You are on page 1of 13

MICT-13-55-A 5790

01 August 2017 AJ

Case No. MICT-13-55-A

Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals Date: 1 August 20 17

Original: English


Before: Judge Theodor Meron, President

Registrar: Mr. Olufemi Elias

Decision of: 1 August 2017






Counsel for Mr. Radovan KaradiiC:

Mr. Peter Robinson
Ms. Kate Gibson

1. I, Theodor Meron, President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal

Tribunals ("President" and "Mechanism", respectively), am seised of the "Complaint Pursuant to
Rule 83 ICTY Rules of Detention", submitted by Mr. Radovan KaradiiC ("KaradiiC") on 1 1 April
2017 ("~om~laint"),'in which KaradiiC seeks review of the Impugned Decision denying his
request to be allowed to import a laptop computer for use in his cell.2 The Registrar of the
Mechanism ("Registrar") filed a Response to the Complaint on 23 May 201 7. On 25 May 201 7,
KaradiiC filed his ~ e ~ l ~ . ~


2. On 8 March 20 17, KaradiiC submitted the Letter to UNDU in which he requested to be

allowed to import a laptop computer for use in his cell, stating that using the desktop computer
currently available in his cell is causing him [REDACTED].~The Commanding Officer's Decision,
rendered on 15 March 2017, denied KaradiiC's request on the grounds of: (i) safety and security
concerns, namely the difficulty inherent in removing all communication possibilities from laptop
computers without affecting their ability to function; and (ii) health concerns, citing reaffirmation
by the Medical Officer at the UNDU ("Medical Officer") [REDACTED].~

3. On 21 March 2017, KaradiiC appealed the Commanding Officer's Decision, requesting that
the Registrar reverse the decision, and arguing that the Commanding Officer erred in his decision
because Mechanism detainees at the United Nations Detention Facility ("UNDF") in Arusha and
those detainees serving their sentences in the Republics of Mali and Benin are all allowed to have

Internal Memorandum from Mr. Olufemi Elias, Registrar, to Judge Theodor Meron, President, Complaint from Mr.
Radovan KaradZiC concerning the Registrar's decision relating to a laptop, dated 13 April 20 17, transmitting pursuant
to Regulation 3(B) of the United Nations Detention Unit Complaints Procedure for Detainees (IT/96/Rev.l),
14 December 2016 ("UNDU" and "Complaints Procedure", respectively): (i) Complaint Pursuant to Rule 83 ICTY
Rules of Detention, dated I I April 2017; (ii) Complaint pursuant to Rule 82 ICTY Rules of Detention, dated 2 1 March
20 17 ("Appeal to Registrar"); (iii) Decision on your complaint concerning the Commanding Officer's decision to deny
your request to use a laptop computer in the United Nations Detention Unit, rendered by Olufemi Elias, Registrar, dated
4 April 2017 ("Impugned Decision"); (iv) Complaint Pursuant to Rule 81 ICTY Rules of Detention, dated 8 March
2017 ("Letter to UNDU"); and (v) Letter from Mikko Sarvela, Commanding Officer of the UNDU ("Commanding
Officer"), to Mr. KaradZiC, dated 15 March 201 7 ("Commanding Officer Decision"). The Complaint was filed on the
record confidentially and ex parte on 23 May 20 17, see Prosecutor v. Radovan KaradiiC, Case No. MICT- 13-55-A,
Registrar's Submission Pursuant to the Order of 8 May 2017, 23 May 2017 ("Response"), Annex (confidential and ex
1 note that KaradZiC submitted his Complaint pursuant to Rule 83 of the Rules Governing the Detention of Persons
Awaiting Trial or Appeal Before the Tribunal or Otherwise Detained on the Authority of the Tribunal of the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, IT/38/Rev. 10, 15 November 2016 ("Rules of Detention"),
and Regulation 3 of the Complaints Procedure. The Rules of Detention and the Complaints Procedure apply mutatis
mutandis to the Mechanism.
Prosecutor v. Radovan KaradiiC, Case No. MICT-13-55-A, Reply Brief: Appeal of Registrar's Decision on Use of
Laptop at UN Detention Unit, 25 May 20 17 ("KaradiiC case" and "Reply", respectively).
Letter to UNDU.
Commanding Officer Decision.

