[ Di seguito la trascrizione della seduta del 21 ottobre u.s., nella
quale Milosevic ha per l'ennesima volta fieramente ribadito il suo
diritto a difendersi da solo dalle infamanti accuse rivoltegli dal
"Tribunale ad hoc" della NATO. Si noti che il presidente del "Tribunale
ad hoc", Theodor Meron, con il quale Milosevic scambia delle battute in
questa trascrizione, e' precisamente l'ex inviato di Clinton alla
Conferenza di Roma per la istituzione della Corte Penale Internazionale
(1998): quello cioe' che disse formalmente di "NO", a nome degli USA,
in quella occasione... In precedenza, Meron era stato ambasciatore di
Israele in Canada.
Questa trascrizione e' stata tenuta nascosta per circa una settimana
dalle autorita' del "Tribunale" affinche' la stampa internazionale non
potesse riportare le dichiarazioni di Milosevic quando era necessario.
Analogamente era stata impedita la diffusione pubblica delle
trascrizioni della autodifesa dell'imputato all'inizio di settembre,
nei giorni cioe' in cui piu' "scottante" sarebbe risultata la loro
diffusione attraverso la stampa occidentale.
Con l'occasione segnaliamo che IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA
AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC (31/8 - 1/9/2004), IN CORSO DI REVISIONE E
CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO INVECE AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
Ricordiamo anche, en passant, che le suddette pagine internet, insieme
alle presente newsletter, rappresentano attualmente per il pubblico
italiano l'UNICA fonte di informazione sul processo-farsa dell'Aia, in
un contesto mediatico di perfetta censura.
(a cura di ICDSM Italia) ]
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Ven 29 Ott 2004 02:59:18 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Milosevic: This is a political trial (21 October transcript)
**********************************************************
NOTE: After the 21 October session of the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY,
most of the Western media were quoting Steven Kay and not President
Milosevic.
These days, after he files a "request for withdrawal", instead of a
simple, although late resignation, again it is Steven Kay who gets all
the publicity.
The Appeals Chamber session was open. Its transcript (like for any
other session) was done next day and had to be available to all
parties. For days, and with different excuses, it was denied to
assistants of President Milosevic to get the transcript in the
electronic form. Finally, when there were no more excuses, the
transcript appeared on the ICTY web site.
Additional proof that it appeared only due to the pressure from
President Milosevic's team is the fact that the transcript of 19
October, when ICDSM Vice-Chair Liana Kanelli slammed the ICTY had not
been posted yet. Here we give the words of President Milosevic, that
someone tried to hide from the public as long as possible.
The whole transcript can be read at:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/041021DR.htm
The whole text of the 'Lawyers Petition' extensively quoted by
President Milosevic can be read at:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm
Everything about the political campaign to silence President Milosevic
can be read at:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC410A.html
************************************************************
Thursday, 21 October 2004
[Appeal Proceedings]
[Open session]
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: In my deep conviction concerning this
decision to take away my right to represent myself, this was not
prompted by health reasons nor legal reasons but by political reasons.
Health reasons were taken exclusively as an excuse or pretext.
I would like to turn your attention to the fact that there was a
campaign conducted not to permit me to speak. On the 29th of August,
one of the drafters of your Statute, Michael Scharf published in the
Washington Post an article as part of this campaign in which he said,
amongst other things -- I'm not going to quote the entire article, I
would just like to point to a few things or excepts from it.
"At the start of the trial in February 2002, the original presiding
judge, Britain's Richard May, ruled that 'under international law, the
defendant has a right to counsel but he also has a right not to have
counsel.' Virtually everything that has gone wrong with the Milosevic
trial can be traced back to that erroneous ruling."
As part of that campaign, therefore, things set out from insisting that
the Chamber, which was presided by Judge May, wrongly decided to enable
me to speak, and then this is explained by stating:
"By acting as his own counsel, Milosevic was able to begin the trial
with an 18-hour long opening argument, which included Hollywood-quality
video and slide-show presentations showing the destruction wrought by
the 1999 NATO bombing campaign."
That is what disturbed all those who do not wish to hear the truth from
this place, because for three years now, the other side has been
explaining crimes that I did not commit, ascribing to me intentions
which I never had.
We're talking about legal alchemy here, which is jeopardized by the
possibility that truth be spoken here and that what really happened be
talked about here.
In his article, Scharf explains that or provides an explanation from
which it can be seen that we're not talking about law here but
politics. I will quote just one more excerpt:
"In creating the Yugoslavia tribunal statute, the UN Security Council
set three objectives: First, to educate the Serbian people, who were
long misled by Milosevic propaganda, about the acts of aggression, war
crimes and crimes against humanity committed by his regime ..."
As you can see, he is citing a political reason which only a twisted
mind can use in view of the fact that there was no war in Serbia and
that Serbia was the only one that maintained the structure of
population as it was before and that there was no discrimination at
all. This is part of the propaganda which is being affirmed here.
Secondly, "to facilitate national reconciliation by pinning prime
responsibility on Milosevic and other top leaders and disclosing the
way in which the Milosevic regime had induced ordinary Serbs to commit
atrocities; and third, to promote political catharsis while enabling
Serbia's newly elected leaders to distance themselves from the
repressive policies of the past. May's decision to allow Milosevic to
represent himself has seriously undercut these aims."
He also explains that this is also very wrong because this trial is
being followed, because the majority of the citizens in Serbia give
their support to me, which is not a surprise, because everybody had the
opportunity to hear what is being said here.
For example, this statement of mine of the 31st of August and the 1st
of September was published in newspapers with the broadest circulation.
It was also broadcast on television. It was published in hundreds of
thousands of copies. So I can expose myself to the trial of the -- or
to the scrutiny of the public, whereas the other side cannot. And that
is the main reason why it is not being permitted here, the truth, or
arguments be brought out in favour of the truth and that this truth be
proved by facts.
I would like to also draw your attention, gentlemen, because you are
all experts in the legal profession, that in relation to this question
of assigning counsel, denying me my right, taking away my right, about
100 prominent legal scholars, professors, experts in international and
criminal law from Serbia, Russia, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Germany, the
United States, Canada, India, Belgium, Denmark, Bulgaria, Hungary,
Netherlands, Czech Republic, Great Britain, France, submitted a
petition to the General Secretary and to the United Nations Security
Council.
You probably did not pay attention to this, but many arguments were
stated there against this decision which was adopted by the Trial
Chamber.
They say that this imposition of counsel, "This apparently punitive
measure is contrary to international law, incompatible with the
adversarial system of criminal justice adopted by the Security Council
in Resolution 808, and ignores the Court's obligation to provide
adequate medical care and provisional release to the defendant. ... The
ICTY has ignored repeated requests for provisional release, to which
everyone presumed innocent is entitled, has imposed unrealistically
short preparation periods ..."
