Informazione
?Nezavisimaja gazeta?, Moskva, 26.01.2002.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns
= "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Larisa Kritskaja, Svetlana Ccernjak
REMZI KLARK: ?POSSTOVATI ZAKONE PRAVOSUDJA?
Bivssi drzzavni tuzzilac SAD odbacuje
americcku politiku sile
Dobiti intervju od Remzija Klarka nije nissta
laksse nego od predsednika: svaki minut njegovog
vremena je rasporedjen. I to za dan, nedelju, mesec, godinu
dana unapred. Plus nepredvidjeni dogadjaji i
okolnosti. Rodio se u Dalasu 1927. godine. Ratovao je u Koreji.
Potom - univerzitet u Teksasu, Ccikagu,
posao pravnika. Sa 34 godine je pomoccnik drzzavnog tuzzioca u
Kenedijevoj administraciji, sa 40 -
drzavni tuzilac u Dzonsonovoj administraciji. Dao je ostavku u
znak protesta protiv rata u Vijetnamu u koji
je otissao radi prikupljanja dokumenata o americckim
bombardovanjima i civilnim zzrtvama. Ono ssto je
tamo video toliko ga je potreslo da je od tada Klarkov zzivot -
neprekidan niz procesa, protesta i nastupa u
zasstitu prava. Remzi Klark je bio u Iraku, Jugoslaviji,
Palestini, Istoccnom Timoru, Nikaragvi, Panami, kod
ustanika u Kolumbiji. Tokom 70-ih godina je istupao s
optuzzbama protiv Pinocceovog rezzima u Ccileu.
Pokrenuo je organizaciju ?Medicina za Irak?. U Njujorku je
otvarao tribunal ?Anti-NATO? za istrazzivanje
zloccina vlade SAD i njenih saveznika protiv iracckog naroda.
Bio je u Jugoslaviji u dane bombardovanja -
dokumentujucci njihove posledice. Delegacija Medjunarodnog
akcionog centra koji je organizovao
dopremala je u Jugoslaviju lekove, bavila se prikupljanjem
ccinjenica i dokumenata koji su potom ussli u
knjigu ?NATO na Balkanu?. Kasnije, u danima izruccivanja
predsednika Jugoslavije Milossevicca
Hasskom tribunalu, Klark je istupao pred narodom na trgu u
Beogradu, pokussavajucci da omete
sklapanje posla izmedju SAD i nove vlade Jugoslavije. Remzi
Klark je sada pravni konsultant
Milossevicca.
- Ssta se dessavalo u Jugoslaviji tokom
bombardovanja, ssta vam se najvisse urezalo u seccanje.
- Ljudi su stajali na mostovima izazivajucci vatru
na sebe. Na hiljade ljudi su se okupljale na trgovima i
pevale: ?Bombardujte!.. Ako smete!?
Onda je Jugoslavija, dovedena do krajnje
iscrpljenosti, kapitulirala....
Optimista sam. Ali, saznavssi za izruccenje
predsednika Milossevicca Hasskom tribunalu, po prvi put
u ccitavom svom zzivotu osetio sam da gubim optimizam.
Medjutim, kada sam video desetine hiljada gnevnih
demonstranata sa zastavama, moj optimizam je vaskrsao i
pomislio sam: ?Ovi ljudi cce i to prevazicci!?
Kosstunica mi je rekao da cce ?jednom svakako
napisati knjigu o nezakonitosti Hasskog tribunala?.
Nisam ga odgovarao. Poccutavssi, dodao je: ?Mi pokussavamo da
prezzivimo... nekako?. - ?Da prezzivite?
Fiziolosski je to sasvim mogucce. Ali, valjda shvatate da nema
visse ni Jugoslavije ni Srbije?? - rekao sam.
?Slazzem se sa vama, - odgovorio je Kosstunica. - Za to je
potrebna... ccast?.
- Sad se vecc retko kad govori o Milosseviccu, o
Hasskom tribunalu. Onoliko dogadjaja: 11.
septembar, Avganistan, Pakistan i Indija... Ali, sudjenje u
Hagu cce se ipak odrzzati. Ono nije ni zamissljeno
kao jednokratna akcija. Zar ne?
- Vassington je taj tribunal formirao u jeku rata u
Jugoslaviji. To je postalo realna pretnja pravosudju.
Tada sam, 1992. godine, napisao protest koji je possto ga je
federalni sud odbacio, podnet Vrhovnom sudu
Sjedinjenih Drzzava na razmatranje. Protest je bio motivisan
krssenjem normi Ustava SAD o podeli vlasti:
zakon zabranjuje sudsko razmatranje predmeta koji se ticcu
politicckih razmimoilazzenja.
Vlada SAD je, stvarajucci tribunal u Hagu,
ignorisala ne samo sopstveni Ustav, vecc i Povelju
Organizacije Ujedinjenih Nacija. U njoj nigde neccete nacci ni
recci o dopustivosti formiranja bilo kakvog
?medjunarodnog kriviccnog suda? kao rezultat politicckog
konflikta ili, ssto je joss gore, kao rezultat rata.
Zato je tribunal u Hagu nezakonit. I pokussaj njegovog
poredjenja s Nirnbersskim procesom nad
nacisticckom Nemacckom nije nissta drugo do propaganda.
Statut Nirnbersskog tribunala donet je 25. oktobra
1945. godine, mesec dana pre stupanja na snagu
Povelje OUN. Zemlje koje su se ujedinjavale u Organizaciju
Ujedinjenih Nacija tada su postavile uslov: ?Statut
buducceg Tribunala postoji samostalno i necce biti ni u kakvoj
vezi s Poveljom Organizacije Ujedinjenih
Nacija?. Dakle, Nirnbersski vojni tribunal je delovao nezavisno
i bez moguccnosti pritiska politicckih sila
spolja na njegove odluke. To je prvo.
Drugo. Nirnbersski sud je predstavljao inicijativu
ccetiri nacije, dok je u formiranju tribunala u Hagu
uccestvovala jedna jedina zemlja - Sjedinjene Americcke
Drzzave.
Ccinjenica funkcionisanja Hasskog tribunala
stvorenog uz uccesscce OUN otvara joss vecce
moguccnosti za SAD u sprovodjenju bilo kog zakona sile, bez
obzira na bilo kakve medjunarodne norme
pravosudja. To su shvatali i Generalna skupsstina OUN i Savet
bezbednosti, ali niti su imali niti imaju kako
odvazznosti, tako i dovoljne nezavisnosti za to da ustanu
protiv toga.
Za SAD nema nicceg neobiccnog u unisstavanju
nepozzeljnih predsednika. Svet je dobio Mobutua
zato ssto smo ubili Lumumbu, i svet je dobio Pinoccea possto
smo ubili Aljendea. I tako dalje. Taj scenarijum
je svetu odavno poznat. Ali zato prodaje predsednika za novac
da bi se dobile namirnice - takvog presedana
u istoriji joss nije bilo.
Tokom rata je bilo nekoliko pokussaja da se
predsednik Jugoslavije ubije. Ne sumnjajte u to: liccno
sam video njegovu kuccu sravnjenu sa zemljom posle direktnog
pogotka ?pametne? bombe. Dve njegove
kancelarije unisstene su na isti naccin. Onda su pokussali da
iznajme ubicu obeccavssi 5 miliona dolara za
Milosseviccevu glavu. Nije im uspelo. Onda - sud u Hagu.
Dugi niz godina zloupotrebe sopstvene snage doveo
nas je do potpunog razaranja ccitavog sudskog
sistema. I sada moramo opet da se uccimo posstovanju zakona.
Zloccini SAD u ratu s Jugoslavijom su
dokumentovani tako da ima nade da cce se pojaviti pravi
medjunarodni organ pravosudja i da cce vlada
SAD biti pozvana na odgovornost i osudjena u skladu s
medjunarodnim zakonom. Unisstili smo Jugoslaviju
samo zato ssto je bila poslednje ostrvo socijalizma u Evropi.
Godinama smo bin Ladena snabdevali oruzzjem
i novcem - sve do pada Sovjetskog Saveza. Sada znamo ssta da se
radi s Dagestanom i ssest bivssih
sovjetskih republika u kojima zzive muslimani, u sluccaju
konflikta s Rusijom.
Ako smo postigli uspeh u Bosni, zassto nam ne bi
posslo za rukom i sa Cceccenijom? Strategija je
ista: muslimani protiv Slovena...
Danas nam govore o dva izvora pretnje bezbednosti
SAD. Prvi je ono ssto je preostalo od dva rata
(Drugog svetskog i hladnog): Kuba, Severna Koreja i - donedavno
- Jugoslavija. Drugi su ?islamski
fundamentalisti?. SSta su to ?fundamentalisti?, niko ne zna.
Sloveni su najbrojnija etniccka grupa u Evropi: ima
ih 300 miliona, dok muslimana na ccitavoj
zemaljskoj kugli nema visse od milijardu i po. Deo nasse
strategije je da se tako izvede da te ?pretnje nassoj
bezbednosti? medjusobno ratuju sve dok se medjusobno ne
istrebe. Tako sada na Kosovu svakodnevno
imamo napade muslimana na Srbe. Joss jedno, novo zzarisste rata
je Makedonija.
Izlaz iz tog bezumlja vidim samo u narodnom
jedinstvu, jer smo u suprotnom svi mi osudjeni na
?prezzivljavanje?. Verujem u narod. U svom jedinstvu to je
nesavladiva snaga.
Sada se odvija konsolidacija i naoruzzavanje
Evropske unije. (Otvoreno ccu recci da nissta ne mozze
biti gore od NATO-a!) Stvaranje evropske armije mozze barem
doprineti uspostavljanju kakve-takve
ravnotezze. NATO je pesnica americcke ekonomije. Evropske banke
i korporacije necce visse da se mire s
tim. Sada cce i one imati svoju pesnicu - nezavisnu evropsku
armiju. A tu vecc poccinje ?takmiccenje?.
Mozzda je to poccetak bezumlja, ali uzdam se u njihovo umecce u
postizanju kompromisa.
- Kad smo vecc kod bezumlja, mislite li da je
pretnja Iraku realna?
- Veliki je rizik udara na Irak. Kongres
Sjedinjenih Drzzava je vecc predsedniku na njegov zahtev
izglasao ovlassccenja za ssirenje vojne akcije protiv Iraka:
392 - ?za? i 12 - ?protiv?. Tako da rat s Irakom
postaje sasvim realan.
- 11. decembra 2001. godine ste povodom Iraka
uputili pismo ambasadorima i ministrima inostranih
poslova zemalja koje ulaze u sastav Sveta bezbednosti OUN. Da
li biste nassim ccitaocima izneli njegov
osnovni sadrzzaj?
- Hvala vam na tom pitanju. Ljudi u svetu moraju
znati ssta se dessava i ne smeju ccutati. Na Irak je od
17. januara do 28. februara 19991. godine, po priznanju
Pentagona, bacceno 88.500 tona bombi.
Bombardovani su objekti od zzivotne vazznosti: vodni
rezervoari, skladissta namirnica, industrijski kompleksi,
verski centri i prosvetne ustanove.
Irak je zbog ekonomskih sankcija izgubio preko 1,5
miliona svojih gradjana. Preko polovinu njih ccine
deca koja nisu dozzivela peti rodjendan. Te sankcije - koje je
Savet bezbednosti OUN bio prinudjen da
donese pod pritiskom vlade SAD - direktno su krssenje
konvencije ?O genocidu? jer vode svesnom
unisstavanju civilnog stanovnisstva Iraka.
Sve komisije koje su po mandatu OUN poseccivale
Irak u poslednjih deset godina svedoccile su o
neljudskim patnjama naroda. Najodvazzniji eksperti tih komisija
otvoreno su protestovali protiv politike
sankcija i inspekcija koju su Sjedinjene Drzzave nametnule
Iraku. Vlada SAD ccak i program ?Nafta za
hranu? koji su OUN donele tek krajem 1996. godine, posle
medjunarodnog protesta protiv unisstavanja
naroda putem ekonomskog gussenja, koristi za svoje politiccke
manipulacije.
Stav Sjedinjenih Drzzava ozbiljno je kompromitovao
organizaciju kao ssto je OUN. Savet bezbednosti
OUN je, premda i pod prinudom, uccestvovao u zloccinima SAD
protiv mira i ccoveccanstva. Premda i pod
prinudom, ali kriv je za genocid.
Sada SAD bombarduju Irak kad god im se prohte.
Pritom su prinudjene da putem neprekidne
propagande satanizuju kako Sadama Huseina, tako i ccitav
iraccki narod, koristecci za to sredstva javnog
informisanja potpuno zavisna od vlade SAD.
Americcka propaganda je propaganda rasizma,
propaganda mrzznje i lazzi. Jucce je to bila
antisrpska kampanja, danas je antimuslimanska i tako dalje.
Nabrojaccu zemlje u kojima je politika SAD posle
Drugog svetskog rata dovela do destabilizacije:
Koreja, Vijetnam, Kambo?a, Nikaragva, Dominikanska Republika,
Filipini, Liberija, Kuba, Gvatemala,
Granada, Palestina, Liban, Iran, Somalija, Sudan, Haiti,
Salvador, Honduras, Angola, Hrvatska, Jugoslavija,
Sijera Leone, Irak, Indonezija, Avganistan. Ko je sledecci?
Glasila razmatraju mogucce kandidature.
Medjutim, imamo li ijednu ccinjenicu koja dokazuje krivicu
Iraka za bilo kakav zloccin protiv ccoveccanstva
tokom ccitave poslednje decenije? Mozzemo li izneti issta ssto
bi iole bilo nalik na zloccine Sjedinjenih
Drzzava protiv te zemlje? Cilj americcke politike je
uspostavljanje kontrole i vladavine na Bliskom Istoku, u
Persijskom zalivu i Centralnoj Aziji.
