At the opening of the preliminary hearing in the Croatia vs. Serbia case, Belgrade’s legal representatives claim the crimes in Croatia cannot be qualified as genocide and challenge the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the case Croatia brought before the Court asking it to find Serbia responsible for the violation of the Genocide Convention

As the hearing about the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the Croatia vs. Serbia case continues, Zagreb’s legal counsel contend that there is no reason for the Court to rule differently than it ruled in the case brought before the Court by BH

In the closing arguments at the hearing before the International Court of Justice, Belgrade’s representatives note that in 2004 the highest world court ruled it lacked jurisdiction in a case Serbia instituted against NATO member states. If the court were to find now it did have jurisdiction in the case brought by Croatia, it ‘would give two answers to Serbia to the same question’

In the closing argument before the International Court of Justice, Croatia’s legal counsel Ivan Simonovic urges the highest world court to dismiss Serbia’s objection and declare it has jurisdiction to hear the case Zagreb brought against Belgrade for violations of the Genocide Convention

The world’s highest court has rejected preliminary objections raised by Belgrade regarding the jurisdiction and acceptability of the suit filed in 1999 by Croatia, accusing Serbia of violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

The public hearings in the Croatia vs. Serbia case opened today before the International Court of Justice. Croatia and Serbia have accused each other of genocide, allegedly committed in the period from 1991 to 1995. The ‘genocide and the intent to commit it are not a numbers game’ but a consequence of the campaign ‘instigated, organized, controlled and made possible’ by Serbia, Croatia has argued. The hearings will last a month

Croatia's representatives argue that Serbia knew about 'genocidal activities in the Vukovar area but failed to do anything to prevent them. The representatives also spoke about the relevance of the Tribunal's judgments, the discretionary right of the chief prosecutor not to indict anyone for genocide in Croatia, the campaign aimed at creating the Greater Serbia and the crimes which confirm the arguments, as Croatia alleges

At the public hearing in the case brought by Croatia against Serbia for violations of the Genocide Convention, the Croatian representatives continued presenting their arguments in the public hearing, highlighting the pattern of the attacks of the Serbian forces on the Croatian villages and towns with a ‘clear intent to destroy’ the civilian population

Croatia’s representatives highlighted the time frame and territorial context of the individual crimes committed against the Croatian population. They explained how the crimes committed by the JNA and forces under its control can legally be attributed to Serbia, and why in their view Serbia is responsible for the failure to prevent crimes and punish perpetrators and is guilty of the conspiracy to commit genocide

In his presentation on Serbia’s intent ‘to destroy in part or as a whole the non-Serb population in Croatia’ British barrister Keir Starmer mentioned 17 factors that in his view corroborate the existence of this intent. Does the International Court of Justice have jurisdiction to adjudicate the events that happened before 27 April 1992 when Yugoslavia was formally constituted as a state?

As he responded to Croatia's arguments, head of the Serbian legal team Sasa Obradovic admitted that grave crimes had been committed in Croatia. However, Obradovic stressed, there was no evidence that they ‘reached the scale of genocide’. On the other hand, the crimes against Serbs in Operation Storm contained all the elements of genocide, including the specific intent, noted Obradovic

Professors Andreas Zimmermann and Christian Tams, from the Serbian legal team, contest the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for the crimes committed before 27 April 1992 when the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was officially constituted as a state. ‘If Croatia’s arguments are accepted, the doors of the Peace Palace will be left wide open for new suits for the crimes committed a long time ago’, Zimmermann warned

While Serbia’s representatives accept that the crimes were committed in Croatia, they deny that murders and grave psychological and physical injuries were inflicted with the intent to ‘destroy in part or as a whole the Croatian population’ in the areas Serbs claimed belonged to them

In a bid to prove that Croatia was responsible for the genocide against Serbs in Operation Storm, the Serbian legal team relied on what Franjo Tudjman had said at the famous Brioni meeting as an indication of the intent to commit genocide. The Serbian team also presented the testimonies of former UN soldiers who had served in Krajina, the Serb victims and the expert Savo Strbac, who claimed he had a list of 1,713 Serb victims killed in Operation Storm

Head of the Serbian legal team Sasa Obradovic claims the intent to commit genocide against the Krajina Serbs was made evident at the Brioni meeting. The intent was realized afterwards, in the mass crimes and the efforts to prevent the Serb refugees from returning. After the Tribunal’s Appeals Chamber reversed the conviction of Croatian generals Gotovina and Markac, Serbia expects the International Court of Justice to find legal remedy for an ‘untenable situation’ and deliver justice to the victims of Operation Storm

Concluding their argument on Croatia’s responsibility for genocide in Operation Storm, the Serbian legal team says Tudjman and his associates saw genocide as the ‘only solution’. As a result of their actions, the number of Serbs was reduced to one third of their original number, an ‘unprecedented event in post-war Europe’

Responding to Serbia’s counter-claim for genocide in Operation Storm, the Croatian legal team invoked both the appellate and trial judgments in the case against generals Gotovina and Markac. Croatia’s legal team strongly denied that the plan to commit genocide had been crafted at Brioni, and dismissed in no uncertain terms any comparisons between the Brioni meeting and the Wannsee agreement on the ‘final solution’ of the Jewish question in Germany

Professor Philippe Sands has urged the world’s highest court to diverge from earlier conclusions that require an extremely high standard of proof for genocidal intent. If the Serbian argument is accepted, the Convention for the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide will become nothing but a ‘historical monument’ and a ‘dead Convention’, Sands warned on behalf of the Croatian team. Croatia filed a suit against Serbia for genocide during the conflict from 1991 to 1995

At the International Court of Justice, the Serbian legal team responded to the allegations made last week by the Croatian lawyers in the second round of arguments. Croatia filed a suit against Belgrade for violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

In the closing arguments in the two suits Croatia and Serbia filed against each other, the head of the Serbian legal team Sasa Obradovic urged the Court to find it lacked jurisdiction to hear Croatia’s case. Alternatively, Obradovic asked the Court to reject Croatia’s argument on Serbia’s responsibility for genocide. At the same time, Obradovic asked the judges to find Croatia responsible of genocide in Operation Storm, order it to pay reparations, to take measures to ensure unobstructed return of the refugees and to stop celebrating the Day of Victory and Thanksgiving

In the final reply to the Serbian arguments, Croatia opposed any comparisons between Franjo Tudjman and his associates and the Nazis. Croatia urged the International Court of Justice to dismiss the Serbian counter-claim for genocide in Operation Storm

On Tuesday, 3 February 2015, the judges of the world’s supreme court will deliver their judgment in the two cases Croatia and Serbia brought against each citing the violations of the Genocide Convention

The International Court of Justice has rejected the claims put forth by Zagreb and Belgrade against each other, alleging violations of the Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The world’s supreme court has ruled that the Serb and Croat forces did commit grave crimes between 1991 and 1995. Some of those crimes do constitute actus reus of genocide. However, there was no intent to ‘destroy’ an ethnic group but to ‘forcibly remove’ it from the part of the territory under the control of the opposite side