| Srpski
 | English
 | Shqip
Pogodak!
In the period from September until December 2008, the Humanitarian Law Center – Kosovo (HLC-Kosovo) conducted a research on the implementation of the Law on the Promotion and Protection of Rights of Communities and Their Members in the Republic of Kosovo, with special focus on the creation of the Consultative Council for Communities within the Kosovo President’s Cabinet. This law was passed on 13 March 2008 and entered into force on 15 June 2008, while the decree of the President of Kosovo, on establishment of the Consultative Council, was made on 15 September 2008.... >>
HLC-Kosovo is the only nongovernmental organization monitoring trials of war crimes and ethnically motivated criminal offences in Kosovo. In 2007, HLC-Kosovo monitored 117 main hearings in 21 cases before municipal and district courts, as well as four cases before the Supreme Court of Kosovo. The persons examined in these [monitored] cases included 119 witnesses (two of whom were protected witnesses) and five ballistic experts and neuropsychiatrists. In all cases the indictments were brought and represented by international prosecutors. All the chamber presidents are international judges, with local judges serving as trial chamber members.... >>
In the period following the toppling of Slobodan Milošević, the transitional government supported domestic war crimes trials, but it soon became clear that serious impediments existed. Police was not willing to share its data on war crimes perpetrators with prosecutors, primarily because most of them belonged to the police.... >>
Every government assumes political responsibility for the deeds and misdeeds of its
predecessor, and every nation for the deeds and misdeeds of the past.
Hannah Arendt, ''Eichmann in Jerusalem''
Conferences / Press Conference of the Humanitarian Law Center Steering Board /
 
Print Send Link To a Friend
Prof. dr Zoran Pajic: Trials for War Crimes

First of all, the victims who survived and families of the killed and disappeared find themselves in unenviable position in the context of war crimes trials while awaiting justice to be done.  When it comes to support mechanisms within the international justice framework, detainees seem to be much better protected and taken care of than the victims.  This may be seen as a double standard in human rights guarantees for (a) alleged perpetrator and (b) victim of the crime.

All governments from the region of the former Yugoslavia, including both entity governments from Bosnia and Herzegovina, have established special funds for indicted war criminals in custody and for their families. It has been frequently alleged that huge monetary rewards have been paid for voluntary surrender. Different forms of liaising and keeping in touch with detained or sentenced individuals and their attorneys have been set up by the governments. On the other side of the spectrum, victims of war crimes and their families have largely been left on their own.  They do not enjoy any form of institutionalized government support, be it financial subsidies, social care or medical counseling.  Instead, they have to rely on self-help and humanitarian programs occasionally put together by a few NGOs that often struggle with the lack of funds themselves.  Many victims still live in appalling conditions as refugees or returnees.  Furthermore, they see their tormentors from the war enjoying comfortable living conditions in ICTY detention quarters, often combined with temporary release and home stay until the commencement of the trial.  This controversy is seen as an insult to injury and creates animosity and distrust towards the system of justice as such.  In a broader context of reconciliation, this situation is making the prospect of offering even modest satisfaction to victims and their families rather uncertain and remote.

Contemporary human rights principles on fair trial have resulted in “open prisons” and other flexible methods of punishment.  It is exactly at this point that modern humanity of individual punishment clashes with ancient barbarity of mass crimes.  From the point of view of those who suffered most in the Yugoslav wars this may look as a hypocritical ending of their ordeal.  Or to put it in simple terms: the punishment does not match the crime.

No punishment for war crimes can solve political problems.  But establishing the facts in the course of atrocities and attributing the responsibility, tribunals may help in calming emotional and political tensions and encourage people to look towards the future instead of reclaiming the past.  The idea of having truth and reconciliation bodies in Latin America and South Africa was based on these premises.  It showed that impartial and objective truth is essential but it does not lead directly to reconciliation because the victims are still left with no compensations for their suffering.

In other words, there should be a step in between.  The judicial system, be it international or national, is well placed and authoritative to recommend measures that may open the way to creating a set of compensations as an annex to sentencing individuals for war crimes.  Recommendations may vary from one case to another but should all be aimed at bringing satisfaction to the victim community and help it to move on.

Frozen assets owned by a war criminal should be transferred to a special compensation fund, which could be internationally administered or overseen by the highest court in the country.  The country of origin of such an individual could also be invited to participate in this fund.  The tribunal, which passed the judgment, may also invite the parliament of the country in question to pass a resolution deploring the crimes committed by its citizens who had been found guilty.  These recommendations may also include revision of history textbooks for schools, publication of the verdict and its reasoning as widely as possible, etc.

Some of these ideas have already been embraced by the International Criminal Court.  The ICC Statute introduced the idea of helping victims by providing them with compensation through the Victims’ Trust Fund, which is overseen by an independent board of directors.  Support for the fund will come from the governments, foundations and private donors, but the court can also order sentenced criminals to pay reparations.

As a rule, the trials for war crimes take place after the armed conflict was brought to an end and new state authorities have been elected.  Their claims that they have nothing to do with previously committed atrocities by individuals who enjoyed the support of deposed political leaders may be understood in the short term.  But in principle, democratic changes in a country cannot absolve anybody of responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the past on behalf of that country. The lessons from the post Nuremberg Trial provide an inspiring example of the compensation system, as well as a valuable lesson for reconciliation process.

Finally, the idea of responsibility and guilt for the most heinous violations of international humanitarian law needs to be revisited with the aim of enhancing the credibility of war crime trials and improving the prospect of justice.