Today, the ICTY Appeals Chamber rendered its judgment in the case (No. IT-01-42) against Pavle Strugar, former commander in the Yugoslav People's Army (case information sheet here). The defendant had appealed his January 31, 2005, conviction on two counts of war crimes (attacks on civilians; destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science). He was founded guilty on the basis of command responsibility for failing to stop the December 6, 1991 attack on Dubrovnik and for failing to punish those responsible for that attack. Strugar was sentenced to eight years imprisonment. (Trial Chamber judgment here; summary here.) The prosecution appealed the defendant's acquittal on the other counts charged in the indictment. Both the prosecution and the defendant appealed the sentence imposed.In today's decision (summary here; press release here; full judgment here), the Appeals Chamber rejected all the defendant's grounds of appeal, but upheld two grounds of appeal raised by the prosecution. In particular, the Appeals Chamber found that the Trial Chamber made an error of law in its analysis of whether Strugar possessed the requisite mens rea that his forces would shell the Old Town of Dubrovnik. The Appeals Chamber also concluded that the Trial Chamber also made an error of law when it refused to enter cumulative convictions in respect of counts 4 (devastation not justified by military necessity), 5 (unlawful attacks on civilian objects), and 6 (destruction or wilful damage of cultural property). The Appeals Chamber thus revised the Trial Chamber judgment and entered findings of guilt on counts 4 and 5. Regarding the sentence, the Appeals Chamber concluded that the Trial Chamber's errors had no impact on Strugar's sentence. Given the deterioration in Strugar's health since the Trial Chamber judgment, the Appeals Chamber reduced his sentence to seven and a half years. Judge Shahabuddeen appended a separate opinion. Judges Meron and Kwon appended a joint dissenting opinion. Judges Meron and Kwon dissented from the "majority’s decision to uphold the Trial Chamber’s finding that Strugar did not fulfil his duty to take measures to punish those responsible for the unlawful shelling of the Old Town on 6 December 1991."
