CRITICAL REVIEW ON PUNISHMENT IN PRACTICE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA AFTER THE PRLI？ CASE

Sa？etak When judging a sentence, the court applies certain rules that are prescribed by national criminal law. Likewise, in international law, legal sources regulate rules relating to punishment of penalties. As the relevant circumstances for the punishment of the sentence, the ICTY has listed the gravity of the criminal offense, the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the general practice of punishment in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Given the fact that the deliberations of the panels in the overwhelming number of cases expressed the view that the most important element to be taken into account when judging the exact gravity of the criminal offense, the analysis of the ICTY’s current practice on the sample of judgments taken in consideration in this paper suggests that international criminal law recognizes the difference in legal weight as regards the difference between the offense of war crime and crimes against humanity. The basic task of the ICTY was to bring suspects and persons responsible for violating international humanitarian law before the justice. The ICTY wanted to ensure justice to victims, prevent and prevent revisionism, but also contribute to establishing peace and encouraging reconciliation in the territory of the former Yugoslavia. The results of the ICTY Judgment Analysis point to a conclusion on the failure to meet the defined purpose of this international institution. With enough arguments, it can be concluded that there are serious inconsistencies in the part of the Court that specifically deal with the level of the sentence. The same circumstances are differently assessed; the rules that apply vary from case to case, or from council to council