(francais / english / srpskohrvatski / italiano)
Sulla denuncia per crimini di guerra presentata dalla Jugoslavia contro
la NATO
1. Introduzione e link utili
2. Hague "could not" hold investigation into bombing
campaign against SRY, Del Ponte (February 2004)
3. The Hague International Court of Justice discusses about the suit
filed by Belgrade against 10 NATO member states for bombing FR
Yugoslavia in 1999 (April 2004)
4. L'Italia - implicata nei crimini di guerra - chiede alla Corte
internazionale di giustizia dell'Aja di ''non pronunciarsi'', e la sua
agenzia di stampa cerca di elidere quei crimini usando altre cause, che
non c'entrano assolutamente nulla e sono inconsistenti nel merito,
intentate da Croazia e Bosnia (Aprile 2004)
5. Uoci rasprave pred Medunarodnim sudom. Nemojmo povlaciti tuzbu
protiv NATO ! (Aleksandar Mitic)
6. Pas d'accord sur la plainte contre l'OTAN / No agreement on NATO
charges
=== 1 ===
Introduzione e link utili
Il ritiro della denuncia per crimini di guerra contro la NATO -
depositata nell'aprile 1999 dalla RF di Jugoslavia presso la Corte
Internazionale di Giustizia dell'Aia - e' stato richiesto negli ultimi
tempi da settori dei partiti della destra filo-occidentale al governo
in Serbia, e soprattutto in questi giorni dall'attuale ministro degli
Esteri Vuk Draskovic.
La possibilita' del ritiro - che in base al ricatto occidentale sarebbe
condizione sine qua non per la ammissione della Serbia-Montenegro in
determinati consessi internazionali - e' stata dibattuta nei giorni
scorsi per alcune ore dal parlamento della Serbia, dopodiche' e' stato
dichiarato che l'unica istituzione competente a decidere in materia
sarebbe il parlamento federale (cioe' della Unione di Serbia e
Montenegro). Il dibattito e' stato cosi' bloccato, dopo una fase molto
animata con scambi di accuse soprattutto tra i parlamentari socialisti
e radicali da una parte (contrari al ritiro della denuncia) e
parlamentari della destra filo-statunitense e filo-tedesca dall'altra
(con in testa il partito di Draskovic).
La vicenda ha assunto oramai dei contorni puramente vergognosi. Mentre
infatti tutte le analoghe denunce presentate alle magistrature di vari
paesi (compresa l'Italia) sono state insabbiate sin dall'inizio, e
mentre l'illegittimo "Tribunale ad hoc" istituito dalla NATO all'Aia si
e' costantemente rifiutato di incriminare i dirigenti NATO (vedi
Allegato numero 2), la Corte Internazionale di Giustizia (che ha sempre
sede all'Aia ma e' una istituzione completamente distinta) dopo piu' di
5 anni ancora non si e' pronunciata sulla ammissibilita' della denuncia.
Nel frattempo, le denunce contro Stati Uniti e Spagna sono gia' state
dichiarate insostenibili poiche' questi due Stati non hanno mai
ratificato la legislazione internazionale sul genocidio. Altri paesi,
come l'Italia - gravemente implicata nei crimini di guerra del 1999 -
hanno chiesto alla Corte internazionale di giustizia dell'Aja di ''non
pronunciarsi''. L'ANSA - che nasconde al pubblico italiano il dibattito
dei giorni scorsi al parlamento serbo - ha cercato in passato di
mischiare le carte rilanciando la tesi del partito di Draskovic sulla
presunta necessita' di far cadere "tutte le denunce
contemporaneamente", vale a dire anche le denunce presentate da Croazia
e Bosnia contro la Jugoslavia per "aggressione". Tuttavia queste ultime
non c'entrano assolutamente niente con la prima, e nel merito sono del
tutto inconsistenti e non assimilabili poiche' nessuno potra' mai
provare che la Jugoslavia abbia mai aggredito nessun altro, in quanto
la Jugoslavia non ha mai aggredito nessuno.
In generale, la posizione dei paesi della NATO e' da una parte quella
di far dichiarare illegittima la denuncia, con pretesti come quello che
all'epoca la Jugoslavia "non era membro dell'ONU" (essendone stata
sospesa in forza delle loro stesse pressioni; in realta', pur sospesa
dalle sessioni, la Jugoslavia era membro fondatore delle Nazioni
Unite). Dall'altra, i paesi della NATO contano sul prossimo
scioglimento anche della attuale "Unione di Serbia e Montenegro", nata
nel 2003 per loro stessa volonta' allo scopo di rimuovere quella
Jugoslavia non solo dalla scena politica internazionale, dalle cartine
geografiche e dalla memoria pubblica, ma anche e soprattutto come
soggetto giuridico.
Con la sparizione del "cadavere", gli assassini puntano cioe' a
nascondere il crimine.
Sul Memorandum, preparato su questo tema dall'associazione "Sloboda" di
Belgrado, si veda:
Memorandum "Slobode" protiv povlacenja tuzbi
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3748
La documentazione essenziale sulle conseguenze della aggressione del
1999 dei paesi della NATO contro la RF di Jugoslavia si trova - a cura
della Sezione Italiana del Tribunale Internazionale Indipendente sui
crimini NATO contro la Jugoslavia proposto da Ramsey Clark - al sito:
http://www.pasti.org/tribhome.htm
Vedi in particolare: LE DISTRUZIONI DELLA NATO
SUL TERRITORIO DELLA REPUBBLICA FEDERALE DI JUGOSLAVIA
http://www.pasti.org/lbianco.htm
Tutti i dati e la documentazione fotografica sui crimini di guerra
commessi dalla NATO con i bombardamenti contro la RF di Jugoslavia si
trovano ad esempio ai siti:
http://www.sramota.com/nato/
http://www.justiceyugoslavia.org
http://www.kosovo.com/natobomb.html
http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/destruction_exhibition/
index.html
Si veda in particolare la versione integrale del "Libro Bianco" del
governo jugoslavo:
WHITE BOOK - NATO BOMBING OF YUGOSLAVIA
PART 1 (March 24- April 24)
http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/destruction/white_book/
PART 2 (April 25 - June 10)
http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/destruction/white_book2/
EN FRANCAIS: http://otan99.chiffonrouge.org
les deux volumes du livre blanc des crimes de l’OTAN en Yougoslavie 1999
Infine, sul caso della denuncia presentata all'Aia vedi anche:
BELGRADE ACTION AGAINST NATO BEGINS
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_354_2_eng.txt
Preliminary hearings in Serbia and Montenegro vs NATO trial marked by
calls for legal action to be dismissed.
By Rachel S. Taylor in The Hague
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 354, April 2004, 2004
(Fine. Note e link a cura di Italo Slavo)
=== 2 ===
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
EYugWor.htm#Hague%20could%20not%20hold%20investigation%20into%20bombing%
20campaign%20against%20SRY,%20Del%20Ponte
Tanjug - February 1, 2004
Hague could not hold investigation into bombing
campaign against SRY, Del Ponte
20:10 ZAGREB , Feb 1 (Tanjug) - The Hague tribunal
chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte has said that certain
initiatives have been made so that the court held an
investigation into whether the civilians that died
during the NATO bombing campaign against the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (SRY) in 1999 were in some
cases victims of war crimes, and not collateral
victims, but that the tribunal could not hold such an
investigation.
Del Ponte said this in an interview the Craotian
television broadcasted late on Saturday.
=== 3 ===
Source: Rick Rozoff, yugoslaviainfo@ yahoogroups.com
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug - April 12, 2004
In The Hague to be decided jurisdiction over lawsuit
against NATO
BELGRADE - At the International Court of Justice in
The Hague, which as an institution of the United
Nations is in charge of disputes between states, will
open on April 19 discussions about the suit filed by
Belgrade against 10 NATO member states for bombing FR
Yugoslavia in 1999.
After five-day discussions, the Court,
Radio-Television Serbia reported, is expected to take
a decision within two months whether it has
jurisdiction over the suit against Belgium, Italy, the
Netherlands, Germany, France, Portugal, Canada and
Great Britain.
---
http://www.blic.co.yu/danas/broj/E-Index.htm#7
Blic (Serbia-Montenegro) - April 18, 2004
Today about SCG lawsuit against NATO
The Hague - One-week preliminary debate about lawsuit
by Serbia and Montenegro against NATO for alleged
genocide committed during bombing of Yugoslavia in
1999 is to begin today before the International Court
of Justice in The Hague.
Apart from genocide, NATO countries have been also
accused for illegal application of armed force during
air strikes on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in
spring 1999 as well as for crimes against humanity.
---
http://www.bgnewsnet.com/
story.php?sid=4648&PHPSESSID=23f02171f263c6a7515c52d408cbeb21
Bulgarian News Network - April 19, 2004
World Court Opens NATO 1999 Yugoslavia Bombing
Campaign Case
THE HAGUE (BGNES)--The World Court opened hearings on
Monday into a case by Serbia and Montenegro
challenging the legality of NATO's 1999 air strikes
after a Serb crackdown in Kosovo.
NATO members, including Britain, France, Germany,
Belgium, Italy and Canada, will appear before the UN's
highest court to argue that it does not have
jurisdiction to consider Serbia and Montenegro's
claim.
"Belgium maintains all its preliminary objections as
regards jurisdiction and admissibility," Belgian
representative Jan Devadder told the court at the
start of hearings to consider the court's jurisdiction
in the case.
