Notes for the Debate:

The Yugoslav Wars were a series of ethnically based conflicts that took place in the
territory of the former Yugoslavia from 1991 to 2001. These wars were marked by
widespread atrocities, including genocide, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing. They led to
the breakup of Yugoslavia into several independent countries. In the aftermath of these
conflicts, efforts were made to address the atrocities through the establishment of the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and various Truth and
Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs).

The Yugoslav Wars (1991-2001)

1. Background:
• Yugoslavia was a multi-ethnic federation composed of six republics:
Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia, and
Serbia, which included the autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina.
• The federation began to unravel in the late 1980s and early 1990s due to
rising nationalist sentiments, economic crises, and the weakening of the
central government.
2. Key Conflicts:
• Slovenian War of Independence (1991): A 10-day conflict between the
Slovenian government and the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) following
Slovenia's declaration of independence. It ended with a Slovenian victory
and recognition of its independence.
• Croatian War of Independence (1991-1995): Croatia's declaration of
independence led to a war between Croatian forces and the JNA, supported
by local Serb militias. The war was marked by ethnic cleansing, particularly
against Croats in Serb-controlled areas.
• Bosnian War (1992-1995): Perhaps the most devastating of the Yugoslav
Wars, involving Bosnia's three main ethnic groups—Bosniaks (Muslims),
Croats, and Serbs. It saw widespread atrocities, including the genocide of
Bosniaks in Srebrenica by Bosnian Serb forces.
• Kosovo War (1998-1999): Conflict between Serbian forces and ethnic
Albanian separatists (the Kosovo Liberation Army) in the province of Kosovo.
NATO intervened in 1999, leading to the withdrawal of Serbian forces and
eventual independence of Kosovo in 2008.
 3. Impact:
• The wars resulted in approximately 140,000 deaths and millions of displaced
persons.
• The conflicts were characterized by brutal campaigns of ethnic cleansing,
mass rapes, and other war crimes.

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

4. Establishment:
• The ICTY was established by the United Nations in 1993 in response to the
atrocities committed during the Yugoslav Wars. It was in The Hague,
Netherlands.
• Its mandate was to prosecute individuals responsible for serious violations
of international humanitarian law, including genocide, war crimes, and
crimes against humanity.
5. Major Trials:
• Slobodan Milošević: Former President of Serbia and Yugoslavia, charged
with crimes against humanity and genocide. He died in 2006 before the
conclusion of his trial.
• Radovan Karadžić: Former President of the Republika Srpska (Bosnian Serb
entity), convicted of genocide and other war crimes, including his role in the
Srebrenica massacre.
• Ratko Mladić: Former Bosnian Serb military leader, also convicted of
genocide and other war crimes, including the Srebrenica massacre.
6. Legacy:
• The ICTY was crucial in establishing legal precedents for international justice
and accountability.
• It contributed to the documentation of atrocities and the establishment of
historical records.
• The tribunal was dissolved in 2017 after completing its mandate, with
ongoing cases transferred to the International Residual Mechanism for
Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT).

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs)

7. Purpose:
 • TRCs were established in various parts of the former Yugoslavia to promote
reconciliation, document human rights abuses, and foster dialogue between
ethnic groups.
• These commissions were meant to complement the judicial work of the ICTY
by addressing the broader societal impacts of the wars.
8. Challenges:
• The effectiveness of TRCs in the former Yugoslavia was mixed. In some
areas, political divisions and a lack of cooperation hindered their work.
• There was often resistance to acknowledging the crimes committed by one's
own ethnic group, leading to incomplete reconciliation processes.
9. Examples:
• RECOM (Regional Commission for Truth-Seeking and Reconciliation): An
initiative to establish a regional truth commission involving all the former
Yugoslav states. However, it has faced significant challenges and delays in
implementation.
• Local TRCs: Various local efforts, often initiated by civil society, have sought
to promote dialogue and healing within communities affected by the wars.

Conclusion

The Yugoslav Wars left a deep and lasting impact on the Balkans, with legacies of division,
trauma, and unresolved tensions. The ICTY played a critical role in holding individuals
accountable for war crimes, though it faced criticisms regarding its perceived bias and
selective justice. Truth and Reconciliation Commissions aimed to heal societal wounds
but encountered significant challenges in achieving meaningful reconciliation.

The ongoing importance of these efforts lies in their contribution to international law,
historical memory, and the ongoing struggle for justice and peace in the region. The
lessons learned from the Yugoslav Wars and their aftermath continue to inform global
approaches to conflict resolution and post-conflict justice.

Things that happen at the ICTY

At the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), trials were typically
conducted by a panel of three judges. These judges were drawn from different countries to
ensure impartiality and international representation.
In addition to the three trial judges, an alternate judge was often appointed to step in if one
of the original judges was unable to continue. Appeals were heard by a panel of five judges
in the Appeals Chamber.

