Search results

Jelisić was brought before the ICTY for his role in the commission of crimes in the municipality of Brčko (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992. 

Jelisić pleaded not guilty to genocide and guilty to war crimes and crimes against humanity. With respect to genocide, Trial Chamber I found him not guilty due to insufficient evidence to sustain his responsibility. For the crimes to which he pleaded guilty, Trial Chamber I sentenced him to 40 years of imprisonment. Therefore, Trial Chamber I’s acquittal of genocide was appealed by the Prosecutor, and Jelisić was allowed to respond.

The Appeals Chamber allowed the Prosecution’s first two appeals, in which it upheld the argument that Trial Chamber I erred when entered an acquittal without first hearing the Prosecution, and when applied an erroneous legal standard which led it to incorrectly assess the evidence.

The Appeals Chamber was unable to conclude that Jelisić did not possess the special intent required for genocide (the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group). However, the Appeals Chamber declined to reverse the acquittal on genocide.

The Appeals Chamber found an error in Trial Chamber I’s finding that Jelisić was guilty of two murders, when in fact he pleaded guilty to only one.

Jelisić’s sentence was affirmed.

Ranko Češić was brought before the ICTY for his role in the commission of crimes in collection centers in the municipality of Brčko (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in May 1992. On 8 October 2003, Češić pleaded guilty to charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and subsequently, the Trial Chamber entered a finding of guilt.

In order to assess the appropriate sentence for Češić, Trial Chamber I balanced the gravity of the offences, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

With respect to the gravity of the crimes, Trial Chamber I considered that the high number of murders and the violation of the moral and physical integrity of the rape victims were factors that underlined the seriousness of the committed crimes.

Trial Chamber I also found that the vulnerability of the victims, the cruelty and depravity shown during the commission of the crimes and the exacerbated humiliation of the victims were all aggravating factors. Conversely, three mitigating circumstances were accorded relevance, namely, Češić's guilty plea, cooperation with the Prosecution, and his remorse.

Češić was sentenced to 18 years of imprisonment.

Miroslav Deronjić was indicted for his role in the commission of crimes in the village of Glogova (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in May 1992. The attack resulted in the deaths of Bosnian Muslims and the destruction of their properties, homes, and religious institutions. Deronjić pleaded guilty to the charge of persecution as a crime against humanity and, subsequently, Trial Chamber II found him guilty.

In order to determine the appropriate sentence, Trial Chamber II balanced the gravity of the offence, the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

It held that the large number of casualties, the extensively planned attack, Deronjić's abuse of his political position, and the acceptance of a false statement suggesting safety for the Muslims of Glogova were relevant aggravating factors. Trial Chamber II concluded that the relevant mitigating circumstances were Deronjić's guilty plea, his co-operation with the Prosecution and the Tribunal, his remorse, and contribution to the prevention of massacres, such as the Srebrenica massacre of July 1995, from happening again.

Based on these factors, Trial Chamber II handed down a sentence of 10 years imprisonment.

The Assembly of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina proclaimed the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in January 1992. Shortly afterwards, a strategic plan was created with the aim to remove the non-Serb population from the newly proclaimed Bosnian Serb state. To this extent, the local police, the newly created army and Serb paramilitary groups engaged in a campaign of attacks resulting in the commission of crimes against the non-Serb population. During this time, Brđanin was the President of the Autonomous Region of Krajina (ARK) Crisis Staff, which functioned as a center for cooperation between the Serb forces committing the crimes.

Trial Chamber II held that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the crime of genocide was committed in the territory of the ARK. Therefore, Brđanin could not be found guilty on such charges.

However, the ARK Crisis Staff's decision to disarm the non-Serbs was found to have assisted and substantially contributed to the commission of the crime of torture, which led Trial Chamber II to find Brđanin guilty of aiding and abetting torture both as a crime against humanity and as a grave breach of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

Trial Chamber II furthermore found Brđanin guilty of other crimes against humanity and war crimes. He was sentenced to 32 years' imprisonment.

On 19 February 2003, Trial Chamber I of the ICTR had convicted a senior Pastor of the Seventh Day Adventist Church in Mugonero, Elizaphan Ntakirutimana, and his son Dr. Gérard Ntakirutimana, a medical practitioner. On 13 December 2004, the Appeals Chamber confirmed the sentences of 10 years and 25 years in prison, respectively, imposed by the Trial Chamber.

Specifically, the Appeals Chamber affirmed the conviction of Elizaphan Ntakirutimana for aiding and abetting genocide and convicted him for aiding and abetting extermination as a crime against humanity after reversing his acquittal for the events which occurred in Bisesero. However, the Appeals Chamber quashed his conviction for aiding and abetting genocide for his participation in events which occurred at Mugonero.

Regarding Gérard Ntakirutimana, the Appeals Chamber affirmed his conviction for genocide and convicted him for murder as a crime against humanity in relation to the killing of Charles Ukobizaba. The Appeals Chamber also convicted him for aiding and abetting extermination as a crime against humanity for the procurement of police officers and ammunition for the attack on the Mugonero complex. In addition, the Appeals Chamber affirmed his conviction for genocide in relation to events which occurred at Bisesero, but found that his responsibility was that of an aider and abettor. However, the Chamber set aside his conviction for murder as a crime against humanity under the Bisesero indictment.

The Defence and Prosecution appeals were dismissed in all other respects.