Encyclopedia
| Bosnian Genocide Case
Encyclopedia
|
| Tutorials | Encyclopedia | Dictionary | Directory |
|
Bosnian Genocide Case
The Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), case 91, International Court of Justice (ICJ) Judgement returned on February 26, 2007. The case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations's highest judicial body, which exclusively hears disputes between states, related to Serbia's alleged attempts to wipe out the Bosnian Muslim population of Bosnia. It was filed by Dr. Francis Boyle, an adviser to Alija Izetbegovi? during the Bosnian War. The case was heard in the ICJ court in The Hague, Netherlands, and ended on May 9, 2006. The ICJ presented its judgement on 26 February, 2007, in which it confirmed the ICTY judgement that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide, stating: It cleared Serbia of direct involvement in genocide during the Bosnian war,[1] but ruled that Belgrade did breach international law by failing to prevent the 1995 Srebrenica genocide, and for failing to try or transfer the persons accused of genocide to the ICTY, in order to comply with its obligations under Articles I and VI of the Genocide Convention, in particular in respect of General Ratko Mladi?.[2][3] 
Peace Palace at the Hague.
Course of trialFollowing is a schedule of the trial: First round of argument
Hearing of experts, witnesses and witness-experts
Second round
VerdictThe Court found: In reviewing the case in the judgement of Jorgic v. Germany on 12 July 2007 the European Court of Human Rights selectively quoted from the ICJ ruling on the Bosnian Genocide Case to explain that ethnic cleansing was not enough on its own to establish that a genocide had occurred: Serbia's violations of its obligations stem not only from the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide but also from two "provisional protective measures" issued by the International Court of Justice in April and September 1993. The then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was ordered explicitly "to do everything in its power to prevent the crimes of genocide and to make sure that such crimes are not committed by military or paramilitary formations operating under its control or with its support." The judges concluded that despite this explicit order, Serbia did nothing in July 1995 to prevent the Srebrenica massacre, although it ?should normally have been aware of the serious danger that acts of genocide would be committed.?[4] In reaching this decision, the court referred to the standard set by Nicaragua v. United States,[5] in which the United States was found not to be legally responsible for the actions of the Contra guerillas despite their common goal and widely-publicised support. Furthermore, according to the ICJ?s judgement ?it is established by overwhelming evidence that massive killings in specific areas and detention camps throughout the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina were perpetrated during the conflict? and that ?the victims were in large majority members of the protected group, the Bosniaks, which suggests that they may have been systematically targeted by the killings.? Moreover, ?it has been established by fully conclusive evidence that members of the protected group were systematically victims of massive mistreatment, beatings, rape and torture causing serious bodily and mental harm, during the conflict and, in particular, in the detention camps.? The Court accepted that these acts, on the part of the Serb forces, had been committed, but that there was inconclusive evidence of the specific intent to destroy the Bosniaks as a group in whole or in part. This includes the period up to 19 May 1992, when Bosnian Serb forces were under the formal control of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.[6] ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins noted that while there was substantial evidence of events in Bosnia and Herzegovina that may amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity, the Court had no jurisdiction to make findings in that regard, because the case dealt "exclusively with genocide in a limited legal sense and not in the broader sense sometimes given to this term."[7][8] The Court further decided that, following Montenegro's declaration of independence in May 2006, Serbia, Serbia and Montenegro's successor, was the only Respondent party in the case, but that "any responsibility for past events involved at the relevant time the composite State of Serbia and Montenegro".[9] See alsoNotesReferences
Further reading
Source: Wikipedia | The above article is available under the GNU FDL. | Edit this article
|
|
top
©2008-2009 TutorGig.com. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Statement
