The Balkan Conflicts Research Team is continuously producing superb, hard-hitting and intellectually provocative Twitters about Srebrenica and the Hague Tribunal. We highly recommend them to our readers who may follow them by visiting their Twitter account at: Balkan Conflicts Research Team@ResearchTeam
You may view this Tweet at: https://twitter.com/ResearchTeam/status/1251059302338527232?s=20
What are the clearest examples of the ICTY’s bias?
- The ICTY Statute ensured that defence teams were second class citizens in the eyes of the court. Denied ‘immunity’, defence lawyers were at daily risk of incurring heavy fines and other punishments for breaching restraints placed upon them by judges. Prosecutors by contrast had full immunity and much greater freedom to build their cases.
- Despite the UN Security Council’s instruction to enforce only existing humanitarian law, the ICTY changed the law on an industrial scale, always in the interest of securing convictions.
- ICTY judges were chosen bizarrely. Almost half of them had no legal qualifications or trial experience. Yet when Slobodan Milosevic formally challenged the legality of the ICTY, they decided to consider the motion themselves rather than follow the invariable tradition of referring it to an independent court. Their justification was the excellence of their team.
- 80% of all indictments were of Serbs. Of the very few Croats and Bosnian Muslims indicted, still fewer were brought to trial. Even Naser Oric, the thuggish commander of the 28th division of the Bosnian Muslim Army, based in Srebrenica, received only a very short sentence for the murder of more than a thousand Serbian peasant farmers and their families between 1992-95. This was despite the fact that more than 800 full autopsies were submitted as evidence. And Oric’s conviction was quickly quashed on appeal.
- The ICTY’s rules of evidence were appalling. Hundreds of ‘protected’ witnesses were allowed to give uncorroborated evidence anonymously and often by remote link. Transcripts of recordings alleged to be intercepts of Bosnian Serb military communications were admitted, even though the original recordings had been ‘destroyed’. Forensic and DNA evidence was allowed to be reported to the court by investigators as though it were established fact. The raw evidence gathered was never made available to the court or to the defence teams: this breached the fundamental right of defendants to have access to all the evidence gathered against them.
- The ICTY indicted Serbs before any evidence had been gathered to support the allegations made against them. This breaches one of the fundamental principles of modern criminal law and is a blatant example of extreme prejudice.
- ICTY judges repeatedly intervened to take the court into closed session, often for long periods, without giving reasons for their decisions. Observers noted that this often happened when the defence was successfully challenging witnesses on their testimony. Judge Richard May continually interrupted Slobodan Milosevic, who was conducting his own defence, to prevent him asking questions that were clearly relevant and appropriate. At other times, he simply cut off Milosevic’s microphone.
- The court failed to fulfil its duty of care to Slobodan Milosevic. His high blood pressure and heart problems were well known to the ICTY and could be managed effectively without difficulty. Yet Milosevic was not given regular access to a specialist. He was supported solely by a GP and a nurse, neither of whom worked at weekends. With proper medical supervision, his life should have been in no danger despite the heavy burden imposed on him by the court.