What can be salvaged from the Milosevic trial?

26 March 2006 by HEIKELINA VERRIJN STUART

Not all the evidence presented during the four-year trial of Slobodan Milosevic, who died on March 11, will be lost. The rules of evidence at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) state that facts established in a trial may not be transferred to another trial until the first trial has been finalized. But even if Milosevic had lived, the trial chamber’s ruling would have been appealed and the appeals decision would not have been made in time for the evidence to be used in many of the other upcoming cases. Now that Milosevic is dead, there are still some options for recycling at least part of the evidence accumulated in his trial.

First of all, the Trial Chambers may take judicial notice of facts substantiated in the Milosevic trial, under restrictive conditions. International judges have interpreted this rule with caution. Only truly adjudicated facts can be admitted as evidence. Moreover, facts from a plea agreement cannot be admit-ted in another case since they have not been subject to the scrutiny of an examination and cross-examination. However, transcripts of testimony given in an ongoing trial can be admitted in another case, only if the testimony does not incriminate the defendant in the second trial. For example, on January 13, 2006, the evidence given by a colonel in the Milosevic trial relating to the number of killed, expelled and missing persons in Croatia was admitted as transcripts in the trial of former Krajina president Milan Martic. However, the testimony of a military expert who referred to instructions Milosevic gave to Martic via the Chief of the Staff of the Yugoslav army was only partially admit-ted because it directly referred to Martic’s role in the alleged criminal enterprise.

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

article
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.

article
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. 

article
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. 

article
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.

article
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.