Professional Suicide Of A Hague Judge

ICTY Judge Frederik Harhoff

ICTY Judge Frederik Harhoff

Written by Vesna Skare-Ozbolt, published by Croatian portal 26 June 2013

(Translated into English by Ina Vukic)

Danish newspaper Berlingske June 13 published judge Frederik Harhoff’s letter, in which he expresses his suspicions that the Hague court president Theodor Meron is under the U.S.A. and Israel governments’ influence, and that he had pressured the judges to deliver judgment of acquittal in Gotovina-Markac, Perisic and Stanisic – Simatovic cases. Judge Harhoff sent his letter to his colleagues and friends at 56 addresses and it is still not known who had leaked it to the media, reportedly without his knowledge.

Harhoff gives no evidence to support his statements but says: Have any American or Israeli officials ever exerted pressure on the president of the tribunal, we will probably never know, or, it appears that judge Orie was also under pressure from the president of the tribunal”, etc.   Dov Jacobs, professor of international law and international criminal law at the renowned Leiden university, Netherlands, says: “The letter uses typical language of conspiracy theories for which it is also typical to subtly shift the burden of proof onto others or onto those who do not believe in conspiracy. It’s a win-win situation for the ‘conspirationists’, because evidence about the existence of conspiracy can be utilised in many ways.”

After the Gotovina-Markac case judgment, and especially after the acquittal verdict in the Perisic and Stanisic – Simatovic cases an interesting debate developed in international legal circles and opinions were divided with regards to the judgments. However, not one of the critics of these recent judgments attempted to defame judge Meron or his court politics in the media by using “a third side”.  How come, then, that judge Harhoff decided to abandon the frame of a cautious and reasonable lawyer – which, judging from his biography, he undoubtedly is – and undertake this undoubtedly planned move?   Why did he not firstly direct his complaint to the tribunal’s president, and after that, if the latter was unresponsive, to the founder of the Tribunal, i.e. to the UN Security Council.  He did not even attempt to take this course – for, if he had he would have surely revealed it now – exactly because the goal was for the letter to come to the media. It’s not known whether anyone or who stands behind judge Harhoff for him to embark so courageously upon – what is clear by now – a professional suicide.  Attorney Luka Misetic , who June 19 published on his blog an article titled “Joint criminal enterprise against judge Theodor Meron” and made interesting revelations, will possibly try to find the answer to this.

It became apparent quite quickly that one judge alone, more than politics itself, can demolish the tribunal’s credibility with his political moves with which he only put wind into the backs of all those who attempt to relativise the former and the future Hague judgments.

Hence, the family of late BiH Army general Rasim Delic has June 18 (of this year) lodged an application with the Hague tribunal to have the judgment against him reviewed (Delic was convicted in 2005 to 3 years prison on command responsibility) and their reasoning or explanation is that judge Harhoff’s letter infers his inclination to convict anyone who engaged in a high position in the war and that, therefore, his judicial integrity is doubtful. That is, judge Harhoff was a member of the tribunal in Delic case and his opinion was the decisive one that rendered the convicting judgment.  In their application to the Hague court the attorneys representing late Delic’s family claim that had the defence known at the time about such exclusive opinions held by judge Harhoff they would have sought his disqualification from hearing the case.

Judge Harhoff is a member of the tribunal in dr. Vojislav Seselj case and the judgment is expected in October of this year. Kevin Jon Heller, a professor at faculty of law in Melbourne, says that it’s to be expected that the lawyers representing Seselj will seek disqualification of the judge on the basis of the fact that it’s possible to conclude from judge Harhoff’s letter without a doubt that he is “inclined to convict”.

Savo Strbac, director of Veritas association, has June 13 (of this year) lodged an application with the Hague tribunal for a review of the judgment of acquittal in Gotovina – Markac case, calling upon new evidence (110 exhumed bodies to end of May 2013). It is interesting that in his application for the review Savo Strbac writes: “ … exhumations of the remains of Serbs killed in the aggression of the Croatian armed forces in August 1995 have been carried out”.  Time will show whether it’s true that, besides coincidence of time, there is no direct connection between his application and judge Harhoff’s letter, as Savo Strbac claims.

It’s interesting that Harhoff places the acquittals of Gotovina and Markac in the same context as the acquittal of the heads of Serb military and intelligence and attributes all three tribunal judgments to the directive politics of great powers. Also, while he can privately think whatever he wants, it is unacceptable from the professional aspect that in his letter he claims how Gotovina and Markac were acquitted of guilt “for war crimes committed by the Croatian army which deported Serb population from the area of the so-called Republic of Serb Krajina (RSK) in 1995”. Judge Harhoff should know that the acquitting judgment found that it was not a matter of “deportation” (due to alleged excessive shelling) but a matter of planned evacuation in advance and in accordance with orders and through the organisation by the authorities of the so-called RSK at the time. Croatian Homeland War memorial-document centre possesses numerous documents even from Serbian sources about that, as well as about the evacuation drills carried out much before Operation Storm. I will further add – as I had personally participated in this – that the Croatian government had managed to purchase on the “black market” the authorities’ of the so-called RSK population evacuation plans, paying for them with not a small amount of money.  During the liberating Operation Storm the Croatian army had done everything possible so that the evacuation routes remain free in order to ensure that any civilian casualties be brought down to the minimum. The judges of the Hague tribunal know all this very well.

This attempt at defaming judge Meron could have an impact (and) on the Herceg-Bosna Six generals case. That is, it’s not necessary to emphasise that judge Meron’s withdrawal from his position prior to an appeal decision being made in the case of the Six from Herceg-Bosna would suit,  except Serbia and one EU member state. And, judging from the recent unfounded and concerning statements made by Bakir Izetbegovic about an alleged aggression against BiH by Croatia, such an outcome of this shameful story would also suit the Bosniaks.

Following all these events, I’m of the opinion that judge Harhoff cannot continue working at the Hague tribunal and professor Jacobs shares my opinion and says: “It seems that judge Harhoff does not hold much respect for presumption of innocence and that he has formed opinion in advance as to who should be pronounced guilty and who innocent. Besides that, Harhoff has in his letter explicitly apostrophised two of his colleagues (judge Meron and judge Gunaya) and so I really do not see how his continued work at the tribunal is possible.

“Despite the shortages the Hague tribunal has shown in its work to date it nevertheless represents a large civilised lunge forward. It’s become evident that, after Nuremberg, such adjudication is still possible. Although it hasn’t completely responded to its historical task the Hague tribunal has, nevertheless, brought some sort of satisfaction for the victims and their families and created a conscience that crimes are not permitted even in war.

“The International criminal justice is still in its juvenile stage. Prevention of crimes, which in itself is a goal of international war crimes tribunals, cannot occur immediately”, said judge Theodor Meron in his interview in BBC’s HardTalk program in March of this year where he, even though in advanced years of his life, lucidly and concentrated responded to the standard, direct and provocative questions put to him by the interviewer. Also, he added, ” reconciliation is not the job of the court, even though it can and it should contribute to it with its decisions, that which people seek above everything else is the criminal responsibility of the individual. Reconciliation is, after all, the job of politics.”

Vesna Skare-Ozbolt

Vesna Skare-Ozbolt

About the writer: Vesna Škare-Ožbolt was a legal advisor of the late President Franjo Tuđman for ten years and the former Minister of Justice of the Republic of Croatia. She is also President of Democratic Centre, the party in coalition with HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union).

Prostitution Of Justice A-la-Judge-Frederik-Harhoff Style

ICTY Judge Frederik Harhoff

ICTY Judge Frederik Harhoff

Well, it’s been a most interesting (for want of a stronger word) week around interpretations of ICTY judgments that acquitted of war crimes some senior Croat and Serb military leaders, particularly in the past 18 months. Personal, but damming thoughts of Danish Judge Frederik Harhoff, which one can take or leave, have been leaked into the public arena and one cannot but stand abhorred!

Why on earth would a Judge of the Tribunal come out with his criticism of the same Tribunal and by doing so interfere with, or influence the process and the outcome of those ICTY cases which have yet to exhaust their right of appeal!?

Absolutely shocking! A Judge effectively denying uncontaminated justice/due process to parties within his own court! I hope Harhoff is made to suffer consequences for his poisoning of the mind-set of both the ICTY prosecutors (who would undoubtedly grow extra wings of false righteousness on the basis of Harhoff’s wicked public pondering) and the defendants who will surely feel intimidated by such poison. Harhoff should not sit on any bench, let alone the ICTY, a moment longer.

Judge Frederik Harhoff wrote a letter last week in which he criticised the ICTY President, US judge Theodor Meron. The letter seems to have been an email sent to a number of recipients, and it’s not clear to whether it was originally written in English, says Marko Milanovic of EJIL Talk.

