Hague Tribunal Prosecution Faces Investigation
Independent probe to be launched into allegations that potential witnesses in Seselj trial were threatened.
Hague Tribunal Prosecution Faces Investigation
Independent probe to be launched into allegations that potential witnesses in Seselj trial were threatened.
Members of the prosecutor’s office at the Hague tribunal are to be investigated for allegedly pressuring and intimidating witnesses to testify in the trial of Serbian nationalist politician Vojislav Seselj.
The presiding judge in the Seselj trial, Jean-Claude Antonetti, issued the decision in late June, but it was not announced by the court until this week. The move to open this investigation stems from a motion Seselj himself made in March 2007, in which he alleged that the prosecution obtained witness statements by “threatening, intimidating and/or buying off” potential witnesses.
Seselj further requested that contempt proceedings be initiated against then chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte, as well as two other members of the Office of the Prosecutor, OTP, Hildegard Uertz-Retzlaff and Daniel Saxon.
In May 2007, judges decided to postpone a decision on Seselj’s motion until his trial was completed, and said that “the request for contempt proceedings will be determined at that time”.
However, in the recent decision to launch an investigation into the OTP, Judge Antonetti stated that there were certain witnesses who testified during the trial who “referred to pressure or to attempts to intimidate” by prosecution investigators and to “irregularities during their preliminary interviews by the prosecution”.
Judge Antonetti went on to cite examples involving five specific witnesses. He wrote that one of these witnesses, Nebojsa Stojanovic, testified during court hearings on July 22 and 23, 2008 that “he and his family were subjected to tremendous pressure by the prosecution” and that he received up to 50 phone calls per day from the prosecution, beginning in December 2007.
The second witness, Vojislav Dabic, testified for the prosecution in January 2010 and “declared that he signed the statement he had given the prosecution only in its English version”, wrote Judge Antonetti.
Furthermore, the judge stated that “Dabic added that the prosecution had told him that if he testified, after that he could go to America, that he would get a good salary”.
Judge Antonetti went on to cite court witness Jovan Glamocanin, who said during hearings in December 2008 that a certain investigator “had likely added information, at his own initiative, to [his] preliminary statement”, the judge wrote.
Glamocanin “likewise accused this investigator of having forced him to sign the statement, threatening to continue questioning him until he signed”, Judge Antonetti stated in the decision. He also wrote that the witness said “he signed only his English statement and that he did so without reading it over”.
A fourth witness, unnamed in the decision, “stated that he had not re-read his statements in full before signing them and that his statement from 1996 does not precisely correspond to his words at the time”.
Judge Antonetti cited another witness, Aleksandr Stefanovic, who testified for the prosecution in November 2008.
According to the judge, Stefonovic told the court that he received “encouragement” by Serbian political leaders and Del Ponte to testify against Seselj, “with the objective of eliminating the accused from the political scene, in exchange for him [Stefonovic ]not ever being personally disturbed by tribunal”.
In addition, Stefonovic told the court that “his signature had been scanned and affixed to the bottom of his statements” and that he received an “exceptional number of telephone calls from the tribunal”, Judge Antonetti states.
He emphasises that the chamber “refuses to allow any doubt to fester concerning a possible violation of the rights of the accused and concerning the investigation techniques employed by certain members of the prosecution in this case”.
However, while Seselj’s 2007 motion named particular members of the OTP, the judge’s decision does not specify any particular individuals who will be investigated.
Judge Antonetti ruled that an independent friend of the court – known as an amicus curiae - should be appointed to “investigate possible intimidation or pressure, albeit indirect, exerted by certain investigators for the prosecution… and to investigate techniques used by these investigators to obtain preliminary written statements from witnesses”.
The judge further stated that the amicus curiae “should enjoy complete authority to make findings for the investigation” and should submit a report containing his or her conclusions within six months.
At a press conference this week, acting tribunal spokesman Christian Chartier said that four possible amicus curiae candidates had been submitted to judges and that a decision on the matter could be expected soon.
Acting OTP spokesman Frederick Swinnen said that his office was “convinced that its staff has acted in a professional way and within the rules. We will work with the amicus curiae once he or she is appointed in order to clarify these matters”.
As for Seselj’s war crimes trial, Chartier told IWPR that this investigation was a “separate issue” and that the ongoing case was not affected by it.
Arrested in 2003, Seselj is charged with nine counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity – including murder, torture and forcible transfer – for atrocities carried out in an effort to expel the non-Serb population from parts of Croatia and Bosnia between August 1991 and September 1993. He remains leader of the Serbian Radical Party, SRS, based in Belgrade.
Seselj’s trial has had repeated delays since it officially began in November 2007, a full year after the original trial date was postponed due to the accused’s hunger strike.
In additional to the war crimes charges he is facing, Seselj was found guilty of contempt in July 2009 for revealing confidential details about protected witnesses in one of the books he authored.
The accused is set to face yet another contempt trial for revealing details about 11 protected witnesses in one of his books. Those proceedings have yet to take place because Seselj is requesting that two of the judges be removed from the case.
Rachel Irwin is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.
