ilfp 2015 — study materials (part ii)
TRANSCRIPT
STATE RESPONSIBILITY
PROFESSOR PIERRE BODEAU-LIVINEC
REQUIRED READINGS (printed format)
Legal instruments and documents
1. Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001
For text, see The Work of the International Law Commission, 8th ed., vol. II, United
Nations publication, 2012, p. 401
Case law
2. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2004, paras. 138-160
48
3. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 2007, paras. 379-415
54
45
Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
Advisory Opinion
I.C.J. Reports 2004, paras. 138-160
International Court of Justice
48
49
50
51
International Court of Justice
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)
I.C.J. Reports 2007
- 135
-
VII
. The
que
stio
n of
res
pons
ibili
ty fo
r ev
ents
at S
rebr
enic
a un
der
Art
icle
III,
para
grap
h (a
),of
the
Gen
ocid
e C
onve
ntio
n
(1)
The
alle
ged
adm
issi
on
37
7. T
he C
ourt
first
not
es t
hat
the
App
lican
t co
nten
ds t
hat
the
Res
pond
ent
has
in f
act
reco
gniz
ed th
at g
enoc
ide
was
com
mitt
ed a
t Sre
bren
ica,
and
has
acc
epte
d le
gal r
espo
nsib
ility
for i
t.
The
App
lican
t ca
lled
atte
ntio
n to
the
fol
low
ing
offic
ial
decl
arat
ion
mad
e by
the
Cou
ncil
of
Min
iste
rs o
f th
e R
espo
nden
t on
15
June
200
5, f
ollo
win
g th
e sh
owin
g on
a B
elgr
ade
tele
visi
on
chan
nel o
n 2
June
200
5 of
a v
ideo
-rec
ordi
ng o
f th
e m
urde
r by
a p
aram
ilita
ry u
nit o
f si
x B
osni
an
Mus
lim p
rison
ers n
ear S
rebr
enic
a (p
arag
raph
289
abo
ve).
The
stat
emen
t rea
ds a
s fol
low
s:
“T
hose
who
com
mitt
ed th
e ki
lling
s in
Sre
bren
ica,
as
wel
l as
thos
e w
ho o
rder
ed
and
orga
nize
d th
at m
assa
cre
repr
esen
ted
neith
er S
erbi
a no
r M
onte
negr
o, b
ut a
n un
dem
ocra
tic r
egim
e of
ter
ror
and
deat
h, a
gain
st w
hom
the
maj
ority
of
citiz
ens
of
Serb
ia a
nd M
onte
negr
o pu
t up
the
stro
nges
t res
ista
nce.
O
ur c
onde
mna
tion
of c
rimes
in
Sreb
reni
ca d
oes
not
end
with
the
dire
ct
perp
etra
tors
. W
e de
man
d th
e cr
imin
al r
espo
nsib
ility
of
all
who
com
mitt
ed w
ar
crim
es, o
rgan
ized
them
or o
rder
ed th
em, a
nd n
ot o
nly
in S
rebr
enic
a.
C
rimin
als
mus
t no
t be
her
oes.
Any
pro
tect
ion
of t
he w
ar c
rimin
als,
for
wha
teve
r rea
son,
is a
lso
a cr
ime.
”
The
App
lican
t re
ques
ts t
he C
ourt
to d
ecla
re t
hat
this
dec
lara
tion
“be
rega
rded
as
a fo
rm o
f ad
mis
sion
and
as
havi
ng d
ecis
ive
prob
ativ
e fo
rce
rega
rdin
g th
e at
tribu
tabi
lity
to th
e Y
ugos
lav
Stat
e of
the
Sreb
reni
ca m
assa
cre”
.
37
8. I
t is
for
the
Cou
rt to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
the
Res
pond
ent i
s re
spon
sibl
e fo
r an
y ac
ts o
f ge
noci
de w
hich
may
be
esta
blis
hed.
For
pur
pose
s of
a fi
ndin
g of
this
kin
d th
e C
ourt
may
take
into
ac
coun
t any
stat
emen
ts m
ade
by e
ither
par
ty th
at a
ppea
r to
bear
upo
n th
e m
atte
rs in
issu
e, a
nd h
ave
been
bro
ught
to
its a
ttent
ion
(cf.
Nuc
lear
Tes
ts (
Aust
ralia
v. F
ranc
e), J
udgm
ents
, I.C
.J. R
epor
ts 19
74, p
p. 2
63 ff
., pa
ras.
32 ff
.; (N
ew Z
eala
nd v
. Fra
nce)
, ibi
d., p
p. 4
65 ff
., pa
ras.
27 ff
.; F
ront
ier
Dis
pute
(B
urki
na
Faso
/Rep
ublic
of
M
ali),
Ju
dgm
ent,
I.C.J
. Re
port
s 19
86,
pp. 5
73-5
74,
para
s. 38
-39)
, and
may
acc
ord
to th
em s
uch
lega
l eff
ect a
s m
ay b
e ap
prop
riate
. H
owev
er, i
n th
e pr
esen
t cas
e, it
app
ears
to th
e C
ourt
that
the
decl
arat
ion
of 1
5 Ju
ne 2
005
was
of a
pol
itica
l nat
ure;
it
was
cle
arly
not
int
ende
d as
an
adm
issi
on,
whi
ch w
ould
hav
e ha
d a
lega
l ef
fect
in
com
plet
e co
ntra
dict
ion
to th
e su
bmis
sion
s m
ade
by th
e R
espo
nden
t bef
ore
this
Cou
rt, b
oth
at th
e tim
e of
the
decl
arat
ion
and
subs
eque
ntly
. Th
e C
ourt
ther
efor
e do
es n
ot fi
nd th
e st
atem
ent o
f 15
June
200
5 of
as
sist
ance
to it
in d
eter
min
ing
the
issu
es b
efor
e it
in th
e ca
se.
*
*
- 136
-
(2)
The
test
of r
espo
nsib
ility
37
9. I
n vi
ew o
f th
e fo
rego
ing
conc
lusi
ons,
the
Cou
rt no
w m
ust
asce
rtain
whe
ther
the
in
tern
atio
nal
resp
onsi
bilit
y of
the
Res
pond
ent
can
have
bee
n in
curr
ed,
on w
hate
ver
basi
s, in
co
nnec
tion
with
the
mas
sacr
es c
omm
itted
in th
e Sr
ebre
nica
are
a du
ring
the
perio
d in
que
stio
n. F
or
the
reas
ons
set o
ut a
bove
, tho
se m
assa
cres
con
stitu
ted
the
crim
e of
gen
ocid
e w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of
the
Con
vent
ion.
For
this
pur
pose
, the
Cou
rt m
ay b
e re
quire
d to
con
side
r the
follo
win
g th
ree
issu
es
in tu
rn.
Firs
t, it
need
s to
be
dete
rmin
ed w
heth
er th
e ac
ts o
f ge
noci
de c
ould
be
attri
bute
d to
the
Res
pond
ent
unde
r th
e ru
les
of c
usto
mar
y in
tern
atio
nal
law
of
Stat
e re
spon
sibi
lity;
th
is m
eans
as
certa
inin
g w
heth
er th
e ac
ts w
ere
com
mitt
ed b
y pe
rson
s or
org
ans
who
se c
ondu
ct is
attr
ibut
able
, sp
ecifi
cally
in th
e ca
se o
f the
eve
nts
at S
rebr
enic
a, to
the
Res
pond
ent.
Sec
ond,
the
Cou
rt w
ill n
eed
to a
scer
tain
whe
ther
act
s of
the
kin
d re
ferr
ed t
o in
Arti
cle
III
of t
he C
onve
ntio
n, o
ther
tha
n ge
noci
de i
tsel
f, w
ere
com
mitt
ed b
y pe
rson
s or
org
ans
who
se c
ondu
ct i
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
the
R
espo
nden
t und
er th
ose
sam
e ru
les
of S
tate
res
pons
ibili
ty:
that
is to
say
, the
act
s re
ferr
ed to
in
Arti
cle
III,
para
grap
hs (b
) to
(e),
one
of th
ese
bein
g co
mpl
icity
in g
enoc
ide.
Fin
ally
, it w
ill b
e fo
r th
e C
ourt
to r
ule
on th
e is
sue
as to
whe
ther
the
Res
pond
ent c
ompl
ied
with
its
twof
old
oblig
atio
n de
rivin
g fr
om A
rticl
e I o
f the
Con
vent
ion
to p
reve
nt a
nd p
unis
h ge
noci
de.
38
0. T
hese
thre
e is
sues
mus
t be
addr
esse
d in
the
orde
r se
t out
abo
ve, b
ecau
se th
ey a
re s
o in
terr
elat
ed t
hat
the
answ
er o
n on
e po
int
may
aff
ect
the
rele
vanc
e or
sig
nific
ance
of
the
othe
rs.
Thus
, if
and
to th
e ex
tent
that
con
side
ratio
n of
the
first
issu
e w
ere
to le
ad to
the
conc
lusi
on th
at
som
e ac
ts o
f ge
noci
de a
re a
ttrib
utab
le t
o th
e R
espo
nden
t, it
wou
ld b
e un
nece
ssar
y to
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
it
may
als
o ha
ve i
ncur
red
resp
onsi
bilit
y un
der
Arti
cle
III,
para
grap
hs (b
) to
(e),
of t
he
Con
vent
ion
for t
he s
ame
acts
. Ev
en th
ough
it is
theo
retic
ally
pos
sibl
e fo
r the
sam
e ac
ts to
resu
lt in
th
e at
tribu
tion
to a
Sta
te o
f ac
ts o
f ge
noci
de (
cont
empl
ated
by
Art.
III,
para
. (a)
), co
nspi
racy
to
com
mit
geno
cide
(Art.
III,
para
. (b)
), an
d di
rect
and
pub
lic in
cite
men
t to
com
mit
geno
cide
(Art.
III,
para
.(c)
), th
ere
wou
ld b
e lit
tle p
oint
, whe
re th
e re
quire
men
ts fo
r attr
ibut
ion
are
fulfi
lled
unde
r (a)
,in
mak
ing
a ju
dici
al f
indi
ng t
hat
they
are
als
o sa
tisfie
d un
der
(b)
and
(c),
sinc
e re
spon
sibi
lity
unde
r(a)
abs
orbs
tha
t un
der
the
othe
r tw
o.
The
idea
of
hold
ing
the
sam
e St
ate
resp
onsi
ble
by
attri
butin
g to
it
acts
of
“gen
ocid
e” (
Art.
III,
para
. (a)
), “a
ttem
pt t
o co
mm
it ge
noci
de”
(Art.
III,
para
.(d)
), an
d “c
ompl
icity
in g
enoc
ide”
(Art.
III,
para
. (e)
), in
rela
tion
to th
e sa
me
actio
ns, m
ust b
e re
ject
ed a
s unt
enab
le b
oth
logi
cally
and
lega
lly.
38
1. O
n th
e ot
her
hand
, th
ere
is n
o do
ubt
that
a f
indi
ng b
y th
e C
ourt
that
no
acts
tha
t co
nstit
ute
geno
cide
, w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of
Arti
cle
II a
nd A
rticl
e II
I, pa
ragr
aph
(a),
of t
he
Con
vent
ion,
can
be
attri
bute
d to
the
Res
pond
ent
will
not
fre
e th
e C
ourt
from
the
obl
igat
ion
to
dete
rmin
e w
heth
er th
e R
espo
nden
t’s r
espo
nsib
ility
may
nev
erth
eles
s ha
ve b
een
incu
rred
thro
ugh
the
attri
butio
n to
it o
f the
act
s, or
som
e of
the
acts
, ref
erre
d to
in A
rticl
e II
I, pa
ragr
aphs
(b) t
o (e
).In
par
ticul
ar, i
t is
clea
r tha
t act
s of
com
plic
ity in
gen
ocid
e ca
n be
attr
ibut
ed to
a S
tate
to w
hich
no
act o
f gen
ocid
e co
uld
be a
ttrib
uted
und
er th
e ru
les
of S
tate
resp
onsi
bilit
y, th
e co
nten
t of w
hich
will
be
con
side
red
belo
w.
54
- 137
-
38
2. F
urth
erm
ore,
the
ques
tion
whe
ther
the
Res
pond
ent h
as c
ompl
ied
with
its
oblig
atio
ns to
pr
even
t and
pun
ish
geno
cide
aris
es in
diff
eren
t ter
ms,
depe
ndin
g on
the
repl
ies t
o th
e tw
o pr
eced
ing
ques
tions
. It
is o
nly
if th
e C
ourt
answ
ers
the
first
two
ques
tions
in th
e ne
gativ
e th
at it
will
hav
e to
co
nsid
er w
heth
er t
he R
espo
nden
t fu
lfille
d its
obl
igat
ion
of p
reve
ntio
n, i
n re
latio
n to
the
who
le
accu
mul
atio
n of
fac
ts c
onst
itutin
g ge
noci
de.
