RAMUSH HARADINAJ: DREJTESIA E VONUAR ESHTE DREJTESI E MOHUAR
Shkruar nga Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi
Pas lengimit ne burg prej mese dy vitesh pa e ditur gjatësinë dhe rezultatin e gjykimit të tij, Ramush Haradinaj do te lirohet se shpejti perkohesisht nga burgu i Tribunalit Nderkombetar per Krime Lufte ne ish-Jugosllavi. Dhoma e Apelit e mori kete vendim pasi prokuroria i dha fund rastit te saj ne gjykimin e e pjesshem te Haradinajt dhe dy te akuzuarve te tjere, Lahi Brahimaj dhe Idriz Balaj, dhe pasi Dhoma mbajti nje degjim te statusit me 2 Maj. Ne kete degjim per statusin, gjykatesit gjithashtu vendosen te degjonin argumentet permbyllese nga Mbrojtja me 25 e 26 qershor, para se cilese Haradinaj do te kthehet prape ne gjykate.
Ramush Haradinaj, ish-kryeministri i Kosovës dhe komandant i respektuar i Ushtrisë Çlirimtare të Kosovës, u lirua nga të gjithat akuzat për krime lufte para Tribunalit Ndërkombëtar për Krime Lufte për ish-Jugosllavine në Hagë në vitin 2008. Në një kthesë të paparë, Haradinaj u arrestua përsëri në korrik të 2010-së, pasi Gjykata e Apelit e bindi Tribunalin se një gjykim i pjesshëm ishte i duhur – kinse Prokuroria nuk kishte kohë të mjaftueshme të bindte dy dëshmitarë vendimtarë që të dëshmojnë. Kjo e bëri Haradinajn të akuzuarin a parë ndaj të cilit u rrëzua vendimi për lirimin nga të gjitha akuzat qysh kur Tribunali u themelua në 1993.
Në dhjetor të vitit 2010, Haradinajt iu mohua lirimi i përkohshëm nga gjykatësit a Apelit të Tribunalit që te ishte me gruan e tij, Anita Muçaj, kur ajo lindi djalin e tyre të tretë në Janar të vitit 2011. (Çuditshëm, Gjykatësi kryesor Patrick Robinson, i cili pjesërisht nuk ishte pajtuar me regjykimin, argumentoi se Haradinaj mund të shfrytëzonte lirimin e tij për ti kërcënuar dëshmitarët.) Gjykimi i pjesërishëm i Haradinajt filloi me 18 gusht, 2011. Gjykimi u ndërpre pak pasi filloi dhe vazhdoi me 13 shkurt, 2012 – vetëm për tu ndaluar sërish kur njëri prej dëshmitarëve kryesorë të Prokurorisë, një dëshmitar i mbrojtur, nuk u paraqit në gjykatë.
Edhe pse vendimi per ti liruar me kusht perkohesisht Haradinajn eshte per tu pershendetur, megjithate une besoj se është koha që ta vizitojmë rastin e Haradinajt para Tribunalit – të pyesim pse rasti u rihap, dhe pse ka një zgjatje të paarsyeshme të zhvillimit të gjykimit. Kjo e fundit është shkelje e Konventës Evropiane mbi të Drejtat e Njeriut të kërkesave për shqyrtimin a rasteve gjatë një kohe të arsyeshme. Për ti shqyrtuar këto çështje, është e nevojshme që ti shikojmë historinë e këtij rasti.
Historia e gjykimit kunder Haradinajt
Pas vetem 100 ditesh ne zyre si kryeminister i Kosoves, Haradinaj dha doreheqje nga ky post ne 2005, iu dorezua Tribunalit Nderkombetar per Krime Lufte ne ish-Jugosllavi, shpenzoi dy vite ne qendren e paraburgimit ne Hage, dhe nje vit tjeter ne arrest shtepiak ne Prishtine para se Tribunali ta lironte me 3 prill 2008 nga te gjitha akuzat per involvim ne sjellje te paligjshme perderisa ai ishte komandant ne Ushtrine Clirimtare te Kosoves.
Dhoma e Gjykates vendosi se nuk kishte prova te mjaftueshme per existencen e nje “nderrmarrje kriminale te perbashket,” dhe shfajesoi Haradinajn, Lahi Brahimaj, dhe Idriz Balaj, nga cdo pergjegjesi kriminale nga nje organizim I tille. Brahimaj u gjet if fajshem per akuzen e torures dhe u denua me gjashte vjet burg.
Sapo u kthye Haradinaj ne Kosove ne 2008, Prokuroria apeloi vendimin duke insistuar se ai ishte liruar per shkak se “keqmenaxhimi” i Tribunalit e kishte ndaluar Prokurorine nga marrja e provave nga dy deshmitare kryesore – deshmitare qe deklaruan se ishin kercenuar dhe kishin frike te deshmonin. Gjykata e Apelit u pergjegj duke i mbajtur 31 akuzat e lirimit. Mirepo, ne mbeshtetje te apelit te Prokurorise, urdheroi rigjykim te 6 akuzave per vrasje, trajtim mizor, dhe torture ne nje qender te supozuar paraburgimi te UCK-se ne Jablanice ne pranvere dhe vere te 1998. Gjithashtu Gjykata e Apelit u pajtua qe gjykatesit nuk i kishin dhene Prokurorise kohe te mjaftueshme qe te siguronte deshmine e Shefqet Kabashit dhe deshmitarit te mbrojtur i njohur si “Deshmitari X.” Dhoma e Apelit e beri kete edhe pse Haradinaj ishte liruar nga te gjitha akuzat ne gjykimin e tij te mehershem e edhe pse nuk kishte kurrefare prove se ai kishte nderhyre te ndonje deshmitare. Dy vite me vone, Haradinaj nuk kishte zgjidhje tjeter pose te kthehej te qendra e paraburgimit te Tribunalit.
Per mendimin tim, gjykimi i vazhdueshem i Ramush Haradinajt pasi gjykimi i tij i mehershem ne Hage konkludoi se nuk kishte prova qe e lidhnin ate me ndonje krim apo viktime, eshte problematik nga nje perspektive legale dhe morale. Se pari, nuk kishte arsye se pse ai te mbahej ne paraburgim kur ai ka nje histori te pegjigjjes ndaj kerkesave te Tribunalit dhe nuk ka rrezik qe ai te arratiset. Se dyti, problemet legale dhe strukturale ne kete rast jane dokumentuar mire nga experti i se drejtes nderkombetare Roland Gjoni ne artikullin e tij: “Tribunali: favorizimi i prokurise ndaj drejtesise?” (Open Democracy, 9 gusht, 2011). Gjoni spjegon se gjykimi i pjesshem i Haradinajt ishte ikje jo vetem prej “parimeve themelore te se drejtes nderkombetare,” por edhe ne kundershtim me vendimet e mehershme te bera nga gjykata ne rastet Dusko Taci (1993) dhe Naser Oric (2009). (Ne te dyra rastet, Tribunalit ndaloi rigjykimin e nje te akuzuari qe eshte shpallur i pafajshem.) Gjoni konkludoi se rrezimi i vendimit per lirimin nga akuzat ne rastin e Haradinajt eshte baraz me “gjykim te dyfishte” – nje sinjal se “Tribunali mund te jete duke i lakuar parimet themelore ligjore ne favor te prokurorise.”
Presidenti Robinson beri nje veshtrim te ngjashem ne mospajtimin e tij te pjesshem ne vendimin e Dhomes se Apelit per ta rigjykuar Haradinajn (Maj 31, 2011, fq.16-17, paragrafi 3): “ Ne pajtim me parimin e non bis in idem, nje person qe eshte gjykuar nga gjykata nuk duhet te vendoset ne rrezik te konsiderimi si i fajshem per nje akuze per te cilen eshte liruar, apo te trajtohet si i fajshem ne ndonje forme.” Per me teper, “doktrina e res judicata kerkon qe çeshtjet per te cilat edhe dhene gjykimi duhet te pranohen si te verteta… dhe nuk munt te rigjykohen nga te njejtat pale ne nje gjykim te mevonshem.”
Robinsoni konkludoi se Dhoma e Apelit dhunoi rregullen e saj te veten se “nuk do te rrezonte lehte vendimet bazuar ne diskrecionin e Dhomes se Gjykimit.”
