THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL		CASE NO. IT-02-60-A
FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER

Before:	Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen, Presiding Judge
		Judge Theodor Meron 
		Judge Fausto Pocar
		Judge Mehmet Guney Judge 
		Judge Ines Weinberg de Roca

Registrar:	Mr. Hans Holthuis

Date filed:	1 December 2005

THE PROSECUTOR
									
v.

VIDOJE BLAGOJEVI‚
&
DRAGAN JOKI‚  

SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL
__________________________________________________________________________

The Office of the Prosecutor 

Mr. Norman Farrell

Counsel on Appeal for Dragan Jokic

Ms. Cynthia Sinatra

SECOND AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL

1.	The Accused, DRAGAN JOKIC, by and through his counsel of record, Cynthia Sinatra, respectfully submits this notice of his intention to appeal the convictions and sentence as rendered in the Judgement of the Trial Chamber on 17 January 2005. This Notice of Appeal is filed pursuant to Articles 25 and 26 of the Statute of the Tribunal and Rule 108 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence and is submitted in satisfaction of the requirements of Rule 108 which state that, 
“a party seeking to appeal a judgement shall, not more than thirty days from the date on which the judgement was pronounced, file a notice of appeal, setting forth the grounds.  The Appellant should also identify the order, decision or ruling challenged with specific reference to the date of filing, and/or the transcript page, and indicate the substance of the alleged errors and the relief sought.  The Appeals Chamber may, on good cause being shown by motion, authorize a variation of the grounds of appeal.”  

ERRORS OF LAW

2.	The Trial Chamber erred in law in finding that Dragan Jokic aided and abetted in the crimes committed at Orahovac, Pilica School/Branjevo Military Farm and Kozuk.  No reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the acts of Dragan Jokic had “a substantial effect on the commission of the crimes in question, or that his acts substantially assisted in the commission of those crimes.”
3.	The Trial Chamber erred in law in convicting Dragan Jokic of aiding and abetting crimes in circumstances where any assistance provided to the perpetrators of the crimes in question was ex post facto.
4.	Pursuant to the Appeal Chamber’s Decision on Defence Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File the Defence Notice of Appeal, dated 15 February 2005, Dragan Jokic relies upon the decision that “after the Judgement becomes available in the B/C/S language, the Defence may seek, pursuant to Rule 108 of the Rules,” to vary or specify in greater detail the grounds of appeal or to file additional grounds of appeal, …” and will continue to review, supplement and amend this Notice of Appeal as granted.
5.	The following apparent errors in the Judgement submitted by Dragan Jokic cannot serve as complete notice to the Appeals Chamber of the objections and grounds for appeal.  Dragan Jokic reserves the right to further develop the details of the errors in the Judgement after there has been a complete review of the record.  Furthermore, Mr. Jokic has not been provided with a copy of the Trial Judgement in a language that he can read or understand.   Until the Judgement is provided to Mr. Jokic is B/C/S, he is unable to consult effectively with counsel and assist counsel for the appeal in identifying and sorting the evidence and issues presented.  The transcript and record of this case are voluminous.  The time limit for the filing of the Rule 108 Notice of Appeal should not begin until the Accused has the ability to understand and review the final judgement against him. 
6.	In Dragan Jokic’s appeal from the Trial Judgement in this case, he seeks approval for admission of new evidence pursuant to Rule 115.  The Appeals Chamber in the Kupreskic case determined that the “burden is on the appellant to establish that no reasonable tribunal of fact could have reached a conclusion of guilt based on the evidence before the Trial Chamber, together with the additional evidence admitted during the proceedings (“Appellate”).”
7.	In paragraph 18, the Trial Chamber has misinterpreted the burden of proof which lies exclusively on the Prosecution.  The burden of proof on the Prosecution during the trial is always that the Accused is presumed innocent until the Prosecution has proven ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ each and every allegation contained in the indictment.  The definition of ‘reasonable doubt’ relied upon by the Trial Chamber in footnote number 46 is incorrect.  The Trial Chamber’s application of a burden of proof that is lower than beyond a reasonable doubt reflects the gravest error of law in any criminal law system.  The Trial Chamber applied “a high degree of probability” as its interpretation of beyond a reasonable doubt.  This interpretation reflects the lowest burden of proof, ‘a preponderance of the evidence’ which is not a sufficient burden of proof to apply when a person’s liberty is at risk.  
8.	As a further layer of the Trial Chamber’s application of proof, the burden has been shifted from the Prosecution to the Accused.  The decision of this Trial Chamber to “carefully consider whether there is any reasonable interpretation of the evidence admitted other than that of the guilt of the accused” truncates the basic premise of this Tribunal by finding the Accused guilty if there is no other explanation of the evidence.  This application of ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ is offends the basic interests of justice and general principles of law.
9.	The Trial Chamber’s conclusion that it could rely on and accept evidence that is stale and based upon occurrences nine years earlier should not be accepted.  An error in law has been occasioned by the acceptance of conflicting evidence and evidence with internal inconsistencies based upon “minor discrepancies between the evidence of various witnesses or between the evidence of a particular witness and a statement previously made by that witness” as held by the Trial   Chamber in paragraph 23.
10.	In a criminal law case, there are no minor discrepancies.  Each bit of conflicting evidence creates a reasonable doubt.  The Trial Chamber has violated the rights of the Accused preserved in Article 21 by admitting into evidence witness testimony, documentary evidence and video evidence by denying the Accused the right to confront witnesses against him.  Multiple forms of this evidence was admitted pursuant to the Rule 98bis ruling of this Trial Chamber.

