http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg121405.htm

Slobodan Milosevic Freedom Center


KWON, BONOMY, AND ROBINSON CAUGHT WITH THEIR PANTS DOWN OVER THEIR
DECISION ON THE SEVERANCE OF THE KOSOVO INDICTMENT
www.slobodan-milosevic.org

 December 14, 2005

Written by: Andy Wilcoxson

Yesterday the trial chamber of The Hague Tribunal denied Slobodan
Milosevic's application for an extension of the time allotted for his
defense case. The trial chamber held the view that Milosevic did not
make efficient use of his time because he did not submit the testimony
of his defense witnesses in writing pursuant to Rules 89(F) and 92
bis.

The trial chamber's ruling asserted that: "The Accused has sufficient
resources to make use of written testimony. The fact is that he has
made no effort to do so. His submissions are not that he would like to
present evidence in writing […] on the contrary, he relies on the
misguided view of what is required for a trial to be public. Evidence
presented in writing, subject to public scrutiny, is no less public
than viva voce evidence."

Article 21 of the tribunal's statute guarantees that "the accused
shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing" and shall be entitled
"to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person."

In view of his right to a public trial, Milosevic's position is that
all of the evidence presented in the trial should be accessible to the
public. Contrary to the trial chamber's assertion, evidence presented
in writing is not subject to public scrutiny. The tribunal does not
have proper facilities to make such material accessible to the public.

The de facto position is that Tribunal's archives are closed to the
public. Obtaining a document from the tribunal is almost impossible.
Anybody who doubts what I'm saying can try asking the tribunal for a
copy of one of the defense exhibits – I can almost guarantee that
you'll never get it.

In reality, the only way for Milosevic's right to a public trial to be
realized is for all of his witnesses to testify viva voce. The fact
that Milosevic wants to exercise his right to a public trial can not
rightfully be used by the tribunal as an excuse to limit the amount of
evidence he can call.

In its ruling the Trial Chamber provided the following statistics:

Total number of Prosecution witnesses: 352; Total number of viva voce
witnesses: 114 (32.4%); Total number of Rule 92bis witnesses: 189
(53.7%) [With Cross-examination: 135 (38.4%); Without
Cross-examination: 54 (15.3%)]; Total number of Rule 94bis witnesses:
20 (5.7%); Total number of Rule 89(F) witnesses: 26 (7.4%); Total
number of Rules 92bis/89(F) witnesses: 3 (0.9%)

Not even the tribunal's most ardent supporters could seriously argue
that the trial was fair if Milosevic is not permitted to call at least
the same number of witnesses as the prosecution.

On top of the 352 prosecution witnesses, there are 930 prosecution
exhibits totaling more than 85,000 pages. There is no way that
Milosevic, or anybody else, could possibly address such a massive
volume of material in the 360 hours allotted by the tribunal for the
defense case. In order to complete the defense case in 360 hours,
Milosevic would not be able to spend more than 12 minutes responding
to each of the exhibits and/or witnesses produced the prosecution.

To properly address such a vast quantity of material, Milosevic would
have to spend several more years presenting his defense case.
Expecting Milosevic to complete the defense case in 360 hours is as
unreasonable as expecting a surgeon to perform open-heart surgery in 5
minutes.

If the tribunal refuses to grant Milosevic more time, and then turns
around and convicts him, then they'll look like fools. How could
anybody possibly say that a trial was fair if an accused is not given
adequate time to present his evidence and rebut the charges against
him? How can a guilty verdict stand-up to even the most minor scrutiny
if the accused in the case is prevented from calling evidence that can
exonerate him simply because the Judges say the clock ran out?

On top of the trial chamber's fallacious reasoning that 360 hours for
the defense and 360 hours for the prosecution automatically equals to
a fair trial. The ruling on the severance of the Kosovo indictment has
clearly exposed the political nature of the Tribunal. The trial
chamber's ruling reads: "In light of the foregoing decision [not to
extend the time allotted for the defense case], which should lead to
the conclusion of the trial within the anticipated time scale, the
Trial Chamber does not consider it appropriate to sever the Kosovo
indictment."

Bear in mind that it was the trial chamber's idea to sever the Kosovo
indictment and render an early judgment in the first place. The
defense and the prosecution have both consistently opposed severing
the indictment.

When the trial chamber first hatched the scheme to sever the Kosovo
Indictment a couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article accusing the
tribunal of wanting to render an early verdict on Kosovo in order give
political ammunition to those advocating independence during the
negotiations on Kosovo's final status. [See:
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg112405.htm ]

Severing the indictment would have allowed the tribunal to render an
early verdict on the Kosovo part of indictment, without putting them
in such an absurd position in relation to the Bosnia and Croatia
indictments. Politics dictate that Milosevic be convicted for Bosnia
and Croatia, but a conviction will not appear legitimate unless
Milosevic is given the opportunity to call evidence to refute the
charges against him.

Clearly, if Milosevic had gone along with the severance of the Kosovo
indictment, then the tribunal would have granted him more time to
defend himself against the Bosnia and Croatia indictments. Otherwise
they never would have brought the issue up. As this latest ruling
makes clear, the trial is going to end soon enough without extending
the time so why would the trial chamber bother severing the indictment
without extending the time?

Politics dictate that Milosevic be convicted over Kosovo -- and soon.
NATO can not keep the Kosovo-Albanians at bay much longer. The
Kosovo-Albanians are armed to the teeth and they aren't afraid to use
violence against NATO and UN personnel in the pursuit of Kosovo
independence.

NATO occupies Kosovo based on the lie that it's protecting the
Kosovo-Albanians. It would look really bad politically if the
Kosovo-Albanians launched a war against NATO.

Politically, NATO's only option is to give the Kosovo-Albanians what
they want. Legally, NATO can not make Kosovo independent. UN Security
Counsel Resolution 1244, which ended the Kosovo war, guarantees
Serbia's territorial integrity and envisions the return of Serbian
police and military forces to the province.

By convicting Milosevic for crimes in Kosovo the Tribunal hopes to
provide NATO and the Kosovo-Albanians with the political justification
to violate Resolution 1244 and change Serbia's borders without
Serbia's consent.

The tribunal's only problem is that Kwon, Bonomy, and Robinson got
caught with their dicks in the wind on this one. It's obvious that
they would have granted Milosevic extra time to address the Bosnia and
Croatia indictments if he had agreed to accept the severance of the
Kosovo indictment – otherwise they never would have brought the issue
of severance up to begin with.

Because Milosevic refused to accept the severance of the Kosovo
indictment, the tribunal has been forced into a position where it must
render a premature judgment on all of the indictments in time to serve
NATO's political needs in Kosovo.

Milosevic is a political genius. He has outwitted the tribunal yet
again and exposed Kwon, Bonamy, and Robinson as the NATO lackeys they
are. The decision on the severance of the Kosovo indictment can not be
explained by any terms other than politics. By forcing the tribunal to
make this ruling, Milosevic has proven beyond any doubt that politics
is the primary concern of the Hague Tribunal.

                                   Serbian News Network - SNN

                                        [email protected]

                                    http://www.antic.org/

Reply via email to