Case No. MICT-13-55-A 1 August 2017

laptops, and that the Commanding Officer's contention that his health would be adversely affected
by a laptop is ~nreasonable.~

4. The Registrar, having consulted the Commanding Officer and the Information Technology
Services Section of the Mechanism ("ITSS"), denied KaradiiC's request by letter dated
4 April 2017.' In reaching his Decision, the Registrar stated that, inter alia: (i) although removing
or blocking all communication devices from a laptop computer would be possible, laptop computers
cannot be physically locked in a similar manner to the desktop computers in each prison cell and
accordingly, the risk of tampering with the device to re-establish communication capabilities cannot
be excluded; (ii) previously disabled laptop communication facilities could be re-set, thereby
allowing detainees to connect to the internet, which given the location of the UNDU, might allow
detainees to connect to a wireless signal from the surrounding area; and (iii) accordingly, it would
be more difficult for the management of the UNDU to monitor the detainees' communication,
pursuant to the UNDU Regulations to Govern the Supervision of Visits to and Communications
With ~ e t a i n e e sThe
. ~ detainees at the UNDF use laptops, however they are not permitted to use
desktop computers in their cells, and different security and environmental considerations need to be
taken into account where making managerial policy decisions on risk management in this regards9
Coupled with these safety and security concerns, the Registrar stated that the Medical Officer had
confirmed that KaradiiC's medical condition would be adversely impacted by the use of a laptop
computer [REDACTED].'~The Registrar further stated that in 2006 desktop computers, engineered
to comply with detention conditions, were provided to the UNDU detainees, and upgraded in

5. On 11 April 2017, KaradiiC submitted the Complaint to me as President of the Mechanism,

~ 8 May 2017, I ordered the Registrar to make
seeking review of the Impugned ~ e c i s i o n . 'On
submissions on: (i) the feasibility of implementing any of the suggestions raised by KaradiiC as
identified in the Complaint; and (ii) whether providing KaradiiC with a laptop computer with no
internet functionality would satisfy any concerns regarding the monitoring of his and other

Appeal to Registrar.
lmpugned Decision.
lmpugned Decision.
lmpugned Decision. See also UNDU Regulations to Govern the Supervision of Visits to and Communications With
Detainees, lTl981Rev.7, June 201 5 ("Communications Regulations"), applying mutatis mutandis to the Mechanism.
lmpugned Decision.
" lmpugned Decision.

Case No. MICT-13-55-A 1 August 2017


I further ordered the Registrar to file the Complaint, including the

detainees' comm~nication.'~
annexes, on the record.I4

6. On 23 May 2017, the Registrar filed on the record the Complaint and requested guidance as
to the circumstances in which complaints, pursuant to the Complaints Procedure, should be filed on
the record.'' In the Response, the Registrar provided additional information as to the technical
support currently provided to the detainees in the UNDU, including the availability of individual
desktop computer that were last upgraded in 2 0 1 6 . ' ~ The Response noted that, if a laptop were to
be provided to KaradiiC, it would be a standalone device that would have limited functionalities."
Further, the Response addressed, inter alia, the feasibility of the following suggestions made by
KaradiiC in his complaint: (i) a laptop can be physically secured in a laptop cage to prevent its
unauthorized use; (ii) the risk of restoring a laptop's wireless internet capability can be cured by
removing the wireless network card; (iii) there are custom security solutions that would properly
secure a laptop for the purposes of KaradiiC and the UNDU; and (iv) a laptop without internet
connectivity can be provided." It was further submitted that the Impugned Decision also considered
the health and wellbeing of KaradiiC, as well as whether a laptop is needed to assist him in his case
preparations. ''
7. In the Reply, KaradiiC submits that all the confidential annexes to the Response should be
reclassified from ex parte confidential to In addition, KaradiiC states that the Impugned
Decision was based on an incorrect premise that a detainee could open the laptop and tamper with
its functions so that it could be connected to the internet and, therefore, the Impugned Decision
should be reversed on that ground a10ne.~'KaradiiC further states that, if the laptop would not have
Internet connectivity, there would be no communications from the laptop computer to be
monitored.22 Finally, KaradiiC observes that, in his submissions, the Registrar did not address the
fact that detainees' serving their sentences in Benin, Mali, and at the UNDF in Arusha have been
using laptop computers for years.23

'"rosecutor v. Radovan KaradiiC, Case No. MICT-13-55-A, Order for Submissions, 8 May 2017 ("Order"), p. 2.
l 4 Order, p. 2.
l 5 Response, paras. 2-3.
l 6 Response, para. 4.
I' Response, paras. 4-5.
l 8 Response, paras. 8-22.
Repsonse, para. 7.
Reply, paras. 3-4.
KaradtiC's Reply, para. 6.
KaradtiC's Reply, para. 7.
Reply, para. 8.

