Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
08SKOPJE158
2008-02-27 14:42:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Skopje
Cable title:  

MACEDONIA: RETURN OF ICTY FILES

Tags:  PREL PGOV PHUM ICTY MK 
pdf how-to read a cable
VZCZCXRO8709
PP RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHSQ #0158/01 0581442
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
P 271442Z FEB 08
FM AMEMBASSY SKOPJE
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 7117
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE 0220
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC
RUEKDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC
RUEKJCS/JOINT STAFF WASHINGTON DC
RUEKJCS/SECDEF WASHINGTON DC
RUESEN/SKOPJE BETA
RHEHNSC/WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COUNCIL
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 2206
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 SKOPJE 000158 

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EUR/SCE, S/WCI

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/28/2018
TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM ICTY MK
SUBJECT: MACEDONIA: RETURN OF ICTY FILES

Classified By: P/E CHIEF SHUBLER, REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D).

SUMMARY
--------

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 SKOPJE 000158

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EUR/SCE, S/WCI

E.O. 12958: DECL: 02/28/2018
TAGS: PREL PGOV PHUM ICTY MK
SUBJECT: MACEDONIA: RETURN OF ICTY FILES

Classified By: P/E CHIEF SHUBLER, REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D).

SUMMARY
--------------


1. (C) Four ICTY files concerning alleged crimes reputedly
committed by ethnic Albanian NLA rebels during the country's
inter-ethnic conflict in 2001 have been returned to
Macedonian jurisdiction. Should the Chief Public Prosecutor
here develop evidence against any of the individuals that is
deemed sufficient to pursue indictments and court
proceedings, the US position has been and should remain that
the MK authorities must determine whether the Law on Amnesty
applies. We have reviewed, with the help of legal experts
responsible for drafting them, the Ohrid Framework Agreement
and the Law on Amnesty of the ROM, as well as the legislative
and political history in the context of the 2001 conflict. A
compelling case can be made for amnesty in all four cases,
based on the law and the political intent behind Macedonia's
2002 Amnesty Law. We will convey that message to GOM
interlocutors privately.


2. (C) If the ethnic Albanian suspects allegedly involved in
the crimes are indicted and prosecuted despite the amnesty
law, this would exacerbate lack of trust in the judiciary and
generate strong political backlash among ethnic Albanians
(irrespective of political affiliation). Much of the
progress made in inter-ethnic relations since the 2001 Ohrid
Framework Agreement (FWA) could be undone by trying returned
ICTY file cases in Macedonia. Drafters of Macedonia's 2002
Amnesty Law never intended for these cases to be tried in
Macedonia. Ethnic Albanian signatories to the FWA will feel
-- with justification -- that bringing the cases before
Macedonian courts amounts to reneging on the commitments that
made the FWA -- and much of Macedonia,s success as a
multiethnic democracy -- possible.


3. (C) If GOM authorities fail to offer blanket amnesty for
all the cases, the court processes for reviewing the files
should afford opportunities for findings of insufficient
evidence to pursue the case, or for individual findings of

amnesty, either of which would offset the disruptive effects
of trying these cases in Macedonia.
End summary.


ICTY FILES HANDED TO MACEDONIAN EMBASSY
--------------


4. (C) During a meeting with the Ambassador February 14, PM
Gruevski confirmed that the ICTY had turned over to the
Macedonian Embassy in The Hague on 2/14 four files concerning
allegations of crimes committed by ethnic Albanian NLA rebels
in 2001. Gruevski said Macedonia's Chief Public Prosecutor
(CPP) had been unpleasantly surprised to find out that the
files had been given to the Macedonian Embassy, rather than
being handed over to the CPP's office as agreed with former
ICTY Chief Prosecutor Carla del Ponte in 2007. The GOM was
going to insist that the cases be returned to the ICTY's
Office of the Prosecutor, with the request that the formal
transfer of jurisdiction of the files to Macedonia be carried
out from the ICTY to the CPP. In the event, the files
finally all were returned to Macedonia at the end of the
third week in February.


AMNESTY FOR ALL, EXCEPT CASES PROSECUTED BY THE HAGUE
-------------- --------------


4. (C) Those involved in negotiating the FWA and then
drafting Macedonia's 2002 Amnesty Law tell us that none of
the parties intended for any cases stemming from the 2001
conflict ever to be tried in Macedonia, and that the
understanding that they would not be tried in Macedonia was
critical to bringing parties to the table to end the conflict
and sign the FWA. The 2002 Amnesty Law implemented this
understanding by granting amnesty to all persons accused of
having committed crimes in the inter-ethnic conflict in 2001,
except for cases in which alleged offenses fell under the
jurisdiction of the ICTY and for which the ICTY would
"initiate proceedings." The intent behind this formulation
was to foster ethnic reconciliation in Macedonia by: a.)
offering amnesty to persons who legitimately could be offered

SKOPJE 00000158 002 OF 003


amnesty under prevailing international standards, and b.) to
move cases not eligible for amnesty under international
standards (those that might involve crimes against humanity)
to the ICTY courts for processing.


