Advertisement

Criminal Law Forum

, Volume 5, Issue 2–3, pp 279–340 | Cite as

The commission of experts established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780: Investigating violations of international humanitarian law in the former yugoslavia

  • M. Cherif Bassiouni
Fact-Findung

Keywords

International Economic Security Council Security Council Resolution 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    S.C. Res. 780, U.N. SCOR, 47th Year, 1992 S.C. Res. & Dec. at 36, ¶ 2, U.N. Doc. S/INF/48 (1992),reprinted in appendix A of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum. See generally M. Cherif Bassiouni, Current Developments,The United Nations Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), 88 Am. J. Int'l L. 784 (1994).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis, Aug. 8, 1945, 82 U.N.T.S. 279 (London Agreement). The Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg is set out inid. at 284.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    On the basis of the precedent of the former Yugoslavia, the Security Council established a similar Commission of Experts to investigate violations in the Rwandan civil war. S.C. Res. 935, U.N. SCOR, 49th Year, 3400th mtg. at 1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/935 (1994),reprinted in appendix D of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andavailable in U.N. Gopher/Documents/Security Council Resolutions. This Commission submitted a preliminary report in the early fall of 1994. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Oct. 1, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/1125 (1994), transmittingPreliminary Report of the Independent Commission of Experts Established in Accordance with Security Council Resolution 935 (1994), available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports. The Security Council set up a judicial mechanism about a month later, with institutional ties to the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The relevant resolution adopts and annexes the Tribunal's Statute. S.C. Res. 955, U.N. SCOR, 49th Year, 3453d mtg. at 1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/955 (1994),reprinted in appendix D of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andavailable in U.N. Gopher/Documents/Security Council Resolutions. The Commission subsequently submitted its final report. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Dec. 9, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/1405 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 935 (1994), available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General Reports.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Feb. 9, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25274 (1993), transmittingInterim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 74 [hereinafterFirst Interim Report].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    S.C. Res. 808, U.N. SCOR, 48th Year, 3175th mtg. at 1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/808 (1993),reprinted in appendix A of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andavailable in U.N. Gopher/Documents/Security Council Resolutions.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Id. ¶ 1. S.C. Res. 808, U.N. SCOR, 48th Year, 3175th mtg. at 1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/808 (1993),reprinted in appendix A of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andavailable in U.N. Gopher/Documents/Security Council Resolutions.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Letter from the Permanent Representative of France to the Secretary-General, Feb. 10, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25266 (1993), transmitting a report on the establishment of an international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia prepared by a national Committee of Jurists; Letter from the Permanent Representative of Italy to the Secretary-General, Feb. 16, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25300 (1993), transmitting a draft statute for an international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia prepared by a national Commission of Jurists; Letter from the Permanent Representative of Sweden to the Secretary-General, Feb. 18, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25307 (1993), annexing a summary of CSCE Rapporteurs (Corell-Turk-Thune), Moscow Human Dimension Mechanism to Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Croatia,Proposal for an International War Crimes Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (1993), and the text of a decision by CSCE participating states on this proposal. All three submissions were inspired by M. Cherif Bassiouni,Draft Statute for the Establishment of an International Criminal Tribunal (Association Internationale de Droit Pénal, Nouvelles Études Penales No. 9, 1992);see also M. Cherif Bassiouni,A Draft International Criminal Code and Draft Statute for an International Criminal Tribunal (2d rev. ed. 1988). Following the French, Italian, and CSCE submissions, a number of other governments and organizations forwarded comments or proposals, including Russia, Letter from the Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the Secretary-General, Apr. 5, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25537 (1993); the United States, Letter from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the Secretary-General, Apr. 5, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25575 (1993); and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, Letter from the Permanent Representatives of Egypt, Iran, Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, and Turkey, on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, to the Secretary-General, Mar. 31, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25512 (1993).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), U.N. Doc. S/25704 & Add.1 (1993),reprinted in appendix B of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andin 32 I.L.M. 1163 [hereinafterSecretary-General's Report].Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    The Statute of the International Tribunal is set out as an annex toSecretary-General's Report, supra note 8,Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), U.N. Doc. S/25704 & Add.1 (1993),reprinted in appendix B of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andin 32 I.L.M. 1163 [hereinafterSecretary-General's Report]. and isreprinted in appendix B of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andin 32 I.L.M. 1192 [hereinafter Statute].Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S.C. Res. 827, U.N. SCOR, 48th Year, 3217th mtg. at 1, ¶ 2, U.N. Doc. S/RES/827 (1993),reprinted in appendix A of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andin 32 I.L.M. 1203.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Id. S.C. Res. 827, U.N. SCOR, 48th Year, 3217th mtg. at 1, preambular ¶ 10. The Commission's work was ended on April 30, 1994, even though there was no prosecutor in office at that time. The Secretary-General had formally nominated me for this post in August 1993. The Security Council decided to act on the nomination by “consensus”, instead of by vote, and consensus was not reached on my candidacy.See Paul Lewis,Disputes Hamper U.N. Drive for a War Crimes Tribunal, N.Y. Times, Sept. 9, 1993, at A10,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File; Stanley Meisler,U.N. Is Deadlocked on War-Crimes Prosecutor, Montreal Gazette, Sept. 12, 1993, at B1,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File. The Security Council later reached a consensus on Ramón Escovar-Salom, from Venezuela. S.C. Res. 877, U.N. SCOR, 48th Sess., 3296th mtg. at 1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/877 (1993),available in U.N. Gopher/Documents/Security Council Resolutions. Escovar-Salom soon resigned, without taking office, in order to assume the position of Minister of the Interior of Venezuela.Bosnia-Venezuela: Boutros-Ghali Accepts Prosecutor's Resignation, Inter Press Serv., Feb. 8, 1994,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File;Secretary-General Appoints Graham Blewitt as Acting Deputy Prosecutor, War Crimes Tribunal, for Humanitarian Law Violations in Former Yugoslavia, U.N. Press Release, U.N. Doc. SG/SM/5221 (Feb. 8, 1994),available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Press Releases. Nearly half a year later, the Secretary-General recommended Judge Richard J. Goldstone of South Africa to fill the vacancy, the Security Council agreed, and Judge Goldstone took office on August 15, 1994. S.C. Res. 936, U.N. SCOR, 49th Year, 3401st mtg. at 1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/936 (1994),available in U.N. Gopher/Documents/Security Council Resolutions; Paul Lewis,South African Is to Prosecute Balkan War Crimes, N.Y. Times, July 9, 1994, at A2,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File;Yugoslav War Crimes Prosecutor Delays Mission, Reuters, Aug. 26, 1994,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S.C. Res. 780,supra note 1, U.N. SCOR, 47th Year, 1992 S.C. Res. & Dec. at 36, ¶ 2, U.N. Doc. S/INF/48 (1992),reprinted in appendix A of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum. See generally M. Cherif Bassiouni, Current Developments,The United Nations Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), 88 Am. J. Int'l L. 784 (1994).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    There were suggestions at the first session of the Commission by then Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and UN Legal Counsel Carl-August Fleischhauer that the term “evidence” was not to be construed in its technical sense as understood in criminal law. This issue was of concern to the Commission, as was the question of the resources needed to secure legally relevant and admissible evidence. Thus, the information and evidence that the Commission gathered, as well as the reports that it prepared, were not complied with a view that they would be used exclusively by the prosecutor as evidence but also would have a more general purpose of describing the policies, patterns, and outcomes of violations.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    S.C. Res. 771, U.N. SCOR, 47th Year, 1992 S.C. Res. & Dec. at 25, ¶ 5, U.N. Doc. S/INF/48 (1992).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S.C. Res. 780,supra note 1, S.C. Res. 780, U.N. SCOR, 47th Year, 1992 S.C. Res. & Dec. at 36, ¶ 1, U.N. Doc. S/INF/48 (1992),reprinted in appendix A of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum. See generally M. Cherif Bassiouni, Current Developments,The United Nations Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), 88 Am. J. Int'l L. 784 (1994). At the time, very few reports were submitted by governments. Additionally, some reports, such as those of the United States, contained mostly NGO- and media-generated information, which was in the public domain. None of the information and evidence available to governments with intelligence-gathering capabilities was submitted. Seeinfra sections entitled “Critical Assessment of the Information Received” and “Reports from Governments”.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S.C. Res. 787, U.N. SCOR, 47th Year, 1992 S.C. Res. & Dec. at 29, ¶ 8, U.N. Doc. S/INF/48 (1992).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Id. S.C. Res. 787, U.N. SCOR, 47th Year, 1992 S.C. Res. & Dec. at 29, ¶ 7, U.N. Doc. S/INF/48 (1992).Editor's note: While we condemn the policy and practice of “ethnic cleansing” in the strongest terms, this term is so widely understood and used by the public and the media to refer to a policy and acts of genocide that quotations marks appear redundant and are used only to introduce the term.