United Nations


General Assembly
Security Council

Distr. GENERAL  

23 August 1995


Fiftieth session  Fiftieth year
Item 49 of the provisional agenda*

Note by the Secretary-General

  The Secretary-General has  the honour  to transmit to  the members of  the
General  Assembly and  to the  members  of the  Security Council  the second
annual report of the International Tribunal  for the Prosecution of  Persons
Responsible  for  Serious  Violations  of  International  Humanitarian   Law
Committed in  the Territory of the  Former Yugoslavia  since 1991, submitted
by the  President of the International  Tribunal in  accordance with article
34 of its statute (see S/25704, annex), which states:

  "The  President  of  the  International Tribunal  shall  submit  an annual
report of  the International  Tribunal to the  Security Council  and to  the
General Assembly."


  *  A/50/150.

95-24949 (E)   220995/...


14 August 1995

Your Excellencies,

  I have the honour to submit the second annual report of the  International
Tribunal for the  Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious  Violations
of International Humanitarian Law Committed in  the Territory of the  Former
Yugoslavia since  1991, dated  14 August 1995,  to the Security  Council and
the  General  Assembly,  pursuant  to  article  34  of the  statute  of  the

  Please  accept,  Excellencies,  the  renewed  assurances  of  my   highest

                                                      (Signed)       Antonio

H.E. Mr. Boutros Boutros-GhaliH.E. Mr. Nugroho Wisnumurti     
Secretary-GeneralPresident of the Security Council
United NationsUnited Nations                  
New York, NY 10017New York, NY 10017              
United States of AmericaUnited States of America


  Paragraphs  Page

INTRODUCTION ...............................................1 - 55

Part one


I.  THE CHAMBERS .........................................6 - 296

  A.  Judicial action ..................................  6 - 186

    1.  Indictments ..................................      76

    2.  Deferral hearings ............................8 - 117

    3.  The Tadic trial ..............................12 - 158

    4.  Proceedings under rule 61 ....................16 - 179

    5.  Amicus curiae ................................     1810

  B.  Regulatory activity ..............................  19 - 2910

    1.  Amendments to the rules of procedure and
      evidence .....................................19 - 2710

    2.  Amendments to the rules of detention .........     2812

    3.  Adoption of regulations for detainees ........     2912

II.  THE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR .........................30 - 7512

  Introduction .........................................30 - 3112

  A.  Staffing .........................................  32 - 3413

  B.  Changes in the structure of the Office of the
    Prosecutor .......................................  35 - 4514

  C.  Action by the Office of the Prosecutor ...........  46 - 7316

  D.  The Prosecutor's dual role:  the former Yugoslavia  
    and Rwanda tribunals .............................  74 - 7521
  CONTENTS (continued)

  Paragraphs  Page

III.  THE REGISTRY .........................................76 - 12821

  A.  Judicial department ..............................  77 - 11722

    1.  Court management .............................82 - 9322

    2.  The accused ..................................94 - 10725

      (a)  Defence counsel .........................  94 - 9825

      (b)  Detention facilities ....................  99 - 10725

    3.  Victims and Witnesses Unit ...................108 - 11727

  B.  Administration ...................................  118 - 12328

  C.  Publications .....................................  124 - 12829

Part two



V.  ENFORCEMENT OF SENTENCES .............................135 - 13932

VI.  VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS ..............................140 - 15133

  A.  States ...........................................  140 - 15033

  B.  Intergovernmental organizations ..................     15134

Part three



VIII.  THE TRIBUNAL AND WORLD PUBLIC OPINION ................  162 - 18636

Part four


CONCLUSION .................................................  187 - 19940

1.   Since its  first  annual  report, the  International Tribunal  for  the
Prosecution of Persons  Responsible for Serious Violations of  International
Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory  of the Former Yugoslavia  since
1991 (referred to herein  as "the Tribunal") is now substantially closer  to
realizing  its  principal  objectives  as  laid  down  in  Security  Council
resolutions 808  (1993) and  827 (1993).  It  has started to meet  the hopes
and expectations of the victims of events  in the former Yugoslavia.  In the
early stages  of its  existence, a  number of  problems,  described in  last
year's report, delayed the  Tribunal and prevented it from carrying out  its
mandate.   Now, the  preparatory work has been  completed and trial activity
has begun, opening a second chapter in its development.

2.  The  first annual report covered a  period (November 1993-July 1994)  in
which the  Tribunal laid the  foundations for  its existence  as a  judicial
organ.   This process  has continued  and developed  in the last  12 months.
The main areas of activity fall into four categories:

  (a)  Establishing the legal framework  of the Tribunal's operations.   The
Tribunal's rules  of procedure and  evidence ("the rules"),  as well  as its
rules of detention,  have been revised  and amended.   A  directive for  the
assignment  of defence  counsel, establishing  a  legal  aid system  for the
Tribunal, has been drafted and adopted.  The 1993-94 Yearbook, a Manual  for
Practitioners  and  the  Tribunal  Handbook,  a collection  of  basic  texts
regulating the work of the Tribunal, have all been published;

  (b)   Establishing the  necessary material infrastructure.   The  material
structures  necessary for any  legal system  to operate,  namely a courtroom
and  detention  facilities,  which  were  under  construction  in  the  last
reporting period, have been completed and are now fully functioning;

  (c)  Recruitment of staff.  The recruitment of necessary staff  continues.
Following Professor  van Boven's resignation,  effective 31 December 1994, a
new Registrar, Mrs. Dorothee de Sampayo  Garrido-Nijgh, was appointed.  Many
other staff  have been  appointed in 1995.   In accordance  with the  United
Nations  guidelines,  recruitment   was  based  on  equitable   geographical
distribution.    The Tribunal's  entire  staff  now  numbers  more than  200
persons.   Some Governments  have responded  to the  Tribunal's appeals  for
assistance by  seconding persons to the  Tribunal and  paying their salaries

and special allowances.   The contribution of secondees  to the Tribunal has
been invaluable;

  (d)    Enactment  of implementing  legislation  by  States.   Considerable
efforts  have   been  made  to  encourage   States  to  enact   implementing
legislation  so that  they  can cooperate  fully with  the Tribunal.   Their
cooperation is  a precondition  to  the effective  prosecution of  offenders
under the Tribunal's statute. Following repeated  appeals by the  Secretary-
General of  the United  Nations and  by the  Tribunal, a  greater number  of
States have now passed implementing legislation.

 3.   The Tribunal has therefore  moved on to  the operational  stage of its
development.   Investigations have  been carried  out by  the Office  of the
Prosecutor, indictments  have been submitted, the  first defendant has  been
brought to  The Hague  to  stand trial  and  the  pre-trial phase  of  those
proceedings  has commenced.   Three deferral  applications by the Prosecutor
have been  granted  by  the  Trial  Chambers  and  indictments  subsequently
submitted and  confirmed in  two of  those cases.   It is  expected that  an
indictment  in the remaining  case will  be submitted before the  end of the

4.   The work of the Tribunal is still complicated  by the fact that warfare
continues unabated  in the former Yugoslavia.   This  greatly aggravates the
logistic difficulties  involved in, for example, the examination and calling
of  witnesses, the conduct of investigations in the  field and the execution
of arrest warrants.

5.  Despite this,  the Tribunal is  now equipped to prosecute those  alleged
to have committed  serious violations  of international humanitarian law  in
the former Yugoslavia  since 1991 in accordance  with its statute  and rules
and the  precepts of  international criminal  law.   Whatever the  political
consequences  or  the  eventual  outcome  of  the  conflict  in  the  former
Yugoslavia, the Tribunal will not flinch from this task.

Part one



A.  Judicial action

6.  In the past 12  months the real judicial work of the Tribunal has begun.
Eight  indictments against  46 individuals  have been  confirmed and  arrest
warrants have  been issued  against those  accused.   The Tribunal  has held
three  hearings  at  the request  of  the  Prosecutor  for  deferral  to the
Tribunal's competence of  proceedings or investigations pending in  national
jurisdictions.   In addition, preliminary  motions in  the Tribunal's  first
trial have been heard.

1.  Indictments

7.   The first indictment  reviewed by the Tribunal  involved Dragan Nikolic
("Nikolic") and was confirmed  on 4 November 1994  by Judge Odio-Benito (see
paras. 55 and 56 below).  Two other  indictments, confirmed by Judge Karibi-
Whyte on 13 February  1995, involve charges  against a group of 21  persons.
The  defendant Dusko Tadic  ("Tadic"), the  subject of  the Tribunal's first
trial, is one of those 21 accused.   On 21 July 1995, three indictments were
confirmed  by Judge  Vohrah in  the cases  of Sikirica and  others (Keraterm
camp investigation), Miljkovic and others (Bosanski  Samac), and Jelisic and
Cesic (Brcko).  These  cases are described in detail in paragraphs 67 to 71.
On 25 July 1995, two indictments were confirmed by  Judge Jorda in the cases
of Milan Martic  ("Martic"), President  of the Croatian Serb  administration
(see  para.  72),  and  Radovan   Karadzic  ("Karadzic")  and  Ratko  Mladic

("Mladic"), respectively the President  and the Commander of the army of the
Bosnian Serb administration in  Pale. 1/  In every case where an  indictment
was confirmed, arrest warrants for the  accused were issued and  transmitted
to  the appropriate  authorities.   On  2  August 1995,  the  Trial  Chamber
presided  over by Judge Karibi-Whyte,  on a motion from the Prosecutor under
article 29 of the statute, issued an order  requesting States to assist  the
Tribunal  in  the  arrests  of  Karadzic,  Mladic  and  Martic  by providing
information  as  to  their  movements  and   location.    This  order,   and
accompanying  documents, was sent  to all  permanent missions  to the United
Nations  in New York,  including the  observer missions  of Switzerland, the
Holy See and Palestine, on 3 August 1995.

2.  Deferral hearings

8.   On  8  November  1994, before  the  Trial Chamber,  composed of  Judges
KaribiWhyte, Odio-Benito  and  Jorda, the  Tribunal  held  its first  public
hearing  in a  deferral application  filed by  the Prosecutor  on 12 October
1994 in the Tadic case.  Tadic was, at the time, the  subject of proceedings
initiated by German judicial authorities.   The application asked the  Trial
Chamber to request the German authorities to defer  to the competence of the
Tribunal.  The Trial Chamber approved the Prosecutor's application.

9.   Two other  deferral requests  were filed by the  Prosecutor on 21 April
1995 as  part  of a  strategy of  indicting  civilian  and military  leaders
alleged   to  be   responsible  for   grave  violations   of   international
humanitarian law.  One of the  cases deals with crimes alleged  to have been
committed between  October 1992  and May  1993 in  the region  of the  Lasva
river  valley,  including the  village  of  Ahmici,  in  central Bosnia  and
Herzegovina.  The crimes  are said to have  been committed by  Bosnian Croat
forces  who  launched an  offensive  against  the  Muslim  population.   The
details of the investigation are  set out in more detail in paragraphs 64 to
66 below.   The  Trial Chamber, composed  of Judges McDonald,  Deschenes and
Vohrah, heard  the Prosecutor's  application on  9 May  1995 and issued  its
Decision granting the application on 11 May 1995.

10.   The second  deferral request  of 21 April 1995  focused on the Bosnian
Serb  hierarchy in Pale and, more specifically, on its leader, Karadzic, the
Commander  of  the  armed  forces,  Mladic,  and  the  Minister  of Internal
Affairs, Mico Stanisic ("Stanisic").

11.   The Trial  Chamber, composed  of Judges  Karibi-Whyte, Odio-Benito and
Jorda,  considered  the Prosecutor's  request  for  deferral  regarding  the
prosecution in Bosnia and Herzegovina of  Karadzic, Mladic and Stanisic, and
granted the request in  its decision of  16 May 1995.  The Judges  devoted a
significant  part of  their decision  to  the  issue of  individual criminal
responsibility  of  persons in  positions  of  authority,  a  responsibility
clearly  indicated in  article 7  of the  Tribunal's statute.   The  Chamber
declared  that "the official  capacity of  an individual even de  facto in a
position of authority ... does not  exempt him from criminal  responsibility
and would even tend to aggravate it".

 3.  The Tadic trial

(a)  Initial appearance

12.  During 1995  there were several significant  developments in the  Tadic
case.  On  13  February 1995  Judge  Karibi-Whyte  confirmed  an  indictment
against Tadic,  jointly with  another accused,  Goran Borovnica.   Tadic  is
charged with crimes  arising out of six separate incidents which are alleged
to have  occurred at  the Omarska prison  camp in the  Opstina of  Prijedor,
between June and August  1992, an incident arising  out of the  surrender of
the  Kozarac area in  May 1992 and  a further  set of  charges in connection
with events in the villages of Jaskici and Sivci in June 1992.  The  charges
include allegations of grave breaches of  the Geneva Conventions (article  2

of  the statute), violations of the  laws or customs  of war (article 3) and
crimes against  humanity (article  5).   The indictment  against Tadic  also
includes an allegation of rape as a crime  against humanity, the first  time
such a charge has been brought.

13.    On  31  March  1995  the German  Parliament  enacted  legislation  on
cooperation  with  the  Tribunal  which  enabled  Germany  to  defer  to the
Tribunal's  jurisdiction and  to transfer  Tadic to  The  Hague on  24 April
1995.  Tadic made his initial appearance  before a Trial Chamber on 26 April
1995.   He was represented  by Professor Michail  Wladimiroff and Mr.  Milan
Vujin, the former having  been assigned as counsel to Tadic by the  Tribunal
upon his  claiming to be indigent.  Tadic pleaded not  guilty to  all of the
charges contained in the indictment.

(b)  Prosecutor's motion for protection of the identity of witnesses

14.  On  18 May 1995,  the Prosecutor  filed a motion  under rule 72 of  the
rules for  an order  "continuing  the  non-disclosure of  the names  of  the
victims  and  witnesses  given  pseudonyms  in  the  indictment  and  in the
evidence  supporting the  indictment".   The defence  was able  to  agree to
certain items  of relief  requested but contested  others and  an in  camera
hearing  was conducted by the Trial Chamber on 21 June  1995.  In a majority
decision  rendered  on  10  August  1995,  the  Trial  Chamber  granted  the
Prosecutor's request for protection from public  disclosure of the names and
details of six witnesses  and ordered that their  evidence would be given in
closed  sessions,  although  edited  recordings  and  transcripts  of  those
sessions  would be made available  after review by the Victims and Witnesses
Unit. The  Trial  Chamber  also authorized  the use  of  screening or  other
appropriate methods  for alleged victims of  sexual assault  to prevent them
from being re-traumatized by seeing the accused.   On the subject of witness
anonymity,  having  reviewed  the  applicable  principles  of  law  and  the
circumstances  of  each  case,  the  majority  of  the  Chamber  granted the
Prosecutor's request  in respect of three  witnesses who would be allowed to
testify without  divulging  their identity  to  the  accused, subject  to  a
number of safeguards, for example that  the judges should know the witness's
identity  and  be   permitted  to  observe  his  demeanour  throughout   the
proceedings.    Judge Stephen  delivered  a  separate opinion,  denying,  in
principle, any anonymity of witnesses as far as the accused and his  counsel
were  concerned.    The  Trial  Chamber  also  ordered  that  the  protected
witnesses  in the  case should  not  be  photographed, recorded  or sketched
while in the precincts of the Tribunal.

 (c)  Preliminary motions by the accused

15.  On  23 June 1995,  counsel for  Tadic filed  three preliminary  motions
under  rule  73;  first,  an  objection   based  on  lack  of  jurisdiction,
challenging  the  legality of  the  establishment  of  the  Tribunal by  the
Security  Council, the primacy  of the  Tribunal and  its competence ratione
materiae;  secondly,  an objection  based  on defects  in  the form  of  the
indictment;  thirdly, an  objection based  on  lack  of jurisdiction  on the
grounds  of non bis  in idem, a  principle recognized  in article  10 of the
statute and rule 13.   The Prosecutor filed a response to those motions on 7
July 1995.   Another motion challenging  the exclusion  of evidence obtained
from the accused was  filed on 3 July  1995.  Oral  arguments regarding  the
defence motion  on jurisdiction were presented  to the  Trial Chamber, Judge
McDonald presiding, on  25 and 26 July 1995.   The decision  was rendered on
10 August  1995.   Denying  the motion,  the  Trial  Chamber held  that  the
Tribunal lacked  the  competence to  review  the  decision of  the  Security
Council to  establish the Tribunal,  that the conferral  of primacy did  not
violate principles of State sovereignty under  international law and that in
the case concerned  it was not necessary for its competence ratione materiae
to  decide  whether  or  not  the  conflict  in  the former  Yugoslavia  was
international in  character.   On  14  August  1995, defence  counsel  filed
notice  of interlocutory  appeal against  the Decision on  jurisdiction; the
appeal will  probably be heard in  September.  Oral  arguments in the  other
defence motions will be heard only after the  issue of jurisdiction has been

finally disposed of.   On 8  August 1995,  the Trial Chamber ordered  that a
motion by the Prosecutor  for leave to amend the indictment be submitted  to
Judge Karibi-Whyte.

4.  Proceedings under rule 61

16.    Under  rule 61  (A),  if the  judge  who confirmed  an  indictment is
satisfied  that the  Prosecutor has  taken  all  reasonable steps  to effect
personal service of a  warrant of arrest on the accused, including  recourse
to the  appropriate authorities  of the  State in whose  territory or  under
whose jurisdiction and control  the accused is  believed to be located,  and
has  otherwise  tried  to  inform  the  accused  of  the  existence  of  the
indictment by publication  of newspaper advertisements, he shall order  that
the indictment be  submitted to his Trial Chamber.  The Trial  Chamber, in a
public session, then determines  whether there are indeed reasonable grounds
for  believing that  the  accused has  committed the  crimes charged  in the
indictment.   All the  evidence  that  was before  the judge  who  initially
confirmed  the  indictment  is  submitted  to  the  Trial  Chamber,  and the
Prosecutor  may  also call  and  examine  any  witness  whose statement  was
submitted  to  the confirming  judge.    Thereafter,  if  the Trial  Chamber
decides that the above  criterion has been  met, it so announces and  issues
an international arrest warrant for the accused.

17.  On 16  May 1995, the Prosecutor filed  an application pursuant  to rule
61 in the case  of Nikolic, an indictment against him having been  confirmed
by  Judge Odio-Benito on  4 November 1994.   This application was considered
by  Judge  Odio-Benito  on  16  May  1995, on  which  date  she  granted the
Prosecutor's application and  ordered that the indictment against Nikolic be
submitted  to  the full  Trial Chamber.    The  proceeding before  the Trial
Chamber has not yet taken place.
 5.  Amicus curiae

18.  Rule 74,  entitled "Amicus curiae",  provides that a Trial Chamber  may
"if it  considers it  desirable for  the proper  determination of  the case,
invite or grant leave  to a State, organization  or person to  appear before
it and make submissions  on any issue  specified by the Chamber".   Based on
this provision, the Government of the  Federal Republic of Germany  appeared
in  the deferral  hearing  in the  Tadic  case  and  the Government  of  the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina  appeared in the deferral hearings on the
Prosecutor's  investigation with  respect  to  Lasva river  valley  and  the
investigation  of  the Bosnian  Serb  leaders.   In  addition,  a  number of
persons and  organizations  2/ requested  and  were  granted leave  to  file
written  briefs as  amicus  curiae  in the  Tadic  case on  the  subject  of
anonymity of witnesses and  the protection of  victims and witnesses.   Also
in the Tadic case, the Government of the United States  of America was given
leave to submit a  brief on the preliminary motion by the accused  objecting
to  the Tribunal's  jurisdiction.   The  United  States submitted  its brief
based "on its special  interest and knowledge  as a permanent member of  the
United  Nations Security  Council and  its  substantial involvement  in  the
adoption  of  the statute  of  the  Tribunal",  and  submitted, among  other
things,  that objecting  to the  creation of  the  Tribunal because  no such
action had  been taken before  by the  Security Council  "would condemn  the
international community  to refrain from actions  necessary to maintain  the
peace  because such  actions  had  not been  taken in  the past  [and] would
effectively  prevent  the   international  community  from  developing   and
advancing the system of international  law". Informal guidelines relating to
amicus curiae  practice were adopted  by the judges  at the  seventh plenary

B.  Regulatory activity

1.  Amendments to the rules of procedure and evidence

19.   The rules were adopted by the judges at the  end of the second plenary

session  in February 1994.   Since  then, the  rules have been  amended on a
number of  occasions to reflect a  variety of concerns,  including a concern
to broaden  the rights  of  the accused  and  to  strengthen the  rights  of
victims and witnesses, particularly victims of alleged  sexual offences, and
to clarify the powers of the Prosecutor.

20.   Two rules were the subject of individual amendment  in May and October
1994.  In addition, during  its fourth plenary  session, held  in July 1994,
the Tribunal established an Inter-sessional Working Group for the  Amendment
of  the  Rules, composed  of Judges  Odio-Benito, Li,  Deschenes (Chairman),
Stephen and Abi-Saab,  to consider  comments received from various  sources,
including Governments, non-governmental organizations and  individuals.  The
Working Group presented its report to  the fifth plenary session  in January
1995.  Based on that report,  the judges in plenary adopted amendments to 41
of the  125  rules 3/  and  adopted one  new  rule,  rule  116 bis.    Those
amendments  are  discussed  in  paragraphs 21  to  27  below.    Three  more
amendments were adopted at the sixth plenary session,  held from 1 to 3  May
1995. 4/   Moreover, further  amendments to four  rules were  adopted at the
seventh plenary session, held from 12 to 16 June 1995. 5/

 21.  The amendments adopted at the fifth  plenary session were adopted with
clear goals in mind.   Those goals  can be classified into five  categories.

(a)To take account of  practical problems that  have arisen or may arise  in
the implementation of the statute or the rules

22.   The addition of rule 66 (C) affords a good example of this category of
amendment.  It provides that  the Prosecutor may apply for non-disclosure of
information where its disclosure could prejudice investigations, affect  the
security interests of a  State or might otherwise  be contrary to the public
interest.   This  amendment, which  was  suggested  by the  Prosecutor, will
facilitate  the  acquisition  of  information  from  Governments  and  other
sensitive sources. 7/

(b)To take account of the political entities now  found in the territory  of
the former Yugoslavia

23.    A  notable  amendment  in  this  category  is  to  rule  2  (A),  the
"Definitions"  section, which  added the  following definition  of  the word
"State"  for   the  purposes  of  prosecuting   suspects  and  accused   and
transmitting official documents (see paras. 91-93):

  "A State  Member or non-member  of the United Nations  or a selfproclaimed
entity de facto  exercising governmental functions, whether recognized as  a
State or not;"

Also falling within this category are the  amendments to rules 8, 9,  10, 12
and  13, which removed the  previous references to "national" courts, a term
which has a particular or restrictive meaning in some jurisdictions.

(c)  To improve the working of the Tribunal

24.  Perhaps  the most important  example of  such an  amendment is  amended
rule  61  (B),  which  expressly allows  the  Prosecutor  in the  course  of
proceedings under rule 61,  described in paragraph 16 above, to "call before
the  Trial  Chamber  and  examine  any  witness  whose  statement  has  been
submitted to  the  confirming Judge".    Another  important example  is  the
amendment made  to rule 70 at  the suggestion of  the Prosecutor to  provide
protection for the sources of confidential information. 8/

(d)  To broaden the rights of suspects and accused persons

25.   Rule 66 (A) is a fitting illustration  of this category of amendments.
Originally, it provided only that the Prosecutor must make available to  the
defence  copies of  supporting material  "which accompanied  the  indictment

when  confirmation was sought".   This  obligation has now  been extended to
"all prior  statements obtained by the  Prosecutor from the  accused or from
prosecution witnesses".

26.  Similarly, rule  68 was amended so that the Prosecutor's obligation  to
disclose to  the defence exculpatory evidence  which tended  "to suggest the
innocence or  mitigate  the  guilt  of  the  accused", now  extends  to  any
evidence which "may affect the credibility of prosecution evidence". 9/

(e)  To protect the rights of victims and witnesses

27.   Rule 96,  which deals with  evidence in  cases of  sexual assault, has
been amended to add sub-clause (iii):

  "before evidence  of the victim's consent  is admitted,  the accused shall
satisfy  the  Trial Chamber  in camera  that  the evidence  is relevant  and
Another amendment in this category  is rule 39 (ii).   The amendments of the
seventh  plenary session  regarding the  Victims and  Witnesses Unit's locus
standi to propose  measures for the protection  of witnesses to the  Chamber
would also fall into this group.

2.  Amendments to the rules of detention

28.  The rules governing the detention of  persons awaiting trial or  appeal
before the Tribunal  or otherwise detained on  the authority of the Tribunal
(the "rules of  detention"), adopted on 5 May 1994, were amended on 16 March
1995. The changes arose out of discussions relating  to the role of the body
which will inspect the conditions under which detainees are  remanded in the
Tribunal's  detention unit.   The International  Committee of  the Red Cross
(ICRC)  has   offered  to   contribute  its  personnel  and   expertise  for
inspections of  the Tribunal's detention unit.   The  amendments clarify the
respective  roles  of ICRC  and  the  Tribunal  and  provide detainees  with
greater freedom to communicate with the inspecting authority.

3.  Adoption of regulations for detainees

29.    The Registrar,  in cooperation  with  the  Commanding Officer  of the
detention  unit, issued regulations  under the  rules of  detention in April
1995 in the following  four areas:   regulations for the establishment of  a
disciplinary procedure for  detainees; regulations for the establishment  of
a complaints procedure for detainees; regulations to govern the  supervision
of  visits  to  and  communications  with  detainees;  and  house  rules for
detainees.   Copies of these regulations  were available  in the appropriate
language in time  for the arrival  of the  first detainee  at the  Detention
Unit in April 1995.



30.  The period under review  saw the Office of the Prosecutor evolve from a
theoretical concept  created by a resolution  of the Security  Council to an
operational  reality.  This  is the  first time  that a  truly international
prosecutor's office  has ever  been established.   It  has required  complex
recruiting  methods, blending people  from over  30 nations  into a cohesive
and  efficient team.    That  such a  team  is now  working efficiently  and
effectively  bears  testimony to  the  high  calibre  and  expertise of  the
personnel the Office has been able to attract.

31.  A  critical resource limitation of the  Tribunal is its small  capacity
to hear trials.   As there  are only  two Trial  Chambers sharing,  together

with the Appeals Chamber,  a single courtroom, a  crucial and difficult area
of prosecutorial  policy is to ensure  that only the  most appropriate cases
are referred for  trial.  This was one  of the key considerations behind the
Office's decision to give priority to the investigation of the most  serious
violations  of  international   humanitarian  law  and  those  who  may   be
ultimately responsible for them.

A.  Staffing

32.    Much of  1994  was  spent  laying the  essential  groundwork  for  an
operational Prosecutor's  office:    recruiting  and  selecting  experienced
staff; establishing a working relationship with Member  States, other United
Nations organs, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); interacting  with
the media; building  an office structure; establishing operating  procedures
and office  systems; defining an  investigative and prosecutorial  strategy;
and developing a budget.

33.  Initially,  the staffing  of the  Office of the  Prosecutor was a  slow
process, with the first investigator and first legal officer  taking up duty
only in June 1994.  By  July 1994 there were sufficient  staff in the Office
to begin  field investigations and by November 1994 the first indictment was
presented and  confirmed.  By  late May 1995,  there were 116  staff in  the
Office, comprising  81 United Nations-appointed  staff and 35 staff seconded
by 6  countries.  The staff  of the Office,  which comes  from 34 countries,
includes 35  investigators, 29 lawyers, 20  researchers and  analysts and 32
support  personnel.   The current budget  for the Tribunal  provides for 126
posts in the Office  of the Prosecutor, and  action is being  taken to  fill
the remaining vacancies.  The  efforts to fill these vacancies have included
a  recruiting  mission  to  a  number  of  the  countries  which  are under-
represented at the Tribunal.

34.  In  addition, over the last year, the computer system of  the Office of
the  Prosecutor  has become  partly  operational.    The  system, which  was
financed from funds  contributed to the  Tribunal by  the Government of  the
United States, includes a structured data  base specially developed for  the
Office and allows staff to identify,  locate, retrieve and analyse documents
and  information for  the purpose  of both  investigations and prosecutions.
The  system  will also  enable  the  electronic  production  of evidence  in
proceedings before the Chambers of the Tribunal.

 B.  Changes in the structure of the Office of the Prosecutor

35.  The first annual  report, covering the period from  17 November 1993 to
28 July 1994, outlined  the basic structure  and functions of the Office  of
the Prosecutor as envisaged  at the time.   However, important changes  have
been made in the structure of the  Office since the publication of the first
annual report.

1.  Appointment of the Prosecutor

36.   The  Prosecutor, the  Honourable  Justice  Richard J.  Goldstone,  was
appointed on 8 July 1994 and took office on 15 August 1994.

2.  Field offices

37.   One  of the most  important organizational developments  over the last
year  has been  the Prosecutor's  request  to  establish liaison  offices in
Belgrade, Sarajevo and  Zagreb.  Included in the  1995 budget of the  Office
of  the Prosecutor,  these three-person  offices  are  intended to  fulfil a
number of  essential functions:  to  provide support  to investigative teams
for their fieldwork in the former Yugoslavia; to act as liaison between  the
Office of  the Prosecutor  and local  and national  Governments, war  crimes

commissions,  NGOs and  various United  Nations agencies; to  provide expert
legal advice to the Office of the Prosecutor on republic and  federal law in
the former  Yugoslavia;  to  coordinate  and  report  on  the  work  of  the
observers monitoring  war crimes  trials in  the former  Yugoslavia; and  to
advise the  Office of the Prosecutor  of important  developments relevant to
the  work  of  the  Office  of  the  Prosecutor,  including  monitoring  the
situation  with respect  to the  United Nations  peace forces  in the former
Yugoslavia and local media reports.

3.  Prosecutor's secretariat

38.   To enhance  the effectiveness  of both  the Prosecutor and  the Deputy
Prosecutor,  especially   important  in  the   light  of  the   Prosecutor's
subsequent appointment as Prosecutor of the  Rwanda Tribunal (see para. 74),
a secretariat was created in  the latter half of 1994.  The function of  the
eight-person secretariat is to advise and  support the Prosecutor and Deputy
Prosecutors for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda on  a wide range of issues,
e.g., legal, political, gender-related,  administrative, organizational  and

4.  Investigations Unit, Strategy Team

39.    Given  the  tremendous  amount  of  extant  and  potentially critical
information relating  to  the conflict  in  the  former Yugoslavia  and  the
importance of providing  strategic guidance to the investigative teams,  the
Prosecutor  and his  senior  management team  decided in  early 1995  that a
major restructuring of  the Investigations Unit's Strategy Team, including a
substantial increase in staff, was warranted.

 40.  The restructured Strategy Team currently consists of 15 staff  divided
among four sub-units.  The first  sub-unit, the Intelligence Analysis  Unit,
is  responsible for  disseminating  information  to other  units within  the
Office of the Prosecutor and analysing  information, intelligence and  other
material received by the  Office.  The second  sub-unit, the Strategy  Unit,
updates   the  Director   of  Investigations   on  the  status   of  current
investigations,  identifies new  cases  to be  investigated and  advises the
Director as to the  best investigative strategy to  be followed.   The third
sub-unit, the  Investigation Development Unit,  develops new  cases for  the
investigation teams, including  rapid initial investigations in response  to
urgent  circumstances.    One  important  example   of  the  value  of  this
particular response unit was  the immediate field investigation initiated by
the Prosecutor into the early May 1995 missile attacks on Zagreb.

41.    The  fourth  sub-unit,  the  Special  Projects  Unit,  also  provides
assistance to  the investigation teams in  the investigation  of their cases
by,  inter  alia,  debriefing  witnesses,  analysing  the  power  and  legal
structures  within  the  former Yugoslavia  and  providing  a  chronology of
events pertaining to the former Yugoslavia.   It conducts empirical  studies
of the violations  of international law  in the  conflict which  serve as  a
frame of  reference for the evaluation  of the  investigative strategies and
policies  of  the Prosecutor.    Finally,  it  provides  information to  the
investigation  units   of  other  countries  which   are  involved  in   the
investigation  and prosecution  of persons responsible for  the violation of
international  humanitarian law  committed  in the  territory of  the former

5.  Restructuring of the Special Advisory Section

42.    This  section  originally   comprised  an  expert  in  the  field  of
international  law, an expert  on the military  aspects of  the conflicts in
the  former  Yugoslavia  and  an  expert  on  the  historical  and political
background of the conflict.  It became apparent by late 1994 that  expertise
in the above-mentioned areas was needed  mainly in the investigation section

and  this capability was  therefore reassigned  to the  Strategy Team within
the Investigations Unit.

43.   It also  became apparent  that there  was an  ongoing requirement  for
advice  on comparative  and criminal  law matters.   As  a result  of  those
requirements, a new  Legal Services Section has  been created to replace the
Special  Advisory Section.  Once  funding  is obtained,  the Legal  Services
Section will include several international lawyers,  a gender law adviser, a
criminal lawyer,  a comparative lawyer and legal officers to  assist each of
the trial attorneys in the Prosecution Section.

6.  Legal adviser for gender-related crimes

44.  In  order conscientiously to address  the prevalence of sexual  assault
allegations committed in the former Yugoslavia  and Rwanda, a legal  adviser
for gender-related crimes has  been appointed.  The adviser, as a member  of
the Prosecutor's  secretariat, reports  directly to the  Prosecutor and  the
two Deputy Prosecutors  and has  three major  areas of  responsibility:   to
provide  advice  on   gender-related  crimes  and  women's  policy   issues,
including internal gender issues such as hiring and promotion; to work  with
the Prosecution Section to formulate the  legal strategy and the development
of  international criminal  law jurisprudence  for sexual  assaults; and  to
assist the  Investigations Unit  in developing an investigative  strategy to
pursue evidence of sexual assaults.

7.  Internship programme

45.   An  internship programme  within  the  Office  of the  Prosecutor  was
established in  early 1995 to provide useful experience to  law students and
recent law graduates  and to assist the Office  in legal research and  other
legal tasks.  The Chambers and Registry also have internship programmes.

C.  Action by the Office of the Prosecutor

1.  Proposals for amendments to the rules

46.   Based on its experience,  the Office of  the Prosecutor has proposed a
number  of amendments to the rules,  many of which have been  adopted by the
judges.  Some examples are the amendments to  rule 39 (ii) (special measures
which the Prosecutor may take for the protection of victims and  witnesses),
66 (C) and 70 (see paras. 19-27 above).

2.  Official visits of the Prosecutor to the former Yugoslavia

47.   From 2 to 9  October 1994, the Prosecutor,  accompanied by the  Deputy
Prosecutor and  senior staff members, visited  the Republic  of Croatia, the
Republic of  Bosnia and Herzegovina and  the Federal  Republic of Yugoslavia
(Serbia  and Montenegro).    The  purpose of  the  visit was  to discuss  in
general  terms ways and  means of  cooperation between  the then authorities
and the Prosecutor.

48.    In  Zagreb,  Sarajevo  and  Belgrade,  meetings were  held  with  the
appropriate  Ministers  of  State,  prosecutors  and  national  war   crimes
committees.   Meetings were  also held  with the  Special Representatives of
the Secretary-General  of the United Nations,  and with  senior officials of
the  United Nations Protection  Force (UNPROFOR),  the Office  of the United
Nations  High Commissioner for  Refugees (UNHCR)  and the European Community
Monitoring Mission.

49.    Following  the  Prosecutor's  October   1994  visit  to  the   former
Yugoslavia, three senior  officers of the Office  of the Prosecutor, led  by
the Director of Investigations, visited Knin and Pale  during the week of 14

November  1994.    The  purpose  of  the  visit  was  to  discuss  practical
cooperation  between  the then  authorities  in  those  two  places and,  in
particular, to  obtain documentary and other  evidence relevant  to the work
of  the  Office  of  the  Prosecutor.    UNPROFOR  assisted  the  Office  by
facilitating arrangements for the visit.

 50.    The  degree  of  cooperation  with  the  Tribunal exhibited  by  the
different  States  and   authorities  varies  considerably,  from  excellent
(Sarajevo and Zagreb) to poor (Belgrade, Knin 10/ and Pale).

              3.  Memorandum of Understanding between the Prosecutor
                  and the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

51.  On  3 December 1994,  the Prosecutor and  the Foreign  Minister of  the
Republic of  Bosnia and  Herzegovina  signed a  memorandum of  understanding
regarding cooperation with the Tribunal.   The memorandum acknowledged  that
the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  agreed  to
cooperate  fully and unconditionally  with the Prosecutor in the performance
of  his rights,  duties and  obligations  under  the Tribunal's  statute and

4.  The Tadic deferral and indictment

52.   On  11  October 1994,  the  Prosecutor presented  his  first  official
request  to a  Trial Chamber,  namely, a  request  for  the deferral  by the
Government  of the  Federal Republic  of  Germany  of its  investigation and
prosecution  of  Tadic, who  had  been  arrested  by  German authorities  in
February  1994 and  was awaiting  trial in  Germany.   The  investigation by
Germany into the activities of Tadic involved issues closely  related to the
Prijedor investigation being carried out by  the Prosecutor.  The Prosecutor
considered  that it  was  important for  the  case  to  be deferred  to  the
Tribunal because the German  investigation involved legal and factual issues
which  had   implications  for  other   investigations  being  carried   out
concurrently by the Prosecutor.

53.  The  Prosecutor's case was that the  prosecution of Tadic would  reveal
systematic and widespread persecution of  the Muslim civilian  population in
the Prijedor  region, a practice commonly  referred to  as ethnic cleansing.
The deferral  application  was granted  by  the  Trial Chamber  following  a
hearing on 8 November 1994.

54.   The German Government,  upon being notified of  the Tribunal's action,
indicated  its willingness to  defer jurisdiction  of the Tadic  case to the
Tribunal  once the  necessary national  legislation  had  been passed.   The
Prosecutor submitted  an indictment against Tadic  in February  1995 and the
Federal Republic of Germany, once  its implementing national legislation had
been passed, responded promptly to the  Tribunal's request for the surrender
of Tadic,  which occurred in April  1995.  The  accused appeared before  the
Tribunal shortly after his surrender  and his case is  now proceeding before
a Trial Chamber (see paras. 12-15 above).

5.  Nikolic indictment

55.   On 1  November 1994,  the Prosecutor  submitted his  first indictment,
against Nikolic, for confirmation by  a Trial Judge.  On 4 November 1994 the
indictment was confirmed by Judge Odio-Benito,  who also issued warrants for
the arrest of Nikolic.
  56.   It  is  alleged that  during  the  summer of  1992  Nikolic was  the
commander of  the Susica  prison  camp  in Vlasenica,  a strategic  area  of
north-eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina.  As  the alleged commander and  direct
participant  in the  beatings, torture  and murder  that took  place  in the
camp,  Nikolic  is  charged  with  grave   breaches  of  the  Fourth  Geneva
Convention of  1949, violations of  the laws and  customs of  war and crimes

against humanity.

6.  Prijedor indictments

57.  The  Opstina of  Prijedor in north-western  Bosnia and Herzegovina  was
the subject of a  very thorough report  of the United Nations Commission  of
Experts.  It  provides   extensive  materials  documenting   widespread  and
systematic breaches of humanitarian law.

58.  The  Prosecutor has issued two indictments  in relation to the  Opstina
of  Prijedor  investigations  involving  a   total  of  21  accused  persons
(including Tadic), both of which were  confirmed by Judge Karibi-Whyte on 13
February  1995. The  Prosecutor has  indicated  that more  indictments  will
follow.  The  two indictments issued thus  far have largely concentrated  on
the  events that  occurred in  the notorious Bosnian  Serb camp  at Omarska.
The charges against  the accused cover the whole range of offences contained
in  the  statute  of  the  Tribunal,  from  grave  breaches  of  the  Geneva
Conventions to  genocide, representing the first  occasion that  a charge of
genocide has been brought before the Tribunal.

7.  The Bosnian Serb leadership deferral and indictment

59.  In early  1995, the Office of the  Prosecutor became formally  aware of
an  investigation  by  the  Republic  of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina  into the
activities  of  the Bosnian  Serb  leader  Karadzic,  the  commander of  the
Bosnian  Serb  Army,  Mladic,  and the  former  head of  the  Bosnian Serbs'
internal  affairs, Stanisic. The Office  was at the  time conducting its own
investigation  into   the  responsibilities  of   those  suspects  both   as
individuals and as  commanders or persons  in authority in  the conflict  in
Bosnia and Herzegovina.

60.   The Prosecutor  considered that  the investigation by  the Republic of
Bosnia  and Herzegovina was  closely related  to his  own investigations and
involved  issues which had  implications for  them.   As a  consequence, the
Prosecutor applied to a  Trial Chamber for the issue  of a formal request to
the  Republic of Bosnia and  Herzegovina that it defer its investigations to
the  competence of the Tribunal.   On 16 May 1995, the Trial Chamber granted
the  Prosecutor's application  and accordingly  made  such  a request.   The
Government of  the Republic of Bosnia  and Herzegovina  has fully cooperated
with  the Tribunal at all  times and formally concurred  in the Prosecutor's

61.   Following the deferral  order in  May 1995, the Prosecutor  on 24 July
1995  submitted an  indictment against Karadzic and  Mladic for confirmation
by judge  of the Trial Chamber.   The two Bosnian Serb leaders were charged,
either  on the basis  of superior  authority or  direct responsibility, with
genocide,  crimes against humanity, violations of the laws or customs of war
and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

62.  The  indictment alleges that Karadzic  and Mladic were  responsible for
the  internment of  thousands of  Bosnian  Muslims  and Croats  in detention
facilities  where the  internees were  subject  to torture,  murder,  sexual
assault, robbery and other acts; the  shelling and sniping campaigns against
civilians  in Sarajevo,  Srebrenica  and Tuzla;  the deportation  of Bosnian
Muslim and  Bosnian Croat civilians from  the areas  of Vlasenica, Prijedor,
Bosanski Samac,  Brcko  and Foca;  the  plundering  and destruction  of  the
personal  property of  civilians; the  systematic infliction  of damage  and
destruction  on both Muslim and  Roman Catholic sacred sites; and the taking
of United Nations hostages for use as "human shields".

63.  On  25 July  1995, Judge  Jorda confirmed  the Prosecutor's  indictment
against  Karadzic and  Mladic and  issued warrants  for their  arrest.   The
investigation into the  Bosnian Serb leadership, including Stanisic (who was
included in  the Prosecutor's May 1995 deferral request to the Government of

Bosnia and Herzegovina), is still proceeding.

8.  Lasva river valley deferral

64.  As  with the  Karadzic, Mladic and  Stanisic deferral mentioned  above,
the Office  of the  Prosecutor became  formally aware  in early 1995  that a
court  of the  Republic of  Bosnia and  Herzegovina  had been  conducting an
investigation  of alleged  ethnic  cleansing  by members  of  Bosnian  Croat
forces,  acting under  orders of  certain  of  their political  and military
leaders,  against  the  population of  the Lasva  river  valley.   Since the
Office was conducting a parallel investigation  into the same incidents, the
Prosecutor on 21 April  1995 filed an  application for a formal request  for
deferral by the Government  of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.   The
deferral  request  focused on  the  Government's  investigations  of  crimes
committed  between October 1992  and May 1995 against  the population of the
Lasva river valley area of central Bosnia and Herzegovina.

65.    After  hearing  the  deferral  application,  the  Trial  Chamber  was
satisfied that a  deferral application was  appropriate and on  11 May  1995
granted the  application and issued  a formal request  to the Government  of
the  Republic of  Bosnia and  Herzegovina  to  defer its  investigations and
prosecutions to  the  Tribunal.   The  Republic  of Bosnia  and  Herzegovina
agreed to  the deferral,  as it  had in  the Karadzic,  Mladic and  Stanisic
deferral, and has fully cooperated with the Tribunal.

66.  This deferral request differs in two  distinct ways from the  deferrals
in  the Tadic and  Bosnian Serb  leadership cases  in that:   (a) it  is the
first case brought to the  attention of a Trial  Chamber concerning non-Serb
perpetrators  and  reflects  the  Prosecutor's  intention  to  bring   cases
irrespective of the  nationality of the  perpetrators; and (b)  it does  not
state the name of  any perpetrator but addresses itself solely to events  in
a certain time  and in a certain  geographical area.   The Prosecutor,  in a
press statement issued on  25 July 1995, stated  that the Lasva river valley
investigation  was  "making  good  progress  and   that  the  indictment  or
indictments which will flow from this investigation will  be issued and made
public before the end of the year".

9.  Sikirica (Keraterm camp) indictment

67.   On  26  June 1995,  the  Prosecutor  submitted  an indictment  to  the
Registrar charging the Commander of the  Keraterm camp, Dusko Sikirica, with
genocide. Sikirica  and 12 subordinates or  others subject  to his authority
were also charged with  crimes against humanity,  violations of the laws  or
customs of war and  grave breaches of the  Geneva Conventions.  Sikirica and
the  others  named in  the  indictment  were  accused  of killing,  sexually
assaulting  and  torturing  detainees  of  the  Keraterm  camp,  a detention
facility located  in the  Prijedor region  and a  centre of  a Bosnian  Serb
ethnic cleansing campaign  during the  summer of 1992.   The indictment  was
submitted following  further investigations  into the  alleged crimes  which
occurred  in the Prijedor  region and  parallels earlier indictments against
21  persons, including  Tadic,  discussed above.   On  21  July  1995, Judge
Vohrah confirmed the indictment and issued  warrants of arrest against  each

10.  Miljkovic and others (Bosanski Samac) indictment

68.   On  29  June 1995,  the  Prosecutor  submitted  an indictment  to  the
Registrar  against six  persons charging  them  with  grave breaches  of the
Geneva  Conventions, violations  of the  laws or  customs of  war and crimes
against  humanity  for their  alleged  role  in  coordinating  and waging  a
campaign  of  terror against  the non-Serb  civilian population  in Bosanski
Samac, a municipality located in the Posavina corridor in northern Bosnia.

69.  The indictment contains 56  separate charges, involving murder,  forced
deportation and transfer, sexual assault and  torture.  The accused  include
Blagoje Simic who, as  President of the local  Serbian Democratic party  and
the Deputy  of the regional Bosnian  Serb assembly,  was the highest-ranking
civilian official in Bosanski Samac; Stevan  Todorovic, the chief of police;
Simo Zaric, organizer  and leader  of a local  military force; and  Slobodan
Miljkovic, who is accused of involvement  in mass killings, three individual
murders  and  seven cases  of  beating.    On 21  July  1995,  Judge  Vohrah
confirmed the indictment and issued warrants of arrest for each accused.

11.  Jelisic and Cesic (Brcko) indictment

70.  On 30  June 1995, the Prosecutor submitted an indictment against  Goran
Jelisic  ("Jelisic")  and  Ranko Cesic  ("Cesic") for  their  alleged crimes
against  Muslim and Croat  detainees during  the summer of 1992  at the Luka
camp of Brcko,  a municipality located in  the Posavina corridor in northern

71.  Charged with genocide, crimes against humanity, violations  of the laws
or customs  of war and  grave breaches of  the Geneva Conventions,  Jelisic,
who allegedly referred to  himself as the "Serb  Adolf", is accused of being
one of the commanders  responsible for running the Luka camp and is  accused
specifically  of 16  murders and  numerous  beatings.   Cesic,  charged with
crimes against humanity, violations  of the laws or customs of war and grave
breaches of the Geneva Conventions, is accused of 13 murders and one  sexual
assault.  On 21 July 1995, Judge Vohrah  confirmed the indictment and issued
arrest warrants for the accused.

12.  Martic indictment

72.   On  24  July 1995,  the  Prosecutor  submitted  an indictment  to  the
Registrar against Martic, the  President of the  self-proclaimed Republic of
Serbian Krajina.   Charged with violations  of the laws  or customs of  war,
Martic  is accused of  ordering the  cluster-bomb rocket  attack against the
civilian population of Zagreb  in early May 1995  which killed at least five
civilians  and  injured   numerous  others.     Judge  Jorda  confirmed  the
indictment and issued a warrant of arrest on 25 July 1995.

73.   The five indictments confirmed by  the Chambers on 21 July 1995 and 25
July  1995 bring  to  46  the  number  of  individuals  accused  of  serious
violations  of  international  humanitarian   law  by  the   Office  of  the
Prosecutor during its first year of operation.

              D.  The Prosecutor's dual role:  the former Yugoslavia
                  and Rwanda tribunals

74.   Acting under  Chapter VII  of the Charter  of the United  Nations, the
Security Council, by its resolution  955 (1994) of 8  November 1994, decided
to establish an international tribunal for  the sole purpose of  prosecuting
persons  responsible   for  genocide   and  other   serious  violations   of
international  humanitarian law  committed in  the territory  of Rwanda  and
Rwandese  citizens  responsible  for  genocide  and  other  such  violations
committed in the territory  of neighbouring States between  1 January and 31
December 1994.  Under the statute  of the International Tribunal for Rwanda,
the Prosecutor of the International Tribunal  for the former Yugoslavia also
serves as the Prosecutor of the International Tribunal for Rwanda.

75.   The  seat of  the Rwanda  Tribunal  is in  Arusha, United  Republic of
Tanzania,  while  the  investigative  operations  of   the  Office  of   the
Prosecutor are conducted primarily from Kigali,  Rwanda.  Several members of
the Prosecutor's secretariat provide support for  the Rwanda Tribunal.   All
the  organs of the Tribunal have  assisted in the early stages of the Rwanda
Tribunal's establishment, for example, hosting  the first plenary session of

the  judges of the  Rwanda Tribunal  in The Hague which  elected a President
and  Vice-President and  adopted rules  of  procedure  and evidence  for the
Rwanda Tribunal.


76.   The Registry is  one of the three constituent  organs of the Tribunal.
It performs essential functions, some of  which would be considered  unusual
for the  registry of a national  court or  conventional international court.
Pursuant to article 17 of the statute, it is responsible for the  Tribunal's
administration  but also  for  setting  up  the infrastructure  required  to
ensure the  proper functioning  of the  judicial process  in a  particularly
sensitive  and important area of criminal  law.  It  is for this reason that
the Registry  comprises two distinct departments:  judicial (paras. 77-117),
and administrative (paras. 118-123).

A.  Judicial department

77.  Guided only  by the Tribunal's rules  of procedure and  evidence, which
remain largely  untested, the judicial department  has had to be creative in
shaping  the judicial infrastructure  of the  Tribunal.   Such precedents as
exist in national  law have required  radical reworking  to be  of any  use.
Moreover, the  Tribunal, because  of  its international  role, must  perform
tasks and overcome  problems more varied and  more complex than those  found
in national courts.

78.   Under  the  rules, the  Registry  is also  required  to serve  as  the
Tribunal's channel  of communication.   The important  international role of
the  Tribunal  and the  decisive  resonance  of  its  indictments make  this
communication function  an especially  sensitive one.   In  addition to  the
dissemination  of  information  to  the  general  public,  the  Registry  is
responsible for the service of Tribunal  documents on individuals via States
and  de  facto  authorities.    This   can  on  occasion  pose  considerable
difficulties, as set out in paragraphs 91 to 93 below.

79.   The Registrar is also responsible for assisting victims and witnesses.
The  rules  call for  the setting  up of  a  Victims and  Witnesses Unit  to
"recommend protective  measures"  and  "provide  counselling  and  support",
especially  in  rape or  sexual  assault  cases.   The  Unit  has  now  been
established and its operations are described in detail in  paragraphs 108 to
117 below.

80.   The Registry  is further  responsible for  overseeing the custody  and
movement  of  all accused  following  their  arrest.   In  concert  with the
various authorities  concerned, it arranges the  transfer of  the accused to
The Hague.   This may  be a very complex operation as  the Tribunal does not
have police powers and cannot perform these tasks itself.

81.   The management of  the Tribunal's  detention facilities is  another of
the  Registry's  responsibilities.   Finally,  the  Registry  regulates  and
administers the assignment of counsel to indigent accused.

1.  Court management

82.   At  the judges'  request, the  Registry  has  drafted judicial  forms,
produced  a  practitioner's  manual  and  an  internal  directive  for   the
Registry's use.

 (a)  Judicial forms

83.   Some 50 judicial  forms have  been compiled  by the  Registry.   While
benefiting from a review of national models, these forms reflect the  unique
international character of the Tribunal's proceedings.

(b)  Practitioner's manual and internal directive for the Registry

84.  The Registry  has drawn up a practitioner's manual, which is a guide to
the Tribunal to assist those involved  in proceedings, in particular defence
counsel (see para. 128).

85.     The  directive  on  the   Registry  provides   instructions  on  the
classification and registration of documents, as  well as information  about
the maintenance  of  a  record book  accessible  to  the  public  and  about
communications with United Nations organs and States.

(c)  The organization of trials and other hearings

86.     The  rules  provide  that  the  Registry   is  responsible  for  the
organization of trials and other hearings.

87.  Since the Tribunal's activities are of general public interest, it  has
been decided that, subject to  the unfettered discretion of  the Chambers in
each case,  public and  media access  to hearings  should be  as liberal  as
possible.   Prior  to each  hearing, available  seats are  allocated  to the
public and press.

88.  Two matters have been of particular concern to the Registry:   security
during hearings, and the organization of the proceedings.   In order to  set
up the requisite infrastructure in a relatively short  time, a working group
composed  of a representative  of the judges, a member  of the Office of the
Prosecutor and  several members  of the  Registry has  been established  and
meets regularly.

  (i)  Security measures

89.   In relation to the  security standards of  the Tribunal, the  Registry
works in close cooperation with the  Netherlands police, who are responsible
for maintaining law and  order outside the  precincts of the Tribunal.   The
Registry has many responsibilities in this  area:  transfer of  the accused,
safety  of victims and  witnesses, security  of all  other persons attending
hearings.   The performance  of security  checks upon  persons entering  the
courtroom is of critical importance.

  (ii)  Courtroom proceedings

90.   The organization of  hearings is affected  by two  unusual features of
the Tribunal:   its use of several  languages and of audiovisual  equipment.
Simultaneous  interpretation  is  necessary  during  hearings  because   the
Tribunal has two working languages, French  and English.  Bosnian,  Croatian
or   Serbian  may  also   be  used   by  victims,   witnesses  and  accused.
Accordingly, provision has  had to  be made for simultaneous  interpretation
and   for  extensive   translation  facilities.      The  need   for  highly
sophisticated  technology to  provide a  simultaneous transcript,  a  visual
record of  the  proceedings  and a  means of  transmitting  the evidence  of
witnesses while,  where necessary, protecting  their identities, has led the
Tribunal  to  make use  of  the  services  of  specialized stenotypists  and
technical staff.

(d)  Transmission of warrants of arrest

91.  This has in  some instances proved a delicate  and difficult task.   An
example  is provided  by the  two  indictments  confirmed in  February 1995,
charging  21 individuals  with crimes  in  the Omarska  camp in  Bosnia  and
Herzegovina which  was  in the  control  of  the Bosnian  Serb  authorities.
Arrest warrants were issued  for each of the  accused.  The Tribunal's rules
provide that "a warrant for  the arrest of the accused and his surrender  to
the  Tribunal  shall  be  transmitted  by  the  Registrar  to  the  national
authorities  of the State".   The Prosecutor believed that  the accused were
in that  part of  the territory of  the Republic of  Bosnia and  Herzegovina
under Bosnian  Serb control  based in Pale.   The Registrar  transmitted the

warrants  to   the  legal  authorities  of   the  Republic   of  Bosnia  and
Herzegovina,  who  were  willing  to  cooperate  with  the  Tribunal.    The
Tribunal's rules, as now amended (see para. 23  above), make it possible  to
transmit  judicial  acts  to entities  which  are  not  States  and  so  the
Registrar  also  sought  to  transmit  those  arrest  warrants  to  the Serb
administration in Pale, which was thought more likely  to be able to  arrest
the  accused.  However,  the Registry  ran into several problems.   How does
one   go  about  communicating   with  an   entity  that   has  no  official
representation?  How does  one transmit documents to  an entity that  has no
desire to receive them?

92.  The Registry  initially turned to UNPROFOR,  asking it to  transmit the
warrants  to the Pale  authorities, but  UNPROFOR refused  to undertake that
task.  The Registrar then made contact with the  representatives of the Pale
authorities  in   Geneva,  but   they  refused   to  accept  the   warrants.
Ultimately,  a month after their issuance, the "Office of the Serb Republic"
(Pale) situated in Belgrade  agreed to take the warrants, but would give  no
assurance as to their actual transmission to the  accused.  Since then, that
Office  has  not even  replied  to  further  requests  by  the Registry  for
transmission of official documents.

93.   Some useful  conclusions may  be drawn from  the Registry's  practical
experience in respect of  the transmission of judicial documents.  First, it
should be  noted that the  cooperation of States  - an  obligation under the
statute - begins with their willingness  to receive the Tribunal's  official
documents.  Secondly,  any attempt to deal  with non-State entities is  only
worthwhile where it is possible to  apply sanctions to them in  the event of
non-cooperation,  in the  same  way that  sanctions can  be applied  to non-
cooperative  States.   If  that is  not possible,  then it  may be  that the
Tribunal should only maintain contacts with  recognized States of the former
Yugoslavia, i.e.,  the Republic of Bosnia  and Herzegovina,  the Republic of
Croatia or  the Federal Republic of  Yugoslavia (Serbia  and Montenegro) (in
which  the Pale  administration has  a  representative).   By  adopting this
approach, the  Tribunal could  avoid any  controversy as  regards the  legal
effect of transmitting or attempting to  transmit an official document  to a
non-State authority.  The danger of fuelling a  controversy of this kind has
not so  far been offset  by any enhanced  effectiveness in implementing  the
Tribunal's decisions.
 2.  The accused

(a)  Defence counsel

94.   Articles 18  and 21  of the  statute entitle  suspects or  accused to,
inter alia, legal assistance of their own choosing or, if indigent, to  free
legal assistance.  The Tribunal's rules give effect  to this right and place
the responsibility  for  providing and  regulating  what  is, in  effect,  a
complete legal aid system upon the Registrar.

95.   The  Registrar has  accordingly set  up  a list  of counsel  who  have
volunteered  to represent  indigent suspects  or  accused  and who  meet the
requirements of  the rules.  So  far, 30 lawyers appear  on the list.   They
include practising lawyers  and professors from Australia, Canada,  Croatia,
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia  and Montenegro), France,  Italy,
the  Netherlands, New  Zealand,  Switzerland,  the United  Kingdom  and  the
United States.

96.  The Registrar has prepared, in close  consultation with the judges  and
lawyers  from  different   bar  associations,  a  directive  governing   the
procedure  for assignment  of defence  counsel,  the  status and  conduct of
assigned counsel, the calculation and payment  of fees and disbursements and
the  establishment of  an  advisory panel.   The  accused Tadic  has availed
himself of this procedure.

97.   The advisory  panel is  a consultative  body composed  of two  counsel
drawn by lot from those whose names appear on the above list of counsel  and
also four  lawyers proposed  by the  International Bar  Association and  the

Union Internationale  des  Avocats.    The panel  is  presided over  by  the
president of the Nederlands Orde van Advokaten (the Dutch Bar Association).

98.  The Registry  has also prepared a Manual for Practitioners,  containing
practical information for defence counsel, to provide basic orientation  and
advice for  defence practitioners who will  appear before  the Tribunal (see
para. 84 above and para. 128 below).

(b)  Detention facilities

  (i)  Rules of detention and regulations

99.  The rules  governing the detention of  persons awaiting trial or appeal
before the  Tribunal  ("Rules of  Detention"),  which  were adopted  by  the
Tribunal  at the  end of its  third session on  5 May  1994, put  in place a
regime  for detainees while they  are held at the Tribunal's detention unit.
These rules  govern a  unique situation:   for  the first  time in  history,
accused persons are to be held in a  special detention unit administered not
by national rules of detention  - military or  civilian -but by a system  of
international  standards  created  specifically  by the  international  body
before which they will be tried.

100.  When drafting  the rules of detention, the Tribunal took into  account
the existing body of international standards  created by the United  Nations
as  a set of basic guidelines for States.  It thus drew upon the 1977 United
Nations Standard  Minimum Rules  for the  Treatment of  Prisoners, the  1988
Body of  Principles for  the Protection  of All  Persons under  Any Form  of
Detention or  Imprisonment and the 1990  Basic Principles  for the Treatment
of Prisoners.  The Tribunal  also took into account,  wherever possible, the
standards set out  in the European  Prison Rules  which were  issued by  the
Council of Europe in 1987.

101.   Chief among the  rights guaranteed to  a detainee  is the  absence of
discrimination on any ground.   Each detainee also  has the right to observe
and practise  his religious  or moral beliefs.   A detainee  is entitled  to
receive a  copy of the  rules of detention  and the regulations  in his  own
language, together  with other information to  enable him  to understand his
rights and obligations while in the detention unit.

102.   Matters covered  by  the  regulations, referred  to in  paragraph  29
above, include  a complaint procedure, disciplinary  rules and a  detainee's
entitlements regarding communication by telephone, mail and personalvisits.

  (ii)  The Detention Unit

103.  The Detention  Unit was constructed for the Tribunal by the Government
of the  Kingdom of the Netherlands.  The premises of the Detention Unit have
been leased to  the Tribunal, and  the Detention  Unit itself  was built  to
accommodate the  Tribunal's specific needs.   A Commanding  Officer has been
appointed  and necessary  staff have  been loaned  by the Government  of the
Netherlands. Currently the Unit houses one  detainee, Tadic, whom the German
authorities surrendered to the Tribunal in April 1995.

104.      The   Netherlands  prison   administration   has   a   number   of
responsibilities,  ranging from practical  matters, such as the provision of
food and laundry and  medical services, to more  substantive issues, such as
complaints against a decision affecting a  detainee taken by the Governor of
the host  prison.  The  areas of  responsibility of the Tribunal  and of the
Netherlands  prison administration  are closely  coordinated, and  care  has
been taken  to ensure that  the two systems  are compatible  on a day-to-day
basis.   The Commanding  Officer of  the Detention Unit and  the Governor of
the  host prison  are expected  to  be in  constant communication  with each

105.   To ensure order and  security in the  Detention Unit, the  Commanding
Officer  may  take  appropriate  measures  on the  basis  of  the  rules  of

detention and  the  regulations.   For  example,  visitors are  required  to
undergo searches of clothing and possessions.

  (iii)  Inspecting authority

  106.    The  rules  of  detention  provide  for  "regular  and unannounced
inspections by inspectors whose  duty it is  to examine the manner in  which
detainees  are treated", and  for a competent  authority to  be appointed to
inspect the  Detention Unit regularly and  to advise  the Commanding Officer
and Registrar  on the  treatment of  detainees.   As noted  in paragraph  28
above, the  International Committee of the  Red Cross has  agreed to act  in
this capacity.

107.  In  addition to the ICRC inspections,  the rules of detention  provide
that the  Bureau of the Tribunal  may, at any time,  appoint a  judge or the
Registrar  of the Tribunal  to inspect  the Detention Unit and  to report to
the Tribunal on  the general conditions or on  any particular aspect of  the
implementation of the rules of detention.

3.  Victims and Witnesses Unit

108.   The Victims  and Witnesses  Unit, which  became operational in  April
1995 after a  period of preparation  and consultation,  has started work  to
design  and establish  a  programme  of care  and  support for,  as well  as
protection of, witnesses  who will testify before  the Tribunal.  The  Unit,
which  is part of the Registry, provides these services impartially for both
prosecution and defence  witnesses.  It will  apply the highest standards of
confidentiality  in  its work.  The  Unit  is  seeking  to overcome  current
problems of understaffing and lack of adequate funds.

109.  The Unit is the  first of its  kind in any international context.   It
is an expression of  the profound concern felt  by the Security  Council and
by the Tribunal itself  about the special problems  faced by people who have
witnessed or suffered from the traumatic  events that have taken  place, and
continue  to take place, in the former Yugoslavia.   The Tribunal recognizes
that, in  giving testimony  before it, victims  and witnesses  will have  to
relive their experiences  in a country far away  from their own and  without
the support from  relatives and friends which they would normally receive if
testifying  in an ordinary  court of  law in  their own country,  in time of
peace.  Some may be anxious about reprisals.

110.   The  Victims  and  Witnesses Unit  was established  in an  attempt to
alleviate these  anxieties as far  as possible and to  create an environment
for  victims and  witnesses  in  which they  can give  their  testimony with
dignity and in safety.  The Unit believes  that the act of giving  testimony
by victims and  witnesses is important, not only  to ensure that justice  is
done in  the former  Yugoslavia, but also as  a means to assist  them in the
long process of coming to terms with major traumatic events in their lives.

111.  The Coordinator of the Unit has  identified suitable candidates for  a
team which will comprise  a small staff  of specialists.  One candidate  has
already  been  recruited.    The  staff  will  be  experienced  in providing
psychological,  practical and  legal support  to victims  and witnesses  and
will liaise with experts,  identified by the Unit,  who can respond to their
specific needs.   The  staff will include  several women.   Some Dutch  NGOs
have given  helpful advice  to  the Unit  as  it  develops this  network  of
contacts and  specialists.   Other NGOs,  partially funded  by the  European
Commission,  have  volunteered  to  provide  specialist  support,  including
counselling for victims of rape and sexual assault.

112.   Once  the  support framework  for witnesses  in  The Hague  has  been
further  developed,  the  Unit  will  extend  its  contacts  with   relevant
organizations  and professionals in the countries where the witnesses reside
to  help and  support  them  before and  after  giving testimony.    In  all
contacts with  outside organizations  and experts  the Unit  insists on  the

need  for absolute confidentiality.   To  emphasize the  impartial nature of
its work  and its independence from  both prosecution and  defence, the Unit
will employ its own interpreters.

113.    Most of  the  Unit's  initial  efforts have  been  spent  in  making
preparatory  arrangements for witnesses'  travel to,  and safe  stay in, The

114.  In all its  work, the Unit is impartial and  conscious of the  need to
maintain  a strict separation  between witnesses  for the  defence and those
for the  prosecution.   Not only will  prosecution and defence  witnesses be
housed in  separate  accommodation, but  there  will  also be  two  separate
waiting-rooms for them.

115.    It is  important  for  witnesses to  have  basic  information  about
testifying  before  the  Tribunal, and  what  it  involves.   The  Unit  has
therefore produced a  leaflet which  explains the work  of the Tribunal  and
the Unit and provides information  about trial procedures and  the plans for
witnesses'  travel and stay  in the  Netherlands.  Conscious of  the need to
provide emotional support,  the Tribunal is favourably considering  requests
by witnesses to be accompanied by a close relative or friend.

116.   In formulating  its policy  for witness  support and protection,  the
Unit  applies relevant United  Nations standards.   Thus  the United Nations
Declaration of Basic Principles  of Justice for Victims  of Crime and  Abuse
of Power formed  the basis for the  decision to offer witnesses  appropriate
reimbursement  for  necessary expenses,  including  child  care  during  the
period they give testimony.

  117.   Protecting witnesses against possible  physical attacks  is a major
concern  of the Unit,  which has  sought and received expert  advice on this
matter.  The Tribunal does  not have its own protection force, but relies on
Governments  to  provide  such protection  to  witnesses  whose security  is
deemed to  be at risk.  The Unit has requested cooperation  from a number of
Governments in this regard, pointing to  their obligation to cooperate fully
with the Tribunal and  its organs, but few  offers of cooperation  have been
received so far.

B.  Administration

118.   Following  the decision  of the  General Assembly  in  its resolution
48/251 of 14 April  1994 in which  the Assembly, inter alia, authorized  the
Secretary-General to enter into further commitments  not exceeding US$  11.0
million, administrative  activities centred on  the speedy establishment  of
the infrastructure to enable the Tribunal  to become operational as  soon as

119.   By the end of  1994, more  than 100 personnel had  been recruited, in
addition to  about 30  experts-on-mission loaned by  various governments  to
the Office of the Prosecutor.   Related administrative support services  had
to  be  established and  rendered  effective  with  the  same  speed as  the
recruitment  of personnel.   As  of the  end of  June 1995,  174  personnel,
representing 27  nationalities, had been  recruited or offered  appointments
with the  Tribunal, in addition to  about 35 experts-on-mission and 15 legal
assistants provided from extrabudgetary resources.

 120.  In the  period under review, the Registry has provided vital services
to  investigators in  the Office  of  the Prosecutor,  including a  pool  of
translators and  interpreters and a  travel unit.   It has  been involved in
organizing the  construction of  the  courtroom and  visitors' gallery,  the
special passageways and holding cells and  other structural modifications to
the Tribunal's  premises. More than $2.5  million worth  of electronic data-
processing equipment and accessories have been  installed.  In October 1994,
the  Government  of  the  Kingdom  of  the  Netherlands  conveyed  a 24-cell
detention  facility to  the Tribunal,  with  internal and  external security

systems fully functional.

121.   Based on  the  experience gained  during  the  latter half  of  1994,
revised financial  requirements were submitted  by the Secretary-General  in
December  1994, pursuant to General Assembly resolution 48/251, as well as a
report on the conditions of service and other  allowances of the members  of
the  Tribunal.   The revised  estimates  amounted to  $39.1 million  for the
biennium  1994-1995 and  included proposals  for a  total  of 260  posts and
related requirements.

122.   The  Advisory  Committee on  Administrative and  Budgetary  Questions
completed  its  review  of   the  revised  estimates  in  March  1995.    In
considering the  report of  the Secretary-General  on the  financing of  the
Tribunal  and the  related report  of  the  Advisory Committee,  the General
Assembly  affirmed that  the Tribunal  needed to  be assured  of secure  and
stable financing in  order to fulfil its role fully and effectively.  In the
summer of 1995, following intensive negotiations  between Member States,  an
agreement  was  reached  on  the  financing   of  the  Tribunal  which   was
subsequently adopted by  the General Assembly as  resolution 49/242 B  of 20
July  1995.    Under  the  resolution,   the  General  Assembly  decided  to
appropriate $39,095,900  (net) to the Special  Account for  the Tribunal for
the period from 1 January 1994 to 31 December 1995.

123.   Despite the  initial problems  regarding its  financing, the Tribunal
has  continued its  working momentum.    The  translation unit  continues to
expand  in  order  to keep  up  with  the  demands  of  investigatory  work.
Unforeseen  requirements  continue   to  be  dealt  with  by  applying   the
flexibility  of the financial authority granted to the Secretary-General and
in  a manner  consistent with  the  Financial Regulations  and Rules  of the
United Nations.   The longer-term implications of  the work of  the Tribunal
are being dealt with in the context of the proposed budget for the  biennium
1996-1997, to be submitted by the  Secretary-General to the General Assembly
at its fiftieth session.

C.  Publications

124.   In the period covered by the present  report, the Tribunal has issued
a number of publications, including the  Tribunal Handbook, the Yearbook and
the Manual  for Practitioners.   Each  is available  in both of  the working
languages  of  the  Tribunal.    The  Tribunal  is  currently  exploring the
possibility of  making its  public documents  available on-line through  the

 1.  The Tribunal Handbook
125.  The Tribunal Handbook, now in  its second edition, is a compilation of
the Tribunal's  basic texts.  It  is intended to provide  the reader with  a
comprehensive  set of  materials on  the  structure  and functioning  of the
Tribunal and contains a detailed index.

2.  The Yearbook

126.   The Yearbook documents the  activities of the  Tribunal on an  annual
basis.  The  inaugural  issue  of  the  current  volume,  however,  includes
developments which occurred in 1994  as well as  part of 1993.  The  purpose
of the Yearbook  is to provide readers  with a means  of keeping  abreast of
the activities of  the Tribunal.   Thus, it  provides a  description of  the
current activities  of the Tribunal's three  organs, and  includes copies of
the various judicial orders issued.   This year's volume  also describes the
development of  the Tribunal's infrastructure, such  as the  building of the
courtroom, and the amendments to the rules.
127.   The Yearbook also  includes a section  on the  cooperation of States,

both as regards implementation  of the Tribunal's statute and offers made by
States to hold convicts serving sentences  imposed by the Tribunal  in their
prisons. Copies of national legislation implementing the Tribunal's  statute
are  included,  both in  their  original  texts  and  in unofficial  English
translations.    In addition,  the  Yearbook contains  a  copy of  the  most
significant  documents  produced  within the  period covered,  which  in the
current volume includes the first annual  report, the President's address to
the General  Assembly  and the  speech  delivered  by the  Secretary-General
during  his visit  to the  Tribunal.   A  list  of other  official documents
available to the public is  included.  Finally, in an attempt to assist  the
reader  with further  research,  a bibliography  of articles  concerning the
Tribunal is provided.

3.  The Manual for Practitioners

128.  The  Manual for Practitioners  comprises a set of  guidelines produced
by  the Registry to  assist defence  counsel appearing  before the Tribunal.
It provides basic orientation and information  regarding the details of  the
Tribunal's procedure.   It is intended to offer practical  guidance to those
who will  appear  before the  Tribunal,  and  the information  is  therefore
arranged in  the order in which it  would typically be  needed.  It contains
information  regarding  the   qualifications  and  procedures  relevant   to
representing an  accused, as well as  information on  courtroom protocol and
provisions for communication with accused and  witnesses.  It also describes
the  Tribunal's procedure in broad terms.  It was thought that such a manual
was  particularly necessary  as the  Tribunal is  an international  judicial
organ and many of  the details of its procedures differ therefore from those
of  the municipal  systems with  which  defence  counsel would  typically be

 Part two



129.    For its  day-to-day  operations,  the  Tribunal  operates under  the
assumption  that States will provide their full  and unreserved cooperation.
Unlike domestic  criminal courts, the Tribunal  has no enforcement  agencies
at  its disposal:   it  cannot execute  arrest  warrants,  nor can  it seize
evidentiary  material, compel  witnesses  to  give testimony  or search  the
scenes where  crimes have allegedly been committed.  For all these purposes,
the Tribunal  must  turn  to  State authorities  and  request them  to  take
action.   Thus, it can  only work to  the extent  that States are  ready and
willing to  cooperate.   The  adoption by  States  of  all the  legislative,
administrative  and   judicial  measures   necessary  for  the   expeditious
implementation of the Tribunal's orders is therefore of crucial importance.

130.   The Security Council, in  its resolution 827  (1993) of  25 May 1993,
stipulated  that "all States  shall cooperate  fully" with  the Tribunal and
its organs  and "shall take any measures necessary under  their domestic law
to implement the  provisions" of the statute  and comply with "requests  for
assistance or  orders issued  by a  Trial Chamber"  (para. 4).   The statute
established in  article 29 the principle  of cooperation  between States and
the  Tribunal "in the  investigation and  prosecution of  persons accused of
committing  serious violations of international humanitarian law".   Rule 58
restates  this  principle  and  confirms  that  the  obligations  on  States
stemming  from the statute  "shall prevail over any  legal impediment to the
surrender or transfer of  the accused to the  Tribunal which may exist under
the national law or extradition treaties of the State concerned".

131.  In the  first year of the Tribunal's  existence, the President  of the
Tribunal drew  the attention of the  Secretary-General to  the necessity for
Member States  not only  to designate,  in their domestic  legal systems,  a

body responsible for dealing  with any request  from the Tribunal, but  also
to adopt  the legislative or regulatory  provisions required  to give effect
to the Tribunal's statute.  Subsequently, the President  sent letters to the
representatives of Member States in which he stressed the importance of  the
provisions  relating to the transfer of suspects and accused and called upon
States not to  apply to such  transfer, by analogy, existing  legislation or
bilateral conventions governing extradition.

132.   By the end  of 1994, Finland,  Italy, the  Netherlands, Norway, Spain
and  Sweden had enacted implementing legislation, while Denmark, France, the
Republic of  Bosnia  and  Herzegovina, Germany,  Australia and  New  Zealand
followed suit in the course of 1995.

133.   The following  States have  indicated their  intention to  adopt such
legislation in  the near future  and some of  them have  communicated to the
Tribunal a general outline of the  draft text currently under consideration:
Austria, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Turkey, the  United Kingdom and the  United
States (the United States has  already signed a specific  Agreement with the
Tribunal on  the surrender  of persons,  but the  Agreement itself  requires
implementing legislation).

134.   In  an  attempt  to assist  Member States  which had  indicated their
intention  to adopt legislation  in the  near future and  other States which
had not yet undertaken  any action, the President sent a note on 15 February
1995  to  the  representatives of  those  States,  with  two  annexes:   one
containing a compilation of all national  legislation that had been  adopted
or drafted  by  that  time  and  the  other  a set  of  guidelines  for  the
implementation  of Security Council resolution 827 (1993).  Those guidelines
were drafted  by the  Registry at the  request of the  President for  States
which had not yet adopted implementing  legislation, and indicated the areas
of national law that might need to be revised.


135.     Article  27  of  the  statute  of   the  Tribunal  prescribes  that
imprisonment imposed by the  Tribunal on a convicted person shall be  served
in a  State designated by  the Tribunal  from a  list of  States which  have
indicated  to the  Security Council  their  willingness to  accept convicted

136.   In  the  report on  the  statute of  the  Tribunal presented  by  the
Secretary- General to the Security Council  (S/25704 and Corr.1 and  Add.1),
it  was  suggested  that  the  Security   Council  would  make   appropriate
arrangements  to obtain from  States an  indication of  their willingness to
accept  convicted persons.   This information  would be  communicated to the
Registrar of  the Tribunal who  would prepare a list of  States in which the
enforcement of sentences would be carried out.

137.  In  a letter dated 23 September  1994 (S/1994/1090), the President  of
the Security  Council requested the  Secretary-General to assist the Council
in  obtaining such indications from States.   As a result of that request, a
note was sent  out by the Secretary-General on  4 October 1994 inviting  all
States Members of the United Nations  (and Switzerland) to indicate  whether
they would  be prepared  to carry  out the enforcement  of prison  sentences
pursuant to article 27 of the statute of the Tribunal.

138.   To  stress  the  urgent need  for  cooperation and  attention to  the
matter,  the President  of the  Tribunal and  the United  Nations Office  of
Legal Affairs  decided that a second letter should be sent.  That letter was
sent  by the  President  on  7 December  1994 to  the representatives  of 35
States.  A favourable response  was received only from  Pakistan, Bosnia and
Herzegovina,  Norway, Germany,  Finland and  the Islamic  Republic of  Iran.
The majority of Member States did not express an  eagerness to assist:  most
States simply  did not  respond, many said  they were unable  to help,  some
indicated they were not yet in  a position to respond and others indicated a

willingness  to  assist  only  if  their  own  nationals  or  residents were

139.   As  a result  of that  response,  the  fifth plenary  session of  the
Tribunal approved a  draft letter to follow up  the President's letter of  7
December 1994.  The new  letter, sent  out by  the President  on 3  February
1995, proposed a less  taxing commitment for the States that had expressed a
lack of  willingness to carry out  enforcement of  prison sentences pursuant
to article 27 of the statute of the Tribunal.  The States were requested  to
consider options where the  commitment would either be limited in time or by
the number of prisoners per year.  So  far, only a few States have responded
to the new request; unfortunately, none have reacted positively to it.


A.  States

1.  Cooperation of the host State

140.  Since its establishment, the  Tribunal has received continuous support
from  the Netherlands  authorities, in  particular the  Ministry  of Foreign
Affairs; the Ministry of  Public Health, Welfare and Sports; the Ministry of
Interior; the  Netherlands  Federal Building  Service; and  the Ministry  of
Justice.    In  the  past  year,   the  Netherlands  authorities  have  been
particularly helpful with their assistance in matters of security.

141.   Under the professional guidance  of the  Netherlands Federal Building
Service, the main part of  the reconstruction of the Tribunal's premises has
been completed.  At the request of the  Tribunal, an additional sum was made
available by the  Ministry of Foreign  Affairs for the  construction of  the
fence surrounding the premises of the Tribunal.

142.   For the transport of an  accused from Germany to the Netherlands, the
Ministry of  Justice, in close cooperation  with the  German authorities and
the  Tribunal, conducted  a  very  successful operation  in  delivering  him
safely to the United Nations Detention Unit in Scheveningen.

143.    On the  days of  public hearings  when  an accused  is present,  the
Tribunal receives  continuous  support  from  various  Netherlands  security
forces to maintain security outside the premises  of the Tribunal, to safely
transport  the Judges and the  Prosecutor, if necessary, and  to arrange the
safe transport of  the accused between the  Detention Unit and the  premises
of the Tribunal.

144.  Finally,  the Victims and  Witnesses Unit  has had extensive  contacts
with representatives of various Netherlands ministries.

145.    All  the  above-mentioned  activities  have  placed  a  considerable
financial  burden on  the  various  Netherlands ministries.    The  Tribunal
wishes  to express its deep  gratitude for this  continuous support from the
Netherlands  Government and is  confident that it  may continue  to count on
its support in the future.

2.  Seconded personnel

146.   Several States  have contributed  assistance to  the Tribunal  in the
form of a loan of personnel to the  Office of the Prosecutor.  As  of 29 May
1995,  the  Tribunal  was receiving  seconded personnel  from  the following
States:    United States (21  personnel);   United Kingdom  (5); Netherlands
(3); Denmark (2); Norway (2); Sweden (2).

3.  Monetary contributions and contributions in kind

147.  In its  resolution 47/235 of  14 September 1993, the General  Assembly
invited  Member  States  and  other  interested  parties to  make  voluntary
contributions  to the  Tribunal in  cash and  in  the  form of  services and
supplies acceptable to the Secretary-General.

148.  As  of 10 July  1995, the  following countries  had contributed  funds
totalling $6,319,795 in support of the Tribunal:


  Cambodia5 000
  Canada339 482  
  Chile5 000
  Denmark183 368
  Hungary2 000
  Ireland21 768
  Israel7 500
  Italy1 898 049
  Liechtenstein2 985
  Malaysia2 000 000
  New Zealand14 660
  Norway50 000
  Pakistan1 000 000
  Spain13 725
  Switzerland75 758
  United States700 000

149.  Furthermore, Norway has pledged  to contribute an additional  $130,000
to the voluntary funds.

150.   In  addition,  the  United States  made  a contribution  of  computer
systems and related services  for the Office of the Prosecutor valued at  up
to $2,300,000. The United Kingdom has also made  a contribution of equipment
valued at approximately $30,500.

B.  Intergovernmental organizations

151.  The  European Union  made a valuable contribution  to the work of  the
Tribunal by providing financial resources for  several projects of NGOs that
aim  to assist  the  work  of the  Tribunal.   These  projects  include  the
secondment of 15 legal  assistants to the  Registry and judges for  research
and legal  support, which  has proved  of crucial  value to  the substantive
work of the Tribunal.   Another project involves  assistance to victims  and

Part three



152.     Since  the   summer  of   1994,  more   than  100  non-governmental
organizations have  offered  the Tribunal  their help  in  a  wide range  of
areas.   The  Tribunal appreciates  all of  these offers  and welcomes  such
cooperation.  It must be emphasized,  however, that the partnership  between
the Tribunal and NGOs  can operate only  within the  rules laid down by  the
Tribunal and in  accordance with its statute.   In order not to disrupt  the
proper  administration of  justice, it  is essential  for  NGOs not  to lose
sight  of  the Tribunal's  imperatives  in  respect of  confidentiality  and

153.    Non-governmental organizations  have been  in the  former Yugoslavia
from the onset of the conflict; they have a large amount  of information and
a knowledge of the  field that may be precious  to the Tribunal.  They might
accordingly   help  the  Tribunal's  activities  by:     (a)  providing  the
Prosecutor with  information useful  for investigations;  (b) assisting  the
Victims and Witnesses Unit; (c) providing  legal and technical support;  and
(d) making the Tribunal's activities more widely known.

                 A.  Non-governmental organizations as sources of
                     information for the Office of the Prosecutor

154.    Non-governmental  organizations  which  have  been   in  the  former
Yugoslavia since the outbreak of hostilities  have played an important  part
in  gathering  information  about serious  violations  of  human rights  and
humanitarian law.  Considerable quantities of  testimony have been  received
by NGO  staff in  the course  of their  work  in the  field, often  gathered
before  the Tribunal's establishment.   In  general, NGOs  have promoted and
endorsed  the establishment of  the Tribunal.   By  making their information
available  to  the  Tribunal,  many NGOs  contributed  significantly  to the
opening of investigations.

155.  The present  cooperation between the  Tribunal and NGOs is  consistent
with  the Prosecutor's judicial  strategy.   NGOs working  with refugees who
are victims of the conflict can make the Tribunal  more widely known and can
provide  those  refugees   with  information  and   help  them   to  contact
investigators.    They may  also  assist the  Office  of the  Prosecutor  by
enabling victims and  witnesses to be identified  and located.  However, the
need  for confidentiality in criminal  proceedings has to  be borne in mind,
as  well  as  the  adverse  effect  on  witnesses  and  victims  of repeated

156.   NGOs  specializing in  observing  trials  and judgements  may  attend
certain national  trials of  relevance for  the Prosecutor  and provide  him
with reports on the proceedings.
 B.  Assistance to victims and witnesses

157.   NGOs are  very often the  first organizations  to be  in contact with
victims  and witnesses.  They can  assist them not only with regard to legal
problems,  but more  generally by  furnishing them  with  material, medical,
psychological or technical support.

158.   The Victims and Witnesses  Unit has  requested specific organizations
with relevant expertise to provide psychological,  medical and other support
to victims  and witnesses,  whether  appearing for  the defence  or for  the
prosecution.  As an  independent  and impartial  institution,  the  Tribunal
expects  that NGOs will  fully respect  the judicial  principle that nothing
should be done to influence the witnesses at any stage of the proceedings.

C.  Legal and technical support

159.   NGOs may also assist  the Tribunal by  providing it with the findings
of specialized  studies or research into  specific problems  relevant to the
Tribunal. For example,  some of the comments made  by NGOs when the rules of
procedure and evidence were revised were most helpful.

160.   Since  January 1995,  a  team of  15 legal  assistants has  been made
available to the Tribunal by the European Union through the intermediary  of
an NGO. Working full-time either in the Registry  or with the judges,  these
assistants  are  making   a  substantial  contribution  to  the   Tribunal's

D.  Public relations

161.  NGOs have  also assisted the Tribunal  by making its activities better
known and better understood  in the region of the former Yugoslavia as  well
as in the rest of the world.


162.   The present  report covers the first  year of operation of  the Press
and  Information Service, which was  established in June 1994  by a decision
of the third  plenary session of the judges.   The judges realized that  the
institutional setting-up period  of the  Tribunal had almost been  completed
and  that the Tribunal  would generate  continuous curiosity as  soon as its
operational phase  began.  Today, the  Press and Information  Service is the
focal  point of a network linking  the Tribunal to  332 news agencies and to
344 outside  contacts such as embassies, NGOs, universities, researchers and
legal specialists.

163.   Over the past year, the image of the Tribunal  in the world media has
evolved significantly:   quantitatively, the  visibility of the  institution
has greatly increased,  and qualitatively, the credibility of its activities
has been significantly enhanced.

 1.  Increased visibility

164.   Media coverage  of the Tribunal  did not  initially occupy  newspaper
front pages.   Since the  summer of 1994, however, as a  result of the first
investigations,  the publication of the first indictments and the subsequent
involvement of  the Trial  Chambers in  the first  legal proceedings,  media
coverage has become more regular.

(a)  Increasing publicity

165.  Between July  1994 and mid-May 1995,  about 600 press articles devoted
to the  Tribunal were  published, as  counted by  the internal  press review
section.  The list, of  course, is not exhaustive since the section did  not
have access  to all  publications.  Furthermore,  the figure  does not  take
into account the many reports broadcast on radio and television worldwide.

166.   This publicity results  both from  spontaneous interest and  from the
Tribunal's  own advance  planning, which  used  every traditional  forum  to
support the existence of an institution as unique  and novel as the Tribunal
and to publicize its activities:

  -  137 meetings with individual journalists were organized;

  -  24 press releases were issued;

  -  8 press conferences were called;

  -  A professionally equipped press room was set up;

  -Regular  organization of  a weekly  press  meeting  was initiated  by the

(b)  Greater geographic coverage

167.   The increase in  the number  of articles devoted to  the Tribunal has
been accompanied by  a concomitant geographical diversification.  The  North
American and European  media were the  first to  focus their  sights on  The
Hague.  During the  last quarter of 1994,  they were joined by  some of  the
media  from South America, Asia,  Australia and Africa.   More recently, two
Russian press services  as well  as the  Hungarian and  Czech news  services
have begun to follow Tribunal activities very closely.

168.   Also significant is  the fact that,  beginning in  early spring 1995,

the media of the  former Yugoslavia came onto  the scene.  Although sporadic
relations  with some  of  the wire  services, as  well  as with  some  daily
newspapers in Belgrade and  Zagreb, had been established  at the outset,  it
had proved very difficult to establish a truly reliable network of  contacts
with media from the region most affected by the Tribunal's activities.   The
publication  of  21  indictments  in  February  1995  and  the  two deferral
hearings  in  May 1995  altered  the  situation  dramatically.   Today,  RTV
Bosnia,  the official news  service Tanjug  and private  radio stations from
Croatia are among those regularly requesting information.
  169.  The increased  number of articles  devoted to the Tribunal was  also
accompanied by a significant change in the tone of their content as  regards
the intrinsic interest in its existence and possible scope of its activity.

2.  Increased credibility

170.   A  broad  reading of  the many  articles  specifically or  indirectly
related  to  the  Tribunal  shows  that  its  institutional  image  and  the
reflection of its judicial activity evolved over three distinct periods.

(a)  Initial scepticism

171.   The regulatory  activities of  the judges  during the  first half  of
1994, which  for journalists  were overly  technical and  which held  little
meaning among the general public, together with the  preparatory work of the
Deputy Prosecutor,  which appeared dry work,  were not  initially helpful to
the Tribunal when it came to  overcoming the scepticism expressed throughout
the first months  of its existence.  In addition, during the  summer of 1994
its  image suffered  greatly owing  to  the absence  of a  Chief Prosecutor,
investigators and an adequate budget.

172.   Within this context,  it would  be an understatement to  say that the
appointment of  the Honourable  Richard Goldstone  as Prosecutor  on 8  July
1994  at  the  end  of what  The  New  York Times  the  next  day called  "a
frustrating  year"  was   greeted  with  obvious   relief  and   was  widely
disseminated.   The Prosecutor's  first press  conference, held  on 21  July
1994,  marked a  turning-point.  His determination  was further strengthened
by  the announcement  at the  end of  July 1994,  after the  judges'  fourth
plenary session, that  the Tribunal would enter its operational phase in the

173.   Seen from this perspective, several newspapers next  began to publish
general articles  introducing the  Tribunal or  making sympathetic  comments
about its work.

174.  None the less, despite good will  granted to the Tribunal, a degree of
incredulity still remained.   Publication of  the first indictment (Nikolic)
and the first public  hearing (Tadic deferral) at the beginning of  November
1994, however, marked two decisive steps forward.

(b)  The period of impatience

175.   The  Tribunal, however,  was cautioned  as to  the striking  lack  of
results it  had  produced when  the  American  news service  Scripps  Howard
distributed  a particularly vituperative  article which appeared as far away
as Pakistan on 5 January 1995.   A second warning shot was fired a few weeks
later by an article appearing in the Netherlands on 28 January 1995.

176.    The  same impatience  was  expressed  by  the  judges,  whose  final
statement published after the fifth plenary  session was the inspiration for
an article on  2 February 1995 in Le Monde under the eloquent  heading:  "La
grogne des Juges du Tribunal de La Haye".
  177.   The publication  on  13 February  1995  of  the indictments  of  21
suspects   against  whom  arrest  warrants  were  issued  only  checked  the
impatience  for a  while.   From  that point  onwards, everything  gave  the
impression that  the  positive effect  produced  by  the number  of  persons

indicted had  been tempered  by the  absence of  resources available to  the
Tribunal  to enforce  compliance with  its decisions.   At  the end  of  the
winter  of 1995, the public's perception of the  Tribunal could be described
as ambivalent.   The Tribunal's  good intentions were  no longer subject  to
reservations, but doubts remained as to its practical effectiveness.

178.   At  the  same  time as  alarms  were sounded,  however, several  news
agencies,  convinced that  the Tribunal  held at  least  the power  of moral
denunciation, made a demand:   the Tribunal should  do more, aim  higher and
strike  harder.   But  they wondered  whether  it would  dare  to do  so  or
whether, in fact, it could.

(c)  The period of credibility

179.   Two major events occurred  during the last week  of April  1995:  the
announcement  of investigations  of  Bosnian  Serb leaders  and the  initial
appearance of Tadic two  days after his transfer to The Hague.  That was the
first time an accused found  himself in the dock.  The  image of a  court in
action was projected.

180.  Many articles and televised reports (134 were counted) were  published
or broadcast during that  week.  The most eloquent headline was probably the
one which  appeared in the Amsterdam  daily De Telegraaf  on 27 April  1995:
"The  paper tiger is  roaring", and  thus expressed  relief proportionate to
the impatience  and  demands felt  until then,  even  if  some doubts  still

181.  In fact,  the Tribunal had negotiated two essential obstacles:  first,
it had ceased  to exist only in appearance  but had begun to operate visibly
and  substantively.    Several  editorials   and  comments  used   the  word
"credibility"  in their articles on  the Tribunal.  Secondly,  thanks to the
radio and television publicity resulting from  the announcement of the names
of highly  placed suspects  and to  the professional quality  of the  images
which  the Tribunal itself  produced and  then made available  to the media,
the Tribunal literally took shape in  the eyes of the man  and woman "in the
street" as a  consequence of the  various hearings  in April  and May  1995.
These included the  initial appearance of Tadic  and the Lasva river  valley
and Bosnian Serb leadership deferral hearings.

182.   The  enhanced credibility  of the  Tribunal was  clearly expressed in
comments  on  the  possible  political  consequences  of  the   Prosecutor's
decisions and the judges' action.  But nothing  said or written sounded like
a  reproach against the  Tribunal for  carrying out its mandate  even if the
mandate was described  as troublesome for the United  Nations.  On 25  April
1995, The New York  Times depicted the United  Nations as "torn  between its
blue helmets and its black robes".

183.  The same reactions were noted  when the Tribunal announced, on 25 July
1995,  indictments against  a  further 24  persons,  including  3 leadership
figures.   The reports on the  indictments of Karadzic  and Mladic were  not
only numerous,  and from all  around the world,  but also  mostly factual in
content:  even if  the issue of the execution of the warrants was raised and
the  impact  of  the  decision  upon  the  "peace-process"  questioned,  the
validity  of the indictments was not  discussed.  In the eyes  of the press,
the Tribunal no  longer merely existed; it was doing what it was supposed to
do, and in so doing had  established its credibility.  It  was no longer the
legal abstraction that many believed it would remain.   One shadow which was
cast was  the unwarranted  assertion by  some in  the media that  Serbs were
being unfairly singled out for prosecution by the Tribunal.

184.   It should  be noted  that the  Tribunal's first  judicial steps  were
covered on average by 28 news organizations between April and July 1995.

3.  The Tribunal and its outside contacts

185.   Since it  had mainly  concentrated on its media  policy, the Tribunal
did not have the resources fully  to develop an institutional communications
policy.  Initial structuring began, however, at the beginning  of 1995.  The
file now  contains information  on addresses  and telephone  numbers of  344
outside contacts, divided as follows:

  -  21 non-governmental organizations;

  -  32 legal practitioners;

  -  79 diplomatic representations;

  -212    miscellaneous    institutions   or    individuals   (universities,
researchers, associations, students, etc.).

186.  The  file enables all public documents of the Tribunal, once they have
been published, to be  sent to the continually growing number of members  on
the list in an orderly fashion.

Part four


187.   The  Tribunal  has  enjoyed the  support  of the  United Nations  and
growing cooperation by  a number of States in the past year, but  it has had
to  navigate  in  troubled  waters.   Its  momentum  might  have  been  lost
altogether if  it had proceeded only  against the  immediate perpetrators of
crimes under international humanitarian law.   The Tribunal might then  have
failed in the mission assigned to it by  the Security Council.  Instead,  it
has  chosen to  break  new  ground  with  a  clearly  enunciated  policy  of
prosecuting those in command  who ordered or failed to punish the  egregious
crimes being committed.

188.  The strategy of prosecuting  political and military leaders, which has
been  initiated  by   the  deferral  proceedings  and  indictments   against
Karadzic,   Mladic  and  Martic,   has  therefore  given  the  Tribunal  the
credibility essential to its appointed task.
  189.   Disappointment  may  nevertheless be  felt that,  so far,  only one
accused  has been surrendered  to the  Tribunal to stand trial.   Of course,
the Tribunal will conduct trials whenever States  which are mindful of their
duty  to cooperate with the Tribunal,  and are in  a position to do so, take
custody of suspects and surrender them to the Tribunal.

190.   Nevertheless this  mood of  disappointment underlines  the point that
the  Tribunal  faces unique  problems as  an  international criminal  court,
albeit  one  of  an ad  hoc  nature.   It  is worthwhile  to  describe three
dilemmas  which, in addition  to financial  problems, can  greatly limit the
effectiveness of the Tribunal and slow down the pace of its action.

191.   First, as  pointed out at  paragraph 129  above, the  Tribunal has no
enforcement agencies  at its  disposal; it  must necessarily  rely upon  the
cooperation  of  States.    Only  States  can  execute  arrest  warrants, or
warrants for search and  seizure; only States can  make it possible  for the
Tribunal's  investigators  to  interview  witnesses  and  to  collect  other
evidence; only  States can  enforce sentences  rendered by  the Tribunal  by
holding persons convicted and sentenced at  The Hague in their  own prisons.
As long as States do  not fully cooperate  with the Tribunal, its action  is
hampered.    Regrettably,   some  States  have  withheld  any   cooperation:
reference  should  be  made  in  particular   to  the  Federal  Republic  of
Yugoslavia  (Serbia and Montenegro),  as well  as some  de facto authorities
such as the self-styled Republics of Krajina and Srpska.  Equally, a  number
of States have so far failed to  pass implementing legislation enabling them
to  assist  the  Tribunal.    In  this connection  mention  can  be  made in
particular of some neighbouring States of  the former Yugoslavia, for  which
the question of cooperation arises with particular urgency.

192.   The second  problem is  related to  the limitations  inherent in  any
international  criminal   jurisdiction  trying  offences   that  have   been
committed  in a  distant country.    Compared  to national  criminal courts,
which  enjoy  the   support  and  cooperation  of  centralized   prosecuting
services, ministries of justice and police  forces, the Tribunal is  placed,
with its resources, in  a quite different position.   The Tribunal  does not
command a squad of police officers  who can be dispatched to  the scene of a
crime within  hours of its commission to secure evidence and hand it over to
specialized  investigators.   On the  contrary, in  the early  stages  of an
investigation  into war crimes  or crimes  against humanity  evidence may be
collected by NGOs  in the field which may  lack forensic expertise, and  any
evidence  obtained  must   therefore  be   double-checked  by   professional
investigators.    These  investigators  in  the  Office  of  the  Prosecutor
comprise  some 80 staff,  roughly the  number of  investigators used  for 10
murders at the national level.

193.  Further,  in the  national setting, the  accused is often  apprehended
shortly after the crime has  been committed.  This would be rare indeed  for
the  perpetrator of an  international crime.   Finally,  national crimes and
international  crimes are  often  radically different  in nature.   National
crimes typically involve one accused  and one victim,  whereas international
crimes,  in  particular crimes  against  humanity  and  genocide,  typically
involve many perpetrators  committing a whole catalogue of offences  against
a great many victims.

 194.   The third  problem is that the Tribunal  has been established in the
midst of an armed conflict, mostly a war  on civilians, where bloodshed  and
terrorist attacks are daily  occurrences.  This is  in stark contrast to the
usual situation.   Usually,  legal norms  and institutions  come "after  the
event",  in recognition of  a new state  of affairs.   Judicial institutions
dealing  with crimes committed  in the  course of  hostilities are therefore
usually only convened at the  war's end.  This is what occurred at Nuremberg
and Tokyo, when Germany  and Japan were occupied  and many of  their leaders
captured by allied forces.

195.   By contrast, the  Tribunal has been  called upon  to dispense justice
while warfare, very often pursued by  illegal means and methods,  continues.
High-  ranking planners  and perpetrators  of war crimes  are still  able to
take shelter from prosecution under the  protective umbrella of military  or
political  power. The  Tribunal,  clearly, can  expect  no  cooperation from
those  authorities who may  have been complicit,  or at  least negligent, in
preventing  serious violations  of international  humanitarian law,  and  it
does not  anticipate that they will  surrender any  suspects, or themselves,
to the Tribunal.

196.    All  of  this  greatly   complicates  the  task  of   the  Tribunal.
Investigators  may be  prevented from  collecting evidence  or  interviewing
witnesses  by the  fact that  armed clashes  are occurring  in the  relevant
territories.    Witnesses  may,  in  the   absence  of  a  protective  State
apparatus, fear immediate  reprisals against themselves or their  relatives,
and therefore be reluctant to come forward to  testify.  A cooperating State
may find  it impossible  to execute  arrest or  search warrants, or  to hand
over  suspects  to  the  Tribunal.    Normal,  law-abiding  citizens  may be
rendered  partisan by the  armed conflict,  hailing war  criminals as heroes
and viewing  cooperation with the Tribunal as treacherous.  In this context,
it is worth noting that the Tribunal has  been criticized for the fact  that
all of  the indictments  so far  confirmed have  been against  Serbs.   This
criticism, besides being misguided,  is simply grist to  the mill of  ethno-
nationalism.   The Tribunal does not  prosecute members  of "ethnic groups",
but individuals who are accused of grave crimes.

197.     The   problems  described   above  have   not  all   proved  to  be
insurmountable.   A solution  to the  problem of  being unable  to bring  an
accused before  the Tribunal was found,  taking into  account the Tribunal's
decision not to allow trials in absentia, by creating a special procedure  -
rule  61 proceedings.  Rule 61,  "Procedure in case  of failure to execute a

warrant"  (referred to in  para. 16  above), allows for  the confirmation by
the full Trial  Chamber of an indictment issued  against an accused when  it
has not been possible  to arrest him.   It provides for a public  hearing at
which  witnesses may  be  called to  give  evidence. If  the  Trial  Chamber
hearing the application is satisfied that  there are reasonable grounds  for
believing that the accused  has committed any of  the crimes charged  in the
indictment, it makes a public announcement to that effect.

198.  Proceedings under rule 61 do not  abrogate the accused's right,  under
the statute,  to be present at  his trial, since the  proceedings are not  a
trial nor  do they  result in  a judgement.   If  the accused  were ever  to
surrender to custody, a  whole new trial would  take place in  his presence,
and  he would  be presumed  innocent  notwithstanding  the rule  61 finding.
Rule  61 does, however,  prevent the  accused from  obstructing and, indeed,
nullifying international criminal  justice simply by absconding or  refusing
to stand trial.   An adverse finding arising from a rule 61 proceeding will,
first, result in the  issue of an international arrest warrant by the  Trial
Chamber which is transmitted to all States and  may result in the  accused's
arrest abroad. 11/  Secondly, the public  hearing may persuade the  relevant
authorities to deliver the accused to the Tribunal.  Where  the accused is a
leadership  figure, the  international  arrest  warrant  will mean  that  he
cannot  leave  his  seat  of  power  without  risking  arrest,  rendering it
difficult for  him to  perform as  an effective  leader.   Thirdly, rule  61
affords a formal means  of redress for the  victims of the  absent accused's
alleged  crimes by giving  them an  opportunity to testify in  public and to
have their  testimony  recorded for  posterity.    Thus the  accused  cannot
escape from international justice simply by staying away from the Tribunal.

199.   All those  working at the  Tribunal realize the  historic role  which
they have  to play in setting  precedents for  future international criminal
organs,  notably  a  permanent  criminal  court   -  "the  missing  link  of
international  law"  -  and  they  have  watched  with  great  interest  the
tentative  moves  towards  turning  the  United  Nations  International  Law
Commission's draft  statute for  a permanent  criminal court  into a  viable
court.   The Tribunal may well  prove to  be a major stepping-  stone to the
court's  establishment, since it  has had  to develop  rules and regulations
for  all stages of  its proceedings,  most of which are  pioneering.  If the
Tribunal  can  prove  to  the  world  that  it  is  possible  to  administer
international criminal  justice, that it is  imperative for  legal and moral
reasons and practical to do so,  it will have performed a  great service for
the  development of international law.   It will also send a  message to the
victims of appalling crimes that humanity will not turn its back on them.


  1/   Whenever the terms "Bosnian  Serb forces" or  "Bosnian Serb de  facto
administration" are  used in  the annual  report, reference  is being  made,
unless  otherwise indicated, only  to Bosnian Serbs who  are in the military
or civilian service  of the de facto  administration which has its political
headquarters in Pale.   In particular,  no reference  is intended  or to  be
implied  to any  Bosnian Serbs who are  loyal to the Republic  of Bosnia and

  2/  Professor Christine Chinkin, Dean  and Professor of International Law,
University  of Southampton,  United  Kingdom of  Great Britain  and Northern
Ireland, and, in a joint brief, Ms. Rhonda  Copelon, Professor of Law,  City
University, New York, Ms.  Felice Gaer, Ms.  Jennifer M. Green and Ms.  Sara
Hossain, on behalf of  the Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement  of
Human  Rights of  the American  Jewish Committee, New  York; the  Center for
Constitutional Rights, New York;  the International Women's Human Rights Law
Clinic of the City University of New York, New York; and the Women  Refugees
Project  of the Harvard  Immigration and  Refugee Program  and Cambridge and
Somerville Legal Services, both of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

  3/  The  following rules have been  amended:  2, 3, 5,  8, 9, 10, 12,  13,

15, 28, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 47,  53, 54, 55, 57, 61, 62, 65, 66, 68,
70, 72, 75, 77, 88, 90, 91, 93, 95, 96, 101, 105, 108, 117.

   4/  The amendments  adopted at the sixth plenary session were  relatively
routine.  One amendment  was made only to  the French text of  the rules  to
rectify a  discrepancy between the French  and English  versions of sub-rule
99 (B).   The other two amendments  clarified how the  work of  the Tribunal
would be divided between  the two Trial Chambers.  Formerly sub-rule 61  (A)
called upon "a Judge  of a Trial  Chamber" to  order that the indictment  be
submitted "to the Trial  Chamber" once he or  she was satisfied that certain
steps relating  to attempts to effect  personal service  or otherwise inform
the accused  of the existence of  the indictment were  taken.   Based on the
revised  wording  of  sub-rule  61  (A),  it is  clear  that  the  judge who
confirmed  the indictment  under  rule 47  must  make  the  sub-rule 61  (A)
determination  and that it must be  his or her Trial Chamber  that hears the
proceeding under sub-rule 61.

  Sub-rule  10 (C)  was also  amended so  that  it  now provides  that where
deferral to  the  Tribunal has  been  requested  by  a Trial  Chamber,  "any
subsequent  trial"  shall be  held  before the  other  Trial  Chamber.   The
previous version of the rule had called for "any subsequent proceedings"  to
be held  before the other Trial Chamber, creating a possible impression that
a  Trial Chamber  which heard  a deferral  would not  be permitted  to  hear
either a rule 47 or a rule 61 proceeding.

  It  is now clear that a rule  10 deferral proceeding, a rule  47 review of
the  indictment, the  sub-rule 61  (A) determination and  a sub-rule  61 (C)
proceeding will  all be  heard by  the same  Trial Chamber,  with the  other
Trial  Chamber standing  in reserve  for  the actual  trial, should  it take
place.   The fact that  the Trial Chamber  hearing the  trial proper will be
wholly  unacquainted with the  facts and  history of the case  at first hand
helps  to ensure  that the trial  shall both  be and  appear to  be fair and

  5/   The following  rules were  amended  at the  seventh plenary  session:
rules  15 (E) (clarifying  the meaning  of the  expression "part-heard"), 62
(iii) (defendant must plead  to each count of the indictment), 69 (B) and 75
(regarding the role of the Victims and Witnesses Unit).

  6/  In general,  amendments were also made  simply to improve the clarity,
consistency and completeness  of the  rules.   An amendment  to clarify  the
rules is a new sub-rule (F)  added to rule 45 to clarify the situation where
an accused  wishes to  represent himself.   Sub-rule  45 (G), which  is also
new, provides that where an allegedly  indigent person is subsequently found
not to be indigent,  an order may be made  to recover the costs of providing
counsel.   This latter  provision establishes  a mechanism  to recover costs
from an  accused who either  fails to appoint counsel so  as to benefit from
the provisions of this rule or who disguises  his assets.  Other  amendments
in  this category are rules 3,  53 (B), 54, 55, 88 and 117, and the headings
of rules  37, 75  and 117.    A good  example of  an amendment  made in  the
interests  of consistency is  rule 15  (B) (disqualification  of judges from
both  Trial and Appeals  Chambers), and  other examples are rules  5, 8, 36,
and 117 (B).   An example of an  amendment made for  completeness is rule 2,
where the word "transaction"  has become a defined term. Another example  of
such  an amendment  is  the  addition of  what  has become  sub-rule 90  (C)
(replacing the former  90 (C) which has become  90 (D)).   Here provision is
made for  a child  who is  not able  to understand  the nature  of a  solemn
declaration.   Other amendments  in this  category are  sub-clauses (iv) and
(v) of rule 62 and rule 117.

  7/   The amendments  to rules 43 (iv),  57 and 65 (B)  also fall into this
category.   For example, new language was added to clause (iv) of rule 43 to
indicate that  the Prosecutor's  obligation to  have an  audio or  videotape
recording  of a  suspect's testimony  transcribed must  be met  "as  soon as
practicable  after  the  conclusion  of the  questioning".    This amendment
removes  any suggestion that  the transcript  is to  be provided immediately

following  the questioning - something which could be impossible, especially
in the field.

  Rule  57  deals with  the  transfer of  the  accused  to the  seat  of the
Tribunal.  The  rule   had  formerly  contemplated  only  that  "the   State
authorities concerned" and the Registrar would  arrange the transfer; at the
request of the Dutch  Government, however, the rule was amended to include a
reference  to  the  "authorities  of  the  host  country"  in  arranging the
transfer.  Another  amendment which was  made to  address a  concern of  the
Dutch Government  was the addition of  new language to rule  65 (B) to  give
the Dutch Government a role in the provisional release of an accused.

  8/  Other amendments  in this category  were made to rules 28  (assignment
of  judges to  review indictments),  37 (A)  (Prosecutor's regulations),  40
(provisional   measures),  90   (D)   (witness's  privilege   against  self-
incrimination), 105 (restitution), 108 (timing of  notice of appeal) and 116
bis (expedited appeals process for decisions  dismissing an objection  based
on lack of jurisdiction, or a decision rendered  under rule 77 (contempt  of
the Tribunal) or rule 91 (false testimony)).

  9/   Further amendments  in this category  were made to  rules 42 (A),  93
(adding a requirement that the Prosecutor  disclose evidence of a consistent
pattern of conduct to the defence) and 95 (exclusion of evidence because  of
how it  was obtained).   The  amendment to  rule 95, which  was made  on the
basis of  proposals  from the  Governments of  the  United  Kingdom and  the
United States, puts parties  on notice that although a Trial Chamber is  not
bound by national rules of evidence,  it will refuse to admit  evidence - no
matter how probative - if it was obtained by improper methods.

  10/  The term  "Knin" refers to the  de facto administration  which, prior
to  4 August 1995,  had its  political headquarters in Knin,  in the Krajina
region of Croatia.

  11/   The international  arrest warrant  differs from  the arrest  warrant
issued upon the initial confirmation of the indictment in two respects:   it
is sent to all States, and not simply the State or administration having  de
facto authority  over the region  where the accused  is believed to  reside,
and it is issued  by the full Trial Chamber  consisting of three  judges and
not simply a single judge.



This document has been posted online by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA). Reproduction and dissemination of the document - in electronic and/or printed format - is encouraged, provided acknowledgement is made of the role of the United Nations in making it available.

Date last posted: 18 December 1999 16:30:10
Comments and suggestions: esa@un.org