Search results

The case against Milan Babić centered around the crimes that were committed by Serb forces in the Autonomous Region of Krajina (SAO Krajina) in Croatia, later known as the Republic of Serbian Krajina (RSK). Between August 1991 and February 1992, Serb forces attacked towns and villages in the Krajina region. After taking over control of the area, a campaign of crimes was commenced during which Croats and other non-Serbs were subjected to murder, imprisonment, deportation, forcible transfer and destruction of their homes, properties and cultural institutions. Babić held several high-level positions, such as President of the RSK. 

On 27 January 2004, Babić pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecutions and, subsequently, on 28 January 2004, Trial Chamber I found him guilty. 

Trial Chamber I balanced the gravity of the crime Babić admitted to with the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in order to determine the adequate sentence. 

It found that the crimes were of extreme gravity and Babić's high level political position was an aggravating factor since he made resources available and prepared the Serb population to accept the crimes of persecution. Trial Chamber I also found several mitigating factors, including Babić's guilty plea, cooperation with the Prosecution, his remorse and family situation. Babić received a sentence of 13 years of imprisonment.

During the Rwandan genocide Athanase Seromba was a Catholic priest at Nyange parish, Kibuye Prefecture. On 13 December 2006, Trial Chamber III of the ICTR convicted him of aiding and abetting genocide against Tutsi refugees who had sought refuge at Nyange parish in order to escape attacks committed against the Tutsis. The Trial Chamber also found that Seromba had assisted in the killing of Tutsi refugees as well as in the commission of acts causing serious bodily or mental harm. Thus, the Chamber convicted him of aiding and abetting the crimes of genocide and extermination as a crime against humanity and sentenced him to 15 years of imprisonment.

The Trial Chamber considered the Accused’s authority as a respected Catholic priest, the trust he had from several Tutsi refugees who had taken shelter in his parish to elude massacres and his failure to live up to the trust of the refugees who thought their lives would be safe there as aggravating factors. Seromba’s good reputation prior to the events of 1994, his relative youth at the time of the events and his voluntary surrender to the Tribunal were considered mitigating factors. 

Between April and July 1993 the village of Ahmići (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and its surroundings were subjected to an ethnic cleansing targeting the Muslim population. Miroslav Bralo, also known as “Cicko”, actively participated in these attacks as a member of a unit of the Croatian Defence Council. He pleaded guilty to crimes against humanity and war crimes and Trial Chamber III, subsequently, found him guilty and sentenced him to 20 years of imprisonment.

Bralo appealed the sentencing judgment of 7 December 2005, challenging Trial Chamber III's assessment of the factors which guided it in determining the final sentence.

Bralo adduced three grounds of appeal. In the first one he argued that Trial Chamber III made an error when it classified certain factors as irrelevant to his sentence. The second ground challenged the Chamber's assessment of the factors which it did take into consideration as relevant for Bralo's sentence. In the last ground, Bralo claimed that Trial Chamber III did not reduce his sentence adequately, considering the volume and relevance of the mitigating circumstances.

The Appeals Chamber did not find any error in the findings of Trial Chamber III and dismissed all three grounds of Bralo's appeal. Subsequently, his sentence of 20 years was affirmed.

Radoslav Brđanin, the president of the Crisis Staff of the Autonomous Region of Krajina (ARK) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity by Trial Chamber II for his role in the perpetration of crimes against the non-Serb population of the ARK in 1992.

The Appeals Chamber accepted Brđanin's ground of appeal with respect to alleged errors made in his conviction for torture in the trial judgment. Lacking sufficient evidence, it could not be proven that he aided and abetted the commission of this crime. Furthermore, the Appeals Chamber concluded that Trial Chamber II made an error with regard to the facts of the attack on the town of Bosanska Krupa. Subsequently, Brđanin's conviction for this crime had to be reversed.

The Appeals Chamber also allowed two of the Prosecution’s grounds of appeal. It held that Trial Chamber II made errors when assessing the requirements for a joint criminal enterprise (JCE) (a mode of responsibility in the jurisprudence of the ICTY), particularly the role of the principal perpetrators within the JCE and their relation to the accused, Brđanin.

The municipality of Srebrenica (Bosnia and Herzegovina) was attacked and taken under the control of the Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS) in July 1995. Bosnian Muslim men were separated from women, children and the elderly, and, subsequently, murdered. The others were removed from Srebrenica by buses. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić played a crucial role in the commission of crimes by units of the VRS in the aftermath of the attacks on Srebrenica. Trial Chamber I convicted Blagojević of complicity in genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Jokić was also found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The Appeals Chamber found that Trial Chamber I made an error in finding Blagojević guilty of complicity in genocide, since his knowledge of the forcible transfer operations, the mistreatments and the murders were not enough to establish that he knew of the genocidal intent (a special mental requirement for the crime of genocide) of the perpetrators. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber reversed his conviction for this crime and reduced his initial sentence of 18 years to 15 years of imprisonment.

All other grounds of Blagojević's appeal were rejected, together with the grounds adduced by Dragan Jokić and the Prosecution.