ICTY Research Articles

‘If You Want Peace, Create Peace’: women’s rights organisations as operatives of hybrid peace in the former Yugoslavia

ABSTRACT Gender-based harms experienced in conflict constitute a threat to the right of women and girls to live with dignity. However, transitional justice processes to manage the delicate nexus between peace and justice often do not consider these harms, resulting in adverse outcomes for women and girls in post-conflict societies. At the frontlines of the fight to address gender-based harms through transitional justice, women’s rights organisations (WROs) are uniquely placed to identify and advocate for the needs of women experiencing conflict and to provide integral services in conflict contexts. Despite this critical dual role, WROs in conflict settings are systematically excluded from transitional justice processes and chronically underfunded. Moreover, current literature lacks a nuanced understanding of how WROs work in transitional contexts and how international institutions can best foster their engagement and leadership. Expanding on the evidence base for the inclusion of WROs in transitional justice processes, this paper mobilises the concept of hybrid peace to analyse the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and understand the role of WROs in negotiating the interactions between internationalised peace-building processes and local realities. Research methods include a literature review and analysis of public statements from relevant WROs. This paper argues that WROs engaged with the ICTY played a critical role in building positive hybrid peace by: (1) advocating for and supporting the inclusion of gender-based harms in the internationalised transitional justice process; and (2) implementing localised peace formation and fostering positive gender relations at the community level. The research contributes to broader literature defining the role of WROs in the localisation of development and human rights norms.

OBMANA ILI ISKRENOST? DVA PRIZNANJA PRED MEĐUNARODNIM KRIVIČNIM SUDOM ZA BIVŠU JUGOSLAVIJU / FRAUD OR SINCERITY? TWO ACKNOWLEDGMENTS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

The author analyzes two cases before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), specific to the guilty plea of the accused. Stevan Todorovic, the chief of police in Bosanski Samac, is the highest-ranking official in the municipality who has pleaded guilty and expressed remorse for his own responsibility and the crimes committed. Damir Došen, a shift guard at the Keraterm camp in Prijedor, did the same. Were the acknowledgments of these two convicted war criminals an expression of true remorse or a way to avoid higher prison sentences by reaching an agreement with the court prosecutor's office? The answer to this question is suggested by the analysis of the behavior of Todorović and Došen after serving his prison sentence.

The Interpretation of Slavery before the International Criminal Court: Reconciling Legal Borders?

This article examines the interpretation of the definition of slavery/ enslavement by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Ongwen case (2021) and its application to the facts of the case at hand. This examination is warranted because Ongwen represents the first case in which the ICC was tasked with deciding whether the crime of enslavement had been committed. This article illustrates that the ICC has been outward-looking, finding that judgments of other courts largely featured in the reasoning of the ICC when interpreting slavery. The detailed study in this article further reveals that, either directly or indirectly, the ICC more specifically drew on the judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the Kunarac case. The article shows that, in doing so, the ICC reconciled legal borders by incorporating in its decision elements of general international law, international human rights law, and international humanitarian law instruments to inform its understanding of slavery/enslavement. The article highlights that the ICC contributed to norm consolidation globally.

The Future We Want?

The United Nations (UN) Security Council (UNSC) is endowed with the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security under Art. 24 (1) of the Charter of the United Nations (UNC). The establishment of the ad hoc criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s under Chapter VII of the unc has shown that individual criminal accountability for international core crimes belongs to the instruments to address threats to or breaches of peace (Art. 39 of the UNC). With the International Criminal Court (ICC) a permanent institution has been established to sanction the commission of international core crimes. Acting under Chapter VII, the unsc is entitled to refer a situation to the ICC according to Art. 13 (b) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute), as well as to defer proceedings (Art. 16 of the Rome Statute). By using their veto power each of the five permanent members of the unsc might block both types of resolutions. While a veto against an ICC referral resolution might hinder the Court from fulfilling its mandate (destructive veto), blocking a deferral resolution might enable the Court to continue its fight against impunity (constructive veto). This article discusses whether obligations stemming from the unc and other sources of public international law, in particular human rights, might impact the decisions of the unsc and the veto exercise in particular in both cases. It intends to contribute to the ongoing discussion by several reflections on the veto powers, and concludes that, even though the veto powers might be influenced by these legal sources, it will be difficult to guide the conduct of the five unsc Permanent Members (P5) with regard to the ICC.

