The right to one's homeland, ethnic cleansing, and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

1995 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred de Zayas
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
The Right

scholarly journals Review of Some Procedural Witness Protective Measures at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (34) ◽  
pp. 251
Author(s):  
Romina Beqiri
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Protective Measures ◽  
Balkan Region ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Impact

Given the spread terror and the abuses perpetrated in the Balkan region, many victims and witnesses of atrocities were deterred from testifying. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY or Tribunal) facilitated the appearance of witnesses and protected them in case of intimidation including by taking measures against those who would violate the confidentiality of the proceedings. This article aims to introduce some of the witness protective measures before the Tribunal, and particularly threats and risks they have faced in the context of the cases dealt with by the Tribunal. It reflects also upon groundbreaking measures of protection decided by the Tribunal and the challenges it has faced over the last two decades. It finally discusses the impact of such challenges on the right to a fair trial and how they were addressed.

The (Lack of) Impact of the ICTY on the Public Memory of the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina

2020 ◽  
pp. 559-570
Author(s):  
Jovana Mihajlović Trbovc
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Public Memory ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Public Domain ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Debates ◽  
Post War

This chapter tackles relations between facts established at the Tribunal and acknowledgement of these in the public domain of post-war Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), where three ethnically defined and mutually contesting interpretations dominate the public forum. Examining how this problem unfolds, this chapter follows the development of the public memory about the war. It intersects with the relevant International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) jurisprudence, aiming to detect potential changes in the dominant narrative. It analyses public debates whether the war was a product of Serbian aggression or a civil war within Bosnia; whether ‘ethnic cleansing’ was pre-planned by the Serbian side or an inevitable consequence of the war (examined through the Prijedor case); whether genocide was the overall aim of the Serbian side or whether it took place only in Srebrenica; and whether the Croatian side was a defender of, or aggressor in BiH (examined through the Ahmići case).

The Right of the Accused to Self-Representation Before International Criminal Tribunals: Further Developments

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (3) ◽  
pp. 663-668
Author(s):  
Nina H. B. Jørgensen
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
The Law ◽  
Developing Area ◽  
The Right

In its decision on assigned counsel's motion for withdrawal in the Milosevic case, the trial chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) observed “that assignment of counsel against the wishes of the accused is a developing area of the law both in national and international jurisdictions.” This area of law witnessed rapid development by international criminal tribunals in the latter half of 2004.

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY): Prosecutor V. Krnojelac

2004 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 288-380 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Indefinite Detention ◽  
The Right ◽  
And Control ◽  
The U.S

This case presents the question whether the Executive Branch may hold uncharged citizens of foreign nations in indefinite detention in territory under the "complete jurisdiction and control" of the United States while effectively denying them the right to challenge their detention in any tribunal anywhere, including the courts of the U.S. The issues we are required to confront are new, important, and difficult.

Foreword by the former President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (321) ◽  
pp. 601-602
Author(s):  
Antonio Cassese
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Second World War ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
International Tribunal ◽  
European Continent ◽  
Mass Killings ◽  
Second World

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (“the International Tribunal”) was established over four years ago in response to the mass killings, widespread and systematic rape and “ethnic cleansing” being practised in the former Yugoslavia on a scale and of a ferocity not seen on the European continent since the end of the Second World War. The United Nations Security Council considered that this situation constituted a threat to international peace and security. It therefore established the International Tribunal as a subsidiary judicial organ, in the belief that this would help halt and redress such violations.

The Right of the Accused to Self-Representation Before International Criminal Tribunals

2004 ◽  
Vol 98 (4) ◽  
pp. 711-726 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina H. B. Jørgensen
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Conventional Wisdom ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Legal Assistance ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Open Court ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Right

Conventional wisdom holds that a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. Perhaps surprisingly, several of the highest profile accused persons before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) have received some form of legal training. Less surprisingly, it is precisely those accused who are asserting a right to self-representation. Slobodan Miloševic, for example, has a degree in law and by the end of his trial will have earned himself several years of advocacy experience. Vojislav Šešelj, a professor of law at Belgrade University, was somewhat affronted by the judge's suggestion that he should request legal assistance and exclaimed in open court, “I have never met a better lawyer dian I am in my whole life.” Are these accused fools to want to represent themselves? What about an accused with no legal experience at all who asserts this right in the face of charges of genocide and crimes against humanity? As one accused remarked when clarifying to the court that he did not wish to represent himself, “No. It would be insane if I did that ….”

Requests for Review in the Practice of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-119
Author(s):  
ANDREA CARCANO
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Comprehensive Overview ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Right

This article is concerned with the remedy of ‘review’ provided for in the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, in Articles 26 and 25 respectively, which allows a convicted individual or the prosecution to seek the reopening of a case on the basis of a new fact. The main purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive overview of how this remedy has been applied by the chambers of the ICTY and the ICTR. It focuses first on the relevant provisions set out in the Statutes and in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the two tribunals, and then reviews a range of international and national provisions. The latter examination clarifies the concept of review adopted, and reveals the interplay between international and national provisions. It also shows that the remedy of review can be seen as one application of the general principle of law that a convicted individual must have the right to seek the reopening of his or her case on the basis of a new fact, which may show his or her innocence, even after a considerable lapse of time. This article then examines the decisions rendered so far by the ICTY and the ICTR. It considers the factual context of each case and discusses how the applicable law has been interpreted and refined by the judges of the ICTY and ICTR appeals chambers. In conclusion, some suggestions are advanced as to how the pertinent Rules of Procedure and Evidence could be made clearer and perhaps fairer, in the light of the experience gained from the practice of the two tribunals and the provisions of the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

scholarly journals The ICTY and the Right to a Fair Trial: A Critique of the Critics

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 215-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olivia Q. Swaak-Goldman
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Rules Of Procedure ◽  
The Right ◽  
Death Knell

In recent publications a rising tide of criticism directed against the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is discernible, principally concerning whether or not the ICTY grants the accused a fair trial. The perceived lack of ability, or willingness, to satisfy the highest standards of human rights concerning the right of accused to a fair trial is regarded as a death-knell both for the broad acceptance of the ICTY's jurisprudence as well as the prospects for a permanent international criminal court. While most of the criticism centres around the interpretation and application of provisions of the ICTY's Statute and Rules of Procedure and Evidence addressing the right to a fair trial, some of it concerns the vigorousness with which ICTY officials insist upon the surrender of indicted persons. With all due respect these commentators, by applying norms that are not wholly applicable, misconceive the threat to the accused's fair trial rights.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document