How Federal Justice Minister Zoran Stojanovic tried to save what could be saved in Geneva

No single national authority has done anything to punish it. They have turned a deaf ear to the strict commitments of Article 146 of the 4th. Geneva Conference, which says that whosoever has in his authority a person suspected of having committed a grave violation of the international humanitarian law, must undertake measures to punish, or hand him over to others for trial. The United Nations have cautioned several times, from the start of war atrocities, and called on the conflicting sides to obey the law and carry out justice. At the London Conference, this was one of the most serious question asked. There was no answer. The dismissal of Mihalj Kertes, Interior Minister at the time, a man suspected of being involved in crimes, was considered to be Yugoslav Prime Minister Milan Panic's unforgivable mistake, one which would result in his being ousted from office, and defamed by those protecting the criminals, and by the criminals themselves who were growing increasingly influential in Serbian and Yugoslav politics. The same thing would happen in Croatia and in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

UN Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) was the first to be introduced, and followed by Resolution 808 (1993) and finally by Resolution 827 (1993). A commission of international experts was set up and given the task of collecting data on the crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia. It was decided that an ad hoc international tribunal for looking into war crimes committed during the wars in Yugoslavia would be set up. The Tribunal started work in late 1993. The UN showed great perseverance and consistency in creating conditions for punishing the guilty. What was the attitude of the Yugoslav Government and its experts? Matters were taken seriously after the passing of Resolutions 780 and 808, especially the latter; at least this was the attitude of experts on international law and the international penal code, criminal law and crime in politics.

When Radoje Kontic became Federal PM, things took an undesirable course, even though he must have been informed of the work of the group of experts during his term as vice-president. The Tribunal was untruthfully proclaimed as being anti-Serb, a conspiracy against Serbia, etc.

All links between the Serbian authorities and the Tribunal broke down. Only after it had been realized that blind anger would yield no results, the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS) spokesman and Federal Justice Minister Zoran Stanojevic visited Geneva. It remains to be seen if Stanojevic's visit to Geneva and UN officials working on the Tribunal will be a sufficient apology for the unscrupulousness and stupidity shown by Yugoslav officials and experts.

Compared to the Yugoslav authorities' omissions with regard to the Tribunal, the Belgrade Center for Anti-War Action rallied experts who from the very beginning wished to cooperate on a project aimed at founding an international ad hoc tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Thanks to their knowledge and professional ethics, they regarded the Tribunal as an inevitability, which had resulted from the events and objective conditions in the state.

Since 1992, the Anti-War Center is coordinated by Sonja Biserko, an expert on international affairs. The Center is working on a long-term project dealing with serious violations of international humanitarian law during armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. Work has been done in cooperation and coordination with the UN. The results are comparable and complementary. In this way, a good foundation for future cooperation with the Tribunal has been laid.

The Tribunal's Rules of Procedure state that the following are guilty of a crime: the executors, the organizers and those who gave the order. Tribunal President A. Cassese said, immediately after the session in Brussels, that all those considered guilty would be tried, regardless of their position.

Making documents available to the international tribunal is a serious responsibility (Rules 10 and 11). Refusal to comply with the Tribunal's requests can lead to the matter being taken before the UN Security Council. The law on collecting and sending data on crimes committed against humanity and the international law, foresee the possibility that certain data be declared a state secret, but it is not said how this is done and what that would signify in relation to the Tribunal. Will the state committee refuse to cooperate with the Tribunal on these grounds? The extradition of suspects to the Tribunal is the state's obligation (Rule 58). The national legislature on extradition, and international contracts are subordinate to Rule 29 of the Tribunal Statute. Yugoslav officials refuse to comply with extradition, calling on national legislature and problems which arise from it. The Security Council is the arbiter again.

No Way

"We claim that the Tribunal is not based on international law and UN conventions. The founding of a Tribunal solely for the territory of the former Yugoslavia is unacceptable and hypocritical. The court's statute must contain a clause stating that all countries must carry out amendments in their constitutions and enter the possibility of extraditing their citizens, who would then be tried by the Tribunal. Our Constitution strictly forbids this, and I don't think there is any chance that parliament might change this. We do not deny the possibility that there are criminals in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but they will be tried by national courts and on the basis of positive legislature. How can we regard the Tribunal as an unbiased body, when we know of the existence of private lists of criminals, and that Yugoslavia and Serbs are proclaimed criminals beforehand."

"Intervju": What instruments will you use to oppose such an idea?

Savovic: They can't carry it through. They can exert certain pressures, but they can't try anyone without our permission. Don't forget that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has also introduced visas.

Margit Savovic, Federal Minister for Human Rights in an interview to Belgrade-based weekly "Intervju".