Occupied territory
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
|---|---|---|
| Judgement (volume I) - 29.11.2017 |
PRLIĆ et al. (IT-04-74) |
|
|
300. At the outset, the Appeals Chamber recalls that Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV applies to instances of displacement across the de facto borders of an occupied territory.[1] In the Stakić case, the Appeals Chamber held that “the actus reus of deportation is the forced displacement of persons by expulsion or other forms of coercion from the area in which they are lawfully present, across a de jure state border or, in certain circumstances, a de facto border, without grounds permitted under international law”.[2] 301. The Appeals Chamber considers, therefore, that the Trial Chamber properly examined whether a state of occupation existed in those places in relation to which the Indictment raised allegations of deportation as a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions, i.e. in West Mostar and the municipalities of Prozor, Ljubuški, Stolac, and Čapljina.[3] That inquiry involved an element of the crime of deportation itself – the crossing of a de facto border, i.e. the boundary of the occupied territory, or across a de jure border – which was separate and distinct from the general requirements for the application of the “grave breaches” regime under Article 2 of the Statute.
[1] See Geneva Convention IV, Art. 49. See also Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 300 (relying on Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV to conclude that “displacement across a de facto border may be sufficient to amount to deportation” and that “the question whether a particular de facto border is sufficient for the crime of deportation should be examined on a case by case basis in light of customary international law”). [2] Stakić Appeal Judgement, para. 278. See also Stakić Appeal Judgement, paras 296-297, 300. [3] See Trial Judgement, Vol. 3, paras 575-581, 585-588; Appeal Hearing, AT. 307 (21 Mar 2017). See also Appeal Hearing, AT. 568-567 (23 Mar 2017), AT. 682 (27 Mar 2017). Cf. Appeal Hearing, AT. 305 (21 Mar 2017). |
ICTY Statute Article 2 Other instruments Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV | |
| Notion(s) | Filing | Case |
| Judgement (volume I) - 29.11.2017 |
PRLIĆ et al. (IT-04-74) |
|
|
303. With respect to the grave breaches of extensive destruction and appropriation of property, the Appeals Chamber recalls that the Trial Chamber held that Article 2(d) of the Statute offers protection to certain property, e.g., civilian hospitals and medical convoys, from acts of destruction wherever such property is located.[1] The Trial Chamber further held that protection is also afforded to real or personal, public or private property, if situated on occupied territory.[2] Because there were allegations of grave breaches of extensive destruction and appropriation of real or personal, public or private property in the Indictment,[3] the Appeals Chamber finds that it was necessary for the Trial Chamber to inquire into whether there was a state of occupation in the municipalities at times when such alleged grave breaches of extensive destruction and appropriation occurred. [1] See Trial Judgement, Vol. 1, paras 106, 108, 122 referring to, inter alia, Geneva Convention IV, Arts 18, 21-22. See also Geneva Convention IV, Art. 147; Commentary on Geneva Convention IV, pp. 301, 601. [2] See Trial Judgement, Vol. 1, paras 106-107, 122 referring to, inter alia, Geneva Convention IV, Art. 53. See also Geneva Convention IV, Art. 147; Commentary on Geneva Convention IV, pp. 301, 601. [3] See Indictment, paras 15-17.6, 39, 46, 48, 51,53, 57, 66-68, 82-85, 99-100, 107-108, 116, 159, 162, 164-166, 175, 177, 179-180, 182, 209, 211, 213. |
ICTY Statute Article 2(d) | |