Informazione
per rappresentanza legale all'avvocatessa canadese Tiphaine Dickson,
cosicchè si possa intraprendere una azione legale appropriata contro
il "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia per la responsabilità della morte del
presidente Milosevic, avvenuta in circostanze oscure l'11 marzo 2006.
Il fatto che la signora Markovic abbia accordato la sua fiducia ad uno dei
membri più attivi dell'ICDSM impegna l'intero ICDSM in una rinnovata
attività di finanziamento allo scopo di coprire le spese di questo lavoro.
I versamenti vanno indirizzati a:
Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS) e.V.
BIC (SWIFT): POFICHBE
Banca: Swiss Post Postfinance, CH-3030 Bern
IBAN: CH35 0900 0000 9198 2587 8
Per maggiori informazioni si possono contattare:
Vladimir Krsljanin, ICDSM Secretary, auroraplan@...
tel. +381 62 423 915
o
Cathrin Schuetz, ICDSM Alternate Secretary, cschuetz1@...
tel. +49 1788 656 159
Sulla ripresa delle attività dell'ICDSM si veda anche la:
Lettera Aperta a Tadic e Kostunica
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/icdsm-italia/message/275 )
**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
**************************************************************
Velko Valkanov, Ramsey Clark, Sergei Baburin (Co-Chairmen),
Klaus Hartmann (Chairman of the Board), Vladimir Krsljanin (Secretary),
Christopher Black (Chair, Legal Committee), Tiphaine Dickson (Legal
Spokesperson), Cathrin Schuetz (Alternate Secretary)
**************************************************************
17 July 2007 Special Circular
**************************************************************
auroraplan@... tel. +381 62 423 915
**************************************************************
DEATH OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC IN THE ICTY CUSTODY WAS
THE PEAK OF CRIMINAL MISBEHAVIOUR OF THE ICTY.
THE SERBIAN AUTHORITIES DIDN'T TAKE ANY ACTION ON
THIS GROUND, BUT THE ICDSM WILL GO ON!
The current situation and the planned legal action are described in the
interview with Maitre Tiphaine Dickson below. This action will also
depend on your support!
V. Krsljanin
Tiphaine Dickson is a member of the Québec Bar, practicing primarily in
international criminal law. She was lead counsel in one of the first UN
genocide trials before the ICTR in Arusha, Tanzania. Maitre Dickson was
also Legal Spokesperson of the International Committee to Defend
Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) and she currently represents Mira Markovic.
Question:
Maitre Dickson, you are representing the wife of former Yugoslav president
Slobodan Milosevic, Mira Markovic, in a legal investigation regarding the
circumstances of his death in custody while he was standing trial before
the ICTY. The official version is that he died of a natural cause, namely by
a heart attack. What gives reason to doubt this information?
Maitre Dickson:
President Milosevic's death in custody was a disgrace. At minimum, that
shocking outcome deserved a thorough, serious, scientifically sound, and
above all, independent and impartial investigation. Instead, the ICTY,
which does not even explicitly guarantee the right to a trial by an
independent court, assigned one of its own judges, Kevin Parker, to head
an "internal inquiry". Slobodan Milosevic died only two weeks after the
ICTY Trial Chamber denied his request for provisional release, with guarantees
from the Russian Federation - a permanent member of the Security Council,
need it be added - for medical care at the Bakoulev Scientific Centre for
Cardiovascular Surgery in Moscow.
Question:
And this ICTY report is the basis for the official cause of death?
Maitre Dickson:
Yes. This so-called "Parker Report", in broad strokes, exonerates the
ICTY, and blames President Milosevic for his death. It does so with
surprising lapses in logic and shaky reasoning, but in fairness, without
a truly independent investigation, and without the benefit of outside
experts, perhaps not much more could have been expected.
However, President Milosevic's family does expect, and is entitled to, a
full accounting of circumstances surrounding his death, which was denied
to it by the Parker Report. Marko Milosevic made plain to Mr. Parker, in an
open letter drafted a year ago, that the content and conclusions of the
report were "unacceptable", and pointedly remarked that "the autopsy was
conducted without the presence of the independent expert team sent by
our family, even though we insisted on it", "that the Russian doctors were
denied the access to the body and the tissue samples", and that the family
was denied access to the blood samples. The family's letter also raised
persuasive objections to the legitimacy, objectivity, and propriety of the
ICTY investigating itself.
