Voluntary surrender

Notion(s) Filing Case
Decision Refusing Leave to Appeal - 03.07.2003 MILUTINOVIĆ Milan
(IT-99-37-AR65.3)

5.       […] The fact that an accused may have surrendered voluntarily to the Tribunal is relevant to […] whether he will appear for trial, to the extent that his voluntary surrender demonstrates his readiness to cooperate with the Tribunal and increases the likelihood that he will appear for trial if released.  

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 65 ICTY Rule Rule 65
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 03.05.2006 NALETILIĆ & MARTINOVIĆ
(IT-98-34-A)

Paras 599-601: mere facilitation by an accused of his transfer to the International Tribunal cannot be considered voluntary surrender. Nevertheless, the underlying rationale for treating voluntary surrender in mitigation also applies to an indictee’s facilitation of the transfer process. The Appeals Chamber found that Martinović facilitated his transfer. As such, this factor should have been considered in mitigation, and the Trial Chamber erred in finding that it “cannot” be considered. 

Download full document
ICTR Rule Rule 101(B)(ii) ICTY Rule Rule 101(B)(ii)
Notion(s) Filing Case
Judgement on Sentencing Appeal - 18.07.2005 BABIĆ Milan
(IT-03-72-A)

74. The Appeals Chamber finds that the Appellant’s argument that he surrendered knowing that he “would be facing a prison sentence” has no merit as this might equally be said of every accused having surrendered and pled guilty before the International Tribunal for the serious crimes referred to in the Statute. […].

Download full document
Notion(s) Filing Case
Appeal Judgement - 09.05.2007 BLAGOJEVIĆ & JOKIĆ
(IT-02-60-A)

344. […] Nor does the Prosecution demonstrate error in the weight accorded by the Trial Chamber to Jokić’s voluntary surrender. The Prosecution argues that an accused is under an obligation to surrender to the International Tribunal,[1] but this does not mean that doing so may not be considered in mitigation,[2] as the Trial Chamber did here. Although voluntary surrender is not cooperation with the Prosecution per se, it is cooperation with the International Tribunal, and the Trial Chamber could consider it a mitigating circumstance. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber dismisses this sub-ground of the appeal. […]

[1] Prosecution Appeal Brief, para. 6.54 (stating that an accused is required to submit themselves to the Tribunal pursuant to an Indictment).

[2] See Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 701 fn. 1512, citing Kunarac et al. Trial Judgement, para. 868 (stating “That an accused may be said to be under an obligation to surrender to the International Tribunal does not mean that doing so should not be considered in mitigation”).

Download full document