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

Year 2024, Volume: 44 Issue: 1, 25 - 98, 21.08.2024

Sercan Tokdemir

https://doi.org/10.26650/ppil.2023.44.1.1328728

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

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

References

• Akbulut B, ‘Bağlılık Kuralı’ (2010) XIV GÜHFD 167-212 google scholar
• ——, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (9. bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2022) google scholar
• Ambos K, ‘General Principles of Criminal Law in the Rome Statute’ (1999) 10 Criminal Law Forum 1-32 google scholar
• ——, ‘Joint Criminal Enterprise and Command Responsibility’ (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 159-183 google scholar
• 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
• Antonio C, ‘Instigation’, Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law (1. bs, Cambridge University Press 2019), 257-283 google scholar
• Artuk ME and others, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (16. bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2022) google scholar
• Aslan MY, ‘Uluslararası Ceza Divanı ve Kişisel Ceza Sorumluluğu’ (2007) TBB Dergisi 239-254 google scholar
• Aydın D, ‘Uluslararası Ceza Hukukunun Gelişimi’ (2002) 51 Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 131-167 google scholar
• Baker DJ, Reinterpetring Criminal Complicity and Inchoate Participation Offences (1. edn, Routledge 2016) google scholar
• Başak C, Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemeleri ve Uluslararası Suçlar (1 bs, Turhan Kitapevi 2003) google scholar
• Baumann J and Weber U, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (9. Aufl, Gieseking 1985) google scholar
• Bayraktar K, Evik VS and Kurt G, Özel Ceza Hukuku: Uluslararası Suçlar (Cilt I) (1 bs, On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2016) google scholar
• Bock D, ‘Grundwissen Zur Anstiftung (§ 26 StGB)’ (2007) JA 599-604 google scholar
• Bohlander M, Principles of German Criminal Law (1st edn, Hart Publishing 2009) google scholar
• Çelen Ö, Bir İştirak Şekli Olarak Yardım Etme (Asli Fail-Yardım Eden Ayrımı) (1. bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2020) google scholar
• Cryer R and others, An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (2nd edn, Cambridge University Press 2010) google scholar
• 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
• ——, ‘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
• ——, ‘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
• Değirmenci O, ‘Uluslararası Ceza Hukukunda Amirin Emrini İfa Sorumluluğu’ (2012) 10 Legal Hukuk Dergisi 57-96 google scholar
• Demirel M, ‘Alman Hukukuyla Karşılaştırmalı Yardım Etme Hareketleri’ (2017) 5 Ceza Hukuku ve Kriminoloji Dergisi 119-161 google scholar
• Dressler J, Understanding Criminal Law (7. edn, LexisNexis 2015) google scholar
• 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
• Erem F, ‘Suça İştirak’ (1946) 3 Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 62-107 google scholar
• Evik VS, Suça İştirakte Yardım Edenin Ceza Sorumluluğu (2. bs., On İki Levha Yayıncılık 2011) google scholar
• Gal T, ‘Direct Commission’, Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law (1. edn, Cambridge University Press 2019) 17-29 google scholar
• Geppert K, ‘Die Anstiftung (§ 26 StGB)’ (1997) JURA/Heft 6 299-305 google scholar
• Gropp W, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (4. Aufl, Springer Verlag 2015) google scholar
• Hacıfazlıoğlu A, Teori ve Uygulamada Suça İştirak (1. bs, Bilge Yayınevi 2014) google scholar
• Hakeri H, ‘Yeni Tük Ceza Kanunu’nda İştirak’ (2006) 1 Ceza Hukuku Dergisi 75-109 google scholar
• ——, Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (28. bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2023) google scholar
• Heine G and WeiBer B, ‘Anstiftung’ in Adolf Schönke and Horst Schröder (eds), Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch (30. Aufl, C H Beck 2019) google scholar
• ——, ‘Beihilfe’ in Adolf Schönke and Horst Schröder (eds), Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch (30. Aufl, C H Beck 2019) google scholar
• Heinrich B, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (6. Aufl, W Kohlhammer 2019) google scholar
• İçel K, Suçların İçtimaı (1. bs, İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları 1972) google scholar
• ——, ‘Görünüşte Birleşme (İçtima) ve Yeni Türk Ceza Kanunu’ (2008) İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 35-49 google scholar
