Doslovný zápis z rozpráv

Streda, 28. februára 2018 - Brusel

23. Práca a odkaz Medzinárodného trestného tribunálu pre bývalú Juhosláviu (rozprava)

  Preşedinte. – Următorul punct de pe ordinea de zi este dezbaterea privind Declarațiile Consiliului și Comisiei referitoare la activitatea și moștenirea Tribunalului Penal Internațional pentru Fosta Iugoslavie (2018/2530(RSP)).

  Monika Panayotova, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia was established by the UN Security Council in 1993 to deal with war crimes committed during the conflicts in the Western Balkans in the 1990s. The European Union has consistently supported the work of the Tribunal. Human rights violations and war crimes – whether in the past or in the present – have to be addressed. The Tribunal carried out important work and contributed to ending a prevalent sense of impunity, hence contributing to peace as well as fostering reconciliation and strengthening the rule of law.

The Tribunal also contributed to the development of international law and legal praxis. It built up an extensive jurisprudence in international criminal law. The EU commends these developments that will contribute to future work in the area of international justice. The EU has always underlined the need to address impunity and ensure accountability, as well as to fully cooperate with and support the work of the Tribunal. We condemn any attempt to minimise or deny war crimes and genocide.

Over the years, the EU has been supporting the Tribunal in different ways, using various programmes and contracts. We have banned certain persons close to the fugitives from travelling to or through EU Member States’ territory, and we froze their assets.

The aim is to communicate to those affected by the conflict not only the findings of the Tribunal but also the important concepts which underpin its work. These include the concept of individual criminal responsibility, the rule of law and respect for human rights. These principles are among the core tenets shared by all members of the European Union.

The Council has reiterated the need to continue handling domestic war crimes cases without discrimination, as well as addressing impunity and ensuring accountability, including through meaningful regional cooperation, as well as full cooperation with and support for the work of the Tribunal. The EU also called upon the governments concerned to pursue with greater determination the proper conduct of domestic war crime trials. The EU has made clear that political leaders should avoid statements and measures that could call into question the importance of reconciliation, and on the need to serve justice through the prosecution of war crimes.

Full cooperation with the Tribunal is also addressed in the context of the Stabilisation and Association Process and is an essential condition for membership for the countries of the former Yugoslavia. For example, when accession negotiations were opened with the first country from the former Yugoslavia – Croatia – full cooperation with the Tribunal was a key requirement.

Full cooperation with the Tribunal is also an essential element of the Stabilisation and Association Agreement with Serbia and of its accession negotiations under Chapter 23 (Judiciary and fundamental rights). This remains a matter of concern which the European Union continues to raise with Serbia. More generally, cooperation with the Tribunal is a regular feature of the dialogue with Western Balkan partners.

We are grateful to the European Parliament for the support provided during the years, especially in urging the Western Balkans’ partners to cooperate fully with the Tribunal in order to bring justice to the victims and their families, and in condemning the occasional promotion of regional intolerance and hate speech linked to the activities of the Tribunal.

When the Tribunal closed down on 31 December 2017, it marked the completion of all its judicial work. The Tribunal concluded proceedings against all 161 of the individuals that were indicted for serious violations of international humanitarian law.

The Tribunal’s successor – the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals – was established to perform a number of essential functions. This mechanism provides a further framework in which to address the reconciliation. The European Union fully respects the decisions of the Tribunal and reiterates the need for full cooperation with its successor mechanism.

To conclude, let me express my sincere hope, as we look back to the last twenty years, to see the dark chapters of the Western Balkans’ history being finally put to rest.

  Phil Hogan, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, I am taking this point on behalf of my colleague, Commissioner Hahn, who unfortunately cannot be here.

There has never been a more timely moment to address the subject of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, or the broader issues of the legacy of past, impunity and reconciliation in the Western Balkans. These issues are directly addressed in the strategy for the Western Balkans, which the Commission adopted on 6 February. It states that ‘the process of transitional justice is incomplete. The outstanding sensitive issues, such as the handling of war crime cases, including through full cooperation with the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals and the Kosovo Specialist Chambers, and the fate of missing persons, refugees and internally displaced persons, as well as the identification and removal of remaining landmines in the region, must be urgently addressed.

The International Tribunal has been a mainstay in the process of bringing justice to the region. As United Nations Secretary—General António Guterres said at the closing ceremony of the Tribunal in December last year, ‘The Tribunal has pushed international expectations of accountability beyond what was anticipated in 1993, transforming how we speak about, and addressing, situations in which serious international crimes are committed.’ Commissioner Hahn has been in regular contact with both the President of the International Tribunal and the chief prosecutor. Both have made it clear that its achievements would not have been possible without the European Union, without our political engagement and without our financial support – some EUR 10 million in total – and without the leverage of our accession conditionality.

