> http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GOW208A.html
Centre for Research on Globalisation - www.globalresearch.ca
Prosecution's witness refutes charges against Milosevic,
says he was tortured
by Stephen Gowans
Media Monitors , 30 July 2002.
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca ,
10 August 2002
Picture this. A man is on trial, accused of horrible crimes.
The prosecution calls a former subordinate of the accused to give
testimony.
The witness is hailed as a key prosecution asset, a member of the
accused's inner circle, who will help nail the lid shut on the
prosecution's case.
The witness takes the stand and the prosecutor begins his
examination.
Reporters prepare to take down the damning testimony, secure in
the knowledge the accused -- who they've already convicted --
will soon be brought to justice.
Then a bombshell. Rather than corroborating the prosecution's
case, the witness refutes it. No, the accused did not commit the crimes
he's charged with, the key witness testifies.
And then another bombshell: The witness says he was tortured to
provide false testimony.
Astonishingly, the judge rules the witness's revelations about
torture irrelevant.
The next day, reporters write nothing about the witness's torture
claim. And the reporter from the newspaper of record says nothing of
the witness exploding the prosecution's case, writing instead that
"the prosecutors and observers (were) anxious to see (the
accused) brought to justice."
A 1930's era show trial, complete with suborned witnesses,
torture, contrived charges, and press propaganda?
No. But it is a show trial. And it does feature suborned
witnesses, contrived charges, and press propaganda. And torture.
But it's taking place right now, at The Hague. And the accused is
former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic.
This is explosive, court room drama. And you've probably heard
nothing of it.
Last week, Rade Markovic, former head of the Department of State
Security of the Serbian Ministry of the Interior, was called to
testify as "a key prosecution witness." [1]
Milosevic has been accused of:
ordering the Serb police and Yugoslav army to commit war crimes;
ordering the expulsion of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo;
hiding evidence of mass executions of ethnic Albanians.
In short, Milosevic is accused of ethnic cleansing, and Markovic
was to confirm the charges.
Instead "Markovic...told the trial of former Yugoslav president
Slobodan Milosevic in The Hague that no policy of ethnic cleansing
existed during the 1999 conflict." [2]
On the contrary, testified Markovic, "I told (local officials )
that presidential orders are that the flow of refugees must be stopped"
[3] adding that "the Yugoslav army and Serbian police had strict
orders to protect Albanian civilians during NATO bombing" [4] - hardly
what you'd expect from an ethnic cleanser.
"I never got any order, nor did I hear about any order or plan to
expel Albanians," Markovic told the tribunal. [5]
If this were Milosevic's witness, you might expect him to say
something like this. But this was the prosecution's witness!
"Markovic said he had no knowledge of bodies transferred from
Kosovo, a reference to mass graves near Belgrade discovered by Serb
police in 2001, after Milosevic's ouster." [6]
"He also denied...that his former boss (Mr. Milosevic) had ordered
Serb forces to hide evidence of mass executions of Albanians." [7]
While crimes were committed by Serb police and the army, a charge
Milosevic has never denied, Markovic testified that "Milosevic
himself said several times that 'every crime must be immediately
punished.?" [8]
"More than 200 criminal charges were filed against members of the
police, and I think a similar figure stands for the army," [9]
Markovic told the tribunal.
Under cross-examination, the prosecution's key witness "confirmed
the suggestion that (ethnic Albanian refugees) had fled NATO
bombing and the risk of being drafted by Kosovo Albanian rebels."
[10]
That's detrimental enough to the case, but what followed is even
more damming:
"Markovic testified that he was tortured in (a Belgrade) jail to
force him to agree to give false testimony against Slobodan Milsoevic."
[11]
Judge Richard May interrupted the cross-examination of Markovic,
to argue that Markovic's allegations of torture were "irrelevant." [12]
The torture bombshell was ignored by the media. [13]
Why?
One of the big problems of the tribunal is that it's controlled by
NATO, [14] the very same organization that bombed Yugoslavia, and
engineered Milosevic's ouster. The very same organization that,
according to Markovic's testimony, is responsible for the
displacement of 800,00 ethnic Albanians.
The United States, which effectively controls the tribunal,
recently rejected the International Criminal Court on grounds it could
be subverted for political ends.
