|Appeal Judgement - 08.10.2008||
Martić claimed that his actions were in response to persecution of the Serb population by the Croatian authorities. Accordingly, he submitted defences of reciprocity or tu quoque; reprisal; and self-defence.
The Appeals Chamber held that reciprocity or tu quoque could not be used to justify a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
109. Martić argues that Serbs in SAO Krajina, for historical reasons, had a right to claim self-determination in accordance with international law and that instead of being able to exercise this right, they ended up being persecuted by the Croatian authorities in the 1990s in a way similar to the persecutions and massacres of Serbs by Croats during the 1940s.
111. To the extent that Martić’s argument is an attempt to plead a defence of tu quoque, i.e., to plead that the acts for which he was found responsible should not be considered criminal because they were in response to crimes committed against him and his people, it must be rejected. It is well established in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal that arguments based on reciprocity, including the tu quoque argument, are no defence to serious violations of international humanitarian law.
 Defence Appeal Brief, paras 80-85 and 91. See also AT. 41-42.
 See, for example, Kupreškić et al. Trial Judgement, paras 515-520, as confirmed by Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 25.
|Decision on Command Responsibility - 16.07.2003||
HADŽIHASANOVIĆ et al.
19. The Appellants argue that international law developed to regulate the relations between States on the basis of reciprocity and that command responsibility for acts committed in the course of an internal conflict does not raise any questions of reciprocity. The Appeals Chamber does not consider that the matter depends on notions of reciprocity. In the course of development, States have come to consider that they have a common interest in the observance of certain minimum standards of conduct in certain matters; this includes certain aspects of conduct in an internal armed conflict. To that extent, internal armed conflict is now the concern of international law without any question of reciprocity.
 Interlocutory Appeal, para. 39.
 See Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, I.C.J.Reports 1951, p. 23; and Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, I.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 112 and 114.
|Appeal Judgement - 12.11.2009||
250. […] Moreover, with respect to Milošević’s allegation that the bombing was “a legal response to ABiH attacks”, the Appeals Chamber re-emphasizes that reciprocity or tu quoque defence may not be used to justify a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
 Martić Appeal Judgement, para. 111; Kupreškić et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 25.