## Facts

- During the 1992 armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bosnian Muslim and Croat forces operated a detention facility at Čelebići near Konjic, using former military barracks and warehouses.
- The camp operated roughly from April to December 1992 and held mainly Bosnian Serb detainees captured during fighting in the Konjic area.
- Detainees were subjected to killings, beatings, torture, sexual violence (including rape), unlawful confinement, and other cruel and inhuman treatment.
- Zejnil Delalić was alleged to have had overarching authority over the camp through his roles in the Konjic area and later as a Bosnian Army commander.
- Zdravko Mucić was alleged to have served as camp commander responsible for the guards and camp operations.
- Hazim Delić was alleged to have been deputy commander and later commander, and to have personally participated in serious abuses, including sexual violence.
- Esad Landžo, a camp guard, was alleged to have personally carried out severe beatings, torture, and killings of detainees.
- The accused were tried jointly before an ICTY Trial Chamber on charges including grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions (ICTY Statute art. 2) and violations of the laws or customs of war (art. 3), with liability alleged under both individual responsibility (art. 7(1)) and superior responsibility (art. 7(3)).

## Issues

1. Whether the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina at the relevant time was an armed conflict of an international character permitting application of the grave-breaches regime.
2. Whether the detainees qualified as “protected persons” for purposes of grave breaches under Geneva Convention IV.
3. What elements establish superior (command) responsibility under ICTY Statute article 7(3), including the meaning of effective control and the required mental element (“knew or had reason to know”).
4. Whether rape and other severe sexual violence may constitute torture under international humanitarian law and be prosecuted as grave breaches and/or war crimes.
5. Whether cumulative charging and/or convictions under ICTY Statute articles 2 and 3 are permissible for the same conduct.

## Decision

- The Trial Chamber found an armed conflict existed and required a nexus between the charged acts and the armed conflict; it treated the conflict as international in character for the relevant period, enabling application of article 2 where other prerequisites were met.
- The Trial Chamber concluded the Bosnian Serb detainees satisfied the protected-person requirement for purposes of grave breaches during the relevant period.
- Delalić was acquitted on all counts because the prosecution failed to prove he had sufficient authority and effective control over the camp and guards to establish superior responsibility.
- Mucić was convicted on multiple counts, primarily under article 7(3), based on findings that he acted as the camp’s de facto commander and failed to prevent or punish crimes by subordinates.
- Delić was convicted for crimes he directly committed under article 7(1) and for certain crimes under article 7(3) based on his superior role during part of the camp’s operation.
- Landžo was convicted under article 7(1) for multiple offences, including killings, torture, and cruel treatment, based on direct participation in severe abuses.
- For convicted accused, the Trial Chamber imposed substantial imprisonment terms and ordered concurrent service for multiple convictions.

## Legal Principles

- Grave breaches (art. 2) and war crimes (art. 3) require proof of an armed conflict and a nexus between the prohibited acts and that conflict; grave breaches additionally require protected-person status and the other elements of the specific offence.
- Protected-person status under Geneva Convention IV may be satisfied in situations of complex citizenship and control where detainees are in the hands of a party to the conflict of which they are not nationals.
- Superior responsibility under ICTY Statute article 7(3) requires: (1) a superior–subordinate relationship with effective control, (2) knowledge or reason to know of impending or completed crimes, and (3) failure to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the crimes or punish perpetrators.
- De jure rank is not required for command responsibility; de facto authority and effective control can suffice.
- Rape and other serious sexual violence can constitute torture when intentionally inflicting severe pain or suffering for purposes such as punishment, intimidation, coercion, obtaining information, or discrimination, and may be prosecuted as grave breaches and as violations of the laws or customs of war.
- Cumulative charging under articles 2 and 3 is permitted; multiple convictions for the same conduct require distinct legal elements, and sentencing may be structured to avoid duplicative punishment (including through concurrent sentences).

## Conclusion

The Trial Chamber imposed liability for detention-camp atrocities through both direct perpetration and superior responsibility, clarifying that effective control—not formal title—grounds command responsibility, and recognizing rape as a form of torture under international humanitarian law; it also required acquittal where the prosecution failed to prove the superior–subordinate relationship.


Prosecutor v. Delalić (Čelebići Camp Case), Case No. IT-96-21-T (Int’l Crim. Trib. Former Yugoslavia Nov. 16, 1998)