Da: "icdsm-italia\@libero\.it"
Data: Lun 5 dic 2005 11:41:44 Europe/Rome
A: "icdsm-italia" <icdsm-italia @ yahoogroups.com>
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] Russian Law Experts on 'Fairness' of Milosevic
Trial
[Un importante documento, redatto da giuristi russi, in merito alle
irregolarità nel "processo" a Milosevic, presentato dallo stesso
Milosevic nell'aula dell'Aia lo scorso 29 novembre]
---------- Initial Header -----------
From : "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Date : Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:03:05 +0100
Subject : Russian Law Experts on 'Fairness' of Milosevic Trial
On 29 November 2005, during the 'debate on his health and severance of
the indictments' before the ICTY, President Milosevic gave a powerful
lesson of law and politics to his inquisitors. The 'judges' made no
decision yet, waiting for further medical reports, in spite it was
lauded in the debate that all medical experts, including the ones
appointed by the ICTY, agree that a period of rest for President
Milosevic is absolutely needed. Instead, the proceedings continued.
During the yesterday's debate, President Milosevic presented the
written conclusions of a group of renown Russian International Law
experts on 'fairness' of the Hague proceedings. Below we offer for the
first time to the public the English translation of that important
document.
D E C L A R A T I O N
of the Group of members of the Russian Association of International
Law for Monitoring the Process Prosecutor v. S. Milosevic in the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
Group of members of the Russian Association of International Law for
Monitoring the Process Prosecutor v. S. Milosevic in the International
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is expressing its concern over the
violation of the fundamental right of the accused - the right to fair
trial.
The right to a fair trial was set out in a series of international
legal acts (Art. 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
1948; Art. 14 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political
Rights, 1966; Art. 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950; Art. 75.4 of the
Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention on the Protection of
the Victims of War, 1977and other), and in the Statute of the very
Tribunal (Art. 21.2). Hence, the assurance of that right is obligatory
in any process ongoing in ICTY.
The international legal term of "fairness" of court proceedings
includes a number of elements, primarily the right of the defendant:
to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his
defense; to defend himself in person; to be tried in his presence; to
examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the
attendance and examination of
witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against
him.
1. Right of the accused to "to have adequate time for the
preparation of his defense".
Since the signature of the first indictment against S. Milosevic till
the beginning of the Prosecution Case two years and eight months have
passed. All that time was used up for the preparation of the
Prosecution Case. The preparation of the Prosecution Case went on even
for eight months after detention of the accused in prison.
Three months were allowed to S. Milosevic for the preparation of
defense.[1] After certain prolongation of that period due to the
illness of the defendant, the whole time for the preparation of
defense came to six months. However, a considerable part of the
prolongation could not be used for the preparation of defense because
the Secretariat of the Tribunal kept denying to S. Milosevic to meet
with his witnesses on the grounds of his ill health.
It is absolutely clear that the period of time for the preparation of
defense in the most complex international criminal case, which
contains 66 counts and several thousand of episodes is inadequate,
moreover in prison conditions. In compliance with the principles of
equality of the parties in the process, the defendant must get at
least the same time for the preparation of his defense as the
prosecution had for the preparation of its Case - from the moment of
signature of the Indictment till the onset of the trial. In compliance
with the principle of granting the defendant an adequate time for the
preparation of his defense, and taking into
consideration the extraordinary complexity of the case, S. Milosevic
must be given an adequate time span, because less than six months
allowed can't be considered adequate.
The appeal by the defendant to have more time was rejected by the
Appeals Chamber too, stating "by choosing to conduct his own defence,
the Accused deprived himself of resources a well-equipped legal
defence team could have provide" and that he "must be reciprocated by
the acceptance of responsibility for the disadvantages this choice may
bring"[2]. In support to this "conclusion" the Appeals Chamber invoked
four decisions of the
national courts, but forgot to refer to the valid norms of the
international law. So the highest chamber of the Tribunal, which is
obliged to protect the violated rights of the defendant, confirmed
illegal decision of the Trial Chamber, by having punished the
defendant for choosing to defend himself in person, without quoting
legally convincing arguments. The right to an
adequate time for the preparation of defense belongs to the defendant
not to the lawyers! Besides, that right is on the list of rights
without limitations.[3]
Hence, the Group founds the violation by ICTY of the right of the
defendant to be accorded adequate time to prepare his defence.
