Source: http://cld.irmct.org/advanced-search/?p=80
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 00:04:57+00:00

Document:
Text search: Use this field to search the database by typing a word, part of a word, or a word combination. The search is not diacritics sensitive: users will get the relevant results no matter if they use diacritics or not.
Notion(s): Use this field to search the database by legal notion(s). Please note that a combination of notions can be selected by placing the cursor next to the first selected notion.
Case: Use this filter to search a particular case name.
Filing: Use this field to search judgements and decisions. If the Case field is selected, the system will only list filings related to the selected case.
Date range: Use these fields to limit the search to a specific time range.
Tribunal: Use this field to restrict search results to the ICTR, the ICTY or the MICT jurisprudence.
Filing Amicus Curiae Decision - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Appeal Judgement - BIZIMUNGU Augustin Appeal Judgement - MUGENZI AND MUGIRANEZA (Government II) Appeal Judgement - NDINDILYIMANA et al. (Military II) Appeal Judgement - NGIRABATWARE Augustin Appeal Judgement - MILOŠEVIĆ Dragomir Appeal Judgement - GALIĆ Stanislav Appeal Judgement - KUPREŠKIĆ et al. Appeal Judgement - ŠEŠELJ Vojislav Appeal Judgement - KVOČKA et al. Appeal Judgement - MUSEMA Alfred Appeal Judgement - NDAHIMANA Grégoire Appeal Judgement - BLAŠKIĆ Tihomir Appeal Judgement - STAKIĆ Milomir Appeal Judgement - NTABAKUZE Aloys Appeal Judgement - HADŽIHASANOVIĆ & KUBURA Appeal Judgement - SEMANZA Laurent Appeal Judgement - NDINDABAHIZI Emmanuel Appeal Judgement - SIMIĆ Blagoje Appeal Judgement - SIMBA Aloys Appeal Judgement - BLAGOJEVIĆ & JOKIĆ Appeal Judgement - MUNYAKAZI Yussuf Appeal Judgement - RUKUNDO Emmanuel Appeal Judgement - VASILJEVIĆ Mitar Appeal Judgement - NTAWUKULILYAYO Dominique Appeal Judgement - LUKIĆ & LUKIĆ Appeal Judgement - PERIŠIĆ Momčilo Appeal Judgement - KARERA François Appeal Judgement - ALEKSOVSKI Zlatko Appeal Judgement - HARADINAJ et al. Appeal Judgement - KRNOJELAC Milorad Appeal Judgement - MUHIMANA Mikaeli Appeal Judgement - GOTOVINA & MARKAČ Appeal Judgement - KALIMANZIRA Callixte Appeal Judgement - BRĐANIN Radoslav Appeal Judgement - MRKŠIĆ & ŠLJIVANČANIN Appeal Judgement - ORIĆ Naser Appeal Judgement - KAMUHANDA Jean de Dieu Appeal Judgement - KANYARUKIGA Gaspard Appeal Judgement - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Appeal Judgement - NCHAMIHIGO Siméon Appeal Judgement - SETAKO Ephrem Appeal Judgement - ZIGIRANYIRAZO Protais Appeal Judgement - KAJELIJELI Juvénal Appeal Judgement - LIMAJ et al. Appeal Judgement - NALETILIĆ & MARTINOVIĆ Appeal Judgement - KORDIĆ & ČERKEZ Appeal Judgement - JELISIĆ Goran Appeal Judgement - ŠAINOVIĆ et al. Appeal Judgement - AKAYESU Jean Paul Appeal Judgement - BAGILISHEMA Ignace Appeal Judgement - DELALIĆ et al. (Čelebići) Appeal Judgement - RENZAHO Tharcisse Appeal Judgement - NTAGERURA et al. (Cyangugu) Appeal Judgement - BOŠKOSKI & TARČULOVSKI Appeal Judgement - GATETE Jean Baptiste Appeal Judgement - ĐORĐEVIĆ Vlastimir Appeal Judgement - FURUNDŽIJA Anto Appeal Judgement - NIYITEGEKA Eliézer Appeal Judgement - BIKINDI Simon Appeal Judgement - NIZEYIMANA Ildéphonse Appeal Judgement - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Appeal Judgement - KAMBANDA Jean Appeal Judgement - KUNARAC et al. Appeal Judgement - MARTIĆ Milan Appeal Judgement - BAGOSORA et al. (Military I) Appeal Judgement - POPOVIĆ et al. Appeal Judgement - SEROMBA Athanase Appeal Judgement - TADIĆ Duško Appeal Judgement - RUTAGANDA George Appeal Judgement - HATEGEKIMANA Idelphonse Appeal Judgement - STRUGAR Pavle Appeal Judgement - NTAKIRUTIMANA and NTAKIRUTIMANA Appeal Judgement - TOLIMIR Zdravko Appeal Judgement - KRSTIĆ Radislav Appeal Judgement - STANIŠIĆ & SIMATOVIĆ Appeal Judgement - ERDEMOVIĆ Dražen Appeal Judgement - KAYISHEMA & RUZINDANA Appeal Judgement - KAREMERA & NGIRUMPATSE Appeal Judgement - NZABONIMANA Callixte Appeal Judgement - HALILOVIĆ Sefer Appeal Judgement - HARAQIJA & MORINA Appeal Judgement - STANIŠIĆ & ŽUPLJANIN Appeal Judgement - GACUMBITSI Sylvestre Appeal Judgement - NYIRAMASUHUKO et al. (Butare) Appeal Judgement I - MUVUNYI Tharcisse Appeal Judgement II - MUVUNYI Tharcisse Compensation Decision - RWAMAKUBA André Consolidated Decision on Jurisdiction - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Consolidated Decision on Provisional Release - PRLIĆ et al. Consolidated Decision on Provisional Release - POPOVIĆ et al. Contempt Appeal Judgement - RAŠIĆ Jelena Contempt Appeal Judgement - ŠEŠELJ Vojislav Contempt Appeal Judgement - HARTMANN Florence Contempt Appeal Judgement - JOKIĆ Miodrag Contempt Appeal Judgement - NSHOGOZA Léonidas Contempt Appeal Judgement - JOVIĆ Josip Contempt Appeal Judgement - MARIJAČIĆ & REBIĆ Contempt Appeal Judgement - ŠEŠELJ Vojislav Contempt Appeal Judgement - ŠEŠELJ Vojislav Decision - BLAGOJEVIĆ et al. Decision - SEMANZA Laurent Decision - BARAYAGWIZA Jean-Bosco Decision After Remand - PRLIĆ et al. Decision Concerning Rule 70 - ORIĆ Naser Decision Concerning Rule 92bis(C) - GALIĆ Stanislav Decision Dismissing a Request - NIYITEGEKA Eliézer Decision on a Motion for an Extension of a Word Limit - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on a Motion for Reconsideration and Certification to Appeal Decision on a Request for Provisional Release - MLADIĆ Ratko Decision on a Motion to Reclassify Filings - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on a Request for Access and Review - SEMANZA Laurent Decision on a Request for Leave to Make Submissions as Amicus Curiae - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Access - BLAŠKIĆ Tihomir Decision on Access - NYIRAMASUHUKO et al. (Butare) Decision on Access (Karadžić) - MILOŠEVIĆ Dragomir Decision on Access (Perišić) - MILOŠEVIĆ Dragomir Decision on Access to Aleksovski case - BLAŠKIĆ Tihomir Decision on Access to Confidential Information - BLAGOJEVIĆ & JOKIĆ Decision on Access to Confidential Material - RUTAGANDA George Decision on Access to Confidential Materials - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Decision on Access to Confidential Materials in Cases - NIYITEGEKA Eliézer Decision on Access to Ex Parte Filings - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Access to Ex Parte Materials and Disclosure of Mitigating Materials - BRALO Miroslav Decision on Accused's Statement - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Adding Wesley Clark to Witness List - MILUTINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Additional Evidence - BLAGOJEVIĆ & JOKIĆ Decision on Additional Evidence - POPOVIĆ et al. Decision on Additional Evidence - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Additional Evidence - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Additional Evidence - KANYARUKIGA Gaspard Decision on Additional Evidence - ŠAINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Additional Evidence - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Decision on Additional Evidence - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Additional Evidence - POPOVIĆ et al. Decision on Additional Evidence - SIMIĆ Blagoje Decision on Additional Evidence - STANIŠIĆ & SIMATOVIĆ Decision on Additional Evidence - BIKINDI Simon Decision on Additional Evidence - LUKIĆ & LUKIĆ Decision on Additional Evidence - MRKŠIĆ & ŠLJIVANČANIN Decision on Additional Evidence - KUPREŠKIĆ et al. Decision on Additional Evidence - NCHAMIHIGO Siméon Decision on Additional Evidence - MILOŠEVIĆ Dragomir Decision on Additional Evidence - BAGOSORA et al. (Military I) Decision on Additional Evidence - MILOŠEVIĆ Dragomir Decision on Additional Evidence - JELISIĆ Goran Decision on Additional Evidence - ŠAINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Additional Evidence - ŠAINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Additional Evidence - ŠAINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Additional Evidence - TADIĆ Duško Decision on Additional Evidence - MUNYAGISHARI Bernard Decision on Additional Evidence - NTAKIRUTIMANA and NTAKIRUTIMANA Decision on Additional Evidence - UWINKINDI Jean Decision on Additional Evidence - GALIĆ Stanislav Decision on Additional Evidence and Judicial Notice - KUPREŠKIĆ et al. Decision on Additional Evidence Following Hearing - KUPREŠKIĆ et al. Decision on Additional Evidence on Appeal - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Additional Evidence Regarding Provisional Release - STANIŠIĆ & SIMATOVIĆ Decision on Additional Grounds of Appeal - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Adequate Facilities - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Admissibility of Evidence - ALEKSOVSKI Zlatko Decision on Admissibility of Evidence - NTAHOBALI & NYIRAMASUHUKO Decision on Admissibility of Notice of Appeal - HAXHIU Baton Decision on Admissibility of Prosecution Investigator Evidence - MILOŠEVIĆ Slobodan Decision on Admission of Affidavits - KORDIĆ & ČERKEZ Decision on Admission of Amicus Curiae Brief - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Admission of Evidence - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Admission of Exhibits - DELIĆ Rasim Decision on Admission of Record of Interview - HALILOVIĆ Sefer Decision on Admission of Transcript - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Alan Dershowitz Participation - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Decision on Amending Notice of Appeal - BLAGOJEVIĆ & JOKIĆ Decision on Amending Notice of Appeal - ŠAINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Amendment of the Indictment - MUVUNYI Tharcisse Decision on Amici Curiae Appeal - MILOŠEVIĆ Slobodan Decision on Amicus Curiae Brief - KANYARUKIGA Gaspard Decision on Amicus Curiae Motion - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Decision on Amicus Prosecutor - KAMUHANDA Jean de Dieu Decision on Amicus Submission - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Decision on an Appeal of a Decision Rendered by a Single Judge - KAMUHANDA Jean de Dieu Decision on Appeal of Bureau Decision - SEROMBA Athanase Decision on Appeals of Decisions Rendered by a Single Judge - NIYITEGEKA Eliézer Decision on Application for Leave to Appeal - MARTIĆ Milan Decision on Application to Strike Brief - MILOŠEVIĆ Slobodan Decision on Appointment of Counsel - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Arguments Made at the Appeals Hearing - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Arrest of Counsel - BAGOSORA et al. (Military I) Decision on Assessment of Competencies - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Assignment of Counsel - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Decision on Assignment of Counsel - MILOŠEVIĆ Slobodan Decision on Assignment of Counsel - ŠEŠELJ Vojislav Decision on Assignment of Counsel No 2 - ŠEŠELJ Vojislav Decision on Assignment of Investigator and Counsel - NTABAKUZE Aloys Decision on Assignment of Standby Counsel for the Appeal Hearing - ŠEŠELJ Vojislav Decision on Attendance at Memorial Services - SIMIĆ Blagoje Decision on Attorney Jovan Simić - MEJAKIĆ et al. Decision on Attribution of Time to the Defence - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Barayagwiza's Motion - BARAYAGWIZA Jean-Bosco Decision on Calling Karadžić to Testify on Appeal - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Decision on Challenge by Croatia - BOBETKO Janko Decision on Chambers Consultant or Legal Officer - BIZIMUNGU et al. (Government II) Decision on Clarification - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Clarification - BLAŠKIĆ Tihomir Decision on Clarification - NIYITEGEKA Eliézer Decision on Clarification Regarding Karadžić's Testimony - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Decision on Command Responsibility - HADŽIHASANOVIĆ et al. Decision on Communication with Counsel - NGEZE Hassan Decision on Communication with Potential Witnesses of Opposite Party - MRKŠIĆ Mile Decision on Conflict of Interest (Čermak) - GOTOVINA et al. Decision on Conflict of Interest (Markač) - GOTOVINA et al. Decision on Consolidated Motion - RUTAGANDA George Decision on Consummation of Marriage - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Contempt Proceedings - NGIRABATWARE Augustin Decision on Continuation of Appellate Proceedings for Gvero - POPOVIĆ et al. Decision on Continuation of Proceedings - ŠEŠELJ Vojislav Decision on Continuation of Proceedings - HADŽIĆ Goran Decision on Continuing Proceedings with a Substitute Judge - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Croatia's Amicus Curiae Application - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Custodial Visit - POPOVIĆ et al. Decision on Death of Co-Accused - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Defence Counsel's Motion to Withdraw - NGIRABATWARE Augustin Decision on Denial of Judgement of Acquittal - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Denial of Revocation - STANKOVIĆ Radovan Decision on Disclosure - ŠEŠELJ Vojislav Decision on Disclosure - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Disclosure - KANYARUKIGA Gaspard Decision on Disclosure - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Disclosure - UWINKINDI Jean Decision on Dismissing Prosecution's Ground 1 - BRĐANIN Radoslav Decision on Disqualification - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Duration of Defence Case - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Early Release - RUTAGANIRA Vincent Decision on EDS Disclosure - MLADIĆ Ratko Decision on Evidence of Milan Babić - MARTIĆ Milan Decision on Examination of Witnesses - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Exclusion of Evidence - BAGOSORA et al. (Military I) Decision on Exclusion of Evidence - KANYARUKIGA Gaspard Decision on Exhibit P105 - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Expert Witness - POPOVIĆ et al. Decision on Expunging a Submission from the Record - MUVUNYI Tharcisse Decision on Expunging Disclosure - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Extension of Assignment of Counsel - NIYITEGEKA Eliézer Decision on Extension of Mandate - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Decision on Extension of Time - HATEGEKIMANA Idelphonse Decision on Extension of Time - MILUTINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Extension of Time - RENZAHO Tharcisse Decision on Extension of Time for Notice of Appeal - GALIĆ Stanislav Decision on Extension of Time for Respondent's Briefs - ŠAINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Fair Trial and Presumption of Innocence - MLADIĆ Ratko Decision on False Testimony - KAREMERA et al. Decision on First Amended Notice of Appeal - ŠAINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Flaten's Testimony - BIZIMUNGU et al. (Government II) Decision on Fresh Evidence - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Further Extension of Time to File a Notice of Appeal - MLADIĆ Ratko Decision on Further Investigations - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Further Investigations - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Holbrooke Agreement - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Hostage-Taking - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Impeachment - POPOVIĆ et al. Decision on Indictment - UWINKINDI Jean Decision on Indigence - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Instigating Contempt Proceedings - ŠEŠELJ Vojislav Decision on Inter Partes Proceedings in Rule 86 Matters - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Interlocutory Appeal - ZIGIRANYIRAZO Protais Decision on Interlocutory Appeal - KVOČKA et al. Decision on Interlocutory Appeal - BRĐANIN & TALIĆ Decision on Interlocutory Appeal - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Decision on Interlocutory Appeal - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Decision on Interlocutory Appeal - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Interlocutory Appeal - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Interlocutory Appeal on EDS - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Interlocutory Appeal on Questions of Law - BAGOSORA et al. (Military I) Decision on Interlocutory Appeals - NGEZE & NAHIMANA Decision on Investigations of False Testimony - RUTAGANDA George Decision on Issuance of Subpoenas - HALILOVIĆ Sefer Decision on JCE III - BRĐANIN Radoslav Decision on JCE III Foreseeability - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Joinder - GOTOVINA et al. Decision on Joinder - TOLIMIR et al. Decision on Joint Criminal Enterprise - RWAMAKUBA André Decision on Judicial Notice - BAGOSORA et al. (Military I) Decision on Judicial Notice - MILOŠEVIĆ Dragomir Decision on Judicial Notice - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Judicial Notice - NIKOLIĆ Momir Decision on Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts - MLADIĆ Ratko Decision on Jurisdiction - GOTOVINA et al. Decision on Jurisdiction - DELIĆ Rasim Decision on Jurisdiction - ŠEŠELJ Vojislav Decision on Jurisdictional Appeals - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Karadzic's Request to Participate in the Appeal Hearing - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Lawyer-Client Privilege - POPOVIĆ et al. Decision on Leave to Appeal - RUTAGANDA George Decision on Leave to Appeal - NTAGERURA André Decision on Leave to Appeal - KVOČKA et al. Decision on Leave to Appeal - ORIĆ Naser Decision on Leave to Appeal (Defence) - GALIĆ Stanislav Decision on Leave to Appeal (Prosecution) - GALIĆ Stanislav Decision on Leave to Respond to Oral Arguments - BRALO Miroslav Decision on Legal Aid - KVOČKA et al. Decision on Legal Assistance - KAMUHANDA Jean de Dieu Decision on Legality of Arrest - TOLIMIR Zdravko Decision on Length of Defence Case - ORIĆ Naser Decision on Medical Aid in Montenegro - STRUGAR Pavle Decision on Modalities of Self-Representation - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Decision on Modification of Provisional Release - ŠAINOVIĆ & OJDANIĆ Decision on Modified Provisional Release - HARADINAJ et al. Decision on Motion for Clarification - NIYITEGEKA Eliézer Decision on Motion for Clarification - MILOŠEVIĆ Slobodan Decision on Motion for Extension of Time to File Notice of Appeal - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Motion for Severance - BAGOSORA et al. (Military I) Decision on Motion for Stay - ŠAINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Motion to Strike - NIKOLIĆ Momir Decision on Motion to Strike Appeal Brief - NIZEYIMANA Ildéphonse Decision on Motion to Vacate Appointment of Counsel - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Motion to Void Trial Chamber Decisions - NYIRAMASUHUKO et al. (Butare) Decision on Motions - BLAŠKIĆ Tihomir Decision on Motions - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Motions for Acquittal - HADŽIHASANOVIĆ & KUBURA Decision on Motions to Annul and Reconsider - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Motions to Present Additional Evidence - NALETILIĆ & MARTINOVIĆ Decision on Motions to Strike - UWINKINDI Jean Decision on Motions to Strike and Word Limit - HARTMANN Florence Decision on Motions to Strike Parts of Response Brief - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Nathan Dershowitz Participation - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Decision on Non-compliance with Disclosure Obligation - KORDIĆ & ČERKEZ Decision on Non-Compliance with Obligation to Cooperate - NGIRABATWARE Augustin Decision on Notice of Appeal - BOŠKOSKI & TARČULOVSKI Decision on Obtaining and Disclosing Statements - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Page