 |
| |
ICTY Chief Prosecutor Carla del Ponte
Interview recorded with ICTY Chief Prosecutor Carla del Ponte on 26/06/03 in her office inside ICTY HQ in The Hague.
ED: Perhaps we can begin with the period when you arrived here. The court or the system wasn't working so well. What do you think was wrong when you came in?
CARLA: When I first came it was not to see what was wrong but what was working well. I found an office of the prosecutor well organised in the section of investigation, of prosecution of trials. Of course my experience as a prosecutor give me immediately new ideas. For eg to put a single trial attorney who is going in court and present a case since the beginning of an investigation being responsible for what's going on, you know the prosecutor who is appearing in court and presenting the case must have the most knowledge of the facts. And so if you follow the investigation as trial attorney you can address the needs you have for the indictment, after for the representation of the case in court. That was the main, I would not say it was an error, just a reorganisation was needed that it can work more speedily and better.
ED: A lot of people in the very early days of the court were very sceptical about whether it would ever work - certainly long before you came, when it was set up in 1993. Did you always believe in it, did you think it could do something?
CARLA: Of course when I arrive here I had trials ongoing so there was no doubt that for me the Tribunal was a success because we have many indictments confirmed, we expect to get a trial of many others accused. It was working - no problem at all. The only real need was to speed up because we were very sensitive of the complaints of the outside that we are too slowly in our trials, that after many years only 12 accused had been sentenced, that was my main preoccupation - to find out all the elements to speed up. Because we are a trial ad hoc so we want to know how long we will exist, particularly the international community because the cost is very expensive…you know justice is not cheap, particularly our international justice. So I think now we reach a point that we have done all what we can to speed up. But of course each investigation, each trial needs time.
ED: Part of the difficulty of course is getting hold of people in the first place, particularly in Bosnia. And Nato's position on that changed didn't it? There was a long period when it didn't seem very interested in arresting people. How did that change? Why did it change?
CARLA: It's not me. It was my predessor, former prosecutor Louise Arbour who confronted this problem in 1995 and 1996 she could achieve to have a solution and in particular an engagement with Nato to arrest the fugutives. It's true at the beginning it was a very hard time, sitting here not having the arrest of the fugitives. I must say I am still sitting here and expecting the arrest of fugitives but what we can say is that we have enough to do with our simultaneously six ongoing trials.
ED: Well the extracation of Mr Milosevic did happen on your watch I think. Can you tell me how you went about securing that?
CARLA: You know since he was in function as President of former Yugoslavia of course realistically it was not possible to achieve the arrest and transfer of Mr Milosevic. But since 5th October 2000, I thought NOW it would be the moment to achieve that. And with my collaborators we starting working very very hard. And I must say late Prime Minister Djindic had a key role the success we had with the transfer of Milosevic, yes.
ED: How big a factor was the economic pressure from the United States do you think?
CARLA: For sure important, very important. But not only that because the member states of the European Union help us a lot. But of course United States have a good card to play because Belgrade is expecting and needed to have financial aid so of course to put a deadline was extremely important to us.
ED: Can you explain how that worked. Were you able to go along to Belgrade and say look if you don't give him up that's what's going to happen. I mean how did you negotiate that?
CARLA: Oh no, absolutely not. I'm not involved in the pressure of the international community adopt because I'm trying to stay out of political issues. My main task is to inform the different governments about the needs we have in cooperation with states of former Yugoslavia and of course try to know what they will do to help us. But never never in the meeting with the authorities in Belgrade or in Zagreb I'm discussing about what the international community will put in place to make pressure. I'm staying out of that although I'm following very closely.
ED: I was going to say there must be a political dimension to it surely because as you say it probably wouldn't have happened without it?
CARLA: Of course, but you know just watching. But the international community is fully informed and know of the danger if we don't obtain what we need for our investigations for our trials. And so, the Security Council put in place this Tribunal so they must, the member states must have thought that this Tribunal can achieve to exercise the mandate of the Security Council. And that was my task. And after what the international community, the modalities that they would put in place, I'm staying out. Watching near but staying out.