Rehabilitation of Perpetrators of International Crimes – Myth or Reality? Case Study of the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia

Of the 92 persons convicted at the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), 60 have already served their sentences and were released. Even though perpetrators’ rehabilitation and their public behaviour in post-conflict environments are essential for countering denial, establishing an authoritative version of the truth, and sustainable reconciliation, we still know little about what happens after they return to their communities. This article attempts to examine ICTY convicts’ rehabilitation by assessing the quality and the result of existing rehabilitation programs (e.g., how much the public behaviour of those released matches the expectations of the victim’s community, what their relationship is with their guilt and crimes committed). Aside from secondary sources, it draws on 23 semi-structured interviews with victims of war, representatives from victims’ associations, and human rights advocates from the region. It finds that in the context of the absence of specialized rehabilitation programs and lack of oversight of the post-conviction stage at the ICTY, the convicted perpetrators return to communities that support and enable them. Hailed by specific enthusiastic audiences back home, ICTY convicts often fulfil their expectations, closing a vicious circle that dramatically curbs the individual or collective transformative potential of their punishment regarding reckoning with the past and moving towards reconciliation.

Archives of Mass Violence: Understanding and Using ICTY Trial Records

Abstract The most relevant collection for studying the wars accompanying the breakup of Yugoslavia, which resulted in over 130,000 dead or missing, is the archive of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague. The Tribunal established by the UN Security Council in 1993 to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes indicted 161 people and had accumulated millions of pages of testimony, military and police reports, and videos when it closed in late 2017. This invaluable record details the massacres and includes well-known incidents, such as the mass executions after the fall of Srebrenica, but also killings and torture elsewhere in the former Yugoslavia. This article investigates the history of this archive, analyzes its contents, and argues that the collection has two important features which present both a huge opportunity and a significant challenge for research—the immense volume of the archive, and a lack of access to important parts of it.

The Role of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia in the Conduct of Ethnic Cleansing of the Albanian Population in Kosovo and Metohija From 1998 to 1999

The paper presents a short chronology of the political conflict in the Autonomous Province of Kosovo and Metohija (Socialist Autonomous Province of Kosovo, until the constitutional changes of 1989), which in the 1990s turned into an armed conflict in which the security forces of the Republic of Serbia from October 1998 to June 1999, carried out a planned action of ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians. In the action, several thousand Albanian civilians were executed extrajudicially and between 800,000 and 850,000 Albanians were forcefully expelled to Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina. This paper is based on the final judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) by which the highest state officials and military and police generals in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbia were convicted of joint criminal enterprise aimed at altering the ethnic structure in at least 13 Kosovo municipalities, especially in the period of the NATO alliance campaign from March 24 to June 12, 1999. The role of the Ministry of Interior in the joint criminal enterprise (JCE), as established by the ICTY judgments to the then Ministry of Interior leaders: Vlastimir Đordđević, head of the Public Security Department, Sreten Lukić, head of the Ministry of Interior Staff for Kosovo, (Vlajko Stojiljković, the Minister of Interior, was also accused, but he committed suicide in 2002) - is undoubted. Therefore, it calls for a public analysis and presentation of the role of this part of the repressive apparatus of the state of Serbia in the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo Albanians, as well as its role in the planned and systematic concealment of crimes. The concealment of the crime was conducted from March to June 1999 by the Ministry of Interior forces through secret operations of transfer of bodies of Kosovo Albanians from primary graves in Kosovo and their burial in mass graves at secret locations in Serbia. Three graves were discovered in 2001 and one in 2013, with the assumption that there are more because they are looking for another 1,086 Albanian victims and 562 victims of Serbs, Roma, Bosniaks, Egyptians, Ashkali and others.

Double Agents

Double Agents

The earth–space alliance in preventing and punishing mass murder crimes: documenting and prosecuting international crimes through aerial satellite evidence

Abstract This article explores and articulates contemporary discourse, reflective of the most recent practice in the domain of relationship between artificial intelligence (AI) and discrete fields of international law, primarily concerning the use of such machinery to prevent and punish crime. It looks into the hitherto unforeseen context of the use of satellite imagery and other AI-generated data as evidence before international courts and tribunals in order to document and prosecute the commission of internationally prohibited crimes. Taking as a lead example the curious case of Al-Werfalli before International Criminal Court (ICC), while examining other relevant cases from the practice of the ICC, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and International Court of Justice (ICJ) in some exhaustive fashion, the underlying philosophy is to explore the benefits and limits of the AI, with a view of ascertaining the distinct role and place for courts in shaping stable standards in the face of challenges posed by modern technology. The larger objective is indeed three-fold: to ascertain the role and probative value of aerially derived evidence, to explore some of the challenges associated with the use of such evidence, and to understand the role of courts in determining the applicable standards and developing the law. The existing judicial praxis reveals the acceptance of the satellite-based or aerially derived evidence in judicial proceedings and sets forth the requisite operational criteria, which should serve both as guidance and an inspiration for exploring their further development and specification.

“TAKE PITY OF YOUR TOWN AND OF YOUR PEOPLE”

It has been argued that the practice of siege warfare is at the very limit of legality under the terms of International Humanitarian Law.[1] The question addressed in this essay might be rephrased: how do the laws of armed conflict permitsieges to become humanitarian disasters? More precisely, can military doctrine regarding the efficacy of siege warfare operations to induce surrender of besieged forces comply in real world terms with the laws of armed conflict? Since February, 2022 it is alleged that Russian armed forces perpetrated a number of crimes against humanity in Ukraine during sieges of cities such as Mariupol. These alleged crimes include indiscriminate targeting of civilian habitation and attacks on evacuation corridors.[2] In the 1990s, siege warfare in the former Yugoslavia provoked international censure and criminal prosecution of perpetrators. Nevertheless, siege operations in Syria and Kashmir today show no sign of respecting the rights of civilian populations despite international censure. The core legal issue regarding sieges is the principle of distinction between combatants and non-combatant civilians and thus decisions regarding targeting and proportionality. The essay will show that distinction is a recent innovation in International Humanitarian Law and uncertainly embodied in military doctrine. The first part reviews evolving IHL norms pertinent to modern sieges. In the second, the essay examines modern jurisprudence regarding the conduct of siege warfare derived from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) prosecution of Major General Stanislav Galić and Major General Dragomir Milosević.[3] 
 
 [1] Riordan, K., ‘Shelling, Sniping and Starvation: the Law of Armed Conflict and the Lessons of the Siege of Sarajevo’, Victoria University of Wellington Law Review, 41 (2), p.150; Watts, S., Under Siege: International Humanitarian Law and Security Council Practice Concerning Urban Siege Operations’, Research and Policy Paper, CHE Project, May 2014.
 [2] https://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2022/03/17/armed-conflict-in-ukraine-a-recap-of-basic-ihl-rules/
 [3] https://www.icty.org/case/galic

How international humanitarian law develops: Towards an ever-greater humanization? An interview with Theodor Meron

