Informazione
Kappa Vu Edizioni - Libreria Librincentro
Presentano
Venerdì 25 febbraio - ore 18 - Libreria Librincentro
Via Viola - Udine
Il Kosovaro
di Bruna Sibille-Sizia
(Kappa Vu Edizioni)
Interverranno insieme all'autrice:
Tito Maniacco
(scrittore)
Angelo Floramo
(critico)
La storia vera di un profugo kosovaro ospitato in Friuli dall'autrice.
Un racconto, tra prosa e poesia, scritto dalla penna di una delle più
talentuose scrittrici del Friuli Venezia Giulia. Un poema che mette in
luce, attraverso le parole di Talif, il profugo, i disastri che la
guerra ha portato sia nelle coscienze delle persone sia nel paesaggio e
nella storia di un paese. Una storia dura, affrontata senza mezze
parole, con una scrittura decisa e senza fronzoli, che mette in risalto
le sofferenze e le ingiustizie di un periodo che ha segnato e segna
tutt'ora profondamente tutta l'area balcanica.
"A Pancevo, ricordo, / la piazza era affollata / per la grande Fiera
dell'anno. / Sfilavano i cavalli / sul dorso le belle coperte / rosse o
multicolori / tessute a disegni. / Pesa, il ricordo del passato. / Oggi
Pancevo distrutta / è una fornace di veleni chimici.".
Bruna Sibille-Sizia, nata nella Slavia Friulana a Sedilis (Tarcento),
ha camminato in parallelo tra narrativa e giornalismo. Come
corrispondente e inviata di quotidiani e settimanali nazionali e
collaboratrice di varie riviste ha trattato in particolare problemi
politico-militari. Ha scritto romanzi e racconti legati alla Resistenza
e alla storia del Friuli.
Info: Mauro Daltin - Ufficio Stampa Kappa Vu Edizioni
Tel: 0432530540 - www.kappavu.it - info @...
Presentano
Venerdì 25 febbraio - ore 18 - Libreria Librincentro
Via Viola - Udine
Il Kosovaro
di Bruna Sibille-Sizia
(Kappa Vu Edizioni)
Interverranno insieme all'autrice:
Tito Maniacco
(scrittore)
Angelo Floramo
(critico)
La storia vera di un profugo kosovaro ospitato in Friuli dall'autrice.
Un racconto, tra prosa e poesia, scritto dalla penna di una delle più
talentuose scrittrici del Friuli Venezia Giulia. Un poema che mette in
luce, attraverso le parole di Talif, il profugo, i disastri che la
guerra ha portato sia nelle coscienze delle persone sia nel paesaggio e
nella storia di un paese. Una storia dura, affrontata senza mezze
parole, con una scrittura decisa e senza fronzoli, che mette in risalto
le sofferenze e le ingiustizie di un periodo che ha segnato e segna
tutt'ora profondamente tutta l'area balcanica.
"A Pancevo, ricordo, / la piazza era affollata / per la grande Fiera
dell'anno. / Sfilavano i cavalli / sul dorso le belle coperte / rosse o
multicolori / tessute a disegni. / Pesa, il ricordo del passato. / Oggi
Pancevo distrutta / è una fornace di veleni chimici.".
Bruna Sibille-Sizia, nata nella Slavia Friulana a Sedilis (Tarcento),
ha camminato in parallelo tra narrativa e giornalismo. Come
corrispondente e inviata di quotidiani e settimanali nazionali e
collaboratrice di varie riviste ha trattato in particolare problemi
politico-militari. Ha scritto romanzi e racconti legati alla Resistenza
e alla storia del Friuli.
Info: Mauro Daltin - Ufficio Stampa Kappa Vu Edizioni
Tel: 0432530540 - www.kappavu.it - info @...
http://www.osservatoriobalcani.org/article/articleview/3939/1/51/
Indagini sui monopolisti dell’energia dei Balcani
25.02.2005 Da Podgorica, scrive Jadranka Gilić
L’azienda britannica EFT in Italia è nota per la questione legata alla
centrale idroelettrica Buk Bijela e la minaccia del canyon del fiume
Tara. Oggi tale azienda è sotto inchiesta in diversi Paesi per
malversazioni e tangenti, sospetti pure i rapporti coi politici locali
ed esteri
I giornali montenegrini ritornano a parlare della società britannica
EFT (Energy Financing Team), il principale fornitore di energia
elettrica nei Balcani ed il principale importatore per il Montenegro.
Secondo quanto riporta il quotidiano “Vijesti”, nell’edizione del 16
febbraio scorso, sono state avviate le indagini sulla EFT da parte del
Serious Fraud Office - SFO della Gran Bretagna. Questa sarà la prima
indagine del genere condotta in accordo con la legge sulle tangenti, in
vigore da tre anni in Gran Bretagna. Come attori principali figurano
Vojin Lazarević e Vuk Hamović, accusati di aver guadagnato un extra
profitto, grazie a dei contratti sospetti con l’Azienda elettrica della
Republika Srpska (Elektroprivreda RS).
Nel frattempo sono state avviate delle indagini anche in Bosnia
Erzegovina. Il procuratore speciale, Jonathan Ratel, ha affermato che
sono stati accusati gli ex leader della Elektroprivreda RS, Boško Lemez
e Svetozar Aćimović, per frode di 167 milioni di marchi tedeschi, ma
non ha voluto commentare se tra gli accusati figurano anche Hamović e
Lazarević della EFT. Il procuratore Ratel ha affermato di possedere
tutta la documentazione necessaria per proivare che la Elektroprivreda
RS vendeva l’eccedenza di energia elettrica alla EFT ad un prezzo più
basso e poi, manipolando le gare d’appalto, facilitava il monopolio
della EFT ed un profitto del 40%, mentre il profitto usuale per questo
settore va dal 1% al 5 %.
Ma, questa non è la prima volta che Hamović e Lazarević si trovano
sotto inchiesta. Il settimanale “Monitor” (11 febbraio) riporta che la
prima indagine sulla EFT fu condotta dall’Alto rappresentante per la
Bosnia Erzegovina, Paddy Ashdown, nel 2002. Risultava sospetto il fatto
che l’Elektroprivreda RS esportasse energia elettrica al Montenegro
tramite un intermediario, la londinese EFT, che per il solo 2002 ha
guadagnato 10,8 milioni di dollari. Inoltre, alla gara d’appalto per
l’acquisto dell’eccedenza di energia elettrica del 2002, soltanto la
EFT presentò la domanda, mentre l’Azienda elettrica del Montenegro
(Elektroprivreda Crne Gore) non era interessata alla gara. Più tardi
però l’Elektroprivreda Crne Gore acquistò la stessa energia elettricità
dall’EFT, ma a prezzi molto più alti. Bisogna ricordare che prima che
esistesse la EFT, le esportazioni di energia elettrica dalla Republika
Srpska al Montenegro erano dirette.
Anche se era ovvio che la EFT guadagnava decine di milioni di euro
grazie a transazioni sospette, l’inchiesta non ha dato risultati
significativi e la posizione della EFT nei Balcani è rimasta
intoccabile. Secondo “Monitor”, Lazarević e Hamović hanno avuto, a
parte l’appoggio dei politici locali, una forte protezione dall’estero.
Così, Charles Crawford, l’ex ambasciatore britannico in Bosnia
Erzegovina, era intervenuto a favore della EFT mentre Ashdown faceva
delle inchieste sul funzionamento dell’azienda. Poi, c’è anche Robert
Gelbard, allora delegato per i Balcani del presidente americano Bill
Clinton, adesso ingaggiato dalla EFT per la difesa dell’azienda in Gran
Bretagna.
Inoltre, l’anno scorso gli affari sospetti tra l’EFT e l’Azienda
elettrica della Serbia (Elektroprivreda Srbije) sono finiti sotto le
indagini della Commissione d’inchiesta del parlamento serbo. Si
sosteneva che Hamović e Lazarević avessero guadagnato un extra profitto
di 50 milioni di dollari con contratti con la Serbia relativi al 2003.
Si speculava che, addirittura, degli infiltrati distruggesse apposta il
sistema elettro-energetico serbo, per poter ottenere una maggiore
importazione di elettricità.
Ma nonostante l’inchiesta, la posizione dell’EFT in Serbia non è
mutata. Secondo “Monitor” le relazioni tra la leadership politica e la
lobby dell’energia elettrica sono molto strette. Il settimanale
montenegrino mette in relazione diretta Hamović e Lazarević con il
Presidente serbo Koštunica, intendendo i due come finanziatori del
premier serbo.
Dall’altra parte il Montenegro non ha avviato alcuna indagine
sull’azienda EFT. E il Ministro dell’economia, Darko Uskoković, ha
dichiarato che il Montenegro non è interessato alle indagini in corso
sulla EFT, anche se detta azienda è l’importatore esclusivo di
elettricità del Paese.
Allora perché il Montenegro non è interessato ad aprire un’inchiesta?
Anche qui “Monitor” cerca spiegazione nei numerosi ed oscuri legami tra
i rappresentanti governativi del Montenegro e la EFT.
Prima di tutto, bisogna ricordare che Vojin Lazarević ha fatto parte
del governo montenegrino per 3 anni. Prima è stato Ministro senza
portafoglio e poi, a partire dal 1998 al 2001, consulente sull’energia
del Primo ministro montenegrino, allora Filip Vujanović, attuale
presidente montenegrino. Inoltre, Lazarević controllava le donazioni
dell’USAID, approvate per risolvere i problemi energetici, nel 1999. Si
sospetta che le donazioni fossero manipolate da parte della GML
International Limited, allora l’azienda intermediaria per il commercio
dell’elettricità, di proprietà di Hamović, con sede in Gran Bretagna
(la EFT è stata creata nell’ottobre del 2000).
Va ricordato che Vuk Hamović, attuale comproprietario della EFT, era il
direttore della «Energoprojekt» - Belgrado, la quale ha sviluppato la
controversa analisi ambientale a favore della centrale idroelettrica a
Buk Bijela, in Republika Srpska, che prevedeva l’inondamento del canyon
del fiume Tara, protetto da tempo dall’UNESCO come patrimonio mondiale.
Anche qui la EFT figurava come partecipante alla gara d’appalto per la
centrale idroelettrica, è come più che probabile futuro concessionario,
dove il contratto prevedeva degli alti profitti per il concessionario.
Per il momento le attività sulla centrale Buk Bijela sono state sospese
perché il parlamento montenegrino ha adottato la Dichiarazione sulla
difesa del fiume Tara, ma resta ancora da vedere come finirà il
progetto della centrale idroelettrica.
Un’altra considerazione: è possibile che il funzionamento della EFT sia
ovunque sospetto, ma non in Montenegro? Per avere un’idea completa
sulla EFT bisogna raccogliere sia le informazioni provenienti dalla
Republika Srpska, Bosnia Erzegovina, Serbia e Gran Bretagna, dove sono
state avviate alcune indagini, sia dal Montenegro, dove siamo ancora in
attesa di eventuali indagini. Soltanto così si potrebbe avere una
storia oggettiva sul funzionamento controverso della EFT.
Indagini sui monopolisti dell’energia dei Balcani
25.02.2005 Da Podgorica, scrive Jadranka Gilić
L’azienda britannica EFT in Italia è nota per la questione legata alla
centrale idroelettrica Buk Bijela e la minaccia del canyon del fiume
Tara. Oggi tale azienda è sotto inchiesta in diversi Paesi per
malversazioni e tangenti, sospetti pure i rapporti coi politici locali
ed esteri
I giornali montenegrini ritornano a parlare della società britannica
EFT (Energy Financing Team), il principale fornitore di energia
elettrica nei Balcani ed il principale importatore per il Montenegro.
Secondo quanto riporta il quotidiano “Vijesti”, nell’edizione del 16
febbraio scorso, sono state avviate le indagini sulla EFT da parte del
Serious Fraud Office - SFO della Gran Bretagna. Questa sarà la prima
indagine del genere condotta in accordo con la legge sulle tangenti, in
vigore da tre anni in Gran Bretagna. Come attori principali figurano
Vojin Lazarević e Vuk Hamović, accusati di aver guadagnato un extra
profitto, grazie a dei contratti sospetti con l’Azienda elettrica della
Republika Srpska (Elektroprivreda RS).
Nel frattempo sono state avviate delle indagini anche in Bosnia
Erzegovina. Il procuratore speciale, Jonathan Ratel, ha affermato che
sono stati accusati gli ex leader della Elektroprivreda RS, Boško Lemez
e Svetozar Aćimović, per frode di 167 milioni di marchi tedeschi, ma
non ha voluto commentare se tra gli accusati figurano anche Hamović e
Lazarević della EFT. Il procuratore Ratel ha affermato di possedere
tutta la documentazione necessaria per proivare che la Elektroprivreda
RS vendeva l’eccedenza di energia elettrica alla EFT ad un prezzo più
basso e poi, manipolando le gare d’appalto, facilitava il monopolio
della EFT ed un profitto del 40%, mentre il profitto usuale per questo
settore va dal 1% al 5 %.
Ma, questa non è la prima volta che Hamović e Lazarević si trovano
sotto inchiesta. Il settimanale “Monitor” (11 febbraio) riporta che la
prima indagine sulla EFT fu condotta dall’Alto rappresentante per la
Bosnia Erzegovina, Paddy Ashdown, nel 2002. Risultava sospetto il fatto
che l’Elektroprivreda RS esportasse energia elettrica al Montenegro
tramite un intermediario, la londinese EFT, che per il solo 2002 ha
guadagnato 10,8 milioni di dollari. Inoltre, alla gara d’appalto per
l’acquisto dell’eccedenza di energia elettrica del 2002, soltanto la
EFT presentò la domanda, mentre l’Azienda elettrica del Montenegro
(Elektroprivreda Crne Gore) non era interessata alla gara. Più tardi
però l’Elektroprivreda Crne Gore acquistò la stessa energia elettricità
dall’EFT, ma a prezzi molto più alti. Bisogna ricordare che prima che
esistesse la EFT, le esportazioni di energia elettrica dalla Republika
Srpska al Montenegro erano dirette.
Anche se era ovvio che la EFT guadagnava decine di milioni di euro
grazie a transazioni sospette, l’inchiesta non ha dato risultati
significativi e la posizione della EFT nei Balcani è rimasta
intoccabile. Secondo “Monitor”, Lazarević e Hamović hanno avuto, a
parte l’appoggio dei politici locali, una forte protezione dall’estero.
Così, Charles Crawford, l’ex ambasciatore britannico in Bosnia
Erzegovina, era intervenuto a favore della EFT mentre Ashdown faceva
delle inchieste sul funzionamento dell’azienda. Poi, c’è anche Robert
Gelbard, allora delegato per i Balcani del presidente americano Bill
Clinton, adesso ingaggiato dalla EFT per la difesa dell’azienda in Gran
Bretagna.
Inoltre, l’anno scorso gli affari sospetti tra l’EFT e l’Azienda
elettrica della Serbia (Elektroprivreda Srbije) sono finiti sotto le
indagini della Commissione d’inchiesta del parlamento serbo. Si
sosteneva che Hamović e Lazarević avessero guadagnato un extra profitto
di 50 milioni di dollari con contratti con la Serbia relativi al 2003.
Si speculava che, addirittura, degli infiltrati distruggesse apposta il
sistema elettro-energetico serbo, per poter ottenere una maggiore
importazione di elettricità.
Ma nonostante l’inchiesta, la posizione dell’EFT in Serbia non è
mutata. Secondo “Monitor” le relazioni tra la leadership politica e la
lobby dell’energia elettrica sono molto strette. Il settimanale
montenegrino mette in relazione diretta Hamović e Lazarević con il
Presidente serbo Koštunica, intendendo i due come finanziatori del
premier serbo.
Dall’altra parte il Montenegro non ha avviato alcuna indagine
sull’azienda EFT. E il Ministro dell’economia, Darko Uskoković, ha
dichiarato che il Montenegro non è interessato alle indagini in corso
sulla EFT, anche se detta azienda è l’importatore esclusivo di
elettricità del Paese.
Allora perché il Montenegro non è interessato ad aprire un’inchiesta?
Anche qui “Monitor” cerca spiegazione nei numerosi ed oscuri legami tra
i rappresentanti governativi del Montenegro e la EFT.
Prima di tutto, bisogna ricordare che Vojin Lazarević ha fatto parte
del governo montenegrino per 3 anni. Prima è stato Ministro senza
portafoglio e poi, a partire dal 1998 al 2001, consulente sull’energia
del Primo ministro montenegrino, allora Filip Vujanović, attuale
presidente montenegrino. Inoltre, Lazarević controllava le donazioni
dell’USAID, approvate per risolvere i problemi energetici, nel 1999. Si
sospetta che le donazioni fossero manipolate da parte della GML
International Limited, allora l’azienda intermediaria per il commercio
dell’elettricità, di proprietà di Hamović, con sede in Gran Bretagna
(la EFT è stata creata nell’ottobre del 2000).
Va ricordato che Vuk Hamović, attuale comproprietario della EFT, era il
direttore della «Energoprojekt» - Belgrado, la quale ha sviluppato la
controversa analisi ambientale a favore della centrale idroelettrica a
Buk Bijela, in Republika Srpska, che prevedeva l’inondamento del canyon
del fiume Tara, protetto da tempo dall’UNESCO come patrimonio mondiale.
Anche qui la EFT figurava come partecipante alla gara d’appalto per la
centrale idroelettrica, è come più che probabile futuro concessionario,
dove il contratto prevedeva degli alti profitti per il concessionario.
