Balkan Courts Provide Grounds for Optimism
Joint RFE and IWPR report finds local judiciaries are making progress, despite being fraught with problems.
Balkan Courts Provide Grounds for Optimism
Joint RFE and IWPR report finds local judiciaries are making progress, despite being fraught with problems.
The Hague tribunal must close within two years, and observers are anxiously watching courts in the ex-Yugoslav states to see if they are capable of processing the thousands of 1990s war crimes cases still untried.
The obstacles in their path are hefty. They include judges’ reluctance to try all ethnic groups equally, difficulties in obtaining evidence, and the long gap between the time when the crimes were committed and the present.
But most people we interviewed for this article agreed there were grounds for optimism. Local judiciaries seem willing to adopt the high standards set in The Hague; even though it’s clear they have a long way to go.
SERBIA: WAR CRIMES PROCEEDINGS COMBAT DENIAL
Over the last four years, 112 people have gone on trial in Serbia on war crimes charges, and 57 more have been indicted. There are ten ongoing cases; several have been concluded, while eight others are still in the investigation phase.
Sinisa Vasic, president of the Belgrade District Court, which has a war crimes department, said he was satisfied with the level of professionalism shown during the proceedings.
“I think we have gained some general experience, knowledge and skills. Four years ago, the War Crimes Department started from scratch. But we have learnt a lot and today we are not the fragile institution we were at the beginning,” he said.
One of the novelties introduced at war crimes proceedings are testimonies given by video link and special protective measures for the most important or vulnerable witnesses.
Serbia’s war crimes prosecutor’s office has had an important role in bringing perpetrators to justice. Spokesman Bruno Vekaric considered that, owing to their work, Serbs were no longer able to deny that war crimes had happened.
“War crimes proceedings have become a part of everyday life in Serbia. Atrocities did happen during the recent wars, and even those who have opposed these trials the most can no longer deny that,” he said.
However, Vekaric warned that while overcoming the technical problems facing the trials was relatively easy, forcing Serb politicians to accept them had proved much more difficult.
“Many Serb politicians talk very timidly about war crimes issues,” he said. “It simply does not help their political ratings.”
But not everyone agreed with Vekaric’s up-beat assessment of the office he works in. Dragoljub Todorović, a lawyer with the Belgrade-based Humanitarian Law Centre, said prosecutors had tried to hide Serbia’s responsibility for the wars in the former Yugoslavia by allowing politicians and commanders to dodge the blame.
As a result, he added, most cases were “too much focused on the direct perpetrators of those crimes, instead on those who issued orders”.
BOSNIA: A SUCCESS STORY
Since Bosnia is the country where most of the 1990s war crimes were committed, it is not surprising that its courts are among the busiest in the region. Dozens of cases are currently being heard, and thousands await investigation. The sheer number of cases Bosnia has to deal with, and the large time lag between the years when the crimes were committed and now, pose the main problems for the local judiciary.
“It is very difficult to obtain evidence when twelve to fifteen years have passed since the time when the crimes took place,” said Deputy State Prosecutor Milorad Barašin.
It has also proved hard to track down witnesses who were forced out of their homes during the war and who now live all over Bosnia, or even abroad.
“This is why investigations into these cases are very complex and time-consuming. The Bosnian public often has very little understanding of the problems we face,” he said.
The shining beacon of the Bosnian judiciary is the state court with its War Crimes Chamber, which has successfully conducted dozens of cases.
Olga Kavran, spokeswoman for the Hague prosecutors, said her office was “very happy with the cooperation established with the Bosnian state court”.
She explained that the majority of the cases referred by the Hague tribunal to local courts for trial were, in fact, sent to Bosnian courts, and most of those that had been completed had resulted in long prison terms.
"We don't really comment on judgments in these cases, but yes, we are quite content with the cooperation with the prosecutor's office," she said.
The court has also won praise from the Bosnia’s Serb community. Zlatko Knežević, who is president of the Lawyers’ Chamber in the Serb-ruled half of the country and who often defends people charged with war crimes, said the War Crimes Chamber could provide fair trials to all defendants.
He was particularly pleased with its readiness to protect and support vulnerable witnesses, but still had a number of qualms.
“When we take on a case referred to us from the Hague, we cannot but wonder whether the Bosnian court can provide defence equal to that provided by the tribunal. That is still a problem to solve. But, the Bosnian war crimes court is, at the moment, the best equipped one in the region, both technically and in terms of personnel,” he concluded.
The victims of these crimes also seem to be satisfied with the Bosnian courts, particularly with regard to their sentencing policy. Munira Subasic of “Srebrenica Mothers”, a group set up to help those bereaved by the Srebrenica genocide, said sentences were in some cases “more fair than those given by the Hague tribunal”.
