INTERNATIONALCOURTOF JUSTICE
CASECONCERNING
THEAPPLICA'l'OFTHECONVENTION
ONTHE PREVENTIONANDPUNISHMENT
OFTHE CRIMEOFGENOCIDE
(CROATIAvYUGOSLAVIA(SERBIAAND MONTENEGRO))
WRITTENSTATEMENTOF THE REPUBLICOF CROATIA
OF ITS OBSERVATIONSANDSUBMISSIONS
ON THE PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS RAISED
BY THE FEDERALREPUBLICOFYUGOSLAVIA
(SERBIAANDMONTENEGRO)
VOLUME l
29 APRIL2003 CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................
C1IAI''TER 2 TlIF:COURT HASJURlS1)lCI'IONOVERTIIE
FRY (SEIZRIAAND MONTENEGKO)(RATIONE
PERSONAE) ..............................................S..........................
....
CHAPTER3 THE APPLICATIONIS ADMISSIBLE IN RESPECT
OF ALL ACTS OR OMhlISSIONSAL1,EGEDBY
CROATIA, INCI.,UDINGTHOSEOCCURRING
PRlOK TO 27 APRIL 1992 ..............................11...................
(1) The Objection of theFRY (Serbiaand Monteriegl-o)
goes to the meritsand does not raiseissi~esof
atirnisslb~l................................................
...............l.3
(2) The Application ofthe GenocideCoilvention isnot
lii~iitedIZationeTeniporis............................15..................
(3) The Groundson which responsibilityis disputedare
contrived and irrelevantto the Cou~.t'jsiuisdic.......7.
(a) TlieFRY (SerbiaatldMontenegro)is responsible
as a State instatuascendifol.actsof genocide
comn~ilted inCroatiapriorto 27April 1992..............18
(i) It is wellestablishedthata Statetnaybe
responsiblefor conductprior tohe
for~ualestablishmentof thc State........................18
(ii) The in statunascendiprincipleis fiilly
applicableto the caseof theFRY
(Serbiaand Montenegro) .....................2...........
(b) Croatiarclicsupon the cont1.01xercisedby the
Sabian Lcadel-shipover LhoseresponsibleSorhe
atrocitiesin questio.............................2...............
(c) Tlie Courthasjurisdiction in respect ofthe
hilure of theFRY (Serbiaand Montenegro) to
preventarid punishthe vioiatiotisof Articles11
and 11of theConvention,wheneverthey
occurred ........................................3...................
CIlAPTER 4 THE APPLICATIOR'IS ADMISSIBLEAND iS NOT
MOOTIN KEI~ATIONTO TIIE RELIEFSOUGHT
IN RESPECTOF SUBMISSONTO TRIAL,
MISSING PERSONSAND CULTURALI'ROPERTY ...33.
S~~bmissiotno trial ofI-esponsiblepers................3........
Missing persons.......................................37...........................
Missing culturall?ro[?e...............................42..........
Conclusions...........................................4..............
SUBMISSIONS .....................................................
.45............... CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1. On 1 September 2002 the Federal Rcpublic of Yugoslavia (FRY
(Scrbia aiid Montcncgro)) filcd prcliitlitiary objectio~is in the C'nse
concer-iliiqgrlie Rpplica~ioi?of the Coi1ve~71iol717the P~..evenliorinrlcl
Pz~r?ishmer o~fthe Cl-in14of Gei~nridc(Croatia v. Yugoslavia). By Ordcr
dated 14 Novembcr 2002 thc Court fixed 29 April 2003 as the tirne-limit
within which thc Republic of Croaeiacould ptcscnt a written statement of
its obscrvations a~ldsubmissions 011 Ihc prcliininaly objcctions raised by
thc FRY (Serbia and Montcncgro). Tlicsc Writtcn Observations arc
subnlittcdpursuantto thc Court's Ordcr of 14Novelnbcr 2002.
1.2. In ~tsWrittcn Observatiolis thc FRY (Scl-biaand Montcncgro) puts
forward thrce preliminaryobjcctions:
Thc First Prcliminary Objection is that tile Court does not
Iiavcjurisdiction over Croatia's Application bccausc the
FRY (Serbia and Montcncgro) only becainc a party to thc
Gcnocidc Cotzvcntio~~ by its accessiol~to tliat instriancnt
on 12Marcl12001,with a ~'cscrvatioas to Article IX;
Thc Scco~id Prclimiliaiy Objcctioi~ is that Croatia's
Applicatioli is inadmissible as far as it rcfcrs to acts 01.
otnissionswhich occurrcd prior to27 April 1992;and
Thc Third Prcliminaty Objection is that ccrtaiil of
Croatia's spccific Submissions (the rcqucsts to submit
Mr. Miloscvic to trial; to providc information on thc
whcrcabouts of lnissi~igCroatian citizci~s;and to return
itcinsof cultural propcrty) are inadmissibleand inoot.
l.3. Croatia considers that the pl.cliinina~yobjcctio~isare without mcrit
and should bc rejcctcd by thc Court. Croatia submits that the Court had
jurisdictioi~over thFRY (Serbia and Montenegro) on 2 July 1999,whcn
Croatia'sApplication was filed withthe Court, and that it continucsto llavc
jurisdictiotl ovcr thc FRY (Scrbia and Mo~~tcncgroi)n respcct of all matters
raised in the Application, and inrcspcct of all material timcs. Croatia
fill-thcrsubmits ththe ob.jectioilsas to adinissibility and ~nootliessinay bc
rcjcctcdat this prclirniaaty stage; alternatively they should be joil~cdto the1.8. In thc ineantimc, on 24 April 2001 the FRY (Serbia and
Montcr~cgro)had filcd an applicatio~lwit11thc Court instituting procccdings
against Bosilia and Herzcgoviila ancl rcqucstillg the Court to rcvisc thc
Judg~net~tit had delivered on 11 July 1996 it1tilc case conccming
Application nf rileCnin)enlio/?017the)Preevs17tio17d Pztl~i.shn?enolf /hc
CiYll~cq/'Genocide (Rosnin ai?d He,-zegovinn v Yztgoslavia),Prelimir7ai):
Objeciioi?~(ICJ Reports 1996 (I]), p595).Tllc applicatiol~was premised
upon the admission of thc FRY (Serbia and Montenegro) to thc Unitcd
Nations on 1 Novcmbcs 2000, which the FRY considered to be a "new
fact". Thc application of the FRY (Serbia and Montenegro) specifically
made the claim that its admissionto the United Nations clarified that prior
to that date theFRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) was not a ~ncrnbcrof'thc
United Nations, not a party to thc Statute of the Cou~t,and noa party to
thc Gcnocidc Coi~vcntion.By its Judgmcnt dated 3 Februaty 2003 the
Court tuled that the applicatioof thcFRY (Serbia and Montencgro) was
inadmissibleC. roatia rctulxs bclow to the significanccof this Judg~netltfor
thc application of the FRY (Serbia and Montcncgro) in thc prcscnt
procccdings.
l Finally, with cffect fro114 Fcbruar-y2003 thc FRY (Serbia and
Montenegro) changed its nalnc to Scrbiaand Montencgro. For casc of
refcrel~cein this plcadi~igCroatia wilhereafterrefcr to thc FRY (Scrbia
and Montcncgro). CHAPTER2
THECOURTHASJURISDICTIONOVER THE FRY
(SERBIA AND MOB'I'ENEGRO( )RATZONEPERSONAE)
2.1. Tlic first Prcli~~iiiObjection ofFRY (Scrbia and Montenegro) is
that tlic Court lacksjtlrisdiction r-alioneper.ovci-tilFRY (Serbia and
Montencgro). Thc claim is pl.eii~iscdct~tirclyon thc argumcnt that lhc FRY
"did not becotne bound by thc Gcnocidc Conveiztioa"until 10 June 2001,
when its accession to the Convention bccamc cffcclivc.' Tlic argumcnt is
claboratcd at sollie Icngthin PIIIof the Prcliminary Objections.
2.2. Croatia addressed the question of thc Court's jurisdictiolz over the
FRY (Serbia and Montci~cgro)in Chapter 6 of its Metnorial. Croatia these
argued that "Croatia and thc FRY wcrc both bout~dby thc Genocide
Convcntion on 2 July 1999"(thc date of Croatia's ~p~lication).' Tlic FRY
(Serbia and Montcncgro) docs not challc~lgethat Croatia was bouild by thc
Gclzocide Convention at that datc. As regards thc FRY (Serbia and
Montenegro) being bound by the Convc~ltiollat that datc, Croatia put its
casc as follows:
"With rcgard to the FRY, thc Co111.tas already acccptcd it1its
Judgment of l996 that thc FRY was "bound by tlzcprovisions of
the Coiivcnt~onoil tlic datc of thc filing of [thc Appllcarlon by
Bosnia and Hcrzcgovi~~a]1 ,1amclyon 20 March 1993. Sincc that
Judgment, i~i Api-11 1999, tlicFRY Izas instituted proccedings
bcforc thc Court againsr ten States on tlic basis, inrdin, of
Article IX of tl~cCicnocideConvcntion. In thosc proccedings the
FRY affinncd bcforc thc Court th11...
'is a pasty to thc 1948 Convcntion on the Prcvcntion and
Punish~ncntof tlzcCriinc of Gcuocidc'
It caanot therefore be doubted that, as at tl~cdatc of Croatia's
Application to theCourt the FRY was bound by the Gcnocidc
COIIVCI~~~OI~."~
I
7 Pre1irninaybjections,para3.4.
" Memoria lara6.06.
3 li)ipars6.09.2.3. Against this background, thc claim by thc FRY (Scrbia and
Mol~tcnegro)that it was not bound by the Genocide Con\~cntionon 2 July
1999 - lcss tilall rhrcc ~~lonafter it rclicd uponthe Con\~ciztioitio initiate
procccdings against tcn NATO Statcs - appears somcwhat sulprising.
2.4. Tllc cxpla~~at~o InSto bc found in thc changc of posit1011adopted by
thc ncw govci~ll~~c~ of tthcFRY (Scrbra and Moxltcncgro)fioin Octclhcr
2000, wlzciiit droppcd tIlc positlo~lcoi~sistentlyadoptcd by thc prcvious
Govcnlmcnt, to the effect that the FRY (Scrbla and Montc~~cgl-ow )as thc
contlnuatlonof the SFRY atid as such coutinued as a ii~elnbcrof tl~cU111tcd
Natioils and as a party to thc GCIIOCI~C Collvclztion The ncw Govcrnmcnt
adoptcd a new apptoaclz,applied for ~nembcrsl~ip and bccaine a incmbcr of
thc United Nations on 1 Novcmbcr 2000, and subscqucr~tlydeposited the
Instlumcnt of accession to the Gctlocidc Convci~rionwtth cffcct from 10
JU~C2001 T11cact of'accessloll was accompanied by a rcscrvation to
Artielc IX, so that thcFRY (Scrbia and Montc~lcgro)clainls that 11"t~cvcr
bccamc bound by Art~clc IXof the C;enocldcConvcnt~o~i"'
2.5. As indlcatcd ill paragraph 1.7 above, Croatla objcctcd in a tiincly
fashion to the purported accessronand tothc rcsclvation.
2.6. Thc positlon adopted by tlzc FRY (Serbia and Montcncgro) 111thcsc
procccdings 3sidcntlcal to that wli~chillformcd its application of 24 Aprll
2001 iastitirliilg procccdings against Bosl~ia and ilcrzcgovina and
rcqucstlng Ihc Court to revisc ~ts Judgmcilt of Il July 1996. That
application was prcnlised upon thc adlnissio~~of the FRY (Scrb~a and
Montctlcgro) to thc Unitcd Nations on 1 Novcmbcr 2000, which thc FRY
(Scrbia and Montci~cgro)co~~sidcrcd to bc a"ncw fact" within thc lncailing
of Articie 61 of thc Court's Statutc. In its Applicatio~~initiating thosc
proeecd~l~_t~hscFRY put itsarguinent as folollows:
"Aftcr the FRY was admittcd as ncw Mctnbcr on I Novcmbcr
2000, dilclninas concerllixlg~tsstandii~gliavcbeen resolved, andit
has bccoinc an ui~cq~~ivoca flct that thFRY did not co~ititlucthc
pcrsollalityof theSFRY, was not a Mct~bcrof thc UltitcdNations
bcfol-cl Novcmbcr 2000, was not a Statc party to thc Statutc, and
was not a Statc party to thc GcnocidcCotivcntion ...""
Evctzmore specifically - and most pcrtinet~tlyfor tllc prcsc~ltcasc - tlzc
Applicatiotlby tlzcFRY (Scrbia a~~ d ontcnegro)cxprcssly stated that:
4 Prcli~ninaObjections:paras3.7 a3.5.
? A/)/)/ictriioR.ei~jstof //7Jtlr/gnieo//I1.JLI 1II6.ii/he Cu.rConcet~~~it~g
Appiicufioqf /he Ca1ive~iiio1o7ti the Pi~e~~trcfJt~uis/~~(ft/(?Ct.iutof
Ger~ocicf(cBosiand Hcrzcgovi~lY.Yugoslavia), Prclimina~yObjectioRevisio~i
ApplicationoFRY. 24 April 2001,38,para33. 7
"The FRY was not a contracting pally to the Convcntio~i 011 thc
~revcntiolland Pu~~ishmc~oif t the Crimc of Genocidc ...on cithcs
20 March 1993 orat ally later moincllt until the rcndcring of the
J~rdg~xlclott 1I July 1996.""
Tile positio~ltkwc adopted by tllc FRY (Scrbia and Montcnegro) was that
its adlnission to thc UnitedNations was a new fact, such as to require thc
Court to rcvise its 1996Judgmcnt.
2.7. In the course of the oral proceedings the FRY (Snbia and
Mol~tcnegro)rcfoi~nulatedits arguincrlts as to thc cxistence of ncw facts.
Tile "two dccisivc facts" upon which thc FRY (Serbia and Montcncgro)
relied wcrc that
1. thc FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) wasnot a pal-tyto tkc
Slatutc at the timeof tllcJudgment; and
2. tl~cFRY (Scrbia 811dMotztencgro)did not rcmain bound
by Aniclc IX of the Gcnocidc Convcntio~~ contjnuing the
pcrsoilalityof the formcr~ugoslavia.'
According to thc Judgment of the Court, "tlicFRY further strcssed at tl~c
hcarings that these"ncwly discovci-cdfacts" had not occurred subsequc~ltly
to the Judglnclltof 1996.Inthis regard, thcFRY states that "thFRY acver
argucd or contcmplatcd that the llcwly disco\lercd facts would or could
lzavca rctroacti\rccffcct"."
