Statements and reactions.

1. Ramsey Clark, ICDSM Co-Chairman

Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General and Co-Chairman of the
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) has made this
afternoon the following statement:
============================================================

            Under International Law, every person accused of a crime has the
right to represent himself in person in the court adjudicating his case.
Slobodan Milosevic is no exception. The Trial Chamber of the International
Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia has destroyed its last claim to
legality by attempting to deprive the former President of Yugoslavia of this
fundamental human right.

            The appearance of President Milosevic representing himself alone
during the prosecution case for over 2 years, nearly 300 trial days, cross
examining nearly 300 prosecution witnesses, coping with 500,000 documents,
and 30,000 pages of trial transcript then at the very beginning of his
presentation of his own defense being silenced and lawyers he rejects placed
in charge of his destiny, speaks of injustice.

            President Milosevic vigorously presented his opening statement
of his own defense in person for two days on August 31 and September 1, 2004
immediately before the Trial Chamber decided he "is not fit enough to
represent himself". He was apparently "fit enough" to perform that task. If
the time comes when credible doctors, including his own, find that a slower
pace is required to protect his health, or that further effort by him at
that time may impair his health, then the only permissible course is to
follow a schedule that honors his right to defend himself in person and
protects his ability to do so. Life, truth and justice are more important
than the schedules of courts, or railroads.

            The very lawyers appointed by the Trial Chamber have a direct
conflict of interest. They have served by appointment of the court as
"friends of the Court". You cannot serve two masters. Having served as
friend of the Court, that same counsel selected by the Court to represent
President Milosevic cannot ethically serve as his counsel.

            No lawyer who might be appointed to represent President
Milosevic has interviewed his witnesses, knows the testimony they can give,
what questions to ask them, or what their answers might be. Professional
preparation - and this is no ordinary case - would require months.

            The Trial Chamber must abandon this travesty and do its duty
consistent with the health of the accused to faithfully, competently,
independently and impartially hear the evidence, find the facts and apply
the law.


Ramsey Clark
                                                                        New York

September 2, 2004

2. Klaus Hartmann, ICDSM Vice-Chairman

From the German daily "junge Welt", September 3rd, 2004
URL of the original: http://www.jungewelt.de/2004/09-03/015.php

SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC TRIAL:
MEDICAL ARGUMENTS AS A PRETEXT FOR AN EXPEDITIOUS GUILTY VERDICT?

"junge Welt" spoke with Klaus Hartmann, Chairman of the German Freethinker
Association and vice president of the International Committee for Defending
Slobodan Milosevic

Q: Arguing that it has problems with its schedule, the Hague Tribunal
decreed, that former Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, will no longer
be allowed to conduct his own defence. Do the judges now want to seek a
expeditious guilty verdict?

A: The tribunal wants to allot Milosevic only 150 days to present his
defence case, which, in comparison to the almost 300 days for the
prosecution's case, indeed leads one to think, of an expeditious guilty
verdict. This is a clear violation of the internationally recognised legal
principle of equality of means between the prosecution and the defence.
Another fundamental right of the accused is violated by assigning him legal
counsel, against his will. The right to defend oneself is such; that not
even the Nazis questioned it during the Reichstag's fire trial against
Georgi Dimitroff. Neither did the South African Apartheid racists, in their
trial against Nelson Mandela.

Q: Doesn't this decision also violate even the regulations of the tribunal
itself?

A: Absolutely. The "rules of procedure" established by the tribunal, itself,
provide for the undeniable right of the accused to assume his own defence.
The precedents of exception, cited by the prosecution, refer to cases where
the accused was not in a position to be able to understand the proceedings
taking place. Here we have the opposite situation: the defendant dwarfs with
his intelligence the intelligence of the judges on the bench and the
prosecution.

Q: But aren't the medical arguments to be taken seriously?

A: They are pretexts. For three years, nobody cared about the health of
Milosevic. Only now, as he is about to call his own witnesses, the concern
for his health is taken as pretext to deprive him of his fundamental rights.
Milosevic, himself, said that this is the panic reaction of the prosecution,
because they will now soon have to hear the truth out of the witnesses'
mouths.

Q: You were recently present at the trial in The Hague. What impression did
Milosevic make on you?

A: His morale as a fighter is undaunted - which  may have been the reason
why the tribunal and the prosecution decided to resort to these illegal
measures. Milosevic, himself, said that he has the privilege of having the
most important ally on his side: the truth. And that is exactly what the
representatives of this criminal enterprise fear most.

This was indirectly confirmed by the prosecution: "If Milosevic defends
himself," they said, "there is the risk that he, himself, will prepare his
witnesses." This is an attempt at outright political censorship, such as one
would have expected in the Nazi "Volksgerichtshof" under Roland Freisler.

The prosecutor also referred to Milosevic describing the tribunal as
illegal. "It would be unacceptable," he said, "if Milosevic calls his
witnesses, telling them, 'and now please tell this illegal body what you
know.'"

Questions: Peter Wolter

3. Professor Aldo Bernardini, member of the ICDSM Board

PROTEST

Rome, 3 September 2004

As a modest scholar of international law I am totally horrified in front of
the last steps by the Hague "Tribunal" (Judges and Prosecution) in re
Milosevic.

The imposition of a counsel on President Slobodan Milosevic is an act of
brutal violence which demonstrates only the "Tribunal's" disarray and
impossibility to counter Slobodan Milosevic's arguments. The way to continue
and conclude its "job" with the preordained conviction is to silence
President Milosevic.

