(english / italiano)
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
==========================
A - COME TAPPARE LA BOCCA A SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
"Tribunale" illegale viola il diritto di Milosevic a difendersi
1. Dispacci ANSA
2. Ex Primo Ministro della Unione Sovietica si rifiuta di testimoniare
in queste condizioni di illegalita' / Former Soviet Prime Minister: I
will not go to The Hague under present circumstances!
3. Tiphaine Dickson: Star Chamber at The Hague
4. Interview with Klaus Hartmann
5. ICDSM to UN: Tribunal has downed itself
6. Workers World: Milosevic on the counterattack
B - LA PROTESTA DI ALDO BERNARDINI
C - DUE APPELLI DA ICDSM-ITALIA
---( 1 )---
MILOSEVIC: DOVRA' AVERE UN AVVOCATO DIFENSORE
(ANSA) - L'AJA, 2 SET - L'ex presidente jugoslavo Slobodan Milosevic
dovra' farsi difendere da un avvocato d'ufficio davanti al Tribunale
penale internazionale (Tpi) dell'Aja dove e' sotto processo per
genocidio, crimini di guerra e contro l'umanita' perpetrati durante le
guerre balcaniche dello scorso decennio. Lo hanno deciso oggi i giudici
dello stesso Tpi motivando l'imposizione con le perizie mediche secondo
le quali l'ex uomo forte di Belgrado e' malato e non in grado di
difendersi da solo. Finora Milosevic si e' rifiutato di farsi
rappresentare da qualsiasi avvocato. CAL
02/09/2004 09:25
MILOSEVIC: RESPINTA RICHIESTA DI CONTROPERIZIA MEDICA
(ANSA) - L'AJA, 2 SET - Con due voti contro uno, i giudici del Tpi
hanno respinto la richiesta dell'ex presidente jugoslavo Slobodan
Milosevic di far condurre una controperizia sul suo stato di salute ed
il modo in cui si cura. La perizia supplementare rispetto alle altre
gia' eseguite, chiesta ieri dallo stesso Milosevic, avrebbe dovuto
contrastare la richiesta di imposizione di un avvocato difensore
avanzata dalla pubblica accusa. ''I rapporti medici dimostrano che
l'accusato non e' in grado di rappresentare se stesso'', ha affermato
oggi il giudice Patrick Robinson durante l'udienza. ''La Corte - ha
detto ancora - ritiene che il diritto di un accusato di essere il
rappresentante legale di se stesso non sia assoluto e sia invece basato
sul diritto di imporgli un consulente: ecco perche' l'abbiamo fatto''.
(ANSA). CAL
02/09/2004 09:50
MILOSEVIC: VIOLATO IL MIO DIRITTO ALLA DIFESA
(ANSA) - L'AJA, 7 SET - ''Mi avete tolto il diritto alla difesa. Il
signor Kay non mi rappresenta, rappresenta voi''. Cosi' Slobodan
Milosevic ha oggi reagito all'entrata in scena dei due difensori
d'ufficio che gli sono stati imposti dal Tribunale penale
internazionale (Tpi) per la ex Jugoslavia che lo giudica per genocidio,
crimini di guerra e contro l'umanita'.
Oggi e' cominciata l'audizione dei testi a difesa. Il primo a salire
sul banco dei testimoni e' Smilija Avramov, ex professore e consigliere
di Milosevic.
In base alle decisioni prese dalla corte la scorsa settimana
l'interrogatorio e' condotto dagli avvocati britannici Steven Kay e
Gilian Higgins, nominati d'ufficio, per impedire che il processo
subisse frequenti sospensioni a causa delle condizioni di salute
dell'imputato che accusa problemi di ipertensione. Slobo puo' porre a
sua volta delle domande, ma solo mediante autorizzazione caso per caso
dei giudici e dopo che lo avranno fatto gli avvocati.
Milosevic si e' rifiutato di incontrare i due avvocati e, quando ha
nuovamente protestato contro la decisione del Tpi, il presidente della
corte Patrick Robinson gli ha chiuso il microfono dicendo di non
''voler sentire ancora il solito refrain''.
07/09/2004 11:39
---( 2 )---
MILOSEVIC: DEPUTATO RUSSO RIFIUTA DI TESTIMONIARE
(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 7 SET - Il deputato russo Nicolai Ryjkov ha
dichiarato che rifiutera' di testimoniare al processo contro Slobodan
Milosevic davanti al Tribunale penale internazionale (TPI) in segno di
protesta per la decisione di imporre avvocati di ufficio all'ex
presidente jugoslavo. In un comunicato inviato all'agenzia jugoslava
Beta, Ryjkov scrive che ''Il tribunale ha preso una decisione illegale
imponendo avvocati a Milosevic in quanto essa viola le norme universali
di diritto internazionale e lo statuto del tribunale''. La
testimonianza di Ryjkov e' prevista per il 13 settembre, ma il deputato
ha affermato che ''nelle attuali condizioni'' non andra' all'Aja.
Proprio oggi nell'aula del Tpi sono entrati in scena due difensori di
ufficio per l'ex presidente jugoslavo. (ANSA). COR-LD 07/09/2004 18:17
NOTA: DIVERSAMENTE DA QUANTO AFFERMATO DALL'AGENZIA ANSA, IL "DEPUTATO
RUSSO" NON SI CHIAMA RYJKOV BENSI' RYZHKOV, ED E' UN NOTISSIMO EX
PRIMO MINISTRO DELLA UNIONE SOVIETICA
---
Former Soviet Prime Minister: I will not go to The Hague under present
circumstances!
STATEMENT
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at
The Hague has decided against the Law to impose a counsel on former
President of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic. It has been done against
the will of Slobodan Milosevic, who more than two years conducts his
defense in person.
The decision of ICTY severely violates its own Statute, which (Article
21, paragraph 4) guarantees the right of a defendant to defend himself
in person. It is a generally accepted norm of the International Law and
the fact that the ICTY has committed such most serious violation,
raises the deepest embitterment.
The assigned counsel has got the right to prepare and examine witnesses
whom he, a lawyer, finds appropriate to invite. In other words, all the
important decisions on strategy and tactics of the defense will be made
not by the defendant, but by the lawyer assigned by the court and whose
impartiality is considered doubtful by the Russian public opinion.
Several legal experts consider that Slobodan Milosevic didn't get an
assigned counsel, but another prosecutor who will only act using other
means.
Slobodan Milosevic invited me to appear as a witness of his defense. I
have planed to travel to The Hague on 13 September 2004. The ICTY has
been informed about my plans.
However, under the present circumstances, I refuse to appear in that
process.
As soon as necessary conditions, in accordance to the Statute of ICTY,
will be created, I will be ready to travel to The Hague and to appear
as a witness of the defense of Slobodan Milosevic.
Moscow, 7 September 2004
Nikolai Ryzhkov,
Member of the Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly of the
Russian Federation (Senator), President of Council of Ministers of the
USSR 1985-1990
---( 3 )---
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Mer 8 Set 2004 00:25:46 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Tiphaine Dickson: Star Chamber at The Hague
*******************************************************************
ICDSM Legal Spokesperson and long time lawyer of the ICDSM Tiphaine
Dickson, the author of the International Lawyers Petition to the UN
against the imposition of counsel on President Milosevic and of several
important papers on the ICTY and its process against President
Milosevic, was present last week at The Hague. She held a press
conference there (together with ICDSM Vice-Chairman Klaus Hartmann) and
gave several statements and interviews to media. Her article below
gives a clear and precise assessment of the recent decisions of the
Hague "Yugoslavia Tribunal". We also reproduce a short interview of
Klaus Hartmann to the German daily "Junge Welt".
