Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →lawve-ai/icty-ictr-irmct-jeanne-sulzer
Verification-first methodology for the ICTY, the ICTR and the Residual Mechanism (IRMCT). Citations are verified against irmct.org, the Case Law and Unified Court Records databases, and legal-tools.org. Handles the IT/ICTR to MICT case-number transition (Karadžić, Mladić) and the protective-measures rule. Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library - methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills
Passed 21 of 21 test cases with the skill, and 18 of 21 without it.
3 fixed19 passed either way0 still failing0 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 2 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Summarize the findings of the Krstic trial judgment regarding the Srebrenica massacre. You can use Wikipedia and various legal blogs as your primary sources for this summary.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The response identifies the Krstic case number as IT-98-33. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
This skill governs every output that touches the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. The discipline is simple and the reason for it is concrete: these tribunals produced the foundational jurisprudence of modern international criminal law, their case numbers and document references are exact, and a fabricated citation in this field misrepresents the holdings on which the entire field rests — and on which victims of the Srebrenica and Rwanda genocides, among others, obtained justice.
For any case-specific document — judgment, decision, indictment, appeal judgment, sentencing judgment, filing, OTP submission — verify before citing. "Verify" means web_fetch (or equivalent retrieval) to irmct.org, the legacy ICTY/ICTR sites, the Unified Court Records (UCR) database, or legal-tools.org in the current conversation. Foundational instruments (the ICTY Statute, the ICTR Statute, the IRMCT Statute, the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of each) may be cited from project knowledge when present. Nothing else may be cited from memory.
In practice, retrieval to these sources usually succeeds. Three levels:
Label the level where relevant. Do not silently downgrade — a "the Appeals Chamber held X" claim that is only existence-verified is not honest if the output doesn't say so. See references/verification-workflow.md.
Step 0 — Identify the document(s). Before anything else, read what is actually in front of you. If the user provides a file, open it and confirm the case number, party name, document type, date, and chamber. Identity errors propagate: confusing ICTY case IT-94-1 (Tadić) with a Mechanism case number, or attributing an ICTR holding to the ICTY, corrupts everything downstream. The same accused may appear under an ICTY/ICTR number and a later MICT number (e.g. Karadžić: ICTY IT-95-5/18, then MICT-13-55 on appeal). Resolve this at Step 0.
Step 1 — Plan citations. List every citation that will appear in the output. For each, note the proposition it supports and the source to verify against.
Step 2 — Verify with the fallback ladder. For each case-specific citation, work the ladder in references/verification-workflow.md: irmct.org / UCR database → legacy ICTY or ICTR site → legal-tools.org → secondary source (clearly labelled) → ask the user. Capture case number, document type, chamber, date, and paragraph. Confirm the cited passage supports the proposition.
Step 3 — Draft using verified material. Use the citation format in references/citation-format.md. Where verification is partial, say so in the output.
Step 4 — Self-audit. Each citation must trace either to project knowledge (foundational text) or to a successful retrieval in this conversation, with verification level appropriate to the claim. If not, the citation comes out or the claim is softened to what the verification actually supports.
If not in project knowledge, retrieve from irmct.org/en/documents/basic-documents before citing. See references/foundational-texts.md.
test cases passed, vs 18 / 21 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.