An illegal "Tribunal", created by U.N. Security Council with an arbitrary
and dictatorial interpretation of the Charter; a monstrous indictment
founded on an artificial construction aberrantly basing on presumption
outside the provisions of the ICTY Statute and contrary to the fundamental
principle nullum crimen sine lege, to general principles of criminal law in
every country, to human rights in the matter and to the rule of strict
interpretation in criminal law: honourable "judges" in such a context should
at least abide by "their" Statute, the ICTY Statute. They should know that
no analogy or more than broad interpretation is allowed: in claris non fit
interpretatio, no (own) interpretation is permitted where the letter of the
law is clear. Art. 21, par. 4, of the ICTY Statute expressly declares that
the accused "shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees. d) to be
tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal
assistance of his own choice". This formulation is clear and does not allow
any deviation or exception. The "Tribunal" may not substitute for the
accused neither in choosing between "defence by himself" or defence through
legal assistants nor in choosing such assistants.

The imposition by ICTY is the utmost aberration and the conclusive evidence
of the political and arbitrary character of the ICTY and of the whole
Milosevic trial (and of the other trials too).

No honourable lawyers should cooperate with that enormity. U.N. Security
Council should condemn the operation but best of all do away with the "Hague
Tribunal".

I protest with my full strength against this perversion of every juridical
concept, of every sound idea of the rule of law, of the most fundamental
human rights of President Milosevic.
History will judge ICTY and its operations through continually judge-made
law in the same manner as the perverted legal conception of the Nazis.

Professor Aldo Bernardini

4. Tiphaine Dickson, ICDSM Lawyer and Legal Spokesperson 

The Hague ICTY Tribunal: Star Chamber it Is!
================================
by Tiphaine Dickson

www.globalresearch.ca  6  September 2004

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC409A.html

Nelson Mandela, charged with being a terrorist and a communist, defended
himself in the infamous Rivonia trials of the 1960's. From the dock Mandela
issued a searing denunciation of the South African regime which would
inspire worldwide mobilization in the struggle against Apartheid.

Slobodan Milosevic will not enjoy the right to self-representation afforded
to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid judiciary, since the ICTY has decided to
impose a defence counsel on him against his will. The imposed counsel will
be entirely responsible for presenting a defence - not Milosevic's
defence -but a respectful, courteous, and ingratiating defence, one mindful
of the ICTY's dignity, image and reputation. This in contrast to Slobodan
Milosevic's principled non-recognition of the ICTY as a legal body. This
foreign defence will be devised and introduced without the instructions of
the accused and against his will by two British lawyers who had previously
been assigned by the institution to act as amici curiae or "friends of the
court". Their apparent conflict of interest - known in the UK as
"professional embarrassment" - which they had themselves raised a mere two
weeks ago when strenuously objecting to imposition of counsel, was
overlooked without comment as they accepted their new appointments.

While South Africa's Apartheid-era judiciary dared not take such a radical
step against Mandela, a UN court has shown no hesitation to violate this
most fundamental of fundamental rights: an accused's defence is his own, and
his right to counsel is a right, to be employed if desired, but not to be
inflicted upon him, against his will, by a court, or by the state. It is
evident that in light of these conditions that it can no longer be called a
right, but an imposition, an infringement, and a violation.

The US Supreme Court recognized the inherent injustice of the imposition of
counsel against the will of a defendant in Faretta v. California, written in
1975. The Justices pointed out that imposition of counsel had been the
province of the infamous Star Chamber, a political court of mixed judicial
and executive nature, which flourished in England in the late 16th and early
17th century. Imposition of counsel, stated the Supreme Court, has been
abandoned as a practice since then.

Today a UN body has steered the future of international law back to those
dark times, and confirmed the accuracy of Slobodan Milosevic's charge that
the ICTY is an illegal body, established in contravention of the provisions
of the UN's own Charter.

Over 90 lawyers and law professors from 17 different countries filed a
petition with the UN Security Council weeks ago warning it and member states
that the envisaged imposition of counsel violated international law. Mr.
Milosevic was not permitted to read from the petition last Wednesday. (See
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm )
During the ICTY's "administrative session" held to debate whether counsel
should be imposed - (the Chamber pointedly used of the term "assignment"
rather than "imposition"), the Chamber stated its concern that Mr
Milosevic's medical condition - malignant hypertension - would render him
unfit to defend himself. This assertion was based on medical reports
submitted by ICTY-appointed cardiologists, without the defendant being
granted the right to obtain a second opinion, and in spite of the fact that
physicians aren't really qualified to determine who is fit to represent him
or herself.

Milosevic has represented himself very ably for three years and has suffered
from hypertension for ten. Yet it is only now that the issue of the fitness
of Milosevic to act as his own counsel has acquired urgency. Only now, that
is, on the eve of his defence presentation - one which he has announced
would establish that the "Balkan Wars" were in fact one war, against
Yugoslavia, and whose apotheosis was NATO's gruesome 78-day bombing campaign
in 1999.

Throughout the administrative hearing, submissions were made by the
Prosecution, the amici (who would go on to become the counsel assigned to
Mr. Milosevic against his will) and the Chamber as to the role that could be
played by an assigned counsel. Their consensus appeared to be that a lawyer,
if imposed, would only be required on those occasions when the defendant
would be too ill to carry on the burden of courtroom work. In the result,
the Chamber not only assigned counsel, but imposed the amici - who have
acted since the beginning of the proceedings in the service of the Chamber -
and instructed them to take over the defence.

Among the "duties" the ICTY has instructed the former amici to carry out are
the determination of how the case is to be presented, the preparation and
examination of witnesses they deem appropriate, the duty to "endeavour" to
obtain the defendant's instructions, and to "take into account his views
while retaining the right to determine what course to follow." Assigned
defence counsel, it seems, have rights, while the accused merely has
"views", which can be taken into account by counsel he objects to and
refuses to instruct.

This is not a credible framework for the accused's defence. And it points up
once again that this process is not a trial. This is, rather, as reknowned
Canadian trial lawyer Edward Greenspan presciently observed at the
beginning, "a lynching."

