Yesterday, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its decision in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), in which it denied both Croatia’s claim and Serbia’s counterclaim of genocide committed by the other.
The dispute arose out of armed conflict that broke out between Croatian forces and Serbian forces following Croatia’s declaration of independence in 1991. From 1991-1995, Serbian forces controlled approximately one-third of what is now Croatian territory. It was during this time that Croatia alleges Serbia committed genocide against the Croatian people. In 1995, Croatian forces conducted a series of military operations during which they re-took this territory. It is during this time that Serbia alleges Croatian forces engaged in genocidal acts against Serbians.
The Court first determined that it has jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention. It also reiterated its conclusion from its 2008 judgment that Croatia and Serbia are both parties to the Genocide Convention as successors to the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Turning to the merits, the Court held that there is sufficient evidence that Serbia committed physical acts falling within the definition of genocide in Article II of the Convention, i.e., killing members of a group; causing serious bodily and mental harm to members of a group; deliberating inflicting on the group conditions of life intended to bring about its physical destruction in whole or part; and imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. However, the Court held that the evidence of the mental element, intent to destroy a group in whole or part, was lacking. As a result, the Court rejected Croatia’s claim by a vote of 15-2.
Likewise, the Court held that Croatian forces had also committed physical acts falling within the definition of genocide in Article II of the Convention, i.e., killing members of a group and causing serious bodily and mental harm to members of a group. However, once again, the Court held that the intent requirement was lacking. As a result, the Court unanimously rejected Serbia’s counterclaim.
This judgment tends to show how difficult it is to prove the necessary elements of a crime, particularly the intent requirement, under international law.
For more information, visit the ICJ website.
(cgb)