ERRORS OF FACT

11..	By assigning the following errors as “Errors of Fact,” the accused does not concede that unassigned factual findings made by the Trial Chamber are supported with sufficient evidence.  Defendant Jokic contends generally that all factual findings which permitted the Trial Chamber to find him guilty of any crime were in error.  The Prosecution failed to prove him guilty of any offense charged against him in any count of the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt.  Dragan Jokic should be acquitted by this Appeals Chamber.

ERROR #1
12.	The Trial Chamber erred in law finding on the basis of the facts as found by the Trial Chamber ( and in particular in paragraphs 33-336, 526-529 and 763-764; 347-354, 531-532 and 766-767; and 357-362, 530 and 768-769 of the Trial Chamber’s Judgement), that the conduct of Dragan Jokic satisfied the legal elements of aiding and abetting in relation to the crimes committed at Orahovac, Pilica School/Branjevo Military Farm and Kozluk.  In particular, on the facts as found by the Trial Chamber, it was not open to a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that acts of Dragan Jokic had “a substantial effect on the commission of “ the crimes in question, or that his acts substantially assisted in the commission of those crimes.  

ERROR #2
13.	Furthermore, as held by the Trial Chamber in paragraph 7.31 of its Judgement “It is required for ex post facto aiding and abetting that at the time of the planning, preparation or execution of the crime, a prior agreement exists between the principal and the person who subsequently aids and abets in the commission of the crime.”  The Trial Chamber erred in law in convicting Dragan Jokic of aiding and abetting crimes in circumstances where any assistance provided to the perpetrators of the crimes in question was ex post facto.  These errors of law led to the erroneous conviction of Dragan Jokic of having aided and abetted the crimes committed at Orahovac, Pilica School/Branjevo Military Farm and Kozluk.  The Appeals Chamber should substitute verdicts of acquittal for all counts of which Dragan Jokic was convicted.
ERROR #3
14..	The Trial Chamber in paragraph 24 erroneously assessed the evidence presented in the testimony of co-accused, Momir Nikolic and Dragan Obrenovic.  Two of the  Prosecution’s pivotal witnesses testified pursuant to a plea bargain agreement, and the recommendation for sentencing of the two by the Prosecution was dependant upon their performance as witnesses against Dragan Jokic.  The evidence presented under such circumstances is totally unreliable and should not be given any weight in considering the evidence against the Accused.
15.  The evidence provided against Dragan Jokic by Dragan Obrenovic and relied upon by the Trial Chamber was that of a former co-accused and co-conspirator.  Dragan Jokic does not stipulate that he had any knowledge of any criminal conspiracy, nor did he participate in aiding or abetting any alleged crime. Dragan Obrenovic testified after pleading guilty but before any determination punishment in his case.  Because Dragan Obrenovic testified pursuant to a plea bargain agreement the evidence was provided with ulterior rewards for the witness and the fallacious testimony was given unmerited weight by the Trial Chamber.  The uncorroborated testimonial evidence of Dragan Obrenovic is not supported by any other evidence much less evidence sufficient to support a conviction.  The accomplice witness testimony of the co-accused is not supported by the evidence beyond doubt and is not the only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence.  Other witnesses present in the Zvornik Brigade Headquarters testified that Dragan Jokic was not present and therefore, could not have had the alleged conversation with Dragan Obrenovic.   The Common Law premise that accomplice witness testimony is, on its face, not reliable is a general premise of international criminal law that must be adhered to in this case. 