I warned you, Mr. Meron, the last time that we had a discussion here
and when we were talking about me being granted three months for
preparations compared to several years that the other side had, I drew
your attention specifically to the existing decision of doctors that I
can only work for three days a week and that that time is very short.
At the time, you said that you would review all of these things. There
has been no subsequent review of these issues.
I would also like to remind you that in the decision of the Appeals
Chamber of the 18th of April, 2002, comprising of Claude Jorda, David
Hunt, Mehmet Guney, Fausto Pocar and Theodor Meron - that's what it
states here on the cover page - in paragraph 27 it was stated since the
reasons for decision on Prosecution interlocutory appeal from refusal
to order joinder was being discussed at the time,
"As has been shown to be necessary in all long trials before this
Tribunal, the Trial Chamber will from time to time have to take a break
in the hearing of evidence to enable the parties to marshal their
forces and, if need be, to unrepresented accused to rest from the work
involved."
This was not respected either. And in connection with that, I would
like to say that when the three-day work rule was being respected,
these three workdays are not only days spent in court but three
workdays in general. This was not taken into account. But there were no
problems at the time. I will come back to that later.
In the petition, it says: "The envisaged imposition of counsel
constitutes an egregious violation of internationally recognised
judicial rights, and will serve to only aggravate Mr. Milosevic's
life-threatening illness and will further discredit these proceedings.
"The fundamental, minimum rights provided to a defendant under the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as under the
Statutes of the Internation Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and
Yugoslavia include the right to defend oneself in person."
I will skip over. "As stated by the US Supreme Court, with respect to
the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which bears a striking
similarity to Article 21 of the ICTY Statute."
And then there is a quote from the Faretta versus California case, from
which they -
"It speaks of the 'assistance' of counsel, and an assistant, however
expert, is still an assistant. The language and spirit of the Sixth
Amendment contemplate that counsel, like the other defence tools
guaranteed by the Amendment, shall be an aid to a willing defendant -
not an organ of the State interposed between an unwilling defendant and
his right to defend himself personally. To thrust counsel upon the
accused, against his considered wish, thus violates the logic of the
Amendment. In such a case, counsel is not an assistant, but a master,
and the right to make a defence is stripped of the personal character
upon which the Amendment exists."
And then it goes on to say:
"The essence of the right to represent oneself is defeated when the
right to counsel becomes an obligation. As stated in Faretta, supra:
"An unwanted counsel 'represents' the defendant only through a tenuous
and unacceptable legal fiction."
Then Faretta case. There's another quote from that case.
"In the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only
one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an
unwilling defendant in a criminal proceedings. The Tribunal was the
Star Chamber. That curious institution, which flourished in the late
16th and early 17th centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial
character and characteristically departed from common law traditions.
For those reasons, and because it specialised in trying 'political'
offences, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard of
basic individual rights."
Gentlemen, we are facing a practice here which, as you can see, is
being dealt with in a way which is not a -- which does not serve as a
compliment. In this case, it says:
"Imposition of counsel, even 'standby counsel', as appears to be
presently envisaged by the ICTY, will not alleviate any of the
difficulties facing the process: it will not treat, much less cure,
Slobodan Milosevic's malignant hypertension; it will not provide the
defendant with the time and conditions to prepare his case; it will not
redress the gross imbalance in the resources accorded the Prosecutor
and the Defence," et cetera.
"If Slobodan Milosevic's medical condition does not permit him to
attend the proceedings, and he does not waive his right to be present,
the ICTY does not have the jurisdiction to hold hearings in his absence.
Adjournments will continue as long as measures are not taken to treat
Mr. Milosevic's malignant hypertension, a condition that cannot be
treated by further violating his rights, threatening to remove him from
the process, or by transferring his Defence to a complete stranger.
"By imposing counsel, the ICTY would not only violate his right to
self-representation, but his right to present relevant evidence
demonstrating the repeated violations of Yugoslavia's sovereignty over
a decade.
"The right to defend oneself in person is at the heart of the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. The United
Nations should not tolerate these continuing violations of
international law in the name of expediency. Using a detained person's
inappropriately treated illness as an excuse to infringe upon his
rights and silence him and embark on a 'radical reform' of the
proceedings - as the Chamber is now considering, by changing the rules
in the mid-trial, and to the defendant's detriment- is a perversion of
both the letter and the spirit of international law."
That is about 100 legal scholars and professionals said on this matter.
I mentioned them before.
Mr. Meron, we are talking here about the cogent norms of international
law, ius cogens, imperative norms which do not allow a restrictive
interpretation and which in my deep conviction and according to the
conviction of many lawyers throughout the world say that I cannot be
denied of my right to represent myself. Therefore, the fact that you
question my surprise at all that the Trial Chamber could have adopted
such a decision at all is something that does not surprise me but
astonishes even many people throughout the world, especially when we
keep in mind that we're talking here about the denial of the minimum
rights which I should enjoy here.
So I would like to be very brief. I would like for my right to be
restored to me.
As far as arguments that were utilised which say that because of my
hypertension many sittings had to be suspended, I would like to say
that it is my deep conviction that the doctors on this matter have also
been manipulated, because some elements were stated in a context in
which they cannot be considered to hold.
As you can see here, I have a letter from Dr. van Dijkman to the
Detention Unit physician, Dr. Falke, where he says -- this letter is
dated on the 10th of June, 2004, and it says that on the 9th and 10th
of June I was monitored for 24 hours, my blood pressure was monitored
for 24 hours, and it explains
" ... blood pressure during daytime 164/103." Et cetera. And he goes on
to say, "I do not consider the blood pressure to be so high -- ...
cease his activities." Therefore, when it was high, he believed it did
not justify a cessation of my activities. On the 26th of July, the date
when I was examined the last time in order to agree in the future with
Dr. Tavernier's findings, my pressure was 150/95. Therefore, it was
better. And then when it was better, it served as a basis for
concluding that I was medically unfit to defend myself.
And furthermore, they manipulated the information about a loss of ten
days, allegedly because of my health situation. And you will agree,
gentlemen, that when this piece of information is used, it is in
relation to days when my blood pressure was high. That's what it seems.
However, that is not accurate. I have an official document stamped and
signed by the authorised officer of the Detention Unit, the only one
who is in charge of medical records, which states in view of the fact
that on several occasions I had a very severe case of flu with high
fever, and it says "Dates of flu." In 2001, it was one week. In 2002,
it was one week. In early 2003, it was ten days. In May 2003, two
weeks. And finally in 2004, in February, two weeks. In total, that
amounts to six and a half weeks of flu involving high fever in various
periods.
What happened then, gentlemen, then back in February 2004, when I was
running a high fever and having flu and was bedridden, I received
notification that the appeal -- that the Prosecution case had been
completed and that I was to prepare my list of witnesses. I therefore
asked the liaison officer from the Registry, who is sitting here,
whether, being ill, I was allowed to have an extension of that deadline
because the task involves a huge amount of work. In those six and a
half weeks, I was supposed to prepare a list of witnesses and was not
able to start immediately.
I was informed by a Trial Chamber, through their legal assistant or
whatever they call it, that the deadline cannot be moved. Therefore, I
practically had to work from my bed at a very high intensity and to
work very hard to comply with the deadline and submit that list within
the six weeks given me from the time when I was informed of the
completion of the Prosecution case.
That is what caused stress, shortage of sleep, and other problems.
And this complete disregard for the rule that I was allowed to work for
only three days a week drove my tension and blood pressure up. In other
words, it was the Trial Chamber who caused it with their decision and
the fact that they set unreasonable deadlines. And then the resulting
problems were used as an excuse to impose counsel on me with the
explanation that I was unable to handle the preparations required
myself. That is what happened.
I can give you this paper which shows exactly how many weeks were in
issue, with appropriate dates and signatures. The loss of days caused
by this was completely unrelated to the problems I was experiencing. It
is, therefore, abundantly clear that this is a manipulation of findings
and facts.
It is, as a consequence, abundantly clear that all talk of
obstructionism is malicious, because if you say that about somebody who
spent 300 days examining the witnesses of the other side, calling him
an obstructionist, which he had never been in any of the 300 days of
dealing with the case of the opposing side. It is nonsense, to say the
least.
Even Mr. Nice putting forward his arguments before the Trial Chamber,
trying to deny me an extension, said that I was working very
efficiently and did not need an extension of the deadline. Therefore,
in my then-health situation, I experienced additional pressure which
caused a deterioration of my health, which was then used as a pretext
for assigning counsel on me.
When I did not have any other health problems, I worked quite
efficiently indeed, except for the times when I had flu with high
fever, which nobody is immune from, and nobody can guarantee that it
would not happen to them.
You asked me a number of questions that I will attempt to answer.
What is the best solution? The best and the only solution, in my
opinion, is for you to give me back my rights. Your stand-by counsel is
of no interest to me whatsoever.
Mr. Kay used to be an amicus curiae. He, as well as his colleague, upon
leave of the Trial Chamber, put questions to witnesses when he deemed
fit. As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to such practice at
all. As far as I'm concerned, in that capacity he can continue if you
think that necessary. He can continue to put questions to witnesses or
perform any other tasks.
But it is indubitable that the only solution, the only one I see as
just, fair, logical and reasonable is to give me back my right to
represent myself, to call witnesses, to examine them, and to lead
evidence in my Defence case.
That amounts, practically, to the guarantees I enjoy under every
international covenant, agreement, treaty, and finally your own Statute.
And I cannot agree to anything less because that is my principled
position, one from which I do not intend to retreat. So much, Mr.
Meron. Thank you for your attention.
THEODOR MERON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, what would you
suggest to the Court? How should it act if you would have to reduce
your presence in the courtroom even beyond the three days that you have
been able to cope with in the past? Imagine for a moment that you could
be in the court, bearing also -- taking into account also the time you
would need in the detention centre to prepare, only one day a week.
Would you -- do you believe that the Court can go on if the situation
would arise in that context? Do give us some practical suggestions to
try and, in fairness, to remedy the situation that has arisen.
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: Mr. Meron, your question is completely
logical. I believe, however, that one should take into account the
history of the accumulation of the present problems. Namely, several
times - and this is known to everybody sitting here and it can be seen
from the transcript - at the moment when this so-called trial began
with charges from the Kosovo indictments, indictments on Croatia and
Bosnia were issued. At that time, I received over half a million pages
of material from the other side in connection with the charges raised
then.
On several occasions, I asked them, "When do you gentlemen suppose that
I can read this? Will you give me time to review this material, to
familiarise myself with it and to respond?" The answer I constantly
received was that the Trial Chamber would consider it.
And finally we ended up in this situation where I have not been given
time to talk to my potential witnesses. In fact, I talked to as many
witnesses as I had time to talk with. And during the summer recess and
preparation, I was allowed to receive witnesses three days a week.
I assume you know that the opposite side spends sometimes several days
speaking to one witness. I speak to one witness a day, sometimes two
witnesses per day. I cannot be any more expedient than that. I believe,
therefore, you should bear in mind that if it is true, and it is
written in para 10 of the reasoned decision of the Trial Chamber on the
assignment of counsel, since on the 30th of September it heard the
arguments of sides to the proceedings, the Trial Chamber made its
decision on the basis of the medical report concerning the accused's
health that the Chamber would sit three days each week.
That decision was made back then, and I believe that coupled with
observation of this rule, a three-day work rule for the courtroom, and
in view of the fact that I had not been given the opportunity in a
timely manner to talk to my witnesses, a compromise is being made now
between this and the decision made as a result. You should see what is
fair in this situation. I believe that we can keep up the dynamics of
three workdays per week with the proviso that weeks off should be taken
occasionally so that I can proof witnesses I intend to call. And that
would be a perfectly reasonable timetable enabling us to conduct these
proceedings in a perfectly normal manner, achieving all that we have to
achieve.
Those are my practical suggestions.
THEODOR MERON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Of course, some of the
difficulties that you have alluded to in terms of pressure on you, in
terms of tension, are a result of the fact that you chose not to have a
counsel. You have your legal advisors. Had you named them as your
counsel, they would have borne some of the burden that you -- that you
took upon yourself. And from the perspective of the Court, shouldn't a
person accept the consequences of his decision? You chose to go this
way, and you made things so much more difficult for yourself. Mr.
Milosevic.
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: Mr. Meron, in support and in favour of
Mr. Kay, who very correctly put forward his position, because I really
have nothing personal against him, and he is doubtlessly a very capable
lawyer, nevertheless, no lawyer, Mr. Kay or any other lawyer, is able
to replace me in this job. It is simply because of the nature of these
charges.
This is a political trial. What is at issue here is not at all whether
I committed a crime. What is at issue is that certain intentions are
ascribed to me from which consequences are later derived that are
beyond the expertise of any conceivable lawyer.
The point here is that the truth about the events in the former
Yugoslavia has to be told here. It is that which is at issue, not the
procedural questions, because I'm not sitting here because I was
accused of a specific crime. I'm sitting here because I am accused of
conducting a policy against the interests of this or another party. The
nature of the proceedings here is such that a lawyer cannot deal with
it. In fact, even that is not the issue. The issue is whether I have
the right to represent myself under the Statute, and the Statute says I
do.
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: You should be clear on this mystification
regarding the alleged failure to comply with my therapy.
You can find out the truth from the authorised medical personnel at the
Detention Unit. I'm going to explain.
There is no mystification whatsoever. I was told one day that the next
day a test would be made to ascertain how much of the medication I'm
taking is actually absorbed by my body, and that I would receive
medication at 7.00 a.m. in order to take a blood sample five hours
later at 2.00 p.m. and the concentration of the medication would be
measured in my blood. There is a record of this. At 7.00 a.m. exactly I
took the medication, and two hours later a blood sample was taken. The
analysis, however, showed that the concentration in my blood was not
sufficient.