Per il momento le attività sulla centrale Buk Bijela sono state sospese
perché il parlamento montenegrino ha adottato la Dichiarazione sulla
difesa del fiume Tara, ma resta ancora da vedere come finirà il
progetto della centrale idroelettrica.
Un’altra considerazione: è possibile che il funzionamento della EFT sia
ovunque sospetto, ma non in Montenegro? Per avere un’idea completa
sulla EFT bisogna raccogliere sia le informazioni provenienti dalla
Republika Srpska, Bosnia Erzegovina, Serbia e Gran Bretagna, dove sono
state avviate alcune indagini, sia dal Montenegro, dove siamo ancora in
attesa di eventuali indagini. Soltanto così si potrebbe avere una
storia oggettiva sul funzionamento controverso della EFT.
Da: ICDSM Italia <icdsm-italia @...>
Data: Gio 24 Feb 2005 12:42:09 Europe/Rome
A: icdsm-italia @yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] Shutting Down the Milosevic Defense in The Hague
[ T. Dickson, giurista canadese, consulente legale dell'ICDSM, rivela
gli ultimi abusi compiuti dalla "corte" dell'Aia e li paragona alle
modalità con cui agiva la "Star Chamber", famigerato tribunale politico
del XVII e XVIII secolo... ]
www.globalresearch.ca
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
Beyond the Star Chamber:
Shutting Down the Milosevic Defense in The Hague
by Tiphaine Dickson
www.globalresearch.ca 20 February 2005
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC502A.html
------------------
Editor's Note
We bring to the attention of our readers this important analysis by
Tiphaine Dickson on the Milosevic trial, which points to the blatant
criminalization of international law in support of the US-NATO led
military invasion and occupation of Yugoslavia.
What we are dealing with in the case of the Hague Tribunal is the
criminalization, at the institutional level, of a UN sponsored body.
The ICTY has not only been involved in the cover-up of US-NATO war
crimes and atrocities, but in the indictment through Star Chamber
procedures, of the former head of state for the crimes committed by the
invading NATO forces, not to mention the atrocities carried out by
their proxy terrorist organization, including the Kosovo Liberation
Army (KLA), which was granted in the wake of the 1999 invasion, despite
its links to Al Qaeda and organized crime, the status of a bona fide UN
body.
The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals
legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide
"who are the criminals", when in fact they are the criminals. This
criminalization of the State is not limited to the Bush administration,
it permeates the UN system, which supports US-NATO led military
interventions under the disguise of peacekeeping. These humanitarian
interventions led by the war criminals, are implemented under the
auspices of what is euphemistically called the international community.
Peacekeeping in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Haiti and Iraq is
tantamount to military occupation.
Needless to say, to reach their design, war criminals in high
office must also redefine the contours of international law,
establishing a system reminiscent of the Star Chamber procedures of the
17th Century.
And this is precisely the thrust of Tiphaine Dickson's
investigation, on the Milosevic trial.
------------------
On February 14th, The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) hearing the Milosevic case
resumed proceedings after having adjourned last week following a UN
physician’s opinion that Slobodan Milosevic would require some days to
recover after having been affected by influenza in early February.
Media coverage had again complained of "delays in the trial", and of
illness—generally described as "bouts of flu"-- as the cause of "lost
time". The Chamber faulted President Milosevic for "wasting time" in
his examination of the former Foreign Minister of Yugoslavia with
respect to the secession of the former republics and of foreign
involvement in the conflicts that ensued as a result. Mr. Milosevic was
told the questions—of evident relevance, and indeed of crucial
importance-- were "pointless". The Prosecutor has asked for the
proceedings to continue in absence of Mr. Milosevic. The situation is
ominous and there is evidence that the ICTY is poised to take radical
measures, including the interruption, and ultimately the premature
conclusion of Slobodan Milosevic's defense.
Indeed, the ICTY, a UN Security Council institution, has set the
stage to justify ending these proceedings, while holding President
Milosevic responsible for the result, in four rulings, two of which
were handed down in the last two weeks. First, counsel is imposed
against his will. Second, in absentia proceedings are approved. Third,
imposed counsels are not allowed to withdraw from the case for ethical
reasons. And finally, the duration of the Prosecution case is
artificially reduced, and the time afforded to Slobodan Milosevic
inflated by counting his cross-examinations of Prosecution witnesses as
time devoted to his defense, in an unusual order devoted to statistics.
Slobodan Milosevic is either directly or indirectly made responsible
for the unfortunate state of affairs in all four decisions. All is in
place to wrap it up.
In September, the Trial Chamber imposed counsel against the clear
wishes of the defendant, a practice described by the United States
Supreme Court as having been largely abandoned since the unlamented
late 16th and early 17th century Star Chamber, an executive entity
infamous for trying political cases. The Chamber’s decision to impose
counsel with broad powers to determine the strategy of the defense
created a crisis, as defense witnesses refused to cooperate with
imposed counsel Steven Kay and Gillian Higgins, previously
ICTY-appointed amici curiae (friends of the court), thrust upon
Slobodan Milosevic as defense advocates, oblivious to the fact that
they’d been parties in the proceedings for over two years, and that
this created-- at minimum-- an apparent conflict of interest. Mr. Kay
complained bitterly, and publicly, about the non-cooperation of the
defense witnesses (the Chamber had received Slobodan Milosevic’s list
of witnesses when they imposed counsel), and complained of Milosevic’s
lack of cooperation as well, as the proceedings came to a virtual
standstill with a mere trickle of witnesses making the trip to testify
in The Hague.
The imposition of counsel upon an unwilling accused-- in clear
violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
which provides for the minimum fundamental right to defend oneself in
person-- was approved, as a matter of law, by the Appeals Chamber (the
initial imposition was appealed against by Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins)
last November. The ruling reduced this right-- which is guaranteed by
the ICTY’s own Statute as a minimum fundamental right-- to the rank of
a mere "presumption". In so doing, the ICTY’s President, American
Theodor Meron, stated that all the "minimum" fundamental rights
afforded to the accused by the ICTY’s Statute (which were imported,
almost verbatim, from the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, leaving out only—inexplicably-- the Covenant’s provision of the
right to be tried by an independent, impartial, and competent court)
were "at a par" with the right to represent oneself in person. In other
words, the right for a defendant to represent himself is just a
"presumption" as are all the other basic, fundamental, internationally
recognized, minimal trial rights provided by the ICTY’s Statute, such
as the right to know the nature of the charge, the right to remain
silent, the right to present evidence in the same conditions as the
Prosecutor, the right to an interpreter, and the right to be tried in
one’s own presence. In fact, they are all stripped of their essence as
rights. The ad hoc international legal order holds them to be mere
"presumptions" to be violated at the discretion of a trial chamber when
expedient, or "justified". And as they are no longer really rights, it
then follows that they cannot even really be violated. And if they
can’t be violated, there is not much incentive to respect them, much
less guarantee them, as "minimal rights", nor to sanction or remedy
their breach.
President Meron’s decision was almost universally understood as
having handed a victory to President Milosevic, as it overturned, not
the legality, nor even the propriety, of the imposition of counsel, but
rather the modalities set out by the Trial Chamber for such
"assignment"—that is the ICTY’s delicate formulation-- of counsel.
Hence, President Meron directed that Mr. Milosevic be allowed to
present his defense and question his own witnesses, with imposed
counsel on standby in case of illness. Elsewhere in the Appeals Chamber
ruling, however, President Meron made a startlingly ominous claim: the
right to be tried in one’s presence is not absolute (it, too, it seems,
is but a "presumption") and can be obviated by "substantial disruption"
of the proceedings. This disruption need not be deliberate or even
intended by the accused, and can be caused merely by illness. The
possibility of holding in absentia proceedings in the Milosevic case as
a result of illness (as had been forcefully advocated by the former US
Ambassador for War Crimes Issues, David Scheffer, in the International
Herald Tribune last summer), had just been approved by the Appeals
Chamber.
In early February, President Meron denied a request by imposed
counsels to resign from the proceedings, citing ethical incapacity to
continue in absence of cooperation from the "client", and complaining
of his public criticism of their work. The British barristers directly
blamed President Milosevic —the very person whose rights are being
violated by this imposition-- for their ethical predicament: "[T]he
accused has made a relationship of ‘candid exchange and trust’
impossible ." President Meron accordingly took Kay and Higgins’ word
for it, and set the responsibility for their inability to act for an
unwilling accused squarely at the feet of the very victim of the
measure: "an accused does not have the right to unilaterally destroy
the trust between himself and his counsel." (Although, as President
Milosevic had pointed out at a previous hearing, it is impossible to
destroy, unilaterally or otherwise, something that has never existed in
the first place.) Thus, citing the Appeals Chambers’ previous ruling in
the equally astonishing (and dismal, from a legal and human rights
perspective) case of General Vidoje Blagojevic, President Meron
resolved any and all ethical issues-- including such questions of
interest to lawyers everywhere, such as: how do you represent a client
who refuses your services, who will not speak to you, whose witnesses
do not trust you, who will not communicate facts to you, (such as those
relevant to a defense, including alibi) and how does one act for an
unwilling accused when one has acted for another party in the very same
proceedings?—by insisting on counsel’s obligations towards the ICTY, an
institution not recognized as a legitimate legal body by Slobodan
Milosevic. President Meron held that: "In such circumstances, "where an
Appellant unjustifiably resists legal representation from assigned
Counsel, Counsel’s professional obligations to continue to represent
the accused remain."
It is unfortunate that President Meron’s decision does not reveal
whether the British Bar Council provided an opinion with respect to the
ethical issues raised or whether one was in fact sought by imposed
counsel. Whatever the position of the UK Bar, a venerable institution
whose opinion might well have been of assistance to this debate, as far
as the ICTY is concerned, Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins must continue to act,
as President Meron held that President Milosevic cannot be allowed to
"manufacture" a reason for counsels’ withdrawal by refusing to
cooperate. To "permit" him to do so, wrote Theodor Meron, would be to
"render nugatory" the Appeals Chamber decision to approve imposition of
counsel! One can only admire the perfection of that argument’s
circularity.
As a final indication that these proceedings may well (soon) be
derailed, late last week, the Trial Chamber issued an odd calculation
of the time devoted by both parties, the Prosecutor and Mr. Milosevic,
to the presentation of their respective cases. The ruling goes so far
as to count the minutes the institution has apparently suffered through
in what was announced as the "Trial of Century". This bizarre
accounting of time, unheard of in normal trials, and glaringly at odds
with known practice in the adversarial system, is meant to suggest that
these proceedings have gone on tediously long, and that in "bending
over backwards" the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia now
risks violating the "integrity" of international justice if it
continues to afford such overwhelming fairness to the accused. Such a
suggestion stands in sharp contrast with the reality of a skewed
process which has, from the moment the defendant was indicted—that is
at the height of an illegal bombing campaign, in the course of a war of
aggression against the nation of which he was the legitimate President,
by a Prosecutor who diligently informed the media that his new status
would disqualify him from negotiating peace— has not been characterized
by fairness, but by the steady violation of President Milosevic’s
rights and of international law itself.
These proceedings have indeed, on occasion, been excruciatingly
slow, but the main victim has been President Milosevic, "transferred"
to The Hague -- that is snatched from a Belgrade facility without
recourse to common law courts and in violation of the Yugoslav
constitution, according to the (then) Yugoslav constitutional court--
and detained under UN authority since June 28th, 2001. It is
astonishing to note that international justice, or what attempts to
portray itself as such, would tolerate the four and a half year
detention of a man suffering from malignant hypertension, and worse
yet, employ his illness as a justification, only once his defense had
begun, to impose counsel, in a display of medical concern much less
apparent during Ms. Del Ponte’s inexplicably historical/political
marathon presentation of evidence, much of which was not immediately
relevant, putting it mildly, to the charges contained in the
indictments. That the ICTY would attempt to blame Slobodan Milosevic
for this interminable trial is absurd. Indeed, the Prosecution's case,
presented while investigations were ongoing was for many observers
unintelligible, and meandering.
His surprisingly underreported defense, however, threatens to shed
some light on what he (and increasingly, his witnesses) have described,
not as the “Balkan Wars”, but as a single war against Yugoslavia, a
state no longer in existence, whose last days were punctuated by aerial
bombings not seen in Belgrade since they were carried out by the Allies
at the end of WWII and Nazi Germany in 1941. That is the war President
Milosevic is beginning to investigate in his defense, and that may well
be the reason why suddenly "time is being wasted", the "trial has drawn
on long enough", and that the "integrity" of the proceedings are now at
stake. Indeed, this defense could well present the very "substantial
disturbance" required to shut it—and perhaps the whole institution--
down.
Global Research Contributing Editor 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.
----------
Related articles by Tiphaine Dickson
Iraqi Elections Under Military Occupation: Canada Complicit in a
Parody of Democracy
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/www.globalresearch.ca/articles/
DIC501A.html
The Hague ICTY Tribunal: Star Chamber it Is! by Tiphaine Dickson
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/www.globalresearch.ca/articles/
DIC409A.html
Presiding Judge in Milosevic Trial resigns Cathrin Schütz
interviews Canadian lawyer Tiphaine Dickson
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/www.globalresearch.ca/articles/
DIC402A.html
"That Is The Nature Of The Beast": Why The Hague ICTY Cannot Afford
Slobodan Milosevic’s Right to Self-Representation by Tiphaine Dickson
and Aleksandar Jokic
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC410A.html
-----------
Email this article to a friend
To become a Member of Global Research
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in
their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites,
as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be
acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG
article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be
displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or
other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
crgeditor@...
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions
of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to
use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must
request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global
Research's News and Discussion Forum
For media inquiries: crgeditor@...
© Copyright TIPHAINE DICKSON GLOBAL RESEARCH 2005.
www.globalresearch.ca
return to home page
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
==========================
Data: Gio 24 Feb 2005 12:42:09 Europe/Rome
A: icdsm-italia @yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] Shutting Down the Milosevic Defense in The Hague
[ T. Dickson, giurista canadese, consulente legale dell'ICDSM, rivela
gli ultimi abusi compiuti dalla "corte" dell'Aia e li paragona alle
modalità con cui agiva la "Star Chamber", famigerato tribunale politico
del XVII e XVIII secolo... ]
www.globalresearch.ca
Centre for Research on Globalisation
Centre de recherche sur la mondialisation
Beyond the Star Chamber:
Shutting Down the Milosevic Defense in The Hague
by Tiphaine Dickson
www.globalresearch.ca 20 February 2005
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC502A.html
------------------
Editor's Note
We bring to the attention of our readers this important analysis by
Tiphaine Dickson on the Milosevic trial, which points to the blatant
criminalization of international law in support of the US-NATO led
military invasion and occupation of Yugoslavia.
What we are dealing with in the case of the Hague Tribunal is the
criminalization, at the institutional level, of a UN sponsored body.
The ICTY has not only been involved in the cover-up of US-NATO war
crimes and atrocities, but in the indictment through Star Chamber
procedures, of the former head of state for the crimes committed by the
invading NATO forces, not to mention the atrocities carried out by
their proxy terrorist organization, including the Kosovo Liberation
Army (KLA), which was granted in the wake of the 1999 invasion, despite
its links to Al Qaeda and organized crime, the status of a bona fide UN
body.
The "Criminalization of the State", is when war criminals
legitimately occupy positions of authority, which enable them to decide
"who are the criminals", when in fact they are the criminals. This
criminalization of the State is not limited to the Bush administration,
it permeates the UN system, which supports US-NATO led military
interventions under the disguise of peacekeeping. These humanitarian
interventions led by the war criminals, are implemented under the
auspices of what is euphemistically called the international community.
Peacekeeping in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Haiti and Iraq is
tantamount to military occupation.
Needless to say, to reach their design, war criminals in high
office must also redefine the contours of international law,
establishing a system reminiscent of the Star Chamber procedures of the
17th Century.
And this is precisely the thrust of Tiphaine Dickson's
investigation, on the Milosevic trial.
------------------
On February 14th, The Trial Chamber of the International Criminal
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) hearing the Milosevic case
resumed proceedings after having adjourned last week following a UN
physician’s opinion that Slobodan Milosevic would require some days to
recover after having been affected by influenza in early February.
Media coverage had again complained of "delays in the trial", and of
illness—generally described as "bouts of flu"-- as the cause of "lost
time". The Chamber faulted President Milosevic for "wasting time" in
his examination of the former Foreign Minister of Yugoslavia with
respect to the secession of the former republics and of foreign
involvement in the conflicts that ensued as a result. Mr. Milosevic was
told the questions—of evident relevance, and indeed of crucial
importance-- were "pointless". The Prosecutor has asked for the
proceedings to continue in absence of Mr. Milosevic. The situation is
ominous and there is evidence that the ICTY is poised to take radical
measures, including the interruption, and ultimately the premature
conclusion of Slobodan Milosevic's defense.
Indeed, the ICTY, a UN Security Council institution, has set the
stage to justify ending these proceedings, while holding President
Milosevic responsible for the result, in four rulings, two of which
were handed down in the last two weeks. First, counsel is imposed
against his will. Second, in absentia proceedings are approved. Third,
imposed counsels are not allowed to withdraw from the case for ethical
reasons. And finally, the duration of the Prosecution case is
artificially reduced, and the time afforded to Slobodan Milosevic
inflated by counting his cross-examinations of Prosecution witnesses as
time devoted to his defense, in an unusual order devoted to statistics.
Slobodan Milosevic is either directly or indirectly made responsible
for the unfortunate state of affairs in all four decisions. All is in
place to wrap it up.
