WELCOME TO IWPR’S ICTY - TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 548 Part 2, April 28, 2008

SPECIAL REPORT

POLITICIANS STYMIE BELGRADE WAR CRIMES TRIALS  Lack of political backing 
undermining efforts to prosecute war crimes in Serbia.  By Caroline Tosh in 
London and Aleksandar Roknic in Belgrade

**** IWPR RESOURCES 
******************************************************************

SAHAR JOURNALISTS’ ASSISTANCE FUND To find out more or donate please go to:
http://www.iwpr.net/sahar.html 

COALITION FOR INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE (CIJ) TRIAL REPORTS ARCHIVE Milosevic and 
other ICTY Trial Reports as well as Sierra Leone Reports are now available at 
<http://iwpr.net/?apc_state=hen&s=c> 

NOW AVAILABLE IN FRENCH: Reporting Justice: A Handbook on Covering War Crimes 
Courts. Part I: http://iwpr.net/pdf/reporting_justice_p1_w_fr.pdf; Part II: 
http://iwpr.net/pdf/reporting_justice_p2_w_fr.pdf

**** 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 
********************************************************************

SPECIAL REPORT

POLITICIANS STYMIE BELGRADE WAR CRIMES TRIALS

Lack of political backing undermining efforts to prosecute war crimes in Serbia.

By Caroline Tosh in London and Aleksandar Roknic in Belgrade

The failure of Serbian politicians to back war crimes prosecutions is severely 
hampering work at the Belgrade war crimes court, say observers. 

Prosecutors, who are subject to frequent intimidation, complain they lack 
adequate funding, while rights groups say investigators are prevented from 
pursuing high-level suspects.

Since late 2003, when the War Crimes Chamber, WCC, opened within the Belgrade 
district court, it has completed six first-instance trials, while another eight 
involving 51 accused are ongoing or in the pre-trial phase.

All but two have been trials of Serbs accused of war crimes against non-Serbs.

The court was established partly to ensure that Belgrade has sufficient justice 
mechanisms to continue with war crimes prosecutions after the International 
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY, closes its doors in 2010.

But a February 2008 report published by NGO the International Center for 
Transitional Justice, ICTJ, has highlighted a number of challenges facing the 
court.

Bogdan Ivanisevic, author of Against the Current: War Crimes Prosecutions in 
Serbia, said in the report that while proceedings against war crimes suspects 
in Serbia had made steady progress since the court was established, trials were 
taking place in a “very unfavourable political context”.

Ivanisevic pointed out that attacks from powerful nationalist politicians 
opposed to war crimes prosecutions had weakened “the resolve and effectiveness” 
of the WCC, the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor, OWCP, as well as the 
special war crimes investigation unit in the police.

Other findings were that the court had only been partially successful in 
creating conditions for witnesses to testify freely and truthfully; that 
relatively few trials had taken place, and that the court’s work had barely 
altered public bias or indifference to war crimes.

LACK OF POLITICAL WILL AND PUBLIC SUPPORT

So far, observers and legal experts have largely praised war crimes 
investigators, prosecutors and judges at the fledgling chamber for their 
handling of trials. 

Ivan Jovanovic, national legal adviser on war crimes at the OSCE mission to 
Serbia, who has been monitoring the work of the WCC and the OWCP since they 
started over four years ago, said that both had made great strides.

“They’re on the right track for achieving the highest international standards 
in war crimes prosecutions,” he said.

Yet observers say that limited political support is cause for concern.

Ivana Ramic of the WCC said that, by and large, war crimes proceedings had 
political support in Serbia.

“..Nobody questions the necessity of the trials or asks if the war crimes 
really did happen,” she said.

However, Ivanisevic told IWPR that a lack of support from Serbian leaders was 
the greatest hurdle facing the WCC.

“There has been some political will and there have been cases tried but the 
numbers are low,” he explained.

“If there were a general will to investigate as many cases as humanly possible, 
the number would have been much higher.”

Bruno Vekaric, spokesman for the OWCP, agreed the government could do more to 
support prosecutions.