What business of that is mine? Please tell me. I don't know what was
wrong, whether there was enough of the concentration of the medication
in the pill itself or not or something else was the problem. In any
case, I complied with the procedure fully. Everything was done
properly. And to base a theory on the allegation that I'm refusing to
take my medicine is absolutely senseless. The procedure could have been
checked. Another method could have been chosen, because no method is
absolutely foolproof, but to take such conclusions is absolutely
uncalled for, especially by laymen such as Mr. Nice. I will not waste
any more time on this.
Second, regarding the campaign, you intervened, Mr. Meron, when I used
the word "campaign" and when I mentioned Michael Scharf. Michael Scharf
used to be the legal advisor of Madeleine Albright, as you know, I
suppose. You also know that I was brought here on the 5th of July,
being ill when the Trial Chamber ignored the fact that I'm ill, and the
press came here to hear my opening statement although they were not
notified that there would be no opening statement on that day.
You know, Madeleine Albright was here and that she personally is
anxious, in view of her own responsibility for the bombing of my
country and her own participation in aiding Croatian forces in the
Operation Storm when several hundred thousand Serbs were expelled from
Croatia.
And the next day, Mr. Prosper, the ambassador of your country, a person
in charge of these issues, arrived.
Mrs. Albright is often referred to as the mother of this Tribunal and
her personal interest, vested interest, is indubitable. It is doubtless
that she has a role in this campaign, and you can see this
argumentation that she shares in the transcript of Mr. Nice's speech.
Mr. Nice spoke here, and I wish to respond to several of the things he
said. He said it was up to me whether I would accept what has been
offered. This is not a situation of offering or accepting. We are not
at the bazaar where people are offering and taking. We have a
completely different situation here. We are discussing the minimum of
my rights, on which I insist. It is not a case of offering and
accepting or not accepting wherein I am to take the consequences of my
own refusal.
What is at issue here is to observe the minimum of my guaranteed rights.
Second, isn't it absolutely clear that I have the right to appoint
counsel, but I also have the right not to appoint counsel? I am
exercising my right not to appoint counsel; in other words, my right to
represent myself. Therefore, I am acting in full conformity with the
spirit of the right given me.
Furthermore, Mr. Nice says that a judgement can be taken even without a
Defence case, because several witnesses have been here, none of which
have provided any evidence. So a judgement can be taken without a
Defence. That is precisely their aim, because a Defence put forward by
an imposed counsel is not my defence. That, I hope, need not be proven.
Defence through an imposed counsel is a legal fiction.
Furthermore, Mr. Nice says that I gave a list of witnesses to Mr. Kay.
That is not true. I disclosed my witness list through the liaison
officer answerable to the Trial Chamber. Mr. Kay, in his official
capacity, has access to that list of witnesses, and through no fault of
his, he has -- he doesn't know what to do with it, as he doesn't know
what to do with the list of thousands of exhibits that I made
available, because if we keep this
limit of 150 days, Mr. Kay does not know what selection I personally
would have made out of the 1.600 witnesses to fit into the 150 days.
And you will admit, gentlemen, that a bad use of witnesses and exhibits
is worse than a complete failure to use witnesses and exhibits.
Then Mr. Nice asked the question, Who is running this court? That is
not the question here. The question here is, Who is running my Defence,
me or Mr. Nice?
For the duration of their half time, I didn't show a shadow of
intention to interfere with their business, whereas they have wanted
all the time to organise my Defence and to dictate the terms and
conditions of my exercise of my own rights. That is absolutely
inappropriate. I didn't take away my own right to self-representation;
it was taken away from me by the Trial Chamber.
I therefore demand my right to represent myself back. I believe that my
legal position cannot be changed in the middle of the trial, or my
capacity to defend myself, and I demand my right back. Thank you.
***********************************************************
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM www.icdsm.org Sofia-New York-Moscow
SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION - Member of the World Peace Council
www.sloboda.org.yu Belgrade
*********************************************************
URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL
*********************************************************
After the Hague Tribunal declared war against human rights and
International Law by banning President Milosevic's right to
self-defense, our activities for his liberation and for the restoration
of his freedom and for the national sovereignty of the Serbian people
need to be reorganized and intensified.
We need professional, legal work now more than ever. Thus, the
creation of conditions for that work is the imperative at this moment.
*******************************************
The petition of 100 lawyers and law professors from 18 countries, and
other related activities of the ICDSM Legal Committee, produced a
public effect incomparable to any other previous action by the ICDSM.
President Milosevic has the truth and law on his side. In order to use
that advantage to achieve his freedom, we must fight this totally
discredited tribunal and its patrons through professionally conducted
actions which would involve the Bar Associations, the European Court,
the UN organs in charge and the media.
Our practice has shown that ad hoc voluntary work is not enough to
deal properly with these tasks. The funds secured in Serbia are still
enough only to cover the expenses of the stay and work of President
Milosevic's legal associates at The Hague (one at the time). The funds
secured by the German section of the ICDSM (still the only one with
regular contributions) are enough only to cover minimal additional work
at The Hague connected with contacts and preparations of foreign
witnesses. Everything else is lacking.
***********************************************************
3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.
Our history and our people oblige us to go on with this necessary
action.
But without these funds it will not be possible.
Please organize urgently the fundraising activity
and send the donations to the following ICDSM accounts:
Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63
SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS
or
Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5
************************************************************
All of your donations will be used for legal and other necessary
accompanying activities, on instruction or with the consent of
President Milosevic. To obtain additional information on the use of
your donations or to obtain additional advice on the most efficient way
to submit your donations or to make bank transfers, please do not
hesitate to contact us:
Peter Betscher (ICDSM Treasurer) E-mail: peter_betscher @ freenet.de
Phone: +49 172 7566 014
Vladimir Krsljanin (ICDSM Secretary) E-mail: slobodavk @ yubc.net
Phone: +381 63 8862 301
The ICDSM and Sloboda need to address governments, international human
rights and legal organizations, and to launch legal proceedings. The
ICDSM plans a legal conference at The Hague. Sloboda has just sent to
the patriotic factions in the Serbian Parliament an initiative to adopt
a parliamentary Resolution against the human rights violations by the
Hague Tribunal and to form an international team of experts to make an
extensive report on these violations which would be submitted to the UN.
***************************************************************
For truth and human rights against aggression!
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!
Freedom and equality for people!
On behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM,
Vladimir Krsljanin,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic
*************************************************************
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
==========================
quale Milosevic ha per l'ennesima volta fieramente ribadito il suo
diritto a difendersi da solo dalle infamanti accuse rivoltegli dal
"Tribunale ad hoc" della NATO. Si noti che il presidente del "Tribunale
ad hoc", Theodor Meron, con il quale Milosevic scambia delle battute in
questa trascrizione, e' precisamente l'ex inviato di Clinton alla
Conferenza di Roma per la istituzione della Corte Penale Internazionale
(1998): quello cioe' che disse formalmente di "NO", a nome degli USA,
in quella occasione... In precedenza, Meron era stato ambasciatore di
Israele in Canada.
