<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

XI. Public Awareness/Outreach

The experiences of other tribunals that have tried war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide has shown that public outreach is a critical means of ensuring that trials have meaningful impact in the communities where crimes were committed. Outreach is essential to understanding the process of trials and to enabling members of different communities to accept a common understanding of the events of the war. An absence of accurate, publicly accessible, information on trials for crimes committed during the war promotes speculation and misunderstanding, often fed by preexisting prejudices. Outreach can combat this and, therefore, enhance these trials’ ability to contribute to Bosnia’s societal healing.

At present, several efforts are being undertaken to increase outreach and public awareness of cases at cantonal and district courts. The ICTY liaison offices, in conjunction with the OSCE, have produced a video highlighting the importance of outreach at the cantonal and district level which it has screened for judges and prosecutors in different cities within Bosnia.²³⁸ Other efforts to bring together NGOs, prosecutors, judges, police, and members of the public around issues raised by these trials have also been supported by the OSCE and civil society groups.²³⁹ Many of the NGOs involved in this are also active in the Court Support Network (CSN), a network of NGOs that conduct outreach and education dealing with the State Court, but generally not the cantonal or district courts.²⁴⁰

These events allow a forum for prosecutors, police, and others to explain their roles and outline some of the challenges and successes that they have had. Victims’ groups and other attendees can pose questions and present their concerns and, thus, gain a clearer understanding of events leading to the prosecution of these cases.

These efforts are a significant positive step, but more is needed, and by a broader range of actors. Many NGOs and victims’ groups with whom Human Rights Watch spoke stressed the lack of public knowledge regarding trials at cantonal and district courts for crimes under international law and called for greater outreach. Many stated that it was difficult to get information regarding cases or even about the process generally and that this lack of information fed rumors and speculation.²⁴¹

On the other hand, many people who had participated in outreach events spoke very highly of the impact. One NGO stated that an outreach event that they organized began with mutual recrimination where victims’ groups attacked prosecutors for lack of action and prosecutors blamed victims for refusing to participate and for changing their testimony. This airing of grievances was ultimately helpful as it began a dialogue between victims’ groups and prosecutors that had not previously been possible.²⁴² Another person said that outreach events helped break down prejudices and fostered communication.²⁴³ Another participant stressed the importance of including religious leaders in outreach events: their views can carry tremendous weight in some communities, and it is important that they be part of the broader discussion of accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.²⁴⁴ One observer credited outreach by the prosecutor’s office in Banja Luka as one of the key ways in which that office had been able to build trust and to overcome skepticism among witnesses, including some from among minority ethnic groups.²⁴⁵

The positive effects of greater outreach will make the work of prosecutors and courts easier. Currently, however, many prosecutors and court officials do not consider outreach as part of their duties. Several prosecutors stated that participation in outreach events organized by NGOs was unpleasant for them and that they disliked facing the accusations of disgruntled victims’ groups.²⁴⁶ Some court officials consider that the appointment of a spokesperson is sufficient in terms of outreach and access to public information.²⁴⁷

As a result of this, information can sometimes be very hard to obtain for parties interested in following proceedings. One NGO recounted work that they had done on an informal survey in early 2007 wherein they phoned courts and prosecutors’ offices asking for information on cases. They found that only one court, in Trebinje, had a person appointed to handle such requests.²⁴⁸

The role of a spokesperson is an important one. The spokesperson can coordinate communications strategy and ensure accurate and timely dissemination of information to the news media and the public. The spokesperson, however, cannot be a substitute for an outreach program, though the two can ideally complement one another. In this way, the courts and prosecutors can provide information about ongoing cases as well as about broader issues concerning the process of trying and investigating cases dealing with crimes under international law and progress and obstacles facing these cases. Ideally, a formal outreach office should be established to coordinate the outreach activities of various actors involved in trials for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide at the district and cantonal level. Such an office could also coordinate cooperation with NGOs and other agencies with experience in outreach, such as the ICTY Liaison Offices and the OSCE. This is clearly an important area for funding. Though the benefits of outreach may seem somewhat intangible, outreach can facilitate cooperation and support between different groups and greatly enhance the impact of these trials.

Cantonal and district prosecutors and courts should learn from the examples of other prosecutions of crimes under international law and take a greater role in outreach. The outreach program of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, in particular, could provide ideas of innovative ways to help the message of these trials spread to all parts of the country. These could include producing and disseminating video or audio summaries of cases and arranging outreach events with court personnel and prosecutors in different parts of the country.²⁴⁹

The cantonal and district courts possess an advantage over international tribunals trying similar cases in that they are much closer to affected communities. Physical proximity, however, is not enough. Effective outreach is needed to ensure that society at large can derive the most possible benefit from these proceedings. Ideally, outreach activities should be centralized in an outreach office. In the meantime, court personnel, attorneys, NGOs, victims’ groups, and prosecutors at the cantonal and district level should take a more active leadership role in these processes and attempt to create a coordinated outreach program.