## Facts

- Tihomir Blaškić served as Commander of the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) armed forces in Central Bosnia during the Lašva Valley conflict (May 1992–January 1994).
- Crimes were alleged in multiple municipalities in Central Bosnia in the context of armed conflict between HVO forces and the Bosnian Muslim Army (ABiH).
- The Trial Chamber convicted Blaškić on 19 counts under the ICTY Statute for grave breaches, violations of the laws or customs of war, and crimes against humanity.
- The Trial Chamber attributed responsibility both as a direct participant (including ordering) under Article 7(1) and as a superior for failing to prevent or punish under Article 7(3).
- The Trial Chamber imposed a single sentence of 45 years’ imprisonment.
- Blaškić appealed, challenging legal standards applied to modes of liability, contextual elements of crimes against humanity, factual findings, and the sentence.

## Issues

1. What mens rea is required to convict for “ordering” crimes under Article 7(1), and what elements govern aiding and abetting (including by omission)?
2. What standards govern superior responsibility under Article 7(3), including “had reason to know,” “effective control,” and “reasonable and necessary measures” to prevent or punish?
3. What contextual elements must be proved for crimes against humanity under Article 5, including a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population?
4. Whether convictions may rest on the same underlying facts under both Article 7(1) ordering and Article 7(3) superior responsibility.
5. Whether identified legal or factual errors required reversal of convictions and revision of the sentence.

## Decision

- The Appeals Chamber found numerous legal and factual errors in the Trial Chamber’s analysis and substantially reduced the scope of Blaškić’s criminal responsibility.
- The Appeals Chamber affirmed some convictions for war crimes and crimes against humanity where the elements and linkage to Blaškić were established.
- The Appeals Chamber reversed multiple convictions and entered acquittals where required elements were not proved.
- The Appeals Chamber held it was erroneous to convict on the same factual basis under both ordering (Article 7(1)) and superior responsibility (Article 7(3)), criticizing the conflation of distinct modes of liability.
- The Appeals Chamber reduced the sentence from 45 years’ imprisonment to 9 years’ imprisonment.

## Legal Principles

- Ordering (Art. 7(1)) requires authority to issue the order and intent that the crime be committed, or awareness of a substantial likelihood that crimes will be committed in executing the order.
- Aiding and abetting (Art. 7(1)) requires practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support that substantially affects the commission of the crime.
- An omission can constitute aiding and abetting where the accused has a legal duty to act and the omission substantially contributes to the crime.
- For aiding and abetting mens rea, knowledge that one’s acts assist the commission of the principal crime is sufficient; shared intent or acceptance of a foreseeable consequence is not required.
- Superior responsibility (Art. 7(3)) depends on effective control: the material ability to prevent crimes or punish perpetrators.
- “Had reason to know” under Article 7(3) is satisfied where available information would have put a superior on notice of the risk that subordinates were committing or were about to commit crimes.
- Article 7(3) imposes duties to take reasonable and necessary measures, encompassing both prevention (before or during crimes) and punishment (after crimes), depending on timing and capacity.
- Crimes against humanity (Art. 5) require proof that the acts occurred within a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population and a sufficient nexus between the accused’s acts and that attack.
- International humanitarian law protects persons against being exposed to danger; unlawfulness may turn on the creation of risk, not on whether harm was likely to materialize.

## Conclusion

The ICTY Appeals Chamber narrowed Blaškić’s liability by correcting errors in the Trial Chamber’s treatment of ordering, aiding and abetting, superior responsibility, and crimes against humanity, prohibited duplicative reliance on Article 7(1) and 7(3) for the same conduct, reversed several convictions, and reduced his sentence to nine years.


Prosecutor v. Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-A (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia July 29, 2004)