Bosnia: New
Row Over ICJ Ruling
Last year's International Court of Justice
ruling provokes political disagreement in Bosnia.
By IWPR and RFE staff in Sarajevo and Belgrade
Bosnian victims of the 1990s Balkans wars welcomed
last year's ICJ ruling that Serbia was guilty of failing to punish the
perpetrators of genocide. However, 12 months later, it seems that the
verdict has only served to deepen political division in the country.
When the verdict of the world's highest court was
announced, it was interpreted differently in Bosnia and Serbia.
Bosniaks focused on the fact that Serbia was found
guilty of failing to use its influence to prevent genocide and of
failing to meet its obligation to punish the perpetrators, while
Belgrade celebrated being acquitted for direct responsibility for
genocide, and ignored the nuances, including the finding of partial
responsibility.
Serbia has still not captured war crimes suspects
Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, in spite of an order contained in the
ICJ ruling that it "take immediate steps. to transfer individuals
accused of genocide to the ICTY [International Criminal Tribunal for
Former Yugoslavia] and to co-operate fully with the tribunal".
Bosnian leaders, whose communities waged war against
each other in the 1990s, are now split over what action should be taken
against Serbia's failure to hand over the men.
Earlier this month, the Bosniak and Croat members of
the state presidency - Haris Silajdzic and Zeljko Komsic - decided to
ask the UN Security Council to force Serbia to comply with the ICJ
ruling and finally extradite all fugitives to the Hague tribunal.
However, Serb member of the presidency Nebojsa
Radmanovic, backed by the parliament in the Serb half of the country,
vetoed this decision, saying it was detrimental to "Bosnian Serbs' vital
national interests".
Speaking to the Bosnian Serb parliament on February
22, Radmanovic said such a request to the Security Council "would also
be against good neighbourly relations with Serbia, and it comes at the
most difficult time for that country".
Strangely enough, the full ICJ judgment has never been
translated into local languages in Bosnia, nor has it been published in
the country's Official Gazette. These steps should be taken urgently,
said Sakib Softic, former leader of the team representing Bosnia at the
ICJ.
"Only when the judgment is translated and made
available to all Bosnian citizens, can we think of further moves that we
can make," he said.
The prevailing view in Serbia is that the ICJ's
decision was not binding and was only a recommendation as to which steps
the country should take after the verdict.
"Serbia was not obliged to fulfill the ICJ judges'
requests for full co-operation with the Hague tribunal," said Radoslav
Stojanovic, head of the legal team which represented Belgrade at the
ICJ.
"Therefore, we cannot be punished by the UN Security
Council for failing to meet those requests."
However, Stojanovic added that this did not mean
Serbia should not aim to cooperate fully with the ICTY.
"That's our moral obligation, and that issue should
not be put aside," he said.
Spokesman for Serbia's prosecutor for war crimes Bruno
Vekaric said Serbia currently has too many other problems and is not
able to deal with the ICJ judgment.
Angered by western support for Kosovo, which declared
independence on February 17, the country has threatened to cut ties with
all countries which recognise the province, including the US and most EU
members.
"Although as a Serbian citizen, I am glad that my
country was acquitted of direct responsibility for Bosnian genocide, the
judgment - which clearly stated that Serbia has not done enough to
prevent or punish perpetrators of this crime - certainly obliges us all
to do something about it," said Vekaric.
Vojin Dimitrijevic, a former ad hoc judge at the ICJ,
said the fact that Serbia has done nothing yet to comply with the ICJ
ruling - whether it was legally bound to or not - would not help
Belgrade's reputation.
"Serbia is constantly calling for the respect of
international law when it comes to Kosovo's secession, but how can it be
taken seriously when Belgrade itself is in breach of international law?"
he asked.
Ana Jerosimovic from the Centre for Human Rights in
Belgrade blamed the media for not providing an accurate interpretation
of the judgment to the Serbian public.
"There was no public debate on this judgment and the
only official statement related to the verdict was given by Serbian
president Boris Tadic, who said that the National Assembly should adopt
a declaration condemning the genocide in Srebrenica. Regretfully, this
never happened," she said.
Activists have urged international prosecutors to take
additional steps to revise the judgment. One such move could be to push
for a renewal of the process, which would be possible if compelling new
evidence appeared within the next nine years.
Such evidence may be hidden in the transcripts of
Serbia's Supreme Defence Council, SDC, meetings. These documents, which
were not requested from Serbia by ICJ judges, are seen by many in Bosnia
as being of great importance.
Activists believe they could show to which extent
Belgrade's top officials were involved in Srebrenica's 1995 massacre of
some 8,000 Bosniak men and boys, classified by both the ICTY and the ICJ
as genocide.
Edina Becirevic, a senior lecturer at Sarajevo's
Faculty of Criminal Justice Sciences, said prosecutors needed to be
imaginative in exploiting what evidence was available, despite the
official secrecy.
"A book written by former Montenegrin President Momir
Bulatovic called 'The Unspoken Defence' contains a great number of
confidential documents and SDC transcripts which the ICJ judges failed
to request from Serbia at the time when the Bosnian case was being
presented at this court," she said.
"This book alone should be a sufficient reason for
renewed pressure on Serbia to reveal these documents in full. If all the
SDC transcripts - including those from 1995 - finally become public,
then Bosnia might have a chance of renewing the process before the ICJ.
And maybe even win this time." |