[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”9px|||||” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_padding=”||0px|||” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n
Reflecting on the decision-making environment surrounding criminal sentencing in the context of unspeakable crimes against humanity and war crimes in Gaza, which can plausibly be considered a genocide<\/a>, is both defeatist and hopeful. It is defeatist because contemplating the sentencing process for those responsible for the slaughter in Gaza implies an acceptance that we, as a global community, have once again failed to prevent \u2018the crime of crimes\u2019. However, it is also hopeful because considering sentencing for genocide and war crimes suggests that we can hold those responsible to account and deliver a measured punishment based on individual guilt, thereby instilling some fear in those who feel untouchable.<\/strong><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” header_3_font=”Mojca-123-slo|–et_global_heading_font_weight|||||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Modern criminal procedure is intentionally designed as a rational, objective, and predictable institutional response to criminal acts that cause harm and disruption to victims and the community. While each crime and criminal process is unique, they are also managed through seemingly routine institutional procedures. Particularly sentencing, as the final stage of the criminal process, focuses on determining a sentence based on rational and formulaic weighing and measuring of the gravity of the crime, the culpability of the defendant, and other aggravating and mitigating factors. But how do you weigh and measure the act of genocide, supported by horrific acts of mass starvation, scholasticide, domesticide, bombing of hospitals\u2026?<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row column_structure=”1_2,1_2″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” locked=”off” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”1_2″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_cta button_text=”Click Here” _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” background_color=”#E02B20″ background_enable_image=”off” custom_margin=”78px|||||” custom_padding=”32px|||||” global_colors_info=”{%22gcid-primary-color%22:%91%22button_text_color%22,%22button_text_color%22%93}”]<\/p>\n The public generally perceives sentencing decisions as a routine function of the state apparatus and rarely disagrees with them<\/span><\/p>\n [\/et_pb_cta][\/et_pb_column][et_pb_column type=”1_2″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” custom_margin=”1px||||false|false” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][et_pb_row _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n An important consequence is that this method transforms the final act of the criminal process into anything but a spectacle (despite its public and sometimes heavily publicised nature). It distances victims and communities from their potential desire for revenge, while still allowing for catharsis. It also reduces the perpetrator to a mere individual whose actions and behaviours are dispassionately compartmentalised into boxes prescribed by the law. Such an unemotional conclusion to a criminal process is especially notable in cases involving violent and mass crimes, such as crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide, which evoke stronger demands for revenge and are inherently sensational.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” header_2_font=”Mojca-123-slo|–et_global_heading_font_weight|||||||” header_3_font=”Mojca-123-slo|–et_global_heading_font_weight|||||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/inst-krim.si\/sentrix\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/palestine-7360944_1280.jpg” title_text=”palestine-7360944_1280″ _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n In recent times, genocide has been most impactfully adjudicated at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR<\/a><\/span>) and its counterpart, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY<\/a><\/span>). As these were ad hoc tribunals established internationally, the decision-making environment<\/a><\/span> surrounding the sentencing processes was anything but stable, predictable, or routine.<\/p>\n The tribunals were formed within the context of the United Nations as a direct response to the outrage of the international community over the atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Judges, prosecutors, and defence attorneys<\/a><\/span>, operating in both English and French, who came from diverse countries and legal cultures, worked on a specific trial for years as part of large teams. The trials themselves occurred decades after the criminal acts they addressed. Beyond the institutional setting, the stakes and pressure were significantly higher than most of the actors involved had ever experienced in their lives, particularly regarding the interests and expectations of the affected communities (and states), the global public, and the media.<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n Nonetheless, when reading the sentencing paragraphs of judgments with guilty verdicts for genocide and viewing their proclamation, one is struck by how ordinary they are in their structure, diction, and presentation. In every judgment, the judges take special care to make sentencing decisions appear rational, formulaic, unsurprising, measured, in other words, normal. This helps create an image of a typical outcome in a standard criminal trial, despite the extraordinary nature of the matter and the circumstances in which the sentencing was passed. There was no separate sentencing hearing at the two tribunals, and the judges had considerable discretion in determining sentences for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. After thousands of pages of detailed descriptions of the atrocities (which began long before the end of the trial), the judges first outline the relevant law for sentencing and then provide a concise explanation of how they applied it to the case at hand. Being limited to prescribing a prison sentence of up to life or\/and restitution, the judges had to consider the gravity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the convicted person, including mitigating and aggravating factors.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” header_2_font=”Mojca-123-slo|–et_global_heading_font_weight|||||||” header_3_font=”Mojca-123-slo|–et_global_heading_font_weight|||||||” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\n [\/et_pb_text][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.27.4″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”]<\/p>\nThe rational and routine sentencing process<\/strong><\/h3>\n
<\/h3>\n
\n
Sentencing a genocide<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\n
Judgement in the Mladic case<\/strong><\/em><\/h3>\n