Bosnian Genocide Case

Bosnian Genocide Case

The Court affirms that it has jurisdiction; Serbia has not committed genocide; Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of

genocide; Serbia has not been complicit in genocide; Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent the Srebrenica genocide; Serbia has violated its obligations under the Genocide Convention by having failed to transfer Ratko Mladić to ICTY; Serbia has violated its obligation to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Court

The Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), case 91, International Court of Justice (ICJ) Judgement returned on 26 February 2007.

The case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations's highest judicial body, which exclusively hears disputes between states, related to Serbia's alleged attempts to wipe out the Bosnian Muslim (Bosniak) population of Bosnia. It was filed by Dr. Francis Boyle, an adviser to Alija Izetbegović during the Bosnian War. The case was heard in the ICJ court in The Hague, Netherlands, and ended on 9 May 2006.

The ICJ presented its judgment on 26 February 2007, in which, among other things, it confirmed the ICTY judgment that the Srebrenica massacre was genocide, stating:

The Court concludes that the acts committed at Srebrenica falling within Article II (a) and (b) of the Convention were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such; and accordingly that these were acts of genocide, committed by members of the VRS in and around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995.

The Court found - although not unanimously - that Serbia was neither directly responsible for Srebrenica genocide, nor that it was complicit in it, but it did rule that Serbia had committed the breach the Genocide Convention by failing to prevent the Srebrenica genocide, for not cooperating with the ICTY in punishing the perpetrators of the genocide, in particular in respect of General Ratko Mladić, and for violating its obligation to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Court. Vice-President of the Court dissented on the grounds that "Serbia’s involvement, as a principal actor or accomplice, in the genocide that took place in Srebrenica is supported by massive and compelling evidence."