INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
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.
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.
* * *
of the Sloboda/Freedom Association
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
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.
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
YESTERDAY, THE FOLLOWING LETTER WAS SENT TO THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL
MEMBERS AND TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE APPEALS CHAMBER OF THE HAGUE
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
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?
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
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.
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
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
(Ending for the Security Council)
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.
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,
D E C L A R A T I O
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
Three months were
allowed to S. Milosevic for the preparation of defense.
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.
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
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". 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.
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
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.
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".. 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
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
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
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,
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
25 November 2005
 [Trial Chamber] Order Concerning the Preparation and Presentation of the Defence Case of September 17, 2003.]
 [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  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"  Transcript of the court session of 22 February 2002 and of 3 and 4 June 2002
 UN Document: A/60/267 - S/2005/532 (12 Report of ICTY to General Assembly and Security Council) of 17 August 2005, para. 85.]
 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,
20. November 2005
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:
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
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
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
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.
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
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
Dr. med. Uta Mader
Initiative von in Deutschland praktizierenden ärzten und Therapeuten Initiative of medical Doctors and Therapists practising in Germany
DR. MED. UTA MADER, MATTHIAS JOCHHEIM, PROF. DR. MED. HABIL. ILSE EISEN-HAGEMANN, DR. PHIL. HANS-PETER BRENNER, PROF. DR. MED. HABIL. INGEBORG RAPOPORT, PROF. DR. MED. DR. PHIL. DR. HC. MULT. SAMUEL MITJA RAPOPORT (verst.), DR. MED. CHRISTA ANDERS, DR. MED. ERNST BELLMER, DR. MED. IRIS JONKANSKI, DR. MED. MICHEL HAHN, BARBARA MAHLFELD, DR. MED. HERBERT WOLF
* * *
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.
APPEAL TO PROTECT HEALTH AND LIFE OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
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,
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
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
MEDICAL ACADEMIC FORUM
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.
P R E S S R E L E A S E
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
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.
FREEDOM ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR LIBERATION OF PRESIDENT
Belgrade, 18 November 2005
MEMBERS OF THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL
Belgrade, 15 November 2005
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.
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
JOINT CONCLUSION OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR THE DEFENSE OF SLOBODAN
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
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"
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
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE FR THE DEFENSE F SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
Ramsey Clark Sergei Baburin Velko Vlkanov
"SLOBODA" ASSOCIATION - NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR LIBERATION OF PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic
Declaration of the International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic
Belgrade, 12 November
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
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.
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
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
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!
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
Through the strength of
arguing the truth, President Milosevic has
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,
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
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
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).
 "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,
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
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
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
COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
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
the Current State of the Defense Case in the "Trial"
of Slobodan Milosevic
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
President Milosevic was
given only 150 days for the presentation of his
case, half of the time the Prosecution used.
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
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
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
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
2) The Imposition of Counsel
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
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
President Milosevic won
a partial victory when the "Appeals Chamber"
ruled that the modalities of the conduct
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
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
TO BE TRIED IN HIS PRESENCE AND TO DEFEND HIMSELF PERSONALLY.
" 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
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
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.
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
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
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,
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
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
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.
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
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
Soon after the summer recess, the Defense is going to start countering the Croatia part of the indictment.
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
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,
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
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
THE PROSECUTION CASE ENDS ON 19 FEBRUARY 2004.
THE CASE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC SHOULD START IN ONLY THREE MONTHS, ON 19 MAY 2004.
THE COALITION OF CRIME - US/NATO/DOS/ICTY IS ATTEMPTING TO SILENCE PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC, TO SILENCE TRUTH AND FREEDOM.
TURN THE NEXT WEEK INTO A WEEK OF PROTESTS. DEMAND IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC. WRITE TO UN, ICTY, YOUR GOVERNMENT.
ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS ONE CAN FIND AT:
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 Á?" that body is not seen on OSCE-pictures." Left in the lurch In the days prior to the NATO-attack on Yugoslavia it was clear "that a bunch of governments were interested in a version of Racak that blamed only the Serb side," said Ranta. "But I could not provide this version." Her instructions came from the German diplomat Pauls.
The representative of the then-German EU-presidency asked for a written statement. "Afterwards, I had to show these personal statements to William Walker, who was obviously not amused when he read it." Still, she agreed to take part in the important press conference on March 17, 1999. "At that (conference), I was sitting with the German ambassador to Belgrade, Gruber, and a Finnish diplomat on the podium. I hoped that those gentlemen would support me." But that was not the case. "I rather had the feeling that I was left in the lurch," said Ranta. As a result of the Walker dominated press-conference most of the media accepted the version of a Serb massacre of Albanian civilians as proven. A few days later the NATO-airattacks on Yugoslavia began. (Translated from German by C.Schuetz & J.Catalinotto)
Markus Bickel, Berliner Zeitung, January 17, 2004