new england school of law international war …new england school of law international war crimes...

NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAWINTERNATIONAL WAR CRIMES PROJECT

RWANDA GENOCIDE PROSECUTION

MEMORANDUM FOR THEOFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR

ISSUE No.3:

A SURVEY OF THE DOMESTIC JURISDICTIONS INFLUENCING THE RWANDAWAR CRIMES TRIALS: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF FRENCH, BRITISH,

AMERICAN AND CANADIAN LEGAL SOURCES

Prepared by Robyn WoodUCWR

May 1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction and Summary of Conclusion 1

A. Issue 1

B. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 1

1. Summary of Accomplishments of the ICTR 2

2. The Significance and Impact of the ICTY on the ICTR 2

C. Summary of Conclusion 3

II. Survey of Jurisdictions 3

A. Countries Cited 4

1. Graph 1: Domestic Jurisdictions Cited 5

B. International Jurisdictions Cited 6

1. Graph 2: International Jurisdictions 7

C. Procedure vs. Substance 9

1. ICTY Trial Chamber Motions

a. Graph 3: Domestic Jurisdictions 11

b. Graph 4: International Jurisdictions 12

2. ICTY Trial Chamber Judgments



3. Appeals Chamber



4. ICTR: Graph 9 17

D. Jurisdictions Whose Legal Sources Were Controlling Compared to

Jurisdictions Whose Sources Were Cited But Whose Rule of Law Was Not

Followed 18

1. ICTY Motions

a. Graph 10: Domestic Jurisdictions

b. Graph 11: International Jurisdictions

19

20

2. ICTY Trial Chamber Judgments



3. Appeals Chamber



4. ICTR: Graph 17 25

E. Correlation Between Nationality of the Judges and the Countries Whose

III.

Laws Were Used as Sources

Conclusion

26

42

Appendix A: List of Countries Cited

Appendix B: List of Other Jurisdictions Cited

Appendix C: Charts Showing Results and Cites for Each Decision Rendered

ii

INDEX

Volume I

UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENTS

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda Cases

1. The Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu: Judgment

2. The Prosecutor v. Jean Kambanda: Judgment

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Motions

3. The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic a/k/a "Dule": Decision on the Defence Motion on

Jurisdiction

4. The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic a/k/a "Dule": Decision on the Prosecutor's

Motion Requesting Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses

5. The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic a/k/a "Dule": Separate Opinion of Judge Stephen

on the Prosecutor's Motion Requesting Protective Measures for Victims and

Witnesses

6. The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic a/k/a "Dule": Separate Opinion of Judge Vohrah

on Prosecution Motion for Production of Defence Witness Statements

7. The Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic a/k/a "Pavo", Hazim Delic, and

Esad Landzo a/k/a "Zenga" (Celebici): Decision on the Accused Mucic's Motion

for Particulars

8. Celebici: Decision on Motion for Provisional Release Filed by the Accused Zejnil

Delalic

9. Celebici: Decision on the Motion by the Accused Zejnil Delalic for the

Disclosure of Evidence

111

10. Ce1ebici: Decision of the President on the Prosecutor's Motion for the Production

of Notes Exchanged Between Zejnil Delalic and Zdravko Mucic

11. Celebici: Decision on the Motions by the Prosecution for Protective Measures for

the Prosecution Witnesses Pseudonymed "B" Through to "M"

12. Celebici: Decision on the Motion on Presentation of Evidence by the Accused,

Esad Landzo

13. Celebici: Decision on the Prosecution's Motion or the Redaction of the Public

Record

14. Celebici: Decision on Hazim Delic's Motions Pursuant to Rule 73

15. Celebici: Decision on Zdravko Mucic's Motion for the Exclusion of Evidence

16. Celebici: Decision on the Motions for the Exclusion of Evidence by the Accused,

Zejnil Delalic

17. Celebici: Decision on the Motion of the Prosecution for the Admissibility of

Evidence

18. Celebici: Decision on the Prosecution's Oral Requests for the Admission of

Exhibit 155 into Evidence and for an Order to Compel the Accused, Zdravko

Mucic, to Provide a Handwriting Sample

19. Celebici: Decision on the Motion of the Joint Request of the Accused Persons

Regarding the Presentation of Evidence, Dated 24 May, 1998

20. Celebici: Decision of the Bureau on Motion on Judicial Independence (President

McDonald, Vice-President Shahabudeen, Judge Cassese and Judge Jorda)

21. The Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskic, Mirjan Kupreskic, Vlatko Kupreskic, Drago

Josipovic, Dragan Papic, Vladimir Santic a/kJa "Vlado": Decision on Order of

Presentation of Evidence

22. The Prosecutor v. Ivica Rajic a/kJa Viktor Andric: Review of the Indictment

Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence

23. The Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic: Decision on the Objection of the Republic of

Croatia to the Issuance of Subpoena (Excerpts only)

24. The Prosecutor v. Simo Drljaca and Milan Kovacevic: Decision on Defence

Motion for Provisional Release

iv

25. The Prosecutor v. Simo Drljaca and Milan Kovacevic: Decision on Prosecutor's

Request to File an Amended Indictment

Judgments

26. The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic a/k/a "Dule": Opinion and Judgment (Excerpts

only)

27. The Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovic: Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen

Volume II

28. The Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic a/k/a "Pavo", Hazim Delic, and

Esad Landzo a/k/a "Zenga" (Celebici): Judgement

29. The Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija: Judgement

Volume III

Appeals Chamber Cases

30. The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic a/k/a "Dule": Decision on the Defence Motion for

Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction

31. The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic a/k/a "Dule": Opinion Individuelle du Juge

Sidhwa Concernant l' Appel Interjete Contre l'Exception Prejudicelle

d'Incompetence Soulevee par la Defense.

32. The Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovic: Joint Separate Opinion of Judge McDonald

and Judge Vohrah

33. The Prosecutor v. Drazen Erdemovic: Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge

Cassese


Li


Stephen

v

36. The Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic: Separate Opinion of Judge Adolphus G.

Karibi-Whyte

37. The Prosecutor v. Milan Kovacevic: Decision Stating Reasons for Appeals

Chamber's Order of 29 May 1998

Statutes

38. Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda, annexed to S.c. Res. 955, U.N.

SCaR, 49th Sess., 3453rd mtg., U.N. Doc. SIRES/955 (1994).

Miscellaneous Documents

39. Fact Sheet, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, available

at ICTY website: http://www.un.org/icty/glance/fact.htm

40. First-Ever Judgement on Crime ofGenocide Due 2 September, International

Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, available at ICTR website:

http://www.un.org/ictr/english/pressrel/backgrnd.html

41. List and Status ofICTR - Detainees, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,

available at ICTR website:

http://www.un.org/ictr/english/factsheets/Detainees.html

42. The ICTR Governing Bodies, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda,

available at ICTR website: http://www.un.org/ictr/english/factsheetslintro.html

Law Reviews and Journals

43. Payam Akhavan, The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda: The Politics

and Pragmatics ofPunishment, 90 AJ.I.L. 501 (1996).

44. Catherine Cisse, Prosecuting International Crimes: An Inside View: The

International Tribunalsfor the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda: Some Elements

of Comparison, 7 Transnt'l L & Comtp Prbs 103 (1997).

Books

vi

45. 1 Virginia Morris & Michael P. Scharf, The International Criminal Tribunalfor

Rwanda (1998).

46. Michael P. Scharf, Balkan Justice (1997).

News Items

46. James McKinley, Ex-Rwandan Premier Gets Life in Prison on Charges of

Genocide in '94 Massacres, N.Y. Times, September 5, 1998.

VII

1. Introduction and Summary of Conclusion

A. Issue

This memorandum surveys domestic jurisdictions influencing the Rwanda War

Crime Trials. I

B. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (hereinafter ICTR) was

established to bring to justice those who instigated and carried out the mass murders of

Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda during 1994.2 These murders began following the

death of Prime Minister Juvenal Habyarimana on the evening of April 6, 1994.3 The next

day several government officials and opposition leaders, as well as ten Belgian members

of the United Nations' UNAMIR contingent, were murdered in retribution for Mr.

Habyarimana's death.4 Over the course of the next few months between 500,000 and one

million of Rwanda's Tutsi minority population was murdered5, eventually spurring the

international community into action.

The form of action chosen was the establishment of the ICTR at the request of the

new Rwandan government.6 The ICTR was modeled after the International Criminal

Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (hereinafter ICTY), although the tribunals are not

mirror-images of one another.7 Importantly, while the Trial Chambers operate

1 See United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Office of the Prosecutor, ResearchTopics No. three, Facsimile dated January 12, 1999. The topic as framed by the Office of the Prosecutorrequested a comparative analysis of French, British, American and Canadian legal sources. So many otherjurisdictions have also influenced this Tribunal and the International Criminal Tribunal for the FormerYugoslavia, that it seemed appropriate to include all those jurisdictions in this survey.2 See Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda, S/RES/955 (Reproduced at Tab No. 38).3 Virginia Morris and Michael P. Scharf, The International Criminal Tribunalfor Rwanda, Vol. 1,53(1998). (Reproduced at Tab No. 45)4 Id. at 54.5 Id. at 58.6 For details and interpretation of events leading to the decision to form a Tribunal to prosecute theRwandan war crimes, see Payam Akhavan, The International Criminal Tribunalfor Rwanda: The Politicsand Pragmatics ofPunishment, 90 A.J.I.L. 501 (Reproduced at Tab No. 43), and Morris & Scharf, supranote 3, at 59.7 Catherine Cisse, Symposium:Prosecuting International Crimes: An Inside View: The InernationalTribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda: Some Elements of Comparison, 7 Transnt'l L & Contp

independently of one another, there is only one Appeals Chamber which hears appeals

from both the ICTR and the ICTY8

1. Summary of accomplishments of the ICTR

So far, only two trials have been completed by the ICTR, those of Jean-Paul

Akayesu and Jean Kambanda. Akayesu, the former mayor of the Taba district of

Rwanda, is the first person ever to be convicted of the crime of genocide.9 Kambanda,

who was the prime-minister of Rwanda for three months while genocide was being

committed, pled guilty and became the first person to be sentenced for the crime of

genocide. lo Currently, there are three trials underway and another twenty-six people in

the custody of the ICTR awaiting trial. II

2. The significance and impact of the ICTY on the ICTR

The Yugoslav Tribunal set the precedent for the ICTR. It came first in time and

some believe that the ICTR would never have been established were it not for the fact

that there was a tribunal for Yugoslavia already in existence. 12 There are close ties

between the two tribunals. First, the ICTR's structure is the same as that of the ICTy 13

The two Tribunals' statutes are nearly identical. Second, the ICTR rules are modeled

upon and are nearly identical to those of the ICTy l4 Finally, the tribunals share an

Appeals Chamber and a Prosecutor. 15 It was intended from the inception of the ICTR

that the two tribunals would have certain bonds to maintain a unified legal approach,16

Prbs 103,8 (1997). (Reproduced at Tab No. 44). For a more comprehensive view of differences betweenthe two Tribunals, see Akhavan, supra note 6, at 502.8 Akhavan, supra note 6, at 503.9 See United Nations Press Release at http://www.un.org/ictr/english/pressrellbackgrnd.html.10Id. See also James McKinley, Ex-Rwandan Premier Gets Life in Prison on Charges of Genocide in '94Massacres, N.Y. Times, September 5,1998. (Reproduced at Tab No. 46)II List and Status of ICTR - Detainees, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, available at ICTRwebsite: http://www.un.orglictr/english/factsheets/Detainees.html. (Reproduced at Tab No. 41)12 Akhavan, supra note 6, at 50l.13 Cisse, supra note 7, at 8.14 Id.

15 Akhvan, supra note 6, at 503.16 Id. at 503, and Cisse, supra note 7, at 8.

2

implying that the two tribunals are bound to the precedent of the common Appeals

Chamber, and that the trial chambers' decisions would be persuasive authority in each

Tribunal. For this reason, the decisions of the ICTY have been included in this survey in

addition to the decisions handed down by the ICTR and the Appeals Chamber.

C. Summary of Conclusions

1. Fifty-six domestic jurisdictions were cited by the ICTY, ICTR and Appeals

Chamber.

2. The United Kingdom, the United States and the European Court of Human Rights

were the most frequently cited jurisdictions.

3. In substantive matters, Germany's laws and cases were also important

references. I7

4. The Tribunals' judges were more impressed with local law than with law from

their native jurisdictions.

II. Survey of Jurisdictions

A total of thirty-seven decisions of the ICTY, ICTR and Appeals Chamber have

been examined in this survey. These are all the decisions in which the judges have

referred to domestic or other international jurisdictions for guidance to date. Twenty

seven of these are decisions of the ICTY, two are from the ICTR and eight are those of

the Appeals Chamber. There is a distinct discrepancy in the number of decisions from

the ICTY and ICTR. One reason is that while the ICTR has only completed two trials

(with three in progress),18 the ICTY has completed three trials (one trial having four

defendants) and has four trials in progress. 19 And in comparison to the ICTR's twenty

six other indictments and arrest warrants, the ICTY has issued indictments and arrest

17 Germany's influence is heavily weighted by Judge Cassese's extensive reliance on German cases in hisdissent on Erdemovic's appeal. (Reproduced at Tab No. 33). In that decision alone, Judge Cassese citedGerman law a total of 38 times.18 Supra note 11.19 See International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Fact Sheet, athttp://www.un.org/icty/glance/fact.htm (Reproduced at Tab No. 39 )

3

warrants for fifty-four other individuals,2o indicating the difference in the amount of

jurisprudence generated by the tribunals so far. Another reason for the incongruity of the

number of decisions used is that the ICTY has made virtually all documents relating to

the various cases available on its website. 21 This includes indictments, pre-trial motion

orders and final judgments. Thus, in an examination of which jurisdictions influenced

the tribunal, the pre-trial orders were included. These are relevant as the procedural

decisions made by the ICTY invariably effect the outcome of a case at trial. Of the

decisions in which the ICTY judges have referenced other jurisdictions, twenty-three of

those have been pre-trial orders and only four are judgments.

A. Countries cited

An impressively large number of jurisdictions have been included in the judges'

searches for guidance from other sources. A total of fifty-six countries' legal precedent

was cited at least once in one of the thirty-seven decisions. The diversity of the list is

broad, covering countries from virtually every continent and legal system.22

Graph 1 shows the domestic jurisdictions cited, and clearly indicates which

countries laws have been most referred to by the judges of the tribunals. While a large

number of countries laws have been examined, many of them have only been referred to

once, while others have been referenced repeatedly. At a glance one can see that three

countries -- Germany, the United Kingdom and the United States -- are by far the most

often cited. A second tier of frequently cited states consists of Australia, Canada, France,

Italy, and Yugoslavia. 23 The vast majority of jurisdictions are referenced only a few

times.

2° Id.21 http://www.un.orglicty. The ICTR website (http://www.un.orglictr) has only two documents issued bythe court available. These are the Akayesu and Kambanda judgments, reproduced at Tabs x and yrespectively. None of the pre-trial proceedings have been made accessible to the public at this point.22 For a complete list of domestic jurisdictions cited see Appendix A attached. Also, the numbers and letterpreceding the country names and the other jurisdictions listed in Appendix B, represent the countries andother bodies cited for the purposes of the illustrative graphs.23 Laws cited here refer to those of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as well as those ofthe current Serbian Republic. For the purposes of this survey, with the exception of the InternationalMilitary Tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo, other post-Second World War tribunals have been groupedwith the home country's laws. For example, cases of the British Military Tribunals are considered to belaw of the United Kingdom.

4

B. International Jurisdictions Cited

In addition to the domestic jurisdictions cited, numerous references were made to

international courts, claims tribunals and the historic military tribunals of Nuremberg and

Tokyo. The two most often cited courts are the International Court of Justice and the

European Court of Human Rights. Of these courts and commissions, some are related in

purpose to the war crimes tribunals examined here. The human rights bodies applying

the European Convention on Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the African Charter of

Human and People's Rights, as well as the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, deal with

issues similar to the war crimes before the ICTY and ICTR.

A number of claim commissions, which also hear cases, are cited as well. Due to

the nature of these international courts and commissions, they were most often cited for

their procedural interpretation rather than substantive rulings, as will be shown below.

6

African Charter on Human and People's Rights 1American Convention on Human Rights 3Court of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on Torture 10European Court of Human Rights 96European Court of Justice 4French-Italian Conciliations Commission 3Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 12International Court of Justice 46International Covenant on Civil and Political Rigt 23International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg 16International Military Tribunal at Tokyo 9Iran-US Claims Tribunal 2Italian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission 1Permanent Court of International Justice 6Torture Convention 1Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1US-German Mixed Claims Commission 1US-Great Britain Claims Commission 1US-Panama General Claims Commission 1

C. Procedure vs. Substance

A distinction has been made between sources cited for procedure and sources

cited for substance to see whether certain countries' laws were referred to more for one

purpose than the other. In considering the jurisdictions whose laws were considered to

aid in matters of procedure, Graphs 3, 5 and 7 all show similar results. Looking only at

the red procedure bars, those graphs indicate that the United Kingdom and the United

States were consistently the two countries most often cited in matters of procedure.

