While the failure to arrest persons indicted for war crimes is attributable to the FRY and Croatia, as well as to the Bosnian Serb and Bosnian Croat factions under their control, the Security Council, as may be concluded, also failed to take any measures within its competence to enforce compliance with the Tribunal's warrants.(62) Given the presence of more than 50,000 IFOR troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina, such hesitancy is surprising, to say the least, and has been consistently supported by IFOR's claims that its mandate does not include the arrest of persons indicted of war crimes.(63) Despite the absence of explicit provisions regarding the apprehension of indictees, the DPA clearly confers legal authority upon IFOR to carry out arrests should it decide to do so.
Quite apart from the DPA, it has been rightly argued that IFOR is bound to search for and apprehend persons indicted for war crimes under the 1949 Geneva Conventions (Conventions) and Additional Protocol I (Protocol) to those Conventions, to which the troop contributing states are parties.(68) To give credence to the claim that IFOR itself is not a party to those instruments and is therefore not obliged to comply with their norms would defeat the purpose of international humanitarian law.(69) This interpretation would absolve states of their duties under the Conventions and the Protocol, including the duty to search for and bring to justice persons suspected of grave breaches, every time forces were pooled for collective action.