No abstract

The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia's Karadžić verdict, eagerly awaited, was unsurprising. He was found guilty of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. One part of the judgment was concerned with the Srebrenica events in which much forensic evidence from mass graves featured. Whilst this was to be expected, forensic evidence from the horrific crime scenes continues to be important in determining aspects of the crime base. This paper discusses the evidence and examines how the Chamber came to the conclusion that systematic killing of thousands of Bosnian Muslim men occurred and attempts had been made to conceal the crimes and human remains in secondary graves thus confirming the actus reus of genocide. In particular, the number of people killed was at issue.Despite the absence of compelling counter-theories on behalf of the accused, this paper demonstrates that contestations over the number of those killed remain and predicts that this is unlikely to change for the ongoing Mladić case. Highlights:• Karadžić's guilty verdict features much forensic evidence from Srebrenica massacre.• Forensic evidence from mass grave confirms the act of genocide.• Numbers of those killed as well as time and manner of death remain contested by the accused.

Expert witness testimony provides an important source of information for international criminal proceedings, and forensic science expertise from mass graves is no exception: findings from exhumations and examinations have featured in the ad hoc tribunals' trials and judgments. Whilst the issues surrounding the law-science relationship have been explored within the realm of national legal systems, the mixed system adopted by these tribunals presents an established discussion with a new context. Using forensic archaeology as an example, this article explores some theoretical underpinnings and practical realities surrounding the use of forensic science during international criminal investigations into mass graves before looking at how Trial Chambers aim to establish the relevance and credibility of forensic science evidence. As little guidance regarding admissibility of expert evidence is provided, it is through the case-specific legal process of cross-examination and presentation of

In spring 1999, amidst a wider ethnic cleansing campaign, Serb police forces abducted Ferdonije Qerkezi’s husband and four sons, who were never to be seen alive again. She subsequently transformed her private house into a memorial to the lost normalcy of her entire social world. We trace this memorialization process; her struggle for recognition; her transformation into an iconic mother of the nation and her activism, both for missing persons and against the internationally-driven Serb-Albanian normalization process in Kosovo. From a multi-disciplinary perspective, we critically reflect on the theoretical concept of “normative divergence” in intervention studies. We are guided by social anthropological (including immersive, historical-ethnographic, and semantic) analysis of the core tropes of social memory as both narratively and materially embodied by the House Museum. In systematically juxtaposing these to the normative transitional justice principles of truth, justice, non-recurrence, and reparations, and the overarching international intervention goal of reconciliation, we critically interrogate normative divergence per se. The ethnographic “thick description” of this case study—cognizant of context contingency, victims’ agency and experience, cultural change, and social transformation—points to divergent meanings of these principles as resulting directly from the political and institutional failure to provide key transitional justice goals.

Abstract