"Tribunal won't prevent further war crimes"

peter, sydney - You are absolutely 100% right. Any claim that the court is not just a political show of victor's justice is scotched by the release of these two men. If the ICTY wanted credibility they should have convicted them on the evidence that was presented.

> Anyway, the goal of this court is not to prevent future crimes but to bring to justice those who might have committed them in the past,” Orie said

Pity these 'goals' didn't include the likes of Naser Oric & Ramush Haradinaj.

Perhaps that is what he means when he talks about "Dutch legal pragmatism".

In this court hersay is actually admissable. This was one of the major problems pointed out by critics during Milosevic's and few other trials. I't would cause a lot of comments too, like in this case.

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=38613#hrono

Comments 2, 4, and 6.

There were sentences handed down based exclusively on hersay.

"No democratic court system will convict someone according to hearsay/rumors."

Since, it already happen, I guess that you agree with Kate oppinion about this court, or at least that you don't consider it to be part of "democratic court system".

Ahmet Isufi:
Heresay is not evidence in a court of law. Does not mean it is not true.

http://www.srebrenica-report.com/Oric.htm

http://www.srebrenica-report.com/Oric2.htm

Not admissable in a court of law.

Damning nevertheless.

I think that the ICTY could do much more to prevent war crimes. Immediately prosecuting Operation Lightning could have prevented Srebrenica; immediately prosecuting Operation Storm could have prevented the cleansing in Kosovo and might have greatly helped in promoting returns of refugees to the Krajna.

I get the impression that mr. Orie is too much obsessed with the details of the Tribunal and too little aware of the fact that there are effects beyond "revenge".

Kate , what facts?
No democratic court system will convict someone according to hearsay/rumors. Facts will convict even Presidents and PM, but bear in mine only where democracy is practised and we are not talking Russina style democracy either.

A lot would depend on your definition of hearsay. American Courts will allow testimony from one person in which another confessed a crime.
ie. a cell mate who in conversation with another and brags about commiting a crime is admissable and used very often.
But a cellmate that overheard another cell mate say that someone confessed is not admissable.

Kate , what facts?
No democratic court system will convict someone according to hearsay/rumors. Facts will convict even Presidents and PM, but bear in mine only where democracy is practised and we are not talking Russina style democracy either.

> Anyway, the goal of this court is not to prevent future crimes but to bring to justice those who might have committed them in the past,” Orie said

Pity these 'goals' didn't include the likes of Naser Oric & Ramush Haradinaj.

Perhaps that is what he means when he talks about "Dutch legal pragmatism".

peter, sydney - You are absolutely 100% right. Any claim that the court is not just a political show of victor's justice is scotched by the release of these two men. If the ICTY wanted credibility they should have convicted them on the evidence that was presented.

Ahmet Isufi:
Heresay is not evidence in a court of law. Does not mean it is not true.

http://www.srebrenica-report.com/Oric.htm

http://www.srebrenica-report.com/Oric2.htm

Not admissable in a court of law.

Damning nevertheless.

In this court hersay is actually admissable. This was one of the major problems pointed out by critics during Milosevic's and few other trials. I't would cause a lot of comments too, like in this case.

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/comments.php?nav_id=38613#hrono

Comments 2, 4, and 6.

There were sentences handed down based exclusively on hersay.

"No democratic court system will convict someone according to hearsay/rumors."

Since, it already happen, I guess that you agree with Kate oppinion about this court, or at least that you don't consider it to be part of "democratic court system".

A lot would depend on your definition of hearsay. American Courts will allow testimony from one person in which another confessed a crime.
ie. a cell mate who in conversation with another and brags about commiting a crime is admissable and used very often.
But a cellmate that overheard another cell mate say that someone confessed is not admissable.

I think that the ICTY could do much more to prevent war crimes. Immediately prosecuting Operation Lightning could have prevented Srebrenica; immediately prosecuting Operation Storm could have prevented the cleansing in Kosovo and might have greatly helped in promoting returns of refugees to the Krajna.

I get the impression that mr. Orie is too much obsessed with the details of the Tribunal and too little aware of the fact that there are effects beyond "revenge".