## Facts

- Ethnic and political tensions between Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Muslims in Central Bosnia escalated during the 1992–1994 armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia.
- Croatian Defence Council (HVO) forces carried out attacks on Bosnian Muslim communities in the Lašva Valley, including killings and mistreatment of civilians, destruction of homes, plunder, and destruction of mosques and other protected objects.
- The attacks were carried out in an organized pattern and were linked to efforts to remove or displace Muslim populations from areas claimed by Croat forces.
- Tihomir Blaškić was a Bosnian Croat general who served as the HVO commander in the Central Bosnia Operative Zone during much of the charged period.
- The Prosecutor alleged that Blaškić bore responsibility for crimes committed by HVO units through (a) his own participation (including ordering and other forms of participation) and (b) superior responsibility for failing to prevent crimes or punish offenders.
- Blaškić surrendered to the ICTY and was tried on a multi-count indictment alleging grave breaches (Article 2), violations of the laws or customs of war (Article 3), and crimes against humanity (Article 5), with liability pleaded under Articles 7(1) and 7(3).
- The Trial Chamber’s judgment (3 March 2000) addressed both the contextual requirements for the charged crimes and the elements of individual and superior responsibility.

## Issues

1. Whether the prosecution proved a superior–subordinate relationship giving Blaškić “effective control” (material ability to prevent crimes or punish offenders) over the perpetrators.
2. Whether Blaškić knew, or had reason to know, that HVO forces were about to commit or had committed crimes, and whether he failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent or punish.
3. Whether the prosecution proved individual responsibility under Article 7(1) (including ordering) for specific unlawful attacks and related crimes.
4. Whether the charged conduct met the contextual and legal requirements for crimes against humanity under Article 5 (including a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, plus the Tribunal’s armed-conflict nexus requirement).
5. Whether the conduct satisfied the elements of grave breaches and war crimes under Articles 2 and 3, including the required connection to the armed conflict and protected status of persons or objects where applicable.

## Decision

- The Trial Chamber found that an armed conflict existed during the relevant period and that the charged acts had the required connection to that conflict for the Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction over the offenses.
- The Trial Chamber found that HVO actions against Bosnian Muslim civilians in the Lašva Valley formed part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population for purposes of Article 5.
- The Trial Chamber concluded that, for many charged incidents, Blaškić held a command position with effective control over forces implicated in crimes, supporting superior responsibility where the other elements were met.
- The Trial Chamber held Blaškić criminally responsible for numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity on the basis of both Article 7(1) (including ordering and other forms of participation) and Article 7(3) (failure to prevent or punish), while entering acquittals on certain counts where proof was insufficient.
- The Trial Chamber imposed a single sentence of 45 years’ imprisonment.

## Legal Principles

- Superior responsibility under Article 7(3) requires: (1) a superior–subordinate relationship with effective control; (2) the superior’s knowledge, shown by actual knowledge or by information that would have put the superior on notice of possible unlawful acts (“had reason to know”) and triggered a duty to inquire; and (3) a failure to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the crimes or punish perpetrators.
- “Effective control” is a factual test focused on the material ability to prevent crimes or to punish offenders; it can exist without a formal title where authority is exercised in practice.
- Necessary and reasonable measures are assessed in light of what the superior could realistically do at the time, including issuing orders to stop unlawful conduct, initiating investigations, reporting to competent bodies, and taking steps to discipline offenders.
- Individual responsibility for ordering under Article 7(1) requires proof that the accused used authority to direct the commission of an offense and that the order had a significant effect on the commission of the crime; the mental element requires intent that the crime be committed or awareness that its commission was a likely consequence of carrying out the order.
- Crimes against humanity under Article 5 require that the underlying acts be committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population and that the accused knew of the broader attack; under the ICTY Statute, the Tribunal also required a nexus to an armed conflict as a jurisdictional condition.
- War crimes and grave breaches under Articles 2 and 3 require proof of the underlying prohibited acts and their connection to the armed conflict; where relevant, the protected status of victims or objects must be shown.

## Conclusion

In *Prosecutor v. Blaskic*, the ICTY Trial Chamber held that serious crimes committed by HVO forces against Bosnian Muslim civilians in Central Bosnia were attributable to Blaškić through both individual responsibility (including ordering) and superior responsibility, based on findings of effective control, knowledge (actual or inferred from available information), and failure to take reasonable steps to prevent crimes or punish offenders; it entered convictions on numerous counts, acquittals on some, and imposed a 45-year sentence.


Prosecutor v. Blaskic, 122 ILR 2 (2000)