“The [authorities] could give us material help by raising our annual budget, 
and also by saying clearly that war crimes are crimes which must be punished, 
no matter who committed them,” he said.

“Our budget per year is 200 times lower than the [Hague] tribunal budget, but 
we prosecuted 116 persons over five years, while the tribunal prosecuted 161 in 
15 years. It is quite clear that our finances have not been enough.”

Natasa Kandic of leading NGO the Humanitarian Law Centre, which helps represent 
victims in court, said, “The problem is Serbia doesn’t have politicians who 
will support war crimes trials and who will support the need for institutional 
reform – institutions that will be responsible for justice and past abuses.”

Whenever Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica broaches the subject of war crimes, 
she added, he focuses on Serb victims alone.

Milan Antonijevic, executive director of the Yugoslav Law Committee, JUKOM, 
explained that politicians were reluctant to give their backing because of an 
ongoing public resistance to trials of Serbs.

“In political life in Serbia, the topic [of war crimes] is understood to be a 
theme which can lose you votes,” he said. The consequence, he said, has been an 
almost complete silence about war crimes – especially in relation to alleged 
Serbian state involvement in crimes.

In Serbia, there’s still a hangover of the fiercely nationalist political 
climate that dominated the era of late president Slobodan Milosevic. Many also 
feel that they have been unfairly singled out for international censure for 
their role in the Balkans wars and see domestic war crimes trials as 
“unpatriotic”.

According to Antonijevic, those who have attempted to speak about war crimes in 
the past – including journalists, politicians, NGO workers, and media – have 
been physically and verbally attacked by members of the public.

A spokesperson from the OWCP confirmed that prosecutors were subject to 
constant threats from the public because of their work.

In the last few months, chief prosecutor Vladimir Vukcevic received a chilling 
letter threatening him with a bullet in the head. While the note appeared to 
come from the Serbian diaspora in Chicago, the envelope had a Belgrade postmark.

“The atmosphere for proceeding with war crimes in Serbia is very bad…yet, in 
spite of this, we continue to work very professionally on our cases,” said the 
spokesperson.

OBSTRUCTION FROM RADICALS

Public hostility to war crimes trials is fuelled by constant attacks on the 
organs of the court from members of the Serbian Radical Party, SRS – the 
largest political party in the country led by Vojislav Seselj, currently on 
trial for war crimes in The Hague.

Although an opposition party, the radicals remain a powerful political force. 
Strongly opposed to the prosecution of Serbs for war crimes, they are also 
furious at the OWCP for helping ICTY prosecutors conducting the Seselj case.

“The SRS has been well-known for its slamming of the justice operators, 
especially the war crimes prosecutor himself,” said Jovanovic.

“For that, they’re using parliament as a stage – openly threatening and 
slamming the prosecutor and his team, even from the parliament speaker’s booth.”

One reason why the SRS attacks the court may be because their volunteers or 
ex-party members are often among the accused, he said.

Kandic noted that the SRS had a particularly strong influence on the police, 
“There is a sense that they have very good relations with the Serbian Radical 
Party, that there is no climate in the institution of the police, [or among] 
individual policemen, [that] they feel as if they are obliged to give 
information to support war crimes trials,” she said.

Although by law, all Serbian institutions are bound to cooperate with 
prosecutors, there are rumours that the authorities have kept certain documents 
out of their reach.

While ICTY prosecutors have at times used EU membership as a way of securing 
support from Belgrade, their Serbian counterparts have no such leverage.

Director of the International Bar Association Mark Ellis – who helped Serb 
officials create the WCC – pointed out that eliciting the cooperation of the 
ministry of the interior was always going to be tricky, as Serbian paramilitary 
units operating during the Balkans wars often involved police members 
themselves.

SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS VERDICTS

There are also concerns among rights groups that the political influence of the 
radicals extends to the upper echelons of the Serbian judiciary.

On more than one occasion, the Supreme Court has overturned convictions passed 
by judges at the WCC, prompting accusations from rights groups that its actions 
were politically motivated. 

The most controversial instance of this came in late 2006, when the Supreme 
Court quashed verdicts related to the Ovcara case, in which 200 non-Serbs were 
taken from a hospital in Vukovar, Croatia, and executed at a nearby pig farm.

