The long shadow of the Yugoslav Wars – Part 1: Ratko Mladić

1 December 2017 by

Ratko Mladić was one of the most notorious figures of the war in Bosnia.

He was Commander of the Main Staff of the Bosnian Serb Army between 1992 and 1995. He was indicted in 1996, arrested in 2011 and tried between 2012 and 2016.

Last week the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia delivered its judgement. Mladic was found guilty of genocide in Srebrenica, crimes against humanity for ethnic cleansing of Bosnian towns and the siege of Sarajevo, and war crimes for the hostage taking of UN staff to stop NATO intervention.

yugoslav ethnic map

Mladic was tried for two counts of genocide and five counts of crimes against humanity, namely persecution, murder, extermination, deportation, and the inhumane act of forcible transfer. He was also accused of four counts of violations of the laws or customs of war, namely murder, acts of violence the primary purposes of which was to spread terror among the civilian population, unlawful attacks on civilians, and the taking of hostages. The geographical scope of the Indictment included Sarajevo, Srebrenica, and 15 municipalities in Bosnia-Herzegovina. These charges were combined into 4 allegations of joint criminal enterprises (JCE):

  • an overarching JCE, which had the objective of permanently removing Muslims and Croats from Serb-claimed territory in Bosnia-Herzegovina;
  • a Sarajevo JCE, which had the objective of spreading terror among the civilian population through a campaign of sniping and shelling;
  • a Srebrenica JCE, the objective of which was the elimination of Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica; and
  • a Hostage-taking JCE, the objective of which was taking UN personnel hostage to prevent NATO from conducting air strikes against Bosnian-Serb military targets.

The ICTY made various critical findings of fact:

  • In several of the municipalities, murders were committed which constituted crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war.
  • Before, during, and after Bosnian-Serb forces attacked non-Serb villages, many victims were killed. Circumstances were brutal; those who tried to defend their homes were met with ruthless force. Mass executions occurred and some victims succumbed after being beaten.
  • Some of these murders amounted to extermination as a crime against humanity.
  • Forcible transfer and deportation were committed in many municipalities.
  • Many victims were subjected to unlawful detention and cruel and inhumane treatment on the basis of political, racial or religious grounds.

The ICTY held with regards to the charge of genocide that a large number of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats in some of these municipalities were subjected to killings and/or serious bodily or mental harm, and accordingly ‘prohibited acts’ for the purposes of genocide had been committed. The ICTY then looked at intent and held that the physical perpetrators in some areas intended to destroy the Bosnian Muslims as a part of the protected group. However, the ICTY held that the Bosnian Muslims targeted in each municipality formed a relatively small part of the protected group and were also in other ways not a substantial part. Genocide was not therefore proved as Mladic amongst others had not intended to “destroy, in whole or part, a protected group.”

The ICTY held with regards to Sarajevo that in light of the nature, manner, timing, location, and duration of these sniping and shelling attacks, found that it was the intention of the perpetrators, all members of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, to target civilians and to shell the city in an indiscriminate manner. The members of the SRK had intended to spread terror among the population of Sarajevo and that the infliction of terror was the primary purpose of sniping and shelling. The ICTY found that members of the SRK committed murder, unlawful attacks on civilians, and terror as violations of the laws or customs of war; and murder as a crime against humanity.

In respect to the massacre of Bosnia Muslims from Srebenica, the ICTY held that the that Bosnian-Serb forces had engaged in an operation to murder thousands of Bosnian Muslims from Srebrenica with discriminatory intent so as to constitute the crime of persecution. Some of those murder incidents were found to constitute extermination. In Srebenica, there was the intent to destroy a substantial part of the protected group, and accordingly the crimes of genocide, persecution, extermination, murder, and the inhumane act of forcible transfer were committed against Bosnian Muslims in and around Srebrenica.

Finally, the ICTY held that there had been deliberate hostage taking of UNPROFOR personnel.