If a
Sta
te is
hel
d re
spon
sibl
e fo
r an
act
of
geno
cide
(b
ecau
se it
was
com
mitt
ed b
y a
pers
on o
r org
an w
hose
con
duct
is a
ttrib
utab
le to
the
Stat
e), o
r for
on
e of
the
othe
r act
s re
ferr
ed to
in A
rticl
e II
I of t
he C
onve
ntio
n (f
or th
e sa
me
reas
on),
then
ther
e is
no
poi
nt in
ask
ing
whe
ther
it c
ompl
ied
with
its
oblig
atio
n of
pre
vent
ion
in re
spec
t of t
he s
ame
acts
, be
caus
e lo
gic
dict
ates
that
a S
tate
can
not h
ave
satis
fied
an o
blig
atio
n to
pre
vent
gen
ocid
e in
whi
ch
it ac
tivel
y pa
rtici
pate
d. O
n th
e ot
her h
and,
it is
sel
f-ev
iden
t, as
the
Parti
es re
cogn
ize,
that
if a
Sta
te
is n
ot r
espo
nsib
le f
or a
ny o
f th
e ac
ts r
efer
red
to i
n A
rticl
e II
I, pa
ragr
aphs
(a)
to (e
), of
the
C
onve
ntio
n, t
his
does
not
mea
n th
at i
ts r
espo
nsib
ility
can
not
be s
ough
t fo
r a
viol
atio
n of
the
ob
ligat
ion
to p
reve
nt g
enoc
ide
and
the
othe
r act
s ref
erre
d to
in A
rticl
e II
I.
38
3. F
inal
ly, i
t sh
ould
be
mad
e cl
ear
that
, w
hile
, as
not
ed a
bove
, a
Stat
e’s
resp
onsi
bilit
y de
rivin
g fr
om a
ny o
f th
ose
acts
ren
ders
moo
t th
e qu
estio
n w
heth
er i
t sa
tisfie
d its
obl
igat
ion
of
prev
entio
n in
res
pect
of
the
sam
e co
nduc
t, it
does
not
nec
essa
rily
rend
er s
uper
fluou
s th
e qu
estio
n w
heth
er th
e St
ate
com
plie
d w
ith it
s ob
ligat
ion
to p
unis
h th
e pe
rpet
rato
rs o
f the
act
s in
que
stio
n. I
t is
per
fect
ly p
ossi
ble
for a
Sta
te to
incu
r res
pons
ibili
ty a
t onc
e fo
r an
act o
f gen
ocid
e (o
r com
plic
ity
in g
enoc
ide,
inc
item
ent
to c
omm
it ge
noci
de, o
r an
y of
the
oth
er a
cts
enum
erat
ed i
n A
rticl
e II
I)
com
mitt
ed b
y a
pers
on o
r org
an w
hose
con
duct
is a
ttrib
utab
le to
it, a
nd fo
r the
bre
ach
by th
e St
ate
of it
s ob
ligat
ion
to p
unis
h th
e pe
rpet
rato
r of t
he a
ct:
thes
e ar
e tw
o di
stin
ct in
tern
atio
nally
wro
ngfu
l ac
ts a
ttrib
utab
le t
o th
e St
ate,
and
bot
h ca
n be
ass
erte
d ag
ains
t it
as b
ases
for
its
int
erna
tiona
l re
spon
sibi
lity.
38
4. H
avin
g th
us e
xpla
ined
the
int
erre
latio
nshi
p am
ong
the
thre
e is
sues
set
out
abo
ve
(par
agra
ph 3
79),
the
Cou
rt w
ill n
ow p
roce
ed t
o co
nsid
er t
he f
irst
of t
hem
. Th
is i
s th
e qu
estio
n w
heth
er th
e m
assa
cres
com
mitt
ed a
t Sre
bren
ica
durin
g th
e pe
riod
in q
uest
ion,
whi
ch c
onst
itute
the
crim
e of
gen
ocid
e w
ithin
the
mea
ning
of
Arti
cles
II a
nd II
I, pa
ragr
aph
(a),
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n, a
re
attri
buta
ble,
in w
hole
or
in p
art,
to th
e R
espo
nden
t. T
his
ques
tion
has
in f
act t
wo
aspe
cts,
whi
ch
the
Cou
rt m
ust c
onsi
der
sepa
rate
ly.
Firs
t, it
shou
ld b
e as
certa
ined
whe
ther
the
acts
com
mitt
ed a
t Sr
ebre
nica
wer
e pe
rpet
rate
d by
org
ans o
f the
Res
pond
ent,
i.e.,
by p
erso
ns o
r ent
ities
who
se c
ondu
ct
is n
eces
saril
y at
tribu
tabl
e to
it, b
ecau
se th
ey a
re in
fac
t the
inst
rum
ents
of
its a
ctio
n. N
ext,
if th
e pr
eced
ing
ques
tion
is a
nsw
ered
in
the
nega
tive,
it
shou
ld b
e as
certa
ined
whe
ther
the
act
s in
qu
estio
n w
ere
com
mitt
ed b
y pe
rson
s w
ho, w
hile
not
org
ans
of th
e R
espo
nden
t, di
d ne
verth
eles
s ac
t on
the
inst
ruct
ions
of,
or u
nder
the
dire
ctio
n or
con
trol o
f, th
e R
espo
nden
t.
*
*
- 138
-
(3)
The
que
stio
n of
att
ribu
tion
of th
e Sr
ebre
nica
gen
ocid
e to
the
Res
pond
ent o
n th
e ba
sis
of
the
cond
uct o
f its
org
ans
38
5. T
he f
irst
of t
hese
tw
o qu
estio
ns r
elat
es t
o th
e w
ell-e
stab
lishe
d ru
le,
one
of t
he
corn
erst
ones
of
the
law
of
Stat
e re
spon
sibi
lity,
tha
t th
e co
nduc
t of
any
Sta
te o
rgan
is
to b
e co
nsid
ered
an
act o
f the
Sta
te u
nder
inte
rnat
iona
l law
, and
ther
efor
e gi
ves
rise
to th
e re
spon
sibi
lity
of th
e St
ate
if it
cons
titut
es a
bre
ach
of a
n in
tern
atio
nal o
blig
atio
n of
the
Stat
e. T
his
rule
, whi
ch is
on
e of
cus
tom
ary
inte
rnat
iona
l la
w,
is r
efle
cted
in
Arti
cle
4 of
the
ILC
Arti
cles
on
Stat
e R
espo
nsib
ility
as f
ollo
ws:
“Art
icle
4
Con
duct
of o
rgan
s of a
Sta
te
1.
The
con
duct
of a
ny S
tate
org
an s
hall
be c
onsi
dere
d an
act
of t
hat S
tate
und
er
inte
rnat
iona
l la
w, w
heth
er t
he o
rgan
exe
rcis
es l
egis
lativ
e, e
xecu
tive,
jud
icia
l or
any
ot
her
func
tions
, w
hate
ver
posi
tion
it ho
lds
in t
he o
rgan
izat
ion
of t
he S
tate
, an
d w
hate
ver i
ts c
hara
cter
as
an o
rgan
of t
he c
entra
l Gov
ernm
ent o
r of a
terr
itoria
l uni
t of
the
Stat
e.
2.
An
orga
n in
clud
es a
ny p
erso
n or
ent
ity w
hich
has
that
sta
tus
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e in
tern
al la
w o
f the
Sta
te.”
38
6. W
hen
appl
ied
to th
e pr
esen
t cas
e, th
is r
ule
first
cal
ls f
or a
det
erm
inat
ion
whe
ther
the
acts
of
geno
cide
com
mitt
ed i
n Sr
ebre
nica
wer
e pe
rpet
rate
d by
“pe
rson
s or
ent
ities
” ha
ving
the
st
atus
of o
rgan
s of
the
Fede
ral R
epub
lic o
f Yug
osla
via
(as
the
Res
pond
ent w
as k
now
n at
the
time)
un
der i
ts in
tern
al la
w, a
s th
en in
forc
e. I
t mus
t be
said
that
ther
e is
not
hing
whi
ch c
ould
just
ify a
n af
firm
ativ
e re
spon
se to
this
que
stio
n.
It ha
s no
t bee
n sh
own
that
the
FRY
arm
y to
ok p
art i
n th
e m
assa
cres
, nor
that
the
polit
ical
lead
ers o
f the
FR
Y h
ad a
han
d in
pre
parin
g, p
lann
ing
or in
any
way
ca
rryi
ng o
ut th
e m
assa
cres
. It
is tr
ue th
at th
ere
is m
uch
evid
ence
of d
irect
or i
ndire
ct p
artic
ipat
ion
by th
e of
ficia
l arm
y of
the
FRY
, alo
ng w
ith th
e B
osni
an S
erb
arm
ed fo
rces
, in
mili
tary
ope
ratio
ns
in B
osni
a an
d H
erze
govi
na in
the
year
s pr
ior
to th
e ev
ents
at S
rebr
enic
a.
That
par
ticip
atio
n w
as
repe
ated
ly c
onde
mne
d by
the
polit
ical
org
ans o
f the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
, whi
ch d
eman
ded
that
the
FRY
pu
t an
end
to it
(see
, for
exa
mpl
e, S
ecur
ity C
ounc
il re
solu
tions
752
(199
2), 7
57 (1
992)
, 762
(199
2),
819
(199
3), 8
38 (1
993)
). I
t has
how
ever
not
bee
n sh
own
that
ther
e w
as a
ny s
uch
parti
cipa
tion
in
rela
tion
to th
e m
assa
cres
com
mitt
ed a
t Sre
bren
ica
(see
als
o pa
ragr
aphs
278
to 2
97 a
bove
). F
urth
er,
neith
er th
e R
epub
lika
Srps
ka, n
or th
e V
RS
wer
e de
jure
org
ans o
f the
FR
Y, s
ince
non
e of
them
had
th
e st
atus
of o
rgan
of t
hat S
tate
und
er it
s int
erna
l law
.
38
7.
The
App
lican
t ha
s ho
wev
er
clai
med
th
at
all
offic
ers
in
the
VR
S,
incl
udin
g G
ener
al M
ladi
, re
mai
ned
unde
r FR
Y m
ilita
ry a
dmin
istra
tion,
and
tha
t th
eir
sala
ries
wer
e pa
id
from
Bel
grad
e rig
ht u
p to
200
2, a
nd a
ccor
ding
ly c
onte
nds
that
thes
e of
ficer
s “w
ere
de ju
re o
rgan
s of
[the
FR
Y],
inte
nded
by
thei
r sup
erio
rs to
ser
ve in
Bos
nia
and
Her
zego
vina
with
the
VR
S”.
On
this
bas
is it
has
bee
n al
lege
d by
the
App
lican
t tha
t tho
se o
ffic
ers,
in a
dditi
on to
bei
ng o
ffic
ers o
f the
V
RS,
rem
aine
d of
ficer
s of
the
VJ,
and
wer
e th
us d
e ju
re o
rgan
s of
the
Res
pond
ent (
para
grap
h 23
8 ab
ove)
. T
he R
espo
nden
t ho
wev
er a
sser
ts t
hat
only
som
e of
the
VR
S of
ficer
s w
ere
bein
g
55
- 139
-
“adm
inis
tere
d” b
y th
e 30
th P
erso
nnel
Cen
tre i
n B
elgr
ade,
so
that
mat
ters
lik
e th
eir
paym
ent,
prom
otio
n, p
ensi
on, e
tc.,
wer
e be
ing
hand
led
from
the
FRY
(par
agra
ph 2
38 a
bove
); a
nd th
at it
has
no
t bee
n cl
early
est
ablis
hed
whe
ther
Gen
eral
Mla
di w
as o
ne o
f th
em.
The
App
lican
t has
sho
wn
that
the
pro
mot
ion
of M
ladi
to
the
rank
of
Col
onel
Gen
eral
on
24 Ju
ne 1
994
was
han
dled
in
Bel
grad
e, b
ut t
he R
espo
nden
t em
phas
izes
tha
t th
is w
as m
erel
y a
verif
icat
ion
for
adm
inis
trativ
e pu
rpos
es o
f a p
rom
otio
n de
cide
d by
the
auth
oriti
es o
f the
Rep
ublik
a Sr
pska
.
