Was there any indication for a genocide in the Bosnia war from 1992-1995?

Oh, there's absolutely indication that they intentionally committed genocide.

In fact, it's internationally recognized as such today.

If you'd like background on the conflict itself, please check this thread here.

Edit: I realized it might be helpful to give you the account of what actually happened in Srebrenica, to make it more effective in explaining how the conclusions were made. My mistake, I don't know if you actually know them!

In 1993, the UN protection force in Bosnia (UNPROFOR) was tasked with protecting "safe areas". One of these safe areas was the Muslim enclave around Srebrenica. In March of 1994 (after agreeing in October 1993), the main force of the Dutch was deployed under UN command to this enclave. One company was stationed in the city, the other in the Potocari compound outside Srebrenica.

On the 5th of July, 1995, General Mladic of Republika Srpska (basically, the Bosnian Serb army) attacked the enclave. On the 11th of July, they took the city, and the Dutch troops in the city retreated to the Potocari compound. This caused a mass exodus from the area, with 5,000 staying inside the Potocari compound and around 27,000 outside. UN command determined that these people would have to be evacuated, so the Dutch commander began negotiating with Mladic for the evacuation. The Dutch also chose to expel the 5,000 staying inside the compound, which they have accepted responsibility for as being partially responsible for the deaths of those people. Over the next two days, Mladic's forces removed all the people outside and inside the compound via bus and truck, saying they were helping in the evacuation as promised. While they were removing them, they also conducted executions of men who were around military age, and rapes of women. Local UN employees were unharmed generally speaking, if they had UN cards (contrast this with the Rwandan genocide, where the Belgian troops were targeted gruesomely to get the UN to withdraw).

As people were getting onto the buses and trucks that were going to Bosniak-held territory, the men of military age were separated out. Some younger and older were also separated out, even as young as 14. They were killed, executed.

Witnesses also noted cruel killings of children who were crying, women, and other forms of sexual abuse and torture.

Some buses never made it to the Bosniak territory, and were seen driving away from the Bosniak territory, though it had women on it (not military age men, like the other killings). It's assumed that those on the buses who didn't make it were all killed.

The Serbs have admitted that they planned and carried out mass executions of the men of military age, which is damning evidence of genocide.

To get into some of the international recognition, first, before I explain why it was regarded as a definite genocide:

So we know that there's a pretty sizable agreement that this was a genocide. Even the UN Secretary General agreed it was a genocide.

Now, how do we know it was definitely a genocide? Let's look at some documents on the subject.

First, the US Congress resolution on the subject says this:

Whereas Bosnian Serb forces deported women, children, and the elderly in buses, held Bosniak males over 16 years of age at collection points and sites in northeastern Bosnia and Herzegovina under their control, and then summarily executed and buried the captives in mass graves;

This is pretty crucial. The fact that they separated males over 16 years of age and then summarily executed them is evidence of premeditation in carrying out the massacre. Now, how is this a genocide? Alone, it might not be considered as such, because it's not carried out with the intent to destroy the whole group, or they'd have killed women, children, and the elderly. However, the genocide convention that defines genocide says this:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

There are a few things to note here. There is the question of preventing births, there is the question of destroying in part a group, which is clearly done in Srebrenica, and there is the question of severe physical and bodily harm done.

Now, let's look at the ICJ case.

The ICJ, while clearing Serbia of genocide, notes that it failed to prevent genocide. That is a de facto admission that it was a genocide. How did they reach this conclusion?

Its decision, for the record, said this:

The Court concludes that the acts committed at Srebrenica falling within Article II (a) and (b) of the Convention were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina as such; and accordingly that these were acts of genocide, committed by members of the VRS in and around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995.

Now, again, how did they determine this to be genocide?

The case itself is long [PDF Format!], so I'll try to slim it down for you to the important bits if I can. Of course, I recommend you read it; there's a lot of information I won't be able to cover.

At the same time, it also endorses the observation made in the Krstic´ case that “where there is physical or biological destruction there are often simultaneous attacks on the cultural and religious property and symbols of the targeted group as well, attacks which may legitimately be considered as evidence of an intent to physically destroy the group."

This observation was made by the ICTY.

Now here's where it gets into the nitty-gritty. Page 190, if you're following along.

The Court pretty summarily rejects most arguments that relate to a lowering of the birth rate via male/female separations, rape, etc. It doesn't accept these arguments as constituting the genocide. However, it did examine the Srebrenica Massacre, on page 164 (it's mentioning the Appeals Chamber decision).

By seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims, the Bosnian Serb forces committed genocide. They targeted for extinction the forty thousand Bosnian Muslims living in Srebrenica, a group that was emblematic of Bosnian Muslims in general. They stripped all the male Muslim prisoners, military and civilian, elderly and young, of their personal belongings and identification, and deliberately and methodically killed them solely on the basis of their identity. The Bosnian Serb forces were aware, when they embarked on this genocidal venture, that the harm they caused would continue to plague the Bosnian Muslims. The Appeals Chamber states unequivocally that the law condemns, in appropriate terms, the deep and lasting injury inflicted, and calls the massacre at Srebrenica by its proper name: genocide.

This is pretty damning. The court, in examining the actions of those involved, found this. And yes, that is how it went down. The men, as I said, were separated out, and killed in mass executions. Over 20% of the town's population was killed by the time it was over. Muslims were specifically targeted. Those who were deported or otherwise detained were either subjected to harsh conditions as refugees (as the Serbs knew they would be) or were held in camps that the ICJ notes were detestable in conditions and cleanliness and food/water provided.

There's little doubt that there was every indication for a genocide in Srebrenica today, and though the Serbian government has never officially said so (likely due to pride), it's a fairly clear-cut thing to most everyone who studies the issue. I highly suggest you look at the events themselves again and you'll see what I mean. However, just looking at the attempt to destroy a part of the population (the military age men, though it is also said that it was all men), it qualifies as a genocide under the Genocide Conventions.

Sources not cited in-text:

KILLINGS AT SREBRENICA, EFFECTIVE CONTROL, AND THE POWER TO PREVENT UNLAWFUL CONDUCT Tom Dannenbaum The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 61, No. 3 (JULY 2012), pp. 713-728