Talk:Bosnian Genocide case

Bosniak?

I would suggest changing the words "Bosniak muslim" into "Bosniak". --EmirA 22:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

From skimming the article Bosniaks, this make sense. Changed. Be bold! --Geoffrey 03:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

???????

How can a state be judged? Isn't it like judging the Atlantic Ocean, or judging women? Can anything be judged, not only people? Or does "Serbia" refers to all the present Serbs?

It kind of remains me when the king of Spain sentenced all the Netherlanders (but a family) to death... --euyyn 02:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For legal purposes of the ICJ, the state isn't the collective population of Serbia, but rather the government. The legal entity of Serbia, not the geographic, social, or cultural one.

All ICJ cases work like this. States (aka governments) sue each other for violations. It's inherent in the nature of the court. For instance, Ireland v. the UK was a lawsuit against the British government for abuse of terrorism suspects, not an accusation against the entire collective British population. 67.39.194.10 20:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Name

Can we discuss major changes to this article, such as changing the name of the article, before you proceed with changes. Whoever changed the name of the article gave a poor reason ie. "more useful name".

90% of all reports on this topic call this case Bosnia genocide case or Bosnian genocide case. Given the profound nature of the case I think this is far more appropriate name. It is not merely a border dispute such as most other cases that this court has taken on and it deserves to be istinguished.

Curent name, although is typically used in the legal system, in a general public domain could also mean a soccer match "Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro". I would strongly suggest moving it back to its original name "Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ". --Dado 18:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sympathetic to the above comment, but would want to settle on a name that could be used consistently for other legal cases at the ICJ. AndrewRT 11:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only the above, but don't forget one of the burdens on prosecution is proving there was an intent to cause genocide at all - Bosnian Genocide ase starts sounding POV-ish. Daemon8666 14:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is by its current name going against the grain of what is commonly used name. Not one media source calls this case as Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia Montenegro in particular due to ambiguity of the name morphology (it used to be Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia). I thought we were supposed to use commonly used phrases. All alternates are still called out in the article and we can redirect BiH v SCG on Bosnian genocide case at the ICJ.--Dado 18:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

This was finally fixed in 2014 to your suggested name, unfortunately with the wrong capitalization, 'Bosnian Genocide case'. My attempt to fix that didn't work because of a collision on an existing redirect page at small-g Bosnian genocide case. A request to fix that is pending. Mathglot (talk) 01:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Errors

There may be several errors in the article. For example, saying Yugoslavia is not a UN member state and therefore do not have standing to sue Nato member states does not mean the same thing as ICJ not having jurisdiction over Nato member states. I have marked "disputed". – Kaihsu 12:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand which part you're disputing. Is it a section, a sentence or the whole article? Can you clarify. AndrewRT 12:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand either. Perhaps a few additional sources should be noted but hardly that article justifies an NPOV tag. I will remove the tag until you clarify it. Stating that "There MAY be several errors" cannot justify a dispute. Please be careful not to misuse NPOV tag --Dado 19:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, jurisdiction regarding crimes against humanity are binding upon all. (couldn't remember the exact latin term, sorry) Wouldn't that make S&M prone to indictment and punishment iff the judges ruled that there indeed had been a genocide? (kutukagan 08:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

I am still not following your entire train of thought of what you are implying to. To answer your last question, although ICJ is the highest authority to make a judgement on this case it has no means of implementing the sentance if one would come about. Please make corrections in the article if you see it necessary. --Dado 18:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just wondering that where did they come up with the following date for the final decision: "A binding ruling will be handed down on February 21, 2007. If Bosnia wins, it could seek billions of dollars in compensation." I contaceted myself to the Court and they knew nothing about this date...they only informed me that the Court will give a press release beforehand and since there is no such thing given yet, it´s weird to me that in wikipedia a specific date exists! – 2007-02-07T09:45:35 128.214.205.5

Success

Is there chance of the trial's success? If there is, what would BiH ask from Montenegro (and what from Serbia)? --PaxEquilibrium 21:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• There was an interesting situation here (B&H) a month ago when officials from Montenegro asked Bosnian authorities to drop charges against Montenegro, because it is an independent country now. This was a followup to the same question asked by ICJ. Because there is no real consensus in the Presidency about this, the official agent of B&H stated that the original suit will not be changed, because Montenegro was a part of Yugoslavia, it participated in aggression and genocide and it did nothing to stop it. The question of reparations is very complex, and it has been said to the Court (the last oral at ICJ, by Bosnian side), that this will be answered after the decision in February. – 2006-12-31T12:05:31 85.158.35.58

srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com

I have removed the Srebrenica Genocide Blog from the list of external links because it was added by the author of the blog himself (to this article and to many, many others) in contravention of WP:COI.[1] However, I suspect that it may actually be useful to keep here (I'm not sure, as I don't know much about the Bosnian Genocide and about the blog). If someone other than the author re-adds it, please leave a note here so that it isn't mistakenly removed again. —Psychonaut 20:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Re-write required

As Serbia has been cleared the article will need to be re-written to take into account the full judgement. -- Phildav76 11:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bosnian genocide merge with Srebrenica massacre

Since it has been officially determined by the Hague that "there was no Bosnian genocide on the scale of the whole country in an effort to exterminate the Bosnian Muslims" apart from the incident in Srebrenica, the article Bosnian genocide should be merged with the article Srebrenica massacre, or it should simply become a 'Redirect' to Srebrenica Massacre, because in this case it becomes simply redundant. Maîtresse 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

sure --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't redundant. Hague only determined that Serbia as state was not involved in genocide, which was committed by Army of Republika Srpska (as noted by court). This article must stay, in order to describe ethnic cleansing and genocide in Foča, Višegrad, Bijeljina, Zvornik, and so on... But I see your point. Nothing can surprise me these days. I will cite you: incident in Srebrenica... --HarisM 18:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

See en:Talk:Bosnian_Genocide#Merge_with_Srebrenica_Article Maîtresse 08:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Move by Serbian side

Boris Tadic declared that he is planning to present a law to the parliament about accepting the role of Serbia in the massacre. I think it is a positive step forward for the relations between Bosnia and Serbia. See you, Deliogul 16:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Provocative & possibly POV language

The language in the following excerpt seems provocative and possibly POV: "It was concluded however that Serbia failed to punish those who carried out the genocide, especially general Ratko Mladić. Despite the evidence of widespread killings, siege of Sarajevo, mass rapes, ethnic cleansing and torture by different Serb forces which also included JNA (VJ), elsewhere in Bosnia, especially in Prijedor, Banja Luka and Foča camps and detention centers, the judges ruled that the criteria for genocide were met only in Srebrenica or Eastern Bosnia." This paragraph's wording "different Serb forces which also included JNA" further confuses uninformed readers about the difference between Serbs and Serbians (in suing the state of Serbia and Montenegro rather than the Serb people the UN fails to address crimes commited by ethnic Serbs from other countries and unintentionally punishes Albanian, Hungarian, and Roma minorities in Serbia as well as Serbian Muslims from the Novi Pazar region.) Additionally, the language suggests the writer clearly believe the verdict to have been wrong, since the prosecution's evidence is presented along with the verdict in a sensationalist tone of disbelief. I contend that this paragraph at least, and any similar examples be re-written to avoid confusion or editorialization, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.61.81.110 (talk) 20:37, 28 February, 2007 (PST)

If you have suggestions for re-wording please provide them, or otherwise be bold and make the changes yourself, while explaining them on the talk page. Maîtresse 04:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Penalties?

Let me start by saying I'm nearly totally ignorant of international law and how these courts work. So, I imagine there are many others like me reading! What is the result of the trial? Great, they are guilty of violating an international agreement. We obviously aren't going to build a jail cell around the country. What use is the verdict? Is it simply a result for victims to go to lower courts and demand compensation? If someone more familiar could clear this up, I know I would appreciate it as well as anyone else who doesn't understand what is so significant about it.

Thank you, Liastnir 14:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Under international law if a state takes an action involving another state which violates international law the state which is determined to violate international law can be assessed to pay damages to the injured state, which are called reparations. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has assessed such damages in several cases and in such situation the injured state would then have an international claim against the first state. What is significant about this in the Bosnia v Serbia lawsuit is that Bosnia asked for billions of dollars of reparations from Serbia in its claim that Serbia was responsible for genocide in Bosnia. Since the ICJ did not find that Serbia committed genocide in Bosnia (it did find Serbia violated the Genocide Convention in two other respects), the ICJ did not award reparations to Bosnia.Avorkink 21:04, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Avorkink, that makes more sense. Liastnir 15:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

In the event that Serbia was found to be in violation and an order for reparation was made, Serbia could still decide to ignore the order. The decisions of the ICJ are not considered to be legally binding and have been ignored in previous occassions (most notably by the US - see the LaGrand case and Breard case for examples). The ICJ works in a political climate such that a failure to adhere to it's decisions would be held in low regard by other member States. Moreover, international law is still a relatively young judicial branch and as such decisions of the ICJ add to the development of this area of law.

Read this

• Genocide Court Ruled for Serbia Without Seeing Full War Archive, The New York Times, April 9, 2007
• Survivors of War Crime Outraged at Verdicts, OneWorld.net, Apr. 13, 2007

I’ve just added these two article in the “External links” section. If anyone here wants to add more content in the article using the articles above as references, that’s OK.--MaGioZal 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Significance

Since the entire "Significance" section is without references/sources I suggest we put some in there or remove the section alltogether (which would be too bad, since it makes the article more interesting rather than just an account of the ICJ judgement). CheersOsli73 13:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wider genocide or not

Hi, wasn't it also so that the ICJ judgement found that there had not been any genocide in Bosnia outside of the Srebrenica Massacre (or at least didn't find enough evidence to it)? As the article currently reads, that is not precisely clear.Osli73 (talk) 05:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• That is correct. The Court has stated however that there may be grounds for crimes against humanity in many other places in B&H but that it does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on that (ICTY, on the other hand has). --Harac (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

That is not quite what the ICJ ruled. They ruled that the Serbian state had not committed genocide. They did not rule out that some other people may not have committed genocide in Bosnia in a place other than Srebrenica. To quote from the Bosnian Genocide article:

In September 2006, former Bosnian Serb leader Momcilo Krajisnik was found guilty of multiple instances of crimes against humanity, but while the ICTY judges found that there was evidence that crimes committed in Bosnia constituted the criminal act of genocide (actus reus), they did not establish that the accused possessed genocidal intent, or was part of a criminal enterprise that had such an intent (mens rea) (Staff. Momcilo Krajisnik convicted of crimes against humanity, acquitted of genocide and complicity in genocide, A press release by the ICTY in The Hague, 27 September 2006 JP/MOW/1115e).

So it is possible that at one of the ongoing trials at the ICTY if intent to commit genocide is proven for an individual currently on trial then they may still be found guilty of genocide even though the Serbian state was not. --PBS (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• First of all I would not confuse ICJ with ICTY. Although I view its judgment as idiocy it is the fact that they have gone through all the instances were atrocities have happened and in most cases established the existence of actus reus of genocide, but in no case, except Srebrenica have they found also dolus specialis necessary for this crime (they had to establish whether genocide happened at all before they could "attach" it to another state - it is quite clear from the judgment). Even if ICTY finds Karadžić guilty of genocide in more places in B&H than one (it is highly unlikely that appeals chamber will do the same with Krajišnik), and even if they find direct link of Serbia in it, it will not change the ICJ judgment, or rather the "facts" that it had "established", (unless a revision process is undertaken at some point, which is also unlikely because of political reasons). Thus, it seems reasonable to believe that "truth" that genocide happened only in "specific" place in B&H will remain legally unchallenged, which is unfortunate. --Harac (talk) 22:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ECHR quoting the ICJ

From the history of the article:

• 15:31, 25 November 2008 Harac (the extensive elaboration on "Jorgic v. Germany" has no place in this article, and has been moved to "List of Bosnian Genocide Prosecutions") (undo)
• 18:52, 25 November 2008 Philip Baird Shearer (rv the quoting of the ICJ ruling by the ECHR is pertinent to this case as it explains why ethnic cleansing of itself was not enough to be genocide.)

The quote by the ECHR of the ICJ was part of their judgement on "Jorgic v. Germany", but it is relevant here because it is a secondary source quoting a primary source to explain why the ICJ did not find the ethnic cleansing as carried out in Bosnia to meet the requirements of genocide in relation to Serbian state involvement. --PBS (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not know whose smart idea it was, but it would be enough to quote directly from ICJ judgment (a quote missing!), and even better since this "selective" quotation does not even mention or directly quote ICJ. It rather elaborates (in a much more detailed way than ICJ had done) on the theoretical idea of ethnic cleansing that is the subject matter of another article - Ethnic cleansing! + that part of the article is unproportionally large in comparison to substantive analysis of the judgment (which is missing, again) --Harac (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do not use "*" when replying because it makes it difficult to indent threads of conversations.

It was my smart idea. The wording before the quote explains it:

In reviewing the case in the judgement of Jorgic v. Germany on 12 July 2007 the European Court of Human Rights selectively quoted from the ICJ ruling on the Bosnian Genocide Case to explain that ethnic cleansing was not enough on its own to establish that a genocide had occurred:

The advantage of using the ECHR quote is that they select the appropriate text (notice the "..."s within the quote) and they qualify as a expert secondary source on the ICJ so we are not ourselves selectively quoting the ICJ (see WP:PSTS).

The citation at the end of the ECHR's selective quote of the ICJ is:

ECHR Jorgic v. Germany §45 citing Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro ("Case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide") the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found under the heading of "intent and 'ethnic cleansing'" § 190

Here is a link to the ECHR judgement Jorgic v. Germany as it is an HTML version it does not have page numbers but I am sure you will have no problem finding paragraph 45 as given in the citation at the end of the selective quote.

I am not sure why you say it is not a quote from the ICJ, because if you go to the ICJ site and open the Judgment of 26 February 2007(a PDF) file and go to pages 75/76 of the PDF document (The text states pages 70 and 71), you will find the paragraph that the ECHR quotes from.

If you can find reliable sources and expand the "substantive analysis of the judgment" then this is still quite a small article and I agree with you it needs expansion. However the issue of ethnic cleansing not in its self being genocide (but only if coupled with intent to biologically destroy the protected group) is a very important point of law that came out of this case. It will have a large influence on many future genocide cases. The judgement on this issue came as a surprise to many people. So I think the ICJ warrants a paragraph giving the details on "The term 'ethnic cleansing' has frequently been employed to refer to the events in Bosnia and Herzegovina which are the subject of this case...". --PBS (talk) 11:45, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I "protested" the quote from a technical perspective not because I don't know what ICJ said. To quote ECHR in this context would mean that ICJ had "invented" the explanation of the notion. "Ethnic cleansing" and everything about it did not "come of this case", since there is nothing extraordinarily original about the judgment. The Court has flagrantly quoted ICTY case law concerning everything, including its "findings" on ethnic cleansing (Brđanin, Krstić, Stakić, Blagojević & Jokić) --Harac (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't follow what your protestation is. The way that common law/case law works is that one court builds on the cases that came before the current one. Hence the ICJ builds on the ICTY cases and the ECHR builds on the ICJ. As we are agreed that the ECHR was quoting the ICJ said, and is not as you asserted "It rather elaborates (in a much more detailed way than ICJ had done)" the quote is valid and I am reinstating it. --PBS (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

this discussion is million years old, but I do find it adequate to point out that none of these courts are instituted in common law fashion, nor do they function on the basis of stare decisis, precedent or pure case law system. When, and if, they quote each other it is just to clarify (or establish) customary rules or merely to straighten their arguments by quoting different authorities (or by spitting on others as ICJ had done with ICTY). --Harac (talk) 07:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes what you say is true, see International Court of Justice#Law applied, but also note it says "In reality, the ICJ rarely departs from its own previous decisions and treats them as precedent in a way similar to superior courts in common law systems. Additionally, international lawyers commonly operate as though ICJ judgments had precedential value." --PBS (talk) 14:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Interpretation is a different issue, and M. Shahabuddeen has written extensively on the subject of "precedent" in ICJ, but the basic rules are clear. --Harac (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

German criminal code

This addition made on 9 July to the verdict section are misleading because they confuse four separate cases

• The ICJ judgement
• The ECHR Jorgic v. Germany on a German Federal case of the German Prosecutor v. Joric
• The ICTY Krstic Appeals Judgment.

This addition "Furthermore, the court found that the applicant had acted with intent to commit genocide within the meaning of Article 220a of the Criminal Code...It concluded that the applicant had therefore acted with intent to destroy the group of Muslims in the North of Bosnia, or at least in the Doboj region." to the quote by the ECHR about the ICJ judgment is misleading because it is not the ECHR quoting the ICJ, it is from a different section [paragraph 18] and is referring to Article 220a of the [German] Criminal Code.

