Table of contents
P.43. Evidence of discrimination on the basis of the victim’s political ideology
P.44. Evidence of discrimination on the basis of the victim’s ethnicity
P.45. Evidence of restrictive and discriminatory measures
Element
P.44. Evidence of discrimination on the basis of the victim’s political ideology
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
ICC, The Prosecutor v. Charles Ble Goude , ICC-02/11-02/11, Decision on the confirmation of charges (PTC), 11 December 2014, para. 122:
"122. The Chamber considers that there are substantial grounds to believe that at least 348 victims of the killings, rapes and injuries committed by the pro-Gbagbo forces in the course of the five incidents analysed above were targeted by reason of their identity as perceived supporters of Alassane Ouattara. This conclusion of the Chamber is supported by the facts, outlined above, that during the five events under consideration, the pro-Gbagbo forces targeted participants at pro-Ouattara demonstrations, or inhabitants of areas perceived as supporting Alassane Ouattara, namely Abobo and certain neighbourhoods of Yopougon (Doukoure, Mami Faitai and Lem)."
Prosecutor v. Jean-Paul Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgement (TC), 2 September 1998,, para. 583:
"583.Discrimination on the basis of a person’s political ideology satisfies the requirement of ‘political’ grounds."
Prosecutor v Milan Martić, Case No. IT-95-11-T, Judgement (TC), 12 June 2007, para. 367 and 398:
"367. The Trial Chamber recalls that in 1991 the population in Baćin was 95% Croat and 1.5% Serb. Even making allowance for the possibility that there may have been a few Serbs among the 21 victims referred to above, this does not affect the Trial Chamber’s assessment that these killings were carried out with intent to discriminate on the basis of Croat ethnicity."
"398. The Trial Chamber recalls that the majority of the victims in ?kabrnja and Nadin, referred to above, were of Croat ethnicity. The evidence shows that soldiers present in ?kabrnja threatened villagers hiding in the basements, saying "Come out you Usta{e, we are going to slaughter you all" and that even women and children were being called "Ustasas" and were insulted by soldiers.The Trial Chamber further recalls that ?kabrnja and Nadin were almost exclusively Croat villages. Even making allowance for the possibility that there may have been a few Serbs among the victims referred to above, this does not affect the Trial Chamber’s overall assessment that these killings were carried out with intent to discriminate on the basis of Croat ethnicity. The Trial Chamber therefore concludes that all the elements of the crime of persecution (Count 1) have been met."
http//www.legal-tools.org/doc/62a710/Prosecutor v. Momćilo Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-T, Judgement (TC), 27 September 2006, para. 787 and 804:
"787. The Chamber finds that the measures clearly targeted Muslims and Croats and that they were therefore discriminatory in fact. The measures were applied specifically to Muslims and Croats on the basis of their ethnicity. By way of example, the Čelinac war presidency adopted a decision conferring special status on the non-Serb population in the municipality. According to the decision, non-Serbs had the right to live unhindered "within the boundaries of their property," and the right to leave the municipality, provided their departure was conducted in an organized fashion and that the entire household left. They were subject to a curfew from 4 p.m. to 6 a.m., forbidden from selling or exchanging their dwellings without permission of the municipal authority, using any communication systems apart from the post office telephone, "lingering" in public places, or travelling to other towns without permission from the municipal authority. The population of Čelinac consisted overwhelmingly of Serbs, with a small minority of Muslims and only a few Croats and the war presidency’s decision was clearly directed at members of these minorities for no other reason than their ethnicity. In Foča, restrictions were placed on the movement of Muslims while the Serb population could move around freely, and Muslim households were searched by Serb military police and soldiers for weapons, money and other items while Serb houses were not searched, or at most were searched superficially."
"804. The victims of the cruel and inhumane treatment were exclusively Muslims and Croats, and the Chamber therefore finds that these killings were discriminatory in fact. In addition, the victims were selected on the basis of their ethnicity. Many Muslim detainees were called "balija", or were otherwise insulted. Some Muslim detainees were forced to spit on the Muslim flag or to sing Serb nationalistic songs. While raping a woman in a Foča detention centre, Dragoljub Kunarac expressed with verbal and physical aggression his view that rapes against Muslim women were one of the many ways in which the Serbs could assert their superiority and victory over the Muslims."
http//www.legal-tools.org/doc/af5ad0/Prosecutor v. Lukić et al., Case No. IT-98-32/1-T, Judgement (TC), 20 July 2009, para. 999-1000, 1007, 1018:
"999. The men that Milan Luki} rounded up on 7 June 1992 were Muslims. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that this was the reason Milan Luki} rounded them up and detained them. The evidence further shows that Milan Luki} made derogatory remarks about Muslims towards persons he encountered when driving the Passat towards the Vilina Vlas hotel. Importantly, the evidence shows that just prior to shooting at the seven men, whom Milan Lukic had lined up on the river bank, the soldiers cursed in a similarly derogatory manner at the Muslim victims.
1000. The Trial Chamber concludes that this evidence convincingly establishes a discriminatory mindset towards Muslims on the part of Milan Lukic and that he acted with a discriminatory intent when he shot at the seven Muslim men on 7 June 1992."
"1007. The Trial Chamber has found that the Koritnik group was exclusively comprised of Muslim civilians who took no active part in hostilities, many of whom were elderly people and small children."
"1018. The evidence shows that the people who were herded into Meho Aljić’s house were Muslims, many of whom were refugees from neighbouring villages and were trying to leave Višegrad because they were no longer safe there. The only reasonable inference from the evidence is that Milan Lukić singled out Muslims, herded them into Meho Aljić’s house, and killed them because they were Muslim."
P.45. Evidence of discrimination on the basis of the victim’s ethnicity
Prosecutor v. Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatovic, Case No. IT-03-69-T, Judgement (TC), 30 May 2013, paras. 1244, 1249:
“1244. The Trial Chamber recalls its findings in chapters 4.2 and 4.3, including that the murders were part of a widespread attack against the non-Serb civilian population in SAO Krajina, SAO SBWS, and the Indictment municipalities in Bosnia-Herzegovina. These findings also include that the murders were committed against non-Serbs and, in particular, Croats, Muslims, Bosnian Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and ethnic Hungarians. Based on this, the Trial Chamber finds that the murders were discriminatory in fact.”
“1249. The Trial Chamber recalls its findings in chapter 4.4.2 on the incidents of deportation and forcible transfer as well as its findings that these incidents were part of a widespread attack against the non-Serb civilian population in SAO Krajina, SAO SBWS, and the Indictment municipalities in Bosnia-Herzegovina. These findings include that the crimes of deportation and forcible transfer were committed against Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and other non-Serbs. On this basis, the Trial Chamber finds that these incidents of deportation and forcible transfer were discriminatory in fact.”
