> -----Original Message----- > From: Milan Tepavac [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: September 2, 2001 1:44 AM > > > CRIMES UNDER THE GUISE OF HUMAN RIGHTS > > It seems to me that I've never in my life read something so > disgusting, distorting and poisonous as this piece of a NGO which > calls itself "Human Rights Watch" (see below). If Goebels and Zdanov > were alive they would die of envy. We have here an example of what the > Orwellian New World Order has done to the mind and soul of some > people.This is my first and last time that I pay any attention to that > organization. > > 1. Can the United Nations Security Council establish an international > court? > > Of course not. The fact is that the Security Council, when adopting > the resolution 827, "establishing" International Criminal Tribunal for > Former Yugososlavia (ICTY) acted ultra vires and the passing of time > cannot validate it. Quod initio invalidum est, non potest tractu > temporis convalescere. That resolution is really a "black hole" of > international law, and - I do not hesitate to say - that those fifteen > sitting in the SC who adopted it are criminals under international law > because they delivered a death blow to international law and should be > accountable for it under its very law - Article 7(4) of its Statute. > Many international lawyers have the same opinion about ICTY. A German > NGO from Berlin simply states: > 1. The "indictment" [against Mr. Milosevic] issued by the "Chief > Prosecutor" of the so-called "International Criminal Tribunal for the > Former Yugoslavia" is legally invalid because this "Tribunal" has no > jurisdiction whatsoever in the present or any other case. > > 2. The "Tribunal" derives its raison d'�tre exclusively from Security > Council resolution 827, adopted at the Council's 3217th meeting on 25 > May 1993. In this resolution, establishing the so-called > "International Criminal Tribunal," the Security Council states that it > acts "under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations." > > 3. When adopting the above resolution, the Security Council acted > ultra vires. According to the provisions of the U.N. Charter, the > Council has no competence whatsoever in judicial matters. The > provisions of Chapter VII determine the Council's competence in > matters of international security but not in matters of criminal > justice or other judicial matters. The sole authority in international > judicial matters rests with the International Court of Justice > > Now, any further discussion about ICTY from the legal point of view > should stop here. But, let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that > it were established legally. > > So, even if ICTY were established according to international law, its > Statute would invalidate it with many of its provisions and - its > omissions! > > The Security Council had no right whatsoever to formulate substantive > rules of international criminal law and prescribe penalties for them, > since it is not legislative body!!. But, omissions are even more > interesting! It lacks the prime, supreme international crime - the > crime of aggressive war, whether international or internal, civil war. > It was purposely done by those fifteen criminals in the Security > Council: in order to protect from criminal responsibility those who > planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted > in the planning, preparation or execution of the secessionist wars in > Yugoslavia and NATO aggression against it. So, we have the situation > that a Bosnian peasant worker gets life imprisonment, while real > culprits - Tudjman, Kucan, Izetbegovic, Gligorov, Genscher, Kohl, > Clinton, Pope, Badinter, Carrington, Albright, Zimmermann, > Eagelberger, Wesley Clark and many more - get red carpets. So, those > fifteen of the SC made a mockery of international law and irreparable > damage to the concept of justice. It is a deadly blow to our > civilization. Maybe the greatest crime today against international law > and order is the attempt to impose the pronouncements of such a > Tribunal as international law! > > 2. "Indictment" against president Milosevic > Now, let us turn to the "indictment" against Mr. Milosevic, > disregarding, again for the sake of argument, the illegality of the > ICTY and its Statute. > The conditio sine qua non for the application of the international > humanitarian law is the existence of the "war" or "armed conflict" on > a given territory. Without a war or armed conflict there are no > violations of the rules of IHL. So, the "chief prosecutor" of the ICTY > Louise Arbour had to have a war or armed conflict in the sense of > international humanitarian law. She needed it. So, she just invented > it by stating that there was in Kosovo the state of war! Let's look at > the positive international humanitarian law: > Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 and > Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed > Conflicts (Protocol II) in para 1 of Article 1 states that it > "develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions > of August 12, 1949 without modifying its existing conditions of > application". Then in para 2 states: > "2. This Protocol shall not apply to situations of internal > disturbances and tensions, such as riots, isolated and sporadic acts > of violence and other acts of a similar nature, as not being armed > conflicts." > That is exactly what we had in Kosovo. There was no war there. Even > when the real war started on March 24, 1999, it was the war between > NATO and Yugoslavia, and not a civil war between Albanian and > non-Albanian inhabitants of Kosovo. > We have now similar situation in Macedonia, although Macedonia even > uses helicopters and jets against the rebels, and before it we had it > at southern Serbia. No one, as far as I know, those situations > characterizes as "war" or "armed conflict" in the sense of IHL. They > are internal disturbances which are dealt with the legitimate measures > of state organs in accordance with para 2 of Article 1 of the Protocol > II. > Of course, in those situations also crimes could be committed, and > they as a matter of fact were committed by all involved, but those > crimes are ordinary crimes under national legislations, and are not of > the concern of international humanitarian law. > I sincerely hope that Mr. Milosevic will endure in his determination > to fight from the dungeons in the Hague for the truth and justice to > the end and show to the world the monstrosity of the NWO and its > institution called ICTY. He must. But equally we must help him. > Because the only "crime" he and his people committed is that they > dared to defend their country and themselves from armed secessionist > (remember: it was ARMED sesession as it was in the USA in 1861-65, not > just secession and it has been said time and again that if Milosevic > is war criminal then Lincoln many times gretar for the war in which > more than 600.000 young Americans lost their lives!) vultures and > their masters from abroad and NATO aggression without having the > permission for it from Washington. To succumb would mean that the > concept of truth and justice, the very basis of our civilization, has > perished from the face of the Earth and that the monsters have won and > overtaken the world into their hands. > > 3. "The transfer of Milosevic from a Belgrade jail to the Hague was a > clear obligation under the United Nations Charter..." says HRW. > > It was neither "transfer" nor "deportation" but KIDNAPPING, thus in > violation of Yugoslav Constitution, Yugoslav law and international > law, especially Universal Declaration of Human Rights and > International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. What we have > here? A human rights organization which justifies kidnapping of a > former head of state instead of protecting human beings agaist > violations of their basic human rights!! Really Orwellian. > > The International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) was > established immediately after Mr. Milosevic was arrested in Belgrade > by the Belgrade puppet government at the end of March 2001. Its > petition to immediately free Milosevic is by now signed by more than > 1400 people from all over the world, among them international lawyers, > writers, intellectuals, politicians. Many have spoken and written > condemning his arrest and kidnapping. > > Here is, for example, what Professor Marjorie Cohn from Thomas > Jefferson School of Law says. Although she does not use the word > "kidnapping", it is fair and honest presentation of the case: > > The deportation of former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic to the > International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was a direct > result of blackmail by the United States. Desperate to rebuild its > economy, the Serbian government capitulated to U.S. threats: deliver > Milosevic to the war crimes tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands, or the > U.S. would see to it that Yugoslavia didn't get the foreign aid it > critically needs. > > Ten years of punishing sanctions against the people of Yugoslavia > coupled with U.S.-led NATO's 78-day bombing campaign have left the > country's economy in shambles. Damage to the Yugoslav economy is > estimated at $4 billion. One million people live below the poverty > level, half the population is unemployed, and Yugoslavia has an annual > inflation rate of 150 percent and a foreign debt of $12 billion. > > The U.S. destroyed the economy of Yugoslavia, killed or wounded > thousands of its people - including civilians - and then promised > megabucks to the Serbs if they would cough up Milosevic. Usually the > ransom is paid to end the kidnapping. This time it was ponied up as a > reward for the kidnap. And the payoff? $1.28 billion in aid from the > July 29 donors conference, orchestrated by the United States. Serbian > Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic arranged the deportation by > circumventing the recently elected President of Yugoslavia, Vladimir > Kostunica. According to Sara Flounders, National Co-Director of the > International Action Center, "Milosevic was sold to the U.S. by their > man in Belgrade. Imagine a governor of a state in the U.S. overriding > the federal government and constitution to surrender a U.S. citizen to > another country." > > Kostunica, adamantly committed to due process, insisted that > Yugoslavia's judicial procedures be followed before Milosevic was > delivered to the ICTY in The Hague. The deportation, which Kostunica > said could not be characterized as legal and constitutional, violated > Yugoslavia's constitution, parliament, Constitutional Court, and > decisions of President Kostunica. Former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey > Clark denounced the deportation as "an enormous tragedy for > Yugoslavia, the Serbian people and the rule of law." While the leaders > of the Western world cheer the "extradition" of Milosevic - a misnomer > because he wasn't sent to another country, but to an international > tribunal - the fragile democracy in Yugoslavia has been dealt a severe > blow. Ramsey Clark thinks the real purpose of the deportation, > sanctions, bombing and demonization of the Serbs "is to reduce all of > the former Yugoslavia to the status of