| Abstract [eng] |
According to the most recent data, the ICTY has convicted and sentenced 90 perpetrators for mass human rights violations during the conflicts in the Balkans in the 1990s. 60 convicted war criminals have already come back to the region, and in fact, 56 (93 percent) of them granted early release after serving two-thirds of their sentences. Convicts’ rehabilitation is presented as one of the goals of international sentencing and is a critical element in considering the right to early release. Despite that, there is very little research done on what happens after the imprisonment: how do the former convicts reintegrate into the post-war societies, what strategies do they employ and how are received by the victims and locals? Successful rehabilitation can become one of the most significant indicators that could prove tribunals impact in preventing mass atrocities and in accelerating the reconciliation process. Thus, this research aims to provide an empirical reality in assessing whether international tribunals are successfully rehabilitating convicts. In order to achieve the set goal, a total of twenty semi-structured and three structured interviews were conducted with experts working in the field of transitional justice in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Kosovo, Croatia, Serbia and Northern Macedonia. Respondents were categorized into four groups: human rights activists, war victims, representatives of victims' associations, and scientists. The study was conducted from January to May 2021. Obtained data is analyzed through three steps: 1) The outcome of the rehabilitation is revealed by indicating the most common ICTY convicts’ reintegration strategies in different Balkan countries; 2) The expected actions of returned ICTY convicts are revealed by demonstrating how different respondent groups understand the concept of successful rehabilitation; 3) An assessment of the existing ICTY mechanisms necessary for successful rehabilitation is provided. The practice of the ICTY shows that the process of execution of sentences is largely dependent on the host states. The small involvement of the Tribunal and the assumption of responsibility in dealing with the issue of rehabilitation of convicts makes the implementation of rehabilitation uncontrolled. Studies have shown that the Tribunal did not have a clear concept of rehabilitation, its assessment is superficial in dealing with applications for early release and the assessment criteria are not defined. On the other hand, according to this research it would be wrong to blame the Tribunal alone. When persons convicted by ICTY are released, their reintegration strategies depend largely on how they are met and encouraged by national states. Thus, when it comes to war criminals, the aspect of rehabilitation becomes particularly problematic and even paradoxical – if the prevailing attitude of the political elite/society in the return country is to support the former violence, nationalist rhetoric, denial of war crimes, it is simply reasonable for the former prisoner to take action that responds to the expectations of the states and facilitates their reintegration. In conclusion, based on this study, three recommendations are suggested for future research: 1) Including the insights of the ICTY, the ICC officials and other experts in international law in order to analyse the shortcomings of existing rehabilitation delivery mechanisms at micro level; 2) Involving the insights of the citizens of individual states, which would provide an understanding on how they assess the rehabilitation of war prisoners in their countries and if they consider their involvement in the public and political spheres to be acceptable; 3) Examining the findings of other case studies (e.g. ICTR, ICC) in order to determine whether the revealed rehabilitation implementation problems is characteristic only to ICTY or is also relevant to other institutions responsible for international sentencing. |
