http://www.alertnet.org/db/an_art/19216/2008/06/30-143805-1.htm
Will Karadzic get a fair trial?
30 Jul 2008 14:38:00 GMT
Written by: Emma Batha
Former Bosnian Serb leader and war crimes suspect Radovan Karadzic
arrived in The Hague today to stand trial for genocide. News of his
surprise arrest on a Belgrade bus last week came just days after the
International Criminal Court indicted Sudan's president for genocide
in Darfur.
Most people in the West generally assume that war crimes trials are a
good thing. But do international tribunals actually deliver justice?
John Laughland, author of a book on the history of political trials,
thinks not.
"In my view these tribunals should be closed down," says Laughland.
"They are a law unto themselves. They are not administering justice
but injustice."
It may seem a radical stand but Laughland, a writer and academic,
presents some persuasive arguments. He says international criminal
tribunals diminish the sovereignty of individual states and that they
have consistently abused judicial norms. They admit anonymous
evidence, trample over the rights of defendants and make up the rules
as they go along.
The men hauled before these courts to date include former Serb
strongman Slobodan Milosevic, former Liberian President Charles
Taylor, former Congolese Vice-President Jean-Pierre Bemba and various
Rwandan and Congolese militia leaders. Whether they have done wicked
things or not is irrelevant - they all deserve a fair trial.
National courts, as part of an overall system, are subject to checks
and balances - they can't just make up their own rules. But Laughland
argues that international courts are not embedded in any system or
accountable to the people over whom they claim jurisdiction.
He says the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
(ICTY), which tried Milosevic and will try Karadzic, has changed its
rules every few months and each revision has downgraded the rights of
the defendant.
On top of that, the use of anonymous witnesses (some 40 percent at the
ICTY, according to Laughland) denies defendants their fundamental
right to cross examine their accusers.
At the ICTY's sister tribunal for crimes committed during the 1994
Rwandan genocide, Laughland says the defence team is convinced the
anonymous witnesses are a "small band of paid story-tellers" who spin
whatever yarn the prosecution wants.
Laughland, who has written a strong critique of the Milosevic trial,
says the fact the former Serbian leader was tried in absentia when he
fell ill and that the court imposed a defence counsel on him against
his will are yet further examples of how war crimes tribunals
flagrantly violate judicial norms.
The length of trials is also an outrage, says Laughland. The Milosevic
trial lasted four years but will probably be beaten by some of those
at the Rwandan tribunal. Suspects are innocent until proven guilty yet
some have been locked up for a decade. In Britain and elsewhere, we
know there would quite rightly be an outcry if defendants were
imprisoned for years without trial.
A work in progress
These are just a handful of the objections Laughland put forward at a
debate on global justice at the ICA gallery in London last week. But
his arguments didn't wash with everyone.
Philippe Sands QC, a British barrister and specialist in international
law, admitted there were plenty of problems with the courts but said
they were a work in progress.
The International Criminal Court, the world's first permanent war
crimes tribunal, was set up in 2002 to continue the work started by
the temporary tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.
Sands said the ICC was needed because it had been shown that national
courts do not prosecute their own war criminals.
He also rejected the view that the international courts were above the
law, pointing out that judges had recently halted the ICC's first
trial because the prosecution's failure to disclose some evidence
could prevent a fair hearing.
But Sands agreed there was one powerful argument against the ICC - its
lopsidedness. So far it has issued arrest warrants for people accused
of atrocities in Congo, Uganda and Sudan. It's unlikely that the court
will ever pursue any senior American or British figures.
Sands said he was off for his summer holiday and, as ever, he had told
his colleagues not to disturb him under any circumstances. There is
one exception to his holiday rule, Sands said - he wants to be called
immediately if there's a move to indict Tony Blair.
If you're interested in international justice I'd recommend this
article What is global justice and who is it for? The ICC's first five
years by Marlies Glasius, a very readable account of progress so far
and how victims of atrocities view the court..
Serbian News Network - SNN
[email protected]
http://www.antic.org/