The ICTY then looked at the JCEs. It found with regards to the overarching JCE that between 1991 and 30 November 1995, there had existed a JCE with the objective of permanently removing Muslims and Croats from Serb-claimed territory in Bosnia-Herzegovina through persecution, extermination, murder, the inhumane act of forcible transfer, and deportation. Having assessed inter alia, the statements, speeches, and conduct of Mladic and the Bosnian-Serb leadership, and the acts committed by the physical perpetrators, the ICTY found that the evidence did not support a finding that the crime of genocide formed part of the objective of the Overarching JCE.

Mladic had sought to claim that he was just a soldier taking orders, however, the ICTY found that he had been in direct contact with members of the leadership in Serbia and members of the General Staff of the army of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to ensure that the military needs of the Bosnian Serb army were met. Mladic had also addressed the Bosnian-Serb Assembly during several of its sessions on issues surrounding the development of policies of the Bosnian-Serb political leadership and often suggested to Bosnian-Serb politicians what position they should take during peace negotiations. Mladic’s acts had been so instrumental to the commission of the crimes in the Municipalities that without them, the crimes would not have been committed as they were.

Similarly, with respect to the Sarajevo JCE, the ICTY held that Mladic had been involved in the establishment of the Sarajevo Romanija Corps and made personnel decisions concerning the SRK; commanded SRK units from 1992 to 1995 in various operations; procured military assistance from the army of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia during the siege; ordered the production and use of modified air bombs on Sarajevo; and participated in policy discussions between 1992 and 1995 with members of the Bosnian-Serb government. Again, he had been instrumental to the commission of crimes in Sarajevo. Through his actions, Mladic significantly contributed to achieving the objective of the Sarajevo JCE by way of committing the crimes of terror, unlawful attacks against civilians, and murder.

With all of the JCE’s the ICTY followed a similar analysis of the degree to which Mladic had been personally involved and contributed to the commission of the particular war crime, and then whether he had had the intention to be so involved.

The ICTY ultimately found Mladic guilty of all counts, bar genocide.

Comment

The ICTY’s judgment comes as no surprise, following its earlier related judgments, in particular that of Radovan Karadzic. The conviction sadly is unlikely to persuade many ethnic Serbs in Bosnia or Serbia who previously believed in Mladic’s innocence that he is in fact guilty; rather, they will treat the judgment as yet another example of a Western conspiracy against the Serbs.

From an international criminal law point of view, perhaps the most interesting aspect of the judgment is the application of the ‘substantiality’ criterion to the determination of whether or not there had been genocide in the Bosnia municipalities outside of Srebrenica. This is another application of the morally arbitrary distinction between genocide and crimes against humanity. One of the main unknowns in this four-year trial was whether the judges would recognize that genocide was committed throughout Bosnia-Herzegovina on Mladic’s orders, as called for by the prosecution. ICTY judges have rejected the charge of genocide in other trials with the exception of Srebrenica. They did so again, but this time the ICTY did accept that in several Bosnian towns, perpetrators “intended to destroy the Bosnian Muslims”. Therefore, Mladic was found guilty of “extermination”.

 

2 comments


  1. spamletblog says:

    Don’t forget that the memory of the Croat’s WWII utterly ruthless attempt to exterminate all Serbs is still fresh in the memory of the region. The horrors you can watch on YouTube documentaries, if you can bear it. Ringleaders were even awarded by the Vatican for their efforts.

    A general account is on Wiki, but, those who really want to understand what might have been driving the Serbs that survived, need to watch the films. You might think nothing could be worse than the Jewish Holocaust…

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=513VOo5P63Y

  2. Joe Thorpe says:

    Tell me something. why isn’t Mngangagwa (Zimbabwe President) sat in a court with these people? Same issue following orders so no excuse!

