The Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić

Court	International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) Trial Chamber II, The Netherlands
Case number	IT-94-1-Tbis-R117
Decision title	Sentencing Judgment after Referral
Decision date	11 November 1999
Parties	The Prosecutor Duško Tadić
Categories	Crimes against humanity, War crimes
Keywords	aggravating and mitigating circumstances, crimes against humanity, Prijedor, war crimes
Links	Sentencing Judgment after Referral: the Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić
Other countries involved	Bosnia and Herzegovina

Summary

After the takeover of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and the attack launched against the town of Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992, the non-Serb civilians were detained in several prison facilities, where they were beaten, sexually assaulted, tortured, killed and otherwise mistreated. Duško Tadić was the President of the Local Board of the Serb Democratic Party in Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Trial Chamber II found Duško Tadić guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes and, in a separate sentencing judgment, sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment. The Appeals Chamber found him guilty of additional crimes, and remitted the issue on sentencing to a Trial Chamber.

Trial Chamber IIbis considered that Tadić’s awareness of, and enthusiastic support for, the attacks on the non-Serb civilian population of Prijedor were aggravating circumstances. Trial Chamber IIbis found that Tadić’s good behaviour in the United Nations Detention Unit and his personal circumstances were mitigating factors.

Furthermore, Trial Chamber IIbis held that a crime against humanity is more serious than a war crime due to its widespread or systematic scale and the quantity of the crimes.

Tadić was sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment.

Procedural history

The amended indictment was filed on 14 December 1995. The trial commenced on 7 May 1996, and closing arguments were heard between 25 and 26 November 1996.

The trial commenced on 7 May 1996, and Trial Chamber II rendered its Opinion and Judgment on 7 May 1997, finding Tadić guilty of violations of the laws or customs of war and crimes against humanity.

Thereafter, Trial Chamber II rendered its Sentencing Judgment on 14 July 1997, sentencing Tadić to 20 years of imprisonment.

The parties appealed against the Opinion and Judgment of 7 May 1997, and Tadić further filed an appeal against the Sentencing Judgment of 14 July 1997.

The Appeals Chamber rendered its judgment on the appeals against the Opinion and Judgment on 15 July 1999, founding that Tadić was guilty of additional counts. The Appeals Chamber remitted the issue of sentence concerning the additional counts to a Trial Chamber to be designated by the President of the Tribunal.

Related developments

On 25 November 1999, Tadić filed a notice of appeal against the Sentencing Judgment of 11 November 1999. Pursuant to his request, the Appeals Chamber ordered that the appeal be joined with the Appeal against the Sentencing Judgment of 14 July 1997.

The Appeals Chamber rendered its judgment on 26 Juanuary 2000; it upheld the convictions for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but found that the trial Chamber had erred in the sentencing. Hence, the prison sentence was reduced to twenty years.

On 31 October 2000, Duško Tadić was transferred to Germany to serve his sentence (see ICTY, 'Duško Tadić Transferred to Germany to Serve Prison Sentence', ICTY Press Release, 31 October 2000).

On 18 June 2001, Duško Tadić filed a request for a review of his complete case, in light of the decision on contempt of the Tribunal. The Appeals Chamber dismissed the request on 30 July 2002. On 17 July 2008, Duško Tadić was granted early release.

During the Tadić procedure, contempt hearings were initiated against Milan Vujin, lead counsel for the Defence of Duško Tadić. On 31 January 2000, the Appeals Chamber found Vujin in contempt of the Tribunal and fined him. A subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Appeals Chamber on 27 February 2001 (see ICTY, 'Milan Vujin, former Counsel for Dusko Tadic, Found in Contempt of the Tribunal, and Fined 15,000 Dutch Guilders', ICTY Press Release, 31 January 2000).

Legally relevant facts

On 30 April 1992, the Serb Democratic Party (SDS) took over control in the town of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina). On 24 May 1992, the nearby town of Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina) was attacked, resulting in the killing of some 800 civilians, and the removal of non-Serbs from the town. During the attack on Kozarac, non-Serb civilians were beaten, robbed and murdered by the Serb forces. After the takeover of Prijedor and the surrounding areas, the Serb forces detained non-Serb civilians in three major prison camps: the Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje camps (all near Prijedor, Bosnia and Herzegovina). Those who were detained were subjected to beatings, sexual assaults, torture, executions, and psychological abuse. Furthermore, the detainees were held in unhygienic conditions in overcrowded rooms. (para. 53 et seq. of the judgment rendered by Trial Chamber II on 7 May 1997)

Duško Tadić was the President of the Local Board of the Serb Democratic Party in Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina).

Core legal questions

Taking into consideration the relevant sentencing factors, what is the appropriate sentence for Duško Tadić?

Specific legal rules and provisions

Article 24 of the ICTY Statute.
Rules 85 and 101 of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

Court's holding and analysis

Considering the aggravating circumstances, Trial Chamber IIbis “[took] into consideration … Duško Tadić’s awareness of, and enthusiastic support for, the attack on the non-Serb civilian population of … Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina) by Bosnian Serb forces and the Republika Srpska authorities operating in that area” (para. 20).

When assessing the mitigating factors, Trial Chamber IIbis considered Tadić’s good behaviour in the United Nations Detention Unit as an appropriate factor in the determination of his sentence (paras. 23-24). Furthermore, Trial Chamber IIbis took into consideration also Tadić’s personal circumstances (paras. 25-26).

Trial Chamber IIbis considered whether a crime against humanity attracts higher sentences than a war crime. It found that “the requirement that crimes against humanity be committed on a widespread or systematic scale, the quantity of the crimes having a qualitative impact on the nature of the offence which is seen as a crime against more than just the victims themselves but against humanity as a whole” (para. 28). Accordingly, it found that “a crime against humanity is a more serious offence than a war crime” (para. 29).