Milanovic writes: “Harhoff is a judge on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. His criticism amounts to a severe and dramatic accusation against the tribunal as a whole. He maintains that the American president of the tribunal has exercised ‘persistent’ and ‘intense’ pressure on his fellow judges to allow top-ranking officers to go free.
Harhoff’s five-page letter (PDF), the precise contents of which are confidential, was addressed to 56 people, including several lawyers. In the letter, Harhoff scrutinises and criticises a series of judgements acquitting Serbian and Croatian leaders.
‘The most recent of these judgements have occasioned a deep professional and moral dilemma for me, one that I have never before experienced. The worst of it is the suspicion that some of my colleagues have been exposed to short-term political pressure and this completely changes the premises of my work to serve the principles of justice and reason”, Harhoff writes in the letter. He makes it clear that the development “has awoken deep concerns both in myself and other colleagues in the corridors of this tribunal’.

‘It would seem’, writes Judge Harhoff, ‘that the military establishment’ in leading states such as Israel and the US ‘felt that the tribunal was getting too close to top-ranking military commands.’
He continues:
‘Has an Israeli or American official influenced the American President of the tribunal to effect a change of course?’ Harhoff writes in the letter.

Judge Harhoff states in his letter that the public ‘will probably never’ be told to what extent his suspicion that the American President of the tribunal has influenced the result of the case for political reasons is true:
‘But the report of the American president of the tribunal’s persistent pressure on his colleagues in the Gotovina and Perisic cases does more than suggest that he was fairly intent on arriving at an acquittal and especially that he was lucky in being able to persuade the ageing Turkish judge to change his mind at the last minute.’
The ‘ageing Turkish judge’, Harhoff refers to is the 77-year-old Mehmet Güney, who voted in November to release the two Croatian generals Gotovina and Markac.
Harhoff says that the new precedent ‘will in future and in the majority of cases allow the top-ranking person to go free. This means that American (and Israeli) commanders in chief can breathe a sigh of relief…’. Harhoff adds ‘I am left with the distinctly unpleasant impression that the tribunal has shifted course as a result of the pressure from ‘the military establishment’ of certain powerful countries’.

Marlise Simons, of New York Times, gives a further insight into possible motives behind Harhoff’s letter: political lobbying within ICTY towards elections of its President, due in autumn 2013?  She writes: “A spokesman at the court declined to comment on the letter. Other judges and lawyers were willing to speak, provided that their names were not used.
By their accounts, a mini-rebellion has been brewing against Judge Meron, prompting some of the 18 judges of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to group around an alternative candidate for the scheduled election for tribunal president this fall. Until now, Judge Meron had been expected to be re-elected”.

Judge Harhoff writes in his letter: “…Right up until autumn 2012, it has been a more or less set practice at the court that military commanders were held responsible for war crimes that their subordinates committed during the war in the former Yugoslavia from 1992-95, when the Daytona Agreement brought an end to the war in December 1995.

The responsibility then was either normal criminal responsibility as either (1) contributing to or (2) responsibility for the top officers with command responsibilities in a military system of command authority where these failed to prevent the crime or punish the subordinates. There is nothing new in this. We had also developed an extended criminal responsibility for people (ministers, politicians, military leaders, officers and others), who had supported an overall goal to eradicate ethnic groups from certain areas through criminal violence, and which in one way or another contributed to the achievement of such a goal; it is this responsibility that goes by the name of “joint criminal enterprise”.

But then the court’s Appeals Chamber suddenly back-tracked last autumn with the three Croatian generals and ministers in the Gotovina case. They were acquitted for the Croatian army’s war crimes while driving out Serbian forces and the Serbian people from major areas in Croatia – the so-called Krajina area in August 1995 (home to generations of Serbians)”.

Oh my God! This is a judge saying this! He just simply does not accept the fact that the Croatian generals were acquitted on appeal of “join criminal enterprise” (i.e. driving out Serbian forces and Serbian people)! And he is a Judge in the same Tribunal!

Luka Misetic, defence attorney for Croatian General Ante Gotovina has registered his comment on Harhoff’s letter :

