,...--------~~----------.,---------- ---------
Pursuant to Article 80, para. 3 of the Rules of the Court, within the time
limit fixedby the letter of the Registrar of the Court, dated 10 October
1997,the Federal Republic ofYugoslavia has the honour to submit to the
~· International Courtof Justice the following
'
STATEMENT
1.Introduction
1.1. Within the tirne-limit fixed by the Order of the Court of 23 July
1996, the Federal Republic Yugoslavia filed the Counter-Memorial,
dated 23 July 1997 in the Case conceming Application ofthe Convention
on the Prevention and Punisbment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia
and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), instituted by the Application of the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, dated 20 March 1993. The
Counter-Memorial includes a counter-clairn.
1.2. A.H.J. van den Biesen, having signed as Deputy Agent of the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina by his letter of 28 July 1997,
informedthe Court that:
The Applicant is of the opinion that the Counter
Claim submitted by the Respondent on 23 July 1997 does
not meet the criterion of Article 80, paragraph 1, of the
Rules of Court and should therefore not be joined to the
original proceedings.
1.3.Acting upon instruction of the Court, the Registrar in its letter of 26
September 1997 invited the Govemrnent of the Applicant to specify in
writing... the legal ground on which this opinion is based.
1
~·f 1.4. The Applicant responded by its letter of 9 October 1997, expressing
its views on the issue.
1.5.This Statement argues that the views and request of the Applicant on
the issue are not based on the facts and a proper understandingArticle80, para 1 of the Rules of Court and, consequently, the Court should
dismiss them.
:1
! ...
2. Traditional Forensic Civility, in the Practice of the International Court '
o' Justice .,.
2.1. lt is the well established custom in the proceedings before the Court
that parties to a dispute, and their representatives, should address each
other with full respect. Having this in mind, as weil as the principles of
international law, the Applicant is invited to address the Respondent by
using its correct name: the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The
mentioning of Serbia and Montenegro in brackets should be deleted. The
Respondent hopes that the Applicant will meet this request. If not, the
Respondent expects the Court to take appropriate action.
~-Th claim and counter-claim submitted by the parties respectively
3 .1.The last Submissions presented by the Applicant in its Memorial of
]'5April1994 read as follows:
:j
On the basis of the evidence and legal arguments
presented in this Memorial, the Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina,
Requests the International Court of Justice to adjudge and
declare,
1. That the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ...
1 direct/y, or through the use of its surrogates, has violated
1 and is violating the Convention on the Prevention and
1 .
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, by destroying in part,
' and attempting to destroy in whole, national, ethnical or
religious groups within the, but not limited to the, territory
of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including in \,,
particular the Muslimpopulation, by (.
- killing members of the group;
- causing deliberate bodily or mental harm to
members of the group;
2 ---~~----~--- -- -----~---------
- deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of
!ife calculated ta bring about its physical destruction zn
whole or inpart;
- imposing measures intended to prevent births
within the group.
2. That the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ... has
violated and is violating the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by conspiring ta
commit genocide, by complicity in genocide, by attempting
ta commit genocide and by incitement to commit genocide;
3. That the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ... has
violated and is violating the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by aiding and
abetting individuals and groups engaged in acts of
genocide;
4. That the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ...·has
violated and is violating the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by virtue of
having failed ta prevent and to punish acts of genocide;...
(Memorial, pp. 293- 294)
3.2. The Federal Republic ofYugoslavia has responded by the following
submissions presented in its Counter-Memorial of23 July 1997:
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requests the
International Court ofJustice to adjudge and declare:
1. ln view of thefact that no obligations established by the
1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide have been violated with regard to
Muslims and Croats
- since the acts alleged by the Applicant have not been
committed at al!, or not to the extent and in the way alleged
by the Applicant, or
- if sorne have been committed, there was absolutely no
intention of committing genocide, and/or
3 - they have not been directed specifically against the
members of one ethnie or religious group, i.e. they have not
been committedagainst individuals just because they belong
to sorneethnie or religious group, ..
consequent/y, they cannat be qualified as acts of genocide
or other acts prohibited by the 1948 Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,
and/or
2. In view of the fact that the acts alleged by the Applicant
in its submissions cannat be attributed to the Federal
Republic ofYugoslavia,
- since they have not been committed by the organs of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
- since they have not been committed on the territory of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
- since theyhave not'been committed by the arder or under
control of the organs of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
- since there is no other grounds based on the ru/es of
international law to consider them as acts of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia,
therefore the Court rejects al/ claims of the Applicant, and
3. Bosnia and Herzegovina is responsible for the acts of
;, genocide committed against the Serbs in Bosnia and
,[
,, Herzegovina and for other violations of the obligations
established by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
- because it has incited acts of genocide by the ''Islamic
Declaration", and in particular by the position contained in
it that " "there can be no peace or coexistence between
,,
,l, 'Islamic faith' and 'non-Islamic' social and political
institutions",
'1,
'1
4 - because it has incited acts of genocide by the "Novi Vox",
paper of the Muslim youth, and in parti cu/ar by the verses
of a "Patriotic Song" which read asfollows:
"Dear mother, l'rngoing taplant willows,
We'llhang Serbsfrom them.
Dear mother, l'rngoing to sharpen knives,
We 'Isaon jilpits again".
- because it has incited acts of genocide by the paper "Zmaj
od Bosne", and in particular by the sentence in an article
published in it that "Each Muslim must name a Serb and
take oath tokili him";
- because public calls for the execution of Serbs were
broadcast on radio "Hajat" and thereby acts of genocide
were incited;
- because the armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as
weil as other organs of Bosnia and Herzegovina have
committed acts of genocide and other acts prohibited by the
1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide, against the Serbs in Bosnia and
Herzegovina, which have been stated in Chapter Seven of
the Counter - Memorial;
- because Bosnia and Herzegovina has not prevented the
acts of genocide and other acts prohibited by the 1948
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide, against the Serbs on its territory, which have
been stated in Chapter Seven of the Counter-Memorial.
4. Bosnia and Herzegovina has the obligation to punish the
persans hdd responsible for the acts of genocide and other
acts prohibited by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention
... and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
5. Bosnia and Herzegovina is bound to take necessary
measures so that the said acts would not be repeated in the
future.
5 6. Bosnia and Herzegovina is bound to eliminate al/
consequences of the violation of the obligations established
by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide and provide adequate
compensation. (Counter-Memorial,pp. 1083 - 1085)
3.3. The counter-claim appears as items 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the submissions
inthe Counter-Memorial.
3.4. Accordingly, the Applicant contends that there are breaches of the
obligations under the Genocide Convention and that these breaches are
attributable to the Respondent. Consequently, according to the Applicant
there are crimes of genocide and other acts prohibited by the Genocide
Convention committed against the Muslim and non-Serb population and
these acts and/or failures to prevent them are attributable to the
Respondent.
3 .5. On the other hand, the Respondent denies the existence of the
alleged breaches.It denies,inter aliathe existence of crimes of genocide
and other acts prohibited by the Genocide Convention committed
against non~Ser pbpulation. lt denies also that the alleged acts
presented by the Applicant, even if they had been committed, can be
attributed to the Respondent.
3 .6. The Respondent asserts by its counter-claim that there are acts of
public and direct incitement to commit genocide against the Serbs, that
there are crimes of genocide committed against the Serbs, and that the
concerned acts are attributable to the Applicant, and requests the Court to
establish the responsibility Bosnia and Herzegovina.
3.7. The facts on which the counter-claim is based are presented by the
PartTwo, Chapter VII, of the Counter-Memorial.
3.8. The claim and the counter-claim are based on the same legal ground:
the Genocide Convention and general rules ofState responsibility.
6 4. The disputed facts of the claim and counter-claim are the facts of the
same tragic conflict, i.e. civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which
happened in a single territorial and temporal setting, based on the same
historical background and within the framework of the same political
development. Due to that reason as weil as to the same legal ground of
the claim and the counter-claim, ali relevant facts which form the basis
of claim and counter-claim are interrelated in such a way to make a
factual and legal connection relevant to the issue.
4.1. The requestof the Respondent submitted to the Court to dismiss the
daim of the Applicant is based, inter alia,on the facts which are the
basis of the counter-claim.
4.2.By its letter of 9 October 1997, the Applicant alleges that there is no
connection between the counter-claim i.e. Part Two, Chapter VII of the
Counter-Memorial and Part One of the Counter-Memorial.
La deuxième partie du contre-mémoire est parfaitement
autonome de la première ... (para 3 of the letter of9 October
1997, p. 4)
4.3. The Applicant said:
... En effet, de l'aveu mêmede celle-ci, sa 'demande
reconventionnelle' n'a aucun rapport avec l'objet de la
demande initiale, contrairement a ce qu'exige l'article 80 du
Règlement. Elle n'a non plus le moindre role àjouer dans
l'évaluation du bien-fondé de la demande initiale, et
inversement. Le sort judiciaire de l'une ne saurait
conditionner ou influencer le sort de l'autre de quelque
facon que ce soit. ... (para 3 of the letter of 9 October 1997,
p. 6)
.. 4.4. Quite the opposite, there is a direct connection between Part Two of
the Counter-Memorial i.e. the counter-claim and Part One of the
Counter-Memorial, i.e. the defence ofthe Respondent. The counter-claim
and the subject-matter of the daim are directly cmmected. The facts on
which the counter-claim is based and which are contained in Part Two,
Chapter VII of the Counter-Memorial are of crucial importance to
7answer the question of attribution to the Respondent of acts alleged by
the Applicant. They are also relevant for qualification of the acts alleged
by the Applicant as crimesf genocide.
4.5. Consequently, the following assertion of the Applicant is not based
on the facts of the Case:
Les faits soumis b.l'attention de la Cour par la
Yougoslavie, au moyen de sa 'demandereconventionnelle',
sont totalement diff~r deeceuxssur lesquels est baséela
demande initiale de la Bosnie-Herzégovine. Ceci implique
alors que, si les deux demandes Jtaientjointes dans le même
proces devant la Cour, lejuge devrait de toutefaçon vJrijier
sépardment les faits allégues ex edverso et examiner
skparéments'ils constituent, au regard de la Convention sur
le génocide, des comportements illicitesimputables,
respectivement,a l'une ou a l'autre Partie. Il va de soi,
cependant, que l'etudede chacune des deux skries defaits ne
serait d'aucune aide dans l'analyse judicaire de l'autre
serie et ne saurait en influencer les résultats de quelque
manière que ce soit: la Yougoslavie, d'ailleurs, se garde
bien d'alléguerle contraire. (para 3 of the letter of 9
October 1997,pp. 4-5)
5. The facts which are the basis of the counter-claim are relevant for th.e
decision on the daim of the Applicant conceming the attribution of
alleged acts to the Respondent.
;
5.1. A careful reading of the Counter-Memorial will disclose that sorne
identical facts are presented as a basis for denying the allegation
Applicant which are, according to its view relevant for attribution
alleged acts to the Respondent and as a basis for the counter-clalt.
seems necessary to draw attention to the said facts.
5.2. The Applicant has devoted one of the chapters of the Memorial to
·the context of the acts, including stories about the ideology of Greater
Serbia and RAM, believing, probably, that it could be of sorne
relevance for attributability of alleged acts to the Respondent. The said
chapter ends with the following conclusion:
8 these atrocities are .the ultimate and inevitable
outcome of the Greater Serbian ideals as promoted by the
Serbian leadership and their desire to create an ethnically
pure Serbian state. (Memorial, para 2.3.9.1, p. 94)
5.3. The Respondent has denied the quoted conclusion. In para 2.1.1.1.
of the introduction to Chapter II of the Counter-Memorial, p. 111, the
Respondent said:
The Applicant's thesis that a "Greater Serbian"
ideology is the cause of everything that has happened in the
former Yugoslav Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, including
the alleged genocide of Muslims, is entirely unfounded.
Developments in Bosnia-Herzegovina are the result of
internaifactors.
5.4. The Respondent has also denied that the Republic of Srpska, its
organs and officiais, its citizens or any individuals, were agents or
surrogates of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, i.e. that they had
committed the alleged acts under orders ofthe organs of the Respondent.
To negate the assertion of the Applicant conceming the context of the
acts and relationship of agency between the Republic of Srpska, its
organs, citizens or other individuals, and the FR of Yugoslavia, the
Respondent referred to facts which strongly influenced the attitude of
the Serb people in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
5.5. The Respondent in fact began the presentation of the said facts with
a quotation from the relevant partsof the Jslamic declaration in para 2.9.
of Part One, Chapter II of the Coun~er-Memorial:
2.9.1.2. 1 One of the most important concepts
presented by A. Izetbegovic in the "lslamic Declaration" is
the unity of religion and politics. Proceeding from this
concept, Izetbegovic arrives at his "first and most important
conclusion". The third paragraph of the "Islamic
Declaration", under the heading "Islam is not only a
religion", reads:
1 Numberof paragraph appeared in the Counter-Memorial
9 "Thefirst and the most importantof these conclusions
is definitely the one about the incompatibility of Islam and
non-Jslamicsystems. There can he no peace or coexistence
between the "lslamic faith" and "non-Islamic" social and
political institutions. The failure of these institutions ta
fonction and the instability of regimes in Muslim countries,
manifested in frequent changes and coups d'etat are as a
rulethe consequenceof their apriori opposition to Islam as
thefondamental and guiding feeling of the people in these
countries. Claiming for itself the right to regulate its own
world, Islam c/early ru/es out any right or possihility of
action of anyforeign ideology on its turf. Namely, there is
no roomfor the lay principle and the state should be an
expression of the moral concepts of religion and
supportive of them" (Bold type is ours) (Counter
Memorial,Part One, p. 141)
5.6. The Counter-Memorial (para 2.8.1.2, p. 134) referred to the fact that
Mr Izetbegovic was among a few individuals judged and sentenced by
Yugoslav courts in 1984 for their illegal activities associated with
preparations for the transformation of civil society of Bosnia and
Herzegovina into religious Islamic society. It also indicated that the
Islamic declaration was published and distributed again in 1990 in the
eve of the civil war in Bosnia and Herzegovina. These facts are very
relevant for deciding on whether the Serb people acted under the orders
of the Yugoslav authorities to create an ethnically pure Greater Serbia or
spontaneously to protect itself.Itis connected with other facts, presented
in the Counter-Memorial, in particular with the genocide committed by
the Croat-Muslim coalition against the Serbs during the Second World
War and with the renewal of the same Croat-Muslim coalition in Bosnia
Herzegovina in 1991.
5.7. Effectsof the renewal ofthe Croat-Muslim coalition to the attitude
of the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina cannat be properly understood ..
without knowledge of the following facts presented by the Counter
Memorial:
2.17.1.1. With the Nazi occupation of Yugoslavia
early in April 1941 Bosnia and Herzegovina were
incorporated byforce into the Independent State of Croatia,
10a satellite state led by the Croatian fascists - the Ustashi,
whose head was Dr. Ante Pavelic. A massive campaign of
conversion to Catholicism and of genocide was mounted in
that state...ln the organized genocide Serbs, Jews and
Gypsies, severa! hundred thousand people were ki!led...
2.17.1. 7. lntensified propaganda was employed
throughout the war, especially by religious factors (Muslim
and Catholic) ta incite ta crimes against the Serb people in
Bosnfa and Herzegovina with a view to carrying out the
general strategy of the lndependent State of Croatia (NDH)
for solving the Serbian question: kil! a third, expel a third
and convert a third ta Catholicism or to Islam. By their
cruelty and massive scale, crimes in Bosnia and
Herzegovina did not differ from those in Croatia itself,
especially in primitive religiously fanatic Muslim
communities. Thus for example crimes in Herzegovina,
where the Chief ustashi Commissioner was the Muslim Ali}a
Suljak, started as early as 1 June 1941 and saon reached
unheard-of proportions. In what are known as the three
waves of carnage of the Orthodox population (in June, on
the holiday ofSt. Vitus'day (Vidovdan) and on the holiday of
St. Elias's day (1/indan) in 1941, a/most 12,000 men, women
and children of Serb nationality were ki/led, slaughtered
and thrown into pifs. In the pit near the village of Korito
near Gacko a/one, /60 Serbs were killed and their property
was appropriated by Muslims.
2.17.1.8. At the same time, in severa! villages near
Ljubinje, theUstashi ki/led 143 peasants and threw them in
apit in the village of Kapavica, and somewhat later, on 23
June 1941, in the valley of Popovo Polje they captured and
killed another 168 persans of Serb nationality and threw
them in the pit Rzani do. On 6 August 1941 the Ustashi
threw about five hundred women, children and old men
who were most/y alive in the pit Go/ubinka in Surmanci.
Horrendous massacres and carnage rapidly spread through
Herzegovina. Of 1020 Serb inhabitants of the village of
Prebilovci near Capljina, 824 were subjected to the crime of
genocide by the Ustashi. The pits Rzani do, Pandurica,
Golubinka, Kapavica, Vidovno, Bivolje brdo, Hutovo,
11 Benina ograda, and many others were full of massacred
Serbs at the time. ln the sheds of the military camp at
Nevesinje 137 men, women and children were ki/led in the
carnage on St. Vitus'Day and the Ustashi planted potatoes
on their graves. ln the eastern part of Stara Petrovo Selo
near Stara Gradiska, 25 Serbs in the 35 - 40 years_age
group were killed and this, alongside the adoption of
numerous regulations against the Serbs, was one of the
reasons why the Serbs began to put up resistance...
2.17.1.9. At that time, the Ustashi killed 526 men,
women and children in Capljina and the surrounding
villages, of which 283 persans on the execution site near
Opuzen. At the same time, 450 Serbs from Mostar were
slaughtered, battered to death with clubs or thrown into the
Neretva river. The mass scale of these murders is
gruesomely attested to by the "request of the Croatian
population" from the Neretva river valley ta the highest
authorities of the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), "not
to throw the corpses of killed Serbs into the Neretva and
other rivers ofHerzegovina because theypollute the water".
2.17.1.10. The most massive carnage in the territory
of Bosnia took place in its western regions in August 1941.
ftis estimated that at the end of June over 20,000 Serbs,
among whom a large number of children, were killed in the
districtsof Bihac, Bosanska Krupa and Cazin a/one. About
6,000 people were ki/led in the area of Sanski Most and
another 6,000 in the area of the districts of Prijedor and
Bosanski Novi. Only in Bosanska Krupa, on 31 July 1941,
the Ustashi killed severa! hundred Serbs (men, women and
children) and the day after, in the general "cleansing" of
that district, afurther 1,000 persans ofSerb nationality.
..
5.8. The counter-claim presented in Part Two of the Counter-Memorial
begin with para 7.0. referring to direct and public incitement to commit
genocide. The relevant paragraphs read:
7.0.1.O.The acts of direct and public incitement to commit
- genocide have been made, inter alia, by 'Jslamic
12 Declaration ', newspapers 'Novi Vox' and 'Zmaj od Bosne'
(Dragon of Bosnia), as weil as by Radio Hajat.
7.0.1.1. By its position that 'there can be no peace or
coexistence between 'Islamicfaith' and 'non-lslamic' social
and political institutions' the 'Islamic Declaration' has
incited armed actions and extermination of the Serbian
population because they do not profess Jslamic religion, i.e.
because they belong to other religion... {Counter-Memorial,
Part Two, p. 349)
5.9. The same fact, i.e. the quoted part of the !stamic Declaration is a
basis of counter-claim. Indeed, the Applicant has never withdrawn the
text of the Islamic Declaration from public distribution,_nor has it
deleted the quoted part of it. The Applicant has never punished
responsible individuals. At the end, the quoted part of the Islamic
Declaration appears in the text of the Submissions (item 3, p. 1084). It
is quite clear that the same fact presented by the Respondent serves as a
defence i.e. to dismiss the daim of the Applicant and as a basis for the
counter-claim.
5.10. Expounding further on the pressures brought to bear on the Serb
people in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Respondent referred to the
magazine Novi Vox, a Muslim youth paper, in Chapter II of the
Counter-Memorial devoted to the considerations of relevance for
attributionof acts to aState:
2.12.1.1. The harassment of the Serb people in
Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1991 with attacks on the SDS
leadership on television and radio, and in newspapers and
magazines published in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The magazine
"Novi Vox", a Muslim youth paper led the attacks...
2.12.1.2. In its third issue in October 1991, "Novi
Vox" published thefallowing ''patriotic"song:
"Dear mother, Pm going ta plant willows,
We'llhang Serbsfrom them.
Dear mother, Pm going ta sharpen knives,
13
_1 We'llsoonfill pits again.
Dear mother, chop sornesa/ad,
And invite our Croat brothers.
When our banners unite,
Ali the Serbs will end in graves. "
During World War ·Two the slogan "Serbs on
Willows" was popular among the Ustashi (Ustashi were
fascist armedformations in the Independent State of Croatia
during World War Two). Serbs should be hangedfrom the
willows. The reference off pits was also supposed to
associate to the suffering of the Serbs in World War Two,
since at that time Croat and Muslim fascists threw
slaughtered or ki/led Serbs into deep pits in the rockyfields
ofB-H).
2.12.1.3. The same issue of "Novi Vox" published
obituaries of the most prominent Serb leaders, including Dr
Radovan Karadzic, Dr Bi/jana Plavsic and Dr Nikola
Koljevic. There is a picture of eut off heads of Serb leaders
on the front page. ftwas an early incitement to commit
genocide... (Counter-Memorial, Part One,p.163)
5.11. In actual fact, such texts would necessarily influence the attitudef
any people against which they are directed. ltshould be borne in mind
that the Serb people had suffered genocide at the hands of the Croat
Muslim fascist coalition in the Second World War.
5.12. The same fact is also a basis for the counter-claim of the
Respondent. The relevant paragraph of Part Two states as follows:
7.0.1.2. The following verses of the "patriotic "song
published in the third issue of"Novi Vox"in October 1991:
"Dear mother, l'm going toplant willows,
We'llhang Serbsfrom them.
Dear mother, l'rngoing to sharpen knives,
We'Il soonfill pits again.
Dear mother, chop sornesa/ad,
And invite our Croat brothers.
14 When our banners unite,
Ail theSerbs will end in graves."
revive a direct and public incitement ta commit genocide
against Serbs from World War Two. The slogan "Srbe na
vrbe" (Hang Serbs on Willows) was used by the Ustasha
Movement in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in the
eve and during World War Two as a public cal! to execution
of Serb civilians. This cal! resulted in a horrible genocide
against Serbs in World War Two. Serb civilians were
slaughtered and thrown into deep pifs in Croatia and
Bosnia and Herzegovina. These crimes were committed by
the members of the Ustasha Movement consisted by the
members of Croatian and Muslim population. The
mentioned verses were an incitement ta renew genocide
against Serbs... (Counter-Memorial, Part Two,p. 349)
5.13. The Applicant has done nothing to prevent the publication of such
writings and it did not punish the individuals responsible. On the
contrary, the cover-page of one of the issues featured appeared a smiling
Alija Izetbegovic reading Novi Vox.
5.14. The quoted verses of the Patriotic song appeared also in the
Submissions, item 3, p.1084ofthe Counter-Memorial. The conclusion is
obvious: The Respondent has invoked the same fact to dismiss the daim
of the Applicant, and also to serve as the basis for the counter-claim.
5.15. To negate the assertions of the Applicant conceming the alleged
involvement of the Yugoslav People's Anny (JNA) in breaches of the
Genocide Convention, the Respondent described the position of the said
Anny in Bosnia and Herzegovina and, in particular the attacks made by
Muslim forces against the Army. ln Part One, Chapter III, para 3.1.3.18
of the Counter-Memorial it is stated:
3.1.3.18 A mechanized JNA column with officers and
soldiers from the garrison of the Second Army District
Command was attacked in Sarajevo on 3 May 1992. The
evacuation was carried out on the basis of an agreement
between Alija Jzetbegovic and the JNA. The agreement was
reached with the mediation of UNPROFOR and the EC
Mission. UNPROFOR participated in the organization of
15---·-···-------------------------------------
the evacuation. Despite this, paramilitary formations of the
Ministry of the Interior and the Territorial Defence of
Bosnia-Herzegovina opened jire in Dobrovoljacka Street
around 6.00 p.m. on the column after the vehicle carrying
Alija Izetbegovic and Lt.-Gen. Mi/utin Kukanjac had passed.
Although no one in the column had given any motive for the
attack, they forced soldiers and o.fficers to get out of the
vehicles, stripped them to their underpants, ordered them to
lie dawn on the asphalt with theirfaces turned to the ground
and kicked them, bit them with rifle butts and shot at them as
they lay there. On this occasion they ki/led Colonels Dr
Budimir Radulovic, Miro Solde, Gradimir Petrovic, Bosko
Mihajlovic and Lt. Colonel Bosko Jovanovic, sa/dier
Zdravko Tomovic and Suko Norme/, a civilian employee of
the the JNA. The attaclŒrsinterrogated sorne of the officers
white they lay on the ground and shot at them with small
arms seriously wounding Colonel Ratko Katalin. Members
of UNPROFOR and the EC Mission watched what was
happening. Colonels Hasan Efendic and Jovan Divjak
watched the doings of their troops all along but did not
intervene. The paramilitary formations of the
Bosnia-Herzegoyina Territorial Defonce then took about
200 o/ficers and soldiers to the police headquarters where
they were mistreated and interro.g.ated by people
commanded by lvica Berovic. in the presence of Goran
Milic. TV director. One Qj the captured soldiers was taken
out and murdered in the basement while insvecto.:.yica
Berovic _interrogated Colonel Slavo{jub Belosevic for 36
hours without interruption. hitting him with truncheons and
a pista! on the face. the kidneys and other parts of his body.
Groups ofcivilians were allowed into theprison and spat at.
pushed and kiclŒdColonel Beloseyic. causin.g him ta /ose
consciousness severa! times. They then took him to another
room, turned on a strong light and directed it an his eyes,
bringing it to within two to three centimetres from his eyes.
They held him in this positionfor 11 hours without a break,
hitting him al/ over his body. His eyes were swollen up and
he could not see at al! for severa! days... (Counter
Memorial, Part One,pp. 255-256)
165.16. The facts of the same event are the basis for the counter-claim and
they are set forth in Part Twoof the Counter-Memorial:
7.2.6.13. SB., a former JNA officer, was captured in
Dobrovoljacka Street in Sarajevo and taken to the Central
Prison. From 3 ta 13 May 1992 he was beaten and
interrogated for hours every day. His interrogators
demanded that he confess to war crimes that he had not
committed. They threatened to eut his throat, liquidate his
farnily and sa on. On a number of occasions they pulled out
his tangue and put a knife to it. He !ost consciousness
frequent/y as a result of the physical torture and starvation
(hewas givenfood once a day, but it was inedible)...
7.2.6.32. G.M, a former JNA conscript serving his
military service in Sarajevo, was captured; disarmed and
imprisoned with other soldiers in the Central Prison, which
was run by Muslims dressed in green uniforms with blue
insignia. For 15 days during May 1992 al! the prisoners
were beaten around the clock every day. They often heard
screams. Paratroopers were particularly bad/y beaten.
Muslim civilians came to this camp and, together with the
guards, beat the prisoners, who were handcuffed to
radiators, with truncheons and rifles.
The witness often saw bodies being taken from the camp,
thrown in a lorry and driven off
Four of his ribs were broken and vision in his left eye was
reduced by 35%. (Counter-Memorial, Part Two, pp. 802,
811)
5.17. In Part One, Chapter III of the Counter-Memorial the Respondent
referred to the attack against the Yugoslav People's Army in Tuzla:
3.1.3.21. On 15 May 1992 at 7.00 p.m., in Skojevska
Street in Tuzla the last JNA column was attacked as it
withdrew from the barracks. In spite of the agreement
concluded between Muslim authorities and the JNA on safe
withdrawal severa! dozens of the JNA members were ki/led
in the attack. ... (Counter-Memorial, Part One, p. 257)
175.18. In Part Two, Chapter VII the facts of the same event are invoked as
the basisfor the counter-claim:
7.1.20.3. On 15 May 1992, in Kozlovac near Tuzla,
140 reserve soldiers of the former JNA, ali Serbs, were
captured. They were taken to the prison camp at Stari
Rudnik near the "Sloboda" FC stadium in Tuzla, where they
were put in ce/lars. They were beaten there every day, and
during the 15 days they spent in this camp about 10 soldiers
were ki/led. (Counter-Memorial, Part Two, p. 502)
5.19. In Part One, Chapter II of the Counter-Memorial the Respondent
referred to the events happened in Visegrad, a town near the border on
the river Drina to reject the allegationsf the Applicant concerning the
attribution of acts to the Respondent, in the following way:
2.13.3.38 In August 1991 a leaflet was circulated
among the Muslims in Visegrad stating: "It is obvious that
we can no longer live at peace with the Serbs and that the
crisis that we find ourseives in cannat be resolved as long
as there is a singleerb living in our Republic. We therefore
have to do everything in our power to get rid of them as
saon and as efficient/y as possible. Before we resort to the
lastargument- arms, we shall try to employ some subtler
methods..." Twenty points followed the statement with
recommended action for the Muslims. Inter alia: "Smash
their car windows and the windows of their houses ";
"Throw garbage on their doorsteps "; "Urinate in their
entrance halls"; "Mark their houses or flats "; "Write
threatening graffiti on their houses or churches ", and
similar.
~ .20. In Part Two, Chapter VII of the Counter-Memorial, i.e. in the
counter-claim, the same facts are, inter alia, invoked as the basis for the
counter-claim:
7.3.16.1.... ln August 1991, Muslims in Visegrad
circulated a leaflet with 20 instructions asto what should be
done to the Serbs in arder to expel or destroy them. Among
others, there were instructions like these: "Forbid your
children to socialise and play with them", "Empty your
18 garbage in front of their doors ", " Urinate in their gates ",
"Mark their houses andjlats ", "Write threatening graffiti on
their houses and churches",etc.
5.21. The same facts are invoked by the Respondent, first in Part One of
the Counter-Memorial relevant for attribution of acts to aState, and then
in Part Two of the Counter-Memorial as the basis for the counter-claim
in the following cases: facts of events in Sarajevo in paras 2.13.2.5,
2.13.2.6 and 7.2.6.38.0, 7.2.6.38.1; facts of events in. Tuzla in paras
2.13.3.1 and in 7.3.3.2.
5.22. Further, on the question of attribution raised by the Applicant, the
Respondent has stated in the general conclusions as follows:
8.11. The reasons for establishing the Republic of
Srpska do not lie in the "ideology of a Greater Serbia", or
in any plan created in Belgrade, but rather in the objective
threats that the Serb people is under and in the religious
and ethnie discrimination it is being subjected to in the
territory under the Applicant's control. The creation of the
Republic of Srpska has been motivated by the historical
memory of the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina, especially
that of the genocide suffered in World War II, as well as in
the political events in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1990 and
later, which culminated in armed attacks and genocide
against the Serbs. (Counter-Memorial, p. 1080)
5.23. It is apparent that the Respondent raised the question of genocide
of the Serbs as one relevant to contradicting facts presented by the
Applicant as being relevant for attributing alleged acts to the
Respondent.
5.24. Accordingly, the facts which are the basis of the counter-claim are
crucial for a decision on the claim of the Applicant concerning the
attributionof alleged acts to the Respondent.
196. The facts in the counter-claim are relevant for qualifying alleged acts
presented by the Applicant as a crimef genocide
6.1. The Respondent agrees with the Applicant that a breach of the
Genocide Convention cannat serve as an excuse for another breach of
the same Convention (para 4 of the letter of 9 October 1997, pp. 6-7),
that is that an act of genocide cannat compensate for another act of
genocide. ( para 5, of the letter of 9 October 1997, p.8) But the two
parties are in dispute over existence of a breach of the Genocide
Convention, i.e. genocide against the Muslim and Non-Serb population.
6.2. The Applicant asserts that genocidal acts were committed against
the Muslim and non-Serb population. For different reasons the
Respondent denies the existence of crimes of genocide against the
Muslim and non-Serb population. One of the very relevant reasons is the
absence of intent to commit genocide.
6.3. A crucial element making the crime of genocide different from other
crimes against humanity is precise!y the element of intent. The definition
of genocide as given in Article II of the Genocide Convention stresses
the element of intent:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the
following acts committed with intent to destroy ... a group,
as such: ... (emphasis supplied)
6.4. The Applicant has done almost nothing to prove the existence of
intent to destroy ... a group, as sltreferred in general terms to the
circumstances of the situation, which allegedly indicated that the actors
'intended to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious group' (Application, para. 31, p. 18). The facts presented by the
Part Two, Chapter VII of the Counter~Memo w hicalconstitute the
basis for the counter-claim, i.e. crimesenocide committed against the
Serb people in Bosnia and Herzegovina are part and parcel of the
circumstancesofthe situation.
206.5. Indeed, the first victims in Bosnia and Herzegovina were Serbs. The
first victim was a Serb member of a wedding party in the Bascarsija,
section of Sarajevo, which took place on 1 March 1992. (Counter·
Memorial, para 7.1.9.0., p. 401 and para 2.13.2.10, p. 179).
6.6. In Part One of the Counter-Memorial, to dismiss the daim, the
respondent referred to the following facts:
2.13.2.10. On 1 March 1992, when the referendum/or
the so ca/led "Jndependent and Sovereign" B-H took place
(with the participation of Muslims and Croats on/y), thejirst
Serb was ki/led in Sarajevo by the members of the illegal
Muslim military formation, the "Green Berets".
On that day, Nikola Gardovic had a wedding party of
his son Milan, and when the wedding guests, after the
ceremony in the church, started to lunch, they were
attacked near the Town Hall by armed Muslims who tried to
seize from them the flag that was folded around the pole.
One ofthe assailantsfiredfour shots on R. M, while Ramiz
Delalic called "Cela", a pre-war criminal, one of the
leaders of the "Green Berets" shot Nika/a Gardovic, who
died saon afterwards. One of the assailants said ta Serbs:
"We will kil! you ali".
Sorne of the Serbs run after Delalic and other
assailants, but a uniformed policeman with an automatic
rifle stopped them, insteadof taldng the necessary measures
to arrest those who committed the crime.
Although that event created a great concern of the
Serbs in Sarajevo, no assailant was arrested for criminal
procedure, white the murderer of Gardovic, Delalic, later
on a military commander in the Army of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, boasted with that murder in front of the
cameras of TV Sarajevo.
The above mentioned circumstances clearly show that
it was a premeditated criminal act, with the objective of
frightening the Serbs, in the preparation of the forcible,
unconstitutional secession of the Bosnia and Herzegovina
from the SFRY.
6.7. In Part Two, Chapter VII of the Counter-Memorial, the same facts
invoked as abasis for the counter-claim:
21 7.1.9.0. Sarajevo had many different ethnie
communities, but the overwhelming majority of the
population were Muslims, Serbs and Croats. Before the
outbreak of armed conjlicts, ethnie relations were normal
and marked by tolerance. The Muslims are ta blame for
spoiling these relations, because thefirst victim tofawas a
Serb guest at a wedding party in the Bascarsija.
6.8. The first mass crimes had been committed against the Serbs in the
village of Sijekovac on 26 March 1992 (Counter-Memorial, para
7.1.12.0, p. 445) as well as in the areaf Kupres between 3 and 9 April
1992 (Counter-Memorial, paras 7.1.13.0 to 7.1.13.10, pp. 447-452):
7.1.12.1. On 26 March 1992, in the afternoon hours, the
village of Sijekovac, municipality of Brod (Bosanski Brod), in
which the majority of the population was of Muslim and
Croat nationality and in which there were 50-60 Serb houses,
was stormed by a Croat army unit headed by Marko Prkaca.
The majority of soldiers were masked with stockings over
their faces and because of this the witnesses presume that
they were their Croat and Muslim neighbours from Sijekovac.
They ca/led on Serbs over a megaphone to surrender their
weapons and gave them lOminutes within which to do so. The
whole part of the village in which were Serb houses was
encircled and, even before the expiry of the deadline, the
soldiers began ta enter Serb houses and to drive out the
villagers who happened ta be there. Ali this was followed
with a lot of shooting. They separated men from women and
children and, the following persans were singled out from a
group of men and kiliedfrom firearms then and there:
1.Jovo Zecevic and his three sons
2. Milan Zecevic
3. Vaso Zecevic
4. Petar Zecevic
5.Luka Milosevic and his sons
6. Zeljko Milosevic
7. Dragan Milosevic, who had been previously
seizedfrom the hands of his mother
8. Sveto Trifunovic and
9. Marko Radovanovic.
22 7.1.13.1. On 4-5 April 1992, in the Vi/ina Kuca
suburb of Kupres, members of Croat-Muslim armed
formations tortured and brutal/y ki/led the following
unarmed Serb civilians:
1. Vlajko Danilovic, born 1952, who telephoned his Croat
friend, Marko Vila to ask for help during attacks by
Croat-Muslim forces in the Kupres area. Vilapromised that
he would save him and invited him to his house. However,
Danilovic was shot when he went to Vila's house. There
were gunshot wounds in the area of his neck and waist;
2. Milan Milicic, born 1965, who was tortured before being
killed, as shawn by many bruises on his head and in the
area of the chest and stomach, cuts made in the chin and
stomach area with a blade. He wasfinally shot in the head;
3. Stanko Marie, born 1949; and
4. Marko Keranovic, born 1948, who were shot in the back
when they tried to escapefrom seulement in the direction of
Plazenica mountain. Bath were wearing civilian clothes and
were unarmed;
5. Rade Knezic, born 1926, who tried to hide when the
attack began, but was caught, beaten, tortured and finally
shot; and
6. Djordje Manojlovic, born 1955, who was also unarmed
and tried to hide in the woods, where he was caught and
shot.
These murders were committed by: Safet Pilic,
chairman of the Kupres branch of the Muslim Party of
Democratie Action; Sulejman Pilic; Sejo Pilic; Ekrem Pitie;
Milenko Vila; Marko Vila; Mirko Vila; Mijo Vila; Zoran
Vila; Ratko Rebrina; Smail Mandluka; Miros/av Kaminski;
Anto Jelic; Zijad Mandzuka; Bozo Zulj; Pero Dumanicic;
Josip Zrno; Jbro Horozovic; Ahma Horozovic; Ivica Zulj;
Igor Vila; Ruzdi Ramsic; Amir Ramsic; Miros/av Vrgoc;
23 Manuel Ledic; Dragutin Ledic; Jvo Males; Darko Simic;
Drazen Simic; and JvoRastegorac. ...
7.1.13.2. During the attacks by Muslim-Croat forces
in the territory of Kupres commune on 5-6 April 1992,
hitherto respected local Croats and Muslims abused the
trust thal they had previously enjoyed among their Serb
neighbours. ln agreement with the commanders of the
armed formations, they invited Serb civilians to come with
them and promised to take them where there was no
jighting. They brought together a large number of Serb
civilians in this way and took them to the house of Milenko
Vila on Narodnih Heroja Street in the suburb of Vi/ina
Kuca. Milenko Vila was chairman of the Kupres branch of
the HDZ.
The Serbs were takenfrom there and shut in the cel/ar
. of the building of the Croat-Muslim army's headquarters,
where they were maltreated and tortured. They were beaten
with clubs, sticks, electric cab/es and other implements,
causing serious physical injuries and psychological pain.
Seven of the imprisoned Serbs were then lined up in front of
the cel/ar wall and executed with shots fired from automatic
weapons.
Thefollowing Serbs were killed:
1.Java Zubic, born 1950;
2. Dragan Sormaz, born 1952;
3. Vlastimir Jarcevic, born 1956;
4. Nedeljko Karan, born 1949;
5. Vlado Duvnjak, born 1945;
6. Momcilo Sesum, born 1937; and
7.Predrag Baltic, born 1971.
Three other persans were seriously wounded. Their
names are also known.
The dead and wounded Serbs were loaded onto the
traiterof a tractor and driven by Pero Dumancic to a hill
.above the village of Odzak near Kupres, where they were
thrown in a pit.
24 This crime was committed by the same people listed
in section 7.1.13.1.
7.1.13.3. Croat-Muslim armed formations attacked
Kupres between 3 and 6 April 1992. Units coming from
Duvno (Tomislavgrad) and many places in the Republic of
Croatia were joined Croats and Muslims from the Kupres
area, who armed themselves, donned camouflage uniforms
with HOS insignia and placed themselves under the
command of the unit that started the attack.
Attacks on the town of Kupres were directed in
particular against the suburb of Kratelj, which was main/y
inhabited by Serbs. Many Serbs were captured in their
homes. A tank shelled Serb houses and important buildings
like the police station, the hotel, the bank, the elementary
school and the out-patients clinic from close range. A local
Croat sat on the tank and showed the gunner which houses
and other buildings tofire at.
Nine Serb were killed in this attack on the suburb of
Kratelj:
1. Vojislav Kanlic, born 1955, was first wounded and was
then killed by a burstfrom an automatic weapons,·
2. Milorad Kontic, born 1958;
3. Todor Dragoljevic, born 1958;
4. Spiro Bosnic, born 1954;
5. Trifko Pavlovic, born 1957, and
6. Nedeljko Jarcevic, born 1950, were shot dawn as they
were coming out of the house of Milorad Kontic with their
arms raised in surrender;
7. Lazo Kontic, born 1960, was captured and tortured, in
the course of which his left ear was eut off, before he was
shotdead;
8. Drago Celebie, born 1966; and
9. Stevo Lugon}a, born 1966, were ta/Œnprisoner and shot
infront of the Kamel cafe on the orders of the commander of
the Croat-Muslimforces.
These crimes were committed by: Filipovic, the
commander of the unit, whosejirst name is not known; lvica
Radie; Drago Radie; Zoro Turalija; Boris/av Zrno; Jure
25Zrno; Barisa Vila; Marko !vic; lvica Ravansic; Rasim
Jahic; Dragun Dumancic; Ante Perkovic; Ivan Jezidzic;
Marko Lovric; Franjo Smoljo; Ljupko Radie; Franjo
Mamie; lvo Zrno; lvica Zrno; and Mario Zrno.
7.1.13.4. On the morning of 3 April 1992, Croat
Muslim forces from Livno and Sujica attacked the Serb
village of Donji Malovan in Kupres commune, shooting
unarmed civilians who tried to escape, killing from sniper
rifles and other infantry weapons 11 Serb civilians and
wounding 3 civilians in this attack, while the others were
captured and taken to the camp in Duvno (Tomislavgrad).
Killed were:
1. Darinka Duvnjak (jemale), born 1933;
2. Svetozar Duvnjak, born 1962;
3. Mi/os Duvnjak, born 1925;
4. Mitar Duvnjak,born 1940
5. Vlado Duvnjak, born 1907;
6. Milan Duvnjak, born 1936;
7.Mitar Duvnjak, born 1967;
8. Dusan Duvnjak, born 1967;
9. Marinko Duvnjak, born 1922;
JO.Niko Kanlic; born 1956; and
11. Zivko Maksimovic, born 1966.
Three other women whose names are known were
wounded too, while one of them was old.
These persans were killed and wounded when they
tried to escape from the village into the surrounding woods
in three trucks. Mitar Duvnjak was first grave/y wounded
and then shot dead with an automatic riflefrom close range.
These killings were committed by Croat-Muslim
armed forces from Duvno (Tomislavgrad) and Livno.
7.1.13.5.On 7 April 1992 Croat-Muslim formations
attacked the village of Rilic (Kupres commune) populated
on/y by Serbs. The attack was launched from the
neighbouring village of Kukavice, which was inhabited by
26Croats and Muslims. Thefollowing unarmed Serb civilians
were ki/led as they tried to escape from the house of Sava
Rudic, where they had been hiding:
1. Nika Males, born 1931;
2. Dusan Soro, born 1934; and
3. Boris/av Rudic, born 1941.
Dusan Sara and Boris/av Rudic were shot dead by
infantry weapons, and Nika Males was killed in a savage
manner and decapitated and his head was discovered lying
near the body.
This crime was committed by Croat-Muslim armed
formations.
7.1.13.6. ln Begovo Selo in Kupres commune,
popu/ated by inhabitants of various nationalities, on 7April
1992, Josip Turajlija shot the unarmed Serb villager:
1. Sima Spremo, born 1929.
The victim and hisfamily were the on/y Serb civilians
/eft in the village after the breaking out of armed conjlicts.
Josip Turalija, a Croat from the same village who
knew his neighbour, came armed and dressed in a Croatian
Army uniform with a unit led by Drago Turalija. Turalija
shot Spremo severa/ times while he was walking towards the
stable in ardertafeed his cattle.
7.1.13. 7. lvica Stipcevic and other members of
Croat-Muslim armed formations raided the Serb village of
Zanaglina in Kupres commune on 9 April 1992. Finding
on/y unarmed and defenceless old people, women and
children, they drave them out of their houses and maltreated
them by making them lie face dawn on the ground. They
then ki/led the following people with barrage fire from
machine guns:
1. Petar Soro, aged 78;
2. Strahilo Spremo, aged 82;
273. Spasoje Marie, aged 62; and
4. Mi/arad Spremo, aged 56.
...Ivica Stipcevic was one of the members of the
Croat-Muslim formation responsible for this attack. He
came from the neighbouring village of Sujice and thus knew
that al! the victims were Serbs.
7.1.13.8. Croat-Muslim armed forces attacked the
exclusive/y Serb populated village of Botun in Kupres
commune on JO April 1992. Arriving at the house of the
Serb Stojko Spremo, they forced open the door of the cel/ar
knowing that a number of frightened civilians were hiding
there and threw in a hand grenade. The following women
died in the explosion:
1. Savica Spremo (female), aged 72; and
2. Andja Spremo (female), aged 57.
They then set fire to the house which burned to the
ground, together with the bodies in if.
On that occasion they also killed Savica Spremo's son
Branislav Spremo, who had been hiding in the attic, but was
caught when he tried to escape. They tortured him, cutting
hisface severa! times with a knife, and then shot him.
7.1.13.9. On the night of6-7 Apri/1992, in Strazanj
on the raadfrom Kupres to the village of Sujice, Ive Cisak, a
member of a Croat armed formation from Odzak in Kupres
commune killed:
1. Zarko Zivanic (father Cvije), born 1946, as he tried to
escape from a column of prisoners. Zivanic had feared that
the prisoners were being taken to pifs on Borovska Glava
Hill into which Ustasha had thrown over 200 Serbs from his
village in 1941. Guards shot at him with automatic weapons
when he tried to escape and wounded him in the legs. He
fel! dawn and was unable to return to the column when
ordered because of his wounded legs, at which Cisak
walked over to him, cursed his Serb mother and shot him in
the head.
286.9. These and other crimes of genocide described in Chapter VII of the
Counter-Memorial i.e. in the counter-claim are circumstances of the
situation very relevant for identifying the motives and intentions of
individuals who committed crimes vis-a-vis Muslims.
6.1O.Dismissing the allegations of the Applicant conceming Srebrenica
(para 2.2.2.6 of the Memorial, p. 31), the Respondent said in Part One,
Chapter I of the Counter-Memorial:
1.3.2.26. The genocide committed in the Commune of
Srebrenica in World War One halved the Serb population. The
same crime was repeated in World War Two. The Muslims had
made preparations and armed themselves for new destructions
long before the civil war began. This is evinced by a number of
documents and military ID cards of paramilitary formations in the
area ofSrebrenica with dates before the war, as weil as by the calf
to the Muslims by an illegal Muslim National Council, meeting
near Bratunac, to start making final preparations for the
establishment of a MuslirnState...
1.3.2.27. On 28 September 1991, six months before the war,
the Communal Committee of the Serb Democratie Party of
Srebrenica sent an urgent communication to the Government of
Bosnia and Herzegovina and all other relevant organs, informing
them that the Serbs in this region were being harassed by the
Muslims and that it was not possible to establish normal dialogue
with them on important issues...
1.3.2.28. Muslims set up vigilante groups in the Serb
neighbourhoods of Srebrenica and Bratunac. They attacked and
destroyed sorne 100 Serb villages around these two towns, killing
and expelling people and burning dawn their homes; 12,800
refogees or 45 per cent of the overall number of Serbs from that
region have been registered by the Red Cross of Serbia a/one... Ali
the attacks on the Serbs were prepared in advance, carried out
according toplan, with a large number of armed individuals.
1.3.2.29. The Serbs fied Srebrenica on 9 May 1992, two
days after the massacre in the villageof Bljeceva on 6 May 1992
and the murder of their deputy Goran Zekic. Serb refugees went
29 also to Bratunac, just as Muslims went later to Srebrenica. The
same fate awaited the Serbs in Bratunac like the Serbs in
'l' Srebrenica and one hundred surrounding villages and they had to
withstand over 80 Muslim attacks... (Counter-Memorial, Part One,
pp. 44-45)
6.11. The facts of crimes of genocide, mentioned in above quoted
paragraphs constitute a basis of the counter-claim in Part Two of the
Counter-Memorial, paras 7.1.1.0, 7.1.2.0 and 7.2.28.0:
7.1.1.O.Srebrenica
The territory of the former commune of Srebrenica
has a mixed population of Muslims and Serbs, with
Muslims beingpredominant in number. Since armed conflict
broke out in this territory, the members of the Serb people,
as the minority population, were constant/y exposed to
threats and attacks by Muslim armed forces throughout
1992 and later. Atfirst these threats were aimed at causing
the fear of the Serb population and forcing them to leave
their homes and property and to leave the territory for good.
Later on the threats escalated into armed attacks in which
entire villages and towns in which Serbs lived were burned
dawn and their Serb civilian populations killed. During
1992 in this commune a/most ali Serb villages were razed ta
the ground, Serb houses were set onfire and Serb property
was looted. Over 500 Serbs, main/y old men, women and
children, were ki!led in the territory of this commune during
this period. Bosnia and Herzegovina is responsible for the
following crimes of genocide committed on the territory of
the municipality of Srebrenica in the case of which the
victims and theperpetra/ors have been identified.
7.1.1.1.On 6 May 1992, the Serb re/igious holiday of
St. George's Day, Muslim armed forces attacked the Serb
- village of Gniona, burned it to the ground, plundered ail
property and ki/led thefollowing Serbs:
1. Lazar Simic (jather: Milivoje), born1936; and
2. Radojko Milosevic (father: Rajko), born 1928.
30 Milosevic was burned a/ive in his house. These were
peaceful farmers who were not members of any Serb armed
formations.
The Muslim armed forces who perpetrated this crime
were commanded by Naser Oric, born in 1967 in Potocari
village, and Rifat Karovic, Ibro Mujkovic, Ibro Osmanovic,
Behadin Mujkanovic and others were also involved.
7.1.1.2. On 8 May 1992, the following persan was
ambushed and ki/led on the raad leading to Srebrenica:
1. Goran Zekic, a Serb deputy in the Parliament of
Bosnia-Herzegovina. The killing was committed by members
of the Muslim armedforces.
This crime was committed by Hakija Meholjic (father:
Husein) from Srebrenica, and Osman Osmanovic, Dzevad
Osmanovic and Safet Mujic.
7.1.1.3.On 1 June 1992, members of Muslim armed
forces stationed in Brezovice attaclŒd the Serb ham/et of
Oparci, burnt dawn the 22 Serb houses in the village and
ki/led thefollowing Serb villagers:
1..Dragic flic (father: Dragutin}, born 1939;
2. Ratko flic (father: Momcilo), born 1942;
3. His brother Ugljesa, born 1939;
4. Milorad Petrovic (father: Drago), born 1923; and
5. Dikosava Petrovic (fèmale,father: Drago), born 1932,
whose throat was slit.
The following members of the Muslim army
perpetrated this crime: Akif Ustic, Husa Salihovic, Hajrudin
Halilovic, Abdu/a Alic, from the village of Brezovice,
Sevdalija Begicfrom Piric, and Velkaz Husic (or Husih).
7.1.1.4. On 21 June 1992, Muslim armed forces
attacked the village of Ratkovici in Srebrenica commune,
whose population is exclusive/y Serb, burned dawn the
village and ki/led 18 Serb villagers:
311. Obren Bogicevic (father: Vojislav), born 1932;
2. Stanoje Stanojevic (father: Vladislav), born 1949;
3. .Desanka Stanojevic (female, father: Rada), who was
burned in her home;
4. Nikola Stanojevic (father: Todor), born 1958;
5. Radenko Stanojevic (father: Milorad), born 1940, whose
throat was slit;
6. Vidosav Djuric (father: Luka), born 1930;
7. Vidoje Rankic (father: Obrad), born 1928;
8. Mi/utin Rankic (father: Obrad), born 1944;
9. Ranko Ranldc (father: Obrad), born 1933;
JO.Vinko Maksimovic (father: Filip), born 1927;
11. Dragomir Maksimovic (father: Milorad), born 1949;
12. Radomir Maksimovic (jather: Milorad), born 1942, who
succumbed to torture;
13. Cvijeta Milanovic (female,father: Risto), born 1925;
14. Novka Pavlovic (female,father: Milorad), born 1945;
15. Zora Prodanovic (female,father: Drago), born 1941;
16. Zivana Prodanovic (female, father: Petar), born 1966;
17. Milovan Pavlovic (father: Jasa), born 1919; and
18. Milan Jakovljevic (father: Stojan), born 1920.
Mehmed Alie, also known as "Kadic", from Dedici
and Hajrudin Osmanovic from Potkorjen, persans with the
surnames Medic, Potkorjenovic, Martic, Poznanovic and
Osmanovic, and Behaija Martic, Osman Zukic, Andrija
Osmanovic and Resid Halilovic were recognised among the
perpetrators of this crime.
7.1.1.5. Muslim armed forces attacked the Serb
village of Brezani in Srebrenica commune on 30 June 1992
and killed thefollowing 19 Serb villagers:
1. Radovan Petrovic (father: Djolo), born 1923;
2. Milos Novkovic (father: Rada), born 1956;
3. Dostana Lazic, (female) born 1919;
4. Djuka Lazic (father: Pavie), born 1935;
5. Vidoje Lazic (father: Pavie), born 1937;
6. Kristina Lazic (jemale);
7. Milenko Dragicevic (jather: llija), born 1974;
8. Ljubomir Josipovic (father: Milenko), born 1975;
3Z9. Pero Krstajic (father: Vlada), born J935;
JO.Mi/os Krstajic (father: Vlada), born J937;
JJ. Stanko Milosevic (father: Luka);
J2. Vidoje Milosevic (father: Milovan}, born J974;
J3. Milivoje Mitrovic (father: Dragisa), born J930;
J4. Stanoje Mitrovic (father: Milivoje), born J963;
J5. Milisav Rankic (father: Mika), born J947;
16. Dragoslav Rankic (father: Milisav), born 1974;
17. Mirko Rankic (father: Milisav), born 1972;
18. Milomir Stevanovic (father: Vladislav), born 1946; and
19. Dragon Stjepanovic (father: Stjepan), born J961.
Milos Novakovic from the ham/et of Cicevac was
found decapitated and Vidoje Lazic burnt, and Kristina
Lazic, Milisav Rankic, Dragoslav Rankic and Mirko Rankic
were burnt in their homes.
The perpetrators of this crime included, among
others, the following members of the Muslim armed forces:
Hakija Meloljic, Arif Ustic, Huso Halilovic and Vehbija
Jahic.
7.J.1.6. On 5 July 1992, members of the Muslim
armed forces attacked the village of Krnjici in Srebrenica
commune, killing J6people, ali of Serb nationality:
1. Bohan Lazarevic (father: Spasoje), born J965, priest of
the Serbian Orthodox Church;
2. Sredoje Jovanovic (father: Nedeljko), born 1947;
3. Miros/av Jovanovic;
4. Dragutin Dimitrijevic (father: Milos), born 1961;
5. Srpko Aksic (father: Novak), born J972;
6. Rade Trimanovic (father: Petko), born 196J;
7.Radas Maksimovic (jather: Mirko), born 1968;
8. Milenko Maksimovic (father: Rista);
9. Mi/os Milosevic (father: Ostoja), born 196J;
JO.Nebojsa Milosevic (father: Zoran), born 1975;
JI. Milja Misie (female);
12. Vasa Poraca, born J9J2, whose throat was slit;
13.1/ija Simic, born 1922;
14. Veljko Simic (father: Milosav), born 1953;
33 15. Vlajko Vladic (jather: Petar), born 1934; and
16. Soka Vujic (jemale).
7.1.1.7.The Serb village of Zalazje in the commune of
Srebrenica was attacked by Muslim armed forces on 12 July
1992, and 38 Serb villagers were ki/led:
.1
1
:1 1. Svetozar Lakic (jather: Cvijetin), born 1951;
2. Dusan Blagojic (jather: Slobodan), born 1946;
1
1 3. Radin/ca Cvijetinovic (jemale, father: Dragomir), born
1952, whose body was bad/y mutilated;
4. Ivan Cvijetinovic (jather: Ranko), born 1953;
5. Svetislav Dragicevic (father: Tadija), born 1949;
6. Zeljko Giljevic (jather: Milorad), born 1970;
1
1. 7.Nedeljko Gligic (jather: Desimir), born 1948;
8. Ljubisav Gligoric (father: Nikola), born 1962;
9. Aleksa Gardie (jather: Milos), born 1955;
JO.Slobodan !lie (jather: Milan), born 1946;
11. Milisav flic (father: Sreten), born 1957;
12. Luka Jeremic (father: Ljubomir), born 1927;
13. Ratko Jeremic (father: Milos), born 1969;
14. Marko Jeremic (father: Ratko), born 1965;
15. Radovan Jeremic (father: Ratko), born 1963;
16. Milovan Lazarevic (father: Malisa), born 1946;
17. Momir Lazarevic (father: Stanko), born 1955;
18. Branislav Pavlovic (father: Aleksandar), born 1957;
19. Gojko Petrovic (father: Jugoslav), born 1963;
20. Svetozar Rakic (father: Cvijetin), born 1951;
21. Momcilo Rakic (jather: Ljubomir), born 1949;
22. Miodrag Rakic (father: Ljubomir), born 1959;
23. Mile Rakic (jather: Momcilo), born 1966;
24. Dragomir Rakic (jather: Borisav), born 1957;
25. Branko Simic (jather: Gojko), born 1959;
26. Petko Simic (jather: Gojko), born 1963;
27. Miladin Stanojevic (father: Vojin), born 1929;
28. Miroljub Todorovic (father: Radivoje), born 1961;
29. Radivoje Tomic (father: Bogoljub), born 1950;
30. Miladin Tubic (father: Rada), born 1955;
31. Radisav Vasiljevic (father: Radovan), born 1963;
32. Radisav Vasiljevic (father: Radovan}, born 1965;
33. Bosko Vujadinovic (father: Zivojin), born 1951;
3434. Vasa Vujadinovic (father: Zivojin), born 1954;
35. Nedeljko Vujadinovic (father: Bogdan), born 1947;
36. Dragomir Vujadinovic (father: Milovan), born 1947;
37. Milovan Vujadinovic (father: Slavoljub), born 1948; and
38. Dusan Vujadinovic (father: Vasa), born 1940.
The following members of the Muslim armed forces
were identified among the perpetrators of this crime: Naser
Oric (father: Dzemal), born 1967 in Potocari, and Zulfo
Tursunovic, Akif Usticand Hakija Meholjic.
7.1.1.8. A Muslim armedformation entered the ham/et
of Karno, the Serb village of Medje, the municipality of
Srebrenica on 15 May 1992, and burned dawn al/ Serb
houses and plundered Serb property. The fol/owing Serbs
were killed:
1. Petri.jaAndric (female), born 1933;
2. Radivoje Subotic, born 1954; and
3. Milojko Gagic, born 1947.
The other villagers were taken to a camp in
Srebrenica, where they were tortured and severe/y
maltreated. Unable ta endure the torture, Ljubica Gagic
(female) committed suicide.
The Muslim armed forces unit which committed this
crime was commanded by Nedzad Bektic (father: Rama),
from the village of Karacic. Zulfo Tursunovic from Suceska
and other members of Muslim forces tortured the Serb
prison inmates,
7.1.1.9. On 7 May 1992, in the village ofOsmace in
Srebrenica commune, Muslim armed forces set up an
ambush andfired at twopassenger and twofreight vehicles,
although they knew the vehicles were carrying only Serb
civilians. On that occasion they killed:
1. Milojka Mitrovic (female,father: Slavko), born 1953;
2. Radosav Stjepanovic (father: Milovan), born 1956;
3. Nebojsa Carie (father: Radomir), born 1966;
354. Zoran Vukosavljevic (father: Obren), born 1970;
5. Sima Tanasijevic (jather: Manojlo);
6. Milivoje flic (jather: Bogdan), born 1961; and
7.Danilo Petrovic (jather: Radomir), born 1961.
The ambush was laid by Muslims from the village of
Osmace on the orders of Naser Oric, and the immediate
perpetrator was a persan ca/led Rama or ''Hlebara".
7.1.1.10.At a place on the Srebrenica ta Mi/ici main
raad called "Zutica", on 21 May 1992, members of the
Muslim armed forces fired from an ambush at a lorry
carrying Serb civilians and killed:
1. Mladjen Petkovic (jather: Dragoljub), born 1952;
2. Nedeljko Kandic;
3. Milenko Kovacevic (father: Milisav), born 1960;
4. Misa Lazarevic (jather: Desimir), born 1974;
5. Miljana Obradovic (female,father: Vidoje), born 1941;
6. Vojislav Sarac (father: 1/ija), born 1925;
7. Slobodan Zecic (jather: Radoje), born 1959; and
8. Obrenija flic, (jemale) born 1958.
The ambush was organised by Becir Mekanic (jather:
Jakub), and the attackers were Esad Muratovic (father:
Rasid), Jusuf Ahmetovic (jather: Obranas), also known as
"Juka", Mehudin Osmanovic (father: Osman) and Sulejman
Vejzovic (father: Su/jo).
7.1.2.0. Bratunac
Members of the Muslim armed forces committed
numerous crimes of genocide against Serb inhabitants of the
commune of Bratunac. ln this region, the following Serb
villages were razed to the ground: Rekovac, Zalucje,
Biljaca, Sikiric, Pirici, Djepala, Pobrdje, Borici, Zagoni,
Repovac, Mihaljevici, Rijecani, Plane, Pi/ici, Gradina,
Suha, Radijevici, Ba/javie, Bradici, Popovici, Grujicevici
and Poznasevici. Serb houses were burnt dawn in many
other villages in this area, and more than 500 Serb
inhabitants were killed. The following cases include on/y
36 those where the victims and the perpetrators have been
' identified.
7.1.2.1. The Serb village· of Gornji Magasic in
Bratunac commune was ofien attacked by Muslim armed
forces. The severes! attacks were between 20 and 25 June
1992, when 12 Serb villagers were ki/led:
1. Stojan Popovic (father Zivorad), born 1967;
2. Zivko Cvjetinovic (father: Vojislav), born 1950;
3. Ljiljana flic (female,father: Dusan}, born 1975;
4. Zorka flic (female,father: Marko), born 1947;
5. Milenija flic (female,father: Milorad}, born 1944;
6.Ljubinka flic (female,father: Petar), born 1952;
7.Marjan flic (father: Radomir), born 1963;
8. Ljubica Milanovic (female,father: Milos), born 1929;
9. Blagoje Popovic (father: Pera), born 1907;
1O. Leposava Popovic (female, father: Rista), born 1919;
11. Ljubica Mirkovic (female, father: ivorad), born 1942;
and
12. Cvijetin Djuricic (father: Nikolije).
Among the many members of the Muslim armed
forces who took part in this crime, witnesses have identified
Meho Osmanovic (father: Junuz) from Magasic, and Saban
Osmanovic, Cami! Hasanovic, Senahid Avdic, Rama
Babajic, Mehzdin Smailovic, Nedzib Demanovic and
Hajrudin Osmanovic.
7.1.2.2. The Serb village of Jesestica in Bratunac
commune was also frequent/y attacked by Muslim armed
forces, and many inhabitants were ki/led.
7.1.2.2.1. In an attack on this village on 8 August
1992, 55 Serb houses were burnt dawn and 9 Serb villagers
were killed:
1. Vojin Bogicevic (father: Rada), born 1929;
2. Andjelko .Mladjenovic (father: Ljubomir), born 1965; who
was buried without his head, which had been eut off and
taken away;
373. Dragan Mladjenovic (father: Ljubomir), born 1960;
4. Savka Mladjenovic (female,father: Obren), born 1931;
5. Sreten Rankovic (father: Milos), born 1962;
6. Milan Rankovic (father: Vlada), born 1935;
7.Savka Stjepanovic (female,father: Nedeljko), born 1951;
8. Milosav Stjepanovic (father: Obrad), born 1919; and
9. Srbo Djuric (jather: Savan), born 1944.
7.1.2.2.2. On 7 January 1993, Serbian Orthodox
Christmas Day, Muslim armed forces again attacked the
village, burning the restof the Serb houses and killing:
1. Radomir Jovanovic (father: Vujadin), born 1959;
2. Bosko Djukanovic (father: Mika), born 1928;
3. Neven/caDjukanovic (female, father: Rista), born 1946;
4. Ivan Djukanovic (father: Vlada), born 1954; and
5. Krsta Djukanovic (father: Vlada).
The Muslim armed forces were led in bath attacks by
Naser Oric and included, among others, Zulfo Tursunovic,
Ferid Hodziz, Enver Alispahic and Alija Alispahic.
7.1.2.3. The villageof Loznica in Bratunac commune
was also repeatedly attacked by Muslim armed forces.
Especially severe were the attacks of 28 June and 14
December 1992, when 31 Serb villagers were killed:
1. Nebojsa Vucetic (father: Petko), born 1972;
2. Jovan Milovanovic (father: Gavrilo), born 1930;
3. Srecko Milovanovic (father: Radivoje), born 1943;
4. Mîloje Damjanovic (father: Mitar), born 1971;
5. Djordjo Filipovic (father: Milisav), born 1949;
6. Zivan Filipovic (jather: Vladimir), born 1954;
7. Verica Filipovic (female,father: Ivan), born 1957;
8. Radovan Lukic (father: Milan), born 1950;
9. Milenko Nikolic (father: Nedeljko), born 1963;
JO.Milorad Rancevic(father: Mica), born 1960;
Il. Svetozar Vucetic (father: Sreten), born 1957;
12. Je/ena Stojanovic, (female) born 1952;
13. Je/ena Stanojevic (female,father Zivojin), born 1953;
14. Drago Jovanovic (father: Miladin), born 1962;
38 .:.·
•~.
15. Milic Ilic (father: Vidoje), born 1972;
16. Todor Nikolic (father: Milovan), born 1951;
17. Slavomir Damnjanovic (father: Radivoje), born 1971;
18. Nedeljko Damnjanovic (jather: Svetozar), born 1959;
19. Dragan Filipovic (father: Dragoljub), born 1969;
20. Dragoljub Filipovic (father: Milisav), born 1942;
21. Milan Jovanovic (father: Petko), born 1948;
22. Djoko Jovanovic (father: Petko), born 1956;
23. Mi/os Jovanovic (father.; Veselin), born 1928;
24. Zeljko Knezevic (father: Vojislav), born 1966;
25. Kristina Lukic (female, father: Ceda), born 1948;
26. Bojan Milkovski, born 1938;
27. Mladjen Petrovic (father: Bozidar), born 1958;
28. Miodrag Petrovic (father: Bogdan), born 1948;
29. Bora Todorovic (father: Krsta), born 1949;
30. Milenko Vucetic (father: Radovan), born 1947; and
31. Radovan Vucetic (father: Sava), born 1943.
Numerous members of the Muslim armed forces took
part in this crime, including Alija !bric (father: Muja}, also
known as "Kurta f'm~ Cirici, Besim Salihovic (father:
Avdo), Hida Salihovic (father: Avdo) and Resid Sinanovic
(father: Rahman).
7.1.2.4. The village of Zagoni in Bratunac commune
was burnt dawn in attacks by Muslim armedforces on 5 and
12 July 1992, and 21 inhabitants were killed, al! of Serb
nationality:
1. Ljubica Milosevic (female,father: Milovan), born 1939;
2. Mi/os Milosevic (father: Jovan), born 1932;
3. Cedomir Tanasijevic (father: Blagoje), born 1942;
4. Rajko Gvozdenovic (Jather: Sreten), born 1927;
5. Blagoje Gvozdenovic (father: Mi/arad), born 1944;
6. Rada Gvozdenovic (female,father: Radoje), born 1973;
7.Mileva Dimitric (female, father: Milorad), born 1912;
8. Marko Dimitric (father: Mitar), born 1974;
9. Matija Jasinski (father: Stevan), born 1940;
JO.Mihajlo Mihajlovic (jather: Jevta), born 1951;
11.Milovan Dimitric (father: Mirko), born 1962;
12. Dusan Milosevic (jather: Zivojin), born 1963;
39 13. Djordje Milosevic (father: Aleksa), born 1934;
14. Vidosav Milosevic (father: Branko), born 1968;
15. Dragisa Milosevic (father: Milko), born 1963; and
16. Miodrag Milosevic (father: Milko), born 1970.
In the same village, members of the Muslim armed
forces also tortured to death (the tortures included gauging
out eyes, breaking facial bones and ribs, and stabbing in the
stomach) thefollowing Serb civilians:
17. Dusanka Paunovic, (female) born 1954, who was killed
with a sledge hammer;
18. Rada Milosevic (female, father: Ilija), born 1968;
19. Miodrag Malovic (father: Ilija), born 1943;
20. Dragoljub Gvozdenovic (father: Miladin), born 1954;
and
1 21. Miodrag Jovanovic (father: Jakov), born 1952.
1
The identified participants in this crime are: Muriz
Muratovic, Meho Oric and ldriz Muratovic.
7.1.2.5. The village of Fakovic in Bratunac commune
was attacked on 5 October 1992 by members of the Muslim
armed forces and 17 Serb civiltans were killed:
1. DesankaBozic (female,father: Radoje), born 1924;
2. Olga Markovic (jemale,father: Milovan), born 1935;
3. Slavka Markovic (female,father: Milovan), born 1931;
4. Cuba Nikolic (female);
5. Danilo Djuric, born 1910;
6. Miros/av lvanovic (father: Milan), born 1973;
7.Radoje Markovic (father: Sava), born 1941;
'
1 8. Radomir Markovic (father: Steva), born 1939;
9. Petko Nikolic (jather: Milovan), born 1954;
1 JO.Milovan Nikolic (jather: Sreten), born 1923;
! 11. Radovan Savic (father: Java), born 1965;
12. MilomirSubotic (jather: Blagoje}, born 1959;
13. MilovanDjokic (father: Vlada), born 1936;
14. Sreten Djokic (father: Mileta), born 1938;
15. DjokoDjokic (father: Nedeljko), born 1955;
16. Svetozar Djokic (jather: Sreten), born 1965; and
17. Vidoje Djukic (father: Radovan), born 1954.
40 7.1.2.6. Eight Serbs were ki/led on 5 October 1992 in
an attack of Muslim armed forces on the village of Boljevici
in Bratunac commune:
1. Milja Despotovic (female);
2. Petra Prodanovic, (female) born 1927;
3. Stojka Stjepanovic (female,father: Jovan), born 1922;
4. Stanija Vasic, (female) born 1930;
5. Radovan Djukic (father: Sreta), born 1932;
6. Mi/utin Ristic (father: Ljubisav), born 1940;
7.Zarija Ristic (father: Novica), born 1928; and
8. V/adan Vaste (father: Manojlo), born 1929.
The identified perpetrators of this crime are Naser
Mamutovic, Ibrahim Mujkic and Aris Ridjic.
7.1.2.7. On 14 December 1992, Muslim armedforces
attacked the Serb village of Bjelovac in Bratunac commune,
burnt itdown and killed 24 Serb villagers:
1. Zlatan Bogicevic (father: Milenko), born 1957;
2. Miodrag Cvijic (father: llija), born 1972;
3. Slobodan Vitorovic (father: Vitomir);
4. Stevo Filipovic (father: Nedja), born 1951;
5. Milisav flic (father: llija), born 1957;
6. Milun Jlic (father: Mica), born 1939;
7.Zlata Jovanovic (female,father: Milos), born 1911;
8. Radenko Jovanovic, born 1974);
9. Vida Lu/de (female,father: Radivoje), born 1933;
10. Miroslav Marincevic, born 1965;
11. Radivoje Matie (father: 1/ija), born 1937;
12. Gordana Matie (jemale, father: Radivoje), born 1967;
13. Snezana Matie (female,father: Radivoje), born 1965;
14. Mirko Miladinovic (father: Petko), born 1971;
15. Ceda Miladinovic (father: Petko), born 1975;
16. Slavko Milutinovic (father: Ceda), born 1963;
17. Slobodan Nedeljkovic (father: Ratko), born 1970;
18. Mirko Petrovic (father: Krsta), born 1920;
19. Mirko Petrovic (father: Milan), born 1972;
20. Mitar Savic (father: Ostoja), born 1954;
41 21. Radovan Tanasic (jather: Sreten), born 1923;
22. Rajko Tomic (father: Zika), born 1955;
23. Milorad Tosic (jather: Zivorad), born 1972; and
24. Zoran Triste (jather: Tamis/av), born 1968.
i
1
:i A large number of members of the Muslim armed
l' forces took part in this attaek, including Alija !bric, also
known as ''Kurta",Hida Salihovic, Besim Salihovie, Resim
1
Sinanovic and Sadim Zukic.
:\
1
1. 7.1.2.8. The village of Sikiric in Bratunae commune
was attacked by Muslim armedforèes on 14 December 1992
and 21 villagers, all of Serb nationality, were killed:
1. Zivojin flic (jather: Blagoje), born 1928;
2. Radojkallic (jemale,father: Kosta), born 1935;
3. Desimir Matie (father: Nikodin), born 1928;
1
4. Radovan Mitrovic (father: Bogosav), born 1948;
5. Srecko Mitrovic (father: Bogosav), born 1946;
i
6. Milomir Nedeljkovic (jather: Bogoljub), born 1940;
7.Ljubisav Nedeljkovic (father: Obrad), born 1925;
8. Ratko Nedeljkovic (father: Svetislav), born 1946;
9. Slobodan Petrovic (father: Miladin), born 1976;
JO.Dusan Prodanovic (father: Rade), born 1931;
.11. Obrenija Rankic (female,father: Miladin), born 1934;
12. Zlatan Simic (jather: Ranko), born 1961;
13. Zivadin Simic (father: Svetolik), born 1946;
14. Radisav Simie (father: Svetolik), born 1937;
15. Grozdana Simic (female,father: Vasilije), born 1931;
16. Dragisa Stevanovic (father: Branko), born 1966;
17. Radenko Stojanovic (father: Sava), born 1973;
18. Milomir Tanasic (father: Ljubisav), born 1939;
19. Milan Tanasic (father: Petar), born 1957;
20. Obrenija Triste (female,father: Obrad), born 1931; and
21. Novak Vukcic (father: Srecko), born 1931.
This attack was carried out by the same Muslim
armed formation which carried out the attack on the village
of Bjelovac.
42 7.1.2.9. The village of Kravica in Bratunac commune
is inhabited sole/y by Serbs. lt was attacked by more than
1,000 members of the Muslim army on 7 January 1993,
Orthodox Christmas Day, when 28 Serb civilians were
ki/led:
1. Miladin Dolijanovic (father: Du{an), born 1963;
2. Negoslav Eric (father: Mikailo), was ki/led by a shotfired
from close range in the mouth;
3. Kristina Eric (female,father: Nikola);
4. Pajkan Gavric (father: Paja), born 1963;
5. Milovan Nikolic (father: Todosije), born 1946;
6. Risto Popovic (father: Kosta), born 1920; according ta
the forensic report, his left hand was eut off, his skull was
fractured on the left side and he had been stabbed with a
knife in the back of his neck;
7.Kostadin Popovic (father: Rista), born 1947;
8. Milan Stevanovic (father: Radovan), born 1973;
9. Slobodan Bogicevic (father: Jovan), born 1947;
10. Mara Bozic, (female) born 1909;
11. Stevo Bozic (father: Stojan), born 1951;
12. Novica Bogicevic (father: Slobodan), born 1976;
13. KrstoLazic (father: Dusan), born 1933;
14. Miladin Momcilovic (father: Drago), born 1935;
15. Vasa Nikolic (jather: Marko), born 1920;
16. Mitar Nikolic (jather: Cvijan), born 1927;
17. Ljubica Opackic (female), born 1918, who was shot in
the head with a side arm, and, while stile a/ive, stabbed in
the right side of the chest with the sharp edge of an
unidentified tool;
18. Bozo Radovic (father: Drago), born 1943, who was shot
in theface at close range, and whose left hand was eut off;
19. Radenko Radovic (father: Ljuba), born 1974;
20. Dragan Radovic (father: Radosav), born 1968;
21. Vaskrsije Radovic (father: Djordje), born 1956;
22. Ratko Visnjic (jather: Todor), born 1949;
23. Tankosava Stevanovic (female, father: Vasilije), born
1938,
24. Lazar Veselinovic (father: Kostadin), born 1935;
25. Radoje Pavlovic (father: Radovan), born 1936;
26. Mile Saveljic (father: Sava), born 1964;
4327. Vladimir Stojanovic (father: Stojan), born 1915; and
28. Stanoje Djokic (father: Stanko), born 1942.
The Muslim armed forces responsible for this attack
were commanded by Naser Oric, and included Ferid
Hodzic, Zulfo Tursunovic andBecir Mekanic.
7.1.2.10. On 27 May 1992, in the village of Konjevic
Polje in Bratunac commune, Muslim drmed forces fired
from an ambush on the raad from Sarajevo to Zvornik at a
lorry carrying Serb civilians to work in the bauxite mines.
They killed immediate/y:
1. Novak Sukie (father: Milko), born 1962;
2. Zoran Popovic (father: Nenad), born 1959;
3. Djordjo Mijatovic (jather: Milenija}, born 1950; and
4. Stevo Simic (jather: Novak), born 1953;
and later killed:
5. Milomir Vujadinovic (jather: lova), born 1960, who was
taken prisoner, and whose mutilated body was found 20
days later.
This attack was made on the orders of Ferid Fodzic
(jather: Avdo), and the direct perpetrators were Semsudin
Salihovic (father: Smajkan), Munib Alic (father: Adem),
Meho Alic (father: Muhan), Meho Mehmedovic (father:
Muhan) and others.
7.1.2.11. In an ambush on the raad from Zvornik to
Sarajevo in the village of Sandici at the end of May 1992,
Muslim armedforces ki!led the following Serbs:
1. Mi/utin Milosevic (father: Steva), born 1948, chief of
police in Bratunac;
2. Jovo Blagojevic (father: Sreten), born 1973;
3. Dragica Matikosa (female,father: Stojan), born 1955;
4. Miodrag Vorkapic (father: Mile), born 1971;
5. lvanlvanovic (father: Ratko), born 1970;
6. Dragan Petrovic (father: Desimir), born 1967;
7. Vesna Krdzalic (female);
8. Aleksandar Grahovac (father: Mirko), born 1972;
449. Zarko Ivanovski; and
1 O.Sreto Suzic (father: Milan), born 1960.
7.1.2.12. On 12 July 1992, in the village of Bi/jaca in
Bratunac commune, the following persans were killed in an
ambush:
1. Dragomir Zivkovic (/ather: Nenad), born 1970;
2. Milivoje Zivanovic (jather: Dragan), born 1972;
3. Jovan Zivanovic (father: Cvijetin), born 1969;
4. Bozidar Jokic (father: Ivan), born 1968;
5. Dragoljub Jokic (father: Sava), born1961;
6. Bosko Kovacevic (father: Andro), born 1969;
7. Nedeljko Mitrovic (father: Milojko), born 1965;
8. Zeljko Perie (father: Milorad), born 1973;
9. Milenko Savic (father: Branko), born 1968;
JO. Dragan Savic (father: Laza), born 1953;
11. Tomo Spasojevic (father: Stjepan), born 1956;
12. Milan Djokic (father: Nedja), born 1967; and
13. MiroslavAndric (father: Stojan), born 1967.
The ambush was laid by members of Muslim armed
formations.
7.1.2.13. On 24 December 1992, Muslim armed
forces killed thefollowing Serb civilians in an ambush in the
village of Glogovo:
1.Milan Zivanovic (father: Mirko), born 1974;
2. Mirko Dragicevic (father: Mi/os), born 1947;
3. Stanko Gajic (father: Rade), born 1963;
4. Radovan flic (father: Stanoje), born 1953;
5. Mirko Kribl (father: Antonije), born 1949;
6. Radovan Milinkovic (father: Steva), born 1959;
7.Svetolik Milovanovic (father: Boza), born 1960;
8. Milisav Milovanovic (father: Radoje), born 1950;
9. Borivoje Obradovic (father: Ceda), born 1944;
10. Milenko Petrovic (father: Jezdimir), born 1956;
11. Dragan Veselinovic (father: Slavomir), born 1965;
12. Petko Vujadinovic (father: Dusan), born 1958;
13. Bosko Zekic (father: Krsta), born 1949;
45 14. Dragan Sarac (father: Ranko), born 1964;
15. Vladislav Jante (father: Mirko), born 1948; and
16. Vlado Stamatovic (jather: Ceda), born 1953.
The Muslimforces who committed this crime were led
by Naser Oric (jather: Dzemal).
7.1.2.14. The report by Richard Boucher, spokesman
for the US State Department, dated 26 January 1993, states
that Bosnian Muslim forces from Srebrenica killed at !east
60 Serbs, main/y civilians, in villages around Bratunac. It
adds: "As a result of the hostilities, as many as 5,000 people
- mainly women, children, the eider/y and wounded people -
fied across the Drina to Ljubovija. "
6.12. Due to the insufficiency of relevant facts presented by the
Applicant the issue is perhaps a little bit obscure at this stage of the
proceedings. But, even sorne of few witnesses or sources, quoted by the
Applicant said that alleged crimes had been committed as a revenge.
6.13. The interrelationship ofthe facts alleged by the Applicant as a basis
of the claim and facts presented by the Respondent in Part Two, Chapter
VII of the Counter-Memorial as a basis of the counter-claim is without
doubt relevant from the aspect of detection of relevant motives and
intentions. Consequent! y, the facts presented inart Two, Chapter VII of
the Counter-Memorial as a basis for the counter-claim served for proper
qualificationof the acts alleged by the Applicant.
1. The Applicant has not presented a complete interpretation of Article
jo paragraph 1 of the Ru!es of Comt.
7.:1. In paras 5 and 6 of its letter of 9 October 1997, the Applicant
peferred to positions doctrinales and la jurisprudence internationale
vegarding the direct connection between the counter-claim and subject
matter of the daim. (The letter of 9 October 1997, pp. 7-12) However,
the Applicant has failed to reach the end of development of the
construction of Article 80, para. 1 of the Rules of Court, made by the
Court. Careful study of the practice of the Court reveals an important
development ofunderstanding of the said paragraph.
467.2. The Permanent Court faced the issue for the first time m the
Chorzow Factory case (Merits) and stated:
... The Court also observes that the counter-claim is
based on Article 256 of the Versailles Treaty, which article
is the basisf the objection raised by the Respondent, and
that, consequent/y, it is juridicalconnected with the
principal claim.
...The claim having been formulated in the Counter
Case, theformai conditions required by the ru/es as regards
counter-claims are fuljilled in this case, as weil as the
material conditions. (JUDGEMENT No. 13. - CHORZOW
FACTOR( MERITS), P.38)
7.3. Judge Anzilotti, having in mind the Chorzow Factory case,
commented on Article 40 of the Rules, by which a counter-claim was
then regulated:
... L'élémentcommun aux diverses legislations qui
accueillent la notion de la demande reconventionnelle est
que, par cette demande, le défendeur tena obtenir en sa
propre faveur, dans le meme proces intenté par le
demandeur, quelque chose de plus que le rejet des
prétentions du demandeur, de plus, par conséquent, que
l'affirmationjuridiquer laquelle se base le rejet. Telle est,
sans d1ute, la demande reconventinnel!e dont parle l'art.
du Reglement. (''LA DEMANDERECONVENTIONELL EEN
PROCEDUR NTERNATIONALP E"RD. ANZILOTTIJ ,OURNAL DU
DROITINTERNATIONAT L, M57 (1930),P. 867)
7.4. In the River Meuse case the Respondent filed counter-claim. The
Applicant asked the Permanent Court:
1.To adjudge and declare that:
(a) the construction by Belgium ofworks which
render it possible for a canal situated below
Maastricht to be supplied with water taken from the
Meuse elsewhere than at that townis contrary ta the
Treatyof May 12th, 1863;
47 (b) the feeding of the Belgian section of the
Zuid-Willemsvaart, of the Campine Canal, of the
Hasselt branch of that canal and of the branch
leading ta Beverloo Camp, as also of the Turnhout
Canal, through the Neerhaeren Lock with water taken
from the Meuse elsewhere than at Maastricht, is
contrary ta the said Treaty;
(c) Belgium'sproject offeeding a section ofthe
Hasselt Canal with water taken from the Meuse
elsewhere than at Maastricht is contrary ta the said
Treaty;
(d) Belgium'sproject offeeding a section of the
canal jaining the Zuid-Willemsvaart ta the Scheldt
between Herenthals (Viersel) and Antwerp with water
taken from the Meuse elsewhere than at Maastricht is
contrary ta the said Treaty;
/!.Ta arder Belgium
(a) ta discontinue ali the works referred to
under 1 (a) and ta restore ta a condition
consistentwith the Treaty of 1863 ali works
constructed in breach ofthat Treaty;
(b) to discontinue any fee ding held to be
contrary to the said Treaty and ta refrain from any
further such feeding. (The Division of Water from the.
Meuse, Judgement of June 28th, 1937, P.C.I.J
Reports, Series A.IB.Fascicule No. 70,pp. 5,6)
1.5. The Belgian Govemment, for its part, formulates in its Counter
Mernorial a counter-claim alleging: (1) that the Netherlands Govemrnent
has committed a breach of the Treaty of 1863 by constructing the
Bogharen barrage on the Meuse below Maastricht; (2) that the Juliana
Canal constructed by the Netherlands alongside the Meuse below
1\faastricht from Limmel to Maasbracht, is subject, as regards its water
supply, to the same Treaty.
i
7.6. The Permanent Court concluded:
As this claim is direct/y connected with the principal
claim, it was permissible to present if in the Counter-
48 Memorial. (The Division of Water from the Meuse,
Judgment of June 28th, 1937, P.C.I.J Reports, Series
A./B. Fascicule No. 70,p.28)
7.7. The Republic of Colombia objected to the admissibility of the
counter-claim failed by the Republic of Peru in the Asylum case. The
Applicant requested the Court:
To adjudge and declare:
!. - That the Republic of Colombia, as the
country granting asylum, is competent to qualify the o.ffence
for the purpose of the said asylum, within the limits of the
obligations resulting in particular from the Bolivarian
Agreement on Extradition of July 18th, 1911, and the
Havana Convention on Asylum of February 20th, 1928, and
of American international law in general;
Il. - That theepublic of Peru, as the territorial
State, is bound in the case now before the Court ta give the
guarantees necessary for the departure of M Victor Raul
Haya de la Torre from the country, with due regard to the
inviolabilityof his pers on.
(on the counter-claim)
1. That the counter-claim presented by the
Peruvian Government on March 21st, 1950, is not
admissible because of its lack of direct connec fion with the
Application ofthe Colombian Government;
2. That the new counter-claim, irregularly
presented on October 3rd, 1950, in theform of a submission
upon allegations made during the oral debate, is not
admissible on the grounds that:
(a) ft was presented in violation of Article 63 of the Rules of
Court;
(b) The Court has nojurisdiction ta take cognisance of it;
(c) ft has no direct connection with the Application of the
Colombian Government.
497.8. The Respondent requested the Court:
To set aside submissions I and Il of the Colombian
Memorial.
Ta set aside the submissions which were presented by
the Agent of the Colombian Government at the end of his
oral statement on October 6th, 1950, in regard to the
counter-claim of the Government of Peru, and which were
repeated in his letter ofOctober 7th, 1950.
To adjudge and declare,
As a counter-claim, under Article 63 of the Rules of
Court and in the same decision, that the grant of asylum by
the Colombian Ambassador at Lima to Victor Raul Haya de
la Torre was made in violation of Article I,paragraph 1,
and of Article II, paragraph 2, item 1 (incisa primera), of
the Convention on Asylum signed in 1928, and that in any
case the maintenance of the asylum constitutes at the
present time a violation of that treaty." (Colombian
Peruvian asylum case, Judgement ofNovember 20th, 1950;
lC.J. Reports 1950,p. 271.)
7.9. The Court took the following position:
... Relying upon Article 63 of the Rules of Court, the
Government of Colombia has disputed the admissibility of
the counter-claim by arguing that it is not direct/y
connected with the subject-matter of the Application. ln its
view, this lack of connection results from the fact that the
counter-claim raises new problems and thus tends to shift
the grounds of the dispute.
The Court is unable to accept this view. ft emerges
clearly from the arguments of the Parties that the second
submission of the Government of Colombia, which concerns
the demand for a safe-conduct, rests large/y on the alleged
regularity of the asylum, which isprecise/y what is disputed
by the counter-claim. The connection is so direct that
certain conditions which are required to exist before a safe
conduct can be demanded depend precisely on facts which
,, are raised by the counter-claim. The direct connection being
i,
1
50 thus clearly established, the sole objection to the
admissibility of the counter-claim in its original form is
therefore removed. (Colombian-Peruvian asylum case,
Judgement of November 20th, 1950; I.C.J Reports 1950,
pp.280,281.)
7.1O. It seems that the above mentioned development in the
interpretation of the Court of direct connection between a counterMclaim
and the subject-matter of the claim has started in the Morocco case.
Until the Morocco case, it seems that the Court understood that a
counter-claim is directly connected with the subject-matter of the claim
of the other party when it serves for a rejection of the daim and for
obtaining a judgment on the responsibility of the other party. Questions
presented in a counter-daim should be relevant to the rejection of the
daim of the other party and should provide a basis for establishing
responsibility of the other party. But in the Morocco case the Court
departed from this position.
7 .11. The French Government asked the Court:
Tojudge and declare, either in the absence or in the
presence of the said Government, and a.ftersuch interval of
time as the Court may decide, subject to an agreement
between the Parties:
That the privileges of the nationals of the United
States of America in Morocco are on/y those which result
from the text of Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty of
September 16th, 1836, and that, since the most-favoured
nation clause contained in Article 24 of the said treaty can
no longer be invoked by the United States in the present
state of the international obligations of the Shereefian
Empire, there is nothing to justify the granting to the
nationals of the United States of preferential treatment
which would be contrary to theprovisions of the treaties;
That the Government of the United States of America
is not entitled to claim that the application of ail laws and
regulations to its nationals in Morocco requires its express
consent;
51 That the nationals of the United States of America in
Morocco are subject to the laws and regulations in force in
the Shereefian Empire, and in particular the regulation of
December 30th, 1948, on imports not involving an
allocation of currency, without the prior consent of the
United States Government;
That the dahir of December 30th, 1948, concerning
the regulation of imports not involving an allocation of
currency, is in conformity with the economie system which is
applicable to Morocco, according to the conventions which
bind France and the United States. (CASE CONCERNING
RJGHTS OFNATIONALO SFTHE UNITED STATESOFAMERICA IN
MOROCCO (FRANCE V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA),
Application, p. )
7.12. The Govern.ment of the United States of America submitted the
following counter-claim:
On the basis of the arguments which it has presented
in support of its counter-claims, the United States
Government requests the Court tojudge and to declare that:
1. Under Article 95 of the Act of Algeciras, the value
of imports from the United States must be determined for the
purpose of customs assessments by adding to the purchase
value of the imported merchandise in the United States the
expenses incidental to its transportation ta the custom
house in Morocco, exclusive of al/ expenses following its
delivery to the custom-house, such as customs duties and
storage fees.
ftis a violation of the Act of Algeciras and a breach
of international law for the customs authorities to depart
from the method of valuation so defined and to determine
the value of imported merchandise for customs purposes by
relying on the value of the imported merchandise on the
local Moroccan market.
