‘RADICAL RETHINK’ AT THE HAGUE TRIBUNAL - DEATH BY TRIAL.

          By Paul Davidson

After two years of proceedings the trial of Mr Milosevic has entered a new phase.

At the start of the ‘defence’ the tribunal’s new judge has ordered a one week suspension, due to the chronic ill-health of the defendant, and what he termed a ‘radical rethink’ of the future course of the trial’s ‘administration.’

After such a commotion in the tribunal and in the media, we have now been told that the trial will resume in one week and thereafter proceed with ‘business as normal’, with the addition that a new doctor will examine the defendant. This then is the result of the ‘radical rethink.’ It beggars belief.

The events themselves and the media reporting of them has been quite dramatic, in stark contrast to the near silence on the matter of the ill-health of Mr Milosevic during the whole previous period. To the extent that in BBC News reports it is not only admitted but headlined that the defendant is chronically ill with extreme fluctuations in his blood pressure, with a weak heart and with every prospect of dying if the trial continues in the same way.

This is an amazing change of direction in the propaganda about the trial. What has been patiently explained to the tribunal and to the media had until now been either totally ignored or else downplayed. Now it is the top story and the judge has ordered a ‘radical rethink.’ It makes one sit up and think, what is all this about? Why now?

For two years Mr Milosevic and the international defence committee, along with a host of doctors, heart specialists and legal experts have been consistently arguing that the defendant is too ill too be on trial, that his participation in the trial is severely impaired by this illness and that in consequence this is an additional factor which negates any chance of justice at the tribunal. It has been argued that his coherent presence necessitates a one year break in the proceedings in order for him to recuperate sufficiently and thereby be competent in his participation in this tribunal, the legality of which he continues to refute. The tribunal has consistently refused to hear this argument.

So, what has changed. Some possibilities are evident.

Firstly, if the medical condition of Mr Milosevic has significantly worsened, then this could be reason enough for such a reaction of the tribunal and the media. But as yet I have seen no evidence of this. For the public it must seem that Mr Milosevic’ medical condition is a brand new issue. But we know that this is a long-standing serious malady, one which has been a persistent factor argued about during the whole course of events. Those aware of the history of his illness cannot simply fall for this line. Therefore one must look for some other explanation.

Is it possible that the newly appointed judge to this case was hitherto unaware and unprepared for this aspect? It is simply unbelievable that he would not have been fully briefed, not only about the medical side, but also upon its impact for the tribunal’s strategy and its administration. He must also have studied the many medical reports that have been submitted pointing out that the administration of the trial so far is drastically unsuited to this medical condition, the long hours and unremitting strain, as well as the continued detention of the defendant in prison conditions that are extremely detrimental to his health. It cannot be accepted that the newness of the judge is this kind of a factor.

Is it possible that this new judge intends to show some independence of mind and to make his mark by means of ‘radical rethinks’? Again, it is inconceivable that given the gravity of the case the tribunal and its masters would have launched a radical thinker up to such lofty heights. No independence of mind could be gambled with in this ‘trial of the century.’ Although the announced ‘radical rethink’ might be seen as a little court drama to create the impression of freshness and open-mindedness, after the disastrous two-year reign of the overbearingly conceited Judge May. But I think that such a court-drama as has occurred this week cannot be about improving the problematic image of a so-called court that the public have been otherwise almost entirely unaware of. If the proceedings had been regularly reported and broadcast, questions such as the competence of Judge May could have been aired and in that case a ‘freshening-up’ of the proceedings might have been advisable. But the trial and its judge for the most part have been invisible to the public. No need therefore to present a new face.

The only conclusion is that the tribunal has been thrown a new type of problem and is, perhaps belatedly, having to face up to it. What type of problem?

The medical condition of Mr Milosevic has held up the conveyor-belting of alleged witness many times and the trial has so far dragged on for two years. During this course the prosecution (which of course means the whole court including their honours the judges) has attempted to get up a head of steam for its proposal that if Mr Milosevic cannot consistently attend the court then the tribunal should appoint a lawyer to represent him in his absence. All those interested in justice have strenuously argued against this, which would amount to much more than an infringement of the defendant’s rights, it would mean their total abnegation, so that the tribunal itself would be prosecuting, defending and judging, a proper star chamber!

