Ishodište je rada u pravomoćnoj oslobađajućoj presudi za ubojstvo Aleksandra Labe 19. studenoga 1991. godine u Vukovaru. Analiza kvalifikacije djela kao ratnog zločina protiv civilnog stanovništva naspram ratnog zločina protiv ratnih zarobljenika polazi od tumačenja pojma ratnog zarobljenika te ocjene o primjenjivosti Ženevskih konvencija i dopunskih protokola. Pritom se mogu izdvojiti tri moguća pristupa u sudskoj praksi: (1) ocjena da je u relevantno vrijeme sukob bio nemeđunarodni, pa je blanketnu normu potrebno dopuniti primjenom zajedničkog čl. 3. Ženevskih konvencija i Dopunskog protokola II; (2) ocjena da je sukob bio međunarodni, pa se primjenjuje Ženevska konvencija III i Dopunski protokol I ili (3) bez obzira na ocjenu sukoba blanketnu normu dopuniti primjenom odgovarajućih odredbi Ženevskih konvencija. Slijedi analiza postupaka označenih kao poticanje na ratni zločin i razmatranje kažnjivosti poticanja u konkretnom slučaju. Zakonit kazneni postupak imperativ je naspram pravnoj hipokriziji o nezastarivosti ratnih zločina. The paper is based on and inspired by the final acquittal for the murder of Aleksandar Laba on November 19, 1991 in Vukovar. The analysis of the qualification of the crime as a war crime against civilians versus a war crime against prisoners of war starts from the interpretation of the concept of prisoner of war and the assessment of the applicability of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols. Three possible approaches in the case law can be singled out: (1) an assessment that at the relevant time the conflict was non-international, so the blanket norm needs to be supplemented by the application of Art. 3. of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II; (2) an assessment that the conflict was international, so that Geneva Convention III and Additional Protocol I apply; or (3) regardless of the nature of the conflict, supplement the blanket norm by applying the relevant provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The second part of the paper consists in an analysis of the procedures marked as incitement to war crime and a consideration of liability for incitement in a particular case. Legal criminal proceedings are imperative in the face of legal hypocrisy on the non-expiration of war crimes.