On trial before the world

How was Milosevic captured?

The process began last October, when mass protests forced Milosevic from power after he refused to recognize constitutional lawyer Vojislav Kostunica as the winner in the Yugoslav presidential elections. Milosevic hid in his home until police arrested him on corruption charges on April 1. Before Milosevic could stand trial, the U.S. threatened to block $1.28 billion in aid to Yugoslavia unless he was handed over to an international criminal tribunal. President Kostunica said the extradition was illegal, but the Serbian government bowed to the pressure and sent Milosevic to the Netherlands.

What is he being charged with?

The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

Milosevic is charged with crimes against humanity and violating the laws of war in Kosovo. After Kosovar leaders began calling for independence in 1998, Milosevic sent troops there to crush an armed uprising by the ethnic Albanian majority. Milosevic is specifically cited for ruthlessly evicting more than 700,000 Kosovar Albanians—the process of “ethnic cleansing”—and for giving orders that led to the execution of 340 people,

mainly civilians.

Does he face other charges?

Chief prosecutor Carla Del Ponte predicts that the trial on the listed charges could last up to two years. But she has not ruled out bringing additional charges involving the carnage in Bosnia, where Bosnian Serbs slaughtered tens of thousands of Muslims and engaged in mass rape. Milosevic’s opponents would likely want to establish that he encouraged or even ordered such massacres, including the killing of 7,000 Muslims in Srebrenica in July 1995.

Who is trying Milosevic?

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) indicted the Serbian leader for his actions in Kosovo. The United Nations originally set up this tribunal in The Hague in 1993 to investigate atrocities in the wars in Croatia and, later, Bosnia. The prosecution of Milosevic marks the first time a U.N. body has tried a head of state. In 1994, a comparable body based in Arusha, Tanzania, was organized to prosecute the leaders of the Rwandan genocide, during which 800,000 (mostly Tutsis) were killed. That tribunal is still active, and continues to hold trials for the hundreds of people charged with participating in the massacres.

How does the ICTY differ from Nuremberg?

The Nuremberg International Military Tribunal was set up in 1945 to prosecute members of the Nazi regime for crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, violations of the rules of war, and conspiracy to commit these criminal acts. At that time, a second court, set up in Tokyo, prosecuted Japanese leaders for their wartime roles. The main difference between the World War II courts and the Rwanda and Yugoslav tribunals is that the former ones involved the war’s victors bringing the losers to trial for their actions. The current tribunals were set up by the U.N. to try alleged criminals on all sides of the conflict.

Why have there been so few war-crimes trials?

Most countries are loath to give up their judicial sovereignty, making it difficult for international courts to issue binding judgments. A case in point is the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was established in July 1998 in Rome. Although 120 nations voted to create the Rome Statute, 60 nations are required to ratify it, and only a few have done so. The U.S. has refused to ratify until an amendment is added that gives immunity for official government acts—an assurance that the U.S. won’t be put on trial itself. In addition, international tribunals have been extremely slow and expensive in their pursuit of justice. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, for example, has spent nearly half a billion dollars and achieved only nine convictions.

Will the validity of thistrial be challenged?

A defiant Milosevic has declared the proceedings illegal. Some Serbian leaders, such as Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic, have said that Milosevic must first be discredited by a domestic trial before his own people will accept a U.N. verdict. Yugoslavia’s president, Vojislav Kostunica, has long said that the tribunal is biased against Serbs. Critics say the U.S. is hypocritical for supporting the trial, questioning why no NATO member has been indicted, even though Serbian civilians were killed in the bombing of Belgrade. Others have pointed out that the U.S. and its Western allies negotiated with Milosevic as a peacemaker, only to later turn against him.

How strong is the case against Milosevic?

Ever since Nuremburg, the argument goes, criminal leaders have learned not to leave paper trails. This lack of physical evidence is one reason many were convinced that Milosevic would never stand trial, and why his conviction, all appearances to the contrary, could be difficult to obtain. Prosecutors may need to rely on eyewitness testimony to demonstrate that Milosevic had command of the military personnel who killed the Kosovars, that he was aware of their actions, and did not try to stop them.

The path to power