Theodor Meron Predsjednik Ujedinjene nacije MeÄ‘unarodni kriviÄni sud za bivšu Jugoslaviju
Churchillplein 1 
 2517 JW Hag Holandija
Poštovani predsjedniÄe Meron:
Ovim pismom izrazavam izuzetnu zabrinutost u vezi MKSJ sudjenja gospodinu Radovanu Karadžiću, naroÄito u pogledu uklanjanja Višegrada i drugih opština iz optužnice. Otprilike prije godinu dana, 11. jula 2013 Žalbeno vijeće je poništilo zakljuÄke Pretresnog vijeća u oslobaÄ‘ajućoj presudi gospodinu Karadžiću za genocid u općinama navedenim u TaÄki 1 optužnice, i potvrdilo optuzbe protiv gospodina Karadžića iz TaÄke 1. [1] Žalbeno vijeće je konstatovalo da “izjave u zapisniku … ukazuju na to da je Karadžić imao genocidnu namjeru. Na primjer, navodi se da je gospodin Karadžić rekao da mu je cilj bio da se riješi neprijatelja u -našoj kući, Hrvata i Muslimana, i da ne zeli biti u istoj državi sa njima [više] “i d a ce , ako poÄne rat u Bosni, Muslimani nestati i biti uništeni. ” [2] Dakle, vraćanjem na prvobitnu optužbu po TaÄki 1, izgledalo je da će gospodin Karadžić biti tuzen za zloÄin genocida poÄinjen u općinama kao što su Prijedor i Višegrad, i da , kroz pravni proces, postoji mogućnost presude za genocid po TaÄki 1. Osim toga, vracanjem na Tacku 1. u kojoj se optuzuje za genocid je veoma znaÄajno, jer, kao sto je sazeo u obrazlozenju Presude Žalbenog vijeća , ” u sluÄajevima koji se odnose na dogaÄ‘aje u periodu od 31. marta 1992 do 31. decembra 1992, u nekim općinama Bosne i Hercegovine koje su “bosanski Srbi proglasili svojom teritorijom ” [3] Drugim rijeÄima, podruÄje”, koje su bosanski Srbi proglasili svojom teritorijom “ “nije ništa drugo nego teritorija koja je poznata kao” Republika Srpska. “Prema tome, u sluÄaju da se donese presuda za odgovornost za izvrseni zlocin genocida po TaÄki 1, to ce potvrditi da je genocid pocinjen ne samo u Srebrenici , i da se genocidna namjera gospodina Karadžića odnosila na citavu teritoriju Republike Srpske. Izuzetno važne implikacije ove presude bi potvrdile da je Republika Srpska genocidna tvorevina I da su njene teritorije osigurane genocidnim zloÄinima. [4] MeÄ‘utim – ono sto me zabrinjava - prema Odluci Pretresnog vijeća od 8. Oktobra 2009 u vezi smanjenja obima optuznice u predmetu Karadžić, smanjenje je navodno dizajnirano kako bi se osiguralo da suÄ‘enje bude “fer i ekspeditivno, “” Tužilaštvo je predložilo da se potpuno uklone osam opcina u postupku izvoÄ‘enja dokaza. “[5] Općine koje su uklonjene iz optužnice su: Bosanski Petrovac, Kalinovik, Kotor Varoš, i Višegrad. Uklanjanje ovih općina iz optužnice je ucinjeno povlacenjem linija preko njihovih naziva , odnosno “precrtano” je ime svake od odabranih opština. U ovoj odluci Sud je naveo da je “iskljuÄenje dokaza koji se odnose na ova mjesta zloÄina ili incidenata ne znaci da se sugeriše da s u optužbe manjeg znaÄaja od drugih.” [6] MeÄ‘utim, “precrtavanjem ” Višegrada, i uklanjanjem općine iz optužnice izgleda da sami sebi direktno kontriraju odnosno vlastitoj predhodnj odluci Suda u odnosu na zloÄine poÄinjene u njemu. U svom obrazlozenje presude za Milana Lukića