Case Brief and Comments on the Case between the Prosecutor and Boškoski and Tarčulovski Brook Kebede1 (original) (raw)
Introduction The writer under this paper is aimed to forward a brief commentary for the case of Boškoski and Tarčulovski on the decision made in the 10th day of July 2008 by International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (‘ICTY’), Trial Chamber, Case No IT-04-82-T. On the stated day, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (‘ICTY’) delivered the judgment on the case concerned an alleged attack on the unarmed ethnic Albanian village of Ljuboten, the subsequent murder and cruel treatment of its residents, and the wanton destruction of property by the army and police of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (‘FYROM’). Under this case Boškoski’s was charged with superior responsibility for failing to punish his subordinates who committed crimes during and subsequent to the police operation in Ljuboten. But he was found not guilty on all charges. The prosecution against Boškoski’s alleged that he had ordered, planned and instigated crimes committed against ethnic Albanians. And the Trial Chamber found Tarčulovski guilty of ordering, planning and instigating the murder of three ethnic Albanian civilians, wanton destruction of twelve houses or other property and cruel treatment of thirteen ethnic Albanian civilians, all violations of the laws or customs of war. He was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. Under international humanitarian law, this is an important case that it provides a comprehensive application of the Tadic standard which help to determine the qualification of an ‘internal armed conflict’ . The case also plays a significant role in determining the principle of superior criminal responsibility for the acts of their subordinates. As to the decision of the Trial Chamber II, it would suffice for the superior to report crimes to competent authorities to escape international criminal responsibility. The paper classified in to two parts, firstly, the paper try to provide a case brief. And in the second part, the writer will try to provide a brief commentary on the case.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Przegląd Europejski, 2022
The issue of military command is an issue which, under the rules of international criminal law, involves a number of numerous issues, related to the regime of commander liability. The case of Russia's armed assault on Ukraine and the questions arising in connection with the possibility of prosecuting the President of the Russian Federation, as well as military commanders - has revived the discussion on the issue of criminal liability of the main actors in these events. If the trials took place, those in leadership positions would be tried under the regime of commander’s liability. Since the Nuremberg Tribunal, the issue of superior responsibility has undergone extensive changes. The article presents the influence of the jurisprudence of the Yugoslav tribunal on the formation of regulations on military command. This is because it was the first international court that had to face this issue. The International Criminal Court built on its experience, clarified the concept of comman...
International Legal Materials
otherwise noted, the articles in this issue of Criminal Law Forum are based on U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.1 (1994). This appendix prints the most recent text of the rules, set out in U.N. Doe. IT/32/Rev.3 (1995), indicating in {braces} all deletions from U.N. Doe. IT/32/Rev.1 (1994), and indicating in boldface type all additions to that document, so that the reader can compare the current text of the rules with the version the contributors are discussing. (Part and section titles are set in boldface type as a matter of style but none of these has changed.) Where the numerical or letter designation of a provision has changed, the new designation is indicated in boldface type but the former designation is not shown. It can be determined by examining the other changes in the rule. In Rule 77, for example, the addition of sub-rules 77(C) and 77(D) necessitated the redesignation of the provision that was previously sub-rule 77(C) as sub-rule 77(E).
2013
The achievements of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia are worth focusing on, for their positive effects on the change in the understanding of global justice and on the improvement of international law, especially international humanitarian law, international criminal law and human rights as well as peace and security in the territory of former Yugoslavia. However, the extent of this contribution in the long-term is assumed to be obscure if not ambiguous. Therefore, the basic aim of the study is to examine the extent of the political and legal importance of this tribunal on international law and the territory of the former Yugoslavia, thus the Balkans and international society generally. The most important contributions will be presented in the light of key cases held in the Tribunal, Tribunal's Statute and various conventions with respect to this manner. As a result, inspite of the discussions on the legal basis and effectiveness of theTribunal, the Tribunal's legal precedents can be said to have constituted a development in international politics and law, principles, norms and procedures; served the expansion of the ambit of substantive and procedural jurisprudence of the law of armed conflicts; contributed to the institutionalization of international criminal justice system and of human rights norms; played a crucial role in the creation of other international criminal courts and took part in the establishment of efficient and fair international trials which is of crucial importance to the peace in the Balkans and the whole world for the future.
Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
European Journal of International Law, 1998
This report on current developments in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ('Tribunal') covers three main issues: the Tribunal's subject matter jurisdiction; the elements of certain crimes within the Tribunal's jurisdiction; and the Tribunal's authority to order states and individuals to provide evidence.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.