VZCZCXRO0328
RR RUEHDBU RUEHFL RUEHKW RUEHLA RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHVJ #2201/01 2890830
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 160830Z OCT 07
FM AMEMBASSY SARAJEVO
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 7214
INFO RUEHZL/EUROPEAN POLITICAL COLLECTIVE
RUFOAOA/USNIC SARAJEVO
RHEFDIA/DIA WASHINGTON DC
RUEAIIA/CIA WASHINGTON DC

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 03 SARAJEVO 002201 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR EUR/SCE (FOOKS, STINCHCOMB) AND S/WCI 
(LAVINE) 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 10/16/2017 
TAGS: PREL ICTY KAWC PGOV PHUM PINR KJUS MCRM BK
SUBJECT: BOSNIA - WAR CRIMES AND JURISPRUDENCE 
 
REF: A. SARAJEVO 1547 
     ¶B. SARAJEVO 1403 
     ¶C. SARAJEVO 1212 
     ¶D. SARAJEVO 1068 
 
Classified By: Michael J. Murphy. Reason 1.4 (b) and (d) 
 
¶1. (C) SUMMARY: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) 
verdict earlier this year and the deteriorating political 
situation have stirred renewed interest in the country,s 
fragmented judicial system and its ability to manage war 
crimes cases.  The State Court,s potential war crimes 
workload has expanded well beyond what was anticipated when 
it was created.  Many cases will have to be tried in entity 
and cantonal courts, whose poor track record managing war 
crimes cases was one reason the War Crimes Chamber at the 
State Court was created.  The absence of a country-wide 
supreme court and lack of a common criminal code will 
contribute to an uneven ) and possibly contradictory -- 
development of war crimes jurisprudence and inconsistent 
treatment of indicted individuals.  State Court President 
Judge Meddzida Kreso has proposed to remedy this situation by 
temporarily designating entity and cantonal judges as State 
Court judges to hear war crimes cases.  Unfortunately, 
deficiencies in her proposal make its implementation 
problematic.  Left unresolved, these judicial issues threaten 
to undermine our efforts at building state-level judicial 
institutions and erode public confidence in and support for 
the judiciary,s work in war crimes cases. END SUMMARY 
 
War Crimes Cases: From Entity to State and Back Again 
--------------------------------------------- -------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) Before the creation of the State Court in 2002, war 
crimes cases could be tried in Republika Srpska (RS) and 
Brcko district courts and Federation cantonal courts once 
reviewed and approved by the International Criminal Tribunal 
for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) under its &Rules of the 
Road8 office.  The State Court was granted exclusive 
jurisdiction for all war crimes cases initiated after March 
¶2003.  At the same time, all war crimes cases at the entity 
levels, except those where an indictment had been issued, 
were sent from the district and cantonal prosecutors to the 
Chief Prosecutor.  The Chief Prosecutor was charged with 
reviewing these cases to determine whether they should be 
handled by his office, deemed &highly sensitive,8 or by the 
district and cantonal courts, deemed &sensitive.8  The 
Chief Prosecutor,s Office expects to finish reviewing these 
cases sometime early next year. 
 
¶3. (SBU) The State Court,s potential workload has expanded 
well beyond what was anticipated when it was created.  The 
number of cases the ICTY will transfer to the State Court is 
fairly well-known and finite, but the number of 
domestically-initiated cases and of those suspected 
perpetrators who may be deported to Bosnia have the potential 
of increasing and draining resources from other work.  The 
Chief Prosecutor claims that there are potentially 13,000 war 
crimes complaints.  There is good reason to question this 
number, but the exaggerated estimate, the political fallout 
from the February ICJ verdict, and the absence of a publicly 
stated strategy to deal with the numbers of realistic cases 
have all raised legitimate questions about the State Court,s 
capacity to manage war crimes cases.  The effort to craft a 
National Strategy for War Crimes Recovery (Reftel) is 
designed, in part, to address this issue.  Because the State 
Court can not try all war crimes cases, a large number will 
likely go to District and Cantonal Courts for investigation 
and prosecution. 
 
One Country, Five Criminal Codes 
-------------------------------- 
 
¶4. (SBU) When trying war crimes cases, the State Court 
applies the 2003 State Criminal and Criminal Procedural 
Codes.  The Federation, RS, and Brcko District, however, have 
their own criminal codes.  In war crimes cases, all three 
also apply the old Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia 
(SFRY) Criminal Code.  There are important differences 
between the 2003 and other criminal codes that impact the 
handling of war crimes cases.  For example, the State Code 
includes the charge of crimes against humanity and a broader 
definition of command responsibility, neither of which are 
part of the entity or SFRY codes.  Defendants before the 
State Court also face stiffer sentences, since the State 
Criminal Code provides for a maximum prison sentence of up to 
40 years; the other codes provide for a maximum sentence of 
 
SARAJEVO 00002201  002 OF 003 
 
 
20 years. 
 
And Two Hunger Strikes 
---------------------- 
 
¶5. (C) War crimes defendants before the State Court have 
claimed that the application of the more stringent State 
Criminal Code is a violation of their human rights, arguing 
that the criminal code in force in Bosnia at the time of 
their alleged crimes (i.e., the SRFY code) should be the one 
applied.  About 30 defendants from three different 
correctional facilities in Bosnia went on a hunger strike for 
about three weeks in January to call attention to this issue. 
 Court officials believe the hunger strike was essentially a 
sham.  Inmates at the Kula detention facility in the 
Repbulika Srpska (RS) were believed to be secretly taking in 
food and drinks.  Prison and hospital officials in the RS may 
also have been in collusion with the defendants on their 
hunger strike.  For example, a Court official told us that 
after a 21-day hunger strike, these inmates had not lost much 
weight.  In early September, the Kula indictees began another 
hunger strike in protest.  The Court has stood firm both 
times and publicly said it would not give in to their 
demands.  Regardless, the issues associated with the most 
recent hunger strike reinforce public perceptions, fueled by 
RS political leaders, that Serbs are not treated fairly by 
the Court. 
 
