International Justice/ICTY: July/Aug ‘09

IWPR’s coverage of a key war crimes trial and attempts by Bosnian Muslims to rebuild their lives in eastern Bosnia has prompted debate amongst journalists and analysts from across the Balkans.

One report related to the judgement handed down in the case against two Bosnian Serbs, Milan and Sredoje Lukic, indicted for the horrific crimes committed in the eastern Bosnian town of Visegrad at the beginning of Bosnia’s 1992-95 war. The other report that caught the analysts’ attention was about the attempt of Bosnian Muslim returnees to the eastern Bosnian village of Klotjevac to live a normal life, despite memories of the 1995 Bosnian Serb massacre at nearby Srebrenica.

In July, Milan Lukic was found guilty on all charges in the indictment, including burning alive 120 civilians after trapping them inside two separate houses. His cousin and accomplice, Sredoje Lukic, was sentenced to 30 years in jail.

It was the first time in the tribunal’s history that a life sentence was delivered by first instance judges.

Zana Kovacevic, a radio journalist from Sarajevo, said she had followed the case and therefore was not surprised by the verdict.

“Considering the evidence that was presented during this trial – particularly the witnesses’ statements that were incredibly moving – this judgement was almost to be expected. When delivering the verdict, Judge Patrick Robinson - who headed the trial chamber – said both men’s crimes were characterised by a callous and vicious disregard for human life. It is obvious that this verdict was the judges’ response to the exceptional brutality with which these crimes were committed,” she said.

However, Slobodanka Dekic, a journalist and human rights activist from Sarajevo, said she was surprised that the tribunal judges sentenced someone to life imprisonment in a first instance judgement.

“I was positively surprised by the verdict, especially when we know that not all crimes Milan Lukic is suspected of were included in his indictment,” Dekic said, alluding to the rape charges which the prosecutors had unsuccessfully tried to add to the cousins’ indictment at the 11th hour, less than a month before proceedings began on July 9, 2008.

“In any case, I think this is a fair verdict,” she added.

Nidzara Ahmetasevic, editor of the Justice Report of the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network, BIRN, said she too followed the Lukic trial closely and reported on it quite often.

“I cannot comment on the verdicts, but I am very sorry that rape charges were not included in the indictment, although these crimes were mentioned in the judgement. However, in the end, Lukic cousins were not tried for the rapes committed in Visegrad,” she said.

Marko Milosevic, a researcher from the Centre for Civil-Military Relations in Belgrade, said he was bothered by the fact that rape charges were not included in the Lukic indictment, despite plenty of evidence that the prosecutors had at their disposal – some of which was presented during the trial.

Due to the court’s completion strategy – under which it must wind up trials by the end of 2010 – no more charges could be brought against the Lukic cousins in The Hague. However, according to the tribunal’s officials, local war crimes courts in the former Yugoslavia can bring new charges for any crimes not tried at the Hague tribunal.

But Milosevic does not find this comforting.

“I really have a problem with the tribunal’s exit strategy, which resulted in rape charges not being included in the indictment against the Lukic cousins. This strategy may help the tribunal to become more efficient in processing war crimes, but it is bad for justice. One gets the impression that the tribunal is in a hurry to complete all current trials before the deadline set by the United Nations Security Council, even at the cost of justice,” he said.

But Milosevic said he was pleased that Milan Lukic was found guilty of all charges that were listed in the indictment against him, “which is only fair“.

Aleksandar Gajin, programme coordinator from the Centre for Legal Studies Improvement in Belgrade, said that IWPR’s Facing Justice coverage of the Lukic judgement was “exceptionally good and provided me with some details about this case I didn’t know before. The media in the Balkans should pay more attention to these trials, because the public deserves to know what really happened here during the wars in the Nineties”.

Gajin added he was not surprised that Milan Lukic was sentenced to life in prison by the first instance judgement and that his cousin’s sentence was also very severe.

“The crimes they were charged with were really horrific. According to the tribunal judges, they were found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and their punishment is just,” Gajin said.

Dejan Milenković, assistant professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade and a member of the Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights, shares this opinion.

“The judgement rendered in the case against Milan and Sredoje Lukic is proportional to the crimes that were committed and was based on compelling evidence presented during this trial. I was not surprised by it because perpetrators of such crimes deserve only the most severe punishment. I followed this trial and I think the verdict is just,” he said.

Also in July, IWPR reported about the lives of Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) returnees to the village of Klotjevac, once an idyllic tourist resort in eastern Bosnia and later the scene of war crimes.

Author of the article Edina Becirevic talked to returnees about their everyday struggle to survive in this isolated place and their will to remain there, despite all the difficulties that face them.

“This article was one of the best reports dealing with the life of returnees I’ve read lately,” Kovacevic said. “It’s been told in simple language which is easy to understand; the returnees were given a chance to say in their own words what’s bothering them and what their everyday problems are. It’s as if they wrote this report themselves. This is an excellent article, devoid of empty, bureaucratic phrases, and it truly reflects the situation on the ground.”

“Whether writing about these people’s lives can help them, I don’t really know. But I know that their voices must be heard and that the media must give them space so that decision makers are constantly reminded of what needs to be done to make their lives easier.”

Ahmetasevic agreed with these remarks and said that writing about problems of returnees is one way to draw attention of the politicians to the issue.

“Like most IWPR articles, this report is of high quality. It focuses on an exceptionally important subject, which only adds to its value,” she said.

Gajin found the report to be “very moving and informative and touches upon [a] subject that everyone in the former Yugoslavia should be interested in”.

“Facing the recent past and telling the truth about what happened is probably the best way to deal with the problems which are the result of bloody wars in the Nineties. In that sense, articles like this one are very useful,” he said.

Milenkovic agreed and said IWPR reports like this one “can help re-establish mutual trust among different ethnic groups in the region and for that reason they are necessary and extremely important”.

“I’ve learned a lot from this report, things I didn’t know before. There should definitely be more stories like this in the media, because without facing the past, there can not be true reconciliation in the region,” he said.