HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Sparr, L. F. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Sparr, L. F.

Mental Incapacity Defenses at the War Crimes Tribunal: Questions and Controversy

Dr. Sparr is Associate Professor of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. Address correspondence to: Landy F. Sparr, MD, MA, Department of Psychiatry (OP02), Oregon Health and Science University, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Road, Portland, OR 97201. E-mail: sparrl{at}ohsu.edu

Following a report from the Secretary General in May 1993, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 827 and its Statute establishing an International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) located in The Hague, The Netherlands. Although such action has been discussed in the past, this is the first time the international community has established a tribunal to indict and try individuals for war crimes. The crimes had been previously "created" by multilateral international treaties. The ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence allowed for "any special defense, including that of diminished or lack of mental responsibility." Precise legal parameters of the defense were not specified. In 1998, a defendant at the ICTY "Celebici" Trial named Esad Landzo raised the defense of diminished mental responsibility. The Celebici Trial Chamber thus became the first legal body to consider reduced mental capacity as it applies to international criminal law. This article is an examination of the application of the affirmative defense of diminished responsibility at the ICTY and relates the process to the need for further definition of mental incapacity defenses at the newly established International Criminal Court (ICC). At the ICC preparatory commission, drafting material elements of crimes was emphasized, with less consideration given to mental elements. That diminished capacity and diminished-responsibility defenses have often confused scholars and practitioners alike is explored in this article with suggestions for further directions.