Milosevic was not the only one in the court to
be cheated of a verdict
The Times (London) - March 21, 2006, Tuesday
By: Steven Kay
We have to suffer in silence as others condemn our efforts, writes the ex
Serbian leader's QC, Steven Kay
When Judge Patrick Robinson officially ended the proceedings in the trial of
Slobodan Milosevic in The Hague last Tuesday, those who assembled to hear the
pronouncement were subdued and appeared stunned. A courtroom that had convened
many times over the previous four years and had experienced many days of
contentious litigation was for the first time not open to argument. The outcome
of the case was apparent to all -there would be no verdict.
People who had devoted their lives over the past five years to this most
complicated of cases were to see no conclusion and had to suffer in silence as
others were about to condemn their efforts. Preparations made for the final
briefs to be handed in at the conclusion of all the evidence and started months,
if not years, before, were in vain. The judges who had been marshalling the
evidence and drafting the legal framework for their judgment would not be called
upon to render justice. Decisions made in the course of the trial remained only
as a legacy for other trials. The reactions to the death and the debate that
followed were inconsiderate to the labours of others.
Staying behind in the courtroom after the sombre departure of the judges, it
struck me how we had all aged. The stress of the trial had not only had its
effect upon the main participant Milosevic; there had also been the death of the
original presiding judge Sir Richard May and no doubt it had taken its toll on
others behind the scenes who had their own tales to tell. I looked at Gill
Higgins standing next to me who had had a rollercoaster of a case. At one stage
she had worked for a year pro bono and was then appointed my co-counsel and
throughout, paid and unpaid, kept our case together. Geoffrey Nice, QC, who had
borne the burden of the prosecution case, was the first to come over and with
great courtesy shook hands. This was not a case that had permitted easy
relationships but one could only but admire his skill and determination as an
advocate. "What will you do next?" A question often in your mind during the
trial and now a reality without an answer.
This trial involved many more people than those of us seen in court that day. In
our defence room we had four case assistants watching the all-too-brief four
minutes of the proceedings with the intensity that only dedication can summon.
They were also originally pro bono and the quality of their work was so
brilliant that we had recently decided to pay for them ourselves to ensure the
quality of our final brief. The prosecution, judges and the registry had many
behind the scenes who, for years, had been working ceaselessly to see this trial
through.
As the official investigation into the circumstances of the death of Milosevic
takes place, there is also another investigation going on into the nature of the
trial. Commentators compare it with that of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad -where the
proceedings were apparently designed to avoid the perceived problems of the
Milosevic proceedings. The Baghdad trial is descending into conflict and
controversy with Saddam describing proceedings as "a comedy" and the former
president of the court resigned because of "outside influences". Plainly
international justice is a tough area in which to succeed.
The Saddam and Milosevic trials are not similar cases. Saddam is on trial as a
perpetrator of a crime; the issue is his role as a participant in a single
event.
Milosevic was alleged to have had command responsibility for the crimes of
subordinates and to have been part of a joint criminal enterprise that had
planned and ordered by using de jure and de facto powers and so was responsible
for crimes by others.
Taking a single event in the Milosevic case would not have produced a provable
case for the prosecution. Its allegations depended upon proving all the
architecture that surrounded him as President of Serbia and his later role as
President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The case was based upon his
historical actions and political manoeuvres which, it was claimed, provided
additional evidence to prove his liability for the crimes charged. That required
evidence of the political institutions and the need to chart the political
dissolution of the former Yugoslavia. Or could it have been done differently?
At various stages in the trial the joinder of the three indictments for Kosovo,
Croatia and Bosnia had been raised by the judges. At the end of last year as
court-assigned defence counsel we were firmly of the view that there should be
severance and presented every argument possible in support without requesting
it.
The reason? Milosevic did not want it and joined the prosecution in a bid to
keep the three indictments together. He had deliberated for a long time and
expressed his decision only when we were in court. Our duty to follow
instructions was clear. The judges had no option other than to follow the wishes
of the parties.
It has to be said, however, that the Kosovo indictment by itself provided a
trial that was of a size and scale that would have been enough for any lawyer to
be involved with in a lifetime. Add to that the Croatia and Bosnia indictments
and you get a trial that was of an impossible size. While the adversarial system
of justice may cope with trials of perpetrators, it utterly fails to deal with
trials of the Milosevic type. I also doubt whether an inquisitorial trial could
render better justice, particularly when the court has no control over the
territory that it is trying.
Copyright 2006 Times Newspapers Limited
Posted for Fair Use only.