202 DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE table of contents Paragraphs I. PROLEGOMENA 1-5 II. The Regrettable Delays in the Adjudication of the Present Case 6-18 1. Procedural delays 6-13 2. Justitia longa, vita brevis 14-18 III. Jurisdiction : Automatic Succession to the Genocide Convention as a Human Rights Treaty 19-49 1. Arguments of the Parties as to the applicability of the obligations under the Genocide Convention prior to 27 April 1992 19-21 2. Continuity of application of the Genocide Convention (SFRY and FRY) 22-23 3. Continuity of State administration and officials (SFRY and FRY) 24-25 4. Law governing State succession to human rights treaties : Ipso jure succession to the Genocide Convention 26-33 5. State conduct in support of automatic succession to, and continuing applicability of, the Genocide Convention (to FRY prior to 27 April 1992) 34-36 6. Venire contra factum proprium non valet 37-41 7. Automatic succession to human rights treaties in the prac- tice of United Nations supervisory organs 42-49 IV. The Essence of the Present Case 50-54 1. Arguments of the contending Parties 50-52 2. General assessment 53-54 V. Automatic Succession to the Convention against Geno- cide and Continuity of Its Obligations, as an Imperative of Humaneness 55-84 1. The Convention against Genocide and the imperative of humaneness 55-64 203 7 CIJ1077.indb 402 18/04/16 08:54 203 application of genocide convention (diss. op. cançado trindade) 2. The principle of humanity in its wide dimension 65-72 3. The principle of humanity in the heritage of jusnaturalist thinking 73-76 4. Judicial recognition of the principle of humanity 77-82 5. Concluding observations 83-84 VI. The Convention against Genocide and State Responsi- bility 85-95 1. Legislative history of the Convention (Article IX) 85-91 2. Rationale, and object and purpose of the Convention 92-95 VII. Standard of Proof in the Case Law of International Human Rights Tribunals 96-124 1. A question from the Bench : the evolving case law on the matter 97-99 2. Case law of the IACtHR 100-115 (a) Cases disclosing a systematic pattern of grave viola- tions of human rights 100-112 (b) Cases wherein the respondent State has the burden of proof given the difficulty of the Applicant to obtain it 113-115 3. Case law of the ECHR 116-121 4. General assessment 122-124 VIII. Standard of Proof in the Case Law of International Criminal Tribunals 125-148 1. Inferring intent from circumstantial evidence (case law of the ICTR and the ICTY) 126-130 2. Standards of proof : rebuttals of the high threshold of evi- dence 131-138 (a) Karadžić case (2013) 131-133 (b) Tolimir case (2012) 134-136 (c) Milošević case (2004) 137-138 3. General assessment 139-148 IX. Widespread and Systematic Pattern of Destruction : Fact-Finding and Case Law 149-194 1. United Nations (Former Commission on Human Rights) fact-finding reports on systematic pattern of destruction (1992-1993) 150-158 2. United Nations (Security Council’s Commission of Experts) fact-finding reports on systematic pattern of destruction (1993-1994) 159-175 (a) Interim report (of 10 February 1993) 160-161 204 7 CIJ1077.indb 404 18/04/16 08:54 204 application of genocide convention (diss. op. cançado trindade) (b) Report of a mass grave near Vukovar (of 10 January 1993) 162-163 (c) Second interim report (of 6 October 1993) 164-165 (d) Final report (of 27 May 1994) 166-175 3. Repercussion of occurrences in the United Nations Second World Conference on Human Rights (1993) 176-179 4. Judicial recognition of the widespread and/or systematic attacks against the Croat civilian population — Case law of the ICTY 180-194 (a) Babić case (2004) 181 (b) Martić case (2007) 182-186 (c) Mrkšić, Radić and Sljivančanin case (2007) 187-190 (d) Stanišić and Simatović case (2013) 191-194 X. Widespread and Systematic Pattern of Destruction : Massive Killings, Torture and Beatings, Systematic Expulsion from Homes and Mass Exodus, and Destruc- tion of Group Culture 195-241 1. Indiscriminate attacks against the civilian population 196-205 2. Massive killings 206-216 3. Torture and beatings 217-226 4. Systematic expulsion from homes and mass exodus, and destruction of group culture 227-236 5. General assessment 237-241 XI. Widespread and Systematic Pattern of Destruction : Rape and Other Sexual Violence Crimes Committed in Distinct Municipalities 242-276 1. Accounts of systematic rape 243-249 (a) Croatia’s claims 243-248 (b) Serbia’s response 249 2. Systematic pattern of rape in distinct municipalities 250-258 3. The necessity and importance of a gender analysis 259-276 XII. Systematic Pattern of Disappeared or Missing Persons 277-319 1. Arguments of the Parties concerning the disappeared or missing persons 277-283 2. Responses of the Parties to questions from the Bench 284-290 