War Crimes Prosecution Watch is a bi-weekly e-newsletter that compiles official documents and articles from major news sources detailing and analyzing salient issues pertaining to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes throughout the world. To subscribe, please email warcrimeswatch@pilpg.org and type "subscribe" in the subject line.
Cambodian Extraordinary Chambers (ECCC)
Official Website of the Extraordinary Chambers
Official Website of the Khmer Rouge Trial Task Force
Official Website of the United Nations Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Trials (UNAKRT)
Khmer Rouge trial bogs down in politics
Asia Times
By Bertil Lintner
February 9, 2007
PHNOM PENH - Everything appears set for Cambodia's trial of the century. A huge building attached to the country's army headquarters on the outskirts of the capital has been turned into a courthouse. Behind it, a temporary detention facility is being built to house the suspects once they have been apprehended and brought to trial.
Cambodian as well as United Nations-appointed international prosecutors, defenders and judges are at the ready to take their
positions on the court's benches. The day of reckoning is finally here for the leadership of the Khmer Rouge, which ruled Cambodia from April 1975 to January 1979, during which an estimated 2 million to 3 million people died from government-ordered executions, starvation and disease.
Or is it? Last November, legal experts from the UN submitted an 81-page document titled "Draft Internal Rules" for "the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia". It has yet to be approved by the Cambodian side and, if an agreement has not been reached by the end of April, the international judges will consider asking the UN to withdraw from the tribunal, the French investigating judge, Marcel Lemonde, told Asia Times Online in an exclusive interview.
While people on the international side are emphasizing "the extraordinary chambers" part of the tribunal's charge and insisting on international standards, their Cambodian counterparts view the trial more through the sovereign lens of the "Courts of Cambodia". "We are not speaking the same language in many different ways," said Lemonde. The result may be that the accused leaders of the Khmer Rouge go unpunished for their crimes against humanity.
That would no doubt please China, the Khmer Rouge's main international supporter during the Indochina war as well as during its four years in power. After the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in December 1978 and January 1979, Chinese support helped the Khmer Rouge hold the line against Vietnamese troops from bases along the Thai border.
The latest problems for the trial began last November, when the Cambodian Bar Association (CBA) forbade local lawyers to attend a training program planned by the London-based International Bar Association (IBA), and threatened to cancel the program unless it solely selected the program's participants and speakers. "The prohibition by the Cambodian bar is part of a wider scheme of opposition designed to obstruct the operation of the tribunal," the IBA said in a statement dated November 24. The IBA subsequently canceled the program.
The Cambodian bar, for its part, accused the international group of "encroaching on its sovereignty", arguing that under Cambodian law the local bar is the only body mandated to regulate the country's legal proceedings. The UN-sponsored international contingent argues that the CBA appears to have overlooked Article 2.2 in an agreement that senior minister Sok An and Hans Corell, UN undersecretary general for legal affairs, signed on June 6, 2003, which says: "The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, and in particular its Articles 26 and 27, applies to the agreement."
Article 27 states, "A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty." And besides, international law would have to apply. According to Robert Petit, the Canadian co-prosecutor, Cambodia's criminal law is "not complete and comprehensive, and sometimes contradictory".
Petit has relevant international experience, having previously served as a legal officer in the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, as regional legal adviser for the UN's mission to Kosovo, and as senior trial lawyer in the Office of the Prosecutor for the Special Court in Sierra Leone. His Cambodian counterpart, Chea Leang, comes from a totally different legal tradition: she and most of the Cambodian judges on the tribunal were educated in the former Eastern Bloc, including in East Germany, the Soviet Union and Vietnam.
Political complications
But it is not only a question of different backgrounds and widely diverging interpretations of the law. The situation in Cambodia has also changed quite dramatically since June 21, 1997, when Cambodia's then co-prime ministers, Prince Norodom Ranariddh and his bitter rival Hun Sen, agreed to send a joint letter to the UN asking for assistance "in bringing to justice those persons responsible for the genocide and crimes against humanity during the rule of the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1979".
The request was made after repeated demands from the international - mainly Western - donor community and the United Nations, which was then represented in Cambodia by Thomas Hammarberg, a former director of the London-based human-rights advocacy group Amnesty International. Only a few weeks later, Hun Sen ousted Ranariddh in a bloody coup d'etat and forced him into temporary exile. The Western donor community was not amused, and the United States and Germany suspended all non-humanitarian aid until a free and fair election was held. Japan, Cambodia's largest donor, said it would halt new projects.
China, which Hun Sen referred to as "the root of everything that was evil in Cambodia" in an essay he penned in 1988, nonetheless came to his government's rescue. Longtime Cambodia watcher Julio Jeldres notes that China was the first country to recognize the change of regime after the July 1997 coup, and in December of that year, Beijing delivered 116 military cargo trucks and 70 jeeps valued at US$2.8 million. In February 1999, Hun Sen paid an official visit to China and obtained $200 million in interest-free loans and $18.3 million in foreign-assistance guarantees.
Since then, China has emerged as a major donor to Cambodia and - unlike aid from the West - Chinese assistance comes with no strings attached for promoting democracy or good governance. China is also a major investor in Cambodia, mainly in the garment industry, but also in agriculture, mining, hotels and tourism. Cambodia's dependence on the West will most likely further diminish when newly found oil and gas reserves come onstream.
According to the World Bank, Cambodia's total energy reserves may be as high as 2 billion barrels of oil and 10 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, which could generate as much as $2 billion in income, or several times the current combined amount that the country generates in domestic revenues and receives in foreign aid. [1]
So why would Cambodia risk upsetting its budding and lucrative relations with China - and Beijing's support for the Khmer Rouge would almost certainly be highlighted if the tribunal were to proceed - at a time when the country's dependence on Western aid and goodwill are set to diminish?
There are also reasons closer to home for Cambodia to scupper the trial. Jesper Huor, a Swedish journalist whose Cambodian father was interned and most likely executed in Khmer Rouge's infamous Tuol Sleng prison in Phnom Penh in 1977, points out that many in the present government actually belonged to the Khmer Rouge before they broke with their leaders and defected to Vietnam in the late 1970s.
That includes Prime Minister Hun Sen, though according to most sources, he was a low-ranking Khmer Rouge military commander and in a capacity not responsible for atrocities. But there are others in positions of prominence in Cambodia's currently ruling establishment who could be vulnerable and exposed during the trial, particularly if those accused began to talk or call in witnesses. Therefore, Huor argued, "Cambodia's government won't agree to a tribunal which they can't control." And, as Lemonde says, "The international judges are not prepared to participate in a show trial."
In other words, time is running out for the Khmer Rouge tribunal, and death rather than the law may ultimately catch up with the aging survivors of the genocidal regime. The top leaders of the Khmer Rouge who are still alive and who would be eligible to stand trial are all now in their 70s and 80s.
But as Trudy Jacobsen, an Australian academic, wrote in a recent issue of the Nordic Institute of Asian Studies' bulletin that a local Cambodian driver told her: "He didn't really care what happened at the tribunal, as he knew that the perpetrators would be reincarnated as beetles." In the end, as the trial bogs down in politics, that may be the best the survivors of the Khmer Rouge terror can hope for.
Nationalism is Obstacle to Justice for Former Cambodian Leader Nuon Chea
World Politics Watch
By Luke Hunt
February 13, 2007
HONG KONG -- As the ousted dictator Saddam Hussein swung miserably from the gallows there were no shortage of political leaders -- past and present, East and West -- who were willing to express their dismay or a touch of glee.
The political point scoring has abated since the December hanging. However, among the least noted to comment on the execution was a former Khmer Rouge leader, Nuon Chea, who defended the former Iraqi president and claimed "Saddam Hussein had a spirit of national love."
His comments were not surprising.
Like Saddam Hussein, Nuon Chea expects to face trial on charges of crimes against humanity, and while the allegations against Pol Pot's former number two are much grander, both men had a habit of cloaking their actions, like genocide, in nationalistic euphemisms.
It's a line that goes something like: "What was done was in the interest of all Iraqis, read Cambodians, and was necessary to rid Cambodia, read Iraq, of the evil outside forces that threaten our very existence."
But where the trial and execution of Saddam Hussein was as swift as it was cruel, the same cannot be said for Nuon Chea or the Cambodian people. Justice has evaded them since the Vietnamese ousted Pol Pot and his cohorts from power in January 1979.
Ironically, the chances of Nuon Chea, or any surviving Khmer Rouge leader, being put in the dock for the deaths of a third of Cambodia's population are wilting amid the very familiar sound of nationalistic rhetoric, only this time it's from those charged with dispensing justice.
Until recently, indictments against possibly 10 former Khmer Rouge leaders had been expected to be issued about now. The tribunal, known as the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, had expected to be underway by May.
That won't happen despite an agreement being struck with the United Nations and Cambodia in July, 2003, after six years of tortuous negotiations and the international community coughing-up $56 million to fund it.
Instead, a dangerous rift has emerged from behind a semblance of public cooperation between the Cambodian and international judges and lawyers.
It began last November when they failed to agree on about 100 basic rules needed to kick-start the trial, and the gulf is widening amid cultural and political differences, with two blocs being formed: foreign jurists on one side and the Cambodians on the other.
Initially, the Cambodian judges were accused of stonewalling their foreign counterparts amid undue political influence being exerted by elements in the government, which rights activists claim are trying to block the tribunal.
Then the International Bar Association abandoned a legal training program, meant to bring Cambodian lawyers up to speed with international law, after the Cambodian Bar Association boycotted the program and threatened to take measures against any member who participated.
The Cambodian Bar Association is now demanding greater control over the legal defense of former Khmer Rouge leaders and international lawyers have threatened to walk out of the country.
The Bar also insists it will not approve any foreign lawyer whose home country does not grant Cambodian attorneys reciprocal rights to practice law.
Given the reputation of Cambodia's legal system, it is highly unlikely that legal authorities in London, Paris or New York will grant that request.
Association president Ky Tech is also demanding Bar approval for the list of defense attorneys and has threatened to sue the tribunal -- alongside any government and foreign bar associations if their demands are not met.
The Bar has objected to the Defense Office and its principal defender, British lawyer Rupert Skilbeck. That position, according to the Bar, should also be filled by a Cambodian.
Then, in late January, the tribunal suffered another setback when foreign and Cambodian judges again failed to agree on the internal regulations. Expectations for a tribunal start date have been pushed back towards the end of this year.
Such regulations may sound mundane, but the court's members must adopt the rules so the court clearly meets international standards of justice and the selfish demands by Cambodian judges smack of nationalistic excuses.
This has escalated fears that other elderly regime figures like Nuon Chea, former head of state Khieu Samphan and ex-foreign minister Ieng Sary, who live freely in Cambodia, could die before being brought to justice.
Allegations include the deaths of up to two million people through starvation, overwork and from execution during the 1975-79 rule of the ultra-Maoists, which also abolished religion, property rights, currency and schools.
The belligerent, and steely eyed Nuon Chea has always argued, like Saddam Hussein, he only acted on behalf of all Cambodians and against the outside forces who sought to control them. This will be his defense.
"The people never used the word genocide. Only the invaders use the word genocide," Nuon Chea said during a more recent interview.
It is a well-worn argument that the Khmer Rouge have been unjustly maligned by foreigners. If the tribunal collapses and justice continues to evade Cambodians, then brace yourself, because the Cambodian Bar Association will trot out a similar defense for its failures, just like Pol Pot's most trusted lieutenant
Khmer Rouge Tribunal at Risk
Spiegel Online
February 15, 2007
A UN-supported special tribunal for the aging leaders of the Khmer Rouge may fail after all, if the prime minister gets his way. His complaint is foreign meddling.
It was meant to be the first international court for the crimes of communism, a kind of Nuremberg trial to punish the mass murderers of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. An estimated 1.7 million people died under his ideological reign of terror between 1975 and 1979, and now -- after years of negotiation with Prime Minister Hun Sen's government -- the victims would have recourse to an international, UN-supported tribunal. Its judges were sworn in seven months ago. But now the project looks set to fail.
Foreign judges and lawyers participating in the trials have said they will advise the UN to quit funding it if no one can agree on a framework for them by the end of April. The very fact that foreigners are participating -- mostly as defense counsel -- has irritated Hun Sen. He's backtracked on commitments to fund and support the trial more than once over the years, and now he says the UN-appointed legal team is a threat to Cambodia's sovereignty.
Hun Sen was once a junior-level soldier in Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge. He defected to help the Vietnamese topple the Maoist group and install a new Cambodian government, and in the meantime he's criticized many of Pol Pot's former deputies. The problem, though, is that the past isn't really over: Guerrilla factions of the Khmer Rouge were fighting late into the 1990s, and Hun Sen's ruling party, the CPP, is seen as a haven for some ex-Khmer leaders. Hun Sen played too small a role in the movement to fear retribution, but a number of his aging supporters could be hauled before the court.
The tribunal idea is popular in Cambodia: According to a poll by the Khmer Institute of Democracy in Phnom Penh, an NGO, 97 percent of Cambodians support trials to settle the ghosts of the Pol Pot era. The prime minister has said his country should "dig a hole and bury the past." But his delay tactics may not just be a function of his powerful friends. The Khmer Rouge had support from China, and current Chinese leaders have made it clear to their tiny neighbor that Beijing's role in the 1970s bloodbath shouldn't be revisited.
Khmer Rouge tribunal says kickback allegations unsubstantiated
Deutsche Presse-Agentur via Monsters and Critics
February 16, 2007
Phnom Penh - A spokesman for Cambodia's Khmer Rouge tribunal denied allegations Friday that judges were forced to pay kickbacks.
'The allegations are not true. They are totally unsubstantiated,' Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia press officer Reach Sambath said by telephone.
The New York-based Open Society Justice Initiative released a statement Thursday which said that the credibility of the court had been undermined by allegations that court personnel, including judges, must pay considerable kickbacks to Cambodian government officials in exchange for their positions on the tribunal.
The organization gave no details in its release about who had made the allegations or what evidence there was to support them.
Sambath said a routine external audit of the tribunal was underway. He denied it was related to the allegations and said the results were expected within two weeks.
The allegations threaten to further undermine the credibility of the 56-million dollar trials to try a handful of surviving former Khmer Rouge leaders, slated to get underway later this year.
Organizations including New York-based Human Rights Watch have accused the government, which still comprises a number of lower ranking former Khmer Rouge, of lacking the political will to hold the trials.
The Khmer Rouge's Democratic Kampuchea regime ruled Cambodia between 1975 and 1979, during which time up to 2 million Cambodians died.
Survivors of Khmer Rouge torture camp dying for justice
The Age
By Connie Levett
February 17, 2007
Vann Nath is a good witness, a rare survivor of Tuol Sleng, Cambodia's most notorious Khmer Rouge torture prison, and he is willing to reawaken the demons of his past at a genocide tribunal. The question is: will he survive long enough to do that?
The 60-year-old is fighting serious kidney disease with twice-weekly dialysis, while the 29 judges — 17 Cambodian and 12 international — of the genocide tribunal battle each other over the rules of engagement.
There is a threat of a walk-out by the international judges, amid allegations of Government interference and concerns about the independence of the Cambodian judges. Many senior Government officials, including Prime Minister Hun Sen, were mid-ranking Khmer Rouge officers.
At stake is justice for the more than 1.7 million Cambodians who died between 1975 and 1979 under the murderous Pol Pot regime.
"I have never forgotten what happened in Pol Pot's regime," says Vann Nath, a painter and writer. "They tortured me brutally, and not only me. People still remember. All people in Pol Pot's regime cannot forget."
Vann Nath is one of only seven survivors from the 17,000 prisoners sent to Tuol Sleng, Phnom Penh security prison 21 (S-21), the country's largest torture and detention centre. He was spared after prison commander Commodore Duch discovered his artistic talents and made him paint portraits of Pol Pot.
Of the seven camp survivors, three are still alive.
The aim of the genocide trial is to bring "senior leaders and those most responsible" to court. Pol Pot escaped justice when he died in 1988. Since 2003, when the tribunal was agreed to in principle, two more senior leaders, Ta Mok and Son Sen, have died. Duch is the only senior Khmer Rouge figure in jail awaiting trial.
"There is tremendous pressure, unbelievable pressure. A number of the potential defendants have died, a number of the potential witnesses have died," says Dr Helen Jarvis, head of public affairs at the tribunal, which goes by the unwieldy title of the Extraordinary Chambers of the Courts of Cambodia.
"On a larger scale, many Cambodians who hoped to see justice in their lifetime didn't make it. The pressure is immense but I don't think we in the courts can make up for 30 years of lost time.
"It would be foolish to establish the court on an unsound basis, since we have to have a good legal structure."
For Vann Nath, the trial matters for two reasons: "If they don't bring them to court (the Khmer Rouge) won't know what they did (was wrong). We need them to be responsible for what they did.
"If we don't do it, the young generation will not know what is wrong and what is right."
About half of Cambodia's 14 million population is under 18, born almost a generation after the event.
At the court this week when a group of 200 Cambodian law students met French tribunal judge Marcel Lemonde, they sought assurances that the trial would go ahead. All have family members who were victims of the brutal regime.
Law student Nhean Raksmay, 22, says the tribunal is needed to ensure the genocide never happens again. "Twenty-eight years ago, Cambodia went through war and fear and now we are living in peace," he says. "We have modern equipment, modern education and we can travel wherever we want.
"I hope Cambodians are walking in the right direction and will be recognised internationally. "
How Cambodian justice is perceived internationally will depend on the outcome of the tussle on the internal regulations that govern the tribunal. Two sources of tension are the independence of the judges and the role of foreign prosecutors.
The judges were sworn in in July 2006. With the present delay, it is unlikely hearings will begin before 2008, according to Judge Lemonde. "There is one point on which the international judges are unanimous — these trials should take (place) quickly or not at all," he told Agence France Presse recently.
In the West, questions are being raised about how free and fair the genocide tribunal can be when 19 local judges have been appointed by Cambodia's thuggish Prime Minister and former Khmer Rouge soldier Hun Sen. There are also questions about China's role in delaying the trial, analysts say, because it does not want its role as a backer of the Khmer Rouge re-examined.
What you hear less of in the West is the ambiguous role of the UN. Youk Chhang, director of the Documentation Centre of Cambodia which has chronicled the genocide, says the Cambodian people have reservations about both sides of the tribunal and the UN's need to document its own role.
"The conflict is that both sides are associated with the Khmer Rouge," he says.
There is no sunset clause on the tribunal but it has funding for only three years. Seven months into the process, they are still wrangling over the rules of engagement. For Vann Nath, time is precious. His life-saving dialysis costs $1275 a month, but he receives no support from the Cambodian Government. A Swedish non-government organisation gives him some financial help.
After 28 years, he still has the bad dreams. But he also has a wife, three children and two grandchildren who bring him great joy. "Sometimes when I talk about the regime I will dream again, then I cannot sleep and if I sleep I dream."
Yet, despite the nightmares, Vann Nath wants his day in court to talk about the Pol Pot regime one more time.
[back to contents]
Democratic Republic of the Congo (ICC)
Official Website of the International Criminal Court
ICC Public Documents - Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
UN Mission Steps Up Probe in Wake of Recent Deadly Violence
UN News Service
February 8, 2007
The United Nations peacekeeping mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is stepping up its investigation of the situation in the country's far west, where violent clashes last week led to the deaths of more than 130 people.
Human rights officers working with the multi-disciplinary teams dispatched to Bas-Congo province by the Mission, known as MONUC, will now survey the residents of four of the towns hit hardest by the fighting, UN spokesperson Michele Montas told journalists in New York.
MONUC said that 134 people were killed, higher than previous estimates, in the clashes between Congolese security services and members of the Bunda dia Kongo religious movment. Those clashes followed disputes over closely contested local elections in Bas-Congo.
An appeals court in Bas-Congo has called on the DRC's Independent Electoral Commission (IEC) to organize a second round of polls for the positions of governor and vice governor of the province.
MONUC has already increased its police presence in Bas-Congo, especially in the provincial capital, Matadi, and the coastal town of Muanda, which were the scene of some of the worst violence.
Yesterday, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the Security Council both issued statements deploring the violence and calling on the newly formed national Government to work with the opposition to bring the perpetrators to justice and to resolve the underlying tensions.
