Bosnian Court President – happy with judicial reform
Judge Meddzida Kreso, President of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, says she is happy with the progress of judicial reform in the independent state, which is under international administration. Kreso was appointed by the High Judicial and Prosecutorial Council as court president in 2004.
By Nidzara Ahmetasevic in Sarajevo
The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina was established in 2002 by the Office of the High Representative (OHR), which has the power to impose laws and sack politicians in the country since the end of the war in 1995. Primarily the Court was established in order to deal with the war crimes, but also with organised crime and corruption.
Judge Kreso said she feels her duty as a professional is to engage in the process of establishment of the rule of law after the war. Being president of the court is just a part of these efforts.
What is the hardest part of your job?
Besides being president, I also work as a judge on different cases. I am the head of the institution with 217 employees, including 55 judges – local and international.
I represent the Court but at the same time, cooperate with donors who support us. Indeed, every aspect of my work is important in its own way and any superficial approach could have a devastating impact. It is a hard job, but it is the job of any president of any state court.
How hard is it to deal with different pressures, political or otherwise?
As a leader, I insist that the work of the state court and politics don’t mix. Because of that we are often attacked. Sometimes those who attack us go as far as to question the legitimacy of the court, and that is completely unacceptable.
Judicial reform started in 2001 but it is not over yet. What else has to be done in order to establish a modern and functional system?
Recently a new round of talks about judicial reform started and personally, I am happy with it. I consider that only professional and open dialogue can help us in strengthening the rule of law, the most important pillar of a democratic society.
I consider the establishment of the High court of BiH as a very important goal. It's an institution that should equalise judicial practice and create a unique legal space in the country which will mean that it will enable equality of all the people before the law in Bosnia.
What are the most important lessons learned from the other courts?
This court is a very specific institution so we could not learn a lot from others, as we had to build our own system. However, we learned many things from the experience of the ICTY.
At the same time, we have had the privilege of working with international judges from around the world and the experience they brought here is very valuable, too.
Today, the Bosnian court is an example for others. Especially in the field of war crimes prosecution, we are the most notable institution in the region.
How difficult it is to be the head of one such institution in a country that is deeply divided along ethnic lines?
Bosnia is, unfortunately, divided and it is not easy to lead an institution like this as we do not get the necessary support from those in power. Moreso, they often criticise our work calling us anti-consitutional, illegal and biased.
How do you explain to somebody that politicians in this country do not want to make the necessary funds available for the work of the court and judiciary? How to explain that in this country everything is politics, even the existence of the high court?
I am a huge proponent of the establishment of this institution and because of that I am constantly under pressure from the politicians as well as from the media. But it will not stop me from doing my job.
How hard is to deal with war crimes prosecution in a country where the causes of the war are still contested and where the process of facing the past does not exist?
It is definitely not easy to do such a sensitive and responsible job in a country where there is no agreement on anything, in a country in which victims, indictees and those found guilty are ‘labelled’ according to their nationality.
Since the very beginning, the court insisted on individual guilt and promoted the idea that every person who committed war crimes has a name and surname and that they can not hide behind a collective ‘label’.
When I talk about the different types of pressure we face, I not only mean from politicians but also different victims’ associations who sometimes overstep the limits of their work trying to influence the court. However, I often say that we are not here to be likeable – we are here to implement the law.
Is your work harder because you are a women? Does that affect your work at all?
For me, professionalism and competence are what counts. I do not judge people according to their gender, religion or nationality... I know only those who do their jobs well – or not.