Theodor Meron has been a Judge and, between March 2012 and January 2019, was the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (the Mechanism). He was also a Judge of the Appeals Chambers of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda from November 2011 until the closure of those tribunals. He served a total of four terms as President of the ICTY and three terms as President of the Mechanism. A leading scholar of international humanitarian law, human rights and international criminal law, Judge Meron is the author of thirteen books on international law and chivalry in Shakespeare and more than 100 articles, including some of the books and articles that helped build the legal foundations for the international criminal tribunals. His most recent book is Standing up for Justice (Oxford University Press, 2021).He is a member of the Institute of International Law and of the Council on Foreign Relations, a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the recipient of numerous awards, honours and medals, such as the Hudson Medal (American Society of International Law) and the Haskins Prize (American Council of Learned Societies). He is also an Officer of the French Legion of Honour, Grand Officer of the French National Order of Merit, Officer of the Order of Merit of Poland and Companion of the Order of St. Michael and St. George (United Kingdom). A past honorary President of the American Society of International Law and past Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of International Law and Visiting Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, he is Charles L. Denison Professor of Law Emeritus at NYU Law School and, since 2014, a Visiting Professor of Law at Oxford University. He is a Visiting Fellow at Mansfield College, an Academic Associate of the Bonavero Human Rights Institute and an Honorary Fellow at Trinity College.

무력충돌 중 중대한 인권침해로 인한 피해자 배상

Historically, Bosnia-Herzegovina (hereafter “Bosnia”) has been a region where diverse ethnic groups, cultures, and religions coexisted. However, in the process of the dissolution of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in the early 1990s, armed conflicts broke out between ethnic groups in Bosnia, and mass atrocities were experienced. Although the Dayton Peace Agreement—led by the United States—was signed by the parties involved in the conflict in November 1995, thus ending the war in Bosnia, large and small conflicts continued. Accordingly, extensive efforts are still needed to heal the wounds from war and settle peace through reconciliation. Since the end of the war, Bosnia has focused on the punishment of war criminals through the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and many studies have been conducted in this regard. However, research on reparation for victims of these war crimes has been relatively limited. Thus, this paper examines and evaluates the efforts that have been made at the international and domestic levels to compensate the victims of the Bosnian War. At the international level, such compensation was first attempted by the ICTY but was ineffective, as it was entrusted to the domestic courts. Afterward, in the Genocide Convention Case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), Bosnia sought reparation from Serbia by invoking state responsibility. However, in its 2007 judgment, although the ICJ confirmed Serbia’s violation of the obligation to prevent and punish genocide, it refused to give an order for compensation because a sufficient and direct causal link could not be found between the violation and damages. Thus, the declaration on Serbia’s failure to prevent and punish the genocide was to be considered appropriate satisfaction. At the Bosnian national level, the victims sought compensation through the domestic court and Human Rights Court, but this too had several limitations. The victims also argued for compensation in the Netherlands, but the Dutch Supreme Court only recognized a 10% liability of the Dutch government for the deportation of refugees from the UN military compound, which was carried out by the Dutch UN forces. In conclusion, many Bosnian War victims have not yet received adequate reparation, almost 30 years after the end of the war. Therefore, it is critical to establish a comprehensive reparation program for all the victims as soon as possible.

The Dangers of The Crime of Genocide: International Law Review

The crime of genocide in criminal law international law is an extraordinary crime and has become an prohibited which was later enshrined in the 1948 Genocide Convention, the statute International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), statute International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the 1998 Rome Statute. This study aims to determine the crime of genocide that experienced when viewed in international law and dispute resolution methods genocide under international law. This research using normative doctrinal or juridical legal research. Research result states that the main cause of the crime of genocide is motivated by the struggle for the rights of ethnic minorities and the existence of fanatical and racial religions that are shown in discrimination cultural. Crimes committed by the Myanmar government by Ethnics Rohingya Muslims constitute an international crime of genocide, because has fulfilled several main elements, namely mass murder, discrimination against minority religions, is carried out systematically, and aims to eliminating certain ethnic groups and groups.

Crimes of Genocide in the Viewpoint of International Criminal Law

Genocide is one of the crimes that are included in gross violations of Human Rights (Human Rights) where this crime is related to ethnic cleansing which is also included in crimes against various political groups because it is difficult to identify which causes an international problem in a country. The crime of genocide in international criminal law is an extraordinary crime and is a prohibited act which was later included in the 1948 Genocide Convention, the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and the 1998 Rome statute.

International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and grassroots mobilization for justice: Insights from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and grassroots mobilization for justice: Insights from Bosnia and Herzegovina.