i Sredoja Lukića od 20. jula 2009 u vezi zloÄina poÄinjenim u Višegradu, sudija Robinson je izjavio: “Spaljivanja zivih ljudi u Pionirskoj ulici [Juni 14, 1992] i Bikavcu [27 juni 1992] predstavljaju najgora neljudska djela koje jedna osoba može nanijeti drugima. U svojoj predugoj , tužnoj i ogavnoj povijesti nehumanosti Äovjeka prema covjeku , spaljivanja zivih ljudi u Pionirskoj ulici i na Bikavcu moraju se rangirati kao najgora zlodjela. Na kraju dvadesetog stoljeća, stoljeća u znaku rata i krvoprolića kolosalnih razmjera, ti strašni dogaÄ‘aji ukazuju na besosjecajnu okrutnost nasilnog spaljivanja zivih ljudi, sa definisanim oÄitim predumišljajem i proraÄunatoscu , koji potvrdjuju brutalnost teranja ljudi kao stoke,u zamku uhvacenih, zakljuÄavanje žrtve u dvije kuće, i tako bespomoćne izlozili paklu, onoj stepeni bol i patnje koju prezivljavaju samo žrtve koje se spaljene žive. Ovakvom neizmjernom okrutnoscu obezbedjivalo se I brisanje svih tragova pojedinaÄnih žrtava koje mogu povećati težinu ovakvim zloÄinima. “. [7] Nakon procitane izjave sudije Robinsona, i, nakon što sam bio oÄevidac ekshumacije posmrtnih ostataka žrtava iz Višegrada u ljeto 2010, kada sam u pratnji Bosanskog Instituta za nestale osobe i MeÄ‘unarodne komisije za nestale osobe, u toku svog rada, ne bih nikad ni pomislio da je u interesu pravde da se iz optuznice ukloni Višegrad i zloÄinii poÄinjeni u njemu. U vasem nedavnom obraćanju Vijeću sigurnosti UN-a, vi ste se osvrnuli na raspon oÄekivanja i implikacija koje imaju odluke MKSJ-a u na pravdu, mir i izmirenje. [8] Zapravo, vasa promisljena refleksija postavlja pitanje kakve poslijedice djelovanje Suda ( ili nedjelovanje ) mogu imati na odreÄ‘ene percepcije. ÄŒini se, zapravo, u ovom kontekstu, da ce odsustvo osude za genocid u Prijedoru i odsustvo optužbe za genocid u Višegradu ohrabriti većinu Bosanskih Srba u tim općinama da mogu poricati zloÄine koji su poÄinjeni i da mogu sprecavati komemoracije ucinjenih zlodjela. U Prijedoru, na primjer, preživjelima je zabranjeno da koriste termin “genocid” na javnim skupovima, a osim toga, zabranjeno je podizanje spomenika posvjecenim žrtvama. U Višegradu, vlasti su zaprijetile da će uništiti ili ukloniti spomenik žrtvama na privatnom muslimanskom groblju. Zatim, 23. januara 2014, vlasti su nasilno ušle u groblje I otklonile rijeÄ “genocid”, sa spomenika. Moglo bi se reći da je općina u kojoj dominiraju Bosanski Srba “precrtala” ili “izbrisala” termin “genocid” sa spomenika , na isti naÄin kao sto je Višegrad precrtan u “optužnici Tužilaštva”. Namjera je bila razlicita a rezultat je isti. 2006 lokalna uprava u Prijedoru je efikasno sprijeÄila postavljanje spomen obiljezja u “Bijelu kuću ” zgradu koja je dio logora Omarska. 1. decembra 2005 ArcelorMittal, trenutni vlasnik kompleksa rudnika Omarska se zapravo slozio da se instalira spomen obiljezje I ponudili su finansijsku podršku, ali je uprava Prijedora pruzila otpor I sprecila njeno instaliranje. U meÄ‘uvremenu, ne bi trebalo da promakne našoj pažnji da su memorijali poÄiniocima zlocina podignuti u Trnopolju (Prijedor), i Višegradu, a nedavno je podignuta spomen-ploÄa u Äast zapovjednika Ratka Mladića, u brdima iznad Sarajeva. Stoga, u sluÄaju da optužba gospodina Karadžića preraste u osudu za genocid u TaÄki 1 u navedenim opstinama, imperative je , u interesu pravde, da presuda Suda sadrži jasnu izjavu da se osuda za genocid koji se odnosi na grupu odabranih opština (opštine koje su ostale u optužnici), u svojoj suštini, i istini, ta presuda za genocid po Tacki 1 za genocidnu namjeru odnosi I na citavo podruÄje “, koje su Bosanski Srbi proglasili svojom teritorijom.” Ako se takva izjava ukljuÄi u presudu Suda, onda ce one općine koje su samovoljno uklonjene iz optužnice biti opet upisane u esencijalni obim osude, Äin ukljuÄivanja bi ispoštovao i odnosio bi se na sveobuhvatno stradanje do kojeg je došlo u citavoj Republici Srpskoj kao rezultat genocidne namjere sveobuhvatnog zajedniÄkog zloÄinaÄkog poduhvata njenih osnivaca. Hvala vam na razmatranju.
S poštovanjem, David Pettigrew, PhD Profesor Filozofskog, Southern Connecticut State University, Upravni odbor, Yale University genocida Studies Program, MeÄ‘unarodni tim struÄnjaka Instituta za istraživanje genocida, Kanada, ÄŒlan Odbora, Bosanski American instituta za genocid i obrazovanje, Chicago, IL, USA
Uz odobrenje:
Sanja Seferović-Drnovšek, J.D., M.Ed., Predsjednica , Bosanski American instituta za genocid i obrazovanje (BAGI) ÄŒlan, Illinois Komisije za holokaust i genocid;
Prof Emir Ramić, predsjednik, Institut za istraživanje genocida Kanada (IGC);
Prof dr Rasim Muratović, direktor, Institut za istraživanje zloÄina protiv ÄovjeÄnosti i meÄ‘unarodnog prava Univerziteta u Sarajevu;
Satko Mujagić, Udruženje za žrtve i svjedoke genocida (i zatoÄenik logora Omarska i ManjaÄa koncentracionim logorima);
Ajla Delkić, izvršni direktor, Savjetodavno vijeće za Bosnu i Hercegovinu;
Bakira HaseÄić, predsjednica, Udruženje žena žrtava rata;
Selena Seferović, direktor, Bosanski Biblioteka Chicago;
Prof.dr. Senadin Lavić, predsjednik, BošnjaÄke kulturne zajednice, “Renaissance”;
Hamdija ÄŒustović, predsjednik, Kongres Bošnjaka Sjeverne Amerike (KBSA);
Dr Hariz Halilović, viši predavaÄ, Ured potpredsjednika Provosti (uÄenja i poduÄavanja), Monash University, Victoria, Australija;
Anes Džunuzović, Udruženje” Mladi Muslimani”,
Mr sc. Sedad Bešlija, Activna BošnjaÄka Mreza
Bilješke:
1. MeÄ‘unarodni kriviÄni sud za bivšu Jugoslaviju, Presuda Sažetak, Karadžić (IT-9S-SI18-AR98bis.l), Žalbeno vijeće, 11 jul 2013, pristupljeno 27. juni 2014. Http://www.icty.org/ x/cases/karadzic/acjug/en/130711_judgement_summary_rule98bis.pdf
2.. Ibid. Presuda Sažetak nastavlja: “Dokazi u zapisniku takoÄ‘er ukazuje na to da su drugi visoko rangirani Älanovi rukovodstva bosanskih Srba, bili navodno pripadnici udruženog zloÄinaÄkog poduhvata [udruženog zloÄinaÄkog poduhvata], imali genocidnu namjeru. Na primjer, u raspravi bosanskih Muslimana i bosanskih Hrvata, navodi se Ratko Mladić (“Mladić”), komandant Vojske Glavnog štaba Republike Srpske, da je rekao dag a nije briga ako ce u potpunosti nestati’ “.
3.. Ibid.,autorov komentar.
4. Kada se odnosi na ciljeve sveobuhvatnog zajedniÄkog zloÄinaÄkog poduzeća, u kojem je gospodin Karadžić bio kljuÄni Älan, optužba tvrdi, u § 6, da je “Njihov cilj bio trajno uklanjanje bosanskih Muslimana i bosanskih Hrvata na sta su bosanskih Srba-polagali pravo. “MeÄ‘unarodnog kriviÄnog suda za bivšu Jugoslaviju, Tužilaštva OznaÄeno-Up optužnice, Karadžić (IT-95-5/18-PT), Pretresno vijeće III, 19. oktobra 2009 http://www.icty.org/ x/cases/karadzic/ind/en/markedup_indictment_091019.pdf
5. MeÄ‘unarodni kriviÄni sud za bivšu Jugoslaviju, Odluka o primjeni pravila 73bis, Karadžić (IT-95-5/18-PT), Pretresno vijeće, 8. oktobar 2009. Opštine uklonjene u cijelosti iz optužnice su Bosanska Krupa, Bosanski Petrovac, ÄŒajniÄe, Donji Vakuf, Ilijaš, Kalinovik, Kotor Varoš, i Višegrad. http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/tdec/en/091008.pdf
6.. Ibid. autorov komentar. .
7. MeÄ‘unarodnog kriviÄnog suda za bivšu Jugoslaviju, presuda Sažetak, Milan Lukić i Sredoje Lukić (IT-98-32/1-T) “Višegrad”, Pretresno vijeće III, 20 jul 2009, pristupljeno 27 juni 2014 http.: / / www.icty.org/x/cases/milan_lukic_sredoje_lukic/tjug/en/090720_judg_summary_en.pdf
8. MeÄ‘unarodnog kriviÄnog suda za bivšu Jugoslaviju “Adresirano Vijeću sigurnosti UN-a sudija Theodor Meron predsjednik, MeÄ‘unarodni kriviÄni sud za bivšu Jugoslaviju , Mehanizam za MeÄ‘unarodni kriviÄni tribunal”, 5 juni 2014, pristupljeno 27. Jun 2014. http://www.icty.org/x/file/Press/Statements%20and%20Speeches/President/140605_
--
June 27, 2014
Theodor Meron
President
The United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
Churchillplein 1
2517 JW
The Hague
The Netherlands
Dear President Meron:
I am writing to you to express a grave concern about the ICTY’s prosecution of Mr. Radovan Karadžić, particularly regarding the removal of Višegrad and other municipalities from the indictment.
Approximately one year ago, on July 11, 2013, the Appeals Chamber reversed the Trial Chamber’s acquittal of Mr. KaradzÌŒicÌ for genocide in the municipalities named under Count 1 of the indictment, and reinstated the charges against Mr. Karadžić under Count 1.1
The Appeals Chamber noted that “statements on the record … suggest that Karadžić possessed genocidal intent. For example, Mr. Karadžić is alleged to have said that his goal was ‘to get rid of the enemies in our house, the Croats and Muslims, and not to be in the same state with them [anymore]’ and that if war started in Bosnia, Muslims would disappear and be annihilated.”2
Thus, with the reinstatement of the charges under Count 1, it appeared that Mr. Karadžić would be prosecuted for the crime of genocide for atrocities committed in municipalities such as Prijedor and Višegrad, and that, through the legal process, there would be the possibility of a conviction for genocide under Count 1.
Moreover, the reinstatement of Count 1 for genocide was profoundly significant since, as the Appeals Chamber Judgement Summary stated, “the case concerns events that occurred between 31 March 1992 and 31 December 1992 in certain municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina claimed as Bosnian Serb territory…”3 In other words, the area “claimed as Bosnian Serb territory” was nothing other than the territory that is known as “Republika Srpska.” Accordingly, in the event that there is a conviction on the charge of genocide under Count 1, there would be confirmation that genocide was not only committed in Srebrenica, but that the genocidal intent of Mr. Karadžić pertained to the entirety of the territory of Republika Srpska. The profoundly important implication of this confirmation would be that Republika Srpska was founded upon a genocidal intention and that its territory was secured through genocidal atrocities. 4
However – and here is the matter of my concern -- according to the October 8, 2009 Trial Chamber decision regarding the reduction of the scope of the Karadžić case, a reduction purportedly designed to insure that the trial would be conducted in “a fair and expeditious manner,” “the Prosecution proposed to remove eight municipalities in their entirety from the presentation of evidence.”5 The municipalities that were removed from the indictment included, Bosanski Petrovac, Kalinovik, Kotor Varoš, and Višegrad. The removal of the selected municipalities from the indictment is evidenced by a line that is drawn through, or “struck through” the name of each of the selected municipalities. For example, Višegrad appears as such in the “Prosecution’s Marked-up Indictment”.
In its written decision the Court stated that “the preclusion of evidence pertaining to certain crime sites or incidents is not meant to suggest that the associated charges are of lesser importance than others.”6 However, “striking through” Višegrad, and removing the municipality from the indictment seems to fly in the face of the Court’s own ruling with respect to the crimes committed therein. In his Summary Judgement for Milan LukicÌ and Sredoje LukicÌ of 20 July 2009, regarding crimes committed in Višegrad, Judge Robinson stated that:
“The Pionirska street fire [June 14, 1992] and the Bikavac fire [June 27, 1992] exemplify the worst acts of inhumanity that a person may inflict upon others. In the all too long, sad and wretched history of man’s inhumanity to man, the Pionirska street and Bikavac fires must rank high. At the close of the twentieth century, a century marked by war and bloodshed on a colossal scale, these horrific events stand out for the viciousness of the incendiary attack, for the obvious premeditation and calculation that defined it, for the sheer callousness and brutality of herding, trapping and locking the victims in the two houses, thereby rendering them helpless in the ensuing inferno, and for the degree of pain and suffering inflicted on the victims as they were burnt alive. There is a unique cruelty in expunging all traces of the individual victims which must heighten the gravity ascribed to these crimes."7
Having read Judge Robinson's statement, and, having personally witnessed the exhumation of the human remains of victims from Višegrad in Summer 2010 when I accompanied the Bosnian Missing Persons Institute and the International Commission on Missing Persons in the course of their work, it would not have occurred to me that it was in the interest of justice to remove Višegrad and the crimes committed therein from the indictment.
In your recent address to the U.N. Security Council, you spoke briefly about a range of expectations and implications of the ICTY’s decisions in relation to justice, peace and reconciliation.8 Indeed, your thoughtful reflections raise a question about the effect that the Court’s actions (or inactions) may have on certain perceptions. It seems, indeed, in the present context, that the absence of a conviction for genocide in Prijedor and the absence of a charge for genocide in Višegrad may well have emboldened the Bosnian Serb majority in those municipalities in their denials of the atrocities that were committed and in their suppression of the commemoration of the atrocities.
In Prijedor, for example, survivors have been forbidden from using the term “genocide” in public gatherings and have, moreover, been prohibited from installing memorials to the victims. In Višegrad, the authorities threatened to destroy or remove a memorial to the victims in a private Muslim cemetery. Then, on January 23, 2014, the authorities forcibly entered the cemetery and ground the word “genocide,” off the memorial. It could be said that the Bosnian Serb-dominated municipality had effectively “struck through” or had “struck out” the term “genocide” from the memorial in the same way Višegrad had been struck through in the “Prosecution’s Marked-Up Indictment”.
In the meantime, it should not escape our attention that memorials to the perpetrators have been installed in Trnopolje (Prijedor), and Višegrad, and that only recently a memorial plaque honoring Commander Ratko Mladić, was installed in the hills above Sarajevo.
Hence, in the event that the prosecution of Mr. Karadžić culminates in a conviction for genocide under Count 1 in the named municipalities, it would be imperative, in the interest of justice, that the Court’s Judgement include a clear statement to the effect that while the conviction for genocide refers to a set of selected municipalities (the municipalities that remained in the indictment), in its essence, and in truth, the conviction for genocide under Count 1 would be a conviction for a genocidal intention that applied to the entirety of the area “claimed as Bosnian Serb territory.”
If such a statement can be included in the Court’s Judgement, then those municipalities that were arbitrarily removed from the indictment would be inscribed once again in the essential scope of the conviction, an act of inclusion that would respect and respond to the singularity of the suffering that occurred throughout Republika Srpska as a result of the genocidal intention of the overarching joint criminal enterprise of its founding leadership.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David Pettigrew, PhD
Professor of Philosophy, Southern Connecticut State University,
Steering Committee, Yale University Genocide Studies Program,
International Team of Experts Institute for Research of Genocide, Canada,
Board Member, Bosnian American Genocide Institute and Education Center, Chicago, IL, USA
With the endorsement of:
Sanja Seferovic-Drnovsek, J.D., M.Ed.,
Chair
person, Bosnian American Genocide Institute and Education Center (BAGI);
Prof. Emir Ramic, Chairman, 
Institute for the Research of Genocide, Canada (IRGC);
Prof. Dr. Smail Cekic, Director, Institute for the Research of Crimes Against Humanity and International Law, University of Sarajevo
Notes
1. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Judgement Summary, Karadžić (IT-9S-SI18-AR98bis.l ), Appeals Chamber, July 11, 2013, accessed June 27, 2014. http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/acjug/en/130711_judgement_summary_rule98bis.pdf
2. Ibid. The Judgement Summary continues: “Evidence on the record also indicates that other senior members of the Bosnian Serb leadership, alleged to have been members of the JCE [Joint Criminal Enterprise], possessed genocidal intent. For example, in discussing Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, Ratko Mladić (“Mladić”), the Commander of the Army of the Republika Srpska Main Staff, is alleged to have said that ‘[m]y concern is to have them vanish completely’”.
3. Ibid., my emphasis.
4. When referring to the aims of the overarching joint criminal enterprises, in which Mr. Karadžić was a key member, the Prosecution contends, in §6, that “Their objective was the permanent removal of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb-claimed territory.” International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Prosecution’s Marked-Up Indictment, Karadžić (IT-95-5/18-PT), Trial Chamber III, October 19, 2009, http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/ind/en/markedup_indictment_091019.pdf
5. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Decision on the Application of Rule 73 BIS, Karadžić (IT-95-5/18-PT), Trial Chamber, October 8, 2009. The municipalities removed in their entirety from the Indictment were Bosanska Krupa, Bosanski Petrovac, ÄŒajniÄe, Donji Vakuf, Ilijas, Kalinovik, Kotor Varoš, and Višegrad.
http://www.icty.org/x/cases/karadzic/tdec/en/091008.pdf
6. Ibid.
7. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Judgment Summary, Milan Lukić & Sredoje Lukić (IT-98-32/1-T) "Višegrad", Trial Chamber III, July 20, 2009, accessed June 27, 2014. http://www.icty.org/x/cases/milan_lukic_sredoje_lukic/tjug/en/090720_judg_summary_en.pdf
8. International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia “Address to the U.N. Security Council by Judge Theodor Meron President, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia President, Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals,” 5 June 2014, accessed June 27, 2014. http://www.icty.org/x/file/Press/Statements%20and%20Speeches/President/140605_president_meron_un_sc_en.pdf