That Someone Guilty Be Punished - International Center for ...

een convicted of genocide. The ICTY Appeals Chamber itself has declined to rank crimes against
humanity as a more serious crime than war crimes. See Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Case No.: IT-94-
1-A and IT-94-1-Abis, Judgment in Sentencing Appeals (Jan 26, 2000), 69; see also Prosecutor v.
Anto Furundžija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-A, Appeal Judgment (July 21, 2000), 247.
307. The study authors wrote that “[t]he ‘Level of Responsibility’ exercised by the guilty has a
profound impact on sentencing by our statistical analysis.” Meernik and King, Effectiveness of the
ICTY, supra, p. 365.
308. Interview with Sevima Sali-Terzić, senior legal advisor, BiH Constitutional Court, Sarajevo,
Nov. 30, 2006.
309. Interview with Hatidža Mehmedović, Association of Srebrenica Mothers, Potočari, July 21,
2009.
310. Interview with Dobrila Govedarica, executive director, Open Society Fund BiH, Sarajevo,
Nov. 29, 2006.
311. Interview with Mirsad Tokača, president, Research and Documentation Center Sarajevo,
Sarajevo, Dec. 6, 2006. Tokača apparently was referring to Milomir Stakić, who was sentenced to 40
years in prison for crimes committed in Prijedor, which is located in the northwest area of Bosnian
known as the Bosanska Krajina. Because both of these defendants are ethnic Serbs, there does not
appear to be grounds for alleging that this sentencing disparity reflects ethnic bias.
312. Mark A. Drumbl, Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law 59 (Cambridge Univ. Press
2007).
313. Jennifer J. Clark, Zero to Life: Sentencing Appeals at the International Criminal Tribunals for
the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, 96 Geo. L.J. 1685, 1691 (2009); Judith Armatta, “The Need for
Sentencing Standards,” Coalition for International Justice, Feb. 28, 2003. See generally Olaoluwa
Olusanya, Sentencing War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity under the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Europa Law Publishing 2005).
314. Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić et al., Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgment, 756 (Feb. 20, 2001).
See also Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisić, Case No. IT-95-10-A, Appeal Judgment, 96 (July 5, 2001).
315. Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić et al., Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgment, 715 (Feb. 20, 2001);
see also Jennifer J. Clark, Zero to Life: Sentencing Appeals at the International Criminal Tribunals for
the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, 96 Geo. L.J. 1685, 1697-98 (2009).
316. See Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalić et al., Case No. IT-96-21-A, Appeal Judgment, 717 (Feb. 20,
2001) (noting that Trial Chambers exercise considerable discretion in sentencing, the Appeals
Chamber explained: “This is largely because of the overriding obligation to individualise a penalty
to fit the individual circumstances of the accused and the gravity of the crime”); Prosecutor v. Tihomir
Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-A, Appeal Judgment, 680 (July 29, 2004) (“The Appeals Chamber has
emphasised in previous judgements that sentencing is a discretionary decision and that it is inappropriate
to set down a definitive list of sentencing guidelines. The sentence must always be decided
according to the facts of each particular case and the individual guilt of the perpetrator.”)
317. Mark A. Drumbl, Atrocity, Punishment, and International Law 59 (Cambridge Univ. Press
2007). See also id. at 66–68.
318. Pursuant to Rule 125 of the ICTY’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the ICTY president is
to take into account several factors when determining whether to approve commutation of a con-
THAT SOMEONE GUILTY BE PUNISHED 159