The Judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar

Leiden Journal of International Law

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 477-490

  Hinek, Silva ^a  

^a International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ^*  (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Aiding and abetting; Article 7(3); command responsibility; concurrent convictions; superior responsibility; had reason to know

Indexed keywords

EID: 85010181390     PISSN: 09221565     EISSN: 14789698     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0922156506003396     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Prosecutor v. Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Judgment, 31 January 2005 (hereafter Judgment).
2. For example, the trial chamber looked at the issue of cumulative convictions. Case No. IT-01-42-T, Judgment., paras. 447-55.
3. Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, SC Res. 827, UN Doc. S/RES/827 (1993), Annex, Arts. 2(e), 5(c), repr. in (1993) 32 ILM 1203 (hereafter ICTY Statute).
4. Judgment, Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia note 1, para. 2.
5. Judgment.
6. Judgment.
7. Prosecutor v. Jokic’, Case No. IT-01-42-1-T, Sentencing Judgment, 18 March 2004 (hereafter Jokic’ Sentencing Judgment). The convictions under Article 7(3) were later vacated by the Appeals Chamber. See Prosecutor v. Jokic’, Case No. IT-01-42-1-A, 30 August 2005 (hereafter Jokic’ Judgment on Sentence Appeal).
8. Jokic’ Sentencing Judgment, Judgment. note 7, para. 116. This sentence was upheld on appeal. See Jokic’ Judgment on Sentence Appeal, Judgment. note 7, p. 36.
9. Judgment, Judgment. note 1, para. 20.
10. Judgment., paras. 21, 22.
11. Judgment., paras. 29-31.
12. Judgment., paras. 50-5.
13. Judgment., paras. 56-60.
14. Judgment., para. 62. The accused was not charged for these attacks.
15. The accused was not charged for these attacks., paras. 73-5.
16. The accused was not charged for these attacks., paras. 76-8.
17. The accused was not charged for these attacks., paras. 79-83.
18. The accused was not charged for these attacks., para. 96.
19. The accused was not charged for these attacks., paras. 99-103.
20. The accused was not charged for these attacks., para. 112.
21. The accused was not charged for these attacks., para. 100.
22. The accused was not charged for these attacks., para. 160.
23. The accused was not charged for these attacks., paras. 234-76.
24. The accused was not charged for these attacks., paras. 280-84.
25. The accused was not charged for these attacks., para. 288.
26. The accused was not charged for these attacks., paras. 326-8.
27. The accused was not charged for these attacks., para. 329.
28. The accused was not charged for these attacks., paras. 337-8.
29. The accused was not charged for these attacks., para. 446.
30. The accused was not charged for these attacks., para. 352.
31. The accused was not charged for these attacks., para. 353.
32. The accused was not charged for these attacks., para. 354. As discussed later in the case note, the trial chamber must be satisfied that the contribution of an aider and abettor in an omission scenario had a ‘direct and substantial effect’ on the commission of the crime before it can enter a conviction for aiding and abetting. See notes 52-3 and accompanying text, infra.
33. Judgment, The accused was not charged for these attacks… note 1, para. 355.
34. Judgment.
35. Judgment.
36. Prosecutor v. Halilovic’, Case No. IT-01-48, Decision on Prosecutor's Motion Seeking Leave to Amend the Indictment, 17 December 2004, para. 31.
37. Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Judgment, 15 March 2002, para. 173 (hereafter Krnojelac Trial Judgment).
38. Prosecutor v. Krstic’, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Judgment, 2 August 2001, para. 605.
39. Judgment., para. 652.
40. Prosecutor v. Stakic’, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment, 31 July 2003, paras. 465-6 (hereafter Stakic’ Trial Judgment).
41. Judgment., para. 465.
42. Prosecutor v. Galic’, Case. No. IT-98-29-T, Judgment and Opinion, 5 December 2003, para. 177 (hereafter Galic’ Trial Judgment).
43. Prosecutor v. Br Danin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgment, 1 September 2004, para. 285.
44. Jokic’ Judgment on Sentence Appeal, Judgment… note 7, para. 26.
45. Jokic’ Judgment on Sentence Appeal., para. 27.
46. Aleksovski Trial Judgment, Jokic’ Judgment on Sentence Appeal. note 53, para. 88; Galic’ Trial Judgment, Jokic’ Judgment on Sentence Appeal. note 47, para. 168; Prosecutor v. Simic’, Tadic’, and Zaric’, Case No. IT-95-9-T, Judgment, 17 October 2003, para. 162; Judgment, Jokic’ Judgment on Sentence Appeal. note 1, para. 249; Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, Case No. ICTR-95-1-T, 21 May 1999, para. 202; Prosecutor v. Rutaganira, Case No. ICTR-95-1C-T, Judgment and Sentence, 14March 2005, para. 64.
47. Kordic’ Trial Judgment, Jokic’ Judgment on Sentence Appeal. note 42, para. 371.
48. Galic’ Trial Judgment, Kordic’ Trial Judgment note 47, para. 169.
49. Galic’ Trial Judgment., para. 446.
50. Judgment, Galic’ Trial Judgment. note 1, para. 369.
51. Judgment.
52. Judgment., para. 417.
53. Judgment.
54. The trial chamberwas of the opinion that it was not apparent that additional investigation before the attack would have put the accused in a better position. Judgment.
55. The trial chamberwas of the opinion that it was not apparent that additional investigation before the attack would have put the accused in a better position., para. 418.
56. The trial chamberwas of the opinion that it was not apparent that additional investigation before the attack would have put the accused in a better position.