English version


* * *














ICDSM           Sofia-New York-Moscow            www.icdsm.org
Velko Valkanov, Ramsey Clark, Sergei Baburin (Co-Chairmen),
Klaus Hartmann (Chairman of the Board), Vladimir Krsljanin (Secretary),
Christopher Black (Chair, Legal Committee), Tiphaine Dickson (Legal
Spokesperson), Cathrin Schuetz (Alternate Secretary)
17 July 2007                                         Special Circular
auroraplan@gmail.com                      tel. +381 62 423 915
The current situation and the planned legal action are described in the
interview with Maitre Tiphaine Dickson below. This action will also depend
on your support!
V. Krsljanin

Tiphaine Dickson is a member of the Qubec Bar, practicing primarily in
international criminal law. She was lead counsel in one of the first UN
genocide trials before the ICTR in Arusha, Tanzania. Maitre Dickson was also
Legal Spokesperson of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan
Milosevic (ICDSM) and she currently represents Mira Markovic.

Maitre Dickson, you are representing the wife of former Yugoslav president
Slobodan Milosevic, Mira Markovic, in a legal investigation regarding the
circumstances of his death in custody while he was standing trial before the
ICTY. The official version is that he died of a natural cause, namely by a
heart attack. What gives reason to doubt this information?

Maitre Dickson:
President Milosevic's death in custody was a disgrace. At minimum, that
shocking outcome deserved a thorough, serious, scientifically sound, and
above all, independent and impartial investigation. Instead, the ICTY, which
does not even explicitly guarantee the right to a trial by an independent
court, assigned one of its own judges, Kevin Parker, to head an "internal
inquiry". Slobodan Milosevic died only two weeks after the ICTY Trial
Chamber denied his request for provisional release, with guarantees from the
Russian Federation - a permanent member of the Security Council, need it be
added - for medical care at the Bakoulev Scientific Centre for
Cardiovascular Surgery in Moscow.

And this ICTY report is the basis for the official cause of death?

Maitre Dickson:
Yes. This so-called "Parker Report", in broad strokes, exonerates the ICTY,
and blames President Milosevic for his death. It does so with surprising
lapses in logic and shaky reasoning, but in fairness, without a truly
independent investigation, and without the benefit of outside experts,
perhaps not much more could have been expected.
However, President Milosevic's family does expect, and is entitled to, a
full accounting of circumstances surrounding his death, which was denied to
it by the Parker Report. Marko Milosevic made plain to Mr. Parker, in an
open letter drafted a year ago, that the content and conclusions of the
report were "unacceptable", and pointedly remarked that "the autopsy was
conducted without the presence of the independent expert team sent by our
family, even though we insisted on it", "that the Russian doctors were
denied the access to the body and the tissue samples", and that the family
was denied access to the blood samples. The family's letter also raised
persuasive objections to the legitimacy, objectivity, and propriety of the
ICTY investigating itself.

So in other words the ICTY, the same institution that denied Slobodan
Milosevic the needed treatment, judged the circumstances of which he died.

Maitre Dickson:
It is difficult to comprehend that not only was Slobodan Milosevic not
granted the adequate medical care he had repeatedly requested, but that the
cause of his death was not investigated objectively or transparently. Not
even the questions put to the ICTY by the Russian Federation were adequately
addressed, according to Ambassador Churkin, speaking at the 5453rd meeting
of the Security Council. It is therefore impossible to accept the findings
of the ICTY's internal inquiry, since beyond defects that can be discerned
in a superficial reading of the report, the panel suffers from the fatal
flaw of-at the very least-the appearance of partiality. Nemo judex in sua
causa. One cannot be the judge of one's own case.
Justice and minimal decency demand full disclosure of information obtained
by the "internal enquiry" to President Milosevic's family. The findings, as
they now stand, are unpersuasive, and a bereaved family is entitled to
know-without institutional interests being brought to bear-the truth about
their loved one's death in custody.

In your capacity as legal spokesperson of the International Committee to
Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) you have met Milosevic on several
occasions in detention. You addressed the media in The Hague on the day the
case was terminated due to Milosevic's death.

