|
July 11, 2002 My
Testimony Against Milosevic During five years of human rights work in Kosovo, interviewing the victims and witnesses of murder, torture and rape, I was frequently asked by journalists if there would be justice for these crimes. "Yes," I answered emphatically, hoping my enthusiasm would make it come true. In fact, I did not believe that the perpetrators would be held accountable for their acts. Three years after the war, on June 3, 2002, I arrived in The Hague to testify against the man I hold chiefly responsible for those crimes—former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. I no longer doubt that the Serbian and Yugoslav leadership will be held to account. But I do question the efficacy of his trial and the tribunal as a primary means to achieve justice in the region. My presence in court highlighted one of the problems with the trial: the lack of credible witnesses who can link Milosevic directly to the crimes on the ground. Although I personally witnessed violations, and was able to present summary findings of crimes based on hundreds of interviews, I could only provide circumstantial evidence about the intent of the accused. A Witness Backs Out Just before I was to testify, as I sat in the hot and smoky witness waiting room, a Serbian insider witness known as K12 was on the stand. According to press accounts, he was a truck driver who transported the bodies of killed Albanians from Kosovo for mass burial in Serbia. If true, his testimony would show that the Serbian leadership knew and purposefully tried to conceal the killings. "The truth is that I cannot testify and there is no other truth than that," he told the court, noticeably afraid. Presiding Judge Richard May warned that he could face charges of contempt of court with a fine of up to 100,000 euros ($94,000) and up to seven years in prison. "If they think I am guilty let me go to prison," K12 shot back. "I have more problems now than if I were in prison." I suspected that K12 had been threatened. Knowing the lack of professionalism sometimes exhibited at the tribunal, it would not surprise me if his identity had leaked out. Up until that point, the only other insider witness presented by the prosecution was Ratomir Tanic, who worked for Serbian state security in the 1990s. Tanic, who is under the witness protection program, testified that Milosevic had told him at a reception that the Serbian authorities should "reduce the number of Albanians to a realistic proportion." Tanic fared poorly in cross-examination, and came across as deceitful and self-promoting. Although the views of the trial from Prishtina and Belgrade differ widely, they agree that the prosecution is not doing a good enough job in making its case. The witnesses appear poorly prepared and, as K12 made clear, it will be hard to get insiders who can point the finger directly at the accused. "Reason to Know" About War Crimes Despite these problems, the case is stronger than many observers believe. Even if no insiders step forward in the future, the prosecution is piecing together the argument that the defendant knew or had reason to know that serious crimes were being committed, and that he did nothing to stop them, which is enough for conviction. Given Milosevic’s total control of Serbia and Yugoslavia, there is no way he could have been unaware of the allegations. Instead of investigating and punishing abusive soldiers or police, Milosevic and his administration promoted or gave awards to hundreds of people after the war, including the police and army leadership. My testimony helped make the case that Milosevic had "reason to know." Human Rights Watch had been sending the relevant Serbian and Yugoslav authorities, including President Milosevic, all of its reports, press releases and declarations, which contained serious allegations of war crimes by government forces. All HRW reports since the outbreak of the armed conflict in early 1998 had been sent by mail, e-mail ([email protected]) and fax, I testified. As further evidence of "notification", the prosecution submitted a series of letters HRW had sent various Serbian and Yugoslav institutions, such as the Ministry of Interior and the Yugoslav Army, requesting information about the armed conflict, the fate of missing civilians and the legal charges against ethnic Albanian detainees. HRW never received a response. I testified about the various meetings I had had with Serbian officials during my research missions between 1996 and 2000. I had informed them of our human rights concerns, such as arbitrary detentions and torture, and asked for information about missing civilians. Despite promises, no information was ever provided. The crimes I had personally witnessed in Kosovo comprised a dramatic but legally less important part of my testimony. I told the court about the bodies of the Deliaj family—five women and two children—that my colleague and I had seen in a forest gully, as well as the looting and destruction of civilian property I had witnessed. These crimes pale in comparison to what other witnesses have described. A Damning Document Lastly, I presented a summary of Human Rights Watch’s work, mostly as documented in the cumulative report "Under Orders: War Crimes in Kosovo." I summarized our findings of forced expulsions, killings and rape based on approximately 600 interviews, as well as our findings on war crimes by the KLA (the ethnic Albanian insurgency) and violations of international humanitarian law by NATO. The report "Under Orders" was submitted as evidence, and I had to explain its methodology: how and when the research was conducted. Ironically, "Under Orders" had been submitted as evidence by Milosevic himself. Eager to prove that the KLA was a terrorist organization, he jumped on a passage in the Background chapter of the book that quotes the American diplomat Bob Gelbard as calling the KLA a "terrorist group." When Milosevic later realized what the book was essentially about—the horrible crimes committed by forces under his control—he tried to retract the submission, saying he had only wanted to submit the relevant paragraph about the KLA. The court refused his request. "Under Orders’" coverage of NATO and the KLA was important because it established HRW’s credibility as an objective organization. While ethnic Albanians witnesses in the trial have been reluctant to talk about a KLA presence in their villages, I had no problem mentioning the crimes committed by the KLA, which include abductions and executions. They do not justify what the Serbian police and Yugoslav Army did in return. Milosevic’s cross-examination seemed to miss this point. He focused on the crimes committed by NATO and the KLA, arguing that, even though HRW had reported on these abuses, the organization had minimized the problem. Smug and Defiant Looking smug and defiant, with his arm draped over the back of his chair, he continued with a political conspiracy theory about an anti-Serb plot. He suggested that Human Rights Watch was working "hand-in-glove" with NATO and the tribunal to destroy Yugoslavia. He looked out at the court gallery and his audience beyond when claiming that he was merely fighting a terrorist group within the borders of the state. The question is not if his government had a right to fight the KLA, I said. The question is how his government conducted that fight. Towards the end of the two-and-a-half-hour cross-examination, his questions became more conspiratorial and legally irrelevant. "Doesn't it seem to you that this organization [Human Rights Watch] is actually an organization that is financed by the rich and it helps the rich put the poor under their own control?" he asked. "That that is the core of this organization that does this under the guise of human rights protection? That is to say, that the rich finance this organization in order to have the poor put under their control?" "No, I don't believe that's the case," I replied. "Do you think that this is a new type of colonialism and –" "No. This is taking this well beyond the bounds of possible cross-examination," Judge May interjected. "Now, ask some other questions, Mr. Milosevic." The question was "beyond the bounds" of the legal charges against him. But I could see how this line of reasoning might have an impact on Serbs who think they have been unfairly singled out for attack. Rather than promote introspection, the tribunal is feeding into the common perception among many Serbs that the world is stacked against them. Despite all these problems, it is too early to say what effect the tribunal will have. Just having the Milosevic trial run daily on TV screens in the region is a crucial step. The full impact will be known over generations to come. In the meantime, it is also clear that the tribunal cannot be the sole avenue for justice. Because of its physical and psychological distance from the region, the targeting of only "big fish," and the occasionally clumsy investigations and prosecutions, it will never fully satisfy the urgent need for appropriate legal redress. Fred Abrahams was until recently a senior researcher for Human Rights Watch. He is now a writer based in New York. His book "A Village Destroyed, May 14, 1999" (written with Eric Stover, with photographs by Gilles Peress) is forthcoming from The University of California Press. Related chapters from Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know Bosnia Related Links ICTY
home page Transcript of Fred Abrahams' testimony, first day Transcript of Fred Abrahams' testimony, second day Video
Archive of the Milosevic trial Under
Orders: War Crimes in Kosovo
This site © Crimes of War Project 1999-2003 |