|Appeal Judgement - 12.11.2009||
53. The Appeals Chamber recalls that it is well established that the principle of distinction requires parties to distinguish at all times “between the civilian population and combatants, between civilian and military objectives, and accordingly direct attacks only against military objectives”. There is an absolute prohibition against the targeting of civilians in customary international law, encompassing indiscriminate attacks. […]
54. There is no requirement that particular areas or zones be designated as civilian or military in nature. Rather, a distinction is to be made between the civilian population and combatants, or between civilian and military objectives. Such distinctions must be made on a case-by-case basis. Further, considering the obligations incumbent upon combatants to distinguish and target exclusively military objectives, the Appeals Chamber finds Milošević’s argument regarding the proportion of civilians present in areas “replete with military objectives” unpersuasive. In fact, Milošević does not even attempt to argue that the civilian victims in Sarajevo were proportional casualties of lawful military attacks launched by the SRK. A general assertion that the attacks were legitimate because they allegedly targeted “military zones” throughout the city is bound to fail.
55. The Appeals Chamber recognizes that some of the language used in paragraphs 896-904 of the Trial Judgement may appear confusing and lead to the conclusion that the Trial Chamber actually accepted Milošević’s approach of defining the status of the “areas”. However, the Appeals Chamber understands the Trial Judgement to have adopted this terminology for the sole purpose of addressing Milošević’s arguments, whereas in reality, the Trial Chamber meant to establish the civilian status of the population targeted in specific incidents.
139. The Appeals Chamber has already found that despite the somewhat confusing language used by the Trial Chamber, it correctly engaged in a case-by-case analysis of the targets and modalities of the attacks, rather than that of “zones”. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber will pursue its analysis on the basis of its understanding that when referring to certain neighbourhoods of Sarajevo, the Trial Chamber meant to establish the civilian status of the population targeted in the attacks that took place there during the Indictment period (and not that of the areas or zones as such).
 Galić Appeal Judgement, para. 190.
 Galić Appeal Judgement, para. 190, referring to the Blaškić Appeal Judgement, para. 109.
 By way of example, the Appeals Chamber recalls Article 51(5)(a) of Additional Protocol I [Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) of 8 June 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3] which, although mainly concerned with cases of carpet bombing and similar military activities (ICRC Commentary to Additional Protocols [ Claude Pillot, Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski and Bruno Zimmermann, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, (Geneva/Dordrecht: ICRC/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987) International Committee of the Red Cross of Geneva, 1987], paras 1979-1981) and not with a protracted campaign of sniping and shelling during a siege-like situation, is undoubtedly instructive of the approach belligerents are required to take in establishing and pursuing military targets.
 See supra, Section III.C.1.(a), para. 44.
 See also infra, Section VII.B, paras 139 et seq. The Appeals Chamber further notes that Section III.A.3.(a) of the Trial Judgement containing the Trial Chamber’s evaluation of the evidence is entitled “Civilian Status of the Population”.
 See supra, Section III.C.1.(b)(ii), para. 55.
|ICTR Statute Article 3 ICTY Statute Article 5|