Questa trascrizione e' stata tenuta nascosta per circa una settimana
dalle autorita' del "Tribunale" affinche' la stampa internazionale non
potesse riportare le dichiarazioni di Milosevic quando era necessario.
Analogamente era stata impedita la diffusione pubblica delle
trascrizioni della autodifesa dell'imputato all'inizio di settembre,
nei giorni cioe' in cui piu' "scottante" sarebbe risultata la loro
diffusione attraverso la stampa occidentale.
Con l'occasione segnaliamo che IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA
AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC (31/8 - 1/9/2004), IN CORSO DI REVISIONE E
CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO INVECE AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
Ricordiamo anche, en passant, che le suddette pagine internet, insieme
alle presente newsletter, rappresentano attualmente per il pubblico
italiano l'UNICA fonte di informazione sul processo-farsa dell'Aia, in
un contesto mediatico di perfetta censura.
(a cura di ICDSM Italia) ]
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Ven 29 Ott 2004 02:59:18 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: Milosevic: This is a political trial (21 October transcript)
**********************************************************
NOTE: After the 21 October session of the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY,
most of the Western media were quoting Steven Kay and not President
Milosevic.
These days, after he files a "request for withdrawal", instead of a
simple, although late resignation, again it is Steven Kay who gets all
the publicity.
The Appeals Chamber session was open. Its transcript (like for any
other session) was done next day and had to be available to all
parties. For days, and with different excuses, it was denied to
assistants of President Milosevic to get the transcript in the
electronic form. Finally, when there were no more excuses, the
transcript appeared on the ICTY web site.
Additional proof that it appeared only due to the pressure from
President Milosevic's team is the fact that the transcript of 19
October, when ICDSM Vice-Chair Liana Kanelli slammed the ICTY had not
been posted yet. Here we give the words of President Milosevic, that
someone tried to hide from the public as long as possible.
The whole transcript can be read at:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/041021DR.htm
The whole text of the 'Lawyers Petition' extensively quoted by
President Milosevic can be read at:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm
Everything about the political campaign to silence President Milosevic
can be read at:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC410A.html
************************************************************
Thursday, 21 October 2004
[Appeal Proceedings]
[Open session]
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: In my deep conviction concerning this
decision to take away my right to represent myself, this was not
prompted by health reasons nor legal reasons but by political reasons.
Health reasons were taken exclusively as an excuse or pretext.
I would like to turn your attention to the fact that there was a
campaign conducted not to permit me to speak. On the 29th of August,
one of the drafters of your Statute, Michael Scharf published in the
Washington Post an article as part of this campaign in which he said,
amongst other things -- I'm not going to quote the entire article, I
would just like to point to a few things or excepts from it.
"At the start of the trial in February 2002, the original presiding
judge, Britain's Richard May, ruled that 'under international law, the
defendant has a right to counsel but he also has a right not to have
counsel.' Virtually everything that has gone wrong with the Milosevic
trial can be traced back to that erroneous ruling."
As part of that campaign, therefore, things set out from insisting that
the Chamber, which was presided by Judge May, wrongly decided to enable
me to speak, and then this is explained by stating:
"By acting as his own counsel, Milosevic was able to begin the trial
with an 18-hour long opening argument, which included Hollywood-quality
video and slide-show presentations showing the destruction wrought by
the 1999 NATO bombing campaign."
That is what disturbed all those who do not wish to hear the truth from
this place, because for three years now, the other side has been
explaining crimes that I did not commit, ascribing to me intentions
which I never had.
We're talking about legal alchemy here, which is jeopardized by the
possibility that truth be spoken here and that what really happened be
talked about here.
In his article, Scharf explains that or provides an explanation from
which it can be seen that we're not talking about law here but
politics. I will quote just one more excerpt:
"In creating the Yugoslavia tribunal statute, the UN Security Council
set three objectives: First, to educate the Serbian people, who were
long misled by Milosevic propaganda, about the acts of aggression, war
crimes and crimes against humanity committed by his regime ..."
As you can see, he is citing a political reason which only a twisted
mind can use in view of the fact that there was no war in Serbia and
that Serbia was the only one that maintained the structure of
population as it was before and that there was no discrimination at
all. This is part of the propaganda which is being affirmed here.
Secondly, "to facilitate national reconciliation by pinning prime
responsibility on Milosevic and other top leaders and disclosing the
way in which the Milosevic regime had induced ordinary Serbs to commit
atrocities; and third, to promote political catharsis while enabling
Serbia's newly elected leaders to distance themselves from the
repressive policies of the past. May's decision to allow Milosevic to
represent himself has seriously undercut these aims."
He also explains that this is also very wrong because this trial is
being followed, because the majority of the citizens in Serbia give
their support to me, which is not a surprise, because everybody had the
opportunity to hear what is being said here.
For example, this statement of mine of the 31st of August and the 1st
of September was published in newspapers with the broadest circulation.
It was also broadcast on television. It was published in hundreds of
thousands of copies. So I can expose myself to the trial of the -- or
to the scrutiny of the public, whereas the other side cannot. And that
is the main reason why it is not being permitted here, the truth, or
arguments be brought out in favour of the truth and that this truth be
proved by facts.
I would like to also draw your attention, gentlemen, because you are
all experts in the legal profession, that in relation to this question
of assigning counsel, denying me my right, taking away my right, about
100 prominent legal scholars, professors, experts in international and
criminal law from Serbia, Russia, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Germany, the
United States, Canada, India, Belgium, Denmark, Bulgaria, Hungary,
Netherlands, Czech Republic, Great Britain, France, submitted a
petition to the General Secretary and to the United Nations Security
Council.
You probably did not pay attention to this, but many arguments were
stated there against this decision which was adopted by the Trial
Chamber.
They say that this imposition of counsel, "This apparently punitive
measure is contrary to international law, incompatible with the
adversarial system of criminal justice adopted by the Security Council
in Resolution 808, and ignores the Court's obligation to provide
adequate medical care and provisional release to the defendant. ... The
ICTY has ignored repeated requests for provisional release, to which
everyone presumed innocent is entitled, has imposed unrealistically
short preparation periods ..."
I warned you, Mr. Meron, the last time that we had a discussion here
and when we were talking about me being granted three months for
preparations compared to several years that the other side had, I drew
your attention specifically to the existing decision of doctors that I
can only work for three days a week and that that time is very short.
At the time, you said that you would review all of these things. There
has been no subsequent review of these issues.