2.8. Itis clcar that tllc argumc~~tof tliFRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro)
in tlloscproceedir~gsarc cssclltiallyidenticatotlioscitIIOW puts forward in
thcse proceedings. 11.t1hc Revision Application theCourt had to decide, ia
effect, wl~cthcr01not the FRY (Serbia and Montcnegro) was bound by thc
Genocidc Coilvelition on 20 March 1993 andlor 11 July 1996, as ithad
previously affirlncd in its 1996 Judgmelzi. In rclation to tl~c issuc of
jurisdiction 1zrtiorcersonae it1the prcscnt procccdirlgs tlle Cou~thas to
address tliequestion:was thc FRY bou~ldby thc GcnocidcConventiol~on 2
July 1999? If tlic FRY (Scrbia and Moiitcncg~o) was bound by thc
Convention on 11 July 1996, tllc FRY (Serbia and Montciicgro) would
wed to esrablislisome intcrvenitigdeveloprnciitpsiol.to 2 July 1999 forthc
legal situation on that dateto be any diffcrcnt.
Il~ip. 8,par3(a).
Aj~plica/ifor Rei:isic?/!he.Iri~lg~~e'~11JII!~1996 irihc C~IJC?oirce1.17i17g
.~pplicoriqj'rimC'o/n*ri7/ior7 /he ficv~~ilnttdI'ttt?ish~rlflhcO,itve of
G'errocicRos~iiaandHc~.zcgo\:i.Yugoslavia)Judg~nciltof 3 Fcbluaiy 2003. para2.9. The Court's Judgmcnt of 3 Februa~y2003 was clear in rcjccting the
applicatioll of thc FRY (Serbia and Montencgro), and upholding its
Judgmellt of 1996,to the cffcct thatheFRY (Scrbia and Montenegro) was
bound at that date by thc GcilocideConventio~land that thc Court excrcjsed
jurisdiction o\lcitpursuant to ArticlIX of the Coi~\~entionI.n rclatito~
the argulnent of thc FRY (Scrbia and Montei~cgro) that it was only
"revealed" in Decetnber 2000 that it was not bound by thc Gellocide
Couvention in 1996,thc Couit statcd:
"In advallc~ngthis argumctlt, thFRY docs not rclyon facts that
cxistcd in 1996.It1reality, it bases its Applicatiotl for rcvisioi~on
thc legal coiiscqucnccs which it scclts to draw from facts
subscquc~ltto the Judglncnt whlch it 1sasking to havc rcviscd.
Thosc conscqucnces, cvcn supposing thcln to bc cstablishcd,
cannot bc regarded as facts within thc mcantng of A~z~clc61 [of
thc Statutc]. ThFRY'S argumcntcanllotaccordingly be uphcld ""
2.10. The "facts" upon wllicl~the FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) rclied
did not obtain until 1No\rcmbcl-2000, morc than a ycar after Croatia had
fitcd its application in thcsproceedings. The Court also addrcsscd tl~c
implicatjons of Gcneral Asse~nblyresolution 47/1, of 22 September 1992,
which dctcrmiaed that theFRY (Scrbia and Montcnegro) "cannot contii~ue
automatically thcmcmbcrsliip"of the formcr SFRY in thc Uilitcd Nations,
and decided that the FRY (Serbia and Montcncgro) should apply for
mcmbcrsliip 111the United Nations. In its 2003 Judgtncrit the Cou~t
confinned that at the time Bosnia instituted proceedings against tFRY
(Serbia and Montettcgro) (on 20 March 1993) and at tl3c time of thc
Judgmcnt (11 July 1996) "thc situatioil obtainiilg was that crcatcd by
Gciicral Assembly resolution 4711."l0That situation "obtained" until I
Novcinbcr 2000, whet1thc Gcncral Assembly adoptcd resolutioi~ 591 2
adtiiittitlg FRY (Serbia and Monrcncgro) to membership of the Unitcd
Natio~xs.It therefore cannot bc cl~allcngedthat the lcga1 situation- in
particular relating to tllc question of whcthcr tlzc FRY (Serbia and
Montc~~egro) was bomld by the Gcnocide Convention - was preciselythe
sainc on 11 July 1996 and on 2 July 1999, when Croatia filcd its
Application to the Comt. Otl that datc thFRY (Scrbia and Montenegro)
was bouociby thc Gcnocidc Convention, and pursuant toArticlc 1X of thc
Conventio~~tllc Couit had jurisdiction r-nrior7epersonae ovcr tlie FRY
(Serbia aid Montcncgro).
2.11 Moreovei, as thc Court makcs clear 111~tsJudgmcnt of 3 Februaty
2003, Un~tcdNations Gcl~cralAsscmbly rcsolut~oi~ 47/1 did not affcctthc
//M/par69.
10 Ihidpara70. 9
2.9. Thc Cou~l'sJudgtnciitof 3 Fcbrua~y2003 wasclcar in rcjcctinp thc ,.iglltof tlic FRY (Scrbiaand Montcncgro) to appcar bcfo~cthc Courl, and
application of thc FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro). and upliolding ~ts z*[li]ordid it affcct thc position of thc FRY in rclatio~~to thc Gcnocidc
Judg~nc~iotf 1996,to the cffcct that thc FRY (Scrbia andMontcncgro) was ~~n~clltion"." Thc Coutl also ~nadcit clcar that any ncw fact and thc
bou~idat thatdate by the Gc~locidcConvcntionand that thc Court cxcrciscd sjtllationrcsulting thcrcfiom could not havcretroactivccffect:
jurisdiction ovcr it pul-suantto AnicleIX of the Convcntlon. 111relation to
thc argitrnclit of thc FRY (Scrbia and Montc~~cgro)tliat it was only '*TheCourt wislics to cmpliasizcthat Gencral Asscmbly resolution
55/12 of l Novcmbcr 2000 cannot havecl~angcdrctroactivcly thc
"rcvcalcti" in Dccc~nber2000 that it was not bound by thc Gcoocidc .rurgener-i.9positin11which thc FRY found itsclf in vs-a-vis thc
Convctitiotiin 1996,tlicCourcstatcd:
Uuitcd Nations ovcr Ihc pcr~od 1992 to 2000, or its position in
"In advancing tliis ar~umcnt,thc FRY docs not rely on facts that relation to the Statutc of the Cou~t and the Gcnocidc
cxistcd in 1996.111rcality, it bascs its Applicatio~ifor rcvision on
thc legal conscqocnccs whtch it scclts to draw ~om facts
subscqucr~tto the Judgtncnt wh~cliit is asking to havc rcvtscd. 2.12. Iu Croat~a's vicw tlic Court's reasoning IS unimpcacliablc. Thc
Tliosc coascqucnccs, cvc~isupposing tlicin to bc cstablishcd, is applicable w~tliouidistinctior~to tl~clegal situation govcriii~ig
cannot bc regasded as facts withinthe mcanlng of A~ticlc61 [of relations bct\vcc~iCroatia and tlic FRY (Scrbia atid Montcncgro) 111thc
thc Statute].TlicFRY'Sargumentcanlintaccordiilglybc upheld."' period up to and including2 July 1999.
2.10. The "facts" uponwhich the FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) rclicd 2.13. Tlic Court'sJudgments of 11July 1996 and3 Fcbma~y200.3conlirtn
did not obtain until1 Novcmbcr 2000, mol-cthan a ycar aftcr Croatia had that on thc datc of filltlg of Croatia's Application instituting thcsc
filcd its applicatioli in tl~cscproccedings. Thc Court also addrcsscd thc procccdil~gs - 2 July 1999 - the FRY was bound by thc Gcnocidc
implicatio~isof Gelicral Assciubly I-csolution4711,of 22 Scptc~nhcr1992, Convcntiotl and tlic Court accord~~lglyId, and continucs to havc,
which dcte~mincdthat thc FRY (Scrhia and Montcncgro) "cannot colitinue jurisdiction ovcr thc FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) pursuant to.A~.ticle IX
autolnaticallytlic mc~nbcrship"of thc for~ncrSFRY in tllc Unitcd Nations, of tl~cCollva~tioll.
and dccidcd that tlic FRY (Scrbia and Montc~icgro)should apply for
metnbcrsh~p in tl~c Unltcd Nations. I11its 2003 Judgincnt thc Caul-t 2.14. It follows that thc first pl-climinaryobjectionof the FRY(Scrbla and
confinncd tliat at thc time Bosnia instituted procccditigs against thc FRY Montcncgro)is without merit and sl>ouldbc rcjcctcdby thc Coui-t
(Scrbia and Montencgroj (on 20 March 1993) and at tlic timc of the
Juclg~nctit(I I July 1996) "thc situation obtailii~igwas that crcatcd by
Gcncral Asscnlbly rcsolutio~i4711."'LT ' hat situatio~l"obtained" until l
Novc~nbcr2000, whco thc Gctlcral Asscmbly adoptcd rcsolutioti 55/12
admitting tlic FRY (Scrbia and Montc~~egrot)o niclnbcrship of thc Unitcd
Nations. It thcl.eforc cannot bc cliallcngcd that t11clegal situation - in
pa~licular rclating to thc question of whcthcr the FRY (Scrbia and
h4ontcncgro)was boundby thc Gc~iocidcConvc~it~ot l was prccisely tlic
sarnc oti I1 July 1996 and on 2 July 1999, wlicti Croatia filcd its
Application to tlicCourt. 011 that datc tllc FRY (Scrbia andMontencgro)
was bound bytllc Gci~oc~dC c o~~ve~it~o at~d,pursuant toArticlc IX of the
Convcntion thc Coutl had jurisdictioll roliorrepecrorioe ovcr thc FRY
(Scrbiaand Mo11tc11egl.o).
2.11. Moreover. asthc Court makes clcar in its Judgment of 3 Fcbtuaty
2003. UtlitcdNatlons Gcncral Asscmblyrcsolutton 4711did not affcct tl~c
//>id.pa69.
/h,< parn 70 CHAPTER3
THE APPLICATIONIS ADMISSIBLE
IN RESPECT OFALL AC'TS OR OMMlSSlONS
ALLEGED BY CROATIA,IIVCLUDING THOSE
OCCURRING PRIOR TO27APRIL 1992
3.1. TIIC seco~ld preli~ni~laryobjection of thcFRY (Serbia and
Montcncgro) is rnadc in thc altcrnativc to the first preliminaryobjcction. It
coi~tcndsthat Croatia's Application is il~ad~nissiblcto thc cxtcnt that it
rclatcs tactsor omissions which occurrcd priorto 27 April 1992.' Tl~c
FRY (Scrbia and Moxitenegro)considersthat it can o~llybe 1-csponsiblefor
acts or omissions occurring aftcs it camc into existence a- on 27tc
April 1992 - and not for acts or omissiolls which occurredprior to that
datc. Specifically,tFRY (Scrbia and Montencgro) argues that it cannot
be scspo~~sibcs an entiti1.stntr7crsccndiin tllc pcriod prior to 27 April
1992,and that itcannot beleld responsiblc by way ofcle,firidcatity
with theSFRY. Croatia considerthatinsofar as tl~cycoilctheCourt's
jurisdiction: thcsc argumcnts arc without merit and should hc rcjectcd by
thc Court; altenlatively that thcy raise issues of fact and law that go to the
merits of the disputc between Croatia and the FRY (Scsbia alid
Montcnegro) and callnobcresolved atthispreli~liinalyobjcctiollsstagc.
3.2. Croatia notes thattFRY (ScrbiaandMontaxgso) does not cIai111
that all of Croatia's Application is i~ladmissi011this ground. Its
argument is Ijinited only to some of tile "gincidents"-such as thc
atrocities in Vukovar and thc sl~ellingof Dubrovl-iwhich occurred
berwcc~l25 August 1991 and thc ct~dof that year. TFRY (Serbia and
Montcnegro) accepts that it can,principlebc rcsponsiblc for acts and
ornissioils occurring af27rApril 1992. T11crcis tl~ercnorclaim of
inadlnissibility as to these matters, which arcnumcrous and arc addresscdin dctail in Blc ~cmonal.~~nilatl~, tlzcFRY (Sclbia and Mo11tcl.1cg1.o)
docs not asscrt thc inadmissibility of Croatia's claim conccrntng the failurc
of thc FRY (Scrhla and Montcncgro) to bring to trial thosc pcrsons
rcspollsrbic for tllc acts or omissions occur~~ingprior to 27 Apsli 1992 (as
described in Chapters 4 and 5 of Croatia's Memorial) who arc known to
livc inthe FRY (Scrbia and ~onrenc~ro).'
3.3. Thc claim by thc FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) as to inadmissibility
islhereforc vcly limited in I-clationtoCroatia's Applicationas a wholc. The
claim of thc FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) as to inadmissibility cn
coii-~passcsonly that part of Croatia's Application conccs~~ingIl~e
rcspor~sibilityof thc FRY (Scrbia and Montencgro) for acts and omissions
occurring prior to 27 April 1992. Even if the claim was succcssfu1,which
Croatia considers it cannot be, significant parts of Croatia's case wouId
remain beforc thc Court.
3.4. Iiowcvcr lilnitcd thc claim of thcFRY (Scrbia aridMontcncgro) inay
bc, it islnisco~lccivcdand must fall. Thls 1sfor thrcc main rcasons:
Flrsr, thc objections raiscd by tl~c FRY (Scrhia and
Montcncgro) do not rclatc to the adillissibility of thc
application but rathcr to thc substancc atid mcrits, namcIy
whcthcr 11~ FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) isrcsponsiblc
for thc acts11quest1011 (paras.3.5-3.9 bclow);
Second, 111tllc evcnt that thc Court should dccidc to dcal
wit11thc issucs by way of prcliminaiy objection, it is
wcll-establisl.tcdthat thc rclcvat~tobligations under thc
C;cnoc~dcConvention are not tclnporaliy 111nitcdas tlic
FRY (Scibia and Montcnegro) claims (paras. 3.10-3.16
bciow); and
Third, thc "admissibiiity" grounds for disputing tl~c
I-esponsibilityof the FRY (Sabia and Monre11egl.o) arc
contrived and largely irrelevant, since it iestablishedin
general iotciualiunal law that Statc responsibility callnot
be te~nporally lilnited in rcspect of co~lductoccurri~lg
only after a Statc has been rccogniscd to cxisl, as thc
2
For mumcrouscxalnplcs of acts anti o~i~ishatoccuricd aftcr 27 April 1992, sec
Mcinorial. Cllaptcrs 4 ancl 5 wliicl~sct out inciclciitsof looting oltd destruction of
propcrty, including cultural property, brutal attacks, including rapes and otl~crsexual
offences and killings ofats. forced labour;expulsions and transportation ofCroars
to concentratio~icamirScrb-occupied territo~yor inFRYe itselE.g.paras 4.03;
4.46: 4.77, 4.90. 4.92, 4.93, 4.114. 4.138. 4.192 Torsuch acts 2nd omin E.ns
Slavoi~iFor acts and omissions in othcr parts of Croatiasec e.g.paras 5.14. 5.27. 5.75,
5.146,5.147,5.15S15.207.5.209.5.212.5.214,5.220-5.3-22.5.233.
3 Mcinorial,Submissiotl2(a)p. 414. 13
FRY claims. Morcovcr, it is abundantly clear from tllc
Mcinolial that Croatia's clai~i~does llor depe~id upon
solnc assertcd de,J;rrctidentity betwecn the FRY (Scrbia
alld Montcncgro) atid SFRY, but turns 011 thc dcgrce of
control exercised over thosc pcrsons rcsponsiblc for thc
acts and omissions by thc cl~titythat became thc FRY
(Serbia andMontencgro) (paras. 3.17 erseq. below).
TheOl!jccrion qf'lhcFRY (SerhinallclMon/ei?egro )oes to /he
r~~er.al.ldd0e.sr7ofrni.si.ssuc.sc?fa~/177i.~,~i/>i/itjj
issibility challcngc of tlic FRY (Scrbia and
mcnt as to the merits of Croatia's claim,
and Montaicgro) can bc held responsible
acts of gcnocide co111111ittc id Croatia prior to 27 April 1992. This
which go to rhc mcrits, concerning the
tablish~ncntof facts and the attribution of rcsponsibility. Thc issues of
tributionarc addressedas such by Croatia in Cl~apler8 of' its~cinoriai.~
ut its Memorial, Croafa's position is
ia and Montcncgro) is rcspo~lsiblc for
iventio~~irrcspectivc of whcthcr they
hat tllc mcrits cannot bc addressed at
c ol?jcctionof the FRY (Serbia and
either that the rcsponsibility of a
illrelation to acts or otnissioils
lich occu1.1.defore that State came into being OJ, ifsuch responsibility
uld arisc, that it did nodo so in thiscasc 011 the facts. Eitlicr of these
incrirs of Croatia's claim111cithcr
Ithe prcliminaly objcctiot~sphasc:
and factual mcrits, going to thc
. Thc admissibility of a claim rajses distinct issucsfiom tl~osearising
rclatioll to jurisdictionaor 111critsclaims. Adtnissibility is csscntially
adjudicatioi~ in light of thc
ng comlncntator has descsibcd thc
"11both advisoryand contentious cases, it sccms, the rulc is that
the Court is undcr an obligatioll to give a decisiol~, whetherCsoatia during a period of tinic whcn thc Gcnocidc Convcntion was
applicable. Thcrc is no argument that Croatia laclts a Icgitili1ateintercst in
the issue.Tlicrc is noconceivable argurncntthat taking this mattcl-on to tlzc
incsitswould bcan iiiapprogriatccxcrcisc ofthc Court'sjudicial functjons.
3.9. Croatia notes that thc sccoild prcliminary objectioll of thc FRY
(Serbia and Montcncgso) is not supported by a sillglc authority. The
Preli~niiiaryObjcctions al-enot supportedby a single dccisioli of the Court
which justifies t11carguiiicnl. This coni7r1ns thc cxtcnt to which the
argun-tentas to iiiadi~lissibilityis ~iiisconceivccl.
TheAppliccrlionoftl7e GenocideCor?veniioni.rr7ollimited Rariolqe
(2)
Tenlpnr-is
3.10. The argurnent of tltc FRY (Serbia and Motitenegro) is prcscntcd as
an inadinissibility challenge, sather than as a jurisdictional challcngc. 111
fact, what thc FRY appears to be arguiiig is that thc Court has 110
jurisdictioii ~-rrtio~leenl~)o~-iosvcr acts or cvents occurring bcforc 27 April
1992, when the FRY (Serbia and Motitcncgro) calnc into cxisteucc. This
argument is cqually iiiisconceivcdandwitliout merit.
3.1 1. Croatia hcrc addrcsscs this issuc briefly, sil~ccit has already becn
f~illyclaboratcd in tlic ~cmosial.~Croatia iiotes in particular that theFRY
(Serbia and Montenegro) has not taken issuc with thc arguments pul
forward in the Melnorial, and that in its Prelilnina~yObjcctio~is ithas not
sought to rc-open thc issues dccidcd in l996 by thc Court in thc Cn.re
Conca-l~iugfl7e /1p/?lica/ion of (he Co11vei7tion 017 fl7e Pi-e1~~771jaoind
Prrr?ishtrwr ~fthe (:rime qf iienocide (Boasicru,?dHe1.zeg01.4tl rr. 1:."
3.12. In ~ts1996 Judglncnt thc Court rejected thc arguments of thc FRY
(Scrbia and Montcncg~o)that it was not compctcnt to dcal with cvciits
occuring prior to 29 Decembcr 1992 (wlicn Bostlia and Hcrzcgovilla
bccalnc a party to thc Convctition).The Court madc clcar its vicw tliat:
"the Gcnocidc Convcntion - and in particular ArticlcIX - docs
not contain ally clausc thc objcct or cffcct of which is to limitIII
such manncr thc scopc of itsjurisdictioni~~i~ontc erlll~or-a,nd nor
did tllc Partics thctnsclvcs niakcany rcscrvatlon to that end, c~tlicr
to tlic Convc~itionor on thc occasion of tlic signaturc of thc
Dayton-Paris Agrccincnt. The Coul-t thus fiilds tliat it has
jurisdiction in this casc to givecffcct to tlic Gci~ocidcCorzvcntion
S Memor~al,paras6.13-6.15and8 37
0 scq
ICJ Rcp. 1996.p.595 cv~tli~cgasdto thc rclcval~tfacts whlcl~havc occurrcd s~ncct11c
bcginuli~gof thc conflict which tookplacc in Bos111a-I-Icrrcgovirla.
This finding IS, moscovcr, in accordancc with thc objcct and
purpose of the Convention as defincd by thc Court in 1951 ancl.
rcfcsl-edto abovc (scc paragraph 31 abovc)."'"
3.13. It is noteworthy that thc Courtintroduced no tclnporaf limitations to
thc applicatio~lof tllc Gc~iocidcConve~~fiolo lr its cxcrcisc of jurisdictioll
under the Conventiotl. The Court co~ifir~ncd that it had jurisdiction ovcs
evcnts occu~sing prior to 29 DCCCIII~C I.92, and did not exclude its
jurisdictionover cvcnts occurrir~gprior to 27 April 1992. It confinl~cdthc
applicability of the Convention, tothe "rclcvant facts which have occuncd
since the hcail~nina of the conflict" (emphasis added), which plainly
includcs all cvcnts iiicludi~~gthosc prior to 27 April 1992. The Court's
cot~clusio~ ~s equally applicable to acts and omissions occuning on thc
tel~itoiyof Croatia, includii~gin the periodprior to 27 April 1992.
3.14. Tlic ratio~inlcfor thc Court's approach was not said to bc prc~niscd
upon tlic particular cucumstanccs of Bosnla's case or ally dctcnnination as
to tlzcdale upon which the FRY (Scrbla and Montcncgro) cam into
cxistetlce. It dcrives from dlc Court's asscss~ne~otf tl~cfundamcntaI objcct
and purpose of thc Coavent~on,nar~idytllc climiiation of thc scourgc of
gcnocide. Thc approach is crnphasiscd by Judgc Shahabuddccl~ in his
Scparatc Optn~on, noting that the objcct~ons of thc FRY (Serb~a and
Montc~zcgro) would have Icd toan
"incscapabtc timc-gap in tbc psotcction wh~ch thc Genocidc
Co~lvclltionprcvjously afforded toall 'human groups'coi.r~priscd
in thc foni~crSocialist FcdcralRepublicof Yugoslavia"
and that this would not bc colisistc~~wt ltll tllc "objcct and pusposc" of tllc
Convcntion. According to Judge Shaliabuddccn, that objcct arid purpose,
furthcrtnore, "required partiesto observe itin such a way as to avoid thc
crcatioa of such abrcak in thc protcctioa which it afforded"."
3.15. The applicabilityof thc obligatiotis of thc Genocidc Conventlon to
allcvc~~tosccunrng "since thc beginningof thc conflict" llcccssarily mcans
that its application1s ullaffcctcd by for~nalcoi~sidcrationsrelating to thc
proclamatiot~by thc FRY (Serbia and Montcncgro) of 11s cxistencc. Tllc
Ge~~ocidc C:onvciit~oti'sobl~gatiotisapplicdto all pasties andgovcrumctltal
authoritiesfor thc duration ofthc conflict.
10
IOic, arsgrapll34.
1I Il)ipp.635-6. 17
1nIigbt of this conclusion, w111chis plai~ilyconcct in pri~iciple,the
ust bc considcrcd as applicable to all the cvctlts
1-SFRY and to the conflicas a wl~olc.711ccxtcnt
llicll theFRY (Serbia and Moalcrlegro) is rcsponsiblc under the
lcntion for such of those evcnts as ailiou~~tedto breachcs of the
pertaining to thc mcsjtsofthc prescnt casc. For
purposes of thc Court's jurisdiction, it is sufficient to say that its
onsibility canrlot bc cxcludcd n priol-i by refcrcncc to thc scopc or
jcabilityof the Couvention
TheGl-arindson T.17i?icesponsiOilif?isdisputed ure contrivedn~~cl
i1.1eleirnnt11?eCol//-'.urlsdclior?
and Montcncgl-o) advarlces two arguments to
effcct thatitcallnot be held sesponsiblc for acts
prior to tlicfor~nalestablish~ncnt of the FRY
n 27 April 1992.Tllc first is a gcncral argument
tl~cabsellce of any basis in inten~ationallaw for holding states
ilsiblc for acts or oinissions p~.iorto tlie creation of the Statc
11argumenl specific to thc cvcnts, namely, that
was no </~~,j;Qcideilri~ybetween the FRY (Scrbia and Montencgro)
he SFRY. Both argumcnts go to t11elegal and factual inerits and
bc acIdrcsscdat thc stagc of prclin~ina~objcctions. Ncvcrthclcss, it
npriatc to set out Croatia's vicws - on a prcliininaly basis- as to
sustair~ablefortwo priilcipalseasons.First, it is
d that under iiltcrnational law rcspol~sibilityis not
d to acts or omissioi~soccurri~~onlyaficr the forinal establishmentof
tc, but may also cxtcild to conduct prior to that date. This is
ularly cvjdcnt incase of statesin .sla/nascendi.Thcrc is no rcason,
c circumstances of thc dismembermentof thc SFRY, ro djsputc tllc
catiorlof that general principleto the prcscnt casc. Sccondisinot the
cntiot~of Croatia that tliercwas de ,factoideiltity bctwecri theFRY
ncgro) and thc SFRY, as tl~c FRY (Scrbia and
,and tlzeargumcntsto that cffcctarc largcly irrcleva~lt The FRY (Serbian~dMonlcnegro) is t-espon.ril> /s aSrafe ir?stuf~~
{a)
i?ascendifur.ncls c?fgenocidccon~n?illed inCronlia ~JI-~O'027Api-il
1992
3.19. The FRY (Serbia and Montcnegro) offers two alternative arguments
to courlter the claim of its responsibility as 8 State itstatr! nn.scci?diThc
first is that therc is "no cstablishcd coaccpt of stateh srarilnascentli, and
tha-c is 110established mLc on liability of 'states in s1atr.r17a.scc.r.ii'
intcmational law". The sccond is that "the 'in ~fatunusce17di'eonccpt is
lnisptaced in tllc context ofthc dissolutiou of the SFRY and the cmergcncc
of the FRY."" Quite apart from thc fact that both these arguments plainly
pertain to the merits of thc case, both arc wrong, as will now bc
dcmonstratcd.
(0 I[ is\rtell csfnblisi?edthcrra Slate lnoy be ~~e,s~>on.c ,hilec*ri7ufic/
prior to rhe fir-mal e~tahli~shmc~ ofttheStare
3.20. The FRY (Serbia and Montencgro) has noted that tllc prirlciplerelied
upon by Cl-oath is reflected in Article 10 of the ILC's Articles on the
Responsibility of States for Intcmationally Mrl-o~~gfu ~lcts." Tllc ILC's
Articlss wcrc adopted aftcr Croatia submitted its Memorial, on 14 MarcIz
2001, and have now becn takcrl note of and auncxcd to General Assclnbly
Rcsolutio1l.56183 of 12Deccinbcr 2001.
3.2 1. Articlc 10 (2)provides:
"Thc conduct of a ~novcment, iusurrcctlotlal or othcr, which
succccds in cstablishi~~g a new Statc in part of tlic tcnito~y ofa
prc-existing Statcor in atc~~~to~ wy.rdcrits administration shallbc
consrdercdailact of the new Stateundcrintcrt~ationallaw,"
3.22. As the ILC Coinmcatary lnakcs clcar, Articlc 10(2) was drafted rn
tllclightof tllc "gcncral acccptancc" of thc principle in intct-llationallaw as
reflcctcd it-arb~tral decisions, Statc practice and the litctaturc." The
psitlciplcIlasbroad support.
I; Prclimina~yObjections,p.13.
13
UNDoc. A/CN.4/L.602/Rcv.l (2001).
14 Ai~thoriticscitby tl~c11,OCom~~-rcntarnclutic tlarbirraawards in tllc Boiillcrr
RNI'I~I~cO)'lain~(R.I.A.A. voIX,p.445 (1903)at p. 4531,the Plier.~oCctb~ilooi?d
lJu'iliarinNI~II~O.clilrjrtt(R.I.A.A. vol. IX. p. 510 at9p. 513). the Fi-c.ticl?
ClottrpciqfI/cr7czlreR~il~nadsclaiin (R.l.A.!l.X.op.285 (1903) at p. 354he,
ni.scose (R.I.A.A.voIX,p. 119(1902)).andthc Pirrsorrcare (K.I.A.A.vol. V. p. 327
(1928) at 11353).Tl~cpriticiplc has bccn affiiinctlic work ofthePrcparatoly
Coinmittce fol.t1930 CodificatiollCotlfcrcl~ccand has subsequentlybccrlrcaffi1.111cd
iu thcast of il'lii~elf'Defcr?Vct~nibi11h411ai~clirrrii2(7)SA 355,p. 360. It 19
71,~ p~.il]cipiis also consistentwith the approach takenby the Court
])cl.contexts. In its 1971 Nnr~iibiaOyiiiion, for cxamplc, thc Court
.,l,cd tllat "physical control of a territory, and not sovc~ciglity or
lacy of titlc, is the basis of State liability for acts affecting othcr
7,''~hc approach points also to responsibility for acts occurring
e fotll~alstatehoodis declared, as otte leadingcommelitaryhas put it:
cro,,ccstateliood is firmly establishcd, irisjustifiable, both legally
practically, to assuinc thc retroactive validation of thc Iegal
rduril~ga period prior to gcllcral recognition as a state, when
,me dcgsccof cffcctive govcrntnc~>e txisted.. ..[Tlllcprinciple of
ffcctive~lcssdictates acceptance, for sonlc lcgal purposcs at least,
f continuitybcfoseand after statcllood is fiimly established."'"
