Moderator: Ms Madeleine Rees, Head of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Sarajevo

Invited Speakers: Prof. Jadranko Prlic, Deputy Minister of Foreign Trade and Economic Relations, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Dr Jakob Finci, President of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Mr Srdjan Dizdarevic, President of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Ms Memnuna Zvizdic, Project Coordinator, Women to Women
Mr Branko Todorovic, Head of the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights of the Republika Srpska
Ms Dubravka Kovasevic, local reconciliation initiative

Dr Denis MacShane, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, UK
Mr Johannes Koskinen, Minister of Justice, Finland
Mr Payam Akhavan, PhD, Debevoise & Plimpton, New York
Mr Christian Palme, journalist, Dagens Nyheter, Stockholm
Prof. Beverly Allen, Syracuse University, New York
Mr Gerald Knaus, Director, European Stability Initiative, Berlin

The moderator, Ms Madeleine Rees, opened the seminar by raising some of the most critical issues which Bosnia and Herzegovina is facing in its quest for peace and reconciliation. Is there a government in place that will support and endorse the idea of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission? Will it provide access to the necessary information and provide security for those who want to participate in the work of the Commission? Is there strong support for civil society? Do the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina want to confront their history? The important gender issues: men and women have different expectations from peace – how will the Truth and Reconciliation Commission ensure that these expectations will be addressed and allowed to influence the future of the country? Is reconciliation compatible with justice? Finally, the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina itself: is the judiciary able to deal with the questions of justice which will arise in the Commission? What form will the Commission take, will it get the required support and will it manage to achieve its aims? She also said that the way in which women experienced the conflict was different from that of men, and the expectations at the end of the conflict and from truth commissions will be influenced by that different experience.

Professor Jadranko Prlic described the role of the history of the region: the various empires ruling the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina throughout centuries, the different interpretations of turbulent past events, the fragmentation into smaller states, and the historical ambitions of individual peoples and how this has contributed to the slow pace of democratisation and reconciliation. At the turn of the millennium, the "European phase" provides new prospects for building stability in the region. It opens a Pandora's box of possibilities. Bosnia and Herzegovina supports the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. By establishing the truth, hidden facts are uncovered, it puts an end to the existence of "multiple truths", recurrences of past events can be avoided and it will make it more difficult to divide people and continue the cycle of intolerance. Bringing individual perpetrators to justice before the International War Crimes Tribunal is also necessary for the sake of establishing the truth as well as for removing the presence of collective guilt and for ensuring a minimum level of security for the return of people in exile. Other important elements of the reconciliation process include qualitative and timely international assistance for the return of refugees and displaced persons and for the reconstruction of the economy, the implementation of the decision of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the BiH Constitutional Court) on the constitutionality of peoples which will make all citizens equal in all parts of the country, a reform of the education system, functioning human rights institutions and the country's admission to the Council of Europe.

A Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Bosnia and Herzegovina

Dr Jakob Finci is one of the initiators of the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He presented the rationale of this initiative and the current state of play. The Dayton Peace Agreement did not recognise any victors and produced a situation where there are now three different curricula in the schools, three different history syllabi with each side presenting itself as victorious, and where children are taught that their neighbours are their enemies. In order to avoid another war in 20 to 30 years time, there is a need to evaluate and face the past and it is essential to preserve the memory of the Bosnians and Herzegovinians who stayed throughout the war. The idea is to establish a Truth and Reconciliation Commission at state level that will collect testimonies in public hearings. The Commission will work in parallel with the Tribunal in The Hague. Although it is likely that the majority of those to appear before the Commission will be the victims, it is expected that some of the mobilised soldiers who were granted amnesty will also take the opportunity to lighten their hearts by confessing. A third group of witnesses will include individuals from all the ethnic groups that resisted ethnic cleansing and acted to protect the victims of other ethnic groups – stories of goodness which are often buried by nationalist extremists. Furthermore, the Commission will analyse the work of the media, of the religious communities, of political parties as well as the role and effects of the involvement of the international community.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission will consist of seven commissioners who will be chosen by the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Some 13 regional offices will be established and during a period of 18 months these offices are expected to collect between five and seven thousand testimonies. This will provide a unique opportunity to see the events in their entirety. The Commission will then prepare a final report with recommendations for the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Mr Srdjan Dizdarevic underlined that justice cannot be avoided and cannot be replaced by anything else. Considering the powers vested in it and the impartiality it characterises, the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague plays a central role, therefore, although it is discouraging that some of the key protagonists of the war remain at large. Considering the limited capacity and duration of the Tribunal, local courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina will have to be more involved in processing crimes committed during the war. Today this is being hampered by the lack of willingness of domestic courts to prosecute members of their "own" people and problems with the judicial system itself. Justice alone is not sufficient to eliminate tensions and re-establish confidence, however. For the reasons mentioned by Mr Finci above, establishing the truth is another precondition for reconciliation. This process is compatible and complementary to the process of administering justice. It is also important that the international community supports the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

Ms Nuna Zvizdic presented the initiative of a group of women in developing an alternative method to healing and peace building in local communities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. They have adopted an integrated approach to problems of trauma, economy, reconstruction, democratisation and reconciliation; they focus on the victims and want to include people on matters concerning their own future. The group draws up plans for return and reconciliation together with local activists and they have today trained more than twenty multiethnic teams in community building, teams which now work with conflict resolution, improvement of the social infrastructure and community development in the field.

According to Mr Branko Todorovic, the reconciliation process is hampered by the fact that the perpetrators of war crimes and ethnic cleansing remain at large and that the same people still hold public office. Reintegration of returnees in society is a new problem that is rarely discussed in public and ethnic divisions are still strong. Other factors having a negative impact on reconciliation are the role of the media, the current school curricula, concealment of the truth, obstruction of justice and a general lack of social perspective which makes it easier for young people to revert to their ethnic and religious affiliations. Breaking this vicious circle requires a change of mind, confidence building and the establishment of the truth.

Ms Dubravka Kovasevic drew on her personal experiences as someone who had worked in the arms industry in Novi Travnik, and abroad, prior to the conflict and how the war had brought home to her the human cost of the production of such weapons. She could no longer view what she had been doing as only passive participation in the industrial workforce. The destruction caused by the arms that she and others were part of manufacturing had a major impact on the way in which she chose to work both during and after the conflict and is part of her own reconciliation process. She described the poor living conditions in rural parts of the country, the political obstructions to the return of refugees and displaced persons and presented another initiative whereby a group of women have organised themselves to help returnees and other vulnerable groups.

During the ensuing discussion, it was explained that the Truth and Reconciliation Commission would have no power to subpoena witnesses or to grant amnesty. Consequently, the Commission would not be a mechanism for bringing to justice high-level officials who would not stand trial in a court.

Another question was raised about the effects of the timing of the first elections after the peace agreement and of possible links between the elections and the reconciliation efforts. Mr Dizdarevic believed that the 1996 elections had been counterproductive, had strengthened the wartime leaders and had given them time to continue to pursue their policies of ethnic cleansing.

A representative of the Council of Europe emphasised the important role of the teachers of history – teachers can help change the attitudes of young people and should therefore be given all support possible.

International justice

Mr Denis MacShane outlined four particularly important issues for Bosnia and Herzegovina today. It is vital that the key persons indicted for war crimes be delivered to the Tribunal in the Hague, particularly Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic. There will be no European settlement until they have been arrested. Reform of the education system and reproduction of history textbooks, the development of responsible mass media that report on politics in a factual way and thus provide a point of reference to offset partisan media and, finally, economic modernisation and investments are other matters that have to be addressed. Only the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina could resolve these issues.
Like several other speakers, Mr Johannes Koskinen emphasised the role of education and the media but also widened the discussion to include global issues: the international perspective of truth, justice, democracy and the rule of law and the role of the International Criminal Court. At the Durban World Conference against Racism, President Ahtisaari presented the idea of the creation of a North-South Forum – a sort of global truth and reconciliation commission. His office will carry out a study on the feasibility of such a commission, the aim being to investigate possible mechanisms that could stimulate a global debate and suggest alternatives in order to find forward-looking solutions to global problems. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is an important step towards the strengthening and enhancing of the rule of law in international relations and one would hope that more countries will ratify the treaty. Crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC are genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In light of the current fight against terrorism, Mr Koskinen noted that the Court, under its current jurisdiction, could investigate massive terrorist attacks (Article 7 of the Statute). There will be reason to reopen deliberations on the Court’s jurisdiction in the future to include crimes against the whole of the international community.

Mr Payam Akhavan outlined the revolutionary development in international criminal justice by the establishment of, and the work carried out by, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). From being primarily a paper tiger created to exert pressure on the parties to stop committing war crimes, and with little prospect of bringing the perpetrators to justice since the international community did not want to intervene in the conflict at the time, it has succeeded beyond expectation. For the first time in the history of the United Nations, individual criminal accountability has become an integral part of peace building efforts and real politics. The dynamics have changed and the Tribunal has become a reality, a real threat to extremists, since it has contributed to discrediting and marginalising them and it has created a realisation that these people cannot be in a position of power and lead the reconstruction and development of the country. The ICTY should now make efforts to create closer connections with the countries of the region, giving them a sense of ownership and access. A Truth and Reconciliation Commission is an indispensable complement to the Tribunal. Justice cannot be a substitute for the process of reconciliation, a process which must be owned by the people it affects.

Mr Christian Palme raised questions about the accountability process and its impact on the public perception of the war. Can the Nuremberg principles and the laws of war be enforced when crimes were committed by all sides but where one party had a greater degree of responsibility, and what will be the result of a process which is perceived as being biased? All parties have their own views of the process; the majority of the Serbs consider the Tribunal to be biased while the Croat and Bosniak communities find it ambiguous and question the meaning of international humanitarian law as long as some of the main culprits, including Karadzic and Mladic, remain at large. The ICTY will only be able to prosecute a limited number of persons. Consequently, some war criminals will remain free thus creating a climate of impunity. This is a problem, as is the fact that the decisions regarding who is to be indicted are perceived as being random. One of the aims of the ICTY is to hold individuals accountable, thereby avoiding branding entire nations as collectively guilty. Another equally important aim is to create a permanent historical record for the future. The tribunals may not be fully accepted by this generation, but they are needed as a constant reminder and a warning to all of us.

Crimes against women

Professor Beverly Allen, discussed the issue of crimes against women, of sexual violence and genetic warfare. Gender violence is not limited to war zones but is a continuum in society – from genocidal rape as in Bosnia and Herzegovina to prejudicial presumptions we make based on gender. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, rape was used as a weapon: regular rape committed by soldiers who were not held accountable and genocidal rape used as a means of genocide, to promote terror and ethnic cleansing. Victims of rape, widows and wives of perpetrators all have individual needs – of security, economic assistance, training, jobs, etc. – and these are issues that concern all of us. A lesson to be learnt from the women of Bosnia and Herzegovina is that there is a formula for achieving true security, not only at interpersonal but also at international level. Security requires two things: i) safety which relates to security, economic recovery, justice and reconciliation, and ii) the ability to acknowledge one’s own vulnerability – the beginning of empathy. The ICTY witness protection programme addresses both of these issues.

During the discussion, a question was raised about what happens to women who testify before the ICTY after their return to Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was noted that the ICTY witness protection programme includes a relocation programme. The programme in Bosnia and Herzegovina is ineffective however, and women who return are, in reality, on their own. Another lesson to be learnt is that more has to be done to create a climate of physical, social and economic security for witnesses. As far as the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is concerned, it is possible to give testimony in a closed session.

Return of refugees and displaced persons

Mr Gerald Knaus concluded the seminar by emphasising the importance of the return of refugees and displaced persons, an issue which sets Bosnia and Herzegovina apart from many other post-conflict areas. This is an area where much progress has been made in recent years through a return and a property law implementation plan. The process of repossession of properties is a precondition for reconciliation and this is an ongoing process which, together with the ICTY, is influential in transforming people’s perceptions. Can the peoples of Bosnia and Herzegovina live together under democratic conditions? Yes – and the progress being made in the return process is proof of that. The real challenge for the next year or two is for the international community, which has assumed an increasingly prominent role in decision-making and legislation, to transfer the decision-making and problem-resolution processes to the authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina without the system breaking down. There are many things to be learnt from Bosnia and Herzegovina about peacekeeping and reconciliation processes.


Rapporteur: Anette Brolenius
Ministry for Foreign Affairs,
Stockholm