http://blog.b92.net/blog/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/ Lucy Moore sr http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss rss@b92.net rss@b92.net Blog A-JE! RSS generator v0.3 Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:46:18 +0000 http://blog.b92.net/user_stuff/avatars/mali/92/4092.jpg http://blog.b92.net/ 50 50 http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#k178186
I think the court is useful in establishing facts. Nowadays nobody denies that thousands were killed in Srebrenica for example - as many did in the years immediately after 1995. At least in the future we won't have discussions like Jasenovac where the estimates of the death count vary between a few thousand and some 750,000.

But the court has been much less successful in the "why" question. It didn't help of course that the only theory they pursued was the "Great Serbia" theory. They could do more to establish what went along on the lines of military hierarchy on all sides.

If you believe that Croatia and Bosnia wanted to drive out their Serbs than those Serbs were justified to wage war against that. Even if they did horrible things that doesn't make the war on itself illegal. I think that ICTY can only give us a very small glimpse of what was discussed in Belgrade, Zagreb, Sarajevo and Pale. It may take decades - if ever - before we know what really happened. Until that time the nations of former Yugoslavia will have to live with the fact that they disagree on what happened.

In Bosnia great efforts have been made to establish an accurate death count. I would have loved it if such an effort had been broadened to a kind of truth commission that publishes every year a handsome book (800 pages max) with an overview of what has been found out about the wars. It should use the material of the ICTY as a basis but should also be able to interogate people.

Another problem is the international community. They played a role from the very beginning. But it is very secretive about its own role: what considerations lead to the recognition of Slovenia and Croatia? Who initiated it? What about American and other foreign military support for Croatia and Bosnia? These questions need to be answered too. Unfortunately the United States demands very often secrecy when one of its officials have to testify. ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#komentari Mon, 18 Feb 2008 11:34:06 GMT Wim Roffel http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/ http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#k42019 The question of the perplexed locals (“How can a team of foreigners make sense of events locals themselves cannot explain?”) pales in comparison with more puzzling questions that no one seems to ask. Here are some
of the most interesting:

-How is it possible that UNSC, an organ of The United Nations without the judiciary powers, can establish it's auxiliary body and relegate the judiciary powers to it, although UNSC does not possess the judiciary powers under The UN Charter?

- How ICTY, an auxiliary organ of UN, formed with the political objective ("to stop Serbian aggression" can claim to be institution of jurisprudence?

-ICTY's mandate covers the period from January 1990 to the present date to punish the war crimes on the territory of former Yugoslavia How come ICTY never investigated, charged, processed and incarcerated foreign nationals and NATO members responsible for crime against peace, the penultimate crime of Nuremberg Tribunal? Especially having in mind that ICTY likes to call itself "the biggest war crimes tribunal since Nuremberg"


- The budget and time allocation of ICTY is some 50 times higher than of sister tribunal ICTR. However, the number of civilians killed in Rwanda is significantly higher than in former Yugoslavia (approx. 15:1) How this paradox can be explained with the usual self-styled humanitarian rhetoric?


- What was the reason Canadian Prosecutor was sacked from the ICTY? Does it have to do something with ICTR, i.e. specific investigation on the role of American agencies in killing Rwandan and Ugandan presidents that started the havoc in Rwanda? If true, how ICTY can claim being impartial, when American and German involvement in fomenting and exacerbating Balkan tragedy is a part of historical record?


- When Swiss Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte was elected into ICTY in 1999, Switzerland was not a member of The United Nations (joined in 2002). How is that possible?


- The statute of ICTY is neither Anglo-Saxon nor Continental, but mix of both, to the detriment of the accused. It neither has a jury (Anglo-Saxon) nor prescribed codified law. The procedure can change at a whim of a tribunal, and often does, because judiciary and legislative powers are not separated in this tribunal. How come that self-styled defenders of human rights are silent about this open violation of the universal human rights.

-In one high profile case, defendant was left to die in the cell without being given adequate emergency medical assistance. Cell was monitored 24/7. This is a case of torture with fatal outcome. Again, why are self-styled humanitarians silent when Sheveningen is more deadly than Guantanamo Bay?

- What happened with high profile ICTY personnel after leaving ICTY? Did they continue their legal careers? Judging from their example, who made a right decision - they for joining it, or those who ran away after learning what ICTY is all about?

