- -- - - - - - - -- - - - - -- -.-- ....
~
!4lcc - (3 SS -\(4 -0 .]
t3 S ( _ 1\ L'j
IT-'15-5je-T
/) ~605"f!-Dg605b
n ~'S b"\ ('
<:202 /}lf611'T 0:201'1
UNITED
NATIONS
-
~
. Case No.
MItT -13~$5-R90.3
IT-95-S./IS-T
Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals
Date:
22 August 2014
Ol'iginal:
English
SINGLE .ruDGE
Before Judge:
Judge Vagn Jocnsen, Single Judge
Registrar:
Mr. John Hocking
PROSECUTOR
v.
RAnOV AN KARADZIC
PUBLIC
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION OF SINGLE JUDGE TO CONSIDER
APPOINTMENT OF AMICUS CURIAE PROSECUTOR TO INVESTIGATE
CONTEMPT BY OFFICE OFTHE PROSECUTOR .
The Office of the Prosecutor
. HassanB. faUow
MathiaS Marciissen
Applicant
Radovan KaradZic
.. - -
/T-9~-5!B-T
5 0 , 86051
1. On 19 May 2014, Dr. Radovan Karad,Zic ("KaradZlc") requested that the Presidellt {lfthe
Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals ("Mechanism") appoint, pursuant to Rule 90
(C) of the Mechanism Rules of Procedure and Evidence, a Single Judge to "consider the
aPpointment of an amicus curiae prosecutor to investigate whether members of the Office of
the I'rosecutor [of the International Criminal Tribunal for the fonner Yugoslavia (the
"ICTY")] have wilfully interfered with .the administrati{ln of justice at [t11e rCTy]"
("Request"). I
2. On 21 May .2014, the Office of the Prosecutor ofllie Mechanism: ("Prosecution"):fiIed a
motion to strike the Request ("Prosecution Motion to Strike") arguing that a Mechanism
Single Judge could only be appointed if and when the KaradZic Trial Chamber deteIDlines
that there is "reasort to believe" that Plembers of the lCTY Prosecution had wilfully
interfered \vith the administration of justice in the Karadtic case ("Jurisdictional Issue")."
3. On 26 May 2014, KaradZic responded to the Prosecution Motion to Strike3 and on 2 June
2014,. the Prosecution filed a response with respect to the merits of the Request. 4
4. By decision of 5 June 2014, the President of the Mechanism assigned me as Mechanism
Single Judge to rule on .the Jurisdictional Issue and the KaradZic Request. s
5. On 21 July 2014, I found that the Karacllic Trial Chamber retained jurisdiction to determine
whether there is "rellSon to believe" !hat members' of the ICTY Prosecution may be in
contempt pilrsuant to Rule 90 (C) of the Mechanism Rules. I, therefore, invited the KaradZiC
Trial Chamber to make such a uetennination and remaine\l seised of the matter pending a.
decision from the Trial Chamber. 6
6, On 6 August ?014, th.e KaradZi.c Trial Chamber, Judge Morrison dissenting, .accepted my
invitation to determine whether members of the lCTY Prosecution may be in contempt
pursuant to Rule 90 (C) of the Mechanism.Rulcs. 7
.
, The Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadfic, Case No_MICT- ]3·55-R90.3 , Request forDesignation ofSingJe Judge to
Consider Appointment of Am·icus Curiae Prosecutor to Investigate Contempt by Office of the ProsecutOl.", 19 May
2014, paras. 1,30 ("Request").
.
2 The Prosecutor
Radovan Karadiic, Case No. M1CT-13·55-R90.3,Prosecution Moiion to Strike Request for
Designation of Single Judge to Consider Appointment of Amicus Curiae Prosecutor to Investigate Contempt by
Office of the Prosecutor, 21 May 2014, paras. 1-}, 5-6 ("Prosecution Motion to Strike"),
.
.' The Prosecuior v. Radovan KaradZi{;, Case No. MICT- 13-55-R90.3, Response to Prosecution Motion 16 Strike, 26
May2014.
, The ProseculOr v. Radovan KaradZic, ·Case No. MICT-13-55-R90.3, Prosecution Response to Karaellie's Request
to Designate Single Judge to Consider Appointing an Amiclls ClIriae Pros'Ocutor, 2 June 20 14, paras; 1-1, 8.
, The Prosecutnr v. Radovan KaradZic, Case No. MlCT-13-55-R90.3; DeciSion on Prosecution Motion to Strike and
Assigning a Single Judge, 5 June 2014, p. 2.
• 71,. Prosecutor v. Radovan KarailZii;, Case No. MICT-!3·55-R90.3 and IT-95-51J8'T, Decision t61nvite the lCTY
Trial Chamber in the KaradZic Case to Determine Whether·There is "Reason to Believe" that Contempt has 'been
Committed by Members ofthe Office oIthe Prosecutor, 21 July 2014, para 21'The ProseclIlor v. RadovanKaradiic, Case No. MlCT-13-55-R90.3 and IT-95-5fl8-T, Decision on Invil<Ition from
the Single Judge of the Mechanism for International Crintinal Tribunals, 6 Au"aust"2014, p. 2.
v.
2
r,
MICT-13-55-R90.3; 1T-95-S/18-T
22 August 20 14
l"'I
If
1/
I~
/T-95"-sj;~- T
7. The Karacizic Trial Chamber determined that despite numerous disclosure. violations from the
ICTYOfficeof the Pross:cutor, it has never found that "such violations were indicati\ie of a
lack of 'good faith on the patt of the Prosecution". g The Karadiic' Trial Chamber, therefore, .
held that there is no reason to believe thai contempt may have been committed by members
(If the Prosecution:9
8. Consideringihe Decision from the KaradZic Trial Chamber, I find KaradZic's Request moot
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, I
I.
DISMISS as moot Dr. Radovan KaradZic's Request in its entirety.
Arusha, 22 August 2014, done in English and French, the English version being authoritative.
1\
I/<"-l'v
"AV
f j"V.{.v-.
)
___
Judg9'Vab'Il Jorsen
i$ lngle Judge
[Seal of the Methanism]
• [d. p. 3.
''td
3
M1CT-13'55-R90.3; IT-9S·5118-T
22 AuguS! 2014