The NATO states concerned said at the time their
action was justified by what they said was Belgrade's
ethnic cleansing of Kosovo's majority ethnic Albanian
population. The former Yugoslavia argued the air
strikes violated international law.
NATO's 11-week bombing campaign forced a Serb pullout
from Kosovo, ending what the alliance regarded as a
crackdown by Serb forces against ethnic Albanians in
the breakaway province during former Yugoslav
president Slobodan Milosevic's rule.
Human Rights Watch says that NATO bombs killed some
500 Yugoslav civilians between March and June, 1999.
Yugoslav authorities said at the time that 2,500
Yugoslavs were killed.
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=28041&style=headlines
B92 - April 19, 2004
Preliminary hearing on charges against NATO
THE HAGUE -- Monday – The International Court of
Justice in The Hague today begins a preliminary
hearing of charges by Serbia-Montenegro against NATO
member countries over the bombing of Yugoslavia in
1999.
One member of the state’s legal team, Vladimir Djeric,
told B92 that in the next few days the court will
discuss the question of its jurisdiction in the case.
“The court will hear arguments from both sides in
connection with objections and comments from NATO
countries on jurisdiction. The member countries argue
that the court is not competent to rule on this issue
while we, of course, challenge that,” he said.
Charged are eight members of NATO. Additional charges
against the US and Spain have already been dismissed
by the court because both states insist that the
International Court of Justice is not competent to
rule on disputes under the Convention on Genocide.
“The remaining countries argue that, as a state which
was not a member of the UN at the time, we are not
able to address the court,” said Djeric.
---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3639401.stm
BBC News - April 19, 2004
Court considers Nato bombing case
The World Court has begun hearings to decide if it has
jurisdiction in a case against Nato for the 1999
bombing of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo crisis.
Serbia and Montenegro, Yugoslavia's successor state,
accuse eight Nato countries of genocide and violating
international law on the use of force.
The Nato members, including the UK, France and
Germany, say the court is not competent to hear the
case.
The court is hearing from all sides this week before
making a judgement.
'Deliberate destruction'
The original complaint was filed by the former
Yugoslavia just a month after Nato launched air
strikes against the country in March 1999.
The air strikes were not authorised by the UN.
However, the Nato members concerned said at the time
that their actions were justified as they aimed to
protect ethnic Albanians in Kosovo from attacks by
Serb forces.
But lawyers for Serbia and Montenegro accuse the Nato
members of deliberately targeting civilians and
violating international obligations banning the use of
force against another state.
The Nato countries are accused of deliberately
inflicting "conditions of life calculated to cause the
physical destruction of a national group".
"In bombing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
military and civilian targets were attacked. Great
numbers of people were killed, including a great many
civilians," Serbia and Montenegro argued in court
documents.
Objections
The New York-based Human Rights Watch estimates that
from March to June 1999, around 500 civilians were
killed during the Nato strikes in Serbia and Kosovo.
Belgium was the first Nato country to state its
objections before the World Court, officially known as
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague.
Belgium's lawyer argued that "there is no longer a
dispute between the countries" and invited the court
to "discontinue the case on all grounds".
The ICJ is also hearing from representatives of the
other countries accused: Canada, France, Germany,
Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and the UK.
Initial charges against Spain and the United States
have been dropped.
The ICJ is the United Nations' highest legal body to
resolve disputes between nations.
---
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/04/3a2e8c3b-aaa6-4e0f-9e35-
c875101e84b5.html
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Reuters/Agence France-Presse
April 19, 2004
World Court Opens Case Of Yugoslav Air War
The World Court today opened hearings into a case by
Serbia and Montenegro on the legality of NATO's 1999
air war to end a Serb crackdown on ethnic Albanians.
Yugoslavia, the predecessor state of Serbia and
Montenegro, argued that Belgium, the Netherlands,
Canada, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Germany, France,
and Italy used force illegally during the war.
Yugoslavia's suit also accuses those eight states of
genocide.
Two similar cases were filed against the United States
and Spain in 1999, but the court threw those cases out
on a technicality.
The eight NATO members are expected to argue that the
court does not have jurisdiction to consider the case
against them.
In 1999, NATO launched an air war to end a Serb
crackdown on independence-seeking ethnic Albanians in
Kosovo. Hundreds of civilians were killed in the
bombing campaign.
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id=28052&order=priority&style=headlines
B92/Associated Press - April 19, 2004
Court hears genocide charges against NATO
THE HAGUE - Five members of NATO have urged the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) to reject a case
brought by Serbia-Montenegro over the 1999 bombing of
the then Yugoslavia, arguing that when the complaints
were filed the state was not even a member of the
United Nations.
The ICJ, the UN’s highest judicial body, began hearing
arguments today from eight alliance members accused by
Belgrade of genocide during their 78-day bombing
campaign to drive Serb forces from Kosovo.
The court heard today from Canada, Portugal, Britain,
the Netherlands and Belgium. Germany, France and Italy
will present their arguments on Tuesday, while
Serbia-Montenegro will make its case on Wednesday.
Lawyers for the NATO countries stressed today that the
case could not be heard by the Hague-based court
because it was filed eighteen months before
Serbia-Montenegro, then still called Yugoslavia,
joined the United Nations. The complaints, which
include genocide, were filed on April 29, 1999, at the
height of NATO’s air war.
Lawyers rejected outright the charge of genocide.
Belgium’s lawyer, Daniel Bethlehem, said the
accusation was extravagant.
The air strikes were launched on March 24, 1999,
without the backing of a UN Security Council
resolution.
---
http://www.rnw.nl/news/news.html#3980685
Radio Netherlands - April 19, 2004
World Court begins hearings on NATO bombardments
The International Court of Justice in The Hague began
hearings Monday regarding NATO's bombardments of
Yugoslavia in 1999. The case, which was brought before
the court in April of that year by the government of
former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, has the
support of the current government of Serbia and
Montenegro.
The government believes the eight NATO member states
had no right to forcibly intervene in the Kosovo
conflict. Belgrade argues that the treaty organisation
had no UN mandate and therefore violated the
sovereignty of the former state of Yugoslavia.
The Netherlands and Belgium have argued that Serbia
and Montenegro has no case because it is not the legal
successor to the former Yugoslavia. The Serbian
authorities will be heard on Wednesday.
---
http://www.makfax.com.mk/news1-a.asp?br=66857
MakFax (Macedonia) - April 19, 2004
Preliminary hearing on charges against NATO
The International Court of Justice in The Hague opens
today a preliminary hearing of charges by
Serbia-Montenegro against NATO member-countries that
took part in NATO-led air strikes on Yugoslavia in
1999.
The court will hear arguments from both sides in
connection with objections and comments from NATO
members over jurisdiction. The NATO member-countries
argue that the court is not competent to rule on this
issue. Representatives of Serbia-Montenegro will
attempt to reassure the court that it has a
jurisdiction to decide whether NATO had violated the
international law by resorting to force against
Yugoslavia in 1999.
Sources in NATO said Belgrade’s charges against seven
members of the Alliance are the main obstacle to
accession of Serbia-Montenegro into Partnership for
Peace (PfP) Program.
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug - April 20, 2004
Serbia-Montenegro legal representative to present
Belgrade's stand regarding lawsuit against NATO
THE HAGUE/BELGRADE - Serbia-Montenegro legal
representative Tibor Varadi said on Monday that on
Wednesday he would address the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) and present Belgrade's stand on the
jurisdiction of the ICJ in the lawsuit which FR
Yugoslavia filed against eight NATO member-states that
had bombed Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999. Speaking
for Tanjug over the phone, Varadi said that Dutch and
Belgian representatives had denied the jurisdiction of
the ICJ at the beginning of the debate and that
Canada, Great Britain, Portugal, France, Germany and
Italy would present their stands on Monday afternoon
and on Tuesday.
Charges for genocide, illegal use of force and other
crimes against humanity committed during the 78-day
bombing initially included Spain and the United
States, but the Court had dismisssed the cases against
these states. [Because the latter two have refused to
ratify the relevant treaty and as such are not within
its jurisdiction.]
---
http://www.blic.co.yu/danas/broj/E-Index.htm#6
Blic (Serbia-Montenegro) - April 21, 2004
SCG not giving up charges against NATO
The Hague - Serbia and Montenegro has not given up its
lawsuit against NATO countries for violation of
international humanitarian law during bombing in 1999
and is requesting from the International Court of
Justice in The Hague to say whether it is competent
for that dispute or not. SCG chief representative
Tibor Varadi said that yesterday before the judges of
that court.
Many international humanitarian organizations
confirmed that international law was violated by air
strikes on Yugoslavia. Varadi also specified the
arguments in favor to SCG lawsuit against eight NATO
countries.
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id=28082&order=priority&style=headlines
Agence France-Presse - April 21, 2004
Belgrade says NATO bombing made Kosovo problems worse
THE HAGUE - Serbia and Montenegro, which has filed a
genocide claim against eight NATO counties with the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), told the court
Wednesday that the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 did
not resolve the crisis in Kosovo but made it worse.
"The bombing did not resolve the problems, they only
made them bigger," Belgrade's lawyer Tibor Varady told
the ICJ, the United Nations' highest legal body.
He stressed that the deadly violence that erupted in
Kosovo last month proved his point.
Wednesday was the third consecutive day of procedural
hearings at the ICJ in the case that Serbia and
Montenegro have filed against Belgium, the
Netherlands, Canada, Portugal, Britain, Germany,
France and Italy.
Belgrade is accusing them of committing genocide with
the NATO air-strikes during the 1999 Kosovo war.
The hearings are dealing with the NATO states'
preliminary objections against the case. Earlier this
week all the NATO countries asked to court to declare
that it was not competent to hear to case.
Many of the states argued that Serbia and Montenegro's
claim could not be considered because it was filed in
1999 when the country was not yet admitted as a UN
member state. It was finally admitted in November 2000.
Lawyers for Belgrade told the court Wednesday that
Serbia and Montenegro, then still called the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), had a "sui generis" or
special position in the UN at the time the complaint
was filed which would not affect the legality of the claim.
On Thursday and Friday the NATO states will have a
chance to submit their response to Belgrade's
arguments before the court.
The NATO air strikes launched on March 24, 1999
without the backing of a UN Security Council
resolution, were aimed at protecting ethnic Albanians
in Kosovo from attacks by Serb forces. The targets
chosen by NATO included anti-aircraft batteries,
military command centres, government buildings,
factories and bridges.
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug - April 21, 2004
ICJ to decide on Serbia-Montenegro's lawsuit against
NATO in few months - legal representative
THE HAGUE - Serbia-Montenegro's legal representative
Tibor Varadi said after the Wednesday presentation of
Serbia-Montenegro's arguments from the lawsuit against
eight NATO countries for genocide in the 1999 war that
it was too early to say anything about the oucome of
this process, because the International Court of
Justice in The Hague, which is reviewing its
jurisdiction in the dispute, would most likely make a
decision in a few months. "We presented our stands
today. Now the eight NATO member-countries are to
respond and we will have another opportunity on
Friday," Varadi told Tanjug, summarising the
activities of the delegation he heads at the ICJ.
He said that the eight NATO member-countries "will
tomorrow present counter-arguments to what we said
today and on Friday we will have two hours to respond
to what the NATO countries said," and this would mark
the end of the debate.
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
EYugWor.htm#Genocide%20charges%20against%20NATO%20legally%20founded,%20a
ccording%20to%20Varadi,%20Brownly
Tanjug - April 21, 2004
Genocide charges against NATO legally founded,
according to Varadi
THE HAGUE - Serbia and Montenegro (SCG), which is
suing before the International Court of Justice in The
Hague countries NATO Alliance for genocide, is
claiming that NATO's bombing of FR Yugoslavia in 1999
did not contribute to a solution of the conflict in
Kosovo and Metohija and that its suit for genocide
against the countries members of that military
organisation was legally founded, news agencies
reported on Wednesday.
SCG chief legal representative Tibor Varadi said on
Wednesday before the judges in The Hague that the
bombing did not resolve the problem, but on the
contrary, exasperated it, as evidenced by the bloody
violence that took place last month in Kosovo and
Meothija.
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug - April 23, 2004
Serbia-Montenegro favours same principles for all
disputes before ICJ - legal representative
BELGRADE - Tibor Varadi, who represents
Serbia-Montenegro before the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, has said that the main aim
of Serbia-Montenegro's team of legal representatives
is to ensure that the ICJ decide on the issues that
concern all disputes on the basis of same principles.
"Our efforts are to have these principles as the
subject of decision, which is very complicated,"
Varadi told Tanjug after a week-long debate on
Serbia-Montenegro's lawsuit against NATO
member-countries - Belgium, The Netherlands, Canada,
Portugal, Great Britain, Germany, France and Italy -
which bombed FR Yugoslavia (Serbia-Montenegro) for 78
days in the spring of 1999.
"I believe that we have succeeded in responding to
what the lawyers of NATO (members) said," Varadi said.
---
http://www.seeurope.net/en/Story.php?StoryID=50037&LangID=1
Seeurope.net - April 22, 2004
NATO Worsened the Crisis in Kosovo, Serbs tell ICJ
Serbia and Montenegro, which has filed a genocide
claim against eight NATO countries with the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), told the court
yesterday that the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 did
not resolve the crisis in Kosovo but made it worse.
“The bombing did not resolve the problems, they only
made them bigger,” Belgrade’s lawyer Tibor Varady told
the ICJ, the United Nations’ highest legal body. He
stressed that the deadly violence that erupted in
Kosovo last month proved his point. Yesterday was the
third consecutive day of procedural hearings at the
ICJ in the case that Serbia and Montenegro has filed
against Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, Portugal,
Britain, Germany, France and Italy. Belgrade is
accusing them of committing genocide with the NATO air
strikes during the 1999 Kosovo war.
=== 4 ===
http://www.ansa.it/balcani/serbiamontenegro/serbiamontenegro.shtml
KOSOVO: ITALIA A CORTE, NON PRONUNCIARSI SU ACCUSE BELGRADO
(ANSA) - BRUXELLES, 20 APR - L'Italia ha oggi chiesto alla Corte
internazionale di giustizia dell'Aja di ''non pronunciarsi'' sulla
richiesta avanzata nel 1999 da Serbia e Montenegro contro Roma e
altri paesi della Nato per la loro partecipazione alla guerra in
Kosovo. Le udienze che il Tribunale tiene questa settimana all'Aja
puntano a stabilire la competenza e la ricevibilita' da parte della
stessa Corte delle accuse di Belgrado, senza entrare cioe' nel merito
delle stesse. I ricorsi riguardano ''la legittimita' dell'uso della
forza in Kosovo'' e sono stati depositati da Belgrado il 29 aprile
del 1999, nel pieno dei bombardamenti e della campagna aerea dell'
Alleanza atlantica contro gli obiettivi militari e politici in Serbia
e in Kosovo. Nell'udienza di ieri davanti alla Corte - principale
organo giudiziario delle Nazioni Unite - erano intervenuti i
rappresentanti di Belgio, Canada, Olanda, Portogallo e Gran Bretagna.
Oggi e' stato il turno di Francia, Germania e del rappresentante
del governo italiano, Ivo Braguglia. L'Italia - ha precisato nel
suo intervento Braguglia - ''chiede alla Corte di rinunciare a
pronunciarsi'' sulla richiesta avanzata da Belgrado, ''dal momento
che i contrasti tra Serbia e Montenegro e l'Italia sono venuti meno,
o sono destinati a sparire''. In altre parole, secondo il governo
italiano ''e' venuto a cadere l'oggetto del contendere'' e pertanto
''non c'e' piu' controversia''. Nelle dichiarazioni fatte dal
governo di Belgrado - ha spiegato il rappresentante italiano -
risulta infatti ''che la stessa Serbia e Montenegro sostiene di non
essere parte delle Nazioni Unite e della Convenzione sul genocidio,
ne' all'epoca dei fatti ne' all'epoca della richiesta'' avanzata
appunto da Belgrado nel 1999. Le posizioni manifestate dagli
altri paesi sono stati simili a a quella dell'Italia. Il
rappresentante francese ha per esempio sottolineato che nonostante si
sia giunti ad una situazione giuridicamente ''insolita'', Belgrado
non ha ritirato le accuse contro i paesi membri dell'Alleanza
Atlantica. (ANSA).
RIG 20/04/2004 22:08
SERBIA/MONTENEGRO: CAUSA A NATO, PER NON PAGARE BOSNIA
(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 20 APR - La causa contro la Nato intentata da
Belgrado presso la Corte internazionale di giustizia dell'Aja per i
bombardamenti della primavera 1999 e' uno dei tasselli di un
complicato gioco a incastro che ha come fine l'annullamento della
piu' pericolosa causa intentata da Bosnia e Croazia contro l'allora
Jugoslavia per le guerre balcaniche dei primi anni '90. E' questa
l'interpretazione piu' diffusa sulla stampa serba di oggi per una
mossa che sembra andare in direzione contraria rispetto alla politica
di integrazione perseguita da Serbia e Montenegro, che include
l'adesione al programma 'Partnership per la pace' (Pfp) dell'Alleanza
atlantica. Uno dei requisiti chiesti dalla Nato, ricordano i
giornali, era appunto il ritiro del ricorso presentato alla Corte di
giustizia nell'aprile del 1999, nel pieno dei raid e con il paese
saldamente in mano al nazionalista Slobodan Milosevic. La causa
non e' stata ritirata per ragioni di opportunita': la Corte di
giustizia si e' gia' dichiarata competente in passato sui
procedimenti intentati contro l'allora Jugoslavia da Croazia e
Bosnia, per i quali Belgrado rischia, se condannata, di dover pagare
pesanti risarcimenti. Ad avallare quelle accuse c'e' la sentenza
emessa ieri in appello dal Tribunale penale internazionale per i
crimini di guerra nella ex Jugoslavia, che qualifica di genocidio la
strage di Srebrenica del luglio 1995, costata la vita a un numero
imprecisato di musulmani bosniaci (dai 6.000 agli 8.000, il bilancio
non e' mai stato chiarito). La sentenza del Tpi ''potrebbe
indirettamente avere conseguenze sulle accuse croate e bosniache, che
basano il loro ricorso sulla tesi del genocidio'', ha commentato il
ministro degli esteri uscente Goran Svilanovic. Belgrado,
afferma la stampa, spera segretamente che venga accolta la tesi
presentata dai difensori dei paesi Nato, secondo i quali la Corte di
giustizia dell'Aja sarebbe incompetente a giudicare sui raid in
quanto la Jugoslavia non era all'epoca membro dell'Onu ne' firmataria
della convenzione sul genocidio. Un pronunciamento in questo senso
dei giudici eliminerebbe da un lato un ostacolo all'adesione al
programma Pfp, dall'altro verrebbe a collidere con la dichiarazione
di compatibilita' della corte sui ricorsi croato e bosniaco. Il
neo ministro degli esteri Vuk Draskovic ha sintetizzato cosi' la
posizione di Serbia e Montenegro: ''Credo - ha detto nella sua
cerimonia di insediamento - che tutti dovrebbero lasciar cadere le
loro cause contro tutti. Siamo stati citati in giudizio da Croazia e
Bosnia, e a nostra volta abbiamo citato la Nato, quando tutti stiamo
cercando di migliorare le nostre relazioni con i vicini e di varare
una partnership con l'Alleanza atlantica''. (ANSA). OT
20/04/2004 15:13
=== 5 ===
http://www.glas-javnosti.co.yu/danas/pisma/srpski/pisma.shtml
18. april, 2004
Uoci rasprave pred Medunarodnim sudom
Nemojmo povlaciti tuzbu protiv NATO
Rasprava o tužbi Vlade SRJ protiv deset zemalja NATO pred Medunarodnim
sudom pravde pocece 19. aprila u Hagu. Tužba je podneta 29. aprila
1999, u jeku vazdušnih napada zapocetih agresijom 24. marta te godine.
