.............................PROSECUTOR v. DUSKO TADIC a/k/a/ "DULE"
.............................International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible
...................................for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law
.................................Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia since 1991
....................................................Case No. IT-94-1-T, 7 May 1997
..........................................For Tribunal's Case Information Sheet, click here.
Author's Note: The first portion of this edited version of the case concerns the facts and charging allegations against the defendant. The remainder--beginning at para. 558--addresses the applicable legal principles.
.....The red numbered paragraphs are those of the court. The author's editorial enhancements are contained within brackets. Footnotes and certain references have been omitted. Some italics have been added which are not in the original case text.

Court's Opinion. 1. This Opinion and Judgment is rendered by Trial Chamber II of the International Tribunal ... following the indictment and trial of Dusko Tadic, a citizen of the former Yugoslavia, of Serb ethnic descent, and a resident of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time of the alleged crimes. It is the first determination of individual guilt or innocence in connection with serious violations of international humanitarian law by a truly international tribunal, the International Tribunal being the first such tribunal to be established by the United Nations. The international military tribunals at Nürnberg and Tokyo, its predecessors, were multinational in nature, representing [however] only part of the world community.

2. The International Tribunal was established by the Security Council of the United Nations in 1993, pursuant to resolution 808 of 22 February 1993 and resolution 827 of 25 May 1993. The Security Council, having found that the widespread violations of international humanitarian law occurring within the territory of the former Yugoslavia, including the practice of "ethnic cleansing", constituted a threat to international peace and security, exercised its powers under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations to establish the International Tribunal, determining that the creation of such a tribunal would contribute to the restoration and maintenance of peace. As such, the International Tribunal is a subsidiary organ of the Security Council and all Member States are required to cooperate fully with it and to comply with requests for assistance or with orders issued by it.

3. The International Tribunal is governed by its Statute ("Statute"), adopted by the Security Council following a report by the Secretary­General of the United Nations presented on 3 May 1993 ("Report of the Secretary­General"). Its 11 Judges are drawn from States around the world. The proceedings are governed not only by the Statute but also by Rules of Procedure and Evidence ("Rules") adopted by the Judges in February 1994, as amended. The International Tribunal is not subject to the national laws of any jurisdiction and has been granted both primacy and concurrent jurisdiction with the courts of States.

4. The [ICTY] Statute grants competence to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991. Subject-matter jurisdiction is stated in Articles 2 to 5 of the Statute to consist of the power to prosecute persons responsible for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (collectively the "Geneva Conventions") (Article 2), to prosecute persons violating the laws or customs of war (Article 3), to prosecute persons committing genocide, as defined in the Statute (Article 4), and to prosecute persons responsible for crimes against humanity when committed in armed conflict (Article 5), which are beyond any doubt part of customary international law.
..................................................................................
6.
Dusko Tadic was arrested in February 1994 in Germany, where he was then living, on suspicion of having committed offences at the Omarska camp in the former Yugoslavia in June 1992, including torture and aiding and abetting the commission of genocide, which constitute crimes under German law.
..................................................................................
9.
The Indictment by the Prosecutor against Dusko Tadic ("the accused") and a co-accused, Goran Borovnica, charging them with a total of 132 counts involving grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, violations of the laws or customs of war, and crimes against humanity was confirmed ... and arrest warrants were issued. The accused was charged with individual counts of persecution, inhuman treatment, cruel treatment, rape, wilfull killing, murder, torture, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body and health, and inhumane acts alleged to have been committed at the Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje camps and at other locations in Opstina Prijedor in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The accused was transferred to the International Tribunal on 24 April 1995, after the Federal Republic of Germany enacted the necessary implementing legislation for his surrender, and thereafter was detained in the United Nations detention unit in The Hague.
...................................................................................
29.
A Decision on the two Defence motions for protective measures for its witnesses was issued on 25 June 1996, providing for the issue of summonses for 24 Defence witnesses, approving the giving of evidence via video-conference link from Banja Luka in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for seven witnesses, subject to the necessary equipment and facilities being made available to the International Tribunal, and granting confidentiality to five Defence witnesses and safe conduct to a further four witnesses. The Decision granted leave to the Defence to file supplementary affidavits and to amend its motion to request safe conduct instead of orders permitting testimony by video-conference link in respect of certain witnesses, which the Defence duly filed on 30 July 1996. ...

30. Applications for protective measures for additional witnesses continued to be made by both parties throughout the proceedings. Orders for the shielding of witnesses from public view and for electronic distortion of the broadcast image of the witness were issued in respect of a further eight witnesses. In some cases, the decision was granted orally and the evidence heard prior to entry of a formal decision. The evidence of 17 witnesses, both Prosecution and Defence, was heard in closed session but in full view of the accused and counsel pursuant to specific orders. Of the four witnesses granted anonymity, two were not called to give evidence and one testified in open session without any protective measures. The remaining witness, Witness H, was also heard in closed session and was shielded from the view of the accused but not from Defence counsel. The written transcript of the testimony of all of these protected witnesses has subsequently been released by order of the Trial Chamber, after review by the party presenting the witness and by the Victims and Witnesses Unit of the International Tribunal and redaction of any material disclosing identity.
..................................................................................
38.
Paragraph 4 of the Indictment refers to ... incidents which are alleged to constitute persecution. It charges that the accused participated with Serb forces in the attack, destruction and plunder of Bosnian Muslim and Croat residential areas, the seizure and imprisonment of Muslims and Croats in the Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje camps, and the deportation and expulsion by force or threat of force of the majority of Muslim and Croat residents from Opstina Prijedor. The accused is charged with participating in killings, torture, sexual assaults and other physical and psychological abuse of Muslims and Croats both within the camps and outside.

39. In subparagraph 4.1 the accused is charged with committing various acts including the killing and beating of a number of the seized persons; the killing of an elderly man and woman near the cemetery in the area of "old" Kozarac; ordering four men from a marching column and shooting and killing them, as charged in paragraph 11 of the Indictment; the killing of five men and the beating and seizure of others in the villages of Jaskici and Sivci, as charged in paragraph 12 of the Indictment; the beatings of at least two former policemen in Kozarac; and the beating of a number of Muslim males who had been seized and detained at the Prijedor military barracks.
..................................................................................
43.
Subparagraph 4.5 alleges that the accused was aware of the widespread nature of the plunder and destruction of personal and real property from non-Serbs and was physically involved and participated in that plunder and destruction, including the plunder of homes in Kozarac and the looting of valuables from non-Serbs both as they were seized and upon their arrival at the camps and detention centres.

44. By his participation in these acts, the accused is charged with persecution on political, racial and/or religious grounds, a crime against humanity under Article 5 (h) of the Statute.

45. Paragraph 6 relates to the beating of numerous prisoners and an incident of sexual mutilation at the Omarska camp, which took place in the large hangar building. A number of prisoners were severely beaten .... The accused is alleged to have been an active participant and is charged with wilfull killing, a grave breach recognized by Article 2 of the Statute; murder, as a violation of the laws or customs of war recognized by Article 3 of the Statute; murder, as a crime against humanity recognized by Article 5(a) of the Statute; torture or inhuman treatment, a grave breach under Article 2(b) of the Statute; wilfully causing grave suffering or serious injury to body and health, a grave breach under Article 2(c) of the Statute; cruel treatment, a violation of the laws or customs of war under Article 3 of the Statute; and inhumane acts, a crime against humanity under Article 5(i) of the Statute.
....................................................................................
65.
The years from 1945 to 1990 had no tales of ethnic atrocities to tell. Marshal Tito and his communist regime took stern measures to suppress and keep suppressed all nationalist tendencies. ...
....................................................................................
68.
Were these newly-empowered [local] governments also to encourage, or in some cases merely to rekindle, strongly nationalist and ethnocentric beliefs and to adopt policies to give effect to such beliefs, the scene would clearly be set for conflict. This is what in fact occurred. In 1990 multi-party elections were for the first time held in the separate Socialist Republics of Yugoslavia which led to strongly nationalist parties being elected, heralding the breakup of the federation and seen by nationalists in both Croatia and Serbia as opening the way to expansion of their territories.
....................................................................................
91.
Over time, the propaganda escalated in intensity and began repeatedly to accuse non-Serbs of being extremists plotting genocide against the Serbs. Periodicals from Belgrade featured stories on the remote history of Serbs intended to inspire nationalistic feelings.
....................................................................................
249.
Hase Icic testified that he remained in the white [slaughter]house until 13 or 14 July 1992. During that period, he was not given anything to eat. While in the white house, more than 30 to 40 prisoners were killed each night. His ribs were broken as a result of the beating. He described the white house as being "a very messy slaughterhouse, stench and blood, urine and beaten up people, blood sprayed on the walls, horror". At one point, the prisoners were taken out of the white house for a period of time because the guards could not tolerate the stench.
....................................................................................
253.
The accused testified that he had never been at the Omarska camp and asserts by way of alibi that he was working at the Orlovci checkpoint at the times relevant to this paragraph.
....................................................................................
257.
The Trial Chamber finds that the assignment records for the Orlovci checkpoint do not provide the accused with an alibi.... [Witness] Hase Icic is very clear in his testimony that the beatings took place on the evening of his arrival at the Omarska camp, at around 10 p.m. The Defence does not dispute that these events occurred on either 7 or 8 July 1992. The assignment records reflect that on those nights the accused was off duty.
....................................................................................
258.
Hase Icic testified that he was standing face to face with the accused in the "beating room" at the end of the corridor of the notorious white house, just before a noose was put around his neck and the first blows hit him on the back. Hase Icic knew the accused since childhood and had regularly seen him in Kozarac until just before the war and thus could not have been mistaken about his identity.
....................................................................................
377.
This paragraph concerns incidents alleged to have taken place at various locations in Opstina Prijedor. It reads as follows:

Between about 23 May 1992 and about 31 December 1992, Dusko TADIC participated with Serb forces in the attack, destruction and plunder of Bosnian Muslim and Croat residential areas, the seizure and imprisonment of thousands of Muslim and Croats under brutal conditions in camps located in Omarska, Keraterm and Trnopolje, and the deportation and/or expulsion of the majority of Muslim and Croat residents of Opstina Prijedor by force or threat of force. During this time, Serb forces, including Dusko TADIC, subjected Muslims and Croats inside and outside the camps to a campaign of terror which included killings, torture, sexual assaults, and other physical and psychological abuse.

....................................................................................
470.
[Here, the court discusses acts taken by Serbs "within a general context of discrimination."] Suada Ramic, a Muslim, testified that she was raped at the Prijedor military barracks. After the rape she was bleeding terribly and went to the hospital where she was told by one of the doctors that she was approximately three to four months pregnant and that an abortion would have to be performed without anesthetic because there was none. When this doctor asked another doctor for assistance, the second doctor started cursing, saying that "all balija women, they should be removed, eliminated", and that all Muslims should be annihilated, especially men. He cursed the first doctor for helping Muslims. Prior to the rape there had been no problems with her pregnancy. When she returned from the hospital she went to stay with her brother in Donja Cela, eventually returning to her apartment in Prijedor where she was subsequently raped for a second time by a former Serb colleague who had come to search her apartment. The next day she was taken to the Prijedor police station by a Serb policeman with whom she was acquainted through work. On the way he cursed at her, using ethnically derogatory terms and told her that Muslims should all be killed because they "do not want to be controlled by Serbian authorities". When she arrived at the police station she saw two Muslim men whom she knew, covered in blood. She was taken to a prison cell which was covered in blood and where she was raped again and beaten, afterwards being taken to the Keraterm camp. She recognized several prisoners at Keraterm, all of whom had been beaten up and were bloody. She was transferred to the Omarska camp where she often saw corpses and, while cleaning rooms, she found teeth, hair, pieces of human flesh, clothes and shoes. Women were called out nightly and raped; on five separate occasions she was called out of her room and raped. As a result of the rapes she has continuing and irreparable medical injuries. After Omarska she was taken to the Trnopolje camp and then returned to Prijedor, where she was often beaten.
..................................................................................
473.
As discussed in the preliminary findings, the accused became more overtly nationalistic with the development of political parties. He was one of the first SDS [political party] members in Opstina Prijedor and, in his own estimation, a trusted SDS member who was asked to run a crucial plebiscite in the Kozarac area. The accused was well versed in, and a supporter of, the SDS programme which advocated the creation of Republika Srpska as part of the plan for a Greater Serbia and, necessarily, the removal of the vast majority of the non-Serb population from the territory designated as Republika Srpska. Acceptance of this policy, and the discriminatory means to achieve it, was considered to be a requirement for advancement in the SDS.
..................................................................................
557.
Having considered the evidence offered at trial, it is now appropriate to discuss the law relating to the offences charged.

558. The competence of this International Tribunal and hence of this Trial Chamber is determined by the terms of the Statute. Article 1 of the Statute confers power to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991. The Statute then, in Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5, specifies the crimes under international law over which the International Tribunal has jurisdiction. ...

559. Each of the relevant Articles of the Statute, either by its terms or by virtue of the customary rules which it imports, proscribes certain acts when committed "within the context of" an "armed conflict". Article 2 of the Statute directs the Trial Chamber to the grave breaches regime of the Geneva Conventions which applies only to armed conflicts of an international character and to offences committed against persons or property regarded as "protected", in particular civilians in the hands of a party to a conflict of which they are not nationals. Article 3 of the Statute directs the Trial Chamber to those sources of customary international humanitarian law that comprise the "laws or customs of war". Article 3 is a general provision covering, subject to certain conditions, all violations of international humanitarian law which do not fall under Article 2 or are not covered by Articles 4 or 5. This includes violations of the rules contained in Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions ("Common Article 3"), applicable to armed conflicts in general, with which the accused has been charged under Article 3 of the Statute. Article 5 of the Statute directs the Trial Chamber to crimes against humanity proscribed by customary international humanitarian law. By virtue of the Statute, those crimes must also occur in the context of an armed conflict, whether international or non-international in character. An armed conflict exists for the purposes of the application of Article 5 if it is found to exist for the purposes of either Article 2 or Article 3.

560. Consequently, it is necessary to show, first, that an armed conflict existed at all relevant times in the territory of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and, secondly, that the acts of the accused were committed within the context of that armed conflict and for the application of Article 2, that the conflict was international in character and that the offences charged were committed against protected persons.
..................................................................................
561.
According to the [ICTY's prior] Appeals Chamber Decision [regarding general trial court jurisdiction], the test for determining the existence of such a conflict is that

an armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized armed groups or between such groups within a State.

..................................................................................
563.
The parties to the conflict in the area of Opstina Prijedor and the main parties to the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina as a whole were the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Bosnian Serb forces, the latter controlling territory under the banner of the Republika Srpska and, at least before 19 May 1992, supported by or under the command of the JNA. The Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was also in conflict with various Bosnian Croat forces supported by the Government of Croatia. The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was admitted as a State member of the United Nations, following decisions adopted by the Security Council and the General Assembly, on 22 May 1992, two days before the shelling and take-over of Kozarac. It was the de jure State against which the Bosnian Serb forces were in revolt. Even before that date, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was an organized political entity, as one of the republics of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia....
..................................................................................
568.
Having regard then to the nature and scope of the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the parties involved in that conflict, and irrespective of the relationship between the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and the Bosnian Serb forces, the Trial Chamber finds that, at all relevant times, an armed conflict was taking place between the parties to the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina of sufficient scope and intensity for the purposes of the application of the laws or customs of war embodied in Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, applicable as it is to armed conflicts in general, including armed conflicts not of an international character.
..................................................................................
570.
For evidence of this it is enough to refer generally to the evidence presented as to the bombardment of Sarajevo, the seat of government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, in April 1992 by Serb forces, their attack on towns along Bosnia and Herzegovina's border with Serbia on the Drina River and their invasion of south-eastern Herzegovina from Serbia and Montenegro. That the hostilities involved in this armed conflict extended into Opstina Prijedor is also clear and is evidenced by the military occupation and armed seizure of power in the town of Prijedor itself on 30 April 1992 by JNA [Serbian] forces, aided by Bosnian Serb members of the police and administration and, following an unsuccessful revolt, their subsequent expulsion by force of arms of the majority of the non-Serb inhabitants from, and the bombardment and substantial destruction of, Stari Grad, the old, predominantly Muslim, section of Prijedor. These attacks were part of an armed conflict to which international humanitarian law applied up until the general cessation of hostilities.
..................................................................................
572.
The existence of an armed conflict or occupation and the applicability of international humanitarian law to the territory is not sufficient to create international jurisdiction over each and every serious crime committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. For a crime to fall within the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal, a sufficient nexus must be established between the alleged offence and the armed conflict which gives rise to the applicability of international humanitarian law.
..................................................................................
574.
In any event, acts of the accused related to the armed conflict in two distinct ways. First, there is the case of the acts of the accused in the take-over of Kozarac and the villages of Sivci and Jaskici. Given the nature of the armed conflict as an ethnic war and the strategic aims of the Republika Srpska to create a purely Serbian State, the acts of the accused during the armed take-over and ethnic cleansing of Muslim and Croat areas of Opstina Prijedor were directly connected with the armed conflict.

575. Secondly, there are the acts of the accused in the camps run by the authorities of the Republika Srpska. Those acts clearly occurred with the connivance or permission of the authorities running these camps and indicate that such acts were part of an accepted policy towards prisoners in the camps in Opstina Prijedor. Indeed, such treatment effected the objective of the Republika Srpska to ethnically cleanse, by means of terror, killings or otherwise, the areas of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina controlled by Bosnian Serb forces. Accordingly, those acts too were directly connected with the armed conflict.
..................................................................................
577.
Article 2 of the Statute provides that the "International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons committing or ordering to be committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949", and there follows a list of the specific crimes proscribed. Implicit in the Appeals Chamber Decision is the conclusion that the Geneva Conventions are a part of customary international law, and as such their application in the present case does not violate the principle of nullum crimen sine lege [no crime without a law expressly prohibiting it]. [At this point in the opinion, the court assessed the potential status of the Victims as "Protected Persons" under the Geneva Conventions. On a split vote, it found that the victims in this case were not "in the hands of" a foreign power for purposes of this facet of Geneva Convention liability.]
..................................................................................
626.
Article 5 of the Statute grants the International Tribunal jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against humanity only "when committed in armed conflict" (whether international or internal) and they must be "directed against any civilian population".
..................................................................................
660.
As discussed, this Trial Chamber has found that an armed conflict existed in the territory of Opstina Prijedor at the relevant time and that an aspect of this conflict was a policy to commit inhumane acts against the civilian population of the territory, in particular the non-Serb population, in the attempt to achieve the creation of a Greater Serbia. In furtherance of this policy these inhumane acts were committed against numerous victims and pursuant to a recognisable plan. As such the conditions of applicability for Article 5 are satisfied: the acts were directed against a civilian population on discriminatory grounds, they were committed on both a widespread basis and in a systematic fashion pursuant to a policy and they were committed in the context of, and related to, an armed conflict.
..................................................................................
664.
The concept that an individual actor can be held personally responsible and punished for violations of international humanitarian law was first enunciated by the Nürnberg and Tokyo trials after the Second World War. Article 6 of the 1945 Nürnberg Charter called for individual responsibility for crimes against peace, violations of the laws or customs of war, and crimes against humanity.
..................................................................................
669.
The foregoing establishes the basis in customary international law for both individual responsibility and of participation in the various ways provided by Article 7 of the Statute. The International Tribunal accordingly has the competence to exercise the authority granted to it by the Security Council to make findings in this case regarding the guilt of the accused, whether as a principal or an accessory or otherwise as a participant.
..................................................................................
717.
With respect to the remaining charges of paragraph 4 of the Indictment, the evidence supports a finding that the acts of the accused constitute persecution. The accused's role in, inter alia, the attack on Kozarac and the surrounding areas, as well as the seizure, collection, segregation and forced transfer of civilians to camps, calling-out of civilians, beatings and killings described above clearly constituted an infringement of the victims' enjoyment of their fundamental rights and these acts were taken against non-Serbs on the basis of religious and political discrimination. Further, these acts occurred during an armed conflict, were taken against civilians as part of a widespread or systematic attack on the civilian population in furtherance of a policy to commit these acts, and the accused had knowledge of the wider context in which his acts occurred.

718. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the crime of persecution as charged in Count 1.
..................................................................................
730.
The findings of fact about the acts of the accused relevant to this count are those concerning beatings and acts of violence referred to in dealing with Count 10. The Trial Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that those beatings and other acts of violence which were suffered by the six victims there named, who are Muslims, constitute inhumane acts and are crimes against humanity committed during an armed conflict as part of a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian population and that the accused intended for discriminatory reasons to inflict severe damage to the victims' physical integrity and human dignity. The Trial Chamber further finds that the accused in some instances was himself the perpetrator and in others intentionally assisted directly and substantially in the common purpose of inflicting physical suffering upon them and thereby aided and abetted in the commission of the crimes and is therefore individually responsible for each of them as provided by Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Statute. The Trial Chamber accordingly finds beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty as charged in Count 11 of the Indictment in respect of each of those six victims.

Notes & Questions
1.
In the penalty phase of Tadic's trial, he was convicted on eleven of thirty-one counts and sentenced to twenty years in prison. He was not convicted of murder (insufficient evidence) or rape (a witness would not testify). He was characterized as not being the "butcher," but rather the "bully" who is a karate expert. Such sentences are being served in Finland and Italy, the two nations that house those convicted by the ICTY. Tadic was not given the possible life sentence. Neither the ICTY nor the Rwandan tribunal has the power to sentence a convicted war criminal to death. (See Problem 9.E.) For other opinions, and various orders from the ICTY, see the court's website--click here.

2. The ICTY (and Rwanda) tribunal differs from the UN's International Court of Justice. How so? Does the source from which the ICTY originates suggest that it will more likely be subject to the political will of its creator than the ICJ?

3. The result nevertheless has two arguable advantages over prior practice. First, the ICTY is a more broadly based institution than prior tribunals--which were established by a group of victorious powers over those whom they conquered (specifically, the Nuremberg & Tokyo trials addressed earlier in this section). Second, the new ICTY and Rwandan tribunals are "international" in a broader sense. They do not involve trials of international crimes by national tribunals, whose judges might not be perceived as impartial as the judges staffing these UN courts. If you were an Israeli judge, analyzing the guilt or innocence of Adolf Eichmann (Hitler's chief exterminator), when he was tried in Israel fifteen years after the Nuremberg trial was completed, your impartiality might be questioned by the so-called world court of public opinion.

4. In December 1998, ICTY Judge Gabrielle McDonald reported that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) had obstructed Security Council resolutions. She stated that the FRY (when Slobodan Milosevic was in power) failed to comply with Resolution 1207. It set forth the Council's demand that the FRY immediately and unconditionally execute arrest warrants against three specific individuals. The FRY continued to deny visas to the ICTY Prosecutor's investigators, in contravention of various Security Council Resolutions. Judge McDonald concluded with a plea to the Security Council "not to let one State stand in the way of peace [and] . . . not to allow the FRY?s obstructionism to go unchecked, for it sets a dangerous precedent. . . ." To see her report, click here.

5. Appeal: In July 1999, the ICTY Appeals Chamber denied an appeal by Dusko Tadic--the first man tried by an international tribunal for war crimes since Nuremberg. The tribunal's ruling also opened the door for genocide charges against Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic and other members of his regime. Reprinted version available at 38 INT'L LEGAL MAT'LS 1518 (Nov., 1999). In July 2002, this appellate court dismissed Tadic's Motion to Review the related contempt judgement against Tadic's trial lawyer. The court determined that Tadic had sufficient notice of a particular lawyer's conduct against Tadic's interests. See Decision on Motion to Review, 41 INT'L LEGAL MAT'LS 1328 (2002).

6. Sentencing: On November 1, 1999, Tadic was sentenced to nine terms of imprisonment, ranging from six to twenty-five years, while "each of the sentences is to be served concurrently, both inter se and in relation to each of the sentences imposed in the Sentencing Judgment of July 1997." In a separate opinion, Judge Robinson stated that there was no basis for the ICTY's conclusion that crimes against humanity were more serious than war crimes, because they both arise out of the same acts. Then, on January 24, 2000, the three-judge appellate tribunal reduced his sentence from twenty-five to twenty years.
.....In October, 2000, the ICTR Appeals Chamber delivered a life sentence for former Rwandan Prime Minister Jean Kambanda. who was convicted of genocide. For this judgment (conforming conviction and sentence), click here.

7. Contempt: On January 31, 2000, the ICTY Appeals Chamber (pursuant to its Rules) called upon Dusko Tadic's former counsel Milan Vujin to respond to allegations that he had acted in contempt of the Tribunal by knowingly and willfully intending to interfere with the administration of justice. The Chamber found that Vujin had put forth a case known by him to be false in relation to the weight to be given to certain witness statements; and that he had manipulated witnesses to avoid identification of people who may have been responsible for crimes for which Tadic had been convicted. The Chamber found Vujin in contempt, and ordered Vujin to pay a fine of 15,000 Dutch florins. The chamber also directed the Tribunal's Registrar to consider striking Vujin's name from the list of counsel assigned to the Tribunal, and ordered that his actions be reported to the local professional body to which Vujin belongs. For further details, click here.

8. On June 18, 2001, Tadic filed a request for review of his complete case as well as the Trial Chamber and Appeals Chamber proceedings before the ICTY.

 Go To Chapter 9, Section 9.5, text p.419, after
.......................Tadic Case reference to this web page.

..Last rev: 05/23/06
..Course web page