ERROR#4
16.	Pursuant to Paragraph 29, the Trial Chamber has erroneously accepted the authenticity of documents.  The documents referred to were unsigned, undated and/or unstamped documents, a priori¸ completely void of authenticity.  The documents are not admissible.  The Trial Chamber erroneously accepted hearsay and circumstantial evidence presented in this case when considering that all evidence presented was stale and unreliable.  The events surrounding the convictions relating to Dragan Jokic occurred nine years prior to the testimony.  The reliability of any and all statements made by the Prosecution witnesses after repeated interviews and prompting by the employees of the Prosecution renders the testimony and statements unreliable, and no reasonable trier of fact could have reached a conclusion of guilt based on the evidence provided and acceptance of this evidence occasions a miscarriage of justice.

ERROR #5
17.	The Trial Chamber’s admission of unreliable and unauthenticated intercepted conversations as evidence against the Accused as indicated in paragraph 30 of the Judgement fails to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Dragan Jokic participated in any intercepted conversations.  This evidence should be excluded from consideration by the Trial Chamber and merits no probative value.  There is no evidence to support the authenticity of the intercept evidence and/or the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that no reasonable trier of fact could have reached a conclusion of guilt based on the evidence provided and acceptance of this evidence occasions a miscarriage of justice.

ERROR #6
18.	No reasonable trier of fact could have reached a conclusion of guilt of the accused based upon the evidence referred to in paragraph 70.  The Engineering Company had no authority to requisition equipment from the public sector.
19.	The co-accused, Dragan Obrenovic, testifies about the “unity of command”.  This military premise should be re-examined in the light of the “exclusive right of commanding and issuing orders to all subordinates.”.  The evidence does not support the premise that Dragan Jokic could “plan, instigate, order, commit or otherwise aid and abet in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime referred to in articles 2 and 5 of the present Statute and, therefore; cannot reach to the level of proof necessary for the evidence to be considered in this trial beyond a reasonable doubt.

ERROR #7
20.	No reasonable trier of fact could have reached a conclusion of guilt based upon
the testimony relating to evidence of an APC driving through Zvornik.  The evidence presented in paragraphs 318 and 319 by Prosecution witness P-138 and Marko Milosevic are contradictory and uncorroborated.  This testimony cannot be considered as a minor discrepancy.

ERROR #8
21.	The evidence relied upon by the Trial Chamber in paragraphs 321 and 322 of the Trial Judgement are incorrect based upon the evidence and no reasonable trier of fact could
reach a conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.

ERROR #9
22.	The evidence does not support the findings of the Trial Chamber in paragraph 323.  The evidence is based upon Prosecution Witness P-130, a security officer from the Zvornik Brigade who gave evidence relating to Dragan Jokic’s involvement in the Zvornik Brigade.  The Witness is totally lacking in a scintilla of credibility and is a person previously convicted of perjury.  The decision of the Trial Chamber to give weight to any of the testimony of this witness jeopardizes the integrity of the Tribunal.  The evidence offered by Witness P-130 cannot support any findings of the Trial Chamber beyond a reasonable doubt.

