The Appeals Chamber has rejected in its entirety Radovan Karadzic’s appeal against the decision on the disclosure of the documents pertaining to the immunity agreement with Holbrooke. The issues raised by the accused are ‘moot’, the Chamber found

Radovan Karadžić i Richard HolbrookeRadovan Karadžić i Richard Holbrooke

The Tribunal’s Appeals Chamber rejected the appeal Radovan Karadzic filed against the Trial Chamber’s decision on his motion for the disclosure of all materials related to the immunity agreement he had allegedly concluded with Richard Holbrooke.

In its decision from December 2008, the Trial Chamber ordered the prosecution to deliver to Karadzic all written documents, notes, audio or video recordings in its possession, drafted on 18 and 19 July 1996 in Belgrade, when the alleged agreement was concluded with Holbrooke. The Chamber rejected other Karadzic’s requests as ‘not specific enough’: he had asked to be allowed to inspect and receive ‘other prosecution documents’ that may prove an immunity agreement existed and was binding for the Tribunal.

Karadzic appealed the decision on three grounds. First, Karadzic argued, the Trial Chamber ‘erroneously concluded that “it is well established that any immunity in
respect to an Accused indicted for genocide, war crimes and/or crimes against humanity before an international tribunal would be invalid as a matter of international law’.
Accrding to Karadzic, the Trial Chamber erred when it concluded that “neither its own mandate nor that of the prosecutor is affected by any alleged undertaking made by Mr. Holbrooke”. The third erroneous conclusion of the Trial Chamber, the accused contends, is that the evidence not disclosed to Karadzic may have lead to the Tribunal “declining to exercise its jurisdiction for abuse of process, notwithstanding the validity or binding nature of the Holbrooke agreement"

Finding that in its decision the Trial Chamber ordered the prosecution to disclose to the accused all materials pertaining to the alleged immunity agreement, the Appeals Chamber ruled that the issues raised in the appeal were ‘moot’ and rejected Karadzic’s appeal in its entirety.

The Holbrook case is not closed yet. Karadzic indicated he intended to file an interlocutory appeal as soon as he finished his ‘extensive investigation’. In the appeal, Karadzic intends to contest the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in his case based on the ‘immunity agreement’.