WELCOME TO IWPRS ICTY - TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 553, May 30, 2008 BELGRADE DISMISSES CROATIA GENOCIDE CLAIM Serbia tells ICJ judges that crimes in Croatian war of independence were not genocidal. By IWPR and RFE staff in Zagreb, Belgrade, Sarajevo and The Hague
OUTCOME OF SERBIAN COALITION INSIGNIFICANT TO BOSNIA Relations between Belgrade and Sarajevo unlikely to improve whoever comes to power. By Nedim Sarac in Sarajevo COURTSIDE: ADEMI ACQUITTED OF MEDAK POCKET CRIMES Zagreb war crimes court hands down verdict in first case referred to Croatia by Hague tribunal. By Goran Jungvirth in Zagreb WITNESS SAYS TUDJMAN BACKED BOSNIAN INDEPENDENCE Testimony contradicts prosecution claim that late president wanted to absorb Bosnian territory into Croatia. By Denis Dzidic in The Hague **** IWPR RESOURCES ****************************************************************** FINAL CALL TO ENTER THE 2008 KURT SCHORK AWARDS IN INTERNATIONAL JOURNALISM: http://iwpr.net/kurtschork.html Deadline for applications June 1. BIANNUAL REVIEW INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE / ICTY: Report available at: http://www.iwpr.net/?p=tri&s=f&o=344325&apc_state=henptri 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 ******************************************************************** BELGRADE DISMISSES CROATIA GENOCIDE CLAIM Serbia tells ICJ judges that crimes in Croatian war of independence were not genocidal. By IWPR and RFE staff in Zagreb, Belgrade, Sarajevo and The Hague At a preliminary hearing in Croatias genocide lawsuit against Serbia at the International Court of Justice, ICJ, Belgrades representatives said this week that both sides in the Croatian war committed misdeeds, but these did not amount to genocide. While they acknowledged the true suffering of Croats during the conflict which erupted following Croatias declaration of independence in 1991 Belgrades defence team told judges at the worlds highest court that both Serbs and Croats were victims of the conflict. Misdeeds on one side spurred misdeeds on the other side, head of Serbia's legal team, Tibor Varady told the 17-member bench. This is a case in which there was no genocide. Croatia filed a genocide lawsuit against Serbia at the ICJ in 1999, claiming that a campaign of ethnic cleansing during the four-year war in Croatia yielded a form of genocide which resulted in large numbers of Croatian citizens being displaced, killed, tortured, or illegally detained, as well as extensive property destruction. According to Zagreb, the campaign, which claimed more than 10,000 lives, was directly controlled from Belgrade. About one third of the victims were civilians including women, children and the elderly. Croatia is the second country from the Balkans to bring a genocide case against Serbia to the ICJ. Bosnia filed its own genocide lawsuit against the country in 1993. However, in February 2007, ICJ judges acquitted Serbia of direct responsibility for the Srebrenica genocide, and found it guilty only of failing to prevent and punish the perpetrators of this crime. Some 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were killed when Srebrenica fell to Bosnian Serb forces in July 1995. Both the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY, and the ICJ found that the massacre amounted to genocide. This week, the Belgrade team began by contesting the jurisdiction of the ICJ to hear Croatias case. They argued that at the time the lawsuit was filed nine years ago Serbia was not a member of the United Nations and therefore not a signatory to the Genocide Convention. The case cannot go ahead unless judges find that the court has jurisdiction a decision which could take several months. Observers note that Serbia used the same argument when it challenged ICJ jurisdiction in the Bosnian case without success. However, ex-foreign minister of Serbia and Montenegro Goran Svilanovic says no conclusions should be drawn from previous lawsuits heard at the ICJ, because each case is unique. The Bosnian case is finished. Now we have a completely different situation and everything starts from the beginning. So it is possible for the ICJ to rule it has no jurisdiction to hear this case, despite the decision it made in Bosnias case, said Svilanovic. Biljana Kovacevic Vuco, the president of the Belgrade-based Committee of Human Rights Lawyers, also points out that the two genocide lawsuits should not be compared. At the time when Bosnia presented its case at the ICJ, the ICTY had already established that genocide was committed in its territory. When it comes to Croatia, genocide was not confirmed in any of the verdicts related to war crimes in this country, she said. Zagreb has high hopes that the ICJ will rule that it has jurisdiction to hear this case. I am 90 per cent sure that the ICJ will rule in our favour, said Zeljko Horvatic, a professor of international criminal law at the Faculty of Law in Zagreb. Of course, we have a long legal battle ahead of us and its outcome will depend on the ICJs readiness to apply the Genocide Convention in this case. If the case goes ahead, Zagreb will have a good chance of winning, claims Sakib Softic, head of the legal team that represented Bosnia before this court. Croatia is in a better position than Bosnia, because it can access documents that were not available to us, particularly unredacted versions of minutes from Serbias Supreme [Defence] Council meetings, he said. Just a few days before the preliminary hearings at this court, Croatia asked ICJ judges to demand these documents believed to contain evidence of Belgrades direct involvement in the Balkan wars in the Nineties both from the ICTY and from Serbia. However, their request was turned down for the time being, as the court must first rule whether it has jurisdiction to hear this case. A similar request from Bosnian team during the presentation of their case two years ago was turned down. At the time, ICJ judges said that they had already received enough evidence from the Bosnian side. Many in Bosnia believe that if the judges had access to the SDC minutes in their case this could have altered the outcome. Croatias legal representative Ivan Simonovic told IWPR he is optimistic that judges will demand the documents if the case goes ahead. "I would say that if ICJ rules in our favour on jurisdiction, there is a serious possibility that they will order both Serbia and the Hague tribunal to hand over SDC documents, he said. OUTCOME OF SERBIAN COALITION INSIGNIFICANT TO BOSNIA Relations between Belgrade and Sarajevo unlikely to improve whoever comes to power. By Nedim Sarac in Sarajevo Almost three weeks after Serbs went to the polls, it is still unclear who will form the new government and how this will affect Belgrades relations with neighbouring countries. A key player in any coalition will be the Socialist Party of Serbia, SPS, which was founded by Slobodan Milosevic former Yugoslav president and erstwhile inmate of the Hague tribunals detention centre. But it is unclear whether the SPS will join a pro-European coalition led by President Boris Tadics Democratic Party, DS, or they will ally themselves with a hard-line nationalist coalition, led by the Serbian Radical Party, SRS, whose leader Vojislav Seselj is currently on trial for war crimes in The Hague. The second possibility erodes the optimism felt by many both in the Balkans and worldwide after the bloc led by the DS did surprisingly well in the elections. The lingering question in the minds of many observers is how the yet-to-be-formed Belgrade government will influence the still unstable region. Would a coalition between the nationalist followers of Seselj, Milosevic and Vojislav Kostunica mean a return to the bad old days in the Balkans? And would a government led by the SRS, cause chaos in Kosovo, before turning its attention to Bosnia, home to a large and restive ethnic Serb community and traditional target of Serb nationalist rhetoric? Yet post-election comments made by several Bosnian politicians and analysts suggest that the situation is not that dramatic. While a Radical government in Belgrade would not be good news, they say, there is also no reason to expect a catastrophe. Furthermore, a pro-European government led by Tadic would not necessarily contribute to stability in Bosnia as many, especially in the West, might assume. Serbia today, compared to the 1990s, is a much reduced force, militarily and economically, and even if the hard-line nationalist Radical party turns out to have won the general election, it is not likely at all that the Balkans would return to the nightmares of the Milosevic era, said Tanja Topic, a political analyst from Banja Luka, the capital of Bosnias predominantly Serb entity Republika Srpska, RS. No matter which parties end up forming the new government in Belgrade, it is certain that such a government will be based on lots of political compromises and therefore be weak and unstable. The parties in the new government will be fighting for their own political survival and will not have enough strength to cause much trouble elsewhere, including in Bosnia. However, she did warn that with the socialist party on board, the new government would be unlikely to pursue closer ties with Bosnia. The new government will have to include Milosevics Socialists and that is the most significant election result. Such a government, incorporating the SPS, will not be capable of relaxing and improving relationships with Bosnia, especially on the state level, she added. Politicians in Sarajevo had mixed opinions about Serbias future government. RS prime minister Milorad Dodik and his ruling party the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats, SNSD, are not hiding who they would prefer to see in power. RS president and SNSD member Rajko Kuzmanovic told the Banja Luka-based daily Nezavisna Novine that any government elected in Serbia will have good relations and cooperate with Republika Srpska, but I am convinced that it will be the government of the Democratic Party. Dodik who openly supported Tadic and the Democratic Party during the last round of the Serbian elections, as well as during the presidential poll won by Tadic said that the SNSD had close ties with Tadics party. I am expecting the new Serbian government to continue the EU integration process while protecting the national sovereignty of Serbia and erasing the illegal independence of Kosovo, he said. Dodiks backing for Tadic has caused trouble with the SRS and its deputy leader Tomislav Nikolic. In recent months, the two have exchanged harsh words. Nikolics victory would be fatal for Serbs, said Dodik, during the Serbian presidential election campaign. Dodik is a criminal, Nikolic replied, according to a Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, RFE/RL, report. Topic said that personal ties sometimes play an important role in politics, and suggested that his cool relations with Nikolic could cost him dear. If the Radicals succeed in forming a government in Belgrade that will be blow for Milorad Dodik and might, in the long run, challenge his currently unquestioned status in Banja Luka, she said. Although the main Bosniak and Croat political parties in Bosnia welcomed the success of Tadics pro-European bloc, their support has been lukewarm compared to that of Dodik. The results of the Serbian elections are not of any significance for Bosnia, said Croat member of Bosnias tripartite presidency Zeljko Komsic. Komsic seemed to suggest that there was little difference between the policies of Tadic and the Radicals. Not much has changed. The results spelled out that the nationalist bloc and I am not sure that Boris Tadics party should be excluded from that category is able to form a new Serbian government, he said. Sarajevo-based political analyst Ivan Lovrenovic agreed. Although politicians from Sarajevo naturally support anyone but the Serbian Radicals, in this particular case they are not thrilled with a Tadic-led government either, he said. The political situation in Bosnia has deteriorated since the last general election in 2006, mainly due to Dodiks nationalist rhetoric. The prime minister has repeatedly said he will not tolerate any threats to the existence of RS, claiming the dissolution of this entity was the main goal of Bosniak politicians. Dodik has fanned the flames of Serbian nationalism, threatening on several occasions that RS might hold a referendum on independence, causing major concern for Bosnia and the international community. Politicians in Sarajevo are frustrated by the fact that Tadic, who has been seen as a democrat, unconditionally supports Milorad Dodik and his nationalist policies, Lovrenovic told IWPR. It is a painful paradox that in Bosnia, Boris Tadic who is seen by many as a democratic politician with a pro-European orientation supports the aggressive policies of Milorad Dodik. But it is not Tadics and his Democratic Partys fault. Rather it is an axiom of Belgrade policy to enforce a strategy of Serbian national unity when it comes to Bosnia. It has been like that at least for the last century. Therefore, whoever forms the government in Serbia in the end - Radicals or Democrats will not affect Bosnia much. Nedim Sarac is a Sarajevo-based journalist. COURTSIDE: ADEMI ACQUITTED OF MEDAK POCKET CRIMES Zagreb war crimes court hands down verdict in first case referred to Croatia by Hague tribunal. By Goran Jungvirth in Zagreb Croatian general Rahim Ademi has been cleared of responsibility for atrocities committed against Serb prisoners by Croat troops during a 1993 military operation. However, his co-accused General Mirko Norac was sentenced to seven years in prison, after being found guilty of failing to prevent and punish the perpetrators of these crimes. According to the verdict handed down by Presiding Judge Marin Mrcela on May 30 at a Zagreb court, Norac knew the crimes were committed, yet did nothing to stop them. While Ademi and Norac were originally indicted by the Hague tribunal, their case was referred to Croatia for trial in 2005. Their indictment alleged that at least 29 Serb civilians were killed and dozens more wounded during the operation, which was carried out to regain control of a part of Croatia held by Serb rebels from 1991. Many of the victims were women or elderly. Norac and Ademi were also accused of responsibility