38
8. T
he C
ourt
note
s fir
st th
at n
o ev
iden
ce h
as b
een
pres
ente
d th
at e
ither
Gen
eral
Mla
di o
r an
y of
the
othe
r off
icer
s w
hose
aff
airs
wer
e ha
ndle
d by
the
30th
Per
sonn
el C
entre
wer
e, a
ccor
ding
to
the
inte
rnal
law
of t
he R
espo
nden
t, of
ficer
s of
the
arm
y of
the
Res
pond
ent
a d
e ju
re o
rgan
of
the
Res
pond
ent.
Nor
has
it b
een
conc
lusi
vely
est
ablis
hed
that
Gen
eral
Mla
di w
as o
ne o
f th
ose
offic
ers;
and
eve
n on
the
basi
s th
at h
e m
ight
hav
e be
en, t
he C
ourt
does
not
con
side
r tha
t he
wou
ld,
for t
hat r
easo
n al
one,
hav
e to
be
treat
ed a
s an
org
an o
f the
FR
Y fo
r the
pur
pose
s of
the
appl
icat
ion
of t
he r
ules
of
Stat
e re
spon
sibi
lity.
Th
ere
is n
o do
ubt
that
the
FR
Y w
as p
rovi
ding
sub
stan
tial
supp
ort,
inte
r alia
, fin
anci
al s
uppo
rt, to
the
Rep
ublik
a Sr
pska
(cf
. par
agra
ph 2
41 a
bove
), an
d th
at
one
of th
e fo
rms
that
sup
port
took
was
pay
men
t of
sala
ries
and
othe
r be
nefit
s to
som
e of
ficer
s of
th
e V
RS,
but
thi
s di
d no
t au
tom
atic
ally
mak
e th
em o
rgan
s of
the
FR
Y.
Tho
se o
ffic
ers
wer
e ap
poin
ted
to th
eir
com
man
ds b
y th
e Pr
esid
ent o
f th
e R
epub
lika
Srps
ka, a
nd w
ere
subo
rdin
ated
to
the
polit
ical
lead
ersh
ip o
f the
Rep
ublik
a Sr
pska
. In
the
abse
nce
of e
vide
nce
to th
e co
ntra
ry, t
hose
of
ficer
s m
ust b
e ta
ken
to h
ave
rece
ived
thei
r or
ders
fro
m th
e R
epub
lika
Srps
ka o
r th
e V
RS,
not
fr
om t
he F
RY
. T
he e
xpre
ssio
n “S
tate
org
an”,
as
used
in
cust
omar
y in
tern
atio
nal
law
and
in
Arti
cle
4 of
the
ILC
Arti
cles
, app
lies
to o
ne o
r ot
her o
f th
e in
divi
dual
or
colle
ctiv
e en
titie
s w
hich
m
ake
up t
he o
rgan
izat
ion
of t
he S
tate
and
act
on
its b
ehal
f (c
f. IL
C C
omm
enta
ry t
o A
rt. 4
, pa
ra. (
1)).
The
fun
ctio
ns o
f th
e V
RS
offic
ers,
incl
udin
g G
ener
al M
ladi
, wer
e ho
wev
er to
act
on
beha
lf of
the
Bos
nian
Ser
b au
thor
ities
, in
parti
cula
r th
e R
epub
lika
Srps
ka, n
ot o
n be
half
of t
he
FRY
; t
hey
exer
cise
d el
emen
ts o
f th
e pu
blic
aut
horit
y of
the
Rep
ublik
a Sr
pska
. Th
e pa
rticu
lar
situ
atio
n of
Gen
eral
Mla
di, o
r of a
ny o
ther
VR
S of
ficer
pre
sent
at S
rebr
enic
a w
ho m
ay h
ave
been
be
ing
“adm
inis
tere
d” f
rom
Bel
grad
e, i
s no
t th
eref
ore
such
as
to l
ead
the
Cou
rt to
mod
ify t
he
conc
lusi
on re
ache
d in
the
prev
ious
par
agra
ph.
38
9. T
he is
sue
also
aris
es a
s to
whe
ther
the
Res
pond
ent m
ight
bea
r res
pons
ibili
ty fo
r the
act
s of
the
“Sco
rpio
ns”
in th
e Sr
ebre
nica
are
a. I
n th
is c
onne
ctio
n, th
e C
ourt
will
con
side
r whe
ther
it h
as
been
pro
ved
that
the
Scor
pion
s wer
e a
de ju
re o
rgan
of t
he R
espo
nden
t. It
is in
dis
pute
bet
wee
n th
e Pa
rties
as
to w
hen
the
“Sco
rpio
ns”
beca
me
inco
rpor
ated
into
the
forc
es o
f th
e R
espo
nden
t. T
he
App
lican
t ha
s cl
aim
ed t
hat
inco
rpor
atio
n oc
curr
ed b
y a
decr
ee o
f 19
91 (
whi
ch h
as n
ot b
een
prod
uced
as
an A
nnex
). T
he R
espo
nden
t sta
tes
that
“th
ese
regu
latio
ns [w
ere]
rele
vant
exc
lusi
vely
fo
r the
war
in C
roat
ia in
199
1” a
nd th
at th
ere
is n
o ev
iden
ce th
at th
ey re
mai
ned
in fo
rce
in 1
992
in
Bos
nia
and
Her
zego
vina
. T
he C
ourt
obse
rves
tha
t, w
hile
the
sin
gle
Stat
e of
Yug
osla
via
was
di
sint
egra
ting
at th
at ti
me,
it is
the
stat
us o
f the
“Sc
orpi
ons”
in m
id-1
995
that
is o
f rel
evan
ce to
the
pres
ent c
ase.
In
two
of th
e in
terc
epte
d do
cum
ents
pre
sent
ed b
y th
e A
pplic
ant (
the
auth
entic
ity o
f w
hich
was
que
ried
see
par
agra
ph 2
89 a
bove
), th
ere
is re
fere
nce
to th
e “S
corp
ions
” as
“M
UP
of
Serb
ia”
and
“a u
nit o
f M
inis
try o
f In
terio
rs o
f Se
rbia
”.
The
Res
pond
ent i
dent
ified
the
send
ers
of
thes
e co
mm
unic
atio
ns, L
jubi
ša B
orov
anin
and
Sav
o C
vjet
inov
i, a
s be
ing
“off
icia
ls o
f the
pol
ice
- 140
-
forc
es o
f R
epub
lika
Srps
ka”.
Th
e C
ourt
obse
rves
tha
t ne
ither
of
thes
e co
mm
unic
atio
ns w
as
addr
esse
d to
Bel
grad
e. J
udgi
ng o
n th
e ba
sis
of th
ese
mat
eria
ls, t
he C
ourt
is u
nabl
e to
find
that
the
“Sco
rpio
ns”
wer
e, in
mid
-199
5, d
e ju
re o
rgan
s of
the
Res
pond
ent.
Fur
ther
mor
e, th
e C
ourt
note
s th
at in
any
eve
nt th
e ac
t of
an o
rgan
pla
ced
by a
Sta
te a
t the
dis
posa
l of
anot
her
publ
ic a
utho
rity
shal
l not
be
cons
ider
ed a
n ac
t of t
hat S
tate
if th
e or
gan
was
act
ing
on b
ehal
f of t
he p
ublic
aut
horit
y at
who
se d
ispo
sal i
t had
bee
n pl
aced
.
39
0. T
he a
rgum
ent o
f the
App
lican
t how
ever
goe
s be
yond
mer
e co
ntem
plat
ion
of th
e st
atus
, un
der t
he R
espo
nden
t’s in
tern
al la
w, o
f the
per
sons
who
com
mitt
ed th
e ac
ts o
f gen
ocid
e; i
t arg
ues
that
Rep
ublik
a Sr
pska
and
the
VR
S, a
s w
ell a
s th
e pa
ram
ilita
ry m
ilitia
s kn
own
as th
e “S
corp
ions
”,
the
“Red
Ber
ets”
, th
e “T
iger
s” a
nd t
he “
Whi
te E
agle
s” m
ust
be d
eem
ed,
notw
ithst
andi
ng t
heir
appa
rent
sta
tus,
to h
ave
been
“de
fact
o or
gans
” of
the
FRY
, in
parti
cula
r at t
he ti
me
in q
uest
ion,
so
that
all
of th
eir a
cts,
and
spec
ifica
lly th
e m
assa
cres
at S
rebr
enic
a, m
ust b
e co
nsid
ered
attr
ibut
able
to
the
FRY
, jus
t as
if th
ey h
ad b
een
orga
ns o
f th
at S
tate
und
er it
s in
tern
al la
w;
real
ity m
ust p
reva
il ov
er a
ppea
ranc
es.
The
Res
pond
ent
reje
cts
this
con
tent
ion,
and
mai
ntai
ns t
hat
thes
e w
ere
not
de fa
cto
orga
ns o
f the
FR
Y.
39
1. T
he fi
rst i
ssue
rais
ed b
y th
is a
rgum
ent i
s w
heth
er it
is p
ossi
ble
in p
rinci
ple
to a
ttrib
ute
to a
Sta
te c
ondu
ct o
f pe
rson
s o
r gr
oups
of
pers
ons
who
, whi
le t
hey
do n
ot h
ave
the
lega
l st
atus
of S
tate
org
ans,
in fa
ct a
ct u
nder
suc
h st
rict c
ontro
l by
the
Stat
e th
at th
ey m
ust b
e tre
ated
as
its o
rgan
s fo
r pu
rpos
es o
f th
e ne
cess
ary
attri
butio
n le
adin
g to
the
Sta
te’s
res
pons
ibili
ty f
or a
n in
tern
atio
nally
wro
ngfu
l act
. Th
e C
ourt
has
in f
act a
lread
y ad
dres
sed
this
que
stio
n, a
nd g
iven
an
answ
er t
o it
in p
rinci
ple,
in
its J
udgm
ent
of 2
7 Ju
ne 1
986
in t
he c
ase
conc
erni
ng M
ilita
ry a
nd
Para
mili
tary
Act
iviti
es in
and
aga
inst
Nic
arag
ua (N
icar
agua
v. U
nite
d St
ates
of A
mer
ica)
(Mer
its,
Judg
men
t, I.C
.J. R
epor
ts 1
986,
pp.
62-
64).
In p
arag
raph
109
of t
hat J
udgm
ent t
he C
ourt
stat
ed th
at
it ha
d to
“det
erm
ine
. . .
whe
ther
or
not
the
rela
tions
hip
of t
he c
ontr
as t
o th
e U
nite
d St
ates
G
over
nmen
t was
so
muc
h on
e of
dep
ende
nce
on th
e on
e si
de a
nd c
ontro
l on
the
othe
r th
at it
wou
ld b
e rig
ht to
equ
ate
the
cont
ras,
for
lega
l pur
pose
s, w
ith a
n or
gan
of th
e U
nite
d St
ates
Gov
ernm
ent,
or a
s act
ing
on b
ehal
f of t
hat G
over
nmen
t” (p
. 62)
.
Then
, exa
min
ing
the
fact
s in
the
light
of t
he in
form
atio
n in
its
poss
essi
on, t
he C
ourt
obse
rved
that
“t
here
is n
o cl
ear e
vide
nce
of th
e U
nite
d St
ates
hav
ing
actu
ally
exe
rcis
ed s
uch
a de
gree
of c
ontro
l in
all
field
s as
to ju
stify
trea
ting
the
cont
ras
as a
ctin
g on
its
beha
lf” (
para
. 109
), an
d w
ent o
n to
co
nclu
de th
at “
the
evid
ence
ava
ilabl
e to
the
Cou
rt . .
. is
insu
ffic
ient
to d
emon
stra
te [t
he c
ontr
as’]
co
mpl
ete
depe
nden
ce o
n U
nite
d St
ates
aid
”, s
o th
at th
e C
ourt
was
“un
able
to d
eter
min
e th
at th
e co
ntra
for
ce m
ay b
e eq
uate
d fo
r le
gal p
urpo
ses
with
the
forc
es o
f th
e U
nite
d St
ates
” (p
p. 6
2-63
, pa
ra. 1
10).
39
2. T
he p
assa
ges
quot
ed s
how
that
, acc
ordi
ng to
the
Cou
rt’s
juris
prud
ence
, per
sons
, gro
ups
of p
erso
ns o
r ent
ities
may
, for
pur
pose
s of i
nter
natio
nal r
espo
nsib
ility
, be
equa
ted
with
Sta
te o
rgan
s ev
en if
that
sta
tus
does
not
fol
low
fro
m in
tern
al la
w, p
rovi
ded
that
in f
act t
he p
erso
ns, g
roup
s or
en
titie
s ac
t in
“co
mpl
ete
depe
nden
ce”
on t
he S
tate
, of
whi
ch t
hey
are
ultim
atel
y m
erel
y th
e in
stru
men
t. In
suc
h a
case
, it i
s ap
prop
riate
to lo
ok b
eyon
d le
gal s
tatu
s al
one,
in o
rder
to g
rasp
the
real
ity o
f the
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
the
pers
on ta
king
act
ion,
and
the
Stat
e to
whi
ch h
e is
so
clos
ely
56
- 141
-
atta
ched
as
to a
ppea
r to
be n
othi
ng m
ore
than
its
agen
t: a
ny o
ther
sol
utio
n w
ould
allo
w S
tate
s to
es
cape
the
ir in
tern
atio
nal
resp
onsi
bilit
y by
cho
osin
g to
act
thr
ough
per
sons
or
entit
ies
who
se
supp
osed
inde
pend
ence
wou
ld b
e pu
rely
fict
itiou
s.
