| International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic*ICDSM |
|
BELGRADE FORUM FOR Number:210/2004.THE
WORLD OF EQUALS
Belgrade,
19.06.2004.
THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL -
Conclusions from the
Seminar held on 19 June 2004 at the Faculty of Laws, Belgrade – The Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals organised a very well attended public Seminar on the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) which took place at the Belgrade Law Faculty on 19 June 2004. Participants included professors of law, prominent lawyers and public figures. Among those who took part were Academic Prof. Kosta Cavoski, Prof. Ljubisa Lazarevic, Prof. Oliver Antic (professors of the Belgrade Law Faculty), Goran Cvetic, LL.M., an Advocate, Dr. Elena Guskova, the Director of the Moscow Institute for Balkanology, Mr. Vladislav Jovanovic, formerly the Ambassador of Yugoslavia to the UN, Prof. Mirko Zurovac and Dr. Milan Bulajic. The speakers expressed their views on the character and role of the ad hoc Hague Tribunal. It was concluded that the ICTY was founded by the UN Security Council on 25 May 1993 in the midst of the Yugoslav crisis, the main cause of which were the unilateral, violent secessions of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH). The UN Charter, however, does not authorise the Security Council to form any kind of international court. Nor the Security Council can confer more power to any other body than itself has under the UN Charter. The language of the Charter is cristally clear in that respect. No founding member of the UN back in 1945 ever requested such a role for the Security Council and, had such authority been requested at the time, the UN, as we know it, most probably would not exist today. It follows that the formation of the ICTY is ultra vires, the breach of the UN Charter and an attempt of its revision. ICTY is therefore an illegal judicial organ. In international law, an international criminal court can be founded by multilateral agreements of sovereign states. The procedure of formation of the International Criminal Court at the Rome Conference, held on 17 July 1998, confirms this view. This Court became operative on 1 July 2002 after its Statute had been ratified by sixty states, as required by the Statute. Financing of the ICTY is also illegal. It was envisaged that the Tribunal would be financed entirely by the UN. However, the UN provide only one part of the means required; the other, rather large part is borne by individual states and NGO’s which do not always act in accordance with the aims of the UN Charter and which bear direct or indirect responsibility for fomenting the Yugoslav crisis.These states and NGO’s were in favour of the sanctions and isolation of Serbia, as well as in favour of the NATO aggression on Yugoslavia. The main financing sources of the ICTY, among others, are the USA, Saudia Arabia and the George Soros Foundation. The main question here is why are the UN and the official means of financing circumvented? Is this not the way to influence the work of the ICTY? It is also well known that great many experts and employees of the Tribunal are from the very states that participated in the aggression on the FR Yugoslavia in 1999. The intelligence of these states also plays an important role in the functioning of the ICTY. The analysis of indictments shows that the prosecution of the ICTY leans on the well known CIA report from the beginning of the 1990’s according to which the guilt of the Serbs for the Yugoslav crisis and civil wars in Croatia and BiH is apportioned at 70%, that of Croats at 20% and Bosnian Muslims at – 10%. This assesment engineering was used in in the preparation of the indictements against the highest representatives of Serbian people. More than two thirds of those indicted at the ICTY are the Serbs. It is the fact that only the Serbian leadership has been indicted and deprived of liberty, while the leaders of other former Yugoslav states have been pardoned. It seems as if non-Serbian indictees are in the Hague only to unsuccessfuly mask the anti-Serbian character of the Tribunal. It is obvious that ICTY is not an impartial tribunal and for that reason ICTY is an instrument of legal violence. Although formed on 25 May 1993, ICTY conferred authority on itself to retroactively judge on events which took place from 1 January 1991; this is in collision with the basic principles of criminal law. The practice of ICTY has the task to show that main responsibility for all misdeeds committed in the former Yugoslavia, from its break-up and civil wars to the NATO aggression in 1999, lies on Serbia and its leaders. Indictments against the highest ranked Serbs based on command responsibilty, manipulations with Serbian nationalism and the alleged project of Greater Serbia, whereby the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts and Serbia Orthodox Church are allegedly involved, lead to impositon of the collective responsibilty on the Serbian nation. Rhetorics on individual guilt and responsibility is only meant to blur the concrete aim. The aim is not only to imprison the Serbian leaders for a long time; what is also sought is the basis for revisions of the Dayton Agreement and the Security Council Resolution 1244 (1999), meaning the possible abolition of Republika Srpska, secession of Kosovo and further fragmentation of Serbia. War in the former Yugoslavia was not a war of aggression, but a civil war caused by the fact that the Serbs in Croatia and BiH have been forcibly deprived of the status of constitutive people, the right which they previously had. Serbs in Kosovo, for their part, have been victims of a long-term project of ethnic cleansing by the Albanian separatists and the terrorist KLA. ICTY ignores these facts. The KLA leaders have not been indicted before the Tribunal. Leaders of NATO states, resposible for the illegal use of force on the FRY and for the crimes against humanity, instead of being indicted and held responsible, today appear as witnesses of the prosecution. ICTY showed little interest in those who aggressed Yugoslavia without authorisation of the UN Security Council and who then ordered the distruction of civilian targets, at the same time training and arming the terrorist KLA. ICTY also showed little interest in terrible crimes committed by the KLA. Nowhere in democracy judges pass laws or create the rules of procedure. This job is for parliaments. ICTY judges, however, create and change the Rulers of Procedure at their will. So far, these Rules have been changed over 30 times, mainly with the aim to facilitate the needs of the prosecution. This practice places the accused and their defence in an inferior positon in which legal security hardly exists. There are some other issues. What about the rule “nula