ICJ – Croatia, the War, and the Future

Croatia vs. Serbia ICJ Genocide Case – A Door To Future Success Or Failure Of Genocide Claims?

April 14, 2014 by inavukic 34 Comments

Vukovar cemetery – Photo politikaplus.com

By Vesna Skare-Ozbolt

First published in Politikaplus.com
Translated into English by Ina Vukic

When a respectable British Weekly such as The Economist in its article from 11 March regarding the ICJ genocide trial between Croatia and Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) pronounces (promotes) that case as “utterly idiotic” in advance, that, in the least, must cause a decent reader to raise his or her eyebrows.

That is, this trial opens up several controversial questions upon which the international and the domestic professional circles are bound to debate; from the standards of proof of genocide, questions associated with the continuity and succession in the dissolution of a state, questions of state responsibility as well as the retroactive application of the Convention on Genocide. Court practice – even the one associate with genocide – has developed significantly during the past several years and this court could perhaps offer new interpretations, at least for some of these questions.

The Croatian legal team submitted its presentation properly and it’s worth emphasising the submissions made by James Crawford, Professor of International Law at Cambridge University, Philippe Sands, Professor of Law at London University and Davorin Lapas, Professor of International Law at the Law Faculty of University of Zagreb.

It’s difficult to give a serious assessment of Serbia’s legal team’s strategy because the extraction of evidence contained in the ICTY Trial Chamber judgments when it’s favourable for Serbia, bargaining with ICTY Appeal Chamber judgments when they are in favour of Croatia, appealing to the judges to study the ICTY Trial and Appeal judgments in an individual case and then to decide which one of these they like best, etc., does not constitute a serious strategy.

The biggest surprise from the trial is the British professional and professor of International Law, William Schabas. Although it was known in advance that Serbia had weak arguments one expected that he would, nevertheless, pluck something strong out of that material. The fact that even he was not successful at that speaks volumes of the quality of Serbia’s counter-claim in the proceedings. Regardless, Professor Schabas has appeared as a master in evading matters that did not benefit Serbia and, hence, when he rejects the key point Serbia relies on – that FRY did not exist as a state before 27 April 1992 and that in accordance with the Convention on Prevention of Genocide it is not responsible for events that occurred before that date – he omits to mention the fact that the very wording of the Convention does not seek nor exclude retroactive application or UN Convention regarding the application of statute of limitations for war crimes and crimes against humanity from 1968, where, it says in Article 1 that “statute of limitations will not be applied for crimes … regardless of the date of their perpetration … and for the crime of genocide under the definition in the 1948 Convention”. Also, even though this is a matter of a trial against a state it is worth reminding ourselves of the judgment in the Eichmann case where it says: “… that the crime with which he is charged has always carried the stamp of an international crime” and this adds to the weight favouring the retrospective application of the Convention. Or, as the renowned Serbian lawyer, the late Srdja Popovic, said in relation to the genocide lawsuit Bosnia and Herzegovina Vs. Serbia: “ … no one can call upon the dissolution and anarchy, because it is exactly in such situations when genocides occur …” (interview in BH Dani, 2006)

The charming Professor Schabas suggests to the court “not to enter into some new areas” but to keep firmly to the restrictive standard for proof of genocide contained in article 373 in the Bosnia and Herzegovina vs. Serbia 2007 judgment and not the lower one from the Karadzic case. While on the one hand he is right, because the Kardazic judgment has not passed the Appeal stage, I think that this trial is the moment when the court must and should “enter into some new areas”, that is, open the debate around the question as to whether the standard from article 373 is the best standard for the finding of responsibility of some state for genocide? If it is, that would mean that future proof of genocide will become an impossible mission.

Schabas claims that there was no genocide anywhere in the former Yugoslavia (except in Srebrenica which he characterised as a mini-genocide) because “ … there was no uniform pattern nor plan nor defined state politics on implementing genocide …” and, as an example of the existence of such a plan he gave Adolf Hitler’s stay at the Landsberg prison in 1924 where he began writing Mein Kampf. On the other hand, he does not mention the existence of the mid-19th century onwards plans for the formation of Greater Serbia to Croatia’s detriment (Nacertanije by Ilija Garasanin, as the first Greater Serbia political Memorandum SANU, etc.). (SANU – Serbian Academy of Science and Arts)

The fact that the Serbian academics Dobrica Cosic and Antonije Isakovic had as early as 1989 offered Istria and Dalmatia to the Italian neo-fascists (Alleanza nazionale Gianfranca Finija) serves as one more example of the Serbia’s leadership’s plans directed at the “annulment” of the Croatian state, not as a whole but within the frame of the rattling Virovitica-Karlovac-Ogulin border against which the HDZ of the day had protested publicly on 29 September 1989, labeling the “academic matters” of these two Serbian academics as “Greater Serbian customisation of Croatia”.

Also, the data from dr Andrija Hebrang’s book “Crimes in the Serb-Montenegrin aggression against the Republic of Croatia” which shows that more civilians than solders were killed on battlefields on the Croatian side contributes to genocidal intentions. The killing of 400 children, all of whom were not “collateral victims” of say bombing but were intentionally murdered, often in the most cruel of manners in front of or together with the whole of their families, needs to be emphasised.

Serbia’s legal team, in fact, did not attempt to deny the crimes perpetrated on Croatia’s territory in the 1991-1995 period, but it kept exhausting itself in the attempts to accomplish a win-win situation, according to which Milosevic was guilty for 1991 and Tudjman for 1995, that is, maintaining an eternal balance of responsibility for the war. The introduction of events from NDH (WWII Independent State of Croatia) into the whole story, as supposedly the exclusive reason for the rebellion of the Krajina Serbs in 1991 against the independent Croatia and the attempts to prove the so-called genocidal character of the Operation Storm had the placing of a connection Jasenovac 1941 – Storm 1995 as their aim in order to continue ad nauseam perpetuation of the concocted genocidal stigma of Croatia.

This court will mainly rely on ICTY judgments – confirmation of this can be found in the separate deliberation by the presiding judge Peter Tomka from 2008 when decisions were being made regarding the court’s jurisdiction in the case of Croatia’s genocide lawsuit against Serbia: “…it remains to be seen how Croatia will succeed in proving that the crime of genocide has been committed and that FRY is responsible for it …” although ICTY “…has not passed its judgment against the persons who carry the greatest responsibility for genocide in Croatia” – and one could conclude that a judgment of genocide has no chance.

Regretfully the court does not have a fact-finding mission capacity and it’s difficult to expect that the judges will “comb” through all the documents (from the Croatian as well as from the Serbian sources), which are archived in the Croatian Homeland War Memorial-Documentary Centre and which were collected by dr. Ante Nazor and his team through to this year, or that they will read every book written by Serbian academics or war leaders of the day that could significantly contribute to a judgment about the intent to commit genocide within a limited time span and within specific areas, especially in Eastern Slavonia.

One also should not exclude the option to dismiss both claims. If it comes to that, this court case will nevertheless represent a victory for Croatia – or, a useful defeat – as the renowned professor Mirijan Damaska said (interview, Nacional, 2007) because it will, once again, remind the international public that the ICTY has not convicted a single Croat, that Croatia is not responsible for the War and that its defence was legitimate. On the other hand, Serbia has come out from the ICTY with 13 final convictions so far, and with a conviction from this court for failing to prevent genocide in Srebrenica.

One thing is for certain: this court has a very difficult task before it and it’s distasteful to enter into prognoses because, as Luka Misetic, a member of Croatia’s legal team said: “all options are on the table”.

Vesna Skare-Ozbolt
Photo: Politikaplus.com

About the author: Vesna Skare-Ozbolt is a Lawyer with post-graduate studies in Criminal law. She served as legal advisor to the late President Franjo Tudjman for ten years. She led the process of Peaceful reintegration of Eastern Slavonia in the late 1990’s. She was Minister of Justice of the Republic of Croatia (2003-2006) and author and initiator of many legislative proposals in Croatia. She served as elected member of Croatian Parliament over three mandates from year 2000. She is also President of Democratic Centre party. Honorary citizen of Vukovar, Ilok and Brela. 1998 Woman of the Year. Decorated with the Order of Croatian Interlace, Order of Croatian Trefoil and Order of Katarina Zrinski and Vukovar Medal. Source: http://www.vesna.com.hr

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Andrija Hebrang, Croatia, Croatian Operation Storm, Davorin Lapas, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Franjo Tudjman, FRY, genocide, Greater Serbia, ICJ, ICTY, International Court of Justice, International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, James Crawford, Judge Peter Tomka, Krajina Serbs, Luka Misetic, Memorandum SANU, Mirijan Damaska, Philippe Sands, Radovan Karadzic, Serbia, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Slobodan Milosevic, Srebrenica, The Economist, Vesna Skare-Ozbolt, Vukovar, William Schabas

Croatia Suffered Genocide And Prevented It In Bihac!

