MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE

Is Slobodan Milosevic getting a fair trial?
————————————————————————————
NOTICE: Comments posted to this discussion board are solely the responsibility of individual posters, and not of JURIST, its owner, operators, host or staff. JURIST reserves the right to block or remove posts that are in violation of law or that advocate illegal acts, that are obscene, disruptive, defamatory, threatening, harassing or abusive, that are in breach of intellectual property rights, rights of publicity or rights of privacy, that are advertisements or solicitations, or that are not related to the topic being discussed.
————————————————————————————

• discussion archive

• Tuesday December 10, 2002 at 1:07 am
  Just spent a few minutes surfing through the Domonvia site and their links.........a shocking amount of race baiting, hatred, war mongering, and bloodlust.......enough to embarass Julius Streicher.......
  
  AP Vucelic
  NY
  NY

• Tuesday December 10, 2002 at 2:53 am
  Gogol, did I mention that the BBC World Service had these mysterious technical problems when it was trying to follow the trial at the beginning? It is no wonder then than Bard College should have the same kind of problems.

  OK, we have gone through Schedule A (Racak) of the Kosovo indictment. We read the Yugoslav interpretation of Ranta's report, and it seems that some test were carried out on the victims for gunpowder! Ranta hasn't made such a big deal of this in the Western press, if this is the case. The Serb paraffin test had revealed that "most" of the Racak victims had residue of gunpowder in their hands. Now we read that the Ranta report might have revealed that "almost 40" victims had residue of gunpowder in their hands. That is to say, almost all of them, 45 in all. And remember that you can carry weapons without firing them, so even the most high-tech test is still inconclusive. On the other hand, you could of course have gunpowder in your hands, even if you haven't fired.

  Del Ponte doesn't seem to have updated the schedules at the back, which is a pity, because her case depends entirely on the indictment, not on the forensic reports. Maybe the Scotland Yard's investigation of the Bela Crkva site was reliable. There may have been more victims than were listed in the Schedule A. But the British never addressed the question, to my knowledge, who was behind this butchering. After Racak massacre this has to be shown! If they cannot find cartridges and so on, then they cannot be sure who did it, can they? So it seems best to leave this unaddressed.

  On the other hand, Schedule C is pure hoax. Arbour had expected to find 113 bodies in Krusa e Vogel but found none. Del Ponte doesn't care. If the indictment says that there were bodies in Krusa e Vogel, then they have been removed, and Del Ponte starts looking for them as far as the Danube. Talk about a reflexive relationship to the reality! The prosecution seems to believe itself!

  It has been said that the Suva Reka massacre might have been the work of the KLA (Schedule K). Indeed, I can't help wondering that the Serb forces could pinpoint the members of one single family in such a random incident as a massacre! Schedule K includes 44 names, and the last names of all of them are Berisha! Remember that the Albanians have this vendetta system which means the death of the whole family, and I think these massacres have to be seen against this background. We bumped into this phenomenon in Schedule E (Padalishte), where all the victims belong to the Imeraj family.

  The massacres at Djakovica are itemized in Schedules D (26 March 1999) and G (2 April 1999). When one compares the schedules to the information on Djakovica at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/dos9912/cd.html . The schedules seems to have nothing in common with the actual findings.

  Some kind of trickery may be involved in breaking the massacres down to two schedules. Schedule D contains only men. Schedule G contains only women and a 5-year-old boy.

  The actual findings in Djakovica seem to have been reported by the KLA to the KFOR (check the link), and there seems to be little doubt that the victims were KLA soldiers. Note how often the URL uses the word "alleged". The carbonized bodies are alleged to have existed and reported to the KFOR! The other mass grave (and there were only two) contained 120 men of the fighting age. Maybe the six men listed in Schedule D were found among them and identified as non-KLA members! The women in Schedule G don't seem to have been found. Anyway, according to the URL any massacre of civilians must have occurred later than 2 April 1999.

  This is the problem. The defense has to make a case for the prosecution first and then refute it! And once one proceeds this way, the prosecution can say the defense is distorting the prosecution's case. In normal circumstances, the lack of a case would be enough to disqualify the prosecution. Look at the schedules at the back!
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday December 10, 2002 at 3:33 am
  

  Jari, I don't recall you reporting any trouble with the BBC, which I supose is your source to the hearings. I am curious about what BBC programmes are you refering to and I wonder if it is TV, internet, radio, available only in Northern Europe or Finland.

  The situation here this morning is that I can't log to most of mine familiar sites. The ICTY site is on but the audio and video links are not.

  I am surprised this site is operating fine (!)

  
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Tuesday December 10, 2002 at 4:16 am
  OK, back to Djakovica (Schedules D and G). But first some terminology. A layman gets confused with the subtle terminology that is used in describing the massgraves and things like that.

  It is important to understand what "reported" means. This info can be found at http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Reports/atrocit.html . Let me quote:

  "KFOR uses a three-tiered classification ranging from 'reported' to 'identified' to 'confirmed' to categorize killing and mass grave sites:

  •KFOR's 'reported' sites are sites for which KFOR has received a credible report of killings or a mass grave, but has not conducted any form of site inspection, either on the ground or by remote sensing reconnaissance to further validate the claims."

  And so on. But let us now look at Djakovica. At the now-familiar URL ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/dos9912/cd.html ) we have this info: "Six separate mass grave/exposed bodies sites have been reported that, in total, contain 235 bodies in the Djakovica area of Djakovica Municipality."

  And then come the two separate massgraves I was talking about. We know this about the first of them: "KFOR identified a mass grave containing 120 bodies of Kosovar Albanian men between the ages of 16 and 65 years old, who were reportedly shot on April 27, 1999 because they were believed to be members of the UCK."

  The second "alleged mass grave containing 87 carbonized bodies was found according to the UCK and reported to KFOR on June 20 and July 9, 1999."

  So there were eigth massgraves in all in Djakovica and its surroundings, six in Djakovica and two in its surroundings. But note the interesting terminology. The last massgrave, the alleged one, was "reported" to the KLA. On the other hand, the massgrave containing 120 bodies was "identified".

  What does "identified" mean? We got this information at http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/Kosovo/Reports/atrocit.html :

  "KFOR's 'identified' sites are sites that have been 'reported' to KFOR, and for which KFOR has conducted some form of inspection to further identify the existence of a reported killing or mass grave site."

  Is the "identification", let alone the "reporting," enough for evidence in court? I really don't think so. It means that there haven't been any forensic examination, and that is what it is all about. In other words, we need a "confirmed" site.

  But then this nice KFOR terminology is confounded by the ICTY terminology. "ICTY 'reported' sites are analogous to KFOR's 'reported' sites." However, the ICTY has no category for "identification". On the other hand, the second category, "the ICTY 'confirmed' sites are the same as KFOR's 'confirmed' sites."

  What happened to the "identified" sites in the ICTY? Now here is the trick:

  "The 'confirmed'designation does not necessarily confirm the number of bodies 'reported', it simply signifies that a site investigation has been completed. The number of bodies found at a 'confirmed' site does not always conform to the number of bodies cited in 'reported' or 'identified' reports."

  Notice the curious phrase " 'confirmed' designation does not necessarily confirm..."! I this means that the schedules at the back of the indictments are "confirmed", which means that there has been an investigation, but the results can even refute the "reports", which are reproduced in the schedules!

  You have to be very careful, because the prosecution will be sure to confuse you with this. But the truth be told, the prosecution doesn't fare any better with this sophistry. It simply means that the schedules at the back are worthless. "Confirmation" by ICTY is in itself worthless. It only means that someone has been on the site, and the reports may have been proved true or false. Most likely false, as in the Kosovo indictment of Milosevic.

  To sum up, there are eight reported sites in Djakovica and its surroundings. One has been "identified" by the KFOR. This doesn't mean that it has been "confirmed" either by KFOR or ICTY. Even the "confirmation" by the ICTY doesn't mean that there was any substance to the "reports". In other words, the Djakovica schedules at the back are crap! One needs the forensic reports, if any (in this case there were none), and then the question is what the schedules - or the indictments - are good for!

  This is the sincerest admission that the prosecution is not even expected to make sense. So it is no wonder that we have no idea whether the six men in Schedule D have been found, whether they were killed, let alone whether they were KLA soldiers.

  Yes, it is true that "discrepancies between the number of reported and confirmed bodies does not necessarily preclude that the true number of people killed at a particular site is not greater than the numbered designated as confirmed". Indeed, this may be the case in Bela Crkva. However, the discrepancy doesn't preclude the possibility that there were actually no bodies at all, as in Krusa e Vogel.

  And then to the weapons. Let us leave the schedules for a while, crap as they are, and see where the KLA might have got its weapons. There was a arms embargo on the basis of the Security Council resolution 1160(1998), so in principle the KLA could have no weapons!

  On the other hand, we know that the KLA had training camps in northern Albania, from where it infiltrated Kosovo. The former KLA has admitted this. The US most likely hasn't, an open society as it is. So where is the credible evidence? I think the official publication Yugoslav Survey No. 4, 1998 gives a very good answer. The key is the OSCE. This is a quote from p. 28:

  "The OSCE Mission in Albania acknowledges the existence of camps, bases and cantonments for the gathering, arming and training of the members of the terrorist so called KLA in Northern Albania, illegal arms trade and a high level of criminal activities in Northern Albania... The head of the Mission, Dan Everts, stated to 'The Reuters' on 21 December 1998 that illegal KLA in Northern Albania was actively engaged in preparations for the war in Kosovo and Metohija."

  Do I need to say how significant this is? This is the head of the OSCE mission in Albania talking, a counterpart of William Walker. Dan Everts is not some obscure figure. On the contary, he was OSCE Kosovo Mission chief - or OSCE "ambassador" in Kosovo.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday December 10, 2002 at 4:22 am
  Gogol, just a short answer. The BBC World Service hasn't broadcast the trial since day 3 or so of the trial. This is when they had these technical problems. I haven't checked out lately. My only source at the moment is this site and Vera's accounts.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Tuesday December 10, 2002 at 5:22 am
  

  OK, the situation is back to normal here. Our ISP was the culprit, but not entirely.