ERROR #10
23.	The Trial Chamber’s acceptance of intercept evidence regarding any alleged conversation between Dragan Jokic And Colonel Beara is inaccurate and misleading and, as such, does not reflect the proper weight to be given the evidence with regard to the factual issue under discussion.  There is no proof that Dragan Jokic had a conversation with Col. Beara.  This finding and acceptance is against the weight of the evidence in the case and cannot support a finding by the Trial Chamber of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  The evidence relied upon by the Trial Chamber in paragraph 325 was illegally accepted and the evidence should have remained suppressed by the Trial Chamber.

ERROR #11
24.	In paragraph 326 the Trial Chamber cannot draw any conclusion that Dragan Jokic had any knowledge of or aided and abetted any crime.  He provided five or six members of the Zvornik Brigade to provide security for guarding the prisoners at Orahovac.  Dragan Jokic does not acquiesce that any members of the Engineering Company were sent to Orahovac.   Sending guards to secure prisoners is a legitimate military operation.  There is no support for this conclusion in the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and no reasonable trier of fact could reach a conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.

ERROR #12
25.	No reasonable trier of fact could have reached a conclusion  of guilty based upon the evidence relied upon the Trial Chamber in paragraphs 328 and 330. 

ERROR #13
26.	In paragraph 331 of the Judgement the Trial Chamber alludes to a discussion in an office adjacent to the Duty Officer’s office.  Tanancko Tanic’s testimony has no relationship to Dragan Jokic and is erroneously suggestive that the Duty Officer had any involvement in the stated conversation. No reasonable trier of fact could reach a conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.

ERROR #14
27.	The conclusion in paragraph 332 of the Trial Chamber’s Judgement that the Engineering Company of the Zvornik Brigade arranged for heavy equipment to dig graves is incorrect.  There is no evidence that Dragan Jokic sent any equipment to Orahovac, or, alternatively, knew that the equipment that was sent to Orahovac was being used in any killing operation.  The evidence cannot be considered to rise to the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and no reasonable trier of fact could reach a conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.

ERROR #15
28.	If there were proof as stated that earthmoving equipment was deployed from the Engineering Company, there is no evidence in paragraph 333 that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Dragan Jokic, then serving as duty officer on 14 July 1995, knew the nature of the work for which the excavator was being deployed.  In paragraph 333, no reasonable trier of fact could reach a conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.

ERROR #16
29.	The evidence relied upon by the Trial Chamber in paragraphs 334, 335 and 337 are unreliable and unsubstantiated.  Marko Milosevic, deputy commander of the 6th Battalion of the Zvronik Brigade, never identified Dragan Jokic as the duty officer at the time of the statements as noted in footnote 1268 which further states that the duty officer did not introduce himself and that Marko Milosevic does not know who he was.  The conclusion of the Trial Chamber is not the only conclusion that may be drawn from the evidence and is not the only reasonable conclusion available from the evidence.

ERROR #17
20.	From the testimony of Pero Petrovic mentioned in paragraph 347 of the Trial Chamber’s Judgement, the Trial Chamber may have concluded that Dragan Jokic knew about the Bosnian Muslim prisoners in the Pilica School, however, there is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Dragan Jokic knew of the impending killing operation.  It is a perfectly legitimate military operation to detain prisoners.  No reasonable trier of fact could reach a conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.

ERROR #18
31.	The Zvornik Brigade duty officer’s workbook is an unauthenticated, unreliable document that for the previous eight years had been held by, co-accused, Dragan Obrenovic, and hidden from the auspices of the ICTY until 2004.  There exists multiple alterations of the original writing in the workbook and the notations in the workbook should be inadmissible.  Further, Witness P-130 is a person known to have been convicted of perjury and much of his testimony for the Prosecution was further discredited by the Prosecution.  There is an insufficient indicia of reliability in the testimony of Witness P-130 and the conclusion reached by the Trial Chamber cannot provide the link of certainty to be accepted as truth beyond a reasonable doubt.

