The Prosecution specifically argues that the areas behind battle lines also constitute an occupied area." The Chamber notes that the Petković Defence maintained its original stance in its Rejoinder yet appears to contend that a state of occupation in connection with international armed conflicts is possible when the conflicts are limited in scope." In its Reply, the Prosecution refutes the Petković Defence argument by giving examples inter alia of cases taken from the Second World War. Referring to the Naletilić Judgement and Additional Protocol I, in its closing arguments, the Petković Defence submits that these are mutually exclusive situations. In its closing arguments, the Praljak Defence nevertheless states that the Prosecution committed an error of law in its analysis of whether a state of occupation existed in Herceg-Bosna at the time of the events, and considers that the existence of an international armed conflict and an occupation constitute distinct issues. Concerning the legal definition of an occupation, in its Final Trial Brief, the Prosecution submits that the existence of pockets of resistance in certain zones of the territory considered to have been occupied does not void their status as occupied areas, provided that the occupying power still wields control over these areas. The presence of troops belonging to a foreign army in the region ravaged by conflict or in the regions that border the territory in which the conflict is unfolding and which are of strategic importance to the conflict, may constitute an indicator sufficient to support a finding that a foreign State was intervening directly in the conflict, establishing its international character." For instance, it is not necessary to prove that troops from another State were present in each of the places were the crimes were committed. The Chamber finds that, to determine whether the conflict is international in character, the conflict must be examined in its entirety. Moreover, an armed conflict that is internal at first glance may become international or exhibit an international character when “another State intervenes in that conflict through its troops”. It is indisputable that a conflict is possessed of an international character when it pits two or more States against one another. Whether the grave breaches regime in the Geneva Conventions applies is contingent upon the international character of the conflict. In the jurisprudence of the Tribunal, an armed conflict exists whenever there is resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between government authorities and organised armed groups or between such groups within a State." " there is no general definition of "international armed conflict" in the Court's legal texts or international humanitarian law." In Bemba the Pre-Trial Chamber stated that: Existence of an "international armed conflict" The Chamber will address this point in the part devoted to the criminal responsibility of the Accused."ģ.1. Moreover, the principle of individual responsibility requires that the Prosecution prove that each one of the Accused was aware of the factual circumstances demonstrating the international character of the armed conflict. It is sufficient to establish that the alleged crimes were closely related to the hostilities occurring in other parts of the territories controlled by the parties to the conflict. Thus, as concerns the nexus between the armed conflict and the alleged crimes, it is not necessary to prove that combat took place at the sites where the crimes were allegedly committed. International humanitarian law is applicable throughout the territory controlled by a party or on the territory of the belligerent States regardless of whether or not actual combat is ongoing. Accordingly, a single act could also amount to a war crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if it was committed in the context of and was associated with an armed conflict." ![]() The article therefore does not articulate a strict requirement for the exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction over war crimes only in these circumstances, but only gives "a particular guideline for the Court". "Furthermore, article 8(1) of the Statute states that the Court "shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes". In the Mbarushimana Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, the Pre-Trial Chamber held that: The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with an international armed conflict.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |