Strategic Culture Foundation
July 28, 2008
The Hague: A Lethally Dangerous Place
Alexander Mezyaev*
It was announced on July 21 that one of the main
suspects wanted by the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the former President
of Republika Srpska Radovan Karadzic had been arrested
in Belgrade.
The first indictment against Karadzic was issued by
the ICTY prosecutor R. Goldstone in November, 1995.
The charges included 36 counts such as genocide,
complicity in genocide, killings, persecutions,
deportations, inhumane acts, terror against civilian
population, and the taking of hostages. However, the
new ICTY prosecutor Carla Del Ponte subsequently
changed the indictment, leaving only 11 counts.
Interestingly, the ICTY had in fact pronounced a
judgment on Karadzic already in July, 1996.
When the ICTY rules were drafted at the early phase of
its existence, controversy arose over the procedure
allowing for trials in absentia, that is, without the
accused being physically present before the Tribunal.
A number of judges strongly objected to the option
while others deemed it necessary. Rule 61, formally
regarded as the procedure of reviewing charges by the
Tribunal, was adopted as a compromise.
In reality, the procedure is a lot more unfair than
the previously proposed trials without the accused
being present, as the latter would at least provide
for the participation of defense in the process.
On the contrary, Procedure 61 does not imply any
involvement of defense even formally. Karadzic was
indicted on July 11, 1996 on all counts in accord with
Rule 611. The hearings took only 7 days, and the
decision was made in just 2 (!) days.
Indicting Karadzic was a matter of enormous importance
to the ICTY due to the fact that the Tribunal's
interpretation of responsibility was based on the
theory of “a joint criminal enterprise”.
According to it, the guilt of the accused could be
assumed proven in case there allegedly existed the
enterprise and the individual was involved in it.
The concept was introduced by a US judge in the
beginning of the Tribunal's activity to make it
possible to prove cases lacking any kind of supporting
evidence.
Thus Karadzic, who was not only portrayed as a kind of
demon by the mass media but also had been indicted by
the Tribunal without a trial, turned into “evidence”
against other accused individuals.
It may be hard to imagine, but bracketing Karadzic
with “a group of criminals who acted in concert” was
presented as evidence proving the guilt of Yugoslavian
President Milosevic!
The allegation that over 7,000 Bosnian Muslims were
killed in Srebrenica in July, 1995 by the forces of
Republika Srpska which were under the command of
Karadzic as the Republic's President, was the main
charge against him.
Though several trials related to the events in
Srebrenica have taken place at the Tribunal between
1996 and 2008 and, due to vigorous media campaigns,
the very word Srebrenica became a synonym of the
“Serbian atrocity”, the trials actually failed to
confirm the version of the events.
Of course, the ICTY did “establish” that genocide
against Muslims had been committed in Srebrenica and
laid the guilt for it on the leaders of Republika
Srpska, but a review of the evidence on which the
conclusion was based easily reveals that the resulting
sentences are unfair and rely on hypotheses,
guesswork, and in some instances on downright
falsifications.
Even the fact of mass killings of civilians in the
form in which it has been “established” by the ICTY
remains unconfirmed.
Though the notion that over 7,000 Muslim men and boys
have been killed in Srebrenica is now commonly
accepted, no evidence to the effect has been presented
to the Tribunal.
Only 1,500 of the mythic 7,000 burials were found, but
some 1,000 of the people died in combat and could not
be counted as civilians.
As for the extent of responsibility of particular
individuals, the situation is even obscurer.
A number of people, particularly Gen. R. Krstic and V.
Blagojevic, were found guilty solely on the basis of
testimony given by other individuals who initially had
been tried together with them.
For example, somebody, Miroslav Deronjic, agreed to
testify against others and said they planned genocide,
but did so in return for dropping genocide charges
against himself.
Deronjic also testified against Milosevic who was
charged with genocide in Srebrenica.
The centerpiece of Deronjic's testimony was his
statement that Karadzic “told to kill them all”.
That was all the evidence available, but it was deemed
convincing enough to find Milosevic guilty of genocide
as it was concluded earlier that Milosevic had been in
the same “criminal enterprise” with Karadzic. As for
Deronjic, upon having played his role he was sentenced
to 10 years and died last year in jail in Holland.
The case of Drazen Erdemovic, who had personally
executed over a hundred civilians, was no less absurd.
Murder charges against him were dropped as a reward
for his saying that he killed people on the orders
issued by the leaders of Republika Srpska.
Milosevic completely disproved Erdemovic's testimony
during a cross-examination, but the Tribunal has no
concerns over the truthfulness of witnesses'
testimonies as it is fully aware that those are
actually false. No doubt, Erdemovic is going to be the
key witness in case Karadzic is tried by the ICTY.
The defense phase of another trial related to
Srebrenica – the Popovic case involving a total of 9
people – continues, but it is already equally clear
that the Tribunal failed to prove the guilt of any of
the accused and that they are not going to be
acquitted.
The purpose of the Tribunal is not to serve justice
but to legitimize the falsified version of history
written with the blood of the victims of the forces
which had destroyed Yugoslavia, that is, the US and
other NATO countries.
A circumstance that should not be overlooked is that
Karadzic was arrested at the time when, as planned by
the UN Security Council, the Tribunal is about to
close.
According to the plan, all trials must be completed by
the end of 2008, and all appeals must be processed by
the end of 2010.
It is obvious at the moment that the schedule will not
materialize.
Some of the trials are at the very early phase (for
example, the trial of Serbian Radical Party's
President Vojislav Seselj) and others have not even
commenced nor are going to open in the nearest future.
Russia addressed the situation by suggesting not to
extend the Tribunal's mandate and to transfer the
currently open proceedings to national jurisdictions.
It is clear in the context that the arrest of Karadzic
can benefit the ICTY.
Notably, the Tribunal is the costliest institution run
by the UN.
The salaries of its judges are orders of magnitude
higher than those of the presidents of Western
countries.
The exact salaries of the ICTY judges and prosecutors
are kept secret, but one can guess a lot from the fact
that minor ICTY attorneys are paid Euro 30,000 a
month.
The end of the Tribunal would be a personal drama for
its employees.
Russia's suggestion to transfer incomplete cases to
national courts is not a problem-free solution either.
Does Karadzic have a chance to stand fair trial in
Bosnia where the case would belong as the alleged
crimes were committed in its territory? No doubt, no
fair trial of Karadzic can be expected in the Hague
either, but there at least the process would be
watched by the whole world.
In case the trial of Karadzic takes place, it is going
to be a serious challenge for the ICTY.
Until recently, the Tribunal was not exactly eager to
see him arrested and brought to trial.
Carla Del Ponte's recent scandalous book has
overshadowed the no less interesting one written by
her former press-secretary Florence Hartmann, in which
she describes “strange” developments related to
Karadzic’s and Mladic’s cases.
For example, she claims that Jacques Chirac has
brokered a deal to never try Karadzic in return for
the release of French officers.
A lot of things referred to in this book, if presented
at a trial, could hurt high-ranking politicians in the
US and other NATO countries.
It appears likely that the trial will either never
start or never be completed. The destiny that awaits
Karadzic, considering how much he knows, can be the
same as that of Yugoslavian President S. Milosevic and
Serbian Krajina's President M. Babic – doctors in the
Hague jail are known to easily declare that the deaths
of inmates have been natural.
*Prof. Alexander B. Mezyaev is the Head of the
International Law Department at the Administration
Academy (Kazan')