Da "Il Manifesto" del 18 Luglio 2000:
Contro la Nato denuncia a Strasburgo
Appello alla Corte europea per i diritti umani dei
familiari delle vittime del raid sulla tv serba
S. D. B.
Non fu e non venne giustificato come un "effetto
collaterale". Anzi, i vertici dell'Alleanza atlantica
affermarono che la sede della televisione di stato serba,
colpita nell'aprile del 1999 durante la campagna di
bombardamenti contro la Jugoslavia, era un legitimate
target. Nell'attacco morirono 16 giornalisti e tecnici e
tutti i reporter occidentali a Belgrado definirono il
bombardamento un crimine di guerra e contro la libertà di
stampa.
Esattamente con questa accusa e chiamando in causa
l'articolo 2 del trattato istitutivo della Corte europea
per i diritti umani, che protegge il diritto alla vita, le
famiglie di quei giornalisti e di quei tecnici si sono
rivolte a uno studio legale inglese per denunciare alla
Corte che ha sede a Strasburgo i governi di 17 paesi della
Nato. Nella stesura dei capi d'accusa convergono i
risultati dei dossier sui crimini della Nato preparati da
Amnesty international e da Human rights watch e rifiutati,
nonostante la mole di prove e argomentazioni addotte, dal
procuratore generale del Tribunale dell'Aja, Carla Del
Ponte, che ha deciso, senza nemmeno aprire un'indagine, per
l'innocenza della Nato.
Ma la battaglia legale per portare davanti ad un tribunale
internazionale i vertici politici e militari dell'Alleanza
non è conclusa, nonostante il "non luogo a procedere" della
Del Ponte. Dopo i risultati del "Tribunale indipendente
Ramsey Clark" (ex ministro della giustizia Usa, da non
confondere con il generale Wesley Clark, ex comandante
della Nato), che ha "condannato" la Nato per i crimini di
genocidio, distruzione ambientale e violazione delle
Convenzioni di Ginevra sulle regole di guerra, la denuncia
presentata ieri apre la concreta possibilità (anche se con
i tempi del tribunale di Strasburgo, che rivaleggia in
lentezza con i tribunali italiani) che i governi della Nato
siano condannati per aver deliberatamente ucciso dei civili
e debbano risarcire le famiglie delle vittime; alle quali,
per di più, si tentò anche di negare la qualifica
professionale.
Al momento della "conta dei caduti" che ogni anno fa la
stampa internazionale, Information sans frontières li
incluse nella lista dei professionisti dell'informazione
caduti in guerra, mentre Reporter sans frontières accolse
la tesi della Nato: uccidere un giornalista o un addetto al
montaggio è colpire la propaganda.
---
[Please send this to others who might be interested]
Permanent Commission on (Dutch) war crimes in Yugoslavia
Rode Kruislaan 709
1111 NX Diemen
The Netherlands
phone/fax: +206900742
e-mail: despot@...
INTERNATIONAL PRESS COMMUNIQUÉ
Dutch court in Amsterdam: war crimes not ruled out; war against
Yugoslavia being against international law
not ruled out
First decision in appeal to higher court
On 6 July 2000, the court in Amsterdam decided on the lawsuit, brought
by Dedovic and 28 other Yugoslav citizens,
mainly living in Serbia. This lawsuit is directed directly against the
Dutch Prime Minister Kok, Foreign Minister Van
Aartsen, and Defence Minister De Grave.
This was the first decision in appeal to higher court of a series of
lawsuits, organized by the PC [“Permanente Commissie”;
Permanent Commission on (Dutch) war crimes in Yugoslavia].
The PC was founded on the initiative of the Anti-Fascist Former
Resistance [against Nazi occupation of The Netherlands,
1940-1945] Fighters’ League, the Lawyers for Peace League, and the
Balkan Peace Coalition.
The PC’s lawsuits
So far, the PC has organized four lawsuits in Dutch courts, as summary
proceedings. In all those cases, different groups of
Yugoslav persons, mainly living in Yugoslavia, were plaintiffs.
The first case was organized in February 1999, when NATO aggression was
still only a threat. The demand, then asked
from Dutch judges, was that The Netherlands should no longer support
NATO in those threats, which violated the United
Nations Charter, point 2 sub 4.
The second summary proceedings were in April 1999, when the NATO
aggression against Yugoslavia had already
started. This time, ten Yugoslavs, who had received a call up to serve
as conscripts in the army, were plaintiffs. They
demanded before the Dutch judges that The Netherlands, as a NATO member,
would stop participating in the war, stop
using them as targets in this unlawful war.
The third and fourth cases were shortly after one another in the
beginning of May 1999, as it became clear that NATO
aggression was directed more and more against civilians and civilian
targets, and also in other respects was completely
disproportional. The third summary proceedings were at the The Hague
court, the fourth summary proceedings were at
the Amsterdam court.
Also in these two latest summary proceedings, different groups of
Yugoslav persons were plaintiffs. The demand at the
The Hague court was directed against the State of The Netherlands, and
at the Amsterdam court against the Dutch
government ministers Kok, Van Aartsen, and De Grave personally. In the
last case, this was because of the Nuremburg
trial 1945 rules, saying that everyone involved in war crimes is also
personally responsible and individually liable, also
if they are government functionaries. In these two latest court cases,
the demand was that the defendants - the State of the
Netherlands, and the three ministers personally- would do everything in
their power to get The Netherlands out of this
dirty war.
What happened at these court cases
In all cases, the demand was refused. However, also in all these cases,
the plaintiffs appealed to higher courts in The
Hague and Amsterdam. This happened when the bombings had already
stopped.
Of course, in all these cases the demands had to be adapted, as, of
course, now it could no longer be demanded that the
court would force the State of The Netherlands, or the Dutch ministers,
to end the Dutch participation in the war. That war
had already stopped.
So, the new demand on appeal became that the court would oblige the
State of The Netherlands, or the Dutch ministers,
not to start again a war against Yugoslavia without explicit permission
from the Security Council of the United Nations.
And also, that the court would rule post facto that the war had been
against international law, and as a consequence had
hurt the interests of the Yugoslav plaintiffs.
The PC arranged that the appeal of the fourth summary proceedings would
come first: at the Amsterdam court, with a
more ‘liberal’ reputation than the court in the [Government city] The
Hague; where the appeals in the three other lawsuits
will have to be.
The decision by the Amsterdam court
So, the Amsterdam court made a decision in the case Dedovic and others
vs. Kok, Van Aartsen, and De Grave, on 6
July 2000. The court did not take it easy. In a 26 pages long decision
the Amsterdam court discusses the case extensively.
Such an extensive decision is really unique for summary proceedings.
In itself, this is important and a striking gain: so, judges in The
Netherlands state that they have the right to judge on the
participation of the Dutch state in the NATO bombings. And even on the
personal roles in this of the Dutch ministers.
And that they can call them to account for this.
The Dutch state and the ministers in all lawsuits had stated as their
first line of defence that Dutch judges should keep
out of all those issues. These were ‘political affairs.’ However, this
defence was rejected in all the court cases so far;
including now, again, at the Amsterdam court.
The issues at stake in the case Dedovic versus Kok
In this case, basically four issues were at stake. The three most
important ones were:
1. The demand by the Yugoslav plaintiffs that the court should order Kok
c.s. to do everything possible to not get The
Netherlands involved again in a possible new NATO aggression against
Yugoslavia, without explicit permission from the
Security Council of the United Nations.
2. The question whether the war, in which The Netherlands participated
within the NATO alliance, and which was waged
without explicit permission from the Security Council of the United
Nations, was, or was not, against international law.
3. The question whether, once that war had started in March 1999, war
crimes were committed during it or not, like
attacks on civilian targets and the use of disproportional violence.
The fourth issue was the question whether the Dutch ministers, might, or
might not, be held personally responsible for war
crimes.
In the extensive decision, the Amsterdam court dealt at length with all
those issues.
The court decision on two of these issues
On the fourth issue, the court concluded that the Dutch ministers could
not be held personally responsible for this war.
According to the court, the 29 Yugoslav plaintiffs should sue the Dutch
state, not the ministers personally. So, the court
here rejected the personal liability of the Dutch ministers.
It was different with the three other issues.
On the first issue - so, asking that the court should forbid that The
Netherlands would ever again participate in a possible
new NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, without explicit permission from
the Security Council of the United Nations,
the court found that no decision on this might be made now. Because
right now, new aggression is not yet already a really
concrete threat. If there would come an acute threat of new NATO
accession, then first the state should have the chance
to make a decision on this. Only then the judges can decide, according
to the court.
So, the court does not reject the demand definitively. The court
basically says: on this point, the plaintiffs are too early with
their demand. Just let them come back with their demand if there will be
real decision making by the Dutch state about
new aggression against Yugoslavia.
The court decision on the issues 2 and 3
In the two other issues -so, the question whether waging war against
Yugoslavia without explicit permission from the
Security Council was, or was not, against international law, and the
question whether, once that war had started, war
crimes were committed during it or not, like attacks on civilian targets
and the use of disproportional violence- the decision
by the lower level courts had always been, in all four court cases, that
in no way the law had been violated in this. And
that, of course, The Netherlands and NATO had been fully justified in
their attacks on Yugoslavia.
However, the higher level court turns out to think very differently on
this. In both questions, that court decides that it is
unable to decide either for or against.
So, the court indicates that possibly, the Yugoslav plaintiffs are right
here. And that this war was against international law,
and that war crimes were as well committed during this war. Another
possibility is that NATO and The Netherlands are
right, that this war was allowed, and that no war crimes were committed.
The court continues to say: in order to decide who is right here, the
Yugoslav plaintiffs or the Dutch state and the ministers,
really much more research is needed. However, for that, such concise
circumstances like summary proceedings are not
really fitting.
Because the court does not know for whom it should decide on those most
important points of the court case, for the
Yugoslav plaintiffs or for the Dutch ministers, finally still all
demands are not upheld. Because if the court cannot
decide who is right, then the plaintiff loses; as usually in court
cases.
Differently from when lower level courts decided on this case, this
higher level court on the two most crucial points at
stake during this court case, no longer takes the side of the Dutch
state and NATO.
Here, the court says: I do not know. Both sides have a point. More
research is needed in other, more extensive legal
proceedings.
Further perspectives
The Dutch state and the Dutch ministers will certainly not be happy with
this! It is a big blow for them. Because it shows
that the support in the courts for their criminal war policy is clearly
crumbling.
Concerning the issue that the court thinks that new, more extensive
proceedings are needed to come to conclusions on
the core questions, we can bring important news.
