L-r: Philippe Sands, Julian Borger, Adam LeBor, Milan Dinić & Kemal Pervanic. Photo by Tolly Robinson.

On Wednesday 9 March, the Guardian‘s world affairs editor Julian Borger was joined by a panel of experts to discuss the search for Balkan war criminals as detailed in his new book, The Butcher’s Trail – How the Search for Balkan War Criminals Became the World’s Most Successful Manhunt. 

The Butcher’s Trail is a factual account of the pursuit and capture of former Yugoslav war criminals under the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) which, according to chair Adam LeBor, an author and journalist, “reads like a thriller.”

Borger said that he wrote the book because “it struck me that this [capturing the criminals and bringing them to justice] was finally an extraordinary achievement and there was lots that hadn’t been told.”

However, he admitted that when it came to researching the book he found it difficult to encourage people to comment: “I got used to a great amount of rejection.”

Milan Dinić, a Serbian journalist who has worked in the region for a decade and assisted Borger in producing the book, said it offered “a very good revelation of what actually happened, in the sense that it provides an insight about the people.”

Typically brilliant & engaging event this evening @frontlineclub with @julianborger @KemalPervanic @adamlebor @MilanDinic1 & @philippesands

— Steven J Fowler (@stevenjfowler) March 9, 2016

Philippe Sands, a lawyer at Matrix chambers and a Professor of International Law at UCL, praised Borger’s “fascinating book” and said it raised interesting questions about the reasoning behind the creation of a dedicated war crimes tribunal.

Sands asked: “What was the point of creating a Yugoslav war crimes tribunal? Was it a place to tell stories, was it a place to write history books, was it a place to do justice, was it something different? Was it all of the above?”

He told the audience the tribunal was: “A creature of a political settlement that was part of a response to a feeling of guilt and inadequacy… and as part of the mechanism for delivering a political solution.”

Kemal Pervanic, a survivor of the Omarska concentration camp, spoke about the impact of the tribunal for him personally: “The tribunal, in a way, has enabled me to go back… my work [as a human rights activist, peace builder and filmmaker] is possible because of the tribunal.”

However, Pervanic added that today Bosnia is “not doing well.”

He put this down to the fact that: “The international community has instigated a system that keeps criminals in power in perpetuity.”

Dinić furthered this in saying that the war itself had four sides, with the fourth being the “international community, which played a high role.”

LeBor asked the panellists to expand on the “role of individuals” in bringing the war criminals to trial.

Borger said: “The role of individuals was key… They acted as mavericks, all of them.”

Sands took the opportunity to makes links with current events and injustices. Speaking about the process of bringing about justice, and the two-pronged strategy of prevention and the prosecution of perpetrators, he said: “Why is this not happening in relation to what’s going on in Syria?”

He warned that justice was a long process: “Memories are very long, and the idea that in just 20 years you can bring to an end the kind of conditions that have given rise to the horrors we know about, I think is an illusion. Justice is a sticking plaster.”

Sands went on to say: “What Julian has done is explain to us the mechanics of delivering a justice system. The question that we now have to ask ourselves is what was the point of it all?”

Bringing the discussion to an end, Pervanic reflected on his personal experience and his hope for justice in Bosnia: “For a lot of people justice means so many different things, because for most of them it’s a very personal thing. We need to rise above personal feelings to see this.”

On Friday 20 September, the Frontline Club hosted a preview screening of David Evans’ Pretty Village, which was followed by an emotional debate and panel discussion featuring protagonist and producer Kemal Pervanic and journalist at ITV News, Penny Marshall. The debate was moderated by Ed Vulliamy, writer for The Guardian and The Observer.

L-R: Ed Vuilliamy, Kemal Pervanic, Penny Marshall, David Evans. Photo: Doug Brown

The film is centred on the Bosnian village of Kevljani and follows author and youth worker Kemal Pervanic as he, amongst other things, revisits the site of his internment in the nearby Omarska detention camp, confronts a former teacher who sanctioned his torture and runs a reconciliation camp for the area’s youth.

The Muslim village in the north of Bosnia is surrounded by ethnically Serbian communities and as such was directly affected during the bloody break-up of Yugoslavia. Using archival footage along with personal testimonies from the surviving villagers, Evans manages to give a good sense of what pre-war life in the mixed Croat, Bosnian and Serb neighbourhoods was like; a place where Pervanic remembers that his “childhood was really beautiful”. This is an idea that the still visible destruction makes hard to imagine, especially when coupled with horrific accounts of torture, beatings, humiliation and deportation by former neighbours – the men who became the guards, torturers and perpetrators of many of the associated crimes against the six thousand strong Muslim community.

During the panel discussion following the screening, Vulliamy asked Evans why he made the film, to which he replied:

“The reconstruction from the war seems very very slow and there are lots of unresolved issues. . . . Just sitting in people’s houses and listening to people talk in ways I have never really heard people talk about war and how it affected them . . . for me, I just wanted to hear their voices and have the opportunity to tell their story, and its been a very moving experience for me, to have the privilege to be in these people’s homes, and hear them talk about these things. No one listens to their story; they have no one to tell their story to.”

This inability to talk about what happened during the war was a central theme throughout the discussion, with Pervanic stating that:

“This was so personal . . . what happened was so big that the perhaps the Serbs cannot recognise what they did. There is a lot of denial in our community”.

Left: director David Evans and journalist Ed Vulliamy Right: journalist Penny Marchall and protagonist Kemal Pervanic

When asked who else would want to see this film Pervanic replied:

“It’s a human story, it’s not just about a small village in Bosnia…I want everyone to see it. We must know our past. Without it we are nothing, we learn nothing.”

The audience – which included a number of Omarska camp survivors – was asked by Evans for their feedback, and while the loud applause suggested it was well received, the political tensions and divisions that the Balkan states are infamous for quickly rose to the surface. A number of questions focused on why the film didn’t cover how or why the war happened, or give a more balanced perspective – including more Serbian views – to which Evans repeated that he was not “interested in making  political statements or a  piece of journalism. . . it was never my intention to make a film about war in Yugoslavia”.

Despite all that Pervanic has experienced, his sober response to a somewhat antagonistic pro-Serb question provided a calming closing statement to the night:

“Generals don’t suffer, politicians don’t suffer; it’s people like me who suffer. . . . I don’t want to blame, that is not the point of the film”

More information can be found on the film’s website, and you can view the trailer of Pretty Village here:

In May 1992, 6,000 local Bosnian Muslim men, women and children were detained, tortured and raped in the cluster of villages around Kevljani. Many of these Bosniak were killed, and currently 1,200 are still missing.

In 2000 the first Bosnian survivors returned to Kevljani, where  they started to rebuilt their homes and lives. Most Serb neighbours remain silent about the past and continue to fight against an initiative to erect a memorial even after the discovery of mass graves in the village.

“Only superhumans could be as good as them.” On Monday 8 July, the Frontline Club screened SMASH & GRAB: The Story of the Pink Panthers. With unprecedented access to the most successful diamond thieves in history, director Havana Marking took viewers on a candid journey into the minds of the Pink Panthers.

“What was in it for them?” This was one of the first questions from the audience, who wanted to know why such a secretive group – still on the run from Interpol – agreed to be interviewed.

Marking explained:

“In terms of why they did it I think each person had a different reason. Ego definitely played a part. Being the best at anything, you want recognition for that. … What I realised from Mike and Leila is that these are huge parts of their lives that they aren’t able to talk about. And actually, sitting down for two days talking to someone completely focused on them is in fact incredibly cathartic.”

Following on, the audience asked if there were any direct consequences because of the film.

“I don’t think so,” replied Marking. “You realise that actually, people know who everyone is anyway. It’s whether you’ve got the evidence to do them for it, whether you can actually prove that they did it via fingerprint or whatever you need for court. So I don’t think I know any more than Interpol knows.”

The film set the context of the Pink Panthers’ formation in the chaos of the Yugoslav Wars. An audience member asked if there was a direct correlation.

“Maybe they would have done it anyway, and it’s a convenient excuse,” responded Marking. “But there’s no doubt that sanctions at that time had a huge effect. People love sanctions because it’s a non-violent response to something, but in the long run it’s very interesting to see the effects they have, and are probably having all over the world. In Serbia and Montenegro, just the geography meant the sanctions were catastrophic on the economy.”

The Pink Panthers’ network is integral to the monetising of their stolen goods. An audience member asked if diamonds are stolen to order, or if there is an open market.

“Before you do a robbery you know who is going to buy it.” According to Marking, “Anyone, really, can do a smash and grab. It’s not difficult. You just need to be incredibly.. you need to be like that [the Pink Panthers]. What’s really difficult is what you do with diamonds worth 50 grand. How do you sell it in a market which is supposed to be very controlled? That’s where the Panther network is genius, and that’s why they’ve survived so long. Because they’ve got those networks and those networks have been developed since the conflict era.”

In the audience was the Croatian actor and musician Tomislav Benzon, who played the Pinker Panther member Mike for the animation scenes. He shared an anecdote about happening to return from Dubai at the same time as the Wafi City robbery:

“They questioned me at Heathrow for 8 hours … they kept my passport for two weeks. I thought this was to do with immigration, but when I saw the film, I realised they were probably following me for two weeks. I was an innocent musician, not a Pink Panther, which I later on became involved with!”

Saw ace doc @SmashandGrabDoc at @frontlineclub earlier about 'The Pink Panthers' – the world's best diamond thieves. Great director Q&A too.

— Gavin May (@gavinmay) July 8, 2013

A final question from an audience member asked, “Did you think you’d be romanticising them, what were you moral feelings about that?”

In Marking’s experience: “That has been more of an issue in other countries, the Brits don’t seem to mind that so much! I think a Hollywood heist film, a Hollywood diamond thief film romanticises completely. The George Clooney, Oceans Eleven type thief. And then in documentary you seem under incredible pressure just to make them out as complete demons and you have to have the moral high ground.”

In conclusion Marking further elaborated:

“What I wanted to do was to get to the truth, which was really down the middle. That crime can pay, that it is quite exciting, there is action and adrenaline in these things; but I hope by the end you realise that a) they’re damaged people and b) it’s not just a disconnected group who aren’t hurting anyone, which is how they sell themselves. Actually, they’re connected to much deeper and darker forces. They’re connected to the whole diamond trade, which is connected to blood diamonds, they’re connected to smuggling routes and the people who do the smuggling, they’re also connected to sex trafficking and cocaine smuggling. It’s dark, and I hope that comes through by the end.”

(c) Roast Beef Productions

In the words of Pink Panther member Mike:

“There’s no panic when you do the job, the panic begins when you run. … This is the consequence of this job, paranoia.”

Smash & Grab: The Story of the Pink Panthers was produced by Roast Beef Productions. Like their Facebook page to find out more about upcoming screenings.

The end of the Frontline Club’s screening season was marked, on Sunday 27 November, with the showing of Cinema Komunisto, featuring a subsequent question and answer discussion led by one of the film’s producers, Iva Plemic.

The film, created by a group of young filmmakers from Serbia, documents the creation and collapse of Yugoslavian cinema, which was heavily influenced by the state of Yugoslavia and its former leader Tito. To the delight of Plemic, one audience member asked immediately about the metaphorical association between the rise and fall of Yugoslavian cinema – Avala Studios, Belgrade, in particular – and that of the nation itself.

“Thank you very much for the question,” she responded. “This really was a big part of the film for us, the creators, and I’m very glad you picked up on it. The film industry, as this movie shows, was heavily supported by the country and by Tito. When he died, and as the country demised, so did this once-great industry. Avala Studios was the focus of the film, but there are many more like it across the old Yugoslavia.”

Plemic was later to justify the film’s implication that Yugoslavia, as a nation, thrived under the rule of Tito. Despite not living during the time of Tito, Plemic answered strongly and assertively. She said:  “Yugoslavia, under Tito, was a successful country. Most people in the nation, led by a hedonistic leader who loved life and films, were happy and lived good lives.” An audience member, who lived in Yugoslavia under Tito’s rule, elaborated: “The western perception runs that Tito was just a dictator but we never felt like that. We didn’t see him as a dictator – for whatever reason, most of us loved him.”

The film, by the end, reports that Avala Studios, alongside Yugoslavian cinema, has crumbled. Asked of the current situation, Plemic said:

“At the moment, Avala is in official bankruptcy. The state is attempting to find a buyer, but with no conditions attached – for all they care, it could be turned into a shopping mall. We, the film makers, have set up a petition on our website because we believe it is a part of our history and its cinematic tradition should continue.”

Following an intense round of questions late on Sunday afternoon, Plemic said that she had enjoyed the experience, despite her initial apprehension. “This is my first visit to the Club and I was worried about what to expect,” she told Frontline.

“People who had been before told me I’d be facing a very well-informed audience and to be careful in the Q&A session. This, and the reputation of the club, made me very nervous. I think it went well, though. Having the film shown at such a big venue was very important for us.”