So today I confirm that the commitment of the Commission is as strong as ever, stronger indeed, as we must see that the closure of the Tribunal is not the end of the matter. The successor to the Tribunal, which is the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals, is now well established. In the strategy which the Commission adopted recently, we are explicit in our continued support. This applies in particular to regional cooperation. Without such regional cooperation, perpetrators will continue to walk free outside the jurisdiction of national courts, and the families of the 10 000 still missing will not have their loved ones identified.

Our political support is essential, but so is our financial support. Up to EUR 1 million is available this year. Our conditionality remains an integral element in the accession negotiations. More than this, it has been refined to reflect our ‘fundamentals first’ approach to the accession negotiations, allowing more thorough and detailed work than ever before. This work is set in the broader context of promoting reconciliation. We will work towards a more integrated approach, bringing many existing strands together. Not only will this include the issues of war crimes, missing persons, and also landmines, but we will also look to education, youth and culture and the ongoing regional cooperation in many fields as vectors to support the reconciliation process.

However, as our strategy adopted today clearly spells out, ‘Regional cooperation, good neighbourly relations and reconciliation cannot be imposed from outside. The leaders of the region must take full ownership and lead by example. They must avoid and condemn any statements or actions which would fuel inter—ethnic tension, and actively counter nationalist narratives.’ There must be no place in the European Union for inflammatory rhetoric, let alone for glorification of war criminals from any side.

I would like the Parliament to work closely with the Commission on both of these aspects, in supporting the actions which the Commission will undertake and also in being clear in the messages that we will need to put across if reconciliation is to become a reality.

  Dubravka Šuica, u ime Kluba zastupnika PPE-a. – Gospodine predsjedniče, žao mi je što se ponovno moramo vratiti u prošlost jer očito je da je bez razjašnjavanja odnosa i istine o prošlosti teško graditi budućnost. A svi ste svjedoci da ovih dana intenzivno razgovaramo o budućnosti Europske unije. Vjerujem da se svi sjećate srpsko-crnogorskih agresorskih napada na hrvatski Vukovar i na moj rodni grad, pod UNESCO-vom zaštitom, Dubrovnik. Sigurna sam da niste zaboravili ni genocid koji se dogodio u Srebrenici, prvi priznati genocid nakon Drugog svjetskog rata.

A radilo se, zbog istine, o velikosrpskoj agresiji i Miloševićevoj želji da svi Srbi žive u jednoj državi, u velikoj Srbiji. I rat u Hrvatskoj i u Bosni i Hercegovini su rezultat tih velikosrpskih težnji. Haški sud je imao ulogu procesuirati sve ratne zločine, drago mi je da ste spomenuli to, po mom osobnom mišljenju potrebno je suočavanje s istinom.

Po mom osobnom mišljenju, ovaj je sud bio vrlo kontroverzan, ali želim vjerovati da će Srbija nastaviti pravedno procesuirati svoje ratne zločince i da počinitelji, kao što ste rekli, gospodine Hogan, neće slobodno hodati; kako bi mogli neometano nastaviti svoj put u Europsku uniju.

Još niz zločina ostao je neistražen, no svi svijetli trenuci i vrijednosti koje je sud trebao zastupati zasjenjeni su posljednjom presudom i samoubojstvom generala Praljka u Haškom sudu.

  Victor Boştinaru, on behalf of the S&D Group. – Mr President, Commissioner, after 24 years of investigations, the court that sentenced Slobodan Milošević, Radovan Karadžić, Ratko Mladić and also Slobodan Praljak, among others, as well as another 86 war criminals, has closed its doors at the end of last year, leaving a powerful legacy in relation to war crimes. It is an essential legacy that should be further used and better explained – for this time we strongly encourage the opening of an information office and access to all the archives. This is probably the most important legacy for the future.

Political tensions and the burdens of the war still overshadow the Western Balkan countries. The war has left deep wounds, and I have noted bitterly that some criminals are still celebrated like heroes by some in certain places in the region, while the victims are still side-lined. I trust that justice is one of the important tools of reconciliation, but a lot remains to be done and I encourage the Western Balkans leaders and politicians to put an end to the current situation by fostering regional cooperation and coordination.

  Ruža Tomašić, u ime Kluba zastupnika ECR-a. – Gospodine predsjedniče, Haški sud trebao je procesuirati sve zločine koji su se dogodili u ratovima pri raspadu bivše Jugoslavije te donijeti svojevrstan pravorijek o ratnim zbivanjima na temelju kojega bi se pisala povijest i stvorili uvjeti za pomirenje i suživot u budućnosti. Malo je reći da je sud potpuno podbacio u svojoj misiji.

