Photographers watch as International
War Crimes Tribunal investigators gather evidence at a mass grave site
identified as "Sahinici 1," 30 kilometers (18 miles) northwest of Srebrenica,
Wednesday April 3, 1996. Photo: AP
|
The question of whether
journalists should formally cooperate with official investigations is a contentious
one. There is no universally held position on whether or when to participate
in official war crime investigations, and the disagreement is especially acute
regarding regional ethnic conflicts.
Eight months after David
Rohde broke the story about mass gravesites in Bosnia, he returned with a
team of war crimes investigators to farmlands near Srebrenica where hundreds
of Muslims were allegedly executed by Bosnian Serb military forces. As they
walked across a field, Rohde showed the investigators large portions of earth
that had been dug up since he had last visited the site, and mounds of dirt
and deep tire ruts that had not been there the previous October.
Nearby, the team found
human remains and clothing that matched descriptions provided by surviving
witnesses of executions. The New York Times reported that Rohde had presented
the strongest available evidence that several gravesites had been extensively
disturbed.
The International War Crimes Tribunal had recently indicted
Bosnian Serb President Dr. Radovan Karadzic and Bosnian Serb military
commander, General Ratko Mladic, the latter believed to have personally
overseen executions. Rohde's evidence was significant because the disturbed
gravesites could add to the charges faced by the men and strengthen the
prosecution's case against them.
|
But Rohde was presenting information that he had already published in his
Christian Science Monitor series. He chose not to testify as a witness before
the court. Rohde, like his former editor, Faye Bowers, believes that in general
journalists should restrict themselves to sharing information they have published
or is otherwise in the public record.
Journalists often make good witnesses in criminal proceedings
because they are trained to make objective, detailed observations. But
many U.S. journalists feel strongly that assisting in any formal capacity
with official investigations compromises their objectivity and diminishes
their credibility with sources and the public. European journalists
often differ, seeing their role as witnesses as an extension of their
reporting and as a means of seeing that justice is served. Several British
reporters, including the Guardian's Ed Vulliamy, have testified before
the War Crimes Tribunals.
|
Judges enter the courtroom of the
International War Crimes Tribunal for former Yugoslavia in The Hague in
June 1996. The Tribunal opened hearings blaming Bosnian Serb leader Radovan
Karadzic and Gen. Ratko Mladic for a comprehensive strategy of genocide
during Bosnia's 43-month war. Photo: AP
|
It can be
painful for a journalist not to testify, especially when he or she has documented
cases of gross human rights violations. But Rohde points out that the war
in Bosnia involved abuses committed by both sides. It would be a disservice
to the reporting if one side felt that a journalist was testifying as part
of a vendetta against them, and could well lead to less access to information
about its side of the story - including abuses committed against them.
Ultimately,
the choice to testify or not can be a struggle among a number of factors,
including journalistic culture, the news medium's own practice, and the reporter's
conscience.
|