Da: "icdsm-italia\@libero\.it"
Data: Mer 8 Giu 2005 11:02:29 Europe/Rome
A: "icdsm-italia"
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] ICDSM Hague Report No.1
[Con questo invio, il Comitato Internazionale per la difesa di
Slobodan Milosevic -ICDSM- inaugura un servizio di aggiornamenti
sull'andamento del "processo". Come Sezione Italiana cercheremo di
tradurre e diffondere in lingua italiana almeno i principali tra
questi bollettini periodici.]
**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
**************************************************************
Velko Valkanov, Ramsey Clark, Alexander Zinoviev (Co-Chairmen),
Klaus Hartmann (Chairman of the Board), Vladimir Krsljanin
(Secretary), Christopher Black (Chair, Legal Committee),
Tiphaine Dickson (Legal Spokesperson)
**************************************************************
07 June 2005 Hague Report No.1
**************************************************************
Information Regarding the Current State of the Defense Case in
the "Trial" of Slobodan Milosevic
By ICDSM Hague observer
NOTE: From now on, the ICDSM will periodically circulate relevant
summaries of the developments in the Hague process against President
Slobodan Milosevic. This first issue gives summarization of the
process since the begining of the "defence case" with somewhat more
detailed description of its recent weeks.
1) The Opening of the Defense Case
On August 31, 2004 the Defense Case commenced after President
Milosevic had been given only three months for preparation - in
contrast to the "Prosecution," which investigated the "case" since the
mid 1990s - and in spite of President Milosevic's constrained working
possibilities arising from his ill-health, limited funds as well as
the fact that he was kept in detention. Of course, his requests for
provisional release were denied by the "trial chamber," despite
President Milosevic's clear intent to take part in the "trial" in
order to refute the lies about Yugoslavia in front of the
international public.
President Milosevic was given only 150 days for the presentation of
his case, half of the time the Prosecution used.
On August 31 and September 1, President Milosevic presented his
opening statement for the Defense case. In this speech, President
Milosevic revealed the one-sided and shamefully distorted character of
The Hague "indictment" against him. He exposed the "Prosecution's"
attempt to demonize the Serbian people and blame them for everything
that happened during the Yugoslav crisis. He pointed out that the
break-up of Yugoslavia was a process of continual violations of
international law and that it constituted an aggression by foreign
powers, most notably the US and the German-led European Community,
against a sovereign state. He showed that the Serbs became the main
target of these aggressive powers simply by having a vital interest in
preserving the Yugoslav Federation. The security situation of Serbs
was put at risk in the light of new threats posed against them that
were reminiscent of World War II, when at least 600.000 Serbs lost
their lives - many of them in Croatian fascist death camps. As
President Milosevic set out, the Western aggression against Yugoslavia
was mainly accomplished by means of funding and supporting
secessionist movements on the political as well as on the military
level. When these secessionist forces aimed at unilaterally declaring
the independence of the Yugoslav republics Slovenia and Croatia they
were given immediate political support: Slovenia and Croatia were
diplomatically recognized by the European Union as independent states
within their former administrative borders, even though they were
entirely lacking in the necessary legal prerequisites for this act and
without having conducted any consultations with the Serbian side. The
same thing happened again in the case of Bosnia-Hercegovina, causing
the bloody civil war the Serbs are held accountable for by the
"Prosecution." President Milosevic also described the historical
continuity in the policy of Western powers towards Yugoslavia, which
was always directed against the very existence of this multiethnic
state, and their anti-Serb propaganda which dates from the 19th
century. He laid particular emphasis on exposing the myth of "Greater
Serbia" which the "Prosecution" has frequently ascribed to him as
being part of his political aims. President Milosevic not only
rejected this allegation but also presented the fact that the concept
of "Greater Serbia" as an aggressive agenda of the Serbs had been used
as a propagandist trick against the establishment of Yugoslavia as
early as World War I by the Austro-Hungarian empire.
President Milosevic points out that there were three main forces
behind the aggressive policy of the West towards Yugoslavia, each with
their own motives: Germany, following the same geopolitical interests
in the Balkans that it did in two world wars. The Vatican, which
joined Germany's (and Austria-Hungary's) side in both world wars in an
effort to prevent the spread of Orthodox faith, and later that of
communism. The third force, the United States, was an ally of the
Serbs in World War II, but after the collapse of the Warsaw Treaty, it
was eager not to lose military influence in Europe and sacrificed the
historical friendship with Yugoslavia for political and military
interests.
President Milosevic also explained what happened in Kosovo prior to
the NATO aggression, establishing the truth about the so-called Kosovo
Liberation Army, which was in fact a terrorist organization aiming for
the creation of an ethnically pure and independent Kosovo that would
later be associated with Albania to create a Greater Albania. The KLA
was funded and trained by the West and exercised a murderous regime
over Serbs and Albanians in all areas of Kosovo and Metohija where it
managed to take over control.
President Milosevic also emphasized that the KLA, having been
transformed into the Kosovo Protection Corps under the NATO
occupation, has continued to complete its campaign of ethnic cleansing
of the remainder of the Serb population in Kosovo through outrageous
violence under the eyes of the UNMIK administration.