5. (C) Those involved in the FWA negotiations also indicated
to us that trying the cases in Macedonia likely would be
viewed, by ethnic Albanians who were either parties to the
agreement or the subjects of it, as reneging on the whole of
the FWA. This could open the door for backtracking on
progress made by all parties toward inter-ethnic
reconciliation since the signing of the 2001 FWA.

LAW MUST BE CHANGED TO PURSUE ICTY CASES IN MACEDONIA
-------------- --------------


6. (C) Macedonia's Ombudsman, Ixhet Mehmeti (protect),was
Minister of Justice at the time the amnesty law was adopted
and played a central role in drafting it. He told the
Ambassador during a February 8 meeting that he believes the
only way these cases could be pursued in the Macedonian court
system is to change the amnesty law. His view is that both
the intention behind the 2002 Amnesty Law and the text of the
law are clear -- all cases were to be either: a) granted
amnesty; or b) sent to the ICTY for "initiation"/prosecution.
Since the ICTY declined to "initiate"/prosecute the cases,
Mehmeti said, they now fall under the first provision--
amnesty. The law, in his view, does not allow for a third
path in which cases not/not "initiated" or prosecuted by the
ICTY are not covered by amnesty in Macedonia.

THE CHIEF PROSECUTOR: NO BLANKET AMNESTY, CONSIDER THE
EVIDENCE
-------------- --------------


7. (C) Macedonia's Chief Public Prosecutor (CPP) disagrees
with the Ombudsman's analysis (for what reasons - legal or
personal - is not clear) and has publicly asserted that all
four cases can be prosecuted here if there is sufficient
evidence to suggest a crime was committed. At the same time,
however, he has indicated that he will take his time in
investigating the files, and -- if there is insufficient
evidence to support further proceedings in one or more cases
-- will likely drop them.


8. (C) Once the files were returned to Macedonian
jurisdiction in February, the CPP's office was expected
assign an inter-ethnic team of Macedonian prosecutors to
review them. If there was insufficient evidence in a file to
merit further action, the case could be dismissed without
consideration of whether the amnesty law applied. While we
believe the clear intent was that all of these cases would
enjoy amnesty from prosecution in Macedonia, we recognize
that a finding that a file contains insufficient evidence to
proceed (if that finding is genuinely merited -- which we
believe could be true for a number of the files) may prove to
be a more politically palatable resolution than amnesty.


9. (SBU) If, however, a file contains enough information to
present a basis for further action, the prosecution team can
order further investigation of the case. Should additional
evidence of a crime surface through the investigation, the
prosecution can bring the case before an investigative judge,
who can begin calling in witnesses and subpoenaing suspects.
While parties may request the courts consider the
applicability of the amnesty law to the case(s) at any time,
we believe suspects would be most likely to request a motion
for amnesty before the investigative judge at this stage in
the proceedings. Should the first-instance judge refuse to
grant amnesty, the suspect could appeal at the court of
second instance level. A decision to grant amnesty cannot be
appealed by the prosecution. Given the cumbersome nature of
police work and the judiciary here, we expect long delays in
moving these files through the judicial system.

AVOIDING POLITICAL FALLOUT
--------------


10. (C) The four files involve allegations that crimes were
committed by persons who currently are members of, or are
associated with, the ethnic Albanian opposition DUI party,
including DUI president Ali Ahmeti. They also involve
allegations against a former NLA commander who is now a

SKOPJE 00000158 003 OF 003


member of parliament representing junior governing coalition
partner DPA. A strong political and ethnic backlash is
certain if indictments eventually are brought and the cases
go to court. Given the ICTY decision not to exercise
jurisdiction and begin investigations or prosecutions, we
believe these files clearly fall within the framework of the
2002 Amnesty Law and the political agreement that ended the
armed conflict. We will strongly urge the GOM to ensure that
every possibility is afforded for suspects in any of the
cases to bring a motion for amnesty, and will reiterate our
conclusion that the intent of the 2002 Amnesty Law was to
grant amnesty to all except those cases that were to be under
the exclusive jurisdiction of the ICTY.
MILOVANOVIC