In this, the court will get what it asked for.
Shortly, the PC will start with lawsuits, for compensation for the
victims of the bombing of the RTS broadcasting studio in
Belgrade. Now, with the backing of the higher level court in Amsterdam,
that the war was possibly against international
law, and that during this war, possibly war crimes were committed!
However, there will also be an appeal in the case Dedovic versus Kok, to
the highest Dutch court, the Hoge Raad
[‘Supreme Court’]. There will also be appeals in the three other cases
which are still going on.
Historical duty
Really, in every NATO country the fight should be waged at national
level courts on the question whether war may be
waged just like that against small countries like Yugoslavia. While we
have international laws, explicitly prohibiting this.
We know that after the Second World War, all nations and peoples have
committed themselves in the United Nations
charter to outlaw ‘the scourge of war’.
The PC in The Netherlands makes a start. For the first time since the
Nuremburg and Tokyo trials against the
German and Japanese war criminals, government leaders have to take
responsibility at a court of law for
possible war crimes and crimes against peace.
It is an historical mission of lawyers and all supporters of the rule of
law, to also in the other NATO countries make the
government leaders take responsibility at their national courts of law.
This is possible at lawsuits for indemnities for the
victims of the bombings of Yugoslavia.
The PC asks urgently, to make the front against the NATO leaders
broader, as soon as possible!
The PC
---
Subject: Nato-Verbrecher müssen vor ordentliche Gerichte
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:07:50 +0200
From: Jug Öster Solibeweg <joesb@...>
Die JÖSB unterstützt folgende Resolution, denn wenn die westlichen
Länder
für sich in Anspruch nehmen rechtsstaatlich zu sein, dann muss die NATO
zumindest vor Gericht gestellt (und zweifellos auch verurteilt) werden.
Dass
es sich weder um rechtsstaatliche noch demokratische Länder, sondern um
die
Diktatur der Neuen Weltordnung handelt, beweist die Farce des Haager
Tribunals, das eine Anklage gegen die NATO trotz erdrückender Beweise
für
den Bruch der elementarsten Normen des Völkerrechts rundweg abgelehnt
hat.
**********
Resolution:
Die nachfolgenden Organisationen und Einzelpersonen fordern auf
Grundlage
der Ergebnisse der Tribunale [siehe weiter unten]:
* Unverzüglich Strafverfahren gegen die in der Anklageschrift genannten
Angeklagten vor ordentlichen Gerichten einzuleiten
* Beobachter aus unabhängigen Staaten zu diesen Verfahren zuzulassen, da
die
Befangenheit der nationalen Gerichte zu befürchten ist
* Die Angeklagten für die Dauer der Verfahren unverzüglich aus ihren
Ämtern
zu entfernen
Wir schließen uns auch den sich aus den Urteilen ergebenden politischen
Forderungen der Tribunale an:
* Sofortige Beendigung aller Embargos, Sanktionen und sonstiger
Strafmaßnahmen gegen Jugoslawien
* Rückzug aller NATO-Truppen aus der Balkanregion und die Beendigung
aller
Operationen gegen Jugoslawien
* Vollständige Reparationen für Tod, Verletzung, wirtschaftliche und
ökologische Zerstörungen durch Krieg und Sanktionen
Falls es vorerst keine strafrechtlichen Konsequenzen für die
Verantwortlichen des NATO-Krieges geben sollte, so geben wir hiermit
unserer
Hoffnung Ausdruck, daß die Verbrecher dieses Krieges ihr Leben mit der
wachsenden Sorge verbringen mögen, daß man sie eines Tages wie Augusto
Pinochet doch noch für ihre Verbrechen auf die Anklagebank bringen
wird. In
diesem Fall wird es historisches Beweismaterial geben, das dafür
garantieren
wird, daß der Gerechtigkeit Genüge getan wird.
Erstunterzeichner:
Heidelberger Forum gegen Militarismus und Krieg · VVN/Bund der
AntifaschistInnen HD · DGB·Rhein-Neckar-Heidelberg · AKAS (Arbeitskreis
antiimperialistische Solidarität) · Friedensladen HD · Prof. Dr. Dieter
Fehrenz, Heidelberg · Dr. theol. Hannelis Schulte, PDS, Stadträtin
Heidelberg · DKP Heidelberg · Freidenker Heidelberg · Eckart Spoo,
Journalist, IG Medien, Berlin · Prof. Dr. Ulrich Duchrow, Heidelberg ·
CONTRASTE - Monatszeitung für Selbstorganisation · „Freiheit f. Mumia
Jamal
HD“ · H. Rick, Gesundheitspartei · Cuba Solidarität Heidelberg e.V. ·
DFG/VK Heidelberg · A. de Jager, DGB HD · Janine Hebert ÖTV HD · Günter
Zink ÖTV HD · Sabine Ritzberger SPD HD · Angelo Taurino ÖTV HD
sowie 45 weitere Einzelpersonen aus HD
********
Es sei uns, der JÖSB, noch eine Anmerkung gestattet: Wir würden
bevorzugen
den Fall Pinochet nicht als Vorbild zu verwenden. Denn mit dieser
Anklage
und dem Prozess wollen sich jene reinwaschen, die in 100%er Kontinuität
mit
den Pinochet-Verbrechern stehen, allen voran die USA und die EU. Wohin
es
führt, wenn sich diese als Hüter der Menschenrechte aufspielen haben wir
an
den humanitären Bomben im Jugoslawienkrieg gesehen. Wir dürfen die
Herstellung einer weiteren Geschichtslüge nicht zulassen, laut der der
Imperialismus weder für den Faschismus noch für die Diktatur in Chile
verantwortlich wäre. Die Herrschenden haben angesichts ihrer Verbrechen
allen Grund ihre eigene Geschichte zu verleugnen.
Die Wahrheit ist eine Waffe im Kampf gegen das westliche Monster und
kann
nur von Volksgerichten angewandt werden, nicht von käuflichen Gerichten
wie
jenem in Den Haag und in Santiago de Chile.
********
INTERNATIONALE TRIBUNALE ÜBER DEN NATO-KRIEG GEGEN JUGOSLAWIEN
Führer der NATO-Staaten wegen Kriegsverbrechen schuldig gesprochen!
Unabhängige Tribunale
Bisher haben sich die nationalen Gerichte der NATO-Staaten geweigert,
strafrechtlichen Ermittlungen gegen die Verantwortlichen des Krieges
gegen
Jugoslawien aufzunehmen. Auch das von den westlichen Staaten getragene,
sehr
parteiische Jugoslawientribunal in Den Haag hat trotz der Vorlage von
erdrückendem Beweismaterial durch namhafte internationale JuristInnen
sich
bisher geweigert, ein Verfahren einzuleiten.
Aus 16 Ländern (u.a. USA, Kanada, Deutschland, Italien, Griechenland,
Rußland und Österreich) haben sich daher JuristInnen,
WissenschaftlerInnen,
Parlamentsausschüsse und NGOs zusammengetan, um in der Tradition der
Russel-Tribunale gegen den Vietnamkrieg, in eigener Regie internationale
Tribunale über den NATO-Krieg abzuhalten. Eine große Zahl namhafter
Persönlichkeiten haben sich an der Durchführung beteiligt. Neben dem
ehemaligen Justizminister der USA, Ramsey Clark, der frühere kanadische
Außenminister James Bisset, der ehem. Botschafter in Jugoslawien Ralph
Hartmann, der Hamburger Völkerrechtler Prof. Norman Paech, der
Umweltforscher Prof. Knut Krusewitz, der frühere Admiral E. Schmähling,
und
viele andere.
Angeklagte
Angeklagt sind die Regierungschefs, Außenminister und
Verteidigungsminister
der beteiligten NATO-Staaten, die verantwortlichen Funktionsträger der
NATO
und des Militärs dieser Länder, sowie die Parlamentarier die dem Krieg
zustimmten, obwohl er offensichtlich gegen Völkerrecht, nationale
Verfassungen und internationale Verträge verstieß.
Die Anklage erstreckte sich auf Verbrechen gegen den Frieden,
Kriegsverbrechen, Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit und anderer
Verletzungen
der Prinzipien des Nürnberger Tribunals, der Haager Abkommen, der Genfer
Abkommen, der Charta der Vereinten Nationen und anderer Normen des
Völkerrechts und nationaler Gesetze.
* der Vorbereitung und Durchführung eines Angriffskrieges, bei dem
mindestens 500, wahrscheinlich mehr als 2.000 unbeteiligte Menschen
getötet
wurden, mehr als ein Drittel davon Kinder.
* der massiven Irreführung der Öffentlichkeit und der Parlamente
sowie folgender Kriegsverbrechen:
* Bombardierung überwiegend ziviler Ziele und Zerstörung der
Lebensgrundlagen des ganzen Landes
* Schwere Schädigung von Menschen und Umwelt durch die Bombardierung von
Anlagen und Fabriken bei denen vorhersehbar umweltschädliche (z.T.
hochgiftige) Chemikalien freigesetzt wurden.
* Einsatz geächteter Waffen, wie Uranmunition, die das Einsatzgebiet auf
lange Zeit radioaktiv verseucht haben oder sogenannte Clusterbomben,
deren
nicht explodierte Submunition ganze Landstriche vermint hat.
Weitere Anklagen
Auch Amnesty International (AI) wirft der NATO Kriegsverbrechen bei den
Luftangriffen auf Jugoslawien 1999 vor. Durch die Tötung von
Zivilpersonen
habe die NATO das humanitäre Völkerrecht verletzt, erklärte die
Menschenrechtsorganisation am 6. Juni in Bonn und fordert die
verdächtigen
NATO-Kriegsverbrecher vor Gericht zu stellen. Ganz klar sei die
Bombardierung der Zentrale des serbischen Staatsrundfunks im April
vergangenen Jahres ein bewußter Angriff auf ein ziviles Objekt und damit
ein
Kriegsverbrechen gewesen Ebenso wie die Angriffe auf Brücken, die nicht
gestoppt wurden, obwohl bemerkt wurde, daß sie Zivilisten treffen.
