WELCOME TO IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 470, September 29, 2006 KRAJISNIK JUDGEMENT CONDEMNED ACROSS BOSNIA Serbs say 27-year sentence too severe, while Muslims very disappointed by acquittal on genocide charges. By Merdijana Sadovic in Sarajevo and Caroline Tosh in The Hague
COMMENT: BOSNIA'S "ACCIDENTAL" GENOCIDE The acquittal of Krajisnik on genocide charges sparks debate in academic circles on the very definition of this gravest of all crimes. By Edina Becirevic in Sarajevo PERILS OF REPORTING JUSTICE The indictment of another Croatian reporter for contempt has fueled debate over professional ethics and press freedom. By Caroline Tosh in The Hague NINE-MONTH DELAY EXPECTED IN LUBANGA CASE Lubanga's lawyers demand more time to go through thousands of pages of prosecution documents. By Katy Glassborow in The Hague BRIEFLY NOTED: SESELJ TO HAVE HIS SAY CONTEMPT OF COURT APPEALS DISMISSED TENTATIVE DATE SET FOR TAYLOR TRIAL **** NEW AT IWPR ****************************************************************** IWPR LAUNCHES CENTRAL ASIAN NEWS AGENCY: News Briefing Central Asia is a new concept in regional reporting, comprising analysis and "news behind the news" in Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. Available at: www.NBCentralAsia.net INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT Available at http://iwpr.net/?apc_state=henotri&s=o&o=tribunal_icc_00.html **** www.iwpr.net ******************************************************************** TRIBUNAL UPDATE RSS: http://www.iwpr.net/en/tri/rss.xml RECEIVE FROM IWPR: Readers are urged to subscribe to IWPR's full range of free electronic publications at: http://www.iwpr.net/index.php?apc_state=henh&s=s&m=p GIVE TO IWPR: IWPR is wholly dependent upon grants and donations. For more information about how you can support IWPR go to: http://www.iwpr.net/donate.html **** www.iwpr.net ******************************************************************** KRAJISNIK JUDGEMENT CONDEMNED ACROSS BOSNIA Serbs say 27-year sentence too severe, while Muslims very disappointed by acquittal on genocide charges. By Merdijana Sadovic in Sarajevo and Caroline Tosh in The Hague Tension in the packed public gallery prior to the judgement in the case of the former Bosnian Serb parliamentary speaker Momcilo Krajisnik was almost palpable. So much so, that even one of the guards turned to the press and public gathered to watch the last day of the marathon trial and said, "Whatever the outcome might be, please stay calm." Krajisnik himself appeared to be quite nervous. He paced up and down at the back of the courtroom as he waited for about ten minutes for the judges to come inside. When they finally did, his mood suddenly changed. As Presiding Judge Alphons Orie from Holland began reading out a summary of the findings, Krajisnik sat impassively, occasionally lowering his eyes to the ground when the judge was listing some particularly gruesome atrocity he was charged with. The judge then announced that Krajisnik was found guilty of extermination, murder, persecution, deportation and forced transfer of non-Serb civilians from large parts of Bosnia during the 1992-95 war, but added that the accused was acquitted of genocide charges. "The evidence does not show that...the crime of genocide formed a part of the common objective of the joint criminal enterprise in which Mr. Krajisnik is shown on the evidence to have participated, nor that he had the specific intent necessary for genocide", said Judge Orie. However, he emphasised the role Krajisnik had in ethnic cleansing which took place in the territories under Serb control. According to the judgement, the trial chamber established the existence of a joint criminal enterprise, involving top war crimes fugitive Radovan Karadzic and other Bosnian leaders, intended to "ethnically recompose the territories targeted by the Bosnian Serb leadership by drastically reducing the proportion of Bosnian Muslims and Croats through expulsion". The trial chamber found that Krajisnik "gave the go-ahead for the expulsion programme to commence during a session of the Bosnian Serb parliament when he called for 'implementing what we have agreed upon, the ethnic division on the ground'". Judge Orie noted that Krajisnik's position within the Bosnian Serb leadership "gave him the authority to facilitate the military, police and paramilitary groups to implement the objective of the joint criminal enterprise. "Immense suffering was inflicted upon the victims in this case, and the consequences that the crimes have had on the Muslim and Croat ethnic groups in Bosnia are profound." When he finished reading the summary, Judge Orie ordered Krajisnik to stand up. The accused buttoned up his jacket and fiddled with his pen waiting to hear the judgement. "For your role in these crimes, we sentence you to a single sentence of 27 years of imprisonment," said Judge Orie. No one in the audience moved upon hearing the verdict. Krajisnik showed no visible reaction either as the judge read the sentence, and just nodded as the judge said he was entitled to credit for 2369 days already spent in detention. But his defence counsel Nicholas Stewart, who