Pošteda od progona nekih od glavnih arhitekata rata iz vrha Jugoslavenske narodne armije i obavještajnih službi bivše Jugoslavije, sramotno niske kazne za pokolj na Ovčari i oslobađajuća presuda zlotvoru Vojislavu Šešelju, sporost zbog koje je Milošević izbjegao ruci pravde, a optužnica Ratku Mladiću morala biti reducirana, zatim politizacija rada tužiteljstva – samo su neki od razloga zašto ICTY na kraju priče ne može dobiti prolaznu ocjenu.

ICTY nije raščistio nasljeđe rata te kažnjavanjem pravih zločinaca pokazao da se ratni zločin ne isplati. Naprotiv, on je dokaz da se međunarodno pravo često zloupotrebljava u političke svrhe i bojim se da je zasijao sjeme budućih netrpeljivosti.

Gospođa Panayotova kaže da će sada doći do pomirenja i da će se povijest konačno staviti u mirovanje. A svi znate i sami da samo istina vodi pravdi, a pravda trajnom miru. A ovdje se jako, jako malo držalo do istine.

  Ivan Jakovčić, u ime Kluba zastupnika ALDE-a. – Gospodine predsjedniče, pitanje je ostalo otvoreno nakon završetka rada Haškog tribunala. No jedno je sigurno, žrtve osuđenih zločinaca dobile su barem malu satisfakciju odlukama Suda. Da tih presuda nije bilo, zločinci bi danas, neosuđeni, bili oko nas.

Osuđeni su pojedinci, a ne narodi. I to je jedina istina. Ipak, treba naglasiti da smo kod svake odluke Tribunala svjedočili licemjernim reakcijama u Srbiji, Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini. Ovisno je li odluka oslobađajuća ili osuđujuća, imali bismo nastavak medijskog rata i verbalnih konstrukcija političara koji sebi umišljaju da predstavljaju cijele narode.

Ta nesposobnost izlaska iz dnevnopolitičkih igara znači nespremnost suočavanja s prošlošću. Najžalosnije su bile reakcije crkvenih vlasti, gdje je srpski patrijarh rad Suda nazvao đavolskim delom, a katolički biskup ljubio ruke osuđenog ratnog zločinca. Uzimanjem kao istine samo one odluke Suda koje pojedinoj zemlji ili političkoj eliti odgovara, ne doprinosi pomirenju, niti istini.

Mada je bilo nevjerojatnih tehničkih propusta u radu Suda, svi trebaju poštivati njegove odluke. Nitko nema pravo negirati genocid u Srebrenici, kao najveći zločin na europskom tlu nakon Drugog svjetskog rata. Nitko nema pravo odbacivati presude za zločine učinjene zbog navodnih viših ciljeva. Ne postoje viši ciljevi. Život je najviši cilj. Pravo na život je svetinja.

Samo iskreno suočavanje s istinom može donijeti iskupljenje grijeha za sve one osobe koje su činile, podržavale ili zataškavale zločine na području bivše Jugoslavije.

  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! In den 24 Jahren seiner Existenz hat der Strafgerichtshof für Jugoslawien einen wichtigen Beitrag im Kampf gegen die Straffreiheit bei schwersten Verbrechen geleistet. Es gibt zugleich Lehren aus seinen Erfahrungen zu ziehen, da der Internationale Strafgerichtshof und das Strafvölkerrecht geschützt und gestärkt gehören.

Das Mandat des Internationalen Strafgerichtshofs für Jugoslawien erstreckte sich auf Gesamtjugoslawien, aber die Rechtsprechung ist am Ende ungleich verteilt geblieben, auch da die Realpolitik der Staaten der Völkergemeinschaft in der Region unterschiedliche Interessen verfolgte.

Lehre Nummer 1: Wir brauchen eine weitergehende Emanzipation des Rechts von der Macht. Es stellt sich zugleich die Frage: Wie ist Beweissicherung zu organisieren, ohne vor Ort zu sein?

Lehre Nummer 2: Gelingt es, die Erfahrungen der United Nation War Crimes Commission aus dem Zweiten Weltkrieg politisch zu erschließen und mit den heutigen modernen Technologien zu verknüpfen, wären schwerste Straftaten quasi zeitnah und auf Vorrat dokumentierbar.

Und schließlich geht es auch um die individuelle Gerechtigkeit, das heißt, wir sollten als EU in bedürftigen Partnerländern gezielt die Fähigkeiten zur eigenen Rechtsprechung bei solchen schwersten Verbrechen stärken können.

