Why do war crime trials drag on longer than the war?

The public is accustomed to exceedingly lengthy war crimes trials that often take longer to conclude than the conflicts they are created to adjudicate. The trial of Ratko Mladic promises to be no exception. As the prosecution plans to call 158 witnesses and read statements from many others, Mr Mladic’s trial is expected to last at least three years.

One of the main reasons for calling so many witnesses over such a long period of time is that Mr Mladic faces an 11-count indictment, including two allegations of genocide.

The first genocide charge concerns the Srebrenica massacre. The second genocide allegation focuses on the siege of Sarajevo between May 1992 and November 1995. Mr Mladic is also accused of crimes in other municipalities and taking hostages. In total, the court will hear evidence about 106 separate atrocities.

Tarnished reputation

The decision to proceed against Mr Mladic on two indictments, compacting the crimes associated with him, has been controversial as it is likely to prolong the length of the proceedings. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) may never recover from the damage caused to its reputation by the death of Slobodan Milosevic in his cell in 2006, after four years on trial.

Mr Milosevic died before the court had rendered judgement, leaving many victims bitterly disillusioned about the delays that allowed him, in their eyes, to escape justice. Concerns that a similar fate could befall Mr Mladic, who has also complained of ill health, have motivated prosecutors, eager for a quick conviction, to apply for Mr Mladic’s case to be split into two trials.

Caution: Delays ahead

The court has rejected this proposal and now it must ensure that the trial proceeds smoothly and without disruption.

However, Mr Mladic’s trial may take longer than anticipated if he decides not to co-operate with the process. His lawyers have already objected to prosecution requests to admit established facts from earlier trials, which would save time and avoid repetition. Another request to disqualify presiding Judge Orie was rejected on Tuesday. Mr Mladic’s lawyers had argued that because of his Dutch origins he was biased due to the role of Dutch peacekeepers in failing to prevent the Srebrenica massacre.

Furthermore, although Mr Mladic, unlike Slobodan Milosevic, has chosen a lawyer to represent him in court, this does not guarantee that he will refrain from using the trial as a platform for political grandstanding. Mr Mladic has clashed with Judge Orie, who has a reputation for taking a tough no-nonsense approach to what he perceives as wasting time in court.

Mladic unplugged

At a status conference earlier this year, Judge Orie switched Mr Mladic’s microphone off after repeated interjections from the dock. Mr Mladic has already given a strong indication of the way he intends to fight this case from utterances at these pre-trial hearings.

He has labelled the tribunal a “NATO court .. trying me and my people. You have no right to that.”

Mr Mladic’s strategy is therefore likely to be three-pronged; i) to ensure the prosecution prove every allegation and thereby delay and frustrate proceedings as much as possible; ii) advance a political justification for his actions; and iii) attack the bias, hypocrisy and complicity of the international community.

Brushing off fears that he may be too ill to stand trial, Mr Mladic has previously boasted: “I want my friends to see that I have livened up a bit and my health is getting better. I want my enemies to die of envy.”