Bitter Legacy

30 November 2017 by Stephanie van den Berg, The Hague (The Netherlands)

After  the initial shock has faded  Justice Tribune editor Stephanie van den Berg, wonders if Slobodan Praljak's suicide in the courtroom of the Yugoslav tribunal is not in many ways a fitting ending for the court which leaves an uneasy legacy.

It was supposed to be a predictable appeals verdict in the case of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia against six Bosnian Croat officials. Important. But not one of the tribunal’s highest profile cases. And made special to a degree because it was the last verdict the ICTY would ever pronounce.

I went with a feeling of nostalgia; the end of an era for me, as the tribunal I spent so much time covering was really closing . I spent so much time in the marbled lobby of the court covering cases which included the first conviction for genocide on European soil for Bosnian Serb general Radislav Kristic and the lengthy and unpredictable trial of  former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic.

The blog I’d prepared about the tribunal’s last cases: the life sentence for Bosnian Serb general Ratko Mladic last week and Wednesday’s appeal in the Prlic case, was going to be called “No Alarms and No Surprises” and focus on how both cases largely confirmed events that had already been proven before the ICTY and would not contribute greatly to the legacy and the jurisprudence of the court.

But then at a little after 11:30 am just after judges read out a verdict confirming his 20-year sentence for crimes against Muslims in and around Mostar, 72-year-old Slobodan Praljak, stood up to tell the court: “Slobodan Praljak is not a war criminal, I reject the verdict of this court”.

In images that now have been broadcast the world over, we saw him taking out a glass container and gulping it down, before slumping back in his chair. “I took poison,” he told the court, which then quickly lowered the blinds between the courtroom and the public gallery and summoned an ambulance.

After a few moments of disbelief and wondering if this was a theatrical gesture, I got into breaking news mode and spent the rest of the day gathering every bit of information I could for the agency. Then around 5pm the tribunal confirmed Praljak had died in hospital. Dutch authorities asked to investigate the incident said preliminary tests showed he was killed after drinking a deadly substance.

I was stunned that 24 years the ICTY would end in this, a dramatic courtroom suicide that would be all the world media would remember of the last days of the tribunal. But in a way I realized it was also a fitting ending. It shows that despite the court’s extensive verdict and its efforts to establish a historical record of what happened denial and division are still rife in the Balkans region on all sides. 

The Prlic et al case that Praljak was a part of had become highly politicized. Although the convictions were for Bosnian Croats for crimes they committed in Bosnia during the 1992-95 war, the initial verdict had concluded the men were all part of a joint criminal enterprise with wartime Croatian leader Franjo Tudjman aimed at ethnically cleansing Bosnian Muslims from Croat-claimed parts of Bosnia. Zagreb wanted that finding, which clearly links it to atrocities in Bosnia overturned, so they can maintain they had ‘clean hands’ in the bloody Bosnian conflict. Instead the appeals chamber confirmed it and in Croatia Praljak is being cast as a hero by some because he would rather die than live with the judgement.  “(Praljak) did not want to live with such a verdict," read a headline in the wide-selling Jutarnji List daily. 

 In Serbia the tabloid Informer simply headlined “Croatian Ustasha kills himself in The Hague court”. Ustasha means Croatian fascist, and using that term is deliberate.

After 24 years we can conclude that those who urged the founding of the tribunal were naïve in thinking it could lead to reconciliation. But all the ICTY’s cases and verdicts have made it much harder to deny that atrocities did happen and have show that committing atrocities have consequences. The fact that Praljak would take his own life in such a dramatic gesture also shows what a powerful institution the court had become. Simply getting up and denouncing it or insisting it is biased would have not overshadowed the findings in the verdict. Only death could cement Praljak’s martyred status. 

Slobodan Praljak (centre) at his first sentencing hearing in 2013 (photo: Flickr/ICTY)

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.