The acquittal of Momčilo Perišić (former Chief of the Yugoslav Army General Staff, right hand of Slobodan Milošević during the Balkan wars) received a loud echo both in the affected countries and in the international media in 2013. His acquittal was based on an Appeal Judgement including an unconvincing interpretation of aiding and abetting liability. The author of the present paper discusses the judicial reasoning provided by the Appeals Chambers of the ICTY before the Perišić Appeal Judgement was delivered and demonstrates how negligence of judicial chambers can build case law which leaves the door wide open to highly debatable judicial conclusions. The paper briefly presents the 14-year story of the application of the concept of aiding and abetting liability by the ICTY Appeals Chambers, from the 2000 Aleksovski Appeal Judgement to the 2014 Sainović Judgement.
The paper reflects on academic literature on the international normative and institutional framework related to hate crimes. Various theoretical and pragmatic issues have been discussed by academic authors, such as the challenges coming with the obligation of states to record hate crimes or to conduct efficient investigation, the limits of the potential impact of international review mechanisms, or the aims and content of resolutions adopted by international institutions and judgments delivered by the European Court of Human Rights. However, a wide range of practical and conceptual issues related to the existing international standards and the efficiency of international review mechanisms remain to be discussed in the academic sphere.