Main                      News                     Ñòàòüè                      Àðõèâ

Ñì. òàêæå çäåñü

The Committee for commemoration of Slobodan Milosevic, organized by Russian anti-globalists, held a meeting on the occasion of his 65th anniversary. They protested against the illegal Tribunal on former Yugoslavia and against plans of making Kosova and Metohia independent from Serbia. These resolutions were supported by vice-speaker of Duma (Russian Parliament) Serguei Baburin and other politicians, Rusian and Serb activists.




President Slobodan Milosevic, the biggest fighter for freedom and dignity of
the Serbian people and the greatest international symbol of the struggle
fore peoples' rights, have been murdered this morning in the detention unit
in Scheveningen.

For this crime, the Hague tribunal is directly responsible, by its denial to
allow his medical treatment in Moscow, in spite of his critical medical

We demand from the UN General Secretary to immediately suspend the works of
this criminal institution, and from the UN Security Council we demand to
abolish it.

We demand from Serbian authorities to immediately cut any cooperation with
the tribunal and to make possible to the people to express the honor to
President Milosevic. If they decline to do that, they will respond before
the people.

Who was and what for was struggling Slobodan Milosevic, the Serbian people
and the whole freedom-loving world knows best. His death has to mark the end
of the treacherous and servile policies that lead the country and the people
into disaster.

We call upon the people to unite in defense of its freedom and dignity, as
it was always done by Slobodan Milosevic.

The book of condolences will be open on Sunday, 12 March at 9 am in the
premises of Sloboda/Freedom Association, 16 Rajiceva street in Belgrade.

Sloboda/Freedom Association
National Committee for the Liberation of Slobodan Milosevic



          Predsednik Slobodan Milosevic, najveci borac za slobodu i
dostojanstvo srpskog naroda i najveci simbol borbe za prava naroda u svetu,
ubijen je jutros u pritvorskoj jedinici u Seveningenu.

          Za ovaj zlocin direktno je odgovoran haski tribunal koji je,
uprkos kriticnom zdravstvenom stanju predsednika Slobodana Milosevica, odbio
da omoguci njegovo lecenje u Moskvi.

          Zahtevamo od generalnog sekretara UN da odmah obustavi rad ove
zlocinacke institucije, a od Saveta bezbednosti UN da je ukine.

          Zahtevamo od srpskih vlasti da odmah prekinu svaku saradnju sa
tribunalom i da omoguce narodu da oda du`nu postu predsedniku Milosevicu.
Ukoliko to ne ucine, odgovarace pred sudom naroda.

          Ko je bio i za sta se borio Slobodan Milosevic, najbolje zna
srpski narod, ali i citav slobodoljubivi svet. Njegova smrt mora oznaciti
kraj izdajnicke i udvoricke politike koja zemlju i narod vodi u propast.

          Pozivamo narod da se ujedini u odbrani svoje slobode i
dostojanstva, kao sto je to uvek cinio Slobodan Milosevic.

          Knjiga zalosti bice otvorena u nedelju, 12. marta u 9 casova u
prostorijama Udruzenja SLOBODA, ul. Rajiceva br. 16 u Beogradu.

 Udruzenje SLOBODA
 Nacionalni komitet za oslobo|enje Slobodana Milosevica

The International Committee For the Defence of Slobodan Milosevic condemns
the  deliberate refusal of the fascist Hague tribunal to honour all
civilized codes of decency and law which have resulted in the death of
President Slobodan Milosevic in their hands today, March 11, 2006. Their
actions are tantamount to the murder of a man who stood as a symbol of
resistance to the New World Order and a symbol of and fighter for the
independence and sovereignty of the peoples of Yugoslavia and for social
justice in the world. This was his only crime.

We demand that there be an international, independent enquiry into the
circumstances and cause of his death and that his family, his party and
his supporters be party to that enquiry.

We also demand the right of his wife and family to attend his funeral
without fear of persecution, arrest or any other impediment to their right
to honour their beloved husband, comrade and father.

To the people of Yugoslavia we offer our profound sympathies. Yet, though
he is no longer with us in body, his ceaseless courage, his determination
to show the world the truth about the aggression by the western powers
against Yugoslavia, his spirit of resistance to the new fascism, and his
constant belief in the strength and spirit of the people, will forever
light the darkness into which the world has descended.  We salute him and
will forever thank and honour him.

Christopher Black
Chair, Legal Committee
and Vice-Chair ICDSM


We are dismayed and deeply distressed at the cavalier and dilatory dismissal
by the ICTY Trial Chamber of former President Slobodan Milosevic's request
that, as recommended by the internationally respected Bakoulev Center for
Cardiovascular Surgery in Moscow, he be transferred there for further
testing and possible treatment for a life threatening cardiovascular
condition.  Based on medical examinations of President Milosevic by three
doctors on November 4, 2005, including Dr. M.V. Shumilina, an angiologist
from the Bakoulev Center, Dr. L.A. Bockeria, Director and Chairman of the
Bakoulev Center found President Milosevic condition to be "critical".  The
Trial Chamber received these medical evaluations on November 15, 2005.

Most dismaying and distressing is the total failure of the Trial Chamber to
address and acknowledge the medical condition of President Milosevic and
order needed testing and medical treatment as is the right of every
prisoner. International law-and in particular, the International Covenant
for Civil and Political Rights-- prescribes, and the ICTY's own Rules of
detention guarantee, the rights of prisoners to be " treated with humanity
and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person". Throughout
the course of legal proceedings, accused are presumed innocent, and those
deprived of their liberty are to be treated in a manner "appropriate to
their status as unconvicted persons". President Milosevic remains untreated
in the face of Dr. Shumilina's conclusion that his medical treatment at the
United Nations Detention Unit is "inadequate".  Incredibly, despite his
history of heart problems and high blood pressure, no vascular diagnoses had
been made before November 4, 2004.  Yet President Milosevic's health has
been a major concern in the proceedings for the past three years.  The
stress of the proceedings, the inadequate medical care and the prison
conditions have severely worsened his prior health problems endangering his

       The Trial Chamber has taken no action to protect the life of a
prisoner whose physical condition has been found to be critical.   Instead
it has trivialized its duty to assure adequate and necessary medical care
for a person being tried before it. Detainees who require special treatment,
as does President Milosevic, must be transferred to specialized institutions
for that treatment, as set out by the. Standard Minimum Rules for the
Treatment of Prisoners, adopted by the First United Nations Congress on the
Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders.

The Trial Chamber astonishingly proclaims:

1.   "That neither Dr. Shumilina nor Dr. Bockeria states that the Bakoulev
Center is the only possible location for appropriate diagnosis and treatment
of the accused's condition."  What conceit could lead them to such a boast?
They doubtless believe their Center is the best and such a conclusion is
justified.   No confidence can be placed in the medical choices of the Court
authorities after their years of neglect and selection in December 2005 of
Dr. Aarts, a Dutch neurological radiologist, who found no pathological
condition in President Milosevic and made no recommendations for treatment.

2.   That it "...accepts the submission of the Prosecution that if the
Accused wishes to be treated by specialists who are not from the
Netherlands, such physicians may come here to treat him."  Rich and famous
people travel from all parts of the world to leading medical centers like
Bakoulev, often when their very travel is a risk.  No one believes the same
quality service could be provided by roving medical teams of the world's
best doctors and if it could be, the number of patients they serve would be
drastically reduced.

Both propositions are absurd in a proceeding where life and fundamental
rights are at stake.  And how does the panel explain its authorizing Pavle
Strugar to be repeatedly released to travel to Montenegro, an entity which
is not a UN member, for hip replacement surgery, a relatively safe, simple
and a minor procedure?          Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, IT-01-42-A, 3
December 2001, 16 December 2005.

