The government of the Republic of Srpska was ordered in 2003 by Bosnia’s then High representative, Paddy Ashdown, to form a commission to report on some events “in and around Srebrenica” in July of 1995. The order was triggered by a suit filed by the survivors of 49 missing Moslems who – quite understandably – were anxious to learn something about the fate of their relatives. The narrow mandate of the commission was to provide information on these 49 missing persons, joined later by an additional 1800 who made a similar application. Its broader (if unspoken) mandate was to furnish a self-incriminating description of Srebrenica events that would be satisfactory to Bosnia’s notoriously anti-Serb High representative.

The latter part of the mandate underwent some change as work went along because the commission’s initial plan was to set the search for missing persons against a detailed “presentation of the genesis of the events which occurred in the relevant period (July 10-19, 1995)”[1].  Once it got bogged down in cross-checking and purging the multiple missing perons’ lists, the commission realized that it had neither the manpower nor the resources for an in depth investigation of the broader issue. The commission therefore made the choice to use a pre-packaged version of events in the form of the “historical context and factual background” contained in the Krstić judgment at ICTY.[2]

One part of the commission's finished product was very useful. They compared overlapping lists of reportedly missing persons and purged them of double and even triple entries. They reduced the total number of the reportedly missing (i.e. persons whose status was unknown) from over 12,000 (with all the multiple entries) to 7108 between July 10 to 19, 1995 who were reported to be missing. That, according to the commission, was  the statistical situation as of 2004.[3]

However, in another area of its work the commission had a complete breakdown. That was its presentation of the "factual" background of events from July 10 to 19, 1995. Claiming that they did not have time or resources to independently research these issues, which was probably correct, their "Solomonic" solution was worse than no background at all. They chose to incorporate within their report the factual findings of the Krstic trial verdict and treat that as their own "factual" basis. Accordingly, disarticulated fragments from the Krstić verdict were selected by the commission to compose a background narrative of Srebrenica events which is, naturally, as dubious as its source. The commissioners made no effort to consult other sources for the facts they felt they needed. It is safe to assume that they did not want to risk Eshdown's wrath.

The best analogy to what the commission did is to imagine someone setting out to write a history of the Jewish people and asking Dr. Goebbels’ Propaganda Ministry to provide “historical context and factual background” for the project.

The 2004 Republic of Srpska Srebrenica Commission report was soon largely forgotten and it became practically unavailable in electronic or printed form. It enjoyed a brief resurgence during the recent Srebrenica genocide resolution debate in Serbia, with proponents of a parliamentary resolution labeling the Srebrenica massacre an act of “genocide” and requiring Serbia to express contrition for it, arguing that the commission’s report supported their views. They frequently misquoted the 2004 report. They argued that since the Republic of Srpska had supposedly already admitted to the crime and its magnitude, why shouldn’t Serbia do that as well?

But as is often the case, things are not that simple. Nowhere in the Republic of Srpska 2004 report does it say that genocide was committed in Srebrenica.[4]  With respect to numbers, the commission concluded that, after it had meticulously cross-checked and purged all the missing persons’ lists provided by various sources,  as of 2004 there were  7108 names of persons  who were reported missing between July 10 and 19, 1995, but concerning whose fate no information was available. That figure is suspiciously close to the official number of 8000, to be sure. But clearly, “missing” and “executed” are entirely different categories and for all we know many who were technically “missing” in 1995 may now be alive and well somewhere else. It is understandable if neither they nor their relatives have since then bothered to notify any of the relevant agencies of that fact.

Enter Mr. Mirsad Tokača, director of the Sarajevo Research and Documentation Center which produced the “Bosnian War Crime Atlas,” a document which we have criticized rather extensively. While visiting Banja Luka on March 30, 2010 to present the findings of his Atlas, Mr. Tokača dropped what many Serbs thought was a bombshell: that 500 of the supposedly Srebrenica missing were identified by his organization between 2004 and 2007 as being in fact alive.[5]  But on closer examination, it turns out that Tokača’s  „revelation“ was rather ambiguous and it certainly did not mean that 500 headstones at the Potočari Memorial Center should now be removed because the persons supposedly buried there are demonstrably alive. In fact, it is difficult to fathom – based on a careful analysis of his statement – whether the group of 500 should be removed merely from some missing persons’ lists or from the cemetary. Now that Mr. Tokača has made a public admission that he has some material evidence relevant to the crimes of Srebrenica, he should be asked to share his information with the interested public. Should he decline to do so, it is incumbent on ICTY to order him to produce the list, names and all, on pain of contempt of court. It goes without saying that the Tribunal has the power to do that and it has used it on other occassions before.

To return to the 2004 Republic of Srpska Srebrenica Commission report, which we post here exclusively for the benefit of our readers, while the review of the missing lists is indeed a job well done, the inclusion of the Krstić judgment version of the „facts“ was a complete disaster which almost cancels the positive effects of the commission’s performance. A careful reading of pages 8 to 24 of the report, which were completely lifted from the controversial Krstić judgment, conveys the unequivocally dismal picture that the official Srebrenica narrative is essentially correct. When cited „facts“ incorporated from the Krstić judgment are added up in terms of the alleged executions, a minimum figure of 5000 victims is reached.[6]  If the government Commission accepts the Krstić narrative to the extent of admitting that Serbian forces are responsible for the execution of about 5000 prisoners, the basic charges against the Republic of Srpska are thereby validated. It is then pointless to pretend, as is done elsewhere in the same report, that at least 7108 Srebrenica residents are still „missing“. If the Krstić factual matrix is acceptable, the fate of at least 5000 of the „missing“ has in fact been implicitly solved: they were shot by Serbian forces, exactly as charged by the Hague tribunal.

That, of course, is not supported by the evidence and it is not correct. But it is the plain and embarrassing conclusion which,  within the pages of the same document, awkwardly coexists with the results of a credible  statistical research project. That fusion of incompatible elements was officially adopted by the Republic of Srpska government in 2004.

We now present this report to our readers for their consideration. It should be noted that it comes in two parts. The interim report, including the dubious factual background, was presented on schedule in June of 2004. Additional time was requested, and granted, for the completion of the statistical analysis, and that is the October 2004 report. We also present, for the record, the page from Mr. Tokača’s RDC website which reflects his remarks in Banja Luka that 500 missing persons were found by his organization to be alive, and which was since then mysteriously excised.

[1]Republic of Srpska Government Srebrenica Commission, June 2004, p. 4.
[2]Ibid., p. 5
[3]It should be noted that in the chaos and confusion after the fall of Srebrenica, many agencies, including ICRC, were receiving reports of missing persons. These agencies were basically information clearinghouses and were not tasked with investigating the fate of persons reported to be missing. Lists were developed by different agencies and many names ended up on more than one list.
[4]The single time the word “genocide” is used is when quoting from the Krstić judgment, correctly as it turns out, to the effect that the accused was convicted of  “aiding and abetting genocide.” The commission does not, however, take a position in the matter and expressly notes that it is not a judicial body and lacks a mandate to deal with legal issues. Ibid., p. 5
[5]http://www.frontal.rs/cyrl/?page=2&kat=1&vijest=40186 A report on Mr. Tokača’s Banja Luka presentation, including the admission that 500 missing Srebrenica residents were discovered alive, was posted for a while on the IDC website (http://www.idc.org.ba/) , but after it ignited a controversy it vanished mysteriously. Fortunately, we have preserved the page and we present it here for our readers.
[6]Petkovci, 1500 to 2000 victims (p. 18); Branjevo, 1000 to 1200 (p. 22); Pilice, 500 (p. 22); Kozluk, 500 (p. 22); Kravica, 1000 (p. 16), and Nova Kasaba, “a considerable number” (p. 16).