****
Jugoslawisch-Österreichische Solidaritätsbewegung (JÖSB)
PF 217, A-1040 Wien, Österreich
Tel/Fax +43 1 924 31 61
joesb@...
www.vorstadtzentrum.net/joesb
Kto-Nr. 9282, RB Schwechat, BLZ 32823
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------
Contro la Nato denuncia a Strasburgo
Appello alla Corte europea per i diritti umani dei
familiari delle vittime del raid sulla tv serba
S. D. B.
Non fu e non venne giustificato come un "effetto
collaterale". Anzi, i vertici dell'Alleanza atlantica
affermarono che la sede della televisione di stato serba,
colpita nell'aprile del 1999 durante la campagna di
bombardamenti contro la Jugoslavia, era un legitimate
target. Nell'attacco morirono 16 giornalisti e tecnici e
tutti i reporter occidentali a Belgrado definirono il
bombardamento un crimine di guerra e contro la libertà di
stampa.
Esattamente con questa accusa e chiamando in causa
l'articolo 2 del trattato istitutivo della Corte europea
per i diritti umani, che protegge il diritto alla vita, le
famiglie di quei giornalisti e di quei tecnici si sono
rivolte a uno studio legale inglese per denunciare alla
Corte che ha sede a Strasburgo i governi di 17 paesi della
Nato. Nella stesura dei capi d'accusa convergono i
risultati dei dossier sui crimini della Nato preparati da
Amnesty international e da Human rights watch e rifiutati,
nonostante la mole di prove e argomentazioni addotte, dal
procuratore generale del Tribunale dell'Aja, Carla Del
Ponte, che ha deciso, senza nemmeno aprire un'indagine, per
l'innocenza della Nato.
Ma la battaglia legale per portare davanti ad un tribunale
internazionale i vertici politici e militari dell'Alleanza
non è conclusa, nonostante il "non luogo a procedere" della
Del Ponte. Dopo i risultati del "Tribunale indipendente
Ramsey Clark" (ex ministro della giustizia Usa, da non
confondere con il generale Wesley Clark, ex comandante
della Nato), che ha "condannato" la Nato per i crimini di
genocidio, distruzione ambientale e violazione delle
Convenzioni di Ginevra sulle regole di guerra, la denuncia
presentata ieri apre la concreta possibilità (anche se con
i tempi del tribunale di Strasburgo, che rivaleggia in
lentezza con i tribunali italiani) che i governi della Nato
siano condannati per aver deliberatamente ucciso dei civili
e debbano risarcire le famiglie delle vittime; alle quali,
per di più, si tentò anche di negare la qualifica
professionale.
Al momento della "conta dei caduti" che ogni anno fa la
stampa internazionale, Information sans frontières li
incluse nella lista dei professionisti dell'informazione
caduti in guerra, mentre Reporter sans frontières accolse
la tesi della Nato: uccidere un giornalista o un addetto al
montaggio è colpire la propaganda.
---
[Please send this to others who might be interested]
Permanent Commission on (Dutch) war crimes in Yugoslavia
Rode Kruislaan 709
1111 NX Diemen
The Netherlands
phone/fax: +206900742
e-mail: despot@...
INTERNATIONAL PRESS COMMUNIQUÉ
Dutch court in Amsterdam: war crimes not ruled out; war against
Yugoslavia being against international law
not ruled out
First decision in appeal to higher court
On 6 July 2000, the court in Amsterdam decided on the lawsuit, brought
by Dedovic and 28 other Yugoslav citizens,
mainly living in Serbia. This lawsuit is directed directly against the
Dutch Prime Minister Kok, Foreign Minister Van
Aartsen, and Defence Minister De Grave.
This was the first decision in appeal to higher court of a series of
lawsuits, organized by the PC [“Permanente Commissie”;
Permanent Commission on (Dutch) war crimes in Yugoslavia].
The PC was founded on the initiative of the Anti-Fascist Former
Resistance [against Nazi occupation of The Netherlands,
1940-1945] Fighters’ League, the Lawyers for Peace League, and the
Balkan Peace Coalition.
The PC’s lawsuits
So far, the PC has organized four lawsuits in Dutch courts, as summary
proceedings. In all those cases, different groups of
Yugoslav persons, mainly living in Yugoslavia, were plaintiffs.
The first case was organized in February 1999, when NATO aggression was
still only a threat. The demand, then asked
from Dutch judges, was that The Netherlands should no longer support
NATO in those threats, which violated the United
Nations Charter, point 2 sub 4.
The second summary proceedings were in April 1999, when the NATO
aggression against Yugoslavia had already
started. This time, ten Yugoslavs, who had received a call up to serve
as conscripts in the army, were plaintiffs. They
demanded before the Dutch judges that The Netherlands, as a NATO member,
would stop participating in the war, stop
using them as targets in this unlawful war.
The third and fourth cases were shortly after one another in the
beginning of May 1999, as it became clear that NATO
aggression was directed more and more against civilians and civilian
targets, and also in other respects was completely
disproportional. The third summary proceedings were at the The Hague
court, the fourth summary proceedings were at
the Amsterdam court.
Also in these two latest summary proceedings, different groups of
Yugoslav persons were plaintiffs. The demand at the
The Hague court was directed against the State of The Netherlands, and
at the Amsterdam court against the Dutch
government ministers Kok, Van Aartsen, and De Grave personally. In the
last case, this was because of the Nuremburg
trial 1945 rules, saying that everyone involved in war crimes is also
personally responsible and individually liable, also
if they are government functionaries. In these two latest court cases,
the demand was that the defendants - the State of the
Netherlands, and the three ministers personally- would do everything in
their power to get The Netherlands out of this
dirty war.
What happened at these court cases
In all cases, the demand was refused. However, also in all these cases,
the plaintiffs appealed to higher courts in The
Hague and Amsterdam. This happened when the bombings had already
stopped.