An analysis of policy-oriented jurisprudence at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY): A lemniscate of natural law, legal positivism and two liberalisms?

Policy-oriented jurisprudence was used to substantively support certain arguments rendered by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in two cases, namely those against Dražen Erdemović and Pavle Strugar. Based on its limited use, the policy-oriented approach was clearly not a popular source of justification for arguments at the ICTY. However, its inclusion in structures of argument reveals at least some support for it. In the process of suggesting possible reasons why this particular theoretical approach was utilised in the justification of argument, this article aims to briefly discuss the broader philosophical tensions visible in the reliance on policy-oriented jurisprudence at the ICTY, viz, natural law/legal positivism, on the one hand, and the ‘two liberalisms’, identified by Darryl Robinson as inherent to international criminal law (ICL), on the other hand. Given that policy-oriented jurisprudence’s inclusion in ICL judgments makes its future invocation in ICL literature and judgments possible, the purpose of delving into the broader theoretical paradigms involved is important for the emergence of a coherent jurisprudence.

Protection of Places of Worship during Armed Conflicts: The Enrichment of International Humanitarian Law through Buddhism

Places of worship having deep spiritual attachments with people are highly protected as cultural property under International Humanitarian Law (IHL). While these places are given full respect, recognition, and protection, armed groups are prohibited from attacking or destroying them. The protection is included in the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of Armed Conflicts, Additional Protocol I and II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the Statute of the International Criminal Court. Further, it is highlighted under the Customary International Humanitarian Law as well. However, there are several significant instances around the globe where the protection of places of worship has been threatened during armed conflicts. In this context, this paper aims to evaluate the correspondence between IHL and Buddhism in relation to the protection of places of worship during armed conflicts. Therefore, this research employs desk research methodology in terms of ascertaining the correspondence between Buddhism and IHL. Accordingly, this research relies on secondary data in the areas of Buddhism and IHL. Thus, special references will be made to key IHL instruments, including Geneva Conventions, Customary International Humanitarian Rules, and case precedents. On the other hand, this paper refers to Buddhist literature on the protection of places of worship, including seven factors leading to welfare taught by the Buddha to the Vajjians, the verdict regarding the four places associated with the life of the Buddha, the 12th Rock Edict of Emperor Aśoka on respecting all religions and Bodhisattva vows mentioned in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition. This paper believes that, although the key objectives of the two bodies are not identically same, the philosophical underpinnings of Buddhism can be used progressively for the enrichment of IHL relating to the protection of places of worship.

Test ogólnej kontroli dla umiędzynarodowienia konfliktu zbrojnego oraz określenia statusu ofiar w orzecznictwie Międzynarodowego Trybunału Karnego ds. zbrodni w b. Jugosławii

The article presents so called overall control test to internationalize an internal armed conflict adopted in the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) jurisprudence. This test is used in order to hold an individual responsible for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The article begins with the creation and jurisdiction of the ICTY. The overall control test is presented by invoking and analyzing representative judgments of the ICTY such as the Tadić case (Trial Chamber 1997 and Appeals Chamber 1999), the Aleksovski case (Appeals Chamber 200), the Blaskić case (Trial Chamber 2000) as well as the Kordić and Cerkez case (Trial Chamber 2001 and Appeals Chamber 2004). The Tadić case is also compared to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Nicaragua case of 1986 where the ICJ used effective control test. The ICTY conclusions have been strongly criticized among the representatives of Polish and world doctrine (inter alia by W. Czapliński, T. Meron, M.P. Scharf, M. Sassoli and L. Olsen). Their views are included. The final remarks pertain to the ICJ judgment in the Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro case of 2007 where the ICJ in a way tried to reconcile two opposite legal views stating that the overall control test from the Tadić case was adopted to different purpose (namely to define the nature on an armed conflict and when found to be an international one to hold an individual responsible for grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949) whereas the effective control test was created in order to hold a State responsible. In this case the ICJ decided to use the effective control test.