However, the international courts and tribunals are also frequently cited in procedural

matters.

Graphs 3,4,5 and 6 show the references to procedure and substance in the Trial

Chambers of the ICTY further divided into the pre-trial motion orders and judgments.

The data for Graphs3 and 4 consist of twenty-three pre-trial decisions of the ICTY Trial

Chambers. In those twenty-three decisions, only six references were made to foreign

jurisdictions for substantive issues and those were to the United States, the International

Court of Justice, European Court of Human Rights and the International Military

Tribunal at Nuremberg.24 However, a large number of national jurisdictions were cited

in procedural matters, even though the European Court of Human Rights was the

preferred jurisdiction in that regard after the United Kingdom and United States.

In their judgments (Graphs 5 and 6), the Tribunal looked much more to foreign

jurisdictions for substantive matters than for procedure. Also, perhaps in an effort to

balance the influence of the common law tradition, many references were made to civil

law jurisdictions, particularly France, Germany, The Netherlands and Yugoslavia, even

though the United Kingdom and United States still dominated. Cites to Yugoslavian law

and cases perhaps reflect the Tribunal's desire to be seen as fair, since Yugoslav

24 These references were made in the cases of The Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic et aI., The Prosecutor v.Ivica Rajic alk/a Viktor Andric and The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic alk/a "Dule". (See documentsreproduced at Tab Nos. 20, 22 and 3). The issues for which the judges turned to foreign substantivesources were subject-matter jurisdiction, review of an indictment, the definition of war crimes and whethera nexus exists between crimes against humanity and war crimes. In the Delalic case (Celebici) theEuropean Court of Human Rights used a two-part test to establish impartiality of a tribunal. This is asubstantive test of a procedural issue, and for the purposes of this survey has been considered substantive.(p. 4 of document reproduced at Tab No. 20).

9

defendants are less likely to object when the Tribunal acts consistently with their own

country's rules and laws.

The Appeals Chamber (Graphs 7 and 8) also looked to a broad range of

jurisdictions. Based on this information, the Appeals Chamber is much more inclined to

cite foreign jurisdictions in matters of substance than in matters of procedure. An

important and surprising observation is that the Appeals Chamber has yet to cite an

international body in a matter of substance, though this is likely to change after the

Appeals Chamber begins to hear decisions on appeals of convictions and acquittals.

The graph showing the jurisdictions examined by the Rwandan Tribunal is based

on the Akayesu case. While references from both the Kambanda case and the Akayesu

case were compiled into data for this chart, it must be indicated that the Kambanda case

made only one reference to a foreign jurisdiction (Rwanda) for a procedural issue. The

graph therefore primarily shows the jurisdictions examined by the judges in the Akayesu

case. The vast majority of instances where the Tribunal turned to foreign jurisdictions

were in matters of substance, not procedure. Rwanda and France were the dominant

national jurisdictions referred to, while the precedent set by the ICTY appeared to play an

important role in the ICTR's considerations as well. The Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals

are also both cited for matters of substance.

10

D. Jurisdictions Whose Legal Sources Were Controlling Compared to Jurisdictions

Whose Sources Were Cited But Whose Rule of Law Was Not Followed.

The second grouping of graphs shows when foreign jurisdictions were merely

referenced as opposed to when their laws were followed. The prominent result of the

graphs is that very few foreign jurisdictions' laws were followed. In almost all instances,

the laws were merely referred to for comparison.

The ICTY Trial Chambers in the pre-trial decisions both conformed with and

referenced the laws of the United Kingdom, the United States and the European Court of

Human Rights more than any other jurisdiction. In their judgments, far fewer cases

(relatively) were followed than in the motions. The laws of Germany were followed

more than those of any other jurisdiction, although the United Kingdom and United

States were almost as influential. (See Graph 12).

Graphs 15 and 16, which show the tendency to citing or following laws

referenced in the Appeals Chamber, indicate very few instances where the Appeals

Chamber has been swayed by any foreign jurisdiction's laws. Of note here is that where

the Appeals Chamber has followed foreign jurisdiction law, it has most often been

precedent set by other international entities as opposed to states.

In the case of the Rwanda Tribunal, the results are similar to those of the ICTY

and the Appeals Chamber. The principal observation in the case of the ICTR is that

where the judges look to the ICTY for guidance, they do not necessarily follow the laws

established by the ICTY trial chambers. (See Graph 16).

18

E. Correlation Between Nationality of the Judges and the Countries Whose Laws

Were Used as Sources

The last question to be addressed in this survey is whether the nationality of each

Judge played a significant role in determining the laws applied by the Tribunals. It must

be said that this information is not necessarily determinative, as most decisions were

handed down by more than one judge. In those cases, all judges have been attributed

with the foreign citations from that decision, meaning that a judge may be attributed with

citations not necessarily chosen or examined by him or her.

Of the fifteen judges who have examined foreign jurisdictions for guidance and

interpretations of law, only four have not yet turned to their native jurisdictions for

guidance. Those who have restrained thus far, are Judges Aspegren, Li, Pillay, and

Shahabuddeen. The rest of the judges have turned to their native laws at least once,

however, for the most part this has not been predominant.

Of the judges who seemed most swayed by their native laws are Judges Stephen

(Australia), and Cassese (Italy). Judge Stephen is interesting because while his

references to Australian law are few, he is the only judge to have cited British law more

frequently than that of the United States. While he is not a citizen of the United

Kingdom, it must be remembered that Australia is a country of the British

Commonwealth and its laws are based on a common law system based in large part on

that of the United Kingdom.

The dominant trend that emerges among the judges, is that those who are judges

of the ICTY most frequently cite Germany, the former Yugoslavia, the United Kingdom

and the United States. The ICTR judges lean heavily toward the laws of France and

Rwanda.

26

ill. Conclusion

A broad range of jurisdictions have been studied by the judges of the tribunals and

Appeals Chamber. While not often followed, the laws of numerous countries and other

jurisdictions have played some part in the judges' decisions on both procedural and

substantive matters.

There are certain trends regarding the jurisdictions which influence the judges of

the ICTY, ICTR and Appeals Chamber. First, the most often cited jurisdictions are the

United Kingdom, the United States and the European Court of Human Rights. Secondly,

in all three fora, except in pre-trial orders (procedural issues), Germany was also an

important source of law. Thirdly, for pre-trial proceedings, the jurisdictions were most

often cited for procedural issues, while in judgments handed down, foreign laws were

more often referred to for substantive matters.

Fourthly, in the one Rwanda Tribunal decision so far to significantly use foreign

material in its decision, the precedent of the ICTY has been important also. As the ICTR

hears more cases and more issues arise, if the Akayesu decision and legislative history

and intent are fair indication, it is probable that the ICTR will continue to use the ICTY

precedent.

Lastly, it appears that the judges are not overly influenced by their native

jurisdictions. The choice of interpretive law was more a function of where the crimes

occurred than where the sitting judge was from.

