Da: ICDSM Italia
Data: Ven 14 Gen 2005 11:17:45 Europe/Rome
A: icdsm-italia @yahoogroups.com
Cc: aa-info @yahoogroups.com
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] 26 February: International Conference at The
Hague


Di seguito il primo annuncio ufficiale della conferenza internazionale
che si terra' il prossimo 26 FEBBRAIO ALL'AIA, presso l'Hotel Bel Air,
a pochi passi dal "tribunale ad hoc".

Ad essa e' prevista la partecipazione di Ramsey Clark (ex procuratore
generale degli USA, noto pacifista, presidente dell'ICDSM), Thipaine
Dickson (avvocatessa canadese, consulente della difesa di Milosevic),
Velko Valkanov (professore bulgaro, co-presidente dell'ICDSM), Branko
Rakic (avvocato serbo di Milosevic), Alexandar Mezhyaev (esperto russo
di diritto internazionale) e dell'italiano Aldo Bernardini (docente
all'Univ. di Teramo).

Per l'organizzazione di questa conferenza lo sforzo economico e' ai
limiti delle possibilita' dell'ICDSM. Un biglietto d'ingresso di 10
euro e' stato previsto per garantire la copertura dei costi. Tutti i
nostri sostenitori sono comunque calorosamente invitati a contribuire
con urgenza.


**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
**************************************************************
13 January 2004 Final circulation tomorrow
**************************************************************

First Announcement

I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e

MILOSEVIC PROCESS
- the legal aspects -

The Hague, 26 February 2005

The Hague Proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic: Emerging Issues in
International Law

The idea of international law - in particular international criminal
law - is undeniably appealing to jurists and non-lawyers alike, as
generations have sought to establish a permanent criminal jurisdiction
to prosecute war crimes in the wake of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials.
Beyond the prosecution of the crimes that are committed in war,
however, the Nuremberg precedent clearly articulates that the supreme
international crime is the instigation of a war of aggression. Indeed,
the Nuremberg Tribunal held that:

"War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to
the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a
war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is
the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in
that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

The ICTY, a Security Council institution, does not have the
jurisdiction to prosecute the "supreme international crime". Some argue
that it in fact legitimizes aggression, which can be exemplified by the
serving of an indictment against President Slobodan Milosevic at the
height of the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, contrary to
international law. As the defence phase of the proceedings continue to
delve into the destruction of
Yugoslavia by Western interests, legal questions emerge which will be
discussed in this conference:

-The right to self-representation in international and comparative law;
-Joint criminal enterprise, tailor-made to convict and a tool of
de-nazification
-What is "relevant" testimony in a political prosecution?
-War crimes prosecutions by the Security Council: justifying
aggression, eliminating national sovereignty
-Self-determination and self-defense of Yugoslavia under international
law
-"Equality of arms": what is left after The Hague?
-Armed conflict under international law and in the Milosevic case
-Effect of media coverage and lobbying on the right to a fair trial
-Misuse of genocide charges and trivialization of Nuremberg precedent
and Holocaust
-Denying the right to defend oneself - stepping on the fundamentals of
law
-The right to a fair trial in international and comparative law: has it
been respected in the Milosevic case?
-How can the Hague be judged, and who will judge it?

After the presentation of the invited contributions, the conference
will end with a panel discussion.

The list of invited contributors include:

- Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney General (USA)
- Professor Velko Valkanov, Chairman of the Bulgarian Human Rights
Committee (Bulgaria)
- Professor Aldo Bernardini, international law, Teramo University
(Italy)
- Dr Branko Rakic, international law, Belgrade University, legal
associate to President Milosevic (Serbia)
- Tiphaine Dickson, international criminal lawyer, legal spokesperson
of the ICDSM (Quebec)
- Dr Alexandar Mezhyaev, international law, Kazan (Russia)

The Conference will take place in the Bel Air hotel, close to the ICTY.
Conference admission is 10 EUR.

Organized by the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic
(ICDSM) and
Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität e.V. (Association for the
International Solidarity)


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

URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL

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

After the Hague Tribunal declared war against human rights and
International Law by banning President Milosevic's right to
self-defense, our activities for his liberation and for the restoration
of his freedom and for the national sovereignty of the Serbian people
need to be reorganized and intensified.

We need professional, legal work now more than ever. Thus, the creation
of conditions for that work is the imperative at this moment.

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

The petition of 100 lawyers and law professors from 18 countries, and
other related activities of the ICDSM Legal Committee, produced a
public effect incomparable to any other previous action by the ICDSM.

President Milosevic has the truth and law on his side. In order to use
that advantage to achieve his freedom, we must fight this totally
discredited tribunal and its patrons through professionally conducted
actions which would involve the Bar Associations, the European Court,
the UN organs in charge and the media.

Our practice has shown that ad hoc voluntary work is not enough to deal
properly with these tasks. The funds secured in Serbia are still enough
only to cover the expenses of the stay and work of President
Milosevic's legal associates at The Hague (one at the time). The funds
secured by the German
section of the ICDSM (still the only one with regular contributions)
are enough only to cover minimal additional work at The Hague connected
with contacts and preparations of foreign witnesses. Everything else is
lacking.

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

3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.

Our history and our people oblige us to go on with this necessary
action.
But without these funds it will not be possible.

Please organize urgently the fundraising activity
and send the donations to the following ICDSM accounts:

Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63
SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS

or

Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5

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

All of your donations will be used for legal and other necessary
accompanying activities, on instruction or with the consent of
President Milosevic. To obtain additional information on the use of
your donations or to obtain additional advice on the most efficient way
to submit your donations or to make bank transfers, please do not
hesitate to contact us:

Peter Betscher (ICDSM Treasurer) E-mail: peter_betscher @ freenet.de
Phone: +49 172 7566 014

Vladimir Krsljanin (ICDSM Secretary) E-mail: slobodavk @ yubc.net
Phone: +381 63 8862 301

The ICDSM and Sloboda need to address governments, international human
rights and legal organizations, and to launch legal proceedings. The
ICDSM plans a legal conference at The Hague. Sloboda has just sent to
the
patriotic factions in the Serbian Parliament an initiative to adopt a
parliamentary Resolution against the human rights violations by the
Hague Tribunal and to form an international team of experts to make an
extensive report on these violations which would be submitted to the UN.

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

For truth and human rights against aggression!
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!
Freedom and equality for people!

On behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM,

Vladimir Krsljanin,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic

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

To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)



==========================

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)

==========================

Notizia vera e oggettivamente riferita, ma suscettibile di creare
impressioni distorte e accendere gratuitamente una paranoia antitedesca,
classica in coloro che amano (sionisti, esponenti incolti della Resistenza)
confondere i nazisti con il popolo tedesco (che ha scarificato un milione di
vittime alla resistenza antinazista), cosa che ci guarderemmo bene dal fare
con fascisti=italiani, che ci intimano di non fare con Sharon=ebrei pena il
rogo, e che non si dovrebbe neppure sostenere su Bush= statunitensi. Per la
precisione, la questione passaporti in Polonia si riferisce alla fortissima
minoranza tedesca assorbita dalla Polonia in seguito alla sconfitta della
Germania nella seconda Guerra Mondiale (Slesia e altre regioni). Tedeschi di
lingua, cultura, identità che potrebbero voler spostarsi nella Repubblica
Federale (Non ci sono milioni di italiani d'Argentina con passaporti
italiani?). Si tratta, come si ricorderà, del baratto per cui all'URSS
vennero date vaste aree storicamente polacche e la Polonia fu risarcita con
vaste aree storicamente tedesche (Slesia, Prussia Orientale, Prussia fino
all'Oder, senza neppure parlare di Danzica e Koenigsberg (Kant)). Il fatto
che un idiota dica che è mezzogiorno alle 12, non significa necessariamente
che dica cazzate. Così la lista dei "Volksdeutsche" compilata dal regime
nazista è vecchia di un secolo e elenca correttamente le minoranze tedesche
(una trentina di milioni di persone) in URSS, Ungheria, Polonia, Romania,
Moldavia, Italia (!!!), Scandinavia, Francia, ecc. E' un incontrovertibile
dato statistico. Altra cosa è farne una motivazione imperialistica. Comunque
rinfocolare primitive fobie antitedesche, magari sotto l'etichetta
dell'antifascismo, è fuorviante e ingiustificato.
Grazie.
Fulvio.

