Enjoy Hell RAT-KO!
The photograph was taken from the stands of the Dar El Beida Stadium in Algiers. On September 19, 2026, during Nasr Hussein Dey’s match against Chabab Taghit in the opening round of Algeria’s National Amateur Division 2 championship, the supporters’ group Ultra Dey Boys unveiled a tifo carrying a sentence in English: “Enjoy hell, Rat-Ko!”
The phrase was built around a deliberate linguistic game with Ratko Mladic’s own name. The group split “RAT” from “KO,” turning the first half into the English word for a rodent, while the second evokes knockout.
According to the Algerian press, the Nasr Hussein Dey supporters’ tifo was a response to the displays commemorating Mladic that had appeared in the stands of several Serbian football clubs following his death on August 27, 2026.
But why?
In the first-instance judgment delivered on November 22, 2017, by Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Ratko Mladic, the former Chief of the Main Staff of the Bosnian Serb Army, was convicted of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, and sentenced to life imprisonment. In its press release, the Chamber stated that Mladic had been convicted of genocide, persecution, extermination, murder, and the inhumane act of forcible transfer in the Srebrenica area in 1995, as well as similar crimes committed in other municipalities across Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Chamber concluded that Mladic had committed these crimes through his participation in, and contribution to, four joint criminal enterprises: the overarching enterprise, the Sarajevo enterprise, the Srebrenica enterprise, and the hostage-taking enterprise.
When the judgment was handed down, Judge Alphons Orie, the presiding judge of the Trial Chamber, stated that the Chamber had found the accused to have made a significant contribution to the common criminal objective in Srebrenica through the commission of genocide, persecution, extermination, murder, and the inhumane act of forcible transfer. Judge Orie ended the sentencing with a sentence almost brutally spare in its simplicity:
“For these crimes, the Chamber sentences Mr. Ratko Mladic to life imprisonment.”
The year the judgment was delivered, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, then UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, described Mladic as the “epitome of evil,” calling his trial an “epitome of what international justice stands for.” The language was rhetorical, certainly, but it also captured something symbolic about what the trial was meant to accomplish: to move the Bosnian war from the realm of contested memory into the colder, harder territory of a judicial record built on evidence. The trial lasted more than 530 hearing days, heard from nearly 600 witnesses, and relied on approximately 10,000 evidentiary exhibits.
On July 11, 1995, Srebrenica fell.
At first, it might have seemed like another day in the Bosnian War, which had already entered its fourth year. Instead, it would become one of the dates around which contemporary European history still seems to bend. Srebrenica, in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina, had been declared a UN “safe area” in April 1993, an attempt to carve out a pocket of protection for civilians who had fled there after years of violence and displacement.
Since the outbreak of war in 1992, the region had become a refuge for large numbers of Bosniaks fleeing other parts of the country. As the war and siege dragged on, civilians and displaced people were compressed into an increasingly crowded space, while food, medicine, fuel, and other basic necessities became scarce. In response, the United Nations Security Council decided in April 1993 to establish what became known as the “safe areas,” with Srebrenica among them.
The idea was simple enough on paper, create a protected civilian space inside a war in which the distinction between battlefield and civilian territory had become increasingly meaningless. But declaring a place “safe” did not automatically give it the military force required to make it so. Srebrenica therefore remained exposed to pressure from Bosnian Serb forces despite the protection promised by the international community.
By 1995, Srebrenica had become a Bosniak enclave surrounded by territory controlled by those forces. On March 8 of that year, Radovan Karadzic issued Directive №7, calling for conditions that would make life in Srebrenica and Zepa unbearable. Its objective was expressed with a chilling directness:
“Create an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival or life for the inhabitants of Srebrenica.”
The sentence matters not because it alone proves what would happen months later, but because it offers something rare in the study of mass atrocities: words coming from the leadership itself, words that can be placed beside the events that followed.
In early July, Bosnian Serb forces launched Operation Krivaja 95. At the time, Mladic was Chief of the Main Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska, a position he had held since May 1992 and would retain until at least November 1996. His connection to Srebrenica was therefore not that of a distant political figure, but of a military commander operating at the highest level of the chain of command responsible for the forces carrying out the operation.
On July 11, those forces entered the town. In front of the cameras, Mladic declared that they were in “Serbian Srebrenica” and that the time had come to take revenge on the “Turks” in the area, a statement the ICTY documented among the evidence it examined concerning the fall of the city. And the use of the word “revenge” reveals how the event was framed in the discourse of some Bosnian Serb military leaders themselves, as an act imbued with historical, ethnic, and retaliatory significance.
After the fall of the city, tens of thousands of civilians gathered in Potocari, where a base belonging to the Dutch UN peacekeeping forces was located. At the same time, thousands of men and boys attempted to reach territory controlled by the Bosnian government by moving through the forests, in what would later become known as the “March of Death.”
The two groups did not meet the same fate.
Get Scriptor’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
In Potocari, men and boys were separated from women, children, and the elderly. Many were transported to different detention sites before mass executions began and continued over the following days. At the same time, tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people were forcibly transferred out of the area. According to the United Nations, more than 8,000 Bosniak Muslim men and boys were systematically killed, while tens of thousands of women, children, and elderly people were forced to leave the region.