2. The right of the accused to "defend himself in person".
The right of the accused to his own defense in person is under no
limitation, likewise and hence a forceful imposition of counsel
constitutes a breach of the norms of the international law. No
argumentation of the court, the least the temporary illness of the
defendant, may serve as the grounds for depriving him of that right.
The forced imposition of counsel for the accused provoked serious
concerns that it has been concocted to conduct the defense of S.
Milosevic in his absence, if his health gets worse.
Hence, the Group finds that ICTY violates the right of the accused to
defend himself in person.
3. The right of the defendant "to be tried in his presence".
This right is subject to no limitation, either. The invocation of both
chambers of the Tribunal to time efficiency is unacceptable in terms
of international legal norms, because any interpretation of a norm is
possible only in the case of its vagueness. In the case of the minimum
rights of the accused, and which were worded quite clearly, such an
interpretation is contrary to the general principle of law: in claris
non fit interpretario.
General principles of law are binding on all the courts and
consequently on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia.
Further to that, the so called "case" of the defense witness K.
Bulatovic, who refused to testify in the absence of the accused, could
not have possibly be taken as the contempt of the court. The witness
K. Bulatovic tried to speak up for the right of the defendant to be
tried in his presence, and was completely groundlessly sentenced to 4
months of imprisonment. The witness K. Bulatovic didn't "refuse to
reply to the questions" in general, rather refused to reply to the
questions in the absence of the defendant. The session of the court on
19th April 2005, when the trial chamber grossly violated one of the
fundamental elements of the right to a fair trial, was illegal, and
the witness K. Bulatovic was not obliged to reply to questions during
such a session.
Hence, the Group finds that ICTY violates the rights of the defendant
to be tried in his presence.
Besides, the action of the Trial Chamber v. defense witness raises
doubts about impartiality of the court. The contempt of the court is
not defined by personal feeling of the Judges, but the norms of the
international law.
Punishment of the witness, who had acted in compliance with the
international law, was absolutely contrary to law. The doubt of the
impartiality of the court has been caused by the fact that a series of
the prosecution witnesses, particularly the witness A. Zekiri and the
witness K-12, who indeed rejected to testify before the court, were
not sentenced to prison terms and one of them was not even declared
guilty for contempt of the court.[4]
4. The right of the accused to "to examine, or have examined, the
witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of
witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against
him".
The Prosecution received 300 days from the Trial Chamber for the
presentation of its case, while S. Milosevic only 150 days for the
presentation of his defense.
Regrettably, the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council
were mislead by the ICTY report which claimed that "the Trial Chamber
has ordered that the accused have the same amount of time to present
his defence case as the prosecution had to present its case"[5].. That
allegation aimed at persuading the United Nations General Assembly and
the Security Council that in the Defense Case of the process that is
ongoing, the basic elements of the right to a fair trial had been
assured, which is far from the truth.
The defendant S. Milosevic was accorded twice less time than the
Prosecution. The argumentation of the court intended for the
international public that 150 days are equal to 300 days is not only
unconvincing but illegal. The allegation that S. Milosevic during the
Prosecution Case used more time that the Prosecution is no basis for
cutting the time for his defense, because S. Milosevic "spent" the
time not on his witnesses, but on the witnesses of the Prosecution.
That manipulation must attract special attention of the international
community in general and of United Nations General Assembly and
Security Council in particular, since that fact also makes the
impartiality of the court doubtful.
Moreover, it was planned to separate in the nearest future the Kosovo
part of the trial from the rest of the indictments in the course of
ongoing defense, which also constitutes the violation of the right of
the defendant to a far trial. The Prosecution invited witnesses on
more than one occasion made depositions simultaneously on the Kosovo
and all other Indictments.
Separation of the trial at the time of ongoing defense, under whatever
grounds, will violate the right of the indicted to a fair trial and
bring the defense witnesses in inequitable position compared to the
prosecution witnesses.
Hence, the Group finds the violation by ICTY of the principle of
equality of the parties and breach of the presumption of innocence.
The Russian Association of International Law adopted on 30 June 2005
the Declaration in which it unanimously qualified the decision of the
Trial Chamber to accord to S. Milosevic twice less time than the
Prosecution had as a gross violation of the international law.[6]
Hence, the Group qualifies the course of the process against Slobodan
Milosevic as NOT in accord to the requirement of assurance of the
right of the accused to a fair trial and draws the attention of the
United Nations General Assembly and Security Council to that fact, and
the whole international public opinion alike. The Group demands the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to assure
the right of the accused to a fair trial.
The members of the Group of Russian Association of international law
for monitoring the process Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic in the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia:
1. J.M. Kolosov, Doctor of International Law,
Professor at the Department of International Law of the Moscow State
Institute for International Relations of the Russian Ministry for
Foreign Affairs, member of Executive Committee of the Russian
Association for International Law, member of UN Committee for
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Editor-in-Chief of the "Moscow
Journal of International Law";
2. S.V. Chernichenko, Doctor of International law,
Professor, Head of the International Law Center of the Diplomatic
Academy of the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Vice-president of
the Russian Association for International Law;
3. G.V. Ignatenko, Doctor of International Law,
Professor, Vice-president of the Russian Association of International
Law, Editor-in-Chief of the "Russian Law Journal", former Head of the
Department of International law of Ural State Law Academy;
4. G.I. Kurdukov, Doctor of International Law,
professor, Head of the Department of Constitutional and International
Law of the Kazan State University, Vice-President of the Russian
Association of International Law;
5. L.N. Galenskaya, Doctor of International Law,
Professor at the Department of International Law St.Petersburg State
University, member of the Executive Committee of the Russian
Association of International Law, Editor-in-Chief of the "Russian
Yearbook of International Law";
6. A.J. Kapustin, Doctor of International Law,
Professor, Head of the Department of International Law of the Russian
University of Friendship of Nations, Dean of the Law Faculty of RUDN,
Member of the Executive Committee of the Russian Association of
International Law;
7. E.S. Krivchikova, Doctor of International Law,
Professor at the Department of International Law of the Moscow State
Institute of International Relations of the Russian Ministry for
Foreign Affairs;
8. L.H. Mingazov, Doctor of International Law,
Professor, Head of Department for Human Rights of UNESCO of the Kazan
State University;
9. R.M. Valeev, Doctor of International Law,
Professor at the Department of Constitutional and International Law of
the Kazan State University, Vice-president of the Russian Association
of International Nuclear Law, former Judge of the Supreme Court of the
Republic of Tatarstan;
10. P.N. Birukov, Doctor of International Law,
Professor, Head of Department of International Law of Voronez State
University;
11. S.J. Marochkin, Doctor of International Law,
Professor, member of the Executive Committee of the Russian
Association of International Law, Head of Department of the
International Law of the Tumen State University;
12. N.I. Kostenko, Doctor of International Law,
Professor, the leading science associate of the Center for the
international law studies of the Institute of State and Law of the
Russian Academy of Science;
13. A.B. Mezyaev, Doctor of International Law,
docent, Deputy Head of the Department of Constitutional and
International law of the faculty of Law of the Academy of management,
member of Expert Council of the Ombudsman of the Republic of
Tatarstan, Executive Secretary of the Group of members of Russian
Association of International Law for monitoring the process against S.
Milosevic in ICTY.
25 November 2005
Notes:
[1] [Trial Chamber] Order Concerning the Preparation and Presentation
of the Defence Case of September 17, 2003.]
