<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

VI. The War Crimes Chamber’s Outreach and Communications Strategy

A. Overview of developments in outreach and communications

Effective outreach and communications are essential to make proceedings before the chamber meaningful and accessible to the communities most affected by the crimes committed during the war and to bring a sense of redress and closure. While the War Crimes Chamber’s physical proximity to where the crimes occurred provides it with a distinct advantage in engaging the people in Bosnia with its work, it cannot be assumed that physical proximity alone is sufficient for the chamber to make an impact. Additional efforts are necessary to make the chamber’s work understood and relevant and to fully realize the chamber’s potential in strengthening the rule of law in Bosnia.  Further, because the chamber is located in Sarajevo, it is important to make efforts to reach people throughout the country so it is not perceived as an isolated institution.

Moreover, in Bosnia there is a widespread perception among each of the three main ethnic communities that they suffered the most during the war and a concomitant expectation that the crimes against their community will be prioritized for prosecution. That state of affairs highlights the need for a strong outreach and communications program to manage expectations and to counteract attempts by nationalist politicians and others seeking to manipulate or undermine the court’s work for their own ends.¹⁸⁶ The widespread dissemination of accurate information about the War Crimes Chamber in accessible forms to educate the public is therefore crucial.

The Public Information and Outreach Section (PIOS) of the Registry coordinates many of the chamber’s outreach and communications activities. As highlighted in “Looking for Justice,” the court’s primary method of interacting with local communities has been through the Court Support Network (CSN).¹⁸⁷ The original goal was to enlist eight NGO centers throughout Bosnia to participate in the first “ring” of the CSN. The coordinators of these NGO centers would then recruit relevant organizations and institutions within their geographic area of responsibility to participate in the CSN’s second “ring.”

At present, there are five NGOs in the first “ring” and approximately 300 organizations in the second “ring” of the network.¹⁸⁸ None of these organizations receives funding from the Registry, so they operate independently of the court. Court officials informed Human Rights Watch that the court’s interaction with the network has been taken over by the Witness Support Office, although there has been more coordination with the PIOS recently.¹⁸⁹ Until recently, the network has focused primarily on providing support to victims and witnesses as opposed to disseminating information about the court’s activities to the public.¹⁹⁰ Based on recent discussions between the five NGOs in the first ring of the CSN and representatives of the court, it is anticipated that the CSN’s activities will shift to providing general outreach on behalf of the court, including the dissemination of information.¹⁹¹

The PIOS has facilitated other outreach initiatives, including visits to the court by outside groups interested in its work.¹⁹² Staff members of the PIOS have also traveled outside of Sarajevo to disseminate information about the court.¹⁹³ There are efforts underway to prepare a “user-friendly” brochure containing general information about the court’s work and mandate.¹⁹⁴ In addition, representatives of the Special Department for War Crimes have also attended outreach events when invited to do so by local NGOs and other associations.

With respect to communications with the media, the court has a comprehensive website, which includes information about specific cases, such as case summaries and copies of indictments and judgments, when available.¹⁹⁵ The court’s press releases, which document relevant developments in cases and at the court overall, are also on the website. In addition, the PIOS sends out weekly email summaries of developments at the court. There is a spokesperson in the PIOS for the court, but the general policy is that the court’s president speaks on behalf of the court.¹⁹⁶ The court does not hold regular meetings or press conferences with members of the media or the public.¹⁹⁷ The Special Department for War Crimes has a separate spokesperson, and puts out its own press releases as necessary.

B. Public awareness about the chamber’s activities

1. The court’s interaction with the media

Because of its broad audience, television, print, and radio media are valuable tools in the widespread dissemination of information about the court’s work, including information aimed at clarifying misperceptions about the court. Despite the initiatives outlined above, Human Rights Watch has been informed of concerns by officials inside and outside of the chamber that the court’s current strategy to communicate with the public is insufficient.¹⁹⁸ As a result, the ordinary citizen in Bosnia is not well informed of the court’s work.¹⁹⁹ The negative press in the Republic of Srpska leading up to Bosnia’s recent elections that the chamber was a “Serb court” since it was only prosecuting Serb defendants illustrates the poor management of people’s expectations about the court.²⁰⁰ The PIOS did very little to address the negative perceptions about the court in the Republic of Srpska as reported in the media.²⁰¹ In the Federation, the chamber faced criticism from victims’ groups that not enough was being done to pursue the perpetrators of the crimes committed against them.

