NICT-/3- b O-ES
D0l8 -DI;j
l'f JvJrll2C,f/ ;).01'1
UNITED
NATIONS
•
Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals
Case No.:
MICT-13-60-ES
Date:
17 March 2014
Original:
English
THE PRESIDENT OF THE MECHANISM
Before:
Judge Theodor Meron, President
Registrar:
Mr. John Hocking
Decision of:
17 March 2014
PROSECUTOR
v.
MILOMIR STAKIC
PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
DECISION OF THE PRESIDENT
ON SENTENCE REMISSION OF MILOMIR STAKIC
The Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr. Mathias Marcussen
Mr. Milomir Stakic
The Republic of France
1.
I, Theodor Meron, President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal
Tribunals ("Mechanism"), have been advised by the authorities of the Republic of Franc.e
("France"), pursuant to Article 26 of the Statute of the Mechanism ("Statute"), Rule 149 of the
Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Mechanism ("Rules"), and paragraph 2 of the Practice
Direction on the Procedure for the Determination of Applications for Pardon, Commutation' of
Sentence, and Early Release of Persons Convicted by the ICTR, the ICTY or the Mechanism
("Practice Direction"), l that Mr. Milomir Staki( ("Staki(") is eligible for partial remission of his
sentence under French law? I consider Staki('s eligibility for sentence remission pursuant to Article
26 of the Statute, Rules 150 and 151 of the Rules, and paragraph 2 of the Practice Direction.
I.
2.
BACKGROUND
Staki( was arrested in Belgrade, Serbia, on 23 March 2001 and was immediately transferred
to the United Nations Detention Unit in The Hague.' Staki( was charged with 8 counts of genocide,
crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws of customs of war, all in relation to crimes that
occurred in the Prijedor municipality between 30 April and 30 September 1992 4
3.
On 31 July 2003, Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia ('Trial Chamber" and "ICTY", respectively) found Staki( gUilty of extermination and
persecution as crimes against humanity, as well as murder as a violation of the laws or customs of
war, for his role in a campaign aimed at ethnically cleansing the non-Serb population of the Prijedor
municipality5 The Trial Chamber sentenced Staki( to life imprisonment, with credit for time
served. 6 On 22 March 2006, the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY affirmed StakiC's convictions,
entered new convictions for deportation and inhumane acts (forcible transfer) as crimes against
humanity, and substituted StakiC's life imprisonment with a term of 40 years ofimprisonment
7
MICTI3, 5 July 2012.
See Internal Memorandum from Kate Mackintosh, Deputy Registrar, to Judge Theodor Meron, President, dated
19 July 20\3 ("July 20\3 Memorandum"). transmitting. inter alia, a Note Verbale from the Embassy of France to the
Netherlands. dated 4 July 20\3 ("Note Verbale··). While the Note Verbale was originally submitted to me in French, all
references herein are to the Mechanism's certified English translation of the Note Verbale, also annexed to the July
2013 Memorandum. The same is true for references to other matelials received from the French authorities.
3 Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakic. Case No. IT-97-24-T. Judgement. 31 July 2003 ("Trial Judgement"). para. 10.
4 Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakic. Case No. IT-97-24-PT, Fourth Amended Indictment. 10 April 2002. paras. 39-59.
5 Trial Judgement. paras. 336-408. 882.
6 Trial Judgement, Disposition, p. 253.
7 Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, Judgement 22 March 2006 ("Appeal Judgemenf'),
paras. 365-376, and Disposition, pp. 141-142.
1
2
Case No. MICT-\3-60-ES
17 March 2014
<:2/
4.
On 31 August 2006, France was designated as the enforcing State,8 and on 12 January 2007,
Staki" was transferred to France to serve the remainder of his sentence. 9
II. THE NOTIFICATION
5.
On 19 July 2013, the Registrar of the Mechanism ("Registrar"), in accordance with
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Practice Direction, provided me with: (i) the Note Verbale, informing me
that Stakic is eligible, under French law, for a reduction of his sentence by a total of 96 months;
(ii) materials conceming StakiCs conduct in prison and his general conditions of imprisonment; and
(iii) a memorandum from the Office of the Prosecutor of the Mechanism ("Prosecution") regarding
StakiC s cooperation with the Prosecution. lO
6.
On 2 October 2013, the Registrar informed me that per letter dated 5 September 2013,
Staki" had been notified of his eligibility for sentence remission and provided with copies of the
information received from the French authorities and the Prosecution. ll In response to this
information, Staki" submitted a letter dated 29 September 2013. 12
III. DISCUSSION
7.
None of the Judges of the sentencing Chambers are Judges of the Mechanism. In light of
this, no consultations with other Judges of the Mechanism are required under Rule 150 of the Rules
in connection with determining StakiCs eligibility for remission of his sentence.
A. Applicable Law
8.
Under Article 26 of the Statute, if, pursuant to the applicable law of the State in which the
convicted person is imprisoned, he or she is eligible for pardon or commutation of sentence, the
8 Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakic, Case No. IT -97-24-ES, Order Designating the State in Which Milomir Stakic is to Serve
his Prison Sentence, 31 August 2006 (issued confidentially, but made public pursuant to the Order Withdrawing the
Confidential Status of Order Designating the State in Which Milomir Stakic is to Serve his Prison Sentence, 29 October
2008, p. 2.)
9 See Press Release, CTIMOWIPR1140C1, Milomir StakiC Transferred to Serve Sentence in France, 12 January 2007,
available at htlp://www.icty.org/sidl8907.
10 See July 2013 Memorandum, transmitting: (i) the Note Verbale; (ii) Letter from Mr. Jacques Doremieux, Prosecuting
Attorney of the Colmar Court of Appeal, dated 19 ApJiI2013; (iii) Letter from Mr. Vincent Ramette, Vice-President of
the Tribunal de Grande instance de Colmar Responsible for Enforcement of Sentences, dated 25 February 2013;
(iv) Conduct Report from Ms. Anne-Sophie Kuhn, Deputy Director of the Central Prison of Ensisheim, dated 28
February 2013 ("Conduct Report"); (v) Annual Follow-Up Report from Mr. FredeJic Hankus, dated 21 January 2013
("Annual Follow-Up Report"): and (vi) Intemal Memorandum from Mathias Marcussen, Acting Officer in Charge,
Office of the Prosecutor, to Gus de Witt, Chief, Office of the Registrar, ad interim, dated 26 August 2013 ("Prosecution
Memorandum"),
11 See Internal Memorandum from Gus ~e Witt, Chief, Office of the Registrar, ad interim, to Judge Theodor Meron,
President, dated 2 October 2013 ("October 2013 Memorandum"), paras. 2, 4.
12 See October 2013 Memorandum, transmitting Letter from Milomir Stakic to Gus de Witt, Chief, Office of the
Registrar, ad interim, dated 29 September 2013 ("September 2013 Letter").
2
Case No. MICT -13-60-ES
17 March 2014
State concerned shall notify the Mechanism accordingly. Article 26 of the Statute further provides
that there shall only be pardon or commutation of sentence if the President of the Mechanism so
decides on the basis of the interests of justice and the general principles of law.
9.
Rule 149 of the Rules echoes Article 26 of the Statute and provides that the enforcing State
shall notify the Mechanism of a convicted person's eligibility for pardon, commutation of sentence,
or early release under the enforcing State's laws. Rule 150 of the Rules provides that the President
of the Mechanism shall, upon such notice, determine, in consultation with any Judges of the
sentencing Chamber who are Judges of the Mechanism, whether pardon, commutation of sentence,
or early release is appropriate. Pursuant to Rule 151 of the Rules, iu making a determination on
pardon, commutation of sentence, or early release, the President of the Mechanism shall take into
account, inter alia, the gravity of the crime or crimes for which the prisoner was convicted, the
treatment of similarly-situated prisoners, the prisoner's demonstration of rehabilitation, and any
substantial cooperation of the prisoner with the Prosecution.
10.
Paragraph 2 of the Practice Direction provides that upon a convicted person becoming
eligible for pardon, commutation of sentence, or early release under the law of the enforcing State,
the enforcing State shall, in accordance with Article 26 of the Statute and with its agreement with
the United Nations on the enforcement of sentences. and, where practicable, at least forty-five days
prior to the date of eligibility, notify the Mechanism accordingly.
11.
The above provisions apply to requests for sentence remissions, as reductions of a prisoner's
sentence while in detention amount, in essence, to commutations ofthe sentence 13
12.
Article 3(1) of the Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of the
French Republic on the Enforcement of Sentences of the International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia, dated 25 February 2000 ("Enforcement Agreement"), provides that the French
authorities shall be bound by the duration of the sentence imposed by the ICTy. 14 Article 3(2) of
the Enforcement Agreement further states that the conditions of imprisonment shall be govemed by
13 See Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisic, Case No. IT-95-10-ES, Decision of the President on Sentence Remission of Ooran
Jelisi", 28 May 2013 (public redacted version) ("JelisicDecision"), para. 13.