ERROR #19
32.	The Trial Chamber’s reliance on the evidence provided by the witnesses in paragraphs 352, 353 and 358 are not supported by the evidence presented at trial, and no reasonable trier of fact could reach a conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.  
No conclusions relating to knowledge of the crimes on the part of Dragan Jokic my be inferred from the findings of the Trial Chamber in paragraph 358.  The testimony of Milos Mitrovic cannot be the basis for conclusions of law or findings of fact developing any evidence that Dragan Jokic had any prior knowledge of the purpose of the deployment of the engineering equipment to Kozluk.

ERROR #20
33.	The conclusion in paragraph 360 of the Trial Chamber’s Judgement that the Engineering Company and the chief of engineering knew that the excavator was not in working order cannot be considered evidence against Dragan Jokic beyond a reasonable doubt.  

ERROR #21
34.	 The Trial Chamber has found that there is sufficient evidence to find that members of the Engineering Company of the Zvornik Brigade participated in burial operations at Glogova, Kravica Warehouse, Grbavci School, Orahovac, and Branjevo Military Farm.  There is no evidence that Dragan Jokic participated in any illegal military operation involving these locations, and there is no evidence that Dragan Jokic had knowledge of the intent to kill any of the prisoners being held in these facilities.  The conclusions of the Trial Chamber in paragraphs 371, 372, 374,  377 and 379 are wholly without evidentiary support.

ERROR #22
35.	The evidence provided during trial relating to the duties and definition of duties and authority of the duty officer have been ignored by the Trial Chamber.  Dragan Obrenovic was clearly in command of the Zvornik Brigade Headquarters on the 14, 15 and 16 of July 1995, and in his absence, Streten Milosevic, the deputy commander, would be in charge.  No reasonable trier of fact could reach a conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.  
	
ERROR #23
36.	The conclusions by the Trial Chamber in paragraph 513 are incorrect.  There is no evidence to support a finding that Dragan Jokic had a conversation with General Zivanovic, and no reasonable trier of fact could reach a conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.  
	
ERROR #24
37.	The conclusions reached by the Trial Chamber in paragraph 515 relating to any perceived conversation between Dragan Obrenovic and Drajan Jokic are incorrect.  Dragomir Vasic never testified that he witnessed any conversation between the two men.  No reasonable trier of fact could reach a conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.  
	
ERROR #25
38.	The conclusion in paragraph 517 has no factual basis.  The Rules on Utilisation of the Engineering Department and the Combat Rules for Engineering Company clearly explain that the Chief of Engineering cannot issue orders for the deployment of engineering equipment.  The brigade commander makes that decision and, in his absence the deputy company commander would assume command.  There is no proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Dragan Jokic had the authority to issue orders for deployment of engineering equipment.

ERROR #26
39.	The Trial Chamber’s conclusion in paragraph 519 of its Judgement relying upon any and all testimony by the co-accused, Dragan Obrenovic, is without evidentiary support that reaches the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold.

ERROR #27.
40.	The Trial Chamber’s conclusion in paragraph 521 of its Judgement relying upon any and all testimony of the co-accused, Dragan Obrenovic, is without evidentiary support that reaches the beyond a reasonable doubt threshold.  Additionally, there is no truth in Obrenovic’s statement that ”Major Jokic, in practical terms, on the order of his commander, was superior to Jevtic.”  There is no basis for a finding that Dragan Jokic had superior authority over his commander, Dragan Jevtic, the Commander of the Engineering Company.

ERROR #28
41.	In paragraph 522 of the Judgement, the Trial Chamber reached the following conclusion  “The Trial Chamber has been presented with evidence that in practice Dragan Jokic issued orders to the Engineering Company and its members.”  The finding is contrary to the evidence presented and does not support the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.  It is not a reasonable inference, let alone the only reasonable inference that may be drawn.

ERROR #29
42.	The final argument of the Prosecution is not evidence in the case.  There is no evidence to support the finding of the Trial Chamber based upon the final argument of the Prosecution that Dragan Jokic was de facto commander.  There is insufficient evidence to support a finding beyond a reasonable doubt that Dragan Jokic was de facto commander, further, Dragan Obrenovic was not absent from the Zvornik Brigade Headquarters from 13 to 17 July 1995.  No reasonable trier of fact could reach a conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.  

