Punishing Perpetrators or Seeking Truth for Victims: Serbian Opinions on Dealing with War Crimes

Abstract

The debate on how to deal with the past in Serhia is still ongoing almost twenty years after the end of the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia. From the very start the international community has put major emphasis on the criminal prosecution and conviction of the persons mostly responsible for the war crimes in the region, both by establishing the ICTY and encouraging national prosecutions. In the discussions about 'dealing with the past' in Serbia little if any attention has heen devoted to the views and expectations of the local population, although they provide an additional source of information ahout the strategies and the mechanisms for dealing with the crimes of the past and reconstructing the fiiture. The objective of this chapter is to find out what people in Serhia think ahout the central dehates around impunity and accountability for war crimes, and more specifically which importance they attach to criminal prosecutions and truth commissions in the country For this purpose, it reports about the main findings of a quantitative survey conducted in Serbia in 2007, and concludes that the picture is not hlack and white but complex instead.

“You cannot forgive and you cannot forget”: The Serbian refugee settlement experience in Australia

“…It is the constant focus on the past that resulted in poor settlement and separation (Berry, ). Similar to past studies, their sense of injustice created angst and psychological tension (Parmentier & Weitekamp, ).…”

“…The importance of justice was also reported. For example, Parmentier and Weitekamp () reported that the vast majority (90%) of Serbian respondents believed that prosecutions of war crimes should take place so that these crimes will not happen again. In other words, these Serbian refugees see war crime prosecutions as essential for establishing lasting peace and security.…”

Repairing the harm of victims after violent conflict

“…The second part of the questionnaire asked various questions under four different headings, that is, seeking truth, establishing accountability, providing reparation and promoting reconciliation. The issues of criminal prosecutions and truth seeking per se have been addressed in another publication (Parmentier and Weitekamp, 2013) and we limit ourselves here to reporting the most important findings in relation to reparation for victims in Serbia, with consideration of the fact that the findings on perceptions of reparation also involve some elements of truth seeking and accountability.…”

“…As argued elsewhere, the debates about dealing with the past in Serbia have been strongly dominated, even monopolised, by strategies to bring the main perpetrators before a criminal tribunal or court, in the first place an international tribunal (ICTY) and in the second instance a national court (Parmentier and Weitekamp, 2013). Virtually no attention has been paid to another important aspect of post-conflict justice, namely to repair the harm inflicted upon victims during and even after the war.…”

Examining victims and perpetrators in post-conflict Nepal

“… 43. As part of the ‘Mass victimization and restorative justice’ research project in Bosnia and Herzegovina, a self-administered quantitative survey examined the issue of suffering. Respondents were asked about their perceived suffering in three categories (physical, material and psychological) in two time periods (during and after the war) (Parmentier and Weitekamp, 2013: 45, 48). …”