14
The Enforcement Agreement, concluded between France and the ICTY, applies to the Mechanism pursuant to
Security Council Resolution 1966 (2010), which provides that all existing agreements still in force as of the
commencement date of the Mechanism shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Mechanism. See U.N. Security Council
Resolution 1966, U.N. Doc. SlRES/1966 (2010), 22 December 2010, para. 4 ("[TJhe Mechanism shall continue the
jurisdiction, rights and obligations and .essential functions of the ICTY and the ICTR, respectively, subject to the
provisions of this resolution and the Statute of the Mechanism, and all contracts and international agreements concluded
by the United Nations in relation to the ICTY and the ICTR, and still in force as of the relevant commencement date,
shall continue in force mutatis mutandis in rel&tion to the Mechanism[.]"). According to Article 25(2) of the Statute,
"[tJhe Mechanism shall have the power to supervise the enforcement of sentences pronounced by the ICTY, the ICTR
or the Mechanism, including the implementation of sentence enforcement agreements entered into by the United
Nations with Member States",
3
Case No. MICT -13-60-ES
17 March 2014
10/
the law of France, subject to the supervision of the ICTY According to Article 3(3) of the
Enforcement Agreement, if a detainee becomes eligible for release on parole or any other measure
altering the conditions or length of detention under French law, the competent French authorities
. are to notify the Registrar of the ICTY Article 8 of the Enforcement Agreement provides, inter
alia, that, following notification from the French authorities of a detainee's eligibility for pardon or
commutation of sentence under French law, the President of the ICTY shall detennine, in
consultation with the Judges of the ICTY, whether pardon or commutation of the sentence is
appropriate, and the Registrar shall infonn the competent French authorities of the President's
detennination accordingly. IS These provisions apply mutatis mutandis to the Mechanism. 16
B. Eligibility under French Law and Treatment of Similarly.Situated Prisoners
13.
Pursuant to the Note Verbale, Staki': has become eligible for a reduction of his sentence by:
(i) 81 months, to which he is entitled as of right under French law (three months for the first year of
detention and 78 months in total for the other 39 years of imprisonment); and (ii) an additional
reduction of 15 months due to good behaviour while in detention, for the period from 30 January
2006 to 30 January 2012. 17 I note that according to Article 3 of the Enforcement Agreement, France
is bound to respect the duration of the sentence of persons convicted by the ICTY, as imposed by
the ICTy 18 Pursuant to this Article, as well as Article 26 of the Statute, Rules 150 and 151 of the
Rules, and Article 8 of the Enforcement Agreement, the reduction of sentences of persons convicted
.by the ICTY falls exclusively within the discretion of the President of the Mechanism. Therefore,
the French authorities may not approve any measures, such as sentence remissions, that won1d
affect the duration of a sentence imposed by the ICTY without first infonning the President of the
Mechanism. The President retains the discretion to detennine, in consultation with the Judges of the
Mechanism (as applicable), whether the suggested measures are appropriate, in light of the
Mechanism's Statute, Rules, and practice. 19
14.
In this regard, I observe that this is the first decision of the Mechanism on a convicted
person's eligibility for sentence remission. In the context of early release, the practice of the
Mechanism is to consider all convicts supervised by the Mechanism eligible for early release upon
the completion of two-thirds of their sentences, irrespective of the Tribunal that convicted them?O
See also Enforcement Agreement, Article 3(4).
See supra, fn. 14.
,
17 See Note Verbale (citing Articles 721 and 721-1 of the French Law on Criminal Procedure).
18
.
See Enforcement Agreement, Article 3(1).
19 See Enforcement Agreement, Articles 3(3), 3(4), and 8.
20 See Prosecutor v. Omar Serushago, Case No. MIeT -12-28, Public Redacted Version of Decision of the President on
the Early Release of Omar Serushago, 13 December 2012 ("Serushago Decision"), paras. 16-17; Prosecutor v. Paul
Bisengimana, Case No. MICT -12-07, Decision of the President on Early Release of Paul Bisengimana and on Motion to
15
16
4
Case No. MICT -13-60-ES
17 March 2014
111
The two-thirds threshold for early release applications, however, is based on a long-established
practice of the ICTY that has also been applied to a detainee's eligibility for pardon and
commutation of sentence (i.e., sentence remissions21 ). Given the ICTY practice, and in the absence
of a relevant practice of the Mechanism's other predecessor institution, the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda, in relation to requests for sentence remission, I consider that the two-thirds
eligibility threshold should apply to sentence remissions claimed by or in relation to all convicted
persons within the jurisdiction ofthe Mechanism. This is consistent with the Mechanism's Statute
and Rules, which treat equally all types of post-final conviction relief (early release, pardon or
commutation of sentence) available to convicted persons supervised by the Mechanism 22
15.