Rola prokuratora w postępowaniu przygotowawczym przed międzynarodowymi trybunałami karnymi

In the process of creation of international criminal tribunals not only criminal procedure sui generis was designed but also for the first time detailed powers of prosecutor had to be adapted to specificity of their functioning. Procedure of international criminal tribunals creates new foundations to the position of prosecutor. The role that is played by this organ in international justice system depends mainly on the position of the tribunal itself. The creators of international tribunals applied legal instruments from several legal systems choosing solutions that seemed most appropriate for organs of international justice. In the consequence such procedure constitutes an amalgamate of common law institutions and solutions used in continental legal systems. In the negotiations during creation of the International Criminal Court for many years the best solutions were discussed and designed. Several questions regarding the shape of procedure had to be answered. The answers influenced not only the powers of prosecutor but also the role of tribunal. The place of prosecutor as an organ of the tribunal was the first issue of fundamental importance. International military tribunals in Nuremberg and Tokyo did not create prosecutor as an independent organ. Prosecutors acted only in the name of the victorious governments. It was only with creation of ad hoc tribunals – International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia and International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda – that prosecutor became an independent organ, equipped with his own powers. At the time being, in the procedure before the International Criminal Court independence of prosecutor is the fundamental element of his status and is protected equally to independence of judges. Secondly, the choice between opportunity and legality of prosecution had to be made. It was agreed that prosecutor should take actions only in the most severe situations regarding most serious violations of international criminal law when specific circumstances indicate that they are in the interest of an international organ of justice. Perpetrators of international crimes are usually too numerous to be brought to justice before an international organ. In such situation it is accepted that prosecutor should initiate criminal proceedings only when he sees the procedure to be in interests of international justice. The issue of initiation of procedure was equally crucial. Each tribunal offers to prosecutor such powers, although in the ICC it was one of the most disputed solutions. In the consequence prosecutor plays an important role in the functioning of international justice. Not only he can initiate procedure proprio motu but also chooses situations and perpetrators that should be brought to justice before international tribunals. The shape of pre-trial stage constitutes an amalgamate of different criminal justice systems – both elements of common law and continental legal systems have been employed in order to create procedure most fitted to the specificity of situations that have to be dealt with by international tribunals. Such institutions as disclosure of charges and documents come from common law. Continental legal systems provided solutions of confirmation of indictment and active role of Pre-Trial Chamber in the pre-trial stage. In the consequence system of checks and balances was created – prosecutor conducts the pre-trial stage but most important decisions have to be confirmed by a judicial organ. This article presents powers of prosecutors of international criminal tribunals during the pre-trial stage of proceedings. It focuses on such institutions as power to initiate of proceedings and its limitations, preliminary examination of a case, authorization of investigation, conditions of such authorization and powers of prosecutor to act on a territory of states. Many procedural issues concerning the role of prosecutor have been explained during the judicial activities of ad hoc tribunals. It can be expected that in the jurisprudence of the ICC problems concerning the role of prosecutor of international tribunal will be further developed.

Ante Gotovina case: an error of law which led to innocence?

The breakup of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 30 years ago still has a substantial impact on the post-Yugoslav countries which proclaimed independence. Bearing in mind that the breakup also generated a military conflict, e.g. in Croatia, the restoration of Serbian-Croatian relations remains problematic. One of the challenges is passing a fair judgment on people responsible for war crimes or crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was established for this reason in particular. Ante Gotovina – a Croatian general, was one of those indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in connection with the military operation “Oluja” during which some heinous acts of crime took place. Gotovina played a clear and primary role in this operation, and therefore his actions were the main count of the indictment, firstly, for the prosecution and then for the Trial Chamber of ICTY. However, the sentence of 24 years imprisonment was never carried out following a successful appeal. The Appeals Chamber did not uphold the verdict of the Trial Chamber owing to a serious legal error and, consequently, it acquitted Gotovina of all the charges. This issue became yet another source of Serbian-Croatian conflict in connection with the most important people held responsible for the crimes committed in 1991-1995.