Ahogy arról már beszámoltam, az ICTY különleges bírói tanácsa 7000 eurós pénzbüntetés megfizetésére kötelezte Florence Hartmann-t még 2009-ben. Carla del Ponte volt sajtófőnökét a nemzetközi igazságszolgáltatás elleni bűncselekmény elkövetésében találták bűnösnek. Hartmann fellebbezett, ám az elsőfokú döntést a fellebbviteli tanács mai határozatával helyben hagyta.
Az ICTY sajtóközleményéből idézve:
"On 14 September 2009, the Trial Chamber found Hartmann guilty of disclosing the contents, purported effect, and confidential nature of two Appeals Chamber Decisions from the Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević case in a book and an article authored by her in 2007 and 2008, respectively. She was sentenced to pay a fine of 7,000 Euros, in two installments of 3,500 Euros each.
In dismissing Hartmann’s appeal, the Appeals Chamber held that “the confidential issuance of a decision by a Chamber constitutes an order for the non-disclosure of the information contained therein, and it is not for a party to decide which aspects of a confidential decision may be disclosed. This principle equally applies to third parties.” The Appeals Chamber emphasised, “The discretion as to whether the confidential status of a decision may be lifted in whole or in part belongs exclusively to a competent Chamber of the Tribunal with its intimate knowledge of all the facts, information, and circumstances surrounding the relevant case.”The Appeals Chamber concluded that “[a] court order remains in force until a Chamber decides otherwise” and that, in this specific case, “the content of both Decisions remained subject to an order of non-disclosure.”
The Appeals Chamber dismissed Hartmann’s appeal that the Tribunal had already made public the information which she was convicted for revealing to the public, holding that the confidential legal reasoning of the two decisions were never disclosed, nor any related confidential information. The Appeals Chamber stated, “The fact that the Milošević Trial Chamber had granted protective measures to the SDC materials was a matter of public record as early as 23 September 2004; however, Hartmann was not convicted for revealing this fact, the existence of the Appeal Decisions, or the law contained within them (which had been revealed by the President and the Appeals Chamber), but rather for revealing the confidential legal reasoning contained within those decisions.”
With respect to the alleged infringement of Hartmann’s right to freedom of expression as a journalist, the Appeals Chamber held that the restrictions contained in the two Appeals Decisions were within the ambit of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), according to which the restriction must be provided by law and proportionately necessary to protect against the dissemination of confidential information. The Appeals Chamber held that the restrictions of the freedom of expression were provided by law because they were filed confidentially under protective measures pursuant to the Rules of the Tribunal. The Appeals Chamber further held that “restricting Hartmann’s freedom of expression in this manner was both proportionate and necessary because it protected the ‘public order’ by guarding against the dissemination of confidential information”.