Fragmented Judicial Structure 
----------------------------- 
 
¶6. (SBU) The 2003 Criminal and Criminal Procedural Codes were 
imposed on the State Court by HighRep Ashdown.  At the time, 
the entities and Brcko pledged to harmonize their codes with 
the 2003 codes, but have not yet done so.  If the State Court 
believes a district or cantonal court is mishandling a war 
crimes case, there is no legal mechanism for the State Court 
to reclaim or review the case once it has been transferred to 
the district or cantonal court.  In addition, there is no 
superior court in Bosnia with the jurisdiction to ensure the 
equal jurisprudence and similar sentences for similar conduct 
regardless of where a person is charged or tried for alleged 
war crimes.  Cases tried in district or cantonal courts can 
only be appealed to the entity or Brcko supreme courts rather 
than the State Court,s appellate division.  The creation of 
a State Supreme Court with overarching jurisdiction over all 
the courts in BiH would resolve this problem. (Note: It would 
also address other critical judicial reform issues. End Note) 
However, it would require the transfer of competency from the 
entities to the state and a constitutional amendment; neither 
is likely in the current political climate.  Passage of a 
single state-level Criminal and Criminal Procedural code for 
all of Bosnia would also be politically problematic. 
 
Constitutional Court Weighs In 
------------------------------ 
 
¶7. (SBU) The jurisdiction of Bosnia,s Constitutional Court 
is limited to constitutional issues; it is not a court of 
final review.  However, in March 2007 it issued a ruling on 
an appeal filed by the first person convicted of war crimes 
by the State Court under the 2003 Criminal Code.  In this 
case, the Constitutional Court determined that the 
application of the 2003 Criminal Code did not violate the 
defendant,s constitutional rights or those guaranteed under 
international law. (Note: The Bosnian Constitution 
incorporates the European Convention for the Protection of 
Human Rights. End Note) It concurrently ruled that entity 
courts have an additional obligation to consider the 2003 
Criminal Code and other relevant laws and international 
documents when deciding on the war crimes offenses.  However, 
the Constitutional Court has no mechanism for enforcing its 
ruling and can not require entity courts to apply the 2003 
Criminal Code. 
 
Court President Kreso Proposes A Solution 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) Cognizant of a growing number of war crimes cases 
and the absence of a single jurisprudence for war crimes 
cases, State Court President Meddzida Kreso has proposed that 
the State Court establish satellite offices in the major 
district and cantonal courts, including Brcko.  Judges would 
be temporarily assigned to the State Court and apply the 2003 
Criminal Code, but remain sitting in their entity courts. 
Any appeal would be heard by the State Court,s appellate 
division rather than by the local courts, thus allowing for 
 
SARAJEVO 00002201  003 OF 003 
 
 
more uniformity in the application and interpretation of the 
law.  The State Court President would be responsible for 
managing the work of these satellite offices. This proposal 
would require amending the laws on the High Judicial and 
Prosecutorial Council and the State Court. 
 
The Drawbacks 
------------- 
 
¶9. (SBU) Kreso,s proposal, concerned primarily with 
harmonization of war crimes jurisprudence in Bosnia, is a 
good starting point for discussion on the issue, but it 
contains several deficiencies.  She focuses almost 
exclusively on addressing the State Court component and 
ignores the investigative and prosecutorial needs associated 
with managing the burgeoning war crimes workload.  State 
Court satellite offices would make little sense without 
companion branch offices for the Chief Prosecutor, but Kreso 
offers only a short paragraph on setting up similar satellite 
offices for the Prosecutor,s Office.  Entity and Brcko 
authorities would likely resent having to pay the salaries of 
their judges and provide them with office space but be unable 
to assign them to other cases before the courts.  Local 
officials have voiced concern to us about the lack of judges 
for their cases, and the Republika Srpska Justice Minister 
has already stated his opposition to this proposal.  Finally, 
Kreso,s proposal is also silent on who would provide ) and 
pay for ) support staff for satellite offices and ignores 
that there would also likely be costly infrastructure 
requirements. 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶11. (C) The 18-month political deadlock, the ICJ verdict, and 
the lack of a publicized strategy to manage its work have 
prompted the international community and many within the 
Bosnian judicial establishment to reassess the capacity of 
Bosnia,s judicial framework and institutions to manage a 
burgeoning war crimes case load.  The HighRep was begun a 
dialogue on wide-ranging and much-needed judicial reforms, 
many of which would improve Bosnia,s ability to manage 
politically contentious war crimes cases.  Bosnian 
authorities have also launched their own initiatives 
(Reftel).  They will likely need a strong assist from the 
international community to make any progress given the 
rivalries and personality conflicts among senior Bosnian 
judicial officials.  We will remain engaged with the major 
players to maintain their focus on the issues rather than 
their personal agendas. 
 
¶12. (C) With respect to criminal codes and war crimes, it is 
important to remember that common principles and a consistent 
interpretation of the law throughout Bosnia are critical to 
advance respect for the law, the institutions that enforce 
and apply it, and to ensure fundamental fairness.  If left 
unresolved, the work of the State Court may become more 
politicized, undermining our efforts to build effective 
state-level judicial institutions.  It may also erode public 
support for the judiciary,s work in war crimes cases. 
ENGLISH