PROF. WILLIAM SCHABAS' QUESTIONABLE CREDIBILITY

[The Office of the Prosecutor should also take note of this information for the purpose of Appeal if "Srebrenica Seven" case does not yield satisfactory judgment]

Controversial Professor William Schabas has been working tirelessly behind closed doors to overturn the legality of the Srebrenica genocide. He has exerted his personal influence over (at least) two judges that have deliberated (and still continue to deliberate) landmark genocide cases. Is this really a justice? Here are some facts you should know:

Close Friend of Judge Agius and Judge Prost

Prof. William Schabas is a very close friend of Judge Carmel Agius and Judge Kimberly Prost, the two judges currently deliberating the landmark genocide case known as the "Srebrenica Seven." The accused in the 'Srebrenica Seven' trial include Vujadin Popovic, Ljubisa Beara, Drago Nikolic, Ljubomir Borovcanin, Vinko Pandurevic, Radivoje Miletic and Milan Gvero. Here is what the Judge Agius was forced to reveal publicly on 22 May 2008, because he had to deal with a conflict of interest at a time when Prof. Schabas offered his expertise to the defence. Read carefully "how close" judges and genocide-distortionists can really be:

"... We wanted you to know that Professor Schabas is and has been a very close personal friend of mine and of Judge Prost for a long number of years, not that it mattered much to us, but we wanted you to know about this. We understand that this has been brought to your attention, both Defence teams and interested Defence teams and Prosecution, and that according to you, there is nothing that you wish to state on the matter. In other words, that no further action is needed. That is what we have been told. So I'm just putting this down in the record and for the record." [ICTY Court Transcript]

Offered his "Expertise" to Serb Defendants

Prof. William Schabas offered his "expertise" in the field of genocide (mis)-interpretation to Serb defendants in the "Srebrenica Seven" case. However, Prosecutors reacted swiftly against such ludicrous idea. After all, Prof. Schabas has not authority to interpret what constitutes genocide.

On 19 May 2008, the Prosecution filed the Notice, in which it requests the Trial Chamber not to admit the Report and proposed evidence of Professor Schabas, challenging the relevance of the contents of both his Report and his proposed testimony. The Prosecution contended that the purpose of Serb defendants to call Professor Schabas to testify was "to espouse its preferred legal analysis of one of the crimes with which the Accused are charged through the historical background of the notion of genocide" which "would usurp [the Trial Chamber's essential function in interpreting and applying the relevant law." [See: Decision on the admissibility of the expert report / testimony of Professor Schabas AND Decision on the request for reconsideration of... Professor Schabas]

Prof. Schabas on Record for Questioning Srebrenica Genocide

Prof. Schabas does not get it. In his mind, Serbs were supposed to kill all men and all women to qualify this massacre as genocide. For example, let's take a look at what Prof. Schabas wrote in his book "War Crimes and Human Rights: Essays on the Death Penalty, Justice and Accountability," page 847, read carefully:

"The summary execution of the men in a community, coupled with the expulsion of the women and children, is a horrific crime against humanity. Nevertheless, if the theoretical construct of the crime of genocide proposed by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and endorsed by the International Court of Justice is to be sustained, it would have been more consistent and coherent to conclude that Srebrenica, too, was not an act of genocide. Both the Yugoslavia Tribunal and the International Court of Justice seem to want to have their cake and to eat it too, espousing a rigorous legal analysis of the elements of the crime but nevertheless bowing to the crowd by acknowledging the most outrageous act in the entire war to rise to the level of genocide."

Rebuttal to Prof. William Schabas' Distortions

The rebuttal to Prof. Schabas' logical inconsistency can be found in the Radislav Krstic's Appeal judgment, and we will quote directly from it, read carefully:

"The decision not to kill the women or children may be explained by the Bosnian Serbs’ sensitivity to public opinion. In contrast to the killing of the captured military men, such an action could not easily be kept secret, or disguised as a military operation, and so carried an increased risk of attracting international censure. In determining that genocide occurred at Srebrenica, the cardinal question is whether the intent to commit genocide existed. While this intent must be supported by the factual matrix, the offence of genocide does not require proof that the perpetrator chose the most efficient method to accomplish his objective of destroying the targeted part. Even where the method selected will not implement the perpetrator’s intent to the fullest, leaving that destruction incomplete, this ineffectiveness alone does not preclude a finding of genocidal intent. The international attention focused on Srebrenica, combined with the presence of the UN troops in the area, prevented those members of the VRS [Bosnian Serb Army] Main Staff who devised the genocidal plan from putting it into action in the most direct and efficient way. Constrained by the circumstances, they adopted the method which would allow them to implement the genocidal design while minimizing the risk of retribution."

Final Words

Shame on you Prof. William Schabas! If "Srebrenica Seven" case collapses and defendands end up being acquitted of genocide (partially or fully), then at least we will know it's because of you and your close personal friendship with the two judges deliberating landmark cases. What a farce of the international justice, indeed. Maybe you could go and testify on Radovan Karadzic's behalf - he even cited your interpretation of genocide (for which you have no authority to make) in his pre-trial brief.