The Tribunal has charged her in relation to 3 pages of her book Paix et Châtiment (Peace and Punishment) published in French in September 2007, dealing with the circumstances in which the Tribunal deliberately concealed parts of evidence that clearly show the involvement of the Serbian State in the mass killings of civil populations in Bosnia-Herzegovina in the years 1992-95. What is at stake? If such evidence had been disclosed, Serbia would have been most probably found guilty of genocide and the ten thousands victims or their family could have sought reparation from Serbia.

WHY FLORENCE HARTMANN?

She was indicted in August 2008 for having « disclosed » the existence of the deal struck between the ICTY and Serbia in 2003 in her book published in September 2007. She is the only individual indicted for denouncing such a deal. However, she is not the only one, neither the first one who did so. For more than 3 years, the deal was in the public domain. It was mentioned as early as 2005 by the Institute of War and Peace Reporting (IWPR), then commented on in the New York Times in 2006 by journalists and International law figures. And in February 2007, when failing access to these parts of evidence the International Court of Justice (ICJ) cleared Serbia from responsibility in the crimes and slaughters in Bosnia, the deal became the subject of a public controversy. Only in September 2007 was Florence Hartmann's book released. What then ? The ICTY contends that the journalist has access to the information while she was acting as the ICTY prosecution spokesperson (from October 2000 until the end of March 2006). If it was the case, then why wasn't she charged for violating her confidentiality obligation and indicted for the entire book that is criticizing harshly the relations between politics and international justice? Why has the Tribunal focused on 3 pages? For a simple and serious reason: the 3 impugned pages (based on sources outside the Tribunal) reveal that the deal was based on a "mistake in law" and should have been nullified.

PROCEEDINGS MARRED BY IRREGULARITIES
Since Florence Hartmann was indicted in August 2008, her defense counsels have dismantled a large part of the prosecution case. Notably, they have demonstrated the lack of impartiality of the judges in charge and in March 2009 they obtained their disqualification and removal from the case. Moreover the prosecutor has given up most of his already very few witnesses and henceforth apparently intends to present only two indirect expert witnesses in court. At the same time, a large mobilisation in favour of the journalist was put in place with supporting groups, op eds signed by renowned lawyers, former ministers and journalists including several national sections of the European journalists Association, and with an international petition signed by individuals from over 30 countries.

WHAT IF FLORENCE HARTMANN IS CONVICTED?

It would be a dramatic defeat for:

Information : After a guilty judgment, any public mention of the 3 impugned pages of Florence Hartmann's book would be a criminal act.

The law. This trial is absurd from the legal point of view and has been condemned almost unanimously by international law experts. Additionally, how could we explain such a fury against this journalist entirely devoted to the humanitarian cause when there are much more crucial priorities: the ICTY is closing down in two years although he has not yet tried neither Radovan Karadzic nor Ratko Mladic or Jovica Stanisic., the most responsible figures of the crimes perpetrated in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Interviewed on the French radio France Culture in January 2009, Robert Badinter, a former French Minister of Justice said the following: " I wish to recall once more the ICTY's mandate: it is not to ensure that information obtained by its staff would not be disclosed, the ICTY's mandate is to prosecute those who committed crimes against humanity. Such a mission is important enough for the Tribunal not to turn away from it."

The victims. By forbidding the use of the 3 impugned pages from Florence Hartmann's book, the victims (the family of the 150 000 dead, the raped women, the camp prisoners, etc) are prevented to challenge further the controversial deal between Serbia and the ICTY and to reopen the issue of Serbia's responsibility. It is a double sentence, both the pain and the injustice that tens of thousands Bosnian victims are suffering.
Their request to attend our colleague's trial as Amicus curiae has been denied by the Trial Chamber last May. Their representatives will however come to The Hague and sit in the public gallery.

Excerpt from the impugned pages of "Peace and Punishment" (Flammarion, 2007)

How the archives throwing light on Milosevic's Serbia's role in the genocide in Bosnia-Herzegovina were concealed from public view

(3600 characters including the title)

ICTY judges kept key material from the public for the sole purpose of shielding Serbia from responsibility before another UN court.

Several ICTY rulings show clearly that the ‘blacking out' was granted in order not to damage Serbia's position in Bosnia's case before the the International Court of Justice (ICJ). They reveal that the ICTY judges admitted that public disclosure of the most sensitive part of the Supreme Defense Council (SDC) minutes could have had a negative effect on the outcome of the proceedings filed by Bosnia-Herzegovina before the ICJ against Serbia. They admit that they want to protect Serbia from a genocide conviction and the payment of compensation to the victims. Belgrade was successful in arguing that the "vital national interests" of the Serbian state were at stake.

The judges in charge of the Milosevic trial, including Briton Richard May, Jamaican Patrick Robinson and South Korean O-Gon Kwon, preferred the presumed stability of a country over the interests of justice and truth. In so doing they became accomplices to a lie. However they stepped back in 2005.

In mid July 2005, they denied a new request by Serbia for protective measures, this time on personal military files which showed clearly that VRS generals, including Ratko Mladic, were members of Serbia's army (the VJ), under the Belgrade supreme control. Opposed to the disclosure of these documents, Serbia appealed the decision. The Appeal Chamber ruled in September 2005 that Serbia's ‘vital national interest' in the ICJ litigation was not receivable for imposing confidential measures. According to the appeal judges, all previous decisions of the Milosevic Trial Chamber protecting the SDC documents from disclosure because of potential prejudice to Serbia's ‘vital national interest' rather than a ‘national security interest' were ‘wrong as a matter of law'. Rather than remedying the error that it had just discovered and unsealing all of these documents, the Appeal Chamber noted that the granting of such measures so far had given rise to a "legitimate expectation" from Belgrade that all of its subsequent similar motions would be granted on the same grounds, so that it would be ‘unfair' to deny the protective measures sought by the State on the military files.

Shocked by this decision, Carla Del Ponte and her prosecution team seized the judges in the Miloševic case to submit that the "vital national interest" argument be invalidated, in order to request that the confidentiality of the SDC archives be lifted immediately. On 6 December 2005, Judge Iain Bonomy, who had replaced Richard May, and Judge Robinson agreed, in spite of Judge Kwon's objection, to lift the protective measures in force since 2003, understanding that Belgrade was not attempting to protect its national security but instead to obstruct justice in its search for the truth. Belgrade immediately appealed the decision and obtained a temporary stay, thereby preventing Bosnia from submitting the SDC archives to the ICJ prior to the late February 2006 opening of the hearings of its complaint. On 6 April 2006, after reviewing the Prosecution's arguments, the five judges of the Appeals Chamber, still presided by the Italian Fausto Pocar, decided to quash the decision of 6 December 2005. Information directly implicating the Serbian State in the war in Bosnia and the Srebrenica massacres thus remained inaccessible to the ICJ and the public. The Prosecution was not in a position to publicly expose the scandal, since the judges had declared each of their decisions "confidential".