Милошевић ослобођен кривице за Сребреницу још пре девет година

Наводи британског новинара Нила Кларка „вероватно су део кампање оркестриране из Србије – и могуће је из Русије – да се Милошевић ослободи кривице 10 година после смрти”, рекао је ових дана Џефри Најс, бивши главни тужилац у процесу против Слободана Милошевића, изнервиран писањем Кларка, који је у свом блогу на сајту Раша тудеј констатовао да је Хашки трибунал закључио „да је један од највећих политичких демона наше ере, заправо, невин човек који није починио зверства и злочине за које је оптужен”. Својим оценама да је „Хаг одлучио да закључак о Милошевићевој невиности ’сахрани’ негде дубоко у текст пресуде лидеру босанских Срба Радовану Караџићу” Кларк је уздрмао светску, али и домаћу јавност, која се поделила кад је реч о улози Милошевића, а тиме и Србије у рату у БиХ.

Међутим, иако је Кларкова одбрана Милошевића (заснована на ономе што је проучавањем пресуде дуге 2.590 страница открио амерички истраживач и новинар Енди Вилкоксон) представљала праву „бомбу” и прст у око онима који сву кривицу за злочине током деведесетих година 20. века стављају на душу Милошевићу, истина о улози бившег председника Србије утврђена је још пресудом Међународног суда правде у фебруару 2007. године. Тада је, наиме, како за „Политику” подсећа Тибор Варади, професор међународног права и један од адвоката Београда у спору по тужби БиХ против Србије за геноцид, суд у Хагу рекао да се злочин геноцида не може приписати Србији, односно ни Милошевићу ни Србији.

„То је једносмислено речено и не може бити спорно. МСП се није изјаснио о ратним злочинима који не достижу ниво геноцида јер није имао надлежност за то”, каже професор Варади.

На опаску да ли то значи да је оно што је сада Хашки трибунал урадио ослобађајући Милошевића кривице за геноцид у БиХ, Међународни суд правде учинио одавно, Варади каже: „Одавно, једносмислено и директно”.

Он подсећа да је Суд правде те 2007. године констатовао да је почињен геноцид у Сребреници, али да се то не може приписати Србији.

„То је директно утврђено, а не у спору који је водила нека трећа држава. Али, то није новост”, каже Варади.

У пресуди је, подсетимо, констатовано да „Србија није била ни саучесник у геноциду, иако је закључено да је СРЈ током рата пружала војну и финансијску подршку српском становништву у Републици Српској”. Веома сличан закључак извео је у марту ове године и Хашки трибунал, пресуђујући Радовану Караџићу. У параграфу 3460 пресуде лидеру босанских Срба на који се позива Кларк критикујући Трибунал и међународну јавност, стоји да је Слободан Милошевић „делио и подржавао политички циљ оптуженог и руководства босанских Срба да очувају Југославију и спрече одвајање или независност БиХ”, те да је им је Милошевић пружио помоћ у оружју и људству. Али се такође, кад се говори о Милошевићевој улози, додаје и да докази показују да је између Милошевића и руководства босанских Срба дошло до супротстављених интереса, те да је Милошевић износио критике и неслагања с политиком и одлукама руководства босанских Срба, због чега се „веће није уверило да постоји довољно доказа у овом случају да се закључи да се Слободан Милошевић сложио са заједничким планом”, те да Милошевић није био део удруженог злочиначког подухвата.

Говорећи о правној тежини оваквих доказа и закључака, Варади истиче да се „Милошевић може осудити или ослободити само у поступку који се води против Милошевића”, те да је „одлука о Караџићу ипак само одлука о Караџићу”. Ово што је у спору против Караџића утврђено о Милошевићу, како каже, може бити доказ у историјским расправама, „али то је ипак пресуда Караџићу, а нечија кривица се може утврдити или негирати у спору где је тај окривљени у главној улози”.

Саговорник „Политике” укључен у рад међународних судова каже да је у деловима пресуде Караџићу потврђена не само Милошевићева невиност за геноцид у Сребреници, него и за злочине у општинама у БиХ за које је тужилац Серж Брамерц окривљавао Караџића, укључујући и опсаду Сарајева.

„То није ослобађање, али је екстремно значајно да Караџићево веће сматра да Србија није одговорна. Хашки трибунал је, заправо, отишао даље од пресуде Суда правде, јер се она односила само на Сребреницу, а Караџићу се није судило само за Сребреницу. Наравно, ово нема снагу пресуде, али има снагу онога што се у праву зове ’дикта’, односно оно што суд закључи у пресуди, а што се не односи непосредно на предмет судског поступка”, објашњава наш саговорник и додаје да су у праву они који тврде да је реч о историјски значајним доказима.

