International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY): Prosecutor v. Galic

2004 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 794-879 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Fear Of Death ◽  
European City ◽  
World War ◽  
The Military ◽  
The City

IntroductionTrial Chamber I of the International Tribunal (the “ Trial Chamber”) is seized of a case which concerns events surrounding the military encirclement of the city of Sarajevo in 1992 by Bosnian Serb forces.The Prosecution alleges that “The siege of Sarajevo, as it came to be popularly known, was an episode of such notoriety in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia that one must go back to World War II to find a parallel in European history. Not since then had a professional army conducted a campaign of unrelenting violence against the inhabitants of a European city so as to reduce them to a state of medieval deprivation in which they were in constant fear of death. In the period covered in this Indictment, there was nowhere safe for a Sarajevan, not at home, at school, in a hospital, from deliberate attack.”

The Historical Development of Crimes against Humanity and Jurisprudence of the Rwanda, Former Yugoslavia, and Sierra Leone Tribunals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Law ◽  
Sierra Leone ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
World War ◽  
Post World War Ii

Chapter 8 analyses post-World War II jurisprudence, national jurisprudence, the International Law Commission’s work, and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) jurisprudence regarding what types of non-state entities might be involved in crimes against humanity. It argues that while the Nuremberg Charter and post-World War II jurisprudence, including national jurisprudence, were focused on state crimes, state involvement has rarely been considered a legal element of crimes against humanity. This is also evident in the International Law Commission’s work. This chapter analyses how the three abovementioned international(ized) tribunals addressed the question of non-state entity involvement in crimes against humanity and argues that the ICTY and the SCSL did not limit entities behind crimes against humanity to abstract ‘state-like entities’, but primarily considered whether the group in question had the capacity to commit the crimes.

scholarly journals Ante Gotovina case: an error of law which led to innocence?

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 65-85
Author(s):  
Wiktor Hebda
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Primary Role ◽  
Military Operation ◽  
Substantial Impact ◽  
Military Conflict ◽  
The Military

The breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 30 years ago still has a substantial impact on the post-Yugoslav countries which proclaimed independence. Bearing in mind that the breakup also generated a military conflict, e.g. in Croatia, the restoration of Serbian-Croatian relations remains problematic. One of the challenges is passing a fair judgment on people responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established for this reason in particular. Ante Gotovina – a Croatian general, was one of those indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in connection with the military operation “Oluja” during which some heinous acts of crime took place. Gotovina played a clear and primary role in this operation, and therefore his actions were the main count of the indictment, firstly, for the prosecution and then for the Trial Chamber of ICTY. However, the sentence of 24 years imprisonment was never carried out following a successful appeal. The Appeals Chamber did not uphold the verdict of the Trial Chamber owing to a serious legal error and, consequently, it acquitted Gotovina of all the charges. This issue became yet another source of Serbian-Croatian conflict in connection with the most important people held responsible for the crimes committed in 1991-1995.

scholarly journals FACING BACK TO MOVE FORWARD: EVALUATING THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL OF RWANDA ON THE EVOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dan Ngabirano
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
World War ◽  
Social Challenges ◽  
First Case

The 1994 Rwanda genocide is one of the worst human catastrophes to have befallen mankind since World War II. The genocide left over 800 000 people dead, 1.7 million displaced, 400 000 widowed, and 130 000 arrested on suspicion of committing acts of genocide. The consequences of this genocide are still felt today. Despite the fact that the causes of this genocide were apparent, no commendable steps were taken by the international community, in particular the United Nations, to avert it. Having established that ‘genocide and other systematic, widespread and flagrant violations of international humanitarian law committed in Rwanda constituted a threat to international peace and security’ the UN adopted Resolution 955 which established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The ICTR was largely inspired by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), a similar institution established for bringing those responsible for similar atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia to justice. The ICTR has been largely criticised for taking too long when trying to dispose of the cases before it. At an international level, it is said that many funds are being spent on the ICTR without showing any results. These criticisms do not take the logistical, political and social challenges faced by the ICTR into account. At the time of its establishment, the ICTR faced mainly infrastructural challenges, thus it took almost three years for the ICTR to decide its first case. Most of its time was spent on putting an ICTR facility with three chambers in place. The wide-ranging criticisms tend to overshadow the achievements of the ICTR, which are highlighted in this paper.

Briefly Noted

2019 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 664-667
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
The Balkans ◽  
Life Sentence

On March 20, 2019, the Appeals Chamber of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals set aside Radovan Karadžić's prior sentence of forty years and imposed a life sentence. Karadžić was convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws or customs of war in March 2016 by a Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and sentenced to forty years in prison. His crimes relate to war crimes he committed during the 1990s conflicts in the Balkans, in particular the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Bosnian Serbs and the three-year long siege of Sarajevo. The Appeals Chamber reversed part of Karadžić's convictions related to the Overarching JCE and dismissed the rest of his appeal, while also dismissing most of the Prosecution's appeal, aside from the sentence. The Appeals Chamber judges found that the Trial Chamber “committed a discernible error and abused its discretion in imposing a sentence of only 40 years of imprisonment,” and consequently imposed a life sentence.

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (Trial Chamber): Prosecutor v. Milošć (Decision Concerning an Amicus Curiae)

2002 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 1344-1346
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
List Type ◽  
Relevant Factor ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
The Face ◽  
The Hague

The accused has complained about publications in two newspapers. The first was published on the 7th of September, 2002 in the Haagsche Courant, a Dutch newspaper in The Hague, and the second on the 13th September, 2002 in the Kultura, a Bulgarian newspaper in Sofia, Bulgaria. Both publications resulted from interviews given by Mr. Michail Wladimiroff, one of the three amici curiae in this case.The publication in the Haagsche Courant was captioned: “Wladimiroff: Already Enough Evidence Against Milosevic.” Mr. Wladimiroff is reported as saying, “If this trial were only about Kosovo and one had to draw up the balance now, Milosevic would certainly be convicted. A link has been established between the army and the police, the warring parties in Kosovo and Milosevic himself.”Mr. Wladimiroff explained that he had been misquoted, and that what he had said was that “we have seen during the Prosecution case at least on the face of it, there is a link between the offences in Kosovo and the accused. That may not be for all events, but even if it were half of it, it is a relevant factor for the Trial Chamber when reaching a verdict.”

II. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: The Erdemović Case

1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 461-474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Warbrick ◽  
Dominic McGoldrick ◽  
David Turns
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Political Leader ◽  
Military Commander ◽  
The Face ◽  
International War ◽  
A Minor ◽  
War Crimes Tribunals

On 29 November 1996 Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (“the ICTY”) handed down its sentence in the case of Dražen Erdemović. This was a decision of historie significance for a variety of reasons, the most obvious being that it was the first sentence passed by an international war crimes tribunals, applying international law, since the International Military Tribunals which sat at Nuremberg and Tokyo between 1945 and 1948; it was also the first time a truly international tribunal bas concluded the trial of a minor war criminal, as opposed to a senior military commander or political leader. In addition, it was the first sentence handed down by the ICTY, which has been plagued sincc its first days of operation by problems in securing evidence and witnesses, not to mention the presence of the accused. Now the ICTY has shown, in the face of widespread criticism and accusations of impotence, that it can actually perform the task assigned to it. The doubt about such a judgment is that the Erdemović case is not perhaps the best basis on which to assess the ICTY's performance, so singular were the accused's conduct and, indeed, the circumstances in which he found himself before the Tribunal. Essentially, had it not been for the accused's voluntary surrender and his extensive co-operation with the Office of the Prosecutor, and the co-operation of the judirial authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in transferring Erdemović to The Hague, the case would probably never have happened at all.

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.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: The Prosecutor v. Gotovina et al.

2013 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 72-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julian Elderfield
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity

On November 16, 2012, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) reversed by majority the findings of a unanimous Trial Chamber in Prosecutor v. Gotovina et al. (Gotovina). In so doing, it acquitted two Croatian generals, Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, on all counts of the indictment, including persecution and deportation as crimes against humanity, and four counts of violations of the laws or customs of war.

5 Obligations of International Organizations, 5.3 Case No. IT-95-9-PT, Decision on the Motion for a Judicial Assistance to be Provided by SFOR and Others , Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 18 October 2000

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
van der Wilt Harmen
Keyword(s):  
International Organizations ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Trial Chamber ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Judicial Assistance ◽  
Shed Light ◽  
Similar Issue

This commentary concerns a decision by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the Simić case that addressed the question whether the Tribunal could issue binding orders to international organizations like SFOR (Stabilization Force). Following the Blaskić-precedent that decided on a similar issue in respect of states—and applying this precedent by analogy—the Chamber concluded that it was authorized to do so. The appearance and testimony of a SFOR-official was necessary in order to shed light on the alleged abduction of Mr Todorović prior to his surrender to the Tribunal. By summoning the witness to the court, the Chamber acknowledged that irregularities during pre-trial investigations might have procedural consequences. The commentary engages in a brief discussion of the case law of the Tribunal on the topic, noting that, while the Tribunal is not much concerned about state sovereignty, it takes the fundamental rights of accused seriously.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document