Fact
1. Dusko Tadics was the President of the Local Board of the Serb Democratic Party in Kozarac
(Bosnia and Herzegovina). Dusko tadic was put on trial for allegedly participating with Serb
forces in the attack and destruction of residential areas in the Kozarac.
2. They were lived in by Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats; the imprisonment of Muslims
and Croats in the camps of Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje; the deportation of Muslims
and Croats from Prijedor municipality; and the involvement in the killings, torture, sexual
assault, and physical and psychological abuse of Muslims and Croats both inside and outside
the camps.
3. On the grounds of individual criminal responsibility, the prosecution charged him with
crimes against humanity, including acts of persecution, deportation, confinement, rape,
murder, and inhumane treatment; grave violations for torture or inhuman treatment; willful
killing; and wilful infliction of serious bodily or health harm and violations of the laws or
customs of war for cruel treatment and murder. In a number of jail facilities, the non-Serb
people were held prisoner and subjected to various forms of abuse, including beatings,
sexual assaults, torture, and murder.
4. Dusko Tadic was charged with 31 counts of individual criminal responsibility for his allege
involvement in the 1992 attack, seizure, murder, and abuse of Bosnian Muslims and Croats
in the Prijedor municipality of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
TADIC DEFENCE
. Tadic questioning the jurisdiction of the ICTY, he said that there was a lacked jurisdiction
over the alleged crimes since the conflict in the former Yugoslavia was mainly an internal
matter rather than an international one, thus falling outside the tribunal's authority. He
claimed that the offenses he was charged with occurred during a civil war instead of an
international armed conflict, and because the ICTY’s jurisdiction was intended for
prosecuting crimes in international conflicts, he asserted that the tribunal did not have the
authority to try him.
. The counts that were charged against Dusko Tadic was strongly condemned by him through
the “plea of alibi” stating that he was somewhere else when each of the alleged acts took
place. The defendant stated sincerely throughout his testimony that he had never visited the
Omarska or Keraterm camps and had not taken part in Kozarac's racial cleansing In addition
to that, He stated in his testimony that he had visited Trnopolje five times but had never
entered the camp.
Tadic said that he was not individually liable because he was not a major participant in the
events and he was just a local politician with little power. In addition to that, he had no
direct authority over the conduct of the guards or soldiers in the detention centers and was
not a member of the military command system. Tadic argued that he should be released
based on the principle of command responsibility and should not be held criminally liable.
Tadic was just a member of a military group, he was simply executing his duties and
following orders. Therefore, his actions should be viewed as part of a broader effort, rather
than an expression of personal criminal intent.
He argued that Geneva Conventions rules on grave breaches applied only in international
armed conflicts, and as the war in Bosnia was a civil war, the rules pertaining to the
treatment of prisoners and civilians (in the Geneva Conventions) could not be said to apply
to the same degree. By the Geneva Conventions, grave breaches normally applied to actions
conducted during international conflicts, even though other additional protocols had been
since developed in the course of dealing with internal conflicts.
1. What were the charges against DuškoTadić?
Tadić was charged with multiple counts of crimes against humanity, grave
breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and violations of the laws or customs of
war. These included persecution, inhumane acts, murder, and torture during
the Bosnian War.
2. What was the significance of this being the first ICTY trial?
It was the first international war crimes trial since Nuremberg and Tokyo after
World War II. It established the ICTY as a functioning judicial body and set
precedents for prosecuting individuals for war crimes.
3. What is the difference between individual criminal responsibility
and command responsibility, and how did that play into Tadić’s
case?
Individual criminal responsibility means a person is liable for their own
actions. Command responsibility applies to superiors who knew or should have
known about crimes committed by subordinates and failed to act. Tadić was
prosecuted under individual responsibility, not command responsibility.
4. What role did the concept of "crimes against humanity" play in
this case?
Crimes against humanity were central to the charges. The court had to
determine whether the crimes were part of a widespread or systematic attack
against civilians — a requirement for proving crimes against humanity.
5. How did the ICTY establish jurisdiction in the Tadić case?
The UN Security Council established the ICTY through Resolution 827. Tadić’s
trial confirmed the ICTY's authority to prosecute individuals for war crimes
committed in the former Yugoslavia from 1991 onwards.
6. What evidence was used to prove Tadić’s involvement in the
crimes?
Testimonies from victims and witnesses, documents, photographs, and
forensic evidence were used. Some testimonies were given via video-link due
to security and anonymity concerns.
7. What was the outcome of the case and what sentence did Tadić
receive?
Tadić was found guilty on several counts and sentenced to 20 years in prison.
He was convicted of crimes against humanity and war crimes but acquitted of
grave breaches (Geneva Conventions violations) due to legal technicalities.
8. How did the court define armed conflict in this case, and why was
that important?
The Appeals Chamber held that an armed conflict exists whenever there is
protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organized
armed groups. This definition was vital in determining the applicability of
international humanitarian law.
9. Did the court face any challenges regarding witness protection or
testimony?
Yes. Witness intimidation was a serious issue. The court had to balance fair
trial rights with protecting witnesses, using pseudonyms, closed sessions, and
video links for some testimonies.
10. How did this case influence later prosecutions of war crimes or
crimes against humanity?
It set key legal precedents, such as recognizing that individuals can be
prosecuted for war crimes committed during internal conflicts. It also clarified
elements of crimes like persecution and the scope of crimes against humanity.
1. To what extent did the Tadić case expand the interpretation of
international humanitarian law?
The case expanded its scope by affirming that war crimes and crimes against
humanity could be prosecuted even in internal (non-international) conflicts,
not just international wars.
2. Was the ICTY impartial and fair in its handling of the Tadić trial?
Generally, international legal scholars view the ICTY’s handling as fair, though
some critics argue there was political influence in its creation and perceived
Western bias in prioritizing certain cases.
3. How did the Tadić Appeals Chamber decision shape the
understanding of international armed conflict?
The decision distinguished between international and non-international
armed conflicts but emphasized that serious violations of humanitarian law can
occur in both, broadening the court’s reach and legal interpretations.
4. Did the case set a precedent for universal jurisdiction or
challenge state sovereignty?
Yes, it demonstrated that international bodies could override national
sovereignty to prosecute serious crimes, reinforcing the idea of accountability
beyond borders.
5. Was justice served in the Tadić case from the perspective of
victims and international observers?
Opinions vary. Many victims and international human rights advocates saw it
as a step toward justice and ending impunity. However, some felt the sentence
was too lenient or that justice was slow.
GENEVA CONVENTION
Does not include political groups within its definition of protected groups.
While the Convention doesn't exclude other groups like ideological, linguistic,
or economic groups, it focuses primarily on the four core categories
It protects national, ethnic, racial, and religious groups.
