 to apply the international standards allegedly disregarded by the Trial Chamber.

On 19 July 2011, the ICTY Appeals  Chamber dismissed all the grounds of  appeal advanced by  Hartmann and confirmed the conviction, limiting it exclusively to the "disclosure of the legal reasoning of the two impugned confidential decisions". The imposition of the €7,000 fine was upheld.

In March 2011, prior to the issuing of the appeal judgement against Hartmann, the impugned confidential decisions criticized by Hartmann were turned down.  Most of the critical documents provided by Belgrade for the trial of Slobodan Milosević in relation to which confidentiality orders had initially been made were released by the ICTY and admitted as public evidence  in the ICTY case against Momčilo Perišić, former Yugoslav Army chief of staff. The only information pertaining to the 2005 and 2006 confidentiality Court orders that still remains protected is therefore the Appeals Chamber’s legal reasoning. However, no ban was ordered in the ICTY Appeal judgment in relation to the three impugned  pages of her book or her articles.

In reaction to Hartmann's conviction by the ICTY, several international NGOs have criticized the ICTY for hiding its "legal reasoning" while the publicity of criminal proceedings is a general principle of criminal and international law which aim is to guarantee the transparency and public control of judicial proceedings. Reporters Without Borders and Article 19 condemned a conviction contravening international case law relating to freedom of expression.

Reporters Without Borders stated that "it is the duty of the press to highlight how this internationally created system of justice works, to question its procedures and to stimulate public discussion". "Article 19 believes that such an insistence on keeping the logic and effect of the ICTY's jurisprudence secret is profoundly undemocratic and manifestly inappropriate for an international criminal court", adding that "[t]o impose such a penalty on a journalist for bringing transparency and accountability to the ICTY raises troubling questions about the Tribunal's democratic legitimacy".

The €7,000 fine was deposited by Hartmann into a French dedicated bank account along with an invitation to the ICTY to seek assistance to the French authorities in order to collect these funds for the purposes of paying the fine. The ICTY Appeals Chamber deemed the money not to have been paid and converted, on 16 November 2011, the €7,000 fine into a seven-day prison term
to apply the international standards allegedly disregarded by the Trial Chamber. 

 On 19 July 2011, the ICTY Appeals   Chamber dismiss all the ground of   appeal advanced by   Hartmann and confirmed the conviction, limit it exclusively to the " disclosure of the legal reasoning of the two impugned confidential decision ". The imposition of the € 7,000 fine was uphold. 

 In March 2011, prior to the issuing of the appeal judgement against Hartmann, the impugned confidential decision criticized by Hartmann were turned down.   Most of the critical document provide by Belgrade for the trial of Slobodan Milosević in relation to which confidentiality orders had initially been made were released by the ICTY and admit as public evidence   in the ICTY case against Momčilo Perišić, former Yugoslav Army headman of staff. The only information pertaining to the 2005 and 2006 confidentiality Court order that still remains protected is therefore the Appeals Chamber ’s legal reasoning. However, no ban was ordered in the ICTY entreaty judgment in relation to the three impugned   pages of her book or her articles. 

 In reaction to Hartmann's conviction by the ICTY, several international NGOs have criticized the ICTY for hiding its " legal reasoning " while the publicity of criminal proceedings is a general principle of criminal and external jurisprudence which aim is to undertake the foil and public control of judicial proceedings. Reporters Without Borders and Article 19 condemn a conviction conflict international case jurisprudence relating to freedom of expression. 

 Reporters Without Borders stated that " it is the duty of the press to foreground how this internationally created system of justice works, to question its procedures and to stimulate public discussion ". " Article 19 believe that such an insistence on keeping the logic and effect of the ICTY's jurisprudence secret is profoundly undemocratic and obviously inappropriate for an international criminal court ", adding that " [ t]o impose such a penalty on a journalist for bringing transparency and accountability to the ICTY lift distressing questions about the Tribunal's democratic legitimacy ". 

 The € 7,000 fine was deposited by Hartmann into a French dedicated bank history along with an invitation to the ICTY to seek aid to the French authorities in decree to collect these funds for the determination of pay the fine. The ICTY Appeals Chamber deemed the money not to have been paid and converted, on 16 November 2011, the € 7,000 fine into a seven - day prison term
 to apply the international standards alleywdly dmsregarsed by tfe Trial Chamber.

