Another important question concerned motivation: why did these people agree to put themselves in a stressful situation, sometimes for several days, often in one trial after another, and relive traumatic, difficult events in a room full of strangers scrutinizing their memory and account of a difficult past? Their answers were fascinating, and they often chose more than one reason: to help the judges reach a fair decision; to tell the story about what happened; to prevent future crimes; and to fulfill a moral duty and speak for the victims: those that are today unable to speak for themselves. The report stresses the need for further research into ways in which witness fatigue can be addressed, in cases when witnesses are asked to tell about their experiences in numerous trials, sometimes years apart, and forced to relive those events in court. One such example are the few survivors of the Srebrenica massacres who appeared both in The Hague and in proceedings in domestic courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and are required to talk about how they were shot at, and hid among piles of dead bodies for hours on end in order to survive.   

One of the crucial questions when discussing testifying is whether it is cathartic and empowering, or traumatizing or deeply upsetting and damaging for the health of the witness. This is a very intense experience that can be both, depending on circumstances and personality. Many do report having negative emotions in relation to testifying, before and after going to court, and experiencing intense feelings of anxiety and tension, tiredness and anger. Those who experienced more positive emotions reported feelings of pride and satisfaction. Importantly, overall the witnesses found the experience of testifying positive and considered they were treated fairly by the Tribunal. In sum, testifying in court is not intrinsically traumatic and experience varies based on personality and coping strategies of the witness and how s/he is treated in the proceedings.  

Any assessment of satisfaction of witnesses with testifying must be regarded with caution as these experiences may change significantly over time: a witness may initially feel positive about testifying but if the judgment that is later delivered is not aligned with the witnesses’ desires or expectations, the perceptions of the experience may change significantly. In any case, in order for testifying to be as positive of an experience as it can, expectations need to be managed and witnesses must be aware of what the courts can do. The Tribunal is an international judicial institution and it cannot take over long term care for witnesses, especially those particularly vulnerable, in the way that a state must. Crucially, the ICTY does not award compensation to victims and cannot pressure local authorities to resolve issues the witness has with the state.

Given that the study was based on what witnesses reported themselves i.e. their perceptions about their state prior, during and after testifying, and the impact the proceedings had on them (not insights of trained professionals), as well as their opinions about how they thought they felt at the time, further research is required. However, this in-depth study makes considerable contributions to our understanding of how testifying impacts the wellbeing of witnesses and their perceptions of proceedings. Overall, witnesses found international courts to be more trustworthy than domestic proceedings, and 70% found ICTY trials to be too long, which is a shortcoming often emphasized by critics of international tribunals. Those surveyed for this study were largely supportive of the Tribunal’s efforts in determining what happened and establishing who is responsible. Many viewed the sentences that were meted out by the judges in less favorable terms.

The final section of this important report includes recommendations for future international criminal tribunals, which can learn from the experiences of the ICTY’s 23 years of practice. Adequate funding, the existence of trained staff, good coordination with authorities and an awareness that priority must be given to the safety and wellbeing of witnesses in international criminal trials is key to the overall positive experience of bearing witness in proceedings. What must be remembered is that many of those testifying in court are there to recall, under considerable pressure, what is likely the worst day in their entire lives. If we, the international community and professionals in the field, want them to do that, often in several trials, then they need support. Only then can we expect justice to be done.