11. Having found that the Trial Chamber did not err in holding that it could issue a binding Rule 54bis order to NATO, the Appeals Chamber considers that it has competence under Rule 108bis to review the Impugned Decision as it relates to NATO although Rule 108bis only provides for “a State” to request review. The Appeals Chamber recalls its holding above that a State may be interpreted under Article 29 and Rule 54bis to refer to a collective enterprise of States.[1] Furthermore, Rule 54bis (C)(i)(a) requires that a decision under that Rule “shall be subject to review under Rule 108bis.” Finally, because international organizations, like States, are not parties to proceedings before the International Tribunal such that they may appeal a Rule 54bis decision, fairness requires that international organizations must have the same right to seek a review of a Rule 54bis order issued against them as is enjoyed by individual States. (emphasis added).

11. [...] Rule 108bis was adopted to permit States directly affected by an interlocutory decision to seek a review where it is claimed that an interlocutory decision of a Trial Chamber has impacted upon its legal rights, such as when a State is ordered to produce documents or records from its archives. This provision is not available where the State claims that its legitimate political interests have been affected, or where it has a genuine concern that the facts alleged in the indictment are historically accurate.^[…] The time for the investigation into the truth of the facts alleged in an indictment does not arise until the trial.

12. Article 29 of the Tribunal’s Statute provides that all States shall cooperate with the Tribunal and comply without undue delay with any request for assistance or order issued by this Tribunal. In particular, Article 29(d) expressly provides that this general obligation includes a duty to comply with any such request or order relating to “the arrest or detention of persons”. Croatia’s role in complying with such a request or order is the purely ministerial one of executing the warrants and carrying out such arrest and detention as ordered by the Tribunal. A State which is ordered to arrest or detain an individual pursuant to Article 29(d) has no standing to challenge the merits of that order.