Уосталом, како подсећа, Милошевић, за разлику од, рецимо, Фрање Туђмана, ниједном пресудом није оглашен кривим за учешће у Удруженом злочиначком подухвату (УЗП). У случају Туђмана то је констатовано пре три године у „случају Прлић”, кад је у пресуди шесторици Хрвата речено да су УЗП у Херцег-босни предводили Туђман, Шушак и Бобетко.

Ових дана и један италијански новинар прикључио се нападу на Хашки трибунал. Новинар Ђулијето Кијеза на порталу „Глобалист синдикејшн” написао је да је „Запад уништио Југославију, убио Милошевића и оптужио га за злочине које он није извршио”.

Саговорник нашег листа закључује да је ова пресуда важна и због тога што је у њој СДА из БиХ тражио основ за ревизију поступка за геноцид против Србије, али је оваквим закључцима „изгубио тло под ногама”.

Christopher Black and Alexander Mezyaev: Death of President Slobodan Milosevic in NATO Prison Remains a Central Question in International Justice

On March 11, 2006, President Slobodan Milosevic died in a NATO prison. No one has been held accountable for his death.

– In the 7 years since the end of the lonely struggle to defend himself and his country against the false charges invented by the Nato powers, no country has demanded a public inquiry into the circumstances of his death. The only demand for any investigation was made by the Russian Foreign Minister, Serge Lavrov, when he stated that Russia did not accept the ICTY’s denial of responsibility and demanded an investigation be conducted. The ICTY then made its own investigation and as expected exonerated itself from all blame.

Yet, his death cannot lie unexamined, the questions unanswered, those responsible unpunished. The world cannot continue to accept the substitution of war and brutality for peace and diplomacy. It cannot continue to tolerate governments that have contempt for peace, for humanity, the sovereignty of nations, the self-determination of peoples, and the rule of law.

The murder of countless civilians in the Nato led wars since the end of the Second World War is a crime of such immensity that mankind itself stands condemned for letting it happen. First, there was Korea, perhaps 5 million people killed, then Vietnam, another 3 to 5 million killed. These were followed by smaller wars and  counter-insurgency operations by countries against their own citizens, but the suffering was the same; Africa, Latin America, Asia; few have been spared.

But since the temporary eclipse of Russian influence and prestige in the early 1990’s the Nato powers, in particular the United States of America, have not only killed the populations of countries resisting their aggression. They have progressed to the murder of the national leaders of those countries, an act considered to be a war crime because it is not only the murder of a person, but an attack on the nation itself, a negation of its right to exist.

Since 1950 the list of national leaders who have been assassinated directly or with the aid of the United States and its allies is
legion-Lumumba of the Congo, Diem of Vietnam, Torrillos of Panama, Allende of Chile, Hussein of Iraq, Habyarimana of Rwanda, Ntayaramira of Burundi, Arafat of Palestine, Ghaddafi of Libya, are but a few. Sometimes they dress up the murders in legal cloth by purporting to issue “indictments” against their victims issued by tribunals set up or controlled by the Nato
powers whose one purpose is to create propaganda to attempt to justify their crimes. Others have been thrown into prisons on false charges and outside of any lawful jurisdiction or fair process; Noriega of Panama, Gbagbo of Ivory Coast, Taylor of Liberia, Kambanda of Rwanda, Hussein of Iraq. The tragic Muammar Ghaddafi was hunted down and murdered like a dog
in the street, so far have these powers sunk below morality and civilised behaviour. One must ask whether the murder of Muammar Ghaddafi would have happened if those responsible for the death of President Milosevic had been exposed and brought to justice.

In fact, in 2010 Ghaddafi called the United Nations to conduct an investigation of all the coup-d’etats in UN member states and “an investigations of all heads of UN member states assassinations.” These proposals were never acted on by the GeneralAssembly.

The death of Slobodan Milosevic was clearly the only way out of the dilemma the Nato powers had put themselves by charging him before the ICTY. The propaganda against him was of an unprecedented scale. The trial was played in the press as one of the world’s great dramas, world theatre in which an evil man would be made to answer for his crimes. But of
course, there had been no crimes, except those of the Nato powers, and the attempt to fabricate a case against him collapsed into farce.

The trial was necessary from Nato’s point of view in order to justify the aggression against Yugoslavia and the putsch by the DOS forces in Belgrade supported by Nato, by which democracy in Yugoslavia was finally destroyed. His illegal arrest by Nato forces in Belgrade, his illegal detention in Belgrade Central Prison until his illegal rendition to the former Nazi
prison near The Hague and the show trial that followed were all part of the drama played out for the world public and it could only have one of two endings, the conviction or the death of President Milosevic.