But this was an option for the tribunal so long as the prosecution case was being presented. After all, with the prosecution making the running, calling the witnesses, preparing them, unfolding its so-called evidence, a court-appointed ‘defence’ lawyer could give a fairly acceptable appearance (acceptable to a gullible public) of cross-examination, if that is about all their role would entail.

But now that the trial has moved to the defence case things are not so simple. Now the defence has to make the running. Now the defence must call witnesses, brief them, question them before the court and all of that. How could this stand public scrutiny? The court-appointed lawyer, having no co-operation with the defendant, would obviously be exposed as a ludicrous joke. What could such a lawyer actually do to maintain any sort of credibility, s/he would be hamstrung from both sides. Would the defence witnesses even co-operate in such a farce? The more one thinks about it the more impossible the option seems. This would effectively bring the rotten tribunal finally into public disrepute.

So that one can understand that the tactic of the prosecution to fight for a court-appointed lawyer for Mr Milosevic has run its course and no longer makes practical sense except as theatre. If the judge were to take it seriously and appoint such a person this could be a big mistake. The trial would publicly invalidate itself.

This means that it may be high time to call the bluff of this tribunal. Do what you will, appoint this 'lawyer’ or not. It makes no difference. It is your decision. But there will be no co-operation.

If they appoint a lawyer and the defendant withdraws participation, what next? Or else do they suppose that Mr Milosevic would be so scared that this man or woman would do a ‘lousy job’ that this would impel him to appear in court even when he is severely ill? Is this a game of intimidation towards Mr Milosevic, either he appears when sick or else this ‘lawyer’ does him in through ‘defence?’

Or, would Mr Milosevic de facto allow a sharing of the defence with the court-appointed stooge? Where would be the benefits of this? It would be that one week Mr Milosevic defends himself and the next, Mr X, Y or Z steps in and does the dirty on him. What sort of person would participate at that level? Surely this would immediately lead to a new crisis, as Mr Milosevic is obviously a man of principal and a fighter, as shown by his conduct at the tribunal where he has not let up on his points of principal one iota over the course of two years of remorseless pressure on him to do so. Why would he change now? Do they think that illness would change this man, that he would suddenly become so afraid of death that he would swallow his pride and his principles to save himself and thereby allow a few more years? If they think this, they have the wrong man. No, they cannot be so ignorant.

The fact is that the appointing of a defence lawyer against the expressed desires and vehement disagreement of the defendant would immediately lead to a new crisis of immense proportions at the tribunal, which would end either in the tribunal backing down or else the total withdrawal of co-operation from the defendant. Both would lead to the public humiliation and invalidation of the ‘trial of the century.’

So, it would appear that the prosecution (meaning the whole tribunal) has discovered that its strategy is redundant. This must have come as a shock. How could they have been so self-blinded? But what other explanation for the recent commotion?

What they have done by all this is to bring to the public attention the severe medical condition of Mr Milosevic. They have announced to the world that their trial is killing the defendant. They considered (it is said) ending the trial. But this was also unthinkable.

OK, they could let the dictator Pinochet off, for he had been a great friend to nation and empire. Pinochet was released due to his so-called poor condition. He was shown on TV walking with aid of sticks or being held up. It was said that his mind was in total confusion and that even he had Parkinson’s disease. Yet on the flight home to Chile, eight miles high, he was touched by the hand of God and made a miraculous recovery, walking from the plane and giving speeches.

But no such clemency for Mr Milosevic, after all, the trial of the century could not end in such a way. And imagine Mr Milosevic returning to a hero’s welcome in Belgrade, during the latest renewed, revisited and revamped Presidential elections, or their aftermath!! We think not!

Why then, did they make such a public announcement of all of this? They proposed a radical rethink, only then to announce it would be business as usual. And what has been thus explained to the public is that business as usual is impossible. They can neither appoint and then hope to impose a new lawyer, nor declare a mistrial. So they explain to the public the facts. Mr Milosevic is presently undergoing a modern day inquisition, which is all likelihood may kill him. Rather than acceding to his demand that the trial be halted for at least one year while he convalesces it will proceed come what may, even (and this is discussed openly now) to his death. This is the new fact which they wish to bring to our attention. They are prepared, in full knowledge of all the pertinent facts, to proceed to kill the defendant. This is the new message, the new radical rethinking.

It seems that in advance of any verdict, in deed in advance even of the presentation of the so-called ‘defence case’, the highly innovative tribunal has handed down an entirely new type of sentence, DEATH BY TRIAL.