Who would know better than Washington?
Notes:
[1] Milosevic witness: No Serb threats, CNN.com, 26 July, 2002
[2] Ibid.
[3] AP, 26 July, 2002
[4] Milosevic witness: No Serb threats, CNN.com, 26 July, 2002
[5] Ibid.
[6] Milosevic Master Spy Says No Expulsion from Kosovo, Yahoo!
News, 28 July, 2002
[7] Milosevic witness: No Serb threats, CNN.com, 26 July, 2002
[8] Ibid., Milosevic Master Spy Says No Expulsion from Kosovo,
Yahoo! News, 28 July, 2002
[9] AP, 26 July, 2002
[10] Milosevic witness: No Serb threats, CNN.com, 26 July, 2002
[11] Jared Israel & Nico Varkevisser, Milosevic trial blows up in
Hague prosecutor's face, 27 July, 2002
http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/rade.htm
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] "Official Statements Prove Hague 'Tribunal' Belongs to NATO"
at http://www.icdsm.org/more/belongs.htm , cited in Jared Israel
& Nico Varkevisser, Milosevic trial blows up in Hague prosecutor's
face, 27 July, 2002 http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/rade.htm
Steve Gowans is a writer and political activist who lives in
Ottawa, Canada. Copyright © Stephan Gowans, Media Monitors 2002. For
fair use only
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GOW208A.html
===*===
If This Man is a War Criminal Where is All the Evidence?
As the prosecution's star witness gives testimony, how Milosevic is
making fools of Blair and the West
by John Laughland
The Mail on Sunday
8/27/02
In the great film with Marlene Dietrich and Charles Laughton, the
"Witness for the Prosecution" appears in court and gives exactly the
opposite testimony from what was expected. You would not know it from
our media - which passed over the event in silence - but the same
thing happened at The Hague recently, in the most important war crimes
trial since Nuremberg, that of the former Yugoslav president, Slobodan
Milosevic. One of the prosecution's star witnesses said precisely the
opposite of what he was supposed to say, dealing what seemed like a
fatal blow to a prosecution case which was already reeling from
several previous blunders.
The star witness in question was Rade Markovic, the former head of the
Yugoslav secret services. Before he appeared in the witness box, the
media universally hailed him as the insider who would finally give the
clinching testimony that Milosevic had personally ordered the
persecution of the ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo. This is the
single issue which NATO uses to justify its otherwise illegal attacks
on Yugoslavia: without it, the moral justification for NATO's war in
1999 completely disappears.
The urge to hear Markovic's testimony was all the greater because the
prosecution's last "star witness" had been a severe embarrassment.
Ratomir Tanic had presented himself as another "insider", and had
claimed that he had actually been present when Milosevic gave the
genocidal order. Under cross-examination, however, Tanic was shown to
be an agent of the secret services of various Western countries, and
to be so unfamiliar with the corridors of power that he could not even
say what floor in the presidential palace Milosevic's office had been
on.
The embarrassment over Tanic was equalled only by that caused when an
Albanian witness produced a list of names, which he alleged was of
Albanians whom the Serb police were to execute. On closer examination,
the list turned out to be a fake: the spelling mistakes were so
numerous that only an Albanian could have written them.
Enter, therefore, Radomir Markovic, the secret police chief who knew
more about what was going on in Yugoslavia than anyone else. But, in
painstakingly detailed testimony lasting nearly three hours, he told
the court that Milosevic had never ordered the expulsion of the
Albanian population of Kosovo; that the former president had
repeatedly issued instructions to the police and the army to respect
the laws of war, and to protect the civilian population, even if it
meant compromising the battle against Albanian terrorists; and that
the mass exodus of Albanians during the Nato bombing was caused not by
Serb forces but instead by the Kosovo Liberation Army itself, which
needed a constant flow of refugees to maintain the support of Western
public opinion for the Nato campaign.
"Did you ever get any kind of report," Milosevic asked him,"or have
you ever heard of an order, to expel Albanians from Kosovo?" "No, I
never heard of such an order. Nobody ever ordered for Albanians from
Kosovo to be expelled," Markovic replied. "Did you receive any
information about any plan, suggestion or de facto influence that
Albanians were to be expelled?" asked Milosevic. Reply: "No, I never
heard of such a suggestion to expel Albanians from Kosovo." "At the
meetings you attended, is it true that completely the opposite is
said, namely that we always insisted that civilians be protected, and
that they not be hurt in the process of anti-terrorist operations?"
"Certainly," said the witness. "The task was not only to protect Serbs
but also Albanian civilians." "Is it not true that we tried to
persuade the flow of refugees to stay at home, and that the army and
police would protect them?" the former president asked. "Yes, that was
the instruction and those were the assignments." "Do you know that the
Kosovo Liberation Army told people to leave, and to stage an exodus?"
"Yes," said Markovic. "I am aware of that."
The media greeted this stunning evidence with complete silence.
Indeed, it even failed to report the most extraordinary assertion of
all made by Markovic, namely that he had effectively been tortured by
the new pro-Western authorities in Belgrade, in order to make him
testify against Milosevic. Markovic claimed that the new Minister of
the Interior in the Western-backed government in Belgrade had taken
him out to dinner and offered him release from prison - where he has
been incarcerated for over a year now - and a new identity in a
country of his choice, if only he would agree to testify against his
former boss at The Hague. As Slobodan Milosevic tried to point out in
his cross-examination - until he was interrupted by the judge, that is
- it clearly falls under the terms of the United Nations' definition
of "torture" to imprison someone in order to force them to co-operate.
Markovic also alleged that the Tribunal's own prosecutors had
falsified and embellished the written statement he had given them.
These were amazing allegations. With them, the whole prosecution case
seemed to crumble. But even more stunning was the reaction of the
British presiding judge, Sir Richard May. A judge is supposed to be a
neutral arbiter between the prosecution and the defence: May, by
contrast, has distinguished himself throughout the trial by his
belligerence towards Milosevic, who is conducting his own defence, and
in particular for his habit of interrupting Milosevic, even sometimes
switching off his microphone, whenever the former Yugoslav leader's
cross-examination shows up inconsistencies in a witness' evidence.
As May listened to Markovic, he tried desperately to stop him making
these allegations against the Prosecutors and their allies in
Belgrade. When Markovic began to describe his ordeal at the hands of
the new Yugoslav government, May silenced him, saying to Milosevic,
"This does not appear to have relevance to the evidence which the
witness has given here. We are not going to litigate here with what
happened to him (i.e. Markovic) in Yugoslavia when he was arrested."
And when Milosevic insisted that the Tribunal's own investigators had
falsified Markovic's written evidence, May interrupted him tartly by
saying, "That is not a comment which it is proper for you to make." In
Judge May's book, therefore, it is irrelevant if the prosecution is
lying, or if it is an accomplice to torture.
Judge Richard May is no stranger to political activity, like the
prosecutor, Geoffrey Nice, he is a committed Socialist: he stood as a
Labour Party candidate for Finchley in the general election in 1979,
where his Conservative opponent was none other than Margaret Thatcher.
As a judge on the Midlands Circuit in the 1980s, he would dine out on
this story, for which he enjoyed the admiration of his left-wing
colleagues. But even this happy admission of political bias could not
have prepared anyone for the way he would react to Markovic's shocking
claims.
It gets worse. The Tribunal's priorities now seem so distorted that
they see Milosevic's "political crime" of resisting NATO as worse than
the crimes of physically torturing people to death. On 31st July, the
Tribunal ordered the release from custody of a man called Milojica
Kos. Kos had served four years of a six-year sentence for murder,
torture and persecution as a guard at the notorious Omarska camp in
Bosnia, which was compared at the time to a Nazi concentration camp.
But the president of the Tribunal, Claude Jorda, said that Kos would
be released early because of "his wish to reintegrate himself into
society, his determination not to re-offend, his irreproachable
conduct in detention, his attachment to his family, and the
possibility of exercising a profession again." No such tolerance will
be shown to Milosevic.
These events have provided spectacular proof of what critics have
always said - that the International Criminal Tribunal is a political
kangaroo court in the hands of the West. But political manipulation
can work both ways. Tony Blair has been a vigorous supporter of a
clone of the Yugoslav tribunal, the new International Criminal Court.
