|
THE HAGUE AGAINST JUSTICE (Part II)
International Criminal Tribunal
Fiasco
The Scandalous Treatment of Col. Aleksa Krsmanovic
By Dr. Kosta Cavoski.
Professor Kosta Cavoski, an eminent Yugoslav
law scholar, holds Ph.D. from Harvard University. He has taught at Theory
of Law at University of Belgrade.
Back to Part #1
No less disgraceful
was the performance of The Hague Tribunal in the case of Colonel Aleksa
Krsmanovic. When Richard Goldstone officially sought the extradition of
this high ranking Serbian officer, he explicitly stated that evidence against
him "had enough substance to initiate investigation" (7). On Krsmanovic's
transfer to The Hague on 14 February 1996, he once again stated that Krsmanovic
was "suspected of having committed serious violations of international
humanitarian law during the conflict in former Yugoslavia".
Not even two weeks
had passed before Richard Goldstone changed the status of Krsmanovic from
suspect to witness in the hope of persuading him to "testify" against his
superiors. To this aim he used blackmail, informing Krsmanovic that if
he refused to "cooperate" he could be returned to the Muslim prison in
Sarajevo. Sure of his own innocence, Krsmanovic
did not give in thereby facing Richard Goldstone and the members of the
Trial Chamber with a difficult choice: to let him go free, thus admitting
their own defeat, or to disregard their own rules in order to carry out
their threat of handing Krsmanovic over to Muslim Sarajevo. The
fact that they held no evidence of his guilt, in spite of their tireless
efforts to find some, required them to free Krsmanovic unconditionally,
thus confirming his innocence. This is set out by the well-known legal
principle non- bis-in-idem which does not allow the same act to be brought
to trial twice. Article 10 of the International
Tribunal Statute of 26 May 1993 clearly states that "no person shall be
tried before a national court for acts constituting serious violations
of international humanitarian law under the present Statute, for which
he or she has already been tried by the International Tribunal". Since
Krsmanovic was brought to The Hague as a suspect as soon as criminal proceedings
were begun by the International Tribunal withdrawal of the charges meant
that the case was closed. It also meant that Krsmanovic could not be tried
for the same crime by any national court, including the High Court of Muslim
Sarajevo. In short following Richard Goldstone's decision to withdraw the
charges, Colonel Krsmanovic should have been set free.
Instead of this, The
Hague Tribunal broke the inviolable principle of non-bis-in-idem, and returned
Colonel Aleksa Krsmanovic by leased aircraft to preventive detention in
Muslim Sarajevo. Encouraged by this act on
the part of The Hague Tribunal Muslim judge Izet Bazdarevic immediately
announced that investigation against Krsmanovic would be continued in order
to prove "whether the Colonel was guilty of crimes". (8) In answer to the
objection that the proceedings had been carried out and finalized by The
Hague Tribunal, judge Bazdarevic confidently added: "We have our laws,
and The Hague has its own".(9) The investigation against Colonel Krsmanovic
were even extended on the ground that he had participated in crimes against
prisoners of war in the area of his birthplace, Sokolac.
Had the Tribunal acted
in accordance with its own Rules of Procedure and Evidence (Rule 13) it
would have had to immediately send a reasoned order to the authorities
of the Muslim-Croat Federation and High Court in Sarajevo requesting the
court to permanently discontinue its proceedings against Colonel Aleksa
Krsmanovic. Nevertheless, it remained silent. In this manner it tacitly
validated the lawlessness in Muslim Sarajevo. As a result
the case ended in the same disgraceful way it began. On 21 April 1996 Colonel
Aleksa Krsmanovic was exchanged as a prisoner of war for Muslim prisoners
of war captured by the Republika Srpska army.
Thus it would seem that Colonel Krsmanovic was kidnapped after the official
end of the war as a civilian in order to serve as a hostage thereby forcing
the release of several Muslim soldiers that were captured during the war,
all under the guise of an exchange of prisoners of war. By breaking its
own Rules, whether it wanted to or not, The Hague Tribunal participated
in a war crime,i.e. in covering up the taking of hostages.
--- REFERENCES: ---
(7) Nasa Borba, 9
February 1996.
(8) Nasa Borba, 5
April 1996, according to a Beta/AFP report
(9)Ibid.
Next:
[ PART III: The Legal Basis
for the Establishment of the International Tribunal ]
Back to:
[ Part I ]
[ The Hague "Tribunal" ]
|