Mislim da bi bilo izuzetno vazzno kada bi Rusija
protestovala. I to ne samo na diplomatskom nivou ili u
sstampi, nego putem Saveta bezbednosti i Generalne skupsstine
OUN. Rusija je jedina zemlja koja mozze
stati na put SAD koje danas igraju ulogu narkomana opijenog
sopstvenim ?uspesima?.
- Ssta mislite o predsedniku Rusije Vladimiru
Putinu?
- Nama je ovde u Americi neverovatno slozzeno da
analiziramo radnje ruskog predsednika i tim pre
da izvlaccimo bilo kakve zakljuccke: mi nemamo verodostojnih
informacija niti ih mozzemo imati.
- Zassto? Kako to objassnjavate?
- Mislim da je stvar u tome ssto Sjedinjene Drzzave
ne zzele da ccuju nissta pozitivno o vassoj zemlji.
Kod nas ccuju samo one u Rusiji koji i dalje insistiraju na
takozvanim ?reformama? usmerenim, kao ssto je
poznato, na nass sopstveni procvat i genocid ruskog naroda. Sve
ostale informacije se blokiraju, iako se
ccuvaju u sefovima za aktivno misleccu agenturu s visokim
ekonomskim obrazovanjem.
Medjutim, ono ssto sam u stanju da analiziram
svedocci o tome da u najvazznijim pitanjima
predsednik Putin deluje onako kako mora delovati snazzan lider
koji brani interese svoje zemlje i svog
naroda. U spoljnoj politici, u najbitnijem za SAD pitanju novog
americckog sistema PRO, on afirmisse
nezavisnost Rusije. To govori da Rusija i dalje stoji na
stanovisstvu zasstite mira na Zemlji.
Po mom missljenju, delovanje predsednika Putina u
medjunarodnoj politici je najbolji i jedini mogucci
izbor u okolnostima u koje je njegova zemlja dovedena. Ccini mi
se da mu i u unutrassnjoj politici, premda uz
velike potesskocce, uspeva da postepeno blokira vecc reklo bi
se nekontrolisanu pljaccku zemlje i zaustavi
osiromassenje ruskog naroda. On mora da u najtezzim okolnostima
donosi odluke i deluje. I u tim
okolnostima on se nedvosmisleno ponassa kao snazzan i pouzdan
lider.
On ima vrlo pametan stav po pitanju NATO-a,
proglassavajucci tu gangstersku massinu za ?saborca i
druga? Rusije i samim tim neutralissucci NATO makar za izvesno
vreme. Rusiji je potrebno vreme da se
digne na noge i orijentisse u onome ssto se dessava.
- A savez sa Sjedinjenim Drzzavama u ?novom ratu s
terorizmom?? Mislite da je i to pametna igra,
dobitak za Rusiju?
- Ne, ne mislim. Brine me stav predsednika Ruske
Federacije po tom pitanju, possto vidim da je tu
upao u postavljenu klopku: shvatanje i otklanjanje pravih
uzroka katastrofe koju Rusija dozzivljava odlazze se
zbog medjunacionalnih ratova unutar zemlje, a sada i van njenih
granica. To je izum rasisticcke zemlje kao
ssto su SAD a za zemlje sa vissenacionalnim stanovnisstvom, na
primer, Jugoslaviju i Rusiju. Jer, to je
zvaniccan stav Vassingtona: ?Neka se sami potamane?. ?Etniccka
ccissccenja? - tragedija Jugoslavije -
sada su se okrenula protiv njenog slovenskog stanovnisstva.
Sjedinjenim Drzzavama je posslo za rukom da
od Rusije otkinu ssest bivssih republika Sovjetskog Saveza sa
svim njihovim prirodnim bogatstvima. Ta
politika nacionalne mrzznje imala je za rezultat to da je pod
udar dospeo ogroman broj Rusa koji zzive na
teritoriji tih bivssih republika.
Ruska Federacija je sada saveznik SAD i zajedno s
njima cce ratovati ?protiv islama?. Medjutim,
saveznisstvo sa SAD predstavlja izuzetno veliku opasnost za
Rusku Federaciju. Ono mozze dovesti do
konfrontacije zzitelja Rusije s okolnim muslimanskim zemljama i
sa muslimanima koji zzive u samoj Rusiji. To
potvrdjuje ?ispravnost? politike Vassingtona (?neka se sami
potamane?) i pruzzicce neprocenjivu pomocc
SAD u njihovoj geopoliticckoj agresiji.
Zato mi se ccini da Rusija sada treba da ulozzi
neverovatne napore da bi povratila prijateljstvo i
poverenje muslimana.
- Ssta mislite, hocce li Rusija saccuvati
suverenitet i nezavisnost?
- Verujem da hocce. Mozzda bi bolje bilo recci:
nadam se... Bio sam mnogo puta u Rusiji. Ruski narod
poseduje veliku snagu. I njegova volja za nezavisnost nema
analoga u istoriji ccoveccanstva.
... Ovih dana sam bio na probi Kirovskog baleta u
karnegi-holu. Ruska muzika! Ruski muziccari!..
Koliku snagu ti ljudi imaju! Treba slussati rusku muziku da bi
se shvatilo koliko je taj narod velik. Jako volim
rusku muziku. Zato i govorim o snazi tog naroda...
Tessko da ljudi na Zapadu shvataju do kolike bede i
ponizzenja je taj narod doveden. To bi u nama
moralo izazvati uzzasavanje, a ne likovanje povodom ?uspeha?
nasse hajke protiv Rusije joss od poccetka
prosslog veka!
Ali, narod cce se dicci. Ja to posmatram s velikom
radossccu. Vidim prozrenje, zapazzam rastucce
kretanje u smeru stvaranja vecce federacije - to jest obnove
onoga ssto je tako neodgovorno bilo srusseno.
Zemlja postepeno prevazilazi stanje defetizma u kom je toliko
ranjiva.
Strani kapital, ekonomska agresija nijednoj zemlji
nisu doneli nissta osim postepenog i potpunog
osiromassenja, potpune zavisnosti od tog kapitala.
Smatram da cce period ekonomske recesije koji sada
u medjunarodnim razmerama napreduje,
nesumnjivo pomocci Rusiji da opet pronadje sebe. Zassto? Pa
zato ssto ekonomija Rusije ne zavisi od onih
vesstacckih ccinilaca na kojima se temelji ekonomija SAD ili
Japana, na primer. A obnova unisstene
ekonomije Rusije zalog je njenog preporoda u koji, kao ssto
rekoh, verujem. Ili - hoccu da se nadam...
- Kada su SAD bombardovale Srbiju ccesto se moglo
ccuti: ?Rusija je sledecca!? Da li je rat izmedju
SAD i Rusije mogucc?
- Mislim da nije. Ali, mogucce su stotine
takozvanih ?malih ratova? koji cce nas drzzati pod stalnom
pretnjom onog nuklearnog. Karakter rata se menja posle pojave
vazduhoplovne super-sile. Ubijanje iz
vazduha bespomoccnog stanovnisstva ili naoruzzanog protivnika
(koji je, ispostavlja se, u doticcnom sluccaju
isto toliko bespomoccan) - to je ono ?novo lice? rata kojim se
SAD danas toliko ponose. Niko se u
Sjedinjenim Drzzavama ne optereccuje brojanjem civilnog
stanovnisstva ubijenog u takvim bombardovanjima.
I armija SAD ratuje ?bez gubitaka?... To je sramota, ali se
zato ?isplati?!
Mislim da je svetu danas veoma potrebna jaka i
nezavisna Rusija, possto je ruski narod jedini u stanju
da zaustavi tu opijenost ubijanjem koja u SAD traje od trenutka
zavrssetka hladnog rata. Hladni rat nije bio
Vassingtonu smetnja za monstruozne zloccine protiv
ccoveccanstva, ali je snazzan Sovjetski Savez
spreccavao SAD od agresivnih ccinova krupnih razmera. A sada se
sve ?mozze?: smenjivati nepozzeljne
vlade, organizovati atentate na predsednike, mozze se
bombardovati sve ssto se krecce, mozze se
naoruzzavati Izrael da unisstava Palestince i optuzzivati
Arafat za ?terorizam?...
Rusija je jedina nacija sposobna da sprecci razvoj
genocidnog scenarijuma. Narod Kine nije u stanju
da odigra tu ulogu. Kineski narod je dospeo u drugu klopku -
takmiccenja za ekonomsku mocc. To - ako bude
srecce - vodi ka snu o super-sili. To cce, sa svoje strane,
nastaviti politiku Sjedinjenih Drzzava uperenu na
unisstavanje malih i bespomoccnih nacija a u cilju njihove
eksploatacije.
Zato liccno ja verujem (ili hoccu da se nadam) da
cce narod Rusije - zbog svog internacionalnog
naccina missljenja i istorijske prosslosti - nassavssi sebe,
uspeti da postane centar odvraccanja za SAD i to
cce se blagotvorno odraziti na stanje ccitavog sveta.
- Da dotaknemo temu globalizma i antiglobalista.
- Sigurno je da je u toku napad na globalizaciju.
Ljudi su pocceli da shvataju da je globalizacija
smrtonosna za njihove kulture. I oni ne zzele da sve ssto je
ccoveccanstvo milenijumima stvaralo zamene za
uliccna kolica s hamburgerima.
Nedavno sam ccuo od jednog komentatora koji je
branio ideju eksploatacije nafte na Aljasci:
?Nazivajucci taj proces ?istrazzivanje?, dajete mi na znanje da
ste njegov pristalica, a ako govorite o
?pravljenju naftnih bussotina? - jasno je da ste protiv?. Kako
da Sjedinjene Drzzave, kojima pripada 75 %
sredstava MMF i STO, drugaccije nazovu ekonomski napad na tudje
zemlje i narode koji joss nisu uspeli da
sasvim prekopaju i unakaze svoje zemlje bogate prirodnim
resursima? Stari termin ?kolonizacija? mozzda se
necce svideti, pogotovo onim narodima koji su vecc u nekoliko
navrata ?globalizovani? u cilju usavrssavanja
civilizacije. Globalizacija je eufemizam i nissta drugo. Morao
bi se dicci protest protiv lazzi koja stoji iza njega.
I - na zaprepassccenje umornog sveta - demonstracije protiv
globalizacije izvele su na ulice na hiljade
uglavnom mladih. Raduje me njihova masovna pojava: to govori o
zdravoj prirodi ccoveka.
Globalizacija nema nikakvu drugu motivaciju osim
profita. Danas, u uslovima pada ekonomskih
pokazatelja u SAD, rat, i to po moguccstvu veccih razmera,
postaje sve potrebniji poljuljanoj americckoj
ekonomiji. A za to se ne mozze smisliti nissta bolje od ?borbe
s terorizmom?. To je jedna strana medalje.
S druge strane, dok taj rat nije zavrssen, recesija
kocci globalizaciju. A da ne govorim o tome da cce
Sjedinjene Drzzave morati da terorissu ne samo spoljnog
neprijatelja, nego i sopstveno stanovnisstvo,
gradjane Amerike. Nedavno je ?Njujork-Tajms? objavio cclanak
pod naslovom ?Zemlji su potrebni zatvori?.
Ispostavlja se da nam nisu potrebne ni sskole, ni bolnice. Ali
cce zato broj zatvorenika premassiti sadassnji
broj od dva miliona... A sve to u situaciji kada kod nas pre
recesije 48 % gradjana nije imalo pristup
medicinskim uslugama, a odredjeni procenat svrssenih djaka
nassih sskola ne ume, kako se pokazalo, ni da
ccita ni da pisse.
Nass zadatak je da ljudima objasnimo ssta je to u
stvari globalizacija. To je odricanje od nacionalne
nezavisnosti. To je odricanje naroda od svojih milenijumima
formiranih kultura. To je uskraccivanje nassoj
deci moguccnosti da grade svoj zzivot na nivou ekonomske
dovoljnosti. I ako svet to joss nije shvatio na
primeru svih zemalja Latinske Amerike, Afrike, malih i velikih
ostrva Zapadne i Istoccne polulopte cciji narodi
ginu u borbi protiv stogodissnje globalizacije njihovih zemalja
i kultura; ako napad na slovensko stanovnisstvo
Balkana i na muslimanski narod Iraka, bombardovanje iraccke
dece i glad dece Avganistana u vama joss
uvek ne izazivaju zdravi gnev, onda i treba da nas zgaze zbog
nasse potpune gradjanske neodgovornosti. Ali,
ja sam optimista. I vidim da protiv globalizacije sve visse
protestuju zasstitnici ccovekove okoline, farmeri,
verski lideri, studenti, djaci, radniccki odbori, drusstvene
organizacije... To je ustanak.
- Verujete li da taj ustanak necce biti najsurovije
ugussen? ?Zemlji su potrebni zatvori?...
- Zasad ne mogu recci da je pokret protiv
globalizacije stekao snagu sposobnu da se odupre
surovosti apologeta globalizma. Ali sam uveren da je on vecc
izmakao kontroli i da cce se u povoljnom sticaju
okolnosti, kao ssto je kriza na trzzisstima, konsolidovati.
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)
= "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Larisa Kritskaja, Svetlana Ccernjak
REMZI KLARK: ?POSSTOVATI ZAKONE PRAVOSUDJA?
Bivssi drzzavni tuzzilac SAD odbacuje
americcku politiku sile
Dobiti intervju od Remzija Klarka nije nissta
laksse nego od predsednika: svaki minut njegovog
vremena je rasporedjen. I to za dan, nedelju, mesec, godinu
dana unapred. Plus nepredvidjeni dogadjaji i
okolnosti. Rodio se u Dalasu 1927. godine. Ratovao je u Koreji.
Potom - univerzitet u Teksasu, Ccikagu,
posao pravnika. Sa 34 godine je pomoccnik drzzavnog tuzzioca u
Kenedijevoj administraciji, sa 40 -
drzavni tuzilac u Dzonsonovoj administraciji. Dao je ostavku u
znak protesta protiv rata u Vijetnamu u koji
je otissao radi prikupljanja dokumenata o americckim
bombardovanjima i civilnim zzrtvama. Ono ssto je
tamo video toliko ga je potreslo da je od tada Klarkov zzivot -
neprekidan niz procesa, protesta i nastupa u
zasstitu prava. Remzi Klark je bio u Iraku, Jugoslaviji,
Palestini, Istoccnom Timoru, Nikaragvi, Panami, kod
ustanika u Kolumbiji. Tokom 70-ih godina je istupao s
optuzzbama protiv Pinocceovog rezzima u Ccileu.
Pokrenuo je organizaciju ?Medicina za Irak?. U Njujorku je
otvarao tribunal ?Anti-NATO? za istrazzivanje
zloccina vlade SAD i njenih saveznika protiv iracckog naroda.
Bio je u Jugoslaviji u dane bombardovanja -
dokumentujucci njihove posledice. Delegacija Medjunarodnog
akcionog centra koji je organizovao
dopremala je u Jugoslaviju lekove, bavila se prikupljanjem
ccinjenica i dokumenata koji su potom ussli u
knjigu ?NATO na Balkanu?. Kasnije, u danima izruccivanja
predsednika Jugoslavije Milossevicca
Hasskom tribunalu, Klark je istupao pred narodom na trgu u
Beogradu, pokussavajucci da omete
sklapanje posla izmedju SAD i nove vlade Jugoslavije. Remzi
Klark je sada pravni konsultant
Milossevicca.
- Ssta se dessavalo u Jugoslaviji tokom
bombardovanja, ssta vam se najvisse urezalo u seccanje.
- Ljudi su stajali na mostovima izazivajucci vatru
na sebe. Na hiljade ljudi su se okupljale na trgovima i
pevale: ?Bombardujte!.. Ako smete!?
Onda je Jugoslavija, dovedena do krajnje
iscrpljenosti, kapitulirala....
Optimista sam. Ali, saznavssi za izruccenje
predsednika Milossevicca Hasskom tribunalu, po prvi put
u ccitavom svom zzivotu osetio sam da gubim optimizam.
Medjutim, kada sam video desetine hiljada gnevnih
demonstranata sa zastavama, moj optimizam je vaskrsao i
pomislio sam: ?Ovi ljudi cce i to prevazicci!?
Kosstunica mi je rekao da cce ?jednom svakako
napisati knjigu o nezakonitosti Hasskog tribunala?.
Nisam ga odgovarao. Poccutavssi, dodao je: ?Mi pokussavamo da
prezzivimo... nekako?. - ?Da prezzivite?
Fiziolosski je to sasvim mogucce. Ali, valjda shvatate da nema
visse ni Jugoslavije ni Srbije?? - rekao sam.
?Slazzem se sa vama, - odgovorio je Kosstunica. - Za to je
potrebna... ccast?.
- Sad se vecc retko kad govori o Milosseviccu, o
Hasskom tribunalu. Onoliko dogadjaja: 11.
septembar, Avganistan, Pakistan i Indija... Ali, sudjenje u
Hagu cce se ipak odrzzati. Ono nije ni zamissljeno
kao jednokratna akcija. Zar ne?
- Vassington je taj tribunal formirao u jeku rata u
Jugoslaviji. To je postalo realna pretnja pravosudju.
Tada sam, 1992. godine, napisao protest koji je possto ga je
federalni sud odbacio, podnet Vrhovnom sudu
Sjedinjenih Drzzava na razmatranje. Protest je bio motivisan
krssenjem normi Ustava SAD o podeli vlasti:
zakon zabranjuje sudsko razmatranje predmeta koji se ticcu
politicckih razmimoilazzenja.
Vlada SAD je, stvarajucci tribunal u Hagu,
ignorisala ne samo sopstveni Ustav, vecc i Povelju
Organizacije Ujedinjenih Nacija. U njoj nigde neccete nacci ni
recci o dopustivosti formiranja bilo kakvog
?medjunarodnog kriviccnog suda? kao rezultat politicckog
konflikta ili, ssto je joss gore, kao rezultat rata.
Zato je tribunal u Hagu nezakonit. I pokussaj njegovog
poredjenja s Nirnbersskim procesom nad
nacisticckom Nemacckom nije nissta drugo do propaganda.
Statut Nirnbersskog tribunala donet je 25. oktobra
1945. godine, mesec dana pre stupanja na snagu
Povelje OUN. Zemlje koje su se ujedinjavale u Organizaciju
Ujedinjenih Nacija tada su postavile uslov: ?Statut
buducceg Tribunala postoji samostalno i necce biti ni u kakvoj
vezi s Poveljom Organizacije Ujedinjenih
Nacija?. Dakle, Nirnbersski vojni tribunal je delovao nezavisno
i bez moguccnosti pritiska politicckih sila
spolja na njegove odluke. To je prvo.
Drugo. Nirnbersski sud je predstavljao inicijativu
ccetiri nacije, dok je u formiranju tribunala u Hagu
uccestvovala jedna jedina zemlja - Sjedinjene Americcke
Drzzave.
Ccinjenica funkcionisanja Hasskog tribunala
stvorenog uz uccesscce OUN otvara joss vecce
moguccnosti za SAD u sprovodjenju bilo kog zakona sile, bez
obzira na bilo kakve medjunarodne norme
pravosudja. To su shvatali i Generalna skupsstina OUN i Savet
bezbednosti, ali niti su imali niti imaju kako
odvazznosti, tako i dovoljne nezavisnosti za to da ustanu
protiv toga.
Za SAD nema nicceg neobiccnog u unisstavanju
nepozzeljnih predsednika. Svet je dobio Mobutua
zato ssto smo ubili Lumumbu, i svet je dobio Pinoccea possto
smo ubili Aljendea. I tako dalje. Taj scenarijum
je svetu odavno poznat. Ali zato prodaje predsednika za novac
da bi se dobile namirnice - takvog presedana
u istoriji joss nije bilo.
Tokom rata je bilo nekoliko pokussaja da se
predsednik Jugoslavije ubije. Ne sumnjajte u to: liccno
sam video njegovu kuccu sravnjenu sa zemljom posle direktnog
pogotka ?pametne? bombe. Dve njegove
kancelarije unisstene su na isti naccin. Onda su pokussali da
iznajme ubicu obeccavssi 5 miliona dolara za
Milosseviccevu glavu. Nije im uspelo. Onda - sud u Hagu.
Dugi niz godina zloupotrebe sopstvene snage doveo
nas je do potpunog razaranja ccitavog sudskog
sistema. I sada moramo opet da se uccimo posstovanju zakona.
Zloccini SAD u ratu s Jugoslavijom su
dokumentovani tako da ima nade da cce se pojaviti pravi
medjunarodni organ pravosudja i da cce vlada
SAD biti pozvana na odgovornost i osudjena u skladu s
medjunarodnim zakonom. Unisstili smo Jugoslaviju
samo zato ssto je bila poslednje ostrvo socijalizma u Evropi.
Godinama smo bin Ladena snabdevali oruzzjem
i novcem - sve do pada Sovjetskog Saveza. Sada znamo ssta da se
radi s Dagestanom i ssest bivssih
sovjetskih republika u kojima zzive muslimani, u sluccaju
konflikta s Rusijom.
Ako smo postigli uspeh u Bosni, zassto nam ne bi
posslo za rukom i sa Cceccenijom? Strategija je
ista: muslimani protiv Slovena...
Danas nam govore o dva izvora pretnje bezbednosti
SAD. Prvi je ono ssto je preostalo od dva rata
(Drugog svetskog i hladnog): Kuba, Severna Koreja i - donedavno
- Jugoslavija. Drugi su ?islamski
fundamentalisti?. SSta su to ?fundamentalisti?, niko ne zna.
Sloveni su najbrojnija etniccka grupa u Evropi: ima
ih 300 miliona, dok muslimana na ccitavoj
zemaljskoj kugli nema visse od milijardu i po. Deo nasse
strategije je da se tako izvede da te ?pretnje nassoj
bezbednosti? medjusobno ratuju sve dok se medjusobno ne
istrebe. Tako sada na Kosovu svakodnevno
imamo napade muslimana na Srbe. Joss jedno, novo zzarisste rata
je Makedonija.
Izlaz iz tog bezumlja vidim samo u narodnom
jedinstvu, jer smo u suprotnom svi mi osudjeni na
?prezzivljavanje?. Verujem u narod. U svom jedinstvu to je
nesavladiva snaga.
Sada se odvija konsolidacija i naoruzzavanje
Evropske unije. (Otvoreno ccu recci da nissta ne mozze
biti gore od NATO-a!) Stvaranje evropske armije mozze barem
doprineti uspostavljanju kakve-takve
ravnotezze. NATO je pesnica americcke ekonomije. Evropske banke
i korporacije necce visse da se mire s
tim. Sada cce i one imati svoju pesnicu - nezavisnu evropsku
armiju. A tu vecc poccinje ?takmiccenje?.
Mozzda je to poccetak bezumlja, ali uzdam se u njihovo umecce u
postizanju kompromisa.
- Kad smo vecc kod bezumlja, mislite li da je
pretnja Iraku realna?
- Veliki je rizik udara na Irak. Kongres
Sjedinjenih Drzzava je vecc predsedniku na njegov zahtev
izglasao ovlassccenja za ssirenje vojne akcije protiv Iraka:
392 - ?za? i 12 - ?protiv?. Tako da rat s Irakom
postaje sasvim realan.
- 11. decembra 2001. godine ste povodom Iraka
uputili pismo ambasadorima i ministrima inostranih
poslova zemalja koje ulaze u sastav Sveta bezbednosti OUN. Da
li biste nassim ccitaocima izneli njegov
osnovni sadrzzaj?
- Hvala vam na tom pitanju. Ljudi u svetu moraju
znati ssta se dessava i ne smeju ccutati. Na Irak je od
17. januara do 28. februara 19991. godine, po priznanju
Pentagona, bacceno 88.500 tona bombi.
Bombardovani su objekti od zzivotne vazznosti: vodni
rezervoari, skladissta namirnica, industrijski kompleksi,
verski centri i prosvetne ustanove.
Irak je zbog ekonomskih sankcija izgubio preko 1,5
miliona svojih gradjana. Preko polovinu njih ccine
deca koja nisu dozzivela peti rodjendan. Te sankcije - koje je
Savet bezbednosti OUN bio prinudjen da
donese pod pritiskom vlade SAD - direktno su krssenje
konvencije ?O genocidu? jer vode svesnom
unisstavanju civilnog stanovnisstva Iraka.
Sve komisije koje su po mandatu OUN poseccivale
Irak u poslednjih deset godina svedoccile su o
neljudskim patnjama naroda. Najodvazzniji eksperti tih komisija
otvoreno su protestovali protiv politike
sankcija i inspekcija koju su Sjedinjene Drzzave nametnule
Iraku. Vlada SAD ccak i program ?Nafta za
hranu? koji su OUN donele tek krajem 1996. godine, posle
medjunarodnog protesta protiv unisstavanja
naroda putem ekonomskog gussenja, koristi za svoje politiccke
manipulacije.
Stav Sjedinjenih Drzzava ozbiljno je kompromitovao
organizaciju kao ssto je OUN. Savet bezbednosti
OUN je, premda i pod prinudom, uccestvovao u zloccinima SAD
protiv mira i ccoveccanstva. Premda i pod
prinudom, ali kriv je za genocid.
Sada SAD bombarduju Irak kad god im se prohte.
Pritom su prinudjene da putem neprekidne
propagande satanizuju kako Sadama Huseina, tako i ccitav
iraccki narod, koristecci za to sredstva javnog
informisanja potpuno zavisna od vlade SAD.
Americcka propaganda je propaganda rasizma,
propaganda mrzznje i lazzi. Jucce je to bila
antisrpska kampanja, danas je antimuslimanska i tako dalje.
Nabrojaccu zemlje u kojima je politika SAD posle
Drugog svetskog rata dovela do destabilizacije:
Koreja, Vijetnam, Kambo?a, Nikaragva, Dominikanska Republika,
Filipini, Liberija, Kuba, Gvatemala,
Granada, Palestina, Liban, Iran, Somalija, Sudan, Haiti,
Salvador, Honduras, Angola, Hrvatska, Jugoslavija,
Sijera Leone, Irak, Indonezija, Avganistan. Ko je sledecci?
Glasila razmatraju mogucce kandidature.
Medjutim, imamo li ijednu ccinjenicu koja dokazuje krivicu
Iraka za bilo kakav zloccin protiv ccoveccanstva
tokom ccitave poslednje decenije? Mozzemo li izneti issta ssto
bi iole bilo nalik na zloccine Sjedinjenih
Drzzava protiv te zemlje? Cilj americcke politike je
uspostavljanje kontrole i vladavine na Bliskom Istoku, u
Persijskom zalivu i Centralnoj Aziji.
Mislim da bi bilo izuzetno vazzno kada bi Rusija
protestovala. I to ne samo na diplomatskom nivou ili u
sstampi, nego putem Saveta bezbednosti i Generalne skupsstine
OUN. Rusija je jedina zemlja koja mozze
stati na put SAD koje danas igraju ulogu narkomana opijenog
sopstvenim ?uspesima?.
- Ssta mislite o predsedniku Rusije Vladimiru
Putinu?
- Nama je ovde u Americi neverovatno slozzeno da
analiziramo radnje ruskog predsednika i tim pre
da izvlaccimo bilo kakve zakljuccke: mi nemamo verodostojnih
informacija niti ih mozzemo imati.
- Zassto? Kako to objassnjavate?
- Mislim da je stvar u tome ssto Sjedinjene Drzzave
ne zzele da ccuju nissta pozitivno o vassoj zemlji.