Case No. MICT-13-55-A 1 August 2017



8. According to Rule 71 of the Rules of Detention, "[dletainees shall be allowed to procure at

their own expense books, newspapers, reading and writing materials and other means of occupation
as are compatible with the interests of the administration of justice and the security and good order
of the Detention Unit and of the Host Prison".

9. Pursuant to Rule 83(A) of the Complaints Procedure, "[a] Detainee, if not satisfied with the
response from the Registrar with regard to his complaint pursuant to Rule 82, has the right to make
a complaint, without censorship, to the President".


10. An administrative decision of the Registrar is subject to review by the President for
procedural or substantive ~ n f a i r n e s sHowever,
.~~ a judicial review of an administrative decision is
not a rehearing.25Nor is it an appeal, or in any way similar to the review which a Chamber may
undertake of its own judgement.26 Rather, a judicial review of an administrative decision made by
the Registrar is concerned initially with the propriety of the procedure by which the Registrar
reached the particular decision and the manner in which he reached it.27

11. Accordingly, the President of the Mechanism may quash an administrative decision if the

(a) failed to comply with [. . .] legal requirements [...I, or

(b) failed to observe any basic rules of natural justice or to act with procedural
fairness towards the person affected by the decision, or

(c) took into account irrelevant material or failed to take into account relevant
material, or

(d) reached a conclusion which no sensible person who has properly applied his
mind to the issue could have reached (the "unreasonableness" test).28

12. Unless unreasonableness has been established, there can be no interference with the margin
of appreciation of the facts or merits of that case to which the maker of such an administrative

Prosecutor v. Radovan KaradiiC, Case No. MICT-13-55-A, Decision on Request for Review of Registrar's
Remuneration Decision for Appeal Phase 1, 15 June 2016 ("KaradiiC Decision"), para. 12.
KaradiiC Decision, para. 1 2.
KaradiiC Decision, para. 12.
KaradiiC Decision, para. 12.
28 KaradiiC Decision, para. 13.

Case No. MICT-13-55-A 1 August 2017


decision is entitled.29 The party challenging the administrative decision bears the burden of
demonstrating that an error of the nature enumerated above has occurred and that this error
significantly affected the administrative decision to his detriment.30


13. Karadiic submits that the Impugned Decision "was based on consideration of irrelevant
factors and was one that no reasonable person with knowledge of the available technology, could
have rea~hed".~'In support, KaradiiC argues that: (i) the imported laptop would have all
communication devices removed before arrival at the U N D U ; ~(ii)
~ a laptop could be physically
secured to prevent it from being opened up and tampered in a so-called "laptop security cage";33
(iii) the risk of restoring a laptop's wireless internet capability could be cured by removing the
wireless network card; and (iv) he could import a laptop without Internet functionality.34Karadiic
further submits that some prisons allow detainees to use laptop, including, inter alia, the inmates at
the UNDF in ~ r u s h a . ~Ultimately,
' Karadiid asserts that the use of a laptop would "significantly
improve [his] quality of life, with no impact on the level of security at the U N D U " . ~ ~

14. As a preliminary matter, in the Response, the Registrar states that the Complaint should
observe the Rules of Detention and be processed under the steps prescribed in the Complaints
Procedure, further stating that these legal frameworks allow a "thorough examination and
expeditious resolution of issues that are non-case related and need not be litigated publicly on the
judicial record".37 On this basis, the Registrar requests the President to provide further guidance as
to the applicable procedure for complaints: if they will continue to be governed by the Complaints
Procedure or if they should be filed on the judicial record.38

15. In the Response, the Registrar notes that he appreciates the need to ensure that detainees
have the best possible technical support to work on their cases and, for this reason in 2006,
individual computers, designed to suit the detention environment and reduce the risks inherent in

29 KaradiiC Decision, para. 14.

O' KaradiiC Decision, para. 14.
3' Complaint, para. 3 (internal punctuation original). I note that, in the Complaint, Karad2iC presents several hyperlinks
of different IT companies that, according to him, provide "secure encasement for laptops at reasonable rates, for similar
urposes", see Complaint, paras. 6 , 7, 9, 10, 12-14.
Complaint, para. 4.
Complaint, para. 6 .
Complaint, para. 9, 12, 13.
35 Complaint, paras. 14, 15.
36 Complaint, para. 17.
" Response, para. 2.
Response, para. 3.

