Destruction of Religious & Cultural Heritage Sites: Expert testifies that Serbian forces targeted Islamic buildings
Day 25
Destruction of Religious & Cultural Heritage Sites: Expert testifies that Serbian forces targeted Islamic buildings
Day 25
Through the testimony of Andras Riedlmayer, an international expert on the cultural heritage of the Ottoman-era Balkans, the prosecution sought to prove Count 5 of the Indictment against Slobodan Milosevic. Count 5 alleges that one of the methods used to persecute the Kosovo Albanian civilian population was the systematic and wanton destruction or damage of Kosovo Albanian religious sites and cultural monuments throughout the province. Persecution on political, racial or religious grounds is a crime against humanity, punishable under Artticle 5(h) of the Statute of the Tribunal.
Mr. Riedlmayer, associated with Harvard University, presented the Court with a report of his investigations of war damage to cultural heritage and religious sites in Kosovo. Based on a two year study, the report concluded that three out of four Ottoman-era urban centers suffered severe devastation as a result of intentionally set fires. Serbian police, Yugoslav army troops, paramilitaries and, in some cases, Serb civilians perpetrated these attacks, according to eye witnesses. In addition, traditional Albanian residential buildings, called kullas, were specifically targeted for destruction. Again, eyewitnesses identified Serb soldiers and civilians as the perpetrators. The investigators found that mosques and other Islamic religious buildings were also targeted. Over one-third of all mosques in Kosovo were damaged or destroyed.
While Milosevic suggested that NATO bombardment was responsible for damage to Albanian heritage sites as well as for damage and destruction to Serbian (Orthodox) religious and historical monuments, Mr. Riedlmayer's study found no support for that conclusion. Indeed, it concluded the opposite. The study absolved NATO from responsibility for all but damage to the roof of one village mosque and to a disused Catholic Church, which suffered damage from an airblast during a missile strike on a nearby army base. In several cases where Serb authorities had alleged complete destruction of monuments by NATO airstrikes (such as the Sinan Pasha Mosque and two Ottoman bridges), the investigators found the monuments completely in tact.
Under cross examination, Mr. Riedlmayer described how the investigators reached their conclusions that damage was not caused by airstrikes. In the case of the Museum of the Prizren League, for example, which Milsovic alleged was destroyed by an airstrike on the fifth day of the war, Mr. Riedlemayer pointed out that the following facts are inconsistent with damage from NATO aerial bombardment: 1) none of the surrounding and nearby buildings were damaged; 2) if it had been hit by an explosive device, there would have been nothing left of the mud, brick and wood construction; 3) the museum was a monument to Albanian nationalism; 4) eyewitnesses said the building was destroyed by Serbian police with hand held incendiary devices; 5) life sized statues of the League's founders, which were located in back of the museum, were found in the river after the war. All of this, Mr. Riedlmayer concluded, tends to support the conclusion that the museum was maliciously targeted by Serbian forces on the ground.
Milosevic claimed that NATO directly targeted the memorial complex at Gazimestan, which commemorates the 600 year old Battle of Kosovo Polje. It was because of that accusation, Mr. Riedlmayer answered, that he visited the site. The only damage he could see was to the cast iron ornamentation on spotlights that were erected in 1989. Though Mr. Riedlmayer was denied entry, the policeman guarding the site said the interior staircase had been damaged by an explosive device after the war.
Throughout the province, the pattern of destruction Mr. Riedlmayer and his co-investigators found was damage and destruction of Albanian cultural heritage sites from ground attack during the war and what appeared to be revenge attacks by Kosovo Albanians against Serbian cultural heritage sites after the war. He also learned that two Catholic Churches were taken over by Serbian forces during the war and used as bases of operation, actions prohibited by international law.
Milosevic's questions about destruction to Serbian monuments are irrelevant, as Judge May pointed out. They are not listed in the indictment, which charges Milosevic with war crimes and crimes against humanity and is not meant to judge the conduct of the war by all sides. But Milosevic maintains the questions are relevant to support his theory that all destruction was the natural consequence of war and that it was all NATO's fault. Because of that he blames NATO for the Kosovo Albanian destruction of Orthodox churches ('the KLA were covering up NATO bombing damage') or KFOR, because it failed to protect Serbian heritage sites.
His other line of argument was an attempt to show that Albanian heritage sites are Ottoman in origin, not Albanian. Mr. Riedlmayer answered that the Ottoman Empire was not a nationality, but consisted of people of many nationalities. When Judge May interrupted to inquire the purpose of this line of questioning, Milosevic answered, 'For these proceedings, nothing at all.'