Maitre Dickson:
I was, in fact, that very day scheduled to hold a press conference
supporting President Milosevic's appeal against the decision to deny him
provisional release to Moscow for a number of tests and likely interventions
that had been requested by specialists who had found his condition to be
life-threatening in late 2005. We were very concerned about the
deterioration of President Milosevic's health, and hoped that he would
rapidly receive the treatment he required to pursue his defense in The
Hague, and perhaps, to save his life. Unfortunately, my attendance at The
Hague on March 14th, 2006, followed his death by a few days. I could only
emphasize to the press that all medical data should be made public, and
expressed the hope that the Secretary-General of the United Nations would
accept to waive the civil and criminal immunity of any and all UN employees
and subcontractors responsible for President Milosevic's death. It was a
gruesome, shameful trip, one that was meant to support his medical
provisional release, and certainly not to take stock of his death.

So if he would have been granted the therapy he may still live?

Maitre Dickson:
Permit me to put it this way: I strongly doubt that had President Milosevic
been allowed to receive treatment at the Bakoulev Center in Moscow, he would
have died in March 2006, as he did.

Milosevic's family openly calls it murder.

Maitre Dickson:
Last year, Marko Milosevic expressed his outrage with the findings of the
Parker Report, and made the following comment:

     "The question isn't whether or not my father was murdered     or
poisoned. The point is that a former head of state, being held in UN
custody, was gravely ill and constantly    complaining of his medical
condition. His health condition   was assessed many times by medical experts
as dire. He was      denied adequate (if any) medical treatment, and then he
died. At the same time those who denied him treatment were      undeniably
aware of what the consequences would be. He    asked for provisional release
to receive medical     treatment. Dr. Shumilina warned on November 6th
(2005)   that his condition was so critical that he could die at    any

He went on to state:

     "The guaranties had been granted, and the ICTY ignored all    of it.
Obviously deliberately for they were aware of all    the facts, both general
and subtle. So he died.

     The Tribunal, and everyone in charge, has committed a     deliberate
murder. They condemned him to death on February      24th when they rejected
his request for provisional release, ignoring everything: his health
condition, his   rights, and the warnings of his doctors, which unlike the
jail physician hired by the ICTY, had both -      unquestionable competence
and expertise, as well as his   confidence. Ignoring even the guarantees of
The Russian     Federation (by the explanation that those guarantees
lacked credibility, it seems that the Tribunal has given itself the mandate
to evaluate the credibility of even      the Security Council's permanent
member states). The      ruling handed down on February 24th came into
effect on      March 11th. That is the fact and the truth. Any other
speculation is just evasive political manoeuvring. "

This is to say that all the facts about Slobodan Milosevic's medical
condition were known, and yet, with deliberation, no steps were taken to
ensure that he not die. In fact, the ICTY Trial Chamber denied-- in spite of
unambiguous recommendations from highly reputable specialists and security
guarantees from the Russian Federation-- a motion to permit him to obtain
the treatment he urgently required in Moscow.

What is now needed is complete and transparent disclosure of all medical
evidence-- including blood and tissue samples-- to examine the facts without
concern for institutional reputation or appearances. I am not surprised by
the family's characterization of Slobodan Milosevic's utterly shameful death
in custody as "murder". They are well placed to know how serious his
condition was, and how his attempts to obtain appropriate treatment were
thwarted, leading to the most irreparable consequence: he was found dead.
And as it stands there remain, despite the findings of the Parker Report,
too many unanswered questions for any family in similar circumstances not to
affirm that their loved one was murdered.

While the health problems of Milosevic were well known and led to several
adjournments of his trial, the media often complained about Milosevic's
alleged "tactics" to "disrupt" the process when talking about his illness.

Maitre Dickson:
President Milosevic's health problems were widely discussed, and
interestingly, the facts were often twisted to suit angles adopted by the
press, even when contradictions were glaring. For example, it was often
alleged that President Milosevic was feigning illness when confronting
"damning evidence" by the Prosecutor, and yet it was precisely when he was
set to begin his own presentation of evidence that it was suggested that he
was "too ill" to represent himself. Presumably, in the latter case, illness
would not be a result of fear of evidence, or at least not from the
standpoint of President Milosevic.

