Naučna istraživanja

The Canadian immigration authorities denied entry to Dr Trifkovic


The Canadian immigration authorities denied entry to Dr Trifkovic


From November 1993 until September 1995, Dr. Trifkovic was the London representative of Radovan Karadzic’s self-proclaimed ‘Bosnian Serb Republic’ and he acted as an advisor to Radovan Karadzic. In his testimony in the Beara case, Dr Trifkovic admitted that he was present in Pale at the time of the fall of Srebrenica, for the purpose of advising Karadzic on how to handle the 'public relations problem' resulting from the events at Srebrenica. On his way from Belgrade to Pale and back, Dr Trifkovic actually passed through Konjevic polje, at a time when the mass slaughter of Bosniaks and the digging of mass graves was actually going on. In his testimony at the ICTY, Dr Trifkovic claims he cannot remember anything about his travel to and from Pale in July 1995.


The Canadian immigration authorities denied entry to Dr Trifkovic because they determined him to be “inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights for being a proscribed senior official in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the minister, engages or has engaged in terrorism, systematic or gross human rights violations, or genocide, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6 (3) to (5) of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.”


Of course, Dr Trifkovic now claims that he was acting as Karadzic's wartime representative in London in an 'unofficial' capacity. But that is a transparent dodge. In fact, Dr Trifkovic had no chance of acting as an 'official' diplomatic representative, since Karadzic's self-proclaimed RS government was not diplomatically recognized by the UK, nor by any other sovereign state anywhere in the world during the course of the 1992-1995 war (not even Belgrade was willing to grant the 'Republika Srpska' official diplomatic recognition).


Trifkovic's actions during the 1992-1995 war should be enough to settle the argument. The rest -- about genocide denial and 'hate speech' -- makes him morally reprehensible, but it does not have any legal implications in Canada, as far as I know.