WELCOME TO IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 458, June 23, 2006 REGIONAL COOPERATION HELPS BRING WAR CRIMINALS TO JUSTICE In a relatively unsung success story for transitional justice in the Balkans, officials in Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia are getting together to share information and evidence. By Drago Hedl in Osijek COURTSIDE: KRAJISNIK TESTIMONY COMPLETE Bosnian Serb politician returns to the dock after nine weeks in the witness stand. By Adin Sadic in The Hague MARTIC: PROSECUTORS REST THEIR CASE Testimony concerning the 1995 shelling of Zagreb ends five months of evidence against former Croatian Serb leader. By Janet Anderson in The Hague BRIEFLY NOTED: TAYLOR ARRIVES IN THE HAGUE JUDGES APPROVE WITHDRAWAL OF CONTEMPT CHARGES PROSECUTORS SEEK TO SEVER TRBIC CASE TRIBUNAL TIGHTENS RULES ON SESELJ SUBMISSIONS DETENTION PERIOD EXTENDED FOR BOSNIA SUSPECTS SUSICA COMMANDER TRANSFERRED TO ITALIAN PRISON ****************** VISIT IWPR ON-LINE: www.iwpr.net *************** PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW ADDRESS & PHONE NUMBERS: 48 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7831 1030 Fax: +44 (0)20 7831 1050 RSS: http://www.iwpr.net/en/tri/rss.xml FREE SUBSCRIPTION. Readers are urged to subscribe to IWPR's full range of electronic publications at: http://www.iwpr.net/index.php?apc_state=henh&s=s&m=p ****************** VISIT IWPR ON-LINE: www.iwpr.net *************** REGIONAL COOPERATION HELPS BRING WAR CRIMINALS TO JUSTICE In a relatively unsung success story for transitional justice in the Balkans, officials in Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia are getting together to share information and evidence. By Drago Hedl in Osijek A meeting in Belgrade last week between Serbia's war crimes prosecutor and Bosnia's state prosecutor received scant attention in the press. But it is a further sign of an important trend in the Balkans, which has seen increasing cooperation in recent years between officials in Serbia, Bosnia and Croatia to help bring to justice those who were responsible for crimes in the bitter conflicts of the Nineties. Until recently, such teamwork between these former enemies would have seemed inconceivable. In the past, state prosecutors have struggled to get access to other countries' wartime archives and witnesses travelling to neighbouring states to testify have in some cases been subject to harassment and humiliation at the hands of local nationalists. But today observers say regional cooperation has become a cornerstone of transitional justice in the Balkans. Cooperation of this kind between Serbia and Croatia is founded on accords signed in 2001 and 2005, intended to advance efforts to tackle organised crime and war crimes. While the first agreement set out the basic principles that were to govern cooperation between the two countries, the second established a more structured framework for how this cooperation would proceed. Under the terms of these accords, Zagreb and Belgrade are required to exchange intelligence and other documents and information that could help efforts to investigate war crimes. Given that so many regional agreements in the past have collapsed with little to show for them, the general opinion was that these outward signs of collaboration were intended as little more than a fig leaf to satisfy the international community. This impression was reinforced by the circumstances which led to the signing of another key agreement between Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro in 2004, envisaging direct cooperation between their respective prosecution services. In this case, the document came into being at a meeting of experts at Palic Lake, under the watchful eye of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE. But despite the doubts, officials and observers today say the results of all this work have been impressive. "The main purpose of these agreements was to ensure quick and efficient cooperation, especially when it comes to the exchange of intelligence, information and documents," Martina Mihordin, a spokesperson for Croatian attorney general Mladen Bajic, told IWPR. "These accords have enabled the prosecutors' offices to work closely together. The results we have achieved so far are excellent, and we communicate on a daily basis." This kind of cooperation has played an important part in Croatia's investigation of war crimes allegedly committed by Croat fighters against Serbs in the eastern city of Osijek in 1991. In November last year, the Osijek district attorney was able to travel to Belgrade to take part in hearings designed to elicit evidence from witnesses now living in Serbia, which could then be used in the ongoing work by the Croatian prosecutors. The witnesses testified before a Serbian judge, with the Osijek prosecutor also getting a chance to ask questions of them. "Without such cooperation, war crimes could not be prosecuted," Ivo Josipovic, a professor at the Zagreb law faculty told IWPR. "It's a well known fact that quite often we have witnesses in one state and the indictees in another, as well as the evidence. So, without full support from the other state, which includes the exchange of data and locating witnesses, there cannot be efficient prosecution of war crimes." This is also well illustrated in the ongoing trial before the Vukovar District Court of 17 individuals accused of involvement in an incident in October 1991 which is considered to be one of the worst atrocities of the conflict in Croatia. Soldiers of the Yugoslav People's Army, JNA, are alleged to have made Croats from the village of Lovas walk though a minefield, resulting in 21 people being killed and 14 wounded. The lead defendant in the case, Milos Devetak, and a number of his co-defendants live outside Croatia, and the proceedings have stumbled on in their absence. In addition, the Croatian prosecutors have been forced to try to get by without access to the JNA archives, which are in Serbia. The trial is now into its fourth year and there have been concerns that at this rate, it might never reach its natural conclusion. But last year, Serbian war crimes prosecutors became involved in the case. A senior official within the Vukovar court told IWPR that their assistance was expected to be of great value. A spokesperson for Belgrade's war crimes prosecution service, Bruno Vekaric, confirmed that cooperation was also valued from Serbia's point of view. "Belgrade's war crimes court currently deals with more than 20 so-called 'regional cases'," he said. "Many of them are the result of cooperation between Serbia and Croatia." As a prime example, he cited trial proceedings linked to a video made public through the Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY, last year, apparently showing the murders of six Bosnian Muslims from Srebrenica by members of the notorious Scorpions paramilitary unit. Former Scorpions members have since gone on trial in Belgrade and Zagreb. Vekaric also noted "very extensive cooperation" in relation to recent trial proceedings in Croatia in which a number of former Croatian military policemen were convicted of abusing detainees in the Lora military prison in Split in 1992. The findings of guilt against the men came after the Croatian Supreme Court had overturned the results of a previous trial, which exonerated them. These earlier proceedings were dogged by problems - which were largely addressed in the re-run - including an unwillingness on the part of witnesses from Serbia to testify. Besides cooperation between Belgrade and Zagreb, Croatian and Serbian officials have also established a good working relationship with the public prosecutor's office in Sarajevo, judiciary spokespersons from all three countries told IWPR. According to an Associated Press report on last week's meeting between Serbian war crimes prosecutor Vojislav Vukcevic and Bosnia's state prosecutor Marinko Jurcevic, the two agreed that cooperation in relation to war crimes investigations is crucial. A statement by Vukcevic's office apparently said that Jurcevic had expressed satisfaction with efforts so far to work together in connection with "high risk" cases in both Belgrade and Sarajevo. ICTY prosecution spokesperson Anton Nikiforov confirmed that cooperation has improved in recent years and had reached a stage where "in our assessment, it is very good". "We take some credit for this," he added, explaining that Hague tribunal officials had been pushing for greater cooperation for some time, bringing officials from the countries of the former Yugoslavia together at various forums and then, about two years ago, pressing for them to start to help one another out independently of the tribunal. He acknowledged that there are still some problematic issues in this area, however, citing as an example the unwillingness of Serbia and Croatia in particular to extradite citizens suspected of war crimes to neighbouring countries to face trial. "We are concerned that there will be cases unanswered and unaddressed if this is not resolved," he said. He added that one possible solution in such situations is for case materials to be transferred to the country where the individual in question is a citizen, so that he or she can be tried there instead. Interstate cooperation in the field of transitional justice in the Balkans is not just limited to the sharing of information and evidence at an official level. Last year, Belgrade tried a number of individuals for involvement in the infamous massacre of people taken from the Vukovar hospital by JNA troops in November 1991. Thanks to the combined efforts of Serbian and Croatian non-governmental organisations, relatives of the victims were able to travel to Belgrade to observe the proceedings. In a gesture that was well received in Croatia, the Humanitarian Law Fund in Belgrade covered the costs of the trip. In addition, two groups of Serbian journalists travelled to Croatia in May and June this year in order to visit the public prosecutor's office and local courts, like those in Vukovar and Split, at which war crimes trials are being held. The aim of these tours - one of which was funded by the OSCE, the other by the American embassy in Croatia - was to provide the journalists with an insight into how the transitional justice process was progressing across the border. This autumn, again with the help of the OSCE, Croatian journalists are expected to make a similar trip to Serbia. Drago Hedl is an IWPR contributor in Osijek.