42

APPENDIX A

1. Argentina2. Austria3. Australia4. Bahama Islands5. Barbados6. Belgium7. Bolivia8. Bosnia9. Brazil10. Canada11. Chile12. China13. Colombia14. Costa Rica15. Denmark16. Ethiopia17. Finland18. France19. Germany20. Greece21. Hong Kong22. India23. Israel24. Italy25. Japan26. Malaysia27. Mexico28. Morocco29. The Netherlands30. New Zealand31. Nicaragua32. Nigeria33. Norway34. Pakistan35. Panama36. Peru37. Poland38. Portugal39. Rwanda40. Scotland41. Senegal42. Singapore43. Spain44. Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia

45. Somalia46. South Africa47. Soviet Union48. Sweden49. Switzerland50. Tanzania51. Uganda52. United Kingdom53. Uruguay54. USA55. Venezuela56. Zambia

APPENDIXB

A. African Charter on Human and People's RightsB. American Convention on Human RightsC. Court of Justice of the European CommunitiesD. Declaration on TortureE. European Court of Human RightsF. European Court of JusticeG. French-Italian Conciliations CommissionH. Inter-American Commission on Human Rights1. International Court of JusticeJ. International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsK. International Military Tribunal at NurembergL. International Military Tribunal at TokyoM. Iran-US Claims TribunalN. Italian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionO. Permanent Court of International JusticeP. Torture ConventionQ. Universal Declaration of Human RightsR. US-German Mixed Claims CommissionS. US-Great Britain Claims CommissionT. US-Panama General Claims Commission

Appeals Chamber Jurisdictions Cited and Followed

cited allowed~rgentina

~ustria 1~ustralia 7Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelaium 7BoliviaBosniaBrazil 1Canada 8 1Chile 1China 2ColombiaCosta RicaDenmark 1Ethiopia 3Finland 2France 7Germany 49Greece 1Hong KongIndia 2Israel 5 1Italy 23Uapan 3Malaysia 6 1Mexico 1Morocco 1The Netherlands 3 1New Zealand 1Nicaragua 2Niaeria 3Norway 7PakistanPanama 1Peru 1Poland 3PortugalRwandaScotlandSeneaalSingaporeSpain 2Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 11Somalia 1South Africa 3Soviet Union 2Sweden 4Switzerland 1lTanzania 1UgandaUnited Kingdom 57 !Uruguay

Appeals Chamber Jurisdictions Cited and Followed

USA 27 2Venezuela 1Zambia

African Charter on Human and People's RightsAmerican Convention on Human Rights 1Court of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on Torture 6 3European Court of Human Rights 9 1European Court of Justice 1French-Italian Conciliations Commission 1 2Inter-American Commission on Human Rights 1International Court of Justice 18 3International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg 3International Military Tribunal at TokvoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission 1Permanent Court of International Justice 3 21T0rture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Appeals Chamber Total References

iUruguay

k;ited ollowed procedure substance~rgentina

~ustria 1 1~ustralia 7 2 5Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgium 7 2 5BoliviaBosniaBrazil 1 1Canada 8 1 1 8Chile 1 1China 2 2ColombiaCosta RicaDenmark 1 1Ethiopia 3 3Finland 2 2France 7 1 6Germany 49 2 47Greece 1 1Hong KongIndia 2 2Israel 5 1 3 3Italy 23 1 22!Japan 3 3Malaysia 6 1 4 3Mexico 1 1Morocco 1 1iThe Netherlands 3 1 4New Zealand 1 1Nicaragua 2 2Nigeria 3 2 1Norway 7 7PakistanPanama 1 1Peru 1 1Poland 3 3PortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpain 2 2Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 11 1 10Somalia 1 1South Africa 3 3Soviet Union 2 2Sweden 4 4Switzerland 1 1iTanzania 1 1UgandaUnited Kingdom 57, 5 52,

Appeals Chamber Total References

USA 27 2 10 29!Venezuela 1 1lZambia

!African Charter on Human and People's Riahts!American Convention on Human Riahts 1 1Court of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on Torture 6 3 9European Court of Human Rights 9 1 10European Court of Justice 1 1French-Italian Conciliations Commission 1 2 2Inter-American Commission on Human Riahts 1 1International Court of Justice 18 3 21International Covenant on Civil and Political Riahts 2 2International Military Tribunal at Nurembera 3 3International Militarv Tribunal at TokvoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission 1 1Permanent Court of International Justice 3 2 5trorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RiahtsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Countries Cited

rgentina 2ustria 7ustralia 23

Bahama Islands 1Barbados 1Belgium 13Bolivia 1Bosnia 1Brazil 1Canada 21Chile 3China 4Colombia 1Costa Rica 2Denmark 4Ethiopia 3Finland 4France 36Germanv 78Greece 2Hong Kong 1India 3Israel 11Italy 30apan 4

Malavsia 11Mexico 1Morocco 1rrhe Netherlands 9New Zealand 4Nicaragua 2Nigeria 7Norway 9Pakistan 5Panama 1Peru 2Poland 3Portugal 1Rwanda 9Scotland 2Senegal 1Singapore 1Spain 6Socialist Federal Rp.public Yugoslavia 24Somalia 1South Africa 9Soviet Union 3Sweden 4Switzerland 3Tanzania 1Uganda 1United Kingdom 135iUruguay 1USA 139Venezuela 2iZambia 1

ICTR Jurisdictions Cited

cited ollowed Iprocedure substanceArgentina 1 1Bolivia 1 1Chile 1 1France 8 1 1 8Israel 1 1 2Peru 1 1Rwanda 6 3 1 8Seneaal 1 1Spain 1 1United Kinal 2 2Uruauav 1 1Venezuela 1 1

ICJ 1 1NuremberQ 4 1 5rrokvo 2 2

ICTY 10 2 5 7

ICTY Judgments

cited allowed procedure ~ubstance

Argentina 1 1Austria 2 2Australia 6 3 3Bahama Islands 1 1Barbados 1 1Belgium 3 1 2BoliviaBosnia 1 1BrazilCanada 4 1 3Chile 1 1China 2 1 1Colombia 1 1Costa RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFrance 18 3 15Germany 17 5 4 18GreeceHong Kong 1 1India 1 1Israel 1 1 2Italy 4 2 2Japan 1 1MalaysiaMexicoMoroccorrhe Netherlands 4 1 5New ZealandNicaraguaNigeria 1 1Norway 2 2Pakistan 2 2PanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingapore 1 1Spain 1 1Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 9 1 1 9SomaliaSouth Africa 3 2 1Soviet UnionSwedenSwitzerland[TanzaniaUganda 1 1IUnited Kinqdom 35 3 20 18IUruguay

ICTY Judgments

USA 44 4 10 38VenezuelaZambia 1 1

African Charter on Human and People's Rights 1 1 1American Convention on Human Rights 1 1Court of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on Torture 1 1European Court of Human Rights 29 4 2 31European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human Rights 6 2 8International Court of Justice 7 1 5 3International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 10 2 1 11International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg 4 2 1 5International Military Tribunal at Tokyo 7 7Iran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International Justice 1 1Torture Convention 1 1Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1 1US-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission 1 1

ICTY Pretrial Motions and Orders

cited allowed procedure substanceArgentinaAustria 4 4Australia 8 2 10Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgium 3 3BoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 8 9ChileChinaColombiaCosta Rica 2 2Denmark 3 3EthiopiaFinland 2 2France 2 2Germany 6 1 7Greece 1 1Hong KongIndiaIsrael 1 1Italy 3 3UapanMalavsia 4 4MexicoMorocco:The Netherlands 1 1New Zealand 3 3NicaraguaNigeria 2 1 2NorwayPakistan 3 3PanamaPeruPolandPortugal 1 1RwandaScotland 1 1 2SenegalSingaporeSpain 2 2Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 3 3SomaliaSouth Africa 2 1 3Soviet Union 1 1r:::--SwedenSwitzerland 2 2IranzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom 26 12 39Uruguay I

ICTY Pretrial Motions and Orders

USA 47 15 61 1~enezuela

~ambia

African Charter on Human and People's Rights~mericanConvention on Human Rights 1 1Court of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human Rights 37 16 49 1European Court of Justice 3 3French-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human Rights 3 3International Court of Justice 12 4 12 4International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 6 3 9International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg 2 1 1International Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims Tribunal 2 2Italian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International Justice!Torture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims Commission 1 1US-Great Britain Claims Commission 1 1US-Panama General Claims Commission

Judge Lennart Aspegren (Sweden)

rgentina 1ustriaustralia

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBolivia 1BosniaBrazilCanadaChile 1ChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFrance 9GermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsrael 2ItalyJapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeru 1PolandPortugalRwanda 9ScotlandSenegal 1SingaporeSpain 1Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia~omalia

South AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandianzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom 2Uruguay 1IUSA

Zambia\veneZUela

Judge Antonio Cassese (Italy)

J. rgentina 1ustria 3ustralia 2

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgium 2BoliviaBosnia 1Brazil 1Canada 4Chile 1China 1Colombia 1Costa RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFrance 5Germany 44Greece 1Hong KongIndia 1Israel 2Italy 14apan 1

MalaysiaMexicoMoroccorrhe Netherlands 4New ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistan 1PanamaPeru 1PolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpain 1Socia:ist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 10SomaliaSouth Africa 2Soviet Union 1Sweden 1Switzerland 1."anzania 1Uganda 1United Kingdom 25,Uruguay,USA 23iVenezuelaZambia 1

JUdge Laity Kama (Senegal)

rgentina 1ustriaustralia

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBolivia 1BosniaBrazilCanadaChile 1ChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFrance 9GermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsrael 2Italyapan

MalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeru 1PolandPortugalRwanda 9ScotlandSenegal 1SingaporeSpain 1Socialist Federal Re~ublic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandfanzaniaUganda,United Kingdom 2iUruguay 1IUSAIVenezuela 1iZambia

Judge Adolphus Godwin Karibi-Whyte (Nigeria)

\ArQentina\Austria 2\Australia 7Bahama Islands 2Barbados 2BelQium 2BoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 7ChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmark 1EthiopiaFinland 1France 10Germanv 12GreeceHong KonQ 2IndiaIsraelItalv 5UapanMalavsiaMexicoMoroccoThe Netherlands 2New ZealandNicaraguaNiQeria 5Norway 1Pakistan 1PanamaPeruPolandPortuQal 1RwandaScotlandSeneQalSingapore 2SpainSocialist Federal Republic YUQo~lavia 6SomaliaSouth Africa 4Soviet Union 1SwedenSwitzerland 1r'fanzaniaU~anda

United KinQdom 49jUruguavjUSA 76iVenezuelaiZambia

Judge Li Haopei (China)

ArgentinaAustriaAustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 1ChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFrance 1Germany 1GreeceHong KongIndiaIsraelItalvJapanMalavsiaMexicoMoroccojThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorway 1PakistanPanamaPeruPoland 1PortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 1SomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenISwitzerland/Tanzania!UgandaIUnited Kingdom 2IUruguayiUSA 6!Venezuela!Zambia

JUdge Richard George May (United Kingdom)

rgentina 1ustria 2ustralia 1

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosnia 1BrazilCanadaChile 1China 1Colombia 1Costa RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFrance 2Germany 6GreeceHong KongIndia 1Israel 1Italy 1Japan 1MalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe Netherlands 2New ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistan 1PanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotland 1SenegalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 6SomaliaSouth Africa 2Soviet UnionSwedenSwitzerland(anzaniaUganda 1,United Kingdom 12IUruguayJUSA 12iVenezuela IiZambia 1

Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (United States)

IArgentinalAustria 1lAustralia 13Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgium 6BoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 11Chile 1China 3ColombiaCosta Rica 2Denmark 2Ethiopia 3Finland 3France 10Germany 23Greece 1Hong KongIndia 2Israel 3Italy 10Japan 3Malaysia 8Mexico 1Morocco 1rt"he Netherlands 5New Zealand 3Nicaragua 2Nigeria 1Norway 7Pakistan 3Panama 1PeruPoland 2PortugalRwandaScotland 1SenegalSingaporeSpain 4Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 8Somalia 1South Africa 4Soviet Union 1Sweden 3$witzerland 1rt"anzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom I 49

Zambia

Judge Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba (Zambia)

Argentina 1Austria 2Australia 1Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosnia 1BrazilCanadaChile 1China 1Colombia 1Costa RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFrance 2Germany 6GreeceHong KongIndia 1Israel 1Italy 1Japan 1MalaysiaMexicoMoroccoIThe Netherlands 2New ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistan 1PanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotland 1SenegalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 6SomaliaSouth Africa 2Soviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandranzaniaUganda 1United Kingdom 12UruguayUSA I 12Venezuela I iZambia 1

: 1:-

Judge Elizabeth Odio Benito (Costa Rica)

rgentinaustria 3ustralia 15

Bahama Islands 2Barbados 2Belgium 6BoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 14ChileChinaColombiaCosta Rica 2Denmark 2EthiopiaFinland 2France 22Germany 15GreeceHong Kong 2IndiaIsraelItaly 9apan

Malaysia 1MexicoMoroccoThe Netherlands 3New Zealand 3NicaraguaNigeria 5Norway 2Pakistan 5PanamaPeruPolandPortugal 1RwandaScotland 1SenegalSingapore 2Spain 2Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 8SomaliaSouth Africa 4Soviet UnionSwedenSwitzerland 1ranzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom 61Uruguay

91 I

,ZambiaIvenezuela

Judge Navanethem Pillay (South Africa)

!Argentina 1!Austria!AustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBolivia 1BosniaBrazilCanadaChile 1ChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFrance 9GermanyGreeceHong KomIIndiaIsrael 2ItaIv~apan

MalaysiaMexicoMoroccorrhe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeru 1PolandPortugalRwanda 9ScotlandSenegal 1SingaporeSpain 1Socialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandianzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom 2Uruguay 1USAIVenezuela 1IZambia

Judge Saood Jan (Pakistan)

IArgentina[Austria 3!Australia 16Bahama Islands 2Barbados 2Belgium 6BoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 16ChileChinaColombiaCosta Rica 2Denmark 2EthiopiaFinland 2France 22Germanv 15GreeceHong Kona 2IndiaIsraelItaly 9lJapanMalaysia 1MexicoMoroccoThe Netherlands 3New Zealand 3NicaraguaNiaeria 5Norway 2Pakistan 5PanamaPeruPolandPortuaal 1RwandaScotland 1SenegalSingapore 2Spain 2Socialist Federal Republic Yuaoslavia 8lSomalialSouth Africa 3Soviet Union 1SwedenSwitzerland 1ranzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom 61iUruguayiUSA 91iVenezuelaIZambia

~ ..

Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen (Guyana)

~rgentina

AustriaAustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBolivia -

BosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsraelItalyJapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNiaeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandfanzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom 1UruguayiUSA 1iVenezuelaIZambia

JUdge Rustam Sidhwa (Pakistan)

IArgentina!AustrialAustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBolivia .BosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsrael 1ItalyJapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoIThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwavPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerland(TanzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom 1Uru~uay

jUSA 1;V anezuela!Zambia

;,-'

Judge Ninian Stephen (Australia)

~rgentina

~ustria

Australia 2Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgium 1BoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 3ChileChina 1ColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFrance 6Germany 11GreeceHong KongIndiaIsrael 2ItalyJapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe Netherlands 3New ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorway 1PakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpain 1Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 1SomaliaSouth Africa 1Soviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandTanzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom 28UruguayUSA 25Venezuela !

I

Zambia

" ~,

Judge Lal Chand Vohrah (Malaysia)

'Zambialvenezuela

ArgentinaAustriaAustralia 10Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgium 4BoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 9Chile 1China 3ColombiaCosta RicaDenmark 1Ethiopia 3Finland 2France 8Germany 20Greece 1Hong KongIndia 2Israel 3Italy 9Uapan 3Malaysia 10Mexico 1Morocco 1IThe Netherlands 5New ZealandNicaragua 2Nigeria 1Norway 7PakistanPanama 1PeruPoland 2PortugalRwandaScotland 1SenegalSingaporeSpain 2Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 6Somalia 1South Africa 4Soviet Union 1Sweden 3Switzerland 1rTanzaniaUgandaUnited KinCldom 41Uruguay

,

USA 43, ,

Akayesu: Judgment

~ited lIollowed Iprocedure Isubstance!Argentina 1 1!Austria!AustraliaBelgiumBolivia 1 1BosniaBrazilCanadaChile 1 1ChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFrance 8 1 1 8GermanyGreeceIndiaIsrael 1 1 2ItalyJapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoIThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeru 1 1PolandPortugalRwanda 5 3 8ScotlandSenegal 1 1Spain 1 1Socialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandtranzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom 2 2Uruguay 1 1USAVenezuela 1 1Zambia

I I

Akayesu: Judgment

IAfrican Charter on Human and People's RiahtsIAmerican Convention on Human RiahtsEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RiahtsInternational Court of Justice 1 1International Covenant on Civil and Political RiQhtsInternational Militarv Tribunal at Nuremberg 4 1 5International Military Tribunal at Tokvo 2 2Iran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionnUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

ICTY 10 2 5 7

cited allowed lorocedure IsubstanceIArgentina!AustrialAustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsraelItalyJapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwanda 1 1ScotlandSenegalSin:;JaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSw~den

SwitzerlandlTanzaniaiUganda,United Kingdom I,Uruguay I I

USAlVenezuelalZambia

!African Charter on Human and People's Riahts~merican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NuremberaInternational Military Tribunal at TokvoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International Justicerrorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

ICTY

Tadic: Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction

cited allowed lorocedure !substance!Argentina!Austria!AustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsrael 1 1Italy~apan

MalaysiaMexicoMoroccort"he NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwejenSwitzerland!TanzaniaUgandaIUnited KingdomUruCJuay