Question:
So in other words the ICTY, the same institution that denied Slobodan
Milosevic the needed treatment, judged the circumstances of which he
died.
Maitre Dickson:
It is difficult to comprehend that not only was Slobodan Milosevic not
granted the adequate medical care he had repeatedly requested, but
that the cause of his death was not investigated objectively or transparently.
Not even the questions put to the ICTY by the Russian Federation were
adequately addressed, according to Ambassador Churkin, speaking at the
5453rd meeting of the Security Council. It is therefore impossible to accept
the findings of the ICTY's internal inquiry, since beyond defects that can
be discerned in a superficial reading of the report, the panel suffers from
the fatal flaw of-at the very least-the appearance of partiality. Nemo judex
in sua causa. One cannot be the judge of one's own case.
Justice and minimal decency demand full disclosure of information
obtained by the "internal enquiry" to President Milosevic's family. The
findings, as they now stand, are unpersuasive, and a bereaved family is
entitled to know-without institutional interests being brought to bear-the truth
about their loved one's death in custody.
Question:
In your capacity as legal spokesperson of the International Committee to
Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) you have met Milosevic on several
occasions in detention. You addressed the media in The Hague on the
day the case was terminated due to Milosevic's death.
Maitre Dickson:
I was, in fact, that very day scheduled to hold a press conference
supporting President Milosevic's appeal against the decision to deny
him provisional release to Moscow for a number of tests and likely
interventions that had been requested by specialists who had found his
condition to be life-threatening in late 2005. We were very concerned
about the deterioration of President Milosevic's health, and hoped that he
would rapidly receive the treatment he required to pursue his defense in
The Hague, and perhaps, to save his life. Unfortunately, my attendance
at The Hague on March 14th, 2006, followed his death by a few days.
I could only emphasize to the press that all medical data should be made
public, and expressed the hope that the Secretary-General of the United
Nations would accept to waive the civil and criminal immunity of any and
all UN employees and subcontractors responsible for President Milosevic's
death. It was a gruesome, shameful trip, one that was meant to support his
medical provisional release, and certainly not to take stock of his death.
Question:
So if he would have been granted the therapy he may still live?
Maitre Dickson:
Permit me to put it this way: I strongly doubt that had President
Milosevic been allowed to receive treatment at the Bakoulev Center
in Moscow, he would have died in March 2006, as he did.
Question:
Milosevic's family openly calls it murder.
Maitre Dickson:
Last year, Marko Milosevic expressed his outrage with the findings of
the Parker Report, and made the following comment:
"The question isn't whether or not my father was murdered or
poisoned. The point is that a former head of state, being held in UN
custody, was gravely ill and constantly complaining of his medical
condition. His health condition was assessed many times by medical
experts as dire. He was denied adequate (if any) medical treatment, and
then he died. At the same time those who denied him treatment were
undeniably aware of what the consequences would be. He asked for
provisional release to receive medical treatment. Dr. Shumilina warned
on November 6th (2005) that his condition was so critical that he could
die at any moment."
He went on to state:
"The guaranties had been granted, and the ICTY ignored all of it.
Obviously deliberately for they were aware of all the facts, both general
and subtle. So he died.
The Tribunal, and everyone in charge, has committed a deliberate
murder. They condemned him to death on February 24th when they
rejected his request for provisional release, ignoring everything: his
health condition, his rights, and the warnings of his doctors, which unlike
the jail physician hired by the ICTY, had both - unquestionable
competence and expertise, as well as his confidence. Ignoring even the
guarantees of The Russian Federation (by the explanation that those
guarantees lacked credibility, it seems that the Tribunal has given itself
the mandate to evaluate the credibility of even the Security Council's
permanent member states). The ruling handed down on February 24th
came into effect on March 11th. That is the fact and the truth. Any other
speculation is just evasive political manoeuvring. "
This is to say that all the facts about Slobodan Milosevic's medical
condition were known, and yet, with deliberation, no steps were taken to
ensure that he not die. In fact, the ICTY Trial Chamber denied-- in spite
of unambiguous recommendations from highly reputable specialists and
security guarantees from the Russian Federation-- a motion to permit him
to obtain the treatment he urgently required in Moscow.
What is now needed is complete and transparent disclosure of all medical
evidence-- including blood and tissue samples-- to examine the facts
without concern for institutional reputation or appearances. I am not surprised
by the family's characterization of Slobodan Milosevic's utterly shameful death
in custody as "murder". They are well placed to know how serious his
condition was, and how his attempts to obtain appropriate treatment were
thwarted, leading to the most irreparable consequence: he was found dead.
