Reading the ruling on Croatia's claims, the ICJ determined that the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) and Serb forces targeted the Croatian population, a group protected under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, ICJ President Peter Tomka said.
However, the ICJ found that although crimes were undoubtedly committed, those crimes were not motivated by genocidal intent, and hence dismissed Croatia's lawsuit against Serbia.
Tomka said that the court concluded that crimes against the Croatian population had been committed with the intent to ethnically cleanse the areas which were to have been annexed to a Serbian state, but not with the intent of genocide.
To establish that genocide has been committed, it is necessary to establish that crimes amounting to genocide have been committed and that there has existed intent to commit genocide.
The ICJ also dismissed Serbia's counter-suit of genocide allegedly committed against the Serb population during the Storm military action.
The court determined that crimes and abuse had occurred during the Storm action but that these were not of a genocidal scale.
The ICJ determined that there had not been unselective shelling of cities during Operation Storm and that intent of genocide was not found in the Brijuni transcripts.
One might conclude that the Croatian leadership could have known that the operation would result in the population fleeing, that it would consider this to be a favourable outcome and not do anything to prevent it. Even if this conclusion were correct, this is far from proving intent of genocide, Tomka said.
Serbia's counter-suit was dismissed unanimously while Croatia's suit was dismissed with 15 votes for and two against.
Croatia in 1999 sued Serbia for alleged genocide over the Croat population in four years of war. Serbia in turn filed a counter-suit in 2010, accusing Croatia of genocide over the expulsion of local Serbs during the 1995 Storm military operation.