Case No. MICT-13-55-A 1 August 2017


communication devices, were provided to each detainee in their cells.39 The computers were
updated in 2016 and the Registrar submits that putting into place this system required considerable
resources.40 The Registrar further recalls that the Impugned Decision also considered Karad2iC7s
health and wellbeingS4'

16. Turning to the merits of the Complaint, the Registrar asserts that the desktop computer in
KaradiiC's cell is secure and "allows him to read and study his case-related material[s], as well as
digitally transfer do~umentation".~~
Moreover, the Registrar states that, if provided with a laptop
computer, it would be a standalone device that would: (i) have no network connectivity; (ii) not be
able to print documents; (iii) not have storage facilities except locally within the laptop itself; (iv)
not provide access to materials relevant to KaradiiC's case; and (v) not allow KaradiiC to digitally
transfer d o c ~ m e n t a t i o n In
. ~ ~the event of a hardware crash or failure, the Registrar advises that the
ITSS would not be in a position to guarantee the restoration of data.44

17. The Response addresses specific questions identified in the Order and the feasibility of each
of KaradiiC9ssuggestions raised in his The Registrar avers that: (i) the use of a laptop
security cage would cost approximately 200 and result in, inter alia, additional responsibilities and
workload on the UNDU, including the assistance by the UNDU technician in order to proceed with
(a) a daily in-loco verification to confirm that the security cage has not been tampered with; (b) the
process of importing or exporting data from the laptop, in which the security cage would need to be
removed each time, enabling and disabling a USB port, as well as securing the laptop with the
security cage at the end of the process;46(ii) the UNDU does not employ an IT technician on a full
time basis and therefore it is currently not possible to provide the daily security checks,
maintenance or support required for importing andlor exporting data to and from a laptop in a
security cage;47 (iii) the wireless network cards of laptop computers currently available on the
market are integrated into their motherboard, inhibiting the removal of such cards without
physically breaking of affecting the motherboard, without which no laptop can function;48(iv) the
custom security solutions suggested by KaradiiC refer to services to "protect the data and systems
of organisations from unauthorized access and disclosure", and not services related to "custom-

Response, para. 4.
Response, para. 4.
Response, para. 7. See ulso Commanding Officer Decision
Response, para. 4.
Response, paras. 4-6.
Response, para. 6.
See Order. See also Response, paras. 4, 9.
Response, paras. 12- 13.
Response, para. 13.
Response, para. 15.

Case No. MICT-13-55-A 1 August 2017


made laptop computers", which do not address the security concerns associated with laptop use at
the U N D U ; ~(v)
~ the current model of laptop that KaradiiC indicates operates without internet
connectivity actually has a "built-in wireless capability and could therefore be used to connect to
the internet",50and the one suggested by KaradiiC in his Complaint is a very old model, which is
only available in the second-hand market and is unlikely that it would support modem operating
systems.5' Furthermore, the Registrar states that, in consultation with ITSS, the initial approximated
cost for a custom-built laptop, in accordance with ITSS specifications, would be 1,800, excluding
the cost of any security devices, and it could be built in about three weeks from the date of the

18. In his Reply, KaradiiC initially requests that the entire Response, including the confidential
and ex parte annex, be reclassified to public, stating that, unless there are exceptional reasons, all
proceedings before the Mechanism shall be public to ensure all information is transparent and
available to the

19. KaradiiC further avers in the Reply, that the Impugned Decision was based on an incorrect
premise that a detainee could open the laptop and tamper with its functions and therefore the
Impugned Decision should be reversed on that ground alone.54 KaradiiC further states that, if the
laptop would not have Internet connectivity, there would be no communications from the laptop
computer to be m ~ n i t o r e d Finally,
.~~ KaradiiC affirms that, in his submissions, the Registrar did not
address the fact that detainees' serving their sentences in Benin, Mali, and at the UNDF in Arusha
have been using laptop computers for years and therefore the use of a laptop by detainees is not
"unchartered territory for the Registrar".


