Prosecution Appeal Brief - ICTY

UNITEDNATIONSIT-98-32/l-AA259 - A25002 November 2009259MCInternational Tribunal for theProsecution of PersonsResponsible for Serious Violations ofInternational Humanitarian LawCommitted in the Territory ofFormer Yugoslavia since 1991Case No.Date:IT-98-32/l-A2 November 2009IN THE APPEALS CHAMBERBefore:Registrar:Judge Mehmet Giiney, PresidingJudge Fausto PocarJudge Liu DaqunJudge Theodor MeronJudge Carmel AgiusMr. John HockingTHE PROSECUTORv.MILAN LUKlC and SREDOJE LUKlCPUBLICPROSECUTION APPEAL BRIEFThe Office of the Prosecutor:Mr. Paul RogersCounsel for the Respondent:Mr. Tomislav Visnjie and Mr. Dragan Ivetic for Milan LukieMr. Duro J. eepie and Mr. Jens Dieckmann for Sredoje Lukie

258TABLE OF CONTENTSI. OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 1D. GROUND ONE: EXTERMINATION .............................................................................. 1A. THE CHAMBER ERRED IN LAW BY FAILING TO CONVICT SREDOJE LUKIC FOR AIDING ANDABETTING THE EXTERMINATION OF 59 MUSLIM CIVILIANS AT PIONIRSKA STREET ............ 1B. RELIEF SOUGHT: THE APPEALS CHAMBER SHOULD CONVICT SREDOJE LUKIC FOR AIDINGAND ABETTING EXTERMINATION AND INCREASE HIS SENTENCE ........................................ 3DI. GROUND TWO: PERSECUTIONS ............................................................................... 4A. THE CHAMBER ERRED IN LAW BY FAILING TO CONVICT SREDOJE LUKIc FORCOMMITTING PERSECUTIONS IN RELATION TO THE BEATINGS AT THE UZAMNICA CAMP ... 4B. RELIEF SOUGHT: THE ApPEALS CHAMBER SHOULD CONVICT SREDOJE LUKIc FORCOMMITTING PERSECUTIONS AND INCREASE HIS SENTENCE .............................................. 5RULE 111 DECLARATION ................................................................................................... 6PROSECUTION GLOSSARy ................................................................................................ 7Case No. IT·98·32/J-AProsecution Appeal BriefPublic2 November 2009

257I. OVERVIEW1. On 14 June 1992, Sredoje Lukic aided and abetted the killing of 59 Muslimcivilians on Pionirska street, Visegrad. 1 Sredoje Lukic also regularly and severely beatMuslim and non-Serb detainees at the Uzamnica camp? For these crimes, theChamber found Sredoje Lukic responsible for murder and cruel treatment asviolations of the laws and customs of war, and of murder, persecutions, and inhumaneacts as crimes against humanity.3 The Chamber noted that his participation in thesecrimes was a cruel inversion of the duty he owed, as a police officer, to the citizens ofViSegrad. 42. The Chamber, however, committed two legal errors concerning Sredoje Lukic.The legal errors resulted in the Chamber failing to convict Sredoje Lukic for aidingand abetting extermination, a crime against humanity (Count 8), for the killing of the59 Muslim civilians at Pionirska street, and failing to convict him for committingpersecutions, a crime against humanity (Count I), in relation to the beatings at theUzamnica camp.3. Pursuant to Article 25 of the Statute and Rule III of the Rules, theProsecution requests the Appeals Chamber to correct these errors of law and grant theappropriate relief as detailed in the following two grounds of appeal.11. GROUND ONE: EXTERMINATIONA. The Chamber erred in law by failing to convict Sredoje Lukic for aiding andabetting the extermination of 59 Muslim civilians at Pionirska street4. Sredoje Lukic aided and abetted the killing of 59 Muslim civilians on 14 June1992 at Pionirska street, ViSegrad. 5 The Muslim civilians were first shut into a houseon Pionirska street that had been soaked in "fire accelerant". 6 Then the house was seton fire. 7 The Chamber found the killing of the 59 Muslim civilians to be an act of4Judgement, paras.929, 932-933. This finding was made by majority,Judgement, paras.841, 990.Judgement, paras.934, 986, 991. 1040, 1104-1105.Judgement, para. 1 090.Judgement, paras.929, 932-933. This finding was made by majority.Judgement, para.560.Judgement, paras.558, 569.Case No. IT-98-32/1-AProsecution Appeal BriefPublic2 November 20091