at the end of the trial called on judges to be "brave enough" and acquit his client of all charges, didn't hide his emotions. After the judgement was read out, he turned to Krajisnik and took hold of both his hands, in an apparent expression of sympathy. However, reactions back home were much more heated. Predictably, Bosnian Serbs slammed the verdict as another sign of the tribunal's "anti-Serb campaign" and condemned the outcome of the trial as "bias and unfair". The President of Republika Srpska, RS, Dragan Cavic told the local media that the sentence passed on the former Bosnian Serb parliamentary speaker is "shocking", as it can also be viewed as a verdict against the first composition of the Bosnian Serb assembly and everyone in it. "All this shows that the trial has acquired a political character and that it was conducted not against an individual, but ultimately against RS," he said. Serb member of the joint Bosnian presidency Borislav Paravac told RS television that the verdict against Krajisnik proves that "this is all part of the anti-Serb propaganda directed against all Serbs". Bosnia's foreign minister Mladen Ivanic, also a Serb, was more measured in his views, saying the most important outcome of Krajisnik's trial is that he was not found guilty of genocide or complicity in genocide. "Considering that Krajisnik was one of the top political leaders of the Bosnian Serbs during the war, this definitely proves that the Serb people or their leaders cannot be accused of genocide," he told the local media. Across in the Federation, Bosnian Muslim politicians and victims' associations said they were also "shocked" - not by the sentence but by the decision to acquit Krajsinik of genocide charges. "We still cannot believe [it]," Bakira Hasecic, head of the Women-Victims of War association, told French agency AFP. "The sentence is a major blow to justice. It is an insult for the victims." Muslim member of the joint Bosnian presidency and its current chairman, Sulejman Tihic, said in a statement issued shortly after the judgement was announced that it only "partially served the justice", adding that he hoped "the prosecutor will appeal the verdict and that Krajisnik will be found guilty in a final judgement". So far, the tribunal has handed down only two genocide convictions, both for Bosnian Serb army officers who helped organise the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys. In view of that fact, Director of the Sarajevo-based Research and Documentation Centre Mirsad Tokaca, who in June last year testified as a prosecution witness in Krajisinik's trial, finds the verdict particularly unsatisfactory. He says it's completely illogical to convict army officers of genocide, and acquit a man who was a member of the political leadership who issued orders to the army. "Bosnian Serb leaders, including Krajisnik, were the creators of the genocidal policy, and I find it shocking that he was acquitted of genocide," he told IWPR. He added that Krajsnik was much more influential and even more powerful than Karadzic, but always stayed in the shadow, carefully covering the traces of his role in the crimes. He admitted that this could be one of the main reasons why judges said they couldn't find enough evidence, which would convince them of Krajisnik's genocidal intent. Despite the highly charged statements issued by Bosnian Serb politicians, ordinary people in Republika Srpska didn't appear to be too moved by the fate of their war-time parliamentary speaker. Political analyst from Banja Luka, Tanja Topic, says this is due to the fact that Krajisnik - unlike Karadzic and Mladic - was never seen as a hero among Serb people. On the contrary, she told IWPR, he was quite disliked because of the allegations of his involvement in illegal financial schemes and gaining personal wealth at the expense of his own people. "Nobody took to the streets in protest against Krajsnik's judgement," she said. "And while no one among the Bosnian Serbs dispute the fact that he was one of the most influential Serb politicians during the war, he never enjoyed the same support as Karadzic and Mladic. So most people here actually believe that he got what he deserved," said Topic. Merdijana Sadovic is IWPR's Hague tribunal programme manager. Caroline Tosh is an IWPR reporter in The Hague. COMMENT: BOSNIA'S "ACCIDENTAL" GENOCIDE The acquittal of Krajisnik on genocide charges sparks debate in academic circles on the very definition of this gravest of all crimes. By Edina Becirevic in Sarajevo On September 27, Momcilo Krajisnik, a Bosnian Serb leader accused of being one of the architects of ethnic cleansing during the Bosnian 1992-95 war, was found guilty of most of the charges against him and sentenced to 27 years in prison. The tribunal judges said it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was responsible for the extermination, murder, persecution and deportation of non-Serbs during the war, adding that his role in the commission of these crimes was crucial. However, rather surprisingly, Krajisnik was acquitted of the most serious charges - genocide or complicity in genocide. On first reading, this finding sends a somewhat confusing message. According to the summary of the judgement, read by Presiding Judge Alphons Orie on September 27, genocide did take place in Bosnia - however, it was not possible to prove the intent of the perpetrators. "The Chamber finds that in spite of evidence of acts perpetrated in the municipalities which constituted the actus reus of genocide, the chamber has not received sufficient evidence to establish whether the perpetrators had genocidal intent, that is the intent to destroy, the Bosnian-Muslim or Bosnian-Croat ethnic group, as such," says the summary. The only reasonable conclusion that could be taken from this formulation is that genocide took place in Bosnia merely by accident. The term genocide carries a heavy political burden, and scholars of genocide quite often disagree on the interpretation of the 1951 genocide convention. However, theorists from Raphael Lemkin - the Jewish lawyer who coined the term genocide - to any other contemporary scholar in this field, would agree that it simply does not happen by accident and requires organised action. In his book "Axis Rule in Occupied Europe", published in 1944, Lemkin specifically says that genocide could - but does not necessarily - mean destruction of a whole nation. However, he says that genocide requires organised planning aimed at destroying the basic foundations of the life of the national groups. That kind of plan would target "political and social institutions, culture, language, economic existence, as well as the personal security, freedom health, dignity, even lives of individuals that belong to those groups". Another recognised expert on the subject, Helen Fein, considers that the process of proving genocide involves establishing continuity in attacks aimed at destroying members of a group in an organised manner. Fein also says that two of the preconditions for genocide are the absence of sanctions for the perpetrators and the existence of ideologies that promote the idea of genocide. Irvin Louis Horowitz, meanwhile, suggests that genocide is the structural and systematic destruction of innocent people. None of the leading scholars in the field mentions "accidental genocide". The judgement against Krajisnik says, "The common objective of the joint criminal enterprise was to ethnically re-compose the territories targeted by the Bosnian-Serb leadership, by drastically reducing the proportion of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats through expulsion." It is important to note that this conclusion relies on the "six strategic aims of the Serb people", which were adopted by the Bosnian Serb parliament at a session held on May 12, 1992. The first of these goals - to "separate Serb people from another two national communities" - was announced by Radovan Karadzic, the former Bosnian Serb leader also indicted for genocide by the tribunal. As parliamentary speaker, Momcilo Krajisnik presided over this session, and he emphasised the importance of the first strategic goal, which he said should be supported by ethnic division on the ground. It is noteworthy that at this meeting, both Karadzic and Krajisnik were warned by Bosnian Serb military commander General Ratko Mladic, also indicted on genocide charges, that their plans could not be committed without committed genocide. "People are not little stones, or keys in someone's pocket, that can be moved from one place to another just like that... Therefore, we cannot precisely arrange for only Serbs to stay in one part of the country while removing others painlessly. I do not know how Mr Krajisnik and Mr Karadzic will explain that to the world. That is genocide," said Mladic. It was obviously to Mladic that the plan envisaged by the Serb politicial leadership could not be put into practice without a genocide. Even though the general had no qualms about executing this genocidal plan, this quote from the parliamentary transcript shows that Serb military and political leaders were aware of the likely consequences of their actions. In short, Krajisnik's judgement seems to go against established definitions of genocide, as well as what General Mladic believed the crime to be. The judges in the Krajisnik case said they had established that genocide took place, but were not convinced the Serb leadership intended to commit it. They appear to lean toward a school of thought which sets extremely high standards of proof for genocide. To them, the Srebrenica massacre was one "genocidal incident" in the broader ethnic cleansing of Bosnia. In his book "States of Denial", Stanley Cohen says that avoiding the use of the word genocide in situations of armed conflict gives other countries an excuse not to intervene. This may help explain why the term was so studiously avoided during the Bosnian war. Edina Becirevic is senior lecturer at the Faculty of Criminal Justice Sciences in Sarajevo. PERILS OF REPORTING JUSTICE The indictment of another Croatian reporter for contempt has fueled debate over professional ethics and press freedom. By Caroline Tosh in The Hague The fresh indictment of a Croatian journalist for contempt of court this month has once again put the spotlight on the tribunal's treatment of journalists