But why shouldn't the new court be as politicised as the present one?
Plenty of anti-Western countries, like Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe, have
signed the new ICC treaty. If they decided to prosecute Tony Blair for
attacking Iraq, say, there is little to stop them - especially since
the ICC defines "aggression" as a war crime. On his next trip abroad,
therefore, Mr. Blair might be wise to pack his toothbrush.
http://www.antiwar.com/rep/laughland14.html
===*===
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
Date:07 Aout 2002
ZORAN LILIC SHOULD NOT GIVE EVIDENCE AS A WITNESS
Dr. Milan Tepavac
miltep@...
Belgrade, 02 August 2002
Since he appeared a few days ego in the witness box of
the so-called International Criminal Tribunal for
former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague and did not claim
immunity, it seems that it never crossed the mind
neither of Mr. Zoran Lilic nor his attorney, neither
Yugoslav federal government nor anybody else that he,
under international law, is not obliged to give
evidence, to testify, in court, because he, as a former
head of state of Yugoslavia, enjoys absolute immunity
with respect to all acts performed in the exercise of
his functions as a head of state. Under the subpoena of
the ICTY he was, as a matter of fact, forcefully taken
on the territory of Yugoslavia to The Hague by ICTY's
officials to give evidence in the "trial" of Slobodan
Milosevic there, and, thus, his inviolability was also
violated by both the Yugoslav authorities (for not
protecting him) and ICTY's officials. Also, ICTY's
judge, the Korean O-Gon Kvon, who signed the subpoena,
had no right to do it; the learned judge thus committed
crime against international law.
Without precedence
It is a "sacred" rule (ius cogens) of international
law, as old as international law itself, that former
heads of state enjoy absolute immunity and
inviolability with regard to their functions in the
capacity of being heads of state. Slobodan Milosevic is
also a former head of state (Yugoslavia) and, thus,
under immunity and inviolability with regard to his
acts in that capacity. But, as it is known, that there
is a provision in the Statute of the illegal ICTY (thus
the Statute also being illegal) (Article 7) which says:
"The official position of any accused person, whether
as Head of State or Government or as responsible
Government official, shall not relieve such person of
criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment". Now,
even if we take this provision as a true reflection of
the rule of contemporary international law (which in my
opinion it is not), still there is nowhere similar rule
concerning testimony of former heads of state. So, the
appearance of a former head of state of Yugoslavia
before a criminal court, although illegal, is, as far
as I am aware, without precedence in international law
and international relations.
Vienna accords
When I categorically maintain that former heads of
state enjoy absolute immunity and inviolability with
regard to their acts in official capacity I have in
mind customary rules of international law and, as far
as I know, hitherto unchallenged if we do not regard
the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials as serious precedents.
Thre are also two recent decisions - one French and one
Belgian - which affirm this anciant rule. Now, we see,
illegal so-called ICTY, under the authority of the
Security Council of the UN, "creates" "new law". But,
having in mind that Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations and Vienna Convention on Consular Relations -
which are universally accepted and ratified by almost
all states in the world! - recognize immunity, during
the function and after, not only to diplomats but also
to members of administrative and technical staff - then
the decision of the Security Council to strip the
former heads of state of their immunity, which is older
then international law itself (it was recognized in
ancient Greece and Rome; even in primitive tribal
societies!) - is silly and utterly irresponsible. It
introduced the chaos in international relations! The
great humanitarians already started to chase Henry
Kissinger...
If the fifteen bureaucrats sitting in the so-called
Security Council fancy that they can do whatever they
wish, including to make international law upside down,
then the "accused" before the ICTY Mr. Slobodan
Milosevic has every right to call as witnesses all the
heads of state, former and present, with whom he was
dealing during the bloody dismemberment of the Yugoslav
federation which was planned, instigated, ordered,
financed and committed by them in close cooperation
with the domestic secessionists and criminals. The ICTY
must, on the request of Mr. Milosevic, issue subpoenas
to all those criminals to be not only witnesses but the
accused too in front of their creation - the ICTY.
Centre for Research on Globalisation - www.globalresearch.ca
Prosecution's witness refutes charges against Milosevic,
says he was tortured
by Stephen Gowans
Media Monitors , 30 July 2002.
Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG), globalresearch.ca ,
10 August 2002
Picture this. A man is on trial, accused of horrible crimes.
The prosecution calls a former subordinate of the accused to give
testimony.
The witness is hailed as a key prosecution asset, a member of the
accused's inner circle, who will help nail the lid shut on the
prosecution's case.
The witness takes the stand and the prosecutor begins his
examination.
Reporters prepare to take down the damning testimony, secure in
the knowledge the accused -- who they've already convicted --
will soon be brought to justice.
Then a bombshell. Rather than corroborating the prosecution's
case, the witness refutes it. No, the accused did not commit the crimes
he's charged with, the key witness testifies.
And then another bombshell: The witness says he was tortured to
provide false testimony.
Astonishingly, the judge rules the witness's revelations about
torture irrelevant.
The next day, reporters write nothing about the witness's torture
claim. And the reporter from the newspaper of record says nothing of
the witness exploding the prosecution's case, writing instead that
"the prosecutors and observers (were) anxious to see (the
accused) brought to justice."
A 1930's era show trial, complete with suborned witnesses,
torture, contrived charges, and press propaganda?
No. But it is a show trial. And it does feature suborned
witnesses, contrived charges, and press propaganda. And torture.
But it's taking place right now, at The Hague. And the accused is
former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic.
This is explosive, court room drama. And you've probably heard
nothing of it.
Last week, Rade Markovic, former head of the Department of State
Security of the Serbian Ministry of the Interior, was called to
testify as "a key prosecution witness." [1]
Milosevic has been accused of:
ordering the Serb police and Yugoslav army to commit war crimes;
ordering the expulsion of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo;
hiding evidence of mass executions of ethnic Albanians.
In short, Milosevic is accused of ethnic cleansing, and Markovic
was to confirm the charges.
Instead "Markovic...told the trial of former Yugoslav president
Slobodan Milosevic in The Hague that no policy of ethnic cleansing
existed during the 1999 conflict." [2]
On the contrary, testified Markovic, "I told (local officials )
that presidential orders are that the flow of refugees must be stopped"
[3] adding that "the Yugoslav army and Serbian police had strict
orders to protect Albanian civilians during NATO bombing" [4] - hardly
what you'd expect from an ethnic cleanser.
"I never got any order, nor did I hear about any order or plan to
expel Albanians," Markovic told the tribunal. [5]
If this were Milosevic's witness, you might expect him to say
something like this. But this was the prosecution's witness!
"Markovic said he had no knowledge of bodies transferred from
Kosovo, a reference to mass graves near Belgrade discovered by Serb
police in 2001, after Milosevic's ouster." [6]
"He also denied...that his former boss (Mr. Milosevic) had ordered
Serb forces to hide evidence of mass executions of Albanians." [7]
While crimes were committed by Serb police and the army, a charge
Milosevic has never denied, Markovic testified that "Milosevic
himself said several times that 'every crime must be immediately
punished.?" [8]
"More than 200 criminal charges were filed against members of the
police, and I think a similar figure stands for the army," [9]
Markovic told the tribunal.
Under cross-examination, the prosecution's key witness "confirmed
the suggestion that (ethnic Albanian refugees) had fled NATO
bombing and the risk of being drafted by Kosovo Albanian rebels."
[10]
That's detrimental enough to the case, but what followed is even
more damming:
"Markovic testified that he was tortured in (a Belgrade) jail to
force him to agree to give false testimony against Slobodan Milsoevic."
[11]
Judge Richard May interrupted the cross-examination of Markovic,
to argue that Markovic's allegations of torture were "irrelevant." [12]
The torture bombshell was ignored by the media. [13]
Why?
One of the big problems of the tribunal is that it's controlled by
NATO, [14] the very same organization that bombed Yugoslavia, and
engineered Milosevic's ouster. The very same organization that,
according to Markovic's testimony, is responsible for the
displacement of 800,00 ethnic Albanians.
The United States, which effectively controls the tribunal,
recently rejected the International Criminal Court on grounds it could
be subverted for political ends.
Who would know better than Washington?
Notes:
[1] Milosevic witness: No Serb threats, CNN.com, 26 July, 2002
[2] Ibid.
[3] AP, 26 July, 2002
[4] Milosevic witness: No Serb threats, CNN.com, 26 July, 2002
[5] Ibid.
[6] Milosevic Master Spy Says No Expulsion from Kosovo, Yahoo!
News, 28 July, 2002
[7] Milosevic witness: No Serb threats, CNN.com, 26 July, 2002
[8] Ibid., Milosevic Master Spy Says No Expulsion from Kosovo,
Yahoo! News, 28 July, 2002
[9] AP, 26 July, 2002
[10] Milosevic witness: No Serb threats, CNN.com, 26 July, 2002
[11] Jared Israel & Nico Varkevisser, Milosevic trial blows up in
Hague prosecutor's face, 27 July, 2002
http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/rade.htm
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ibid.
[14] "Official Statements Prove Hague 'Tribunal' Belongs to NATO"
at http://www.icdsm.org/more/belongs.htm , cited in Jared Israel
& Nico Varkevisser, Milosevic trial blows up in Hague prosecutor's
face, 27 July, 2002 http://emperors-clothes.com/milo/rade.htm
Steve Gowans is a writer and political activist who lives in
Ottawa, Canada. Copyright © Stephan Gowans, Media Monitors 2002. For
fair use only
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/GOW208A.html
===*===
If This Man is a War Criminal Where is All the Evidence?
As the prosecution's star witness gives testimony, how Milosevic is
making fools of Blair and the West
by John Laughland
The Mail on Sunday
8/27/02
In the great film with Marlene Dietrich and Charles Laughton, the
"Witness for the Prosecution" appears in court and gives exactly the
opposite testimony from what was expected. You would not know it from
our media - which passed over the event in silence - but the same
thing happened at The Hague recently, in the most important war crimes
trial since Nuremberg, that of the former Yugoslav president, Slobodan
Milosevic. One of the prosecution's star witnesses said precisely the
opposite of what he was supposed to say, dealing what seemed like a
fatal blow to a prosecution case which was already reeling from
several previous blunders.
The star witness in question was Rade Markovic, the former head of the
Yugoslav secret services. Before he appeared in the witness box, the
media universally hailed him as the insider who would finally give the
clinching testimony that Milosevic had personally ordered the
persecution of the ethnic Albanian population of Kosovo. This is the
single issue which NATO uses to justify its otherwise illegal attacks
on Yugoslavia: without it, the moral justification for NATO's war in
1999 completely disappears.
The urge to hear Markovic's testimony was all the greater because the
prosecution's last "star witness" had been a severe embarrassment.
Ratomir Tanic had presented himself as another "insider", and had
claimed that he had actually been present when Milosevic gave the
genocidal order. Under cross-examination, however, Tanic was shown to
be an agent of the secret services of various Western countries, and
to be so unfamiliar with the corridors of power that he could not even
say what floor in the presidential palace Milosevic's office had been
on.
The embarrassment over Tanic was equalled only by that caused when an
Albanian witness produced a list of names, which he alleged was of
Albanians whom the Serb police were to execute. On closer examination,
the list turned out to be a fake: the spelling mistakes were so
numerous that only an Albanian could have written them.
Enter, therefore, Radomir Markovic, the secret police chief who knew
more about what was going on in Yugoslavia than anyone else. But, in
painstakingly detailed testimony lasting nearly three hours, he told
the court that Milosevic had never ordered the expulsion of the
Albanian population of Kosovo; that the former president had
repeatedly issued instructions to the police and the army to respect
the laws of war, and to protect the civilian population, even if it
meant compromising the battle against Albanian terrorists; and that
the mass exodus of Albanians during the Nato bombing was caused not by
Serb forces but instead by the Kosovo Liberation Army itself, which
needed a constant flow of refugees to maintain the support of Western
public opinion for the Nato campaign.
