While a verdict cannot now be announced, evidence of war crimes in the former Yugoslavia should come to light, for the sake of solidarity with the victims, writes Fouad Abdel Moneim Riad* The mysterious, and not above suspicion, death of Slodoban Milosevic in his cell in The Hague, while standing trial for close to five years on counts of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, may give rise to dire consequences. Chief among them is damage to the reputation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), particularly as Milosevic's death follows the suicide of another inmate in the same prison. Furthermore, survivors of Milosevic's massacres remain burdened by their frustration and anger at the fact that "the butcher of the Balkans" has evaded justice. The ICTY missed the chance of having the last word that might have alleviated their feelings of humiliation and injustice. The establishment of an international criminal jurisdiction in the 1990s with the express purpose of prosecuting those who commit hideous crimes against humanity and war crimes is one of the major achievements in the history of humanity. Throughout history, tyrants managed to trample on inalienable human rights with impunity and, paradoxically, even entered halls of fame as heroes. The ICTY, therefore, represented a quantum leap in the administration of justice through the pronouncement of deterrent sentences against major war criminals guilty of crimes against humanity throughout the world. It is to be sincerely regretted that the long- awaited sentence with regard to Milosevic's crimes, including but not limited to genocide, will not be passed. Such a sentence could have backed the foundation of the ICTY by sending a warning to the likes of Milosevic, deterring them from planning similar crimes, as well as revealing to the world the true dimensions of the crimes committed. Sentencing would have assured all victims that the international community would not forsake them, and as justice is being done, they need not take the law into their own hands or seek revenge. History has shown that, in similar cases, justice denied turns anger into glowing embers beneath the ashes lingering across the ages. Investigations of massacres in the former Yugoslavia revealed that bitter memories Serbs retained of Ottoman rule were a principal factor leading to the recent genocide. It is notable that recent massacres by Serbs started in the early 1990s when a Serb leader waved a bloody shirt, reminding his countrymen of the Ottoman execution of their king 500 years ago. Perpetrators of similar massacres on occupied Arab territories are well advised to heed this lesson and avoid the return of past injustices with a vengeance in the future. Needless to say, the unprecedented delay of justice in Milosevic's trial, which then ended inconclusively without a sentence, may lead to a lack of confidence in the efficacy of such trials, especially given the legal obstacles faced by the ICTY due to the prevarications of seasoned politicians. Moreover, as in the above case, testimonies that run into the hundreds, amid difficult political circumstances, leads to the extensive prolongation of such trials. It is a well known fact that national jurisdiction is unanimous regarding the closure of cases upon the death of the indicted. Since their inception, international courts have followed suit. However, it should be noted that hideous atrocities and violations committed against humanity stand out as a potential threat for humanity at large. Targeting a human community for genocide or degradation weighs upon the conscience of humanity as a whole. It is therefore strongly argued that the prerogatives of the international community, through international courts, should include the investigation of such violations whether perpetrators are alive or dead. It is to be also noted that the purpose of setting up of an international tribunal, as the UN Security Council explicitly stated in the 1993 ICTY resolution, is to deter whoever considers committing such crimes in the future, establishing world peace by upholding justice, and defusing anger and hatred which may fan the fires of revenge in victims of such crimes. Needless to say, such a target is rendered null and void by calling off trials at the death of those indicted. It is also noteworthy that the mysterious death of the like of Milosevic while standing trial for crimes against humanity raises suspicions against hidden figures implicated but not indicted in such crimes, since silencing the indicted keeps their sinister roles unknown. In conclusion, the most suitable course to pursue in the field of international criminal justice is not merely to close the case upon the death of the accused, but to reveal the conclusive evidence that has been established in spite of the fact that no verdict can be reached. Only then will the objective of bringing to the world's consciousness the real dimensions of crimes against humanity be achieved. Such a course of action would also constitute an expression of moral support by the international community to the victims of those crimes while also constituting an official recognition of the injustice they endured. * The writer is a former judge at the International Criminal Tribunal, The Hague and professor of International Law at Cairo University
