scholarly journals When Justice is Done

2020 ◽  
pp. 424-442
Author(s):  
Joris van Wijk ◽  
Barbora Holá
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Early Release ◽  
State Prison ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
Post Trial

Until 2017 the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has acquitted eighteen and convicted eighty-two individuals, of whom the vast majority have been given determinate sentences. It was the first tribunal to experiment with establishing sentencing agreements with States in order to enforce these sentences and to develop and adopt early release procedures. This chapter presents an overview of the post-trial dilemmas that the ICTY and enforcement States have faced. Special attention is given to the phase of designating an enforcement State, prison of international prisoners, factors that justify their (early) release, and what happens to the individuals after their release or following their acquittal. The data presented are based on an analysis of case law, academic literature, and interviews with stakeholders at the ICTY, enforcement States as well as in the former Yugoslavia. The findings are contrasted with post-conviction practices at other international tribunals, assessing ICTY’s legacy when it comes to post-conviction issues.

Individual Criminal Responsibility before the International Criminal Court

2012 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-70 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara Goy
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Criminal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Individual Criminal Responsibility

For more than 15 years the two ad hoc Tribunals, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), have interpreted the requirements of different forms of individual criminal responsibility. It is thus helpful to look at whether and to what extent the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR may provide guidance to the International Criminal Court (ICC). To this end, this article compares the requirements of individual criminal responsibility at the ICTY/ICTR and the ICC. The article concludes that, applied with caution, the jurisprudence of the ICTY/ICTR – as an expression of international law – can assist in interpreting the modes of liability under the ICC Statute. ICTY/ICTR case law seems to be most helpful with regard to accessorial forms of liability, in particular their objective elements. Moreover, it may assist in interpreting the subjective requirements set out in Article 30 ICC Statute.

scholarly journals Przedterminowe zwolnienie z kary pozbawienia wolności skazanych za ludobójstwo, zbrodnie przeciwko ludzkości i wojenne na mocy orzeczeń międzynarodowych trybunałów karnych „ad hoc” oraz ich sukcesora w postaci Mechanizmu Rezydualnego ONZ

2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-226
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Szwejkowska
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Armed Conflicts ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Early Release ◽  
International Crimes ◽  
Domestic Law

In the last decade of the 20th century, a war in the former Yugoslavia broke out, once again making Europe a witness to an armed conflict. Almost at the same time, another local ethnic bloodshed started, but this time in distant Africa — in Rwanda. Both these events included the most horrifying international crimes against humanity: genocide and war crimes. To prosecute the most important commanding figures involved in these conflicts and hold them criminally responsible, two ad hoc United Nations tribunals were created: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in Hague and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda in Arusha. They finished their operation in 2017 and 2015, respectively. The tasks of conducting and completing all ongoing proceedings, including law enforcement, after the completion of their mandates have been entrusted to the UN International Residual Mechanism. One of the crucial assignments of the tribunals and later the Redisual Mechanism was to deal with the request on behalf of the convicted for granting them early release. Although none of the statutes of the aforementioned courts provided any ground for early release, soon it was accepted that both tribunals, as well as their successor, were entitled to proceed despite this issue. As soon as in 2001, the first convict was granted early release, but with no conditions. It is estimated that, to date, more than 2/3 of all convicted by the Tribunals have been released before the termination of their sentence. This should raise the question of how to rehabilitate that kind of offender, convicted of genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity, to ensure they do not pose a threat to society anymore. Especially since the offenders serve their punishment outside the country of their origin — meaning, different rules apply according to the domestic law regulation of the state that voluntarily agreed to enforce the sentence. This article analyzes the juridical approach of the tribunals and the Residual Mechanism on the issue of early release of the convicts involved in the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

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.

scholarly journals Relativising Atrocity Crimes: The Message of Unconditional Early Release of Perpetrators Convicted by the ICTY (1998 – 2018)

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-96
Author(s):  
Priyamvada Yarnell
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
Early Release ◽  
Key Stakeholders ◽  
Moral Condemnation ◽  
Atrocity Crimes

Abstract Despite being found guilty of egregious acts, crimes against humanity and war crimes, 54 of the 90 perpetrators sentenced by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (icty) were granted unconditional early release (uer). This article argues that uer did a disservice to two principal expressive purposes of punishment - moral condemnation of the crimes and the overall norm projected by the icty, the ‘universal repugnance of group-based killing’. Fundamentally, punishment of perpetrators signifies the inherent worth of victims. Interviews with key stakeholders in Bosnia and Herzegovina revealed that the interviewees largely concurred with authors who posit that punitive justice conveys valuable messages to audiences. This article complements expressivist theories by demonstrating the extent to which expressivism was negated as perpetrators were granted uer. Finally, it proposes how early release in future tribunals and courts might be tailored to counter the negation of international criminal justice’s expressive value.

