Komandna odgovornost

Slavica Dinić,Emil Turković

doi:10.5937/ptp2101070d

Abstract

As a part of the presentation in this paper, we will deal with one of a number of specific characteristics arisen while determining the criminal responsibility of perpetrators of international crimes, the one related to the institute of command responsibility, which are familiar with the statutes of both ad hoc tribunals (the Statute of the Tribunal in the Hague of 1993 and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda of 1994), as well as the so - called the Rome Statute from 1998. In these statutes, it is set in such a way that, in one of its parts, it contradicts the basic criminal law institutes (the principle of individual subjective responsibility, the principle of justice). However, in accordance with the assumed international obligations, this institute was introduced to the criminal law system of Republic of Serbia on January 1st 2006, by prescribing, within Article 384 of the Criminal Code of Republic of Serbia, a real criminal offense of omission, which is also the subject of this paper.

Highlights

The principle of individual, subjective responsibility, according to which „everyone is responsible only for their actions, according to which they have a certain psychological relationship and for which they can be subjected to socio-ethical reproach” (Stojanović, 2020, p. 24), today is one of the basic principles criminal law and in its settings, there is nothing controversial
At the expense of all three courts, and regarding the decision they have in connection with this institute, an objection can be made that its negligent part can in no way be combined with the intent required in all international crimes under jurisdiction. of these courts, and especially not with intent, whose existence is required in the criminal act of genocide (Stojanović, 2020, pp. 16-17), which “presupposes the existence of intent by directing it to achieve a certain goal, ie. it reinforces the volitional element in intent ”(Stojanović, 2020, p. 107)
If we look at the institute of command responsibility within the framework of our national legislation, we come to the conclusion that it is absolutely acceptable, because it is harmonized with the current criminal law provisions, ie the achieved criminal acquis, on which the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia is based

Summary

Introduction

The principle of individual, subjective responsibility, according to which „everyone is responsible only for their actions, according to which they have a certain psychological relationship and for which they can be subjected to socio-ethical reproach” (Stojanović, 2020, p. 24), today is one of the basic. The case of Krupp and the case of the Ministry were very similar to the case of the Rehling company Following these cases, the institute of command responsibility was included in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions in 1977, but almost did not apply from 1945 until the ad hoc tribunal of the Security Council (the 1993 ICTY Statute and the ICC Statute1), and the Rwanda Court of 19942). The International Criminal Court was established by an international treaty (not by a decision of the Security Council, as ad hoc tribunals), further, it has some elementary institutes of general criminal law, age limit for criminal responsibility, sanity, grounds for exclusion of criminal offense, attempt, voluntary resignation), the matter of the special act was regulated in more detail and precision, and the Elements of Criminal Offenses were subsequently adopted, in which way they were more precisely set

Command responsibility in the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia

Trial for command responsibility in the Republic of Serbia

Concluding remarks