ERROR #30
43.	The conclusion in paragraph 524 that “Dragan Jokic was the Engineering expert within the Zvornik Brigade and therefore functioned as not only the advisor to the command of the Zvornik Brigade, but also as the advisor to the members of the Engineering Company” is without evidentiary support and cannot pass the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.  

ERROR #31
44.	The Trial Chamber’s conclusions in paragraph 526 relating the instructions for Cvijetin Ristanovic to report to Slavko Bogicevic at Orahovac are not supported by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.  No reasonable trier of fact could reach a conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.  

ERROR #32
45.	All reliance by the Trial Chamber on the unauthenticated Daily Log Books and Workbooks referred to by the witnesses is unsupported by the evidence.  The documents relied upon by the Trial Chamber in paragraphs 527 through 530 were in the exclusion possession of Dragan Obrenovic, a co-accused, for 8 years prior to the trial.  The documents were hidden from the military and the Prosecution and subject to alteration.  The evidence cannot be relied upon to meet the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt.

ERROR #33
46.	The Trial Chamber’s reliance on the documentary evidence secreted by Dragan Obrenovic for 8 years cannot be found to be reliable beyond a reasonable doubt.  Witness P-130 has been proven to lack credibility.  There was no corroborated evidence of any conversation between witness P-130 and Dragan Jokic on 17 July 1995.  The assertions and findings by the Trial Chamber are not support by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

ERROR #34
47.	The Commander of the Engineering Company, Dragan Jevtic sent the excavating equipment to Pilica (or Kula).  The Trial Chamber’s conclusion in paragraph 532 is not supported by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.  .  No reasonable trier of fact could reach a conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.  

ERROR #35
48.	Any reliance on unspecified evidence or “other evidence” for proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Dragan Jokic was involved in any criminal operation is improper.  There is no indication of the reliability or relevance of “other evidence” referred to in the findings by the Trial Chamber.  No reasonable trier of fact could reach a conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.  

ERROR #36
49.	The Trial Chamber has erred in finding that Dragan Jokic possessed the mens rea and knowledge necessary for a reasonable trier of fact to reach a conclusion of guilt based upon the evidence relied upon in paragraphs 763, 764 and 765 relating to executions at Orahovac.   The Trial Chamber is in error in finding that Dragan Jokic provided practical assistance that had a substantial effect on the commission of any crime at Orahovac.  No reasonable trier of fact could reach the conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.  

ERROR #37
50.	The Trial Chamber’s findings in paragraphs 766 and 767 that Dragan Jokic was informed about the crimes committed at Pilica School and Branjevo Military Farm are erroneous.  Reliance on the illegally admitted workbooks cannot support the finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

ERROR #38
51.	The Trial Chamber’s finding by inference in paragraphs 768, 769 and 770 that Dragan Jokic had knowledge about any mass killings at Kozluk are ill founded. No reasonable trier of fact could reach the conclusion of guilt based upon this evidence.  Dragan Jokic did not render practical assistance which had a substantial effect on the crimes nor did he aid in the murders committed at Kozluk.
 
ERROR #39
52.	There is no evidence in the record of the trial to support the finding by the Trial Chamber that Dragan Jokic knew that murders were being committed as alleged in paragraphs 771 and 772.  Mr. Jokic did not render practical assistance which had a substantial effect on the commission of the crime of extermination.  The burden of proof to sustain a finding of aiding and abetting extermination cannot stand.	

