Srebrenica report boosts Milosevic defence

War Crimes: Dutch face up to their role in Europe's worst massacre in fifty years as new tribunal is established

An Official report into Europe's worst massacre since the Second World War may have undermined the prosecution case against Slobodan Milosevic in The Hague by finding no evidence that the former Yugoslav president was directly involved.

The main conclusions of the report commissioned by the Dutch government in 1996 and researched by the Netherlands Institute for War Documentation, blame Dutch peacekeepers and the United Nations for the massacre of around 7,000 Bosnian Muslims in the "safe haven" of Srebrenica in 1995.

But the findings, certain to provoke a new round of soul-searching in the Netherlands, could also be an important new element in the defence of Mr Milosevic, who faces genocide charges at a UN war crimes tribunal. The court yesterday set a one-year limit to wrap up the prosecution case against the former president.

The document on Srebrenica, which runs to more than 7,600 pages, is highly sensitive in the Netherlands, where many feel a collective guilt over the massacre. Around 200 lightly armed Dutch soldiers failed to prevent non-Serb males being rounded up and taken off to execution sites.

The findings identify the Bosnian Serb commander General Ratko Mladic as the main villain, arguing that he ordered and supervised the evacuation of Muslim men from the enclave, later overseeing the murder of thousands. Gen Mladic has been charged with genocide by the UN court but remains at large.

The federal parliament in Belgrade was in the process yesterday of approving legislation providing the legal framework for the extradition to The Hague of indicted suspects, including Gen Mladic, who has a residence in the Yugoslav capital.

Hans Blom, the institute's director, said: "The events that occurred cannot be described as an act of vengeance that got out of hand. Although they occurred rapidly and in an improvised way, the scale and course of the murders clearly indicate they were organised. Places of executions were sought, transport was arranged and troops were ordered to carry out executions."

More contentious are the conclusions on Mr Milosevic. His political ambitions are blamed for the disintegration of Yugoslavia which preceded the Bosnian war from 1992-5.

But the Dutch inquiry found no evidence that Mr Milosevic had a direct role in the massacre, and concluded that the involvement of Bosnian leader Radovan Karadzic, who has also been indicted by the UN war crimes tribunal but remains at large, is unclear.

Professor Blom said: "As the supreme commander, Karadzic formally ordered the separation of Srebrenica and Zepa, and later the capture of the entire enclave. However, it is unclear whether he was informed in advance about the mass murders. Karadzic's relations with Mladic were poor and they did not communicate effectively. No evidence has been found that suggests the involvement of the Serbian authorities in Belgrade."

A spokeswoman for Carla Del Ponte, chief prosecutor at the UN tribunal in The Hague, refused to comment yesterday on how the findings would affect Mr Milosevic's trial. However the massacre at Srebrenica is at the centre of the genocide charge against him because the tribunal has already convicted the Bosnian Serb general Radovan Krstic of genocide for his actions there.

Pinning responsibility on Mr Milosevic was always going to be a difficult for Ms Del Ponte. Her task is not helped by the report – which also criticised the "inadequate resources and the policy of the UN" – but she may have access to evidence not available to the Dutch inquiry, including intelligence intercepts.

THE NEW WAR CRIMES COURT: POWERS AND LIMITATIONS

The International Criminal Court will today receive the 60 ratifications it needs to become a reality. Political leaders accused of genocide in the future will be liable for trial by the tribunal.

*The court, which cannot try crimes retroactively, will step in only when national judicial systems cannot prosecute.

*It will try such crimes as genocide and mass murder, war crimes and crimes against humanity – which include widespread or systematic acts of rape and sexual slavery.

*It will eliminate the need for temporary tribunals, such as those set up by the UN to try individuals in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia.

*America under Bill Clinton finally signed the treaty after expressing fears that ideologically motivated cases could see US peace-keepers end up before the court. But it has not been submitted to Congress for ratification and the Bush administration has hinted at "unsigning" it.

*Suspects to be investigated by the court will range from heads of state to typical citizens. US servicemen would not be subject to the court's jurisdiction unless they were accused of war crimes on the territory of a state that had ratified the treaty and America failed to investigate or prosecute.

*Countries that have not ratified the treaty are not required to hand over suspects but are encouraged to do so if there is no alternative for a fair trial.

*The court will have 18 judges elected for a nine-year term from nations who ratify the treaty. The prosecutor has the power to initiate investigations when sufficient evidence points to a need.