Karadžić's guilty verdict and forensic evidence from Bosnia's mass graves

Abstract

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia's Karadžić verdict, eagerly awaited, was unsurprising. He was found guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. One part of the judgment was concerned with the Srebrenica events in which much forensic evidence from mass graves featured. Whilst this was to be expected, forensic evidence from the horrific crime scenes continues to be important in determining aspects of the crime base. This paper discusses the evidence and examines how the Chamber came to the conclusion that systematic killing of thousands of Bosnian Muslim men occurred and attempts had been made to conceal the crimes and human remains in secondary graves thus confirming the actus reus of genocide. In particular, the number of people killed was at issue.Despite the absence of compelling counter-theories on behalf of the accused, this paper demonstrates that contestations over the number of those killed remain and predicts that this is unlikely to change for the ongoing Mladić case. Highlights:• Karadžić's guilty verdict features much forensic evidence from Srebrenica massacre.• Forensic evidence from mass grave confirms the act of genocide.• Numbers of those killed as well as time and manner of death remain contested by the accused.

THE FORENSICS EXHIBITION: Displaying Human Remains as Material Evidence of Genocide

“…(Guyer 2009, 159) While it is true that "any [human] body" can make human bones, it is nonetheless also true that only specific bodies and individuals can make the bones of those displayed in memorials. Their existence is proof of the death, or killing, of specific individuals (Klinker 2008(Klinker , 2016. However, the individuality of the skeletons, or skulls, is blurred and differentiation is impossible for the casual observer.…”

“…Forensic literature therefore represents a potentially valuable source of contextualization for scholars when engaging with human remains. Such literature crosses between the humanitarian and social, and the legal and scientific, but positions the body and remains as central to the analysis (Crossland 2009(Crossland , 2013(Crossland , 2017Cyr 2013, 94;Dziuban 2017;Henneberg 2008;Klinker 2008Klinker , 2016. However, the relative lack of such literature in relation to Cambodia means that analysis of the role of remains is primarily social.…”

“…In the same way, the existence of a mass grave, or the display of human remains from a mass grave, implies the occurrence of a catastrophic event (Haglund et al 2001, 57). In the event of a genocide or mass murder, the presence of these specific remains provides further evidence that the event occurred, particularly when forensic analyses are brought to bear (Klinker 2008(Klinker , 2016. Lacking such analyses, the narratives inherent in such displays can only be constructed through the interpretations and knowledge of the viewer-the subjects cannot speak for themselves (Baer 2002, 137;Sontag 1984, 23;Williams 2004, 245).…”

Exploring non-invasive approaches to assist in the detection of clandestine human burials: developing a way forward

“…It has also been argued that the magnitude of the crimes represented by a mass grave is much greater than that of a single burial [25,26]. The value of evidentiary and investigative information provided by the scientific investigation of mass graves has been well demonstrated by the results from excavations of mass graves in Latin America in the mid-1980s [27], and subsequently in the mid-1990s in the former Yugoslavia [28,29] and more recently in Spain [30]. The impact of such evidence, whether for court or humanitarian purposes, relies on the success of locating potential sites that may contain graves.…”

Forensic evidence in atrocity trials: A risky sampling strategy?

“…By relying on the scientific analyses of mass graves, the Tribunal was able to deconstruct the strategy put in place by the perpetrators to avoid guilty verdicts. It notably linked the pattern of mass graves to the perpetrators' intent to destroy the group or, in other words, to their genocidal intent (see Fournet and Siller, 2015;Klinkner, 2016;Schmitt, 2002). The forensic evidence enabled the ICTY to establish that the individuals buried in the mass graves were Bosnian Muslim civilian men of military age 5 and that they thus all belonged to one of the protected groups under the Genocide Convention (see Krstić trial judgment, 2001: paras 73-79;Karadžić trial judgment, 2016: paras 5255, 5272, 5342, 5346, 5519;Mladić trial transcripts, 24 June 2015: 36589, 36251, 36287;Mladić trial judgment, 2017Mladić trial judgment, : para.…”