Hunger striking Serbian ultra-nationalist and war crimes suspect Vojislav Seselj has brought his trial to a screeching halt. War crimes trials are notoriously difficult to manage, are laboriously slow, and tend to have a great deal of political posturing and grandstanding by the defendant that slows the judicial process. Often times, the defendant, especially a high profile one, makes a mockery of the proceedings with his contempt. The recently concluded trial of deposed Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein illustrates the challenges of administering and retaining control over war crimes tribunals. Similarly, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague has found trials of high profile defendants equally challenging.
The problem with an exogenous international organization is that both defendants and supporters often claim that the process is not only tainted due to international interference but also is imposed by outside powers. Because the former Yugoslavia had broken up and factions still view each other with distrust, it would have been nearly impossible to install a legitimate war crimes court in the region. The point of an international tribunal is to ensure neutrality, and this could not have been ensured if the trial had been in the former Yugoslavia. As an outside, neutral actor, the ICTY has indicted numerous nationalities and ethnicities, stemming from actions committed during the Balkan conflict rather than from sectarian loyalties or heritage.
However, when war crimes defendants stand trial, they tend to stir up nationalist sentiment, charging that the ICTY is both prejudiced against them and a tool of foreign powers. Supporters of Seselj have taken to the streets in Serbia , protesting that the court is taking orders from the US and that the tribunal is biased against Serbs. Particularly adept defendants?Saddam Hussein, in particular–can manipulate the court, turning the procedure into pure theater. Seselj has followed in the footsteps of another famous defendant at the ICTY, former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic. Milosevic made his trial a mockery by defending himself and slowing the trial with tangential political diatribes, a common tactic by defendants. He also sidelined his trial with recurring medical delays, demanding to go to Russia for treatment due to alleged poisoning. When he died from a heart condition, many of his supporters believed he was murdered . In fact, doctors theorize that Milosevic may have been trying to neutralize his heart medication to make his doctors look bad and, thus, be permitted to travel to Russia, where he stood a chance of receiving asylum.
Like Milosevic, Seselj has been a disruptive presence in his trial. He demanded to defend himself, and when he did not show up for the first day of court, that right was rescinded. Then, he began a hunger strike, demanding that this right, along with visitation from his wife, be restored. As another part of his hunger strike, he refused to be seen by the Court?s doctors. After three weeks on a hunger strike, he gained some concessions: he can appeal the right to self-defense, and the Serbian Ambassador has demanded that he be transferred to a prison in Belgrade. Moreover, the Court ordered that Seselj be ?kept alive,? implicitly meaning that the ICTY is afraid to have an accused war criminal (namely, Slavko Dokmanovic Milan Babic, and Milosevic, all in early 2006) die in their care. Seselj agreed to end his hunger strike possibly because he may be prevented from actually killing himself so his continued hunger strike would be futile or because he was not serious about following through but rather intended to manipulate the ICTY. It is likely that high profile defendants will continue to grandstand, and the ICTY will have to balance their approach with these types of defendants. Unfortunately, if they give in, power goes to the defendant; if they are firm, they are accused of abuse and infringing on human rights.
