Of War Crimes In Serbia 2004-2013 - Hlc-rdc
Analysis of the Prosecution of War Crimes in Serbia 2004-2013TEN YEARS OF WAR CRIMESPROSECUTIONS IN SERBIA:CONTOURS OF JUSTICEAnalysis of the Prosecutionof War Crimes in Serbia 2004-2013HumanitarianLaw CenterThis publication is part of the project Fostering Civic-Political Cooperationto Improve Accountabilityfor War Crimes in Serbia. The publication is made possible by the support of theEuropean Union and United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which cooperated with the Institute For Sustainable Communities (ISC) on the implementation1
Analysis of the Prosecution of War Crimes in Serbia 2004-20132Humanitarian Law Center
Analysis of the Prosecution of War Crimes in Serbia 2004-2013ContentsAcronyms and Abbreviations.5Introduction.7The Context.9Summary.12A Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor.131. Human Resources and Technical Requirements.132. Budget.143. Professional Capacities.153.1. Application of the New CPC – the New Role of the OWCP.164. Efficiency.164.1. Prosecutorial Activity in Numbers.164.2. Prosecutorial Activity with Regard to Crimes Committed in Kosovo.174.3. Reasons for the Lack of Efficiency.195. Focusing on Lower-ranking Political, Military and Police Suspects.206. Cases Transferred from Military Prosecutors.227. The impact of Political Circumstances on the OWCP’s Work.227.1. The Arrest of War Crimes Suspects During the Election Campaign.237.2. OWCP’s Reaction to the Diković Case.248. Cooperation with Other War Crimes Prosecutors’ Offices in the Region.248.1. Cooperation with the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia).258.2. Cooperation with the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH.278.3. Cooperation with EULEX.288.4. Meetings in the Brionian Islands.298.5. Cooperation with the ICTY.299. Public Relations.30B) The War Crimes Investigation Service.311. Human Resources and Internal Organization.312. Training.323. Budget and Technical Equipment.324. Efficiency.335. The Geographic Information System.336. Relationship with the OWCP.346.1. The Legal Framework.346.2. Problems in Cooperation between OWCP and WCIS.347. Operational Fund for War Crimes Cases.358. Coordination with Other Agencies.36C) The War Crimes Deaprtments of the Higher Court and the Court of Appeal in Belgrade.361. Composition of the War Crimes Panel.362. Working Conditions.373. Budget.374. Expert Competence of Judges.385. Inadequate Expertise of the ‘Third-Instance Chamber’.396. Number of Cases.397. Promptness.408. Sentencing Policy.409. Controversial Judgments.4410. Public Outreach.46Humanitarian Law Center3
Analysis of the Prosecution of War Crimes in Serbia 2004-2013410.1. Redaction of judgments (Anonymization).47D) Using the Legacy of the ICTY in War Crimes Trials in Serbia.471. Using the ICTY’s Evidence.472. Relying on the Practice of the ICTY and the Norms of International Law.493. Deviation from the Facts Established before the ICTY.50E) Using Specific Types of Evidence.511. Cooperating Witnesses and Defendant witnesses.522. Plea Agreement.53F) Open questions about the application of command responsibility and crimes against humanity.541. Command Responsibility.542. Crimes against humanity.56G) Support for Victims and Witnesses.571. Service for the Support and Assistance for Victims and Witnesses of the Department for War Crimes of theHigher Court in Belgrade.571.1. Human Resources and Technical Equipment.571.2. The Competencies of the Support and Assistance Service.591.2.1. The Support and Assistance Service Following the Adoption of the New CPC.592. Victim Support Measures.592.1. Support for Victims in Court Proceedings.602.1.1. Providing Information.602.1.2. Assistance to Victims on Arrival at Court.612.1.3. Emotional Support.623. Absence of Psychological Support System.634. The HLC’s Support Model.645. Institutional Representatives’ Preparedness to Work with Victims.65H) Protection measures for War Crimes Witnesses.651. Procedural Protection.661.1. Protecting the Integrity of Witnesses.661.2. Protecting Highly Vulnerable Witnesses.671.3. Protection of Endangered Witnesses.681.4. Protection of Victims of Sexual Abuse.682. Non-procedural Protection.692.1. Regular Witness Protection Mechanisms.702.2. The Protection Program for War Crimes Witnesses.712.2.1. The Legal Framework.712.2.2. The Protection Unit.722.2.2.1. Human Resources.732.2.2.2. Budget and Technical Equipment.742.2.2.3. Protection of Victims (Injured Party Witnesses).742.2.2.4. Protection of Former Members of Serbian Forces.742.2.2.5. Lack of an Effective and Independent Control Mechanism.752.2.2.6. Indifference of State Authorities to the Witness Protection Program.76I) Defense.771. Defense Attorneys’ Competence.772. Unprofessional Conduct of Some Defense Counsels.783. Problems Financing the Cost of Defense Counsels.794. Defense Access to Evidence Abroad.80J) The Injured Party in War Crimes Proceedings.801. Hiring an Attorney.812. The Right to Compensation.82K) War Crimes Prosecutions in Courts of General Jurisdiction.821. Professional and Technical Capacities.832. Sub - standard Trials.833. The Passivity of the Public Prosecutor of Serbia, Prosecutors of the General Jurisdiction and OWCP.85L) Confiscation of Property Acquired through War Crimes.86RECOMMENDATIONS.88Annex.92Humanitarian Law Center
Analysis of the Prosecution of War Crimes in Serbia 2004-2013Acronyms and AbbreviationsAppeals Court Department - the Department of War Crimes of the Court of Appeal in BelgradeBiH - Bosnia and HerzegovinaCPC - Criminal Procedure CodeEU - European UnionFRY - Federal Republic of YugoslaviaHigher Court Department - the Department for War Crimes of the Higher Court in BelgradeHLC - Humanitarian Law CenterICTY - International Criminal Court for the Former YugoslaviaLaw on War Crimes Proceedings – Law on Organization and Jurisdiction of Government Authorities in War CrimesProceedingsLAPBM - Liberation Army of Preševo, Bujanovac and MedveđaOSCE – Organization for Security and Cooperation in EuropeOWCP – Office of the War Crimes ProsecutorProsecutor - War Crimes ProsecutorSAOC - State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of CroatiaSFRY - Socialist Federative Republic of YugoslaviaSupport and Assistance Service - the Service for the Support and Assistance to Victims and Witnesses of the Departmentfor War Crimes of the Higher Court in BelgradeWCIS - War Crimes Investigation ServiceYA - Yugoslav ArmyHumanitarian Law Center5
Analysis of the Prosecution of War Crimes in Serbia 2004-20136Humanitarian Law Center
Analysis of the Prosecution of War Crimes in Serbia 2004-2013IntroductionThe institutions specialized in the prosecution of war crimes in Serbia had their tenth anniversary in early 2014. Given theextent and nature of the crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia during the wars of the 1990s, attempts to bring thoseresponsible for such crimes to justice have been modest at best. Indifference of institutions towards the process of dealingwith the past, and a superficial commitment to criminal justice for the crimes of the past, turned Serbia, a state on the on thedoorstep of the European Union (EU), into an oasis of impunity for thousands of perpetrators of serious crimes.Respect for the rule of law is one of the formal conditions for Serbia’s EU accession. The legacy of systematic and largely unpunished human rights violations from the 1990s is one of Serbia’s greatest challenges in meeting that requirement. In otherwords, the progress of what are the most serious social reforms in the modern history of Serbia, initiated by the state’s European integration, could be compromised by Serbia’s failure to deliver justice for the crimes of the 1990s.The large number of unpunished crimes negatively impacts the reconciliation process among the former Yugoslav communities. The unwillingness of the authorities to bring the majority of perpetrators of war crimes to justice, deepens suspicionsabout the sincerity of Serbian officials’ declared commitment to regional reconciliation, peace and partnership with Serbia’sneighbors.One of the reasons for the lack of progress in prosecuting those responsible for war crimes is the political institutions lack aclear position on the strategic issues surrounding the criminal prosecution for the mass atrocities of the 1990s. What is thelong-term social and political vision of this process? What are the problems that hinder the provision of justice for all crimes?What must be done, and over what period, if these problems to be solved? How can existing mechanisms be made the most of,and the resources of all stakeholders in the prosecution of war crimes be strengthened? How can war crimes trials work alongside other transitional justice mechanisms to help encourage broader social dialogue about the past? These are just some of thequestions about which stakeholders (survivors, families and communities affected by violence), institutions directly involvedin the administration of justice for the crimes committed in the 1990s (courts, the prosecution service and the police), and thegeneral public expect clear answers from political authorities.Believing that a national strategy for the prosecution of war crimes is inevitable as part of Serbia’s EU accession process, theHumanitarian Law Center (HLC), the only organization that has been continually monitoring and analyzing war crimes trials since 2002, contributes to this process with this Analysis of the Prosecution of War Crimes in Serbia, covering the period2004-2013(Analysis). In general, the HLC’s Analysis seeks to provide an objective insight into the key aspects of current practice in the prosecution of war crimes in Serbia, and thus provide a basis for dialogue among stakeholders on the draft of theNational Strategy for War Crimes Prosecution for 2015-2025 (Strategy). After the publication of the Analysis, the HLC willhold a series of consultative meetings with representatives of relevant institutions, which will serve as a platform for discussionand the formulation of strategic guidelines on specific issues of war crimes prosecution for the next ten years. The Strategyproposal will be submitted to Ministry of Justice of the Republic of SerbiaThe Analysis contains 15 chapters that portray the work of key institutions in the prosecution of war crimes, putting forwardthe issues important for the credibility of war crimes trials in Serbia, such as the compliance of indictments and convictionsin domestic cases, with the facts established by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). TheAnalysis concludes with 75 recommendations to state bodies of the Republic of Serbia and international stakeholders on howto improve almost all aspects of the prosecution of war crimes in Serbia.We extend our gratitude to the War Crimes Department of the Higher Court in Belgrade, the War Crimes Department ofHumanitarian Law Center7
Analysis of the Prosecution of War Crimes in Serbia 2004-2013the Court of Appeal in Belgrade, the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor, the Higher courts in Prokuplje, Novi Sad, Niš,Požarevac, Leskovac, Kraljevo, the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Croatia, the Ministry of the Interior of the Republicof Croatia, the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the State Prosecution Service of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Ministryof Security of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the FormerYugoslavia, the Commissioner for Information of Public Importance, the OSCE Mission to Serbia, the Serbian Bar Association, Documenta and others, for the data they provided.The key contribution to the understanding of the practice of war crimes prosecution was provided by representatives ofthe Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia, the current and former judges of specialized war crimesdepartments of the Higher and Appeals Court in Belgrade, the Ministry of the Interior, representatives of the Support andAssistance Service, defense attorneys, representatives of non-governmental organizations, victims, former witnesses fromthe Protection Program for War Crimes Witnesses, legal experts and others. Through their interviews with HLC representatives (Nikola Čukanović, Edmir Veljović, Milomir Matović and Sandra Orlović), they presented their views on many aspectsof war crimes prosecution in Serbia, casting light on the problems they encounter daily, on good practice as well as on errors,offering possible guidelines for the improvement of their institutions’ operation. Common to all of them, is the belief that along-term strategy for war crimes prosecution would contribute to the improvement of the operation of individual institutions, and to the overall results of this important social process.8Humanitarian Law Center
Analysis of the Prosecution of War Crimes in Serbia 2004-2013The ContextThe disintegration of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY), which followed Slovenia’s declaration of independence in June 1991, resulted in a number of international and internal armed conflicts: in Slovenia (June-July 1991), in Croatia(1991-1995), Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) (1992-1995), Kosovo (1998-1999), and in Macedonia (February-August 2001). Thewars in Croatia, BiH and Kosovo were marked by systematic atrocities against the civilian population, designed to ethnicallycleanse whole territories.Serbia played an active part in the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. With the help of the Serbian leadership, headedby the President of Serbia, and later President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), Slobodan Milošević, the Serbs inCroatia and BiH established their political-territorial units with the aim of to seceding from these states. 1 The area under Serbian control in Croatia was returned to the sovereignty of the Croatian authorities after two military-police operations, knownas ‘Flash’ and ‘Storm,’ which the Croatian Army carried out in May and August 1995 respectively.2 The armed conflict in BiHended in November 1995. The armed conflict in Kosovo began in early 1998 and came to a conclusion in June 1999, followingthe NATO air intervention against Yugoslavia.In the armed conflicts that took place in the former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 2001, more than 130,000 people lost theirlives, about 4.5 million people fled or migrated, while 12,000 people from the region are still registered as missing persons.3Some 6,000 citizens of Serbia and Montenegro were killed or disappeared during the wars of the 1990s.4 In this period, duringand after the conflicts in Croatia and BiH more than half a million refugees poured into Serbia, while between 1999 and 2005more than 200,000 internally displaced persons came from Kosovo.5 The consequence is that Serbia has the highest numberof refugees in Europe and one of the five countries in the world with the longest refugee crises.6The specificity and common denominator of the wars in Croatia, BiH and Kosovo are numerous war crimes – among which123456The Republic of Srpska Krajina was established in December 1991, while Republika Srpska was founded in January 1992.See Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina, Ivan Čermak and Mladen Markač, No. IT-06-90-PT, Indictment, 24 May 2007.In the countries of the former Yugoslavia there is still no official (state approved) list of names of the persons killed in these armed conflicts. In the absence of official initiatives, non-governmental organizations have taken upon themselves the task of investigating, compiling, comparing and systematizing the available information about the victims and missing persons. In BiH, the task is being completedby the Research and Documentation Center (RDC) from Sarajevo, which in October 2012 published The Bosnian Book of the Dead, inwhich it presented the results of years of research. According to the RDC, between 1991 and 1995, 95,940 people were killed in the armedconflict in BiH. The HLC, in cooperation with Documenta from Zagreb and the Humanitarian Law Center Kosovo, is collecting thedata on casualties and missing persons from the armed conflicts in Croatia and Kosovo. In addition, the HLC investigates human lossesof citizens of Serbia and Montenegro in other armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Information available at: http://www.hlc-rdc.org/?cat 266 and -gubitaka.html. Accessed on: 8th August 2013.Humanitarian Law Center data.Data from the Commissariat for Refugees and Migration of the Republic of Serbia. Available at: http://www.kirs.gov.rs/articles/onama.php?lang SER. Accessed on: August 28th, 2013.Available at: http://www.b92.net/eng/news/society.php?yyyy 2013&mm 06&dd 20&nav id 86691. Accessed: August 29th, 2013.Humanitarian Law Center9
Analysis of the Prosecution of War Crimes in Serbia 2004-2013are the murder of civilians, enforced disappearances, detention of civilians in concentration camps, systematic rape and otherforms of sexual violence. The crime that stands out by its seriousness was committed by Bosnian Serb forces in Srebrenica,where over the course of a number of days, they killed more than 8,000 Bosniak men and boys in July 1995. The InternationalCriminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) defined the crimes in its judgments as genocide. The ICTY’s qualificationwas subsequently confirmed by the judgment of the International Court of Justice.7Several top political, military and police officials of Serbia were convicted by the ICTY for the crimes committed by Serbianforces during the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia. In addition, in the case Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia,regarding Serbia’s violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the InternationalCourt of Justice found Serbia responsible for failing to prevent the Srebrenica genocide and punish those responsible for thecrime.8After a decade of war and the authoritarian rule of Slobodan Milošević, in October 2000 Serbia began its transition towarddemocracy. At the time, Serbia faced the challenge of building democratic institutions after more than half a century of communist regimes, but it also faced an economic transition to a market economy. There was also the delicate and sensitive issueof building a responsible attitude toward the legacy of war crimes committed by Serbian forces during the wars in the formerYugoslavia, one of the most important preconditions for reconciliation with its neighbors.10After he had made several successful steps in the process of political stabilization, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbia,Zoran Đinđić, was assassinated in March 2003 in what turned out to have been a joint operation of the Special Operations Unitof the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Serbia and the criminal group known as the ‘Zemun clan,’ one of whose objectives was tostop the country’s cooperation with the ICTY.9 In the elections held after the assassination of Prime Minister Zoran Đinđić, thecoalition around nationalist Democratic Party of Serbia (DPS) and a center-left party, the Democratic Party (DP) held powerfor two terms (in 2004 and in 2007). The DPS-DS coalition was dissolved, due to opposing attitudes toward Serbia’s integrationinto the EU and Kosovo’s declaration of independence, in February 2008. After the 2008 elections, through i
5 Analysis of the Prosecution of War Crimes in Serbia 2004-2013 Humanitarian Law Center Acronyms and Abbreviations Appeals Court Department - the Department of War Crimes of the Court of Appeal in Belgrade BiH - Bosnia and Herzegovina CPC - Criminal Procedure Code EU - European Union FRY - Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Higher Court Department - the Department for War Crimes of the Higher .
OUTBREAK OF WORLD WAR I (1914) After Austria declared war on Serbia, a domino effect began as the alliances went into effect 1. Austria declared war on Serbia 2. Russia (Serbia's ally) moved troops to borders w/ Austria and Germany 3. Germany (Austria's ally) declared war on Russia, then pre-emptively declared war on France (Russia's ally) 4.
crimes against humanity, the application should be refused. 8. Information relevant to war crimes or crimes against humanity . 8.1 This information will usually consist of one or more of the following; Admission or allegation of involvement in any of the crimes which constitute
The chain reaction that would lead to World War I: 1. Austria-Hungary blamed Serbia for assassination of the Archduke and made harsh demands on Serbia. 2. Serbia refused to comply with any of the demands. 3. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia on July 28, 1914. 4. Ru
Great War, or World War I (WWI). The built up pressure turned to aggression when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary, was assassinated in Serbia. Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, which caused Russia to fight in order to defend Serbia. Germany saw Russia mobilizing for war, and declared war on .
of the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes follows the structure of the corresponding provisions of articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute. Some paragraphs of those articles of the Rome Statute list multiple crimes. In those instances, the elements of crimes appear in separate paragraphs which correspond to each .
In the US, both men and women engage mostly in crimes against property, including burglary, theft, car theft, and white-collar crimes. Property crimes represent almost 70% of total crimes for women and around 50% for men who are in prison. The share of drug crimes and violent crimes is almost twice as high am
the Great War (World War I). After the assassination, the following series of events took place: July 28 - Austria declared war on Serbia. August 1 – As Austrias ally, Germany declares war on Russia, an ally of Serbia August 3 – Germany declares war on France, an ally of Russia and immediately begins an invasion of neutral Belgium
making formal decisions at the final “appeal” stage of our process (see page 75 for more details ) All figures relate to the financial year 2012/2013. 4 annual review 2012/2013 . Financial Ombudsman Service Financial Ombudsman Service . annual review 2012/2013 5. chairman’s foreword. Sir Nicholas Montagu . kcb. we have resolved . more cases. than in any previous year – and each of .
