Prosecutor v Dragan Nikolic: decision on defence motion on illegal capture

Sloan, J. (2003) Prosecutor v Dragan Nikolic: decision on defence motion on illegal capture. Leiden Journal of International Law, 16(3), pp. 541-552. (doi: 10.1017/S0922156503001286)

[img]
Preview
Text
38253.pdf

135kB

Publisher's URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0922156503001286

Abstract

In November 1994 the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), indicted its first accused, Dragan Nikolic. It was not until over five years later, however, in April 2000, that he was finally arrested and transferred to The Hague. The circumstances of his arrest – which reportedly featured his being violently abducted from his home in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) by Serbian criminals before being transferred to the NATO-led Stabilization Force in Bosnia and Herzegovina and, ultimately, to the ICTY in The Hague – were the subject of a pre-trial motion. Nikolic's defence counsel asserted that the nature of his capture was such that the appropriate remedy was to dismiss the charges against him and order his return to the FRY. They made this assertion despite an admission, for the purposes of the motion, that the captors lacked any connection with SFOR or the ICTY. The trial chamber rejected the motion. In reaching its decision, the trial chamber considered fundamental issues about what constituted an illegal capture for the purposes of the ICTY and, without explicitly doing so, appeared to reject the view of the Court in <i>Eichmann</i> that a person may not oppose his being tried by reason of the illegality of his capture.

Item Type:Articles
Status:Published
Refereed:Yes
Glasgow Author(s) Enlighten ID:Sloan, Professor James
Authors: Sloan, J.
College/School:UNSPECIFIED
Journal Name:Leiden Journal of International Law
Publisher:Cambridge University Press
ISSN:0922-1565
Copyright Holders:Copyright © 2003 Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law
First Published:First published in Leiden Journal of International Law 16(3):541-552
Publisher Policy:Reproduced in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher

University Staff: Request a correction | Enlighten Editors: Update this record