In 2005, 14 former paramilitaries and Yugoslav soldiers were found guilty of 
the murders, while two were acquitted.

The Supreme Court said in its decision to order a retrial – which began in 
March last year – that there had been "incomplete facts" and a "misapplication 
of substantive law” in the original proceedings.

Ivanisevic said the decision of the Supreme Court to overturn convictions in 
the Ovcara trial – which was the biggest at the court so far – had undermined 
the WCC.

“And at the end of the first-instance trial, all assessments were that the case 
was handled properly, and …so even the family members of the victims from other 
parts of the former Yugoslavia, in this case from Croatia, were satisfied and 
this was a boost to the court for the prosecutor,” he said.

“[But] the decision of the Supreme Court to quash the sentences came as a cold 
shower and that’s why psychologically, it had a very negative effect.

“One of the important negative consequences was a decision of victims’ groups 
in Croatia not to attend the retrial – they were disappointed – and this has 
affected the credibility of the entire [court] structure.”

According to James Lyon of the International Crisis Group, the overturning of 
certain verdicts “certainly helped the forces who have opposed [war crimes 
trials and] certainly sent all the wrong signals”, undermining the court.

TRIALS LIMITED TO “TRIGGER MEN”

Critics of the OWPC say that, so far, no high-level suspects have been indicted 
at the WCC. Some even accuse prosecutors of protecting senior officials 
suspected of war crimes.

The individuals who have been tried in Serbia are, almost without exception, 
foot soldiers or superiors at a very low level in the hierarchy in the police 
and the army, observed Ivanisevic.

The effect of this, he suggested, was to counter the idea that crimes were due 
to official policy.

“If you only try low-level perpetrators – which has been the case in the 
Serbian WCC, with very few exceptions – then one can draw the conclusion from 
that that crimes were the result of isolated acts of individuals who acted on 
their own,” he said.

“Whereas if you try and convict people like Milosevic and a number of other 
officials [as has been done] in the Hague, then the conclusion one infers from 
that is that crimes were a matter of policy.”

Lyon said that prosecutors were being hampered in their investigations.

“The political forces from on high are preventing prosecutors and investigators 
from going up the chain of command,” he said.

“In other words, these war crimes trials are being limited only to the trigger 
men – the people who pulled the trigger – there’s no effort to go after those 
who gave them the order to pull the trigger.”

Some observers say officials are nervous that investigations could uncover 
evidence of Belgrade’s involvement in war crimes, while others point out that 
officials implicated in criminal activity could still be in positions of 
authority to this day. 

Jovanovic noted that prosecutors faced major obstacles in finding witnesses to 
testify against top officials.

“You have to bear in mind that going up to high-ranking people has to be based 
on the information of the insider witness, usually in the police or the army,” 
he said.

“One of the main problems is that persons within the police are not often 
willing to testify against their own superiors or former comrades.”

IMPACT OF KOSOVO CRISIS

Meanwhile, the political crisis unravelling in Serbia following Kosovo’s 
declaration of independence in February has resulted in an even more hostile 
environment for war crimes prosecutions.

The following month, Serbian president Boris Tadic dissolved parliament and 
called elections after his former coalition partner Prime Minister Kostunica – 
furious at European leaders’ recognition of Kosovo’s independence – turned away 
from European integration.

If non-nationalistic parties triumph at the May 11 parliamentary polls, it 
could result in a boost for war crimes prosecutions, while a win for the 
radicals could end support for the court altogether.

Anger in Serbia at the recent acquittal of former Kosovo prime minister Ramush 
Haradinaj on war crimes charges at the Hague tribunal has compounded problems, 
with some politicians calling for war crimes investigations to be frozen 
altogether in retaliation against the verdict.

Kandic said that in the fallout following Kosovo’s declaration of independence, 
progress on war crimes prosecutions had all but ground to a halt. 

“In February and March, [ethnic Albanian] families didn’t like to come to 
monitor the trials – they felt fear to come to Serbia,” she said.

