I received the following email from Stephen Karganovic, entitled, "Does DNA
help the faltering Srebrenica lobby." Stephen says that it is very important
to deal with specific issue of the flawed Popovic judgment that recently came
out.
Stella
DNA: DOES IT HELP THE FALTERING STEBRENICA LOBBY?
The aggressive Srebrenica lobby has been having some difficulties
lately. It is not used to its demands being ignored or – worse yet – defied.
But it seems that its increasingly obnoxious attempts to force-feed the world
its version of events in Srebrenica in July of 1995 and to impose permanent
global grief on people who had nothing to do with them are finally arousing
some long overdue resistance.
A case in point to what absurd lengths the lobby is prepared to go
were its infantile demands for the final World Cup soccer game in South Africa,
scheduled for July 11, to be suspended to honor Srebrenica “genocide victims.”
When that did not work, Bosnian Moslem lobbying groups signaled their readiness
to settle for one minute of silence. But the World soccer association, FIFA,
would not even have any of that, either. In a polite, but firm response,
Srebrenica lobbyists were told that game will go on as scheduled, without the
injection of any Balkan political overtones. Sarajevo was furious, but there
was not much that it could do about it.
An equally unexpected and “disappointing” development was Canadian
prime minister Stephen Harper’s refusal to endorse a Srebrenica resolution.
Since his coalition has a majority in parliament, notwithstanding the impotent
fulminations from Sarajevo and its local Canadian outfit, “Institute for
Genocide Research,”[1] that effectively took the proposal off the table as far
as parliament was concerned, at least for now. Again, the lobby was dealt a
setback it is not used to and it does not quite know how to handle it.
The course of the Ganić extradition case in London may also
cautiously be regarded as a sign of increasing ennui in the West with the
Srebrenica lobby’s campaign to make everyone march to its tune. Serbia’s
pro-Western client government did not really expect its pro forma Interpol
arrest warrant for Ganić’s arrest to be honored anywhere and it was therefore
caught by surprise when British authorities took Ganić into custody at Heathrow
airport a few weeks ago. The amateurishly prepared evidence to back the
extradition request, that was initially submitted by Belgrade, bore eloquent
witness to that. Not that the charges were frivolous. Ejup Ganić, a member of
Bosnia’s wartime Presidency, stands accused of organizing and ordering the
lethal attack on a column of unarmed Yugoslav National Army soldiers who were
evacuating their barracks in Sarajevo on May 3, 1992, after safe passage
guarantees were solemnly given. Forty-two soldiers, mostly conscripts, were
killed in murderous cross-fire and seventy were wounded. Two hundred and seven
were taken prisoner and subsequently released, many after being subjected to
humiliation and torture.
The fact that the British court is giving the matter lengthy and
thorough review, notwithstanding Belgrade’s confused reaction, belies
Sarajevo’s original expectations that the matter would be resolved quickly
with Ganić’s complete vindication and triumphant return home. Regardless of the
ultimate ruling in the case, the mere fact that Belgrade’s extradition request
was not summarily discarded and that the Bosnian „statesman“ must undergo the
lengthy rigours of a court procedure to sort out his responsibility for some
rather grave offences, like General Pinochet before him, or any other similarly
situated mortal, sends a clear signal that the free ride for the West’s
favorite victims may be over.
This string of bitter reverses in the fields of sports, politics, and
jurisprudence was ameliorated just in time by the long-expected ICTY judgment
in the Popović et al. Case, made public on June 10. Not that there were any
major surprises in the court’s findings: Serbian officers guilty, genocide,
7.000 to 8.000 victims, and all the rest. There is, however, one important
novelty in the judgment. It is the shift from standard forensics[2] to the
cutting edge technique of DNA analysis as the primary tool for dealing with the
identification and quantification of exhumed human remains which constitute the
corpus delicti of the Srebrenica case. In the Popović verdict, the chamber
offers the following conclusions:
“Based on the evidence, the Trial Chamber has found that at least 5.336
identified individuals were killed in the executions following the fall of
Srebrenica. However, noting that the evidence before it is not all
encompassing, the Trial Chamber is satisfied that the number of identified
individuals will rise. The Trial Chamber therefore considers that the number of
individuals killed in the executions following the fall of Srebrenica could
well be as high as 7.826.”[3]
The actual number of victims is a key aspect of the Srebrenica
controversy and it goes also to the issue of genocide. It is manifestly
incorrect to argue that provided the genocidal dolus specialis is demonstrated,
even a handful of victims will do, so what is all the fuss about whether 8.000
or some other number were executed? In fact, it was precisely in the Krstić
case that the chamber accepted the thesis that the “scale of killing,” i.e.
numbers, was germane to genocidal intent.[4]
The real issue never was the courts’ attempts, provided they were in
good faith, to determine the number of victims, but rather the methodologies
they used in going about it. In both Krstić and Popović cases no attempt is
made to disguise the fact that the “7.000 to 8.000” number of victims is
sacrosanct and that evidence must be adjusted to fit that numerical target,
rather than vice versa. It is thus that in Krstić the chamber claims, falsely
as it turns out, that 2.208 Srebrenica bodies had been found at the time of
judgment, and adds, quite absurdly, that in the opinion of unnamed experts
4.805 additional bodies supposedly relevant to the case lay in yet unexhumed
mass graves. In relation to the critically important issue of numbers, it thus
follows that the Krstić judgment was based not on a fact, but on a prognosis.
Needless to say, ten years have passed since then but the predicted additional
bodies have failed to materialise.
In testimony to the fact that nothing is new under the sun, or at
least at ICTY, we now see the Popović chamber engaging in the same type of
legal soothsaying in an attempt to gloss over the critical lack of executed
bodies. The chamber notes that „the evidence before it is not all encompassing“
but since the magic figure of 8.000 must be reached by hook or by crook, it
simply proclaims its conviction „that the number of individuals killed in the
executions following the fall of Srebrenica could well be as high as 7.826.”
It would be useful to first review the grounds upon which that
“conviction” is based and, indeed, the entire fabric of the chamber’s reasoning
in this segment of its verdict before deciding whether to take its conclusions
too seriously.
For starters, it would be a good idea to ask where the data on which
the chamber’s conclusions are based comes from. The answer is in par. 638 et
passim of the Popović judgment. The data come from the International Committee
for Missing Persons [ICMP], an NGO based in Tuzla, Federation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina. ICMP’s website projects the image of a benign humanitarian
organization whose mission is to apply science, in this case DNA, to identify
dead victims of the Bosnian conflict and to provide solace and closure to
suirviving relatives. All fine and good. But there may be more to ICMP than
meets the eye.
ICMP’s independence is debatable. It was formed in 1996 at the G-7
Summit in Lyon, France, at the initiative of US President Bill Clinton. The
list of its chairmen so far reads like a US establishment Who is who. Its first
chairman was former secretary of state Cyrus Vance, 1996-1997, followed by Bob
Dole, 1997-2001. ICMP’s current chairman, „philantropist“ James Kimsey, used to
be the chairman of America Online.
But is that meticulously nurtured humanitarian profile realistic, or
is it but another Srebrenica illusion? The probability of the latter option is
enhanced when one considers that the chairman of ICMP is appointed by none
other than the Secretary of State of the United States. As we learn from State
Department press release of May 11, 2001:
„Secretary Powell has appointed Jim Kinsey as the new US chairperson of the
International Committee for Missing Persons (ICMP), the leading organisation
involved in the identification of remains of people killed in recernt conflicts
in the Balkans. Mr. Kinsey isd the Founding CEO and Chauirman Emeritus of
America Online Inc.“
Though ICMP’s public image projects the impression of a classical NGO
with purely humanitarian objectives, based on the mechanism whereby its
management is appointed at least a conflict of interest issue could be raised.
Not only that, but while fullfilling its mission it would seem that ICMP is not
accountable to any scientific or juridical body. In the opinion of US
political analyst George Pumphrey:
„It is a wing of the US State Depasrtment and publishes a ’nímport quoi’ to
serve the propaganda interests of its masters. Many of their reports are so
ambuguously worded that even if someone would attempt to verify their
announcements, it would be impossible, because one is not sure if they are
speaking of whole corpses or of pieces of corpses.“
Lack of accountability and its corollary, unverifiability, are indeed
the salient features of ICMP’s work. ICMP’s data have never been seen or tested
by independent experts, even in court settings where they were officially
presented in evidence, such as in the Popović case. That took place in closed
session and under severely restrictive conditions which did not allow the
defence either the time or the resources for a comprehensive expert review of
ICMP’s results. But as we learn, if true, those results are in fact quite
sensational: 6,481 Srebrenica victims currently identified, and enough evidence
leading ICMP to support an estimate of altogether around 8,100 individuals
missing from the fall of Srebrenica in July 1995.[5] That is practically on the
mark. In short, according to this, ICMP has cracked the Srebrenica case and put
skeptics out of business.
If ICMP’s word is all that is required to show that, it may well be
true. All requests for DNA profile matches and other pertinent data to be
disclosed to be reviewed by independent experts are politely but firmly
declined by ICMP. Its secretiveness is justified on the grounds that allowing
public access to the data would be an insensitive act that would result in
great indignity to the victims and compound the pain of the survivors. It
claims that its hands in the matter are tied and that it can release the data
only if the survivors would give their written permission. How likely is it in
the Balkans that they ever would?
It seems that ICMP’s penchant for guarding the “privacy” of its data
does go excessively far, even absurdly so. When Radovan Karadžić asked to be
given access to their data for verification purposes, it came to light that in
fact he was not precisely being discriminated against because the prosecution
revealed that they, also, were denied proper access. Prosecutor Hildegard
Uertz-Retzlaff made the astonishing statement that “ICMP did not share DNA data
with us, either. So it is not correct that they gave it to us, but not to
others.”[6]
Reliance on ICMP findings is, therefore, little better then
faith-based jurisprudence.
But even if protestations of privacy on behalf of family members who donated
blood samples are to be accepted at face value, now that the 5,336 identified
victim figure has been enshrined in the official judgment, it would seem simple
and convenient to allay doubts by publishing at least the first and last names
of all the 5,336 individuals involved. The publication of such a list is
indispensable to verify, first of all, if the persons in question ever existed:
if they did, whether they are really dead: and if they are dead, whether their
deaths had anything to do with the execution of war prisoners in Srebrenica in
July of 1995.
That ought not to offend anyone’s sensibilities because thousands of names of
alleged Srebrenica victims have already been carved onto a huge slab of stone
at the Potočari Memorial Centre, to be seen by everyone. The publication of
these names of victims supposedly identified by DNA would not only be quite
sensational, it would also make further forms of verification possible.
Unfortunately, no such list is appended to the judgment or seems to be
forthcoming.
But the Chamber’s biggest problem in this regard is not its failure
to name the identified individuals (identification, it should be recalled,
means assigning a first and last name rather than a number to each individual.)
Nor is it even its cavalier prediction, reminiscent of the failed forecast in
the Krstić judgment, that “the number of individuals killed in the executions
following the fall of Srebrenica could well be as high as 7.826. It is, rather,
that the Chamber is apparently ignorant of how DNA works and of what it can and
cannot do.
That ignorance is reflected in the Chamber’s mystifying finding that
“at least 5,336 identified individuals were killed in the executions following
the fall of Srebrenica”, which is a scientific impossibility. By matching
samples taken from the deceased person to biological material donated by the
potential blood relative, DNA procedure can establish, with various degrees of
certainty, the deceased’s probable identity. But in terms that are relevant to
criminal liability it can do nothing more than that. It cannot help determine
the time and manner of death. The deceased, whose first and last name might
indeed be established as a result of a successful match, could have been killed
in combat, in an accident, or could have died of natural causes, and it could
have happened in Srebrenica or someplace else. The casual suggestion made by
the Chamber, that the 5,336 identified individuals “were killed in the
executions following the fall of Srebrenica” is scientifically unwarranted and,
as any biology student could inform the Chamber, it is absurd on its face. No
one can make such a determination based on DNA data without exposing themselves
to enormous ridicule.
But this is exactly the determination which the Chamber was obliged to
make, because without the time and manner of death claim to go with it, the
pompously announced DNA identification evidence is quite useless for conviction
purposes.
It may be argued that the Chamber acted most unwisely by embracing the
DNA approach without at least consulting a biology student about its usefulness
before doing so. Once this segment of the judgment is subjected to thorough
critical analysis, ICTY will discover that it will get even less in terms of
evidence that can withstand critical analysis than was the case with the
apparently jettisoned standard forensic approach. The standard approach at
least had yielded 947 potential execution victims (442 with blindfolds and
ligatures, plus 505 with bullet injuries). The methodology shift to DNA is
incapable of demonstrating a single culpable death in terms of legally relevant
criteria. It seeks to impress with the aura of high tech, but like any bluff it
can last only as long as it remains unchallenged or, in this case, unexamined.
“ICMP’s identification techniques directly undermine revisionist attempts to
deny mass atrocities,” crowed ICMP’s Director-General, Kathryn Bomberger. “By
providing irrefutable evidence on victims’ identities, the ICMP helps judicial
institutions bring war crime perpetrators to justice, restores victims’
humanity and dignity and brings a sense of closure for their surviving family
members. These family members have a right to information concerning the fate
and whereabouts of their loved ones”.[7]
One can only feel sad for international justice as long as it is stuck with
astute legal minds of the caliber of those who composed the laughable Popović
judgment, and as long as in evidentiary matters they continue to be assisted
by charlatans such as Kathryn Bomberger.
_____
[1] The autonomy of this institution on Canadian soil, not to mention its
academic pretensions, may well be questioned. It turns out that the
Canada-based Institute for the Research of Genocide was founded by an act of
the Institute for the Research of Crimes Against Humanity and International Law
at the University of Sarajevo as recently as August 2009
(http://www.instituteforgenocide.ca/about/ ).
[2] In the previous Srebrenica trials, Krstić and Blagojević asnd Jokić, the
forensic evidence consisted of autopsy reports based on the examination of
exhumed post-mortem remains. A critique of the Tribunal’s interpretation of
that data was published by Dr. Ljubiša Simić,
http://www.srebrenica-project.com/DOWNLOAD/post%20mortem/Forensic%20analysis%20of%20post-mortem%20reports.doc
[3] Prosecutor v. Popović et al., see par. 793, par. 837, and footnote 2862.
[4] Prosecutor v. Krstić, Appelate judgment, par. 35.
[5]
http://www.instituteforgenocide.ca/6481-srebrenica-genocide-victims-identified-through-dna-science
[6] ICTY, Prosecutor v. Karadžić, Status conference, July 23, 2009, Transcript
p. 364, lines 21-23.
[7] Radio Netherlands Worldwide, July 9, 2010:
http://www.rnw.nl/english/bulletin/over-6400-dead-srebrenica-muslims-identified
_______________________________________________
News mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.antic.org/mailman/listinfo/news