Kod nas ccuju samo one u Rusiji koji i dalje insistiraju na
takozvanim ?reformama? usmerenim, kao ssto je
poznato, na nass sopstveni procvat i genocid ruskog naroda. Sve
ostale informacije se blokiraju, iako se
ccuvaju u sefovima za aktivno misleccu agenturu s visokim
ekonomskim obrazovanjem.
Medjutim, ono ssto sam u stanju da analiziram
svedocci o tome da u najvazznijim pitanjima
predsednik Putin deluje onako kako mora delovati snazzan lider
koji brani interese svoje zemlje i svog
naroda. U spoljnoj politici, u najbitnijem za SAD pitanju novog
americckog sistema PRO, on afirmisse
nezavisnost Rusije. To govori da Rusija i dalje stoji na
stanovisstvu zasstite mira na Zemlji.
Po mom missljenju, delovanje predsednika Putina u
medjunarodnoj politici je najbolji i jedini mogucci
izbor u okolnostima u koje je njegova zemlja dovedena. Ccini mi
se da mu i u unutrassnjoj politici, premda uz
velike potesskocce, uspeva da postepeno blokira vecc reklo bi
se nekontrolisanu pljaccku zemlje i zaustavi
osiromassenje ruskog naroda. On mora da u najtezzim okolnostima
donosi odluke i deluje. I u tim
okolnostima on se nedvosmisleno ponassa kao snazzan i pouzdan
lider.
On ima vrlo pametan stav po pitanju NATO-a,
proglassavajucci tu gangstersku massinu za ?saborca i
druga? Rusije i samim tim neutralissucci NATO makar za izvesno
vreme. Rusiji je potrebno vreme da se
digne na noge i orijentisse u onome ssto se dessava.
- A savez sa Sjedinjenim Drzzavama u ?novom ratu s
terorizmom?? Mislite da je i to pametna igra,
dobitak za Rusiju?
- Ne, ne mislim. Brine me stav predsednika Ruske
Federacije po tom pitanju, possto vidim da je tu
upao u postavljenu klopku: shvatanje i otklanjanje pravih
uzroka katastrofe koju Rusija dozzivljava odlazze se
zbog medjunacionalnih ratova unutar zemlje, a sada i van njenih
granica. To je izum rasisticcke zemlje kao
ssto su SAD a za zemlje sa vissenacionalnim stanovnisstvom, na
primer, Jugoslaviju i Rusiju. Jer, to je
zvaniccan stav Vassingtona: ?Neka se sami potamane?. ?Etniccka
ccissccenja? - tragedija Jugoslavije -
sada su se okrenula protiv njenog slovenskog stanovnisstva.
Sjedinjenim Drzzavama je posslo za rukom da
od Rusije otkinu ssest bivssih republika Sovjetskog Saveza sa
svim njihovim prirodnim bogatstvima. Ta
politika nacionalne mrzznje imala je za rezultat to da je pod
udar dospeo ogroman broj Rusa koji zzive na
teritoriji tih bivssih republika.
Ruska Federacija je sada saveznik SAD i zajedno s
njima cce ratovati ?protiv islama?. Medjutim,
saveznisstvo sa SAD predstavlja izuzetno veliku opasnost za
Rusku Federaciju. Ono mozze dovesti do
konfrontacije zzitelja Rusije s okolnim muslimanskim zemljama i
sa muslimanima koji zzive u samoj Rusiji. To
potvrdjuje ?ispravnost? politike Vassingtona (?neka se sami
potamane?) i pruzzicce neprocenjivu pomocc
SAD u njihovoj geopoliticckoj agresiji.
Zato mi se ccini da Rusija sada treba da ulozzi
neverovatne napore da bi povratila prijateljstvo i
poverenje muslimana.
- Ssta mislite, hocce li Rusija saccuvati
suverenitet i nezavisnost?
- Verujem da hocce. Mozzda bi bolje bilo recci:
nadam se... Bio sam mnogo puta u Rusiji. Ruski narod
poseduje veliku snagu. I njegova volja za nezavisnost nema
analoga u istoriji ccoveccanstva.
... Ovih dana sam bio na probi Kirovskog baleta u
karnegi-holu. Ruska muzika! Ruski muziccari!..
Koliku snagu ti ljudi imaju! Treba slussati rusku muziku da bi
se shvatilo koliko je taj narod velik. Jako volim
rusku muziku. Zato i govorim o snazi tog naroda...
Tessko da ljudi na Zapadu shvataju do kolike bede i
ponizzenja je taj narod doveden. To bi u nama
moralo izazvati uzzasavanje, a ne likovanje povodom ?uspeha?
nasse hajke protiv Rusije joss od poccetka
prosslog veka!
Ali, narod cce se dicci. Ja to posmatram s velikom
radossccu. Vidim prozrenje, zapazzam rastucce
kretanje u smeru stvaranja vecce federacije - to jest obnove
onoga ssto je tako neodgovorno bilo srusseno.
Zemlja postepeno prevazilazi stanje defetizma u kom je toliko
ranjiva.
Strani kapital, ekonomska agresija nijednoj zemlji
nisu doneli nissta osim postepenog i potpunog
osiromassenja, potpune zavisnosti od tog kapitala.
Smatram da cce period ekonomske recesije koji sada
u medjunarodnim razmerama napreduje,
nesumnjivo pomocci Rusiji da opet pronadje sebe. Zassto? Pa
zato ssto ekonomija Rusije ne zavisi od onih
vesstacckih ccinilaca na kojima se temelji ekonomija SAD ili
Japana, na primer. A obnova unisstene
ekonomije Rusije zalog je njenog preporoda u koji, kao ssto
rekoh, verujem. Ili - hoccu da se nadam...
- Kada su SAD bombardovale Srbiju ccesto se moglo
ccuti: ?Rusija je sledecca!? Da li je rat izmedju
SAD i Rusije mogucc?
- Mislim da nije. Ali, mogucce su stotine
takozvanih ?malih ratova? koji cce nas drzzati pod stalnom
pretnjom onog nuklearnog. Karakter rata se menja posle pojave
vazduhoplovne super-sile. Ubijanje iz
vazduha bespomoccnog stanovnisstva ili naoruzzanog protivnika
(koji je, ispostavlja se, u doticcnom sluccaju
isto toliko bespomoccan) - to je ono ?novo lice? rata kojim se
SAD danas toliko ponose. Niko se u
Sjedinjenim Drzzavama ne optereccuje brojanjem civilnog
stanovnisstva ubijenog u takvim bombardovanjima.
I armija SAD ratuje ?bez gubitaka?... To je sramota, ali se
zato ?isplati?!
Mislim da je svetu danas veoma potrebna jaka i
nezavisna Rusija, possto je ruski narod jedini u stanju
da zaustavi tu opijenost ubijanjem koja u SAD traje od trenutka
zavrssetka hladnog rata. Hladni rat nije bio
Vassingtonu smetnja za monstruozne zloccine protiv
ccoveccanstva, ali je snazzan Sovjetski Savez
spreccavao SAD od agresivnih ccinova krupnih razmera. A sada se
sve ?mozze?: smenjivati nepozzeljne
vlade, organizovati atentate na predsednike, mozze se
bombardovati sve ssto se krecce, mozze se
naoruzzavati Izrael da unisstava Palestince i optuzzivati
Arafat za ?terorizam?...
Rusija je jedina nacija sposobna da sprecci razvoj
genocidnog scenarijuma. Narod Kine nije u stanju
da odigra tu ulogu. Kineski narod je dospeo u drugu klopku -
takmiccenja za ekonomsku mocc. To - ako bude
srecce - vodi ka snu o super-sili. To cce, sa svoje strane,
nastaviti politiku Sjedinjenih Drzzava uperenu na
unisstavanje malih i bespomoccnih nacija a u cilju njihove
eksploatacije.
Zato liccno ja verujem (ili hoccu da se nadam) da
cce narod Rusije - zbog svog internacionalnog
naccina missljenja i istorijske prosslosti - nassavssi sebe,
uspeti da postane centar odvraccanja za SAD i to
cce se blagotvorno odraziti na stanje ccitavog sveta.
- Da dotaknemo temu globalizma i antiglobalista.
- Sigurno je da je u toku napad na globalizaciju.
Ljudi su pocceli da shvataju da je globalizacija
smrtonosna za njihove kulture. I oni ne zzele da sve ssto je
ccoveccanstvo milenijumima stvaralo zamene za
uliccna kolica s hamburgerima.
Nedavno sam ccuo od jednog komentatora koji je
branio ideju eksploatacije nafte na Aljasci:
?Nazivajucci taj proces ?istrazzivanje?, dajete mi na znanje da
ste njegov pristalica, a ako govorite o
?pravljenju naftnih bussotina? - jasno je da ste protiv?. Kako
da Sjedinjene Drzzave, kojima pripada 75 %
sredstava MMF i STO, drugaccije nazovu ekonomski napad na tudje
zemlje i narode koji joss nisu uspeli da
sasvim prekopaju i unakaze svoje zemlje bogate prirodnim
resursima? Stari termin ?kolonizacija? mozzda se
necce svideti, pogotovo onim narodima koji su vecc u nekoliko
navrata ?globalizovani? u cilju usavrssavanja
civilizacije. Globalizacija je eufemizam i nissta drugo. Morao
bi se dicci protest protiv lazzi koja stoji iza njega.
I - na zaprepassccenje umornog sveta - demonstracije protiv
globalizacije izvele su na ulice na hiljade
uglavnom mladih. Raduje me njihova masovna pojava: to govori o
zdravoj prirodi ccoveka.
Globalizacija nema nikakvu drugu motivaciju osim
profita. Danas, u uslovima pada ekonomskih
pokazatelja u SAD, rat, i to po moguccstvu veccih razmera,
postaje sve potrebniji poljuljanoj americckoj
ekonomiji. A za to se ne mozze smisliti nissta bolje od ?borbe
s terorizmom?. To je jedna strana medalje.
S druge strane, dok taj rat nije zavrssen, recesija
kocci globalizaciju. A da ne govorim o tome da cce
Sjedinjene Drzzave morati da terorissu ne samo spoljnog
neprijatelja, nego i sopstveno stanovnisstvo,
gradjane Amerike. Nedavno je ?Njujork-Tajms? objavio cclanak
pod naslovom ?Zemlji su potrebni zatvori?.
Ispostavlja se da nam nisu potrebne ni sskole, ni bolnice. Ali
cce zato broj zatvorenika premassiti sadassnji
broj od dva miliona... A sve to u situaciji kada kod nas pre
recesije 48 % gradjana nije imalo pristup
medicinskim uslugama, a odredjeni procenat svrssenih djaka
nassih sskola ne ume, kako se pokazalo, ni da
ccita ni da pisse.
Nass zadatak je da ljudima objasnimo ssta je to u
stvari globalizacija. To je odricanje od nacionalne
nezavisnosti. To je odricanje naroda od svojih milenijumima
formiranih kultura. To je uskraccivanje nassoj
deci moguccnosti da grade svoj zzivot na nivou ekonomske
dovoljnosti. I ako svet to joss nije shvatio na
primeru svih zemalja Latinske Amerike, Afrike, malih i velikih
ostrva Zapadne i Istoccne polulopte cciji narodi
ginu u borbi protiv stogodissnje globalizacije njihovih zemalja
i kultura; ako napad na slovensko stanovnisstvo
Balkana i na muslimanski narod Iraka, bombardovanje iraccke
dece i glad dece Avganistana u vama joss
uvek ne izazivaju zdravi gnev, onda i treba da nas zgaze zbog
nasse potpune gradjanske neodgovornosti. Ali,
ja sam optimista. I vidim da protiv globalizacije sve visse
protestuju zasstitnici ccovekove okoline, farmeri,
verski lideri, studenti, djaci, radniccki odbori, drusstvene
organizacije... To je ustanak.
- Verujete li da taj ustanak necce biti najsurovije
ugussen? ?Zemlji su potrebni zatvori?...
- Zasad ne mogu recci da je pokret protiv
globalizacije stekao snagu sposobnu da se odupre
surovosti apologeta globalizma. Ali sam uveren da je on vecc
izmakao kontroli i da cce se u povoljnom sticaju
okolnosti, kao ssto je kriza na trzzisstima, konsolidovati.
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)
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
DECISION
On the constitutionality and legality test of the Decree on the procedure
for cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal
I
The Federal Constitutional Court, pursuant to the provisions of Article 127,
par 2 of the Constitution of FRY and the provisions of Article 15, par 1 of
the Rules of Procedure of the Federal Constitutional Court (Official Gazette
of FRY, no.44/93 and 25/95), established that the Socialist Party of Serbia,
Belgrade and Patriotic Union of Yugoslavia, Belgrade challenged
constitutionality and legality of the Decree on the procedure for
cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal (Official Gazette of
FRY, no.30/0).
The Court also established that more than one joint or individual
initiatives contested the constitutionality and legality of the same Decree,
as follows: joint initiative of professors and assistant professors of the
Faculty of Law in Belgrade: 1) Dr. Ljubisa Lazarevic, full professor; 2) dr.
Kosta Cavoski, full professor; 3) Dragutin Coskic, full professor; dr.