Much was made by the Prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic's conduct, his lack
of respect for the ICTY, "the interests of justice", and Milosevic's failure
to observe "etiquette," to quote lead prosecutor Geoffrey Nice. The rulings
handed down by the ICTY this past week have done far more harm to the
interests of justice than Mr. Milosevic's legally accurate criticisms of the
ICTY could ever do. For half a century, legal scholars have struggled to
establish a truly democratic permanent international criminal court.
Although the ICC now formally exists, the US is not a participant. Recent
events make plain that to exempt the United States from jurisdiction over
war crimes renders the whole exercise of international justice, if not
pointless, then profoundly arbitrary and contrary to universally held
notions of equality before the law.

It was a former US State Department lawyer and reputed professor of
international law, Michael P. Scharf, who in last week's Washington Post
publicly appealed for the ICTY to impose counsel upon Slobodan Milosevic,
evoking the fear that future defendants could employ international and
special courts to accuse the US of war crimes such as the invasion of Iraq.
Mr. Milosevic might have been accused of lacking "etiquette," had he, like
Professor Scharf, recalled that the ICTY had been created in 1993 with three
objectives: first, to educate the Serbian people about the crimes committed
by Milosevic; second, to facilitate national reconciliation, by "pinning
prime responsibility on Milosevic" and other top leaders; and third,
to"promote political catharsis" by permitting current Serbian leaders to
"distance themselves" from the policies of the previous governements.

These stated objectives are all transparently political, and geopolitically
motivated. And in order that they be attained, it appears that counsel must
be imposed upon Slobodan Milosevic. He must also be prevented from stating
precisely what Scharf averred with bone-chilling clarity: that the ICTY is a
political court.

Whether international law will recover from the hijacking of Slobodan
Milosevic's defence is open to question. However, the true nature of the
Security Council's ad hoc courts clearly resembles much more the Star
Chamber than the scrupulously fair humanitarian legal body to which the
world has aspired since Nuremberg.
***

==============================
Tiphaine Dickson is a criminal defence lawyer specialized in international
criminal law based in Montréal. She was lead counsel for the defence in one
of the first UN trials prosecuting genocide before the International
Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. She can be reached at
tiphainedickson@videotron.ca
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC409A.html

5. Christopher Black, Vice-Chairman and Chairman of the Legal Committee of the ICDSM

*****************************************************************
An Open Letter
============

The International Criminal Tribunal For Yugoslavia, an association of
criminals which is neither international nor a judicial body, was created
in violation of international law, and in violation of and against the
founding principles of the United Nations Charter. It makes false charges,
arrests and detains without legal authority, and conducts what it calls
"trials" in violation of international law and all national laws and
standards of justice. It serves as a weapon with which the United States
and its allies attempt to destroy the fundamental principle of sovereignty
of nations which is the essential basis of the self-determination of
peoples and democracy for which the Allies of World War II ostensibly
fought the fascists of Germany, Italy and Japan.

Now, the fascists have risen anew and, having seized power in the United
States and among its allies in the other Nato countries, pretend to create
a New World Order in which they alone will decide who lives and who dies,
who is free and who is imprisoned and the economic and social conditions
under which we will all live.

In the name of freedom they create slavery. In the name of justice and
human rights they maim and kill. In the name of international law they
established the rule of ruthless power. In the name of democracy they
destroy democracy. In the name of the people they make a world
dictatorship.

An essentiel part of the dictatorship is the system of unlaw and uncourts
they have created known as the ad hoc criminal tribunals whose sole
purpose is to support the New World Order and destroy any nation or
national leadeship which opposes it.

The uncourts known as the ICTY, its sister, The ICTR for Rwanda, and its
half-sisters for Sierre Leone, Cambodia, and East Timor were established
and are maintained and controlled principally by the United States in
order to demonize those who resist its diktats, to destroy the sovereignty
of those countries and by implication and effect the sovereignty of all
nations except the United States and to act as propaganda machines that
present false histories of the events that took place in those countries,
without exception turning the victims of US aggression into scapegoats and
"criminals" and, to cover up the true role of the United States and its
allies in thoe events.

The ICTY was established with these aims in order to destroy Yugoslavia
and all progressive forces in Yugoslavia and to control the Balkans and
threaten Russia. The ICTR was established to destroy Rwanda as a
progressive African state and to control the immense resources of central
Africa. The hybrid UN-national tribunals for Sierre Leone, Cambodia and
East Timor were similarly created to crush opposition to US and its allies
interest in those regions.

In each case the United States, using its influence in the Security
Council, has created criminal bodies which claim to be courts, which have
officials parading before the public in fancy dress, who have high
sounding titles and a proportionately low moral sense and which have
drafted "Statutes", empty pieces of paper signifying nothing but
purporting to give themselves a legal gloss immediately denied by their
rules of procedure and evidence which are designed to prevent fair trials
and the truth from ever being known.

The supporters of these bodies claim they are acting in accord with
justice, law and humanity. The imposition of counsel on President
Milosevic, an action which could only take place because of the complete
abscence of ethics in the family of lawyers named Kay selected by the
tribunal to silence him and cripple his defence, is the most heinous
action of all of the triumvirate of Nato stooges wearing the red robes of
the Inquisition and who are a self-parody of judges.

The fascist nature of these tribunals is openly revealed. The justice of
the cause of President Milosevic is plain.

The people of the world must recognize that President Milosevic and all
the other prisoners of the New World Order are hostages of that order,
held as an example to us all. The people of the world must act to stop
these injustices from continuing before we all become its victims. The
prisoners of all these ad hoc tribunals must be released. The tribunals
must be shut down. Those who created them must face justice before their
national courts for the war crimes they have committed.  The sovereignty
of nations and international law must be restored. International law will
be restored. Together, the power is in our hands to restore it.

Christopher Black
Vice Chair and Chair, Legal Committee
ICDSM
Arusha, Tanzania
E-Mail: bar@idirect.com

6. ICDSM Letter to the UN

The International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic
        Sofia-New York-Moscow-Belgrade
=======================================================
www.icdsm.org                                               Founded 25 March
2001 in Berlin
Sofia, 3 September 2004                                        Phone/Fax
+381 11 630 549
=======================================================

H. E. Juan Antonio YAÑEZ-BARNUEVO, Permanent Representative of Spain to UN,
President of the UN Security Council in September 2004

H. E. Andrey I. DENISOV, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation
to UN,
President of the UN Security Council in August 2004

Cc: H. E. Kofi ANNAN, Secretary General of the United Nations,
Mr. Theodor MERON, President of ICTY

          Dear Sirs,

          We were shocked by learning about today's Order of the Trial
Chamber III of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
(ICTY) working under auspices of the UN to impose a counsel on President
Slobodan Milosevic against his will.

          The Statute of the ICTY, adopted by the UN Security Council, in
its Article 21, paragraph 4, states that the defendant "shall be entitled to
the following minimum guarantees. d) to be tried in his presence, and to
defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choice",
stipulating by that the fundamental human right of a defendant according to
the International Law.

          We believe that the abovementioned Order (please find its full
text attached) has not been adopted with the consent of the Security Council
and we also believe that the UN Security Council must act without delay in
the case of such blatant violation of one of its Resolutions by its
subsidiary body.

          We remind you of the Petition of over 90 distinguished lawyers and
law professors from 17 countries under the title IMPOSITION OF COUNSEL ON
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC THREATENS THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE LIFE OF THE DEFENDANT, handed last month to the President of the UN Security Council
and sent to other UN organs, warning about the possibility of such decision
by the ICTY and appealing that it should be prevented.

          We would highly appreciate if you inform all the Members of the UN
about our initiative, as well as about the action the UN Security Council
will perform in order to protect its authority, its resolutions,
International Law and dignity of the UN.

          Otherwise, we would be forced to conclude that the ICTY has downed
itself, deleting every claim of its legality.

          On behalf of 155 members of the International Committee to Defend
Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) - scholars, artists, writers and public workers
from all continents,

          Respectfully,

            (signed)
Professor Velko Valkanov, Founder and Co-Chairman of the ICDSM,
President of the Bulgarian Committee for Human Rights

7. Nikolai Ryzhkov, Russian senator, former Soviet Prime Minister

STATEMENT

            The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
(ICTY) at The Hague has decided against the Law to impose a counsel on
former President of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic. It has been done against
the will of Slobodan Milosevic, who more than two years conducts his defense
in person.

            The decision of ICTY severely violates its own Statute, which
(Article 21, paragraph 4) guarantees the right of a defendant to defend
himself in person. It is a generally accepted norm of the International Law
and the fact that the ICTY has committed such most serious violation, raises
the deepest embitterment.

            The assigned counsel has got the right to prepare and examine
witnesses whom he, a lawyer, finds appropriate to invite. In other words,
all the important decisions on strategy and tactics of the defense will be
made not by the defendant, but by the lawyer assigned by the court and whose
impartiality is considered doubtful by the Russian public opinion. Several
legal experts consider that Slobodan Milosevic didn't get an assigned
counsel, but another prosecutor who will only act using other means.

            Slobodan Milosevic invited me to appear as a witness of his
defense. I have planed to travel to The Hague on 13 September 2004. The ICTY
has been informed about my plans.

            However, under the present circumstances, I refuse to appear in
that process.

            As soon as necessary conditions, in accordance to the Statute of
ICTY, will be created, I will be ready to travel to The Hague and to appear
as a witness of the defense of Slobodan Milosevic.

Moscow, 7 September 2004

                        Nikolai Ryzhkov,
Member of the Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly of the
Russian Federation (Senator), President of Council of Ministers of the USSR
1985-1990

8. General Leonid Ivashov, former Head of the International Department of the Russian Army

STATEMENT
===========

I, Leonid Grigor'evich Ivashov, citizen of the Russian Federation, in
response to the invitation of President of the former Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (FRY) Slobodan Milosevic, have agreed to testify for his defense
in the process before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia (ICTY). I have acted that way in full consciousness, aiming to
contribute towards achieving the objectivity and truth on the issues of
Europe and FRY in the period 1997-2000.

For me, the participation in the Hague process was important due to the
following circumstances. First, I was a direct participant of the events
considered. Second, I cannot stay away from the fact that the prosecution
had as its witnesses several persons who were directly preparing and
executing the armed aggression against a sovereign state - the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia and who are responsible for killing of hundreds of
people and violation of the norms of the International Law.

However, the recent decisions of the tribunal have forced me to change my
earlier decision. The ICTY, in violation of its own Statute (Article 21,
point 4) imposes a counsel on Slobodan Milosevic, who was until then
exercising his right to defend himself in person. Among the duties of the
imposed counsel are the ones to determine who will appear as defense
witness, what will be the character of the testimony and its interpretation.
It cannot be considered normal that the counsel imposed against the will of
Slobodan Milosevic is a citizen of the country that has been stepping on the
norms of the International Law, letter and spirit of the UN Charter and
several times performed aggressions against sovereign states, including FR
Yugoslavia.

In such conditions, when my testimony as a defense witness can be used
against Slobodan Milosevic and will not serve the objectivity and adoption
of a just ruling, I refuse to take part in the process.

At the same time, I confirm my readiness to appear in the process as soon as
ICTY creates legally correct and just conditions and respect of norms of the
International Law.