256extermination.' Nevertheless, the Chamber found Sredoje Lukic guilty only of murder(Count 9), rather than extermination (Count 8), for his involvement in the killing. TheChamber thereby erred in law invalidating its Judgement at paragraphs 953 and 1103.5. The Chamber made all the factual and legal findings necessary to convictSredoje Lukic for aiding and abetting extermination for the killing of 59 Muslimcivilians at Pionirska street. It found that the general requirements of Article 5 of theStatute were satisfied in relation to Milan LukiC's and Sredoje LukiC's crimes. 9 It heldthat the killing of 59 Muslim civilians at Pionirska street was killing on a large scaleand so constitutes extermination. lO It found that Sredoje Lukic aided and abetted thiskilling." The Chamber's findings that Sredoje Lukic was aware that the 59 victimswould be killed and that his acts and conduct contributed to the commission of theirmurder 12 show that he was aware that he was contributing to murder on a large-scale,which satisfies the mental element required for aiding and abetting extermination.13Despite having made all these findings, the Chamber acquitted Sredoje Lukic ofextermination at Pionirska street. In so doing, the Chamber erred in law.6. Having held the murders at Pionirska street rose to the scale required forextermination,14 and having characterised this crime as extermination whenconvicting Milan Lukic for committing it at Pionirska street,!' the Chamber erred bynot applying the same legal characterisation to the Pionirska street killing whenconsidering Sredoje LukiC's individual criminal responsibility as an aider andabettor. 16 Sredoje Lukic aided and abetted the crime that Milan Lukic committed,along with others.Judgement, para.945. This finding was made by majority.9Judgement, paras.S8? (finding that Sredoje Lukic was aware of the armed conflict occurringaround Visegrad), 888 (finding that Milan LukiC's and Sredoje Lukic's crimes were closely related tothe armed conflict), 895 (finding that Milan LukiC's and Sredoje LukiC's crimes formed part of awidespread or systematic attack and that they were aware that their acts were part of the attack).10 Judgement, para.945.11 Judgement, paras.929. 932-933.12 Judgement, para.933. This finding was made by majority.13 See Brdanin AI, paras,487-488; Stakic Al, paras.259-260. The mens rea for aiding and abettingis met if the aider and abettor "is aware that one of a number of crimes will probably be committed, andone of those crimes is in fact committed" and that his acts or omissions assist the commission of thecrimes; Simic AJ, para.86. See also, Mrksic Al, paras.49, 63; Blasldc Al, paras.45, 50.14 Judgement, para.945.15 Judgement, paras.947, 1100. This finding was made by majority.16 Judgement, paras.953, 1103.Case No.IT-98-32i!·AProsecution Appeal BriefPublic2 November 20092

254responsibility for the killing of the 59 Muslim civilians at Pionirska street. 23 TheAppeals Chamber should accordingly increase his sentence.ID. GROUND TWO: PERSECUTIONSA. The Chamber erred in law by failing to convict Sredoje Lukic forcommittiug persecutions in relation to the beatings at the Uzamnica camp9. The Chamber erred in law when it concluded, at paragraph 1040 of theJudgement, that Sredoje Lukic aided and abetted persecutions in relation to theUzamnica camp beatings. Instead, given its prior findings on Sredoje LukiC'sresponsibility for committing inhumane acts (Count 20) and cruel treatment (Count21) at the Uzamnica camp,24 it should have found that Sredoje Lukic committed)persecutions in relation to this crime site.10. The Indictment charged Sredoje Lukic with cruel and inhumane treatment(severe beating) of the detainees at the Uzamnica camp as underlying acts ofpersecution. 25 The Chamber was "satisfied that Sredoje Lukic repeatedly and severelybeat detainees [ ... ] in the Uzamnica camp.,,26 It accordingly found him guilty of"committing cruel treatment [ ... ] (Count 21), and inhumane acts l ... ] (Count 20)against Muslim detainees in the Uzamnica camp.,,27 The Chamber further found that"Sredoje Lukic had a discriminatory intent when he beat the detainees.,,28Consequently, the Chamber should have found that Sredoje Lukic committedpersecutions when he beat the detainees at the Uzamnica camp with discriminatoryintent. The Chamber erred in law when it characterized Sredoje Lukic's participationas aiding and abetting?9 This error invalidates the Judgement.2JSee also Judgement, para.l045 (finding that convictions for murder and extermination as crimesagainst humanity are impermissibly cumulative).24 Judgement, para.991.25 Indictment, paras.4(b). 13-15.26 Judgement, para.990 (footnote omitted); see also, paras.841, 1039.27 Judgement, para.991. Italics added for emphasis.28 Judgement, para.l039.29 Judgement, para. 1040.4Case No. IT-98-32/1-AProsecution Appeal BriefPublic2 November 2009