And as it stands there remain, despite the findings of the Parker Report,
too many unanswered questions for any family in similar circumstances not
to affirm that their loved one was murdered.
Question:
While the health problems of Milosevic were well known and led to several
adjournments of his trial, the media often complained about Milosevic's
alleged "tactics" to "disrupt" the process when talking about his illness.
Maitre Dickson:
President Milosevic's health problems were widely discussed, and
interestingly, the facts were often twisted to suit angles adopted by the
press, even when contradictions were glaring. For example, it was often
alleged that President Milosevic was feigning illness when confronting
"damning evidence" by the Prosecutor, and yet it was precisely when he
was set to begin his own presentation of evidence that it was suggested
that he was "too ill" to represent himself. Presumably, in the latter case,
illness would not be a result of fear of evidence, or at least not from the
standpoint of President Milosevic.
I think it important to point out how-despite undeniably serious medical
issues-President Milosevic, though firmly and consistently demanding the
respect of his right to adequate medical treatment, complained little, and
how industriously and efficiently he worked during the entire period of his
detention in The Hague. He was focused and was determined to
demonstrate - as he had stated on many occasions - that there had been
one war: a war against Yugoslavia. That he maintained composure and
dignity throughout the proceedings only heightens the dismay that he was
left to die without adequate medical treatment, and that his death was blamed
on him. His family understandably refuses to accept such a shocking state
of affairs, and frankly, anything called justice deserves infinitely more than
what they were offered. We are determined to bring to light all the facts about
this disgraceful and pointless death, for the sake of truth, and for justice, two
ideas that have been perverted enough.
A shorter version of the interview was published in the German daily Junge
Welt on Monday, July 16, 2007
DONATIONS for this legal action are most urgently needed!
Transfers should be made to:
Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS) e.V.
BIC (SWIFT): POFICHBE
Bank: Swiss Post Postfinance, CH-3030 Bern
IBAN: CH35 0900 0000 9198 2587 8
For more information please contact:
Vladimir Krsljanin, ICDSM Secretary, auroraplan@...
tel. +381 62 423 915
or
Cathrin Schuetz, ICDSM Alternate Secretary, cschuetz1@...
tel. +49 1788 656 159
(The English and German texts are readable at:
Fidel Castro on Kosovo and US tyranny
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/5528
Elaborazione e traduzioni di Curzio Bettio di Soccorso Popolare di Padova.
Ulteriori materiali e traduzioni curate da Curzio Bettio sulla problematica kosovara e pan-albanese sono in diffusione in questi giorni attraverso la lista JUGOINFO)
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php
ADN Kronos International (Italy)
12 giugno 2007
Kosovo: Castro discute su Bush “tiranno”
Havana - Il leader di Cuba Fidel Castro ha rivolto un severo rimprovero al Presidente degli Stati Uniti George W. Bush per le sue osservazioni, riguardanti l’indipendenza del Kosovo secessionista, rilasciate domenica scorsa durante la sua visita nella capitale Albanese, Tirana.
In un documento dal titolo “Il Tiranno visita Tirana” diffuso dall’agenzia stampa di Cuba, Castro ha criticato aspramente Bush per l’appoggio espresso all’indipendenza del Kosovo, “senza il minimo rispetto per gli interessi di Serbia, Russia e dei vari paesi Europei che si sono dimostrati sensibili al destino della Provincia, che è stata lo scenario dell’ultima guerra della NATO.”
Il documento dell’ottuagenario Castro continuava così: “Bush ha ammonito la Serbia che avrebbe ricevuto aiuti economici solo appoggiando l’indipendenza del Kosovo, la culla della cultura di quel Paese. Prendere o lasciare! Bush è bramoso di affetto. Ha goduto del tutto per le accoglienze senza proteste a lui riservate in Bulgaria. Ha parlato con quei militari del Paese che hanno preso parte alle guerre in Iraq e in Afghanistan. Ha cercato di impegnarli ulteriormente per versare sangue generoso in queste guerre per la pace.”
Il lunedì, Bush aveva fatto visita alla Bulgaria – un fedele alleato degli USA – come tappa finale di un giro Europeo di otto giorni, che aveva visto la sua partecipazione al summit dei G8 in Germania, e le visite alla Repubblica Ceca, alla Polonia, all’Italia e all’Albania.