In September, the Trial Chamber imposed counsel against the clear
wishes of the defendant, a practice described by the United States
Supreme Court as having been largely abandoned since the unlamented
late 16th and early 17th century Star Chamber, an executive entity
infamous for trying political cases. The Chamber’s decision to impose
counsel with broad powers to determine the strategy of the defense
created a crisis, as defense witnesses refused to cooperate with
imposed counsel Steven Kay and Gillian Higgins, previously
ICTY-appointed amici curiae (friends of the court), thrust upon
Slobodan Milosevic as defense advocates, oblivious to the fact that
they’d been parties in the proceedings for over two years, and that
this created-- at minimum-- an apparent conflict of interest. Mr. Kay
complained bitterly, and publicly, about the non-cooperation of the
defense witnesses (the Chamber had received Slobodan Milosevic’s list
of witnesses when they imposed counsel), and complained of Milosevic’s
lack of cooperation as well, as the proceedings came to a virtual
standstill with a mere trickle of witnesses making the trip to testify
in The Hague.
The imposition of counsel upon an unwilling accused-- in clear
violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
which provides for the minimum fundamental right to defend oneself in
person-- was approved, as a matter of law, by the Appeals Chamber (the
initial imposition was appealed against by Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins)
last November. The ruling reduced this right-- which is guaranteed by
the ICTY’s own Statute as a minimum fundamental right-- to the rank of
a mere "presumption". In so doing, the ICTY’s President, American
Theodor Meron, stated that all the "minimum" fundamental rights
afforded to the accused by the ICTY’s Statute (which were imported,
almost verbatim, from the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, leaving out only—inexplicably-- the Covenant’s provision of the
right to be tried by an independent, impartial, and competent court)
were "at a par" with the right to represent oneself in person. In other
words, the right for a defendant to represent himself is just a
"presumption" as are all the other basic, fundamental, internationally
recognized, minimal trial rights provided by the ICTY’s Statute, such
as the right to know the nature of the charge, the right to remain
silent, the right to present evidence in the same conditions as the
Prosecutor, the right to an interpreter, and the right to be tried in
one’s own presence. In fact, they are all stripped of their essence as
rights. The ad hoc international legal order holds them to be mere
"presumptions" to be violated at the discretion of a trial chamber when
expedient, or "justified". And as they are no longer really rights, it
then follows that they cannot even really be violated. And if they
can’t be violated, there is not much incentive to respect them, much
less guarantee them, as "minimal rights", nor to sanction or remedy
their breach.
President Meron’s decision was almost universally understood as
having handed a victory to President Milosevic, as it overturned, not
the legality, nor even the propriety, of the imposition of counsel, but
rather the modalities set out by the Trial Chamber for such
"assignment"—that is the ICTY’s delicate formulation-- of counsel.
Hence, President Meron directed that Mr. Milosevic be allowed to
present his defense and question his own witnesses, with imposed
counsel on standby in case of illness. Elsewhere in the Appeals Chamber
ruling, however, President Meron made a startlingly ominous claim: the
right to be tried in one’s presence is not absolute (it, too, it seems,
is but a "presumption") and can be obviated by "substantial disruption"
of the proceedings. This disruption need not be deliberate or even
intended by the accused, and can be caused merely by illness. The
possibility of holding in absentia proceedings in the Milosevic case as
a result of illness (as had been forcefully advocated by the former US
Ambassador for War Crimes Issues, David Scheffer, in the International
Herald Tribune last summer), had just been approved by the Appeals
Chamber.
In early February, President Meron denied a request by imposed
counsels to resign from the proceedings, citing ethical incapacity to
continue in absence of cooperation from the "client", and complaining
of his public criticism of their work. The British barristers directly
blamed President Milosevic —the very person whose rights are being
violated by this imposition-- for their ethical predicament: "[T]he
accused has made a relationship of ‘candid exchange and trust’
impossible ." President Meron accordingly took Kay and Higgins’ word
for it, and set the responsibility for their inability to act for an
unwilling accused squarely at the feet of the very victim of the
measure: "an accused does not have the right to unilaterally destroy
the trust between himself and his counsel." (Although, as President
Milosevic had pointed out at a previous hearing, it is impossible to
destroy, unilaterally or otherwise, something that has never existed in
the first place.) Thus, citing the Appeals Chambers’ previous ruling in
the equally astonishing (and dismal, from a legal and human rights
perspective) case of General Vidoje Blagojevic, President Meron
resolved any and all ethical issues-- including such questions of
interest to lawyers everywhere, such as: how do you represent a client
who refuses your services, who will not speak to you, whose witnesses
do not trust you, who will not communicate facts to you, (such as those
relevant to a defense, including alibi) and how does one act for an
unwilling accused when one has acted for another party in the very same
proceedings?—by insisting on counsel’s obligations towards the ICTY, an
institution not recognized as a legitimate legal body by Slobodan
Milosevic. President Meron held that: "In such circumstances, "where an
Appellant unjustifiably resists legal representation from assigned
Counsel, Counsel’s professional obligations to continue to represent
the accused remain."
It is unfortunate that President Meron’s decision does not reveal
whether the British Bar Council provided an opinion with respect to the
ethical issues raised or whether one was in fact sought by imposed
counsel. Whatever the position of the UK Bar, a venerable institution
whose opinion might well have been of assistance to this debate, as far
as the ICTY is concerned, Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins must continue to act,
as President Meron held that President Milosevic cannot be allowed to
"manufacture" a reason for counsels’ withdrawal by refusing to
cooperate. To "permit" him to do so, wrote Theodor Meron, would be to
"render nugatory" the Appeals Chamber decision to approve imposition of
counsel! One can only admire the perfection of that argument’s
circularity.
As a final indication that these proceedings may well (soon) be
derailed, late last week, the Trial Chamber issued an odd calculation
of the time devoted by both parties, the Prosecutor and Mr. Milosevic,
to the presentation of their respective cases. The ruling goes so far
as to count the minutes the institution has apparently suffered through
in what was announced as the "Trial of Century". This bizarre
accounting of time, unheard of in normal trials, and glaringly at odds
with known practice in the adversarial system, is meant to suggest that
these proceedings have gone on tediously long, and that in "bending
over backwards" the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia now
risks violating the "integrity" of international justice if it
continues to afford such overwhelming fairness to the accused. Such a
suggestion stands in sharp contrast with the reality of a skewed
process which has, from the moment the defendant was indicted—that is
at the height of an illegal bombing campaign, in the course of a war of
aggression against the nation of which he was the legitimate President,
by a Prosecutor who diligently informed the media that his new status
would disqualify him from negotiating peace— has not been characterized
by fairness, but by the steady violation of President Milosevic’s
rights and of international law itself.
These proceedings have indeed, on occasion, been excruciatingly
slow, but the main victim has been President Milosevic, "transferred"
to The Hague -- that is snatched from a Belgrade facility without
recourse to common law courts and in violation of the Yugoslav
constitution, according to the (then) Yugoslav constitutional court--
and detained under UN authority since June 28th, 2001. It is
astonishing to note that international justice, or what attempts to
portray itself as such, would tolerate the four and a half year
detention of a man suffering from malignant hypertension, and worse
yet, employ his illness as a justification, only once his defense had
begun, to impose counsel, in a display of medical concern much less
apparent during Ms. Del Ponte’s inexplicably historical/political
marathon presentation of evidence, much of which was not immediately
relevant, putting it mildly, to the charges contained in the
indictments. That the ICTY would attempt to blame Slobodan Milosevic
for this interminable trial is absurd. Indeed, the Prosecution's case,
presented while investigations were ongoing was for many observers
unintelligible, and meandering.
His surprisingly underreported defense, however, threatens to shed
some light on what he (and increasingly, his witnesses) have described,
not as the “Balkan Wars”, but as a single war against Yugoslavia, a
state no longer in existence, whose last days were punctuated by aerial
bombings not seen in Belgrade since they were carried out by the Allies
at the end of WWII and Nazi Germany in 1941. That is the war President
Milosevic is beginning to investigate in his defense, and that may well
be the reason why suddenly "time is being wasted", the "trial has drawn
on long enough", and that the "integrity" of the proceedings are now at
stake. Indeed, this defense could well present the very "substantial
disturbance" required to shut it—and perhaps the whole institution--
down.
Global Research Contributing Editor 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.
----------
Related articles by Tiphaine Dickson
Iraqi Elections Under Military Occupation: Canada Complicit in a
Parody of Democracy
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/www.globalresearch.ca/articles/
DIC501A.html
The Hague ICTY Tribunal: Star Chamber it Is! by Tiphaine Dickson
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/www.globalresearch.ca/articles/
DIC409A.html
Presiding Judge in Milosevic Trial resigns Cathrin Schütz
interviews Canadian lawyer Tiphaine Dickson
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/www.globalresearch.ca/articles/
DIC402A.html
"That Is The Nature Of The Beast": Why The Hague ICTY Cannot Afford
Slobodan Milosevic’s Right to Self-Representation by Tiphaine Dickson
and Aleksandar Jokic
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC410A.html
-----------
Email this article to a friend
To become a Member of Global Research
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca
grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in
their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites,
as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be
acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address of the original CRG
article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be
displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or
other forms including commercial internet sites, contact:
crgeditor@...
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which
has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We
are making such material available to our readers under the provisions
of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of
political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to
use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must
request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole
responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of
the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at Global
Research's News and Discussion Forum
For media inquiries: crgeditor@...
© Copyright TIPHAINE DICKSON GLOBAL RESEARCH 2005.
www.globalresearch.ca
return to home page
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
==========================
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
==========================
Da: ICDSM Italia
Data: Gio 24 Feb 2005 16:32:38 Europe/Rome
A: icdsm-italia @yahoogroups.com
Cc: aa-info @yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] MILOSEVIC "TRIAL": THE DEFENSE PHASE
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL": THE DEFENSE PHASE
1. LINKS
2. NEWS:
Testimonies by Ivashov, Primakov, Barriot, Balevic, Jovanovic ...
3. SOME OTHER CASES
Evidence on Crimes Against Sarajevo Serbs / NATO Hides Evidence of the
Own War Crimes / Balkan Countries under Pressure by ICTY
NOTE: the following links and articles are from various sources,
including anti-Milosevic sources or sources which do NOT support ICDSM
=== 1. LINKS ===
JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE AND CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
by Allison Mars ton Donner. Excerpt from: ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WAR
CRIMES: WHAT ROLES FOR NATIONAL, INTERNATIONAL, AND HYBRID TRIBUNALS?;
Proceedings of the American Society of International Law; Annual
Meeting. Washington: 2004
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/asal2004.htm
Milosevic "trial" summaries
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/4272
Will Sympathetic Testimonies Help Milosevic?
http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=455
Serbian poll shows positive attitude toward Milosevic rising
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/beta021705.htm
---
SEE ALSO, on the anti-yugoslav website www.iwpr.net :
MILOSEVIC JUDGES FACE NEW CHALLENGE Appeals chamber's decision to
restore accused's right to defend himself will require judges to
maintain firm control of the trial. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 380, November 05, 2004
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_380_1_eng.txt
MILOSEVIC CALLS FOR CLINTON Former Serb leader wants high-profile
witnesses to testify by Christmas. By Alison Freebairn in The Hague
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 381, November 14, 2004
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_381_1_eng.txt
MILOSEVIC JUDGES FACE CRUCIAL CHOICE Trial chamber's handling of
lawyer's request to leave case could damage more than one reputation.
By Alison Freebairn in London
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 382, November 19, 2004
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_382_2_eng.txt
MILOSEVIC ALLY DEFENDS BELGRADE TAKEOVER OF KOSOVO Former head of the
Kosovo assembly justifies the process that ended the region's autonomy
in 1989. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 384, 03 December, 2004
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_384_3_eng.txt
MILOSEVIC LAWYERS MUST STAY Trial chamber refuses British pair's
request to withdraw, arguing that it would be against the interests of
justice. By Alison Freebairn in London
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 385, December 10, 2004
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_385_5_eng.txt
SERBS WERE VICTIMS OF “FUNDAMENTALISM” Former UN peacekeepers tell
Milosevic trial that they saw only “victims” of Croat, Muslim and
Albanian aggression. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR’S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 389, 14 January, 2005
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_389_1_eng.txt
MILOSEVIC ALLY BEGINS MARATHON TESTIMONY Former constitutional court
judge argues that Slovenes and Croats bear responsibility for the wars
that destroyed Yugoslavia. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR’S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 389, 14 January, 2005
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_389_2_eng.txt
MILOSEVIC LAWYER FIGHTS TO LEAVE CASE British barrister makes final
plea to tribunal president to be allowed to withdraw from high-profile
trial. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR’S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 389, 14 January, 2005
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_389_3_eng.txt
MILOSEVIC ALLY SUGGESTS SERBS RECTIFIED WRONGS Ex-Serbian leader seems
to hope testimony will portray him as a responsible politician,
protecting his nation’s interests. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR’S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 390, January 21, 2005
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_390_1_eng.txt
WITNESS DISPUTES RACAK FINDINGS Milosevic trial hears alternate view
of life in Kosovo - and of infamous massacre. By Ana Uzelac in The
Hague
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 391, January 28, 2005
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_391_1_eng.txt
=== 2. NEWS ===
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/
20041111/ts_nm/milosevic_dc
Reuters - November 11, 2004
Milosevic Wants Clinton to Testify by Christmas
By Paul Gallagher
AMSTERDAM - Slobodan Milosevic called on judges to
subpoena former U.S. President Bill Clinton and
British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday, saying
he would like them to testify at his war crimes trial
by Christmas.
The former Yugoslav president, charged with genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Balkans
in the 1990s, opened his defense in August in what is
seen as Europe's most significant war crimes trial
since the end of World War II.
Milosevic asked for The Hague tribunal to also summon
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, former German
Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping, former Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright and retired U.S. General
Wesley Clark.
"We're talking about William Clinton, Madeleine
Albright, Anthony Blair, Gerhard Schroeder and Rudolf
Scharping in the first group," he said, also adding
retired general Clark, who directed the 1999 NATO
bombing of Serbia, to his list.
"I would ask you to issue an order now for them to be
heard if possible before the Christmas recess,"
Milosevic said.
Milosevic, who has been on trial in The Hague since
February 2002 charged with ethnic cleansing in
Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, said he had done the
groundwork by sending letters to embassies and
providing clarification when asked why he wanted the
witnesses to give evidence during his defense case.
"By conclusive action it has been shown that they are
not willing to appear," Milosevic told the trial's
three judges in a webcast of a hearing at the U.N.
tribunal.
KEY LEADERS
Presiding judge Patrick Robinson said he would not
issue a subpoena unless Milosevic submitted his
request in writing.
"You must make a written submission setting out the
circumstances which show that they are unwilling to
come and setting out the evidence you want them to
give," he said. (...)
Milosevic won back the right to lead his own defense
earlier this month in an appeal against a decision by
judges in September to appoint two lawyers to manage
and present his case to prevent trial delays due to
his ill health.
Milosevic, who has described himself as a peacemaker
in the Balkans and does not recognize the court, has
dismissed the charges he faces as politically
motivated "lies" and declined to enter a plea. Pleas
of not guilty were entered on his behalf.
---
IVASHOV AND RYZHKOV TO APPEAR AS DEFENSE WITNESSES AT MILOSEVIC TRIAL
IN HAGUE
RIA Novosti - November 18, 2004
MOSCOW, November 18 (RIA Novosti) - Leonid Ivashov and Nikolai Ryzhkov
are flying on Friday to The Hague to appear as witnesses for defense at
the trial of ex-Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, Leonid Ivashov,
vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, told RIA
Novosti.
"Nikolai Ryzhkov and myself are flying on Friday to The Hague to give
evidence. The current head of Russia's Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, Yevgeny Primakov, will also go to The Hague at the end of the
month," Mr. Ivashov said.
He pointed out that the aim of his appearance at the trial is to give
objective witness evidence about processes that were under way inside
the federal republic of Yugoslavia and around it.
Mr. Ivashov motivated his desire to address the court by the fact that
"on the other side high-profile NATO officials come forward with
statements, exonerating themselves and justifying the aggression. They
demonize Milosevic, the Serbs and the political leadership of
Yugoslavia."
According to him, the Russian representatives will appear in the
courtroom of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on
Saturday and Sunday.
This week, defense witnesses for the former Yugoslav president resumed
giving evidence. Slobodan Milosevic is accused of genocide in Bosnia
and Herzegovina and crimes against humanity in Croatia and Kosovo. The
first to take the witness stand was Mihail Markovic, who was considered
to be the ideologist of the Socialist Party of Serbia, whose chairman
is still Mr. Milosevic.
Mr. Ivashov took a direct part in efforts to settle the Kosovo crisis
as a representative of Russia's Defense Ministry, while Mr. Ryzhkov
headed the committee of the State Duma (lower house of Russian
parliament) to render assistance to Yugoslavia. Mr. Ivashov repeatedly
visited the country and had meetings with the Yugoslav leadership.
Yevgeny Primakov in March 1999, being Russia's prime minister, turned
back his plane over the Atlantic on which he was flying for a visit to
the United States in protest against the US decision to begin the
bombing of Yugoslavia.
The tribunal in September of this year attempted, contrary to the will
of Mr. Milosevic who was defending himself, to saddle him with a
Western lawyer whose remit included defining defense witnesses, the
nature of evidence, and its interpretation. Following which witnesses
began refusing en masse to testify.
Also refusing to come to The Hague were Russian witnesses for Mr.
Milosevic, since "in those conditions appearance as a defense witness
could be used against Milosevic and did not promote objectivity and
adoption of a just decision," the Russian general indicated.
The resumption of the trial became possible after the court again
allowed the accused to defend himself.
