Judge Priska Matimba Nijambe will be remembered as the chairperson of one of the most significant sessions of the appeals panel on genocide and crimes against humanity, where she expressed disagreement with almost every one of its decisions.
The chairwoman of the Appellate Panel of the Hague Court opposed the final verdict of conviction handed down by that panel to General Ratko Mladić, with the view that the trial should be repeated.
Her contrary opinion in relation to almost all decisions of the appellate council gave new ammunition to genocide deniers.
The 69-year-old female lawyer from Zambia is described by the Institute of African Women Lawyers as a “courageous, extraordinary and inspiring example of legal brilliance”. Nijambe was at one time the Chief Counsel of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
In a lengthy dissenting opinion, attached to the verdict, Nijambe stressed that the court erred when it found Mladic guilty of the genocide in Srebrenica, the persecution of Muslims and Croats throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina, and terrorizing the population of Sarajevo by sniping and shelling, 1992-95.
Nijambe only agreed with the conclusion of the majority of judges that Mladić bears the blame for taking members of Unprofor hostage in the summer of 1995.
Instead of a life sentence, Nijambe would have sentenced Mladić to 20 years in prison, in accordance with the laws of the former Yugoslavia and his impaired health.
She emphasized that she would adopt eight of the nine grounds of Mladic's appeal, which the majority of judges rejected completely.
After analyzing the evidence, Judge Nijambe concluded that the Republika Srpska Army under Mladić's command in Srebrenica, in July 1995, did not commit genocide against Muslim men, nor did they forcibly relocate women, children and the elderly.
Although he accepts as undisputed that there were "revenge and murders of prisoners of war" in Srebrenica, Nijambe, as well as the defense, believes that the perpetrators were local Serbs, members of the RS MUP and "renegade members of the VRS security line".
They "did this at a time when Mladic was not in the area, against Mladic's orders and without his knowledge," Nijambe wrote in an opinion contrary to the majority's conclusion.
She also made it clear that she accepted Mladic's version of the removal of up to 30.000 Bosnian Muslims from Srebrenica after the enclave fell to his forces, according to which it was done for "humanitarian reasons".
She assessed that Mladić was wrongly convicted as the protagonist of a comprehensive joint criminal enterprise whose goal was the persecution of Muslims and Croats from a large part of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to achieve Serbian domination.
"There is direct evidence that Mladić did not have this criminal intent, namely his orders for the VRS to respect the Geneva Conventions and cease-fire agreements, as well as the entries in his war notebook," Nijambe emphasized.
The conviction against Mladic for terrorizing the population of Sarajevo, according to Judge Nijamba, should also not stand because subjecting to terror, during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, was not recognized as a crime under international customary law.
She was alone in all the disagreements with the five-judge panel in pronouncing the final verdict on Mladić, but her views are not surprising.
In 2012, Nijambe expressed her disagreement with the decision of the court that found guilty of one of Mladić's generals, Zdravko Tolimir, when she said that the massacre of around eight thousand men and boys from Srebrenica was the work of "a small group of individuals who did it without authorization and secretly ".
In that dissenting opinion, she also said that the purpose of separating Muslim men and boys from their families was a "legitimate pursuit of war criminals."
She even admired Mladic, citing as an example the meeting at the "Fontana" hotel, where he intimidated the helpless Dutch UN commander into surrendering Muslim civilians.
Njambe pointed out that the general was hospitable, offering the attendees cigarettes, beer and sandwiches.
She assessed that Mladić was kind to Muslims and not threatening at the time when the "evacuation" of civilians was planned.
"The fact that some were afraid of him at those meetings is not surprising to me considering that Mladić was a well-known general with a dominant role in a situation of great uncertainty," she wrote.
Iva Vukušić, a historian from the University of Utrecht and an expert on war crimes trials, said that a unanimous verdict would be significant for the survivors.
She believes that the fact that the presiding judge did not agree with the essence of what happened weakened the verdict.
"In that case, the nationalists will be able to say: 'Well, they convicted him, but even the presiding judge doesn't believe it'".
Serge Bramertz, chief prosecutor of the International Mechanism for Criminal Courts, said he had expected a contrary opinion from Judge Niyamba, given the views she had expressed in previous trials.
However, he added: "What is important today is that the vast majority of judges supported the first-instance verdict and completely rejected the defense's appeal.
Munira Subašić from the "Mothers of Srebrenica" association said that the confirmation of the life sentence is a victory for all the mothers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whether they are Serbs, Bosniaks or Croats.
"Every mother suffers," Subasic told "The Guardian".
Regarding the role of Judge Niyamba, she says: “I know that men can be rude sometimes, but now I see that women can be too. Today I heard the words of a woman - I don't know if she is a mother - who had so many opposing opinions, despite the whole world knowing what happened there. I wondered if it was possible for a woman to show so much incomprehension".
Bramertz, a Belgian lawyer and chief prosecutor of the court since 2008, reflected on the overall work of the tribunal, which was established by the UN Security Council in 1993, when few believed it would fulfill its task.
"An important chapter is ending. "When I started here in 2008, nobody was optimistic that Mladic and Karadzic would ever be arrested, and we didn't even mention that they would be convicted."
"I am sure that we have done more than meet expectations. Could it have been better? Of course, always. However, I am absolutely convinced that justice in the former Yugoslavia, and in the world, would not be where it is if the Hague Court had not been established".
Bonus video:
