On 23 September 2010 the Appeals Chamber (AC) issued a third corrigendum of its Appeals Judgment in the Haradinaj case (probably alerted about that error by my previous post). The material part of that last corrigendum reads as follows:
‘the fourth sentence of paragraph 43 of the Appeal Judgement shall be amended as follows:
The Trial Chamber was in possession of information indicating that the other witness was available to testify by video-conference link at approximately 6:30 p.m.[1]’
The question remains whether the damage done by the identified clerical error has been really rectified by the Appeals Chamber? The public is still able to see the judgment unchanged. Whoever bothers to read the third corrigendum is still at a loss as to what is really the case? So, is it that:
1. there is no indictment and the reference to the indictment was simply wrong, a clerical error; or
2. there is an indictment but eventually that is not public and the AC does not want to reveal that fact?
Would it be better if the corrigendums, all three of them, be incorporated into the judgment itself, so that only the corrected and correct version is available to the public?
[1] T. 10876 (15 November 2007) (Private Session).
Be First to Comment