--- In Questo indirizzo email è protetto dagli spambots. È necessario abilitare JavaScript per vederlo., <icdsm-italia@l...> ha scritto:
(second and last part)
--- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Just to make sure that
the transcript is correct in
relation to my reference to Marc Antony,
it's: "Ingratitude, more strong
than traitors' arms ..." You can at
least get it correct in the English.
Mr. Milosevic, there's a matter in
which I think you can help us. You have
37 or 45 witnesses outstanding for
Kosovo. How, in the light of the
remaining days left for your case,
do you plan to manage your case so as to
complete Kosovo as well as Bosnia and
Croatia? And, please, I don't want to
hear the refrain that this merely
shows how little time or how inadequate is
the time that has been allocated to you.
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
The microphone wasn't switched on.
What I was saying was this: Mr. Robinson,
the question of time you seem to
be placing in first place, so I assume
you won't have anything against me
having comments to make with respect
to that issue.
I should like to remind you, Mr. Robinson,
that a certain amount of time
ago, I did indicate the need to give
me adequate time. Had you personally --
and that you personally said at the
time that it was too early to discuss
the matter, that is to say, to give
me adequate time. Now, to carry on from
where you interrupted with your comment
that I should use imposed counsel,
let me present my position and you do
with it what you will and make your
own conclusions as you desire. But
I don't think you'll be able to topple
that position.
It is my right to represent myself,
and that right emanates from
international law and is contained in
your Statute as well. Therefore, you
are duty-bound to enable me to make
effective use of that right. That right
cannot be made up for by some sort of
assigned or imposed counsel.
It is my right to be able to present
my own Defence, and it is grounded in
the documents that are well known to you all.
So it is your duty to enable
me to use that right effectively
and not some fictitious right which is
accorded me in formal terms whereas
it is withheld in realistic terms. If I
have that right, then you must enable
me to use it effectively and to avail
myself of that right.
And the comment that I don't have to
proof witnesses myself is the same as
saying that I don't have to avail
myself of the right accorded me and that I
have chosen to use my right to my own
detriment. So the substance of the
matter is that I should be allowed
to use that right effectively.
Now, with regard to the question of
time, once again, Mr. Nice quoted
different documents and so you'll allow
me to do the same, to quote from
various documents. And I have
sufficient examples for you, although in
Serbian because it is a Serbian
translation, it is a statement by a group of
members of the Russian Association
of International Law for Monitoring the
Process of the Prosecutor versus
Slobodan Milosevic in the International
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,
which a few days ago was published by
the Moscow Journal of International Law
and it was translated from that
Moscow Journal. It is the largest and
most important forum of that nature in
Russia, and the most important journal
for international law in Russia as well.
Among others, in point 1, which they
discuss, it is the right of the
accused to have sufficient time. Now,
this term "sufficient time" means for
the preparation of his Defence. That
has been extracted from "international
documents," and this is what it says:
"After the signing of the first
indictment raised against S. Milosevic by
the Prosecutor up until the start of
the Prosecution case, two years elapsed
and eight months. Throughout that time,
time was used to prepare the
indictment. Preparations of the
indictment went on eight months after the
accused was in prison. Now, for the
preparation of the Defence case,
Slobodan Milosevic was given three months."
And then they go on to quote your
order concerning the preparation and
presentation of the Defence case of
September 17th, 2003. "After an
extension of the time limit with
respect to the accused's health, the
Defence case, as a whole, amounted to
six months, but that extended time was
not used to prepare the Defence because
the Registry of the Tribunal denied
Milosevic the right to meet with
witnesses in connection with his health. It
is quite clear that the time for the
preparation of the Defence case in the
most complex international crimes
contained in 66 charges and 1.000 events
in prison conditions is inadequate.
In keeping with the principle of fair
play and equality of arms, the accused
must be accorded at least as much
time for his Defence case as the
Prosecution had for the Prosecution case
from the time the indictment was
signed until the case went to trial. In
conformity with giving the accused
sufficient time for preparation of his
Defence case, and taking into consideration
the complexity of the case
itself, S. Milosevic must be given
adequate time, and six months cannot be
termed adequate time. The request by
the accused to be granted more time was
turned down by the Appeals Chamber
as well, who said that, 'choosing to
represent himself, the accused has
given up the right of enjoying the
benefits of the Defence team set up
for him,' and that he himself, 'will
bear the brunt of not accepting the
services of assigned counsel.'"
That is the decision of January 2004.
In this connection, the Appeals
Chamber referred to four decisions
made by national courts, but it forgot to
refer to the norms of international
law which are in force, and the most
senior Chamber of the Tribunal, which
was duty-bound to protect the rights
of the accused, confirmed the unlawful
decision by the Trial Chamber to the
detriment of the accused for having
opted to represent himself without
providing legal arguments in sufficient scope.
"Apart from that, this right is part
of the rights that do not have a time
limit," and it says, "see Article 3
of international -- covenant of
international laws where everybody has
the right, as a minimum, to the
following guarantees and conditions."
And the conclusion is, of this group,
that is to say, the group of the
Russian International Law Association, is
that: "The Tribunal has violated the
rights of the accused to be given
sufficient time to prepare his defence case."
I won't continue quoting. I will ask
you to take up this decision, and I'm
sure your translators will be able to
translate it into English for you.
They contain many other points, but
I think it would be beneficial for you
to read it.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Did I understand you
correctly to read from the Journal of
International Lawyers that this right
is part of the rights that do not have
a time limit? Is that what you read?
THE INTERPRETER: Statute of limitations,
interpreter's note.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I read what it says exactly in that
statement. I'll go back to that.
Let me just see.
JUDGE ROBINSON: What right are they
referring to? Is it the right to a
defence? Is it the right of an accused
to put up his defence?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
The right of the accused, and then
they quote "to have sufficient time
and possibility for preparation of his
defence." That is point 1, which I quoted.
JUDGE ROBINSON: And is that the right
which they say is without a time
limit? I'm trying to understand
what you just read.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Well, Mr. Robinson, they don't say
that it has a time limit. What they
say is, the amount of time that was
necessary and accorded to the opposite
side for writing the indictment, and
claim that I must be given that same
amount of time. And they quoted exactly
when the indictment was signed and how
long it took them to prepare for the
Prosecution case to go ahead with the
trial. So it's no fluid category that
we're dealing with here, without
boundaries. They are talking and comparing
the time that the other side had at
its disposal and the time accorded to me
by you. And those six months, or barely
six months, cannot be compared to a
period of three years, let alone
compared to the fact that I am managing my
Defence myself, whereas Del Ponte and
Nice have an enormous machinery at
their disposal, including all their
services and experts and so on and so forth.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
And when I mentioned -- Mr. Robinson,
when I mentioned the NATO pact officers,
let me remind you, since Mr. Nice
is talking about proof and evidence,
I would like to remind you that their
military expert, Mr. Theunens, said
here on behalf of the whole group
working on the subject matter, that
they studied thousands of documents, and
I asked him here, "Do you have any
document of mine?" if you remember, Mr.
Robinson, and he said, "Yes, I do."
And I asked him to place it on the
overhead projector.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic --
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Do you remember that?
JUDGE ROBINSON: -- I can understand
the submission that an accused person
is entitled to sufficient time, but I
do not accept a submission that there
is no time limit for putting a defence.
You're entitled to a reasonable
time. If your Russian association of
lawyers said that there is no time
limit in putting a defence, and if
by that they meant that an accused person
would be entitled to put a defence
ad infinitum, I utterly reject that.
You're entitled to a reasonable time
to put your Defence. Continue.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Robinson, in responding to your
question, I precisely said that that
is not what they claim, that the
accused has limitless rights. All
they claim is that the accused must be
given the same amount of time as given
to the Prosecution for preparing the
indictment. And they were able to
establish that time in quite exact terms
by comparing the date in which the
indictment was raised and the date when
the trial started here, and that was
a period of time that was exactly
established, let alone the fact that
before they actually wrote the
indictment, they had to have done
some preparatory work as well.
So you did not understand the explanation
and quotation that I read out to
you properly, so I suggest that you
take this report and read it for
yourself, because I think that they
are leading international lawyers who
took part in writing it, and I wish
to add to this that we are not only
speaking -- although this is a statement
by the International Russian
Federation legal minds, but of course
there is a series of broad circles of
experts for international law from
other countries, including those
countries who wrote the petition to
Kofi Annan with respect to your conduct
towards me from some 30-odd countries
that signed it and went to visit the
Secretary-General of the Security Council.
So this is a position that is
widespread in the world, and it would
suffice, if I were in your place, if I
were to read this position elaborated
by the experts from the Russian
Federation that rank among the top
professionals in the world in their
field. As I was saying - let me continue -
the present situation is the
direct result of a megalomaniac ambition
by the other side and most probably
by the desire to have the quantity of
material replace any serious proof and
evidence against me. Quantity over quality.
Because you cannot have evidence
and valid proof for untruths. And you
have supported the other side through
your tolerant relationship with them,
and asking them to be limited in their scope.
I am the main victim of having been
bombed by various documents, material
witnesses, and so on, that the opposite
side has been allowed to present
with the go-ahead from you. I think that
this is a form of torture and a
form of cynicism to put that burden of
responsibility upon me, all the more
so if this is linked to my health
situation, which has been significantly
impaired because of the torture I
have been exposed to.
And I would like to remind you that
when General Stevanovic testified here,
in some context or other - it's not
important now; we can look at the
transcript if we want to see the
exact context - I said that the opposite
side served over a million pages of
material on me. Mr. Nice intervened at
that point and said it was only 600.000,
and with respect to the others it
was copies supplied twice.
Now, without entering into whether
I was served double copies, and would
have to read through all the material
to see whether that was true, and
there's no justification for that
either, but nonetheless it's an enormous
amount of material. And that every
participant in this trial had to read 500
to 1.000 pages per day every day over
the space of three and a half years,
without exception and without all
their other obligations. And a normal
human being is quite certainly not
able to read even a small portion of
that. And as I believe that nobody
could claim to be a superpowerful human
in any sense here, then we come to the
conclusion that the situation is
quite unrealistic and in this hall
for three and a half years we have had a
group of people taking part in something
that we can call or is called a
trial, whereas none of the participants
in the proceedings knows what it
says in the files on the basis of which
the discussions are being held here.
Please, to a certain extent, it is
not only that that people don't know
about; they don't know what the other
side is prosecuting me for. I would
particularly like to highlight the
issue of a Greater Serbia in that
context. This was represented by the
other side four years ago when they
asked for a joinder of trials, that
that was the red thread bringing all
parts of the case together, and the
Trial Chamber agreed to that. So then
you cannot talk about severing the
case without dealing with the destiny of
that particular issue.
On the 25th of August this year,
Mr. Nice, after three and a half years of
trial, said that he was not prosecuting
me on account of a Greater Serbia,
and he ascribed that idea to me from
the very outset, from his introductory
remarks and then through the testimony
of almost half or even more than half
of his witnesses who -- his witnesses,
who spoke of a Greater Serbia as my
objective and answered questions put
by him to them in that context.
So how can you talk about severance,
then, before giving answers to certain
questions? What is the fate of these
proceedings that have been going on for
over three years where you and I,
and probably the other side, thought that
I was being tried for a Greater Serbia,
which was the objective of some kind
of alleged joint criminal enterprise.
So that was what we tried to deal with
when putting questions to the witnesses
and in dealing with all the
evidence, because that is what Mr. Nice
was alleging through his witnesses.
So, then, what is the legal validity
of that part of the proceedings, when
we were all being deluded into believing
that this was the main objective of
the Prosecution? So what's the point
of all these witnesses who talked about
a Greater Serbia as my primary goal here?
Are you going to take that out of
the evidence, the body of evidence,
or are you going to let me examine them
further?
Also, what about this joint criminal
enterprise? And what would its
objective be after this change? And
what is this phantom of a joint criminal
enterprise that is being discussed here?
And what is it that is exactly
being alleged? People who are sitting
here, including me, including you, on
the one hand, simply cannot know all
the things that are referred to in all
these documents that Mr. Nice served -
a million pages, no less - and no one
knows what the Prosecutor is prosecuting,
including the Prosecutor herself.
She doesn't know it either. I think
that even Franz Kafka would feel that he
did not have great imagination compared to this.
So now, gentlemen, after almost four
years of a joined trial, after
omitting to exercise your own
responsibilities and duties and to bridle the
other side, as instructed by the Appeals
Chamber, so perhaps you could have
even severed the trial at some point
earlier on, but now you want to do it
four years later. Four years later. And
during those four years, this was a
whole, an entity, not only from the
point of view of process, but also from
the material point of view, where the
other side presented its own body of
evidence as a whole and then I based
my Defence case on that single entity.
And since there is this time pressure
that you've been insisting upon all
the time, the crossover that you say,
witnesses that testify about Kosovo
and Bosnia and Croatia, now I have to
make a selection, it appears, with a
great deal of effort, I must say.
Immediately, there is another question
that comes to mind: As for these
witnesses that, for the most part, pertain
to Kosovo, but some of them also
have to do with Bosnia and Croatia, include
witnesses that I asked you to
call: Clinton, Clark. And during his
testimony here, you did not allow me to
put questions in relation to the war
that he commanded and the book that he
wrote about it. And these are key witnesses.
For over a year, you've been in
correspondence with them. It is high
time for you to understand that they
will not come here without your order.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that,
again, is a matter in relation to
which you owe a great debt of gratitude
to assigned counsel. Through their
action, through their professionalism,
we are considering now a motion to
subpoena certain witnesses, and without
their intervention, without their
help, we would not have been considering this.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Yes, I know about that. I know about
that, Mr. Robinson.
So severance would create the following
situation: That they prosecute me
for one thing, and halfway, I start
defending myself from other things that
I'm being accused of. I have to defend
myself a bit from one and a bit from
the other, and then what I do here, when
presenting the truth, is being
sabotaged in practical terms; it is being
truncated. And the effect of the
fact that Mr. Nice changes his position
with regard to a Greater Serbia
halfway multiplies the effort involved.
What he said is true, that, as regards
Kosovo, then, you would be in a
position to decide, under the impression
of many years of having heard
senseless and totally baseless accusations
related to Bosnia and Croatia. He
talks about victims here. Let me see
one single victim of mine here. He
never established any link whatsoever
between what he presented and the
charges that he's bringing against me.
These victims do not deserve this.
They do not deserve having the wrong
people being accused of things done
against them.
Mr. Nice mentioned Annex B. I don't have
time to read it, but let's have a
look at it. The first witness here,
Stjepan Mesic, the current president of
Croatia, who testified here, the first
person mentioned in Annex B, the
famous Stjepan Mesic, who did his
very best to break up Yugoslavia, who
stated himself that he carried out his
job, that Yugoslavia was no more. And
he says here "[In English] ... where
he said ..." [Interpretation] and so on
and so forth, and so on and so forth.
Nonsense, sheer nonsense. And this
Mesic got that from this distorted and
forged BBC TV show which seems to be
Mr. Nice's lodestar.
Indictments should be based on facts,
not on comic books, TV shows, what
have you not. So this is kitsch, really,
the entire Prosecution case, both
in terms of the vehicles used and the
witnesses called. Kitsch.
So now, if you wanted to check this,
it would be as if somebody were
playing a game of football for 50 minutes,
and then in the second half he
starts playing basketball. It's even
worse, because the adverse effects are
only on my side. It is only the Defence
that has to deal with the negative
effects. So it becomes even more senseless
because the change of the terms
and conditions is only to my detriment.
And I wish to say --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, Mr. Milosevic.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
So the proposal to sever the trial is
so pointless, but I think that you
yourselves show the senselessness through
your own words: "[In English] ... for
the Trial Chamber to sever the Kosovo
Indictment, conclude that part of the
trial and render its Judgement thereon..."
Gentlemen, "part of the trial" are the
words that you clearly use here, so
the objective should be to conclude part
of the trial. But parts of the
trial cannot be concluded. Parts cannot
be concluded. Parts of the trial
cannot be concluded. Trials have a
Prosecution case and a Defence case and
then they can be concluded, but to
conclude part of a trial is basically an
abuse of trial. Or what would that mean,
to conclude part of a trial? [In
English] A mistrial.
[Interpretation] I think that this
Kafkaesque situation that I just
described, if there were to be a
severance, would make the entire situation
even more absurd and more incredible.
Of course, again, you're going to
decide as you wish, and then you won't
understand why, throughout the world,
this trial of yours is being treated
as an ordinary farce.
So, gentlemen, I'm opposed to your
order, and the first thing I ask you to
do is to return to me my right to
health, to make it possible for me to have
a break to recuperate.
And in relation to what Mr. Bonomy
said when he expressed his astonishment
when Mr. Nice was referring to what
the public was talking about, I wish to
remind you of the following: In all
the paragraphs of the Kosovo indictment
where alleged crimes are referred to
over the allegedly unarmed Albanians,
it says: "The forces of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic
of Serbia" did such and such a thing.
In all paragraphs, without exception.
All of Serbia, and everyone in the
international public knows that the
forces of the FRY of Serbia were
protecting, defending the country from
terrorism and foreign aggression.
That is what is perfectly clear.
Now, this phrase which is used in
every paragraph pertaining to the alleged
crimes, "the forces of the FRY and
Serbia," you are supposed to make a
judgement, when lo and behold, the
negotiations on the final status of
Kosovo and Metohija are about to
start, not to mention the fact that as a
precondition for bringing the war to
an end, we got the firmest possible
international guarantees for the
territorial integrity and sovereignty of
the country. So what a coincidence.
Is there anyone that you can dissuade
that that is not the aim of those that
you receive orders from, that it is
the forces of the FRY and Serbia that
have to be found guilty for defending
their own territory so that those who
really did this would not stand
accused but rather achieve their
geopolitical objectives.
So that is quite clearly present in
the public opinion. And this is a
coincidence that everybody noticed
immediately. It was not necessary for
anyone to explain it to them.
JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, I wonder
if you can help me and tell me how
these instructions are conveyed to me,
because I'm obviously missing some
part of the information that you seem
to consider as essential to my
judgement of this matter. How is it
I get my orders? Where do they come
from? You who so proudly denies the
allegations against you about conveying
orders to others on the basis of no
information, on no evidence, what is the
evidence you suggest indicates that
I receive orders from somewhere?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Bonomy, this entire Court was
envisaged as an instrument of war
against my country. It was founded
illegally on the basis of an illegal
decision and carried through by the
forces that waged war against my
country. There is just one thing that is
true here: It is true that there is a
joint criminal enterprise, but not in
Belgrade, not in Yugoslavia as its
center, but those, who, in a war that was
waged in Yugoslavia from 1991 onwards,
destroyed Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia did not disintegrate by --
JUDGE BONOMY: You fail to answer my
question. Please answer the question
rather than embark on a political diatribe.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Robinson -- or, rather, Mr.
Bonomy, I'm not making political
speeches here at all. I think that you are
in the service of those who committed
crimes against my country and against
my people, and you're receiving a salary from them.
JUDGE BONOMY: You're refusing to answer
the question, are you?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
No, no, I'm not refusing. Do you want
to tell me who pays your salary? Do you
wish to claim that you receive a
salary from the United Nations? Who
finances this Court, Mr. Bonomy? Who
established this Court, Mr. Bonomy?
Who effected an aggression against my
country, Mr. Bonomy? Your country.
And who am I asking to come in to
testify? Your presidents and Prime Ministers.
JUDGE BONOMY: Are you suggesting
I am not paid by the United Nations?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I claim that, Mr. Bonomy, because the
United Nations are -- finance this
illegal Tribunal of yours. It's financed
from all manner of sources. I have
enumerated some of them.
Now, whether you, in formal terms,
whether you, in formal terms, receive a
salary via this institution which calls
itself a United Nations Tribunal is
quite immaterial as far as I'm concerned.
JUDGE BONOMY: Well, now you move on
to another issue when you're proved to
be wrong. So let's concentrate on the
issue that you're addressing; the
question of severance.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Therefore, gentlemen, as I've already
told you, I am opposed to severance
because I would say that was -- that was
a war, it was one war. I said Yugoslavia
did not disintegrate or disappear
in some manner, but it was destroyed
in a planned manner, forcefully,
through a war, and that war is still
being waged, is still going on. And one
of the instruments of this war is your
illegal Tribunal.
Let me say straight away, as far as
your judgements are concerned and
rulings in joinders or not joinders,
I'm not afraid of them at all, because
if you judge according to the law and
the truth, then there would never have
been this trial in the first place.
But as we do have a trial, it can end
only in one way: A decision on the
non-existence of culpability. And if you
don't rule based on justice and truth,
then your ruling will disintegrate
and will burst like a bubble of soap,
because the court of the world and the
court of justice and the truth is
stronger than any other court. It is up to
each one of us, and each one of you
gentlemen, to opt and choose what place
we're going to have before that court
of history, and what its decision will
be. So don't harbour any illusions on
that score.
Therefore, as I said, I am opposed
to severance. I demand that I be given a
rest period to recuperate. I stress
that today, too, I came in in a very
poor state of health, extremely poor,
but I did come in so that we can
continue the proceedings. Therefore,
I demand that you consider my request
to give me a break, a period of rest.
And as for severance or non-severance,
I've stated my views on that matter, too.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. (.)
JUDGE ROBINSON: There are several issues
arising from the matters that we
have considered today. I wish to note --
Mr. Milosevic.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Will I get an opportunity to say a
few words with regard to these questions
that Mr. Nice raised?
JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you've already
spoken, and we have heard you. Do you
have something that could be said very briefly?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
We heard him before me and now he
spoke, well, for a considerable amount
of time yet again.
JUDGE ROBINSON: That was a response to you.
That's traditional in these
matters. If you have something to say,
I'll hear it, briefly.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Before I speak in connection with
what Mr. Nice said, and he repeated
lots of nonsense that we have occasion
to hear from him here, I just wish to
provide a piece of information to Mr.
Bonomy because he asked me about this.
So, Mr. Bonomy, in relation to the
financing of this illegal Tribunal of
yours, according to your own Article 32
of your own Statute, the expenses
are covered from the regular budget
of the UN. However, they arrive from
very murky sources; the Soros Foundation,
various foundations from the
Islamic countries, with NATO being the
major financier.
On the 17th of May, 1999, Jamie Shea,
the spokesperson of NATO, said: "NATO
countries are those [In English] ...
the finest to set up Tribunal. We are
amongst the majority financiers.
We want to see war criminals brought to
justice. I'm certain that when Justice
Arbour goes to Kosovo and looks at
the facts, she will be indicting
people of Yugoslavian nationality, and I
don't anticipate any others at this stage."
[Interpretation] So the main financier
is NATO, and the others are the
Soros Foundation and foundations from
Islamic countries, and so on and so
forth. So that is perfectly clear.
And on page 35550 from these proceedings
here, I'm just going to quote Mr.
Nice, who talks about a witness, and
says: "[In English] If we go to page 2
of 11, halfway down the page we can see
that this is by no means written by
people who are friends of the ICTY or
any Western conspiracy, because the
author describes NATO's intervention
as the recent 'brutal, illegal, and
illegitimate intervention of the NATO
forces against the country.'
"So you would accept that this is a
Serb without any particular leaning
towards the forces and powers that
established this Tribunal ..." et cetera.
[Interpretation] So, Mr. Bonomy, for
Mr. Nice, obviously there is no
dilemma, the kind of dilemma you have.
So you can clarify it with him, what
he meant to say then. Since you say that
you don't know about this, I hereby
inform you of this. And I believe that,
as an honourable man, once you've
found out, and I can give you further
evidence, you can leave this story
that you got into without realising
what you got yourself into. And now as
for Mr. Nice and what he said, he said
the most senseless thing possible
about a Greater Serbia --
JUDGE BONOMY: I have to say I haven't
the remotest idea what you're talking
about now in relation to this. In fact,
the more I read it, the less
comprehensible it becomes.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I have
to say to you that you are not at
large here. I am giving you a chance
to comment on some issues if you
consider them to be issues of importance.
Although the Prosecutor did not
file a motion, I asked the Prosecutor
to begin. So in accordance with the
tradition in adversarial systems,
I allowed him to reply. In these
circumstances, I don't see you as
having any right to reply, but you
obviously have an interest, a
fundamental interest, in the outcome of these
matters, and it is for that reason
that I'm allowing you to say something at
this stage. But please don't abuse it.
Proceed, bearing in mind that we
are now almost seven minutes to two.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
As for what Mr. Nice said that
pertains to one of the key issues,
as for Greater Serbia, he explained just
now that I did not utter that word,
but I assume that he's trying to say
that there is something that was done.
I also think that deeds have to be
looked into first and foremost, and
the deed is the following, Mr. Robinson
and gentlemen: In this entire period,
from 1991 onwards, no one was expelled
from Serbia on account of ethnic
affiliation. There was no discrimination
whatsoever. No one from Serbia and no
one from the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia was discriminated against
on account of his religion, race, or
beliefs. That is a fact, gentlemen.
And at that time that you are interested
in, I was president of Serbia and president
of Yugoslavia, and no one was
ever expelled from there. That is a fact.
Now, what Mr. Nice is trying to ascribe to me --
JUDGE ROBINSON: [B/C/S spoken on English
channel] I want to make it clear
I'm not interested in this. I'm interested
in the question of severance. I
am not clear. We are back to English now.
Did you hear what I said? I said
I'm not interested in a general discussion
on Greater Serbia. If you have
something to say about Greater Serbia
because it impacts on the question of
severance, then I'll allow you to say it.
But don't regurgitate the
arguments which we've heard ad nauseam
about this issue.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Robinson, the question of time is
being raised here, and Mr. Nice devoted
due attention to that in the speech
he just made. According to Mr. Nice,
the best thing would be not to have
anyone testify in public but to do
all of it in writing, and Mr. Nice is
explaining to you how they abided by
that, that they were very economical,
very expeditious. And in spite of all
these heaps of paper and all these 92
bis and 89(F) testimonies, he used up
300 days. So please do not take into
account these things that are in
contravention of pure mathematics.
I was not saying that no one worked
for five days. I was just trying to say
that no one sat for five days. Of course
I work for more than five days,
although we sit here only for three
days. And after all, Dr. van Dijkman
wrote that three days is what I do
here, and as for the rest of my time, I
have to prepare myself for here,
including the proofing of witnesses. And
that is what he knows full well and
that is what you know full well, so that
is an argument that cannot be used at all.
Mr. Nice's advice is that I collect
written statements from witnesses. The
basic aim of public testimony is to
hear the truth, because if we were to
stop at what Mr. Nice wrote, together
with his associates, that would be a
monstrous lie. So in order to have the
truth heard, there is a great
interest involved, a historical interest,
I should say, of my people, of my
country. But not only of my people
and of my country, of mankind in general
and of the times in general. Let us
hear what the truth is, and let the
actual perpetrators of what happened
in Yugoslavia actually be exposed,
although you said yourself, Mr.
Robinson, at one point in time, that you are
not in charge of trying NATO for what
they did, although you know what they
did and you know that the basic tenet
of any law in the world is that the
law that does not apply to one and
all is not law at all.
Therefore, I ask for adequate time to
be given to me.
JUDGE BONOMY: I, again, have to say
I don't understand this submission.
Because something is in writing does
not mean it is not in public.
Everything in writing here, submitted
in writing that's not confidential,
becomes public. And at this stage,
it's not, as you would see it, lies that
we're suggesting ought to be presented
in writing, it's what you claim to be
the truth, because it is you that would
be presenting the written material,
and you turn the argument on its head
and undermine your whole case. It is
the way forward if you want to submit
material in addition to the period
that's been allocated to you to complete the case.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I think, Mr. Bonomy, that you're the
one who's turned things upside down.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you finished now,
Mr. Milosevic?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Nice presented a great many other
things here too, that this will show
how I systematically did not observe
any laws, which is a lie. He has not
presented a shred of evidence to that
effect. That my role with the
paramilitaries will be shown. My only role
with the paramilitaries was to have
them arrested.
There was no other evidence to that effect.
So he is manipulating here --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, all of this
-- this is irrelevant to the
issue. If you do not have anything more
to say on the question of severance,
we'll stop now. We are 15 minutes beyond --
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I'm talking about what he talked about.
JUDGE ROBINSON: And you don't have a
right to do that. I explained to you
the circumstances in which I have
allowed you to speak, and I explained why
Mr. Nice had a right to reply, because
he started. Do you have anything that
is pertinent to say, anything more? I'm
not interested in general issues. If
you don't, I'm going to adjourn.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I have presented what I consider to be relevant.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.
I want to say that many issues arise
for consideration and decision by the
Trial Chamber in relation to this matter.
We still have outstanding a report
which we expect today from Dr. Dalal,
and also there is to be an examination
and a report by a neuroradiologist.
The Chamber would like to have all these
reports before it before it makes a
decision on these matters. So we'll give
a decision once we have all the reports before us.
******************************
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).
After the unlawful attack of the German
financial authorities on the ICDSM
fundraising in Germany, that lead
to freezing of the ICDSM account in
Germany, the similar thing took place
recently in Austria, where the
account of the Yugoslav-Austrian
Solidarity was frozen. These unlawful acts,
aiming to undermine the President Milosevic's
defence, will be fought back legally.
***********************************************************
To carry on the normal defence work -
3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.
Please send your donations to the following account:
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)
--- Fine messaggio inoltrato ---
(second and last part)
--- On resuming at 11.07 a.m.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Just to make sure that
the transcript is correct in
relation to my reference to Marc Antony,
it's: "Ingratitude, more strong
than traitors' arms ..." You can at
least get it correct in the English.
Mr. Milosevic, there's a matter in
which I think you can help us. You have
37 or 45 witnesses outstanding for
Kosovo. How, in the light of the
remaining days left for your case,
do you plan to manage your case so as to
complete Kosovo as well as Bosnia and
Croatia? And, please, I don't want to
hear the refrain that this merely
shows how little time or how inadequate is
the time that has been allocated to you.
THE INTERPRETER: Microphone, please.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
The microphone wasn't switched on.
What I was saying was this: Mr. Robinson,
the question of time you seem to
be placing in first place, so I assume
you won't have anything against me
having comments to make with respect
to that issue.
I should like to remind you, Mr. Robinson,
that a certain amount of time
ago, I did indicate the need to give
me adequate time. Had you personally --
and that you personally said at the
time that it was too early to discuss
the matter, that is to say, to give
me adequate time. Now, to carry on from
where you interrupted with your comment
that I should use imposed counsel,
let me present my position and you do
with it what you will and make your
own conclusions as you desire. But
I don't think you'll be able to topple
that position.
It is my right to represent myself,
and that right emanates from
international law and is contained in
your Statute as well. Therefore, you
are duty-bound to enable me to make
effective use of that right. That right
cannot be made up for by some sort of
assigned or imposed counsel.
It is my right to be able to present
my own Defence, and it is grounded in
the documents that are well known to you all.
So it is your duty to enable
me to use that right effectively
and not some fictitious right which is
accorded me in formal terms whereas
it is withheld in realistic terms. If I
have that right, then you must enable
me to use it effectively and to avail
myself of that right.
And the comment that I don't have to
proof witnesses myself is the same as
saying that I don't have to avail
myself of the right accorded me and that I
have chosen to use my right to my own
detriment. So the substance of the
matter is that I should be allowed
to use that right effectively.
Now, with regard to the question of
time, once again, Mr. Nice quoted
different documents and so you'll allow
me to do the same, to quote from
various documents. And I have
sufficient examples for you, although in
Serbian because it is a Serbian
translation, it is a statement by a group of
members of the Russian Association
of International Law for Monitoring the
Process of the Prosecutor versus
Slobodan Milosevic in the International
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia,
which a few days ago was published by
the Moscow Journal of International Law
and it was translated from that
Moscow Journal. It is the largest and
most important forum of that nature in
Russia, and the most important journal
for international law in Russia as well.
Among others, in point 1, which they
discuss, it is the right of the
accused to have sufficient time. Now,
this term "sufficient time" means for
the preparation of his Defence. That
has been extracted from "international
documents," and this is what it says:
"After the signing of the first
indictment raised against S. Milosevic by
the Prosecutor up until the start of
the Prosecution case, two years elapsed
and eight months. Throughout that time,
time was used to prepare the
indictment. Preparations of the
indictment went on eight months after the
accused was in prison. Now, for the
preparation of the Defence case,
Slobodan Milosevic was given three months."
And then they go on to quote your
order concerning the preparation and
presentation of the Defence case of
September 17th, 2003. "After an
extension of the time limit with
respect to the accused's health, the
Defence case, as a whole, amounted to
six months, but that extended time was
not used to prepare the Defence because
the Registry of the Tribunal denied
Milosevic the right to meet with
witnesses in connection with his health. It
is quite clear that the time for the
preparation of the Defence case in the
most complex international crimes
contained in 66 charges and 1.000 events
in prison conditions is inadequate.
In keeping with the principle of fair
play and equality of arms, the accused
must be accorded at least as much
time for his Defence case as the
Prosecution had for the Prosecution case
from the time the indictment was
signed until the case went to trial. In
conformity with giving the accused
sufficient time for preparation of his
Defence case, and taking into consideration
the complexity of the case
itself, S. Milosevic must be given
adequate time, and six months cannot be
termed adequate time. The request by
the accused to be granted more time was
turned down by the Appeals Chamber
as well, who said that, 'choosing to
represent himself, the accused has
given up the right of enjoying the
benefits of the Defence team set up
for him,' and that he himself, 'will
bear the brunt of not accepting the
services of assigned counsel.'"
That is the decision of January 2004.
In this connection, the Appeals
Chamber referred to four decisions
made by national courts, but it forgot to
refer to the norms of international
law which are in force, and the most
senior Chamber of the Tribunal, which
was duty-bound to protect the rights
of the accused, confirmed the unlawful
decision by the Trial Chamber to the
detriment of the accused for having
opted to represent himself without
providing legal arguments in sufficient scope.
"Apart from that, this right is part
of the rights that do not have a time
limit," and it says, "see Article 3
of international -- covenant of
international laws where everybody has
the right, as a minimum, to the
following guarantees and conditions."
And the conclusion is, of this group,
that is to say, the group of the
Russian International Law Association, is
that: "The Tribunal has violated the
rights of the accused to be given
sufficient time to prepare his defence case."
I won't continue quoting. I will ask
you to take up this decision, and I'm
sure your translators will be able to
translate it into English for you.
They contain many other points, but
I think it would be beneficial for you
to read it.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Did I understand you
correctly to read from the Journal of
International Lawyers that this right
is part of the rights that do not have
a time limit? Is that what you read?
THE INTERPRETER: Statute of limitations,
interpreter's note.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I read what it says exactly in that
statement. I'll go back to that.
Let me just see.
JUDGE ROBINSON: What right are they
referring to? Is it the right to a
defence? Is it the right of an accused
to put up his defence?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
The right of the accused, and then
they quote "to have sufficient time
and possibility for preparation of his
defence." That is point 1, which I quoted.
JUDGE ROBINSON: And is that the right
which they say is without a time
limit? I'm trying to understand
what you just read.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Well, Mr. Robinson, they don't say
that it has a time limit. What they
say is, the amount of time that was
necessary and accorded to the opposite
side for writing the indictment, and
claim that I must be given that same
amount of time. And they quoted exactly
when the indictment was signed and how
long it took them to prepare for the
Prosecution case to go ahead with the
trial. So it's no fluid category that
we're dealing with here, without
boundaries. They are talking and comparing
the time that the other side had at
its disposal and the time accorded to me
by you. And those six months, or barely
six months, cannot be compared to a
period of three years, let alone
compared to the fact that I am managing my
Defence myself, whereas Del Ponte and
Nice have an enormous machinery at
their disposal, including all their
services and experts and so on and so forth.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
And when I mentioned -- Mr. Robinson,
when I mentioned the NATO pact officers,
let me remind you, since Mr. Nice
is talking about proof and evidence,
I would like to remind you that their
military expert, Mr. Theunens, said
here on behalf of the whole group
working on the subject matter, that
they studied thousands of documents, and
I asked him here, "Do you have any
document of mine?" if you remember, Mr.
Robinson, and he said, "Yes, I do."
And I asked him to place it on the
overhead projector.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic --
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Do you remember that?
JUDGE ROBINSON: -- I can understand
the submission that an accused person
is entitled to sufficient time, but I
do not accept a submission that there
is no time limit for putting a defence.
You're entitled to a reasonable
time. If your Russian association of
lawyers said that there is no time
limit in putting a defence, and if
by that they meant that an accused person
would be entitled to put a defence
ad infinitum, I utterly reject that.
You're entitled to a reasonable time
to put your Defence. Continue.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Robinson, in responding to your
question, I precisely said that that
is not what they claim, that the
accused has limitless rights. All
they claim is that the accused must be
given the same amount of time as given
to the Prosecution for preparing the
indictment. And they were able to
establish that time in quite exact terms
by comparing the date in which the
indictment was raised and the date when
the trial started here, and that was
a period of time that was exactly
established, let alone the fact that
before they actually wrote the
indictment, they had to have done
some preparatory work as well.
So you did not understand the explanation
and quotation that I read out to
you properly, so I suggest that you
take this report and read it for
yourself, because I think that they
are leading international lawyers who
took part in writing it, and I wish
to add to this that we are not only
speaking -- although this is a statement
by the International Russian
Federation legal minds, but of course
there is a series of broad circles of
experts for international law from
other countries, including those
countries who wrote the petition to
Kofi Annan with respect to your conduct
towards me from some 30-odd countries
that signed it and went to visit the
Secretary-General of the Security Council.
So this is a position that is
widespread in the world, and it would
suffice, if I were in your place, if I
were to read this position elaborated
by the experts from the Russian
Federation that rank among the top
professionals in the world in their
field. As I was saying - let me continue -
the present situation is the
direct result of a megalomaniac ambition
by the other side and most probably
by the desire to have the quantity of
material replace any serious proof and
evidence against me. Quantity over quality.
Because you cannot have evidence
and valid proof for untruths. And you
have supported the other side through
your tolerant relationship with them,
and asking them to be limited in their scope.
I am the main victim of having been
bombed by various documents, material
witnesses, and so on, that the opposite
side has been allowed to present
with the go-ahead from you. I think that
this is a form of torture and a
form of cynicism to put that burden of
responsibility upon me, all the more
so if this is linked to my health
situation, which has been significantly
impaired because of the torture I
have been exposed to.
And I would like to remind you that
when General Stevanovic testified here,
in some context or other - it's not
important now; we can look at the
transcript if we want to see the
exact context - I said that the opposite
side served over a million pages of
material on me. Mr. Nice intervened at
that point and said it was only 600.000,
and with respect to the others it
was copies supplied twice.
Now, without entering into whether
I was served double copies, and would
have to read through all the material
to see whether that was true, and
there's no justification for that
either, but nonetheless it's an enormous
amount of material. And that every
participant in this trial had to read 500
to 1.000 pages per day every day over
the space of three and a half years,
without exception and without all
their other obligations. And a normal
human being is quite certainly not
able to read even a small portion of
that. And as I believe that nobody
could claim to be a superpowerful human
in any sense here, then we come to the
conclusion that the situation is
quite unrealistic and in this hall
for three and a half years we have had a
group of people taking part in something
that we can call or is called a
trial, whereas none of the participants
in the proceedings knows what it
says in the files on the basis of which
the discussions are being held here.
Please, to a certain extent, it is
not only that that people don't know
about; they don't know what the other
side is prosecuting me for. I would
particularly like to highlight the
issue of a Greater Serbia in that
context. This was represented by the
other side four years ago when they
asked for a joinder of trials, that
that was the red thread bringing all
parts of the case together, and the
Trial Chamber agreed to that. So then
you cannot talk about severing the
case without dealing with the destiny of
that particular issue.
On the 25th of August this year,
Mr. Nice, after three and a half years of
trial, said that he was not prosecuting
me on account of a Greater Serbia,
and he ascribed that idea to me from
the very outset, from his introductory
remarks and then through the testimony
of almost half or even more than half
of his witnesses who -- his witnesses,
who spoke of a Greater Serbia as my
objective and answered questions put
by him to them in that context.
So how can you talk about severance,
then, before giving answers to certain
questions? What is the fate of these
proceedings that have been going on for
over three years where you and I,
and probably the other side, thought that
I was being tried for a Greater Serbia,
which was the objective of some kind
of alleged joint criminal enterprise.
So that was what we tried to deal with
when putting questions to the witnesses
and in dealing with all the
evidence, because that is what Mr. Nice
was alleging through his witnesses.
So, then, what is the legal validity
of that part of the proceedings, when
we were all being deluded into believing
that this was the main objective of
the Prosecution? So what's the point
of all these witnesses who talked about
a Greater Serbia as my primary goal here?
Are you going to take that out of
the evidence, the body of evidence,
or are you going to let me examine them
further?
Also, what about this joint criminal
enterprise? And what would its
objective be after this change? And
what is this phantom of a joint criminal
enterprise that is being discussed here?
And what is it that is exactly
being alleged? People who are sitting
here, including me, including you, on
the one hand, simply cannot know all
the things that are referred to in all
these documents that Mr. Nice served -
a million pages, no less - and no one
knows what the Prosecutor is prosecuting,
including the Prosecutor herself.
She doesn't know it either. I think
that even Franz Kafka would feel that he
did not have great imagination compared to this.
So now, gentlemen, after almost four
years of a joined trial, after
omitting to exercise your own
responsibilities and duties and to bridle the
other side, as instructed by the Appeals
Chamber, so perhaps you could have
even severed the trial at some point
earlier on, but now you want to do it
four years later. Four years later. And
during those four years, this was a
whole, an entity, not only from the
point of view of process, but also from
the material point of view, where the
other side presented its own body of
evidence as a whole and then I based
my Defence case on that single entity.
And since there is this time pressure
that you've been insisting upon all
the time, the crossover that you say,
witnesses that testify about Kosovo
and Bosnia and Croatia, now I have to
make a selection, it appears, with a
great deal of effort, I must say.
Immediately, there is another question
that comes to mind: As for these
witnesses that, for the most part, pertain
to Kosovo, but some of them also
have to do with Bosnia and Croatia, include
witnesses that I asked you to
call: Clinton, Clark. And during his
testimony here, you did not allow me to
put questions in relation to the war
that he commanded and the book that he
wrote about it. And these are key witnesses.
For over a year, you've been in
correspondence with them. It is high
time for you to understand that they
will not come here without your order.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, that,
again, is a matter in relation to
which you owe a great debt of gratitude
to assigned counsel. Through their
action, through their professionalism,
we are considering now a motion to
subpoena certain witnesses, and without
their intervention, without their
help, we would not have been considering this.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Yes, I know about that. I know about
that, Mr. Robinson.
So severance would create the following
situation: That they prosecute me
for one thing, and halfway, I start
defending myself from other things that
I'm being accused of. I have to defend
myself a bit from one and a bit from
the other, and then what I do here, when
presenting the truth, is being
sabotaged in practical terms; it is being
truncated. And the effect of the
fact that Mr. Nice changes his position
with regard to a Greater Serbia
halfway multiplies the effort involved.
What he said is true, that, as regards
Kosovo, then, you would be in a
position to decide, under the impression
of many years of having heard
senseless and totally baseless accusations
related to Bosnia and Croatia. He
talks about victims here. Let me see
one single victim of mine here. He
never established any link whatsoever
between what he presented and the
charges that he's bringing against me.
These victims do not deserve this.
They do not deserve having the wrong
people being accused of things done
against them.
Mr. Nice mentioned Annex B. I don't have
time to read it, but let's have a
look at it. The first witness here,
Stjepan Mesic, the current president of
Croatia, who testified here, the first
person mentioned in Annex B, the
famous Stjepan Mesic, who did his
very best to break up Yugoslavia, who
stated himself that he carried out his
job, that Yugoslavia was no more. And
he says here "[In English] ... where
he said ..." [Interpretation] and so on
and so forth, and so on and so forth.
Nonsense, sheer nonsense. And this
Mesic got that from this distorted and
forged BBC TV show which seems to be
Mr. Nice's lodestar.
Indictments should be based on facts,
not on comic books, TV shows, what
have you not. So this is kitsch, really,
the entire Prosecution case, both
in terms of the vehicles used and the
witnesses called. Kitsch.
So now, if you wanted to check this,
it would be as if somebody were
playing a game of football for 50 minutes,
and then in the second half he
starts playing basketball. It's even
worse, because the adverse effects are
only on my side. It is only the Defence
that has to deal with the negative
effects. So it becomes even more senseless
because the change of the terms
and conditions is only to my detriment.
And I wish to say --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Just a minute, Mr. Milosevic.
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, Mr. Milosevic.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
So the proposal to sever the trial is
so pointless, but I think that you
yourselves show the senselessness through
your own words: "[In English] ... for
the Trial Chamber to sever the Kosovo
Indictment, conclude that part of the
trial and render its Judgement thereon..."
Gentlemen, "part of the trial" are the
words that you clearly use here, so
the objective should be to conclude part
of the trial. But parts of the
trial cannot be concluded. Parts cannot
be concluded. Parts of the trial
cannot be concluded. Trials have a
Prosecution case and a Defence case and
then they can be concluded, but to
conclude part of a trial is basically an
abuse of trial. Or what would that mean,
to conclude part of a trial? [In
English] A mistrial.
[Interpretation] I think that this
Kafkaesque situation that I just
described, if there were to be a
severance, would make the entire situation
even more absurd and more incredible.
Of course, again, you're going to
decide as you wish, and then you won't
understand why, throughout the world,
this trial of yours is being treated
as an ordinary farce.
So, gentlemen, I'm opposed to your
order, and the first thing I ask you to
do is to return to me my right to
health, to make it possible for me to have
a break to recuperate.
And in relation to what Mr. Bonomy
said when he expressed his astonishment
when Mr. Nice was referring to what
the public was talking about, I wish to
remind you of the following: In all
the paragraphs of the Kosovo indictment
where alleged crimes are referred to
over the allegedly unarmed Albanians,
it says: "The forces of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic
of Serbia" did such and such a thing.
In all paragraphs, without exception.
All of Serbia, and everyone in the
international public knows that the
forces of the FRY of Serbia were
protecting, defending the country from
terrorism and foreign aggression.
That is what is perfectly clear.
Now, this phrase which is used in
every paragraph pertaining to the alleged
crimes, "the forces of the FRY and
Serbia," you are supposed to make a
judgement, when lo and behold, the
negotiations on the final status of
Kosovo and Metohija are about to
start, not to mention the fact that as a
precondition for bringing the war to
an end, we got the firmest possible
international guarantees for the
territorial integrity and sovereignty of
the country. So what a coincidence.
Is there anyone that you can dissuade
that that is not the aim of those that
you receive orders from, that it is
the forces of the FRY and Serbia that
have to be found guilty for defending
their own territory so that those who
really did this would not stand
accused but rather achieve their
geopolitical objectives.
So that is quite clearly present in
the public opinion. And this is a
coincidence that everybody noticed
immediately. It was not necessary for
anyone to explain it to them.
JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, I wonder
if you can help me and tell me how
these instructions are conveyed to me,
because I'm obviously missing some
part of the information that you seem
to consider as essential to my
judgement of this matter. How is it
I get my orders? Where do they come
from? You who so proudly denies the
allegations against you about conveying
orders to others on the basis of no
information, on no evidence, what is the
evidence you suggest indicates that
I receive orders from somewhere?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Bonomy, this entire Court was
envisaged as an instrument of war
against my country. It was founded
illegally on the basis of an illegal
decision and carried through by the
forces that waged war against my
country. There is just one thing that is
true here: It is true that there is a
joint criminal enterprise, but not in
Belgrade, not in Yugoslavia as its
center, but those, who, in a war that was
waged in Yugoslavia from 1991 onwards,
destroyed Yugoslavia.
Yugoslavia did not disintegrate by --
JUDGE BONOMY: You fail to answer my
question. Please answer the question
rather than embark on a political diatribe.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Robinson -- or, rather, Mr.
Bonomy, I'm not making political
speeches here at all. I think that you are
in the service of those who committed
crimes against my country and against
my people, and you're receiving a salary from them.
JUDGE BONOMY: You're refusing to answer
the question, are you?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
No, no, I'm not refusing. Do you want
to tell me who pays your salary? Do you
wish to claim that you receive a
salary from the United Nations? Who
finances this Court, Mr. Bonomy? Who
established this Court, Mr. Bonomy?
Who effected an aggression against my
country, Mr. Bonomy? Your country.
And who am I asking to come in to
testify? Your presidents and Prime Ministers.
JUDGE BONOMY: Are you suggesting
I am not paid by the United Nations?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I claim that, Mr. Bonomy, because the
United Nations are -- finance this
illegal Tribunal of yours. It's financed
from all manner of sources. I have
enumerated some of them.
Now, whether you, in formal terms,
whether you, in formal terms, receive a
salary via this institution which calls
itself a United Nations Tribunal is
quite immaterial as far as I'm concerned.
JUDGE BONOMY: Well, now you move on
to another issue when you're proved to
be wrong. So let's concentrate on the
issue that you're addressing; the
question of severance.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Therefore, gentlemen, as I've already
told you, I am opposed to severance
because I would say that was -- that was
a war, it was one war. I said Yugoslavia
did not disintegrate or disappear
in some manner, but it was destroyed
in a planned manner, forcefully,
through a war, and that war is still
being waged, is still going on. And one
of the instruments of this war is your
illegal Tribunal.
Let me say straight away, as far as
your judgements are concerned and
rulings in joinders or not joinders,
I'm not afraid of them at all, because
if you judge according to the law and
the truth, then there would never have
been this trial in the first place.
But as we do have a trial, it can end
only in one way: A decision on the
non-existence of culpability. And if you
don't rule based on justice and truth,
then your ruling will disintegrate
and will burst like a bubble of soap,
because the court of the world and the
court of justice and the truth is
stronger than any other court. It is up to
each one of us, and each one of you
gentlemen, to opt and choose what place
we're going to have before that court
of history, and what its decision will
be. So don't harbour any illusions on
that score.
Therefore, as I said, I am opposed
to severance. I demand that I be given a
rest period to recuperate. I stress
that today, too, I came in in a very
poor state of health, extremely poor,
but I did come in so that we can
continue the proceedings. Therefore,
I demand that you consider my request
to give me a break, a period of rest.
And as for severance or non-severance,
I've stated my views on that matter, too.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. (.)
JUDGE ROBINSON: There are several issues
arising from the matters that we
have considered today. I wish to note --
Mr. Milosevic.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Will I get an opportunity to say a
few words with regard to these questions
that Mr. Nice raised?
JUDGE ROBINSON: Well, you've already
spoken, and we have heard you. Do you
have something that could be said very briefly?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
We heard him before me and now he
spoke, well, for a considerable amount
of time yet again.
JUDGE ROBINSON: That was a response to you.
That's traditional in these
matters. If you have something to say,
I'll hear it, briefly.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Before I speak in connection with
what Mr. Nice said, and he repeated
lots of nonsense that we have occasion
to hear from him here, I just wish to
provide a piece of information to Mr.
Bonomy because he asked me about this.
So, Mr. Bonomy, in relation to the
financing of this illegal Tribunal of
yours, according to your own Article 32
of your own Statute, the expenses
are covered from the regular budget
of the UN. However, they arrive from
very murky sources; the Soros Foundation,
various foundations from the
Islamic countries, with NATO being the
major financier.
On the 17th of May, 1999, Jamie Shea,
the spokesperson of NATO, said: "NATO
countries are those [In English] ...
the finest to set up Tribunal. We are
amongst the majority financiers.
We want to see war criminals brought to
justice. I'm certain that when Justice
Arbour goes to Kosovo and looks at
the facts, she will be indicting
people of Yugoslavian nationality, and I
don't anticipate any others at this stage."
[Interpretation] So the main financier
is NATO, and the others are the
Soros Foundation and foundations from
Islamic countries, and so on and so
forth. So that is perfectly clear.
And on page 35550 from these proceedings
here, I'm just going to quote Mr.
Nice, who talks about a witness, and
says: "[In English] If we go to page 2
of 11, halfway down the page we can see
that this is by no means written by
people who are friends of the ICTY or
any Western conspiracy, because the
author describes NATO's intervention
as the recent 'brutal, illegal, and
illegitimate intervention of the NATO
forces against the country.'
"So you would accept that this is a
Serb without any particular leaning
towards the forces and powers that
established this Tribunal ..." et cetera.
[Interpretation] So, Mr. Bonomy, for
Mr. Nice, obviously there is no
dilemma, the kind of dilemma you have.
So you can clarify it with him, what
he meant to say then. Since you say that
you don't know about this, I hereby
inform you of this. And I believe that,
as an honourable man, once you've
found out, and I can give you further
evidence, you can leave this story
that you got into without realising
what you got yourself into. And now as
for Mr. Nice and what he said, he said
the most senseless thing possible
about a Greater Serbia --
JUDGE BONOMY: I have to say I haven't
the remotest idea what you're talking
about now in relation to this. In fact,
the more I read it, the less
comprehensible it becomes.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I have
to say to you that you are not at
large here. I am giving you a chance
to comment on some issues if you
consider them to be issues of importance.
Although the Prosecutor did not
file a motion, I asked the Prosecutor
to begin. So in accordance with the
tradition in adversarial systems,
I allowed him to reply. In these
circumstances, I don't see you as
having any right to reply, but you
obviously have an interest, a
fundamental interest, in the outcome of these
matters, and it is for that reason
that I'm allowing you to say something at
this stage. But please don't abuse it.
Proceed, bearing in mind that we
are now almost seven minutes to two.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
As for what Mr. Nice said that
pertains to one of the key issues,
as for Greater Serbia, he explained just
now that I did not utter that word,
but I assume that he's trying to say
that there is something that was done.
I also think that deeds have to be
looked into first and foremost, and
the deed is the following, Mr. Robinson
and gentlemen: In this entire period,
from 1991 onwards, no one was expelled
from Serbia on account of ethnic
affiliation. There was no discrimination
whatsoever. No one from Serbia and no
one from the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia was discriminated against
on account of his religion, race, or
beliefs. That is a fact, gentlemen.
And at that time that you are interested
in, I was president of Serbia and president
of Yugoslavia, and no one was
ever expelled from there. That is a fact.
Now, what Mr. Nice is trying to ascribe to me --
JUDGE ROBINSON: [B/C/S spoken on English
channel] I want to make it clear
I'm not interested in this. I'm interested
in the question of severance. I
am not clear. We are back to English now.
Did you hear what I said? I said
I'm not interested in a general discussion
on Greater Serbia. If you have
something to say about Greater Serbia
because it impacts on the question of
severance, then I'll allow you to say it.
But don't regurgitate the
arguments which we've heard ad nauseam
about this issue.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Robinson, the question of time is
being raised here, and Mr. Nice devoted
due attention to that in the speech
he just made. According to Mr. Nice,
the best thing would be not to have
anyone testify in public but to do
all of it in writing, and Mr. Nice is
explaining to you how they abided by
that, that they were very economical,
very expeditious. And in spite of all
these heaps of paper and all these 92
bis and 89(F) testimonies, he used up
300 days. So please do not take into
account these things that are in
contravention of pure mathematics.
I was not saying that no one worked
for five days. I was just trying to say
that no one sat for five days. Of course
I work for more than five days,
although we sit here only for three
days. And after all, Dr. van Dijkman
wrote that three days is what I do
here, and as for the rest of my time, I
have to prepare myself for here,
including the proofing of witnesses. And
that is what he knows full well and
that is what you know full well, so that
is an argument that cannot be used at all.
Mr. Nice's advice is that I collect
written statements from witnesses. The
basic aim of public testimony is to
hear the truth, because if we were to
stop at what Mr. Nice wrote, together
with his associates, that would be a
monstrous lie. So in order to have the
truth heard, there is a great
interest involved, a historical interest,
I should say, of my people, of my
country. But not only of my people
and of my country, of mankind in general
and of the times in general. Let us
hear what the truth is, and let the
actual perpetrators of what happened
in Yugoslavia actually be exposed,
although you said yourself, Mr.
Robinson, at one point in time, that you are
not in charge of trying NATO for what
they did, although you know what they
did and you know that the basic tenet
of any law in the world is that the
law that does not apply to one and
all is not law at all.
Therefore, I ask for adequate time to
be given to me.
JUDGE BONOMY: I, again, have to say
I don't understand this submission.
Because something is in writing does
not mean it is not in public.
Everything in writing here, submitted
in writing that's not confidential,
becomes public. And at this stage,
it's not, as you would see it, lies that
we're suggesting ought to be presented
in writing, it's what you claim to be
the truth, because it is you that would
be presenting the written material,
and you turn the argument on its head
and undermine your whole case. It is
the way forward if you want to submit
material in addition to the period
that's been allocated to you to complete the case.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I think, Mr. Bonomy, that you're the
one who's turned things upside down.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Are you finished now,
Mr. Milosevic?
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
Mr. Nice presented a great many other
things here too, that this will show
how I systematically did not observe
any laws, which is a lie. He has not
presented a shred of evidence to that
effect. That my role with the
paramilitaries will be shown. My only role
with the paramilitaries was to have
them arrested.
There was no other evidence to that effect.
So he is manipulating here --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, all of this
-- this is irrelevant to the
issue. If you do not have anything more
to say on the question of severance,
we'll stop now. We are 15 minutes beyond --
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I'm talking about what he talked about.
JUDGE ROBINSON: And you don't have a
right to do that. I explained to you
the circumstances in which I have
allowed you to speak, and I explained why
Mr. Nice had a right to reply, because
he started. Do you have anything that
is pertinent to say, anything more? I'm
not interested in general issues. If
you don't, I'm going to adjourn.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation]
I have presented what I consider to be relevant.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic.
I want to say that many issues arise
for consideration and decision by the
Trial Chamber in relation to this matter.
We still have outstanding a report
which we expect today from Dr. Dalal,
and also there is to be an examination
and a report by a neuroradiologist.
The Chamber would like to have all these
reports before it before it makes a
decision on these matters. So we'll give
a decision once we have all the reports before us.
******************************
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).
After the unlawful attack of the German
financial authorities on the ICDSM
fundraising in Germany, that lead
to freezing of the ICDSM account in
Germany, the similar thing took place
recently in Austria, where the
account of the Yugoslav-Austrian
Solidarity was frozen. These unlawful acts,
aiming to undermine the President Milosevic's
defence, will be fought back legally.
***********************************************************
To carry on the normal defence work -
3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.
Please send your donations to the following account:
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)
--- Fine messaggio inoltrato ---