Applying International Experiences in National Prosecutions of Conflict-related Sexual Violence

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 325-348
Author(s):  
Jasenka Ferizović ◽  
Gorana Mlinarević
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Violence ◽  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Experiences ◽  
Judicial Proceedings

Abstract This article explores the synergies between international and national experiences in prosecutions of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV) through a case study of the application of international case law, findings, and practices in national judicial proceedings in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). The article analyses how the Court of BiH applies the substantive and procedural case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in CRSV cases and examines how this case law impacts national efforts to provide justice and accountability for CRSV. Specifically, this article explores the Court’s practices concerning application of the ICTY jurisprudence, adjudicated facts and procedural standards in CRSV cases. The article shows how relationships between international and national practices are important for building more effective prosecutions of CRSV.

scholarly journals Drawing the Boundaries of Mens Rea in the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-348 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohamed Elewa Badar
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Concept ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
The Creation ◽  
The Law

AbstractEven though more than a decade has passed since the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the law of the most fundamental concept in international criminal law – mens rea – remains unsettled. Through its jurisprudence, the Yugoslavia Tribunal has made enormous efforts to assign different degrees of mens rea for different categories of crimes under its Statute. The present study is an attempt to clarify several issues with regard to the law of mens rea as developed in the case law of the Yugoslavia Tribunal. Among these issues are the following: what precisely is to be understood by the terms "specific intent", "special intent", "dolus specialis", or "surplus intent"? Similarly, what are the precise meanings of the terms "deliberately", "intention", "intent", "intentionally", "wilful or wilfully", "knowledge", and "wanton" as provided for in the ICTY Statute or as employed by the Chambers within its judgments.

The Precedent of Appeals Chambers Decisions in the International Criminal Tribunals

2004 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-102
Author(s):  
XAVIER TRACOL
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Trial Judge ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Individual Trial

The principle of judicial precedent set out by the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia raises the five following issues. (i) Is the Appeals Chamber bound by its previous decisions? (ii) Are the trial chambers bound by Appeals Chamber decisions on both legal and factual issues? (iii) Are the trial chambers bound by the decisions of other trial chambers? (iv) Is the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY bound by the decisions of the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and vice versa? (v) Are the trial chambers of the ICTR bound by the decisions of the ICTY Appeals Chamber and vice versa? The author of this article aims to show that the Appeals Chambers, most trial chambers and individual judges of the International Criminal Tribunals comply with the principle of judicial precedent. However, the principle of judicial precedent is arguably weak, because it was established by case law only. The author also intends to demonstrate that the trial chambers and an individual trial judge of the ICTY have recently departed from the practice of judicial precedent in sensitive legal areas, that is (i) the test to be applied to a motion for a judgement of acquittal; (ii) the issue of evidence; (iii) the standard to be applied to a motion for cross-access to confidential documents in other cases; and (iv) the issue of provisional release.

scholarly journals Does Remorse Count? ICTY Convicts’ Reflections on Their Crimes in Early Release Decisions

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 349-371 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbora Hola ◽  
Joris van Wijk ◽  
Francesca Constantini ◽  
Armi Korhonnen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Personal Responsibility ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Analytical Framework ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
General Level ◽  
Offender Rehabilitation ◽  
Early Release ◽  
The Past

Based on all publicly available International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) early release decisions as of May 31, 2017, this explorative article empirically analyzes, systematizes, and evaluates how ICTY convicts reflected on their past crimes during early release proceedings and how this affected decision-making of the ICTY President regarding their level of rehabilitation and early release. For this purpose, we developed an analytical framework distinguishing between acknowledgement of responsibility and remorse, as two forms of reflection on the past crimes, and their general and personal dimensions. Our analysis demonstrates that of all 53 individuals early released at the ICTY, 36% were considered sufficiently rehabilitated and a part of their sentence pardoned without any information regarding their outlook on the crimes they had been convicted of. Only 19% of the early released prisoners acknowledged their personal responsibility and expressed remorse for the crimes they committed. Others denied, only partially accepted responsibility and/or showed remorse on a general level, which, however, did not bar their early release. The article argues that this haphazard practice brings into question the ICTY legacy with respect to its goal of offender rehabilitation and its potential effects on reconciliation in the Former Yugoslavia.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document