She said there were also suspicions that prosecutors were failing to open cases 
in relation to crimes against non-Serbs in Kosovo where there was ample 
evidence to do so.

“[Prosecutors] are afraid to deal with crimes against Albanians… They always 
speak about the crimes against the Serbs…cases against the Serbs, and it’s a 
consequence of the political situation here,” she said.

But Vekaric dismissed these claims, saying that the prosecutor’s office was 
unaffected by political pressure. He added that prosecutors were currently 
investigating several cases of alleged war crimes in Kosovo, and that new 
indictments were expected.

COURT MADE IMPORTANT STEPS FORWARD

In spite of the many obstacles facing war crimes prosecutions, most observers 
agree that investigators, prosecutors and judges at the Belgrade WCC have come 
a long way in the last five years.

A particular advance cited is the development of strong regional cooperation 
between war crimes courts in Bosnia, Croatia and Montenegro. Prosecutors from 
countries which less than two decades ago were locked in bitter conflicts now 
work side by side to conduct war crimes investigations and open trials.

Kandic noted that this regional cooperation had also allowed prosecutors of the 
former Yugoslav countries to overcome a constitutional ban on extraditing 
nationals to face war crimes charges.

“Prosecutors from Croatia and Serbia understood that they don’t have the 
constitutional ability to extradite, and they decided to give evidence to each 
other and to support [each other’s] war crimes trials,” she said.

According to Ellis, the court – along with the Hague tribunal – has the 
potential to persuade Serbs to begin accepting responsibility for their part in 
the wars.

War crimes trials could help challenge public perceptions of what went on 
during war, he said, citing the reaction in Serbia after footage of Scorpion 
paramilitaries killing six Bosniaks during the Srebrenica massacre was screened 
at the ICTY trial of Milosevic. 

When Serbs saw this video, he said, their illusions about Milosevic collapsed. 
In 2007, four former Scorpion members received long prison sentence at the WCC 
for the killings – a verdict now pending appeal.

“Who would have thought that Serb paramilitary units would be convicted of war 
crimes against Muslims in Srebrenica in a Serbian court?” asked Ellis.

“To me, that’s extraordinary. It’s one of the real bright lights for the 
country.”

Caroline Tosh is an IWPR reporter in London. Aleksandar Roknic is an 
IWPR-trained journalist in Belgrade.

**** www.iwpr.net 
********************************************************************

ICTY - TRIBUNAL UPDATE, which has been running since 1996, details events and 
issues at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY, 
in 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 ICTY - Tribunal Update are those of the authors and 
do not necessarily represent those of the publication or of IWPR.

ICTY - 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.

ICTY - TRIBUNAL UPDATE: Editor-in-Chief: Anthony Borden; Managing Editor: Yigal 
Chazan; Senior Editor: John MacLeod; Project Manager: Merdijana Sadovic; 
Translation: Predrag Brebanovic, and others.

PROJECT AND DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT: Executive Director: Anthony Borden; Strategy & 
Assessment Director: Alan Davis; Chief Programme Officer: Mike Day.

**** www.iwpr.net 
********************************************************************

IWPR is an international network of four organizations which are governed by 
boards of senior journalists, peace-building experts, regional specialists and 
business professionals.

IWPR builds democracy at the frontlines of conflict and change through the 
power of professional journalism. IWPR programmes 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.

IWPR - Africa, P.O. Box 3317, Johannesburg 2121
Tel: +2 711 268 6077

IWPR - Europe, 48 Gray’s Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK
Tel: +44 20 7831 1030

IWPR – United States, 1616 H. Street, Washington, DC 20006, United States
Tel: +1 202 449 7663

Stichting IWPR Nederland, Eisenhowerlaan 77 K, 2517 KK Den Haag, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 70 338 9016

For further details on this project and other information services and media 
programmes, go to: www.iwpr.net 

ISSN 1477-7940 Copyright © 2008 The Institute for War & Peace Reporting 

**** www.iwpr.net 
********************************************************************

If you wish to change your subscription details or unsubscribe please go to:  
http://www.iwpr.net/index.php?apc_state=henh&s=s&m=p 

Reply via email to