In this manner, Milosevic continues to push the limits of a judicial proceeding he considers illegitimate, abiding by them only to the extent necessary for him to have a forum. It also illustrates the difficulty faced by the prosecution in presenting its case within the time limit recently established by the Court.
Mr. Riedlmayer, associated with Harvard University, presented the Court with a report of his investigations of war damage to cultural heritage and religious sites in Kosovo. Based on a two year study, the report concluded that three out of four Ottoman-era urban centers suffered severe devastation as a result of intentionally set fires. Serbian police, Yugoslav army troops, paramilitaries and, in some cases, Serb civilians perpetrated these attacks, according to eye witnesses. In addition, traditional Albanian residential buildings, called kullas, were specifically targeted for destruction. Again, eyewitnesses identified Serb soldiers and civilians as the perpetrators. The investigators found that mosques and other Islamic religious buildings were also targeted. Over one-third of all mosques in Kosovo were damaged or destroyed.
While Milosevic suggested that NATO bombardment was responsible for damage to Albanian heritage sites as well as for damage and destruction to Serbian (Orthodox) religious and historical monuments, Mr. Riedlmayer's study found no support for that conclusion. Indeed, it concluded the opposite. The study absolved NATO from responsibility for all but damage to the roof of one village mosque and to a disused Catholic Church, which suffered damage from an airblast during a missile strike on a nearby army base. In several cases where Serb authorities had alleged complete destruction of monuments by NATO airstrikes (such as the Sinan Pasha Mosque and two Ottoman bridges), the investigators found the monuments completely in tact.
Under cross examination, Mr. Riedlmayer described how the investigators reached their conclusions that damage was not caused by airstrikes. In the case of the Museum of the Prizren League, for example, which Milsovic alleged was destroyed by an airstrike on the fifth day of the war, Mr. Riedlemayer pointed out that the following facts are inconsistent with damage from NATO aerial bombardment: 1) none of the surrounding and nearby buildings were damaged; 2) if it had been hit by an explosive device, there would have been nothing left of the mud, brick and wood construction; 3) the museum was a monument to Albanian nationalism; 4) eyewitnesses said the building was destroyed by Serbian police with hand held incendiary devices; 5) life sized statues of the League's founders, which were located in back of the museum, were found in the river after the war. All of this, Mr. Riedlmayer concluded, tends to support the conclusion that the museum was maliciously targeted by Serbian forces on the ground.
Milosevic claimed that NATO directly targeted the memorial complex at Gazimestan, which commemorates the 600 year old Battle of Kosovo Polje. It was because of that accusation, Mr. Riedlmayer answered, that he visited the site. The only damage he could see was to the cast iron ornamentation on spotlights that were erected in 1989. Though Mr. Riedlmayer was denied entry, the policeman guarding the site said the interior staircase had been damaged by an explosive device after the war.
Throughout the province, the pattern of destruction Mr. Riedlmayer and his co-investigators found was damage and destruction of Albanian cultural heritage sites from ground attack during the war and what appeared to be revenge attacks by Kosovo Albanians against Serbian cultural heritage sites after the war. He also learned that two Catholic Churches were taken over by Serbian forces during the war and used as bases of operation, actions prohibited by international law.
Milosevic's questions about destruction to Serbian monuments are irrelevant, as Judge May pointed out. They are not listed in the indictment, which charges Milosevic with war crimes and crimes against humanity and is not meant to judge the conduct of the war by all sides. But Milosevic maintains the questions are relevant to support his theory that all destruction was the natural consequence of war and that it was all NATO's fault. Because of that he blames NATO for the Kosovo Albanian destruction of Orthodox churches ('the KLA were covering up NATO bombing damage') or KFOR, because it failed to protect Serbian heritage sites.
His other line of argument was an attempt to show that Albanian heritage sites are Ottoman in origin, not Albanian. Mr. Riedlmayer answered that the Ottoman Empire was not a nationality, but consisted of people of many nationalities. When Judge May interrupted to inquire the purpose of this line of questioning, Milosevic answered, 'For these proceedings, nothing at all.'
In this manner, Milosevic continues to push the limits of a judicial proceeding he considers illegitimate, abiding by them only to the extent necessary for him to have a forum. It also illustrates the difficulty faced by the prosecution in presenting its case within the time limit recently established by the Court.
