Serbian war crimes suspect Ratko Mladic arrested

Serbian war crimes suspect Ratko Mladic arrested

By Polly Johnson
Senior Desk Officer, Europe

Ratko Mladic stands accused of orchestrating the worst massacre in Europe since the Holocaust. (Photo Courtesy of Reuters).
Ratko Mladic stands accused of orchestrating the worst massacre in Europe since the Holocaust. (Photo Courtesy of Reuters).

SERBIA – Bringing a gruesome chapter in history to a close, former Serbian army commander Ratko Mladic, 69, was arrested on Thursday.

Mladic’s arrest followed sixteen years of hiding and a three-year investigation. He has been charged with genocide, extermination and murder by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

The genocide charge stems from his alleged role in directing the murder of eight thousand Bosnian Muslim men and boys in July of 1995 after the fall of Srebrenica, Europe’s worst massacre since World War II.

Mladic also stands accused of ethnic cleansing, forcible deportations, torture, forced labor, mass killings, and widespread psychological, physical and sexual violence against Bosnian Muslims between 1992 and 1995.

In a written statement, prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia Serge Brammertz wrote, “Mladic’s arrest clearly signals that the commitment to international criminal justice is entrenched. Today’s events show that people responsible for grave violations of international humanitarian law can no longer count on impunity.”

After the 1995 indictment, Mladic disappeared. Though he was occasionally seen at football games and at his home in Belgrade, he vanished after the fall of Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic in 2000. Milosevic died in 2006 while his trial in The Hague was still going on.

Though some have called for the quick transfer of Mladic to the Netherlands for trial, extradition could take up to a week. The process depends on whether Mladic will appeal or not, which is unlikely as most accused fight extradition. If he does not appeal, he could be in the Netherlands within a day.

Elated reactions resonated throughout Europe and beyond upon news of the arrest. The United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, called Mladic’s arrest “an historic day for international justice.” French President Nicolas Sarkozy called the arrest “very big news.”

“As Bosnian Serb military commander, General Mladic played a key role in some of the darkest episodes of Balkan and European history, including the siege of Sarajevo and the massacre of thousands of Bosnian men and boys in Srebrenica in 1995,” said NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

“Almost sixteen years since his indictment for genocide and other war crimes, his arrest finally offers a chance for justice to be done,” Rasmussen added.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said Mladic’s trial “should teach again the grim reality of ethnic cleansing and, I hope, bring some comfort to those who survived.”

“Justice works,” Albright said in a statement.

The arrest moves Serbia one step closer to integration into the European Union, which forbade Serbia from membership talks because of the country’s failure to arrest Mladic. Still, the integration process takes years to complete.

For now, however, human rights advocates, world leaders and those who were affected by the massacre can rejoice over the arrest of the man who Interpol called, “Europe’s most wanted war crimes suspect.”

In the news release, Interpol Secretary General Ronald K. Noble said, “The arrest by Serbian police of Ratko Mladic, an alleged architect of human carnage and mass murder, is a triumph for international justice.”

For more information, please see:

BBC – Ratko Mladic arrested in Serbia – 26 May 2011

CNN – Bosnia genocide suspect Ratko Mladic arrested in Serbia – 26 May 2011

CNN – Mladic arrest hailed as ‘important day for international justice’ – 26 May 2011

Economist – Ratko Mladic: Caught at last – 26 May 2011

New York Times – Mladic Arrest Opens Door to Serbia’s Long-Sought European Union Membership – 26 May 2011

Telegraph – Ratko Mladic arrest: extradition could take a week – 26 May 2011

New Study Shows 420,000 Raped Each Year in DR Congo

by Laura Hirahara
Impunity Watch Reporter, Africa

A victim of the New Years rape in Fizu, South Kivu with her son; Photo courtesy of USA Today
A victim of the New Years rape in Fizu, South Kivu with her son; Photo courtesy of Pete Muller, AP

Democratic Republic of Congo– An upcoming report in the American Journal of Public Health has revealed that more than 420,000 women are raped annually in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).  This number is significantly higher than those being reported by other organizations, like the UN, who previously estimated a figure closer to 16,000 annually.  However, the AJPH study is based on a 2007 nation-wide survey that also found 1.7 million women in the DRC will be raped at some point in their lives and an additional 3 million will be raped by an intimate partner.  The report, which will be released this June, reads “Not only is sexual violence more generalized than previously thought, but our findings suggest that future policies and programs should focus on abuse within families[.]”

Previously, an accurate accounting of rape in the DRC has been made difficult by the instability of the region.  The DRC is still suffering the effects of the civil war that officially ended in 2003.  Since that time, rebel factions have terrorized civilian populations in an effort to gain control of mineral deposits located primarily in the east.  Rape has become a common weapon and while some men and boys are victims, women are the primary target.  Tony Gambino, the Congo mission director for United States Agency for International Development (USAID), told ABC News, “The worst violence is done by armed boys and men, many of whom are in the Congolese military.”

A number of factors play into the lack of accountability for the crime.  Throughout most of the country, women who are raped are disowned by their families and try to hide the rape rather than speak about it.  Tia Palermo, a co-author of the AJPH study, told ABC News, “There is stigma, shame and impunity so why bother reporting a rape if nothing is going to happen. We know from other conflict regions that less than half of rape victims report their abuse.”  Additionally, even when perpetrators are arrested for rape it is likely they will receive light sentences or simply escape from jail, as a March report from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated.  As Gambino told ABC, “Because officials can be paid off, even a small fish can get out of prison for $5 in the Congo.”

While the February conviction of Lt. Col. Kibibi Mutuare and 10 of the soldiers under his command for the rape of dozens of women in a small South Kivu village over New Years brought 49 women to court to testify, many believe the perception of women in the DRC needs to change.  Melanne Verveer, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, said, “The DRC cannot move ahead without the full inclusion of women politically . . . . economically, through agriculture and beyond, and socially, through a robust civil society movement. . . .Investing in women is not only the right thing to do; it’s the smart thing to do.”

For more information, please see;

NYT– Notes From a Young American in Congo: The Stigma of Rape– 6 May, 2011

USA Today– 420K Congolese Women are Raped Each Year– 11 May, 2011

SF Chronicle– Congo Rape Problem More Widespread Than Thought, Study Shows– 12 May, 2011

ABC News– Nearly Every Minute a Woman is Raped in the Congo– 13 May, 2011

VOA News– Curbing DC’s Gender-based Violence– 13 May, 2011

Legal Arithmetic: Adding Up the Legality of Operation Geronimo

By David Crane
Originally Publishing by JURIST

To assist in the important debate related to the targeting of Osama Bin Laden, I offer up a formula to assist in this important debate related to that targeting. Though simplistic, and in acknowledgement of valid concerns legally and practically related to the targeting, this formula helps clear an intellectual path to a conclusion that perhaps his targeting was lawful.

The death of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan was a lawful military operation. It is a matter of (A) + (B) = (C). When a nation contemplates the use of force, that force must be done with legal authority (A) and within the strictures of the laws of armed conflict (B). If there is both legal authority and that force follows the principles laid down by The Hague Rules of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 then there can be a justified result (C).

Let’s break down the formula further using the facts that are apparent in the killing of Bin Laden. In the early morning hours of May 2nd (Pakistan time), United States Special Operations Forces dynamically entered the compound where Bin Laden, some members of his family, and others lived. Let’s consider (A) the legal authority. After September 11, 2001, Congress authorized the Commander-in-Chief at the time to use force against those individuals who had perpetrated the attack on the United States that fateful day. Under our constitutional scheme, the President could direct the National Command Authority to use armed force against Al Qaeda, including Bin Laden and others. Additional international authorizations via the United Nations and NATO followed. Overlaid in this authorization to use force was the basic international principle of the inherent right of a nation to self-defense, found in Art. 51 of the UN Charter.

Domestically, the authorized use of force was most certainly buttressed by a Presidential finding to kill Bin Laden as a hostile. By law the President must inform the leadership in Congress about these findings. This apparently was done years ago.

Thus President Obama had the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and to executive the plan. The (A) part of the formula is complete. However in order to have a justified result (C) there must be the comporting of that use of force with the laws of armed conflict (B). Was Operation Geronimo conducted within the parameters of the rules of war?

When the Special Forces entered the compound they had to use the force authorized by following certain principles: military necessity, proportionality, and distinction/discrimination. Bin Laden had been declared a hostile target and as such there was a militarily necessary reason to engage him, an act to further the military objectives of the international community and the United States against Al Qaeda, the Taliban and global terrorism. If there is no militarily necessary reason to engage a target then engaging it is illegal. There was a military necessary reason to engage Bin Laden; hence the principle of military necessity was satisfied.

When the Special Operation Forces entered Bin Laden’s bedroom the force that they used was proportional to the threat proffered by those in that room. Bin Laden apparently showed no sign of surrendering and there were weapons close by him. The use of assigned small arms to engage the lawful target was a proportional response to the threat Bin Laden posed to the Special Forces. The principle of proportionality was thus satisfied.

A final relevant principle related to the use of force in the operation was that of distinction/discrimination. When force is used, the force must be discriminate with the target distinctly engaged. What does this mean? Those who use that force must aim at the target they intend to engage ensuring no one that is protected under the law of armed conflict, e.g. civilians, are hit. The intentional targeting of civilians is never authorized except in self-defense. Unintentional injury or death of civilians in a military operation is called collateral damage and, though unfortunate, not a violation of law. Here the use of force in Bin Laden’s room was very discriminate, two well-aimed shots once in the chest and head of the military target, Bin Laden. The principle of distinction and discrimination was satisfied. The alleged shooting of a wife of Bin Laden appears to have been in self-defense according to the facts given by the Obama administration.

Other persons in the compound were either protected, such as the children, or those who offered resistance or who fired on the Special Forces also were properly engaged as hostile at a minimum under the principle of self-defense. It appears that no civilians were intentionally targeted. Thus the essential (B) part of the equation was satisfied.

Since (A) legal authority and (B) adhering to the laws of armed conflict were in place, the killing of Bin Laden, and those who engaged the Special Forces to protect him were justified killings under our domestic law as well as international law (C). The killing of human beings is never to be lightly taken and when it is done it must be done lawfully. The death of Bin Laden was lawful. It was a matter of (A) + (B) = (C) as well as a great deal of courage by our armed forces.

David Crane is a professor at Syracuse University College of Law and the founding former Chief Prosecutor of the international war crimes tribunal in West Africa called the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2001-2005.