Meanwhile, in the far east of the DRC, MONUC has flown a team from the UN's Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) to South Kivu province to assess conditions there.
The Mission has deployed a mobile operations unit to South Kivu, which has been beset by unrest even since the formal end of the country's civil war in 1999, to help maintain public order.
Rwandan Rebels in DRC Army
AllAfrica.com - The New Times (Kigali)
By James Munyaneza
February 10, 2007
The government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) recruited in its military ranks members of Interahamwe militia from rebel outfit, the Forces for the Democratic Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), it has emerged. Sources in the eastern Congo as well as officials from the Rally for Congolese Democracy (RCD) claim that a number of the Rwandan rebels had also been issued with Congolese national Identity Cards.
An RCD official, Muhire Ruti, was quoted by the BBC Tuesday as saying that some Interahamwe rebels had acquired the Identity Cards.
When contacted for comment, Rwandan Foreign Affairs and Cooperation Minister Dr Charles Murigande denied knowledge of the rebels' acquisition of the Congolese IDs. "I don't know if it is true," he said by telephone on Wednesday.
He also said he was unaware whether Kabila's government still supports Interahamwe/FDLR rebels. Majority of the militias are blamed for the 1994 Rwanda Genocide during which about one million ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred by members of extremist Hutus.
However, the Special Presidential Envoy to the Great Lakes Region, Ambassador Richard Sezibera, confirmed to The New Times on Wednesday that there are indeed reports about the existence of FDLR members in FARDC (Congolese armed forces). "We have had reports about the presence of Interahamwe in FARDC but we are working with the Congo government to address the issue," he said, adding that Kinshasa is cooperative over the matter.
He said that the matter would be handled through the existing joint verification mechanism between the two countries. "Now that there is an elected government in Congo, we hope our two teams will sort out the matter. That is an issue that has been addressed bilaterally."
Ex-DRC rebels excluded
Both Murigande and Sezibera were however, cagey when asked for comment on the set-up of the new Congolese Cabinet.
The RCD and the Congolese Liberation Movement (MLC), both former rebel movements fighting against President Joseph Kabila's government, received no ministerial positions in the new Cabinet announced early this week.
"There is a legitimate government which has legitimacy to govern Congo the way it promised (its electorate)," said Murigande and added: "I don't think we (Rwanda) have a right to comment on an elected government."
When asked the same question, Sezibera said: "We have no comment on the formation of the government in DRC. We welcome the new government; we will work with them on issues of mutual benefit."
Both the leaders of RCD and MLC, Azarius Ruberwa and Jean Pierre Bemba, respectively, lost to President Kabila during last year's multiparty elections, the first in four decades in the vast country. They were both vice presidents during the transitional government set up under a 2002 peace deal. Kabila named 81-year old Antoine Gizenga as the country's new prime minister after the latter backed Kabila's presidential bid during last October's run-off against Bemba.
Gizenga was a deputy prime minister in the government of the country's first post-independence leader, Patrice Lumumba.
The 60-member Cabinet also includes Nzanga Mobutu, son of former dictator Mobutu Sese Seko, who was toppled by Kabila's father, Laurent Kabila Nzanga Mobutu, who also supported Kabila after the former lost his presidential bid in the first election round, is the Agriculture minister and number two to Gizenga in protocol. Congo talks Meanwhile, under a Rwandan brokered deal, the DRC is in the process of integrating the fighters of dissident General Laurent Nkunda into the national army. "They are talking and they agreed on several issues. We are happy with it," Sezibera said yesterday.
Murigande said Rwanda is currently not directly involved in the talks but added that it would assist if called upon. "Rwanda facilitated and the rest is between the two parties unless they come back for mediation."
Meanwhile, violence broke out last week in the eastern DRC between rival Banyamulenge officers, leaving several people dead and others displaced.
[back to contents]
Darfur, Sudan (ICC)
Official Website of the International Criminal Court
ICC Public Documents - Situation in Darfur, Sudan
Darfur rebel group says accepts ceasefire, talks
Reuters via The Washington Post
By Opheera McDoom and Aziz el-Kaissouni
February 15, 2007
KHARTOUM (Reuters) - One of the biggest Darfur rebel factions said on Thursday it would respect a ceasefire and was ready to resume peace talks with the government to try to halt violence in the region that has killed some 200,000 people.
Peace talks have faltered in the past, and only one of three main rebel factions signed a 2006 deal. Since then the rebels have fragmented into numerous factions, but the group which has agreed to the ceasefire is one of the largest.
"We will respect the ... ceasefire and ... once we have our commanders conference we will attend peace negotiations," rebel commander Jar el-Neby told Reuters.
U.N. Darfur envoy Jan Eliasson and his African Union counterpart Salim Ahmed Salim earlier met Darfur rebel commanders who rejected the 2006 deal.
The U.N. Security Council is expected to consult next week on proposals for a mission to protect civilians in eastern Chad, where attacks launched from Darfur have exacerbated ethnic conflicts and displaced tens of thousands.
At a French-African summit in the southern French resort Cannes on Thursday, Sudan, Chad and Central African Republic agreed not to support rebels attacking each other's territory, Sudanese Foreign Minister Lam Akol said.
"There is a commitment in this agreement that each country will respect the sovereignty of the other countries and no country will support any rebellion within its territory,"" Akol told reporters after the meeting.
POSITIONS SOFTENED
The Darfur rebels have in the past said they want the 2006 agreement to be scrapped but the government has refused to allow any changes or additions to the accord.
Eliasson told a news conference that those extreme positions seemed to have softened during their talks, and "that leaves diplomatic space."
Rebels have in the past rejected AU mediation in any new talks on the ground that the first peace deal, which the pan-African body mediated, was biased.
"We will now be happy with mediation from the United Nations and the AU," said Neby.
The joint team has not yet met the other large rebel faction, the National Redemption Front, whose political leadership is divided. Eliasson said the NRF had wanted to meet in Chad, but logistics prevented his team from traveling
there.
Divisions among Darfur's rebel factions have been a factor in delaying peace talks with Khartoum, and an oft-delayed conference to try to unite their positions is now due to start on February 19.
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Thursday that he was awaiting a report from Eliasson and a reply from Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on a hybrid peacekeeping force of U.N. and African Union troops in Darfur.
"So again, this continuing deteriorating situation in Darfur is just unacceptable," Ban said.
Sudan has agreed to a hybrid force but has objected to more troops coming to Darfur than the 7,000-strong African Union force now on the ground.
The United States is putting pressure on African governments to offer troops for the hybrid force. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said in Washington, "We would say that it is your responsibility because of the nature of the situation to make those contributions."
Most of the AU soldiers now on the ground would be incorporated into a new mission the United Nations hoped would have some 17,000 troops. But until plans are settled, few other countries, except for Bangladesh, have volunteered to send soldiers or logistic personnel Western nations are to provide.
Ban also said he was disappointed Sudan had broken its promise to allow a U.N. human rights mission into Darfur. He urged Sudan to cooperate fully, adding that if Bashir "believes that there is no problem, then he should be able to receive the human rights fact-finding mission."
Experts estimate 2.5 million people have been driven from their homes in four years of conflict in Darfur. Washington calls the violence genocide, a term European governments are reluctant to use and Khartoum rejects.
(Additional reporting by Evelyn Leopold at the United Nations, and Sue Pleming in Washington)
Unable to visit Darfur, UN Human Rights Council fact-finding team heads to Chad
UN News Service
February 15, 2007
After a planned visit to Darfur fell through because of visa problems, the United Nations Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission on the situation inside the strife-torn region of Sudan has travelled to neighbouring Chad to interview refugees who have fled the war-torn region.
The high-level, five-member team intends to complete its work on the ground by next week, UN spokesperson Marie Okabe said today, in response to press questions at UN Headquarters in New York.
The mission is not going to Sudan as planned because of continued uncertainty over whether members could obtain visas for that country.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said today he was disappointed the team could not get into Sudan, and had raised the issue with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir when they met last month on the sidelines of the African Union (AU) summit in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa.
“He said he would issues visas to the fact-finding mission,” Mr. Ban said. “He said he would have no problem. I am very much disappointed by the decision of the Sudanese Government. I urge again that the Sudanese Government fully cooperates with the unanimous decision of the Human Rights Council.”
The mission, which is headed by Jody Williams, who won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her work campaigning against landmines, is expected to present its report on the trip in time for the Council’s fourth regular session next month.
The Council established the mission in December to probe the human rights situation in Darfur, which has been beset by countless instances of abuses, among them mass rape, abduction and forced relocation, since fighting broke out between Government forces, allied militias and rebel groups in 2003.
More than 200,000 people have been killed and 2 million others displaced from their homes, and an estimated 4 million people now depend on aid to survive. Last month Mr. Ban called the situation “the largest humanitarian crisis in the world.”
Since the mission began its work in Geneva on 5 February, it has held dozens of meetings and interviews with human rights specialists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), community representatives, UN staff members, AU officials and others.
Aside from Ms. Williams, the other members of the mission are: Mart Nutt, an Estonian parliamentarian and member of the Council of Europe’s European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance; Bertrand Ramcharan, the former Acting and Deputy UN High Commissioner for Human Rights; Patrice Tonda, Gabon’s Permanent Representative to the International Organizations in Geneva; and Indonesian Ambassador Makarim Wibisono, President of the 61st session of the Commission on Human Rights. The members are serving in their personal capacity.
France wins agreement in Darfur crisis
Associated Press via Mercury News
by John Leicester
February 15, 2007
CANNES, France - Looking to end the crisis in Darfur, France won agreement on Thursday from three involved African nations that they would not support armed rebel movements on each other's territories.
Sudan, Chad and Central African Republic made the commitment in a declaration signed Thursday night, on the sidelines of an African summit that France hosted in the Riviera city of Cannes.
There were still no signs that Sudan was any closer to agreeing to a key international demand: that it accept the deployment of U.N. peacekeepers in Darfur, its western region where fighting has killed more than 200,000 people since 2003.
However, French President Jacques Chirac's spokesman hailed the African nations' pledge and their call for continued United Nations and African Union involvement as an indication that they don't want the crisis to worsen.
"We hope that all those who took part in this meeting did so because they don't want the status quo to establish itself," said the spokesman, Jerome Bonnafont.