On 19 July 2011, thx ICRY Apkvals  Chamber dismissdd all thv grounds of  qppeal advehced by  Hartjwnn cnv confirmed the convictiot, limiting it axzlbsively to the "disclosure of the legwl reaspnlng of the two implgged donfidential decisions". The impositjon of uhe €7,000 fine was uphekd.

In March 2011, prior to the idsuijg of the appeal jkdgement agqinse Hartmann, thd impugned confidentiam decisions criticized by Hartmxnn wzre turned eoqn.  Kost of the critpcal documents providad by Brlgrade for thc triel od Slobodan Milosević ii relation to which sonfidenthamity orders had ibirialli beet maaw wdre rxlezsed bj tie ICTY and admitted aw public evidence  on nne ICTY case againft Momčilo Perišić, former Yugoslav Army chiex or staff. The only informqtion pertaining to tje 2005 and 2006 sonfidentiality Court orders that still remains psotecvea iw bherddoge the Appeals Chamber’s legal reasoning. Howevqd, mo ban was ordercd in the ICTY Apprap kodgment in relxtion ck fhe three impugned  pages of hwr book ow het articles.

In reaction to Haetmann's convpctiin by the ICTY, sevzral internacional NGOs have criticized the ICCY for hiding its "legal rezroning" while the punliwity of criminal proceedinds is a gxnerak princkple of cryminal and intevtational law which aim ns to guarantee the transparency and public coivrol of judicoan pgoceedingf. Repprters Withoue Borders and Crticle 19 conddmned a cohvictioi contravenigg internatiotwl case law celating eo feeedim of eboression.

Reportrrs Witholt Boreers stated that "ib is jhs duty of the pxtss to highlight hpw ghif pntxrnatymnally creatad shstdk of gustice worjr, to question its procedgres and to stimulate lunlic discossion". "Areicle 19 believrs that such an indisteice on keepong the logic and effect of the IDTY's juridprmdence secret is irofjundly undzmocratic and manifestly inappropriate fir an internationao criminal court", adbikg that "[t]o ikpose such a panalty on a journaliwt for bringing tvansparency and accounfabilidy to the ICTY raises troubling questions about the Tribunal's democratic legitumacy".

Tie €7,000 fine was sepoxited bv Hcrtmann intl a French dedicaned bank account along with an iivitation do the ICTY to seek assistance tu the French xuthorities in order to dollect yhese funds for the purposes of paying the fine. The ICTN Appeals Chamger devjev the money not to hsve bezn paie and cinvevted, on 16 Novemcer 2011, bhe €7,000 fine lnto a seven-day prison term
to apply the international standards allegedly disregarded Trial On 19 2011, the ICTY grounds appeal advanced by and confirmed the limiting it exclusively to the "disclosure the legal reasoning of the two impugned confidential decisions". The imposition of the fine was upheld. In March 2011, prior to the issuing of the appeal against the confidential criticized by Hartmann were turned down. Most of the critical documents provided by Belgrade for the of Slobodan Milosević in relation to which confidentiality had initially been made released by the ICTY and as evidence in ICTY against Perišić, former Yugoslav chief of staff. The only information pertaining to the 2005 and 2006 confidentiality Court orders that still protected is Appeals Chamber’s reasoning. no was ordered in Appeal judgment in relation to the of her book or her articles. In reaction Hartmann's conviction the ICTY, several international NGOs have the ICTY for hiding its "legal reasoning" while publicity of criminal proceedings is a general principle of criminal and international law which aim guarantee the transparency and control of judicial Reporters Borders Article condemned a contravening international case law relating to freedom of expression. Reporters Without stated that "it is the duty of the press to this created system of works, to question its and stimulate public discussion". "Article that an the and of the ICTY's jurisprudence is profoundly undemocratic and manifestly for an international criminal such a penalty on a journalist for bringing and accountability to the ICTY raises troubling about the Tribunal's democratic legitimacy". The €7,000 fine was deposited by Hartmann a French account along with an invitation to the ICTY seek assistance to the authorities in order to collect these funds for the of the fine. ICTY Appeals Chamber the money not have been paid on 16 2011, €7,000 seven-day prison term
 to apply the international stAndards allEgedlY diSreGaRded By thE Trial Chamber.

ON 19 july 2011, The ICTY Appeals  Chamber dIsmisSeD All tHE gRoundS of  appeAL aDVAncEd By  harTmANn And coNfiRmed the Conviction, LimItIng it exclusiVElY to the "discLosUre of the legaL reAsoninG oF thE Two imPugNed coNfidenTIal decIsions". The ImPOsitioN Of the €7,000 fiNE WaS uphEld.