ED: Well from your perspective of watching closely, do you think it would have been possible to get Milosevic here without American pressure?
CARLA: The pressure of the United States was absolutely determinate.
ED: So you couldn't have done it without them?
CARLA: I think so yes. Without that it would have been extremely difficult.
ED: Do you think there's a danger that because of that, the charge that Mr Milosevic makes when he comes here, that this is Victor's justice, it's not a legitmate court, has some force in people's minds, they say the Americans brought him here illegitmately and they're right?
CARLA: No, absolutely not because it is a confusion of the modalities - how to obtain the transfer of fugitives, and achieving that justice can be done. I don't see any connection with that because of the times that the fugtives are here, that is the time when the office of the prosecutor or the trial chamber is starting the judicial works with absolutely outside what happened before to obtain the transfer of the fugitives because you can watch daily whats happening in court. So the fair trial - judges from different nations, a statute, rules of procedure - so it's absolutely not connected with activity before starting the trial.
ED: You can see how people in Serbia for example might see it rather differently, might be suspicious of that connection?
CARLA: Yes because some people in Belgrade are still thinking diffently because of political reality. But the reality is much more different.
ED: What can you do about that though? It's critical isn't it - if the trial is going to have the impact you want it to it's got to be perceived as objective and independent, in Serbia and former Yugoslavia above all?
CARLA: Yes, what we are doing is to make accesssible to the victims first and after to the whole population the facts that are discussing in court during the hearings. We have an outreach programme, the Tribunal, the registry office have an outreach programme because the most important is to inform about whats going on in the courtroom. And that is the only way to achieve that the real truth is coming out about the horrendous crimes that were committed.
ED: Do you think its working?
CARLA: Yes it's working but of course it needs time. You cannot achieve it in weeks and months. But we are on the good way to achieve this, yes.
ED: What's at stake in the longer term with the Milosevic trial? If you fail to secure a conviction the damage to the Tribunal and to its standing could be devastating couldn't it?
CARLA: I've no particular problem about this. Until now I'm convinced we present enough evidence to obtain a conviction and sentence for Mr Milosevic. Not a particular problem. We are now by the last indictment - there are 3 indictments in the one trial - so the presentation of the evidence is now in the Bosnia case. And I must say Kosovo and Croatia went well, we achieve - it is not easy but in my personal opinion we presented enough evidence to obtain the conviction. So it is not a question for me now.
ED: Ok, alright take it the other way, if you succeed what does it mean? It's a huge milestone isn't it, not just in terms of him but ….
CARLA: It is, it is. Of course it is. In particularly it is that the leaders, the top leaders, have no more impunity. That is the main concern for international justice because you know the executors, the low level perpetrators, they come to justice in the national system. But obviously it is near impossible to have a President or a Prime Minister or a General in trial in his own national system. So that is what we achieve here with this Tribunal.
ED: IF you want to carry that message forward, or build on that development, where does it happen? I mean you made the point that in theory this is a temporary Tribunal, whats the next stage?
CARLA: The next is the permament court - the ICC. That is a follow up, a proper follow up to these 2 tribunals ad hoc - tribunal for former Yugoslavia and the Rwanda tribunal.
ED: And do you think it's gravely damaged by the Americans decision not to participate fully in it?
CARLA: You know it is difficult to evaluate now because they have just started the permanent court. But what I can say is that of course it is important and must be in the future that the United States is participating in the permanent court.
ED: Because otherwise it won't have real credibility will it?
CARLA: I don't think its the credibility that's in question. But it is the possibility to have justice done when all the states participate - and the most important, the most powerful states - United States, Russia, China - it must be really a world intention to have the permanent court working. But its important to start and we have it now, this institution, and we will see that they can begin and after, I hope, the states who are outside will want to participate.
ED: The route of the American problem with the court is, as you know, that they fear their troops will be prosecuted for malicious and political reasons rather than genuine judicial reasons. You caused a bit of a stir by appearing I think to suggest during the negotiations over Milosevic that people who were involved in the bombing of Belgrade during the Kosovo campaign might themselves be prosecuted or that it could be considered. I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong. What is your view on that bigger question - whether countries that actually intervene in some of these places might themselves be brought to book?