The final conclusion of the Trial Chamber proclaims that it is "not
satisfied ... that it is more likely than not that the Accused, if released,
would return for the continuation of his trial".  Why it has more trust in
the government of Montenegro or interim administration of Kosovo than the
Russian Federation, which has given its word to return President Milosevic,
is not explained, but the insult to a permanent member of the Security
Council is inescapable.

The Trial Chamber's reliance in denying President Milosevic needed medical
care, on the proceedings being in "its latter stages ... at the end of which
.... he may face the possibility of life imprisonment" is irrational at best.
Does it mean under such circumstances, a prisoner may just have to die?  Is
it too late for urgently needed medical treatment?  Does it mean "the
possibility of life imprisonment is greater in the latter stages of a trial
than in the beginning?  Then it is commenting on the weight of the evidence
which it will judge.  Would a defendant who believes he would be convicted
and sentenced to life in prison wait until the latter stages of proceedings
to seek a means of escape?  Would an impartial Court obligated to hear all
the evidence before reaching a decision believe in the latter stages of a
trial it was hearing that the defendant was more likely to flee then than he
was at the beginning, unless the Court believed the evidence supported a
severe sentence?  Has the Court revealed its bias by its bizarre reliance on
a presumed fear of a life sentence by the accused in the latter stages of
these proceedings?

The decision of the Trial Chamber is unsupportable in fact and in law.  It
exposes the Court's strategy of feeble excuses to support its prejudice and
reveals its own failures to protect the health of this prisoner.

The decision is so unreasonable and plainly unjust as to demonstrate the
appearance and the fact of judicial prejudice.

The Court has determined that President Milosevic must face the possibility
of death because it sees the possibility of a life sentence as the cause for
his seeking emergency medical care.

The decision alone, affirmed by the Appeals Chamber, will do great injury to
the ICTY and international humanitarian law.  The death, or serious
impairment of President Milosevic for want of medical care will impose the
same sentence on the ICTY and international law as a means to peace.

We urge you to reverse the Trial Chamber's decision and order the immediate
transfer of President Milosevic to the Bakoulev Center for testing and
treatment under the conditions proposed.

(Ending for the Security Council)

We urge you to direct the ICTY to order the immediate transfer of President
Milosevic to the Bakoulev Center for testing and treatment under the
conditions proposed.

Respectfully submitted,

Ramsey Clark, Former US Attorney General, USA

Professor Velko Valkanov, doctor of law, President of the Bulgarian
Committee for Human Rights, former MP, Bulgaria

Professor Alexander Zinoviev, philosopher, writer, Russian Federation

Professor Sergei Baburin, doctor of law, Vice-Chairman of the State Duma of
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Russian Federation

JUDr Vojtech Filip, Vice-Chairman of the Chamber of Deputies of the
Parliament of the Czech Republic

Thanassis Pafilis, Meber of the European Parliament, General Secretary of
the World Peace Council, Greece

Tiphaine Dickson, international criminal lawyer, Quebec

Professor Aldo Bernardini, doctor of international law, Italy

Christopher Black, international criminal lawyer, Canada

Klaus Hartmann, Vice-Chairman of the World Union of Freethinkers, Germany

He died but not surrendered

The Moscow anti-globalists were shaken by the news about the death of the Slave leader, the warrior against the ‘new world order’ Slobodan Milosevic. On Sunday, March 12 anti-globalists and communists gathered in front of the Embassy of Netherlands to express their indignation against the illegitimate “Tribunal on former Yugoslavia”. They also expressed their condolences to the Serbian people. As it sounded in an old Slave song, “The Russian and we make a great force”.

It was declared that the memory of  Slobodan Milosevic would be honored on March 24 at the celebration of the Day of Anti-Globalist Resistance.    


On 29 November 2005, during the 'debate on his health and severance of the
indictments' before the ICTY, President Milosevic gave a powerful lesson of
law and politics to his inquisitors. The 'judges' made no decision yet,
waiting for further medical reports, in spite it was lauded in the debate
that all medical experts, including the ones appointed by the ICTY, agree
that a period of rest for President Milosevic is absolutely needed. Instead,
the proceedings continued. During the yesterday's debate, President
Milosevic presented the written conclusions of a group of renown Russian
International Law experts on 'fairness' of the Hague proceedings. Below we
offer for the first time to the public the English translation of that
important document.

of the Group of members of the Russian Association of International Law for
Monitoring the Process Prosecutor v. S. Milosevic in the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

Group of members of the Russian Association of International Law for
Monitoring the Process Prosecutor v. S. Milosevic in the International
Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is expressing its concern over the
violation of the fundamental right of the accused - the right to fair trial.

The right to a fair trial was set out in a series of international legal
acts (Art. 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948; Art. 14 of
the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, 1966; Art. 6 of
the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms, 1950; Art. 75.4 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva
Convention on the Protection of the Victims of War, 1977and other), and in
the Statute of the very Tribunal (Art. 21.2). Hence, the assurance of that
right is obligatory in any process ongoing in ICTY.

The international legal term of "fairness" of court proceedings includes a
number of elements, primarily the right of the defendant: to have adequate
time and facilities for the preparation of his defense; to defend himself in
person; to be tried in his presence; to examine, or have examined, the
witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of
witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him.

1. Right of the accused to "to have adequate time for the
preparation of his defense".

Since the signature of the first indictment against S. Milosevic till the
beginning of the Prosecution Case two years and eight months have passed.
All that time was used up for the preparation of the Prosecution Case. The
preparation of the Prosecution Case went on even for eight months after
detention of the accused in prison.

Three months were allowed to S. Milosevic for the preparation of defense.[1]
After certain prolongation of that period due to the illness of the
defendant, the whole time for the preparation of defense came to six months.
However, a considerable part of the prolongation could not be used for the
preparation of defense because the Secretariat of the Tribunal kept denying
to S. Milosevic to meet with his witnesses on the grounds of his ill health.

It is absolutely clear that the period of time for the preparation of
defense in the most complex international criminal case, which contains 66
counts and several thousand of episodes is inadequate, moreover in prison
conditions. In compliance with the principles of equality of the parties in
the process, the defendant must get at least the same time for the
preparation of his defense as the prosecution had for the preparation of its
Case - from the moment of signature of the Indictment till the onset of the
trial. In compliance with the principle of granting the defendant an
adequate time for the preparation of his defense, and taking into
consideration the extraordinary complexity of the case, S. Milosevic must be
given an adequate time span, because less than six months allowed can't be
considered adequate.

The appeal by the defendant to have more time was rejected by the Appeals
Chamber too, stating "by choosing to conduct his own defence, the Accused
deprived himself of resources a well-equipped legal defence team could have
provide" and that he "must be reciprocated by the acceptance of
responsibility for the disadvantages this choice may bring"[2]. In support
to this "conclusion" the Appeals Chamber invoked four decisions of the
national courts, but forgot to refer to the valid norms of the international
law. So the highest chamber of the Tribunal, which is obliged to protect the
violated rights of the defendant, confirmed illegal decision of the Trial
Chamber, by having punished the defendant for choosing to defend himself in
person, without quoting legally convincing arguments. The right to an
adequate time for the preparation of defense belongs to the defendant not to
the lawyers! Besides, that right is on the list of rights without

Hence, the Group founds the violation by ICTY of the right of the defendant
to be accorded adequate time to prepare his defence.

2. The right of the accused to "defend himself in person".

The right of the accused to his own defense in person is under no
limitation, likewise and hence a forceful imposition of counsel constitutes
a breach of the norms of the international law. No argumentation of the
court, the least the temporary illness of the defendant, may serve as the
grounds for depriving him of that right.

The forced imposition of counsel for the accused provoked serious concerns
that it has been concocted to conduct the defense of S. Milosevic in his
absence, if his health gets worse.

