The lack of jury trial is another issue. I do not understand that the institution of lay juries is at all universal. I believe that most European countries do not utilize it.

There can be no doubt that this tribunal and its effort to prosecute Milosevic will be remembered as a fiasco, and rightly so. If it can be used to derail the ICC, so much the better.

From the ITCY website

133 ACCUSED HAVE APPEARED IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST 85 PERSONS CONCLUDED
(40 accused found guilty, 6 persons not found guilty, 4 indictees transferred to a state for trial, 25 persons indictment withdrawn and 10 persons died)

“Taft had four legal criticisms of the trial, three of which consisted of the use of arbitrary power to curb individual rights, while the fourth was a prediction about the deterrence value of such a trial. First, the trial violated the “fundamental principle of American law that a man cannot be tried under an expost facto statute.” Second, the trial of the “vanquished by the victors cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with forms of justice.” Third, the trial was based on the “Russian idea of the purpose of trials, government policy and not justice, having little relation to our Anglo-Saxon heritage.” And fourth, Taft warned that the trial and its sentences would not “discourage the making of aggressive war, for no one makes aggressive war unless he expects to win”"
http://www.looksmarttrends.com/p/articles/mi_qa3669/is_200004/ai_n8894209

-No trial by jury. Not merely for the points you mentionned but becuase a jury is the incarnation of the nation: when the life and liberty iof a person is at stake the verdict should not depend on mere magistrates (1) but to the nation.

2) No appeal

3) No independent source of law. It is not to judges to decide if such thing is a crime and that it should be punished with twenty instead of tenyears. It is to a Parliament, to an elected parliament to make laws ie rules who don’t target a particular person. No to judges. Allowing judges to dictate the rules like done by the ICC would lead to a person sentence to twenty years for a minor offence who happens to be a sensitive issue for the judge or because the judge disliked him.

(1) Magustrates who can have a sensitivity very different than the one of the common man, they can have considerations of carreer or power, they can be more obsessed with prescedents or the position of a comma in the law than about the case and its human consequences)

If true, the little rat-bastard accomplished some unintended good in his miserable life.