• J Ventura M, ‘Aiding and Abetting’, Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law (1. edn, Cambridge University Press 2019) 173-256 google scholar
• ——, ‘Ordering’ (1. edn, Cambridge University Press 2019) 284-306 google scholar
• 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
• Jager C, Ezamens-Repetitorium StrafrechtAllgemeiner Teil (9. Aufl, C F Müller 2019) google scholar
• Johannes K and Roef D, ‘Forms of Participation’, Comparative Concepts of Criminal Law, (203234), United Kingdom 2016. (2nd edn., Intersentia 2016) google scholar
• Kadish SH, ‘Complicity, Cause and Blame: A Study in the Interpretation of Doctrine’ (1985) 73 California Law Review 323-410 google scholar
• Karakehya H, ‘Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi ve Uygulanabilir Hukuk’ (2008) 57 AÜHFD 133-163 google scholar
• Keçelioğlu E, ‘Alman Ceza Hukukunda Faillik’ (2006) TBB Dergisi 73-88 google scholar
• Keiler J, Actus Reus and Participation in European Criminal Law (1. bs, Intersentia 2012) google scholar
• Keith KMF, ‘The Mens Rea of Superior Responsibility as Developed by ICTY Jurisprudence’ (2001) 14 Leiden Journal of International Law 617-634 google scholar
• Koca M and Üzülmez İ, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (15 bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2022) google scholar
• ——, Türk Ceza Hukuku Özel Hükümler (8. bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2022) google scholar
• Koch A and Wirth K, ‘Grundfalle Zur Anstiftung’ (2010) JuS 203, 203-209 google scholar
• Kühl K, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (8. Aufl, Frans Vahlen 2017) google scholar
• Kurşun G, 101 Soruda Uluslararası Ceza Mahkemesi (1 bs, İnsan Hakları Gündemi Derneği 2011)<https://rightsagenda.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/821_101SorudaUCM.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 13 Mart 2023 google scholar
• Less G, ‘Der Unrechtscharakter Der Anstiftung’ (1957) ZStW/Band 69-Heft 1 43, 43-58 google scholar
• Letzgus K, Vorstufen Der Beteiligung (1. Aufl, Duncker & Humblot 1972) google scholar
• Mahmutoğlu FS, ‘Kusurluluk Prensibi Açısından Azmettirenin Ceza Sorumluluğu’ (2005) LXIII İÜHFM 57 google scholar
• Maiwald M, Einführung in Das Italienische Strafrecht Und Strafprozessrecht (1. Aufl, Peter Lang 2009) google scholar
• Marchuk I, The Fundemental Concept of Crime in International Criminal Law (A Comparative Law Analaysis) (1 edn, Springer Verlag 2014) google scholar
• Mitchell P, ‘Mental Element in Complicity (Case Notes)’ (1998) 9 King’s College Law Journal 125-128 google scholar
• 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
• Olofsson A, ‘Aiding and Abetting International Crimes-In the Light of International Legal Pluralism’ (Stockholm University, Faculty of Law, Department of Law 2016) <https://www.diva-portal.org/ smash/get/diva2:968082/FULLTEXT01.pdf> accessed 15 April 2023 google scholar
• Önok M, ‘Silahlı Çatışmalar Hukukunda Üstün Sorumluluğu Doktrini’ (2005) 1 Uluslararası Hukuk ve Politika 93-126 google scholar
• ——, ‘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
• ——, Müşterek Suç Girişimi (Joint Criminal Enterprise) ve Örgütsel Hakimiyete Dayalı Dolaylı Faillik Doktrinleri (1st edn, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2019) google scholar
• Özbek VÖ, Doğan K and Bacaksız P, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (13. bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2022) google scholar
• Özen M, ‘5237 Sayılı Türk Ceza Kanunu’nun İştirak Kurumuna Bakışı’ (2007) Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi 239-253 google scholar
• Özgenç İ, Türk Ceza Hukuku Genel Hükümler (18. bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2022) google scholar
• Özkan H, Ceza Hukukunda Azmettirme (1. bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2013) google scholar
• Pazarcı H, Uluslararası Hukuk Dersleri (12. bs, Turhan Kitapevi 2014) google scholar
• Rehaag C, Prinzipien von Taterschaft Und Teilnahme in Europaischer Rechtstradition (Duncker & Humblot 2009) google scholar
• Rende D and Köni B, ‘Yeni İtalyan Ceza Kanununda Cezalar, Emniyet Tedbirleri ve Bunların Şahsileştirilmesi’ (1936) 2 İÜHFD 338 google scholar
• Rengier R, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (11. Aufl, C H Beck 2019) google scholar
• Robbers G, An Introduction to German Law (5. Aufl, Nomos 2012) google scholar
• Robinson PH, Criminal Law: Case Studies & Controversies (1. edn, Aspen Publishers 1997) google scholar