39
3. H
owev
er, s
o to
equ
ate
pers
ons
or e
ntiti
es w
ith S
tate
org
ans
whe
n th
ey d
o no
t hav
e th
at
stat
us u
nder
inte
rnal
law
mus
t be
exce
ptio
nal,
for i
t req
uire
s pr
oof o
f a p
artic
ular
ly g
reat
deg
ree
of
Stat
e co
ntro
l ov
er t
hem
, a
rela
tions
hip
whi
ch t
he C
ourt’
s Ju
dgm
ent
quot
ed a
bove
exp
ress
ly
desc
ribed
as
“com
plet
e de
pend
ence
”.
It re
mai
ns to
be
dete
rmin
ed in
the
pres
ent c
ase
whe
ther
, at
the
time
in q
uest
ion,
the
pers
ons
or e
ntiti
es th
at c
omm
itted
the
acts
of g
enoc
ide
at S
rebr
enic
a ha
d su
ch ti
es w
ith th
e FR
Y th
at th
ey c
an b
e de
emed
to h
ave
been
com
plet
ely
depe
nden
t on
it; i
t is o
nly
if th
is c
ondi
tion
is m
et th
at th
ey c
an b
e eq
uate
d w
ith o
rgan
s of
the
Res
pond
ent f
or th
e pu
rpos
es o
f its
inte
rnat
iona
l res
pons
ibili
ty.
39
4. T
he C
ourt
can
only
ans
wer
thi
s qu
estio
n in
the
neg
ativ
e.
At
the
rele
vant
tim
e,
July
199
5, n
eith
er t
he R
epub
lika
Srps
ka n
or t
he V
RS
coul
d be
reg
arde
d as
mer
e in
stru
men
ts
thro
ugh
whi
ch th
e FR
Y w
as a
ctin
g, a
nd a
s lac
king
any
real
aut
onom
y. W
hile
the
polit
ical
, mili
tary
an
d lo
gist
ical
rel
atio
ns b
etw
een
the
fede
ral
auth
oriti
es i
n B
elgr
ade
and
the
auth
oriti
es i
n Pa
le,
betw
een
the
Yug
osla
v ar
my
and
the
VR
S, h
ad b
een
stro
ng a
nd c
lose
in
prev
ious
yea
rs (
see
para
grap
h 23
8 ab
ove)
, an
d th
ese
ties
undo
ubte
dly
rem
aine
d po
wer
ful,
they
wer
e, a
t le
ast
at t
he
rele
vant
tim
e, n
ot s
uch
that
the
Bos
nian
Ser
bs’
polit
ical
and
mili
tary
org
aniz
atio
ns s
houl
d be
eq
uate
d w
ith o
rgan
s of
the
FRY
. It
is e
ven
true
that
diff
eren
ces
over
stra
tegi
c op
tions
em
erge
d at
th
e tim
e be
twee
n Y
ugos
lav
auth
oriti
es a
nd B
osni
an S
erb
lead
ers;
at
the
ver
y le
ast,
thes
e ar
e ev
iden
ce th
at th
e la
tter h
ad so
me
qual
ified
, but
real
, mar
gin
of in
depe
nden
ce.
Nor
, not
with
stan
ding
th
e ve
ry i
mpo
rtant
sup
port
give
n by
the
Res
pond
ent
to t
he R
epub
lika
Srps
ka,
with
out
whi
ch i
t co
uld
not
have
“co
nduc
t[ed]
its
cru
cial
or
mos
t si
gnifi
cant
mili
tary
and
par
amili
tary
act
iviti
es”
(I.C
.J. R
epor
ts 1
986,
p. 6
3, p
ara.
111
), di
d th
is s
igni
fy a
tota
l dep
ende
nce
of th
e R
epub
lika
Srps
ka
upon
the
Res
pond
ent.
39
5. T
he C
ourt
now
tur
ns t
o th
e qu
estio
n w
heth
er t
he “
Scor
pion
s” w
ere
in f
act
actin
g in
co
mpl
ete
depe
nden
ce o
n th
e R
espo
nden
t. T
he C
ourt
has
not
been
pre
sent
ed w
ith m
ater
ials
to
indi
cate
this
. Th
e C
ourt
also
not
es th
at, i
n gi
ving
his
evi
denc
e, G
ener
al D
anna
tt, w
hen
aske
d un
der
who
se c
ontro
l or
who
se a
utho
rity
the
para
mili
tary
gro
ups
com
ing
from
Ser
bia
wer
e op
erat
ing,
re
plie
d, “
they
wou
ld h
ave
been
und
er t
he c
omm
and
of M
ladi
and
par
t of
the
cha
in o
f th
e co
mm
and
of t
he V
RS”
. T
he P
artie
s re
ferr
ed t
he C
ourt
to t
he S
tani
ši a
nd S
imat
ovi
cas
e (I
T-03
-69,
pen
ding
); n
otw
ithst
andi
ng t
hat
the
defe
ndan
ts a
re n
ot c
harg
ed w
ith g
enoc
ide
in t
hat
case
, it c
ould
hav
e its
rele
vanc
e fo
r illu
min
atin
g th
e st
atus
of t
he “
Scor
pion
s” a
s Se
rbia
n M
UP
or
othe
rwis
e.
How
ever
, th
e C
ourt
cann
ot d
raw
fur
ther
con
clus
ions
as
this
cas
e re
mai
ns a
t th
e in
dict
men
t sta
ge.
In th
is re
spec
t, th
e C
ourt
reca
lls th
at it
can
onl
y fo
rm it
s op
inio
n on
the
basi
s of
th
e in
form
atio
n w
hich
has
bee
n br
ough
t to
its
not
ice
at t
he t
ime
whe
n it
give
s its
dec
isio
n, a
nd
whi
ch e
mer
ges
from
the
plea
ding
s an
d do
cum
ents
in th
e ca
se fi
le, a
nd th
e ar
gum
ents
of t
he P
artie
s m
ade
durin
g th
e or
al e
xcha
nges
.
Th
e C
ourt
ther
efor
e fin
ds th
at th
e ac
ts o
f gen
ocid
e at
Sre
bren
ica
cann
ot b
e at
tribu
ted
to th
e R
espo
nden
t as
hav
ing
been
com
mitt
ed b
y its
org
ans
or b
y pe
rson
s or
ent
ities
who
lly d
epen
dent
up
on it
, and
thus
do
not o
n th
is b
asis
ent
ail t
he R
espo
nden
t’s in
tern
atio
nal r
espo
nsib
ility
.
*
*
- 142
-
(4)
The
que
stio
n of
att
ribu
tion
of th
e Sr
ebre
nica
gen
ocid
e to
the
Res
pond
ent o
n th
e ba
sis
of
dire
ctio
n or
con
trol
39
6. A
s no
ted
abov
e (p
arag
raph
384
), th
e C
ourt
mus
t now
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
the
mas
sacr
es
at S
rebr
enic
a w
ere
com
mitt
ed b
y pe
rson
s w
ho,
thou
gh n
ot h
avin
g th
e st
atus
of
orga
ns o
f th
e R
espo
nden
t, ne
verth
eles
s ac
ted
on it
s in
stru
ctio
ns o
r und
er it
s di
rect
ion
or c
ontro
l, as
the
App
lican
t ar
gues
in th
e al
tern
ativ
e; t
he R
espo
nden
t den
ies t
hat s
uch
was
the
case
.
39
7. T
he C
ourt
mus
t em
phas
ize,
at t
his
stag
e in
its
reas
onin
g, th
at th
e qu
estio
n ju
st s
tate
d is
no
t the
sam
e as
thos
e de
alt w
ith th
us fa
r. It
is o
bvio
us th
at it
is d
iffer
ent f
rom
the
ques
tion
whe
ther
th
e pe
rson
s w
ho c
omm
itted
the
acts
of g
enoc
ide
had
the
stat
us o
f org
ans
of th
e R
espo
nden
t und
er
its in
tern
al la
w;
nor
how
ever
, and
des
pite
som
e ap
pear
ance
to th
e co
ntra
ry, i
s it
the
sam
e as
the
ques
tion
whe
ther
tho
se p
erso
ns s
houl
d be
equ
ated
with
Sta
te o
rgan
s de
fact
o, e
ven
thou
gh n
ot
enjo
ying
that
sta
tus
unde
r in
tern
al la
w.
The
answ
er to
the
latte
r qu
estio
n de
pend
s, as
pre
viou
sly
expl
aine
d, o
n w
heth
er th
ose
pers
ons
wer
e in
a r
elat
ions
hip
of s
uch
com
plet
e de
pend
ence
on
the
Stat
e th
at th
ey c
anno
t be
cons
ider
ed o
ther
wis
e th
an a
s or
gans
of t
he S
tate
, so
that
all
thei
r act
ions
pe
rfor
med
in
such
cap
acity
wou
ld b
e at
tribu
tabl
e to
the
Sta
te f
or p
urpo
ses
of i
nter
natio
nal
resp
onsi
bilit
y.
Hav
ing
answ
ered
tha
t qu
estio
n in
the
neg
ativ
e, t
he C
ourt
now
add
ress
es a
co
mpl
etel
y se
para
te i
ssue
: w
heth
er,
in t
he s
peci
fic c
ircum
stan
ces
surr
ound
ing
the
even
ts a
t Sr
ebre
nica
the
perp
etra
tors
of g
enoc
ide
wer
e ac
ting
on th
e R
espo
nden
t’s in
stru
ctio
ns, o
r und
er it
s di
rect
ion
or c
ontro
l. A
n af
firm
ativ
e an
swer
to
this
que
stio
n w
ould
in
no w
ay i
mpl
y th
at t
he
perp
etra
tors
sho
uld
be c
hara
cter
ized
as
orga
ns o
f the
FR
Y, o
r equ
ated
with
suc
h or
gans
. It
wou
ld
mer
ely
mea
n th
at th
e FR
Y’s
inte
rnat
iona
l res
pons
ibili
ty w
ould
be
incu
rred
ow
ing
to th
e co
nduc
t of
thos
e of
its
ow
n or
gans
whi
ch g
ave
the
inst
ruct
ions
or
exer
cise
d th
e co
ntro
l re
sulti
ng i
n th
e co
mm
issi
on o
f ac
ts i
n br
each
of
its i
nter
natio
nal
oblig
atio
ns.
In
othe
r w
ords
, it
is n
o lo
nger
a
ques
tion
of a
scer
tain
ing
whe
ther
the
pers
ons
who
dire
ctly
com
mitt
ed th
e ge
noci
de w
ere
actin
g as
or
gans
of
the
FRY
, or
coul
d be
equ
ated
with
tho
se o
rgan
s t
his
ques
tion
havi
ng a
lread
y be
en
answ
ered
in
the
nega
tive.
W
hat
mus
t be
det
erm
ined
is
whe
ther
FR
Y o
rgan
s i
ncon
test
ably
ha
ving
that
sta
tus
unde
r the
FR
Y’s
inte
rnal
law
o
rigin
ated
the
geno
cide
by
issu
ing
inst
ruct
ions
to
the
perp
etra
tors
or e
xerc
isin
g di
rect
ion
or c
ontro
l, an
d w
heth
er, a
s a re
sult,
the
cond
uct o
f org
ans
of th
e R
espo
nden
t, ha
ving
bee
n th
e ca
use
of th
e co
mm
issi
on o
f ac
ts in
bre
ach
of it
s in
tern
atio
nal
oblig
atio
ns, c
onst
itute
d a
viol
atio
n of
thos
e ob
ligat
ions
.