3. Outstanding issues and the Parties’ obligation to establish the fate of missing persons 291-294 4. The extreme cruelty of enforced disappearances of per- sons as a continuing grave violation of human rights and international humanitarian law 295-309 5. General assessment 310-319 205 7 CIJ1077.indb 406 18/04/16 08:54 205 application of genocide convention (diss. op. cançado trindade) XIII. Onslaught, Not Exactly War, in a Widespread and Systematic Pattern of Destruction 320-421 1. Plan of destruction : its ideological content 320-353 (a) Arguments of the contending Parties 321-328 (b) Examination of expert evidence by the ICTY 329-335 (c) Ideological incitement and the outbreak of hostilities 336-353 2. The imposed obligation of wearing white ribbons 354-358 3. The disposal of mortal remains 359-374 4. The existence of mass graves 375-389 5. Further clarifications from the cross-examination of wit- nesses 390-394 6. Forced displacement of persons and homelessness 395-406 7. Destruction of cultural goods 407-421 (a) Arguments of the contending Parties 408-414 (b) General assessment 415-421 XIV. ACTUS REUS : Widespread and Systematic Pattern of Conduct of Destruction : Extreme Violence and Atro- cities in some Municipalities 422-458 1. Preliminary methodological observations 423-426 2. The systematic pattern of acts of destruction 427-428 3. Killings members of the Croat population (Article II (a)) 429-439 4. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (Article II (b)) 440-448 5. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life cal- culated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (Article II (c)) 449-454 6. General assessment of witness statements and conclusions 455-458 (a) Witness statements 455-456 (b) Conclusions 457-458 XV. MENS REA : Proof of Genocidal Intent by Inference 459-471 1. International case law on mens rea 461-466 2. General assessment 467-471 XVI. The Need of Reparations : Some Reflections 472-485 XVII. The Difficult Path to Reconciliation 486-493 XVIII. Concluding Observations : The Need of a Comprehensive Approach to Genocide under the 1948 Convention 494-524 206 7 CIJ1077.indb 408 18/04/16 08:54 206 application of genocide convention (diss. op. cançado trindade) 1. Evidential assessment and determination of the facts 497-507 2. Conceptual framework and reasoning as to the law 508-524 XIX. Epilogue : A Recapitulation 525-547 * I. PROLEGOMENA 1. I regret not to share the position of the Court’s majority as to the determination of the facts as well as the reasoning conducive to the three resolutory points, nor to its conclusion of resolutory point No. 2, of the Judgment it has just adopted today, 3 February 2015, in the present case concerning the Application of the Convention against Genocide, opposing Croatia to Serbia. My dissenting position encompasses the adopted meth- odology, the approach pursued, the whole reasoning in its treatment of issues of evidential assessment as well as of substance, as well as the con- clusion on the Applicant’s claim. This being so, I care to leave on the records the foundations of my dissenting position, given the considerable importance that I attach to the issues raised by Croatia and Serbia, in the course of the proceedings in the cas d’espèce, in respect of the interpreta- tion and application of the 1948 Convention against Genocide, and bear- ing in mind that the settlement of the dispute at issue is ineluctably linked, as I perceive it, to the imperative of the realization of justice. 2. I thus present with the utmost care the foundations of my own entirely dissenting position on those aspects of the matter dealt with by the Court in the Judgment which it has just adopted, out of respect for, and zeal in, the faithful exercise of the international judicial function, guided above all by the ultimate goal precisely of the realization of justice. To this effect, I shall dwell upon the relevant aspects concerning the dispute brought before the Court which form the object of its present Judgment, in the hope of thus contribut- ing to the clarification of the issues raised and to the progressive development of international law, in particular in the international adjudication by this Court of a case of the importance of the cas d’espèce, under the Convention against Genocide, in the light of fundamental considerations of humanity. 3. Preliminarily, I shall address the regrettable delays in the adjudica- tion of the present case, and, as to jurisdiction, the automatic succession of the 1948 Convention against Genocide as a UN human rights treaty, and the continuity of its obligations, as an imperative of humaneness (principle of humanity). Once identified the essence of the present case, I shall consider State responsibility under the Convention against Geno- cide.