Targeting Of Civilians In Armed Conflict Prosecutions
Introduction
The deliberate targeting of civilians during armed conflict is a serious violation of international humanitarian law (IHL) and constitutes a war crime under various legal instruments, including the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocols, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Under customary international law and treaties, civilians must not be made the object of attack. Only combatants and military objectives may be lawfully targeted. Violations have been prosecuted at both international and national levels, especially in tribunals such as:
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
International Criminal Court (ICC)
Below is a detailed examination of key cases that shaped the jurisprudence on the prosecution of targeting civilians in armed conflict.
1. Prosecutor v. Tadić (ICTY, 1997)
Facts:
Duško Tadić was a Bosnian Serb who was charged with crimes committed in the Prijedor region, Bosnia, during the early stages of the Bosnian War. He was accused of participating in the persecution of non-Serb civilians and acts of inhuman treatment.
Key Legal Findings:
The ICTY emphasized that individuals can be held criminally responsible for serious violations of IHL, including targeting civilians.
The court held that even in non-international armed conflicts, serious violations such as murder, torture, and cruel treatment of civilians are prosecutable under customary law.
Tadić was convicted of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and violations of the laws or customs of war.
Significance:
This was the first trial at an international war crimes tribunal since Nuremberg and set precedent for prosecuting individuals for attacks on civilians, including under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.
2. Prosecutor v. Blaškić (ICTY, 2000)
Facts:
General Tihomir Blaškić was a commander of Croatian Defence Council (HVO) forces. He was charged with ordering attacks on Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) villages in Central Bosnia.
Key Legal Findings:
The court found Blaškić criminally responsible for ordering and failing to prevent attacks on civilians.
The tribunal clarified that intentional attacks on civilians, regardless of the military context, are unlawful.
Artillery shelling and systematic destruction of civilian property were considered evidence of targeting civilians.
Significance:
This case elaborated on the command responsibility doctrine, highlighting that military leaders must prevent or punish crimes committed by their subordinates. Targeting civilians was not just a rogue soldier’s act but could reflect organizational policy.
3. Prosecutor v. Bagilishema (ICTR, 2001)
Facts:
Ignace Bagilishema was the mayor of Mabanza commune in Rwanda and was accused of facilitating massacres of Tutsi civilians during the Rwandan Genocide (1994).
Key Legal Findings:
The ICTR examined his role in coordinating attacks on Tutsi civilians who sought refuge in public buildings.
Although he was eventually acquitted due to insufficient evidence of his direct involvement, the trial underscored how deliberate attacks on civilians can constitute extermination, a crime against humanity.
Significance:
This case is important for illustrating the threshold of proof required for war crimes involving civilian targeting and the individualization of criminal responsibility in chaotic conflict situations.
4. Prosecutor v. Katanga (ICC, 2014)
Facts:
Germain Katanga, a militia leader in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), was tried for his role in the attack on the village of Bogoro in 2003, during which civilians were deliberately attacked and killed.
Key Legal Findings:
Katanga was convicted of war crimes (including willful killing and directing attacks against civilians) and crimes against humanity.
The ICC found that the attack was not just against combatants, but that the militia’s plan included killing civilians, making the targeting intentional.
Significance:
This case is pivotal because it established precedents at the ICC on:
What constitutes “directing an attack against civilians”
The mode of liability: he was convicted not as the main perpetrator but for his indirect co-perpetration, helping facilitate the attack.
5. Prosecutor v. Ntaganda (ICC, 2019)
Facts:
Bosco Ntaganda, a senior commander of the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) in the DRC, was tried for a range of crimes committed in Ituri between 2002 and 2003.
Key Legal Findings:
He was convicted of war crimes, including intentionally directing attacks against civilians, murder, rape, and using child soldiers.
The court emphasized that his troops systematically attacked civilian populations, showing a clear intention to target non-combatants.
Significance:
This was a landmark ICC conviction, and Ntaganda was sentenced to 30 years in prison — the highest sentence issued by the ICC to date.
The court used video evidence, witness testimonies, and command structure analysis to prove intent and responsibility.
6. Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić (ICTY, 2003)
Facts:
Galić was a Bosnian Serb commander who oversaw the siege of Sarajevo (1992–1994), during which civilians were deliberately sniped and shelled.
Key Legal Findings:
The intentional targeting of civilians through sniper fire and shelling was considered a campaign of terror.
The ICTY held that Galić's forces intentionally targeted civilians without any military necessity.
Significance:
He was the first person convicted at the ICTY for terrorizing a civilian population through indiscriminate attacks, and it solidified that terrorizing civilians is a war crime.
Legal Framework Summary
These prosecutions are based on legal principles derived from:
Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols
Rome Statute of the ICC – Article 8(2)(b)(i) defines war crimes as “Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities.”
Customary International Law
Conclusion
The jurisprudence on targeting civilians shows a clear and consistent evolution toward accountability:
No immunity for leaders: Military or political rank offers no shield.
Command responsibility is key: Leaders are liable for the acts of subordinates if they order, know of, or fail to prevent/punish them.
Intent is critical: Distinction between collateral damage and intentional targeting is central.
Both international and non-international conflicts are covered, emphasizing the universality of these protections.
RELATED Blog
0 comments