The Examination of the Rome Statute’s Provisions on Participation from the Perspective of Turkish and German Criminal Law

Abstract

Criminal codes are used to regulate provisions on participation to penalize those who contribute to crimes, except for the perpetrator. Furthermore, participation isshaped within the framework ofspecific principlesin the statutes and case laws of international courts, asin the example of the Rome Statute, which is a part of international criminal law and the statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). In international crimes, the person who personally perpetrated the actus reus of the crime is not deemed responsible. The persons who cause the commission of typical acts are senior administrators and commanders at the background. Herein, certain modalities of responsibility, such as planning, conspiracy, joint crime, responsibility of superiors, perpetration, instigation, and aiding, which are considered classical forms of participation, are accepted. In Articles 25(3)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute, direct, joint, and indirect perpetration as well as instigating and aiding are accepted as forms of accessory, respectively. Moreover, ordering, which is a form of instigation, is regulated as an independent form of participation. The rule of accessory is accepted with the expression of “committed or attempted crime” in the provision; however, failed instigation is not punished, except for direct and public incitement to the crime of genocide. According to the international criminal law requirements, the responsibility of superiors is accepted as another modality of responsibility (Article 28); meanwhile, joint criminal enterprise (Article 25(3)(d)) is regulated as an institution similar to participation.

Keywords

• Rome Statute
• joint criminal enterprise
• (failed) instigation
• responsibility of superiors
• background man

Türk ve Alman Ceza Hukuku Perspektifinden Roma Statüsü’nün İştirake Dair Hükümlerinin İncelenmesi

Abstract

Failler dışında suça katılanların cezalandırılması için ceza kanunlarında iştirake ilişkin hükümler düzenlenir. Uluslararası mahkemelerin kuruluş belgelerinde ve içtihatlarında iştirak kurumu bu disipline özgü prensipler çerçevesinde şekillenmiştir. Bu durum, uluslararası ceza hukukunun bir parçası ve Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi’nin (UCM) kurucu belgesi olan Roma Statüsü için de geçerlidir. Uluslararası suçlar bakımından asıl sorumlu görülen kişi suç tipinin maddi unsurlarını bizzat gerçekleştiren kişi değildir. Tipik fiillerin işlenmesine neden olan kişiler, arka planda duran üst düzey idareciler ve komutanlardır. Bu bağlamda planlama, komplo, müşterek suç girişimi, üstün sorumluluğu gibi bazı farklı sorumluluk şekilleri ve iştirakin klasik görünüş şekilleri olarak faillik, azmettirme ve yardım etme kabul edilmiştir. Roma Statüsü md 25 (3) (a) bendinde tek başına, başkalarıyla birlikte ve başkası aracılığı ile suç işleyen kişinin sorumlu olacağı ifade edilerek doğrudan, müşterek ve dolaylı faillik; md 25 (3) (b) bendinde azmettirme ve yardım etme şeriklik şekilleri olarak kabul edilmiştir. Azmettirmenin bir işleniş şekli olan emretme ise bağımsız bir iştirak şekli olarak ayrıca düzenlenmiştir. Hükümde “işlenen veya teşebbüs edilen suç” ifadesiyle bağlılık kuralı kabul edilmiştir. Statü’de akim kalmış azmettirme (azmettirmeye teşebbüs) cezalandırılmamıştır. Bununla birlikte soykırım suçuna doğrudan ve alenen tahrik bağımsız bir suç tipi olarak düzenlenmiştir. Müşterek suç girişimi (md 25 (3) (d)) iştirak benzeri bir kurum olarak düzenlenirken, uluslararası ceza hukukunun gereksinimleri doğrultusunda üstlerin sorumluluğu öğretisi (md 28) bir başka sorumluluk şekli olarak kabul edilmiştir.

Keywords

• Roma Statüsü
• müşterek suç girişimi
• (akim kalmış) azmettirme
• üstlerin sorumluluğu
• fail arkasında fail

References

1. Akbulut B, ‘Bağlılık Kuralı’ (2010) XIV GÜHFD 167-212 google scholar
2. ——, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (9. bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2022) google scholar
3. Ambos K, ‘General Principles of Criminal Law in the Rome Statute’ (1999) 10 Criminal Law Forum 1-32 google scholar
4. ——, ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 159-183 google scholar
5. Ambos K and Bock S, ‘Germany’ in Alan Reed and Michael Bohlander (eds), Participation in Crime (Domestic and Comparative Perspectives) (1st edn, Ashgate 2013) 323-339 google scholar
6. Antonio C, ‘Instigation’, Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law (1. bs, Cambridge University Press 2019), 257-283 google scholar
7. Artuk ME and others, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (16. bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2022) google scholar
8. Aslan MY, ‘Uluslararası Ceza Divanı ve Kişisel Ceza Sorumluluğu’ (2007) TBB Dergisi 239-254 google scholar

9. Aydın D, ‘Uluslararası Ceza Hukukunun Gelişimi’ (2002) 51 Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 131-167 google scholar
10. Baker DJ, Reinterpetring Criminal Complicity and Inchoate Participation Offences (1. edn, Routledge 2016) google scholar
11. Başak C, Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemeleri ve Uluslararası Suçlar (1 bs, Turhan Kitapevi 2003) google scholar
12. Baumann J and Weber U, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (9. Aufl, Gieseking 1985) google scholar
13. Bayraktar K, Evik VS and Kurt G, Özel Ceza Hukuku: Uluslararası Suçlar (Cilt I) (1 bs, On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2016) google scholar
14. Bock D, ‘Grundwissen Zur Anstiftung (§ 26 StGB)’ (2007) JA 599-604 google scholar
15. Bohlander M, Principles of German Criminal Law (1st edn, Hart Publishing 2009) google scholar
16. Çelen Ö, Bir İştirak Şekli Olarak Yardım Etme (Asli Fail-Yardım Eden Ayrımı) (1. bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2020) google scholar
17. Cryer R and others, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2010) google scholar
18. De Hemptinne J, ‘Conspiracy’ in Jeröme De Hemptinne, Robert Roth and Elies Van Sliedregt (eds), Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law (1. edn, Cambridge University Press 2019) 367-387 google scholar
19. ——, ‘Incitement’ in Jeröme De Hemptinne, Robert Roth and Elies Van Sliedregt (eds), Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law (1. edn, Cambridge University Press 2019) 388-407 google scholar
20. ——, ‘Planning’ in Jeröme De Hemptinne, Robert Roth and Elies Van Sliedregt (eds), Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law (1 edn, Cambridge University Press 2019) 355-367 google scholar
21. Değirmenci O, ‘Uluslararası Ceza Hukukunda Amirin Emrini İfa Sorumluluğu’ (2012) 10 Legal Hukuk Dergisi 57-96 google scholar
22. Demirel M, ‘Alman Hukukuyla Karşılaştırmalı Yardım Etme Hareketleri’ (2017) 5 Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi 119-161 google scholar
23. Dressler J, Understanding Criminal Law (7. edn, LexisNexis 2015) google scholar
24. Einarsen T and Rikhof J, A Theory of Punishable Participation in Universal Crimes Terje Einarsen/ Joseph Rikhof (1. edn, Torkel Opsahl Academic EPublisher 2018) google scholar
25. Erem F, ‘Suça İştirak’ (1946) 3 Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 62-107 google scholar
26. Evik VS, Suça İştirakte Yardım Edenin Ceza Sorumluluğu (2. bs., On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2011) google scholar
27. Gal T, ‘Direct Commission’, Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law (1. edn, Cambridge University Press 2019) 17-29 google scholar
