IWPR Home institute for war & peace reporting
   
 Advanced Search
building peace and democracy through free and fair media

Home
Programmes
Afghanistan
Afghan Recovery Report
Africa
Zimbabwe Crisis Reports
Caucasus
Caucasus Reporting Service
Cross Caucasus Network
Central Asia
Reporting Central Asia
News Briefing Central Asia
Human Rights Reporting
Central Asia Radio
International Justice
ICC - Africa Update
ICTY - Tribunal Update
Face à la Justice - RD Congo
Facing Justice - Uganda
On the Scale - Darfur
Iran
Mianeh Reports
Iraq
Iraqi Crisis Report
Pakistan
Open Minds
Philippines
Human Rights Reporting
Syria
Syria News Briefing
Multimedia
Resources
Books
Training
IWPR Comment
Kurt Schork Awards
Photo Galleries
Sahar Fund
Past Programmes
Past Publications
CIJ Trial Reports Archive
Links
RSS Feeds
Other IWPR sites
Academy
Mianeh
Open Minds Pakistan
Regional Media Network
Rights Reporting
IWPR on acebook
witter
 



ICTY - Tribunal Update
International Justice / ICTY home
Courtside

Karadzic: Krajisnik Not Part of Bosnian Serb Presidency

Bos-Hrv-Srp

Former Bosnian Serb leader said records which seem to show Krajisnik as Bosnian Serb presidency member are imprecise.

By Simon Jennings in The Hague (TU No 576, 7-Nov-08)

Ex-Bosnian Serb president Radovan Karadzic told the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal this week that his former close associate was not part of a key decision-making body during the Bosnian war.

Karadzic, himself a war crimes suspect, was giving evidence in support of an appeal lodged by ex-Bosnian Serb parliamentary speaker Momcilo Krajisnik, who was sentenced to 27 years in prison by Hague tribunal judges in September 2006.

Krajisnik was convicted of crimes against humanity, including the murder, persecution and extermination carried out by the Bosnian Serb regime against Bosniaks and Bosnian Croats during 1992, but was acquitted of genocide charges.

In its judgement, the trial chamber found that during 1992, Krajisnik was an active member of a war-time, five-member presidency of the Bosnian Serb entity that later became Republika Srpska, RS. Judges supported this finding with three sets of presidency minutes taken from meetings held between June and October that year which had been signed by the accused as the meetings’ chairman.

However, at a hearing on November 5, Karadzic denied that the three-member presidency of the Bosnian Serb entity was expanded during the war to include Krajisnik. He explained that the minutes from the meetings which suggested the accused was a member of the presidency during 1992 had been written in error.

“Krajisnik was not a member of the presidency and the minutes are not a document on the basis of which you can conclude that,” Karadzic told judges.

“That’s an imprecision of the person who kept the minutes.”

At the main appeals hearing on August 20, prosecutors called on judges to sentence Krajisnik to life imprisonment, which they had originally asked for during the first-instance trial, while Krajisnik sought acquittal on all charges.

This week, Karadzic was providing supplementary evidence, having been called as a witness by Krajisnik, as he was unavailable during the trial. Karadzic was only arrested in July after 13 years on the run and faces charges of war crimes, and crimes against humanity, including genocide, carried out in Bosnia during the war.

Prosecutor Alan Tieger cross-examined Karadzic in court, following the ex-Bosnian Serb president’s submission of an 11-page statement in place of oral testimony.

Tieger pointed to a specific set of minutes from the 21st session of the presidency, signed by Karadzic himself, which mentioned Krajisnik as an attending member.

Karadzic explained that the minutes “were something quite unimportant” and that only orders and decisions were official presidency documents.

“Minutes [on their own] mean nothing because they are kept by someone who does not have a lot of knowledge about the constitution and state administration,” he said.

Karadzic asserted in his statement that the presidency consisted of only three members, who did not include Krajisnik, and that there was no functioning expanded or war-time presidency, as prosecutors contend.

However, Tieger put it to Karadzic that there were seven presidency sessions at which the minutes – signed by Karadzic – indicated Krajisnik was a member of such a presidency.

Karadzic denied the documents showed Krajisnik was a presidency member. He also explained that at one of the sessions in question, on October 9, two members of the presidency were absent which meant that it did not constitute a presidency meeting at all.

“The presidency was not sitting in a quorum… that’s the essence of the matter,” he said.

Faced with similar defence arguments during the original trial, judges had cast aside the intricacies of how any war-time presidency may have actually functioned.

“What is relevant… is that the accused was present at practically every recorded meeting of the presidency from May 12 1992 onwards, as well as in informal meetings for which minutes are not available, but which were confirmed by witnesses and documents,” ruled judges.

Karadzic’s testimony this week was limited by the fact that he himself is on trial for events closely related to Krajisnik’s case. His lawyer, Peter Robinson, continuously objected to questions put to Karadzic on the grounds that the accused could incriminate himself by answering. Robinson even accused Tieger of structuring questions to incriminate Karadzic in his own trial in which Tieger is also a lead prosecutor. Tieger denied doing this.

During the hearing, the prosecutor presented further evidence that an expanded war-time presidency existed, and Krajisnik was part of it, citing evidence that war commissioners were appointed by this presidency to support municipal authorities. Tieger also pointed to evidence that certain commissioners told an assembly session in Zvornik about their appointment by a war-time presidency.

“They spoke about their existence and their activities and the war presidency to which they reported in late November 1992,” Tieger told Karadzic.

Yet Karadzic maintained that the war-time presidency was something that was only ever envisaged and never actually established.

“This was just a preparation for the eventuality of a state of war in which the municipal authorities would not be able to function,” he said.

Karadzic was then questioned by Krajisnik himself, followed by his American defence lawyer Nathan Dershowitz, who is representing Krajisnik on the charges relating to his alleged involvement in a joint criminal enterprise.

Karadzic denied that the accused had encouraged or supported the murder and removal of Bosniaks or Bosnian Croats and said he was sympathetic to Muslims.

“It’s not only that [Krajisnik] was well known as a conciliatory person, he was also well known as a person who understood the Muslims,” said Karadzic. “The Muslims themselves, [Bosnian President Alija] Izetbegovic himself asked that Krajisnik always be on the negotiating team because they had a good understanding.”

Karadzic supported Dershowitz’s distinction between an operational expanded presidency, which the prosecution claims Krajisnik was a member of, and what the defence claims were expanded sessions of the three-member presidency attended by Krajisnik.

In his statement, Karadzic claimed Krajisnik only attended presidency meetings “as an invitee” along with others who were not presidency members.

“An expanded session means that that session is attended by someone who is not a member of that body,” said Karadzic in court.

He explained that while ministers would sometimes attend such sessions as advisors, that did not make them members of the presidency.

Prosecutors also argued this week that a document of six strategic goals drawn up at the Bosnian Serb assembly on May 12, 1992, at which the accused was present, defined its military objectives in the war. The defence argues that the objectives served only as a platform for a political solution.

Karadzic said the goals were drawn up in coordination with the Cutilhero plan – a document drafted by the international community in Lisbon in 1992 to bring about peace.

Karadzic said Krajisnik’s negotiating position was as a representative of the parliament, a separate body from the presidency and the cabinet which also took part in negotiations to find a solution to the war.

Karadzic further asserted that there was no connection between the political negotiations involving the accused and the military action carried out on the ground.

“Mr Krajisnik throughout [that] time was a member of the negotiating team… We never lost hope that a political solution would be found,” testified Karadzic. “This has nothing to do with military goals.”

A further evidentiary hearing will be held on November 11 relating to allegations that Krajisnik received ineffective legal assistance and had an unfair trial as a result.

Simon Jennings is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.

Feedback Form
IWPR greatly appreciates your feedback. Please tick the boxes where appropriate:
After reading the article I am more informed on the subject matter
The article influenced my view on the ICTY and/or international justice
I intend to use what I learned (in my work)
My work/education is in the field of:
IWPR may contact me to follow up
Your name (optional):
Your E-mail address (optional):



Subscribe
Past Reports
MonthIssue No.
Feb633-633
Jan630-632
MonthIssue No.
Dec627-629
Nov623-626
Oct618-622
Sep614-617
Aug612-613
Jul608-611
Jun604-607
Archive 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 96
Highlights
Facing Justice - UgandaFacing Justice - Uganda
Vacancies Available
On the Scale - DarfurOn the Scale - Darfur
Project Review Oct/Nov 2009
Kurt Schork Awards Videos
Kurt Schork Award Winners
A Handbook on Covering War Crimes Courts
In the News
Winnipeg Free Press"Now [the Taleban] appear to be able to launch their attacks even in the most heavily protected sections of [Kabul], "said IWPR Afghan project editor/trainer Jean MacKenzie.
McClatchy"The simple fact is that the condition of the economy has never played a major role in the minds of Iranian leaders or in Iran's national security equation," said IWPR contributor Omid Memarian on the prospect of tougher western sanctions.
BBC“I would like to imagine that at least a few senior politicians woke up this week to seriously wonder what kind of monsters they and their system have created over the years," said IWPR's Head of Asia Alan Davis, referring to Maguindanao massacre.
The New York TimesRecent double bombing in Baghdad has cast doubt on the government's ability to guarantee security and prompted fears such violence may affect voter turnout in anticipated January elections, writes iWPR reporter Ali Karim.
Past Highlights
Interview: Tribunal president on court’s completion strategy
Interview: ICJ Chief on Bosnia Genocide Case
A Handbook for Local Journalists in Crisis Areas
Introduction to the Hague Tribunal
Online Help
Guides to international law and language:
Legal Dictionary of Terms
Dictionary of International Law
Law.com Dictionary
Support
To support IWPR's work, contact Ria Burghardt, or make an ONLINE DONATION >>
IWPR thanks the following for their generous support:
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Norway Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Norway
Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency (SIDA)Swedish Agency for International Development Cooperation (Sida)
Foreign and Commonwealth Office (UK)Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK


© Institute for War & Peace Reporting
48 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK
Tel: +44 (0)20 7831 1030    Fax: +44 (0)20 7831 1050

The opinions expressed in IWPR Online are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent those of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting.

Registered as a charity in the United Kingdom (charity reg. no: 1027201, company reg. no: 2744185)