"Did you ever get any kind of report," Milosevic asked him,"or have
you ever heard of an order, to expel Albanians from Kosovo?" "No, I
never heard of such an order. Nobody ever ordered for Albanians from
Kosovo to be expelled," Markovic replied. "Did you receive any
information about any plan, suggestion or de facto influence that
Albanians were to be expelled?" asked Milosevic. Reply: "No, I never
heard of such a suggestion to expel Albanians from Kosovo." "At the
meetings you attended, is it true that completely the opposite is
said, namely that we always insisted that civilians be protected, and
that they not be hurt in the process of anti-terrorist operations?"
"Certainly," said the witness. "The task was not only to protect Serbs
but also Albanian civilians." "Is it not true that we tried to
persuade the flow of refugees to stay at home, and that the army and
police would protect them?" the former president asked. "Yes, that was
the instruction and those were the assignments." "Do you know that the
Kosovo Liberation Army told people to leave, and to stage an exodus?"
"Yes," said Markovic. "I am aware of that."
The media greeted this stunning evidence with complete silence.
Indeed, it even failed to report the most extraordinary assertion of
all made by Markovic, namely that he had effectively been tortured by
the new pro-Western authorities in Belgrade, in order to make him
testify against Milosevic. Markovic claimed that the new Minister of
the Interior in the Western-backed government in Belgrade had taken
him out to dinner and offered him release from prison - where he has
been incarcerated for over a year now - and a new identity in a
country of his choice, if only he would agree to testify against his
former boss at The Hague. As Slobodan Milosevic tried to point out in
his cross-examination - until he was interrupted by the judge, that is
- it clearly falls under the terms of the United Nations' definition
of "torture" to imprison someone in order to force them to co-operate.
Markovic also alleged that the Tribunal's own prosecutors had
falsified and embellished the written statement he had given them.
These were amazing allegations. With them, the whole prosecution case
seemed to crumble. But even more stunning was the reaction of the
British presiding judge, Sir Richard May. A judge is supposed to be a
neutral arbiter between the prosecution and the defence: May, by
contrast, has distinguished himself throughout the trial by his
belligerence towards Milosevic, who is conducting his own defence, and
in particular for his habit of interrupting Milosevic, even sometimes
switching off his microphone, whenever the former Yugoslav leader's
cross-examination shows up inconsistencies in a witness' evidence.
As May listened to Markovic, he tried desperately to stop him making
these allegations against the Prosecutors and their allies in
Belgrade. When Markovic began to describe his ordeal at the hands of
the new Yugoslav government, May silenced him, saying to Milosevic,
"This does not appear to have relevance to the evidence which the
witness has given here. We are not going to litigate here with what
happened to him (i.e. Markovic) in Yugoslavia when he was arrested."
And when Milosevic insisted that the Tribunal's own investigators had
falsified Markovic's written evidence, May interrupted him tartly by
saying, "That is not a comment which it is proper for you to make." In
Judge May's book, therefore, it is irrelevant if the prosecution is
lying, or if it is an accomplice to torture.
Judge Richard May is no stranger to political activity, like the
prosecutor, Geoffrey Nice, he is a committed Socialist: he stood as a
Labour Party candidate for Finchley in the general election in 1979,
where his Conservative opponent was none other than Margaret Thatcher.
As a judge on the Midlands Circuit in the 1980s, he would dine out on
this story, for which he enjoyed the admiration of his left-wing
colleagues. But even this happy admission of political bias could not
have prepared anyone for the way he would react to Markovic's shocking
claims.
It gets worse. The Tribunal's priorities now seem so distorted that
they see Milosevic's "political crime" of resisting NATO as worse than
the crimes of physically torturing people to death. On 31st July, the
Tribunal ordered the release from custody of a man called Milojica
Kos. Kos had served four years of a six-year sentence for murder,
torture and persecution as a guard at the notorious Omarska camp in
Bosnia, which was compared at the time to a Nazi concentration camp.
But the president of the Tribunal, Claude Jorda, said that Kos would
be released early because of "his wish to reintegrate himself into
society, his determination not to re-offend, his irreproachable
conduct in detention, his attachment to his family, and the
possibility of exercising a profession again." No such tolerance will
be shown to Milosevic.
These events have provided spectacular proof of what critics have
always said - that the International Criminal Tribunal is a political
kangaroo court in the hands of the West. But political manipulation
can work both ways. Tony Blair has been a vigorous supporter of a
clone of the Yugoslav tribunal, the new International Criminal Court.