Tadic: Decision on the Defence Motion on Jurisdiction

USA 2 1 2 1Venezuela!Zambia

~frican Charter on Human and People's Riahts~merican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of Justice 2 2 2 2International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at Nuremberg 2 1 1International Militarv Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticetTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Tadic: Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion Requesting Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses

cited ollowed Iprocedure ~ubstance

~rgentina

~ustria

~ustralia 4 1 5Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 1 1ChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmark 1 1EthiopiaFinlandFranceGermany 1 1 2Greece 1 1Hong KongIndiaIsraelItalyJapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth Africa 2 2Soviet UnionSWedenSwitzerland 1 1Tanzania!U~anda i,United Kjn~dom 1 5 6Uru~uay I

Tadic: Decision on the Prosecutor's Motion Requesting Protective Measures for Victims and Witnesses

USA 12 12lVenezuelalZambia

~frican Charter on Human and People's RiahtslAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human Riahts 6 2 8European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RiahtsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1 1International Military Tribunal at NuremberaInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International Justice1T0rture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RiahtsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Tadic: Separate Opinion of judge Stephen on the Prosecutor's Motion Requesting Protective Measures for

~ited ollowed Iprocedure ~ubstance

~rgentina

~ustria

Australia 1 1Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanvGreeceHong KonQIndiaIsraelItaly~apan

MalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandTanzaniaUganda IUnited Kingdom I 3 3Uruguay i

Tadic: Separate Opinion of judge Stephen on the Prosecutor's Motion Requesting Protective Measures for

USA 2 2VenezuelaZambia

~frican Charter on Human and People's Rights~merican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human Rights 7 7European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Tadic: Separate Opinion of Judge Vohrah on Prosecution Motion for Production of Defence Witness State

!cited ollowed Iprocedure ~ubstance

lAraentinalAustrialAustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelaiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 1 1ChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsraelItalvlJapanMalavsia 3 3MexicoMoroccoIThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraauaNigeriaNorwavPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortuaalRwandaScotlandSenegalSinaaDoreSpainSocialist Federal ReDublic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandITanzaniaUaandaUnited Kinadom 3 3IUruguay

Tadic: Separate Opinion of Judge Vohrah on Prosecution Motion for Production of Defence Witness State

USAVenezuelaZambia

African Charter on Human and People's RightsAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human Rights 8 8European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1 1International Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokvoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Celebici: Decision on the Accused Mucic's Motion for Particulars

I"'ited allowed Iprocedure IsubstanceArQentinaAustriaAustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelQiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanvGreeceHong KonaIndiaIsraelItalv/JapanMalavsiaMexicoMoroccoh"he NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraQuaNigeriaNorwavPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortuQalRwandaScotlandSeneQalSingaporeSpain~ocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandTanzaniaIUqandaIUnited Kinqdom 1 I 1iUruguay I

Celebici: Decision on the Accused Mucic's Motion for Particulars

USAlVenezuelalZambia

IAfrican Charter on Human and People's RiQhtsIAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RiQhtsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NuremberaInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International Justicerrorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionnUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Celebici: Decision on Motion for Provisional Release Filed by the Accused Zejnil Delalic

jUruguay

cited !followed orocedure substanceraentinaustriaustralia

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelaiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanvGreeceHona KonaIndiaIsraelItalvapan

MalavsiaMexicoMoroccoIThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraauaNi!=leriaNorwavPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortu!=lalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaDoreSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth Africa~ietUnion

SwedenSwitzerlandITanzania IU!=IandaIUnited Kingdom

Celebici: Decision on Motion for Provisional Release Filed by the Accused Zejnil Delalic

USAVenezuelaZambia

African Charter on Human and People's RiahtsAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human Rights 4 8 12European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2 2International Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RiahtsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionnUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Celebici: Decision on the Motion by the Accused Zejnil Delalic for the Disclosure of Evidence

[cited ~o"owed Iprocedure substance~rgentina

~ustria

~ustralia

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsraelItalyJapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwavPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet Union-=--SwedenSwitzerland!TanzaniaIUgandaIUnited Kingdom 1 1iUruguay

Celebici: Decision on the Motion by the Accused Zejnil Delalic for the Disclosure of Evidence

USA 4 2 6lVenezuelalZambia

African Charter on Human and People's RightsAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Celebici: Decision of the President on the Prosecutor's Motion

cited ollowed Iprocedure substanceArgentinaAustriaAustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsraelItalyUapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccorrhe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwavPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingapore~pain

Socialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet Union~

SwedenSwitzerlandTanzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom[Uruguay

Celebici: Decision of the President on the Prosecutor's Motion

USA~enezuela

!Zambia

African Charter on Human and People's RightsAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of Justice 2 2International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims Commission 1 1US-Panama General Claims Commission

Celebici: Decision on the Motions by the Prosecution for Protective Measures for the Prosecution Witness

cited ~ollowed procedure substanceraentinaustriaustralia

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelaiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 1 1ChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmark 1 1EthioDiaFinlandFranceGermanv 1 1GreeceHona KonaIndiaIsraelItaIvaDan

MalaysiaMexicoMoroccoIThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraauaNiaeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortuaalRwandaScotlandSeneaalSinaaDoreSpainSocialist Federal Republic YuaoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSov'et UnionSwedenSwitzerland 1 1!TanzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom I 2 2Uruquav

Celebici: Decision on the Motions by the Prosecution for Protective Measures for the Prosecution Witness

USA 5 3 8lVenezuela!Zambia

African Charter on Human and People's RightsAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human Rights 3 2 5European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 2 2International Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International Justicetrorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Celebici: Decision on the Motion on Presentation of Evidence by the Accused, Esad Landzo

cited ollowed Iprocedure substancergentinaustriaustralia

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanvGreeceHong KongIndiaIsraelItalyapan

MalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeria 1 1NorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandTanzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom 2 2Uruguay

Celebici: Decision on the Motion on Presentation of Evidence by the Accused, Esad Landzo

USA 1 1!VenezuelalZambia

African Charter on Human and People's RiahtsAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1 1International Militarv Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokvoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Celebici: Decision on the Prosecution's Motion for the Redaction of the Public Record

cited allowed !procedure substanceAraentinaAustrialAustralia 1 1Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanvGreeceHona KongIndiaIsraelItaIVJapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccotrhe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraauaNigeriaNorwavPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortuaalRwandaScotland~neaal

Sinaapore!SPainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandrranzania I

I

UqandaUnited KinqdomiUruguay I

Celebici: Decision on the Prosecution's Motion for the Redaction of the Public Record


African Charter on Human and People's RightsAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokvoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Celebici: Decision on Hazim Dela/ic's Motions Pursuant to Rule 73

!cited Ifollowed Iprocedure substanceArQentinaAustria~-ustralia

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelaiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanvGreeceHong KonQIndiaIsraelItalv/JapanMalavsiaMexicoMoroccotThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraQuaNiaeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingapore~pain

Socialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth Africa~ietUnion

SwedenSwitzerlandiTanzania !Uganda!United Kinadom 1 1!Uruquay

Ce/ebiei: Decision on Hazim De/a/ie's Motions Pursuant to Rule 73

USAVenezuelaZambia

African Charter on Human and People's RightsAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Celebici: Decision on Zdravko Mucic's Motion for the Exclusion of Evidence

k:ited ollowed !procedure substanceArgentinaAustria 2 2AustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsraelItalv!JapanMalavsiaMexicoMoroccotrhe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNiQeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSinQaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YUQoslaviaSomaliaSouth Africa~jet Union[SwedenSwitzerlandITanzaniaIUqanda[United Kinqdom 1 1;Uruquay

Celebici: Decision on Zdravko Mucic's Motion for the Exclusion of Evidence

USA[Venezuela~ambia

!African Charter on Human and People's Rights!American Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human Rights 1 3 4European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1 1International Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International Justicerrorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Celebici: Decision on the Motions for the Exclusion of Evidence by the Accused, Zejnil Delalic

!cited ollowed procedure substance~rgentina

~ustria 1 1~ustralia

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsraelItaly!JapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccorrhe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNiQeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingapore~pain

Socialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth Africa~iet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandITanzaniaUClandaIUnited Kingdom 3 3!UruCluay

Celebici: Decision on the Motions for the Exclusion of Evidence by the Accused, ZejniJ Delalic


African Charter on Human and People's RiahtsAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International Justice:Torture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Celebici: Decision on the Motion of the Prosecution for the Admissibility of Evidence

!cited allowed Iprocedure substanceIArQentinalAustriaAustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelQiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 1 1ChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthioDiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHonQ KonQIndiaIsraelItalylJaDanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoFfhe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraQuaNigeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortuQalRwandaScotlandSeneQalSingaporeSDainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandlTanzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom 1 1iUruCluav

Celebici: Decision on the Motion of the Prosecution for the Admissibility of Evidence

USAVenezuelaZambia

African Charter on Human and People's RightsAmerican Convention on Human RiahtsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Celebici: Decision on Prosecution's Oral Requests for the Admission of Exhibit 155...