Those nine questions resemble the nine chapters of a book on duplicity, racism and moral relativism. Fifty or hundred years from now, people will judge us on ICTY, the same way we judge Nazi Germany on People's courts or Soviet Union on Moscow processes.

One who does not want to be judged harshly, has to speak up now, while it is still relevant.
]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#komentari Mon, 20 Aug 2007 20:45:58 GMT Bob Petrovich http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/ http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#k28611
Like Ms. Moore, I heard countless witnesses tell tales of atrocity to the court (these are called "crime base witnesses" in ICTY-speak), but unlike Ms. Moore I followed the proceedings on a daily basis, and what I saw in the Milosevic trial was deeply disturbing.

The prosecution spent very little time presenting evidence related to the acts and conduct of Milosevic. Instead they focused most of their energy on presenting crime base witnesses, most of whom had no useful evidence against Milosevic personally.

Take the example of Ana Bicanic (and she is by no means the only witness I could use for an example), she is a Croatian woman from Saborsko whose house was blown-up and her husband killed (execution-style) during the war. When asked if the perpetrators of this crime were members of the JNA, reservists or T.O. she said, "How should I know what they were? But they had military uniforms on. They had real military uniforms on."

Certainly Ms. Bicanic tells a sad story, but its a story that had nothing to do with Milosevic. No evidence was ever presented that linked Milosevic to the destruction of her house or the killing of her husband or to any of the events in Saborsko. The witness didn't know who killed her husband or blew-up her house, all she knew was that the perpetrators wore grey camoflague uniforms and "spoke with a Serbian dialect".

Her testimony was nothing more than a general accusation against the Serbs. She said, "The Serbs were very happy when they were doing this (killing her husband and blowing-up her house), because that's what they wanted, to have Greater Serbia and to destroy whatever they could destroy."

Unfortunately, evidence of that sort was commonplace at the Milosevic trial. Witnesses would come and testify that some (usually anonymous) Serb did this or did that to them, often times accusing their civilian Serbian neighbors of committing crimes against them.

It would be one thing if the prosecution had followed-up this type of evidence with evidence linking Milosevic to the crime(s) in question, but evidence regarding Milosevic's acts and conduct was in conspicuously short supply. To any fair-minded person watching his trial, the proceedings appeared to be more of a collective witch-hunt against the Serbs than a criminal trial of an individual.

The ICTY turned Slobodan Milosevic into the defender of Serbdom. General accusations against "the Serbs" were common at his trial, and all he had to do to turn himself into a hero in the eyes of many Serbs was rebut the general accusations that were being made, not against him, but against the Serbian people as a whole.

The ICTY set-back the cause of international justice and brought itself into disrepute by allowing such a farce to go on in the first place. I don't see how demonizing "the Serbs" (or any other group) with nebulous allegations of atrocities is going to help the process of ethnic reconciliation in the Balkans. If anything, the ICTY's conduct has been harmful to ethnic reconciliation. ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#komentari Mon, 23 Jul 2007 22:20:55 GMT AWilcoxson http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/ http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#k25396
Those who killed civilians should be punished and that is the law. But how can we speak about JUSTICE if Naser Oric is free (just as an example). In his case the LAW may have been served but not the JUSTICE.

And to even dig further, separation of Croatia may have been JUSTIFIED but not LEGAL according to the constitution of SFRJ and the international law since it was an internal affair of a country recognized by UN. So JUSTICE and LAW are not synonyms. We can rationalize and discuss what is LEGAL but please restrain yourself from trying to convince anybody what is JUST. It is rather personal point of view.

And just to add...even what is LEGAL serves day-to-day political trends/interests/etc. As an example take the case of Lord Conrad Black in Chicago. Many legal experts claim that he should have been found not-guilty. Equally large number says he was guilty. In my opinion that trial is also result of a current political interest as was Enron, MCI WorldCom etc. And so is ICTY. But let us wait 20-30 years from now and see what will history have to say from that distance. ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#komentari Mon, 16 Jul 2007 20:29:34 GMT Sofroniye http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/ http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#k25169
I, too, don't see this as a complication BTW. Real complications would arise if a US citizen were indicted by the Court. That would be the true test. For example, if some EU country were to actually arrest Harry Truman and hand him over to the ICC for prosecution

I have to say, I am partially sympathetic to the current US position. Many states have non extradition clauses in their Constitutions. Is a sovereign state expected to violate its own Constitution (of 200+ years no less) in order to comply with some international treaty? I think no self-respecting superpower would accept that. ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#komentari Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:38:42 GMT oldtajmer http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/ http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#k25046 http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#komentari Mon, 16 Jul 2007 06:17:16 GMT Lucy Moore http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/ http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#k25034
And the final thing that makes me think of the court as patronizing is exactly how much those lawyers and judges are paid. When Carla Del Ponte sports a Louis Viton (sorry for spelling, but I obviously don't own one), you know that something is not right. And the fact that she acts as superior to the elected officials of the Balkan countries also bothers me. Nobody voted her into position.

Well, obviously I have a lot of opinions about this. But, I think that it is good that you posted your perspective and description of the Hague. Again, thank you for that.... ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#komentari Mon, 16 Jul 2007 03:49:41 GMT Sneska http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/ http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#k24956 http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#komentari Sun, 15 Jul 2007 16:52:31 GMT Michael http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/ http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#k24884
First, the UN established the ICTY in 1993, two years after the start of Yugoslavia’s violent dissolution and two years before Bosnia would see any kind of peace. At the start, it would have been absolutely impossible to organize any form of courts, investigations, or legal proceedings internally. Even now Bosnia is a long way from providing the inner structure needed for the kind of work done by the Tribunal as ethnic divisions are still entrenched in the very structure of Bosnia's presidency and government.

Then you have the issue of “Us versus Them.” As you pointed out, were I Bosnian, Croat, Serb or Albanian I would have had a specific bias in examining the court, one that, try as I might, I could not avoid, just as, try as I might, I will never know what it is like to see the ICTY, the current state, or the region’s recent history from the perspective of a individual from the former Yugoslavia. Given the inherent presence of bias, an internal court would give rise to a “Us versus Them” along lines already drawn and bloodied in the 1990s, lines far more volatile than those between an “Us versus Them" in which "Them" is the somewhat removed EU and UN. Such division would not only prove unstable but would also undermine any establishment of fact. I am sure the people of Croatia and the Bosnian Federation would see court officials in, say, a Serbian-run case against Vojislav Šešelj as the same “Them” as Šešelj himself, just as the people of Serbia and Republika Srpska would likely perceive the same of a Croatian court trying Ante Gotovina. (For case details on Šešelj, Gotovina, and other inditees see http://www.un.org/icty/cases-e/index-e.htm)

Then you have the witnesses. Appearing before the court in The Hague is an intimidating undertaking. Just imagine how much worse it would be for a Kosovo Albanian to appear before a Serbian court in Belgrade.

But unfortunately, you are right. I did detect an almost constant sense of hierarchy between the internationals and those from the region. Some aspects of this dynamic are impossible to avoid. After all, you have a court filled with internationally selected judges and lawyers – some of the best in their fields – questioning soldiers, policemen, farmers, and small business owners from the region for whom the workings of a court is not their expertise. While the structure of the court dictates that kind of relationship, it does not wave lawyers and judges of the obligation to learn pronunciations, a small detail but one that only sends a message of disrespect for the people already somewhat forced into the role of subject to an experiement in international law. ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#komentari Sun, 15 Jul 2007 07:39:26 GMT Lucy Moore http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/ http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#k24824
But, after reading it all, I still thought...Hague is not about justice. I am not saying that the idea of it wasn't about the justice, but that the practical dealings and how it is being run doesn't seem to be about justice and especially NOT about helping future generations to live together. If the international political pressure was used to push each Balkan country into prosecuting its own generals and war criminals, this would have been better because it would lead to not being able to blame someone else, "them," as unjust and it would force to have more discussion of the crimes within the countries in whose name they were committed. However, as you said, with Hague far away, nothing of its substance comes to Zagreb or Belgrade or Sarajevo but the fact that the country is being blackmailed to extradite its citizens in order to become part of the western world.

It feels patronizing to me, as if all those judges and lawyers say, "They are not capable of handling it on their own, so we will do it for them." I am convinced that this isn't the case and that those proceedings could have been organized on the local soil. Not to say that local court procedings wouldn't be difficult, but not impossible.

Did you feel like it was patronizing? Helping the people who are obviously in the need of guidance and little bit irrational and too emotional? Or is this my bias, in your opinion? ]]> http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/#komentari Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:45:32 GMT Sneska http://blog.b92.net/text/464/The%20ICTY%3A%20Justice%20in%20a%20box/