Thc approach iscasily justified. 11may oftcl1bc difficult to put a
tlatc upon the lnomcllt at which a Statc can bc said to exist for
s of i~ztcrnational law, i~lcludillg its responsibility under
ional law. A forinal proclamation, an act of rccogr-lition, OS
on to membership in an intcr~iatiot~alorganisatioii inay provide
idcilcc,but it is rare for a sufficient consc~isusof opinion to poii~t
ly towards a particular day. Thc date on which a State fos~nally
ares its own cxistcncc should not ncccssarily bc treated as thc datc
I which its intcmational rcsponsibility lnay bc cngagcd. If otherwise,
woiild be col~ccdiagto States tlzcpossibility of unilaterally changing
scopc of their itltcr~~ationar lcspo~~sibilityby choosing to delay or
nce thc datc upon which, as it wcrc, they 'bring thcmsclves into
This factor is cspccially pcstitlcnt i~zthe prcsent case. Tlic forlnal
lamation" creating thc FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) on 27 April
did not crcate a Statc out of thin air. Rather, it formalised a sct of
a], econoitiic and political arrallgcniellts which were, at that timc,
dy largely in place, and whicl~corrcspollded to tl-IC actual c011tro1 that
already been excrcisedby the incipientgovenzlnctltovcr the tcl-ritolyin
stion. In other words, t11cproclat~~atiolifor~naliscd a prc-cxistent
latjon. If wotlld be wrong to takc that date as the lnolnent at which
also fintls ai~iilogoiisI-ccognitionin t11ccofcIrhh Free S/u!e I:.Gitctr.ar~~afi
nwosir Co. Sup. Ct.NY County.May 1927,A.D. 1925126,Case NO. 77, p. i00a11d
I.'()gfll.!oof her1,0 'Doi7ogl71r1rr~ii//7c]Sup. Crof the Irish FreStatc(17Dcc.
1925) AD. (1925-6)CascNo. 76, p. 98 (whichitsclf followcan earliersrriog of cases
includingKir~gofthe 7k.oSiriliesI:lVi/.ilsI85l) 1 Sirnor, 30; G:S.A.i:.Prioleaii
(18653)5L.J.L'I17.: 2 and M559; U.S.A.v.A4~:Xu c1869) ]-.R8 Eq.69; Re,~~iOl if
Pe1.21.DI.C?'/~RI.OS. P:O.(1888) 31;Ch. U. 348.
TCJRep.1971,p. 54.para 1lS.
Brown~icA. .ir~ci,,c-fPr,hlirII~~C~.IW,ILOCII5."cd., 1998.pp. 77-78.iotcrt~ationalrespollsibility could bc cngagcd and altributablc to thc FRY
(Scrbia and Montenegro). That responsibility should, rather, date fro111 ti~c
111ome1a 1ttwhich the organs of what was latcr to becol~iethc FRY (Scrbia
and Montcnegro) had ce~llciltcdtheir separate existcilce frotlic rest of the
SFRY and wcre crlgaged in activities which were of potclltial rclevanccar
the internatiol-ralIcvcl. As indicated in tl~cMemorial, that Ilad plainly
occurred wcll before 27 April 1992.After that datc tlzcpersoils rcsponsibfc
for Ithe entity which bccaine thc FRY (Serbia and Montcncgro) wcre
dircctly involved it1the acts and olnission01.1the tcrtjtory of Croatia which
gavc risc to Croatia's Application,as Croatia's Me111oriadlemon~trates.'~
3.26. Croatia appreciates that to a significant extent tbcsc arc questions of
fact wliicb arc pi-oycrlyto bc addrcsscd at thc merits phase. As to thcse
facts thc evidence put fotward by Croatia is col?lpclling,and has not been
challetlgcd by tllcFRY (Serbia and Montcnegro). Sillcc Croatia filcd its
Memorial furtl~cr cvideiicc has elncrgcd (ill the course of the ICTY
proceedings involving Mr Miloscvic) confirming thc ~natcrial aid
arguments put forward in Croatia's Mcmorial, and furthcr demonstrating
the dircct involvc~nentof Scrbian authorities in thosc acts and omissions.
The followingitems are put forward solely by way of exainple at this stagc:
Thc evidctlcc of Milan Babic, who was thc Prinle
Minister of the SA0 K~ajinagovenlmcnt in 1991, which
dc~no~zstratcsthc closc ties bctwecil SA0 Krajina, its
'govcmment' and military units and the Serbian Anny,
Millistry of'Dcfc~~ccM , inist~yof the Interior 2nd other
Minisuics of thc Government of Scrbia. I3c confinns
inrerdin that Scrbia providcd 81c "Serbian districts ill
Croatia" with lnilitaiy assistai~ccin the form of funds,
lnateriais and equipment; that the JNA acted together
with thc SA0 Krajiila TO in thc "defcncc" of ccrtain
-municipalities;that tllc co~lz~nandstluctureof thc a1111cd
factionsin the arca was run illparallel and "at thc top of
both lil-rewas Slobodatl Miloscvic;" and that Scrbian
laws were applied in SA0 Krajil-raand not thc laws of
Croatia. According to the witness, from August 1991, thc
JNA played the "command role"in "oitintoperations."'"
Tllc cvidencc of AleksaildcrVasiljcvic, who was a Major
Gct~cral, ir? thc SSNO (Thc Fcderal Sccrctariat for
Pcoplc's Dcfcncc), and from July 1990to May I992 was
first Dcputy, and thcn hcad of Security Administration,
I/
!S Mcmorjal,paras 8.3c/seq.
Sec A111.rcEvidcnc ofcMilanRabicilproceedingbscforctllInternationC1.imi11al
'Tribunalftl~fo1.11~1u.goslavia, 19-21Nouemhcr and 9 Dcccmbe1.2002(Exrl.acts). when hc was pensioned off prematurely.In April 1999lic
was appointed deputy headof the Army of Yugoslavia, a
post he licld uliril March 2000 whcn hc was appointed
advisor for security to tlie chief of ti~cGcncral Staff of
tlic army,bcing petlsioned from 3 1 December 2000. I-Iis
testimony demonstrates infer alinthe role and position of
tlic JNA vis avis tlieTcnitorial Defence; tlic JNA and its
rolein Cl-oath, including its rolc in Vukovar; the anning
of Scsbs in Croatia and tlic "financing" of tlie SA0
Krajilia"army" by Yugoslavia; and.I9
The cvidcl~cc of Dragan Vasiljkovic, \vhich demonstrates
rhc closc rclatiotlship atid command structures of tlic
JNA, thc TO in tlicKrajlna, andLLv~1~~itc~~~~y7.1"
3.27. Fro~nOctober 1991to 22 Decelnber 199 l M1-Milosav Dordcvic was
Cliicf of the Co-ordination Groupfor the SA0 Krajina and workcd for the
Ministcr of Defelicc of Scrbia. Hc wasable to wit~lessfirst hand 11icclosc
connections bctwccli the Scrbian Icadessliipand the acts which occurcd in
Croatia in the autumn of 1991. In I~isWitness Statciue~ltin proceediiigs
bcfore thc ICTY he confir~iisthat the Presidel~cyof the SFRY was, by
October 1991, ~nci-clya "Rump ~rcsidenc~"." He cotifirlns that thc
Republics of Serbia and Montciicgrowcre ordcrcd by tllc Rump Prcsidcncy
to provide "material support" for the JNA," that logistical support was
providcd by the ruiilp SFRY Fcdcral Sccrctariatof DefcliccTO," and that
there wcrc close ties bctwccn thc Serbian Ministry of Defc~lccand tllc TO
of the SA0 Krajina from tllc secolid half of 1991 onwards," and bctwce~i
tlic Co-ordination Group of the Scrbian Ministry of Defcnce and the TO of
the SA0 ~rajiiia." Mr Dordcvic's wit~lcss statcmcnt provides clcar
e\~idencethat the conduct of inter-aliathe Republic of Scrbia ispropcrly to
be considcrcd an act of the FRY, which was proclaimed from 27 April
1992.
'" See Anncx 6: Evidcncc of Alcksarides Vasiljcvic in pi-occcdi~ipsbcfosc tile
Tl~tcrnationlrirniilalTribforthe formerYugoslavia.Februa~2003,(Extracts)
10 Scc Anncx S: Evidence of Dragan Vai!iko\:iCin proceedings before tbc Intcrriationai
CriminalTriburialfor thc formerYugoslavia,Fcbr2003,(Extracts).
aI Scc Annex 10: Witncss Statcmcnt of Milosav Uordcviin p~occcdirigsbcfosc tlie
International Criminal Tribunaltile formcr Yugoslav6aMarch 2003 (Extracts),
22 para 22.
7/)ipars24.
23 Ibid. para3.
24
lhid, paras 31-42.
2.5 Ii~ip.aras43-46.3.28. Ncnlly availablc evidelicc also confinns tlic facts put forward by
Croatia in its Memorial showing that tl~cKepublic of Serbia andior thc
rump SFRY provided t<iiancialand material support to Serb controlled
districts in Croatia as carly as 1991. Thatsupport was directed towards Scrb
military units as wcll as Serb civilian governtncnt organs that nlcrc
cstablishcd in thosc atcas, and took thc for111 of fifinancialassistatlce, the
provision of inilita~ycquipmcnt, food, pcrsonnctand cxpel-tassistancc. The
cvidcncc strongly indicates that the furldingfor the A111iy of tl~cRcpublika
Srpska kajina einerged from a singlc firiailcing plan for all thrcc Sctb
armies, ttxcJNA (later thc VJ), thc Auny of theRcpublika Srpska Krajijina
and tlic Army of tllc Rcpublika SI-pska.This is confinned and sct out in
grcat detail in the Second Expci-tReport of Morten Torkildse~lprcparcd in
PI-osccutor- v Siohodar~Milosevic, in ptoccedings bcforc tlic ICTY.'" His
Rcport sratcsclcarly:
"The accuscd Miloscvic was thc Prcsidciit of thc Rcpubhc of
Serbia fi-om1990-1997 Accord~llgto docu~rlc~lto sbtained by [tlic
Office of thc Prosccutor], the government Institutions of tllc
Rcpublic of Serbia providedand/or facilltatcdtllcprovisioils of thc
matcrials and funding ~lccdcdby thc Scrb controlled d~stl~cts
dur111g1991and 1992 ""
Thc documentary cvidcnce upon which MS Torkildsen rclics shows that as
carly as 18 September 1991 the SA0 .Krajina was ~*cqucsting - snd
obtaining - large quantities of ammunition, equipment and supplies from
the Minister of Defence for the Kcpublic of Serbia. Mr Torkildse~~is
~~licquivocailn his coiiclusioiis:
"Thesc doculuet~tsdemonstsatc that during the time period [of
1991 and 19921, thc highest political andmilitary Icadcss of the
Kcpublic of Serbia wcrc closcly involved indccisions to provide
finaucing and lnaterials to the Scrb cotltrolled districts in Croatia.
[...] Thc President of the Rcpublic of Serbia, rhc accuscd
Miloscvic, was pcrso~iallyinvolvcdilldecisioilsto providc support
to thc Scrb controlled districts in cl-oatia.""
3.29. Io concludc. having regard tothc fillditigsof tlic Court in its 1996
judglllcnt as to thc applicability of thc Gciiocidc Coiivcntion and to the
claims and evidence adduccd by Croatia. tlic Court has jurisdictioii to
determine whcther tl~crcwas a breach of the Convcnt~onas a lesult of any
26
Sce Aimex I : Second Expclt Kcport of Morlcn Torltildse~iin procectiings bcfore tllc
lntcrnatiollal Cri~ninal Tribunal for thc for~ucr Yugoslavia (aConfidential
Anllcx),18Novetilbcr2002, at paras S-10.
27 lbirl.para 89.
?S Ibici,para 92.acts occurring during thc conflict, whether thcy occurrcd bcfore or aftcr 27
April 1992, and Croatla's claiins in this 1-ogardarc admissible. Ail
rcmalning issues coliccrilthc mcrits of thc prcscntcasc.
(ir) Tirein stotu na,ycendij~rinciplei.rfi1lIjaj~plicubleto tlrccme t!J'ii~
FRY (Sei-hio ni7d Monfeaeg1.0)
3.30. Thc FRY (Serbia and Montcncgro) claimsthat "thc corlccptof statcs
in sfatz,~~arceirdjis cvidctltl1101appropllatc for tli~scasc".'" Qulte apai-t
from tlzepoint that this ~ssuccvldc~~tirclates tothc meritsof thc claltn, the
ar_eulncntof tl~cFRY (Scrbia and Moiztcncgro)does not bcl~cfitfiom any
i~ltcmatiollalIcgaljustification, and isfactuallyimplausible.
3.31. The priinary basis for this contention by the FRY (Scrbia and
Montciicgro) is tllat Ihcprinciple rcflcctcd in AI-ticlcl0 of the ILC ArticIes
on State Responsibilitydocs not correspondtothe facts or cvellts leading to
the establisl~mcotof the FRY (Serbia and Montencgro). Thc FRY (Scrbia
and Montcncgro) suggests that A~ziclc10 coiicerns oiily the position of
"liberation or insurrection tno\~e~llci~tfsighting for i~tdcpeitdcl~ccand
e\~entuallygaining coiltrol over a territory, which is a radically diffcscilt
sctting fro111thc cot~tcxlof thc dissolutio~lof thc SFRY".'"~ support of
this thesis itclaims that tllesc was no movcment wl~oseobjective was to
crcatc tllcFRY (Serbia and Montenegro) within its presentbordcrs, but
rathcr the ainbitiotls of those coacerncd wcrc morc divcrsc (the crcation of
a Greater Scrbia or a Scrbia11Krajina). It is evident here that tl~cFRY
(Serbia and Montenegro) is secking to draw scvcral finc distinctions based
cssc~~tiallon questions of fact and appreciation, in a contextiriwhich such
disti~zctionsarc totally iizappropriate.It is also evident that the at.gument
raiscs issucs of factand law that go to the Ineritsof the dispute and cannot
bc addrcsscd at the prcli~niila~objcctioiispllasc.
3.32. In atly cvcnt, it is cvidcnt that thc phrasc "insui~cctionalmovcmcnt"
was not i~~tcildcd to be understoodiu tizcnarrow scllsc takcn by the FRY
(Scrbia and Montcncgo). Thc Coin~nclitaryto Article 10states that:
"A comprchc~~sivc definition of thc typcs of g~.oupscilcoinpasscd
by thc tcriil "insurrcctio~~almovcmcnt" as uscd it1articlc 10 is
made difficult by thc wldc varicty of forms wh~chinsurrcctional
niovcincllts may take in practicc, according to whcthcr tllcrc is
relatively li~nitcdiiltcmai unrcst, a gc~~uunccivil war situation, an
?9 Pl.cli11111abicctioiis.1).94.
30 Ii7icl.pp.96-7.3.37. What mattcrs, for pusposcs of applyil~gtllc pnnciplc, is that thc
~novc~nciiits ultilnately cclnclltcd in testablishment of a rlcw Statc and
In which thcrc is sufficiclcntcontllluity in tcnns of pcrsanncl and
organisation bctwcelltl~crnovel~lc~~ittself and tlzcsubscqucnt govclnrncnt
3.38. Thc emphasis, in other words, is upon thc factual co~~nccl~on
bctwccu thc tnovclnellt and the subsequeilt formation of a llcw Statc. This
is undcrscorcd in paragraph 4 of thc Co~lllnclltaiywhich pointsout that:
"wlicre thc inovcment acllicvcs its aiins and citl~crillstalls itscIf as
the new govcmmcl.rtof thc Statc or for~nsa IICW Statc 11part of the
territoryof tl~cplc-existing State..it would bc anomalous iftlicnew
rcgimc or new Stale could avold responsibility for co~lductcarl~cs
committedby ~t."~'
3.39. As the Coininc~itaiyindicates, itwould be "ar~omaIous"to prccludc
the responsibility of the FRY (Serbia and Monienegro) foi- conduct
comlnittcd or autl~orised by the pcrsons who wcnt 011 to becot~zcthe
ad~ninistrationand officials of the Statc which clncrgcd after 27 April 1992
as tllc FRY (Scrbia and Molztcnegro). As Croatia makcs clear in its
Memorial, thc FRY explicitly recognised thc links betwccn the fon77cr
SFRY's statc adlninistratioll and officials of the Socialist Republic of
Serbia and Socialist republic of ~ontcnc~ro." The FRY (Serbia and
Montcncgro) docs not deny that thcsc wcrc the salnc peoplc, and that they
wcrc ca~rying out the same policies. NOY has the FRY (Scrbia and
Montcncgl~o)challenged the list of leaditig political and military figurcs
illustrative of thc pcrsonal continuity and connections bctwecn mid-199I
and tllc datc upon which Croatia ijlcd its Application, on 30 July 1999.
That listmay bc foulldin Appcndix8, inVolumc 5 of the Memorial.
3.40. In the contcxt of thc factsadduccd by Croatiaconcemi~~g the defirilr/o
assulnption of governmental powers by tllc Serbian leadership, including
control ovcr thc JNA and Scrb paramilitary groups, thcrc was a "scamlcss
continuity in policy and practice on thc part of dlc Scrbian authorities
locatcd In~el~radc"." As thc CroatianMemorialllzaltcsclcar:
"by [mid-19911the only orgariiscdand functio~zlngauthorities on
thc tciritory of the formcr SFRY wh~cllposscsscd capacity to
assumc the rcsponsib~liticslmposcd by thc Gcllocldc Convcnt~on
wcrc thc autl~ont~csof tl~csix collstltuelltRcpublics of thc formcr
3S
36 ILC Com~nentary?ara 4.
Mc~norial,ara 8.45.
37 Il~i,ara8.43. SFRY. Thc proccss of dissolutio~iwas formally complctc wl~c~i
thc lastsuccessor statc orgaiiiscditsclf as a ncw ~tatc."'"
TIlc tlcwly available cvidcilcc from thc ICTY which is ref'erscdto abovc
incrcly servcs to co~ifirinthis point. ThcFRY (Serbia and Montclzcgso)
cannot plausibly contend that it catlnotbe rcspo~lsi-las a lnattcr of Icgal
pri~icipl- for aclsco~nmiued,authorised,or encouraged by its governincnt
prior to27 April 1992becausethe SFRYonly fomlally ceased to cxist once
tlicauthoritiesin Bclgradc had dcclarcd thc cxistc~iccof a IICW Fedcral
Republic of Yugoslavia. The FRY'S a~gumcntsarc inconsistent with its
i~isistcncc at that time (and up until October 2000) that it was
constitutionally and politicalthe co~lti~luatiool thc fonncr SFRY. Eve11
if it is now acccptcd that thcrc was no foslnal legal colltjlluity betwccn the
SFRY and tllc FRY (Serbia and Moi~tc~zegro a position which Croatia has
consistcntiy ii~aintaincd),this docs not displace tf~eobvious infercncc that
therc was considcrablc de ,fac/o continuity in pcrson~~eland policics
bctwecn a niunbcr of significatitorgans of thc SFRY oncc tlicy had fallell
into the l~andsof thc Serbian leadership and those of thFRY (Serbia and
Montcnegro) followingits fortnal creation in April 1992.
(l?) Ct-ocrlie~.eli~p011thecor71i.0e1xercised //WSer-bianLeade~ship
o~jc.~hnse 1~esponsible,fi7i-ea/roci/ieiiqi~eslion
3.41. Tlic sccond ground upon which thc FRY (Scrbia and Montcnegro)
dcnics tl~c"admissibility" ofCroatia's claims as regards cvcnts prior ro
April 1992ison the basis that thcrcis no de.Jircroidcntity bctwcc~ztFRY
and the SFRY. As notcd alrcady,it is Croatia's pri~nalysubmission that
this questio~lpel-tai~to thc ~ncritsof the prcscnt case and docs not affect
cither tllc Court's jurisdiction over,or the adlnissibility of, the claim.
Nonetliclcss, sincethc FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) spendsa co~~sidcrablc
amount of tilnc on such questions in its Preliminary Objections, Croatia
will respond directly to these arguments. It docs so in tile interests of
responsive~icssand without prcjudjceto itsprilnary submission.
3.42. Thc FRY (Scrbia and Montctlcgro) prcscnts till-cc arguments in
support of its argument. I) that thc dissolution of the SFRY was an
extcnded p-occss that was ordy complctcd in Juty 1992; 2) that tl~key
officcs of tlicSFRY wcrc not held by Scrbs; and 3) that the cthnic or
lcrritorial origin of thc office holders docs not support tile allegation of de
fact0 idcntityof thcSFRY with the FRY(Scrbia and Montcncgro).3.43. Thc FRY (Scsbia and Monicnegro) misundersta~ldsor misconccivcs
Croatia'scasc. Croatia does not argue that tfzerde,fac,oidentity bctwecn
thc SFRY and thc FRY (Serbia and Moxltcncgro). Croatia's consistent
position has becn that thc FRY (Serbia and Montelzcgso)is a succcssor
State, alo~lgsidethe othes four succcssor Statcs to the formSFRY. This
position is now acccptcd by the FRY (Serbia and Montcncgro). Rcyond
rhis, Croatia considcrs that during thc events arising within thc formcs
SFRY after April 1991, the Scrbian na~ionalistmovcmcilt lcd by Prcsidcnt
Miloscvic took control of scvcral of the most significatzt political and
military organs of the formesSFRY including, most importantly, thJNA.
Already by April 1991 thc process of taking controlof cer-tainpofitical and
military organs of thc SFRY had bcgun, so that thcse osgans no loilgcr
represented thc Fcdcsation as a whole, and could no longer*be rcgardcd as
organs of the SFRY as sucl~,wl~ichwas in the pi-occssof dissolutio~land
dismembcrtncnt. Thesc orgalls becalne a de.facfoad~~~inistl-atonf Scrbia,
whicl~forlnalised its position as tFRY (Sesbja and Montcncgro) after27
April 1992. Croatia has providcd al-npleevidcncc in its Mcmorial in support
of tlis argumcnt.'"incc the Mcinosial was filed further cvidct~cc has
c~nergcdin support of Croatia's arzument, in the procceditzgsbcforc tllc
ICTY in rclation to Mr Milosevic. One example of such cvidcr~ceruay bc
foul~d inthc evidcncc pro1:idcdby Ambassador Hcrbcst Ok~unof the US
Forcigtz~crvice.~~
3.44. Croatia and the FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) do not appcar to
disagrec that the dissolutioll of SFRY was an cxtended pmcess, or that
its coinpletion was confirmed by thc Badinter Coimnission on 4 JulyI992
(Opi~lionNo. 8). The partics disagree, howcvcs, on the implications to bc
drawn from this proccss, which the Badjntcr Cotnlnissiotz had alrcady
cofifirrnedto bc underway by II Janua~y1992(Opinion No. 1). ThcFRY
(Serbia and Muntc~~egso)collsiders that ui~til thc procla~natio~lof thc
dissolutiotof thc SFRY any act performed by individuals in thc name of
the SFRY may be attributable only to that cntiThis igllorcsthc facts that
well beforc April 1992 tlze territory of the follncrSFRJ7 had bceu
partitio~zcdand the Serbian Icadershjp lzadeffcctivcly assutned control of
the principal organs of tllc fo~-rlieSFRY. Croatia considcrs that the
Badinter Colnlnissio~l ~ncrcly declared and conii~mcd that which had
alrcady occun-ed.
3.45. Tllc FRY (Scrbla and Montencglo) sccks to shift thc burdcn of
rcsponsib~l~tyon to an cxtinct Stale, tllc SFRY. This obscurcs the fact that
thc pcrso~l~lclcolltrollitlg thc rclcvant organs ~u the i~~tcrirnpcriod
39
Sccc.gMcmorial.paras2.105-2.11andpar-as3.02-3.03.
40 Scc A~lilc9: Eviticncr of Hcrbcst Okunproceedingsbcforc thItitcrnational
Cri~ni~l~.ibu~flrthc IbnncYugoslavia,26-Fcbnrary2003.(Exr~.acts).subscqucntly assumcd tlzcsallncor similar positions In thc govcrtimcnt of
thc ~icwlycstabl~shcd FRY (Scrb~aand Montcncgro). And it crcatcs a gap
111thc p1otcctlon affordcd by thc Gcnocidc Convention, wholly itlcoilsistelit
with the Court's l996 judgmcnt in Rosilrn aidH~i.,-ego,.ol~ irFaRY."
3.46. Tllc scco~ld and third arguments of the FRY (Scrbia and
Montenegro) collccm the ilationality of thc pcrsons tliat cotitrolled the
rclcvant organs (and in pai-ticuIal-thc JNA). These argurncnts arc fully
rcfutcd by the evidcnce sct forth in Croatia's ~cmorial,"' which the FRY
(Scrbia and Moiltcnegro) docs not cballengc. Oncc again, of cottrsc, thcy
go to the merits of argi~inc~lta ss to control and attribution, and ca11notbc
addrcsscd at thc prclimina~yobjcctiollspllasc of tlicse procccdings. In any
evcnt, the Coui-thas dcalt dircctly with this pointin its 1996 Judgmcnt on
Jurisdiction and Admissibilityin BnsvrinandHer-zego~jii? 1.FRY:
"As rcgards thc qucstion ~~IictkcrYugoslav~atook part - dircctly
or indircctly - in thc conflict at issuc, thc Courl would t~~crcly notc
that thc Partlcs havc radically dtffcriilg \7icwpotntsin this rcspcct
and that ~t cannot, at th~s stagc m tlic procccdings, scttlc this
qucstioii,which clcarly belongs to thc merits.""
Thc situation in respect of this application is nodifferent.
3.47. Two points should, howcvcr, bc made cvc~iat this stagc. First, the
FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgra) focuses upon organs whosc functioning is
w11olIyirrclcvailt to thc claiins at hand. No onc has ever clai~ncdthat the
SFRY Constitutional Court or the SFRY's a~lnbassadorsabroad wcrc
directly or i~ldircctlyiilvolvcd in tlic acls or oinissioils which occul-rcdon
the territory of Croatia in the period after Scptcinber 1991, or that tl~cir
co~lduct1x1sanything to do with thc commission of acts amountii~gto
gcnocidc on the tci-ritoryof ~roatia.~"
42
Memorial, e.g. paras 2.105-2.1l2 andpara3.02-3.03.
" ICJRep. 1996.p. 595:pasa 31.
41
The FRY (Scrbiaant1Montc~lcgro)is higiily sclcctivc iirschoicc of organs. It docs
not, forexalnplc, considcl.thc Icadcl-s01affiliation of those JNA tbrces that wcrc
actuallyopcrari~igtifitllinCroatia at thc rclcvant tinlcs. anti it does not cliallengc thc
cxtcnsivc cvidcl~ccput fo~wasl y Croatiathat thosc fol.ccswcrc essentially controllcd
by the Serbian Icadcrshiin Bclgradc: Mcinorial, Cliapt3. Ratlicr. tlFRY (Serbia
and Montcncgro) focuscs oil thosc organs ---such as tllc foreign 11ii11i~n)'d thc
Constitutional Court--which arc in no way ilnpiicatctlill the atl-ocitiesin qucstion.
Even admitting that the Collstitutio~lalCourt did continuc to function dtiring that
pcriotl, and cvcif itconccrn was 10 protcct thc constitutionalsystcln of tlic SFRY,
this psovidcsiio assis~ancc10 whc~hcrthc FRY is responsible for acts of thc JNin
C~.oatiaat thc timc, or ~~hcthcrit actiially controllcd othcl.sig~~crgans of thc
SFRY. I1is pcrtincnt io notcillthat rcgard, that the FRI7 adduceno cvidcllcc as3.48. Sccond, that in choosing 10 focus upoilthosc who wcrc ~~oil~it~alin ly
positions of authority, the FRY (Serbia and Mo1.itei1egr.o f)ils to rcflcct ~hc
realities of thc situation, i~amclythat it1inany cases control was actually
exercised by otlicr agents - agcnts who wcrc, as Croatia has shown, acting
011 behalf of rIic Scrbiaii ~zatioualistinovcl~~c~a~ ntd who wcrc latcr to bc
associateddirectly with the forlnation of the FRY (Scrbia andMontcncgro).
It isttuc that, f'ol-mallyspcalting, at lcast two iinportant fcdcral positions
wcre occupicd by Croats (Mr Stjcpan McsiCas Prcsidcnt of thc Prcsidency
and Mt Antc MarkoviCas Fcderal Prime Minister). Itis equally apparent,
howcvcr, that tl.rcyhad been strippcd of a11cffectivc powcr by thc middlc of
1991,and in particular, their.coiitrolovcr the JNA itscIf,as is fuklyoutlincd
in tile ~c~~iorial.~T~'cir absence of contsol ovcr the JNA is illustrated by
thc rocket attacks on thc residence of thc Presidency which occurred at
Banski dvori on 7 October 1991.4"t is notable that thc FRY (Serbia and
Montcncgro) does not disputc the Croariariaccou~ltof ei~ciitsas set forth in
the Memorial.
