A Case Study of Rape and Sexual Assault in the Judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (Akayesu and Musema) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (Celebici, Furundzija, Kunarac, Todorovic, Skirica and Kvocka)
![handle is hein.journals/eyesicc1 and id is 54 raw text is: Leo Van den hole
A Case Study of Rape and Sexual Assault
A CmSnuoyOP RAPE& AND. L~sLT Nw THE JuOMNSFH 1NTUAT's otmowmsaum
rm wAN~(AKAYEsu Am Musev~a) AND THE 1Na&~4~wAT~~NLr~ oE
Yt-;AAA(sm, uummA, KuNARAC, Tow w. FSA AND KvoA
ov LEa VAN DEN HazL
Introduction
Victim FWS-75, a Muslim women aged about 25 years at the time, was hiding in the woods with other villagers, including
her father, mother and brother, when her village was attacked by Serb forces on July 3, 1992. The villagers were shot at when
trying to flee from the arriving soldiers. Three of the villagers, including FWS-75's mother, were shot while running away.
Once they were captured by the Serbs, men and women were separated, and the women taken downhill to Buk Bijela, a
settlement south of Foca, located south-east of Sarajevo in Bosnia-Herzegovina. That same day, the Serb soldiers transported
FWS-75 from Buk Bijela to the Fo~a High School, and later to the Partizan Sports Hall. During her stay in the Partizan
Sports Hall, FWS-75 was taken out almost every night and brought to apartments, where she was raped by Serb soldiers. I
In the end of July 1992, FWS-75 was removed from the Partizan Sports Hall and transferred to an abandoned house, located
about 13 kilometers west of Fo~a. FWS-75 spent about three months in the house. She was repeatedly raped.2
In the end of October 1992, she was handed over to a man named Radomir Kova6. He kept FWS-75 and other girls in his
apartment. FWS-75 and the other girls were required to take care of the household chores, the cooking and the cleaning. The
girls were constantly raped, humiliated and degraded. They were beaten, abused and threatened by the other occupants of the
apartment. FWS-75 could not and did not leave the apartment without one of the Serb soldiers accompanying her. When the
soldiers were away, she and the other girls were locked in the apartment with no way to get out. FWS-75 was sometimes
taken out for a couple of days, during which she was gang-raped by groups of Serb soldiers.3
* This article is based on a paper that the author wrote under the supervision of Prof. 1). Philip Alston at NYU Law School in December 2002. The
views expressed in this article are personally attributable to the author and in no way engage Prof. Alston, N UY Law School, the ICTY or the ICTR.
The author thanks Mr. Venkatesh Prasad for the proofreading.
The cases are referred to as: Judgment ICTR-96-4-T of September 2, 1998, Prosecutor v. Jean Paul Akayesu, hereinafter referred to as Akayesu Trial
judgement, Judgment IT-96-21-T of November 16, 1998, Prosecutor v. /ejnil L)elali6, /dravko Mucic, Hazim Delic and I sad ]Lando, hereinafter
referred to as Celebji Trial Judgment; Judgment IT-95-17/1-T of December 10, 1998, Prosecutor v. Anto Furundiija, hereinafter referred to as
Fmur~nd@a Tdia/Judgmev;, Judgment ICTR 98 39 S of February 5, 1999, Prosecutor v. Omar Scrushago, hereinafter referred to as Setushago Trial
Jidgmne;i, Judgmmnt I' 95 16 of January 14, 2000, Prosecutor v. Zoran Kuprelic, 1\irjan Kuprelic, Vlatko Kuprc,,li, Drago Josipovik, Dragan
Papic and Vladimir Santic, hereinafter referred to as Ki/pre'ki TralfJudgment, Judgment ICTR-96-13-T of January 27, 2000, Prosecutor v. Alfred
Musema, hereinafter referred to as _Iusema Tialjudgmeni, Judgment ICTR-98-39-A of April 6, 2000, Prosecutor v. Omar Serushago, hereinafter
referred to as Serushago Appeals judgment, Judgment IT-95-17/1 - of July 21, 2000, Prosecutor v. Nnto Furundiija, hereinafter referred to as Furundoja
AppealsJudgmentJudgmcnt IT96 21 A of February 20, 2001, Prosecutor v. Zcjnil Dclali, Zdravko Muck, Ilazim Deli and Esad Land~o, hereinafter
referred to as Celebit Appeals Judgmenl, Judgement IT 96 23 T & IT 96 23/1 T of February 22, 2001, Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir
Kovac and Zoran Vukovik, hereinafter referred to as Kunarac Tia/fJudgemen;t, Judgment IT 95 14/2 T of February 26, 2001, Prosecutor v. Dario
Kordic and Mario ( erke,, hereinafter referred to as Kordi TrialJuidgment, Judgment IT-95-10-A of July 5, 2001, Prosecutor v. Goran Jelisic,
hereinafter referred to as jehisi'Appeas judgment, Judgment IT-95-9/1-S of July 31, 2001, Prosecutor v. Stevan Todorovi6, hereinafter referred to as
Todomvi, Sentendicg judgment, Judgment IT 98 33 T of August 2, 2001, Prosecutor v. Radislav Kstic, hereinafter referred to as Krsiti TialJudgmvent,
Judgment IT 98 30/1 T of November 2, 2001, Prosecutor V. Miroslav Kvoka, Milojica Kos, Alado Radik, Zoran Zigi6 and Dragoljub Prca6,
hereinafter referred to as Kvocka Tdia/Judgmen, Judgment IT 95 8 S of November 13, 2001, Prosecutor v. Du,,ko Sildrica, Dami Doen and Dragan
Kolundiija, hereinafter referred to as Sikirica Sentening judgmenP Judgment ICTR-96-13-A of September 16, 2001, Alfred Musema v. Prosecutor,
hereinafter referred to as AIusema AppealsJldgment, Judgment IT-97-25-T of March, 15, 2002, Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnoelac, hereinafter referred to
as Kniojelac TialJudgment, Judgment IT-96-23 & IT-96-23/1-A of June 12, 2002, Prosecutor v. Dragoliub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran
Vukovic, hereinafter referred to as Kuniarac Appeals Judgemnenit..
SKinara Trial judgement, paras. 162-165, 636-656 and 670.
2 Kniarac Tial judgement, paras. 173-174.
3 Kuarac Ttial Judgement, paras. 747 759.
Volume 1 Number 1 2004
54 Eyes on the ICC](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/eyesicc1&div=6&collection=journals&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most