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

eport, and he filed a slander suit against Kandic. Theprosecutor’s office also issued an angry rebuttal and defenseof Stankovic, noting that his security had been threatenedfor his work on several controversial war crimes cases andcontending that he was not involved in the decision torelease the suspects.Kandic had been sued before for her public comments onwar crimes cases, and would be again. Earlier this year, aHumanitarian Law Center report claimed that LieutenantGeneral Ljubisa Dikovic – whom Tadic appointed inDecember to head the Serbian army – was responsible forwar crimes in Kosovo. Vukcevic claimed that no evidencesupported the allegations, and Dikovic promptly sued Kandicfor her comments, which she has continued to defend.In recent years, Kandic and the prosecutor's office havetraded criticisms through reports and public statements.In November 2011, the prosecutors office issued a detailed15-page report to challenge three of the HumanitarianLaw Center’s recent reports, calling Kandic “amateurish,”“ignorant” of the case files and incompetent as a victims’representative. (A recent change to the procedure codeprevents non-lawyers from representing victims inthe proceedings, which blocks Kandic from directlyparticipating in the trials, leaving that role to lawyers atthe Humanitarian Law Center.) The report said that “sheremains invariably committed to her own interest to obtainproofs that our state is responsible for all crimes in Croatia,Bosnia-Herzegovina and in Kosovo, rather than individualperpetrators against whom proceedings are conducted.”Though the office has in the past acknowledged hercrucial role in securing the participation of witnesses –the Humanitarian Law Center counted more than 70 whohad testified at its invitation and assistance by the end of2011 – Kandic believes that the office has changed its tonetowards her for her heightened criticism in recent years,including what she sees as selective indictments as well aspolitically motivated arrests (or issuing of arrest warrants)for non-Serbs.Vukcevic said his office has a good relationship withthe human rights community and included Kandic'sorganization in the mix."Regardless of some disagreements, which are mainlyof a strategic nature, we appreciate the assistance of theHumanitarian Law Center in the collection of evidence andaccess to war crimes witnesses," he said. "We continue toperceive them as our partners and a positive force."In any event, there are significant payoffs for allstakeholders, not least of all the victims, as revealed in theLovas case involving the killing of 70 Croatian civilians in1991. In June, the trial chamber sentenced 14 defendants,including members of the Yugoslav army and the territorialdefense unit in the area, to a total of 128 years in prison. Theverdict followed 182 days in trial, including the testimonyof 194 witnesses.“Serbia’s judicial authorities have sent a clear message ofrespect to the victims, and apologies for all their sufferingin those unfortunate years,“ Vekaric, the deputy prosecutorand spokesperson, said after the verdict. “It is essentialto make it clear that the victims will not be forgotten andthat the perpetrators of such and similar crimes will beadequately punished.”Though critical of the indictment for not targetinggenerals, Kandic was extremely pleased with the course ofthe trial and the verdicts.“I am happy because the families and the local authoritieswho came from Lovas are happy,” she said. “It is importantthat they are satisfied with the trial and the work of thepresiding judge, who did an excellent job.”Meanwhile, Vukcevic’s team has remained in the news forseveral pending investigations. Prosecutors are reportedlyconsidering a case against wartime media figures who,under some theory, may bear responsibility for incitingviolence during the conflicts. The office also has openedcases against the individuals from the support networksthat allowed The Hague fugitives to remain at large for solong. (Serge Brammertz, the chief prosecutor at the ICTY,had repeatedly urged for such a case.)Another of the high-profile pending investigationsfocuses on whether Albanians in the KLA harvested organsfrom Serbs captured during the war for trafficking, whichAlbania and Kosovo have denied. Of particular concern tothe U.S. State Department and the Embassy in Belgrade isthe criminal case against two former Serb police officersfor allegedly murdering three American brothers – Agron,Ylli and Mehmet Bytyqi – who reportedly had traveled toKosovo to assist pro-independence forces. In May, the WarCrimes Chamber acquitted the defendants, and Vukcevic’sannounced it would appeal.G i v e n i t s h e a d l i n e - g r a b b i n g c a s e l o a d ,the ICC regime might not appear to the casual observerto favor domestic prosecutions. Under Article 17 of thegoverning Rome Statute, however, the ICC can onlyexercise jurisdiction if national courts are “unwilling orunable genuinely” to prosecute crimes falling under thestatute. The principle is known as “complementarity,” theexact meaning and implementation of which is the subjectof much debate and analysis among scholars and advocateswho follow the court. But most agree that domestic courtsshould handle their own cases if doing so is possible. Statesthat ratify the treaty (121 have so far) are required toincorporate ICC crimes into their domestic legislation.The ICTY has continued to assert its primacy over itspending cases, such as those of the recently arrested highlevelfugitives. Nevertheless, some of the reasoning behindthe push for domestic participation in the former Yugoslaviawas based on complementarity principles – namely, thatdomestic cases are closer to those most affected by theI s s u e 13 49 l a w d r a g o n . c o m