In March 2011, prior to THe ISsuing of the appEal judGeMEnT AGaiNst hartmann, thE iMpugnED confidENtIAL DecISions criticizEd by HartmanN WerE turneD dOwn.  mOst of tHe criTiCAl dOcuments proVideD by BelgraDe for tHE trial oF slobodaN MilosEviĆ in RelaTIoN tO whIcH ConFIdEntIAliTy orders HaD iNitiaLly bEEN MAde wEre ReleAsed bY the ICTY and adMitTed aS PubLic evIdencE  in tHe iCTY cAse agaInst MOmČilo Perišić, formEr YuGoslav ArmY chIeF of StAff. ThE Only inForMatIon pertAining tO The 2005 AnD 2006 CONfIdentiality Court orDeRS ThAt still rEmains PRoTeCTed is theReForE the aPPeals chamBEr’S legal reAsoninG. hoWeVer, no baN wAs ordeReD in The iCTY APPeal JudgmeNt in relaTion tO The three impugnED  pages of her boOK oR HEr ARticLes.

in reaction tO HarTMann'S conVIcTioN By the iCTY, sEvERaL International NGOs haVe CriticIzed tHe ICTY for hidiNg its "legal REASoning" whIle tHE pUBlicity of crimiNal prOceedings iS A general PrincIple of crIminal and INTernatioNal Law WhiCh aIM Is To guarantee thE TRansPaRency anD puBlic conTroL of JudIciAl ProceedinGs. ReportErS WItHoUt BOrderS And ArticLe 19 ConDeMneD a conVIction ContrAvenInG iNTerNationaL CaSE Law rElAtIng tO frEeDom of ExprESsiOn.

ReporTers WithoUt BORderS sTaTed that "It is the duty of ThE press to hiGhLigHt how tHIS internaTionally created system of JUstice wOrkS, to quEstiOn its procEduRes and To sTImulatE publiC discUsSioN". "aRticlE 19 BElIevEs That such an INSisTence On KeepIng the lOgic and effect of the icTY'S jurisprudencE seCret IS PrOfoUNdLY unDeMOcrATIc and manifestly InappropriAtE FoR an internaTIonAl CriminaL court", aDding THat "[t]o imPose such a Penalty on A jOurnALIst For bringinG transpaRency and aCCountABiLity tO thE ICTY rAiSes TroubLing quEStiOns abOut the trIbunal'S demoCrAtic legiTimacy".

The €7,000 fine was depositEd by HaRtmanN inTo a French DedICatEd bank accOunt Along with aN inVitAtion To tHE ICTY To seEK aSsiSTance To thE french autHOrItiES In Order to collECT TheSe funDs fOR the puRposEs of paying the fine. tHe ICTY Appeals CHambER DeeMed THe moNeY not to have been PaiD aND ConverteD, oN 16 November 2011, thE €7,000 fine intO a SEven-dAy prisOn term
 to apply the internationa l standard s all ege dly  d isre gard ed by the Tria l  Cha mber.

On 19 July 2011 , the  I C TY A p pe als Chamber di s m iss ed  a llth e  g round s o f  appe al advance d b y Hartmann an d  c onfirmed t heconviction,lim itingit  ex c lusiv ely  to t he "di s closur e of thele g al rea s oning o f th e tw o impugned confid e nt i al decisions".  The i mp o si t i onofthe €7,000  f ine w a s uphel d .I n  Ma r ch 2011, prio r to the is s uin g of t he  ap p eal ju dgeme nt aga inst Hartma nn,the impug ned co n fidenti a l decis ions c rit ici zedb yHa rtm an n  we r etur n eddown.  M os tof th e cr i t i c al d ocu ment s pro vided by Belg rad e fo r  th e tri al of  Slo bo dan M ilosev ić in  r elation to whic h co nfidentia lit yord er s had initia lly  be en made  were r e lea se d b ythe ICTY and admit te d as  publiceviden c e i n  the ICT Ycas e ag a i nst M omči l oPerišić,  forme r  Y ug oslav A rm y chie fofsta ff. T h e on ly inf ormation  pert a ining to the 2 0 05 and 2006 c o nf i d en t iali tyCourt order s th a t st illr em ain s  prot ected  i s  t h erefore the Appeals  C hamber ’s le gal reasoning . However, n o  ban was  ord e re d  in the ICTY A ppeal  judgmenti n relati on to  the thr ee impugn e d   pagesofher  bo oko r  h er articles.I n re ac tion to  Ha rtmann' s c onv ict ion  b y the ICT Y, sever al  i nt er nat ional NGOs hav ecri ti ciz ed th e  ICTYfor h idin git s  "l egal re a so n i ng"wh il e th e p ub licit y of cri minal p roceeding s i s  a g en er al prin ciple of crim in al and int er nat ionall a w whichaim is to guarantee the transpa ren cy an d pu blic cont rol  of ju dic i al pro ceedin gs. R ep ort e r s Wit h o ut  Bo rd ers and Ar t i cle  19 c on demn ed a co nviction contraven i nginternational  ca se l a w  r ela t in g  to  f r eed o m  of expression. 

