==========================
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)
==========================
[ "La Rambouillet dell'Aia": e' questo il titolo di una analisi
dell'ICDSM e dell'Associazione Sloboda sulla attuale fase al "processo"
dell'Aia.
Rinnoviamo il nostro
APPELLO A SOSTENERE LA DIFESA DI SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: CONTRIBUISCI E FAI
CONTRIBUIRE usando il
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
Vedi anche: http://www.pasti.org/traduz.htm%c2%a0 ]
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Dom 31 Ott 2004 18:19:54 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: The Hague Rambouillet (Statement of the ICDSM and Sloboda)
**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
**************************************************************
SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION - Member of the World Peace Council
Belgrade
www.sloboda.org.yu
**************************************************************
COOPERATE, OR ELSE:
THE ICTY RAMBOUILLET
JOINT STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN
MILOSEVIC AND OF THE SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION
Issued: 31 October 2004
The integrity of President Milosevic's consistent refusal to recognize
the ICTY as a judicial body, and his determination to demonstrate the
West's active destruction of Yugoslavia-- and this despite his own
constant efforts, largely successful, to negotiate peace in the face of
a concerted campaign to increase hostilities, divisions, unrest, and
violence, unto months of bombing, in stunning violation of
international law-- has succeeded in showing the dead end of the
institution's imposition of counsel, and, ultimately, of the
institution itself.
And, as President Milosevic argued in his opening statement, just
before counsel was imposed:
"I am aware, gentlemen, that it is illusory to look for logic in a show
trial. There were such processes before, the one of Dreyfuss or of
Dimitrov - regarding the Reichstag fire, but this process exceeds those
by the depth of the tragic consequences that it entails. I do not even
wish to say anything on a personal note in this, but I would like to
stress the depth of the tragic consequences for the whole world since
the universal legal order has been destroyed.
In the past, there were honourable authors who have carved the truth
into history so that coming generations would be ashamed and would not
repeat the mistakes. In the true history of this era, your ad hoc
"justice" will be listed as an illustration of monstrous events on the
toggle between the two centuries.
You, gentlemen, cannot imagine how big privilege it is, even in these
conditions that you have imposed on me, to have truth and justice as
allies.
You certainly, I am sure about that, cannot even conceive this."
Counsel to resign, ICTY to shut down?
On Tuesday, October 26th, Steven Kay, QC, and his colleague, Gillian
Higgins, filed a request to withdraw as imposed lawyers for President
Milosevic, arguing that they could not ethically carry out their
functions as defense counsel in absence of instructions from him, or
cooperation from his witnesses. This comes at a significant moment in
the ICTY's now clearly threatened existence.
Despite a subsequent denial from Washington, US media last weekend
published comments by undersecretary for arms control John Bolton,
stating that the current administration was dissatisfied with
proceedings at the ICTY, and wished to see its "completion strategy"
accelerated. In other words, close it down, transfer cases back to
domestic courts, and even grant amnesty.
Last June, the ICTY adopted an amendment to its rules of procedure and
evidence permitting just such deferrals. Undersecretary Bolton and
other senior State Department officials are said to believe that the
"ICTY has degenerated into a politicized tribunal", but their
complaints are aimed solely at Carla Del Ponte, and not at any of the
other equally politicized organs of the institution. Washington also
clearly stated its frustration with the pace of the Milosevic case,
which has as of yet failed to produce a conviction. From Bolton's
comments, it is obvious that President Milosevic would not be a
suitable candidate for transfer to the jurisdiction of Serbia and
Montenegro, unlike, for example, Operation Storm's Ante Gotovina, whose
indictment-- described as "bogus"-- could conveniently be deferred to
Croatia. Mere days after this article was published in the Washington
Times, ICTY President Theodor Meron traveled to Zagreb, to discuss the
"completion strategy" with the Croatian government, according to an ICTY
press release.
An institution whose birth-- keeping in mind that former ICTY President
Gabrielle Kirk-MacDonald described Madeleine Albright as the "mother of
the Tribunal"-- and death are the result of political decisions cannot
be said to be judicial. This has been President Milosevic's argument
from the start, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that he has
been correct all along.
Imposition of counsel immediately before defense witnesses are called
was therefore required to put a stop to a presentation that would have
embarrassed the institution far more than an illegitimate conviction.