28. Geppert K, ‘Die Anstiftung (§ 26 StGB)’ (1997) JURA/Heft 6 299-305 google scholar
29. Gropp W, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (4. Aufl, Springer Verlag 2015) google scholar
30. Hacıfazlıoğlu A, Teori ve Uygulamada Suça İştirak (1. bs, Bilge Yayınevi 2014) google scholar
31. Hakeri H, ‘Yeni Tük Ceza Kanunu’nda İştirak’ (2006) 1 Ceza Hukuku Dergisi 75-109 google scholar
32. ——, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (28. bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2023) google scholar
33. Heine G and WeiBer B, ‘Anstiftung’ in Adolf Schönke and Horst Schröder (eds), Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch (30. Aufl, C H Beck 2019) google scholar
34. ——, ‘Beihilfe’ in Adolf Schönke and Horst Schröder (eds), Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch (30. Aufl, C H Beck 2019) google scholar
35. Heinrich B, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (6. Aufl, W Kohlhammer 2019) google scholar
36. İçel K, Suçların İçtimaı (1. bs, İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları 1972) google scholar
37. ——, ‘Görünüşte Birleşme (İçtima) ve Yeni Türk Ceza Kanunu’ (2008) İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 35-49 google scholar
38. J Ventura M, ‘Aiding and Abetting’, Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law (1. edn, Cambridge University Press 2019) 173-256 google scholar
39. ——, ‘Ordering’ (1. edn, Cambridge University Press 2019) 284-306 google scholar
40. Jackson M, ‘Command Responsibility’ in Jeröme De Hemptinne, Robert Roth and Elies Van Sliedregt (eds), Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law (1. edn, Cambridge University Press 2019) 409-431 google scholar
41. Jager C, Ezamens-Repetitorium StrafrechtAllgemeiner Teil (9. Aufl, C F Müller 2019) google scholar
42. Johannes K and Roef D, ‘Forms of Participation’, Comparative Concepts of Criminal Law, (203234), United Kingdom 2016. (2nd edn., Intersentia 2016) google scholar
43. Kadish SH, ‘Complicity, Cause and Blame: A Study in the Interpretation of Doctrine’ (1985) 73 California Law Review 323-410 google scholar
44. Karakehya H, ‘Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi ve Uygulanabilir Hukuk’ (2008) 57 AÜHFD 133-163 google scholar
45. Keçelioğlu E, ‘Alman Ceza Hukukunda Faillik’ (2006) TBB Dergisi 73-88 google scholar
46. Keiler J, Actus Reus and Participation in European Criminal Law (1. bs, Intersentia 2012) google scholar
47. Keith KMF, ‘The Mens Rea of Superior Responsibility as Developed by ICTY Jurisprudence’ (2001) 14 Leiden Journal of International Law 617-634 google scholar
48. Koca M and Üzülmez İ, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (15 bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2022) google scholar
49. ——, Türk Ceza Hukuku Özel Hükümler (8. bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2022) google scholar
50. Koch A and Wirth K, ‘Grundfalle Zur Anstiftung’ (2010) JuS 203, 203-209 google scholar
51. Kühl K, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (8. Aufl, Frans Vahlen 2017) google scholar
52. Kurşun G, 101 Soruda Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi (1 bs, İnsan Hakları Gündemi Derneği 2011) Erişim Tarihi 13 Mart 2023 google scholar
53. Less G, ‘Der Unrechtscharakter Der Anstiftung’ (1957) ZStW/Band 69-Heft 1 43, 43-58 google scholar
54. Letzgus K, Vorstufen Der Beteiligung (1. Aufl, Duncker & Humblot 1972) google scholar
55. Mahmutoğlu FS, ‘Kusurluluk Prensibi Açısından Azmettirenin Ceza Sorumluluğu’ (2005) LXIII İÜHFM 57 google scholar
56. Maiwald M, Einführung in Das Italienische Strafrecht Und Strafprozessrecht (1. Aufl, Peter Lang 2009) google scholar
