SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC CASE – A CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

Slobodan Milosevic was born on 20 August 1941 in Pozarevac (Serbia in present). In 1964 he
graduated from the Law Faculty of the University of Belgrade. Milosevic joined communist party
when he was 18-year-old and successfully took over as head of the Serbian Communist party in
1987, and as party leader, he challenged the Yugoslav federal government, championed Serbian
control of the autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina, and advocated stridently socialist
economic policy.1 In 1989 he was elected President of the Presidency of the Socialist Republic of
Serbia (now Serbia). After being elected as the president of republic of Serbia, in 1997 he was
elected as president of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. While the former Yugoslavia was dissolving,
Serbia was engaged in successive conflict with Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia to maintain the federal
state2. Serbia was also struggling to keep Kosovo as a part of Serbia. 3

In March 1999, after supporting the repression of ethnic Albanians and the breakdown of dealing
between separatists and the Serbs, NATO initiated bombing campaign over military targets
throughout Yugoslavia, and thousands of ethnic Albanians were forcibly deported from Kosovo by
Yugoslav forces. In June, Milosevic agreed for withdrawal from Kosovo, and NATO peacekeepers
entered the region. 4

During the summer of 2000, Milosevic with the hope to prove himself on democratic front, called
up for an early election. However, his plan didn’t work and voters elected the opposition
candidate Vojislav Kostunica, a constitutional lawyer. Milosevic initially refused to concede defeat,
but after several hundred thousand Serbs went on for a nonviolent protest to demand the end of
his 13 years of rule, he stepped down.5

In May 1999 the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which was established in
May 1993 by United Nation Security Council, indicted Slobodan Milosevic with four top aides.
Milosevic was then arrested in April 2001 from his home at Belgrade, after 26-hour armed standoff.

1
Infoplease ‘Slobodan Milosevic Biography’(Infoplease) <https://www.infoplease.com/people/slobodan-milosevic>
accessed 11 April 2020
2
L. Sell, Slobodan Milosevic and the Destruction of Yugoslavia (Chapel Hill, N.C.:
Duke University Press, 2002)
3
D. Leurdijk and D. Zandee, Kosovo from Crisis to Crisis (Aldershot: Ashgate,2001)
4
Infoplease (n 1)
5
Gregory L Schulte, ‘Regime Change Without Military Force: Lessons from Overthrowing Milosevic’ (2013) 4/2 PRISM <
www.jstor.org/stable/26469809> Accessed 11 April 2020
He was charged with corruption and stealing state funds during his 13-year rule. Milosevic
surrendered after he was promised that he will be given a fair trial and that he will not be handed
over to United nation war crimes tribunal at the Hague.

He was, however, turned over to the UN in June. He was charged with committing crimes against
humanity in Kosovo and Croatia. In November the U.N. war crimes tribunal charged him with
genocide. The indictment stemmed from his alleged activity during the 1992–1995 Bosnian war. His
trail began started at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 2001. 6

THE TRIAL

The trail began at ICTY in the Trail Chamber III which composed of judges. The Presiding Judge was
Richard May (United Kingdom), criminal law and evidence specialist. Accompanied by two other
judges, Patrick Robinson (Jamaica) and O-Gon Kwon (S. Korea).

Carla Del Ponte, former Attorney General of Switzerland was the ICTY Prosecutor, and he headed
the Prosecution team comprising of other two advocates from U.K. and Holland. 7 Milosevic who
wished to defend himself was without any lawyer. However, in August 2001, to make sure rights of
Milosevic are protected and the trail proceeds fairly, the Registrar on the request of Chamber,
appointed Amicus Curiae for the proceeding. Mr. Steven Kay QC (London), Mr Branislav Tapuskovic
(Belgrade), and Professor Michail Wladimir off (The Hague) were the amicus curiae for the trail.
They were to only assist the Milosevic in the trail and not to put up a positive defence case. 8

Milosevic being without any defence counsel created two problems at the outset of the
proceedings. First, the prosecution was in dilemma as to what method they should adopt to
disclose exculpatory material, i.e. the material which helps the accused’s case. As under ordinary
condition they are exchanged between defence counsel and prosecution counsel in their meeting.
Second problem was that Milosevic’s complain that his legal advisers had not been allowed to visit
and communicate with him. This issue on legal footing was very complicated as detention law
allows legal visit, however the legal visit can only be made by a nominated lawyer and since
Milosevic refused to nominated a lawyer.

6
Infoplease (n 1)
7
E. Vulliamy, ‘Avenging angel’, The Guardian (London, 4 March 2001) < https://www.theguardian.com/
world/2001/mar/04/warcrimes.comment> Accessed 11 April 2020
8
Dominic McGoldrick ‘The Trail of Slobodan Milosevic: a twenty first century trail?’ in R. A. Melikan (ed) Domestic and
international trials, 1700–2000 The trial in history, volume II (Manchester University Press, 2003)
Chamber responded to these problems sensibly. Regarding the disclosure of exculpatory material,
they asked the prosecutor to review these materials by using broader definition of ‘exculpatory’
and to disclose it to Milosevic and amici in case required. While responding to the second problem,
the chamber appointed two person Ramsey Clark and Jhon Livingston, with whom Milosevic want
to meet, as his lawyers as distinct from defence counsel. Milosevic was entitled to communicate
with them without any restraint. 9

In the trail three indictment were made against Milosevic. All indictment together constituted sixty-
six counts, of which conviction in any one count will amount to life-imprisonment. The first
indictment was with regards to an internal civil war/terrorist situation in Kosovo; Second was civil
war followed by an inter-state war in Croatia and third for international armed conflict/partial
occupation/intervention in a civil war in another state. 10

Initially these indictments were to be tried separately but later it was decided that the acts alleged
in the three indictments formed the same transaction therefore all the indictments were to be tried
together.

