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.

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.

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.

Explaining public opinion on international criminal justice

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 567-591 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Meernik
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
International Criminal Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Empirical Inquiry ◽  
The Past ◽  
Levels Of Support

Despite the fact that international courts have proven popular in the last 20 years, systematic and empirical inquiry to determine whether they are beginning to realize their objectives is a fairly recent phenomenon. Support among the publics in the affected countries is critical to their success for, as deGuzman writes, ‘… the globalization of communications increasingly means that an institution’s legitimacy depends on the opinions of ordinary citizens around the world’. I develop a theory of public opinion regarding international criminal justice and test it on support for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), among peoples of the former Yugoslavia. I contend that support for the ICTY is filtered through individuals’ perceptions of the past, present, and future. As one’s beliefs about whether conditions are good or improving grow more positive, such positive perceptions are generalized to extend to international institutions that play a major role in shaping those conditions. In addition, I argue that support for the ICTY is strongly influenced by an individual’s views of the legitimacy and morality of the law. Ethnicity is also important in differentiating levels of support across the peoples of the former Yugoslavia.

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.

Judgments and Judgment Drafting

2020 ◽  
pp. 282-306
Author(s):  
Thomas Wayde Pittman ◽  
Marko Divac Öberg
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Support Staff ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Significant Length ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Important Purpose

One of the legacies of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) will be its many trial and appeal judgments with significant length. These are accompanied by a ‘reasoned opinion in writing’ which drastically varies in size. Those written reasoned opinions, also referred to as judgments, serve an important formal and tangible purpose. They are intergovernmental judicial decision-making records of judicially-determined factual and legal findings and conclusions concerning atrocities committed in the former Yugoslavia. Politically, they serve a less tangible, but no less important, purpose—as the Tribunal’s contribution to the restoration and maintenance of peace in the former Yugoslavia. Yet, for possessing such importance, little is known about how the judgments come into existence. Who drafts them and how and what are the stages? Who are the legal support staff involved? What determines structure, content, language, and style? How is an opinion ‘reasoned’? What has been the impact of ICTY judgments? This chapter seeks to answer these questions.

scholarly journals Case Study: The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’s Court Transcripts in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian—Part 1: Needs, Feasibility, and Output Assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 37-48
Author(s):  
Besmir Fidahić
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Historical Record ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
The Past ◽  
Court Record ◽  
Totalitarian Regimes ◽  
Insight Into ◽  
Made In

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) remains the most important organization for the past, the present, and the future of the former Yugoslavia. Faced with a country that always lived under totalitarian regimes with very little insight into actions of the groups and individuals who reaped unthinkable havoc on each other at the end of the twentieth century, the ICTY set undisputable historical record about events that took place during the 1991–1999 wars and put the country on an excellent track towards transformation for the better. But even 28 years since the establishment of the ICTY, the former Yugoslavia remains the hotbed of nationalism, ethnic divisions, genocide denial, and genocide justification. Court transcripts belong to the category of the permanent court record. The ICTY court transcripts have only been made in English and French, but not in Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian (B/C/S), the languages of the former Yugoslavia. This paper is going to examine the needs for the ICTY court transcripts in the B/C/S, could they have been made in the B/C/S from the very beginning of the institution and whether the existing ICTY court transcripts in the B/C/S are up to par for any of its audiences.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document