February 26, 2004
THE ACCIDENTAL AUSCHWITZ DEFENCE:
Prosecution rests at Milosevic trial(Alan Freeman, Globe and Mail, 26/02/04)
After two years, the prosecution in the war-crimes trial of former Yugoslavian leader Slobodan Milosevic finally rested its case Wednesday. But chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte was in no mood to crack open any champagne.“There is nothing to celebrate,” Ms. Del Ponte told a small group of journalists at the converted insurance building that serves as the headquarters for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
“It's a nightmare, this trial,” she said, referring to delays due to the illness of Mr. Milosevic, who periodically suffers from exhaustion, high blood pressure and flu.
Although 4½ years have passed since the tough-talking Swiss lawyer took over as the chief prosecutor from Canadian Louise Arbour, there remain a number of frustrations.
The Milosevic case has taken much longer than expected. There are doubts that the former Yugoslavian leader will be found guilty of genocide[...]
Despite her frustration, she expressed a grudging admiration for her adversary.
“He learned a lot in court. . . . As a professional, I appreciated his ability to cross-examine.”[...]“It's one of the most complicated cases ever,” said Eric Markusen, senior researcher at the Danish Institute for International Studies and an expert on the Yugoslavian conflict.
“Genocide is the hardest crime to prove because you've got to show a specific intent to wipe out [a race or people],” said Reed Brody, senior counsel for Human Rights Watch. Getting that kind of documentary proof has proven extremely difficult, especially since the Yugoslav government has not been co-operative...
It sounds like they are having a chummy old time over there in the Hague. That is nice, because nobody else seems to be paying the slightest attention, certainly not the liberals/leftists that demanded we all rush to war to stop an open and shut case of genocide.
But a few questions still nag. If genocide requires proven intent, and if international relations are grounded solely in positive law and not in underlying ethical or moral concepts, is mere reckless mass slaughter permissible? If Milosevic is acquitted, was the war illegal? Will he be allowed to represent Saddam?
Posted by Peter Burnet at February 26, 2004 8:44 AMI always assumed that lots and lots of massacred dead bodies was proof of "genocide." According to the language the Hageu is using, I don't think you can call Pol Pot's killing of 1/3 of all Cambodians "genocide" because it was his own people. Or would the Hague endorse Pol Pot's view of his victims as "Vietnamese in Khmer bodies" simply to get a conviction?
Posted by: Chris Durnell at February 26, 2004 10:44 AMless than useless
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at February 26, 2004 7:48 PMCheck out the Serbian Academy of Arts & Science,
1990 report;
