Mico Stanisic in the courtroom

The defense of Mico Stanisic, war-time Bosnian Serb interior minister, has asked the Appeals Chamber to reconsider the decision rendered last week dismissing the defense's motion to declare a mistrial because of Judge Frederik Harhoff’s bias. Stanisic and the second-accused Stojan Zupljan, were convicted of the crimes committed by the Republika Srpska police force in 1992 throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina. Stanisic and Zupljanin were sentenced to 22 years in prison.

On 2 April 2014, the Appeals Chamber concluded there was no need for an interlocutory decision on the motion to quash Stanisic’s and Zupljanin’s judgment. The Appeals Chamber noted that the purported bias of the Danish judge would be considered in the current appellate proceedings as a matter of course.

Stanisic’s defense counsels argued that ‘clear errors of reasoning’ have been made in reaching that decision since the Appeals Chamber failed to analyze ‘central submission’ of the defense that judge Harhoff “appeared to be biased in favour of convicting accused persons”. The majority of the judges in the Special Panel that ruled on Vojislav Seselj’s motion for the disqualification of the Danish judge did find that Harhoff had an appearance of bias in favour of convicting accused persons.

The defense contested the Appeals Chamber’s argument that the factual findings in one case weren’t binding for other trials at the Tribunal. According to the defense, the finding of the Special Panel that Judge Harhoff’s letter ‘may create an impression of his bias’referred to Harhoff as a judge in general, not only as a judge in the Trial Chamber hearing the Seselj case. This conclusion 'goes to the very heart of the role and function of a judge and consequently attaches to Judge Harhoff in the exercise of his judicial duties in all cases in which he was involved at the relevant time', the defense noted.

The second reason why the decision must be reconsidered lies in the fact that the Appeals Chamber ignored the defense’s claim that delivering an interlocutory decision is the ‘only appropriate means of protecting his fair trial rights’, the defense argued. As Stanisic’s defense stated, the conclusion that there was no need to rule on the issue now, because the Appeals Chamber has not yet addressed the issue of Judge Harhoff’s alleged bias – is ‘patently contradictory and illogical’.

The disqualification of Judge Harhoff, the defense argued, ‘has vitiated'the appeal since there is no valid trial judgment that would form a basis for the appellate proceedings.

Finally, the defense noted the reconsideration was necessary to prevent Stanisic’s further ‘unlawful detention pending the appellate judgment’. The defense urged the Appeals Chamber to reconsider the decision, to reverse it and to order the termination of the proceedings against Stanisic.

The defense of the second-accused Zupljanin is expected to file a similar motion on behalf of their client.

Sharing