Dragutin Orlic, full professor; 5) Dr. Budimir Kosutic, full professor;
Dr.Slobodan Markovic, full professor; 7) Dr. Slobodan Panov,
senior-lecturer;8)Balsa Kascelan, assistant probationer; 9)Dr. Ratko
Markovic, full professor; 10) Dr.Mirjana Stefanovski, associate professor;
11( Dr. Zagorka Jekic, full professor; 12)Dr. Djordje Lazic, associate
professor; 13) Branko M.Rakic, senior-lecturer; 14) Dr. Stevan Djordjevic,
full professor; 15) Dr. Jugoslav Stankovic, full professor; 16) Dr.Sasa
Bovan, senior lecturer; 17) Dr. Milena Polajac, senior-lecturer; Dr. Milosav
Milosevic, senior-lecturer; 19) Goran Ilic M.A., assistant professor;
Dr.Zika Bujuklic, senior-lecturer; 21)Dejan Djordjevic, assistant
probationer; Bojan Milisavljevic, assistant-probationer; 23) Dr. Vladimir
Stoiljkovic, senior-lecturer; 24) Dr.Oliver Antic, full professor; 25)
Dr.Obrad Stanojevic, full professor; 26) Gordana Pavicevic-Vukasinovic,
senior-lecturer; 27) Zlatija Djukic-Veljovic, full professor; 28) Vladan
Petrov, assistant-probationer; 29) Aleksandar Gajic, assistant probationer;
30) Dr.Vera Cuckovic, full professor; 31) Miodrag Jovanovic, M.A. assistant
professor; 32) Dr.Olivera Vucic, senior-lecturer; 33) Dr. Mirko Vasiljevic,
full professor; 34) Dr.Borivoje Cunderic, full professor; 35)Dr. Ranko Keca,
full professor; 36) Academician Vlajko Brajic, full professor 37) Marko
Djurdjevic, assistant; 38) Dr.Djordje Ignjatovic, full professor; 39) Zoran
Mirkovic, M.A. assistant;40) Dr.Vladan Joncic, seniro-lecturer;41) Dr.
Nebojsa Jovanovic, associate professor; 42) Dr.Milan Skulic,
senior-lecturer; 43) Natasa Delic, M.A. assistant; 44) Nenad Tesic,
assistant-probationer; 45) Dr. Vladimir Milic, full professor; 46)
Aleksandar Jaksic, senior-lecturer; 47) Dr.Miodrag Simic, full professor;
48) Dr.Zoran Stojanovic, full professor; 49) Dr. Snezana Petrovic, associate
professor; 50) Vuk Radovic, assistant-probationer; 51) Mr.Dragan Panic,
assistant; joint initiative of lawyers; 52) Toma Fila of Belgrade, 53)
Branimir Gugl of Belgrade; 54) Momcilo Bulatovic of Belgrade; 55) Zdenko
Tomanovic of Belgrade; Moma Raicevic of Belgrade; individual intitatives:
56) The Yugoslav Left, Belgrade; 57) Budimir Rudovic, Belgrade; 58) Jovan
Koprivica, lawyer of Belgrade; 59) Dragan Ivanovic, lawyer of Pozarevac;
Branko Nikolic, of Pozega; 61) Vladimir Teslic of Krusevac; 62) Cedomi Cosic
of Jasa Tomic;63) Municipal Committee of the Socialist Party in Priboj; 64)
Branko Miletic of Vrnjacka Banja; 65) Municipal Committee of the Yugoslav
Left in Pozarevac; 66) Commission of the Federal Parliament for Freedom
Realization; 67)The Municipal Committee of the Yugoslav Left in Kula; 68)
The Municipal Committee of the Socialist Party in Bela Palanka; 69) Ratomir
Vojvodic lawyer of Belgrade; 70) Dr.Vidak Krivokapic, of Belgrade; 71)
Prof.Dr.Vladimir Stambuk of Belgrade, 72) Council of the Leftist Youth in
Belgrade; 75) Ratomir Rojevic of Kosovska Mitrovic; 76)Ferid Hamovic of
Belgrade; 77) Milomir Markovic of Prokuplje; 78) Srdjan Smiljkovic, of
Belgrade; 79) Dusanka Milenkovic of Prokuplje; 80) Milija Peric, of Blace;
81) Mileta Sokovic of Pljevlja, 82) Zivojin Stanic of Kragujevac; 83)Dusan
Unkovic of Belgrade; 84) Ljubisa Ristic,of Belgrade; 85) Vladimir Dujic of
Belgrade; 86) Mesud Axemovic of Belgrade; 87) Committee of University Left
in Belgrade; 88) Dr. Ljubomir Grujic of France and 89) Municipal Committee
of the Yugoslav Left in Knin.
The Court ruled, pursuant to Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Constitutional Court, to join the proceedings on the initiatives and
applications of the authorized applicants into single process and one
decision.
The applications lodging the initiative were submitted to the Federal
Government, in keeping with the provisions of Article 26, par 1 of the Law
on the Federal Constitutional Court, asking for reply. The Federal
Government, acting through the Federal Ministry of Justice, replied to the
Federal Constitutional Court.
By virtue of Article 132 of the Constitution of FRY, the Federal
Constitutional Court issued the Decision IV U no.103/01 through 129/01
suspending the enforcement of the Order of the Federal Ministry of Justice
on extradition of indicted individuals issued further to the Decree on the
procedure fo cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal,
no.2/1-121/8-01-06 dated 25 June 2001 and actions by other state authorities
taken in enforcement of that Order, on 28 June, 2001.
II
1. The submitted initiatives suggest that the contested Decree is not in
conformity with the Constitution of FRY and the Law on Criminal Proceedings
in formal and material terms. In formal terms because the Federal Government
overstepped its constitutional powers, by passing the contested Decree, as
stipulated in Article 99 par 1 item 4) of the Constitution of FRY,
stipulating, inter alia, also the possibility of transfer at the request of
the International Criminal Tribunal the criminal prosecution of an
individual who is subjected to criminal proceedings in the competent court
in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or adjudicated under the final court
decision; possibility of extradition of individuals located in the territory
of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia irrespective of being foreigners or
nationals; having attempted to regulate the issues of the procedure for
protection of law in courts and other state authorities it has taken the
legislative prerogatives determined in the Constitution of FRY, because the
provision of Article 26, par 1 of the Constitution of FRY guarantees the
right to everyone to equitable protection of his/her rights in the legally
determined procedure, and not in the procedure established under a by-law;
that the contested Decree is not giving effect to the federal law but
changes as an incompetent authority, in a non-constitutional manner, via a
by-law, the Law on Criminal Proceedings, which expressly prohibits
extradition of the Yugoslav nationals, while allows it for foreigners only
in the cases specified under that Law; that the Decree, issued by
non-competent authority regulated the organization, competence and
composition of courts in the constituent Republic, although those issues, by
virtue of the provisions of Article 6 par 3 of the Constitution of FRY fall
within exclusive purview of the authorities of the constituent republic;
which under the contested Decree of the non-competent authority delegated
(surrendered) a part of national judicial and other state authorities to a
foreign court (gathering information from citizens; hearing of suspects, the
indicted, injured, witnesses and expert witnesses, including autopsy and
exhumation of corpses, gathering of material evidence; inspection and
prescription of identity papers including those compiled or gathered by the
Yugoslav judicial and other state authorities on violations of the
international humanitarian law);that the entire competence of national
courts and other state authorities to conduct court proceedings in certain
criminal offenses stipulated by law are assigned to a foreign court, which
violates the principle of territorial jurisdiction of the Yugoslav judicial
and other state authorities, in view of the fact that delegation of court
competence from the national to foreign or a court outside the country fall
within the purview of the federal legislator. In material terms, according
to the allegations provided the contested Decree is not in compliance with
the Constitution of FRY and the Law on criminal proceedings, because: is
enables extradition of the Yugoslav citizens to another state, although
under the provisions of Article 17, par 3 of the Constitution of FRY is
prohibited; because the Decree enables extradition of foreigners to another
state, despite the provisions of Article 66 par 2 of the Constitution of FRY
stipulates that a foreigner may be extradited to another state only in cases
anticipated under the international treaties which bind FRY and which were
ratified and published in compliance with the Constitution of FRY, Articles
16 and 66 ); because by virtue of Article 28 of the Constitution of FRY no
one may be adjudicated or sentenced again for an offense if the process
against him was finally suspended, or the indictment act against him was
finally rejected, or if he/she was acquitted under the final ruling or
sentenced, while the contested Decree stipulated the possibility of
assigning the proceedings to the International Criminal Tribunal and
surrender of the person charged although the proceedings against him was
finalized in the national court under the final court ruling; because the
contested Decree enables the initiation of process actions undertaken by the
investigation authorities and the Prosecutor of the International Criminal
Tribunal, and against which no legal remedy is allowed, or submission to any
other court in violation of the provisions of Article 67, par 4 of the
Constitution of FRY, which stipulates that the freedoms and rights
recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution of FRY enjoy court protection
in a national court, and also the protection of the right to personal
freedom, not to be denied to anyone except in cases and under the procedure
set out in the Federal law (Article 25, par 1 and 2 of the Constitution of
FRY);because that Decree relates to foreigners and Yugoslav citizens, hence,
accordingly to their extradition to the International Criminal Tribunal,
despite the provision of Article 17 par 3 of the Constitution of FRY, which
prohibits the extradition of the Yugoslav citizens to another state, namely
to a foreign court, namely the court seated in another state, beyond the
jurisdiction of FR Yugoslavia, since the prohibition covers any foreign
court, whether established by one or more countries; because the Law on
Criminal Proceedings prohibits surrender of the accused or sentenced
persons - Yugoslav citizens- to a foreign country; because the stated
constitutional and legal prohibition of extradition of the Yugoslav citizens
could be changed only via amendments to the Constitution of FRY and the Law
on Criminal Proceedings, in the proceedings prescribed under the
Constitution of FRY rather than by a by-law as was the case with the
contested Decree; that the legal merit for approval of the contested Decree
is unconstitutional; that the same does not contain preamble on the legal
merit, but the provisions of its Article 1 prescribes that it should govern
the procedure of cooperation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with the
International Criminal Tribunal in honoring the "obligations of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia under the UN SC Resolution 827(1993) and the Statute
of the International Criminal Tribunal`; that the mentioned Resolution,
establishing the International Criminal Tribunal or the Statute of that
Court are no integral part of the internal legal system, because by virtue
of the provision in Article 16, par 2 of the Constitution of FRY the
integral part of the internal legal system shall be only the international
treaties ratified and published in keeping with the Constitution and
generally accepted rules of international law; that the above stated
Resolution of the Security Council and the Statute of the Tribunal, which is
an integral part thereof, can be no legal basis for the approval of the
contested Decree; that the Federal Government, by virtue of the Constitution
of FRY, may enact decrees, decisions and other instruments only in giving
effect to the federal laws and other regulations and general enactment
provided it is empowered under these acts to do so, while the Law on
Criminal Proceedings did not specify such powers.
2. The reply received from the Federal Government, through the Federal
Ministry of Justice stated that; according to Article 16 of the Constitution
of FRY, the international treaties which were confirmed and published in
keeping with the Constitution and generally accepted rules of international
law are the integral part of the internal law, while the provisions of
Article 124 par 1, item 2 of the Constitution of FRY implies that the
international treaties are, in terms of legal strength above the federal
laws; that on the merit of the above stated and the fact that FRY is member
of the United Nations and signatory to the UN Charter, it follows that FRY
is bound to cooperate in full with the International Criminal Tribunal,
established by the Security Council based on the authorities set in the UN
Charter, independent of the provisions of the national laws: that the
Security Council in its Resolution 827 (1993) approved the Statute if the
Tribunal and decided to establish it under the official name of "The
International Tribunal for prosecution of the responsible individuals for
grave violations of the international humanitarian law in former Yugoslavia
between 1 January 1991 and the date to be established by the Security
Council after peace shall have been reestablished"; that, despite the fact
that no establishment of an ad hoc international criminal tribunal has been
expressly stipulated in the UN Charter, it could be taken as an acceptable
measure, under Articles 24, 25 and 29 and Chapter VII, (specifically under
Articles 39, 40 and 41) of the UN Charter relating to the powers of the
Security Council; that under Article 29 of the Charter the Security Council
may establish ancillary bodies in pursuance of its tasks, while the
mentioned Article 39 of the Charter authorizes the Security Council to
determine threat of peace, violation of peace or aggression and issue
recommendations or decide which measures to take to establish international
peace and security; that based on Article 25 of the Charter member states
have agreed to accept and implement the decisions of the Security Council in
compliance with the Charter, as well as that all the resolutions adopted
further to Chapter VII of the Charter are binding on all the UN members;
that the Security Council, on the occasion of armed conflicts in the
territory of former SFRY, exhausted all interim measures under Article 40
of the Charter; that the approval of the Resolution 827 on the establishment
of the International Criminal Tribunal of 25 May 1993, unanimously accepted
the report of the UN Secretary General and the Statute of the Tribunal,
while at the later UN General Assembly sessions there were no objections to
the mentioned instruments of the Security Council; that the argument that
"the activity of the International Criminal Tribunal amounted to the
interference in the internal affairs of a state`, neglects the provisions of
Article 2, point 7 of the Charter, which provided that the prohibition of
interference is not applicable in case of coercion measure taken under
Chapter VII of the Charter, under which the International Criminal Tribunal
was established; that the remark that the Statute of the International
Criminal Tribunal is in collision with the provisions of the Constitution of
FRY, which prohibits the extradition of the Yugoslav citizens is groundless,
because the provision of Article 17, par 3 of the Constitution of FR of
Yugoslavia does not refer to the international court established by the
United Nations, whose member FR of Yugoslavia is; that the claim of the
initiator of the constitutional dispute cannot be accepted that in the
interpretation of the mentioned provision of the Constitution of FRY the
point of departure should not be linguistic but historical, namely the fact
that at the time of the enactment of the Constitution of FRY existed no
international criminal tribunal, since the International Criminal Tribunal
is not the first of the kind, but that its predecessors were military courts
in Nuremberg and Toki, established under the London treaty of 1945; finally
that in 1998 in Rome, at the UN plenipotentiary conference, years old idea
on the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal under the
auspices of UN was realized under the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Tribunal, and that the Statute was ratified by Yugoslavia in June
2001; that under the provision of Article 89 of the Rome Statute the
obligation of the states signatories is to extradite own nationals to that
court; that Article 6 of the Convention the prevention and punishment of the
crime of genocide of 1948, ratified by Yugoslavia in 1950 it was set out
that "persons accused of the crime of genocide or any other crime under
Article 3 shall be transferred for trial to the competent courts of the
state on whose territory the relevant crime was perpetrated or to the
International Criminal Tribunal that will have jurisdiction over those
states parties, which shall recognize its jurisdiction`; that hence, it
cannot be said that the constitution maker was not aware of the possibility
and certainty of establishment of such a court, the more so as no
constitution is enacted for current requirements but for a longer time
frame; that apart from it, even if such an interpretation would be accepted
on the constitutional ban on extradition of nationals, the above mentioned
constitutional status of an international treaty in the legal system of FR
Yugoslavia it follows that the Statute and the Rules of the International
Criminal Tribunal, being part of the UN Charter, is part of the internal law
of FR of Yugoslavia, so that a part of obligations on account of legal
assistance (under Article 29 of the Statute) which involves the surrender
of the accused derogates so understood a constitutional ban on extradition
of own citizen; that the norm in the Article 29 of the Statute has the
strength "above the law" under Article 124 par 1 point 2 the of Constitution
of FRY, and since only the Constitution is supreme to any law, that norm
would be actually of equal rank to the Constitution, and would be like lex
posterior and lex specialis stronger than the earlier general
constitutional norm; that the remark about the International Criminal
Tribunal being "political court" is groundless, since it was established by
the international community to put on trial any person who in the period
from 1 January 1991 until reestablishment of peace perpetrated crime that
may be qualified as a grave violation of the international humanitarian law
and irrespective of the citizenship held; that the provisions of the
Statute in material terms are in full compliance with the fundamental
principle of criminal law, namely the principle of legality "nullum crimen,
nulla poena sine lege"; that the material requirements of punishment were
known before the onset of the court activities, namely at the time of
perpetration of the alleged crimes and the same are contained in the
international law, to the effect that the crimes were set out both in the
international conventions and in the internal law of the states
participating in the conflict; that it the remark is groundless that the
persons put on trial by the International Criminal Tribunal will be in an
unequal position vis a vis persons tried by the national courts, in view
of the fact that according to the Statute of the Court the maximum prison
term is life long imprisonment, while in the Yugoslav legislation for
offenses under the federal law the prison term is twenty years, since
Article 101 of the Statute of the Court it was stipulated that in weighing
the sentence the usual practice inter alia shall be taken into account in
pronouncing the prison term in courts of former Yugoslavia; that, apart from
it, with the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal the
national sovereignty was not completely cancelled because the international
community primarily expects from the successor states of ex-SFRY to
demonstrate their respective political and legal maturity, and institute, in
fair and impartial manner in their national courts proceedings against all
the individuals who violated the rules of the international humanitarian
law, irrespective of nationality, political status and the similar, and only
if those states shall have failed to proceed, the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Tribunal shall be activated; that the supremacy of
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal shall be effectuated in
exceptional cases, namely that the national courts cannot re-try the cases
in which the International Criminal Tribunal adjudicated (the principle non
bis in idem), as well as that the International Criminal Tribunal is
entitled to renew the proceedings in an adjudicated matter in the national
courts, if the accused was sentenced for an ordinary offense but not the
crime against the international law or if the proceedings instituted in the
national court was non-objective and partial as to protect the accused from
the international criminal responsibility(Article 10 of the Statute which
does not accept the principle res indicata): that, on the merit of the
above, and particularly because UN Charter, Statute and Rules of the
International Criminal Tribunal approved in keeping with the Charter, are
integral parts of the internal law and that they have priority over the
federal law, it follows that the cooperation of FR Yugoslavia with the
International Criminal Tribunal is her obligation and that it may proceed
directly, under the Statute and the Rules of the Tribunal, only; that the
substance of the disputed Decree was to detail the forms of such cooperation
only, to facilitate it and eliminate possible ambiguities, and that it only
effectuates the implementation of the mentioned international instrument and
our legal system. Due to the above stated reasons the objection is
groundless that the Statute of the Tribunal conflicts other international
instruments acceded to by Yugoslavia, because under Article 103 of the UN
Charter, in case of conflict between the obligations of a UN member state
under the Charter and their obligations under another international treaty,
their obligations under UN Charter shall prevail.
3. The Federal Constitutional Court, further to Article 58 par 3 of the Law
on the Federal Constitutional Court, held a public debate with the parties
in the proceedings and some scholars.
The parties in the process have explained the details of the allegations,
provided in the Annex, their initiatives and replies received, while
Dr.Milorad Perovic, professor at the Faculty of Law in Podgorica, in his
written opinion stated that the contested Decree is untenable since it
violates the Constitution of FRY in formal and substantive terms. According
to him, the Decree is impossible to implement, because it stipulated the
cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal under the Rules of the
Statute of the Tribunal, but also in compliance with the Constitution of FR
Yugoslavia and its relevant law (Law on the Criminal Proceedings). Those
rules are, however, mutually exclusive.
III
1. The Federal Government regulated in the contested Decree the procedure
for cooperation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with the International
Criminal Tribunal in criminal prosecution of individuals responsible for
grave crimes against the international humanitarian law perpetrated in the
territory of ex-Yugoslavia since 1991(hereinafter: the International
Criminal Tribunal) and performance of obligations of FRY stemming from the
Security Council Resolution 827(1993) and the Statute of the International
Criminal Tribunal.
The Decree covered, inter alia: transfer of criminal proceedings held in the
national courts to the International Criminal Tribunal if so requested;
proceedings and jurisdiction of courts and other authorities for decision
making in such matters (Article 12 ad 13): the proceedings in national
courts after the transfer of the proceedings to the International Criminal
Tribunal (Article 14): the possibility of extradition of all the accused
(foreigners and Yugoslav citizens) to the jurisdiction of the International
Criminal Tribunal and its investigation bodies to undertake activities in
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia(Articles 9 and 10); legal assistance to
the International Criminal Tribunal, including granting of transit of the
Yugoslav citizens through the territory if the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia( Articles 18 and 19) and others. The Decree contains references
to the application of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal and
its Rules of Procedure and Evidence, to be applied by judicial and other
authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Articles l, 2, 6, 12 and
17).
2. The provisions of Constitution of FRY provided for the following: power
in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is organized along the principle of
division of legislative, executive and judicial power (Article 12); the
executive and judicial power are bound by the laws, which are in compliance
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
DECISION
On the constitutionality and legality test of the Decree on the procedure
for cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal
I
The Federal Constitutional Court, pursuant to the provisions of Article 127,
par 2 of the Constitution of FRY and the provisions of Article 15, par 1 of
the Rules of Procedure of the Federal Constitutional Court (Official Gazette
of FRY, no.44/93 and 25/95), established that the Socialist Party of Serbia,
Belgrade and Patriotic Union of Yugoslavia, Belgrade challenged
constitutionality and legality of the Decree on the procedure for
cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal (Official Gazette of
FRY, no.30/0).
The Court also established that more than one joint or individual
initiatives contested the constitutionality and legality of the same Decree,
as follows: joint initiative of professors and assistant professors of the
Faculty of Law in Belgrade: 1) Dr. Ljubisa Lazarevic, full professor; 2) dr.
Kosta Cavoski, full professor; 3) Dragutin Coskic, full professor; dr.
Dragutin Orlic, full professor; 5) Dr. Budimir Kosutic, full professor;
Dr.Slobodan Markovic, full professor; 7) Dr. Slobodan Panov,
senior-lecturer;8)Balsa Kascelan, assistant probationer; 9)Dr. Ratko
Markovic, full professor; 10) Dr.Mirjana Stefanovski, associate professor;
11( Dr. Zagorka Jekic, full professor; 12)Dr. Djordje Lazic, associate
professor; 13) Branko M.Rakic, senior-lecturer; 14) Dr. Stevan Djordjevic,
full professor; 15) Dr. Jugoslav Stankovic, full professor; 16) Dr.Sasa
Bovan, senior lecturer; 17) Dr. Milena Polajac, senior-lecturer; Dr. Milosav
Milosevic, senior-lecturer; 19) Goran Ilic M.A., assistant professor;
Dr.Zika Bujuklic, senior-lecturer; 21)Dejan Djordjevic, assistant
probationer; Bojan Milisavljevic, assistant-probationer; 23) Dr. Vladimir
Stoiljkovic, senior-lecturer; 24) Dr.Oliver Antic, full professor; 25)
Dr.Obrad Stanojevic, full professor; 26) Gordana Pavicevic-Vukasinovic,
senior-lecturer; 27) Zlatija Djukic-Veljovic, full professor; 28) Vladan
Petrov, assistant-probationer; 29) Aleksandar Gajic, assistant probationer;
30) Dr.Vera Cuckovic, full professor; 31) Miodrag Jovanovic, M.A. assistant
professor; 32) Dr.Olivera Vucic, senior-lecturer; 33) Dr. Mirko Vasiljevic,
full professor; 34) Dr.Borivoje Cunderic, full professor; 35)Dr. Ranko Keca,
full professor; 36) Academician Vlajko Brajic, full professor 37) Marko
Djurdjevic, assistant; 38) Dr.Djordje Ignjatovic, full professor; 39) Zoran
Mirkovic, M.A. assistant;40) Dr.Vladan Joncic, seniro-lecturer;41) Dr.
Nebojsa Jovanovic, associate professor; 42) Dr.Milan Skulic,
senior-lecturer; 43) Natasa Delic, M.A. assistant; 44) Nenad Tesic,
assistant-probationer; 45) Dr. Vladimir Milic, full professor; 46)
Aleksandar Jaksic, senior-lecturer; 47) Dr.Miodrag Simic, full professor;
48) Dr.Zoran Stojanovic, full professor; 49) Dr. Snezana Petrovic, associate
professor; 50) Vuk Radovic, assistant-probationer; 51) Mr.Dragan Panic,
assistant; joint initiative of lawyers; 52) Toma Fila of Belgrade, 53)
Branimir Gugl of Belgrade; 54) Momcilo Bulatovic of Belgrade; 55) Zdenko
Tomanovic of Belgrade; Moma Raicevic of Belgrade; individual intitatives:
56) The Yugoslav Left, Belgrade; 57) Budimir Rudovic, Belgrade; 58) Jovan
Koprivica, lawyer of Belgrade; 59) Dragan Ivanovic, lawyer of Pozarevac;
Branko Nikolic, of Pozega; 61) Vladimir Teslic of Krusevac; 62) Cedomi Cosic
of Jasa Tomic;63) Municipal Committee of the Socialist Party in Priboj; 64)
Branko Miletic of Vrnjacka Banja; 65) Municipal Committee of the Yugoslav
Left in Pozarevac; 66) Commission of the Federal Parliament for Freedom
Realization; 67)The Municipal Committee of the Yugoslav Left in Kula; 68)
The Municipal Committee of the Socialist Party in Bela Palanka; 69) Ratomir
Vojvodic lawyer of Belgrade; 70) Dr.Vidak Krivokapic, of Belgrade; 71)
Prof.Dr.Vladimir Stambuk of Belgrade, 72) Council of the Leftist Youth in
Belgrade; 75) Ratomir Rojevic of Kosovska Mitrovic; 76)Ferid Hamovic of
Belgrade; 77) Milomir Markovic of Prokuplje; 78) Srdjan Smiljkovic, of
Belgrade; 79) Dusanka Milenkovic of Prokuplje; 80) Milija Peric, of Blace;
81) Mileta Sokovic of Pljevlja, 82) Zivojin Stanic of Kragujevac; 83)Dusan
Unkovic of Belgrade; 84) Ljubisa Ristic,of Belgrade; 85) Vladimir Dujic of
Belgrade; 86) Mesud Axemovic of Belgrade; 87) Committee of University Left
in Belgrade; 88) Dr. Ljubomir Grujic of France and 89) Municipal Committee
of the Yugoslav Left in Knin.
The Court ruled, pursuant to Article 14 of the Rules of Procedure of the
Constitutional Court, to join the proceedings on the initiatives and
applications of the authorized applicants into single process and one
decision.
The applications lodging the initiative were submitted to the Federal
Government, in keeping with the provisions of Article 26, par 1 of the Law
on the Federal Constitutional Court, asking for reply. The Federal
Government, acting through the Federal Ministry of Justice, replied to the
Federal Constitutional Court.
By virtue of Article 132 of the Constitution of FRY, the Federal
Constitutional Court issued the Decision IV U no.103/01 through 129/01
suspending the enforcement of the Order of the Federal Ministry of Justice
on extradition of indicted individuals issued further to the Decree on the
procedure fo cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal,
no.2/1-121/8-01-06 dated 25 June 2001 and actions by other state authorities
taken in enforcement of that Order, on 28 June, 2001.
II
1. The submitted initiatives suggest that the contested Decree is not in
conformity with the Constitution of FRY and the Law on Criminal Proceedings
in formal and material terms. In formal terms because the Federal Government
overstepped its constitutional powers, by passing the contested Decree, as
stipulated in Article 99 par 1 item 4) of the Constitution of FRY,
stipulating, inter alia, also the possibility of transfer at the request of
the International Criminal Tribunal the criminal prosecution of an
individual who is subjected to criminal proceedings in the competent court
in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia or adjudicated under the final court
decision; possibility of extradition of individuals located in the territory
of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia irrespective of being foreigners or
nationals; having attempted to regulate the issues of the procedure for
protection of law in courts and other state authorities it has taken the
legislative prerogatives determined in the Constitution of FRY, because the
provision of Article 26, par 1 of the Constitution of FRY guarantees the
right to everyone to equitable protection of his/her rights in the legally
determined procedure, and not in the procedure established under a by-law;
that the contested Decree is not giving effect to the federal law but
changes as an incompetent authority, in a non-constitutional manner, via a
by-law, the Law on Criminal Proceedings, which expressly prohibits
extradition of the Yugoslav nationals, while allows it for foreigners only
in the cases specified under that Law; that the Decree, issued by
non-competent authority regulated the organization, competence and
composition of courts in the constituent Republic, although those issues, by
virtue of the provisions of Article 6 par 3 of the Constitution of FRY fall
within exclusive purview of the authorities of the constituent republic;
which under the contested Decree of the non-competent authority delegated
(surrendered) a part of national judicial and other state authorities to a
foreign court (gathering information from citizens; hearing of suspects, the
indicted, injured, witnesses and expert witnesses, including autopsy and
exhumation of corpses, gathering of material evidence; inspection and
prescription of identity papers including those compiled or gathered by the
Yugoslav judicial and other state authorities on violations of the
international humanitarian law);that the entire competence of national
courts and other state authorities to conduct court proceedings in certain
criminal offenses stipulated by law are assigned to a foreign court, which
violates the principle of territorial jurisdiction of the Yugoslav judicial
and other state authorities, in view of the fact that delegation of court
competence from the national to foreign or a court outside the country fall
within the purview of the federal legislator. In material terms, according
to the allegations provided the contested Decree is not in compliance with
the Constitution of FRY and the Law on criminal proceedings, because: is
enables extradition of the Yugoslav citizens to another state, although
under the provisions of Article 17, par 3 of the Constitution of FRY is
prohibited; because the Decree enables extradition of foreigners to another
state, despite the provisions of Article 66 par 2 of the Constitution of FRY
stipulates that a foreigner may be extradited to another state only in cases
anticipated under the international treaties which bind FRY and which were
ratified and published in compliance with the Constitution of FRY, Articles
16 and 66 ); because by virtue of Article 28 of the Constitution of FRY no
one may be adjudicated or sentenced again for an offense if the process
against him was finally suspended, or the indictment act against him was
finally rejected, or if he/she was acquitted under the final ruling or
sentenced, while the contested Decree stipulated the possibility of
assigning the proceedings to the International Criminal Tribunal and
surrender of the person charged although the proceedings against him was
finalized in the national court under the final court ruling; because the
contested Decree enables the initiation of process actions undertaken by the
investigation authorities and the Prosecutor of the International Criminal
Tribunal, and against which no legal remedy is allowed, or submission to any
other court in violation of the provisions of Article 67, par 4 of the
Constitution of FRY, which stipulates that the freedoms and rights
recognized and guaranteed by the Constitution of FRY enjoy court protection
in a national court, and also the protection of the right to personal
freedom, not to be denied to anyone except in cases and under the procedure
set out in the Federal law (Article 25, par 1 and 2 of the Constitution of
FRY);because that Decree relates to foreigners and Yugoslav citizens, hence,
accordingly to their extradition to the International Criminal Tribunal,
despite the provision of Article 17 par 3 of the Constitution of FRY, which
prohibits the extradition of the Yugoslav citizens to another state, namely
to a foreign court, namely the court seated in another state, beyond the
jurisdiction of FR Yugoslavia, since the prohibition covers any foreign
court, whether established by one or more countries; because the Law on
Criminal Proceedings prohibits surrender of the accused or sentenced
persons - Yugoslav citizens- to a foreign country; because the stated
constitutional and legal prohibition of extradition of the Yugoslav citizens
could be changed only via amendments to the Constitution of FRY and the Law
on Criminal Proceedings, in the proceedings prescribed under the
Constitution of FRY rather than by a by-law as was the case with the
contested Decree; that the legal merit for approval of the contested Decree
is unconstitutional; that the same does not contain preamble on the legal
merit, but the provisions of its Article 1 prescribes that it should govern
the procedure of cooperation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with the
International Criminal Tribunal in honoring the "obligations of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia under the UN SC Resolution 827(1993) and the Statute
of the International Criminal Tribunal`; that the mentioned Resolution,
establishing the International Criminal Tribunal or the Statute of that
Court are no integral part of the internal legal system, because by virtue
of the provision in Article 16, par 2 of the Constitution of FRY the
integral part of the internal legal system shall be only the international
treaties ratified and published in keeping with the Constitution and
generally accepted rules of international law; that the above stated
Resolution of the Security Council and the Statute of the Tribunal, which is
an integral part thereof, can be no legal basis for the approval of the
contested Decree; that the Federal Government, by virtue of the Constitution
of FRY, may enact decrees, decisions and other instruments only in giving
effect to the federal laws and other regulations and general enactment
provided it is empowered under these acts to do so, while the Law on
Criminal Proceedings did not specify such powers.
2. The reply received from the Federal Government, through the Federal
Ministry of Justice stated that; according to Article 16 of the Constitution
of FRY, the international treaties which were confirmed and published in
keeping with the Constitution and generally accepted rules of international
law are the integral part of the internal law, while the provisions of
Article 124 par 1, item 2 of the Constitution of FRY implies that the
international treaties are, in terms of legal strength above the federal
laws; that on the merit of the above stated and the fact that FRY is member
of the United Nations and signatory to the UN Charter, it follows that FRY
is bound to cooperate in full with the International Criminal Tribunal,
established by the Security Council based on the authorities set in the UN
Charter, independent of the provisions of the national laws: that the
Security Council in its Resolution 827 (1993) approved the Statute if the
Tribunal and decided to establish it under the official name of "The
International Tribunal for prosecution of the responsible individuals for
grave violations of the international humanitarian law in former Yugoslavia
between 1 January 1991 and the date to be established by the Security
Council after peace shall have been reestablished"; that, despite the fact
that no establishment of an ad hoc international criminal tribunal has been
expressly stipulated in the UN Charter, it could be taken as an acceptable
measure, under Articles 24, 25 and 29 and Chapter VII, (specifically under
Articles 39, 40 and 41) of the UN Charter relating to the powers of the
Security Council; that under Article 29 of the Charter the Security Council
may establish ancillary bodies in pursuance of its tasks, while the
mentioned Article 39 of the Charter authorizes the Security Council to
determine threat of peace, violation of peace or aggression and issue
recommendations or decide which measures to take to establish international
peace and security; that based on Article 25 of the Charter member states
have agreed to accept and implement the decisions of the Security Council in
compliance with the Charter, as well as that all the resolutions adopted
further to Chapter VII of the Charter are binding on all the UN members;
that the Security Council, on the occasion of armed conflicts in the
territory of former SFRY, exhausted all interim measures under Article 40
of the Charter; that the approval of the Resolution 827 on the establishment
of the International Criminal Tribunal of 25 May 1993, unanimously accepted
the report of the UN Secretary General and the Statute of the Tribunal,
while at the later UN General Assembly sessions there were no objections to
the mentioned instruments of the Security Council; that the argument that
"the activity of the International Criminal Tribunal amounted to the
interference in the internal affairs of a state`, neglects the provisions of
Article 2, point 7 of the Charter, which provided that the prohibition of
interference is not applicable in case of coercion measure taken under
Chapter VII of the Charter, under which the International Criminal Tribunal
was established; that the remark that the Statute of the International
Criminal Tribunal is in collision with the provisions of the Constitution of
FRY, which prohibits the extradition of the Yugoslav citizens is groundless,
because the provision of Article 17, par 3 of the Constitution of FR of
Yugoslavia does not refer to the international court established by the
United Nations, whose member FR of Yugoslavia is; that the claim of the
initiator of the constitutional dispute cannot be accepted that in the
interpretation of the mentioned provision of the Constitution of FRY the
point of departure should not be linguistic but historical, namely the fact
that at the time of the enactment of the Constitution of FRY existed no
international criminal tribunal, since the International Criminal Tribunal
is not the first of the kind, but that its predecessors were military courts
in Nuremberg and Toki, established under the London treaty of 1945; finally
that in 1998 in Rome, at the UN plenipotentiary conference, years old idea
on the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal under the
auspices of UN was realized under the Rome Statute of the International
Criminal Tribunal, and that the Statute was ratified by Yugoslavia in June
2001; that under the provision of Article 89 of the Rome Statute the
obligation of the states signatories is to extradite own nationals to that
court; that Article 6 of the Convention the prevention and punishment of the
crime of genocide of 1948, ratified by Yugoslavia in 1950 it was set out
that "persons accused of the crime of genocide or any other crime under
Article 3 shall be transferred for trial to the competent courts of the
state on whose territory the relevant crime was perpetrated or to the
International Criminal Tribunal that will have jurisdiction over those
states parties, which shall recognize its jurisdiction`; that hence, it
cannot be said that the constitution maker was not aware of the possibility
and certainty of establishment of such a court, the more so as no
constitution is enacted for current requirements but for a longer time
frame; that apart from it, even if such an interpretation would be accepted
on the constitutional ban on extradition of nationals, the above mentioned
constitutional status of an international treaty in the legal system of FR
Yugoslavia it follows that the Statute and the Rules of the International
Criminal Tribunal, being part of the UN Charter, is part of the internal law
of FR of Yugoslavia, so that a part of obligations on account of legal
assistance (under Article 29 of the Statute) which involves the surrender
of the accused derogates so understood a constitutional ban on extradition
of own citizen; that the norm in the Article 29 of the Statute has the
strength "above the law" under Article 124 par 1 point 2 the of Constitution
of FRY, and since only the Constitution is supreme to any law, that norm
would be actually of equal rank to the Constitution, and would be like lex
posterior and lex specialis stronger than the earlier general
constitutional norm; that the remark about the International Criminal
Tribunal being "political court" is groundless, since it was established by
the international community to put on trial any person who in the period
from 1 January 1991 until reestablishment of peace perpetrated crime that
may be qualified as a grave violation of the international humanitarian law
and irrespective of the citizenship held; that the provisions of the
Statute in material terms are in full compliance with the fundamental
principle of criminal law, namely the principle of legality "nullum crimen,
nulla poena sine lege"; that the material requirements of punishment were
known before the onset of the court activities, namely at the time of
perpetration of the alleged crimes and the same are contained in the
international law, to the effect that the crimes were set out both in the
international conventions and in the internal law of the states
participating in the conflict; that it the remark is groundless that the
persons put on trial by the International Criminal Tribunal will be in an
unequal position vis a vis persons tried by the national courts, in view
of the fact that according to the Statute of the Court the maximum prison
term is life long imprisonment, while in the Yugoslav legislation for
offenses under the federal law the prison term is twenty years, since
Article 101 of the Statute of the Court it was stipulated that in weighing
the sentence the usual practice inter alia shall be taken into account in
pronouncing the prison term in courts of former Yugoslavia; that, apart from
it, with the establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal the
national sovereignty was not completely cancelled because the international
community primarily expects from the successor states of ex-SFRY to
demonstrate their respective political and legal maturity, and institute, in
fair and impartial manner in their national courts proceedings against all
the individuals who violated the rules of the international humanitarian
law, irrespective of nationality, political status and the similar, and only
if those states shall have failed to proceed, the jurisdiction of the
International Criminal Tribunal shall be activated; that the supremacy of
jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal shall be effectuated in
exceptional cases, namely that the national courts cannot re-try the cases
in which the International Criminal Tribunal adjudicated (the principle non
bis in idem), as well as that the International Criminal Tribunal is
entitled to renew the proceedings in an adjudicated matter in the national
courts, if the accused was sentenced for an ordinary offense but not the
crime against the international law or if the proceedings instituted in the
national court was non-objective and partial as to protect the accused from
the international criminal responsibility(Article 10 of the Statute which
does not accept the principle res indicata): that, on the merit of the
above, and particularly because UN Charter, Statute and Rules of the
International Criminal Tribunal approved in keeping with the Charter, are
integral parts of the internal law and that they have priority over the
federal law, it follows that the cooperation of FR Yugoslavia with the
International Criminal Tribunal is her obligation and that it may proceed
directly, under the Statute and the Rules of the Tribunal, only; that the
substance of the disputed Decree was to detail the forms of such cooperation
only, to facilitate it and eliminate possible ambiguities, and that it only
effectuates the implementation of the mentioned international instrument and
our legal system. Due to the above stated reasons the objection is
groundless that the Statute of the Tribunal conflicts other international
instruments acceded to by Yugoslavia, because under Article 103 of the UN
Charter, in case of conflict between the obligations of a UN member state
under the Charter and their obligations under another international treaty,
their obligations under UN Charter shall prevail.
3. The Federal Constitutional Court, further to Article 58 par 3 of the Law
on the Federal Constitutional Court, held a public debate with the parties
in the proceedings and some scholars.
The parties in the process have explained the details of the allegations,
provided in the Annex, their initiatives and replies received, while
Dr.Milorad Perovic, professor at the Faculty of Law in Podgorica, in his
written opinion stated that the contested Decree is untenable since it
violates the Constitution of FRY in formal and substantive terms. According
to him, the Decree is impossible to implement, because it stipulated the
cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal under the Rules of the
Statute of the Tribunal, but also in compliance with the Constitution of FR
Yugoslavia and its relevant law (Law on the Criminal Proceedings). Those
rules are, however, mutually exclusive.
III
1. The Federal Government regulated in the contested Decree the procedure
for cooperation of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia with the International
Criminal Tribunal in criminal prosecution of individuals responsible for
grave crimes against the international humanitarian law perpetrated in the
territory of ex-Yugoslavia since 1991(hereinafter: the International
Criminal Tribunal) and performance of obligations of FRY stemming from the
Security Council Resolution 827(1993) and the Statute of the International
Criminal Tribunal.
The Decree covered, inter alia: transfer of criminal proceedings held in the
national courts to the International Criminal Tribunal if so requested;
proceedings and jurisdiction of courts and other authorities for decision
making in such matters (Article 12 ad 13): the proceedings in national
courts after the transfer of the proceedings to the International Criminal
Tribunal (Article 14): the possibility of extradition of all the accused
(foreigners and Yugoslav citizens) to the jurisdiction of the International
Criminal Tribunal and its investigation bodies to undertake activities in
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia(Articles 9 and 10); legal assistance to
the International Criminal Tribunal, including granting of transit of the
Yugoslav citizens through the territory if the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia( Articles 18 and 19) and others. The Decree contains references
to the application of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal and
its Rules of Procedure and Evidence, to be applied by judicial and other
authorities in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Articles l, 2, 6, 12 and
17).