  Now a lady a member (director) of the Helsinki Human Rights Watch(?) is answering to Mr. Nice (NATO) about the HHRW's report on all the evils of the Serbs, Communists and Slobodan Milosevic.

  The whole thing is a rather twisted way of introducing the rumors, the falsehoods as "truth", for example:

  Mr. Tapuskovic objects to this lady making conclusions since she is not an expert, about the reported (unverified) facts in the report. Judge May ignores his objection by saying she is just commenting on the report. Then judge Robinson (COLONIAL) wants clarification about a passage read by Mr. Nice (NATO) saying the VJ intervened doing terrible things under the civilian leadership orders, to what the HHRW lady (she sounds American) answers she does not know from where this information in the report comes from!

  It gets even more farcical when Mr. Nice (NATO) reads the Greater Serbia charge saying after the report the term was becaming very much in use at the time among the HHRW people on the ground and she said it was so because the "western media was using it". I wonder if the word propaganda could ever be ascribed to the NATO media!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Tuesday December 10, 2002 at 7:11 am
  

  Anyone who can watch today's proceedings should not miss it: it is hilarious!

  Judeg May (NATO) atempting to protect the reputation and the insights of HRW against the attacks, logical attacks of Mr. Milosevic is just very funy!

  I hope Vera gives us one of her usual witty and detailed report.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Tuesday December 10, 2002 at 12:38 pm
  Gogol, maybe the group May is defending is Helsinki Human Rights Group. Maybe the group has just as little to do with human rights as it has with Helsinki. It is called "Helsinki", because it was inspired by the Concluding Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (predecessor of OSCE), which was signed in Helsinki in 1975.

  About the Dutch. When one tries to encourage the Dutch authorities to do something about the ICTY, you get responses like: "Oh, we can't possibly, because we have this hands-off policy to facilitate the work of the tribunal". And the jurisdiction of the Dutch State is of course minimal in regard to the tribunal.

  But somehow this is difficult to square with the very pro-Muslim policy of the Dutch state in general. Facilitating the work of the tribunal would be fine if the Dutch helped it to stay impartial, but this is hardly the case with the aggressive Dutch media effort in Yugoslavia and such manoeuvres as the parlimentary inquiry on Srebrenica. It is even possible that the parliamentary inquiry is meant to influence the Milosevic trial! (Maybe the parliamentary inquiry has also met with technical problems, of which Rose may have been the first victim.)

  But back to the ICTY. Just let me rehash the subtle terminology used by the tribunal in regard to the massgraves. This has been a shock to me. First, you get "reports", then the tribunal sends some expert to investigate the site, and it gets a "confirmation". That is all there is to it. The schedules at the back of the Kosovo indictment are obviously based on "reports". Then they have been "confirmed". And as if by a miracle, all the "reports" have indeed been "confirmed".

  In normal language, when we hear someone say that the reports of a massacre and a massgrave have been confirmed, we of course assume that the reports were proved accurate. This is not the case in the ICTY parlance. A "confirmation" is just a "report". The only difference is that someone has been authorized to look into the report and investigate the site. That person doesn't have to find a single body mentioned in the report to be able to "confirm" the report.

  The fact that someone has visited and investigated the site is hardly relevant in itself. What we need to know is if that person really found any resemblance with what the report said. In a trial like this one this can be make or break a case. No-one should be convicted on the basis of a report. Owing to the eccentric terminology of the ICTY, it doesn't even matter if the report or the massgrave has been "confirmed". What we need to know is if the bodies were there, as was supposed in the report. We can only convict someone on the basis of the physical evidence, not some report. Why else would we need a trial? We could just as well read the reports at home.

  But this is really a concern. Now that a report can be confirmed just by someone investigating the site, even if the claims proved wrong, likewise the trial can reach a conclusion based on the reports, even if the reports have been shown to be inaccurate. The trial becomes just the kind of rubberstamp as the ICTY-authorized official who investigates the site.

  This is really hard for the defense. What should the defense try to refute exactly? Does the fact that everybody knows the report to be false mean that the defense cannot point out that the report, and thus the schedules in the indictment, are bull? Even if the accused is presumed innocent, this kind of jugglery with the terminology means that the non-existence of a case put by the prosecution becomes a so-called affirmative defense!

  But are the schedules at the back entirely useless then? Look at it from the positive side. Maybe they set the boundaries to what the prosecution can claim. For instance, even if the prosecution didn't even intend to prove all the schedules to be accurate, because everybody knew they weren't, the prosecution cannot introduce a massacre that has not been mentioned in the schedule. Maybe that is how it worked in the Kosovo phase. The details of the massacre don't have to be exactly as they were presented in the schedule, but the prosecution cannot alter the massacres so that the case differs from the indictment so much that it becomes a new case.

  This should be of some help to the defense. Although about 50% of the schedules are crap, the defense should centre on those schedules that have some connection with the reality. I think these include Racak, Bela Crkva, Suva Reka and Dubrava. And of course, one should make the most of the discrepancies between the actual findings and the prosecution's schedules. One must proceed step by step: find the forensic report, pinpoint the victims, find all about the weapons and so on.

  But all in all, it is deeply distressing that the word "confirmation" is used in such a misleading meaning. This is hardly a technicality. The intention is to mislead: bad faith! More than just a word gets redefined then. What is the meaning of "proof", when the "proof" is needed to refute something that has been "confirmed"? This is of course the post-modernist crap at its worst. Orwell would call it doublespeak.

  As if that weren't bad enough, just let us come back to the arms embargo imposed by Security Council resolution 1160(1998). This was, as we know, reinforced by a later resolution 1199 (1998). It was because of the violations of this latter resolution that the bombing was said to be automatically justified. But where was the arms embargo leaking the most? In Kosovo of course. So who were primarily violating resolutions 1160(1998) and 1199(1998)? The Kosovars. So how could the violations of these resolutions justify the bombing of Yugoslavia, which was trying to root out the illegal arms trade by the Kosovars?
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Tuesday December 10, 2002 at 1:18 pm
  

  It is all clear now. Mr. Milosevic gave a detailed explanation about the Helsinki background to what is now the so called Human Rights Watch and her executive director Jeri Laber, described by the gutter press as an American "activist".

  I was going to star my impressions of the session today but I leave it to Vera, she will not disappoint us.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Tuesday December 10, 2002 at 7:35 pm
  
  “Whiter than white”

  Blair came to power in the UK condemning previous governments for sleaze and promising “whiter than white” government under his stewardship. It may have escaped the international media that during the whole of the past week the British media has been obsessed with stories of the Blairs’ dodgy friends and acquaintances and their less than plain speaking over their association and dealings with them: Including an intervention in the legal proceedings for the deportation of a convicted crook.

  Why is it important to this discussion group? For reasons I have given above I believe the Blairs above all are responsible for the appalling situation in Serbia, especially Kosovo, and the war which brought it about: And hence for the indictment of Milosevic over Kosovo. These recent revelations confirm what we all here have known for a long time. The Blairs of the New Age daft ideas keep dodgy company, are not averse to bending the truth and seem to view the law as little more than an instrument for implementing their wishes.

  The Blairs’ friends and acquaintances Carole Caplin and Fraudster Foster were preceded by the UK government’s friends and acquaintances Madeleine Albright and KLA terrorist leader Hashim Thaci. Property deals with Foster were preceded by territory deals with the KLA. Interventions in deportation proceedings were preceded by the UK’s involvement in these ongoing and farcical proceedings at the ICTY.

  Plain speaking? “Hundreds of thousands of Kosovan Albanians are living the desperate, dreadful lives of refugees; many hundreds of thousands more are struggling to survive within Kosovo and, tragically, many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, are dead, murdered as an act of policy by the Milosevic regime … Time and again I was told stories of torture, murder and rape.” Blair in the Times 1999.

  Substitute ‘Kosovo minorities’ for ‘Kosovan Albanians’, substitute ‘the KLA regime under Blair’s ‘moral’ leadership’ for ‘the Milosevic regime’ and you see Kosovo today. But there is one big difference this statement is largely true, Blair’s statement above is largely false.

  “Milosevic has turned his forces on his own citizens in Kosovo. There, with cold premeditation, he has expelled more than a million people from their homes, emptied entire cities and killed thousands. His corrupt cronies are now lining up to say that there is no ethnic cleansing, that it is all an invention. This just confirms that they are liars looking to shuffle off their hideous responsibility. I challenge them to allow international representatives on an unrestricted tour of Kosovo. I challenge them to explain the thousands of dead, the empty cities, the burnt-out homes, the mass graves.” Blair in the Express 1999

  The Sun reported in 1999 that Cherie Blair was “horrified by the rape camps”.

  Principles are out - New Age Blairism is the order of the day. Respect for the truth, for sovereignty, for international agreements are all passé.

  According to our new masters it is OK for British Judges to lack judgement. It is OK for British Judges not to tell “The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. It is OK for Government spokesmen to propagate misleading statements. It is OK for the Prime Minister and his wife to have convicted crooks arrange their property deals. It is OK for senior barristers to intercede in legal proceedings that are none of their legitimate concern.

  A chorus of Blairs ministers are being paraded before us chanting the mantra “There is no wrong doing” but there is. The Blairs have committed the greatest sin of their daft and dangerous New Labour, New World Order, New Age thalassotherapy mud society - THEY HAVE BEEN FOUND OUT.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday December 10, 2002 at 7:38 pm
  
  Postscript: An Oscar winning performance

  Don’t miss the blub. The New Labour spinners’ style over substance wins again.

  As I finished the post above Blair’s wife made an unexpected TV statement in which she admitted that she had been wrong not to reveal the full truth about the Blairs’ dealings with Fraudster Foster. But she sought to justify her malfeasance stating family reasons. Is it ever possible to justify not telling “The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth” especially for a judge? Also we note that this confession was forced out of her following a weeklong barrage of evidence from the media: And after the Downing Street government press office had made several now provably misleading statements to the press.

  Concerning the allegation that she had interfered in deportation proceedings she also admitted to a hitherto undisclosed malfeasance: that she had made enquiries to establish the name of the judge scheduled to hear the case of Fraudster Foster - now how would that information help her friend which she claimed was the motive for her actions?

  The true test of the Blairs’ integrity will be if they now belatedly apologise for the lack of principled judgement they applied during the criminal attack upon Serbia and the massive lies they told about the Serbs: ‘The Death Camps, the Rape Camps …’ But will the British media be so keen as to press these points with the same intensity as they did the trivial events above?

  The Blairs wear the humanitarian badge along with their hearts upon their sleeves. Shall we now see some of this compassion for their victims in Serbia? Shall we now see from the Blairs some effort to redress the evil caused by their intervention in Serbia. Will the quarter of a million refugees from Kosovo be allowed to return home this third exiled Christmas: will those remaining in Kosovo be protected from the murderous thugs of the KLA and will their churches no longer be destroyed? We shall see.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Tuesday December 10, 2002 at 8:53 pm
  Jari, thanks for checking up on those schedules - I think such analysis is absolutely crucial. What an excellent piece of legal precision on behalf of the Prosecution! They indict someone for something which has been never defined in the first place; they act as if this is some macabre bingo game where they throw out numbers, forgetting these are dead people they're talking about. It's been 11 years since all this had started with killings in Slovenia and Croatia and all those investigative teams still have not even compiled precise lists of dead people (not to mention the essential answers in any investigation: when were they killed, how were they killed and by whom). Yet, nothing stops the Prosecution from issuing vague, contradictory indictments. But, perhaps this is intentional: that way it is almost impossible to defend oneself, not knowing what you're defending from.

  I would like to ask you something: could you please check any existing indictment/schedule/UN report containing any list of people supposedly killed in the famous Vukovar hospital - Ovcara farm case? I've heard several different versions of the event, that's why I said earlier that I did not know what happened in Vukovar. You seem to have a good grasp of possible sources for such data, so please try to find something and share this with us.

  Yes, Gogol, the woman who started to testify today is Jeri Laber, Executive Director of the New York-based American Committee of the famous NGO called Helsinki Watch, which at one point in time became a branch of yet another NGO named Human Rights Watch (Or was it the other way around? Who cares - both are thriving.). They have some 200 employees now and at the time of this indictment they were much fewer (I suspect there were just 4 of them, because all their 'reports' mention only 3 other names), but now they've grown, as you see - a lucrative thing these NGOs. And notice how such American-based enterprises never investigate human rights' abuse in the US, but always in those countries which the State Dept. needs to denigrate. How very non-governmental. And yes, her testimony is hilarious, but I'll wait until it's finished tomorrow to share this with you. So far, my favourite is the blunder re Kostunica, do you agree?

  In the meantime, there was another witness, who testified yesterday and today: C-025. This was another protected Serb from CRO, a former policeman, but from a region first time introduced - Baranja. For those unfamiliar, it's a rich flat triangle between rivers Drava and Danube, almost at the far east of CRO, not far from Vukovar. What is interesting about this particular piece of Serb-inhabited territory, it didn't exactly have too many clashes, actually hardly any. Thus, any potential witness living there has very little to testify, and C-025 couldn't and didn't meet the Prosecution's needs. Why they called him to the stand anyway, it really beats me. Is he one of those 14 lesser-quality witnesses given up in exchange for the prolongation of Babic? Or do they consider him a higher-quality witness? They're really scraping the bottom of the barrel here. The man only testified that the Serbian Security Service had been active on the territory of Baranja (imagine that!), that there were some weapons distributed to people by somebody, to which he never witnessed, and that some Croats had been arrested and exchanged later on. He finished his examination-in-chief in couple of hours, although Nice dragged each question endlessly. Would you believe that he even dwelled upon the alleged misappropriation of stolen cars within the local police force (war crime, no doubt!). However, Milosevic had a field trip with this one: in a dozen short descriptions he managed to sum up the happenings in Baranja in 1991-92, that really showed what the 'war' in CRO was all about. Listen. (Milosevic finished each one of these descriptions with a question 'Would you agree with that?', and C-025 agreed each time.) There were hardly any clashes in Baranja. JNA intervened just once to divide local Serbs and Croat forces, and prevented any battle to happen by its mere presence, by placing few armoured cars between the two sides. The same happened in the nearby Vukovar region, in Borovo Selo, the difference being that there were about one hundred dead before JNA stepped in [this was the famous case that triggered it all, which happened 3 May 1991: the Croatian police first provoked by putting new Fascist flag in the middle of this Serb village, the flag was taken down, the police came back tomorrow in few buses with hundreds of paramilitaries, shooting wantonly around, but the peasants were ready with their hunting guns - Croats were ambushed, about a hundred of them got killed and the others were saved by JNA]. C-025 further confirmed that there were several militant extremist Croat groups organized, openly calling themselves 'Ustasa'. That there were Serb houses and business premises mined, as well as POLITIKA representative office in Osijek (major town of the region). That he personally knew 7-8 prominent Serbs from Osijek, mostly doctors, holding no extremist views whatsoever, who got killed. That 57 Serbs got killed in the municipality of Beli Manastir (the second major town) in the period 1991-93. That after one of such killings, few villages organized their village patrols. That the local Serbs from Baranja organized their own military unit, complete with mortars, uncertain of the possible JNA help they would receive. That the local Serbs made no attacks upon the Croatian villages or individuals. That JNA, before it was withdrawn from Baranja as well as from the whole of CRO, had fought several battles with the newly established Croatian forces which would always try to penetrate this area through the Hungarian territory (and Hungary let them!); this is a marshy region, with an important border army watchtower Torjanci. The first time the Croats tried to seize it, they came into the mine-field and got all captured. The second time, they managed to come by a small village of Torjanci, where they killed all its Gypsy population, but the JNA fought them back to Hungary. The third time was interesting: they came via Hungary with heavy weaponry (mortars, artillery); either they were invisible or the Hungarians mistook them for their friends the US military (to which they opened their airports in 1999 to bomb YU); again they had to retreat with heavy casualties. C-025 confirmed all that and recognized names of the Serbs killed, quoted by Milosevic. In short, he turned out to be another witness for the Defence, making its case to perfection.

  Nice must've been mortified, so when he got another chance to redirect, I expected he would find something strong to pull out this sinking ship. But look what he came up with. He reiterated about the illegal arming of the Serbs; C-025 said that "part of it was legal, which was the arming of the TO (Territorial Defence)"; Nice suggested so subtly that maybe this 'illegal part of the arming was causing the disturbance among the non-Serbs, contributing to their moving out of the region', to which C-025 responded: "Well, I think that part of the arming had been made in secrecy." So, the non-Serbs could not have been disturbed by it, could they?! Poor Nice, he just abruptly ended: "Er… Thank you. That concludes my redirect."

  But, what was really amazing is the more and more obvious expert help (and I mean intelligence data) available to Milosevic. He not only quoted all the events, dates, places, even names of villagers, he also started to quote some seriously fresh info re Croatian current Security Service. In the part of his cross-examination aimed at undermining the credibility of the witness, he quoted some names of local as well as top Zagreb Counter-Intelligence Service officials, with whom C-025 is allegedly connected and accused him of being their witness, instructed by them. He described dates of their phone calls last month, places of their meeting, organization of the trip to The Hague from Osijek via Zagreb, even the make of the car used, a Zagreb tavern of venue, who said what at the goodbye-meeting with the top brass. Really scary. Of course, C-025 denied it all, but had to admit he does "go fishing with Pekic quite often" [Pekic being a local top official of the Service in Osijek]. You know what makes me believe there is some truth in it? You remember the witness Mustafa Candic, a Major/Muslim/ex-JNA Security Service officer? Remember how he spoke of the 'secret operations for arming of the Serbs, called Breakthrough 1 and 2' (of which nobody else but him knew the existence!) and how it was subsequently established that, after leaving JNA, he went over to the Croatian Secret Service and sold them his stories, before crossing over to Alija Izetbegovic? Well, in his testimony concerning weapons, C-025 mentioned 'Operation Breakthrough'. Now, how could a simple local policeman know about such a thing, even if it did exists, and particularly if it didn't?! Obviously, the Croatian Service briefed him and the Prosecution wanted to use him as another source who would independently confirm this bogus story. But, C-025 simply wasn't up to the task; he did mention that, but somewhat shyly (I hardly managed to notice it) and instead dwelled endlessly upon the re-registration of stolen cars, as any simple cop would do. The truth is always so much more interesting and easier to spin to simple people. You should've heard him while eagerly confirming every bit of the situation-depicting description that Milosevic gave.

  Keep them coming, Nice. Another one of even lower calibre already came - Jeri Laber.
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Tuesday December 10, 2002 at 9:01 pm
  

  I doubt that the British media, any more than the North American press, will even mention Kosovo and the crimes commited by NATO. Blair and Clinton may be vilified for many other things but Balkan policy is out of bounds.

  Albright, led the charge for her masters in the CIA and media is controlled by forces above presidents or prime ministers.

  If justice were done, H Kissinger would be in jail to this day.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Tuesday December 10, 2002 at 11:07 pm
  Vera, To me it seems more like witness c-025 really had been 'taken for a ride' by Mr Pekic (and Mr Milosevic) ! That was quite a story ! Mr Nice changed his mind about calling the investigator after he had excused himself to run after the witness to ask if he should challenge the allegation or not. And obviously he was told not to. But note also that c-025 had been presented to the people OUTSIDE the building in Zagreb. Anyone can stand on the stairs outside a building without having an office inside it. How would Milosevic know the exact conversation if he did not rig this himself ? But probely no one will ever comment on this again, at least not in court. And Milosevic can always claim it was just a practical joke. (and a good one too) And c-025 will go fishing alone in the future.
  