France and other powers fear the Darfur violence is spilling over and could engulf the entire region. Tensions have mounted as Sudan, Chad and Central African Republic accused one another of supporting each other's rebels.
The mere fact that presidents Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, Idriss Deby of Chad and Francois Bozize of Central African Republic met was in itself seen as noteworthy.
"There is clear suspicion between the three countries and a clear willingness from African countries, in particular the African Union, and the international community to dispel it," said Bonnafont.
Whether their pledge would have real significance was open to question. Deby and al-Bashir signed a similar agreement a year ago to normalize diplomatic relations and deny refuge to each other's rebel groups.
Chad has accused Sudan of backing rebels in the country. Central African Republic also has alleged that Sudan supported a rebellion there. Sudan denied both charges and has accused Chad of backing rebels in Darfur.
More than 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million have fled their homes since 2003, when Darfur tribes took up arms against the Sudanese government, accusing it of long neglect and discrimination. The Arab-dominated government responded with a military offensive in which the janjaweed militia have committed widespread atrocities. The U.S. government has described the violence as genocide.
A 7,000-strong African Union peacekeeping force has been trying to quell the ongoing violence, but the force is underfunded and ill-equipped. Al-Bashir rejected a U.N. Security Council resolution calling for 22,000 U.N. peacekeepers to replace the AU force in Darfur. But he also has sent mixed signals about a joint U.N.-AU force.
The United Nation and African Union envoys to Darfur said on Thursday that they were "encouraged" about prospects for peace in the country's troubled region after two days of talks with factions in Sudan.
The two - U.N.'s special envoy tasked with re-energizing the Darfur peace process, Jan Eliasson, and AU's Salim Ahmed Salim - have been in Sudan this week for meetings with Khartoum officials, rebel leaders and stops in Darfur.
"We are encouraged by the initial reaction of everyone we have met on this issue of reduction of the escalation of violence" in Darfur, Salim told reporters.
At the United Nations in New York, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon expressed disappointment that Sudan's president reneged on a promise to allow a U.N. human rights team to visit Darfur to assess alleged atrocities.
Ban said that during a meeting with al-Bashir last month, "he said he would issue visas to the fact-finding mission."
The 14-member mission has been stuck in Addis Ababa because Khartoum has failed to give them visas.
"I am very much disappointed by the decision of the Sudanese government," Ban said. "I urge again that the Sudanese government fully cooperates with the unanimous decision of the Human Rights Council" to send a fact-finding team to Darfur.
[back to contents]
Uganda (ICC)
Official Website of the International Criminal Court
ICC Public Documents - Situation in Uganda
LRA gets ready for war
The Monitor
by Paul harera Sebikali & Rodney Muhumuza
February 6, 2007
A PREMATURE end to the Juba talks appears inevitable after the LRA's second-in-command said the rebel outfit was resolute in its rejection of the South Sudan capital as a venue for the talks.
Vincent Otti yesterday dismissed the Uganda Government's insistence on Juba and warned: "If [President] Museveni does not want to shift to anywhere out of Sudan, then that is the end of the peace talks. We need somewhere else. If they reject, we can go back to war."
Otti's terse warning was also in response to Kenya's refusal, on Sunday, to host the peace negotiations between the LRA and the Uganda government, saying it did not want the talks delayed by distractions of "venue or forum shopping".
The Ugandan rebels, who have been fighting for two decades, had said they would not return to talks in south Sudan's capital Juba and suggested Kenya or South Africa as alternative venues after Sudan's president vowed "to get rid of the LRA from Sudan".
Mr Otti's remarks, delivered in response to Mr Museveni's condemnation of the rebel's demand for a new venue and mediator, could lead to a resumption of fighting and bring to an end a landmark cessation of hostilities agreement signed in August 2006.
Mr Museveni told a local radio station in Gulu on Saturday that he was considering Plan B against the rebels. "I hope the LRA will listen to advice from leaders of Acholi sub region and be serious with the talks. If they don't, we will have to first liaise with the Government of South Sudan, DR Congo and the UN Secretary General to work out on their arrests," Mr Museveni said.
"They will be arrested wherever they go, whether in Garamba, Central African Republic or any other country…I met with UN general secretary Ban Ki-moon in Ethiopia recently and we discussed this Kony issue."
It appears even the LRA's external advisors, on whom the indicted field commanders are increasingly depending for strategic guidance, are lost over the way forward. A London-based former LRA operative, who is consulted by the LRA, said he was aware that no other African government is willing to host the talks. "All governments have refused to host the LRA," he said on condition of anonymity. "The advice I give them is that they resolve the outstanding issues from Juba…but the LRA needs a guarantor for the talks."
The LRA delegation to Juba rejected the peace talks mediator, South Sudan Vice-President Riek Machar, whom they accused of having a soft spot for the Ugandan government. Arguing that Dr Machar was not to be trusted and that South Sudan was no longer safe for the rebels, the LRA has been lobbying the Kenyan Government to host the talks. Its request has, however, been turned down, a statement from the Kenyan foreign ministry said on Sunday.
Although the rebels had proposed Johannesburg as another possibility, it was still unclear if any other venue was being considered. Dr Machar told Daily Monitor yesterday that he was not giving up yet. "We are asking the LRA to return to Juba. It is the only way to ensure meaningful talks. All the other areas [as venue], I think, would not be a good idea for them," he said by phone. "It would be unfortunate of them to talk of war."
According to a letter the rebels sent UN Special Envoy for Northern Uganda Joachim Chissano, a copy of which Daily Monitor has seen, the rebels predicted the talks would collapse unless Dr Machar resigns as mediator. "They [talks] will collapse if Dr Riek Machar is to continue as a chief mediator because he is not [a] neutral player," the December 18, 2006 letter said.
After his visit to Uganda in late January, Mr Chissano told reporters in Maputo that the peace process does not have a future unless President Museveni's government agrees to change the venue of the talks. Chissano negotiated peace with the LRA-like RENAMO which had brought untold suffering to his people for years.
According to Dr Machar, the peace process is still on because there are "diplomatic negotiations" to resolve some outstanding issues from last year. "[That] UPDF in South Sudan withdraw out of Sudan if they [|LRA] are to remain in the East [Equatoria province] is under discussion," Dr Machar said.
The cessation of hostilities agreement required all the rebels to assemble at two South Sudan areas - Ri-Kwangba in Western Equatoria and Owiny-Ki-Bul in Eastern Equatoria. Truce observers later reported that some LRA rebels had reported to Owiny-Ki-Bul only to disappear after UPDF soldiers allegedly camped dangerously close.
Daily Monitor reported yesterday that hundreds of LRA soldiers were leaving their Congo and South Sudan bases for the Central African Republic, a claim yet to be confirmed by the LRA's leadership. Otti has said the LRA leaders, who were indicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC), will not leave their hideouts unless the warrants of arrest for them are rescinded, a demand that was rejected by the government.
"If they don't want peace, why should we now withdraw the ICC indictments? We would have worked for the ICC withdrawals if they were serious for peace," Mr Museveni said on Saturday.
"If they (LRA) want us to leave southern Sudan, they should work for peace. If they bring peace, we shall leave south Sudan. Talk by Otti that our presence in South Sudan is threat to peace talks is nonsense. Our presence there is hope for peace in northern Uganda."
ICC holds workshop with stakeholders from Uganda’s Teso Region
ICC via ReliefWeb
February 7, 2007
Soroti, Uganda, 7 February 2007 - Over 40 participants representing civil society organisations, local councils, the judiciary and security organs have agreed to promote greater understanding of the International Criminal Court in their respective groups. This was decided at a one-day informative workshop attended by participants from Uganda's Teso region districts of Amuria, Katakwi and Soroti held on 7 February in Soroti town, Soroti district.
The workshop, organised by the Registry, was held to broaden the understanding of the Court and bolster existing outreach networks.
Officials from the Registry responded to concerns expressed by participants and distributed information on how victims could take part in the Court's proceedings.
Collaborative arrangements and mechanisms of information sharing were established as a result of this meeting. Recommendations to use existing civil society networks to increase access to ICC materials at the grassroots levels were made by the participants. They also recommended the promotion of victims' applications through the internet as a means of increasing confidence and improving stakeholder involvement in Court proceedings.
For further information, please contact Mr. Charles-Martin Jjuuko, Field Public Information and Outreach Coordinator for Uganda, Telephone: +256-77-2261879, Email: Charles.Jjuuko@icc-cpi.int
German minister defends ICC
New Vision
By Carol Natukunda
February 8, 2007
THE stalling of peace talks in Juba should not be blamed on the International Criminal Court (ICC), former German minister of justice, Dr. Herta Daubler-Gmelin, has said.
“the ICC and peace talks are not contradictory. One has to be careful when apportioning blame. if peace talks are not going the right way, the international justice system can not be used as a scapegoat.”
Daubler-Gmelin added: “ICC is independent. It is not established for special situations, but for the present and the future. it is not limited to certain regions.”
She was responding to concerns raised by the Pader LC5 chief, Peter Odok W’ocheng and Lira Municipality MP James Akena at a meeting examining the challenges and opportunities posed by the international justice system to Uganda.
“The parties at the talks had agreed to reconcile. But when the ICC threatened to arrest Kony, the talks stalled. will the ICC protect our people when it has blocked our method of reconciliation? If Kony is arrested, won’t the conflict will be escalated by those still in the bush?” W’ocheng asked.
Akena added: “justice is when society reconciles with criminals. arresting rebels may create more deaths.”
But Daubler-Gmelin maintained that peace and justice were not separable and added that the judicial system followed its own rules.
The Director of Public Prosecutions, Richard Buteera, noted that the country’s judicial system could not work in isolation of the international system.
He also urged MPs to ensure that that the ICC Bill goes beyond tackling the LRA question.
The meeting at Hotel Africana, Kampala yesterday, was organised by the Uganda Law Society and the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
49 apply to testify against Kony
The Monitor
By Frank Nyakairu
February 15, 2007
THE International Criminal Court has so far received 49 applicants willing to testify against Joseph Kony, the indicted leader of the rebel Lords Resistance Army.
The applicants are all victims of the 20-year rebel insurgency that has ravaged northern Uganda, leaving thousands dead and over two million displaced.
