## Facts

- Duško Tadić, a Bosnian Serb political official in the Prijedor region, was prosecuted for abuses connected to the 1992 takeover of Prijedor and the attack on Kozarac.
- Non-Serb civilians were detained in camps including Omarska, Keraterm, and Trnopolje, where detainees were beaten, sexually assaulted, and killed.
- After arrest in Germany (1994), the ICTY proceeded on an amended indictment (34 counts).
- The Trial Chamber (1997) convicted Tadić of certain war crimes (ICTY Statute art. 3) and crimes against humanity (art. 5), acquitting him on other counts, including all grave breaches (art. 2), and imposed a 20-year sentence.
- The Defence appealed the convictions and sentence; the Prosecution cross-appealed, challenging acquittals and seeking additional findings of responsibility.
- The 1999 Appeals Chamber judgment resolved the conviction-related appeals and left resentencing on the additional convictions to later proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the armed conflict was international in character and whether the camp detainees were “protected persons” for purposes of grave breaches liability.
2. Whether participation in a common criminal plan supports liability for additional crimes by group members that were foreseeable consequences of executing that plan (joint criminal enterprise).
3. Whether acts driven by purely personal motives can still constitute crimes against humanity when committed in the required contextual setting.
4. Whether discriminatory intent is an element of all crimes against humanity.

## Decision

- The Appeals Chamber dismissed the Defence appeal on the principal challenges and upheld the core factual findings and convictions.
- The Appeals Chamber granted the Prosecution cross-appeal in part and entered additional convictions.
- The Chamber held that the conflict was international because the relevant armed forces were under a state’s “overall control,” and it treated the victims as “protected persons,” enabling grave breaches convictions where acquittals had been entered.
- The Chamber affirmed that an accused may be responsible, via joint criminal enterprise, for crimes beyond the agreed plan if they were natural and foreseeable consequences and the accused willingly took that risk.
- The Chamber held that personal motives do not bar crimes against humanity if the acts were committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack on civilians with the perpetrator’s knowledge.
- The Chamber held that discriminatory intent is not required for all crimes against humanity; it is required for specific offenses such as persecution.
- Sentencing for the additional convictions was remitted for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- An armed conflict may be classified as international where a state exercises “overall control” over an organized armed group, including organizing, coordinating, or planning operations, without directing each specific act.
- Grave breaches liability requires that victims be “protected persons”; conflict classification and protection status are legal determinations that may be revisited on appeal when grounded in an incorrect legal test.
- Joint criminal enterprise is a mode of liability under the tribunal’s individual responsibility provision: a participant may be liable for (a) agreed crimes and (b) other crimes by co-participants that were a natural and foreseeable consequence of executing the common plan, where the participant accepted that risk.
- For crimes against humanity, the contextual elements—widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population and the accused’s knowledge—are central; individual motive does not negate liability if those elements are met.
- Discriminatory intent is not a general element of crimes against humanity; it attaches only to particular crimes (notably persecution), while other crimes (e.g., murder, torture, inhumane acts) do not require proof of discriminatory animus beyond the contextual requirements.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Chamber upheld Tadić’s principal convictions and expanded his liability by correcting the conflict-classification approach, enabling grave breaches convictions, and recognizing joint criminal enterprise responsibility for foreseeable crimes committed by co-participants, while also clarifying that personal motives do not preclude crimes against humanity and that discriminatory intent is not a universal element of such crimes.


Prosecutor v. Tadić (Judgment), Case No. IT-94-1-A, 38 I.L.M. 1518 (ICTY App. Ch. 1999)