For the past two months, President Milosevic has demanded his right to
self-representation be restored. The Trial Chamber's president, Patrick
Robinson, has called these requests "petulant" and "puerile".
Prosecutor Nice has called Milosevic "irrational".
Imposition of counsel to prevent a political defense before a political
body
Imposed counsel appealed the September 2nd ruling assigning them to
represent Slobodan Milosevic. Steven Kay told the Appeals Chamber that
President Milosevic's objection to imposition, as well as his choice to
present his own case-- derided by the Prosecutor, of all people, as
"political" and "irrational"-- was "a rational demonstration of his
position rather than anything irrational."
Indeed, President Milosevic demonstrated during this hearing how
imposition of counsel was the result of a campaign to silence him, (as
well as his witnesses) and set out the sequence of events that led to
imposition. He first pointed out that Madeleine Albright had attended
the ICTY the very day it expressed its intention to "radically" reform
the process last July, which visit was soon followed by that of US War
Crimes Ambassador Pierre-Richard Prosper. Then came a blatantly
political attempt to have counsel imposed in the Washington Post by
Michael Scharf, a former high-level employee of Albright's. Professor
Scharf clearly stated that the very objectives of the ICTY, at the
moment of its creation in 1993, were already to "pin responsibility on
Milosevic", to "educate Serbs" about the crimes committed by his
"regime", and, oddly, already in 1993, "promote catharsis", by
permitting "newly-elected" leaders to distance themselves from the
policies of the past.
Those most intimately connected with the creation of this Security
Council institution advocate imposition of counsel, in the media, for
political reasons. Imposition violates international law, and is at
odds with the right to self-representation granted by such dubious
examples of fairness as Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany in the
Mandela and Dimitrov trials, respectively. Furthermore, they have no
hesitation candidly demonstrating that this process is fundamentally
political, and a tool of Western foreign policy. At the very least, the
principle of equality of arms and basic concepts of fairness and equity
should support President Milosevic's right to represent himself, and to
present his case without interference from those who would have the
surprising gall to call it "political".
As President Milosevic informed the court, a petition signed by 100
lawyers from the world over, establishing the basis under international
law for the right to self-representation, was sent to the Security
Council, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and to the ICTY.
The Belgrade Bar Association has similarly published a considered and
well-argued statement objecting to the violation of Mr. Milosevic's
rights under international human rights instruments and the ICTY's own
rules.
Imposed Counsel and "non-cooperation"
Slobodan Milosevic's witnesses have acted with integrity in pointing
out that they had agreed to testify for his defense, and not an
ICTY-appointed defense, designed by lawyers who had been acting on
behalf of another party for years, and in particular as "friends of the
court", this "court" which Mr. Milosevic still refuses to recognize.
That conflict of interest, known in Great Britain as "professional
embarrassment", is a cause for removal from a brief under the British
Code of conduct to which the two imposed counsel are subject. Mr. Kay
and Ms. Higgins had already in August indicated that they would be
professionally embarrassed if imposed against the will of President
Milosevic. Yet, when imposed as counsel for Milosevic on September 2nd,
they accepted their assignments without question. And as they began
their presentation of witnesses, without even requesting a minimal
period of preparation, -- this after having themselves stated, in their
August 13th motion opposing imposition of counsel, that witnesses would
likely not cooperate with them-- the issue of professional
embarassment, conflict of interest, or absence of instructions from
President Milosevic were not raised. A mere five witnesses were called
over a period of 2 months, punctuated by interruptions, and
increasingly public opposition, by the witnesses, to any participation
in the violation of President Milosevic's rights. And despite their
"client's" consistent objection to their representation, the
realization that it is impossible ethically to present his defense only
just occurs?
Yet the imposed counsel, while acting as amici curiae, argued last
August that: "To impose counsel against the will of an accused is to
contravene his right to self-representation," and added that imposition
could also cause its own delays as the defense counsel would need a
long time to familiarize themselves with the case. These delays-- the
avoidance of which had been the Chamber's stated preoccupation mere
months before-- have indeed been caused by imposition itself, and not
because imposed counsel requested time to prepare. Delays no longer
seem such a central concern. Imposed counsels simply do not have what
they describe as the "cooperation" of the defendant, or of his
witnesses, and therefore frequently had nothing to present.
In contrast, former amicus curiae Branislav Tapuskovic had been
approached over the summer months by the ICTY Registry and been asked
whether he would consider acting as imposed counsel for Slobodan
Milosevic. He flatly refused, and in an interview with the German daily
Junge Welt, argued that defendants have a right to self-representation
that cannot be defeated by their ill health. He further stated: "If the
physicians conclude that Slobodan Milosevic is ill, unfit to defend
himself, and cannot be present in the court, then there can be no trial
at all." His former colleagues Kay and Higgins did not articulate that
position.
Endgame
There is little or no chance that the Appeals Chamber will overturn the
decision to impose counsel on President Milosevic. Too much is at
stake, and it is obvious the clock is winding down. Trial Chamber
President Robinson has repeatedly admonished President Milosevic that
he himself was responsible for the fact that a defense was not being
presented, and that "assignment" (the Chamber prefers this to
"imposition", which perhaps gives the wrong impression) was made in the
interests of a fair trial. These interests apparently supercede an
accused person's right to present his own defense. And since President
Milosevic is described by assigned counsel as the source of their
ethical inability to further act, and that the Chamber has told him
that he must cooperate with assigned counsel, which he will not do, as
it violates his rights, it could be absurdly suggested that it is he,
Slobodan Milosevic who is violating the ICTY's right to a fair trial.
Perhaps he has not violated the ICTY's "right" to a fair trial, at
least as envisaged by international law. It is, however, quite likely
that he has succeeded in derailing a process which was meant to attain
the political aims set out by Professor Scharf: to educate "Serbs", pin
responsibility on Milosevic, and to permit newly-elected leaders to
distance themselves from him-- and presumably move much closer to the
West, in particular to those countries who bombed Yugoslavia precisely
when Milosevic was indicted. He has simply inflicted collateral damage
to their completion strategy.
If President Milosevic is deemed responsible for the deadlock, there is
little to be done but to wrap up the matter, and return the judgment.
This has been Prosecutor Nice's position, and it is ultimately
supported by Mr. Kay's submissions to the effect that it is Mr.
Milosevic's non-cooperation which prevents him-- and indeed any other
lawyer put in a similar position-- from representing him without
violating several provisions of the ICTY's own Code of professional
conduct. If no lawyer can represent him, as Kay argues, without
infringing professional ethics, then there are only two possibilities:
(a) restore the right to self-representation, in accordance with the
provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
or
(b) persist in misguided, illegal imposition, and create a deadlock
that President Milosevic can conveniently be blamed for. The latter
"solution" would speed up pending matters before the ICTY considerably,
and certainly contribute to an acceleration of the "completion
strategy", setting the stage for a deferral of cases to domestic
jurisdictions such as Croatia and Bosnia, and the granting of amnesty
to select indictees. Such a decision would not be consistent with the
requirements of legality, nor would it have any legitimacy, no matter
how forcefully the ICTY, its media cheerleaders, or academic apologists
would argue that "Milosevic brought it onto himself".
If the ICTY were not a political construct, it could and would simply
restore President Milosevic's right to self-representation. Judicial
institutions are independent bodies who suffer no interference from the
executive branch; they do not rewrite their own rules in mid-trial,
they do not emerge from the ether, survive for a few years, then hurry
to shut down their operations. Criminal courts are committed to an
unwavering respect for the Rule of law, which in adversary proceedings
means that people can only be tried "in an ordinary manner, before the
ordinary courts of the land". Courts do not engage in public relations
activities, "outreach programs", nor do they attempt to influence the
policies of foreign governments.
And so, since Mr. Kay argues compellingly that no lawyer can
meaningfully represent President Milosevic, as assigned counsel, or
even as "stand-by counsel", nor can he or she do so without violating
professional ethics, we see that there can be no defense at all unless
the right to self-representation is restored.
But as Steven Kay told the Appeals Chamber: " in terms of a solution,
it may be that he undertakes his own consequences rather than us
wasting resources believing, and people kidding themselves, making
believe that what is happening here is a proper Defense."
"His own consequences". A familiar phrase. Could it be that we are
witnessing the ICTY's sequel to Rambouillet? Let us endeavor to learn
from history, this time.
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
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)
==========================
[ "La Rambouillet dell'Aia": e' questo il titolo di una analisi
dell'ICDSM e dell'Associazione Sloboda sulla attuale fase al "processo"
dell'Aia.
Rinnoviamo il nostro
APPELLO A SOSTENERE LA DIFESA DI SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: CONTRIBUISCI E FAI
CONTRIBUIRE usando il
Conto Corrente Postale numero 86557006
intestato ad Adolfo Amoroso, ROMA
causale: DIFESA MILOSEVIC
Vedi anche: http://www.pasti.org/traduz.htm%c2%a0 ]
Da: "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Data: Dom 31 Ott 2004 18:19:54 Europe/Rome
Oggetto: The Hague Rambouillet (Statement of the ICDSM and Sloboda)
**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
**************************************************************
SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION - Member of the World Peace Council
Belgrade
www.sloboda.org.yu
**************************************************************
COOPERATE, OR ELSE:
THE ICTY RAMBOUILLET
JOINT STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN
MILOSEVIC AND OF THE SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION
Issued: 31 October 2004
The integrity of President Milosevic's consistent refusal to recognize
the ICTY as a judicial body, and his determination to demonstrate the
West's active destruction of Yugoslavia-- and this despite his own
constant efforts, largely successful, to negotiate peace in the face of
a concerted campaign to increase hostilities, divisions, unrest, and
violence, unto months of bombing, in stunning violation of
international law-- has succeeded in showing the dead end of the
institution's imposition of counsel, and, ultimately, of the
institution itself.
And, as President Milosevic argued in his opening statement, just
before counsel was imposed:
"I am aware, gentlemen, that it is illusory to look for logic in a show
trial. There were such processes before, the one of Dreyfuss or of
Dimitrov - regarding the Reichstag fire, but this process exceeds those
by the depth of the tragic consequences that it entails. I do not even
wish to say anything on a personal note in this, but I would like to
stress the depth of the tragic consequences for the whole world since
the universal legal order has been destroyed.
In the past, there were honourable authors who have carved the truth
into history so that coming generations would be ashamed and would not
repeat the mistakes. In the true history of this era, your ad hoc
"justice" will be listed as an illustration of monstrous events on the
toggle between the two centuries.
You, gentlemen, cannot imagine how big privilege it is, even in these
conditions that you have imposed on me, to have truth and justice as
allies.
You certainly, I am sure about that, cannot even conceive this."
Counsel to resign, ICTY to shut down?
On Tuesday, October 26th, Steven Kay, QC, and his colleague, Gillian
Higgins, filed a request to withdraw as imposed lawyers for President
Milosevic, arguing that they could not ethically carry out their
functions as defense counsel in absence of instructions from him, or
cooperation from his witnesses. This comes at a significant moment in
the ICTY's now clearly threatened existence.
Despite a subsequent denial from Washington, US media last weekend
published comments by undersecretary for arms control John Bolton,
stating that the current administration was dissatisfied with
proceedings at the ICTY, and wished to see its "completion strategy"
accelerated. In other words, close it down, transfer cases back to
domestic courts, and even grant amnesty.
Last June, the ICTY adopted an amendment to its rules of procedure and
evidence permitting just such deferrals. Undersecretary Bolton and
other senior State Department officials are said to believe that the
"ICTY has degenerated into a politicized tribunal", but their
complaints are aimed solely at Carla Del Ponte, and not at any of the
other equally politicized organs of the institution. Washington also
clearly stated its frustration with the pace of the Milosevic case,
which has as of yet failed to produce a conviction. From Bolton's
comments, it is obvious that President Milosevic would not be a
suitable candidate for transfer to the jurisdiction of Serbia and
Montenegro, unlike, for example, Operation Storm's Ante Gotovina, whose
indictment-- described as "bogus"-- could conveniently be deferred to
Croatia. Mere days after this article was published in the Washington
Times, ICTY President Theodor Meron traveled to Zagreb, to discuss the
"completion strategy" with the Croatian government, according to an ICTY
press release.
An institution whose birth-- keeping in mind that former ICTY President
Gabrielle Kirk-MacDonald described Madeleine Albright as the "mother of
the Tribunal"-- and death are the result of political decisions cannot
be said to be judicial. This has been President Milosevic's argument
from the start, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that he has
been correct all along.
Imposition of counsel immediately before defense witnesses are called
was therefore required to put a stop to a presentation that would have
embarrassed the institution far more than an illegitimate conviction.
For the past two months, President Milosevic has demanded his right to
self-representation be restored. The Trial Chamber's president, Patrick
Robinson, has called these requests "petulant" and "puerile".
Prosecutor Nice has called Milosevic "irrational".
Imposition of counsel to prevent a political defense before a political
body
Imposed counsel appealed the September 2nd ruling assigning them to
represent Slobodan Milosevic. Steven Kay told the Appeals Chamber that
President Milosevic's objection to imposition, as well as his choice to
present his own case-- derided by the Prosecutor, of all people, as
"political" and "irrational"-- was "a rational demonstration of his
position rather than anything irrational."
Indeed, President Milosevic demonstrated during this hearing how
imposition of counsel was the result of a campaign to silence him, (as
well as his witnesses) and set out the sequence of events that led to
imposition. He first pointed out that Madeleine Albright had attended
the ICTY the very day it expressed its intention to "radically" reform
the process last July, which visit was soon followed by that of US War
Crimes Ambassador Pierre-Richard Prosper. Then came a blatantly
political attempt to have counsel imposed in the Washington Post by
Michael Scharf, a former high-level employee of Albright's. Professor
Scharf clearly stated that the very objectives of the ICTY, at the
moment of its creation in 1993, were already to "pin responsibility on
Milosevic", to "educate Serbs" about the crimes committed by his
"regime", and, oddly, already in 1993, "promote catharsis", by
permitting "newly-elected" leaders to distance themselves from the
policies of the past.
Those most intimately connected with the creation of this Security
Council institution advocate imposition of counsel, in the media, for
political reasons. Imposition violates international law, and is at
odds with the right to self-representation granted by such dubious
examples of fairness as Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany in the
Mandela and Dimitrov trials, respectively. Furthermore, they have no
hesitation candidly demonstrating that this process is fundamentally
political, and a tool of Western foreign policy. At the very least, the
principle of equality of arms and basic concepts of fairness and equity
should support President Milosevic's right to represent himself, and to
present his case without interference from those who would have the
surprising gall to call it "political".
As President Milosevic informed the court, a petition signed by 100
lawyers from the world over, establishing the basis under international
law for the right to self-representation, was sent to the Security
Council, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and to the ICTY.
The Belgrade Bar Association has similarly published a considered and
well-argued statement objecting to the violation of Mr. Milosevic's
rights under international human rights instruments and the ICTY's own
rules.
Imposed Counsel and "non-cooperation"
Slobodan Milosevic's witnesses have acted with integrity in pointing
out that they had agreed to testify for his defense, and not an
ICTY-appointed defense, designed by lawyers who had been acting on
behalf of another party for years, and in particular as "friends of the
court", this "court" which Mr. Milosevic still refuses to recognize.
That conflict of interest, known in Great Britain as "professional
embarrassment", is a cause for removal from a brief under the British
Code of conduct to which the two imposed counsel are subject. Mr. Kay
and Ms. Higgins had already in August indicated that they would be
professionally embarrassed if imposed against the will of President
Milosevic. Yet, when imposed as counsel for Milosevic on September 2nd,
they accepted their assignments without question. And as they began
their presentation of witnesses, without even requesting a minimal
period of preparation, -- this after having themselves stated, in their
August 13th motion opposing imposition of counsel, that witnesses would
likely not cooperate with them-- the issue of professional
embarassment, conflict of interest, or absence of instructions from
President Milosevic were not raised. A mere five witnesses were called
over a period of 2 months, punctuated by interruptions, and
increasingly public opposition, by the witnesses, to any participation
in the violation of President Milosevic's rights. And despite their
"client's" consistent objection to their representation, the
realization that it is impossible ethically to present his defense only
just occurs?
Yet the imposed counsel, while acting as amici curiae, argued last
August that: "To impose counsel against the will of an accused is to
contravene his right to self-representation," and added that imposition
could also cause its own delays as the defense counsel would need a
long time to familiarize themselves with the case. These delays-- the
avoidance of which had been the Chamber's stated preoccupation mere
months before-- have indeed been caused by imposition itself, and not
because imposed counsel requested time to prepare. Delays no longer
seem such a central concern. Imposed counsels simply do not have what
they describe as the "cooperation" of the defendant, or of his
witnesses, and therefore frequently had nothing to present.
