The judgment of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Courts in The Hague against two former high-ranking officials of the State Security of Serbia, Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic has opened discussions about possible legal consequences on the international level. While certain political circles in Sarajevo advocate reconsidering the possibility of revising or renewing the lawsuit against Serbia before the Court of Justice in The Hague, legal experts say that this is difficult to do, practically impossible. At the same time, the verdict was almost ignored in Serbia, with no significant reactions from officials and only a symbolic mention in the media. The editor of Radio of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH)‘s “Sedmica” program, Amir Suzanj, talked about these two dimensions of the judgment’s reflection with one of the most respected legal experts in BiH, Asim Crnalic, and Belgrade historian, senior research associate of the Institute of Philosophy and Social Theory of the University of Belgrade, Milivoj Beslin.
Certain political circles in Sarajevo, Mr. Crnalic, immediately after the verdict against Stanisic and Simatovic started a discussion on whether it is possible to start a revision of the verdict against Serbia before the Court of Justice in The Hague. Lawyers, however, have different views. What do you think about whether such a possibility exists?
My position is that the objective limitation period has passed in which a review can be raised or supplemented or any other procedure related to the judgment of the International Court in The Hague can be carried out. Therefore, there is no possibility to put the issue back on the agenda.
Does this mean that, even if there are new legal circumstances and certain arguments, BiH cannot in any way use this judgment on the international level when it comes to the character of the war in BiH?
We were able to do this within ten years from the date of finality of the judgment of the International Court in The Hague. After the expiration of that period, we no longer have such opportunities.
But Mr. Crnalic, why did the institutions allow that deadline to expire?
That question is easy to answer – because time has passed, and I assume that you asked why nothing was done within that period, or why the state did not come up with evidence that would enable the revision, that is, supplementing the revision. This, again, is objectively conditioned. Those who worked on the revision did not have any evidence of such quality that would call into question the final judgment of the International Tribunal in The Hague. It was extremely difficult to get that evidence, and as a lawyer, I know that I cannot complain to anyone that there was no such evidence because it was quite normal to expect that Serbia would either destroy or hide that evidence.
But someone enabled them to hide that evidence, Mr. Crnalic!
Well, our government, which was in charge of the revisionprocess, does not have any authority on the territory of Serbia, so you cannot expect our services, especially the security services that should deal with it, to obtain evidence of such quality.
When I asked this question, I was thinking first of all of the former chief prosecutor of the Hague Tribunal, Carla del Ponte, who, as it is claimed, for some political reasons enabled Serbia to remove such evidence.
She made it possible to black out the minutes from the session of the Military Council, which, presumably, could have been evidence. From this position, I cannot claim now whether it is so or not, but in any case, it was favorable to the Republic of Serbia.
After this verdict, do the citizens of BiH, that is, the victims of the war in BiH, have legal opportunities to seek justice in private lawsuits before international courts?
As far as I know, such a possibility does not exist except in the case that Stanisic and Simatovic during the war specifically committed damage to some of the citizens who are, of course, still alive, so they or their heirs can file compensation claims. As far as the state is concerned, such a possibility does not exist.
In the legal sense, what does this verdict actually bring with it if the state of BiH and its citizens cannot legally use it in any way?
This is about criminal responsibility, and criminal responsibility is individual. Therefore, this judgment, like any other judgment in criminal proceedings, aims at general prevention, and citizens generally know what that is, and it aims to punish the war criminal who committed the crime. Therefore, it is completely justified to judge and condemn.
