WELCOME TO IWPRS ICTY TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 616, September 18, 2009 COURTSIDE:
HARTMANN TO APPEAL CONTEMPT CONVICTION Leading media freedom group says judgement undermines credibility of international criminal justice. By Rory Gallivan in London UN OFFICIAL CASTS DOUBT ON INDISCRIMINATE SHELLING CLAIMS Former special envoy observed following artillery attack that damage to town of Knin was unexpectedly minor. By Goran Jungvirth in Zagreb PANDUREVIC DEFENCE CALLS FOR ACQUITTAL Former Bosnian Serb army commander's lawyer said prosecutors failed to prove case against his client. By Velma Saric in Sarajevo STANISIC-ZUPLJANIN TRIAL BEGINS Prosecutors say ex-police chiefs were responsible for atrocities committed against non-Serbs in Bosnia. By Velma Saric in Sarajevo **** NEW ************************************************************************************ NEW VACANCIES AVAILABLE http://iwpr.net/vacancies **** 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 BECOME A FAN OF IWPR ON FACEBOOK http://facebook.com/InstituteforWarandPeaceReporting FOLLOW US ON TWITTER http://twitter.com/iwpr **** 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 ******************************************************************** HARTMANN TO APPEAL CONTEMPT CONVICTION Leading media freedom group says judgement undermines credibility of international criminal justice. By Rory Gallivan in London An ex-spokesperson for the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY, is to appeal after being convicted of contempt of court for disclosing confidential information. Florence Hartmann, who served as the spokesperson to former tribunal prosecutor Carla Del Ponte from 2000 to 2006, was fined 7,000 euro for revealing, in knowing violation of a court order, the details of two appeals chamber decisions made in the case against former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic. The prosecution had called for a fine of between 7,000 and 15,000 euro. We will appeal this matter and are in the throes of doing so, Hartmanns lawyer Karim Khan told IWPR the day after the judgement was passed. The defence team has 15 days from the date of the decision to file an appeal. The information Hartmann revealed related to orders by Hague judges to suppress parts of certain Serbian military documents that Belgrade had provided for use in the case against Milosevic. The former presidents case ended without a verdict when the accused died of a heart attack in 2006. The documents are thought to include minutes of meetings of Serbias Supreme Defence Council, SDC, held during the Balkans wars of the Nineties. These minutes are widely believed to contain crucial information about Belgrades involvement in these wars, and victims groups, lawyers and the media have all criticised the decision not to make them public. Hartmann, a former journalist who covered the war in Bosnia for French newspaper Le Monde, discussed confidential aspects of the courts handling of these documents in a book entitled Peace and Punishment (Paix et Chatiment), published in September 2007, and in an article published on the Bosnian Institute website on January 21, 2008. In the article, which remains on the Bosnian Institute website, Hartmann argued that the suppressed documents might have supported the Bosnian governments genocide case against Serbia at the International Court of Justice, ICJ, which concluded in February 2007. While ICJ judges found Serbia guilty of failing to prevent the genocide committed against Bosniaks in Srebrenica in 1995 and to punish the perpetrators, they ruled that Serbia was not directly responsible for this crime. Hartmann said in her article that Serbia requested that protective measures be applied to the documents, invoking a Hague tribunal rule which allows for such material to be kept secret if its disclosure could prejudice national security interests. According to her report, tribunal judges agreed to Serbias request to grant confidential status to parts of the documents, finding that the states vital national interest in not damaging its position in Bosnias case before the ICJ could be admitted as a national security interest, thus allowing protective measures to be granted under the rule. When reading out the summary of the judgement against Hartmann this week, presiding judge Bakone Moloto said her conduct could deter states from submitting evidence to the tribunal in future. This, in turn, necessarily impacts upon the tribunals ability to exercise its jurisdiction to prosecute and punish serious violations of humanitarian law as prescribed by its mandate, he said. During the trial, Hartmanns defence argued that the confidential information she included in her article and book was already widely known. It cited articles published in US newspapers The New York Times and The International Herald Tribune, as well as on this website of the UK-based Institute for War and Peace Reporting, IWPR, which it said had displayed information about the ICTY decisions. But judges said that while they considered the fact that some of the information revealed by Hartmann had already been in the public domain, they ruled that this did not negate Hartmanns actions. They also noted that not all of the information contained in her book and article had been publicly known at the times of publication. Judges also dismissed the defence argument that in bringing charges against Hartmann without investigating others suspected of similar acts, prosecutors had unfairly singled her out. The chamber finds that evidence that other persons may have committed similar acts to those alleged in the indictment is irrelevant to the case at hand, as it does not prove or disprove any of the charges against the accused, the judgement said. The judgement also noted that although the tribunals registrar had written to Hartmann on October 17, 2007, after the publication of her book, instructing her to comply with tribunal staff regulations to respect the confidentiality of judicial documents, she still went on to publish her article. Judges also said that during an interview with Hague tribunal prosecutors, Hartmann stated that the article was intended to be an English version of certain passages in the book, which was published in French. Its nothing new, she said in the statement, according to the judgement. The investigation into the contempt allegations against Hartmann began on January 23, 2008, two days after the articles publication. During the trial, defence lawyer Khan argued in court that in revealing the information in question, Hartmann had been fulfilling her duty as a journalist as the watchdog of society in democratic pluralistic societies, not only of the executive, but all parts, including the judiciary and the legislature. The defence argued that Hartmann had revealed information about the appeals chamber decisions in the belief that judges had violated the tribunals duty to assist victims in seeking compensation for war crimes. It called upon Louis Joinet, a French judge specialising in human rights, and Serbian human rights activist Natasa Kandic, to appear as witnesses. During its examination of Joinet, the defence referred to a letter he signed, published in Le Monde in December 2008, which criticised the proceedings against Hartmann. Joinet told judges that he had added a paragraph to the letter which he read out in court. We believe that international justice, which we have always supported, could only be strengthened in its fight against impunity by encouraging a large reflection on its role and functioning. Its reliability depends on it, he said reading from the letter. He said that the paragraph had been inspired by his years of experience of reporting on issues of freedom of expression when he worked for the United Nations. Kandic argued during her examination that many people in Serbia knew that the documents in question existed, and that their existence had been widely discussed there before Hartmanns revelations. Referring to Hartmanns indictment for contempt, she said, It seemed completely illogical that one person should be singled out for discussing it. The prosecution called two witness: Yorric Kermarrec, who works for Flammarion, the company that published Hartmanns book, and Robin Vincent, the registrar of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. Prosecution lawyer Bruce MacFarlane asked Kermarrec whether Flammarion had an agreement with Hartmann to pay her royalties on her book, and also to confirm how many copies had been sold. He replied that there was such an agreement and that 3,799 copies had been sold as of June 8, 2009. When examining Vincent, MacFarlane asked about the importance of confidentiality of state information in matters of international justice. Referring to his work at the Lebanon tribunal, as well as to his previous experience at the ICTY and with a war crimes tribunal in Sierra Leone, Vincent said that states would be unlikely to hand over confidential material if they feared that this could be disclosed. If there is any lack of confidence in the tribunal, so far as the state is concerned that's in a position to provide evidence which is crucial to that particular tribunal, once its recognised that there has been or may well be dangers of breaches, then it's unlikely that the cooperation that tribunal seeks will actually be forthcoming, he said. The decision to try Hartmann for contempt prompted widespread opposition, and the guilty verdict sparked further criticism. Reporters Without Borders, RSF, which campaigns for press freedom, said in a statement published on its site on September 15, This conviction undermines the credibility of international criminal justice. How can you trust a court that chooses to conceal documents that would help to render justice and then suppresses information about its own functioning? Former president of Slovenia Milan Kucan also voiced his disappointment at the verdict. Kucan, who before the trial signed a petition in support of Hartmann, was quoted in the Slovenian newspaper Dnevnik and other local media as saying, Without understanding the circumstances under which the court operates, it would be very difficult to strengthen confidence in its work. Kucan led Slovenia to independence in opposition to Milosevic in 1991, a process that culminated in a ten-day war between Slovenia and the Yugoslav army. He was Slovenias head of state from 1991 to 2002. Marko Attila Hoare, a historian specialising in the former Yugoslavia, who has worked as a research officer for the ICTY, was also critical of the judgement. The judges' refusal, in their verdict against Hartmann, to acknowledge the public interest in their disclosures epitomises the tribunal's increasing divorce of the principle of justice from their actual work, he told IWPR. He argued that it was particularly wrong to try such a case, when many of those suspected of war crimes in the Balkans still walked free. The very act of prosecuting Hartmann while allowing so many of the key Serbian perpetrators to remain unindicted demonstrates the tribunal's skewed priorities, he said. Rory Gallivan is an IWPR contributor in London. UN OFFICIAL CASTS DOUBT ON INDISCRIMINATE SHELLING CLAIMS Former special envoy observed following artillery attack that damage to town of Knin was unexpectedly minor. By Goran Jungvirth in Zagreb Testifying this week as a defence witness for accused Croatian general Ante Gotovina, Yasushi Akashi, ex-United Nations special envoy for the former Yugoslavia, said it was not clear if the town of Knin had been indiscriminately shelled during a Croatian army offensive in August 1995. At that time, Akashi was based at the UN headquarters in Zagreb, from where he reported developments in the war and mediated in negotiations between the Croatian government and the rebel Serb leadership. This week at the Hague tribunal, the defence questioned the witness about reports he received from UN observers in the field which said that Knin had been shelled indiscriminately by Croatian troops during Operation Storm, which began on August 4, 1995. When the defence presented him an observers report which stated that 200 to 300 shells had landed on the town in the first 30 minutes of the attack, the witness said it shouldnt be assumed that the shelling was indiscriminate. Two hundred to 300 shells could mean unselective shelling but it could mean that all those shells were dropped on military installations, he said. Generals Gotovina, Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac are accused of war crimes committed against Serbs by troops under their command during and after Operation Storm. According to the indictment, Gotovina was overall operational commander of the offensive in the southern portion of the Krajina region, Markac was in charge of special police units, and Cermak commanded the Knin garrison. The indictment states that the generals took part in a joint criminal enterprise designed to drive the Serb population from Croatia. It is estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 Serbs left the region around the time of the offensive. Prosecutors allege that Croatian forces shelled civilian areas, and say that at least 30 people were killed in Knin and at least 150 across the entire Krajina region between August and November 1995. During the trial, some former UN staff members deployed in the area at the time have testified that rather than just aiming at military targets, Croatian troops randomly shelled Knin. But this week, their former superior Akashi cast doubt on this conclusion. At several points during his testimony, the witness, who testified via video link from Japan, was unable to answer questions about the events of Operation Storm and its aftermath, saying he couldnt remember. Gotovinas defence lawyer Luka Misetic presented to the court some documents and notes signed by Akashi during that time. He read out a telegram which Akashi sent to the then UN secretary general Kofi Annan after the witness visited Knin on August 7. Reading this out, Misetic said Akashi had written that his general impression was that Knin suffered damage from the shelling, but that it is, although visible, unexpectedly minor. Akashi confirmed to judges that he had written the telegram. To counter prosecution claims that Knin was indiscriminately shelled, Misetic quoted further from Akashis telegram. Akashi had written that he had damage to the structure of the city itself is much smaller than I expected, lots of houses are completely intact, Misetic read. During the trial, prosecutors have also presented UN staff reports which said that Knins hospital was targeted by the Croatian armys shelling, and outlined the damage done to this. However, this week, Gotovinas defence presented Akashi with notes the witness made when he visited the hospital in the aftermath of the assault. In these, Akashi described the hospital as functional, without major damages, and noted that it had only been hit by one projectile. During his testimony, Misetic asked Akashi if he could remember being told about Croatian soldiers committing crimes at that time, and the witness replied that he could not. Other UN staff have testified for the prosecution that they witnessed Croatian soldiers taking part in arson and looting during the attack. I cant remember anything concrete about what they [my colleagues] told me about Croatian forces behaviour, he said. Akashi also said he could not remember if he had ever received reports that Croatian troops systematically plundered the city. He added, however, that he was very proud that Croatian soldiers had offered accommodation and shelter in their barracks to Serb civilians. He said that he saw this when he visited refugees who had been placed into Croatian army barracks following Operation Storm. Misetic also asked Akashi about political negotiations he took part in at that time. The defence told the court that Milan Martic, who led the Serbs armed rebellion in Krajina, had at one point refused a peace agreement which Akashi had tried to reach. The witness confirmed this version of events. Martic is currently serving a 35-year prison term, after being convicted at the Hague tribunal of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Akashi described a meeting held between the Croats and Serbs on July 3, 1995, which he confirmed was one of the last attempts to avoid Operation Storm. While the Croats agreed to a solution presented at this meeting by the UN, Martic refused, the witness confirmed. We were extremely bitter after that meeting, because it turned out that it was futile, Akashi said. The defence has argued throughout the trial that Croatia had wanted to come to a peaceful agreement over the status of Krajina, but that the Serbs had rejected this. This week, the defence also presented excerpts from a report Akashi wrote to the UN general secretary around the time of the operation which said that the main worry of Serbian civilians then was that they would not be able to leave Croatia. Akashi said he knew this from his conversations with refugees, when he visited them in the barracks where they were living. Contrary to the prosecution, which argues that Croatian officials conspired to expel the Serb population of Krajina, the defence states that they left willingly. To support this argument, Misetic presented documents containing details of certain pacts between the UN and the Croatian government, in which the latter agreed to the formers demands that the Serbs human rights be respected and their free passage out the country be guaranteed. Misetic said that in Akashis report to the then UN general secretary, he described a chat he had had with group of Serbs displaced from their homes. The thing that struck me the most during my contact with them was the fact that they all expressed their wish to leave Croatia, Akashi said in the report, as read out by Misetic. Maybe the biggest worry among refugees was if they will be able to leave Croatia and go to Bosnia or Serbia, when that will be possible, and will the UN assist them, Akashi wrote in his report, according to Misetic. When it was its turn to question the witness, Markacs defence asked him to compare the 1995 destruction of Knin, with that of the Croatian town of Vukovar as well as that of the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo. Vukovar was left devastated in 1991, after a three-month siege by Serbian forces, while Sarajevo endured a four-year siege by Bosnian Serb forces from 1991 to 1995. The destruction of Vukovar was complete. It cant compare with what I found in other cities, while the destruction of Sarajevo was more severe than that of Knin, Akasni said. When questioned by Cermaks defence team, Akashi spoke about a meeting he had held with the defendant. He said that Cermak had been cooperative with the UN, had acted effectively, and had appeared to believe that the human rights of local Serbs should be respected. Akashi was the 25th witness brought by Gotovinas defence. Next week, Cermaks defence team will start to present its case. Goran Jungvirth is an IWPR-trained journalist. PANDUREVIC DEFENCE CALLS FOR ACQUITTAL Former Bosnian Serb army commander's lawyer said prosecutors failed to prove case against his client. By Velma Saric in Sarajevo The defence team of Vinko Pandurevic, a former Bosnian Serb army, VRS, commander, this week called for its client to be acquitted on all counts of genocide and other crimes committed in Srebrenica. "The prosecution failed to prove Pandurevic's responsibility for crimes in Srebrenica and Zepa in July of 1995, the defence told the Hague tribunal courtroom. Pandurevic, who at the time relevant to the indictment commanded the Zvornik brigade of the VRSs Drina corps, was the final defendant to present closing arguments in the trial. He along with Vujadin Popovic, Ljubomir Borovcanin, Ljubisa Beara, and Drago Nikolic is charged with genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, while two other co-accused Radivoje Miletic and Milan Gvero face allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The defendants, whose trial began on July 14, 2006, have each pleaded not guilty to all counts against them. According to the indictment, the officials were involved in two separate but linked joint criminal plans, along with Bosnian Serb general and war crimes suspect Ratko Mladic, to expel the Muslim population from the Srebrenica and Zepa enclaves and to murder all the able-bodied men captured from the Srebrenica enclave. In July 1995, approximately 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were killed after the United Nations-protected enclave of Srebrenica fell to Bosnian Serb forces. Last week, prosecutors called for maximum sentences to be awarded to each of the accused, in the event of convictions. However, this week, Pandurevic's defence lawyer Peter Hayens said that the case against his client had not been clearly set out by prosecutors. The defence argued that the prosecution was not able to provide evidence to support the allegation contained in the indictment that on July 15, 1995, Pandurevic was kept closely informed about the transfer and execution of prisoners in Orahovac in the Zvornik area, which was located in the zone of responsibility of his unit. According to the indictment, about 1,000 Muslim captives were executed near the school in Orahovac. "Pandurevic had no effective control of the Zvornik brigade in the VRS operations from July 4 to 15, and this is a matter of fact and not of law, although you will not find a single argument in the prosecution's claims which discusses this matter," Haynes said. The defence lawyer then said that it was particularly important to point out the defendant's character and upbringing. "Pandurevic grew up in a multi-national environment. He was taught to believe in the principles of brotherhood and unity. It was his family's tradition to respect and practically assist its Muslim neighbours," he said. "His upbringing and behaviour have particular relevance in this case, as his character was at the basis of many decisions he took during the war," he added. The defence then claimed that it was precisely his character which led Pandurevic to intervene on a number of occasions during the war to prevent bloodshed. "Many lives had been saved thanks to orders or interventions by Vinko Pandurevic," the lawyer said. Hayens cited one incident which he said took place in Visegrad in eastern Bosnia in April, 1992. "Pandurevic took several thousand civilians into protection from paramilitary formations which had come from Serbia. He disarmed them and ordered them to go back to Serbia," Hayes said. The lawyer added that this version of events was backed up by "a relevant statement" from a trial witness, Midhat Guso. He then pointed to another incident which took place on July 16, 1996, when he said Pandurevic had defied Mladic's orders, resulting in a group of Bosniaks being allowed to escape after Sbrebrenica was overrun. "Pandurevic, as a commander of the Zvornik brigade, contradicted General Mladic by acting on his own initiative and letting a column of Muslim soldiers and civilians who were trying to reach Tuzla through the woods, after the fall of Srebrenica," he said. According to the prosecution, however, Pandurevics decision to open the corridor was the result of his assessment that the column, which consisted of civilians and armed Bosnian army, ABiH, members, represented a threat to the Zvornik brigade. The defence said that the incidents mentioned were evidence of the accused's "lack of prejudice and his good character". "Pandurevic was motivated by a desire to save lives, and that the chamber should take these examples into consideration, as actions speak more than words," the lawyer said. "This proves that, contrary to what the prosecution alleges, he had no genocidal intent." Following the defence's closing arguments and the prosecution's rebuttal, the largest trial to be conducted at the tribunal drew to a close, as judges retired to consider their verdict. Presiding judge Carmel Agius said the case had been "a long, tough and sometimes very complex judicial review", adding that he hoped that judges would manage to reach a judgment "in a few months". Velma Saric is an IWPR-trained journalist in Sarajevo. STANISIC-ZUPLJANIN TRIAL BEGINS Prosecutors say ex-police chiefs were responsible for atrocities committed against non-Serbs in Bosnia. By Velma Saric in Sarajevo The trial of two former high-ranking Bosnian Serb interior ministry officials accused of war crimes committed during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war began at the Hague tribunal this week. Stojan Zupljanin, the former head of the Regional Security Services Centre in Banja Luka and adviser to the Bosnian Serb political leader Radovan Karadzic, who is awaiting trial for genocide, is charged with extermination, murder, persecution, and deportation of non-Serbs in northwestern Bosnia between April and December, 1992. His co-accused Mico Stanisic is on trial for the murder, torture and cruel treatment of non-Serb civilians, as well as for his failure to prevent or punish crimes committed by his subordinates. The indictment against him states that he was appointed the minister in charge of the newly founded Bosnian Serb ministry of internal affairs in April 1992. From that time, Stanisic was the most senior ministry official, and was also a member of the Bosnian Serb government of Republika Srpska, RS. Both defendants whose indictments were joined together in September 2008 have pleaded not guilty to all charges. The accused are also alleged to have participated in a joint criminal enterprise in 1992, the goal of which was the permanent removal of Bosniaks, Bosnian Croats and other non-Serbs from the territory of an intended Serb state. Prosecutors say that this criminal plan was led by Karadzic; former Bosnian Serb parliamentary speaker Momcilo Krajisnik; ex-Bosnian Serb president Biljana Plavsic and Bosnian Serb wartime commander General Ratko Mladic. The prosecution said in court this week that "there was a widespread, systematic campaign of crimes committed by Bosnian Serbs against Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, and especially against Bosnian Muslims. The aim of this plan was to permanently remove non-Serbs from the territory which the Bosnian Serbs intended to belong to them and be part of a Serb state within Bosnia". Prosecutor Joanna Korner told judges how her team planned to present its case. "Our intention is to put the events into context during the introduction [of the case], and then gradually upgrade that framework with evidence. We will prove that the criminal enterprise was planned by the political leadership of the Bosnian Serbs, including their police and armed forces," she said. She then outlined the role that prosecutors allege was played by the Bosnian Serb interior ministry in the Bosnian Serb leadership's criminal conspiracy. "The participation of the RS ministry of interior (MUP) in this enterprise is obvious and was very significant for the success of the joint criminal enterprise led by Radovan Karadzic, Momcilo Krajisnik, Biljana Plavsic and Ratko Mladic. The accused Zupljanin and Stanisic were ideologically dedicated to the aims of the Serb Democratic Party (SDS) and close to former RS president, Radovan Karadzic," she said. "The prosecution will prove that the role of the MUP was of key significance for the achievement of the goal - the creation of a Serb state in Bosnia-Hercegovina. MUP members took active part in the initial takeover of authority by Bosnian Serbs in municipalities throughout Bosnia-Hercegovina." According to Korner, MUP members "were fully or partially responsible for the biggest mass murders" committed in the country during the conflict. Prosecutors intend to prove that as senior officials in the MUP, Stanisic and Zupljanin bore responsibility for crimes committed by their subordinates during the war, Korner said. The prosecution does not claim that they took direct part in those crimes, but we will prove that they knew of these crimes and supported them by failing to punish the perpetrators," she said, explaining that this was a sign of each accused's consent and participation in the criminal enterprise. Korner then argued that evidence showed there was close cooperation between the Yugoslav army, JNA, the Bosnian Serb Army, VRS, as well as between the various members of the Bosnian Serb and Yugoslav authorities. To support this argument, Korner cited an intercepted discussion between Karadzic and Slobodan Milosevic on October 24, 1991, in which Karadzic told the then Serbian leader that the Bosnian Serbs' goal was to take over 65 per cent of Bosnian territory and to establish their own MUP. In her introductory statement, Prosecutor Korner went on to describe the pattern of action of Serb MUP forces throughout Bosnia-Hercegovina during the war, saying it was "almost identical in all municipalities". As evidence of this, she pointed to the brutal mass murders committed in municipalities throughout the country. One such incident was the killing of some 200 men who were shot on Mount Vlasic, which lies close to Travnik in central Bosnia. "This massacre was committed by members of the intervention squad of the police from the Prijedor Centre for Public Security," she said. The prosecutor also pointed to mass murders committed in the towns of Visegrad, in eastern Bosnia, and Brcko in northeastern Bosnia, in April 1992, arguing that MUP forces carried out these crimes. Korner then presented to the court a series of photographs taken by American news photographer Ron Haviv, which showed police killing people in Bijeljina in northeastern Bosnia in the spring of 1992. "Just as photographs from the Vietnam war showed how policemen killed civilians, these photos are equally well known," Korner said. The court was then shown television news reports filmed in June and July 1992, the Omarska and Keraterm concentration camps in Prijedor municipality of north-western Bosnia, where Bosniak and Croat prisoners were tortured and abused during the war. "Police members managed or guarded notorious camps throughout Bosnia-Hercegovina, as was the case of the Keraterm and Omarska camps," she said. She added that Zupljanin visited the Omarska camp in July 1992, "meaning he was directly acquainted with the treatment of prisoners", she said. The trial chamber then heard the testimony of the first prosecution witness in the case, Dr Robert Donia, an American historian of the University of Michigan. Donia, who has authored three books on Bosnia-Hercegovina, testified about the Bosnian Serbs plan to create an ethnically clean Serb state within the country. The historian, who during his research has analysed more than 100 transcripts from Bosnian Serb parliament sessions, also discussed the political preparations carried out by the Bosnian Serb authorities to achieve this. He also testified about the role of the JNA and the Bosnian Serb police in carrying out this plan. Donia told the trial chamber that as early as September 1991, many Bosnian municipalities with a Serb majority population were joined to create autonomous districts with parallel Serb authorities. The witness also claimed that these autonomous districts were established in order to prevent Bosnia-Hercegovina's international independence, as well as recognition of the country as an independent state, which according to the witness, was an aim pursued jointly by Croats and Muslims in the country. The prosecution entered into evidence the transcript of another intercepted conversation between Karadzic and Milosevic, from September 5, 1991. The witness who had already read the transcript, said that in this conversation, Karadzic was telling Milosevic what he thought their long-term aims should be. Donia cited a quote in which Karadzic said that the Bosnian Serb leadership "will be pushing for regionalisation and the establishment of its own police". The witness said that "this conversation had taken place seven months before the conflict in Bosnia-Hercegovina broke out". He stated that Karadzic gave instructions and carefully followed the development of the Bosnian Serb interior ministry, without giving further details on this. Korner then asked the witness to describe how the Bosnian Serb interior ministry took part in taking over power in Bosnia. "In brief, MUP was an integral part of the takeover of power in those municipalities where the municipal assemblies were under control by the SDS. Often, the police force largely or completely consisted of Serbs," Donia replied. Stanisic surrendered to the Hague tribunal in March 2005. Zupljanin remained in hiding until June of the same year, when he was arrested in the town of Pancevo, just outside the Serbian capital, Belgrade. The trial continues on September 28. Velma Saric is an IWPR-trained journalist in Sarajevo. **** www.iwpr.net ******************************************************************** ICTY TRIBUNAL UPDATE, the publication arm of IWPR's International Justice Project, 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 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: Paul Bolding; Project Manager: Merdijana Sadovic; Translation: Predrag Brebanovic, and others. IWPR Project Development and Support: Executive Director: Anthony Borden; Head of Programmes: Niall MacKay; Head of Strategy: Mike Day. **** 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 Grays 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 © 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 This electronic mail message and any attached files are intended solely for the named recipients and may contain confidential and proprietary business information of the Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) and its affiliates. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Institute for War & Peace Reporting. 48 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK. Registered with charitable status in the United Kingdom (charity reg. no: 1027201, company reg. no: 2744185); the United States under IRS Section 501(c)(3); The Netherlands as a charitable foundation; and South Africa under Section 21.