In contrast, former amicus curiae Branislav Tapuskovic had been
approached over the summer months by the ICTY Registry and been asked
whether he would consider acting as imposed counsel for Slobodan
Milosevic. He flatly refused, and in an interview with the German daily
Junge Welt, argued that defendants have a right to self-representation
that cannot be defeated by their ill health. He further stated: "If the
physicians conclude that Slobodan Milosevic is ill, unfit to defend
himself, and cannot be present in the court, then there can be no trial
at all." His former colleagues Kay and Higgins did not articulate that
position.
Endgame
There is little or no chance that the Appeals Chamber will overturn the
decision to impose counsel on President Milosevic. Too much is at
stake, and it is obvious the clock is winding down. Trial Chamber
President Robinson has repeatedly admonished President Milosevic that
he himself was responsible for the fact that a defense was not being
presented, and that "assignment" (the Chamber prefers this to
"imposition", which perhaps gives the wrong impression) was made in the
interests of a fair trial. These interests apparently supercede an
accused person's right to present his own defense. And since President
Milosevic is described by assigned counsel as the source of their
ethical inability to further act, and that the Chamber has told him
that he must cooperate with assigned counsel, which he will not do, as
it violates his rights, it could be absurdly suggested that it is he,
Slobodan Milosevic who is violating the ICTY's right to a fair trial.
Perhaps he has not violated the ICTY's "right" to a fair trial, at
least as envisaged by international law. It is, however, quite likely
that he has succeeded in derailing a process which was meant to attain
the political aims set out by Professor Scharf: to educate "Serbs", pin
responsibility on Milosevic, and to permit newly-elected leaders to
distance themselves from him-- and presumably move much closer to the
West, in particular to those countries who bombed Yugoslavia precisely
when Milosevic was indicted. He has simply inflicted collateral damage
to their completion strategy.
If President Milosevic is deemed responsible for the deadlock, there is
little to be done but to wrap up the matter, and return the judgment.
This has been Prosecutor Nice's position, and it is ultimately
supported by Mr. Kay's submissions to the effect that it is Mr.
Milosevic's non-cooperation which prevents him-- and indeed any other
lawyer put in a similar position-- from representing him without
violating several provisions of the ICTY's own Code of professional
conduct. If no lawyer can represent him, as Kay argues, without
infringing professional ethics, then there are only two possibilities:
(a) restore the right to self-representation, in accordance with the
provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
or
(b) persist in misguided, illegal imposition, and create a deadlock
that President Milosevic can conveniently be blamed for. The latter
"solution" would speed up pending matters before the ICTY considerably,
and certainly contribute to an acceleration of the "completion
strategy", setting the stage for a deferral of cases to domestic
jurisdictions such as Croatia and Bosnia, and the granting of amnesty
to select indictees. Such a decision would not be consistent with the
requirements of legality, nor would it have any legitimacy, no matter
how forcefully the ICTY, its media cheerleaders, or academic apologists
would argue that "Milosevic brought it onto himself".
If the ICTY were not a political construct, it could and would simply
restore President Milosevic's right to self-representation. Judicial
institutions are independent bodies who suffer no interference from the
executive branch; they do not rewrite their own rules in mid-trial,
they do not emerge from the ether, survive for a few years, then hurry
to shut down their operations. Criminal courts are committed to an
unwavering respect for the Rule of law, which in adversary proceedings
means that people can only be tried "in an ordinary manner, before the
ordinary courts of the land". Courts do not engage in public relations
activities, "outreach programs", nor do they attempt to influence the
policies of foreign governments.
And so, since Mr. Kay argues compellingly that no lawyer can
meaningfully represent President Milosevic, as assigned counsel, or
even as "stand-by counsel", nor can he or she do so without violating
professional ethics, we see that there can be no defense at all unless
the right to self-representation is restored.
But as Steven Kay told the Appeals Chamber: " in terms of a solution,
it may be that he undertakes his own consequences rather than us
wasting resources believing, and people kidding themselves, making
believe that what is happening here is a proper Defense."
"His own consequences". A familiar phrase. Could it be that we are
witnessing the ICTY's sequel to Rambouillet? Let us endeavor to learn
from history, this time.
***************************************************************
***************************************************************
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)