Nota: vorrei ricordare a tutti gli iscritti che "I documenti distribuiti non
rispecchiano necessariamente le posizioni ufficiali o condivise da tutto il
CNJ, ma vengono fatti circolare per il loro contenuto informativo al solo
scopo di segnalazione e commento".
Grazie.
Pino Catapano

Un interessante articolo del New York Times, ripreso dall'International
Herald Tribune, sul ruolo della Corte Penale Internazionale e del Diritto
Internazionale, alla luce della decisione della CPI di non poter avere
giurisdizione sul caso delle rivendicazioni della federazione
serbo-montenegrina contro i paesi della NATO.

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2005/01/12/opinion/edposner.html

The international court in decline
Eric A. Posner The New York Times
Thursday, January 13, 2005


Global justice I

CHICAGO In its final decision of 2004, the International Court of Justice in
The Hague decided that it had no jurisdiction to determine whether Serbia
and Montenegro had a valid legal claim against NATO countries that
participated in the intervention in Kosovo in 1999.

While few outside Belgrade probably paid much attention, the decision was
symbolically very important: It showed just how incapable the court is of
resolving disputes, and what little hope the new International Criminal
Court has of doing much better.

There is no doubt that in strictly legal terms, NATO's intervention violated
international standards. What was unclear was whether the court had
jurisdiction to act against it. In this, the court was in an unenviable
position: If it had held against the NATO states, they would surely have
ignored the judgment. By holding in favor of these states, the court showed
its irrelevance.

The decision was a fitting end to a dismal year for the court, which is the
United Nations' judicial organ. Earlier in the year, Israel rejected an
advisory opinion that held that its security wall in the West Bank is
illegal. The United States reacted lethargically to its third loss in a row
on the question of whether it is in violation of the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations because police often fail to inform foreign citizens they
have arrested of their consular rights. Along with the Serbia case, these
two decisions were the court's only major actions in 2004.

And the year was not anomalous. Throughout its 60-year history, the court
has averaged only a few cases a year, and has rendered a decision in fewer
than 100 all told. By contrast, the World Trade Organization's settlement
system, in place for less than a decade, has already heard several hundred
cases, and the European Court of Justice, which hears disputes between
European Union members, has heard thousands of cases in its half-century
existence.



Most disturbing for supporters of the court of justice is that it has been
doing worse as it has aged. It hears cases at about the same rate today as
it did 50 years ago, even though the number of countries in the world has
tripled during that time. This means that the annual number of cases per
nation has declined by two-thirds even as global interaction has soared.
Increasingly, major states avoid the court. In the last 30 years, the
countries with the 10 largest economies have brought only two contentious
cases to The Hague.

Many major nations - China, Japan and Russia - have never been party to an
International Court of Justice case. Others, including France, Britain and
the United States, have lost whatever enthusiasm for the court that they
once had. In the court's first 20 years, these three states brought more
than a dozen cases; in the last 20 years, they have brought only one.

A principal reason for the decline of the court is that many countries have
restricted its jurisdiction over them. The main way that the court obtains
power is by having states submit to "compulsory jurisdiction" - that is,
file declarations in which they consent to be sued by any other state that
has filed a similar declaration. The founders of the court of justice hoped
that eventually all nations would submit to compulsory jurisdiction.

But since the court's early years, the fraction of the world's nations
subject to compulsory jurisdiction has declined from two-thirds to
one-third. And many countries that technically remain subject to compulsory
jurisdiction have used various tricks to ensure that it can be used against
them only in the narrowest circumstances.

For example, India excludes matters within its "domestic jurisdiction" and
concerning its territorial boundaries. Further, the biggest powers have
mostly opted out: At one time all permanent members of the Security Council
other than the Soviet Union consented to compulsory jurisdiction, but China,
France and the United States withdrew in the 1970s and 1980s, leaving only
Britain.

The other main avenue for the court of justice to obtain jurisdiction is on
a treaty-by-treaty basis. During its first two decades, nearly 200 treaties
were forged in which the signers conferred jurisdiction of disputes to the
court. Over the last 20 years, only about a dozen new treaties included
International Court of Justice oversight.

Why have countries abandoned the court? The most plausible answer is that
they do not trust the judges to rule impartially, but expect them to vote
the interests of the states of which they are citizens.

Statistics bear out this conjecture.

When their home countries are parties to litigation, judges vote in favor of
them about 90 percent of the time. When their states are not parties, judges
tend to vote for states that are more like their home states. Judges from
wealthy states tend to vote in favor of wealthy states, and judges from poor
states tend to vote in favor of poor states.

