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.

From 1975 until 2002, Indonesia illegally occupied East Timor. Pro-autonomy militia groups, as well as the Indonesian Armed Forces (TNI) perpetrated a number of abuses against the Timorese civilian population, targeting particularly those individuals who were suspected of being pro-independence supporters.

In August 1999, Augusto Asameta Tavares was a member of the pro-autonomy Halilintar militia group who was ordered to burn down the houses in a village and murder the inhabitants. In particular, he was ordered, along with others, to locate and stab a known pro-independence supporter, Paulino Lopes Amarel. The order was carried out and the victim died. Tavares was convicted for the domestic crime of murder by the Special Panels for Serious Crimes and sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment. The Panels did not accept the defence of duress, which required that the conduct was the result of a threat of imminent death or serious bodily harm. Although Tavares was forced to join the militia and was bound to follow orders, the Panels concluded that he could have left. Indeed, that he went along with the militia to the village and came armed with a knife demonstrated to the Panel that he shared the aim of furthering the militia’s criminal activity and contributed to the realisation of those aims.

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 United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia convicted a former Serb soldier, Nikola Vuckovic, to pay compensatory damage for crimes committed during the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Four former victims of Vuckovic filed the case before the US District Court. The alleged acts took place in Bosanski Samac. The victims had known the defendant for years, since they were all from Bosanski Samac. After the war broke out, the victims were requested to come to the Police Station that had just been taken over by the Serbs. There they were tortured, beaten and assaulted for months. Other detainees died during this detention period. After some time, the detainees were transferred to a warehouse where the torture continued. After the war, all victims fled abroad. They still suffer physical and mental pain due to the abuses.

The US District Court holds Nikola Vuckovic responsible for the acts, by arguing that he was ‘a substantial and proximate cause and contributing factor in the injuries. The Court judges in favour of the victims and condemns Nikola Vuckovic to a 140 million dollar damage claim for the victims.

Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač, and Zoran Vuković were brought before the ICTY for their roles in the commission of crimes against the Bosnian Muslim civilians between April 1992 and February 1993. During this time, an armed conflict existed between the Bosnian Serbs and the Bosnian Muslims, and the Bosnian Serb Army and paramilitary groups detained Bosnian Muslim women and subjected them to repeated rapes, torture and other mistreatments.

The Trial Chamber found that Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovač, and Zoran Vuković were guilty of crimes against humanity and violations of laws or customs of war, sentencing them to 28, 20, and 12 years of imprisonment, respectively.

The three Appellants raised several grounds of appeal, arguing that the Trial Chamber erred in several of its factual and legal findings. Among others, the Appellants argued that the Trial Chamber erroneously assessed the contextual elements of crimes against humanity and war crimes as well as the separate definitions of the charged offences of enslavement, rape, torture, and outrages upon personal dignity.

The Appeals Chamber rejected all grounds of appeal adduced by the Appellants. Subsequently, it affirmed the sentences imposed by the Trial Chamber.