39
8. O
n th
is s
ubje
ct t
he a
pplic
able
rul
e, w
hich
is
one
of c
usto
mar
y la
w o
f in
tern
atio
nal
resp
onsi
bilit
y, is
laid
dow
n in
Arti
cle
8 of
the
ILC
Arti
cles
on
Stat
e R
espo
nsib
ility
as f
ollo
ws:
“Art
icle
8
Con
duct
dir
ecte
d or
con
trol
led
by a
Sta
te
Th
e co
nduc
t of
a p
erso
n or
gro
up o
f pe
rson
s sh
all
be c
onsi
dere
d an
act
of
a St
ate
unde
r int
erna
tiona
l law
if th
e pe
rson
or g
roup
of p
erso
ns is
in fa
ct a
ctin
g on
the
inst
ruct
ions
of,
or u
nder
the
dire
ctio
n or
con
trol
of,
that
Sta
te i
n ca
rryi
ng o
ut t
he
cond
uct.”
57
- 143
-
39
9. T
his
prov
isio
n m
ust
be u
nder
stoo
d in
the
lig
ht o
f th
e C
ourt’
s ju
rispr
uden
ce o
n th
e su
bjec
t, pa
rticu
larly
that
of
the
1986
Judg
men
t in
the
case
con
cern
ing
Mili
tary
and
Par
amili
tary
Ac
tiviti
es i
n an
d ag
ains
t N
icar
agua
(N
icar
agua
v.
Uni
ted
Stat
es o
f Am
eric
a) r
efer
red
to a
bove
(p
arag
raph
391
). I
n th
at J
udgm
ent t
he C
ourt,
as
note
d ab
ove,
afte
r ha
ving
rej
ecte
d th
e ar
gum
ent
that
the
cont
ras w
ere
to b
e eq
uate
d w
ith o
rgan
s of t
he U
nite
d St
ates
bec
ause
they
wer
e “c
ompl
etel
y de
pend
ent”
on
it, a
dded
that
the
resp
onsi
bilit
y of
the
Res
pond
ent c
ould
stil
l aris
e if
it w
ere
prov
ed
that
it
had
itsel
f “d
irect
ed o
r en
forc
ed t
he p
erpe
tratio
n of
the
act
s co
ntra
ry t
o hu
man
rig
hts
and
hum
anita
rian
law
alle
ged
by th
e ap
plic
ant S
tate
” (I.
C.J
. Rep
orts
198
6, p
. 64,
par
a. 1
15);
this
led
to
the
follo
win
g si
gnifi
cant
con
clus
ion:
“F
or t
his
cond
uct
to g
ive
rise
to l
egal
res
pons
ibili
ty o
f th
e U
nite
d St
ates
, it
wou
ld i
n pr
inci
ple
have
to
be p
rove
d th
at t
hat
Stat
e ha
d ef
fect
ive
cont
rol
of t
he
mili
tary
or p
aram
ilita
ry o
pera
tions
in th
e co
urse
of w
hich
the
alle
ged
viol
atio
ns w
ere
com
mitt
ed.”
(Ib
id.,
p. 6
5.)
40
0. T
he te
st th
us fo
rmul
ated
diff
ers
in tw
o re
spec
ts fr
om th
e te
st
des
crib
ed a
bove
to
de
term
ine
whe
ther
a p
erso
n or
ent
ity m
ay b
e eq
uate
d w
ith a
Sta
te o
rgan
eve
n if
not h
avin
g th
at
stat
us u
nder
inte
rnal
law
. Fi
rst,
in th
is c
onte
xt it
is n
ot n
eces
sary
to s
how
that
the
pers
ons
who
pe
rfor
med
the
acts
alle
ged
to h
ave
viol
ated
inte
rnat
iona
l law
wer
e in
gen
eral
in a
rel
atio
nshi
p of
“c
ompl
ete
depe
nden
ce”
on th
e re
spon
dent
Sta
te;
it ha
s to
be
prov
ed th
at th
ey a
cted
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
at S
tate
’s in
stru
ctio
ns o
r un
der
its “
effe
ctiv
e co
ntro
l”.
It m
ust h
owev
er b
e sh
own
that
this
“e
ffec
tive
cont
rol”
was
exe
rcis
ed, o
r th
at t
he S
tate
’s i
nstru
ctio
ns w
ere
give
n, i
n re
spec
t of
eac
h op
erat
ion
in w
hich
the
alle
ged
viol
atio
ns o
ccur
red,
not
gen
eral
ly in
res
pect
of
the
over
all a
ctio
ns
take
n by
the
pers
ons o
r gro
ups o
f per
sons
hav
ing
com
mitt
ed th
e vi
olat
ions
.
40
1. T
he A
pplic
ant
has,
it is
tru
e, c
onte
nded
tha
t th
e cr
ime
of g
enoc
ide
has
a pa
rticu
lar
natu
re, i
n th
at it
may
be
com
pose
d of
a c
onsi
dera
ble
num
ber o
f spe
cific
act
s se
para
te, t
o a
grea
ter
or le
sser
ext
ent,
in ti
me
and
spac
e. A
ccor
ding
to th
e A
pplic
ant,
this
par
ticul
ar n
atur
e w
ould
just
ify,
amon
g ot
her c
onse
quen
ces,
asse
ssin
g th
e “e
ffec
tive
cont
rol”
of t
he S
tate
alle
gedl
y re
spon
sibl
e, n
ot
in re
latio
n to
eac
h of
thes
e sp
ecifi
c ac
ts, b
ut in
rela
tion
to th
e w
hole
bod
y of
ope
ratio
ns c
arrie
d ou
t by
the
dire
ct p
erpe
trato
rs o
f th
e ge
noci
de.
The
Cou
rt is
how
ever
of
the
view
that
the
parti
cula
r ch
arac
teris
tics
of g
enoc
ide
do n
ot ju
stify
the
Cou
rt in
dep
artin
g fr
om th
e cr
iterio
n el
abor
ated
in th
e Ju
dgm
ent
in t
he c
ase
conc
erni
ng M
ilita
ry a
nd P
aram
ilita
ry A
ctiv
ities
in
and
agai
nst
Nic
arag
ua
(Nic
arag
uav.
Uni
ted
Stat
es o
f Am
eric
a) (
see
para
grap
h 39
9 ab
ove)
. T
he r
ules
for
attr
ibut
ing
alle
ged
inte
rnat
iona
lly w
rong
ful c
ondu
ct to
a S
tate
do
not v
ary
with
the
natu
re o
f the
wro
ngfu
l act
in
que
stio
n in
the
abs
ence
of
a cl
early
exp
ress
ed l
ex s
peci
alis
. G
enoc
ide
will
be
cons
ider
ed a
s at
tribu
tabl
e to
a S
tate
if a
nd to
the
exte
nt th
at th
e ph
ysic
al a
cts
cons
titut
ive
of g
enoc
ide
that
hav
e be
en c
omm
itted
by
orga
ns o
r per
sons
oth
er th
an th
e St
ate’
s ow
n ag
ents
wer
e ca
rrie
d ou
t, w
holly
or
in p
art,
on th
e in
stru
ctio
ns o
r dire
ctio
ns o
f the
Sta
te, o
r und
er it
s ef
fect
ive
cont
rol.
Thi
s is
the
stat
e of
cus
tom
ary
inte
rnat
iona
l law
, as r
efle
cted
in th
e IL
C A
rticl
es o
n St
ate
Res
pons
ibili
ty.
40
2. T
he C
ourt
note
s ho
wev
er t
hat
the
App
lican
t ha
s fu
rther
que
stio
ned
the
valid
ity o
f ap
plyi
ng,
in t
he p
rese
nt c
ase,
the
crit
erio
n ad
opte
d in
the
Mili
tary
and
Par
amili
tary
Act
iviti
esJu
dgm
ent.
It h
as d
raw
n at
tent
ion
to th
e Ju
dgm
ent o
f the
ICTY
App
eals
Cha
mbe
r in
the
Tadi
cas
e (I
T-94
-1-A
, Jud
gmen
t, 15
July
199
9).
In th
at c
ase
the
Cha
mbe
r did
not
follo
w th
e ju
rispr
uden
ce o
f th
e C
ourt
in th
e M
ilita
ry a
nd P
aram
ilita
ry A
ctiv
ities
cas
e:
it he
ld th
at th
e ap
prop
riate
crit
erio
n,
- 144
-
appl
icab
le in
its
view
bot
h to
the
char
acte
rizat
ion
of th
e ar
med
con
flict
in B
osni
a an
d H
erze
govi
na
as in
tern
atio
nal,
and
to im
putin
g th
e ac
ts c
omm
itted
by
Bos
nian
Ser
bs to
the
FRY
und
er th
e la
w o
f St
ate
resp
onsi
bilit
y, w
as th
at o
f the
“ov
eral
l con
trol”
exe
rcis
ed o
ver t
he B
osni
an S
erbs
by
the
FRY
; an
d fu
rther
tha
t th
at c
riter
ion
was
sat
isfie
d in
the
cas
e (o
n th
is p
oint
, ibi
d., p
ara.
145
). I
n ot
her
wor
ds, t
he A
ppea
ls C
ham
ber t
ook
the
view
that
act
s com
mitt
ed b
y B
osni
an S
erbs
cou
ld g
ive
rise
to
inte
rnat
iona
l res
pons
ibili
ty o
f th
e FR
Y o
n th
e ba
sis
of th
e ov
eral
l con
trol e
xerc
ised
by
the
FRY
ov
er th
e R
epub
lika
Srps
ka a
nd th
e V
RS,
with
out t
here
bei
ng a
ny n
eed
to p
rove
that
eac
h op
erat
ion
durin
g w
hich
act
s w
ere
com
mitt
ed i
n br
each
of
inte
rnat
iona
l la
w w
as c
arrie
d ou
t on
the
FR
Y’s
in
stru
ctio
ns, o
r und
er it
s eff
ectiv
e co
ntro
l.
40
3. T
he C
ourt
has
give
n ca
refu
l co
nsid
erat
ion
to t
he A
ppea
ls C
ham
ber’
s re
ason
ing
in
supp
ort
of th
e fo
rego
ing
conc
lusi
on, b
ut f
inds
its
elf
unab
le t
o su
bscr
ibe
to t
he C
ham
ber’
s vi
ew.
Firs
t, th
e C
ourt
obse
rves
that
the
ICTY
was
not
cal
led
upon
in th
e Ta
di c
ase,
nor
is it
in g
ener
al
calle
d up
on,
to r
ule
on q
uest
ions
of
Stat
e re
spon
sibi
lity,
sin
ce i
ts j
uris
dict
ion
is c
rimin
al a
nd
exte
nds
over
per
sons
onl
y. T
hus,
in th
at J
udgm
ent t
he T
ribun
al a
ddre
ssed
an
issu
e w
hich
was
not
in
disp
ensa
ble
for
the
exer
cise
of
its ju
risdi
ctio
n.
As
stat
ed a
bove
, the
Cou
rt at
tach
es th
e ut
mos
t im
porta
nce
to th
e fa
ctua
l and
lega
l fin
ding
s m
ade
by th
e IC
TY in
rulin
g on
the
crim
inal
liab
ility
of
the
accu
sed
befo
re it
and
, in
the
pres
ent c
ase,
the
Cou
rt ta
kes f
ulle
st a
ccou
nt o
f the
ICTY
’s tr
ial a
nd
appe
llate
judg
men
ts d
ealin
g w
ith th
e ev
ents
und
erly
ing
the
disp
ute.
The
situ
atio
n is
not
the
sam
e fo
r pos
ition
s ado
pted
by
the
ICTY
on
issu
es o
f gen
eral
inte
rnat
iona
l law
whi
ch d
o no
t lie
with
in th
e sp
ecifi
c pu
rvie
w o
f its
juris
dict
ion
and,
mor
eove
r, th
e re
solu
tion
of w
hich
is n
ot a
lway
s ne
cess
ary
for d
ecid
ing
the
crim
inal
cas
es b
efor
e it.
40
4. T
his i
s the
cas
e of
the
doct
rine
laid
dow
n in
the
Tadi
Judg
men
t. In
sofa
r as t
he “
over
all
cont
rol”
test
is e
mpl
oyed
to d
eter
min
e w
heth
er o
r not
an
arm
ed c
onfli
ct is
inte
rnat
iona
l, w
hich
was
th
e so
le q
uest
ion
whi
ch th
e A
ppea
ls C
ham
ber
was
cal
led
upon
to d
ecid
e, it
may
wel
l be
that
the
test
is a
pplic
able
and
suita
ble;
the
Cou
rt do
es n
ot h
owev
er th
ink
it ap
prop
riate
to ta
ke a
pos
ition
on
the
poin
t in
the
pres
ent c
ase,
as
ther
e is
no
need
to re
solv
e it
for p
urpo
ses
of th
e pr
esen
t Jud
gmen
t.
On
the
othe
r ha
nd, t
he I
CTY
pre
sent
ed th
e “o
vera
ll co
ntro
l” te
st a
s eq
ually
app
licab
le u
nder
the
law
of
Stat
e re
spon
sibi
lity
for
the
purp
ose
of d
eter
min
ing
as
the
Cou
rt is
req
uire
d to
do
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e w
hen
a St
ate
is re
spon
sibl
e fo
r act
s co
mm
itted
by
para
mili
tary
uni
ts, a
rmed
forc
es
whi
ch a
re n
ot a
mon
g its
off
icia
l or
gans
. In
thi
s co
ntex
t, th
e ar
gum
ent
in f
avou
r of
tha
t te
st i
s un
pers
uasi
ve.
40
5. I
t sho
uld
first
be
obse
rved
that
logi
c do
es n
ot r
equi
re th
e sa
me
test
to b
e ad
opte
d in
re
solv
ing
the
two
issu
es, w
hich
are
ver
y di
ffer
ent
in n
atur
e:
the
degr
ee a
nd n
atur
e of
a S
tate
’s
invo
lvem
ent i
n an
arm
ed c
onfli
ct o
n an
othe
r Sta
te’s
terr
itory
whi
ch is
requ
ired
for t
he c
onfli
ct to
be
char
acte
rized
as
inte
rnat
iona
l, ca
n ve
ry w
ell,
and
with
out
logi
cal
inco
nsis
tenc
y, d
iffer
fro
m t
he
degr
ee a
nd n
atur
e of
invo
lvem
ent r
equi
red
to g
ive
rise
to th
at S
tate
’s r
espo
nsib
ility
for
a s
peci
fic
act c
omm
itted
in th
e co
urse
of t
he c
onfli
ct.
40
6. I
t m
ust
next
be
note
d th
at t
he “
over
all
cont
rol”
tes
t ha
s th
e m
ajor
dra
wba
ck o
f br
oade
ning
the
scop
e of
Sta
te r
espo
nsib
ility
wel
l bey
ond
the
fund
amen
tal p
rinci
ple
gove
rnin
g th
e la
w o
f int
erna
tiona
l res
pons
ibili
ty:
a St
ate
is re
spon
sibl
e on
ly fo
r its
ow
n co
nduc
t, th
at is
to sa
y th
e co
nduc
t of p
erso
ns a
ctin
g, o
n w
hate
ver b
asis
, on
its b
ehal
f. T
hat i
s tru
e of
act
s ca
rrie
d ou
t by
its
offic
ial o
rgan
s, an
d al
so b
y pe
rson
s or
ent
ities
whi
ch a
re n
ot fo
rmal
ly re
cogn
ized
as
offic
ial o
rgan
s
58
- 145
-
unde
r int
erna
l law
but
whi
ch m
ust n
ever
thel
ess
be e
quat
ed w
ith S
tate
org
ans
beca
use
they
are
in a
re
latio
nshi
p of
com
plet
e de
pend
ence
on
the
Stat
e. A
part
from
thes
e ca
ses,
a St
ate’
s re
spon
sibi
lity
can
be in
curr
ed fo
r act
s co
mm
itted
by
pers
ons
or g
roup
s of
per
sons
n
eith
er S
tate
org
ans
nor t
o be
equ
ated
with
such
org
ans
onl
y if,
ass
umin
g th
ose
acts
to b
e in
tern
atio
nally
wro
ngfu
l, th
ey a
re
attri
buta
ble
to i
t un
der
the
rule
of
cust
omar
y in
tern
atio
nal
law
ref
lect
ed i
n A
rticl
e 8
cite
d ab
ove
(par
agra
ph 3
98).
Thi
s is
so
whe
re a
n or
gan
of t
he S
tate
gav
e th
e in
stru
ctio
ns o
r pr
ovid
ed t
he
dire
ctio
n pu
rsua
nt t
o w
hich
the
per
petra
tors
of
the
wro
ngfu
l ac
t ac
ted
or w
here
it
exer
cise
d ef
fect
ive
cont
rol
over
the
act
ion
durin
g w
hich
the
wro
ng w
as c
omm
itted
. I
n th
is r
egar
d th
e “o
vera
ll co
ntro
l” te
st is
uns
uita
ble,
for i
t stre
tche
s to
o fa
r, al
mos
t to
brea
king
poi
nt, t
he c
onne
ctio
n w
hich
mus
t exi
st b
etw
een
the
cond
uct o
f a S
tate
’s o
rgan
s and
its i
nter
natio
nal r
espo
nsib
ility
.
40
7. T
hus
it is
on
the
basi
s of
its
settl
ed ju
rispr
uden
ce th
at th
e C
ourt
will
det
erm
ine
whe
ther
th
e R
espo
nden
t has
incu
rred
resp
onsi
bilit
y un
der t
he ru
le o
f cus
tom
ary
inte
rnat
iona
l law
set
out
in
Arti
cle
8 of
the
ILC
Arti
cles
on
Stat
e R
espo
nsib
ility
.
*
40
8. T
he R
espo
nden
t ha
s em
phas
ized
tha
t in
the
fin
al j
udgm
ents
of
the
Cha
mbe
rs o
f th
e IC
TY r
elat
ing
to g
enoc
ide
in S
rebr
enic
a, n
one
of i
ts l
eade
rs h
ave
been
fou
nd t
o ha
ve b
een
impl
icat
ed.
The
App
lican
t doe
s no
t cha
lleng
e th
at re
adin
g, b
ut m
akes
the
poin
t tha
t tha
t iss
ue h
as
not b
een
befo
re th
e IC
TY fo
r dec
isio
n. T
he C
ourt
obse
rves
that
the
ICTY
has
inde
ed n
ot u
p to
the
pres
ent b
een
dire
ctly
con
cern
ed in
fin
al ju
dgm
ents
with
the
ques
tion
whe
ther
thos
e le
ader
s m
ight
be
ar r
espo
nsib
ility
in th
at r
espe
ct.
The
Cou
rt no
tes
the
fact
that
the
repo
rt of
the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
Se
cret
ary-
Gen
eral
doe
s no
t es
tabl
ish
any
dire
ct i
nvol
vem
ent
by P
resi
dent
Milo
ševi
with
the
m
assa
cre.
The
Cou
rt ha
s al
read
y re
cord
ed th
e co
ntac
ts b
etw
een
Milo
ševi
and
the
Uni
ted
Nat
ions
on
10
and
11 Ju
ly (p
arag
raph
285
). O
n 14
July
, as r
ecor
ded
in th
e Se
cret
ary-
Gen
eral
’s R
epor
t,
“the
Eur
opea
n U
nion
neg
otia
tor,
Mr.
Bild
t, tra
velle
d to
Bel
grad
e to
mee
t w
ith
Pres
iden
t Milo
ševi
. Th
e m
eetin
g to
ok p
lace
at D
oban
ovci
, the
hun
ting
lodg
e ou
tsid
e B
elgr
ade,
whe
re M
r. B
ildt
had
met
Pre
side
nt a
nd G
ener
al M
ladi
one
wee
k ea
rlier
. A
ccor
ding
to
Mr.
Bild
t’s p
ublic
acc
ount
of
that
sec
ond
mee
ting,
he
pres
sed
the
Pres
iden
t to
arra
nge
imm
edia
te a
cces
s fo
r UN
HC
R to
ass
ist t
he p
eopl
e of
Sre
bren
ica,
an
d fo
r IC
RC
to st
art t
o re
gist
er th
ose
who
wer
e be
ing
treat
ed b
y th
e B
SA a
s pris
oner
s of
war
. H
e al
so i
nsis
ted
that
the
Net
herla
nds
sold
iers
be
allo
wed
to
leav
e at
will
. M
r. B
ildt
adde
d th
at t
he i
nter
natio
nal
com
mun
ity w
ould
not
tol
erat
e an
atta
ck o
n G
oraž
de, a
nd th
at a
‘gr
een
light
’ w
ould
hav
e to
be
secu
red
for
free
and
uni
mpe
ded
acce
ss to
the
encl
aves
. H
e al
so d
eman
ded
that
the
road
bet
wee
n K
isel
jak
and
Sara
jevo
(‘
Rou
te
Swan
’)
be
open
ed
to
all
non-
mili
tary
tra
nspo
rt.
Pr
esid
ent M
iloše
viap
pare
ntly
acc
eded
to
the
vario
us d
eman
ds,
but
also
cla
imed
tha
t he
did
not
hav
e co
ntro
l ov
er t
he m
atte
r. M
iloše
vi h
ad a
lso
appa
rent
ly e
xpla
ined
, ea
rlier
in
the
mee
ting,
tha
t th
e w
hole
inc
iden
t ha
d be
en p
rovo
ked
by e
scal
atin
g M
uslim
atta
cks
from
the
encl
ave,
in v
iola
tion
of th
e 19
93 d
emili
tariz
atio
n ag
reem
ent.
- 146
-
A
few
hou
rs in
to th
e m
eetin
g, G
ener
al M
ladi
arr
ived
at D
oban
ovci
. M
r. B
ildt
note
d th
at G
ener
al M
ladi
rea
dily
agr
eed
to m
ost o
f th
e de
man
ds o
n Sr
ebre
nica
, but
re
mai
ned
oppo
sed
to s
ome
of t
he a
rran
gem
ents
per
tain
ing
to t
he o
ther
enc
lave
s, Sa
raje
vo
in
parti
cula
r.
Even
tual
ly,
with
Pr
esid
ent M
iloše
vi’s
in
terv
entio
n,
it ap
pear
ed th
at a
n ag
reem
ent i
n pr
inci
ple
had
been
reac
hed.
It w
as d
ecid
ed th
at a
noth
er
mee
ting
wou
ld b
e he
ld th
e ne
xt d
ay in
ord
er to
con
firm
the
arra
ngem
ents
. M
r. B
ildt
had
alre
ady
arra
nged
with
Mr.
Stol
tenb
erg
and
Mr.
Aka
shi [
the
Spec
ial R
epre
sent
ativ
e of
the
Secr
etar
y-G
ener
al] t
hat t
hey
wou
ld jo
in h
im in
Bel
grad
e. H
e al
so re
ques
ted
that
th
e U
NPR
OFO
R C
omm
ande
r al
so c
ome
to B
elgr
ade
in o
rder
to f
inal
ize
som
e of
the
mili
tary
det
ails
with
Mla
di.”
(A
/54/
549,
par
as. 3
72-3
73.)
40
9. B
y 19
July
, on
the
basi
s of
the
Bel
grad
e m
eetin
g, M
r. A
kash
i w
as h
opef
ul t
hat
both
Pr
esid
ent M
iloše
vi
and
Gen
eral
Mla
di
mig
ht
show
so
me
flexi
bilit
y.
Th
e U
NPR
OFO
R
Com
man
der m
et w
ith M
ladi
on
19 Ju
ly a
nd th
roug
hout
the
mee
ting
kept
in to
uch
with
Mr.
Bild
t w
ho w
as h
oldi
ng p
aral
lel
nego
tiatio
ns w
ith P
resi
dent
Milo
ševi
in
Bel
grad
e.
Mla
di g
ave
his
vers
ion
of th
e ev
ents
of t
he p
rece
ding
day
s (h
is tr
oops
had
“‘f
inis
hed
[it] i
n a
corr
ect w
ay’”
; so
me
“‘un
fortu
nate
sm
all
inci
dent
s’ h
ad o
ccur
red”
). T
he U
NPR
OFO
R C
omm
ande
r an
d M
ladi
the
n si
gned
an
agre
emen
t whi
ch p
rovi
ded
for
“I
CR
C a
cces
s to
all
‘rec
eptio
n ce
ntre
s’ w
here
the
men
and
boy
s of
Sre
bren
ica
wer
e be
ing
held
, by
the
next
day
;
U
NH
CR
and
hum
anita
rian
aid
conv
oys t
o be
giv
en a
cces
s to
Sreb
reni
ca;
Th
e ev
acua
tion
of w
ound
ed fr
om P
oto
ari,
as w
ell a
s the
hos
pita
l in
Bra
tuna
c;
Th
e re
turn
of D
utch
bat w
eapo
ns a
nd e
quip
men
t tak
en b
y th
e B
SA;
Th
e tra
nsfe
r of
Dut
chba
t ou
t of
the
enc
lave
com
men
cing
on
the
afte
rnoo
n of
21
July
, fol
low
ing
the
evac
uatio
n of
the
rem
aini
ng w
omen
, chi
ldre
n an
d el
derly
who
w
ishe
d to
leav
e.
Su
bseq
uent
to th
e si
gnin
g of
this
agr
eem
ent,
the
Spec
ial R
epre
sent
ativ
e w
rote
to
Pres
iden
t Milo
ševi
, rem
indi
ng h
im o
f the
agr
eem
ent,
that
had
not
yet
bee
n ho
nour
ed,
to a
llow
ICR
C a
cces
s to
Sre
bren
ica.