Commentando l’arrivo in settembre di più di 3.000 militari USA in una nuova base in Bulgaria, come parte della politica USA di spostare molte delle sue forze Europee più vicino al Medio Oriente, Castro ha affermato: “Da duemila a cinquemila soldati di Bush saranno movimentati a rotazione costante attraverso le tre basi militari impiantate dall’impero... Come se noi stessimo vivendo nel più felice dei mondi possibili!”
http://www.plenglish.com/article.asp?ID=%7BC9C6116D-
Prensa Latina
14 giugno 2007
Nuove riflessioni di Fidel Castro
Havana – Il Presidente Cubano Fidel Castro si è espresso sull’appoggio dato all’Albania da parte del Presidente USA George W. Bush per il suo ingresso immediato nella NATO e sulla decisione di Bush di domandare l’indipendenza per la provincia Serba del Kosovo.
Data l’importanza, Prensa Latina riproduce integralmente le riflessioni del Presidente Cubano:
“In cerca di affetto”
Effettivamente è stata l’Albania l’unico posto dove Bush ha ricevuto un qualche affetto; per voler essere larghi, questo vale per l’accoglienza in Bulgaria dove diverse migliaia di persone lo hanno atteso sventolando bandierine Americane, comunque sembrando fredde nei suoi confronti.
L’appoggio di Bush dato all’Albania per il suo ingresso immediato nella NATO e la sua decisione di esigere l’indipendenza per la provincia del Kosovo hanno fatto diventare non pochi Albanesi un po’ pazzi.
Giornali ed altri mezzi di comunicazione riportano che molti di costoro, interrogati singolarmente, hanno risposto: “Bush è un simbolo di democrazia. Gli Stati Uniti sono i protettori della libertà dei popoli.” Migliaia di soldati e poliziotti Albanesi disarmati, condizione richiesta dalle autorità Yankee, facevano ala su due colonne, che andavano dall’aeroporto alla capitale, per più di 20 chilometri. In Europa, lo spinoso problema dell’indipendenza di una parte della Serbia è veramente controverso, e creerebbe un precedente che potrebbe essere seguito in diversi Paesi da altre regioni che reclamano la sovranità all’interno degli attuali confini.
E così l’Albania passerebbe da una situazione sociale di sinistra ad una di destra estrema.
Vivere per vedere! Vedere per credere!
La Serbia riceve un duro colpo non solo politico ma anche economico. Il Kosovo possiede il 70% delle risorse energetiche della Serbia.
Tra il 1998 e il 1999, l’anno della guerra della NATO contro la Serbia, la Provincia ha contribuito per il 70% dello zinco e dell’argento.
È stato valutato che il Kosovo possiede l’82% delle possibili riserve di questi metalli, ed inoltre le più grandi riserve di bauxite, nickel e cobalto. La Serbia perde industrie, territori e proprietà ed è lasciata sola con l’imposizione di pagare il debito estero incorso per gli investimenti in Kosovo, prima del 1998. Ho ricevuto proprio adesso un dispaccio dall’AFP che mi obbliga alla lettura di poche righe. Il comunicato letteralmente recita:
“ Mosca, 13 giugno 2007. La Russia accusa l’Occidente di tenere incontri segreti relativi all’indipendenza del Kosovo. Secondo un comunicato rilasciato dal Ministro Russo per gli Affari Esteri, la Russia ha censurato le nazioni Occidentali che mercoledì si sono adoperate in segreto e unilateralmente per preparare l’indipendenza del Kosovo. Il portavoce del Ministero, Mikhail Kamynin, con riferimento all’incontro delle potenze Occidentali tenutosi a Parigi martedì, in assenza del governo di Mosca, ha puntato l’indice contro i colloqui segreti che hanno indotto a sospettare che sia stato preparato unilateralmente uno scenario per la sovranità del Kosovo. Kamynin ha continuato: ‘Questo comportamento è intollerabile. La Russia non è stata invitata all’incontro e questo risulta incompatibile con le dichiarazioni che andavano nel senso di una soluzione, in apparenza, di accomodato.' ”
Von Klaus von Raussendorff
Das Verfahren zum Lockerbie-Anschlag von 1988, das demnächst vor dem
Obersten Schottischen Gericht überprüft werden soll, ist ein frühes
Beispiel für den Einsatz internationaler Strafgerichtsbarkeit gegen
Länder, die sich gegen die USA und ihre Verbündeten unbotmäßig
verhalten. Sondertribunale z.B. gegen Jugoslawien, Ruanda, Irak und
jüngst Libanon (Syrien) etc. bedrohen nicht nur das friedliche
Zusammenleben der Völker. Auch ein eisernes Prinzip der liberalen
Demokratie bleibt dabei auf der Strecke: Die Gewaltentrennung
zwischen vollziehender Gewalt und Recht sprechender Gewalt.