Claudia Perdomo, the ICC outreach coordinator, told Daily Monitor by telephone from The Hague, Netherlands that the applications are currently under scrutiny. "The Registry has on the basis of confidentiality, received a total of 49 applicants as victims of the situation in northern Uganda willing to participate as witnesses in the trial of the suspects," Ms Perdomo said.
Kony (right) and his Lords Resistance Army rebel group have achieved notoriety for alleged mutilations of limbs, ears and lips, mass killings, abductions, rape among other accusations. He faces 33 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes. He, however, vehemently denies the allegations. The other co-accused are Vincent Otti, second in command, Dominic Ongwen, Okot Odhiambo and Raska Lukwiya (RIP).
According to ICC procedures, the applications have to first be approved by the ICC Chambers before they are declared witnesses. Unlike in the common law practice, the witnesses will not stand in the dock to give their testimonies. "We have a pool of 200 defence counsels from who these witnesses will choose a single lawyer to represent them in the court," said Ms Perdomo.
In the face of stalled peace talks between the rebels and the Uganda government, the ICC has gone ahead to prepare guidelines for the hearing process.
According to declassified documents on global court official site www.icc-cpi.int, the single Judge for the case, Mauro Politi and Office of Public Counsel for Victims held a mock hearing session on Monday.
This is meant to help the ICC, which is six years old, to find better ways of protecting the witness. At least 66,000 youth are thought to have been forcibly recruited into the LRA, according to the recently released World Development Report. This is more than double the usual estimate. Unicef has always put the number of children abducted at 25,000.
Peace talks
As the ICC pursues justice, efforts to revive the peace talks are unyielding. The latest move has been made by World Vision, a global charity organisation.
Later this week, World Vision plans to hold the second tele-conference in seven days between the government of Uganda and the LRA peace teams.
"We succeeded in bringing the two sides to talk last week. We hope to bring them together before this week ends, an additional voice to those who want the Juba peace talks to resume," World Vision Uganda communication and advocacy director Fortunate Sewankambo said.
Both parties, according to Ms Sewankambo, appreciated the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, which was signed last year, saying they would not return to war. They also agreed to keep channels of communication open. The talks that started in July 2006 stalled five months later after the LRA refused to retun to Juba claiming the South Sudan government is not a credible mediator.
[back to contents]
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
Official Website of the ICTY
Can a Fast Trial Be a Fair Trial?
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
By Caroline Tosh
February 9, 2007
Defence and prosecution teams in case against Prlic and others claim rush to complete trials seriously affects fairness of proceedings.
The prosecution and defence in the trial of six former Bosnian Croat officials are protesting against strict time constraints imposed by tribunal judges, claiming pressure to meet deadlines imposed by the court’s completion strategy is being given priority over the fairness of proceedings.
The tribunal is due to close its doors in 2010, and all first-instance trials have to be finished by 2008.
The six Bosnian Croats, Jadranko Prlic, Bruno Stojic, Slobodan Praljak, Milivoj Petkovic, Valentin Coric and Berislav Pusic - senior political and military leaders of an unrecognised Croat entity known as “Herceg-Bosna” - face 26 counts of war crimes for the expulsion and murder of Muslims in Bosnia and Hercegovina during the Croatian-Muslim conflict in 1993.
Time restrictions have been a reoccurring feature of this trial since it began on April 26 2006, when presiding judge Jean-Claude Antonetti ordered the prosecution to cut its case to 400 hours from the 450 it requested.
Then on May 8, the judge ordered that for their cross examination of each witness, the defence teams would each have a sixth of the time used by the prosecution for its examination in chief - unless they reached an agreement among themselves to divide the time otherwise.
On November 13, despite vehement protests from both sides of the court, judges slashed the time allowed for the prosecution case by another 107 hours, to allow it to finish by the summer recess of July 2007 - a decision that also impinged on the defence.
The prosecution has appealed the ruling on November 30, saying it violated “the fundamental right of the victims, the prosecution and the international community to a fair trial”.
The defence counsels for Jadranko Prlic, Slobodan Praljak and Berislav Pusic supported the prosecution’s appeal, arguing the cuts were “dictated by the Security Council’s completion strategy”.
“It is not the function of the judges of the tribunal to concern themselves with, much less to implement, political decisions of the Security Council,” said their response.
Since the UN endorsed the tribunal's completion strategy in July 2002, judges have exercised greater control and have implemented reforms in order to speed through trials, and some observers argue that this is causing particular problems to the defence teams.
On September 30, 2003, former tribunal judge David Hunt spoke out against an appeals court decision in the case of former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, in which he said the completion strategy had “been given priority over the rights of the accused”.
The decision, he said, could permit written evidence to be given instead of live testimony, which went to prove the acts of the accused, where the witness was called to court – a change which has since been incorporated into the tribunal’s rules.
Hunt argued that since the adversarial system of law practiced at the tribunal means statements are prepared by a party to the case - and not by a neutral judicial officer - there was a risk of the statement “placing the best gloss on the evidence which suits that party”.
Michael Karnavas, Prlic’s defence counsel and president of the Association of Defence Counsel, shares these concerns.
“They're turning more and more to the inquisitorial system of trying to introduce more statements instead of live testimony. In some instances, that might be fine, but in others, I don't think it's correct, because you're entitled to challenge the testimony of witnesses,” he said.
To give judges greater control when the nature of the system means they don’t have access to all the facts could create irreversible problems, he said.
“We’re not dealing with an inquisitorial system where the judges have a dossier containing the universal facts. Instead, we have an adversarial system where the prosecutor has no obligation to search for exculpatory evidence – but only to turn it over if they find it,” he said.
He says the decision to give each defendant in the Prlic trial just one-sixth of the time available to the prosecution to question each witness is irrational and unfair and means evidence is going unchallenged.
“It’s virtually impossible to have adequate time for cross examination of a major witness because you share it with five accused. The notion that the defence can be treated as one is unreasonable, because they all stand charged individually and not collectively,” he said.
He says that while he is impressed at the judges’ ability to manage the courtroom under difficult circumstances - and believes they are striving to find a balance between a fair and expeditious trial - he would prefer seeing a more flexible approach.
“They have to consider whether the areas that the lawyers wish to go into on cross examination are irrelevant or repetitive. If not, you should be entitled to go over it,” he said.
Bozidar Kovacic, defence lawyer of Prlic’s co-accused Slobodan Praljak, agrees.
“The judge should control the proceedings based on the relevance of the questions. There are six accused – if the second accused asks the same question, then he should be rejected,” said Kovacic.
He says the “absurd” practice of dividing up one block of time between six accused, each with his own defence strategy, is causing enormous strain, with lawyers forced to bargain for time.
“If you get more time with one witness, then the next time you’re obliged to give something in return. Everybody is keeping a record,” he said.
The pressure to be fast is creating a stressful atmosphere with lawyers reluctant to raise objections, he says.
“This is creating very strong pressure in the courtroom. Sometimes you have to intervene by all normal rules, but you’re limiting yourself,” he said.
Kovacic believes that if it comes down to a choice between a fast trial and a fair trial then the latter should take priority.
“For the defendants, it’s better to spend one year longer in the court, then life imprisonment after the judgment,” he said.
The defence lawyer, who previously represented former Bosnian Croat commander Mario Cerkez in 1999 to 2000, recently came across a transcript of his cross-examination of a witness in that case.
“I approached it step by step, and in the end, I got my answer. That’s unthinkable here. Now you go straight in and you get bitten,” he said.
Kovacic thinks the tribunal judges have a duty to resist external political pressure.
If the rush to complete trials continues, he says, there will have been an opportunity missed.
“One of the primary goals of the tribunal was to develop international criminal law - something that had not been done since Nuremberg - but the work of the tribunal is being influenced so much by the exit strategy that we will have bad results. That’s a pity, really,” he said.
But Goran Sluiter, a professor of international criminal law at the University of Amsterdam, disagrees.
"In general, judges at the tribunal have struck a fair balance between ensuring efficiency of proceedings and the rights of the accused," he said.
Sluiter sees no problem with allowing more use of written statements and testimony to increase efficiency, and argues that the admission of written evidence has actually become more restricted at the tribunal.
He cites the trial of smalltime Bosnian Serb politician Dusko Tadic in 1996 - which saw the admission of certain hearsay evidence allowed by the chamber - and says this would not be permitted now.
Sluiter also believes there is ample opportunity for the defence to challenge evidence.
"The right to cross-examine witnesses is adequately protected at the tribunal - far more than it is in certain civil law systems, such as The Netherlands," he said.
Margetic Conviction Sparks Media Ethics Debate
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
By Merdijana Sadovic
February 9, 2007
Journalists across the Balkans discuss professional issues raised by tribunal contempt case.
The case of a Croatian journalist found guilty of contempt of court has sparked a debate in the Balkans over how far journalists should go to make headlines and whether imprisoning those who cross the line is an attack on press freedom.
Tribunal judges last week found freelance journalist Domagoj Margeti? guilty of contempt of court for disclosing protected witness lists. He was sentenced to a prison term of three months and fined 10,000 Euro.
The tribunal has held contempt proceedings against 19 people so far, including witnesses, defence counsel and journalists.
However, Margetic is the first journalist to be sentenced to prison for violating the court’s rules which govern the protection of witnesses and confidential information.
Margetic was convicted of publishing a list with names of 48 protected witnesses who testified in the case of Bosnian Croat general Tihomir Blaskic on his personal website last summer.
In its judgment on February 7, the trial chamber described this as a “particularly egregious” contempt of court case. It said Margetic “did not only intentionally violate protective measures orders and interfere with witnesses, but did so with reckless disregard for [their] safety”.
When determining its sentence, the trial chamber said it took into account the personal and psychological consequences the disclosure had on the lives of at least three of the protected witnesses.
The judges dismissed the defence claims that Margetic was innocent because he only published names that had already been revealed by someone in the prosecutor’s office by “error and serious neglect”. The defence argued at the time Margetic published the list that it was no longer a confidential document.
The trial chamber noted that “the witness list was from the outset a confidential document and never lost its status as such”. They also added that the accused was well aware of that, because in the article accompanying this document which appeared on his website “he emphasised that he was publishing confidential information”.