  Σωτήριος Ζαριανόπουλος (NI). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, το Διεθνές Ποινικό Δικαστήριο της Χάγης, με κύρια ενασχόληση τη Γιουγκοσλαβία, μια παρακαταθήκη αφήνει: αθώωση των εγκλημάτων του ΝΑΤΟ και της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης που, υποδαυλίζοντας εθνικισμούς και αλυτρωτισμούς, βομβαρδίζοντας αμάχους, διέλυσαν τη Γιουγκοσλαβία, επαναχάραξαν σύνορα, έστησαν κράτη, χρήσιμα προτεκτοράτα σήμερα στο σημερινό ανταγωνισμό της με τη Ρωσία και την Κίνα που κάνουν πάλι τα Βαλκάνια πυριτιδαποθήκη. Αυτός ο μηχανισμός καταδίκασε σαν έγκλημα πολέμου την αντίσταση στη διάλυση της χώρας, την υπεράσπιση της εδαφικής ακεραιότητας. Το Δικαστήριο αυτό, με προφάσεις, απέρριψε αναγνώριση της ναζιστικής σφαγής του Διστόμου στην Ελλάδα. Τέτοια δικαιοσύνη, «αλά κάρτ», διατεταγμένη από τους Ιμπεριαλιστές, όργανο υλοποίησης και νομιμοποίησης των σχεδίων τους, παρεμβαίνοντας εξ ορισμού στην επαναχάραξη συνόρων! ΝΑΤΟ και Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση και το Δικαστήριο τους δεν σημαίνουν ειρήνη ασφάλεια, σταθερότητα, όπως διαλαλεί ο σημαιοφόρος τους στα Βαλκάνια ΣΥΡΙΖΑ, αλλά και η Νέα Δημοκρατία και συμφωνούν οι εθνικιστές, αλλά πόλεμο, αλλαγή συνόρων, αίμα λαών για τα συμφέροντα των μονοπωλίων. Αυτό βροντοφώναξε χθες ο λαός της Αθήνας, και το ίδιο θα κάνει μεθαύριο κι αυτός της Θεσσαλονίκης, μετά από κάλεσμα του Κομμουνιστικού Κόμματος Ελλάδας.

  Željana Zovko (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, zahvaljujem povjereniku Hoganu na izuzetno dobro izrečenom i na dobroj želji zbog čega je služio Međunarodni kazneni sud za bivšu Jugoslaviju. Zbog čega se večeras vodi rasprava o ovom Sudu? Njegova zadaća je bila suditi počiniteljima individualnih zločina koji nisu mogli biti procesuirani na lokalnim sudovima, a ona još plemenitija izvršenjem pravde pridonijeti pomirenju na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije, o čemu je govorio večeras i povjerenik Hogan.

Koliko je ovaj Sud odgovorio na svoju misiju? Ostaje samo pravnim ekspertima da to isto prosude. Kako bi napravili učinkovitu analizu njegovog rada potrebno je konačno organizirati znanstveno-stručni skup o naučenim lekcijama ovoga Suda, na kojem će samo pravni stručnjaci iznijeti mišljenje o radu i učinkovitosti presuda s pravne strane. A o pomirenju i učinkovitosti Suda u tom pogledu, dovoljno je pogledati medijska izvještavanja o ovom radu, kako bi se, nažalost, zaključilo da Sud nije ispunio zadaću.

Presude se koriste u političke kampanje, kao što večeras, nažalost, i ovdje imamo slučaj, a odgovornost se traži u narodima i u kolektivnoj krivnji.

  Tonino Picula (S&D). – Gospodine predsjedniče, kraj rada Haškog tribunala bio je jednako dramatičan kao i njegov početak, ali najdramatičnije su ipak bile okolnosti u kojima je nastao. Velikosrpsku agresiju na Hrvatsku i Bosnu i Hercegovinu svijet je pasivno promatrao.

UN-ov tribunal je konačno osnovan 1993. godine. Bilo je potrebno 11 tisuća dana suđenja da se donese odluka o 161 optuženiku; 83 je osuđeno, a 19 oslobođeno.

Sud je od osnivanja pokazao cijeli niz koncepcijskih i organizacijskih nedostataka, neujednačenost kriterija, ali radilo se o sudištu koje je odgovorilo jedinstvenom izazovu zbog pretpostavke da nacionalni sudovi zemalja u ratu neće procesuirati ratne zločine koje počine njihovi državljani. O njegovoj misiji će se još dugo i pristrano raspravljati, a naslijeđe će biti testirano preko razine demokratske zrelosti država zbog kojih je ustanovljen i njihovih međusobnih odnosa.