CROATIA: UNEQUAL TREATEMENT FOR SERB AND CROAT DEFENDANTS
So far, the Hague tribunal has referred only one case to a Croatian court – that of the Croatian Generals Mirko Norac and Rahim Ademi, who are accused of war crimes against Serb civilians in the Medak pocket in 1993. Local courts have processed hundreds of their own cases, however, since the end of the 1991-95 war, and observers claim Serb and Croatian defendants have not been treated equally.
“I witnessed two or three trials against Serbs in Vukovar. One defendant was a policeman and worked in some prison as a guard during the war. It was proved in court that he slapped somebody two or three times, or pulled somebody's ear, and he was sentenced to 11 years in prison,” said Zagreb lawyer Anto Nobilo.
On the other hand, he recalled cases in which the accused were Croats and received only nine or ten years “for real war crimes, crimes which involved killings and torture”.
He was supported in his assessment by fellow Lawyer Cedo Prodanovic. “Trials against Serbs have been very short, without judges insisting on a lot of evidence and with punishments that were much more drastic compared to those handed down to Croats,” he said. “There have been only a few trials against Croats until now.”
The prevailing feeling in Croatia is that Croats were the victims in the war, and that the crimes were committed by the Serbs. The trial of Ademi and Norac, which started a few months ago in Zagreb, might change that, however.
Witnesses have described brutal murders and tortures allegedly committed against Serb civilians by members of the Croatian army.
Prodanovic, who represents Ademi in this trial, said the trial had been smooth so far, and that the Croatian judiciary had proved with this case that it can provide fair trials after all.
“That trial has been conducted in an absolutely fair manner. I would even say that the standards surpass those of the Hague tribunal,” he said.
He was pleased with the fact that a significant number of witnesses had been protected by the court. “It has not been noticed that other witnesses have been subjected to any sort of pressure to change the content of their testimonies,” he said.
But another war crimes trial taking place in Zagreb has not attracted so much praise. Ex-general and current member of parliament Branimir Glavas is charged with crimes against Serb civilians in Osijek in 1991. Many observers believe Glavas received privileged treatment during the investigation of the case, mainly because he remains politically influential. He has gone on hunger strike several times, and had been allowed bail, much to the dismay of independent observers in Croatia.
“In terms of procedure, the case against Glavas is not problematic at all,” said Ivo Banac, president of the Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights.
“But the treatment of the defendant is truly special at the moment. He is suddenly defending himself from the outside, and those who deserve such treatment much more than him are still in Croatian prisons.”
The obstacles in their path are hefty. They include judges’ reluctance to try all ethnic groups equally, difficulties in obtaining evidence, and the long gap between the time when the crimes were committed and the present.
But most people we interviewed for this article agreed there were grounds for optimism. Local judiciaries seem willing to adopt the high standards set in The Hague; even though it’s clear they have a long way to go.
SERBIA: WAR CRIMES PROCEEDINGS COMBAT DENIAL
Over the last four years, 112 people have gone on trial in Serbia on war crimes charges, and 57 more have been indicted. There are ten ongoing cases; several have been concluded, while eight others are still in the investigation phase.
Sinisa Vasic, president of the Belgrade District Court, which has a war crimes department, said he was satisfied with the level of professionalism shown during the proceedings.
“I think we have gained some general experience, knowledge and skills. Four years ago, the War Crimes Department started from scratch. But we have learnt a lot and today we are not the fragile institution we were at the beginning,” he said.
One of the novelties introduced at war crimes proceedings are testimonies given by video link and special protective measures for the most important or vulnerable witnesses.
Serbia’s war crimes prosecutor’s office has had an important role in bringing perpetrators to justice. Spokesman Bruno Vekaric considered that, owing to their work, Serbs were no longer able to deny that war crimes had happened.
“War crimes proceedings have become a part of everyday life in Serbia. Atrocities did happen during the recent wars, and even those who have opposed these trials the most can no longer deny that,” he said.
However, Vekaric warned that while overcoming the technical problems facing the trials was relatively easy, forcing Serb politicians to accept them had proved much more difficult.
“Many Serb politicians talk very timidly about war crimes issues,” he said. “It simply does not help their political ratings.”
But not everyone agreed with Vekaric’s up-beat assessment of the office he works in. Dragoljub Todorović, a lawyer with the Belgrade-based Humanitarian Law Centre, said prosecutors had tried to hide Serbia’s responsibility for the wars in the former Yugoslavia by allowing politicians and commanders to dodge the blame.
As a result, he added, most cases were “too much focused on the direct perpetrators of those crimes, instead on those who issued orders”.
