Champs and Heroes,
My apologies for the delay in posting this, I've had blog issues and interwebs troubles and a general craziness that has kept me from writing. I am taking the day off to get my life in order, today, though, so I thought it was high time I checking in with everyone. I went pretty much the entire class in The Hague without posting so I'm going to break it up and hopefully catch up on my posting, in the next few days. Here's the first part.
First off, let me say that I miss all of you VERY VERY much. Don't worry, though, I'm having a grand time. I've made some new friends, but more importantly, I WENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE, LAST WEEK! Yes, yes, the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia has been interesting, but I remember when the ICC was just a pretty dream in the international community, so I have am personally emotionally invested in it. It was pretty exciting to actually see it, in action. As for the ICJ, many of you know that that is also a subject that is near and dear to my heart as I have been involved in a few different simulations of that court.
Having said that, I probably should back up a step, and tell you about the ICTY. The ICTY was established in the mid-1990s, by the UN Security Council, pursuant to Article VII of the UN Charter, which established the mandate of the Security Council, i.e. the protection and furtherance of international peace and security, to address the atrocities committed on all sides when the former Yugoslavia fell into civil war and the republic shattered. Since then, about 160 individuals, primarily Serbs, but also Croats, Bosnians, and (I think) a few Kosovar Albanians, have been indicted and nearly all of them have stood trial. Of those, 12 have been acquitted, 64 have been convicted, 36 are currently on trial, and the others have either been referred to the national courts in the Balkans, had their indictments withdrawn, or are deceased. These trials take several years, due to the overwhelming amount of evidence involved in proving not only that the specific atrocities alleged actually occurred, but also that the individual on trial was, in fact, involved in committing them. Most of the people on trial here are former commanders and politicians, so it is much more likely that they ordered the commission of the various crimes for which they are on trial than that they were physically involved (i.e. that they pulled the trigger). What that means to those of us who spent almost 2 weeks watching them is that they are exceedingly boring, haha.
Still, it was pretty exciting to be there and see it in action. It occurred to me the first day we were there that going into a UN building is kind of like walking into a church. My thoughts from that first day are as follows:
Thursday, 26 May 2011, Den Haag, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
The colors and symbols are all thematically similar (these were my impressions on the first day, the ICJ, while also church-like, was an entirely different experience, but I'll talk more about that later). Each participant has his or her role to play and vestments to suit that part. The colors are UN blue and pale yellow and the decor is dated, at best. It's interesting that the ICTY is decorated very similarly to the UN building in NYC because the Secretariat building has not been updated since the 1970s and the ICTY building wasn't even used for UN purposes until the mid-late 1990s.
The similarities, however, do not stop at the visible and physical surroundings. There's a sense of solemnity and the power of people from all walks of life and cultures coming together to serve some higher purpose. There's also something of an over-explanation of everything that is associated with the concern that everyone fully understand what is happening to what they are agreeing.
Sitting in the observation room outside of the courtroom, I find myself marvelling a little at the fact that I am here. The man testifying for the defense oddly reminds me a little of my parents. He and my dad have a lot in common: born the same year, lost a parent at a young age and the other parent remarried, married to an economist (my dad is an economist by training, my mom, by nature), two grown children, the younger of whom is a lawyer. He looks like a regular father and husband and, yet, here he is, testifying on behalf of two alleged war criminals. The prosecutor from the ICTY that we met yesterday talked a lot about how these people would not be criminals, at all, but for the war. They were politicians, professionals, military men, etc., not the kind of people one would expect to see on trial for mass murder, but war does strange things to the paths of everyone involved with mostly tragic consequences.
It's striking that this man has been describing his career history for the past several minutes and it seems not unlike what one might hear in any other criminal trial, anywhere. I'm not sure what I expected or that I expected anything different, it's just interesting that these trials are not all gut-wrenching testimony from mothers who lost their children or wives who lost their husbands in massacres.
