Courts for Yugoslavia, Rwanda Need Promised Funds and Cooperation
The United Nations Security Council must adjust the deadlines to complete the work of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY and ICTR) if justice is to be done, Human Rights Watch urged today. U.N. member states have failed to meet their pledged financial commitments, leading to a hiring freeze at the tribunals.
According to current plans, the tribunals must end all investigations by 2004, all trials by 2008, and all appeals by 2010.
At a U.N. Security Council meeting today, the presidents and prosecutors of the two tribunals are due to report on the progress towards the completion of their work. Both tribunals currently lack funds to operate with full effectiveness because member states have failed to pay their assessed contributions.
“There is more than enough evidence for the Security Council to adjust the deadlines,” said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice program at Human Rights Watch. “U.N. member states should give the money they’ve pledged so the tribunals can finish the job.”
The “completion strategies,” originally proposed by the tribunals and endorsed by the U.N. Security Council, assumed that U. N. member states would cooperate fully in arresting indictees and turning over materials needed as evidence. However, Serbia and Montenegro, as well as Rwanda, have obstructed the tribunals’ work.
Particularly since the 2003 parliamentary elections, the Belgrade government has blocked the arrest of Ratko Mladic and failed to hand over other senior indictees. For the ICTR, the dates of the “completion strategy” should be adjusted to allow the prosecutor time to investigate crimes attributed to the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA).
“Serbia has completely stonewalled requests for cooperation and Rwanda has delayed cooperation on requests for witnesses and documents,” said Dicker. “Those indicted by the tribunals and still at large are playing a waiting game. The U.N. should not condone this obstruction of justice.”
In a letter sent to Security Council members on June 24, 2004, Human Rights Watch called upon the Security Council to adjust the dates to allow the tribunals to fulfill their mandate. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/28/rwanda8970.htm
Human Rights Watch urged the Security Council to call on all member states to meet their assessed payments to the tribunals and cooperate fully with the tribunals to bring fugitives to justice. In particular, the governments of Serbia and Montenegro and Rwanda should provide the tribunals with the materials they need and make concerted efforts to arrest indictees.
For more information on the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, go to our International Justice page at http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=justice
Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda http://www.ictr.org
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia http://www.un.org/icty
Please continue for statements by Judge Theodor Meron, President of the ICTY and Ms. Carla Del Ponte, Chief Prosecutor of the ICTY …
ADDRESS OF JUDGE THEODOR MERON, PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA, TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
29 June 2004.
Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a great honour for me once again to address this distinguished body to present the first report of the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia pursuant to paragraph 6 of Security Council resolution 1534.
I am also pleased to address the Council during the Presidency of Ambassador Baja of the Philippines.
It is now slightly over eight months since I addressed the Council to deliver the Tribunal’s annual report on 9 October 2003 under article 34 of the Statute of the International Tribunal. In the meantime, the Council, through resolution 1534, asked the Tribunal to provide, by 31 May 2004 and every six months thereafter, "assessments by its President and Prosecutor, setting out in detail the progress made towards implementation of the Completion Strategy of the Tribunal, explaining what measures have been taken to implement the Completion Strategy and what measures remain to be taken, including the transfer of cases involving intermediate and lower rank accused to competent national jurisdictions."
I was very pleased to transmit my assessments and the Prosecutor’s to the Council on 21 May 2004, and am honoured to be able to address you on the subject in person today.
It is now just over nine years since the first accused, Dusko Tadic, was transferred to the Tribunal on 24 April 1995. In that period, the Tribunal has tried 35 accused to final judgement in a total of 17 trials. Seventeen accused pleaded guilty and were sentenced during that period, most recently Milan Babic, who pleaded guilty in January 2004 and whose sentence was rendered this morning in The Hague.
A further eight accused are currently being tried in six separate cases before the Trial Chambers. Two of those cases are expected to conclude soon: the trial judgement in the case of Radoslav Brdjanin is being written and is expected to be rendered on 31 August of this year. Final submissions in the case of Pavle Strugar are expected to be made in September of this year, which could lead to the rendering of the judgement as early as October.
Accordingly, as of today, the Tribunal has either completed or is holding trials or, in the case of guilty pleas, sentencing proceedings involving 59 defendants. There are currently 33 accused in detention or on provisional release who are awaiting trial.
The Appeals Chamber, for its own part, has also been productive since it was first seised of an appellate matter in 1995. If we take appeals from the ICTY and ICTR together, the Appeals Chamber has decided 20 appeals from judgements rendered by Trial Chambers, including two in the first half of this year, together with 236 interlocutory appeals, 17 requests for review, and 6 contempt proceedings.
The Tribunal’s current productivity is also very high. The Trial Chambers are now operating at maximum capacity, with six cases currently in trial or at the judgement-writing phase. The Appeals Chamber has heard six appeals from judgement since October 2003, and the judgements in those cases are currently being drafted. Three further appeal hearings are planned for this year. The number of appeals from judgement and interlocutory appeals before the Appeals Chamber more than doubled between May 2003 and May 2004.
The Judges of the Tribunal are committed to sustaining this level of productivity throughout the remainder of the life of the Tribunal. We are taking or have taken several additional steps that will help to ensure that the Tribunal’s mandate is carried out within the Completion Strategy deadlines. These steps have been summarized in the assessments submitted to the Council and I do not propose to restate them in detail:
o The Judges amended Rule 28(A) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence to comply with the requirement of seniority in resolution 1534;
o Trial Chambers continue to operate at full capacity, with six cases simultaneously in trial or at the judgement-writing stage;
o The Appeals Chamber has taken efforts to make interlocutory appeals more effective by allowing such appeals from both the ICTY and ICTR only if the Trial Chamber certifies that the appeal involves an issue that would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial and for which an immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber may materially advance the proceedings;
o The Appeals Chamber is reducing the length of its appeals judgements and limiting repetition by invoking its own accumulated jurisprudence on questions that have been previously resolved;
o The Working Group on Scheduling of Cases, which I established, continues to assist in forecasting the resources and measures needed to achieve the Completion Strategy and in ensuring that new cases are ready for trial whenever a pending case is concluded.
