ABSTRACT
The death of Slobodan Milosevic, on March 11, 2006, in the detention unit of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) put an abrupt end to yet another process dubbed as “the trial of the century.” Three days later the Trial Chamber took notice of the death of the accused, hence terminating the case IT-02-54 that dragged on for more than four years toward its anticlimactic end. Disappointment among the interested parties was as deep as the earlier feeling of success upon his bringing to justice. “I deeply regret the death of Slobodan Milosevic. It deprives the victims of the justice they need and deserve … It is a great pity for justice that the trial will not be completed and no verdict will be rendered,” reacted ICTY’s Chief Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte.1 Journalists went on to speculate what the verdict might have been and the protagonists attempted to salvage the remains of this enormous judicial venture.2 The body of literature about the trial, which grew alongside with the proceedings, was further enriched with studies dedicated to drawing lessons from its undesired outcome.3 Difficult as it is to contest its failure, this contribution aims to demonstrate that the shadow cast by its sudden end seems darker than it actually is. What is the purpose of judging a criminal leader? Is it simply to put him behind bars or should the court aspire to reveal an extensive record of wrongdoings over which he presided? What is to be done if it proves next to impossible to do both things at the same time? The Milosevic case was an attempt to answer these questions.
