Insider Links Karadzic to Srebrenica Massacre
Insider Links Karadzic to Srebrenica Massacre
In one of the most moving, tragic and hopeful moments in the Tribunal's history, Momir Nikolic, stopping to control himself, addressed the Court -- but 'especially the Bosniak public' -- to express his sincere remorse and regret for the crime that happened in Srebrenica and his participation in it. '[I] apologize to the victims, their families and to the Bosniak people for my participation in the crime.' Recovering himself, he went on, 'I am aware I cannot bring back the dead, that I cannot mitigate the pain of families by my confession. But I wish to contribute to the full truth about Srebrenica.' He then made a plea for the Government of the Republika Srpska and all individuals who took part to 'follow in my footsteps and admit what they have done and turn themselves in.'
Mr. Nikolic said that he pled guilty to 'help the Tribunal and the Prosecution to arrive at the full truth' and so that victims, their brothers, mothers, sisters could avoid having to testify and be reminded of the 'terrible tragedy.' 'I feel my confession is an important step toward rebuilding of confidence and coexistence in Bosnia Herzegovina. After my guilty plea, sentencing and serving my sentence, I wish to return to Bratunac and live there with all the other peoples in peace and harmony such as prevailed before the outbreak of war.' He is not the first guilty person to wish for a way of life he helped destroy. But his soul searching was evident from his spontaneous answers to one of the judges.
When Mr. Nikolic completed his formal statement, Judge Carmen Maria Argibay asked him directly the question that haunts so many, ' Why did you do it . . . ?' The former mathematics teacher replied, 'Your Honors, what happened in 1995 is something that I never wanted to happen either in 1995 or 1992, for which I was expelled because I opposed the extremists.' He told the judges that he was physically assaulted and ended in hospital as a result of his opposition. 'I did it out of fear that something similar should happen to me again. In 1995, like the other officers who were mobilized involuntarily, I remained there and did only what I was ordered to do and what I had to do. I had no possibility to oppose it. Now I regret that at the time I did not again take off my uniform and leave and hide.'
Judge Argibay then asked if he thought that was what he should have done, but was unable to. Mr. Nikolic shook his head, 'Your Honor, I tried to do it once. I did not encounter understanding in the place I went to.' He referred to a time when he left and became a refugee with his family in a 60 square meter flat with 14 people. No one was employed. Because he could find no other solution he went back. Mr. Nikolic told the judge that if he were alone he could have left, but he didn't know where to put his family, especially his 4 year old son.
Again Judge Argibay confronted him, asking the question on so many minds, 'Can you think of the youngest son of all those killed in the Srebrenica massacre?'
Mr. Nikolic responded, 'Of course, your Honor. One of the strongest reasons why I have done all this are my pangs of conscience. The pain I have been carrying inside me all this time and believe me I owe an apology to all the victims, all the children, all the mothers who have lost their sons and especially I want to apologize to my pupils.' At this point, Mr. Nikolic broke down and cried.
The Court adjourned to consider the evidence and arguments presented to it over the last three days, promising to hand down its judgment before the winter recess or by the beginning of January. The Prosecutor has recommended a sentence of imprisonment between 15 and 20 years, while the Defense asked the Court to impose a ten year sentence.
The Prosecution's oral presentation to the Trial Chamber, though asking for 15 to 20 years, was an argument on behalf of Mr. Nikolic. Peter McCloskey, lead prosecutor, began by pointing out that 'Momir Nikolic was the first VRS officer to stand up and take responsibility for what was the worst massacre in the war. It was a very important step.' Explaining its significance to the Court, the Prosecutor said, 'Momir Nikolic has let the world know, especially the Muslims, that yes, it did happen. I as a Serb and a man am not afraid to tell that it happened.' Mr. McCloskey referred to an opinion piece by Emir Suljagic, a survivor of Srebrenica, in the New York Times, pointing out the great relief Mr. Suljagic felt for the first time when Nikolic acknowledged the Srebrenica massacre and accepted his responsibility in it. 'You cannot put a value on the relief of one Muslim man,' said the Prosecutor.