Samo osam dana pre
pocetka rasprave, igrom slucaja, 11. aprila ove godine, na železnicki
most u Grdelickoj klisuri postavljena je spomen-ploca.
U znak secanja na više od 30 stradalih, desetak raznesenih
eksplozijama, preko 50 povredenih putnika - civila. Smrt su izazvale
cetiri rakete izbacene iz NATO aviona na medunarodni voz. "To je
zlocin, to je pravi terorizam", rekao je, po otkrivanju ploce Velimir
Ilic, republicki ministar za kapitalne investicije.
Ovakve kvalifikacija javnog zlocinackog cina morala bi da bude ideja -
vodilja na predstojecoj raspravi. Pogotovo što postoje javne i tajni
pritisci i uslovljavanja da se tužba povuce. "Oprostite se i od
zajmova, donacija". Bojazan, dakle, postoji.
Odoleti pritiscima naša je moralna i nacionalna obaveza. Od kasetnih
bombi, preostalih iz rata, na našu nesrecu, i danas stradaju deca i
ratari.
O nasladivanju raspojasanih bogova rata, savremenih Arisa, nesrecom
nanetom jednom malom, miroljubivom narodu koji nikad nikoga nije napao.
Uvek se branio. To je cinio i sada.
I pored te istine, opasnost od povlacenja tužbe postoji. Još ranije
Goran Svilanovic, ministar spoljnih poslova, predložio da vlada Bosne i
Hercegovine povuce tužbu protiv SRJ, a mi cemo, zauzvrat, to isto
uciniti s tužbom protov NATO. Bila bi to, da se obistinilo, sramna
trgovina.
Predstavnici naše vlade, na raspravi 19. ovog meseca, trebalo bi da
pokažu i knjigu "Deca optužuju", osamdeset jedno ih je mrtvo. Srpcici i
Albancici.
Drugovi u prerano prekinutom detinjstvu. Trogodišnja Milica Rakic i
16-godišnja Sanja Milenkovic pored 10-godišnjeg Besima Valjetija.
Zanavek sklopljenih ociju. Može li se Medunarodni sud pravde proglasiti
nenadležnim kada je u pitanju odgovornost za njihovu smrt. Zbog
sadašnjosti i, još više, buducnosti.
Aleksandar Mišic
Beograd
=== 6 ===
Source: alerte-otan -
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/alerte_otan/messages
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id=29619&order=priority&style=headlines
Pas d'accord sur la plainte contre l'OTAN
B92 - 24 août
Lors des discussions au parlement serbe aujourd'hui à propos de
l'abandon des poursuites contre l'OTAN, le Mouvement du Renouveau Serbe
était le seul parti qui était en faveur d'un abandon unilatéral et
inconditionnel des charges.
D'un autre côté, aucun parti n'a soutenu la proposition du parti
radical et du parti socialiste, de faire passer une résolution qui
interdirait tout abandon de la plainte.
Tous les partis se sont entendus cependant sur le fait que le Parlement
serbe soit libre de discuter de ce sujet, mais la décision finale doit
invariablement être prise par le parlement national de
Serbie-Monténegro.
La discussion qui a démarré avec des arguments pour la résolution
[proposée par le parti socialiste], et pour ne pas laisser tomber la
plainte en ce moment, a fini par glisser sur des arguments qui ont
divisés les partis, étiquetant les uns de patriotes, les autres de
traîtres, et comprenant également des discussions sur le rôle que
chaque parti avait joué pendant les bombardement de 99.
La discussion continuera demain matin.
Le représentant du parti radical a proposé qu'il y ait 10 heures de
discussion au lieu de 5. Les Conseils pour les Affaires étrangères et
l'Intégration européenne ont rejeté cette proposition, avançant que la
plainte contre l'OTAN était sous la juridiction du parlement de
Serbie-Monténegro.
original
No agreement on NATO charges
21:45 August 24 | Beta
BELGRADE -- Tuesday - In today's parliamentary discussions over the
dropping of charges against NATO, the Serbian Renewal Movement was the
only party that supported a one-sided and unconditional dropping of the
charges.
On the other hand, no parties supported the suggestion of the Radical
and Socialist parties to pass a resolution that would forbid a dropping
of the charges.
All parties agree however, that the Serbian parliament should be free
to discuss this topic, but invariably, the final decision must be made
by the national parliament.
The discussion, which started off with arguments on why the resolution
should be passed and why the charges should not be dropped at this
given moment, later turned into arguments which divided parties,
labeling some patriots and others traitors, and also included
discussions of the roles each party played during the bombing in 1999.
Discussion will continue tomorrow morning.
Radical Party representative Zarko Obradovic proposed that the
discussions last for ten hours instead of five. The Councils for
Foreign Affairs and European Integration denied the proposal, stating
that the case against NATO is under the jurisdiction of
Serbia-Montenegro's Parliament.
---
Le Parlement Serbe n'a pas à débattre de la plainte de la RFY contre
l'OTAN
B92 - 24 août
http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id=29615&order=priority&style=headlines
Le Parlement serbe, qui débattait aujourd'hui du retrait de la plainte
déposée en 1999 par la Yougoslavie contre les bombardement de l'OTAN
sur l'état fédéral, n'est pas autorisé à traiter de ce problème, selon
ce qu'a déclaré aujourd'hui un expert en droit international.
Vojin Dimitrijevic, qui dirige le Centre de Belgrade pour les Droits de
l'Homme, a déclaré que cette question n'était que l'une de nombreuses
initiatives futiles du gouvernement.
S'exprimant au micro de B92, il a noté que les accusations de génocide
avaient été originellement déposées contre 10 membres de l'OTAN, mais
que celles contre les USA et l'Espagne avaient depuis été retirées.
En tout cas, a dit Vojin Dimitrijevic, à ce stage de l'affaire, il est
trop tôt pour discuter du retrait de la plainte, parce que la Cour
Internationale de Justice avait encore a décider si elle était ou non
compétente pour traiter le cas.
Les Etats défendant avancent l'argument que l'affaire n'est pas de la
juridiction de la Cour parce que à l'époque des bombardements, la
Yougoslavie n'était pas un membre des Nations Unies.
« La première étape doit être pour la cour de se déclarer incompétente,
parce nous n'étions pas membre des Nations Unies [...]. Alors nous
verrons quelle est la situation et si cela vaut la peine de poursuivre
l'affaire », a déclaré Dimitrijevic.
Si la Cour Internationale de Justice se déclare incompétente sur base
du fait que la Yougoslavie n'était pas un membre des Nations Unies au
moment des attaques de l'OTAN, a-t-il dit, alors cela signifierait
employer le même argument que la Yougoslavie avait utilisé jusqu'à
présent dans les procès intentés contre elle par la Bosnie et la
Croatie.
Donc, selon lui, si la Yougoslavie n'a pas le droit de déposer une
accusation, alors elle ne peut pas non plus être accusée, et il ajoute
que, considéré sous cet angle, une telle jurisprudence ne serait pas
une défaite.
Original
NATO charges "not Serbia's concern"
The Serbian Parliament, today debating the withdrawal of charges laid
in 1999 by Yugoslavia over the NATO bombing of the federal state, is
not authorised to deal with the issue, an international law expert said
today.
Vojin Dimitrijevic, who heads the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights,
said that the issue was just one in a series of frivolous government
initiatives.
Speaking to B92, he noted that the genocide charges were originally
laid against ten NATO members but that those against the US and Spain
had since been dropped.
In any case, said Dimitrijevic, at this stage of the dispute it was too
early to discuss withdrawing the accusations, because the International
Court of Justice had yet to decide whether it was competent to deal
with the case.
The defendant states argue that the issue is not within the court's
jurisdiction because at the time of the bombing Yugoslavia was not a
member of the United Nations.
"The first step must be for the court to declare itself incompetent
because we weren't a UN member or to say that it is competent. Then
we'll see what the situation is and whether it is worth taking this
dispute any further," said Dimitrijevic.
If the International Court of Justice declares itself incompetent on
the grounds that Yugoslavia was not a member of the UN at the time of
the NATO attacks, said Dimitrijevic, then this would mean employing the
same argument which Yugoslavia had so far used in the cases brought
against it by Bosnia and Croatia.
Thus, he said, if Yugoslavia has no right to lay charges, then nor can
it be charged, said Dimitrijevic, adding that, looked at in this light,
such a ruling would not be a defeat.
Sulla denuncia per crimini di guerra presentata dalla Jugoslavia contro
la NATO
1. Introduzione e link utili
2. Hague "could not" hold investigation into bombing
campaign against SRY, Del Ponte (February 2004)
3. The Hague International Court of Justice discusses about the suit
filed by Belgrade against 10 NATO member states for bombing FR
Yugoslavia in 1999 (April 2004)
4. L'Italia - implicata nei crimini di guerra - chiede alla Corte
internazionale di giustizia dell'Aja di ''non pronunciarsi'', e la sua
agenzia di stampa cerca di elidere quei crimini usando altre cause, che
non c'entrano assolutamente nulla e sono inconsistenti nel merito,
intentate da Croazia e Bosnia (Aprile 2004)
5. Uoci rasprave pred Medunarodnim sudom. Nemojmo povlaciti tuzbu
protiv NATO ! (Aleksandar Mitic)
6. Pas d'accord sur la plainte contre l'OTAN / No agreement on NATO
charges
=== 1 ===
Introduzione e link utili
Il ritiro della denuncia per crimini di guerra contro la NATO -
depositata nell'aprile 1999 dalla RF di Jugoslavia presso la Corte
Internazionale di Giustizia dell'Aia - e' stato richiesto negli ultimi
tempi da settori dei partiti della destra filo-occidentale al governo
in Serbia, e soprattutto in questi giorni dall'attuale ministro degli
Esteri Vuk Draskovic.
La possibilita' del ritiro - che in base al ricatto occidentale sarebbe
condizione sine qua non per la ammissione della Serbia-Montenegro in
determinati consessi internazionali - e' stata dibattuta nei giorni
scorsi per alcune ore dal parlamento della Serbia, dopodiche' e' stato
dichiarato che l'unica istituzione competente a decidere in materia
sarebbe il parlamento federale (cioe' della Unione di Serbia e
Montenegro). Il dibattito e' stato cosi' bloccato, dopo una fase molto
animata con scambi di accuse soprattutto tra i parlamentari socialisti
e radicali da una parte (contrari al ritiro della denuncia) e
parlamentari della destra filo-statunitense e filo-tedesca dall'altra
(con in testa il partito di Draskovic).
La vicenda ha assunto oramai dei contorni puramente vergognosi. Mentre
infatti tutte le analoghe denunce presentate alle magistrature di vari
paesi (compresa l'Italia) sono state insabbiate sin dall'inizio, e
mentre l'illegittimo "Tribunale ad hoc" istituito dalla NATO all'Aia si
e' costantemente rifiutato di incriminare i dirigenti NATO (vedi
Allegato numero 2), la Corte Internazionale di Giustizia (che ha sempre
sede all'Aia ma e' una istituzione completamente distinta) dopo piu' di
5 anni ancora non si e' pronunciata sulla ammissibilita' della denuncia.
Nel frattempo, le denunce contro Stati Uniti e Spagna sono gia' state
dichiarate insostenibili poiche' questi due Stati non hanno mai
ratificato la legislazione internazionale sul genocidio. Altri paesi,
come l'Italia - gravemente implicata nei crimini di guerra del 1999 -
hanno chiesto alla Corte internazionale di giustizia dell'Aja di ''non
pronunciarsi''. L'ANSA - che nasconde al pubblico italiano il dibattito
dei giorni scorsi al parlamento serbo - ha cercato in passato di
mischiare le carte rilanciando la tesi del partito di Draskovic sulla
presunta necessita' di far cadere "tutte le denunce
contemporaneamente", vale a dire anche le denunce presentate da Croazia
e Bosnia contro la Jugoslavia per "aggressione". Tuttavia queste ultime
non c'entrano assolutamente niente con la prima, e nel merito sono del
tutto inconsistenti e non assimilabili poiche' nessuno potra' mai
provare che la Jugoslavia abbia mai aggredito nessun altro, in quanto
la Jugoslavia non ha mai aggredito nessuno.
In generale, la posizione dei paesi della NATO e' da una parte quella
di far dichiarare illegittima la denuncia, con pretesti come quello che
all'epoca la Jugoslavia "non era membro dell'ONU" (essendone stata
sospesa in forza delle loro stesse pressioni; in realta', pur sospesa
dalle sessioni, la Jugoslavia era membro fondatore delle Nazioni
Unite). Dall'altra, i paesi della NATO contano sul prossimo
scioglimento anche della attuale "Unione di Serbia e Montenegro", nata
nel 2003 per loro stessa volonta' allo scopo di rimuovere quella
Jugoslavia non solo dalla scena politica internazionale, dalle cartine
geografiche e dalla memoria pubblica, ma anche e soprattutto come
soggetto giuridico.
Con la sparizione del "cadavere", gli assassini puntano cioe' a
nascondere il crimine.
Sul Memorandum, preparato su questo tema dall'associazione "Sloboda" di
Belgrado, si veda:
Memorandum "Slobode" protiv povlacenja tuzbi
http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/3748
La documentazione essenziale sulle conseguenze della aggressione del
1999 dei paesi della NATO contro la RF di Jugoslavia si trova - a cura
della Sezione Italiana del Tribunale Internazionale Indipendente sui
crimini NATO contro la Jugoslavia proposto da Ramsey Clark - al sito:
http://www.pasti.org/tribhome.htm
Vedi in particolare: LE DISTRUZIONI DELLA NATO
SUL TERRITORIO DELLA REPUBBLICA FEDERALE DI JUGOSLAVIA
http://www.pasti.org/lbianco.htm
Tutti i dati e la documentazione fotografica sui crimini di guerra
commessi dalla NATO con i bombardamenti contro la RF di Jugoslavia si
trovano ad esempio ai siti:
http://www.sramota.com/nato/
http://www.justiceyugoslavia.org
http://www.kosovo.com/natobomb.html
http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/destruction_exhibition/
index.html
Si veda in particolare la versione integrale del "Libro Bianco" del
governo jugoslavo:
WHITE BOOK - NATO BOMBING OF YUGOSLAVIA
PART 1 (March 24- April 24)
http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/destruction/white_book/
PART 2 (April 25 - June 10)
http://www.balkan-archive.org.yu/kosovo_crisis/destruction/white_book2/
EN FRANCAIS: http://otan99.chiffonrouge.org
les deux volumes du livre blanc des crimes de l’OTAN en Yougoslavie 1999
Infine, sul caso della denuncia presentata all'Aia vedi anche:
BELGRADE ACTION AGAINST NATO BEGINS
http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri_354_2_eng.txt
Preliminary hearings in Serbia and Montenegro vs NATO trial marked by
calls for legal action to be dismissed.
By Rachel S. Taylor in The Hague
IWPR'S TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 354, April 2004, 2004
(Fine. Note e link a cura di Italo Slavo)
=== 2 ===
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
EYugWor.htm#Hague%20could%20not%20hold%20investigation%20into%20bombing%
20campaign%20against%20SRY,%20Del%20Ponte
Tanjug - February 1, 2004
Hague could not hold investigation into bombing
campaign against SRY, Del Ponte
20:10 ZAGREB , Feb 1 (Tanjug) - The Hague tribunal
chief prosecutor Carla del Ponte has said that certain
initiatives have been made so that the court held an
investigation into whether the civilians that died
during the NATO bombing campaign against the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (SRY) in 1999 were in some
cases victims of war crimes, and not collateral
victims, but that the tribunal could not hold such an
investigation.
Del Ponte said this in an interview the Craotian
television broadcasted late on Saturday.
=== 3 ===
Source: Rick Rozoff, yugoslaviainfo@ yahoogroups.com
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug - April 12, 2004
In The Hague to be decided jurisdiction over lawsuit
against NATO
BELGRADE - At the International Court of Justice in
The Hague, which as an institution of the United
Nations is in charge of disputes between states, will
open on April 19 discussions about the suit filed by
Belgrade against 10 NATO member states for bombing FR
Yugoslavia in 1999.
After five-day discussions, the Court,
Radio-Television Serbia reported, is expected to take
a decision within two months whether it has
jurisdiction over the suit against Belgium, Italy, the
Netherlands, Germany, France, Portugal, Canada and
Great Britain.
---
http://www.blic.co.yu/danas/broj/E-Index.htm#7
Blic (Serbia-Montenegro) - April 18, 2004
Today about SCG lawsuit against NATO
The Hague - One-week preliminary debate about lawsuit
by Serbia and Montenegro against NATO for alleged
genocide committed during bombing of Yugoslavia in
1999 is to begin today before the International Court
of Justice in The Hague.
Apart from genocide, NATO countries have been also
accused for illegal application of armed force during
air strikes on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in
spring 1999 as well as for crimes against humanity.
---
http://www.bgnewsnet.com/
story.php?sid=4648&PHPSESSID=23f02171f263c6a7515c52d408cbeb21
Bulgarian News Network - April 19, 2004
World Court Opens NATO 1999 Yugoslavia Bombing
Campaign Case
THE HAGUE (BGNES)--The World Court opened hearings on
Monday into a case by Serbia and Montenegro
challenging the legality of NATO's 1999 air strikes
after a Serb crackdown in Kosovo.
NATO members, including Britain, France, Germany,
Belgium, Italy and Canada, will appear before the UN's
highest court to argue that it does not have
jurisdiction to consider Serbia and Montenegro's
claim.
"Belgium maintains all its preliminary objections as
regards jurisdiction and admissibility," Belgian
representative Jan Devadder told the court at the
start of hearings to consider the court's jurisdiction
in the case.
The NATO states concerned said at the time their
action was justified by what they said was Belgrade's
ethnic cleansing of Kosovo's majority ethnic Albanian
population. The former Yugoslavia argued the air
strikes violated international law.
NATO's 11-week bombing campaign forced a Serb pullout
from Kosovo, ending what the alliance regarded as a
crackdown by Serb forces against ethnic Albanians in
the breakaway province during former Yugoslav
president Slobodan Milosevic's rule.
Human Rights Watch says that NATO bombs killed some
500 Yugoslav civilians between March and June, 1999.
Yugoslav authorities said at the time that 2,500
Yugoslavs were killed.
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/index.php?nav_id=28041&style=headlines
B92 - April 19, 2004
Preliminary hearing on charges against NATO
THE HAGUE -- Monday – The International Court of
Justice in The Hague today begins a preliminary
hearing of charges by Serbia-Montenegro against NATO
member countries over the bombing of Yugoslavia in
1999.
One member of the state’s legal team, Vladimir Djeric,
told B92 that in the next few days the court will
discuss the question of its jurisdiction in the case.
“The court will hear arguments from both sides in
connection with objections and comments from NATO
countries on jurisdiction. The member countries argue
that the court is not competent to rule on this issue
while we, of course, challenge that,” he said.
Charged are eight members of NATO. Additional charges
against the US and Spain have already been dismissed
by the court because both states insist that the
International Court of Justice is not competent to
rule on disputes under the Convention on Genocide.
“The remaining countries argue that, as a state which
was not a member of the UN at the time, we are not
able to address the court,” said Djeric.
---
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3639401.stm
BBC News - April 19, 2004
Court considers Nato bombing case
The World Court has begun hearings to decide if it has
jurisdiction in a case against Nato for the 1999
bombing of Yugoslavia during the Kosovo crisis.
Serbia and Montenegro, Yugoslavia's successor state,
accuse eight Nato countries of genocide and violating
international law on the use of force.
The Nato members, including the UK, France and
Germany, say the court is not competent to hear the
case.
The court is hearing from all sides this week before
making a judgement.
'Deliberate destruction'
The original complaint was filed by the former
Yugoslavia just a month after Nato launched air
strikes against the country in March 1999.
The air strikes were not authorised by the UN.
However, the Nato members concerned said at the time
that their actions were justified as they aimed to
protect ethnic Albanians in Kosovo from attacks by
Serb forces.
But lawyers for Serbia and Montenegro accuse the Nato
members of deliberately targeting civilians and
violating international obligations banning the use of
force against another state.
The Nato countries are accused of deliberately
inflicting "conditions of life calculated to cause the
physical destruction of a national group".
"In bombing the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
military and civilian targets were attacked. Great
numbers of people were killed, including a great many
civilians," Serbia and Montenegro argued in court
documents.
Objections
The New York-based Human Rights Watch estimates that
from March to June 1999, around 500 civilians were
killed during the Nato strikes in Serbia and Kosovo.
Belgium was the first Nato country to state its
objections before the World Court, officially known as
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague.
Belgium's lawyer argued that "there is no longer a
dispute between the countries" and invited the court
to "discontinue the case on all grounds".
The ICJ is also hearing from representatives of the
other countries accused: Canada, France, Germany,
Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and the UK.
Initial charges against Spain and the United States
have been dropped.
The ICJ is the United Nations' highest legal body to
resolve disputes between nations.
---
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/04/3a2e8c3b-aaa6-4e0f-9e35-
c875101e84b5.html
Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty
Reuters/Agence France-Presse
April 19, 2004
World Court Opens Case Of Yugoslav Air War
The World Court today opened hearings into a case by
Serbia and Montenegro on the legality of NATO's 1999
air war to end a Serb crackdown on ethnic Albanians.
Yugoslavia, the predecessor state of Serbia and
Montenegro, argued that Belgium, the Netherlands,
Canada, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Germany, France,
and Italy used force illegally during the war.
Yugoslavia's suit also accuses those eight states of
genocide.
Two similar cases were filed against the United States
and Spain in 1999, but the court threw those cases out
on a technicality.
The eight NATO members are expected to argue that the
court does not have jurisdiction to consider the case
against them.
In 1999, NATO launched an air war to end a Serb
crackdown on independence-seeking ethnic Albanians in
Kosovo. Hundreds of civilians were killed in the
bombing campaign.
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id=28052&order=priority&style=headlines
B92/Associated Press - April 19, 2004
Court hears genocide charges against NATO
THE HAGUE - Five members of NATO have urged the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) to reject a case
brought by Serbia-Montenegro over the 1999 bombing of
the then Yugoslavia, arguing that when the complaints
were filed the state was not even a member of the
United Nations.
The ICJ, the UN’s highest judicial body, began hearing
arguments today from eight alliance members accused by
Belgrade of genocide during their 78-day bombing
campaign to drive Serb forces from Kosovo.
The court heard today from Canada, Portugal, Britain,
the Netherlands and Belgium. Germany, France and Italy
will present their arguments on Tuesday, while
Serbia-Montenegro will make its case on Wednesday.
Lawyers for the NATO countries stressed today that the
case could not be heard by the Hague-based court
because it was filed eighteen months before
Serbia-Montenegro, then still called Yugoslavia,
joined the United Nations. The complaints, which
include genocide, were filed on April 29, 1999, at the
height of NATO’s air war.
Lawyers rejected outright the charge of genocide.
Belgium’s lawyer, Daniel Bethlehem, said the
accusation was extravagant.
The air strikes were launched on March 24, 1999,
without the backing of a UN Security Council
resolution.
---
http://www.rnw.nl/news/news.html#3980685
Radio Netherlands - April 19, 2004
World Court begins hearings on NATO bombardments
The International Court of Justice in The Hague began
hearings Monday regarding NATO's bombardments of
Yugoslavia in 1999. The case, which was brought before
the court in April of that year by the government of
former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, has the
support of the current government of Serbia and
Montenegro.
The government believes the eight NATO member states
had no right to forcibly intervene in the Kosovo
conflict. Belgrade argues that the treaty organisation
had no UN mandate and therefore violated the
sovereignty of the former state of Yugoslavia.
The Netherlands and Belgium have argued that Serbia
and Montenegro has no case because it is not the legal
successor to the former Yugoslavia. The Serbian
authorities will be heard on Wednesday.
---
http://www.makfax.com.mk/news1-a.asp?br=66857
MakFax (Macedonia) - April 19, 2004
Preliminary hearing on charges against NATO
The International Court of Justice in The Hague opens
today a preliminary hearing of charges by
Serbia-Montenegro against NATO member-countries that
took part in NATO-led air strikes on Yugoslavia in
1999.
The court will hear arguments from both sides in
connection with objections and comments from NATO
members over jurisdiction. The NATO member-countries
argue that the court is not competent to rule on this
issue. Representatives of Serbia-Montenegro will
attempt to reassure the court that it has a
jurisdiction to decide whether NATO had violated the
international law by resorting to force against
Yugoslavia in 1999.
Sources in NATO said Belgrade’s charges against seven
members of the Alliance are the main obstacle to
accession of Serbia-Montenegro into Partnership for
Peace (PfP) Program.
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug - April 20, 2004
Serbia-Montenegro legal representative to present
Belgrade's stand regarding lawsuit against NATO
THE HAGUE/BELGRADE - Serbia-Montenegro legal
representative Tibor Varadi said on Monday that on
Wednesday he would address the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) and present Belgrade's stand on the
jurisdiction of the ICJ in the lawsuit which FR
Yugoslavia filed against eight NATO member-states that
had bombed Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999. Speaking
for Tanjug over the phone, Varadi said that Dutch and
Belgian representatives had denied the jurisdiction of
the ICJ at the beginning of the debate and that
Canada, Great Britain, Portugal, France, Germany and
Italy would present their stands on Monday afternoon
and on Tuesday.
Charges for genocide, illegal use of force and other
crimes against humanity committed during the 78-day
bombing initially included Spain and the United
States, but the Court had dismisssed the cases against
these states. [Because the latter two have refused to
ratify the relevant treaty and as such are not within
its jurisdiction.]
---
http://www.blic.co.yu/danas/broj/E-Index.htm#6
Blic (Serbia-Montenegro) - April 21, 2004
SCG not giving up charges against NATO
The Hague - Serbia and Montenegro has not given up its
lawsuit against NATO countries for violation of
international humanitarian law during bombing in 1999
and is requesting from the International Court of
Justice in The Hague to say whether it is competent
for that dispute or not. SCG chief representative
Tibor Varadi said that yesterday before the judges of
that court.
Many international humanitarian organizations
confirmed that international law was violated by air
strikes on Yugoslavia. Varadi also specified the
arguments in favor to SCG lawsuit against eight NATO
countries.
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id=28082&order=priority&style=headlines
Agence France-Presse - April 21, 2004
Belgrade says NATO bombing made Kosovo problems worse
THE HAGUE - Serbia and Montenegro, which has filed a
genocide claim against eight NATO counties with the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), told the court
Wednesday that the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 did
not resolve the crisis in Kosovo but made it worse.
"The bombing did not resolve the problems, they only
made them bigger," Belgrade's lawyer Tibor Varady told
the ICJ, the United Nations' highest legal body.
He stressed that the deadly violence that erupted in
Kosovo last month proved his point.
Wednesday was the third consecutive day of procedural
hearings at the ICJ in the case that Serbia and
Montenegro have filed against Belgium, the
Netherlands, Canada, Portugal, Britain, Germany,
France and Italy.
Belgrade is accusing them of committing genocide with
the NATO air-strikes during the 1999 Kosovo war.
