No exoneration

I won’t pretend to have read the gigantesque judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) acquitting Jovica Stanišić and Franko Simatović, respectively head of the Serbian security service (DB) and one of its employees.  They were accused of committing crimes between 1991 and 1995 against non-Serb civilians in Croatia and Bosnia.  The crimes included persecution, murder, deportation, and forcible transfer, committed as participants in a joint criminal enterprise.  Volumes 1 and 2 run to 888 pages.

But I couldn’t miss this:

The Trial Chamber notes that in many instances the evidence suggested a conclusion which seemed to be very likely. However, in keeping with the applicable standard of proof the Trial Chamber strictly examined whether such conclusion was the only reasonable one.

This is directly relevant to the judgment, which found that the standard of proof had not been met.

Some will see this as exonerating not only the two individuals but also the Serbian state and its security services.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  As noted in the summary of the judgment, the Chamber found beyond a reasonable doubt, for example, that deportation as a crime against humanity had been committed by Yugoslav National Army forces, in cooperation with other security forces in Croatia and Bosnia that the accused directed and organized.  The court also found that the accused were in “direct and frequent contact” with the Serb organizers (including with Slobodan Milosevic) of a joint criminal enterprise that aimed to forcibly and permanently remove the majority of non-Serbs from large areas of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.

But it did not find that the accused provided channels of communication among the organizers of the joint criminal enterprise (who also talked directly with each other) and found insufficient evidence to demonstrate that they shared the intent of the joint criminal enterprise.

This is not what I call exoneration, either of the individuals or of the institutions involved.

The judgment can be appealed, and I suppose will be.  But whatever the eventual outcome for Stanisic and Simatovic, it is starkly clear what was going on:  the Belgrade authorities in the early 1990s planned and carried out an effort by the Yugoslav National Army and other security forces, including some it organized locally in Bosnia and Croatia, to violently and criminally remove people from their homes based on ethnic criteria.  I repeat what I said when ICTY acquitted two Albanians six months ago:

“Not guilty” does not exonerate.  It only finds that adequate evidence was not presented to prove the case.

Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt tweeted yesterday:

It is becoming increasingly difficult to see the consistency or logic in the different judgements by the ICTY war crimes tribunal.

Those who would look for consistency and logic in convictions and acquittals are bound to be disappointed.  Each case is decided on its own merits, not based on what was found in another case.  The standards of proof are supposed to be the same, but the witnesses and other evidence vary.  The system is designed to protect the rights of the accused, even at the risk of finding them not guilty in error.  Justice doesn’t always mean convictions.