Search results

During the conflict in the Former Yugoslavia, Zrinko Pinčić was a member of the Croat Defense Council (HVO). Between November 1992 and March 1993, he came to a house in the village of Donje Selo, Konjic Municipality, were Serb civilians were detained. During this time, Pinčić repeatedly took one woman from the room where other civilians were detained, and forced her to sexual intercourse, holding his rifle by the bed and threatening her that he would bring another 15 soldiers to rape her and other detainees, if she refused him.

On 28 November 2008 the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina found Zrinko Pinčić guilty of War Crimes against Civilians and sentenced him to 9 years in prison. Both the Prosecutor’s Office and the Defence appealed the decision. The Prosecutor appealed the sentencing part of the Verdict, finding the sentence too lenient. The Defence appealed the Trial Verdict because of: essential violations of the criminal procedure provisions; violations of the Criminal Code; erroneously and incompletely established state of facts and the decision on the costs of the criminal proceedings.

The Appellate Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina dismissed all Appeals as unfounded and upheld the Trial Verdict in its entirety.

Klaus Barbie was a member of the German SS and later the head of the Gestapo in Lyon, Occupied France in 1942. He was wanted by the French authorities for charges of crimes against humanity committed during World War II, during which time he earned the nickname the ‘Butcher of Lyon’ in recognition of his notorious interrogation style.

After the war, he was recruited by the Army Counter Intelligence Corps of the United States, which later helped him emigrate to Bolivia. When the French authorities became aware of his residence in Bolivia, an arrest warrant was issued. Bolivia expelled Barbie and, as he was disembarking a plane in French Guyana, he was picked up by French authorities and detained.

A crucial question in his case has been the qualification of the crimes with which he is charged: crimes against humanity are not subject to a statute of limitations and may therefore be prosecuted irrespective of how long ago they were committed. By contrast, war crimes are subject to the French statute of limitations of 10 years. The present decision was an appeal by a number of civil parties and associations against a decision of a lower court, which held that proceedings against Barbie could not continue for conduct qualified as war crimes as the 10 year window had elapsed. The Supreme Court of France upheld the applicability of the 10 year statute of limitations to war crimes, but it clarified the difference between conduct which may amount at the same time to war crimes and crimes against humanity. As a result, Barbie’s case was sent back to the lower court so that proceedings could continue against him on charges of crimes against humanity, particularly persecution of innocent Jews as part of the "Final Solution". Crimes committed against resistance fighters were, however, excluded as war crimes. 

Anto Furundžija was the commander of a special unit of the Croatian Defence Council called the “Jokers.” He was brought before the ICTY for the commission of crimes against Bosnian Muslims who were interrogated at the headquarters of the “Jokers” in Nadioci (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in May 1993. During the interrogations, those detained were subjected to sexual assaults, rape, physical and mental suffering.

Trial Chamber II was satisfied that the elements of the war crime of torture have been fulfilled and it found Furundžija guilty of this crime as a co-perpetrator. Furthermore, Furundžija was also found guilty of aiding and abetting the war crime of outrages upon personal dignity, including rape. Although Furundžija did not personally commit the crime, his presence and actions aided and abetted the commission of rape. 

Furundžija was sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment. 

Jelisić was brought before the ICTY for his role in the commission of crimes in the municipality of Brčko (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992. During this time, the Serb forces obtained control over the area and expelled the Croat and Muslim residents from their homes. The non-Serbs were detained in collection centres, such as the Luka camp near the town of Brčko (Bosnia and Herzegovina). Those detained were subjected to inhumane conditions, killings and mistreatments. Jelisić regularly entered the Luka camp and beat, mistreated and often killed the detainees.

Jelisić pleaded not guilty to genocide and guilty to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Trial Chamber I held that the requirements of his guilty plea have been fulfilled and, subsequently, it found Jelisić guilty of all counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes to which he pleaded guilty.

With respect to genocide, Trial Chamber I found that there was insufficient evidence to prove the existence of a special plan to destroy the Muslim group (the special intent element required for the crime of genocide) in Brčko, Bosnia and Herzegovina. Similarly, Trial Chamber I found that even Jelisić himself did not have this special intent. Therefore, he was acquitted of the charge of genocide. 

Jelisić was sentenced to 40 years of imprisonment.

In August 1995, the Croatian forces conducted a rapid offensive attack against the Krajina region which had the purpose of removing ethnic Serbs, and make the region suitable for Croats instead. Both Gotovina and Markač were in a high military position that controlled the operation in Krajina.

The Chamber found that both Gotovina and Markač participated in a joint criminal enterprise, which aimed at the removal of Serbs from Krajina. Their rank and position allowed them control over the conduct of the military personnel, and they were aware of the criminal behavior that occurred in Krajina, as well as the underlying common purpose.

The Chamber found them guilty; General Gotovina received a 24 year sentence, while Markač was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment. The Chamber acquitted Čermak, because it found that he did not have control over the acts of the military, and there was insufficient evidence to establish that he knew that his conduct in Knin was intended to further the goal of repopulating Krajina with Croats.