Salvaguardas

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs
I. Qualités
II. Identification of the respondent party
III. The Court’s jurisdiction
(1) Introduction: the jurisdictional objection of Serbia and
Montenegro
(2) History of the status of the FRY with regard to the
United Nations
(3) The response of Bosnia and Herzegovina
(4) Relevant past decisions of the Court
(5) The principle of res judicata
(6)Application of the principle of res judicata to the 1996
Judgment
(7) Conclusion: jurisdiction affirmed

1-66
67-79
80-141
80-87
88-99
100-104
105-113
114-120
121-139
140-141

IV. The applicable law: the Convention on the Prevention and
Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(1) The Convention in brief
(2) The Court’s 1996 decision about the scope and meaning
of Article IX
(3) The Court’s1996 decision about the territorial scope of
the Convention
(4) The obligations imposed by the Convention on the
Contracting Parties
(5) Question whether the Court may make a finding of
genocide by a State in the absence of a prior conviction
of an individual for genocide by a competent court
(6) The possible territorial limits of the obligations
(7) The Applicant’s claims in respect ofalleged genocide
committed outside its territory against non-nationals
(8) The question of intent to commit genocide
(9) Intent and “ethnic cleansing”
(10) Definition of the protected group

185
186-189
190
191-201

V. Questions of proof: burden of proof, the standard of proof,
methods of proof

202-230

VI. The facts invoked by the Applicant, in relation to Article II
(1) Thebackground
(2) The entities involved in the events complained of
(3) Examination of factual evidence: introduction
(4) Article II (a): Killing members of the protected group
Sarajevo
Drina River Valley
(a) Zvornik

142-201
142-149
150-152
153-154
155-179
180-182
183-184

231-376
231-234
235-241
242-244
245-277
246-249
250-256
250-251

- ii (b) Camps
(i) Sušica camp
(ii)Foča Kazneno-Popravní Dom camp
(iii) Batković camp
Prijedor
(a) Kozarac and Hambarine
(b) Camps
(i) Omarska camp
(ii) Keraterm camp
(iii) Trnopolje camp
Banja Luka
Manjača camp
Brčko
Luka camp
(5) The massacre at Srebrenica
(6) Article II (b): Causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the protected group
Drina River Valley
(a) Zvornik
(b) Foča
(c) Camps
(i) Batković camp(ii) Sušica camp
(iii) Foča Kazneno-Popravní Dom camp
Prijedor
(a) Municipality
(b) Camps
(i) Omarska camp
(ii) Keraterm camp
(iii) Trnopolje camp
Banja Luka
Manjača camp
Brčko
Luka camp
(7) Article II (c): Deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical
destruction in whole or in part
Alleged encirclement, shelling and starvationDeportation and expulsion
Destruction of historical, religious and cultural
property
Camps
(a) Drina River Valley
(i) Sušica camp
(ii) Foča Kazneno-Popravní Dom camp
(b) Prijedor
(i) Omarska camp
(ii) Keraterm camp
(iii) Trnopolje camp
(c) Banja Luka
Manjača Camp
(d) Bosanski Šamac

252-256
252
253-254
255-256
257-269
257-261
262-269
262-264
265-266
267-269
270
270
271-273271-273
278-297
298-319
305-310
305
306
307-310
307
308
309-310
311-314
311
312-314
312
313
314
315-316
315-316
317-318
317-318
320-354
323-328
329-334
335-344
345-354
346-347
346
347
348-350
348
349
350
351
351
352

- iii (8) Article II (d): Imposing measures to prevent births
within the protected group
(9) Article II (e): Forcibly transferring children ofthe
protected group to another group
(10) Alleged genocide outside Bosnia and Herzegovina
(11) The question of pattern of acts said to evidence an intent
to commit genocide
VII. The question of responsibility for events at Srebrenica under
Article III, paragraph (a), of the Genocide Convention
(1) The alleged admission
(2) The test of responsibility
(3) The question of attribution of...