Bringing them to justice

After reading two articles in leading broadsheets in February 2007, I have asked myself the question; “Why was Serbia cleared of Genocide when there seemed to be so many inconsistencies?”
This question asks what happened twelve years ago in Bosnia and why has no one significant been prosecuted for such disgusting crimes?

Since I was not there at the time and have no real recollection of the events unfolding, I have searched through many articles and papers, and spoken to people involved with trying to raise awareness and convict the individuals and states accountable for the ‘systematic ethnic cleansing.’

Between 1992 to1995 the Bosnian war was taking place and in response the U.N set up a ‘safe-area’ in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, to protect Bosnians from being massacred by Serbians.

As is becoming more clear regarding the U.N’s ever increasing actions of ‘too little, too late,’ they deployed a small unit operating under the mandate of United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR,) to secure Srebrenica and protect its civilians. Unfortunately, being outnumbered, the town was taken over by the Army of Republika Srpska in July 1995.
Approximately 8,000 Bosniak men and boys were arbitrarily killed by the Serbian government backed forces.



Although most of us were either too young to remember the full impact, or have merely forgotten, the International Criminal Court finally tried Serbia on the grounds
of Genocide in February of this year. Many eye witnesses, bodies and testimonies had to be taken and accounted for, in order to present a full case to the court.

Although being given the ‘not-guilty’ ruling from the court, this has caused controversy and outrage, especially among the survivors and those who lost loved ones in the conflict. The decision took the form of several votes and by an outstanding vote of 13 to 2, Serbia was cleared of Genocide.
Ironically, the court stated that “Serbia had violated the obligation to prevent Genocide.”

Judge Rosalyn Higgins said; “[Serbia] had not shown that it took any initiative to prevent what happened or any action on its part to avert the atrocities which were being committed.”

So, if this is the case and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia gave it the name ‘Srebrenica genocide’, why then are they willing to clear Serbia? Why are they not being held accountable for their actions, especially after the Republika Srpska issued a formal apology for the massacre? This implies they are admitting to their actions. And what about those people affected by the decision? Those families hoping to find justice, or those families from the other side who feel ashamed of their countries previous actions.



Julie Scott, who works for the Srebrenica Justice Campaign says; “What is the point of having a criminal court there to seek justice, if justice won’t be delivered? It seems that they are scared to make the first move towards convictions like this. As history has shown us, we are not learning from our mistakes, merely repeating them over and over again. The international community must realise we need to focus on punishment for the guilty instead of turning a blind eye.”

Since the International Criminal Court was established 60 years ago, this is the first case where a ruling could determine whether a country was guilty of committing genocide or not, but the result has brought much disappointment to the country of Bosnia who brought the case forward.

As stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, set up in 1945 after the atrocities of World War 2, it clearly defines what constitutes Genocide.

“In the present Convention, Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.” (Steiner and Alston, 2000.)

The key word regarding this statement is ‘intent.’ Whether or not Serbia managed to commit Genocide means that the intent to do so, is punishable under the original declaration.
Clearing Serbia of Genocide clearly contradicts the human rights laws already set in place, as Serbia did intend to commit Genocide and did nothing to prevent it happening against Bosnia. A fact already stated by Judge Rosalyn Higgins.

If this inconsistency is so glaringly obvious, why then did the ICC not prosecute or put forward a case to prosecute in future, Serbia on the intent that they did nothing to stop the Genocide in Bosnia?



Nicola Duckworth, the Programme Director of Europe for Amnesty International says; “Ten years after the end of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the women of Srebrenica are still waiting for the men who killed their sons and husbands to be brought to justice.”

The failure to bring the two key individuals of the massacre to justice, Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, highlights the ever growing errors, and often seemingly complacent feelings, in the international justice system.
Although a number of minor individuals involved have been brought to justice, the ICC still seems reluctant to take the first step to convict a state on this crime.

Tony Hill, 26, who works within the media industry says; “I feel one of the reasoning’s behind the reluctance to prosecute Serbia, may have been because the uncertainty of what punishment should be applied.”

This indeed does raise the question of how could you punish a state on a crime that has never before led to a conviction? This leads to new policies and governmental discussions and practices that take time and effort. Perhaps effort that the people behind the courts are not ready for.

To highlight the lack of awareness within the same age bracket, Simon Hamby, 25 a student from Kingston University says; “I cant remember the genocide taking place and any details regarding it. It may seem close minded, but at the time I was quite


young and thought as it was another country, I felt it didn’t apply to me. Today, it seems such a long time ago, it hard to form an opinion and I feel quite detached.”

After being told of the glaring evidence pointing towards Serbia being responsible and the inconsistencies shown within the trial, he goes on to say; “However, it does seem that the issue is still as important to the people affected as it ever was. If families were torn apart by the killings, it should be the courts duty to prosecute those responsible.”

In all the reports that are available to read, Serbia comes across as the clear persecutor in the war. The eye witness accounts of U.N soldiers and Bosnian civilians clearly back up testimonies that say Serbia was behind the attack on Srebrenica. Coming so close and then allowing the country to be cleared leaves unanswered question, and for those that had placed all their hopes on justice prevailing at the trial, it seems to leave a strong taste of dissatisfaction and disgust.