The former Yugoslavia is a striking example of the role played by the media in winning over people to the idea of using force to settle political issues and that it is all right to violate the human rights of certain ethnic communities. During the half-century of communist rule, the national media were guided in their reporting by political requirements rather than by the standards of freedom of expression and thought. Objectively speaking, it would have been irrealistic to expect media with such a history to be critical of the policies of their governments.

Thus, three years before the outbreak of the conflicts, the official media in Serbia, without exception, told their readers and viewers that the other peoples of the former Yugoslavia were their enemies, and that Serbia had to do everything possible to protect the Serb nation. The ethnic Albanians headed the list of proven enemies of the Serbs as far back as 1991. Then they were replaced first of all by the Croats and then the Muslims. In 1999, media attention returned to the Albanians, who were blamed for the wars and all the troubles of the Serbs.

The handful of non-government media, which brought out facts that contradicted the official version of the wars, were unable to exert any real influence on public opinion since their circulation/ number of viewers were a tiny fraction of those of the state-run media, and because they too were presented as being inimical to the interests of Serbia and its people.

The former Yugoslavia also showed that, in certain circumstances, non-government media and civil society can back nationalistic governments. What I mean is that there were occasions when the awareness of others and the need to try to stop or prevent massive violation of their human rights was completely overshadowed by the danger to oneself. This is what happened in Serbia during the NATO campaign. Apart from a few individuals who spoke out against the crimes being perpetrated against Albanians, everyone in Serbia, including those who had until then been fierce political opponents, shared the view that they could be no self-criticism while the country was being bombed. Such momentous times, it turned out, resulted in human rights organizations becoming confused, ineffective, and renouncing their mandate to protect human rights by issuing warnings, documenting violations, and making recommendations aimed at halting the crimes.

The example of Kosovo is relevant also because it showed how unsuccessful diplomacy and human rights organizations were in preventing the Serbian government from gravely abusing the fundamental rights of the Albanians. Starting in 1991 when Kosovo's autonomy was abolished, non-governmental organizations reported the violation of the rights of Albanians on a massive scale, and appealed to the international community to take steps to put an end to the abuses. They warned that many Albanians were being unfairly tried, and that the trials had no preventive function, their purpose being the intimidation of the Kosovo Albanian population.

In the 1992-1995 period, the efforts of international diplomats were focused on the war in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the negotiations with Slobodan Milosevic, who was seen as the guarantor of peace. Precious time was lost in taking preventive action in Kosovo and stopping the crimes against humanity. In my opinion, there was a clear and present danger of extreme human rights violations in Kosovo. But, because the diplomatic action came too late and was not effective, it was followed first by the threat of bombing and then the actual bombing of Serbia and Montenegro. The military intervention, however, did not prevent the Serbian security forces from ethnically cleansing Kosovo and committing mass crimes there. And when the war ended, it turned out that the international community was not prepared for a situation in which the roles of victims and perpetrators had suddenly been reversed. In spite of the many mistakes and inadequate responses to the policy and practice of massive human rights violations, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, we have been able to see that the establishment of the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was instrumental in ending the violence. The Tribunal put an end to the practice of impunity and demonstrated the power of international justice. The forming of the internationalized courts in Kosovo and their jurisprudence raised the awareness of the Albanian population that everyone was equal before the law, including those who had been the victims of the Serbian regime and who thereupon gave themselves the right to commit war crimes of their own, supposedly in the interests of the Albanians.

It is my opinion that the international war crimes trials are helping people to understand that those who resort to crime in dealing with political problems must be held accountable for their actions. The fact that most of the accused before the Tribunal are charged with superior and command responsibility raises hopes that the decisions of its Trial Chambers will make those who even consider taking up arms to achieve their political objectives think twice. The establishment of the permanent International Criminal Court is a strong declaration of the international community's will to treat responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity as a universal principle. The Court promises to be the most powerful instrument in deterring politicians from using force and in preventing the most serious breaches of international law such as crimes against humanity and genocide.

As a human rights activist, I hold that unless justice for human rights violations is seen to be done also before domestic courts, there can be no guarantees that the recent past will not be repeated.

The present, freely elected governments in the former Yugoslavia must take responsibility for peace and stability in the region. Many obstacles, however, stand in the way, primarily the lack of political will on the part of these governments to assume responsibility for the misdeeds of their predecessors, and the readiness of the societies to face their own past.

In such circumstances, human rights organizations must, drawing on the experiences of others, formulate strategies with which they could create an awareness of what happened, and fight against denial and for establishing accountability as a precondition for making a complete break with the past. Since only primary documentation can ensure the full truth about human rights violations, these organizations must devote themselves to gathering and protecting documentation, and make efforts through networking on a regional basis to ensure conditions for facing the past. There are at least three important reasons for setting up documentation and research centers.

 

Firstly, only well-organized, reliable and relevant documentation can be used to counter attempts to re-write history, and to help present and future generations, from scholars to family members, to understand what happened and reach their own conclusions.

 

Secondly, the documentation gathered by human rights organizations needs to be protected from loss and the depredations of time. And, thirdly, many cases of torture, disappearances and killings have not yet been registered and documented. Properly protected, integrated, classified, organized, ever-growing and accessible documentation on human rights abuses constitutes the best possible support for other instruments for facing the past – from war crimes trials to compensation and other means of restoring the human dignity of victims.A regional dimension in access to and exchange of documentation could do a lot to putting an end to impunity for “our heroes” and identifying perpetrators and witnesses.

 

Another factor which must be borne in mind is the fact that the Tribunal at The Hague is due to end its mission in 2008 when the documentation it possesses is to be relocated to the region, with guarantees that it will be used to serve justice and the deterrence of crimes, and, not least, to preserve memory.