One additional measure was taken earlier this month that is therefore not reflected in my assessments dated 21 May. I refer to an amendment to Rule 11 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, which is the Rule that authorizes a Trial Chamber, either proprio motu or upon a motion by the Prosecutor, to refer the case of an individual already indicted by the Tribunal to a competent national jurisdiction. The Judges of the Tribunal, by a unanimous vote, have amended that Rule in two important ways.
The first amendment concerns the domestic jurisdictions to which cases involving indicted persons may be transferred. The Rule formerly permitted a Trial Chamber to refer a case only to the State in which the accused was arrested or in whose territory the alleged crime was committed. The Rule now contains a third option: referral to a State having jurisdiction and being willing and adequately prepared to accept such a case. This amendment expands the range of nations that could potentially receive cases from the Tribunal beyond States of the region. This is particularly important should some courts in the former Yugoslavia continue to suffer from some deficiencies in the ability to conduct trials in accordance with fundamental fairness and due process.
The second change amends the criteria to be considered by the Trial Chamber in deciding whether to refer a case to a domestic jurisdiction. The Rule now provides that the Trial Chamber may order a referral only after being satisfied that the accused will receive a fair trial and that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out. This change makes explicit a requirement that was implicit in the prior version of the Rule, and ensures that cases will not be referred to jurisdictions that do not observe the minimum guarantees of procedural fairness and international human rights. The Rule 11 bis amendments also reflect similar initiatives taken in Rule 11 bis of the ICTR.
As the Council recognized in resolutions 1503 and 1534, the ability to refer cases of intermediate and lower rank accused to domestic jurisdictions, including the planned War Crimes Chamber within the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is an essential prerequisite to the fulfillment of the Completion Strategy. But the referral of cases depends on the presence of propitious conditions, many of which are outside the Tribunal’s control. The most important condition is the presence of domestic institutions willing and prepared to try cases involving allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law in a manner that is credible, fair, and in accordance with international legal norms. Tribunals established by the United Nations can only transfer cases if they are assured that international standards are met, not only in terms of the conduct of trials, but also in terms of the condition of detention facilities and the treatment of detainees.
It has been reported that thought is being given to requesting a Trial Chamber to decide motions to transfer cases under Rule 11 bis even before these conditions have been met and thus before the accused can in fact be transferred to the custody of another state. I believe that it is not helpful to consider transferring a case before the national jurisdiction is truly capable of living up to international standards for trial and for detention. A decision by a Trial Chamber to remove an indictee from the Tribunal’s docket in such circumstances would present serious human rights problems for the accused, who would then be in a state of "legal limbo." The accused would have left behind his day in court at The Hague but could not yet be transferred to the custody of national authorities. Any such initiatives, prematurely taken, could conflict with international norms of due process and human rights.
The Tribunal is committed to supporting the achievement of credible and fair war crimes trials in all States of the former Yugoslavia. As far as the War Crimes Chamber in Sarajevo is concerned, I am confident that it will fully meet international due process standards. I am very grateful to the Members of the donor community who attended the donors’ conference held at the Tribunal on 30 October 2003. I am also grateful to the Security Council for recognizing, in Resolution 1534, that further support for the Chamber is essential to its success. During my visit to Sarajevo, I held talks on this subject with the High Representative, Lord Ashdown; his Senior Deputy, Ambassador Fassier; and the President of the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judge Raguz. I was informed that, despite some delays in implementation, courtroom facilities will be available to begin trials in January 2005. However, with regard to detention facilities, which are essential for the transfer of accused from The Hague and thus for the holding of trials, the prospects are less reassuring. While the Office of the High Representative is pursuing various options to obtain temporary detention facilities meeting international standards, this will require the support of the international community.
At the moment, there are still doubts that credible war crimes trials can take place in the domestic jurisdictions of Croatia or Serbia and Montenegro.
With regard to Croatia, the European Commission recently concluded that a single standard of criminal responsibility is not yet applied equally to all accused charged with war crimes before Croatian courts. The Mission to Croatia of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which has monitored several war crimes trials in Croatian courts throughout 2002, 2003, and the early months of 2004, reported that there are still significant concerns about the capacity and impartiality of parts of the Croatian judiciary. In a report dated 22 June 2004, the Mission to Croatia reported that its observations through trial monitoring "suggest that there is a considerable lack of impartiality amongst parts of the judiciary1." A second report issued the same day stated that "the national origin of defendants and possibly even more importantly that of victims continued to affect war crime proceedings in 2003." 2
However, let me emphasize that the overall cooperation of Croatia with the Tribunal has improved significantly. Although the failure to arrest fugitive Ante Gotovina is still a matter of grave concern, I view the progress that has been made in Croatia’s relationship with the Tribunal with great satisfaction. As I stated to the Rapporteur Group for Democratic Stability to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 7 May 2004, "Croatian authorities have also recognized the need to enhance the capabilities of their national judiciary for purposes of handling cases which may be referred to its courts by the Tribunal." The European Commission has similarly recognized that the Croatian authorities appear determined to improve conditions for prosecution of alleged war criminals in domestic courts. The OSCE’s Mission to Croatia likewise reported "improving conditions for the conduct of domestic war crime trials" and noted "growing recognition among the public of the importance of evenhanded prosecution of war crimes." 3The Mission to Croatia also stated that "there is no reason to believe that the Croatian judiciary would not be able to handle a limited number of cases in a fair and efficient way, particularly if assigned to those judges and prosecutors who have already received special training and resources."4 On this front, the Tribunal has been engaged in several expertise-sharing initiatives with Croatian authorities with a view to preparing the national judicial system for the referral of cases from the ICTY.
_____________________
1. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Mission to Croatia, “Background Information on War Crime Procedures in Croatia and Findings From Trial Monitoring,” 22 June 2004, p. 13.
2. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Mission to Croatia, “Background Report: Domestic War Crime Trials 2003,” 22 June 2004, p. 1.
3. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Mission to Croatia, “Background Report: Domestic War Crime Trials 2003,” 22 June 2004, pp. 1-2.
4. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Mission to Croatia, Fortnightly Report No. 11/2004, 26 May – 8 June 2004, p. 1.
ADDRESS BY CARLA DEL PONTE, CHIEF PROSECUTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA, TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
29 June 2004.
Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a great honour for me to address once again the Council to present new developments at the ICTY, and the key challenges that the Office of the Prosecutor faces in the implementation of the completion strategy, pursuant to paragraph 6 of Resolution 1534.
On 21 May 2004, President Theodor Meron transmitted to the Council an assessment of the progress made by the Tribunal in the implementation of its mandate and of its completion strategy. As one of the organs of the Tribunal, the Office of the Prosecutor contributed and reported its continued efforts to fully and timely implement the completion strategy that we defined in 2002 and that was subsequently approved by the Council, notably in Resolution 1503.
The Tribunal’s completion strategy relies on three major dates, the first concerning the conclusion of all new investigations by the end of this year 2004. This date thus entirely relies on the activities and efforts of the Prosecutor and her Office. I am therefore pleased to report that this first major milestone will be reached as planned. By the end of this year, the investigation of our outstanding targets will be complete and the last of our new indictments will be presented. In furtherance of my commitment to complete these investigations, we have spared no efforts in streamlining the investigations and focusing them on only the most senior leaders responsible for the worst and gravest crimes. Since my written assessment, two indictments were confirmed. One of them will be presented in a sealed form to the relevant authorities very soon. The other indicts a Croatian General, Mirko Norac, for crimes committed in 1993 against Serb civilians in the so-called Medak pocket. It is our intention to request that this case be referred to Croatia.
Not all of our enquiries resulted in indictments. We continually reviewed the strength of the evidence in each case. In January 2004, I decided that the investigations concerning seven targets would be suspended, not indicted before the Tribunal, and eventually referred to domestic local prosecutors in the former Yugoslavia. Investigations concerning another two high-level suspects were discontinued after their death. Furthermore, we decided not to continue the investigations concerning two other targets due to insufficient evidence. As a consequence, to date, we are completing six remaining investigations involving a maximum of 11 targets. On this basis, a maximum of six new indictments could be prepared before the end of 2004, for submission first to the Bureau for review of the seniority of the suspects, and then to the Judges for confirmation. These indictments could result in a maximum of four new trials only, given the possibility of joining some of the indictments.
With this major achievement, the completion of all new investigations in sight, we are now in a better position to plan the rest of our activities. The Tribunal knows exactly how many cases will have to be tried. We remain at the disposal of the President, and the Judges to schedule the remaining trials. The next completion dates foreseen by the strategy to achieve the Tribunal’s mandate are 2008 and 2010: all trials should be completed by 2008 and all appeals should be reviewed by 2010. The Office of the Prosecutor remains strongly committed to meeting these two objectives. However, unlike the conduct of investigations over which the Prosecutor has a large measure of control, the main responsibility for the scheduling, administration and conduct of trials and appeals extends well beyond the Prosecutor. Although my Office will continue to take all possible measures to further streamline our trial and appeals activities, notably by strictly limiting the number of charges and of prosecution witnesses, we must stress that we do not control a number of factors such as the timely arrest of fugitives, the appearance of witnesses or the emergence of crucial evidence, as we rely on States to obtain these. As far as the Office of the Prosecutor is concerned, a number of measures have already been taken to improve the efficiency of the prosecution in the preparation and presentation of cases. They include significant procedural and technological improvements, and have been developed in the written assessment submitted to you. Great savings of court time have been achieved by guilty pleas, obtained through the active involvement of my Office. We remain open to explore with the defence the possibility of accused persons pleading guilty to all or some of the charges against them. However, ultimately, the Office of the Prosecutor can only comply with the Chambers’ instructions on scheduling cases and has obviously no control over the swift conduct of the Defence case or the writing of judgements. Nevertheless, we are actively collaborating with the President, the Chambers and the Registry to update the trial calendars for the coming years.
The completion strategy is twofold. First, the International Tribunal must try those bearing the gravest responsibility in the crimes, including the high-profile fugitives, and thus complete its activities in a swift and efficient, yet fair and impartial, manner. Second, the domestic jurisdictions of the territories of the former Yugoslavia must be reformed and equipped to complete the work of the International Tribunal and take over the remaining cases.
The written assessment submitted to the Council highlights three types of cases identified to be transferred to domestic courts. The first category concerns ICTY indicted cases that could be transferred pursuant to Rule 11 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. In strict adherence to the guidelines provided by Resolutions 1503 and 1534, 12 cases concerning 22 accused have been identified for possible transfer to domestic jurisdictions, subject to the Judges approval. All those concerned held low- and mid-level positions in their respective hierarchy, and were predominantly indicted in the early days of the Tribunal.
The transfer of mid- and low-level cases to domestic jurisdictions would free court resources for senior accused leaders. Efforts have yet to be invested in the establishment of domestic jurisdictions capable of trying war criminals. The support of the international community, including regional organisations like the OSCE, is of paramount importance in this process.
For the time being, following the guidelines set by the Security Council, I do not actively consider the possibility of transferring any high-level cases. However, the Council must be aware that, even if the Chambers consider positively all 12 requests mentioned before, this may not be enough to meet the 2008 deadline. We will continue to do our utmost to meet this target date.
The Council should also take into account that the completion strategy may be resented by the victims, mainly because their trust in domestic courts is very limited. Following my recent visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina, I received letters from victims’ associations expressing their grave concern and even disagreement in connection with the completion strategy. They asked me to pass along these letters to the members of the Council, which I would like to do.
Mr. President, Excellencies,
Allow me to focus now on the three key challenges to ensure that the ICTY mandate is properly and successfully achieved. These challenges are: the arrest of fugitives, our finance, and States cooperation issues.
The first key challenge is the failure of the relevant authorities, in particular in the Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in Serbia and Montenegro, to arrest or obtain the surrender, voluntarily or through coercive measures, of those 20 indicted who are still at large. This figure does not include two accused whose indictments and arrest warrants are sealed.
The failure to obtain the arrest of fugitives has a number of consequences on the completion strategy. It prevents the Tribunal from joining cases that could be tried together. It therefore obliges to conduct separate trials on the same crime base, which amounts to substantial losses of court time. For instance, had Radovan Karadzic been arrested early this year, it would have been possible to join his trial with the trial of Krajisnik, another former senior member of the Bosnian Serb leadership currently being tried. In that particular case, we most likely lost the equivalent of one courtroom for well over a year. Our ability to envisage other joinders is not only limited by the difficulties faced in ensuring their timely surrender, but also by the sheer size of the courtrooms, which would make it difficult to conduct trials with more than six or seven accused.