COURTSIDE: KRAJISNIK TESTIMONY COMPLETE Bosnian Serb politician returns to the dock after nine weeks in the witness stand. By Adin Sadic in The Hague Rounding up his marathon testimony as a witness in his own genocide trial, the former Bosnian Serb assembly speaker Momcilo Krajisnik continued to argue this week that Muslims instigated the conflict in Bosnia and that he was a powerless bystander to any crimes that might have been committed by Serbs. It was a hectic few days in court as all the parties sought to mop up outstanding issues. And questions from the prosecution, Krajisnik's own defence lawyers and the judges hearing his case touched on a diverse range of subjects. One focus was the question of how war broke out in Bosnia and whether a peaceful resolution could have been found for the problems at the root of the conflict. Krajisnik said that under the old Yugoslav order, he personally had been brought up in a traditional and religious family, and had always been taught to respect his Muslim and Croat neighbours even more than Serbs. But he argued that, in general, people of different ethnicities had mixed only because they were forced to do so by the communist authorities. The old slogan of "brotherhood and unity" was "just an illusion", he said, and as soon as war broke out, "we separated as water and oil". At the same time, he suggested that it was the Muslim community and its political leaders who were most to blame for the explosion of violence, as they sought to manipulate the new system in an attempt to "impose their will". "Before the war, Muslims were peaceful and honest people," he told the court, "and then suddenly they appeared radical." He claimed that the last ambassador of the United States to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Warren Zimmerman, had encouraged the Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic to reject the so-called Cutiliero peace plan, which he said the Serbs, Muslims and Croats had already agreed on. The Muslims were not overly interested in the outcome of such negotiations, he said, since they had achieved their aim of an internationally recognised Bosnia, and they were trying to cosy up to the international community and were hoping for a military intervention by NATO. "Muslims wanted to present themselves as victims," he said, claiming that they had even resorted to bribing foreign media organisations to paint them in a favourable light. During his testimony, Krajisnik repeated many times that the referendum held on February 29, 1992, which secured Bosnian independence was an "unconstitutional act". He admitted that a Serb-organised poll on the future of Bosnia in November 1991 was similarly unconstitutional. But he argued that that particular vote had only been conducted in order to allow his Serbian Democratic Party, SDS, to "check the legitimacy of its ideas". Krajisnik was asked to explain how it came about that the Bosnian Serbs in fact declared the existence of their own entity, the Republika Srpska, on January 9, 1992 - before the central authorities in Sarajevo held their referendum on the question of independence. In response, the accused insisted that at that stage, the RS was "just a fiction" and existed only on paper. He also said he personally had argued at the time that it should only be declared an entity in its own right if Bosnia was declared independent from Yugoslavia. It was other Serb deputies, he said, who had pressed for the formation of the new entity regardless of this outcome. Again this week, Krajisnik asserted that "ethnic cleansing" was not the best term to describe what happened in Bosnia after war broke out. Reports by the United Nations special rapporteur on human rights, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, about ethnic cleansing of non-Serbs from RS in 1992 and 1993 was "extremely one-sided", he said. Many Serbs and Muslims, Krajisnik argued, had in fact left their homes out of choice. "They signed the papers stating that they wanted to leave," he said of Muslim refugees, "and after that claimed that they were ethnically cleansed!" Krajisnik's testimony also touched on the scarcity of non-Serb officials in the ranks of RS authorities during the war years. "The door was always opened for Muslims," the accused insisted, adding that he personally was opposed to a decision by the Bosnian Serb assembly to expel non-Serb judges from the RS judiciary, but that there was nothing he could do to prevent it. He insisted that the Serb leadership would in fact have been pleased if non-Serb officials had decided to stay on, "because a monolithic single-ethnic administration was politically damaging for Serbs". At the same time, he claimed that Izetbegovic had "paid Serbs to remain in positions in Sarajevo with pure gold", purely to give the impression that the central authorities were in favour of a multiethnic society. A number of questions by Judge Claude Hanoteau touched upon Krajisnik's own powers as the speaker of the Bosnian Serb assembly. Judge Hanoteau asked the accused, for instance, whether he had ever intervened in parliament to address issues such as the existence of brutal Serb-run detention camps or the exodus of non-Serb judges, since the parliamentary