Cooperation with the Tribunal
|Judgement on Sentencing Appeal - 02.04.2007||
Bralo claimed that his cooperation went beyond mere cooperation with the Prosecution and argued that he actually cooperated “with the wider aims of the International Tribunal itself”. At para. 37, the Appeals Chamber found:
37. […] While the jurisprudence of the International Tribunal has consistently identified cooperation under Rule 101(B)(ii) of the Rules primarily as cooperation with the Prosecution, cooperation is not to be “construed narrowly and singularly”, and Trial Chambers accordingly have the discretion to take other forms of cooperation into account by examining them under different headings: what matters is that Trial Chambers fulfil their obligation under Rule 101(B)(ii) to consider all mitigating circumstances before them.
 See Momir Nikolić Judgement on Sentencing Appeal, paras 86 ff; Jokić Judgement on Sentencing Appeal, para. 88; Dragan Nikolić Judgement on Sentencing Appeal, paras 61 ff.
 Simić Sentencing Judgement, para. 111: “[C]o-operation should not be construed narrowly and singularly. Rather, co-operation with the Prosecution can be found to exist where a defendant, through his or her actions, facilitated the timely presentation of the Prosecution’s case, as was the case when Milan Simić agreed to the use of video-link, thereby waiving his right to be present for his trial, as enshrined in Article 21(4)(d) of the Statute.”
 Deronjić Judgement on Sentencing Appeal, para. 149.
101(B)(ii) ICTY Rule Rule