CRIME AND POLITICS

Trials of Alija Izetbegovic

Charging of Alija Izetbegovic for war crimes and initiation of the court proceedings a year after the end of the war, at the time of painstaking constitution of joint authorities of B&H, no matter how legally justified, is aimed at obstructing the Dayton Agreement, discrediting of international policy and politically compromising Izetbegovic, both in the domestic as well international public.

Banjaluka, January 6, 1997 (AIM)

On December 24 before the Great Council of the Basic Court in Banjaluka the trial of Alija Izetbegovic, President of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina began for a number of criminal offences of violation of international humanitarian law which are qualified as war crimes. The main hearing started without the presence of the defendant by the decision of the Great Council to hold the proceedings in absentia, as "the defendant is out of the Court's reach" The counsel for the defence, the Banjaluka attorney-at-law Simo Tosic, assigned by the Court, did not object to the decision for his client to be tried in absence so that during the first day of the trial the Public Prosecutor read the indictment.

The accused Alija Izetbegovic is charged because "in the period between May 1, 1992 and December 14, 1996, as President of the B&H Presidency and Supreme Commander of the B&H Army, lead by the idea on the creation of an Islamic state, elaborated in 1970 in his religious-political document "The Islamic Declaration", he ordered all armed formations and civil authorities to systematically persecute the Serbs". Further on, the indictment describes in detail individual cases which have the legal character of criminal offences the accused is charged with, gives the names of towns and villages which were subjected to military bombardment and shelling although they were not military targets, the names of civilians and medical personnel which the soldiers of the B&H Army tortured, wounded and killed, as well as lists of camps with names of tortured inmates. From the factual and legal point of view there could be no objections to the indictment. With changed names of the accused and toponyms where the described actions took place, the same charges could be used as a prescribed form for many perpetrators of mass crimes all over Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The counsel for the defence made an objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Banjaluka Court to try this criminal case claiming that criminal offences the accused is charged with have not been committed on the territory under its jurisdiction. The Court Council denied his objection under the explanation that the consequences caused by the committed criminal offences have occurred on the overall territory of the Republic of Srpska whereby the jurisdiction of the Banjaluka Court is constituted. The Court also rejected Tosic's challenging of judges Dragica Glusac, Chairman of the Court Council, and Zivana Bajic, a member of the Council, who according to him, are refugees from Sanski Most and Drvar, respectively, and are as such are personally harmed by the criminal acts the accused is charged with and on account of which they might be partial in the course of the trials. The Court denied this objection of the counsel too, finding that the refugee status of the judges would have no bearing on their impartiality.

The judges had the greatest trouble with the counsels invoking immunity which the accused Izetbegovic enjoys as a member of the B&H Presidency. According to the criminal procedures rules the trial of the accused who enjoys immunity cannot begin until the authority in charge lifts that immunity. The Public Prosecutor challenged this objection with the claim that according to the B&H Constitution immunity is not envisaged for members of the B&H Presidency and it can be invoked only by the accused and not by his counsel. The Court Council did not accept this objection of the defence either.

The bill of indictment together with the decision on detention, decision on the appointment of an ex officio counsel and summons to the principal process, was delivered to the accused Izetbegovic through IFOR. After that followed a political intervention of the state leadership of the Republic of Srpska so that the Court abrogated its decision on the detention of the accused. Through state media the public was informed that this was done after the "exchange of messages between Carl Buildt, High Representative for B&H, and Biljana Plavsic, President of the Republic of Srpska". This is undoubtedly the first public recognition of the interference of politics in the court deliberations and an open denial of the President's statement on the independence of the judiciary of the Republic of Srpska, issued in connection with the news that charges have been brought against Izetbegovic.

Thus the "Izetbegovic case" has shown at the very beginning "urbi et orbi" that his indictment is a political process which can not be tried by an independent court, but by its political superiors in accordance with their political needs. Even without the obvious interference of politics with the court proceedings, the guardians of the justice in the Republic of Srpska could be asked today why did they wait four years before bringing charges against Izetbegovic for crimes in the Dobrovoljacka Str. in Sarajevo or a massacre of a column of YPA soldiers while withdrawing from Tuzla. If the political authorities kept silent and used the crimes of others to justify their own, why has the independent judiciary kept silent?

These few examples of coordination between political stands and courts are not the only stain on the conscience of judiciary. Even after several years of persistent insistence of the state and political top of the Republic of Srpska that "our courts will sit in judgment upon war criminals according to our laws" the criminal persecution authorities in the Republic of Srpska did not charge a single one of its citizens for committed crimes, although at one time Radovan Karadzic admitted that there were such cases. Obviously, here too, the courts waited for the orders from the politics. Once coordinated, they will determine who will be tried and for what. This will make it easier on the courts, but no on their conscience.

For the time being, according to the laws applied by the politicians from Pale, the Serbs will press charges against perpetrators of war crimes from the B&H Federation, and the Federation courts will try the Serbs from the Republic of Srpska, the only difference being that being cooperative the Moslems will surrender some of their cases to the Hague Tribunal. The laws of retorsion will function until the ideologues of evil, gathered around a green table with a drink and in a good mood, decide not to bring charges against each other any more. That will be the final amnesty of crimes and criminals which will ultimately discredit the very idea on the international condemnation of war criminals.

The indictment of Izetbegovic for war crimes and the initiation of the court proceedings a year after the end of the war, at the time of painstaking constitution of joint authorities of B&H, no matter how legally justified, is aimed at obstructing the Dayton Agreement, discrediting of international policy and politically compromising Izetbegovic both in the domestic as well international public. The crime balance struck at the time of war is today successfully transferred to the sphere of responsibility. That is precisely the aim of stalling with the exchange of prisoners and their hiding in casemates.

The further from the war the more it seems that the international community is losing strength in its condemnation of crimes and persecution of criminals. In the meantime perpetrators are being decorated with high state medals, many are already occupying assembly benches where they will adopt laws according to which no one will be able to prosecute them, but the national courts which are under their party and every other control. The public is slowly accepting the relativisation of crimes and hardly anyone believes that someone could arrest Mladic or Karadzic for the charges brought against them and on the basis of the warrant for their arrest of the Hague Tribunal. The accusations have become an instrument of political blackmail and shall be used as long as such blackmail gives results.

The interference of politics with court dealings has significantly discredited judiciary. No one believes any more in stories about its independence. This was recently brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice by Dr.Milos Babic, Professor of Criminal Law at the Banjaluka Faculty of Law. What is for a long time clear to legal experts is becoming clear to the people, who as of late are able to see the "criminal Izetbegovic", at least twice a week, in the company of their "President in the Presidency" Momcilo Krajisnik. Thus, while the Court in Banjaluka is piling up criminal files, the "criminal" together with the state leadership of the Republic of Srpska, holds discussions in Lukavica on the future of the Republic of Srpska and its citizens.

Until some future political understanding is reached, the Court in Banjaluka will feign the independence it was reminded of by the President Dr.Biljana Plavsic herself after the charges against Izetbegovic were made public. Only few will know that the case was "activated" by a recent visit of the Minister of Justice and his assistant to Banjaluka who came on that mission.

The principal process against the accused Izetbegovic will be resumed on January 24 with the hearing of evidence, during which about 200 proposed witnesses will be examined. Among those called to testify will be Yasushi Akashi. In case the trial is not concluded in one of the ways envisaged by the law, which exist everywhere were the judiciary is under the control of politics, Izetbegovic could be sentenced to capital punishment. Hardly anyone believes that such a sentence will ever be pronounced. In case it is pronounced, no one believes that it will be executed. And a trial without a sentence and a judgment without execution are equally harmful, both for the court, as well as for the politics.

(AIM) Branko Peric