# Jurisprudence map — ICTY / ICTR / IRMCT A topic-by-topic map of the landmark holdings of the two ad hoc tribunals and the Mechanism, and where they live. This file is an **index, not a substitute** for the decisions. Use it to locate the relevant case, chamber, and decision; then verify the specific paragraph through `verification-workflow.md`. A claim resting on this map, but not on the verified decision text, must say so. The Case Law Database (`cld.irmct.org`) is the Mechanism's own, more granular version of this map and should be preferred when project knowledge does not contain the decision. --- ## 1. Jurisdiction and the legality of the tribunals **Tadić, Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction** (IT-94-1-AR72, Appeals Chamber, 2 October 1995). The foundational decision. Held that the Security Council lawfully established the ICTY under Chapter VII; articulated the test for the existence of an armed conflict and its classification (international vs non-international); and held that individual criminal responsibility for violations of the laws and customs of war exists under customary international law in non-international armed conflict. This single decision underpins much of what followed across both tribunals. --- ## 2. Genocide - **Akayesu** (ICTR-96-4-T, Trial Chamber, 2 September 1998). The **first conviction for genocide by an international court**. Held that rape and sexual violence can constitute acts of genocide when committed with intent to destroy a protected group. Also the foundational treatment of direct and public incitement to commit genocide. - **Krstić** (IT-98-33-T, Trial Chamber, 2 August 2001; Appeal Judgment IT-98-33-A, 19 April 2004). Held that the **Srebrenica massacre constituted genocide**; the Appeals Chamber refined the mode of liability (from perpetration to aiding and abetting genocide for Krstić himself). - **Karadžić** (MICT-13-55-A, Appeals Chamber, 20 March 2019) and **Mladić** (MICT-13-56-A, Appeals Chamber, 8 June 2021). The Mechanism's appellate affirmation of genocide convictions in respect of Srebrenica. - **Kayishema & Ruzindana** (ICTR-95-1-T, 21 May 1999) — further development of the elements of genocide at the ICTR. --- ## 3. Direct and public incitement to genocide - **Akayesu** (ICTR-96-4-T) — the foundational elements. - **Nahimana, Barayagwiza & Ngeze** (the **Media case**, ICTR-99-52) — incitement through radio (RTLM) and print (Kangura); the relationship between hate speech, incitement, and the protection of expression. --- ## 4. Crimes against humanity - **Tadić** (IT-94-1-T, 7 May 1997; Appeal IT-94-1-A, 15 July 1999) — the chapeau elements: the requirement of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population, and the nexus between the act and the attack. The Appeals Chamber clarified that a discriminatory intent is not a general requirement for all crimes against humanity. - **Kunarac, Kovač & Vuković** (Foča, IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1-T, 22 February 2001; Appeal 12 June 2002) — **enslavement and rape as crimes against humanity**; the definitive treatment of sexual enslavement. --- ## 5. War crimes / the law of armed conflict - **Tadić** (IT-94-1-AR72) — existence and classification of armed conflict; customary individual responsibility in non-international armed conflict. - **Čelebići** (*Delalić et al.*, IT-96-21) — grave breaches and the conditions for the applicability of the Geneva Conventions. --- ## 6. Modes of liability ### Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) **Tadić, Appeal Judgment** (IT-94-1-A, 15 July 1999) — the foundational articulation of JCE as a mode of liability under customary international law, distinguishing the three categories: **JCE I** (basic — common design), **JCE II** (systemic — organised system of ill-treatment, e.g. camps), and **JCE III** (extended — liability for crimes outside the common plan that were a natural and foreseeable consequence). This is the source that later courts engaged with: the ECCC examined and partly departed from the ICTY's JCE III articulation; comparative work across the skills in this repository should note that the ad hoc tribunals' JCE doctrine is the reference point, not a universal rule. ### Command / superior responsibility - **Čelebići** (*Delalić et al.*, IT-96-21-T, 16 November 1998; Appeal IT-96-21-A, 20 February 2001) — the elements of superior responsibility: superior-subordinate relationship, the "knew or had reason to know" standard, and the failure to prevent or punish. - **Blaškić** (IT-95-14-T, 3 March 2000) — further development, refined on appeal. --- ## 7. Torture **Furundžija** (IT-95-17/1-T, 10 December 1998) — the definition and elements of torture in international criminal law, and the characterisation of the prohibition of torture as a peremptory norm (jus cogens). --- ## 8. Sexual violence as an international crime - **Akayesu** (ICTR-96-4-T) — sexual violence as a constitutive act of genocide. - **Kunarac et al.** (Foča, IT-96-23) — rape and sexual enslavement as crimes against humanity; the definition of rape in international criminal law. - **Furundžija** (IT-95-17/1) — rape as torture / outrage upon personal dignity. These holdings, taken together, are the foundation of the modern international jurisprudence on conflict-related sexual violence. --- ## 9. Guilty pleas and senior leadership - **Kambanda** (ICTR-97-23-S, 4 September 1998) — Jean Kambanda, former Prime Minister of Rwanda, the **first head of government to plead guilty to genocide** before an international court. --- ## 10. The residual and fugitive-tracking function - **Kabuga** (ICTR-98-44B; MICT-13-38) — Félicien Kabuga, a long-sought ICTR fugitive, arrested near Paris in May 2020 and brought before the Mechanism; illustrates the Mechanism's tracking-and-trial residual function and the procedural questions that arise when an aged accused is tried decades after the events. Proceedings were terminated on 20 May 2026 following Kabuga's death on 16 May 2026; confirm the current status against irmct.org before relying on this entry. --- ## How to use this map 1. Identify the user's substantive question and locate the relevant topic above. 2. For a precise legal finding, cross-check against the Case Law Database (`cld.irmct.org`), which maps findings to paragraphs. 3. Verify the cited decision and paragraph through `verification-workflow.md` — fetch the actual judgment, confirm the chamber, date, and that the paragraph supports the proposition. 4. Cite using the conventions in `citation-format.md`, matching the IT / ICTR / MICT number to the procedural phase. The decisions are the territory; this file is a map of them; the verified text is what gets cited.