The University of Sarajevo – Institute for Research of Crimes against Humanity and International Law submitted to the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Graciela Gatti Santana, Prosecutor Serge Brammertz, and Registrar Abubacarr M. Tambadou a request for the urgent consideration of all legal, procedural, administrative, and institutional avenues available in connection with the transfer of the remains of Ratko Mladić and the publicly announced intention to accord him the highest state and military honours in the Republic of Serbia.
The Institute addressed the International Residual Mechanism within the framework of its institutional mission of conducting scholarly research into genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law; documenting facts concerning crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina; preserving a culture of remembrance; protecting the dignity of victims; and affirming facts established by final judgments before international and domestic courts.
The Institute’s communication was prompted above all by public announcements by the highest representatives of the Republic of Serbia that Ratko Mladić, should his remains be transferred to Serbia, would be buried with the highest state and military honours. The letter provides a detailed explanation of the reasons requiring urgent action, with particular reference to statements by the highest political officials of the Republic of Serbia, including Minister of Justice Nenad Vujić and President of the Republic of Serbia Aleksandar Vučić, concerning the return of Mladić’s remains and the organisation of his funeral.
The Institute expressed deep concern regarding these announcements, assessing that they require the urgent and particular attention of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. It was emphasised that this is not merely a question of the burial place of a deceased convicted person, nor merely a matter concerning his family’s wishes regarding the place and manner of burial. Rather, it concerns the legacy of international criminal justice, the authority of final judgments, the manner in which states treat persons finally convicted of the most serious international crimes, the rights and dignity of victims, transitional justice, and the message that international and state institutions send to future generations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and the region as a whole.
The communication particularly emphasised the fundamental distinction between the right of a family to bury a deceased family member and a decision by a state to accord the highest state and military honours to a person finally convicted of genocide and other most serious international crimes. State symbols, military ceremonial, and official protocol are not private acts of mourning, but official acts of the state and a public message concerning those to whom the state accords particular respect and recognition. Such a ceremony would therefore constitute the strongest form of institutional glorification of a person finally convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
The Institute also drew attention to the particular international-law dimension of the Republic of Serbia’s relationship to this matter. It recalled that, in its 2007 Judgment, the International Court of Justice found that Serbia had violated its obligation to prevent the genocide in Srebrenica, as well as its obligation to cooperate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia by failing to transfer Ratko Mladić for trial.
Particular attention in the letter was devoted to the victims and their families. It was stressed that, for thousands of families in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the judgments of international courts are not abstract legal documents, but an international and judicial acknowledgement of their suffering and a final judicial determination of individual criminal responsibility for crimes whose consequences they have endured for more than three decades. The burial of Ratko Mladić with state protocol, military ceremonial, and the highest state and military honours would represent a profound humiliation for the victims and their families and would send the message that a state may simultaneously formally accept international judicial judgments while publicly and institutionally glorifying a person convicted by those very judgments.
The Institute also warned of the long-term consequences of a possible state and military ceremony, including the further posthumous heroisation and mythologisation of Ratko Mladić, the strengthening of his symbolic and almost cult-like status within parts of the political and social sphere, as well as the normalisation and value-based rehabilitation of the policies and ideologies with which his finally established criminal responsibility is directly connected. Particular attention was drawn to the danger of the further spread of denial and relativisation of genocide and other international crimes among future generations.
In view of all the foregoing, the University of Sarajevo – Institute for Research of Crimes against Humanity and International Law called upon the President, the Prosecutor, and the Registrar of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, each acting strictly within the limits of their respective competences as established by the Statute and other relevant instruments, to:
1. urgently examine and exhaust all legal, procedural, administrative, and institutional avenues available to the Mechanism before any final steps are taken in connection with the transfer of the remains of Ratko Mladić to the Republic of Serbia, including appropriate communication and cooperation with the competent authorities of the Kingdom of the Netherlands;
2. as part of those considerations, examine whether there is a legal possibility of temporarily postponing the transfer, or another lawful modality that would allow the consequences of the publicly announced state and military glorification to be fully considered before any final decision is taken; where an appropriate legal basis exists, also consider other lawful possibilities regarding the transfer or place of burial and, where such possibilities are not feasible, consider requiring clear and unequivocal official assurances from the Republic of Serbia that the transfer and funeral will not be used for the purpose of such glorification;
3. take into account, as particularly relevant circumstances, the publicly stated intention of the political leaders of the Republic of Serbia that Ratko Mladić be accorded the highest state and military honours, as well as the fact that the International Court of Justice established the international legal responsibility of the Republic of Serbia for violation of the obligation to prevent the genocide in Srebrenica, violation of the obligation to cooperate fully with the ICTY by failing to transfer Ratko Mladić, and violation of the obligation to comply with the Court’s provisional measures;
4. when considering any possible transfer, devote particular attention to the rights, interests, and dignity of the victims, the international standards protecting their position, as well as the possible consequences of a state and military ceremony for the authority of the final judgment, the acceptance of judicially established facts in the public sphere, and the confidence of victims and the public in international criminal justice;
5. assess the broader consequences of any possible transfer and the conferral of the highest state and military honours for the integrity, authority, and legacy of the ICTY and the International Residual Mechanism, as well as for the processes of transitional justice, dealing with the past, reconciliation, confidence-building, and the rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and the region as a whole;
6. specifically consider the long-term social and political consequences of such a state and military ceremony, including the further posthumous heroisation and mythologisation of Ratko Mladić, the strengthening of his symbolic and almost cult-like status within parts of the political and social sphere, and the normalisation and value-based rehabilitation of the policies and ideologies with which his finally established criminal responsibility is directly connected, as well as the further spread of denial and relativisation of genocide and other international crimes among future generations;
7. use the institutional authority, experience, and existing mechanisms of cooperation of the International Residual Mechanism, particularly those of its Office of the Prosecutor, to draw the attention of the competent institutions in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Serbia, and other states in the region to the need for consistent respect for judicially established facts, final judgments, and the legacy of international courts, and for appropriate responses, in accordance with applicable legislation, to the denial of crimes and the glorification of finally convicted perpetrators, particularly in the context of the transfer and burial of Ratko Mladić and the anticipated intensification of posthumous glorification that may follow.
The communication emphasised that international criminal justice does not end with the death of a convicted person and that its enduring value lies precisely in the facts established by final judgments that it leaves to future generations. The future of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, and the region as a whole cannot be built on the denial or relativisation of final judgments, nor on the state glorification of persons convicted of genocide and other most serious international crimes, but on facts, accountability, respect for victims, the rule of law, and a clear institutional rejection of the policies and ideologies that led to the crimes.
The text of the letter is provided below:
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR URGENT CONSIDERATION OF LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL AVENUES FOR ACTION REGARDING THE TRANSFER OF RATKO MLADIĆ’S REMAINS AND THE ANNOUNCED GRANTING OF THE HIGHEST STATE AND MILITARY HONOURS
Dear President Gatti Santana,
Dear Prosecutor Brammertz,
Dear Registrar Tambadou,
The University of Sarajevo – Institute for Research of Crimes against Humanity and International Law is addressing you following the death of Ratko Mladić, who was sentenced by the Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on 22 November 2017 to life imprisonment for genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war, including his responsibility for the genocide committed against Bosniaks in and around Srebrenica in July 1995. On 8 June 2021, the Appeals Chamber of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals affirmed his convictions and sentence of life imprisonment.
The Institute is addressing you within the framework of its institutional mission of conducting scientific research into genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and other serious violations of international humanitarian law; documenting facts concerning crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina; preserving the culture of remembrance; protecting the dignity of victims; and affirming facts conclusively established before international and domestic courts.
Our communication has been prompted above all by public announcements by the highest representatives of the Republic of Serbia that Ratko Mladić, should his remains be transferred to Serbia, will be buried with the highest state and military honours.
On 28 August 2026, the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Serbia, Nenad Vujić, publicly stated that Ratko Mladić would be buried with “the highest state and military honours”, while also stating that the Government of the Republic of Serbia was in regular contact with his family and that the arrangements for taking over his remains depended on further procedures of the International Residual Mechanism. [1]
At the same time, the President of the Republic of Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić, publicly criticised the International Residual Mechanism for not allowing Mladić to spend the final days of his life in Serbia and spoke about the return of his remains and Serbia’s readiness to assist in organising the funeral. [2]
The Institute views these announcements with deep concern and considers that they require the urgent and particular attention of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. This is not merely a question of the place of burial of a deceased convicted person. Nor is it merely a question of his family’s wishes regarding the place and manner of his burial. It is a question of the legacy of international criminal justice, the authority of final judgments, the attitude of states towards persons finally convicted of the gravest international crimes, the rights and dignity of victims, transitional justice, and the message that international and state institutions are sending today to future generations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and the entire region.
I. LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT
The International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals was established by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1966 (2010) to continue the jurisdictions, rights, obligations and essential functions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. [3]
For that reason, the issue we are bringing to your attention cannot be considered separately from the overall legacy of international criminal justice established in relation to crimes committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia.
Ratko Mladić was one of the most significant accused persons and convicted persons in that judicial process. His years in hiding, arrest, transfer to The Hague, lengthy trial, Trial Judgment and final conclusion of the proceedings before the Appeals Chamber of the Mechanism constitute one of the central cases in the history of international criminal justice concerning the former Yugoslavia.
Even after his death, the Mechanism has retained a direct institutional role. In its official statement of 27 August 2026, the Mechanism stated that, following Mladić’s death in The Hague, the competent Dutch authorities had initiated the standard procedures and inquiries prescribed by domestic law. The very fact that the standard institutional and legal procedures are still ongoing lends additional importance to this communication.
We consider that, before any irreversible administrative step is taken that would enable the transfer of the remains to the Republic of Serbia, serious consideration must be given to a new and exceptionally significant circumstance that has arisen in the meantime: the officially announced intention of representatives of the Republic of Serbia to accord Ratko Mladić the highest state and military honours.
II. THE FINAL JUDGMENT AGAINST RATKO MLADIĆ AND THE PARTICULAR INTERNATIONAL LEGAL DIMENSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA’S RELATIONSHIP TO THIS CASE
This issue carries particular weight because the Republic of Serbia itself was a party to the proceedings before the International Court of Justice in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro.
In its Judgment of 26 February 2007, the International Court of Justice found that Serbia had violated its obligation under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide because it had failed to take all measures within its power to prevent the genocide committed in Srebrenica in July 1995. The Court did not find that Serbia as a state had committed genocide or been complicit in its commission. It did, however, establish Serbia’s international responsibility for violation of its obligation to prevent genocide. [4]
Even more significant for the purposes of this communication is a second finding in the same Judgment.
The International Court of Justice found that Serbia had also violated its international obligations by failing to transfer Ratko Mladić himself, who at the time was indicted for genocide and complicity in genocide, for trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, thereby failing fully to comply with its obligation to cooperate with the Tribunal. [4]
The International Court of Justice also found that Serbia had failed to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Court on 8 April and 13 September 1993, namely that it had failed to take all measures within its power to prevent genocide. [4]
For that reason, the present situation carries particular historical, legal and moral weight.
A person whose surrender for years constituted an issue concerning the fulfilment of the Republic of Serbia’s international obligations, a person in relation to whose non-surrender the International Court of Justice found that Serbia had breached an international obligation, and a person whom international criminal justice, following lengthy proceedings, finally convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, could now be returned to Serbia and laid to rest with the highest state and military honours. This is not merely a historical paradox. Such a situation represents a serious challenge to the authority of international criminal justice and the values upon which it was built.
III. FROM PRIVATE BURIAL TO INSTITUTIONAL GLORIFICATION
We consider it particularly important to draw a clear distinction between two entirely different matters.
The first is the right of a family to bury its deceased member. The second is a decision by a state to accord the highest state and military honours to a person finally convicted of genocide and other gravest international crimes. Our communication concerns the latter.
State and military honours are not, by their nature, a private act of mourning. They constitute an official act of the state. They involve state authority, state symbols, institutions, military ceremonial and a public message concerning whom the state considers worthy of special respect and official recognition.
Accordingly, any granting of the highest state and military honours to Ratko Mladić could not be reduced to a matter of a private funeral. It would constitute an institutional act.
If the Republic of Serbia, through its highest state institutions and military structures, were to organise or participate in a ceremony granting the highest state and military honours to a person finally convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, such an act would constitute the institutional glorification of a convicted perpetrator of the gravest international crimes.
Such an act would not formally contest or overturn the final judgment. Its meaning and social message would, however, be publicly displaced by a contrary symbolic act of the state.
If a state uses its symbols, its military and its highest ceremonial honours to present a person sentenced to life imprisonment for genocide and other international crimes as someone worthy of special state recognition, then the meaning of the final judgment is not relativised merely through words. It is confronted by an official political and symbolic message of the state.
It is precisely this that gives the present issue a dimension extending far beyond one family’s decision regarding the place of burial.
IV. VICTIMS MUST BE AT THE CENTRE OF CONSIDERATION
Victims must be at the centre of any consideration of this issue. Thousands of families in Bosnia and Herzegovina continue to live with the direct consequences of the crimes for which Ratko Mladić was finally convicted.
For them, the judgments of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Residual Mechanism are not abstract legal documents. They constitute international and judicial recognition of their suffering. They represent conclusively established facts concerning what happened to their parents, children, brothers, sisters, spouses, relatives and neighbours. They establish individual criminal responsibility for crimes whose consequences these families have borne for more than three decades.
Numerous families are still searching for the remains of their loved ones. Numerous mothers and fathers died without ever finding and burying their children. The identification of the remains of victims of genocide and other crimes continues even three decades after their killing.
In such circumstances, the image of a man finally convicted of genocide being laid to rest under state protocol, military ceremonial and the highest state honours cannot be neutral. For the victims and their families, it would constitute a profound humiliation and convey the message that a state may formally acknowledge the existence of international judicial judgments while publicly and institutionally glorifying a person convicted by those very judgments.
International standards concerning the position of victims therefore insist on respect for their dignity.
The 1985 United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power establishes that victims should be treated with compassion and respect for their dignity, and that their views and concerns should be presented and considered at appropriate stages of proceedings where their personal interests are affected. [5]
The United Nations Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law further confirm the importance of the rights, interests and dignity of victims. [6]
We do not claim that these instruments in themselves establish a specific procedural prohibition on the transfer of human remains. We do, however, consider that they constitute an important international normative framework requiring that the interests and dignity of victims not be treated as a peripheral matter when institutions make decisions that may directly affect them. In the present case, such an approach is particularly important.
On 27 August 2026, on the occasion of Ratko Mladić’s death, the Secretary-General of the United Nations expressed solidarity with the victims, survivors and their families, emphasised the finality of the judicial findings and the facts established by them, and condemned acts that glorify persons convicted by international courts of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. On the same occasion, it was emphasised that accountability remains a critical step towards lasting peace, trust and reconciliation in the region. [7]
We consider that this clear position of the Secretary-General of the United Nations must carry particular weight at precisely the moment when a United Nations body is considering further action concerning the remains of the person to whom that statement directly relates.
V. THREE DECADES OF TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE MUST NOT BE UNDERMINED BY A STATE ACT OF GLORIFICATION
For almost three decades, international courts, United Nations institutions, states, domestic judiciaries, victims’ organisations, victims’ families, researchers, legal professionals, universities, memorial institutions and civil society have invested enormous effort in establishing facts, locating victims, prosecuting those responsible, documenting crimes and establishing the principle of individual criminal responsibility.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, as well as the Mechanism, has been a key pillar of that process. Its judgments are not merely historical documents. They represent conclusively established facts, legal characterisations of crimes and determinations of individual criminal responsibility.
Processes of transitional justice and dealing with the past, educational programmes, scientific research, archives, commemorative practices, memorialisation processes and numerous other initiatives have been built upon these judgments, with the aim of ensuring that crimes are not denied, that victims are not forgotten and that persons responsible for the gravest international crimes are not transformed into social and national heroes.
It is therefore particularly disturbing that the highest state and military honours for Ratko Mladić have been announced. This raises a serious question as to how far the official policy of the Republic of Serbia has progressed, after more than thirty years, in confronting the wars of the 1990s.
Instead of clear institutional distancing from persons finally convicted of genocide and other gravest international crimes, their public elevation through the highest forms of state and military ceremonial has been announced.
Such an act would constitute a serious institutional return to the political and value patterns of thirty years ago.
This is contrary to the fundamental idea of transitional justice. Transitional justice does not mean merely concluding judicial proceedings and imposing sentences. It also entails the social and institutional acceptance of conclusively established facts, recognition of victims, individualisation of responsibility and the creation of a value framework in which perpetrators of the gravest crimes cannot be presented as role models for future generations.
If a perpetrator finally convicted of genocide is accorded the highest state and military honours, more than three decades of work on transitional justice are called into question precisely at the level of state policy.
Such a ceremony would not erase the judgments. It would, however, constitute an attempt to alter their social meaning.
The court says: responsibility for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The state ceremony would say: national merit and the highest honours.
These two messages are incompatible.
For that reason, we consider this to be far more than a ceremonial issue.
VI. GLORIFICATION IS NOT A MARGINAL PHENOMENON – THE RISK LIES IN ITS INSTITUTIONALISATION
Of particular concern is the fact that the glorification of Ratko Mladić has for years not been confined to the margins of society. Public statements by politicians, murals, gatherings, commemorations and other forms of public glorification in Serbia and the Republika Srpska entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina bear witness to this.
The International Residual Mechanism and its Office of the Prosecutor have for years warned against such phenomena. Prosecutor Serge Brammertz has repeatedly warned before the United Nations Security Council that denial of crimes and the glorification of convicted war criminals represent serious obstacles to justice, reconciliation and the building of trust.
At the commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide in 2025, the Prosecutor again emphasised that genuinely honouring the victims requires the resolute rejection of crime denial and the glorification of war criminals. [8]
The Institute therefore considers that the present situation is qualitatively different and considerably more serious.
This is no longer merely a matter of murals, individual political statements or gatherings. The announcement that the highest state and military honours would be accorded was made by the Minister of Justice of the Republic of Serbia.
Such an announcement creates a real possibility that the glorification of a person finally convicted of genocide will move from the political and social sphere into the sphere of official state ceremonial, and that this process will not end with that potential act.
Political leadership and state institutions bear a particular responsibility not to encourage the glorification of persons convicted of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
When messages of glorification come precisely from holders of the highest state offices, their impact is incomparably greater than when they originate from private individuals or groups.
The state possesses symbols, institutions, armed forces and public authority. The highest state and military honours therefore carry a meaning that no private ex
VII. THE LEGACY OF THE ICTY AND THE INTERNATIONAL RESIDUAL MECHANISM
It is particularly concerning that all of this is taking place precisely during the period in which the residual functions of international criminal justice for the former Yugoslavia are gradually coming to an end.
The gradual reduction of an institution’s activities must not also mean the weakening of its legacy. On the contrary, as the number of active cases decreases, the question of protecting conclusively established facts and the legacy of the courts becomes even more important.
The International Residual Mechanism was not established merely as an administrative conclusion to the work of two tribunals. Through a United Nations Security Council resolution, it was entrusted with the jurisdictions, rights, obligations and essential functions of its predecessors.
The legacy of the ICTY therefore cannot be reduced merely to archival boxes, databases and collections of completed judgments.
Its legacy also consists of the facts conclusively established, the legal standards developed, the voices of thousands of witnesses and victims who testified before it, and the principle that individual criminal responsibility is incurred for genocide and other gravest international crimes regardless of the political, military or social position of the perpetrator.
It would therefore be particularly damaging if, immediately after the death of one of the best-known persons convicted by the ICTY and the Mechanism, his transfer from an institutional framework connected with the United Nations were to become the immediate prelude to a state ceremony glorifying him.
The final institutional act connecting the International Residual Mechanism with Ratko Mladić should not be an administrative step followed by a state ceremony and then, very likely, by a new and more intensive phase of his posthumous glorification.
The granting of the highest state and military honours could further shift the already existing boundaries of glorification, creating space for Ratko Mladić to be presented in parts of the public, political and social sphere not merely as a military commander and political symbol, but for his image to acquire the characteristics of an enduring national myth and an almost cult-like status.
Such a process would not entail only the glorification of an individual finally convicted of genocide and other international crimes. It would also indirectly contribute to the normalisation, justification and rehabilitation, at the level of values, of the policies, ideologies and crimes with which his role is inextricably linked.
The message conveyed by a state ceremony would thereby outlive the funeral itself and produce long-term consequences for the culture of remembrance, transitional justice, attitudes towards victims and future generations, sending a message entirely contrary to the values upon which the final judgments of international courts are based.
VIII. THE FUTURE OF THE REGION
This issue is not only a question of the past. It is a question of the future.
The generations growing up today in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and other countries of the region were not even born when the crimes of the 1990s were committed. Their understanding of those events is shaped by education, public institutions, the media, political leaders and the symbolic messages of the states in which they live.
What will those generations learn if they see that a person finally convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes can, after death, be laid to rest with the highest state and military honours?
What message about international law does a young person receive when they see that a final judgment for genocide is no obstacle to the conferral of the highest state recognition?
What message does the child of a victim receive?
And what message does a child belonging to the people from which the convicted perpetrator came receive?
A more peaceful and secure future for the region cannot be built by leaving future generations with parallel realities in which a person is finally convicted of genocide before an international court while, at the same time, state institutions present that person as a hero worthy of the highest honours.
Lasting peace does not merely mean the absence of armed conflict. Lasting peace requires a minimum common foundation of facts. That foundation must rest on final judicial judgments.
Without acceptance of judicially established facts, there can be no serious reckoning with the past. Without reckoning with the past, there can be no sustainable trust. Without trust, there can be no stable future for the region.
State glorification of persons convicted of genocide is therefore not merely an insult to victims. It represents a political and social risk to the future.
It deepens divisions, normalises the denial and relativisation of crimes, facilitates the transmission of ideological patterns from the 1990s to new generations and impedes the creation of societies based on the rule of law.
On the occasion of Ratko Mladić’s death, the United Nations reiterated that accountability is essential to lasting peace, trust and reconciliation in the region.
We consider that the time has now come for that message also to be affirmed through concrete institutional action within the limits of existing competences.
IX. THE MECHANISM SHOULD EXHAUST ALL AVAILABLE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL AVENUES
We are aware that the Statute, Rules and other relevant instruments of the International Residual Mechanism clearly define the limits of its competences.
We do not prejudge the existence of a specific legal provision granting the Mechanism the authority permanently to prohibit the transfer of Ratko Mladić’s remains.
That is precisely why we request that you examine this question urgently, thoroughly and comprehensively.
A United Nations institution is not being asked to exceed its competences. It is being asked to examine and exhaust them fully.
It is necessary to determine whether there is any legal, procedural, administrative or institutional basis upon which the Mechanism, its Registry, its President or other competent organs may delay, condition or otherwise lawfully influence the transfer of the remains until the consequences of the publicly announced state and military glorification have been fully considered.
Consideration should also be given to the possibility of communicating with the competent authorities of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, which are conducting the procedures following Ratko Mladić’s death, in order to determine whether there is a legal possibility of temporarily delaying the transfer of the remains or another lawful procedural, administrative or institutional modality that would allow the consequences of the publicly announced state and military glorification to be fully considered before irreversible steps are taken.
Within such a legal assessment, all possibilities permitted under the applicable legal framework should be examined, taking into account the rights of the family, the competences of the relevant institutions, the interests and dignity of the victims, and the integrity of the final judgments.
Other lawful solutions concerning the transfer or place of burial should also be considered in order to prevent the handover of the remains and the funeral from being directly used for the state, military or other institutional glorification of a person finally convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
The Mechanism possesses significant institutional authority.
Its President represents the Mechanism before the relevant organs of the United Nations.
Its Prosecutor has for years publicly warned of the harmful effects of crime denial and the glorification of convicted war criminals.
Its Registry is responsible for the administration of the institution and the performance of numerous functions necessary for its work.
We consider that such institutional authority also entails a responsibility to respond publicly and unequivocally if it is determined that no direct legal mechanism exists by which the transfer may be halted or made subject to conditions.
The Mechanism should not remain silent in the face of a process that could culminate in precisely what its officials and the United Nations have publicly warned against for years: state glorification of a person finally convicted of genocide and other international crimes.
X. REQUEST AND PROPOSAL OF THE INSTITUTE
In view of all the above, the University of Sarajevo – Institute for Research of Crimes against Humanity and International Law calls upon the President, Prosecutor and Registrar of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, each acting exclusively within the competences established by the Statute and other relevant instruments, to:
- urgently examine and exhaust all legal, procedural, administrative and institutional avenues available to the Mechanism before any final action is taken in relation to the transfer of Ratko Mladić’s remains to the Republic of Serbia, including appropriate communication and cooperation with the competent authorities of the Kingdom of the Netherlands;
- within those considerations, examine whether there is a legal possibility of temporarily delaying the transfer or another lawful modality that would allow the consequences of the publicly announced state and military glorification to be fully considered before a final decision is made; where an appropriate legal basis exists, also consider other lawful possibilities regarding the transfer or place of burial and, where such possibilities are not feasible, consider the possibility of requesting clear and unequivocal official guarantees from the Republic of Serbia that the transfer and funeral will not be used for the purpose of such glorification;
- take into account, as particularly relevant circumstances, the publicly announced intention of the political leaders of the Republic of Serbia to accord Ratko Mladić the highest state and military honours, as well as the fact that the International Court of Justice established the international legal responsibility of the Republic of Serbia for violation of its obligation to prevent the genocide in Srebrenica, violation of its obligation to cooperate fully with the ICTY as a result of its failure to transfer Ratko Mladić himself, and violation of its obligation to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Court;
- in considering any transfer, devote particular attention to the rights, interests and dignity of victims, the international standards protecting their position, and the possible consequences of a state and military ceremony for the authority of the final judgment, acceptance of judicially established facts in the public sphere, and the confidence of victims and the public in international criminal justice;
- assess the broader consequences of any transfer and the conferral of the highest state and military honours for the integrity, authority and legacy of the ICTY and the International Residual Mechanism, as well as for the processes of transitional justice, dealing with the past, reconciliation, building trust and the rule of law in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia and the entire region;
- give particular consideration to the long-term social and political consequences of such a state and military ceremony, including the further posthumous heroisation and mythologisation of Ratko Mladić, the strengthen
(2).png)
(3).png)
.png)