The ICTY judges were selected by the United Nations General Assembly from a pool of
candidates nominated by member states, ensuring a diverse and highly qualified judiciary.

Process of election for ICTY judges:

The judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) were
selected through a multi-step process that involved both the United Nations Security
Council and the United Nations General Assembly. Here's how the process worked:

1. Nomination of Candidates

• Member States: United Nations member states were invited to nominate

candidates for the position of judge at the ICTY. Each state could nominate up to
two candidates.
• Qualifications: Nominees had to meet specific qualifications. They needed to
possess high moral character, impartiality, and integrity, as well as have extensive
experience in criminal law, international law, or human rights law, whether as
judges, prosecutors, lawyers, or scholars.

2. Screening by a Selection Committee

• A Selection Committee appointed by the UN Secretary-General reviewed the

nominations. The committee evaluated the candidates based on their
qualifications, experience, and suitability for the role.

3. Shortlisting of Candidates

• The committee created a shortlist of candidates who met the qualifications and
were deemed suitable for the position of ICTY judge. This shortlist was then
submitted to the UN Secretary-General.
4. Election by the United Nations General Assembly

• The General Assembly of the United Nations elected the judges from the shortlist
provided by the Selection Committee.
• Judges were elected by an absolute majority of the General Assembly members
present and voting. This means that a candidate needed to receive more than half of
the votes to be elected.

5. Appointment and Terms

• Once elected, the judges were formally appointed to the ICTY.

• ICTY judges typically served for four-year terms. They could be re-elected for
additional terms if nominated and elected again.

6. Distribution of Judges

• To ensure fairness and diversity, the elected judges came from a wide range of legal
traditions and geographical regions. This diversity helped ensure that the tribunal's
work reflected a broad spectrum of legal perspectives.

7. Formation of Chambers

• The elected judges were assigned to either the Trial Chambers or the Appeals
Chamber by the President of the ICTY. The assignment was based on the needs of
the tribunal and the expertise of the judges.

The careful selection and election process was designed to ensure that the ICTY's judges
were of the highest caliber, both in terms of legal expertise and ethical standards,
contributing to the tribunal's credibility and the legitimacy of its rulings.

*** Genocide: Genocide is an internationally recognized crime

where acts are committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
Did the ICTY pay attention to any other crimes?
the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) dealt exclusively with
crimes committed during the conflicts that took place in the territory of the former
Yugoslavia between 1991 and 2001. The ICTY's mandate was limited to prosecuting
individuals responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law, including
genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, that occurred during these conflicts.

Key Aspects of the ICTY's Mandate:

10. Geographic Scope:

• The ICTY's jurisdiction was limited to the territory of the former Yugoslavia,
which included countries like Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Serbia,
Montenegro, Kosovo, Slovenia, and Macedonia.
11. Temporal Scope:
• The tribunal had jurisdiction over crimes committed from 1991, when the
Yugoslav Wars began, until 2001, when the conflicts officially ended.
12. Subject Matter:
• The ICTY prosecuted individuals for a range of international crimes,
including:
▪ Genocide: Acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in
part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.
▪ War Crimes: Violations of the laws and customs of war, including the
treatment of civilians and prisoners of war.
▪ Crimes Against Humanity: Widespread or systematic attacks
against civilian populations, including murder, enslavement, torture,
and rape.
13. Focus on Individual Accountability:
• The ICTY focused on prosecuting individuals, including military and political
leaders, who were most responsible for the atrocities. It did not prosecute
states or organizations.

Notable Cases and Trials:

• The tribunal handled high-profile cases, including those of Slobodan Milošević,

Radovan Karadžić, and Ratko Mladić, who were charged with serious crimes related
to the conflicts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, and Kosovo.
The successes and criticisms of the ICTY:
Successes of the ICTY

14. Accountability for War Crimes:

• The ICTY successfully prosecuted and convicted numerous high-ranking
officials, military leaders, and perpetrators of war crimes, genocide, and
crimes against humanity. This included prominent figures such as Slobodan
Milošević, Radovan Karadžić, and Ratko Mladić.
• Over its lifespan, the ICTY indicted 161 individuals, with 90 convictions and a
number of acquittals, showcasing its ability to bring perpetrators to justice.
15. Establishment of Legal Precedents:
• The ICTY played a pioneering role in developing international criminal law,
particularly in areas like command responsibility, sexual violence as a war
crime, and the definition of genocide.
• The tribunal's rulings have had a lasting impact on the development of
international law and have influenced other international and domestic
courts.
16. Documenting the Historical Record:
• The ICTY contributed to the documentation of atrocities committed during
the Yugoslav Wars. Its trials provided a detailed record of the crimes,
including testimonies from victims and witnesses, helping to establish a
factual narrative of the conflicts.
• This historical record is crucial for future generations and for the process of
reconciliation in the region.
17. Encouraging Reconciliation:
• While reconciliation is a complex and ongoing process, the ICTY’s work has
been seen as a step toward breaking the cycle of impunity and providing a
sense of justice for victims.
• The tribunal’s efforts have also helped set the stage for subsequent
transitional justice mechanisms, such as local trials and truth commissions.

Criticisms and Challenges

18. Perceived Bias:

 • The ICTY faced accusations of bias, particularly from nationalist groups
within the former Yugoslavia. Some Serbs, for example, felt that the tribunal
disproportionately targeted Serbs, while others in Croatia and Bosnia argued
that their communities were unfairly treated.
• These perceptions sometimes undermined the tribunal's legitimacy in the
eyes of those it sought to serve.
19. Length and Cost of Trials:
• The ICTY was often criticized for the length and cost of its proceedings. Some
trials, such as that of Slobodan Milošević, dragged on for years and were
extremely costly. Milošević’s trial ended without a verdict due to his death,
leading to frustration among victims and observers.
• The tribunal’s lengthy processes were seen by some as inefficient and as a
source of “justice delayed.”
20. Limited Impact on Reconciliation:
• While the ICTY contributed to documenting the truth and holding individuals
accountable, it had limited success in fostering reconciliation among the
different ethnic groups in the former Yugoslavia.
• Deep-seated nationalist sentiments and the tribunal’s perceived partiality
sometimes exacerbated tensions rather than healing them.
21. Inconsistent Sentencing:
• Some observers criticized the ICTY for inconsistent sentencing, with some
convicted war criminals receiving what were seen as relatively light
sentences, while others were handed down harsher penalties. This
inconsistency fueled perceptions of unfairness.

Overall Assessment

The ICTY was groundbreaking in many respects and played a crucial role in establishing the
principle that individuals, regardless of their position, can be held accountable for
international crimes. It set important legal precedents and brought some measure of
justice to the victims of the Yugoslav Wars.

However, the tribunal also faced significant challenges, including perceptions of bias, the
lengthy nature of its proceedings, and its limited impact on reconciliation in the Balkans.
While the ICTY was not without its flaws, it was a landmark in the evolution of international
justice and has left a legacy in the field of international criminal law.
Succeses of the TRCs:
The successes of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs) in the context of the
former Yugoslavia are more nuanced and varied compared to TRCs in other regions, such
as South Africa. While no single, formal TRC was established for the entire region, various
local, national, and regional initiatives have contributed to the broader goals of truth-
telling, reconciliation, and healing. Here are some key successes:

1. Promotion of Dialogue and Understanding

• Local and Regional Initiatives: Various civil society organizations and NGOs
across the former Yugoslavia have facilitated dialogue between different ethnic
groups. These efforts have helped break down barriers, promote understanding,
and reduce tensions in communities deeply affected by the wars.
• Community-Based Truth-Telling: Initiatives like oral history projects and local
truth-telling events have provided platforms for victims and survivors to share their
experiences. This has contributed to a more inclusive narrative of the conflicts,
beyond the official or dominant accounts.

2. Documentation of Human Rights Violations

• RECOM Initiative: The Regional Commission for Truth-Seeking and Reconciliation

(RECOM) has played a significant role in documenting human rights violations
across the former Yugoslavia. Although it has not been fully implemented as a
formal TRC, RECOM has gathered extensive evidence and testimonies that
contribute to the historical record of the conflicts.
• Local Documentation Projects: Various organizations have undertaken projects to
document war crimes, missing persons, and other human rights abuses. These
efforts have helped preserve the memory of the victims and provide a factual basis
for future reconciliation efforts.

3. Raising Awareness and Public Education

• Public Outreach and Education: TRC-like initiatives have often included public
education campaigns aimed at raising awareness of the atrocities committed
during the wars. These efforts have been important in challenging denial and
revisionism, which are significant obstacles to reconciliation.
 • Engagement with Youth: Some programs have specifically targeted younger
generations, who may not have direct memories of the conflicts, to educate them
about the past and foster a culture of peace and tolerance.

4. Support for Victims and Survivors

• Recognition of Victims: Various TRC-related initiatives have provided platforms for

the recognition of victims' suffering. This has included public acknowledgment of
their experiences, memorialization efforts, and advocacy for reparations and
justice.
• Psychosocial Support: Some TRC-inspired programs have also provided
psychosocial support to victims and survivors, helping them cope with trauma and
integrate back into society.

5. Contributing to Legal and Judicial Processes

• Supporting Criminal Prosecutions: While TRCs are typically non-judicial bodies,

the documentation and testimonies they have gathered have sometimes been used
to support criminal prosecutions of war criminals in domestic and international
courts.
• Complementing the ICTY's Work: TRC-like efforts in the former Yugoslavia have
complemented the work of the ICTY by addressing broader societal impacts and
providing a space for truth-telling beyond the courtroom.

6. Building the Foundation for Future Reconciliation

• Long-Term Reconciliation: While full reconciliation remains a distant goal in many

parts of the former Yugoslavia, the work of various truth-seeking initiatives has laid
important groundwork. These efforts have contributed to a gradual process of
healing and have created a foundation for future reconciliation initiatives.

Conclusion

The successes of TRC-like initiatives in the former Yugoslavia lie in their ability to promote
dialogue, document atrocities, raise awareness, support victims, and contribute to the
broader process of reconciliation. While these efforts have faced significant challenges
and limitations, they have nonetheless made important contributions to addressing the
legacy of the Yugoslav Wars and building a more peaceful future for the region.
Creation of TRCs and their impacts:
Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs) in the context of the former Yugoslavia were
not established as formal, centralized bodies like those seen in other countries (e.g., South
Africa). Instead, efforts toward truth and reconciliation were more fragmented and varied
across the different regions and countries that emerged from the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Key Initiatives and Efforts

22. Early Local Efforts (1990s and 2000s):

• In the immediate aftermath of the Yugoslav Wars, various local and regional
efforts were initiated by civil society organizations, NGOs, and some
governments to promote reconciliation and truth-seeking. These were not
formal TRCs, but rather community-based initiatives aimed at fostering
dialogue and understanding among different ethnic groups.
23. RECOM Initiative (2006-Present):
• RECOM (Regional Commission for Truth-Seeking and Reconciliation) is
one of the most significant efforts toward establishing a formal truth and
reconciliation process in the former Yugoslavia.
• Started in 2006, RECOM is a coalition of civil society organizations from
across the former Yugoslav states. Its goal is to create a regional
commission that would document human rights abuses and war crimes
committed during the Yugoslav Wars.
• Despite ongoing advocacy and support from various groups, RECOM has
faced significant challenges, including political resistance and a lack of
consensus among the different states. As a result, it has not yet been fully
implemented as a formal TRC.
24. Country-Specific Initiatives:
• In some countries of the former Yugoslavia, there have been efforts to
establish national-level truth-seeking and reconciliation initiatives. For
example:
▪ Bosnia and Herzegovina: Various local initiatives have been
undertaken, often led by civil society groups, to address the legacy of
the war. These include documentation projects, oral history
initiatives, and dialogue programs.
 ▪ Croatia: Similar efforts have been made in Croatia, with a focus on
promoting inter-ethnic understanding and addressing the war's
impact on various communities.

Challenges and Limitations

• Political Resistance: Many TRC initiatives have struggled due to political

resistance from governments and nationalist groups who are reluctant to confront
past abuses or acknowledge their community's role in the violence.
• Fragmentation: The lack of a unified, region-wide TRC has led to a fragmented
approach to truth and reconciliation, with varying levels of success and
commitment across different countries and communities.
• Ongoing Tensions: The legacy of the conflicts and the continued presence of
nationalist sentiments have made the process of reconciliation difficult and slow.

Conclusion

The establishment of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in the former Yugoslavia has
been a complex and ongoing process. While there have been significant efforts,
particularly through initiatives like RECOM, a fully realized TRC process has yet to be
implemented on a regional scale. The challenges faced highlight the difficulties in
achieving reconciliation in a region still grappling with the legacy of the wars.

Difference between TRCs and Courts:

Truth and Reconciliation Commissions (TRCs) and courts serve different purposes and
operate in distinct ways, though both are important components of transitional justice.
Here's how they differ:

1. Purpose

• TRCs:
• Truth-Seeking: TRCs are primarily focused on uncovering the truth about
past human rights violations, war crimes, and other atrocities. They aim to
establish a comprehensive historical record of abuses, often with an
emphasis on understanding the root causes and the impact on victims and
society.
 • Reconciliation: A key goal of TRCs is to promote reconciliation and healing
within a society that has been divided by conflict or oppression. They seek to
foster dialogue, acknowledge the suffering of victims, and encourage
forgiveness and social cohesion.
• Courts:
• Justice and Accountability: Courts are primarily concerned with delivering
justice by holding individuals accountable for their crimes. They determine
guilt or innocence based on legal evidence and impose penalties such as
imprisonment or fines.
• Legal Adjudication: Courts are focused on applying the law to specific
cases, ensuring that legal standards are upheld, and that those who have
committed crimes are punished accordingly.