# Verification workflow — WCC-BiH

## The principle

No case-specific citation appears in an output until verified against an authoritative source in the current conversation. Foundational instruments (Law on the Court of BiH 2002, Criminal Code of BiH 2003, SFRY Criminal Code 1976, *Maktouf and Damjanović* ECHR judgment) may be cited from project knowledge.

## The fallback ladder

1. **sudbih.gov.ba** — the official Court of BiH website; first point of entry
2. **tuzilastvobih.gov.ba** — for indictments by the SDWC
3. **IRMCT/ICTY archives** — for Rule 11 bis referral documents (irmct.org, icty.org legacy)
4. **legal-tools.org** — ICC Legal Tools Database mirror
5. **OSCE Mission to BiH** (oscebih.org) — for trial monitoring reports and procedural observations
6. **OHR archives** (ohr.int) — for establishment documents
7. **ICTJ reports** — for analytical context
8. **BIRN BiH** (balkaninsight.com) — for daily court reporting
9. **Academic literature** — for context only, never authority for what the WCC-BiH has held
10. **Ask the user** if nothing verifies

## Capture these fields

For every verified citation:
- **Case name** — formal designation (*Prosecutor's Office of BiH v. [Defendant(s)]*)
- **Case number** — X-KR-XX/XX (first-instance) or X-KRŽ-XX/XX (appellate)
- **Document type** — Indictment, First-Instance Verdict, Second-Instance Verdict, Decision, Order
- **Chamber** — Section I for War Crimes; Appellate Division Section I for War Crimes
- **Date**
- **Paragraph or page**
- **Rule 11 bis flag** — was this case referred from ICTY under Rule 11 bis? (affects available documents at ICTY/IRMCT archives)

## WCC-BiH-specific traps

### Trap 1 — The 2003 vs 1976 Criminal Code temporal application issue

Until 2013, the WCC-BiH **systematically applied the 2003 Criminal Code of BiH** to conduct from the 1992-1995 conflict, including in *Maktouf* and *Damjanović*.

**The ECHR Grand Chamber in *Maktouf and Damjanović v. BiH* (18 July 2013) held this violated Article 7 ECHR** in cases where the **1976 SFRY Criminal Code** (in force at the time of the conduct) prescribed **lighter sentences** for the relevant offence.

Following *Maktouf*:
- The **Constitutional Court of BiH** has set aside some WCC-BiH judgments for re-trial
- **Subsequent WCC-BiH judgments** have engaged in *lex mitior* analysis case-by-case
- Some cases continue to apply the 2003 Code where its application is **not** less favourable to the accused

**Citation discipline:** when citing a WCC-BiH judgment from 2005-2013, **identify the applicable Code** the judgment applied (typically the 2003 Code) and **note whether the judgment was later subject to *Maktouf*-based revision**. For post-2013 judgments, identify the *lex mitior* analysis if relevant to the proposition.

### Trap 2 — State Court (Section I) vs entity/cantonal courts

The WCC-BiH refers **specifically to Section I of the State Court of BiH**. BiH also has war crimes prosecutions at:
- **Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina** (FBiH) — cantonal courts, 10 cantons
- **Republika Srpska** (RS) — district courts
- **Brčko District** — basic court

The **National War Crimes Processing Strategy of December 2008** allocates cases between these levels. Citations to "BiH war crimes prosecutions" without specifying the level are **ambiguous**. Common errors:
- Calling an FBiH cantonal court judgment a "WCC-BiH judgment" — wrong
- Calling an RS district court judgment a "WCC-BiH judgment" — wrong
- The WCC-BiH = **state level only** (Section I of the Court of BiH)

### Trap 3 — Rule 11 bis cases vs locally-initiated cases

Both categories are tried at WCC-BiH, but they have different procedural histories:
- **Rule 11 bis cases** — referred from ICTY with detailed referral documents at ICTY/IRMCT archives; subject to monitoring reporting to ICTY/IRMCT
- **Locally-initiated cases** — initiated by SDWC indictment alone; no ICTY referral documents

Common error: assuming all WCC-BiH cases have ICTY referral documents (only about 6 cases were Rule 11 bis transfers from BiH).

### Trap 4 — Lukić and Lukić — referral revoked, case tried at ICTY

The *Lukić and Lukić* case was originally referred to BiH under Rule 11 bis (2006-2007), but the **referral was revoked in 2007** and the case was returned to ICTY where it was tried in 2008-2009. **The Lukić and Lukić trial judgment is an ICTY judgment, not a WCC-BiH judgment.** Common error: attributing the *Lukić and Lukić* judgment to the WCC-BiH.

### Trap 5 — International vs national composition transition

The international/national phase-out was **gradual and case-specific**:
- **2005-2008:** Trial panels = 2 international + 1 national; Appeals panels = 2 international + 1 national
- **2008-2009:** Transition to 2 national + 1 international
- **From 2009/2012:** Fully national (international prosecutors phased out by end 2009; international judges phased out by end 2012)

A judgment from **2007** was issued by a panel with 2 international + 1 national judges. A judgment from **2015** was issued by a fully national panel. Care is needed when characterising the panel's composition retrospectively.

### Trap 6 — The Court of BiH has no time-limited mandate

Unlike the ECCC, ICTY, ICTR, or SCSL — which had **completion strategies** with end-dates — the **WCC-BiH (Section I of the Court of BiH) has no time limit**. It continues to operate as a permanent national institution as of 2026. Common error: characterising the WCC-BiH as "now closed" or "completed" — false. The **internationalised phase** has ended; the **chamber itself** continues.

### Trap 7 — "WCC" as informal nomenclature

"WCC-BiH" and "War Crimes Chamber" are widely-used informal designations. The **formal designation** in BiH law and court records is **Section I for War Crimes of the Criminal Division of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina** (Sekcija I za ratne zločine Krivičnog odjeljenja Suda Bosne i Hercegovine). In formal citation, prefer the formal designation; "WCC-BiH" or "War Crimes Chamber" is acceptable in informal references and in the first occurrence with a parenthetical short form.

## Translation discipline

Proceedings conducted in **BCS** (Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian) — the languages are mutually intelligible and the Court accepts all three. **English authorised** during the international phase for international judges/prosecutors.

**The BCS version of judgments is authoritative.** English translations on sudbih.gov.ba are official translations but **not** authoritative for textual interpretation. For substantive quotations, cite the BCS original and identify the English as translation.

## Partial verification is acceptable if disclosed

If you can confirm the case name, date, and disposition but not a specific paragraph number, say so. Partial verification disclosed is acceptable; silent overstatement is not.

---

## Reading the source document directly (the top of the ladder)

The most reliable verification is reading the **actual document**, not a
website's search snippet. Put this above everything else:

**Rung 0 — work from the document itself when it is available.** Official
tribunal sites frequently block automated fetching (HTTP 403), so a judgment
can be public yet still unreachable by a direct fetch. Two ways to reach the
text anyway:

- **The user supplies it** — an uploaded PDF or pasted pages can be read
  directly, reaching paragraph-level verification. A practitioner working on a
  matter usually already holds the document; ask for it.
- **A retrieval tool reads it** — where a document-retrieval tool or MCP server
  is available (one that fetches and extracts PDF text, with a fallback
  ladder), prefer it over a raw fetch.

Only when the document cannot be obtained do you fall back to the search ladder
above — and then you state the ceiling honestly.

## Site-search results are leads, not content

A result from a site-search index — or a "synthesis" of search snippets —
establishes at most that something **exists**. It is **never** content- or
paragraph-level verification. Treat it as a lead to confirm against the
document, and label it as such. Two recurring traps:

- **Transliteration / OCR garbling.** Names and acronyms get corrupted (for
  example, an Arabic acronym surfacing as "KARA" where the source has
  "RADA/RADAA"). A name or acronym that appears only once in a snippet is a red
  flag — do not assert it.
- **Relational claims.** Who is whose subordinate, associate, superior, or
  co-perpetrator is the detail a synthesis most often gets inverted. Never
  assert a relationship from a snippet; it requires the document.