Judge Patrick Robinson said in The Hague last week that Mr. Milosevic
must complete his defense within 150 working days and any
unpremeditated break unconnected with an illness will be included in
this period. Mr. Milosevic indicated that he would demand an extension
of the period concerned, allocated for his defense. He also requested
that former and current western leaders - Bill Clinton, Tony Blair,
Madeleine Albright, Wesley Clark, Gerhard Schroeder and Rudolf
Scharping - be summoned to the trial and heard out.
Story Filed: 2004-11-18 11:51
Copyright 2004 RIA Novosti
Posted for Fair Use only.
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=2&nav_id=30581&order=priority&style=headlines
Beta (Serbia and Montenegro) - November 23, 2004
Walker “described Kosovo intervention as inevitable”
THE HAGUE – Russian General Leonid Ivashov has taken
the stand for the defence in the trial of Slobodan
Milosevic before the Hague Tribunal.
The former commander of Russia’s international forces,
told the court that the head of the 1998-99 Kosovo
Verification Mission, William Walker, had said as
early as February 12, 1999, that Serbs had no business
in the province.
“Walker had already said on February 12, 1999, in
answer to my question of what the chances looked for a
peaceful resolution to the Kosovo crisis, that there
would be an inevitable military intervention in the
spring and that Serbs had no business in Kosovo,” said
Ivashov.
The witness also told the court that former US
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had personally
promised Kosovo Liberation Army leader Hashim Thaci
that there would be a referendum on independence for
Kosovo if the guerrilla organisation agreed to foreign
troops being deployed in the province.
“The Russian General Staff Headquarters had
information about 11 camps in Kosovo and northern
Albanian were terrorists were being trained. We
passed this information to General Wesley Clark with
the intention of together putting an end to the Kosovo
Liberation Army’s terrorist activities.
“Unfortunately General Clark said that NATO had no
good intelligence reports to confirm this, which was
simply not true,” said Ivashov.
The witness also told the court that Russian military
leaders had spoken to the ambassadors of fifteen Islam
countries about the training of terrorists and that
the Iranian ambassador had confirmed the participation
of Taliban and Al-Qaida members in Kosovo.
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=30599&style=headlines
B92 (Serbia and Montenegro) - November 24, 2004
Ivashov attacks NATO in testimony
THE HAGUE - The Hague Tribunal finished hearing
evidence from Russian general Leonid Ivashov, who said
that Russia was in possession of information as early
as 1997 that NATO would attack Yugoslavia.
At the time, Ivashov was in charge of following the
situation in Yugoslavia and reporting back to then
Russian President Boris Yeltsin.
Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice suggested that the witness’s
claims regarding the intentions of NATO and the US to
attack Yugoslavia could be a result of skimming
through American military handbooks and news paper
articles and documents which the witness quotes, but
cannot present to the court.
He then asked Ivashov if the Russian, who have been
know to “eavesdrop on their own leaders" make a habit
of eavesdropping on western officials as well, to
which the general replied that as far as eavesdropping
on foreign officials is concerned, he can point to a
time he listened in to a conversation in March 1999 of
US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright encouraging
Hashim Thachi to incite a rebellion in Kosovo.
"Eavesdropping on terrorists is legal and allowed."
Ivashov said.
He added that the Kosovo Liberation Army and NATO were
an alliance both politically and militarily at the
time, and that no political moves on the side of
Belgrade could have prevented the bombing.
Nice mentioned reports from the Russian members of the
Contact Group in Kosovo that list various abuse of
human rights perpetrated by the Serbian side in
Kosovo, to which Ivashov answered that the Contact
Group has always been full of compromises and that
while they accused Belgrade of such acts, the reports
talked about the KLA as a terrorist organization,
which in his opinion, proves the compromising nature
of this organization.
When Prosecutor Nice accused Ivashov of being far to
involved in the interests of Yugoslavia, Ivashov said,
“I did defend the interests of Yugoslavia, as an
independent and sovereign state. I tried to fight for
the acknowledgement of human rights and the UN
charter. I had no other interests. I am as loyal to
keeping the peace as any NATO general is."
Milosevic was visibly pleased with the testimony,
addressing Ivashov at the end saying, “Thank you
general Ivashov, and have a good trip!"
Former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov is
expected to take the stand as a defense witness for
Slobodan Milosevic in the Hague Tribunal next Tuesday.
---
http://www.makfax.com.mk/news1-a.asp?br=88321
MakFax (Macedonia) - November 24, 2004
Ivashov continues to testify in Milosevic defense
Former Head of the Russian Defense Ministry Department
for International Military Cooperation,
Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, today will continue to
testify as a defense witness for Slobodan Milosevic.
The blame for the humanitarian catastrophe, imputed to
Milosevic by the prosecution, is really on NATO, said
Ivashov in his Tuesday testimony for the events in
Kosovo during the NATO operation in 1999.
I've talked with some Albanians and I know that many
of them escaped from NATO bombs and that the number of
fugitives in the end of the bombardment was three
times larger than in the beginning, stated Ivashov.
He said that NATO used Kosovo and Yugoslavia
territories for testing different weapons.
Russian top military officials, on May 5 1999,
concluded that NATO used Kosovo and Yugoslavia for
testing new ammunition types and depleted uranium,
said Ivashov. (...)
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=30599&style=headlines
B92 (Serbia and Montenegro) - November 24, 2004
Primakov in Hague next week
THE HAGUE – Former Russian prime minister Yevgeny
Primakov is expected to take the stand as a defence
witness for Slobodan Milosevic in the Hague Tribunal
next Tuesday.
The court today finished hearing evidence from Russian
general Leonid Ivashov, who said that Russia was in
possession of information as early as 1997 that NATO
would attack Yugoslavia.
---
MILOSEVIC SHOULD BE ACQUITTED, SAYS RUSSIAN GENERAL
BBC Monitoring International Reports - November 29, 2004
Text of report in English by Russian news agency Interfax-AVN web site
Moscow, 29 November: Col-Gen Leonid Ivashov, vice-president of the
Geopolitical Problems Academy, hopes that the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) will acquit ex-president
Slobodan Milosevic.
"Milosevic should be acquitted, and I hope that ICTY judges will return
a reasonable verdict in compliance with the law and conscience,"
Ivashov, who was summoned by the ICTY as a witness for the defence last
week, told Interfax-Military News Agency today. According to him, all
accusations against Milosevic are far-fetched and too thin.
Ivashov said that Russian witnesses for the defence were trying to
create the real picture of the events in Yugoslavia. "We are trying to
prove that Kosovo was destabilized by terrorist attacks by the Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA) and drug traffickers, who funded terrorist cells
and mercenaries. All these facts forced Belgrade to take steps to
protect peaceful residents and destroy the KLA, which had expanded to
the size of a regular army," he said.
"Those who are being tried in The Hague are Serbs, their president and
generals, who were just discharging their duties," Ivashov said.
Ivashov, former head of the Russian Defence Ministry's international
military cooperation directorate, and Nikolay Ryzhkov, a member of the
Federation Council and former chairman of the USSR Council of
Ministers, were summoned by the ICTY as witnesses for the defence of
Milosevic, who is accused of genocide in Bosnia-Hercegovina, as well as
crimes against humanity in Croatia and Kosovo.
Source: Interfax-AVN military news agency web site, Moscow, in English
1245 gmt 29 Nov 04
---
http://www.makfax.com.mk/news1-a.asp?br=88818
MakFax (Macedonia) - November 29, 2004
Primakov to testify in defense of Milosevic
The former Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov
will testify in the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) as a witness of
defense in the trial against the former Yugoslav
president Slobodan Milosevic.
Primakov will testify on Tuesday, when the trial
resumes.
The former Russian prime minister is the third witness
in Milosevic defense, since the right to defend
himself was granted back to the accused in the
beginning of this month. Previously, in Milosevic's
defense testified the Serbian Academician Mihajlo
Markovic and the retired Russian General Leonid
Ivashov.
Milosevic told the Tribunal that he will cross examine
the witness more briefly than usual, because the
witness will be staying in The Hague only one day.
Nevertheless, that is an open issue, because according
to the Tribunal, Primakov can be a very important
witness, whose testimony may not be over in one day.
Yevgeny Primakov, incumbent President of the Russian
Chamber of Commerce, was Russian prime minister at the
time of NATO-led air strikes on Yugoslavia.
Along with the Milosevic's trial, the trials of Kosovo
Albanians members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)
- Fatmir Limaj, Isak Musliu and Haradin Balaj, former
chairman of the Republika Srpska's Assembly Momcilo
Krajisnik and of the Bosnian officers - Naser Oric,
Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura, will continue
this week, starting as of today, when all of them will
face trial over war crimes charges.
---
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6952759
Reuters - November 30, 2004
Primakov: Milosevic for Peace, Not 'Greater Serbia'
By Emma Thomasson
THE HAGUE - Slobodan Milosevic was a peacemaker who
did not want to fight for a "Greater Serbia," while an
anti-Serb West stoked the bloody collapse of
Yugoslavia, Russia's Yevgeny Primakov said Tuesday.
Primakov, former Russian foreign minister and prime
minister, was testifying in defense of the former
Yugoslav president, who is charged with genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Balkans
in the 1990s.
Primakov said the Western media had portrayed Serbs as
"aggressors" and after Bill Clinton was elected U.S.
president in 1992, Washington became increasingly
anti-Serb.
"It became ever more apparent that their course was to
weaken Serbia, to not allow it to gain strength and
possibly even to complete the process of Yugoslavia's
complete disintegration," he told the U.N. tribunal in
The Hague.
Primakov, prime minister in 1998-99, blamed the West,
in particular Germany, for fueling violence in Kosovo
in the late 1990s by supporting the separatist Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA) despite earlier labeling them
terrorists.
"The initiators and provocateurs of so many events in
Kosovo was the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army," he
said, adding that a mass exodus of refugees from the
region started only after NATO launched airstrikes in
March 1999.
In an allusion to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, Primakov
said Kosovo had set a precedent for military action
without a U.N. mandate.
"This undermines undoubtedly the international order,"
he said.
NO "GREATER SERBIA" PLAN
Primakov said the West was wrong to assume that
Milosevic wanted to create a "Greater Serbia" or to
unify all Serbs in a state as the multi-ethnic
Yugoslav federation crumbled.
During his first meeting with the former Serb
strongman in 1993, Primakov said he specifically asked
Milosevic whether he had plans for a "Greater Serbia."
"He said this could only be achieved in theory and at
the price of great bloodshed and 'I'm not prepared to
do that,"' Primakov said of Milosevic's reply. "He had
no plans and conducted no actions to achieve a Greater
Serbia."
Primakov noted that Milosevic accepted the 1993
Vance-Owen peace plan for Bosnia and imposed an
economic blockade after the Bosnian Serb parliament
rejected the plan.
"You wanted a peaceful solution," he said to
Milosevic.
The 1992-5 Bosnian war ended after U.S.-sponsored
talks in Dayton, Ohio. Primakov said former Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright had told him Dayton would
not have worked without Milosevic's support.
Primakov said Milosevic also tried to stop violence in
Kosovo and told the Russian prime minister on a visit
to Belgrade on the eve of the NATO bombing he was
prepared to pull his forces out of Kosovo if NATO
withdrew from the border with Macedonia.
"We never had the chance to tell what we had
achieved," Primakov said. "Barely had our plane taken
off then the bombing of the airport started."
The former Yugoslav president won back the right to
lead his own defense earlier this month after the
court appointed two lawyers in September to defend him
to stop his ill health causing more delays to an
already marathon trial.
Milosevic has accused the tribunal of bias against him
and the Serb people, saying it is designed to cover up
NATO war crimes in Kosovo. He has refused to enter a
plea to the charges and pleas of not guilty were
entered on his behalf.
Milosevic, a Belgrade law school graduate, wants to
call more than 1,000 witnesses in his defense
including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Albright
and Clinton.
---
http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5154960&startrow=51&date=2004-12-
01&do_alert=0
Russian Information Agency (Novosti) - December 1, 2004
WEST IS BEHIND MANY DEVELOPMENTS IN UKRAINE - PRIMAKOV
Poskakukhin
THE HAGUE - Yevgeny Primakov, chairman of Russia's
Chamber of Commerce and Industry, believes that the
West is behind many developments in Ukraine.
In a RIA Novosti interview, Primakov described as
"thoughtless" the position of those who dismiss the
opinion concerning the presidential poll prevailing in
Ukraine's eastern part.
"The part of Ukraine which accounts for more than 79%
of GDP is totally disregarded in their conclusions by
those who claim to be able to resolve things in a fair
way," he thinks.
"It seems to me that this is a rash position, which,
unfortunately, is backed by the West," Primakov said.
In his opinion, those who stick to this point of view
fail to understand that such a stand may trigger "not
only a split of Ukraine, but also have a negative
impact on Russia".
"At the same time, differences between Russia and the
West are intensifying. Who needs it all?" he added.
Primakov also pointed out that he would not draw any
parallels between the events of the 1990s in
Yugoslavia and current developments in Ukraine.
In his view, Yugoslavia collapsed mainly because in
1990 elections the Communist League of Yugoslavia
suffered a setback in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and
Macedonia.
"These four republics were poised to withdraw from
Yugoslavia under the flags of other parties," Primakov
indicated. "The Communist League retained its
positions in Serbia and Montenegro. This, he believes,
was the reason for an "ideological approach" to
Slobodan Milosevic.
Another distinctive feature of the Yugoslav events,
Primakov believes, was that Yugoslavia was split as a
state, which was not set up around one people.
"The processes going on in Ukraine are entirely
different," he stressed.
Primakov on Tuesday appeared as a witness for defence
at an International Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia
trial of Slobodan Milosevic.
---
http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5176084&startrow=41&date=2004-12-
06&do_alert=0
2004-12-06 15:46 * MILOSEVIC * TRIAL * PRIMAKOV *
MILOSEVIC DID NOT SEEK TO CREATE A GREAT SERBIA
MOSCOW, December 6 (RIA Novosti) - "In January 1993, Milosevic told me
he did not seek to create a Great Serbia. He understood that could be
achieved through shedding seas of blood, if at all," Yegeny Primakov,
the chief of Russia's Chamber of Commerce and Trade, an academician,
said in the Postscriptum program on Channel 3. Mr. Primakov has
returned from The Hague where he appeared at the trial of
ex-Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic for the defendant.
"I told about his role in adopting the Vance-Owen Plan that was being
discussed at a conference in Geneva where Mr. Milosevic flew at
Russia's suit. And he helped achieve a breakthrough there. The
delegation of the Republic of Serbia had rejected constitutional
changes stipulated in the plan before he arrived. The conferees even
could not pass to discussing the territorial division issue," said Mr.
Primakov.
Mr. Primakov said he had spoken to Mr. Milosevic in prison for nearly 6
hours. Before than he was searched three times and he went through 15
doors.
Mr. Primakov said Mr. Milosevic was strong in spirit as a fighter.
"Milosevic said he felt better when he was allowed to defend his case
in public," said Mr. Primakov.
Speaking about reasons behind his decision to speak as a defense
witness at the trial, Mr. Primakov said it was his civil duty and the
desire to prove the justness of Russia's policy of that time.
Mr. Primakov believes the trial is biased in favor of the prosecution.
"Along with other witnesses from Russia we have done everything
possible to make the trial honest," said Mr. Primakov.
Mr. Primakov said he had appeared in court in connection with two
incidents in Bosnia and later on in Kosovo as he was the chief of the
Russian foreign intelligence service at the time and then headed the
foreign ministry and the government.
Mr. Primakov added he had used relevant official documents and the
records of his telephone talks with US Vice-President Gore,
PresidentChirac, the Italian and British prime ministers, as well as
the records of his numerous conversations with President Milosevic.
"Therefore the documentary evidence provided in its English version was
not propaganda material," concluded Mr. Primakov.
---
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_386_4_eng.txt
(...)
Briefly noted:
The lawyers tasked with defending Slobodan Milosevic before the Hague
tribunal have applied for permission to appeal a decision by judges to
prevent them from withdrawing from the case.
In the request, submitted on December 14, Steven Kay QC and his
assistant Gillian Higgins argue that Judge Patrick Robinson, Judge
O-Gon Kwon and Judge Iain Bonomy were wrong to reject their argument
that the current arrangement risks placing the lawyers in breach of the
tribunal's code of conduct.
They also say the judges should have taken into account opinions
expressed by the prosecution lawyers working on the case and by the
tribunal's Association of Defence Counsel, which they say support their
position. And they suggest that the judges failed to give enough weight
to the specific circumstances surrounding their request to withdraw from
the trial, and applied an inappropriate precedent when making their
decision to deny it.
Higgins and Kay - who formerly served in the role of amicus curiae in
the Milosevic trial - were first assigned the task of conducting the
former
Yugoslav president's defence in September, amid growing concerns that
his poor health meant it was no longer practical to allow him to
represent
himself.
But Milosevic, determined to continue on his own, refused to communicate
with them, and a series of witnesses declined to come to court in
protest at the decision to impose counsel.
The appeals chamber subsequently ruled that Milosevic should be allowed
to play the primary role in conducting his own defence, with assigned
counsel on standby should they be needed.
The issue now in hand is whether Kay and Higgins themselves should have
to play this role, or whether they can be allowed to resign from their
posts.
It is now down to the judges hearing Milosevic's case to decide whether
the two lawyers should be allowed to proceed to the appeals chamber
to argue their position.
Source: IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 386, December 17, 2004
---
http://www.blic.co.yu/danas/broj/E-Index.htm#6
Blic (Serbia and Montenegro) - January 12, 2005
Patrick Barriot: USA involved in 'Storm'
In continuation of court trial against former Yugoslav
president Slobodan Milosevic before the Hague
Tribunal, Patrick Barriot, witness of the defense said
that USA 'were directly involved in the attack by
Croatia Army on Kninska Krajina in summer 1955'.
