## Facts

- During the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Jadranko Prlić and other members of the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) destroyed the Old Bridge of Mostar.
- The HVO targeted the bridge because enemy combatants from the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (ABiH) used it to move food and supplies to troops.
- The bridge’s destruction harmed Muslim civilians in Mostar by restricting access to food and medical supplies.
- The Prosecutor indicted the HVO members before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for violations of international law.
- The ICTY Trial Chamber convicted the HVO members of multiple offenses, including wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity, based on a finding that the bridge attack’s collateral harm was disproportionate to the anticipated military advantage.
- The HVO members appealed the Trial Chamber’s ruling concerning the destruction of the Old Bridge to the ICTY Appeals Chamber.

## Issues

1. Whether the Trial Chamber erred in concluding that the destruction of the Old Bridge of Mostar amounted to wanton destruction or devastation not justified by military necessity because the expected incidental harm to civilians was disproportionate to the anticipated military advantage.

## Decision

- The Appeals Chamber affirmed the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that, even if the bridge served a military function for the ABiH, the attack could still be unlawful where the expected civilian consequences outweighed the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
- The Appeals Chamber upheld the Trial Chamber’s determination that the bridge’s destruction caused significant foreseeable harm to civilians—particularly by cutting off access to essential supplies—supporting the finding of disproportionate collateral effects.
- The Appeals Chamber therefore rejected the challenge to the Trial Chamber’s conviction for wanton destruction or devastation not justified by military necessity based on the bridge’s destruction.

## Legal Principles

- An object may be attacked if it qualifies as a military objective by reason of its use; however, that classification does not remove limits imposed by the rules on military necessity and proportionality.
- Proportionality prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental civilian harm that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
- In assessing incidental harm, a chamber may consider foreseeable effects on civilians from the loss of key infrastructure, including effects on access to food and medical care.
- A conviction for wanton destruction or devastation not justified by military necessity may be supported where the destruction of property goes beyond what is justified by the military gain, taking account of the attack’s expected civilian consequences.
- On appeal, the Appeals Chamber will not overturn a trial finding on proportionality absent a showing of reversible error affecting the verdict.

## Conclusion

In *Prosecutor v. Prlić*, Case No. IT-04-74-A (2017), the ICTY Appeals Chamber upheld the Trial Chamber’s determination that the HVO’s destruction of Mostar’s Old Bridge supported a conviction for wanton destruction or devastation not justified by military necessity, because the foreseeable civilian harm—especially the disruption of access to essential supplies—was disproportionate to the military advantage expected from striking a bridge used by enemy forces.


Prosecutor v. Prlić, Case No. IT-04-74-A (2017)