Peter, the prosecutor, mentioned yesterday that the hardest task for the prosecution is to establish a link between the accused and the crime. When these atrocities were committed, mass graves were still being used by criminals. These mass graves left such significant disturbances on the land that the physical scars on the landscape could be viewed from satellite photos from space. These relatively easily located crime scenes assisted the prosecution in the ICTY cases in establishing the existence of the crimes. Unfortunately, since these trials started, war criminals have gotten smarter and no longer move people to grave sites to massacre them, rather, they just shoot people where they stand and leave the bodies in the streets. This makes it harder to prove the involvement of the military and political leadership in crimes of genocide and wars against humanity.
One of the defendants in this case (there are two) definitely looks the part, he gives me bad vibes. Because of the design of the courtroom, the defendants kind of face the observation room. This courtroom is not like any I've ever seen, and going back to the church theme, for a minute, is oddly similar to a post-Vatican II church-in-the-round. The tribunal is located where one would expect and the prosecution sits on the right and defense on the left, but that is where the similarities with an American courtroom end. The witness "stand" if one can call it that, is more like a secretary with two computer monitors and microphones. The interpreter booths are on either side of the dais and the room is an octagon with the observation room facing the tribunal, directly. The defendants are on the left side of the room, in stadium seating, directly in front of one of the interpreter booths.
Another unique thing about the nature of these trials is that, in order to speak "in camera" (just the judges and the lawyers), the witness does not have to be removed. The defense counsel just told him to take his headphones off, and the parties spoke in English. It's like the UN equivalent of "ear muffs."
There seems to be a lot of detail (to me, at least, it seems to be unnecessary detail) in this testimony. We have heard from a couple of different staff members and the professor that the length of the trials is a frustration on all sides. I am trying to remain open-minded about that, though, because I have a couple of different thoughts on it, (1) these trials have something of a dual function, they hold those responsible for these crimes culpable for their actions, (2) they are essentially the first of their kind (Nuremberg and Tokyo, as I understand it, were not really about providing a fair trial for the accused, as they were about legitimizing executing the losers of WWII, deserved or not), (3) thousands of people died over the course of several years and hundreds of square miles in this conflict, we aren't talking about one or two murders, that can be relatively easily confined in space and time. I think it's dangerous to not keep that in mind when lamenting the time and resources spent on this court.
Friday, 27 May 2011, Den Haag, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
It has been fascinating hearing two prosecutors talk about basically starting this court from scratch and their experiments and successes and failures. I've found myself both jealous that they got there before me and inspired to continue the good things the people here and at the ICC have started.
One theme that continues to recur to me, over and over, as I watch these trials and listen to the players describe their perspectives is that, regardless of the primary method used, whether it be holding those responsible accountable for their crimes or providing an internationally recognized historical record of the conflict so the victims know its occurrence can never be denied, the sole purpose of the ICTY and it's sister tribunals is to bring healing and means through which all people impacted by these conflicts can begin to move on with their lives in peace and prosperity. That being the mandate and calling of these courts, any resources committed to both methods are well utilized of their use furthers that purpose. I understand that the UN has finite (and quite limited) resources and I can appreciate the criticisms of the length of the trials, but it seems to me that it is so important to remember that the focus must be on this healing and not get lost in the details when analyzing the rules of evidence and procedure for their usefulness, effectiveness, and efficiency of the court because this healing should always be the primary and highest goal of international criminal law.
From that perspective, I'm beginning to believe that the way these trials are being run is not so terrible, extensive and drawn out as they may be. This is not simply a criminal trial, in a traditional sense. It is also an incredible experiment in diplomacy and inter-connectivity among several different cultures and peoples, therefore, it is for the best that the people involved err on the side of consensus and conciliation, not adversity. Cultural adversity created the need for these trials, in the first place. The very fact of their existence is an important step towards vanquishing fascism and national/cultural supremacy movements everywhere.
Any time people are grouped and de-humanized through racial or ethnic or religious or any other kind of group subjugation and persecution, evil wins, and all of humanity loses something vital to whom and what we are.
In wars between peoples, it is necessary to do just this to justify the killing of human beings for tactical or strategic purposes. Nothing can bring those people back, but having their stories told and officially documented and recognized by the international community, especially in a court setting, where the evidence is weighed and analyzed for truth and proper prioritization, restores their basic humanity and repairs some of the damage done to the dignity of human life, as a whole, as a result of war.
It also forces the people on both or all sides of the conflict to confront, if not to recognize, the fact that the people on the other side are people, just like them, with families and loved ones and vocations and a reason for being in this world which is no more or less than their own. This is an important step towards healing, after an armed conflict has ended because too often, if not always, resentments among groups simmer for years, in some cases, centuries, and even though the armed conflict in question is over, as long as the degradation of the humanity of the other side continues, peace will always be tenuous at best, and allusive or non-existent at worst.
*Steps off soapbox*
I have a lot more to say about this subject, but I happen to be in Paris, right now (more on that, later), and have to go meet some of my new friends for dinner in the Latin Quarter. :)
Have a wonderful weekend, my friends, I'll try to post more on my way to Geneva, tomorrow.
Hugs and Kisses!
Emily
Still, it was pretty exciting to be there and see it in action. It occurred to me the first day we were there that going into a UN building is kind of like walking into a church. My thoughts from that first day are as follows:
Thursday, 26 May 2011, Den Haag, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
The colors and symbols are all thematically similar (these were my impressions on the first day, the ICJ, while also church-like, was an entirely different experience, but I'll talk more about that later). Each participant has his or her role to play and vestments to suit that part. The colors are UN blue and pale yellow and the decor is dated, at best. It's interesting that the ICTY is decorated very similarly to the UN building in NYC because the Secretariat building has not been updated since the 1970s and the ICTY building wasn't even used for UN purposes until the mid-late 1990s.
The similarities, however, do not stop at the visible and physical surroundings. There's a sense of solemnity and the power of people from all walks of life and cultures coming together to serve some higher purpose. There's also something of an over-explanation of everything that is associated with the concern that everyone fully understand what is happening to what they are agreeing.
Sitting in the observation room outside of the courtroom, I find myself marvelling a little at the fact that I am here. The man testifying for the defense oddly reminds me a little of my parents. He and my dad have a lot in common: born the same year, lost a parent at a young age and the other parent remarried, married to an economist (my dad is an economist by training, my mom, by nature), two grown children, the younger of whom is a lawyer. He looks like a regular father and husband and, yet, here he is, testifying on behalf of two alleged war criminals. The prosecutor from the ICTY that we met yesterday talked a lot about how these people would not be criminals, at all, but for the war. They were politicians, professionals, military men, etc., not the kind of people one would expect to see on trial for mass murder, but war does strange things to the paths of everyone involved with mostly tragic consequences.
It's striking that this man has been describing his career history for the past several minutes and it seems not unlike what one might hear in any other criminal trial, anywhere. I'm not sure what I expected or that I expected anything different, it's just interesting that these trials are not all gut-wrenching testimony from mothers who lost their children or wives who lost their husbands in massacres.
Peter, the prosecutor, mentioned yesterday that the hardest task for the prosecution is to establish a link between the accused and the crime. When these atrocities were committed, mass graves were still being used by criminals. These mass graves left such significant disturbances on the land that the physical scars on the landscape could be viewed from satellite photos from space. These relatively easily located crime scenes assisted the prosecution in the ICTY cases in establishing the existence of the crimes. Unfortunately, since these trials started, war criminals have gotten smarter and no longer move people to grave sites to massacre them, rather, they just shoot people where they stand and leave the bodies in the streets. This makes it harder to prove the involvement of the military and political leadership in crimes of genocide and wars against humanity.
One of the defendants in this case (there are two) definitely looks the part, he gives me bad vibes. Because of the design of the courtroom, the defendants kind of face the observation room. This courtroom is not like any I've ever seen, and going back to the church theme, for a minute, is oddly similar to a post-Vatican II church-in-the-round. The tribunal is located where one would expect and the prosecution sits on the right and defense on the left, but that is where the similarities with an American courtroom end. The witness "stand" if one can call it that, is more like a secretary with two computer monitors and microphones. The interpreter booths are on either side of the dais and the room is an octagon with the observation room facing the tribunal, directly. The defendants are on the left side of the room, in stadium seating, directly in front of one of the interpreter booths.
Another unique thing about the nature of these trials is that, in order to speak "in camera" (just the judges and the lawyers), the witness does not have to be removed. The defense counsel just told him to take his headphones off, and the parties spoke in English. It's like the UN equivalent of "ear muffs."
There seems to be a lot of detail (to me, at least, it seems to be unnecessary detail) in this testimony. We have heard from a couple of different staff members and the professor that the length of the trials is a frustration on all sides. I am trying to remain open-minded about that, though, because I have a couple of different thoughts on it, (1) these trials have something of a dual function, they hold those responsible for these crimes culpable for their actions, (2) they are essentially the first of their kind (Nuremberg and Tokyo, as I understand it, were not really about providing a fair trial for the accused, as they were about legitimizing executing the losers of WWII, deserved or not), (3) thousands of people died over the course of several years and hundreds of square miles in this conflict, we aren't talking about one or two murders, that can be relatively easily confined in space and time. I think it's dangerous to not keep that in mind when lamenting the time and resources spent on this court.
Friday, 27 May 2011, Den Haag, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
It has been fascinating hearing two prosecutors talk about basically starting this court from scratch and their experiments and successes and failures. I've found myself both jealous that they got there before me and inspired to continue the good things the people here and at the ICC have started.
One theme that continues to recur to me, over and over, as I watch these trials and listen to the players describe their perspectives is that, regardless of the primary method used, whether it be holding those responsible accountable for their crimes or providing an internationally recognized historical record of the conflict so the victims know its occurrence can never be denied, the sole purpose of the ICTY and it's sister tribunals is to bring healing and means through which all people impacted by these conflicts can begin to move on with their lives in peace and prosperity. That being the mandate and calling of these courts, any resources committed to both methods are well utilized of their use furthers that purpose. I understand that the UN has finite (and quite limited) resources and I can appreciate the criticisms of the length of the trials, but it seems to me that it is so important to remember that the focus must be on this healing and not get lost in the details when analyzing the rules of evidence and procedure for their usefulness, effectiveness, and efficiency of the court because this healing should always be the primary and highest goal of international criminal law.
From that perspective, I'm beginning to believe that the way these trials are being run is not so terrible, extensive and drawn out as they may be. This is not simply a criminal trial, in a traditional sense. It is also an incredible experiment in diplomacy and inter-connectivity among several different cultures and peoples, therefore, it is for the best that the people involved err on the side of consensus and conciliation, not adversity. Cultural adversity created the need for these trials, in the first place. The very fact of their existence is an important step towards vanquishing fascism and national/cultural supremacy movements everywhere.
Any time people are grouped and de-humanized through racial or ethnic or religious or any other kind of group subjugation and persecution, evil wins, and all of humanity loses something vital to whom and what we are.
In wars between peoples, it is necessary to do just this to justify the killing of human beings for tactical or strategic purposes. Nothing can bring those people back, but having their stories told and officially documented and recognized by the international community, especially in a court setting, where the evidence is weighed and analyzed for truth and proper prioritization, restores their basic humanity and repairs some of the damage done to the dignity of human life, as a whole, as a result of war.
It also forces the people on both or all sides of the conflict to confront, if not to recognize, the fact that the people on the other side are people, just like them, with families and loved ones and vocations and a reason for being in this world which is no more or less than their own. This is an important step towards healing, after an armed conflict has ended because too often, if not always, resentments among groups simmer for years, in some cases, centuries, and even though the armed conflict in question is over, as long as the degradation of the humanity of the other side continues, peace will always be tenuous at best, and allusive or non-existent at worst.
*Steps off soapbox*
I have a lot more to say about this subject, but I happen to be in Paris, right now (more on that, later), and have to go meet some of my new friends for dinner in the Latin Quarter. :)
Have a wonderful weekend, my friends, I'll try to post more on my way to Geneva, tomorrow.
Hugs and Kisses!
Emily
No comments:
Post a Comment