Vijesti

Pismo Teodoru Meronu

Theodor Meron Predsjednik Ujedinjene nacije MeÄ‘unarodni krivični sud za bivšu Jugoslaviju

Churchillplein 1 
 2517 JW Hag Holandija

 

Poštovani predsjedniče Meron:

 

Ovim pismom izrazavam izuzetnu zabrinutost u vezi  MKSJ sudjenja  gospodinu Radovanu Karadžiću, naročito u pogledu uklanjanja Višegrada i drugih opština iz optužnice. Otprilike prije godinu dana, 11. jula 2013 Žalbeno vijeće je poništilo zaključke Pretresnog vijeća u oslobaÄ‘ajućoj presudi   gospodinu Karadžiću za genocid u općinama navedenim u  Tački 1 optužnice, i potvrdilo optuzbe  protiv gospodina Karadžića iz Tačke 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  počne  rat u Bosni, Muslimani  nestati i biti uništeni. ” [2] Dakle,   vraćanjem na prvobitnu  optužbu  po Tački 1, izgledalo je da će  gospodin Karadžić biti tuzen  za zločin genocida  počinjen u općinama kao što su Prijedor i Višegrad, i da , kroz pravni proces, postoji mogućnost  presude za genocid po Tački 1. Osim toga, vracanjem na Tacku 1. u kojoj se optuzuje za genocid je veoma značajno, jer, kao sto je sazeo u obrazlozenju  Presude Žalbenog vijeća  , ” u slučajevima  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 riječima, područje”, koje su bosanski Srbi proglasili svojom teritorijom “ “nije  ništa drugo nego teritorija  koja je poznata  kao” Republika Srpska. “Prema tome, u slučaju da se donese presuda za odgovornost za izvrseni zlocin  genocida po Tački 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  zločinima. [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 “isključenje dokaza koji se odnose na ova  mjesta zločina ili incidenata ne znaci da se sugeriše da s u optužbe  manjeg značaja 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 zločine počinjene u njemu. U svom obrazlozenje presude za Milana Lukića  i Sredoja Lukića  od 20. jula 2009 u vezi zločina počinjenim 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  čovjeka 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 očitim  predumišljajem i proračunatoscu  ,  koji potvrdjuju  brutalnost teranja ljudi kao stoke,u zamku uhvacenih,   zaključavanje  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 pojedinačnih žrtava koje mogu  povećati težinu ovakvim  zločinima. “. [7]   Nakon procitane izjave  sudije Robinsona, i, nakon što sam bio očevidac 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 zločinii počinjeni u njemu.   U vasem nedavnom obraćanju Vijeću sigurnosti UN-a, vi  ste se osvrnuli  na raspon  očekivanja 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  zločine koji su počinjeni 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  riječ “genocid”, sa spomenika. Moglo bi se reći da je općina u kojoj dominiraju  Bosanski Srba  “precrtala” ili  “izbrisala” termin “genocid” sa spomenika ,  na isti način kao sto je Višegrad  precrtan u “optužnici Tužilaštva”.  Namjera je bila razlicita a rezultat je isti. 2006 lokalna uprava u Prijedoru je efikasno spriječila 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 počiniocima zlocina  podignuti  u Trnopolju (Prijedor), i Višegradu, a  nedavno je podignuta spomen-ploča u čast zapovjednika Ratka Mladića, u brdima iznad Sarajeva. Stoga, u slučaju da  optužba gospodina Karadžića preraste  u osudu za genocid u  Tački 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 područje “, koje su  Bosanski Srbi proglasili svojom teritorijom.” Ako se  takva  izjava  uključi u presudu  Suda, onda  ce one općine koje su samovoljno uklonjene  iz optužnice  biti opet upisane u esencijalni   obim osude, čin  uključivanja  bi  ispoštovao  i odnosio bi se  na sveobuhvatno  stradanje do kojeg  je došlo u citavoj  Republici Srpskoj kao rezultat genocidne namjere sveobuhvatnog zajedničkog zločinačkog 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 stručnjaka 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 zločina protiv čovječnosti i međunarodnog prava Univerziteta u Sarajevu;

Satko Mujagić, Udruženje za žrtve i svjedoke genocida (i zatočenik logora Omarska i Manjača koncentracionim logorima);  

Ajla Delkić, izvršni direktor, Savjetodavno vijeće za Bosnu i Hercegovinu;  

Bakira Hasečić, predsjednica, Udruženje žena žrtava rata;  

Selena Seferović, direktor, Bosanski Biblioteka Chicago;  

Prof.dr. Senadin Lavić, predsjednik, Bošnjačke kulturne zajednice, “Renaissance”;  

Hamdija ÄŒustović, predsjednik, Kongres Bošnjaka Sjeverne Amerike (KBSA);  

Dr Hariz Halilović, viši predavač, Ured potpredsjednika Provosti (učenja i podučavanja), Monash University, Victoria, Australija;  

Anes Džunuzović, Udruženje” Mladi Muslimani”,   

Mr sc. Sedad Bešlija, Activna  Bošnjačka Mreza    

 

Bilješke:

 

1. MeÄ‘unarodni krivični 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 članovi rukovodstva bosanskih Srba,  bili navodno pripadnici udruženog zločinačkog poduhvata [udruženog zločinačkog 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 zajedničkog zločinačkog poduzeća, u kojem  je gospodin Karadžić  bio ključni član, 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 krivičnog suda za bivšu Jugoslaviju, Tužilaštva Označeno-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 krivični  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, ÄŒajniče, 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 krivičnog 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 krivičnog suda za bivšu Jugoslaviju “Adresirano  Vijeću sigurnosti UN-a sudija Theodor Meron predsjednik, MeÄ‘unarodni krivični sud za bivšu Jugoslaviju , Mehanizam za MeÄ‘unarodni krivični 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. KaradzÌŒić 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 Lukić and Sredoje Lukić 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, ÄŒajniče, 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

Vijesti: