Prosecutor v. Krstić
Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
Case No. IT-98-33-A (2004)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
Article 1 of the 1948 Genocide Convention defined genocide as a war crime, established criminal liability, and required states to prosecute crimes of genocide. The wars in Yugoslavia in the 1990s saw the Bosnian Serb Army (the VRS) commit atrocities against Bosnian Muslims, a minority group living within Bosnia. In 1995, the VRS massacred 7,000-10,000 Bosnian Muslim men in the town of Srebrenica. Radislav Krstić (defendant) was a general of the VRS at the time of the Srebrenica massacre and was subsequently charged with genocide. The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia determined that the Bosnian Muslims killed at Srebrenica were a specific, distinct national group. The trial chamber also determined that the massacre at Srebrenica accomplished the Bosnian Serbian leadership’s goal of eliminating all Bosnian Muslims, as a majority of the Bosnian Muslims in the region had fled to the enclave at Srebrenica. Additionally, the trial chamber also determined that Krstić possessed knowledge of the attacks against Bosnian Muslims. When the trial chamber held Krstić committed genocide as a result of the massacre at Srebrenica, Krstić appealed the decision of the trial chamber.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.