*******************************************************************
The Hague ICTY Tribunal: Star Chamber it Is!
================================
by Tiphaine Dickson
www.globalresearch.ca 6 September 2004
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC409A.html
Nelson Mandela, charged with being a terrorist and a communist,
defended himself in the infamous Rivonia trials of the 1960's. From the
dock Mandela issued a searing denunciation of the South African regime
which would inspire worldwide mobilization in the struggle against
Apartheid.
Slobodan Milosevic will not enjoy the right to self-representation
afforded to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid judiciary, since the ICTY
has decided to impose a defence counsel on him against his will. The
imposed counsel will be entirely responsible for presenting a defence -
not Milosevic's defence - but a respectful, courteous, and ingratiating
defence, one mindful of the ICTY's dignity, image and reputation. This
in contrast to Slobodan Milosevic's principled non-recognition of the
ICTY as a legal body. This foreign defence will be devised and
introduced without the instructions of the accused and against his will
by two British lawyers who had previously been assigned by the
institution to act as amici curiae or "friends of the court". Their
apparent conflict of interest - known in the UK as "professional
embarrassment" - which they had themselves raised a mere two weeks ago
when strenuously objecting to imposition of counsel, was overlooked
without comment as they accepted their new appointments.
While South Africa's Apartheid-era judiciary dared not take such a
radical step against Mandela, a UN court has shown no hesitation to
violate this most fundamental of fundamental rights: an accused's
defence is his own, and his right to counsel is a right, to be employed
if desired, but not to be inflicted upon him, against his will, by a
court, or by the state. It is evident that in light of these conditions
that it can no longer be called a right, but an imposition, an
infringement, and a violation.
The US Supreme Court recognized the inherent injustice of the
imposition of counsel against the will of a defendant in Faretta v.
California, written in 1975. The Justices pointed out that imposition
of counsel had been the province of the infamous Star Chamber, a
political court of mixed judicial and executive nature, which
flourished in England in the late 16th and early 17th century.
Imposition of counsel, stated the Supreme Court, has been abandoned as
a practice since then.
Today a UN body has steered the future of international law back to
those dark times, and confirmed the accuracy of Slobodan Milosevic's
charge that the ICTY is an illegal body, established in contravention
of the provisions of the UN's own Charter.
Over 90 lawyers and law professors from 17 different countries filed a
petition with the UN Security Council weeks ago warning it and member
states that the envisaged imposition of counsel violated international
law. Mr. Milosevic was not permitted to read from the petition last
Wednesday. (See
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm )
During the ICTY's "administrative session" held to debate whether
counsel should be imposed - (the Chamber pointedly used of the term
"assignment" rather than "imposition"), the Chamber stated its concern
that Mr Milosevic's medical condition - malignant hypertension - would
render him unfit to defend himself. This assertion was based on medical
reports
submitted by ICTY-appointed cardiologists, without the defendant being
granted the right to obtain a second opinion, and in spite of the fact
that physicians aren't really qualified to determine who is fit to
represent him or herself.
Milosevic has represented himself very ably for three years and has
suffered from hypertension for ten. Yet it is only now that the issue
of the fitness of Milosevic to act as his own counsel has acquired
urgency. Only now, that is, on the eve of his defence presentation -
one which he has announced would establish that the "Balkan Wars" were
in fact one war, against
Yugoslavia, and whose apotheosis was NATO's gruesome 78-day bombing
campaign in 1999.
Throughout the administrative hearing, submissions were made by the
Prosecution, the amici (who would go on to become the counsel assigned
to Mr. Milosevic against his will) and the Chamber as to the role that
could be played by an assigned counsel. Their consensus appeared to be
that a lawyer, if imposed, would only be required on those occasions
when the defendant would be too ill to carry on the burden of courtroom
work. In the result, the Chamber not only assigned counsel, but imposed
the amici - who have acted since the beginning of the proceedings in
the service of the Chamber - and instructed them to take over the
defence.
Among the "duties" the ICTY has instructed the former amici to carry
out are the determination of how the case is to be presented, the
preparation and examination of witnesses they deem appropriate, the
duty to "endeavour" to obtain the defendant's instructions, and to
"take into account his views while retaining the right to determine
what course to follow." Assigned defence counsel, it seems, have
rights, while the accused merely has "views", which can be taken into
account by counsel he objects to and refuses to instruct.
This is not a credible framework for the accused's defence. And it
points up once again that this process is not a trial. This is, rather,
as reknowned Canadian trial lawyer Edward Greenspan presciently
observed at the beginning, "a lynching."
Much was made by the Prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic's conduct, his
lack of respect for the ICTY, "the interests of justice", and
Milosevic's failure to observe "etiquette," to quote lead prosecutor
Geoffrey Nice. The rulings handed down by the ICTY this past week have
done far more harm to the interests of justice than Mr. Milosevic's
legally accurate criticisms of the ICTY could ever do. For half a
century, legal scholars have struggled to establish a truly democratic
permanent international criminal court.
Although the ICC now formally exists, the US is not a participant.
Recent events make plain that to exempt the United States from
jurisdiction over war crimes renders the whole exercise of
international justice, if not pointless, then profoundly arbitrary and
contrary to universally held notions of equality before the law.
It was a former US State Department lawyer and reputed professor of
international law, Michael P. Scharf, who in last week's Washington
Post publicly appealed for the ICTY to impose counsel upon Slobodan
Milosevic, evoking the fear that future defendants could employ
international and special courts to accuse the US of war crimes such as
the invasion of Iraq. Mr. Milosevic might have been accused of lacking
"etiquette," had he, like Professor Scharf, recalled that the ICTY had
been created in 1993 with three objectives: first, to educate the
Serbian people about the crimes committed by Milosevic; second, to
facilitate national reconciliation, by "pinning prime responsibility on
Milosevic" and other top leaders; and third, to "promote political
catharsis" by permitting current Serbian leaders to "distance
themselves" from the policies of the previous governements.
These stated objectives are all transparently political, and
geopolitically motivated. And in order that they be attained, it
appears that counsel must be imposed upon Slobodan Milosevic. He must
also be prevented from stating precisely what Scharf averred with
bone-chilling clarity: that the ICTY is a political court.
Whether international law will recover from the hijacking of Slobodan
Milosevic's defence is open to question. However, the true nature of
the Security Council's ad hoc courts clearly resembles much more the
Star Chamber than the scrupulously fair humanitarian legal body to
which the world has aspired since Nuremberg.
==============================
Tiphaine Dickson is a criminal defence lawyer specialized in
international criminal law based in Montréal. She was lead counsel for
the defence in one of the first UN trials prosecuting genocide before
the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. She can be reached at
tiphainedickson@ videotron. ca
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC409A.html
---( 4 )---
From the German daily "junge Welt",
September 3rd, 2004-09-03
URL of the original:
http://www.jungewelt.de/2004/09-03/015.php
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC TRIAL:
MEDICAL ARGUMENTS AS A PRETEXT FOR AN EXPEDITIOUS GUILTY VERDICT?
"junge Welt" spoke with Klaus Hartmann, Chairman of the German
Freethinker Association and vice president of the International
Committee for Defending Slobodan Milosevic
Q: Arguing that it has problems with its schedule, the Hague Tribunal
decreed, that former Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, will no
longer be allowed to conduct his own defence. Do the judges now want to
seek a expeditious guilty verdict?
