Identifier | Created | Classification | Origin |
---|---|---|---|
04THEHAGUE1918 | 2004-07-30 14:34:00 | CONFIDENTIAL | Embassy The Hague |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available. |
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 THE HAGUE 001918 |
1. (SBU) Summary: It was a punishing week for the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). On July 28, a trial chamber ordered the provisional release of two of the highest-ranking members of Slobodan Milosevic's inner circle, Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic. The next day, OTP appealed. On July 29, in a remarkable reversal of one of the ICTY's landmark decisions, the appeals chamber reduced the sentence of Croatian General Tihomir Blaskic from forty-five to nine years, most of which he had already served in ICTY detention. Hours after the decision, President Theodor Meron granted Blaskic early release (effective August 2). Meanwhile, OTP struggles with the trial chamber and the defense to find an appropriate way forward in the Milosevic case. End summary. -------------------------- Stanisic and Simatovic -------------------------- 2. (SBU) On July 28, a trial chamber (Judges Robinson, Kwon, Swart) ordered the provisional release of Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic, both of whom were senior Serb Ministry of Internal affairs (MUP) officials who worked closely under Slobodan Milosevic. Both are charged with senior-level involvement in a joint criminal enterprise to commit crimes against humanity and war crimes in Bosnia and Croatia between 1991 and 1995. Both sought provisional release, which OTP opposed. The Government of Serbia and Montenegro (SaM) and of the Republic of Serbia both guaranteed that, should they be released, they would be returned by Government authorities as required by the Tribunal. In the case of Stanisic, the trial chamber found persuasive several defense arguments, including that Stanisic would have surrendered voluntarily had he not been in Belgrade custody already (on unrelated charges), and that, given the circumstances of Stanisic's health, character and readiness to surrender, the SaM's guarantee of his return to The Hague had merit. Similar reasons, excluding health and character, were given for Simatovic's provisional release. In both cases, the trial chamber said that the seriousness of the crimes was "merely one of the factors" to be taken into account. OTP has already appealed the provisional release decisions; given the Tribunal's recess, starting August 2, an appeals chamber is not expected to rule before the end of August. 3. (SBU) The trial chamber's orders deserve special mention, as they impose substantial requirements on Belgrade authorities and the defendants. SaM officials are required to take custody of the men at Schiphol Airport in The Netherlands and accompany them to Belgrade. Both men are required "to remain within the confines" of Belgrade during their release period and "report each day to the police in Belgrade." They are also required "to continue to cooperate" with the ICTY and to allow "occasional, unannounced visits" by either SaM or ICTY officials. SaM would bear the costs of the defendants' transport, accommodation and security expenses, and facilitate communications between the Tribunal and the defendants, in addition to the requirement to transfer them to The Hague when necessary. -------------------------- Blaskic Reversal -------------------------- 4. (SBU) In a 260-plus page decision and several more pages in dissent, the Appeals Chamber all but overturned a Trial Chamber's judgment of guilt and punishment of former Croatian general Tihomir Blaskic, one of the most senior-level indictees brought before the Tribunal to date. Blaskic's 45-year sentence was reduced to nine years, which -- due to more than eight years of time served -- led President Meron to reduce the remaining months of the sentence and grant Blaskic his freedom as of August 2. In a stinging rebuke to a trial chamber that included Judges Claude Jorda (a former ICTY President now on the bench of the International Criminal Court) and Mohamed Shahabuddeen (current ICTY appeals judge, formerly of the International Court of Justice and a well-known figure in international legal circles), the appeals panel said the lower chamber's ruling was replete with legal, factual and evidentiary errors. It reversed Blaskic's convictions on counts related to crimes against humanity (including persecutions, injury and murder), and war crimes (including unlawful attacks on civilians and civilian objects, killings and causing serious injury, plunder, destruction of cultural property). It upheld three counts of inhumane/cruel treatment of protected persons related to Blaskic's use of detainees both as human shields and as free labor for the construction of defensive military installations. 