CARLA: You know I think it is the best prevention to avoid the commission of crimes by the soldiers by military. So I think it is the best element to avoid such kind of crimes, the commission of crimes. So why the United States don't accept that. It's not acceptable. And I think for Nato bombing, you know we received complaints, we received documents and of course we must look at that. We cannot just before just thinking NO, it is not possible and throw these documents away. We must analyse these documents and seriously study these because that is the task of a prosecutor. It's not waking up in the morning and thinking who is guilty or not. It's technical work you are doing here in this office. It is without political interference, without being pressured from anyone. Just the law, to apply the law.
ED: What about the extent to which the law should apply. Can you see for example circumstances in which people who were guilty of sins of omission if you like - say the UN personnel who took the wrong decisions when Srebrenica happened or those in the United Nations who didn't respond as they should have done to the warnings about the massacres in Rwanda. Can you see circumstances in which they could be held accountable?
CARLA: You know we have crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide. These types of crimes have described in the law specific elements. So, your work is to consider if you have specific elements from this definition of crimes committed in some conflict. So what you mention about Srebrenica - of course we analyse the results from the parliamentary commission, investigation or other documents or during our investigation. But I must say we cannot consider the political evaluation because when I envisage the elements that the Dutch soldiers at one time they flee out of Srebrenica, it is not an element of the crime. It was a military evaluation - staying there, asking for help, seeing that Mladic is coming, that they cannot achieve to defend Srebrenica. It is, how can I say, a military decision that has nothing to do with the crimes commission - the elements of the crimes I have in the definition of war crimes. It can be a moral, a deontological attitude or condemned what happened. But has nothing, really nothing, to do with the elements of crimes that we investigate here.
ED: So you rely on the text of what is agreed as a crime?
CARLA: Absolutely…the text of the law and jurisprudence.
ED: You say that politics doesn't have anything to do with it. But surely it's always an element. If you take for example the contrast between what's happening here and what's happening with the Tribunal in Rwanda, it surely is the case isn't it that this is getting more attention because it's in Europe, because people care about it and is therefore proceeding faster than the effort in Rwanda?
CARLA: I don't know, I don't know, I don't know. It's true that the political momentum is always on my door. But outside my door and I'm trying to keep it outside. And it's true what you're saying that ICTY has more attention than Rwanda Tribunal. But for example I must say that in Africa the Rwanda trial has a lot of attention. So it is two different continents - it is a different evaluation but it is also geographical reason why. Ourselves, we are trying to keep both on the same level of justice, not to identify a different degree of attention on our work.
ED: Do you find it difficult to keep the politics outside the door sometimes?
CARLA: Sometimes yes, but we are used to now after 4 years, we know how not to let politics interfere with our work. Sometimes it's not easy but since now I can say we manage.
ED: Give me an illustration of an occasion when you found it difficult?
CARLA: For example that let's say people want to know against whom we are conducting an investigation or that we are advising about political difficulties in the countries, in Serbia Montenegro, or in Bosnia Hertzigovina, or in Croatia. Or we cannot come out with an indictment because now they have a political election and it would be an element, a disturbing element to come out with an indictment or if we come out with an indictment now against an accused who is considered to be a hero in his country it would make political difficulties. We are informed about all that but we don't care. We don't care because if you start once to care about, that it can be justified if you see it from outside, from the political situation in this country, if you do that once after you are no more independent, after you are under pressure from all sides from all reasons. So we don't care. We are looking at what we are doing, our investigation. When I receive a draft of an indictment I am looking at the evidences we have. And studying the dossier to see "do we have enough evidence?" because our indictments must be strong indictments. That we are not continuing investigations during the trial and not knowing if we have enough evidence. So that is my moment. The indictment will be signed when we have sufficient evidence to obtain the conviction. And so we must not take care of outside world, the political outside world because otherwise you lose your independence as a prosecutor. You will be under pressure from all sides. But of course sometimes it is not easy because you feel this justification because you see what's going on. But I must say that in the end, and my collaborators know that because we discuss that…No we come out. When we are finished, when we are ready, we give our indictment to the judge for confirmation, we obtain the arrest warrant and it's out.
ED: You mentioned that you were still waiting for one or two people and I imagine you have in mind Messeurs Karadic and Mladic. What is your interpretation about why they havn't been arrested.
CARLA: It's a good question but I have no answer, I have no answer. It is incredible, it's incredible that since 8 years both are at large. So of course I thinking I'd like to know why. But it is just a supposition from my side to say "hmm it's a political will which doesn't really exist, is it an objective impossibility because for example for Karadic because Nato is moving is not appropriate for obtaining the arrest of Karadic because each times he's not been there where they are looking for him, with Mladic we have a lot of information that he is in Serbia so it is a political unwillingness not to arrest Mladic because he's being protected by the power of the army. So I need more pressure from the international community to Belgrade to arrest Mladic. Or are there other reasons…I don't know. But what I'm doing now it's absolutely to inform the member states of the European Union, the United States, this Tribunal will not close the door without having Karadic and Mladic. After Milosevic they are the most responsible for these terrible horrendous crimes. So it is not justice if we cannot have Karadic and Mladic. And so elaborating a completion strategy because the international community were asking us last year to establish a programme because they want to know how long we will exist.
ED: And you're expensive as you say.
CARLA: And I said "OK I will finish our investigation by 2004" and the President elaborated a programme for the trials - first degree, appeals - and we'll be finished by 2008, 2010,2012. But without the arrest of fugitives, I have 19 fugitives, 19 fugitives and of course Karadic and Mladic. So I hope that the international community feel that they cannot pressure us to speed up, to finish as soon as possible, and not having the most important accused on trial.
ED: When you say that to, I don't know Paddy Ashdown in Sarajevo or Colin Powell, what do they say. What explanation do they give you?
CARLA: We discuss a lot because each meeting we discuss about that. It depends, the political authorities tell me "YES it must be an end to this situation - the fugitives must be arrested and we will do all we can da da da da da. Lord Ashdown is more involved because he's in Sarajevo so he take measures to help us and to help SFOR, Nato to locate Karadic so we will see what happens. But it is really scandalous in my opinion that both are still at large.
ED: Finally 2 general questions. Firstly do you think the idea of international justice and of acting through the United Nations in this way has suffered any what you might call collateral damage from the divisions within the United Nations between America (well and Britain ) but between America principally and the other member states?
CARLA: I hope not, I hope not. And I have no signal because, you know I am confined in the Balkans.
ED: Of course. I'm just interested, it must be something you reflect on from time to time?
CARLA: I have the same engagement from all sides so I don't think so, NO. Even I would say the contrary that both sides, the United States and the European Union are both willing to put an end on this situation in the Balkans. Because you know I'm going around - yesterday I was in Paris, Berlin on Monday, afterwards I came from Rome and Washington. And so all the time I'm disturbing. I have the feeling sometime that I'm disturbing because I'm going regularly. So I'm saying "you will not see me any more because I will stay in my office and working only as prosecutor but please let us have our fugitives and full cooperation with what we need. And so we in a few months we could disappear as a politically disturbing element, you know. Because I'm asking to see the Prime Minister, the President, Mr Foreign affairs. And they cannot say NO. But sometimes I have the feeling that I'm disturbing because again she is coming.
ED: You're making a nuisance of yourself deliberately in other words?
CARLA: Yes, but I don't care. I go until I have my fugitives?
ED: Well that brings me to my final question which is what drives you. Who do you think you are acting for in this job?
CARLA: Firstly I'm acting for justice. I'm acting for justice because that is the main reason I'm here. I'm acting as representative of the victims because in our trial the victims are not represented so the prosecutor must represent the victims. Of course I have a mandate from the security council, so I am here because the Security Council give me a mandate and I must execute the mandate and I am trying to execute it. But in principle I am here because I believe in this justice, I believe it is important. And also I like my work, what I am doing.
ED: That's good. Thank you very much indeed.
| | | |
| |
| | |
Listen