'Americans were directly involved in 'Storm'
operation. That was a terrible operation in which
about 2,000 Serbs were killed and more than 200,000 of
them ethnically cleansed', Barriot said. As a medical
doctor he was within international forces in Bosnia
and Herzegovina and Croatia.
Barriot also spoke about release of two French pilots
captured by the Republic of Srpska Army in 1995.
According to his words, several French politicians who
negotiated with RSA commander General Ratko Mladic
over release of the pilots took considerable amounts
of money under false excuse that Ratko Mladic was
requesting ransom. He added that Mladic told the
negotiator of French Government, retired General
Pierre-Mario Galoaou that he would release the French
pilots if then French HQ chief-of-staff, General Duen
shake hands with Mladic.
'The pilots were released on December 123 after Duen
and Mladic shook their hands. Mladic has not got a
cent, but French politicians took millions', Bario
said.
Barriot also said that for years he had been a colonel
in French Army in charge of security in civil
protection.
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug (Serbia and Montenegro) - January 12, 2005
West backed Nazism, fundamentalism: Milosevic
THE HAGUE - The International Criminal Tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) continued on Wednesday
its trial against former Serbian president Slobodan
Milosevic by a testimony of defence witness French
military physician Patrick Barriot, who presented a
document issued by French intelligence services,
according to which Mohamed Atta, pilot of one of the
planes which had hit the World Trade Centre in New
York on September 11, 2001, had been in
Bosnia-Herzegovina on several occasions between 1994
and 1999.
According to Milosevic and his witness, this proves
that "Islamic terrorism is deeply rooted in
Bosnia-Herzegovina," which, as both of them
underscored, was one of the major causes of ethnic
clashes in the former Yugoslavia.
THE HAGUE-SREBRENICA-ASHDOWN
THE HAGUE - Witness for the defence at the trial of
Slobodan Milosevic Patrick Barriot denied on Wednesday
the report made by the Republika Srpska commission on
the Srebrenica victims in 1995, by asserting that the
report was "dictated" by the high representative of
the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paddy Ashdown and that the number of victims
exaggerated.
Barriot, after testifying for the defence, answered
questions put by the Chief Prosecutor of the war
crimes tribunal Carla del Ponte.
---
Blic online 1/13/05
Patrick Bario testified in the Hague Tribunal:
Terrorist from New York was in Bosnia
Yesterday, in continuation of court trial against former president
of Serbia and Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic before the Hague
tribunal, French military doctor Patrick Bario, witness of defense,
presented a document sourced from French intelligence services
according to which Muhammad Ata, pilot of a plane that hit the
World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, was
in Bosnia and Herzegovina on several occasions between 1995
and 1999.
According to Milosevic and his witness that is a proof of 'deep-rooted
Islamic terrorism in BiH' that is one of the chief reasons
of national conflicts in former Yugoslavia.
Bario also said that USA took part in operation of
Croatia Army called 'Storm' carried out in August 1995.
In 1994 Bario was in Bihac Region and in Velika Kladusha.
He pointed out that Islamic fundamentalists caused
Moslem-Moslem conflict between the 5th Corpus of BiH
Army and followers of Fikret Abdic in Cazinska Krajina.
'The consequence of that conflict was 40,000 Moslem refugees.
Most of them found shelter in the Republic of Srpska', Bario
claimed. Bario was former member of UN protection forces in
Croatia and BiH. He was also stationed in Kosovo.
'Serbs in Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia were not aggressors
but found themselves in a position to defend themselves.
Serbs only responded to aggression and that is what
happened in Croatia in 1991 and in Srebrenica in 1995',
the witness said. He accused former UNMIK chief Bernard
Kouchner to have been on the side of Albanian population
in Kosovo and to have acted outside mandate given to him
by UN.
'Terrorists in Kosovo were receiving support from several
sides. Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke were
giving them diplomatic support', Bario claimed referring to
information he got from intelligence services.
During cross-questioning, the chief prosecutor of the Hague
tribunal Carla Del Ponte tried to dispute the document from
BiH that Bario presented to the Court. She said that the
document in question was not in relation with court trial
against Milosevic. She also disputed its authenticity.
---
http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read/
message.html?mid=911428287&sort=d&start=36195
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug (Serbia and Montenegro) - January 18, 2005
The Hague syndrome - way for interference in internal affairs
MOSCOW - The Hague syndrome as an avenue for
interference in the internal affairs of "weak
countries" will become in the foreseeable future the
main topic of discussions on a new world order, and
the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic serves as a warning to all leaders of states
that are not to the liking of the West, Russian
Politics Journal assessed in its latest edition.
In a number of articles and interviews with defence
witnesses in the trial of Milosevic before the war
crimes tribunal, as well as with the brother of the
defendant Borislav Milosevic, the thesis is elaborated
that the intervention against Yugoslavia was the
result of a number of geopolitical factors that arose
following the breakup of the Warsaw Pact, but also a
"personal contribution" of former US Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright....
---
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 393, February 11, 2005
COURTSIDE: MILOSEVIC TRIAL
By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
The trial of the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic adjourned
this week after a short cross-examination of witness Mitar Balevic, who
began his testimony in late January.
Milosevic, who fell ill with flu last week, the first serious bout of
any illness since his defence case began in October last year, told the
judges he was still feeling unwell.
He asked to begin examination in chief of his next witness - former
Serbian foreign minister Vladislav Jovanovic - next week. The judges
granted the request, and Jovanovic is expected to begin his testimony
on February 14.
During the two sessions that did take place this week, prosecutors
tried to shake Balevic's interpretation of the situation in Kosovo
throughout
the near-decade of the Balkan wars.
In his main testimony two weeks ago, Balevic spoke of the sufferings
Kosovo Serbs were subjected to during this period on the part of their
Albanian neighbours - including humiliation, expulsions and killings.
He insisted it was the Kosovo Albanians, not the Serbs, who embraced
nationalism and harboured ambitions to have an "ethnically clean"
province.
Although the prosecutors presented film clippings and other evidence to
challenge some of this interpretation of events, Balevic remained
unyielding it his views.
Throughout the testimony, the former Yugoslav president kept his witness
mostly focused on the factual background of the indictment, rather than
on the charges themselves.
By the end of it, however, he did move to more concrete allegations
covering the period after the beginning of the NATO bombardments
of Serbia in 1999, when troops under Milosevic's command are alleged
to have expelled some 800,000 Albanians in one of the major operations
of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.
During cross-examination, Balevic confirmed he that saw masses of Kosovo
Albanians leaving the capital Pristina at the time, but remained adamant
that they were not expelled by the Serb security forces, as the
indictment alleges.
MILOSEVIC'S LAWYER ORDERED TO STAY
The president of the Hague tribunal this week refused permission for
British lawyers Steven Kay and Gillian Higgins to withdraw from their
roles as assigned counsel in the Milosevic trial.
The former Yugoslav president is currently presenting his defence in
person, but the two lawyers remain involved in the case and have
recently
been representing his interests mainly in legal and technical matters.
Judge Theodor Meron's decision, made public on February 7, appears to
close all the formal ways for the two lawyers to withdraw from the case
they were assigned to in September last year.
After repeated bouts of high blood pressure prevented Milosevic from
starting his defence case on schedule this summer, the trial chamber
decided to assign him a defence team against his will, appointing Kay
and Higgins.
The two lawyers had long been involved in the trial as amici curiae or
friends of the court assigned to ensure that Milosevic, who was acting
as his own lawyer at the time, received a fair trial.
Upon their appointment as assigned counsel, Milosevic refused to
communicate with the duo and on several occasions publicly challenged
their competence in the courtroom. His proposed defence witnesses
reacted
to the development by boycotting the court, effectively bringing the
trial to
a halt. Kay and Higgins appealed their own appointment this autumn and
lost - but they won an important concession for Milosevic, who was again
allowed to prepare his witnesses and conduct the examination in chief.
Almost at the same time, the two lawyers asked to be removed from the
case, claiming that Milosevic's refusal to cooperate made it impossible
for
them to function properly as his lawyers.
The court's Registrar - in charge, among others, of assigning and
withdrawing the defence lawyers - initially redirected their request to
the trial chamber, which refused it, and later turned the request down
himself.
Kay and Higgins then appealed to the tribunal president, asking him to
reverse these decisions.
But Judge Meron denied the appeal on all grounds put forward by the
lawyers.
The most important of these appears to be Meron's conviction that the
accused must not be allowed to claim a breakdown in communication in the
hope that this would then result in the withdrawal of his defence team.
Instead he advised Kay and his assistant to "realise the breadth of
activities they can carry out even in the absence of Milosevic's
cooperation and to continue making the best . efforts . that are
possible
under the circumstances".
"Representing criminal defendants is not an easy task," Meron wrote in
the ruling that conclusively tied the two unwilling British lawyers to
their
equally unwilling client. "Assigned counsel would do well to recognise
that fact."
Kay has already warned the trial chamber that if they refuse to let him
leave, he will do so anyway and face the potential consequences at the
British Bar Council. It was not immediately clear whether he now
intended to act on this warning.
(See Milosevic Judges Face Crucial Choice, TU No 382, 19-Nov-04
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_382_2_eng.txt )
DEFENCE CASE LENGTH
Milosevic has so far spent 3,465 minutes - 57 hours and 45 minutes - or
around 14.5 out of the 90 sitting days allocated to his defence case.
The information - the first systematic account of time Milosevic has
spent thus far in the defence stage of the Hague's most high-profile
case - was released by tribunal judges this week.
A year ago, the trial chamber allocated Milosevic 90 days in which to
run his defence case - the same amount that the prosecution spent
on their phase of the trial, which began in February 2002. A further 60
days were allocated to the prosecution for cross-examining the defence
witnesses, amounting to a total of 150 sitting days allocated to this
part
of the trial.
Milosevic has repeatedly complained that he was allocated for his
defence only half of the roughly 300 days the prosecutors spent
presenting
their case.
But in this first public account of time spent on the defence case, the
judges made a point of stressing that during the prosecution phase,
Milosevic in fact used more time cross-examining the witnesses that the
prosecutors used in presenting their testimonies in chief.
Now, the judges counted, the prosecutors have used almost 11 full
sitting days in cross examination. Another almost three days were used
for administrative matters, the judges announced on February 10.
The judges warned this amounted to more than two-thirds of the total
time Milosevic has spent on his case in chief - the amount of time that
was allocated to the defence case.
The judges intend to publish similar records on a regular bases, they
announced.
Ana Uzelac is IWPR's programme manager in The Hague.
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
EYugWor.htm#NATO%20destroyed%20authority%20of%20United%20Nations,%20Jova
novic
Tanjug (Serbia and Montenegro) - February 16, 2005
NATO destroyed authority of United Nations, Jovanovic
THE HAGUE - The intervention against FR Yugoslavia in
1999 has destroyed the authority of the United
Nations, said on Wednesday in the war crimes tribunal
Vladislav Jovanovic, who, as former foreign minister
of FR Yugoslavia and FRY ambassador to the UN, took
the stand as a witness of the defence in the trial of
Yugoslav and Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic.
"An intervention against a member of the United
Nations can be approved only by the Security Council,
as the only body that is competent to allow the use of
force. NATO did not ask for permission Security
Council, because it knew that it would never get it
and that is why by attacking FR Yugoslavia it violated
the UN Charter," Jovanovic said.
---
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_394_4_eng.txt
COURTSIDE: MILOSEVIC TRIAL
By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
Another loyal ally of former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic took
the stand in The Hague this week, and testified that the accused had
tried
to prevent the bloodshed that ravaged the former Yugoslavia throughout
the Nineties.
The testimony of the smartly dressed and soft-spoken former Serbian
foreign minister Vladislav Jovanovic aimed to disprove prosecution
claims
that Milosevic was in control of the events in Croatia and Bosnia.
Jovanovic depicted his former boss as a man with good intentions and
limited powers, who wanted to help Serbs in Croatia and later in Bosnia,
but could not influence their political and military leadership as much
as the prosecutors claim he could.
But during the cross-examination, prosecutors managed to produce
evidence showing that Belgrade was well-informed about the events in
Bosnia and had openly debated issues such as changing the ethnic
structure
of that country with Bosnian Serb leaders.
Milosevic is facing more than 60 charges of war crimes, crimes against
humanity and genocide on three separate indictments pertaining to wars
fought in the Nineties in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo respectively.
Large part of Jovanovic's testimony focused on the early years of the
wars, and the actual break-up of the former Yugoslavia. The witness
tried
to prove that the break-up was the result of a plan that Croatia and
Slovenia
had developed years before, and that the wars were a result of the
"unilateral secessionist policy" of those republics.
The two had "great help from other countries - Germany, Austria and the
Vatican", the diplomat said, echoing the main thesis of Milosevic's
defence that Yugoslavia fell victim to an international conspiracy to
destroy it.
Jovanovic also testified about the various international negotiations
and peace talks that he participated in as a foreign minister for Serbia
and later rump Yugoslavia, claiming that Serb delegations were regularly
victimised at such events by diplomats from the West and from other
former Yugoslav republics alike.
A similar thesis has already been put forward by many other witnesses
in the court - including former Serbian deputy prime minister Ratko
Markovic
and one other Milosevic associate, retired Belgrade law professor Smilja
Avramov.
Obviously exasperated about having to sit through yet another hearing
about the same issues, presiding Judge Patrick Robinson warned the
accused that he was "beating the point to death". Milosevic seemed
unmoved, and continued much in the same vein for the greater part of
the testimony.
But the former president did manage to introduce some potentially
important pieces of evidence relating to the extent of his influence on
the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia through Jovanovic's testimony.
The witness claimed that Milosevic was only moderately well informed
about what was happening in Bosnia, and was dependant on news from
the Bosnian Serb leaders, with whom he had a deteriorating relationship.
During cross-examination, Jovanovic insisted that Milosevic had learned
of the July 1995 fall of Srebrenica, and the murders of some 7,000
Muslim
men and boys that followed it, from "the news".
Jovanovic insisted that the wars in Croatia and Bosnia were both
"internal conflicts" and that the Belgrade government and Milosevic
personally had little influence on the military and political leaders
of both
nations.
To prove this, Milosevic and his witness used a United Nations Secretary
General report from the summer of 1992, which stated that the Bosnian
Serb troops were "not subject to orders from Belgrade". The report also
spoke of "the emergence of General [Ratko] Mladic and the forces under
his command as an independent actor".
The exact nature of the relation between Mladic and Milosevic could
prove to be crucial for establishing the latter's responsibility for
crimes
listed in the Bosnian indictment - especially for genocide.
This document prompted the presiding judge to stress that the passage
was "very strong and very important" for Milosevic's defence case.
Judge Robinson advised the defendant to try to find the people who
wrote the report for the UN Secretary General and bring them to court to
testify.
"It would be immensely strengthening for your case if you could secure
[their] testimony," the presiding judge said, advising Milosevic to
"utilise the services of his defence counsel" for this.
But Milosevic - who does not recognise Steven Kay, the defence counsel
assigned to him by the court last year - let this remark pass without
comment.
Jovanovic went on to testify about the deterioration of relations
between Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb leaders, who had refused a
number of peace plan options put to them.
By 1993, the witness told the court, these relations "became strained
[and] sometimes they would totally break down".
"Our meetings became mostly disputes," he said.
During the course of the cross examination, however, prosecutor Geoffrey
Nice managed to punch a few holes in the theory of Milosevic's supposed
ignorance of the real situation in Bosnia.
Nice quoted numerous diplomatic dispatches that the Belgrade government
received during the war warning it of the ongoing crisis in Bosnia, as
well as a number of public UN documents, including a resolution from
spring of 1993 in which the Security Council calls upon Belgrade to
"prevent
the genocide" in Bosnia.
He also read from a transcript of a session of a body set up to
"coordinate" Bosnian Serb politics with those of Belgrade, where
Jovanovic
is quoted advocating "ethnic homogenisation" of territories under Serb
control by encouraging a voluntary exchange of populations.
Although scheduled to last only a week, Jovanovic's testimony has not
yet been completed and the judges - increasingly critical of the way
Milosevic is using the time allocated to his defence case - have
announced they will be issuing their opinion on this matter soon.
Ana Uzelac IWPR's programme manager in The Hague.
Source: IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 394, February 18, 2005
=== 3. SOME OTHER CASES ===
Politika: Interview: Serbian Minister, a member of the National Council
for Cooperation with The Hague Tribunal:
Serbian government takes resolute steps to meet all obligations towards
Hague tribunal
http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/vesti/
vest.php?pf=1&id=7236&url=%2Fvesti%2Fvest.php%3Fpf%3D1%26id%3D7236
BiH War Crimes Chamber to Take Cases This Month (by Beth Kampschror)
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/
features/2005/02/08/feature-02?print=yes
Hungary will seek evidence of Croatia's failure to fully cooperate with
ICTY
http://www.hina.hr/nws-bin/genews.cgi?TOP=hot&NID=ehot/politika/
H2085323.4yc
Lazarevic to Surrender to Hague Tribunal, Lukic May Follow (by Jelena
Tusup)
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/
features/2005/01/28/feature-01?print=yes
General Vladimir Lazarevic goes to The Hague voluntarily
http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/vesti/
vest.php?pf=1&id=8596&url=%2Fvesti%2Fvest.php%3Fpf%3D1%26id%3D8596
Croatian Justice, Interior ministers with European counterparts on
cooperation with ICTY
http://www.hina.hr/nws-bin/genews.cgi?TOP=hot&NID=ehot/politika/
H1282585.4yc
---
http://www.seeurope.net/en/Story.php?StoryID=54373&LangID=1
Seeurope.Net / Tanjug - January 11, 2005
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA:
ICTY Has Evidence of Crimes Against Sarajevo Serbs
Marko Mikerevic, Sarajevo Higher Military Court judge
during the war, has said that he has documentation and
the names of 123 Bosniaks who had ordered or directly
participated in the torture and killing of Serbs in
Sarajevo.
"I submitted the documentation to The Hague Tribunal
after the war, when I left Sarajevo," Mikerevic told
the Republic of Srpska media, adding that it will be
very difficult to establish the exact number of Serbs
that were killed in Sarajevo, but that the number is
between 8,000 and 10,000 people.
---
Ojdanic defence seeking NATO archives
12:19 December 01 | B92
THE HAGUE -- Wednesday - The Hague Tribunal has begun a three day
discussion of the demand by defence representatives of former Yugoslav
Army chief of staff Dragoljub Ojdanic for access to NATO documents on
the conflicts in Kosovo.
The defence is seeking access to all documents relating to the period
from January to June 1999, the period of the offences for which Ojdanic
has been indicted by the tribunal.
The demand includes intelligence information and records of intercepted
telephone conversations which included Ojdanic.
The defence claims that a number of official NATO statements have
indicated that such documents exist, including a statement by then NATO
Commander Wesley Clark that intelligence reports were a significant
component of the war in Kosovo.
Former Hague Tribunal Prosecutor Louise Arbour also claimed that the
indictment of Slobodan Milosevic for crimes in Kosovo was based on
significant documentation made available by British intelligence
services.
"Great Britain announced at one point when Louise Arbour was visiting
that their intelligence services up to that time had made available the
largest number of published documents in the history of the
intelligence service and that this had been done for the Tribunal
Prosecution," Ojdanic defence lawyer Tomislav Visnjic told B92.
The defence believes that the opening of the archives would be of use
in showing that there was no plan to expel Albanians from Kosovo, which
is one of the allegations levelled at Ojdanic, Milosevic, former
Serbian president Milan Milutinovic, former deputy Yugoslav prime
minister Nikola Sainovic and four senior army officers who have still
not been arrested.
Representatives of the US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, the
Netherlands, Turkey and Bosnia will take part in the debate at The
Hague on opening the NATO archives. Other NATO member states have made
written submissions but will not attend the debate.
---
NATO in Del Ponte's gunsights
12:37 December 01 | Beta
THE HAGUE -- Wednesday - Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic
has not been arrested because NATO is politically unwilling to do so,
Carla Del Ponte said today.
The Hague Tribunal prosecutor told the BBC that NATO had enough
information to find everyone sought by the tribunal, including
Karadzic, but that until recently there had been no political will to
do so.
She added that the situation had now changed, but that it was now too
late because NATO had left Bosnia and passed responsibility to the
European Union.
"NATO is strange. They helped a lot with gathering evidence but always
claimed that they had no mandate to locate fugitives," said Del Ponte.
---
Why NATO won't open its archives
11:00 December 02 | B92
THE HAGUE -- Thursday - Debate continues today in the Hague Tribunal on
the demand of Dragoljub Ojdanic's defence counsel for NATO to give
access to its archives on its attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999.
Counsel for the former Yugoslav Army chief of staff are asking the
court to order NATO members and countries bordering Serbia and
Montenegro to make documentation on Kosovo available, including
intelligence information acquired by monitoring telephone conversations
of Yugoslav officials.
The demand has already been refused by the Netherlands, Canada and the
United Kingdom, all of whom are demanding that the court not accept the
defence argument that the release of the documents is the only way to
collect evidence relevant to Ojdanic's defence.
"If the defence wants certain documents, it must specify information,
conversations and people, rather than a fishing expedition and seeking
free access to documentation without knowing what it contains," NATO
representatives argued.
They also argued that opening the documents had national security
implications which could not be ignored.
Ojdanic defence counsel Peter Robinson said that the expert reports and
statements of NATO and Hague Tribunal officials indicated that the
archives of the countries could contain a large amount of information
gathered by eavesdropping and other intelligence work and that the
defence believed these would show that Ojdanic had not taken part in
any kind of plan to expel Kosovo Albanians or commit war crimes.
Representatives of the United States, Germany and France are to give
responses to the demands today.
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
==========================
Da: ICDSM Italia
Data: Gio 24 Feb 2005 16:32:38 Europe/Rome
A: icdsm-italia @yahoogroups.com
Cc: aa-info @yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] MILOSEVIC "TRIAL": THE DEFENSE PHASE
MILOSEVIC "TRIAL": THE DEFENSE PHASE
1. LINKS
2. NEWS:
Testimonies by Ivashov, Primakov, Barriot, Balevic, Jovanovic ...
3. SOME OTHER CASES
Evidence on Crimes Against Sarajevo Serbs / NATO Hides Evidence of the
Own War Crimes / Balkan Countries under Pressure by ICTY
NOTE: the following links and articles are from various sources,
including anti-Milosevic sources or sources which do NOT support ICDSM
=== 1. LINKS ===
JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE AND CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW
by Allison Mars ton Donner. Excerpt from: ACCOUNTABILITY FOR WAR
CRIMES: WHAT ROLES FOR NATIONAL, INTERNATIONAL, AND HYBRID TRIBUNALS?;
Proceedings of the American Society of International Law; Annual
Meeting. Washington: 2004
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/asal2004.htm
Milosevic "trial" summaries
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/4272
Will Sympathetic Testimonies Help Milosevic?
http://www.balkanalysis.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=455
Serbian poll shows positive attitude toward Milosevic rising
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/beta021705.htm
---
SEE ALSO, on the anti-yugoslav website www.iwpr.net :
MILOSEVIC JUDGES FACE NEW CHALLENGE Appeals chamber's decision to
restore accused's right to defend himself will require judges to
maintain firm control of the trial. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 380, November 05, 2004
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_380_1_eng.txt
MILOSEVIC CALLS FOR CLINTON Former Serb leader wants high-profile
witnesses to testify by Christmas. By Alison Freebairn in The Hague
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 381, November 14, 2004
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_381_1_eng.txt
MILOSEVIC JUDGES FACE CRUCIAL CHOICE Trial chamber's handling of
lawyer's request to leave case could damage more than one reputation.
By Alison Freebairn in London
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 382, November 19, 2004
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_382_2_eng.txt
MILOSEVIC ALLY DEFENDS BELGRADE TAKEOVER OF KOSOVO Former head of the
Kosovo assembly justifies the process that ended the region's autonomy
in 1989. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 384, 03 December, 2004
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_384_3_eng.txt
MILOSEVIC LAWYERS MUST STAY Trial chamber refuses British pair's
request to withdraw, arguing that it would be against the interests of
justice. By Alison Freebairn in London
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 385, December 10, 2004
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_385_5_eng.txt
SERBS WERE VICTIMS OF “FUNDAMENTALISM” Former UN peacekeepers tell
Milosevic trial that they saw only “victims” of Croat, Muslim and
Albanian aggression. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR’S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 389, 14 January, 2005
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_389_1_eng.txt
MILOSEVIC ALLY BEGINS MARATHON TESTIMONY Former constitutional court
judge argues that Slovenes and Croats bear responsibility for the wars
that destroyed Yugoslavia. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR’S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 389, 14 January, 2005
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_389_2_eng.txt
MILOSEVIC LAWYER FIGHTS TO LEAVE CASE British barrister makes final
plea to tribunal president to be allowed to withdraw from high-profile
trial. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR’S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 389, 14 January, 2005
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_389_3_eng.txt
MILOSEVIC ALLY SUGGESTS SERBS RECTIFIED WRONGS Ex-Serbian leader seems
to hope testimony will portray him as a responsible politician,
protecting his nation’s interests. By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
IWPR’S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 390, January 21, 2005
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_390_1_eng.txt
WITNESS DISPUTES RACAK FINDINGS Milosevic trial hears alternate view
of life in Kosovo - and of infamous massacre. By Ana Uzelac in The
Hague
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 391, January 28, 2005
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_391_1_eng.txt
=== 2. NEWS ===
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=2&u=/nm/
20041111/ts_nm/milosevic_dc
Reuters - November 11, 2004
Milosevic Wants Clinton to Testify by Christmas
By Paul Gallagher
AMSTERDAM - Slobodan Milosevic called on judges to
subpoena former U.S. President Bill Clinton and
British Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday, saying
he would like them to testify at his war crimes trial
by Christmas.
The former Yugoslav president, charged with genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Balkans
in the 1990s, opened his defense in August in what is
seen as Europe's most significant war crimes trial
since the end of World War II.
Milosevic asked for The Hague tribunal to also summon
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, former German
Defense Minister Rudolf Scharping, former Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright and retired U.S. General
Wesley Clark.
"We're talking about William Clinton, Madeleine
Albright, Anthony Blair, Gerhard Schroeder and Rudolf
Scharping in the first group," he said, also adding
retired general Clark, who directed the 1999 NATO
bombing of Serbia, to his list.
"I would ask you to issue an order now for them to be
heard if possible before the Christmas recess,"
Milosevic said.
Milosevic, who has been on trial in The Hague since
February 2002 charged with ethnic cleansing in
Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo, said he had done the
groundwork by sending letters to embassies and
providing clarification when asked why he wanted the
witnesses to give evidence during his defense case.
"By conclusive action it has been shown that they are
not willing to appear," Milosevic told the trial's
three judges in a webcast of a hearing at the U.N.
tribunal.
KEY LEADERS
Presiding judge Patrick Robinson said he would not
issue a subpoena unless Milosevic submitted his
request in writing.
"You must make a written submission setting out the
circumstances which show that they are unwilling to
come and setting out the evidence you want them to
give," he said. (...)
Milosevic won back the right to lead his own defense
earlier this month in an appeal against a decision by
judges in September to appoint two lawyers to manage
and present his case to prevent trial delays due to
his ill health.
Milosevic, who has described himself as a peacemaker
in the Balkans and does not recognize the court, has
dismissed the charges he faces as politically
motivated "lies" and declined to enter a plea. Pleas
of not guilty were entered on his behalf.
---
IVASHOV AND RYZHKOV TO APPEAR AS DEFENSE WITNESSES AT MILOSEVIC TRIAL
IN HAGUE
RIA Novosti - November 18, 2004
MOSCOW, November 18 (RIA Novosti) - Leonid Ivashov and Nikolai Ryzhkov
are flying on Friday to The Hague to appear as witnesses for defense at
the trial of ex-Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, Leonid Ivashov,
vice-president of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, told RIA
Novosti.
"Nikolai Ryzhkov and myself are flying on Friday to The Hague to give
evidence. The current head of Russia's Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, Yevgeny Primakov, will also go to The Hague at the end of the
month," Mr. Ivashov said.
He pointed out that the aim of his appearance at the trial is to give
objective witness evidence about processes that were under way inside
the federal republic of Yugoslavia and around it.
Mr. Ivashov motivated his desire to address the court by the fact that
"on the other side high-profile NATO officials come forward with
statements, exonerating themselves and justifying the aggression. They
demonize Milosevic, the Serbs and the political leadership of
Yugoslavia."
According to him, the Russian representatives will appear in the
courtroom of the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia on
Saturday and Sunday.
This week, defense witnesses for the former Yugoslav president resumed
giving evidence. Slobodan Milosevic is accused of genocide in Bosnia
and Herzegovina and crimes against humanity in Croatia and Kosovo. The
first to take the witness stand was Mihail Markovic, who was considered
to be the ideologist of the Socialist Party of Serbia, whose chairman
is still Mr. Milosevic.
Mr. Ivashov took a direct part in efforts to settle the Kosovo crisis
as a representative of Russia's Defense Ministry, while Mr. Ryzhkov
headed the committee of the State Duma (lower house of Russian
parliament) to render assistance to Yugoslavia. Mr. Ivashov repeatedly
visited the country and had meetings with the Yugoslav leadership.
Yevgeny Primakov in March 1999, being Russia's prime minister, turned
back his plane over the Atlantic on which he was flying for a visit to
the United States in protest against the US decision to begin the
bombing of Yugoslavia.
The tribunal in September of this year attempted, contrary to the will
of Mr. Milosevic who was defending himself, to saddle him with a
Western lawyer whose remit included defining defense witnesses, the
nature of evidence, and its interpretation. Following which witnesses
began refusing en masse to testify.
Also refusing to come to The Hague were Russian witnesses for Mr.
Milosevic, since "in those conditions appearance as a defense witness
could be used against Milosevic and did not promote objectivity and
adoption of a just decision," the Russian general indicated.
The resumption of the trial became possible after the court again
allowed the accused to defend himself.
Judge Patrick Robinson said in The Hague last week that Mr. Milosevic
must complete his defense within 150 working days and any
unpremeditated break unconnected with an illness will be included in
this period. Mr. Milosevic indicated that he would demand an extension
of the period concerned, allocated for his defense. He also requested
that former and current western leaders - Bill Clinton, Tony Blair,
Madeleine Albright, Wesley Clark, Gerhard Schroeder and Rudolf
Scharping - be summoned to the trial and heard out.
Story Filed: 2004-11-18 11:51
Copyright 2004 RIA Novosti
Posted for Fair Use only.
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=2&nav_id=30581&order=priority&style=headlines
Beta (Serbia and Montenegro) - November 23, 2004
Walker “described Kosovo intervention as inevitable”
THE HAGUE – Russian General Leonid Ivashov has taken
the stand for the defence in the trial of Slobodan
Milosevic before the Hague Tribunal.
The former commander of Russia’s international forces,
told the court that the head of the 1998-99 Kosovo
Verification Mission, William Walker, had said as
early as February 12, 1999, that Serbs had no business
in the province.
“Walker had already said on February 12, 1999, in
answer to my question of what the chances looked for a
peaceful resolution to the Kosovo crisis, that there
would be an inevitable military intervention in the
spring and that Serbs had no business in Kosovo,” said
Ivashov.
The witness also told the court that former US
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had personally
promised Kosovo Liberation Army leader Hashim Thaci
that there would be a referendum on independence for
Kosovo if the guerrilla organisation agreed to foreign
troops being deployed in the province.
“The Russian General Staff Headquarters had
information about 11 camps in Kosovo and northern
Albanian were terrorists were being trained. We
passed this information to General Wesley Clark with
the intention of together putting an end to the Kosovo
Liberation Army’s terrorist activities.
“Unfortunately General Clark said that NATO had no
good intelligence reports to confirm this, which was
simply not true,” said Ivashov.
The witness also told the court that Russian military
leaders had spoken to the ambassadors of fifteen Islam
countries about the training of terrorists and that
the Iranian ambassador had confirmed the participation
of Taliban and Al-Qaida members in Kosovo.
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=30599&style=headlines
B92 (Serbia and Montenegro) - November 24, 2004
Ivashov attacks NATO in testimony
THE HAGUE - The Hague Tribunal finished hearing
evidence from Russian general Leonid Ivashov, who said
that Russia was in possession of information as early
as 1997 that NATO would attack Yugoslavia.
At the time, Ivashov was in charge of following the
situation in Yugoslavia and reporting back to then
Russian President Boris Yeltsin.
Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice suggested that the witness’s
claims regarding the intentions of NATO and the US to
attack Yugoslavia could be a result of skimming
through American military handbooks and news paper
articles and documents which the witness quotes, but
cannot present to the court.
He then asked Ivashov if the Russian, who have been
know to “eavesdrop on their own leaders" make a habit
of eavesdropping on western officials as well, to
which the general replied that as far as eavesdropping
on foreign officials is concerned, he can point to a
time he listened in to a conversation in March 1999 of
US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright encouraging
Hashim Thachi to incite a rebellion in Kosovo.
"Eavesdropping on terrorists is legal and allowed."
Ivashov said.
He added that the Kosovo Liberation Army and NATO were
an alliance both politically and militarily at the
time, and that no political moves on the side of
Belgrade could have prevented the bombing.
Nice mentioned reports from the Russian members of the
Contact Group in Kosovo that list various abuse of
human rights perpetrated by the Serbian side in
Kosovo, to which Ivashov answered that the Contact
Group has always been full of compromises and that
while they accused Belgrade of such acts, the reports
talked about the KLA as a terrorist organization,
which in his opinion, proves the compromising nature
of this organization.
When Prosecutor Nice accused Ivashov of being far to
involved in the interests of Yugoslavia, Ivashov said,
“I did defend the interests of Yugoslavia, as an
independent and sovereign state. I tried to fight for
the acknowledgement of human rights and the UN
charter. I had no other interests. I am as loyal to
keeping the peace as any NATO general is."
Milosevic was visibly pleased with the testimony,
addressing Ivashov at the end saying, “Thank you
general Ivashov, and have a good trip!"
Former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov is
expected to take the stand as a defense witness for
Slobodan Milosevic in the Hague Tribunal next Tuesday.
---
http://www.makfax.com.mk/news1-a.asp?br=88321
MakFax (Macedonia) - November 24, 2004
Ivashov continues to testify in Milosevic defense
Former Head of the Russian Defense Ministry Department
for International Military Cooperation,
Colonel-General Leonid Ivashov, today will continue to
testify as a defense witness for Slobodan Milosevic.
The blame for the humanitarian catastrophe, imputed to
Milosevic by the prosecution, is really on NATO, said
Ivashov in his Tuesday testimony for the events in
Kosovo during the NATO operation in 1999.
I've talked with some Albanians and I know that many
of them escaped from NATO bombs and that the number of
fugitives in the end of the bombardment was three
times larger than in the beginning, stated Ivashov.
He said that NATO used Kosovo and Yugoslavia
territories for testing different weapons.
Russian top military officials, on May 5 1999,
concluded that NATO used Kosovo and Yugoslavia for
testing new ammunition types and depleted uranium,
said Ivashov. (...)
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=30599&style=headlines
B92 (Serbia and Montenegro) - November 24, 2004
Primakov in Hague next week
THE HAGUE – Former Russian prime minister Yevgeny
Primakov is expected to take the stand as a defence
witness for Slobodan Milosevic in the Hague Tribunal
next Tuesday.
The court today finished hearing evidence from Russian
general Leonid Ivashov, who said that Russia was in
possession of information as early as 1997 that NATO
would attack Yugoslavia.
---
MILOSEVIC SHOULD BE ACQUITTED, SAYS RUSSIAN GENERAL
BBC Monitoring International Reports - November 29, 2004
Text of report in English by Russian news agency Interfax-AVN web site
Moscow, 29 November: Col-Gen Leonid Ivashov, vice-president of the
Geopolitical Problems Academy, hopes that the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) will acquit ex-president
Slobodan Milosevic.
"Milosevic should be acquitted, and I hope that ICTY judges will return
a reasonable verdict in compliance with the law and conscience,"
Ivashov, who was summoned by the ICTY as a witness for the defence last
week, told Interfax-Military News Agency today. According to him, all
accusations against Milosevic are far-fetched and too thin.
Ivashov said that Russian witnesses for the defence were trying to
create the real picture of the events in Yugoslavia. "We are trying to
prove that Kosovo was destabilized by terrorist attacks by the Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA) and drug traffickers, who funded terrorist cells
and mercenaries. All these facts forced Belgrade to take steps to
protect peaceful residents and destroy the KLA, which had expanded to
the size of a regular army," he said.
"Those who are being tried in The Hague are Serbs, their president and
generals, who were just discharging their duties," Ivashov said.
Ivashov, former head of the Russian Defence Ministry's international
military cooperation directorate, and Nikolay Ryzhkov, a member of the
Federation Council and former chairman of the USSR Council of
Ministers, were summoned by the ICTY as witnesses for the defence of
Milosevic, who is accused of genocide in Bosnia-Hercegovina, as well as
crimes against humanity in Croatia and Kosovo.
Source: Interfax-AVN military news agency web site, Moscow, in English
1245 gmt 29 Nov 04
---
http://www.makfax.com.mk/news1-a.asp?br=88818
MakFax (Macedonia) - November 29, 2004
Primakov to testify in defense of Milosevic
The former Russian prime minister Yevgeny Primakov
will testify in the International Criminal Tribunal
for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) as a witness of
defense in the trial against the former Yugoslav
president Slobodan Milosevic.
Primakov will testify on Tuesday, when the trial
resumes.
The former Russian prime minister is the third witness
in Milosevic defense, since the right to defend
himself was granted back to the accused in the
beginning of this month. Previously, in Milosevic's
defense testified the Serbian Academician Mihajlo
Markovic and the retired Russian General Leonid
Ivashov.
Milosevic told the Tribunal that he will cross examine
the witness more briefly than usual, because the
witness will be staying in The Hague only one day.
Nevertheless, that is an open issue, because according
to the Tribunal, Primakov can be a very important
witness, whose testimony may not be over in one day.
Yevgeny Primakov, incumbent President of the Russian
Chamber of Commerce, was Russian prime minister at the
time of NATO-led air strikes on Yugoslavia.
Along with the Milosevic's trial, the trials of Kosovo
Albanians members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)
- Fatmir Limaj, Isak Musliu and Haradin Balaj, former
chairman of the Republika Srpska's Assembly Momcilo
Krajisnik and of the Bosnian officers - Naser Oric,
Enver Hadzihasanovic and Amir Kubura, will continue
this week, starting as of today, when all of them will
face trial over war crimes charges.
---
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=6952759
Reuters - November 30, 2004
Primakov: Milosevic for Peace, Not 'Greater Serbia'
By Emma Thomasson
THE HAGUE - Slobodan Milosevic was a peacemaker who
did not want to fight for a "Greater Serbia," while an
anti-Serb West stoked the bloody collapse of
Yugoslavia, Russia's Yevgeny Primakov said Tuesday.
Primakov, former Russian foreign minister and prime
minister, was testifying in defense of the former
Yugoslav president, who is charged with genocide,
crimes against humanity and war crimes in the Balkans
in the 1990s.
Primakov said the Western media had portrayed Serbs as
"aggressors" and after Bill Clinton was elected U.S.
president in 1992, Washington became increasingly
anti-Serb.
"It became ever more apparent that their course was to
weaken Serbia, to not allow it to gain strength and
possibly even to complete the process of Yugoslavia's
complete disintegration," he told the U.N. tribunal in
The Hague.
Primakov, prime minister in 1998-99, blamed the West,
in particular Germany, for fueling violence in Kosovo
in the late 1990s by supporting the separatist Kosovo
Liberation Army (KLA) despite earlier labeling them
terrorists.
"The initiators and provocateurs of so many events in
Kosovo was the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army," he
said, adding that a mass exodus of refugees from the
region started only after NATO launched airstrikes in
March 1999.
In an allusion to the U.S.-led war in Iraq, Primakov
said Kosovo had set a precedent for military action
without a U.N. mandate.
"This undermines undoubtedly the international order,"
he said.
NO "GREATER SERBIA" PLAN
Primakov said the West was wrong to assume that
Milosevic wanted to create a "Greater Serbia" or to
unify all Serbs in a state as the multi-ethnic
Yugoslav federation crumbled.
During his first meeting with the former Serb
strongman in 1993, Primakov said he specifically asked
Milosevic whether he had plans for a "Greater Serbia."
"He said this could only be achieved in theory and at
the price of great bloodshed and 'I'm not prepared to
do that,"' Primakov said of Milosevic's reply. "He had
no plans and conducted no actions to achieve a Greater
Serbia."
Primakov noted that Milosevic accepted the 1993
Vance-Owen peace plan for Bosnia and imposed an
economic blockade after the Bosnian Serb parliament
rejected the plan.
"You wanted a peaceful solution," he said to
Milosevic.
The 1992-5 Bosnian war ended after U.S.-sponsored
talks in Dayton, Ohio. Primakov said former Secretary
of State Madeleine Albright had told him Dayton would
not have worked without Milosevic's support.
Primakov said Milosevic also tried to stop violence in
Kosovo and told the Russian prime minister on a visit
to Belgrade on the eve of the NATO bombing he was
prepared to pull his forces out of Kosovo if NATO
withdrew from the border with Macedonia.
"We never had the chance to tell what we had
achieved," Primakov said. "Barely had our plane taken
off then the bombing of the airport started."
The former Yugoslav president won back the right to
lead his own defense earlier this month after the
court appointed two lawyers in September to defend him
to stop his ill health causing more delays to an
already marathon trial.
Milosevic has accused the tribunal of bias against him
and the Serb people, saying it is designed to cover up
NATO war crimes in Kosovo. He has refused to enter a
plea to the charges and pleas of not guilty were
entered on his behalf.
Milosevic, a Belgrade law school graduate, wants to
call more than 1,000 witnesses in his defense
including British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Albright
and Clinton.
---
http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5154960&startrow=51&date=2004-12-
01&do_alert=0
Russian Information Agency (Novosti) - December 1, 2004
WEST IS BEHIND MANY DEVELOPMENTS IN UKRAINE - PRIMAKOV
Poskakukhin
THE HAGUE - Yevgeny Primakov, chairman of Russia's
Chamber of Commerce and Industry, believes that the
West is behind many developments in Ukraine.
In a RIA Novosti interview, Primakov described as
"thoughtless" the position of those who dismiss the
opinion concerning the presidential poll prevailing in
Ukraine's eastern part.
"The part of Ukraine which accounts for more than 79%
of GDP is totally disregarded in their conclusions by
those who claim to be able to resolve things in a fair
way," he thinks.
"It seems to me that this is a rash position, which,
unfortunately, is backed by the West," Primakov said.
In his opinion, those who stick to this point of view
fail to understand that such a stand may trigger "not
only a split of Ukraine, but also have a negative
impact on Russia".
"At the same time, differences between Russia and the
West are intensifying. Who needs it all?" he added.
Primakov also pointed out that he would not draw any
parallels between the events of the 1990s in
Yugoslavia and current developments in Ukraine.
In his view, Yugoslavia collapsed mainly because in
1990 elections the Communist League of Yugoslavia
suffered a setback in Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and
Macedonia.
"These four republics were poised to withdraw from
Yugoslavia under the flags of other parties," Primakov
indicated. "The Communist League retained its
positions in Serbia and Montenegro. This, he believes,
was the reason for an "ideological approach" to
Slobodan Milosevic.
Another distinctive feature of the Yugoslav events,
Primakov believes, was that Yugoslavia was split as a
state, which was not set up around one people.
"The processes going on in Ukraine are entirely
different," he stressed.
Primakov on Tuesday appeared as a witness for defence
at an International Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia
trial of Slobodan Milosevic.
---
http://en.rian.ru/rian/
index.cfm?prd_id=160&msg_id=5176084&startrow=41&date=2004-12-
06&do_alert=0
2004-12-06 15:46 * MILOSEVIC * TRIAL * PRIMAKOV *
MILOSEVIC DID NOT SEEK TO CREATE A GREAT SERBIA
MOSCOW, December 6 (RIA Novosti) - "In January 1993, Milosevic told me
he did not seek to create a Great Serbia. He understood that could be
achieved through shedding seas of blood, if at all," Yegeny Primakov,
the chief of Russia's Chamber of Commerce and Trade, an academician,
said in the Postscriptum program on Channel 3. Mr. Primakov has
returned from The Hague where he appeared at the trial of
ex-Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic for the defendant.
"I told about his role in adopting the Vance-Owen Plan that was being
discussed at a conference in Geneva where Mr. Milosevic flew at
Russia's suit. And he helped achieve a breakthrough there. The
delegation of the Republic of Serbia had rejected constitutional
changes stipulated in the plan before he arrived. The conferees even
could not pass to discussing the territorial division issue," said Mr.
Primakov.
Mr. Primakov said he had spoken to Mr. Milosevic in prison for nearly 6
hours. Before than he was searched three times and he went through 15
doors.
Mr. Primakov said Mr. Milosevic was strong in spirit as a fighter.
"Milosevic said he felt better when he was allowed to defend his case
in public," said Mr. Primakov.
Speaking about reasons behind his decision to speak as a defense
witness at the trial, Mr. Primakov said it was his civil duty and the
desire to prove the justness of Russia's policy of that time.
Mr. Primakov believes the trial is biased in favor of the prosecution.
"Along with other witnesses from Russia we have done everything
possible to make the trial honest," said Mr. Primakov.
Mr. Primakov said he had appeared in court in connection with two
incidents in Bosnia and later on in Kosovo as he was the chief of the
Russian foreign intelligence service at the time and then headed the
foreign ministry and the government.
Mr. Primakov added he had used relevant official documents and the
records of his telephone talks with US Vice-President Gore,
PresidentChirac, the Italian and British prime ministers, as well as
the records of his numerous conversations with President Milosevic.
"Therefore the documentary evidence provided in its English version was
not propaganda material," concluded Mr. Primakov.
---
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_386_4_eng.txt
(...)
Briefly noted:
The lawyers tasked with defending Slobodan Milosevic before the Hague
tribunal have applied for permission to appeal a decision by judges to
prevent them from withdrawing from the case.
In the request, submitted on December 14, Steven Kay QC and his
assistant Gillian Higgins argue that Judge Patrick Robinson, Judge
O-Gon Kwon and Judge Iain Bonomy were wrong to reject their argument
that the current arrangement risks placing the lawyers in breach of the
tribunal's code of conduct.
They also say the judges should have taken into account opinions
expressed by the prosecution lawyers working on the case and by the
tribunal's Association of Defence Counsel, which they say support their
position. And they suggest that the judges failed to give enough weight
to the specific circumstances surrounding their request to withdraw from
the trial, and applied an inappropriate precedent when making their
decision to deny it.
Higgins and Kay - who formerly served in the role of amicus curiae in
the Milosevic trial - were first assigned the task of conducting the
former
Yugoslav president's defence in September, amid growing concerns that
his poor health meant it was no longer practical to allow him to
represent
himself.
But Milosevic, determined to continue on his own, refused to communicate
with them, and a series of witnesses declined to come to court in
protest at the decision to impose counsel.
The appeals chamber subsequently ruled that Milosevic should be allowed
to play the primary role in conducting his own defence, with assigned
counsel on standby should they be needed.
The issue now in hand is whether Kay and Higgins themselves should have
to play this role, or whether they can be allowed to resign from their
posts.
It is now down to the judges hearing Milosevic's case to decide whether
the two lawyers should be allowed to proceed to the appeals chamber
to argue their position.
Source: IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 386, December 17, 2004
---
http://www.blic.co.yu/danas/broj/E-Index.htm#6
Blic (Serbia and Montenegro) - January 12, 2005
Patrick Barriot: USA involved in 'Storm'
In continuation of court trial against former Yugoslav
president Slobodan Milosevic before the Hague
Tribunal, Patrick Barriot, witness of the defense said
that USA 'were directly involved in the attack by
Croatia Army on Kninska Krajina in summer 1955'.
'Americans were directly involved in 'Storm'
operation. That was a terrible operation in which
about 2,000 Serbs were killed and more than 200,000 of
them ethnically cleansed', Barriot said. As a medical
doctor he was within international forces in Bosnia
and Herzegovina and Croatia.
Barriot also spoke about release of two French pilots
captured by the Republic of Srpska Army in 1995.
According to his words, several French politicians who
negotiated with RSA commander General Ratko Mladic
over release of the pilots took considerable amounts
of money under false excuse that Ratko Mladic was
requesting ransom. He added that Mladic told the
negotiator of French Government, retired General
Pierre-Mario Galoaou that he would release the French
pilots if then French HQ chief-of-staff, General Duen
shake hands with Mladic.
'The pilots were released on December 123 after Duen
and Mladic shook their hands. Mladic has not got a
cent, but French politicians took millions', Bario
said.
Barriot also said that for years he had been a colonel
in French Army in charge of security in civil
protection.
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug (Serbia and Montenegro) - January 12, 2005
West backed Nazism, fundamentalism: Milosevic
THE HAGUE - The International Criminal Tribunal for
the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) continued on Wednesday
its trial against former Serbian president Slobodan
Milosevic by a testimony of defence witness French
military physician Patrick Barriot, who presented a
document issued by French intelligence services,
according to which Mohamed Atta, pilot of one of the
planes which had hit the World Trade Centre in New
York on September 11, 2001, had been in
Bosnia-Herzegovina on several occasions between 1994
and 1999.
According to Milosevic and his witness, this proves
that "Islamic terrorism is deeply rooted in
Bosnia-Herzegovina," which, as both of them
underscored, was one of the major causes of ethnic
clashes in the former Yugoslavia.
THE HAGUE-SREBRENICA-ASHDOWN
THE HAGUE - Witness for the defence at the trial of
Slobodan Milosevic Patrick Barriot denied on Wednesday
the report made by the Republika Srpska commission on
the Srebrenica victims in 1995, by asserting that the
report was "dictated" by the high representative of
the international community in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paddy Ashdown and that the number of victims
exaggerated.
Barriot, after testifying for the defence, answered
questions put by the Chief Prosecutor of the war
crimes tribunal Carla del Ponte.
---
Blic online 1/13/05
Patrick Bario testified in the Hague Tribunal:
Terrorist from New York was in Bosnia
Yesterday, in continuation of court trial against former president
of Serbia and Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic before the Hague
tribunal, French military doctor Patrick Bario, witness of defense,
presented a document sourced from French intelligence services
according to which Muhammad Ata, pilot of a plane that hit the
World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001, was
in Bosnia and Herzegovina on several occasions between 1995
and 1999.
According to Milosevic and his witness that is a proof of 'deep-rooted
Islamic terrorism in BiH' that is one of the chief reasons
of national conflicts in former Yugoslavia.
Bario also said that USA took part in operation of
Croatia Army called 'Storm' carried out in August 1995.
In 1994 Bario was in Bihac Region and in Velika Kladusha.
He pointed out that Islamic fundamentalists caused
Moslem-Moslem conflict between the 5th Corpus of BiH
Army and followers of Fikret Abdic in Cazinska Krajina.
'The consequence of that conflict was 40,000 Moslem refugees.
Most of them found shelter in the Republic of Srpska', Bario
claimed. Bario was former member of UN protection forces in
Croatia and BiH. He was also stationed in Kosovo.
'Serbs in Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia were not aggressors
but found themselves in a position to defend themselves.
Serbs only responded to aggression and that is what
happened in Croatia in 1991 and in Srebrenica in 1995',
the witness said. He accused former UNMIK chief Bernard
Kouchner to have been on the side of Albanian population
in Kosovo and to have acted outside mandate given to him
by UN.
'Terrorists in Kosovo were receiving support from several
sides. Madeleine Albright and Richard Holbrooke were
giving them diplomatic support', Bario claimed referring to
information he got from intelligence services.
During cross-questioning, the chief prosecutor of the Hague
tribunal Carla Del Ponte tried to dispute the document from
BiH that Bario presented to the Court. She said that the
document in question was not in relation with court trial
against Milosevic. She also disputed its authenticity.
---
http://lists.topica.com/lists/ANTINATO/read/
message.html?mid=911428287&sort=d&start=36195
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug (Serbia and Montenegro) - January 18, 2005
The Hague syndrome - way for interference in internal affairs
MOSCOW - The Hague syndrome as an avenue for
interference in the internal affairs of "weak
countries" will become in the foreseeable future the
main topic of discussions on a new world order, and
the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan
Milosevic serves as a warning to all leaders of states
that are not to the liking of the West, Russian
Politics Journal assessed in its latest edition.