Of course, in all these cases the demands had to be adapted, as, of
course, now it could no longer be demanded that the
court would force the State of The Netherlands, or the Dutch ministers,
to end the Dutch participation in the war. That war
had already stopped.
So, the new demand on appeal became that the court would oblige the
State of The Netherlands, or the Dutch ministers,
not to start again a war against Yugoslavia without explicit permission
from the Security Council of the United Nations.
And also, that the court would rule post facto that the war had been
against international law, and as a consequence had
hurt the interests of the Yugoslav plaintiffs.
The PC arranged that the appeal of the fourth summary proceedings would
come first: at the Amsterdam court, with a
more ‘liberal’ reputation than the court in the [Government city] The
Hague; where the appeals in the three other lawsuits
will have to be.
The decision by the Amsterdam court
So, the Amsterdam court made a decision in the case Dedovic and others
vs. Kok, Van Aartsen, and De Grave, on 6
July 2000. The court did not take it easy. In a 26 pages long decision
the Amsterdam court discusses the case extensively.
Such an extensive decision is really unique for summary proceedings.
In itself, this is important and a striking gain: so, judges in The
Netherlands state that they have the right to judge on the
participation of the Dutch state in the NATO bombings. And even on the
personal roles in this of the Dutch ministers.
And that they can call them to account for this.
The Dutch state and the ministers in all lawsuits had stated as their
first line of defence that Dutch judges should keep
out of all those issues. These were ‘political affairs.’ However, this
defence was rejected in all the court cases so far;
including now, again, at the Amsterdam court.
The issues at stake in the case Dedovic versus Kok
In this case, basically four issues were at stake. The three most
important ones were:
1. The demand by the Yugoslav plaintiffs that the court should order Kok
c.s. to do everything possible to not get The
Netherlands involved again in a possible new NATO aggression against
Yugoslavia, without explicit permission from the
Security Council of the United Nations.
2. The question whether the war, in which The Netherlands participated
within the NATO alliance, and which was waged
without explicit permission from the Security Council of the United
Nations, was, or was not, against international law.
3. The question whether, once that war had started in March 1999, war
crimes were committed during it or not, like
attacks on civilian targets and the use of disproportional violence.
The fourth issue was the question whether the Dutch ministers, might, or
might not, be held personally responsible for war
crimes.
In the extensive decision, the Amsterdam court dealt at length with all
those issues.
The court decision on two of these issues
On the fourth issue, the court concluded that the Dutch ministers could
not be held personally responsible for this war.
According to the court, the 29 Yugoslav plaintiffs should sue the Dutch
state, not the ministers personally. So, the court
here rejected the personal liability of the Dutch ministers.
It was different with the three other issues.
On the first issue - so, asking that the court should forbid that The
Netherlands would ever again participate in a possible
new NATO aggression against Yugoslavia, without explicit permission from
the Security Council of the United Nations,
the court found that no decision on this might be made now. Because
right now, new aggression is not yet already a really
concrete threat. If there would come an acute threat of new NATO
accession, then first the state should have the chance
to make a decision on this. Only then the judges can decide, according
to the court.
So, the court does not reject the demand definitively. The court
basically says: on this point, the plaintiffs are too early with
their demand. Just let them come back with their demand if there will be
real decision making by the Dutch state about
new aggression against Yugoslavia.
The court decision on the issues 2 and 3
In the two other issues -so, the question whether waging war against
Yugoslavia without explicit permission from the
Security Council was, or was not, against international law, and the
question whether, once that war had started, war
crimes were committed during it or not, like attacks on civilian targets
and the use of disproportional violence- the decision
by the lower level courts had always been, in all four court cases, that
in no way the law had been violated in this. And
that, of course, The Netherlands and NATO had been fully justified in
their attacks on Yugoslavia.
However, the higher level court turns out to think very differently on
this. In both questions, that court decides that it is
unable to decide either for or against.
So, the court indicates that possibly, the Yugoslav plaintiffs are right
here. And that this war was against international law,
and that war crimes were as well committed during this war. Another
possibility is that NATO and The Netherlands are
right, that this war was allowed, and that no war crimes were committed.
The court continues to say: in order to decide who is right here, the
Yugoslav plaintiffs or the Dutch state and the ministers,
really much more research is needed. However, for that, such concise
circumstances like summary proceedings are not
really fitting.
Because the court does not know for whom it should decide on those most
important points of the court case, for the
Yugoslav plaintiffs or for the Dutch ministers, finally still all
demands are not upheld. Because if the court cannot
decide who is right, then the plaintiff loses; as usually in court
cases.
Differently from when lower level courts decided on this case, this
higher level court on the two most crucial points at
stake during this court case, no longer takes the side of the Dutch
state and NATO.
Here, the court says: I do not know. Both sides have a point. More
research is needed in other, more extensive legal
proceedings.
Further perspectives
The Dutch state and the Dutch ministers will certainly not be happy with
this! It is a big blow for them. Because it shows
that the support in the courts for their criminal war policy is clearly
crumbling.
Concerning the issue that the court thinks that new, more extensive
proceedings are needed to come to conclusions on
the core questions, we can bring important news.
In this, the court will get what it asked for.