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive weekly notifications of new posts by email.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


7/7 Bombings 9/11 A1P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology birds directive blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity circumcision citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Cologne Commission on a Bill of Rights common buzzard common law communications competition confidentiality confiscation order conscientious objection consent conservation constitution contact order contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Criminal Legal Aid criminal records Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty declaration of incompatibility defamation DEFRA Democracy village deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention devolution Dignitas dignity Dignity in Dying diplomacy director of public prosecutions disability Disability-related harassment disciplinary hearing disclosure Discrimination Discrimination law disease divorce DNA doctors does it matter? domestic violence Dominic Grieve don't ask don't ask don't tell don't tell Doogan and Wood double conviction DPP guidelines drones duty of care ECHR economic and social rights economic loss ECtHR Education election Employment Environment environmental information Equality Act Equality Act 2010 ethics Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice european disability forum European Sanctions Blog Eurozone euthanasia evidence Exclusion extra-jurisdictional reach of ECHR extra-territoriality extradition extradition act extradition procedures extradition review extraordinary rendition Facebook Facebook contempt facial recognition fair procedures Fair Trial faith courts fake news Family family courts family law family legal aid Family life fatal accidents act Fertility fertility treatment FGM fisheries fishing rights foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Association Freedom of Expression freedom of information Freedom of Information Act 2000 freedom of movement freedom of speech free speech game birds gangbo gang injunctions Garry Mann gary dobson Gary McFarlane gay discrimination Gay marriage gay rights gay soldiers Gaza Gaza conflict Gender General Dental Council General Election General Medical Council genetic discrimination genetic engineering genetic information genetics genetic testing Google government Grenfell grooming Gun Control gwyneth paltrow gypsies habitats habitats protection Halsbury's Law Exchange hammerton v uk happy new year harassment Hardeep Singh Haringey Council Harkins and Edwards Health healthcare health insurance Heathrow heist heightened scrutiny Henry VII Henry VIII herd immunity hereditary disorder High Court of Justiciary Hirst v UK HIV HJ Iran HM (Iraq) v The Secretary of state for the home department [2010] EWCA Civ 1322 Holder holkham beach holocaust homelessness Home Office Home Office v Tariq homeopathy hooding Hounslow v Powell House of Commons Housing housing benefits Howard League for Penal Reform how judges decide cases hra damages claim Hrant Dink HRLA HS2 hs2 challenge hts http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/11/us-state-department-reports-on-uk-human-rights/ Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority human genome human rights Human Rights Act Human Rights Act 1998 human rights advocacy Human rights and the UK constitution human rights commission human rights conventions human rights damages Human Rights Day human rights decisions Human Rights Information Project human rights news Human Rights Watch human right to education human trafficking hunting Huntington's Disease HXA hyper injunctions Igor Sutyagin illegality defence immigration Immigration/Extradition Immigration Act 2014 immigration appeals immigration detention immigration judge immigration rules immunity increase of sanction India Indonesia Infrastructure Planning Committee inherent jurisdiction inherited disease Inhuman and degrading treatment injunction Inquest Inquests insult insurance insurmountable obstacles intelligence services act intercept evidence interception interests of the child interim remedies international international conflict international criminal court international humanitarian law international human rights international human rights law international law international treaty obligations internet internet service providers internment internship inuit investigation investigative duty in vitro fertilisation Iran iranian bank sanctions Iranian nuclear program Iraq Iraqi asylum seeker Iraq War Ireland irrationality islam Israel Italy iTunes IVF ivory ban jackson reforms Janowiec and Others v Russia ( Japan Jason Smith Jeet Singh Jefferies Jeremy Corbyn jeremy hunt job Jogee John Hemming John Terry joint enterprise joint tenancy Jon Guant Joseph v Spiller journalism judaism judges Judges and Juries judging Judicial activism judicial brevity judicial deference judicial review Judicial Review reform judiciary Julian Assange jurisdiction jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Act Justice and Security Bill Justice and Security Green Paper Justice Human Rights Awards JUSTICE Human Rights Awards 2010 just satisfaction Katyn Massacre Kay v Lambeth Kay v UK Ken Clarke Ken Pease Kerry McCarthy Kettling Kings College Klimas koran burning Labour Lady Hale lansley NHS reforms LASPO Law Commission Law Pod UK Law Society Law Society of Scotland leave to enter leave to remain legal aid legal aid cuts Legal Aid desert Legal Aid Reforms