A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda
(ICTR)

Background

After the conflicts in Rwanda and in the former Yugoslavia, and in the absence of a
permanent international criminal court, the international community chose to establish
two ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals to prosecute individuals responsible for war
crimes, crimes against humanity, and acts of genocide in these two specific situations.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established in
1993, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in 1994, to investigate
and punish the perpetrators of the egregious crimes committed during those conflicts.

The UN Security Council set up both Tribunals through resolutions adopted under
Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Such resolutions are binding on all States, and the
Tribunals were established in this manner so as to impose their jurisdiction directly on
all States. The other method would have been to adopt a treaty creating such a body,
which would have required States’ consent and then ratification.

Since then, on 17 July 1998, States adopted the Statute of the International Criminal
Court (ICC), called the Rome Statute, which entered into force on 1 July 2002. The ICC
is responsible for bringing to justice persons accused of genocide, war crimes, and
crimes against humanity. The ICC’s jurisdiction is subject to certain preconditions, and it
operates only when the concerned State or States are unwilling or unable to carry out
the necessary investigations and prosecutions. The UN Security Council, however, can
impose the ICC’s jurisdiction on a given State by adopting a resolution under Chapter
VII of the UN Charter.

Legal Basis of the Tribunals: International Law, Civil Law, and Common Law

The ICTY was established by Security Council Resolutions 808 of 22 February 1993
and 827 of 25 May 1993. It is based in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICTR was
established by Security Council Resolution 955 of 8 November 1994 and is based in
Arusha, Tanzania. The Statutes of the Tribunals are annexed to these resolutions.

Page 1 of 16
A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

Since there is no international code of criminal procedure, the Tribunals established

their own Rules of Procedure and Evidence—adopted on 11 February 1994, for the
ICTY, and 29 June 1995, for the ICTR. The ICTR adopted rules very similar to those of
the ICTY. The Rules were largely inspired by the system of common law, which governs
most Anglo-Saxon States, as opposed to civil law. The common law system is often
labeled as having an accusatorial (or adversarial) approach, while the civil law system is
considered to be inquisitorial.

In this respect, civil law proponents have noted certain significant differences incurred
by this approach, detailed in the following sections.

Role of the Victim

One important contrast is the role of the victim. In common law, the victim in a criminal
case is generally treated as a witness. This means two main things:

 The victim usually cannot claim damages in a criminal case (compensation is

usually awarded in civil cases, tried before civil or magistrates’ courts), whereas,
in civil law, plaintiffs may claim damages in criminal cases (“ se porter partie
civile ”).

In the ICTY and ICTR, this is reflected in the fact that, once the registrar has transmitted
the guilty verdict to the competent authorities, the victims or persons bringing claims for
them need to take action before a national court or other competent body in order to
obtain compensation (Rule 106 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the
Tribunals).

 The accusatory system may expose the victims and witnesses to harrowing
cross-examination carried out by the defense.

The Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunals include provisions to implement
special measures for the protection and privacy of victims and witnesses. However,
these provisions are only guaranteed while they are testifying. Their fate upon their
return to their place of origin, as well as that of their family, is not taken into account.

Page 2 of 16
A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

In certain circumstances, it is possible to submit information to the prosecutor on

condition that he or she not disclose the information and its source to the defense of the
accused without the consent of the entity or person who provided it (ICTY Rules of
Procedure and Evidence, Rule 70B).

Trials in Absentia

Another difference between the common law and civil law systems reflected in the
procedure of the Tribunals is the fact that they do not allow trials in absentia (in the
absence of the accused). Such trials are considered a potential violation of the due
process rights of the accused under common law systems (though sentences for certain
minor crimes may be pronounced in the absence of the accused if he or she
deliberately failed to attend the trial or has fled). Civil law systems are technically more
open to carrying out “procedures par defaut” (in the absence of the accused), although
these are actually meant to encourage the accused to present him- or herself, since a
completely new trial must be initiated if the accused contests the judgment of the first
one.

Role of the Prosecutor

In the common law system, the chief prosecutor or attorney is responsible for both the
investigation and prosecution, while in civil law, the investigation is carried out by
examining magistrates and most of the interrogations during the trial are conducted by
judges. This lightens the pressure of interrogation of victims and witnesses during the
trial. In this respect, the structure of the Tribunals, explained later, also shows the
influence of the accusatory system, mainly reflected in the dominant authority given to
the prosecutor.

The Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), adopted in July 1998, comes
closer to combining the two legal systems: it institutes a Pre-Trial Chamber that must
authorize any investigations initiated by the prosecutor, and it allows the ICC to order
reparations to be made to (or with respect to) victims. Reparations may include
restitution, compensation, or rehabilitation and may be paid either directly by the

Page 3 of 16
A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

convicted person or through a Trust Fund set up by the Court’s Statute (Arts. 75 and 79
of the Rome Statute).

Structure and Organization

The ICTY and ICTR, though independent, have organizational ties that ensure a unity
and coherence in their judicial operations and increase the effectiveness of the
resources allocated to them. They are made up of the judicial organ, the Office of the
Prosecutor, and the administrative organ. Before 2007, the Tribunals shared the
prosecutor and appellate judges, but since then, they have separate prosecutors as well
as separate trial judges and separate administrative organs and budgets.

The Judicial Organ

The judicial organ has fourteen judges who must be of different nationalities. It was
originally created with one Trial Chamber for each Tribunal (three judges each) and a
common Appeals Chamber (five judges). However, two new resolutions adopted by the
Security Council, aimed at accelerating the pursuit of justice (Resolutions 1165 of 30
April 1998, and 1166 of 13 May 1998), added a Trial Chamber for each Tribunal.

 The judges are elected by the General Assembly of the UN, which, as is the case
with the International Court of Justice and the ICC, must take into account the
need for equitable geographic distribution and the representation of the principal
legal systems of the world. The judges are elected for four years and can be
reelected. They are chosen from a list of twenty-two names selected by the
Security Council.
 The fourteen judges then elect the president of the Tribunal, who also presides
directly over the Appeals Chamber, appointing them to the different Chambers.
The Trial Chambers, once established, also elect their own presidents. In
February 2012, Judge Vagn Joensen from Denmark was elected as the new
president of the ICTR; he was reelected in May 2015. The current president of
the ICTY is Judge Theodor Meron from the USA, who was appointed on 19
October 2011 and reelected in October 2013.

The Office of the Prosecutor

Page 4 of 16
A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

The Tribunals share the Office of the Prosecutor. The prosecutor is appointed by the
Security Council, upon nomination by the Secretary-General of the UN, for a four-year
term, renewable once. He or she holds the rank of Assistant Secretary-General. In
September 2003, Carla Del Ponte from Switzerland was replaced by Hassan Bubacar
Jallow from Gambia as the prosecutor of the ICTR. In 2007, the Security Council
decided to renew his mandate for four years, until the completion of the Tribunal’s work.
In January 2008, Serge Brammertz from Belgium replaced Carla Del Ponte as the
prosecutor of the ICTY; he was reappointed in September 2011. The staff in this office is
nominated by the Secretary-General upon recommendation of the prosecutor, who is
also assisted by two deputy prosecutors (one for each Tribunal).

The Administrative Organ

The administrative organ is the Registry, run by a registrar. Each Tribunal has its own
Registry, responsible for the administration and servicing of the Tribunal. The registrars
are nominated to four-year, renewable terms by the Secretary-General of the UN after
consultation with the president of the Tribunal. The registrar has a staff that is also
nominated by the Secretary-General, after consultation with the registrar.

The 2010–2011 regular budgets of the Tribunals, approved by the General Assembly of
the United Nations, amount to $227 million for the ICTR and $302 million for the ICTY,
and are to be drawn from the regular budget of the UN. The Tribunals also operate
partly thanks to voluntary contributions made by States. This means that they frequently
suffer from serious funding problems that hinder their activities. This is especially a
problem for the ICTR.

Jurisdiction and Sentencing

Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Jurisdiction Ratione Materiae)

Both Tribunals have the power to “prosecute persons responsible for serious violations
of international humanitarian law” (Art. 1 of both statutes). The specific crimes over
which they have jurisdiction are defined in detail in each of the Statutes (Arts. 2–5 of
ICTY Statute; Articles 2–4 of ICTR Statute). These crimes fall under the categories of
acts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, for both Tribunals. Within
Page 5 of 16
A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

this framework, each Tribunal has added a specific type of crime to its jurisdiction, in
comparison with narrower past interpretations of international law:

 The ICTY raised the legal status of the crime of rape, as such, to that of a crime
against humanity. This is a new judicial specificity. To this effect, the ICTY’s Rules
of Procedure and Evidence provide measures requiring a lighter burden of proof
in cases of sexual assault (Rule 96).
 The ICTR extended the notion of grave breaches of international humanitarian
law to include situations of internal armed conflict. It based accusations on
violations of Article 3 of Additional Protocol II of 1977 (Art. 4 of ICTR Statute).