20. Before turning to the merits of the Complaint, I will first address the Registrar's request for
guidance as to whether submissions under the Complaints Procedure should be filed on the judicial
record and KaradiiC's request that the ex parte and confidential annex to the Response be
reclassified as public. As a matter of principle, I accept that proceedings before the Mechanism

Response, para. 17.
Response, para. 18.
Response, para. 1 8.
52 Response, para. 19.
Reply, paras. 3-4.
Reply, para. 6.
Reply, para. 7.

Case No. Mia-13-55-A 1 August 2017


should be public unless exceptional reasons require keeping them ~onfidential.'~Noting the
Registrar's Response, I nevertheless recognise that there are certain limitations as to when
information, such as that contained in the ex parte and confidential annex to the Response, which
pertains to sensitive medical, security, and safety issues, as well as policy matters related to the
management of the UNDU, should be disclosed to the public. While I am mindful of the general
importance of information being made available to the public, this must be carehlly weighed
against the need to ensure the integrity of the Mechanism's internal process and the day to day
management of the UNDU. Considering that considerable information contained in the exparte and
confidential Annex to the response relates to the practical management of the UNDU and LINDF
and associated internal policy issues, as well as the medical condition of Karad2iC, and that these
are legitimate grounds for maintaining confidentiality, in these circumstances there is no sufficient
basis warranting this material being wholly reclassified to public. However, appreciating that
Mechanism proceedings should be public in so far as possible, this decision is issued in a
confidential and public redacted version, providing a sufficient overview of the matter and
transparency in the decision-making process. As to guidance for the Registry as to when complaints
should be filed on the record, I would, as a matter of principle, see all complaints and related
documentation in the course of administrative review, in relation to active cases before the
Mechanism, as appropriate for filing on the record, subject, of course, to appropriate classifications
applied in the usual manner.

21. Turning to the merits of the Complaint, the Impugned Decision to deny KaradiiC a laptop
was principally based on safety and security concerns, as well as medical reasons." The Registrar
considered that it is not impossible to remove or block all communication devices, but the greatest
risk is that previously disabled laptop communication facilities would be reset, allowing a detainee
to connect to the internet.58 [REDACTED] if laptops were to be provided to detainees, the
management of the UNDU would no longer be in a position to monitor the detainees'
communication as required by the Communications ~ e ~ u l a t i o n .Having
'~ considered the
information contained in the Response, as requested in my Order, I am of the view for three

CJ Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadiii., Case No. MlCT-13-55-A, Decision on Radovan Karadfid's Motion for
Reclassification of Registrar's Submission. 12 December 2016, p. 2. See Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadiii, Case No.
MICT-13-55-A, Decision on Request for Reclassification of Filings, 9 June 2016, p. 2; In the Case Against Florence
Hartmann, Decision on Urgent Request for Lifting Confidentiality and ex parte status of Registry's Notification, p. 1;
Prosecutor v. Sreten Lukid, Case No. MICT-14-67-R.l, Decision on Sreten Lukid's Application for Review, 8 July
20 15, and references cited therein.
Impugned Decision, p. 1.
Impugned Decision, p. 2.
Impugned Decision, p. 2.

Case No. WCT-13-55-A 1 August 2017


principal reasons that the Registrar acted unreasonably in denying KaradiiC's request on the stated

22. First, while the Impugned Decision initially asserted that the "possibility of tampering with
the device with a view to re-establishing (some) of the device's communication capabilities cannot
be excluded", the fuller submissions set out in the Response indicate that there are options available
for laptop computers that would appear to ensure that the safety and security concerns raised by the
Registrar are addressed, including security cages and the total removal of all access to the internet.
In particular, the Response accepts that "a custom-built laptop, made in accordance with ITSS'
specifications, including no internet connectivity, could be custom-made for the Mechanism",
whereby "[a] laptop of this kind could be built in about three weeks from the date of the order".60
Noting that necessary adaptations to the laptop would be at the expense of KaradiiC, and this would
limit the laptop to a standalone device with limited functionalities, it is apparent from the Response
that in reaching the Impugned Decision the Registrar did not fully explore specific possibilities for
technical modifications of such a device so that the safety and security interests of the UNDU could
be duly maintained.

