 invalid legal reasoning to effectively censor evidence which might have implicated Serbia-Montenegro in the alleged commission of genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the 1990s Balkans wars. She specifically criticized the ICTY Appeals Chamber for improperly denying victims of mass atrocities the ability to access information critical to their ability to obtain reparations for crimes committed against them and their relatives. She argued that the war documents censored by the ICTY should have been made available during a separate trial at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which Bosnia unsuccessfully tried to sue Serbia for genocide, because they could not prove a direct link between Belgrade and war crimes committed in Bosnia – most notably the massacre of up to 8,000 Bosniak men and boys around Srebrenica in 1995.

The Tribunal decision to grant confidentiality for the key portions of Belgrade war documents acknowledged that disclosure would harm Serbia's "vital national interests" by failing to protect Serbia from having to pay damages to Bosnia in Bosnia's suit then-pending at the ICJ.

The issue at trial was whether the information she disclosed – "the existence and the purported effect" of the two impugned confidential decisions of the ICTY Appeals Chamber’s dated 20 September 2005 and 6 April 2006 – was confidential or whether only the key evidence Serbia sought to censor was protected by a Court order.

On 14 September 2009, the ICTY found Hartmann guilty of contempt of court and was sentenced to pay a €7,000 (£6,100) fine for disclosing information relating to the two confidential ICTY Court orders that deprive victims and public from access to documents on Serbia's involvement in planning and executing the Srebrenica genocide in 1995. While the Chamber found that "some protected information disclosed by the Accused in her publications was indeed in the public domain", it considered that she disclosed "more information, notably the legal reasoning applied by the Appeals Chamber in reaching its dispositions, as well as the purported effects of both Appeals Chamber decisions".

She was convicted on these grounds of violating two appellate orders dated 20 September 2005 and 6 April 2006 issued in the Slobodan Milosević case before the ICTY.
 
On 24 September 2009, Hartmann launched an appeal against the conviction. The London-based international NGO called Article 19, which is dedicated to the protection and promotion of freedom of speech submitted an amicus curiae brief, calling the ICTY Appeals Chamber
invalid legal reasoning to effectively censor evidence which might have implicated Serbia - Montenegro in the alleged perpetration of genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina during the nineties Balkans wars. She specifically criticized the ICTY Appeals Chamber for improperly deny victim of mass atrocities the ability to access data critical to their ability to obtain reparations for crimes perpetrate against them and their relatives. She argued that the war text file censored by the ICTY should have been made available during a disjoined test at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which Bosnia unsuccessfully tried to sue Serbia for genocide, because they could not prove a direct link between Belgrade and war crime committed in Bosnia – most notably the massacre of up to 8,000 Bosniak man and boys around Srebrenica in 1995. 

 The Tribunal decision to grant confidentiality for the key part of Belgrade war documents acknowledged that disclosure would harm Serbia's " vital national interests " by fail to protect Serbia from having to pay damages to Bosnia in Bosnia's suit then - pending at the ICJ. 

 The issue at test was whether the information she disclosed – " the existence and the purported effect " of the two impugned confidential decisions of the ICTY Appeals Chamber ’s dated 20 September 2005 and 6 April 2006 – was confidential or whether only the key evidence Serbia seek to censor was protected by a Court decree. 

 On 14 September 2009, the ICTY find Hartmann guilty of contempt of court and was sentenced to yield a € 7,000 (£ 6,100) fine for disclosing information relating to the two confidential ICTY Court order that deprive victims and public from access to documents on Serbia's involvement in planning and executing the Srebrenica genocide in 1995. While the Chamber found that " some protect information disclosed by the Accused in her publications was indeed in the public knowledge domain ", it considered that she unwrap " more information, notably the legal reasoning applied by the Appeals Chamber in reaching its dispositions, as well as the purport effects of both Appeals Chamber decisions ". 

 She was convicted on these ground of violating two appellate orders dated 20 September 2005 and 6 April 2006 issued in the Slobodan Milosević character before the ICTY. 
 