A: The tribunal wants to allot Milosevic only 150 days to present his
defence case, which, in comparison to the almost 300 days for the
prosecution's case, indeed leads one to think, of an expeditious guilty
verdict. This is a clear violation of the internationally recognised
legal principle of equality of means between the prosecution and the
defence. Another fundamental right of the accused is violated by
assigning him legal counsel, against his will. The right to defend
oneself is such; that not even the Nazis questioned it during the
Reichstag's fire trial against Georgi Dimitroff. Neither did the South
African Apartheid racists, in their trial against Nelson Mandela.
Q: Doesn't this decision also violate even the regulations of the
tribunal itself?
A: Absolutely. The "rules of procedure" established by the tribunal,
itself, provide for the undeniable right of the accused to assume his
own defence. The precedents of exception, cited by the prosecution,
refer to cases where the accused was not in a position to be able to
understand the proceedings taking place. Here we have the opposite
situation: the defendant dwarfs with his intelligence the intelligence
of the judges on the bench and the prosecution.
Q: But aren't the medical arguments to be taken seriously?
A: They are pretexts. For three years, nobody cared about the health of
Milosevic. Only now, as he is about to call his own witnesses, the
concern for his health is taken as pretext to deprive him of his
fundamental rights. Milosevic, himself, said that this is the panic
reaction of the prosecution, because they will now soon have to hear
the truth out of the witnesses' mouths.
Q: You were recently present at the trial in The Hague. What impression
did Milosevic make on you?
A: His morale as a fighter is undaunted - which may have been the
reason why the tribunal and the prosecution decided to resort to these
illegal measures. Milosevic, himself, said that he has the privilege of
having the most important ally on his side: the truth. And that is
exactly what the representatives of this criminal enterprise fear most.
This was indirectly confirmed by the prosecution: "If Milosevic defends
himself," they said, "there is the risk that he, himself, will prepare
his witnesses." This is an attempt at outright political censorship,
such as one would have expected in the Nazi "Volksgerichtshof" under
Roland Freisler.
The prosecutor also referred to Milosevic describing the tribunal as
illegal. "It would be unacceptable," he said, "if Milosevic calls his
witnesses, telling them, 'and now please tell this illegal body what
you know.'"
Questions: Peter Wolter
---( 5 )---
ICDSM to UN: Tribunal has downed itself
The International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic
Sofia-New York-Moscow-Belgrade
H. E. Juan Antonio YAÑEZ-BARNUEVO, Permanent Representative of Spain to
UN, President of the UN Security Council in September 2004
H. E. Andrey I. DENISOV, Permanent Representative of the Russian
Federation to UN, President of the UN Security Council in August 2004
Cc: H. E. Kofi ANNAN, Secretary General of the United Nations,
Mr. Theodor MERON, President of ICTY
Dear Sirs,
We were shocked by learning about today's Order of the Trial
Chamber III of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) working under auspices of the UN to impose a counsel
on President Slobodan Milosevic against his will.
The Statute of the ICTY, adopted by the UN Security Council,
in its Article 21, paragraph 4, states that the defendant "shall be
entitled to the following minimum guarantees. d) to be tried in his
presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance
of his own choice", stipulating by that the fundamental human right of
a defendant according to the International Law.
We believe that the abovementioned Order (please find its
full text attached) has not been adopted with the consent of the
Security Council and we also believe that the UN Security Council must
act without delay in the case of such blatant violation of one of its
Resolutions by its subsidiary body.
We remind you of the Petition of over 90 distinguished
lawyers and law professors from 17 countries under the title IMPOSITION
OF COUNSEL ON SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC THREATENS THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW AND THE LIFE OF THE DEFENDANT, handed last month to the President
of the UN Security Council and sent to other UN organs, warning about
the possibility of such decision by the ICTY and appealing that it
should be prevented.
We would highly appreciate if you inform all the Members of
the UN about our initiative, as well as about the action the UN
Security Council will perform in order to protect its authority, its
resolutions, International Law and dignity of the UN.
Otherwise, we would be forced to conclude that the ICTY has
downed itself, deleting every claim of its legality.
On behalf of 155 members of the International Committee to
Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) - scholars, artists, writers and
public workers from all continents,
Respectfully,
(signed)
Professor Velko Valkanov, Founder and Co-Chairman of the ICDSM,
President of the Bulgarian Committee for Human Rights
---( 6 )---
http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/edit20909.php
EDITORIAL
Milosevic on the counterattack
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The
Hague, Netherlands, seems incapable of presenting a convincing case
against its most famous defendant, even when it stacks all the rules
against him. Former Yugoslav Presi dent Slobodan Milosevic opened his
defense case Aug. 31 with a blistering political attack, not only on
the illegitimate court but also on the NATO forces that created it.
Even as Milosevic was blasting the NATO aggressors for working over 10
years to destroy the multi-ethnic and multi-religious state of
Yugoslavia, the factual testimony against him presented in two years of
the prosecution case was evaporating.
The latest pre-defense revelation came out in an article in the Ottawa
Citizen, which interviewed a Canadian detective sergeant, Brian
Honeybourn. The detective had joined the hunt for mass graves in the
occupied Serbian province of Kosovo. Honeybourn said, "It seems as
though The Hague is beginning to panic" because no one could find mass
graves in Kosovo.
Honeybourn was on one of the United Nations teams searching for the
"mass graves." But the biggest burial site contained 20 bodies--not an
astonishing number after a year-long civil war and 79 days of NATO
bombs.
Milosevic had four hours to present his defense opening. The
prosecutors had taken three days to present their opening arguments in
February 2002. This is typical of the ICTY: The judges believe if they
outweigh the defendant by at least six to one, they will beat him. The
prosecution has a team of 1,300 employees at $100,000 each per year;
Milosevic has a few assistants and almost no funds.
Now, to make sure he will lose, the court plans to strip him of his
right to defend himself. They plan to use his illness--high blood
pressure and heart problems--as an excuse to impose unwanted counsel on
him. Ninety internationally famous lawyers, including former U.S.
Attorney General Ramsey Clark, have already protested this last unjust
tactic.
Milosevic's only advantage is that he is not guilty of the 66 charges
against him. And that he can present a powerful political argument
against the U.S.-NATO aggressors who tried to bomb Yugoslavia flat to
intimidate those they didn't murder.
Reprinted from the Sept. 9, 2004, issue of Workers World newspaper
==========================
Aldo Bernardini, ordinario di Diritto Internazionale all'Universita'
di Teramo, ha inviato la seguente durissima lettera di protesta al
"Tribunale" dell'Aia, sulla imposizione di un avvocato d'ufficio a
Milosevic proprio nel momento in cui doveva incominciare la sua
autodifesa.
---
PROTEST
Rome, 3 September 2004
As a modest scholar of international law I am totally horrified in
front of the last steps by the Hague "Tribunal" (Judges and
Prosecution) in re Milosevic.
The imposition of a counsel on President Slobodan Milosevic is an act
of brutal violence which demonstrates only the "Tribunal's" disarray
and impossibility to counter Slobodan Milosevic's arguments. The way
to continue and conclude its "job" with the preordained conviction is
to silence President Milosevic.
An illegal "Tribunal", created by U.N. Security Council with an
arbitrary and dictatorial interpretation of the Charter; a monstrous
indictment founded on an artificial construction aberrantly basing on
presumption outside the provisions of the ICTY Statute and contrary to
the fundamental principle nullum crimen sine lege, to general
principles of criminal law in every country, to human rights in the
matter and to the rule of strict interpretation in criminal law:
honourable "judges" in such a context should at least abide by "their"
Statute, the ICTY Statute. They should know that no analogy or more
than broad interpretation is allowed: in claris non fit interpretatio,
no (own) interpretation is permitted where the letter of the law is
clear. Art. 21, par. 4, of the ICTY Statute expressly declares that
the accused "shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees. d)
to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or
through legal assistance of his own choice". This formulation is clear
and does not allow any deviation or exception. The "Tribunal" may not
substitute for the
accused neither in choosing between "defence by himself" or defence
through legal assistants nor in choosing such assistants.
The imposition by ICTY is the utmost aberration and the conclusive
evidence of the political and arbitrary character of the ICTY and of
the whole Milosevic trial (and of the other trials too).
No honourable lawyers should cooperate with that enormity. U.N.
Security Council should condemn the operation but best of all do away
with the "Hague Tribunal".
I protest with my full strength against this perversion of every
juridical concept, of every sound idea of the rule of law, of the most
fundamental human rights of President Milosevic.
History will judge ICTY and its operations through continually
judge-made law in the same manner as the perverted legal conception of
the Nazis.
Aldo Bernardini
---
RINNOVIAMO I NOSTRI DUE APPELLI:
1. AD OFFRIRSI COME TRADUTTORI
La battaglia per la difesa di Milosevic non va sottovalutata.
Essa ha un valore strategico, e non solo etico, in quanto puo'
avere conseguenze importanti per tutte le altre battaglie
internazionaliste del movimento contro la guerra.
Infatti, con il processo-farsa contro Milosevic, le grandi potenze
imperialiste vogliono creare un precedente. Esse vogliono avere
mano libera in futuro nelle loro decisioni sugli assetti del pianeta;
vogliono avere formalmente riconosciuta la facolta' di stabilire
ad arbitrio quali guerre scatenare, contro chi e con quali mezzi;
esse vogliono garantirsi la impunita' su tutti i propri crimini
di guerra, e si arrogano la facolta' di giudicare e condannare -
anche formalmente, non solo mediaticamente - le loro stesse
vittime... condannandole persino al risarcimento dei danni causati
da loro stesse, con le loro guerre imperialiste!
Dopo Milosevic, potrebbe essere la volta di Saddam; e non
illudiamoci: la "guerra preventiva e permanente" non finisce certo
in Iraq. Ma intanto, i crimini di Pancevo (1999) o di Falluja (2004)
chi li dovrebbe giudicare? Il "tribunale" dell'Aia si e' ostinatamente
rifiutato di aprire qualsivoglia procedimento per tutti quei crimini di
guerra, ben documentati, commessi dalla NATO nella primavera del
1999, in spregio alle richieste formali e nonostante tutta la
documentazione pervenuta.
Dunque, dobbiamo impedire che la storia tragica e vergognosa di
questi anni in Jugoslavia sia scritta esclusivamente sulla base delle
"sentenze giudiziarie" dettate dai servizi di intelligence della NATO.
Per questo, noi possiamo essere di grande aiuto, in effetti.
Sara' sufficiente far circolare i testi di cio' che e' stato e verra'
detto in quell'aula. Ne' piu' ne' meno.
I giornalisti hanno evitato finora di fare cronaca sul "processo",
perche' non conviene ai loro datori di lavoro: percio' dobbiamo
pensarci noi.
E' necessario costituire subito una rete di persone disponibili
a TRADURRE DALL'INGLESE IN LINGUA ITALIANA. Ogni
giorno le pagine di nuovi verbali saranno decine e decine: si
trattera' di selezionarne una parte e di dividerci il lavoro di
traduzione e diffusione dei testi.
Affinche' tutti sappiano, e nessuno possa dire: "Io non sapevo".
Per contatti, per offrirsi volontari nel lavoro di traduzione:
segreteria: tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia@ libero. it
2. PER LA CAMPAGNA DI AUTOFINANZIAMENTO
Nello scontro che si sta svolgendo al "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia, gli
interessi imperialisti della NATO sono rappresentati da uno staff di
1300 persone profumatamente pagate (circa 100mila dollari l'anno a
testa), mentre gli interessi della Jugoslavia e di tutti i suoi popoli
sono rappresentati dal solo Slobodan Milosevic, il quale dispone
esclusivamente dei poveri mezzi del suo comitato internazionale di
sostegno: l'ICDSM.
L'impresa cui deve far fronte Milosevic appare dunque titanica, ma non
puo' comunque essere abbandonata. Se pure essa avesse solo valore
testimoniale, tale valore sarebbe comunque inestimabile, poiche' si
tratta di testimoniare a proposito di almeno un decennio di
macchinazioni e crimini finalizzati alla distruzione di un paese
europeo, ovvero - nelle parole dello stesso Milosevic - finalizzati al
"capovolgimento degli esiti della Seconda Guerra Mondiale" nei
Balcani. Crimini e macchinazioni su cui nessun altro e' stato o sara'
mai intenzionato a fare chiarezza.
Senza mezzi finanziari, la difesa di Milosevic non ha chances.
Si valuta che sia indispensabile raccogliere diverse migliaia euro
ogni mese per far fronte a tutte le necessita' di assistenza legale,
di documentazione e di comunicazione.
La Sezione Italiana dell'ICDSM, ringraziando tutti quelli che
hanno finora contribuito alla campagna di autofinanziamento
(in Italia sono gia' state raccolte alcune migliaia di euro), chiede
che lo sforzo in tal senso prosegua, cosi' come sta proseguendo
in tutte le altre realta' nazionali.
Si badi bene:
NON ESISTONO ALTRE FONTI DI FINANZIAMENTO.
Una recente legge passata dal Parlamento serbo - che
in linea di principio avrebbe garantito una parziale copertura
delle spese - e' stata subito "congelata" in seguito alle
minacce occidentali. Una qualsivoglia campagna di finanziamento
su basi volontarie a Belgrado e' praticamente irrealizzabile:
a causa delle scelte estremistiche, in senso neoliberista, del regime
instaurato il 5 ottobre 2000 la situazione sociale e' disastrosa, la
disoccupazione dilaga, i salari sono da fame, chi ha i soldi per
mangiare li tiene ben stretti e non rischia certo la galera (o peggio:
vedi le torture in carcere nella primavera 2003, durante la
cosiddetta "Operazione Sciabola") in attivita' politiche o di
solidarieta' a favore di Milosevic, che viene tuttora demonizzato
dai media locali - oramai tutti in mano a societa' occidentali,
soprattutto tedesche - esattamente come da noi.
I nuovi ricchi votano i partiti filo-occidentali e di destra, e
preferiscono che Milosevic marcisca in carcere, insieme alla
loro cattiva coscienza. A tutti deve essere infine chiaro - se ancora
ci fosse bisogno di ripeterlo - che al di la' delle menzogne
giornalistiche non esiste e non e' mai esistito alcun "tesoro
nascosto" di Milosevic, e che il nostro impegno per la sua
difesa e' insostituibile oltreche' indispensabile.
Contribuite dunque e fate contribuire, attraverso il
*** Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
sito internet:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
==========================
A - COME TAPPARE LA BOCCA A SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
"Tribunale" illegale viola il diritto di Milosevic a difendersi
1. Dispacci ANSA
2. Ex Primo Ministro della Unione Sovietica si rifiuta di testimoniare
in queste condizioni di illegalita' / Former Soviet Prime Minister: I
will not go to The Hague under present circumstances!
