Summaries of Judgments, AdviNot an official document of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASE CONCERNING APPLICATIONOF THECONVENTIONON THE PREVENTION
AND PUNISlHMENTOF TlHECRIME OF GENOCIDE (BOSNIAAND HERZEGOVINA
v. YUGOSLAVIA (SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO)) (PROVISIONAL MEASURES)
Order alf8 April 1993
In an Order issued ithe case concerning Application of to issue its Order under the Convention on the Prevention
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide concluded by
{Crimeof Genocide(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia the United Nations in 1948, to which Yugoslavia and
(Serbia and Montenegro)), the Court called uponYugosla- Bosnia and Herzegovina are parties. The Genocide Con-
.via(Serbia and Montenegro) to "immedis~tely.. .take all vention describesasgenocide acts "committed withthe in-
:measureswithin its plowerto prevent co~nmissionof the tent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
!crime of genocide". The Court's Order of provisional racial or religious group".
:measuresstated that hgoslavia
"should in particular ensure that any military, parami1.i-
tary or irregular arnnedunits which may be directed or
supportedby it, as well asanyrganizat:ionsandpersons
which may be subject to its control, direction or influ- The full text of the operative paragraph of the Order
ence, do not commit any actsof genocide, of conspiracy reads as follows:
to commit genocide, of direct and public incitement ,to "52. For these reasons,
commit genocide, or of complicity in genocide, whethser THECOURT
directed against the Muslim population of Bosnia arid
Herzegovina or against any other nal.iona1,ethnicall, Indicates, pending its final decision in the proceed-
racial or religious giroup". ings instituted on 20 March 1993 by the Republic of
The Court alsoheld that neither Party should "aggravate Bosnia and Herzegovina against the Federal Republic of
cx extend the existing dispute over the prevention or pull- Yugoslavia(SerbiaandMontenegro), the following pro-
ishment ofthe crimeof'genocide, or render it moredifficult visional measures:
of solution". A. (1) Unanimously,
The Government of the Federal Republic of Yugosla-
The Court issued these provisional measures in response via (Serbia and Montenegro) should immediately, in
1.a suit initiated by Bosnia and Herzegovi.naon 20 March pursuance of its undertaking in the Convention on the
:1993.The Court found that it had prima faciejurisdiction Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of
Continued on next page 9 December 1948,take all measures within its power to (b) That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) has
prevent commission of the crime of genocide; violated andis continuing to violateits legal obligations
toward the people andState of Bosnia and Herzegovina
(2) By 13votes to 1, under the four Geneva Conventions of 1949,their Addi-
The Government of the Federal Republicof Yugosla- tional Protocol I of 1977, the customary international
via (Serbia and Montenegro) shouldin particular ensure laws of war including the Hague Regulations on Land
that any military, paramilitary or irregular armed units Warfare of 1907, and other fundamental principles of
which may be directed or supported by it, as well as any international humanitarian law;
organizations and persons which may be subject to its
control, direction or influence, do not commit any acts (c) That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) has
of genocide,of conspiracyto commitgenocide, ofdirect violated and continuesto violate articles 1,2, 3,, 5, 6,
and public incitement to commit genocide, or of com- 25, 26 and 28 of the Universal Declaration of Human, 23,
plicity in genocide,whether directed againstthe Muslim Rights with respectto the citizensof Bosnia and Herze-
population of Bosnia and Herzegovina or against any
other national, ethnical, racial or religious group; govina;
IN FAVOUR: President Sir Robert Jennings; Vice- (d) That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), in
President Oda; Judges Ago, Schwebel, Bedjaoui, Ni, breach of its obligations under general and customary
Evensen, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen,Aguilar Mawdsley, international law, haskilled, murdered, wounded, raped,
Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Ajibola; robbed, tortured, kidnapped, illegallydctained and ex-
AGAINSTJ:udge Tarassov; terminated the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and
is continuing to do so;
B. Unanimously, (e) Thatin itstreatment ofthe citizens of Bosnia and
The Government ofthe Federal Republicof Yugosla- Herzegovina, Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) has
via (Serbia and Montenegro)andthe Government ofthe violated, andis continuing to violate, its solemn obliga-
Republicof Bosniaand Herzegovinashouldnottake any tions under Articles 13), 55and 56ofthc Charter of the
action and should ensure that no action is taken which United Nations;
may aggravate or extend the existing dispute over the (f) That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) has
prevention or punishment of the crime of genocide, or used and is continuing to use force and the threat of
render it more difficult of solution." force against Bosnia and Herzegovina in violation of
Articles 2 (I), 2 (2), 2 (3), 2 (4) and 33 (1) of the Charter
of the United Nations;
(g) That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), in
breach of its obligations under general and customary
international law, has used and is using force and the
Judge Tarassov appendeda.declarationto the Order. threat of force against Bosnia and Herzegovina;
(h) That ~ugoslavia (Serbia and ~ontenc~ro), in
breach of its obligations under general and customary
international law, has violated and is violating thesov-
In its Order, the Court recalls that on 20 March 1993 ereignty of Bosnia and Herzegovina by:
Bosnia and Herzegovina instituted proceedings against -armed attacks against Bosnia and Herzegovinaby air
Yugoslavia in respectof a dispute concerning alleged vio- and land;
lations by Yugoslavia of the Convention on the Prevention -aerial trespass into Bosnian airspace;
and Punishmentofthe Crime of Genocide. In the Applica- -efforts by direct and indirect means to coerceand in-
tion Bosnia and Herzegovina, basingthejurisdiction of the timidate the Governmentof Bosnia and Herzegovina;
Court on article IX of the Convention for the Prevention (i) That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), in
and Punishmentof the Crime of Genocide, adoptedby the breach of its obligations under general and customary
General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December international law, has intervened andis intervening in
1948 (hereinafter called "the Genocide Convention"), re- the internal affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina;
counti a series of events in Bosnia and Herzegovinafrom 0) That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montencgro), in
April 1992 up to the present day which, in its contention, recruiting, training, arming, equipping, financing, sup-
amount to acts of genocide within the definition given in plying and otherwise encouraging, supporting, aiding,
the Genocide Convention and claims that the acts com- and directing military and paramilitary actions in and
plained of have been committedby former membersof the against Bosnia and Herzegovina by means of itsagents
Yugoslav People's Army (YPA) and by Serb military and and surrogates, has violated andis violating its express
paramilitary forces under the direction of, at the behest of, charterandtreatyobligationsto Bosnia andHerzegovina
and with assistance from Yugoslavia, and that Yugoslavia and,inparticular, its charter andtreaty obligations under
is therefore fully responsible under international law for Article 2 (4)oftheCharter ofthe United Nations,aswell
their activities. as its obligations under general and customary interna-
tional law;
The Court refers to the submissions of Bosnia and Her- (k) That under the circumstances set forth above,
zegovina, which requeststhe Court to adjudge and declare: Bosnia and Herzegovina hasthe sovereign right to de-
"(a) That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) has fend itself and its people under4rticle51of the Charter
breached, and is continuing to breach, its legal obliga- and c:ustomaryinternational law, including by means of
tions towards the people and State of Bosniaand Herze- immediately obtaining military weapons, equipment,
govina underarticles I,I1(a), I1(b), I1(c), I1(4,111 (a), supplies and troops from other States;
111(b), 111(c), 111(d), 111(e), IV and V of the Genocide (I) That under the circumstances set forth above,
Convention; Bosn.iaand Herzegovina has the sovereign right under Article 51 of the Charter and customary international -from all supportof any kind-including the provision
law to request the immediate assistance of any State to of training, arms, ammunition, finances, supplies,
cometo itsdefence, i~lcludingby militaq means (weap-, assistance, directionor any other form of support-to
ons, equipment supplies, troops, etc.); any nation, group,organization,movementor individ-
(m) That Security Council resolution 713 (1991), ual engagedor planning to engage in militaryor para-
imposingaweaponsernbargoupontheformerYugoslavia,. military actions inor against Bosnia and Herzegovina;
must be construed in a manner that shall not impairthe (r) ha t ugoslavia (Serbiaand~ontene~ro) hasan
inherent right of individual or collectivelf-defence of' obligation to pay Bosnia and Herzegovina, in its own
Bosnia and Herzegovina underthe terms ofArticle51 of' right and asparens patriae for its citizens, reparations
the Charter and therules of customary international law; for damages to persons and property as well as to the
Bosnian economy and environment causedby the fore-
that refer to orreaffi~mresolution 713 (1991) must bens going violations of international law in a sum to be
construed in a manner that shall not impa.irthe inherent determined by the Court. Bosnia and Herzegovina re-
right of individual or collective self-defence of Bosnia serves the right to introduce to the Court a precise
and Herzegovina undlerthe terms of A11:icle51 of the evaluationofthe damages caused by Yugoslavia (Serbia
Charter and the rules of customary international law; and Montenegro)".
(0) That Security Council resolution?13 (1991) and The Court further refersto the request made by Bosnia
all subsequent Security Council resolulions referring and Herzegovina (also on 20 March 1993) for the indica-
thereto or reaffirming;thereof must not be construedto tion of the following provisional measures:
imposeanarmsembargo upon BosniaanclHerzegovina, "1. That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), to-
as required by Articles 24 (1) and 51of the Charterand gether with its agents and surrogates in Bosnia and
inaccordance withthe:customary doctrine:ofultra vires; elsewhere, must immediately cease and desist fromall
@) That pursuant to the right of cc)llective self- acts of genocide and genocidal acts against the people
defence recognized by Article51oftheCharter,allother and Stateof Bosnia and Herzegovina, including but not
Statesparties to the Charter have the rightto cometo the limited to murder; summary executions; torture; rape;
immediate defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina-at its mayhem; so-called 'ethnic cleansing'; the wanton dev-
request-including by means of immediately providing astation of villages, towns, districts and cities; the siege
it with weapons, military equipment and supplies, and of villages, towns, districts and cities; the starvation of
armed forces (soldiers, sailors, airpeople, etc.); the civilian population; the interruptionof, interference
(q) That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) and with,orharassmentofhumanitarian relief suppliestothe
itsagentsand surrogat:esare under an obligationto cease civilian population by the international community;
and desist immediately fromits breaches of the forego- the bombardment of civilian population centres; and
ing legal obligations, and is under a particular duty to the detention of civilians in concentration camps or
cease and desist immediately: otherwise;
2. That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) must
-from its systematic practice of so-called 'ethnic immediately ceaseand desist fromproviding, directlyor
cleansing' of the citizens and sovereign territory of indirectly, any type of support-including training,
Bosnia and Herzegovina; weapons,arms,ammunition,supplies,assistance,finances,
-from the murder, summary execution, torture, rape, direction or any other form of support-to any nation,
kidnapping, mayhem, wounding,physi~:aland mental group, organization, movement, militia or individual
abuse, and detention of the citizens of Bosnia and engagedinorplanningto engagein military orparamili-
Herzegovina; tary activitiesinor againstthepeople, State and Govern-
-from the wanton devastation of villages, towns, dis- ment of Bosnia and Herzegovina;
tricts, cities, and religious institutionsin Bosnia and 3. That Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) itself
Herzegovina; must immediately ceaseanddesist fromanyandalltypes
of military orparamilitary activities by its own officials,
-from the bombardment of civilian population centres agents, surrogates, or forces in or against the people,
in Bosniaand Herzegovina, and especiallyits capital, State and Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and
Sarajevo; from any other use orthreat of force in its relations with
-from continuing the siege of any civilian population Bosnia and Herzegovina;
centres in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and especiallyits
capital, Sarajevo; 4. Thatunderthecurrent circumstances, theGovern-
ment of Bosnia and Herzegovina has the right to seek
-from the starvation of the civilian population in Bos- and receive support from other States in orderto defend
nia and Herzegovina; itself and its people, including by meansof immediately
.-from the interruption of, interference with,or harass- obtaining military weapons, equipment and supplies;
ment of humanitarian relief supplies to the citizens 5. Thatunderthecurrent circumstances, theGovern-
of Bosnia and Herz,egovinaby the international com- ment of Bosnia and Herzegovinahasthe rightto request
munity; the immediate assistance of any State to come to its
,-from all use of force-whether direct or indirect, defence, including by means of immediately providing
overt or covert-against Bosnia and Herzegovina, weapons, military equipment and supplies, and armed
and from all threats of force against Bosnia and Her- forces (soldiers, sailors,airpeople, etc.);
6. That under the current circumstances, any State
zegovina; hasthe rightto cometothe immediate defenceof Bosnia
.-from all violationsof the sovereignty, territorial integ- and Herzegovina-at its request-including by means
rity or political independence of Bosn.iaand Herze- of immediately providing weapons, military equipment
govina, including all intervention, direst or indirect, and supplies, and armed forces (soldiers, sailors, and
in the internal affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina; airpeople, etc.)". The Court also refers tothe recommendation by Yugo- tion of the Court mightbe established; and thatthis con-
slavia (in written observationson the request for provi- sideration embracesjurisdiction bothrationepersonae and
sional measures, submitted on 1April 1993)thatthe Court ratione materiae.
ordertheapplicationof thefollowing provisionalmeasures: The Court then refers to the indication by Bosnia and
"--to instructthe authoritiescontrolledby A. Izetbegovic Herzegovina inthe Application thatthe "continuity" of
to comply strictly with the latest agreement on a Yugoslavia with the former Socialist Federal Republio cf
cease-fire in the 'Republic of Bosnia and Herze- Yugoslavia,a Memberofthe United Nations,has beencon-
govina' which wentinto force on 28 March 1993; tested by the entire international community, includingthe
-to direct the authorities underthe control ofA. Izet- UnitedNationsSecurity Council (cf. resolutio7 n77 (1992))
and General Assembly (cf. resolution 47/1). After citing
begovic to respect the Geneva Conventions for the the texts of the above-mentioned resolutions of the Secu-
Protection of Victims ofWar of 1949 and the 1977 rity Council and General Assembly,as well as the text of
Additional Protocols thereof,since the genocide of a letterfiom the Legal Counsel of the United Nationsto
Serbs living in the 'Republicof Bosnia and Herze-
govina' is being camed out by the commission of the Permanent Representativesto the United Nationsof
very serious warcrimes which are in violationof the Bosnia and Herzegovinaand Croatia, which contains the
obligation notto infringe upon the essential human "conside:redviewofthe United Nations Secretariat regard-
rights; ing the practical consequencesof the adoptionbythe Gen-
-to instruct the authorities loyalto A. Izetbegovicto eral Assomblyof resolution4711 ", and noting that the solu-
close immediately and disband all prisons and deten- tion adopted thereinis not free from legal difficulties,the
tion camps in the 'Republic of Bosnia and Herze- Court observes thatthe question whetherornot Yugoslavia
govina' in whichthe Serbsarebeing detained because is a Memberof the United Nationsand as such a partyto
of their ethnic origin and subjectedto acts of torture, the Statute of the Court is one which the Court does not
thus presenting areal danger fortheir life and health; need to determine at the presentstage of the proceedings.
Article 35 of the Statute, after providing that the Court
-to directthe authorities controlled byA. Izetbegovic shall be opento the partiesto the Statute, continues:
to allow, without delay, theSerb residents to leave
safely Tuzla, Zenica, Sarajevoand otherplaces in the "2. The conditions under which theCourt shall be
'Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina', where they sions containedin treaties in force,be tlaid downby thei-
have been subjectto harassment and physical and Security Council, but in no case shall suchconditions
mental abuse, and havingin mind thattheymay suffer place the parties in a position of inequality before the
the same fate as the Serbs in eastern Bosnia, which Court. "
was the site of the killing and massacres of a few
thousand Serb civilians; TheCourt therefore considersthatproceedings may validly
-to instruct the authorities loyalto A. Izetbegovicto be instituted by a State against a State whichis a party to
cease immediately anyfurther destruction of Ortho- sucha special provision in a treaty in force, buits notparty
dox churches and placesof worship and ofother Serb to the Statute, and independentlyof the conditions laid
cultural heritage, andto releaseand stop further mis- down by the Security Council; that a compromissory
clause in a multilateral convention, suchas article IX of
treatmentof all Orthodox priests being in prison; the Genocide Convention, reliedon by Bosnia and Herze-
-to direct the authorities underthe control ofA. Izet- govina inthe present case,in the viewof the Court, canbe
begovic to put an end to all acts of discrimination regarded prima facie as such a "special provision"; that
based on nationality or religion andthe practice of accordinglyif BosniaandHerzegovina and Yugoslavia are
'ethnic cleansing', including the discrimination relat- both partiesto the Genocide Convention, disputes to which
ing to the delivery of humanitarian aid, against the articleIX applies are inany event prima facie withinthe
Serb population in the 'Republicof Bosniaand Her- jurisdiction rationepersonae of the Court.
zegovina'. "
Oral observations were presentedbythe Parties at public
hearings held on 1 and 2 April 1993.
The Court beginsby considering Yugoslavia's claim in
its written observations that the legitimacy and mandato ef The Courtthen turnsto the considerationof itsjurisdic-
the Governmentand the President of Bosnia and Herze- tion ratione materiae; article IX of the Genocide Conven-
govina are disputed. The Court observes that the Agentof tion, upon which Bosnia and Herzegovinain its Applica-
Bosnia and Herzegovina stated that President Izetbegovic tion claimsto found thejurisdictionof the Court, provides
is recognizedby the United Nationsasthe legitimateHead that
of State of the Republicof Bosnia and Herzegovina; that
the Court has been seisedof the case on the authority of a "Disputes between theContracting Parties relatingto
Head of State, treatedas such inthe United Nations; that the interpretation, applicationor fulfilment of the pres-
the power of a Head of State to act on behalfof the State ent (:onvention, including those relating to the respon-
in its international relationsis universally recognized; and sibilityofa Stateforgenocideorforanyoftheotheracts
that accordingly the Court may, for the purposes of the enumerated in article111s ,hallbe submittedto the Inter-
national Court of Justice at the request of any of the
present proceedings on a requestfor provisional measures, parties to the dispute."
acceptthe seisin as the act of that State. The Court observes that the former Socialist Federal
Turningto the questionofjurisdiction, the Court recalls Republic of Yugoslavia signedthe Genocide Convention
that it ought notto indicate provisional measures unless the on 11December 1948,anddeposited an instrumentof rati-
provisions invoked bythe Applicantorfoundinthe Statute fication, without reservation, on29 August 1950;andthat
appear, prima facie,to afford a basison which thejurisdic- both Parties to the present case correspond to parts ofthe territory of the former Socialist Federal Republicof is confined to the consideration of such rights underthe
Yugoslavia. Genocide Conventionas might form the subject-matterof
The Court proceedsto considertwo instruments:a dec:- a Judgment of the Court inthe exerciseof itsjurisdiction
liiration whereby (the present) Yugoslavia, on27 April under articleIX of that Convention.
1992, proclaimedits indentionto honour t:heinternational The Court notes thatthe Applicant claims thatacts of
treaties of the former Yugoslavia, anda "Notice of Suc:- genocide have been committed, andwill continue to be
cession" to theGenocitleConvention depositedby Bosnia committed, against, in particular, the Muslim inhabitants
and Herzegovinaon 29 December 1992. Yugoslaviacon.- of Bosniaand Herzegovinaand that the facts stated in the
tended that BosniaandHerzegovina should be heldto have Application show that Yugoslaviais committing acts of
acceded (not succeededt)o theConvention with effect,unde:r genocide,bothdirectly andbymeansofitsagents andsurro-
gates, and that there isnoreasonto believe that Yugoslavia
article XIthereof, onlyas from the ninetieth day following will voluntarily desist frothis courseof conduct whilethe
the depositof its instrument,so that the Court would pos-
sessjurisdiction, if at all, only subjectto a temporal limi- case is pending beforethe Court; and that the Respondent
tation. The Court, however, considers it unnecessary to observes that the situationis not one of aggressionby one
pronounce uponthis contentionin deciding whetherto in- Stateagainst another, buta civil war,and that Yugoslavia
d:icateprovisional mea:iures,when it is concernednot so has not committed anyacts of genocide, atthe sametime
much with the pastas with the presentand.future. Onthe requesting the Court"to establish the responsibilityof the
biasisof the two instrurr~entthe Courtfind!;that article IIC authorities" of Bosnia and Herzegovina for actsof geno-
of the Genocide Convention appears to afforda basis on cide against theSerbpeople in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
which thejurisdictionofthe Court mightbe:foundedto the The Court observes that, pursuantto article I of the
extent thatthe subject-matterof the dispute relatesto "the Genocide Convention, all partiesto that Convention have
in~terpretationa,pplication or fulfilment" of the Conven- undertaken"to prevent and to punish" the crimeof geno-
tion, including disputes "relatingto the responsibilityofa cide; andthat inthe viewofthe Court, in the circumstances
State for genocideor for any of the otheracts enumerated broughtto its attention and outlined abovein whichthere
in.article111"of the Convention. is a grave riskof actsof genocide being committed, Yugo-
slavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, whetheror not any
such actsin the past maybe legally imputableto them,are
undera clear obligationto do all in their powerto prevent
the commissionof any such actsin the future.