!cited allowed Iprocedure substance~r~entina

~ustria

~ustralia

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelaium 1 1BoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 1 1ChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthioDiaFinland 1 1FranceGermany 1 1GreeceHon~ Kon~

IndiaIsraelItaly 2 2!JapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoIfhe Netherlands 1 1New ZealandNicaraauaNi~eria 1 1NorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortuaal 1 1RwandaScotlandSeneaalSin~aDore

SpainSocialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 1 1Somalia!South AfricaSoviet Union 1 1SwedenSwitzerland!ranzaniaU~anda IUnited Kin~dom 1 1Uru~uav j i

Celebici: Decision on Prosecution's Oral Requests for the Admission of Exhibit 155...

USA 7 2 9!VenezuelalZambia

~frican Charter on Human and People's Rights~mericanConvention on Human Riahts 1 1Court of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human Rights 2 2European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RiahtsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Riahts 1 1International Military Tribunal at NuremberaInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Celebici: Decision on the Motion of the Joint Request of the Accused Persons ...

!cited ollowed Iprocedure substanceraentinaustriaustralia

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanvGreeceHona KongIndiaIsraelItalvUapanMalavsiaMexicoMoroccorThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNiaeria 1 1NorwavPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSinaaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandffanzaniaUaandaUnited Kinadom IUruquav I I

Celebici: Decision on the Motion of the Joint Request of the Accused Persons ...

USAVenezuelaZambia

African Charter on Human and People's Rights~merican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human Rights 2 1 3European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Celebici: Decision of the Bureau on Motion on Judicial Independence

"'ited allowed Iprocedure substancerqentinaustriaustralia

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelaiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHonq KonqIndiaIsraelItalylJapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccolThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraauaNiqeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortuqalRwandaScotlandSeneqalSinqap.:>reSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandh"anzaniaIU!=landa I I,United KinQdom iiUruguay

Celebici: Decision of the Bureau on Motion on Judicial Independence

USAVenezuelaZambia

African Charter on Human and People's RightsAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human Rights 1 1European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Kupreskic: Decision on Order of Presentation of Evidence

!cited ~o"owed Iprocedure substanceArgentinaAustriaAustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelaiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHong KonaIndiaIsraelItalvJapanMalavsiaMexicoMoroccoIThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNiaeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSinaaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YuaoslaviaSomaliaSouth Africa 1 1~ietUnion

SwedenSwitzerland!TanzaniaiUgandaiUnited Kinadom:Uruguay

Kupreskic: Decision on Order of Presentation of Evidence

USA~enezuela

~ambia

~frican Charter on Human and People's RiQhts!American Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Militarv Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Rajic: Review of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence

!cited allowed Iprocedure ~ubstance

raentinaustriaustralia

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelaiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsraelItalvapan

MalavsiaMexicoMoroccotrhe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNiQeriaNorwavPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSeneoalSinaaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandfTanzaniaUQanda(United Kin~dom

IUru(;Juay

Rajic: Review of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence

USA~enezuela

!Zambia

~frican Charter on Human and People's Riahts~merican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of Justice 2 2International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Militarv Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Blaskic: Decision on the Objection of the Republic of Croatia to the Issuance of Subpoena

cited ollowed Iprocedure substance~rQentina

!Austria 1 1!Australia 3 3Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelQium 2 2BoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 3 3ChileChinaColombiaCosta Rica 2 2Denmark 1 1EthiopiaFinland 1 1France 2 2Germany 3 3GreeceHonQ KongIndiaIsraelItaly 1 1lJapanMalaysia 1 1MexicoMoroccotrhe NetherlandsNew Zealand 3 3NicaraQuaNiQeriaNorwayPakistan 3 3PanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotland 1 1SeneQalSingaporeSpain 2 2Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 2 2SomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandIranzaniaUgandaIUnited Kingdom 12 12iUruQuav

Blaskic: Decision on the Objection of the Republic of Croatia to the Issuance of Subpoena

USA 14 1 15VenezuelaZambia

!African Charter on Human and People's Rights!American Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human Rights 2 2European Court of Justice 3 3French-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human Riahts 3 3International Court of Justice 6 2 8International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NuremberaInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims Tribunal 2 2Italian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International Justicerrorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims Commission 1 1US-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Kovacevic: Decision on Defence Motion for Provisional Release

cited allowed Iprocedure substanceAraentinaAustriaIi ustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelaiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHona KongIndiaIsraelItalyapan

MalaysiaMexicoMoroccoIrhe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraauaNigeriaNorwavPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortuaalRwandaScotlandSeneaalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerland!TanzaniaUganda I IUnited KingdomUruauav I I

Kovacevic: Decision on Defence Motion for Provisional Release

USA/Venezuela!Zambia

!African Charter on Human and People's RightsIAmerican Convention on Human RiahtsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human Rights 1 1European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RiahtsInternational Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokvoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeiTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Kovacevic: Decision on Prosecutor's Request to File an Amended Indictment

!cited ollowed /procedure substancelArgentina!AustrialAustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsraelItaly~apan

MalaysiaMexicoMoroccotrhe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortuaalRwandaScotland 1 1SenegalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandFranzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom I 1 1\Uruguay I I I I

Kovacevic: Decision on Prosecutor's Request to File an Amended Indictment

USA[Venezuela!Zambia

~frican Charter on Human and People's Rights~merican Convention on Human RiahtsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RiahtsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RiahtsInternational Military Tribunal at NuremberaInternational Militarv Tribunal at TokvoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RiahtsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Tadic: Opinion and Judgment

!cited ~ollowed Iprocedure IsubstanceArgentinal«\ustrial«\ustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelgium 1 1BoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChina 1 1ColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFrance 6 1 5Germany 10 1 1 10GreeceHong KongIndiaIsrael 1 1ItalvJapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe Netherlands 1 1 2New ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorway 1 1PakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSinClapore~pain 1 1Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 1 1SomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerland/TanzaniaUClanda IIUnited Kingdom 6 1 1 ~[Uruguay I

.JI

Tadic: Opinion and Judgment

USA 8 1 9~enezuela

Zambia

~frican Charter on Human and People's RightsAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RiahtsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of Justice 2 1 1International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at Nuremberg 4 4International Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Erdemovic: Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen

tited ollowed 'procedure IsubstanceI'rgentinaI'ustriaI'ustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsraelItaly ,

JapanMalaysiaMexicoMorocco --,

The NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSinaapore!SpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerland"TanzaniajUaandaIUnited Kingdom 1 1(Uruguay

Erdemovic: Separate Opinion of JUdge Shahabuddeen

USA 1 1I'/enezuelaZambia

~frican Charter on Human and People's Rights~merican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1 1International Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims Commission '"

US-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Celebici: Judgement

cited ollowed procedure ~ubstance

ArgentinaAustriaAustralia 5 3 2Bahamas Islands 1 1Barbados 1 1Belgium 2 2BoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 4 1 3ChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFrance 10 2 8Germany 5

,3 2

Greece "

HonQ Kong 1 . , 1India ,...,

Israel .~.

Italy 3 2 1-.Japan ." '.(

MalaysiaMexico

..• 1, .J

Morocco : -.C

The Netherlands 1 1New ZealandNicaraguaNigeria 1 1Norway 1 1Pakistan 1 1PanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingapore 1 1SpainSocialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 3 3SomaliaSouth Africa 2 2Soviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandTanzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom 18 1 18 1Uruguay

Celebici: Judgement


IAfrican Charter on Human and People's Riahts 1 1IAmerican Convention on Human Rights 1 1Court of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on Torture 1 1European Court of Human Rights 21 1 2 20European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human Rights 1 1 2International Court of Justice 5 3 2International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 8 2 10International Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at Tokvo 6 6Iran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International Justice1T0rture Convention 1 1Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1 1US-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Furundzija: Judgment

cited allowed lorocedure Isubstancergentina 1 1ustria 2 2ustralia 1 1

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosnia 1 1BrazilCanadaChile 1 1China 1 1Colombia 1 1Costa RicaDenmarkEthiopia ".

FinlandFrance 2 2Germany 2 4 ._. - 6Greece ."

Hong KongIndia 1 1Israel 1 1Italy 1 0 1apan 1 .c;, . 1

MalaysiaMexico ,

Morocco """

The Netherlands 2 2New ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistan 1 1PanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 5 1 6SomaliaSouth Africa 1 1Soviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandTanzania IUganda I 1 1United Kingdom I 10 1 11Uruguay i

Furundzija: Judgment

USA 9 3 7 5[Venezuela!Zambia 1 1

~frican Charter on Human and People's Rights 1 1~merican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human Rights 8 3 11European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human Rights 5 1 6International Court of Justice 1 1International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1 1International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg 2 1 1International Military Tribunal at Tokyo 1 1Iran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International Justice 1 1Torture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission 1 1

Tadic: Appeals Chamber. Decision on Defence Motion

~ited allowed Iprocedure substanceArgentinaAustriaAustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelgium 2 2BoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmark 1 1EthiopiaFinlandFrance 1 1Germany 3 2 1GreeceHong KongIndiaIsrael 2 2Italy 1 1JapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe NetherlandsNew Zealand 1 1NicaraguaNigeria 2 2NorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpain~ocialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 1 1SomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandTanzaniaUgandaUnited Kingdom 1 1Uruguay I I

Tadic: Appeals Chamber. Decision on Defence Motion


~frican Charter on Human and Peocle's Rights~merican Convention on Human Rights 1 1Court of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on Torture 6 3 9 0European Court of Human Rights 4 4European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human Rights 1 1International Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political Ri{:~hts 2 2International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg 2 2International Military Tribunal at TokvoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Tadic: Appeals Chamber. Opinion Individuelle du Juge Sidhwa

cited !followed [procedure substance~rgentina

~ustria

~ustralia

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsrael 1 1ItalyJapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpain!Socialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandTanzania IIUganda IfUnited Kingdom 1 I 1 IiUruguay I

Tadic: Appeals Chamber. Opinion Individuelle du Juge Sidhwa

USA 1 1~enezuela

~ambia

~frican Charter on Human and People's Rights~mericanConvention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human Rights 5 5European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of Justice 10 1 11International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at Nuremberg 1 1International Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Erdemovic: Appeals Chamber. Joint Separate Opinion of Judge McDonald and Judge Vohrah

cited ollowed Iprocedure substanceAraentinaAustriaAustralia 5 0 1 4Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelaium 3 0 0 3BoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 3 1 1 3Chile 1 0 0 1China 2 0 0 2ColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopia 3 0 0 3Finland 2 0 0 2France 2 0 0 2Germanv 7 0 0 7GreeceHona KonaIndia 2 0 0 2Israel 1 0 0 1Italv 9 0 0 9Uapan 3 0 0 3Malaysia 6 1 4 3Mexico 1 0 0 1Morocco 1 0 0 1!The Netherlands 1 1 0 2New ZealandNicaraaua 2 0 0 2Nigeria 1 0 0 1Norway 6 0 0 6PakistanPanama 1 0 0 1PeruPoland 2 0 0 2PortuaalRwandaScotlandSeneaalSimlaporeSpain 1 0 0 1Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 5 0 0 5Somalia 1 0 0 1South Africa 2 0 0 2Soviet Union 1 0 0 1Sweden 3 0 0 3SwitzerlandTanzaniaIUqandaIUnited Kingdom 22 0 31 19!UruClUay 1

Erdemovic: Appeals Chamber. Joint Separate Opinion of Judge McDonald and Judge Vohrah

USA 12 1 5 8~enezuela 1 a a 1!Zambia

~frican Charter on Human and People's Rights~merican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of Justice a 1 1 aFrench-Italian Conciliations Commission a 1 1 aInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of Justice 5 2 7 aInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims Commission a 1 1 aPermanent Court of International Justice 2 1 3 aTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Erdemovic: Appeals Chamber. Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cassese

~ited ollowed 'procedure substanceArQentinaAustria 1 1Australia 1 1Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelQium 2 2BoliviaBosniaBrazil 1 1Canada 4 4ChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiooiaFinlandFrance 3 3Germany· 38 38Greece 1 1HonQ KongIndiaIsrael 2 0 0 2Italy 13 0 0 13[JaoanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccotThe Netherlands 2 0 0 2New ZealandNicaraQuaNigeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeru 1 1PolandPortuQalRwandaScotlandSeneQalSinaaooreSoain 1 1Socialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 4 4SomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet Union 1 1Sweden 1 1Switzerland 1 1lTanzania 1 1IUqandaiUnited Kinqdom 14 0 a 14'Uruquay

Erdemovic: Appeals Chamber. Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Cassese

USA 11 0 0 11VenezuelaZambia

IAfrican Charter on Human and People's Rights!American Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations Commission 1 1 1 0Inter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of Justice 2 0 2 0International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokvoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International Justice 1 1 2 0Torture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Erdemovic: Appeals Chamber: Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Li

k;ited allowed Iprocedure $ubstanceArgentina~ustria

AustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanada 1 1ChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFrance 1 1Germany 1 1GreeceHong KonaIndiaIsraelItalyJapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorway 1 1PakistanPanamaPeruPoland 1 1PortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic Yugoslavia 1 1SomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandTanzaniaUganda

,

United Kingdom 2 2IUruauay

Erdemovic: Appeals Chamber: Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Li

USA 6 6lVenezuelalZambia

~frican Charter on Human and PeoDle's Riahts~merican Convention on Human RiQhtsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuroDean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RiQhtsInternational Military Tribunal at NuremberaInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International Justicerrorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Erdemovic: Appeals Chamber. Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Stephen

Cited !followed Iprocedure substanceAraentinaAustriaAustralia 1 0 1 0Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelaiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHona KonaIndiaIsraelItalylJapanMalavsiaMexicoMoroccotThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNiaeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortuaalRwandaScotlandSeneaalSinaaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth Africa 1 0 0 1Soviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandTanzaniaIUganda,United Kingdom 17 0 1 16,Uruguay -----l

Erdemovic: Appeals Chamber. Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Stephen

USA 4 1 2 3VenezuelaZambia

African Charter on Human and People's RightsAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokvoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International Justicerrorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Blaskic: Appeals Chamber. Separate Opinion of Judge Adolphus G. Karibi-Whyte

cited allowed Iprocedure substance~rgentina

~ustria

~ustralia

Bahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHong KongIndiaIsraelItalyJapanMalaysiaMexicoMoroccoThe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraguaNigeriaNorwayPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortugalRwandaScotlandSenegalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandiTanzania I[Uganda IiUnited KingdomiUruguay I

Blaskic: Appeals Chamber. Separate Opinion of Judge Adolphus G. Karibi-Whyte

USA~enezuela

~ambia

African Charter on Human and People's RightsAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human RightsEuropean Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RightsInternational Court of Justice 1 1International Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NurembergInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticeTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission

Kovacevic: Appeals Chamber. Decision Stating REasons for Appeals Chamber's Order of 29 May 1998

cited followed Iprocedure substanceAr~entina

AustriaAustraliaBahama IslandsBarbadosBelgiumBoliviaBosniaBrazilCanadaChileChinaColombiaCosta RicaDenmarkEthiopiaFinlandFranceGermanvGreeceHona KonaIndiaIsraelItalvlJapanMalavsiaMexicoMoroccoffhe NetherlandsNew ZealandNicaraauaNi~eria

NorwavPakistanPanamaPeruPolandPortu~al

RwandaScotlandSeneaalSingaporeSpainSocialist Federal Republic YugoslaviaSomaliaSouth AfricaSoviet UnionSwedenSwitzerlandTanzaniaIUaanda IiUnited Kingdom I iiUrUQUay I

I, I

Kovacevic: Appeals Chamber. Decision Stating REasons for Appeals Chamber's Order of 29 May 1998

USAVenezuelaZambia

African Charter on Human and People's RiahtsAmerican Convention on Human RightsCourt of Justice of the European CommunitiesDeclaration on TortureEuropean Court of Human Riahts 1 1European Court of JusticeFrench-Italian Conciliations CommissionInter-American Commission on Human RiahtsInternational Court of JusticeInternational Covenant on Civil and Political RightsInternational Military Tribunal at NuremberaInternational Military Tribunal at TokyoIran-US Claims TribunalItalian-Venezuelan Mixed Claims CommissionPermanent Court of International JusticelTorture ConventionUniversal Declaration of Human RightsUS-German Mixed Claims CommissionUS-Great Britain Claims CommissionUS-Panama General Claims Commission