Head of the Main Directorate for International Military Cooperation of the
Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation 1996-2001,
Vice-Chairman of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems,
Doctor of Historical Sciences,
general-colonel (in reserve)
Leonid Ivashov

Moscow, 9 September 2004

9. Yevgeny Primakov, former Russian Prime Minister

STATEMENT

I have learned that the Hague International Tribunal for the
former Yugoslavia deprived former President of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic
of his right to defend himself in person and imposed on him counsels against
his will.
            In my opinion, that is a direct violation of word and spirit of
the International Law. In the emerged circumstances, I am forced to renounce
my decision to testify as a defense witness. As before, I am ready to take
part in the process, but only in the case that Mr. Slobodan Milosevic gets
back his undisputable right to conduct his defense in person.

                                                            Yevgeny Primakov
Moscow,
21 September 2004

10. Michael Parenti, Barry Lituchi, Sara Flounders and Gregory Elich

President Slobodan Milosevic

12 September 2004

Dear President Milosevic,

We, the undersigned, are outraged by the decision of the Hague Tribunal
(ICTY) to impose counsel on you against your will and to deprive you of your lawful
and fundamental right to self-defense.  Although we previously had agreed to
testify in your defense, under these conditions we cannot and will not
participate as witnesses in these proceedings. 
Not only does the Tribunal's decision violate basic legal and ethical norms,
it brazenly disregards its own rules. Under Article 21, paragraph 4 of the
Statute of the ICTY, a defendant is entitled to certain "minimum guarantees,"
including the right "to defend himself in person or though legal assistance of
his own choosing."   The Statute furthermore states that a trial should be
conducted "with full respect for the rights of the accused." We can only comment
that our understanding of the word "guarantee" evidently differs markedly from
that of the Court's.
We can assure you that we remain ready and willing to appear as witnesses in
the event that your right to self defense is restored to you and you choose to
invite us.  We stand united in our belief that the charges against you are
false and that they represent a continuation of the war against Yugoslavia and
the Serbian people by the U.S. and its NATO allies. We are sending a copy of
this letter to the court to inform them of our decision.

Signed,
Gregory Elich
Sara Flounders
Barry Lituchy  
Michael Parenti

cc.:  ICTY Registry, The Hague

11. Patrick Barriot, Yves Bonnet, Eve Crépin, Pierre-Marie Gallois, Gabriel Kaspereit and Jacques Vergès

SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC n’a pas droit à un procès équitable

Patrick Barriot (1), Yves Bonnet (1), Eve Crépin (1), Pierre-Marie Gallois (1), Gabriel Kaspereit (1)  et Jacques Vergès (2)

(1) Témoins cités dans le cadre de la défense de monsieur Slobodan Milosevic

(2) Conseil de monsieur Slobodan Milosevic

Nous soussignés, conseils et témoins de monsieur Slobodan Milosevic, tenons à dénoncer publiquement un procès  contraire à la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme qui affirme dans son article 11 que tout accusé a droit à « un procès public où toutes les garanties nécessaires à sa défense lui auront été assurées »,  et contraire  à l’article 6 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH). En tant que membre permanent du Conseil de sécurité, la France a apporté sa caution à l’établissement du Tribunal Pénal International pour l’ex-Yougoslavie (TPIY) et tout citoyen français a le droit de savoir ce qui se fait en son nom à La Haye.

L’article 6 de la CEDH stipule que toute personne a droit à ce que sa cause soit  entendue équitablement par un tribunal indépendant et impartial, « établi par la loi ». Le Conseil de sécurité, par sa résolution 808 du 22 février 1993, a créé un « tribunal international pour juger les personnes présumées coupables de violations graves du droit humanitaire international commises sur le territoire de l’ex-Yougoslavie depuis 1991 ». Or la Charte des Nations unies ne permet pas au Conseil de sécurité de créer un tribunal pénal international. Seul un traité adopté par l’Assemblée générale et ratifié par les Etats parties pourrait asseoir un tel tribunal sur une base légale. Le TPIY ne peut donc être considéré en l’état comme un tribunal « établi par la loi ».

L’article 6 de la CEDH stipule que tout accusé a droit à disposer du temps et des facilités nécessaires à la préparation de sa défense. La phase d’accusation, qui a duré deux années, a vu défiler près de 300 témoins à charge et le TPIY a mis en œuvre des moyens énormes pour tenter de prouver la culpabilité de Slobodan Milosevic. Les moyens dont dispose l’accusé ne sont bien évidemment pas à la mesure de ceux du TPIY : il ne dispose ni du temps ni des facilités nécessaires à l’organisation de sa défense.

L’article 6 de la CEDH stipule que tout accusé a le droit de se défendre lui-même ou d’avoir l’assistance d’un défenseur de son choix. Ce droit est également affirmé par le statut du TPIY, adopté par le Conseil de sécurité, qui précise au paragraphe 4 de son article 21 que l’accusé a le droit de se défendre lui-même ou par l’intermédiaire d’un avocat de son choix (the right to be tried in his presence and to defend himself in person or though legal assistance of his own choice). Slobodan Milosevic a toujours affirmé clairement sa volonté d’assurer seul sa défense. Au mois de juillet 2004, le TPIY annonçait néanmoins une « révision radicale » de la procédure. Peu de temps après, le TPIY tentait de convaincre maître Branislav Tapuskovic d’assurer la défense de Slobodan Milosevic contre la volonté de l’accusé.   Maître Tapuskovic repoussa  cette offre qui constituait, selon lui, une atteinte intolérable aux droits de la défense. Malgré tout, le 2 septembre 2004, le TPIY désigna de façon autoritaire deux avocats également rejetés par Slobodan Milosevic, Steven Kay et Gillian Higgins, au motif contestable et contesté (y compris au plan médical) que l’état de santé de l’accusé ne lui permettait plus d’assurer sa défense. Nous avons rencontré monsieur Milosevic à La Haye et nous pouvons affirmer qu’il est en mesure de mener à son terme sa propre défense. Une telle modification « radicale » de la  procédure est contraire au droit. La règle démocratique de la séparation des pouvoirs ne permet pas aux tribunaux de fixer eux-mêmes les règles de la procédure qu’ils sont chargés d’appliquer.

