Table of contents:
Element:
As stated by the Pre-Trial Chamber in Katanga and Chui:
"First, the act of physical appropriation must be carried out with the intent to deprive the owner of his property. Second, the act of physical appropriation must also be carried with the intent to utilise the appropriated property for private or personal use."[1]
4.1.I ntent to deprive the owner of the property.
4.2.I ntent to appropriate the property for private or personal use.
Regarding military necessity, the Gotovina et al. Trial Chamber found:
"The Trial Chamber also considered that in other incidents members of Croatian military forces and civilians were plundering together, or at least at the same time and the same place and that in many instances items were taken from many houses. The Trial Chamber further considered that in the overwhelming number of incidents in which the appropriated items were specified, the possibility of military necessity could clearly be ruled out. Based on all the foregoing, the Trial Chamber finds that also for the remaining incidents involving unspecified items, there is no reasonable possibility that their appropriation was justified by military necessity. The Trial Chamber finds that their appropriation was unlawful."
Footnotes:
[1] ICC, Katanga and Chui Decision on the confirmation of charges, 30 September 2008, para. 332.