57. Marchuk I, The Fundemental Concept of Crime in International Criminal Law (A Comparative Law Analaysis) (1 edn, Springer Verlag 2014) google scholar
58. Mitchell P, ‘Mental Element in Complicity (Case Notes)’ (1998) 9 King’s College Law Journal 125-128 google scholar
59. Noto F, Secondary Liability in International Criminal Law- A Study on Aiding and Abetting or Otherwise Assisting the Commission of International Crimes (1 edn, Dike Publishers 2013) google scholar
60. Olofsson A, ‘Aiding and Abetting International Crimes-In the Light of International Legal Pluralism’ (Stockholm University, Faculty of Law, Department of Law 2016) accessed 15 April 2023 google scholar
61. Önok M, ‘Silahlı Çatışmalar Hukukunda Üstün Sorumluluğu Doktrini’ (2005) 1 Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika 93-126 google scholar
62. ——, ‘Uluslararası Ceza Divanı’nı Kuran Roma Statüsü Ile Türk Ulusal Mevzuatının Maddi Ceza Hukuku Kuralları Yönünden Uyumuna Dair Rapor’ (Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi Koalisyonu/ Almanya Büyükelçiliği 2010) google scholar
63. ——, Müşterek Suç Girişimi (Joint Criminal Enterprise) ve Örgütsel Hakimiyete Dayalı Dolaylı Faillik Doktrinleri (1st edn, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2019) google scholar
64. Özbek VÖ, Doğan K and Bacaksız P, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (13. bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2022) google scholar
65. Özen M, ‘5237 Sayılı Türk Ceza Kanunu’nun İştirak Kurumuna Bakışı’ (2007) Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi 239-253 google scholar
66. Özgenç İ, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (18. bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2022) google scholar
67. Özkan H, Ceza Hukukunda Azmettirme (1. bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2013) google scholar
68. Pazarcı H, Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri (12. bs, Turhan Kitapevi 2014) google scholar
69. Rehaag C, Prinzipien von Taterschaft Und Teilnahme in Europaischer Rechtstradition (Duncker & Humblot 2009) google scholar
70. Rende D and Köni B, ‘Yeni İtalyan Ceza Kanununda Cezalar, Emniyet Tedbirleri ve Bunların Şahsileştirilmesi’ (1936) 2 İÜHFD 338 google scholar
71. Rengier R, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (11. Aufl, C H Beck 2019) google scholar
72. Robbers G, An Introduction to German Law (5. Aufl, Nomos 2012) google scholar
73. Robinson PH, Criminal Law: Case Studies & Controversies (1. edn, Aspen Publishers 1997) google scholar
74. Roth R, ‘Improper Omission’ in Jeröme De Hemptinne, Robert Roth and Elies Van Sliedregt (eds), Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law (1. edn, Cambridge University Press 2019) 58-81 google scholar
75. Roxin C, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, Band II: Besondere Erscheinungsformen Der Straftat (1. Aufl, C H Beck 2003) google scholar
76. Safferling C, Internationales Strafrecht (1. Aufl, Springer Verlag 2011) google scholar
77. Sancar TY, Çok Failli Suçlar (1. bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 1998) google scholar
78. Satzger H, ‘Der >>omnimodo Facturus<<-Und Das, Was Man in Jedem Fall Dazu Wissen Muss!’ (2017) JURA/Heft 10, 1169-1182 google scholar
79. Schabas WA, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (4th edn, Cambridge University Press 2011) google scholar
80. Soyaslan D, Ceza Hukuku Özel Hükümler (13. bs, Yetkin Yayınları 2020) google scholar Stratenwerth G and Kuhlen L, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (Die Straftat) (6. Aufl, Franz Vahlen 2011) google scholar
81. Tezcan D, Erdem MR and Önok M, Uluslararası Ceza Hukuku (6 bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2021) google scholar
82. Tezcan D, Erdem MR and Önok M, Teorik ve Pratik Ceza Özel Hukuku (20. bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2022) google scholar