Shortly, the PC will start with lawsuits, for compensation for the
victims of the bombing of the RTS broadcasting studio in
Belgrade. Now, with the backing of the higher level court in Amsterdam,
that the war was possibly against international
law, and that during this war, possibly war crimes were committed!
However, there will also be an appeal in the case Dedovic versus Kok, to
the highest Dutch court, the Hoge Raad
[‘Supreme Court’]. There will also be appeals in the three other cases
which are still going on.
Historical duty
Really, in every NATO country the fight should be waged at national
level courts on the question whether war may be
waged just like that against small countries like Yugoslavia. While we
have international laws, explicitly prohibiting this.
We know that after the Second World War, all nations and peoples have
committed themselves in the United Nations
charter to outlaw ‘the scourge of war’.
The PC in The Netherlands makes a start. For the first time since the
Nuremburg and Tokyo trials against the
German and Japanese war criminals, government leaders have to take
responsibility at a court of law for
possible war crimes and crimes against peace.
It is an historical mission of lawyers and all supporters of the rule of
law, to also in the other NATO countries make the
government leaders take responsibility at their national courts of law.
This is possible at lawsuits for indemnities for the
victims of the bombings of Yugoslavia.
The PC asks urgently, to make the front against the NATO leaders
broader, as soon as possible!
The PC
---
Subject: Nato-Verbrecher müssen vor ordentliche Gerichte
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2000 18:07:50 +0200
From: Jug Öster Solibeweg <joesb@...>
Die JÖSB unterstützt folgende Resolution, denn wenn die westlichen
Länder
für sich in Anspruch nehmen rechtsstaatlich zu sein, dann muss die NATO
zumindest vor Gericht gestellt (und zweifellos auch verurteilt) werden.
Dass
es sich weder um rechtsstaatliche noch demokratische Länder, sondern um
die
Diktatur der Neuen Weltordnung handelt, beweist die Farce des Haager
Tribunals, das eine Anklage gegen die NATO trotz erdrückender Beweise
für
den Bruch der elementarsten Normen des Völkerrechts rundweg abgelehnt
hat.
**********
Resolution:
Die nachfolgenden Organisationen und Einzelpersonen fordern auf
Grundlage
der Ergebnisse der Tribunale [siehe weiter unten]:
* Unverzüglich Strafverfahren gegen die in der Anklageschrift genannten
Angeklagten vor ordentlichen Gerichten einzuleiten
* Beobachter aus unabhängigen Staaten zu diesen Verfahren zuzulassen, da
die
Befangenheit der nationalen Gerichte zu befürchten ist
* Die Angeklagten für die Dauer der Verfahren unverzüglich aus ihren
Ämtern
zu entfernen
Wir schließen uns auch den sich aus den Urteilen ergebenden politischen
Forderungen der Tribunale an:
* Sofortige Beendigung aller Embargos, Sanktionen und sonstiger
Strafmaßnahmen gegen Jugoslawien
* Rückzug aller NATO-Truppen aus der Balkanregion und die Beendigung
aller
Operationen gegen Jugoslawien
* Vollständige Reparationen für Tod, Verletzung, wirtschaftliche und
ökologische Zerstörungen durch Krieg und Sanktionen
Falls es vorerst keine strafrechtlichen Konsequenzen für die
Verantwortlichen des NATO-Krieges geben sollte, so geben wir hiermit
unserer
Hoffnung Ausdruck, daß die Verbrecher dieses Krieges ihr Leben mit der
wachsenden Sorge verbringen mögen, daß man sie eines Tages wie Augusto
Pinochet doch noch für ihre Verbrechen auf die Anklagebank bringen
wird. In
diesem Fall wird es historisches Beweismaterial geben, das dafür
garantieren
wird, daß der Gerechtigkeit Genüge getan wird.
Erstunterzeichner:
Heidelberger Forum gegen Militarismus und Krieg · VVN/Bund der
AntifaschistInnen HD · DGB·Rhein-Neckar-Heidelberg · AKAS (Arbeitskreis
antiimperialistische Solidarität) · Friedensladen HD · Prof. Dr. Dieter
Fehrenz, Heidelberg · Dr. theol. Hannelis Schulte, PDS, Stadträtin
Heidelberg · DKP Heidelberg · Freidenker Heidelberg · Eckart Spoo,
Journalist, IG Medien, Berlin · Prof. Dr. Ulrich Duchrow, Heidelberg ·
CONTRASTE - Monatszeitung für Selbstorganisation · „Freiheit f. Mumia
Jamal
HD“ · H. Rick, Gesundheitspartei · Cuba Solidarität Heidelberg e.V. ·
DFG/VK Heidelberg · A. de Jager, DGB HD · Janine Hebert ÖTV HD · Günter
Zink ÖTV HD · Sabine Ritzberger SPD HD · Angelo Taurino ÖTV HD
sowie 45 weitere Einzelpersonen aus HD
********
Es sei uns, der JÖSB, noch eine Anmerkung gestattet: Wir würden
bevorzugen
den Fall Pinochet nicht als Vorbild zu verwenden. Denn mit dieser
Anklage
und dem Prozess wollen sich jene reinwaschen, die in 100%er Kontinuität
mit
den Pinochet-Verbrechern stehen, allen voran die USA und die EU. Wohin
es
führt, wenn sich diese als Hüter der Menschenrechte aufspielen haben wir
an
den humanitären Bomben im Jugoslawienkrieg gesehen. Wir dürfen die
Herstellung einer weiteren Geschichtslüge nicht zulassen, laut der der
Imperialismus weder für den Faschismus noch für die Diktatur in Chile
verantwortlich wäre. Die Herrschenden haben angesichts ihrer Verbrechen
allen Grund ihre eigene Geschichte zu verleugnen.