The ICTR has set two very important legal precedents, on rape and genocide, in the
judgment rendered against Jean-Paul Akayesu (ICTR-96-4-T, delivered on 2 September
1998). It is the first judgment rendered by an international tribunal that finds an
individual guilty of genocide and rape, using legal definitions of rape and genocide, on
the one hand, and of serious violations of Additional Protocol II of the Geneva
Conventions, on the other.

In addition to the guilty ruling, the ICTR also set an important legal precedent by stating
that rape can be an act of genocide. More details concerning the judgment are provided
in the entry on .

Personal Jurisdiction (Jurisdiction Ratione Personae)

The two Statutes are based on the principle of individual criminal responsibility (Art. 7 of
ICTY Statute, Art. 6 of ICTR Statute). Under current international law, this principle only
applies to “natural persons” (individual human beings), and the statutes insist on the fact
that their jurisdiction is only over such persons (Art. 6 of ICTY Statute, Art. 5 of ICTR
Statute). States (or private actors), therefore, cannot be judged.

The Tribunals have the power to prosecute any individual accused of serious violations
of international humanitarian law (Art. 1 of both Statutes), regardless of their level of
responsibility. The Statutes draw from the provisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal.

Page 6 of 16
A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

 Any person who planned, instigated, ordered, committed, or otherwise aided and
abetted in the planning, preparation, or execution of a crime under jurisdiction of
the Tribunals—whether a government official, military commander, or subordinate
—is individually responsible for the crime and may be prosecuted (Art. 7.1 of
ICTY Statute; Art. 6.1 of ICTR Statute).
 Neither the official rank of an accused nor the fact that he or she may have acted
under superior orders are grounds for excluding criminal responsibility.

—In the case of persons of superior rank—whether a head of State or government or a

high civil servant—their official position neither relieves them of their individual criminal
responsibility nor mitigates their punishment (Art. 7.2 of ICTY Statute, Art. 6.2 of ICTR
Statute).

—In the case of subordinates, the fact that they were following superior orders does not
relieve them of individual criminal responsibility. However, superior orders may be
considered a reason to mitigate their punishment, but only in cases in which these
orders allowed them no freedom of action or judgment (Art. 7.4 of ICTY Statute, Art. 6.4
of ICTR Statute).

—Furthermore, a superior will be held responsible for a crime committed by a

subordinate, if the superior knew or had reasons to know that the subordinate was
about to commit such acts or had done so, and the superior failed to take the necessary
and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or punish the perpetrators (Art. 7.3 of
ICTY Statute, Art. 6.3 of ICTR Statute). In this respect, the statutes reflect the provisions
concerning the duty of commanders from the 1977 Additional Protocol I of the Geneva
Conventions (API Art. 87).

Jurisprudence

In the Boškoski & Tarčulovski Case (19 May 2010, para. 52), the ICTY Appeals
Chamber recalled that, pursuant to Article 1 of the Statute, the Tribunal is not limited in

Page 7 of 16
A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

its jurisdiction to prosecute persons of a specific level of authority, which means that the
subordinate role of an accused is legally irrelevant in determining his individual criminal
responsibility.

Territorial and Temporal Jurisdiction (Jurisdiction Ratione Loci and Ratione

Temporis)

 The jurisdiction of the ICTY covers the territory of the former Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. Its temporal jurisdiction covers all crimes committed
since 1 January 1991—the date that marked the beginning of the hostilities,
according to the UN Security Council. The Tribunal’s jurisdiction will end when
the ICTY considers that the hostilities have ended.
 The jurisdiction of the ICTR covers the territory of Rwanda and of its neighboring
States, while its temporal jurisdiction covers only a one-year period, from 1
January to 31 December 1994

Jurisprudence

In the Bizimungu Case (22 November 2005, paras. 20, 26), the Second Trial Chamber
of the ICTR made an extensive interpretation of its jurisdiction ratione temporis , arguing
that even if the tribunal’s jurisdiction was limited to crimes committed during 1994 (Art. 1
of its Statute), conspiracy to commit genocide was a crime of a continuing nature, as it
is stated in the Nahimana Case (3 December 2003, paras. 100–104, 1044). Therefore,
the Court held that evidence of acts occurring prior to 1994 may be used as evidence of
crimes committed during the period between 1 January and 31 December 1994.

In the Nahimana et al. Case (28 November 2007, paras. 313, 314), the ICTR Appeals
Chamber hold that “it was the intention of the framers of the Statute that the Tribunal
should have jurisdiction to convict an accused only where all of the elements required to
be shown in order to establish his guilt were present in 1994.” Accordingly, the Appeals
Chamber found that in order to convict an individual, it must be proved that the acts or
omissions of the accused establishing his responsibility occurred in 1994 and that at the
time of such acts or omissions the accused had the requisite intent.

Penalties
Page 8 of 16
A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

Persons found guilty of grave violations of humanitarian law shall be sentenced to terms
of imprisonment. The Tribunals do not apply the death sentence. Since there is no
international criminal code, international law has no standard sentence determined for a
given crime. The Tribunals are therefore subject to the general scales of prison
sentences that exist in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda (Art. 24 of ICTY Statute,
Art. 23 of ICTR Statute).

Once a sentence has been pronounced, the term of imprisonment is served in a country
designated by the Tribunal from a list of States that have indicated to the UN Security
Council their willingness to accept sentenced persons (Art. 27 of ICTY Statute). The
ICTR adds the possibility of serving out the sentence in Rwanda (Art. 26 of ICTR
Statute).

As of April 2013, the ICTY has almost completed its work, with the arrest of the two last
suspects accused by the Tribunal, Ratko Mladić, arrested on 26 May 2011, and Goran
Hadžić, arrested on 20 July 2011. In total, the ICTY has issued indictments for 161
persons. Of those 161 proceedings, twenty-five are still ongoing and 136 are concluded.
Out of the twenty-five ongoing cases, thirteen are pending appeal and twelve are
currently at trial. Out of the 136 accused, eighteen persons have been acquitted, sixty-
nine have been sentenced, thirteen cases have been referred to a national jurisdiction
(ten to Bosnia and Herzegovina, one to Serbia, and two to Croatia), and thirty-six
individuals had their indictments withdrawn or are deceased, which is the case for
Slobodan Milošević, who died after his transfer to the Tribunal.

The ICTR, for its part, has issued indictments against ninety-nine individuals. Out of
these ninety-nine indicted persons, one individual is awaiting trial, ten cases are in
progress, sixty-five are completed (thirty-eight sentenced, nineteen under appeal, and
eight acquitted), two individuals have deceased before trial, three cases have been
referred to a national jurisdiction (one to Rwanda and two to France), nine indicted have
been released (two before trial and seven after completing sentence), and nine remain
fugitives.

The ICTY and ICTR have a scope of jurisdiction that is limited in time and space: the
jurisdiction of the ICTY covers the territory of the former Socialist Federal Republic of
Page 9 of 16
A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

Yugoslavia for crimes committed since 1 January 1991, and that of the ICTR concerns
the territory of Rwanda and its neighboring states and covers only the time period from
1 January to 31 December 1994.

 The Tribunals have the authority to judge individuals accused of criminal acts, not
States.
 The Tribunals operate in parallel with national courts but may request that the
latter defer certain cases under investigation or prosecution to the Tribunals for
judgment.

 Victims and States may not bring complaints directly before these Tribunals.

 The prosecutor alone can decide to open an investigation, either on his or her
own initiative or based on information received. NGOs, victims, witnesses,
intergovernmental organizations, and States may all submit information to the
prosecutor.

 The Tribunals adopted their own definitions of war crimes and crimes against
humanity, which merge the definitions from the Statute of the 1945 Nuremberg
Military Tribunal and those contained in the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their
1977 Additional Protocols.

 Neither the excuse of the official function of an accused nor that of following
superior orders can serve as grounds for excluding individual criminal
responsibility.

 Penalties are limited to prison sentences. The death sentence cannot be

imposed.

 The Tribunals depend on the judicial cooperation of States to ensure their

effectiveness, which in turn requires that each State adapt its laws for such
cooperation.

 The Tribunals’ jurisprudence has clarified the interpretation of humanitarian law.

State Cooperation

Page 10 of 16
A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

The existence of the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals does not relieve States of
their obligation to search for and prosecute the perpetrators of grave violations of
humanitarian law, as established in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The Tribunals can
only function properly if the national systems of justice are effective and cooperate with
one another in criminal matters.

Even though the Statutes of the Tribunals were adopted through UN Security Council
resolutions, which are binding on all States, the judicial cooperation that is necessary
between the Tribunals and the national authorities is only possible if each country has
adapted its laws to legislate this cooperation.

Relationship between the Tribunals and National Jurisdictions

This relationship is founded on three principles:

Concurrent Jurisdiction

The Tribunals and national courts have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute persons
presumed guilty of serious violations of international humanitarian law (Art. 9.1 of ICTY
Statute, Art. 8.1 of ICTR Statute). This is particularly important for victims. As has been
explained, only the prosecutor can initiate an investigation or prosecution, and victims
cannot claim damages before the Tribunals. Hence, individuals and NGOs can only file
complaints or ask for compensation—and victims can only receive reparations for the
injuries suffered—before domestic courts. In this respect, national judges play an
integral part in the exercise of international jurisdiction.

Primacy of International Tribunals

Although the jurisdiction is concurrent, both Statutes clearly establish that the Tribunals
have primacy over national courts (Art. 9.2 of ICTY Statute, Art. 8.2 of ICTR Statute).
This means that, at any stage of the judicial proceedings, the International Criminal
Tribunals may formally request that national courts defer to the competence of the
International Criminal Tribunals. The Rules of Procedure and Evidence set out the
details of the deferral procedures.

Page 11 of 16
A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

This principle of primacy is an exception in international law and was not included in the
Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Ne Bis in Idem

This is a firmly established principle of law, both in general criminal and in international
law, according to which one person may not be judged twice for the same crime (also
known as protection from double jeopardy). It is one of the main due process
guarantees, as provided for in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(Art. 14.7 of ICCPR). This fundamental right is reflected in the two Tribunal Statutes
(Art. 10 of ICTY Statute, Art. 9 of ICTR Statute).

An individual tried before one of the International Criminal Tribunals thus cannot be tried
again before a national court for the same crime. By the same token, the Tribunals may
not rule on an act for which a person was already tried by a national court. However,
there are exceptions: the Tribunals may subsequently try the person if “the act was
characterized as an ordinary crime [in the domestic trial]; or the national court
proceedings were not impartial or independent, or were designed to shield the accused
from international criminal responsibility; or if the case was not diligently prosecuted”
(Art. 10.2 of ICTY Statute, Art. 9.2 of ICTR Statute).

Obligations of State Cooperation and Mutual Judicial Assistance

All States are under the obligation to cooperate with the two Tribunals, at all stages in
the process of investigating and prosecuting a person (Art. 29 of ICTY Statute, Art. 28 of
ICTR Statute). Such obligations include compliance, “without undue delay,” with
requests for assistance in gathering evidence; taking the testimony of witnesses,
suspects, and experts; identifying and locating persons; and serving documents. States
must also carry out the requests of the trial chambers, such as summonses, subpoenas,
arrest warrants, and transfer orders.

To facilitate the transfer of an accused by a State, the Tribunals have set up an

arrangement between the Tribunal and the State in question that bypasses the legal
impediments that often result from extradition proceedings.

Page 12 of 16
A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

These obligations include the duty to contribute to the budget, to make personnel
available, and especially to adopt concrete judicial and legislative measures into
domestic laws, so as to be able to implement the provisions in the Statutes of the
Tribunals and the resolutions that created them. The goodwill of States is hence a
crucial element in ensuring that the Tribunals function smoothly. This is particularly
important since the Tribunals, contrary to domestic courts, have no enforcement
mechanism to back them up and no concrete provisions to punish a State that fails to
cooperate with the Tribunals or does not amend its national legislation to incorporate the
obligations derived from the Statutes.

The stabilization force deployed by NATO in the former Yugoslavia (SFOR), for
instance, does not have the mandate of a police force responsible for searching for war
criminals. Instead, its mandate establishes that the troops may arrest persons indicted
for war crimes if they encounter them in the context of their activities. However, several
commando operations that were launched for the sole purpose of arresting indicted
persons seem to indicate that the interpretation of this mandate remains in flux.

The Tribunals’ Completion Strategy and the International Residual Mechanism for
Criminal Tribunals

The Tribunals’ Completion Strategy

The International Criminal Tribunals do not have a universal jurisdiction, and their
mandate is limited in time. In its resolution 1934 of 26 March 2004, the United Nations
Security Council called on the Tribunals to take all possible measures to complete their
investigations by the end of 2004, to complete all trial activities on first instance by the
end of 2008, and to complete all work in 2010, accordingly with their “completion
strategy.” As those dates have not been met, the UN Security Council, in its resolution
1966 of 22 December 2010, decided to create the International Residual Mechanism for
Criminal Tribunals in order to allow them to complete their work without being able to
open new cases.

The International Residual Mechanisms for Criminal Tribunals

Page 13 of 16
A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

The International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals was established by United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1966 (2010) to finish the work begun by the two
International Criminal Tribunals. It is subdivided into two branches; the ICTR branch
began functioning on 1 July 2012 and the ICTY branch on 1 July 2013. The resolution
establishing the Mechanism calls upon the two Tribunals to finish their work by 31
December 2014 and to prepare their closure and transition of cases to the Mechanisms.
In March 2012, the UN Security Council appointed Judge Hassan Bubacar Jallow, the
current prosecutor of the ICTR, as the prosecutor of the International Residual
Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals.

In this Resolution (1966), the UN Security Council decided that:

 the Mechanism “shall continue the jurisdiction, rights and obligations and
essential functions of the ICTY and the ICTR” (Art. 4);
 the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Mechanism and any amendments
shall take effect upon adoption by the judges of the Mechanism (Art. 6);

 all States shall cooperate fully with the Mechanism and take any measures
necessary under their domestic law to implement the provisions of the present
resolution and the Statute of the Mechanism (Art. 9); and

 the Mechanism shall operate for an initial period of four years from the first
commencement date, and to review the progress of the work of the Mechanism,
including in completing its functions, before the end of this initial period and every
two years thereafter, and further decided that the Mechanism shall continue to
operate for subsequent periods of two years following each such review, unless
the Security Council decides otherwise (Art. 17).

The Statute of the Mechanism is organized and structured on the basis of the two
Tribunals’ Statutes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

 Competence of the Mechanism (Art. 1): The Mechanism shall continue the
material, territorial, temporal, and personal jurisdiction of the ICTY and the ICTR

Page 14 of 16
A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

as set out in Articles 1 to 8 of the ICTY Statute and Articles 1 to 7 of the ICTR
Statute, as well as the rights and obligations of the ICTY and the ICTR (para. 1);
 The Mechanism shall have the power to prosecute, in accordance with the
provisions of the present Statute, the persons indicted by the ICTY or the ICTR
but shall not have the power to issue any new indictments against persons other
than those already covered by this Article (Art. 1, paras. 2-4);

 Structure and Seats (Art. 3): The Mechanism will comprise one Trial Chamber
for each branch and a common Appeals Chamber. The prosecutor will be
responsible for both branches (Art. 3);

 Organization (Art. 4): The Mechanism shall consist of: (a) the Chambers,
comprising a Trial Chamber for each branch of the Mechanism and an Appeals
Chamber common to both branches of the Mechanism; (b) the prosecutor
common to both branches of the Mechanism; and (c) the Registry, common to
both branches of the Mechanism, to provide administrative services for the
Mechanism, including the Chambers and the prosecutor;

 Concurrent Jurisdiction (Art. 5); The Mechanism shall have primacy over
national courts;

 Referral of Cases to National Jurisdictions (Art. 6); The Mechanism shall

have the power to refer cases involving persons who are not among the most
senior leaders suspected of being most responsible for the crimes covered by the
Statutes of the ICTR and the ICTR to competent national authorities, that is, the
authorities of the country in whose territory the crime was committed, or in which
the accused was arrested;

 Roster of Judges (Art. 8): The Mechanism shall have a roster of twenty-five
independent judges, not more than two of whom may be nationals of the same
State;

 Election of Judges (Art. 10): The judges of the Mechanism shall be elected by
the General Assembly from a list submitted by the Security Council;

Page 15 of 16
A Discourse on ICTY and ICTY

 The President (Art. 11): After consultation with the president of the Security
Council and the judges of the Mechanism, the Secretary-General shall appoint a
full-time president from among the judges of the Mechanism.

Page 16 of 16