Hence, the Group finds that ICTY violates the right of the accused to defend
himself in person.

3. The right of the defendant "to be tried in his presence".

This right is subject to no limitation, either. The invocation of both
chambers of the Tribunal to time efficiency is unacceptable in terms of
international legal norms, because any interpretation of a norm is possible
only in the case of its vagueness. In the case of the minimum rights of the
accused, and which were worded quite clearly, such an interpretation is
contrary to the general principle of law: in claris non fit interpretario.
General principles of law are binding on all the courts and consequently on
the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Further to that, the so called "case" of the defense witness K. Bulatovic,
who refused to testify in the absence of the accused, could not have
possibly be taken as the contempt of the court. The witness K. Bulatovic
tried to speak up for the right of the defendant to be tried in his
presence, and was completely groundlessly sentenced to 4 months of
imprisonment. The witness K. Bulatovic didn't "refused to reply to the
questions" in general, rather refused to reply to the questions in the
absence of the defendant. The session of the court on 19th April 2005, when
the trial chamber grossly violated one of the fundamental elements of the
right to a fair trial, was illegal, and the witness K. Bulatovic was not
obliged to reply to questions during such a session.

Hence, the Group finds that ICTY violates the rights of the defendant to be
tried in his presence.

Besides, the action of the Trial Chamber v. defense witness raises doubts
about impartiality of the court. The contempt of the court is not defined by
personal feeling of the Judges, but the norms of the international law.
Punishment of the witness, who had acted in compliance with the
international law, was absolutely contrary to law. The doubt of the
impartiality of the court has been caused by the fact that a series of the
prosecution witnesses, particularly the witness A. Zekiri and the witness
K-12, who indeed rejected to testify before the court, were not sentenced to
prison terms and one of them was not even declared guilty for contempt of
the court.[4]

4. The right of the accused to "to examine, or have examined, the witnesses
against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his
behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him".

The Prosecution received 300 days from the Trial Chamber for the
presentation of its case, while S. Milosevic only 150 days for the
presentation of his defense.

Regrettably, the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council were
mislead by the ICTY report which claimed that "the Trial Chamber has ordered
that the accused have the same amount of time to present his defence case as
the prosecution had to present its case"[5].. That allegation aimed at
persuading the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council that
in the Defense Case of the process that is ongoing, the basic elements of
the right to a fair trial had been assured, which is far from the truth.

The defendant S. Milosevic was accorded twice less time than the
Prosecution. The argumentation of the court intended for the international
public that 150 days are equal to 300 days is not only unconvincing but
illegal. The allegation that S. Milosevic during the Prosecution Case used
more time that the Prosecution is no basis for cutting the time for his
defense, because S. Milosevic "spent" the time not on his witnesses, but on
the witnesses of the Prosecution. That manipulation must attract special
attention of the international community in general and of United Nations
General Assembly and Security Council in particular, since that fact also
makes the impartiality of the court doubtful.

Moreover, it was planned to separate in the nearest future the Kosovo part
of the trial from the rest of the indictments in the course of ongoing
defense, which also constitutes the violation of the right of the defendant
to a far trial. The Prosecution invited witnesses on more than one occasion
made depositions simultaneously on the Kosovo and all other Indictments.
Separation of the trial at the time of ongoing defense, under whatever
grounds, will violate the right of the indicted to a fair trial and bring
the defense witnesses in inequitable position compared to the prosecution

Hence, the Group finds the violation by ICTY of the principle of equality of
the parties and breach of the presumption of innocence.

The Russian Association of International Law adopted on 30 June 2005 the
Declaration in which it unanimously qualified the decision of the Trial
Chamber to accord to S. Milosevic twice less time than the Prosecution had
as a gross violation of the international law.[6]

Hence, the Group qualifies the course of the process against Slobodan
Milosevic as NOT in accord to the requirement of assurance of the right of
the accused to a fair trial and draws the attention of the United Nations
General Assembly and Security Council to that fact, and the whole
international public opinion alike. The Group demands the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to assure the right of the
accused to a fair trial.

The members of the Group of Russian Association of international law for
monitoring the process Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milosevic in the International
Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia:

1. J.M. Kolosov, Doctor of International Law, Professor
at the Department of International Law of the Moscow State Institute for
International Relations of the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, member
of Executive Committee of the Russian Association for International Law,
member of UN Committee for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
Editor-in-Chief of the "Moscow Journal of International Law";

2. S.V. Chernichenko, Doctor of International law,
Professor, Head of the International Law Center of the Diplomatic Academy of
the Russian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Vice-president of the Russian
Association for International Law;

3. G.V. Ignatenko, Doctor of International Law,
Professor, Vice-president of the Russian Association of International Law,
Editor-in-Chief of the "Russian Law Journal", former Head of the Department
of International law of Ural State Law Academy;

4. G.I. Kurdukov, Doctor of International Law,
professor, Head of the Department of Constitutional and International Law of
the Kazan State University, Vice-President of the Russian Association of
International Law;

5. L.N. Galenskaya, Doctor of International Law,
Professor at the Department of International Law St.Petersburg State
University, member of the Executive Committee of the Russian Association of
International Law, Editor-in-Chief of the "Russian Yearbook of International

6. A.J. Kapustin, Doctor of International Law,
Professor, Head of the Department of International Law of the Russian
University of Friendship of Nations, Dean of the Law Faculty of RUDN, Member
of the Executive Committee of the Russian Association of International Law;

7. E.S. Krivchikova, Doctor of International Law,
Professor at the Department of International Law of the Moscow State
Institute of International Relations of the Russian Ministry for Foreign

8. L.H. Mingazov, Doctor of International Law,
Professor, Head of Department for Human Rights of UNESCO of the Kazan State

9. R.M. Valeev, Doctor of International Law, Professor
at the Department of Constitutional and International Law of the Kazan State
University, Vice-president of the Russian Association of International
Nuclear Law, former Judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan;

10. P.N. Birukov, Doctor of International Law, Professor,
Head of Department of International Law of Voronez State University;

11. S.J. Marochkin, Doctor of International Law, Professor,
member of the Executive Committee of the Russian Association of
International Law, Head of Department of the International Law of the Tumen
State University;

12. N.I. Kostenko, Doctor of International Law, Professor,
the leading science associate of the Center for the international law
studies of the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Science;

13. A.B. Mezyaev, Doctor of International Law, docent, Deputy
Head of the Department of Constitutional and International law of the
faculty of Law of the Academy of management, member of Expert Council of the
Ombudsman of the Republic of Tatarstan, Executive Secretary of the Group of
members of Russian Association of International Law for monitoring the
process against S. Milosevic in ICTY.

25 November 2005


[1] [Trial Chamber] Order Concerning the Preparation and Presentation of the
Defence Case of September 17, 2003.]
[2] [Appeals Chamber] Decision on the Interlocutory Appeal by the Amici
Curiae against the Trial Chamber Order Concerning the Presentation and
Preparation of the Defence Case of January 20, 2004, para 19
[3] Article 14.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
states: "In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone
shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees"
[4] Transcript of the court session of 22 February 2002 and of 3 and 4 June
[5] UN Document: A/60/267 - S/2005/532 (12 Report of ICTY to General
Assembly and Security Council) of 17 August 2005, para. 85.]
[6] Published in the magazine: "Moscow Journal of International Law" 2005,

4.Urgent Appeal by German Physicians to safeguard the life and health of
Slobodan Milosevic

To: Mr. Fausto Pocar,
Mr. Patrick Robinson,
Mr. Timothy McCormack

20. November 2005

Dear Sirs,

Three years ago, on 11 November 2002, we made our first submission to the
President of the ICTY, the Presiding Judge of Trial Chamber III and the
Amici Curiae in the case against Slobodan Milosevic, expressing our deep
concern about the treatment, which Mr. Milosevic is receiving from the ICTY.

We stated then:
"It is not only incomprehensible, but outrageous, that Mr. Milosevic is not
under constant medical observation and check-ups and does not get adequate
medical treatment.
This way of dealing with a person whose life is - with all consequences - in
your responsibility, can only be called irresponsible and leads to the
question of motives. It is in total contradiction to various documents and
resolutions of the United Nations concerning the treatment of imprisoned
persons. Those regulations should be fully recognized by representatives of
UN institutions."

Later on the Trial Chamber received a report of the medical examination of
Mr. Milosevic conducted by the cardiologist Dr. P. R. M. van Dijkman,
confirming "essential hypertension with secondary organ damage", mentioning
"the possibility of coronary disease, cerebrovascular accident, heart attack
and death".

On 18 September 2003, we again addressed the ICTY, demanding that
"Mr. Milosevic should be provisionally released for an adequate, longer
period of time, so that during the preparation of his defence he can have
medical treatment and control by his long time doctors in Belgrade."

Not only did the Tribunal not grant Mr. Milosevic provisional release, but
instead, his health situation was used as an excuse to deprive him of his
basic rights as an accused person, when the Trial Chamber imposed counsel on
Mr. Milosevic against his will on September 2, 2004, and when the Appeals
Chamber on November 1, 2004, ruled that "the presence of Assigned Counsel
will enable the trial to continue even if Milosevic is temporarily unable to

The threat, that in case of his illness his Defence case would be conducted
by Assigned Counsel against his will and in violation of his basic rights,
has imposed even more mental stress on Mr. Milosevic, as he is being faced
with the constant fear of not being able to be present in the courtroom for
medical reasons.

On 4 November 2005, a medical examination of Mr. Milosevic was conducted by
three international specialists, who in essence came to the conclusion that
court proceedings would have to be interrupted, in order to allow Mr.
Milosevic a period of total physical and mental rest of at least six weeks.

The Trial Chamber being aware of this conclusion nevertheless let the
proceedings continue as usual, which led to Mr. Milosevic demanding the
court session to be ended on Wednesday last week.

We, the undersigning physicians practising in Germany, demand that the
advice of the international specialists, who have examined Slobodan
Milosevic, be observed and the court proceedings be halted for at least six
weeks, whereas we confirm our opinion that the most adequate solution would
be a provisional release of Mr. Milosevic for an extended period of time.

Once again we express our concern about the treatment which Slobodan
Milosevic is receiving from the ICTY, as no due attention is being paid to
his precarious health situation.

In our view the only responsible solution for dealing with the constraints
of court proceedings caused by the ill health of the accused is a proper
medical treatment, not deprivation of his basic rights before the court. We
strongly oppose any move to put Assigned Counsel in charge of the Defence
Case, as long as Slobodan Milosevic is not able to attend the courtroom for
health reasons.


Dr. med. Uta Mader
on behalf of signatories

Initiative von in Deutschland praktizierenden ärzten und Therapeuten
Initiative of medical Doctors and Therapists practising in Germany


Belgrade, 20 November. Two most famous Serbian cardiologists, together with
five other renown Serbian university professors of medicine, appeared today
in a press conference in Belgrade raising their voice against threatening
the life and health of President Milosevic by the Hague "tribunal". They
issued a written appeal and invited all colleagues - medical doctors to join
it. In the press conference, the statement of 120 members Medical Academic
Forum was also presented. English translation of the both texts is given



The reports on deteriorating health condition of the former
president of Serbia and Yugoslavia Slobodan Milosevic have been followed
with deep concern.

The findings of the international medical team, after
examination of 4 November 2005 additionally troubled us. They clearly show
that Slobodan Milosevic needs a break for additional medical check and
appropriate medical treatment but not in prison conditions.

We, doctors and humanists were appalled by the fact that the
trial chamber in charge of the case against president Milosevic failed to
seriously consider the medical findings and recommendations of our
colleagues who attended him, opting for continuing the process until he
almost collapsed in the very court room.

Such a conduct by the members of the chamber is inadmissible.

The right to life and the right to health supersede any other
right, supersede the very court itself. No court is entitled to try anyone
at the cost of one's health and one's life.

Further to the above we call for:

1) Suspension of trial to Slobodan Milosevic for six weeks as proposed
by the international team of medical doctors, composed of university
professors from France, Russia and Serbia, specialists in cardiology,
angyology and otorhinolaryngology.

2) Treatment during suspension of trial as the international team of
doctors proposed, and make additional examinations as they recommended;

3) The medical doctors, possibly, designated by the trial chamber
should be at least of the same scientific and professional level as the
members of the international team, including those to be proposed by
Slobodan Milosevic, himself;

4) Treatment of Slobodan Milosevic must fully comply with the
international norms on human and civil rights including the respect for the
Lisbon Declaration concerning the freedom of choice of the doctor and the
institution the patient confides.

Failing to stop the process at the moment when health and very
life of Slobodan Milosevic are at risk is an inadmissible and drastic
example of violation of his basic human rights. Permanent threat of
activating an imposed defense counsel, not acknowledged by himself, in the
case of his illness, amounts to an extortion of partaking in the process at
the cost of own health. Slobodan Milosevic must be given a chance to recover
and restore his capacity to participate in the process, which must be
suspended till then.

We call on all our colleagues - doctors to join us in this
appeal in the name of humanities and defense of the fundamental human

In Belgrade, 20 November 2005

Prof. Dr. Sc. Med. SRECKO NEDELJKOVIC, cardiologist, full member of the
Academy of Medical Sciences, Serbian Medical Society
Prof. Dr. Sc. Med. SVETOMIR STOZINIC, cardiologist, full members of the
Academy of Medical Sciences, Serbian Medical Society
Prof. Dr. Sc. Med. VLADA SLAVKOVIC, internist
Prof. Dr. Sc. Med. VASILIJE DRECUN, internist
Prof. Dr. Sc. Med. MILOS JANICIJEVIC, brain surgeon, full member of the
Academy of Medical Sciences, Serbian Medical Society, member of the Science
Society of Serbia
Prof. Dr. Sc. Med. VOJISLAV SUVAKOVIC, epidemiologist, full member of the
Academy of Medical Sciences, Serbian Medical Society
Prof. Dr. Sc. Med. MOMCILO BABIC, specialist in social medicine



Belgrade, 20 November 2005

Today we have come together in a quest to publicly voice our deep concern
over the violation of human rights, among them the right to life and medical
care of a sick man.

Intolerance, demonstrated by a judge of the Hague tribunal in the last few
days, towards apparently ill President Milosevic, due to his refusal to be
represented by a counsel, culminated in the blunt negligence of evident
symptoms of illness and request to Slobodan Milosevic to continue with
witness examination.

The counsel of defense has been taken ill, honorable justice, the best one
that Mr. Milosevic could have possibly chosen. Or has he no right to get
ill, by the way, judge alike?

Hence, the trial must be urgently suspended in our view and further to the
medical findings, for 6-8 weeks, minimum.

And moreover, a medical expertise of his illness must be provided, by
specialist ready to undertake it voluntarily and at no cost for the court,
either here or there.

Under the supervision of official doctors who evidently have no high

This association counts 120 medical doctors of academic provenance from
Serbia, Montenegro and the world.

We, in the association, voice our protest and request to stop further
prostration of an ill man because it can amount to an execution.

Provide him with medical care - immediately and without any delay - you are
aware of your obligation to do so under any judicial standards, because if
not you are accomplices in a premeditated killing, which we hope you won't


Behavior of the Hague "tribunal" puts at stake the life of
President Milosevic. An immediate reaction of the authorities in charge in
Serbia and in the State Community, as well as of the UN Security Council is
needed in order to change this behavior.

