UNITED NATIONS Case No.: IT-96-21-A Date: 20 February ... - ICTY

C. Was the Allegation Proved? ....................................................................................................................................................217
D. Absence of Identifiable Prejudice ..........................................................................................................................................218
E. Obligation to Raise the Issue at Trial....................................................................................................................................222
F. Conclusion.....................................................................................................................................................................................226
XII. JUDGE ODIO BENITO AND VICE-PRESIDENCY OF COSTA RICA...................... 227
A. Background..................................................................................................................................................................................227
B. Was Judge Odio Benito No Longer Qualified as a Judge of the Tribunal?...............................................................229
C. Should Judge Odio Benito Have Disqualified Herself as a Judge of the Tribunal? ................................................237
D. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................................................240
XIII. JUDGE ODIO BENITO AND THE VICTIMS OF TORTURE FUND......................... 244
XIV. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATING TO SENTENCING............................................ 251
A. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................251
B. Prosecution’s Appeal Against Mucic’s Sentence................................................................................................................256
1. Failure to take into account the gravity of the offences..........................................................................................................258
2. Failure to have regard to crimes not alleged in the Indictment.............................................................................................270
3. The determination that all sentences should be served concurrently...................................................................................273
C. Mucic’s Appeal Against Sentence..........................................................................................................................................276
1. Consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors..............................................................................................................276
2. Comparison to the case of Wilhelm Von Leeb..........................................................................................................................285
3. Weight to be given to the element of deterrence .....................................................................................................................286
D. Delic’s Appeal Against Sentence ............................................................................................................................................289
1. Violation of the Principle Nulla Poena Sine Lege and failure to properly consider the sentencing practice of the courts
of the former Yugoslavia ...........................................................................................................................................................291
2. The sentence imposed was excessive ........................................................................................................................................294
E. Esad Land‘o.................................................................................................................................................................................296
1. Comparison with other sentences imposed by the Tribunal..................................................................................................296
2. Insufficient weight given to mitigating factors ........................................................................................................................299
F. Significance of Respective Roles in the Broader Context of the Conflict – Ground of Appeal Submitted by
Land‘o, Delic and Mucic.........................................................................................................................................................301
G. Conclusion....................................................................................................................................................................................304
XV. DISPOSITION ....................................................................................................................... 306
XVI. SEPARATE AND DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DAVID HUNT AND JUDGE
MOHAMED BENNOUNA.................................................................................................. 309
A. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................309
iii
Case No.: IT-96-21-A 20 February 2001