That Someone Guilty Be Punished - International Center for ...

681. “Controversial group in Srebrenica incident,” RTV B92 News, July 13, 2009.
682. Interview with Refik Hodžić, ICTY liaison officer, Sarajevo, July 13, 2009.
683. Interview with Srd¯an Dizdarević, president, BiH Helsinki Committee, Sarajevo, Dec. 1,
2006.
684. Interview with Senad Pećanin, editor, Dani, Sarajevo, Dec. 6, 2006.
685. Interview with Nidžara Ahmetašević, editor, Balkan Investigative Reporting Network in BiH,
Sarajevo, July 13, 2009.
686. Interview with Saša Madacki, director, Human Rights Centre, University of Sarajevo, Sarajevo,
July 17, 2009.
687. United Nations Development Programme, Transitional Justice Guidebook for Bosnia and Herzegovina:
Executive Summary (Sarajevo, 2008), at 27–28; Humanitarian Law Center (Belgrade),
Documenta (Zagreb), and Research and Documentation Center (Sarajevo), Transitional Justice in
Post-Yugoslav Countries: Report for 2006, at 22–234. For
688. Decision to Form a State Commission for Establishing Truth on the Fates of Serbs, Croats,
Bosniaks, Jews, and Others in Sarajevo in the Period between 1992 and 1995, June 25, 2006. See
Bogdan Ivanisevic, The War Crimes Chamber in Bosnia and Herzegovina: From Hybrid to Domestic
Court, International Center for Transitional Justice, 2008, 37; Nidzara Ahmetasevic and Mirna
Mekic, “Multiple Versions of the Truth”, Balkan Insight, April 26, 2006.
689. Website for the Coalition: http://korekom.org/. The list of organizations that are members
of the Coalition is available at http://www.korekom.org/webpage/52. See also BalkanInsight.Com
on “Why RECOM Matters” at http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/main/info/24057.
690. President Jorda addressed the issue at length in a speech in Sarajevo in May 2001 in which
he warned about overlap between the mandate of a Bosnian Truth Commission and the ICTY. ICTY
Press Release, 17 May 2001, JL/P.I.S./591-e.
VI. Impact on Domestic War Crimes Prosecutions
691. Interview with Gojko Berić, journalist and columnist of Oslobod¯enje, Sarajevo, July 17, 2009.
692. When the phrase “transitional justice” first gained wide currency, it was used to describe
efforts of “countries undergoing the radical shift from repression to democracy” to “purge the remnants
of [their] vilified recent past” through processes emblematic of the rule of law and thereby
“demonstrate a separation between the old and the new governments.” Neil J. Kritz, “The Dilemmas
of Transitional Justice,” I Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former
Regimes xxi (United States Institute of Peace, 1995). The central preoccupation of transitional justice
discourse was the extraordinary nature and constitutive role of justice in periods of political
transition. See Ruti G. Teitel, Transitional Jurisprudence: The Role of Law in Political Transformation,
106 Yale L.J. 2009, 2011 (1996–97); Ruti G. Teitel, Transitional Justice 3 (Oxford University Press,
2000). Increasingly, the term has been used in ways that emphasize the mechanisms associated
with earlier conceptions of transitional justice—prosecutions of human rights violators, truth commissions,
and vetting processes—more than the context in which these processes are used. See, for
example, Report of the Secretary-General on transitional justice in conflict and post-conflict countries, UN
Doc. S/2004/616, 8 (2004) (defining transitional justice as “compris[ing] the full range of processes
184 NOTES