PRESS BRIEFING BY PROSECUTOR OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS FOR RWANDA AND FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
Press Briefing
PRESS BRIEFING BY PROSECUTOR OF INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS FOR RWANDA AND FORMER YUGOSLAVIA
19960930
FOR INFORMATION OF UNITED NATIONS SECRETARIAT ONLY
At a press briefing this afternoon, Justice Richard Goldstone said he was very grateful for the invitation to meet with correspondents on his last day in office as he wanted to thank the media for its support for and constructive criticism of the work of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and for the Former Yugoslavia. Without media support they would not have existed and without continued media attention they would not have been taken seriously. Setting up the Tribunals was a very difficult task. Doing anything new, particularly in a bureaucratic context, was always difficult. "Any bureaucracy tends to reject anything new like the human body rejects a virus", he added.
The step the Security Council took in setting up the Tribunals was enormously important from the perspective of international humanitarian law, Justice Goldstone continued. There had been no other attempt since the Nuremberg or Tokyo war crimes tribunals to enforce humanitarian law. It could not have been done, if the Council had not made the very brave link between restoring peace and restoring justice. The essential step was to set up the Tribunals under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter as peace-keeping mechanisms.
It was too soon to judge benefits in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, but the Tribunals had enormous side benefits, he said. International humanitarian law was being taught for the first time in many universities in many countries and there were reports in the media every day on humanitarian law and the reports were often linked with the Tribunals.
Justice Goldstone said he had arrived from Capetown, South Africa this morning after co-chairing a workshop of international legal experts from 35 countries and non-governmental organizations. The workshop had been sponsored by the Nordic countries, South Africa and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to discuss whether there should be a treaty, convention or other international instrument to set standards on international law to deal with internal situations and civil wars and to set minimum standards in states of emergency, where there were insurgents fighting governments, displaced persons and refugees. It had been unanimously decided to ask the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to ask the Secretary-General to report urgently on the matter and to issue a call to governments to investigate their laws and educate their people on minimum standards. The meeting in Capetown would not have occurred if the Tribunals had not been set up.
The main problems associated with the Rwanda Tribunal had been getting started and getting funding, Justice Goldstone continued. Recruiting had to be done through the United Nations. Nevertheless, some countries had contributed in cash and in material goods such as computers and personnel, including lawyers. There had been problems such as the United Nations rule requiring 13 per cent cash from countries making any sort of contribution, whether material or personnel. There were also four points of control -- his office in The Hague, the prosecutors office operating under tremendous difficulties in Kigali, the registrar and judges in Arusha, and Headquarters which did all the recruiting. There were virtually no direct communications between Arusha and Kigali and all faxes and phone calls must be made through The Hague. No trial proceedings could begin until the accused were brought to Arusha to stand trials, but the cells there were below standard and unsuitable for a United Nations international Tribunal. Cells had to be built which could pass unannounced inspection by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
In reply to a question about the standards for the cells, Justice Goldstone said he was not an expert on the matter but it had been under the control of the registrars in Kigali and The Hague, who had taken advice from experts in the field.
What comment did he have to accusations by the Vice-President of Rwanda that the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia had moved faster and his accusation that the international community was racially biased? a correspondent asked. Justice Goldstone said that as an African, he had been particularly sensitive to any imbalance in the Tribunals. The accusations were without foundation. If anything, the Tribunal for Rwanda had been treated a little better and had received $2 million more than asked for. The Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia got $5 million less than it wanted. The problem was not money, but getting people to work in Kigali and in Arusha. There were many vacant posts. Kigali was not a place where many people wanted to bring their families.
Was Justice Goldstone disappointed with the reluctance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) to arrest people indicted by the Tribunal? a correspondent asked. He said he was disappointed not only with the failure to move forward in that regard but also concerned about the future of the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and advances in international humanitarian law. Clearly, the primary obligation was on States parties to carry out arrests. The Dayton peace accords mentioned entities which did not include NATO or the multinational Implementation Force (IFOR), which had the power under international law to make arrests. It was unfortunate that the policy adopted lacked robustness. Anybody who expected people to fall voluntarily into the hands of IFOR was obviously either naive or not serious. It was important that arrests were made during the IFOR year and he hoped it was not too late.
Goldstone Briefing - 3 - 30 September 1966
Would Justice Goldstone tell that to the Security Council when he briefed it today and did he think that Serb leaders Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic would ever be brought to trial? a correspondent asked. Justice Goldstone said he would certainly raise the issue with the Council. It was obvious that the prospects for arrests would depend on whether the Dayton Agreement was going to be implemented. The elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina had been certified and he hoped that the new entity set out in the Dayton accords would have a functioning parliament and a constitutional court. According to the constitution, there was a clear obligation to carry out all orders of the Tribunal and that obligation took precedence over all other laws in Bosnia and Herzegovina. If things go awry it would be difficult. He hoped any continuing international military force would be given powers to arrest those indicted.
Would he object to the lifting of sanctions in exchange for cooperating with the Tribunal? a correspondent asked. Justice Goldstone said that as Prosecutor it had been his job to investigate and issue indictments. It was up to the trial judges to confirm the indictment and issue warrants of arrest which were transmitted to the appropriate governments or administration by the registrar. Members of the Tribunal should not get involved in political steps.
A correspondent said on 7 April a major mass grave was excavated with the bodies of 181 Serbs executed by Croats, but nobody was indicted. Why was it swept under the carpet? she asked. Justice Goldstone replied that nothing had been swept under any carpet because the Tribunal did not have one for that purpose. The lack of indictments should not lead to the assumption there were no investigations under way. There were many important investigations in the Prosecutor's office into all sides of the hostilities in the former Yugoslavia. Increased cooperation from Belgrade and Pale had made the office more efficient with regard to Serb allegations of victimization in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
How did Justice Goldstone reconcile the concept of an international criminal court with notions of national sovereignty? a correspondent asked. He said the major reason why there was still no international criminal court was the natural knee jerk reaction of legislatures or governments to invasions of national sovereignty. Countries would be bound to hand over their citizens to an international court which was to some extent an invasion of their sovereignty. If the jurisdiction was restricted to the major and most grievous violations of international humanitarian law, then no decent government should hesitate to give up sovereignty to that extent.
* *** *