WELCOME TO IWPRS TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 536, 1 February, 2008 NO SAA FOR SERBIA But the European Union offers the country a raft of other concessions. By Simon Jennings in The Hague
BALKAN COURTS PROVIDE GROUNDS FOR OPTIMISM Joint RFE and IWPR report finds local judiciaries are making progress, despite being fraught with problems. By RFE and IWPR staff in Belgrade, Zagreb, Sarajevo and The Hague COURTSIDE CORIC DEFENCE CALLS FOR ACQUITTAL Lawyer claims prosecution has failed to prove any of the 26 charges against her client. By Simon Jennings in The Hague MEJAKIC DENIES RESPONSIBILITY FOR CAMP VIOLATIONS While former camp commander knew of crimes, he claims his superiors ordered him to shut up. By Denis Dzidic in Sarajevo COURT HEARS OF MEDAK POCKET ABUSES Witness claims Croat soldiers abducted his neighbours, whose bodies were later found in a cesspit. By Goran Jungvirth in Zagreb **** IWPR RESOURCES ****************************************************************** 2008 KURT SCHORK AWARDS IN INTERNATIONAL JOURNALISM Call for entries now open. For more details visit http://iwpr.net/kurtschork.html NEW PROJECT: IWPR now operates a major new media project in Asia. Visit IWPR's new Philippine Human Rights Reporting Project website at http://www.rightsreporting.net/ NEW PUBLICATION: SYRIA PRESS MONITOR. Weekly round-up of news and opinion from the Syrian national and diaspora press. To find out more or subscribe to RSS feed please go to: http://iwpr.net/syriapressmonitor.html SAHAR JOURNALISTS ASSISTANCE FUND: IWPR is establishing a fund, in honour of Sahar al-Haideri, to support journalist participants in its training and reporting programmes around the world. The Sahar Journalists Assistance Fund will be used to support local journalists in cases of exile or disability, or to assist their families in case of death in service. To find out more or donate please go to: http://www.iwpr.net/sahar.html COALITION FOR INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE (CIJ) TRIAL REPORTS ARCHIVE: Milosevic and other ICTY Trial Reports as well as Sierra Leone Reports available at <http://iwpr.net/?apc_state=hen&s=c> NOW AVAILABLE IN FRENCH: Reporting Justice: A Handbook on Covering War Crimes Courts. Part I: http://iwpr.net/pdf/reporting_justice_p1_w_fr.pdf; Part II: http://iwpr.net/pdf/reporting_justice_p2_w_fr.pdf INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT Available at http://iwpr.net/?apc_state=henotri&s=o&o=tribunal_icc_00.html **** www.iwpr.net ******************************************************************** TRIBUNAL UPDATE RSS: http://www.iwpr.net/en/tri/rss.xml RECEIVE FROM IWPR: Readers are urged to subscribe to IWPR's full range of free electronic publications at: http://www.iwpr.net/index.php?apc_state=henh&s=s&m=p GIVE TO IWPR: IWPR is wholly dependent upon grants and donations. For more information about how you can support IWPR go to: http://www.iwpr.net/donate.html **** www.iwpr.net ******************************************************************** NO SAA FOR SERBIA But the European Union offers the country a raft of other concessions. By Simon Jennings in The Hague European Union members Belgium and the Netherlands this week refused to back down and allow Serbia to sign a key agreement which would bring it closer to joining the union. However, while the EU did not allow Belgrade to sign the Stabilization and Association Agreement, SAA, it did offer the country an interim political accord to implement student exchanges with member countries and discuss free trade and liberalised visa restrictions. Although other EU member states want to open the way for Serbia, the Dutch and Belgian foreign ministries insist that Belgrade cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, ICTY, and deliver Bosnian Serb war crimes fugitives Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic before any agreement is reached. On January 28, EU chiefs presented the interim agreement, which they have invited Belgrade to sign on February 7, as a step towards Serbia gaining membership of the 27-member bloc. "This is a text that will open up doors for Serbia to the EU," said Slovenias foreign minister Dimitrij Rupel, who currently holds the EU presidency. The office for Dutch foreign affairs also welcomed the outcome, despite its reservations about Serbia joining the EU before Mladic and Karadzic are on a plane to The Hague. The Dutch government is pleased with the result, Bart Rijs, spokesman for the Dutch foreign ministry, told IWPR. We also think that the EU should extend a hand to Serbia. But that also means you have to fulfill European standards and, in practice, that means cooperating with the ICTY. At a time when political focus in Serbia over cooperation with Hague tribunal had seemed to give way to wider concerns, particularly the future of the breakaway province of Kosovo, this latest move is seen as progress in terms of negotiations. There was a dialogue before...this political dialogue is now being intensified, said Rijs. The offer has also received a warm welcome from Serbia's pro-western government. After meeting EU ministers, Foreign Minister Vuk Jeremic said, "We are very, very pleased with this breakthrough. Today is a very important day on the path to full EU membership for the Republic of Serbia." But not everyone in Belgrade is convinced of the