|Appeal Judgement - 08.10.2008||
Martić claimed that his actions were in response to persecution of the Serb population by the Croatian authorities. Accordingly, he submitted defences of reciprocity or tu quoque; reprisal; and self-defence.
Similarly, the Appeals Chamber found that self-defence could not be used to justify deliberately targeting a civilian population.
268. As for Martić’s alternative argument that the shelling of Zagreb was a lawful military action conducted in self-defence, the Appeals Chamber recalls that “whether an attack was ordered as pre-emptive, defensive or offensive is from a legal point of view irrelevant […]. The issue at hand is whether the way the military action was carried out was criminal or not.” […] As Martić has failed to show any error in the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that he deliberately targeted the civilian population of Zagreb, his argument that the shelling of Zagreb was conducted in self-defence must fail. The Appeals Chamber takes note of Martić’s arguments in his concluding statement at the appeal hearing that “the Serbs were not aggressors but rather defended themselves in a situation when the United Nations made no attempt to protect them […].” However, in particular in light of the fact that the prohibition against attacking civilians is absolute, the Appeals Chamber fails to see how this claim could justify Martić’s actions in relation to the shelling of Zagreb.
 Defence Appeal Brief, paras 233-234.
 Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 812. See also Kordić and Čerkez Trial Judgement, para. 452 and ICRC Commentary on Additional Protocols, para. 1927.
 Trial Judgement, para. 472.
 AT. 163.
 Strugar Appeal Judgement, para. 275 and references cited in fn. 688.