July 15, 1999

Case No: IT-94-1

The Prosecutor vs. Dusko Tadic

FACTS: Dusko Tadic, a former Bosnian Serb politician and former member of the paramilitary forces, He
faced 12 counts of crimes against humanity, 12 counts of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions,
and 10 counts of violations of the customs of war. This was for his actions in the Prijedor region,
including the Omarska, Trnopolje and Keraterm detention camps. On May 7, 1997, the International
Criminal Tribunal of the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) found him guilty of 9 counts and partially guilty on 2
counts.
Tadic and the Prosecutor appealed separate aspects of the judgment of the Trial Chamber. Tadic also
appealed against the Sentencing Judgment.
ESSENTIAL ISSUES:
Whether the Trial Chamber erred when it decided:
a.) that the victims of the acts ascribed to Tadic did not enjoy the protection of the grave breaches
regime of the Geneva Conventions as recognized the Statute of the International Tribunal Article 2.
b.) it could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Tadic had played any in part in the killing of
any of the five men from the village of Jaskici
c.) it held that in order to be found guilty of a crime against humanity, the Prosecution must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused not only formed the intent to commit the offense but also
knew of the context of a widespread or systematic attack on the civilian population and that the act was
not taken for purely personal reasons unrelated to the armed conflict.
d.) it held that discriminatory intent is an element of all crimes against humanity
e.) it denied a Prosecution motion for production of defense witness statements.
HELD:
A. Yes. The grave breaches regime of the Geneva Conventions applied because there was an
international armed conflict. The victims were protected persons under the Geneva Convention on the
Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Thus, Tadic is guilty on Counts 8, 9, 12, 15, 21 and 32 of
the Indictment on which he was earlier acquitted
B. YES. The Trial Chamber also misapplied the doctrine of common purpose which imputes criminal
liability to the participants in a criminal enterprise for all that results from that enterprise. He is thus
guilty on Counts 29, 30 and 31.
C. Yes. An act carried out for purely personal motives can constitute a crime against humanity within the
meaning of Article 5 of the Tribunal’s Statute relating to such crimes.
D. Discriminatory intent is not required for all crimes against humanity, but only for such crimes relating
to persecution. Such intent is not an indispensable legal ingredient of the offence only with regard to
those crimes for which it is expressly required, that is, for the types of persecution crimes mentioned in
Article 5(h) of the Tribunal’s Statute.
E. Yes. The Trial Chamber may order, depending on the circumstances of the case before it, the
disclosure of a defense witness statement after examination-in-chief of the witness.
The Trial Chamber also saw no prejudice of his right to a fair trial. He was sentenced to 20-years
imprisonment.