The failure to arrest or surrender fugitives seriously affects the strategic planning of the prosecution. Indeed, we face the dilemma of choosing either to focus on the accused already in the custody of the Tribunal, or to plan for the trial of such senior accused as Karadzic, Mladic, Gotovina and others who may unfortunately remain at large for an unknown duration. An unintended consequence of the completion strategy is that fugitives and their protective networks are trying to buy time until 2008, in hopes of evading justice, as they believe the time to be tried in The Hague will soon expire. In this context, a statement that the ICTY will remain open as long as necessary to ensure that the fugitives mentioned in Security Council Resolutions 1503 and 1534 are tried before would serve the interest of justice.
A second problem for the completion strategy is the dire budgetary and financial situation of the Tribunal in general and of my Office in particular. We have been badly hit by the deferred consideration of the 2005 budget for the investigative support for trials and appeals. Consequently, we have been unable since the beginning of this year to extend contracts of the staff who will provide investigative support to trials and appeals beyond 31 December 2004. Moreover, the cash flow crisis that emerged this spring, leading to a temporary freeze on new recruitment imposed by the Secretariat, prevents us from recruiting, even to replace essential personnel who leave the Tribunal. And, as other international judicial institutions are expanding, notably in The Hague, the ICTY is losing staff at an alarming rate. The combined effect of these factors has had a considerable impact on morale, making it in turn even more difficult to retain experienced staff.
These financial restrictions directly affect the completion strategy, as the scarcity of investigative resources will inevitably slow down the preparation and conduct of trials. Because this untenable situation is directly influencing the completion of our mandate, we urge you to support us in our efforts to solve this very serious problem.
The third main challenge encountered by the ICTY remains the issue of the full co-operation of all States. The cooperation of the States of the former Yugoslavia is not only a legal obligation, it is also of vital importance for a successful completion strategy. Beyond the arrest of indicted criminals, States have the obligation to grant access to witnesses and documents. The written assessment on the status of co-operation provided by the countries of the former Yugoslavia remains up to date.
The Croatian authorities are at this point in time fully co-operating with my office. This co-operation must continue, and I expect Croatia to locate and transfer Gotovina to The Hague as soon as possible, hopefully before my next appearance before you.
Since December, the authorities of Serbia and Montenegro provided almost no co-operation, and this country has become a safe haven for fugitives. At least 15 accused at large, including Ratko Mladic, spend most of their time there. According to information recently obtained, fugitives that were believed to reside in Republika Srpska have moved across the border. I am even reluctant now to pass any information on the fugitives to Serbian authorities, because the last time I gave precise information regarding a high-level fugitive charged with the Srebrenica genocide, I was told by the Serbian authorities that, due to the political circumstances, it was not opportune to arrest him. I learnt that he has disappeared since then.
There was no progress either in other areas where the co-operation of Serbia and Montenegro is being sought. Few waivers allowing witnesses to testify before the ICTY were granted in the past month, but they concern mainly defence witnesses, and not prosecution witnesses. Well over fifty requests for waiver are still outstanding. There were several statements made by high-level officials saying that co-operation would re-start after the presidential election which took place on 13 and 27 June. We will therefore be able to assess very soon whether these authorities are serious or simply vying for time. In the absence of a significant number of transfers of fugitives in the weeks to come, I will have to conclude that Serbia and Montenegro continues to be unwilling to abide by its international legal obligations.
Mr. President, Excellencies,
The support of the international community as a whole and of all Member-States of the UN remains crucial in securing the co-operation of the States of the former Yugoslavia. Also, some international institutions, like SFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina, have an important role to play in the arrest and transfer of fugitives. The last time a fugitive was arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovina by SFOR was in July 2002. I hope that the new arrangements currently designed regarding the future of international forces in this country will be more effective in the search and the arrest of indicted criminals.
As Prosecutor, my only recourse in case of a State’s failure to comply with its obligations is to report it to the President of the ICTY, who, in turn, could bring it to the attention of the Security Council. On 4 May 2004, a report concerning the consistent failure by Serbia and Montenegro to comply with its legal obligations was forwarded by President Meron to the Council. We urge the Council to act and put an end to this pattern of non-co-operation. If this situation was allowed to continue, it would endanger the completion strategy, and also the legacy of the Tribunal.
Mr. President, Excellencies,
The message of the victims of the worst crimes known to humankind remains constant, regardless of their community of origin. Their concern is to see that justice be done, not just simply because they wish to see the criminals punished, but also because they understand that the stability and peace in their countries rely on the judicial process. As we approach the tenth year commemoration of both the Srebrenica genocide and the signing of the Dayton agreement, we simultaneously approach another anniversary: Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic have been at large for almost ten years. How long will it be tolerated that these leaders escape justice? How long will it be tolerated that they make a parody of both justice and the repeated commitment of the Security Council to have them arrested and tried?
Mr. President, Excellencies,
Please allow me to stress once again how important your support is for the success of the Tribunal. The factors which really influence the completion strategy of the ICTY are threefold: the financial needs of the Tribunal, the timely arrest of the fugitives, and the support needed to establish credible domestic jurisdictions. All three are beyond the Tribunal’s control, but they can and must be addressed by the international community.
When it established the Tribunal in 1993, the Council proved its commitment to Justice and the Rule of Law. In Resolution 808, it stressed its determination to put an end to the widespread crimes occurring within the territory of the former Yugoslavia, including reports of mass killings and the practice of ethnic cleansing, and to bring to justice the persons most responsible for these crimes. Eleven years later, with all the efforts already made by the international community to halt these crimes and redress them judicially, these objectives are almost achieved. It is perhaps ironic that, just when the ICTY is gaining momentum and reaching its cruising speed, so much time is being spent discussing its end. But the completion of the mandate is now within reach, and we can see the final years ahead of us. This period should not become simply an "end-game", with an abrupt closing, regardless of whether or not the top-leaders are apprehended and tried before the ICTY: this would negate all the efforts so far devoted and all the results already obtained.
Mr. President, Excellencies,
I join President Meron in urging the Members of the Council to continue their support for the Tribunal and to ensure that it is given the means necessary to fulfil its promise and its full potential.
I thank you for your attention and for your continued support.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia http://www.un.org/icty
The United Nations Security Council must adjust the deadlines to complete the work of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (ICTY and ICTR) if justice is to be done, Human Rights Watch urged today. U.N. member states have failed to meet their pledged financial commitments, leading to a hiring freeze at the tribunals.