23. I note in that regard that the Response asserts that the UNDU currently does not employ an
IT technician on a full time basis and it is, therefore, "currently not possible to provide the daily
security checks, maintenance or support required for importing/exporting data to and from a laptop
encased in a security cagew." I accept that resource constraints may appropriately limit the
frequency and/or nature of usage of a laptop, including services that may be provided by ITSS to
Karadzic for the maintenance or support required for importing/exporting data to and from a laptop
encased in a security cage. While the Registrar has also raised resource constraints as to the need
for the daily security checks of a laptop device, noting that the fuller submissions set out in the
Response indicate that there are options available for laptop computers that would appear to ensure
that the safety and security concerns raised by the Registrar, inter alia, the need to remove total
access to the internet," are adequately addressed, the absence of current fulltime employment of an
IT technician cannot serve to foreclose completely access by KaradiiC to such an appropriately-
tailored device.

24. Second, the Registrar failed to sufficiently consider a key consideration, namely the relevant
practice of the Mechanism at the UNDF and the degree to which demonstrably objective factors
might warrant an exceptional disparity of treatment. I note in this regard that the Security Council

Response, para. 19.
Response, para. 13.

Case No. MICT-13-55-A 1 August 2017


created the Mechanism as one institution, comprised of two Branches, notwithstanding the varying
institutional ancestors of each Branch and the disparate practices that have in the past stemmed
therefrom. While I accept as a general matter that the managements of the UNDF and UNDU
require, to some extent, different considerations to be borne in mind, the availability of laptops to
detainees in the UNDF and the management and procedures that are there in place to monitor these
laptops and their use, was not given adequate consideration in determining whether KaradiiC's own
request to import a laptop would unduly impact on the safety and security interest of the UNDU,
including its ability to monitor communications.

25. In this regard, there is particular weight with respect to the need for similar situation of
detainees within the scheme of the Mechanism, as a matter of fairness and equality, regardless of
location at a specific branch of the institution. As I have separately observed in the context of
requests for consideration for early release, "fundamental fairness and justice are best served if
[relevant] practice applies uniformly to the entire prisoner population to be ultimately supervised by
the ~ e c h a n i s m " .Given
~ ~ the importance of this general principle, deriving as it does from the very
structure of the Mechanism itself, there must be a demonstrable need to "justify discriminating
between the different groups of convicted persons falling under the jurisdiction of the
~ e c h a n i s m " I. ~consider
~ this same approach applicable in the present matter.

26. Turning to the justifications advanced in this regard, the Impugned Decision asserted
generally that UNDU and UNDF managements need to take "different considerations into account",
coupled with the reference to [REDACTED] as underlying the lmpugned ~ e c i s i o n The
. ~ ~ only
specific assertion in this regard is the contention in the Impugned Decision that [REDAcTED].~~
note that the Response made no further submissions on the strength of distinction of position
between the UNDU and UNDF, even though in other respects the Response included material
beyond the matters on which specific submissions had been requested in the ~ r d e r . ~ '
[REDACTED] I am therefore unpersuaded as to a materially significant distinction as between the
two sets of detainees, for purposes of the current proceedings. The Impugned Decision therefore did
not give sufficient weight to a relevant consideration, namely the similar situation of prisoners in
the UNDU and the UNDF.

See supra, para. 22.
Prosecutor v. Paul Bisengimana, Case No. MICT-12-07, Decision of the President on Early Release of Paul
Bisengimana and on Motion to File a Public Redacted Version (public redacted version), 1 1 December 2012
("Bisengimana Decision"), para 20 (footnotes omitted).
See Bisengimana Decision, para. 2 1 .
Impugned Decision, p. 2.
Impugned Decision, p. 2.
See Response, para. 7.

