6

(e) imprisonment;

(f) torture;

(g) rape;

(h) persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds;

other inhumane acts.

(i) Article 2

Article 2 of the Statute is drawn from the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Geneva Conventions)¹ and, more specifically, those provisions of the Conventions which mandate the criminal prosecution of those responsible for "grave breaches" of their terms. In 1949, this regime of universal jurisdiction and mandatory prosecution or extradition was regarded as limited to breaches of the provisions of the Conventions which concerned international armed conflicts, as opposed to conflicts which were determined to be internal in character. While article 3, common to each of the four Conventions, enunciated basic prohibitions in relation to internal armed conflicts, the mechanism for enforcement established in the "grave breaches" provisions was not considered to extend to common article 3. It must be emphasised that this did not preclude a State from prosecuting an individual for violations of common article 3, but merely rendered States under no obligation to do so.

Until relatively recently, the mechanisms for prosecuting individuals for "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions remained remarkably untested. By incorporating the terminology of the Conventions into the Statute of the International Tribunal, however, the debate surrounding the exact scope of the "grave breaches" regime has been reopened. Many voices have been raised in support of an extension of these provisions to incorporate internal armed conflicts as well as international armed conflicts, the former category being of far greater incidence than the latter, and developments in international law rendering any strict division along these lines wholly artificial. Within the International Tribunal itself and in the context of its particular Statute, there remains some debate on the matter. While the majority of the Appeals Chamber, in a Decision on Jurisdiction, in the case of Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic² (Tadic case), expressed the view that Article 2 of the Statute should only be applied in the context of a conflict determined to be international in nature, Judge Abi-Saab, in a Separate Opinion, advocated its applicability also in internal armed conflicts. Similarly, in their final Judgement in the case of Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic, Hazim Delic and Esad Landzo ³ (Delalic et al. case), Trial Chamber II, while finding the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina to have been international throughout 1992, suggested, obiter dicta, that violations of common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions should now be considered as "grave breaches" of the Conventions.

1. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, of 12 August 1949; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, of 12 August 1949; Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, of 12 August 1949; Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949.
2. Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, IT-94-1-AR72.
3. Judgement, 16 November 1998, IT-96-21-T.