Reparation in Cases of Genocide

In the judgement delivered in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia,the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that Serbia,with regard to the acts of genocide committed in Srebrenica,had breached the obligation, as set out in Article I of the1948 Genocide Convention, to prevent genocide. However, it alsofound that Bosnia and Herzegovina had no right to monetary compensationand that the mere declaration of Serbia's responsibility fornot preventing the genocide in Srebrenica was in itself appropriatesatisfaction. This article criticizes the decision of the ICJnot to accord monetary compensation, which was based on thelack of a causal nexus between the failure by Serbia to complywith its obligation to prevent genocide and the death of 7000men in Srebrenica. It argues that the Court should have shiftedthe burden of proof and should have required Serbia to showthat even if the institutions of the then Federal Republic ofYugoslavia (FRY) had taken appropriate measures, the BosnianSerbs would nonetheless have completed their criminal plans.Concerning the issue of satisfaction, the article notes thatthe ICJ could have ordered symbolic monetary damages, by takinginto account international practice and the request by the Applicant.In addition, it observes that international tribunals enjoya large measure of discretion in awarding satisfaction and that,in making a determination on the most appropriate form of satisfactionthe genocidal tragedy itself should not have been left aside.In this connection, the ICJ could have found guidance in thecase law of the European Court of Human Rights, which in someinstances has taken into account the degree of pain and sufferingendured by the victims. Finally, with regard to guarantees andassurances of non-repetition, the article notes that these donot constitute a form of reparation, but rather should be consideredas an expression of the obligation to comply with the primaryrule incumbent upon a state in particular situations. The articleagrees with the Court's conclusion that an assessment of theprevailing situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina did not provideany clues to the presence of an actual threat to the physicalintegrity of the Muslim population. However, it contends thatthe reluctance by Serbia to arrest and transfer to the ICTYGeneral Mladi, more than three months after the delivery ofthe judgment of the ICJ and the issuance of a specific orderin this regard, unequivocally demonstrates the strong ties ofsolidarity between the Serbian leadership in Serbia and in theRepublika Srpska. Serbia is making itself an ex post accompliceof genocide, with far-reaching consequences for its envisagedintegration into the European Union.