L’article 6 de la CEDH stipule que tout accusé a le droit d’interroger ou de faire interroger les témoins à charge et d’obtenir la convocation et l’interrogation des témoins à décharge dans les mêmes conditions que les témoins à charge. Nous tenons à préciser que les témoins français ne se présenteront au TPIY qu’à la demande de monsieur Milosevic et ne répondront publiquement qu’aux questions posées par monsieur Milosevic en personne. Toute requête de Steven Kay ou de Gillian Higgins, qui ne défendent pas les intérêts de monsieur Milosevic mais ceux du tribunal, demeurera sans réponse. En outre, si le TPIY se révèle incapable d’obtenir la convocation d’hommes politiques tels que Tony Blair,  Jacques Chirac ou Bill Clinton, il ne pourra en aucun cas rendre la justice au terme de ce procès.   

De nombreuses voix, dont celles de  Tiphaine Dickson et de Ramsey Clark, se sont élevées dans le monde pour dénoncer ce dévoiement juridique. Plusieurs spécialistes français du droit international consultés par maître Vergès, messieurs les professeurs Adrien-Charles Dana, André Decocq, Roland Drago et Charles Zorgbibe, ont sévèrement critiqué le TPIY. En définitive, le TPIY prétend lutter contre les « violations graves du droit humanitaire international » tout en violant les droits inscrits dans la Déclaration universelle des droits de l’Homme et la Convention européenne des droits de l’Homme. « L’intérêt de la justice » ne saurait en aucun cas  justifier un tel mépris des droits fondamentaux d’un accusé. Il ne suffit pas de couper le micro de monsieur Milosevic, comme le faisait le juge Richard May et comme le fait aujourd’hui le juge Patrick Robinson, pour réduire au silence la voix de la justice. 

12. Ambassador James Bissett

Mr. Bissett’s letter to The Hague Tribunal

Ms. Higgins: This is further to our telephone conversation of Sept.9 [2004] and the question of whether I would be prepared to appear as a witness before the Tribunal on behalf of Mr. Milosevic.

I have decided I do not wish to appear. I have from the outset had serious misgivings about the legitimacy of the Tribunal. The Tribunal's subsequent proceedings have confirmed my fears that it is a political court rather than a judicial body operating in the interests of truth and justice. The most recent decision to impose counsel on Mr. Milosevic provides further evidence of this .

I have not presumed the guilt of Mr. Milosevic and it was for this reason I was earlier prepared to give evidence. Now, however, it would seem the Tribunal has from the beginning already determined his guilt. Unfortunately the proceedings in the Hague have taken on all of the characteristics of a Stalinist "show trial." I do not want to be part of this travesty of justice.

Despite its dubious legality as a Court, the Tribunal did have the blessings of the UN Security Council and the Secretary General. Mr Milosevic was charged with some of the most serious crimes since the Nazi leaders who were tried at Nurnberg at the end of the second world war. It was therefore incumbent upon the Tribunal to get it right; to ensure fairness and "due process." Justice in his case must not only be done but must be seen to be done. I am afraid this is no longer possible. The frightening part is that it now seems evident "justice" was never a consideration of the Tribunal.

Sincerely: J.Bissett

13. George Kenney

September 8, 2004
Washington DC


Mr. Milosevic,

After due consideration I had agreed willingly to be one of your defense witnesses at the ICTY. I believed then and still believe that you are innocent of all the charges in the Tribunal's indictments. Given, however, that the Tribunal has seen fit to take away your fundamental
right to represent yourself in your own defense the proceedings have become inherently unfair, amounting to no more than a political show trial with no authentic legal legitimacy. Your defense, the defense for which I had consulted with you in The Hague, does not now exist.
Consequently I cannot in good conscience act as a 'defense witness' under the Tribunal's current rules. Should the Tribunal reverse itself and allow you to conduct your own defense once more then I would again willingly agree to be your witness.

Sincerely,

George Kenney

14. Sloboda/Freedom Association

******************************************************************
1. To the Serbian Government, to the UN Security Council and to the
international public
2. To the Bar Council of England and Wales
3. To the Serbian Parliament
******************************************************************

APPEAL
of the
ASSEMBLY OF THE FREEDOM ASSOCIATION
- THE NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR THE LIBERATION OF PRESIDENT SLOBODAN
MILOSEVIC -

On its Session of 11 September 2004 the Assembly of the FREEDOM
Association - The National Committee for Liberation of the President
Slobodan Milosevic - deliberated the commencement of the defence case - the
second phase of the process against long term President of the Republic of
Serbia and FR Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic, which begun on 31 August 2004.
Special attention has been paid to the decision of the "Trial Chamber" of
the Hague "Tribunal" to impose a defence counsel on President Milosevic
against his will, and by that, to deprive him of the right of defence. After
the matter had been duly considered by the Assembly with participation of
the prominent legal experts, the Assembly adopted the following

APPEAL

To the Governments of Serbia and State Community of Serbia and Montenegro,
to the United Nations Security Council and to the international public

The decision of the "Trial Chamber" of the Hague "Tribunal" of 2 September
2004 to impose a defence counsel on President Milosevic, thus depriving him
of possibility to defend himself, has been strongly condemned not only by
legal experts at home and abroad, but also by all people of good-will who
are dedicated to legality and justice.

In addition to the fact that the Hague "Tribunal" had been founded in an
illegal manner, the decision of the "Trial Chamber" represents a flagrant
violation of the Article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
which provides that an accused is entitled to a "public trial during which
all necessary guarantees for his defence will be ensured".

The decision also violates the Article 6 of the European Convention on Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. That article provides for the right to a
fair trial before an independent and impartial court "established in
accordance with the law". Article 6 also guarantees an accused the right to
defend himself in person or to have an assistance of defence counsel of his
own choosing. That right is guaranteed also by the most important
international document in this field, the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights in its Article 14.

The right of an accused person to defend himself in person is also expressly
guaranteed by the Article 21, paragraph 4, of the Statute of the Hague
"Tribunal", and the Statute had been adopted by the UN Security Council.
Again, the said provision provides a defendant with the right to defend
himself in person or have a defence counsel of his own choosing.

In spite of the fact that Slobodan Milosevic continually reinstates his
decision to defend himself in person, the "Trial Chamber" imposed Mr.
Stephen Kay and Ms. Gillian Higgins as his defence counsel. This has been
resolutely rejected by President Milosevic.

The decision of the Hague "Tribunal" has been met with consternation and
strong condemnation by legal expert across the globe. In this respect, we
recall the August 2004 Petition signed by over 90 law professors and lawyers
from 17 countries. The Petition was addressed to the President of the UN
Security Council and to other UN organs. The Petition was an appeal and
attempt to prevent the shameful decision of the "Tribunal". In spite of
this, the decision to impose the defence counsel has been made, causing
bitter protests from legal experts from the USA, Canada, Russia, France,
Italy and other countries.

The Assembly of the FREEDOM Association stresses that the imposition of
defence counsel on President Slobodan Milosevic against his clearly
expressed will represents the flagrant violation of his basic human rights
guaranteed not only by international conventions, but also by the Statute of
the "Tribunal". The decision proves the "Tribunal's" fear of the truth which
will come out and its admission of defeat in this process, during which it
failed to prove any of the false and shameful allegations against President
Milosevic.

The decision of the so-called Hague "Tribunal", which pretends to fight "the
gross violations of international humanitarian law" has shown to the world
that, in fact, the "Tribunal" itself violates the basic human rights,
including those guaranteed by its own Statute. Defence counsel imposed on
Slobodan Milosevic are not his lawyers, but represent a new tool of the
prosecution and the "Trial Chamber" whose common goal is to silence the
truth and put the blame for the violent destruction of Yugoslavia and crimes
against the Serbian people on President Milosevic and Serbian people itself.
Thus the illegal "Tribunal" showed once again that it is not a court of law
and justice, but a political tool of the USA and NATO which is used in an
attempt to justify the aggression against the FR Yugoslavia and in order to
provide a cover for numerous crimes against its peoples.

Considering all this, the Assembly of the FREEDOM Association demands the
authorities of Serbia and the State Community of Serbia and Montenegro to
take all necessary steps in order to protect the basic human rights of
Slobodan Milosevic, as a citizen of this country whose rights have been
flagrantly violated and taken away from him by the recent decision of the
"Tribunal".

The Assembly of the FREEDOM Association calls upon the UN Security Council
to act without delay and suspend the decision of its subsidiary body - the
Hague "Tribunal" - since that decision represents a flagrant violation of
the Security Council Resolution by which the Statute of the "Tribunal" had
been adopted.

The Assembly of the FREEDOM Association also calls upon the international
public and media to resolutely and firmly condemn the injustice committed by
the Hague "Tribunal", the injustice which is directed not only against the
freedom and sovereignty of the Serbian people, but also against the peace
and equality in the world. Such body, established in contravention of the UN
Charter, and its practice, have nothing in common with the higher ground of
international law and justice.

The "Tribunal" should be abolished without delay and President Milosevic set
free at once.

Done in Belgrade on 11 September 2004

The Assembly of the FREEDOM Association
- The National Committee for the Liberation of President Slobodan Milosevic

****************************************************************
Sloboda/Freedom Association - Member of the World Peace Council
Belgrade, Rajiceva 16    tel./fax +381 11 630 549

To: Mr. Stephen Irwin QC
Chairman
General Council of the Bar
289-293 High Holborn
London
WC1V 7HZ
U.K.
Belgrade, September 30, 2004
Via fax No: 020-78319217

LETTER OF COMPLAINT

Dear Mr. Irwin,

We are writing to express our deepest concern about the acceptance of Mr.
Stephen Kay and Ms. Gillian Higgins of the role of imposed defence counsel
and co-counsel in the Milosevic case before Trial Chamber III of the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). We
understand that Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins are members of The Bar Council of
England and Wales and are subject to the Rules of your Code of Conduct.

As you are very well aware the right of an accused to defend himself in
person, as well as to have a counsel of his own choice, is guaranteed by
numerous international human rights instruments. These rights are, for
instance, provided for by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human
Rights, Article 8 of the Inter-American Convention on Human Rights, as well
as by Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. The said Article of the Covenant also ensures an accused the right
to personally examine the defence witnesses under the same conditions as
witnesses of the prosecution. In addition, Article 21 (d) and (e) of the
Statute of the ICTY expressly provides an accused with the right to defend
himself in person. We hope that you, dear Sir, share our view that these
rights represent ius cogens. The very intention of the Trial Chamber III of
the ICTY to impose a counsel on President Slobodan Milosevic, as an
unwilling accused, has been challenged recently by 100 lawyers and law
professors from several countries (please find here attached their joint
petition).

Our concern lies in the fact that Mr. Kay's and Ms. Higgins' acceptance of
the role of imposed counsel of Mr. Milosevic may represent the case of
professional misconduct in accordance with Paragraph 303 (a) of the Code of
Conduct (Part III - Fundamental Principles). According to this Paragraph, a
barrister must promote and protect his client's best interests. In the
situation in which Mr. Milosevic himself claims that to impose a defence
counsel on him represents the breach of his basic human rights, as well as
that he expressly contends that such an imposition is against his best
interests, it is our opinion that Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins are not acting in
their »client's« best interests.

