## Facts

- Goran Jelisić participated in abuse and killings of detainees at the Luka camp near Brčko in 1992, targeting Bosnian Muslim detainees among others.
- He pleaded guilty to most charged crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war arising from his conduct at the camp.
- The Trial Chamber convicted him of crimes against humanity (including murder and other inhumane acts) and war crimes (including murder and cruel treatment), and imposed a 40-year prison sentence.
- The Trial Chamber acquitted him of genocide, finding the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he possessed the specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the protected group.
- The prosecution appealed the genocide acquittal and raised procedural complaints related to a Rule 98 bis “no case to answer” procedure.
- Jelisić cross-appealed, challenging cumulative convictions based on the same acts and arguing the sentence was excessive.

## Issues

1. Whether the Trial Chamber erred procedurally by denying the prosecution a meaningful opportunity to be heard and by applying an incorrect standard under Rule 98 bis.
2. Whether the Trial Chamber erred in law or fact by acquitting Jelisić of genocide for lack of proof of specific intent (dolus specialis) to destroy a protected group in whole or in part.
3. Whether entering convictions for both crimes against humanity and war crimes based on the same underlying acts constituted impermissible double conviction.
4. Whether the Trial Chamber committed discernible error in sentencing, or imposed a manifestly disproportionate 40-year term.

## Decision

- The Appeals Chamber dismissed the prosecution’s appeal in full, including challenges to the Rule 98 bis procedure and the genocide acquittal.
- The Appeals Chamber upheld the genocide acquittal, finding no reversible error in the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that genocidal intent was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
- The Appeals Chamber rejected Jelisić’s cross-appeal, holding that the cumulative convictions were legally permissible.
- The Appeals Chamber affirmed the 40-year sentence, finding no discernible sentencing error and no manifest disproportionality.

## Legal Principles

- Genocide requires proof beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intended to destroy, in whole or in part, a protected group as such; discriminatory violence and multiple killings do not alone establish this specific intent.
- Specific intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence and context, but the inference must be the only reasonable inference available on the evidence to meet the criminal standard of proof.
- Under Rule 98 bis, the relevant question is whether there is evidence which, if accepted, could allow a reasonable trier of fact to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of the accused’s guilt.
- Cumulative convictions based on the same conduct are permissible when each offence includes at least one materially distinct element not required by the other (including differing contextual elements for crimes against humanity and war crimes).
- Sentencing is primarily within the Trial Chamber’s discretion; appellate intervention is warranted only for discernible error in the exercise of that discretion or a sentence that is manifestly disproportionate.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Chamber made the genocide acquittal final, holding that the evidence did not compel the sole reasonable inference of genocidal intent, and it left intact Jelisić’s convictions for crimes against humanity and war crimes as well as the 40-year sentence.


Prosecutor v. Jelisić, Case No. IT-95-10-A (ICTY App. Ch. 2001)