ellspacing="0" ce�ÿ4%COURT OF JUSTICE AND GENOCIDE LAW (I)»

The International Court of Justice at the Hague late last month concluded a case filed in 1993 by Bosnia against Serbia.

%concluded a case filed in 1993 by Bosnia against Serbia.

In the war that broke out in early 1992, Bosnian Serbs, with personnel and weapons provided by the Serbian Army, carried out an appalling "ethnic cleansing" against Bosnians and Croats. Since there was an arms embargo on Yugoslavia, arming Bosnians was impossible. The United Nations "peace" force UNPROFOR either failed to protect the Bosnians or did not want to do so.

Under these circumstances, Turkey in December 1992 asked the Human Rights Commission to convene an extraordinary meeting and secured the insertion of the term "genocide" into the resolution adopted by the commission. Turkey's aim was to put pressure on Serbia and, if necessary, push the international community toward an armed intervention in Bosnia under Article 1 of the Genocide Convention (1948) which makes it a state responsibility to prevent genocide. This resolution later led to the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) by the UN Security Council and the prosecution of perpetrators on charges of genocide and other crimes.

Turkey also encouraged Bosnia to initiate court proceedings against the Republic of Yugoslav Federation of the time in the framework of Article 9 of the Genocide Convention. This is the case that was finalized last month.

At that time some argued that Turkey's pursuing an active role over genocide would cause counter-claims due to the so-called Armenian genocide claims. We dismissed them. The tragedy in Bosnia, however serious it was, was outside of the genocide definition of the convention. Should the court remain within the limits of law, it would not broaden the definition of genocide to include Armenian relocation, which had nothing to do with genocide. The judgment of the court proved Turkey's position to be right.

The court's ruling says the terrible atrocities in Bosnia-Herzegovina were not genocide. The only exception was the Srebrenica massacre of June 12-13, 1995. The ICTY ruled that this massacre amounted to genocide in the cases of Krstic and Blagojevich. Had there been no decision of the ICTY, probably the court would not have characterized the Srebrenica massacre as genocide.

When the court's judgment is analyzed, the legal reasons underlying the court's attitude, which at first sight provokes resentment, are understood. The court said the first three acts out of five proscribed under Article 2 of the convention are relevant to this case. Regarding the first act, i.e. killing members of the group, the court admitted that grave massacres were committed in Bosnia. Regarding the second, i.e. serious bodily and mental harm to the members of the group, it agreed that incidences of mass torture and rapes occurred. And concerning the third act, i.e. deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction, the court said this crime was committed, particularly in detention camps where inhuman conditions prevailed.

However, the court also ruled that the commission of these criminal acts as defined in the genocide convention doesn't necessarily amount to genocide, inasmuch as the Serbians didn't have the intent to destroy the Bosnians in committing these acts. That is to say, the court rules that massacres, mass torture and rape, and the extermination of thousands of people as a result of the inhuman conditions of detention camps, do not amount to genocide, unless there is special intent to destroy the group.

The court underlines that the acts of crime committed with the aim of homogenizing the population of a region per se may not be deemed genocide. It stipulates that in addition to displacing a group, there should be the intent to destroy it as well. In other words, it says that "ethnic cleansing" carried out in Bosnia is not necessarily genocide.

To prove the "intent" to destroy a people, the claims that "the Blue Book says so," "Right Hon. Henry Morgenthau or Vicar Priest Johannes Lepsius testify this," "world historians and sociologists already made up their mind," or "20 parliaments have recognized the genocide anyway" are no more than rumors.

The court's verdict is not an extraordinary development to reinforce Turkey's stance vis-a-vis Armenian genocide allegations. But it proves how valid our legal attitude is. There has been no legal thesis of the Armenians anyway. This decision explains the reasons why not.

Ara Sarafian, who must have predicted the verdict, is late in his proposal. The problem cannot be reduced to a particular region of Turkey, namely Harput. On the other hand, neither intellectuals nor historians can pass judgment on it.

From now on, legal settlement is the only way.