March 27, 2014 by inavukic 27 Comments

Vukovar, Croatia 1991
Serb Chetnik and Serb-led Yugoslav army
march into Vukovar singing:
“Slobo, Slobo (as in Slobodan Milosevic) send
us some salad, there will be meat, we’ll slaughter
the Croats” (BBC newsreel screenshot)

Croatian Cultural Council, on its Croatian Weekly portal has published an article written by dr Slobodan Lang in relation to the Croatia Vs Serbia genocide lawsuit and case currently being heard in the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

I have translated that article into English and bring it to you with the hope that it will increase your understanding of and knowledge about what Croatia had to endure during the Serb aggression of 1990’s. This is important for the whole of the humanity, for the world simply needs to cease saying “Never again (genocide)” while real threats of new genocide loom before us – it must punish the states whose policy was to employ genocide in order to take over territory of another sovereign state. Ina Vukic, Prof. (Zgb) B.A., M.A.Ps. (Syd)

By dr Slobodan Lang,
Hrvatski Tjednik (Croatian Weekly), 10 March 2014

In its defence from Serb aggression Croatia has achieved a greater success in the prevention of genocide than anyone else in history. Genocide is the gravest of crimes among people. Its intentions are to kill, or at least deport a certain population from a territory in which it has jointly lived be it through aggression or conquest. The Convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide was passed in the night before the Universal Declaration of Human rights was adopted.

However, that was after the Holocaust had already happened. The entire humanitarian activity in WWII was weak and the new rules for the future were brought about on the basis of the experience of failure rather than success. The problem of genocide was avoided for many years, usually with the words “Never again”. It was the 1990’s wars of Serb aggression that prompted the world to confront itself with crimes against humanity and genocide. Again because of punishment, and not prevention.

The world has not solved the question of genocide: intent, prevention, stopping, judgment and punishment. The truth about genocide is the question and responsibility of the world. It is necessary to punish that which is done, but the most important thing is to contribute to the prevention of future genocide, anywhere in the world, using the new knowledge and experiences. For this reason, the primary task of the trial of Croatia’s lawsuit against Serbia for genocide, which commenced at the beginning of March, is to contribute to a better future world, and not just convict the evil that has already occurred.

It is difficult for me to write this text, but I must and I want to pass onto you the ideas and the experiences I carry with me. In order to achieve something one needs to have ideas, one needs to mobilise a group to join in and, to personal danger or risk, one needs to organize and implement an action, for which one hopes will be accepted by the people, and the desired results will be achieved.

Only through such jointly utilised ideas, actions, courage, influence and change in the way of life results are achieved in any sphere: humanitarian, economic, political … and so too in the sphere of prevention of genocide.

It’s difficult for me to write because I carry the painful inheritance of the Holocaust in my own family.

I have turned it into the post-holocaust with the aim to turn the Jewish suffering from hatred, persecution, camps, theft, ignorance and killing into the future strengthening of the prevention from such crimes for any nations. It’s difficult because I do not feel the awareness of the whole depth and the whole suffering of the people in today’s leadership of Croatia. I do not know that they had participated as war veterans, or even in the civilian actions in the defence of Croatia.

I listen to them as they attempt to explain the suffering, genocide, and so the Holocaust at well, as the suffering of some other people from the past who don’t concern us and for whom too much money or emotion shouldn’t be spent. I do not feel the presence of a soul in the Croatian leadership.

Likewise, I think that today’s Serbia and Serbs have not at all confronted themselves with their responsibility and are attempting to escape into a concept of equal guilt, into the forgetfulness of the past and into the well known phrase “who, on earth, pushed us into a feud” (‘tko nas, bre, zavadi‘). I feel an inadequate wish and will from the Serbian leadership, intelligence, Church, and consequently in their people to stop being a nation of hate and inequality and to start being a nation of tolerance and good. Such conditions make it most difficult for the International community and court to come to the truth and bring about a just ruling.

Nevertheless, the truth that in its defense from Serbia’s aggression, Yugoslav People’s Army and the rebel Serbs, Croatia had successfully prevented, stopped and warned about the danger of genocide, is very important. Croatia is responsible towards the whole world and towards its own people, its future and towards all the suffering victims as well as all war veterans to demonstrate and show to the ICJ court in The Hague why and how it defended itself and why and how it prevented the crimes of genocide while defending itself from the aggression that had as its aim the conquering of parts of Croatia by use of excessive military destructive force and by causing the Croats to flee their homes (in order to save their bare lives) through perpetration of the worst imaginable crimes (murder, rape, torture, incarceration in concentration camps).

This is the first time that a world court considers a lawsuit of one state accusing another for having perpetrated an aggression with the aim of taking away the conquered territory through the perpetration of crimes against the nationally undesirable population, using hatred, destruction, ethnic persecution – in short, genocide. The International court in The Hague had in the genocide case of Bosnia and Herzegovina Vs Serbia avoided to deliver a clear decision on guilt in its judgment, but it had in an unambiguous manner condemned Serbia for not preventing the genocide in Srebrenica.

Sparked by this decision, I wrote an open letter (3 November 2012) to the president of Serbia asking him to seek the release of Croatian Generals Gotovina and Markac from the Hague, to state how the Operation Storm prevented genocide in Bihac and, as a state condemned for not having prevented genocide to call for a world summit on the prevention of genocide. But he did not reply to my letter. Does he understand at all that my letter was an offering of the hand of the future to him, to Serbia and to Serbs?

In the modern times, the idea of hatred, inequality and violence was set in motion in 1986 by only 15 SANU Academics (Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts). They wrote the following in their Memorandum: “The achievement of equality and independent development for the Serbian people have a deeper historical sense. For less than fifty years, in two consecutive generations, twice exposed to physical destruction, forced assimilation, religion change, cultural genocide, ideological indoctrination, devaluation and denial of own tradition under the imposed complex of guilt, intellectually and politically disarmed, the Serbian people have been exposed to most difficult of temptations, which have surely left traces in the spiritual state, which, at the end of this century of great technological advances in human intellect, should not be ignored. If the Serbian people count on its future in the family of cultured and civilised people of the world they must receive the opportunity to once again find themselves and become a historical subject, to renew their conscience of their historical and spiritual being ...”

Slobodan Milosevic became their entrepreneur. He firstly maimed Serbia and the Serbian people by turning them into a nation of hate. Just as Hitler did against the Jews, he started with initiating hatred and actions against Albanians within Serbia. After that he went forth with the aggression and rebellion in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The attacks always followed the same pattern: excessive military artillery shelling against all buildings regardless of what they were, which resulted in enormous destruction and numerous civil casualties.

Many survivors fled and found shelter in the surrounding areas. After conquering the areas, armed soldiers, volunteers from Serbia and the local Serbs looted, burned the houses, chased people away, killed and raped. Therefore, cleansing had been implemented. Unlike this pattern, Croatia’s defence had from its first day emphasised antifascism and rejected crimes and hatred.

The Serb aggression was based upon the attitude that hatred and genocide are worthwhile, that they are the path to the realisation of Greater Serbia. The people were to follow and accept such a leader and leadership. The Croatian defence leaned upon the good and upon tolerance as the path toward realising the freedom of Croatia and Croats. The people decided for responsibility of freedom at the referendum. The whole nation had linked itself into one so that it could defend the Homeland and the homes.

The civilian initiatives (Wall of Love, Convoy Libertas, emigrants …) were in 1991 the greatest force in the Croatian defence. The mere defence of Vukovar was, in fact, an attempt to prevent that which was to happen after the conquest: killing of patients, rape of women, torture, looting, taking to the concentration camps, persecution, only because they are Croats. There were more and more veterans every day. And so it was all until the victorious Operation Storm with which the Croatian army had prevented genocide in Bihac, in August of 1995.

I do not know how Croatia will present itself at the court in The Hague, I do not know how the politicians will trade among themselves either in secret or publicly nor do I know what the final court verdict will be. But I do know that the Serbian aggression was made up of the plan to conquer by employing hatred and crimes all the way to the full genocide. I know that the Croatian defence, despite all the sufferings, had prevented this in Croatia. The Homeland war, therefore, contains more experience in the prevention of genocide than any other war in the world. Judge Theodor Meron, with his origins, his experience and knowledge had recognised this, made a judgment and freed Gotovina and Markac.

How much of this do the Croatian political leadership and defence understand? When you read this you will know one more thing that is of worldly importance: how our Croatia was created and defended. Be justifiably proud of the past, but it needs to be passed onto the future of the world as well as into the success of today’s Croatia.
_________________

About dr. Slobodan Lang. Born to Jewish family 8 October 1945 in Zagreb, Croatia. Physician, author, writer, politician and former personal adviser to the first Croatian President dr. Franjo Tudjman. His paternal grandfather Ignjat was the president of the Jewish community in Vinkovci (Croatia) and his grandmother Terezija was a housewife. In 1941 Catholic priest Hijacint Bošković, distinguished Dubrovnik and Croatian Dominican, was engaged in an extraordinary attempt to rescue the Langs from Nazi persecution. Bošković traveled from Dubrovnik to Vinkovci with a special permit that allowed him to relocate the Langs to Dubrovnik. Langs grandfather refused to leave, saying that he “was the president of Jews in peace and he will stay one in the war”. Both of his grandparents were killed in the concentration camp during the Holocaust. He graduated at the University of Zagreb School of Medicine and is a specialist in social medicine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Lang)

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Croatia, genocide, Holocaust, ICJ, International Court of Justice, Judge Theodor Meron, SANU, Serb aggression, Serbia, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Slobodan Lang, the Hague

Croatia Vs Serbia At ICJ – Serbia Dodging Responsibility For Genocide

March 22, 2014 by inavukic 64 Comments

International Court of Justice, the Hague

In presenting Croatia’s case against Serbia at the ICJ for genocide committed in Croatia during 1990’s the Croatian legal team had detailed gruesome atrocities committed against hundreds of towns and villages in Croatia. It put forth as evidence the great multitudes brutally killed, tortured, subjected to sexual abuse, locked into concentration camps, forcefully expelled from their homes in the campaigns of ethnically cleansing non-Serbs from all areas Serbs had aggressively declared as their own even though these were within the internationally recognized sovereign borders of Croatia. The relentless rhythm of death and destruction over a relatively short period of time, orchestrated from Serbia’s capital Belgrade as the headquarters of the Yugoslav People’s Army, Serbia took over as the former Yugoslavia disintegrated amidst individual states seeking to secede (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Macedonia) became very clear in the courtroom and anyone who has had the audacity to call this lawsuit unnecessary and bound for dismissal – and there have sadly been plenty of those in the media – must have pulled back and re-examined their conscience in both human and legal terms. Or, at least, I hope they did!

Croatia’s legal team said to the court that proof of genocide was not only the actual genocide or a high number of victims and that it was enough to prove genocidal intent which, together with concrete crimes, made it the gravest crime under international law.

The extent and pattern of the crimes, the words spoken and the racist propaganda confirm beyond any doubt Serbia’s genocidal intent to destroy Croats in areas that, to Serbs’ plan, were to have become part of a Greater Serbia, the Croatian lawyers submitted.

Serbia’s legal team said that Serbs are victims of genocide in Croatia emphasising the August 1995 Operation Storm (Croatian military action to liberate Serb-occupied Croatian territory) when more than 200,000 Serbs fled Croatia. The fact that the ICTY it its acquittal of Croatian Generals, November 2012, stated that there was no forced deportation of Serbs from Croatia around the said Operation Storm did not seem to have bothered Serbia’s legal team at ICJ. Serbia’s legal team said that the war in Croatia caused major sufferings for Serbs who, faced with the separatist ideas of the then Croatian top government, decided to set up their own national entity known as the Republic of Serb Krajina (RSK).

So Serbia’s legal team is now labeling the 94% of Croatian voting population as “separatists” because they voted for democracy, they voted to secede from communist Yugoslavia, while the Serb minority there did not!

Furthermore, Serbia’s legal team likened the July 1995 meeting of Croatia’s government and military leadership at which Operation Storm was being planned in Brioni to that of the meeting held in 1942 at which the Nazi’s delivered the decision about the destruction of the Jews! Croatia’s legal representative Phillipe Sands had, in no uncertain terms, asked Serbia’s team to withdraw this statement at its next appearance.

The Croatian legal team has accused Serbia of falsifying evidence including the fabrication of victims carried out by Serb NGO “Veritas” – in simple words it accused Serbia of lying. No one has ever been convicted in any court for the genocide that Serbia’s legal team claim was committed against Serbs (Operation Storm) and which they say represents the worst case of genocide since WWII and yet the international criminal court ICTY had spent many years, if not a full decade, analysing and deliberating on Operation Storm only to come up with the finding that no crimes had been committed as part of Operation Storm by Croats.

Serbia’s legal team went so far as to suggest that Croatia is the state that arose from WWII Nazi-puppet state in which multitude of Serbs were killed! They went so far as to try and make the world believe that the period of 1945 to 1991 did not happen for Croatia! Sorry, Serbia’s legal team, but Croatia of today arose out of former Yugoslavia and not out of any WWII state.

Serbia’s lawyers also argued that the authorities in Belgrade (Serbia) could not be called to account for crimes committed in Croatia before the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY/Serbia + Montenegro) was established in April 1992!

Before the proclamation of the new state Belgrade was not a member of the Genocide Convention which therefore cannot apply to the crimes during the 1991 war in Croatia, Serbia’s team argued!

Well, well, well! Serbia took over the former Yugoslav Army, Serbia’s people acted on behalf of Serbia’s political aims to secure parts of Croatia where Serbs lived in relative ethnic majority … the date of the actual establishment of FRY is really not important. It’s more than clear that Serbia would now like to think of itself as the heir of former Yugoslavia in everything except the crimes it planned and committed in the name of that failing Yugoslavia!

So, it’s then as Serbia’s legal team put it: The Croatian argument of genocide, which Croatia’s team says was committed against Croats in 1991, is basically an application to the court to apply the genocide convention retroactively against the Serbian authorities, despite the fact that they didn’t sign the convention at the time.

Some will argue that a retroactive application of the convention is not allowed, but these appear to me as mere agents of Greater Serbia who would like to muddy the waters and try to convince the ICJ that 1946 – 1991 did not happen for Serbia, either!

As it happens the truth is that the former Yugoslavia (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) signed the Genocide Convention on 11 December 1948! And Serbia who insisted on keeping that Yugoslavia, mounting aggression against Croatia via the Yugoslav People’s Army, was to my view obligated in observing all international conventions former Yugoslavia was a signatory to!

Indeed at the time of the proclamation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) on 27 April 1992, a formal declaration was adopted on its behalf to the effect that
“The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, continuing the State, international legal and political personality of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, shall strictly abide by all the commitments that the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia assumed internationally”!

How Serbia’s legal team can now argue in the ICJ that “all the crimes” included in Croatia’s charges “were committed before Serbia was bound by the Convention.”

It is as clear as day: Serbia has not, does not nor is it likely to admit to its crimes – unless it is made to do so through an ICJ ruling that points to its responsibility.

The Convention (on genocide) was adopted to protect human dignity and not for states to avoid responsibility, said Croatia’s counsel Phillipe Sands, a British professor.

Croatia has on Friday 21 March sought that ICJ finds Serbia guilty of genocide, that Serbia brings perpetrators of war crimes to account (especially its officers of the Yugoslav People’s Army), that Serbia hands over the details of those still missing from the war in Croatia, that Serbia returns the cultural wealth stolen from Croatia during the war, that Serbia pays for war damage caused to the sum set by the court. The Croatian legal team submitted that the ICJ judgment will have exceptional importance for Croatian people but also for peace and stability in the region and that this was an invitation to uncover the Greater Serbia ultra-nationalism for what it really is – a criminal project for the creation of Greater Serbia through theft and ethnic cleansing in Croatia and the neighbouring Bosnia and Herzegovina.

“Croatia has moved forward, it’s a member of the EU, it has democratic institutions and high level protection of minority rights. Serbia also wants that but it will be difficult for it to achieve this as long as it continues avoiding its responsibility,” said Vesna Crnic Grotic, leader of Croatia’s legal team at ICJ.

Indeed, this case is so very important for the region but above all, for humanity and human dignity. Dodging ones responsibility for horrendous crimes against humanity, for genocide, cannot, must not be permitted in the face of such overwhelming evidence. If ICJ fails to accept the reality and fact that Serbia was at the time the body, hands and mind of former Yugoslavia, which was a signatory to the Convention on Genocide, then the whole of humanity will indeed suffer and the future be left to legal technicalities whose only aim is to absolve the criminals of their crimes if political currents seek it. Ina Vukic, Prof. (Zgb); B.A., M.A.Ps. (Syd)