DATE=8/4/2000
TYPE=BACKGROUND REPORT
TITLE=KARADZIC TRIAL
NUMBER=5-46792
BYLINE=ALEXEY VOLYNETS
DATELINE=NEW YORK
CONTENT=
(Voiced by Larry Freund)
INTRO: The controversial trial of a civil lawsuit
against former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic is
underway in a New York Federal court. Some people say
the trial may achieve justice, while others see it as
American interference in the sovereign affairs of
another nation. VOA's Alexey Volynets reports from New
York.
TEXT: In a silenced courtroom, a Bosnian woman
speaks, while an interpreter translates her words into
English, a story of multiple rapes and torture. The
testimony is for a civil lawsuit filed in the United
States in 1993 on behalf of a group of Muslim women
and children, seeking millions of dollars in damages
from Radovan Karadzic. They claim they suffered from a
campaign of genocide and torture, masterminded by the
Bosnian Serbs' leader in the early 1990's. Mr.
Karadzic has been indicted by the U-N War Crimes
Tribunal at The Hague but remains at large.
Radovan Karadzic and his lawyers have refused to
attend the civil trial in New York. They say the
United States court has no legal right to hold a civil
trial related to events in another country, involving
non-American citizens. However, some American legal
scholars say there is a legal basis for the case. Jose
Alvarez, an expert on international law at Columbia
University in New York, points to the war crimes
trials in Nuremberg, Germany, after World War Two.
/// Alvarez act ///
The international community has said that these
types of actions create universal jurisdiction.
That is, ever since the Nuremberg case it has
been said that if someone commits genocide, for
example, every nation has the right to assert
jurisdiction. So that legally, at least under
international law, for some major crimes like
genocide, it is not illegal for the United
States to assert jurisdiction. And so one answer
is: why haven't other states been brave enough
to defend the Nuremberg principles?
///end act///
The lawsuit against Mr. Karadzic is based on a statute
passed by the U-S Congress in 1789. The law says U-S
courts would have jurisdiction in cases where aliens
make claims for damages that result from offenses
against the law of nations or a treaty of the United
States.
The statute lay dormant until 1980 when a woman from
Paraguay sued another Paraguayan in the United States
for torturing and killing her brother in their native
country. Since then, there have been some 20 similar
cases. Professor Alvarez says the number is not larger
because there are strict rules under which an American
court will agree to consider a case.
/// Alvarez act ///
It is pretty strict, because the major hurdle is
to prove that the person who did this to you
committed a tort (civil wrong) in violation of
the laws of nations. And so generally what we
are talking about are colossal crimes - torture,
genocide, acts of mass rape like the ones
alleged in this case. The second thing is that
you have to file the paper personally against
the individual. /// BEGIN OPT /// So that at
some point, the person must have stepped foot in
the United States. In the case of Karadzic, he
was here, as I understand it, on U-N business.
And he was served personally in the United
States although he is not, of course, physically
present now. And of course the person who is
suing must also be present in the United States.
/// END OPT ///
/// end act ///
Experts say that in the current civil suit against
Radovan Karadzic, even if the women win, it will be
extremely difficult for them to recover money from the
defendant. Mr. Karadzic reportedly has no assets in
the United States, so the victims' lawyers would have
to track his assets in other countries and hope the
courts will respect the American judgment. So far, in
about 20 similar cases, the victims have been able to
actually collect money in only one case. But law
professor Jose Alvarez says the money is not the main
reason for many of these lawsuits.
/// Alvarez act ///
What is important to realize is that most of
these victims knew that from the beginning and
that is not what they were looking for. We use
courts in the United States and elsewhere not
just to put money in the pocket of victims but
also to affirm the truth. In other words, I
believe that victims want to be able to tell
their story, they want to be able to tell it in
court. They want an objective person, whether it
is a judge or jury, to say "yes, we believe
you."
///end act///
Some legal experts find these civil lawsuits
controversial and say the American judicial system
should not apply its standards to matters involving
non-Americans in other countries. If the charge is
considered a crime against humanity, they believe, it
should be a matter for international justice and they
point to efforts to establish an international
criminal court. (signed)
NEB/NY/AKV/LSF/PT
3
04-Aug-2000 17:47 PM EDT (04-Aug-2000 2147 UTC)
NNNN
Source: Voice of America
.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