for the unlawful destruction of civilian property. The majority of prosecution witnesses testified that after the offensive, people wearing Croatian army uniforms looted and burnt Serb houses. During the trial, which lasted almost a year, around 100 witnesses testified, many of them giving evidence via video link out of concern for their safety. The generals were in conflict from the start, each seeking to downplay their own involvement while stressing the commanding role played by the other. Although Ademi was the higher-ranking of the two generals, he claimed he did not control Norac, who instead took orders from a parallel chain of command headed by chief of the general staff Janko Bobetko, and minister of defence Gojko Susak both of whom are now dead. At the time of the offensive, Norac held the rank of colonel and was commander of the 9th Guards Motorised Brigade of the Croatian army, the main unit involved in the operation. However, prosecutors said he also commanded Sector One, a combat group set up specifically to run the operation, which Norac claimed never existed. In his closing statement last week, chief state prosecutor Antun Kvakan repeated the charges against the generals, underlining what he argued was their failure to secure enough military policemen in the field when it was obvious that crimes could easily occur. Kvakan dismissed Ademis defence that the operation was commanded by Bobetko. If it is even true that Bobetko planned everything, it is logical that he sent people to control how the operation was conducted, he told the court. The prosecutor also dismissed Noracs claims that Sector One did not exist, reminding the court about the large number of documents and statements that mentioned it. Throughout the trial, defence witnesses gave very different statements about the chain of command. Some said Norac and Ademi were only nominally in charge. The defence teams presented their closing arguments on May 26, each calling for its own client to be acquitted. Lawyer Cedo Prodanovic said the charges Ademi were groundless. The prosecution charges Ademi with having command responsibility; however, there is no evidence to support that he commanded the action and the retreat, he said. Instead, Prodanovic said responsibility for the crimes lay with Bobetko, Norac as well as Admiral Davor Domazet-Loso, who has been investigated for war crimes, but never charged. Ademi wrote the order to attack and to form Sector One, according to Bobetkos decree. And the request to retreat [from Medak Pocket] he wrote according to the decree of [General] Petar Stipetic who gave that command orally, said Prodanovic. Prodanovic argued that the prosecution did not have access to all the facts, and was under particular pressure to secure convictions because the case was the first to be referred by the Hague tribunal to the Croatian courts. The defence had evidence that the prosecution didnt war diaries and commands. But [on seeing this evidence] the prosecution did not react, but accepted the case as it is, said Prodanovic. With this evidence the facts changed significantly and the indictment against Ademi, which was already groundless, became absolutely unsupported. The evidence showed that others should be sitting in the dock. Meanwhile, Noracs defence asked that the charges against him be dropped. Not one single soldier under Noracs command committed a crime, said his lawyer Zeljko Olujic. To support this, he added that not a single witness had said he or she informed Norac about the crimes that were committed. According to Olujic, Norac couldnt have known about the crimes because he was engaged in combat operations all the time. Regarding looting charges, Olujic said the local population had already left the area before the Croatian army arrived, So property couldnt be stolen from anyone. Noracs second lawyer Vlatko Nuic said his client didnt have jurisdiction over the special police units and stressed that there was neither a parallel chain of command nor a Sector One. His defence contended that politics had influenced the trial, the gathering of evidence and the decision to transfer the case from The Hague to Zagreb. The tribunal judges, like Pontius Pilate, washed their hands of my defendant and said, Here, you have him, you try him if you want, said Nuic. Norac, who has already been convicted by a Croatian court of war crimes committed by his troops in the Gospic area in 1991, and is currently serving his 12-year sentence in Croatia, has the right to appeal the judgement. Goran Jungvirth is an IWPR-trained reporter in Zagreb. WITNESS SAYS TUDJMAN BACKED BOSNIAN INDEPENDENCE Testimony contradicts prosecution claim that late president wanted to absorb Bosnian territory into Croatia. By Denis Dzidic in The Hague A defence witness at the trial of former Bosnian Croat leader Jadranko Prlic said that Croatias former president Franjo Tudjman was in favour of an independent Bosnia. Prlic is on trial at the Hague tribunal, charged alongside Slobodan Praljak, Bruno Stojic, Milivoj Petkovic, Valentin Coric and Berislav Pusic with attempting to ethnically cleanse Bosniaks from the wartime Croatian mini-state of Herceg Bosna in Bosnia. The indictment states that the accused along with senior Croatians, including Tudjman and defence minister Gojko Susak, who are both now dead took part in a joint criminal enterprise to seize parts of Bosnia by force and incorporate them into a greater Croatian republic. This week, Zdravko Sanjcevic, the former Croatian ambassador to Bosnia, was presented with numerous extracts from books written by the president, as well as transcripts of meetings between him and representatives of Herceg Bosna, where Tudjman is quoted as saying he viewed Bosnia as a part of the Croatian banovina or province. However, Sanjcevic said that he had several meetings with Tudjman where the president gave reasons why Bosnias independence was important. The first one was that the UN commission had stated that there would be no border changes after the break up of Eastern European countries, said the witness. His second reason was that at that time Serb forces were in control of a part of Croatia and he was worried about setting a precedent of dividing parts of countries. Finally, Tudjman told me that if the Croatian parts of Bosnia were incorporated into Croatia, that would leave a Serb state just 100 kilometres from Zagreb, which he wouldnt accept. Sanjcevic said he became the first Croatian ambassador to Bosnia in October 1992. I was told by President Tudjman that I had been given the role of ambassador because I was born in Bosnia and would have respect for the country as a whole, he said. However, he did not meet the then president of Bosnia Alija Izetbegovic till December of that year because Sarajevo was under siege by Serb forces at the time. Izetbegovic told me not to open my embassy in Sarajevo as the Serb forces would destroy it the next day. Those were his exact words, so I was forced to find a more peaceful base for the new embassy, he said. Finally, I decided on [the western Bosnian town of] Medjugorje, because it was a peaceful area, the Croatian border was quite near and the main humanitarian aid route passed through the town, so it allowed me to have a lot of information. When asked about the war in Bosnia and clashes between the Bosnian army and the Croatian defence council, HVO, the witness denied that the two forces had ever been at war. Yes, there had been clashes between certain groups from both sides, but only between extremist groups. Most of the population and the military on both sides cooperated wonderfully throughout this period, he said. To support this, he recalled a visit he made to East Mostar in May 1993 as part of a Croatian-Turkish goodwill mission set up to promote better relations between Croatia and Bosnia. Sanjcevic explained that although the mission was supposed to visit several parts of Bosnia, it was refused access to Bosnian territory by Arif Pasalic, the commander of the Bosnian Army 4th Corps. According to the witness, he persuaded Pasalic to let the group visit East Mostar. However, the mission was warned not to stay long as Pasalic was about to attack the city. Pasalic said he had been given orders to take the entire Hercegovina region and large parts of the Croatian coast by force. This would have allowed mujahideen Muslim extremist fighters and military aid from extremist Islamic countries to come to Bosnia. Naturally, I reported this conversation to the Croatian authorities and the attack failed, said Sanjcevic. Sanjcevic stressed that this was only one, extremist view, and added that most of the Bosnian authorities at that time backed the Vance-Owen peace plan. The plan, designed by UN special envoy Cyrus Vance and European Community representative Lord David Owen, which involved the division of Bosnia into 10 semi-autonomous regions, ultimately failed because it did not have Serb backing. The witness also said that Prlic had a brilliant mind and always worked hard for the interests of Bosnia. The trial will continue next week with another witness for Prlics defence. Denis Dzidic is an IWPR-trained reporter in The Hague. **** 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; Editor: Caroline Tosh; Project Manager: Merdijana Sadovic; Translation: Predrag Brebanovic, and others. IWPR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND 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 organisations 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 Grays 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
