Minutes from the Conference Processing War Crimes in BiH – Achievements and Challenges (June, 2006)

Minutes from the Conference Processing War Crimes in BiH – Achievements and Challenges; UNDP/ Center for Education of Judges and Prosecutors – June 1 – 2, 2006 UNITIC, Sarajevo Conference

Recommendations:

1. Creation of a national strategy and system of support to an efficient processing of war crimes, which would include technical and material assistance to courts and prosecutor's offices; 

2. Improve cooperation between entity courts and the Court of BiH with the objective of exchanging information and resolving the issue of competence which was discussed during the conference; 

3. Participants expressed support to the continuation of judicial reform, in particular to further efforts in the development of legal framework for processing war crimes and expert and administrative-technical capacities for dealing with war crime cases in courts and prosecutors' offices; 

4. Work on establishing a mechanism for making the ICTY data bases accessible for BiH courts and prosecutors' offices; 

5. Continuous education and training in the field of war crimes processing.

Kontakt lista (sudovi i tužilaštva) BiH - 2005/ Contacts - courts and prosecution offices (BaH) - 2005

Justice and Truth in BaH (public perspective)/ Pravda i istina u BiH iz perspektive javnosti (UNDP, EWR 2005)

Iz današnje perspektive evidentno je da je 2006. bila jedna od ključnih godina za budućnost Bosne i Hercegovine. Propusti koji su tada napravljeni doveli su do današnje kritične situacije. Nalazi ankete na kojima je Razvojni program UN-a, Ured za BiH, zasnovao izvještaj o mogućim putevima prevazilaženja posljedica rata, nisu uzeti u obzir od strane domaćih organa vlasti i međunarodne zajednice i, umjesto da se pristupi formiranju Komisije za istinu i pomirenje za koju se kao optimalno rješenje izjasnilo oko 55% građana, nastavilo se insistirati na manje efikasnim i mnogostruko skupljim rješenjima. Ukoliko bi se tadašnja situacija upoređivala sa današnjom, od posebnog značaja bi svakako bio odgovor na pitanje: Kako bi se po Vašem sudu trebalo postupiti sa osobama koje su tokom rata činile razne nepravde drugim ljudima, gdje su odgovori iz RS i FBiH bili gotovo identični i ukazivali su na to da građani smatraju da počinitelji nepravdi/ zločina trebaju odgovarati. Samo oko 3% ispitanika smatralo je da se počinitelji zločina/nepravdi trebaju amnestirati, odnosno oko 7% njih nije željelo odgovoriti na ovo pitanje. Poražavajuću je javno mnijenje u pogledu tek formiranog Odjela za ratne zločine pri Sudu BiH, gdje je oko 40% građana imalo relativno pozitivan stav u odnosu na ovaj Sud, a posebno je zabrinjavajuća činjenica da je na pitanje: Šta misite o pravosudnom sistemu BiH, oko 47% građana eksplicitno izjavilo da ne vjeruju ni u zakone, ni u suce koji na osnovu njih sude. 

  

From today's perspective, it is evident that 2006 was one of the crucial years for the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Failures and omissions from 2006 resulted in the critical situation the country is facing today. The findings of public opinion survey used by the report of the UNDP, Country Office in BaH on possible paths on facing the consequences of the war, were not taken into account by national authorities and the international community, and instead of working on the establishment of the truth and reconciliation commission, which was explicitly selected as an optimal solution by 55% of citizens, they continued to insist on less efficient and manyfold more expensive solutions. Should the situation then be compared to the situation today, a response to the question: In your opinion, how the perpetrators of different injustices to other people during the war should be treated - is especially indicative, as the results from both entities were almost identical. A vast majority of citizens from Republica Srpska and Federation BaH considered that the perpetrators of injustices/ crimes should be punished, while only 3% considered that they should be pardoned and around 7% refused to answer to this question. The public perception about the newly established War Crimes Section of the BaH Court was quite worrying, given that only

40% of citizens had relatively positive attitude towards this Court, while the fact that about 47% respondents, when asked about their opinion about the judicial system in BaH, explicitly stated that they did not have any faith in the laws and judges should have been particularly taken into concern.

