Read the GalMUN Newspaper

Day 1

Mock debate

As this was the first MUN conference for most of the delegates, our chairpersons organised mock debates in all of the committees, providing a great way to exemplify the procedures and taking away from the imposing and maybe intimidating nature of this kind of conference.

Von Hannover v. Germany: Does the princess have a right to privacy?

The topic for The International Criminal Court was the case of Von Hannover v. Germany. This case was chosen in light of its simplicity, the main point being debating whether the right to privacy or the one to free speech is more important. The case is based on a series of photos of Princess Caroline of Monaco publicised by tabloid magazines, taken without her knowledge and showing scenes from her daily life. The European Court of Human Rights held that the publication of these pictures violated her right to privacy and family life as provided in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The debate

This moment showed the dedication of the delegates and their capacity to understand a case. With only 10 minutes to prepare, they made their opening statements which were very compelling if you ask me. And then, the fight began! In this part, the judges asked questions and gave a pretty hard time to the advocates. Very pertinent points were made, such as the fact that she did not perform any official function on behalf of the State of Monaco or its institutions. Overall, the main question is: Why is it important for people to know her life?

Day 2

The first committee session

The mock debate was just a warm-up for today’s case: The Prosecutor v. Ratko Mladic. This case presents the events alleged to have occurred from October 1991 to November 1995 in various locations in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including Sarajevo, Srebrenica, and 20 municipalities in the Sarajevo region.

Oath taking

This part started off as a formal introduction to the court, as it portrayed to a T the procedures of a court case. All the advocates, prosecutors and judges even swore on the bible! We are now convinced that they are honest and acting in good faith, or are we?

Opening statements

The prosecution was adamant in its opening statements, all the advocates presenting why Mladic should be found guilty. Although the UN Security Council Resolution declared the enclaves of Zepa and Srebrenica as “safe areas,” which were not to be military targets, the Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS) attacked them between July 2 and 11, 1995. This event would become known as the Srebrenica massacre. At the end of the speech a very relevant question was asked: Why would an innocent man be on the run for 10 years?

The defence followed up with statements just as compelling and naturally I asked myself: What would I do if I was a judge? The defence started by saying that the supreme commander of the army was not Mladic himself, but former Bosnian Serb president Radovan Karadzic. Also, they stated that The Yugoslav Government issued a warning for the Muslim Bosniaks, but on their own they decided to flee to the woods, leading them to their death, which Mladic is not responsible for.

The defendant’s testimonial

Then, it was time for the defendant to speak for himself. You heard me right, Mladic held his speech in our very own high school. Well, not the real Mladic, because that would be impossible, but you get the idea. The main points in his speech were that he issued actions to protect his country and his people in a time of crisis and that he should not be judged by those who were not on the front and had never stepped foot in Yugoslavian territory. The defendant also answered the judges’ questions, some of which were objected, but we are all here to learn. One of the judges asked why his actions shouldn’t be considered war crimes. He responded by saying that casualties are normal in war and that he has a right to redemption.

The second committee session

This committee session focused on the writing of the Statement of facts, which is a comprehensive common document consisting of the facts both sides agree on. The prosecution and the defence came together and joined forces to create a complete document which is very important for the normal course of the case. We must appreciate that they managed to do this without fighting (too much). In the meantime, the judges had their own discussion about their first impressions and the ideas they gathered so far.

To end this session on a happy note, all the delegates wrote anonymous messages on a piece of paper, which were read out loud by the chairpersons and all I can say is that some of them were definitely interesting.

The third committee session

The delegates finished the statement of facts and then it was time for the presentation of the evidence. The defence showed a number of videos and documents, with regard to making the argument that Mladic did not directly give the orders for the crimes he was charged with. The prosecution was just as rigorous with their evidence, showing proof against the defendant.

This session’s highlight is for sure the Just Dance break which gave us the necessary energy to focus for the whole day. The delegates even had a favourite choice for the song, Rasputin.

The fourth committee session & fifth committee session

To gather all of our strength, we decided that a little gossip break was appropriate. And that is how we mentally prepared ourselves for the next hours of questioning. The judges made sure not to leave anything up for debate and to make the most out of the time they had to better understand the case. Several questions made the advocates struggle for a bit, some of which were: “How does the evidence prove that he is innocent?”, “How do you know that Srebrenica was not declared a safe zone?” and “What is the evidence that shows that the soldiers did not respect Mladic’s orders to not attack and kill civilians?”

Day 3

The first committee session

For a better comprehension of all the information they had at their disposal, the judges were granted a whole evening to think of ingenious questions to ask the advocates. The time they had gave them the chance to find flaws in different documents and statements made the day before. We had high hopes and they came through, as the questioning led to the discovery of a mistake in the memorial of the defence. It turns out Mladic had been the supreme commander of the army, and not president Radovan Karadzic, as stated in the document.

The second committee session & third committee session

We have been all waiting for this: the witness questioning. It is of the utmost importance that the witnesses are well-trained, because if they mess up even the slightest detail, their statement will be struck out for perjury. Spoiler: It did happen. The prosecution’s witnesses were first and their testimonies definitely struck a chord, as Saliha Osmanovic, Vahid Slujic and Elvedin Pasic presented their heartbreaking stories about the atrocities they went through. But did they manage to appeal to the empathetic side of the judges?

The defence’s first witness was Mile Sladoje, a former assistant commander of a Serb battalion in Sarajevo. When he was asked about Mladic’s level of responsibility, he said that the accused was equal to any other commander in the army. Dear readers, that was a lie. WITNESS DISMISSED! The next witness was Cherif Bassiouni, an expert on International Law. Take into account it was revealed that he was on a commission in the UN Security Council in 1992 that declared Srebrenica a safe zone in 1993. Contrary to this fact, he stated that Srebrenica was not a safe zone. You guessed it, DISMISSED!

The fourth committee session & fifth committee session

Last but not least, Mladic himself ended the list of witnesses. What we learned today is that he actually suffered from PTSD. In his responses, he stressed the fact he found it unjust that he was judged by a court established by countries which have committed much more heinous crimes than the ones he is accused of. Mladic also said that he gave precise orders to the soldiers to treat the people detained with respect. Moreover, he claimed that the ones who disobeyed such orders lost their jobs or were sent to higher-ups.

Next on today’s list were the rebuttal and surrebuttal in which each side provided arguments as to why the opposing party’s statements were not credible.

And then, it was time for closing statements. The prosecution stated that it stands by its opening statements, being adamant that Mladic caused horrific tragedies. The advocates were convinced their witnesses did not play the victim and that it was suspicious that Mladic did not want to answer a lot of questions. On the other hand, the defence sustained that genocide was not Mladic’s intention and he did not have a big part in it. The testimonies of the prosecution’s witnesses were also made out to be inaccurate because of the age the questioned had been when the events took place.

The judges had the right to ask each side 3 questions on which they agreed on and that would most likely seriously impact their verdict: guilty or not guilty?

Lucky advocates! They went home after this part, but the judges had to stay for the deliberation. All of them expressed their opinion about the case and explained what led them to their conclusion. I solemnly swore not to utter anything about it until the verdict is final, so you’ll have to wait and see.

Day 4

First committee session, or should I say last?

As we grow more aware of the end of this conference, it’s clear that the delegates preferred to work hard rather than to say goodbye to their new friends. But we still have time, as this day might actually be the most important one for the ICC, considering that the judgement is being written and the verdict will be announced at the General Assembly.

Placard signing

As each placard is passed on to the next delegate, we realise the fast approaching end is just around the corner. Even though we can’t fathom how these are our last moments together,we at least have the memory of everyone who took part in this wonderful event on our very own placards.