  Ann-Marie Laios
  Sollentuna
  Sweden

• Wednesday December 11, 2002 at 3:59 am
  Vera, the Vukovar Hospital/Ovcar Farm victims are listed in the Croatia indictment. You will find the list in the annex I of the initial indictment on the ICTY homepage ( http://www.un.org/icty/indictment/english/mil-ii011008e.htm ).

  I would have to get my bearings first before commenting on it, but let me quote § 49 of the indictment, which deals with this incident:

  "On or about 20 November 1991, as part of the overall persecution campaign, Serb military forces under the command, control or influence of the JNA, the TO SBWS and other participants of the joint criminal enterprise, removed approximately two hundred and fifty-five Croats and other non-Serbs from Vukovar Hospital in the aftermath of the Serb take-over of the city. The victims were transported to the JNA barracks and then to the Ovcara farm located about 5 kilometers south of Vukovar. There, members of the Serb forces beat and tortured the victims for hours. During the evening of 20 November 1991, the soldiers transported the victims in groups of 10-20 to a remote execution site between the Ovcara farm and Grabovo, where they shot and killed them. Their bodies were buried in a mass grave. The names of the victims are set out in Annex I attached to this indictment."

  To me it seems very easy to establish the identities of the victims, if the chain of events was as described here, because the hospital can of course be expected to have registered all the patients. Also, as it is a hospital that we are talking about, some forensic investigation might have been easy to carry out pretty soon after the event.

  But this reasoning is of course dependent on the assumption that the victims were all patients! In a hospital you would expect to have many older people, but most of the men in the list were of the fighting age. To be sure, the oldest victim was born in 1915, but most were born in the '50's and the '60's. They would thus have been around their thirties at that time.

  So clearly, there is something disproportionate in the victims list. Why would a hospital house so many young men? And why were the victims all men? Even if it were a men's hospital, for instance a military hospital, which it mostly likely was not, wouldn't it have been "nice" to kill some nurses too? And how did the "Serb forces" know how to pick up the Croat and other non-Serb victims? Or did they kill everybody, and the officials later included only the Croats and the non-Serbs?

  Of course, even if the victims were Croat soldiers, it would have been wrong to torture them and kill them. Shooting a non-combatant soldier is a war crime. However, the Vukovar Hospital incident is dealt with under the heading of "Extermination, Murder, Wilful Killing". The first two are not war crimes but crimes against humanity (Art. 5 of the ICTY Statute). Only "wilful killing" is a war crime in the sense of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Art. 2 of the ICTY Statute). So is torture, which is mentioned in § 49 of the initial Croatia indictment.

  So far so good (more or less), but then this matter-of-fact impression is ruined by mentioning that the Vukovar Hospital incident was "part of the overall persecution campaign". I think the prosecution has to express the setting in such a roundabout way in order to pin it on the notorious "joint criminal enterprise", which is mentioned in § 49 too. It would be crucial to know which crime the prosecution is trying to establish. In order to pin the crime on Milosevic, the charge can be watered down, as seems to be the case here.

  About the reliability of the list of the victims, there is some curious communication breakdown. Kosovo was the first place where the ICTY investigators could get to work right away. In Bosnia the bodies have been badly neglected, from what I have gathered. In Croatia, ICTY hasn't carried out any large-scale investigation (but I may be wrong). You know, in Croatia such an investigation wouldn't really have been necessary for the prosecution before the Croatia indictment of Milosevic was issued last year. In the meantime the information has had time to get many twists and turns. That means that we would seem to be dependent on the information provided by Croatian officials, who would have an interest in putting forward their own version. And remember, if the logic of the Kosovo indictment obtains, the 255 names in Annex I are based on "reports", which may later have been shown to be inaccurate. Maybe somebody can comment on this?

  I will come back to Vukovar some time in the future, but let us follow our schedule-a-day regimen as to the Kosovo indictment.

  As to Schedule D (Djakovica), we know that the fate of these six men is uncertain. There were eight "reported" mass graves in Djakovica, but none seems to have been "confirmed".

  Schedule E (Padalishte) is about the massacre of the Imeraj family. The trusted website at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/dos9912/cd.html says this: "According to ICTY information on November 10, 1999, a site investigation was completed and has confirmed finding 16 bodies at Padaliste." Indeed, this is more or less what Schedule E says. There are just a couple names too many. What I am wondering about is how the Serb forces could pinpoint the Imeraj family with such accuracy in the village of Padalishte.

  Schedule F (Izbica) is really interesting. Our trusted list of "mass graves and atrocities" says this of the site at Izbica:

  "The site was subsequently field investigated by ICTY who according to KFOR, on 9 July 1999 confirmed that 142 individual graves had been tampered with, that all bodies were removed--and not recovered by the investigators--and that it was impossible to determine from forensic examination the total number of bodies that had been at the site."

  Doesn't this give a hint who might have been behind these "massacres"? Why would the Serb forces dig up bodies from more than a hundred individual graves? To take them to the Danube? But this is where you would have to put the question: why bury them in the first place, and mind you, not in mass graves but individual graves? Isn't it much more likely (if you can use that word) that the Albanians dug up the bodies to stage mass killings all over Kosovo? The KLA would have given the soldiers an individual grave, so these graves might have contained more than just bones. Or alternatively, what would be more misleading than dig 142 holes in the ground and let the ICTY investigator believe that they were graves? How did the investigator supposedly "confirm" that there had been bodies in the "graves"? That is where your very vocabulary can lead you astray.

  But now we have a problem. Maybe it could be a good idea to go through the list of "mass graves and atrocities" and see what has actually been found. Thus far, it has not been too much. You know, whatever the list reveals, one has to take into account the KLA members that got killed, too. They have to be buried somewhere. So what do we have left? Where are the "atrocities" that the list purports to establish? If the ICTY is so lax with its vocabulary, it is no wonder Patrick Ball, too, could "confirm" (or whatever word was used) the death of 10,356 Albanians in Kosovo with his high-tech equipment.

  But I have a converse problem. If the atrocities committed by the Serb forces were so few as it now seems - at least judges by the number of the sets of remains - what were the war crimes convictions in Serbia all about? Vera or someone else, do you have any info on this? Were the convictions limited to looting and things like that?

  And last but not least, if the Dutch government assists or assisted the IWPR financially or otherwise, how can the Dutch government palm itself off as some neutral bystander? To answer that question, read one of Mirko Klarin's "reports"? Does it impress you with its objectivity? There is too much media involved in the Dutch foreign policy in regard to Yugoslavia. That might be a problem even if the media in question were at least trying to appear objective, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. With such an extensive anti-Serb media effort abroad, could the Netherlands as the host country labour under a conflict of interests? For instance, the IWPR didn't mind it too much that Milosevic got ousted. The ousting and the subsequent "trial" are all too political in themselves, but considering the Dutch groundwork, maybe the real question of this discussion should be "Does Slobodan Milosevic get a fair trial in Holland?"
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday December 11, 2002 at 5:32 am
  

  I just finished the testimony of Miss Jery Laber and it ended very much the way it began: ridiculously!

  "You speak about Serbia hegemony during 45 years of communist dictatorial rule by Tito, reason leading to Croatian nationalism or separatism, Miss Laber do you know what nationality Tito was?" Mr. Milosevic asked, " . . . mmm I should know but I don't know, was he a Croat? " she answered.

  The arguments are of the hardheaded type: yes, I said one thing but I meant another. Judge May (NATO) made a little fool of himslef wanting to stop the cross-examination altogether and was over-ruled by the other two members of his troika.

  I want now to raise a question which I haven't heard so far mentionned any where. It has to do with human rights violations in regard to deportations and exile both I think can't not be ignored in the case of Mr. Milosevic and everyones else brough to the ICTY, being detained in a foreign country, after deportation and exile from his own. By extension I think about all the convicted defendants serving jail terms in foreign countries away from home which is another violation of basic human rights, since the defendants are to serve near their families, near their own towns and people.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday December 11, 2002 at 12:00 pm
  Jari:

  I have been following“Milosevic Jurist” since the very beginning.

  You have been keeping this site going and it is evident that you must spend a lot of time on research.

  This is the best thing that has happened for the Serbs. Thanx to your leadership, we have Gogol, Peter, Pera, Walter and Vera’s wonderful analysis of the trial giving us something we never have had with the western media. A fair coverage of what happened in the former Yugoslavia and now the kangaroo trial.

  Thanx again to Jari.

  
  
  Kathryn Love
  SJC
  USA

• Wednesday December 11, 2002 at 12:35 pm
  As to the Vukovar Hospital/Ovcara farm, it would be pretty important to know if these 255 (young) men were really admitted as patients. Or were they just seeking shelter in the hospital, which is called "perfidy" in the Geneva Conventions. Luckily for the prosecution, "perfidy" is not mentioned in the exhaustive list of the "grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949" in Art. 2 of the ICTY Statute. Obviously, perfidy isn't "grave" enough.

  But on the other hand, it would make a big difference if the 255 (young) men were soldiers. That would lessen the offense to a war crime (Art. 3 of the ICTY Statute). And how do you know if they were soldiers or patients? If the Serbs were after the soldiers, they should have had all the appropriate documents at their disposal, like the list of patients, when they started the evacuation. But if so, how will we ever find the list, and even if we do, how do we know they are authentic?

  In this case, there is another way. In order to be admitted to a hospital ward, you have to have some disease. The bodies of the 255 men were later found in the mass grave. So there have to be autopsy reports. And when writing the autopsy report, the investigator will go through the whole physical condition of the subject. That is how they knew one of the victims in Racak had the cancer of the bladder. So in order to establish these 255 men as bona fide patients, we need to fine some medical condition in the autopsy reports, beside just being tortured or shot.

  But here another problem may emerge. It is not clear who carried out the autopsies. If it was the Croats, the results are not necessarily any more reliable than in the case the Serbs had carried them out. But luckily the accused is presumed innocent, so in principle it would be the prosecution's business to show that the men were really patients, and had some medical condition.

  But then comes the really tricky part. What has Milosevic to do with this? The prosecution has made the game really easy for itself. In § 5 of the Croatia indictment we get this passage: "Committing in this indictment refers to participation in a joint criminal enterprise as co-perpetrator." So it seems that Milosevic didn't have to have anything to do with the specific crime. His crime was belonging to this nebulous "joint criminal enterprise", and that way, he is jointly responsible for all the crimes allegedly committed by this joint criminal enterprise.

  This is certainly a long way from the Report of the Secretary-General of 3 May 1993, where he said that the "individual criminal responsibility" precludes the imputation of guilt because of belonging to a certain group. In § 51 of the report we read:

  "The criminal acts set out in this statute are carried out by natural persons; such persons would be subject to the jurisdiction of the International Tribunal irrespective of membership in groups."

  And that is to say nothing of the fact that the joint criminal enterprise seems pretty imaginary itself. First of all, we would need to know what exactly was its purpose. Sometimes Milosevic's opponents argue the joint criminal enterprise was trying to create a "Greater Serbia". Sometimes they say it was trying to hold Yugoslavia together, thus quenching the (legitimate) independence movements. Sometimes they say that Milosevic let the Serbs down by not coming to their aid. Certainly, this man has done a lot of bad. Maybe that shows how bad he really is. On the other hand, all these claims are contradictory, and as long as the prosecution doesn't choose only one alleged purpose, its case fails. Allegans contraria non est audiendum.

  Talking about membership in groups, I can't helping thinking of the "collective responsibility" of the Dutch in the alleged massacre in Srebrenica. Membership in groups is irrelevant only if you are accused in the ICTY. It doesn't preclude the possibility that the host country could be collectively responsible for the crimes of the Dutch government as well as the tribunal.

  But one can arrive at the conflict of interest - which is what I am driving at - even more directly. Remember, Holland was one of the Nato states sued by Yugoslavia at the ICJ in the spring of 1999. It is possible that the indictment of Milosevic was meant to frustrate that law suit, because the outcome of the suit against Nato would in all likelyhood been pretty dismal for Nato. So, conflict of interests! Hosting a trial that is meant to exonerate yourself!

  Also, one can track the ongoing parliamentary inquiry back to the same syndrome. To prevent the remote possibility that Milosevic would be acquitted, the Dutch parliament - at the instigation of some Muslims - is trying to establish the existence of the Srebrenica genocide, albeit by building the house from the roof down. Sure, the inquiry is self-inflicted, but the bottomline is that the Dutch government is on the defensive even there. Doesn't look good. Besides, the fact that this inquiry is self-inflicted is in line of the most honourable Muslim tradition of self-inflicted injuries, which there are enough indications of already.

  A third ingredient. To ensure that Milosevic was definitely beaten after the bombing in 1999, the Russians had to be kept out. As we have read in the interview of Felipe Turover by Jürgen Elsässer, Del Ponte was involved in the impeachment of Yeltsin, which prevented the deployment of Russian Spetsnats from S:t Petersburg to Kosovo. The theories concerning this are a bit flimsy, but Turover is the second person to suggest it. The first was Ahtisaari who was speculating that Yeltsin was considering such a move. If the alleged Russian plan had succeeded, it is possible that Milosevic would not be in The Hague. So it all adds up.

  But then comes the smasher. It is no good advertisement for the tribunal that Del Ponte is now on the defensive, at least in principle, in two law suits initiated by Turover. One of them is attempted murder. Well, here history seems to repeat itself.

  And finally, we had this law suit against Soros for insider trading. I don't know what became of it, but it is now the image that counts. The tribunal is beginning to look like the US Congress.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Wednesday December 11, 2002 at 12:48 pm
  Thanx Kathryn.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Wednesday December 11, 2002 at 12:53 pm
  

  A U.S. reporter won a landmark legal battle against being forced to testify at the Hague war crimes tribunal on Wednesday after he convinced appeals court judges it could jeopardize journalists' safety and independence.

  Click HERE and rage!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday December 11, 2002 at 1:17 pm
  I don’t think that is a good thing. Journalists and their “mother-ships” should be forced to put a foot where their mouth is. So many times we heard stories from “reliable sources” that turned out to be bogus. What was it? Iraq is killing babies from incubator, alleged mass grave found etc. I think that journalist should be held criminally responsible for defamation of characters and demonizing nations. So far they have an excellent deal: they bark, AP, Royters and other are spreading and we are truly come to the word spoken by Hearst “You provide pictures and I will provide war”.
  
  Anna Turcotte
  Canada

• Wednesday December 11, 2002 at 1:43 pm
  

  In 1898 the Spanish American War took place because a newspaper campaign in America: Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines were lost by Spain. Puerto Rico remains US property, Cuba has still US troops in her soil and The Philippines had to wait until the end of WW 2 to gain some "independence" but GI's are back.

  The power of the press!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Wednesday December 11, 2002 at 2:18 pm
  There is a primary problem with this Tribunal allowing journalists to enjoy the privilege of disregarding a subpoena. In many cases, the OTP relies on new articles to prove their case. For example, if the OTP is attempting to show that the defendant was present on a specific occasion, it will produce a news article stating that fact and rely on that to prove the point, period. Of course this goes against the hearsay rules; but, the Tribunal avoids these rules because the Judges argue they are mature enough to weigh this evidence. So, in the Brdjanin case, the OTP is relying on Mr. Randal’s interview to prove that Mr. Brdjanin wanted to rid Banja Luka of its non-Serb population. This submission of this article, without the testimony of its author, deprives Mr. Brdjanin of the important ability to cross-examine the author. Mr. Randal argues that he correctly quoted Mr. Brdjanin while the accused disputes this fact. What is the resolution in this case? I say ‘bravo’ to the Appeals Chamber for putting their obvious prejudice against Serbs and justice on their sleeves. Thank you for this courageous decision.
  
  E. Bennett
  USA

• Wednesday December 11, 2002 at 5:48 pm
  So there you have it: the precedent for the use of Tribunal's subpoena power. The further problem with this decision is that it will apply in some cases, and will not apply in other. That will leave even more room for manipulation. Of course, all this, in my mind, is just preparing the ground for Slobo's defence (if it ever starts). It is well known that he wishes to call many interesting people to the stand and the only route for him to do so (in certain cases) is becoming increasingly narrowed.
  
  Robert D
  London
  UK

• Wednesday December 11, 2002 at 7:35 pm
  The former mayor of Dubrovnik has been testifying today against Milosevic. As I could read on B92 News, quoting AP, Mr Pero Poljanic said that "artillery barrages from forces under the control of the former Yugoslav president pummeled his historic city into rubble in the fall of 1991". According to these agencies, Mr Poljanic litterally said : "When I climbed on the ramparts on December 7, I couldn't find a single house that hadn't been damaged, or that didn't stand next to a house where the roof was destroyed,". As a photo-reporter, I happened to be in Dubrovnik a few weeks later, in the very first days of 1992. What Mr Poljanic said is very gross exaggeration, at the least. I spent several days in the city and I found exactly two destroyed houses in the old town. Not more. Generally, damages to buildings were very difficult to find and rather minor. Of course, I have plenty of pictures to show what I say to anybody interested. But I notice that, more than 10 years later, the myth of the destruction of the pearl of Adriatic by Serb forces is still alive.
  
  Georges Berghezan
  Brussels
  Belgium

• Wednesday December 11, 2002 at 7:39 pm
  One thing that interests me is the structure of the prosecution (I keep wanting to write "persecution" for this particular charrade), particularily the duality and contradictions of the Kosovo and Bosnia/Croatia arguments being presented. In the Kosovo charges, Milosovic is essentially accused of suppressing an armed uprising in a region that is part of his sovereign state. In the Bosnia/Croatia cases, he is essentially accused of supporting an armed uprising in a neigboring sovereign state. Perhaps Carla is hedging her bets by playing both sides of the potential judgement. She has what, 66 counts to work with, if she gets 33 to stick, she still wins. For Milosovic to win, he has to beat all 66 counts. The way things are lined up, he can't do it.
  
  Adrian Justin
  Seattle
  USA

• Wednesday December 11, 2002 at 9:32 pm
  <> Georges, regarding your experiences and pictures, could you please contact ICDSM as soon as possible? Call anytime 617 916-1705 or write me at emperors1000@aol.com Best regards, Jared Israel
  
  Jared Israel
  USA

• Wednesday December 11, 2002 at 11:24 pm
  Here is one example where it was very clear that the witness was a weak one: Milosevic: “...45 years of communist and Serbian hegemony.” So Serbian hegemony for 45 years? That is what is stated in the report and in the report from the 9th on January..You speak of Tito’s rule using the term dictatorial rule, and then u speak of extremely oppressive aspects of the Tito Regime.” Does that mean that in the SFRY Josip Broz Tito the late president, though I don’t consider it to be a dictatorial regime, does that mean he had absolute power? Mrs.Laber: “Yes that was my impression, that he had absolute power.” Milosevic: “Do you know the nationality of the late -president Tito? Mrs. Laber: “I should know (Witness looks uncomfortable), I believe I do, I think he was a Croat, but am not certain.” Milosevic: “He was a Croat. How then is it possible to speak of a Serbian hegemony in a power, in a country such as you claim absolute power over civilian and military authority is in the hands of a Croat?” Mrs.Laber:“I was thinking about them as Yugoslavs and not as specific ethnic groups.” Milosevic: “We did not pay too much attention to this either.” Milosevic:“The position of the Deputy PM was held by one Serb from 64-67, and all the others were non-Serbs.” ………….. ……….. …….. MAY JUMPS IN Now Mr. May: “What the witness has said is that what they reported is what they were told. Merely the truth. Do you understand?”
  
  Dan A.
  Ontario
  Canada

• Thursday December 12, 2002 at 1:23 am
  Georges Berghezan writes that he took pictures of Dubrovnik at the time when it was alleged that the JNArmy destroyed it to the same level as the earthquake of 1667. Georges, it is not new to me that the old city and Lapad (western part) did not suffer any significant damage. The damage that did occur was on the western part of the city from the airport in. Serbian homes as well as Croat homes were destroyed. Some hotels were destroyed and the airport was looted.

  In the old city harbor some pleasure boats were sunk and some rooftops suffered damage. In the city the Croats destroyed the interior of the Serbian church and graffiti was painted on its exterior.

  The Croatian propaganda ministry censored all reports from the city. Tires were burned and photographs taken to make it look that the city was on fire. Garbage was dumped into the harbor and this played well in western news studios depicting the Serbian army as the new Vandals. Western Media did not report that Mesic was the president at that time and that JNA was still an army of Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, and Albanians and so on.

  I think there was a splinter faction in Dubrovnik that wanted the city to be independent from both sides, similar to the status the city held since the Venetian days. When the Croats took over the city the faction that chose independence fled?

  Most Serbian homes in the Kupari and Srebreno area were destroyed by the Croat neighbors. There were many incidences where the Croat neighbors protected the Serbian property and maintained it for their friends. Many Serbs sold their homes at basement prices to Croats, however, the Croats to their credit did nullify those duress sales and everyone had an option to renegotiate the sales agreement or nullify the same.

  The Croatian army captured the high ground south of the city of Trebinje and bombed this city from the high ground.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Thursday December 12, 2002 at 1:24 am
  

  Not only are they not covering the trail, but are now exempt from questions related to lies during the war.

  Does this give Jamie Shay a pass as the new Gobbles?

  1984 is here.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Thursday December 12, 2002 at 2:03 am
  Jari, thanks for the URL re Vukovar; hope to be able to sort out all my data sometime soon.

  Jeri Laber, the woman of the human rights, was this obnoxious combination of ignorance and arrogance which could be noticed in all these NGO warriors. One of our columnists coined a suitable name for them: anti-war profiteers (as opposed to simple, more honest, merely money-oriented war profiteers). This lot is downright dirty-handed and dirty-minded. By penning their worthless 'reports', full of cheap politicking, ridiculous mistakes and vague generalizations, pretending they're defending the human rights of some abused people (without even deigning to put the facts right), they play into the hands of the governments who ordered these reports and at the same time they are not at all squeamish to accept the money. Our own type of such anti-war profiteers has one more layer to it: they are commissioned to quench even the last trace of any national feeling and pride within the tortured Serbian people. The three wicked witches of Belgrade are Biljana Kovacevic-Vuco (Yugoslav Committee of Human Rights Lawyers), Natasa Kandic (Humanitarian Law Centre) and Sonja Biserko (Serbian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights). They drafted (if not completely authored) the large chunks of the ICTY indictments, with a little help from Mesic. They created the refrigerator truck news and dully disseminated/manipulated each anti-Serb slander there is. The last one named, Biserko, is among those 14 witnesses that the Prosecution had renounced in order to extend Babic. Good riddance! I'm physically unable to listen to the dribble of either one of them for more than 10 minutes at the time. If you want to know more, to 'follow the money trail' and to see how the agenda, the ideology and the sources of funding are the same for the Human Rights Watch, the Institute for War & Peace Reporting, the International Crisis Group… and to follow the trail of the 'Human Rights Crowd' in the Balkans, read 3 highly informative articles by Gilles d'Aymery (http://www.swans.com/library/art7/ga109.html …/ga110.html …/ga111.html).

  Well, if we were rid of Biserko by a lucky escape, we couldn't evade her more prominent Helsinki-Committee sister, Jeri Laber. This one looks a bit more sophisticated than her Balkans counterparts, but her arrogance is that much greater. It was her downfall: she revealed her utter ignorance about the region and events in question and she didn't care one bit, concluding that she is 'here just to bring these 2 reports' (?!). And these reports, one re human rights abuse in Kosovo and the other in Croatia, are so vague and generalized ('a certain small village', 'many people are believed to be executed'), full of material mistakes and plain stupidities ('KLA didn't exist then and I have been impressed how peaceful the Army of the Albanians was'), and above all highly politicised in each of its premises and conclusions ('the situation equal to apartheid and racism', 'HW appeals for the sanctions to be introduced against the Serbian Government'). In addition to anonymous informants, alleged victims of abuse, the bulk of material for the reports has been provided by talking to our 3 humanitarian Amazons and Mesic ('intellectuals, newspapermen, members of the Presidency')! The total number of the interviews for each report is about 30, Amazons & Mesic included. Truly a large, representative sample. Of course, the Greater Serbia slander was amply used; when Nice asked how that came about, Laber answered 'this was in general use, in the Western press in any case'(?!). Even judge Robinson wanted to know whence the claim of JNA acting without authorization came. Laber said: "I cannot say what is this information based upon; perhaps they [HW staff] spoke with some members of the Presidency and draw such a conclusion."

  After concocting such a precise, unbiased report, Jeri & staff would try to hand-deliver it to the culprits (in this case, Milosevic and General Adzic); when refused reception by them and instead received by lower-level officials, and later on answered in writing by the Chief of Cabinet, they regarded this as the sign that 'Serbia assumes full responsibility for all crimes in its territory'. This, together with both 'reports', was trumpeted all over media and sent to 'relevant Governments'.

  To demonstrate objectivity, Laber presented supposedly similar report, handed over to Tudjman (this time in person), to which he replied he will 'investigate it'. Good show! But, one can take just one look at this other report prepared for Tudjman to see the sly doubletalk: this is the 'report on the human rights abuse by the Serbian local authorities and by Croatian individuals'. The Croatian Police and the National Guard Units are 'individuals', while JNA and Serbian Government are accused in toto . Of course, other than this initial show no further development happened, no sanctions against CRO were asked/imposed. Nevertheless, Nice was thrilled, asking a rhetorical question: "Was this the sign of your trying to be unbiased?", and he quoted few sentences stating 'sufferings of the Serbs in the WW2', when 'thousands were killed'.

  Jumping to and fro between the 2 reports, Nice made Laber talk profusely about the situation in Kosovo back in 1981, irritating May so much (history!!!) that he snapped even at Nice: "Such a detailed revisiting of the Kosovo history is not helping us at all in this moment." Nice sheepishly said: "We have always claimed that this all mutually fits together; this is a woman who visited all these regions before the wars." So, the woman who makes all this to fit together, summed up all this by repeating that 'yes, they've denied all our accusations, but that letter signifies also their acceptance of responsibility'. Obviously, it is mortally dangerous to exchange any mail with these rabid NGOs, because that way you automatically recognize their importance.

  After such a disgusting performance, Milosevic jumped with both feet on Laber; May tried his best to rescue her by interrupting 'We shall decide the admissibility of hearsay evidence", "This is irrelevant", "This is for us to decide". After May prevented questioning the anonymity of informants, possibility to contact them and offer them protection of the ICTY to testify, the principle of direct procedure in any other court that the HW should defend and the separation of the right for self-determination from the human rights corpus, Milosevic then switched to the 'reports' and shredded them to pieces. Opening one of them at random, he quoted one sentence, describing one alleged human rights abuse. Then he asked: "Which village was that and which event?" Laber didn't know. Milosevic quoted next sentence, describing alleged perpetrators, wearing 'yellow camouflage uniforms', and asked Laber whether she knew that there were no such uniforms in any ex-YU region, that these are the uniforms used in desert regions. Laber 'couldn't say what was the matter there'. Milosevic expressed his astonishment at such imprecise text, in collision with the 'highest professional standards' that her organization boasts of. Laber stated she did 'believe in the competence of people who made the report; didn't come here to defend the report paragraph by paragraph, but to bring the report.' Milosevic proceeded by quoting from the statement, describing Laber's meeting in Belgrade (after she had been denied meeting with Milosevic and General Adzic) with 3 lower-level Army officers and '2 Foreign Affairs Ministry officials, Dr Micunovic and a certain Kostunica'. He innocently asked her whether she was aware that Micunovic, current Speaker of the Federal Assembly, and Kostunica, current President of FRY, 'people who illegally delivered me here after they seized the power', were at that time two MPs from an opposition party, and not members of any Government. Laber showed contempt to these facts (why should she worry about some Balkan politicians, who was in what body and when, or whether her reports are precise or not?), saying it only matters what those people told her. Milosevic pointed out that this proves she was unable to understand such simple facts, which further indicates the other things were misunderstood as well; he then explained to this pigheaded lady that what they told her about Kosovo was exactly the same position she heard earlier from 3 Army representatives, as reported; was it not enough reason for her to believe it, when bitter political opponents stated the same? Laber finally admitted: "I understand now what you're saying." Milosevic pressed on: "Was it not a logical mistake of yours, when you heard identical answer from those people as the answer you've got from the Army, to automatically lump them up in the Government?" For the first time, Laber let few moments to pass in silence. May panicked and jumped in: "No, no, this has nothing to do with this witness. You're now making your case here, and through this witness." Tapuskovic used the opportunity to further embarrass May, lingering at the unpleasant fact and getting back at him for all that snapping and barking; he stood up and supposedly 'clarified': "Your Honour, it has been a mistake, she thought that they were members of the Government, that they belong to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs." May was sarcastic: "Yes, we know that. We shall not lose any more time." But Milosevic wouldn't let go: "Don't you think this is a rather cardinal mistake, which destroys a picture of your organization being exact and precise?" May prevented the answer: "Mrs Laber, if you don't want to answer, and it seems to me this is totally senseless…" She didn't answer, of course.

