[1] Tarčulovski’s argument that the crimes committed in the present case do not implicate the “international concerns” as outlined in Tadić is not supported by the Tadić Jurisdiction Decision [Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić a.k.a. “Dule”, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995]. In this decision, the Appeals Chamber found in relation to inter alia crimes allegedly committed in an internal armed conflict, that “the offences alleged against [Tadić] do not affect the interests of one State alone but shock the conscience of mankind” (Tadić Jurisdiction Decision., para. 57).

[2] Martić Appeal Judgement, para. 268. See also Kordić and Čerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 812; Kordić and Čerkez Trial Judgement, para. 452. See also international instruments affirming the applicability of international humanitarian law regardless of the legality of the use of force concerned: Geneva Conventions, Common Article 1; Additional Protocol I, Preamble, para. 5 and Article 1; ICRC Commentary on Additional Protocols, paras 48 and 1927; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, para. 42. The Appeals Chamber notes that Article 51 of the UN Charter concerns an inherent right of self-defence in the case of armed attack by one State against another State (Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, para. 139). Since it is not alleged in the present case that the concerned operation was against an action by another State, this provision is not relevant to this case.  

[3] Trial Judgement, paras 297-300.

[4] The Appeals Chamber further recalls that, provided that the alleged crimes are sufficiently linked with an armed conflict, the application of Article 3 of the Statute only depends on the four Tadić conditions. Thus, it is irrelevant if such violations have been committed in the context of a State’s operation in self-defence against an armed group operating in its territory (cf. Tadić Jurisdiction Decision, para. 94). In light of this finding, the Appeals Chamber dismisses Tarčulovski’s arguments that the Trial Chamber erred in law and fact “in determining that certain protocols that apply to the destruction of civilian property necessarily apply to situations where domestic terrorists are hiding among the civilian population, and in failing to consider whether the Government of Macedonia was justified in acting in self-defense in engaging in firings that had the effect of destroying houses” (Tarčulovski Amended Notice of Appeal, para. 86 (citing Trial Judgement, paras 352-358 and 380)). See also Tarčulovski Reply Brief, para. 42.