• 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
• Roxin C, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil, Band II: Besondere Erscheinungsformen Der Straftat (1. Aufl, C H Beck 2003) google scholar
• Safferling C, Internationales Strafrecht (1. Aufl, Springer Verlag 2011) google scholar
• Sancar TY, Çok Failli Suçlar (1. bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 1998) google scholar
• Satzger H, ‘Der >>omnimodo Facturus<<-Und Das, Was Man in Jedem Fall Dazu Wissen Muss!’ (2017) JURA/Heft 10, 1169-1182 google scholar
• Schabas WA, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (4th edn, Cambridge University Press 2011) google scholar
• 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
• Tezcan D, Erdem MR and Önok M, Uluslararası Ceza Hukuku (6 bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2021) google scholar
• Tezcan D, Erdem MR and Önok M, Teorik ve Pratik Ceza Özel Hukuku (20. bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2022) google scholar
• Tokdemir S, Ceza Hukukunda Akim Kalmış Azmettirme (1. bs, Seçkin Yayıncılık 2022) google scholar
• ——, ‘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
• Tulay ME, Ceza Hukukunda Şahısta Veya Konuda Hata (Error in Persona Vel Obiecto) (1. bs, Adalet Yayınevi 2022) google scholar
• ——, Kriminelle Vereinigungen Im Deutschen Strafrecht Im Vergleich Zum Türkischen Strafrecht Unter Besonderer Berücksichtigung Der Beteiligungsdogmatik (1. Aufl, Felix) google scholar
• 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
• Yenisey F and Plagemann G, Alman Ceza Kanunu Strafgesetzbuch (StGB) (1. bs, Beta Yayınevi 2009) google scholar
• 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
• 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 <https:// ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/nuremberg-tribunal-charter-1945/article-6b> Erişim Tarihi 2 Ekim 2023 google scholar
• Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948, 78 UNTS 277 <https://inhak.adalet.gov.tr/Resimler/Dokuman/2312020093827bm_11.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 3 Ekim 2023 google scholar
• Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Geneva Convention III), 75 UNTS 135 <https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b36c8.html> Erişim Tarihi 1 Şubat 2024; Türkçe metin için<http://ceidizleme.org/ekutuphaneresim/dosya/434_1.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 1 Şubat 2024 google scholar
• 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 <https://www. un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.3_1946%20Tokyo%20Charter. pdf> Erişim Tarihi 2 Ekim 2023 google scholar
• 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) <https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b36b4.html> Erişim Tarihi 1 Şubat 2024; Türkçe metin için http://ceidizleme.org/ekutuphaneresim/dosya/434_1.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 1 Şubat 2024 google scholar
• Roma Statüsü, Kabul Tarihi 17 Temmuz 1998, Yürürlük Tarihi 1 Temmuz 2002 <http://www. ceidizleme.org/ekutuphaneresim/dosya/459_1.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 14 Haziran 2023 google scholar
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 3 <https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/RS-Eng.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 13 Mart 2023 google scholar
• The Statute of the International Criminal Court (adopted 17 July 1998, entered into force 1 July 2002) 2187 UNTS 3 (Rome Statute) google scholar
• The Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, UN Doc S/RES/808 (1993) <https://www.icty.org/x/file/Legal%20Library/Statute/statute_sept09_en.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 2 Ekim 2023 google scholar
• The Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda UN Doc S/RES/955 (1994) <https://legal. un.org/avl/pdf/ha/ictr_EF.pdf > Erişim Tarihi 2 Ekim 2023 google scholar
• 1982 Anayasası, Kanun Num 2709, Kabul Tarihi 18.10.1982, RG 9.11.1982/17863 <https://www. mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.2709.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 29 Ocak 2024 google scholar
• Cezai Konularda Uluslararası Adli İşbirliği Kanunu, Kanun Num 6706, Kabul Tarihi 23.04.2016, RG 5.5.2016/29703 <https://www.mevzuat.gov.tr/MevzuatMetin/1.5.6706.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 15 Haziran 2023 google scholar
• deutsches Strafgesetzbuch [in der Fassung der Bekanntmachung vom 13.11.1998 BGBI I S 3322] google scholar
• deutsches Völkerstrafgesetzbuch [vom 26.06.2002 BGBI I S 2254] google scholar
• French Penal Code, entered into forced March 1, 1994; replaced the French Penal Code of 1810 <https://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/french_penal_code_33.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 26 Ocak 2024 google scholar
• Italian Penal Code, adopted October 19, 1930; entered into force July 1, 1931 replaced Zanardelli Code of 1889 google scholar
• Model Penal Code (adopted at the 1962 Annual Meeting of the American Law Institute at Washington, DC, May 24, 1962) <https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/08d77d/pdf> Erişim Tarihi 14 Şubat 2024 google scholar
• The Accessories and Abettors Act 1861(1861, c 94) google scholar
• Türk Ceza Kanunu, Kanun Num 5237, Kabul Tarihi 26.09.2004, RG 12.10.2004/25611<https://www. mevzuat.gov.tr/mevzuatmetin/1.5.5237.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 16 Haziran 2023 google scholar
• Nikolaus von Falkenhorst <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaus_von_Falkenhorst> Erişim Tarihi 17 Şubat 2024 google scholar
• Prosecutor v Ahmed Muhammad Harun (Warrant of Arrest) ICC-02/05-01/07-2, Pre-T Ch I (27 April 2007) google scholar
• Prosecutor v Aloys Simba (Judgement) ICTR-01-76, A Ch (27 November 2007) google scholar
• Prosecutor v Blagojevic and Jokic (Judgment), IT-02-60, T Ch I (17 January 2005) google scholar
• Prosecutor v Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez (Judgement) ICTY-95-14/2, A Ch (17 December 2004) <https://www.icty.org/x/cases/kordic_cerkez/acjug/en/cer-aj041217e.pdf> Erişim Tarihi 19 Şubat 2024 google scholar
• Prosecutor v Dragan Obrenovic (Sentencing Judgement) ICTY IT-02-60/2, T Ch I (10 December 2003) google scholar
• Prosecutor v Jean Paul Akayesu (Judgment) ICTR-96-4, T Ch I (2 September 1998) <https://www. refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/ictr/1998/en/19275> Erişim Tarihi 19 Şubat 2024 google scholar
• Prosecutor v Joseph Kony (Warrant of Arrest) ICC-02/04-01/05, Pre-T Ch I (27 September 2005) google scholar
• Prosecutor v Katanga and Ngudjolo (Judgement) ICC-01/04-01/07 OA 8, Pre-T Ch I (30 September 2008) <https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/67a9ec/pdf> Erişim Tarihi 2 Ekim 2023 google scholar
• Prosecutor v Milomir Stakic (Judgement) ICTY IT-97-24-T, T Ch II (31 July 2003) <https://www. refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/icty/2003/en/40192> Erişim Tarihi 16 Şubat 2024 google scholar
• 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
• Prosecutor v Milutinovic et al (Judgement) ICTY- 99-37, A Ch (21 May 2003) google scholar
• Prosecutor v Miroslav Kvocka (Judgement) ICTY IT-98-30/1, A Ch (28 February 2005) google scholar
• Prosecutor v Miroslav Kvocka (Judgement) ICTY IT-98-30/1, T Ch I (2 November 2001) google scholar
• Prosecutor v Nahimana et al (Judgement) ICTR-99-52-A, A Ch (28 November 2007) <https://www. refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/ictr/2007/en/91996> Erişim Tarihi 17 Şubat 2024 google scholar
• Prosecutor v Naser Oric (Judgment) ICTY-IT-03-68, T Ch II (30 June 2006) <https://www.refworld. org/jurisprudence/caselaw/icty/2006/en/78025> Erişim Tarihi 19 Şubat 2024 google scholar
• Prosecutor v Radislav Krstic (Judgement) ICTY IT-98-33, T Ch I (2 August 2001) google scholar
• Prosecutor v Slobodan Milosevic (Decision on Motion for Judgement of Acquittal), ICTY IT-02-54, T Ch III (16 June 2004) google scholar
• 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
• 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
• 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
• Prosecutor v Tihomir Blaskic (Judgment) ICTY-95-14, T Ch I (3 March 2000) <https://www.refworld. org/jurisprudence/caselaw/icty/2000/en/19490> Erişim Tarihi 19 Şubat 2024 google scholar
• Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana (Judgement) ICC-01/04-01/10, Pre-T Ch I (16.12.2011) <https://www.internationalcrimesdatabase.org/Case/768/Mbarushimana/> Erişim Tarihi 18 Şubat 2024 google scholar
• The Prosecutor v Yvonne Basebya (Judgement) District Court of The Hague Case No. 09/748004-09 (1 March 2013) <https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/3f41c2/> Erişim Tarihi 25 Ocak 2020 google scholar
• The Prosecutor v Zejnil Delalic et al (Judgement) ICTY IT-96-21-A, A Ch (20 February 2001) <https://www.refworld.org/jurisprudence/caselaw/icty/2001/en/91728> Erişim Tarihi 19 Şubat 2024 google scholar