# Example — auditing user-supplied documents

## Example A — Pre-2013 WCC-BiH judgment cited without *Maktouf* note

### The document

A draft article states:

> "The WCC-BiH, in *Stupar et al.* (Kravica) (29 July 2008), convicted multiple defendants of genocide for participation in the Srebrenica mass executions, applying Article 171 of the 2003 Criminal Code of BiH."

### The audit

Three issues:

1. **Statement is factually correct as to the original judgment** — the First-Instance Verdict of 29 July 2008 did apply the 2003 Criminal Code.

2. **Statement is incomplete as to subsequent revision** (Trap 1 — Maktouf). Following the *Maktouf and Damjanović* Grand Chamber judgment of 18 July 2013, multiple WCC-BiH judgments — including elements of the *Stupar* line — have been subject to *lex mitior* analysis and in some cases set aside by the Constitutional Court of BiH for re-trial. **Citing the 2008 verdict in 2026 without acknowledging the *Maktouf* line risks misleading the reader.**

3. **Citation format incomplete** — case number missing (X-KR-05/24); chamber designation incomplete.

### Suggested redraft

> "The WCC-BiH, in *Prosecutor's Office of BiH v. Miloš Stupar et al.* (Kravica), Court of BiH, Section I for War Crimes, First-Instance Verdict, Case No. X-KR-05/24, 29 July 2008, convicted multiple defendants of genocide for participation in the Srebrenica mass executions at the Kravica warehouse in July 1995, applying Article 171 of the 2003 Criminal Code of BiH. Subsequent application of the *Maktouf and Damjanović v. BiH* Grand Chamber judgment of 18 July 2013 has led to re-examination of several WCC-BiH judgments from this period under the *lex mitior* principle, with case-by-case analysis of whether the 1976 SFRY Criminal Code would have produced a more favourable result."

---

## Example B — Entity-level case attributed to WCC-BiH

### The document

A footnote in a thesis reads:

> "The Bosnian cantonal court in Bihać convicted [X] of war crimes in 2014 — see WCC-BiH judgment of [date]."

### The audit

Multiple Trap 2 errors:

1. **Cantonal courts in Bihać are part of the Federation of BiH (FBiH) judicial structure**, not the State Court of BiH. The Bihać Cantonal Court is **not** the WCC-BiH.

2. **The WCC-BiH = Section I of the Court of BiH at state level only.** Cantonal-level prosecutions (FBiH), district-level prosecutions (Republika Srpska), and Brčko District prosecutions are **all distinct** from the WCC-BiH.

3. **The National War Crimes Processing Strategy of December 2008** specifically allocates cases between the State Court and entity/cantonal courts — the cantonal-level conviction is part of the **strategy implementation at the entity level**, not a WCC-BiH proceeding.

### Suggested redraft

> "The Cantonal Court of Bihać (Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina) convicted [X] of war crimes in 2014. This case is part of the entity-level war crimes prosecutions in the Federation, which operate in parallel with the State Court of BiH's Section I for War Crimes (WCC-BiH) under the framework of the National War Crimes Processing Strategy adopted by the BiH Council of Ministers in December 2008."

---

## The common thread

The audit task is **identification and institutional contextualisation** — confirming the level of jurisdiction (state vs entity/cantonal vs district), confirming the period (pre-2013 with potential *Maktouf*-based revision, vs post-2013 with *lex mitior* analysis), and confirming the Rule 11 bis status (referred from ICTY vs locally-initiated).

A WCC-BiH citation that omits these three dimensions — level, period (*Maktouf* implications), Rule 11 bis status — is incomplete. Step 0 (identify the chamber, case type, applicable Code, and procedural history) catches the most common errors.