[2] [Appeals Chamber] Decision on the Interlocutory Appeal by the
Amici Curiae against the Trial Chamber Order Concerning the
Presentation and Preparation of the Defence Case of January 20, 2004,
para 19
[3] Article 14.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights states: "In the determination of any criminal charge against
him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees"
[4] Transcript of the court session of 22 February 2002 and of 3 and 4
June 2002.
[5] UN Document: A/60/267 - S/2005/532 (12 Report of ICTY to General
Assembly and Security Council) of 17 August 2005, para. 85.]
[6] Published in the magazine: "Moscow Journal of International Law"
2005, No. 4.
******************************************************
URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL
******************************
President Milosevic has the truth and law on his side. In order to use
that advantage to achieve his freedom, we must fight this totally
discredited tribunal and its patrons through professionally conducted
actions.
The funds secured in Serbia are still enough only to cover the
expenses of the stay and work of President Milosevic's legal
associates at The Hague (one at the time).
***********************************************************
3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.
Please send your donations to one of the following accounts:
Jugoslawisch-Österreichische
Solidaritäts-Bewegung. (JÖSB)
Bank Austria
IBAN AT49 1200 0503 8030 5200
BIC BKAUATWW
or
Committee Intersol
Bank: 'Postbank', Amsterdam, Netherlands
Accountnumber 4766774
IBAN NL07 PSTB 0004766774
BIC PSTBNL21
***************************************************************
For truth and human rights against aggression!
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!
Freedom and equality for people!
On behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM,
Vladimir Krsljanin,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic
*************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.free-slobo-uk.org/ (CDSM UK)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
==========================
IN DIFESA DELLA JUGOSLAVIA
Il j'accuse di Slobodan Milosevic
di fronte al "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia"
(Ed. Zambon 2005, 10 euro)
Tutte le informazioni sul libro, appena uscito,
alla pagina:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27 -- 00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957 -- email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.html
*** Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006, intestato ad
Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA, causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
Data: Lun 5 dic 2005 11:41:44 Europe/Rome
A: "icdsm-italia" <icdsm-italia @ yahoogroups.com>
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] Russian Law Experts on 'Fairness' of Milosevic
Trial
[Un importante documento, redatto da giuristi russi, in merito alle
irregolarità nel "processo" a Milosevic, presentato dallo stesso
Milosevic nell'aula dell'Aia lo scorso 29 novembre]
---------- Initial Header -----------
From : "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Date : Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:03:05 +0100
Subject : Russian Law Experts on 'Fairness' of Milosevic Trial
On 29 November 2005, during the 'debate on his health and severance of
the indictments' before the ICTY, President Milosevic gave a powerful
lesson of law and politics to his inquisitors. The 'judges' made no
decision yet, waiting for further medical reports, in spite it was
lauded in the debate that all medical experts, including the ones
appointed by the ICTY, agree that a period of rest for President
Milosevic is absolutely needed. Instead, the proceedings continued.
During the yesterday's debate, President Milosevic presented the
written conclusions of a group of renown Russian International Law
experts on 'fairness' of the Hague proceedings. Below we offer for the
first time to the public the English translation of that important
document.
D E C L A R A T I O N
of the Group of members of the Russian Association of International
Law for Monitoring the Process Prosecutor v. S. Milosevic in the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
Group of members of the Russian Association of International Law for
Monitoring the Process Prosecutor v. S. Milosevic in the International
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is expressing its concern over the
violation of the fundamental right of the accused - the right to fair
trial.
The right to a fair trial was set out in a series of international
legal acts (Art. 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
1948; Art. 14 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political
Rights, 1966; Art. 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950; Art. 75.4 of the
Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention on the Protection of
the Victims of War, 1977and other), and in the Statute of the very
Tribunal (Art. 21.2). Hence, the assurance of that right is obligatory
in any process ongoing in ICTY.