5. (C) Citing evidence that had become available to the Tribunal following the 1999 death of Croatian president Franjo Tudjman (and which came to light after Blaskic's trial), and critical of both the lower court's reasoning and the OTP's "vague" indictment, the appeals chamber examined substantial portions of the case "de novo" -- that is, with little or no deference paid to any aspect of the Trial Court's holding. In particular, the Appeals Chamber made clear that the new sentence it prescribed was not a revision of that mandated by the Trial Chamber, but a complete substitution. One senior prosecutor told embassy legal officer of his view that the appeals chamber made a number of errors of its own related to a lack of familiarity with the case. They expected a "bad" decision, he said, in part because OTP lawyers privately acknowledge that the trial chamber decision was weak in many places; they did not expect the near-total loss handed down yesterday. -------------------------- Severence and Counsel Issues in Milosevic -------------------------- 6. (SBU) As noted reftel and previously, the Milosevic trial chamber is struggling to determine how the defense case can proceed in a way that is not susceptible to the fits and starts related to the defendant's ill health. The Tribunal appears focused on two potential solutions: the first would involve some form of imposition of defense counsel on Milosevic; the second would involve a severance of the three indictments (Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia), proceeding one by one rather than all at once. Embassy has obtained OTP's submissions to the trial chamber on both issues (emailed to L/EUR - Lahne and L/AF - Taft). With respect to imposition of defense counsel, OTP considers the question to be, "how does a chamber stop an accused from hi-jacking a trial to his or her own agenda . . . while still ensuring that the rights of the Accused are respected." It advocates "the removal of the Accused's right to act pro se in all aspects of preparation and presentation of his defence." Because of his poor health, he is "unable any longer to appear without the assistance of counsel," though OTP grants that he "could still be permitted to ask questions and make submissions in a regulated manner." OTP provides an interesting and thorough review of practice on these questions in international tribunals and domestic courts. 7. (SBU) OTP makes an equally strong (if briefer) argument against severance of the Milosevic indictments. Its main argument is somewhat defensive, leading with the position that the trial has not become unmanageable and that the amount of time devoted to the trial compares favorably to similarly complex cases before national and other international jurisdictions. Severance, in OTP's view, would be "premature and may be driven by speculation and an excessive concern for appearances not realities." The prosecutors argue that severance "now would be to make an irreversible error," one that undermines the integrity of the trial as a whole. It also offers a host of practical objections, including that severing the Kosovo indictment -- and failing to reach the Bosnia indictment -- would mean that Milosevic was never able to disprove charges of genocide lodged against him. The amici curiae (friends of the court) make an equally strong argument against severance, saying that they are relaying Milosevic's objections. His objections, they say, are focused on the fact that the Prosecution has presented a case alleging his overall efforts to create a "greater Serbia" involving Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia; he must thus be allowed to address that case in the way it was put against him. They also note a variety of considerations of fairness, burden and practicality that argue against severance. -------------------------- Comment -------------------------- 8. (C) To be sure, OTP suffered two setbacks this week in the Stanisic/Simatovic provisional release and the Blaskic appeals decision, deepening the low morale due to the budget crisis and related staffing uncertainties. But these two decisions are interesting in ways that go beyond OTP's immediate equities. First, the provisional release decision involved a specific rejection of OTP's argument that Belgrade guarantees were insufficient given its current failure to cooperate with the Tribunal across a whole range of issues. The trial chamber ignored the general claims and instead examined closely the individual circumstances of each indictee; even more than in past cases, it may be that character, acts of cooperation and other issues specific to each person are likely to prevail over more general concerns. Second, the Blaskic decision is remarkable not only on the substance -- which Embassy legal officers will continue to study -- but also in its assertive review of a respected trial chamber's decision. The activist stance of the appeals chamber, and the fact that Blaskic is the senior-most indictee to be released, promises to impact other ICTY cases currently in trial or under appellate review. The connection to the Milosevic case is that, from here on out, the trial chamber and OTP should expect that every decision of importance is likely to get the strict scrutiny -- if not de novo review -- of the appeals chamber. Especially in fundamental areas of fairness, reflected in the arguments related to counsel and severance in Milosevic, it has become clearer that the trial chamber's decisions will play out not only in public opinion but in actual judgments of the Tribunal itself. End comment. SOBEL |