© J.M.Huron/Editing, Paris
Interview by Martine Jacot, UNESCO Courier journalist
Canadian
judge Louise Arbour, former chief prosecutor with the International Criminal Tribunals
(ICT) for ex- Yugoslavia and Rwanda, believes international law is making great strides
in violence prevention
How has setting
up ICTs helped the groups of people directly concerned to turn the page on atrocities
they have experienced?
These tribunals have been a spectacular innovation. For the first time, the international
community has shown its concern not only with the short term–stopping armed conflict–but
also with the long term. It has noted that in the Balkans and Africa’s Great Lakes
region there was very little hope of achieving lasting peace based on reconciliation
and social reconstruction unless the truth about past events was established. The
recording by international investigators of irrefutable evidence of crimes prevents
history from being falsified and the past from being distorted.
When the truth is told, the need to dispense justice becomes obvious. It’s very important
to pin criminal responsibility for any crimes that have been committed not only on
those who actually committed them but also on political and military leaders. In
so doing, the law at least recognizes that the victims have a legal status and to
some extent restores their dignity. It also stops them from setting themselves on
a course for revenge, an agenda which can be handed down from generation to generation.
Do you feel the ICT for the former Yugoslavia has helped victims to come to terms
with the burden of memory, a process which is crucial to reconciliation? In Bosnia,
there’s a kind of “apartheid” between communities.
The ICT has not yet contributed to reconciliation in Bosnia because it has not been
given the necessary resources. Justice cannot be fully done partly because of the
refusal of some governments to gather evidence and arrest people who’ve already been
indicted.
The existence of an ICT for the former Yugoslavia doesn’t seem to have prevented
the events in Kosovo.
The ICT did not have an immediate deterrent effect because the UN Security Council
didn’t use its resources to oblige Serbia (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) to
carry out the arrest warrants the ICT had issued. This encouraged the criminals to
feel that in practical terms they were going to enjoy impunity and immunity. Throughout
the Kosovo conflict, from January to June 1999, I repeatedly urged the international
forces there to arrest people under indictment. I think this was the right deterrent
message to send to the parties in Kosovo.
It’s clear that those who committed crimes in Kosovo were more aware of the risk
of being indicted and that this influenced their methods. The common graves in Kosovo
dug up by ICT investigators have provided a lot of evidence, certainly enough to
make the authors of these crimes realize that the law can always find such evidence,
whatever lengths the criminals may go to in order to cover up their crimes.
How has the ICT helped to promote reconciliation in Rwanda, where people are afraid
of the massacres starting again?
Military leaders, people accused of very serious responsibilities for the genocide,
ministers and even the former prime minister (who has confessed his guilt) are awaiting
trial in prison in Arusha, in Tanzania. They are no longer in a position to fan the
flames of tension, so the risk of violence has been to some extent reduced. In Rwanda,
even more than in Bosnia, the culture of impunity has existed for decades. Violence
goes in cycles, but responsibility for it has not been proven. The ICT represents
a change of direction in this respect but it won’t have an immediate impact.
What can we expect from the proposed International Criminal Court (ICC), which
will be the first permanent institution of its kind?
Setting up the ICC is a huge and irreversible step for the world. When it’s up and
running it will be able to respond fairly quickly to events and to indict suspected
criminals before they can commit further massacres. ICTs were set up after crimes
were committed in Bosnia, Croatia and Rwanda. But in Kosovo, indictments were made
at the highest level at the beginning of June 1999 for crimes committed between January
and May. Such speed was possible because the ICT and its infrastructure were already
in place.
So an ICC, if it has the necessary muscle, will be able to act and intervene in real
time, which is an enormous step forward. If there’s the political will to arrest
people who’ve been indicted, effective prevention of crimes against humanity can
be envisaged.