83. Tokdemir S, Ceza Hukukunda Akim Kalmış Azmettirme (1. bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2022) google scholar
84. ——, ‘The Jurisdiction of the Internatıonal Criminal Court: A Critical Legal Scrutiny on the Principle of Complementarity Adopted in the Rome Statute’ (2023) 13 Hacettepe HFD 107-128 google scholar
85. Tulay ME, Ceza Hukukunda Şahısta Veya Konuda Hata (Error in Persona Vel Obiecto) (1. bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2022) google scholar
86. ——, Kriminelle Vereinigungen Im Deutschen Strafrecht Im Vergleich Zum Türkischen Strafrecht Unter Besonderer Berücksichtigung Der Beteiligungsdogmatik (1. Aufl, Felix) google scholar
87. Van Sliedregt E and Yanev L, ‘Co-Perpetration Based on Joint Control over the Crime’ in Jeröme De Hemptinne, Robert Roth and Elies Van Sliedregt (eds), Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law (1. edn, Cambridge University Press 2019) 85-120 google scholar
88. Yenisey F and Plagemann G, Alman Ceza Kanunu Strafgesetzbuch (StGB) (1. bs, Beta Yayınevi 2009) google scholar
89. Zurkinden N, ‘Parties to Crime in Switzerland’ in Ulrich Sieber, Kostanze Jarvers and Silverman Emily (eds), National Criminal Law in a Comparative Legal Context: Introduction to National Systems (National Characteristics, Fundamental Principles, and History of Criminallaw), vol 1.1 (Duncker & Humblot 2015) 208-239 google scholar
90. Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis Powers and Charter of the International Military Tribunal, 8 August1945, 82 UNTS 279 Erişim Tarihi 2 Ekim 2023 google scholar
91. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948, 78 UNTS 277 Erişim Tarihi 3 Ekim 2023 google scholar
92. Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Geneva Convention III), 75 UNTS 135 Erişim Tarihi 1 Şubat 2024; Türkçe metin için Erişim Tarihi 1 Şubat 2024 google scholar
93. International Military Tribunals for the Far East Special Proclamation: Establishment of an International Military Tribunal for the Far East, 19 January 1946, TIAS No. 1589 Erişim Tarihi 2 Ekim 2023 google scholar
94. Protocol Additional I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Relating to The Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 1125 UNTS 3 (Protocol Additional I to Geneva Conventions) Erişim Tarihi 1 Şubat 2024; Türkçe metin için http://ceidizleme.org/ekutuphaneresim/dosya/434_1.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 1 Şubat 2024 google scholar
95. Roma Statüsü, Kabul Tarihi 17 Temmuz 1998, Yürürlük Tarihi 1 Temmuz 2002 Erişim Tarihi 14 Haziran 2023 google scholar
96. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 3 Erişim Tarihi 13 Mart 2023 google scholar
97. The Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 3 (Rome Statute) google scholar
98. The Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, UN Doc S/RES/808 (1993) Erişim Tarihi 2 Ekim 2023 google scholar
99. The Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda UN Doc S/RES/955 (1994) Erişim Tarihi 2 Ekim 2023 google scholar
100. 1982 Anayasası, Kanun Num 2709, Kabul Tarihi 18.10.1982, RG 9.11.1982/17863 Erişim Tarihi 29 Ocak 2024 google scholar
101. Cezai Konularda Uluslararası Adli İşbirliği Kanunu, Kanun Num 6706, Kabul Tarihi 23.04.2016, RG 5.5.2016/29703 Erişim Tarihi 15 Haziran 2023 google scholar
102. deutsches Strafgesetzbuch [in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 13.11.1998 BGBI I S 3322] google scholar
103. deutsches Völkerstrafgesetzbuch [vom 26.06.2002 BGBI I S 2254] google scholar
104. French Penal Code, entered into forced March 1, 1994; replaced the French Penal Code of 1810 Erişim Tarihi 26 Ocak 2024 google scholar