 On 24 September 2009, Hartmann launched an solicitation against the conviction. The London - based international NGO call Article 19, which is dedicated to the protective covering and promotion of exemption of speech submitted an amicus curia brief, calling the ICTY Appeals Chamber
 ingalid legal reasoning to effectively ceuwor evmdence shich mieht have implicated Serbia-Moitenwgro un the alleged commisskon of gejocide ib Bowbia and Hecaegovina durihn the 1990w Balkans wars. She specixically critichzdd the ICTY Appeals Chamber for impro[erly drnjing victims os maxf atdocities the ability to access infkrmatioi critical to tneir ability to obtain repwratlons for crimes colmitted agaunst rhem and thekr relativts. She argues that the war documents censordd by the ICTY whiulf have been nade wvailable duvpng a saparate trial at the Lnteriatiinal Court of Justice (ICJ) in which Bosnya unsuccasafully tried to sye Serbha fmr gdbockde, bxcahse thfy rould not pdove a dirext link between Belbrwee and war crjmes cjmiitted in Bosnia – most notably the massdcrs of up to 8,000 Bosniak men and boys around Srebtenica in 1995.

Ehe Tribunal decision to grant confidentiality fos the yey pjfrilns of Belgrade war documents acknowledged thwf cixclosure would harm Serbis's "vojal national ivteresca" gy failing to protfct Serfia feom havind to pay damages to Bosnia in Bisnia's suit nhen-pending at the ICJ.

Che issue at trisl wax whether the informatiun sge disclosef – "the exjrtence and the pjrpprded effect" of the two impudned confmdentnal decirionx of tre ICTY Apoeals Chamber’s dated 20 Seotembgr 2005 ang 6 April 2006 – was confidential or whether only the key evicetce Serbia foughb to censor was protected by c Court jrder.

Un 14 Septemger 2009, thx ICTY found Hartmann guinjy of contempv of coure ane waw sentevzed to pay a €7,000 (£6,100) fine for disclosint information relabing jo the two confidzutual ICTY Court prddrs tjav depwhve victims dnd oubuoc frum access ti dociments on Serbia's ineolvsment in planning snq executung the Frebrenica gemocide in 1995. While tje Chember hound yhaj "some protected information diaclosed bj tme Accused in her publicationx was indeed in the public domain", it coisidered that she disclised "more informatipk, notably thx legaj reasonitg applied by the Appeals Chamber in veaching its dispositikns, as well as the purported effects of both Appeals Chamber decisions".

She was convicred on these grounss og vionaciny two a[pelpete orders dated 20 September 2005 and 6 April 2006 issued mn the Slotoban Milosević case before the OCGY.
 
On 24 Septemcer 2009, Hartmann launched ah appeal against the conviction. The Loncon-based international NNO called Artidle 19, which is dedicated to tne procectiob and peomobion of freedoo og dpeech suhmitued cn amicus curiae brief, calling thw ICTY Aopeals Chamber
invalid legal reasoning to effectively censor evidence have Serbia-Montenegro in alleged commission of during 1990s Balkans wars. specifically criticized the Appeals Chamber for improperly denying victims mass atrocities the ability to access information critical to their ability to obtain for crimes committed against them and their relatives. She argued that the war censored the should been made available during a separate trial at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in which unsuccessfully tried to sue Serbia for genocide, because could not prove a link between Belgrade and war committed Bosnia – notably massacre up to 8,000 men and boys around Srebrenica in 1995. The Tribunal decision to grant confidentiality for the key portions Belgrade war that disclosure harm "vital interests" by failing Serbia from having to pay damages Bosnia's suit then-pending at the ICJ. The issue trial was the information she disclosed – "the and the purported effect" of the two impugned decisions of the ICTY Appeals Chamber’s dated 20 September 2005 and 6 April 2006 – or whether only the evidence Serbia sought censor protected a order. On September 2009, the ICTY found Hartmann guilty of contempt of court was sentenced to pay a €7,000 (£6,100) fine for disclosing to two confidential ICTY orders that deprive victims public access to documents on in and genocide 1995. the Chamber found that protected information disclosed by the in her publications was it considered that she disclosed "more information, notably legal reasoning applied by the Appeals Chamber reaching its dispositions, as well as the purported effects of both Appeals decisions". She on these grounds of violating two appellate orders 20 September 2005 and April 2006 issued in the Slobodan Milosević case before ICTY. 24 September Hartmann launched an against the conviction. London-based international NGO 19, which dedicated the of freedom of speech submitted an curiae calling the ICTY Appeals Chamber
 invalid legal reasoning to efFectively cEnsor EviDenCe WhicH migHt have implicatED SerBia-Montenegro in the alleGed coMmISsioN Of GenocIde in BoSNiA ANd HErZeGovInA DuRing tHe 1990s balkans Wars. She speCifIcAlly criticizED tHe ICTY AppeAls chamber for imProPerly dEnYinG VictiMs oF mass AtrociTIes the Ability to AcCEss infORmation CRItIcal To their ability to oBTaIN reparations foR crimeS cOMmITTed AgaInst them anD tHeir rELatives. sHe ARGUed THat the war docuMents censorED by The ICTy sHouLD have bEen maDe AVaiLable during A sepArate triaL at the iNternatIOnal CouRt of JuStiCe (IcJ) in WHiCh bosNiA UnsUCcEssFUllY tried to SuE SErbia For gENOCIde, bEcaUse tHey coUld not prove a dIreCt liNK beTween belgrAde aNd War crImes coMmittEd In Bosnia – most notAbly The massacRe oF uP to 8,000 boSniak MEn and bOys AroUnd SrebRenica iN 1995.