Mr. McCloskey also told the Court that Mr. Nikolic's actions confront the RS Government with the truth it has so far denied. Because of Mr. Nikolic and Mr. Obrenovic, the RS has the opportunity to recognize and acknowledge the crimes in Srebrenica and begin a historical movement towards reconciliation, enabling it to rejoin the world community.
The Prosecutor also credited Nikolic with providing the 'big picture' about what happened in Srebrenica. While Drazen Erdemovic, an ordinary soldier who participated in the slaughter, confessed earlier and provided the Tribunal and the public with confirmation of the systematic nature of the killings, Mr. Nikolic has added the larger dimension. Never again will the Prosecution face the immense task it did in the Krstic trial. Nikolic's evidence is a standard against which they can measure what others say, at the same time it binds the testimony of Muslims and the Dutch Battalion. 'We now know what happened beyond a shadow of a doubt,' Mr. McCloskey told the Court.
Nikolic's guilty plea and pledge of continuing cooperation with the Prosecution also is a 'tremendous relief' for victims and their relatives who would otherwise be called to testify in the Blagojevic case and others, some repeatedly, according to the Prosecutor.
It was with these arguments that the Prosecutor supported its recommendation that a fair and just sentence would be 15 to 20 years. In his oral presentation, Mr. McCloskey said nothing negative about Mr. Nikolic, underlining the value the Prosecution places on this guilty plea.
For his part, Mr. Nikolic's Counsel, Mr. Veselin Londrovic, began his presentation by stating, 'Defense counsel accepts the finding that the massacre is one of the worst crimes in Europe since the Second World War.' He told the Court that the main considerations in sentencing were the gravity of the crime (in Nikolic's case 'persecutions') and the individual accused's responsibility for it. Mr. Londrovic argued that his client did not have a central role either in the planning or implementation of the Srebrenica massacre. Nor did he have command responsibility, which rested with the VRS main staff or the VRS Drina Corps Command. His responsibility was helping to organize the transportation of women and children out of Potocari and the detention of the able-bodied Muslim men prior to their execution. He did not physically abuse anyone, though he was aware that Muslim men were being abused and assaulted and did nothing to prevent it, Defense Counsel argued.
Mr. Londrovic then compared Mr. Nikolic's position with that of Mrs. Biljana Plavsic, who earlier pled guilty to one count of persecutions and was sentenced to 11 years in prison, a sentence she is serving in Sweden. Mrs. Plavsic, who did have command responsibility, was responsible for persecutions in 37 municipalities while Mr. Nikolic's responsibility extended to only one. She was responsible for 50,000 deaths, Counsel claimed, while his client was responsible for 'only' 7000. When deaths rise to this magnitude, such a comparison seems irrelevant and shameful -- at least to this commentator.
Unlike Mr. Nikolic, Biljana Plavsic refused to cooperate with the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP). She was one of the leaders of the RS, while Nikolic was an involuntarily mobilized officer without even the authority to initiate an investigation for crimes. Mr. Londrovic concluded, 'Bearing all this in mind, Defense Counsel for Momir Nikolic, with all due respect, argues that it would not be fitting for Momir Nikolic to be sentenced to a longer term than Biljana Plavsic.' Such an argument lends further support to criticism of the Plavsic 11 year sentence. Considered one of the more lenient sentences meted out by the Tribunal, it makes a highly questionable standard for future sentencing.
As for mitigating factors, Mr. Londrovic told the Court 'the substantial body of mitigation leads us to argue he should be entitled to a reduced sentence.' Primary among them, Counsel listed Mr. Nikolic's guilty plea, which encourages others to come forward and admit their crimes and contributes to the 'fundamental mission' of the Tribunal 'to establish truth in connection with the crimes over which it has jurisdiction.' Mr. Londrovic continued, 'It provides a unique and unquestionable fact finding tool that greatly contributes to peace-building and reconciliation of the affected communities.' In addition, he said, it saves considerable resources, which would be expended for trial, investigation, and defense counsel fees.