a U.S./NATO colony." > > Kostunica has decried the impartiality of the ICTY for its hypocrisy > in indicting Serbs, but refusing to indict NATO leaders for war crimes > committed in the course of the 1999 bombing. NATO bombs killed > 1500-2000 civilians and injured thousands more. When I was in > Yugoslavia last year, I saw schools, hospitals, bridges, libraries and > homes reduced to rubble. The ICTY statute prohibits the targeting of > civilians. And even though it also forbids the use of poisonous > weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering, NATO used depleted > uranium and cluster bombs whose devastating character is widely known. > NATO also targeted a petrochemical complex, releasing carcinogens into > the air that reached 10,600 times the acceptable safety level... > > The prosecutors of the Vietnam War - Lyndon Baines Johnson, Henry > Kissinger and Robert McNamara - were never tried for war crimes for > causing the deaths of 3 million Vietnamese people. It was McNamara who > defined most of the Vietnamese countryside, populated by peasants, as > a free-fire zone. He wrote in a letter to LBJ in 1967: "The picture of > the world's greatest superpower killing or seriously injuring 1,000 > noncombatants a week, while trying to pound a tiny backward nation > into submission on an issue whose merits are hotly disputed, is not a > pretty one." McNamara admitted his complicity in a 1995 memoir. > > Indeed, the hypocrisy of the United States government is no more > evident than in its refusal to ratify the statute for the > International Criminal Court, out of fear that U.S. leaders might > become defendants in war crimes prosecutions. Yet, our government was > baffled when the United States -- the world's human rights policeman > -- was voted off the United Nations Commission on Human Rights... > > A fundamental principle of international law is complementarity: the > international tribunals complement - they don't supplant - the courts > of nation states. Most of the former Latin American military leaders > charged with human rights abuses that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s > are facing justice in their respective countries. The Yugoslavians > should be able to judge their own leaders before the they are judged > by the international community. > > Count 1 of the Indictment against Slobodan Milosevic charges him with > "Deportation, a crime against humanity . . ." He must be accountable > for what he has done. But the U.S.-engineered deportation of Milosevic > is a crime against the people of Yugoslavia. > http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forumnew25.htm ) > > (As I write this text I hear from TV that a Dutch court rejected a > request by former Slobodan Milosevic to order his immediate release. > "The Dutch court is incompetent to rule" on Milosevic's demand for > release, the judge said. Nico Varkevisser, head of an international > support group for Milosevic, said he will appeal the ruling, and "will > go to the highest Dutch court." He said he might return the case to > the European human rights court, on the > grounds that Milosevic's detention amounted to "kidnapping". In my > opinion, the ruling of the Dutch court is untenable and a shame for > the people of that supposedly democratic country, for the simple > reason that the slavery is not permitted on the soil of the > Netherlands under its constitution. The kidnapping of Mr. Milosevic in > Belgrade by ICTY and his detention on the Netherland's soil amounts to > slavery). > *** > I take this opportunity to warn all anti-Serbian racists and vultures > thirsty of Serbian blood that I firmly believe that the time will come > that they will be called to answer for their crimes, for their crimes > without precedence in human history: to genocide a nation by lies, > distortions, satonization, sanctions, secessionist wars, naked > aggression. Alfred Rosenberg was hanged, justly, for being the Nazi > Party's ideologist and propagandist, for developing and spreading Nazi > doctrines in the newspapers "Voelkischer Beobachter" and "N S > Monatshefte". The present-day anti-Serbian vultures have done and are > doing far more greater crimes against Serbian nation. The Serbs must > find a way to stop them before it is too late, before the genocide > against them is completed. We here in Belgrade, in Serbia, in > Yugoslavia, impoverished to one dollar a day for biological survival, > just can't endure any more the terror of anti-Serbian vultures > disguised in human rights robes. > ========================================= > http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/08/milo-0829.htm > Human Rights Watch > - Press Release - > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE > > MILOSEVIC: JUSTICE PROCEEDS > > (New York, August 29, 2001) -- As former Yugoslav President Slobodan > Milosevic prepared for a second appearance before the Hague tribunal, > Human Rights Watch expressed its disagreement with several contentions > in the motion that Milosevic filed with the court in August. > > Mr. Milosevic had charged that the tribunal was illegitimate and > selective. A hearing before the war crimes court will take place on > Thursday, August 30 to chart the course for Milosevic's trial. > > "This is not victors' justice - this is justice for the victims of > horrific crimes," said Richard Dicker, director of International > Justice for Human Rights Watch. "Slobodan Milosevic was at the top of > the chain of command of military and security forces that wrought > mayhem in Kosovo in early 1999. He needs to be held to account, with > all the protections of a fair trial, for the ethnic cleansing and > killings there." > > Human Rights Watch documented scores of killings by Serb forces during > the 1998-1999 conflict that took an estimated 10,000 Kosovar Albanian > lives. The most egregious abuses took place during the NATO bombing > period from March to June 1999 when Serbian and Yugoslav forces > conducted a > brutal ethnic cleansing campaign in which thousands of ethnic > Albanians were killed. Throughout Kosovo villages were systematically > cleansed, with long columns of displaced persons leading along roads, > into cities and then out of the country. > > In his motion of August 9, Mr. Milosevic claimed that the tribunal had > no authority over him because "his extradition violated" the > constitutions of Yugoslavia and Serbia. > > "The transfer of Milosevic from a Belgrade jail to the Hague was a > clear obligation under the United Nations Charter and the 1995 Dayton > Peace Accords that ended the war in Bosnia. Slobodan Milosevic signed > the Dayton accord on behalf of Yugoslavia. The authorities in Belgrade > had a clear obligation under international law to turn him over to > face justice," said Dicker. > > Below please find a short Q & A on Milosevic's case before the > Tribunal. > > THE MILOSEVIC CASE: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS > > Question: Can the United Nations Security Council establish an > international court? > > Answer: The Security Council has, under Chapter VII of the United > Nations Charter, "paramount responsibility" for dealing with threats > to international peace and security. Under this authority the Security > Council has taken many steps, including dispatching peacekeepers to > conflict zones, including the former Yugoslavia. On May 25, 1993, the > Security Council adopted Resolution 827 establishing a court to try > those responsible for the worst crimes committed in the Yugoslav > conflict. When an earlier defendant before the tribunal challenged its > creation, his claims were unanimously dismissed by Tribunal judges > from Italy, Egypt, China, Canada, and Pakistan. > > The Security Council also established a similar tribunal to try those > responsible for the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. The United Nations > General Assembly has no such authority. > > Question: Is there an "anti-Serb bias" at the Tribunal? > > The Tribunal is empowered to investigate anyone, regardless of > nationality, who committed serious crimes in the course of the > conflicts in the former Yugoslavia. As of March 2001, the Tribunal > had publicly indicted 66 individuals, 50 of them Serbs. It recently > handed a down a forty-five year prison sentence against a Croatian > army general accused of war crimes. From its field investigations of > the conduct of all sides to the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, > Human Rights Watch has found that > the majority of crimes were committed by Serb forces. Not > insignificantly, Serb forces were the only ones to participate in each > of the conflicts - in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Kosovo. > > Question: Can Slobodan Milosevic get a fair trial before this Court > which is strongly supported by NATO countries? Isn't the trial of > Milosevic "victors' justice"? > > While the tribunal is not perfect (no court is), the ICTY functions > according to the highest standards of international justice. This > means that Mr. Milosevic will receive all the guarantees necessary for > a fair > trial. Its proceedings have to date resulted in the acquittal of a > number of defendants, including Serbs, on various charges. If the > Tribunal falls short in protecting any of Milosevic's rights to mount > a vigorous defense, it should be criticized and change its practice. > > The ICTY is an international court. The pre-trial judges hearing the > initial proceedings are from the United Kingdom, Jamaica, and Morocco. > As of April 2001, the Tribunal employed a staff of 1,103 from 74 > different countries. While certainly there are citizens from NATO > countries serving at all levels of the Tribunal, if there is a > specific conflict of interest, that individual should recuse him or > herself from the proceedings. > > Question: Why hasn't the Tribunal tried NATO officials for war crimes > in Yugoslavia? > > The tribunal carried out an investigation into the conduct of NATO > forces during the conflict in Kosovo and concluded that there was > insufficient evidence to support a prosecution. > > Human Rights Watch itself conducted extensive field research into the > 1999 NATO air war against Yugoslavia. We found that 500 civilians were > killed and 90 targets were selected inappropriately because they were > civilian targets. We concluded that these incidents, which violated > the laws of war, did not, however, rise to the more serious level of > "grave breaches" or war crimes that the tribunal is empowered to > prosecute. > > If other evidence of NATO culpability for war crimes does arise, it > would be essential for the tribunal to investigate those allegations. > If the evidence warrants, the court should investigate and, if need > be, > prosecute those responsible for the alleged crimes. > > For a short assessment of what happened on the ground in Kosovo, > including the "chain of command" establishing Milosevic's authority, > see http://www.hrw.org//press/2001/07/chain-of-command.htm . > > For more information, please contact: > Richard Dicker in The Hague: +31 6 229 36 503 (mobile); +31 70 362 > 4371 > (Park Hotel) > Elizabeth Andersen, Washington: +1 202 612 4326 > Jean-Paul Marthoz in Brussels: +32 2 732 2009 > > Serbian News Network - SNN [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antic.org/
