The Srebrenica Massacre - Nova Srpska Politicka Misao

Securing Verdicts: The Misuse of Witness Testimony at The Hague
ratified; the U.S. did not ratify the 1977 Protocols I and II Additional
to the Geneva Conventions of 1949); violations of the laws or customs
of war; genocide; and crimes against humanity.
However, without recognizing crimes against peace as the most important
crime, it is not easy to see how ICTY prosecutors can put political
leaders on trial unless they are able to produce evidence that the
leaders either directly committed the crimes themselves or that they ordered,
or condoned, these crimes. ICTY prosecutors have been singularly
unsuccessful in unearthing such evidence. Fumbling around for
some grand theory or conspiracy to tie political leaders to individual
crimes that took place hundreds of miles away, the ICTY came up with
dubious and nebulous notions like the “joint criminal enterprise” or the
plan to create a Greater Serbia. 2
As for evidence, the ICTY downgrades forensic findings, preferring
to focus instead on eyewitness testimony. This is the most unreliable
form of evidence, because memories are often clouded by partisan agendas,
not to mention the passage of time. In addition, witnesses can often
be persuaded or manipulated to recall whatever prosecutors want them
to recall. Eyewitnesses are also ideal from the ICTY’s point of view because
they add drama to the proceedings, particularly if they choose, as
they often do, to testify anonymously, and thereby to contribute to the
tribunal’s aura of avenging terrible wrongs and delivering justice on behalf
of the victims.
Moreover, witnesses are particularly hard to refute in ICTY proceedings.
Should defense counsel point to contradictions in a witness’s
various statements he may be reprimanded by the judges for badgering
a witness who had endured terrible ordeals (see below). Should counsel
point out the inherent unlikelihood of an event taking place as the witness
describes it, the judges may admonish him to stop arguing with
the witness and move on (see below). Unable to refute a witness, and
given the structure and purpose of the tribunal, a defendant’s—notably
a Serb defendant’s— chance of acquittal is virtually zero. Consequently,
a defendant’s best route to lenient treatment is to confess generously in
line with the ICTY narrative of recent Balkans history. A “confession”
not only provides apparently irrefutable evidence of terrible crimes, it
also dispenses with any need for a proper trial and the presentation of
forensic evidence to corroborate confessed crimes. It also dispenses with
155