Thus, they said, Margetic exposed the protected witnesses to threats, intimidation and possible injury, interfered with the witnesses and dissuaded them from further cooperation with the tribunal.
Explaining their decision, the judges said, “Journalists are free to report and comment on all proceedings before the tribunal, including the testimony of witnesses. However, they are under an obligation to respect the tribunal's orders and protective measures granted to witnesses.”
While some observers in the Balkans consider Margetic’s sentence too harsh, others agree it could send an important message to the local journalists covering war crimes trials at the tribunal and in national courts and may even prevent them from revealing confidential documents and information in the future.
The Margetic case also highlighted issues such as freedom of the press and the responsibility of journalists in transitional democracies to adhere to the ethics of their profession, especially when it comes to particularly sensitive issues, such as confidential information related to war crimes trials.
As IWPR found out, a dilemma between professional ethics and the opportunity to publish exclusive information is not always an easy one.
Editor of Sarajevo-based weekly Dani Senad Pecanin says he would never reveal the names of protected witnesses at a war crimes trial - even if he would get hold of such information - because he would be concerned how that might affect their lives.
“There is a great possibility that revealing names of protected witnesses would put them in real danger. And not just them, but their families, too,” he said.
However, he adds that if he found out a protected witness was a head of state, prime minister or some other high-ranking official, he would be really tempted to publish such information. He says that “unlike ordinary citizens, these people have at their disposal a whole protection mechanism provided by the state during and even after their mandate”.
But Pecanin admits that even in such a case, he would be concerned about the message this act would send to other protected witnesses.
“They could say: if the court was not able to protect the identity of a head of a state, how on earth is it going to protect me,” continued Pecanin. “To the horror of a journalist in me, I realise that this would probably be the main reason why I would restrain from revealing such information.”
A reporter for the Sarajevo-based daily Avaz, Sead Numanovic, has a similar opinion. He says he would never publish the names of ordinary people who testify at war crimes or any other trials as protected witnesses, but would probably do so if the witnesses were high-ranking officials.
When it comes to the situation in Bosnia, Numanovic says professional standards are generally high, although things could always be better, “There is more self-censorship in the local media than violations of professional ethics, I would say.”
As a positive example, he pointed at the fact that Bosnian journalists exercise a lot of restraint in covering war crimes trials, and so far there has been very little, if any, leakage of confidential information, including documents and names of protected witnesses in the local media.
While most journalists say their responsible approach to sensitive information is due to their own high professional standards, some claim strict laws governing this issue also help.
Spokesman for Bosnia’s state prosecutor Boris Grubesic points out the fact that those who reveal information classified by the Bosnian court as confidential can be charged with contempt and ordered to pay a fine, or even sentenced to one to three years imprisonment.
“Generally speaking, all parties in court proceedings at the War Crimes Chamber have so far respected their obligation to protect identities of the witnesses who testify under protective measures,” said Grubesic.
In Serbia, however, as of last year, journalists cannot be sent to prison for revealing confidential information. Sasa Gajin, a senior lecturer at the law faculty of the Union University in Belgrade, says this is good, because he was always against the penalisation of journalists. But he also draws attention to another problem.
“It’s hard for the media to know what classified information is, when Serbia currently has no law which would clearly define it,” he said.
Radio Free Europe’s correspondent from Belgrade and former head of Serbia’s Independent Journalists Association, Nebojsa Bugarinovic, agrees with Gajin that imprisoning media representatives who cross the line is probably not the best solution.
“I would be a cynic if I said a prison sentence in Margetic case was appropriate, because I was the one who always opposed such drastic measures. Any sentence is fine, as long as it is not imprisonment,” he said.
Speaking of Margetic case, Bugarinovic says that - from what he knows - Margetic’s act was “neither ethical nor professional”.
As for some observers’ claims that tribunal’s judgments against the Croatian journalist was an attack on freedom of the press, Bugarinovic disagrees.
“In the Balkans, many see freedom of the press as an excuse to be irresponsible,” he said. “But that freedom also means responsibility towards the facts, as well as protected categories of people, such as protected witnesses.”
Some analysts in the Balkans say media ethics standards should be set by journalists themselves, because misplaced calls for guidelines and legal constraints could only encourage direct political interference.
Bugarinovic agrees and adds that the competitive nature of today’s media with the emphasis up-to-the-minute news and sensational coverage puts additional pressure on journalists to produce articles that sell best, which often means putting professional ethics aside. Therefore, revealing private and confidential information is not a rare occurrence.
This, in turn, results in a large number of lawsuits launched against journalists.
According to the Croatian Journalists’ Association, Croatia is one of Europe’s transitional countries with the highest number of lawsuits involving media. Between 1990 and 1999, a staggering 1,000 cases were launched, with at least another 500 lawsuits registered in the following years.
In his recent speech delivered at the traditional annual reception for media representatives, Croatia’s President Stjepan Mesic said freedom of the press is one of the foundations of every democratic society, but warned that not every truth serves the public interests. It’s up to the reporters and editors themselves to draw a line between professional journalism and sensationalism, said Mesic.
Some say in Margetic case this line was not clear enough.
When Margetic explained his reasons for publishing lists of protected witnesses from Blaskic trial on his own website, more than a few eyebrows were raised.
In his official statement dated September 12, 2006, he said, “The reason I published the witness list in part was to reveal to the world that some witnesses were in fact mujahedeen, or better known to the world as ‘terrorists’. In light of the five year anniversary of 9/11, it is important for the public to know with whom the tribunal was working with to prosecute Croatian general Tihomir Blaskic.”
Margetic also insisted the court was “terrorizing an innocent Croatian journalist”, and that the only reason he was indicted was because he was always an open critic of the tribunal.
“Moreover, I published the witness list because of my staunch and profound belief in freedom of the press and independence of media,” he said in his statement.
British journalist Brian Gallagher, who has closely followed Margetic case and maintained the Croatian journalist was falsely accused, says his judgment “sets a dangerous precedent” which could “easily lead to entrapment of difficult journalists”.
However, Professor Stjepan Malovich, from the Faculty of Political Sciences at the Zagreb University, can find no excuse for what Margetic did.
“A real journalist would never publish names of protected witnesses and thus put them in danger,” he said.
Malovich adds witnesses testifying in war crimes trials today - and especially those who testified shortly after the war - are very brave and “Margetic poses a real threat to such people”.
“It doesn’t matter what information I obtain or how – if I know it is confidential, then from the professional and ethical point of view it is absolutely unacceptable for me to publish it,” said Malovich.
“I am by all means for freedom of the press, but it does not mean I can use that freedom irresponsibly and publish everything I like, just because I am free to do so.”
Address by Prosecutor Del Ponte on Importance of War Crimes Trials for Truth-telling Process
ICTY Statement
February 15, 2006
Panel: "Role of war crimes trials in truth-telling"
Dear colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen,
First of all, I would like to thank the organisers together with the sponsors of this conference for their continuous and noble effort on the subject of war crimes and related matters. Allow me to go straight to the point of this panel.
***
In general terms, notions like justice and truth are simply said and understood, but they are not easily achieved in practice and to everyone's satisfaction. With the Tribunal's clearly defined mandate, limitations in resources, timeline and co-operation of states - it is inconceivable to satisfy every specific interest, whether national or individual. Our task is to do our best in establishing facts about crimes and bringing a measure of justice to the victims and peoples of the former Yugoslavia.
Responding to the critics, including here in Croatia, who even now continue to dispute even the jurisdictional basis of the ICTY, I can proudly say that the Tribunal has achieved remarkable results. The UN Security Council, in its wisdom and knowledge of international law, mandated ICTY to deal only with the individual criminal responsibility. Presidents, prime ministers, ministers, senior military and police commanders, paramilitary leaders, public figures were indicted and brought before the international Judges. Without any shred of a doubt the most serious and most emblematic crimes committed during the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia have been addressed, and are being addressed in the courtrooms in The Hague.
***
This leads me to the main point of discussion today - the role of the war crimes prosecutions in establishing the truth. In the process of achieving this goal the prosecution is representing the victims of the crimes and therefore is primarily responsible for bringing to the courts' and public's attention truthful testimonies. Not all perpetrators are brought to justice, as not all evidence is always available and there is no possibility - physically or in time - to bring all the willing witnesses to take stand. Therefore, even a proper judicial process, as the one in The Hague, might not be enough for the thousands of victims. This conference, following the one in Sarajevo, is looking further into different ways to address the issue of establishing and telling the truth in the aftermath of the conflicts.
The debate on the conflicts and war crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia has only somewhat subsided. It is still present in the daily life and media. It is often politicized, as it usually addresses the war crimes issues through the political glasses, - not through the perspective of the victims. These debates often mix the notions of truth with establishing facts. Truth can be a very complex and very subjective issue based only loosely on facts, and it could easily be seen differently by two sides or individuals. Facts, on the other hand, are indisputable.
A judicial process like war crimes prosecutions, with all the checks and tests involved, can answer serious questions and can establish facts beyond reasonable doubt. By establishing these facts criminal prosecutions contribute to a clear understanding of the crimes committed and a fair understanding of the context of the conflicts. Prosecution is required to adduce evidence on the nature of the armed conflicts - internal or international, and by that to place criminal charges in the right legal framework.
Politicians, historians, anybody in position to argue will likely continue endless discussions about the nature of the conflicts, placing political and historical definitions above human dimension, human suffering and individual responsibility. Contrary to that, criminal prosecution is targeting exactly the human dimension of each criminal offence - the perpetrators and the victims. Major prosecutions generate a comprehensive record of past violations.
***
The courtroom testimonies of eyewitnesses are fundamentally important - they tell us about the horrifying conditions of the detention camps, ethnic cleansing campaigns, torture, rape and sexual slavery, mass executions, destruction of property and religious institutions, plunder and looting. Most importantly they tell us about human suffering. They must be told and listened to. They put the picture about the conflicts burdened by ethnic hatred in the right perspective. They tell us what happened in a particular village, town, barrack, and farm. Their personalized stories make us feel how it was to be there - in that particular place at that particular time - be it Ov?ara or Vukovar, Ahmi?i or Stupni Do, Medak pocket, Poto?ari or Bratunac, Fo?a or Višegrad, Mostar or Grabovica, Sarajevo or Dubrovnik, Suva Reka or Djakovica.
Those willing to listen will understand that the testimonies of the very modest, not sophisticated people, very ordinary people can bring to understanding of the core issues. As it was, for instance, with many so called crime base witnesses, often very simple farmers from Kosovo, who had to face the late Milosevic in court. There is more in these stories of personal tragedy and suffering than catches the eye at first. They pointedly lead to a conclusion that not only soldiers, policemen or some paramilitaries are responsible for the massive crimes, but also those who were in charge, who fuelled the conflicts using all available official, unofficial and propaganda tools. Those willing to hear will understand from these courtroom accounts that those who ordered and commanded operations and campaigns which led to massive atrocities and suffering - must be held responsible.
While we can establish facts and a credible version of truth about the events from the past - we cannot establish all truth and all facts. Therefore, we must endeavour to establish the main facts and resolve the most essential developments of criminal nature. For instance, we have established in great details what happened in Ov?ara, in Srebrenica, in Sarajevo, in Fo?a. But we can only assist people in understanding what happened to them and why. The extent of the crimes committed is so great, the cruelty so grotesque - that it is impossible to comprehend and cure through the process of war crimes trials only.
Obviously, the results of the judicial process, its record and established facts are a crucial part of efforts to establish the truth, face the past and embrace reconciliation. Crimes leave traces, no crime is without a trace. Investigating complex crimes require more than just eye witnesses and their testimonies. Very often no eye witnesses are left. The prosecution in The Hague was lucky to find just a handful of survivors of the mass executions (like in Ov?ara and Srebrenica). But the traces of terrible crimes are still possible to find, not only in the memories of people. The murderers themselves, for reasons known only to them, leave evidence of the crimes, like video tapes of executions in Trnovo by Scorpions or in Br?ko by Goran Jelisi?.
Another important way of reaching the truth through trials - is to achieve guilty pleas whenever it is possible. There were so far 20 guilty pleas before the ICTY, including those of Biljana Plavši?, Milan Babi?, several accused for Srebrenica, Miroslav Bralo and others. Guilty pleas maybe considered being as close as possible to the truth telling from the perpetrator's point of view. They are indeed very important - despite the fact they are often seen by the victims as something unacceptable. But they have great value, as first of all they confirm the commission of the crime, they do reflect remorse and guilt, though not always in genuine manner. And most importantly, they do provide information which the victims could not have known - for instance, about the planning and organized manner of the crime and cover up. The guilty pleas also allow us to avoid numerous calls for the victims-witnesses to testify and be exposed to the trauma of facing the perpetrator. Closest to the truth telling as it may be, the perpetrator's story provides the essence of the intent to commit crimes, clarity of the context and chain of command.
In addition to witnesses the prosecutions bring into the courtrooms massive documentary evidence as a result of complex research and analysis. Various documentary collections are exposed in order to establish, for instance, the chain of command structures, formal and informal. As even military structures are not always clear, not to speak about various paramilitary groups, often established illegally by the secret services or interested criminal groups. However, traces are still left and could be found in different administrative or financial record, official records, correspondence, and personnel files. The intercepts of different communications during the war, where everybody was listening to everybody else, if at all accessible and available, also represents a source of truly valuable and often shocking information, as cynical remarks/ exchanges of the accused between themselves.
Such documents, though not stories of eye witnesses and without blood stains on them, very often tell us more than an individual witness. They tell us how the war efforts were organized and sustained as well as who was in charge, how the illegal plans were concocted and disguised - all in the service of a specific policy.
Just an example here. You may wonder why my office is so keen to have access to the personnel file and full record for Ratko Mladi?? Because the file can speak for itself and show that Ratko Mladi? was not an outcast, not a lunatic who went on a rampage in Bosnia to fulfill his crazy ideas. No. He was a senior officer of the Yugoslav army on duty in Bosnia as commander of VRS; he was promoted twice during the war with highest marks in his dossier, the full approval of the Belgrade military and political leadership and with very generous remuneration. If, for a moment, you combine this with the facts from the ground, known to the whole world, and reported to Belgrade - you have the fact established beyond any doubt - and that is that Belgrade was directly involved in the war in Bosnia. And later? Belgrade organized comfortable hiding places for Ratko Mladi? in Serbia, so he can evade international justice. And where he is now? He is still in Serbia. Nothing was done to stop Mladi? or his associates; nothing was done to punish him or his associates.
There are other interesting examples of the documents which can speak for themselves. Here in Croatia, for instance, we have truly remarkable documents, such as the transcripts of the meetings from the office of the late President Franjo Tudjman. Official meetings were recorded very diligently and accurately and therefore represent an authentic and powerful account of the thinking and planning of the leadership. At the same time - you should not have any illusions - there are still missing archives and documents: for example, in Serbia the authorities still cannot find where the Miloševi? archive has disappeared; strangely enough the war time archive of Karadži? (President of Republika Srpska) has also disappeared without a trace. What a coincidence!
In searching for the truth it is certain that much more has to be done, and many more perpetrators must be brought to justice for the war crimes. We are yet to see the kind of collective search for the truth when we will be able to see soldier(s) coming out and admitting the crime by saying 'it was me, not my unit'; or a commander of the unit saying - 'I was responsible, these were my people, I ordered them to do it, I knew what happened but looked the other way'; or a politician admitting the knowledge of the crimes and failure to speak out or seek punishment for perpetrators. When we see that, we will be definitely much closer the truth about the war. In the words of the British philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell (1872-1970), "war does not determine who is right, only who is left."
***
In conclusion I would like to repeat - the Tribunal is your partner in the search for the truth. We are concentrated now on achieving successful "finale" of the Tribunal's mandate in partnership with the national judicial and prosecutorial authorities. We are working together, with the same goal, and will continue to share our experience and whenever possible and applicable - our evidence. The challenges remain serious.
Trading genocide for independence
ISN Security Watch
Commentary by Anes Alic for ISN Security Watch
February 16, 2007
It is a sacrifice for the greater good, apparently, as the West deals with Serbia to lay off the hunt for war criminals responsible for genocide in Bosnia in return for Kosovo's independence.
A year of patience, denial and evasion on the part of Serbian authorities regarding the international community's demand that they turn over indicted war criminal Bosnian Serb General Ratko Mladic has finally paid off. After more than decade of sanctions, accusations and threats of stalled EU integration, Serbian leaders now hold the ace.
It is quite possible that the Serbs will trade Kosovo for the resumption of pre-membership talks with the EU, while the international community will in turn drop its demand to see Mladic at the UN's war crimes court in The Hague.
On Monday, the EU gave its clearest signal yet that it is ready to restart integration talks with Serbia, despite the fact that Belgrade has not made good on demands to hand over Mladic and other fugitives wanted by the international community.
Mladic is wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), where he is charged with, among other things, genocide for the massacre of some 8,000 Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys in Srebrenica in July 1995.
A statement released by EU foreign ministers on Monday said that the EU welcome mat was still laid down for Serbia and that the bloc would "restart talks if the new government in Belgrade takes concrete and effective action for full cooperation with the ICTY in The Hague." This time, the statement does not specifically mention the arrest of Mladic, who is believed to be hiding out in Serbia.
Some EU states - including Spain, Italy and Austria - favor resuming talks on a Stabilization and Association Agreement (SAA), the first step towards EU membership for Western Balkan nations, frozen last May, despite Belgrade's failure to bring key war crimes suspects to justice.
But there is always room for a deal, and the EU looks set to restart SAA talks in return for guarantees that Serbia and Russia will not block status talks on the future of Serbia's UN-administered province of Kosovo. Those talks are set to be concluded by the end of the month.
Belgian Foreign Minister Karel De Gucht confirmed the deal when he said that some EU members were seeking a compromise with Belgrade. "A lot of people are convinced that loosening the demands of the ICTY would be helpful with resolving Kosovo," news agencies quoted him as saying.
EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn stressed that Serbia's level of cooperation with The Hague had improved, and that it would be better to have a democratic rather than an isolated Serbia.
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said the SAA could be concluded within months, but insisted that the requirement to cooperate with the ICTY would not be relaxed. After all, the international community would not like to be seen overtly skirting the issue of war crimes as a means to a greater end.
Others, including Belgium and the Netherlands, say talks on the agreement should not resume until Serbia cooperates fully and hands over Mladic.
The loudest among the second group is chief UN war crimes prosecutor Carla del Ponte, who appealed to the EU earlier this month not to restart talks with Belgrade before Mladic is behind bars, saying that Serbian authorities are sheltering him.
Indeed, Mladic was in the pay of the Serbian military for years after he was indicted for war crimes in 1995, receiving an official pension from Belgrade until 2001, at the time when current Serbian moderate president and EU favorite Boris Tadic was defense minister.
Del Ponte criticized the EU and NATO for allowing Serbia to get closer to membership, saying Belgrade has not cooperated at all with the ICTY. She also accused the international community of losing interest in arresting war criminals.
The EU ministers on Monday also gave their backing to a UN plan for the future of Kosovo that would set it on the road to independence.Final discussions are to begin on 21 February and conclude on 10 March. Ministers anonymously accepted a plan drawn up by international envoy Martti Ahtisaari, which calls for the UN and the EU to take over supervision of Kosovo for a transition period and the EU to deploy a police mission there. However, on Wednesday, Serbia's newly elected parliament overwhelmingly rejected the plan and the international community is concerned that the deal might not work.
It is also worried that any further delay of the Kosovo status issue could lead to an increase in ethnic violence in the province. Indeed, during recent demonstrations launched by Kosovo's ethnic Albanians two people were killed and some 100 injured.
Protesters were frustrated with the UN plan on Kosovo's future status, demanding full independence, while the Ahtisaari's plan calls for internationally supervised self-rule. The same atmosphere can be expected and on other side, as the Serb minority in Kosovo has already announced it would fight for the "homeland" if independence was granted.
Another sticking point as far as Belgrade is concerned is a genocide case filed by Bosnia against Serbia and Montenegro, for which a final verdict is expected just days after the Kosovo status talks.
Bosnia and Herzegovina filed the case at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1993, seeking compensation for the loss of life and property during the 1992-1995 war, when an estimated 200,000 people were killed and entire Muslim and Croat towns and villages were devastated.
