Gwynn MacCarrick's article was pretty clear, and I join her obvious sentiment that such trials ought not be sheilding criminals from justice.
I would offer a soft critisism of the article itself. It could have been briefer, more compressed. Excessive words did not make Gwynn's points more correct, but thay did reinforce the lay-view that legal argument can be too drawn out, and isn't that one of Gwynn's concern's?

Gwynn MacCarrick's (Milosevic Trial) article was pretty clear, and I join her obvious sentiment that such trials ought not be sheilding criminals from justice.
I would offer a soft critisism of the article itself. It could have been briefer, more compressed. Excessive words did not make Gwynn's points more correct, but thay did reinforce the lay-view that legal argument can be too drawn out, and isn't that one of Gwynn's concern's?

Hendo agree completely with what you have said. But with Gwynn being a lawyer there are years of un-learning to do.

Apart from the wordiness (toward the end I skimmed) the Article was good. One thing not really touched on was when these international courts start being abused by people serving interests beyond pure justice. Then the length of these trials could be compounded by number of actions. As shown by history no doubt this process will be abused.