We are also concerned that this represents the case of professional
embarrassment. And indeed, in the submission to the ICTY filed on 13 August
2004 entitled »Amici Cuiae Submissions in Response to the Trial Chamber's
Further Order on Future Conduct of the Trial Concerning Assignment of
Defence Counsel«, which we attach for your attention, the then Amici Curiae
Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins state: »...given the consistent stance taken by the
Amici Curiae against the imposition of counsel upon an unwilling Accused, it
is submitted that a situation of professional embarrassment may arise if the
Amici Curiae were asked to assume that role...« and that »...conversion of
the role of the Amici Curiae to imposed or assigned counsel would alter the
original role considerably and could be interpreted as professional
embarrassing...« (p.13 and 14 of the Submission). In spite of such stance,
the former Amici Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins accepted the role of defence
counsel of an unwilling Mr. Milosevic.

We ask you, dear Sir, to deliberate the matter and decide whether the
acceptance of your members Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins to be the imposed defence
counsel on an unwilling Mr. Milosevic represents the violation of your Code
of Conduct. We here also have in view your Annex A: The International
Practice Rules, Paragraph 2, and Article 9 of the Code of the Professional
Conduct of Defence Counsel of the ICTY.

Thanking you for your attention, I remain

Yours sincerely

Professor Mirko Zurovac
Chairman of the Assembly of the Freedom Association - National Committee for
the Liberation of President Slobodan Milosevic

*****************************************************************

Sloboda/Freedom Association
Member of the World Peace Council
Belgrade, 13 October 2004

PRESS RELEASE

The Freedom Association has submitted to the parliamentary factions of the
Serbian Radical Party, the Democratic Party of Serbia and the Socialist
Party of Serbia in the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia an
initiative to adopt, in urgent procedure, a Resolution against the human
rights violations by the Hague tribunal.

The initiative emphasizes that the recent depriving of President Slobodan
Milosevic of his right to defence represents a peak of the many-years
practice of negation and violation of human rights by the tribunal. This
practice had as a consequence, inter alia, the loss of at least seven human
lives.

The Freedom Association demands also a set up of a Parliamentary
Investigative Commission and an experts' team to prepare an extensive
professional report on human rights violations by the tribunal to be
submitted to the United Nations.

In the reasons for the initiative it is also said that its acceptance would
considerably strengthen the position of our country before the political
pressures connected with the "cooperation" with the tribunal.

15. Liana Kanelli, MP and ICDSM Vice-Chair

"21st Century Witch Hunting Inquisitors"


Macedonian Press Agency (Greece)
October 20, 2004
http://www.mpa.gr/article.html?doc_id=487986


The Hague - Greek Communist Party Parliament deputy
Liana Kanelli testified yesterday in the trial of
former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in the
International War Crimes Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia in The Hague.

Mrs. Kanelli stated to MPA during a telephone
communication that for the first time since the
beginning of the trial the court's attention turned to
the NATO bombings in former Yugoslavia through the
testimony of a witness.

The Greek Parliament deputy and member of the
International Committee for the Defense of Milosevic
referred to the NATO bombing of the city of Alexinac,
30 kilometers north of Nis, on April 6, 1999 that
resulted to many civilian deaths, stressing that there
was no military target there, contrary to what the
allied forces said to justify the action.

At this point, said Mrs. Kanelli, the judges gave her
a map and told her to find Alexinac on it. She
forwarded the map to Slobodan Milosevic who reacted by
saying that this was not a complete map of his country
and made the court authorities to bring another NATO
map on which the former President of Yugoslavia found
the city where one of the darkest pages of the NATO
bombings in former Yugoslavia was written.

For the first time during yesterday's procedure,
stated Mrs. Kanelli, a NATO document was presented in
court dated April 14, 1999 where a clear reference is
made to the civilian victims in Alexinac. NATO in
essence admits that civilian targets were hit.

Prosecutor Jeffrey Nice said that NATO had stated on
the specific incident that the target of the bombings
was an artillery unit of the Serb army deployed in the
city and pointed out that the alliance had admitted
that certain buildings had been hit by mistake during
the raid.

Mrs. Kanelli wondered why NATO's mistakes and NATO's
genocide should be forgiven and added that if
Milosevic had cooperated more with the western leaders
he wouldn't be with the "defeated" but with the
"winners".

Responding to the question on what her opinion was
about the International War Crimes Tribunal, the Greek
Parliament deputy stated addressing the judges that
they are "21st century witch hunting inquisitors".

When asked to comment on the NATO and US policy, she
stressed that their policy is neo-nazi and anyone who
is against it defends the rights of all peoples, a
response that caused the reaction of Presiding Judge
Patrick Robinson, according to international news
agencies.

For the record, Mrs. Liana Kanelli is one of the few
witnesses who agreed to testify in the Milosevic trial
after the appointment of British lawyer Stephen Kay as
the defense attorney of the former Yugoslav President

Most of the defense witnesses refuse to testify
stating that they agree to respond to questions posed
only by Milosevic who repeatedly has asked to be
allowed to undertake his own defense.

         *  *  *  *  *

Read the whole transcript of the Liana Kaneli's testimony at:

http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/041019IT.htm 

16. Sara Flounders (Correspondence with Steven Kay)

International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: iacenter@action-mail.org
En Espanol: iac-cai@action-mail.org
web: http://www.iacenter.org
phone: +1212 633-6646
fax:   +1212 633-2889

Relevant analysis and many references to ICTY record and Western media reports one can find in David Peterson's blogs at

http://blog.zmag.org/index.php/weblog/C20/