Tribunal je trebao biti generator pomirbe i suočavanja s prošlošću. Međutim, mnogi smatraju da je Sud, doduše izrekao presude, ali da je pravda u dosta slučajeva ustupila mjesto političkom oportunitetu.

  Eugen Freund (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Als einer der wenigen Vertreter eines Nachbarlands des ehemaligen Jugoslawien möchte ich mit einem Zitat beginnen: „Das Tribunal hat den Opfern eine Stimme gegeben.“ Diesen Worten von UNO-Generalsekretär António Guterres, die er zur Beendigung der Arbeit des ICTY gehalten hat, kann ich nur zustimmen. Die abscheulichen Taten, die von den Verurteilten während des Jugoslawienkriegs begangen wurden, mussten ausführlich aufgearbeitet und anschließend angemessen bestraft werden. Nur so war es möglich, eine Art Gerechtigkeit für die Opfer zu schaffen.

Nun hat der Internationale Strafgerichtshof für Jugoslawien seine Arbeit beendet. Diese Arbeit hat den Opfern die Möglichkeit gegeben, die Gräueltaten, die während des Krieges begangen wurden, öffentlich zu benennen. Welchen Beitrag der Gerichtshof dabei für die Stabilität in der Region geleistet hat, wird noch zu bewerten sein. Unbestritten ist, dass Urteile des Gerichtshofs auch immer wieder zur Polarisierung in der Region geführt haben. Dennoch hat das Haager Tribunal Rechtsgeschichte geschrieben, hat abscheulichste Verbrechen klar genannt und war Vorbild für nachfolgende Einrichtungen. Für mich ist klar: Diese Arbeit muss als Mehrwert für das Recht und die internationale Gemeinschaft gewertet werden.

Intervenții la cerere

  Marijana Petir (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, smisao osnivanja Haškog suda bio je kažnjavanje osoba odgovornih za teška kršenja međunarodnog humanitarnog prava počinjena na području bivše Jugoslavije od početka 1991. godine, stoga su očekivanja od ovog Suda bila izrazito visoka.

Međutim, Haški je sud propustio procesuirati najviše vodstvo Jugoslavenske narodne armije zbog ratnih zločina počinjenih tijekom agresije na Hrvatsku. Na grad Vukovar tijekom opsade palo je više od 6 i pol milijuna različitih projektila, ubijeno je više od 4 000 osoba, a šteta stradanja grada procijenjena je na više od milijardu eura. I za to nitko nije odgovarao.

Haški sud se trebao voditi načelom pravičnosti i kažnjavanja najgorih i najtežih oblika zločina. Međutim, završetak njegovog rada ostavio je gorak osjećaj da se Srbiji, kao glavnom agresoru, oprostilo puno toga za što se je trebalo kazneno goniti.

Voljela bih da je Haški sud svoj rad priveo kraju vjerodostojno, potvrdivši svoj autoritet, a ne tragedijom zbog nepravične presude oko koje niti samo sudsko vijeće nije ostvarilo puni konsenzus.

  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, με αφορμή το έργο και την παρακαταθήκη του Διεθνούς Ποινικού Δικαστηρίου για την πρώην Γιουγκοσλαβία, είναι σημαντικό να προβληματιστούμε για το τι θα γίνει με άλλα εγκλήματα πολέμου που διαπράττονται σε άλλες περιοχές του κόσμου και να προβληματιστούμε για το τι θα γίνει με την Τουρκία, η οποία πραγματικά διαπράττει εγκλήματα πολέμου, έχοντας εισβάλλει στη Συρία και στο Ιράκ, όπου διαλύει κυριολεκτικά το Afrin, εκεί όπου διαπράττονται εγκλήματα πολέμου. Μήπως ήρθε λοιπόν η ώρα να προβληματιστούμε για το πώς θα παραπεμφθούν οι υπαίτιοι που προέρχονται από την Τουρκία για την παραβίαση των ανθρωπίνων δικαιωμάτων στη Συρία, για τη συνεργασία τους με τους τζιχαντιστές, για τα εγκλήματα τα οποία διαπράττονται αυτή τη στιγμή στο Afrin και σε άλλες περιοχές; Ίσως αυτό θα πρέπει να είναι ένα από τα βασικά συμπεράσματα που θα βγάλουμε από τη σημερινή συζήτηση: να παραπεμφθεί η Τουρκική ηγεσία για τα εγκλήματα πολέμου στο Διεθνές Ποινικό Δικαστήριο.

  Jozo Radoš (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, puno je prigovora koji se mogu uputiti Međunarodnom kaznenom sudu za bivšu Jugoslaviju. To nije univerzalan sud, odnosi se samo na neke zemlje. Najveće svjetske sile danas ne podliježu nikakvom Međunarodnom kaznenom sudu.

Sud je veliki broj zločina ostavio bez procesa i bez kazne, drastično je mijenjao svoje odluke i nije imao jedinstvene kriterije. Negdje je sudio po zapovjednoj, ponekad i po političkoj odgovornosti, a ponekad je sudio samo po individualnoj odgovornosti, što i jedno i drugo otvara prostor političke manipulacije.

Ugled Suda je na prostoru zapadnog Balkana mali i njegov doprinos pomirenju nije velik. Ali, taj Sud je prikupio značajnu dokumentaciju za daljnje istraživanje istine i donošenje pravde i sigurno je donio broj presuda puno veći nego što bi bilo da toga Suda nije bilo.

Zbog toga djelovanje i rad Suda unatoč svim nedostacima zaslužuje pozitivnu ocjenu.

  Ivica Tolić (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, Hrvatska je jedan od inicijatora uspostave Međunarodnog suda za ratne zločine počinjene na području bivše Jugoslavije. Bio je to razuman čin zemlje koja je doživjela agresiju jedne komunističke vojne sile, možda i zadnje u Europi s ideološkim predznakom, a dominantno u funkciji okupacije hrvatskog državnog teritorija i stvaranja takozvane velike Srbije.

Vjerovali smo kako će se na Sudu suditi pokretačima agresije, ne samo na Hrvatsku nego i na susjedne zemlje, Sloveniju i Bosnu i Hercegovinu, jer je agresor za sve bio isti.

Istina je da je u ratovima izazvanim velikosrpskom agresijom na svim stranama bilo u većoj ili manjoj mjeri zločina. Tako je bilo i u Drugom svjetskom ratu, ali je sudski proces nakon njegovog završetka pokrenut isključivo protiv poraženih sila Osovine.

Sud je osnovan rezolucijom na temelju poglavlja 7. Povelje Ujedinjenih naroda. U dugotrajnim procesima optuženi su brojni visoki dužnosnici, zapovjednici svih zaraćenih strana, kako oni koji su pokrenuli agresivni rat, tako i oni koji su se u njemu samo branili.

Je li Sud ispunio svoju svrhu, provodit će se brojne polemike. Hrvatska je ostvarila punu suradnju, a često su pojedinci išli više od toga, surađujući kao predstavnici institucija samo s tužiteljstvom, a ne Tribunalom.

  Jasenko Selimovic (ALDE). – Mr President, 149 men named Selimovic – just like me – are in graves in Srebrenica. I’ve been for years listening to stories about what happened to them – the Serbian, Croatian and Bosniak version – and of course, all involved have the rights to their own story. But if we are not to live in a state of internal denial and nationalistic autism, one single truth has to be established. By unearthing the graves, by examining the military orders and mutilated bodies, ICTY tried to establish the truth. We need it desperately. We need it to acknowledge the suffering. We need it for possible future reconciliation, and we need in order to be able to continue our lives without shame. And I do believe that the Balkans need it in order to wake up from the nationalistic nightmare. Has the truth been established? No – the complete truth can never be established. But thanks to the works of ICTY, the number lies have been diminished, and that is more than enough.

  Ivana Maletić (PPE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, žrtva i onaj tko se branio ne mogu imati licemjernu reakciju na presudu, nego samo iskrenu reakciju na nepravdu. A agresor i napadač u ovom slučaju je bila Srbija, koja nije htjela prihvatiti ustavno pravo republika bivše Jugoslavije na odcjepljenje i osamostaljenje. Oni imaju licemjerne reakcije.

Haški sud je u nekim slučajevima upao u zamku izjednačavanja odgovornosti i donošenja presuda neutemeljenih u pravu i dokazima i zbog toga kreirao presude koje su produbile bol i patnju žrtava. Zbog toga, unatoč nekim dobro odrađenim poslovima, ne možemo reći da je ispunio svoj cilj, a to su istina i izraženo poštovanje i pravednost prema žrtvama.

(Încheierea intervențiilor la cerere)

  Phil Hogan, Member of the Commission. – Mr President, as always this has been a very useful exchange of views and understandable comments, ideas and commitment to the work. I will be sure to bring your views to the attention of Commissioner Hahn. I think it is fair to say that the Commission, Parliament, the European Council and all of us are committed to reconciliation. The fight against impunity is an integral part of this approach. We have strong conditionality and we will continue to use it. We have learned from previous accessions that our approaches evolve but our ultimate aim is the same – to support justice for the victims.

