Scribd
Upload
101 views2 pages

Tadic's Challenge to ICTY Jurisdiction

Dusko Tadic was the first person tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for war crimes committed at a concentration camp during the Yugoslav wars. Tadic challenged the ICTY's jurisdiction, arguing it was not properly established by law as it was created by the UN Security Council without participation of former Yugoslav states. The ICTY Appeals Chamber ruled that it could examine the validity of its establishment and that the Security Council has authority to create tribunals as long it is done in accordance with proper international legal standards and guarantees fairness. As the ICTY met these criteria, Tadic's challenge to its jurisdiction was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Benedict Alvarez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
101 views2 pages

Tadic's Challenge to ICTY Jurisdiction

Dusko Tadic was the first person tried by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for war crimes committed at a concentration camp during the Yugoslav wars. Tadic challenged the ICTY's jurisdiction, arguing it was not properly established by law as it was created by the UN Security Council without participation of former Yugoslav states. The ICTY Appeals Chamber ruled that it could examine the validity of its establishment and that the Security Council has authority to create tribunals as long it is done in accordance with proper international legal standards and guarantees fairness. As the ICTY met these criteria, Tadic's challenge to its jurisdiction was dismissed.

Uploaded by

Benedict Alvarez
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

109. Prosecutor v.

Tadic

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia


Appeals Chamber, (1996)

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Plea against the International Tribunal jurisdiction can be examined by
the International Tribunal based on the invalidity of its establishment by the Security Council.

Facts:

Dusko Tadic (defendant) was the first individual to be tried by the International Criminal Tribunal
for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (plaintiff). He was tried for war crimes and was accused of
committing atrocities at the Serb-run Omarska concentration camp in Bosnia-Herzegovina in
1992. In his defense, Tadic raised the argument that the ICTY did not have jurisdiction over his
case because it was not established until 1993 by a decision of the United Nations Security
Council. The Security Council established the ICTY without the participation or consent of any of
the states comprising the former Yugoslavia. In making this defense, Tadic relied on the argument
that the ICTY was not “established by law,” citing the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights which provided that “in the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his
rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a
competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.” Tadic argued that this right
to a tribunal “established by law” is a “general principle of law recognized by civilized nations,”
and is codified in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the European
Convention on Human Rights, and the American Convention on Human Rights.

For committing war crimes at a Serb-run concentration camp in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Tadic (D)
was prosecuted in Court. The jurisdiction of the tribunal was however challenged by Tadic (D) on
the ground that it exceeded the authority of the U.N. Security Council. This argument of Tadic (D)
was dismissed by the trial court but Tadic (D) appealed.

Issue: Whether or not a plea against the International Tribunal jurisdiction be examined by the
International Tribunal based on the invalidity of its establishment by the Security Council?

Ruling: Yes. Plea against the International Tribunal jurisdiction can be examined by the
International Tribunal based on the invalidity of its establishment by the Security Council. The
criteria for establishing an International Tribunal includes the establishment in accordance with
the proper international standards, the provision of guarantees of fairness, justice, and
evenhandedness, in full conformity with internationally recognized human rights instruments.
Hence, a tribunal like the one created in this case must be endowed with primacy over national
courts.

The authority of the Security Council to establish a tribunal for the determination of a criminal
charge was attacked by Tadic (D). So long as it is “established by law”, the tribunal is authorized
to be established for the determination of these charges. The Council requires that it be “set up
by a competent organ in keeping with relevant legal procedures and that it observes the
requirements of procedural fairness”

You might also like