Referring to the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals, Prof. Dickson argues in this scholarly article that “despite the innumerable practical, legal, financial and political challenges these institutions faced, they chose to take on an additional and unnecessary responsibility for which they were woefully ill-equipped: writing history.” Elsewhere she observes: “Lawyers can become very frustrated in trials of this magnitude as the complexity of Rwandan culture, history and politics – in other words, the crucial context – is largely considered irrelevant and thus inadmissible, at least for the defense, whose role is most often constrained to challenging evidence directly related to counts contained in the indictment against an individual accused. The historical sweep is the province of the Prosecutor…” The “historical sweep” theme, and the inequality of arms standard which governs its application, is important and deserves attention. A proper criminal trial should be focused on the specific charges and the role of the defendant, if any, in the commission of the criminal acts he or she is being charged with. When in determining A’s liability for what happened to B, C, or D, “history” is brought into the trial A’s community is implicitly put on trial alongside him, whether in terms of cultural determinants of A’s alleged conduct, past similar behavior by his group, or in other prejudicial ways. From there, it is but a short step to projecting collective as opposed to individual responsibility. That turns the individual responsibility principle largely into a formality, asserted mainly for the convenience of plausible deniability should anyone point out that the Tribunal is in fact helping to demonize entire ethnicities.
The Hague Tribunal’s unwarranted historical excursions are exemplified by this self-congratulatory comment on its modestly titled “Achievements” page:
“The Tribunal has established beyond a reasonable doubt crucial facts related to crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia. In doing so, the Tribunal’s judges have carefully reviewed testimonies of eyewitnesses, survivors and perpetrators, forensic data and often previously unseen documentary and video evidence. The Tribunal’s judgements have contributed to creating a historical record, combatting denial and preventing attempts at revisionism and provided the basis for future transitional justice initiatives in the region.
“As the work of the ICTY progresses, important elements of a historical record of the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s have emerged. The ICTY has established crucial facts about crimes, once subject to dispute, beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The evidence on our website belies ICTY’s pretentious claims to having created a reliable historical record. Prof. Dickson cogently argues that a proper court should not even be making them.
- Dr. Oliver Stojkovic’s forensic evidence, 27 and 30 June, 2008
- ICTY’s evidence for Srebrenica genocide