reporting protected information. Domagoj Margetic, a freelancer from Croatia, is accused of revealing the names of witnesses who testified under protective measures in the trial of the Bosnian Croat general Tihomir Blaskic. Margetic, who was previously indicted for contempt by the tribunal last year, stands accused of "publishing lists on his personal website between July 7 and August 2" despite a warning from the court that the material was confidential. He was arrested on August 4 this year, by Croatian authorities acting in cooperation with the Hague court, and has since been released after 32 days in detention. Prosecuting journalists for contempt is a new phenomenon at the tribunal and one which has raised questions about its powers to punish journalists accused of reporting sensitive leaked information. But it also highlights the obligation of journalists to adhere to the ethics of their profession - not least to consider the possible consequences of publishing sensitive information, rather than limiting their concern to what makes a good headline. Protected witnesses are often in a very delicate situation. They come to the Hague to testify at war crimes trials, despite the personal risk their appearance in court involves. Not only are their own lives at stake, but also those of close relatives. Witness intimidation exists throughout the Balkans, and, according to the tribunal's Office of the Prosecutor, OTP, there have been numerous occasions on which witnesses whose identities were revealed despite all protective measures have been threatened and sometimes killed. Perhaps most notorious is the witness intimidation allegedly perpetrated by Vojislav Seselj, the Serbian ultra-nationalist leader. A court document of June 23, 2005 states that Seselj, who was privy to secret information when conducting his own defence, shared the name of a protected witness to an unauthorised person over the phone, who is said to have promised to "disable" the witness. Potential witnesses face particular danger in the troubled region of Kosovo, because of the prevalence of organised crime and a lack of the rule of law. In July 2003, tribunal prosecutors reported that several possible witnesses in the case against three former KLA members accused of the abuse and murders of detainees at the Lapusnik camp had been "directly approached or have received messages or calls, and [have been] told that they will suffer retaliation if they testify in the case". One witness, they said, even had to be relocated abroad after NATO forces in Kosovo found evidence of a plot to kill him. Last year, one witness testifying under protected measures against ex-KLA guerrillas in The Hague said in court that he felt "very much endangered" by having to testify. It is this backdrop of intimidation which has prompted lawmakers at the tribunal to insist on stringent measures to govern contempt, encapsulated by rule 77 of the court's Rules of Procedure and Evidence. Rule 77 allows the tribunal to hold individuals in contempt for a number of offences. This includes anyone "who knowingly and wilfully interferes with its administration of justice"; anyone who discloses information in "knowing violation of an order of a chamber"; and anyone who interferes with a witnesss or potential witness "who has given or is about to give evidence in proceedings" before the chamber. Those found guilty face a maximum penalty of "a term of imprisonment not exceeding seven years, or a fine not exceeding 100,000 euros, or both". Journalists first fell foul of this rule last year, when five members of the Croatian media and a former official were indicted for contempt of court, charged with revealing the identities or other information about protected witnesses. These individuals were Ivica Marijacic, a journalist and the then-editor-in-chief of the Zagreb-based weekly publication Hrvatski List; Markica Rebic, the former head of Croatia's security services; Marijan Krizic, the editor-in-chief of the weekly magazine Hrvatsko Slovo; and Stjepan Seselj and Margetic, who worked for Hrvatsko Slovo. The chief prosecutor later dropped the charges case against Seselj, Margetic and Krizic, claiming this was the result of "increasing pressure... to limit the scope of prosecutions". Meanwhile, the trials of Marijacic and Jovic went ahead. Marijacic, along with Markica Rebic, the former head of the Croatian Security Information Service, SIS, was the first journalist to be found guilty of contempt in March this year, for disclosing information on the testimony of a Dutch army officer who testified under protective measures in the Blaskic case. Then in August, Josip Jovic, former editor-in-chief of the Split-based Croatian daily Slobodna Dalmacija, was convicted and fined 20,000 euro for revealing the identity, witness statement and secret testimony of the current president of Croatia, Stjepan Mesic, in defiance of the tribunal's orders. Jovic has announced his intention to appeal, while Marijacic and Rebic's attempts to overturn their judgements were dismissed by the appeals chamber this week. Neither in the Jovic case nor in the Marijacic and Rebic cases was the protected witness whose identity was revealed actually harmed - but regardless of this, both judgements stressed the need to maintain public confidence in the ability to protect witnesses. Some observers say the decision to prosecute and convict these journalists was a necessary clampdown on the reckless publication of confidential information, while others claim it was a worrying attempt by the tribunal to stifle the press. Jovic's case has attracted particular scrutiny, highlighting the conflict between press freedom to report sensitive information and the need to protect witnesses called to testify at war crimes trials. Following his arrest in December 2005, after he failed to come to The Hague to enter a plea, human rights organisations, such as Reporters Without Borders, RSF, clamoured for Jovic's release. Then a day after his conviction, RSF published on their website a report by Thierry Cruvellier, editor of the Paris-based online newsletter International Justice Tribune, about the difficult relationship between journalists and the international tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Referring to the contempt cases involving the Croatian journalists, Cruvellier claimed that in spite of what he considered "the poor reputation of the media and journalists involved, the nationalist politics that motivated them and their openly partisan character", there was a concern that these cases could set a judicial precedent that would then apply to all journalists reporting on the international courts. The controversy surrounding the Jovic case was heightened by his defence that he revealed information about a president, and therefore a figure of public interest. In addition to this, Jovic's supporters pointed out that Mesic's status as a protected witness had already been revealed, including on the pages of the tribunal itself, as well as in various IWPR reports. In an interview with IWPR, Jovic maintained that as Croatian president at the time of the revelations, Mesic was "the most protected person in the country" and in no danger from the disclosure. Keen to distance himself from the alleged - and seemingly indiscriminate - actions of Margetic, Jovic argues that the information he published was justified by its public interest value. "Mesic is a public figure, his testimony is of public interest and has a great political significance for the whole country. The witnesses in the Margetic case are common people, and those witnesses are not protected," he said. Jovic asserts that the responsibilty to protect the identity of witnesses lies not with the journalist but with the court. "Secrets of the court must be protected by the people that are obliged to do so, journalists and media are by definition part of the public, so you can not expect them to protect someone or something from the public," he said. This view that journalists reporting a leak should in certain situations be exempt from prosecution is shared by Miklos Haraszti, Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, OSCE, Representative for Freedom of the Media. Haraszti's concern at Jovic's initial arrest in October last year led him to write to the tribunal's president, Theodor Meron, pressing for his release and requesting the amendment of rule 77. Haraszti is calling for changes to be made to empower prosecutors and judges to exempt from contempt of court charges journalists who have reported issues of legitimate public interest - most crucially - at the time of publication. Following Jovic's conviction last month, Haraszti addressed tribunal chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte at an OSCE conference in Vienna, repeating his call for a change to rule 77. He argued that "the former involvement of a head of state with a court would make news in any country with a free press", and that "the obvious public-interest content of that news would be seen as attenuating circumstance when it comes to prosecution of the journalists who broke that news in defiance of a ban". Haraszti further claimed that the amendment he sought "would still protect the integrity of the judicial process, but would also weigh that value against the overall public interest in a free flow of information, which is another basic democratic value". In an interview with IWPR, he explained his concerns about rule 77, at the root of which lies his belief in the need for healthy debate in the region following the conflicts of the Nineties. Haraszti also warned of the potential stifling or "chilling effect" on the media of the tribunal's indictment of five journalists for contempt. "An obligation of international jurisdiction and the court is to help those in Eastern Europe to come to terms with their past. That cannot happen without society being allowed to have an honest discussion," he said. Haraszti argues that rather than weakening the court, inserting a waiver into rule 77 for journalists reporting leaked information of genuine public interest would instead strengthen its authority. "When a waiver to report issues of legitimate public interest is not factored into the rules, then journalists can claim that they reported something of public interest, and were abused.... They can make a patriotic case out of it," he said. Haraszti's additional concern over the maximum sentence of seven years and 100,000 euro fine for contempt is shared by RSF. So far, there have been no cases of the prosecution calling for imprisonment of journalists for contempt, but Jeff Julliard of RSF says judges' implementation of rule 77 must be monitored to ensure their powers are not abused. Referring to the Margetic case he said, "We recognise that in this case, he did something wrong to publish these names and perhaps put the witnesses in danger, and we don't support that practice, but we ask the court to award an appropriate sentence - not a prison term, but a fine." The climate throughout the former Yugoslavia is such that witnesses and potential witnesses remain vulnerable to nationalist intimidation, says Anton Nikiforov, the spokesman for the OTP. He cites regular instances of potential witnesses in both international and local war crimes trials being threatened and killed, particularly in Kosovo. Refik Hodzic, the tribunal spokesman, agrees witness protection is one of the court's main priorities. He confirms that protective measures are granted where there is a need, based on individual assessment of witnesses, and argues that these must be protected at all costs if justice is to be done. The issue at stake in these contempt cases, says Hodzic, is not freedom of speech, but the need to protect the legal process when prosecuting complex and sensitive war crimes. He dismisses the defence of public interest in the contempt cases which have come before the tribunal. "This is not some secret in the public interest that would change the course of history if it was revealed," he said. "In exposing witnesses, these people are undermining one of the cornerstones of the trial chamber's ability to provide fair trials." Protecting the law, and preventing exposure of protected witnesses is sacrosant, agrees Dragutin Lucic, the president of the Croatian Journalists' Association, HND, who is also dismissive of the defence by Jovic that his breach of rule 77 was in the public interest. "That was not the predominant factor in the Jovic case. If somebody is protected by law, they must be protected," he argued. While Lucic has attempted to defend Jovic's rights as a journalist by discussing his case with Del Ponte, he told IWPR that he feels Jovic's conviction is fair. The media in Croatia has come a long way since the late 1990s, when the HND campaigned for an end to the restrictions of the era of the late president Franjo Tudjman, who clamped down on reporting critical of the government. Croatia's constitution now bans censorship and guarantees a free press. But a need to balance this newfound press freedom with respect for court orders issued to protect witnesses is an issue that has important implications both for international war crimes trials, and for those to be conducted on Croatian soil. It will be interesting to see how the Croatian press handles reporting of the Norac and Ademi trial, the first case to be passed from the tribunal to the Croatian judiciary, which is expected to start later this year. Caroline Tosh is an IWPR reporter in The Hague. NINE-MONTH DELAY EXPECTED IN LUBANGA CASE Lubanga's lawyers demand more time to go through thousands of pages of prosecution documents. By Katy Glassborow in The Hague Jean Flamme, the defence lawyer for Thomas Lubanga Dyilo at the International Criminal Court, ICC, called this week for the confirmation of charges hearing to be delayed by up to nine months, in order to read through documents still being disclosed by the prosecutor. Lubanga's confirmation of charges hearing was due to take place on September 28, having already been postponed from the original date in June, but last week the pre-trial chamber looking after the case announced the hearing would be delayed again. Several human rights organisations closely following the trial hoped a new date would be set at the September 26 status conference, but few were surprised when this did not happen. Lubanga, from the Democratic Republic of Congo, was the leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots, or UPC, and faces charges of kidnapping children and using them in front-line activities against the Lendu as well as United Nations peacekeepers and the DRC's regular army. Ekkehard Withopf, who is leading the prosecution of Lubanga, said that because numerous documents relating to the case are still being disclosed to the defence, the confirmation hearing could not realistically be set before the end of November. Flamme said that the defence team is going to be getting "tens of thousands of pages of documents from the prosecutor, which we then need to read and study", insisting that the defence would be happier if the disclosure of documents took place "more rapidly". Withopf stressed that the prosecution has made every effort to minimise the workload for the defence by translating and summarising witness statements. In turn, Flamme expressed concerns that mere summaries will be enough for the defence to work from, as "we will all be reliant on witness statements and the defence does not want to lose