to view the Lawdragon's - Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP

“ T h e v e r y f a c t t h a t a n u m b e r o f S e r b s h a v e b e e nconvicted for war crimes against non- Serbs, thatt h e S e r b i a n j u d i c i a r y a n d t h e s t a t e h a v e t a k e na s t a n d b e h i n d t h e v i c t i m s i n t h e s e c a s e s … t h a ti s v e r y i m p o r t a n t f o r re c o n c i l i a t i o n . ”– Ivan Jovanovicthe Scorpions as a paramilitary unit operating under theRepublic of Srpska Krajina’s Army, as opposed to the statesecurity services, and for characterizing the conflict itselfas a “civil war” within Bosnia-Herzegovina. Kandic, as therepresentative of the victims at trial, said that the deputyprosecutor objected to her questioning witnesses aboutinstitutional responsibility.In 2007, the chamber sentenced Medic and anotherdefendant to 20 years, the maximum for war crimes againstcivilians under Serbia’s criminal code, but gave morelenient sentences of 13 and five years for two of the youngerdefendants; a fifth defendant was acquitted. In readingthe judgment from the bench, Judge Gordana Bozilovic-Petrvoic said that there was no evidence indicating thatthe victims were from Srebrenica. The ruling infuriatedhuman rights groups and victims’ family members, whosaw a blatant attempt to separate Serbia from the events inSrebrenica. Vukcevic publicly criticized this determination,arguing that “the Chamber erred in giving faith to thedefendants’ statements, rather than to those offered by thevictims’ families.” He appealed the two lower sentences andthe acquittal, but to no avail. (In 2008, the Supreme Court,then still reviewing chamber cases before the restructuringof the judiciary, merely reduced one sentence from 20 to 15years and ordered a retrial for another defendant.) Kandicsaid the Scorpions trial was a wasted opportunity, and onethat signaled that the domestic war crimes system wouldbe more political than professional in its operations.Vukcevic said that he did not think "the court rulingoutweighed the good effects of the convictions."The OSCE’s Jovanovic said he “partly shares theview” that some cases appear to shield the state fromresponsibility for crimes committed in Croatia and, inparticular, Bosnia. However, he cautioned that there maynot always be an abundance of evidence that directly linksthe state to some of the events in the Bosnian war.“I don’t think the prosecution is attempting to, or that itcan, protect the state from responsibility in Kosovo, wherethere already are convictions of police officers, even if atthe lower level of the police,” he added.The Kosovo cases have been mired in controversy inrecent years, which is understandable given the immensetension there. More than 80 countries, including the U.S.,have recognized Kosovo’s declaration of independence.Serbia is adamant in its opposition. Serbs view the Kosovoregion as an integral part of the nation’s history andare concerned about the status of the Serb minoritypopulation there.Vukcevic’s office targeted a powerful figure, RadoslavMitrovic, the commander of the 37th Battalion of theSpecial Police Unit, in the Suva Reka case, over the killingof 50 civilians in Kosovo in March 1999. Forty-eight ofthe victims were members of the same extended Muslimfamily. In announcing the case against seven defendants in2006, Bruno Vekaric, a deputy prosecutor who also servesas an office spokesman, said that the massacred civiliansincluded “four babies, 10 children, a pregnant woman anda 100-year-old woman.” The trial stretched over three yearsand included the participation of more than 100 witnesses.In April 2009, the War Crimes Chamber convicted just fourof the defendants (yielding sentences of 68 years in prison),and acquitted three, including Mitrovic. The prosecutionhad argued at trial that Mitrovic had effective control overthe police forces during the operation, and prosecutorspresented corroborating witnesses who worked at theSuva Reka Police Department at the time. A HumanitarianLaw Center review of the case contended that “the courtprotected [Mitrovic], by laying the blame and the commandresponsibility on the local chief of police.”A legal technicality may have contributed to the chamber’sruling, revealing yet another challenge facing the domesticsystem. The criminal code that Serbia inherited from theFederal Republic of Yugoslavia was generally well-equippedto prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity, but ithad not incorporated certain provisions of the ICTY statute,including a broader definition of “command responsibility”that attaches criminal responsibility to commanders whoknew of illegal conduct and failed to stop or punish it. The2003 law establishing the War Crimes Chamber did notinclude the ICTY’s command responsibility provisions outof a concern that retroactive application to crimes of the1990s would not be constitutional. Prosecutors can still useexisting provisions related to aiding and abetting theoriesto target commanders, but Jovanovic said the Suva Rekacase might suggest the limitations of doing so.Ongoing investigations in Kosovo have called intoquestion the credibility of the U.S.-trained witnessprotection unit, which was praised during the early yearsof its operations. In March 2009, prosecutors initiateda new case against members of the 37 th Battalion ofI s s u e 13 47 l a w d r a g o n . c o m