2) The Imposition of Counsel
Before President Milosevic was able to call his first witness, on
September 2nd the "trial chamber" made an unprecedented decision,
proving the purely political character of the ICTY, by taking away
President Milosevic's right to defend himself in person and imposing
counsel against his will. Former amici curiae Stephen Kay and Gillian
Higgins from the UK were "assigned" as counsel for President Milosevic
by the "trial chamber" in order to take full control of the conduct of
the Defense case - including the examination of witnesses. President
Milosevic's participation in his own "trial" was reduced to the
opportunity of asking "additional" questions to witnesses after their
examination and only upon permission by the "judges." The argument put
forward by the "trial chamber" (as well as by "the Prosecution") was
that in conducting his own Defense, Milosevic's health situation would
further deteriorate. (No need to note that this was the first time
that they ever cared for his health.) The "Prosecution" had already
demanded the imposition of counsel long before, for the first time in
August 2001. On July 5, 2004, the "trial chamber" for the first time
discussed the issue at full length, on the day the defense case was
publicly announced to start, and therefore in the presence of the
world media.
That very day, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited
the "tribunal"! Ever since then, the US Foreign Policy establishment
engaged heavily in a media campaign focusing on restricting president
Milosevic's right to self-defense.
Having pretended hypocritically in the beginning that they wanted to
"help" President Milosevic and were concerned about his health
situation, the "Prosecution" became more aggressive than ever before
in their last oral submission on the subject on September 1, claiming
that President Milosevic was "obstructing" the trial by his manner of
conduct in court (he is lacking "etiquette") and by "boycotting his
medical therapy" so as to render himself unable to take part in the
proceedings. (President Milosevic refuted the allegation of having
manipulated his medical regime as nonsense and revealed that he
observed manipulation with his food that was exchanged with that of
another prison inmate - No one reacted to this allegation.)
On September 29, Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins - only after accepting their
assignment and facing the strongest possible opposition from President
Milosevic -- issued an appeal against their own imposition before the
Tribunal's "Appeal Chamber," pretending to share the position of
President Milosevic. But the actual behavior of the "Assigned Counsel"
made it clear that they were fully prepared to comply with the illegal
decision of the "Trial Chamber" as they immediately began to contact
people on President Milosevic's witness list. In the meantime, more
than hundred possible witnesses informed the "Assigned Counsel" and
the "Trial Chamber" that they were not ready to give evidence unless
President Milosevic's right to self-representation were restored. On
October 18, Mr. Kay told the court that up to 90 of the witnesses he
had tried to contact refused to testify under the prevailing
circumstances. Mr. Kay also stated that he had made every effort to
convince the witnesses to come to the "Tribunal," and he did not even
object to "Presiding Judge" Robinson's announcement that subpoenas be
issued on unwilling witnesses, making it clear to everyone that Mr.
Kay and Ms. Higgins were fully on the side of the "Tribunal" and its
illegal behavior. This is not to mention the bourgeois media, which
basically stopped any kind of coverage since the start of the defense
case, and did not report a word about this historic witness boycott!
Probably because of the enormous witness boycott and the clear
position of President Milosevic not to accept anything less than his
right to self-representation, on November 1, 2004 President Milosevic
won a partial victory when the "Appeals Chamber" ruled that the
modalities of the conduct of the defense case should be changed.
President Milosevic would be allowed to conduct his own defense, but
"the presence of Assigned Counsel will enable the trial to continue
even if Milosevic is temporarily unable to participate." On closer
examination, this second part of the "Appeals Chamber's" ruling has to
be seen as raising a possibility of an even worse violation of
President Milosevic's rights than the original ruling of the Trial
Chamber, as it lays the foundations of a trial in absentia.
Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins undertook several unsuccessful steps in order
to be withdrawn from their posts as "Assigned Counsel" before the
"Trial Chamber," the Registry and the "Appeals Chamber," obviously in
an attempt to appear as victims of the Trial Chambers' decision. The
way the imposed counsel present themselves could well be aimed at
influencing witnesses in order to prevent another round of boycott in
case the imposed counsel take over in absence of President Milosevic.
So for many, it appears that Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins would not
voluntarily take part in illegal acts by the Tribunal, but are forced
to comply. In reality, they were not forced to act as "Assigned
Counsel." The Registry of the Tribunal asked several lawyers whether
they would be available to serve in this function as early as in the
beginning of August 2004. Among those lawyers was former amicus curiae
Branislav Tapuskovic, who stated in an interview with the Serbian
daily Blic of August 7, 2004 that he refused to act as President
Milosevic's lawyer against his will.
In a letter to the ICTY Registry, Mr. Tapuskovic stated: "According to
Article 21 (4)(d) of the Statute of the International Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia, the accused is guaranteed the right TO BE TRIED IN
HIS PRESENCE AND TO DEFEND HIMSELF PERSONALLY." In contrast, Mr. Kay
and Ms. Higgins expressed their readiness to do the job from the very
beginning.
3) Presentation of the Defense Case
Before President Milosevic's right to lead his case was restored, the
"Assigned Counsel" called five witnesses from President Milosevic's
witness list: Smilja Avramov, a retired law professor and former
political adviser from Serbia, James Jatras, former foreign policy
advisor for the U.S. Senate Republican Foreign Policy Committee,
Roland Keith, a Canadian OSCE commander in Kosovo, journalist Franz
Josef Hutsch from Germany, and ICDSM Vice-Chairwoman Liana Kanelli,
member of the Greek Parliament.
