عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]چکیده [English]
On 26 February 2007, The International Court of Justice issued it's judgment on the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v.Serbia and Montenegro).
The Court finds that Serbia has not committed genocide, through its organs or persons whose acts engage its responsibility under customary international law, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited and complicit in genocide the commission of genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.
The Court finds, on the other hand, that Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995; and Serbia has violated its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by having failed to transfer Ratko Mladić, indicted for genocide and complicity in genocide, for trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and thus having failed fully to co-operate with that Tribunal and has violated its obligation to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Court on 8 April and 13 September 1993 in this case, inasmuch as it failed to take all measures within its power to prevent genocide in Srebrenica in July 1995.
Here, we analyze the elements of the crime of Genocide in the above-mentioned judgment of the international court of justice at the comparison with the jurisprudence of the Ad Hoc international criminal courts.
We can conclude that the fragmentation of the international judicial courts has not arisen to conflict decisions but those bodies endorsed the earlier decisions of each other. Consequently, there is a consistent jurisprudence on the interpretation of the elements of the crime of Genocide.
It is obvious that the consistent jurisprudence can lead to the speed procedure in the trial of the suspected persons of the Genocide especially in the International Criminal Court (ICC).