* Judge, Iran­United States Claims Tribunal. Judge McDonald served as a Judge at the ICTY from
November 1993 through to November 1999. Between November 1997 and November 1999, Judge
McDonald presided as the President of the ICTY. The views expressed herein are those of the author in
her individual capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of the Iran­United States Claims
Tribunal, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia or the United Nations. The
author wishes to express her gratitude to Angela M. Banks for her invaluable research assistance and
Michael K. McDonald for his significant editorial work.
1 First Annual Report of the ICTY to the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations. UN doc.
A/49/342-S/1994/1007, 29 August 1994, paras 24­42 (providing a full discussion of the difficulties
that the Tribunal initially faced).
2 The first few years were particularly challenging and, without the tenacity of President Cassese and the
tireless efforts Richard J. Goldstone, Prosecutor, the Tribunal may not have survived.
3 Sentencing Judgment, Tadic´ (IT-94­1-T), Trial Chamber, 14 July 1997; Opinion and Judgment, Tadic´
(IT-94­1-T), Trial Chamber, 7 May 1997.
..............................................................................................................................................................
Journal of International Criminal Justice 2 (2004), 558­571
Journal of International Criminal Justice 2, 2 Oxford University Press, 2004. All rights reserved
Problems, Obstacles and
Achievements of the ICTY
Gabrielle Kirk McDonald*
1. Introduction
When I compare my experience at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) with my service as a federal judge in the United States, where I had
the benefit of an established infrastructure and staff, with rules of procedure and
evidence and clear precedent to look to, the progress of the Tribunal is absolutely
amazing. When we 11 original Judges met in The Hague in November of 1993, we
had none of that. We had no premises, no permanent staff and, critically, we had no
legal framework to guide the work of the prosecution staff and the Judges.1
In light of
these difficulties, it is indeed a major accomplishment that the Tribunal not only has
survived to mark its 10th anniversary, but has developed into the effective institution
it is today.2
Serving as Presiding Judge over the first full trial of the Tribunal was certainly a
high point for me personally during the six years I was with the Tribunal.3
In addition
to myself, the Trial Chamber consisted of my able colleagues and dear friends, Judge
Ninian Stephen and Judge Lal Vohrah. It faced major challenges in interpreting and
applying the Rules of Procedure and Evidence without precedent and crafting
procedures to make the trial efficient that were not addressed by the Rules. Much has
been written about that trial and the jurisprudence it spawned and, as much as I am
Problems, Obstacles and Achievements of the ICTY 559
4 See, e.g. G.K. McDonald, `Trial Procedures and Practices', in G.K. McDonald and O. Swaak-Goldman
(eds), Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law (The Hague: Kluwer Law
International, 2000) 546­622, at 559­574; M.P. Scharf, Balkan Justice (Durham, North Carolina:
Carolina Academic Press, 1997); K.D. Askin, `Reflections on Some of the Most Significant Achievements
of the ICTY', 37 New England Law Review (2003) 903­914; T. Meron, `Answering for War Crimes:
Lessons from the Balkans', 76 Foreign Affairs (1997) 2­8, at 6­7.
5 First Annual Report of the ICTY, supra note 1, at para. 84.
6 Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1998). UN doc.
S/25704, 3 May 1993, para 125; see also Art. 25, UN Charter.
7 Article 29 ICTYSt. (`States shall co-operate with the International Tribunal in the investigation and
prosecution of persons accused of committing serious violations of international humanitarian law.
States shall comply without undue delay with any request for assistance or an order issued by a Trial
Chamber').
8 See D.A. Mundis, `Reporting Non-Compliance: Rule 7bis', in R. May et al. (eds), Essays on ICTY Procedure
and Evidence in Honour of Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001)
421­438, at 421 (`In the event that States fail to comply with the orders and decisions of the Tribunal,
the Tribunal possesses no independent police or military force to ensure compliance. Rather, as a
subsidiary organ of the Security Council, the Tribunal must look to that body to enforce its orders in the
event of non-compliance by States.').
9 First Annual Report of the ICTY, supra note 1, at para. 86; see also Art. 41, UN Charter (authorizing the
Security Council to decide what measures are necessary to give effect to its decisions).
tempted, I will not follow that tack.4
Rather, in this paper, I will discuss the effect of the
Tribunal's lack of direct enforcement powers on its efforts to function effectively when
confronted with overwhelming non-compliance by states. I will also provide a brief
assessment of the Tribunal's contributions and its impact on the former
Yugoslavia.
2. The Problem of Enforcement
Unlike municipal criminal judicial systems, the Tribunal is not part of a framework
that ensures that its arrest warrants and other orders will be executed. Also, unlike the
Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals, it does not have the support of the Allied Powers
that wielded full authority and control over Germany and Japan. Rather, the Tribunal
must rely on states and international organizations to carry out these functions. A
state's obligation to cooperate with the Tribunal `flows from the fact that the Tribunal
has been established by a decision of the Security Council taken under Chapter VII of
the Charter. That decision is, therefore, binding on all states by virtue of Article 25 of
the United Nations Charter.'5
States, therefore, have a binding obligation to `take
whatever steps are required to implement the decision'.6
Article 29 of the Statute of
the Tribunal sets forth the obligation of all states to cooperate with the Tribunal and
comply with its requests for assistance or orders.7
However, the Tribunal does not have
the direct power to compel this cooperation.8
Instead, in the event of non-compliance,
it must rely on the Security Council to enforce its orders and requests.9
While I was a member of the Tribunal, a number of measures were taken to
ameliorate the consequences of non-cooperation. For example, Rule 61 was adopted,
which enabled a Trial Chamber to receive evidence of the commission of crimes when
an arrest warrant was not executed. This and other rules called for the President to
560 JICJ 2 (2004), 558­571
10 See Rules 7bis, 11, 13, 59 and 61 ICTY RPE.
11 There are various forms of cooperation that may fit within the rubric of Security Council Resolution
827, including passing implementing legislation. The Tribunal lacks a facility for the incarceration of
persons convicted by the Tribunal and, thus, it enters into enforcement of sentences agreements. Also,
states are called upon to agree to accept persons who fear for their safety after testifying. Financial
contributions to the Tribunal's Trust Fund are also needed. The Dayton Peace Agreement reiterates the
duty of parties to cooperate with the Tribunal, including the NATO peacekeeping force. See, e.g. Sixth
Annual Report of the ICTY to the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations. UN doc.
A/54/187-S/1999/846, 25 August 1999, paras 186­202 (addressing the importance of state
assistance with regard to implementing legislation, the enforcement of sentences and voluntary
contributions); Fifth Annual Report of the ICTY to the General Assembly and Security Council of the United
Nations. UN doc. A/53/219-S/1998/737, 10 August 1998, paras 248­270 (same); Fourth Annual
Report of the ICTY to the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations. UN doc.
A/52/375-S/1997/729, 18 September 1997, paras 148­170 (same); Third Annual Report of the ICTY to
the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations. UN doc. A/51/292-S/1996/665, 16
August 1996, paras 181­198 (same). A discussion of these cooperation obligations is beyond the scope
of this article, although President Cassese and I both developed contacts with states and organizations,
seeking this support.
12 When the judges first met, on 17 November 1993, Carl-August Fleischhauer, the Under-Secretary-
General for Legal Affairs of the United Nations, told us that we could expect little cooperation in the
gathering of evidence, the hearing of witnesses and the arrest and surrender of the accused from the
states in the former Yugoslavia. ICTY, Press Release ­ `Representative of United Nations Secretary-
General Declares Open the First Meeting of International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia', 17 November 1993, at 3 (on file with author).
13 R. Gutman, A Witness to Genocide (New York: Macmillan, 1993) 151.
report state non-compliance to the Security Council.10
Ultimately, however, these
procedures were merely tools, used to increase the likelihood of gaining the
cooperation and compliance of states and international organizations, without which
the Tribunal could not even begin to fulfil its mandate.11
Only the Security Council
had the power to take action to enforce the duty of cooperation.
A. Rule 61
When the Judges met for the first time in The Hague, we were well aware that the
Tribunal would face non-cooperation from some, if not all, of the republics of the
former Yugoslavia, which, at that time, were still embroiled in conflict.12
Some in the
international community even thought it best to establish a tribunal only after the
conflict in the region came to a close.13
Others doubted that major figures would or
Problems, Obstacles and Achievements of the ICTY 561
14 Ibid., at 150­151 and 154 (reporting that `Kalshoven [Chairman of the UN Commissin of Experts] says
he was instructed by "authoritative persons" in the UN not to pursue Serbian politicians such as
Soloban Miloševic´ . . . and Radovan Karadžic´'); ibid., at 155 (however, Kalshoven denies making this
statement); First Annual Report of the ICTY, supra note 1, at paras 43­45 (discussing Tribunal skeptics);
see also `War Crimes Tribunal marks 10th anniversary', Deutsche Presse-Agentur (11 November 2003).
15 This proposal provided that when the relevant national authorities have failed to execute, in good faith,
an order for the accused to appear, issued by a judge of the Tribunal, and when this order provides that
the hearing may be held if the accused fails to comply with the order to appear, the Trial Chamber, or a
Judge of the Trial Chamber, may, upon motion by the Prosecutor, initiate proceedings to preserve
evidence. This proposal also provided that all evidence admitted during such a proceeding would be
made public and the accused would be entitled to have counsel appointed on his behalf during such a
proceeding.
See McDonald, supra note 4, at 555 (footnote omitted) (citing Doc. No. IT-INF.5/Add.2, 18 January
1994); see also L.C. Vohrah, `Pre-trial Procedures and Practices', in G.K. McDonald and O.
Swaak-Goldman (eds), Substantive and Procedural Aspects of International Criminal Law (The Hague:
Kluwer Law International, 2000) 479­545, at 503 (discussing the legality of trials in absentia).
16 The ICC has provided for a similar procedure in its rules. See Rules 125­126 ICC RPE.
17 The accused is thus made a pariah in his own state, subject to arrest if he attempts to leave.
18 At the time that the Third Annual Report of the ICTY was submitted, the ICTY had indicted 75 individuals,
yet only seven were in custody. Third Annual Report of the ICTY, supra note 11, at paras 8 and 88.
should appear `in the dock'.14
Given these well founded fears of non-cooperation, a
proposal for trials in absentia was advanced. While I opposed any trial in the absence of
the accused, unless he absconded after submitting himself to the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, I did propose a procedure that would have allowed for the preservation of
evidence, should the accused fail to appear.15
It was through a mediation of these
concerns that Rule 61 was established.16
Pursuant to Rule 61, if a state has failed to execute an arrest warrant, a Trial
Chamber may conduct a public proceeding, in which it receives documentary and
testimonial evidence from the Prosecutor. If it finds that there are reasonable grounds
to support a finding that the accused has committed any or all of the crimes charged,
the Chamber essentially `reconfirms' the indictment and an international arrest
warrant is issued.17
Further, the Chamber may find that the state has, therefore, failed
to cooperate with the Tribunal and, in such a case, the President can notify the
Security Council.
These proceedings proved to serve a number of valuable purposes at a time when
states failed to execute the Tribunal's warrants and orders.18
First, the proceedings
gave some solace to victims, as an opportunity to testify about the atrocities they
alleged to have been subjected to and thereby inform the international community of
the egregious violations that had occurred during the conflict. Secondly, although not
trials, they permitted the Tribunal to publicize its work and make its existence known.
Finally, they were one method of triggering the reporting of state non-compliance by
562 JICJ 2 (2004), 558­571
19 ICTY, `Rule 61: The Voice of the Victims', Bulletin No. 3 (1995), available online at http://www.un.org/
icty?BL/03art2e.htm (visited on 7 January 2003) (unofficial UN document, issued by the ICTY, Press
and Information Office). It has been suggested that these proceedings may have contributed to the
change in policy that resulted in SFOR's beginning to detain accused persons in the summer of 1997.
See B. Hildreth, `Hunting the Hunters: The United Nations Unleashes its Latest Weapon in the Fight
Against Fugitive War Crime Suspects ­ Rule 61', 6 Tulane Journal of International and Comparative Law
(1998) 499­524, at 511.
20 Third Annual Report of the ICTY, supra note 11, at paras 50­61.
21 Ibid., at para. 160 (referring to `The memory of Srebrenica', Le Monde, 6 July 1996 (original in French));
see also Fourth Annual Report of the ICTY, supra note 11, at para. 125 (noting that `internal and external
factors have shaped the evolution of the Tribunal in the media').
22 Rule 11 allows the President to report a state's failure to comply with a deferral request to the Security
Council. If a state does not permanently discontinue proceedings against an individual already tried by
the Tribunal, then the President can report this behaviour to the Security Council. See Rule 13 ICTY
RPE. When a state refuses or fails to execute an arrest warrant or a transfer order, Rule 59 enables the
President to report this obstruction to the Security Council. Finally, Rule 7bis provides a means for the
President to report state non-compliance that is not covered by the previously mentioned rules.
Pursuant to Rule 7bis(A), a Judge or Trial Chamber can advise the President of non-compliance related
to proceedings before that Judge or Trial Chamber, and the President is obligated to report the matter to
the Security Council. If a state fails to comply with a request from the Prosecutor pursuant to Rule 8, 39
or 40, the Prosecutor can notify the President and, if the President is satisfied that a state has failed to
comply, the President must report the matter to the Security Council. See Rule 7bis(B) ICTY RPE.
23 Antonio Cassese served as the Tribunal's first President from November 1993 through to November
1997. Four of the reports were made pursuant to Rule 61 and one, based on information provided to
him by then prosecutor Richard J. Goldstone, regarding the unfettered attendance of indicted persons at
a funeral in Belgrade, was seemingly made pursuant to Rule 59. Mundis, supra note 8, at 426, note 18.
24 Letter dated 16 September 1996 from the President 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 Addressed to the President of the Security Council. UN doc. S/1996/763,
reprinted in ICTY Yearbook 1996, 219 (telling the Security Council that Trial Chamber II had certified
that the Republic of Croatia and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina failed to execute an arrest
warrant for Ivica Rajic´); Letter dated 11 July 1996 from the President 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 Addressed to the President of the Security Council. UN doc.
S/1996/556, reprinted in ICTY Yearbook 1996, 214­218 (notifying the Security Council of Republika
Srpksa's and the FRY's failure to arrest Radovan Karadžic´ and Ratko Mladic´); Letter dated 22 May 1996
from the President of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious
the President to the Security Council.19
Five such proceedings were held from
late-1995 through to mid-1996, including one involving the indictments against
Radovan Karadžic´ and Ratko Mladic´.20
They certainly garnered the attention of the
media, as one report stated that, `[t]he ICTY is keeping alive in our consciousness a
demand for justice which could otherwise be forgotten'.21
B. Reports of Non-Compliance and Responses
In addition to Rule 61, there are other rules that concern the reporting of
non-compliance to the Security Council.22
Unfortunately, this enforcement scheme
has never truly worked effectively because the Security Council has failed to respond
in a meaningful way. During his presidency, Antonio Cassese reported state
non-compliance to the Security Council on five occasions.23
Each of the states and
entities in the former Yugoslavia were the subject of his reports.24
The Security
Problems, Obstacles and Achievements of the ICTY 563
Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia Since
1991 Addressed to the President of the Security Council. UN doc. S/1996/364, reprinted in ICTY Yearbook
1996, 213 (reporting the presence of General Mladic´ and Colonel Šljivančanin in Belgrade, the previous
day, for a funeral and the FRY's failure to execute the Tribunal's orders); Letter dated 24 April 1996 from
the President 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 Addressed
to the President of the Security Council. UN doc. S/1996/319, reprinted in ICTY Yearbook 1996, 212
(informing the Security Council of the FRY's failure to arrest the `Vukovar Three' ­ Mile Mrkšic´,
Miroslav Radic´ and Colonel Veselin Šljivančanin); Letter dated 31 October 1995 from the President 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 to the President of the Security
Council. UN doc. S/1995/910, reprinted in ICTY Yearbook 1995, 288­289 (reporting the failure or
refusal of the Bosnian­Serb Administration in Pale to execute an arrest warrant for Dragan Nikolic´).
25 Mundis, supra note 8, at 425, nn. 15­22.
26 ICTY, Press Release ­ `The President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
Calls for a Sports Boycott', 13 June 1996, available online at http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/
p088-e.htm (visited 7 January 2004).
27 J. Cina and D. Tolbert, `The Office of the President: A Third Voice', in R. May et al. (eds), Essays on ICTY
Procedure and Evidence in Honour of Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (The Hague: Kluwer Law International,
2001) 85­97, at 94.
28 G.K. McDonald, `International Support for International Criminal Tribunals and an International
Criminal Court', 13 American University International Law Review (1998) 1413­1439, at 1431.
29 Fourth Annual Report of the ICTY, supra note 11, at para. 175.
30 McDonald, supra note 28, at 1429­1430 (noting the cooperation of the United States, Great Britain and
the Netherlands).
Council issued a resolution with respect to only one report, with three others meriting
only a statement by the President of the Security Council, and a fourth eliciting no
response at all.25
Under these circumstances, it is not surprising that President Cassese
sought to garner the support of the international community by calling for the
expulsion of Yugoslavia from the Olympic Games for its failure to arrest Radovan
Karadžic´ and Ratko Mladic´,26
and `making entreaties to States, the Security Council,
the General Assembly, the Council of Europe and the Peace Implementation Council
on the obligation to arrest indictees'.27
As of spring 1998, however, the Tribunal had issued some 205 arrest warrants and
only six had been executed by the states.28
The Tribunal acknowledged the effect of
this lack of cooperation in its Fourth Annual Report, transmitted to the General
Assembly and the Security Council: `. . . the Tribunal remains a partial failure ­
through no fault of its own ­ because the vast majority of indictees continue to remain
free, seemingly enjoying absolute immunity.'29
During the first year of my presidency, however, the Tribunal was benefiting from
increased cooperation from international organizations and by the `collective
activism' of some states.30
The Tribunal had a record number of 27 persons in custody,
brought about by the support of the NATO-led Stabilisation Force (SFOR) in detaining
564 JICJ 2 (2004), 558­571
31 Fifth Annual Report of the ICTY, supra note 11, at 1 (summary); R.S. Gelbard, `Dramatic Steps Toward
Lasting Peace, Stability in Bosnia', USIA Electronic Journal, April 1998, available online at http://
usinfo.state.gov/journals/itps/0498/ijpe/pj28toc.htm (visited on 8 January 2004) (noting that it was
pressure from the United States that was `largely responsible for the voluntary surrender of ten indicted
war criminals' in 1997); see also M. Scharf, `The Tools for Enforcing International Criminal Justice in
the New Millennium: Lessons from the Yugoslavia Tribunal', 48 DePaul Law Review (2000) 925­979,
at 959­963 (discussing change in SFOR's policy regarding the arrest of war criminals).
32 Fifth Annual Report of the ICTY, supra note 11, paras 110, 114 and 123.
33 Ibid., at para. 276.
34 Three of these reports, made pursuant to Rule 11, dealt with the FRY's failure to defer to the competence
of the Tribunal. See Sixth Annual Report of the ICTY, supra note 11, para. 94 (`The Security Council was
notified of the continuing failure of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to arrest and transfer the three
accused on four occasions ­ 24 April 1996 and 8 September, 2 October and 8 December 1998.'). A
fourth report concerned the refusal of the FRY to provide the Prosecutor and her investigators with the
travel documents, necessary to enter the territory to begin investigations, as requested by the Security
Council in Resolution 1160 (1998). Ibid., at para. 95. A fifth report related to a pattern of
non-compliance by the FRY. Ibid., at para 96. I also reported the non-compliance of the Republic of
Croatia for its refusal to arrest and transfer two persons indicted by the Tribunal. Seventh Annual Report
of the ICTY to the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations. UN doc. A/55/273-S/2000/
777, 7 August 2000, para. 160. The last three reports were made pursuant to Rule 7bis, which was
adopted in July 1997. Fourth Annual Report of the ICTY, supra note 11, at para. 56. Like Rule 59, under
7bis, the President may report to the Security Council without a prior finding of non-compliance by a
Trial Chamber. Rule 7bis was found to be `within the authority of the International Tribunal' in the
Blaškic´ subpoena Appeals Chamber Decision. Judgment, Blaškic´ IT-95­14-AR108bis), Appeals
Chamber, 29 October 1997, para. 34. In making the findings under Rule 7bis, I declined to make a
finding on the character of the conflict, which I considered to be the province of the Trial or Appeal
Chambers.
35 Mundis, supra note 8, at 432.
36 SC Res. 1208 (1998).
accused and the `voluntary surrenders' encouraged by the United States.31
The
Prosecutor's practice of issuing sealed indictments also made the accused wary of
being `snatched' by SFOR.32
The Tribunal engaged in such an unprecedented amount
of pre-trial, trial and sentencing activity that the Fifth Annual Report stated `. . . [t]he
present reporting period has been characterised by the unprecedented growth and
development of the institution, which has now, without any doubt, become a
fully-fledged international criminal institution'.33
This is further proof positive that
the cooperation of states and international organizations is essential to the effective
functioning of an international criminal institution.
Despite these steps forward during the first year of my presidency, in the second
year, we witnessed another tide of violence in the former Yugoslavia, as tensions in
Kosovo exploded. During this year, I was forced to make six reports of state
non-compliance to the Security Council.34
In response to my fourth report of
non-compliance, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1207, said to be `undoubt-
edly the strongest response to any of the reports made by the President of the
Tribunal'.35
This resolution unequivocally ordered the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(FRY) to transfer three indicted persons and facilitate Tribunal access to Kosovo.36
Yet,
even this strong response failed to bring an end to the blatant non-compliance.