In December, Commissioner Hahn had the honour to be invited to the closing ceremony of the International Tribunal. There were groups present representing the families of victims, victims of every nationality and every ethnicity, men, women and children. All had their criticisms of the Tribunal and its work in specific cases, but all were in total agreement that without the Tribunal, without the support of the international community and without the support of the European Union, there would have been no justice at all.

With our strategy for the Western Balkans we have reconfirmed our commitment to justice in the region. Through our work together we can help bring that justice to all the victims regardless of ethnicity, religion, gender or age, and the Commission looks forward to having Parliament on its side as we engage in this important work in the future.

  Monika Panayotova, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, firstly let me express my sincere gratitude for the work of the European Parliament in supporting international humanitarian law and the important work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We join you in stressing the importance of policies of reconciliation as part of the European integration process so that civilians of all ethnicities may overcome the tensions of the past and begin peaceful and genuine coexistence in the interests of sustainable peace, stability and economic growth.

The specific priority of the Bulgarian Presidency is the European perspective and connectivity in the Western Balkans, as the European perspective continues to be a major driving force for achieving stability in serious political and economic transformations. Emphasising the importance of the Tribunal in terms of building peace, fostering reconciliation and endorsing the rule of law, we encourage the respective governments involved in the Tribunal’s processes to cooperate fully with, and respect the decision of, its successor, the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals.

As one of our main priorities, we will continue to support concrete progress on each country’s EU path, on the basis of merit, focusing on further strengthening institutions, good governance and the rule of law, building and fostering good neighbourly relations and inclusive regional cooperation, mitigating stability risks and promoting social economic development and cohesion.

The Tribunal has finished its existence, but there is still work to be done, so we encourage our Western Balkan partners to make further efforts to overcome legacies of the past and to foster reconciliation, including through promoting a climate of tolerance.

  Preşedintele. – Dezbaterea a fost închisă.

Declarații scrise (articolul 162)

  Dominique Bilde (ENF), par écrit. – La contribution du Tribunal pour l’ex-Yougoslavie au droit pénal international est inestimable, puisque cette cour a servi de modèle aux grands procès internationaux, comme ceux afférents aux crimes du Rwanda. Sa contribution au travail de mémoire est également considérable, au regard des milliers de pages de débats judiciaires documentant minutieusement des faits historiques d’une rare atrocité.

Pour autant, si ces missions ont été, pour l’essentiel, remplies, l’objectif politique de cette saga judiciaire d’un quart de siècle, qui consistait en la réconciliation des peuples des Balkans, s’est quant à lui soldé par un échec. De fait, les décisions du Tribunal sont trop souvent, à tort ou à raison, passées notamment aux yeux du peuple serbe comme le fruit d’une justice des vainqueurs partisane.

Certains acquittements spectaculaires, comme celui l’actuel premier ministre kosovar Ramush Haradinaj, resteront gravés dans leurs mémoires comme une démonstration de ce deux poids deux mesures. Car, à n’en pas douter, les passions nationales sont toujours à vif dans les Balkans occidentaux.

Et alors que l’Union européenne tente cette année de relancer le processus d’adhésion, la persistance de profonds antagonismes territoriaux, ethniques et religieux rend cette perspective toujours plus lointaine.

  Carlos Coelho (PPE), por escrito. – O Tribunal Penal Internacional para a antiga Jugoslávia encerrou os trabalhos em 31 de Dezembro de 2017, 24 anos depois da sua instituição. O julgamento de genocídios, crimes contra a Humanidade, crimes de guerra e violações das Convenções de Genebra foi um exercício complexo, com 161 acusações (das quais 90 condenações, 13 reenvios para jurisdição nacional, 37 mortes ou acusação retirada e 19 absolvições), 4 650 testemunhas, 10 800 dias de julgamento e 2 milhões e meio de páginas de processo.

Registo a colaboração permanente da União Europeia nos trabalhos, congelando bens ou proibindo a circulação de acusados nos seus Estados-Membros, e recordo a exigência de cooperação com o TPIJ no acordo de adesão da Croácia. Neste sentido, defendo que qualquer negociação com a Sérvia tem de considerar esta matéria.

O contributo do Tribunal para o Direito Penal Internacional é inegável e espero que a jurisprudência produzida seja útil para futuros mecanismos semelhantes. Infelizmente, hoje assistimos à prática de crimes de guerra e violações flagrantes do Direito Humanitário Internacional, com a Síria em destaque. Espero que o aprofundamento dos princípios de responsabilidade criminal individual em situação de guerra contribua para uma futura ação determinada contra os criminosos que, hoje mesmo, exterminam populações inteiras.

  Karol Karski (ECR), na piśmie. – Międzynarodowy Trybunał Karny dla Byłej Jugosławii, który zakończył swoją działalność w zeszłym roku, okazał się wielkim sukcesem społeczności międzynarodowej. 161 osób, które zostały oskarżone o zbrodnie wojenne w czasie wojny w byłej Jugosławii, zostało osądzonych, z czego ponad 80 skazanych. Trybunał ad hoc – powstały w 1993 roku na mocy rezolucji Rady Bezpieczeństwa ONZ – był pierwszym po Norymberdze i Tokio, który sądził osoby oskarżone o zbrodnie międzynarodowe. Choć powołanie Trybunału nie zapobiegło zamordowaniu ośmiu tysięcy bośniackich mężczyzn i chłopców w 1995 roku w Srebrenicy, to dzięki jego późniejszej, w sumie prawie 25 letniej działalności panuje dziś przekonanie, że za zbrodnie międzynarodowe sprawcy będą musieli prędzej czy później odpowiedzieć. Dobrze rokuje to też dla haskiego, już stałego, Międzynarodowego Trybunału Karnego.

  Ilhan Kyuchyuk (ALDE), in writing. – The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) was a United Nations court of law that examined and prosecuted crimes committed during the bloody conflicts in the Balkans in the 1990s. Since its establishment, it irreversibly changed the landscape of international humanitarian law and international jurisdiction. Тhe tribunal was unique because it gave the victims an opportunity to voice the horrors they witnessed and experienced. The court was supposed to demonstrate that no one was above the law, and that every person would have to answer for his actions, regardless of his position in the society. Over the last 25 years some 161 people have been charged with crimes and 151 faced trial, including high-ranking persons such as Radovan Karadzic, Ratko Mladic and Slobodan Milosevic. The death by suicide of Slobodan Praljak has overshadowed the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia’s final verdict. The court has been heavily criticised by nationalists in Serbia, but the truth is that justice has prevailed and after 25 years the court will cease to exist, but its impact will remain.

  Urmas Paet (ALDE), kirjalikult. – Aastal 1993 moodustatud ÜRO Endise Jugoslaavia Rahvusvaheline Kriminaaltribunal on tänaseks lõpetanud töö, olles mõistnud süüdi 90 inimest kuritegudes, muu hulgas genotsiidi, sõjakuritegude ja inimsusevastaste kuritegude toimepanemises. Tribunal on teinud märkimisväärset tööd nii mõneski aspektis. Ta saatis signaali, et rahvusvaheline kogukond on pühendunud sellele, et kõige tõsisemad kuriteod ja nende toimepanijad ei jää karistuseta. Samuti on tänu tribunali tööle nüüd olemas suur arhiiv sellest, mis Sarajevos, Srebrenicas ja mujal toimus, ning seda ei unustata ka tulevikus. Lisaks on tribunali loomine aidanud kaasa suurema süsteemi loomisele ning on suurenenud arusaam ning vajadus Rahvusvahelise Kriminaalkohtu järele. On oluline, et võimalikult paljud riigid Rahvusvahelise Kriminaalkohtu jurisdiktsiooni aktsepteeriksid, et oleks võimalik ka edaspidi inimsusevastaste kuritegude eest inimesi vastutusele võtta, ning loodetavasti mõjub kartus vastutusele võtmise ees nii mõnelgi puhul ka heidutusena.

  Cristian Dan Preda (PPE), in writing. – The 24 years of operation of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) represent a legal success emerging from tragedy, from the atrocious crimes committed on the territory of former Yugoslavia. At the time of its creation, few would have imagined that the perpetrators of these horrendous crimes would, one day, be brought to justice.

During its 10 800 trial days, the ICTY heard 4 650 witnesses and convicted 90 people out of the 161 indicted. Through its work, accountability for atrocities became a universal value and the landscape of international criminal and humanitarian law was irreversibly changed. Its ground-breaking decisions have indeed played a pivotal role in shaping the architecture of international criminal justice of today. Its work also helped alleviate the suffering of the victims and contributed to regional reconciliation.

Genuine and lasting reconciliation can be achieved only by explaining and accepting the reality of the crimes that have occurred in ex-Yugoslavia – recognising and accepting, for instance, the genocide in Srebrenica. While the Tribunal’s work has ended, the reconciliation process should begin in earnest. It is the responsibility of political elites to carry the process forward in good faith, instead of glorifying the perpetrators of war crimes as happens regularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina.