ICTY sifts through the Markale massacre


For more than ten years, Bosnian Serbs have insisted that Sarajevo Muslims bombed their own at the City Market on 28 August 1995, leaving 43 people dead and around 90 wounded. The logic behind their reasoning was that the people of the city that had been under siege for more than three years were desperate to make the world aware of their suffering and to trigger NATO air strikes against Bosnian Serb positions around Sarajevo. In the first weeks of Dragomir Milosevic's trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), new light was shed on the question of who was responsible for the Markale Market massacre.

The Serb version of the story survived so many years because UN commanders at the time were less than clear about who was responsible for the mortar fire. Under examination, David Garland, who was the UN chief of civil affairs in 1995, testified that forensic evidence had unequivocally shown that the shots had come from the direction of Bosnian-Serb army positions. But he had personally advised the then UN commander Rupert Smith "... to make a neutral statement in order not to alarm the Bosnian Serbs who would be alerted to the impending NATO air strikes against their positions had he pointed the finger at them." 

"Tools of terror against the civilian population"

Garland described how the Bosnian Serbs had developed a strategy to "use tools of terror against the civilian population" without provoking a harsh response by the UN and NATO. The City Market massacre in August 1995 broke the cycle while fuelling the theory that the Muslims had inflicted it upon themselves.

Want to read more?

If you subscribe to a free membership, you can read this article and explore our full archive, dating back to 1997.

Subscribe now

Related articles

19 February 2007 by Laetitia Grotti

One year ago on January 6, 2006, the 17 members of Morocco's Equity and Reconciliation Commission (IER) were closing up shop after submitting their final report to King Mohammed VI. The Moroccan truth commission had received a flood of compliments from the international community praising the recommendations in its report, especially those advocating legislative and constitutional reforms. One year later, however, the results have been rather mixed.

11 September 2006 by our correspondent in Arusha

After having tried high-ranking officers, ministers, businessmen, priests, journalists, local officials and militiamen, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is in uncharted waters. On September 11, the most famous rwandese troubadour of his generation will stand trial for genocide. 

23 October 2006 by Christine Chaumeau

China is keeping a polite distance from international criminal justice. Beijing is hardly disinterested, but China does want to make sure that these new global mechanisms are not going to infringe upon its sovereignty by delving into particularly sensitive cases such as Tibet. 

United Nations Operation in Burundi disarms rebel forces in Mbanda in February 2005 (Photo: Flickr/UN Photo/Martine Perret)
03 June 2015 by Janet H. Anderson, The Hague (The Netherlands)

Over the last month, Burundi has hit the headlines as the president put himself forward to be elected for a controversial third term, resulting in street protests, thousands of refugees who fled instability and an attempted coup. Behind the issues of elections and constitutionalism are also those of justice following Burundi’s long-running civil war. The international community supported an intensive process of negotiation and the signing of the Arusha Accord in 2000. But in the decade and a half since, its provisions on justice have been debated though never fully implemented.

06 November 2006 by Pierre Hazan

France's attitude towards international criminal justice is marked by ambiguity. Paris subscribes to a vision of the world in which international humanitarian law is considered a way to curb violence against civilian populations, but at the same time it is wary of an unchecked judicial system that could end up prosecuting French soldiers engaged in areas where it has old and deep-rooted interests.