3. Tiphaine Dickson: Star Chamber at The Hague
4. Interview with Klaus Hartmann
5. ICDSM to UN: Tribunal has downed itself
6. Workers World: Milosevic on the counterattack
B - LA PROTESTA DI ALDO BERNARDINI
C - DUE APPELLI DA ICDSM-ITALIA
---( 1 )---
MILOSEVIC: DOVRA' AVERE UN AVVOCATO DIFENSORE
(ANSA) - L'AJA, 2 SET - L'ex presidente jugoslavo Slobodan Milosevic
dovra' farsi difendere da un avvocato d'ufficio davanti al Tribunale
penale internazionale (Tpi) dell'Aja dove e' sotto processo per
genocidio, crimini di guerra e contro l'umanita' perpetrati durante le
guerre balcaniche dello scorso decennio. Lo hanno deciso oggi i giudici
dello stesso Tpi motivando l'imposizione con le perizie mediche secondo
le quali l'ex uomo forte di Belgrado e' malato e non in grado di
difendersi da solo. Finora Milosevic si e' rifiutato di farsi
rappresentare da qualsiasi avvocato. CAL
02/09/2004 09:25
MILOSEVIC: RESPINTA RICHIESTA DI CONTROPERIZIA MEDICA
(ANSA) - L'AJA, 2 SET - Con due voti contro uno, i giudici del Tpi
hanno respinto la richiesta dell'ex presidente jugoslavo Slobodan
Milosevic di far condurre una controperizia sul suo stato di salute ed
il modo in cui si cura. La perizia supplementare rispetto alle altre
gia' eseguite, chiesta ieri dallo stesso Milosevic, avrebbe dovuto
contrastare la richiesta di imposizione di un avvocato difensore
avanzata dalla pubblica accusa. ''I rapporti medici dimostrano che
l'accusato non e' in grado di rappresentare se stesso'', ha affermato
oggi il giudice Patrick Robinson durante l'udienza. ''La Corte - ha
detto ancora - ritiene che il diritto di un accusato di essere il
rappresentante legale di se stesso non sia assoluto e sia invece basato
sul diritto di imporgli un consulente: ecco perche' l'abbiamo fatto''.
(ANSA). CAL
02/09/2004 09:50
MILOSEVIC: VIOLATO IL MIO DIRITTO ALLA DIFESA
(ANSA) - L'AJA, 7 SET - ''Mi avete tolto il diritto alla difesa. Il
signor Kay non mi rappresenta, rappresenta voi''. Cosi' Slobodan
Milosevic ha oggi reagito all'entrata in scena dei due difensori
d'ufficio che gli sono stati imposti dal Tribunale penale
internazionale (Tpi) per la ex Jugoslavia che lo giudica per genocidio,
crimini di guerra e contro l'umanita'.
Oggi e' cominciata l'audizione dei testi a difesa. Il primo a salire
sul banco dei testimoni e' Smilija Avramov, ex professore e consigliere
di Milosevic.
In base alle decisioni prese dalla corte la scorsa settimana
l'interrogatorio e' condotto dagli avvocati britannici Steven Kay e
Gilian Higgins, nominati d'ufficio, per impedire che il processo
subisse frequenti sospensioni a causa delle condizioni di salute
dell'imputato che accusa problemi di ipertensione. Slobo puo' porre a
sua volta delle domande, ma solo mediante autorizzazione caso per caso
dei giudici e dopo che lo avranno fatto gli avvocati.
Milosevic si e' rifiutato di incontrare i due avvocati e, quando ha
nuovamente protestato contro la decisione del Tpi, il presidente della
corte Patrick Robinson gli ha chiuso il microfono dicendo di non
''voler sentire ancora il solito refrain''.
07/09/2004 11:39
---( 2 )---
MILOSEVIC: DEPUTATO RUSSO RIFIUTA DI TESTIMONIARE
(ANSA) - BELGRADO, 7 SET - Il deputato russo Nicolai Ryjkov ha
dichiarato che rifiutera' di testimoniare al processo contro Slobodan
Milosevic davanti al Tribunale penale internazionale (TPI) in segno di
protesta per la decisione di imporre avvocati di ufficio all'ex
presidente jugoslavo. In un comunicato inviato all'agenzia jugoslava
Beta, Ryjkov scrive che ''Il tribunale ha preso una decisione illegale
imponendo avvocati a Milosevic in quanto essa viola le norme universali
di diritto internazionale e lo statuto del tribunale''. La
testimonianza di Ryjkov e' prevista per il 13 settembre, ma il deputato
ha affermato che ''nelle attuali condizioni'' non andra' all'Aja.
Proprio oggi nell'aula del Tpi sono entrati in scena due difensori di
ufficio per l'ex presidente jugoslavo. (ANSA). COR-LD 07/09/2004 18:17
NOTA: DIVERSAMENTE DA QUANTO AFFERMATO DALL'AGENZIA ANSA, IL "DEPUTATO
RUSSO" NON SI CHIAMA RYJKOV BENSI' RYZHKOV, ED E' UN NOTISSIMO EX
PRIMO MINISTRO DELLA UNIONE SOVIETICA
---
Former Soviet Prime Minister: I will not go to The Hague under present
circumstances!
STATEMENT
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at
The Hague has decided against the Law to impose a counsel on former
President of Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic. It has been done against
the will of Slobodan Milosevic, who more than two years conducts his
defense in person.
The decision of ICTY severely violates its own Statute, which (Article
21, paragraph 4) guarantees the right of a defendant to defend himself
in person. It is a generally accepted norm of the International Law and
the fact that the ICTY has committed such most serious violation,
raises the deepest embitterment.
The assigned counsel has got the right to prepare and examine witnesses
whom he, a lawyer, finds appropriate to invite. In other words, all the
important decisions on strategy and tactics of the defense will be made
not by the defendant, but by the lawyer assigned by the court and whose
impartiality is considered doubtful by the Russian public opinion.
Several legal experts consider that Slobodan Milosevic didn't get an
assigned counsel, but another prosecutor who will only act using other
means.
Slobodan Milosevic invited me to appear as a witness of his defense. I
have planed to travel to The Hague on 13 September 2004. The ICTY has
been informed about my plans.
However, under the present circumstances, I refuse to appear in that
process.
As soon as necessary conditions, in accordance to the Statute of ICTY,
will be created, I will be ready to travel to The Hague and to appear
as a witness of the defense of Slobodan Milosevic.
Moscow, 7 September 2004
Nikolai Ryzhkov,
Member of the Council of the Federation of the Federal Assembly of the
Russian Federation (Senator), President of Council of Ministers of the
USSR 1985-1990
---( 3 )---
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Mer 8 Set 2004 00:25:46 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Tiphaine Dickson: Star Chamber at The Hague
*******************************************************************
ICDSM Legal Spokesperson and long time lawyer of the ICDSM Tiphaine
Dickson, the author of the International Lawyers Petition to the UN
against the imposition of counsel on President Milosevic and of several
important papers on the ICTY and its process against President
Milosevic, was present last week at The Hague. She held a press
conference there (together with ICDSM Vice-Chairman Klaus Hartmann) and
gave several statements and interviews to media. Her article below
gives a clear and precise assessment of the recent decisions of the
Hague "Yugoslavia Tribunal". We also reproduce a short interview of
Klaus Hartmann to the German daily "Junge Welt".
*******************************************************************
The Hague ICTY Tribunal: Star Chamber it Is!
================================
by Tiphaine Dickson
www.globalresearch.ca 6 September 2004
The URL of this article is:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC409A.html
Nelson Mandela, charged with being a terrorist and a communist,
defended himself in the infamous Rivonia trials of the 1960's. From the
dock Mandela issued a searing denunciation of the South African regime
which would inspire worldwide mobilization in the struggle against
Apartheid.
Slobodan Milosevic will not enjoy the right to self-representation
afforded to Nelson Mandela by the Apartheid judiciary, since the ICTY
has decided to impose a defence counsel on him against his will. The
imposed counsel will be entirely responsible for presenting a defence -
not Milosevic's defence - but a respectful, courteous, and ingratiating
defence, one mindful of the ICTY's dignity, image and reputation. This
in contrast to Slobodan Milosevic's principled non-recognition of the
ICTY as a legal body. This foreign defence will be devised and
introduced without the instructions of the accused and against his will
by two British lawyers who had previously been assigned by the
institution to act as amici curiae or "friends of the court". Their
apparent conflict of interest - known in the UK as "professional
embarrassment" - which they had themselves raised a mere two weeks ago
when strenuously objecting to imposition of counsel, was overlooked
without comment as they accepted their new appointments.
While South Africa's Apartheid-era judiciary dared not take such a
radical step against Mandela, a UN court has shown no hesitation to
violate this most fundamental of fundamental rights: an accused's
defence is his own, and his right to counsel is a right, to be employed
if desired, but not to be inflicted upon him, against his will, by a
court, or by the state. It is evident that in light of these conditions
that it can no longer be called a right, but an imposition, an
infringement, and a violation.
The US Supreme Court recognized the inherent injustice of the
imposition of counsel against the will of a defendant in Faretta v.
California, written in 1975. The Justices pointed out that imposition
of counsel had been the province of the infamous Star Chamber, a
political court of mixed judicial and executive nature, which
flourished in England in the late 16th and early 17th century.
Imposition of counsel, stated the Supreme Court, has been abandoned as
a practice since then.
Today a UN body has steered the future of international law back to
those dark times, and confirmed the accuracy of Slobodan Milosevic's
charge that the ICTY is an illegal body, established in contravention
of the provisions of the UN's own Charter.
Over 90 lawyers and law professors from 17 different countries filed a
petition with the UN Security Council weeks ago warning it and member
states that the envisaged imposition of counsel violated international
law. Mr. Milosevic was not permitted to read from the petition last
Wednesday. (See
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm )
During the ICTY's "administrative session" held to debate whether
counsel should be imposed - (the Chamber pointedly used of the term
"assignment" rather than "imposition"), the Chamber stated its concern
that Mr Milosevic's medical condition - malignant hypertension - would
render him unfit to defend himself. This assertion was based on medical
reports
submitted by ICTY-appointed cardiologists, without the defendant being
granted the right to obtain a second opinion, and in spite of the fact
that physicians aren't really qualified to determine who is fit to
represent him or herself.
Milosevic has represented himself very ably for three years and has
suffered from hypertension for ten. Yet it is only now that the issue
of the fitness of Milosevic to act as his own counsel has acquired
urgency. Only now, that is, on the eve of his defence presentation -
one which he has announced would establish that the "Balkan Wars" were
in fact one war, against
Yugoslavia, and whose apotheosis was NATO's gruesome 78-day bombing
campaign in 1999.
Throughout the administrative hearing, submissions were made by the
Prosecution, the amici (who would go on to become the counsel assigned
to Mr. Milosevic against his will) and the Chamber as to the role that
could be played by an assigned counsel. Their consensus appeared to be
that a lawyer, if imposed, would only be required on those occasions
when the defendant would be too ill to carry on the burden of courtroom
work. In the result, the Chamber not only assigned counsel, but imposed
the amici - who have acted since the beginning of the proceedings in
the service of the Chamber - and instructed them to take over the
defence.
Among the "duties" the ICTY has instructed the former amici to carry
out are the determination of how the case is to be presented, the
preparation and examination of witnesses they deem appropriate, the
duty to "endeavour" to obtain the defendant's instructions, and to
"take into account his views while retaining the right to determine
what course to follow." Assigned defence counsel, it seems, have
rights, while the accused merely has "views", which can be taken into
account by counsel he objects to and refuses to instruct.
This is not a credible framework for the accused's defence. And it
points up once again that this process is not a trial. This is, rather,
as reknowned Canadian trial lawyer Edward Greenspan presciently
observed at the beginning, "a lynching."
Much was made by the Prosecution of Slobodan Milosevic's conduct, his
lack of respect for the ICTY, "the interests of justice", and
Milosevic's failure to observe "etiquette," to quote lead prosecutor
Geoffrey Nice. The rulings handed down by the ICTY this past week have
done far more harm to the interests of justice than Mr. Milosevic's
legally accurate criticisms of the ICTY could ever do. For half a
century, legal scholars have struggled to establish a truly democratic
permanent international criminal court.
Although the ICC now formally exists, the US is not a participant.
Recent events make plain that to exempt the United States from
jurisdiction over war crimes renders the whole exercise of
international justice, if not pointless, then profoundly arbitrary and
contrary to universally held notions of equality before the law.
It was a former US State Department lawyer and reputed professor of
international law, Michael P. Scharf, who in last week's Washington
Post publicly appealed for the ICTY to impose counsel upon Slobodan
Milosevic, evoking the fear that future defendants could employ
international and special courts to accuse the US of war crimes such as
the invasion of Iraq. Mr. Milosevic might have been accused of lacking
"etiquette," had he, like Professor Scharf, recalled that the ICTY had
been created in 1993 with three objectives: first, to educate the
Serbian people about the crimes committed by Milosevic; second, to
facilitate national reconciliation, by "pinning prime responsibility on
Milosevic" and other top leaders; and third, to "promote political
catharsis" by permitting current Serbian leaders to "distance
themselves" from the policies of the previous governements.
These stated objectives are all transparently political, and
geopolitically motivated. And in order that they be attained, it
appears that counsel must be imposed upon Slobodan Milosevic. He must
also be prevented from stating precisely what Scharf averred with
bone-chilling clarity: that the ICTY is a political court.
Whether international law will recover from the hijacking of Slobodan
Milosevic's defence is open to question. However, the true nature of
the Security Council's ad hoc courts clearly resembles much more the
Star Chamber than the scrupulously fair humanitarian legal body to
which the world has aspired since Nuremberg.
==============================
Tiphaine Dickson is a criminal defence lawyer specialized in
international criminal law based in Montréal. She was lead counsel for
the defence in one of the first UN trials prosecuting genocide before
the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. She can be reached at
tiphainedickson@ videotron. ca
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC409A.html
---( 4 )---
From the German daily "junge Welt",
September 3rd, 2004-09-03
URL of the original:
http://www.jungewelt.de/2004/09-03/015.php
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC TRIAL:
MEDICAL ARGUMENTS AS A PRETEXT FOR AN EXPEDITIOUS GUILTY VERDICT?
"junge Welt" spoke with Klaus Hartmann, Chairman of the German
Freethinker Association and vice president of the International
Committee for Defending Slobodan Milosevic
Q: Arguing that it has problems with its schedule, the Hague Tribunal
decreed, that former Yugoslav president, Slobodan Milosevic, will no
longer be allowed to conduct his own defence. Do the judges now want to
seek a expeditious guilty verdict?
A: The tribunal wants to allot Milosevic only 150 days to present his
defence case, which, in comparison to the almost 300 days for the
prosecution's case, indeed leads one to think, of an expeditious guilty
verdict. This is a clear violation of the internationally recognised
legal principle of equality of means between the prosecution and the
defence. Another fundamental right of the accused is violated by
assigning him legal counsel, against his will. The right to defend
oneself is such; that not even the Nazis questioned it during the
Reichstag's fire trial against Georgi Dimitroff. Neither did the South
African Apartheid racists, in their trial against Nelson Mandela.
Q: Doesn't this decision also violate even the regulations of the
tribunal itself?
A: Absolutely. The "rules of procedure" established by the tribunal,
itself, provide for the undeniable right of the accused to assume his
own defence. The precedents of exception, cited by the prosecution,
refer to cases where the accused was not in a position to be able to
understand the proceedings taking place. Here we have the opposite
situation: the defendant dwarfs with his intelligence the intelligence
of the judges on the bench and the prosecution.
Q: But aren't the medical arguments to be taken seriously?
A: They are pretexts. For three years, nobody cared about the health of
Milosevic. Only now, as he is about to call his own witnesses, the
concern for his health is taken as pretext to deprive him of his
fundamental rights. Milosevic, himself, said that this is the panic
reaction of the prosecution, because they will now soon have to hear
the truth out of the witnesses' mouths.
Q: You were recently present at the trial in The Hague. What impression
did Milosevic make on you?
A: His morale as a fighter is undaunted - which may have been the
reason why the tribunal and the prosecution decided to resort to these
illegal measures. Milosevic, himself, said that he has the privilege of
having the most important ally on his side: the truth. And that is
exactly what the representatives of this criminal enterprise fear most.
This was indirectly confirmed by the prosecution: "If Milosevic defends
himself," they said, "there is the risk that he, himself, will prepare
his witnesses." This is an attempt at outright political censorship,
such as one would have expected in the Nazi "Volksgerichtshof" under
Roland Freisler.
The prosecutor also referred to Milosevic describing the tribunal as
illegal. "It would be unacceptable," he said, "if Milosevic calls his
witnesses, telling them, 'and now please tell this illegal body what
you know.'"
Questions: Peter Wolter
---( 5 )---
ICDSM to UN: Tribunal has downed itself
The International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic
Sofia-New York-Moscow-Belgrade
H. E. Juan Antonio YAÑEZ-BARNUEVO, Permanent Representative of Spain to
UN, President of the UN Security Council in September 2004
H. E. Andrey I. DENISOV, Permanent Representative of the Russian
Federation to UN, President of the UN Security Council in August 2004
Cc: H. E. Kofi ANNAN, Secretary General of the United Nations,
Mr. Theodor MERON, President of ICTY
Dear Sirs,
We were shocked by learning about today's Order of the Trial
Chamber III of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former
Yugoslavia (ICTY) working under auspices of the UN to impose a counsel
on President Slobodan Milosevic against his will.
The Statute of the ICTY, adopted by the UN Security Council,
in its Article 21, paragraph 4, states that the defendant "shall be
entitled to the following minimum guarantees. d) to be tried in his
presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance
of his own choice", stipulating by that the fundamental human right of
a defendant according to the International Law.
We believe that the abovementioned Order (please find its
full text attached) has not been adopted with the consent of the
Security Council and we also believe that the UN Security Council must
act without delay in the case of such blatant violation of one of its
Resolutions by its subsidiary body.
We remind you of the Petition of over 90 distinguished
lawyers and law professors from 17 countries under the title IMPOSITION
OF COUNSEL ON SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC THREATENS THE FUTURE OF INTERNATIONAL
LAW AND THE LIFE OF THE DEFENDANT, handed last month to the President
of the UN Security Council and sent to other UN organs, warning about
the possibility of such decision by the ICTY and appealing that it
should be prevented.
We would highly appreciate if you inform all the Members of
the UN about our initiative, as well as about the action the UN
Security Council will perform in order to protect its authority, its
resolutions, International Law and dignity of the UN.
Otherwise, we would be forced to conclude that the ICTY has
downed itself, deleting every claim of its legality.
On behalf of 155 members of the International Committee to
Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) - scholars, artists, writers and
public workers from all continents,
Respectfully,
(signed)
Professor Velko Valkanov, Founder and Co-Chairman of the ICDSM,
President of the Bulgarian Committee for Human Rights
---( 6 )---
http://www.workers.org/ww/2004/edit20909.php
EDITORIAL
Milosevic on the counterattack
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The
Hague, Netherlands, seems incapable of presenting a convincing case
against its most famous defendant, even when it stacks all the rules
against him. Former Yugoslav Presi dent Slobodan Milosevic opened his
defense case Aug. 31 with a blistering political attack, not only on
the illegitimate court but also on the NATO forces that created it.
Even as Milosevic was blasting the NATO aggressors for working over 10
years to destroy the multi-ethnic and multi-religious state of
Yugoslavia, the factual testimony against him presented in two years of
the prosecution case was evaporating.
The latest pre-defense revelation came out in an article in the Ottawa
Citizen, which interviewed a Canadian detective sergeant, Brian
Honeybourn. The detective had joined the hunt for mass graves in the
occupied Serbian province of Kosovo. Honeybourn said, "It seems as
though The Hague is beginning to panic" because no one could find mass
graves in Kosovo.
Honeybourn was on one of the United Nations teams searching for the
"mass graves." But the biggest burial site contained 20 bodies--not an
astonishing number after a year-long civil war and 79 days of NATO
bombs.
Milosevic had four hours to present his defense opening. The
prosecutors had taken three days to present their opening arguments in
February 2002. This is typical of the ICTY: The judges believe if they
outweigh the defendant by at least six to one, they will beat him. The
prosecution has a team of 1,300 employees at $100,000 each per year;
Milosevic has a few assistants and almost no funds.
Now, to make sure he will lose, the court plans to strip him of his
right to defend himself. They plan to use his illness--high blood
pressure and heart problems--as an excuse to impose unwanted counsel on
him. Ninety internationally famous lawyers, including former U.S.
Attorney General Ramsey Clark, have already protested this last unjust
tactic.
Milosevic's only advantage is that he is not guilty of the 66 charges
against him. And that he can present a powerful political argument
against the U.S.-NATO aggressors who tried to bomb Yugoslavia flat to
intimidate those they didn't murder.
Reprinted from the Sept. 9, 2004, issue of Workers World newspaper
==========================
Aldo Bernardini, ordinario di Diritto Internazionale all'Universita'
di Teramo, ha inviato la seguente durissima lettera di protesta al
"Tribunale" dell'Aia, sulla imposizione di un avvocato d'ufficio a
Milosevic proprio nel momento in cui doveva incominciare la sua
autodifesa.
---
PROTEST
Rome, 3 September 2004
As a modest scholar of international law I am totally horrified in
front of the last steps by the Hague "Tribunal" (Judges and
Prosecution) in re Milosevic.
The imposition of a counsel on President Slobodan Milosevic is an act
of brutal violence which demonstrates only the "Tribunal's" disarray
and impossibility to counter Slobodan Milosevic's arguments. The way
to continue and conclude its "job" with the preordained conviction is
to silence President Milosevic.
An illegal "Tribunal", created by U.N. Security Council with an
arbitrary and dictatorial interpretation of the Charter; a monstrous
indictment founded on an artificial construction aberrantly basing on
presumption outside the provisions of the ICTY Statute and contrary to
the fundamental principle nullum crimen sine lege, to general
principles of criminal law in every country, to human rights in the
matter and to the rule of strict interpretation in criminal law:
honourable "judges" in such a context should at least abide by "their"
Statute, the ICTY Statute. They should know that no analogy or more
than broad interpretation is allowed: in claris non fit interpretatio,
no (own) interpretation is permitted where the letter of the law is
clear. Art. 21, par. 4, of the ICTY Statute expressly declares that
the accused "shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees. d)
to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or
through legal assistance of his own choice". This formulation is clear
and does not allow any deviation or exception. The "Tribunal" may not
substitute for the
accused neither in choosing between "defence by himself" or defence
through legal assistants nor in choosing such assistants.
The imposition by ICTY is the utmost aberration and the conclusive
evidence of the political and arbitrary character of the ICTY and of
the whole Milosevic trial (and of the other trials too).
No honourable lawyers should cooperate with that enormity. U.N.
Security Council should condemn the operation but best of all do away
with the "Hague Tribunal".
I protest with my full strength against this perversion of every
juridical concept, of every sound idea of the rule of law, of the most
fundamental human rights of President Milosevic.
History will judge ICTY and its operations through continually
judge-made law in the same manner as the perverted legal conception of
the Nazis.
Aldo Bernardini
---
RINNOVIAMO I NOSTRI DUE APPELLI:
1. AD OFFRIRSI COME TRADUTTORI
La battaglia per la difesa di Milosevic non va sottovalutata.
Essa ha un valore strategico, e non solo etico, in quanto puo'
avere conseguenze importanti per tutte le altre battaglie
internazionaliste del movimento contro la guerra.
Infatti, con il processo-farsa contro Milosevic, le grandi potenze
imperialiste vogliono creare un precedente. Esse vogliono avere
mano libera in futuro nelle loro decisioni sugli assetti del pianeta;
vogliono avere formalmente riconosciuta la facolta' di stabilire
ad arbitrio quali guerre scatenare, contro chi e con quali mezzi;
esse vogliono garantirsi la impunita' su tutti i propri crimini
di guerra, e si arrogano la facolta' di giudicare e condannare -
anche formalmente, non solo mediaticamente - le loro stesse
vittime... condannandole persino al risarcimento dei danni causati
da loro stesse, con le loro guerre imperialiste!
Dopo Milosevic, potrebbe essere la volta di Saddam; e non
illudiamoci: la "guerra preventiva e permanente" non finisce certo
in Iraq. Ma intanto, i crimini di Pancevo (1999) o di Falluja (2004)
chi li dovrebbe giudicare? Il "tribunale" dell'Aia si e' ostinatamente
rifiutato di aprire qualsivoglia procedimento per tutti quei crimini di
guerra, ben documentati, commessi dalla NATO nella primavera del
1999, in spregio alle richieste formali e nonostante tutta la
documentazione pervenuta.
Dunque, dobbiamo impedire che la storia tragica e vergognosa di
questi anni in Jugoslavia sia scritta esclusivamente sulla base delle
"sentenze giudiziarie" dettate dai servizi di intelligence della NATO.
Per questo, noi possiamo essere di grande aiuto, in effetti.
Sara' sufficiente far circolare i testi di cio' che e' stato e verra'
detto in quell'aula. Ne' piu' ne' meno.
I giornalisti hanno evitato finora di fare cronaca sul "processo",
perche' non conviene ai loro datori di lavoro: percio' dobbiamo
pensarci noi.
E' necessario costituire subito una rete di persone disponibili
a TRADURRE DALL'INGLESE IN LINGUA ITALIANA. Ogni
giorno le pagine di nuovi verbali saranno decine e decine: si
trattera' di selezionarne una parte e di dividerci il lavoro di
traduzione e diffusione dei testi.
Affinche' tutti sappiano, e nessuno possa dire: "Io non sapevo".
Per contatti, per offrirsi volontari nel lavoro di traduzione:
segreteria: tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia@ libero. it
2. PER LA CAMPAGNA DI AUTOFINANZIAMENTO
Nello scontro che si sta svolgendo al "Tribunale ad hoc" dell'Aia, gli
interessi imperialisti della NATO sono rappresentati da uno staff di
1300 persone profumatamente pagate (circa 100mila dollari l'anno a
testa), mentre gli interessi della Jugoslavia e di tutti i suoi popoli
sono rappresentati dal solo Slobodan Milosevic, il quale dispone
esclusivamente dei poveri mezzi del suo comitato internazionale di
sostegno: l'ICDSM.
L'impresa cui deve far fronte Milosevic appare dunque titanica, ma non
puo' comunque essere abbandonata. Se pure essa avesse solo valore
testimoniale, tale valore sarebbe comunque inestimabile, poiche' si
tratta di testimoniare a proposito di almeno un decennio di
macchinazioni e crimini finalizzati alla distruzione di un paese
europeo, ovvero - nelle parole dello stesso Milosevic - finalizzati al
"capovolgimento degli esiti della Seconda Guerra Mondiale" nei
Balcani. Crimini e macchinazioni su cui nessun altro e' stato o sara'
mai intenzionato a fare chiarezza.
Senza mezzi finanziari, la difesa di Milosevic non ha chances.
Si valuta che sia indispensabile raccogliere diverse migliaia euro
ogni mese per far fronte a tutte le necessita' di assistenza legale,
di documentazione e di comunicazione.
La Sezione Italiana dell'ICDSM, ringraziando tutti quelli che
hanno finora contribuito alla campagna di autofinanziamento
(in Italia sono gia' state raccolte alcune migliaia di euro), chiede
che lo sforzo in tal senso prosegua, cosi' come sta proseguendo
in tutte le altre realta' nazionali.
Si badi bene:
NON ESISTONO ALTRE FONTI DI FINANZIAMENTO.
Una recente legge passata dal Parlamento serbo - che
in linea di principio avrebbe garantito una parziale copertura
delle spese - e' stata subito "congelata" in seguito alle
minacce occidentali. Una qualsivoglia campagna di finanziamento
su basi volontarie a Belgrado e' praticamente irrealizzabile:
a causa delle scelte estremistiche, in senso neoliberista, del regime
instaurato il 5 ottobre 2000 la situazione sociale e' disastrosa, la
disoccupazione dilaga, i salari sono da fame, chi ha i soldi per
mangiare li tiene ben stretti e non rischia certo la galera (o peggio:
vedi le torture in carcere nella primavera 2003, durante la
cosiddetta "Operazione Sciabola") in attivita' politiche o di
solidarieta' a favore di Milosevic, che viene tuttora demonizzato
dai media locali - oramai tutti in mano a societa' occidentali,
soprattutto tedesche - esattamente come da noi.
I nuovi ricchi votano i partiti filo-occidentali e di destra, e
preferiscono che Milosevic marcisca in carcere, insieme alla
loro cattiva coscienza. A tutti deve essere infine chiaro - se ancora
ci fosse bisogno di ripeterlo - che al di la' delle menzogne
giornalistiche non esiste e non e' mai esistito alcun "tesoro
nascosto" di Milosevic, e che il nostro impegno per la sua
difesa e' insostituibile oltreche' indispensabile.
Contribuite dunque e fate contribuire, attraverso il
*** Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***