procedure made clear that it was within his rights to do so. Krajisnik replied that no question or initiative could be placed on the assembly agenda without there being relevant material to hand, such as a report by a government body. At the same time, he was keen to make it clear that he had no real powers during the war years to issue orders to anyone or to punish anyone for their actions. "I could have done as much as ordinary citizen," he said. He added that at the time, much legislation was passed outside of the assembly. Ideas were simply drawn up by members of the government, he said, signed by the Bosnian Serb president Radovan Karadzic and then published as law without him having any knowledge. Also this week, the trial chamber rejected arguments by Krajisnik's defence team that a decision by the UN Security Council to extend the term of one of the judges hearing his case - Judge Joaquin Canivell - was invalid and that he should be forced to withdraw from the trial. The chamber ruled that the Security Council had acted properly in extending Judge Canivell's term. Adin Sadic is an IWPR intern in The Hague. MARTIC: PROSECUTORS REST THEIR CASE Testimony concerning the 1995 shelling of Zagreb ends five months of evidence against former Croatian Serb leader. By Janet Anderson in The Hague Prosecutors wrapped up their case against the former leader of the rebel Serb authorities in Croatia, Milan Martic, this week by calling witnesses to speak about their memories of the alleged shelling of Zagreb by his forces in early May 1995. The indictment against Martic says the assault on Zagreb was carried out in retaliation for Operation Flash, a successful attack by the Croatian army against Serb forces in Western Slavonia, and left seven people dead and some 200 wounded. Rockets carrying "cluster bomb" warheads are alleged to have landed in the heart of the Croatian capital, in its central commercial district. Allegations concerning this particular attack account for five of the 19 counts of crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war included in the indictment against Martic. The remainder of the charge sheet includes claims that he was responsible for the detention, torture, persecution, killing and deportation of civilians, and the plunder and destruction of villages in the Croatian and Bosnian Krajina regions from August 1991 until August 1995. "Up to that moment, Zagreb was a relatively safe and quiet city," Raseljka Grmoja said of the Serb shelling of the capital this week. The witness, who was in her second year at high school at the time, added, "From then on I didn't feel safe." Grmoja described how a shell that landed near her school had shattered window panes in the building, causing glass to penetrate her eye. During cross-examination, she said her school was ten to 15 minutes' walk from the nearest military facility. Another witness, Mina Zunac, described how she was forced to undergo ten operations after she was hit by a metal ball and other shrapnel whilst walking in downtown Zagreb. Grmoja and Zunac also spoke of the psychological trauma they suffered as a result of their experiences. Since Martic's trial got going in mid-January this year, the proceedings have been overshadowed by the death of one of the prosecution's star witnesses - Milan Babic, a former close confidant of the accused. Having admitted his own responsibility for crimes during his time as a senior Croatian Serb politician in the early Nineties, Babic had agreed to cooperate with the prosecution and provide important insider testimony. He committed suicide in March in the United Nations detention unit in The Hague, where he had returned from a prison abroad in order to give evidence against Martic. At the time of his death, he was in the process of being cross-examined by Martic's lawyers. Having led the armed rebellion by Serbs living inside Croatia in the early stages of the war there, Martic later overcame Babic in a power struggle to become the president of the self-declared Republika Srpska Krajina, RSK. During his time in the witness stand, Babic told the court that as a rebel leader, Martic was the first to use armed force to provoke his Croat enemies, and that he had drawn the Yugoslav People's Army, JNA, into the conflict to aid the Serb side. Babic's death was followed very soon after by that of Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav president, who suffered a heart attack in the same detention centre. Even beyond Babic's testimony in the Martic trial, the court cases of the three men had been closely linked. Babic had testified against Milosevic as a prosecution witness in 2002 and Martic was expected to appear as defence witness in the same trial. After Milosevic died, Martic was unable to attend court as a result of what doctors described as "a temporary psychological crisis". The problems recurred in May. In the meantime, Martic's lawyers have fought to have Babic's testimony excluded from the evidence against their client, pointing out that they had not completed their cross-examination of him when he died. The trial chamber disagreed that this made the whole of Babic's evidence invalid, but has allowed the defence to appeal its decision. Acknowledging the significance of questions surrounding Babic's testimony, the judges noted defence arguments that it is "the most important piece of evidence" against their client. The defence have argued that if the appeals chamber decides to exclude this evidence later, after a judgement has been issued against Martic, prosecutors could feel impelled to reopen their case. The prosecution, on the other hand, has said that the Babic testimony was "corroborated by other evidence". They have also underlined that the judges agreed that when determining Martic's guilt, they would only take into account sections of Babic's testimony which are backed up in this way. The appeals chamber has not yet formally heard the arguments from each of the parties on the matter. In the meantime, Martic's lawyers have asked for material collected during an internal inquiry into Babic's death to be made available to them in order to help them formulate their appeal. Having access to statements concerning Babic's state of mind, they say, could help them to form arguments concerning the reliability and credibility of his evidence. Other witnesses in the prosecution case included Peter Galbraith, who served as United States ambassador to Zagreb between 1993 and 1998. He gave testimony about how Martic refused to accept a peace plan that he and a Russian colleague tried to present in early 1995, which envisaged broad autonomy for the Serb population in the Krajina. Later that year, Croatian forces launched Operation Storm, during which tens of thousands of Serbs fled their homes in the Krajina. If Martic had accepted, said Galbraith, there would have been no Operation Storm, the Serb population would still be in the Krajina and he would quite possibly not now be facing war crimes charges. Prosecutors say Martic - who held various positions in the RSK between 1991 and 1995 - had command responsibility for the actions of a number of armed forces operating in the region. These include a police unit known as Martic's Men, as well as territorial defence forces who have been blamed for torture and countless killings and rapes. Witnesses gave graphic testimonies about vicious attacks on the villages of Saborsko and Skabrnja in mid-November 1991, which left at least 67 civilians dead, including many elderly people. According to the prosecution, these assaults were overseen by Martic as part of a campaign by Serb forces to ethnically cleanse non-Serb civilians from Croatia's Krajina region. At the time, he was interior minister for an entity known as the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina, SAO Krajina. A series of witnesses have also testified about the brutality of Serb police forces allegedly under the control of the accused, including the unit known as Martic's Men. One witness, who was arrested in 1991 along with more than 100 other Croats, described how he was beaten and tortured in a detention facility in Knin that was run by police who answered to Martic. In addition, the court has heard evidence that the various military and police forces operating in the RSK in Croatia were closely linked with the Serbian interior ministry and the police services of the Republika Srpska in Bosnia. The judges have set out a strict timetable for the start of the defence case, which is due to take place before the tribunal begins its summer break in mid-July. In the meantime, the defence have a standard opportunity to highlight any counts in the indictment which they think the prosecutors have failed to substantiate in the course of their case. If the defence are successful on this front, any such charges can be thrown out without the need to call evidence to counter them. The judges will rule on submissions on this matter on 3 July. A pre-defence conference will be convened in the case on July 7, and Martic's lawyers are due to begin presenting their own evidence on July 11. Janet Anderson is the director of IWPR's International Justice Programme in The Hague. BRIEFLY NOTED: TAYLOR ARRIVES IN THE HAGUE The former Liberian president Charles Taylor has arrived in The Hague to face trial on charges stemming from his alleged role in the civil war in Sierra Leone. Taylor's case will be heard by judges from the United Nations-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, SCSL, which originally indicted him in 2003. But the proceedings will be conducted using the courtroom and detention facilities of the International Criminal Court, ICC, in The Hague. SCSL officials have expressed concerns about stability in west Africa should the trial be conducted there. Taylor's transfer to The Hague came after the United Kingdom offered to host him for the duration of any jail term that he might have to serve if convicted. The Dutch government had said his trial could only go ahead there if a third country agreed to shoulder this responsibility. The former warlord and president is charged with 11 counts of crimes against humanity, violations of the Geneva conventions and other serious violations of international law. The charges relate to his alleged relationship with organisations operating in Sierra Leone, like the rebel Revolutionary United Front, which were responsible for atrocities including murders and widespread sexual violence. *** JUDGES APPROVE WITHDRAWAL OF CONTEMPT CHARGES Hague tribunal judges have given permission for prosecutors to withdraw contempt of court charges filed against three Croatian journalists in connection with the publication of the name and testimony of a witness who testified before the court under protective measures. The witness in question has since been formally publicly identified by the court as the current Croatian president Stjepan Mesic. In 1998, he gave evidence behind closed doors in The Hague, in war crimes proceedings against the former Bosnian Croat commander Tihomir Blaskic. In a submission filed on June 15, chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte argued that it would be "in the interest of justice and judicial economy" to withdraw the contempt of court proceedings against the three journalists, Stjepan Seselj, Domagoj Margetic and Marijan Krizic. Justifying this surprise move, she cited "increasing pressure" from judges to limit the scope of cases and to exercise "greater prosecutorial restraint". She also argued that the "true colours and full criminality" of the behaviour of Seselj, Margetic and Krizic could only be shown if they stood trial alongside a fourth journalist, Josip Jovic, who faces related charges. Judges had already said this could not happen and that Jovic, whose crimes are said to have been committed four years earlier and at a different newspaper, would have to face separate proceedings. The decision by the trial chamber to allow the charges against Seselj, Margetic and Krizic to be withdrawn was published on June 20. It included a separate written opinion from Judge Iain Bonomy, in which he agreed that it was within Del Ponte's rights to withdraw the charges, but launched a scornful attack on her arguments for doing so. Judge Bonomy said he completely rejected her first line of reasoning, relating to the recent pressure from judges to streamline cases. He said he understood this argument as referring to judges' concerns that some large, relatively unfocussed indictments are leading to long, difficult-to-manage trials, and are jeopardising efforts to complete the court's work within time limits laid down by the United Nations Security Council. But in fact, he argued, withdrawing the indictments against Seselj, Margetic and Krizic would do little or nothing to address this situation. Courtroom time, judges and prosecution staff had already been set aside to deal with the charges against the three in early July, he said, and cancelling the case would not lead to these resources being used for any other purpose. Concluding his written statement, he also called into question the prosecution's position that the most serious case was that against Jovic, as the first to allegedly violate the tribunal's rules in relation to Mesic's testimony. In light of this position, Judge Bonomy said, "It may be of some importance to explain in the course of the trial why he [Jovic] was not indicted until 2004 for conduct in 2000, and why indeed he was not indicted until several months after the indictment of Seselj and Margetic." Prosecution spokesperson Anton Nikiforov told a press conference that a full response to Judge Bonomy's comments would be provided in court. The charges against Jovic stand and proceedings against him are due to go ahead on July 3. *** PROSECUTORS SEEK TO SEVER TRBIC CASE Amid efforts to have war crimes charges against the former Bosnian Serb soldier Milorad Trbic transferred to the Bosnian court system, prosecutors have asked for his case to be severed from proceedings against seven other individuals awaiting trial in The Hague in connection with the July 1995 Srebrenica massacre. Under the current arrangement, Trbic is formally due to face trial in The Hague for his alleged part in the massacre along with his seven co-accused next month. The proceedings would then get going properly later in the year, after the tribunal's summer break. But judges are still considering the request, filed by the prosecution in May, for Trbic to be tried in Bosnia, instead. In a document filed on June 21, prosecutor Peter McCloskey revealed publicly that several days earlier, his office had asked confidentially for Trbic's case to be split from the proceedings against his co-accused. This latest move, he said, was intended to avoid the possibility that the outstanding motion to transfer him to Bosnia could delay the start of their trial in The Hague. It was necessary for the request to sever Trbic's case to remain under wraps, he said, "due to information of a sensitive and confidential nature contained or referred to in the filing". A ninth individual, Zdravko Tolimir, is also included on the same joint indictment as Trbic and his co-accused. He remains on the run. *** TRIBUNAL TIGHTENS RULES ON SESELJ SUBMISSIONS Tribunal judges have tightened the rules governing written submissions filed from the United Nations detention unit in The Hague by the charismatic ultra-nationalist Serb politician Vojislav Seselj, who delights in deriding the court whenever the opportunity arises. In his decision, published on June 19, Judge Alphons Orie noted that Seselj - who is accused of recruiting and financing Serb fighters, helping to plan expulsions and instigating crimes