In a number of articles and interviews with defence
witnesses in the trial of Milosevic before the war
crimes tribunal, as well as with the brother of the
defendant Borislav Milosevic, the thesis is elaborated
that the intervention against Yugoslavia was the
result of a number of geopolitical factors that arose
following the breakup of the Warsaw Pact, but also a
"personal contribution" of former US Secretary of
State Madeleine Albright....
---
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 393, February 11, 2005
COURTSIDE: MILOSEVIC TRIAL
By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
The trial of the former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic adjourned
this week after a short cross-examination of witness Mitar Balevic, who
began his testimony in late January.
Milosevic, who fell ill with flu last week, the first serious bout of
any illness since his defence case began in October last year, told the
judges he was still feeling unwell.
He asked to begin examination in chief of his next witness - former
Serbian foreign minister Vladislav Jovanovic - next week. The judges
granted the request, and Jovanovic is expected to begin his testimony
on February 14.
During the two sessions that did take place this week, prosecutors
tried to shake Balevic's interpretation of the situation in Kosovo
throughout
the near-decade of the Balkan wars.
In his main testimony two weeks ago, Balevic spoke of the sufferings
Kosovo Serbs were subjected to during this period on the part of their
Albanian neighbours - including humiliation, expulsions and killings.
He insisted it was the Kosovo Albanians, not the Serbs, who embraced
nationalism and harboured ambitions to have an "ethnically clean"
province.
Although the prosecutors presented film clippings and other evidence to
challenge some of this interpretation of events, Balevic remained
unyielding it his views.
Throughout the testimony, the former Yugoslav president kept his witness
mostly focused on the factual background of the indictment, rather than
on the charges themselves.
By the end of it, however, he did move to more concrete allegations
covering the period after the beginning of the NATO bombardments
of Serbia in 1999, when troops under Milosevic's command are alleged
to have expelled some 800,000 Albanians in one of the major operations
of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.
During cross-examination, Balevic confirmed he that saw masses of Kosovo
Albanians leaving the capital Pristina at the time, but remained adamant
that they were not expelled by the Serb security forces, as the
indictment alleges.
MILOSEVIC'S LAWYER ORDERED TO STAY
The president of the Hague tribunal this week refused permission for
British lawyers Steven Kay and Gillian Higgins to withdraw from their
roles as assigned counsel in the Milosevic trial.
The former Yugoslav president is currently presenting his defence in
person, but the two lawyers remain involved in the case and have
recently
been representing his interests mainly in legal and technical matters.
Judge Theodor Meron's decision, made public on February 7, appears to
close all the formal ways for the two lawyers to withdraw from the case
they were assigned to in September last year.
After repeated bouts of high blood pressure prevented Milosevic from
starting his defence case on schedule this summer, the trial chamber
decided to assign him a defence team against his will, appointing Kay
and Higgins.
The two lawyers had long been involved in the trial as amici curiae or
friends of the court assigned to ensure that Milosevic, who was acting
as his own lawyer at the time, received a fair trial.
Upon their appointment as assigned counsel, Milosevic refused to
communicate with the duo and on several occasions publicly challenged
their competence in the courtroom. His proposed defence witnesses
reacted
to the development by boycotting the court, effectively bringing the
trial to
a halt. Kay and Higgins appealed their own appointment this autumn and
lost - but they won an important concession for Milosevic, who was again
allowed to prepare his witnesses and conduct the examination in chief.
Almost at the same time, the two lawyers asked to be removed from the
case, claiming that Milosevic's refusal to cooperate made it impossible
for
them to function properly as his lawyers.
The court's Registrar - in charge, among others, of assigning and
withdrawing the defence lawyers - initially redirected their request to
the trial chamber, which refused it, and later turned the request down
himself.
Kay and Higgins then appealed to the tribunal president, asking him to
reverse these decisions.
But Judge Meron denied the appeal on all grounds put forward by the
lawyers.
The most important of these appears to be Meron's conviction that the
accused must not be allowed to claim a breakdown in communication in the
hope that this would then result in the withdrawal of his defence team.
Instead he advised Kay and his assistant to "realise the breadth of
activities they can carry out even in the absence of Milosevic's
cooperation and to continue making the best . efforts . that are
possible
under the circumstances".
"Representing criminal defendants is not an easy task," Meron wrote in
the ruling that conclusively tied the two unwilling British lawyers to
their
equally unwilling client. "Assigned counsel would do well to recognise
that fact."
Kay has already warned the trial chamber that if they refuse to let him
leave, he will do so anyway and face the potential consequences at the
British Bar Council. It was not immediately clear whether he now
intended to act on this warning.
(See Milosevic Judges Face Crucial Choice, TU No 382, 19-Nov-04
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_382_2_eng.txt )
DEFENCE CASE LENGTH
Milosevic has so far spent 3,465 minutes - 57 hours and 45 minutes - or
around 14.5 out of the 90 sitting days allocated to his defence case.
The information - the first systematic account of time Milosevic has
spent thus far in the defence stage of the Hague's most high-profile
case - was released by tribunal judges this week.
A year ago, the trial chamber allocated Milosevic 90 days in which to
run his defence case - the same amount that the prosecution spent
on their phase of the trial, which began in February 2002. A further 60
days were allocated to the prosecution for cross-examining the defence
witnesses, amounting to a total of 150 sitting days allocated to this
part
of the trial.
Milosevic has repeatedly complained that he was allocated for his
defence only half of the roughly 300 days the prosecutors spent
presenting
their case.
But in this first public account of time spent on the defence case, the
judges made a point of stressing that during the prosecution phase,
Milosevic in fact used more time cross-examining the witnesses that the
prosecutors used in presenting their testimonies in chief.
Now, the judges counted, the prosecutors have used almost 11 full
sitting days in cross examination. Another almost three days were used
for administrative matters, the judges announced on February 10.
The judges warned this amounted to more than two-thirds of the total
time Milosevic has spent on his case in chief - the amount of time that
was allocated to the defence case.
The judges intend to publish similar records on a regular bases, they
announced.
Ana Uzelac is IWPR's programme manager in The Hague.
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
EYugWor.htm#NATO%20destroyed%20authority%20of%20United%20Nations,%20Jova
novic
Tanjug (Serbia and Montenegro) - February 16, 2005
NATO destroyed authority of United Nations, Jovanovic
THE HAGUE - The intervention against FR Yugoslavia in
1999 has destroyed the authority of the United
Nations, said on Wednesday in the war crimes tribunal
Vladislav Jovanovic, who, as former foreign minister
of FR Yugoslavia and FRY ambassador to the UN, took
the stand as a witness of the defence in the trial of
Yugoslav and Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic.
"An intervention against a member of the United
Nations can be approved only by the Security Council,
as the only body that is competent to allow the use of
force. NATO did not ask for permission Security
Council, because it knew that it would never get it
and that is why by attacking FR Yugoslavia it violated
the UN Charter," Jovanovic said.
---
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_394_4_eng.txt
COURTSIDE: MILOSEVIC TRIAL
By Ana Uzelac in The Hague
Another loyal ally of former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic took
the stand in The Hague this week, and testified that the accused had
tried
to prevent the bloodshed that ravaged the former Yugoslavia throughout
the Nineties.
The testimony of the smartly dressed and soft-spoken former Serbian
foreign minister Vladislav Jovanovic aimed to disprove prosecution
claims
that Milosevic was in control of the events in Croatia and Bosnia.
Jovanovic depicted his former boss as a man with good intentions and
limited powers, who wanted to help Serbs in Croatia and later in Bosnia,
but could not influence their political and military leadership as much
as the prosecutors claim he could.
But during the cross-examination, prosecutors managed to produce
evidence showing that Belgrade was well-informed about the events in
Bosnia and had openly debated issues such as changing the ethnic
structure
of that country with Bosnian Serb leaders.
Milosevic is facing more than 60 charges of war crimes, crimes against
humanity and genocide on three separate indictments pertaining to wars
fought in the Nineties in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo respectively.
Large part of Jovanovic's testimony focused on the early years of the
wars, and the actual break-up of the former Yugoslavia. The witness
tried
to prove that the break-up was the result of a plan that Croatia and
Slovenia
had developed years before, and that the wars were a result of the
"unilateral secessionist policy" of those republics.
The two had "great help from other countries - Germany, Austria and the
Vatican", the diplomat said, echoing the main thesis of Milosevic's
defence that Yugoslavia fell victim to an international conspiracy to
destroy it.
Jovanovic also testified about the various international negotiations
and peace talks that he participated in as a foreign minister for Serbia
and later rump Yugoslavia, claiming that Serb delegations were regularly
victimised at such events by diplomats from the West and from other
former Yugoslav republics alike.
A similar thesis has already been put forward by many other witnesses
in the court - including former Serbian deputy prime minister Ratko
Markovic
and one other Milosevic associate, retired Belgrade law professor Smilja
Avramov.
Obviously exasperated about having to sit through yet another hearing
about the same issues, presiding Judge Patrick Robinson warned the
accused that he was "beating the point to death". Milosevic seemed
unmoved, and continued much in the same vein for the greater part of
the testimony.
But the former president did manage to introduce some potentially
important pieces of evidence relating to the extent of his influence on
the Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia through Jovanovic's testimony.
The witness claimed that Milosevic was only moderately well informed
about what was happening in Bosnia, and was dependant on news from
the Bosnian Serb leaders, with whom he had a deteriorating relationship.
During cross-examination, Jovanovic insisted that Milosevic had learned
of the July 1995 fall of Srebrenica, and the murders of some 7,000
Muslim
men and boys that followed it, from "the news".
Jovanovic insisted that the wars in Croatia and Bosnia were both
"internal conflicts" and that the Belgrade government and Milosevic
personally had little influence on the military and political leaders
of both
nations.
To prove this, Milosevic and his witness used a United Nations Secretary
General report from the summer of 1992, which stated that the Bosnian
Serb troops were "not subject to orders from Belgrade". The report also
spoke of "the emergence of General [Ratko] Mladic and the forces under
his command as an independent actor".
The exact nature of the relation between Mladic and Milosevic could
prove to be crucial for establishing the latter's responsibility for
crimes
listed in the Bosnian indictment - especially for genocide.
This document prompted the presiding judge to stress that the passage
was "very strong and very important" for Milosevic's defence case.
Judge Robinson advised the defendant to try to find the people who
wrote the report for the UN Secretary General and bring them to court to
testify.
"It would be immensely strengthening for your case if you could secure
[their] testimony," the presiding judge said, advising Milosevic to
"utilise the services of his defence counsel" for this.
But Milosevic - who does not recognise Steven Kay, the defence counsel
assigned to him by the court last year - let this remark pass without
comment.
Jovanovic went on to testify about the deterioration of relations
between Milosevic and the Bosnian Serb leaders, who had refused a
number of peace plan options put to them.
By 1993, the witness told the court, these relations "became strained
[and] sometimes they would totally break down".
"Our meetings became mostly disputes," he said.
During the course of the cross examination, however, prosecutor Geoffrey
Nice managed to punch a few holes in the theory of Milosevic's supposed
ignorance of the real situation in Bosnia.
Nice quoted numerous diplomatic dispatches that the Belgrade government
received during the war warning it of the ongoing crisis in Bosnia, as
well as a number of public UN documents, including a resolution from
spring of 1993 in which the Security Council calls upon Belgrade to
"prevent
the genocide" in Bosnia.
He also read from a transcript of a session of a body set up to
"coordinate" Bosnian Serb politics with those of Belgrade, where
Jovanovic
is quoted advocating "ethnic homogenisation" of territories under Serb
control by encouraging a voluntary exchange of populations.
Although scheduled to last only a week, Jovanovic's testimony has not
yet been completed and the judges - increasingly critical of the way
Milosevic is using the time allocated to his defence case - have
announced they will be issuing their opinion on this matter soon.
Ana Uzelac IWPR's programme manager in The Hague.
Source: IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 394, February 18, 2005
=== 3. SOME OTHER CASES ===
Politika: Interview: Serbian Minister, a member of the National Council
for Cooperation with The Hague Tribunal:
Serbian government takes resolute steps to meet all obligations towards
Hague tribunal
http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/vesti/
vest.php?pf=1&id=7236&url=%2Fvesti%2Fvest.php%3Fpf%3D1%26id%3D7236
BiH War Crimes Chamber to Take Cases This Month (by Beth Kampschror)
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/
features/2005/02/08/feature-02?print=yes
Hungary will seek evidence of Croatia's failure to fully cooperate with
ICTY
http://www.hina.hr/nws-bin/genews.cgi?TOP=hot&NID=ehot/politika/
H2085323.4yc
Lazarevic to Surrender to Hague Tribunal, Lukic May Follow (by Jelena
Tusup)
http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/
features/2005/01/28/feature-01?print=yes
General Vladimir Lazarevic goes to The Hague voluntarily
http://www.srbija.sr.gov.yu/vesti/
vest.php?pf=1&id=8596&url=%2Fvesti%2Fvest.php%3Fpf%3D1%26id%3D8596
Croatian Justice, Interior ministers with European counterparts on
cooperation with ICTY
http://www.hina.hr/nws-bin/genews.cgi?TOP=hot&NID=ehot/politika/
H1282585.4yc
---
http://www.seeurope.net/en/Story.php?StoryID=54373&LangID=1
Seeurope.Net / Tanjug - January 11, 2005
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA:
ICTY Has Evidence of Crimes Against Sarajevo Serbs
Marko Mikerevic, Sarajevo Higher Military Court judge
during the war, has said that he has documentation and
the names of 123 Bosniaks who had ordered or directly
participated in the torture and killing of Serbs in
Sarajevo.
"I submitted the documentation to The Hague Tribunal
after the war, when I left Sarajevo," Mikerevic told
the Republic of Srpska media, adding that it will be
very difficult to establish the exact number of Serbs
that were killed in Sarajevo, but that the number is
between 8,000 and 10,000 people.
---
Ojdanic defence seeking NATO archives
12:19 December 01 | B92
THE HAGUE -- Wednesday - The Hague Tribunal has begun a three day
discussion of the demand by defence representatives of former Yugoslav
Army chief of staff Dragoljub Ojdanic for access to NATO documents on
the conflicts in Kosovo.
The defence is seeking access to all documents relating to the period
from January to June 1999, the period of the offences for which Ojdanic
has been indicted by the tribunal.
The demand includes intelligence information and records of intercepted
telephone conversations which included Ojdanic.
The defence claims that a number of official NATO statements have
indicated that such documents exist, including a statement by then NATO
Commander Wesley Clark that intelligence reports were a significant
component of the war in Kosovo.
Former Hague Tribunal Prosecutor Louise Arbour also claimed that the
indictment of Slobodan Milosevic for crimes in Kosovo was based on
significant documentation made available by British intelligence
services.
"Great Britain announced at one point when Louise Arbour was visiting
that their intelligence services up to that time had made available the
largest number of published documents in the history of the
intelligence service and that this had been done for the Tribunal
Prosecution," Ojdanic defence lawyer Tomislav Visnjic told B92.
The defence believes that the opening of the archives would be of use
in showing that there was no plan to expel Albanians from Kosovo, which
is one of the allegations levelled at Ojdanic, Milosevic, former
Serbian president Milan Milutinovic, former deputy Yugoslav prime
minister Nikola Sainovic and four senior army officers who have still
not been arrested.
Representatives of the US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, the
Netherlands, Turkey and Bosnia will take part in the debate at The
Hague on opening the NATO archives. Other NATO member states have made
written submissions but will not attend the debate.
---
NATO in Del Ponte's gunsights
12:37 December 01 | Beta
THE HAGUE -- Wednesday - Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic
has not been arrested because NATO is politically unwilling to do so,
Carla Del Ponte said today.
The Hague Tribunal prosecutor told the BBC that NATO had enough
information to find everyone sought by the tribunal, including
Karadzic, but that until recently there had been no political will to
do so.
She added that the situation had now changed, but that it was now too
late because NATO had left Bosnia and passed responsibility to the
European Union.
"NATO is strange. They helped a lot with gathering evidence but always
claimed that they had no mandate to locate fugitives," said Del Ponte.
---
Why NATO won't open its archives
11:00 December 02 | B92
THE HAGUE -- Thursday - Debate continues today in the Hague Tribunal on
the demand of Dragoljub Ojdanic's defence counsel for NATO to give
access to its archives on its attacks on Yugoslavia in 1999.
Counsel for the former Yugoslav Army chief of staff are asking the
court to order NATO members and countries bordering Serbia and
Montenegro to make documentation on Kosovo available, including
intelligence information acquired by monitoring telephone conversations
of Yugoslav officials.
The demand has already been refused by the Netherlands, Canada and the
United Kingdom, all of whom are demanding that the court not accept the
defence argument that the release of the documents is the only way to
collect evidence relevant to Ojdanic's defence.
"If the defence wants certain documents, it must specify information,
conversations and people, rather than a fishing expedition and seeking
free access to documentation without knowing what it contains," NATO
representatives argued.
They also argued that opening the documents had national security
implications which could not be ignored.
Ojdanic defence counsel Peter Robinson said that the expert reports and
statements of NATO and Hague Tribunal officials indicated that the
archives of the countries could contain a large amount of information
gathered by eavesdropping and other intelligence work and that the
defence believed these would show that Ojdanic had not taken part in
any kind of plan to expel Kosovo Albanians or commit war crimes.
Representatives of the United States, Germany and France are to give
responses to the demands today.