significance of what has been agreed. Teo Karevic, director of the Belgrade Centre for European Integration, is sceptical about what the offer actually means. None of us, including the government, has seen the draft of the agreement. These are just announcements form Brussels, nothing more concrete, he told IWPR. Meanwhile, the Serbian government, headed by pro-western president, Boris Tadic, is treating the agreement as a landmark in a bid to gain votes over his nationalist rival Tomislav Nikolic in presidential run-off elections on February 3. The government is trying to present [the agreement] in a much brighter light than it really is. Saying that it is the first document in which the EU has explicitly offered membership for Serbia into the EU - which of course is not true, said Karevic. EU head of foreign policy Javier Solana has rejected criticism that the union was trying to influence the election by indirectly encouraging Serbs to vote for Tadic and a European future. The EU is hoping for a Tadic victory on February 3 in order to enhance Serbias European aspirations before an expected declaration of independence by Albanian leaders in the breakaway state of Kosovo. Although around 75 per cent of Serbs are in favour of EU membership, many support Nikolic because they see his approach to the union as preserving Serbian interests, such as retaining Kosovo as part of Serbia. The elections are forecast to be the tightest ever, with the Serbian Radical Party candidate narrowly beating Tadic in the first round. With the margin set to be just a few per cent, announcements of this kind from Brussels could make all the difference. I think it would add a few per cent to his [Tadics] side, confirmed Karevic. Although nobody here is sure how the elections will end. Simon Jennings is an IWPR reporter in The Hague. BALKAN COURTS PROVIDE GROUNDS FOR OPTIMISM Joint RFE and IWPR report finds local judiciaries are making progress, despite being fraught with problems. By RFE and IWPR staff in Belgrade, Zagreb, Sarajevo and The Hague The Hague tribunal must close within two years, and observers are anxiously watching courts in the ex-Yugoslav states to see if they are capable of processing the thousands of 1990s war crimes cases still untried. The obstacles in their path are hefty. They include judges reluctance to try all ethnic groups equally, difficulties in obtaining evidence, and the long gap between the time when the crimes were committed and the present. But most people we interviewed for this article agreed there were grounds for optimism. Local judiciaries seem willing to adopt the high standards set in The Hague; even though its clear they have a long way to go. SERBIA: WAR CRIMES PROCEEDINGS COMBAT DENIAL Over the last four years, 112 people have gone on trial in Serbia on war crimes charges, and 57 more have been indicted. There are ten ongoing cases; several have been concluded, while eight others are still in the investigation phase. Sinisa Vasic, president of the Belgrade District Court, which has a war crimes department, said he was satisfied with the level of professionalism shown during the proceedings. I think we have gained some general experience, knowledge and skills. Four years ago, the War Crimes Department started from scratch. But we have learnt a lot and today we are not the fragile institution we were at the beginning, he said. One of the novelties introduced at war crimes proceedings are testimonies given by video link and special protective measures for the most important or vulnerable witnesses. Serbias war crimes prosecutors office has had an important role in bringing perpetrators to justice. Spokesman Bruno Vekaric considered that, owing to their work, Serbs were no longer able to deny that war crimes had happened. War crimes proceedings have become a part of everyday life in Serbia. Atrocities did happen during the recent wars, and even those who have opposed these trials the most can no longer deny that, he said. However, Vekaric warned that while overcoming the technical problems facing the trials was relatively easy, forcing Serb politicians to accept them had proved much more difficult. Many Serb politicians talk very timidly about war crimes issues, he said. It simply does not help their political ratings. But not everyone agreed with Vekarics up-beat assessment of the office he works in. Dragoljub Todorovic, a lawyer with the Belgrade-based Humanitarian Law Centre, said prosecutors had tried to hide Serbias responsibility for the wars in the former Yugoslavia by allowing politicians and commanders to dodge the blame. As a result, he added, most cases were too much focused on the direct perpetrators of those crimes, instead on those who issued orders. BOSNIA: A SUCCESS STORY Since Bosnia is the country where most of the 1990s war crimes were committed, it is not surprising that its courts are among the busiest in the region. Dozens of cases are currently being heard, and thousands await investigation. The sheer number of cases Bosnia has to deal with, and the large time lag between the years when the crimes were committed and now, pose the main problems for the local judiciary. It is very difficult to obtain evidence when twelve to fifteen years have passed since the time when the crimes took place, said Deputy State Prosecutor Milorad Barain. It has also proved hard to track down witnesses who were forced out of their homes during the war and who now live all over Bosnia, or even abroad. This is why investigations into these cases are very complex and time-consuming. The Bosnian public often has very little understanding of the problems we face, he said. The shining beacon of the Bosnian judiciary is the state court with its War Crimes Chamber, which has successfully conducted dozens of cases. Olga Kavran, spokeswoman for the Hague prosecutors, said her office was very happy with the cooperation established with the Bosnian state court. She explained that the majority of the cases referred by the Hague tribunal to local courts for trial were, in fact, sent to Bosnian courts, and most of those that had been completed had resulted in long prison terms. "We don't really comment on judgments in these cases, but yes, we are quite content with the cooperation with the prosecutor's office," she said. The court has also won praise from the Bosnias Serb community. Zlatko Kneevic, who is president of the Lawyers Chamber in the Serb-ruled half of the country and who often defends people charged with war crimes, said the War Crimes Chamber could provide fair trials to all defendants. He was particularly pleased with its readiness to protect and support vulnerable witnesses, but still had a number of qualms. When we take on a case referred to us from the Hague, we cannot but wonder whether the Bosnian court can provide defence equal to that provided by the tribunal. That is still a problem to solve. But, the Bosnian war crimes court is, at the moment, the best equipped one in the region, both technically and in terms of personnel, he concluded. The victims of these crimes also seem to be satisfied with the Bosnian courts, particularly with regard to their sentencing policy. Munira Subasic of Srebrenica Mothers, a group set up to help those bereaved by the Srebrenica genocide, said sentences were in some cases more fair than those given by the Hague tribunal. CROATIA: UNEQUAL TREATEMENT FOR SERB AND CROAT DEFENDANTS So far, the Hague tribunal has referred only one case to a Croatian court that of the Croatian Generals Mirko Norac and Rahim Ademi, who are accused of war crimes against Serb civilians in the Medak pocket in 1993. Local courts have processed hundreds of their own cases, however, since the end of the 1991-95 war, and observers claim Serb and Croatian defendants have not been treated equally. I witnessed two or three trials against Serbs in Vukovar. One defendant was a policeman and worked in some prison as a guard during the war. It was proved in court that he slapped somebody two or three times, or pulled somebody's ear, and he was sentenced to 11 years in prison, said Zagreb lawyer Anto Nobilo. On the other hand, he recalled cases in which the accused were Croats and received only nine or ten years for real war crimes, crimes which involved killings and torture. He was supported in his assessment by fellow Lawyer Cedo Prodanovic. Trials against Serbs have been very short, without judges insisting on a lot of evidence and with punishments that were much more drastic compared to those handed down to Croats, he said. There have been only a few trials against Croats until now. The prevailing feeling in Croatia is that Croats were the victims in the war, and that the crimes were committed by the Serbs. The trial of Ademi and Norac, which started a few months ago in Zagreb, might change that, however. Witnesses have described brutal murders and tortures allegedly committed against Serb civilians by members of the Croatian army. Prodanovic, who represents Ademi in this trial, said the trial had been smooth so far, and that the Croatian judiciary had proved with this case that it can provide fair trials after all. That trial has been conducted in an absolutely fair manner. I would even say that the standards surpass those of the Hague tribunal, he said. He was pleased with the fact that a significant number of witnesses had been protected by the court. It has not been noticed that other witnesses have been subjected to any sort of pressure to change the content of their testimonies, he said. But another war crimes trial taking place in Zagreb has not attracted so much praise. Ex-general and current member of parliament Branimir Glavas is charged with crimes against Serb civilians in Osijek in 1991. Many observers believe Glavas received privileged treatment during the investigation of the case, mainly because he remains politically influential. He has gone on hunger strike several times, and had been allowed bail, much to the dismay of independent observers in Croatia. In terms of procedure, the case against Glavas is not problematic at all, said Ivo Banac, president of the Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights. But the treatment of the defendant is truly special at the moment. He is suddenly defending himself from the outside, and those who deserve such treatment much more than him are still in Croatian prisons. COURTSIDE CORIC DEFENCE CALLS FOR ACQUITTAL Lawyer claims prosecution has failed to prove any of the 26 charges against her client. By Simon Jennings in The Hague The lawyer of a Bosnian Croat suspect on trial at the tribunal this week said the case against her client should be dropped as prosecutors had failed to prove any charges. Valentin Coric, on trial with five other former leaders of Herceg Bosna, a self-proclaimed Croat statelet in Bosnia, is accused of the persecution, rape, expulsion and murder of Bosniaks in 1993. [The prosecution] has failed to prove that Coric is responsible under any mode of responsibility for any of the crimes he is charged with in the indictment, defence lawyer Vesna Tomasegovic Tomic told the tribunal. The defence moves that Coric be acquitted on all 26 counts. Last week, the prosecution finished its case against the six accused. Under tribunal rules, the defence can seek the acquittal of the defendants on any counts that it considers have not been proven. While Tomasegovic Tomic did not tackle every count in the indictment, she pointed to particular instances where she believed the charges had not been proven. She first questioned the strength of the prosecutions case relating to the charge of rape, insisting that precious little evidence was called regarding incidences of rape. The indictment states that Herceg Bosna/HVO [Croatian army] forces frequently robbed, abused and humiliated the Bosniak women. Tomasegovic Tomic cited the testimony of a witness who had testified anonymously about rapes that took place in the municipality of Prozor in central Bosnia in 1993. The witness described troops dressed in black who came to her village and took women away. The woman said that while three armed men entered her house at night, only one of them was wearing HVO insignia. She herself had been taken into the woods and raped by a man wearing civilian clothes. Tomasegovic Tomic denied that this evidence incriminated her client. The witness did not have any knowledge as to the affiliation of the perpetrators, she told the court. Referring to a second witness who was imprisoned and raped in the region and had testified in the case, Tomasegovic Tomic noted that she had said the [HVO] guards were very good towards them. She went on to say the prosecution had failed to prove the rapists, as alleged in the indictment, were under Corics command. Since it had not been established that her client knew about the crimes, he could not be held responsible for failing to prevent or punish them. According to Tomasegovic Tomic, the prosecution had failed to show what legislation was in force and what the duties of the military police under those laws were. She added that Marjan Biskic, a Croatian army officer who testified at the trial, had said that filing criminal reports relating to military personnel was not a duty exclusive to the military police. The prosecution has failed to prove that the crimes are within the jurisdiction of the military police and has failed to prove what the duties of the military police are, if indeed there are any, said Tomasegovic Tomic. This is a prerequisite [to remove] any doubt about whether military police committed such omissions in their work that would entail criminal responsibility. Coric was in charge of various security forces in Herceg Bosna, and is charged with being part of a joint criminal enterprise to ethnically cleanse the statelet and join it to a Greater Croatia alongside the five other former political and military leaders on trial - Jadranko Prlic, Bruno Stolic, Slobodan Praljak, Milivoj Petkovic and Berislav Pusic. Tomasegovic Tomic spent some time addressing the alleged joint criminal enterprise, which is described in the indictment as a knowing participation in a system of ill-treatment involving a network of Herceg Bosna/ HVO prisons which were systematically used in detaining thousands of Bosnian Muslims where they were subject to or exposed to beatings, sexual abuse and other deprivations. She argued that the prosecution had failed to show Coric had intended crimes to be committed or actually took part in any abuse himself. According to the charges, Coric was aware of the substantial likelihood that the acts and conduct which he promoted, instigated encouraged or facilitated would lead to him being charged with responsibility for those crimes. But the defence was adamant that no such crimes occurred and that there was no systematic attack against Bosniaks. The prosecution does not have any evidence that Coric intended any plan that included rape. Nor that there was any plan at all, said Tomasegovic Tomic. The defence also denied that Coric had incited subordinates to commit crimes as stated by the charge of aiding or abetting the commission of each crime, listed in the indictment. Referring to previous cases heard by the tribunal, Tomasegovic Tomic said that in order to prove a defendant has provoked someone to commit abuse, the prosecution must prove a link between provocation on the part of the commander and the crime being carried out. The prosecution has failed to prove the existence of such a causal relationship, she said. The prosecution must show that the perpetrators of crimes were members of the military police and definite units of the military police exercised effective control over these persons. To support her demand that the charges be dropped, Tomasegovic Tomic invoked the right of the accused to an expeditious trial, under the European Convention on Human Rights. Justice delayed is justice denied, she told the trial chamber. The defence believes that it is up to the trial chamber to drop all charges which may lead to the fact of this trial being too long. Simon Jennings is an IWPR reporter in The Hague. MEJAKIC DENIES RESPONSIBILITY FOR CAMP VIOLATIONS While former camp commander knew of crimes, he claims his superiors ordered him to shut up. By Denis Dzidic in Sarajevo A Bosnian Serb accused of orchestrating a reign of terror in Omarska prison camp testified this week that although he knew acts of rape and torture were common, he was powerless to stop them. Zeljko Mejakic is charged, along with three other men, with committing crimes against humanity, murders, beatings and sexual harassment at the Omarska and Keraterm camps in northern Bosnia in 1992. His case was referred from the Hague tribunal to the Bosnian War Crimes Chamber in July 2005. According to the indictment, Mejakic was chief of security and de facto commander of Omarska Camp and was in command of all three guard shifts and the lives of some 3,000 civilians. However, testifying in his own defense this week, he denied that he controlled the camp, saying that there were three groups of investigators that were in charge of questioning and had the authority to order [himself] and the police forces. The defendant added that Simo Drljaca, police commander in the town of Prijedor, was in charge of everything. Drljaca was killed in 1997 when resisting international forces sent to detain him. Mejakic described the harsh conditions endured by detainees. The camp was too small for such a large number of people. When I got into the rooms, I saw that they couldnt lie down because it was so cramped. There was also not enough food. Sometimes it was just a small meal once a day, which is not enough, he stated. However, he added that he could do nothing to prevent this as the Serb army investigators were very strict about the prisoners being held in the rooms which they designated. Mejakic also maintained that he was not in charge of the food, and was even forced to eat the same food as the detainees. I had also known that the prisoners were being tortured in many ways. They were being beaten, harassed, their belongings were being stolen, admitted Mejakic. The questioning was worse. In many cases, the prisoners were so badly beaten during the questioning that they didnt survive. According to Mejakic, he did his best to try and stop all of this, and wrote daily reports to Drljaca. Defence lawyer Milovan Simic presented the court with several reports that had been signed by Mejakic, which detailed murders, rapes and beatings committed by soldiers. The defendant admitted that there were women and underage children in the Omarska camp, and that he had known about rapes and attempted rapes, confirming testimony from prosecution witnesses K035 and K040. He claimed that although he confronted Drljaca about the rapes, he was told to shut up about it and to hide all the evidence about women in the Omarska camp. He had then hidden the women when journalists and representatives of the Red Cross visited. Mejakic stated that from the middle of July 1992, groups began to leave the camp. The largest number of them was transported to the Manjaca and Trnopolje camps. We had no authority in that decision. We received lists with names on who was going where, claimed Mejakic. According to his testimony, the first time he heard of the opening of a camp for detainees in Omarska was on May 28, 1992. I was told to come to the mine site in Omarska, and bring about 15 police officers with me. Upon my arrival, I was told by Miroslav Kvocka, that he was ordered by military forces to guard a group of Muslim prisoners in the site. And that I should go to the Prijedor police headquarters to try and find out more about what happened, said Mejakic. In November 2001, the Hague tribunal sentenced Kvocka to seven years in prison for his role in the capturing and killings of detainees in the Omarska camp. As Mejakic explained, he was told by Drljaca that the prisoners were in the camp and that they should secure the site. According to Mejakic, there were not too many people in the camp at first and the Omarska police force easily handled the task. However, after May 30, and the attack on Prijedor by Muslim forces, in which 17 Serbs and 30 or 40 Muslims lost their lives, everything changed, said Mejakic. The authorities organised mass arrests of Muslims in order to preserve the peace. In a matter of days, very large groups were brought to the camp for detention and questioning. Mejakic maintained that neither he nor anyone from the police took part in the apprehension of detainees, or their questioning. He also spoke of how he had helped Muslims during their time in the camp and afterwards, including his childhood friend Kerim Meanovic, who was detained there. When I saw him on the list to go to Manjaca, I asked Ranko Mijic, an army official to transfer him to Trnopolje camp. I came to pick him up from Trnopolje and helped him cross the border and into safety, he said. Mesanovic testified for the prosecution in 2007, and spoke of the help he received from the defendant. During the direct examination of Mejakic, his attorney Simic asked him why he didnt stop any of the horrible things that were happening if he knew people like Mesanovic were innocent. It was very difficult at that time. It was a huge risk to take. I wasnt in charge, and who knows what would have happened if I tried, maybe more people would have been killed, he said. At the end, Mejakic explained that the Omarska police department documentation about this whole period was destroyed by Bosnian Serb forces during 1992 and 1996 on Simo Drljacas orders. The cross examination of Mejakic will begin on February 4. Denis Dzidic is an IWPR journalist in Sarajevo. COURT HEARS OF MEDAK POCKET ABUSES Witness claims Croat soldiers abducted his neighbours, whose bodies were later found in a cesspit. By Goran Jungvirth in Zagreb A Serb witness told the war crimes trial of two Croat generals this week that Croatian forces abducted his neighbours, whose bodies were later found in a cesspit. Generals Rahim Ademi and Mirko Novac are on trial at the Zagreb County Court for commanding the troops that, according to the indictment, killed prisoners and destroyed property during the Medak Pocket operation in 1993 - a major offensive to capture a Serb-held area. On January 30, a witness, known as Number 7 to protect his identity, described seeing Croatian soldiers leading away his neighbours Milan and Andja Jovic from the village of Divoselo. He said that from a hiding place some 150 metres away, he saw a Croatian soldier hit Milan in the chest with his rifle before taking them off somewhere. The bodies of his neighbours, who are listed as victims in the indictment against Norac and Ademi, were later found in a cesspit in the town of Gospic. The witness said the Croatians then stole the villagers cattle and destroyed their houses, before capturing and abusing him and his friend Grujo Pajic. You know what torture looks like beatings and mistreatment, said the witness. He said a Croatian soldier pushed him into a ravine, where he lay hidden until he managed to escape by walking for 13 days to a Serb-held position. His friend was killed and his body was later exchanged by the Croatian troops. Noracs defence team objected to the testimony, claiming it was biased since during a previous statement given to investigators from the International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia, ICTY, the witness expressed hatred to Croatians by calling them Ustase an offensive name used for Nazi collaborators during World War Two. The witness tried to justify his use of the word. I grew up with these terms among the people who got harmed in the Second World War and I got into the habit, he said. Norac then confronted the witness with claims that Serb forces were deployed in the village of Divoselo, with mortars and other heavy weaponry. The witness disagreed, saying the villagers only had light arms, and that there were no soldiers there at all. On January 29, video recordings made between September 9 and 15, 1993 - the dates of the operation - were shown in court. The original footage showed Noracs 9th Guards Motorised Brigade preparing for action and then moving towards Divoselo and Citluk, whose houses showed little evidence of damage. However, in footage of the retreat there were signs of burnt and destroyed homes. The United Nations forced the Croatian troops to pull out of the Medak Pocket, after their victory. Previous witnesses have said that most houses were destroyed during the retreat by soldiers angry at being forced to surrender their gains. The trial continues on February 6. Goran Jungvirth is an IWPR reporter in The Hague. **** www.iwpr.net ******************************************************************** TRIBUNAL UPDATE, the publication arm of IWPR's International Justice Project, produced since 1996, details the events and issues at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY, at The Hague. These weekly reports, produced by IWPR's human rights and media training project, seek to contribute to regional and international understanding of the war crimes prosecution process. The opinions expressed in Tribunal Update are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the publication or of IWPR. Tribunal Update is supported by the European Commission, the Dutch Ministry for Development and Cooperation, the Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and other funders. IWPR also acknowledges general support from the Ford Foundation. TRIBUNAL UPDATE: Editor-in-Chief: Anthony Borden; Managing Editor: Yigal Chazan; Senior Editor: John MacLeod; Project Manager: Merdijana Sadovic; Translation: Predrag Brebanovic, and others. w: Executive Director: Anthony Borden; Strategy & Assessment Director: Alan Davis; Chief Programme Officer: Mike Day. **** www.iwpr.net ******************************************************************** IWPR builds democracy at the frontlines of conflict and change through the power of professional journalism. IWPR programs provide intensive hands-on training, extensive reporting and publishing, and ambitious initiatives to build the capacity of local media. Supporting peace-building, development and the rule of law, IWPR gives responsible local media a voice. Institute for War & Peace Reporting 48 Grays Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK Tel: +44 (0)20 7831 1030 Fax: +44 (0)20 7831 1050 For further details on this project and other information services and media programmes, go to: www.iwpr.net ISSN 1477-7940 Copyright © 2008 The Institute for War & Peace Reporting **** www.iwpr.net ******************************************************************** If you wish to change your subscription details or unsubscribe please go to: http://www.iwpr.net/index.php?apc_state=henh&s=s&m=p