But why shouldn't the new court be as politicised as the present one?
Plenty of anti-Western countries, like Iran, Sudan and Zimbabwe, have
signed the new ICC treaty. If they decided to prosecute Tony Blair for
attacking Iraq, say, there is little to stop them - especially since
the ICC defines "aggression" as a war crime. On his next trip abroad,
therefore, Mr. Blair might be wise to pack his toothbrush.
http://www.antiwar.com/rep/laughland14.html
===*===
ARTEL GEOPOLITIKA by www.artel.co.yu
office@...
Date:07 Aout 2002
ZORAN LILIC SHOULD NOT GIVE EVIDENCE AS A WITNESS
Dr. Milan Tepavac
miltep@...
Belgrade, 02 August 2002
Since he appeared a few days ego in the witness box of
the so-called International Criminal Tribunal for
former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague and did not claim
immunity, it seems that it never crossed the mind
neither of Mr. Zoran Lilic nor his attorney, neither
Yugoslav federal government nor anybody else that he,
under international law, is not obliged to give
evidence, to testify, in court, because he, as a former
head of state of Yugoslavia, enjoys absolute immunity
with respect to all acts performed in the exercise of
his functions as a head of state. Under the subpoena of
the ICTY he was, as a matter of fact, forcefully taken
on the territory of Yugoslavia to The Hague by ICTY's
officials to give evidence in the "trial" of Slobodan
Milosevic there, and, thus, his inviolability was also
violated by both the Yugoslav authorities (for not
protecting him) and ICTY's officials. Also, ICTY's
judge, the Korean O-Gon Kvon, who signed the subpoena,
had no right to do it; the learned judge thus committed
crime against international law.
Without precedence
It is a "sacred" rule (ius cogens) of international
law, as old as international law itself, that former
heads of state enjoy absolute immunity and
inviolability with regard to their functions in the
capacity of being heads of state. Slobodan Milosevic is
also a former head of state (Yugoslavia) and, thus,
under immunity and inviolability with regard to his
acts in that capacity. But, as it is known, that there
is a provision in the Statute of the illegal ICTY (thus
the Statute also being illegal) (Article 7) which says:
"The official position of any accused person, whether
as Head of State or Government or as responsible
Government official, shall not relieve such person of
criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment". Now,
even if we take this provision as a true reflection of
the rule of contemporary international law (which in my
opinion it is not), still there is nowhere similar rule
concerning testimony of former heads of state. So, the
appearance of a former head of state of Yugoslavia
before a criminal court, although illegal, is, as far
as I am aware, without precedence in international law
and international relations.
Vienna accords
When I categorically maintain that former heads of
state enjoy absolute immunity and inviolability with
regard to their acts in official capacity I have in
mind customary rules of international law and, as far
as I know, hitherto unchallenged if we do not regard
the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials as serious precedents.
Thre are also two recent decisions - one French and one
Belgian - which affirm this anciant rule. Now, we see,
illegal so-called ICTY, under the authority of the
Security Council of the UN, "creates" "new law". But,
having in mind that Vienna Convention on Diplomatic
Relations and Vienna Convention on Consular Relations -
which are universally accepted and ratified by almost
all states in the world! - recognize immunity, during
the function and after, not only to diplomats but also
to members of administrative and technical staff - then
the decision of the Security Council to strip the
former heads of state of their immunity, which is older
then international law itself (it was recognized in
ancient Greece and Rome; even in primitive tribal
societies!) - is silly and utterly irresponsible. It
introduced the chaos in international relations! The
great humanitarians already started to chase Henry
Kissinger...
If the fifteen bureaucrats sitting in the so-called
Security Council fancy that they can do whatever they
wish, including to make international law upside down,
then the "accused" before the ICTY Mr. Slobodan
Milosevic has every right to call as witnesses all the
heads of state, former and present, with whom he was
dealing during the bloody dismemberment of the Yugoslav
federation which was planned, instigated, ordered,
financed and committed by them in close cooperation
with the domestic secessionists and criminals. The ICTY
must, on the request of Mr. Milosevic, issue subpoenas
to all those criminals to be not only witnesses but the
accused too in front of their creation - the ICTY.