Press Release on the Results of the Evaluation of the War Crimes Prosecutor Candidates’ Programmes

June 29, 2016

The Belgrade Centre for Human Rights (BCHR) is concerned by the results of the evaluation of the programmes submitted by candidates for the post of War Crimes Prosecutor, which was conducted by the Commission for the Preparation and Evaluation of the Written Test and the Evaluation of the Programmes on the Organisation and Improvement of the Work of the Public Prosecution Service (hereinafter: Commission).

After the candidates presented their programmes on 10 June 2016, the Commission evaluated their programmes under Article 20 of the Rulebook governing the criteria and standards for evaluating the competences, qualifications and worthiness of the candidates running for public prosecution offices (hereinafter: Rulebook). The Commission awarded 9.2 points to candidate Milorad Trošić’s programme, 10.8 points to candidate Đorđe Ostojić’s programme, 13.6 points to candidate Milan Petrović’s programme and 19.6 points to candidate Snežana Stanojković’s programme.  

Given that the best ranked candidate’s programme was awarded 19.6 out of the maximum 20 points and that Article 20 of the Rulebook lays down that the programmes shall be evaluated against their quality (maximum 10 points) and feasibility (maximum 10 points), the BCHR would like to alert the public to the potential consequences of implementing the programme the Commission qualified as the best.

Namely, the programme envisages the broader application of trials in absentia. Although this criminal law institute is laid down in the Criminal Procedure Code, the BCHR is of the view that its broad application would be in contravention of Council of Europe Committee of Ministers Resolution 75(11) on the criteria governing proceedings held in the absence of the accused. In this Resolution, the Council of Ministers recommended to the Member States that “[T]he accused must not be tried in his absence, if it is possible and desirable to transfer the proceedings to another state or to apply for extradition”.

The implementation of candidate Stanojković’s programme would also be in contravention of the 2016-2020 National Strategy for the Prosecution of War Crimes (hereinafter: Strategy) adopted by the Government of the Republic of Serbia on 20 February 2016, in which the Government of the Republic of Serbia expresses its full support to the practice of avoiding trials in absentia. Under the Strategy, the Prosecutor should bear in mind the availability of evidence, suspect(s) and victims when deciding whether to issue an indictment against certain individual(s) or to refer the case to a fellow prosecutor in the region as well as the need to maintain good neighbourly relations with other states and regional stability in general, on the basis of knowledge whether the same person is already being prosecuted or has already been convicted for the same or similar acts in the region.

Given that the application of the institute primarily regards the prosecution of the nationals of the Republic of Croatia and the Bosnia and Herzegovina, the introduction of such a practice would hinder cooperation with their prosecution services and, in the long term, relations with these countries, which may slow down or even halt the process of Serbia’s accession to the European Union.

All former Yugoslav states are under the obligation to bring individuals responsible for gross violations of international humanitarian law before the court and do their utmost to prosecute the perpetrators. The introduction of practice of trials in absentia would certainly undermine regional cooperation in prosecuting war crimes, which has been established with great difficulty, as well as efforts primarily aimed at improving the state of human rights.