| Photo by Jane Scherr |
Brenda Hollis Interview: Conversations with History; Institute of International Studies, UC Berkeley
| Photo by Jane Scherr |
Page 6 of 8
I guess it becomes important to talk about the frustrations of this kind of work. You've given a sense of the organizational task here. I'm broadening it to all the kinds of prosecutions you were involved in. It's not as if you're working within a known jurisdiction, where the situation is secure in terms of the country, where there's an agreement in the community about the wrongness of this act, and so on. What for you was most frustrating in getting this prosecution act together, so to speak? And in light of those frustrations, what encouraged you to go on? What was the force, the insight that made you feel that despite the frustrations, this work had to be done?
Let me answer, actually, the second part of that question first. The thing that motivates all of us to continue despite everyday frustrations, institutional frustrations and other frustrations, is the significance of the work that we're doing, and the fact that ultimately what we are doing is criminal justice. We have very real victims and very real survivors. And we have thousands of people who cannot speak for themselves, because they are dead in graves we know not where. Someone needs to speak for them, and for the survivors who have been so traumatized and have been victims themselves, either directly or indirectly. To be a part of bringing justice to these horrific crimes is the motivation that keeps all of us going.
In terms of the frustrations, I was, I guess, blessed and cursed, because coming to the tribunal early on, and then having been there in a variety of roles for several years, I was able to be involved in virtually every aspect of the development of the Office of the Prosecutor and the development of trial practice and appellate practice. So I got to be frustrated on a lot of different levels.
I see. Because you were a pivotal figure.
Because I was part of it. But I think the frustrations have to do with the enormity of the task, and just in human terms, breaking it down into doable pieces. And working in an environment where you don't have adequate resources, but you have to do the best that you can do, and you have to give 150%, at least, to get it done. The frustrations of the changing political will of the international community, knowing that they could bring somebody at a very high level to the tribunal for trial, and yet they don't do so, for whatever reason. Knowing that the statute gives us powers to do things in certain countries, and yet those countries don't allow it, and the Security Council doesn't take action against them, the international community won't take action against them to force their compliance. Knowing that there are still people in positions of responsibility who were involved in these crimes in some way. Dealing with the frustration of the rationalization that current regimes can put into place for why these crimes really didn't occur or why they were justified. And then the day-to-day frustrations of too much to do, too little time, not enough people. Disagreements about how you define things, and what's the best policy for the office. All of those were frustrations that all of us lived with.
There must also be great satisfactions, obviously, being part of this effort for justice. Tell us a little bit about the satisfactions. Were there particular cases where you came to identify with the victim or victims, and then there was a resolution that made you feel good about what you were doing?
Identifying with a victim is something a prosecutor can never do, because then you lose your objectivity, and that doesn't help your prosecution and that doesn't allow you to fulfill your overall obligation as a prosecutor, which is to be sure that you go forward with good evidence, that you assess your evidence, that you are very candid with the tribunal. So the big thing that you have to do, I believe, as a prosecutor, is that you have to be able to understand the feelings of the victim, you have to be able to understand in humanitarian terms where the victim is coming from, and then you have to make objective assessments in that environment. You have a real feeling for these crimes, you have a real feeling for the injustices that have been done, but you cannot allow that to shade how you view the evidence and how you present your case.
But, certainly, there were great satisfactions in actually having a case proceed, and actually being able to put on evidence, having witnesses who have the strength and the courage to come forward, or the defense being able to get witnesses for their person, if they were putting on a defense. To see that this could happen, even in an unsettled area as you were investigating and you were putting a case together, it's very satisfying. To be part of creating the structure for our appellate proceedings, I was very, very happy and privileged to be part of that, and to see that actually work.
Two cases that I was involved in, two witnesses that I was involved with in particular, were very satisfying to me. In the Furundzija case, I was fortunate enough to be involved in the initial contact with the victim, and then saw her strength at trial, where she came back several times to testify because of proceedings and issues that had occurred in the case. To see the strength and to see that she knew she had the strength, despite all that had happened to her, was very satisfying to me.
In the Tadic case, we had charged him with rape of Witness F., who at the beginning of the case for personal reasons decided she could not come forward and testify. We eventually withdrew that charge without prejudice. Toward the end of the case, she felt she could come forward; by then it was too late.
My most recent case I was involved in, actually in trial, was the Kvocka case, which was a case involving deputy commanders and shift leaders in the Omarska Camp. It was this camp that this Witness F. was in. And in this case, she actually came forward and testified about what had happened to her in that camp. To me it was very satisfying, from a very human point of view, to see someone who had survived this, who had come through this post-traumatic period, and had finally acknowledged the strength in herself and wanted to come forward. That was very rewarding for me. It wasn't because of anything I had done, but to see a person develop that way and reach that ultimate decision, which I'm convinced was the best decision for her, was very rewarding.
It's an extraordinary courage that is required by these people in the courtroom, but again in the aftermath of the verdict, because they have to go back to their country and in some cases they find the people implicated, or other [perpetrators] whom they were associated with, back in the country.
That's right. For every witness who comes forward, who was involved in any way in these events -- a person who was put in a camp, a person who was deprived of family members, a person who was tortured, raped -- to come forward and testify, to come forward and give a statement, is an act of courage. It is important because it helps them acknowledge the strength that they have, because if they can survive the atrocities, they can survive talking about them. But it is a great deal of courage and strength.
Those who are now being forced to go back into their homes, many of them want to, but they're going back into an environment where many perpetrators still live -- people in authority that were part of what happened during these tragic events. That is real courage to come forward, because they are putting themselves at risk -- at a minimum, at risk of harassment, intimidation, and perhaps at risk of physical harm or death to them or their families. And I've been amazed from the very beginning of the courage and the strength of the people of all ethnic groups who come forward to talk about what they saw, what happened to them, to reveal the most private and sensitive and horrific things that have happened to them or losses they've suffered.
Next page: Challenges for Humanitarian Law
© Copyright 2001, Regents of the University of California