2. The treaties exempt American nationals from taxes,
except as specifically provided by the same treaties; ta
52 co/lect taxes from American nationals in violation of the
terms of the treaties is a breach of international law.
Such taxes can legal!y be collected from American
nationals on/y with the previous consent the United States
which operates to waive temporarily its treaty right, and
from the date upon which such consent is given, unless
otherwise specified by the termsf the consent.
Consumption taxes provided by the Dahir of.
February 28, 1948, which were collected from American
nationals up to October 28, 1950, date of the application of
the French Government in this case, were illegally c'ollected
and should be refunded to them.
3. Since Moroccan laws do not become applicable to
American citizens until they have received the prior assent
of the United States Government, the lack of assent of the
United States Government to the Dahir of February 28,
1948, rendered illegal the collection of the consumption
taxes providedby that Dahir. (CASECONCERNINR GJGHTS OF
NATIONALO SFTHEUNITED STATESOFAMERICA IN MOROCCO
(FRANCE V. UNITED STATES OFAMERICA)(COUNTER-MEMORIAL
OFTHEUSA, P. })
7.13. lt seems that the counter-claim of the United States did not play
any role in the defence against the French claim. lnsteadof this fact
neither the Applicant nor the Court expressed any doubt conceming
direct cormection between the counter-claim and the subject-matterof
the claim and the Court decided on the counter-daim.
7.14. lndeed, having in mind the Fisheries case and the Morocco case,
Shabtai Rosenne remarked:
... In the Fisheries case the possibility of a counter-claim
was reserved, apparent/y, in the counter-memorial. By
agreement of the parties, the particular issue was left to
subsequent settlement "if it should arise" (1951, at p.126)
and was subsequent/y withdrawn by the Norwegian
Government, after ithad won the principal caseln the US.
Nationals in Morocco case a counter-claim was formulated
in the counter-memorial. No jurisdictional issues were
raised either by the parties, or by the Court - which
53 proceeded to deal with the various submissions thereon
without even mentioning the connexity of the counter-claim
with the principal claim.
These last tlrvocases illustrate that lack of rigidity is
becoming a feature of the manner in which States and the
Court incline towards problems of counter-claims. (THE
LAW AND PRACTICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT BY SHABTAI
ROSENNE, 2ND REVJSED EDITION, MARTINUS NIJHOFF
PUBLISHERS, 1985, PP.435- 436)
7.15.1t seems that further practice of the Court has gone in the direction,
termed by Mr. Rosenne as "Jack of rigidity." Thus, in the Hostages
case, the Court said:
The Court, at the same time, pointed out that no
provision of the Statute or Rules contemplates that the
Court should decline to take cognisance of one aspect of a
dispute mere/y because that dispute has other aspects,
however important. It further underlined that, ifthe lranian
Government considered the alleged activities of the United
States in Iran legal/y to have a close connection with the
subject-matter of the United States' Application, it was open
to that Government to present its own arguments regarding .
those activities to the Court either by way of defence in a
Counter-Memorial or by way of a counter-claim. (Case
concerning United States diplomatie and consular staff in
Tehran (UNITED STATES OF AJv!ERJCA v. IRAN),
Judgement, 1.C.J. Reports 1980,p.19)
7.16. It is obvious that facts alleged in the letters of the Government of
Iran sent to the Court cannat be legally used as defence in the case.
(1.C.J.Reports 1980, pp. 18-19) In spite to this fact, the Court opened the
possibility of a counter-claim. The Court said, it is true,
... if the Iranian Government considered the alleged
activitiesof the United States in Iran legaly to have a close
connection with the subject-matter of the United States '
Application.
54But, the Court believed that close connection existed. Were it otherwise,
the Court would probably not have mentioned this possibility.
7.17. Judge Bedjaoui in his dissenting opinion in the Montreal
Convention case (Interim measures of protection) took an important
position:
( ..) 4. But in para!!el with this very precise legal
dispute, the United Kingdom and the United States have
brought before the Security Council another dispute
involving the Libyan State, which they accuse of being
implicated in terrorism in general and in the Lockerbie
bombing in particular. This dispute is quite different from
thefirst one. For thefirst dispute concerns the extradition of
two Libyan nationals and is being dealt with, legal/y, by the
Court at the request of Libya, whereas the second dispute
concerns, more generally, State terrorism as weil as the
international responsibilityf the Libyan State and is being
dealt with, politically by the Security Council, at the request
of the United Kingdom and the United States.
5. With regard to the role of the Court, as a
judicial organ, with respect ta the first dispute, the Court is
in no way requested in the present proceedings ta pass
judgement on state terrorism and the international
responsibilityof Libya, particularly since two Respondent
States have presented no counter-claim in response ta the
Libyan Application. The second dispute, concerning the
international responsibilityf Libya, has been resolved in a
strict/y politicaly, the chief elements of compensation for
the families of the victims and the imposition of an
obligation concretely ta renounce terrorism, whereas a
judicial solution, which necessarily sets higher procedural
standards, would have required, as a preliminary, the
production of evidence, adversary proceedings and respect
for due process of law. (..) (1971 MONTREAL
CONVENTION (DISSENTING OPINION BEDJAOUI),
I.C.J Reports 1992,pp. 34, 144)
557.18. It is clear that the Respondent States in the above case (USA and
UK) cannat raise the question of responsibility of the Applicant for
alleged state terrorism as a defence in the case.
8. By a counter-claim the Respondent may present new facts and raise
new questions.
8.1. Itseems that the Applicant is of the opinion that a counter-claim has
to be limited exclusively to facts presented in claim. This opinion is not
based on the law.
8.2. According to Article 49, para 2, a Counter-Memorial shall contain:
an admission or denia! of the facts stated in the Memorial,
any additional facts, ifnecessary...
8.3. If the Respondent is entitled to submit new facts by a Counter
Memorial, itcan certainly doit by a counter-claim. New, additional facts
should be a basis for a counter-claim and should be relevant for rejection
of claim. It is precise}y the case.
9. Sorneremarks by the Applicant stated in its Letter of9 October 1997
are without relevance.
9.1. After referring to general data relating to the Case, the Applicant has
started its letter 9 October 1997with the following remarks:
Le 23 juillet 1991(?) la Yugoslavie a deposé son
contre-mémoire. Celui-ci est divise' en deux parties. La
première partie essaie de refuter les arguments et les
preuves présentés à la Cour par la Bosnie-Herzegovine, qui
démontrent que la Yugoslavie a violéla Convention sur le
génocide. La seconde partie {pp. 349-1077) contient
l'allégationd'aprèslaquelle la Bosnie-Herzégovinese serait
rendue elle responsable de violations de ladite Convention.
Cette allégation est présentéesans que le terme "counter- (
claim" (''demandereconventionnelle'? ne soit jamais utilise
dans le deuxiéme partie du contre-mémoire yougoslave.
D'ailleurs, dans le document tout entier, qui est de plus de
56 mille pages, le terme en question ne figure en tout que deux
fois, et ceci exclusivement dans l'introduction générale(p.1,
par. 1.O.0.1.; et p. 2, par. 1.O.O.5.), mais n'est repris, ni dans
les conclusions génerales du contre-mémoire (p.1079-
.1082), ni dans les conclusions finales (Submissions: p. 1083
ss.) presentéesà la Cour. De plus, nulle part dans le contre
mémoire de la Yougoslavie l'amissibilité d'une prétendue
demande reconventionnelle de ce genre ne forme l'objet
d'une quelconque analyse ou remarque se réje'rant, en
particulier, au Statut ou au Règlement ...
9.2. Such criticisms reflect perhaps the skilfulness of the advocates but
they are legally unfounded. They are not based on the law. The points
made have no substance.
9.3. The relevant law, Article80 ofthe Rules of Court, states:
1. A counter-claim may be presented provided that it
is direct/y connected with the subject-matter of the claim of
the other party and that itcames within the jurisdiction of
the Court.
2. A counter-claim shall be made in the Counter
Memorial of the party presenting it, and shall appear as
part of the submissions ofthat party.
3. In the event of doubt as to the connection between
the question presented by way of counter-claim and the
subject-matter of the claim of the other party the Court
shall, after hearing the parties, decide whether or not the
question thus presented shall be joined to the original
proceedings.
9.4. The counter-claim is formulated in the Counter-Memorial, in Part II,
Chapter VII, on pages 349 to 1078 and appears as part of the
submissions, as items 3,4,5 and 6. The obligation of th.e Respondent
based on the law is fulfilled. The Respondent was not obliged to do
more. But, the Respondent has stated at the beginning of the Counter
Memorial:
57 1.O.0.1. This Counter-Memorial filed by the
Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in
accordance with the Order of the International Court of
Justice dated 23 July 1996, includes Counter-Claims...
1.0.0.5. This Counter-Memorial includes two parts.
Part One responds to the allegation of the Applicant ,•
presented in its pleadings. ft contains the following six
chapters: Chapter 1: General overview of allegations
submitted by the applicant; Chapter II :facts relevant to the
attributionof acts to a state; Chapter III : Thepolicy of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia towards the Republic of
Srpska and Bosnia and Herzegovina; Chapter IV :
Interpretation of the ru/es of the 1948 Convention on the
prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide;
Chapter V: Attribution of acts to the state; Chapter VI:
Ru/es onprooft
Part Two (Chapter VII) includes counter claims and
is divided in five sections: Directand public incitement to
commit genocide; Deliberate killing of the civilian
population and captured persans of Serb nationality;
Deliberate injlicting on Serbs conditionsof life calculated to
bring about their physical destruction and causing serious
bodily or mental harm; Ethnie cleansing; Destruction of
places of worship of the Serbian Orthodox Church.
Counter-Memorial ends with General Conclusions
and Submissions. (Counter-Memorial, pp, 1,2)
9.5. Even ifthe above had not been stated, the lawyers could recognize a
counter-claim. Indeed, the Respondent has not discussed in the Counter
Memorial the issue of admissibility of the counter-claim, believing that a
simple reading of the text of the Counter-Memorial is enough to see that
the counter-claim is admissible. As the Applicant has expressed doubt
about the matter, the Respondent has not hesitated to express its views.
9.6. In the Submissions contained in the letter of the Applicant dated 9
October 1997, it is stated:
La Bosnie-Herzégovineprie égalementla Cour de ne
pas permettre encore a la Partie adverse de retarder
ultérieurement la procédure en cours au moyen de
manoeuvres dilatoires de toutes sortes, dont la demande
58 reconventionnelle~ laquelle se réfèrele présent exposéest
un nouvel etflagrant exemple.
The pm-pose of the counter-claim is not to prolong the proceedings.
Even ifthe counter-claim was submitted separately, sound administration
of justice would require the joining two separate proceedings.
59 SUBMISSIONS:
The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requests the Court to decide as
follows:
]. As Bosnia and Herzegovina has submitted the daims: a) that certain ,.
alleged acts were committed against the non-Serb population in Bosnia
and Herzegovina, and b) that the alleged acts are breaches of the
Genocide Convention, and c) that the alleged acts are imputable to the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia;
2. As the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has requested the Court to
reject ail daims of Bosnia and Herzegovina because, inter alia: a) the
alleged acts are not breaches of the Genocide Convention, i.e. the crime
of genocide, in particular, because the intent to commit genocide did not
exist; b) that the alleged acts are not imputable to the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia due the fact that the Republic of Srpska was an independent
state entity and that the actsof its organs, citizens and other individuals,
were motivated by local reasons, inter alia, ·by direct and public
incitement to genocide by the Muslim side and by crimes of genocide
committed against the Serbs, and not by orders ofYugoslav organs;
3. As the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has submitted the counter
claim requesting the Court to establish the responsibility of Bosnia and
Herzegovina for acts of direct and public incitements to commit genocide
against the Serbs and for crimes of genocide committed against the
Serbs;
4. As the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has .referred to the facts
presented in the counter-claim as relevant for rejection of the claim of
Bosnia and Herzegovina conceming qualification of alleged acts as the
crime of genocide, in particular, the circumstances of the situation
relevant to the decisionof the Court on the existence of intent to commit
genocide;
5. As the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has presented the same
identical facts as facts relevant for rejection the claim conceming the
imputability of alleged acts to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and as
a basis for the counter-claim, i.e. direct and public incitements to
genocide;
60i.e. crimes of genocide, presented in the counter-claim, as relevant to the
rejectione claim conceming the imputability of alleged acts to the
Federal Republic ofYugoslavia and as a basis for the counter-claim;
7. As the claim and the counter-claim are based on the same legal
ground, i.e. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide and general rules of State responsibility;
8. The counter-claim is direct!y coJlllectedwith the subject-matter of the
claim and the counter-claim meets the conditions of Article 80,
paragraphs 1and 2, of the Rules of Court,
9. Accordingly, the Court rejects aHrequests ofBosnia and Herzegovina
submitted by its letter of 9 October 1997.
Belgrade,ober 1997
~.! !.J.rl~ v{
Roddlfub Etinski
Agentthe FR ofYugoslavia
61
Written Observations of the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on the Admissibility of the Counter-claims Expressed in its Counter-Memorial