Talk:List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Djuradj Kusljic - Bosnian Genocide Convict[edit]

Fourth Bosnian Genocide convict, Djuradj Kusljic. He was found guilty for his involvement in the BOSNIAN GENOCIDE. On December 15 1999, German court sentenced Kusljic to life in prison for genocide in conjunction with six counts of murder and illegal possession of a firearm. http://www.trial-ch.org/en/trial-watch/profile/db/legal-procedures/djuradj_kusljic_140.html Bosniak (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to add few points to this. Philip Baird Shearer has quoted BBC as saying that the qualification of the crime was not genocide but crimes against humanity. This had to be deleted since BBC made an innocent error in that regard. Short story is this: Đurađ was first sentenced for perpetrating genocide, however after appeal he was sentenced for complicity in genocide. Sometime after that the prosecution of ICTY had failed to prove that Brđanin had perpetrated genocide (concerning very similar factual situation) and Đurađ was deported from Germany to B&H (after he again appealed etc.). While in B&H he has been advocating for revision of the judgment, or more precisely that crimes he was accused of initially can be qualified as genocide. He was unsuccessful at getting the support of Serbian politicians so he is currently gathering money to start the process of revision himself (he claims he needs 300.000 EUR). There was even a proceeding before the Constitutional Court of B&H concerning him, but the website of the Court in down at the moment so I can't access the decision right now. Below are links with interview with Kušljić (in Serbian) as well as other webpages indicating that he has indeed been sentenced for genocide.

--Harac (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First use the spelling as used in reliable English sources. Secondly I am open to reliable sources stating otherwise, and the BBC may be wrong, but those sources so far provided are not reliable. -- PBS (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As for spelling ICTY (English version - I'm not sure whether you would consider that institution as being "reliable") uses BHS spelling so I will change all the spelling in this article to BHS standards (besides that "wikipedia" also uses BHS spelling for the same people). As for other sources that are reliable, I will cite directly the judgments. Also, I don't know from where do you draw conclusions that interview with Kušljić in a one of the most read Serbian newspapers (and quoted in others) is not reliable? Regards. --Harac (talk) 18:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Do List[edit]

  • When I find time (or others as well) these things have to be done: local genocide prosecutions, decisions of Human Rights Chamber of BiH relating to Srebrenica genocide, update on new arrests and indictements. --Harac (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jorgić[edit]

The section is too elaborate relating to other (more important) sections (such as the actual genocide prosecutions that this article deals with). This article is not about the legal definition of genocide and its distinction from the ethnic cleansing that would requite extensive quotation of secondary sources - it is a "LIST of Bosnian Genocide Prosecutions". When in Kušljić case I cite Schabas to point out what you term "the apparent contradiction between German courts and the Int Courts", it was enough for me to point to the relevant section of his book, and not to actually quote from every case that he actually cites.

You cannot extensively quote from Krsić case, when the section on Krsić in this same Article is only in one paragraph and does not deal with theoretical questions of the definition of genocide, protected groups, specific intent, distinction from ethnic cleansing, different approaches of national court with regards these questions etc. (there are other articles that deal with these questions - if you wish expand Jorgić article with regards to this; or create an article in section dealing with ECHR case law).

Finally, the whole section is grammatically dubious: "group. ... The"; "On [19 April] 2004 This was"; "on Appeal "The"; "definition. ..." although"; "of genocid[88] The ECHR" etc. --Harac (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ECHR is a useful case because it explains the contradiction between the German court cases and the ICJ Bosnian Genocide Case (and the ICTY cases it rested upon). This is useful information in explaining Bosnian genocide prosecutions. As to the grammer that can be fixed and does not warrant wholesale removal. -- PBS (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point here. It is not that this judgment is not important, rather the section on it is written in a sloppy manner. Someone decided here not to read the judgment and to summarize it (like other 30 or something cases here!), but rather thought it is easier to quote entire sections from it (particularly secondary sources within the judgment!). There is no need for that in this particular article - if we did that for other cases here, this article would be 200 pages long since many of them deal with similar issues (see, for example, para. 403-407 of the ICJ judgment!). It is enough to say that the ECHR decided that there is a divergence of interpretation between different courts (what is usually called fragmentation of international law), and then to give citations of the relevant parts of the judgment. That is what I have done - summarized the judgment, said what it had to say, gave the relevant citations, and standardized it with the rest of the article. If someone wants to learn more it can refer to the citations given. If you think that there is a better way to summarize it, please indicate, but it certainly cannot remain like this because it defeats the purpose of this article/list. Regards. --Harac (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inline citations[edit]

From my talk page List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions:

I see you suggested more detailed citations for individual judgments (references to page numbers and paragraphs), and you did that for Popović case. Although I would generally view that as great, I think it is not feasible in a Wikipedia article. If that was done for all of the cases cited there we would have half a thousand references, which seems odd. Additionally, new cases are constantly added to the list. I think that correct citation to the judgment, with relevant links, is enough. Perhaps this should be reconsidered. Regards --Accursius (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the more detailed citations are needed. In the specific document we are discussing is 882 pages long -- longer than most books -- and it is generally agreed that citations to lengthy sources should include page numbers (WP:Page numbers). In this case especially so as many are WP:BLPs. Indeed some may question if this article can use the judgements at all (WP:BLPPRIMARY).

We can radically reduced the size of the citations (and the confusion they bring to the text when in edit mode) by adopting short citations for this article (and using the {{harv}} templates to link the short citations to the general reference in a references section. Indeed it is unusual to have an article with over 100 citations that does not have a general reference section sorted by author.

As to new cases, because the ICTY is closing down, only those currently in the pipeline (and I assume already on this page) will be prosecuted by an international tribunal (and the ICC will not touch them as the any alleged crimes happened before its inception). It may be in future years there will be another municipal trial or two, but I do not think that new cases will be so prevalent that we need worry about that having a significant impact on this article in the near term. -- PBS (talk) 09:18, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see I never answered on this. I'm not sure how Harvard citation would work for judgments, though we could try something. With regards your last paragraph, I expect numerous other cases to be decided by the local courts, particularly because they deal with low-level perpetrators, and there are thousands of them. Nevertheless, I think the article should go through thorough re-referencing, particularly with indications of paragraphs and pages. I don't have time for that at the moment, and might have in half a year. --Accursius (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of Bosnian genocide prosecutions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Bosnian_genocide_prosecutions&oldid=1203608687"