In terms of specific concerns regarding the court’s approach to the media, we note, for example, that press releases about important events at the court are not always released on the day of the event, leading to delays in accurately conveying information to the public. Further, the existing published court schedule is unreliable, with incorrect and incomplete changes,²⁰² which can result in gaps in media coverage.The PIOS should distribute press releases in a timely manner. The Court Management Section and the PIOS should also ensure the accuracy of the published court schedule and its prompt distribution to the press and to the public.

In addition, there are no regularly scheduled meetings between representatives of the court and the press. The PIOS made one attempt to interact informally with the media by organizing a breakfast meeting and inviting the president of the court, the chief prosecutor, and the registrar as well as members of the press. Although considered successful and intended to become routine, this initiative was never repeated.²⁰³ There are also currently no regular press briefings for the media.²⁰⁴ Instead, the PIOS’s primary contact with the media is through the phone calls it receives from various journalists seeking information about the court’s work. On average, staff members receive between 20 and 100 calls daily (not including emails), depending on developments at the court.²⁰⁵

The current situation regarding the court’s spokesperson is also cause for concern. As noted above, in general, while there is a spokesperson for the court in the PIOS, the court’s president speaks on behalf of the court. The policy is not to comment on opinions expressed in the media; rather, the court’s decisions and judgments should speak for themselves.²⁰⁶ We can appreciate the need to avoid engaging in a debate with individual journalists about the court’s work. However, in light of the negative perceptions outlined above, the policy of refusing to comment on negative press does not appear to effectively address the public’s misperceptions about the court’s work.

An active spokesperson can play an important role in shaping public opinion by explaining the actions of the court to the media, and defending the court’s decisions from criticism when necessary. Someone outside of the judiciary should assume these duties, since a judge commenting on the activities of the court in this more robust manner is potentially in conflict with the need to maintain the appearance of impartiality.²⁰⁷ Participating in a constructive discussion with the media on a regular basis could prevent the spread of misinformation about the court’s work and circumvent the formation of negative opinions and press about the court’s work. The ICTY Registry and Chambers spokesperson’s role in issuing statements, including with respect to controversial issues, and responding to inquiries from the media in regular press briefings is a good example of how a spokesperson can take more initiatives in addressing the media and the public.²⁰⁸

The PIOS should have a more active spokesperson who engages more effectively with the media, both through issuing statements and by holding regular press briefings to provide explanations and answer questions about specific issues related to the court’s work. Such an approach would help pre-empt negative press about the court and encourage better public awareness of its work overall. In addition, we urge the PIOS to consider using other means of engaging the press in the court’s work. This could include, for example, providing the press with an index of the week’s documents which have been filed before the chamber, including motions, decisions, and judgments.²⁰⁹ By facilitating access to information about the court’s work in this manner, journalists could more easily clarify questions in advance and, where necessary, pose targeted questions to court staff, including the spokesperson, to ensure accurate reporting.

2. The Special Department for War Crimes’ engagement with the media

Until recently, the Special Department for War Crimes’ relationship with the media has been insufficient to deal with the negative press surrounding its work. For example, although it has its own spokesperson, there were previously no attempts to hold regular meetings with the media to explain its prosecution policy. Indeed, the lack of consistent engagement with the media may have been one of the factors contributing to the significant negative press faced by the department, as outlined above in section II(B).

Subsequent to our on-the-ground research in Bosnia for this report, Human Rights Watch has learned of plans to enhance the department’s media strategy to improve its interaction with the press. There is an initiative to establish a Public Information and Press Advisory Office within the Prosecutor’s Office of the State Court. A public information officer will head this office and will work with the chief prosecutor in coordinating the prosecution’s media strategy, which would include the strategy of the Special Department for War Crimes. The newly appointed deputy registrar for the Prosecutor’s Office will also work with the Public Information and Press Advisory Office, among other tasks. Further, the Special Department for War Crimes anticipates holding regular briefings with the press in the future.²¹⁰ We look forward to the rapid implementation of these plans.

3. Additional initiatives needed to engage the public

While the media is an important tool in disseminating information about the chamber to the public, ultimately it operates independently of the chamber and devises its own messages. An effective awareness campaign about the chamber’s activities therefore requires initiatives beyond those targeted at the media to directly engage the public in its work. In addition to making the court and the prosecution more responsive to the public’s concerns and questions, interacting with the public can maximize the chamber’s impact by helping to foster legitimacy around its work.

As outlined above, the court has made some efforts to conduct outreach, such as by organizing group visits to the court. Nonetheless, we are concerned that the court’s efforts to interact directly with the public are not sufficient.²¹¹ For example, there have been reports of weak communication between the court and NGOs participating in the CSN.²¹² We welcome the court’s recent efforts to engage with members in the CSN’s first “ring” to clarify its role in disseminating information about the court and its activities. We strongly encourage the PIOS to actively foster collaboration with the CSN on an ongoing basis to ensure that this remains a priority and that accurate information about the court and its activities is distributed regularly to the public.

Further, while the Witness Support Office, which is currently heavily involved in coordinating the court’s interaction with the CSN, can provide valuable information about certain aspects of the court’s functioning, the responsibility for the CSN—and for outreach generally—should rest primarily with the PIOS. We also wish to highlight that while the independent CSN can be an important vehicle for disseminating information throughout Bosnia, it does not displace the need for the court to engage directly with the people of Bosnia.²¹³

Human Rights Watch has been informed that the PIOS’s budget for 2007 will be considerably higher than in 2006.²¹⁴ One proposed initiative is to conduct a survey to determine the public’s awareness about the court’s and the prosecution’s activities. This survey will in turn provide a “baseline” for designing an effective public awareness program in the future.²¹⁵ Further, it is anticipated that some of the PIOS’s budget will be used to conduct additional outreach activities outside of Sarajevo.²¹⁶

In devising a more effective outreach and communications strategy, we recommend drawing from the experiences of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Like the chamber, the Special Court is located in the country where the crimes occurred. The Special Court has adopted a robust outreach and communications strategy to make its work understood and relevant to the people of Sierra Leone. For example, the Outreach Unit of the Special Court based outreach staff in Sierra Leone’s provinces, where they tapped into local social networks to disseminate information about the court through workshops, trainings, and screenings of specially prepared video materials. These materials covered such issues as the role of the judge, the prosecutor, and the defense lawyer in a fair trial, and simple explanations of complex legal issues such as jurisdiction and challenges to the court’s legal foundation. The Special Court’s Outreach Unit also undertook workshops to educate the Sierra Leonean legal profession about the court and its rules, helping overcome misperceptions and confusion about the court in this important local constituency.²¹⁷

We are concerned, however, that the PIOS’s capacity to devise and execute a more ambitious outreach strategy in Bosnia is limited because of current staffing. There are only three staff members in the PIOS to coordinate all of the court’s press and outreach work, and there are no plans to recruit additional staff members in the near future.²¹⁸ We therefore strongly urge the Registry to set aside funds for the recruitment of additional staff in the PIOS as soon as possible to ensure that it is fully capable of executing its mandate effectively.

In terms of the prosecution’s outreach strategy, in the past there have been limited efforts by representatives of the Special Department for War Crimes to devise activities to engage directly with the public. While representatives of the department have attended outreach events in the past, such attendance has been at the request of other organizations.²¹⁹ These representatives are therefore subject to the agendas —and the audiences—of these outside organizations in conveying important and often sensitive information about the department’s mandate and activities. The department’s strategy vis-à-vis participating in outreach events has been largely reactive.²²⁰

However, Human Rights Watch has since learned of plans to intensify the department’s outreach strategy. It is anticipated that the department will organize its own outreach events, and will therefore have more control over the message provided to the public about its activities.²²¹ For example, if the department is handling a case concerning crimes committed in Foca, representatives of the department will go to Foca to explain the crimes in the underlying indictment and answer questions. In this way, the department plans to take its work to the people of Bosnia.²²²

We appreciate the department’s increased commitment to improving its interaction with the public, and look forward to the realization of this commitment in practice. In addition, we wish to emphasize again the importance of the department’s development and adoption of a strategy document for case selection and management and its widespread public dissemination through targeted and regular outreach events, to maximize its impact.