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Id. S.C. Res. 787, U.N. SCOR, 47th Year, 1992 S.C. Res. & Dec. at 29, ¶ 8, U.N. Doc. S/INF/48 (1992). ¶ 7.Editor's note: While we condemn the policy and practice of “ethnic cleansing” in the strongest terms, this term is so widely understood and used by the public and the media to refer to a policy and acts of genocide that quotations marks appear redundant and are used only to introduce the term.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Report of the Secretary-General on the Establishment of the Commission of Experts pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), U.N. Doc. S/24657 (1992). This report to the Security Council left open the possibility that the Commission might be enlarged, but this did not occur.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Though a naturalized U.S. citizen, I was appointed on the basis of my citizenship of origin, as it had been decided not to have experts from the permanent members of the Security Council.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    In a letter to the Security Council, the Secretary-General noted Professor Opsahl's important contribution to the work of the Commission and described his untimely death as a great loss to the Commission, the United Nations, and the international legal community. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council ¶ 4, Oct. 5, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/26545 (1993), transmittingSecond Interim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) [hereinafterSecond Interim Report].Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Id; In a letter to the Security Council, the Secretary-General noted Professor Opsahl's important contribution to the work of the Commission and described his untimely death as a great loss to the Commission, the United Nations, and the international legal community. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council ¶ 4, Oct. 5, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/26545 (1993), transmittingSecond Interim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) [hereinafterSecond Interim Report].Women Legal Experts Named to U.N. War Crimes Panel, Reuters, Oct. 21, 1993,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    The United Nations funds its bodies through the regular budget, which is first approved by the Advisory Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Questions (ACABQ) and then by the Fifth Committee of the General Assembly. The Security Council funds peacekeeping activities through a special budget. Neither organ funded the Commission, and its ability to fulfill its mandate was seriously hampered as a result. The lesson here is that when the Security Council establishes a body like the Commission of Experts, it should probably fund it through its peacekeeping budget and set the budget of the new entity at the time it is created.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $ 1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994 U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 12–17 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Deputy UN Legal Counsel Ralph Zacklin told Iain Guest, a journalist who wrote a report for the Open Society Institute (unpublished manuscript, on file with Cherif Bassiouni) on the prosecution of war criminals, that he, “forgot” to present the Commission's budget to the ACABQ in November because of other pressing business. As a result, the ACABQ did not fund the Commission's 1994 budget. The Secretary-General reportedly agreed with Mr. Fleischhauer on terminating the Commission prematurely, even though the Commission still had over $230,000 in the voluntary trust fund on April 30, 1994. Since the Commission's monthly costs at that time were approximately $50,000, it could easily have continued until July 31 and completed its work.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Personnel were made available as follows: Canada, military lawyers and investigators seconded to participate in investigations in Sarajevo, Dobrinja, Dubrovnik, Medak, and United Nations Protected Area (UNPA) Sector West, Croatia; the Netherlands, combat engineers, including radiological experts to perform mass grave and radiological investigations, and experts in finding unmarked graves—whose contribution was vital to the success of the mass graves investigation in UNPA Sector West, Croatia; Norway, military lawyers who worked on the Dubrovnik investigation. Governments also contributed personnel to the Commission's secretariat in Geneva: France, the Hon. Jean-Paul Laborde; the Netherlands, Lieutenant-Colonel Anton Kempenaars Norway, Morten Bergsmo. Physicians for Human Rights contributed three different teams to investigate the mass grave at Ovcara/Vukovar and to conduct the exhumations in UNPA Sector West, Croatia, totaling 24 experts whose services were funded by the United States and private sources. These teams were led by world-renowned forensic experts Dr. Clyde Snow, Dr. Robert Kirschner, and Dr. Eric Stover (Executive Director of Physicians for Human Rights). An international team of female attorneys and mental health experts and male mental health specialists volunteered to conduct the rape and sexual assault investigation. Seeinfra note 79. On these various projects, seeinfra section entitled “The Commission's On-site Investigations.”Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    IHRLI received grants from the Soros Foundation, the Open Society Fund, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    The scale of victimization in the former Yugoslavia is staggering. The Commission reported that of a population of 6 million, 1.5–2 million are now refugees abroad after being deported or forced to flee their homes.Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $ 1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994 U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 310 n.87,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report]. In addition, civilian and military casualties reportedly exceeded 200,000 at the time the Commission'sFinal Reports was published.Id. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $ 1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994 U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 310 n.87,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report]. The high estimated number of casualties is supported by the reported discovery of 187 mass graves.Id. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $ 1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994 U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 254–264 n.87,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report]. In addition, over 700 prison camps were reported, where violations such as rape and torture occurred.Id. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $ 1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994 U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 216–231 n.87,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report]. Further study of the documents received by the Commission indicated that there were reportedly 960 places of detention.Final Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), Annex VIII:Prison Camps 9 9, U.N. doc. S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. IV) (1994). Some 3,000 rape cases were reported.Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $ 1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994 U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 232–253 n.87,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report]. From the high number of these incident reports, the Commission surmised that earlier projections by various sources of 20,000 cases of rape were not completely unreasonable.Id. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $ 1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994 U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 310 n.87,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sessions were held on the following dates: first session, November 4–5, 1992; second session, December 14–16, 1992; third session, January 25–26, 1993; fourth session, March 1–3, 1993; fifth session, May 24–25, 1993; sixth session, July 13–14, 1993; seventh session, August 30–31, 1993; eighth session, October 27, 1993; ninth session, December 14–15, 1993; tenth esssion, January 11–12, 1994; eleventh session, February 15–16, 1994; twelfth session, April 11–15, 1994. All of the sessions, except the first, which was convened in New York, were held in Geneva,Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $ 1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994 U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 9 n.1,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), Rules of Procedure [hereinafter Comm'n Rules], inFirst Interim Report, supra note 4, Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Feb. 9, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25274 (1993), transmittingInterim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 74 [hereinafterFirst Interim Report]. at 21–23. These rules were informally adopted at the December 1992 meeting after having been generally agreed upon at the November 1992 meeting.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 19 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Several organizations and individuals assisted in a volunteer capacity in the collection of print media. Chief among them were Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights and Thomas Warrick from the Washington, D.C., law firm of Pierson, Semmes & Bemis.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Video documentation was done by Linden Productions (Los Angeles, California) on a largely volunteer basis. Linden Productions received a grant from IHRLI of $80,000, funded by the Soros Foundation, but the bulk of this enormously costly project was funded by Linden, thanks to the generosity of its president, Pippa Scott. Linden created a unique computerized videotape archive, classifying the tapes into such subject-matter categories as violence against persons (civilian and military); killing, torture, and mistreatment in camps; violence against women—rape; use of special paramilitary groups; forced deportation; and destruction of religious and cultural property. Each videotape was broken down, shot by shot, and every screen image was fully described in the videotape database and time-coded according to incidents, locations, dates, victims, witnesses, perpetrators, and other important characteristics that could be seen on the screen. Complete transcripts were made of all videotapes as the final step in the archiving process. The videotapes were placed in humidity and dust-free vaults, which were protected by security systems and available only to authorized personnel. The entire computerized system and the videotapes have been made available to the Tribunal's prosecutor. The system developed by Linden Productions is particularly useful as it permits computerized selection of tapes, events, places, and persons. The computer program can also be linked to the IHRLI database and to FBIS to merge all sources of information. To date, however, the prosecutor's office has not pursued the possibility of merging the databases and is instead in the process of developing a new system for organizing information, funded by the United States.See Annual Report 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, ¶ 158, U.N. SCOR, 49th Year, Agenda Item 152, U.N. Doc. S/1994/1007 (1994) [hereinafterTribunal Annual Report].Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    The video documentarian labeled each videotape with the following information: date received, submitter, title, and sequential identification number for easy retrieval. The video documentarian screened all of the videotapes and prepared a summary for the video master index, indicating the videotape's contents, running time, source, and broadcast date, if any.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    The Commission and IHRLI agreed that data gathering, establishment of the database, and data analysis would be done by IHRLI under my direction as rapporteur. IHRLI agreed to provide the Commission with copies of the database software and to forward database information on a regular basis. When the Commission ended its work in April 1994, IHRLI forwarded a complete set of documents and a copy of the database to the office of the prosecutor.See Tribunal Annual Report, supra note 33,See Annual Report 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, ¶ 157, U.N. SCOR, 49th Year, Agenda Item 152, U.N. Doc. S/1994/1007 (1994) [hereinafterTribunal Annual Report]. IHRLI has continued to assist the prosecutor's staff in connection with the technical aspects of the database and the transfer of documents.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Several security measures were implemented to prevent leaks of information or tampering with the documents. First, the space provided by DePaul University for the database project was protected by an electronic security system. University Security, which is linked to the Chicago Police Department, monitored the security system. Second, each person working on the project at IHRLI signed a confidentiality agreement. Lastly, original and photocopied documents were stored in locked file cabinets in the offices protected by the electronic security system. In addition, copies of all documents were stored in a secure off-site facility.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    The Commission endorsed the efforts of the Rapporteur in itsFirst Interim Report to the Security Council, stating that it wished “to place on record its deep appreciation to the Rapporteur on the Gathering and Analysis of Facts for his invaluable contribution to this undertaking.”First Interim Report, supra note 4, Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Feb. 9, 1993 U.N. Doc. S/25274 (1993), transmittingInterim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 25 [hereinafterFirst Interim Report]. The Secretary-General also urged the continuation of the database work in his letter transmitting this report to the Security Council.Id. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Feb. 9, 1993 U.N. Doc. S/25274 (1993), transmittingInterim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 25 [hereinafterFirst Interim Report]. at 2;see also infra text accompanying note 158. When the Security Council established the Tribunal, it also urged the continuation of the Commission's work, including its data gathering, stating that “the Commission of Experts... should continue on an urgent basis the collection of information... as proposed in its interim report.” S.C. Res. 827,supra note 10, U.N. SCOR, 48th Year, 3217th mtg. at 1, preambular ¶ 10. By letter dated May 27, 1993, to Cherif Bassiouni, Chairman Kalshoven formally expressed his gratitude to the rapporteur and his staff for the work that had been done. The Commission stated in October 1993 that “the database has already proved to be of great assistance to the Commission as a basis of support for its specific missions and investigation.”Second Interim Report, supra note 21, In a letter to the Security Council, the Secretary-General noted Professor Opsahl's important contribution to the work of the Commission and described his untimely death as a great loss to the Commission, the United Nations, and the international legal community. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council ¶ 105, Oct. 5, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/26545 (1993), transmittingSecon Interim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) [hereinafterSecond Interim Report].Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    This sum took the form of contributions from DePaul University (office space) and the foundations citedsupra note 27. IHRLI received grants from the Soros Foundation, the Open Society Fund, and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. I also wish to make note of the invaluable contribution of thousands of hours of volunteer work by lawyers, law students, data analysts, and others. In this regard, seeinfra notes 39-40. Despite some turnover, staff regularly included 20–25 salaried and volunteer attorneys, 10–15 paid and volunteer law students, 5–10 data analysts, 2 computer programmers, 1 documentarian, and 1 video documentarian. Three salaried attorneys administered the day-to-day operations, oversaw the substantive work, and analyzed the database results with the assistance of other attorneys. Among those providing exceptional pro bono services to IHRLI and the Commission were a number of attorneys volunteering their services through Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights; Edwin E. Brooks, Ami de Chapeaurouge, Paul A. Duffy, Helen L. Hackett, Amy A. Hijjawi, Alan E. Molotsky, Nancy K. Tordai, and Richard W. Waller from the Chicago law firm of Katten, Muchin & Zavis; Joan Marsh from the Chicago law firm of Kirkland & Ellis; Susan A. McColgan and Ann C. Taylor from the Chicago law firm of Lord, Bissell & Brook; Alexander S. Vesselinovitch from the Chicago law firm of Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson; Duane Layton from the Washington, D.C., law firm of Thompson & Mitchell; Thomas Warrick from the Washington, D.C., law firm of Pierson, Semmes & Bemis; and Penny Venetis from the New York law firm of O'Melveny & Myers.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Despite some turnover, staff regularly included 20–25 salaried and volunteer attorneys, 10–15 paid and volunteer law students, 5–10 data analysts, 2 computer programmers, 1 documentarian, and 1 video documentarian. Three salaried attorneys administered the day-to-day operations, oversaw the substantive work, and analyzed the database results with the assistance of other attorneys.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Among those providing exceptional pro bono services to IHRLI and the Commission were a number of attorneys volunteering their services through Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights; Edwin E. Brooks, Ami de Chapeaurouge, Paul A. Duffy, Helen L. Hackett, Amy A. Hijjawi, Alan E. Molotsky, Nancy K. Tordai, and Richard W. Waller from the Chicago law firm of Katten, Muchin & Zavis; Joan Marsh from the Chicago law firm of Kirkland & Ellis; Susan A. McColgan and Ann C. Taylor from the Chicago law firm of Lord, Bissell & Brook; Alexander S. Vesselinovitch from the Chicago law firm of Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson; Duane Layton from the Washington, D.C., law firm of Thompson & Mitchell; Thomas Warrick from the Washington, D.C., law firm of Pierson, Semmes & Bemis; and Penny Venetis from the New York law firm of O'Melveny & Myers.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Data Entry Procedures for the Staff of the Rapporteur on Data Gathering and Analysis (IHRLI Internal Document, Apr. 6, 1993).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    All parties to the conflict appear to have committed such violations of international humanitarian law. However, the database contains substantially more allegations of violations committed by Serbian and Bosnian Serb forces against Bosnian Muslim civilians than by or against any other ethnic or religious group.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Providing funds and other forms of support to bodies such as these could have helped to level the playing field. For example, the Croatian War Crimes Commission and some Croatian human rights organizations were comparatively well funded and equipped and thus better able to distribute their information than other such groups.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    This was the case with field files for the second half of 1992, which was the worst period of ethnic cleansing in northern, central, and then eastern Bosnia-Herzegovina.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    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, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, U.N. Doc. IT/32 (1994),amended by U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.1 (1994),reprinted in appendix C of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum [hereinafter I.T. R. Proc. & Evid.];see also supra note 13 There were suggestions at the first session of the Commission by then Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and UN Legal Counsel Carl-August Fleischhauer that the term “evidence” was not to be construed in its technical sense as understood in criminal law. This issue was of concern to the Commission, as was the question of the resources needed to secure legally relevant and admissible evidence. Thus, the information and evidence that the Commission gathered, as well as the reports that it prepared, were not compiled with a view that they would be used exclusively by the prosecutor as evidence but also would have a more general purpose of describing the policies, patterns, and outcomes of violations and accompanying text.Editor's note: the Rules of Procedure and Evidence were amended Oct. 4, 1994, U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.2 (1994), and Jan. 30, 1995, U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.3 (1995). This article is based on U.N. Doc. IT/Rev.1. Appendix C prints the most recent text of the rules, U.N. Doc. IT/Rev.3, indicating all deletions from, and additions to, U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.1, so that the reader can reconstruct the full text of this earlier document.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    See in this regardid. RR. 89-98 (evidence), 71 (depositions). 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, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, U.N. Doc. IT/32 (1994),amended by U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.1 (1994),reprinted in appendix C of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum [hereinafter I.T. R. Proc. & Evid.];see also supra note 13 There were suggestions at the first session of the Commission by then Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and UN Legal Counsel Carl-August Fleischhauer that the term “evidence” was not to be construed in its technical sense as understood in criminal law. This issue was of concern to the Commission, as was the question of the resources needed to secure legally relevant and admissible evidence. Thus, the information and evidence that the Commission gathered, as well as the reports that it prepared, were not compiled with a view that they would be used exclusively by the prosecutor as evidence but also would have a more general purpose of describing the policies, patterns, and outcomes of violations and accompanying text.Editor's note: the Rules of Procedure and Evidence were amended Oct. 4, 1994, U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.2 (1994), and Jan. 30, 1995, U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.3 (1995). This article is based on U.N. Doc. IT/Rev.1. Appendix C prints the most recent text of the rules, U.N. Doc. IT/Rev.3, indicating all deletions from, and additions to, U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.1, so that the reader can reconstruct the full text of this earlier document.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    There were exceptions, in particular the government of Croatia, Human Rights Watch, and, after October 1993, the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, Sweden, and Austria, which provided detailed evidence, including witness statements. These materials proved highly valuable.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    This refers to a military organizational chart that gives details on type of units, strength, equipment, and command structure.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Some reports may have relied on diplomatic correspondence that cannot be publicly revealed. Other reports may have been based on media sources. These reports would not be useful unless the original source could be verified.