I would also like to remind you that in the decision of the Appeals
Chamber of the 18th of April, 2002, comprising of Claude Jorda, David
Hunt, Mehmet Guney, Fausto Pocar and Theodor Meron - that's what it
states here on the cover page - in paragraph 27 it was stated since the
reasons for decision on Prosecution interlocutory appeal from refusal
to order joinder was being discussed at the time,
"As has been shown to be necessary in all long trials before this
Tribunal, the Trial Chamber will from time to time have to take a break
in the hearing of evidence to enable the parties to marshal their
forces and, if need be, to unrepresented accused to rest from the work
involved."
This was not respected either. And in connection with that, I would
like to say that when the three-day work rule was being respected,
these three workdays are not only days spent in court but three
workdays in general. This was not taken into account. But there were no
problems at the time. I will come back to that later.
In the petition, it says: "The envisaged imposition of counsel
constitutes an egregious violation of internationally recognised
judicial rights, and will serve to only aggravate Mr. Milosevic's
life-threatening illness and will further discredit these proceedings.
"The fundamental, minimum rights provided to a defendant under the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as under the
Statutes of the Internation Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and
Yugoslavia include the right to defend oneself in person."
I will skip over. "As stated by the US Supreme Court, with respect to
the Sixth Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which bears a striking
similarity to Article 21 of the ICTY Statute."
And then there is a quote from the Faretta versus California case, from
which they -
"It speaks of the 'assistance' of counsel, and an assistant, however
expert, is still an assistant. The language and spirit of the Sixth
Amendment contemplate that counsel, like the other defence tools
guaranteed by the Amendment, shall be an aid to a willing defendant -
not an organ of the State interposed between an unwilling defendant and
his right to defend himself personally. To thrust counsel upon the
accused, against his considered wish, thus violates the logic of the
Amendment. In such a case, counsel is not an assistant, but a master,
and the right to make a defence is stripped of the personal character
upon which the Amendment exists."
And then it goes on to say:
"The essence of the right to represent oneself is defeated when the
right to counsel becomes an obligation. As stated in Faretta, supra:
"An unwanted counsel 'represents' the defendant only through a tenuous
and unacceptable legal fiction."
Then Faretta case. There's another quote from that case.
"In the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only
one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an
unwilling defendant in a criminal proceedings. The Tribunal was the
Star Chamber. That curious institution, which flourished in the late
16th and early 17th centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial
character and characteristically departed from common law traditions.
For those reasons, and because it specialised in trying 'political'
offences, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard of
basic individual rights."
Gentlemen, we are facing a practice here which, as you can see, is
being dealt with in a way which is not a -- which does not serve as a
compliment. In this case, it says:
"Imposition of counsel, even 'standby counsel', as appears to be
presently envisaged by the ICTY, will not alleviate any of the
difficulties facing the process: it will not treat, much less cure,
Slobodan Milosevic's malignant hypertension; it will not provide the
defendant with the time and conditions to prepare his case; it will not
redress the gross imbalance in the resources accorded the Prosecutor
and the Defence," et cetera.
"If Slobodan Milosevic's medical condition does not permit him to
attend the proceedings, and he does not waive his right to be present,
the ICTY does not have the jurisdiction to hold hearings in his absence.
Adjournments will continue as long as measures are not taken to treat
Mr. Milosevic's malignant hypertension, a condition that cannot be
treated by further violating his rights, threatening to remove him from
the process, or by transferring his Defence to a complete stranger.
"By imposing counsel, the ICTY would not only violate his right to
self-representation, but his right to present relevant evidence
demonstrating the repeated violations of Yugoslavia's sovereignty over
a decade.
"The right to defend oneself in person is at the heart of the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. The United
Nations should not tolerate these continuing violations of
international law in the name of expediency. Using a detained person's
inappropriately treated illness as an excuse to infringe upon his
rights and silence him and embark on a 'radical reform' of the
proceedings - as the Chamber is now considering, by changing the rules
in the mid-trial, and to the defendant's detriment- is a perversion of
both the letter and the spirit of international law."
That is about 100 legal scholars and professionals said on this matter.
I mentioned them before.
Mr. Meron, we are talking here about the cogent norms of international
law, ius cogens, imperative norms which do not allow a restrictive
interpretation and which in my deep conviction and according to the
conviction of many lawyers throughout the world say that I cannot be
denied of my right to represent myself. Therefore, the fact that you
question my surprise at all that the Trial Chamber could have adopted
such a decision at all is something that does not surprise me but
astonishes even many people throughout the world, especially when we
keep in mind that we're talking here about the denial of the minimum
rights which I should enjoy here.
So I would like to be very brief. I would like for my right to be
restored to me.
As far as arguments that were utilised which say that because of my
hypertension many sittings had to be suspended, I would like to say
that it is my deep conviction that the doctors on this matter have also
been manipulated, because some elements were stated in a context in
which they cannot be considered to hold.
As you can see here, I have a letter from Dr. van Dijkman to the
Detention Unit physician, Dr. Falke, where he says -- this letter is
dated on the 10th of June, 2004, and it says that on the 9th and 10th
of June I was monitored for 24 hours, my blood pressure was monitored
for 24 hours, and it explains
" ... blood pressure during daytime 164/103." Et cetera. And he goes on
to say, "I do not consider the blood pressure to be so high -- ...
cease his activities." Therefore, when it was high, he believed it did
not justify a cessation of my activities. On the 26th of July, the date
when I was examined the last time in order to agree in the future with
Dr. Tavernier's findings, my pressure was 150/95. Therefore, it was
better. And then when it was better, it served as a basis for
concluding that I was medically unfit to defend myself.
And furthermore, they manipulated the information about a loss of ten
days, allegedly because of my health situation. And you will agree,
gentlemen, that when this piece of information is used, it is in
relation to days when my blood pressure was high. That's what it seems.
However, that is not accurate. I have an official document stamped and
signed by the authorised officer of the Detention Unit, the only one
who is in charge of medical records, which states in view of the fact
that on several occasions I had a very severe case of flu with high
fever, and it says "Dates of flu." In 2001, it was one week. In 2002,
it was one week. In early 2003, it was ten days. In May 2003, two
weeks. And finally in 2004, in February, two weeks. In total, that
amounts to six and a half weeks of flu involving high fever in various
periods.
What happened then, gentlemen, then back in February 2004, when I was
running a high fever and having flu and was bedridden, I received
notification that the appeal -- that the Prosecution case had been
completed and that I was to prepare my list of witnesses. I therefore
asked the liaison officer from the Registry, who is sitting here,
whether, being ill, I was allowed to have an extension of that deadline
because the task involves a huge amount of work. In those six and a
half weeks, I was supposed to prepare a list of witnesses and was not
able to start immediately.
I was informed by a Trial Chamber, through their legal assistant or
whatever they call it, that the deadline cannot be moved. Therefore, I
practically had to work from my bed at a very high intensity and to
work very hard to comply with the deadline and submit that list within
the six weeks given me from the time when I was informed of the
completion of the Prosecution case.
That is what caused stress, shortage of sleep, and other problems.