An international team of medical experts from France, Russia and
Serbia, that examined President Milosevic on 4 November, has concluded that
he has to have at least six weeks of total rest, with no physical or mental
activities. It is clear that for such a worsening of President Milosevic's
health it is only the "tribunal" to be blamed.

However, the "tribunal" has made these days a dangerous and
insolent challenge to human rights, UN Organization, medical and legal
profession, by neglecting the findings and the conclusions of the medical
experts and by bringing ill President Milosevic into the court room - an act
that endangered his life.

We call upon all medical doctors, lawyers, institutions for
protection of human rights and all honest people at home and abroad to join
the appeal of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic and
of the Freedom Association and to act now to stop the crime in its final

The Hague proceedings must be suspended and President Milosevic
has to be provided with a medical treatment in freedom, so that he would be
able, after recuperation, to continue taking part in the proceedings.


Belgrade, 18 November 2005



Belgrade, 15 November 2005

Sloboda/Freedom Association from Belgrade has honor to propose to your kind
attention and urgent consideration the three below documents concerning the
human rights of the long term President of Serbia and Yugoslavia, Mr.
Slobodan Milosevic - the urgent Joint Conclusion of the International
Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic and Sloboda /Freedom Association, the
Conclusion of the medical experts from France, Russia and Serbia who
recently examined President Milosevic and the Declaration of the
International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic.

We believe that you would act without delay in accordance with your
competence and universally recognized human rights in order to protect the
life and health of President Milosevic and to prevent the possibility of his
trial in absentia.


Chairman of the Board of Sloboda/Freedom Association
Bogoljub Bjelica



The International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan
Milosevic and the "Sloboda" Association - National Committee for Liberation
of Slobodan Milosevic have received a medical report of the health condition
of President Slobodan Milosevic dated 4 November 2005, which raised a deep
concern on the part of the International Committee members. His health is
seriously endangered, which is largely due to his extraordinary human
efforts in
the struggle for presenting truth, and the prison conditions in which he is
living. He is investing additional efforts so as to definitely win his
struggle for the truth, and he is doing that to the detriment of his own
health in the light of the threat that the Defense Counsel imposed by the
ICTY whom he does not accept will be activated.

Our view is that the price of his defense must not be his health
and his life.

We are demanding immediate suspension of the trial at least for
a 6-week period as proposed by medical doctors, in order to allow him the
indispensable rest and medical treatment. Any attempt to try him in
absentia, and thus abuse the fact of his deteriorated health condition,
would destroy any illusion of these proceedings. "The Tribunal" has to
observe the medical advice that was provided, and show respect for the fact
that human life and health are above all other values.

Once the health condition of President Milosevic has
improved, he will continue with all his strength the struggle for truth and
justice he is carrying out in The Hague for the benefit and welfare of the
Serb people and the entire mankind.

In Belgrade, on 12 November 2005



Ramsey Clark Sergei Baburin Velko Vlkanov



Bogoljub Bjelica



Compte tenu des rÈsultats des examens mÈdicaux consultÈs dans le
dossier et rÈalisÈs lors de la visite du 4 novembre 05 on peut conclure que
l`Ètat de santÈ du patient n'est pas stabilisÈ et que des complications sont
possibles. Cet Ètat nÈcessite de poursuivre les explorations avec pour
objectifs de prÈciser la ou les origines des troubles prÈsentÈs.

Il est ainsi nÈcessaire de proposer au patient une pÈriode de
repos, c'est Þ dire la cessation de toutes les activitÈs physiques et
psychiques au cours d'une pÈriode de 6 semaines au minimum, ce qui permettra
probablement de diminuer les troubles ou tout au moins de les stabiliser,
puis autorisera la rÈalisation des procÈdures diagnostiques supplÈmentaires
nÈcessaires pou adapter au mieux la thÈrapeutique.

La rapport dÈfinitif et dÈtaillÈ de chaque expert sera rÈdigÈ et
soumis ultÈrieurement.


Margarita Shumilina, Ph.D, angiologue

Professeur Florence Leclercq, Ph.D, cardiologue

Professeur Vukasin Andric, Ph.D, otorinolaringologiste


Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic

Declaration of the International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan

Belgrade, 12 November 2005


We, the representatives of the International Committee for the Defense of
Slobodan Milosevic, having met on 12 November 2005 in Belgrade under the
auspices of the Sloboda (Freedom) Association, express our deepest
indignation with respect to the continued proceedings against President
Slobodan Milosevic conducted before the so-called International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

During its twelve and a half years of operation, the ICTY has demonstrated
to the world that rather than functioning as an institution of justice, it
employs force and blackmail, and is subjected to flagrant pressure by the
very powers who contributed the most to the disintegration of the former
Yugoslavia and the civil wars waged within it. The ICTY has demonstrated
that it is an institution of arbitrariness and absence of law, not of

The ICTY's activities, and in particular the treatment of and proceedings
against Slobodan Milosevic, demonstrate that the ICTY is a means of
retaliation against Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) citizens in
general, and the Serbs in particular, because of their resistance to the
breakup of the former Yugoslavia and their heroic defense against the NATO
aggression in 1999.

The indictment of Slobodan Milosevic shifted the responsibility for the
aggression and acts of terrorism committed by the Kosovo Liberation Army
(KLA) onto its victims[1].

The ICTY has thus shown to the whole world that its main role is to
legitimize and legalize the most flagrant violations of international law,
as well as the most serious crimes committed during the breakup of the
former Yugoslavia and the NATO aggression against the FR of Yugoslavia.
Therefore, the ICTY is not an institution of justice. Instead, it is a means
for the accomplishment of specific political objectives, a symbol of
discrimination and legal violence.

The indictment against the former President of Serbia and the FR of
Yugoslavia for alleged crimes in Kosovo and Metohija was brought on 24 May
1999 in the midst of NATO's aggression against the FR of Yugoslavia. That
illegal war was a direct breach of the NATO Charter, the UN Charter, and
international law. That aggression represents a crime against peace, the
supreme international crime.

During the 78-day long criminal bombing of the FR of Yugoslavia, the
aggressors killed and wounded thousands of civilians, destroyed the economic
and transport infrastructure, tried to kill president Milosevic by bombing
his residence, used cluster bombs and depleted uranium, and caused
destruction amounting to more than $100 billion. In order for the irony to
be complete, charges against Slobodan Milosevic were also brought for
alleged crimes in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.

However, the ICTY has not indicted any leader of the NATO member countries
or any pilot for the crimes committed during the aggression. Instead, the
indictment was raised by the ICTY, and sponsored by Clinton Administration,
against Slobodan Milosevic, a democratically elected head of state who was
leading his country in the defense against the aggression.

President Milosevic, who was obliged to combat foreign-backed terrorism in
his country, is in the wake of the "War on Terrorism", being tried by those
who were igniting ethnic conflicts and who created terrorist organizations
in the territory of the former FRY. We do not accept that President
Milosevic be tried by those who were supporting terrorism while it suited
them and who claim to be fighting it today.

By arresting Slobodan Milosevic illegally and by surrendering him to the
ICTY both the Constitution of the FR of Yugoslavia and the Constitution of
Serbia were breached. Therefore, the kidnapping and delivery of President
Milosevic to the ICTY represent violence to the democratic constitution and
a precedent in modern history. The perpetrators of that shameful act bear
the responsibility before the citizens of Serbia, and before history.


Currently, after only a portion of the defense witnesses have testified on
President Milosevic's behalf before the ICTY, one can note with certainty
that the indictment that the so-called Hague Prosecution raised against him
has suffered a debacle!

Worldwide public opinion and experts have established, after the witnesses
for the Prosecution were heard, that the indictment against Slobodan
Milosevic for the crime of genocide is fully without grounds and is not
corroborated by a single piece of objective evidence. It is not only that
there is no evidence for the charge for genocide. There is no evidence for
any of the counts of the indictment.

Through the strength of arguing the truth, President Milosevic has
completely destroyed all the lies alleged against him in the so-called

There is, naturally, no evidence against Slobodan Milosevic. However, there
is a procedure in place. The machinery of the ICTY has tried, by enacting
its own rules for the trial procedure, by shaping and adapting them to own
political needs, to stop him in his presentation of the truth. This is the
reason why the tribunal is now trying to limit the time needed for the
witnesses he has invited to testify. This must be prevented!

Presumption of guilt, unlimited duration of detention, retroactive
responsibility, secret charges and secret witnesses, as well as the use of
secret services for gathering evidence - these are only some of the more
evident proofs that there is no justification for the existence of the ICTY
as a legal institution, and even less as an institution operating under the
auspices of the United Nations.

We do not believe that the proceedings against President Milosevic are just.
However, any acceleration of the tempo of the proceedings represents a boost
for the enemies of truth and the establishment of facts.

All of the above facts point to clear indications of a mistrial. That is why
we demand that this mockery of a trial be suspended, and for President
Milosevic to be released.


The following list details the most common types of abuse inflicted on
President Milosevic.


1. On 28 June 2001, President Milosevic was forcefully, unlawfully, and
without the knowledge of his family and relevant legal institutions of the
FRY, transported to The Hague penitentiary in violation of existing
constitutional and FRY and international legal provisions. The appeal for
Habeas Corpus to Dutch Courts was not sustained despite the evident facts,
which proved that this was a case of abduction.

B. President Milosevic's rights and privileges in The Hague penitentiary
are thoroughly neglected.

1. Many times his inalienable rights to self-representation and defense
have been questioned. Long periods of time were allocated to formal
discussion, thus making the preparations for the defense more tedious and
time consuming. The amount of material submitted by the Prosecution is not
only irrelevant but enormous, and this has negatively affected the process
itself as well as the health of President Milosevic.

2. Despite a gigantic struggle, supported by international public
opinion, the improvement of President Milosevic's health has not been
obtained, due to the ICTY's repeated obstructions. A satisfactory medical
solution is not apparent, although the proceedings against President
Milosevic have gone on four years. The ICTY, in the name of efficiency,
imposed a strenuous schedule for the presentation of the defense, which has
had harmful consequences on President Milosevic's health. The Prosecution
case was not subject to such constraints.

3. Restrictions put on visitation rights and phone contacts are inhuman
and are basically devised to augment the psychological, physical and
emotional stress of President Milosevic. These and other forms of harassment
are applied to diminish President Milosevic's capacities for his defense,
and to achieve the further deterioration of his health.

4. Numerous and amply supported demands that president Milosevic should
be temporarily released for medical treatment, supported by medical and
legal experts and the public at large, have been until now repeatedly
rejected owing to pressure from the Prosecution.

C. Abuses against and harassment of President Milosevic's family

1. Matching the pressure placed on President Milosevic since his
detention in The Hague Penitentiary, this persecution is augmented by the
ill treatment and abuses inflicted on the members of his immediate family.

2. We would like to reiterate the unspeakable shame that his wife has
for almost three years been forbidden to visit him. His son and daughter
have not been able to visit him at all.

3. It is astonishing but true that all of the adult members of his
immediate family have been charged with absurd accusations. None of these
has been proven, and those against his son have been dropped. These
ridiculous allegations and special decisions on restricted entrance to the
EU that have been invoked against President Milosevic's family make it
impossible for his family to visit at the present time. These restrictions
on entrance are enforced by the decisions of the Prosecution.

4. His wife is being charged without proof of illegal influence on a
decision making body to allocate a flat to another person.

5. The charge against President Milosevic's son that was in effect for
almost four years, stating that he allegedly beat and intimidated a young
member of an opposition political group, was revoked a month ago. Old
untruthful accusations against him are repeated, and fresh ones are newly

6. His daughter had to move to Montenegro to live unmolested. She has
been persecuted by ongoing proceedings since 2002, with the aim of
convicting her for her behavior during the night of President Milosevic's

7. All of these accusations are viciously and purposely aired in
different media trying to augment the manifold pressures put on President

8. To our knowledge, this is the first time that an indicted person has
had members of his immediate family prosecuted as well, and for a series of
invented crimes. These accusations stand as collateral pressure on President
Milosevic. This is done with the intent of shattering his defense abilities.


In view of all of the above, we, members of the International Committee for
the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic are demanding:

Of the UN Security Council:

That for the purpose of permitting President Milosevic to complete his
defense, and in light of the facts that have been unambiguously proven:

1. discontinue the proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic.

2. the health and life of President Milosevic be protected.

3. all forms of pressure on President Milosevic and his family members
be suspended.

4. the proceedings against President Milosevic be suspended so as to
allow the stabilization of his health condition.

5. The International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic
notes the disastrous consequences of the breakup of the FRY, and the fact
that the arrest and political trial of President Milosevic has provided
further encouragement for the commission of acts of terrorism - including
full-blown pogroms-- in Kosovo and Metohija .

6. The Security Council must terminate the operations of the ICTY, as
it has not contributed to the process of reconciliation. Instead, it has
only worsened inter-ethnic relations in the territory of the former SFRY.

7. To immediately issue a decision granting additional time to
President Milosevic so that the witnesses he has planned will have the
opportunity to testify.

8. President Milosevic sought the unity of the Yugoslav Federation, and
did so against foreign aggression and terror. Those who were spurring and
supporting terrorism in the territory of the former SFRY, and particularly
in the FRY - in Kosovo and Metohija - should be brought to justice
regardless of their nationality and social position.

9. To immediately undertake any measure necessary in order to allow an
adequate diagnosis of President Milosevic's health condition, by allowing
different medical teams to examine him.

10. To undertake any step necessary, including provisional release of
President Milosevic, in order for his health to stabilize.

11. To immediately, without any delay, abolish all limitations on visits
from President Milosevic's family members.

12. All of the above are necessary for ensuring normal conditions for the
resumption and finalization of the process being illegally conducted against
President Milosevic before the International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

[1] "Terrorism" is here defined as designating acts of violence carried out
against, and targeting, the civilian population of a sovereign state against
which that state has the right (and the obligation) to protect its citizens,
as well as acts of violence perpetrated against those state agents mandated
to protect the civilian population (and constitution). The definition we
propose is not that which continues to be used by the same powers that waged
a war of aggression against Yugoslavia: that is, the exercise of lawful
resistance of peoples to aggression and occupation.




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.

Recently, the fundraising activity of the German section was a target of a
groundless attack of the customs police in Germany. This makes the need
for your extraordinary effort dramaticaly urgent! Even the basic defence
activities at The Hague are at stake!

As a most practical way to send your donations, we are able to offer now the
account of a friendly organization in Austria (see below). Please send your
to that account now, to fill the gap made after the German account was
frozen. Have in
mind that all bank transfers within the EU are now at the same price like
within any of
its countries.


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 account:

SolidaritÄts-Bewegung. (JæSB)
Bank Austria
IBAN AT49 1200 0503 8030 5200

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:
Phone: +49 172 7566 014

Vladimir Krsljanin (ICDSM Secretary) E-mail:
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:

To join or help this struggle, visit: (Sloboda/Freedom association) (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic) (German section of ICDSM) (CDSM UK) (US section of ICDSM) (ICDSM Ireland) (ICDSM Italy) (world peace council) (Balkan antiNATO center)


ICDSM (Spring 2004): Harold Pinter signs the appeal for Milosevic

"The Artists' Appeal for Milosevic", drafted by the Canadian poet Robert
Dickson, was in the spring of 2004 signed by Harold Pinter, Peter Handke,
Alexander Zinoviev, Dimitri Analis, Valentin Rasputin, Rolf Becker and
dozens of artists from many countries.