Limits - KRNOJELAC Milorad Decision on Participation in Oral Argument - BRĐANIN Radoslav Decision on Permanent Restraining Orders - GOTOVINA et al. Decision on Post-Hearing Submissions - MUVUNYI Tharcisse Decision on Postponement of Appeal Hearing - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Postponement of Trial - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Preserving and Providing Evidence - DELALIĆ et al. (Čelebići) Decision on Prosecution Request for a Scheduling Order - BAGARAGAZA Michel Decision on Provisional Release - MILUTINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Provisional Release - SIMATOVIĆ Franko Decision on Provisional Release - MILUTINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Provisional Release - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Provisional Release - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Provisional Release - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Provisional Release - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Provisional Release - HARADINAJ et al. Decision on Provisional Release - ČERMAK & MARKAČ Decision on Provisional Release - STANIŠIĆ Mićo Decision on Provisional Release - HARAQIJA & MORINA Decision on Provisional Release - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Provisional Release - TODOVIĆ & RAŠEVIĆ Decision on Provisional Release - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Provisional Release - STANIŠIĆ & SIMATOVIĆ Decision on Provisional Release - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Provisional Release - MILUTINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Provisional Release - MILOŠEVIĆ Dragomir Decision on Provisional Release - RAŠIĆ Jelena Decision on Provisional Release - HARADINAJ et al. Decision on Provisional Release - LIMAJ et al. Decision on Provisional Release - ŠAINOVIĆ & OJDANIĆ Decision on Provisional Release - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Provisional Release - TOLIMIR Zdravko Decision on Provisional Release on Compassionate Grounds - STRUGAR Pavle Decision on Pseudonyms of Witnesses - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Psychological Examination - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Rebuttal Evidence - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Rebuttal Material - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Reconsideration - LUKIĆ & LUKIĆ Decision on Reconsideration - PERIŠIĆ Momčilo Decision on Reconsideration - STANIŠIĆ & ŽUPLJANIN Decision on Reconsideration - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Reconsideration and Clarification - NYIRAMASUHUKO et al. (Butare) Decision on Reconsideration etc. - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Reconsideration of Appeal Judgement - ŽIGIĆ Zoran Decision on Reconsideration of Decision for Review - NIYITEGEKA Eliézer Decision on Redacted Versions of Decisions - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Redacted Versions of Rule 86(F) Filings - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Reducing Time for the Prosecution Case - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Referral - MUNYARUGARAMA Pheneas Decision on Referral - MEJAKIĆ et al. Decision on Referral - HATEGEKIMANA Idelphonse Decision on Referral - KANYARUKIGA Gaspard Decision on Referral - MUNYAKAZI Yussuf Decision on Referral - LUKIĆ & LUKIĆ Decision on Referral - TODOVIĆ & RAŠEVIĆ Decision on Referral - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Refreshing Witness Memory - HADŽIHASANOVIĆ & KUBURA Decision on Refusal to Grant Access - HADŽIHASANOVIĆ et al. Decision on Refusal to Grant Provisional Release - MRKŠIĆ Mile Decision on Rejoinder Evidence - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Relocation - NTAGERURA André Decision on Reopening Appeal - STRUGAR Pavle Decision on Reopening Prosecution Case - GOTOVINA et al. Decision on Request for Clarification - NIKOLIĆ Dragan Decision on Request for Conference with Former Legal Team - MUSEMA Alfred Decision on Request for Review of Order - KORDIĆ & ČERKEZ Decision on Request for Status Conference - NGIRABATWARE Augustin Decision on Request of NATO for Review - MILUTINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Request of the USA for Review - MILUTINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Request to Stay Proceedings - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Rescinding Protective Measures - KAMUHANDA Jean de Dieu Decision on Review - NGIRABATWARE Augustin Decision on Review - ŠEŠELJ Vojislav Decision on Review - GOTOVINA et al. Decision on Review - NALETILIĆ Mladen Decision on Review - BARAYAGWIZA Jean-Bosco Decision on Review - DELIĆ Rasim Decision on Review - NIYITEGEKA Eliézer Decision on Review and Reconsideration - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Revocation of Referral - UWINKINDI Jean Decision on Right to Be Present - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Rule 92 bis Evidence - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Sanctions - NSHOGOZA Léonidas Decision on Scheduling Order - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Scope of Partial Retrial - HARADINAJ et al. Decision on Second Amended Notice of Appeal - ŠAINOVIĆ et al. Decision on Self-Representation - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Decision on Severance - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Statement of Deceased Witness - KORDIĆ & ČERKEZ Decision on Stay of Procedure and Assignment of Counsel - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Stay of Provisional Release - STANIŠIĆ & SIMATOVIĆ Decision on Subpoena - BIZIMUNGU et al. (Government II) Decision on Subpoena Application - KRSTIĆ Radislav Decision on Subpoenaing Tolimir - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Substitute Judge and New Material - KAREMERA et al. Decision on Supplementing Appeal Brief - BRALO Miroslav Decision on Supplementing Appeal Brief - NALETILIĆ & MARTINOVIĆ Decision on Termination of Appellate Proceedings for Gvero - POPOVIĆ et al. Decision on the Course of Proceedings - STANIŠIĆ & SIMATOVIĆ Decision on the Outcome of Proceedings - DELIĆ Rasim Decision on Time and Page Extensions for Response - GALIĆ Stanislav Decision on Time and Page Limits - BRĐANIN Radoslav Decision on Time for Filing Brief - NIKOLIĆ Momir Decision on Time Limits - NIYITEGEKA Eliézer Decision on Time-Limit - TADIĆ Duško Decision on Translation - PRLIĆ et al. Decision on Translation of Exhibits - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Trial