7011 ICTY prison director kept US Embassy informed on Milosevic

(italiano / deutsch / english)

ICTY prison director kept US Embassy informed on Milosevic

1) INTRODUZIONE. In base a rivelazioni Wikileaks, il direttore del carcere dell'Aia Tim McFadden riferiva all'ambasciata USA in Olanda i dettagli delle conversazioni telefoniche private di Milosevic e del suo stato di salute. Perché?
2) Gespräch mit Christopher Black: Gefängnisdirektor als Informant Washingtons (jW)
3) REACTIONS IN DEN HAAG (IWPR):
KARADZIC REQUESTS TRIAL SUSPENSION / SESELJ URGES ACTION OVER EX-DETENTION UNIT OFFICER
4) FLASHBACK: The Hague ICTY Tribunal killed Yugoslavia's President Slobodan Milosevic / L'11 marzo 2006 il tribunale de L'Aia ha ucciso il presidente della Jugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic

LINK: 
Wikileaks cable from Clifford Johnson of the US embassy in The Hague which details statements made by Timothy McFadden, the former commanding officer of the United Nations Detention Unit, UNDU

NEL QUINTO ANNIVERSARIO DELL'ASSASSINIO: DEMONSTRATION AND EVENTS IN VIENNA, 11-12/3/2011
siti internet del Comitato Internazionale Slobodan Milosevic: 
http://www.icdsm.info , http://www.free-slobo.de/
archivio Milosevic:
https://www.cnj.it/MILOS/

sull'assassinio di Milosevic nella galera dell'Aia:
https://www.cnj.it/MILOS/morte.htm


=== 1 ===

In base a rivelazioni Wikileaks, il direttore del carcere dell'Aia Tim McFadden riferiva all'ambasciata USA in Olanda i dettagli delle conversazioni telefoniche private di Milosevic e del suo stato di salute. Perché?

Riportiamo di seguito (a) una intervista a Christopher Black, giurista canadese e avvocato di fiducia di Mira Markovic, vedova di Slobodan Milosevic. 
L'intervista, che è apparsa sul quotidiano berlinese Junge Welt, riguarda l'inchiesta a proposito delle circostanze della morte di Milosevic. Black commenta in particolare le recenti rivelazioni di Wikileaks (b), secondo cui il direttore del carcere Tim McFadden ascoltava le telefonate di Milosevic e ne comunicava i contenuti riservati all'ambasciata USA, cioè a Washington. 
Seppure in molte carceri l'ascolto delle telefonate, come dei colloqui, sia previsto e legale, i loro contenuti non andrebbero divulgati a terzi. Viceversa, spiega Black,

<< McFadden ha divulgato conversazioni tra Milosevic e sua moglie, in cui si toccavano questioni relative alla strategia di difesa ed a testimoni, discussioni interne al team della difesa, il punto di vista di Milosevic su queste questioni, la mancanza di mezzi finanziari per la difesa, le influenze politiche, eccetera. E [McFadden] ha trasmesso agli USA dettagli strettamente confidenziali sullo stato di salute di Milosevic. Peraltro io temo che McFadden si sia incontrato anche con rappresentanti dell'Accusa. (...) McFadden ed il governo USA in questo modo di sono immischiati in un processo in corso, violando il dovere di neutralità. (...)
[Le rivelazioni di Wikileaks] possono seriamente influenzare il corso dei processi all'ICTY [il "tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia]. Ogni accusato si deve adesso chiedere se è sottoposto ad un processo imparziale, quando il governo USA viene informato di tutto ciò che egli fa o dice. Se l'ICTY è indipendente e super-partes, che ragione hanno gli USA per incontrarsi con McFadden e raccogliere tutte queste informazioni? Quali informazioni vanno all'Accusa? Forse la controparte conosce ogni passo successivo previsto? Radovan Karadzic perciò, subito dopo la comparsa di queste rivelazioni, ha richiesto la fine delle intercettazioni ai suoi danni. (c)
(...) Ci dobbiamo anche chiedere quale origine abbia questo rapporto tra McFadden e gli USA, e come si è sviluppato. L'intero quadro cambia a seguito di questi nuovi dati di fatto. >>

Queste rivelazioni - nel carosello delle tante di Wikileaks, che ad osservatori attenti appaiono comunque parziali, incomplete ed orientate solo a scopi geostrategici piuttosto precisi, cioè a mettere in imbarazzo alcuni alleati poco affidabili per gli USA - sono passate sostanzialmente sotto silenzio. In Italia ne ha riferito solamente un lancio AGI (che riportiamo di seguito), nel quale tuttavia tra i tanti sciocchi pettegolezzi sui rapporti di Milosevic con i famigliari (d) si omette di sollevare lo scandalo più grosso: e cioè il fatto stesso che l'ex direttore della galera dell'Aia era un informatore di Washington.

(a cura di Italo Slavo)

NOTE:
(a) Si veda di seguito, sezione *2*.
(c) Sulle reazioni nelle aule del "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia, a proposito di queste rivelazioni Wikileaks, in particolare da parte degli "imputati" Karadzic e Seselj, si vedano i testi riportati nella sezione *3* di questo post.
(d) I pettegolezzi sulle abitudini di Milosevic in carcere e sui suoi rapporti telefonici con collaboratori e famigliari erano già stati fatti trapelare, proprio dal direttore della galera McFadden, allo scopo di deviare l'attenzione pubblica dai contenuti del "processo"-farsa per mezzo di << una pioggia ben dosata di rivelazioni minori intrise di sarcasmo >> - si veda: http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2002/febbraio/09/Milosevic_cella_con_Sinatra_Hemingway_co_0_0202096992.shtml .

---


Olanda: su Wikileaks documento che racconta la vita di Milosevic in carcere


Agi, 6 febbraio 2011

Un cablogramma diplomatico statunitense, svelato oggi dal sito Wikileaks, ha fornito uno spaccato unico sulla vita dell’ex presidente serbo, Slobodan Milosevic, nella prigione del Tribunale penale internazionale (Tpi) dell’Aia in cui è morto. Il documento descrive Milosevic come un appassionato lettore di thriller giudiziari di qualità mediocre, un ascoltatore delle canzoni di Frank Sinatra e un detenuto che non mancava di godere della sua ora d’aria nel cortile della prigione.
L’Ambasciata statunitense all’Aia ha inviato al Dipartimento di stato Usa la sua informativa nel novembre 2003, quando il processo a Milosevic entrava nel suo secondo anno. L’autore del documento aveva avuto un colloquio col capo dell’unità di detenzione del Tpi Tim McFadden. Quest’ultimo era in contatto quotidiano con Milosevic e aveva accesso al contenuto delle sue conversazioni con la sua famiglia e i suoi amici, oltre che al dossier medico dell’ex presidente serbo. Nei colloqui con i rappresentanti dell’ambasciata, McFadden ha spiegato che Milosevic chiamava ogni giorno la moglie, Mira Markovic, e descriveva la loro relazione come “straordinaria”.
Markovic è descritta come una donna dalla personalità fortissima. “Milosevic poteva manipolare tutta una nazione, ma finiva a mal partito quando deve gestire sua moglie che, al contrario, sembrava esercitare una forte ingfluenza su di lui”.
Milosevic aveva problemi cardiaci e d’ipertensione, problemi che l’hanno angustiato durante tutto il corso del processo in cui doveva rispondere per genocidia e crimini di guerra relativi ai conflitti balcanici degli anni 90. Si trattava di sintomi “seri e difficilmente controllabili con i farmaci”. McFadden, inoltre, descrive Milosevic come un “narcistista” che si credeva “circondato da matti” nel tribunale. Eppure era convinto di controllare l’andamento del processo. “Ha una grande fiducia nelle proprie capacità e pensa che riuscirà a vincere di fronte al tribunale, un atteggiamento che rafforza il suo stato di salute stabile attuale”. Tuttavia, nel documento, c’è la previsione che le sue condizioni cliniche sarebbero peggiorate. Previsione che s’è avverata tre anni dopo, quando - il 14 marzo 2006 - l’ex presidente è morto.


=== 2 ===


11.02.2011 / Ausland / Seite 2

»Details über Gesundheit weitergegeben«


Gefängnisdirektor als Informant Washingtons. US-Depesche über Haft von Slobodan Milosevic. Ein Gespräch mit Christopher Black


Interview: Cathrin Schütz

Der kanadische Jurist Christopher Black ist Anwalt von Mira Markovic zur Aufklärung der Todesumstände von Slobodan Milosevic und Verteidiger am Internationalen Strafgerichtshof für Ruanda


Slobodan Milosevic hat während seines Prozesses vor dem UN-Sondertribunal für das ehemalige Jugoslawien (ICTY) in Den Haag in seiner Zelle »billige Kriminalthriller« gelesen und CDs von Frank Sinatra gehört, heißt es in einer von Wikileaks veröffentlichten US-Depesche. Auch was der frühere jugoslawische Präsident in privaten Gesprächen gesagt haben soll, wird kolportiert. Die Informationen stammen vom Gefängnisdirektor Tim McFadden. Ging dessen Abhöraktion mit rechten Dingen zu?

Enthüllt wurden von Wikileaks hier gleich mehrere Skandale: Zum einen hat der Gefängnisdirektor Details über Milosevics Privatleben und seinen Gesundheitszustand weitergegeben. Damit hat er seine strikte Schweigepflicht gebrochen. Zum anderen hat er dabei, wie es scheint, als Informant der US-Regierung agiert. Die Inhalte seiner privaten Gespräche mit Milosevic wie der Telefonate zwischen diesem und seiner Frau sowie Bekannten und auch persönliche Gewohnheiten, Launen, Bemerkungen hat er nämlich den USA gemeldet.

Sind die Abhörmaßnahmen legal?

Sie sind in vielen Gefängnissen gängig. Allerdings nicht, wenn es um vertrauliche Gespräche geht, etwa mit Anwälten und Beratern. McFadden hat Gespräche zwischen Milosevic und seiner Frau weitergegeben, in denen es um Fragen der Verteidigungsstrategie und um Zeugen ging, um Debatten innerhalb des Beraterteams, Milosevics Sicht auf diese Fragen, den Mangel an finanziellen Mitteln zur Verteidigung, politische Einflüsse usw. Und er hat streng vertrauliche Details über Milosevics Gesundheit an die USA geliefert. Außerdem befürchte ich, daß sich McFadden auch mit Vertretern der Anklageseite getroffen hat. Diese hätte einen klaren Nutzen daraus ziehen können.

McFadden und die US-Regierung haben sich dadurch in einen laufenden Prozeß eingemischt und die Neutralitätspflicht verletzt. McFadden stattet seinen Bericht nicht Rußland ab oder anderen Mitgliedern des UN-Sicherheitsrats. Meine Vermutung, daß es sich beim Jugoslawien-Tribunal um eine reine Kreatur von NATO und USA handelt, die nicht im Sinne des Rechts agiert, sondern politische Entscheidungen ausführt, wird erneut untermauern.

Könnte diese Wikileaks-Enthüllung die laufenden Prozesse vor dem ICTY betreffen?

Sie kann diese ernsthaft beeinflussen. Jeder Angeklagte muß sich nun fragen, ob er einen fairen Prozeß haben kann, wenn die Regierung der USA über alles informiert wird, was er tut und sagt. Wenn das ICTY unabhängig und unparteiisch ist, welchen Grund haben dann die USA, sich mit McFadden zu treffen und all diese Informationen einzuholen? Welche Informationen gehen an die Anklage? Kennt die Gegenseite vielleicht jeden geplanten nächsten Schritt? Radovan Karadzic hat übrigens gleich nach Erscheinen der Enthüllung das Ende seiner Observation beantragt.

Als Anwalt von Milosevics Witwe Mira Markovic sind Sie mit der Aufklärung seiner Todesumstände betraut. Milosevic verstarb im März 2006 im Gefängnis, angeblich an einer natürlichen Ursache, unter der Obhut von McFadden. Beeinflußt die Enthüllung Ihre Arbeit?

Wir wußten nicht, daß die US-Regierung Milosevic bewachte – eine Regierung, die während der NATO-Aggression gegen Serbien im Frühjahr 1999 versuchte, Präsident Milosevic zu töten, indem sie unter Verletzung des Kriegsvölkerrechts sein Haus mit Cruise Missiles angriff, sein Land unter Verletzung des Völkerrechts bombardierte und die ihn über ihre Handlanger mittels falscher Anschuldigungen anklagen ließ. Diese Regierung hat Milosevic möglicherweise während all der Jahre in Den Haag beobachten lassen, wußte alles, was er sagte und tat. Unsere Untersuchungen der Todesumstände von Milosevic müssen diese Fakten berücksichtigen. Warum wurden die USA über den Gesundheitszustand und seine Behandlung so umfassend informiert? Welchen Einfluß hatten sie auf die Arbeit der Haftanstalt, auf die Anordnungen von McFadden? Haben sie ihm gesagt, was er tun soll? Was er Wärtern und Krankenschwestern anordnen soll? Welche Rolle spielten die USA vor allem in den Monaten vor seinem Tod? Und wir müssen auch fragen, woher die Beziehung zwischen McFadden und den USA stammt, wie sie sich entwickelt hat. Das ganze Bild ändert sich durch diese neuen Fakten.

Am 11. März findet in Wien anläßlich des 5. Todestages von Slobodan Milosevic eine internationale Protestveranstaltung statt, auf der u.a. Christopher Black und der Anwalt von Radovan Karadzic, Goran Petronijevic, reden werden. Weitere Informationen: www.free-slobo.de

=== 3 ===



---

IWPR’S ICTY TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 678, February 7, 2011

KARADZIC REQUESTS TRIAL SUSPENSION

Former Bosnian Serb president says he needs time to consider new material.

By Rachel Irwin

Radovan Karadzic this week requested that his trial at the Hague tribunal be suspended for three months due to a large volume of material the prosecution recently disclosed to him.

This material – about 32,000 pages - mainly concerns events in various Bosnian municipalities, which is the next component of the prosecution’s case. Currently, the trial is still focused on the sniping and shelling of Sarajevo, as it has been since last April.

Karadzic is requesting that the proceedings be suspended from February 15 until May 15, save for a few witnesses with dates already fixed.

He claims that since most of the new material is in the Serbian language, only a few members of his legal team have the ability to review it. According to the submission, the time off from trial preparation “will ensure that the accused is not required to start defending events in the municipalities until he has received all of the disclosure he was entitled to receive before the trial commenced” including additional material that is expected in early April.

The judges have previously granted Karadzic’s requests for a trial suspension on three occasions—for a month last November, one week last September and two weeks last August. Each of those times Karadzic had just received a trove of material from the prosecution.

The prosecution has not yet responded to Karadzic’s request, and the judges will not make a decision on the matter until that response is filed.

In other recent developments, Karadzic has also requested that his phone calls no longer be monitored by court officials, as is standard practice regarding all detainees.

He bases his January 28 request on a leaked Wikileaks cable from Clifford Johnson of the United States embassy in The Hague which details statements made by Timothy McFadden, the former commanding officer of the United Nations Detention Unit, UNDU.

In the cable – which Karadzic attached to his request – McFadden is said to have described in great detail phone calls between Milosevic and his wife Mirjana Markovic.

“Milosevic could manipulate a nation, [McFadden] said, but struggled to maintain his wife who, on the contrary, seemed to exert just such a pull on him,” the cable states.

The cables also describe Milosevic’s taste in music, including Frank Sinatra, and “pot boiler thrillers”, it read.

Karadzic claims that the way McFadden disclosed this information is “shocking and disturbing.

“It is unknown to what extent, if any, officials of the United Nations detention unit or registrar have discussed with third parties information obtained in whole or in part through the monitoring or recording of Dr Karadzic’s conversations,” he states.

Karadzic further requests that the registrar obtain a statement under oath from the current commander of the detention unit, and all commanders since July 2008, “setting forth all instances in which they discussed Dr Karadzic’s case with persons outside of the registry and in the information revealed in those discussions”.

The president of the tribunal, Judge Patrick Robinson, has yet to respond to Karadzic’s request.

At a press conference on January 26, chief of the registrar’s office Martin Petrov told journalists that “at this point, the tribunal is unable to confirm the authenticity of the report but the matter is being looked into.

“A preliminary analysis of the alleged cable indicates that many of the issues raised in it were already in the public domain.”

For example, he said that “details about the daily routine of ICTY detainees have been available to the public for years”.

Petrov stressed “that the tribunal has clear confidentiality rules, which apply to all, including and especially to ICTY staff members. Alleged breaches of confidentiality are always investigated and appropriate action taken”.

Rachel Irwin is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.

---

IWPR’S ICTY TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 679, February 14, 2011

SESELJ URGES ACTION OVER EX-DETENTION UNIT OFFICER

Serb nationalist politician claims the former officer revealed Milosevic’s personal details prejudicing work of tribunal. 

By Rachel Irwin

Serbian nationalist politician Vojislav Seselj this week urged the Hague tribunal to take action against the former commanding officer of the United Nations detention unit in The Hague for allegedly disclosing personal details about ex-Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic to a United States diplomat.

Seselj’s remarks – in a report to tribunal president Judge Patrick Robinson – were related to a reportedly leaked diplomatic cable where Clifford Johnson, of the United States embassy in The Hague, allegedly detailed statements that former commanding officer Timothy McFadden is said to have made about Milosevic.

“Milosevic could manipulate a nation, [McFadden] said, but struggled to maintain his wife who, on the contrary, seemed to exert just such a pull on him,” the alleged cable stated about Milosevic’s daily phone conversations with his wife, Mirjana Markovic.


The said cable goes on to describe Milosevic’s “nearly photogenic memory”, his supposed narcissism, as well as his state of health and daily routine. In addition, the alleged cable mentions his taste in music and books, which included Frank Sinatra and “pot boiler thrillers”.

Seselj claims that “by sending the information to US agencies and state organs, [McFadden] caused serious prejudice to the reputation and the work of the [tribunal]”. He said that if Judge Robinson doesn’t take action “commensurate” with the allegations at hand, “the already poor international reputation of the [tribunal] will be ruined further”.

Seselj then listed numerous rules enacted at both the tribunal and the detention unit, known as the UNDU, and described how McFadden allegedly broke them.

The reported details about Milosevic’s relationship with his wife were “a scandalous disclosure about the private relationship between spouses”, he alleged, and went on to note that it is “normal for spouses to call each other every day”.

He concluded by urging Judge Robinson to take action on the matter, or “it will be clear that the [tribunal] is under the same jurisdiction as the Guantanamo camp/military court”.

Detained at the UNDU since 2003, Seselj is charged with nine counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity – including murder, torture and forcible transfer – for atrocities carried out in an effort to expel the non-Serb population from parts of Croatia and Bosnia between August 1991 and September 1993. He remains leader of the Serbian Radical Party, SRS, based in Belgrade.

Seselj’s trial has endured repeated delays since it officially began in November 2007, a full year after the original trial date was postponed due to the accused’s hunger strike. In addition, he was found guilty of contempt in July 2009 for revealing confidential details about protected witnesses in one of the books he authored. The accused is set to face yet another contempt trial on similar charges.

Fellow accused Radovan Karadzic has already used the alleged leaked cable as a basis for requesting that his phone calls no longer be monitored by court officials, as is standard for all detainees.

In a January 28 motion, Karadzic claimed that the way McFadden disclosed the information on Milosevic was “shocking and disturbing.

“It is unknown to what extent, if any, officials of the United Nations detention unit or registrar have discussed with third parties information obtained in whole or in part through the monitoring or recording of Dr Karadzic’s conversations,” he stated.

Karadzic further requested that the registrar obtain a statement under oath from the current commander of the detention unit, and all commanders since July 2008, “setting forth all instances in which they discussed Dr Karadzic’s case with persons outside of the registry and in the information revealed in those discussions”.

The president of the tribunal has yet to respond to Karadzic’s request.

At a press conference on January 26, chief of the registrar’s office Martin Petrov told journalists that “at this point, the tribunal is unable to confirm the authenticity of the report but the matter is being looked into.

“A preliminary analysis of the alleged cable indicates that many of the issues raised in it were already in the public domain”.

For example, he said that “details about the daily routine of [tribunal] detainees have been available to the public for years”.

Petrov stressed “that the tribunal has clear confidentiality rules, which apply to all, including and especially to staff members. Alleged breaches of confidentiality are always investigated and appropriate action taken”.

Rachel Irwin is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.


=== 4 ===


The Hague ICTY Tribunal killed Yugoslavia's President Slobodan Milosevic


Global Research, March 10, 2009
Strategic Cultural Foundation

President Slobodan Milosevic. In memoriam

On 11 March 2006 the Hague Tribunal killed Yugoslavia's President Slobodan Milosevic


On 11 March 2006 the UN`s International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) reported that Slobodan Milosevic had been “found dead in his cell”. On 14 March the court stopped all trial procedures on the case. While reporting on the causes of Milosevic`s death, the Tribunal's Vice-President Kevin Parker said “Milosevic died a natural death as a result of a heart attack”. But there is evidence that Slobodan Milosevic was killed, and that the ICTY was responsible for the murder.

This is how it all happened. First, Milosevic was placed in prison, where his health deteriorated. Then he was refused to be treated in a heart surgery center and when his heart condition worsened, he did not receive urgent medical help. The Tribunal did so deliberately as they knew about his health problems.

One should just read the following medical reports to understand that Milosevic had not received necessary medical treatment. Dr. Aarts: “Atherosclerosis is typical for people of his age”. Dr. De Laat: “Over the past 6 months Milosevic suffered strong head noise and tension and a partial hearing and sight loss. Probably, poor hearing was caused by cardiovascular problems”. Dr.Spoelstra knew that Milosevic had been wearing earphones for five years but still suggested “just to regulate volume level for the earphones”. The ICTY prison doctor Paulus Falke: “I discussed the issue with an otolaryngologist from the Bronovo hospital. He told me Milosevic`s poor hearing was normal for people of his age”. Could all these reports be just a medical mistake? No.

Milosevic was diagnosed correctly, and all the rest doctors were aware of it. On 4 November 2005 Slobodan Milosevic said he wanted to be examined by doctors. There were three of them: Doctor of Medicine, Professor Shumilina M.(Russia), Professor Leclerc (France) and Professor Andric (Serbia). Doctor Shumilina said Milosevic had not received proper medical treatment and insisted on urgent thorough medical examination and treatment. She also warned there was a risk of serious brain problems. Cardiologist Leclerc was not given an opportunity to familiarize himself with the results of Milosevic` previous medical examinations. He said an ECG test he did to Milosevic was “extremely anomalous”. In their joint report, the international group of doctors warned the Tribunal that the patient's condition was very grave and he was at risks. They said Milosevic had to be examined more throughly to get a precise diagnosis. The doctors asked for a 6-week rest for Milosevic`s body and mind so that he could feel at least some kind of relief.

Shumilina`s opinion caused much annoyance. It was the first time when a group of independent doctors proved that Milosevic`s poor health condition had been caused by improper medical treatment. Shumilina was criticized and even accused of being involved in conspiracy with Milosevic. On 14 December 2005 she wrote a letter to the Tribunal to express her annoyance at the attempts made by some of doctors to play down the importance of her resolution on Milosevic`s health. Among other things, she wrote that not the age of 64 had caused Milosevic`s atherosclerosis but the lack of proper treatment for his arterial hypertension.

In December 2005 Leo Bokeria, Director of Moscow's Bakulev Heart Surgery Center, wrote to the ICTY President Fausto Pokar that Milosevic`s health had deteriorated due to wrong treatment. Bokeria said the aim was to “prevent cardiovascular catastrophe”, so the Tribunal`s President should hardly have any doubts about it. In December 2005 Slobodan Milosevic asked the court to let him be hospitalized in Moscow. Despite the fact that all the regulations were observed, Milosevic was refused.

The ICTY accused Milosevic of deliberately taking unprescribed drugs to worsen his health condition in order to leave for Moscow and there escape from court.

Timothy McFadden, the prison governor responsible for Milosevic, wrote a letter to the Tribunal on 19 December 2005, in which he said he had long doubted whether Milosevic was taking prescribed drugs. McFadden also reported that the ICTY prison doctor could no longer hold responsibility for Milosevic`s health, neither the Tribunal's secretary was going to do it. Obviously, conclusions made by McFadden were not based on the results of medical treatment. Actually, Milosevic`s blood tests showed “low levels of prescribed and unprescribed medicines”. And without having any solid evidence, McFadden described the blood tests as the result of Milosevic`s deliberate actions.

In his letter of January, 6, 2006 the ICTY prison doctor Paulus Falke repeats McFadden: “The tests showed that he had been taking prescribed medicines not as regularly as he should. Besides, he took drugs neither me nor other doctors have prescribed him”. Toxicologist Donald Uges added: “I have reasons to believe Milosevic had been taking unprescribed drugs. This is what could have caused his high blood pressure”.

Dr. Tou was the only one to name a few possible reasons for low concentration of prescribed drugs in Milosevic`s blood: weak gastrointestinal absorption, inaccurate use of prescribed medicines, interaction with other substances, lowered absorption of enzymes and quick metabolism for CYP2D6. All these conclusions were based on elementary medical tests. The question is how other doctors failed to be aware of this. Obviously, it could have been done only deliberately. However, before Dr. Tou`s report was published, Falke ruled out any other causes except non-use of prescribed drugs. Falke lacked competence to make conclusions like he did. He wanted the court to have a negative image of Milosevic.

On 12 January 2006 Slobodan Milosevic demanded a sample of his blood to be taken for analysis. The procedure took place after he had been taking the medicines prescribed by Falke. The test showed the same level of medicines as before. Thus Falke`s and McFadden's allegations were refuted. Falke insisted that Milosevic had been taking “unprescribed drugs”. But toxicologist Uges said only two medicines were spotted in Milosevic`s blood- Diazepam and Nordazepam. Appointed attorneys found out that Diazepam had been prescribed to Milosevic by Falke in the middle of October 2005. According to Dr. Tou, who did a repeated expertise, the metabolism of Nordazepam is possible only with participation of Diazepam. Dr. Uges added that “concentration of both medicines in blood was too low to have any pharmacological effect”. Even if these two medicines are found in a patient's blood for months, they will not do any harm and cause high blood pressure in any way. In view of this, all the reports presented at the Tribunal are nothing but a provocation.

The appointed attorneys noted: “It was mentioned in none of the reports that Diazepam had been repeatedly prescribed to Milosevic by Dr. Falke: a) during a whole period of his imprisonment; b) particularly, during three days in mid October 2005. On 7 March 2006, three days before Milosevic`s death, the judges were reported that Milosevic`s blood taken for analysis on 12 January contained unprescribed Rifampicin, which could neutralize the effects of the heart medicine Milosevic was required to take.

The report published after Milosevic`s death by the ICTY Vice-President Kevin Parker read: “Autopsists diagnosed a grave heart condition which caused death”. If investigators were objective, they would have been noted that grave heart condition was diagnosed long before by Shumilina and Bokeria. In any case, diagnosis should be made when a patient is alive but Milosevic was refused to undergo necessary medical examination. Unbiased investigation should have been focused on the reasons of a heart attack. However, nothing of the kind was discussed.

Instead of investigating the situation with rifampicin in Milosevic`s blood, Parker was busy justifying Dr. Falke. But he was doing it so clumsily that even members of the Tribunal were puzzled. The information about rifampicin appeared two months after the medicine had been spotted in blood. “Dr. Falke and his colleagues discussed a possibility to reveal the information without Milosevic`s permission”, Parker explained. But such explanation is absurd since nothing prevented Falke from disclosing all information. It was even more absurd to say that the information about rifampicin was hidden from Milosevic. Firstly, this explanation itself refutes all the previous (if Milosevic did not know about rifampicin, why should he be against this information be disclosed?). Secondly, in his report Parker lies when he says “Dr. Falke did not informed Milosevic on rifampicin in his blood in accordance with the Dutch regulations on anonymity in medicine”.

Three days before his death Slobodan Milosevic wrote in a letter to the Russian Foreign Ministry: “the fact that my blood contains rifampicin, an antibiotic that is normally used to treat leprosy and tuberculosis, proves that none of these doctors have the right to treat me... I defended by country from them and now they want me to keep silence for ever”. The fact that the court stopped all trial procedures without investigating the causes of Milosevic`s death makes us think that the ICTY either organized the murder or sheltered the criminals.

Today there is hardly anyone who believes that Milosevic`s killers may be found and tried. But I am confident that such mission should exist, no matter how impossible it is. Well, now those criminals enjoy power in the Hague and worldwide but it won't last for ever. Slobodan Milosevic proved resistance is possible. Men of such strength are rare nowadays. That is why their death is perceived as personal tragedy.

Never forget President Slobodan Milosevic!


© Copyright , Strategic Cultural Foundation, 2009 

---
di seguito la traduzione fattaci pervenire da Alessandro Lattanzio
---

Presidente Slobodan Milosevic. In memoriam

Alexander Mezayev 11.03.2009

L'11 marzo 2006 il tribunale de L'Aia ha ucciso il presidente della Jugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic
 
L'11 marzo 2006 il tribunale internazionale dell’ONU per l'ex Jugoslavia (ICTY) ha segnalato che Slobodan Milosevic “era stato trovato privo di vita nella sua cellula”. Il 14 marzo la corte ha sospeso tutte le indagini sul caso. Mentre segnalava le cause della morte di Milosevic, il vice presidente del Tribunale Kevin Parker ha detto che “Milosevic è morto per cause naturali in conseguenza di un attacco di cuore”. Ma vi è prova che Slobodan Milosevic è stato ucciso e che l’ICTY è responsabile dell'omicidio. Ecco cos’è veramente accaduto.
In primo luogo Milosevic è stato costretto in prigione, dove la sua salute s’è deteriorata. Allora gli è stato rifiutata la possibilità d’essere curato in un centro di cardiologia e quando lo stato del suo cuore ha peggiorato, non ha ricevuto un aiuto medico urgente. Il tribunale ha agito in tal modo deliberatamente, sapendo dei suoi problemi sanitari. Si dovrebbero leggere solo i seguenti rapporti medici per capire che Milosevic non ha ricevuto il trattamento medico necessario.
Dott. Aarts: “L'arteriosclerosi è tipica per gente della sua età”. Dott. De Laat: “In questi ultimi 6 mesi Milosevic ha sofferto un forte mal di testa, tensioni e una perdita parziale della vista e dell’udito. Probabilmente, il calo dell'udito è stato causato dai problemi cardiovascolari”. Il Dr.Spoelstra ha saputo che Milosevic stava portando i trasduttori auricolari da cinque anni ma ha suggerito solo “di regolare il livello del volume per i trasduttori auricolari”. Il dottore Paulus Falke della prigione dell’ICTY: “Ho discusso la cosa con un otorinolaringoiatra dell'ospedale di Bronovo. Mi ha detto che il calo d’udito di Milosevic era normale per persone della sua età”.
Potevano essere tutti questi rapporti solo un errore medico? No. Milosevic ha avuto la diagnosi corretta e, del resto, tutti i medici erano informati di ciò. Il 4 novembre 2005 Slobodan Milosevic ha detto che voleva essere esaminato dai medici. C’erano tre di loro: la professoressa Shumilina M. (Russia), il professor Leclerc (Francia) ed il professor Andric (Serbia). La dottoressa Shumilina ha detto che Milosevic non aveva ricevuto il trattamento medico adeguato e aveva insistito su un esame medico e su un trattamento completo urgente. Inoltre ha avvertito che c’era il rischio di problemi seri al cervello. Il cardiologo Leclerc non ha avuto l’occasione di familizzare con i precedenti risultati degli esami medici di Milosevic. Ha detto che ha eseguito un test ECG su Milosevic ed era stato “estremamente anomalo”.
Nel rapporto congiunto, il gruppo internazionale dei medici ha avvertito il tribunale che lo stato del paziente era molto serio ed era a rischio. Hanno detto che Milosevic doveva essere esaminato completamente per ottenere una diagnosi precisa. I medici hanno chiesto per sei settimane per esaminare il corpo e la mente di Milosevic, in modo che potessero compiere almeno un certo genere di rilievi. L'opinione della Shumilina ha causato molta irritazione. Era la prima volta che un gruppo di medici indipendenti ha dimostrato che lo stato sfavorevole della salute di Milosevic era stato causato da un trattamento medico improprio. Shumilina è stata criticata e perfino è stata accusato di coinvolgimento in una cospirazione con Milosevic.
Il 14 dicembre 2005 ha scritto una lettera al tribunale per esprimere la sua irritazione verso i tentativi fatti da alcuni medici per sminuire l'importanza del suo referto sulla salute di Milosevic. Tra l'altro, ha scritto che non è stata l'età di 64 anni ad aver causato l'arteriosclerosi di Milosevic, ma la mancanza di trattamento adeguato per la sua ipertensione arteriosa.
Nel dicembre 2005 Leo Bokeria, direttore del centro di cardiochirurgia Bakulev di Mosca, ha scritto al presidente Fausto Pokar dell’ICTY, dicendo che la salute di Milosevic era deteriorata a causa del trattamento errato. Bokeria ha detto che lo scopo era “impedire la catastrofe cardiovascolare”, così che il presidente del tribunale non dovrebbe avere alcun dubbio su ciò.
Nel dicembre 2005 Slobodan Milosevic ha chiesto alla corte di lasciarlo ospedalizzare a Mosca. Malgrado il fatto che tutte le norme fossero osservate, la richiesta è stata rifiutata.
L’ICTY ha accusato Milosevic di aver deliberatamente preso delle droghe non prescritte per peggiorare il suo stato di salute per andare a Mosca e, da lì, sottrarsi alla corte. Timothy McFadden, il direttore della prigione responsabile di Milosevic, ha scritto una lettera al tribunale il 19 dicembre 2005, in cui ha detto che da tempo dubitava del fatto che Milosevic stesse prendendo dei medicinali prescritti. McFadden inoltre ha segnalato che il medico della prigione dell’ICTY non aveva più la responsabilità dello stato di salute di Milosevic, e né la segreteria del Tribunale se ne curava.
Ovviamente, le conclusioni di McFadden non sono basate sui risultati del trattamento medico. Realmente, le analisi del sangue di Milosevic hanno mostrato “bassi livelli di medicine prescritte e non prescritte”. E senza avere alcuna prova solida, McFadden ha descritto le analisi del sangue come risultato delle azioni intenzionali di Milosevic. Nella sua lettera del 6 gennaio 2006 il dottore della prigione dell’ICTY Paulus Falke segue McFadden: “Gli esami hanno provato che stava prendendo regolarmente le medicine prescritte come doveva. Inoltre, ha preso a droghe che né io che nessun altro medico ha prescritto”.
Il Tossicologo Donald Uges ha aggiunto: “Penso che Milosevic stesse prendendo droghe non prescritte. Cose che potrebbero aver causato la sua ipertensione”. Il Dott. Tou è stato l’unico a parlare dei motivi possibili per la bassa concentrazione di medicinali prescritti nel sangue di Milosevic: l'assorbimento gastrointestinale debole, l'uso inesatto delle medicine prescritte, interazione con altre sostanze, hano abbassato l'assorbimento degli enzimi e del metabolismo rapido per CYP2D6. Tutte queste conclusioni sono basate su test medici elementari. La domanda è come altri medici non sono riusciti a rendersi conto di ciò, ovviamente, ciò può essere accaduto solo deliberatamente. Tuttavia prima che il rapporto del Dott. Tou fosse pubblicato, Falke ha escluso tutte le altre cause tranne l’uso di medicinali non prescritti. Falke manca della competenza per trarre le conclusioni che ha fatto. Ha voluto che la corte avesse un'immagine negativa di Milosevic.
Il 12 gennaio 2006 Slobodan Milosevic ha richiesto un campione del suo sangue per l'analisi. La procedura è avvenuta dopo, quando stava prendendo le medicine prescritte da Falke. L'esame ha provato lo stesso livello di medicine di prima. Così le accuse di McFadden'e Falke sono state confutate. Falke ha insistito che Milosevic stesse prendendo “droghe non prescritte”. Ma il tossicologo Uges ha detto che soltanto due medicine sono state tracciate nel sangue di Milosevic: Diazepam e Nordazepam. Gli avvocati nominati hanno scoperto che il Diazepam era stato prescritto a Milosevic da Falke verso la metà dell'ottobre 2005. Secondo il Dott. Tou, che ha fatto u

(Message over 64 KB, truncated)