I think it important to point out how-despite undeniably serious medical
issues-President Milosevic, though firmly and consistently demanding the
respect of his right to adequate medical treatment, complained little, and
how industriously and efficiently he worked during the entire period of his
detention in The Hague. He was focused and was determined to demonstrate- as
he had stated on many occasions-that there had been one war: a war against
Yugoslavia. That he maintained composure and dignity throughout the
proceedings only heightens the dismay that he was left to die without
adequate medical treatment, and that his death was blamed on him. His family
understandably refuses to accept such a shocking state of affairs, and
frankly, anything called justice deserves infinitely more than what they
were offered. We are determined to bring to light all the facts about this
disgraceful and pointless death, for the sake of truth, and for justice, two
ideas that have been perverted enough.

A shorter version of the interview was published in the German daily Junge
Welt on Monday, July 16, 2007

DONATIONS for this legal action are most urgently needed!

Transfers should be made to:

Vereinigung fr Internationale Solidaritt (VIS) e.V.


Bank: Swiss Post Postfinance, CH-3030 Bern

IBAN: CH35 0900 0000 9198 2587 8

For more information please contact:

Vladimir Krsljanin, ICDSM Secretary, auroraplan@gmail.com   tel. +381 62 423
Cathrin Schuetz, ICDSM Alternate Secretary, cschuetz1@aol.com   tel. +49
1788 656 159



March 10.

Russia has not forgotten Slobodan Milosevic. The Committee for commemoration of  S.Milosevic, anti-globalists, party "Narodnaya Volya" lead by Serguey Baburin and other parties and patriotic organisations  held a memory meeting on March 11 in the Centre of Moscow.


2006 Moscow Chronics

December 10. The Anti-Globalist Resistance summed up the results of the poll and declared Slobodan Milosevic " the antiglobalist of the year 2006. Other leaders of the poll are the President of Belorussia A.Lukashenko and the Ukrainian politician Natalia Vitrenko. Fidel Castro was declared "the greatest fighter against imperialism of the century". In 2005 it was Hugo Chavez who was declared "the antiglobalist of the year'. This year he was also often mentioned by the respondents just as Evo Morales, Saddam Hussein and many other politicians, authors, singers.

The 2nd Forum of Russian anti-globalists was held on July 7 in Moscow. Program: An appeal to the G8 and the citizens of these countries. Foundation of the The Committee for commemoration of Slobodan Milosevic.

June 28. On June 28 the anti-globalist resistance held a meeting that opened the campaign on the occasion of the Summit G-8 in S-Petersburg. The speakers reminded that on June 28 2001 Slobodan Milosevic had been deportated to the Hague prison that he never left afterwards. The slogans of the meeting claimed the crimes of NATO. The participants insisted on liquidation of the Hague Tribunal and punishing the murderers. Young anti-globalists and communists organized a performance showing the monument to the new world order. Russian anti-globalists are going to held on July 7 the forum and to proclaim there The Committee for commemoration of Slobodan Milosevic.

March. On the occasion of the death of Slobodan Milosevic anti-globalists organized the frst funeral meeting near the Embassy of the Netherlands. They took also parts in the meeting of communists on March 13. The Book of condolence was opened on the web-site.

24 March - The Day of the anti-globalist resistance. This year it was mostly devoted to the memory of Slobodan Milosevic. Moscovites and S.-Peresburgers also wanted to blame the USA imperialism for its crimes in Yugoslavia (bombardments in 1999 and riots in Kosovo in 2004), in Iraq and Afganistan. Yet the rally was forbidden - without reasons. In this situation Moscovites invited the Deputy of Duma - they have rights to organize a little meeting without preliminary admissions. When we gathered and began to prepare portraits of Milosevic, some of us were arrested. Still the rest made police to let the caught friends out as there were lawyers among them. But we were not allowed to wait for the invited Deputy and were made to enter the nearest underground station. So it was the Day of resistance in fact.

* * *

Russian anti-globalists founded the Committee for commemoration of Slobodan Milosevic

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.


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.



* * *

Statement of the Sloboda/Freedom Association

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 toallow his medical treatment in Moscow, in spite of his critical medical condition.

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


The International Committee For the Defence of Slobodan Milosevic (2001-2006)

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 life.

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

* * *

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 limitations.[3]

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 witnesses.

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 Law";

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 Affairs;

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

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 2002

[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, No.

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 rzten 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 below.



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 rights.

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 credentials.

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 dare.


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 phase.  

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



Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic

Declaration of the International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic

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 reconciliation.

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 produced.

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 abduction.

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

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.