Mr. Kay's examinations were not in accordance with the defense
strategy of President Milosevic, which consists in exposing the
"indictment" as not only unfounded, but as an attempt to justify
Western aggression against Yugoslavia that cannot be assessed in a
legal, but only in a political context. Mr. Kay, on the contrary,
dealt with the witnesses as if "client" was facing an ordinary
criminal indictment. Apart from his general attitude that is in line
with the imperialist ideology the "Tribunal" is based on, Mr. Kay
lacks sufficient knowledge about Yugoslavia. This could be best seen
during the testimony of Liana Kanelli, when Kay used a map of Belgrade
and surroundings to find a town in Southern Serbia. Fortunately, these
witnesses managed to present important facts in spite of Mr. Kay's
ineffective questioning. Prof. Avramov, who was President Milosevic's
advisor from 1991 to 1993, made clear that President Milosevic never
had any intention to strive for a "Greater Serbia" or carry out any
kind of "ethnic cleansing," but on the contrary tried to preserve a
multiethnic Yugoslavia. James Jatras gave evidence on the involvement
of the Clinton Administration in arming the Croats and Bosnian Muslims.
Since the November 1 "Appeals Chamber" decision, President Milosevic
has been examining his witnesses. The judges have constantly
interfered with his way of conducting the examination-in-chief,
reprimanding him for allegedly putting "leading questions" to the
witnesses, presenting evidence not related to specific charges in the
"indictment," not introducing documents in the proper way and other
technical matters. It is a fact that the judges almost never applied
such strict rules during the Prosecution case. The "Prosecution"
frequently objects to the admissibility of documents and opens
discussions on "technical" matters at length with the obvious aim of
wasting as much time as possible out of the 150 days available for the
presentation of the Defense case.
During the "Prosecution's" cross-examination of Defense witnesses,
President Milosevic often points out incorrect and tendentious
translations of Serbian documents and other material. For example, he
was able to prove, confirmed by the "Tribunal's" interpreters, that a
BBC documentary shown by "Prosecutor" Mr. Nice deliberately
mistranslated Serbian speakers.
The "Judges" - especially Ian Bonomy, who replaced the late Richard
May without having had time to acquaint himself sufficiently with the
foregone proceedings - treat the defense witnesses with obvious
disrespect.
"Prosecutor" Geoffrey Nice openly insults the witnesses during his
cross examination and addresses them in a very aggressive tone,
disregarding their age, position or professional merit - contrary to
President Milosevic who had treated all Prosecution witnesses in a
respectful way.
To date, President Milosevic has called 34 witnesses himself.
Renowned intellectuals, historians and scientists, high-ranking
politicians from in and outside Yugoslavia testified on the
historical, political and legal position of Serbia - explaining the
background of the Yugoslav crisis that is completely ignored in the
"indictment" - as well as about President Milosevic's personal
attitudes and actions during the breakup of Yugoslavia which were
always aimed at preventing bloodshed.
Since the end of January 2005, witness testimonies have dealt with
Kosovo. They cover the general political situation disadvantaging the
Serbs in Kosovo in the 1980s, the terror inflicted by the KLA in the
1990s as well as the NATO aggression of 1999.
One of the most important testimonies was given by Dietmar Hartwig,
head of the Kosovo observer mission of the European Union (the
European counterpart of William Walker). According to Hartwig, Serb
police forces did not commit any aggression against civilians, but
responded to provocations by the KLA in a "disciplined" way. He
described the KLA as a "terrorist organization," and emphasized the
clear discrepancy between the reports he sent to Western governments
and their public depiction of the events in Kosovo.
In relation to the testimony of Kosovo politician Mitar Balevic,
President Milosevic played video footage of the two famous speeches he
gave in Kosovo in 1987 and 1989, so everybody could see that they were
not nationalistic, but quite the opposite.
An important part of President Milosevic's defense is the
establishment of the truth about the notorious Racak incident of
January 15, 1999, which has been portrayed as a massacre by Serb
police of Albanian civilians. The alleged massacre served as pretext
for the NATO aggression and is the only incident in the Kosovo
"indictment" that dates from prior to the NATO aggression. President
Milosevic called important witnesses who countered the massacre
version. Forensic expert Slavisa Dobricanin, who took part in the
autopsies of the dead bodies found in Racak, confirmed that most of
them had traces of gun powder on their hands. Police investigator
Dragan Jasovic presented evidence that 30 of the people killed in
Racak were known KLA members. The Racak incident was a police action
against KLA terrorists.
Danica Marinkovic was the Investigating Judge in charge of the
incident. She testified that the head of the OSCE mission William
Walker tried to prevent her from visiting the scene on her own account
and that her team was fired upon by KLA for two days when trying to
approach the scene, whereas the OSCE was able to do so. German
journalist Bo Adam's testimony concentrated on Bill Clinton's claim
that in Racak unarmed civilians were executed "kneeling in the dirt,"
which Adam, having conducted his own investigation on the scene,
proved to be wrong.
4) First attempt at conducting the trial in absentia
Due to his ill-health, President Milosevic was not allowed to attend
his "trial" on April 19, 2005. Presiding "Judge" Robinson ordered
that the trial proceed in President Milosevic's absence in spite of
all international covenants that forbid trials in absentia and even
the "Tribunal's" own statute that states that every accused is
entitled to be tried in his presence. Not surprisingly, Robinson based
his ruling on the "Appeals Chamber" decision of November 1, 2004.
Mr. Kay was asked to established contact with the next witness, Mr.
Dragan Jasovic, in order to prepare his testimony, while the current
witness, Serb refugee from Kosovo Kosta Bulatovic was called to be
cross examined by Mr. Nice. Mr. Bulatovic refused to answer any
questions in the absence of President Milosevic. Thereupon the "Trial
Chamber" decided to order him to a "Contempt of Court" hearing the
next day.
On April 20, Mr. Kay told the chamber that he had tried to establish
contact with Mr. Jasovic without success. The witness refused to meet
with him against the will of President Milosevic. It is noteworthy
that Mr. Kay tried to visit Mr. Jasovic in his hotel, even after
having been told that he did not want to see him. This again shows
that Mr. Kay zealously works against the interests of President
Milosevic, whom he is allegedly to "defend."
On the same day, the "Trial Chamber" charged Mr. Bulatovic with
"contempt of court" because he refused to take part in the illegal
attempt to deprive President Milosevic of his basic rights. He was
"defended" by the President of the "Association of Defense Counsel" of
the "Tribunal," Mr. Stephane Bourgon. On May 13, the "Trial Chamber"
found Mr. Bulatovic guilty of "Contempt of Court" and sentenced him to
a prison term of four months, suspended for two years due to his ill
health. This shameless "sentence" on an old man who stood up against
the violation of basic civil rights is without doubt aimed at
intimidating future witnesses into not resisting the next attempt to
try President Milosevic in absentia.
It is merely a matter of time when the "Trial" Chamber will again
create a situation like on April 19. Then, if other witnesses act less
courageously than did Kosta Bulatovic, trial in absentia will proceed.
Since May 11, General Obrad Stevanovic has been testifying. As former
deputy interior minister of Serbia, he was able to refute the notion
that Serbia was a police state when Slobodan Milosevic was President.
He also pointed out that all Serbian policemen are obliged to protect
the law at all times and must not follow orders which are against the
law. This makes the theory of a "Joint Criminal Enterprise" of
President Milosevic and others to ethnically cleanse Kosovo and
Metohija of non-Serbs, on which the "indictment" relies, inapplicable.
Soon after the summer recess, the Defense is going to start countering
the Croatia part of the indictment.
*************************************************************
APPENDIX
List of defence witnesses (in reverse order of their appearance)
General Obrad Stevanovic, one of commanders of Serbian police
Radovan Paponjak, police colonel
Zvonko Gvozdenovic, father of a boy killed in a terrorist attack
Dragan Jasovic, police investigator
Kosta Bulatovic, former leader of Serbian people in Kosovo
Professor Slavisa Dobricanin, forensic expert
Danica Marinkovic, investigative judge
General Radomir Gojovic, former Chair of Supreme Military Court
Barry Lituchy (USA), historian
Dietmar Hartwig (Germany), former Head of EU Monitoring Mission in Kosovo
Mirko Babic (Macedonia), former member of a medical team in refugee camp
Goran Stojcic (Macedonia), former member of a medical team in refugee camp
Dobre Aleksovski (Macedonia), former member of a medical team in
refugee camp
Dr Vukasin Andric, former Secretary of Health in Kosovo
Vladislav Jovanovic, former Yugoslav Foreign Minister
Bo Adam (Gremany), journalist
Mitar Balevic, former leading Serb politician from Kosovo
Professor Ratko Markovic, Constitutional Law, former Vice Prime
Minister of Serbia
Dr Patrick Barriot (France), former member of UN missions to Krajina
and Kosovo
Eve Crepin (France), former member of UN missions to Krajina and Kosovo
Professor Kosta Mihajlovic, Member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences
Professor Cedomir Popov, Member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences
Professor Slavenko Terzic, historian
Vukasin Jokanovic, former leading Serb politician from Kosovo
Yevgeni Primakov (Russia), former Prime Minister
General Leonid Ivashov (Russia), former Head of Russian Army
International Department
Nikolai Rizhkov (Russia), Senator, former Soviet Prime Minister
Professor Mihajlo Markovic, Member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences
Liana Kanelli (Greece), MP, ICDSM Vice-Chair
Franz Josef Hutsch (Germany), journalist
Roland Keith (Canada), former member of OSCE Mission in Kosovo
James Jatras (USA), former US Congress Analyst
Professor Smilja Avramov, former President of the Internatinal Law
Association
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL
******************************
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@f...
Phone: +49 172 7566 014
Vladimir Krsljanin (ICDSM Secretary) E-mail: slobodavk@y...
Phone: +381 63 8862 301
***************************************************************
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
*************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
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.free-slobo-uk.org/ (CDSM UK)
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 ***
NUOVO INDIRIZZO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.html
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)
==========================
Data: Mer 8 Giu 2005 11:02:29 Europe/Rome
A: "icdsm-italia"
Oggetto: [icdsm-italia] ICDSM Hague Report No.1
[Con questo invio, il Comitato Internazionale per la difesa di
Slobodan Milosevic -ICDSM- inaugura un servizio di aggiornamenti
sull'andamento del "processo". Come Sezione Italiana cercheremo di
tradurre e diffondere in lingua italiana almeno i principali tra
questi bollettini periodici.]
**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
**************************************************************
Velko Valkanov, Ramsey Clark, Alexander Zinoviev (Co-Chairmen),
Klaus Hartmann (Chairman of the Board), Vladimir Krsljanin
(Secretary), Christopher Black (Chair, Legal Committee),
Tiphaine Dickson (Legal Spokesperson)
**************************************************************
07 June 2005 Hague Report No.1
**************************************************************
Information Regarding the Current State of the Defense Case in
the "Trial" of Slobodan Milosevic
By ICDSM Hague observer
NOTE: From now on, the ICDSM will periodically circulate relevant
summaries of the developments in the Hague process against President
Slobodan Milosevic. This first issue gives summarization of the
process since the begining of the "defence case" with somewhat more
detailed description of its recent weeks.
1) The Opening of the Defense Case
On August 31, 2004 the Defense Case commenced after President
Milosevic had been given only three months for preparation - in
contrast to the "Prosecution," which investigated the "case" since the
mid 1990s - and in spite of President Milosevic's constrained working
possibilities arising from his ill-health, limited funds as well as
the fact that he was kept in detention. Of course, his requests for
provisional release were denied by the "trial chamber," despite
President Milosevic's clear intent to take part in the "trial" in
order to refute the lies about Yugoslavia in front of the
international public.
President Milosevic was given only 150 days for the presentation of
his case, half of the time the Prosecution used.
On August 31 and September 1, President Milosevic presented his
opening statement for the Defense case. In this speech, President
Milosevic revealed the one-sided and shamefully distorted character of
The Hague "indictment" against him. He exposed the "Prosecution's"
attempt to demonize the Serbian people and blame them for everything
that happened during the Yugoslav crisis. He pointed out that the
break-up of Yugoslavia was a process of continual violations of
international law and that it constituted an aggression by foreign
powers, most notably the US and the German-led European Community,
against a sovereign state. He showed that the Serbs became the main
target of these aggressive powers simply by having a vital interest in
preserving the Yugoslav Federation. The security situation of Serbs
was put at risk in the light of new threats posed against them that
were reminiscent of World War II, when at least 600.000 Serbs lost
their lives - many of them in Croatian fascist death camps. As
President Milosevic set out, the Western aggression against Yugoslavia
was mainly accomplished by means of funding and supporting
secessionist movements on the political as well as on the military
level. When these secessionist forces aimed at unilaterally declaring
the independence of the Yugoslav republics Slovenia and Croatia they
were given immediate political support: Slovenia and Croatia were
diplomatically recognized by the European Union as independent states
within their former administrative borders, even though they were
entirely lacking in the necessary legal prerequisites for this act and
without having conducted any consultations with the Serbian side. The
same thing happened again in the case of Bosnia-Hercegovina, causing
the bloody civil war the Serbs are held accountable for by the
"Prosecution." President Milosevic also described the historical
continuity in the policy of Western powers towards Yugoslavia, which
was always directed against the very existence of this multiethnic
state, and their anti-Serb propaganda which dates from the 19th
century. He laid particular emphasis on exposing the myth of "Greater
Serbia" which the "Prosecution" has frequently ascribed to him as
being part of his political aims. President Milosevic not only
rejected this allegation but also presented the fact that the concept
of "Greater Serbia" as an aggressive agenda of the Serbs had been used
as a propagandist trick against the establishment of Yugoslavia as
early as World War I by the Austro-Hungarian empire.
President Milosevic points out that there were three main forces
behind the aggressive policy of the West towards Yugoslavia, each with
their own motives: Germany, following the same geopolitical interests
in the Balkans that it did in two world wars. The Vatican, which
joined Germany's (and Austria-Hungary's) side in both world wars in an
effort to prevent the spread of Orthodox faith, and later that of
communism. The third force, the United States, was an ally of the
Serbs in World War II, but after the collapse of the Warsaw Treaty, it
was eager not to lose military influence in Europe and sacrificed the
historical friendship with Yugoslavia for political and military
interests.
President Milosevic also explained what happened in Kosovo prior to
the NATO aggression, establishing the truth about the so-called Kosovo
Liberation Army, which was in fact a terrorist organization aiming for
the creation of an ethnically pure and independent Kosovo that would
later be associated with Albania to create a Greater Albania. The KLA
was funded and trained by the West and exercised a murderous regime
over Serbs and Albanians in all areas of Kosovo and Metohija where it
managed to take over control.
President Milosevic also emphasized that the KLA, having been
transformed into the Kosovo Protection Corps under the NATO
occupation, has continued to complete its campaign of ethnic cleansing
of the remainder of the Serb population in Kosovo through outrageous
violence under the eyes of the UNMIK administration.
2) The Imposition of Counsel
Before President Milosevic was able to call his first witness, on
September 2nd the "trial chamber" made an unprecedented decision,
proving the purely political character of the ICTY, by taking away
President Milosevic's right to defend himself in person and imposing
counsel against his will. Former amici curiae Stephen Kay and Gillian
Higgins from the UK were "assigned" as counsel for President Milosevic
by the "trial chamber" in order to take full control of the conduct of
the Defense case - including the examination of witnesses. President
Milosevic's participation in his own "trial" was reduced to the
opportunity of asking "additional" questions to witnesses after their
examination and only upon permission by the "judges." The argument put
forward by the "trial chamber" (as well as by "the Prosecution") was
that in conducting his own Defense, Milosevic's health situation would
further deteriorate. (No need to note that this was the first time
that they ever cared for his health.) The "Prosecution" had already
demanded the imposition of counsel long before, for the first time in
August 2001. On July 5, 2004, the "trial chamber" for the first time
discussed the issue at full length, on the day the defense case was
publicly announced to start, and therefore in the presence of the
world media.
That very day, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited
the "tribunal"! Ever since then, the US Foreign Policy establishment
engaged heavily in a media campaign focusing on restricting president
Milosevic's right to self-defense.
Having pretended hypocritically in the beginning that they wanted to
"help" President Milosevic and were concerned about his health
situation, the "Prosecution" became more aggressive than ever before
in their last oral submission on the subject on September 1, claiming
that President Milosevic was "obstructing" the trial by his manner of
conduct in court (he is lacking "etiquette") and by "boycotting his
medical therapy" so as to render himself unable to take part in the
proceedings. (President Milosevic refuted the allegation of having
manipulated his medical regime as nonsense and revealed that he
observed manipulation with his food that was exchanged with that of
another prison inmate - No one reacted to this allegation.)
On September 29, Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins - only after accepting their
assignment and facing the strongest possible opposition from President
Milosevic -- issued an appeal against their own imposition before the
Tribunal's "Appeal Chamber," pretending to share the position of
President Milosevic. But the actual behavior of the "Assigned Counsel"
made it clear that they were fully prepared to comply with the illegal
decision of the "Trial Chamber" as they immediately began to contact
people on President Milosevic's witness list. In the meantime, more
than hundred possible witnesses informed the "Assigned Counsel" and
the "Trial Chamber" that they were not ready to give evidence unless
President Milosevic's right to self-representation were restored. On
October 18, Mr. Kay told the court that up to 90 of the witnesses he
had tried to contact refused to testify under the prevailing
circumstances. Mr. Kay also stated that he had made every effort to
convince the witnesses to come to the "Tribunal," and he did not even
object to "Presiding Judge" Robinson's announcement that subpoenas be
issued on unwilling witnesses, making it clear to everyone that Mr.
Kay and Ms. Higgins were fully on the side of the "Tribunal" and its
illegal behavior. This is not to mention the bourgeois media, which
basically stopped any kind of coverage since the start of the defense
case, and did not report a word about this historic witness boycott!
Probably because of the enormous witness boycott and the clear
position of President Milosevic not to accept anything less than his
right to self-representation, on November 1, 2004 President Milosevic
won a partial victory when the "Appeals Chamber" ruled that the
modalities of the conduct of the defense case should be changed.
President Milosevic would be allowed to conduct his own defense, but
"the presence of Assigned Counsel will enable the trial to continue
even if Milosevic is temporarily unable to participate." On closer
examination, this second part of the "Appeals Chamber's" ruling has to
be seen as raising a possibility of an even worse violation of
President Milosevic's rights than the original ruling of the Trial
Chamber, as it lays the foundations of a trial in absentia.
Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins undertook several unsuccessful steps in order
to be withdrawn from their posts as "Assigned Counsel" before the
"Trial Chamber," the Registry and the "Appeals Chamber," obviously in
an attempt to appear as victims of the Trial Chambers' decision. The
way the imposed counsel present themselves could well be aimed at
influencing witnesses in order to prevent another round of boycott in
case the imposed counsel take over in absence of President Milosevic.
So for many, it appears that Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins would not
voluntarily take part in illegal acts by the Tribunal, but are forced
to comply. In reality, they were not forced to act as "Assigned
Counsel." The Registry of the Tribunal asked several lawyers whether
they would be available to serve in this function as early as in the
beginning of August 2004. Among those lawyers was former amicus curiae
Branislav Tapuskovic, who stated in an interview with the Serbian
daily Blic of August 7, 2004 that he refused to act as President
Milosevic's lawyer against his will.
In a letter to the ICTY Registry, Mr. Tapuskovic stated: "According to
Article 21 (4)(d) of the Statute of the International Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia, the accused is guaranteed the right TO BE TRIED IN
HIS PRESENCE AND TO DEFEND HIMSELF PERSONALLY." In contrast, Mr. Kay
and Ms. Higgins expressed their readiness to do the job from the very
beginning.
3) Presentation of the Defense Case
Before President Milosevic's right to lead his case was restored, the
"Assigned Counsel" called five witnesses from President Milosevic's
witness list: Smilja Avramov, a retired law professor and former
political adviser from Serbia, James Jatras, former foreign policy
advisor for the U.S. Senate Republican Foreign Policy Committee,
Roland Keith, a Canadian OSCE commander in Kosovo, journalist Franz
Josef Hutsch from Germany, and ICDSM Vice-Chairwoman Liana Kanelli,
member of the Greek Parliament.
Mr. Kay's examinations were not in accordance with the defense
strategy of President Milosevic, which consists in exposing the
"indictment" as not only unfounded, but as an attempt to justify
Western aggression against Yugoslavia that cannot be assessed in a
legal, but only in a political context. Mr. Kay, on the contrary,
dealt with the witnesses as if "client" was facing an ordinary
criminal indictment. Apart from his general attitude that is in line
with the imperialist ideology the "Tribunal" is based on, Mr. Kay
lacks sufficient knowledge about Yugoslavia. This could be best seen
during the testimony of Liana Kanelli, when Kay used a map of Belgrade
and surroundings to find a town in Southern Serbia. Fortunately, these
witnesses managed to present important facts in spite of Mr. Kay's
ineffective questioning. Prof. Avramov, who was President Milosevic's
advisor from 1991 to 1993, made clear that President Milosevic never
had any intention to strive for a "Greater Serbia" or carry out any
kind of "ethnic cleansing," but on the contrary tried to preserve a
multiethnic Yugoslavia. James Jatras gave evidence on the involvement
of the Clinton Administration in arming the Croats and Bosnian Muslims.
Since the November 1 "Appeals Chamber" decision, President Milosevic
has been examining his witnesses. The judges have constantly
interfered with his way of conducting the examination-in-chief,
reprimanding him for allegedly putting "leading questions" to the
witnesses, presenting evidence not related to specific charges in the
"indictment," not introducing documents in the proper way and other
technical matters. It is a fact that the judges almost never applied
such strict rules during the Prosecution case. The "Prosecution"
frequently objects to the admissibility of documents and opens
discussions on "technical" matters at length with the obvious aim of
wasting as much time as possible out of the 150 days available for the
presentation of the Defense case.
During the "Prosecution's" cross-examination of Defense witnesses,
President Milosevic often points out incorrect and tendentious
translations of Serbian documents and other material. For example, he
was able to prove, confirmed by the "Tribunal's" interpreters, that a
BBC documentary shown by "Prosecutor" Mr. Nice deliberately
mistranslated Serbian speakers.
The "Judges" - especially Ian Bonomy, who replaced the late Richard
May without having had time to acquaint himself sufficiently with the
foregone proceedings - treat the defense witnesses with obvious
disrespect.
"Prosecutor" Geoffrey Nice openly insults the witnesses during his
cross examination and addresses them in a very aggressive tone,
disregarding their age, position or professional merit - contrary to
President Milosevic who had treated all Prosecution witnesses in a
respectful way.
To date, President Milosevic has called 34 witnesses himself.
Renowned intellectuals, historians and scientists, high-ranking
politicians from in and outside Yugoslavia testified on the
historical, political and legal position of Serbia - explaining the
background of the Yugoslav crisis that is completely ignored in the
"indictment" - as well as about President Milosevic's personal
attitudes and actions during the breakup of Yugoslavia which were
always aimed at preventing bloodshed.
Since the end of January 2005, witness testimonies have dealt with
Kosovo. They cover the general political situation disadvantaging the
Serbs in Kosovo in the 1980s, the terror inflicted by the KLA in the
1990s as well as the NATO aggression of 1999.
One of the most important testimonies was given by Dietmar Hartwig,
head of the Kosovo observer mission of the European Union (the
European counterpart of William Walker). According to Hartwig, Serb
police forces did not commit any aggression against civilians, but
responded to provocations by the KLA in a "disciplined" way. He
described the KLA as a "terrorist organization," and emphasized the
clear discrepancy between the reports he sent to Western governments
and their public depiction of the events in Kosovo.
In relation to the testimony of Kosovo politician Mitar Balevic,
President Milosevic played video footage of the two famous speeches he
gave in Kosovo in 1987 and 1989, so everybody could see that they were
not nationalistic, but quite the opposite.
An important part of President Milosevic's defense is the
establishment of the truth about the notorious Racak incident of
January 15, 1999, which has been portrayed as a massacre by Serb
police of Albanian civilians. The alleged massacre served as pretext
for the NATO aggression and is the only incident in the Kosovo
"indictment" that dates from prior to the NATO aggression. President
Milosevic called important witnesses who countered the massacre
version. Forensic expert Slavisa Dobricanin, who took part in the
autopsies of the dead bodies found in Racak, confirmed that most of
them had traces of gun powder on their hands. Police investigator
Dragan Jasovic presented evidence that 30 of the people killed in
Racak were known KLA members. The Racak incident was a police action
against KLA terrorists.
Danica Marinkovic was the Investigating Judge in charge of the
incident. She testified that the head of the OSCE mission William
Walker tried to prevent her from visiting the scene on her own account
and that her team was fired upon by KLA for two days when trying to
approach the scene, whereas the OSCE was able to do so. German
journalist Bo Adam's testimony concentrated on Bill Clinton's claim
that in Racak unarmed civilians were executed "kneeling in the dirt,"
which Adam, having conducted his own investigation on the scene,
proved to be wrong.
4) First attempt at conducting the trial in absentia
Due to his ill-health, President Milosevic was not allowed to attend
his "trial" on April 19, 2005. Presiding "Judge" Robinson ordered
that the trial proceed in President Milosevic's absence in spite of
all international covenants that forbid trials in absentia and even
the "Tribunal's" own statute that states that every accused is
entitled to be tried in his presence. Not surprisingly, Robinson based
his ruling on the "Appeals Chamber" decision of November 1, 2004.
Mr. Kay was asked to established contact with the next witness, Mr.
Dragan Jasovic, in order to prepare his testimony, while the current
witness, Serb refugee from Kosovo Kosta Bulatovic was called to be
cross examined by Mr. Nice. Mr. Bulatovic refused to answer any
questions in the absence of President Milosevic. Thereupon the "Trial
Chamber" decided to order him to a "Contempt of Court" hearing the
next day.
On April 20, Mr. Kay told the chamber that he had tried to establish
contact with Mr. Jasovic without success. The witness refused to meet
with him against the will of President Milosevic. It is noteworthy
that Mr. Kay tried to visit Mr. Jasovic in his hotel, even after
having been told that he did not want to see him. This again shows
that Mr. Kay zealously works against the interests of President
Milosevic, whom he is allegedly to "defend."
On the same day, the "Trial Chamber" charged Mr. Bulatovic with
"contempt of court" because he refused to take part in the illegal
attempt to deprive President Milosevic of his basic rights. He was
"defended" by the President of the "Association of Defense Counsel" of
the "Tribunal," Mr. Stephane Bourgon. On May 13, the "Trial Chamber"
found Mr. Bulatovic guilty of "Contempt of Court" and sentenced him to
a prison term of four months, suspended for two years due to his ill
health. This shameless "sentence" on an old man who stood up against
the violation of basic civil rights is without doubt aimed at
intimidating future witnesses into not resisting the next attempt to
try President Milosevic in absentia.
It is merely a matter of time when the "Trial" Chamber will again
create a situation like on April 19. Then, if other witnesses act less
courageously than did Kosta Bulatovic, trial in absentia will proceed.
Since May 11, General Obrad Stevanovic has been testifying. As former
deputy interior minister of Serbia, he was able to refute the notion
that Serbia was a police state when Slobodan Milosevic was President.
He also pointed out that all Serbian policemen are obliged to protect
the law at all times and must not follow orders which are against the
law. This makes the theory of a "Joint Criminal Enterprise" of
President Milosevic and others to ethnically cleanse Kosovo and
Metohija of non-Serbs, on which the "indictment" relies, inapplicable.
Soon after the summer recess, the Defense is going to start countering
the Croatia part of the indictment.
*************************************************************
APPENDIX
List of defence witnesses (in reverse order of their appearance)
General Obrad Stevanovic, one of commanders of Serbian police
Radovan Paponjak, police colonel
Zvonko Gvozdenovic, father of a boy killed in a terrorist attack
Dragan Jasovic, police investigator
Kosta Bulatovic, former leader of Serbian people in Kosovo
Professor Slavisa Dobricanin, forensic expert
Danica Marinkovic, investigative judge
General Radomir Gojovic, former Chair of Supreme Military Court
Barry Lituchy (USA), historian
Dietmar Hartwig (Germany), former Head of EU Monitoring Mission in Kosovo
Mirko Babic (Macedonia), former member of a medical team in refugee camp
Goran Stojcic (Macedonia), former member of a medical team in refugee camp
Dobre Aleksovski (Macedonia), former member of a medical team in
refugee camp
Dr Vukasin Andric, former Secretary of Health in Kosovo
Vladislav Jovanovic, former Yugoslav Foreign Minister
Bo Adam (Gremany), journalist
Mitar Balevic, former leading Serb politician from Kosovo
Professor Ratko Markovic, Constitutional Law, former Vice Prime
Minister of Serbia
Dr Patrick Barriot (France), former member of UN missions to Krajina
and Kosovo
Eve Crepin (France), former member of UN missions to Krajina and Kosovo
Professor Kosta Mihajlovic, Member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences
Professor Cedomir Popov, Member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences
Professor Slavenko Terzic, historian
Vukasin Jokanovic, former leading Serb politician from Kosovo
Yevgeni Primakov (Russia), former Prime Minister
General Leonid Ivashov (Russia), former Head of Russian Army
International Department
Nikolai Rizhkov (Russia), Senator, former Soviet Prime Minister
Professor Mihajlo Markovic, Member of the Serbian Academy of Sciences
Liana Kanelli (Greece), MP, ICDSM Vice-Chair
Franz Josef Hutsch (Germany), journalist
Roland Keith (Canada), former member of OSCE Mission in Kosovo
James Jatras (USA), former US Congress Analyst
Professor Smilja Avramov, former President of the Internatinal Law
Association
*************************************************************
*************************************************************
URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL
******************************
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@f...
Phone: +49 172 7566 014
Vladimir Krsljanin (ICDSM Secretary) E-mail: slobodavk@y...
Phone: +381 63 8862 301
***************************************************************
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
*************************************************************
SLOBODA urgently needs your donation.
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
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.free-slobo-uk.org/ (CDSM UK)
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 ***
NUOVO INDIRIZZO INTERNET:
http://www.pasti.org/linkmilo.html
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)
==========================