Convicted War Criminal Stripped of U.S. Naturalized Citizenship

In a press release issued yesterday, the Department of Justice announced that an Oregon federal district court last week revoked the naturalized U.S. citizenship of  Sammy Rasema Yetisen who had previously pleaded guilty in a Bosnian court to war crimes.  She returned to the United States after serving her five and a half year prison sentence in Bosnia.  According to DOJ:

Yetisen, 46, was part of an elite unit of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina that attacked the village of Trusina in April 1993, in what is known as the Trusina massacre. The unit targeted Bosnian Croats who resided in the village because of their Christian religion and Croat ethnicity, killing 22 unarmed individuals including women and the elderly. Yetisen played a key role in the massacre, serving as part of a firing squad that lined up and executed six unarmed prisoners of war and civilians. Yetisen was admitted to the United States as a refugee before naturalizing in 2002. In her naturalization application, Yetisen indicated that she had never had any military service “in the United States or in any other place.”

European Court Upholds Conviction For Inciting Hatred

In Smajić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, (ECHR, Jan. 16, 2018), a 3-judge panel of the European Court of Human Rights rejected a claim by a a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina that his free expression rights were infringed when he was convicted of inciting national, racial and religious hatred, discord or intolerance.  Applicant had posted online action that should be taken by Bosniac citizens of the Brčko District in the event of war and secession of  Republika Srpska (one of the two constituent entities of Bosnia and Herzegovina).  According to the court:

The applicant had used expressions which were highly insulting to members of an ethnic group, such as “this stinking Christmas”, “get rid of the danger behind our backs”, “the city centre should then be slowly cleansed” and “Serbs who came from different shitholes live there”.

Rejecting applicant's argument that his conviction violated Art. 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court said in part:

31. The Court notes that the applicant’s conviction amounted to an “interference” with his right to freedom of expression. An interference contravenes Article 10 of the Convention unless it is “prescribed by law”, pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of Article 10, and is “necessary in a democratic society” for achieving such an aim or aims.

32. The interference in the present case was prescribed by law; namely, it was based on Article 160 § 1 of the 2003 BD Criminal Code... Furthermore, the Court is satisfied that it pursued at least one of the legitimate aims referred to in Article 10 § 2 – namely the protection of the reputation and rights of others.

33. The Court reiterates that freedom of expression is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society and one of the basic conditions for its progress and for each individual’s self-fulfilment. Subject to Article 10 § 2, it applies not only to “information” or “ideas” that are favourably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness, without which there is no “democratic society”. As set forth in Article 10, this freedom is subject to exceptions, but these must be construed strictly, and the need for any restrictions must be established convincingly....

European Court: Muslim Witness Should Be Allowed To Wear Skullcap While Testifying

In Hamidović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, (ECHR, Dec. 5, 2017), the European Court of Human Rights held that the courts of Bosnia and Herzegovina infringed the religious freedom rights protected by Art. 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it held a Muslim man in contempt for refusing on religious grounds to remove a head covering while testifying in a criminal trial.  As summarized in the Court's press release on the case:

In 2012 Mr Hamidović, a witness in a criminal trial, was expelled from the courtroom, convicted of contempt of court and fined for refusing to remove his skullcap. 

The Court found that there had been nothing to indicate that Mr Hamidović had been disrespectful during the trial. Punishing him with contempt of court on the sole ground that he had refused to remove his skullcap, a religious symbol, had not therefore been necessary in a democratic society and had breached his fundamental right to manifest his religion.

The Court pointed out in particular that Mr Hamidović’s case had to be distinguished from cases concerning the wearing of religious symbols and clothing at the workplace, notably by public officials. Public officials, unlike private citizens such as Mr Hamidović, could be put under a duty of discretion, neutrality and impartiality, including a duty not to wear religious symbols and clothing while exercising official authority.

Two judges filed concurring opinions and one judge dissented.

UN Criminal Tribunal Convicts Mladić of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity In Bosnian Conflict

Yesterday, in its final Trial Judgment, the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia announced that Ratko Mladić, former Commander of the Bosnian Serb Army, has been found guilty of participating in joint criminal enterprises that committed genocide, crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war during the years 1992 to 1995.  The Tribunal, after a trial that extended over four years, found Mladić guilty on 10 of the 11 counts brought against him, including his participation in a joint criminal enterprise (JCE) to eliminate the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica:

The Chamber found that Mladić intended to carry out the objective of the Srebrenica JCE by destroying the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica, by killing the men and boys and forcibly removing the women, young children, and some elderly men. The Chamber therefore found Mladić guilty of genocide, persecution, murder, extermination, and the inhumane act of forcible transfer.

The Tribunal rejected a charge of genocide in other municipalities, though it convicted of crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war in those municipalities.

The Tribunal sentenced Mladić to life in prison.  The judgment may be appealed to the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals.

The Criminal Tribunal yesterday also released a summary of the trial judgment and videos (Part I, Part II) of the Tribunal's reading of the judgment.  All the documents in the case, including the indictments and the trial transcripts are available online.  Voice of America reports on the decision.

European Court Upholds Defamation Judgment For False Charges of Anti-Muslim Statements

In Case of Medzlis Islamske Zajednice Brcko and Others v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, (ECHR, June 27, 2017), the European Court of Human Rights Grand Chamber by a vote of 11-6 held that the free expression rights of a Muslim religious community and three non-governmental organizations representing ethnic Bosnian Muslims were not infringed by a defamation judgment entered against them.  The suit grew out of a letter sent to authorities of the Brčko District's multi-ethnic radio station objecting to the appointment of "Ms. M.S." as director of the station.  Among other things, the letter claimed that M.S.:

(1) stated in an interview ... commenting on the destruction of mosques in Brčko, that Muslims were not a people ..., that they did not possess culture and that, accordingly, destroying mosques could not be seen as destruction of cultural monuments,

(2) as an employee of the BD radio demonstratively tore to pieces on the radio’s premises ... the calendar showing the schedule of religious services during the month of Ramadan...

These statements were inaccurate.  The majority concluded:

the authorities of the respondent State struck a fair balance between the applicants’ interest in free speech, on the one hand, and M.S.’s interest in protection of her reputation on the other hand, thus acting within their margin of appreciation....

The Court's press release on the decision summarizes the Court's reasoning.