## Facts

- Six senior political, military, and police officials of the Croat entity “Herceg-Bosna” and the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) were tried for conduct during the 1992–1994 conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
- The prosecution alleged crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and violations of the laws or customs of war arising from attacks on predominantly Muslim areas, detention and mistreatment in HVO facilities, forced labor, expulsions, and destruction of property.
- The case involved numerous municipalities and detention sites, including Dretelj, Gabela, and Heliodrom, and addressed a broad pattern of abuse against Bosnian Muslim civilians and detainees.
- The prosecution theory centered on a joint criminal enterprise (JCE) to remove Muslims and other non-Croats from territories intended for Croat domination, allegedly pursued by Herceg-Bosna leaders acting with support from elements of the Croatian leadership.
- A key factual and legal dispute concerned the classification of the armed conflict and the protected status of persons held by the HVO, including Muslim HVO members detained by the HVO.
- The destruction of the Old Bridge of Mostar on November 9, 1993 was litigated as part of alleged unlawful destruction and attack on civilian objects not justified by military necessity.
- Trial began in 2006 after indictments and transfers in 2004; the Trial Chamber issued a multi-volume judgment on May 29, 2013, with a separate and partially dissenting opinion by the Presiding Judge.

## Issues

1. Whether the armed conflict was international (triggering the grave-breaches regime) and how detainees, including Muslim HVO members, should be classified under international humanitarian law.
2. Whether the accused participated in a joint criminal enterprise to remove the Muslim population from certain areas and, if so, whether charged crimes were within the common plan and foreseeable to its participants.
3. Whether the evidence established crimes against humanity (including persecution, deportation/forcible transfer, and imprisonment) as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population.
4. Whether senior officials incurred liability through command responsibility for crimes by subordinates that were not proven to fall within the JCE.
5. Whether the attack leading to destruction of the Old Bridge of Mostar constituted unlawful wanton destruction or devastation not justified by military necessity.

## Decision

- The Trial Chamber convicted all six accused on at least some counts for crimes against humanity, grave breaches, and/or violations of the laws or customs of war committed between 1992 and 1994.
- By majority, the Chamber found that all six participated in a JCE whose objective was removing the Muslim population from territories where Croat domination was sought; the Presiding Judge dissented on aspects of the JCE mode of liability.
- The Chamber treated the conflict as international for much of the relevant period due to Croatia’s involvement and control, supporting application of grave-breach protections.
- Sentences imposed were: Prlić (25 years), Stojić (20 years), Praljak (20 years; majority conviction on 20 counts with acquittals on 2), Petković (20 years), Ćorić (16 years), and Pušić (10 years; acquittals on 4 counts and convictions on 18).
- For Ćorić, the Chamber also entered findings under command responsibility for certain crimes in Prozor municipality in October 1992 that it did not treat as part of the JCE.
- The Chamber declined to enter convictions on some counts to avoid duplication where the same conduct was captured by other convictions.

## Legal Principles

- Crimes against humanity require acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, with the accused’s conduct linked to that attack.
- Grave breaches require protected-person status and a nexus to an international armed conflict; conflict classification can turn on external state involvement and control.
- War crimes under the laws or customs of war require the existence of an armed conflict and a sufficient connection between the acts and that conflict.
- Joint criminal enterprise liability may attach where multiple actors share a common criminal purpose and contribute through their positions and authority; knowledge of crimes and failure to prevent or punish may support findings of participation and intent, depending on the evidence.
- Command responsibility attaches where a superior had effective control over perpetrators, knew or had reason to know of crimes, and failed to prevent them or punish offenders; it can apply even when particular crimes are not proven to be within a common plan.
- Destruction of property may constitute a war crime when it amounts to wanton destruction or devastation not justified by military necessity, including where anticipated military advantage is disproportionate to civilian harm and cultural/civilian significance.

## Conclusion

The Trial Chamber held that six Herceg-Bosna leaders bore criminal responsibility for a campaign of crimes against Muslims in HVO-controlled areas, principally through a majority finding of participation in a joint criminal enterprise to remove the Muslim population, while also applying command responsibility for certain crimes outside the common plan and treating the conflict as international for much of the period.


Prosecutor v. Prlić (Prlić), Case No. IT-04-74-T (Int’l Crim. Trib. for the Former Yugoslavia May 29, 2013)