Concerns in Europe January June 2001
Yüklə 1,36 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Administration of justice
Concerns in Europe: January - June 2001
Amnesty International September 2001 had been divided between the two entities by the Dayton peace negotiations in 1995, and the IEBL ran partly through some residential buildings. According to the decision, issued by an international judge appointed by the High Representative in February, the majority of the suburb became part of the Federation, and property now occupied by Bosnian Serb displaced persons should be vacated to allow the pre-war inhabitants to return.
Reforms of the domestic judicial system continued. In March the High Representative established the International Judicial Commission (IJC), a temporary body of international experts, mandated to oversee and coordinate the reform of the judiciary and prosecutorial system. The IJC’s tasks include the provision of guidance to the entity commissions and councils in appointing and assessing judges and prosecutors in order to ensure greater impartiality and independence of the judiciary, as well as to enhance their professional skills. In both entities criminal legislation continued to be reviewed with the aim of ensuring compliance with international standards; in the RS a new draft Criminal Procedure Code was returned to the entity’s working group for their consideration after having been assessed by Council of Europe experts. In March the High Representative amended the Federation Law on Special Witness Protection in Criminal Proceedings, issued by his predecessor in July 1999, in that some of its wording was clarified. The Law provides for special proceedings to be conducted by the Federation Supreme Court in hearing the testimony of witnesses who fear attacks against themselves or their family. However, it does not include clear provisions on protection measures to be taken by court police officers; such details are equally lacking in the Criminal Procedure Code.
Several trials of people charged with war crimes took place in the Federation, all of which had been initiated after the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (Tribunal) had reviewed the investigation files and authorized the prosecution to take place. In March Bosnian Serb Miroslav Pandurevi was acquitted by the Sarajevo Cantonal Court in connection with the killing of a Bosniac family in Sarajevo. Some war crimes trials before domestic courts highlighted AI’s concerns that these proceedings were not conducted thoroughly and impartially. For example in mid-April five Bosnian Croats (former members of the HVO) suspected of being responsible for the “disappearance” of some 12 Bosniac soldiers in 1993, were acquitted by the Mostar Cantonal Court of charges of war crimes. The prosecution case against the accused was weakened early on in the proceedings, and subsequently collapsed as their witnesses retracted testimonies given to the investigative judge, reportedly as a result of intimidation by associates of the accused. At the end of April the Mostar Cantonal court acquitted another group of five Bosniac men who had been accused of war crimes against HVO prisoners of war. In June Bosniac war-time army commander Hanefija Priji was convicted by the Travnik Cantonal Court for war crimes against the civilian population, notably the murder of three Italian aid workers in May 1993 in central Bosnia. Several other proceedings for war crimes and other crimes committed during the war continued in the Federation. For example, two Bosniac former police officers are currently on trial in the Sarajevo Cantonal Court for the murder of a Serb family of six in the Sarajevo suburb of Veleši i in 1992, allegedly on an order from the then Sarajevo police commander. Renewed war crimes trials were ongoing in cases of two Bosnian Serbs, Goran Vasi and Sretko Damjanovi . Sretko Damjanovi had been sentenced to death in 1993, following a conviction for war crimes; this sentence was overturned by a ruling of the Human Rights Chamber in 1997. A request for a retrial made by Sretko Damjanovi , on grounds that two of the persons he was alleged to have killed were found to be still alive, was subsequently rejected by the Federation Supreme Court. In February 2000, the Human Rights Chamber held that Mr Damjanovi ’s
right to a fair trial had been violated and ordered a retrial, which commenced in September 2000. Information received by AI in the case of Edin Garaplija raises concern that his right to a fair trial was violated in renewed appeal proceedings conducted before the Federation Supreme Court in October 2000 (see also AI Index: EUR 01/001/2001). Mr Garaplija had been convicted in 1997 of kidnapping and attempted murder and sentenced to 13 years’ imprisonment. He had detained and interrogated a person, suspected of having committed war crimes, in his capacity as investigating officer in the Federation intelligence agency AID (Agencija za istragu i
investigation for criminal activities conducted during the war as part of a paramilitary group, known as the
civilians and prisoners of war. It is alleged that Edin Garaplija had been ordered by his superiors to present a false alibi during his trial, in order not to reveal the nature of the investigation he had been ordered to carry out. The Federation Supreme Court refused to allow him to be present during the appeal hearing on his case before that court in May 1998, despite his request to provide new evidence to the court on the investigation. Subsequently his lawyer filed a complaint with the Human Rights Chamber which ruled in July 2000 that he should be allowed to attend renewed appeal proceedings to be held before the Supreme Court where he might present new facts to the court. Renewed appeal proceedings were held on two separate days in October 2000. On the second day Edin Garaplija presented the Supreme Court with a Yüklə 1,36 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|