Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Prosecutor Vs Tadic

    Uploaded by

    Elen Cia
    69 views2 pages
    Dusko Tadic was the first person tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for war crimes committed at a Serb concentration camp during the Bosnian conflict in 1992. Tadic argued that the ICTY did not have jurisdiction over his case because it was established by the UN Security Council after his alleged crimes took place. The trial chamber found Tadic guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes. However, Tadic appealed, arguing that the ICTY's establishment by the Security Council exceeded the Security Council's authority. The appellate court ruled that it could examine the validity of the ICTY's establishment by the Security Council and whether it met international standards for jurisdiction over Tadic

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Prosecutor vs Tadic.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Dusko Tadic was the first person tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for war crimes committed at a Serb concentration camp during the Bosnian conflict in 1992. Tadic argued that the ICTY did not have jurisdiction over his case because it was established by the UN Security Council after his alleged crimes took place. The trial chamber found Tadic guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes. However, Tadic appealed, arguing that the ICTY's establishment by the Security Council exceeded the Security Council's authority. The appellate court ruled that it could examine the validity of the ICTY's establishment by the Security Council and whether it met international standards for jurisdiction over Tadic

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    69 views2 pages

    Prosecutor Vs Tadic

    Uploaded by

    Elen Cia
    Dusko Tadic was the first person tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for war crimes committed at a Serb concentration camp during the Bosnian conflict in 1992. Tadic argued that the ICTY did not have jurisdiction over his case because it was established by the UN Security Council after his alleged crimes took place. The trial chamber found Tadic guilty of crimes against humanity and war crimes. However, Tadic appealed, arguing that the ICTY's establishment by the Security Council exceeded the Security Council's authority. The appellate court ruled that it could examine the validity of the ICTY's establishment by the Security Council and whether it met international standards for jurisdiction over Tadic

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Prosecutor vs Tadic

    ICJ report, October 1995

    Introduction and sources of international law

    Facts: After the takeover of Prijedor (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and the attack launched
    against the town of Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina) in 1992, the non-Serb civilians
    were detained in several prison facilities, where they were beaten, sexually assaulted,
    tortured, killed and otherwise mistreated. Duško Tadić was the President of the Local
    Board of the Serb Democratic Party in Kozarac (Bosnia and Herzegovina).

    Dusko Tadic (defendant) was the first individual to be tried by the International Criminal
    Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (plaintiff). He was tried for war crimes and
    was accused of committing atrocities at the Serb-run Omarska concentration camp in
    Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992. In his defense, Tadic raised the argument that the ICTY
    did not have jurisdiction over his case because it was not established until 1993 by a
    decision of the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council established the
    ICTY without the participation or consent of any of the states comprising the former
    Yugoslavia. In making this defense, Tadic relied on the argument that the ICTY was not
    “established by law,” citing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which
    provided that “in the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights
    and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by
    a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” Tadic argued that
    this right to a tribunal “established by law” is a “general principle of law recognized by
    civilized nations,” and is codified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political
    Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the American Convention on
    Human Rights.

    Trial Chamber II held that the elements required for the establishment of grave
    breaches of the Geneva Conventions have not been met. Particularly, the Muslim
    victims were not in the hands of the party to the conflict of which they were not
    nationals, since the armed forces of the Republika Srpska were not an organ or agent of
    the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Therefore, the victims could not be seen as
    “protected persons” within the meaning of the Geneva Conventions; as such, Trial
    Chamber II acquitted Tadić of all charges of grave breaches of the Geneva
    Conventions.

    Trial Chamber II found Tadić guilty of crimes against humanity (persecutions and
    inhumane acts) and of violations of the laws or customs of war (cruel treatment). For
    committing war crimes at a Serb-run concentration camp in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Tadic
    (D) was prosecuted in Court. The jurisdiction of the tribunal was however challenged by
    Tadic (D) on the ground that it exceeded the authority of the U.N. Security Council. This
    argument of Tadic (D) was dismissed by the trial court but Tadic (D) appealed.

    Issue:. Whether or not a plea against the International Tribunal jurisdiction be examined
    by the International Tribunal based on the invalidity of its establishment by the Security
    Council?

    Held.: Yes. Plea against the International Tribunal jurisdiction can be examined by the
    International Tribunal based on the invalidity of its establishment by the Security
    Council. The criteria for establishing an International Tribunal includes the
    establishment in accordance with the proper international standards, the provision of
    guarantees of fairness, justice, and even-handedness, in full conformity with
    internationally recognized human rights instruments. Hence, a tribunal like the one
    created in this case must be endowed with primacy over national courts.

    You might also like