Who Has the Documents? Serbia & Montenegro Should Tell Public What It Knows
Who Has the Documents? Serbia & Montenegro Should Tell Public What It Knows
Ante Markovic returned to the witness stand to continue being cross examined by Milosevic, the Accused produced his original business agendas (diaries) covering his last years as Prime Minister of the former Yugoslavia. Taken aback, Mr. Markovic remarked that he had been unable to secure either the originals or copies for memoirs he might write someday. Milosevic graciously offered to let him copy the originals for his 'memoirs,' as long as the originals were returned to him. Lead Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice also expressed surprise at Milosevic's access to archival material the Prosecution has been seeking from Serbia and Montenegro for years. Given Serbia and Montenegro's continued 'inability to provide' requested material, it appears Milosevic and his allies retain control of at least some.
The Prosecution's efforts to obtain documentation significant to its case from Serbia and Montenegro (SCG) have been ongoing for more than a year, often behind closed doors at SCG's request. Frustrated by what it considered lack of cooperation by SCG, the Prosecution appealed to the Court to order SCG to produce a large number of identified documents. The Trial Chamber has issued a number of orders, denying some requests, setting deadlines for compliance with others. With the Prosecution's case nearing completion (13 days remaining), documents it considers important for its case have still not been disclosed.
Recently, on December 17, 2003, the Trial Chamber issued its latest decision on the matter, titled, 'Thirteenth Decision on Applications Pursuant to Rule 54bis of Prosecution and Serbia and Montenegro.' In its decision, the Chamber noted 'the prodigious procedural history of these proceedings, much of which has been conducted confidentially on the request of Serbia and Montenegro.' Showing its displeasure with SCG's attempts to avoid explaining its reasoning to the public, the Chamber ordered the Government to make public its former submission to the Court in response to the Prosecution's request for documentation relating to the 'Supreme Command' or any entity that exercised command and control responsibility over armed organizations during the Kosovo war. It appears SCG was unable to produce such documentation. The Court wants SCG to tell the public why.
The Court denied some of the Prosecution's outstanding requests on the grounds that 'Serbia and Montenegro has complied to the best of its ability.' Documents falling in this category included those relating to the Guards Brigade of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) during events in Vukovar in 1991, agreements between the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Republika Srpska after May 1992, military intelligence and the Supreme Command documentation. Other Prosecution requests were dismissed after SCG complied. For still other requests, the Court granted SCG two more months to attempt to locate and produce the documents. This latter category includes financial documentation, material relating to the Joint-Command for Kosovo and Metohija, Novi Sad Corps documentation, a letter dated 27 October 1995 from Radovan Karadzic to Zoran Lilic concerning the dismissal of generals of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS), and documents relating to the training of volunteers in special units of the Army of the FRY (VJ) in 1995.
Given the two months the Court granted SCG to comply, it can be assumed that the Prosecution will be able to use some of this documentation during its rebuttal case. There is no way to know whether this will be adequate to meet its needs. Documentation often provides leads to other evidence and witnesses, requiring further investigation. It is highly doubtful the Chamber will allow additional time for that.
The Chamber is right to order SCG to be more forthcoming with its reasons for noncompliance. This is a public trial and the public has a right to know why certain evidence cannot be produced. Has it been destroyed? Who had control over the archives or other records? Who had access? How does Milosevic continue having access to documents that is denied the Prosecution and the originator of those documents? Is the Government denying access as well, did it lose control of them, or are there other reasons it cannot produce them in response to the Court's order?
The Trial Chamber noted in its decision, without saying more, that Rule 7bis of the ICTY rules gives the Chamber authority to advise the ICTY President of a government's failure to comply with its obligations to cooperate with the ICTY. The President then informs the United Nations Security Council. Perhaps this was meant as a warning.
In its December 17, 2003 decision, the Chamber required SCG to file a public version of its 'Supreme Command Submission' (which apparently explains why it cannot comply with the Prosecution's request for documents concerning command and control during the Kosovo War) within three weeks. It has been almost five weeks and the public still does not have access to the document. If there are valid reasons SCG cannot produce documents, it should clearly and publicly explain them. It serves their interest, as well as the interests of the public, to do so.
The Prosecution's efforts to obtain documentation significant to its case from Serbia and Montenegro (SCG) have been ongoing for more than a year, often behind closed doors at SCG's request. Frustrated by what it considered lack of cooperation by SCG, the Prosecution appealed to the Court to order SCG to produce a large number of identified documents. The Trial Chamber has issued a number of orders, denying some requests, setting deadlines for compliance with others. With the Prosecution's case nearing completion (13 days remaining), documents it considers important for its case have still not been disclosed.
Recently, on December 17, 2003, the Trial Chamber issued its latest decision on the matter, titled, 'Thirteenth Decision on Applications Pursuant to Rule 54bis of Prosecution and Serbia and Montenegro.' In its decision, the Chamber noted 'the prodigious procedural history of these proceedings, much of which has been conducted confidentially on the request of Serbia and Montenegro.' Showing its displeasure with SCG's attempts to avoid explaining its reasoning to the public, the Chamber ordered the Government to make public its former submission to the Court in response to the Prosecution's request for documentation relating to the 'Supreme Command' or any entity that exercised command and control responsibility over armed organizations during the Kosovo war. It appears SCG was unable to produce such documentation. The Court wants SCG to tell the public why.
The Court denied some of the Prosecution's outstanding requests on the grounds that 'Serbia and Montenegro has complied to the best of its ability.' Documents falling in this category included those relating to the Guards Brigade of the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) during events in Vukovar in 1991, agreements between the armed forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and Republika Srpska after May 1992, military intelligence and the Supreme Command documentation. Other Prosecution requests were dismissed after SCG complied. For still other requests, the Court granted SCG two more months to attempt to locate and produce the documents. This latter category includes financial documentation, material relating to the Joint-Command for Kosovo and Metohija, Novi Sad Corps documentation, a letter dated 27 October 1995 from Radovan Karadzic to Zoran Lilic concerning the dismissal of generals of the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS), and documents relating to the training of volunteers in special units of the Army of the FRY (VJ) in 1995.
Given the two months the Court granted SCG to comply, it can be assumed that the Prosecution will be able to use some of this documentation during its rebuttal case. There is no way to know whether this will be adequate to meet its needs. Documentation often provides leads to other evidence and witnesses, requiring further investigation. It is highly doubtful the Chamber will allow additional time for that.
The Chamber is right to order SCG to be more forthcoming with its reasons for noncompliance. This is a public trial and the public has a right to know why certain evidence cannot be produced. Has it been destroyed? Who had control over the archives or other records? Who had access? How does Milosevic continue having access to documents that is denied the Prosecution and the originator of those documents? Is the Government denying access as well, did it lose control of them, or are there other reasons it cannot produce them in response to the Court's order?
The Trial Chamber noted in its decision, without saying more, that Rule 7bis of the ICTY rules gives the Chamber authority to advise the ICTY President of a government's failure to comply with its obligations to cooperate with the ICTY. The President then informs the United Nations Security Council. Perhaps this was meant as a warning.
In its December 17, 2003 decision, the Chamber required SCG to file a public version of its 'Supreme Command Submission' (which apparently explains why it cannot comply with the Prosecution's request for documents concerning command and control during the Kosovo War) within three weeks. It has been almost five weeks and the public still does not have access to the document. If there are valid reasons SCG cannot produce documents, it should clearly and publicly explain them. It serves their interest, as well as the interests of the public, to do so.