ERROR #40
53.	There is insufficient evidence presented during the trial of this case to support a finding by this Trial Chamber that Dragan Jokic aided and abetted the crime of persecution by actions taken at Orahovac, Pilica/Branjevo Military Farm, and Kozluk.  Paragraphs 774 and 775 are oxymoronic.  No reasonable trier of fact could reach the conclusion of guilt based upon the evidence.
54.	The Trial Chamber in paragraph 798 has found Dragan Jokic guilty of extermination, aiding and abetting murder as a crime against humanity and aiding and abetting persecutions.  Mr. Jokic respectfully maintains that the Trial Chamber has continued to err and that he is not guilty of the above crimes.
55.	The Trial Chamber has further erred in finding that convictions for murder under Article 5 and for persecutions based upon the underlying act of murder, when both convictions are based on the same acts are permissible.  This principle violates the Accused’s rights to a fair trial, double jeopardy and amounts to cumulative convictions.
56.	Dragan Jokic relies upon the Appeals Chamber’s finding that an alleged error of law arises from the application of a wrong standard by the Trial Chamber, it is open to the Appeals Chamber to articulate the correct legal standard and to review findings of the Trial Chamber accordingly.  In doing so, the Appeals Chamber not only corrects a legal error, but applies the correct legal standard to the evidence contained in the trial record, in the absence of additional evidence, and must determine whether it is itself convinced beyond a reasonable doubt as to the factual findings challenged by the Defense, before that finding is confirmed by on appeal.
57.	As to errors of fact, the standard applied by the Appeals Chamber has been that of reasonableness, namely, whether the conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is one which no reasonable trier of  fact could have reached.
58.	As the results of the Judgement unfold and after complete review of the Judgement and further meeting with the witnesses, pursuant to Rule 115 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the submission of additional evidence will be requested.  Dragan Jokic will produce a substantial body of new evidence that was not available at trial due to coercion and political maneuvering during the trial phase.  The evidence to be presented on appeal will show that the Judgement is based either on insufficient evidence or on a “wholly erroneous” evaluation of the evidence by the Trial Chamber.
59.	As of this date, 23 February 2005, counsel for Dragan Jokic has not received official verification of assignment of counsel on appeal, counsel has no pass with which to enter the Tribunal and use the facilities and Appellant has not received the official record of the trial.  Dragan Jokic requests that pursuant to the Appeals Chamber’s Decision on Defence Motion for Extension of Time in Which to File the Defence Notice of Appeal, 15 February 2005, that any and all other potential issues of law and fact be preserved and allowed to be supplemented and/or amended in the final Brief of the Appellant to be filed.
60.	Pursuant to Rules 109 and 110, the Dragan Jokic is entitled to a complete record of the trial for the appeal.  This record should be certified by the Registrar.  Further, pursuant to Rule 110, “The Registrar shall make a sufficient number of copies of the record on appeal for use of the Judges of the Appeals Chamber and the parties.”  Mr. Jokic respectfully requests a significant expansion of the time limit for filing the appeal brief.  No time limit should run until the complete certified record is provided to the parties.
61.	Dragan Jokic maintains his innocence throughout the appellate process and the relief sought by the Appellant in this Appeal is a complete acquittal of all charges against him due to the failure by the Prosecution to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt..

PRAYER

	Dragan Jokic respectfully prays that this Honorable Appeals Chamber, as the “guardian and guarantor of the procedural and substantive rights of the accused” will:
	(1)	authorize and approve the request to appeal the convictions set forth by the Trail Chamber in the Judgement;
	(2)	find that the time limit for the Notice of Appeal should be extended until the Accused is provided a copy of the Judgement in a language that he reads and understands;
(3)	grant additional time to prepare the appellate brief, considering the massive volume of evidence, testimony and documents involved;
(4)	order that the time limit for the appellate brief shall not begin to run until the certified record of the appeal is provided to the parties;
(5)	find that additional time is required to further investigate the evidence to be 	provided under Rule 115.  Mr. Jokic requests that the time limit for filing the 	brief of the appellant be extended for a minimum of six months;
(6)	find that the Trial Chamber erred in convicting Dragan Jokic of the crimes of murder, extermination and persecution because the conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is one which no a reasonable trier of fact could have reached;
(7)	grant, in the alternative, although the Appellant continues to plead “not guilty” to the charges in the indictment as found by the Trial Chamber, the Appellant seeks a substantial reduction in the sentence imposed upon him; and
(8)	grant Dragan Jokic such further or other relief and make such further or other orders as it may consider in the interest of justice.

Respectfully submitted,

Cynthia Sinatra

28 November 2005
Revisions of 25 February 2005 Notice of Appeal as ordered by the Appeals Chamber