Our authors

Our Books
More than 875 authors
from all continents

Historical Origins of International Criminal Law
Historical Origins of
International Criminal Law

pficl
Philosophical Foundations of
International Criminal Law

Policy Brief Series

pbs
Four-page briefs on policy challenges in international law

Quality Control
An online library

Our Chinese and Indian authors

li-singh
TOAEP has published more than 90 Chinese and Indian authors

atonement
Art and the ‘politics
of reconciliation’

Integrity in international justice
Online library on integrity in international justice

HomeIcon  FilmIcon  FilmIcon  CILRAP Circulation List TwitterTwitter PDFIcon

Element:

4. The object of the attack was civilian objects, that is, objects which are not military object

"Witness Van der Weijden testified that (i) a tram is not well-suited for military use or transportation of military personnel; (ii) there was no reason to identify a tram as a threat or its passengers as combatants; and (iii) it must have been known to snipers that only civilians used the trams. Further, the Trial Chamber considered at length the significance of trams to the civilian population in Sarajevo and their general usage in the city. In addition, with regard to each sniping incident involving a tram, the Trial Chamber explicitly considered whether there was any military personnel present on the vehicle or in its vicinity at the time of the incident. Concerning the sniping incidents on 8 October 1994, 21 November 1994, 23 November 1994, and 3 March 1995, the evidence clearly shows that there were neither soldiers on the trams in question nor military activities or establishments in the immediate area."[1]

"The Trial Chamber was also satisfied that the targeted trams had civilian status. It established that trams were not suitable for military use and that it was a well-known fact that they were used by civilians. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber found that the fact that one or two soldiers were travelling on a tram targeted by sniper fire does not alter its civilian status."[2]

"Regarding Milošević's allegation that the trams ran during combat activity, the Appeals Chamber notes that the Trial Chamber considered this argument at trial. It specifically noted Milošević's submission that trams were running just behind the confrontation lines and through an area with almost constant fighting going on, but concluded that 'the evidence showed that trams did not run during periods when there was combat activity and that the trams were told to return to the depot if combat activity began'. That said, the Trial Chamber did not rule out that there were instances during which trams ran during combat. For this reason, and in light of the findings below confirming that the bullets were shot by the SRK snipers deliberately targeting civilians (and were not stray bullets shot by belligerents), any evidence that trams ran during combat does not contradict the Trial Chamber's findings per se and is thus without impact on Milošević's convictions."[3]

Footnotes:

[1] ICTY, Prosecutor v. Milošević, D., "Judgment", IT-98-29/1-A, 12 November 2009, para. 128 (footnotes omitted).

[2] ICTY, Prosecutor v. Milošević, D., "Judgment", IT-98-29/1-A, 12 November 2009, para. 159 (footnotes omitted) .

[3] ICTY, Prosecutor v. Milošević, D., "Judgment", IT-98-29/1-A, 12 November 2009, para. 160 (footnotes omitted).

Lexsitus

Lexsitus logo

CILRAP Film
More than 555 films
freely and immediately available

CMN Knowledge Hub

CMN Knowledge Hub
Online services to help
your work and research

CILRAP Conversations

Our Books
CILRAP Conversations
on World Order

M.C. Bassiouni Justice Award

M.C. Bassiouni Justice Award

CILRAP Podcast

CILRAP Podcast

Our Books
An online library

Power in international justice
Online library on power in international justice

Interviewing
An online library