And this complete disregard for the rule that I was allowed to work for
only three days a week drove my tension and blood pressure up. In other
words, it was the Trial Chamber who caused it with their decision and
the fact that they set unreasonable deadlines. And then the resulting
problems were used as an excuse to impose counsel on me with the
explanation that I was unable to handle the preparations required
myself. That is what happened.
I can give you this paper which shows exactly how many weeks were in
issue, with appropriate dates and signatures. The loss of days caused
by this was completely unrelated to the problems I was experiencing. It
is, therefore, abundantly clear that this is a manipulation of findings
and facts.
It is, as a consequence, abundantly clear that all talk of
obstructionism is malicious, because if you say that about somebody who
spent 300 days examining the witnesses of the other side, calling him
an obstructionist, which he had never been in any of the 300 days of
dealing with the case of the opposing side. It is nonsense, to say the
least.
Even Mr. Nice putting forward his arguments before the Trial Chamber,
trying to deny me an extension, said that I was working very
efficiently and did not need an extension of the deadline. Therefore,
in my then-health situation, I experienced additional pressure which
caused a deterioration of my health, which was then used as a pretext
for assigning counsel on me.
When I did not have any other health problems, I worked quite
efficiently indeed, except for the times when I had flu with high
fever, which nobody is immune from, and nobody can guarantee that it
would not happen to them.
You asked me a number of questions that I will attempt to answer.
What is the best solution? The best and the only solution, in my
opinion, is for you to give me back my rights. Your stand-by counsel is
of no interest to me whatsoever.
Mr. Kay used to be an amicus curiae. He, as well as his colleague, upon
leave of the Trial Chamber, put questions to witnesses when he deemed
fit. As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to such practice at
all. As far as I'm concerned, in that capacity he can continue if you
think that necessary. He can continue to put questions to witnesses or
perform any other tasks.
But it is indubitable that the only solution, the only one I see as
just, fair, logical and reasonable is to give me back my right to
represent myself, to call witnesses, to examine them, and to lead
evidence in my Defence case.
That amounts, practically, to the guarantees I enjoy under every
international covenant, agreement, treaty, and finally your own Statute.
And I cannot agree to anything less because that is my principled
position, one from which I do not intend to retreat. So much, Mr.
Meron. Thank you for your attention.
THEODOR MERON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, what would you
suggest to the Court? How should it act if you would have to reduce
your presence in the courtroom even beyond the three days that you have
been able to cope with in the past? Imagine for a moment that you could
be in the court, bearing also -- taking into account also the time you
would need in the detention centre to prepare, only one day a week.
Would you -- do you believe that the Court can go on if the situation
would arise in that context? Do give us some practical suggestions to
try and, in fairness, to remedy the situation that has arisen.
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: Mr. Meron, your question is completely
logical. I believe, however, that one should take into account the
history of the accumulation of the present problems. Namely, several
times - and this is known to everybody sitting here and it can be seen
from the transcript - at the moment when this so-called trial began
with charges from the Kosovo indictments, indictments on Croatia and
Bosnia were issued. At that time, I received over half a million pages
of material from the other side in connection with the charges raised
then.
On several occasions, I asked them, "When do you gentlemen suppose that
I can read this? Will you give me time to review this material, to
familiarise myself with it and to respond?" The answer I constantly
received was that the Trial Chamber would consider it.
And finally we ended up in this situation where I have not been given
time to talk to my potential witnesses. In fact, I talked to as many
witnesses as I had time to talk with. And during the summer recess and
preparation, I was allowed to receive witnesses three days a week.
I assume you know that the opposite side spends sometimes several days
speaking to one witness. I speak to one witness a day, sometimes two
witnesses per day. I cannot be any more expedient than that. I believe,
therefore, you should bear in mind that if it is true, and it is
written in para 10 of the reasoned decision of the Trial Chamber on the
assignment of counsel, since on the 30th of September it heard the
arguments of sides to the proceedings, the Trial Chamber made its
decision on the basis of the medical report concerning the accused's
health that the Chamber would sit three days each week.
That decision was made back then, and I believe that coupled with
observation of this rule, a three-day work rule for the courtroom, and
in view of the fact that I had not been given the opportunity in a
timely manner to talk to my witnesses, a compromise is being made now
between this and the decision made as a result. You should see what is
fair in this situation. I believe that we can keep up the dynamics of
three workdays per week with the proviso that weeks off should be taken
occasionally so that I can proof witnesses I intend to call. And that
would be a perfectly reasonable timetable enabling us to conduct these
proceedings in a perfectly normal manner, achieving all that we have to
achieve.
Those are my practical suggestions.
THEODOR MERON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Of course, some of the
difficulties that you have alluded to in terms of pressure on you, in
terms of tension, are a result of the fact that you chose not to have a
counsel. You have your legal advisors. Had you named them as your
counsel, they would have borne some of the burden that you -- that you
took upon yourself. And from the perspective of the Court, shouldn't a
person accept the consequences of his decision? You chose to go this
way, and you made things so much more difficult for yourself. Mr.
Milosevic.
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: Mr. Meron, in support and in favour of
Mr. Kay, who very correctly put forward his position, because I really
have nothing personal against him, and he is doubtlessly a very capable
lawyer, nevertheless, no lawyer, Mr. Kay or any other lawyer, is able
to replace me in this job. It is simply because of the nature of these
charges.
This is a political trial. What is at issue here is not at all whether
I committed a crime. What is at issue is that certain intentions are
ascribed to me from which consequences are later derived that are
beyond the expertise of any conceivable lawyer.
The point here is that the truth about the events in the former
Yugoslavia has to be told here. It is that which is at issue, not the
procedural questions, because I'm not sitting here because I was
accused of a specific crime. I'm sitting here because I am accused of
conducting a policy against the interests of this or another party. The
nature of the proceedings here is such that a lawyer cannot deal with
it. In fact, even that is not the issue. The issue is whether I have
the right to represent myself under the Statute, and the Statute says I
do.
PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: You should be clear on this mystification
regarding the alleged failure to comply with my therapy.
You can find out the truth from the authorised medical personnel at the
Detention Unit. I'm going to explain.
There is no mystification whatsoever. I was told one day that the next
day a test would be made to ascertain how much of the medication I'm
taking is actually absorbed by my body, and that I would receive
medication at 7.00 a.m. in order to take a blood sample five hours
later at 2.00 p.m. and the concentration of the medication would be
measured in my blood. There is a record of this. At 7.00 a.m. exactly I
took the medication, and two hours later a blood sample was taken. The
analysis, however, showed that the concentration in my blood was not
sufficient.
What business of that is mine? Please tell me. I don't know what was
wrong, whether there was enough of the concentration of the medication
in the pill itself or not or something else was the problem. In any
case, I complied with the procedure fully. Everything was done
properly. And to base a theory on the allegation that I'm refusing to
take my medicine is absolutely senseless. The procedure could have been
checked. Another method could have been chosen, because no method is
absolutely foolproof, but to take such conclusions is absolutely
uncalled for, especially by laymen such as Mr. Nice. I will not waste
any more time on this.
