Either the siege of Sarajevo was a deliberate attempt to terrorise and subvert a legitimately elected government of an internationally recognised state, or it was a legitimate pre-emptive defence by the Serbs of their homeland from Muslim attack. It cannot be both. Nor is an acknowledgement of shared suffering equivalent to shared truth. It is relatively easy for both sides to acknowledge each other's pain. Much more difficult, usually impossible in fact, is shared acknowledgement of who bears the lion's share of responsibility.
Aggressors have their own defence against truth, but so do victims.
Peoples who believe themselves to be victims of aggression have an understandable incapacity to believe that they also committed atrocities. Myths of innocence and victimhood are a powerful obstacle in the way of confronting unwelcome facts. It is open to question whether justice or truth actually heals. While it is an article of faith with us that knowledge, particularly self-knowledge, is a condition of psychic health, all societies, including our own, manage to function with only the most precarious purchase on the truth of their own past. A society like Serbia, which allows well-established war criminals to hold public office and prevents them from being extradited to face international tribunals, may be a distasteful place to visit but it is not necessarily a sick society.