KOSOVO INDICTMENT

Kosovo Indictment was described as a deportation case. The prosecution alleged that between 1
January 1999 to 20 June 1999 Serbian and Yugoslavian forces (Former Republic of Yugoslavia)
rained terror and violence over Kosovo Albanian civilians under the direction or support of
Milosevic with the objective of removing substantial part of Albanian population to ensure
continued Serbian control over the area.

Milosevic’s alleged responsibility rested on his de jure authority as President of the FRY, Supreme
Commander of the Yugoslav Army (‘VJ’), and on his de facto authority as President of the Supreme
Defence Council. Thus, Milosevic was charged with individual criminal responsibility under Article
7(1) of the ICTY Statute, and superior criminal responsibility under Article 7(3), which provides that
a superior is responsible for the criminal acts of his subordinates, ‘if he knew or had reason to know
that his subordinates were about to commit such acts or had done so, and the superior failed to
take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or punish the perpetrators’. This
pressed the charges namely one count of violations of the laws or customs of war (murder), and

9
Ibid
10
Ibid
four counts of crimes against humanity (deportation, murder, and persecutions on political, racial,
or religious grounds).

CROATIA INDICTMENT

This Indictment was for the participation of Milosevic in a ‘joint criminal enterprise’ between
August 1991 to June 1992. The objective was to forcibly remove majority of Croatians and other
non-Serbian population from around one-third of the territory of Republic of Croatia in order to join
it to newly Serb dominated state.

In Croatia Indictment too the charges pressed against Milosevic were rooted on individual and
superior criminal responsibility. He was charged with nine counts of grave breaches of the 1949
Geneva Conventions, thirteen counts of violations of the laws or customs of war and ten counts of
crimes against humanity. As during relevant period, he being the President of republic of Serbia
exercised effective control or substantial influence over the other participants of the joint criminal
enterprise.

BOSNIA INDICTMENT

In the Bosnia Indictment was for his act alone as well as in joint criminal enterprise to force out the
majority of non-Serbs, principally Bosnian Muslims and Croats, from large areas of Bosnia and
Herzegovina. Milosevic exerted control or influence over certain of these groups, and provided
financial, logistical, and political support. He also controlled and manipulated, the Serbian state-run
media to spread exaggerated and false messages of ethnic- ally based attacks by Bosnian Muslims
and Croats against Serbs to create an atmosphere of fear and hatred among Serbs living in Serbia,
Croatia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina which contributed to the forcible removals. 11Here, Milosevic
was again charged under Article 7(3) of the ICTY statute as he was the generals who directed the
JNA (Yugoslavia People Army) were in direct consultation with Milosevic who acted as the
Commander-in-Chief.

The Federal Presidency had direct control over the JNA as its ‘and effective control over units
supervised by the JNA. The generals who directed the JNA in Bosnia and Herzegovina were in
constant communication and consultation with Milosevic. So, he was charged with two counts of
genocide and complicity in genocide ten counts of crimes against humanity, eight counts of grave

11
Michael Kelly, ‘The Milosevic Trial Legacy: If Not Outcome, Hope’ (Jurist,2006) < https://www.jurist.org/comm
entary/2006/03/milosevic-trial-legacy-if-not-outcome/> Accessed 11 April 2020
breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and nine counts of violations of the laws or customs
of war involving, inter alia, attacks on civilians, unlawful destruction, plunder of property, and cruel
treatment.

When asked how he pleads to these indictments, he was cut short by the judges for being
irrelevant and it was taken as pleaded not guilty. Further he went on to argue on his behalf by
raising question upon the legitimacy of ICTY, bias Judge, NATO bombing and etc. The Tribunal's
Prosecution presented evidence of Milosevic’s involvement in many dozens of crimes against many
thousands of victims in three different countries spanning a period of almost ten years. Using
procedural innovations, such as submitting a number of witness testimonies in written form, the
Prosecution presented its case in 90 sitting days of trial. 12

All his arguments were dismissed by the chamber. Chamber also reviewed all the evidence and
reasoned that Slobodan Milosevic could be convicted on all counts. However, there were certain
exception of some crime scenes within several of them. This decision does not state that the judges
would or should convict him.

The trial formally ended on 14 March 2006, after the death of Slobodan Milosevic in the Tribunal’s
Detention Unit on 11 March 2006, just weeks before of the trial’s scheduled conclusion. A thorough
investigation performed by Dutch and Tribunal authorities determined conclusively that Milosevic’s
death was from natural causes.

However, more than eleven years after the death of Milosevic, a second trial chamber at the UN
War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague has concluded that he was not responsible for war crimes
committed in Bosnia. 13

12
United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ‘Slobodan Milosevic Trial - the Prosecution's
case’ (ICTY) < https://www.icty.org/en/content/slobodan-milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87-trial-prosecutions-case> Accessed
11 April 2020
13
Andy Wilcoxson, 'Hague Tribunal Exonerates Slobodan Milosevic Again' (Off-Guardian, 9 Dec 2017) <https://off-
guardian.org/2017/12/09/hague-tribunal-exonerates-slobodan-milosevic-again/> Accessed 11 April 2020