Marko Milanovic writes: ‘Needless to say, this is one of the worst scandals to engulf the ICTY in its history, regardless of whether Harhoff’s accusations have a basis in fact or not.’
I find it troubling that something can be deemed a scandal ‘regardless of whether Harhoff’s accusations have a basis in fact or not.’ If something has no basis in fact, it is not a ‘scandal,’ it is defamation. I agree with Professor David Kaye, who noted that Harhoff’s email “reflects a ‘conspiracist attitude, tinged with anti-semitism, is obnoxious.’ Moreover, Harhoff doesn’t offer any evidence for these claims.
I also note the inconsistency of Harhoff’s claims: on the one hand, Judge Orie allegedly succumbed to ‘American pressure’ to acquit Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic, yet on the other hand Orie’s conviction of Ante Gotovina was allegedly overturned by the Appeals Chamber ‘under American pressure.’ Which one is it? Is Orie subject to ‘American pressure’ as claimed in the Stanisic case, or is he the victim of ‘American pressure’ as in Gotovina?
Moreover, Harhoff’s claim that Judge Meron put pressure on Orie to finish the Stanisic judgement by the end of May is probably true. However, there is a big distinction to be made between ‘finishing the case,’ and actually interfering as to the actual decision in the case. The ‘pressure’ by Meron was not imposed by the Americans, but rather the Security Council, which noted in a resolution that the ICTY Appeals Chamber will only hear cases in which the Notice of Appeal is filed by 30 June 2013. Any cases in which the Notice of Appeal is filed on 1 July 2013 or thereafter will be heard by the new Residual Mechanism. This is likely the reason why both the Stanisic and Prlic cases were decided in the last week of May 2013, i.e. so that both cases could be heard by the ICTY Appeals Chamber. This reflects Security Council pressure on Meron to implement the Completion Strategy (which Meron as President of the ICTY is duty bound to implement), and certainly does NOT mean that Meron actually put pressure on any Trial Chamber concerning the RESULT to be reached in these cases. The fact that Harhoff is not familiar with Security Council deadlines concerning the ICTY’s completion strategy, and instead through rumor and innuendo impugns the reputations of both Meron and the ICTY, reflects at the very least a profound ignorance on Harhoff’s part.
Finally, it is ironic that Harhoff attacks the ‘specific direction’ finding in the Perisic case as proof of a ‘US / Israeli conspiracy’ to protect military commanders, given that Harhoff himself adopted the ‘specific direction’ standard in his recent judgement in the Zupljanin case. (See paragraph 786 here).
If Harhoff really had a problem with the ‘specific direction’ standard, he shouldn’t have adopted it in Zupljanin. Rather, he should have written a well reasoned dissent, explaining the legal reasoning behind his objection to the ‘specific direction’ standard. Instead, Harhoff to his discredit chose to follow the Appeals Chamber’s lead while ‘on duty’ as an ICTY judge, but when off duty chose to impugn the integrity of his ICTY colleagues in a frivolous email to over 50 of his friends.
Shame on him. Harhoff should be reminded of the old adage: ‘When you point a finger of accusation at someone else, remember that you have three fingers pointing right back at you. Luka Misetic”

Having all above in mind: what hope does democracy have, what hope does humanity have when we have among us judges who prostitute the rule of law (as set by courts) so; cheapen justice and due process; fuel conspiracy theories that have not, up until now, found a voice among the judiciary!

There have been ample criticisms of the ICTY Trial Chamber’s decisions in the past years, and I myself have certainly not shied away from them. Dishing out of political decisions rather than justice has been a consensus between many independent analysts and commentators. However, when an ICTY judge joins the ranks of public analysts and commentators on the judgments of his own court then there is cause for alarm; due process of justice, which is inseparable from independence of the bench, is profoundly compromised. Furthermore, it gives cause to question every decision, every judgment, ever delivered by the ICTY, every indictment ever delivered by the ICTY Prosecution.

Not only that, it would seem that the world does not need due process any more: if it were up to Harhoff, all we need is an indictment, no trial, no appeal, – straight to prison! Ina Vukic, Prof. (Zgb); B.A., M.A.Ps. (Syd)


tartine_confitureDov Jacobs, Assistant Professor in International Law and International Criminal Law at Leiden University

Disclaimer, Terms and Conditions:

All content on “Croatia, the War, and the Future” blog is for informational purposes only. “Croatia, the War, and the Future” blog is not responsible for and expressly disclaims all liability for the interpretations and subsequent reactions of visitors or commenters either to this site or its associate Twitter account, @IVukic or its Facebook account. Comments on this website are the sole responsibility of their writers and the writer will take full responsibility, liability, and blame for any libel or litigation that results from something written in or as a direct result of something written in a comment. The nature of information provided on this website may be transitional and, therefore, accuracy, completeness, veracity, honesty, exactitude, factuality and politeness of comments are not guaranteed. This blog may contain hypertext links to other websites or webpages. “Croatia, the War, and the Future” does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness or completeness of information on any other website or webpage. We do not endorse or accept any responsibility for any views expressed or products or services offered on outside sites, or the organisations sponsoring those sites, or the safety of linking to those sites. Comment Policy: Everyone is welcome and encouraged to voice their opinion regardless of identity, politics, ideology, religion or agreement with the subject in posts or other commentators. Personal or other criticism is acceptable as long as it is justified by facts, arguments or discussions of key issues. Comments that include profanity, offensive language and insults will be moderated.
%d bloggers like this: