After it was made on November 6, the Decision of the Federal
Constitutional Court on unconstitutionality of the the Federal
Government's Decree on cooperation with the so-called tribunal in the
Hague has finally been published. Here is an unofficial English
translation of it.


OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF FRY, No.70/01, December 28, 2001

===*===

Third - and final - piece of the text:

===

By virtue of Article 16 of the
Constitution of FRY the international
treaties confirmed and published in
keeping with the Constitution and
generally accepted rules of international
law are integral parts of the
national legal order. Hence, the
international treaties and generally
accepted rules of international law,
according to their legal strength are
above the federal law.

According to the position of the
Federal Constitutional Court
distinction must be made between the
obligations of the stated under the
international community on the whole and
obligations towards a given state
or group of states. The confirmed and
published international treaties
constitute the international legal
obligation of FRY law beyond any doubt
towards all the states signatories
thereof, while the generally accepted
rules of the international law concern
all the states within the
international legal system and all the
personalities under the international
law have the obligation and shared
interest in their protection (the rules
ius cogeus). Besides, in the case of
non-observance of those internal legal
norms, sanctions shall be imposed,
primarily legal in nature, unlike the
political agreements where sanctions are
of not legal but political and/or
other nature.

The generally accepted rules of
international law represent legal
principles of the norms derived from
custom rules common to all the states
or known in the majority of legal systems
of the world. Those rules have
general, absolute and objective
character, but also their dynamic
development. At the same time the scope
and character of their changes
provoke different views. There is more
agreement about their identification,
particularly in process law, as the
principles of "reasonable time-limit","
fair trial",
"degrading treatment", "arbitrary
apprehension "presumption of innocence",
timely pronunciation of sentence", "right
to appeal" and other general
rules.

The Federal Constitutional Court
judges that the Resolution of the
Security Council 827 establishing the
International Criminal Tribunal does
not fall within the international law
which constitutes the part of the
internal legal order under Article 16 of
the Constitution of FRY. This is
because an ad hoc measure approved by the
Security Council under the
Resolution - the establishment of the
International Criminal Tribunal for
Criminal prosecution of individuals
responsible for grave violations of the
international humanitarian law-contains
no international legal norms
producing "validity" namely has no
"obligatory strength". Without such
properties that Resolution constitutes
but a political instrument which
entails political obligations, but the
legal validity shall be achieved only
upon its enforcement by the legitimate
and legal authority in individual
legal systems of each state.

Namely, UN member states, having
accepted the UN Charter. Accepted
legal validity of all its norms, and also
the legal instrument passed by UN
bodies in compliance with and in the
manner set out in the Charter. However,
the UN member states had never vested
judicial power to UN bodies. Except
those, naturally expressly specified in
the Statute of the International
Court of Justice, envisaged in the
Chapter XIV of the UN Charter. This is
not the case. That is why the Resolution
of the Security Council 827 in its
item 4 specified a political obligation
of all the states to "fully
cooperate with the International Criminal
Tribunal....and that all the
states undertake measures in keeping with
the national legislation conducive
to giving effect to the provisions" of
that Resolution. Hence, only if and
when that obligation under the mentioned
Resolution of the Security Council
is "translated into a legal norm" in
harmony with the national legislation,
the Statute and the Rules of the
International Criminal Tribunal, shall
obtain the normative character with legal
validity. Without it, those are
specific political obligations; the
non-performance may, of course, produce
very grave consequences for individual
states.

As was said, under Article 24 of the
United Nations Charter, concerning the
international peace and security, the
Security Council in implementing its
mandate, acts on behalf of the United
Nations.

Further to Article 25 of the
Charter - UN members have agreed to
accept and implement the decisions of the
Security Council in line with the
Charter.

In case that Security Council
should find that there exists threat
to peace or violation of peace, it shall
decide what measures are to be
taken to reestablish peace, the supreme
value of the whole international
system.

In conformity with the assessed
status of relations, causes and
consequences, Security Council decided to
establish a court under its
resolution 827 (1993) under the name "The
International Tribunal for
Prosecution of Individuals responsible
for grave violations of the
International Humanitarian Law in the
Territory of former Yugoslavia between
1991". Starting from the substance of
Articles 24, 25 and Article 29 of the
United Nations Charter, that Decision may
be viewed as one of the measures
for protection of peace in the territory
of former SFRY, taken by the United
Nations.

Oppositely, as was already
revealed, this Court was of the view that
the substance of the Charter of the
United Nations does not imply that the
Security Council has an exclusive power
to create and establish judicial
bodies as a protection measure, to deal
with the responsibility of the
citizens in the countries that violated
peace and security in the world. It
follows from the substance of the quoted
provisions of the Charter that such
a measure may be considered as an
international accomplished fact binding
on
any member state of United Nations. In
such a case an obligation is created
to legally regulate the issues concerning
constitutionally guaranteed
freedoms and rights of the citizens,
position of the state authorities and
provision of that protection, as well as
the conduct of local authorities in
giving legal assistance to protect the
international peace. One of the
rights of member states in this case, are
well-supported approaches to the
United Nation bodies to check the
correctness of the procedure.

The above quoted constitutional
and legal provisions imply no
obligation or possibility for the
national legal system, under the
extraordinary procedure and extraordinary
legal instrument, harmonize with
the international coercive measure.
Hence, these relations should be
established in constitutionally oriented
procedure, which shall observe and
be secured by international law, but also
the internal order of FR of
Yugoslavia, in observance of the Charter
of the united Nations,
International Declaration on Human
Rights, the International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights, Constitution
of FRY and other legal instruments
of the national and international law.

III

4. The Federal Constitutional
Court, by virtue of Article 124, par
1, items 2 and 4 of the Constitution of
FRY and Articles 30, 58 and 68 par
1, items 2 and 4 of the Law on the
Federal Constitutional Court (Official
Gazette of FRY no.36/92), at its session
of 06.11.2001, passed the following


DECISION

It is ruled that the Decree on
the process of cooperation with the
International Criminal Tribunal (Official
Gazette of FRY no.30/01) is in no
conformity with Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the
Law on Criminal Proceedings (Official
Gazette of SFRY Nos.4/77, 14/85,
74/87, 57/89, 3/90 and Official Gazette
of FRY No/ 27/92 and 24/94).

The Federal Constitutional Court
has passed the present Decision in
the following sitting: Acting Chairman of
the Federal Constitutional Court
Judge Milan Vesovic, and Judges Milorad
Gogic, Dr. Momcilo Grubac, Mr.
Milomir Jakovljevic, Veseling Lekic and
Aleksandar Simic.

The Federal Constitutional Court
Acting Chairman
of
the Federal Constitutional Court
Judge Milan Vesovic


To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sps.org.yu/ (official SPS
website)
http://www.belgrade-forum.org/ (forum for
the world of equals)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international
committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.jutarnje.co.yu/ ('morning
news' the only Serbian newspaper
advocating liberation)

"DEMOCRATICI" MEDIA JUGOSLAVI INVENTANO
DI SANA PIANTA INTERVISTA A MILOSEVIC

Alcuni media jugoslavi, citandosi a vicenda, e sulla base
di una fonte assolutamente ignota, hanno pubblicato estratti
di una "intervista" che il presidente Milosevic avrebbe
rilasciato al "corrispondente da Roma della agenzia russa
ITAR-TASS" e ad alcuni "altri giornalisti italiani".
Questa vile montatura, pregna di astio e spirito acido,
mira chiaramente a creare confusione in Jugoslavia,
dove la gente e' sempre piu' determinata ad appoggiare
il presidente Milosevic. Inoltre, l'intento e' di nascondere
il vero messaggio politico del presidente Milosevic, dando
molto risalto a simili montature.
(From: "Vladimir Krsljanin" - SPS)

UPOZORENJE: Tzv. intervju Milosevica ITAR-TASS-u je lazan!

Beogradski mediji, pozivajuci se jedan na drugog u krug,
non-stop citiraju ovu jeftinu izmisljotinu, lansiranu sa
ciljem da se stvori konfuzija u casu kada podrska
predsedniku Milosevicu raste, kao i da bi se
sakrile njegove prave poruke.
(From: "Vladimir Krsljanin" - SPS)

SO-CALLED MILOSEVIC'S INTERVIEW TO ITAR-TASS IS FALSE!

Some Yugoslav media, quoting each other, with completelly
unknown source, published excerpts from an "interview" of
President Milosevic given to the "Rome correspondent of
Russian agency ITAR-TASS" and to some "other Italian
journalists". This cheap fabrication, full of spirit of
bitterness and dissapointment has an obvious aim to create
confusion in Yugoslavia, where determination of the people in
support of President Milosevic increases. Also, intention is
to hide the true political messages of President Milosevic by
giving big publicity to fabricated sensations.
(From: "Vladimir Krsljanin" - SPS)

http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=
FT3UFAV05XC&live=true&tagid=IXLVJTFUICC&subheading=emergingmarkets

Enron's curious Croatian client
By Robert Wright in Budapest

Financial Times
January 31 2002 23:36

"In one meeting, Mr Tudjman asked Joseph Sutton, head
of Enron's international operations, how much
influence his company had with the US state department
and whether it could arrange WTO entry.
"Mr Sutton said he could not promise WTO membership,
but guaranteed that Enron and the US would lobby for
Croatia's entry into the WTO, Partnership for Peace
and Nato."



The Enron collapse may have finally ended a
long-running scandal over relations between the US
energy company and the semi-authoritarian government
of the late Croatian president, Franjo Tudjman.

Mr Tudjman, who led Croatia through independence,
negotiated a controversial memorandum of understanding
with Enron before his death in December 1999. It would
have given Enron rights to build a power station in
Croatia and run it for 20 years, selling electricity
to HEP, the state electricity company, at above-market
rates.

Questions about the deal intensified after Mr
Tudjman's death and the election, in January 2000, of
a democratic government. Tapes of conversations show
that Mr Tudjman hoped giving Enron the contract would
secure political favours, including a state visit to
Washington.

After renegotiation, Enron is thought to have retained
the right to build a power station and sell
electricity to HEP at above-market rates, though lower
than previously. That contract expires this summer,
though details are unclear due to confidentiality
agreements.

Enron's power deliveries to Croatia ended on November
30, when other European deliveries ceased. The power
station has not been built.

The deal's legacy, however, may be the light it sheds
on Mr Tudjman in his later years - and on Enron's
readiness to and play along with his fantasies.

In the weekly magazine Globus, President Tudjman said
that, on top of a visit to Washington, he expected
Croatia to join the World Trade Organisation, Nato's
Partnership for Peace programme and Nato itself if he
signed the deal. He even linked the deal to avoiding
his arrest and that of other senior figures by the
Hague-based International Criminal Tribunal.

Croatia had been isolated politically - particularly
by the European Union - over treatment of Serbs during
the offensive that ended its war of independence.

When challenged on the cost of electricity under the
deal - an estimated $120m-$200m above market prices
over 20 years - he justified it using the political
benefits.

Subject: Part 1 - PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC IN
THE HAGUE JAN. 30, 2002 - OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2002 22:57:13 EST
From: JaredI@...
To: JaredI@...




International Committee to Defend Slobodan
Milosevic www.icdsm.org

The URL for this article is:
http://www.icdsm.org/milosevic/30jan.htm

Subscribe to the ICDSM email list at
http://www.icdsm.org/maillist.htm
Receive no more than one article per day.

=============================================
Part 1 - PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC IN THE HAGUE
JAN. 30, 2002 - OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT

BY ADDING THREE LIES, ONE DOES NOT GET THE
TRUTH - ONLY A BIGGER LIE
[Posted 1 February 2002]
=============================================

Pres. Milosevic:

By adding three lies, one does not get the
truth - only a bigger lie.

All three indictments really have a thread
running through them - to use an
expression I've heard used here - which is
the ongoing crime against
Yugoslavia and against my people.

This here is obviously a colossal abuse of
power to fabricate an historical
forgery in which those who advocated the
preservation of Yugoslavia would be
charged with its destruction; those who
defended the country would be accused
of crimes; and those who advocated and
committed secession, advocating
separatism and terrorism, would be given
amnesty - because they were backed
by forces that wanted to establish control
over the Balkans, so as to be able
to use this strategic position to establish
their control elsewhere.

As we've heard, you spoke of three connected
events. How come the authors of
this so-called plan, of which they speak so
self-assuredly, only got around
to making allegations about Bosnia and
Croatia after ten years? Furthermore,
these claims are absurd and nonsensical,
primarily because the entire policy
of the Serbs, Serbia and me personally was in
regard to Croatia and Bosnia
focused on peace, not war. We used all our
influence to achieve peace as soon
as possible.

At the very beginning of the conflict in
Croatia, we advocated a political
solution. Based on that proposal, the UN
Protected Areas were established and
the situation calmed down immediately. On
March 24, 1992, the late Croatian
leader Tudjman spoke to his nation from the
Ban Jelacic Square [in Zagreb],
saying literally: "There would not have been
a war had Croatia not wanted it,
but we judged this was the only way to
achieve independence."

There would have certainly been no war had
Croatia not wished for it. Serbia
never participated in that war anyway. It was
an internal conflict.

But why did Croatia want war? Most certainly
not in order for the Croatian
people to use their right to
self-determination and secession (Macedonia,
for example, claimed that right and separated
from Yugoslavia), but to achieve
its goal of expelling half a million Serbs
from Croatia - Serbian Krajina -
who for centuries lived there on their own
land, and not as occupiers.

Until the arrival of that Croatian regime
that wanted war and so admitted
publicly, Croatia had a Constitution
describing it as a state of Croats,
Serbs and other peoples residing therein.
That Constitution was changed.
Serbs lost their rights and their constituent
status in Croatia, and they
rose in rebellion. At the time, few in Serbia
even knew that Serbs lived in
some part of Croatia.

You speak of the plan according to which,
with German support, Croatia was
prematurely recognized at the end of 1991,
without waiting for a political
solution, which sparked a confrontation in
which Serbia - I repeat - only
contributed in finding a peaceful solution as
soon as possible. Even the
Croatian government never accused us of
responsibility for that conflict, and
now I hear, here, today, that we had some
sort of a plan for that?

There was, in fact, a plan - a clear plan
aimed against a state that was, I
would say, at the time a model of future
European federalism. That state was
Yugoslavia, in which multiple nations lived
in a federation, on equal
footing, successfully, with the ability to
prosper, develop, and show the
entire world that coexistence was possible.

All the time we fought for Yugoslavia, for
the preservation of Yugoslavia.
After all, all the facts prove that what I am
saying is true. Only the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which now
exists, retained its ethnic makeup.
There were no expulsions, from the beginning
to the end of the Yugoslav
crisis. All other republics changed their
ethnic makeup. Half a million Serbs
were expelled from Croatia and we all know
what happened in Bosnia, not to
mention other parts of Yugoslavia.

Therefore, I would say this is a malicious,
utterly hostile process aimed at
justifying the crime against my country,
using this 'court' as a weapon
against my country and my people.

Look at Bosnia-Herzegovina. Over there, we
tried from the very beginning to
secure peace. What happened to the Cutillero
Plan, which everyone had backed?
The Islamist Bosnian government rejected it
at the urging of the U.S.
Ambassador and the conflict began. How can
Serbia be accused of anything in
Bosnia, when it is well known that,
attempting to use our influence for
peace, we not only backed all the peace
proposals but also tried to help
implement them?

In 1993, in Athens, there was a meeting at
which the Vance-Owen Peace Plan
was signed. Everybody signed it. I went to
Pale with [Greek Prime Minister]
Mitsotakis and former Yugoslav president
Dobrica Cosic, and we advocated the
acceptance of this plan. Unfortunately, it
was rejected - on May 3 or May 5,
1993, I don't remember exactly. Even then we
initiated a blockade of the Serb
Republic, in order to force its leadership to
accept the peace plan. This was
Serbia's role - to attempt to achieve
peace.

We had constantly emphasized that the only
formula for achieving peace in
Bosnia was to equally protect the interests
of all three peoples in
Bosnia-Herzegovina: Serbs, Muslims and
Croats. The Dayton Agreement succeeded
because that formula was accepted - because
the national interests of all
three peoples were protected equally.

Now I hear that Dayton was supposed to
discuss Kosovo. That is nonsense. The
Dayton talks were convened to establish peace
in Bosnia-Herzegovina, and no
one even thought of addressing the issue of
Kosovo. It has been an internal
issue of Serbia, and no one could have even
dreamed that someone would
attempt to internationalize it.

You cannot, in any way, link Serbia or the
Serbian policy with any kind of
crimes. You especially cannot legally claim,
ten years later, something that
no one ever alleged about us, even then. We
were accorded only respect and
appreciation for the gigantic efforts Serbia
and the Serbian policy made to
achieve peace.

Speaking of Bosnia, do you know that 70,000
Muslim refugees sought sanctuary
in Serbia during the Bosnian conflict? Do you
think someone would flee their
home and take refuge in the very territory
from which they were endangered?
How many lives did we save, how many of your
hostages did we rescue from
Bosnia - from UN peacekeepers to pilots -
and how many peace treaties did we
insist on and make possible? Eventually, we
were the most responsible for the
success of the Dayton talks and the peace
that ensued.

It was a total peace, a complete relaxation
of tensions, and then... I will
tell you how it all began in Kosovo. Because
of the plan to establish control
of the Balkans, the territory of the former
Yugoslavia, efforts were made to
destabilize Kosovo at precisely the time when
it seemed everything would be
resolved peacefully.

(CONTINUED PART 2)

www.icdsm.org