Much has been said about the death of President Milosevic and about the show trial they forced upon him. I will not repeat what others have said. His wife and friend, Mira Markovic, unable to attend his funeral in Serbia for fear of arrest by the Nato installed regime, referred, in a letter read at the funeral, to “the criminals who murdered you in The Hague.” John Laughland in his brave book, Travesty, wrote that the ICTY, “having abused numerous fundamental judicial principles during the trial,…abused the most elementary humanitarian considerations too…”

Since the conviction of President Milosevic was clearly not possible when all the evidence was heard, or at least a conviction that could be supported by any evidence, his death was the only way out for the Nato powers. His acquittal would have brought down the entire structure of the propaganda framework of the Nato war machine and the western interests that use it as their armed fist. Nato clearly did not expect President Milosevic to defend himself nor with such clarity and determination. The media coverage of the beginning of the trial was constant and front page. It was promised that it would be the trial of the century. Yet soon after it began the media coverage stopped and the trial was buried in the back pages. Things had gone terribly wrong for Nato right at the start. The key to the problem is the following statement to the judges of the ICTY made by President Milosevic:

“This is a political trial. What is at issue here is not at all whether I committed a crime. What is at issue is that certain intentions are ascribed to me from which consequences are later derived that are beyond the expertise of any conceivable lawyer. The point here is that the truth about the events in the former Yugoslavia has to be told here. It is that which is at issue, not the procedural questions, because I’m not sitting here because I was accused of a specific crime. I’m sitting here because I am accused of conducting a policy against the interests of this or another party…..

The prosecution, that is the United States and its allies, had not expected a real defence of any kind. This is clear from the inept indictments, confusion as to the actual charges, the complete failure to bring any evidence that could withstand even basic scrutiny. The prosecution case fell apart as soon as it began. But once started it had to continue. Nato was locked into a box of its own making. If they dropped the charges or if he was acquitted, the political and geostrategic ramifications were enormous. Nato would have to explain the real reasons for the aggression against Yugoslavia. Its leaders would face war crimes charges. The loss of prestige cannot be calculated. President Milosevic would once again be a popular political figure in the Balkans that they could not deal with. Since there was no real evidence against him, the only way out for Nato was to end the trial but without releasing Milosevic or admitting the truth about the war. This logic required his death in prison and the abandonment of the trial.

One of the writers was engaged by the family of President Milosevic to investigate his death and determine what could be done to bring those responsible to some justice. It is now clear that this objective cannot be realised without a full public and international inquiry into the circumstances of his arrest, his detention and the circumstances of the trial. There is much to be learned. The wikileaks revelation that the UN detention unit commander McFadden, had provided information on Milosevic
to the US embassy in violation of his role and prison rules, and subsequent whitewash of these actions by the ICTY sheds light on who really controlled the situation and is an important circumstance to be investigated in relation to his death. The Parker Report itself, the report issued by Judge Parker of the ICTY soon after the death provides a clear basis for such an inquiry. It contains within it circumstances that require thorough investigations and the calling and examination of witnesses. The ICTY prison rules call for an inquiry according to the kaws of the host nation in the event of the death of a prisoner. In the Netherlands, this entails a simple police inquiry. But if the ICTY had been based in Britain, the inquiry would have to be a public one with the hearing of witnesses and the presentation of evidence. Since this matter concerns the death of a head of state and in UN hands, a simple inquiry conducted by the Dutch police, the police of a Nato state are worthless. The only way forward is an international public inquiry.

This analysis of the Parker Report sets out the grounds for seeking such an inquiry.

Its purpose is to determine whether the Parker Report provides a basis for a criminal case to be made against the ICTY authorities of the UN who are responsible for his death. This analysis is necessary as we are unable to have access to all the information available concerning his death which has been refused to us and because no public inquiry has been conducted into the circumstances leading up to his death.

President Milosevic died between 7am too 9am alone in his cell. The Report states on page 4 that the guards failed to check on Milosevic even though he did not respond to the guards attempt to wake him . The Report states that “The actions of the guard in not taking a closer look at Mr. Milosevic cannot be fairly criticised in the circumstances as they represented themselves to the guard at the time.”

However, the circumstances at the time included the fact that Milosevic was reporting hearing problems, was being seen by several teams of doctors and had complained the night before of chest pains. This must have been noted in the logbook for those in charge of his prison wing and known to the Commanding Officer and all his staff. So, it is disturbing that the guard did not immediately check to see if he was alright and, if not, that he did not summon immediate medical attention. Yet no inquiry seems to have been made by anyone, including Judge Parker, as to why the guard was not questioned and his instructions determined. If the guard had not been made aware of Miloevic’s condition-why was that not done? For all anyone knows his death could have come at 9am, just as the guard went to the cell and perhaps he was revivable at that point.

A more disturbing fact is that information exists that the surveillance cameras in his cell were turned off the night before he died and no explanation has been given as to why. What would the cameras have recorded if they had been working?

The cell was not checked again until 10:05am. It took 30 minutes for Dr. Falke to arrive after that. In that time no attempt to resuscitate Milosevic was made.

This amounts to gross negligence. They assumed he was dead. No one bothered to try to stimulate the heart until a doctor came. There is no reason given in the Report why they failed to take this basic step. Was it due to lack of training, that they did not care, something else?

Dutch coroners do not arrive until 6 hours later-at 16:15 and then 4 hours after that they take the body to the morgue. There is no reason given for the delayed arrival of the coroners. But this delay would affect any toxicological tests as with time substances degrade and disappear. Why was there such a long delay in this team arriving when it concerned such an important person?

The Report sets out Milosevic’s physical condition in some detail when he first arrived and after. It states that the UN treating cardiologist advised the Tribunal that he required reduced trial days and less stress due to his condition. It was known as far back as 2003 that he had heart problems that were significant.

The Report confirms that on December 12, 2005, Milosevic, in open session asked to be allowed to go to Russia for treatment which request was denied over two months later on February 23, 2006. Milosevic appealed this refusal on March 2, just before he died on March 11.

This is proof that CO McFadden and his staff were very aware of Milosevic’s state of health and makes it difficult to swallow the Report’s conclusions that the guards have no responsibility in the matter.

Milosevic died as he was preparing a very important witness, Momir Bulatovic, President of Montenegro. This witness never testified and nor have the rest of the defence witnesses been allowed to present the evidence so that Milosevic had the chance to present to the world his defence in toto. Instead of accepting to hear the evidence already scheduled and then rendering a judgement for the deceased-the trial was abruptly cancelled. To whose benefit was this? Clearly only to NATO.

In April 2006, Dr. Zdravko Mijailovic informed the Parker Inquiry that he had been forbidden to assist the Inquiry with his observations by the interference of the “authorities of Serbia and Montenegro”. Conveniently the Inquiry did not press the Serbian “authorities” to cooperate with the ICTY, a remarkable fact when ICTY pressure against Serbia has always been
rewarded with action.

The question is raised; why the Serbian “authorities” interfered in such an important matter. The Report does not state who exactly interfered not in what form and if in writing where the document now is. One would think the government of Serbia would want to assist in the Inquiry not withhold evidence relevant to it. This makes it look as if the Serbian ‘authorities” wanted to suppress facts for their own interests. Why and what were those interests?

The Report states that no traces of rifampicin had been found in the autopsy yet it had been found in his blood from a sample dated the 12th of January 2006. The Report states, “Rifampicin is an antibiotic usually used to treat leprosy and tuberculosis, which has a side effect by which the therapeutic effect of some antihypertensive drugs can be diminished or neutralised.”

It has this effect because it eliminates other drugs from the body more rapidly. This begs the question as whether it was used to mask other drugs or a poison.

One possibility is that the Report states that aside from several hypertension drugs and tranquilizers, the Institute fur Rechtsmedizin, Universtatsklinikum, in Bonn, Germany, “noted that there has been an indication of a possible but unconfirmed presence of a conversion product of droperidol, an antipsychotic, in the urine.”

The Report states that this drug had never been administered to him or prescribed. (page 11). And that, “this could have no relevance to his death.”

Yet it is clearly relevant as droperidol is also an anaesthetic and can be used to sedate patients and its presence risks a drops in blood pressure and death and is not recommended for older persons. Clearly the presence of both rifampicin on January 12 and droperidol later are relevant especially when rifampicin speeds up the metabolism of drugs like droperidol and droperidol itself has a very rapid rate of breakdown in the body. Less than two hours by some reports. Add to this the unexplained delay in the arrival of coroners at the site of death of 6 hours and the further 4 hour delay until taken to the morgue and a further delay until an autopsy the next day and a reasonable person can ask why Parker would say these facts combined together are not relevant and make no further inquiry.

At paragraph 36 the Report states that Milosevic died of a heart attack and that Dr. Bokeria of Russia agrees with this. But this does not explain what caused the heart attack to occur at the time it did. We have asked for all the reports discussed in the Report but have been told we cannot have them.

Paragrphs 40, 41, 42 of the Report detail the initial examination and treatment of Milosevic on arrival at the ICTY prison and after. At paragraph 42 the Report states,

“Dr. Mijailovic in 2001noted further that Mr. Milosevic was at a high risk of a stroke, a heart attack, a sudden cardiac death, or a sudden malignant heart rhythm disorder … for which he recommended several medications and reduction of “workload, stress…” Despite this diagnosis, the trial commenced instead of being postponed until Milosevic was in a better condition.

In other words, the Tribunal, instead of acting according to doctors instructions and reducing his stress, deliberately decided to increase it with an order to commence the trial which began in February 2002. H

(Message over 64 KB, truncated)