Die "Grenzlinie zwischen einem unparteiischen Verfahren und
Siegerjustiz ist schnell überschritten, wenn das Erfordernis der
Unparteilichkeit keinen Rückhalt in einer institutionellen
Unabhängigkeit hat," meint Professor Hans Köchler. Eine solche
Unabhängigkeit sei bei keinem dieser Sondergerichte gegeben gewesen.
In einem Forschungspapier der International Progress Organisation 1)
kritisiert der österreichische Philosophieprofessor, Autor eines
Standardwerkes zum Thema 2) Status und Struktur dieser
Sondergerichte. Er zeigt, dass universelle Gerichtsbarkeit nicht
regionalisiert werden kann (ausgenommen wie beim Europäischen
Menschenrechtsgerichtshof des Europarats in einem permanenten
regionalen Organisationsrahmen).
Die Sondertribunale des UN-Sicherheitsrats für das ehemalige
Jugoslawien und Ruanda seien "von Anfang an nicht in der Lage
gewesen, ihre Glaubwürdigkeit als echte Gerichte zu begründen." Das
Internationale Straftribunal für das ehemalige Jugoslawien (ICTY) in
Den Haag, vor dem der Prozess gegen Präsident Slobodan Milosevic bis
zu dessen ungeklärtem Tod in der Haft stattfand, habe "als ein
politisches Forum agiert und das Recht im wesentlichen für die Zwecke
einer Staatenkoalition benutzt, die politisch und militärisch im
ehemaligen Jugoslawien intervenierte." Die einzige Bestimmung der
Charta der UN, auf die sich der Sicherheitsrat bei seinem -
"rechtlich unhaltbaren" - Anspruch auf ein Mandat zur Schaffung
irgendwelcher Tribunale stützt, ist Art. 39. Dieser regelt
Zwangsmaßnahmen zur Wahrung von Frieden und Sicherheit. Er definiert
keine gerichtliche sondern eine politische Kompetenz. Die
Verwechslung und Vermischung der Ausübung exekutiver Gewalt durch den
Sicherheitsrate mit der Ausübung internationaler Strafgerichtsbarkeit
ist nach Auffassung von Köchler eine verhängnisvolle Fehlentwicklung.
Daher konnte auch das internationale Verbrechen des Lockerbie-
Anschlag vor einem regionalen - oder quasi-regionalen - Sondergericht
"nicht in einer glaubwürdigen und konsistenten Weise strafrechtlich
verfolgt werden." Formal handelte es sich um ein Vorhaben der
schottischen Justiz unter extraterritorialen Gegebenheiten auf
holländischem Boden vor einem Gericht, das als ein Sondergericht
gemäß einer Sicherheitsratsresolution nach Kapitel VII der UN-Charta
eingerichtet worden war. Die Regierungen der USA, Großbritanniens und
Libyens hatten sich nicht über die Auslegung der Montreal-Konvention
von 1971 zur Sicherheit der Zivilluftfahrt einigen können. "Wegen der
- fast unvermeidlichen - Politisierung des Verfahrens, die sich aus
dieser Konstellation ergab, produzierte das Verfahren wie auch das
Berufungsgericht höchst inkonsistente Urteile." Der Fall muss nun vor
dem Obersten Schottischen Gericht neu aufgerollt werden.
