The violence perpetrated by the Ustasha organization during the Second World War primarily affected the Serb, Jewish, and Roma ethnic communities, while thousands of Croat, Muslim, or other antifascist opponents of the regime also fell victim to terror. The sheer magnitude of destruction made the issue of postwar retributive justice an inescapable task for the People's Liberation Movement (Narodnooslobodilački pokret—NOP) under the command of Josip Broz “Tito.” Already at the second congress of the Antifascist Council for the National Liberation of Yugoslavia (Antifašističko veće narodnog oslobođenja Jugoslavije) in late November 1943, the revolutionary authorities therefore decided to create the State Commission for the Establishment of Crimes Perpetrated by the Occupiers and their Helpers in the Country (Državna komisija za utvrđivanje zločina okupatora i njihovih pomagača u zemlji; hereafter, the Commission) to investigate war crimes and thus provide evidence that could be used in legal proceedings. The initiative was not intrinsic to the NOP but should be seen as part of the decision of the Allies at the Tripartite Conference in Moscow in October to try and sentence war criminals rather than resort to summary executions. The agreement stipulated that all those who had committed war crimes stand trial in the countries where the offenses had been perpetrated, while the major war criminals would have their cases heard by an international military tribunal.

Even though similar commissions and tribunals were established throughout Europe, the Yugoslav experience is particularly relevant in light of the country's violent dissolution in the 1990s. The fact that tribunals and “truth commissions” became an integral element of many postconflict resolution initiatives at the end of the twentieth century, with the establishment of the permanent International Court of Justice standing as the p innacle of this process, points to the need for a better understanding of the way in which such institutions have functioned in various political contexts. From a historian's perspective, the fact that tribunals have often been given the role as the creators of an “authoritative interpretation” of the past is considered crucial because of the predominant view that reconciliation can only be achieved through remembrance and the acknowledgment of crime.