In addition, judges from democracies appear to favor democracies; judges
from authoritarian states appear to favor authoritarian states.

This is not to say that the judges pay no attention to the law. But there is
no question that politics matter.

History bears out this argument. From the beginning of the cold war, the
Soviet Union and its satellites refused to subject themselves to the
jurisdiction of a court they felt was dominated by representatives of
hostile countries. However, with decolonization, the composition of the
International Court of Justice changed, and many more judges came from newly
independent states that were unhappy with the Western-dominated
international legal system.

The watershed moment came when the court found the United States had
violated international law by mining Nicaraguan harbors in 1984.

America, which had long been the court's champion, rejected the judgment and
withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction.

Today, many of those with faith in international adjudication have switched
their allegiance from the International Court of Justice and the fledgling
International Criminal Court, which was established by treaty in 1998 and
has yet to begin operating.

But the criminal court has all the defects of its older sibling. Its
independent prosecutor and judges have every incentive to take account of
the political interests of the states of which they are nationals. With its
broad mandate to enforce ambiguous laws in a world that is overflowing with
war criminals, the criminal court's prosecutor and judges have enormous
discretion to pick defendants for maximum political effect.

The countries with the most to lose from politicized enforcement of
international law have refused to submit to the International Criminal
Court's jurisdiction, but they still must fear that their citizens, if
indicted, will be arrested while traveling.

In a sped-up version of the court of justice's history, the United States
has already expended considerable diplomatic effort to persuade parties to
the criminal court not to hand over any Americans who are indicted. Thus
even before it has had its first case, the International Criminal Court is
losing its ability to exercise its jurisdiction.

It needn't have been this way. America could have been a supporter of the
criminal court, if only the court's founders had agreed to make prosecutions
turn on Security Council authorization, which would have given the major
powers vetoes over prosecutions.

Without such assurances of immunity, America will be reluctant to turn over
war criminals to the court because doing so would legitimate an institution
that Washington sees as hostile to its interests.

At one time people hoped that the criminal court would render unnecessary
the cumbersome, ad hoc war-crimes tribunals like the one that has been
trying Slobodan Milosevic. This hope has been shattered.

It is hard to imagine a renegotiation of the International Criminal Court's
treaty in the near future, but if the body fails to accomplish anything of
value over the next several years, perhaps the issue of major power immunity
will be revisited.

Successful international organizations either adapt to great power politics
or they wither on the vine; it is a choice that the supporters of global
justice will soon face.

http://www.artel.co.yu/sr/izbor/jugoslavija/2005-01-11_1.html

Osvešcenje

Mirela Beloševic, novinar
informgraf @ yahoo.com
Beograd, 11. januar 2005. godine

Oni koji idu u nedeljne nabavke lako ce primetiti da, posle uvodjenja
porez na dodatu vrednost, za istu kolicinu novca kuci donesu manju
kolicinu robe. Naravno, ministar finansija je vec prvog dana nakon
uvodjenja PDV-a obišao prodavnice da bi pokazao kako je strah od
povecanja cena zbog poreza bio neopravdan. Da bi neko bio politicar
ocigledno se mora prvo snabdeti ružicastim naocarima kroz koje ce
posmatrati stvaran svet oko sebe, a pri tom mora umeti i druge da
ubedi da je jedina istina ona vidjena kroz takve naocare. Naravno tu
su i pomagaci koji ministre snabdevaju informacijama koje im pomažu u
takvim nastojanjima.Tako je recimo ministar finansija u "Maksi"
supermarketu dobio informaciju da je 80 odsto proizvoda pojeftinilo a
samo 13 odsto poskupelo. Koga još interesuje to što je medju tih 80
odsto mnogo manje važnih proizvoda a u onih 13 odsto su baš
najtraženije namirnice. Poskupelo je recimo meso koje je prošle godine
vec poskupljivalo i ocekivalo se da ce zbog bolje ponude bar cena
svinjskog mesa poceti da pada. Ne treba ni spominjati cinjenicu da smo
po potrošnji mesa vec odavno u zaostatku za prosecnim potrošacem iz
zemalja Evropske unije i to sigurno ne zbog naše težnje da se zdravije
hranimo. Hleb nije poskupeo ali i to je namirnica koja je trebalo da
pojeftini još krajem novembra zbog pojeftinjenja brašna. Cinjenicu da
je osnovna sirovina pojeftinila pekari su prenebregli jer su ocigledno
taktizirali da bi sacekali uvodjenje PDV-a (porez na dodatu vrednost)
i još taktiziraju jer se ne zna da li ce i vekna možda dobiti vecu
cenu. Mlekari takodje nisu povecali cenu osnovnog proizvoda ali i oni
su to vec ucinili krajem 2003. Mlecni proizvodi jesu poskupeli.
Niko ne spori da je bilo nužno da, pretposlednji u Evropi, uvedemo
ovaj porez i naravno da obican narod niko ne pita da li je sad baš
pravi trenutak. Za polticare jeste pravi trenutak jer narod je
zabavljen proslavama Nove godine, Božica i srpske nove godine pa ce
pravo otrežnjenje tek uslediti.
Neposredno pre uvodjenja PDV-a doneta je jedna još manje popularna
mera : postepeno ukidanje placanja cekovima na pocek. Odloženo
placanje je naš izum zahvaljujuci kome smo letovanja otplacivali zimi,
kapute do leta a što je najgore, hranili se tako što smo namirnice
otplacivali mesec dana kasnije. Da li cemo sve uspeti da otplatimo do
novembra kad se ova mogucnost definitivno ukida ili cemo tek tada
shvatiti znacenje izreke "naci se u nebranom groždju". Srecom te su
politicari bili dovoljno mudri da i socijalne nemire odlože tako što
su ipak predvideli da se ova mogucnost ukine postepeno.
Zabavljeni pripremanjem bogate trpeze za Novu godinu i Božic uspeli
smo da ne budemo dovoljno svesni svih ovih promena.Mali je broj onih
koji su razmišljali o skupim toaletama, novogodišnjim putovanjima i
galantnim poklonima a mnogo više onih koji su pola prosecne plate
potrošili samo za meni u kucnom aranžmanu. Otrežnjenje od alkohola
bice mnogo bezbolnije od otrežnjenja posle nerealne potrošacke groznice.
Nece nam mnogo olakšati situaciju ni analize i predvidjanja
analiticara. Ima hrabrih koji predvidjaju ekonomski haos što, ruku na
srce, nicemu ne služi sem da obicne ljude uplaši. Kreatore ekonomske
politike sigurno nece zastrašiti, oni su u svom svetu okruženi
lojalnim aniliticarima. Ima, cini se, realnih koji nagoveštavaju tešku
godinu u kojoj nam predstoji restruktuiranje velikih javnih preduzeca
sa ili bez adekvatnog socijlanog programa. Godinu u kojoj cemo morati
da povecamo izvoz jer to nam je jedina šansa. Pri tom nemamo mnogo šta
da izvezemo jer nema robe koja se uklapa u svetske cene i zahteve. Iz
iste price je i prekomeran uvoz svega i svacega cime smo vec dovoljno
obesmislili domacu proizvodnju.
Da li ce se nastaviti podela na politicare i tajkune s jedne strane i
obicne gradjane kojima je vec sada jasno da od nove godine ne treba
ocekivati mnogo. Ako uspete da zadržite radno mesto to je vec uspeh, a
ako pri tom uspete da se prehranite uz pomoc samo dve prosecne plate
zaslužujete u najmanju ruku orden. Moderni vitezovi jurišaju na dva,
tri posla istovremeno a srpske dame ni ne primecuju natcovecanski
napor svojih ritera, jer i same izgaraju u bespoštednoj borbi
preživljavanja od prvog do porvog. To su naravno vitezovi i dame iz
naroda ali ima i onih drugih koji svojim damama najcešce -ženama,
kojima je jedini posao slikanje za tabloide, poklanjaju dijamnate,
kuce sa bazenima, džipove... ali o njima nekom drugom prilikom.
Neverovatno je samo da što više i dublje padamo i bednije živimo, sve
više se prodaje baš takva štampa prepuna prica o tajkunima. Valjda
niko više ne želi da cita o sopstvenom jadu i krahu. Dovoljno je teško
da niko više ne želi da posle napornog rada još i u novinama dobija
potvrdu lošeg stanja, malo sjaja, makar i tudjeg i nicim zasluženog.