TFL Vsebine / Zbornik znanstvenih razprav

Članek obravnava teorijo skupnega hudodelskega podviga, ki jo je Mednarodno kazensko sodišče za nekdanjo Jugoslavijo (MKSJ) obravnavalo kot del običajnega mednarodnega kazenskega prava in kot obliko udeležbe. Teorijo je sodišče podrobneje razvilo v svoji praksi in oblikovalo tri oblike skupnega hudodelskega podviga: osnovni, sistematični in razširjeni. Osnovno obliko je opredelilo kot udeležence, ki delujejo v smeri skupnega načrta in ki imajo vsi enak naklep, eden od njih pa izvrši hudodelstvo. V kategorijo sistematične oblike sodijo koncentracijska taborišča, kjer je uveljavljen sistem mučenja in zlorab. Najbolj sporna pa je razširjena oblika, po kateri je posameznik odgovoren, čeprav ni osebno izvršil hudodelstva, če je le-to bilo naravna in predvidljiva posledica delovanja skupnega hudodelskega podviga.

This article addresses the theory of joint criminal enterprise. Joint criminal enterprise was considered as a part of customary international criminal law. International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) also ruled that joint criminal enterprise was based on first paragraph of article seven, which regulates participation in crime. ICTY developed this theory in its case law and designed three types of joint criminal enterprise: basic, systematic and extended, which were first briefly mentioned in the case Tadić and later elaborated. ICTY defined basic joint criminal enterprise as participants, acting pursuant to a common design, who posses the same criminal intention and one of which executes the crime intended. Under the category of systematic joint criminal enterprise ICTY included the examples of concentration camps, where a system of ill treatment and torture is being organized. The most notorious and questionable is of course the third form of joint criminal enterprise, where a person could be charged as a perpetrator of a crime, even though he did not personally execute it and even though this crime was not a part of common plan, if he participated in joint criminal enterprise and the crime was a natural and foreseeable consequence of the joint criminal enterprise.