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.