Thanks for your prompt response. I agree with you on the Karadjic trial, it all is all played by the script.

On the Ganic case, there have been two similar cases where Serbia has been putting pressure on Bosnia to prosecute alleged violations of international humanitarian law — the Sarajevo Dobrovoljacka case (the Ganic et al case) and the Tuzla Brcanska malta case in connection to which Ilija Jurisic was arrested, tried by the Belgrade District Court and sentenced to 12 years in prison.

There are arrest warrants for several former military and police officials from Tuzla allegedly implicated in this latter case and they did appear before the Bosnian court, which decided that they could not be extradited because they were the citizens of BiH. These people can not leave the country because they would probably be promptly arrested just like Jurisic, actually they probably can not go as far as Republika Srpska for the same reason.

Speaking about technicalities, Ganic’s situation is different. He was born in Serbia and although he never claimed Serbian citizenship, apparently, Serbia can still claim him on the basis of his old domicile.

You are right, Bosnia’s request appears odd, mostly because it is much more likely that upon his return to Sarajevo, unless there is significant pressure from the international communitty, he is met at the airport by all the dignitaries and a flower-strewn carpet to boot than promptly taken into custody. What the Bosnians are probably trying to negotiate is to finally move the Dobrovoljacka inquiry further, it has been dragging on for years without any result.

It is a tough call for the UK, if they decide that Ganic can be extradited for Dobrovoljacka, then Serbia can issue arrest warrants for almost any living war-time political and military figure in Bosnia and Croatia. Speaking about continuing the war by other means…

All in all I would say that Serbia made quite a clever move. The Ganic case diverts public attention from Karadjic’s ramblings. It also reminds the international community how messy that war was, that crimes were indeed committed on all sides.

If anything good comes out of this case, it will be exactly that: Bosnia coming to terms with its own past.

I am not sure what is fair, except the irony that all those people that during the four years of Bosnian war made the destiny of so many uncertain, are now destined to live, probably until the rest of their lives, in uncertainty.

As for the start of the Karadzic trial, I really have no useful thoughts to add. He’s doing all that one could have expected him to do – saying that he is not defending himself, but the whole Serbian people (while referring to himself in the third person, of course); saying that the Serb cause was just, as if this has anything to do with whether war crimes were actually committed; saying that all of the crimes so far established by the ICTY were faked or staged. He very much fits his own cliche. We’ll see what happens with the trial as it goes on, but of course we need to always bear in mind that he is not trying to persuade the judges of anything, but is spinning a narrative for his audience in Bosnia and in Serbia.

As for the Ganic extradition, I don’t know enough about the specifics to be able to comment with any confidence. The whole matter is extremely politicized, as you say. Ganic will certainly argue that he is the target of a political prosecution in Serbia. Whether this will persuade the UK courts to actually refuse Serbia’s extradition request will depend primarily, I think, on what actual evidence Serbian prosecutors have against Ganic – and we really don’t know anything about that at this point.

I can say, however, that I find Bosnia’s alternative request for Ganic’s extradition to be rather odd. If they don’t even consider him a criminal suspect, how could they then ask for his extradition? And of course their whole underlying theory – that Bosnia has exclusive jurisdiction for war crimes etc committed on its territory – is entirely bogus as a matter of international law.

I was wondering what your view is on the opening of the Karadzic trial and also the fact it coincides with the arrest of Ejup Ganic in London and Serbia’s extradition demand.

The Ganic case is very interesting in its own right, it is of course all extremely politicised. The UK Extradition Act of 2003 does provide for an option to bar extradition if it appears that the person in question may ‘be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or political opinions’.

There is probably little chance of Ganic getting a fair trial in either Serbia or Bosnia, still, from a strictly legal (if there is such a thing) point of view, what kind of outcome would be most appropriate?

Thanks for your comment. I agree that the imposition of counsel of Karadzic will not improve the standing of the ICTY in the eyes of the Serbian people. But I was not arguing that it would – indeed, nothing could actually do that. The credibility of the ICTY is basically a lost cause for the next generation or two at least.

But that the ICTY cannot improve upon its own standing doesn’t mean that the messages it can send are irrelevant. If they cannot bring about reconciliation etc., they can still ferment nationalism in Serbia and Bosnia, by allowing Karadzic to control his own trial, use to perpetuate his own myth, etc.

Finally, I see no reason to wait and see whether Karadzic will abuse his right to self-representation. He has already done so, and already is obstructive, by in effect blackmailing the Trial Chamber about the start of the trial through his non-appearance. It was the Tribunal’s call when the trial would start, not his.

While I agree with much of your post, how exactly is appointing counsel for Karadzic going to make it more legitimate in the eyes of Serbs or Bosnian Serbs for that matter? Especially in light of the Appeals Chamber decision in the Milosevic case that you disagree with but nevertheless is precedent here?

Also, while I find your psychological analysis of Karadzic and other defendants interesting, I would wait to see how Karadzic excercises his right to self-representation before concluding that he will abuse that right as Seselj has done.

(Incidentally, recall that the Prosecution during the Milosevic trial claimed that Milosevic was faking or exaggerating his hypertension to delay his trial. That may have been the case, but the hypertension was a very real threat as it turned out).

There are many factors beyond Milosevic and Seselj using the ICTY podium to make speeches that have discredited the ICTY in the eyes of Serbs and many non-Serbs as well, and I am unclear as to why so much attention is being paid to the self-representation issue.