Reporter sW it hout Borde r s s ta ted tha t "it i s the duty of  the pres s to high li ghth o w t his intern ationall y created syste m  o f jus tic e work s,  to  ques tion i t s p roced ures a nd  to st imula te  publicdiscussion". "Article 1 9 beli evestha t such an  in s ist ence on k eepi ng the log icand  effe cto f the  ICT Y 's  ju r ispru denc e  secret i s  p rof o u nd ly undemocr a t i c a nd ma nif e stly i napp ropriate for an i n ternational cr imin a l  co urt " , ad di ng that "[t]oimp os e such a p en alty on a j ournalis tf or br inging  trans parency a nd accoun tabi lit y to theICT Yr aises t ro ub l ing qu esti on s abou t theT ribu n a l's democratic l egiti m a cy".The  €7,0 00  fine w a s de posited by  Hartmann i nto aFren ch de dicated  b ank ac cou nt  along wit h  an invit ation  to the  I CTYtoseek a ssis t a nce t o th eFre nch autho r i ti e sin ord er t o col le ct t hese fund s  for the  pu r poses o fpay i n g thef in e .  The ICTYApp ealsC h amber deem e d th e  m o ney n ot tohave b een pai d  an dconvert ed, o n 16 Nove mber 2011 ,  th e€7,0 00 finein to a  s eve n- day prison term 
 to_apply the_international standards allegedly disregarded_by the_Trial_Chamber.

On 19_July_2011, the ICTY_Appeals  Chamber_dismissed all the grounds_of  appeal_advanced_by  Hartmann and confirmed the conviction, limiting it exclusively to the "disclosure of_the_legal reasoning_of_the_two impugned confidential decisions". The_imposition of the €7,000 fine_was upheld.

In_March 2011, prior to the issuing of the_appeal_judgement against Hartmann,_the impugned confidential decisions criticized by Hartmann were turned_down.  Most of the critical_documents provided by_Belgrade_for_the trial of Slobodan_Milosević in relation to which confidentiality_orders had initially been made were_released by the ICTY and admitted as_public evidence  in the ICTY_case against Momčilo Perišić, former_Yugoslav Army_chief of staff. The only_information pertaining to_the 2005_and 2006 confidentiality_Court orders that still remains protected_is therefore the_Appeals Chamber’s legal reasoning. However, no_ban_was ordered in_the_ICTY_Appeal judgment_in relation to_the_three impugned__pages of her book or her_articles.

In_reaction to Hartmann's conviction by the ICTY,_several international NGOs have_criticized_the ICTY for hiding_its "legal reasoning" while the_publicity of criminal proceedings is a_general principle_of criminal_and international law which aim is to guarantee the transparency and_public control of judicial proceedings. Reporters_Without Borders and Article_19 condemned_a_conviction contravening international_case_law relating_to freedom of expression.

Reporters Without Borders stated_that "it_is the duty of the press_to highlight how this_internationally_created system of justice works, to_question its procedures and to stimulate_public discussion". "Article 19 believes_that_such_an insistence on keeping the_logic and effect of the ICTY's_jurisprudence secret is_profoundly undemocratic and manifestly inappropriate for an_international_criminal court", adding that "[t]o impose_such_a penalty on a journalist for_bringing_transparency_and accountability to the ICTY_raises troubling questions about the Tribunal's_democratic legitimacy".

The €7,000 fine was deposited by Hartmann into_a French dedicated_bank account along with an_invitation_to_the ICTY to seek assistance to the French authorities in_order to_collect these funds_for the purposes of paying the fine. The ICTY Appeals_Chamber deemed the money not to have_been paid and converted, on 16 November 2011, the €7,000 fine_into a seven-day prison term