The ICTY's Legacy: Did International Justice Deliver for Bosniak Victims?
When the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) formally closed its doors in December 2017 — handing over remaining cases to its successor, the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals — it left behind a complex and contested legacy. For Bosniak victims of the 1992–1995 war, the tribunal represented both a historic achievement and a source of ongoing frustration.
What the ICTY Was and What It Did
Established by the UN Security Council in 1993 — while the Bosnian War was still ongoing — the ICTY was an unprecedented institution: the first international war crimes court since the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals following World War II. Its mandate covered crimes committed in the wars across the former Yugoslavia, but the Bosnian War generated the largest share of its caseload.
Over its 24-year existence, the ICTY:
- Indicted 161 individuals
- Concluded proceedings against 90 individuals through convictions
- Acquitted 18 individuals
- Transferred a number of cases to national courts in the region
- Established landmark legal precedents in international humanitarian law
Historic Achievements
For Bosniak communities, the tribunal's most significant achievement was the legal recognition of genocide at Srebrenica. The convictions of Radovan Karadžić and Ratko Mladić — the political and military architects of the worst atrocities — were moments of profound significance for survivors and families of victims.
The ICTY also broke important legal ground by:
- Being the first international tribunal to convict for genocide since the concept was codified in the 1948 Genocide Convention
- Establishing that systematic sexual violence can constitute a war crime, a crime against humanity, and in some contexts an act of genocide
- Creating an extensive evidentiary record — testimonies, documents, forensic evidence — that serves as a historical archive against denial
Where the ICTY Fell Short
Despite these achievements, many Bosniak survivors and human rights advocates have pointed to significant shortcomings:
Acquittals That Shocked Victims
Several high-profile acquittals were deeply painful for Bosniak communities. The appeals chamber's acquittal of Croatian generals Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač, and particularly the acquittal of former Serbian president Vojislav Šešelj on most counts, were seen by many as failures of justice. The acquittal of Naser Orić, a Bosniak commander, on separate charges, demonstrated the tribunal's attempt at impartiality, though victims on all sides questioned various outcomes.
Deaths Before Justice
Several key accused died before their trials concluded. Slobodan Milošević, the former president of Serbia and Yugoslavia who had been indicted for genocide and crimes against humanity, died in his cell in 2006 before a verdict was reached — denying victims a final judgment against the man many considered most responsible.
Sentences Felt Inadequate
Many survivors and families felt that sentences handed down — even life sentences — could never be proportionate to the scale of suffering inflicted. The tribunal also had no authority to order reparations to victims, leaving economic justice entirely unaddressed.
Limited Reach Within Bosnia
The ICTY's work was largely distant and technical, conducted in The Hague and communicated poorly to local populations. Many Bosniak survivors never fully engaged with or understood the proceedings.
The Work That Continues
War crimes prosecution in Bosnia has continued through the War Crimes Chamber of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, established with international assistance. Hundreds of cases have been processed at this national level, though the court faces ongoing challenges including inadequate witness protection, political pressure, and a backlog of cases.
Civil society organizations — particularly victims' associations — continue to advocate for comprehensive truth-telling processes, improved reparations frameworks, and an end to genocide denial. For many, legal justice and political acknowledgment must go hand in hand if genuine reconciliation is ever to take hold in the region.