UN PROSECUTOR'S DOUBLE STANDARDS

by Brian Gallagher

05.10.05

 

More information has arisen regarding the case of the Croatian journalists who have been indicted by UN prosecutors for disclosing the identity and testimony of a protected witness in the Blaskic case. (See also UN Court Tries To Silence Journalists)

It transpires that the London based Institute of War and Peace Reporting has repeatedly disclosed the identity of the witness; shamefully not mentioned in their recent reports on the journalists. It is known that a 1997 decision relating to the witness has been on the ICTY website for eight years, identifying the witness. See it here

In relation to reporting to that decision, IWPR mentioned the name in their Tribunal Update 32 of June 9-14, 1997. See it here

In regard to that particular affair, the ICTY also named the witness in their summary of a press briefing in 2003 on their own website. See it here (last paragraph)

The IWPR directly named the individual as a witness in the Blaskic case in its Tribunal Update of 7-11 February 2000. This is of considerable importance as IWPR named the witness before any of the dates mentioned in the indictments. Most of the indictments relate to 2004. However, the indictment against Josip Jovic is for dates in 2000, the earliest being 27 November. The IWPR disclosure comes some months prior to that. See it here


Mirko Klarin, then Senior Editor at IWPR, fully disclosed the identity in Tribunal Update of 16-21 September, 2002. Klarin specifically states the name of the witness and that he had testified in the closed session in the Blaskic trial, and something of the nature of that testimony. See it here

Klarin named the witness again in IWPR’s Tribunal Update of September 30 - October 4, 2002 report on the Milosevic trial. See it here

IWPR named the witness again this time written by Emir Suljagic in Tribunal Update of 23-27 June 2003. See it here

The witness was named again by IWPR in a piece by Stacey Sullivan in the 19 December 2003 Tribunal Update. See it here

A number of the IWPR reports were also placed on the JUSTWATCH website by Andras Riedlemyer, who has previously appeared in trials as an expert witness for the UN Prosecutors. See them here:

Tribunal Update 7-11 February 2000

Tribunal Update 16-21 September, 2002

Tribunal Update September 30 - October 4, 2002

Tribunal Update of 23-27 June 2003

Tribunal Update of 19 December 2003

Recent articles on the indicted journalists by IWPR have somehow failed to mention that they themselves repeatedly named the witness. See their latest report of 30 September by Janet Anderson here

No action has been taken by ICTY prosecutors against IWPR or their journalists - or indeed JUSTWATCH - for naming the protected witness. This raises the most serious questions. How is it that action was taken against Croatian journalists and not IWPR?

The Croatian journalists have a strong public interest defence: A recent article in the New York Times quotes Prosecution documents as saying the witness is "a high-ranking politician who holds important state responsibilities." . If such a politician in the United Kingdom gave secret testimony at a UN court against a British soldier the public would certainly demand to know what was said and by whom. No doubt the same would apply in the United States. Nobody would accept protective measures. Why should it be different in Croatia? Further, the public interest case is strengthened by the fact that in the Blaskic case, a miscarriage of justice occurred.

No doubt the Croatian journalists concerned had political motives for publishing what they did. That is freedom of speech.

IWPR has presented no explanation or defence whatsoever for revealing the identity of the witness. Yet somehow, they have got away with it. And continue to do so - their reports have been on their website for years. There is no clear public interest case for their revealing it.

IWPR is sympathetic to the ICTY. It also is London based, and part funded by the British taxpayer. No doubt that is connected to their apparent immunity from indictment.

Journalists are entitled to be pro ICTY. However, that does not mean the ICTY should consider them above the law. Why should these Croatian journalists face criminal charges and the strain and stress that must create in their lives, whilst IWPR and its journalists do not have to face that - despite naming the witness prior to the dates of the mentioned in the indictments of the Croats?

It is clear double standards, and the ICTY is operating on a political basis; those that criticise it face prosecution for repeating the name of a protected witness, but those uncritical or even supportive of the ICTY can do the same thing with impunity.

And what of IWPR? Their latest reports on the situation shamefully fail to mention that they themselves named the witness repeatedly. What kind of journalism is that? IWPR’s readers are fully entitled to that information - yet it was denied to them. Given that the taxpayer helps pay their wages, it is all the more appalling. IWPR’s silence is a disgrace.

Of course, given that the witness himself has admitted for years that he was a witness, the whole issue is ridiculous. But that has not stopped the UN prosecutors, led by the much criticised Carla del Ponte, whose double standards will no doubt be revealed in excruciating detail by the defendants.

The trial will be very interesting indeed.

 

© Brian Gallagher