Dhoma e Apelit Gaboi kur thirri nje rigjykim te pjesshem.
Gjykatesit e Apelit vendosen qe rigjykimi i pjesshem ishte i nevojshem pasi qe Prokuroria i bindi ata se Shefket Kabashi dhe “Deshmitari X” ishin kercenuar gjate gjykimit fillestar – deshmitare qe e kishin kundershtuar UCK-ne gjate luftes. Mirepo atehere Dhoma shkoi nje hap me tej ne favor te Prokurorise kur u pajtua te lejonte deshmitare te ri – jo vetem te dy deshmitaret nga gjykimi i pare – qe te deshmojne dhe gjithashtu pere te lejuar akuzat qe te qendrojne ne gjykim qe nuk kishin kurrfare lidhje me gjashte akuzat. Ne qofte se per asnje arsye tjeter pervec kesaj, racionalja per rigjykimin e Haradinajt meriton shqyrtim me te detajuar. Siç ka argumentuar Roland Gjoni, Tribunali nuk duhej t’ia jipte Prokurorise “nje mundesi te pafund per te permiresuar nje rast te dobet dhe per ta rigjykuar nje person qe tashme eshte liruar nga te gjitha akuzat.” Duke bere nje gje te tille, kjo “ka vendosur nje hije te madhe permbi aftesisee e tribunalit per dhene drejtesi.”
Ne fillim te rigjykimit te pjesshem ne gusht te 2011, Prokurori Paul Rogers deklaroi se UCK-ja ishte “force legjitime” kur luftoi per pavaresine e Kosoves nga Serbia ne 1998 dhe 1999, por se kishte perdorur “mjete ilegale” kunder kundershtareve serb, rome, dhe shqiptar.” Per ta mbeshtetur kete deklarate, ai solli Shefqet Kabashin, qe dyshohet te kete qene roje burgu ne kampin e Jablanices. Mirepo, ne nje goditje per Prokurorine, Kabashi, deshmia e te cilit duhej te ishte ne qender te gjykimi, refuzoi vazhdimisht te deshmonte, sikurse kishte bere ne dy raste gjate gjykimit te pare. Kabashi gjithashtu kontradiktoi deklaraten e tij te mehershme ndaj investiguesve te Tribunalit. Ai mohoi se ka existuar kampi i Jablanice: “Nuk ka pasur burg ne Jablanice,” tha ai. “Une mund te betohem per kete.” Kabashi u deklarua i fajshem per kundershtim te gjykates dhe u denua ne 16 shtator 2011 me dy muaj burg.
Sic kishte argumentuar mbrojtja ne “Permbledhjen e Para-Gjykimit ne Emer te Ramush Haradinajt” (paragrafi 27) ne korrik 2011, Prokuroria nuk mund te thoshte se Jablanica ishte baze e UCK-se, sepse ishte pushtuar te pakten tri here nga forcat serbe gjate periudhes operative te padise. Edhe pse kishte konflikt te armatosur mes serbeve dhe shqiptareve gjate periudhes ne lidhje me gjashte aktakuzat, “Nuk kishte ndonje hakmarrje te orkestruar nga UCK-ja kunder popullates civile serbe apo kunder civileve te ndonje grupi tjeter etnik.” Per me teper, as Dhomat e Gjykates te Tribunalit e as Prokuroria nuk kishin sugjeruar se ndonje fushate e tille egzistonte ne ndonjeren prej rasteve te merparshme ne lidhje me Kosoven ne cilen komandantet serbe ishin gjykuar (paragrafet 29 dhe 30).
Mbrojtja me tej tha ne permbledhjen e saj para gjykimit se nuk kishte prova te besueshme se Haradinaj kishte marr pjese ne keqtrajtim apo se dinte per nje gje te tille (paragrafi 41), dhe se UCK-ja ne rajonin e Dukagjinit ishte “organizate e re dhe e papervoje” qe punonte per te organizuar mbrojtje si pergjigje ndaj sulmeve serbe (paragrafi 43). Prandaj, nuk kishte prova te nje “nderrmarrje te perbashket kriminale,” dhe ata thane se kishin shume dyshim se ndonje evidence e re do te shfaqej ne rigjykim qe do te jepte baza adekuate te mjaftueshme per rrezimin e vendimit ne gjykimin e pare.
Ne nderkohe, akuzat se Sheqet Kabashi dhe deshmitari i mbrojtur ishin kercenuar nuk u konfirmuan kurre. Sic i tha avokati kryesues i Haradinajt, Ben Emmerson, Rachel Irwin te Raportimi i Institutit per Lufte dhe Paqe me 19 gusht, 2011, “Pervec disa thashethemeve, nuk ka sugjerime se z. Haradinaj kishte qene ndonjehere pergjegjes per kercenimin e deshmitareve, ne menyre direkte ose joindirekte.” Emmersoni shtoi se ne rastin e Deshmitari X, nese ai vendos te deshmoje ne rigjykimin e pjesshem, ai “do te ekspozohet si genjeshtar dhe nje qe ka genjyer nen betim.” Por ne nje goditje tjeter ndaj rastit te Prokurorise kunder Haradinajt, deshmitari X, deshmia e te cilit duhej te ishte arsyetimi per rigjykimin e pjesshem, nuk u paraqit ne gjykate ne shkurt 2012. Kjo rezultoi ne ndaljen e gjykimin deri nje njoftim tjeter nga gjykata.
Nuk eshte e cuditshme qe rigjykimi i Ramush Haradinajt ka bere qe shume shqiptare, te mos permendim disa edhe disa eksperte ligjore dhe te drejtave te njeriut ne gjithe boten, qe te humbin besim ne Tribunalin. Besohet gjeresisht ne Kosove se rigjykimi perben pozicionim politik te perendimit ndaj Serbise. Ky eshte nje problem qe duhet te shqyrtohet, mirepo jo vecmas nga pranimi se Ramush Haradinaj kurre nuk do te arrestohej serish, te burgosej serish, pa lejen e heshtur te te gjithe aktereve te Kosoves se pasluftes, duke perfshire ketu edhe qeverine e Kosoves nen Hashim Thacin.
Beogradi ka qene i suksesshem ne largimin e Tribunalit nga misioni i saj fillestar
Robert Churcher, specialist i pasluftes qe deshmoi ne gjykimin e komandantit te UCK-se ne Hage, kembenguli qe “zyrtaret serbe kane qene duke i dhene Prokurorise prova te rrejshme qysh ne fillim,” dhe se ai e nençmon faktin se gjykata ka qene e gatshme ta pranonte ate. “Si nje gjest pacifues ndaj Beogradit,” tha ai, “Prokuroria po perpiqet qe ta rigjykoje rastin Haradinaj prej fillimit.” Deri ne nje mase, Tribunali ka qene bashkefajtor per shkak te fushates se suksesshme te Serbise kunder UCK-se qe nga perfundimi i luftes se Kosoves ne qershor 1999.
Perderisa themelimi i Tribunalit Nderkombetar per Krime Lufte ne ish-Jugosllavi ishte nje hap i rendesishem ne verjen para drejtesise te atyre qe jane te pergjegjshem per krime kunder njerezimit dhe gjenocid ne Ballkan, fatkeqesisht ne bashkepunim me elemente pro serbe ne Bashkimin Evropian, Beogradi ka qene i suksesshem ne largimin e Tribunalit nga misioni i saj fillestar i adresimit te krimeve te bera ne ish-Jugosllavi.
Ne kete proces, ka kontribuar ne krijimin e nje barazimi falls mes beresve te krimeve dhe viktimave ne lufterat e Ballkanit ne vite e 1990-ta.
Per te permbushur nevojen per tu pare si etnikisht i balancuar, Tribunali i ka hedhur te gjitha palet ne lufterat e Ballkanit si te pergjegjshem te barabarte, edhe pse Serbia i filloi te gjitha lufterat dhe forcat ushtarake dhe para-ushtarake te Milosheviçit ishin pergjegjese per 90 perqind te krimeve te bera. Qe te jemi te sigurte, incidence sporadike te tmerrshme ndodhen edhe ne anen kosovare, por asgje qe e ben moralisht te barabarte UCK-ne me Serbine.
Sic ka thene nepunesi i mehershem ligjor i Tribunalit dhe drejtori i projekteve te organizates jofitimprurese “Jo paqe pa drejtesi” Niccolo Figa-Talmanca para hapjes se gjykimit te pare te Haradinajt, “Ne jemi duke e para perpjekjen e kequdhehequr te Tribunalit qe te ndjek penalisht te gjitha grupet – serbet, kroatet, boshnjaket, dhe kosovaret – ne menyre te barabarte, pa marre parasysh shkallen e krimeve te bera,” dhe rezultati eshte “nje perpjekje per te rishkruar historine dhe per te mohuar masen e vertete te pergjegjesise per tmerret te lufterave te Ballkanit.”
Nese qellimi eshte te arrihet paqe te qendrueshme ne Evropen Juglindore atehere komuniteti nderkombetar nuk duhet te jete pjese e krijimit te nje versioni revizionist ku viktimat e terrorit te Millosheviçit rivendosen si beres te krimeve. Nuk ka kurrefare dyshimi se ata qe kane bere krime duhet te mbahen pergjegjes. Mirepo duke i sjellur te akuzuare te UCK-se si Ramush Haradinaj ne Tribunal, komunitetit nderkombetar ka ndihmuar ne krijimin e nje versioni revizionist te historise, kur viktimat e fushates se Millosheviçit kunder shqiptareve rivendosen si beres te krimeve. Rigjykimi i Haradinajt pasi ai u lirua nga te gjitha akuzat e ve barren per prova ne anen e gjykates per ta mohuar kete.
Me Kosoven qe ska ende sovranitet si shtet, besoj se Tribunali i Hages, nen presion per tu dukur si politikisht i balancuar, dhe ne nje perpjekje per ta bindur Serbine qe te dorezoje komandatet serbe te Bosnjes Ratko Mladic dhe Radovan Karadzic, gje qe e ka bere, besonte se duhej ta burgoste serish Ramush Haradinajn. Mirepo duke e bere nje gje te tille, e ka braktisur misionin historike te saj per ti sjellur drejtesi viktimave te lufterave ballkanike. Qeveria e ShBA-ve, tani ne nje fushate te fundit per te zgjidhur konfliktin mes Beogradit dhe Prishtines, dhe per ta lene Ballkanin ne duart e BE-se, e ka mbeshtetur de facto kete pozicion. Mirepo, konflikti shqiptaro-serb nuk mund te zgjidhet ne kete menyre.
Siç shkroi Ramush Haradinaj me 1 dhjetor, 2001, ne artikull ne The Wall Street Journal Europe, pak para se te zgjidhej kryeminister nga Parlamenti i Kosoves:
[…] jam i lumtur per pjesen qe kam luajtur ne mbrojtjen e popullit tim nga Slobodan Milloshevici dhe kriminelet e tij, dhe jam i gatshem qe te mbroje veprat e mija kunder kritikave dhe shpifjeve.
“Prandaj une e mirepres shqyrtimin e veprave te mija gjate luftes nga Tribunali Nderkombetare per Krime Lufte ne ish-Jugosllavi…dhe besoj se e verteta dhe drejtesia do te fitojne. Megjithate, çdo perpjekje – nga Tribunali me motivet me te mira, apo nga te tjeret me me te keqijat – qe moralisht ta barazojne terrorin e sponsorizuar nga shteti i Milosheviçit me veprat e Ushtrise Clirimtare te Kosoves ne mbrojtje te shqiptareve te Kosoves vetem se do ta beje detyrat qe jane para Kosoves dhe me te veshtira.
“Se tani nevoja eshte qe shikojme para e jo prapa, qe te krijojme nje shtet gjitheperfshires, demokratik, e te pavarur, nje shtet qe respekton te gjithe te drejtat e qytetareve dhe qe eshte i drejte dhe tolerant.”
Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi eshte Keshilltare per Ceshtje te Ballkanit prane Liges Qytetare Shqiptaro-Amerikane.
New York, 10 Mai 2012
RAMUSH HARADINAJ: JUSTICE DELAYED IS JUSTICE DENIED
By Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi
After languishing in prison for almost two years with the duration and outcome of his partial retrial unknown, Ramush Haradinaj is about to be released from prison temporarily by the The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The Appeals Chamber made this decision after the Prosecution rested its case last month in the partial retrial of Haradinaj and his co-defendants, Lahi Brahimaj and Idriz Balaj, and after the Chamber held a status hearing on May 2. At the status hearing, the judges also decided to hear closing arguments from the Defense on June 25 and 26, in advance of which Haradinaj will be returned toThe Hague.
Ramush Haradinaj, the former Prime Minister of Kosovo and a well-respected Kosova Liberation Army commander, was acquitted of all war crimes charges before the ICTY in 2008.
In an unprecedented turnaround, Haradinaj was rearrested in July 2010, after the Appeals Chamber convinced the Tribunal that a partial retrial was in order—purportedly because the Prosecution did not have enough time to persuade two crucial witnesses to testify. This made Haradinaj the first defendant since the ICTY was established in 1993 to have his acquittal on all charges overturned.
In December 2010, Haradinaj was denied provisional release by the Appeals judges at the ICTY to be with his wife, Anita Mucaj, when she gave birth to their third child in January 2011. (Surprisingly, presiding Judge Patrick Robinson, who had partially dissented against the retrial, argued that Haradinaj might take advantage of his release to intimidate witnesses.) Haradinaj’s partial retrial began on August 18, 2011. It was halted shortly thereafter and resumed on February 13, 2012—only to be abruptly halted once again when one of the Prosecution’s key witnesses, a protected witness, failed to appear in court.
Although the decision to grant Haradinaj provisional release is a salutary one, I nevertheless believe that it is time to revisit Haradinaj’s case before the Tribunal—to ask why it was reopened, and why there has been an unreasonable duration of judicial proceedings. The latter is a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights’ requirement for the examination of a case in a reasonable period of time. To explore these questions, it is necessary to review the history of the case.
History of the Case against Haradinaj
After only 100 days in office as Prime Minister of Kosova, Haradinaj resigned his position in 2005, surrendered to The International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, spent two years in detention in The Hague, and another year under house arrest in Prishtina before the Tribunal acquitted him on April 3, 2008, on all counts of being involved in any unlawful conduct while he was a commander in the Kosova Liberation Army. The Trial Chamber found that there was insufficient evidence to establish the existence of a “joint criminal enterprise,” and acquitted Haradinaj, Lahi Brahimaj, and Idriz Balaj of any criminal liability through such an enterprise. Brahimaj was found guilty of torture and sentenced to six years in prison.
As soon as Haradinaj returned to Kosova in 2008, the Prosecution appealed the acquittal, insisting that he had been freed because the Tribunal’s “mismanagement” had prevented the Prosecution from obtaining evidence from two key witnesses—witnesses that they claimed had been threatened and were afraid to testify. The Appeals Chamber responded by upholding 31 counts of the acquittal. But, in support of the Prosecution’s appeal, it ordered a retrial on 6 counts of murder, cruel treatment, and torture at a purportedly KLA-run detention facility in Jablanica in the spring and summer of 1998. It also agreed that the trial judges had not given the Prosecution enough time to secure the testimony of Shefqet Kabashi and the protected witness known as “Witness X.” The Appeals Chamber did this even though Haradinaj had been acquitted of all counts at his original trial and even though there was no evidence whatsoever that he had interfered with any witness. Two years later, Haradinaj found that he had no choice but to return to the ICTY’s detention center.
In my opinion, the ongoing prosecution of Ramush Haradinaj, after his original trial at the ICTY concluded that there was no evidence linking him to any crime or any victim, is problematic from both a legal and moral perspective. First, there was no reason to keep Haradinaj in pre-trial detention, when he had a proven record of responding to the ICTY and there is no risk of his absconding. Second, the structural, legal problems in this case have been well documented by international law expert Roland Gjoni in his “ICTY: Favoring Prosecution over Justice?” (Open Democracy, August 9, 2011). Gjoni explained that Haradinaj’s partial retrial was a departure not only from “fundamental principles of international law,” but also a contravention of previous decisions made by the court in Dusko Tadic (1993) and Naser Orić (2009). (In both cases, the ICTY barred the retrial of an acquitted defendant.) Gjoni concluded that the reversal of the acquittal in Haradinaj’s case amounted to “double jeopardy”—an indication that “the ICTY may be bending fundamental legal principles in favor of the prosecution.”
President Robinson made a similar observation in his partial dissent of the Appeals Chamber’s decision to retry Haradinaj (May 31, 2011, pp. 16-17, para. 3): “Pursuant to the principle of non bis in idem, a person who has been tried at the Tribunal must not be placed at the risk of being thought guilty of an offense of which he has been acquitted, or of being treated as guilty in any sense.” Furthermore, “the doctrine of res judicata entails that matters decided having passed judgment must be accepted as true…and cannot be re-litigated by the same parties in a subsequent proceeding.” Robinson concluded that the Appeals Chamber violated its own rule that it “would not lightly overturn decisions based on the Trial Chamber’s discretion.”
The Appeals Chamber Erred when It Called for a Partial Retrial
The Appeals judges decided that the partial retrial was necessary after the Prosecution convinced them that Shefket Kabashi and “Witness X” had been intimidated during the
original trial—witnesses who had opposed the KLA during the war. But then the Chamber went a step further in favor of the Prosecution when it agreed to allow new witnesses —not just the two from the original trial—to testify and also to permit allegations to remain in the indictment that had no bearing on the six counts. If for no other reason than this, the rationale for the retrial of Haradinaj merits closer scrutiny. As Roland Gjoni has argued, the ICTY should not have granted the Prosecution “an open-ended opportunity to improve a weak case and retry an acquitted defendant.” In doing so, it has “cast a long shadow over the Tribunal’s ability to administer justice.”
At the opening of the partial retrial in August 2011, Prosecutor Paul Rogers stated that the KLA was a “legitimate force” when it fought for Kosova’s independence from Serbia in 1998 and 1999, but that it had used “illegal means” against its Serbian, Roma, and Albanian opponents.” To substantiate this claim, he brought to the stand Shefqet Kabashi, alleged to be a former prison guard in the Jablanica camp. But in a setback to the Prosecution, Kabashi, whose testimony was supposed to be central to its case, repeatedly refused to testify, just as he had done on two occasions during the original trial. Kabashi also contradicted his previous statements to ICTY investigators. He denied that the Jablanica camp even existed: “There was no prison in Jablanica,” he said. “I can swear about that.” Kabashi pled guilty to contempt of court and was sentenced on September 16, 2011, to two months in jail.
As the Defence had argued in its July 2011 “Pre-Trial Brief on Behalf of Ramush Haradinaj” (para. 27), the Prosecution could not claim that Jablanica was a KLA stronghold, because it was overrun by Serb forces at least three times during the operative period of the indictment. And even though there was an armed conflict between Serbs and Albanians during the period material to the six counts, “There was not any orchestrated retaliation by the KLA against either the Serb civilian population or against civilians from other ethnic groups.” Moreover, neither the Trial Chambers at the ICTY nor the Prosecution had suggested that such a campaign existed in any of the previous cases related to Kosova in which Serb commanders had been tried (paras. 29 and 30).
The Defence further stated in its pre-trial brief that there was no credible evidence of Haradinaj participating in or knowing about mistreatment (para. 41), and that the KLA in the Dukagjini region was a “rudimentary and fledgling organization” working to organise defences in response to Serb attacks (para. 43). Therefore, there was no evidence of a “joint criminal enterprise,” and they said that that it was very doubtful any new evidence would surface in the re-trial that would provide adequate grounds for overturning the decision at the original trial.
Meanwhile, allegations that Sheqet Kabashi and a protected witness had been intimidated were never confirmed. As Ben Emmerson, Haradinaj’s lead attorney, told Rachel Irwin of the Institute for War and Peace Reporting on August 19, 2011, “Despite some rumors, there are no suggestions that Mr. Haradinaj was ever responsible for intimidating witnesses, directly or indirectly.” Emmerson added that in the case of Witness X, if he decides to testify at the partial retrial, he “will be exposed as a liar and a perjurer.” But in another blow to the Prosecution’s case against Haradinaj, Witness X, whose testimony was also supposed to be the justification for the partial retrial, failed to show up in court in February 2012. This resulted in the termination of the trial until further notice.
It is not surprising that the retrial of Ramush Haradinaj has caused many Albanians, not to mention some legal and human rights experts around the world, to lose faith in the ICTY. It is widely believed in Kosova that the re-trial amounts to political posturing on the part of the West towardsSerbia. This is an issue that needs to be addressed, but not apart from the recognition that Ramush Haradinaj would never have been rearrested, re-incarcerated, and retried without the tacit permission of all of the actors in post-war Kosova, including the Kosova government under Hashim Thaci.
Belgrade Has Been Successful in Steering the ICTY away from Its Original Mission
Robert Churcher, a post-conflict specialist who testified at the ICTY trial for KLA Commander Fatmir Limaj, insists that “Serbian officials have been spoon feeding the Prosecution with spurious evidence from the beginning,” and he deplores the fact that the court has been willing to receive it. “As a sop toBelgrade,” he said, “the Prosecution is attempting to retry the Haradinaj case from scratch.” To some extent, the ICTY has been a willing accomplice because ofSerbia’s successful propaganda campaign against the KLA since the end of the Kosova war in June 1999.
While the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was an important step in bringing those responsible for crimes against humanity and genocide in the Balkans to justice, unfortunately in collusion with pro-Serb elements in the European Union, Belgrade has been successful in steering the ICTY away from its original mission of addressing the atrocities committed in the Former Yugoslavia. In the process, it has contributed to creating a false parity between the perpetrators and the victims of the Balkan wars of the 1990s.
To satisfy a need to be seen as ethnically balanced, the ICTY has ended up casting all parties in the Balkan wars as equally responsible, even thoughSerbiastarted all of the wars and Milosevic’s military and paramilitary forces were responsible for 90 percent of the atrocities that were committed. To be sure, sporadic, terrible incidents occurred on the Kosovar side, but nothing amounting to moral equivalence between the KLA andSerbia.
As former ICTY law clerk and project director of the NGO No Peace without Justice Niccolo Figa-Talamanca said before the opening of the first trial of Haradinaj, “We are witnessing a misguided attempt by the ICTY to prosecute all groups—Serbs, Croatians, Bosniaks, and Kosovars—even-handedly, irrespective of the scale of the crimes
committed,” and the result is “an attempt to rewrite history and to negate the true measure of responsibility for the horrors of the Balkan wars.”
If the goal is to achieve lasting piece inSoutheast Europethen the international community should not be party to creating a revisionist view of history in which the victims of Milosevic’s reign of terror are repositioned as the perpetrators. There is no question that those who committed crimes should be held accountable. But by bringing KLA defendants like Ramush Haradinaj to the ICTY, the international community has unwittingly helped to create a revisionist view of history, in which the victims of Milosevic campaign against Albanians are repositioned as the perpetrators. Retrying
Haradinaj after his acquittal on all charges puts the burden of proof on the court to deny this.
With Kosova still lacking sovereignty as a state, I believe that The Hague Tribunal, under pressure to seem politically balanced, and in the effort to getSerbiato turn over Bosnian
Serb commanders Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, which it has since done, felt that it had to re-incarcerate Ramush Haradinaj. But, in so doing, it has abdicated its historical mission to bring justice to the victims of the Balkan wars. TheUSgovernment, now in a final push to resolve the conflict betweenBelgradeand Prishtina, and to leave the Balkans in the hands of the European Union, has de facto supported this position. But the Serbian-Albanian conflict cannot be resolved in this way.
As Ramush Haradinaj wrote in his December 1, 2004, op-ed in The Wall Street Journal Europe, just before he was chosen by Kosova’s Assembly to become prime minister:
“[…] I am proud of the part that I played in protecting my people from Slobodan Milosevic and his henchmen, and I am ready to defend my actions against criticism and innuendo.
“I therefore welcome the scrutiny of my war record by the International Criminal Tribunal for the FormerYugoslavia…and am confident that truth and justice will prevail. However, any attempt—be it by the ICTY with the best of motives, or others with the worst—to morally equate Milosevic’s state-sponsored terror with the actions of the Kosova Liberation Army in defense of Kosovar Albanians will only make the task [that lies ahead for Kosova] more difficult.
“For the need now is to look forward rather than back, to create an inclusive, democratic independent state in Kosova that respects the rights of all of its citizens and is both just and tolerant.”
Shirley Cloyes DioGuardi is Balkan Affairs Adviser to the Albanian American Civic League.
New York, May 10, 2012