253B. Relief sought: the Appeals Chamber should convict Sredoje Lukic forcommitting persecutions and increase his sentence11. The Appeals Chamber should correct the Chamber's legal error and convictSredoje Lukic for committing persecutions, a crime against humanity (Count 1), inrelation to the beatings at the Uzamnica camp.12. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber should also increase Sredoje Lukic'ssentence to reflect his higher level of culpability. The Appeals Chamber hasconfirmed on several occasions that "aiding and abetting is a form of responsibilitywhich generally warrants lower sentences than responsibility as a co-perpetrator.,,30 Ithas also stated that a higher sentence is likely to be imposed on an accused who actedas a principal perpetrator as opposed to merely an aider and abettor. 3 ! In increasingthe sentence, the Appeals Chamber should take into account the discriminatory natureof Sredoje LukiC's crimes as a factor relevant to their gravity.32 In this context, theAppeals Chamber should bear in mind the finding of the Chamber that Sredoje Lukicwas "an opportunistic visitor [in the Uzamnica camp] who had no reason to be thereother than to beat the detainees" and that his methods were "equally savage" as thoseof Milan Lukic. 33Word Count: 1721Paul RogersSenior Appeals CounselDated this 2"d day of November 2009At The Hague, The Netherlands303132J3Krstic AI, para.268. See also, Simic AJ, para.265; Vasiljevic AI, para.182.See Semanza AI, para.388.See Blagojevic AI, para. 139. But see Bla1kic AI, para.683.Judgement, para.108S.Case No. IT-98-32!1-AProsecution Appeal BriefPublic2 November 20095

de la caverne, P = 5 MPa pour une caverne de500 metres de haut).Bien plus serieux est le risque de fracturationdu sel. Sa resistance a la traction est faible, et lafracturation peut survenir quand la pression de lasaumure depasse d'une petite quantite la pressionlithostatique (pour une description d'un essai defracturation lent, voir Durup 1994). Sauf dansle cas d'un sel en couche qui presenterait desheterogeneites stratigraphiques marquees, on peutpenser que la fracture appara^tra d'abord au sommetde la caverne et tendra a progresser vers lehaut, parce que l'ecart entre la pression lithostatiqueet la pression de saumure cro^t quand la hauteurtotale (de la caverne plus la fracture) augmente.Pour ^etre complet, on doit noter aussi quel'equilibre thermique ne peut ^etre atteint, en raisonde l'existence d'un gradient geothermique : latemperature de la roche est plus froide au toit dela caverne, de sorte qu'une thermoconvection naturellese met en place, la saumure chaude montantle long des parois de la caverne, deposant dusel au toit, puis descendant le long de l'axe de lacaverne. La dissolution (au fond) et la cristallisation(au toit) produisent un mouvement apparentdescendant de la caverne, dont la vitesse est probablementtres faible, voir Berest (1990).Eet du uage et de la percolation desaumure dans une caverne fermee, quand ladilatation thermique peut ^etre negligeeSi l'on prend en compte l'eet de la percolationde la saumure dans le massif, la pression tendvers des niveaux d'equilibre sensiblement plus bas,comme indique par Berest (1990), Ghoreychi etCosenza (1993), Berest et Brouard (1995). Unetat d'equilibre sera atteint quand la vitesse dediminution du volume de la caverne, due au uage,equilibre exactement le debit de la saumurequi percole de la caverne vers le massif. La percolationpeut ^etre estimee approximativement ensupposant que la caverne se comporte comme unecavite spherique, de rayon R tel que V =4R 3 =3,realisee dans une roche poreuse dans laquelle la percolationobeit a la loi de Darcy. En regime permanent,la distribution de pression dans le massif suitune loi harmonique (en 1/r) et le debit de saumuretraversant les parois de la caverne sera :_" perc = Q V = ;3K P i ; P oR 2 (7)ou K est la permeabilite intrinseque du sel gemme,dont nous avons vu que le domaine typique de variations'etendait de K =10 ;22 m 2 a K =10 ;19 m 2 ,P i est la pression de la saumure dans la caverne,R est le rayon de cette derniere, la viscositecinematique de la saumure (elle diminue avec latemperature on a typiquement =1 2:10 ;3Pa.sa45 o Cet =0 6:10 ;3Pa.s a100 o C) et enn P o estla pression de pore naturelle dans le massif rocheux.On a dit que cette pression parait souvent egale ala pression \halmostatique" cequiequivaut a supposerqu'il n'y a aucun mouvement de saumure atravers la paroi de la caverne, si cette derniere estouverte a l'atmosphere.En prenant en compte les eets du uage et dela percolation (mais sans dilatation thermique) ona pour l'evolution de la pression au cours du tempsen combinant (5) (6) (7) :8>: _ P i (t) = _" perc ; _" fl= ;3K [P i (t);Po(z)]R 2P i (0) = P o (z)+ B(T )[P R (z) ; P i (t)] mou z designe ici la profondeur moyenne de la caverne.L'equilibre entreuagedelacaverne et pertede saumure sera atteint pour une valeurP i (t = 1) = Pi telle que :3K ; Pi ; P o = R2B ; P R ; Pi m(8)En notant 1=a = (z)B(T )R 2 (P R ; P o ) m;1 =(3K)et y = (P R ; Pi )=(P R ; P o ), cette relation peut^etre ecrite y m ; a(1 ; y) =0y est le rapport entrel'ecart nal qui separe la pression lithostatiqueet la pression dans la cavite et l'ecart initial entreles m^emes quantites. Autrement dit si y est tresproche de zero, le risque de fracturation est grand.Considerons d'abord le cas d'une caverne detaille moyenne (V = 225 000 m 3 , R =26metres) aune profondeur moderee (z =1000metres,T = 45 o C). On fait l'hypothese halmostatique(P o = 12 MPa), la pression lithostatiqueest 22 MPa la viscosite de lasaumure est =1 2:10 ;3 Pa.s les proprietesmecaniques du sel sont caracterisees par lesparametres m = 3 et A =2 5:10 ;4 (an) ;1 ,B(T =45 o C)=2 5:10 ;7(an) ;1 . La permeabilitedu sel est choisie egale a K =6:10 ;20m 2 , de telle8

251PROSECUTION GLOSSARYPleadings. Orders. Decisions etc from Prosecutor v. Milan Lukic and SredojeLukic, Case No. IT-98-32/1-AAbbreviation used inProsecutiou Appeal BriefAppeals ChamberChamberJudgementIndictmentSeparate Opinion of JudgeRobinsonFull citationAppeals Chamber in Prosecutor v. Milan Lukic and SredojeLukic, Case No. IT-98-32/l-ATrial Chamber in Prosecutor v. Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic,Case No. IT-98-32/1-TJudgement, Prosecutor v. Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic, CaseNo. IT-98-3211-T, 20 July 2009Second Amended Indictment, Prosecutor v. Milan Lukic andSredoje Lukic, Case No. IT-98-32/l-PT, 27 February 2006Judgement, Separate Opinion of Judge Robinson, Prosecutorv. Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic, Case No. IT-98-32/l-T, 20July 2009Other ICTYauthoritiesAbbreviation used inProsecution Appeal BriefBlaSkic AIBlagojevic AIBrdanin AIKrstic AIMrksic AJPrlic Appeals DecisionEvidenceCase No. IT-98-3211-AProsecution Appeal BriefPublic2 November 2009OnFull citationProsecutor v. Tihomir BlaSkic, Case No. IT-95-14-A, App.Ch.,Judgemen~ 29 July 2004Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojevic & Dragan fokic, Case No. IT-02-60-A, App.Ch., Judgement, 9 May 2007Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brdanin, Case No. IT-99-36-A,App.Ch., Judgement, 3 April 2007Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstic, Case No. IT-98-33-A, App.Ch.,Judgement, 19 April 2004Prosecutor v. Mile Mrksic & Veselin Sljivancanin, Case No.IT-95-13/1-A, App.Ch., Judgement, 5 May 2009Prosecutor v. fadranko Prlic, Bruno Stojic, Slobodan Praljak,Milivoj Petkovic, Valentin Coric, Berislav Pusic, Case No. IT-7

25004-74-AR73.13, App.Ch., Decision on Jadranko Prlic'sConsolidated Appeal against the Trial Chamber's Orders of 6and 9 October 2008 on Admission of Evidence, 12 January2009Simic AJStakic AJVasi/jevic AJProsecutor v. BZagoje Simic, Case No. IT-95-9-A, App.Ch.,Judgement, 28 November 2006Prosecutor v. Milomir Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-A, App.Ch.Judgement, 22 March 2006Prosecutor v. Mitar Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-A, App.Ch.,Judgement, 25 February 2004ICTR authoritiesAbbreviation used inProsecution Appeal BriefSemanzaAJFull citationProsecutor v. Laurent Semanza, Case No. ICTR-97-20-A,App.Ch., Judgemen~ 20 May 2003Other AbbreviationsAbbreviation used inProsecution Appeal BriefFull citationpara.parasRulesStatuteparagraphparagraphsRules of Procedure and EvidenceStatute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the FormerYugoslavia established by the Security Council Resolution 827(1993)Case No. IT-98-3211-AProsecution Appeal BriefPublic2 November 20098