The hearings are dealing with the NATO states'
preliminary objections against the case. Earlier this
week all the NATO countries asked to court to declare
that it was not competent to hear to case.
Many of the states argued that Serbia and Montenegro's
claim could not be considered because it was filed in
1999 when the country was not yet admitted as a UN
member state. It was finally admitted in November 2000.
Lawyers for Belgrade told the court Wednesday that
Serbia and Montenegro, then still called the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY), had a "sui generis" or
special position in the UN at the time the complaint
was filed which would not affect the legality of the claim.
On Thursday and Friday the NATO states will have a
chance to submit their response to Belgrade's
arguments before the court.
The NATO air strikes launched on March 24, 1999
without the backing of a UN Security Council
resolution, were aimed at protecting ethnic Albanians
in Kosovo from attacks by Serb forces. The targets
chosen by NATO included anti-aircraft batteries,
military command centres, government buildings,
factories and bridges.
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug - April 21, 2004
ICJ to decide on Serbia-Montenegro's lawsuit against
NATO in few months - legal representative
THE HAGUE - Serbia-Montenegro's legal representative
Tibor Varadi said after the Wednesday presentation of
Serbia-Montenegro's arguments from the lawsuit against
eight NATO countries for genocide in the 1999 war that
it was too early to say anything about the oucome of
this process, because the International Court of
Justice in The Hague, which is reviewing its
jurisdiction in the dispute, would most likely make a
decision in a few months. "We presented our stands
today. Now the eight NATO member-countries are to
respond and we will have another opportunity on
Friday," Varadi told Tanjug, summarising the
activities of the delegation he heads at the ICJ.
He said that the eight NATO member-countries "will
tomorrow present counter-arguments to what we said
today and on Friday we will have two hours to respond
to what the NATO countries said," and this would mark
the end of the debate.
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
EYugWor.htm#Genocide%20charges%20against%20NATO%20legally%20founded,%20a
ccording%20to%20Varadi,%20Brownly
Tanjug - April 21, 2004
Genocide charges against NATO legally founded,
according to Varadi
THE HAGUE - Serbia and Montenegro (SCG), which is
suing before the International Court of Justice in The
Hague countries NATO Alliance for genocide, is
claiming that NATO's bombing of FR Yugoslavia in 1999
did not contribute to a solution of the conflict in
Kosovo and Metohija and that its suit for genocide
against the countries members of that military
organisation was legally founded, news agencies
reported on Wednesday.
SCG chief legal representative Tibor Varadi said on
Wednesday before the judges in The Hague that the
bombing did not resolve the problem, but on the
contrary, exasperated it, as evidenced by the bloody
violence that took place last month in Kosovo and
Meothija.
---
http://www.tanjug.co.yu/
Tanjug - April 23, 2004
Serbia-Montenegro favours same principles for all
disputes before ICJ - legal representative
BELGRADE - Tibor Varadi, who represents
Serbia-Montenegro before the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, has said that the main aim
of Serbia-Montenegro's team of legal representatives
is to ensure that the ICJ decide on the issues that
concern all disputes on the basis of same principles.
"Our efforts are to have these principles as the
subject of decision, which is very complicated,"
Varadi told Tanjug after a week-long debate on
Serbia-Montenegro's lawsuit against NATO
member-countries - Belgium, The Netherlands, Canada,
Portugal, Great Britain, Germany, France and Italy -
which bombed FR Yugoslavia (Serbia-Montenegro) for 78
days in the spring of 1999.
"I believe that we have succeeded in responding to
what the lawyers of NATO (members) said," Varadi said.
---
http://www.seeurope.net/en/Story.php?StoryID=50037&LangID=1
Seeurope.net - April 22, 2004
NATO Worsened the Crisis in Kosovo, Serbs tell ICJ
Serbia and Montenegro, which has filed a genocide
claim against eight NATO countries with the
International Court of Justice (ICJ), told the court
yesterday that the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 did
not resolve the crisis in Kosovo but made it worse.
“The bombing did not resolve the problems, they only
made them bigger,” Belgrade’s lawyer Tibor Varady told
the ICJ, the United Nations’ highest legal body. He
stressed that the deadly violence that erupted in
Kosovo last month proved his point. Yesterday was the
third consecutive day of procedural hearings at the
ICJ in the case that Serbia and Montenegro has filed
against Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, Portugal,
Britain, Germany, France and Italy. Belgrade is
accusing them of committing genocide with the NATO air
strikes during the 1999 Kosovo war.
=== 4 ===
http://www.ansa.it/balcani/serbiamontenegro/serbiamontenegro.shtml
KOSOVO: ITALIA A CORTE, NON PRONUNCIARSI SU ACCUSE BELGRADO
(ANSA) - BRUXELLES, 20 APR - L'Italia ha oggi chiesto alla Corte
internazionale di giustizia dell'Aja di ''non pronunciarsi'' sulla
richiesta avanzata nel 1999 da Serbia e Montenegro contro Roma e
altri paesi della Nato per la loro partecipazione alla guerra in
Kosovo. Le udienze che il Tribunale tiene questa settimana all'Aja
puntano a stabilire la competenza e la ricevibilita' da parte della
stessa Corte delle accuse di Belgrado, senza entrare cioe' nel merito
delle stesse. I ricorsi riguardano ''la legittimita' dell'uso della
forza in Kosovo'' e sono stati depositati da Belgrado il 29 aprile
del 1999, nel pieno dei bombardamenti e della campagna aerea dell'
Alleanza atlantica contro gli obiettivi militari e politici in Serbia
e in Kosovo. Nell'udienza di ieri davanti alla Corte - principale
organo giudiziario delle Nazioni Unite - erano intervenuti i
rappresentanti di Belgio, Canada, Olanda, Portogallo e Gran Bretagna.
Oggi e' stato il turno di Francia, Germania e del rappresentante
del governo italiano, Ivo Braguglia. L'Italia - ha precisato nel
suo intervento Braguglia - ''chiede alla Corte di rinunciare a
pronunciarsi'' sulla richiesta avanzata da Belgrado, ''dal momento
che i contrasti tra Serbia e Montenegro e l'Italia sono venuti meno,
o sono destinati a sparire''. In altre parole, secondo il governo
italiano ''e' venuto a cadere l'oggetto del contendere'' e pertanto
''non c'e' piu' controversia''. Nelle dichiarazioni fatte dal
governo di Belgrado - ha spiegato il rappresentante italiano -
risulta infatti ''che la stessa Serbia e Montenegro sostiene di non
essere parte delle Nazioni Unite e della Convenzione sul genocidio,
ne' all'epoca dei fatti ne' all'epoca della richiesta'' avanzata
appunto da Belgrado nel 1999. Le posizioni manifestate dagli
altri paesi sono stati simili a a quella dell'Italia. Il
rappresentante francese ha per esempio sottolineato che nonostante si
sia giunti ad una situazione giuridicamente ''insolita'', Belgrado
non ha ritirato le accuse contro i paesi membri dell'Alleanza
Atlantica. (ANSA).
RIG 20/04/2004 22:08
SERBIA/MONTENEGRO: CAUSA A NATO, PER NON PAGARE BOSNIA
(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 20 APR - La causa contro la Nato intentata da
Belgrado presso la Corte internazionale di giustizia dell'Aja per i
bombardamenti della primavera 1999 e' uno dei tasselli di un
complicato gioco a incastro che ha come fine l'annullamento della
piu' pericolosa causa intentata da Bosnia e Croazia contro l'allora
Jugoslavia per le guerre balcaniche dei primi anni '90. E' questa
l'interpretazione piu' diffusa sulla stampa serba di oggi per una
mossa che sembra andare in direzione contraria rispetto alla politica
di integrazione perseguita da Serbia e Montenegro, che include
l'adesione al programma 'Partnership per la pace' (Pfp) dell'Alleanza
atlantica. Uno dei requisiti chiesti dalla Nato, ricordano i
giornali, era appunto il ritiro del ricorso presentato alla Corte di
giustizia nell'aprile del 1999, nel pieno dei raid e con il paese
saldamente in mano al nazionalista Slobodan Milosevic. La causa
non e' stata ritirata per ragioni di opportunita': la Corte di
giustizia si e' gia' dichiarata competente in passato sui
procedimenti intentati contro l'allora Jugoslavia da Croazia e
Bosnia, per i quali Belgrado rischia, se condannata, di dover pagare
pesanti risarcimenti. Ad avallare quelle accuse c'e' la sentenza
emessa ieri in appello dal Tribunale penale internazionale per i
crimini di guerra nella ex Jugoslavia, che qualifica di genocidio la
strage di Srebrenica del luglio 1995, costata la vita a un numero
imprecisato di musulmani bosniaci (dai 6.000 agli 8.000, il bilancio
non e' mai stato chiarito). La sentenza del Tpi ''potrebbe
indirettamente avere conseguenze sulle accuse croate e bosniache, che
basano il loro ricorso sulla tesi del genocidio'', ha commentato il
ministro degli esteri uscente Goran Svilanovic. Belgrado,
afferma la stampa, spera segretamente che venga accolta la tesi
presentata dai difensori dei paesi Nato, secondo i quali la Corte di
giustizia dell'Aja sarebbe incompetente a giudicare sui raid in
quanto la Jugoslavia non era all'epoca membro dell'Onu ne' firmataria
della convenzione sul genocidio. Un pronunciamento in questo senso
dei giudici eliminerebbe da un lato un ostacolo all'adesione al
programma Pfp, dall'altro verrebbe a collidere con la dichiarazione
di compatibilita' della corte sui ricorsi croato e bosniaco. Il
neo ministro degli esteri Vuk Draskovic ha sintetizzato cosi' la
posizione di Serbia e Montenegro: ''Credo - ha detto nella sua
cerimonia di insediamento - che tutti dovrebbero lasciar cadere le
loro cause contro tutti. Siamo stati citati in giudizio da Croazia e
Bosnia, e a nostra volta abbiamo citato la Nato, quando tutti stiamo
cercando di migliorare le nostre relazioni con i vicini e di varare
una partnership con l'Alleanza atlantica''. (ANSA). OT
20/04/2004 15:13
=== 5 ===
http://www.glas-javnosti.co.yu/danas/pisma/srpski/pisma.shtml
18. april, 2004
Uoci rasprave pred Medunarodnim sudom
Nemojmo povlaciti tuzbu protiv NATO
Rasprava o tužbi Vlade SRJ protiv deset zemalja NATO pred Medunarodnim
sudom pravde pocece 19. aprila u Hagu. Tužba je podneta 29. aprila
1999, u jeku vazdušnih napada zapocetih agresijom 24. marta te godine.
Samo osam dana pre
pocetka rasprave, igrom slucaja, 11. aprila ove godine, na železnicki
most u Grdelickoj klisuri postavljena je spomen-ploca.
U znak secanja na više od 30 stradalih, desetak raznesenih
eksplozijama, preko 50 povredenih putnika - civila. Smrt su izazvale
cetiri rakete izbacene iz NATO aviona na medunarodni voz. "To je
zlocin, to je pravi terorizam", rekao je, po otkrivanju ploce Velimir
Ilic, republicki ministar za kapitalne investicije.
Ovakve kvalifikacija javnog zlocinackog cina morala bi da bude ideja -
vodilja na predstojecoj raspravi. Pogotovo što postoje javne i tajni
pritisci i uslovljavanja da se tužba povuce. "Oprostite se i od
zajmova, donacija". Bojazan, dakle, postoji.
Odoleti pritiscima naša je moralna i nacionalna obaveza. Od kasetnih
bombi, preostalih iz rata, na našu nesrecu, i danas stradaju deca i
ratari.
O nasladivanju raspojasanih bogova rata, savremenih Arisa, nesrecom
nanetom jednom malom, miroljubivom narodu koji nikad nikoga nije napao.
Uvek se branio. To je cinio i sada.
I pored te istine, opasnost od povlacenja tužbe postoji. Još ranije
Goran Svilanovic, ministar spoljnih poslova, predložio da vlada Bosne i
Hercegovine povuce tužbu protiv SRJ, a mi cemo, zauzvrat, to isto
uciniti s tužbom protov NATO. Bila bi to, da se obistinilo, sramna
trgovina.
Predstavnici naše vlade, na raspravi 19. ovog meseca, trebalo bi da
pokažu i knjigu "Deca optužuju", osamdeset jedno ih je mrtvo. Srpcici i
Albancici.
Drugovi u prerano prekinutom detinjstvu. Trogodišnja Milica Rakic i
16-godišnja Sanja Milenkovic pored 10-godišnjeg Besima Valjetija.
Zanavek sklopljenih ociju. Može li se Medunarodni sud pravde proglasiti
nenadležnim kada je u pitanju odgovornost za njihovu smrt. Zbog
sadašnjosti i, još više, buducnosti.
Aleksandar Mišic
Beograd
=== 6 ===
Source: alerte-otan -
http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/alerte_otan/messages
---
http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id=29619&order=priority&style=headlines
Pas d'accord sur la plainte contre l'OTAN
B92 - 24 août
Lors des discussions au parlement serbe aujourd'hui à propos de
l'abandon des poursuites contre l'OTAN, le Mouvement du Renouveau Serbe
était le seul parti qui était en faveur d'un abandon unilatéral et
inconditionnel des charges.
D'un autre côté, aucun parti n'a soutenu la proposition du parti
radical et du parti socialiste, de faire passer une résolution qui
interdirait tout abandon de la plainte.
Tous les partis se sont entendus cependant sur le fait que le Parlement
serbe soit libre de discuter de ce sujet, mais la décision finale doit
invariablement être prise par le parlement national de
Serbie-Monténegro.
La discussion qui a démarré avec des arguments pour la résolution
[proposée par le parti socialiste], et pour ne pas laisser tomber la
plainte en ce moment, a fini par glisser sur des arguments qui ont
divisés les partis, étiquetant les uns de patriotes, les autres de
traîtres, et comprenant également des discussions sur le rôle que
chaque parti avait joué pendant les bombardement de 99.
La discussion continuera demain matin.
Le représentant du parti radical a proposé qu'il y ait 10 heures de
discussion au lieu de 5. Les Conseils pour les Affaires étrangères et
l'Intégration européenne ont rejeté cette proposition, avançant que la
plainte contre l'OTAN était sous la juridiction du parlement de
Serbie-Monténegro.
original
No agreement on NATO charges
21:45 August 24 | Beta
BELGRADE -- Tuesday - In today's parliamentary discussions over the
dropping of charges against NATO, the Serbian Renewal Movement was the
only party that supported a one-sided and unconditional dropping of the
charges.
On the other hand, no parties supported the suggestion of the Radical
and Socialist parties to pass a resolution that would forbid a dropping
of the charges.
All parties agree however, that the Serbian parliament should be free
to discuss this topic, but invariably, the final decision must be made
by the national parliament.
The discussion, which started off with arguments on why the resolution
should be passed and why the charges should not be dropped at this
given moment, later turned into arguments which divided parties,
labeling some patriots and others traitors, and also included
discussions of the roles each party played during the bombing in 1999.
Discussion will continue tomorrow morning.
Radical Party representative Zarko Obradovic proposed that the
discussions last for ten hours instead of five. The Councils for
Foreign Affairs and European Integration denied the proposal, stating
that the case against NATO is under the jurisdiction of
Serbia-Montenegro's Parliament.
---
Le Parlement Serbe n'a pas à débattre de la plainte de la RFY contre
l'OTAN
B92 - 24 août
http://www.b92.net/english/news/
index.php?&nav_category=&nav_id=29615&order=priority&style=headlines
Le Parlement serbe, qui débattait aujourd'hui du retrait de la plainte
déposée en 1999 par la Yougoslavie contre les bombardement de l'OTAN
sur l'état fédéral, n'est pas autorisé à traiter de ce problème, selon
ce qu'a déclaré aujourd'hui un expert en droit international.
Vojin Dimitrijevic, qui dirige le Centre de Belgrade pour les Droits de
l'Homme, a déclaré que cette question n'était que l'une de nombreuses
initiatives futiles du gouvernement.
S'exprimant au micro de B92, il a noté que les accusations de génocide
avaient été originellement déposées contre 10 membres de l'OTAN, mais
que celles contre les USA et l'Espagne avaient depuis été retirées.
En tout cas, a dit Vojin Dimitrijevic, à ce stage de l'affaire, il est
trop tôt pour discuter du retrait de la plainte, parce que la Cour
Internationale de Justice avait encore a décider si elle était ou non
compétente pour traiter le cas.
Les Etats défendant avancent l'argument que l'affaire n'est pas de la
juridiction de la Cour parce que à l'époque des bombardements, la
Yougoslavie n'était pas un membre des Nations Unies.
« La première étape doit être pour la cour de se déclarer incompétente,
parce nous n'étions pas membre des Nations Unies [...]. Alors nous
verrons quelle est la situation et si cela vaut la peine de poursuivre
l'affaire », a déclaré Dimitrijevic.
Si la Cour Internationale de Justice se déclare incompétente sur base
du fait que la Yougoslavie n'était pas un membre des Nations Unies au
moment des attaques de l'OTAN, a-t-il dit, alors cela signifierait
employer le même argument que la Yougoslavie avait utilisé jusqu'à
présent dans les procès intentés contre elle par la Bosnie et la
Croatie.
Donc, selon lui, si la Yougoslavie n'a pas le droit de déposer une
accusation, alors elle ne peut pas non plus être accusée, et il ajoute
que, considéré sous cet angle, une telle jurisprudence ne serait pas
une défaite.
Original
NATO charges "not Serbia's concern"
The Serbian Parliament, today debating the withdrawal of charges laid
in 1999 by Yugoslavia over the NATO bombing of the federal state, is
not authorised to deal with the issue, an international law expert said
today.
Vojin Dimitrijevic, who heads the Belgrade Centre for Human Rights,
said that the issue was just one in a series of frivolous government
initiatives.
Speaking to B92, he noted that the genocide charges were originally
laid against ten NATO members but that those against the US and Spain
had since been dropped.
In any case, said Dimitrijevic, at this stage of the dispute it was too
early to discuss withdrawing the accusations, because the International
Court of Justice had yet to decide whether it was competent to deal
with the case.
The defendant states argue that the issue is not within the court's
jurisdiction because at the time of the bombing Yugoslavia was not a
member of the United Nations.
"The first step must be for the court to declare itself incompetent
because we weren't a UN member or to say that it is competent. Then
we'll see what the situation is and whether it is worth taking this
dispute any further," said Dimitrijevic.
If the International Court of Justice declares itself incompetent on
the grounds that Yugoslavia was not a member of the UN at the time of
the NATO attacks, said Dimitrijevic, then this would mean employing the
same argument which Yugoslavia had so far used in the cases brought
against it by Bosnia and Croatia.
Thus, he said, if Yugoslavia has no right to lay charges, then nor can
it be charged, said Dimitrijevic, adding that, looked at in this light,
such a ruling would not be a defeat.