anything". Presiding Judge Claude Jorda expressed concerns about the delays, underlining the need for an expeditious trial. Judge Akua Kuenyehia told the prosecution and defence that "you have had a preparation period since March and I am worried about a nine-month delay. Do we really want Mr Lubanga to be in custody for all that time, because then we get into issues of release". She also asked how long the actual trial would go on for, considering this is still the pre-trial stage. For the first time, the victims of atrocities carried out in the Democratic Republic of Congo were represented in court by their legal representative, Luc Walleyn, assisted by Paolina Massidda from the court's Office of Public Counsel for Victims. Walleyn said that a nine-month delay would not be welcomed in Congo, as justice "needs to be seen to be done" for victims in the country. A separate hearing will be set to work out how the prosecution and defence will run their cases. Katy Glassborow is an IWPR reporter in The Hague. BRIEFLY NOTED: SESELJ TO HAVE HIS SAY The tribunal judges have decided to allow Vojislav Seselj to make an opening statement at his own trial, scheduled to start in November this year. According to a majority decision by the pre-trial chamber on September 26, the notoriously volatile Seselj, a former leader of the Serbian Radical Party, will have the opportunity to address the judges, despite the court's earlier decision to ban him from conducting his own defence. Judges Alphons Orie, Patrick Robinson and Bakone Justice Moloto had previously denied Seselj this right, due to the streams of invectives he repeatedly unleashed upon the court at pre-trial hearings. Seselj's remarks have been disruptive and were directed at a number of courtroom officials. At one point, he declared that "the smell of crematoriums and gas chambers comes into The Hague courtroom" with a certain member of the court. In an earlier interview, a spokesman from the office of the prosecutor told IWPR that permitting Seselj to conduct his own defence would "wreck the process" and "make it impossible to conduct fair and dignified proceedings". Yet Orie and Robinson voted in favour of allowing Seselj to make an opening statement. Moloto voted against it, as he believes giving the statement is incompatible with the chamber's previous decision barring Seselj from representing himself. While permitting Seselj to make an opening statement may be seen as a compromise, it could allow him to present another vitriolic speech in the media spotlight of the first day of trial, which is scheduled to begin on November 2. Some within the court also fear that permitting Seselj to hold the floor could allow him, through his grandstanding, to undermine the legitimacy of the court. "If he says something outrageous, we cannot stop it," said Anton Nikiforov, spokesman for the prosecutor. "It is in the judges' hands." Seselj has repeatedly demonstrated his disdain for the tribunal, describing his imposed counsel, wig-wearing British attorney David Hooper, as "that man with the bird's nest on his head" at the September 14 conference. He has also filed a number of written submissions to the court that were filled with obscenities, professional insults and ethnic slurs. Additionally, Seselj participated in a Serbian election campaign while awaiting trial, a move that contravenes the rules of detention. It is also uncertain whether the move to allow the opening statement will appease Seselj, who has continually asserted his right to defend himself before the court. At a September 14 status conference, Seselj stated that he would "never speak to Hooper or any other spy...who denies me my right to represent myself. I am a calm and balanced person, but until you restore my right to represent myself, I will not participate in the proceedings." The defence is currently appealing the pre-trial chamber's decision to impose counsel. The ultra-nationalist is charged with 14 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity between 1991 and 1993. *** CONTEMPT OF COURT APPEALS DISMISSED The tribunal dismissed this week the appeals of two Croats, Ivica Marijacic and Markica Rebic, against their contempt of court convictions. On March 10, 2006, the trial chamber found Marijacic, a journalist, and Rebic, a former intelligence officer, guilty of disclosing information related to the testimony of a Dutch army officer who testified as a protected witness in the case of former Croatian army general Tihomir Blaskic. According to a press release issued by the tribunal this week, the appeals chamber "dismissed all grounds of appeal and affirmed the fine of 15,000 euros on each of the accused". But the chamber did agree to allow the accused to pay their fines in three monthly installments, instead of within 30 days of the March judgment, as demanded by the original ruling. The press release referred to the judgment from March, stating that "the Trial Chamber stated that both Marijacic and Rebic deliberately disclosed information regarding the testimony of Johannes van Kuijk, a Dutch army officer who testified as a protected witness" in the Blaskic case. At the time of the offences, Marijacic was the editor-in-chief of the Zagreb-based weekly publication Hrvatski List, and Rebic was the former head of the Croatian Security Information Service. While no harm was done to the protected witness as a result of the revelations of his identity and content of his testimony, the judgment found that "the deliberate and calculated way in which the Order was defied by both Accused is a serious matter which tends to diminish the authority of the Trial Chamber in the Blaskic trial". The judgement stressed that the actions of the pair had risked undermining "confidence in the Tribunal's ability to grant effective protective measures" in what amounted to "a serious interference with the administration of justice". The trial of Marijacic and Rebic began on January 17, 2006 and was concluded within two days. This week's ruling comes a month after Croatian journalist Josip Jovic was also convicted of contempt on August 30, for revealing the identity, witness statement, and testimony of Croatian president Stjepan Mesic, who also testified under protected measures in the Blaskic trial. Jovic, who told IWPR he intends to appeal his conviction, was sentenced to a 20,000- euro fine. *** TENTATIVE DATE SET FOR TAYLOR TRIAL A UN-backed court has set a provisional date of April 2 next year for the war crimes trial of the former Liberian president Charles Taylor. At a pre-trial hearing held in The Hague last week, Judge Julia Sebutinde of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, SCSL, said that it was necessary to set a tentative date to avoid delays, and help the parties and the bench to "focus". Taylor, said Judge Sebutinde, has already been in custody for some time and has the right "to be tried without delay". "By the end of February, he will have been in jail for over a year, and after a year it becomes inordinate delay," she said. The judge added that her SCSL colleagues were also keen to set a provisional trial date. Taylor arrived in The Netherlands last June after a UN security council resolution passed his case to the International Criminal Court, ICC, in The Hague. It was decided that there was too great a security risk to hold his trial in Freetown, where the SCSL is based. Taylor's defence counsel, Karim Khan, said he thought it "a fabulous idea" to set a provisional trial date. But he argued that April was too soon, adding that the defence was unlikely to be ready for trial until September 2007, because of the amount of evidence it had to review. Khan warned against submitting to financial and political pressure to start the trial early. "To rush to judgement, to satisfy public opinion ... is unfair and unnecessary and has the potential for a grave miscarriage of justice," he said. He likened the charged atmosphere in the run-up to the trial to "an Alice in Wonderland world...where people have been saying, 'Off with his head!'" Judge Sebutinde rebuked Khan for his "tone", reminding him that "this court is known for its courtesy". Dressed in a well-cut suit grey suit and brown tie, Taylor listened impassively to the proceedings. He was first indicted by the SCSL in March 2003, for his alleged role in the bloody ten-year conflict in Sierra Leone, during which tens of thousands of people were displaced, mutilated, and killed. He has pleaded not guilty to all 11 charges of the indictment, which was amended in March this year. If convicted, he faces a life sentence. **** www.iwpr.net ******************************************************************** TRIBUNAL UPDATE, produced since 1996, details the events and issues at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY, at The Hague. These weekly reports, produced by IWPR's human rights and media training project, seek to contribute to regional and international understanding of the war crimes prosecution process. The opinions expressed in Tribunal Update are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the publication or of IWPR. 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. TRIBUNAL UPDATE: Editor-in-Chief: Anthony Borden; Managing Editor: Yigal Chazan; Senior Editor: John MacLeod; Hague Project Manager: Janet Anderson; Translation: Predrag Brebanovic, and others. IWPR Project Development and Support: Executive Director: Anthony Borden; Strategy & Assessment Director: Alan Davis; Managing Director: Tim Williams. **** www.iwpr.net ******************************************************************** IWPR builds democracy at the frontlines of conflict and change through the power of professional journalism. IWPR programs provide intensive hands-on training, extensive reporting and publishing, and ambitious initiatives to build the capacity of local media. Supporting peace-building, development and the rule of law, IWPR gives responsible local media a voice. Institute for War & Peace Reporting 48 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7831 1030 Fax: +44 (0)20 7831 1050 For further details on this project and other information services and media programmes, go to: www.iwpr.net ISSN 1477-7940 Copyright © 2006 The Institute for War & Peace Reporting **** www.iwpr.net ********************************************************************
