The Appeals Chamber considered whether persons hors de combat were within the term “civilian” in Article 5 of the Statute. It then considered whether a person hors de combat could be otherwise a victim of a crime under Article 5.

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”.[1] There is an absolute prohibition against the targeting of civilians in customary international law,[2] encompassing indiscriminate attacks.[3] […]

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”[4] 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.[5]

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”.[6] 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).

27. The Trial Chamber was aware that the International Tribunal had not yet addressed the issue of whether the individual victims of the underlying crimes under Article 5 of the Statute must be civilians.[1] To support its above conclusion, it sought to rely on the finding in the Blaškić Appeal Judgement that “both the status of the victim as a civilian and the scale on which it is committed or the level of organization involved characterize a crime against humanity”.[2] However, as explained below, this finding cannot lend support to the conclusion that the underlying crimes under Article 5 of the Statute can only be committed against civilians.

28. The Appeals Chamber in Blaškić first stated that the Trial Chamber “correctly recognised that a crime against humanity applies to acts directed against any civilian population”.[3] It then addressed Tihomir Blaškić’s argument that he never ordered attacks directed against a civilian population but that the casualties were the unfortunate consequence of an otherwise legitimate and proportionate military operation.[4] In this context, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber erred when it stated that “the specificity of a crime against humanity results not from the status of the victim but the scale and organisation in which it must be committed”.[5] It further found that “both the status of the victim as a civilian and the scale on which it is committed or the level of organization involved characterize a crime against humanity”.[6] The Appeals Chamber’s finding was therefore concerned with the issue of whether legitimate military targets were attacked and was not seized of the question of whether the victims of the underlying crimes under Article 5 of the Statute must be civilians. Accordingly the Appeals Chamber’s finding is to be understood as only reflecting the jurisdictional requirement of Article 5 of the Statute that crimes against humanity must be committed as part of a widespread attack against a civilian population.[7] It cannot be understood as implying that the underlying crimes under Article 5 of the Statute can only be committed against civilians as the Trial Chamber did in the present case.

29. The Appeals Chamber recently confirmed that “[t]here is nothing in the text of Article 5 of the Statute, or previous authorities of the Appeals Chamber that requires that individual victims of crimes against humanity be civilians”.[8] Further, it held that under customary international law, persons hors de combat can also be victims of crimes against humanity, provided that all the other necessary conditions are met.[9]

30. This is not to say that under Article 5 of the Statute the status of the victims as civilians is irrelevant. In fact, the status of the victims is one of the factors that can be assessed in determining whether the jurisdictional requirement that the civilian population be the primary target of an attack has been fulfilled,[10] along with, inter alia, the means and method used in the course of the attack, the number of victims, the discriminatory nature of the attack, the nature of the crimes committed in its course, the resistance to the assailants at the time and the extent to which the attacking force may be said to have complied or attempted to comply with the precautionary requirements of the laws of war.[11]

31. Further, the fact that a population under the chapeau of Article 5 of the Statute must be “civilian” does not imply that such population shall only be comprised of civilians. The status of the victims will thus also be relevant to determining whether the population against which the attack is directed is civilian. In Kordić and Čerkez, the Appeals Chamber stated:

The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians and the presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.[12]

In Blaškić, the Appeals Chamber, relying on the ICRC Commentary to Article 50 of Additional Protocol I,[13] held that “in order to determine whether the presence of soldiers within a civilian population deprives the population of its civilian character, the number of soldiers, as well as whether they are on leave, must be examined”.[14]

32. Accordingly, whereas the civilian status of the victims, the number of civilians, and the proportion of civilians within a civilian population are factors relevant to the determination of whether the chapeau requirement of Article 5 of the Statute that an attack be directed against a “civilian population” is fulfilled, there is no requirement nor is it an element of crimes against humanity that the victims of the underlying crimes be “civilians”.

33. In light of the foregoing, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber erred in law at paragraphs 462 and 463 of the Trial Judgement in concluding that, for the purposes of Article 5 of the Statute, the victims of the underlying crime must be civilians, and consequently erroneously creating an additional requirement under Article 5 of the Statute.