And this is where the victims themselves deserve to come back into focus.
The “eight thousand” were not an anonymous mass. Nor were all of those killed combatants. In the case of Radislav Krstic, which became one of the most consequential cases in the legal history of Srebrenica, the court examined the nature of the group being targeted. The evidence included boys, elderly men, and people whose involvement in combat was unlikely. The victims therefore could not simply be reduced to the category of “military-aged men.” Their targeting was tied to their identity as part of the Bosniak population of Srebrenica, not merely to their military status.
In its 2004 appellate judgment in the Krstic case, the court confirmed that genocide had been committed in Srebrenica in 1995, stating that Bosnian Serb forces had, “in seeking to eliminate a part of the Bosnian Muslims,” committed genocide.
This is where the distinction between massacre and genocide becomes more than a matter of terminology.
Under international criminal law, genocide requires a protected national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, the commission of one of the acts defined by law against members of that group, such as killing, causing serious bodily or mental harm, deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group’s physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births, or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group, and crucially, the specific intent to destroy that group, in whole or in part, as such.
That final element is known as specific intent (dolus specialis). It is the hinge on which the legal distinction turns: genocide is not simply mass killing, persecution, or forced displacement on a vast scale. It requires the intention to destroy a protected group, in whole or in part, precisely because it is that group.
The killings themselves were dispersed across multiple locations, a geographical spread that required a considerable degree of coordination: buses to transport detainees, units to guard them, detention sites, personnel to carry out executions, and equipment to excavate graves. Organization and the chain of command therefore became central to the evidence examined by international courts as they attempted to answer questions that are both simple and enormous: How could killings on this scale be carried out in such a short period? Who knew? And who supplied the people and resources necessary to make them possible?
Then came the attempt to erase the evidence.
After the victims were initially buried in mass graves, large numbers of bodies were exhumed, moved to other locations, and buried again. The result was what forensic investigators describe as “secondary and tertiary graves,” scattering the remains of some victims across several geographical sites. The United Nations documented these reburials as part of a systematic effort to conceal evidence of the killings.
From a sociological perspective, however, the disappearance of a victim was never a single moment that could simply be placed on a calendar. For families, it became a long and brutal sequence: disappearance, searching, years of waiting, the discovery of incomplete remains, and finally attempts at identification through DNA. In this sense, forensic science became an epistemological mediator between death and collective memory.
The judgment against Mladic is also more complicated than the simplified version of the case that often survives in media accounts. He was convicted of genocide in relation to Srebrenica, but the Trial Chamber acquitted him of the genocide charge concerning crimes committed in a number of Bosnian municipalities in 1992. The Chamber found that the perpetrators of those crimes had not possessed the intent to destroy the two protected groups (Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats). On June 8, 2021, the Appeals Chamber of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals upheld this distinction, affirming his genocide conviction in Srebrenica while maintaining his acquittal on the first count concerning the other municipalities.
International law experts have commented on this aspect of the judgment as particularly contentious. Some argue that upholding the acquittal on this charge at the appellate level “threatens to undermine the meaning and scope of the crime of genocide.” This disagreement among legal scholars illustrates that judicial judgments, despite their formal finality, can remain the subject of sustained academic and legal debate.
This precise distinction between the different municipalities also exposes the fundamental difference between historical and legal approaches to the past. History may establish the existence of a war and the scale of killing, displacement, and persecution. A court, however, works within a much narrower architecture. Each charge must be proven according to its own legal elements, and each event must be connected to the accused according to the criminal standard of proof: beyond a reasonable doubt.
The commemoration of Ratko Mladic on the day of his death and in the days that followed was not an act carried out by Serbian society as a whole. It came primarily from far-right nationalist circles, football supporter groups known as ultras, and individuals who regard Mladic as a symbol of Serbian nationalism during the wars that accompanied the breakup of Yugoslavia. For these groups, Mladic is invoked as a military commander who, in their narrative, defended Serbs in Bosnia. The phenomenon is particularly visible in football stadiums, where ultra groups have a long history of intertwining fandom with nationalism and politics.
On September 6, 2026, during the Belgrade derby between Red Star and Partizan, Red Star supporters unveiled a huge tifo depicting Mladic alongside the words “The Road to Potocari,” a direct reference to Srebrenica. Supporters of both clubs also chanted his name, and a minute of silence was observed in his memory. Days earlier, the Grobari, the Partizan supporters’ group, had displayed a banner reading “General, thank you,” while a flag bearing Mladic’s image remained raised in the stands throughout the club’s match against OFK Beograd.
None of this began in 2026. Red Star supporters had previously displayed messages supporting Mladic during European matches, while pro-Mladic chants by Partizan supporters had also been documented at earlier games. In Red Star’s case, the displays eventually resulted in European sanctions, UEFA fined the club over a banner glorifying Mladic and imposed a punishment preventing its supporters from attending two European away matches.
And so, a few days later, came the Algerian tifo.
Perhaps the stands cannot change history.
But they can tell us, loudly (sometimes obscenely loudly) which version of history people are still trying to write again.
