Another [previous] head of state in trouble, but this time not from Africa

Radovan Karadzic, former President of Bosnia Serb, was finally arrested, 13 years after the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) issued a warrant of arrest against him. I have to admit that he was a bit of a smart one. Hiding in Serbia and pretending to be a orthodox priest is much better than living in an underground hole, like his Iraqi counterpart. Karadzic's arrest should definitely send a strong message out to everyone else who is planning to commit one of the international crimes, that one can run (even for 13 years), but one cannot hide.

I am interested to see the effects this case will have, on the already heavy case load of the ICTY. The ICTY's mandate comes to an end in 2010 and should Karadzic plead not guilty, his trial will probably continue way beyond 2010. Also, should his partner in crime, Ratko Mladic, be apprehended before 2010, will this tribunal then ask for an extension of its mandate? Alternatively, would the case load be handed over to the International Criminal Court (ICC), considering that both Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia are state parties to the ICC Statute?

On the other hand, presuming that this trial is finished before the tribunal's mandate comes to an end, it will be interesting to see the jurisprudence created by this tribunal, especially with regards to the genocide charges against Karadzic. Although this tribunal has the competency to hear cases involving genocide, it has only once convicted an accused (Jelisic) of committing genocide. Although 'ethnic cleansing' is not seen as another form of genocide, the academics have critised and indirectly placed pressure on the ICTY to convict ethnic cleansing as a form of genocide. Should Karadzic be found guilty of committing genocide, then such a verdict and the consequential jurisprudence thereof will definitely be welcomed.

The arrest of Karadzic and previous arrest of Milesovic really shows that its not just Africa's presidents or previous presidents that are always in trouble for committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. This statement is not meant to defend African leaders who committed these crimes, it is meant to show that its not just Africa's leaders who commit these crimes.

Just as another point of interest (that has nothing to do with legal/ political/ international relations issues), who of my readers have ever watched a movie of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia? I have watched one, but it was not directly on the atrocities committed, but more on capturing a 'war criminal' in the aftermath of the conflict, which was solely based on fiction. Now, who of you have watched a movie on atrocities in Africa? I have seen 'The last King of Scotland, Hotel Rwanda, Shooting Dogs and Blood Diamond' which was movies that tried to stick to facts as far as possible. The latter were really good movies, but if the people are made more aware of the atrocious conflict that also happened in the former Yugoslavia, they will be able to truly understand the positive development the arrest of Karadzic has on the victims of this war (being mostly Muslim people).

Does conjugal rights form part of basic human rights? The ICTR has their own opinion.

Today I read an article on the BBC news that stated that the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has finally granted conjugal rights to detainees at their detention facility in Arusha, Tanzania. Even though I tend to be a very serious human rights lawyer, I couldn't help but be humoured at decision. It should also be noted that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has granted these conjugal rights to detainees a long time ago.

I visited the ICTR in 2006 and picked up on their immense respect for human rights, despite the fact that the Rwandan government were quite conservative in their interpretation for upholding human rights. I am bit surprised at the fact that it took the ICTR so long to grant conjugal rights to detainees. In the media coverage it was reported that the Registrar for the ICTR decided to uphold the basic human rights of the detainees and grant them conjugal rights. For those of you who are not aware of what this right entails, it means that the detainees can now have sexual relations with their spouses and/ or partners.

My question thus, does sexual relations between spouses and partners constitute a right? I guess if you prescribe to a progressive and liberal school of thought you would say yes and if you are a conservative thinker you might think the opposite (especially in relation to detainees).

Even though I consider myself to be a student of liberal thought, I still have doubts whether sexual relations between spouses can constitute a right. If its a right, it will definitely give less value to the reality of marital rape. I know that this was not the thought behind the ICTR and ICTY granting these rights to detainees. However, there is thus far no evidence of placing limitations on conjugal rights to detainees. So, if their spouses would come over for a visit and refuse them sexual relations, they can enforce this on them and claim that it is their right to have sexual relations, because the Court has granted them this right.

That is only in relation to spouses. What about those girl/boyfriends of detainees. If sexual relations cannot be theorised into a right for spouses, then it can definitely not be theorised into a right for partners.

It would probably be expected that the Rwandan population would voice their outrage against this decision by the ICTR, as they already claimed in the past that the detainees are living a life of luxury, as if they are in a hotel. I am not a conservative, so conjugal rights could be fine and well, as long as its termed in or around the following lines:

"The detainees are granted conjugal rights with their spouses/ partners, subject to the consent of their spouses/ partners." This would thus not make conjugal rights an absolute right, but rather conditional to consent.