2. The provisions of Constitution of FRY provided for the following: power
in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is organized along the principle of
division of legislative, executive and judicial power (Article 12); the
executive and judicial power are bound by the laws, which are in compliance
A resolution of the Assembly and a process in its Committee on Legal
Affairs and Human Rights have been initiated in the last
week session by a group of CPRF deputies, joined by their
colleagues of the Left from other six countries.
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Violations of Law in the Case of
Slobodan Milosevic
24 January 2002
Motion for the resolution
presented by Mr. Zyuganov and others
1. The Assembly notes that new facts have emerged concerning
the involvement of Osama bin Laden, leader of the Al
Qaeda terrorist organisation, in supporting the so-called
Kosovo Liberation Army. This evidence proves the KLA was part
of the international terrorist network. This in turn makes it
possible to assess the nature of the conflict in Kosovo in
1998-1999 differently, proving that the aim of the Yugoslav
leadership was not to suppress a liberation movement but to fight
armed separatism and international terrorism.
2. Slobodan Milosevic was arrested on 31 March 2001. But an
investigation by the Yugoslav authorities, which lasted three
months, resulted only in an accusation of "abuse of position."
3. The transfer of Mr. Milosevic from Belgrade to The Hague in
June 2001 at the demand of the International Criminal
Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) was carried out in gross
violation of the Yugoslav Constitution. This was confirmed by the
Yugoslav Constitutional Court decision of 6 November 2001. Thus
the unlawful transfer of Mr. Milosevic to The Hague may
be considered kidnapping.
4. As a result of the kidnapping of Mr. Milosevic, the Yugoslav
State was denied the right to a court examination of the
accusations leveled against the former head of state, while Mr.
Milosevic was deprived of the right to defend himself against
those accusations.
5. The ICTY was created by a decision of the UN Security
Council. However the UN Charter does not permit the UNSC
to create judicial bodies. Thus the legitimacy of the ICTY is
highly questionable.
6. A group of independent lawyers has submitted a complaint to
the European Court for Human Rights in connection with the
flagrant violations of law in the ?Milosevic case?. However the
ICTY authorities prevent free and unmonitored
communication between Mr. Milosevic and his lawyers. This
violates the generally recognised norms of human rights.
7. During Mr. Milosevic?s detention in Holland his rights have
been notably violated by the 24 hour a day illumination of his
cell and by monitoring him 24 hours a day, using video and
infrared equipment.
8. The Assembly calls on the Dutch and Yugoslav authorities as
well as the ICTY to work for the return of Mr. Milosevic to
Yugoslavia. That would help end the violation of law caused by
his transfer to Holland. It would enable Yugoslavia to
exercise its right for a court trial of Mr. Milosevic and it
would allow Mr. Milosevic to exercise his right to defend himself.
Until then the Assembly calls on the ICTY to ensure that the
conditions of Mr. Milosevic's detention in the UN Detention
Center conform to the generally accepted norms of human rights.
Signed
Christodoulides Doris (Cyprus), Carvalho Lino (Portugal),
Churkin Guennady, Gamzatova Hapisat, Gostev Ruslan,
Melnikov Ivan, Zyuganov Gennady, Shaklein Nickolay, Bakulin
Vladimir (Russia), Marmazov Yevhen, Oliynyk Boris,
Pakhansky Anatoly (Ukraine), Kanelli Liana (Greece), Neguta
Andrei (Moldova), Manukyan Yuri (Armenia)
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
24 January 2002
On Violations of Law
in the Case of Slobodan Milosevic
Dear Colleagues,
Recently new facts have emerged concerning the involvement of
Osama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaeda terrorist
organisation, in supporting the so-called Kosovo Liberation
Army. This evidence proves the KLA was part of the
international terrorist network. This in turn makes it possible
to assess the nature of the conflict in Kosovo in 1998-1999
differently, proving that the aim of the Yugoslav leadership
was not to suppress a liberation movement but to fight armed
separatism and international terrorism.
It is necessary to note that former FRY President Slobodan
Milosevic was arrested on 31 March 2001. But an investigation
by the Yugoslav authorities, which lasted three months,
resulted only in an accusation of "abuse of position."
Later in June 2001 Mr. Milosevic was transferred from Belgrade
to The Hague at the demand of the International Criminal
Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY). But it was carried out in gross
violation of the Yugoslav Constitution. This was confirmed by
the Yugoslav Constitutional Court decision of 6 November 2001.
Thus the unlawful transfer of Mr. Milosevic to The Hague
may be considered kidnapping.
As a result of the kidnapping of Mr. Milosevic, the Yugoslav
State was denied the right to a court examination of the
accusations leveled against the former head of state, while Mr.
Milosevic was deprived of the right to defend himself against
those accusations. Furthermore many leading experts on the
international law believe that the ICTY created by a decision of
the UN Security Council is illegitimate, as the UN Charter does
not permit the UNSC to create judicial bodies.
A group of independent lawyers has submitted a complaint to the
European Court for Human Rights in connection with the
flagrant violations of law in the ?Milosevic case?. However the
ICTY authorities prevent free and unmonitored
communication between Mr. Milosevic and his lawyers. This
violates the generally recognised norms of human rights. During
Mr. Milosevic?s detention in Holland his rights have been
notably violated by the 24 hour a day illumination of his cell and by
monitoring him 24 hours a day, using video and infrared
equipment.
We are calling on the PACE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human
Rights to investigate the mentioned violations on
international and national law in the "Milosevic case" and
facilitate the return of Mr. Milosevic to Yugoslavia. That would help
end the violation of law caused by his transfer to Holland. It
would enable Yugoslavia to exercise its right for a court trial of
Mr. Milosevic and it would allow Mr. Milosevic to exercise his
right to defend himself.
Signed
Christodoulides Doris (Cyprus), Carvalho Lino (Portugal),
Churkin Guennady, Gamzatova Hapisat, Gostev Ruslan,
Melnikov Ivan, Zyuganov Gennady, Shaklein Nickolay, Bakulin
Vladimir (Russia), Marmazov Yevhen, Oliynyk Boris,
Pakhansky Anatoly (Ukraine), Kanelli Liana (Greece), Neguta
Andrei (Moldova), Manukyan Yuri (Armenia)
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)
Affairs and Human Rights have been initiated in the last
week session by a group of CPRF deputies, joined by their
colleagues of the Left from other six countries.
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of
Europe<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Violations of Law in the Case of
Slobodan Milosevic
24 January 2002
Motion for the resolution
presented by Mr. Zyuganov and others
1. The Assembly notes that new facts have emerged concerning
the involvement of Osama bin Laden, leader of the Al
Qaeda terrorist organisation, in supporting the so-called
Kosovo Liberation Army. This evidence proves the KLA was part
of the international terrorist network. This in turn makes it
possible to assess the nature of the conflict in Kosovo in
1998-1999 differently, proving that the aim of the Yugoslav
leadership was not to suppress a liberation movement but to fight
armed separatism and international terrorism.
2. Slobodan Milosevic was arrested on 31 March 2001. But an
investigation by the Yugoslav authorities, which lasted three
months, resulted only in an accusation of "abuse of position."
3. The transfer of Mr. Milosevic from Belgrade to The Hague in
June 2001 at the demand of the International Criminal
Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) was carried out in gross
violation of the Yugoslav Constitution. This was confirmed by the
Yugoslav Constitutional Court decision of 6 November 2001. Thus
the unlawful transfer of Mr. Milosevic to The Hague may
be considered kidnapping.
4. As a result of the kidnapping of Mr. Milosevic, the Yugoslav
State was denied the right to a court examination of the
accusations leveled against the former head of state, while Mr.
Milosevic was deprived of the right to defend himself against
those accusations.
5. The ICTY was created by a decision of the UN Security
Council. However the UN Charter does not permit the UNSC
to create judicial bodies. Thus the legitimacy of the ICTY is
highly questionable.
6. A group of independent lawyers has submitted a complaint to
the European Court for Human Rights in connection with the
flagrant violations of law in the ?Milosevic case?. However the
ICTY authorities prevent free and unmonitored
communication between Mr. Milosevic and his lawyers. This
violates the generally recognised norms of human rights.
7. During Mr. Milosevic?s detention in Holland his rights have
been notably violated by the 24 hour a day illumination of his
cell and by monitoring him 24 hours a day, using video and
infrared equipment.
8. The Assembly calls on the Dutch and Yugoslav authorities as
well as the ICTY to work for the return of Mr. Milosevic to
Yugoslavia. That would help end the violation of law caused by
his transfer to Holland. It would enable Yugoslavia to
exercise its right for a court trial of Mr. Milosevic and it
would allow Mr. Milosevic to exercise his right to defend himself.
Until then the Assembly calls on the ICTY to ensure that the
conditions of Mr. Milosevic's detention in the UN Detention
Center conform to the generally accepted norms of human rights.
Signed
Christodoulides Doris (Cyprus), Carvalho Lino (Portugal),
Churkin Guennady, Gamzatova Hapisat, Gostev Ruslan,
Melnikov Ivan, Zyuganov Gennady, Shaklein Nickolay, Bakulin
Vladimir (Russia), Marmazov Yevhen, Oliynyk Boris,
Pakhansky Anatoly (Ukraine), Kanelli Liana (Greece), Neguta
Andrei (Moldova), Manukyan Yuri (Armenia)
Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights
Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
24 January 2002
On Violations of Law
in the Case of Slobodan Milosevic
Dear Colleagues,
Recently new facts have emerged concerning the involvement of
Osama bin Laden, leader of the Al Qaeda terrorist
organisation, in supporting the so-called Kosovo Liberation
Army. This evidence proves the KLA was part of the
international terrorist network. This in turn makes it possible
to assess the nature of the conflict in Kosovo in 1998-1999
differently, proving that the aim of the Yugoslav leadership
was not to suppress a liberation movement but to fight armed
separatism and international terrorism.
It is necessary to note that former FRY President Slobodan
Milosevic was arrested on 31 March 2001. But an investigation
by the Yugoslav authorities, which lasted three months,
resulted only in an accusation of "abuse of position."
Later in June 2001 Mr. Milosevic was transferred from Belgrade
to The Hague at the demand of the International Criminal
Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY). But it was carried out in gross
violation of the Yugoslav Constitution. This was confirmed by
the Yugoslav Constitutional Court decision of 6 November 2001.
Thus the unlawful transfer of Mr. Milosevic to The Hague
may be considered kidnapping.
As a result of the kidnapping of Mr. Milosevic, the Yugoslav
State was denied the right to a court examination of the
accusations leveled against the former head of state, while Mr.
Milosevic was deprived of the right to defend himself against
those accusations. Furthermore many leading experts on the
international law believe that the ICTY created by a decision of
the UN Security Council is illegitimate, as the UN Charter does
not permit the UNSC to create judicial bodies.
A group of independent lawyers has submitted a complaint to the
European Court for Human Rights in connection with the
flagrant violations of law in the ?Milosevic case?. However the
ICTY authorities prevent free and unmonitored
communication between Mr. Milosevic and his lawyers. This
violates the generally recognised norms of human rights. During
Mr. Milosevic?s detention in Holland his rights have been
notably violated by the 24 hour a day illumination of his cell and by
monitoring him 24 hours a day, using video and infrared
equipment.
We are calling on the PACE Committee on Legal Affairs and Human
Rights to investigate the mentioned violations on
international and national law in the "Milosevic case" and
facilitate the return of Mr. Milosevic to Yugoslavia. That would help
end the violation of law caused by his transfer to Holland. It
would enable Yugoslavia to exercise its right for a court trial of
Mr. Milosevic and it would allow Mr. Milosevic to exercise his
right to defend himself.
Signed
Christodoulides Doris (Cyprus), Carvalho Lino (Portugal),
Churkin Guennady, Gamzatova Hapisat, Gostev Ruslan,
Melnikov Ivan, Zyuganov Gennady, Shaklein Nickolay, Bakulin
Vladimir (Russia), Marmazov Yevhen, Oliynyk Boris,
Pakhansky Anatoly (Ukraine), Kanelli Liana (Greece), Neguta
Andrei (Moldova), Manukyan Yuri (Armenia)
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)
Milosevic asks to be released
AFP [ WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2002 6:15:20 PM ]
THE HAGUE: Former Yugoslav president Slobodan
Milosevic on Wednesday asked the appeals chamber of
the UN war crimes court to be freed as he pledged to
come back for all hearings.
"It would be logical and just to let me go, I will not
flee," Milosevic told presiding judge Claude Jorda.
"I am fully prepared to come to any hearing because
this is not a battle I will miss," he added at the end
of a 15-minute angry monologue.
The court is hearing an appeal by the prosecution,
which wants to overturn the order that Milosevic will
face separate trials for events in Kosovo and for
Bosnia and Croatia.
Jorda gave Milsoevic the floor after he asked the
former president if he would want two trials or just
one.
It is unclear if the judges will only hear arguments
today or issue a ruling right away.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
AFP [ WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2002 6:15:20 PM ]
THE HAGUE: Former Yugoslav president Slobodan
Milosevic on Wednesday asked the appeals chamber of
the UN war crimes court to be freed as he pledged to
come back for all hearings.
"It would be logical and just to let me go, I will not
flee," Milosevic told presiding judge Claude Jorda.
"I am fully prepared to come to any hearing because
this is not a battle I will miss," he added at the end
of a 15-minute angry monologue.
The court is hearing an appeal by the prosecution,
which wants to overturn the order that Milosevic will
face separate trials for events in Kosovo and for
Bosnia and Croatia.
Jorda gave Milsoevic the floor after he asked the
former president if he would want two trials or just
one.
It is unclear if the judges will only hear arguments
today or issue a ruling right away.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