Case No. MICT-13-55-A 1 August 2017


27. Turning to the third ground, the Impugned Decision cited health risks flowing from poor
posture during use of a laptop. As the Impugned Decision records, however, the primary advice
[REDACTED] was to reduce the amount of time spent sitting.68 It is not, however, clear that the
laptop could not be used in a way that, in fact, is equivalent to or decreases the amount of time
currently spent sitting by KaradiiC and could be appropriately managed by him in terms of posture.
As significantly, the Impugned Decision properly accepts that, in the final analysis, "lifestyle
choices are [by KaradiiC] to be made",69 and due respect for the albeit-limited autonomy of
KaradiiC within the UNDU framework is difficult to reconcile with what would appear to be unduly
paternalistic prescriptions of appropriate forms of body presentation while KaradiiC may be seated
or lying down. Nor does the Impugned Decision address the argument of KaradiiC that his mental
health and wellbeing would be improved by his ability to use a laptop, which, given his stated
recreational interests in its use, may be considerable. In view of the foregoing, I am therefore not
persuaded that the advanced medical reasons, whether alone or in combination with the other
factors discussed, are sufficient to sustain the reasonableness of the Impugned Decision.

28. Accordingly, on the basis of these grounds taken together, I conclude that the Registrar
acted unreasonably in rejecting KaradiiC's request to import a laptop to the UNDU, at his own
expense, subject to suitable modifications to meet specific safety and security requirements.


29. For the foregoing reasons, I hereby GRANT the Request, in part, QUASH the Impugned
Decision of the Registrar to deny KaradiiC the use of a laptop at the UNDU, and REMIT the matter
for the reconsideration of the Registrar, consistent with the terms of the present Decision.

Done in English and French, the English version being authoritative.

Done this 1 day of August 20 17,
At The Hague, Judge Theodor Meron
The Netherlands. President

[Seal of the Mechanism]

Impugned Decision, p. 2.
Impugned Decision, p. 2.

Case No. MICT-13-55-A 1 August 2017



To/ : MICT Registry/ Greffe du MTPI Arusha/ Arusha The Hague/ La Haye
From/ Chambers/ Defence/ Prosecution/ Other/ Autre :
De : Chambre Dfense Bureau du Procureur

Case Name/ Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadi Case Number/ MICT-13-55-A

Affaire : Affaire no :
Date Created/ 01 August 2017 Date transmitted/ 01 August 2017 No. of Pages/ 12
Dat du : Transmis le : Nombre de pages :
Original Language / English/ French/ Kinyarwanda B/C/S Other/Autre
Langue de loriginal : Anglais Franais (specify/prciser) :
Title of Document/ Public redacted version of decision on request for review of Registrar's decision
Titre du document :

Classification Level/ Unclassified/ Ex Parte Defence excluded/ Dfense exclue

Catgories de Non classifi Ex Parte Prosecution excluded/ Bureau du Procureur exclu
classification : Confidential/ Ex Parte R86(H) applicant excluded/ Art. 86 H) requrant exclu
Confidentiel Ex Parte Amicus Curiae excluded/ Amicus curiae exclu
Strictly Confidential/ Ex Parte other exclusion/ autre(s) partie(s) exclue(s)
Strictement confidentiel (specify/prciser) :
Document type/ Motion/ Submission from parties/ Indictment/
Type de document : Requte critures dposes par des parties Acte daccusation
Decision/ Submission from non-parties/ Warrant/
Dcision critures dposes par des tiers Mandat
Order/ Book of Authorities/ Notice of Appeal/
Ordonnance Recueil de sources Acte dappel
Judgement/ Affidavit/
Jugement/Arrt Dclaration sous serment


Translation not required/ La traduction nest pas requise
Filing Party hereby submits only the original, and requests the Registry to translate/
La partie dposante ne soumet que loriginal et sollicite que le Greffe prenne en charge la traduction :
(Word version of the document is attached/ La version Word est jointe)
English/ Anglais French/ Kinyarwanda B/C/S Other/Autre
Franais (specify/prciser) :
Filing Party hereby submits both the original and the translated version for filing, as follows/
La partie dposante soumet loriginal et la version traduite aux fins de dpt, comme suit :
Original/ English/ French/ Kinyarwanda B/C/S Other/Autre
Original en Anglais Franais (specify/prciser) :
Translation/ English/ French/ Kinyarwanda B/C/S Other/Autre
Traduction en Anglais Franais (specify/prciser) :
Filing Party will be submitting the translated version(s) in due course in the following language(s)/
La partie dposante soumettra la (les) version(s) traduite(s) sous peu, dans la (les) langue(s) suivante(s) :
English/ Anglais French/ Kinyarwanda B/C/S Other/Autre
Franais (specify/prciser) :

Send completed transmission sheet to/ Veuillez soumettre cette fiche dment remplie : OR/OU
Rev: April 2014/Rv. : Avril 2014