ILNews

Experts discuss criminal tribunal case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


Nearly four years after the death of the infamous former president of Serbia and the former Yugoslavia who was on trial for murder and crimes against humanity, an Indiana law school hosted The Milosevic Trial: An Autopsy, a conference of more than 20 experts on the trial of Slobodan Milosevic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Authorities on Eastern European and Russian history and politics, international criminal law, and other issues that came into play during Milosevic's trial gathered Feb. 18-21 at Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington. The ultimate goal is to publish a book that will provide a comprehensive look at the process of Milosevic's trial and how his death affected the outcome, or lack of outcome.

Law professor Timothy William Waters, who organized the conference, is a former member of the Office of the Prosecutor for the ICTY and helped draft the Kosovo indictment for Milosevic.

That indictment, issued May 24, 1999, regarded his treatment of Albanian civilians in Kosovo, including "forced deportation of approximately 800,000 Kosovo Albanian civilians. ... The murder of hundreds of Kosovo Albanian civilians ... in a widespread or systematic manner throughout the province of Kosovo. The sexual assault by forces of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Serbia against Kosovo Albanians, in particular women. Widespread or systematic campaign of destruction of property owned by Kosovo Albanian civilians ..." according to case information available through the ICTY.

Milosevic was also indicted in October 2001 for similar crimes against Croat and other non-Serbian civilians in Croatia, and indicted again in November 2001 for crimes against Bosnian Muslims and non-Serbian civilians in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

He was arrested April 1, 2001, and his case was transferred to the ICTY June 29, 2001. His trial began Feb. 12, 2002, following no pleas to any of the charges against him.

The trial officially ended without a judgment March 14, 2006, days after his death on March 11, 2006, which was found to be due to natural causes. He was 65 and had been complaining of illness throughout the trial.

Waters, who had been teaching classes about the Milosevic trial and invited current students to observe the February conference, first started organizing the speakers in March 2009. He said his intent was that panelists would have a mix of backgrounds, including people from the former Yugoslavia, professors, historians, and legal experts, and others with a stake in Milosevic's trial.

Among the goals for conference attendees was for them to determine if it mattered that there was no judgment, or if there was anything to be learned from the process for future international criminal cases.

"Everyone knew this was the biggest case they'd do. There were a lot of hopes attached to it," Waters said. "The way it ended is almost more interesting than if there had been a judgment."

Among the questions he wanted the conference to address was what happened to all the claims against Milosevic after his case ended?

When he got the idea for the conference, his goal was to have three kinds of people: those who worked on the trial, those who were scholars of international criminal law, journalists and various experts on the former Yugoslavia.

"To just have lawyers or only Yugoslavians talk would leave out a lot," he said.

During the conference, Waters said there were a number of "reasonably and acceptably tense exchanges," as he expected. "It's a very divisive issue. If there were no sparks and fireworks I'd be disappointed."

The conference also brought together seven different departments of I.U., including the university's Russian and East European Institute and Center for West European Studies, which cosponsored the event with the law school.

The school's Multi-Disciplinary Venture Fund; the Office of the Vice-President for International Affairs; the journalism school; international studies; departments of anthropology, history, and Slavic languages and literatures; Indiana Democracy Consortium; and Columbia University's Harriman Institute of the School of International and Public Affairs also participated.

The sessions throughout the conference focused on specific papers written and critiqued by participants.

The first session included a paper by Marko Prelec, a research officer with the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY from 1999 to 2005. He was the senior researcher on the Milosevic trial from 2002 through 2004. From 2005 to 2007 he was head of the investigation and analysis section within the Special Department for War Crimes at the Bosnian State Prosecutor's Office.

Prelec's paper was from the prosecution's standpoint. When addressing other panelists, points he made included how important the court is to not only remove leaders but their legacy, and how things might appear to be different looking back at the case since the first indictments were filed more than 10 years ago.

In response to his paper, other panelists suggested he consider how the adversarial nature of the court played a part in the prosecution's case, including how they wanted to use the case to make history and define what had been going on in the former Yugoslavia while Milosevic was in power.

As one panelist said, it's the prosecutors' job to present the best possible case for their side, which could involve the way facts were stated, even if they possibly overstated the truth. That panelist also asked if the prosecution had considered that now that the case is over whether it would make sense to go back over the briefs and revise them accordingly to get a better look at the facts.

Another paper was from Zdenko Tomanovic, Milosevic's legal advisor. Tomanovic raised the issue of how Milosevic was treated - how his requests for medical attention from a specific doctor were denied, and how the court treated him when he decided to represent himself.

Among his points, Tomanovic said Milosevic was presented 1.3 million pages of documents to look through. However, Milosevic was also told he'd have "sufficient time" to look through the documents for his case, something Tomanovic said was impossible for anyone to do in anyone's lifetime.

Considering the substantial number of documents, Tomanovic asked if the purpose of giving them to Milosevic was to hinder his case.

Based on his paper, other panelists asked if the court was punishing Milosevic for wanting to represent himself; the court allows defendants to represent themselves even if they are from countries where that is not an option.

Panelists also asked if there was a way to streamline the body of evidence for this case to make things more equitable for Milosevic, as opposed to expecting him to read 1.3 million pages.

Tomanovic added the system of the criminal tribunal was inherently unfair to Milosevic because the judges and prosecution were working to prove what they already thought he was guilty of.

"Can anyone be fairly tried for war crimes in the same system as individual crimes and individual responsibilities?" he asked. "Does a rabbit have a chance to persuade a hunter he has a right to live?"

Prelec added it didn't help Milosevic's case that he looked like a caricature of what the prosecutors wanted to make him out to be.

Another panelist added Milosevic might have had a cultural misunderstanding of what the court was supposed to represent - that the defense focused on the accused's perception of himself and not necessarily the charges at hand.

Other sessions included discussions on papers about the role of the media and the public's perception of the former Yugoslavia; what might have happened in the 40 hours of the trial that remained after Milosevic's death; had the ICTY achieved the goals it had at its onset; and how had the Milosevic case affected similar cases involving other ICTY defendants such as Saddam Hussein of Iraq and Charles Taylor of Liberia, who recently wrapped up his testimony at The Hague.

Waters said the next step will be for the panelists to use the criticism from others to work on revisions. Participants will continue the discussions remotely until final drafts are compiled. At that point, Indiana University Press will publish the papers into a comprehensive book about what happened and what could have happened.

For more information about the symposium and the speakers, visit the Web site: http://www.law.indiana.edu/milosevic/.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  2. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  5. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

ADVERTISEMENT