Couldn't really think of a catchy title.
The IWPR has updated their tribunal section; including an article about Milan Spanovic's extradition hearing in London.
This issue has already been dealt with on the very timely and informative, Neretva River blog; but there were a few things that caught my eye when reading quotes from the judge from the IWPR article.
“I have in mind that the alleged offences were said to have occurred during a period of civil war in which inevitably evidence will be hard to find or reconstruct,”
"Witnesses’ memories after such a lengthy period during which radical change took place will have faded or be inaccurate. Inevitably, some witnesses may be unavailable or impossible to trace.”
1. Is there an undue emphasis on the "civil war" aspect here? Reading these quotes admittedly out of context; the judge seems to convey a rather lax attitude about alleged war crimes committed during a "civil war."
2. The judge must also be clairvoyant as well as he apparently knows that the witnesses' memories are now inaccurate and that some of them are MIA.
3. I think this issue goes far beyond this one case, or even about British immigration laws. Already the Spanovic ruling has served as "inspiration" to one "Captain Dragan." I have a feeling that this case will be of "inspiration" to many more war criminals from all around the world.
4. How much time needs to pass before a crime is no longer worthy of being dealt with in a court of law? In other words, how much time must pass before an alleged crime ceases to be a crime?
5. I'm sure I would not have to do a very intensive "Google" search to find at least one story of an immigrant/asylum seeker, including perhaps a Croatian-Serb extradited from the UK to his/her native country under dubious legal circumstances. Chances are that said person is not alleged to have been involved in atrocities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
I think some people in the U.K. have a hidden agenda on this sort of crime, because of events in Northern Ireland in the last three decades of the 20th century.
Thanks Owen for clarifying. From this distance its easy to jump to conclusions.
Owen,
My understanding is that Milan Spanovic was denied asylum, but granted indefinate leave to remain in the UK.
Okay, what I'm having trouble understanding is that his asylum was denied - but Workman states, 'In October 2000, the defendant was granted exceptional leave to enter the United Kingdom for a period of four years. In 2000 that was further extended by the grant of indefinite leave to remain.' Was the latter a reversal of the previous asylum denial? If so, what were the grounds?
Thanks Owen,
I hope cases like Spanovic's don't harm those whose fear of persecution is genuine. It is the arguments Workman used to deny the extradition, 'passage of time,' 'events occured during civil war,' and 'Croatia's belated attempt to pursue the extradition,' that I find troubling. But, as you said, if there had been expert input, Workman might not have relied upon those arguments and the ruling could have been different.
Owen, thank you very much for the further clarification.
Post a Comment