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    These difficulties are exacerbated by the fact that most evidence of violations consists of oral testimony, affidavits, and statements made by victims and witnesses.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    The following governments submitted materials pertaining to war crimes and mass victimization: Albania, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Canada, Colombia, Croatia, Denmark, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, Kenya, the Netherlands, Norway, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom, the United States, Venezuela, and Yugoslavia. In particular, Austria, Canada, France, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the parties to the conflict provided valuable information of an evidentiary nature.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    As noted earlier, the Security Council contemplated that reports from governments would be the best source of information. S.C. Res. 771,supra note 14, U.N. SCOR, 47th Year, 1992 S.C. Res. & Dec. at 25, ¶ 5, U.N. Doc. S/INF/48 (1992); S.C. Res. 780,supra note 1, U.N. SCOR, 47th Year 1992 S.C. Res. & Dec. at 36, ¶ 1, U.N. Doc. S/INF/48 (1992)reprinted in appendix A of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum. See generally M. Cherif Bassiouni, Current Developments,The United Nations Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 78 (1992), 88 Am. J. Int'l L. 784 (1994).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Letter from the Permanent Mission of Yugoslavia to the Secretary-General, May 6, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/548 (1994), transmittingThird Report Submitted to the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) [hereinafterYugoslavian Report]. Moreover, in March 1994, I had met in Geneva with Yugoslavia's Minister of Justice, who is also chairman of the state War Crimes Commission, and expected to receive evidence from that source and to be able to conduct interviews of rape victims in Serbia. This was prevented by the premature termination of the Commission of Experts in April 1994.See Yugoslavia to Continue Cooperation with U.N. War Crimes Commission, BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, Mar. 19, 1994,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File. Seeinfra text accompanying note 164.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    The Commission of Experts established close cooperation with the Special Rapporteur and his staffs in both Geneva and Zagreb.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Sometime in October 1993, UNPROFOR investigated the medak Pocket incident, which involved Croats against Serbs in Croatia, seeinfra section entitled “Investigation of the Medak Pocket,” and the Stupni Do incident, which involved Croatian Defense Council forces against Muslim villagers in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Commission was given access to these reports and they were turned over to the prosecutor of the Tribunal.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    This procedure was followed in many cases involving governments, NGOs, and other organizations that provided information of a confidential nature. The Commission was particularly attentive to these concerns, and its procedures, as well as IHRLI's, proved to be entirely secure.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    See, e.g., Roy Gutman,A Witness to Genocide (1993).Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    S.C. Res. 780,supra note 1. U.N. SCOR, 47th Year, 1992 S.C. Res. & Dec. at 36, ¶ 2, U.N. Doc. S/INF/48 (1992),reprinted in appendix A of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum. See generally M. Cherif Bassiouni, Current Developments,The United Nations Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) 88 Am. J. Int'l L. 784. (1994). ¶ 2. It must nevertheless be reiterated that the Commission's work was not viewed as part of the prosecutor's task of gathering evidence needed to prosecute under the Tribunal's rules. Seesupra notes 13, 45–46 There were suggestions at the first session of the Commission by then Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and UN Legal Counsel Carl-August Fleischhauer that the term “evidence” was not to be construed in its technical sense as understood in criminal law. This issue was of concern to the Commission, as was the question of the resources needed to secure legally relevant and admissible evidence. Thus, the information and evidence that the Commission gathered, as well as the reports that it prepared, were not compiled with a view that they would be used exclusively by the prosecutor as evidence but also would have a more general purpose of describing the policies, patterns, and outcomes of violations. 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, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, U.N. Doc. IT/32 (1994),amended by U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.1 (1994),reprinted in appendix C of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum [hereinafter I.T. R. Proc. & Evid.];see also supra note 13 There were suggestions at the first session of the Commission by then Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and UN Legal Counsel Carl-August Fleischhauer that the term “evidence” was not to be construed in its technical sense as understood in criminal law. This issue was of concern to the Commission, as was the question of the resources needed to secure legally relevant and admissible evidence. Thus, the information and evidence that the Commission gathered, as well as the reports that it prepared, were not compiled with a view that they would be used exclusively by the prosecutor as evidence but also would have a more general purpose of describing the policies, patterns, and outcomes of violations and accompanying text.Editor's note: the Rules of Procedure and Evidence were amended Oct. 4, 1994, U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.2 (1994), and Jan. 30, 1995, U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.3 (1995). This article is based on U.N. Doc. IT/Rev.1. Appendix C prints the most recent text of the rules, U.N. Doc. IT/Rev.3, indicating all deletions from, and additions to, U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.1, so that the reader can reconstruct the full text of this earlier document. See in this regardid. RR. 89–98 (evidence), 71 (depositions). See in this regardid. RR. 89–98 (evidence), 71 (depositions). 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, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, U.N. Doc. IT/32 (1994),amended by U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.1 (1994),reprinted in appendix C of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum [hereinafter I.T. R. Proc. & Evid.];see also supra note 13 There were suggestions at the first session of the Commission by then Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and UN Legal Counsel Carl-August Fleischhauer that the term “evidence” was not to be construed in its technical sense as understood in criminal law. This issue was of concern to the Commission, as was the question of the resources needed to secure legally relevant and admissible evidence. Thus, the information and evidence that the Commission gathered, as well as the reports that it prepared, were not compiled with a view that they would be used exclusively by the prosecutor as evidence but also would have a more general purpose of describing the policies, patterns, and outcomes of violations and accompanying text.Editor's note: the Rules of Procedure and Evidence were amended Oct. 4, 1994, U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.2 (1994), and Jan. 30, 1995, U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.3 (1995). This article is based on U.N. Doc. IT/Rev.1. Appendix C prints the most recent text of the rules, U.N. Doc. IT/Rev.3, indicating all deletions from, and additions to, U.N. Doc. IT/32/Rev.1, so that the reader can reconstruct the full text of this earlier document and accompanying text.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    First Interim Report, supra note 4, Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Feb. 9, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25274 (1993), transmittingInterim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 31 [hereinafterFirst Interim Report].Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Id. First Interim Report, supra note 4, Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Feb. 9, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25274 (1993), transmittingInterim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 31 [hereinafterFirst Interim Report].Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 265 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    See id. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶268 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    id. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶268 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 269. & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 270 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].In connection with getting permission from the Knin authorities, seeinfra note 114.Id. In a letter to the Security Council, the Secretary-General noted Professor Opsahl's important contribution to the work of the Commission and described his untimely death as a great loss to the Commission, the United Nations, and the international legal community. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council ¶ 4, Oct. 5, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/26545 (1993), transmittingSecond Interim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) [hereinafterSecond Interim Report]. ¶ 12. During April 18–29, 1993, the Commission sent a delegation to the region of the former Yugoslavia.Id. ¶ 13. Chairman Kalshoven, Commissioner Fenrick, and I traveled to Zagreb and Belgrade.Id. ¶ 13 n.7. Then, Chairman Kalshoven went on the Ljubljana, while Commissioner Fenrick and I went to Sarajevo.Id. Commissioner Fenrick went to Knin May 17–19 to meet with the Prime Minister of Knin to request permission to conduct the mass grave exhumation at Ovcara.Id. ¶ 17.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24, ¶ 265 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, S94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992),¶ 270, 283 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report]. Hospitals in the area could cope with 20–30 bodies at any one time. Capacity to accommodate 200 bodies is available only at the Chicago Medical Examiner's Office and the U.S. Air Force hospital and morgue in Wiesbaden, Germany.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24, ¶ 265. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 271–272 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24, ¶ 265. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 275 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24, ¶ 265. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 276 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24, ¶ 265. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 276 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24, ¶ 265. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 277 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24, ¶ 265. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 282 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24, ¶ 265. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 282 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24, ¶ 265. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 281 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24, ¶ 265. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 281 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24, ¶ 265. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 283 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24, ¶ 265. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 284 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24, ¶ 265. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 241–253 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    The investigation took place under my direction with assistance from Commissioner Cleiren and Commission staff Bruna Molina-Abrams, Deputy Secretary; Julio Baez, Assistant Secretary; and Lieutenant-Colonel Anton Kempenaars, Military Assistant to the Chairman of the Commission of Experts. To implement the project, Karen Kenny, Interview Coordinator, was put in charge of the field work and performed exceptionally well under difficult circumstances. She worked closely with Maja Drazenovic, Chief Interpreter; Thomas Osorio, Field Officer; and Nancy Paterson, Coordinator of the Legal Team. Elenor Richter-Lyonett and Sabrina Negotovic served briefly as NGO Coordinators. Ms.Drazenovic recruited and selected the interpreters not only for their language skills but also for their ability to empathize with the interviewees. The attorneys who conducted the interviews were from Bangladesh, Canada, Finland, Ireland, and the United States. All were prosecutors with the exception of one criminal defense lawyer. Interviewing teams usually consisted of three women: an attorney, an interpreter, and in most cases a mental health expert. The legal team included Lena Andersson, Susan Axelrod, Francine Borsanyi, Linda S. Crawford, Sharon Janelle Crooks, Kenna Dalrymple, Feryal Gharahi, Sara Hossain, Nancy Paterson, Tanja Petrovar, Laura D. Silver, and Merja Pentikainen. The mental health experts, who did not conduct interviews but served as facilitators and support for the process, included Dr. Abigail Benton Sivan, Dr. Stephanie Cavanaugh, Dr. Wanda Fremont, Alice Geis (R.N.), Dr. Stephanie Gregory, Dr. Daniel Hardy, and Dr. Richard Rahe. Lisa Capitanini was part of the administrative staff serving in Split to organize interviews. I am deeply grateful to the legal and mental health experts who volunteered their time to conduct this investigation, as well as the NGOs upon which the Commission relied. All of those who participated should be commended for their dedication and concern. I also wish to express my appreciation to Professor Catharine MacKinnon of the University of Michigan Law School, who gave generously of her time and help in contacting victims and witnesses whom she represented or otherwise knew.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ ¶¶ 241–243 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ ¶¶ 241 & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 245 & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 246 & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 247 & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher/Current Information/Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 248. & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 249 & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 247, 250 & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 247, 252 & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 241, & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 241, & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  91. 91.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 302, & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 303, & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 305, & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 298, & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 299, & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  96. 96.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 299, & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 300–301, & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 153, & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 151–181, & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 182, & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report]. Seeinfra note 143 However, the study on Prijedor and other information submitted by the Commission to the office of the prosecutor were relied upon in the application by Prosecutor Goldstone to Germany on November 8, 1994, to defer to the Tribunal in the prosecution of Dusko Tadic. For background, see Melinda Crane-Engel,Germany vs. Genocide, N.Y. Times, Oct. 30, 1994, § 6, at 56,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File;Yugo War Crimes Court Asks Germany to Extradite Bosnian Serb, Agence France Presse, Nov. 8, 1994,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File. On February 13, 1995, Prosecutor Goldstone returned 21 indictments for war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in the Prijedor area. Prosecutor of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia v. Dusan Tadic and Twenty Named Co-defendants, Attachment to Tribunal Press Release, Feb. 13, 1995, U.N. Doc. CC/PIO/004-E (1995); Jon Henley,Serb Jailers Charged with Murder, Rape, and Torture, The Guardian (Manchester), FEb. 14, 1995,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 210, & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 212, & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24 Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 112–214, & n.65,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  104. 104.
    Comm'n Rules,supra note 30, R. 10(2). Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), Rules of Procedure [hereinafter Comm'n Rules], inFirst Interim Report, supra note 4 at 21–23. These rules were informally adopted at the December 1992 meeting after having been generally agreed upon at the November 1992 meeting.Google Scholar
  105. 105.
    First Interim Report, supra note 4 Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Feb. 9, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25274 (1993), transmittingInterim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 74 [hereinafterFirst Interim Report]Second Interim Report, supra note 21 In a letter to the Security Council, the Secretary-General noted Professor Opsahl's important contribution to the work of the Commission and described his untimely death as a great loss to the Commission, the United Nations, and the international legal community. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council ¶ 4, Oct. 5, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/26545 (1993), transmittingSecond Interim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) [hereinafterSecond Interim Report].Google Scholar
  106. 106.
    Final Report, supra note 24. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 12–17 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    The annexes were not attached to the report but are nevertheless part of it.See generally sectioninfra entitled “Annexes to the Final Report.” The annexes will be released as U.N. Doc. S/1994/674/Add.2 (vols. I–V) (1994).Google Scholar
  108. 108.
    First Interim Report, supra note 4 Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Feb. 9, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25274 (1993), transmittingInterim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 22–23 [hereinafterFirst Interim Report].Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    First Interim Report, supra note 4 Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Feb. 9, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25274 (1993), transmittingInterim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 28 [hereinafterFirst Interim Report].Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    First Interim Report, supra note 4 Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Feb. 9, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25274 (1993), transmittingInterim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 28 [hereinafterFirst Interim Report].Google Scholar
  111. 111.
    First Interim Report, supra note 4 Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Feb. 9, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25274 (1993), transmittingInterim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 32 [hereinafterFirst Interim Report].Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    See id. First Interim Report, supra note 4 Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Feb. 9, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/25274 (1993), transmittingInterim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶ 45 [hereinafterFirst Interim Report].Google Scholar
  113. 113.
    Second Interim Report, supra note 21, In a letter to the Security Council, the Secretary-General noted Professor Opsahl's important contribution to the work of the Commission and described his untimely death as a great loss to the Commission, the United Nations, and the international legal community. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council ¶¶ 76–80, 84–86., Oct. 5, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/26545 (1993), transmittingSecond Interim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) [hereinafterSecond Interim Report].Google Scholar
  114. 114.
    Id. Second Interim Report, supra note 21, In a letter to the Security Council, the Secretary-General noted Professor Opsahl's important contribution to the work of the Commission and described his untimely death as a great loss to the Commission, the United Nations, and the international legal community. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council ¶ 12, Oct. 5, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/26545 (1993), transmittingSecond Interim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) [hereinafterSecond Interim Report]. During April 18–29, 1993, the Commission sent a delegation to the region of the former Yugoslavia.Id. ¶ 13. Chairman Kalshoven, Commissioner Fenrick, and I traveled to Zagreb and Belgrade.Id. Second Interim Report, supra note 21, In a letter to the Security Council, the Secretary-General noted Professor Opsahl's important contribution to the work of the Commission and described his untimely death as a great loss to the Commission, the United Nations, and the international legal community. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council ¶ 13 n.7, Oct. 5, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/26545 (1993), transmittingSecond Interim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) [hereinafterSecond Interim Report]. Then, Chairman Kalshoven went on the Ljubljana, while Commissioner Fenrick and I went to Sarajevo.Id. Commissioner Fenrick went to Knin May 17–19 to meet with the Prime Minister of Knin to request permission to conduct the mass grave exhumation at Ovcara.Id. Second Interim Report, supra note 21, In a letter to the Security Council, the Secretary-General noted Professor Opsahl's important contribution to the work of the Commission and described his untimely death as a great loss to the Commission, the United Nations, and the international legal community. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council ¶ 13 N.7, Oct. 5, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/26545 (1993), transmittingSecond Interim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) [hereinafterSecond Interim Report].Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Id. Second Interim Report, supra note 21, In a letter to the Security Council, the Secretary-General noted Professor Opsahl's important contribution to the work of the Commission and described his untimely death as a great loss to the Commission, the United Nations, and the international legal community. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council ¶ 97–101, Oct. 5, 1993, U.N. Doc. S/26545 (1993), transmittingSecond Interim Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) [hereinafterSecond Interim Report]Google Scholar
  116. 116.
    See, e.g., United States v. Yamashita (1945), in 4 UN War Crimes Comm'n,Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals 1 (1947),aff'd, 327 U.S. 1 (1946); United States v. Ohlendorf (Einsatzgruppen Case), in 4Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10, Nuernberg, October 1946-April 1949, Case No. 9 (1949–1953); William H. Parks,Command Responsibility for War Crimes, 62 Mil. L. Rev. 1 (1973); Richard L. Lael,The Yamashita Precedent: War Crimes and Command Responsibility (1982).Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Secruity Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 41–109 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Id. Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 63–66 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  119. 119.
    Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Secruity Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 51 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report]. Statute,supra note 9 The Statute of the International Tribunal is set out as an annex toSecretary-General's Report, supra note 8Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), U.N. Doc. S/25704 & Add.1 (1993),reprinted in appendix B of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andin 32 I.L.M. 1163 [hereinafterSecretary-General's Report], and isreprinted in appendix B of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andin 32 I.L.M. 1192 [hereinafter Statute], art. 2 (jurisdiction over grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol I),adopted June 8, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force Dec. 7, 1978); Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-international Armed Conflicts (Additional Protocol II),adopted June 8, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 609 (entered into force Dec. 7, 1978).Google Scholar
  120. 120.
    Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 41–109 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report]. For a discussion of rape and other sexual offenses, see C.P.M. Cleiren & M.E.M. Tijssen,Rape and Other Forms of Sexual Assault in the Armed Conflict in the Former Yugoslavia: Legal, Procedural, and Evidentiary Issues, in this issue ofCriminal Law Forum.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 83–86 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report]; Statute,supra note 9 The Statute of the International Tribunal is set out as an annex toSecretary-General's Report, supra note 8Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), U.N. Doc. S/25704 & Add.1 (1993),reprinted in appendix B of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andin 32 I.L.M. 1163 [hereinafterSecretary-General's Report], and isreprinted in appendix B of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andin 32 I.L.M. 1192 [hereinafter Statute], art. 5.See generally M. Cherif Bassiouni,Crimes against Humanity: The Need for a Specialized Convention, 31 Colum. J. Transnar'l L. 457 (1994).Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 96 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report]; Statute,supra note 9, The Statute of the International Tribunal is set out as an annex toSecretary-General's Report, supra note 8,Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 (1993), U.N. Doc. S/25704 & Add.1 (1993),reprinted in appendix B of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andin 32 I.L.M. 1163 [hereinafterSecretary-General's Report], and isreprinted in appendix B of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andin 32 I.L.M. 1192 [hereinafter Statute], art. 4; Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide,adopted Dec. 9, 1948, art. 2, 78 U.N.T.S. 277. The Statute incorporates the convention's definition verbatim: Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: (a)killing members of the group; (b)causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c)deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d)imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e)forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 95 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  124. 124.
    See id. Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 96 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Id. Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 39–40 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report].Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    id. Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $500; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 96 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports [hereinafterFinal Report] at 2.Google Scholar
  127. 127.
    Seesupra note 11.Id. S.C. Res. 827, U.N. SCOR, 48th Year, 3217th mtg. at 1, ¶ 2, U.N. Doc. S/RES/827 (1993),reprinted in appendix A of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andin 32 I.L.M. 1203, preambular ¶ 10. The Commission's work was ended on April 30, 1994, even though there was no prosecutor in office at that time. The Secretary-General had formally nominated me for this post in August 1993. The Security Council decided to act on the nomination by “consensus,” instead of by vote, and consensus was not reached on my candidacy.See Paul Lewis,Disputes Hamper U.N. Drive for a War Crimes Tribunal, N.Y. Times, Sept. 9, 1993, at A10,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File; Stanley Meisler,U.N. Is Deadlocked on War-Crimes Prosecutor, Montreal Gazette, Sept. 12, 1993, at B1,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File. The Security Council later reached a consensus on Ramón Escovar-Salom, from Venezuela. S.C. Res. 877, U.N. SCOR, 48th Sess., 3296th mtg. at 1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/877 (1993),available in U.N. Gopher\Documents\Security Council Resolutions. Escovar-Salom soon resigned, without taking office, in order to assume the position of Minister of the Interior of Venezuela.Bosnia—Venezuela: Boutros-Ghali Accepts Prosecutor's Resignation, Inter Press Serv., Feb. 8, 1994,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File;Secretary-General Appoints Graham Blewitt as Acting Deputy Prosecutor, Was Crimes Tribunal, for Humanitarian Law Violations in Former Yugoslavia, U.N. Press Release, U.N. Doc. SG/SM/5221 (Feb. 8, 1994),available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Press Releases. Nearly half a year later, the Secretary-General recommended Judge Richard J. Goldstone of South Africa to fill the vacancy, the Security Council agreed, and Judge Goldstone took office on August 15, 1994. S.C. Res. 936, U.N. SCOR, 49th Year, 3401st mtg. at 1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/936 (1994),available in U.N. Gopher\Documents\Security Council Resolutions; Paul Lewis,South African Is to Prosecute Balkan War Crimes, N.Y. Times, July 9, 1994, at A2,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File;Yugoslav War Crimes Prosecutor Delays Mission, Reuters, Aug. 26, 1994,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File.Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    At the time, the Commission's secretariat included Vladimir Kotliar, Secretary; Bruna Molina-Abrams, Deputy Secretary; and Julio Baez, Assistant Secretary. The Commission's first Secretary was Jacqueline Dauchy.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Overall responsibility for editing the annexes was given to Carolyn Durnik and Marcia McCormick. The following staff attorneys assisted in the preparation of reports: Patsy Campbell, Carolyn Durnik, Georgann Grabiec, Marcia McCormick, Suzan Ozturk, Peter Spies, and Carson Wetzel. The following staff analysts assisted in the preparation of reports: Daniel Bronson, Richard Danis, Mirande Dupuy, Sebastien Mancel, Christine Matthews, Azra Mehdi, James Rogan, Diane Silverman, John Stomper, John Tomasic, Stacey White, Monica Witczak, and Mario Zadro.Google Scholar
  130. 130.
    Seesupra note 30. Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), Rules of Procedure [hereinafter Comm'n Rules], inFirst Interim Report, supra note 4, at 21–23. These rules were informally adopted at the December 1992 meeting after having been generally agreed upon at the November 1992 meeting.Google Scholar
  131. 131.
    Carson Wetzel, IHRLI Staff Attorney, was the principal analyst for Annex I.A.Google Scholar
  132. 132.
    The Commission's secretariat prepared Annex I.B. Some missions were for reconnaissance purposes in order to decide whether an investigation should be conducted or in order to prepare for an investigation.Google Scholar
  133. 133.
    The Commission's secretariat prepared Annex I.C.Google Scholar
  134. 134.
    Commissioner Cleiren was assisted in the preparation of Annex II by Melanie E.M. Tijssen, Attorney and Assistant to Professor Menno Kamminga, Professor of Public International Law, Erasmus University of Rotterdam, the Netherlands.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Although international humanitarian law does not specifically address violent sexual crimes against men, to exclude them would amount to impermissible discrimination on the basis of sex under international law.E.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights arts. 1–2, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810, at 71 (1948); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,Adopted Dec. 19, 1966, art. 3, 999 U.N.T.S. 171. Children are specifically protected by several international conventions.E.g., Convention on the Rights of the Child, G.A. Res. 44/25, U.N. GAOR, 44th Sess., Supp. No. 49, at 166, U.N. Doc. A/44/49 (1989) (entered into force Sept. 2, 1990).Google Scholar
  136. 136.
    Annex III was prepared by me with the assistance of Richard Janney, IHRLI Staff Attorney; Peter M. Manikas, IHRLI Staff Attorney; and Edmund A. McAlister, Assistant to M. Cherif Bassiouni.Google Scholar
  137. 137.
    Annex III.A was prepared under my direction. Mark W. Bennett, IHRLI Staff Attorney, was the principal legal analyst.Google Scholar
  138. 138.
    Due to the uneven quality (with much of the information not verified) and the paucity of documents received by the Commission, the report should not be considered comprehensive. More groups may be discovered or their identity clarified upon further investigation. The documents received indicated 83 paramilitary groups as follows: 56 in support of Yugoslavia or the self-proclaimed Serb republics in Bosnia and Croatia; 13 in support of Croatia; and 14 in support of Bosnia-Herzegovina.Google Scholar
  139. 139.
    Annex IV was prepared by me with the asistance of Peter M. Manikas and Jan Brakel, IHRLI Staff Attorneys.Google Scholar
  140. 140.
    Id. Annex IV was prepared by me with the assistance of Peter M. Manikas and Jan Brakel, IHRLI Staff Attorneys. ¶ 2 defines “ethnic cleansing” as “the rendering of an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of a given ethnic group from the area.”Google Scholar
  141. 141.
    Zvornik is situated on the Drina River, which marks the border between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Yugoslavia. The town is strategically important because it links these areas by both a road bridge and a railroad bridge. The bridges are significant in terms of troop movements from Serbia to Tuzla and Sarajevo. Of course, the bridges are important to Bosnian forces for the same reason.Google Scholar
  142. 142.
    Because of the confidential nature of the material contained in Commissioner Greve's report, the complete annex will not be published until sometime in the future. Morren Bergsmo, whose services were contributed by Norway, assisted in the preparation of this report.Google Scholar
  143. 143.
    However, the study on Prijedor and other information submitted by the Commission to the office of the prosecutor were relied upon in the application by Prosecutor Goldstone to Germany on November 8, 1994, to defer to the Tribunal in the prosecution of Dusko Tadic. For background, see Melinda Crane-Engel,Germany vs. Genocide, N.Y. Times, Oct. 30, 1994, § 6, at 56,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File;Yugo War Crimes Court Asks Germany to Extradite Bosnian Serb, Agence France Presse, Nov. 8, 1994,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File. On February 13, 1995, Prosecutor Goldstone returned 21 indictments for war crimes and crimes against humanity allegedly committed in the Prijedor area. Prosecutor of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia v. Dusan Tadic and Twenty Named Co-defendants, Attachment to Tribunal Press Release, Feb. 13, 1995, U.N. Doc. CC/PIO/004-E (1995); Jon Henley,Serb Jailers Charged with Murder, Rape, and Torture, The Guardian (Manchester), Feb. 14, 1995,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File.Google Scholar
  144. 144.
    Annex VI was prepared under my direction. William B. Schiller, IHRLI Staff Attorney, was the principal legal analyst.Google Scholar
  145. 145.
    Annex VI.A was prepared by Sergeant J.L. Lamothe and Warrant Officer S. Murray-Ford, members of the Canadian war crimes investigation team, seesupra note 26, Personnel were made available as follows: Canada, military lawyers and investigators seconded to participate in investigations in Sarajevo, Dobrinja, Dubrovnik, Medak, and United Nations Protected Area (UNPA) Sector West, Croatia; the Netherlands, combat engineers, including radiological experts to perform mass grave and radiological investigations, and experts in finding unmarked graves—whose contribution was vital to the success of the mass graves investigation in UNPA Sector West, Croatia; Norway, military lawyers who worked on the Dubrovnik investigation. Governments also contributed personnel to the Commission's secretariat in Genera: France, the Hon. Jean-Paul Laborde; the Netherlands, Lieurenant-Colonel Anton Kempenaars; Norway, Morten Bergsmo. Physicians for Human Rights contributed three different teams to investigate the mass grave at Ovcara/Vukovar and to conduct the exhumations in UNPA Sector West, Croatia, totaling 24 experts whose services were funded by the United States and private sources. These teams were led by world-renowned forensic experts Dr. Clyde Snow, Dr. Robert Kirschner, and Dr. Eric Stover (Executive Director of Physicians for Human Rights). An international team of female attorneys and mental health experts and male mental health specialists volunteered to conduct the rape and sexual assault investigation. Seeinfra note 79. The investigation took place under my direction with assistance from Commissioner Cleiren and Commission staff Bruna Molina-Abrams, Deputy Secretary; Julio Baez, Assistant Secretary; and Lieutenant-Colonel Anton Kempenaars, Military Assistant to the Chairman of the Commission of Experts. To implement the project, Karen Kenny, Interview Coordinator, was put in charge of the field work and performed exceptionally well under difficult circumstances. She worked closely with Maja Drazenovic, Chief Interpreter; Thomas Osorio, Field Officer; and Nancy Paterson, Coordinator of the Legal Team. Elenor Richter-Lyonett and Sabrina Negotovic served briefly as NGO Coordinators. Ms. Drazenovic recruited and selected the interpreters not only for their language skills but also for their ability to empathize with the interviewees. The attorneys who conducted the interviews were from Bangladesh, Canada, Finland, Ireland, and the United States. All were prosecutors with the exception of one criminal defense lawyer. Interviewing teams usually consisted of three women: an attorney, an interpreter, and in most cases a mental health expert. The legal team included Lena Andersson, Susan Axelrod, Francine Borsanyi, Linda S. Crawford, Sharon Janelle Crooks, Kenna Dalrymple, Feryal Gharahi, Sara Hossain, Nancy Paterson, Tanja Petrovar, Laura D. Silver, and Merja Pentikainen. The mental health experts, who did not conduct interviews but served as facilitators and support for the process, included Dr. Abigail Benton Sivan, Dr. Stephanie Cavanaugh, Dr. Wanda Fremont, Alice Geis (R.N.), Dr. Stephanie Gregory, Dr. Daniel Hardy, and Dr. Richard Rahe. Lisa Capitanini was part of the administrative staff serving in Split to organize interviews. I am deeply grateful to the legal and mental health experts who volunteered their time to conduct this investigation, as well as the NGOs upon which the Commission relied. All of those who participated should be commended for their dedication and concern. I also wish to express my appreciation to Professor Catharine MacKinnon of the University of Michigan Law School, who gave generously of her time and help in contacting victims and witnesses whom she represented or otherwise knew. On these various projects, seeinfra section entitled “The Commission's On-site Investigations”. under the direction of Commissioner Fenrick.Google Scholar
  146. 146.
    The team did not choose the incident prior to arriving in Sarajevo. Criteria such as number of casualties and sources of information were used to determine which incident to investigate.Google Scholar
  147. 147.
    Annex VII was prepared under the direction of Commissioner Fenrick. Major J.C. Holland, Canadian Armed Forces, was the principal legal analyst.Google Scholar
  148. 148.
    Seesupra note 55. Sometime in October 1993, UNPROFOR investigated the Medak Pocket incident, which involved Croats against Serbs in Croatia, seeinfra section entitled “Investigation of the Medak Pocket”, and the Stupni Do incident, which involved Croatian Defense Council forces against Muslim villagers in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Commission was given access to these reports and they were turned over to the prosecutor of the Tribunal.Google Scholar
  149. 149.
    Annex VIII was prepared under my direction. Eric S. Krauss and William B. Schiller, IHRLI Staff Attorneys, were the principal legal analysts.Google Scholar
  150. 150.
    Annex IX was prepared under my direction. Marcia McCormick, IHRLI Staff Attorney, was the principal legal analyst.Google Scholar
  151. 151.
    Annex IX.A was prepared under my direction. Karen Kenny, Consultant to the Commission of Experts and Interview Coordinator for the investigation, was the principal legal analyst. Dr. Stephanie Cavanaugh, Consultant to the Commission, was the principal psychiatric analyst.Google Scholar
  152. 152.
    Annex IX.B was prepared under the direction of Commissioner Fenrick. Lieutenant-Colonel Kim S. Carter, Canadian Armed Forces and Consultant to the Commission of Experts, was the pricipal legal analyst. Petty Officer J. Ross and Master Corporal T. McCombe, Canadian Armed Forces, served as the investigators.Google Scholar
  153. 153.
    Annex X was prepared under my direction. Georgann Grabiec, IHRLI Staff Attorney, was the principal legal analyst.Google Scholar
  154. 154.
    Commissioner Fenrick prepared Annex X.A with the assistance of members of the Canadian war crimes investigation team, members of the Royal Netherlands Army, and Dr. Eric Stover of Physicians for Human Rights.Google Scholar
  155. 155.
    Commissioner Fenrick prepared Annex X.B with the assistance of Major J.C. Holland and Major P. Olson, of the Canadian war crimes investigation team, members of the Royal Netherlands Army, and Dr. Eric Stover of Physicians for Human Rights.Google Scholar
  156. 156.