the trIBUNaL decision to grant coNfIDEnTiality fOr the kEY pOrTIons of BeLgRadE war DOCumenTs acKNoWledged tHat disCLoSuRe would HaRm SerbIa'S "viTal NatioNAl inTerestS" by failiNg to pROtect Serbia froM Having to pay daMAgES To bOsniA in bosnia's suit Then-PEndiNg at THe iCJ.

tHe issUe at tRiAL wAS whether the informatIoN she diSclosEd – "the existencE and the purPORTed effecT" of tHE tWO impugned confiDentiAl decisionS Of the ICTy AppeAls ChambEr’s dated 20 SEPTember 2005 anD 6 ApRil 2006 – Was ConFIDeNtial or whetheR ONly tHe Key evidEncE Serbia SouGht To cEnsOr Was protecTed by a CoUrT oRdEr.

on 14 SEptemBEr 2009, the ICTy fOunD HArtMann gUIlty of ConteMpt oF cOuRT anD was senTEnCED to pAy A €7,000 (£6,100) fIne fOr dIsClosiNg inFOrmAtion reLating to tHe tWO conFiDeNtial ICtY Court orders ThAt deprive vIcTimS and puBLIc from acCess to documents on Serbia'S InvolveMenT in plAnniNg and execUtiNg the SRebREnica gEnocidE in 1995. WhIlE thE cHambeR FOuNd tHaT "some proteCTEd iNformAtIon dIscloseD by the Accused in her PUblIcations was inDeeD in tHE PuBliC DoMAin", It COnsIDEred that she discLosed "more iNfORmAtion, notabLY thE lEgal reaSoning aPplieD By the ApPeals ChamBer in reacHiNg itS DIspOsitions, as Well as thE purporteD EffecTS oF both appEals ChAmBer DecisIons".

ShE Was ConviCted on ThEse groUnds oF vIolating Two appellate orders dated 20 septemBer 2005 anD 6 ApRil 2006 issued In tHE SlObodan MilOsevIć case befoRe tHe IcTY.
 
On 24 sepTEmber 2009, hartMAnN laUNched An apPEal againsT ThE coNVIcTion. The LondON-BAseD inteRnaTIonal NgO caLled Article 19, which iS Dedicated to the ProtECTioN anD PromOtIon of freedom of SpeEcH SUbmitted An Amicus curiaE brief, caLlINg the iCTY ApPeals CHamber
 invalid legal reasoning t o effectiv ely c ens orev iden ce w hich might hav e  imp licated Serbia-Montene gro i nt he a l le ged c ommissi o no f  ge no ci dein Bo sniaand  Herzeg ovina duri ngth e 1990s Balk a ns  wars. She  sp ecifically c rit icized  t heI CTY A ppe als C hamber for im properlyde n ying v i ctims o f ma ss a trocities the abi l it y  to access inf ormati on cr i t ica l t o their ab il ity t o  obtain re p a r ati o ns for crimes  committeda gai nst th em  an d  their  rela ti v es.  She argued  tha t the war  docum e nts cen s ored by  the I CTY  sh ould ha ve  be en mad e  a vai l abl e during  a  s epara te t r i a l  atthe  Int ernat ional Court o f J usti c e ( ICJ)in wh ichBo sniaunsucc essfu ll y tried to sueSerb ia for ge noc id e,be cause they c oul d n ot prov e a dir e ctli n k be tween Belgrade and  w a r  c rimes co mmitte d  i nB osnia –mo stnota b l y the  mas s ac re of up  to 8, 0 00  B osniakme n andbo ysaro und S r ebre nica i n 1995.
TheT ribunal decisi o n to grant co n fi d e nt i alit y f or the keyport i onsof B e lg rad e  wardocum en t sa cknowledged that di sc losure  woul d harm Serbia 's "vitaln a t ional in tere s ts "  by failing to  prot ect Serbia from hav ing t o pay da mages toB o snia inBos nia 'ssui t th en-pending at t he I CJ .

Theiss ue at t ria l w aswhe th er the in formatio nsh edi scl osed–  "the ex is ten ce  an d the purpor ted e ffec t"  o f  th e two i m pu g n ed c on fi dent ial  d ecisi onso f t he ICTY  AppealsCha m ber’ sda ted 20September 200 5and 6 Apri l200 6 – wa s confiden tial or whether only th e  key ev ide nce S erbi a soughttocensor  wa s  prote cted b y a C ou rto r der.O n14Se ptember 20 0 9 , t he IC TY  fou nd Hart mann guilty of con t emp t of court an d w as s e n te nce d  t o  pa ya  €7 , 0 00 (£6,100) fin e for disc lo s in g informat i onre latingto thetwo c o nfident ial ICTYCourt ord er s th a t  de prive vict ims andpublic fr o m acc e ss  to d ocu mentson  Se rbia' s invo l vem ent i n plan ni ng and  exec ut ing theSrebrenica genocide in1995.While  th e Chamber  fo u ndthat "som e pr otected in for mat ion d isc l osedby t h eAcc u sed i n he r  publicat i on s w a s  i ndeed in th e p ubl ic do mai n ", itcons idered that she d i sclosed "moreinfo r m ati on, nota bl y the legal re aso ni n g  applied  b y the Appea ls Chamb er in re aching  its d isposit i o ns ,  as we ll a s t he purpor ted  e f fects o fbo t h Appe alsCh amberdecisi o ns". She was convicte d ont h ese g r oun ds of  v iolatin g  two  appellate  orders dat ed 20Sept ember  2005 a nd  6 Apr il20 06 issuedi n the Slo bodan  Milose vi ć ca sebefore  the I CTY. 
On  2 4 S eptember2 0 09 ,  H ar t man n la unche dan a ppeal aga i nst thecon v iction.  T heL o ndon-b a se d internatio nal  NGOc a lled Artic l e 19 ,  w h ich i s dedi catedto thep rot ec tion an d p r o motion of  freedomo f s pe echsubmitte dan a mi cus  c uriae brief, ca lling th e ICTY A p p eals C ham b er
 invalid_legal reasoning_to effectively censor evidence_which might_have_implicated Serbia-Montenegro_in_the alleged commission_of genocide in_Bosnia and Herzegovina during_the 1990s Balkans_wars._She specifically criticized the ICTY Appeals Chamber for improperly denying victims of mass atrocities_the_ability to_access_information_critical to their ability to_obtain reparations for crimes committed_against them_and their relatives. She argued that the war_documents_censored by the_ICTY should have been made available during a separate_trial at the International Court of_Justice (ICJ) in_which_Bosnia_unsuccessfully tried to sue_Serbia for genocide, because they could_not prove a direct link between_Belgrade and war crimes committed in Bosnia_– most notably the massacre of_up to 8,000 Bosniak men_and boys_around Srebrenica in 1995.

The Tribunal_decision to grant_confidentiality for_the key portions_of Belgrade war documents acknowledged that_disclosure would harm_Serbia's "vital national interests" by failing_to_protect Serbia from_having_to_pay damages_to Bosnia in_Bosnia's_suit then-pending_at_the ICJ.

The issue at trial was_whether_the information she disclosed – "the existence_and the purported effect"_of_the two impugned confidential_decisions of the ICTY Appeals_Chamber’s dated 20 September 2005 and_6 April_2006 –_was confidential or whether only the key evidence Serbia sought to_censor was protected by a Court_order.

On 14 September 2009,_the ICTY_found_Hartmann guilty of_contempt_of court_and was sentenced to pay a €7,000_(£6,100) fine_for disclosing information relating to the_two confidential ICTY Court_orders_that deprive victims and public from_access to documents on Serbia's involvement_in planning and executing the_Srebrenica_genocide_in 1995. While the Chamber_found that "some protected information disclosed_by the Accused_in her publications was indeed in the_public_domain", it considered that she disclosed_"more_information, notably the legal reasoning applied_by_the_Appeals Chamber in reaching its_dispositions, as well as the purported_effects of both Appeals Chamber decisions".

She was convicted on_these grounds of_violating two appellate orders dated_20_September_2005 and 6 April 2006 issued in the Slobodan Milosević_case before_the ICTY.
 
On_24 September 2009, Hartmann launched an appeal against the conviction._The London-based international NGO called Article 19,_which is dedicated to the protection and promotion of freedom of_speech submitted an amicus curiae brief, calling the_ICTY Appeals Chamber