According to current plans, the tribunals must end all investigations by 2004, all trials by 2008, and all appeals by 2010.
At a U.N. Security Council meeting today, the presidents and prosecutors of the two tribunals are due to report on the progress towards the completion of their work. Both tribunals currently lack funds to operate with full effectiveness because member states have failed to pay their assessed contributions.
“There is more than enough evidence for the Security Council to adjust the deadlines,” said Richard Dicker, director of the International Justice program at Human Rights Watch. “U.N. member states should give the money they’ve pledged so the tribunals can finish the job.”
The “completion strategies,” originally proposed by the tribunals and endorsed by the U.N. Security Council, assumed that U. N. member states would cooperate fully in arresting indictees and turning over materials needed as evidence. However, Serbia and Montenegro, as well as Rwanda, have obstructed the tribunals’ work.
Particularly since the 2003 parliamentary elections, the Belgrade government has blocked the arrest of Ratko Mladic and failed to hand over other senior indictees. For the ICTR, the dates of the “completion strategy” should be adjusted to allow the prosecutor time to investigate crimes attributed to the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA).
“Serbia has completely stonewalled requests for cooperation and Rwanda has delayed cooperation on requests for witnesses and documents,” said Dicker. “Those indicted by the tribunals and still at large are playing a waiting game. The U.N. should not condone this obstruction of justice.”
In a letter sent to Security Council members on June 24, 2004, Human Rights Watch called upon the Security Council to adjust the dates to allow the tribunals to fulfill their mandate. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/06/28/rwanda8970.htm
Human Rights Watch urged the Security Council to call on all member states to meet their assessed payments to the tribunals and cooperate fully with the tribunals to bring fugitives to justice. In particular, the governments of Serbia and Montenegro and Rwanda should provide the tribunals with the materials they need and make concerted efforts to arrest indictees.
For more information on the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, go to our International Justice page at http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=justice
Human Rights Watch http://www.hrw.org
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda http://www.ictr.org
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia http://www.un.org/icty
Please continue for statements by Judge Theodor Meron, President of the ICTY and Ms. Carla Del Ponte, Chief Prosecutor of the ICTY …
ADDRESS OF JUDGE THEODOR MERON, PRESIDENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA, TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
29 June 2004.
Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a great honour for me once again to address this distinguished body to present the first report of the President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia pursuant to paragraph 6 of Security Council resolution 1534.
I am also pleased to address the Council during the Presidency of Ambassador Baja of the Philippines.
It is now slightly over eight months since I addressed the Council to deliver the Tribunal’s annual report on 9 October 2003 under article 34 of the Statute of the International Tribunal. In the meantime, the Council, through resolution 1534, asked the Tribunal to provide, by 31 May 2004 and every six months thereafter, "assessments by its President and Prosecutor, setting out in detail the progress made towards implementation of the Completion Strategy of the Tribunal, explaining what measures have been taken to implement the Completion Strategy and what measures remain to be taken, including the transfer of cases involving intermediate and lower rank accused to competent national jurisdictions."
I was very pleased to transmit my assessments and the Prosecutor’s to the Council on 21 May 2004, and am honoured to be able to address you on the subject in person today.
It is now just over nine years since the first accused, Dusko Tadic, was transferred to the Tribunal on 24 April 1995. In that period, the Tribunal has tried 35 accused to final judgement in a total of 17 trials. Seventeen accused pleaded guilty and were sentenced during that period, most recently Milan Babic, who pleaded guilty in January 2004 and whose sentence was rendered this morning in The Hague.
A further eight accused are currently being tried in six separate cases before the Trial Chambers. Two of those cases are expected to conclude soon: the trial judgement in the case of Radoslav Brdjanin is being written and is expected to be rendered on 31 August of this year. Final submissions in the case of Pavle Strugar are expected to be made in September of this year, which could lead to the rendering of the judgement as early as October.
Accordingly, as of today, the Tribunal has either completed or is holding trials or, in the case of guilty pleas, sentencing proceedings involving 59 defendants. There are currently 33 accused in detention or on provisional release who are awaiting trial.
The Appeals Chamber, for its own part, has also been productive since it was first seised of an appellate matter in 1995. If we take appeals from the ICTY and ICTR together, the Appeals Chamber has decided 20 appeals from judgements rendered by Trial Chambers, including two in the first half of this year, together with 236 interlocutory appeals, 17 requests for review, and 6 contempt proceedings.
The Tribunal’s current productivity is also very high. The Trial Chambers are now operating at maximum capacity, with six cases currently in trial or at the judgement-writing phase. The Appeals Chamber has heard six appeals from judgement since October 2003, and the judgements in those cases are currently being drafted. Three further appeal hearings are planned for this year. The number of appeals from judgement and interlocutory appeals before the Appeals Chamber more than doubled between May 2003 and May 2004.
The Judges of the Tribunal are committed to sustaining this level of productivity throughout the remainder of the life of the Tribunal. We are taking or have taken several additional steps that will help to ensure that the Tribunal’s mandate is carried out within the Completion Strategy deadlines. These steps have been summarized in the assessments submitted to the Council and I do not propose to restate them in detail:
o The Judges amended Rule 28(A) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence to comply with the requirement of seniority in resolution 1534;
o Trial Chambers continue to operate at full capacity, with six cases simultaneously in trial or at the judgement-writing stage;
o The Appeals Chamber has taken efforts to make interlocutory appeals more effective by allowing such appeals from both the ICTY and ICTR only if the Trial Chamber certifies that the appeal involves an issue that would significantly affect the fair and expeditious conduct of the proceedings or the outcome of the trial and for which an immediate resolution by the Appeals Chamber may materially advance the proceedings;
o The Appeals Chamber is reducing the length of its appeals judgements and limiting repetition by invoking its own accumulated jurisprudence on questions that have been previously resolved;
o The Working Group on Scheduling of Cases, which I established, continues to assist in forecasting the resources and measures needed to achieve the Completion Strategy and in ensuring that new cases are ready for trial whenever a pending case is concluded.
One additional measure was taken earlier this month that is therefore not reflected in my assessments dated 21 May. I refer to an amendment to Rule 11 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, which is the Rule that authorizes a Trial Chamber, either proprio motu or upon a motion by the Prosecutor, to refer the case of an individual already indicted by the Tribunal to a competent national jurisdiction. The Judges of the Tribunal, by a unanimous vote, have amended that Rule in two important ways.
The first amendment concerns the domestic jurisdictions to which cases involving indicted persons may be transferred. The Rule formerly permitted a Trial Chamber to refer a case only to the State in which the accused was arrested or in whose territory the alleged crime was committed. The Rule now contains a third option: referral to a State having jurisdiction and being willing and adequately prepared to accept such a case. This amendment expands the range of nations that could potentially receive cases from the Tribunal beyond States of the region. This is particularly important should some courts in the former Yugoslavia continue to suffer from some deficiencies in the ability to conduct trials in accordance with fundamental fairness and due process.
The second change amends the criteria to be considered by the Trial Chamber in deciding whether to refer a case to a domestic jurisdiction. The Rule now provides that the Trial Chamber may order a referral only after being satisfied that the accused will receive a fair trial and that the death penalty will not be imposed or carried out. This change makes explicit a requirement that was implicit in the prior version of the Rule, and ensures that cases will not be referred to jurisdictions that do not observe the minimum guarantees of procedural fairness and international human rights. The Rule 11 bis amendments also reflect similar initiatives taken in Rule 11 bis of the ICTR.
As the Council recognized in resolutions 1503 and 1534, the ability to refer cases of intermediate and lower rank accused to domestic jurisdictions, including the planned War Crimes Chamber within the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is an essential prerequisite to the fulfillment of the Completion Strategy. But the referral of cases depends on the presence of propitious conditions, many of which are outside the Tribunal’s control. The most important condition is the presence of domestic institutions willing and prepared to try cases involving allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian law in a manner that is credible, fair, and in accordance with international legal norms. Tribunals established by the United Nations can only transfer cases if they are assured that international standards are met, not only in terms of the conduct of trials, but also in terms of the condition of detention facilities and the treatment of detainees.
It has been reported that thought is being given to requesting a Trial Chamber to decide motions to transfer cases under Rule 11 bis even before these conditions have been met and thus before the accused can in fact be transferred to the custody of another state. I believe that it is not helpful to consider transferring a case before the national jurisdiction is truly capable of living up to international standards for trial and for detention. A decision by a Trial Chamber to remove an indictee from the Tribunal’s docket in such circumstances would present serious human rights problems for the accused, who would then be in a state of "legal limbo." The accused would have left behind his day in court at The Hague but could not yet be transferred to the custody of national authorities. Any such initiatives, prematurely taken, could conflict with international norms of due process and human rights.
The Tribunal is committed to supporting the achievement of credible and fair war crimes trials in all States of the former Yugoslavia. As far as the War Crimes Chamber in Sarajevo is concerned, I am confident that it will fully meet international due process standards. I am very grateful to the Members of the donor community who attended the donors’ conference held at the Tribunal on 30 October 2003. I am also grateful to the Security Council for recognizing, in Resolution 1534, that further support for the Chamber is essential to its success. During my visit to Sarajevo, I held talks on this subject with the High Representative, Lord Ashdown; his Senior Deputy, Ambassador Fassier; and the President of the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Judge Raguz. I was informed that, despite some delays in implementation, courtroom facilities will be available to begin trials in January 2005. However, with regard to detention facilities, which are essential for the transfer of accused from The Hague and thus for the holding of trials, the prospects are less reassuring. While the Office of the High Representative is pursuing various options to obtain temporary detention facilities meeting international standards, this will require the support of the international community.
At the moment, there are still doubts that credible war crimes trials can take place in the domestic jurisdictions of Croatia or Serbia and Montenegro.
With regard to Croatia, the European Commission recently concluded that a single standard of criminal responsibility is not yet applied equally to all accused charged with war crimes before Croatian courts. The Mission to Croatia of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which has monitored several war crimes trials in Croatian courts throughout 2002, 2003, and the early months of 2004, reported that there are still significant concerns about the capacity and impartiality of parts of the Croatian judiciary. In a report dated 22 June 2004, the Mission to Croatia reported that its observations through trial monitoring "suggest that there is a considerable lack of impartiality amongst parts of the judiciary1." A second report issued the same day stated that "the national origin of defendants and possibly even more importantly that of victims continued to affect war crime proceedings in 2003." 2
However, let me emphasize that the overall cooperation of Croatia with the Tribunal has improved significantly. Although the failure to arrest fugitive Ante Gotovina is still a matter of grave concern, I view the progress that has been made in Croatia’s relationship with the Tribunal with great satisfaction. As I stated to the Rapporteur Group for Democratic Stability to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 7 May 2004, "Croatian authorities have also recognized the need to enhance the capabilities of their national judiciary for purposes of handling cases which may be referred to its courts by the Tribunal." The European Commission has similarly recognized that the Croatian authorities appear determined to improve conditions for prosecution of alleged war criminals in domestic courts. The OSCE’s Mission to Croatia likewise reported "improving conditions for the conduct of domestic war crime trials" and noted "growing recognition among the public of the importance of evenhanded prosecution of war crimes." 3The Mission to Croatia also stated that "there is no reason to believe that the Croatian judiciary would not be able to handle a limited number of cases in a fair and efficient way, particularly if assigned to those judges and prosecutors who have already received special training and resources."4 On this front, the Tribunal has been engaged in several expertise-sharing initiatives with Croatian authorities with a view to preparing the national judicial system for the referral of cases from the ICTY.
_____________________
1. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Mission to Croatia, “Background Information on War Crime Procedures in Croatia and Findings From Trial Monitoring,” 22 June 2004, p. 13.
2. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Mission to Croatia, “Background Report: Domestic War Crime Trials 2003,” 22 June 2004, p. 1.
3. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Mission to Croatia, “Background Report: Domestic War Crime Trials 2003,” 22 June 2004, pp. 1-2.
4. Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, Mission to Croatia, Fortnightly Report No. 11/2004, 26 May – 8 June 2004, p. 1.
ADDRESS BY CARLA DEL PONTE, CHIEF PROSECUTOR OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA, TO THE UNITED NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL
29 June 2004.
Mr. President, Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a great honour for me to address once again the Council to present new developments at the ICTY, and the key challenges that the Office of the Prosecutor faces in the implementation of the completion strategy, pursuant to paragraph 6 of Resolution 1534.
On 21 May 2004, President Theodor Meron transmitted to the Council an assessment of the progress made by the Tribunal in the implementation of its mandate and of its completion strategy. As one of the organs of the Tribunal, the Office of the Prosecutor contributed and reported its continued efforts to fully and timely implement the completion strategy that we defined in 2002 and that was subsequently approved by the Council, notably in Resolution 1503.
The Tribunal’s completion strategy relies on three major dates, the first concerning the conclusion of all new investigations by the end of this year 2004. This date thus entirely relies on the activities and efforts of the Prosecutor and her Office. I am therefore pleased to report that this first major milestone will be reached as planned. By the end of this year, the investigation of our outstanding targets will be complete and the last of our new indictments will be presented. In furtherance of my commitment to complete these investigations, we have spared no efforts in streamlining the investigations and focusing them on only the most senior leaders responsible for the worst and gravest crimes. Since my written assessment, two indictments were confirmed. One of them will be presented in a sealed form to the relevant authorities very soon. The other indicts a Croatian General, Mirko Norac, for crimes committed in 1993 against Serb civilians in the so-called Medak pocket. It is our intention to request that this case be referred to Croatia.
Not all of our enquiries resulted in indictments. We continually reviewed the strength of the evidence in each case. In January 2004, I decided that the investigations concerning seven targets would be suspended, not indicted before the Tribunal, and eventually referred to domestic local prosecutors in the former Yugoslavia. Investigations concerning another two high-level suspects were discontinued after their death. Furthermore, we decided not to continue the investigations concerning two other targets due to insufficient evidence. As a consequence, to date, we are completing six remaining investigations involving a maximum of 11 targets. On this basis, a maximum of six new indictments could be prepared before the end of 2004, for submission first to the Bureau for review of the seniority of the suspects, and then to the Judges for confirmation. These indictments could result in a maximum of four new trials only, given the possibility of joining some of the indictments.
With this major achievement, the completion of all new investigations in sight, we are now in a better position to plan the rest of our activities. The Tribunal knows exactly how many cases will have to be tried. We remain at the disposal of the President, and the Judges to schedule the remaining trials. The next completion dates foreseen by the strategy to achieve the Tribunal’s mandate are 2008 and 2010: all trials should be completed by 2008 and all appeals should be reviewed by 2010. The Office of the Prosecutor remains strongly committed to meeting these two objectives. However, unlike the conduct of investigations over which the Prosecutor has a large measure of control, the main responsibility for the scheduling, administration and conduct of trials and appeals extends well beyond the Prosecutor. Although my Office will continue to take all possible measures to further streamline our trial and appeals activities, notably by strictly limiting the number of charges and of prosecution witnesses, we must stress that we do not control a number of factors such as the timely arrest of fugitives, the appearance of witnesses or the emergence of crucial evidence, as we rely on States to obtain these. As far as the Office of the Prosecutor is concerned, a number of measures have already been taken to improve the efficiency of the prosecution in the preparation and presentation of cases. They include significant procedural and technological improvements, and have been developed in the written assessment submitted to you. Great savings of court time have been achieved by guilty pleas, obtained through the active involvement of my Office. We remain open to explore with the defence the possibility of accused persons pleading guilty to all or some of the charges against them. However, ultimately, the Office of the Prosecutor can only comply with the Chambers’ instructions on scheduling cases and has obviously no control over the swift conduct of the Defence case or the writing of judgements. Nevertheless, we are actively collaborating with the President, the Chambers and the Registry to update the trial calendars for the coming years.
The completion strategy is twofold. First, the International Tribunal must try those bearing the gravest responsibility in the crimes, including the high-profile fugitives, and thus complete its activities in a swift and efficient, yet fair and impartial, manner. Second, the domestic jurisdictions of the territories of the former Yugoslavia must be reformed and equipped to complete the work of the International Tribunal and take over the remaining cases.
The written assessment submitted to the Council highlights three types of cases identified to be transferred to domestic courts. The first category concerns ICTY indicted cases that could be transferred pursuant to Rule 11 bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. In strict adherence to the guidelines provided by Resolutions 1503 and 1534, 12 cases concerning 22 accused have been identified for possible transfer to domestic jurisdictions, subject to the Judges approval. All those concerned held low- and mid-level positions in their respective hierarchy, and were predominantly indicted in the early days of the Tribunal.
The transfer of mid- and low-level cases to domestic jurisdictions would free court resources for senior accused leaders. Efforts have yet to be invested in the establishment of domestic jurisdictions capable of trying war criminals. The support of the international community, including regional organisations like the OSCE, is of paramount importance in this process.
For the time being, following the guidelines set by the Security Council, I do not actively consider the possibility of transferring any high-level cases. However, the Council must be aware that, even if the Chambers consider positively all 12 requests mentioned before, this may not be enough to meet the 2008 deadline. We will continue to do our utmost to meet this target date.
The Council should also take into account that the completion strategy may be resented by the victims, mainly because their trust in domestic courts is very limited. Following my recent visit to Bosnia and Herzegovina, I received letters from victims’ associations expressing their grave concern and even disagreement in connection with the completion strategy. They asked me to pass along these letters to the members of the Council, which I would like to do.
Mr. President, Excellencies,
Allow me to focus now on the three key challenges to ensure that the ICTY mandate is properly and successfully achieved. These challenges are: the arrest of fugitives, our finance, and States cooperation issues.
The first key challenge is the failure of the relevant authorities, in particular in the Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and in Serbia and Montenegro, to arrest or obtain the surrender, voluntarily or through coercive measures, of those 20 indicted who are still at large. This figure does not include two accused whose indictments and arrest warrants are sealed.
The failure to obtain the arrest of fugitives has a number of consequences on the completion strategy. It prevents the Tribunal from joining cases that could be tried together. It therefore obliges to conduct separate trials on the same crime base, which amounts to substantial losses of court time. For instance, had Radovan Karadzic been arrested early this year, it would have been possible to join his trial with the trial of Krajisnik, another former senior member of the Bosnian Serb leadership currently being tried. In that particular case, we most likely lost the equivalent of one courtroom for well over a year. Our ability to envisage other joinders is not only limited by the difficulties faced in ensuring their timely surrender, but also by the sheer size of the courtrooms, which would make it difficult to conduct trials with more than six or seven accused.
The failure to arrest or surrender fugitives seriously affects the strategic planning of the prosecution. Indeed, we face the dilemma of choosing either to focus on the accused already in the custody of the Tribunal, or to plan for the trial of such senior accused as Karadzic, Mladic, Gotovina and others who may unfortunately remain at large for an unknown duration. An unintended consequence of the completion strategy is that fugitives and their protective networks are trying to buy time until 2008, in hopes of evading justice, as they believe the time to be tried in The Hague will soon expire. In this context, a statement that the ICTY will remain open as long as necessary to ensure that the fugitives mentioned in Security Council Resolutions 1503 and 1534 are tried before would serve the interest of justice.
A second problem for the completion strategy is the dire budgetary and financial situation of the Tribunal in general and of my Office in particular. We have been badly hit by the deferred consideration of the 2005 budget for the investigative support for trials and appeals. Consequently, we have been unable since the beginning of this year to extend contracts of the staff who will provide investigative support to trials and appeals beyond 31 December 2004. Moreover, the cash flow crisis that emerged this spring, leading to a temporary freeze on new recruitment imposed by the Secretariat, prevents us from recruiting, even to replace essential personnel who leave the Tribunal. And, as other international judicial institutions are expanding, notably in The Hague, the ICTY is losing staff at an alarming rate. The combined effect of these factors has had a considerable impact on morale, making it in turn even more difficult to retain experienced staff.
These financial restrictions directly affect the completion strategy, as the scarcity of investigative resources will inevitably slow down the preparation and conduct of trials. Because this untenable situation is directly influencing the completion of our mandate, we urge you to support us in our efforts to solve this very serious problem.
The third main challenge encountered by the ICTY remains the issue of the full co-operation of all States. The cooperation of the States of the former Yugoslavia is not only a legal obligation, it is also of vital importance for a successful completion strategy. Beyond the arrest of indicted criminals, States have the obligation to grant access to witnesses and documents. The written assessment on the status of co-operation provided by the countries of the former Yugoslavia remains up to date.
The Croatian authorities are at this point in time fully co-operating with my office. This co-operation must continue, and I expect Croatia to locate and transfer Gotovina to The Hague as soon as possible, hopefully before my next appearance before you.
Since December, the authorities of Serbia and Montenegro provided almost no co-operation, and this country has become a safe haven for fugitives. At least 15 accused at large, including Ratko Mladic, spend most of their time there. According to information recently obtained, fugitives that were believed to reside in Republika Srpska have moved across the border. I am even reluctant now to pass any information on the fugitives to Serbian authorities, because the last time I gave precise information regarding a high-level fugitive charged with the Srebrenica genocide, I was told by the Serbian authorities that, due to the political circumstances, it was not opportune to arrest him. I learnt that he has disappeared since then.
There was no progress either in other areas where the co-operation of Serbia and Montenegro is being sought. Few waivers allowing witnesses to testify before the ICTY were granted in the past month, but they concern mainly defence witnesses, and not prosecution witnesses. Well over fifty requests for waiver are still outstanding. There were several statements made by high-level officials saying that co-operation would re-start after the presidential election which took place on 13 and 27 June. We will therefore be able to assess very soon whether these authorities are serious or simply vying for time. In the absence of a significant number of transfers of fugitives in the weeks to come, I will have to conclude that Serbia and Montenegro continues to be unwilling to abide by its international legal obligations.
Mr. President, Excellencies,
The support of the international community as a whole and of all Member-States of the UN remains crucial in securing the co-operation of the States of the former Yugoslavia. Also, some international institutions, like SFOR in Bosnia and Herzegovina, have an important role to play in the arrest and transfer of fugitives. The last time a fugitive was arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovina by SFOR was in July 2002. I hope that the new arrangements currently designed regarding the future of international forces in this country will be more effective in the search and the arrest of indicted criminals.
As Prosecutor, my only recourse in case of a State’s failure to comply with its obligations is to report it to the President of the ICTY, who, in turn, could bring it to the attention of the Security Council. On 4 May 2004, a report concerning the consistent failure by Serbia and Montenegro to comply with its legal obligations was forwarded by President Meron to the Council. We urge the Council to act and put an end to this pattern of non-co-operation. If this situation was allowed to continue, it would endanger the completion strategy, and also the legacy of the Tribunal.
Mr. President, Excellencies,
The message of the victims of the worst crimes known to humankind remains constant, regardless of their community of origin. Their concern is to see that justice be done, not just simply because they wish to see the criminals punished, but also because they understand that the stability and peace in their countries rely on the judicial process. As we approach the tenth year commemoration of both the Srebrenica genocide and the signing of the Dayton agreement, we simultaneously approach another anniversary: Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic have been at large for almost ten years. How long will it be tolerated that these leaders escape justice? How long will it be tolerated that they make a parody of both justice and the repeated commitment of the Security Council to have them arrested and tried?
Mr. President, Excellencies,
Please allow me to stress once again how important your support is for the success of the Tribunal. The factors which really influence the completion strategy of the ICTY are threefold: the financial needs of the Tribunal, the timely arrest of the fugitives, and the support needed to establish credible domestic jurisdictions. All three are beyond the Tribunal’s control, but they can and must be addressed by the international community.
When it established the Tribunal in 1993, the Council proved its commitment to Justice and the Rule of Law. In Resolution 808, it stressed its determination to put an end to the widespread crimes occurring within the territory of the former Yugoslavia, including reports of mass killings and the practice of ethnic cleansing, and to bring to justice the persons most responsible for these crimes. Eleven years later, with all the efforts already made by the international community to halt these crimes and redress them judicially, these objectives are almost achieved. It is perhaps ironic that, just when the ICTY is gaining momentum and reaching its cruising speed, so much time is being spent discussing its end. But the completion of the mandate is now within reach, and we can see the final years ahead of us. This period should not become simply an "end-game", with an abrupt closing, regardless of whether or not the top-leaders are apprehended and tried before the ICTY: this would negate all the efforts so far devoted and all the results already obtained.
Mr. President, Excellencies,
I join President Meron in urging the Members of the Council to continue their support for the Tribunal and to ensure that it is given the means necessary to fulfil its promise and its full potential.
I thank you for your attention and for your continued support.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia http://www.un.org/icty