The international legal term of "fairness" of court proceedings
includes a number of elements, primarily the right of the defendant:
to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his
defense; to defend himself in person; to be tried in his presence; to
examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the
attendance and examination of
witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against
him.
1. Right of the accused to "to have adequate time for the
preparation of his defense".
Since the signature of the first indictment against S. Milosevic till
the beginning of the Prosecution Case two years and eight months have
passed. All that time was used up for the preparation of the
Prosecution Case. The preparation of the Prosecution Case went on even
for eight months after detention of the accused in prison.
Three months were allowed to S. Milosevic for the preparation of
defense.[1] After certain prolongation of that period due to the
illness of the defendant, the whole time for the preparation of
defense came to six months. However, a considerable part of the
prolongation could not be used for the preparation of defense because
the Secretariat of the Tribunal kept denying to S. Milosevic to meet
with his witnesses on the grounds of his ill health.
It is absolutely clear that the period of time for the preparation of
defense in the most complex international criminal case, which
contains 66 counts and several thousand of episodes is inadequate,
moreover in prison conditions. In compliance with the principles of
equality of the parties in the process, the defendant must get at
least the same time for the preparation of his defense as the
prosecution had for the preparation of its Case - from the moment of
signature of the Indictment till the onset of the trial. In compliance
with the principle of granting the defendant an adequate time for the
preparation of his defense, and taking into
consideration the extraordinary complexity of the case, S. Milosevic
must be given an adequate time span, because less than six months
allowed can't be considered adequate.
The appeal by the defendant to have more time was rejected by the
Appeals Chamber too, stating "by choosing to conduct his own defence,
the Accused deprived himself of resources a well-equipped legal
defence team could have provide" and that he "must be reciprocated by
the acceptance of responsibility for the disadvantages this choice may
bring"[2]. In support to this "conclusion" the Appeals Chamber invoked
four decisions of the
national courts, but forgot to refer to the valid norms of the
international law. So the highest chamber of the Tribunal, which is
obliged to protect the violated rights of the defendant, confirmed
illegal decision of the Trial Chamber, by having punished the
defendant for choosing to defend himself in person, without quoting
legally convincing arguments. The right to an
adequate time for the preparation of defense belongs to the defendant
not to the lawyers! Besides, that right is on the list of rights
without limitations.[3]
Hence, the Group founds the violation by ICTY of the right of the
defendant to be accorded adequate time to prepare his defence.
2. The right of the accused to "defend himself in person".
The right of the accused to his own defense in person is under no
limitation, likewise and hence a forceful imposition of counsel
constitutes a breach of the norms of the international law. No
argumentation of the court, the least the temporary illness of the
defendant, may serve as the grounds for depriving him of that right.
The forced imposition of counsel for the accused provoked serious
concerns that it has been concocted to conduct the defense of S.
Milosevic in his absence, if his health gets worse.
Hence, the Group finds that ICTY violates the right of the accused to
defend himself in person.
3. The right of the defendant "to be tried in his presence".
This right is subject to no limitation, either. The invocation of both
chambers of the Tribunal to time efficiency is unacceptable in terms
of international legal norms, because any interpretation of a norm is
possible only in the case of its vagueness. In the case of the minimum
rights of the accused, and which were worded quite clearly, such an
interpretation is contrary to the general principle of law: in claris
non fit interpretario.
General principles of law are binding on all the courts and
consequently on the International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia.
Further to that, the so called "case" of the defense witness K.
Bulatovic, who refused to testify in the absence of the accused, could
not have possibly be taken as the contempt of the court. The witness
K. Bulatovic tried to speak up for the right of the defendant to be
tried in his presence, and was completely groundlessly sentenced to 4
months of imprisonment. The witness K. Bulatovic didn't "refuse to
reply to the questions" in general, rather refused to reply to the
questions in the absence of the defendant. The session of the court on
19th April 2005, when the trial chamber grossly violated one of the
fundamental elements of the right to a fair trial, was illegal, and
the witness K. Bulatovic was not obliged to reply to questions during
such a session.
Hence, the Group finds that ICTY violates the rights of the defendant
to be tried in his presence.
Besides, the action of the Trial Chamber v. defense witness raises
doubts about impartiality of the court. The contempt of the court is
not defined by personal feeling of the Judges, but the norms of the
international law.
Punishment of the witness, who had acted in compliance with the
international law, was absolutely contrary to law. The doubt of the
impartiality of the court has been caused by the fact that a series of
the prosecution witnesses, particularly the witness A. Zekiri and the
witness K-12, who indeed rejected to testify before the court, were
not sentenced to prison terms and one of them was not even declared
guilty for contempt of the court.[4]
4. The right of the accused to "to examine, or have examined, the
witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of
witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against
him".
The Prosecution received 300 days from the Trial Chamber for the
presentation of its case, while S. Milosevic only 150 days for the
presentation of his defense.
Regrettably, the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council
were mislead by the ICTY report which claimed that "the Trial Chamber
has ordered that the accused have the same amount of time to present
his defence case as the prosecution had to present its case"[5].. That
allegation aimed at persuading the United Nations General Assembly and
the Security Council that in the Defense Case of the process that is
ongoing, the basic elements of the right to a fair trial had been
assured, which is far from the truth.
The defendant S. Milosevic was accorded twice less time than the
Prosecution. The argumentation of the court intended for the
international public that 150 days are equal to 300 days is not only
unconvincing but illegal. The allegation that S. Milosevic during the
Prosecution Case used more time that the Prosecution is no basis for
cutting the time for his defense, because S. Milosevic "spent" the
time not on his witnesses, but on the witnesses of the Prosecution.
That manipulation must attract special attention of the international
community in general and of United Nations General Assembly and
Security Council in particular, since that fact also makes the
impartiality of the court doubtful.
Moreover, it was planned to separate in the nearest future the Kosovo
part of the trial from the rest of the indictments in the course of
ongoing defense, which also constitutes the violation of the right of
the defendant to a far trial. The Prosecution invited witnesses on
more than one occasion made depositions simultaneously on the Kosovo
and all other Indictments.
Separation of the trial at the time of ongoing defense, under whatever
grounds, will violate the right of the indicted to a fair trial and
bring the defense witnesses in inequitable position compared to the
prosecution witnesses.
Hence, the Group finds the violation by ICTY of the principle of
equality of the parties and breach of the presumption of innocence.
The Russian Association of International Law adopted on 30 June 2005
the Declaration in which it unanimously qualified the decision of the
Trial Chamber to accord to S. Milosevic twice less time than the
Prosecution had as a gross violation of the international law.[6]
Hence, the Group qualifies the course of the process against Slobodan
Milosevic as NOT in accord to the requirement of assurance of the
right of the accused to a fair trial and draws the attention of the
United Nations General Assembly and Security Council to that fact, and
the whole international public opinion alike. The Group demands the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to assure
the right of the accused to a fair trial.
The members of the Group of Russian Association of international law
for monitoring the process Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic in the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia:
1. J.M. Kolosov, Doctor of International Law,
Professor at the Department of International Law of the Moscow State
Institute for International Relations of the Russian Ministry for
Foreign Affairs, member of Executive Committee of the Russian
Association for International Law, member of UN Committee for
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Editor-in-Chief of the "Moscow
Journal of International Law";
2. S.V. Chernichenko, Doctor of International law,
Professor, Head of the International Law Center of the Diplomatic
Academy of the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Vice-president of
the Russian Association for International Law;
3. G.V. Ignatenko, Doctor of International Law,
Professor, Vice-president of the Russian Association of International
Law, Editor-in-Chief of the "Russian Law Journal", former Head of the
Department of International law of Ural State Law Academy;
4. G.I. Kurdukov, Doctor of International Law,
professor, Head of the Department of Constitutional and International
Law of the Kazan State University, Vice-President of the Russian
Association of International Law;
5. L.N. Galenskaya, Doctor of International Law,
Professor at the Department of International Law St.Petersburg State
University, member of the Executive Committee of the Russian
Association of International Law, Editor-in-Chief of the "Russian
Yearbook of International Law";
6. A.J. Kapustin, Doctor of International Law,
Professor, Head of the Department of International Law of the Russian
University of Friendship of Nations, Dean of the Law Faculty of RUDN,
Member of the Executive Committee of the Russian Association of
International Law;
7. E.S. Krivchikova, Doctor of International Law,
Professor at the Department of International Law of the Moscow State
Institute of International Relations of the Russian Ministry for
Foreign Affairs;
8. L.H. Mingazov, Doctor of International Law,
Professor, Head of Department for Human Rights of UNESCO of the Kazan
State University;
9. R.M. Valeev, Doctor of International Law,
Professor at the Department of Constitutional and International Law of
the Kazan State University, Vice-president of the Russian Association
of International Nuclear Law, former Judge of the Supreme Court of the
Republic of Tatarstan;
10. P.N. Birukov, Doctor of International Law,
Professor, Head of Department of International Law of Voronez State
University;
11. S.J. Marochkin, Doctor of International Law,
Professor, member of the Executive Committee of the Russian
Association of International Law, Head of Department of the
International Law of the Tumen State University;
12. N.I. Kostenko, Doctor of International Law,
Professor, the leading science associate of the Center for the
international law studies of the Institute of State and Law of the
Russian Academy of Science;
13. A.B. Mezyaev, Doctor of International Law,
docent, Deputy Head of the Department of Constitutional and
International law of the faculty of Law of the Academy of management,
member of Expert Council of the Ombudsman of the Republic of
Tatarstan, Executive Secretary of the Group of members of Russian
Association of International Law for monitoring the process against S.
Milosevic in ICTY.
25 November 2005
Notes:
[1] [Trial Chamber] Order Concerning the Preparation and Presentation
of the Defence Case of September 17, 2003.]
[2] [Appeals Chamber] Decision on the Interlocutory Appeal by the
Amici Curiae against the Trial Chamber Order Concerning the
Presentation and Preparation of the Defence Case of January 20, 2004,
para 19
[3] Article 14.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights states: "In the determination of any criminal charge against
him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees"
[4] Transcript of the court session of 22 February 2002 and of 3 and 4
June 2002.
[5] UN Document: A/60/267 - S/2005/532 (12 Report of ICTY to General
Assembly and Security Council) of 17 August 2005, para. 85.]
[6] Published in the magazine: "Moscow Journal of International Law"
2005, No. 4.
******************************************************
URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL
******************************
President Milosevic has the truth and law on his side. In order to use
that advantage to achieve his freedom, we must fight this totally
discredited tribunal and its patrons through professionally conducted
actions.
The funds secured in Serbia are still enough only to cover the
expenses of the stay and work of President Milosevic's legal
associates at The Hague (one at the time).
***********************************************************
3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.
Please send your donations to one of the following accounts:
Jugoslawisch-Österreichische
Solidaritäts-Bewegung. (JÖSB)
Bank Austria
IBAN AT49 1200 0503 8030 5200
BIC BKAUATWW
or
Committee Intersol
Bank: 'Postbank', Amsterdam, Netherlands
Accountnumber 4766774
IBAN NL07 PSTB 0004766774
BIC PSTBNL21
***************************************************************
For truth and human rights against aggression!
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!
Freedom and equality for people!
On behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM,
Vladimir Krsljanin,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic
*************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.free-slobo-uk.org/ (CDSM UK)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
==========================
IN DIFESA DELLA JUGOSLAVIA
Il j'accuse di Slobodan Milosevic
di fronte al "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia"
(Ed. Zambon 2005, 10 euro)
Tutte le informazioni sul libro, appena uscito,
alla pagina:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27 -- 00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957 -- email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.html
*** Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006, intestato ad
Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA, causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)