Der "Irakische Oberste Strafgerichtshof" ist ein weiteres
abschreckendes Beispiel. "Dieses Tribunal ist kein Gericht, weil es
auf Anordnung der Besatzungsmacht in Verletzung der Dritten Genfer
Konvention eingerichtet wurde." Als ein von den USA initiiertes
Sondergericht "soll es sich mit internationalen Verbrechen der Führer
eines besiegten Landes - oder Mitgliedern einer abgesetzten Regierung
- befassen". Dadurch gerate "die ganze Operation des Gerichtshofs
unter (direkte) Kontrolle der führenden Besatzungsmacht." Deren
"strategische Interessen" bestimmen die Erhebung von Beweisen, die
Auswahl der Verdächtigen, die Abfassung der Anklagen etc." (nicht zu
reden von der Ausbildung des Gerichtspersonals im Ausland durch
Experten der USA und Großbritanniens). Der "gemischt innenpolitisch-
regionale Rahmen" des Tribunals garantiere eine "fast totale
Kontrolle" der USA auf Grund der Invasion des Landes, für welche die
Führer der USA jedoch nicht vor einem unparteiischen internationalen
Gericht zur Verantwortung gezogen werden können. Denn der
Internationale Strafgerichtshof besitze keine autonome
Gerichtsbarkeit. Die USA könnten mit ihrem Veto im Sicherheitsrat
seine Befassung verhindern.
Ähnlich verhält es sich laut Professor Köchler mit der "ziemlich
erratischen Praxis universeller Gerichtsbarkeit durch die belgische
Justiz auf der Basis eines Gesetzes über Kriegsverbrechen von 1993."
Dass dieses von der außenpolitisch in Schwierigkeiten gebrachten
belgischen Regierung im Wege von Novellierungen ziemlich schnell
wieder erledigt worden sei, habe "dem naivsten Beobachter
internationaler Vorgänge gezeigt, dass die Anforderungen an eine
globale Justiz nicht mit den außenpolitischen Interessen eines
Nationalstaates vereinbar sind."
Der Internationale Strafgerichtshof in Den Haag könnte nach Meinung
von Professor Köchler vielleicht einmal "einen angemessenen
Verfahrensrahmen für die Ausübung einer universellen Gerichtsbarkeit
abgeben, wenn eines Tages die mächtigen Staaten, einschließlich aller
permanenten Mitglieder des Sicherheitsrates, dem Statut von Rom
beigetreten sein werden." Doch das Statut des IStGH räumt dem
Sicherheitsrat eine privilegierte Rolle ein. Dieser entscheidet, ob
Ermittlungen oder Anklagen dem IStGH zugewiesen oder entzogen werden.
Damit hat das höchste Exekutivorgan der UN die Kontrolle über die
Ausübung der Rechtsprechung des Gerichts. "Das bedeutet, das das
unerlässliche Erfordernis einer Gewaltentrennung nicht einmal im
Statut des IStGH erfüllt ist." Soweit Professor Köchler.
Das jüngste Internationale Tribunal, das der Sicherheitsrat am 30.
Mai zur Verfolgung der Verantwortlichen für die Ermordung des
ehemaligen libanesischen Ministerpräsidenten Rafik Hariri beschloss,
ähnelt auffällig dem Vorgehen gegen Libyen im Lockerbie-Fall. Auch im
Libanon geht es um einen spektakulären Terroranschlag. Auch hier sind
die politischen Nutznießer des Terrors die USA, Israel und ihre
libanesischen und andere Verbündeten. Auch hier soll ein arabisches
Land, Syrien, unter Druck gesetzt werden. Und auch hier arbeitete der
erste Ermittler, der Berliner Staatsanwalt Detlev Mehlis, mit
fragwürdigen Methoden und Behauptungen. Durch öffentliche spekulative
Behauptungen lenkte Mehlis den Verdacht auf Syrien. Auf sein Geheiß
wurden vier libanesische Generäle verhaftet, die bis heute ohne
konkrete Tatvorwürfe, geschweige denn eine Anklage ihrer Freiheit
beraubt werden. "Mehlis stand unter dem Einfluss einer bekannten
libanesischen Gruppe. Er war Opfer von Manipulationen bestimmter
Mitglieder dieser Gruppe und von Pressionen der USA." So ein intimer
Kenner der libanesischen Politik, der damalige französische
Kommandant der Friedenstruppe UNIFIL, General Alain Pellegrini, im
Interview mit der Hezbollah nahe stehenden Wochenzeitung Al Intiqad
v. 13. Juli. Mehlis Nachfolger, der Belgier Serge Brammertz sei
dagegen "ein erfahrener Mann, der fern von allen Pressionen und von
Politisierung arbeitet."