Ex files - Stolac i Sud/Tužilaštvo BiH

Danas, preko dvadeset godina nakon rata u BiH, više no ikad se govori o kolektivnoj odgovornosti naroda, umjesto da se utvrdi odgovornost i kazne individualni počinitelji krivičnih djela.

Sud i Tužilaštvo BiH su formirani primarno radi preuzimanja uloge procesuiranja ratnih zločina od haškog tribunala, koji je trebao prestati sa radom. Sama reforma krivičnog zakonodavsta u BiH išla je u tom pravcu i veliki dio odredaba pravila haškog tribunala je prenesen u krivične propise BiH.

Navedene institucije trebale su imati glavnu ulogu u procesu pomirenja i stvaranja i održavanja mira i stabilnosti u zemlji. Međutim, najnovija događanja u BiH i regiji Zapadnog Balkana generalno, više nego ikad, ukazuju na to da su one podbacile, da su prevaziđene, te da su zapravo postale same sebi svrha. Da bi osigurale enormna sredstva za održavanje vlastitih birokratskih aparata, počele su se ponašati kao ekonomski subjekti i prilagođavati tržištu, što je u krajnjoj liniji dovelo do politizacije njihovog rada i potpunog gubitka povjerenja javnosti u njihovu nezavisnost i kompetentnost. Jedan od najočitijih pokazatelja potpune pasivnosti i indiferentnosti Suda i Tužilaštva BiH je recentni skandal u Stocu, gdje su glasali mrtvi ljudi.

Danas, preko dvadeset godina nakon rata u BiH, više no ikad se govori o kolektivnoj odgovornosti naroda, umjesto da se utvrdi odgovornost i kazne individualni počinitelji krivičnih djela.

Na fotografijama prizori iz Stoca prije i poslije 1993. godine.

            

Ex Files - Cases of Stolac and BiH Court/Prosecutor's Office

Today, twenty and so years after the war in BiH, more than ever, collective responsibility of ethnic groups is being discussed, instead of having established individual guilt and punished actual perpetrators of crimes.

BiH Court and Prosecutor's Office were established primarily to take over the role of processing war crimes from the Hague Tribunal, which was about to close. The BiH criminal legislation reform itself was headed in the same direction and a part of the provisions of the Hague Tribunal Rules was incorporated in the BiH regulations.

The said institutions should have had a major role in the process of reconciliation and creating and keeping peace and stability in the country. Nevertheless, the latest happenings in BiH and the Western Balkans in general, more than ever, indicate that they have failed; they have been overcome, and that in reality they have become their own purpose. In order to secure enormous resources for maintenance of their own bureaucratic apparatus, they started to act as economic subjects and adapt themselves to the market, eventually leading up to the politicization of their work and total loss of public trust in their independence and competence. One of the most obvious indicators of complete passiveness and indifference of the BiH Court and Prosecutor's Office is the recent scandal that took place in Stolac, where the dead men voted.

Today, twenty and so years after the war in BiH, more than ever, collective responsibility of ethnic groups is being discussed, instead of having established individual guilt and punished actual
perpetrators of crimes.

Photos of parts of Stolac before and after 1993 (marketplace and mosque)

Izvješće o realizaciji međunarodne podrške sektoru pravosudnih institucija BiH (oktobar 2004-oktobar 2005)/ Report on the realization of international support to the sector of judicial institutions BiH (October 2004-October 2005)

Ured Registrara Sud Bosne i Hercegovine

Kraljice Jelene 88 71 000 Sarajevo Bosna i Hercegovina

Sarajevo, 06.11.2005.godine

U ime Ureda registrara Suda Bosne i Hercegovine, Odjela I i II, objavljuje se ovo Izvješće o realizaciji međunarodne podrške sektoru pravosudnih institucija BiH koji obuhvaća razdoblje od listopada 2004. do listopada 2005. godine. Izvješće se sastoji od „Plana provedbe projekta; Izvješća o realizaciji projekta“ koji je Ured registrara objavio u listopadu 2004. godine, ažurirane verzije tog izvješća objavljene u lipnju 2005. godine, te izvješća o realizaciji od lipnja 2005. godine, uz dodatak Plana provedbe projekta za naredne četiri godine.

Ovo izvješće sadrži pregled aktivnosti ostvarenih u suradnji između Ureda registrara, Ministarstva pravde, predsjednice Suda BiH, Tužiteljstva BiH i Jedinice za zaštitu svjedoka u okviru Državne agencije za istrage i zaštitu, SIPE. Prebacivanje prvog optuženika iz Međunarodnog kaznenog suda za bivšu Jugoslaviju u Hagu u nadležnost Suda i Tužiteljstva BiH predstavlja simbolički najvažniji događaj u proteklih dvanaest mjeseci. Odlukom prizivnog vijeća MKSJ-a u predmetu Tužitelj protiv Stankovića utvrđuje se kao pravna činjenica da je Bosna i Hercegovina u potpunosti sposobna osigurati pravično suđenje i odgovarajući zakonski postupak prema domaćim i međunarodnim standardima. Taj povijesni događaj uslijedio je kao rezultat marljivog i stručnog rada brojnih domaćih profesionalaca i stranih stručnjaka koji su im pomagali tijekom proteklih nekoliko godina. Ovo izvješće detaljno prikazuje strukturu i proces njihovoga rada.

Izvješće sadrži i Plan o tranziciji i sukcesiji Ureda registrara s ciljem da njegovi kapaciteti formalno postanu sastavnica strukture sektora pravosudnih institucija u okviru koje je Ured registrara djelovao u proteklih dvanaest mjeseci. Proces integracije daleko je odmakao, što čini opravdanim smanjenje ovlasti Ureda registrara i njegovu transformaciju u jedan nadzorni i fiducijarni organ. U ovom izvješću detaljno je opisan plan integracije određenih radnih mjesta, koja se sada financiraju iz proračuna Ureda registrara, u domaći sustav.

U izvješću se također daje detaljan pregled financijskih obveza međunarodne zajednice i vlade Bosne i Hercegovine prema sektoru pravosudnih institucija BiH u naredne četiri godine. Neophodno je osigurati ovu potpora u cilju dugoročne održivosti sektora pravosudnih institucija BiH. Bez toga, pravda se neće provesti.

Suradnja koja je dovela do ostvarenja suštinskih i izvanrednih rezultata u proteklih dvanaest mjeseci mora se nastaviti u sljedeće četiri godine. Izuzetno je značajno da Bosna i Hercegovina nastavi napredovati u pravcu daljnjeg razvoja ovih pravosudnih institucija. Postignuti napredak rezultat je hrabrosti i stručne opredijeljenosti stotina ljudi. Njihova  predanost provođenju pravde dostojna je svakog poštovanja ali se u velikoj mjeri zasniva na vjeri da će međunarodna zajednica ostati aktivan partner u ovom procesu koliko to bude potrebno.

Srdačno,

Michael Th. Johnson

Registrar

Ured registrara

Odjel za ratne zločine, organizirani kriminal i gospodarstveni kriminal

Sud BiH

Izvještaj o napretku postignutom u implementaciji plana projekta (oktobar, 2004) - detaljno sa dodacima (planovima, foto-dokumentacijom, korespondencijom, detaljnim kadrovskim planovima i profilima) - 103 stranice/ Progress report on implementation of project plan (October, 2004) - in detail with annexes - 103 pages

Izvještaj o postignutom napretku Projekta uspostave Vijeća za ratne zločine u Sudu i Tužilaštvu BiH (sa budžetom) 9.06.2005. Registrar Michael Th. JOHNSON/ Progress Report of the War Crimes Project in the Court and Prosecutor's Office of BiH (budget attached) 9.06.2005 Registrar Michael Th JOHNSON

Izvještaj o postignutom napretku Projekta uspostave Vijeća za ratne zločine u Sudu i Tužilaštvu BiH (sa budžetom) 24.01.2005. Registrar Michael Th. JOHNSON/ Progress Report of the War Crimes Project in the Court and Prosecutor's Office of BiH (budget attached) 24.01.2005 Registrar Michael Th JOHNSON

Tužilaštvo BiH - Strateški plan 2006-2009/ Prosecutor's Office BiH - Strategy 2006-2009

Memorandum o razumijevanju između Tužilaštva MKSJ i Posebnog odjela za ratne zločine Tužilaštva BiH/ Memorandum of Understanding between ICTY Prosecutor's Office and the Special Department for War Crimes of the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina (02/09/2005)

Prvi godišnji izvještaj o radu VSTV (2004)/The first annual report of the HJPC (2004) (only local version)

Prvi godišnji izvještaj o radu VSTV (2004) navodi četiri glavna problema u pravosuđu, koji nisu riješeni ni danas 13 godina nakon ovog izvještaja. Ti problemi se odnose na: 1) zaostale neriješene predmete; 2) nedostatak sredstava za operativne troškove i nagomilana dugovanja; 3) neadekvatne zgrade sudova i tužilaštava i 4) nedostatak kvalifikovanih kandidata na mjesta u sudovima i tužilaštvima. Dokument sadrži i budžete sudova za 2003., 2004., kao i usvojeni budžet za 2005. Iz tog priloga je vidljiv nesrazmjer između dva entiteta - u 10 kantona troškovi sudova su u tom periodu bili između 63 i 65 miliona KM, dok je u Republici Srpskoj budžet za rad sudova iznosio od 21-25 miliona KM. VSTV je među članovima imao tri strana državljanina, i to tužitelja iz SAD, Michaela O'Malleya, suca iz Velike Britanije, Malcolma Simmonsa i norveškog advokata, Svena Mariusa Urkea. Izvještaj opisuje nekoliko projekata koje je inicirala i finansira međunarodna zajednica, uključujući i USAID-ov projekat uspostavljanja sistema za mjerenje efikasnosti u radu pravosuđa. / The First Annual Report of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (2004) has listed four major problems in judiciary in BaH, which have not been solved by now, 13 years after this report. These problems are related to: 1) backlog of cases; 2) lack of finances for operational costs and debts; 3) inadequate buildings of courts and prosecutors' offices and 4) lack of qualified candidates for the positions of judges and prosecutors. The budgets of courts for 2003, 2004 and adopted budget for 2005 are attached to the Report. A disproportion between the spending for courts in two entities is evident - while 63 to 65 million BAM was required for the operation of courts in the Federation, the budgets in Republika Srpska varied from 21 to 25 million BAM for the same three-year period. The amount does not include budgets for two entity supreme courts, Brcko District courts and Court of BaH. The initial HJPC membership included three foreign professionals: a U.S. prosecutor Michael O'Malley, a judge from UK, Malcolm Simmons and a defense attorney from Norway, Sven Marius Urke. The Report describes several projects initiated and funded by international community, including the USAID funded establishment of system of measurement of effectiveness of judiciary.

Prvi članovi VSTV/ The initial HJPC members

Budžeti prvostepenih i drugostepenih sudova u FBiH i RS/ Budgets of the first- and second-instance courts in FBaH and RS

Prvi strateški plan Visokog sudskog i tužilačkog vijeća osnovanog 2004. (mart 2005 – decembar 2006.)/The First Strategic Plan of the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (HJPC) established in 2004 (March, 2005 - Dec. 2006) - only local version

U dokumentu se navodi  mogućnost nedostatku kandidata 'odgovarajuće' nacionalnosti, koja također predstavlja jedan od elemenata "podobnosti"za izbor. Također je jasno istaknut zahtjev da međunarodna zajednica pruži pomoć VSTV u realizaciji strateških ciljeva./ The document has emphasized a possibility of lack of candidates of "adequate" ethnicity, that is one of the elements of "eligibility" for election. It has clearly addressed the request to the international community to provide assistance to the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council (HJPC) in accomplishment of strategic goals.  

Dokument, pored strateških pitanja, ciljeva i planiranih aktivnosti za realizaciju ciljeva, sadrži i kratak istorijat Visokog sudskog itužilačkog vijeća (VSTV). U samom dokumentu se navodi da je VSTV naslijedio mnogo funkcija i zadataka koji su obavljali IJC/VSTV-i i OHR/CIPRU, a na neki su način, IJC/VSTV-i obavili pripremni rad za izradu buduće strategije za sudove. OHR-ov odjel CIPRU obavio je sličan pripremni rad za tužilaštva. IJC/VSTV-i su bili uključeni u obavljanje niza funkcija i zadataka uključujući reorganizaciju sudova, provođenje procesa ponovnog imenovanja i uvođenje određenih reformi procesnih zakona. Tokom obavljanja ovih zadataka, identificirani su mnogi nedostaci i teškoće koji bili prisutni u sudovima i predložena su neka rješenja.
Za današnju situaciju u pravosuđu, posebno je zanimljivo kako je planirana realizacija aktivnosti 1.1. i 1.2., u smislu realizacije cilja da se privuku visoko stručni, dobro educirani pravnici visokih moralnih kvaliteta da rade kao sudije i tužioci u pravosuđu BiH, gdje se govori o privlačenju 'podobnih' kandidata, i o mogućem nedostatku kandidata 'odgovarajuće' nacionalnosti.
Aktivnost 1.1: Izraditi plan rješavanja ovog pitanja u kojem bi se obradile teme koje su relevantne za privlačenje podobnih kandidata i visokokvalificiranih pravnika u pravosuđe BiH kao i zadržavanje dobrih sudija i tužilaca na pravosudnim funkcijama (Upravljanje ljudskim resursima). Datum završetka: maj 2006. godine Odgovornost za ovu aktivnost ima: Vijeće uz pomoć Sekretarijata VSTV-a Komentar: Za ovu aktivnost bila bi od koristi pomoć međunarodne zajednice.
Aktivnost 1.2: Nastaviti s trenutnim procesom odabira s ciljem da se završi sa imenovanjem kandidata na preostala nepopunjena mjesta. Datum završetka: juni 2005. godine Odgovornost za ovu aktivnost ima: Vijeće uz pomoć Sekretarijata VSTV-a Komentar: Moguće je da zbog nedostatka kandidata “odgovarajuće” nacionalnosti neka mjesta neće biti popunjena u utvrđenom vremenskom roku.

Report on the Meeting with Chief State Prosecutor (jurisdiction, strategy of prosecution of WC and truth commission)

Report on  the Meeting with Chief State Prosecutor Marinko Jurcevic

28^th June 2006 at 13:00 hrs at the State Prosecutor’s Office

Attended by:

MM,

A M-S

1. PURPOSE OF THE MEETING

The purpose of the meeting was to receive the perspective of the State Prosecutor’s Office on the most difficult aspects of prosecuting of WCs in BiH and to identify its position on the process of establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. In that respect three major topics were discussed:

A.              Jurisdiction as per territory and subject-matter of the prosecutor’s offices in BiH

B.              BiH Strategy and System of Support to the Prosecution of WCs in BiH

C.              The position of the State Prosecutor’s Office on the possible establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

2. ELABORATION ON THE TOPICS

A.              Jurisdiction as per territory and subject-matter of the prosecutor’s offices in BiH

The problem has appeared when the entity prosecutor’s offices started to apply the principle of universal jurisdiction (applicable in relations between states only) to the prosecution of the cases of WCs in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The major principle to determine the jurisdiction of the prosecutor’s office as provided by the BiH criminal legislation, once the jurisdiction as per subject-matter was established, is the place where the crime was committed[1]. Therefore, e.g. if the crime was committed in Zvornik, the public prosecutor’s office in Tuzla cannot be in charge of the prosecution of that crime. The Legal Opinion[2] provided by Legal Advisory Section of the Prosecutor’s Office clearly states that “the principle of universal jurisdiction may not be relied upon to initiate an investigation into international crimes committed in part of the territory within the same state.” On 26^th June 2006 therefore the meeting was held at the BiH Ministry of Justice in order to discuss this issue and take a joint position backed by the Minister Slobodan Kovac.

Apparently  there is no common position or practice in the prosecutor’s offices in BiH with regard to the interpretation of the CCP BiH Article 449 (2) referring to the cases pending before other courts or prosecutor’s offices in which the indictment is not legally effective or confirmed. This issue is important for the determination if the case will be prosecuted by the State Prosecutor's Office or other jurisdiction. Among the legal practitioners, there are two prevailing positions on the issue – one stream considers that the prosecutor's office with which the criminal complaint was filed should be in charge of the case, and the other that for the determination of the jurisdiction as per subject-matter, the crucial moment is passing of the order to conduct the investigation.

