{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011235955056179775, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.415254237288136, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: Planners and Instigators or Foot Soldiers?

The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg prosecuted the most infamous criminals of the Nazi regime whereas the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has brought to trial only two of the ‘big guns' of the Balkans conflicts. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of the ICTY in fulfilling its mandate to prosecute those most responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during the conflicts of the Former Yugoslavia. The research combines a literature-based assessment of the ICTY together with focused interviews of the main decision-makers in the Office of the Prosecutor, and seeks to assess the factors involved in the initiation of investigations and the selection of individuals for indictment. The independence and autonomy of the Prosecutor is identified as one of the most significant factors in the selection of indictees, but whilst the highest ranking individuals were always the main targets for indictment by the Office of the Prosecutor, the findings suggest that a weak mandate, inadequate resources and indifference by the international community forced the hand of the Prosecutor into indicting lower level suspects. Further ad hoc tribunals are planned by the United Nations and the lessons learned from the experience of the ICTY are essential if they are to administer international justice effectively.