Accordingly, as in the context of early release, a convicted person having served two-thirds
of his or her sentence shall be eligible to be considered for sentence remission, albeit not entitled to
such relief, which the President may grant as a matter of discretion?3 All convicted persons
supervised by the Mechanism shall be treated equally in this regard, irrespective of the Tribunal that
convicted them.
16.
The practice of the ICTY provides guidance as to how the two-thirds threshold is to apply to
sentence remissions specifically. Under settled ICTY precedent, sentence .remissions granted or
claimed under national law could be recognized "provisionally" at the time claimed, but that
recognition did not preclude the possibility that the remissions could be "withdraw[n1 at a
subsequent time", in connection with the convict's eligibility for early release?4 This meant that, if
sentence remissions granted under national law caused a convict to become eligible for early release
under the law of the enforcement State, the national authorities were required to notify the President
of the ICTY, who would then decide conclusively whether to take the remissions into account in
deterruining the detainee's eligibility for early release?5
File a Public Redacted Application, 11 December 2012 (public redacted version) ("BLrengimana Decision"), paras. 17,
20.
21 See supra, fn._,
22 See Article 26 of the Statute and Rules 149-151 of the Rules.
23 See Serushago Decision, paras. 18, 34; Bisengimana Decision, paras. 21, 35.
24 See Jelisic Decision, para. 19, and authorities cited therein (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Prosecutor
v. Haradin Bala, Case No. IT -03-66-ES, Decision on Application of Haradin Bala for Sentence RemiSSion, 15 October
2010 ("Rala Decision"), para. 15, and authorities cited therein; Prosecutor v. Vladimir Santie, Case No. IT-95-16-ES,
Public Redacted Decision of the President on the Application for Pardon or Commutation of Sentence of Vladimir
Saotic, 16 February 2009 ("Santic' Decision"), paras. 7-8.
25 See JeUsie Decision, para. 19; Bala Decision, para. 15. For example, in the Santie Decision, the ICTY President noted
that, although Santic had not yet served two-thirds of his sentence by the time the decision was issued, he, nonetheless,
had qualified '~through work and good behaviour, for 302 days of 'benefit', which amount[ed] to time off his sentence"
so that, with those "benefit" days considered pursuant to the provisions of the enforcement State where he was serving
his sentence, Santic had "effectively completed two-thirds of his sentence" before the Santic Decision was i"lsued.
Santic Decision, para. 8.
5
Case No. MICT-13-60-ES
17 March 2014
1'1
17.
In the interests of eqna1 treatment of all convicts supervised by the Mechanism, I take the
view that the relevant ICTY practice should apply uniformly to the entire prisoner population
supervised by the Mechanism,z6 As a result, sentence remissions granted or claimed under national
law to convicts supervised by the Mechanism may be recognized provisionally, if the other criteria
of Rule 151 of the Rules militate for such recognition, and may be reconsidered or withdrawn when
the convict's eligibility for early release is at issue 27
18.
I also note that sentence remissions are considered a tool of prisoner management in
domestic systems and that non-Mechanism prisoners in domestic prisons benefit from them 28 If the
Mechanism did not recognize any sentence remissions to which a convicted person is entitled under
national law, it would result in discriminatory treatment of Mechanism prisoners vis-a-vis other
prisoners in the same prisons 29
19.
In the present case, Stakic is eligible under French law for a remission of 96 months in
total. 30 It is not claimed that Stakic will have completed two-thirds of his sentence even if all the
remissions he is eligible to receive under French law are counted towards his sentence. As
explained above, these remissions are in any case not final and are subject to the final approval of
the President of the Mechanism when StakiC's eligibility for early release is at stake. Therefore, I
will provisionally recognize the sentence remissions for which Stakic has become eligible under
French law, provided that the other criteria of Rule 151 of the Rules militate in favour of such
.•
recogmtlOn.
31
C. Gravity of Crimes
20.