legal blogs Legal Certainty legal naughty step Legal Ombudsman legal representation legitimate expectation let as a dwelling Leveson Inquiry Levi Bellfield lewisham hospital closure lgbtq liability Libel libel reform Liberal Democrat Conference Liberty libraries closure library closures Libya licence conditions licence to shoot life insurance life sentence life support limestone pavements limitation lisbon treaty Lithuania Litigation litvinenko live exports local authorities locked in syndrome london borough of merton London Legal Walk London Probation Trust Lord Bingham Lord Bingham of Cornhill Lord Blair Lord Goldsmith lord irvine Lord Judge speech Lord Kerr Lord Lester Lord Neuberger Lord Phillips Lord Rodger Lord Sumption Lord Taylor LSC tender luftur rahman machine learning MAGA Magna Carta mail on sunday Majority Verdict Malcolm Kennedy malice Margaret Thatcher Margin of Appreciation margin of discretion Maria Gallastegui marriage material support maternity pay Matthew Woods Mattu v The University Hospitals of Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust [2011] EWHC 2068 (QB) Maya the Cat Mba v London Borough Of Merton McKenzie friend Media and Censorship Medical medical liability medical negligence medical qualifications medical records medicine mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Capacity Act 2005 Mental Health mental health act mental health advocacy mental health awareness Mental Health Courts Mental illness merits review MGN v UK michael gove Midwives migrant crisis Milly Dowler Ministerial Code Ministry of Justice Ministry of Justice cuts misfeasance in public office modern slavery morality morocco mortuaries motherhood Motor Neurone disease Moulton Mousa MP expenses Mr Gul Mr Justice Eady MS (Palestinian Territories) (FC) (Appellant) v Secretary of State for the Home Department murder murder reform Musician's Union Muslim NADA v. SWITZERLAND - 10593/08 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1691 naked rambler Naomi Campbell nationality National Pro Bono Week national security Natural England nature conservation naturism Nazi negligence Neuberger neuroscience Newcastle university news News of the World new Supreme Court President NHS NHS Risk Register Nick Clegg Nicklinson Niqaab Noise Regulations 2005 Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance nursing nursing home Obituary Occupy London offensive jokes Offensive Speech offensive t shirt oil spill olympics open justice oppress OPQ v BJM orchestra Osama Bin Laden Oxford University paramountcy principle parental rights parenthood parking spaces parliamentary expenses parliamentary expenses scandal Parliamentary sovereignty Parliament square parole board passive smoking pastor Terry Jones patents Pathway Students Patrick Quinn murder Pensions persecution personal data Personal Injury personality rights perversity Peter and Hazelmary Bull PF and EF v UK Phil Woolas phone hacking phone taps physical and mental disabilities physician assisted death Pinnock Piracy Plagiarism planning planning human rights planning system plebgate POCA podcast points Poland Police police investigations police liability police misconduct police powers police surveillance Policy Exchange report political judges Politics Politics/Public Order poor reporting Pope Pope's visit Pope Benedict portal possession proceedings power of attorney PoW letters to ministers pre-nup pre-nuptial Pre-trial detention predator control pregnancy press press briefing press freedom Prince Charles prince of wales princess caroline of monaco principle of subsidiarity prior restraint prison Prisoners prisoners rights prisoners voting prisoner vote prisoner votes prisoner voting prison numbers Prisons prison vote privacy privacy injunction privacy law through the front door Private life private nuisance private use proceeds of crime Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecution Protection of Freedoms Act Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest protest camp protest rights Protocol 15 psychiatric hospitals Public/Private public access publication public authorities Public Bodies Bill public inquiries public interest public interest environmental litigation public interest immunity Public Order Public Sector Equality Duty putting the past behind quango quantum quarantine Queen's Speech queer in the 21st century R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 895 R (on the application of) v The General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 2839 (Admin) R (on the application of EH) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWHC 2569 (Admin) R (on the application of G) v The Governors of X School Rabone and another v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2 race relations Rachel Corrie Radmacher Raed Salah Mahajna Raed Saleh Ramsgate raptors rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion resuscitation RightsInfo right to die right to family life right to life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials security services sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa south african constitution Spain special advocates spending cuts Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance swine flu Syria Tax Taxi technology Terrorism terrorism act tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine unfair consultation universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vaccination vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

Disclaimer


This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: