WELCOME TO IWPRS ICTY TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 617, September 25, 2009 PROSECUTION, JUDGES IN KARADZIC CASE STAND-OFF Stalemate as prosecutors decline trial chambers request to trim charges ahead of trial. By Simon Jennings in The Hague
COURTSIDE: WITNESS EXCAVATED HUMAN BODIES IN KOSOVO Kosovo Serb tells court he helped dig up fresh graves for Yugoslav army and Serbian police. By Julia Hawes in The Hague CROATIAN SOLDIERS SAY PRALJAK FORBADE CRIMES They testify that general was tolerant, cultured man, who outlawed any misdemeanours by soldiers. By Velma Saric in Sarajevo WITNESS INSISTS CERMAK HAD NO MILITARY INVOLVEMENT ex-Croatian military official claims general came to Knin to assist civilians. By Goran Jungvirth in Zagreb **** 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 ******************************************************************** PROSECUTION, JUDGES IN KARADZIC CASE STAND-OFF Stalemate as prosecutors decline trial chambers request to trim charges ahead of trial. By Simon Jennings in The Hague Prosecutors bringing the case against former Bosnian Serb president Radovan Karadzic at the Hague tribunal have stood their ground in the face of pressure from judges to cut the indictment. In the last court meeting between parties on September 8, pre-trial judge O-Gon Kwon, made a number of suggestions as to how the prosecution could limit the time it needs to present its case - including dropping charges related to alleged opportunistic killings in Potocari in the run up to the genocide in the eastern Bosnian enclave of Srebrenica in July 1995. The existing indictment drafted on February 27, 2009, outlines five such execution incidents involving Bosniak men and boys on July 12 and 13 during the course of the wider Bosnian Serb operation at Srebrenica. The judge also suggested that the number of municipalities in relation to which the prosecution plans to present criminal evidence should be cut from 27 to between 10 and 12. However, prosecutors wrote to the three-judge panel on September 18 arguing that those further reductions would have an adverse impact on the prosecutions ability to fairly present its case. Kwons proposal that the prosecution cut the indictment further after it had already agreed to make certain cuts in response to a request from the judges predecessor on the case, Lord Iain Bonomy, sparked angry protest in the Bosnian capital, Sarajevo. Members from some of the conflicts victims associations took to the streets last week and set fire to pictures of tribunal judges outside the citys United Nations office. There is concern that if prosecutors limit the amount of evidence presented and reduce the number of crime sites covered during their case, this will jeopardise their bid to prove the most serious charges against the former president of the Serb-dominated region of Republika Srpska. Karadzic faces an 11-count indictment, charging him with two counts of genocide for the forcible permanent removal of Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats from large parts of Bosnia as well as for the 1995 massacre of approximately 8,000 Bosniak men and boys at Srebrenica. He will also go on trial for the three-and-half-year siege of Sarajevo which resulted in the deaths of up to 12,000 civilians. Prosecutors have already narrowed the indictment down from its original form, which accused Karadzic of orchestrating crimes committed across 45 municipalities. Arguing for the alleged opportunistic killings in Srebrenica to be retained in the indictment, prosecutors say that the charge demonstrates the horrific treatment suffered by Bosniaks at the hands of Bosnian Serb forces as they were forced to leave the enclave. The opportunistic killings at Potocari reflect the level of terror which was inflicted on the civilian population and are therefore relevant to its forced departure from the Srebrenica enclave, they wrote to judges on September 18. The evidence is also important to counter Karadzics argument that civilians were treated humanely following the fall of Srebrenica, prosecutors say. The prosecution also reiterated this week its willingness to reduce its evidence by a third and address alleged crimes in a total of only 17 municipalities, as well as two detention camps in Brcko and Banja Luka. However, it declined to make further cuts to the number of municipalities it wishes to address, saying that it only planned to present a small amount of evidence for each. The prosecution has selected very few witnesses for the majority of municipalities it has retained, whose evidence it intends to present expeditiously, they informed the court, arguing that reducing municipalities further would overly limit Karadzics charged responsibility while not actually saving much trial time. The cost of further reducing the municipalities and depriving the trial chamber of valuable evidence and reducing the scope of the accuseds criminal responsibility far outweighs the minimal reduction in trial time, the prosecution added. Judges will now take account of the arguments raised by the prosecution. However, under tribunal rules, if they deem it necessary, they are entitled to require prosecutors to cut the indictment further before the start of the trial, which is currently slated to begin on October 19. In which case, it would be the judges rather than the prosecutors who would likely decide which elements of the charge sheet should be dropped, although prosecutors could appeal any such order from judges. Judges are under pressure to complete the trial as the court seeks to complete its UN mandate. The court is scheduled to finish its work by the end of next year, but is set to continue until mid-2013 in order to complete its remaining caseload. Kwon has stated that Karadzics trial should not last more than two and a half years. The stand-off between the judges and the courts prosecutors has again raised the lingering question about what ultimate goal the tribunal is looking to fulfil through bringing war crimes suspects from the former Yugoslavia to justice. Since its inception in 1993, the court has attempted not just to convict those responsible for the worst atrocities committed during the war in the former Yugoslavia and bring a sense of justice to the victims of crimes, but also to provide a historical account of the conflict. One of the explicit aims of the tribunal was to provide a historical record [of what occurred during the war], not simply to secure convictions, explained Paul Troop, who has defended war crimes suspects at the Hague tribunal. And there may be a feeling on part of the prosecution, it may be shared by the international community, it may be shared by the victims in Bosnia, that if he is not prosecuted for wrongdoing which properly reflects his culpability then the prosecution will somehow have fallen short. The prosecution will not want to be seen to be soft pedalling at all. So if anybody is going to take responsibility for [cutting the indictment] I am sure the prosecutor would prefer that it is the court rather than the prosecutor. With the early release of former Bosnian Serb presidency member, Biljana Plavsic, announced by the tribunal last week, criticism from victims groups about what they see as the tribunals disregard for their need for justice has escalated. Plavsic was sentenced to 11 years in prison by the tribunal in February 2003 after she pleaded guilty to political, racial and religious persecutions as a member of the Bosnian Serb presidency alongside Karadzic. She had originally been charged with eight counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide, committed in Bosnia. With Biljana Plavsic barely punished [and] given early release, it would be very wrong to yet again compromise and take the easy option and let off one of the few key perpetrators who hasnt been brought to justice [and] actually trim his indictment further. How many more times are the victims going to be let down? Dr Marko Attila Hoare, a Balkans specialist at Kingston University in London and former investigator at the court, told IWPR. Troop said that judges are faced with balancing a number of priorities when it comes to hearing different cases at the court. Clearly, the interest of the victims will be that their particular harm is properly reflected by the prosecution but the judges task is different, he told IWPR. They have to balance a number of different interests those being efficiency [of the case], the strength of the charges, and cost, with bringing suspects to justice. So in that process, even thoroughly deserving cases wont ever have their day in court. But according to both Hoare and Troop, the number of actual crime sites included in the indictment will affect the prosecutions ability to prove the most serious charges, such as genocide. It is paramount that the indictment is left alone and that no further municipalities are cut in order for judges to assess the full extent of the alleged crimes across Bosnia during the conflict, Hoare said. In terms of establishing the genocidal pattern across the whole of the country, its important to keep a broad base of municipalities, he said. One of the central controversies stemming from the war is to what extent there was a systematic plan of genocide across Bosnia or whether the crimes occurring in different municipalities were less entwined, Hoare explained. So the more you trim the crime base down, the more skewed a picture you get. For the full picture to be made clear, you have to keep the indictment as broad as possible, he said. Despite their manifest intentions over recent weeks, Troop believes the judges are unlikely to order the prosecution to cut the charges further. Past cases at the court have shown that judges may accept the prosecutions stance on the charges and proceed with the trial, with the rules allowing them to save time by other means, such as limiting time for the examination of witnesses. My view is that the prosecution has taken a calculated risk, because it recognises that the Karadzic case is quite a specific case. In previous cases, the judges have invited the prosecution to slim down the charges, the prosecution hasnt done so and then the court has also been unwilling to do so, Troop said. Judges will not want to start this trial on what they see as a negative note in terms of the perspective of the victims. Simon Jennings is an IWPR reporter in The Hague. COURTSIDE: WITNESS EXCAVATED HUMAN BODIES IN KOSOVO Kosovo Serb tells court he helped dig up fresh graves for Yugoslav army and Serbian police. By Julia Hawes in The Hague A witness told the war crimes trial of Vlastimir Djordjevic this week that he was hired by the Yugoslav army and the Serbian police to excavate bodies in the Kosovo district of Djakovica/Gjakovë. Witness K72, an ethnic Serb from Djakovica, testified in the trial of the former Serbian police chief under a pseudonym, but his face was not concealed. This week, he said that ranking officers from the Yugoslav army, VJ, and the Serbian interior ministry, MUP, took him to fresh grave sites, where the witness would use his excavator machine to uncover bodies before they were transferred to nearby trucks. This occurred in three towns surrounding Djakovica during the NATO bombings of Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999, he said. Djordjevic is on trial at the Hague tribunal for his alleged participation in a systematic campaign of terror and violence against Kosovos ethnic Albanian population. He is accused of engaging in a joint criminal enterprise that resulted in the deportation, murder, transfer and persecution of about 800,000 ethnic Albanians between January 1 and June 20, 1999. According to the indictment, Djordjevic took a lead role in efforts to conceal murders, in cooperation with Serbian state security forces and the VJ. Witness K72, a resident of Djakovica from 1981 to June 1999, told the court that a VJ officer first approached him at his home in 1998, asking him to dig trenches for the army. The witness said he was unaware of the mans rank or name. He said that he then worked for the VJ as well as for the MUP throughout 1998 and early 1999, digging trenches, bunkers and excavating roads. In April 1999, Witness K72 said that a man in a MUP uniform arrived at his house at 8 or 9 pm, wearing blue camouflage, without any rank insignia. The officer said that the witness was needed to perform a delicate job. According to the witness, the officer drove to the police station where his excavating machine was parked at the time, before the men began driving towards Prizren. Witness K72 followed the officer in the excavating machine, and they turned off the road just before reaching Bistrazin, the witness added. I saw that some digging had been done there already, the witness said, describing a clearing approximately 100 metres off the road. There was a strong stench. I felt straight away that corpses must be involved, and then I saw them. The witness was told to start digging by the officer, who returned to his car on the main road. Prosecutor Eliot Behar asked what the digging involved. I excavated human bodies, the witness said. There were four or five gypsies around. Theyd separate the bodies up to the point where I could dig the shovel. The witness said he could see the gypsies searching the pockets of the deceased. I damaged many of the bodies with the machine, the witness added. He said they were not badly mutilated, but added that with an excavation machine you might detach an arm or leg. The witness said the bodies were all male and were wearing civilian clothing. He said he could not judge how long the bodies had been in the ground, only that there was a terrible stench emanating from the grave site. He could not see their faces, since they were covered with dirt and sand, he said. The MUP officer, the witness said, told him that he had dug up 100 bodies at the site. The witness described the gypsies loading the bodies onto what he described as refrigerator trucks and other small trucks. The witness said he excavated bodies for two to three hours. Behar asked him to describe his reaction to the dig. It was harrowing, the witness said. What else could it have been? Witness K72 said that approximately three weeks later, a different MUP officer approached him about a job. The two men drove to a nearby elementary school where the witnesss excavating machine was parked. They waited until it was dark before they drove to a cemetery a few kilometres outside of Brekovac. There, he said, he was told to dig up some graves. These were covered with fresh earth and marked with wooden planks, some of which had names on them, Witness K72 said. Prosecutor Behar asked the witness what types of names were written on the planks, in terms of ethnicity. I suppose they were Muslims judging by the names, but thats not necessarily true, the witness said. One by one, the witness removed the bodies, which were then loaded onto a nearby tractor-trailer by a group of gypsies, he said. The witness told judges that he began the excavation at 9 or 10 pm in the evening, and finished at 10 am the next morning. He said he could not guess how many bodies had been pulled from the ground. I could discern faces here and there, the witness said of the bodies, adding that they were all male. Some were naked to the waist, with bullet wounds. The prosecutor then asked the witness about a statement he had given to the prosecution in which he said that he saw the letters KLA shaved into the head of one of the corpses. Witness K72 told the court that because of this marking, he suspected the man was a member of the Albanian separatist Kosovo Liberation Army, KLA, but couldn't be sure. None of the bodies was wearing distinctive KLA uniforms, he said. Witness K72 said that he was recruited for another job in Guska a couple of days later. Once again, a man in MUP uniform picked up the witness, who collected the excavator, and was then led to the nearby settlement, he said. There he was instructed to dig up three to four graves in three rows. Once again, the bodies uncovered were all adult males, dressed in civilian clothing. Behar asked Witness K72 whether he believed the police were organised in planning these excavations. They were badly organised, the witness said, adding that it was something that shouldnt have happened. But after it was over, traces remained, the witness said. People could tell something has been covered up. Behar asked if the witness had spoken with anyone from the MUP about the excavations. Yes, one man kind of threatened me, the witness said, saying the officer told him he could lose his head if he told anyone about it. Witness K72 said he did not know the particulars of the excavations or how they were authorised. During cross-examination, defence attorney Dragoljub Djordjevic asked Witness K72 why he had left Djakovica in June 1999, questioning if it had to do with the MUP and VJ. Were you afraid? Djordjevic asked the witness. Yes, very much so, he replied, adding that he would never return to the district. Djordjevic then asked whether the witness ever discussed the excavations with any of the MUP officers or gypsies, or questioned how the buried men had died. I was just a simple worker, Witness K72 said. There was no need for anyone to talk to me. No one ever said how those people were killed. Djordjevic concluded his cross-examination by revisiting particulars of the witnesss testimonies on the excavation scenes, particularly those relating to the presence of the MUP. He asked the witness if he thought it was odd that the police would secure the perimeter during an excavation. Well, it was strange that no one informed me what Id be doing, the witness said. Whether its strange that police are involved in exhumations, I dont know. It was my first one. I hope I dont do any more. The witness previously testified about the same events in October 2006 at the Hague tribunal trial of six Serb officials charged with war crimes in Kosovo, including Milan Milutinovic, the former president of Serbia. Milutinovic was acquitted on all counts in February this year. The Djordjevic trial continues next week. Julia Hawes is an IWPR contributor in The Hague. CROATIAN SOLDIERS SAY PRALJAK FORBADE CRIMES They testify that general was tolerant, cultured man, who outlawed any misdemeanours by soldiers. By Velma Saric in Sarajevo A Croatian army, HV, soldier who served under General Slobodan Praljak during the 1991-95 Bosnian war told judges at the Hague tribunal this week that the commander was a professional soldier of high moral principles. Alojz Arbutina, a former assistant commander for logistics, was one of two HV members to testify in Praljaks defence this week. Both soldiers were under the generals command from September 1991 until February 1992, while he was acting HV commander in the municipality of Sunja in the Western Slavonia region of Croatia. Praljak is on trial for war crimes along with other five high-ranking Bosnian Croat officials: Jadranko Prlic, Bruno Stojic, Milivoj Petkovic, Valentin Coric and Berislav Pusic. The six are accused of responsibility for the expulsion, rape, torture and murder of Bosniaks and other non-Croats between late 1991 and early 1994, as part of an alleged plan to ethnically cleanse parts of Bosnia in order to later join them to a so-called Greater Croatia. According to the indictment, Praljak served during the conflict as Zagreb's liaison to the Croatian Council of Defence, HVO, government and armed forces of the Bosnian Croats self-proclaimed state of Herceg-Bosna, relaying instructions from the then Croatian president Franjo Tudjman and other officials. The indictment says that Praljak exercised control over the wartime statelets armed forces, and was responsible for their logistics, organisation, planning, training, deployment, as well as strategic and combat orders. Arbutina was first to testify, telling judges that Praljak as a professional soldier who stuck to all rules and customs of war. His written statement which he had earlier given to the prosecution was submitted into evidence. [Praljak] was a man of extraordinary organisational capability Although he was our superior and although we had to respect him, he truly respected us, too, and cared about us, always finding the time to listen to his soldiers and to counsel them if necessary, Arbutina said. He demanded work, order and discipline from his soldiers, which is further reason why they loved and respected him. The witness also said that the behaviour of Praljak toward the local population showed that he was a man of high morals. Arbutina said that Praljak was not concerned about peoples backgrounds or political affiliations. He cared about all the local inhabitants, regardless of their ethnic group, having enough to eat, and not having to suffer, he said. According to the witness, during the six months Praljak was based in Sunja as a commander, not a single abandoned house in the area was destroyed, burned or pillaged, which was further evidence of his good character, he said. Praljak forbade any criminal activities from soldiers under his command, he said. He never ordered or supported such behaviour between soldiers; in fact, he explicitly prohibited it, he said. Former member of the HV Second Guard Brigade, Miroslav Crnkovic, then testified, describing in more detail the character of the accused general, as well as the way in which he interacted with those under his command. If soldiers were caught stealing or committing other criminal acts, they would be duly punished. The general punished all mistakes, even minor ones, he said. Crnkovic supported this statement by presenting a few examples. I remember how General Praljak once ordered a soldier to be detained. He had stolen some plates and forks from an abandoned, Serb-owned house, he said. The witness, however, didn't elaborate on how the soldier was punished. He then said that Praljak even reacted promptly to punish the murderer of a cat on one occasion. Describing what he said was Praljak's other side, Crnkovic said that he would often read aloud books by the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy to his soldiers. Praljak was very loved and respected by the soldiers. In his spare time, he even read the works of Leo Tolstoy to us, Crnkovic said. He said that a warrior must know other things, and that being just a warrior is not enough. The prosecutor and other defence teams did not cross-examine these two witnesses. The trial of the six accused started on April 26, 2006. Each defendant has pleaded not guilty to all charges. The trial continues next week. Velma Saric is an IWPR-trained journalist in Sarajevo. WITNESS INSISTS CERMAK HAD NO MILITARY INVOLVEMENT ex-Croatian military official claims general came to Knin to assist civilians. By Goran Jungvirth in Zagreb A defence witness in the trial of former Croatian army general Ivan Cermak told the Hague tribunal this week that the accused was tasked with normalising life in the town of Knin following Operation Storm. General [Ivan] Cermak didnt have jurisdiction over the military police and came to Knin exclusively to deal with stabilisation of civilian life, retired Croatian Army, HV, lieutenant general Franjo Feldi told judges this week. Feldi, the former commander of a Croatian military academy, was the first witness to testify for the defence of Cermak, who is on trial at the Hague tribunal. Cermak is accused, along with generals Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac, of responsibility for crimes committed against Serb civilians during and after Operation Storm, a Croatian army offensive in August 1995 aimed at reclaiming Serb-held territory. The three generals are accused of taking part in a joint criminal enterprise, the goal of which was the permanent removal of the Serb population from the Krajina region by force, fear or threat of force, persecution, forced displacement, transfer and deportation, appropriation and destruction of property or other means. The indictment says that troops under their control committed murder, torture and looting during and after the operation. It further alleges that at least 37 Serbs were murdered at the time of the assault; that troops also engaged in systematically torching or otherwise destroying and plundering villages inhabited by Krajina Serbs. According to the indictment, Gotovina, the former commander of the HVs Split military district had overall control of part of Operation Storm, while Markac was in charge of special police. Cermak was appointed commander of the Knin garrison by then president of Croatia Franjo Tudjman on August 5, 1995, a role he held until November that year, the indictment says. He possessed effective control over members of the HV units or elements who comprised or were attached to, or operated in the Knin Garrison, and also over civilian police who operated in the garrison area and areas adjacent to it, the indictment continues. An expert report that Feldi prepared about Cermaks role in Knin after Operation Storm, along with a statement he gave to Hague tribunal investigators in 2003, were admitted into evidence before the witness testified this week. Without reading it out, Cermaks lawyer Steven Kay asked the witness to confirm if the statement was true. Mr Kay, I think that I would give the same statement because I cant invent something that didnt take place. What I said then, Im ready to say now and confirm it, Feldi replied. The witness then answered questions on his expert report, in which he examined the structure and system of command inside the Croatian military at the time of Operation Storm. In the report, Feldi stated that during the operation, Cermak was formally subordinate to Gotovina. Gotovinas lawyer Luka Misetic tried to clarify further what he meant by this. From whom was General Cermak receiving orders? Misetic asked the witness, refering to the time relevant to the indictment. He didnt get them from anyone, the witness said. While noting that the Knin garrison was part of Gotovinas military district, Feldi said that Cermak received no orders and so had to use his own initiative to do the job given to him by Tudjman. The witness explained that Tudjman had named Cermak commander in Knin with a mission to normalise life in the town, and provide assistance to civilians and United Nations observers, rather than to participate in any kind of military operations. Feldi then told judges that during Cermaks time in Knin, he had not been involved in military activity, but had been occupied with receiving visits from national and international delegations. Feldi explained that besides delegations, Cermak met people in charge of local services, such as the hospital, the police, refuse collection, and other infrastructure. During these meetings, he encouraged them to keep doing their jobs. The witness then denied that Cermak had been involved in any military action, saying he had neither jurisdiction, nor military units. No one gave these [military units] to him. He concluded that Cermak was not truly subordinate to Gotovina. Feldi also said that Gotovina was not responsible for events in Knin at that time either as he was devoting his attention to further military operations after the success of Operation Storm. During cross examination of the witness, the prosecution tried to show that the accused generals were responsible for the behaviour of Croatian troops in Knin at that time. It put it to the witness that around the time of Operation Storm, the military police came under the command of the HV. The defence in the case has maintained that the military police came under the command of the military police department, which is based in the capital of Zagreb. According to HV rules at that time, military police units were subordinate to HV commanders on the ground, the witness confirmed to the prosecution. The military police department was responsible for development, equipment and combat readinesses, while superior commanders on the ground were responsible for military police troops daily tasks, Feldi said. To support his claim, Feldi cited an order issued by former Croatian military police commander Mate Lausic in December 1992. According to this, commanders of military police units were obliged to participate during coordination meetings and send reports to HV commanders of military zones, Feldi said. These meetings confirmed that the military police was subordinate to army commanders who coordinated these meetings and through which they could monitor military police, Feldi said. While prosecutors want to prove that Gotovina commanded the military police around the time of Operation Storm, his defence team has argued that they were controlled by Lausic. Testifying before the Hague tribunal in January this year, Lausic, like Feldi, said that the military police unit commanders were subordinate to operational zone army commanders in the field. The presentation of Cermaks defence case will continue next week. Notable witnesses set to testify in the case include current Croatian president Stjepan Mesic, as well as the Bosnia and Hercegovina football team coach Miroslav Ciro Blazevic. Goran Jungvirth is an IWPR-trained reporter in Zagreb. **** 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.
