Gerstein: Genocide denial is a security and political risk for the future of society

Gerstein, who is participating in the International Scientific Conference ''Srebrenica 1995: The Culmination of Genocide and Aggression Against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina'' in Sarajevo with a presentation on the topic ''Preventive Memory Laws: The Case Study of Bosnia and Herzegovina'', told FENA that he uses this term to describe the role of memory laws in societies where mass crimes, especially genocide, remain fundamentally connected to the present.

''Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a state in which genocide and its victims remain a fundamental aspect of national identity, and where tensions and ideological formations from the conflict are still largely present, represents a useful case for this analysis,'' Gerstein said.

Speaking about laws banning genocide denial, Gerstein emphasized that they are not meant solely for punishment but are based on the concept of militant democracy—the idea that certain restrictions on democratic freedoms may be necessary to preserve the democratic order of the state.

''The idea behind criminal bans on genocide denial is to prevent the re-emergence of ideologies and speech that indicate the future possibility of genocide and promote dehumanization. In that sense, they use a punitive framework in pursuit of a preventive or prophylactic outcome,'' Gerstein said.

He stressed that legal mechanisms alone have limited capacity to eliminate genocide denial, especially in a society where it remains present in political and public discourse.

''The responsibility lies with all parts of society to embrace a transitional justice program that goes beyond the past,'' Gerstein stated.

Commenting on amendments to the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina that prohibit genocide denial and the glorification of war criminals, Gerstein said they have so far been rarely enforced and therefore have limited practical legal significance.

''The limited implementation of the law is a result of both limited prosecutorial will and inherent limitations in the content of the law itself. Although the law has acted as a deterrent for some, denial and glorification continue to spread,'' he said.

Responding to claims by opponents of such laws that they restrict freedom of speech, Gerstein noted that the European Court of Human Rights has clearly established that certain forms of speech are not protected because they infringe upon other fundamental rights.