1995. The investigation that aimed to uncover what happened after the fall of the UN protected enclave lasted for several years and was arguably one of the biggest criminal investigations ever conducted, spanning over a large territory in eastern Bosnia. That investigation was instrumental for learning about the fate of the missing and in retrieving, identifying and returning the bodies to families. Given that mass graves were tampered with and remains of thousands removed in order to conceal evidence, finding and burying so many remains properly was incredibly hard but gave families some closure.

Key moments in the history of the Tribunal were the first trial of Dusko Tadic, the first genocide finding for Srebrenica in the Krstic case, the transfer and subsequent death before the end of the proceedings in the case of Slobodan Milosevic, the important rulings on sexual violence and the arrests of long term fugitives Mladic and Karadzic. There were also somewhat controversial judgments such as in the case of Gotovina (the Appeals judgment featured unusually harsh language in the dissents), Perisic and Stanisic and Simatovic. The latter still awaits the Appeals Chamber decision.

Acquittals, though often criticized, are part of the process as they are in any national jurisdiction that guarantees fair trials and can be understood to mean that the system works. Judicial practice evolves and changes over time and different judges interpret the same evidence differently. Therefore, some of the more controversial legal concepts will either find proponents among judges or they will be rejected in future proceedings. 

Important plea agreements have taken place resulting in cooperation in prosecuting other cases and discovering remains of the missing. Some of the most relevant are that of Momir Nikolic and Drazen Erdemovic who testified numerous times about their involvement in the Srebrenica operation. What is frequently criticized is that not all those who make the agreement seem genuine and some even dispute their admissions after having served the sentence (such as in the case of Biljana Plavsic, a high ranking Bosnian Serb politician and the only woman to have been prosecuted at the Tribunal).

Sentencing is another topic addressed by critics. They stress the lack of guidance on sentencing and clear standards that could streamline the process. As a general rule, convicted defendants are granted early release after serving two thirds of their sentence. Often it seems as though that is granted too easily. 

To summarize, the record is mixed. The Tribunal has accomplished a lot but, at the same time, it has failed in some respects. One of its many accomplishments, which no one foresaw at the time of establishment, is that it completely changed the paradigm when it comes to accountability for actions in times of war. It did so by putting individuals on trial in a process that has largely been considered fair and impartial by independent observers. There is no contemporary war for which we don’t have someone demanding an inquiry and the end of impunity. Accountability has entered the arena and it will probably remain there, even though the accomplishments of the 1990s and early 2000s are threatened by inaction in places like Syria, which undoubtedly jeopardizes the entire project of international justice.

Arguably, the Tribunal has been more successful in achieving initially unintended goals such as developing substantial and procedural law and helping initiate local prosecutions in the former Yugoslavia, which are generally regarded as rather successful. It also paved the way for other important institutions such as the International Criminal Court, the establishment of which came in that optimistic era of contemporary efforts to fight impunity. The ICC was in some ways a result of significant advances made by the ICTY. The Tribunal gathered an enormous amount of documents in its archives that can be used for research. Sadly, it was much less successful in reconciling local populations, something many wanted achieved. It did however narrow the space of denial in public discourse by presenting the evidence publicly.

Even when established, prosecutions are limited in scope and always barely touch the surface. The number of potential suspects in places that faced widespread violence for a long period of time is simply overwhelming. That is where strategy and good outreach become relevant: when prosecutors make sound decisions as to whom to prosecute and for what and clearly communicate those to the public, especially the victims. 

Just by surviving as the first modern court and conducting long, complex proceedings fairly, the ICTY has accomplished a lot. It is the only international tribunal with no fugitives and that is almost a miracle, accomplished through sustained EU and U.S. pressure. International justice is, as any human endeavor, imperfect. We need complementary mechanisms to support post-conflict societies. However, given what it aims to do – change the practice that humanity had throughout its history in which everything is allowed in war – we have to give it time and support it long term. That is the only way it has a chance of succeeding for the good of all mankind.