I have been asked by a moderator to open a thread on this:
Speaking in terms of international law, the investigation's conclusion was that all participants, including even the Romanians, have recorded instances, i.e. have violated the international obligations when it comes to the laws and customs of fighting war on land and treating the wounded. It is because of this that subsequently, during World War I, the idea to internationally-sanction prosecution of suspected war criminals was raises (in 1917 I think) - after due to the Balkan Wars becoming evident that the countries are and will be violating the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, i.e. pay no heed to sanctioning those who commit those internationally-unlawful acts.
It would be very difficult to speak of individual atrocities, since there are so many. A very huge number has been determined by the investigation. As for the general conclusion on the armies' conduct, it was concluded that most of the atrocities and in general were not there due to the regulars, but the irregular, paramilitaries. It is also pointed out that it was not a mere war between warring countries, but a war between nations, in which actually peoples fought against other peoples (as a whole), pointing out that it is crucial in the understanding of not only the causes and the characteristics of the war but the huge amount of (innocent) bloodshed recorded in it. According to the investigation, it is "populations" that mutually slaughtered and exacted ferocity upon each other on the basis of historically-imprinted hatreds. The report points out that the general desire, whether implicit or explicit, was altogether that the enemy deserves extermination and no mercy; the basis of which lied in the prior conflicts and the customs of 19th century (and earlier) Balkan warfare.
Edited by Yugoslav - 01-Aug-2013 at 21:05