"on 12 July 2007 the European Court of Human Rights upheld the earlier judgment that Bosnian Genocide happened" should not be in this section. Besides it is not correct as the ECHR found that the Germans's interpretation of their law was not unfair and that if Jorgic had taken advice over his actions that he would have known that likely outcome of a trial in Germany of his actions would have been a finding of genocide. --PBS (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The last addition with is the Krstic Appeals Judgment is to do with the Srebrenica massacre (Finding 5 in the ICJ judgement), "...in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995;" But the included quote does not bring clarity because it is about a separate case and including it with its mention of "an Appeals Chamber" is confusing and not directly relevant to this verdict. Further placing it within this section is a violation of WP:SYN and OR as unlike the ECHR judgment extract that selectively quotes the ICJ judgment (and is therefor a secondary source) this quote is using a primary source in a verdict section, as an indirect explanation of ICJ judgment 5. --PBS (talk) 10:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The information that I placed in wikipedia is important because it shows that the highest court ruled that although ethnic cleansing ALONE does not constitute genocide, if combined with other crimes (such was in Srebrenica), then it does constitute genocide. Ethnic cleansing was part of genocide in Srebrenica. Ethnic cleansing combined with massacres constitutes genocide, according to the Krstic Appeals Judgment[2]:

Thus, standing alone, forcible transfer is not genocide. But in this case the transfer did not stand alone, and that indeed is the basis on which the Appeals Chamber rejected the defence argument that it showed that there was no genocide. It was part – an integral part – of one single scheme to commit genocide, involving killings, forcible transfer and destruction of homes. In particular, it showed that the intent with which the killings were done was indeed to destroy the Srebrenica part of the Bosnian Muslim group. In my view, the judgment of the Appeals Chamber has to be understood as affirming that, by taking on the role of chief executor of the policy of forcible transfer - an inseparable element of the genocide - the appellant shared the intent of the Main Staff to commit the crime of genocide."

Bosniak (talk) 04:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote from the ECHR which is quoting the ICJ as so is a secondary source, states (what the quote from the Krstic Appeals Judgment states):

This is not to say that acts described as 'ethnic cleansing' may never constitute genocide, if they are such as to be characterized as, for example, 'deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part', contrary to Article II, paragraph (c), of the Convention, provided such action is carried out with the necessary specific intent (dolus specialis), that is to say with a view to the destruction of the group, as distinct from its removal from the region.

The press briefing quoted also lists

(5) Finds that Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995;

So as the point is already covered there is no need to include a selective quote from a primary source about another trial as it just adds confusion and not clarity -- see above for comments on SYN and primary source.

In addition this edit of 17 June cherry picks one paragraph from a list of paragraphs:

- The facts invoked by the Applicant

Before turning to the allegations of fact advanced by Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Court briefly outlines the background of the case relating to the break-up of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and defines the different entities involved in the events complained of. The Court then examines the links between the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and the authorities of the Republika Srpska (which was the self-proclaimed “Republic of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina”). The Court finds that the FRY made its considerable military and financial support available to the Republika Srpska and that, had it withdrawn that support, this would have greatly constrained the options available to the Republika Srpska authorities.

The Court then sets out to examine the facts alleged by Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to decide: (1) whether the alleged atrocities occurred and, if established, (2) whether the facts establish the existence of an intent, on the part of the perpetrators, to destroy in whole or part the group of the Bosnian Muslims.

The Court makes long and detailed findings of fact on the alleged atrocities which are grouped according to the categories of prohibited acts described in Article II of the Genocide Convention.

With respect to “killing members of the protected group” (Article II (a) of the Convention), the Court finds that it is established by overwhelming evidence that massive killings throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina were perpetrated during the conflict. However, the Court is not convinced that those killings were accompanied by the specific intent on the part of the perpetrators to destroy, in whole or in part, the group of Bosnian Muslims. It acknowledges that the killings may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, but that it has no jurisdiction to determine whether this is so.

The Court turns to the massacre at Srebrenica and carefully examines the evidence regarding that event, including the fact that the ICTY found in the Krstić and Blagojević cases that Bosnian Serb forces killed over 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men following the takeover of Srebrenica in July 1995. The Court concludes that both killings and acts causing serious bodily or mental harm occurred. The Court finds that the Main Staff of the VRS (the army of the Republika Srpska) had the necessary specific intent to destroy in part the group of Bosnian Muslims (specifically the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica) and that accordingly acts of genocide were committed by the VRS in or around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995.

The Court then proceeds to examine evidence of acts “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the protected group” (Article II (b) of the Convention). It finds that the Bosnian Muslims were systematically victims of massive mistreatment, beatings, rape and torture causing serious bodily and mental harm during the conflict. However, it finds that the specific intent to destroy the protected group is not conclusively established.

The Court then examines alleged acts of “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” (Article II (c) of the Convention). It finds that there is conclusive evidence that the alleged acts were committed, but that the necessary specific intent is not established.

With respect to Articles II (d) and (e) of the Convention - “imposing measures to prevent births within the protected group” and “forcibly transferring children of the protected group to another group” -, the Court cannot find that the evidence is sufficient to establish that such acts occurred.

The Court then finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated any overall plan to commit genocide on the basis of the 1992 Strategic Goals issued by the authorities of the Republika Srpska. It also rejects Bosnia and Herzegovina’s claim that the very pattern of the atrocities committed over many communities, over a lengthy period, focussed on Bosnian Muslims, can demonstrate the necessary specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part.

I think picking one of these statements is misleading, specifically because it is on a technical issue of a type of genocide and not on the mass killings. To make a similar point the other way the paragraph starting "With respect to Articles II (d) and (e) of the Convention". If one paragraph is to be picked from that list then I suggest that it is the one that starts "With respect to “killing members of the protected group”...".

Also the wording in the passive narrative voice is misleading "In reference to the genocide in Bosnia-Herze" because the only legally recognised genocide to have taken place was the Srebrenica massacre. --PBS (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Source Link Broken

Footnote #7 has a broken link: http://www.icj-cij.org/cijwww/cdocket/cbhy/cbhyjudgments/cbhy_cjudgment_20070226/bhy_judgment.pdf Bosniak (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Legalese

Can this article refrain from using legalese where not strictly necessary, e.g. in the 1st sentence "return". See WP:JARGON. Pcap ping 04:04, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Returned is not a legal term it is a general term used in other contexts as well. -- PBS (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Overwhelming evidence

Furthermore, according to the ICJ’s judgement "it is established by overwhelming evidence that massive killings in specific areas and detention camps throughout the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina were perpetrated during the conflict" and that "the victims were in large majority members of the protected group, the Bosniaks, which suggests that they may have been systematically targeted by the killings". Moreover, "it has been established by fully conclusive evidence that members of the protected group were systematically victims of massive mistreatment, beatings, rape and torture causing serious bodily and mental harm, during the conflict and, in particular, in the detention camps". The Court accepted that these acts, on the part of the Serb forces, had been committed, but that there was inconclusive evidence of the specific intent to destroy the Bosniaks as a group in whole or in part. This includes the period up to 19 May 1992, when Bosnian Serb forces were under the formal control of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Hoare, Marko Attila (9 March 2007). "The International Court of Justice and the decriminalisation of genocide". Bosnian Institute. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help))

The Index of the judgement can be found on page 43-44/4-5 (PDF 4,6) of the judgement (the document seems to carry dual paging and just be be further confusing interlaces English and French pages and the PDF numbers --thanks to the French pages--are different again). However the index is clear because it refers to numbered paragraphs not page numbers.

• The first quote comes from 154/115 (PDF 226) § 276. It is in a section called "(4) Article II (a): killing members of the protected group" (§§ 245–276)
• The second comes from 175/136 (PDF 268) §319. It is the last paragraph in a section called "(6) Article II

(b): causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the protected group" (§§ 298–319)

I think this paragraph has problems because Marko Attila Hoare does not make it clear that this is a synthesis from two paragraphs from two different section of the judgement and by using quotes makes them appear as if they are from the same page or at least the same section. I think that the paragraph would be better constructed without quotations:

The ICJ found overwhelming evidence that there had been massive mistreatment, beatings, rape, torture and killings of Bosnian Muslims (a protected group under the terms of the Genocide Convention), but that there was inconclusive evidence of the specific intent to destroy that group (as laid out in the Genocide Convention) by people and organisations acting on the behalf Serbia and Montenegro (citations 1 and 2).

• citation 1: the judgement paragraphs § 276, 319
• citation 2: Hoare, Marko Attila (9 March 2007). "The International Court of Justice and the decriminalisation of genocide". Bosnian Institute. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

-- PBS (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Overuse of primary sources and long quotations

The article is poorly referenced and relies way too much on primary sources and overuse of long quotations. Additional reliable, secondary sources are needed.

There are only thirteen references currently, of which by my count eight are primary sources or press releases, two are from reliable news sources in English (but one of those is a dead link), and one is a standard legal reference book cited in support of a original interpretation in the article (Bosnia will need to show..."). Of the other two, one (the Bosnian Institute) would be okay in the context of an article with many other secondary references.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other source material. The place for long, direct quotations from primary documents is in Wikisource. Those Wikisource documents can then be linked to from the article. Mathglot (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bosnian Genocide case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/02/26/international/i033600S38.DTL&type=politics

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Checked. Mathglot (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2016 (UTC)