(written in 11-10-08)
The aforementioned Serbian psychiatrist, under the guise of a poet, a politician giving rise to significant local repercussions, a bearded fugitive and, finally, a defendant at the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia, will certainly bring about substantial changes in the procedural rules of the Court that is judging him. Why?
Because he has invoked the right to put forward his own defense, which is permitted by the current standards adopted by the Court in question. After him (it would cause a bad impression to remove permission for self-defense after initially granting it), it is quite foreseeable that the International Criminal Court will no longer allow defendants to personally put forward their own defense, unless they have specific abilities, as in the case of ex-attorneys, judges or prosecutors. Experience gained with the judgment of Slobodan Milosevic should have already taught us that temperamental and extroverted politicians never lose the opportunity of transforming a show of defense into a platform for themselves. Did they ever imagine a Fidel Castro putting forward his own defense? If in speeches, not defending himself, he can continue for five hours, how long would it take if he were speaking in his own defense?
In these cases, defendants, not having any kind of specific professional education, make abuse of the excuse or “right” of ignoring the most elementary procedural rules. At any moment, they provoke incidents and arguments with those present in the courtroom, even (or principally) the judge who is presiding over the proceedings. The magistrate, having no means of restraining the jaw and tongue of the irreverent defendant (concerned about demonstrating exemption and tolerance regarding the judicial ignorance of the defendant), ends up being at an apparent disadvantage, due to the difference in tone of voice. He becomes transformed into someone who is being accused, due to the fact that he only patiently explains - while the defendant only attacks. People of limited education think: “The judge is at a disadvantage ...”
In all likelihood, every legal professional has already had the unsavory experience of arguing with people who are ignorant and furious, either justly or unjustly. They cannot understand the need for rules for everything: for making accusations, for defending and for passing judgment. The accused has nothing to lose, but the magistrate does have something to lose. This is what occurred in the case of Saddam Hussein, when he was judged by a special court in his own country. Assuming that he had nothing to lose, as he would be hanged anyway, Saddam said what he wanted, whenever he wanted, also raising his voice. At a certain point in the proceedings, the principal judge, a highly educated Kurd (accustomed to other environments), requested that he be removed from the case. Saddam, when questioned at the beginning of his interrogation (in line with standard procedures) regarding his name, replied, almost shouting, more or less in the following manner: “You know perfectly well what my name is!!! I am the president of Iraq!”, and it was in this insolent tone of voice that he continued in the “bullfight”. All the time, he said exactly what he wanted. After all, he was “authorized” to turn the court into a circus, because he has the excuse of not having any judicial education. He did not even recognize the jurisdiction of the court - the same occurring with Milosevic and Karadzic.
En passant, many internationalists say that the Bush government was against the judgment of Saddam by an international court (as occurred with the Nazis, in Nuremberg), because the United Nations (and its courts) no longer permit the death penalty. Such a prohibition was non-existent when the Nazis were judged. Accusing and judging Saddam at an Iraqi court, it would be possible to hang him, as events actually turned out. As far as the Americans were concerned, it would be easier to pacify Iraq with Saddam silent, in his grave, rather than speaking or agitating the whole time, even in a prison. As a result, in strict terms, although violating accepted international justice (a president was condemned by a court set up by occupation forces), the Americans were “strategically correct”. Imagine what Iraq would be like today with a live Saddam, adding fuel to the hostilities. The annual body count would be even higher.
Another alteration that will likely occur to the procedural norms of the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia (following judgment of Radovan Karadzic) will be a reduction in the permitted number of witnesses, for both the prosecution and defense. An enormous number of witnesses bring about an elevated degree of sluggishness, it being highly likely that the defendant will die while he or she is being tried. This is what happened in the case of Slobodan Milosevic, who was imprisoned for around eight years and died prior to judgment. The defendants in such judgments are generally individuals of advanced years and the emotional strains of a court case certainly do not contribute to their longevity. Heat attacks function like an “avenger”, killing without passing judgment. If death occurs, the case is closed, which makes it possible for followers of the deceased to argue that their leader would prove his innocence, if the trial had come to its intended conclusion. For reasons of doubt, delay in the trial ends up benefitting recollection of those who should be remembered as individuals to be condemned.
In the first fortnight of April 2008, I spent two weeks in Holland, in the city of The Hague. I visited several international courts and, thanks to the generous letter of introduction of a person of outstanding legal knowledge in the international field, Minister Francisco Rezek, I managed to obtain two highly valued interviews, filmed for DVD. In order to make the most of my stay in the so-called “Low Countries” (they really are low, at a level below that of the North Sea - hence the canals, windmills and clogs ...), I attended part of a trial at the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia - the same one that will judge Radovan Karadzic.
I arrived at around 09:00 hrs, a few minutes late. Through a window (probably armored glass), I was able to accompany the questioning of a prosecution witness who, luckily for everyone, spoke English, dispensing with any need for an interpreter. In the area where I was accompanying the proceedings, there was also a television screen showing who was asking the questions and who was replying, with perfect sound. The interrogating attorney was an Englishman (as far as I know, more than half the attorneys working in the international field are English), with the traditional wig that has no intention of hiding the fact that it is a wig. It is more of an ornament than a wig, conceived, logically, I suppose, in order to disguise baldness. As its use became customary, it is even placed on the thickest heads of hair, although, as chance would have it, this was not the case of the attorney who was putting forward the questions.
The attorney in question (astute but extremely delicate in his choice of words and tone of voice) broke down and minutely examined each statement made by the witness, even those that were the simplest and clearest, in striving to identify any insecurity or imprecision. At certain times, a young woman on the prosecution team (in my opinion, surprisingly young to be there ...) made a technical objection, addressed to the three judges that comprised the bench. The chairman of the tribunal decided on the objection and the English defense attorney proceeded with his endless questions, seemingly striving to find the smallest breach. His patient and persistent voice was capable of penetrating solid rock.
Suddenly, the chairman of the tribunal, with all courtesy (certainly controlling himself), asked the defense attorney how much time he had planned to dedicate to questioning that particular witness. When the Englishman said, almost smiling, that he intended to spend another five hours, I could take no more and left. That was enough for the patience of a poor Brazilian. The court suspended the session, scheduling a return for so-many minutes later. I did not return - if solely for the reason that my “listening skills” are not as good as they might be.
I do not know how many more witnesses would be heard. As there are normally several dozen, I imagine how it is highly likely that successive defendants in trials involving genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity will give up their souls to the Creator (or the Devil) before being sentenced.
Besides being a psychiatrist, Karadzic is a practicing poet. Add to this the fact that he has outspoken ideas regarding construction of Greater Serbia. A mixture of such wordy ingredients can only result in lengthy dissertations (with or without temporal pertinence) regarding his real or imaginary mission of defending Bosnian Serbs, “purifying” the region. In addition, he will be automatically forgiven for the lack of appropriateness and measure in his interventions “because, after all, I am not a student of Law”. As he said at the beginning, he does not even recognize the legitimacy of the Court, defending himself, according to his own words, as he would defend himself from a natural phenomenon - a hurricane or earthquake, for example. He will therefore be free to transform the Court into a radio station, TV channel and electoral platform. With the advantage, furthermore, of mixing politics with poetry and psychiatry - the ancient science of the crazy. It is the judges who will go crazy, attempting to maintain order in the Court. I hope I am mistaken.
It may be said that the fact that Karadzic has no legal education is irrelevant, because if he had, he would also be able to take advantage of the confusion and procrastination. In an even more competent manner.
It may be a paradox but, in this case, judicial ignorance helps in delaying the sentencing of the defendant who is known to be guilty. The attorney, judge or prosecutor who is defending himself does not wish to appear ridiculous, making declarations at the wrong time and in an erroneous manner. A sense of shame holds him back. His education and self-respect repel the idea of talking nonsense in court, even more so when being seen on television. He at least hopes that History will describe him as an intelligent man. On the other hand, the layman who defends himself (thinking, more importantly, about the “audience”) is just not concerned with procedural rules, with the excuse of considering himself as “not part of the legal profession”. Throughout the world, more tolerant judges know, from their own experience, that petitions written by ignorant individuals give rise to many more problems than those prepared by competent professionals. At least one knows exactly what they are contesting.
In conclusion, the self-defense of Karadzic will at least have one merit: it will cause repercussions at the International Criminal Court for the Former Yugoslavia, inducing it to implement procedural modifications that allow for just sentencing but without excessive delay. If the defendant wishes to defend himself personally, he should only do so during the closing allegations, once all the evidence has been gathered, when the defendant can say exactly what he wants, before sentencing.
No comments:
Post a Comment