercise his judicial functions in this case is entirely appropriate and necessary to ensure that the review proceedings can conclude. Such an order is binding on Turkey pursuant to Resolution 1966 adopted by the United Nations Security Council under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter on 22 December 2010. Article 9 of Security Council Resolution 1966 requires that all States comply with orders issued by the Mechanism.
 Théoneste Bagosora et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, Decision on Aloys Ntabakuze’s Motion for Injunctions Against the Government of Rwanda Regarding the Arrest and Investigation of Lead Counsel Peter Erlinder, 6 October 2010 (“Bagosora et al. Decision of 6 October 2010”), para. 18.
 See Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina et al., Case No. IT-06-90-T, Order Directed to the Republic of Croatia, 18 February 2011, p. 2; Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina et al., Case No. IT-06-90-AR73.5, Decision on Gotovina Defence Appeal Against 12 March 2010 Decision on Requests for Permanent Restraining Orders Directed to the Republic of Croatia, 14 February 2011, paras. 36, 45, 67, 71; Théoneste Bagosora et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-41-A, Decision on Aloys Ntabakuze’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings, 27 January 2011 (“Bagosora et al. Decision of 27 January 2011”), para. 10; Bagosora et al Decision of 6 October 2010, paras. 20-31.
 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina et al.,Case No. IT-06-90-A, Communication dated 12 October 2011 from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Croatia (Proceedings Pursuant to the Order of the ICTY Trial Chamber Dated 18 February 2011), 14 October 2011 (confidential), Registry Pagination. 3043; Bagosora et al Decision of 27 January 2011, para. 10.
 Prosecutor v. Vujadin Popović et al, Case No. IT-05-88-A, Public Redacted Version of 2 May 2014 Decision on Vujadin Popović’s Third and Fifth Motions for Admission of Additional Evidence on Appeal Pursuant to Rule 115, 23 May 2014, para. 14 (“leave to file a sur-reply may be granted where the reply raises a new issue to which the respondent has not already had the opportunity to respond”).
 Prosecutor v. Naser Orić, Case No. MICT-14-79, Decision on an Application for Leave to Appeal the Single Judge’s Decision of 10 December 2015, 17 February 2016, para. 8 referring to Article 18 of the Statute of the Mechanism and Rules 92 and 131 of the Rules.
 See The Prosecutor v. Miroslav Bralo, Case No. IT-95-17-A, Decision on Motions for Access to Ex Parte Portions of the Record on Appeal and for Disclosure of Mitigating Material, 30 August 2006, para. 17. See also Decision of 10 May 2016 [Decision on Motion for Access to Ex Parte Filings in Completed Cases, 10 May 2016], p. 3 and references cited therein.
 Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55-R86F.2, Registrar’s Submission in Relation to the Order of 20 September 2016, 27 September 2016 (confidential and ex parte); Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55-R86F.3, 27 September 2016, Registrar’s Submission in Relation to the Order of 20 September 2016 (confidential and ex parte); Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55-R86F.2, Prosecution Request for Leave to File Further Submission in Response to Registrar’s Submission in Relation to the Order for Submissions of 20 September 2016, 29 September 2016 (confidential and ex parte); Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55-R86F.3, Prosecution Request for Leave to File Further Submission in Response to Registrar’s Submission in Relation to the Order for Submissions of 20 September 2016, 29 September 2016 (confidential and ex parte). The Appeals Chamber notes that its finding does not extend to the confidential ex parte annexes attached to the Registry’s submissions of 29 September 2016.
 The Appeals Chamber notes that, with regard to two of the five proceedings at issue, Case No. MICT-13-55-R86.F.2, Case No. MICT-13-55-R86.F.3, the ex parte status of the requests made under Rule 86(F) of the Rules was lifted in these instances with respect to the Prosecution as the requests concerned Prosecution witnesses. The request filed as Case No. MICT-13-55-R86.F.1 was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Two other proceedings, Case No. MICT-13-55-R86.F.4 and Case No. MICT-13-55-R86.F.5, are currently pending and only assignment orders have been issued to date.
6. As a preliminary matter, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Impugned Decision was rendered after the close of the trial and appeal proceedings in Kamuhanda’s case and that, therefore, Rule 80(B) of the Rules, which requires certification to appeal a decision rendered at trial, by its plain language is not applicable in the present case. The Appeals Chamber further observes that Rule 86 of the Rules, which regulates measures for the protection of victims and witnesses, does not expressly provide for an appeal as of right or address the issue of whether a decision rendered by a Single Judge after the close of trial and appeal proceedings is subject to appeal. In interpreting an equivalent provision in the ICTR Rules, the ICTR Appeals Chamber has held that an applicant is entitled to appeal a decision on witness protective measures which was rendered after the close of the trial and appeal proceedings. Bearing this practice in mind and in light of the importance of the protection of victims and witnesses to the proper functioning of the Mechanism, the Appeals Chamber considers that it has jurisdiction over this appeal.
 See supra [Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, Case No. MICT-13-33, Decision on Appeal of Decision Declining to Rescind Protective Measures for a Deceased Witness, 14 November 2016], paras. 2, 3.
 Rule 80(B) of the Rules reads: “Decisions rendered on such motions are without interlocutory appeal save with certification by the Trial Chamber, which may grant such certification if the decision involves an issue that would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial, and for which, in the opinion of the Trial Chamber an immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber may materially advance the proceedings.” See also Eliézer Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-14-R75, Decision on Motion for Clarification, 20 June 2008 (“Niyitegeka Decision of 20 June 2008”), para. 13 (interpreting the parallel for certification in the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence (“ICTR Rules”), Rule 73(B) of the ICTR Rules).
 See Niyitegeka Decision of 20 June 2008, para. 14. See also Georges A.N. Rutaganda v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-3-R, Order to the Registrar Concerning Georges Rutaganda’s Access to Documents, 22 January 2009, p. 2.
 See [Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, Case No. MICT-13-33] Decision on a Motion for a Public Redacted Version of the 27 January 2010 Decision on Application of The Prosecutor of the Tribunal for Variation of Protective Measures, 11 May 2016, p. 2; Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac et al., Case Nos. MICT-15-88-R86H.1/MICT-15-88-R86H.2, Decision on Prosecution Requests for a Public Redacted Version of a Decision on Applications Pursuant to Rule 86(H), 9 February 2016, p. 1 and references cited therein.
9. Pursuant to Rule 86(F)(i) of the Rules, protective measures ordered before the ICTY, the ICTR, or the Mechanism (“first proceedings”), continue to have effect in any other proceedings before the Mechanism (“second proceedings”) unless and until they are rescinded, varied or augmented. The Appeals Chamber observes that Kamuhanda requested rescission of protective measures granted to a witness in his own case and, therefore, the Single Judge became seised of the “first proceedings”. In contrast, Rules 86(F)(i), 86(H) and 86(I) of the Rules which form the basis of the Impugned Decision, govern the continuation of protective measures in a “second proceedings” and the conditions for their rescission upon a request from a party to the “second proceedings”, a domestic jurisdiction, or a protected victim or witness.
10. Since Kamuhanda is a party to the “first proceedings” seeking rescission of protective measures in his own case, neither Rule 86(F)(i) nor Rule 86(H), and consequently Rule 86(I) of the Rules, apply in relation to Kamuhanda’s request. Notwithstanding, the Appeals Chamber considers that it was within the Single Judge’s discretion to take into account the conditions for rescission of protective measures set out in Rule 86(I) of the Rules, as the consent of the witness concerned, the existence of exigent circumstances or the potential for a miscarriage of justice may be relevant factors in balancing the interests of the convicted person and the need for the continued protection of victims and witnesses. However, the conditions set out in Rule 86(I) of the Rules are not required as a matter of law in the circumstances of this case where a party is seeking the modification of protective measures granted to one of its witnesses in its own case.
11. The Appeals Chamber further recalls that, pursuant to Rule 86(A) of the Rules, a Chamber may, at the request of either party, order appropriate measures for the privacy and protection of victims and witnesses. Rule 86(A) of the Rules is applicable mutatis mutandis to matters of rescission or variation of protective measures sought by a party in its own case. In assessing whether protective measures should be rescinded or varied under Rule 86(A) of the Rules, a Chamber should take into consideration any information relevant to the requested modification. In such cases, the consent of the witness is not necessarily required if the Chamber is otherwise satisfied that the modification or rescission is justified in the circumstances of the case.
 See Impugned Decision [Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, Case No. MICT-13-33, Decision on Motion to Rescind Protective Measures for Defence Witness ALM, 29 March 2016], p. 3. The Appeals Chamber notes that, although the Impugned Decision contains a reference to Rule 86(J) of the Rules (see Impugned Decision, p. 2), no finding was entered by the Single Judge pursuant to this Rule.
 See also Rule 2(C) of the Rules.
 See The Prosecutor v. François Karera, Case No. ICTR-01-74, Decision Rescinding the Protective Measures of Witness BMI, 27 September 2011, paras. 5, 6; Prosecutor v. Milan Milutinović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-T, Order on Rescission of Protective Measures in relation to Witness Ljubinko Cvetić, 7 December 2006, paras. 1, 2. See also Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, Case No. ICTR-99-54-T, Decision on Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda’s Motion for Protective Measures for Defence Witnesses, 22 March 2001(“Protective Measures Decision”), para. 24 (where the Trial Chamber noted that Kamuhanda could seek at any time variation or augmentation of the protective measures granted to the potential witnesses, including Witness ALM).
12. In granting protective measures in the present case, the Trial Chamber considered that “the fears of the potential witnesses and their families, if they testify on behalf of [Kamuhanda] without protective measures” were well founded. The Appeals Chamber notes that, following the death of a witness who had benefited from protective measures, security concerns may remain for the witness’s family. Therefore, the security concerns of members of a deceased witness’s family may constitute a relevant consideration in determining whether the protective measures granted to the witness should remain in place or be rescinded under Rule 86(A) of the Rules.
 Protective Measures Decision, paras. 14, 16, p. 6.
12. […] the Trial Chamber’s statement that “the Mechanism’s role is not to act as an independent level of appellate review for the national proceedings, but rather to determine primarily whether the conditions for a fair trial in the domestic jurisdiction no longer exist” is entirely consistent with Article 6(6) of the Statute and Rule 14(C) of the Rules, which govern the Mechanism’s authority to revoke cases referred to national jurisdictions.
64. The Appeals Chamber finds that Uwinkindi demonstrates no error in the Trial Chamber’s statement that it was not within its purview to scrutinize the Rwandan legal aid budget, inquire into its sufficiency, or verify its administration and disbursement, particularly in light of the conclusion that the circumstances in Rwanda ensured Uwinkindi’s right to free legal assistance.
 See The Prosecutor v. Jean Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-01-75-AR11bis, Decision on Uwinkindi’s Motion for Review or Reconsideration of the Decision on Referral to Rwanda and the Related Prosecution Motion, 23 February 2013, para. 71 (recalling that a Referral Chamber must “satisif[y] itself that the State would supply defence counsel to accused who cannot afford their own representation” and is “not obligated […] to itemize the provisions of the [State’s] budget once it has learned there is financial support for that representation”). See also Prosecutor v. Mitar Rašević and Savo Todović, Case No. IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.1 & IT-97-25/1-AR11bis.2, Decision on Savo Todović’s Appeals against Decisions on Referral under Rule 11bis, 4 September 2006, para. 59; Prosecutor v. Željko Mejakić et al., Case No. IT-02-65-AR11bis.1, Decision on Joint Defence Appeal against Decision on Referral under Rule 11bis, 7 April 2006, para. 70; Prosecutor v. Radovan Stanković, Case No. IT-96-23/2-AR11bis.1, Decision on Rule 11bis Referral, 1 September 2005, para. 21.
29. The Appeals Chamber further finds that Uwinkindi fails to establish that the non-inclusion of the charge of complicity in genocide in his ICTR Indictment prohibited its inclusion in his indictment before the Rwandan High Court in view of the res judicata principle. Res judicata arises only when there is an identity of parties, identity of issues, and importantly a final determination of those issues in the previous decision by a court competent to decide them. Notably, the litigation before the ICTR concerning the inclusion of complicity in genocide in Uwinkindi’s indictment did not result in a final determination and the Rwandan Prosecution was not a party to it.
 See Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. MICT-13-55-A, Decision on a Motion for Redacted Versions of Decisions Issued under Rule 75(H) of the ICTY Rules, 18 July 2016, p. 4 and references cited therein; The Prosecutor v. Laurent Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-T, Decision on the Kingdom of Belgium’s Application to File an Amicus Curiae Brief and on the Defence Application to Strike Out the Observations of the Kingdom of Belgium Concerning the Preliminary Response by the Defence, 12 February 2001, para. 11.
 Specifically, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR subsequently confirmed the initial indictment against Uwinkindi but ordered the Prosecution to amend it to clearly indicate what facts could support Uwinkindi’s involvement in the crime of complicity in genocide; the decision did not require the Prosecution to drop the charge. See The Prosecutor v. Jean-Bosco Uwinkindi, Case No. ICTR-2001-75-I, Confirmation of Indictment, 3 September 2001, paras. 7, 9.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.