poena, nula crimen sine lege”? What about the fact that judges of the ICTY declare the second-hand testimonies (hear-say) as – admissible? What about the equality of arms, right to a fair trial and other human rights of the Serbs in the Scheweningen? Nowhere in democracy can an accused await for his trial to begin indefinately. However, the former President of the Bosnian Serb Assembly, Mr. Momcilo Krajisnik, waited, while in ICTY custody, for over four years for his trial to begin! Indictment against the former President of Serbia and Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic for alleged crimes in Kosovo has been unsealed on 24 May 1999 in the midst of the NATO aggression on Yugoslavia. At that time ICTY had no investigators on the ground. This indictment followed immediately after Yugoslavia initiated legal proceedings against several NATO member states before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the illegal use of force, crimes against peace and genocide. The indictments for the alleged crimes in Croatia and BiH against Mr. Milosevic were raised only after he was deprived of liberty, at the request of the US administration. Mr. Milosevic has been deprived of liberty and extradited to the Hague unlawfully and unconstitutionally. He was deprived of the right to challenge the legality of his arrest before the domestic courts; this right is expressly recognised by the European Convention and Court of Human Rights. ICTY judges showed no interest in this classic violation of human rights; nor has interest been shown in the fact that the Yugoslav and Serbian Constitutions envisaged no extradition of Yugoslav citizens to a foreign court and that the decision of the state authorities to extradite has been declared unlawful and unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court. Yugoslav Law on Collaboration with the ICTY was passed in 2002, nearly a year after Mr. Milosevic had been extradited. Five years ago the aggression on Yugoslavia named “The Merciful Angel” took place. The UN and NATO Charters, as well as the Geneva Conventions have been violated. Thousands of people were killed, banned weapons – such as projectiles with depleted uranium, cluster and graphite bombs – were used. Many bridges, roads, railways, hospitals, schools and monasteries have been destroyed. NATO aimed its bombs at refugees, people in trains, at markets, TV stations, on the bridges and streets; at the same time, it closely collaborated with the KLA on the ground. The fact that the KLA comitted terrible crimes and that it was closely connected with mujahedin and Al Kaida was not unknown to NATO leaders who appeared undisturbed by that fact. ICTY concluded that NATO and KLA leaders committed no crimes during the aggression. Consequence: Since the arrival of UNMIK and KFOR several thousands Serbs have disappeared or have been killed in Kosovo, nearly 300.000 of them ethnically cleansed, tens of thousands of Serbian and non-Albanian houses and about 150 Christian churches have been burned or otherwise destroyed. All this before the eyes of the NATO (KFOR). Serbian leadership never advocated or participated in any crime in the former Yugoslavia. On the contrary, it is known that Mr. Milosevic was for preserving Yugoslavia as a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-confessional state of equal peoples. This was in the best interest of all the Serbs who would, with Yugoslavia preserved, all live in one state. Mr. Milosevic was against the civil war, but once it broke out he was in favour of finding a peaceful solution. In spite of these efforts, during these wars crimes did occur and have been committed by all sides; therefore, the principle of subjective, individual responsibility should be applied. Giving amnesty to the NATO and KLA leaders, as well as to leaders of other former Yugoslav states, ICTY emerged as a political institution of double standards which applies justice and the notion of command responsibility selectively. The participants of the Seminar stress that: (1) Law and justice make sense only if applied universally. Therefore, institutions of selective justice, such as ICTY, do not serve law and justice, but policy of force and domination. (2) Indictments against the highest Serbian officials have no legal basis. Their deprivation of liberty and extradition are illegal, while at the ICTY they are treated with the presumption of guilt. This is a precedent in Europe, the precedent which legalises secession, terrorism, changes of the internationally recognised borders and illegal use of force. (3) Conditions have been met for democratic states dedicated to the UN Charter and to respect of international law to seek the abolition of the ICTY and the release of the Serbian political prisoners from the Scheweningen penitentiary. Good opportunity for this arises at this year’s meeting of the UN General Assembly. (4) Full support is given to the International Criminal Court. Any attempt of weakening its role and significance should be condemned. Exemption of citizens of certain states from its jurisdiction is unacceptable. (5) Former President of Serbia and Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic should be freed and accorded an adequate medical care. The participants urge the state authorities of Serbia and Serbia and Montenegro (SCG): (1) To strictly respect and implement the Serbian Constitution which forbids the extradition of Serbia citizens; (2) To form a special body at the Ministry for Human and Minority Rights which will provide the organised legal and other assistance to our citizens tried by the ICTY. This in a manner similar to support other states give to their citizens when arrested and tried abroad; (3) To initiate the court proceedings against the KLA leaders and perpetrators of crimes against Serbs in Kosovo and seek assistance of INTERPOL and EUROPOL in this process; (4) To request help and collaboration of Western states, particularly the US, Germany and Switzerland, in obtaining full information and evidence on sources of financing, training and arming of the KLA, their links with AL Kaida and organised crime, and especially on crimes committed against the Serbs in Kosovo since 10 June 1999; (5) To continue legal proceedings against NATO states before the ICJ and initiate a dialogue concerning reparations and damages done during the aggression; (6) To re-activate legal proceedings against Croatia and BiH before the ICJ as one of the means of defending our legitimate interests before the ICJ from unjustifiable actions of these states for illegal use of force and other crimes; (7) To support prominent lawyers, scientists and other public figures from SCG and abroad who are willing to place their knowledge and expertise on disposal of defence of Slobodan Milosevic and other Serbs tried before the ICTY. |