B.              BiH Strategy and System of Support to the Prosecution of WCs in BiH

           

The idea to draft the BiH Strategy and System of Support to the Prosecution of WCs in BiH is the result of the Assessment survey of the capacities of the prosecutor’s offices, courts and police bodies in BiH to act in the cases of WCs produced by a working group formed by the HJPC tasked to prepare an analysis and assessment of the capacities of the 1^st and 2^nd instances of the courts, prosecutor’s offices and police agencies. The lack of strategy at the BiH level to prosecute WCs was clearly identified as one of the factors with possible negative implications to the work of the above institutions on the prosecution of WCs and therefore the preparation of such strategy has been proposed as one of the measures to improve the process.

At this point the strategy is being drafted at the Prosecutor’s Office (Mr. Toby Cadman in charge) with the assistance of the OSCE BiH. The strategy should also incorporate the division and distribution of roles in the process of transitional justice (police, courts, prosecutors, NGOs, churches, etc.). There are two main objectives of the strategy: a) the state should stand behind the solving of the WC cases and therefore it should also create technical and other conditions for a quality work and b) to send a message to the world about what should be done by a state in the case of war. Once complete, it will be submitted to Council of Ministers to adopt it as an official paper.     

   

C.              The position of the State Prosecutor’s Office on the possible establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

In March, 2006 Mr. Jurcevic was approached by the representatives of the Dayton Project and “parliamentary” working group tasked to prepare the Draft Law on State Truth and Reconciliation Commission, to provide the opinion on several issues from the draft law related to the relationship between the prosecutor’s offices and the commission, concretely: a) if the commission should be vested a power of summoning (or requesting from a court to issue summons) under threat of sanctioning, in order to provide relevant evidence and statements of witnesses and b) if the commission should provide the information and evidence to the ICTY or courts in BiH and under which circumstances.   

The State Prosecutor’s Office sees the positive role of the possible commission, as it can provide a more complete report on the conflict, wider analysis, which cannot be obtained through the criminal procedure focused on individual responsibility of a limited number of the accused. Given the fact that only a limited number of victims will take part in the WC trials, it could also represent a major forum for the victims to share their experiences. Although the commission and criminal proceedings may be complementary, the commission must not be seen as a substitute for the criminal investigation and proceedings. Accordingly, the commission should not be focused on any concrete event, but should attempt to provide an overall picture of the committed crimes and violations of the international humanitarian law over a specific period. The commission and judicial institutions should operate mutually independently and the commission must not be authorized to assess individual criminal responsibility. In its work and mandate, the commission should be neutral, independent and unbiased.

The commission should not be vested a power of summoning (or requesting from a court to issue the summons) under threat of sanctioning in order to provide relevant evidence and statements of witnesses. The main reason is that the commission should not conduct quasi-judicial proceedings, as BiH already has its judiciary in place and such a situation could only create confusion. On the other hand, commission members are not “law enforcement officials” from the CPC authorized to take statements of witnesses. In parallel, the obligation to appear before the commission, might create a possibility of self-incrimination for an individual without any guarantees awarded in the judicial proceedings.

    The commission should provide the information to the State Prosecutor’s Office upon its request. However, the information should not be provided to the State Prosecutor’s Office automatically and systematically. Nevertheless, if the commission possesses the information of the core value for the delivery of justice, the prosecutor’s offices and courts should have access to such information. Under all circumstances, the self-incriminating statement of the person given before the commission should not be given to the court even in the case of her/his approval. Such statement can only be used in the proceedings against other individuals.

        

---

[1] In the early times after Dayton was signed, domestic prosecutors raised numerous indictments against members of other ethnic groups for war crimes committed elsewhere in the country: for example prosecutors based in Sarajevo raised indictments against Bosnian Serbs for crimes committed in Eastern Bosnia, which is contrary to the principle of territorial jurisdiction. As a result of these practices, which were seriously hindering the freedom of movement, the so called “rules of the road” were adopted. 

[2] Legal Opinion of the Legal Advisory Section of the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH on: Universal jurisdiction: applicability of this principle within BiH, Tuzilastvo-Tuziteljstvo BiH, Ref: A-RZ 98/06.