Stakic was convicted of crimes of very high gravity, i.e., extermination, persecution,
deportation, and inhumane acts as crimes against humanity and murder as a violation of the laws
and customs of war. 32 These crimes were part of a campaign to persecute the non-Serb population
of Prijedor, with the [mal goal of creating an ethnically clean Serbian municipality." In sentencing
Stakic, the Trial Chamber emphasized that Stakic "played a unique pivotal role in co-ordinating the
persecutory campaign carried out by the military, police and civilian government in Prijedor" and
that "[ sluch a wide-scale, complex and brutal persecutory campaign could never have been
Cf Bisengimana Decision, para. 20.
See Jelisi6Decision, para. 19; Rala DeCision, para. 15.
28 See JelisicDecision, para. 20; Bala Decision, para. 14.
29 See Jelisic Decision, para. 20. As noted above, of course, pursuant to Article 26 of the Statute, Rules 150 and 151 of
the Rules, and Articles 3 and 8 of the Enforcement Agreement, any measure that would affect the duration of a sentence
imposed by the ICTY requires the approval of the President of the Mechanism. See supra, para. 13.
30 See Note Verbale.
31 See JelisicDecision, para. 21; Bala Decision, para. 16.
32 See Appeal Judgement, Disposition, Disposition, pp. 141-142.
26
27
6
Case No. MICT-13-60-ES
17 March 2014
Ib
achieved without the essential contribution of leading politicians such as Dr. Stakic".'4 The Trial
Chamber went on to state that it
[ ... J regards the acts of persecution and extennination as the heart of the criminal conduct of
Dr. Stakic. Persecutions constitutes [sic] inherently a very grave crime because of its distinctive
feature of discriminatory intent. All the constitutive acts of the persecutorial campaign are serious
in themselves and the Trial Chamber has taken into account their scale and cumulative effect
within the Municipality of Prijedor where, more than 1,500 people were killed and tens of
thousands deported. 35
,
The Trial Chamber also pointed out that "[t]he gravity of the crimes conunitted by Dr. Stakic is
reflected in the tragic extent of the harm and suffering caused to the victims of the criminal
campaign.,,)6
2l.
I am therefore of the view that the very high gravity of the crimes of which Stakic was
convicted weighs against recognizing the remission of his sentence.
D. Demonstration of Rehabilitation
22.
The Annual Follow-Up Report states that Stakic has adapted well to the prison environment
in France and that his conduct towards other detainees and prison staff has been respectfu1 37 The
same report indicates that Stakic "has made an effort towards rehabilitation since his arrival at
Ensiseim" Prison 38 According to the Annual Follow-Up Report, Stakic is "hard-working,
motivated and eugaged" in his work at the Brennensthul workshop, where he has worked since his
arrivaL'9 The Annual Follow-Up Report commends Stakic's "notable progress" in educational
matters, including his success in obtaining an Initial Diploma in French Language (DILF) in June
2009, a General Education Certificate (CFG) in June 2010, and a general certificate of secondary
education in June 2012. 40
23.
The Conduct Report further notes, in this regard, that Stakic regularly takes French, English,
history and geography, office automation, and information technology classes. 41 The Conduct
Report adds that Stakic is self-sufficient and that the prison has had no problems with StakiC's
conduct since his arrival 42
33 See Appeal JUdgement, paras. 68-98; Trial Judgement, paras. 475, 498, 593, 818-819, 823, 826.
" Trial Judgement, para. 906.
35
36
Trial Judgement, para. 907 (citations omitted).
Trial Judgement, para. 910.
Annual Follow-Up Report, p.
Annual Follow-Up Report, p.
39 Annual Follow-Up Report, p.
40 Annual Follow-Up Report, p.
41 Conduct Report, p. 1.
42 Conduct Report, p. 1.
37
38
2.
2.
1. See a/"o Conduct Report, p. 1.
2.
7
Case No. MJCT-13-60-ES
17 March 2014
I~
24.
According to the Annnal Follow-Up Report, Stakic sees a psychiatrist once a month;43
however, the French authorities did not provide any professional psychiatric or psychological
evaluation of Stakic. Nevertheless, I am of the view that the lack of such an evaluation, over which
Stakic has no control, should not negatively affect StakiC's eligibility for sentence remission. 44
7
25.
[REDACTEDt5 [REDACTEDt6 [REDACTEDt
26.
Having carefully reviewed the materials before me, I take note of the fact that StakiC's
behaviour in detention has been proper and has not given rise to any disciplinary complaints.
[REDACTED] In this context, I am of the view that Stakic has demonstrated some signs of
rehabilitation, and thus this factor should weigh marginally in favour of recognizing the sentence
remission for which he is eligible under French law.
