Genocidal intent

Abstract

Due to the tragic events on the territory of the former SFRY, the subject of genocide has become very current topic in wider social and scientific circles. This offense and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), has become rather discussed subject on the territory of former Yugoslavia, but also outside of it. In that sense, the subject of genocidal intent has particularly intrigued Jovan Ćirić, because that element is what substantially defines genocide as such. The common standpoint of classical criminal justice law is that without the intent of destruction of national, ethnical, racial or religious group there is in fact no genocide. However, the problem arises when we try to define the intent itself. In English, for instance, there is no concept, a word that would define the intent. In Serbian literature and language, there is just a slight difference - the intent is mostly defined as special, particularly strong form of intent. Until recently, that was rather common concept in the world literature for the understanding of genocide. However, the trials before the International Criminal Tribunal in Hague concerning former Yugoslavia and Rwanda showed that it is very difficult, almost impossible to prove someone's guilt, i.e. genocidal intent. Prosecutors Carla Del Ponte and Geoffrey Nice complained during the trial of Slobodan Milošević that they won't be able to prove genocidal intent. It could be said that is the main reason western European criminal thought developed the theory that the existence of genocide requires no intent, as a special form of 'strong' intent, but that the existence of indirect intent is sufficient. The author claims such statements are absurd for they make the intent and genocide into something incidental, much like collateral damage. Related to that is the subject of media prejudice and breach of the presumption of innocence. Namely, media had at one point blown out of proportions the story of guilt and intent of several accused individuals and in such state there was no need to prove the guilt and intent, for the media verdict had already been given. Serbs were persistently, constantly and tendentiously shown in the worst possible light and in such situation it was difficult, almost impossible to be objective and impartial in the trials for the war crimes. Special attention needs to be drawn to the propaganda of genocide which is prohibited by the Convention as a sort of incentive to genocide. However, that is connected with numerous problems concerning the so-called hate speech, but also with freedom of speech - the complicated question where the freedom of speech stops and the hate speech and incitement to genocide emerge. One question that is particularly interesting is the unbelievable, hysterical anti-Serbian propaganda during the nineties which no one took the blame for, which raises many questions and foremost speaks about the politicization of the phenomenon of genocide. Jovan Ćirić also believes that a genocidal intent has to be considered having in mind particular historical context. It is one thing if intent, psychological attitude of perpetrator towards the act, develops in a particular moment, i.e. short span of time (almost in the heat of passion), and completely different thing is if it develops and repeats itself in continuity. The author predominantly has in mind the continuity of Serbo-Croatian relations and points that what Ante Starčević had in mind continues in what Ante Pavelić did and what Franjo Tuđman in his 'transcripts from Brijuni' said. Present, particularly when we talk about genocide and genocidal intent, cannot be fully understood and perceived without considering the historical context.