JURIST Guest Columnists Dr. Paul Williams and Kelly Brouse of American University, discuss the indictment of Dragomir Vasic by the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and emphasize the necessity for accountability not only during, but also after armed conflicts…

On December 16, 2014, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina indicted Dragomir Vasic for genocide relating to Vasic’s role in the Srebrenica massacre where Bosnian Serb troops killed over 8,000 Bosniak men and boys. This indictment provides an example of the ability of accountability-based transitional justice mechanisms, such as international and hybrid tribunals and domestic courts, to strengthen peace by removing war criminals from society.

Between July 6 and November 1, 1995, Vasic served as Commander of the Zvornick Police Headquarters and as Chief of the Public Security Center. Vasic has been charged with genocide under articles 171(a) and (b), 180, 29 and 31 of the Bosnian Criminal Code [PDF]. Specifically, Vasic has been charged with taking part in the planning and realization of genocide by ordering the use of manpower and equipment for the capture and forcible separation of Bosniak men and boys; the planning and carrying out of the arrests of Bosniak men and boys; the transportation of prisoners to sites of mass execution; executing Bosniak men and boys and burying the bodies of executed prisoners in mass graves.

Since the end of the war in Bosnia, Vasic has remained a public figure in the Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina. He served as a member of the People’s Assembly of the Republika Srpska and as a councilor in the Zvornik Municipal Assembly, but High Representative Paddy Ashdown removed him from those positions in 2003. According to High Representative Ashdown, Vasic obstructed the peace process by participating in activities that provided material support and sustenance to Radovan Karadzic. In October of 2014, Vasic won back his seat in the People’s Assembly of the Republika Srpska.

The war in Bosnia and the break up of Yugoslavia shocked the world with its brutality and reports of genocide and ethnic cleansing. In 1993 the UN Security Council created the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia [JURIST backgrounder] in response to the atrocities occurring in Bosnia. The Security Council created the Yugoslav Tribunal during the middle of the war, and the Dayton Agreement that ended the war required the cooperation of the newly formed governments in Bosnia and Herzegovina with the Yugoslav Tribunal as part of the implementation of the peace agreement. The Bosnian domestic courts began to hear cases related to the war in 2003 when a UN Security Council Resolution required that the Bosnian domestic courts begin to assist the Yugoslav Tribunal. Serious cases emerging from the war are heard in the War Crimes Chamber of the Bosnia courts. This chamber holds jurisdiction over cases referred to it by the Yugoslav Tribunal or sensitive cases from the local or national level.

Vasic’s indictment by the Bosnian courts reminds us why accountability-based transitional justice mechanisms are indispensable for ensuring a long-term transition from conflict to stable peace.

Peace agreements are by their very nature negotiated by those involved in the conflict. Often those same individuals are responsible for the atrocities and war crimes committed during the conflict. For instance, three of the four signatories to the Dayton Peace Accords were indicted or declared by the Yugoslav Tribunal to be indictable. Similarly the two leading members of the Serbian government delegation to the Rambouillet Kosovo talks were subsequently indicted by the Yugoslav Tribunal for crimes against humanity. While mediators are often forced to negotiate with individuals with blood on their hands and forgo justice in the moment, ensuring the creation of an accountability-based mechanism creates the possibility that those most responsible will eventual be held to account.

Given that those negotiating a peace agreement are often not simply surrendering, but rather seeking to accomplish at the negotiation table what they failed to fully accomplish on the battlefield, agreements are often imbedded with mechanisms and arrangements which provide an opportunity for those responsible for atrocities to continue to pursue through political mechanism the same outcomes they were pursuing through violence. The indictment of prominent “architects of peace” should (although unfortunately not always) serve to delegitimize the peace agreements which facilitate the objectives of those responsible for atrocities. Such delegitimization may help to create space for amendments to the agreement more suitable to a democratic and functional system of governance.

Moreover, surprisingly often those responsible for atrocities continue to hold positions of political power in post-conflict governance structures and influence the implementation of peace agreements in a way that continues to serve their original purposes. Strikingly after the signature of the Dayton Agreement, Slobodan Milosevic (President of Serbia), Momcilo Krajisnik (Member of Bosnian Presidency) and Biljana Plavsic (President of Republika Srpska) all continued to hold or assumed political office. It was only by the act of the Yugoslav Tribunal that they were removed from office and the fabric of Bosnian and Serbian society.

Accountability-based mechanisms are also crucial for removing mid-level war criminals who too will continue to shape the implementation of the post-conflict political environment, and are seldom addressed in any meaningful way by other mechanisms created during the peace process. For instance, five years after the signature of the Dayton Agreement, the International Crisis Group report found [PDF] that over 75 indictable war criminals held positions of power (many elected) within the governance and security structures of the Republika Srpska. From those positions they continued the atrocity tainted policies of the wartime Republika Srpska. Vasic’s indictment is part of the ongoing effort to remove such mid-level individuals from positions of power.

The indictment of Vlasic also reminds us of the longevity and durability of accountability-based mechanisms. In particular the fact that he was removed from office by the High Representative for aiding Radovan Karadzic, only to then successfully run for office again, reinforces the limits of political mechanisms, such as oversight by the international community, and the value of accountability-based mechanisms will often continue long after other objective political mechanisms have ceased effective operation. But for the War Crimes Chamber, Vlasic would have waited out the political engagement of the international community and continued to shape the future of Bosnia.

The Vasic indictment highlights the need for the international community to ensure that accountability-based mechanisms are woven into peace agreements, and where possible also exist independently, with referral to the International Criminal Court or some other hybrid mechanism. While never the highest priority in a peace negotiation or in planning for a post-conflict transition, accountability-based mechanisms are essential for any peace to be durable and for any real prospect of a transition to a modern democratic state. The inclusion of these mechanisms in future peace negotiations and agreements in conflicts such as Syria, Yemen, South Sudan, the Sudan, Sri Lanka and the Central African Republic should be deemed essential.

Paul Williams is the Rebecca I. Grazier Professor of Law and International Relations at American University and President and co-founder of the Public International Law & Policy Group. Kelly Brouse is a Law Fellow at the Public International Law & Policy Group.

Suggested citation: Paul Williams, Kelly Brouse The Dragomir Vasic Indictment: the Need for Post-Conflict Accountability, JURIST – Academic Commentary, Jan. 27, 2015, http://jurist.org/academic/2015/01/Williams-Brouse-Vasic-indictment.php.