Search results

Zoran Kupreškić, Mirjan Kupreškić, Vlatko Kupreškić, Drago Josipović, and Vladimir Šantić were brought before the ICTY for their roles in the commission of crimes against the Bosnian Muslim population of the village of Ahmići in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In April 1993, the Bosnian Croat forces attacked the village, aiming to remove the Muslim inhabitants through the commission of crimes against them. The attack resulted in the deaths of over a hundred Muslim inhabitants, numerous others were wounded and Muslim houses and mosques were destroyed. Trial Chamber II convicted Zoran Kupreškić, Mirjan Kupreškić, Vlatko Kupreškić, Drago Josipović, Vladimir Šantić of crimes against humanity.

The Appeals Chamber found errors in Trial Chamber II’s assessment of certain key evidence and concluded that the remaining evidence was insufficient to uphold the convictions of Zoran, Mirjan, and Vlatko Kupreškić. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber acquitted them of all charges.

The Appeals Chamber also found factual errors in Trial Chamber II’s assessment of the role and participation of Drago Josipović and Vladimir Šantić in the attacks. The implication of these errors warranted a reduction of sentence, and therefore, the Appeals Chamber sentenced Josipović to 12, and Šantić to 18 years of imprisonment. 

The case against Duško Sikirica, Damir Došen and Dragan Kolundžija concerned the crimes committed against the Bosnian Muslim, Bosnian Croat and other non-Serb detainees of the Keraterm camp in the outskirts of the town of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The detainees were subjected to inhumane living conditions, beatings, and mistreatments. In the summer of 1992, Sikirica was the Commander of Security of the camp, Došen, and Kolundžija were both shift leaders. Sikirica, Došen and Kolundžija pleaded guilty to persecution as a crime against humanity, and the Trial Chamber found them guilty accordingly.

In order to determine the appropriate sentences, the Trial Chamber balanced several sentencing factors. The Trial Chamber considered that the positions of Sikirica, Došen and Kolundžija were of a limited authority and subsequently, it only attached a limited amount of aggravation to them. Sikirica’s failure of his duty to prevent outsiders from mistreating the detainees was considered a further aggravating factor.

Among the mitigating circumstances, the Trial Chamber took into consideration Sikirica, Došen and Kolundžija’s guilty pleas and expressions of remorse. Došen’s assistance to, and Kolundžija’s favourable treatment of some detainees were additional mitigating factors.

The Trial Chamber sentenced Sikirica to 15 years, Došen to 5 years, and Kolundžija to 3 years of imprisonment.

The case encompasses the persecution of Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats and other non-Serbs in 37 municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992, and the role played by Biljana Plavšić therein, as a high level political figure. On 2 October 2002, Plavšić pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecutions and the Trial Chamber found him guilty accordingly. 

In order to determine the appropriate sentence for Biljana Plavšić, the Trial Chamber balanced the gravity of the crimes as well as the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. 

With respect to the gravity of the crimes, the Trial Chamber attached weight to the massive scope and extent of the persecutions; the numbers killed, deported and forcibly expelled; the grossly inhumane treatment of detainees; and the scope of the wanton destruction of property and religious buildings. 

Although the Trial Chamber accepted Biljana Plavšić’s superior position as an aggravating factor, it also took into consideration the following mitigating circumstance: Biljana Plavšić’s guilty plea (together with remorse and reconciliation); her voluntary surrender and post-conflict conduct; as well as her age of 72 years.

Balancing all these factors, the Trial Chamber determined that the appropriate sentence for Biljana Plavšić is 11 years’ imprisonment.

In April 1992, the Serb forces gained control over the municipality of Prijedor in Bosnia and Herzegovina, capturing non-Serb men, women and children. The captured non-Serbs were taken to detention camps, such as the Keraterm factory outside the town of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina). The detainees were subjected to beatings, mistreatments and inhumane conditions. Between June and August 1992, Predrag Banović was a guard at the Keraterm camp. On 26 June 2003, Banović pleaded guilty to the crime against humanity of persecutions, and Trial Chamber III found him guilty accordingly.

In order to determine the appropriate sentence for Banović, the Trial Chamber balanced the gravity of the crime with the aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The Trial Chamber held that the crimes committed by Banović were of utmost gravity. Banović’s position of superiority over the detainees, the vulnerability of the victims, and the context in which the crimes were committed, were considered by the Trial Chamber as reflecting the gravity of the offence.

Furthermore, the Trial Chamber considered that Banović abused his authority over the detainees, which constituted an aggravating factor. Relevant mitigating factors were Banović’s guilty plea, his expression of remorse, and his personal circumstances.

The Trial Chamber sentenced Banović to 8 years of imprisonment.

On 14 February 2005, a bomb in downtown Beirut exploded, killing 22 people, including the former Prime Minister of Lebanon, Rafik Hariri. The Special Tribunal for Lebanon was established by the Security Council in order to prosecute persons responsible for the bombing.

In its interlocutory decision, the Appeals Chamber interpreted the STL Statute to require application of substantive Lebanese law as applied by Lebanese courts, but not before noting that binding international obligations, including customary international law, should inform any such interpretation. The Appeals Chamber held, inter alia, that not only does a customary rule exists between states to suppress terrorist act, but that terrorism is an individual international crime under customary law.

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon Appeals Chamber examined state practice and binding international covenants to assert that the crime of terrorism is “commonly accepted at the international level.” As such, the Chamber derived the key components in formulating a general definition of terrorism: (1) the perpetration of a criminal act; (2) the intent to spread fear among the population or coerce a national or international authority to take some action; (3) and the act involves a transnational element.  For the first time, a tribunal of international character has established the existence of a customary rule of international law recognizing an international crime of terrorism in times of peace.