You are here: 2002 / Workshops, Panels and Seminars / Seminar on Bosnia and Herzegovina / Presentation by Mr. Srdjan Dizdarevic
	Participants Countries and organizations Conference documentation Conference programme				Report from Seminar on Bosnia and Herzegovina Message by Dr. Jadranko Prlic Presentation by Dr. Jakob Finci Presentation by Mr. Srdjan Dizdarevic Presentation by Mr. Branko Todorovic Presentation by Ms. Memnuna Zvizdic Presentation by Mr. Christian Palme Presentation by Professor Beverly Allen Presentation by Mr. Srdjan Dizdarevic Dizdarevic, Srdjan TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION IN BIH TRUTH AND RECONCILIATION IN BIH After ending the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina first serious considerations appeared on how to stabilise the peace and eliminate the causes that might spark the war again. The awareness of the Dayton Peace Agreement as of an introduction into a long and complex process of stabilisation of peace has become a reality in minds of people in Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as of international factors. The establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is one of the measures by which the international community wanted to sanction the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the 1992-1995 period. By this, the process of establishing criminal responsibility for committed crimes was opened and at the same time it was the first step towards creating foundations for stabilisation of peace and for reestablishment of mutual confidence, tolerance and understanding. It is clear that the role of the International Tribunal, by sanctioning the perpetrators of crimes, is to offer satisfaction to the victims and their families, to act as preventive measure for those who would be prone to start again a war adventure, and to reduce a crime to individual act, which is in fact an individual act, in order to eliminate any possibility of keeping all nations responsible for crimes committed. Under the post-war circumstances, the role of justice cannot be avoided and cannot be replaced by anything else. Within that framework, the Hague Tribunal has a key role in respect to the powers vested in it and also in respect to impartiality that characterise the Tribunal by the definition. Naturally, when we assess the process of establishment of justice with a distance of nine years, i.e. from the date of establishment of the Hague Tribunal, we have to state that it is discouraging that some of the key protagonists of the war events are still outside the reach of justice. Thus, positive processes initiated by peace are slowed down, as well as normalisation of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Of course, this objection does not refer to the Hague Tribunal. What can be objected, with good intentions, to the Tribunal is that some trials last too long, which, on one side, does harm to reputation of the institution, and, on the other side, leaves the space to malevolent persons to relativize the crimes committed. Finally, there are objections, in the majority of cases coming from the victims, that the sentences are too mild and that they do not correspond to the gravity of the crimes committed. It is already known that the Hague Tribunal will not be able to process all those who are accountable for crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia. Having in mind the number of indictments as well as investigations being undertaken, it is real to expect that about 200 persons, with the highest responsibility for the crimes committed, will appear before the judges of the Tribunal. In addition, the Tribunal’s representatives announced the cessation of the work of the Tribunal by 2008, and the remaining time does not make possible any major increase in number of cases to be dealt with by this court. Therefore, it is becoming certain that the local courts will have to engage to a greater extent in processing the crimes committed during the war in the former Yugoslavia. Truly speaking, there was neither willingness nor readiness expressed in terms of domestic courts dealing with the crimes committed by the members of “own” people. In all environments, without any major difference, prevails the opinion that the past war was defensive, and that the most serious crimes cannot be committed in defence. The relationship towards the past war events is also illustrated by lack of willingness to cooperate with the Hague Tribunal, by rejecting to deliver to the International Tribunal the persons who are on sealed or open indictment. Unfortunately, there is still present a picture of perpetrators of crimes during the war as of national heroes, national symbols, defenders of national values… Consequently, there is a lack of willingness that the local courts wrestle with the crimes committed in the 1991-1995 period. The lack of political will is only a part of this problem. Another problem is a situation in the judiciary. Globally looking, the judiciary system in Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot be qualified as independent and professional. On the contrary! Many things indicate that it depends on the centres of political power and that it is corrupted. Naturally, by this assertion we are not giving qualification for all the judges and prosecutors, nevertheless, the judiciary system is being very slowly transformed into such a judiciary that should exist in democracy. Nevertheless, such a situation cannot last for long. The investigations being conducted by the the Hague Tribunal, as well as the investigations conducted by the non-governmental organisations, associations of families of the victims of the war and other bodies dealing with the war issues, are becoming aware of the role of individuals in violating the international law, individuals who are not covered by the Hague indictments. Indeed, there is no alternative to more active relationship of domestic courts towards the crimes committed in the war. Regardless of whether special courts be established at the level of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which would be a kind of replica to the Hague Tribunal, or whether the existing entity and cantonal courts be activated, it is to be expected that taking over the responsibility for future of the country by domestic institutions would inevitably lead, through strengthening the role of domestic judiciary, to processing war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes of genocide. We can freely say that it would be good for the future of Bosnia and Herzegovina that this process starts as soon as possible. It is clear that the first step on this road is to accelerate the process of reform of judiciary in order to establish a truly independent and professional judiciary. However, for the process of normalisation of the state in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which implies return of confidence, elimination of tensions and re-establishment of tolerance, the justice itself and its establishment are not sufficient. If we take into account the experiences attained after the Second World War, it becomes clear that suppressing a part of truth about the events from that period was to a large extent the basis for preparation and start up of the 1992 conflict. After the Second World War, the winners, for the sake of the project they had in mind, put a whole series of events and occurrences under the carpet, and four decades later these events and occurrences were abused through their personal interpretations aimed at raising interethnic tensions, distrust, nourishing the feelings of any of the individual ethnic group that they had been the major victim or even the only victim during the world scale tragedy such as the Second World War. The experiences from these territories are not isolated. It has also become clear to others that passing over the facts in silence does not contribute to calming down the situation in affected areas. On the contrary! On the other hand, some experiences show that the efforts invested in establishing the truth in post-conflict situations, significantly contributed to calming down the tensions and to reconciliation of until yesterday divided parties. If we are to judge on the experiences of the Republic of South Africa, Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Argentina and some other countries in which the truth finding bodies were established, we can conclude that the efforts were rewarding and that the sound basis was created for the process of reconciliation. When speaking of Bosnia and Herzegovina, starting from the above mentioned views, some of the non-governmental organisations and intellectuals are of opinion that the establishment of truth on the events from the 1992-1995 period would mean a lot in making efforts to alleviate the war consequences and to create the preconditions for reconciliation on the sound and stable bases. Brutality of the conflict in BiH, quantity of pain and sufferings, dimensions of destruction that were recorded, indicate that the truth finding will be painful and complex work. However, without such a process it is not possible to believe that the reconciliation itself will blaze the trail, as all those who struggle for normal and better life would like to see; on the other hand, underestimating the need to establish the truth would mean threat that the events from close past will happen sometimes again. Truly speaking, cynics could say that there were too many truths in Bosnia and Herzegovina in view of the fact that there are at least three truths, three interpretations of recent events. Either Serb or Croatian or Bosniak side have their own interpretation of war events. The focal point of each of the interpretations of the past events is own nation as victim. Each of the ethnic group sees itself exclusively as the victim of war while the other two ethnic groups are considered as “criminal” and responsible for crimes committed. Even seven years after the end of the war, there are no signs of any efforts directed towards bringing closer the three truths, to making the picture on war events more objective. The consequence of such a situation is that these three truths are practically transferred to the literature textbooks. Children, depending on their ethnic background, are being raised and educated in the atmosphere that is not at all in favour of overcoming the gaps created during the war. The impression is that the schools are preparing children for a new, future war but not for a life in a civilised multiethnic and multicultural society. All those who work in favour of establishing the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation are committed to that work, among other things, because of the need of a large number of people to tell their experiences from the last war, the need to write them down and to store them somewhere, the need that all somehow pass catharsis. Without such purification, there is a serious risk that such accumulated sober experiences transform into everlasting intolerance with which it is hard and difficult to live. Indeed, both the historical lesson and human need coincided in efforts to establish the full truth forever about the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. In the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation will be primarily focused on victims. It partly arises from its mandate that does not foresee amnesty for perpetrators of crimes. On the other hand, it is not excluded that some perpetrators of crimes will appear before the Commission and testify. It is worth mentioning that, apart from the testimonies on sufferings, crimes, tragedies about which we already know a lot, there will also be testimonies on compassion, self-sacrifice in the name of human kind, on light examples of those who rejected to enter the trains of evil, which, unfortunately, turned down the country. It will be much easier to establish future of the people who live here and their descendants on the basis of such examples, when they become generally accepted as good ones. So far, unfortunately, there was no a real chance to tell a real story about “good people at the times of evil”, to paraphrase one successful literary attempt to light up this phenomenon; so far, there has just been a governing belief that those people who were saving lives of people from other ethnic group were the traitors of their own nation. It is evident that passing in silence of this part of truth on war events additionally distorts the picture on the time of war, thus leaving less hope for all those things that are normal and humane. The opponents to the idea on establishment of truth and establishment of the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation come from various provenances and have different intentions. Some of them are, with good reason, afraid of truth because it will light up those things they were doing during the war. They cannot pursue anyone with their arguments. However, there are also those well intentioned who think that the Commission has put the work of the International Tribunal into question. Indeed, not only is the truth compatible with justice, but also it is, at least in BiH experience, complementary to justice. Establishing the truth can only be of benefit for justice since its setting up does not amnesty perpetrators of crimes from sanctioning the justice. These two processes together can heal the war traumas. Finally, there is also an opinion according to which search for truth could hurt the existing wounds and cause hatred, distrust and intolerance again. I consider this opinion also as well intentioned, although we can disapprove of it since anything can be resolved if we give up the honest relationship towards the past. By accepting such a view, it would mean that we agree with at least three interpretations of the past events, at least three truths, at least three history textbooks in which modern history has been compiled. However, we should take into account that there is a real possibility that some of the protagonists and instigators of war try to use the told stories and testimonies given by victims and witnesses in order to try again to create division or even to dig up the hatchet. We can say again that testimonies and establishment of the truth will be very painful, however, simply it is inevitable. No doubt, the most painful of all would be an encouragement of a new war. The harm of it would be immeasurably higher than the temporary shock we have to face with during the work of the body that is to establish the truth and initiate the reconciliation. As foreseen, the Bosnian-Herzegovinian Commission for Truth and Reconciliation will be composed of the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is, it seems, the only real solution. Only domestic protagonists have sufficient strength and knowledge to face with the quantity of evil that was expressed here. Even more important is the fact that the future processes that imply building of confidence and tolerance will depend exclusively on the engagement, power of arguments and power of commitment of domestic protagonists. It has been planned that active work of the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation lasts between eighteen and twenty four months. During that time, thousands of witnesses, protagonists and victims of the war will be investigated. After that, the Commission will prepare recommendations that should serve as foundations, on one side, for normalisation of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and, on the other side, for creation of suppositions for not having ever again nineties repeated. The recommendations of the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation must be authentic reflection of BiH reality, its history and commitment of the people living here to the values that would strengthen the hope in future in these territories. It would be very important for Bosnia and Herzegovina that the Commission for Truth and Reconciliation be established as soon as possible, in the work of which there will be included renowned citizens of high moral qualities. In the light of the above, it would be important that such initiative be given a strong support by the international community, along with the existing support of a significant part of BiH public. The time will endorse the achievements of the Commission and justify the efforts invested by the advocates who insist on its establishment. However, there is no doubt, the Commission will contribute to acceleration of the positive processes that need much time to be realised. >> Back to top				Introduction Opening Session Plenary Sessions Workshops, Panels and Seminars Seminar A: Reconciliation and Remembrance After Mass Atrocities Seminar B: Is Reconciliation Possible Without Forgiveness Seminar on South Africa Seminar on Bosnia and Herzegovina Seminar on Rwanda Seminar on Cambodia Seminar on German-Polish Reconciliation Closing Session
For information about this production and the Stockholm International Forum Conference Series please go to www.humanrights.gov.se or contact Information Rosenbad, SE-103 33 Stockholm, Sweden