Home
PROSECUTION: HARHOFF’S DISQUALIFICATION ERRONEOUS AND NOT FINAL
The prosecution asks the Appeals Chamber to dismiss the motions filed by Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin to append Judge Harhoff’s letter to their notices of appeal. The letter purportedly shows Harhoff’s bias. According to the prosecution, the decision to disqualify the Danish judge from the Trial Chamber hearing the Seselj case is ‘erroneous, issued in another trial, and is not final’
Mico Stanisic i Stojan Zupljanin in the courtroom The prosecution in the case against Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin has asked the Appeals Chamber to deny the motions filed by the former Bosnian Serb police officials to append parts of Frederik Harhoff’s letter to their notices of appeal. In the letter, the Danish judge expressed his concern over the ‘new course’ taken by the Tribunal under President Meron’s leadership.
Following the example of Vojislav Seselj, Stanisic and Zupljanin contend that the ‘letter at issue’ reveals that Harhoff is having "clear predisposition towards conviction in the absence of the required evidence ‘. Seselj used a similar argument to have the Danish judge disqualified from the Trial Chamber hearing his case. In March 2013, Judge Harhoff was part of the Trial Chamber that sentenced Stanisic and Zupljanin to 22 years each for crimes against Croats and Muslims in 20 municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
In the response to the defense motions the prosecution pointed that they were based on a ‘erroneous decision, issued in a completely different case, which is not final’. The decision is currently under reconsideration. The Danish judge’s letter was written and published after the Trial Chamber had rendered its judgment in the Stanisic and Zupljanin case. The situation in the Seselj case is different: the Trial Chamber hasn’t yet delivered its judgment. Also, the decision to disqualify the judge contain no “general finding of Judge Harhoff being partial.” Instead, the letter was analyzed only inasmuch as it pertains to the case against Vojislav Seselj.
The prosecution argues that the defense motions should be denied because the majority decision of the panel of judges to disqualify Judge Harhoff was based on “incorrect interpretation of the governing law and patently incorrect conclusions of fact”. The defense has ignored the fact that the four judges who deliberated on the letter were divided in their opinions as to whether the letter ‘casts any doubt’ on Harhoff’s impartiality. Judges Moloto and Hall voted to have Harhoff disqualified, while the third member of the panel, Judge Liu, was opposed. Judge Antonetti, the presiding judge of the Trial Chamber hearing Seselj’s case, was also against the disqualification.
Sharing
Linked Reports
- Case : Zupljanin i Stanisic - "Bosnia and Herzegovina"
- 2013-03-27 22 YEARS IN PRISON FOR STANISIC AND ZUPLJANIN
- 2012-06-06 MICO STANISIC WILL BE PROVISIONALLY RELEASED PENDING JUDGMENT
- 2012-06-01 DEFENSE CALLS FOR ACQUITTAL OR MINIMUM SENTENCE FOR ZUPLJANIN
- 2013-10-16 ‘HARHOFF CASE’ REPERCUSSIONS IN MICO STANISIC’S JUDGMENT
- 2013-10-21 NEW REPERCUSSIONS OF HARHOFF AFFAIR
- 2014-02-11 HARHOFF AFFAIR AFTERSHOCKS STILL FELT