Die Wahrheit ist eine Waffe im Kampf gegen das westliche Monster und
kann
nur von Volksgerichten angewandt werden, nicht von käuflichen Gerichten
wie
jenem in Den Haag und in Santiago de Chile.
********
INTERNATIONALE TRIBUNALE ÜBER DEN NATO-KRIEG GEGEN JUGOSLAWIEN
Führer der NATO-Staaten wegen Kriegsverbrechen schuldig gesprochen!
Unabhängige Tribunale
Bisher haben sich die nationalen Gerichte der NATO-Staaten geweigert,
strafrechtlichen Ermittlungen gegen die Verantwortlichen des Krieges
gegen
Jugoslawien aufzunehmen. Auch das von den westlichen Staaten getragene,
sehr
parteiische Jugoslawientribunal in Den Haag hat trotz der Vorlage von
erdrückendem Beweismaterial durch namhafte internationale JuristInnen
sich
bisher geweigert, ein Verfahren einzuleiten.
Aus 16 Ländern (u.a. USA, Kanada, Deutschland, Italien, Griechenland,
Rußland und Österreich) haben sich daher JuristInnen,
WissenschaftlerInnen,
Parlamentsausschüsse und NGOs zusammengetan, um in der Tradition der
Russel-Tribunale gegen den Vietnamkrieg, in eigener Regie internationale
Tribunale über den NATO-Krieg abzuhalten. Eine große Zahl namhafter
Persönlichkeiten haben sich an der Durchführung beteiligt. Neben dem
ehemaligen Justizminister der USA, Ramsey Clark, der frühere kanadische
Außenminister James Bisset, der ehem. Botschafter in Jugoslawien Ralph
Hartmann, der Hamburger Völkerrechtler Prof. Norman Paech, der
Umweltforscher Prof. Knut Krusewitz, der frühere Admiral E. Schmähling,
und
viele andere.
Angeklagte
Angeklagt sind die Regierungschefs, Außenminister und
Verteidigungsminister
der beteiligten NATO-Staaten, die verantwortlichen Funktionsträger der
NATO
und des Militärs dieser Länder, sowie die Parlamentarier die dem Krieg
zustimmten, obwohl er offensichtlich gegen Völkerrecht, nationale
Verfassungen und internationale Verträge verstieß.
Die Anklage erstreckte sich auf Verbrechen gegen den Frieden,
Kriegsverbrechen, Verbrechen gegen die Menschheit und anderer
Verletzungen
der Prinzipien des Nürnberger Tribunals, der Haager Abkommen, der Genfer
Abkommen, der Charta der Vereinten Nationen und anderer Normen des
Völkerrechts und nationaler Gesetze.
* der Vorbereitung und Durchführung eines Angriffskrieges, bei dem
mindestens 500, wahrscheinlich mehr als 2.000 unbeteiligte Menschen
getötet
wurden, mehr als ein Drittel davon Kinder.
* der massiven Irreführung der Öffentlichkeit und der Parlamente
sowie folgender Kriegsverbrechen:
* Bombardierung überwiegend ziviler Ziele und Zerstörung der
Lebensgrundlagen des ganzen Landes
* Schwere Schädigung von Menschen und Umwelt durch die Bombardierung von
Anlagen und Fabriken bei denen vorhersehbar umweltschädliche (z.T.
hochgiftige) Chemikalien freigesetzt wurden.
* Einsatz geächteter Waffen, wie Uranmunition, die das Einsatzgebiet auf
lange Zeit radioaktiv verseucht haben oder sogenannte Clusterbomben,
deren
nicht explodierte Submunition ganze Landstriche vermint hat.
Weitere Anklagen
Auch Amnesty International (AI) wirft der NATO Kriegsverbrechen bei den
Luftangriffen auf Jugoslawien 1999 vor. Durch die Tötung von
Zivilpersonen
habe die NATO das humanitäre Völkerrecht verletzt, erklärte die
Menschenrechtsorganisation am 6. Juni in Bonn und fordert die
verdächtigen
NATO-Kriegsverbrecher vor Gericht zu stellen. Ganz klar sei die
Bombardierung der Zentrale des serbischen Staatsrundfunks im April
vergangenen Jahres ein bewußter Angriff auf ein ziviles Objekt und damit
ein
Kriegsverbrechen gewesen Ebenso wie die Angriffe auf Brücken, die nicht
gestoppt wurden, obwohl bemerkt wurde, daß sie Zivilisten treffen.
****
Jugoslawisch-Österreichische Solidaritätsbewegung (JÖSB)
PF 217, A-1040 Wien, Österreich
Tel/Fax +43 1 924 31 61
joesb@...
www.vorstadtzentrum.net/joesb
Kto-Nr. 9282, RB Schwechat, BLZ 32823
--------- COORDINAMENTO ROMANO PER LA JUGOSLAVIA -----------
RIMSKI SAVEZ ZA JUGOSLAVIJU
e-mail: crj@... - URL: http://marx2001.org/crj
http://www.egroups.com/group/crj-mailinglist/
------------------------------------------------------------