  All the rest was further humiliation of the humanitarian madam, obviously very tough and cynical from handling Soros-type funding in exchange for opinion shaping. She answered in the shortest possible way, with staccato annunciation and acid remarks. Milosevic pointed out her falsely-objective and hypocritical remarks about the sufferings of the Serbs in the WW2 in CRO, when 'thousands were killed'; he sharply told her there were hundreds of thousands , and not thousands killed. Laber said they 'want to avoid sensationalism and always use lower figures'. Talking about Holocaust denier! Milosevic wanted to know was it not logical for the Serbs in CRO to remember those things after their constitutional status has been revoked. Laber was insolent: "I have not studied the Constitution; I believe your word at face value." Milosevic: "You and your colleagues were supposed to read it, dealing with it in your reports. Your organization and yourself didn't know what was going on there." Laber: "We have to draw the line somewhere, we don't want to go into the past." Milosevic: "This was not the past, this was the present condition and the change happening at that moment."

  To get an idea of the expert staff going to fact-finding missions, in addition to Laber herself, a Columbia-graduated expert in sovietology (?!) (when her staff was still petit, she was engaged personally; now they're 200 and she just jets around the world, being wined and dined, and occasionally testifies) there were two other gentlemen and a girl called Ivana Nizic, personally recruited by Laber right after she finished Columbia. Laber gave her a training in research techniques (one week? three weeks?) and off she goes! This is her 'competent, experienced staff, trained not to ask suggestive questions, familiar with the countries in question'. Naturally, Miss Nizic acquired necessary experience along the way and became the investigator - guess where? Yes, ICTY!

  Pure political premises and conclusions of the 'reports' were too much for Tapuskovic to bear, so he stood up at the very beginning, trying to point out that on a similar occasion, when one of the Court's investigators testified about Kosovo, all his conclusions were left out from his report and only 'facts' remained. But, it was useless, May admitted everything, mistakes, stupidities, slander, Western media as a source. The 'reports' stated "Serb occupation of the parts of Croatian territory". When Milosevic quoted the US General Charles Boyd as saying that 'contrary to the popular media position, the Serbs lived there for centuries", Laber shortly said: "I'm not competent for that." Milosevic quipped: Contradictio in adjecto. She's not competent, full stop. Laber just brought her reports, she was a courier and you don't argue the contents of the mail with a courier.

  Sonja Biserko must be livid for missing a golden photo opportunity. Why, she sure could be as good a courier as anybody!
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Thursday December 12, 2002 at 3:53 am
  So, you see, the witnesses just bring the reports. This is in line with Nice's maxim: "Documents speak for themselves" (I wonder where he got that one). And this shows that this case will be stand or fall on the "reports". Luckily we now know how reliable the "reports" are: they were not even intended to be reliable. The ICTY may "confirm" the reports, which is what I think the testimonies are good for, but even after the "confirmation" the report is still the old same - faults and all. And this would be one of those instances that militate against the hearsay rules, but the Trial Chamber is mature enough to break any rule.

  At 9.10 p.m. yesterday was the first time I laughed about the prosecution. They are so professional, but are we really to swallow such bull as "joint criminal enterprise" merely because they are so professional?

  The construct of "joint criminal enterprise" is way too convenient for the prosecution. The beauty of the joint criminal enterprise is, as I have stated, that Milosevic doesn't have to be connected directly to any specific crime. His "individual criminal responsibility" is determined by the fact that he belongs to the "joint criminal enterprise" and that way he is responsible for all the crimes that the "joint criminal enterprise" committed.

  One problem. The concept of "joint criminal enterprise" is introduced in the indictments in connection with Art. 7(1) of the ICTY Statute. Sorry, that is a no-no. You see, Art. 7(1) says: "A person who planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime". So it is quite clear that the individual criminal responsibility has to be determined crime by crime, not by introducing some wishy-washy concept of "joint criminal enterprise". This excludes the strategem with which the prosecution is fishing in the Bosnia and Croatia indictments: "Committing in this indictment refers to participation in a joint criminal enterprise as co-perpetrator." The impossibility of introducing "joint criminal enterprise" is also quite clear from the the report of the Secretary-General of 3 May 1993. But the trouble is, the indictments have gone through May's initial review, so he is unlikely to come back later to these "blemishes".

  I think the prosecution has in mind criminalization of certain gangs, but this strategy just doesn't work here. First, associations in themselves are not prohibited in the ICTY Statute. Second, take the obvious point of comparison. Even the Hell's Angels (which would be an example of such a gang) have more elaborate initiation rites than Milosevic's "joint criminal enterprise". In other words, the participants should have known that they were members of an enterprise, instead of the prosecution imposing the "membership" on them afterwards. If you put it that way, you see how ridiculous this is. But of course, the judges are mature enough (which wouldn't be so obvious unless May kept repeating it).

  How about the "joint criminal enterprise" in the Vukovar Hospital/Ovcara farm? This seems to be a war crime. In order to pin it on Milosevic, the prosecution needs to introduce the "joint criminal enterprise", and in order to ascribe a war crime to the "joint criminal enterprise", the prosecution has to change its story a bit: this wasn't actually a war crime, but a "part of an overall persecution campaign". Which seems to be untrue. If the Serbs went after the soldiers that were hiding in the Vukovar hospital, you can hardly speak of an "overall persecution campaign".

  And how do we know that the 255 men were soldiers and not patients? I have given some clues above. But further, the story goes that they were taking quite a distance from the city and then tortured and finally shot. Imagine someone torturing a tuberculosis patient. If these were really patients in the ward, they wouldn't have survived the trip outside the city, and wouldn't have survived the "torturing". There wouldn't have been much left to be shot.

  But if the victims were not patients but soldiers, this seems to be a war crime. However, bear in mind how "reliable" the prosecution's reports are. We would really have to double-check the existence of these 255 men. For instance, when one combs through the schedules at the back of the Kosovo indictment, we can scrap the names of about 250 victims from the lists. So the non-existence of 250 victims is not something extraordinay by the ICTY's standards. Similarly, find the victims of Vucitrn, before you believe the prosecution.

  Now, if this was a war crime, what has Milosevic to do with it? Is it enough that he knew about the alleged massacre at some point? No. Remember that the word "know" occurs in Art. 7(3) of the ICTY Statute. This deals with the responsibility of a superior. That is a military term. So we would have to find out whether he was really in some superior official position.

  But strictly speaking the prosecution has blocked this avenue for itself by talking about a "joint criminal enterprise". First, "criminal" in itself doesn't go well together with some official position. Second, "joint enterprise" seems to preclude any hierarchical structure. So, in a "joint criminal enterprise", responsibility on account of a superior position (or "command responsibility") seems to be out of the question. But obviously, this is one of those instances where the prosecution wants to eat the cake and have it too. The old school would have said: Allegans contraria non est audiendus.

  And then back to the schedule-a-day regimen. Well, anyone can do it, but let me keep up the routine.

  Schedule H: Vucitrn. Just to show how many words may be needed to say that there was no massacre, let me quote what the entry "Vucitrn" says at http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/dos9912/uv.html :

  "Serbian forces reportedly burned all houses previously rented by the OSCE and looted Kosovar Albanian homes. Refugees from the town also claim that men were separated from their families. On 27 March, Serbian forces reportedly killed four young Kosovar Albanians, including a 14 year old girl. By 29 March, Serbian forces had reportedly herded Kosovar Albanians into a school in the city, and refugees from the town claim that the men were being separated from their families. Since mid-April, Serbian forces had reportedly killed over 100 Kosovar Albanians in villages north of Vucitrn. Additional refugees witnessed Serbian forces removing young men from convoys and shooting them. According to the Albanian press, Serbian forces rounded up large numbers of Kosovar Albanian men from Vucitrn on 21 May and sent them to the Smrekovnica prison. In addition, Serbian forces killed at least 23 Kosovar Albanians in Vucitrn on 26 May, according to Kosovapress."

  "Subsequently, on 21 and 23 June, KFOR identified burned houses with corpses inside. One identified report indicated that 72 persons were supposed to have been shot and some burnt in the houses. Several earlier alleged KFOR mass grave reports indicated that up to 120 bodies were at the site. A mass grave/exposed bodies site containing 120 bodies has been reported for Vucitrn."

  Schedule H in question contains about 104 names, so maybe this is what the following phrase was all about: "Since mid-April, Serbian forces had reportedly killed over 100 Kosovar Albanians in villages north of Vucitrn." But I am still curious about the bodies. It seems that the site hasn't even been "confirmed". Maybe it was "confirmed" by ICTY's terminology, which doesn't amount to much, but not according to the KFOR terminology.

  Let us have another schedule. The same hanky-panky goes on here, but now we have HRW involved. Schedule I (Meja) has 14 names. This is what the US State Department report "Atrocities and War Crimes by Location" has to say about Meja:

  "According to an 18 June 1999 press report, a Human Rights Watch researcher inspected the site and found the decayed remains of several men. Human Rights Watch reportedly believes that the remains are victims of a 27 April 1999 massacre by Serbian security forces that killed at least 100 men."

  "Reportedly believes"? Make up your mind! But "decayed remains"? OK, the HRW researcher "found" the decayed remains of several men in June. These were supposed to be the remains of those reportedly killed at the end of April. Do the remains decay so fast? We will see in a minute that the bodies hadn't been even buried. And note that the researcher inspected the site and found these remains, but didn't inspect, let alone investigate, the remains after they were found!

  But this flimsy evidence doesn't preclude the most exorbitant extrapolations. The following URL is revealing: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kosovo98/flash7.shtml .

  The story goes like this. The HRW researcher found the remains of several men. "All of the bodies were in an advanced state of decay", although they hadn't been buried. HRW believes they were what was left of the more than 100 bodies. But where did the other bodies vanish? The reason is interesting: "The bodies of most of the men killed in the massacre had been collected by Roma (Gypsy) street cleaners."

  But can you blame the HRW? It is the lackey of the US government, or the other way around. If you don't believe that, just visit the US State Department report quoted above. Does the US State Department voice any reservations about the findings of HRW? The HRW had quite a challenge to keep the number of the NATO bombing victims down at 500 (victims that NATO could have avoided). On the other hand, judging by the number of names listed in the schedules at the back of the Kosovo indictment, 340, that number - 500 - is still too high. And as one peruses the schedules at the back of the Kosovo indictment, even that 340 goes down dramatically.

  So HRW is doing its best to prop up the declining number of massacre victims by making such a big deal of Gypsy street cleaners and eye witnesses. The problem is: when the body count still falls short of the earlier exorbitant claims, is the explanation now that the Gypsy street cleaners took the bodies to the Danube?
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday December 12, 2002 at 4:57 am
  

  Georges Berghezan

  Your testimony and/or evidence could be a great help for the sake of justice, the truth and Mr. Milosevic. I see Jared Israel has already invited you to contact him, I only can say I encourage you to do so, I was going to suggest to contact Mr. Tapuskovic since his dedication and position is not negible.

  Experience, my own personal experience compells me to suggest to you to keep your negatives in a safe place, and when I mean safe I mean very safe .

  Dubronik suffered a devastating earthquake in 1967, I was there the year after. Walter writes 1667, was there in 1667 another earthquake or is it just a typo?

  Regards to all.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday December 12, 2002 at 5:35 am
  Has anyone heard any news regarding the possible witnesses in the Plavsic sentencing hearing set for next week? In yesterday's press briefing, Jim Landale stated that the witnesses will be "interesting", whatever that means. Moreover, a journalist asked Landale if the Tribunal has ever handed down a suspended sentence. Could this journalist be suggesting that Mrs. Plavsic may receive a suspended sentence? Who will appear on Mrs. Plavsic's behalf? An American?
  
  E. Bennett
  USA

• Thursday December 12, 2002 at 9:50 am
  Gogol I used 1667 deliberately because the Mainstream Media censored and manipulated reports from Dubrovnik because this city, more than any other in former Yugoslavia, was familiar to tourists around the world so it was great propaganda.. “The worst tragedy of Dubrovnik’s history occurred in April 6, 1667. An earthquake took 5,000 citizens and destroyed the city.” The city today is quite different from what it looked like prior to 1667. The 1967 quake devastated the Montenegrin coast. I don’t think that Dubrovnik was damaged at all in 1967
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada

• Thursday December 12, 2002 at 11:13 am
  

  Walter,

  History has a phoney way. It really does. I lived in France in 1967 and the reports coming from communist Yugoslavia about Dubrovnik were greatly axagerated, devastating as I said. When I visited in 1968 few days after the August events in Prague, most tourist, Western tourists gone from Yugoslavia I did not see much damage in Dubrovnik in fact I was confused about whether the city had been so quickly rebuild or whether the reports were, had been greatly exagerated. I opted for the latter.

  I fully understand now what you mean by quoting the 1667 earthquake.

  I wonder if Voltaire who wrote about the earthquake of Lisbon of 1 November, 1755, wrote a long poem subtitled AN INQUIRY INTO THE MAXIM, "WHATEVER IS, IS RIGHT." what would have he said about the Dubrovnik earthquake of 1967 and its "destruction" of 1991.

  I am biassed because I like Voltaire.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Thursday December 12, 2002 at 12:53 pm
  Now wait a minute. I just thought about something that I read at the above URL http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/kosovo98/flash7.shtml . This was about the Meja "massacre". It is true that they didn't find the 100 men that they were supposed, but they did find a few (or "several") men in an advanced state of decay. Now, this massacre could have been committed by the Serb forces, and we are certainly led to believe that it was, but check this out. The text says: "The bones of some of the bodies were broken, and they all appeared to be headless". "Headless"? Is that the trademark of the Serb forces. Or is it the trademark of the religion of peace? So the prosecution loses this point too. The article also says: "Spent bullet casings were also littered about." It would be very easy to find out what kind of weapons were used.

  The demolition of the schedules at the back of the Kosovo indictment seems to go well. Thus far the massacre at Bela Crkva is the only one that might have been committed by the Serb forces by the looks of it. I am certain the British investigation team will not be very forthcoming in regard to the whole truth about their findings, so they may take some persuading. I would say it is imperative to find the forensic report. I don't doubt the technical expertise of the British investigators any more than I do that of the Finns, but I think the British have developed a much more sophisticated way of being economical with the truth. The Finns tried this too, but I think the statements about the AK-47 and the residue of gunpowder in the hands of "almost 40" of the victims (out of 45) are a clear indication this is not what the prosecution was hoping for - if the statements are correct.

  But so what if the demolition of the schedules is going well? If the charges are so obviously full of crap, why isn't somebody doing something? The longer this anomalous situation is allowed to go on, the more likely it becomes that it will be regarded as normal.

  But on the other hand, the more the prosecution's case is demolished, the more apparent it becomes which the real sticking points are. First, there is what I would call affectionately the "ITN/LM Sydrome", referring to the case at the High Court in London. If I have the facts right, LM had earlier revealed that the photo published by ITN of the emaciated man at Trnopolje was a fake. However, ITN sued LM for libel. ITN won, because LM hadn't shown ITN had meant to deceive the world with its photo. This is what happens when you are impervious to the subtleties of the burden of proof. It was not LM's business to prove anything. It hadn't sued anybody. It was ITN's business to show that it had produced the photo in good faith, which even the judge admitted it hadn't, and the LM had made its statements about the photo in bad faith, i.e. knowing that ITN had produced the photo in good faith!

  Confused? Well, you won't be if you watch the next episode of Soap. Applied to the Milosevic trial, the "ITN/LM Syndrome" means that Milosevic can't attack the prosecution to heavily for producing the kind of crap it has. Remember, May and Nice are British and they must share the ITN/LM Syndrome. Sure, the prosecution has produced all its crap in bad faith. There is no way around it. How could the prosecution be blind to the fact that only two of the schedule at the back of the Kosovo indictment could have anything to do with the charges, while the rest don't, inasmuch as the bodies have even been found?

  But the ITN/LM Syndrome dictates that it is the defendant who has the burden of proof in a case against himself. This is pretty difficult. First, you have to prove the negative: to demonstrate that the alleged facts didn't occur. Second, you have to show how the prosecution might have hit on the idea that the alleged facts did occur. Third, you have to show that the prosecution acted in bad faith in presenting the facts it knew were not accurate and did so in the intent to deceive. Otherwise, you are guilty of insulting the prosecution, and believe me, the presiding judge will cut the defense short if it can't show all these three things.

  The problem is that the presiding judge will cut the defense short even if it could. I have seen it myself at the ICTY. I can't remember what the case was, but the presiding judge knew how to make the defense attorney feel as uncomfortable as possible for attacking the integrity of the prosecution, and the defense counsel even had to apologize! Because the judge has reviewed the indictments in advance, any attack on the prosecution is also an attack on the judge. Maybe they will be more flexible in Milosevic's case.

  But let's suppose they will. Then there is a second problem, as if the first one weren't enough. That is called the "joint criminal enterprise". No matter how well the demolition of the charges goes, there can be no question that the Serbs may have committed some crimes. The marvel of the "joint criminal enterprise" is that Milosevic doesn't have to be even remotely connected with any of these crimes. Somebody he knew may have known about it, and that is enough. To be more accurate, it isn't even necessary that somebody Milosevic knew knew about what was going on. For instance, as one reads the passage on the Vukovar hospital/Ovcara farm incident in the initial Croatia indictment, one notices that it doesn't say who was responsible for the alleged massacre. Neither is it mentioned who exactly carried it out. Neither is it mentioned how Milosevic was supposed to be connected to these people. It just says that the massacre was part of the overall persecution campaign, which the joint criminal enterprise was carrying out.

  Try pointing this out to the presiding judge! He has reviewed the indictment, and to point out that the indictment is just a lot of bull, would be an attack on the presiding judge. Milosevic will be lucky not to be held in contempt of court.

  But otherwise everything is going swell for the defense.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Thursday December 12, 2002 at 8:13 pm
  Mr. Trkla, I have been challenged on the East-European New York Times Forum , about the Serbian Church in Dubrovnik. Indeed I vaguely remember that there was one East Orthodox church in Dubrovnik but I have forgotten its location. I have been briefly in Dubrovnik in 1989 but did not bother to look up that church which I saw years before. Can you please remind me where in the old city was that church located? Drasko Jovanovic
  
  Drasko Jovanovic
  USA

• Thursday December 12, 2002 at 11:20 pm
  Mr. Jovanovic Dubrovnik remains for me a city of culture, great wine and beautiful women. I am amazed that I remember the beautiful women since I was on my honeymoon at the time. Konavle to the East of Dubrovnik has the best wine, the best looking girls (sorry Vera) and the most hospitable people that you can find anywhere.

  Mr. J. as you enter Dubrovnik from the East, the Ploce gate, you come to the main street the Stradum. At the east end of this street is a very beautiful Catholic Church St. Vlaxo and a priest forced me to put on a shirt before he would let me enter. As you face this church, to your left is the inner old city while to your right you look up the Stradum to the fountain and the Pile Gate on the West of Stradum. If you walk to the left of St. Vlaxo you will come to the old city market. If you walk right from the market, parallel to the Stradum you will come to the Orthodox Church. The interior of this church, at the time when I was there was richly decorated with frescos and mosaics. My understanding is that the only building in Dubrovnik that suffered damage during this war was the Orthodox Church, not from bombing from the JNA, but from those who defended the city.
  
  Walter Trkla
  Kamloops BC
  Canada