United Nations Member States' Obligations Towards the ICTY: Arresting and Transferring Lukic, Gotovina, and Zelenovic

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 627-653 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandra Vicente ◽  
Yolanda Gamarra

AbstractFull and expedient cooperation of UN member States in the arrest and transfer of war criminals constitutes a key factor in addressing war crimes and providing redress to the victims. Through the analysis of three recent cases of arrests and transfers to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the authors show the legal difficulties and political considerations that some States face when implementing their international obligations to arrest and transfer. The three cases analyzed demonstrate that the arrest and transfer of war criminals is more likely to take place when State authorities are truly committed to cooperate, and act on that commitment by adopting specific domestic legislation to make the process of arresting and transferring smooth and transparent.

PMLA ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 121 (5) ◽  
pp. 1662-1664 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean Franco

According to the report of the United Nations commission on Human Rights, rape is the least condemned war crime (coomaraswamy, Further Promotion 64n263). Although wartime rape was listed as a crime against humanity by the Nuremberg Military Tribunals and by the Geneva Conventions, it was not until 2001 that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia identified rapists as war criminals. In that year the tribunal sentenced three men for violations of the laws or customs of war (torture, rape) and crimes against humanity (torture, rape) committed during the war in Bosnia during the 1993 takeover of Foca, where women were systematically raped and killed, the purpose being “to destroy an ethnic group by killing it, to prevent its reproduction or to disorganize it, removing it from its home soil.”


2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 29-41
Author(s):  
Maja Milatovic-Ovadia

In November 2017, Ratko Mladic, a war-time leader and a commander of the Bosnian Serb Army, was sentenced by the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal to life imprisonment for the genocide and crimes against humanity committed during the 1992–1995 war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the region the verdict was received with conflicting reactions, emphasising yet again how extensive the ethnic division is within the society. Through close analysis of the theatre project Shakespeare’s Comedies performed by ethnically segregated youth in Bosnia-Herzegovina, this article aims to understand how Shakespeare’s work functions as a vehicle to address the consequences of war and to support the complex process of reconciliation under circumstances in which the issues of war crimes cannot be tackled in a straightforward and direct manner. The study takes a cross-disciplinary approach to research, drawing from theory of reconciliation, applied theatre practice and comedy studies.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wiktor Hebda

Croatian and Serbian War Crimes, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, and the Judicial Systems of Serbia and CroatiaThe war in former Yugoslavia (1991–1995) was marked by war crimes which still affect Serbian–Croatian political relations. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which operated between 1993–2017, was supposed to pass fair verdicts on those responsible for war crimes, but its verdicts have been surrounded by controversy in Post-Yugoslav states. The article analyzes Serbian and Croatian war crimes in Croatian territory between 1991–1995 as well as the verdicts passed by the ICTY against the most prominent war criminals. The actions taken by the Serbian and Croatian judicial systems are also discussed. The analysis presented in the article indicates that the verdicts delivered by the ICTY were selective and difficult to accept for both sides of the conflict. Unfortunately, Serbo-Croatian cooperation on war crimes has been developing for only a few years and has not produced the expected results. For these reasons, war crimes and war criminals still have a negative influence on political and social relations between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Serbia. Chorwackie i serbskie zbrodnie wojenne, Międzynarodowy Trybunał Karny da Byłej Jugosławii oraz serbski i chorwacki wymiar sprawiedliwościKwestia zbrodni wojennych i obiektywnego osądzenia zbrodniarzy wojennych jest wysoce problematyczna. Bezspornie wojna w byłej Jugosławii z lat 1991-1995 była tragiczna w skutkach i naznaczona wydarzeniami, którym można nadać miano zbrodni wojennych. Międzynarodowy Trybunał Karny dla Byłej Jugosławii (MTKJ) funkcjonujący w latach 1993-2017 miał w założeniu sprawiedliwie osądzić osoby odpowiedzialne za zbrodnie wojenne. Niemniej jego działalność (orzeczone kary) wzbudza pewne kontrowersje, a co za tym idzie może być i jest krytycznie oceniana. W artykule przedstawiono syntetyczną analizę serbskich oraz chorwackich zbrodni wojennych mających miejsce na terytorium Chorwacji w latach 1991-1995. Następnie odniesiono się do kar orzeczonych przez MTKJ wobec najważniejszych zbrodniarzy wojennych. W tym też aspekcie zwrócono uwagę na aktywność serbskiego i chorwackiego wymiaru sprawiedliwości. Analiza zawarta w artykule potwierdza tezę że wydawane wyroki przez MTKJ odznaczały się selektywnością, dlatego też w niektórych przypadkach były one trudne do zaakceptowania przez obie strony konfliktu. Niestety serbsko-chorwacka współpraca w zakresie zbrodni wojennych rozwija się dopiero od kilku lat i nie przyniosła oczekiwanych rezultatów. Z tych też powodów zbrodnie wojenne i zbrodniarze wojenni nadal mają negatywny wpływ na stosunki polityczne i społeczne między Republiką Chorwacji a Republiką Serbii.


Author(s):  
Higgins Dame Rosalyn, DBE, QC ◽  
Webb Philippa ◽  
Akande Dapo ◽  
Sivakumaran Sandesh ◽  
Sloan James

This chapter covers criminal tribunals established by, or in relationship with, the United Nations (UN). It includes the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia; the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda; the International Criminal Court; The Special Court for Sierra Leone; the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia; the Special Tribunal for Lebanon; the Kosovo Regulation 64 Panels; the East Timor Special Panels for Serious Crimes; and the Bosnia and Herzegovina War Crimes Chamber. The chapter discusses the establishment and jurisdiction of each court or tribunal; its composition; its relationship with other bodies; resources and completion mechanisms; residual issue; and legacy.


1998 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 161-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Cissé

Following the death of Rwandan President Juvénal Habyarimana in a plane crash on 6 April 1994, Hutu extremists, members of the Presidential Guard, Rwandan army troops, theInterhamwe(‘Those who work together’) militia affiliated to the ruling party, the M.R.N.D. (Mouvement Révolutionaire National pour la Démocratie) and theImpuzamugambi(‘Those with a single purpose’) militia of the extremist CDR Party (Coalition pour la Défense de la République) began the systematic and widespread killings of Tutsi civilians in the capital Kigali. Hutu moderates were also targeted. Early victims of the violence included Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana along with ten Belgian soldiers of the United Nations Assistance Mission for Rwanda (UNAMIR). This incident prompted the withdrawal of UNAMIR which left the perpetrators of the genocide a free rein. Ministers and the President of the Constitutional Court were also killed within hours of the plane crash.


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-38
Author(s):  
Maja Munivrana Vajda

This article will describe and critically reflect upon the sentencing practices of Croatian courts with respect to war crimes committed during the armed conflict in Croatia in the early 1990s. Over the past two and a half decades, more than 3,500 alleged war criminals have been put on trial, with some 600 finally being convicted. Yet many proceedings were initially commenced without sufficient evidence, in absentia and, arguably, with a bias towards ethnic Serbs. This article first seeks to determine whether ethnicity has played a role in prosecuting and sentencing for war crimes and then to identify to what extent sentencing goals and principles, including aggravating and mitigating factors, proclaimed by Croatian courts reflect the extraordinary nature of international crimes. An attempt is made to compare these sentences and principles with sentencing practices at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (icty).


2000 ◽  
Vol 94 (4) ◽  
pp. 759-773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daryl A. Mundis

Since the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, both International Tribunals have grown tremendously in terms of resources. Despite this growth, the International Tribunals have rendered judgments in only fifteen cases and conducted inordinately long trials—a fault for which, perhaps more than any other, they can be justly criticized. The Secretary- General of the United Nations recently appointed an expert group to review the efficiency of the operation of the International Tribunals and make recommendations for improvement. Following the release of the group's report, the General Assembly requested that the Secretary-General obtain comments from the International Tribunals on the experts’ recommendations. The ICTYjudges, for their part, considered these recommendations in a report to the United Nations setting forth a long-term strategy for improving the operation of the Tribunal.


2021 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 209-226
Author(s):  
Małgorzata Szwejkowska

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document