with his fiery speeches in the early Nineties - has filed a total of 169 written motions to the court since he flew to The Hague in 2003 to turn himself in. Noting the "prolixity of the accused's submissions, their patent lack of merit in general, the repetitiveness of their arguments, and the triviality of most of the issues raised", Judge Orie said the usual 3,000-word limit governing such filings would from now on be reduced to 800 words in Seselj's case. If the accused raised issues worthy of discussion, Judge Orie added, he would be given further opportunity to develop his arguments in writing or in court. The decision came just days after the tribunal's president, Judge Fausto Pocar, threw out a demand, addressed to him personally by Seselj, that "honourable Serbs" in the Hague prison be kept separate from those who have reached a plea agreement with the prosecution. Seselj argued that the presence of those who had cut a deal with prosecutors was irritating and that it obstructed other detainees' efforts to prepare for their defence. He also suggested that there was a possibility of violence if the two groups were not kept apart. Judge Pocar said requests for segregation ought to be put to the commanding officer of the tribunal's detention unit, and that the rules anyway only allow a detainee to ask for himself be segregated, not others. He added that Seselj's claim that the current set-up prevented him from preparing for his defence was a matter to be considered by the trial chamber assigned to his case. At the time, Judge Pocar gave Seselj a "final warning" that he would not consider any further motions from him that contained "insulting or otherwise offensive" statements. Seselj is next due to appear before the court on July 4, when a status conference will be held to review progress in his case, which is yet to go to trial. *** DETENTION PERIOD EXTENDED FOR BOSNIA SUSPECTS The High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Christian Schwarz-Schilling, has extended the maximum time that persons indicted for serious crimes - including war crimes - can be detained there before a judgement is issued against them from one year to three years. A statement issued by Schwarz-Schilling's office on June 17 said his decision to amend the Bosnian Criminal Procedure Code followed requests from local and international institutions, including the Bosnian justice minister Slobodan Kovac. "The current one-year limitation on detention after confirmation of indictment is problematic because cases are often complex and cannot be completed within one year," said the statement. "As a result, defendants could be freed from detention during a trial, giving them the opportunity to flee to countries from which extradition to Bosnia and Herzegovina is not possible." It added that the Hague tribunal, the Bosnian State Court and non-governmental organisations working in the criminal justice sector viewed the amendment as "long overdue". Schwarz-Schilling also extended the maximum time that an individual can be detained during an investigation from six months to a year. *** SUSICA COMMANDER TRANSFERRED TO ITALIAN PRISON Dragan Nikolic, a commander of the Susica detention camp in the Bosnian municipality of Vlasenica, was transferred to Italy on June 21 to serve out a 20-year prison sentence for his part in crimes committed against non-Serb detainees. Nikolic pleaded guilty in September 2003 to persecutions, murder, sexual violence and torture. He was found to have killed nine detainees while in charge of the Susica camp from June until late September 1992, including a 60-year-old man. As part of a plea agreement with Nikolic, prosecutors recommended that he receive 15 years in prison, but the original trial chamber handed down a 23-year sentence. This was reduced on appeal in February 2005. ****************** VISIT IWPR ON-LINE: www.iwpr.net **************** These weekly reports, produced since 1996, detail events and issues at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY, at The Hague. Tribunal Update, produced by IWPR's human rights and media training project, seeks to contribute to regional and international understanding of the war crimes prosecution process. Tribunal Update is supported by the European Commission, the Dutch Ministry for Development and Cooperation, the Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and other funders. IWPR also acknowledges general support from the Ford Foundation. The Institute for War & Peace Reporting is a London-based independent non-profit organisation supporting regional media and democratic change. 48 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7831 1030 Fax: +44 (0)20 7831 1050 For further information on this project and other reporting services and media programmes, visit IWPR's website: www.iwpr.net Editor-in-Chief: Anthony Borden; Managing Editor: Yigal Chazan; Senior Editor: John MacLeod; Hague Project Manager: Janet Anderson; Translation: Predrag Brebanovic, and others. The opinions expressed in Tribunal Update are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the publication or of IWPR. ISSN 1477-7940 Copyright © 2006 The Institute for War & Peace Reporting TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 458