105. Italian Penal Code, adopted October 19, 1930; entered into force July 1, 1931 replaced Zanardelli Code of 1889 google scholar
106. Model Penal Code (adopted at the 1962 Annual Meeting of the American Law Institute at Washington, DC, May 24, 1962) Erişim Tarihi 14 Şubat 2024 google scholar
107. The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861(1861, c 94) google scholar
108. Türk Ceza Kanunu, Kanun Num 5237, Kabul Tarihi 26.09.2004, RG 12.10.2004/25611 Erişim Tarihi 16 Haziran 2023 google scholar
109. Nikolaus von Falkenhorst Erişim Tarihi 17 Şubat 2024 google scholar
110. Prosecutor v Ahmed Muhammad Harun (Warrant of Arrest) ICC-02/05-01/07-2, Pre-T Ch I (27 April 2007) google scholar
111. Prosecutor v Aloys Simba (Judgement) ICTR-01-76, A Ch (27 November 2007) google scholar
112. Prosecutor v Blagojevic and Jokic (Judgment), IT-02-60, T Ch I (17 January 2005) google scholar
113. Prosecutor v Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez (Judgement) ICTY-95-14/2, A Ch (17 December 2004) Erişim Tarihi 19 Şubat 2024 google scholar
114. Prosecutor v Dragan Obrenovic (Sentencing Judgement) ICTY IT-02-60/2, T Ch I (10 December 2003) google scholar
115. Prosecutor v Jean Paul Akayesu (Judgment) ICTR-96-4, T Ch I (2 September 1998) Erişim Tarihi 19 Şubat 2024 google scholar
116. Prosecutor v Joseph Kony (Warrant of Arrest) ICC-02/04-01/05, Pre-T Ch I (27 September 2005) google scholar
117. Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo (Judgement) ICC-01/04-01/07 OA 8, Pre-T Ch I (30 September 2008) Erişim Tarihi 2 Ekim 2023 google scholar
118. Prosecutor v Milomir Stakic (Judgement) ICTY IT-97-24-T, T Ch II (31 July 2003) Erişim Tarihi 16 Şubat 2024 google scholar
119. Prosecutor v Milorad Krnojelac (Judgement) ICTY IT-97-25-T, T Ch II (15 March 2002) www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/icty/2002/en/19276> Erişim Tarihi 16 Şubat 2024 google scholar
120. Prosecutor v Milutinovic et al (Judgement) ICTY- 99-37, A Ch (21 May 2003) google scholar
121. Prosecutor v Miroslav Kvocka (Judgement) ICTY IT-98-30/1, A Ch (28 February 2005) google scholar
122. Prosecutor v Miroslav Kvocka (Judgement) ICTY IT-98-30/1, T Ch I (2 November 2001) google scholar
123. Prosecutor v Nahimana et al (Judgement) ICTR-99-52-A, A Ch (28 November 2007) Erişim Tarihi 17 Şubat 2024 google scholar
124. Prosecutor v Naser Oric (Judgment) ICTY-IT-03-68, T Ch II (30 June 2006) Erişim Tarihi 19 Şubat 2024 google scholar
125. Prosecutor v Radislav Krstic (Judgement) ICTY IT-98-33, T Ch I (2 August 2001) google scholar
126. Prosecutor v Slobodan Milosevic (Decision on Motion for Judgement of Acquittal), ICTY IT-02-54, T Ch III (16 June 2004) google scholar
127. Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Decision of the Warrant for Arrest) ICC-01/04-01/06-2, T Ch I (10 February 2006) google scholar
128. Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Decision on the Confirmation of Charges) ICC-01/04-01/06, Pre-T Ch I (29 January 2007) google scholar
129. Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Judgement) ICC-01/04-01/06, T Ch I (14 March 2012) www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/CourtRecords/CR2006_02234.PDF> Erişim Tarihi 17 Şubat 2024 google scholar
130. Prosecutor v Tihomir Blaskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-14, T Ch I (3 March 2000) Erişim Tarihi 19 Şubat 2024 google scholar
131. Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana (Judgement) ICC-01/04-01/10, Pre-T Ch I (16.12.2011) Erişim Tarihi 18 Şubat 2024 google scholar
132. The Prosecutor v Yvonne Basebya (Judgement) District Court of The Hague Case No. 09/748004-09 (1 March 2013) Erişim Tarihi 25 Ocak 2020 google scholar
133. The Prosecutor v Zejnil Delalic et al (Judgement) ICTY IT-96-21-A, A Ch (20 February 2001) Erişim Tarihi 19 Şubat 2024 google scholar