The Right to Self-representation in International Criminal Trial: Interaction with the Principle to an Expeditious Trial – Case Study: The International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia

Abstract: On 25 May 1993, the United Nation Security Council took the extraordinary and unprecedented step to establish the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) as means for restoration and maintenance of international peace and security. This was a major event for the all those who are concerned about serious breaches of international humanitarian law and the introduction of laws designated to protect human rights. No doubt, people of the former Yugoslavia are beneficiaries of the ICTY. Armed conflicts in that region made many people suffer, being victims of the horrific atrocities. While the world saw that on television, I was growing up with the fear and threat of armed conflicts in the region. Starting from Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo and the last one that I experienced, the internal armed conflict in Macedonia. During these conflicts thousands of people were killed, many injured, millions left their homes as refugees or internal displaced people. Their homes were the mountains and the open sky, or the refugee camps. I still remember the year of 1999 when half of million people from Kosovo became refuges in Macedonia. My parent’s house was overcrowded with relatives from Kosovo, forcefully deported from the Serbian forces in there. People were telling what they have seen, and what they have suffered. Some of them lost their brothers, sisters, mother, father, sons and daughters. Their life changed forever, they had to gain forces to live the life without their most loved one. The conflict in Bosnia was even more horrific, with more than 100 000 people murdered. The world was in shock after the Srebrenica massacre, the Europe’s worst massacre after the Holocaust where more than 7000 Muslim men were killed. Overall, the conflicts in former Yugoslavia did make victims and perpetrators from all sides, Bosnian, Serbian, Croatian, Albanian from Kosovo etc. Families of the victims were seeking for justice, looking forward to see justice be done. People who live and lived there after witnessing and being victims of the horrific atrocities have to put their lives there together. The ICTY was established with the belief that bringing to justice persons responsible for alleged crimes committed in the former Yugoslavia. The ICTY achieved a tremendous results, first, by prosecuting the alleged perpetrators has removed the criminal element from the region. Many political and military leaders, the rank and common criminals were indicted, and second, it has provided a forum for the suffering of the victims to be recorded and revealed. Beside the achievements, still there is a criticism that criminal trials are lasting forever; many victims have not seen yet the justice to be done. The lengthy trials in ICTY contributed to the disappointments of the victims. This dissatisfaction of the victims was expressed most recently after the appearance in the trial in Hague of the Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic. In the end of October 2009 Karadzic did not appear in the courtroom in Hague while asking for more extra time to prepare his defence as he was determined to defend himself. The international media were showing the protest of the Mothers of victims of Srebrenica protesting in front of the ICTY headquarters in Hague. The Times newspaper on 27 October 2009 brought some of protesters disappointments from the fear of repeat of the trial of former President of Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic who, died in the ICTY detaining cell in 2006, after four years trial with many delays. As one of the mothers on protest said, “They cannot do this like Milosevic, he died and justice died with him. We know there is enough evidence against Karadzic and we pray it will not take time because we need justice.” Justice is necessary for everyone; justice is most important for the victims and for all people in that region. Justice must be delivered on time, thus victims can see that justice is done and not denied as many scholars argue, “delayed justice is denied justice”.