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 http://www.icdsm.org/more/artists.htm  

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, the 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 www.icdsm.org

Velko Valkanov, Ramsey Clark, Alexander Zinoviev (Co-Chairmen), Klaus Hartmann (Chairman of the Board), Vladimir Krsljanin (Secretary), Christopher Black (Chair, Legal Committee), Tiphaine Dickson (Legal Spokesperson)

07 June 2005 Hague Report No.1

Information Regarding the Current State of the Defense Case in the "Trial" of Slobodan Milosevic
By ICDSM Hague observer
NOTE: From now on, the ICDSM will periodically circulate relevant summaries of the developments in the Hague process against President Slobodan Milosevic. This first issue gives summarization of the process since the begining of the "defence case" with somewhat more detailed description of its recent weeks.

1) The Opening of the Defense Case

On August 31, 2004 the Defense Case commenced after President Milosevic had been given only three months for preparation - in contrast to the "Prosecution," which investigated the "case" since the mid 1990s - and in spite of President Milosevic's constrained working possibilities arising from his ill-health, limited funds as well as the fact that he was kept in detention. Of course, his requests for provisional release were denied by the "trial chamber," despite President Milosevic's clear intent to take part in the "trial" in order to refute the lies about Yugoslavia in front of the
international public.

President Milosevic was given only 150 days for the presentation of his case, half of the time the Prosecution used.
On August 31 and September 1, President Milosevic presented his opening statement for the Defense case. In this speech, President Milosevic revealed the one-sided and shamefully distorted character of The Hague "indictment"
against him. He exposed the "Prosecution's" attempt to demonize the Serbian people and blame them for everything that happened during the Yugoslav crisis.

He pointed out that the break-up of Yugoslavia was a process of continual violations of international law and that it constituted an aggression by foreign powers, most notably the US and the German-led European Community, against a sovereign state. He showed that the Serbs became the main target of these aggressive powers simply by having a vital interest in preserving the Yugoslav Federation. The security situation of Serbs was put at risk in the light of new threats posed against them that were reminiscent of World War II, when at least 600.000 Serbs lost their lives - many of them in Croatian fascist death camps.

As President Milosevic set out, the Western aggression against Yugoslavia was mainly accomplished by means of funding and supporting secessionist movements on the political as well as on the military level. When these secessionist forces aimed at unilaterally declaring the independence of the Yugoslav republics Slovenia and Croatia they were given immediate political support: Slovenia and Croatia were diplomatically recognized by the European Union as independent states within their former administrative borders, even though they were entirely lacking in the necessary legal prerequisites for this act and without having conducted any consultations with the Serbian side. The same thing happened again in the case of Bosnia-Hercegovina, causing the bloody civil war the Serbs are held accountable for by the "Prosecution." President Milosevic also described the historical continuity in the policy of Western powers towards Yugoslavia, which was always directed against the very existence of this multiethnic state, and their anti-Serb propaganda which dates from the 19th century. He laid particular emphasis on exposing the
myth of "Greater Serbia" which the "Prosecution" has frequently ascribed to him as being part of his political aims. President Milosevic not only rejected this allegation but also presented the fact that the concept of "Greater Serbia" as an aggressive agenda of the Serbs had been used as a propagandist trick against the establishment of Yugoslavia as early as World War I by the Austro-Hungarian empire.

President Milosevic points out that there were three main forces behind the aggressive policy of the West towards Yugoslavia, each with their own motives: Germany, following the same geopolitical interests in the Balkans that it did in two world wars. The Vatican, which joined Germany's (and Austria-Hungary's) side in both world wars in an effort to prevent the spread of Orthodox faith, and later that of communism. The third force, the United States, was an ally of the Serbs in World War II, but after the collapse of the Warsaw Treaty, it was eager not to lose military influence
in Europe and sacrificed the historical friendship with Yugoslavia for political and military interests.

President Milosevic also explained what happened in Kosovo prior to the NATO aggression, establishing the truth about the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army, which was in fact a terrorist organization aiming for the creation of
an ethnically pure and independent Kosovo that would later be associated with Albania to create a Greater Albania. The KLA was funded and trained by the West and exercised a murderous regime over Serbs and Albanians in all
areas of Kosovo and Metohija where  it managed to take over control.

