In its judgment issued on 17 January 2005, in Prosecutor v. Vidoje Blagojević and Dragan Jokić, Trial Chamber I, Section A, found that genocide had been committed against the Bosnian Muslim population following the fall of the Srebrenica ‘safe area’ in July 1995. The Trial Chamber's findings that forcible transfer, when combined with other acts, can constitute an underlying act of genocide (namely, causing serious mental harm to members of a group) contributes to a growing body of jurisprudence on genocide. The Trial Chamber found the accused guilty of such serious crimes as complicity in genocide, extermination, persecutions and murder. It determined that the appropriate mode of liability for each was aiding and abetting rather than committing through participation in a joint criminal enterprise, Accordingly the Trial Chamber sentenced Vidoje Blagojević to 18 years' imprisonment and Dragan Jokić to nine years' imprisonment.

2004 marks the tenth anniversary of both the start of the genocide in Rwanda and the establishment of the ICTR by the UN Security Council. In the past decade the ICTR has operated slowly but progressively, and it has delivered some insightful case law. Legal issues continue to arise, however, in the practice of the ICTR. This article considers some of these issues, namely the vagueness of the indictment, complicity in genocide, and the nexus requirement for war crimes. The overview shows that in various instances the ICTR has relied on pivotal case law of the ICTY. Moreover, it is demonstrated that, on occasion, the case law of the ICTR has been somewhat inconsistent. Nevertheless, the ICTR's case law is a next step in the building of a sound international criminal law system, and there will certainly be more opportunities for the ICTR to contribute. These contributions will only be worthwhile, however, if the ICTR's output continues to be of high quality.