Case Concerning Application of The Convention On The Prevention and Punishment of The Crime of Genocide (Bosnia & Herzegovina v. Serbia & Montenegro)
Uploaded by
Odeza Gayl UrmatamCase Concerning Application of The Convention On The Prevention and Punishment of The Crime of Genocide (Bosnia & Herzegovina v. Serbia & Montenegro)
Uploaded by
Odeza Gayl UrmatamPUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia & Herzegovina v. Serbia & Montenegro) Date: February 26, 2007
International Court of Justice
Digest by: URMATAM, Odeza Gayl A.
Nature of the case:
FACTS
● On March 20, 1993, the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina instituted
proceedings against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) in respect of
a dispute concerning alleged violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide, including in particular the Muslim population by killing members of
the group; causing deliberate bodily or mental harm to members of the group; and imposing
measures intended to prevent births within the group. In its application, Bosnia and Herzegovina
requests the Court to declare that Yugoslavia has violated the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights with respect to the citizens of the former.
ISSUE/S
I. Whether the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction over the matter.
II. Whether Serbia has committed genocide.
RATIO
I. Yes. The jurisdiction of the Court in this case is based solely on Article IX of the Convention on
the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which provides that:
Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation,
application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the
responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in
Article III shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request
of any of the parties to the dispute.
The Court explained the distinction between the existence and binding force of obligations
arising under international law and the existence of a court or tribunal with jurisdiction to
resolve disputes about compliance with those obligations. The fact that there is not such a
court or tribunal does not mean that the obligations do not exist. They retain their validity and
legal force. States are required to fulfill their obligations under international law, including
international humanitarian law, and they remain responsible for acts contrary to international
law which are attributable to them.
II. No. The Court finds that Serbia has not committed genocide, nor conspired to commit genocide,
nor incited its commission, through its organs or persons whose acts engage its responsibility
under customary international law, in violation of its obligations under the Convention.
The evidence presented did not convince the Court that it has been conclusively established
that the massive killings of members of the protected group were committed with the specific
intent on the part of the perpetrators to destroy, in whole or in part, the group as such. After
careful examination of the criminal proceedings in the International Criminal Tribunal for
Yugoslavia, it was observed that none of those convicted were found to have acted with specific
intent. The killings may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, but the Court has
no jurisdiction to determine whether this is so.
RULING
The Court affirms its jurisdiction on the basis of Article IX of the Convention; and finds that Serbia has not
committed through its organs or persons whose acts engage its responsibility under customary international
law.
