The office of judge Orie is filled to the ceiling, his desk full of dossiers and files. The bookcases are groaning. A painted portrait of the only Dutch judge at the international court crowns the top of the bookcase. Without hesitation Orie climbs on a stool to check the name of the artist.

„A bit disorganised,” some of his acquaintances remarked about Orie in the media in recent years. „That’s right,” smiles the judge, looking around his office, „but it could be worse.”

Things have been made quite comfortable for you. You have an international career, yet you stay at your own home here in The Hague.

„Indeed. The environment I work in is undoubtedly international. Some of my colleagues are only allowed to go home at weekends. Others come from so far that even that is not possible. So I miss out on all that hassle.”

Would all that hassle be worth it for you?

„I think that you make that decision as a family. If you still have children at school, working abroad seems a lot less convenient to me. I am glad that I don’t have to make that choice.”

You are dealing with international criminal law here. What is the added value over national criminal law?

„Law at a national level no longer functioned in the former Yugoslavia. But this has improved in the meantime. We have therefore sent some cases back. But without this tribunal, there would have been no legal proceedings at all against war criminals at the start. So that is the added value.

International criminal law is intended for situations where a government barely functions or may even be a party in a conflict where justice has to be dispensed. For a start, the need for impartial judges already presents a problem.

For proper justice you need rest and distance from the situation. If this is not possible at a national level, then we hope it will be internationally.”

Are there any arguments for just keeping justice in a national context?

„Yes, a country can then come to terms with things. This can be achieved by means of a truth and reconciliation commission, as in South Africa. But anything like that was not that simple at the start in Yugoslavia.

Bosnia now uses a mixture of national and international law by supplementing domestic judges with foreign ones. This gives you the best of both worlds of course.”

What do you make of the criticism that international justice is slow and expensive?

„That’s why only the most prominent suspects are brought to justice here while the rest are dealt with in the former Yugoslavia. When I was still an attorney, I was involved in the first case before this tribunal, which was against the reservist policeman Tadic. At a later stage he would not have appeared here in view of his position.

On the other hand you have to ask the question: Where else could Milosevic have been tried but here? In Bosnia, in Serbia or in Croatia?

Our tribunal ultimately revolves around one thing, namely putting a stop to impunity. In the old days murderous dictators and their henchmen often got off scot-free. The international criminal justice system ensures that this no longer happens.”

In 2008 you found the Kosovar Albanian Haradinaj not guilty. How easy is it to clear such a suspect?

„Well, I don’t have much time for justice which only ends in a conviction. The strength of the charge only comes out during the proceedings. The charge is drawn up without the accused’s defence. The evidence has to be produced during the hearings. If the evidence is not convincing, acquittal and release must follow.”

You will very soon preside over the Mladic trial. Can you imagine his being acquitted?

„The question of a conviction or acquittal will only follow at the end of the proceedings. Apart from that I will not respond to questions about specific cases.”

Why not?

„I cannot express a provisional private opinion on matters in which I and my colleagues are professionally involved. I consider that contrary to the rules of my profession.”

Back to the question then: The judges in this court have a thorough look at the charges beforehand. Moreover, the accused are indicted for the most horrendous acts. It seems strange that they can be acquitted.

„Well, even if the indictment is entirely correct, you still have to prove that the accused is the person identified in the indictment. There have been cases of mistaken identity.

When I was an attorney I assisted people who were acquitted of terrible acts simply because there was no evidence. Although I was not convinced of their innocence at times, I still supported their acquittal. If you were to convict people without evidence today then you would convict innocent people tomorrow.

However, as a judge one has very little direct contact with the accused. I have to look at cases from a purely professional point of view. The judge has a social role. Whether I personally detest the accused or feel sorry for him is entirely secondary in my role. I cannot pass judgement in anger. I have to weigh the burden of proof rationally. This is what is demanded from an impartial judge.”

How can you remain rational when you constantly hear about genocide and mass rape?

„I am entirely aware of the seriousness of these events. As an attorney I sometimes saw files which made me feel that I don’t want to see colour photographs of this – black and white is already bad enough.”

Some fathers talk at the dinner table about what they did that day. Do you?

„No. Not because I never say anything, but because I only bring home a limited amount of work. After a heated session I am quite happy to read a book or watch a football match in the evening. I don’t lose any sleep about it. If it bothered me, I wouldn’t be doing my job properly.

Still, I have not been desensitised to these atrocities. For example I remember from my time as a lawyer that I had to deal with a family who experienced three cases of manslaughter in a short period of time. Then again I dealt with a mother who had lost a child while she was also the offender’s mother. These matters affect you deeply, but I don’t feel any need to tell my children about them.”

How do these atrocities fit into your concept of humanity?

„I do not consider that war criminals are by definition notoriously bad people. Sometimes their crimes are only one aspect of their existence, not their entire life.

These people are nevertheless capable of caring for their environment. I used to see this with swindlers. A human being is therefore not only good or only bad.”

Does that idea of a human being bother you?

„Oh yes, even outside my profession. But there is a risk here I think. If I were to become convinced that humanity is bad, should I then be particularly nice to the victims? Or precisely not, because they have also committed crimes? This idea doesn’t help me.”

Your three first names betray your Roman Catholic background. Does this affect your work?

„Perhaps it does. At home we were taught that we had a task to fulfil in society. Our parents probably drew that sense of responsibility from their Christian faith, although it may also have something to do with the fact that they were both medical doctors. Other people have learnt this sense of responsibility from socialism.

The church did bring me into close contact with music, which still plays an important part in my life. But at the moment I do not practise any religion. Whether that will change, I don’t know.”

The tribunal has about 25 judges. Is there a pecking order as regards who gets the big cases?

„Absolutely not. The president of the court allocates the cases. He looks only at the availability. This works entirely satisfactorily.

I have been here for ten years now. During this time I have only dealt with cases in the court of first instance. I have never sat in the court of appeal. This demonstrates confidence in the way I run hearings. There are only a few hearings in appeal cases.”

Can you lobby to get interesting cases?

Looking surprised: „Oh, I’ve never seen anyone do that. Every now and then I had wildly interesting cases in the Netherlands Supreme Court. You will have to take my word for it: it makes no difference to me which case I deal with. The profession itself is my concern.”

Your performance was broadcast live when Karadzic and Mladic had their appearance before the court. Does that affect you?

„No. Yugoslav television continually broadcasts summaries of our sessions. It makes little difference to our daily routine whether it is on Dutch TV or not. These court appearances follow the same procedure.

Sometimes you get a reaction from someone in your circle: ‘I saw you on television last night.’ That’s about it.”

People in the judiciary have a reputation for being vain. Are you?

„Ah well, who is entirely without vanity? Nonetheless, I’m not one of those people who are really vain. Perhaps more so in music. I sing in a choir. In that situation I think it’s important how I come across.

If I had been vain I would have stuck to being a lawyer. I would never have moved to the Supreme Court. Nobody in the Netherlands knows who sits on the Supreme Court. These people never appear in the news. At best your friends and family can say that you have a ‘good job’ and that’s about it.”

So how come that you created that leaflet for your election to this tribunal in 2001?

Sharply: „That had nothing to do with vanity. The system requires that judges are elected by the General Assembly of the United Nations. I had noticed that some candidates had produced a handout. I thought I could do better and made a flyer with colour photographs. Because it is likely that the diplomats in New York have no time to read everything I emphasised my experience in that pamphlet, namely as a judge at the highest level and as a lawyer in this tribunal. That is absolutely professional and has nothing to do with vanity.”

Did you have the ambition to do this kind of work when you were eighteen?

„This court did not exist then, but quite soon after my graduation I became interested in international criminal law. I wrote one of the first books in Dutch on this subject in 1980.”

You were born and bred in the northern province of Groningen but your accent sounds urban west-Dutch.

„My parents did not come from Groningen but from Amsterdam and Brabant. They only came to Groningen in 1946. Two of the seven children in our family still live there. Little by little they have acquired a Groningen accent.”

When you have finished the current cases here, including the case against Mladic, you will be entitled to a pension. Do you have any plans for the future?

„First of all to spend a lot more time on personal matters such as my children and grandchildren. For the past ten years I have had little time for travel and holidays. I may also do some work as a visiting professor.”

Career of Alphons Orie

Mr. Alphons Martinus Maria Orie was born in Groningen in 1947. He read law at the University of Leiden where he lectured for a few years after graduating in 1971. He was a lawyer at the practice of Wladimiroff & Spong in The Hague from 1980 to 1997. In this capacity he defended Dusko Tadic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

In 1997 he became a judge at the Netherlands Supreme Court (Hoge Raad). He was elected as the Dutch judge to the Tribunal in The Hague in 2001.

Orie grew up with church music. He followed this ambition later as a baritone soloist as well as a chorister.

Orie is married and is the father of four sons.