In addition, Mr. Nikolic's substantial cooperation with the Prosecution is a mitigating factor recognized in the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Trial Chamber called three witnesses on its own to help it decide just how cooperative Mr. Nikolic actually was, after learning that he had lied about committing more crimes than he actually had. Added to that, the Prosecutor disclosed to the Court that an accused who pled guilty to crimes in another case, Miroslav Deronjic, denied Mr. Nikolic's claim that he was at an informal meeting with Deronjic on the night of July 13, 1995, where the killing site for the Bosnian Muslim men was discussed. Testifying at Nikolic's sentencing hearing, Mr. Deronjic said he could not swear that Mr. Nikolic was not at that meeting. It was a confusing evening, with many people coming and going. The issue of Mr. Nikolic's credibility is one the Trial Chamber has singled out, though the Prosecution sought to reassure the Chamber that Mr. Nikolic is credible and has provided very substantial cooperation to the OTP.
In addition to his testimony in the Blagojevic trial, Mr. Nikolic 'has given names, described incidents, explained the participation of military and police units and provided other information not previously available to the OTP,' according to Mr. Londovic, echoing the Prosecutor's statement. Defense Counsel also advised the judges, 'The Trial Chamber should also consider the fact that Mr. Nikolic's decision to cooperate as the first Serbian officer to do so required a special courage, in view of the fact that even official authorities of the RS have not yet admitted the crimes that took place after the fall of Srebrenica.' Counsel noted that Nikolic's guilty plea has encouraged others, such as his former accused Dragan Obrenovic, to come forward and admit their guilt.
After pointing out that Mr. Nikolic's remorse and his lack of any prior disciminatory behavior should also be considered mitigating factors, Mr. Landrovic concluded, 'Clarification of the role of others in the VRS and [among] the Serbian people will force the RS authorities to finally admit that a crime was perpetrated in Srebrenica by individuals and groups from the ranks of the Serbian people. It is only by recognizing and [acknowledging] the whole truth of the crimes . . . that trust can be rebuilt among the citizens of Bosnia Herzegovina.'
Form the gallery of Courtroom One, Mr. Nikolic's acceptance of responsibility and genuine remorse appear an important step on a very long road to reconciliation. It is a road that hardly appeared on any map of possible futures before Momir Nikolic told his truth and expressed his great sorrow for his part in the massive slaughter of his fellow human beings.
Mr. Nikolic said that he pled guilty to 'help the Tribunal and the Prosecution to arrive at the full truth' and so that victims, their brothers, mothers, sisters could avoid having to testify and be reminded of the 'terrible tragedy.' 'I feel my confession is an important step toward rebuilding of confidence and coexistence in Bosnia Herzegovina. After my guilty plea, sentencing and serving my sentence, I wish to return to Bratunac and live there with all the other peoples in peace and harmony such as prevailed before the outbreak of war.' He is not the first guilty person to wish for a way of life he helped destroy. But his soul searching was evident from his spontaneous answers to one of the judges.
When Mr. Nikolic completed his formal statement, Judge Carmen Maria Argibay asked him directly the question that haunts so many, ' Why did you do it . . . ?' The former mathematics teacher replied, 'Your Honors, what happened in 1995 is something that I never wanted to happen either in 1995 or 1992, for which I was expelled because I opposed the extremists.' He told the judges that he was physically assaulted and ended in hospital as a result of his opposition. 'I did it out of fear that something similar should happen to me again. In 1995, like the other officers who were mobilized involuntarily, I remained there and did only what I was ordered to do and what I had to do. I had no possibility to oppose it. Now I regret that at the time I did not again take off my uniform and leave and hide.'
Judge Argibay then asked if he thought that was what he should have done, but was unable to. Mr. Nikolic shook his head, 'Your Honor, I tried to do it once. I did not encounter understanding in the place I went to.' He referred to a time when he left and became a refugee with his family in a 60 square meter flat with 14 people. No one was employed. Because he could find no other solution he went back. Mr. Nikolic told the judge that if he were alone he could have left, but he didn't know where to put his family, especially his 4 year old son.
Again Judge Argibay confronted him, asking the question on so many minds, 'Can you think of the youngest son of all those killed in the Srebrenica massacre?'
Mr. Nikolic responded, 'Of course, your Honor. One of the strongest reasons why I have done all this are my pangs of conscience. The pain I have been carrying inside me all this time and believe me I owe an apology to all the victims, all the children, all the mothers who have lost their sons and especially I want to apologize to my pupils.' At this point, Mr. Nikolic broke down and cried.
The Court adjourned to consider the evidence and arguments presented to it over the last three days, promising to hand down its judgment before the winter recess or by the beginning of January. The Prosecutor has recommended a sentence of imprisonment between 15 and 20 years, while the Defense asked the Court to impose a ten year sentence.
The Prosecution's oral presentation to the Trial Chamber, though asking for 15 to 20 years, was an argument on behalf of Mr. Nikolic. Peter McCloskey, lead prosecutor, began by pointing out that 'Momir Nikolic was the first VRS officer to stand up and take responsibility for what was the worst massacre in the war. It was a very important step.' Explaining its significance to the Court, the Prosecutor said, 'Momir Nikolic has let the world know, especially the Muslims, that yes, it did happen. I as a Serb and a man am not afraid to tell that it happened.' Mr. McCloskey referred to an opinion piece by Emir Suljagic, a survivor of Srebrenica, in the New York Times, pointing out the great relief Mr. Suljagic felt for the first time when Nikolic acknowledged the Srebrenica massacre and accepted his responsibility in it. 'You cannot put a value on the relief of one Muslim man,' said the Prosecutor.
Mr. McCloskey also told the Court that Mr. Nikolic's actions confront the RS Government with the truth it has so far denied. Because of Mr. Nikolic and Mr. Obrenovic, the RS has the opportunity to recognize and acknowledge the crimes in Srebrenica and begin a historical movement towards reconciliation, enabling it to rejoin the world community.
The Prosecutor also credited Nikolic with providing the 'big picture' about what happened in Srebrenica. While Drazen Erdemovic, an ordinary soldier who participated in the slaughter, confessed earlier and provided the Tribunal and the public with confirmation of the systematic nature of the killings, Mr. Nikolic has added the larger dimension. Never again will the Prosecution face the immense task it did in the Krstic trial. Nikolic's evidence is a standard against which they can measure what others say, at the same time it binds the testimony of Muslims and the Dutch Battalion. 'We now know what happened beyond a shadow of a doubt,' Mr. McCloskey told the Court.
Nikolic's guilty plea and pledge of continuing cooperation with the Prosecution also is a 'tremendous relief' for victims and their relatives who would otherwise be called to testify in the Blagojevic case and others, some repeatedly, according to the Prosecutor.
It was with these arguments that the Prosecutor supported its recommendation that a fair and just sentence would be 15 to 20 years. In his oral presentation, Mr. McCloskey said nothing negative about Mr. Nikolic, underlining the value the Prosecution places on this guilty plea.
For his part, Mr. Nikolic's Counsel, Mr. Veselin Londrovic, began his presentation by stating, 'Defense counsel accepts the finding that the massacre is one of the worst crimes in Europe since the Second World War.' He told the Court that the main considerations in sentencing were the gravity of the crime (in Nikolic's case 'persecutions') and the individual accused's responsibility for it. Mr. Londrovic argued that his client did not have a central role either in the planning or implementation of the Srebrenica massacre. Nor did he have command responsibility, which rested with the VRS main staff or the VRS Drina Corps Command. His responsibility was helping to organize the transportation of women and children out of Potocari and the detention of the able-bodied Muslim men prior to their execution. He did not physically abuse anyone, though he was aware that Muslim men were being abused and assaulted and did nothing to prevent it, Defense Counsel argued.
Mr. Londrovic then compared Mr. Nikolic's position with that of Mrs. Biljana Plavsic, who earlier pled guilty to one count of persecutions and was sentenced to 11 years in prison, a sentence she is serving in Sweden. Mrs. Plavsic, who did have command responsibility, was responsible for persecutions in 37 municipalities while Mr. Nikolic's responsibility extended to only one. She was responsible for 50,000 deaths, Counsel claimed, while his client was responsible for 'only' 7000. When deaths rise to this magnitude, such a comparison seems irrelevant and shameful -- at least to this commentator.
Unlike Mr. Nikolic, Biljana Plavsic refused to cooperate with the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP). She was one of the leaders of the RS, while Nikolic was an involuntarily mobilized officer without even the authority to initiate an investigation for crimes. Mr. Londrovic concluded, 'Bearing all this in mind, Defense Counsel for Momir Nikolic, with all due respect, argues that it would not be fitting for Momir Nikolic to be sentenced to a longer term than Biljana Plavsic.' Such an argument lends further support to criticism of the Plavsic 11 year sentence. Considered one of the more lenient sentences meted out by the Tribunal, it makes a highly questionable standard for future sentencing.
As for mitigating factors, Mr. Londrovic told the Court 'the substantial body of mitigation leads us to argue he should be entitled to a reduced sentence.' Primary among them, Counsel listed Mr. Nikolic's guilty plea, which encourages others to come forward and admit their crimes and contributes to the 'fundamental mission' of the Tribunal 'to establish truth in connection with the crimes over which it has jurisdiction.' Mr. Londrovic continued, 'It provides a unique and unquestionable fact finding tool that greatly contributes to peace-building and reconciliation of the affected communities.' In addition, he said, it saves considerable resources, which would be expended for trial, investigation, and defense counsel fees.
In addition, Mr. Nikolic's substantial cooperation with the Prosecution is a mitigating factor recognized in the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The Trial Chamber called three witnesses on its own to help it decide just how cooperative Mr. Nikolic actually was, after learning that he had lied about committing more crimes than he actually had. Added to that, the Prosecutor disclosed to the Court that an accused who pled guilty to crimes in another case, Miroslav Deronjic, denied Mr. Nikolic's claim that he was at an informal meeting with Deronjic on the night of July 13, 1995, where the killing site for the Bosnian Muslim men was discussed. Testifying at Nikolic's sentencing hearing, Mr. Deronjic said he could not swear that Mr. Nikolic was not at that meeting. It was a confusing evening, with many people coming and going. The issue of Mr. Nikolic's credibility is one the Trial Chamber has singled out, though the Prosecution sought to reassure the Chamber that Mr. Nikolic is credible and has provided very substantial cooperation to the OTP.
In addition to his testimony in the Blagojevic trial, Mr. Nikolic 'has given names, described incidents, explained the participation of military and police units and provided other information not previously available to the OTP,' according to Mr. Londovic, echoing the Prosecutor's statement. Defense Counsel also advised the judges, 'The Trial Chamber should also consider the fact that Mr. Nikolic's decision to cooperate as the first Serbian officer to do so required a special courage, in view of the fact that even official authorities of the RS have not yet admitted the crimes that took place after the fall of Srebrenica.' Counsel noted that Nikolic's guilty plea has encouraged others, such as his former accused Dragan Obrenovic, to come forward and admit their guilt.
After pointing out that Mr. Nikolic's remorse and his lack of any prior disciminatory behavior should also be considered mitigating factors, Mr. Landrovic concluded, 'Clarification of the role of others in the VRS and [among] the Serbian people will force the RS authorities to finally admit that a crime was perpetrated in Srebrenica by individuals and groups from the ranks of the Serbian people. It is only by recognizing and [acknowledging] the whole truth of the crimes . . . that trust can be rebuilt among the citizens of Bosnia Herzegovina.'
Form the gallery of Courtroom One, Mr. Nikolic's acceptance of responsibility and genuine remorse appear an important step on a very long road to reconciliation. It is a road that hardly appeared on any map of possible futures before Momir Nikolic told his truth and expressed his great sorrow for his part in the massive slaughter of his fellow human beings.