Date - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Trial Date - NGIRABATWARE Augustin Decision on Trial Schedule - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Understanding English - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Decision on Validity of Appeal - ŠEŠELJ Vojislav Decision on Variation of Appeal - HARAQIJA & MORINA Decision on Variation of Protective Measures - MILOŠEVIĆ Dragomir Decision on Voir Dire and Statements of the Accused - NTAHOBALI & NYIRAMASUHUKO Decision on Whether to Continue or Restart Trial - NYIRAMASUHUKO et al. (Butare) Decision on Withdrawal of Co-Counsel - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Decision on Witness List - NYIRAMASUHUKO et al. (Butare) Decision re Prosecution Witnesses - NIYITEGEKA Eliézer Decision re Review and Counsel - NIYITEGEKA Eliézer Decision Refusing Leave to Appeal - MILUTINOVIĆ Milan Decision Refusing Leave to Appeal - ŠAINOVIĆ & OJDANIĆ Decision Refusing Leave to Appeal - ŠAINOVIĆ & OJDANIĆ Decision Regarding Additional Funds - MILUTINOVIĆ et al. Decision Regarding Disclosure and Additional Evidence - NGIRABATWARE Augustin Decision Regarding Expedited Adjudication - STANIŠIĆ & ŽUPLJANIN Decision Regarding False Testimony - NTAKIRUTIMANA and NTAKIRUTIMANA Decision Regarding Indictment and Speedy Trial - MUGIRANEZA Prosper Decision Regarding Leave and Extensions - KORDIĆ & ČERKEZ Decision Regarding Leave to Amend Indictment - KAREMERA et al. Decision Regarding Leave to Amend Indictment - BIZIMUNGU et al. (Government II) Decision Regarding Pleadings in Appeal - BLAGOJEVIĆ & JOKIĆ Decision Regarding Recusal of Judge - STANIŠIĆ & ŽUPLJANIN Decision Regarding Use of Languages - TOLIMIR Zdravko Deposition Decision - KUPREŠKIĆ et al. Interlocutory Decision on Jurisdiction - BOŠKOSKI & TARČULOVSKI Interlocutory Decision on Jurisdiction - TADIĆ Duško JCE Decision - MILUTINOVIĆ et al. Judgement on Request of Croatia for Review - BLAŠKIĆ Tihomir Judgement on Sentencing Appeal - NIKOLIĆ Momir Judgement on Sentencing Appeal - MUCIĆ et al. (Čelebići) Judgement on Sentencing Appeal - BRALO Miroslav Judgement on Sentencing Appeal - DERONJIĆ Miroslav Judgement on Sentencing Appeal - BABIĆ Milan Judgement on Sentencing Appeal - NIKOLIĆ Dragan Judgement on Sentencing Appeal - TADIĆ Duško Judgement on Sentencing Appeal - JOKIĆ Miodrag Jurisdiction Decision - BOŠKOSKI & TARČULOVSKI Mistrial Decision - STANIŠIĆ & ŽUPLJANIN Nobilo Contempt Appeal Judgement - ALEKSOVSKI Zlatko Oral Decision on Additional Evidence - KAMUHANDA Jean de Dieu Order Expunging Annexes - NAHIMANA et al. (Media case) Order Granting Page Extension - KVOČKA et al. Order in Relation to the Appeal Hearing - ŠEŠELJ Vojislav Order on Additional Evidence - DELALIĆ et al. (Čelebići) Order on Assignment of Counsel - NGIRABATWARE Augustin Order on Extension of Time - MILOŠEVIĆ Slobodan Order on Extension of Time - MILUTINOVIĆ Milan Order on Notice of Appeal - RENZAHO Tharcisse Order on Recovery of Legal Funds - PRLIĆ et al. Order on Variation of Protective Measures - KORDIĆ & ČERKEZ Order re Witnesses on Appeal - DELALIĆ et al. (Čelebići) Order to Government for Release of Judge - NGIRABATWARE Augustin Order to the Registrar on Access - RUTAGANDA George Order to Vary Protective Measures - BRĐANIN Radoslav Public Decision on Rule 70 - MILOŠEVIĆ Slobodan Public Redacted Version of the "Decision on a Motion to Vacate the Trial Judgement and to Stay Proceedings" Filed on 30 April 2018 - MLADIĆ Ratko Reasons for Appeal Judgement - SERUSHAGO Omar Reasons for Decision on Refusal to Order Joinder - MILOŠEVIĆ Slobodan Reconsideration Appeal Decision - PRLIĆ et al. Reconsideration Decision - NZABONIMANA Callixte Reconsideration Decision - UWINKINDI Jean Reconsideration of Jurisdiction Decision - ŠEŠELJ Vojislav Referral Decision - TODOVIĆ Savo Referral Decision - UWINKINDI Jean Review Decision - BLAŠKIĆ Tihomir Review Decision - RADIĆ Mlađo Review Decision - ŠLJIVANČANIN Veselin Review Decision - ŽIGIĆ Zoran Review Decision - LUKIĆ & LUKIĆ Review Decision - LUKIĆ Sreten Review Decision - NIYITEGEKA Eliézer Review Decision Concerning Payment - NSHOGOZA Léonidas Review Judgement - ŠLJIVANČANIN Veselin Review of the Registrar's Decision on Means - PRLIĆ et al. Rule 115 Decision (Former Counsel) - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Rule 11bis Decision - BAGARAGAZA Michel Rule 15bis(D) Decision - KAREMERA et al. Rule 15bis(F) Decision - KAREMERA et al. Rule 98bis Appeal Decision - KRAJIŠNIK Momčilo Rule 98bis Judgement - KARADŽIĆ Radovan Sanction Decision - KAREMERA et al. Vujin Contempt Appeal Judgement - TADIĆ Duško Writ of Mandamus Decision - GOTOVINA et al.
966. The Appeals Chamber understands Župljanin to argue that the Trial Chamber erred by convicting him pursuant to the third category of joint criminal enterprise for Župljanin’s JCE III Crimes because these crimes are more serious than the JCE I Crimes. The Appeals Chamber, however, observes that this contention is essentially premised on his suggestion to depart from the existing jurisprudence on the basis of his misconstruction of the law. More specifically, Župljanin argues that the Appeals Chamber should depart from its jurisprudence and establish an additional requirement within the subjective element of the third category of joint criminal enterprise, namely that in cases involving “violent foreseeable crimes” the accused must have “intended recourse to violent means” to implement the joint criminal enterprise. However, the Appeals Chamber is not persuaded by this contention for the following reasons.
 See Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 33; Vasiljević Appeal Judgement, para. 99; Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 228.
 See e.g. Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 33, referring to Vasiljević Appeal Judgement, para. 101 (quoting Tadić Appeal Judgement, para. 228); Brđanin Appeal Judgement, para. 411; Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 65; Kvoćka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 83.
 Popović et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 1369. See Đorđević Appeal Judgement, para. 468.
 Tolimir Appeal Judgement, para. 514; Đorđević Appeal Judgement, para. 906; Šainović et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 1061, 1557; Brđanin Appeal Judgement, paras 365, 411.
 Župljanin Appeal Brief [Stojan [Ž]]upljanin’s Appeal Brief, 19 August 2013 (confidential; public redacted version filed on 23 August 2013, re-filed on 21 April 2016)]], para. 219.
 Župljanin Appeal Brief, paras 223, 225.
998. […] Contrary to Župljanin’s argument, the Trial Chamber was not required to establish whether it was foreseeable that a specific group would commit the specific crime, as long as it found that it was foreseeable to Župljanin that a crime outside the common purpose might be perpetrated by one or more of the persons used by him (or by another member of the JCE) in order to carry out the actus reus of the crimes forming part of the common purpose and he willingly took the risk that the crime might be committed by joining or continuing to participate in the JCE.
 Župljanin Appeal Brief [Stojan [Ž]]upljanin’s Appeal Brief, 19 August 2013 (confidential; public redacted version filed on 23 August 2013, re-filed on 21 April 2016)]], para. 205.
 See Tolimir Appeal Judgement, para. 514; Đorđević Appeal Judgement, para. 906; Šainović et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 1061, 1557; Brđanin Appeal Judgement, paras 365, 411.
599. With respect to Stanišić’s argument that customary international law does not permit convictions for specific intent crimes pursuant to the third category of joint criminal enterprise, the Appeals Chamber observes that in its analysis of customary international law in the Tadić case, it specifically considered the provisions of the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings and the ICC Statute cited by Stanišić. It found, on the basis on numerous sources from both civil and common law jurisdictions, including post‑World War II cases, that the third category of joint criminal enterprise has existed as a mode of liability in customary international law since at least 1992 and that it applies to all crimes. While Stanišić asserts that the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings, the ICC Statute, and the post‑World War II cases on which he relies do not expressly provide for convictions for specific intent crimes on the basis of the third category of joint criminal enterprise or even the third category of joint criminal enterprise itself, this does not undermine the Appeals Chamber’s analysis of customary international law and conclusion in the Tadić case, which has been consistently confirmed in the Tribunal’s subsequent jurisprudence. In the Appeals Chamber’s view, Stanišić merely relies upon the absence of express support in the sources he identifies, without showing that they give rise to cogent reasons to depart from the Tribunal’s existing jurisprudence.
 Đorđević Appeal Judgement, para. 919; Brđanin Appeal Decision of 19 March 2004, para. 6. It must further be shown that the accused willingly took the risk that the crime might be committed (see supra [Stanišić and Župljanin Appeal Judgement]], para. 595).
 Tadić Appeal Judgement, paras 221‑223, referring to Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings [International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombing, U.N. Doc. A/RES/52/164; 37 ILM 249 (1998); 2149 UNTS 284, entered into force 23 May 2001]], art. 2(3)(c), ICC Statute [Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by a Diplomatic Conference in Rome on 17 July 1998]], art. 25(3). See Stanišić Appeal Brief [Appellant’s Brief on behalf of Mićo Stanišić, 19 August 2013]], paras 355-363.
 Tadić Appeal Judgement, paras 194‑226. See Đorđević Appeal Judgement, para. 81; Rwamakuba Appeal Decision on Joint Criminal Enterprise of 22 October 2004 [André Rwamakuba v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR72.4, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide, 22 October 2004]], paras 10, 17, referring to Tadić Appeal Judgement, paras 188, 193.
 See Stanišić Appeal Brief, paras 356-358, 361-366.
 Popović et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 1672, referring to Đorđević Appeal Judgement, para. 81; Martić Appeal Judgement, para. 80; Brđanin Appeal Judgement, para. 405. See Rwamakuba Appeal Decision on Joint Criminal Enterprise of 22 October 2004, paras 14-25. In this regard, the Appeals Chamber also recalls that “it is not required to demonstrate that every possible combination between crime and mode of liability be explicitly allowed by, or have precedents in, customary international law” (Đorđević Appeal Judgement, para. 81 (emphasis omitted)).
 Đorđević Appeal Judgement, para. 83, referring to Čelebići Appeal Judgement, para. 24. See Tolimir Appeal Judgement, para. 226; Popović et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 1674.
 See Popović et al Appeal Judgement, para. 1674, referring to Đorđević Appeal Judgement, para. 24, Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 108.
918. In addition, Župljanin’s argument that the Trial Chamber was required to find that he intended coercive acts under the first category of joint criminal enterprise because the actus reus of the JCE I Crimes requires that the act inducing the departure be criminal, finds no support in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal. […] Contrary to Župljanin’s unreferenced assertion, the jurisprudence of the Tribunal does not require that persons be displaced as a result of criminal acts.
 In relation to Župljanin’s argument that measures authorised or permitted under the law of armed conflict, such as a lawful and legitimate attack on a village, do not satisfy the actus reus of forcible transfer (Župljanin Appeal Brief [Stojan [Ž]]upljanin’s Appeal Brief, 19 August 2013 (confidential; public redacted version filed on 23 August 2013, re-filed on 21 April 2016)]], para. 8.), the Appeals Chamber observes that Župljanin does not point to any evidence to suggest that the displacements in this case were justified under international humanitarian law. The Appeals Chamber therefore dismisses Župljanin’s argument as undeveloped and demonstrating no error.
1096. The Appeals Chamber recalls that the choice of remedy lies within its discretion, in light of Article 25 of the Statute. Accordingly, in the interests of fairness to Stanišić and Župljanin, balanced with considerations of public interest and the administration of justice, and taking into account the nature of the offences and the circumstances of the case at hand, the Appeals Chamber finds it appropriate to refrain from entering new convictions on appeal for these crimes.
 See Jelisić Appeal Judgement, para. 73. Article 25(2) of the Statute provides that “[t]]he Appeals Chamber may affirm, reverse or revise the decisions taken by the Trial Chambers”. See also Šainović et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 1604, fn. 5269 (with references).
 See Jelisić Appeal Judgement, paras 73, 77; Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, paras 153-154, 192; Krstić Appeal Judgement, paras 220-227, 229, p. 87; Stakić Appeal Judgement, paras 359-367, pp 141-142; Naletilić and Martinović Appeal Judgement, paras 588-591, p. 207. See also Šainović et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 1604, 1766.
 See The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al., Case No. ICTR-98-42-A, Decision on Ntahobali’s Request for Review of Registrar’s Decisions, 21 February 2014 (confidential and ex parte), public redacted version issued on 23 May 2016 (“Nyiramasuhuko et al. Decision”), para. 16; Karadžić ICTY Appeals Chamber Decision of 25 July 2014 [Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Case No. IT-95-5-5/18-AR73.13, Decision on Appeal from Decision on Indigence, 25 July 2014 (confidential and ex parte), public redacted version issued on 2 December 2014], para. 4; Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić et al., Public Redacted Version of the 25 July 2013 Decision on Slobodan Praljka’s Motion for Review of the Registrar’s Decision on Means, 28 August 2013 (“Prlić et al. Decision”), paras. 6, 30; Prosecutor v. Zdravko Tolimir, Case No. IT-05-88/2-AR73.2, Decision on Zdravko Tolimir’s Appeal Against the Decision of Trial Chamber II on the Registrar’s Decision Concerning Legal Aid, 12 November 2009 (confidential and ex parte), public redacted version filed on 28 February 2013 (“Tolimir Decision”), para. 8; Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvočka et al., Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Decision on Review of Registrar’s Decision to Withdraw Legal Aid from Zoran Žigić, 7 February 2003 (“Kvočka et al. Decision”), para. 13.
 Tolimir Decision, para. 9 and references cited therein.
 Remuneration Policy [Remuneration Policy for Persons Representing Indigent Accused in Appeals Proceedings before the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, 21 March 2016], para. 7.
 Decision on the Registry’s Request for Observations Regarding Preparation of the Notice of Appeal, 4 May 2016, p. 1 (“the Registry has the primary responsibility in the determination of matters relating to remuneration of counsel”); Nyiramasuhuko et al. Decision [The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al., Case No. ICTR-98-42-A, Decision on Ntahobali’s Request for Review of Registrar’s Decisions, 21 February 2014 (confidential and ex parte), public redacted version issued on 23 May 2016], para. 17; Tolimir Decision [Prosecutor v. Zdravko Tolimir, Case No. IT-05-88/2-AR73.2, Decision on Zdravko Tolimir’s Appeal Against the Decision of Trial Chamber II on the Registrar’s Decision Concerning Legal Aid, 12 November 2009 (confidential and ex parte), public redacted version filed on 28 February 2013], paras. 8, 9 and referenced cited therein.
 See Article 19 of the Statute of the Mechanism (“Statute”). See also Nyiramasuhuko et al. Decision, para. 14; Prosecutor v. Nikola Šainović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-A, Decision on Nebojša Pavković’s Motion for Stay of Proceedings, 2 March 2010, para. 12; In Re. André Ntagerura, Case No. ICTR-99-46-A28, Decision on Motion for Leave to Appeal the President’s Decision of 31 March 2008 and the Decision of Trial Chamber III Rendered on 15 May 2008, 11 September 2008, para. 12.
 Nyiramasuhuko et al. Decision, para. 21 (“[t]he Appeals Chamber is of the view that judicial economy is best served in the particular circumstances of this case by disposing of the merits of this part of the Request for Review rather than remitting the matter to the Registrar”).
 Article 19(4)(d) of the Statute. See also Rule 43 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Mechanism.
 Directive [Directive on the Assignment of Defence Counsel, MICT/5, 14 November 2012], Article 1. The Appeals Chamber also recalls that, under Articles 6(B) and 6(C) of the Directive, an accused who lacks the means to remunerate counsel shall have the right to have counsel assigned to him and paid for by the Mechanism and that, for an accused who has the means to partially remunerate counsel, the Mechanism shall pay that portion of his defence costs which the accused does not have sufficient means to cover, as determined in accordance with the Registry Policy for Determining the Extent to which an Accused is able to Remunerate Counsel.
 UN Guidelines on Access to Legal Aid, para. 41(e).
 Prlić et al Decision [Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić et al., Public Redacted Version of the 25 July 2013 Decision on Slobodan Praljka’s Motion for Review of the Registrar’s Decision on Means, 28 August 2013], para. 35; Kvočka et al. Decision [Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvočka et al., Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, Decision on Review of Registrar’s Decision to Withdraw Legal Aid from Zoran Žigić, 7 February 2003], para. 12.
 See Review Decision of 23 January 2008 [Eliézer Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-14-R, Decision on Third Request for Review, 23 January 2008], para. 13 and references cited therein.
 The Appeals Chamber observes that, in material respects, Rule 71(B) of the Rules tracks the language of Rules 66(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“ICTY”) and for the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (“ICTR”) (collectively, “ad hoc Tribunals”). Consequently, the Appeals Chamber finds the Appeals Chamber jurisprudence of the ad hoc Tribunals interpreting Rule 66(B) of the ICTY and ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence highly relevant in its interpretation of Rule 71(B) of the Rules. See Phénéas Munyarugarama v. Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-09-AR14, Decision on Appeal against the Referral of Phénéas Munyarugarama’s Case to Rwanda and Prosecution Motion to Strike, 5 October 2012, para. 6.
 See Prosecutor v. Miroslav Bralo, Case No. IT-95-17-A, Decision on Miroslav Bralo’s Motion for Admission of Additional Evidence (confidential), 12 January 2007 (“Bralo Decision of 12 January 2007”), para. 25; Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on Motions Relating to the Appellant Hassan Ngeze’s and the Prosecution’s Requests for Leave to Present Additional Evidence of Witnesses ABC1 and EB (public redacted version), 1 December 2006 (“Nahimana et al. Decision of 1 December 2006”), para. 16; The Prosecutor v. Théoneste Bagosora et al., Case No. ICTR-98-41-AR73, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Relating to Disclosure Under Rule 66(B) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 26 September 2006 (“Bagosora et al. Decision of 26 September 2006”), para. 9, n. 35; Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-A, Decision on the Prosecution’s Motion to be Relieved of Obligation to Disclose Sensitive Information Pursuant to Rule 66(C) (confidential), 27 March 2003 (“Krstić Decision of 27 March 2003”), p. 4.
 Bagosora et al. Decision of 26 September 2006, para. 10.
 Prosecutor v. Édouard Karemera et al., Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR73.11, Decision on the Prosecution’s Interlocutory Appeal Concerning Disclosure Obligations (public redacted version), 23 January 2008, para. 12. See also Édouard Karemera et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR73.18, Decision on Joseph Nzirorera’s Appeal from Decision on Alleged Rule 66 Violation, 18 May 2010, para. 13.
 See Bralo Decision of 12 January 2007, para. 25; Nahimana et al. Decision of 1 December 2006, para. 16; Krstić Decision of 27 March 2003, p. 4.
 Cf. Rule 76(B) of the Rules.
 Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Mićo Stanišić’s Motion for Access to All Confidential Materials in the Brđanin Case, 24 January 2007 (“Brđanin Decision of 24 January 2007”), para. 10. See Prosecutor v. Nikola Šainović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-A, Decision on Vlastimir Đorđević’s Motion for Access to Transcripts, Exhibits and Documents, 16 February 2010 (“Šainović Decision of 16 February 2010”), para. 19.
 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Vujadin Popović et al., Case Nos. IT-05-88-A & IT-09-92-T, Decision on Motion by Ratko Mladić for Access to Confidential Material, 20 February 2013 (“Popović Decision of 20 February 2013”), p. 2; Tharcisse Muvunyi v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-2000-55A-A, Decision on Ildephonse Nizeyimana’s Request for Access to Closed Session Transcripts, 31 March 2011 (“Muvunyi Decision of 31 March 2011”), para. 3; Šainović Decision of 16 February 2010, para. 9. See also Eliézer Niyitegeka v. Prosecutor, Case No. MICT-12-16, Decision on Niyitegeka’s Urgent Request for Orders Relating to Prosecution Witnesses, 29 January 2016, para. 8; Prosecutor v. Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, Case No. MICT-13-33-R86.2, Second Decision on Motion for Access to Confidential Material from the Nshogoza Case, 9 November 2015, para. 4.
 See Brđanin Decision of 24 January 2007, para. 14.
 See Popović Decision of 20 February 2013, p. 2; Muvunyi Decision of 31 March 2011, para. 3; Brđanin Decision of 24 January 2007, para. 12.
 Brđanin Decision of 24 January 2007 [Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A, Decision on Mićo Stanišić’s Motion for Access to All Confidential Materials in the Brđanin Case, 24 January 2007], para. 14.
 Šainović Decision of 16 February 2010 [Prosecutor v. Nikola Šainović et al., Case No. IT-05-87-A, Decision on Vlastimir Đorđević’s Motion for Access to Transcripts, Exhibits and Documents, 16 February 2010], para. 10 and references cited therein.
 Ildephonse Hategekimana v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-00-55B-A, Decision on Ildephonse Hategekimana’s Motion for Cooperation and Judicial Assistance, 5 May 2011, para. 4; Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on Jean-Bosco Barayagwiza’s Extremely Urgent Motion for Leave to Appoint an Investigator, 4 October 2005, p. 4. See also Ferdinand Nahimana et al. v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-99-52-A, Decision on Appellant Ferdinand Nahimana’s Motion for Assistance from the Registrar in the Appeals Phase, 3 May 2005, para. 3.
 See Trial Judgement, para. 6 (“The prodigious amount of evidence in this case included the testimony of 434 witnesses who appeared before the Chamber, the evidence in writing of 152 other witnesses and a total of 11, 469 exhibits representing 191, 040 pages. A total of 48, 121 transcript pages recorded the daily proceedings and 94, 917 pages of filings were submitted to the Chamber. The scope of the Indictment and the high profile of the Accused conjointly contributed to the unprecedented nature of this case.”). In addition, the Trial Judgment is 2,607 pages long, including annexes.
24. […] The Appeals Chamber notes that, having concluded that Hadžić could not be physically present at trial, the Trial Chamber did not then proceed to assess whether a restriction of Hadžić’s right to be present at trial was in service of a sufficiently important objective and whether that restriction would impair Hadžić’s right to be present no more than necessary to accomplish the identified objective. The Appeals Chamber cannot agree with the Trial Chamber’s approach. Recalling the law as set out above, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Afanđe dissenting, considers that, only once the Trial Chamber had determined whether a proportionate means of continuing the trial existed, i.e. in such a way as to impair Hadžić’s rights no more than necessary to accomplish the objective of a fair and expeditious completion of the proceedings, should the Trial Chamber have considered whether the circumstances of this case “[militate] against the continuation of proceedings and in favour of terminating or staying the case”. As such, the Appeals Chamber, Judge Afanđe dissenting, finds that by failing to apply the proportionality principle, the Trial Chamber erred in law.
 Impugned Decision [Prosecutor v. Goran Hadžić, Case No. IT-04-75-T, Consolidated Decision on the Continuation of Proceedings, 26 October 2015], paras 62-63. The Appeals Chamber notes that the Prosecution does not challenge this aspect of the Impugned Decision.
 The Appeals Chamber observes that despite recalling the correct law in this respect, the Trial Chamber failed to apply the proportionality principle when considering whether the trial could be resumed even in Hadžić’s absence. See Impugned Decision, para. 61, fn. 284.
 See supra, paras 8, 24.
(ii) where the Prosecutor, in the view of the Single Judge, has a conflict of interest with respect to the relevant conduct, direct the Registrar to appoint an amicus curiae to investigate the matter and report back to the Single Judge as to whether there are sufficient grounds for instigating proceedings for false testimony.
11. A party seeking to institute proceedings for false testimony bears “the onus to prove the alleged falsehood”. Despite having been instructed to provide references to transcripts from the Ntakirutimana case that, in his view, amounted to false testimony, Ntakirutimana does not specify which portions of Witness HH’s testimony he alleges are false. This omission weighs against establishing that strong grounds exist for believing that Witness HH knowingly and wilfully gave false testimony before the ICTR.
See also paragraph 17 and footnote 57.
 See The Prosecutor v. Eliézer Niyitegeka, Case No. MICT-12-16, Decision on Request to Initiate Proceedings against Witness GGH in Niyitegeka for Giving False Testimony under Solemn Declaration and for Interfering with the Administration of Justice, 26 February 2014 (“Niyitegeka Decision of 26 February 2014”), para. 10; The Prosecutor v. Eliézer Niyitegeka, Case No. MICT-12-16, Decision on Request to Initiate Proceedings against Witness KJ in Niyitegeka for Giving False Testimony under Solemn Declaration and for Interfering with the Administration of Justice, 28 January 2014 (“Niyitegeka Decision of 28 January 2014”), para. 17.
 See The Prosecutor v. Édouard Karemera et al., Case No. ICTR-98-44-AR.91, Decision on “Joseph Nzirorera’s Appeal from Refusal to Investigate [a] Prosecution Witness for False Testimony” and on Motion for Oral Arguments, 22 January 2009 (“Karemera et al. Decision of 22 January 2009”), paras. 17-20.
 Eliézer Niyitegeka v. The Prosecutor, Case No. ICTR-96-14-A, Judgement, 9 July 2004, para. 253.
 See Order of 13 October 2015 [Prosecutor v. Elizaphan and Gérard Ntakirutimana, Case No. MICT-12-17, Order for Submissions, 13 October 2015 (confidential)], para. 10; Order of 12 November 2014 [Prosecutor v. Elizaphan and Gérard Ntakirutimana, Case No. MICT-12-17, Order for Submissions in Relation to the Motion to Appoint an Amicus Curiae to Investigate the Apparent Recantation of a Witness Testifying before the ICTR Pursuant to Rule 108(B), 12 November 2014 (confidential)], paras. 12, 13.

References: art. 2
 art. 25
 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.