    In 1979, UNESCO placed Dubrovnik on the World Heritage List. In 1991, the JNA attacked the town and caused extensive damage to historical, cultural, and religious property. The damage was allegedly out of proportion to what was reasonably necessary in light of valid military objectives. Therefore, the battle of Dubrovnik was chosen for a study of the laws of war as applied to the destruction of cultural property. Annex XI.A was prepared under the direction of Commissioner Fenrick by Major Oyvind Hoel, Norwegian Armed Forces; Dr. Colin Kaiser, Consultant to the Commission of Experts; Major Terje Lund, Norwegian Armed Forces; and Lieutenant-Colonel Dominic McAlea, Canadian Armed Forces.Google Scholar
  157. 157.
    Annex XII was prepared under the direction of Commissioner Fenrick by Captain J.J.H.M. Limbourg and Sergeant Major C.C.L. Daelman of the Royal Netherlands Army Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical School.Google Scholar
  158. 158.
    Letter from Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Secretary-General of the United Nations, to M. Cherif Bassiouni, President, International Human Rights Law Institute, Depaul University, Jan. 4, 1995.Google Scholar
  159. 159.
    Seesupra note 25 Deputy UN Legal Counsel Ralph Zacklin told Iain Guest, a journalist who wrote a report for the Open Society Institute (unpublished manuscript, on file with Cherif Bassiouni) on the prosecution of war criminals, that he “forgot” to present the Commission's budget to the ACABQ in November because of other pressing business. As a result, the ACABQ did not fund the Commission's 1994 budget. The Secretary-General reportedly agreed with Mr. Fleischhauer on terminating the Commission prematurely, even though the Commission still had over $230,000 in the voluntary trust fund on April 30, 1994. Since the Commission's monthly costs at that time were approximately $50,000, it could easily have continued until July 31 and completed its work and accompanying text.Google Scholar
  160. 160.
    S.C. Res. 827,supra note 10, S.C. Res. 827, U.N. SCOR, 48th Year, 3217th mtg. at 1, preambular ¶ 10 (citation omitted).Google Scholar
  161. 161.
    Seesupra note 11Id. S.C. Res. 827, U.N. SCOR, 48th Year, 3217th mtg. at 1, ¶ 2, u.N. Doc. S/RES/827 (1993),reprinted in appendix A of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andin 32 I.L.M. 1203 preambular ¶ 10. The Commission's work was ended on April 30, 1994, even though there was no prosecutor in office at that time. The Secretary-General had formally nominated me for this post in Augst 1993. The Security Council decided to act on the nomination by “consensus,” instead of by vote, and consensus was not reached on my candidacy.See Paul Lewis,Disputes Hamper U.N. Drive for a War Crimes Tribunal, N.Y. Times, Sept. 9, 1993, at A10,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File; Stanley Meisler,U.N. Is Deadlocked on War-Crimes Prosecutor, Montreal Gazette, Sept. 12, 1993, at B1,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File. The Security Council later reached a consensus on Ramón Escovar-Salom, from Venezuela. S.C. Res. 877, U.N. SCOR, 48th Sess., 3296th mtg. at 1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/877 (1993),available in U.N. Gopher\Documents\Security Council Resolutions. Escovar-Salom soon resigned, without taking office, in order to assume the position of Minister of the Interior of Venezuela.Bosnia—Venezuela: Boutros-Ghali Accepts Prosecutor's Resignation, Inter Press Serv., Feb. 8, 1994,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File;Secretary-General Appoints Graham Blewitt as Acting Deputy Prosecutor, War Crimes Tribunal, for Humanitarian Law Violations in Former Yugoslavia, U.N. Press Release, U.N. Doc. SG/SM/5221 (Feb. 8, 1994),available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Press Releases. Nearly half a year later, the Secretary-General recommended Judge Richard J. Goldstone of South Africa to fill the vacancy, the Security Council agreed, and Judge Goldstone took office on August 15, 1994. S.C. Res. 936, U.N. SCOR, 49th Year, 3401st mtg. at 1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/936 (1994),available in U.N. Gopher\Documents\Security Council Resolutions; Paul Lewis,South African Is to Prosecute Balkan War Crimes, N.Y. Times, July 9, 1994, at A2,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File;Yugoslav War Crimes Prosecutor Delays Mission, Reuters, Aug. 26, 1994,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File.Google Scholar
  162. 162.
    The Situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, U.N. GAOR, 48th Sess., U.N. Doc. A/48/L.50 (1993).Google Scholar
  163. 163.
    There were approximately 200 more victims from Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina to be interviewed in Croatia, 7 Serbian victims to be interviewed in Belgrade, and an unspecified number of victims to be interviewed in Turkey at the request of the Turkish government. The Commission was left with having to ask the respective governments to conduct the intervies themselves and send the information to the prosecutor. Whether the governments did so is not known.Google Scholar
  164. 164.
    Yugoslavian Report, supra note 53. Letter from the Permanent Mission of Yugoslavia to the Secretary-General, May 6, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/548 (1994), transmittingThird Report Submitted to the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) [hereinafterYugoslavian Report]. Moreover, in March 1994, I had met in Geneva with Yugoslavia's Minister of Justice, who is also chairman of the state War Crimes Commission, and expected to receive evidence from that source and to be able to conduct interviews of rape victims in Serbia. This was prevented by the premature termination of the Commission of Experts in April 1994.See Yugoslavia to Continue Cooperation with U.N. War Crimes Commission, BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, Mar. 19, 1994,available in LEXIS, World Library, Allnws File.Google Scholar
  165. 165.
    Since the summer of 1994, Morten Bergsmo (Norway), William Fenrick (Canada), and Lieutenant-Colonel Anton Kempenaars (Norway) have joined the prosecutor's staff. Their presence ensures some continuity.Google Scholar
  166. 166.
    The relationship between the Commission and the office of the prosecutor is acknowledged inTribunal Annual Report, supra note 33.See Annual Report 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, ¶ 158, U.N. SCOR, 49th Year, Agenda Item 152, U.N. Doc. S/1994/1007 (1994) [hereinafterTribunal Annual Report]. ¶¶ 157–158.Google Scholar
  167. 167.
    Seesupra note 3. On the basis of the precedent of the former Yugoslavia, the Security Council established a similar Commission of Experts to investigate violations in the Rwandan civil war. S.C. Res. 935, U.N. SCOR, 49th Year, 340th mtg. at 1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/935 (1994),reprinted in appendix D of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andavailable in U.N. Gopher\Documents\Security Council Resolutions. This Commission submitted a preliminary report in the early fall of 1994. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Oct. 1, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/1125 (1994), transmittingPreliminary Report of the Independent Commission of Experts Established in Accordance with Security Council Resolution 935 (1994), available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Reports. The Security Council set up a judicial mechanism about a month later, with institutional ties to the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The relevant resolution adopts and annexes the Tribunal's Statute. S.C. Res. 955, U.N. SCOR, 49th Year, 3453d mtg. at 1, U.N. Doc. S/RES/955 (1994),reprinted in appendix D of this issue ofCriminal Law Forum andavailable in U.N. Gopher\Documents\Security Council Resolutions. The Commission subsequently submitted its final report. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, Dec. 9, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/1405 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 935 (1994), available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General Reports.Google Scholar
  168. 168.
    Final Report, supra note 24, Because of this delay (for which no explanation was given), funds were not available to the Commission until July–August 1993. The following countries contributed a total of $1,320,631: Austria, $20,000; Canada, $237,869; Czech Republic, $1,000; Denmark, $15,201; Germany, $16,000; Hungary, $3,000; Iceland, $5000; Liechtenstein, $3,184; Micronesia, $300; Morocco, $5,000; the Netherlands, $260,152; New Zealand, $53,492; Norway, $49,978; Sweden, $94,955; Switzerland, $50,000; Turkey, $10,000; the United States, $500,000. Letter from the Secretary-General to the President of the Security Council, May 24, 1994, U.N. Doc. S/1994/674 (1994), transmittingFinal Report of the Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), ¶¶ 320 & n.4,available in U.N. Gopher\Current Information\Secretary-General's Report [hereinafterFinal Report]. (citation omitted).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Cherif Bassiouni

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations