EU Approach to Balkan Justice Criticised

Civil society campaigners from the former Yugoslavia have criticised the European Union for failing to establish a comprehensive strategy to promote truth-seeking and reconciliation in the region.



On February 7, NGOs from Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro and Kosovo met in Belgrade to discuss the EU’s approach to Balkan justice, in particular so-called Hague conditionality – the term referring to the pressure applied on countries in the region to fully cooperate with the Hague tribunal in return for being allowed to progress towards accession.



Although this strategy has led to the extradition of key war crimes suspects, including former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic, several speakers said it had done little to repair the damage the wars had caused to society.



More importantly, it hasn’t helped the countries decide what steps they will take once all the suspects are arrested and the tribunal closes down, they said.



Natasa Kandic, executive director of the Belgrade-based Humanitarian Law Centre, HLC, told the conference that the EU should put pressure on local governments not only to secure the arrest of the remaining fugitives and supply missing documents, but also to make them understand the importance of using the justice system to secure lasting peace and reconciliation.



Kandic believes that achieving goals in relation to transitional justice should be one of the main preconditions for all former Yugoslav countries to be allowed to join the EU.



Transitional justice is a term used to describe a number of processes used in response to systematic or widespread violations of human rights. It can refer to various approaches, such as criminal prosecutions, truth commissions and reparations programmes.



“We want to address this issue and to seek a change in the requirements and criteria in relation to European integration,” she said.



Florence Hartmann, the former spokeswoman for the tribunal’s prosecution, who also addressed the conference, explained the origins of the Hague conditionality process.



“This idea was born around 2003-4, when the EU realised the tribunal would not stay open indefinitely. They needed to bring the remaining fugitives to this court as soon as possible, so they started to put pressure on the states to cooperate,” she said.



According to Hartmann, who has been indicted for contempt of court and is currently awaiting trial at the tribunal, EU policy towards the Balkans has been very short-sighted and has not helped the states face up to their recent past.



She added that the war crimes courts that have been established in the region, and which will gradually take over from the Hague tribunal, were set up merely to fill a gap in the justice system, and were not intended to help repair society.



“The EU’s reasons were the following: we have to close the tribunal down, so we need some local war crimes courts. And since the countries in the region don’t like the tribunal anyway, they should handle war crimes themselves,” she said.



“The lack of a wider strategy to promote reconciliation in the Balkans has prevented the judgements of the Hague tribunal being widely accepted in the region.”



Merdijana Sadovic, the project manager of IWPR’s International Justice/ICTY programme, also addressed the conference, saying that while the EU’s Hague conditionality process might its have shortcomings, it should not be underestimated.



Since the EU started applying pressure on the Balkan countries to arrest and extradite war crimes suspects, all but two of the remaining fugitives had been handed over to The Hague, she said.