Second, regarding the campaign, you intervened, Mr. Meron, when I used
the word "campaign" and when I mentioned Michael Scharf. Michael Scharf
used to be the legal advisor of Madeleine Albright, as you know, I
suppose. You also know that I was brought here on the 5th of July,
being ill when the Trial Chamber ignored the fact that I'm ill, and the
press came here to hear my opening statement although they were not
notified that there would be no opening statement on that day.
You know, Madeleine Albright was here and that she personally is
anxious, in view of her own responsibility for the bombing of my
country and her own participation in aiding Croatian forces in the
Operation Storm when several hundred thousand Serbs were expelled from
Croatia.
And the next day, Mr. Prosper, the ambassador of your country, a person
in charge of these issues, arrived.
Mrs. Albright is often referred to as the mother of this Tribunal and
her personal interest, vested interest, is indubitable. It is doubtless
that she has a role in this campaign, and you can see this
argumentation that she shares in the transcript of Mr. Nice's speech.
Mr. Nice spoke here, and I wish to respond to several of the things he
said. He said it was up to me whether I would accept what has been
offered. This is not a situation of offering or accepting. We are not
at the bazaar where people are offering and taking. We have a
completely different situation here. We are discussing the minimum of
my rights, on which I insist. It is not a case of offering and
accepting or not accepting wherein I am to take the consequences of my
own refusal.
What is at issue here is to observe the minimum of my guaranteed rights.
Second, isn't it absolutely clear that I have the right to appoint
counsel, but I also have the right not to appoint counsel? I am
exercising my right not to appoint counsel; in other words, my right to
represent myself. Therefore, I am acting in full conformity with the
spirit of the right given me.
Furthermore, Mr. Nice says that a judgement can be taken even without a
Defence case, because several witnesses have been here, none of which
have provided any evidence. So a judgement can be taken without a
Defence. That is precisely their aim, because a Defence put forward by
an imposed counsel is not my defence. That, I hope, need not be proven.
Defence through an imposed counsel is a legal fiction.
Furthermore, Mr. Nice says that I gave a list of witnesses to Mr. Kay.
That is not true. I disclosed my witness list through the liaison
officer answerable to the Trial Chamber. Mr. Kay, in his official
capacity, has access to that list of witnesses, and through no fault of
his, he has -- he doesn't know what to do with it, as he doesn't know
what to do with the list of thousands of exhibits that I made
available, because if we keep this
limit of 150 days, Mr. Kay does not know what selection I personally
would have made out of the 1.600 witnesses to fit into the 150 days.
And you will admit, gentlemen, that a bad use of witnesses and exhibits
is worse than a complete failure to use witnesses and exhibits.
Then Mr. Nice asked the question, Who is running this court? That is
not the question here. The question here is, Who is running my Defence,
me or Mr. Nice?
For the duration of their half time, I didn't show a shadow of
intention to interfere with their business, whereas they have wanted
all the time to organise my Defence and to dictate the terms and
conditions of my exercise of my own rights. That is absolutely
inappropriate. I didn't take away my own right to self-representation;
it was taken away from me by the Trial Chamber.
I therefore demand my right to represent myself back. I believe that my
legal position cannot be changed in the middle of the trial, or my
capacity to defend myself, and I demand my right back. Thank you.
***********************************************************
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM www.icdsm.org Sofia-New York-Moscow
SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION - Member of the World Peace Council
www.sloboda.org.yu Belgrade
*********************************************************
URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL
*********************************************************
After the Hague Tribunal declared war against human rights and
International Law by banning President Milosevic's right to
self-defense, our activities for his liberation and for the restoration
of his freedom and for the national sovereignty of the Serbian people
need to be reorganized and intensified.
We need professional, legal work now more than ever. Thus, the
creation of conditions for that work is the imperative at this moment.
*******************************************
The petition of 100 lawyers and law professors from 18 countries, and
other related activities of the ICDSM Legal Committee, produced a
public effect incomparable to any other previous action by the ICDSM.
President Milosevic has the truth and law on his side. In order to use
that advantage to achieve his freedom, we must fight this totally
discredited tribunal and its patrons through professionally conducted
actions which would involve the Bar Associations, the European Court,
the UN organs in charge and the media.
Our practice has shown that ad hoc voluntary work is not enough to
deal properly with these tasks. The funds secured in Serbia are still
enough only to cover the expenses of the stay and work of President
Milosevic's legal associates at The Hague (one at the time). The funds
secured by the German section of the ICDSM (still the only one with
regular contributions) are enough only to cover minimal additional work
at The Hague connected with contacts and preparations of foreign
witnesses. Everything else is lacking.
***********************************************************
3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.
Our history and our people oblige us to go on with this necessary
action.
But without these funds it will not be possible.
Please organize urgently the fundraising activity
and send the donations to the following ICDSM accounts:
Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63
SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS
or
Vereinigung für Internationale Solidarität (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5
************************************************************
All of your donations will be used for legal and other necessary
accompanying activities, on instruction or with the consent of
President Milosevic. To obtain additional information on the use of
your donations or to obtain additional advice on the most efficient way
to submit your donations or to make bank transfers, please do not
hesitate to contact us:
Peter Betscher (ICDSM Treasurer) E-mail: peter_betscher @ freenet.de
Phone: +49 172 7566 014
Vladimir Krsljanin (ICDSM Secretary) E-mail: slobodavk @ yubc.net
Phone: +381 63 8862 301
The ICDSM and Sloboda need to address governments, international human
rights and legal organizations, and to launch legal proceedings. The
ICDSM plans a legal conference at The Hague. Sloboda has just sent to
the patriotic factions in the Serbian Parliament an initiative to adopt
a parliamentary Resolution against the human rights violations by the
Hague Tribunal and to form an international team of experts to make an
extensive report on these violations which would be submitted to the UN.
***************************************************************
For truth and human rights against aggression!
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!
Freedom and equality for people!
On behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM,
Vladimir Krsljanin,
Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic
*************************************************************
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
==========================
ICDSM - Sezione Italiana
c/o GAMADI, Via L. Da Vinci 27
00043 Ciampino (Roma)
tel/fax +39-06-4828957
email: icdsm-italia @ libero.it
*** CONTRIBUISCI E FAI CONTRIBUIRE:
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC ***
IL NOSTRO SITO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.htm
IL TESTO IN LINGUA ITALIANA DELLA AUTODIFESA DI MILOSEVIC, IN CORSO
DI REVISIONE E CORREZIONE, E' TEMPORANEAMENTE OSPITATO ALLA PAGINA:
https://www.cnj.it/documentazione/autodifesa04.htm
LE TRASCRIZIONI "UFFICIALI" DEL "PROCESSO" SI TROVANO AI SITI:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/transe54.htm (IN ENGLISH)
http://www.un.org/icty/transf54/transf54.htm (EN FRANCAIS)
==========================