President Milosevic also emphasized that the KLA, having been transformed into the Kosovo Protection Corps under the NATO occupation, has continued to complete its campaign of ethnic cleansing of the remainder of the Serb
population in Kosovo through outrageous violence under the eyes of the UNMIK administration.

2) The Imposition of Counsel

Before President Milosevic was able to call his first witness, on September 2nd the "trial chamber" made an unprecedented decision, proving the purely political character of the ICTY, by taking away President Milosevic's right
to defend himself in person and imposing counsel against his will. Former amici curiae Stephen Kay and Gillian Higgins from the UK were "assigned" as counsel for President Milosevic by the "trial chamber" in order to take full
control of the conduct of the Defense case - including the examination of witnesses. President Milosevic's participation in his own "trial" was reduced to the opportunity of asking "additional" questions to witnesses
after their examination and only upon permission by the "judges." The argument put forward by the "trial chamber" (as well as by "the Prosecution") was that in conducting his own Defense, Milosevic's health situation would further deteriorate. (No need to note that this was the first time that they ever cared for his health.) The "Prosecution" had
already demanded the imposition of counsel long before, for the first time in August 2001. On July 5, 2004, the "trial chamber" for the first time discussed the issue at full length, on the day the defense case was publicly announced to start, and therefore in the presence of the world media. That very day, former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright visited the "tribunal"! Ever since then, the US Foreign Policy establishment engaged heavily in a media campaign focusing on restricting president Milosevic's right to self-defense.

Having pretended hypocritically in the beginning that they wanted to "help" President Milosevic and were concerned about his health situation, the "Prosecution" became more aggressive than ever before in their last oral submission on the subject on September 1, claiming that President Milosevic was "obstructing" the trial by his manner of conduct in court (he is lacking "etiquette") and by "boycotting his medical therapy" so as to render himself unable to take part in the proceedings. (President Milosevic refuted the allegation of having manipulated his medical regime as nonsense and revealed that he observed manipulation with his food that was exchanged with that of another prison inmate - No one reacted to this allegation.)

On September 29,

Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins - only after accepting their assignment and facing the strongest possible opposition from President Milosevic -- issued an appeal against their own imposition before the Tribunal's "Appeal Chamber," pretending to share the position of President Milosevic. But the actual behavior of the "Assigned Counsel" made it clear that they were fully prepared to comply with the illegal decision of the "Trial Chamber" as they immediately began to contact people on President Milosevic's witness list. In the meantime, more than hundred possible witnesses informed the "Assigned Counsel" and the "Trial Chamber" that they were not ready to give evidence unless President Milosevic's right to self-representation were restored.

On October 18, Mr. Kay told the court  that up to 90 of the witnesses he had tried to contact refused to testify
under the prevailing circumstances. Mr. Kay also stated that he had made every effort to convince the witnesses to come to the "Tribunal," and he did not even object to "Presiding Judge" Robinson's announcement that subpoenas
be issued on unwilling witnesses, making it clear to everyone that Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins were fully on the side of the "Tribunal" and its illegal behavior. This is not to mention the bourgeois media, which basically stopped any kind of coverage since the start of the defense case, and did not report a word about this historic witness boycott! Probably because of the enormous witness boycott and the clear position of President Milosevic not to accept anything less than his right to self-representation, on November 1, 2004

President Milosevic won a partial victory when the "Appeals Chamber" ruled that the modalities of the conduct
of the defense case should be changed. President Milosevic would be allowed to conduct his own defense, but "the presence of Assigned Counsel will enable the trial to continue even if Milosevic is temporarily unable to
participate." On closer examination, this second part of the "Appeals Chamber's" ruling has to be seen as raising a possibility of an even worse violation of President Milosevic's rights than the original ruling of the Trial Chamber, as it lays the foundations of a trial in absentia.

Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins undertook several unsuccessful steps in order to be withdrawn from their posts as "Assigned Counsel" before the "Trial Chamber," the Registry and the "Appeals Chamber," obviously in an attempt to appear as
victims of the Trial Chambers' decision. The way the imposed counsel present themselves could well be aimed at influencing witnesses in order to prevent another round of boycott in case the imposed counsel take over in absence of President Milosevic. So for many, it appears that Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins would not voluntarily take part in illegal acts by the Tribunal, but are forced to comply. In reality, they were not forced to act as "Assigned Counsel." The Registry of the Tribunal asked several lawyers whether they would be available to serve in this function as early as in the beginning of August 2004.