No figure was named, but Serbia and Montenegro could be obliged to pay billions of dollars if found guilty.
Bosniak officials are concerned that the court is also in on the Kosovo deal and could return a "not guilty" verdict in order to smooth things over for Kosovo's independence.
This particular brand of wheeling and dealing is what makes politics, well, politics. And it would certainly not be the first time that international leaders have been willing to sacrifice something for what they consider to be the greater good, the bigger picture. This time it will mean burying the genocide that took place in Bosnia in the name of allowing Kosovo to become independent. Even the international community itself is divided about such a sacrifice, and it is a moral question that perhaps does not have a clear cut answer. But somehow it does not feel quite right, and one has to ask just how much it is appropriate to sacrifice for the greater good.
Jankovic given 34-year jail term
BIRN Justice Report
February 16, 2007
The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina has sentenced Gojko Jankovic to 34 years' imprisonment for crimes against humanity committed against civilians from Foca.
Gojko Jankovic, a former leader of a paramilitary group that operated jointly with Army of Republika Srpska (VRS), has been found guilty of the murder, torture, rape and sexual assault of Bosniaks in Foca. He has been sentenced to 34 years of imprisonment.
Jankovic is the second indictee charged with rape in Foca who has been found guilty before the first instance Trial Chamber, after his case was transferred from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) to be processed in Sarajevo.
In explaining the verdict, Trial Chamber chairwoman Zorica Gogala said that, while making their decision, the judges had no reason to suspect the prosecution's evidence against Jankovic.
"The Chamber did not accept the Defence's evidence, believing that it did not have legal support - especially the physical evidence," Gogala explained.
Jankovic was found guilty of seven out of the nine counts of the indictment. He was found guilty of five counts that accuse him of rape, torture and rape and keeping in sexual slavery.
However, the heaviest crimes he is convicted of are the rape of 12-year-old "AB" in the so-called Karaman house in Miljevina village near Foca, and the multiple rapes of a girls aged 15, 16, and 17 years old.
Jankovic also kept protected witness 186 in sexual slavery for many months in multiple locations in and around Foca.
The Prosecution read this protected witness's testimony, in which she accused Jankovic of abuse and rape.
"I knew that he had a wife and three children. One of his daughters was one year younger than me. The other children were even younger. I asked him how he could rape someone who is the same age as his daughter. That made him very angry. I was too afraid to insist on an answer," witness 186 told ICTY investigators in 1998.
The Chamber also found him guilty of forced relocation of population, illegal detention, and the murders and tortures of Bosniaks from the territory of Foca municipality, all of which he committed as leader of a paramilitary formation from April 1992 to November 1993.
The Trial Chamber found Jankovic not guilty on two counts of the indictment, including the murder of Redjo Pekaz that, according to the indictment, took place in July 1992. Pekaz and a group of civilians were arrested in Trosanj village, and then taken to hydroelectric power plant Buk Bijela, where he was abused and killed.
Also, due to lack of evidence, Jankovic was found not guilty of the additional count of the indictment which charges him with the rape of protected witness E, which took place in Foca in 1992.
The trial lasted for nine months and a total of 53 witnesses were questioned. Also, three statements given by protected witnesses to the ICTY were read, two court experts were questioned, and more than 120 pieces of physical evidence were submitted by both sides.
Beside the fact that the trial chamber found Jankovic guilty, for the first time they also ruled that the indictee has to cover the expenses of the trial. The judges also asked the victims-witnesses to press civil charges.
"The only mitigating circumstance we took into consideration is the fact that Jankovic is a family man," Judge Gogala said.
The charges against Jankovic were originally pressed before the ICTY. After eight years of hiding, the indictee surrendered in March 2005, then he was transferred to the detention unit in Scheveningen, The Hague, but the whole case was then forwarded to Court of BiH on December 8, 2005.
The local prosecution adapted and expanded the indictment, and after a comprehensive investigation they also ensured new witnesses.
According to the Bosnian prosecution, lead by Prosecutor Philip Alcock, from April 1992 Jankovic headed a small paramilitary formation which operated within 4th battalion of Army of Republika Srpska (VRS), within its Foca Tactics Brigade.
In its closing argument, the Prosecution proposed at least 30 years imprisonment for Jankovic. The indictee and his defence attorney proposed an acquittal, believing that guilt was not proven.
Both sides have the right to appeal.
[back to contents]
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
Official Website of the ICTR
Senate Endorses ICTR Transfers' Bill
AllAfrica.com - The New Times (Kigali)
by Felly Kimenyi & Steven Baguma
February 6, 2007
The Senate yesterday evening unanimously endorsed the special bill on the transfer of cases from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).The Bill was tabled by justice minister Tharcisse Karugarama. The Senators had, however, contested some clauses in the Bill especially the one granting all witnesses in the trials prosecution immunity, saying that some of them may be wanted criminals. "What will happen if some of those genocide fugitives take advantage of the immunity and turn up in the country as witnesses? Will they be simply let go like that? There should be a provision deterring this," Wellars Gasamagera contented.
However, in response Karugarama (pictured) said that it would even serve Rwanda better if at all those people showed up in the country. "We have nothing to lose if anything, we have everything to gain, by these people turning up, it will be a step toward their being captured. They will have to sign affidavits on which their current address will be shown and that would at any other time lead to their arrest," Karugarama told the Senators. Article 14 of the Bill states inter alia 'All witnesses who travel from abroad to Rwanda to testify in the trials of cases transferred from ICTR shall have immunity from search, seizure, arrest or detention during their testimony or their travel from or to the trials'. Senators also raised concern over immunity from search, saying that prohibited commodities like drugs would be trafficked into the country.
But Karugarama countered the assertion, saying the immunity will only apply to documents that will be used in the trial.
"The normal immigration procedures will be followed; it does not mean that they will would go through the airport unsearched," Karugarama assured the legislators.
This Bill which was endorsed and subjected to further scrutiny by the Political Commission was last month passed by the lower chamber.
Meanwhile, during yesterday's session, the lawmakers also passed a draft bill for the law on political parties.
The Senators however, first tasked the Minister of Local Government, Protais Musoni, who presented the bill, to explain some issues among others 'political space'. "We have been hearing debates about lack of political space in this country; now as the minister in charge, could you tell us whether political parties in Rwanda function or not, do they actually operate according to their ideals? And if yes, why do we continue hearing statements like 'in Rwanda there is completely no Political Space'?" Senator Antoine Mugesera asked. In response, Minister Musoni clarified that the 'political space' debate dates back to 2003 when the new Rwandan constitution was enacted. "That's when it started and those who have persistently traded the allegations argue that the Forum for Political Parties is dominated and manipulated by the ruling Rwanda Patriotic Front which is not the case as we have always assured those people," Musoni said. He added the functioning of political parties was incumbent upon their doctrines.
"If you allow I will bring you the report about their activities," Musoni underlined and added: "those people just engaging in politics of conflict."
Prosecution Closes its Case in Renzaho Trial
UN Observer
February 7, 2007
The Prosecution today closed its case in the trial of Colonel Tharcisse Renzaho, former prefect of Kigali-ville, subject to the appearance of one expert witness and resolution of two motions. The trial commenced on 8 January 2007. Twenty-three Prosecution witnesses were heard in the course of eighteen trial days.
Renzaho, who was born in 1944 in Kibungo prefecture, is facing six counts charging him with genocide, complicity in genocide, crimes against humanity for murder and rape, and serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.
The Prosecution team includes Senior Trial Attorney Jonathan Moses, Katya Melluish and Ignacio Tredici. Renzaho is represented by Maître François Cantier from France and Barnabé Nekuie from Cameroon. The case is heard by Trial Chamber I, composed of Judges Erik Møse (Norway), presiding, Sergei Alekseevich Egorov (Russian Federation) and Florence Rita Arrey (Cameroon).
[back to contents]
Iraqi High Tribunal
Official Website of the Iraqi High Tribunal
Grotian Moment: The Saddam Hussein Trial Blog
UN rights chief files brief to prevent death sentence on Iraq’s ex-vice president
UN News Service
February 8, 2007
The top United Nations human rights official today filed a legal brief with the Iraqi High Tribunal asserting that international law prohibits the imposition of capital punishment on former vice president Taha Yassin Ramadan on grounds of breach of due process, and calling on it not to pass a death sentence.
The ‘friend of the court’ brief was submitted by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Louise Arbour in connection with the court’s reconsideration of the jail sentence imposed on Mr. Ramadan in connection with the same events for which former president Saddam Hussein and two co-defendants were hanged. The Tribunal’s Appeals Chamber ruled that the life sentence was too lenient and ordered the court to re-sentence him.
“The High Commissioner argues that the Court’s imposition of the death sentence on Taha Yassin Ramadan would violate Iraq’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,” a statement issued by Ms. Arbour’s office in Geneva said.
The 18-page brief describes shortcomings in the proceedings against Mr. Ramadan and concludes that these constitute “an unfair trial.”
The statement points out that the Covenant, which Iraq has ratified, provides that a death sentence may only be imposed following proceedings conducted in strict adherence to due process requirements, and guarantees the right to seek a commutation or pardon. “In the circumstances, the High Commissioner submits, the Court should refrain from imposing the death sentence.”
Mr. Ramadan was sentenced for his role in crimes against the civilian population of the town of Dujail in 1982. Ms. Arbour’s move followed a call last month by two independent UN rights experts that Iraq should suspend without delay any further executions until a fair trial is provided.
“International law allows the imposition of capital punishment only within rigorous legal constraints, including respect of fair trial standards,” Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers Leandro Despouy and Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Leïla Zerrougui said then.
They cited the violation of a number of international standards on the right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal and on the right to defence, including numerous reports of external pressure on the judges that appear to have led to the removal and resignation of some of them.
The right to appropriate and independent defence was severely undermined, in particular by the “extremely serious attacks” against defence lawyers, some of whom were killed, they said. “The assassination of defence attorneys appearing before the Iraqi High Tribunal threatens the entire procedure, since the role of defence lawyers is critical to a fair trial,” they added.
Iraqi court raises sentence against former Saddam deputy to death by hanging
The Associated Press via USA Today
February 12, 2007
BAGHDAD (AP) — An Iraqi court on Monday sentenced Saddam Huss