E. Substantial Cooperation with the Prosecution
27.
The Prosecution asserts that "Stakic did not cooperate with ICTY Office of the Prosecutor in
the course of his trial or appeal" and "has not cooperated with the ICTY Office of the Prosecutor or
the [Mechanism] Office of the Prosecutor at any point whilst serving his sentence,,48
28.
I note that the Prosecution does not indicate whether the Office of the Prosecutor of the
ICTY or the Mechanism sought Staki.:' s cooperation at any point during his trial or after he was
convicted. I also note that an accused person is under no obligation, in the absence of a plea
agreement, to cooperate with the Pros~cution49 I therefore consider that StakiC's lack of
cooperation with the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY or the Mechanism is a neutral factor in
my detennination of whether to recognize the sentence remission for which he is eligible under
French law.
F. Conclusion
29.
Consistent with the ICTY's practice on sentence remissions, and taking into consideration
the factors identified in Rule 151 of the Rules, as well as all the relevant information on the record,
See Annual Follow-Up Report, p. 2.
See Serushago Decision, para. 21; Bisengimana Decision, para. 26.
45 September 2013 Letter, p. 1.
46 September 2013 Letter, p. I.
47 Annual Follow-Up Report, p. I.
411 Prosecution Memorandum, para. 2.
49 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Ljube Boskoski and lohan Tarculovski, Case No. IT-04-82-ES, Decision of President on
Early Release of Johan Tarculovski, B April 2013, para. 25; Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilie, Case No. IT-9B-34-ES,
4J
44
Public Redacted Version of the 29 November 2012 Decision of the President on Early Release of Mladen Naletilic,
26 March 2013, para. 30.
B
Case No. MICT-13-60-ES
17 March 2014
/'1
I am of the view that certain of the sentence remissions for which Stakic is eligible under French
law should be recognized by the Mechanism on a provisional basis.
30.
The totality of the circumstances in this case, however, and particularly the meager evidence
of StakiC's rehabilitation and the gravity of his crimes, do not counsel for the provisional
recognition of the entirety of the remissions claimed pursuant to the Note Verbale, i.e., 96 months
in total. I recall that out of those 96 months, 15 months correspond to discretionary remission for
good behaviour while in detention, whereas the other 81 months correspond to remission of (i) three
months for the first year of detention, and (ii) two months for each of the remaining 39 years of
StakiC's sentence, granted as of right under French law.'o Stakic was transferred to France in
January 2007 and has spent seven years in detention in France. In my view, it would be fair for the
Mechanism to recognize the as-of-right remissions corresponding to those seven years - i.e., 15
months in total (three months for the first year and two months for each of the other six years that
Stakic has been detained in France). To this as-of-right IS-month remission should be added the
remission of 15 months for which Stakic has qualified because of his good conduct while in prison.
In light of all the factors explained above, the provisional recognition of 30 months of sentence
remission is consistent with fundamental fairness and justice, which rnust guide rny decision under
Article 26 of the Statute. 51
31.
I stress that this recognition of 30 months of sentence remission is provisional and without
prejudice to the discretion of the President of the Mechanism not to count this provisionally
recognized remission, or additional future remissions granted or claimed under French law, in
calculating the amount of time served for other purposes, including in determining StakiC's
eligibility for early release pursuant to the practice of the Mechanism.
52
IV. DISPOSITION
32.
For the foregoing reasons and pursuant to Article 26 of the Statute, Rules 150 and 151 of the
Rules, paragraph 9 of the Practice Direction, and Article 8 of the Enforcement Agreement, I hereby
provisionally recognize a sentence remission of 30 months for which Stakic has become eligible
under French law.
33.
The Registrar is hereby DIRECTED to inforru the French authorities of this decision as
soon as practicable, as prescribed in paragraph 13 of the Practice Direction.
See Note Verbale. See also supra, para. 13.
Article 26 of the Statute provides that "[t]here shall only be pardon or commutation of sentence if the President of the
Mechanism so decides on the basis of the interests of justice and the general principles oflaw.").
52 See JelisicDecision, paras. 19,34; Bala Decision, para. 15.
50
51
9
Case No. MICT -13-60-ES
17 March 2014
18
Done in English and French, the English version being authoritative.
Done this 17th day of March 2014,
At The Hague,
The Netherlands.
Judge Theodor Meron
President
[Seal of the Mechanism]
10
Case No. MICT -13-60-ES
17 March 2014