LexisNexis Global

In 2003, former Bosnian Serb President Biljana Plavsic pled guilty to some war crimes in exchange for genocide and other serious ethnic cleansing charges being dropped. The plea deal included an 11-year prison sentence. 2003+11=2014, if the math is correct.

Yet Plavsic, who was dubbed the “Serbian Iron Lady” in her heyday, was just released with the approval of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (“ICTFY”) by Swedish authorities where she was being held in prison after serving only 6 ½ years of her actual sentence. The ICTFY, instead of maintaining a fair and uniform regulation concerning the serving of the sentences it metes out, instead defers in to the local penal system rules in the country where a prisoner is being held, as it did in its agreement with the Government of Sweden.  According to the agreement as reported by the Swedish government, the ICTFY retains “a decisive influence” over the sentence, and on September 14, 2009, the ICTFY ruled that Plavsic’s early release was in accord with its case law. It is clear from the ICTFY’s own Practice Direction on Pardon that the ICTFY retains the ultimate say in whether or not to allow early release, regardless of what the local penal rules may permit.

Plavsic began serving her sentence on June 26, 2003.   She has benefitted from the notoriously more liberal Swedish penal regime, which allows conditional release of any prisoner after only 2/3s of their sentence has been served with good behavior. If ICTFY prisoners were being held in Russia or China or other nations with more strict penal regimes, they would likely not walk free until the end of their court-appointed sentence. Unless one believes that war criminals should be paroled for good prison behavior, Plavsic’s release is a travesty of justice, and an insult to the standard established by the international community beginning with the Nuremburg tribunal after World War II and the UN Conventions.

What about others who commit crimes against humanity? Should they be able to “earn” early release? Why did the ICTY decide that Plavsic should be given favorable treatment both by plea agreement and by early release? Were the lives of Bosnian Muslims taken considered less valuable than others? How must the victims’ families feel watching Plavsic parading around free in her fur coat? Certainly this weak-willed behavior by the ICTFY can only encourage Mr. Karadzic to continue in his obstreperous behavior toward the tribunal.

Plavsic’s freedom mocks the rule of law as even-handed justice is not being meted out. She should have served the full term of her prison sentence, no matter where she was held, particularly because it was part of a deal where she avoided more serious charges that would likely have resulted in sentencing to life imprisonment.

This is not the first time that the ICTY has made controversial decisions about Yugoslavian war crimes charges. For example:

If the ICTY cannot or will not administer justice impartially, the tribunal has squandered its international mandate. Many have called for the disbanding of the ICTFY and its jurisdiction to be ceded to the International Criminal Court so that the rule of law can prevail. Perhaps it is time for those voices to be heard.

 

Swedish Official: Bosnian Serb Ex-Leader Set Free (A.P. Worldstream, Oct. 27, 2009)

UN Prosecutors Call for Retrial in War Crimes Case against Former Kosovo Prime Minister (A.P. Worldstream, May 2, 2008)

Former Serb President Cleared of Kosovo Crimes (A.P. Worldstream, Feb. 27, 2009)

Ex-Kosovo Official's Conviction Is Overturned (A.P. Worldstream, July 23, 2009)

Swedish Ministry of Justice Press Release: Biljana Plavsic will be conditionally released, 22 October 2009

ICTFY official press concerning the Plavsic release 14 September 2009 (PDF file)

ICTFY Practice Direction on Pardon of 15 August 2006 (PDF file)