In each of my addresses to the General Assembly, I called upon that body not to
Problems, Obstacles and Achievements of the ICTY 565
37 ICTY, Press Release ­ `Address to the United Nations General Assembly, Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald,
President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia', 8 November 1999,
available online at http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p445-e.htm (visited 1 December 2003); ICTY,
Press Release ­ `Address to the United Nations General Assembly, Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald,
President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia', 19 November 1998,
available online at http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/SPE981119.htm (visited 1 December 2003); see
also Sixth Annual Report of the ICTY, supra note 11, at paras 5­6 and 90­100 (noting Presidential reports
of non-compliance to the Security Council and additional efforts to seek international support); Fifth
Annual Report of the ICTY, supra note 11, at 229 (recalling Presidential statements to the Peace
Implementation Council regarding repeated violations of international law).
38 ICTY, Press Release ­ `ICTY President McDonald Addresses the Security Council', 19 April 2000,
available online at http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p4349-e.htm (visited 1 December 2003).
39 These are organizations overseeing the peace agreements in Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina. See,
e.g. Sixth Annual Report of the ICTY, supra note 11, at 229; ICTY, Press Release ­ `President McDonald
Writes to NATO Ministers of Foreign Affairs on Situation in Kosovo', 8 April 1999, available online at
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/p394-e.htm (visited 1 December 2003); see also Cina and Tolbert,
supra note 27, at 93­95 (discussing the expanding role of the President and means used by Presidents
Cassese and McDonald to garner state cooperation to obtain accused in custody and to obtain adequate
resources for the Tribunal).
40 Letter from President McDonald to the President of the Security Council Concerning Outstanding Issues of State
Non-Compliance. UN doc. S/1999/1117, 2 November 1999. See also ICTY, Press Release ­ `Letter from
President McDonald to the President of the Security Council Concerning Outstanding Issues of State
Non-Compliance', 2 November 1999, available online at http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/
p4444-e.htm (visited 1 December 2003).
countenance these repeated violations of international law.37
I also addressed the
Security Council twice on this issue, noting that `recent events in Kosovo threaten to
destabilize further the Balkan region'.38
I also informed the Contact Group, the Peace
Implementation Council and the North Atlantic Council of the non-compliance of the
FRY.39
Finally, before my departure from the Tribunal, I sent a final letter report to the
Security Council on outstanding issues of state non-compliance, stating:
On the verge of the twenty-first century, it is simply unacceptable that territories have become
safe-havens for individuals indicted for the most serious offences against humanity. It must be
made absolutely clear to such States that this behaviour is legally ­ as well as morally ­ wrong.
The Security Council has the authority and wherewithal to rectify this situation. For the benefit
of all the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, I urge you to act.40
The international community largely ignored these and other appeals and we saw the
violence in Kosovo escalate, and, once again, horrific atrocities were being committed
in the region where the Tribunal was to bring peace. Perhaps the conflict re-emerged,
this time in Kosovo, precisely because of the impunity that evolved as a result of the
refusal of the international community to demand compliance with the Tribunal that
it had established.
The Tribunal did its job as best it could, hindered by the absence of direct
enforcement powers. Both the Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber in the Blaškic´
subpoena decisions found that the Tribunal had the power to issue binding orders for
566 JICJ 2 (2004), 558­571
41 Judgment, Blaškic´ (IT-95­14-AR108bis), Appeals Chamber, 29 October 1997, para. 26; Judgment,
Blaškic´ (IT-95­14-PT), Trial Chamber, 18 July 1997, para 150; see also G. Sluiter, `Obtaining Evidence
for the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: An Overview and Assessment of
Domestic Implementing Legislation', 44 Netherlands International Law Review (1998) 87­113, at 88
(`. . . both the Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber, have re-affirmed the duty requiring UN member
states to provide the Tribunals with evidence necessary for a fair and effective prosecution of crimes
within their jurisdiction.'). The Trial Chamber also concluded that the binding order could be
denominated a subpoena, as provided for in Rule 54, even when directed to states, since reporting
non-compliance to the Security Council was in the nature of a penalty, but considered that `the heart of
this dispute in fact concerns the International Tribunal's authority and power to issue binding
compulsory order, rather than the particular nomenclature used for such orders'. Judgment, Blaškic´,
Trial Chamber, 18 July 1997, paras 14 and 62. The Appeals Chamber reversed the Trial Chamber,
holding that a binding order addressed to states could not be denominated a subpoena, and that a
binding order may not be addressed to state officials acting in their official capacity. Judgment, Blaškic´
(IT-95­14-AR108bis), Appeals Chamber, 29 October 1997.
42 Judgment, Blaškic´ (IT-95­14-AR108bis), Appeals Chamber, 29 October 1997, para. 33; Judgment,
Blaškic´ (IT-95­14-PT), Trial Chamber, 18 July 1997, para. 62.
43 Judgment, Blaškic´ (IT-95­14-AT108bis), Appeals Chamber, 29 October 1997, para. 61.
44 Institute for War and Peace Reporting, `Louise Arbour ­ Farewell Interview', IWPR Tribunal Update 141
(9 September 1999), available online at http://www.iwpr.net/archive/tri/tri­141­1­eng.txt (visited
19 November 2003).
45 ICTY, Press Release ­ `President Miloševic´ and Four Other Senior FRY Officials Indicted for Murder,
Persecution, and Deportation in Kosovo', 27 May 1999, available online at http://www.un.org/icty/
pressreal/p403-e.htm (visited 12 January 2004).
46 Yugoslavia risked losing $50 million in assistance from the United States if it did not demonstrate
compliance with the Tribunal by 31 March 2001. Slobodan Miloševic´ was arrested by Yugoslav police
on the day before the deadline. `Official: Miloševic´ Arrested', CNN.com (30 March 2001) available online
at http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/03/30/milosevic.arrest.02/ (visited 15 December
2003). Miloševic´ was transferred to the ICTY on 29 June 2001 ­ the day that Western officials met for
an international donor's conference for Yugoslavia in Brussels. The conference, which was chaired by
the European Commission and the World Bank, had demanded Miloševic´'s transfer to the ICTY.
Yugoslav officials were hoping to raise $1.3 billion at the conference and they were successful in raising
$1.28 billion. `Billion dollar Yugoslav aid agreed', CNN.com (2 July 2001) available online at http://
www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/europe/06/29/milosevic.aid/ (visited 15 December 2003).
the production of information and evidence to states.41
Both Chambers delineated the
same consequences for a state's failure to abide by the binding order.42
Both Chambers
rejected Croatia's assertion that the Tribunal did not have the power to judge or
determine its national security claims.43
Thus, eight judges agreed that the Tribunal
had the coercive powers that are so necessary for a criminal court. The recognition of
this power created `the most fundamental cultural change around the Tribunal',
according to Louise Arbour, former Prosecutor for the Tribunal.44
Despite all of these efforts by the Tribunal, in the end, as we knew in the beginning,
states, individually, and the international community, collectively, would determine
whether the Tribunal realized its full potential. Slobodan Miloševic´ was indicted a few
months before I left the Tribunal.45
He is currently at trial in The Hague ­ ironically,
the first Serbian national to be transferred to the Tribunal. Miloševic´ was turned over
to the Tribunal because of the collective action of states, threatening to withhold
financial aid to Yugoslavia unless it demonstrated compliance.46
Will the International Criminal Court (ICC) be similarly plagued by state
Problems, Obstacles and Achievements of the ICTY 567
47 Articles 87(5), 87(7), 112(2)(f) ICCSt.
48 J.K. Cogan, `International Criminal Courts and Fair Trials: Difficulties and Prospects', 27 Yale Journal of
International Law (2002) 111­140, at 137, see also Art. 112(2)(f) ICCSt. (the Assembly of State Parties
has the authority to `[c]onsider pursuant to article 87, paragraphs 5 and 7, any question relating to
non-cooperation.'), Art. 87(5) ICCSt. (providing that `[w]here a State not party to this Statute, which
has entered into an ad hoc arrangement or an agreement with the Court, fails to cooperate with
requests pursuant to any such arrangement or agreement, the Court may so inform the Assembly of
States Parties or, where the Security Council referred the matter to the Court, the Security Council'), see
Art. 87(7) ICCSt. (providing that `[w]here a State Party fails to comply with a request to cooperate by the
Court contrary to the provisions of this Statute, thereby preventing the Court from exercising its
functions and powers under this Statute, the Court may make a finding to that effect and refer the
matter to the Assembly of States Parties or, where the Security Council referred the matter to the Court,
to the Security Council').
49 Fifth Annual Report of the ICTY, supra note 11, at paras 105­108. An Expert Group, appointed by the
Secretary-General, made a series of recommendations, including the adoption of new Rules to address
the issue of `prolonged trials'. Report of the Expert Group to Conduct a Review of the Effective Operation and
Functioning of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal
for Rwanda. UN doc. A/54/634, 22 November 1999, paras 89­94. Additional amendments were made
to the Rules after I left the Tribunal in 1999. See D.A. Mundis, `From "Common Law" Towards "Civil
Law"; The Evolution of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence', 14 Leiden Journal of International Law
(2001) 367­382, at 370­374.
50 Compare Art. 7 Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal, 10 December 2003, available online at http://
cpa-iraq.org/audio/20031210 Dec10 Special Tribunal.htm (visited 6 January 2004) (regulating the
duties and powers of investigative judges who are responsible for `investigat[ing] individuals for the
commission of crimes stipulated in [the Statute]) with Art. 15 ICCSt.' (vesting the Prosecutor with the
sole authority to investigate alleged violations of the Rome Statute).
non-compliance? The ICC was established by the Rome Statute and not by the
Security Council. An Assembly of State Parties is given the responsibility to seek to
enforce the ICC's orders,47
but it, too, may face difficulties, `except, perhaps, in
extraordinary cases where there is international political consensus'.48
3. Assessment of the Tribunal
In spite of the obstacle of state non-cooperation, there is much for which we can be
proud. From an institutional perspective, the Tribunal grew in size and stature. The
Security Council approved a request for three additional judges. As more and more
accused were transferred to The Hague, the length of the trials became an issue. New
rules were adopted in 1998, to provide for, among other things, a Pre-Trial Judge, and
25 other Rules were amended to increase trial efficiency.49
Finally, with much
satisfaction, I was able to `cut the ribbon' for two new courtrooms, constructed by
donations from Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States.
The Tribunal has attained these achievements, however, by straining within a
structure established by its Statute, which may not be best suited for trials of complex
international crimes. The Prosecutor is given sole responsibility for conducting the
investigations. The evidence unfolds only during trial. As new tribunals are designed,
it may be appropriate to rethink the singular reliance on the initiation of
investigations by a prosecutor and, instead, provide for the early, active involvement
of Judges to shape the presentation of evidence.50
568 JICJ 2 (2004), 558­571
51 Certainly, the Prosecutor could not carry out these functions because of her responsibility for
prosecuting crimes and the ICTY Statute did not afford the Registrar's position sufficient international
stature.
52 Cina and Tolbert, supra note 27, at 96­97 (for proposals for reform of the Office of the President of the
ICTY).
53 Askin, supra note 4, at 907­910. The contributions have been many. One commentator has noted that
the Tribunal's `most important jurisprudential achievement has been to clarify that rape and other
crimes of sexual violence can constitute genocide, torture, war crimes, or crimes against humanity'.
G.R. Watson, `The Changing Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia', 37 New England Law Review (2003) 871­885, at 872; see also `The ICTY at Ten: A Critical
Assessment of the Major Rulings of the International Criminal Tribunal Over the Past Decade', 37 New
England Law Review (2003) 865­1080 (symposium issue).
Furthermore, during my presidency, it seemed to me that my duties as a Judge were
subjugated by the political demands of the office. I was required to spend an inordinate
amount of time seeking international political support to overcome the effect of state
non-cooperation, especially by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia as the crisis in
Kosovo unfolded, after I assumed office. Additionally, I travelled the world, seeking
enforcement of sentences and witness relocation agreements with numerous states,
and sought financial support. Therefore, although first and foremost a judge, it
appeared to me that I most often functioned as an ambassador. However unantici-
pated, this ambassadorial role perhaps could only be assumed by the President.51
However, future tribunals should not allow the office to be shaped by unanticipated
events such as state non-cooperation and should provide an organizational structure
that could absorb these competing obligations.52
From a global perspective, the contributions of the ad hoc Tribunals for the former
Yugoslavia and for Rwanda are undisputed. First, there has emerged an insistence on
accountability. The culture of impunity that enabled leaders to commit atrocities, free
of criminal culpability, has been irrevocably altered. Secondly, they have demon-
strated the ability of the international community to ensure that individuals accused
of even the most heinous violations of humanitarian law receive fair trials. Thirdly,
the Tribunals have demonstrated that international criminal justice is, indeed,
possible and, thus, have paved the way for the establishment of the ICC and other
courts in Sierra Leone, East Timor and Kosovo. Finally, they have enriched the
jurisprudence of international humanitarian law.53
The Tribunal has contributed more to the jurisprudence of international humani-
tarian law in 10 years than had been developed in the entire half-century since the
Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. As important as this is, the very specific mandate of the
Tribunal should be considered when an assessment is made and it is too early to make
a final judgment about its achievements in this regard. However, the Tribunal has had
a significant impact on the former Yugoslavia and its people, as they strive to put their
lives back together. This horrific conflict was ongoing and increasing with intensity
when the Tribunal was established and it was unrealistic to assume that the mere
establishment of a court, that essentially existed on paper only, could bring an end to
the violence. Unfortunately, there were many atrocities committed in the two-and-a-
half years after the establishment of the Tribunal, but before the Dayton Peace
Problems, Obstacles and Achievements of the ICTY 569
54 These comments are taken from my keynote address at the University of Texas School of Law
conference, entitled `International War Crimes Trials: Making a Difference?'. See G.K. McDonald,
`Assessing the Impact of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia', Keynote
Address at University of Texas School of Law Conference: International War Crimes Trials: Making a
Difference? (6 November 2003) (providing a more detailed discussion of the Outreach Programme) (on
file with author).
55 The downsides of `remote justice', such as its lacking in local relevance, have been recognized. See S.
Power, `How to Try Saddam Hussein. Unpunishable', The New Republic (29 December 2003) 18­21, at
20. The ad hoc tribunals established after the ICTY and the ICTR are `hybrid' courts, composed of local
and international judges. The courts created for Sierra Leone, East Timor and the one envisioned for
Cambodia all utilize a `hybrid' approach. See, generally, L.A. Dickinson, `The Relationship Between
Hybrid Courts and International Courts: The Case of Kosovo', 37 New England Law Review (2003)
1059­1072, at 1059.
Agreement was reached. Furthermore, similar crimes were committed later, during
the conflict in Kosovo. Nevertheless, the indictment and prosecution of persons
responsible for these crimes are crucial elements in the effort to establish a lasting
peace.
Yet, the Tribunal was established with the expectation that bringing to justice
persons responsible for widespread violations of international humanitarian law in
the former Yugoslavia would halt the threat posed by that conflict to international
peace and security, and contribute to the restoration and maintenance of that peace.
In that regard, the effect on the former Yugoslavia has been substantial. First, the
Tribunal has removed a `criminal element' from the region ­ political and military
leaders, the rank and file, and common criminals ­ thereby beginning to lay the
foundation for a lasting peace and, ultimately, reconciliation. Secondly, the Tribunal
developed substantive and procedural law that may be applied by the local courts in
the region. Finally, it provided a forum for the suffering of the victims to be revealed
and recorded, and, thus, the development of a partial historical record, thereby
guarding against revisionism. Whether this has been enough to meet the Tribunal
Statute's lofty and very specific mandate, only time will tell.
However, before the Tribunal can be truly effective and achieve its mandate, the
people in the region must share a consensus that the Court is legitimate. They must
know, understand and appreciate the work of the Tribunal. This was the goal of the
Outreach Programme and any assessment of the Tribunal must include a review of
this programme, which has proven critical to the success of the Tribunal.54
When I
was President, it became apparent to me that the Tribunal was the subject of
widespread misrepresentation in the former Yugoslavia. In a sense, this was not
surprising, for the virulent propaganda machine that enflamed the passions of
victimized and fearful ethnic groups, priming them to respond to the call to violence by
leaders who were motivated by a desire for personal and territorial gains, continued to
preach the same paranoia and falsehoods with respect to the Tribunal.
I realized that there was a need ­ a necessity, really ­ for the Tribunal to do more: to
actually communicate with the people of the former Yugoslavia, living hundreds of
miles away from the Tribunal that had been established for their benefit.55
I sent a
mission to the region, to meet with local and international actors and to discuss ways
570 JICJ 2 (2004), 558­571
56 Proposal for Contribution to the UN Voluntary Fund for the continued operation in 2003 of the ICTY
Outreach Programme at 3 (15 August 2002) (on file with author); see, generally, L.C. Vohrah and J.
Cina, `The Outreach Programme', in R. May et al. (eds), Essays on ICTY Procedure and Evidence in Honour
of Gabrielle Kirk McDonald (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001) 547­557; McDonald, supra
note 54.
57 SC Res. 1503 (2003).
58 Although the Tribunal is now assisting with the development of the War Crimes Chamber in Bosnia, the
national judicial systems previously have been virtually ignored by the Tribunal. One noted
commentator has observed that `[t]he ICTY has had little impact on the region's justice systems or on
war crimes prosecutions and proceedings'. D. Tolbert, `The International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia: Unforeseen Success and Foreseeable Shortcomings', 26 Fall Fletcher Forum of World
Affairs (2002) 7­18, at 18. He notes that this was not a part of the Tribunal's mandate from the Security
Council ­ a `failure that tarnishes the successes that the tribunal has seen'. Ibid.
59 ICTR, Press Release ­ `Ex-Rwandan Prime Minister Jean Kambanda Pleads Guilty to Genocide', 1 May
1998, available online at http://www.ictr.org/wwroot/ENGLISH/PRESSREAL/1998/118.htm (visited
8 January 2004).
60 ICTY, Key Figures of ICTY Cases, 5 January 2004, available online at http://www.un.org/icty/cases/
factsheets/procfact-e.htm (visited 8 January 2004).
61 Ibid.
62 Ibid.
to improve the situation. In 1999, the Outreach Programme was established, to
`provide a comprehensive pro-active information campaign stressing the [Tribunal's]
impartiality and independence, as well as countering the endemic misconceptions
that had prompted widespread disillusionment with the Tribunal in the former
Yugoslavia'.56
In October 2003, I visited Sarajevo, to get a first-hand view of the
activities of the Outreach Programme, and was impressed with the outstanding
quality and breadth of its projects. However, I found that there is still a pressing need
to explain the work of the Tribunal, especially the components of its `completion
strategy'. Thus, the Security Council appropriately encouraged `the ICTY and ICTR
Presidents, Prosecutors, and Registrars to develop and improve their outreach
programmes'.57
This enterprise is critical to the Tribunal's achievement of its
mandate, for it has established a necessary and meaningful link between the work of
the Tribunal and the people of the former Yugoslavia.58
4. Conclusion
Looking back 10 years, the nay-sayers clearly outnumbered those who expected this
novel experiment to develop into the fully functioning Tribunal it is today, especially
with so many military and political leaders of the conflict in the dock. The first trial of a
national leader indicted while still in office is now well under way in The Hague and
the interim President of Rwanda entered a plea of guilty at the Rwanda Tribunal
several years ago.59
Ninety-one accused have been brought to the Tribunal.60
Twenty-eight trials have been conducted for 46 individuals.61
The Tribunal has
completed construction of the infrastructure and legal framework necessary for the
effective operation of the Tribunal. Yet, 20 indictees remain at liberty,62
including
Problems, Obstacles and Achievements of the ICTY 571
major leaders ­ not because of any fault of the Tribunal, but because the international
community has not squarely given it the support it needs to truly meet its mandate.
This enforcement scheme is not unusual in international law, but it requires that
justice and power operate in tandem. In its early years, as the Tribunal sought to
discharge its mandate, it encountered blatant non-cooperation ­ obstructionism,
really. As required by its constituent documents, it relied on the Security Council to
compel compliance. The Tribunal's President reported non-compliance; however, the
Security Council failed to adopt concrete measures in response to these reports. For so
long, the NATO peacekeeping force failed to detain persons indicted by the Tribunal.
Faced with these obstacles, creative procedures were adopted so that the Tribunal
would not just sit idly by, waiting for its warrants and orders to be executed. In
addition to the reports of non-compliance, the President worked to increase the profile
of the Tribunal, seeking to obtain support from the international community. These
procedures and efforts may well have saved the Tribunal from early extinction.
If justice is to support the maintenance of peace in the former Yugoslavia, however,
it must be from a judicial system that is understood and considered to be legitimate by
those for whom it was established. Thus, the Tribunal's Outreach Programme is
critical to the achievement of its mandate. This is the only concrete link between the
Tribunal, located hundreds of miles away from the scene of the commission of the
crimes, and the victims of these crimes. Therefore, the proactive information
campaign that informs the people of the region of the impartiality and independence of
the Tribunal and the associations that the Programme has developed with the local
legal communities, non-governmental organizations, the media, educational insti-
tutions, victims' associations, women's groups and other professional bodies must be
supported and enhanced.
The ICC is also a beneficiary of the experiences of the Tribunal. Its effectiveness will
be impacted by the level of cooperation that it actually receives from the states that
have evidenced a willingness to provide such help by ratifying its treaty. At a
minimum, however, the successes of the ICTY and the International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda, in conjunction with the birth of the ICC, demonstrate that
international criminal justice is well on the road to no longer being an experiment, but
a reality.