Among those lawyers was former amicus curiae Branislav Tapuskovic, who stated in an interview with the Serbian daily Blic of August 7, 2004 that he refused to act as President Milosevic's lawyer against his will. In a letter to the ICTY Registry, Mr. Tapuskovic stated: "According to Article 21 (4)(d) of the Statute of the International Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia, the accused is guaranteed the right


" In contrast, Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins expressed their readiness to do the job from the very beginning.

3) Presentation of the Defense Case Before President Milosevic's right to lead his case was restored, the "Assigned Counsel" called five witnesses from President Milosevic's witness list: Smilja Avramov, a retired law professor and former political adviser from Serbia, James Jatras, former foreign policy advisor for the U.S. Senate Republican Foreign Policy Committee, Roland Keith, a Canadian OSCE commander in Kosovo, journalist Franz Josef Hutsch from Germany, and ICDSM Vice-Chairwoman Liana Kanelli, member of the Greek Parliament.

Mr. Kay's examinations were not in accordance with the defense strategy of President Milosevic, which consists in exposing the "indictment" as not only unfounded, but as an attempt to justify Western aggression against Yugoslavia that cannot be assessed in a legal, but only in a political context. Mr. Kay, on the contrary, dealt with the witnesses as if "client" was facing an ordinary criminal indictment. Apart from his general attitude that is in line with the imperialist ideology the "Tribunal" is based on, Mr. Kay lacks sufficient knowledge about Yugoslavia. This could be best seen
during the testimony of Liana Kanelli, when Kay used a map of Belgrade and surroundings to find a town in Southern Serbia. Fortunately, these witnesses managed to present important facts in spite of Mr. Kay's ineffective questioning. Prof. Avramov, who was President Milosevic's advisor from 1991 to 1993, made clear that President Milosevic never had any intention to strive for a "Greater Serbia" or carry out any kind of "ethnic cleansing," but on the contrary tried to preserve a multiethnic Yugoslavia.

James Jatras gave evidence on the involvement of the Clinton Administration in arming the Croats and Bosnian Muslims.

Since the November 1 "Appeals Chamber" decision, President Milosevic has been examining his witnesses. The judges have constantly interfered with his way of conducting the examination-in-chief, reprimanding him for allegedly
putting "leading questions" to the witnesses, presenting evidence not related to specific charges in the "indictment," not introducing documents in the proper way and other technical matters. It is a fact that the judges almost never applied such strict rules during the Prosecution case. The "Prosecution" frequently objects to the admissibility of documents and opens discussions on "technical" matters at length with the obvious aim of wasting as much time as possible out of the 150 days available for the presentation of the Defense case. During the "Prosecution's" cross-examination of Defense witnesses, President Milosevic often points out incorrect and tendentious translations of Serbian documents and other material. For example, he was able to prove, confirmed by the "Tribunal's" interpreters, that a BBC documentary shown by "Prosecutor" Mr. Nice deliberately mistranslated Serbian speakers.

The "Judges" - especially Ian Bonomy, who replaced the late Richard May without having had time to acquaint himself sufficiently with the foregone proceedings - treat the defense witnesses with obvious disrespect.

"Prosecutor" Geoffrey Nice openly insults the witnesses during his cross examination and addresses them in a very aggressive tone, disregarding their age, position or professional merit - contrary to President Milosevic who
had treated all Prosecution witnesses in a respectful way.

To date, President Milosevic has called 34 witnesses himself. Renowned intellectuals, historians and scientists, high-ranking politicians from in and outside Yugoslavia testified on the historical, political and legal position of Serbia - explaining the background of the Yugoslav crisis that is completely ignored in the "indictment" - as well as about President Milosevic's personal attitudes and actions during the breakup of Yugoslavia which were always aimed at preventing bloodshed.

Since the end of January 2005, witness testimonies have dealt with Kosovo.

They cover the general political situation disadvantaging the Serbs in Kosovo in the 1980s, the terror inflicted by the KLA in the 1990s as well as the NATO aggression of 1999. One of the most important testimonies was given
by Dietmar Hartwig, head of the Kosovo observer mission of the European Union (the European counterpart of William Walker). According to Hartwig, Serb police forces did not commit any aggression against civilians, but
responded to provocations by the KLA in a "disciplined" way. He described the KLA as a "terrorist organization," and emphasized the clear discrepancy between the reports he sent to Western governments and their public depiction of the events in Kosovo.

In relation to the testimony of Kosovo politician Mitar Balevic, President Milosevic played video footage of the two famous speeches he gave in Kosovo in 1987 and 1989, so everybody could see that they were not nationalistic,
but quite the opposite.

An important part of President Milosevic's defense is the establishment of the truth about the notorious Racak incident of January 15, 1999, which has been portrayed as a massacre by Serb police of Albanian civilians. The alleged massacre served as pretext for the NATO aggression and is the only incident in the Kosovo "indictment" that dates from prior to the NATO aggression. President Milosevic called important witnesses who countered the massacre version. Forensic expert Slavisa Dobricanin, who took part in the autopsies of the dead bodies found in Racak, confirmed that most of them had traces of gun powder on their hands. Police investigator Dragan Jasovic presented evidence that 30 of the people killed in Racak were known KLA members. The Racak incident was a police action against KLA terrorists.

Danica Marinkovic was the Investigating Judge in charge of the incident. She testified that the head of the OSCE mission William Walker tried to prevent her from visiting the scene on her own account and that her team was fired
upon by KLA for two days when trying to approach the scene, whereas the OSCE was able to do so. German journalist Bo Adam's testimony concentrated on Bill Clinton's claim that in Racak unarmed civilians were executed "kneeling in the dirt," which Adam, having conducted his own investigation on the scene, proved to be wrong.

4) First attempt at conducting the trial in absentia

Due to his ill-health, President Milosevic was not allowed to attend his "trial" on April 19, 2005. Presiding "Judge" Robinson ordered that the trial proceed in President Milosevic's absence in spite of all international covenants that forbid trials in absentia and even the "Tribunal's" own statute that states that every accused is entitled to be tried in his
presence. Not surprisingly, Robinson based his ruling on the "Appeals Chamber" decision of November 1, 2004.

Mr. Kay was asked to established contact with the next witness, Mr. Dragan Jasovic, in order to prepare his testimony, while the current witness, Serb refugee from Kosovo Kosta Bulatovic was called to be cross examined by Mr.
Nice. Mr. Bulatovic refused to answer any questions in the absence of President Milosevic. Thereupon the "Trial Chamber" decided to order him to a "Contempt of Court" hearing the next day.

On April 20, Mr. Kay told the chamber that he had tried to establish contact with Mr. Jasovic without success. The witness refused to meet with him against the will of President Milosevic. It is noteworthy that Mr. Kay tried to visit Mr. Jasovic in his hotel, even after having been told that he did not want to see him. This again shows that Mr. Kay zealously works against the interests of President Milosevic, whom he is allegedly to "defend."

On the same day, the "Trial Chamber" charged Mr. Bulatovic with "contempt of court" because he refused to take part in the illegal attempt to deprive President Milosevic of his basic rights. He was "defended" by the President of the "Association of Defense Counsel" of the "Tribunal," Mr. Stephane Bourgon. On May 13, the "Trial Chamber" found Mr. Bulatovic guilty of "Contempt of Court" and sentenced him to a prison term of four months, suspended for two years due to his ill health. This shameless "sentence" on an old man who stood up against the violation of basic civil rights is
without doubt aimed at intimidating future witnesses into not resisting the next attempt to try President Milosevic in absentia.

It is merely a matter of time when the "Trial" Chamber will again create a situation like on April 19. Then, if other witnesses act less courageously than did Kosta Bulatovic, trial in absentia will proceed.

Since May 11, General Obrad Stevanovic has been testifying. As former deputy interior minister of Serbia, he was able to refute the notion that Serbia was a police state when Slobodan Milosevic was President. He also pointed
out that all Serbian policemen are obliged to protect the law at all times and must not follow orders which are against the law. This makes the theory of a "Joint Criminal Enterprise" of President Milosevic and others to ethnically cleanse Kosovo and Metohija of non-Serbs, on which the "indictment" relies, inapplicable.

Soon after the summer recess, the Defense is going to start countering the Croatia part of the indictment.

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 Milosevic

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 possess.


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


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.









No interest on Serb victims

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 ?" 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)

Markus Bickel, Berliner Zeitung, January 17, 2004