An op ed on the ICJ ruling and Milosevic:
I don't really agree with this statement though:
The court's judgment has broad implications. It amounts to a posthumous
acquittal of Mr. Milosevic for genocide in Bosnia.
For one, as other analysts have explained the ICJ ruling does not have a direct correspondence to Milosevic's guilt or not guilt. Only the judges in the Milosevic ICTY case know how the evidence that was introduced (including the evidence that was submitted in closed session) was perceived by then.
This of course does not mean that the judges would not have found Mr. Milosevic not guilty of genocide. While most analyses that I've looked at noted that the prosecution proved the other 60 odd crimes against humanity and war crimes Milosevic was accused of, there have been debate amongst legal experts and Balkan specialists over whether the prosecution proved the intent to destroy, that is necessary to commit genocide.
The point however is that the ICJ ruling can not be read as an absolute sign that Milosevic would have, or would not have, been acquitted of genocide.
Of course, whether he would have been given the distinct honor of being labeled a genocidaire by an international court is a moot point now that his case is null and void; and with the exception of a curious mixture of ultra-nationalists right wing extremists; and ultra-leftists extremists; Milosevic is still a mass murderer.