The appeal can still be read and signed at

The International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM)
congratulates its member, greatest playwright Harold Pinter, for winning the
Nobel Prize for literature, echoing also his sound and sharp criticism of
the NATO aggression against Yugoslavia and his continuous courageous
engagement against tyranny and for freedom of people.


Artists' Appeal for Milosevic

For over two years now, Slobodan Milosevic has been on trial before the
International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia - a Security Council
institution of dubious legality - charged with 66 counts of war crimes,
crimes against humanity and genocide. Over 500,000 pages of documents and
5000 videocassettes have been filed as evidence by the Prosecution. There
have been some 300 trial days. More than 300 witnesses have testified. The
trial transcript is near 33,000 pages. Yet after all this time and effort, t
he Prosecution has failed to present significant or compelling evidence of
any criminal act or intention of President Milosevic.

In fact, it has been revealed that some prosecution witnesses have been
coerced to lie under oath, others have committed perjury. Former NATO
commander Wesley Clark, was allowed, in violation of the principle of an
open trial, to give testimony in private, with Washington able to apply for
removal of any parts of his evidence from the public record they deemed to
be against US interests.

President Milosevic was indicted during the 78 day continuous bombardment of
Yugoslavia by US-led NATO forces, which used cluster bombs and depleted
uranium, attempted to assassinate Milosevic by bombing his residence, killed
thousands of civilians and caused billions of dollars of damage to the
country's infrastructure. This illegal act of undeclared war is in clear
violation of the NATO Charter, the UN Charter, and International Law. Yet
neither Wesley Clark, nor the leaders of NATO countries have been indicted
for the crimes of which Slobodan Milosevic is accused.

The proceedings of the ICTY against Slobodan Milosevic, as a large and
growing number of international jurists has publicly stated, respect neither
the principles nor even the appearance of justice. According to Ramsey
Clark, the former Attorney-General of the United States, "the spectacle of
this huge onslaught by an enormous prosecution support team with vast
resources pitted against a single man, defending himself, cut off from all
effective assistance, his supporters under attack everywhere and his health
slipping away from the constant strain, portrays the essence of unfairness,
of persecution". And now that presiding judge Richard May has resigned his
position for unspecified health reasons, it appears inevitable, the issue
prejudged, that the trial will nevertheless continue, in spite of the
virtual impossibility that a new judge will be able to come to grips with
the mountain of evidence presented so far.

If justice is not just, if prosecution is persecution, if international law
is flouted in order to "enforce international law", we are indeed now living
in the dystopian world of George Orwell's 1984. The neighborhood bully has
decided the world is his back yard. The implications of this egregious use
of "power politics" go beyond the unjust trial of Slobodan Milosevic: the
"new world order" now being implemented is simply inhuman and intolerable.
What can be done to change this cruel and criminal state of affairs?

Let us remember that it was not long ago that 15 million people marched on
the same day in a gesture of international solidarity to say no to the Bush
junta's illegal war on Iraq. Now is the time for another such gesture. For
if this trial continues, the only triumphs will be those of travesty over
justice, power over principle, disinformation over truth. And many feel that
the sum total of these acts constitutes state terrorism perpetrated on a
virtually defenseless country and its legally elected president.

As artists, our work is to broaden our horizons, to become more human and to
share that humanity. And to create. Destruction is intolerable to us. It is
intolerable that courts be used to justify the killing of civilians, the
destruction of a sovereign nation, and the demonization and imprisonment of
that nation's leader. Let us now create a massive demonstration of our
humanity. Now is the time to make ourselves heard loud and clear, once
again, by publicly denouncing this injustice. We urge you to join your
efforts to those of the International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan


ICDSM           Sofia-New York-Moscow  
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
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
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
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.
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 
Gneral 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


ICDSM Statement on the Contempt Charges Brought Against Kosta Bulatovic and
the Imposition of In Absentia Proceedings Against President Slobodan

21 April 2005

The ICTY has now charged a defense witness for Slobodan Milosevic, Kosta
Bulatovic, with contempt, for refusing to continue testifying in the course
of proceedings-- known as in absentia-- carried out in absence of the
accused, who was kept at the ICTY's detention unit, as he was too ill to
attend the day's proceedings.

First, in violation of basic legal rights, and indeed of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Slobodan Milosevic was denied the
right to represent himself. The Trial Chamber held that he was too ill to
ensure his own representation, and rather than order an adjournment of the
proceedings, or a stay, or a mistrial, or indeed, any other resonable legal
measure routinely employed by legitimate courts around the world, they
instead imposed counsel upon an unwilling accused, counsel who'd previously
acted as parties in the proceedings, a glaring, formal conflict of interest.

The ICTY has now compounded this violation by carrying out in absentia
proceedings, and by bringing criminal charges against a defense witness who
refuses to cooperate with this exceptionally transparent attempt to remove
the accused fromm his own defense, and perhaps to gag him entirely.

It is increasingly clear that the proceedings undertaken by the ICTY
against Slobodan Milosevic are themselves in contempt. In contempt of the
basic rules of International Law and indeed of principles of human decency.
An accused person has the right to represent himself and obviously has a
right to be present for, and participate in, his own trial. To go so far as
to criminally charge a witness who refuses to cooperate with massive
violations of rights guaranteed by international instruments such as the
the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights has brought this
institution to a new low, and threatens the future of International Law.

These contempt proceedings are absolutely illegitimate and can only serve
to set further back the cause of justice and indeed the truth.

These in absentia proceedings appear to be the result of a deliberate
design, and were wholly predictable from the very moment, last summer, that
former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's two previous employees,
David Scheffer and Michael Scharf, publicly lobbied in the International
Herald Tribune and the Washington Post, respectively, for the imposition of
the very measures being carried out today. Mr. Scheffer did not hide his
contempt for internationally recognized basic human rights by demanding
that late Trial Chamber President Richard May "permanently pull in his
well-worn leash" by gagging President Milosevic, then "pumping the
proceedings into his cell". Neither Scheffer nor Scharf, in their public
demands for the gagging of President Milosevic, concealed their view that
the ICTY is a political rather than legal body. They are both architects of
the institution, and therefore they would know. Their lobbying appears to
have been successful and will have devastating effect, as appears to be
their intention, on any future international criminal proceeding. Indeed,
both have made clear at different moments that their intention is to insure
that Saddam Hussein, for example, would not have the right to claim U.S.
aggression against Iraq.

President Milosevic has always maintained his opposition to this body-- as
one that was illegally constituted and is employed to justify aggression
and violate national sovereignty-- as well as his firm undertaking to the
people of Yugoslavia that he would establish that the so-called Balkan wars
were in fact one war - a war against Yugoslavia, carried out in violation
of International Law.

In order to prevent him from doing this, the most fundamental tenets of
criminal procedure and indeed of international law must be further violated
and its future jeopardized.

There is only one positive aspect of these perverse proceedings: they bring
clarity to the situation and make clear once and for all that the ICTY is
not a legal body but instead abuses power that it does not even legally


I n t e r n a t i o n a l C o n f e r e n c e The Hague Proceedings against Slobodan Milosevic: Emerging Issues in International Law The Hague, 26 February 2005

The idea of international law - in particular international criminal law - is undeniably appealing to jurists and non-lawyers alike, as generations have sought to establish a permanent criminal jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes in the wake of the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials. Beyond the prosecution of the crimes that are committed in war, however, the Nuremberg precedent clearly articulates that the supreme international crime is the instigation of a war of aggression. Indeed, the Nuremberg Tribunal held that: "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." The ICTY, a Security Council institution, does not have the jurisdiction to prosecute the "supreme international crime". Some argue that it in fact legitimizes aggression, which can be exemplified by the serving of an indictment against President Slobodan Milosevic at the height of the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, contrary to international law. As the defence phase of the proceedings continue to delve into the destruction of Yugoslavia by Western interests, legal questions emerge which will be discussed in this conference: -The right to self-representation in international and comparative law; -Joint criminal enterprise, tailor-made to convict and a tool of de-nazification -What is "relevant" testimony in a political prosecution? -War crimes prosecutions by the Security Council: justifying aggression, eliminating national sovereignty -Self-determination and self-defense of Yugoslavia under international law -"Equality of arms": what is left after The Hague? -Armed conflict under international law and in the Milosevic case -Effect of media coverage and lobbying on the right to a fair trial -Misuse of genocide charges and trivialization of Nuremberg precedent and Holocaust -Denying the right to defend oneself - stepping on the fundamentals of law -The right to a fair trial in international and comparative law: has it been respected in the Milosevic case? -How can the Hague be judged, and who will judge it?


Belgrade, 2 November 2004 PRESS RELEASE

By his extraordinary effort, President Milosevic have reached a win for International Law and human rights protection. Important part of his fundamental rights has been restored. The illegal institution which keeps him in illegal detention was forced to do that and to further expose its illegal and political character. The same institution which is now turning, as a consequence of President Milosevic's struggle, from one of the most important tools for colonization of the Balkans, into a burden for its creators. This win should enable the continuation of the victorious struggle he fights for truth about our people, for freedom, equality and national dignity. His effort had the broadest support of the progressive, patriotic and professional public at home and abroad. Over 100 legal experts and lawyers from the whole world, Bar Association of Belgrade and other organizations, groups and individuals stood up in defense of the fundamental rights of President Milosevic. The fact that the political and illegal Hague institution was forced to reverse in part its illegal and criminal decisions, does not mean that the "prosecution", all its Hague assistants and all those who encourage or back them, have gave up from their attempts to imperil the law and even life of President Milosevic by misuse of the procedure and of his health condition.



The ICTY, in violation of its own Statute (Article 21, point 4) imposes a counsel on Slobodan Milosevic

I, Leonid Grigor'evich Ivashov, citizen of the Russian Federation, in response to the invitation of President of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) Slobodan Milosevic, have agreed to testify for his defense in the process before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). I have acted that way in full consciousness, aiming to contribute towards achieving the objectivity and truth on the issues of Europe and FRY in the period 1997-2000. For me, the participation in the Hague process was important due to the following circumstances. First, I was a direct participant of the events considered. Second, I cannot stay away from the fact that the prosecution had as its witnesses several persons who were directly preparing and executing the armed aggression against a sovereign state - the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and who are responsible for killing of hundreds of people and violation of the norms of the International Law. However, the recent decisions of the tribunal have forced me to change my earlier decision. The ICTY, in violation of its own Statute (Article 21, point 4) imposes a counsel on Slobodan Milosevic, who was until then exercising his right to defend himself in person. Among the duties of the imposed counsel are the ones to determine who will appear as defense witness, what will be the character of the testimony and its interpretation. It cannot be considered normal that the counsel imposed against the will of Slobodan Milosevic is a citizen of the country that has been stepping on the norms of the International Law, letter and spirit of the UN Charter and several times performed aggressions against sovereign states, including FR Yugoslavia. In such conditions, when my testimony as a defense witness can be used against Slobodan Milosevic and will not serve the objectivity and adoption of a just ruling, I refuse to take part in the process. At the same time, I confirm my readiness to appear in the process as soon as ICTY creates legally correct and just conditions and respect of norms of the International Law. Head of the Main Directorate for International Military Cooperation of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation 1996-2001, Vice-Chairman of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, Doctor of Historical Sciences, general-colonel (in reserve) Leonid Ivashov Moscow, 9 September 2004


Declaration of The Assembly of The WPC Athens, May 6-9, 2004

The Assembly of the World Peace Council was successfully held on May 6-9,
2004 in Athens, Greece, with the participation of 134 delegates from 62
Organisations from 47 countries.

After a rich and very fruitful discussion the participants of the Assembly
concluded with the following declaration to the peoples of the world:

The WPC expresses its solidarity with the peoples of Yugoslavia in their
struggle against the consequences of the barbarous NATO aggression, which
led to the occupation of part of Serbian territory, Kossovo, and its
transformation into a NATO protectorate. The so-called Hague Tribunal is one
example of the manipulation of truth and an attempt to legitimize the
aggression and other crimes of the USA and NATO.








January 2004


No interest on Serb victims

Markus Bickel, Berliner Zeitung, January 17, 2004

Finnish pathologist Helena Ranta said the work of the Hague tribunal regarding the so-called Racak massacre was incomprehensible. The former head of the forensic team the European Union sent to the Kosovo-Albanian village of Racak in January 1999 to investigate the events there, in a conversation with Berliner Zeitung, criticized the UN tribunal for not following up the evidence that there was heavy fighting between Serb soldiers and the Kosovo-Albanian fighters during the night of January 15-16, 1999 in the Racak-region. Western politicians used the tragedy in the village of Racak, where 40 Albanians died exactely 5 years ago, to prove to the public that the upcoming NATO attack on Yugoslavia was necessary. US diplomat William Walker played the leading role. The chief of the OSCE mission in Kosovo immediately accused the Serbs of having killed 45 unarmed Albanian civilians at close range in Racak. The Serbian side rejected this interpretation und spoke instead about KLA soldiers killed in battle. Pictures not published She knew, that at that time "KLA-fighters were buried around Racak," said Ranta. "At that time I received information that proved that several Serb soldiers had been killed as well. Unfortunately, we will never know the exact number of Serb soldiers that died that night." It would be appropriate "to ask the tribunal why they are not interested in that number." Ranta criticized the indictment against former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic in the case of Racak for mostly following the Walker version. "When Ambassador Walker said that there was a massacre at Racak, this statement had no legal value. I declared at that time that the OSCE-observers forgot to take all steps necessary to secure a crime scene: isolating the area, refusing admission to all unauthorized persons and colletinig all material evidence. Ranta demanded that in addition to the OSCE pictures the tribunal also use the pictures taken by two additional photographers, shot several hours prior to the arrival of OCSE-observers. The pictures show "that at least one of the bodies was moved afterwards Á?" that body is not seen on OSCE-pictures." Left in the lurch In the days prior to the NATO-attack on Yugoslavia it was clear "that a bunch of governments were interested in a version of Racak that blamed only the Serb side," said Ranta. "But I could not provide this version." Her instructions came from the German diplomat Pauls. The representative of the then-German EU-presidency asked for a written statement. "Afterwards, I had to show these personal statements to William Walker, who was obviously not amused when he read it." Still, she agreed to take part in the important press conference on March 17, 1999. "At that (conference), I was sitting with the German ambassador to Belgrade, Gruber, and a Finnish diplomat on the podium. I hoped that those gentlemen would support me." But that was not the case. "I rather had the feeling that I was left in the lurch," said Ranta. As a result of the Walker dominated press-conference most of the media accepted the version of a Serb massacre of Albanian civilians as proven. A few days later the NATO-airattacks on Yugoslavia began. (Translated from German by C.Schuetz & J.Catalinotto)

SLOBODA urgently needs your donation. Please find the detailed instructions at: To join or help this struggle, visit: (Sloboda/Freedom association) (the international committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic) (German section of ICDSM) (US section of ICDSM) (ICDSM Ireland) (world peace council) (Balkan antiNATO center)

Antiimperialist Camp
PF 23, A-1040 Vienna, Austria