Having further examineda document which in Bosnia The Court further observes that,in the context of the
and Herzegovina's submission constituted an additional present proceedingson a request for provisional measures,
bsais ofjurisdiction of the Court inthis case, namelya let- it cannotmakedefinitive findings of factor ofimputability
ter, dated 8 June 1992, addressedto the President of the and that it isnot called upon nowto establish the existence
Arbitration Commissio~lof the International Conference of breaches of the Genocide Conventionby either Party,
on the former Yugoslavia by the Presideno t f the Republic but to determine whether the circumstances require the in-
of Montenegro andthe Presidentofthe Republicof Serbia,, dicationof provisional measuresto betaken by the Parties
the Court finds itself unableto regard that letteras consti-. forthe protectionofrights under the Genocide Convention.
tuting a prima facie basisofjurisdiction intlhepresent case: The Court thenfindsthat itis satisfied, taking into account
antdmust proceed therefore onthe basis only that it has the obligation imposed by articleI of the Genocide Con-
prima faciejurisdiction, both rationepersonae and rationtr vention, that the indicationof measures is required forthe
mnteriae, under article1Xof the Genocide Convention. protectionof such rights.
With regardto itsjurisdiction, the Court finally observes
thiatthe objectionby Yugoslaviato the effectthat "it would From the information available to it, the Courits also
satisfied that thereis a grave risk of action being taken
be premature and inappropriate for the Courtto indicate which may aggravate the existing dispute or render it
pr,ovisionalmeasures" whilethe Security Council is acting more difficultofsolution. The Court furthermorere-echoes
in the matterunderArticle 25 andChapter VI:[oftheCharter the words of the General Assembly which ithad already
is primarily addressedto those measures whichgo beyond cited in 1951, to the effect that the crime of genocide
matters within the scopc:of the Genocide Convention and "shocks the conscienceof mankind, resultsin great losses
wliichfor that reason the Court cannotcon~~ider I.t recalls to humanity .. .and is contraryto moral law and to the
that in any eventthe Council has functions.of a political spirit andaims of the United Nations".
nature assigned to it,w:hereasthe Court exercises purely
judicial functions, and that both organs can therefore per-
form their separate but complementary fimctions with
respect to the same events.
The Court finallyobservesthat the decision given inthe
present proceedingsin no way prejudges the questionof
the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the meritsof the
caseor any questions relatingto the merits themselves,and
.Aftersumming upthe rights which.Bosnia and Herze- leaves unaffected the rightof the Governmentsof Bosnia
govina and Yugoslavia seekto have protectedby the indi- and Herzegovina and Yugoslavia to submit arguments in
cation of provisional measures,the Court observes that it respectof suchjurisdiction or suchmerits. DeclarationofJudge Tarassov provisions thereofare very close to a prejudgment of the
merits in that theyare open to the interpretation thatYugo-
Judge Tarassov supports the provisional measures indi- slavia is indeed, or at least may very well be, involved in
catedbythe Courtinparagraph 52A (I )nd paragraph52B acts of genocide; second, because of the lack of balance in
of its Order. He is, however, of the opinion that the Couthese provisions which single out one element of the popu-
shouldhaveindicatedthesamemeasuresin respectofBosnia lation of Bosnia and Herzegovina for protection; and third,
and Herzegovinaas it has done in respect of Yugoslavia inbecause of the impracticabilityof what is demanded from
the above-mentioned paragraph 52A (1). Yugoslavia; in this last respect the Court shouldnot imply
To his regret, he is unable to vote in favourof paragraphat Yugoslavia may have responsibility for the commis-
52A (2) of the Order, for three reasons:first, because theon of acts which in fact may be beyond its control.
Summary of the Order of 8 April 1993