The
Spe
cial
Rep
rese
ntat
ive
late
r als
o te
leph
oned
Pr
esid
ent M
iloše
vi to
reite
rate
the
sam
e po
int.”
(Ib
id.,
para
. 392
.)
41
0. T
he C
ourt
was
ref
erre
d to
oth
er e
vide
nce
supp
ortin
g or
den
ying
the
Res
pond
ent’s
ef
fect
ive
cont
rol o
ver,
parti
cipa
tion
in, i
nvol
vem
ent i
n, o
r inf
luen
ce o
ver t
he e
vent
s in
and
aro
und
Sreb
reni
ca in
Jul
y 19
95.
The
Res
pond
ent q
uote
s tw
o su
bsta
ntia
l rep
orts
pre
pare
d se
ven
year
s af
ter
the
even
ts, b
oth
of w
hich
are
in th
e pu
blic
dom
ain,
and
read
ily a
cces
sibl
e. T
he fi
rst,
Sreb
reni
ca
a “s
afe”
are
a, p
ublis
hed
in 2
002
by th
e N
ethe
rland
s Ins
titut
e fo
r War
Doc
umen
tatio
n w
as p
repa
red
59
- 147
-
over
a le
ngth
y pe
riod
by a
n ex
pert
team
. Th
e R
espo
nden
t has
dra
wn
atte
ntio
n to
the
fact
that
this
re
port
cont
ains
no
sugg
estio
n th
at t
he F
RY
lea
ders
hip
was
inv
olve
d in
pla
nnin
g th
e at
tack
or
inci
ting
the
killi
ng o
f non
-Ser
bs;
nor a
ny h
ard
evid
ence
of a
ssis
tanc
e by
the
Yug
osla
v ar
my
to th
e ar
med
for
ces
of t
he R
epub
lika
Srps
ka b
efor
e th
e at
tack
; n
or a
ny s
ugge
stio
n th
at t
he B
elgr
ade
Gov
ernm
ent h
ad a
dvan
ce k
now
ledg
e of
the
atta
ck.
The
Res
pond
ent a
lso
quot
es th
is p
assa
ge fr
om
poin
t 10
of t
he E
pilo
gue
to t
he R
epor
t re
latin
g to
the
“m
ass
slau
ghte
r” a
nd “
the
exec
utio
ns”
follo
win
g th
e fa
ll of
Sre
bren
ica:
“Th
ere
is n
o ev
iden
ce to
sug
gest
any
pol
itica
l or m
ilita
ry li
aiso
n w
ith B
elgr
ade,
and
in
the
case
of
this
mas
s m
urde
r su
ch a
lia
ison
is
high
ly i
mpr
obab
le.”
Th
e R
espo
nden
t fur
ther
obs
erve
s th
at th
e A
pplic
ant’s
onl
y re
spon
se to
this
sub
mis
sion
is to
poi
nt o
ut
that
“th
e re
port,
by
its o
wn
adm
issi
on, i
s no
t exh
aust
ive”
, and
that
this
Cou
rt ha
s be
en re
ferr
ed to
ev
iden
ce n
ot u
sed
by th
e au
thor
s.
41
1. T
he C
ourt
obse
rves
, in
resp
ect o
f the
Res
pond
ent’s
sub
mis
sion
s, th
at th
e au
thor
s of
the
Rep
ort d
o co
nclu
de th
at B
elgr
ade
was
aw
are
of th
e in
tend
ed a
ttack
on
Sreb
reni
ca.
They
reco
rd th
at
the
Dut
ch M
ilita
ry In
telli
genc
e Se
rvic
e an
d an
othe
r Wes
tern
inte
llige
nce
serv
ice
conc
lude
d th
at th
e Ju
ly 1
995
oper
atio
ns
wer
e co
-ord
inat
ed
with
B
elgr
ade
(Par
t III
, C
hap.
7,
Sect
. 7).
M
ore
sign
ifica
ntly
for p
rese
nt p
urpo
ses,
how
ever
, the
aut
hors
sta
te th
at “
ther
e is
no
evid
ence
to s
ugge
st
parti
cipa
tion
in th
e pr
epar
atio
ns f
or e
xecu
tions
on
the
part
of Y
ugos
lav
mili
tary
per
sonn
el o
r th
e se
curit
y ag
ency
(RD
B).
In fa
ct th
ere
is s
ome
evid
ence
to s
uppo
rt th
e op
posi
te v
iew
. . .
” (P
art I
V,
Cha
p. 2
, Se
ct. 2
0).
Tha
t su
ppor
ts t
he p
assa
ge f
rom
poi
nt 1
0 of
the
Epi
logu
e qu
oted
by
the
Res
pond
ent,
whi
ch w
as p
rece
ded
by t
he f
ollo
win
g se
nten
ce:
“Ev
eryt
hing
poi
nts
to a
cen
tral
deci
sion
by
the
Gen
eral
Sta
ff o
f the
VR
S.”
41
2. T
he s
econ
d re
port
is B
alka
n Ba
ttleg
roun
ds,
prep
ared
by
the
Uni
ted
Stat
es C
entra
l In
telli
genc
e A
genc
y, a
lso
publ
ishe
d in
200
2. T
he fi
rst v
olum
e un
der t
he h
eadi
ng “
The
Poss
ibili
ty
of Y
ugos
lav
invo
lvem
ent”
arr
ives
at t
he fo
llow
ing
conc
lusi
on:
“N
o ba
sis
has
been
est
ablis
hed
to i
mpl
icat
e B
elgr
ade’
s m
ilita
ry o
r se
curit
y fo
rces
in
the
post
-Sre
bren
ica
atro
citie
s. W
hile
the
re a
re i
ndic
atio
ns t
hat
the
VJ
or
RD
B [
the
Serb
ian
Stat
e Se
curit
y D
epar
tmen
t] m
ay h
ave
cont
ribut
ed e
lem
ents
to th
e Sr
ebre
nica
bat
tle,
ther
e is
no
sim
ilar
evid
ence
tha
t B
elgr
ade-
dire
cted
for
ces
wer
e in
volv
ed in
any
of t
he s
ubse
quen
t mas
sacr
es.
Eyew
itnes
s ac
coun
ts b
y su
rviv
ors
may
be
im
perf
ect
reco
llect
ions
of
ev
ents
, an
d de
tails
m
ay
have
be
en
over
look
ed.
Nar
ratio
ns a
nd o
ther
ava
ilabl
e ev
iden
ce s
ugge
st th
at o
nly
Bos
nian
Ser
b tro
ops
wer
e em
ploy
ed i
n th
e at
roci
ties
and
exec
utio
ns t
hat
follo
wed
the
mili
tary
con
ques
t of
Sr
ebre
nica
.” (
Balk
an B
attle
grou
nds,
p. 3
53.)
The
resp
onse
of
the
App
lican
t w
as t
o qu
ote
an e
arlie
r pa
ssag
e w
hich
ref
ers
to r
epor
ts w
hich
“s
ugge
st”
that
VJ
troop
s an
d po
ssib
ly e
lem
ents
of t
he S
erbi
an S
tate
Sec
urity
Dep
artm
ent m
ay h
ave
been
eng
aged
in th
e ba
ttle
in S
rebr
enic
a a
s in
deed
the
seco
nd s
ente
nce
of th
e pa
ssag
e qu
oted
by
the
Res
pond
ent
indi
cate
s. I
t is
a c
autio
us p
assa
ge, a
nd s
igni
fican
tly g
ives
no
indi
catio
n of
any
in
volv
emen
t by
th
e R
espo
nden
t in
th
e po
st-c
onfli
ct
atro
citie
s w
hich
ar
e th
e su
bjec
t of
- 148
-
geno
cide
-rel
ated
con
vict
ions
. C
ouns
el f
or t
he R
espo
nden
t als
o qu
oted
fro
m t
he e
vide
nce
of t
he
Dep
uty
Com
man
der
of D
utch
bat,
give
n in
the
Milo
ševi
tria
l, in
whi
ch t
he a
ccus
ed p
ut t
o th
e of
ficer
the
poin
t quo
ted
earli
er fr
om th
e Ep
ilogu
e to
the
Net
herla
nds r
epor
t. T
he o
ffic
er re
spon
ded:
“A
t le
ast
for
me,
I d
id n
ot h
ave
any
evid
ence
tha
t it
was
lau
nche
d in
co
-ope
ratio
n w
ith B
elgr
ade.
A
nd a
gain
, I r
ead
all k
inds
of
repo
rts a
nd o
pini
ons
and
pape
rs w
here
all
kind
s of
sce
nario
s w
ere
anal
ysed
, and
so
forth
. A
gain
, I d
o no
t hav
e an
y pr
oof
that
the
act
ion,
bei
ng t
he a
ttack
on
the
encl
ave,
was
lau
nche
d in
co
-ope
ratio
n w
ith B
elgr
ade.
”
Th
e ot
her
evid
ence
on
whi
ch t
he A
pplic
ant
relie
d re
late
s to
the
inf
luen
ce, r
athe
r th
an t
he
cont
rol,
that
Pre
side
nt M
iloše
vi h
ad o
r did
not
hav
e ov
er th
e au
thor
ities
in P
ale.
It m
ainl
y co
nsis
ts
of t
he e
vide
nce
give
n at
the
Milo
ševi
tria
l by
Lor
d O
wen
and
Gen
eral
Wes
ley
Cla
rk a
nd a
lso
Lord
Ow
en’s
pub
licat
ions
. I
t do
es n
ot e
stab
lish
a fa
ctua
l ba
sis
for
findi
ng t
he R
espo
nden
t re
spon
sibl
e on
a b
asis
of d
irect
ion
or c
ontro
l.
*
*
(5)
Con
clus
ion
as to
res
pons
ibili
ty fo
r ev
ents
at S
rebr
enic
a un
der
Art
icle
III,
para
grap
h (a
),of
the
Gen
ocid
e C
onve
ntio
n
41
3. In
the
light
of t
he in
form
atio
n av
aila
ble
to it
, the
Cou
rt fin
ds, a
s in
dica
ted
abov
e, th
at it
ha
s no
t bee
n es
tabl
ishe
d th
at th
e m
assa
cres
at S
rebr
enic
a w
ere
com
mitt
ed b
y pe
rson
s or
ent
ities
ra
nkin
g as
org
ans
of th
e R
espo
nden
t (se
e pa
ragr
aph
395
abov
e).
It fin
ds a
lso
that
it h
as n
ot b
een
esta
blis
hed
that
tho
se m
assa
cres
wer
e co
mm
itted
on
the
inst
ruct
ions
, or
und
er t
he d
irect
ion
of
orga
ns o
f th
e R
espo
nden
t St
ate,
nor
tha
t th
e R
espo
nden
t ex
erci
sed
effe
ctiv
e co
ntro
l ov
er t
he
oper
atio
ns i
n th
e co
urse
of
whi
ch t
hose
mas
sacr
es, w
hich
, as
indi
cate
d in
par
agra
ph 2
97 a
bove
, co
nstit
uted
the
crim
e of
gen
ocid
e, w
ere
perp
etra
ted.
Th
e A
pplic
ant
has
not
prov
ed t
hat
inst
ruct
ions
wer
e is
sued
by
the
fede
ral
auth
oriti
es i
n B
elgr
ade,
or
by a
ny o
ther
org
an o
f th
e FR
Y,
to c
omm
it th
e m
assa
cres
, st
ill l
ess
that
any
suc
h in
stru
ctio
ns w
ere
give
n w
ith t
he s
peci
fic i
nten
t (d
olus
spe
cial
is)
char
acte
rizin
g th
e cr
ime
of
geno
cide
, whi
ch w
ould
hav
e ha
d to
be
pres
ent i
n or
der
for
the
Res
pond
ent t
o be
hel
d re
spon
sibl
e on
this
bas
is.
All
indi
catio
ns a
re to
the
cont
rary
: th
at th
e de
cisi
on to
kill
the
adul
t mal
e po
pula
tion
of th
e M
uslim
com
mun
ity in
Sre
bren
ica
was
take
n by
som
e m
embe
rs o
f the
VR
S M
ain
Staf
f, bu
t w
ithou
t ins
truct
ions
from
or e
ffec
tive
cont
rol b
y th
e FR
Y.
A
s fo
r th
e ki
lling
s co
mm
itted
by
the
“Sco
rpio
ns”
para
mili
tary
mili
tias,
nota
bly
at T
rnov
o (p
arag
raph
289
abo
ve),
even
if
it w
ere
acce
pted
tha
t th
ey w
ere
an e
lem
ent
of t
he g
enoc
ide
com
mitt
ed i
n th
e Sr
ebre
nica
are
a, w
hich
is
not
clea
rly e
stab
lishe
d by
the
dec
isio
ns t
hus
far
rend
ered
by
the
ICTY
(se
e, i
n pa
rticu
lar,
the
Tria
l C
ham
ber’
s de
cisi
on o
f 12
Apr
il 20
06 i
n th
e St
aniš
i a
nd S
imat
ovi
cas
e, I
T-03
-69)
, it h
as n
ot b
een
prov
ed th
at th
ey to
ok p
lace
eith
er o
n th
e in
stru
ctio
ns o
r und
er th
e co
ntro
l of o
rgan
s of t
he F
RY
.
60
- 149
-
41
4. F
inal
ly, t
he C
ourt
obse
rves
that
non
e of
the
situ
atio
ns, o
ther
than
thos
e re
ferr
ed to
in
Arti
cles
4 a
nd 8
of
the
ILC
’s A
rticl
es o
n St
ate
Res
pons
ibili
ty, i
n w
hich
spe
cific
con
duct
may
be
attri
bute
d to
a S
tate
, mat
ches
the
circ
umst
ance
s of
the
pres
ent c
ase
in r
egar
d to
the
poss
ibili
ty o
f at
tribu
ting
the
geno
cide
at S
rebr
enic
a to
the
Res
pond
ent.
The
Cou
rt do
es n
ot s
ee it
self
requ
ired
to
deci
de a
t thi
s st
age
whe
ther
the
ILC
’s A
rticl
es d
ealin
g w
ith a
ttrib
utio
n, a
part
from
Arti
cles
4 a
nd 8
, ex
pres
s pr
esen
t cu
stom
ary
inte
rnat
iona
l la
w, i
t be
ing
clea
r th
at n
one
of t
hem
app
ly i
n th
is c
ase.
Th
e ac
ts c
onst
itutin
g ge
noci
de w
ere
not c
omm
itted
by
pers
ons
or e
ntiti
es w
hich
, whi
le n
ot b
eing
or
gans
of
the
FRY
, w
ere
empo
wer
ed b
y it
to e
xerc
ise
elem
ents
of
the
gove
rnm
enta
l au
thor
ity
(Art.
5),
nor b
y or
gans
pla
ced
at th
e R
espo
nden
t’s d
ispo
sal b
y an
othe
r Sta
te (A
rt. 6
), no
r by
pers
ons
in f
act e
xerc
isin
g el
emen
ts o
f th
e go
vern
men
tal a
utho
rity
in th
e ab
senc
e or
def
ault
of th
e of
ficia
l au
thor
ities
of t
he R
espo
nden
t (A
rt. 9
); fi
nally
, the
Res
pond
ent h
as n
ot a
ckno
wle
dged
and
ado
pted
th
e co
nduc
t of t
he p
erpe
trato
rs o
f the
act
s of g
enoc
ide
as it
s ow
n (A
rt. 1
1).
41
5. T
he C
ourt
conc
lude
s fr
om th
e fo
rego
ing
that
the
acts
of t
hose
who
com
mitt
ed g
enoc
ide
at S
rebr
enic
a ca
nnot
be
attri
bute
d to
the
Res
pond
ent u
nder
the
rule
s of
inte
rnat
iona
l law
of
Stat
e re
spon
sibi
lity:
thu
s, th
e in
tern
atio
nal r
espo
nsib
ility
of t
he R
espo
nden
t is n
ot e
ngag
ed o
n th
is b
asis
.
*
*
*
VII
I. T
he q
uest
ion
of r
espo
nsib
ility
, in
res
pect
of
Sreb
reni
ca,
for
acts
enu
mer
ated
in
Art
icle
III,
para
grap
hs (b
) to
(e),
of th
e G
enoc
ide
Con
vent
ion
41
6. T
he C
ourt
now
com
es to
the
seco
nd o
f th
e qu
estio
ns s
et o
ut in
par
agra
ph 3
79 a
bove
, na
mel
y, th
at r
elat
ing
to th
e R
espo
nden
t’s p
ossi
ble
resp
onsi
bilit
y on
the
grou
nd o
f on
e of
the
acts
re
late
d to
gen
ocid
e en
umer
ated
in A
rticl
e II
I of t
he C
onve
ntio
n. T
hese
are
: co
nspi
racy
to c
omm
it ge
noci
de (
Art.
III,
para
. (b)
), di
rect
and
pub
lic in
cite
men
t to
com
mit
geno
cide
(A
rt. II
I, pa
ra. (
c)),
atte
mpt
to c
omm
it ge
noci
de (A
rt. II
I, pa
ra. (
d))
thou
gh n
o cl
aim
is m
ade
unde
r thi
s he
ad in
the
App
lican
t’s fi
nal s
ubm
issi
ons
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e a
nd c
ompl
icity
in g
enoc
ide
(Art.
III,
para
. (e)
).Fo
r the
reas
ons
alre
ady
stat
ed (p
arag
raph
380
abo
ve),
the
Cou
rt m
ust m
ake
a fin
ding
on
this
mat
ter
inas
muc
h as
it
has
repl
ied
in t
he n
egat
ive
to t
he p
revi
ous
ques
tion,
tha
t of
the
Res
pond
ent’s
re
spon
sibi
lity
in th
e co
mm
issi
on o
f the
gen
ocid
e its
elf.
41
7. It
is c
lear
from
an
exam
inat
ion
of th
e fa
cts
of th
e ca
se th
at s
ubpa
ragr
aphs
(b) a
nd (c
) of
Arti
cle
III
are
irrel
evan
t in
the
pre
sent
cas
e.
It ha
s no
t be
en p
rove
d th
at o
rgan
s of
the
FR
Y, o
r pe
rson
s ac
ting
on th
e in
stru
ctio
ns o
r un
der
the
effe
ctiv
e co
ntro
l of
that
Sta
te, c
omm
itted
act
s th
at
coul
d be
cha
ract
eriz
ed a
s “[
c]on
spira
cy to
com
mit
geno
cide
”(A
rt. II
I, pa
ra. (
b)),
or a
s “[
d]ire
ct a
nd
publ
ic in
cite
men
t to
com
mit
geno
cide
” (A
rt. II
I, pa
ra. (
c)),
if on
e co
nsid
ers,
as is
app
ropr
iate
, onl
y th
e ev
ents
in S
rebr
enic
a. A
s re
gard
s pa
ragr
aph
(b),
wha
t was
sai
d ab
ove
rega
rdin
g th
e at
tribu
tion
to th
e R
espo
nden
t of a
cts
of g
enoc
ide,
nam
ely
that
the
mas
sacr
es w
ere
perp
etra
ted
by p
erso
ns a
nd
- 150
-
grou
ps o
f pe
rson
s (th
e V
RS
in p
artic
ular
) w
ho d
id n
ot h
ave
the
char
acte
r of
org
ans
of t
he
Res
pond
ent,
and
did
not a
ct o
n th
e in
stru
ctio
ns o
r und
er th
e ef
fect
ive
cont
rol o
f the
Res
pond
ent,
is
suff
icie
nt to
exc
lude
the
latte
r’s
resp
onsi
bilit
y in
this
rega
rd.
As
rega
rds
subp
arag
raph
(c),
none
of
the
info
rmat
ion
brou
ght
to t
he a
ttent
ion
of t
he C
ourt
is s
uffic
ient
to
esta
blis
h th
at o
rgan
s of
the
R
espo
nden
t, or
per
sons
act
ing
on it
s ins
truct
ions
or u
nder
its e
ffec
tive
cont
rol,
dire
ctly
and
pub
licly
in
cite
d th
e co
mm
issi
on o
f th
e ge
noci
de in
Sre
bren
ica;
no
r is
it p
rove
n, f
or th
at m
atte
r, th
at s
uch
orga
ns o
r pe
rson
s in
cite
d th
e co
mm
issi
on o
f ac
ts o
f ge
noci
de a
nyw
here
els
e on
the
ter
ritor
y of
B
osni
a an
d H
erze
govi
na.
In th
is r
espe
ct, t
he C
ourt
mus
t onl
y ac
cept
pre
cise
and
inco
ntro
verti
ble
evid
ence
, of w
hich
ther
e is
cle
arly
non
e.
41
8. A
mor
e de
licat
e qu
estio
n is
whe
ther
it
can
be a
ccep
ted
that
act
s w
hich
cou
ld b
e ch
arac
teriz
ed a
s “c
ompl
icity
in g
enoc
ide”
, with
in th
e m
eani
ng o
f Arti
cle
III,
para
grap
h (e
), ca
n be
at
tribu
ted
to o
rgan
s of
the
Res
pond
ent
or t
o pe
rson
s ac
ting
unde
r its
ins
truct
ions
or
unde
r its
ef
fect
ive
cont
rol.
Th
is q
uest
ion
calls
for s
ome
prel
imin
ary
com
men
t.
41
9. F
irst,
the
ques
tion
of “
com
plic
ity”
is t
o be
dis
tingu
ishe
d fr
om t
he q
uest
ion,
alre
ady
cons
ider
ed a
nd a
nsw
ered
in
the
nega
tive,
whe
ther
the
per
petra
tors
of
the
acts
of
geno
cide
co
mm
itted
in S
rebr
enic
a ac
ted
on th
e in
stru
ctio
ns o
f or
unde
r th
e di
rect
ion
or e
ffec
tive
cont
rol o
f th
e or
gans
of t
he F
RY
. It
is tr
ue th
at in
cer
tain
nat
iona
l sys
tem
s of c
rimin
al la
w, g
ivin
g in
stru
ctio
ns
or o
rder
s to
per
sons
to
com
mit
a cr
imin
al a
ct i
s co
nsid
ered
as
the
mar
k of
com
plic
ity i
n th
e co
mm
issi
on o
f th
at a
ct.
How
ever
, in
the
par
ticul
ar c
onte
xt o
f th
e ap
plic
atio
n of
the
law
of
inte
rnat
iona
l res
pons
ibili
ty in
the
dom
ain
of g
enoc
ide,
if it
wer
e es
tabl
ishe
d th
at a
gen
ocid
al a
ct h
ad
been
com
mitt
ed o
n th
e in
stru
ctio
ns o
r un
der
the
dire
ctio
n of
a S
tate
, th
e ne
cess
ary
conc
lusi
on
wou
ld b
e th
at th
e ge
noci
de w
as a
ttrib
utab
le to
the
Stat
e, w
hich
wou
ld b
e di
rect
ly re
spon
sibl
e fo
r it,
purs
uant
to th
e ru
le re
ferr
ed to
abo
ve (p
arag
raph
398
), an
d no
que
stio
n of
com
plic
ity w
ould
aris
e.
But
, as a
lread
y st
ated
, tha
t is n
ot th
e si
tuat
ion
in th
e pr
esen
t cas
e.
H
owev
er th
ere
is n
o do
ubt t
hat “
com
plic
ity”,
in th
e se
nse
of A
rticl
e II
I, pa
ragr
aph
(e),
of th
e C
onve
ntio
n, in
clud
es th
e pr
ovis
ion
of m
eans
to e
nabl
e or
faci
litat
e th
e co
mm
issi
on o
f the
crim
e; i
t is
thu
s on
thi
s as
pect
tha
t th
e C
ourt
mus
t fo
cus.
In
this
res
pect
, it
is n
otew
orth
y th
at, a
lthou
gh
“com
plic
ity”,
as
such
, is
not
a n
otio
n w
hich
exi
sts
in t
he c
urre
nt t
erm
inol
ogy
of t
he l
aw o
f in
tern
atio
nal r
espo
nsib
ility
, it i
s sim
ilar t
o a
cate
gory
foun
d am
ong
the
cust
omar
y ru
les c
onst
itutin
g th
e la
w o
f St
ate
resp
onsi
bilit
y, t
hat
of t
he “
aid
or a
ssis
tanc
e” f
urni
shed
by
one
Stat
e fo
r th
e co
mm
issi
on o
f a w
rong
ful a
ct b
y an
othe
r Sta
te.
42
0. In
this
con
nect
ion,
refe
renc
e sh
ould
be
mad
e to
Arti
cle
16 o
f the
ILC
’s A
rticl
es o
n St
ate
Res
pons
ibili
ty, r
efle
ctin
g a
cust
omar
y ru
le, w
hich
read
s as f
ollo
ws:
“Art
icle
16
Aid
or a
ssis
tanc
e in
the
com
mis
sion
of a
n in
tern
atio
nally
wro
ngfu
l act
A
St
ate
whi
ch
aids
or
as
sist
s an
othe
r St
ate
in
the
com
mis
sion
of
an
in
tern
atio
nally
wro
ngfu
l act
by
the
latte
r is i
nter
natio
nally
resp
onsi
ble
for d
oing
so if
:
61