3.49. Furthermore, thc fact that, for purposcs of diplomacy, the President
of the SFRY still participated in meetings with I-cpresentativcsof the EC
and otilcrs, or that sornc States still persisted in the view that thc SFRY
could be llcld together politically (as pointcd out in thc PI-eliminary
Ol~jcctionsof the FRY (Serbiaand Montcnegro),pp. 10 1-3) is inelcvant. It
has little or no bearing upon thc rcalitics of the situation (as evidcnccd by,
for example, the EC's Declaratioil of 5 October 1991 staring that EC
Ministers were riot prcparcd to ackt~owledgedecisions taken by a body
wliich could not claim to spcak for the wholc of ~u~oslavia)", and cannot
dctract from thc facts thatthcy had cffcctively no control over the conflict
as itsprcad fi-omoiie par1 of the SFRY to another, and that thc JNA was
ubiquitously i~lvolvedin thc conflict and in thc genocidal acts which took
place. The FRY (Scrbia and Montcnegro) does sccrnto admit, nevcrtlieless,
that even the tnorc remote organs of the SFRY such as thc personnel in tl~c
foscign missions and the Head of the SFRY mission to the UN in New
York wcrc rcplaced in 'early 1992', and in inally cases before thc FJtY
(Serbia and Mo~~tcncgro)itself caiiic into existence. This is anotbcr
exainple of the process whereby organs of thc SFRY were bcirlg
syste~natically taken ovcr by the Serb lcadership - a process wliich,
naturally, could not bc achicvcd at a sitlglc lno~nerlt it1timc and whicll in
fact hadbeen taltil~gplace for sol~icco~lsidcrablcperiod.
rcgardstllcextentowhich ti~cjudgincnts of the ConstitiClourtwcrc respectedor
compliedwith.
41 Memorial.paras 2.105-2.12.
4h
Sec newsl,apc~-rt~clcsfroin Slohocoo/ni,i~u(juOctobcr1991) and l.'eCec1i.(8
.47 October I991),Amicx7.
Sec Allncx 12, EC Declaration concernillg tSFRY Prcsidency, atioptcd at tlic
lnforinalmcctinof MiilisteforForcign AffairsH:ras~uilc~:s5. Octobcr 1991.3.50. Dcspitc the limitcd assertions and obfuscatioli of thc FRY (Scl-bia
and Montcncgro) it is apparent that inost of the evidence 111Croatia's
Mclnorial is substantially unchalicngcd by the FRY (Serbia and
Montcncgro). In particular, itdoes not dispute that thc JNA was cffcctivcly
coi~trolledby the Scrbiar~Icadctship (si~i~plyrcfessing to tlic fact that rhc
Prcsidcnt (Stedan Mcsic) was fortnally and ilolni~lallytllc Colillnalldcr in
Chicf). Itdocs not dispute, for cxamplc, that organs and irlstitutionsof the
former SFRY werc ulti~natclytakciiovcs by Serbs, but si~i~plyI-cfcrslo the
fact thatilsotnc cascs tl~isdid not occur until tbeginning of 1992 (not, it
will benotcd, 27 April 1992).It provides 'ilc1littlc ci~idcl~ccf,urthcrmorc,
to dispute Croatia's allcgalio~~sto thc cffcct that the JNA itsclf was
responsive to thc Scrbian lcadcrship's control.In sum, tlicrc is littlc in the
Prcliiiiinary Objections of the FRY (Scrbia and Montcl~cgro) which
undermine the essential facts as prcscnted by Croatia which point to its
rcspo~isibilityfothcatrocities com~ilittcdinthe tersitoly of Cl-oatia.
3.51. Without wishl~igto labousthc polnt, Croatia would againcmphasisc
that all of t13esclnattcrsgo to issucs which cannot bc properly addrcsscd at
thc prclinijnary objcctiolls stagc sillcc tlzcy~nvolvcdctailcd issues of fact
and since thcy plainly pcrtalnto thc merits.
(c) The C'orwf hns Jl,rr.i.rcfiii?respect ofthe.fai/ztic![he kXY
(Serbiaaid Monrcr~cgi-oto ) yi.evei?nl~ll~zrtlishthe violalions c?j
Arlicle.II and IIIqf/he Con\!ention,11~1zcnev erevoccztrred
3.52 The clailns of Croatia cncotnpassrhc failure of thc FRY (Scrbia and
Montcncgro) to prcvcnt atid pun~sl~ violat~ons of Articles 11and 111of t1.1~
Gc~locidc Convention.
3.53. As Croatia'sMcmorial r~laltesclcar," rcspoilsibility for violatioils of
tlic Gcnocidc Convelltlonis ~ml>utcd to tllc FRY (Scsbia and Montcnegro)
on two 1na11g 1rounds. First, thc gcilocidal acts in qucstion are attributable
to the FRY (Scrbia and ~ontcnc~ro)." Sccoizd, the FRY (Scrbia and
Montcncgro) failcd to prcvcnt and punish \~iolationsof A~.ticlcI1and 111of
thc Gcnocidc ~onvc~ztion."'
3.54. Article I of tlic Genocide Convcntio~lobliges States to talccall steps
uijthin tlicir powcl.to cnsurc tl~osewithin their jurisdiction, or subject to
their control, do not colninit acts of gcnocide. This ilnposcs a positive
obligationupon statcs to takc the necessary stepsnot only to prcverltacts ofgcnocidc taking piacc, but also to pun~shpclpctrators. As ArtlcIc IV of thc
Convcnlion states:
"Pcrsol~rcomrnlttlng gc~iocidcor any of tl~cotl~cracts ctiun~crated
in A~riclcIIIshall bc puu~slicd,whctlzcrthcy arcconstitutio~~ally
rcsponsiblc rulers, public officials orprivatc citlzcns."
3.55. Dcspitc thc tcrlns of Articlc IV, theFRY (Serbia and Montet~cgro)
has taken no steps to try and punish pc~pctratorsof any of the gcnocidal
acts described it1the Meinorial. Thc acts in questionwere gcilocidal in
cllaractcr, whctl~er or not tllc FRY (Serbia and Montcnegro) was in
cxistcncc orwas legallyrespoiisiblcfor them at thc tilnc thcy occurrcd. Tl~c
i~npcildillgdissolution of thSFRY did not rcndcr tllc co~lductinnocent, or
changc its character as criminal and gcnocidal: as this Court c~nphasisedin
1951 and again in 1996, tl-ic prohibitio~l of genocide is u~~ivcrsalill
charactcr. TllcFRY (Serbia and Montc~legro)failcd to take any steps to try
and punish thc pcrpctrators of genocide, dcspitc thc fact that most of thcm
wcrc and rernai~lknown to the authorities and wcre and arc on its territory
or on tcl-sitolyundcr its control. This cxtcuds not only to thosc in I-rigil
position, but also private pcrsons (acting in thc para~nilitaiygroups), thcir
icadcrs,and officers andsoldiersof the JNA.
3.56. Articlcs I and IV of thc Genocide Convention irnposc contjuuing
obligatio~lson Statcs pat-tics,suchthat an obligation l011each state party
to bring perpetrators of gcilocidctojustice irrespective of tirncat which
the conduct in qucstion took placc. Thosc obligatio~ls continue to bc
violatcd each day the FRY (Serbia and Montcncgr-o)fails to taltc stcps to
prosccutc and punish tl~oscit krlows to bc rcsponsiblc for the acts in
question. Thus, cven if tlic Co~lvetltiolidid not give risc to thc dircct
responsibility of the FRY (Scrbia and Mor~tcucgro)for thc conduct in
qucslion by reason of the fact that it tookplacc prior to the formal cl-cation
of tllc FRY (Serbia and Montci-rcgro)in April 1992,this does not affcct its
responsibilitysubscqucnt to that date for failing to bl-theperpetrators of
thosc acts tojustice. CHAPTER4
THE APPLICATIONIS ADMISSIBLEAND IS NOT MOOT
INRELATIONTO THE RELlEF SOUGHT
IN RESPECTOF SUBMISSONTO TRIAL, MISSING
PERSONSAND CULTURAL PROPERTY
4.1. The third prclilnillary objection of the FRY (Scrbia and Montciiegro)
(which is made in tlic altcrliativc to the first preliminary objection)is that
parts of Croatia's claims arc inadmissible and moot.' This claiin is made in
relation to Croatia's rcqucstsrclating to:
tlic sublnissioli to trial oC ccrtain pcrsons within the
jurisdiction of tlicFRY (Scrbiaaid Montencgro);
tlic provisiotl of infortnation as to tlic wlicrcabouls of
missing Croatialipersons; and
the return of cultural property
For tlie rcasolis set out below Croatia submits that thesc clailns arc (with
one exception) tieither inadmissible nor moot and should bc rcjccted bythe
Court.
SUBMISSIONTO TRIAL OF RESPONSIBLEPERSONS
4.2. By ~ts Submission 2 (a) Croatia rcqucsts tlic FRY (Scrbia and
Montcncgro)
"to take itiin~cdiatcand effective steps to sublnit to trial bcforc
appropriate judicial authority, thosc citizens or othcr persons
within itsjurisdiction who arc suspected on probable grounds
of liavillg cotninittcd acts of genocide as referred to in
paragraph (l) (a), or ally of the other acts rcfcrred to in
paragraph (I) (a) ilparticular Slobodall Miloscvic tlie former
Prcsidctit of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and tellsure
that thosc pcrsous arc duly puiiislicdfor their cri~ncs."
l Prelimilia' bjectioiis.pasas5.1;and5.18 34
111rclatioli to this rcqucst the FRY (Scrbia and Montencgro) lnaltes two
arguments. Thc first is that thc Gcnocidc Convcntion docs not pertiiit a
claim to bc niade illrcspcct of thc rcsponsibility of thc FRY (Scrbia and
Montcncgro) for a violatioti of the Convention, and that criminal
proceedings against individuals are the appropriatc basis for Croatia's
claims. The sccond argunieut of the FRY (Serbia and Montcncgro) is that
Slobodan Miloscvic lias now been brought before thc International
Crilninal Tribunal for Fonncr Yugoslavia (ICTY) and that thc rcqucst no
longer has any object. Croatia submitsthat both arguments arc without
merit, unsupportedby any authority andshouldbc rejcctcd by the Court.
4.3. With respect to thc first argument, the full title of tlic Genocide
Convention makes it clcar that its purposc is the 'prevention and
punishment'of gcnocidc. Aliiclc I imposes a positive obligation on States
parties to achicvc this objective, and to tliat end rcquircs criminal
proceedingsto bc initiatedagainstthose accuscd of gcnocidc. By Articlc V1
such proceedings Inay taltc place before a competent tribunal of the Statc
whcrc the criine was comniitted (in this casc, Croatia) or a competent
intel-national tribunal (in this casc, thc ICTY).' Croatia's casc, and
specificallythis submission, isconccl-ncdwith tliosc pcrsons who have not
bccn sumcndcrcdfor trial in Croatiaor to the ICTY.
4.4. 111thc Ca.re Concernii7g /lie Applicatiori of'the Converitiori or7/he
Prellention arid Pzinishnien/ of file Cririie of Genociile, Yugoslavia
concedcd that Article X1 of the Genocide Convention covers 'thc
responsibility flowing from the failure of a State to fulfil itsobligations of
prevention and punisllment as contcmplatcd by Articlcs V, V1 and VII."
The Court accepted this propositionand lnadc itclcar tliat Article IX of the
Gcnocidc Convcntion 'docsnot cxcludc ally form of Statc rc~~onsibility.'~
Tlicrc can bc no doubt that Croalia's Application falls prccisely within tlic
fsamcworkcnvisagcdby the Court. Specifically, itis Croatia's casc that the
failurc of thc FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro)to submit all relevant pcrsons
for trial by a compctcnt tribunal gives rise to its intcmational rcsponsibility
under the Genocide Convcntion.111 light of the Court's approachin its 1996
Judgmentthc positiollof the FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) is untcnablc.
4.5. With rcspcct to the second argument, Croatia acknowlcdgcs thc
positive steps which have been takenby thc FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro)
Statutc of tlic ICTY, Articics 4 9.Tile ICTY has superioritywci other ti-ibulieis
with coocurrciitjurisdict(Statutcorthc ICTY,Ariiclc9 (2)).
C'nseC017ceriiiigheAi~p/icaiioqf ihcCoiioe,,iion ihe Pi.e\:m?tioi,ai~dP~iiii.rhiifei,r
of /he Crime Q/ Cie,ioi.ide. (Bosnia and Neizcgoviiv~ Yugoslavia) Prcli~ninaiy
Objections. 1996ICJRcports,p. 616,para 32.to submit SlobodanMilosevic to the ICTY. Croatia also acknowledges wit11
appreciation that thc FRY (Serbia and Motltencgro) has agreed an Act of
Coopcratiot~with thc ICTY and that it has transfe~scdcertain othcr persons
to the ICTY. In rcspcct of thesc pcrsons Croatia accepts that its submission
2(a) is now moot.
However, submission 2(a) was not directed solelyto Mr Miloscvic. It
4.6.
refers to Mr Miloscvic "in particular". Thcrc arc a regrettably largenumber
of other persons wllo arc understood to be within the jurisdiction of the
FRY (Serbia and Montencgro) and who llave not been Ilanded over to the
ICTY, or sub~nittedto trial in the FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) or handed
over to Croatia, in respect of acts or olllissiotlsgiving riseto gcuocidal acts
occ~~rringin the territory of Croatia and which are the subject of these
procccdings. These pcrsotls include JNA officers, amongst the clearest
examples being thc failure to punish Major Vcselin Slivaneanin for his
conduct at the Vukovar hospital ill Novcmber 1991, and thc other JNA
officers responsible for thc JNA's offctlsivc aud "libcration" of Vukovar,
who wcrc decorated rather than punished. In respect of these persons, and
others identified in thc Memorial, Croatia's subn~ission 2 (a) is ccitainly
not moot.
4.7. The British-English meaning of the word 'moot'is that something is
arguable or debatable, while thc American-English meaning is that it is
'deprivcdof practical significance, illade abstract or purcly acadetnic." It is
in this latter sensc that the Court has considered thc question of mootncss."
Thus inootness signifies that 'the circumstances are such that whichever
way that question is ariswercd,thc result will he unaffcctcd."
4.8. AIIissue Inaybecome nloot in a nurnberof ways. For cxamplc, if the
Applicant Statc claims jurisdiction on a number of different grounds, once
it 1x1sbeen established on one ground, to the extent that the other suggested
grounds cover the satnc dispute they become moot.': An objection to
5 SliabtaiRoseline, TITLun mirl Pmoirc qjfhe Iiiler-i?ufioiCoio./(2""Rcv. Ed 1985)
309.ilotc I
6
Judge Fitzoiaoricc considered the Anicrican usagc to deiiotc"a case or claini wliicli is
or hasbeco~iicpoiiitlcss slid \vitliootobje;?ioi./liei.,~Cu,iie(Cameroon v UI<)
1963ICJ Rep. p. 97; footiioll(Indv.Op. JudgeFitniiai~ricc).
' llugli Thirlway, 'Reflcctio~ison tlicArticulation of TntcroationalJodicial Decisions and
the Problem of "Mootness"', in Ronald St Joh~iMacdonald (cd.).E,~.sosn Ho~ioiti.of
If'2!,?gfie(1994) 789, 803.
"onvcl-sely;'once it is established that therequest forrevision fails to meet oiic of the
co~iditionsfor admissibility, tlie Court is not rcquil-cdto go further and investi$ate
\vhcthcrtlic other conditions arc fulfilAp/~limfio,i,joi /lel,i.$ioii o,id I,ii~~~refa/ioi?
ojrhe Jt~Igt!~,,,f2i4 Fe'ehr.i,iii:r1982 in the Cos<,co,x:ei/hp,Co,?ii17e171o/l~elj
(Tunisia1,LibyanArab Janiahiriya) 1985ICJ Rep.p. 207. pare29. 36
jurisdiction may bc moot if the claini is held to bc inad~nissiblc.~ ~notber
basis for mootness is where the Court has bcforc it cutnulativc qucstious
and the answer to a subsequent qucstioll is dcpc~ldctitupon a particular
4.9. I11tile Noi-them Camei.ool?sCase the Court considered the issuc of
~nootnessin the context of its judicial function. The Court lleld that its
fi~nctionis to state the law 'only inco~lllectiotlwith concrete cases where
there exists at the time ofthc adjudication an actual colltrovcrsyirivolvinga
conflict of lcgal interests bctwccilthe palties.' It is plain that in respect of
the per-sons identified at paragraph 4.6 above there is an 'actual
controversy'. The Court's approach is that its jiidgmc~lt'must have some
practical consequence in the sctisc that it can affect cxisti~iglegal rights or
obligations of the parties, thus rcmoving uncertainty from thcir lcgal
relations,'" and that it should be able to rc~ldcra judgmcnt which is
'capableof effective application.'"
4.10. In Northern Cuilieroo~is, the termination of the Tiusteeship
Agreement (the reason why ally dccisio~~of tlic Court would llavc no
potential practical effect) had occurred even bcforc Camcroon's
colnmctlcernent of judicial proceedings, and had coillcidcd with the
dcfinitivc and i~~evcrsibletransfer of the territory collcerncd to Nigeria, a
transfer which corrcspottdcd to the cxprcsscd wishes of the population
concerned. This is ve~y far removed from the present situation, where
issucs of responsibilityremain live and issues of trial and punishmentarc
pressing. Nothing associated with the formal proclamation of the FRYon
27 April 1992 had "dcfinitivc lcgal effect"so far as the obscrvancc of the
Gellocidc Convention is conccrned. Nor is it the case that the gl-oundsfor
the request havc ceased to exist after the proceedings havc co~nmcnccd.~"
The majority of the Court found that this had occurred in the Ni~clenrTes1.s
I~iiri/imiii(Switzerland v Uiiited States) 19591C3Rep, p. 29 (the iiivocatiotiof tlic
C'onnallyrcscrvarionwas mootnntiltlic siiccessfulenliausrioiiof locali-cmcdics).
This \\.as tlic positioli of tileArbitral TilltliAii~iri.ii/dli.ai-i/ of31 JirI? 1969
(Goinca-Bissau u Sc~icgai) 1991 ICJ Rep. p. 60. para 17: sec Iluyli Tliirl\vay,
"Reflections on thc Articulation ofIntcroatiotialJudicial Decisionsand rlicPsoblcliiof
'Mootncss"', in Ronald St John Macdonaid (ed.), EssaysiiHoiioul-of Waog Ticya,
7x9;793.
NO).I/?PI.IIoiiiei~oCasc (Caiiicroo~v UK) l963 ICJ Rep. pp. 33-34.
Shabtai RosciincTileLait.aiid Pi.ociirc q/ihe Iiirei.iiuiioi~aiCORe\,. hl 1985)
Pri~iccofPiess Ccrrr(Gcsiiianyv Poland). Requcsl for Ilitc~.imMeasul-es.PCIJ Sei.
A/B:54, 150. 1lMay 1933.The Court tioted both that tile grounds for tlicApplicatioii
had ceased toexist and that the panics had agl-cc0a scttlcmcnta~idtlius to s,itlidrawal
of Cicrmatiy'srcqucst.l 37
casc, ruling that in light of a uniilatcral declaration by Francc (to halt
atmospl~crici~nclcartcsting) 'thc clailil advanced by Australia no Iotlgcr
has ally object.' According tothc Court 'anyfurthcr finding wouldl~avcno
raison d'etrc','"and the 'disputchas disappcarcd becausethe object of the
claim has been achicvcd by othcr ~ncans."~This is not the casc in relation
to thosc persons who have not yet been liandcdover by the FRY. It cannot
be said thatthis is a casc which wouldrcquircthc Court 'todeal with issues
iirab.srracro'and where 'the object of thc claim [has] clearly disappeared
1 [and]tliercis nothing on which to give;udgmcrit.""
l 4.11. Tlic si~nplcfact is that there reinain pcrsotls who havc not bcen
I sub~nittcdto trial either bcforc a colnpctent tribunal in Croatia, or bcforc
tlic lCTY it1respect of thc acts or oinissiolls which arc thc subject of the
present proccedings. There couti~lucsto bc a disputc bctwecn the FRY
(Scrbia and Montcnegro) and Croatia with rcspcct to these persons.
Croatia's claiin continues tohavc a purposc and Croatia sccks to present its
arguments on thcsc points at t11cmerits stagc. Suhtnissioll 2 (a) is
accordinglynot moot.
R.IISSINC P,ERSONS
4.12. By its sublnissio~l2 (b) Croatia requests the FRY (Serbia aud
"to providc foithwith to the applicant allinformationwithin its
possessio~l or control as to tl~c whereabouts of Croatian
citizens who are missing as a rcsult of the genocidal acts for
which itis i.csponsiblc,and gc~~erallyto coopcratc with thc
authorities of tlic Republic of Croatia to jointly ascertain tlic
whcrcaboutsof the said tuissingpcrsorlsor thcir remains."
4.13. Thc FRY (Serbia and Montenegro) claims that this submission falls
outside thc tcrms of thc Gcliocidc Convention. It does not, however,
providc any explanation or reasonsfor that claim.
4.14. In itsMemorial Croatia sct out its rcasons why this submission falls
squarcly within thc Corlvcntion." Thc FRY (Scrbia and Motltc~~cgroh )as
~ViirienTesrCa.5e.Austialiav Fra~~c)974ICJReports,para56.
Memorial.paras 8.71to 8.79.Scealso par84.tliasets out figuresof missingpersons
fromPastern Sla\~onia:otlicrrci'cro~missingpcisons arc in pai-as4.28. 4.36,4.42, 38
not addressedthose argu~ncnts.Thc currcnt situation is fully set out in two
lcttcrs of ColonelGrujiCof thc Burcau for Dctaincd and Missing Persons of
thc Rcpublic of Croatia, which arc attachcd as Anncxcs l and 2 to thcsc
Writtcn Obscr\~ations.They confinn that the FRY (Scrhia and Montcncgro)
has at its disposal inforn~ationand docutnentation on a large numbcr of
missing persons, cspccially those dctained in prisons and concentration
carnps in the FRY (Serbia and Montcocgro) and in thc foriner occupied
territories of Croatia, and that to date the rccovcry of the remains ofjust 26
pcrsons is attributable to tllc FRY (Scrbia and Montenegro) pursuant to its
coopcratio~lwith Croatia. 1309personsre~uai~u inaccounted for.
4.15. As stated above, in its 1996 Judgmcnt the Cou~t acccptcd that
procccdings rclating to Statc respo~lsibilityfor breach of t11cGcnocidc
Convention arc appropriatc. Such proceedings inay address also
responsibility for disappearances, and thc duty to provide infonnation. A
compromissory clausc providing for the Coiul's ji~risdictio~~ - such as
Article IX of the Genocide Convcntio~l - over a dispute about the
inte~prctationand applicationof a treaty establishes the Court'sjurisdiction
to award appropriatc rcrncdies.'"~~thc DipioinnticnrldCoiisl,l~/r .el:~onriei
Cnse, for cxam1>lct,hc Court's award was givcn io thc context of a similar
jurisdictional clausc. Tlic Court's order included ter~liination of the
dcte~ltio~olf liostagcs,the provision of safctransport and - most pertinently
for prcscnt purposes - thc handover of propcrtybelonging thc US cnlbassy
and consulates in ~ehran.'~Like the Optional Protocols to the Vicnna
Convcntio~~on Diplomatic Relations a~ld the Vicnna Corivcntiou on
Consular Rclations (which wcrc at issuc in the Ho.ctngesCn.re),Article IX
of the (icnocidc Co~lvcntio~d l ocs not limit the remedies which Inay bc
awarded. Tlic FRY (Serbia and Mo~xtcncgro)has not explained why thc
provision of info~mationabout the wlicreaboutsof niissing pcrsons should
not bc an appropriate remedy,havingrcgard to the need to givc cffcct to the
object and putposc of tlic ~onvcntion.'" Croatia submits that thc provision
of this information - which rclatcs to lliore than 1000 missing pcrsons - is
an entirelyappropriatc remedy.
4.43.4.73: 4.94.Witiircgard to otlierregions, see i171eirii5.01,5.16.5.34, 5.79.
5.83,5.93.5.111.5.152.5.160,5.220.5.237.
ChristiiicGray,JiidiciiiiR<,,.,iiisiIi~iei~~~oial.(l 990) p. 61
011iieiISini~iploriiniicoi~dCb,miInr.Slqffi~iTehi-rii(iUnited St\-Iran) 1980ICJ
Rep.p.44. par" 95.
SirHcrscli Lautcrpaclir argued that tlic pririciplc of cffcctiva~css is paramount in
dcterminiog remedies:"An interpi-eletioii\vhich would coniiiic tlic Court si~iiplyto
recordingtliattlConvention had been incoi-rcctlyapplie..without being ablc to lay
dowi~the condiiio~isfor tiic re-establisbiiic~itof tlic treaty rights affected would bc
coiitraito what wolild, prima facic, bc tllc naroral objccl of the clau..."Tllc
Dcvelopiilc~iiof intcmational Law by the InternalionalCourt; 246.4.16. Thc FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) claims that subtnissiotl 2 (h) is
also moot, bccausc of thc ongoing coopcratioll bctwcctl t11cFRY (Scrbia
and Montcncg~u)and Croatia on cstablishiilg thc whcrcabouts of lllissillg
persons. Such coopcration is rcflcctcd inter aiio in a 1996 Protocol on
Cooperationbctwccn the FRY CiovcrnmclltCotnmissioll on Humanitarian
Issucs and Missing Persons and tllc Com~nissiotl of the Croatian
C;ovcr~~mcntfor Imprisoned and Missing Persons," and thc 1996
Agrccmcnt on thc Normalization of thc Relations hctwccn thc FRY and thc
Republic of Croatia, as wcll as actions taltcn pursuant to thcsc Agrccmcnts.
Thc FRY (Scrbia and Montencgro) claims that thcsc agreclncnts illdicatc
that thc 'propcr framc\vork for the remaining implcmcntation is a not a
disputc bcforc the Intcnlational Coult of Justice', and that thc submissio~lis
thcreforc iliadlllissiblcand inoot." Croatia docs not agrcc.
4.17. Thc fact that two Statcs havc cntcrcd into coopcl-ativcarrangements
which addrcss a particular aspcct of procccdings bcforc the Court docs not
rctldcr that aspcct of thc procccdings moot. In thc Fisheries Jl1risdicrior7
Cn.se,for cxample, Icclartdand thc United Kingdom cntcrcd into an illtcriln
agrcctncnt aftcr the Court dctcrinincd it had jurisdiction. This gavc thc
U~litcdKingdom cc~taitlprovisional guarantccs. Thc agrccmcnt was silent
as to thc Court's jurisdiction or thc qucstion of any waiver of claims. In
light ofthat fact thc Court found itclcar that thc disputccontinued. Nor was
thc agrccmcnt to bc takcn as a bar to thc procccdings, or as intending to
effcct thc lcgal position of either country in rclation to its claim. As thc
Court put it:
"Thc primaiy duty of thc Court is to discllargc itsjudicial function
and it ought not thcrcforc to refusc to adjudicate mcrcly bccause
thc partics, whilc maintaining thcir lcgai positions, havc cntcrcd
into an agrcemcnt onc of thc objccts of which was to prcvcnt thc
continuation of incidents.""
4.18. The position is no different in the prcscnt casc. Thc two 1996
Agrcemcnts entered into by Croatia and the FRY (Scrbia and Montcnegro)
were not intcndcd to --and thcy do not - in any way cffcct thc adlnissibility
of Croatia's Application. There is nothing in those agrecmcnts which
purports to li~nitor inform the procccdings com~netlccdby Croatia in July
1999. Indccd, thc agrccmcnts prc-datc thesc procccdings. With rcspcct, it
cannot plausibly bc suggcstcd tl~atCroatia was prcciudcd from bringitlg
thesc claillls by rcason of agrcclncnts cntcrcd into threc ycars carlicr in
rclation to a rclatcd but juridicallydistinct mattcr.
ll I'reliminaiyObjections. Annex53. 1996Protocol. Arts. 2 and 5.
22
23 PreliminaryObjections, para 5.11
l;'i,~/ierieJsiii-isdicti(UiiitcdKinfdoinv Iccla~ai)l974 ICJRcp. p. 19,par838. 40
4.19. Any diffcrcnt conclusion \vould undcrminc Statcs' efforts to
coopcratc in parallcl to thcsc lcgal procccdings. Thc Court's casc-law
inaltcsthis clcar. 11thc Fi.sl?er.ies~~r.i.rdic~Ciase,for example, the Court
considered that a decision not to give a judgmcnt because thc parties had
concludedan intcrim agrccmcnt would discouragcStatesfrom making their
own arrangcmcnts, atid that this would be colitraty to thc obligation of the
4.20. Similarly, inthcLaGvai7dCase the Court did not consider that cithcr
thc cxccution of thc LaGrand brotllcrs or thc assurances from the Unitcd
Statcs of the 'substantialmcasures' it was takinz to prcvent any rccurrcnce
rcndcred the casc inadinissiblcor moot.The Cou~tstated that
"[ilf a Statc, in procccdings bcforc this Court,rcpcatcdly refers to
substantial activities which it iscanying out in order to achicvc
Although the coopcratioii bctwccn the FRY (Serbia and Montcnegro) a~id
Croatia for the tracing of missing persons is not couched in tcrms of
compliance wit11 the Gcnocidc Convcntion, thc samc principle is
applicable. In LnCrar7dtbc Coult also acccptcd that t11cUnitcd Statcs'
informationcould not 'providean assurancethat tlicrcwill never again be a
failure by the United States to observe the obligation of notificatio~lunder
Article 36 of thc Vicnna Convcntion.' It added that 'no State could give
sucha guaratltce'.'"
4.21. In this casc thcrc conti~incsto be a disputc bctwccn the parties as to
thc intcrprctation and application of thc Genocide Converitionwith rcspcct
to information on rnissi~lgpcrsons. Croatia's Application is for actual
infor~nationon tllc whereaboutsof thc nlissiligpcrsons, not coopcration in
obtainiilgthat information.
4.22. Notwithstanding a degree of coopcration,tlicqucstion of infor~nation
about missingpersons I-cmainsa pressing issue. Information whichappcars
to bc available tothc FRY (Scrbia and Montenegro)has not bee11provided,
and the dispute thcrcfore reinains vcry ~nuclia Iivc onc. This is clcar, for
Judgc Nagc~ndraSingli consideredthat ctncring into intcrit~iayscemcnts could tlcvcr
prcvctit thc Court froln pronoui~011thc Applicaot's submissions. othcnvise this
would pcnalisc thc State for attempting to avoid friction: i;irhei?e~J,asei.~iiicrio
(United Kii>pdov~Iceland) l974 ICSRcp. p.42.cxamplc, from tlic two statements providcd by Coloncl Grujid, Head of the
Bureau for Dctaincd and Missing Pcrsons of the Rcpublic of Croatia. I11his
first statement Coloncl GrujiCnmbcs it clcar tliat a nu~llbcrof issues rc~naitl
open with the FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro),and that theFRY (Serbia and
Montcncgro) has at its disposal "thc information and docunlentation on a
larger nunibcr of ~nissingpcrsons, cspccially on the missing pcrsons that
were dctaincd in pi-isonsand concentrationcamps in the [FRY], [and] inthe
for~ncrlyoccupied tcrritorics of thc Rcpublic of Croatia"." According to
Coloncl Grujid, as at 17 Januaty 2003 a total of soinc 1309 pcrsons were
still missing.'" list of all missing pcrsons isset out at Anncx 3.
4.23. As in thc Fi.rhei.iesJt1risdictio17 case, tlic paltics have rccogniscd thc
need to maltc their own arrangements, in this instance nlotivated by the
urgency of determining itifortnationabout ~nissingpcrsons, in particular for
thc bcncfit of rclativcs. Such steps inay assist in prcvcntiog furthcr friction.
Ilowcvcr, the 1996 Protocol is limited to providing "availablc
information" It'docs not connnit the FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) to
ascertain the wilcrcabouts of the missing persons pursuant to obligations
under the Gcnocidc Convention, as Croatia's Submission2(b) calls on the
Court to rcquirc. Thc arrangements are plainly without prcjudicc to the
rights of the Parties, including in relation to obligations under theGenocide
Convention.
4.24. Croatia docs not allege or infer any lackof future cooperation on this
inattcr by thc FRY (Serbia and Montcncgro). Nc\~crtliclcssthcrc can bc no
guarantee either tliat thc Protocol will continue in force, or that the outcome
of its application will bc satisfactory and meet the object of Submission
2(b). In these cil-cuinstanccs~ Submission 2 (b) continues to have a pu~~osc;
indccd in Croatia's rcspcctful vicw it continues to have an important
bearing on the outcon~cof the proceedings as a wllolc,"' and for these
reasons this aspect of Croatia's claim is not nloot.
27
Alines 1; Statement of Coloncl CiinjiC.Rurcnu for Dctaincd and Missing Persons,
Republic ofcroatia, l7 Janua~y2003.
28 Ihi<fSec also Anncs 2, Statcincnt of Coloncl CinjiC.Bureau for Detaincd and Missing
Pcrsons. Republicof Croatia;26Fcbri~a~j.003.
29
30 PreliminaryObjections,Annex 5.31996Protocol, Arts.2 andS.
The joint dissenting opi~iio~i!\jt'iic/eai.iiotcd that finding a cato bc moot is
aoollici-way of sayi~igtliat tlic Applicaiilno longer has "any stakc ill llie outconlc" and
arilnot argue tlic law and facts "witli vigour." This in hlrn uiidcrinincs thc iudicial
process. Tliis is not ihc position of Cro~\;urlenrTecisCam (Austrziliv Fn~icc)
l974 ICJ Rcporrs.p. 323. pai-a24(jointdisscniingopiilion). 42
MISSING CULTURAL PROPERTY
4.25. In its Sub~nission2 (c) Croatia rcqucsts the FRY (Scrbia a11d
Montcncgro)to return:
"[alny itctns of cultural propertywithin itsjurisdictio~lor control
which wcrc seizcd in the coursc of tlic genocidalacts for which it
isrcsponsiblc."
4.26. The FRY (Scrbia and Montenegro) asscrts that itis i~nyossiblc'to
strctch the allcged jurisdiction regarding genocide to property claims
scgardingobjects of art' and thattlic clail11is tlicreforei~~admissiblc.~ A's
sct out it1the Memorial, Article 11of thc Genocidc Convention~naltcsit
clear that genocidcclitailsthe i~itcntio~la dlcstructionin wliolcor in part of
a group,dcfincd in national, ethnical, racial or religious tcnns, as a distinct
socialentity. Physical destruction through killings and seriousbodily harm
to ~ncmbcrsof the group is readily u~~dcrstood as gcnocidc. 111 Croatia's
view it is also rccogniscd that gcnocidc may also bc committed through
destruct101o 1f a group'sculturalidentity. As tlicICTYhas put it:
"The physical dcstructionof a group is the ~nostobviousmctl~od,
but one Inay also conccivc of dcstroying a group through
purposeful eradicationof its culturc and identity resulting it1the
cvc~iti~aclxtinctio~~of tlic group as an entity distinct fkom the
remaindcrof the co~nrnunity."~'
4.27. Theoriginalconccpt of gcnocidchas a broadtneanin:,encompassing
'all acts designed to dcstroy tlie social andior cultural basesof a group3."
TlicTrial Cha~nbcrof thc lCTY llas noted that 'wlicrcthere is physical or
biological dcst~uctiontlicrc arc oftcn simultaneous attacks 011 the cultural
and rcligious property and sy~nbolsof thc targetcd group aswell, attacks
whichInaylegiti~natclybe consideredas cvidc~lccof an intcntto pl~ysically
destroy the group.' In its Memorial Croatia providedannplccvide~iceto
establish that Croatian culttrralpropcrty was dcstmycdor rcmoved it1the
coursc of tlle gc~iocidalacts that occurred 011the territory of Croatia after
the summerof 1991.'~ his cvidc~lcehas notbeen challengedby tlicFRY
(Scrbia and Montcncgro). To the contraly, the FRY (Serbia and
PrcliminaiyObjcctioiis,para 5.12.
Proseciiiors RariiilnKr.siic. "Srcbicliica-Dritia Cotrps", IT-98-33, jodgiocnt of 2
August.2001. para 574.
For suclircfercnccs in Eastcm S1avoniasec c.g. Memorial,paras4.36;4.55;4.57; 4.92:
4.104: 4.108;.120 and 4.150 (Vokovar). For refcrcnces io oilierareas sec paias 5.12
(Western Slavoiiia); 5.35; 5.76 (Bano\iina); 5.87; 5.135 (Kordutl atld Lika); 5.186;
5.201 (Daloiatia); 5.219 and 5.236, 5.237 and 5.241 (Dobrovtlik).For a list of arcas
wlicrcccultura!propcitywas iootcdor rlcs1ro. cmoiial. Vol 4. Appcndia7.Moi~tcncgro)acccpts that "it is indccd true that soiiie objccts of cultural
propcrty whichbclo~lgto Croatia calnc undcr "[the] jurisdiction or cotltrol"
of the FRY (Scrbia and ~ontcncgro).~'
4.28. A detcrrniuatio~iof thc extent of such ~novc~uc~lo tsf cultural propcrty
from Croatia to the FRY (Scrbia and Montcnegro) cat1only bc decided at
tllc inwits stagc of tl~escproceedings.At that stagc thcrc will bc a decision
on thc factsas to whcthcr thcrc was genocidal intent in thc transfer of such
works of alt to Yugoslavia or whcthcr retnovals wcrc for thcir safetyduring
the conflict, as the FRY (Serbia and Montenegro) clai~ns.~~laitll~ the
argument of'the FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) that Submission 2(c) is
moot cannot bc right. Thc FRY (Serbia and Mo~itcncgro)acccpts that
where thc rightful ow~lcrsof cultural property arc in Croatia, that propcrty
should be rcto~.ncdto Croatia. There is 110dispute between thc parties that
Croatian cultural propctiy remains ilthc FRY and has not been rctumcd.
Tlic subject has been 011the agenda of discussiotls bctwccn FRY (Scrbia
and Montcncgro) and Croatia. Croatia acknowlcdgcs that some important
works have bee11returned, including thc Baucr collcction. In addition,
religious works taken fro111Scrb Orthodox churchcs within Croatia call
otily bc retur~~cdwhcn such churchcs arc again opcratiorial witbill Croatia,
and llcgotiatiot>sarc in process with rcs1)cct to such itctns of cultural
propcrty. Accordiugly thc FRY (Serbia and Montcncgro) argues that the
rctur~lof cultural propc~ty call bc detcrrni~lcdby the FRY (Scrbia and
Montcncgro) andCroatia without the nccd for a dccisio~iof thc Court.
4.29. Croatia does uot agrcc. As in thc case of missing pcrsons, the fact
that thcrc has bccn some cooperatio~i(which Croatia wclcomcs) bctwccu
tile FRY (Scrbia and Montetlcgro) aud Csoatia on the return of cultural
property cannot mean that no cause of action lies undcr thc Geuocidc
Convention or that the Application is inad~nissiblcby reason of ~nootness.
Thc sub~nissiousCroatia has made with rcspcct to the non-mootncss of the
issuc of the whcrcabouts of missing persons, are equally applicable to the
returvlof cultural propcrty and art. The statctncnt of Mitlistcr Dr. Atltuu
Vujid confi~~nsthat a large tlurnbcr of artefacts arc still missit~g.For
cxamplc, 8225 lnusculn exhibits havc bccn affected, of which lnorc than
5000 havc been misappropriatedor looted aud more than 2000 destroyed.
Thcse numbers do not include damage to thc Vukovar City Muscum, with
inorc than 14,000 items still ~nissing(559 worlts of art, out of thc total of
2568. arc missing fro111 the Baucr Collcction and Art Gallciy, and of the
55 Piciiininai-yObjections,pai-a5.12.
36
IDic/paia 5.13.original cthnograpliic collection of 1325 exhibits fro111 tlic Vukovar City
Museum only 8itcmsrcmai~i).'~ Ministcr Dr. VujiC'slcttcralso statcsthat
"FRY or Serbia and Montcnegro llavc not admitted their
rcspol~sibilityfol- thc da~nagc caused to tlic Croatian cultural
prope~?yand that no concrctc lcgislativc, administrative or other
rncasurcs liavc been taken for rcniedyillg tllc dalnage or for
complctc restitution. Instead argumcnts arc being put forwal-d
dcsigncd to justify illegal scizurc, taking away, alienation and
devastation of theCroatian cultural lieritagc."3"
4.30. Thcre continues tobe a dispute about the rctum of thcsc objects,and
Croatia co~isidcrsthat ajudglnc~itof the Court would havc practical cffcct
in confirniil~gthe obligation of the FRY (Scrbia and Montc~icgro)to
account for and return all the missing artefacts. Tlic Couit is not bcit~g
asked to providc mcrely a basis for political action. It is being called to
consider the actual lcgal rights of the Parties i~~volvcd'in tbc aftermath of
thc events in Croatiaafter thc sulnliicrof 1991.
4.31. For thcsc reasons, Submissioti2 (c) is admissiblc. Dcterminations as
to the proper interpretation of the Genocide Co~lvcntion,its application to
thc facts and the appropriate remedies flowing thercfto~nwill be a matter
for tlicproceedingson the ~ncrits.
CONCLUSIONS
4.32. In sum, Croatia's Submissions 2 (a), (h) and (c) are all appropriate
claims undcr the Gcnocidc Convention. Thcy are not moot, either in the
sense that thcrc is no longer any existing dispute betwcen thc parties, or
that there is no practical outcome of any award. Full argumcnt 011 thcsc
sub~nissio~is will be a matter for thc merits stagc of thc litigation, and for
the Court's cvct~tualdccisio~ion the tnerits in the light of the facts it finds
to have been established.These issues arc not to be prcjudgcd at thc stagc
of prcli~ninaryobjcctio~isunder the guisc of "admissibility".
37 Anlics 4, Siatcnicni of Di-Aiitun VujiC. Mii~i, inisin' of Cultorc, Republic of
Ci-oatia.I Api-ii2003.
Iliid.
3')
~\'o,?hmiiriri~erooi(aCalncsoonv UK) 1963ICJKcp,p. 37. SUBMISSIONS
On thc basis of thc facts and lcgalarguments prcscntcd in thcsc Written
Observations, the Rcpublic of Croatia I-cspcctfully rcqucsts the
Intcmational Cou~t of Justicc to rcjcct thc First, Sccond and Third
Prelimilla~y Objcctio~lsof the FRY (Scrbia and Montcncgro) (with thc
cxccptioll of that pal?of thc Sccond Prcliminap Objectionwhich rclatcs to
tlic claim conccrni~~gthc subi~lissio~tlo trial of Mr Slobodall Milosevic),
and accordi~lglyto adjudgc and dcclarc that it has jurisdictioll to adjudicate
ul~onthc Application filcd by thc Rcpublic of Croatia on2 July 1999.
.........................................
Agenl,fbi.//?cRe/~z~bic fCi.on/io
Zagrcb, 29 April 2003 46
LISTOF ANEEXES
Annex 1: Statement of Colonel Ivan Grujic, Burcau for Detained and
Missing Persons, Rcpublicof Croatia, 17January 2003
l A111lcx3 Llst of mlsslng persons (as ltAp1112003)
Anncx 5: Evidetlcc of Milan Babic in proceedings bcforc thc
Intcr~~ationalCriminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,
19- 21Novcmbcr and 9 Decclnbcr2002 (Extracts)
A111lex6: Evidencc of Alcksandcr Vasi1,jcvicin proceedings bcforc thc
Intcmational Criminal Tribunal for thc formcr Yugoslavia,
Fcbrua~y2003, (Extracts)
Annex 7: Ncwspapcr articles fsom Slohodiw Dnlnzac~jn(8 October
1991)and Veierr~jilist (8 Oetobcr 1991)
26-28 Fcbruary 2003, (Extracts)
Annex 10: Witness Stateliicilr of Milosav Dordcvie in proeccdiugs
before the Iritcmational Crilnillal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia, 6 March 2003
Annex lI: Second Expert Rcport of Molie~lTorkildscn in proceedings
bcforc thc lntcmational Crilninal Tribunal for the formcr
Yugoslavia (without Confidential Annex), 18 Novcmbcr
Written statement of the Republic of Croatia