BOSNIA: A SUCCESS STORY
Since Bosnia is the country where most of the 1990s war crimes were committed, it is not surprising that its courts are among the busiest in the region. Dozens of cases are currently being heard, and thousands await investigation. The sheer number of cases Bosnia has to deal with, and the large time lag between the years when the crimes were committed and now, pose the main problems for the local judiciary.
“It is very difficult to obtain evidence when twelve to fifteen years have passed since the time when the crimes took place,” said Deputy State Prosecutor Milorad Barašin.
It has also proved hard to track down witnesses who were forced out of their homes during the war and who now live all over Bosnia, or even abroad.
“This is why investigations into these cases are very complex and time-consuming. The Bosnian public often has very little understanding of the problems we face,” he said.
The shining beacon of the Bosnian judiciary is the state court with its War Crimes Chamber, which has successfully conducted dozens of cases.
Olga Kavran, spokeswoman for the Hague prosecutors, said her office was “very happy with the cooperation established with the Bosnian state court”.
She explained that the majority of the cases referred by the Hague tribunal to local courts for trial were, in fact, sent to Bosnian courts, and most of those that had been completed had resulted in long prison terms.
"We don't really comment on judgments in these cases, but yes, we are quite content with the cooperation with the prosecutor's office," she said.
The court has also won praise from the Bosnia’s Serb community. Zlatko Knežević, who is president of the Lawyers’ Chamber in the Serb-ruled half of the country and who often defends people charged with war crimes, said the War Crimes Chamber could provide fair trials to all defendants.
He was particularly pleased with its readiness to protect and support vulnerable witnesses, but still had a number of qualms.
“When we take on a case referred to us from the Hague, we cannot but wonder whether the Bosnian court can provide defence equal to that provided by the tribunal. That is still a problem to solve. But, the Bosnian war crimes court is, at the moment, the best equipped one in the region, both technically and in terms of personnel,” he concluded.
The victims of these crimes also seem to be satisfied with the Bosnian courts, particularly with regard to their sentencing policy. Munira Subasic of “Srebrenica Mothers”, a group set up to help those bereaved by the Srebrenica genocide, said sentences were in some cases “more fair than those given by the Hague tribunal”.
CROATIA: UNEQUAL TREATEMENT FOR SERB AND CROAT DEFENDANTS
So far, the Hague tribunal has referred only one case to a Croatian court – that of the Croatian Generals Mirko Norac and Rahim Ademi, who are accused of war crimes against Serb civilians in the Medak pocket in 1993. Local courts have processed hundreds of their own cases, however, since the end of the 1991-95 war, and observers claim Serb and Croatian defendants have not been treated equally.
“I witnessed two or three trials against Serbs in Vukovar. One defendant was a policeman and worked in some prison as a guard during the war. It was proved in court that he slapped somebody two or three times, or pulled somebody's ear, and he was sentenced to 11 years in prison,” said Zagreb lawyer Anto Nobilo.
On the other hand, he recalled cases in which the accused were Croats and received only nine or ten years “for real war crimes, crimes which involved killings and torture”.
He was supported in his assessment by fellow Lawyer Cedo Prodanovic. “Trials against Serbs have been very short, without judges insisting on a lot of evidence and with punishments that were much more drastic compared to those handed down to Croats,” he said. “There have been only a few trials against Croats until now.”
The prevailing feeling in Croatia is that Croats were the victims in the war, and that the crimes were committed by the Serbs. The trial of Ademi and Norac, which started a few months ago in Zagreb, might change that, however.
Witnesses have described brutal murders and tortures allegedly committed against Serb civilians by members of the Croatian army.
Prodanovic, who represents Ademi in this trial, said the trial had been smooth so far, and that the Croatian judiciary had proved with this case that it can provide fair trials after all.
“That trial has been conducted in an absolutely fair manner. I would even say that the standards surpass those of the Hague tribunal,” he said.
He was pleased with the fact that a significant number of witnesses had been protected by the court. “It has not been noticed that other witnesses have been subjected to any sort of pressure to change the content of their testimonies,” he said.
But another war crimes trial taking place in Zagreb has not attracted so much praise. Ex-general and current member of parliament Branimir Glavas is charged with crimes against Serb civilians in Osijek in 1991. Many observers believe Glavas received privileged treatment during the investigation of the case, mainly because he remains politically influential. He has gone on hunger strike several times, and had been allowed bail, much to the dismay of independent observers in Croatia.
“In terms of procedure, the case against Glavas is not problematic at all,” said Ivo Banac, president of the Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights.
“But the treatment of the defendant is truly special at the moment. He is suddenly defending himself from the outside, and those who deserve such treatment much more than him are still in Croatian prisons.”