Wenn der Verwilderung der internationalen Strafjustiz auch
hauptsächlich dadurch Grenzen gesetzt werden, dass die betroffenen
Länder und Völker gegen die eigentliche Ursache dieser pseudo-
juristischen Barbarei, nämlich gegen die Kriege und Interventionen
der Großmächte, Widerstand leisten, so können und müssen doch auch
die Möglichkeiten genutzt werden, die in westlichen Ländern gegeben
sind. In der Tradition des "Russel Tribunal" von 1967 gegen den
Vietnam-Krieg entstanden Tribunale der zivilen Öffentlichkeit zum
Jugoslawien-Krieg und zum Irak Krieg. Sie haben Verantwortliche
namhaft gemacht und Kriegsverbrechen dokumentiert. So war es schon
heute möglich, Beweismaterial zu sammeln, damit bisher unbehelligte
Hauptkriegsverbrecher vielleicht eines Tages vor ordentlichen
Gerichten zur Verantwortung gezogen werden können. In Deutschland
wurde Strafanzeige gegen den ehemaligen US-Verteidigungsminister
Rumsfeld gestellt, sie scheiterte jedoch bisher an der NATO-
Bündnistreue der deutschen Justiz. Als während des Verfahrens gegen
Präsident Slobodan Milosevic Spendengelder für seine Verteidigung von
einer deutschen Oberfinanzdirektion und höheren politischen Instanzen
in missbräuchlicher Ausnutzung einer EU-Richtlinie beschlagnahmt
wurden, konnte der Eingriff gerichtlich abgewehrt werden. Immerhin
handelte es sich um einen schwerwiegenden Eingriff in das Grundrecht
auf Verteidigung vor Gericht. Wichtig ist auch die politische und
juristische Aufarbeitung der Rolle der Internationalen
Straftribunale. Zum ICTY gibt es auf der Webseite www.free-slobo.de
eine umfangreiche Dokumentation. Auch liegen inzwischen Bücher über
den Milosevic-Prozess von Cathrin Schütz, John Laughland und Germinal
Civikov vor. 3) Und der juristisch-politische Kampf gegen das
Tribunal muss auch deshalb weitergehen, weil dieses für den Tod von
Milosevic verantwortlich zu machen ist. Die Familie Milosevic fordert
mit Unterstützung des Internationalen Komitees für die Verteidigung
von Slobodan Milosevic Aufklärung der Todesumstände und Bestrafung
der Verantwortlichen (siehe: http://www.jungewelt.de/2007/07-16/047.php)
Schließlich ist zu betonen, dass die Korruption der internationalen
Strafjustiz auch als eine parallele Entwicklung zum innerstaatlichen
"Antiterrorkampf" zu sehen ist, der sich seit den Terroranschlägen in
den USA am 11. September 2001 immer mehr als ein enormes
Umorientierungs-, Umerziehungs- und Umgestaltungsprogramm erweist.
Eine zusammenfassende Übersicht über die "Sicherheitsmaßnahmen" der
letzten Zeit bietet der Rechtsanwalt und Publizist Rolf Gössner,
Präsident der Internationalen Liga für Menschenrechte, in seinem
jüngsten Buch 4). Anscheinend geht es um ein regelrechtes Programm
der Demontage hergebrachter Grundsätze des Völkerrechts, der
Menschen- und Bürgerrechte und des liberal-demokratischen
Rechtsstaates geht.
Anmerkungen:
1) Webseite der International Progress Organisation (I.P.O.) www.i-p-
o.org .
2) Hans Köchler, Global Justice or Global Revenge? International
Criminal Justice at the Crossroads, (Springer-Verlag) Wien, 2003.
3) Cathrin Schütz, Die NATO-Intervention in Jugoslawien -
Hintergründe, Nebenwirkungen und Folgen, (Braumüller Verlag, Ethnos
Bd.62 XII), Wien 2003; John Laughland, Travesty, The Trial of
Slobodan Milosevic and the Corruption of International Justice,
(Pluto) London, 2007; Germinal Civikov, Der Milosevic-Prozess -
Bericht eines Beobachters (Promedia) Wien 2006.
4) Rolf Gössner, Menschenrechte in Zeiten des Terrors -
Kollateralschäden an der ,Heimatfront', (konkret Literaturverlag),
Hamburg 2007
Quelle: Anti-Imperialistische Korrespondenz (AIKor) -
Informationsdienst der Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität
(VIS) e.V.,
Redaktion: Klaus von Raussendorff
Postfach 210172, 53156 Bonn; Tel. & Fax: 0228 - 34.68.50;
AIKor-Infos können auf der Seite der AIKor http://www.aikor.de
unter "Info-Dienst der AIKor" runter geladen werden