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

• Saturday February 01, 2003 at 4:05 am
  If Pera is right, and the "national courts" mentioned in the ICTY Statute means the domestic courts of all UN member states, then we have to expand our parameters a bit. We all know what the "Belgrade Forum" is, that is an international alliance of leftist parties. The point is that some of them are in the government, like Mugabe's Zanu-PF in Zimbabwe. So if we are fishing for a country that would be willing to host trials against Nato leaders, I think some exotic country like Zimbabwe would be an option. It could prosecute war criminals pursuant to the ICTY Statute. It may not have a law similar to the US 1789 statute, but it is not the age of the statute that counts. Mugabe could use his authority to pass a similar law allowing universal torts.

  I have been talking about Clinton, but what makes the headhunting particularly enjoyable is the fact that some of the leaders from the Nato bombing days are still in power, so we could have the chance to indict some leaders that are still in power, just as they did to the former Yugoslav leader. And it is the heads of state that we are after, insofar as they were commanders-in-chief. The total lack of war crimes prosecutions points to a large-scale cover-up operation, for which the head of state will ultimately be held responsible thanks to the US-developed doctrine of command responsibility.

  So the lack of any progress in the war crimes prosecutions in the Nato countries could be a blessing in disguise. One has to take into account that some war crimes investigations were indeed opened into the Nato war crimes, at least in Canada, but at some point they were shelved. Such a shelving operation in all the Nato countries at about the same time would point to a collusion to obstruct justice.

  What makes this particularly juicy is the fact that Carla is involved in it. If my memory serves me correctly, the cases in the Nato countries were shelved a short time before Carla concluded that there was no need for her to investigate the Nato crimes. She seems to have some authority: no war crimes investigations have been opened even after Carla's decision, even if the CBC broadcast a documentary on the Medak Pocket, which would call for an investigation all by itself.

  Why would Carla do something like that? Simple. Until her decision, Nato troops had done nothing to arrest the indicted war criminals in Bosnia. Maybe they wanted to keep a distance to ICTY, which would allow both of them appear as impartial. After Carla's decision the Nato troops have been tracking Bosnia like crazy. Isn't that enough indication that Carla is not in any position to prosecute Nato even in theory?

  The US hasn't ratified Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. Doesn't matter. Carla has applied it to Milosevic all the same, which implies that the ICTY has the power to prosecute violations of the Additional Protocol too. She won't do that to Nato, but thanks to the concurrent jurisdiction, some national court might prosecute Nato for the violations of the Additional Protocol. The US has in practice even admitted these violations, in fact its whole strategy (Warden's circles) was based on attacking the civilian population. Good riddance Bill!

  It is not hard to find any hard court cases that would implicate Nato. In fact, we have Nato to thank for them. Like the case against the RTS boss. It is admitted that the bombing was a crime. Only, a crime for which the victim has to pay. This doesn't make sense, because nobody is prosecuting the RTS boss for the crime which supposedly justified the bombing: propaganda.

  Similarly in case of the Dubrava prison. Milosevic is not prosecuted for the rough treatment in the Dubrava prison, which supposedly justified the Nato bombing. He is prosecuted for the deaths that took place after the bombing.

  And no matter how Carla is now trying to bury the cluster bombs in the Martic indictment and calling this metamorphosis of the indictment and "amendment", she can't hide her tracks any more. The hanky-panky is now on record. And the fact is that the use of cluster bombs has been prosecuted with Nato's blessing in the ICTY until Nato needed cluster bombs in its own campaign.

  So look at the court cases around you. This is all you need to conclude that what Nato did was punishable.

  Suppose that some national court somewhere in the world decides to use its concurrent jurisdiction to indict Nato war criminals (and maybe even the unindicted KLA leaders). Anyone can conclude that such a trial would have to find the Nato leaders guilty, not only for what Nato did in the Balkans but also for the subsequent cover-up operation in their national courts and in the ICTY (which is punishable according to the ICTY Statute). That would mean that the ICTY case against Milosevic would automatically be null and void. But that is not all. If a statute similar to the US 1789 torts act is promulgated, we don't have to wait thousands of years to seek reparations. The defendants could sue the foreign companies directly. And what would these companies be? Well, the governments have been largely reliant on some private firms. Let us sue the arms manufacturers. That would be so American. If the smoker dies, sue the tobacco company. Similarly, if the government use the weapons to kill people, sue the arms manufacturers. Besides, some companies like DynCorp and MPRI were in fact the government.

  I would still have to check what the ICJ said about the ICTY. But let us remember that according to Art. 59 of the ICJ Statute, the decisions bind only the parties (in this case Congo and Belgium) in the particular case. And if the US wants to sue some government in the ICJ, there is a lot that could be brought against the US in the ICJ if it recognizes its jurisdiction.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Saturday February 01, 2003 at 4:37 am
  This is what Dr Tepavac wrote on October 22, 2002:

  "As a former head of state, Mr. Milosevic enjoys under international law immunity and inviolability. Although since Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals it is often denied to the former heads of state, the International Court of Justice on February 14, 2002, in the case Congo v. Belgium in fact reaffirmed the ancient rule. Reaffirming the rule, he Court then lists certain circumstances under which these rules to not apply, one of them being criminal proceeding before certain international criminal courts, where they have jurisdiction, such as ICC, 'and ICTY'!!"

  I have not actually found the passage where the ICJ makes this exception, but the hunt is on.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Saturday February 01, 2003 at 4:58 am
  These are the relevant passages from the "Arrest Warrant" judgment (Congo v. Belgium):

  "The Court has also examined the rules concerning the immunity or criminal responsibility of persons having an official capacity contained in the legal instruments creating internation criminal tribunals, and which are specifically applicable to the latter (...Statute for ICTY...). It finds that these rules likewise do not enable it to conclude that any such an exception exists in customary international law in regard to national courts."

  COMMENT: The ICJ evaluates the documents only prima facie, and indeed it is improbable whether the ICJ is competent to interpret basic legal documents of other tribunals. On the other hand, the ICJ is competent to interpret the customary international law, and it only concludes that the customary international law respects the immunity. That is not the point in our case.

  "Finally, none of the decisions of the Nuremberg and Tokyo international military tribunals, or of the [ICTY], cited by Belgium deal with the question of the immunities of incumbent Ministers for Foreign Affairs before national courts..."

  COMMENT: Nitpicking. The ICJ wants to make sure the decision concern incumbent foreign ministers.

  "Fourthly, and incumbent or former Minister for Foreign Affairs may be subject to criminal proceedings before certain international criminal courts, where they have jurisdiction. Exampes include the [ICTY] and the [ICTR]..."

  COMMENT: The Court only admits that exceptions can be to the customary international law, without drawing any conclusion for the content of that customary law. But the customary law is not at stake in our case.

  So Bill, your days are numbered. Customary law will protect you, but it will only be the lex generalis, to which it is possible to make exceptions by written law (lex specialis derogat legi generali).
  
  J N
  Finland

• Saturday February 01, 2003 at 11:42 am
  

  The US Supreme Court rule some time ago, during the case of General Noriega abducted by the invading US Army form his country and position, during the trial in Miami the judge ignored this fact and said, "it did not matter how a defendant made it to court". Later the Supreme Court agreed with this view and since then many foreign nationals, some never been before in the United States are brought to justice here, under various reasons and charges. Some countries have begun to have their protestation heard and there are signs the practice will eventually used a little less.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Saturday February 01, 2003 at 11:46 am
  

  From freeserbia:

  Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice informed the trial chamber that one of the planned witnesses ?was no more available? to prosecution because of threats sent to his children. ?The witness is in great fear and is no more available to us. That shows that some forces prevent the evidence to be presented before this court?, said Nice. The prosecutor added that the witness, who wanted to testify voluntarily, changed his mind completely after that ? out of great fear. The prosecution mentioned in one of its documents, that protected witness C-028 received death threats. Nice suggested today that the information about the witness fearing for his children came from a closed session, held one day before the threats were sent. Only judges, prosecutors, amicii curiae and the accused were present at that session. The accused Milosevic said that ?it was absolutely ruled out? that such information could come from him or his associates. ?I gave you my word that I would not deal with such things and that was stronger than any of your regulations. You better try harder to find out who is doing such dirty things?, he said. The presiding judge Richard May said that the court would conduct a thorough investigation about threats to the witness, which he took quite seriously

  There is more and neatly censored. Free? Not to speak!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Saturday February 01, 2003 at 5:59 pm
  

  Jari, your post Saturday February 01, 2003 at 4:05 am, has inspired me to come up with the following. The case of the RTS bombing is an excellent case to nail and crack open case(s) against NATO for war crime(s) and Carla for cover up(s). The NATO has bombed the RTS. They have admitted that they have done it intentionally. Before they did the bombing they said that they want to bomb the RTS because it is spewing propaganda. When bombing occurred they said we warned the RTS boss that we will bomb so our hands are clean. Some time later they changed their reason for bombing and said that they had indications that the RTS was transmitting military information and as a consequence it become a valid military target.

  The RTS boss is prosecuted for not protecting his workers i.e. moving them to another location. Interestingly enough he is not prosecuted for knowing that the RTS is involved in the military operations and as such being a valid military target. Additionally the NATO never warned him or Yugoslav leadership of this fact in advance. What they were saying in advance is that the RTS is a valid propaganda target. They had ample time to warn on military activity of the RTS and not only inform the boss of the RTS (enemy of the democracy) but workers of the RTS (the enemies of the dictatorship) that they will bomb the RTS and they have right to do so since the RTS has become military facility. I think that I am right when I believe that people in Serbia were free to watch the CNN program during bombing, so the warning could have be broadcasted over the CNN. It would be interesting to know what kind of a proof of advanced knowledge of bombing Belgrade prosecution used in the case of the RTS boss. Where the proof came from?

  Now Mrs. Carla, she met with the families of victims of the RTS bombing at least twice on her insisting. She is on the public record saying that she can use her influence with the NATO to secure a proof that the NATO has informed the RTS boss in advance of bombing. (So she knows about the crime and she knows who has fired the shots and intentionally misinterprets who the guilty party is and she brags that she is in a close working relationship with the guilty party.) She was instrumental in persuading these families in abandoning their case against the NATO and advancing one against the RTS boss. (Now she acts as a counsel not a prosecutor and intentionally gives a wrong advice.) Instead of investigating and prosecuting one's who fired shots or ordered shots to be fired, she took active role in cover up and evasion of justice. Oddly enough in this case she took action on her own and was able in Serbia to meet with the victims of the RTS bombing with out help or intervention or request from the Serbian government. This means that as an active, concerned prosecutor for all the other alleged NATO crimes she does not need help or initiative or information from the Serbian government. She just have to perform an investigation of the public record of bombing of Yugoslavia and talk to the victims and start asking questions of the NATO. It is on the public record that she was evading to meet victims of ethnic cleansing that are currently residing in Serbia and she never send her investigators to investigate sites bombed by the NATO.

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Saturday February 01, 2003 at 8:19 pm
  
  Whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad

  It is a common theme pushed by New Labour Luvvies that Blair’s extraordinary behaviour in vigorously promoting Bush’s intended attack upon Iraq is a matter of principle. We saw the same pattern over Kosovo and look at the dreadful consequences there of Blair’s enabling of that joint criminal enterprise.

  No one can accuse Blair of being a man of principle: The author of the huge lies about the Serbian security forces, the Death Camps, the Rape Camps and the tens of thousands of murdered Kosovars. It cannot be a matter of principle to put Nato’s credibility before human life and limb. It cannot be a matter of principle to deploy tens of thousands of fragmentation bomblets over Serbia in the wake of the Nis atrocity. It is certainly not a matter of principle to condone the flying of bombs into public buildings in Belgrade and then condemn such acts as heinous crimes against humanity in New York. All of this is unprincipled moral nonsense.

  Do we not see in the threat to use nuclear weapons, if Iraq should defend itself successfully during an Anglo/US attack, the first signs of madness?

  As the great Enabler parades once more on the world stage in support of another rampant US Administration perhaps we see the onetime wannabe pop idol massaging his ego? Alternatively because - uniquely among the five permanent members of the Security Council - the British nuclear deterrent is dependent upon a US delivery system perhaps we see a craven political calculation? What we do not see is a man of principle.

  There is only one moral justification for war according to the current consensus on moral philosophy: that is in self-defence. The absurdity of Blair’s position is mirrored by a recent absurd ruling in his New Labour courts: A Norfolk farmer, Tony Martin, defending his property - in the absence of viable police protection - from serial burglars entering his house during the night was jailed for murder, reduced to manslaughter upon appeal, when he fired upon them with a shotgun.

  Is Blair a principled statesman or a shallow and smooth-tongued politician: you decide? Here are extracts of his comments upon Milosevic when defending Nato’s bombing of the Belgrade television studios. The source is an interview with Jim Lehrer of Online NewsHour on 23 April 1999:

  he's a dictator and he's done some very terrible things

  We have to target his military machine and the whole apparatus of power, of dictatorship of Milosevic and the state-controlled media is one part of that.

  It is a dictatorship … he has this dictatorship in place through things like the state run media and we've got to be prepared to tackle that whole apparatus of power and really bring it home to him.

  a bloody dictator who is engaged in a policy of racial genocide

  Note that Blair refers to Milosevic the dictator five times although Milosevic was voted out of office: In an election with heavy interference by agents of the western powers and in which the winning parties votes were falsified to avoid a mandatory second ballot - according to the BBC programme ‘The Fall of Milosevic’.
  Note also that Milosevic held a referendum on whether or not he should accede to Nato’s demand of occupation under the terms of the Rambouillet ultimatum. The outcome being a 95% majority to oppose Nato’s planned invasion.

  If Milosevic was a dictator then by these standards so is Blair. Blair has appointed three New Labour placemen in the three senior positions of the BBC. Blair’s wife had called for the sacking of newspaper editors who criticise Blair.

  One cannot be a New Labour Party candidate without meeting the Party’s criteria. One cannot be a successful MP without towing the party line. Also Blair is in power because of an electoral system which gives him a massive majority with less than 25% of the possible votes. Blair intends to create a second chamber in which he can appoint more of his placemen.

  The latest opinion pole shows 84% of the British to not want to wage war on Iraq without a second UN mandate although Blair has committed UK forces without consulting parliament and without this condition.

  Also Blair has banned an anti-war demonstration planned for Hyde Park in two weeks time.

  Not prepared to allow the weapons inspectors to carry out their task of controlling Iraq’s weapons Blair prepares Bush’s blood bath for the Iraqi’s. The only question is the size of it. The war may only take a few days as forecast for the Fall of Milosevic. But if in Baghdad they take a stand including armed civilians - as they are perfectly entitled to do to resist an invasion - we shall be talking of casualties in terms of hundreds of thousands if not millions. The consequences for world peace and prosperity may be catastrophic.

  These are not the actions of a democrat this is arrogance and vanity bordering on the insane.
  
  Peter Taylor
  Herts/UK

• Saturday February 01, 2003 at 9:23 pm
  If nothing else the so-called "trial" at the Hague is good for a laugh now and then:

  FROM JANUARY 10, 2003

  HAUSVICKA: My story is that 20 men were forced to defend Dubrovnik from the JNA.

  MILOSEVIC: I see. So the army criminally attacked Dubrovnik in the aim of capturing it but it didn't succeed in doing so because it was defended by 20 brave men. Is that your story?

  HAUSVICKA: Yes.

  MILOSEVIC: Very well....
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Saturday February 01, 2003 at 9:39 pm
  I have checked the IWPR site after a while and found what is the current woe of these ICTY foot soldiers: they are mortally afraid that the end of the ICTY is to be seen sometime soon, due to the American disinterest in the Balkans, without being replaced by something equally arbitrary and lucrative for them. So, the IWPR's Chris Stephen interviewed Antonio Cassese in Tribunal Update 297 ('Cassese Reflects on Hague's Troubled History'), where the Italian judge (the Tribunal's first President) is quoted to remind that 'the combination of French and American efforts led to the establishment of the ICTY' and claims that 'the system has become important'. The author boasts that 'today the ICTY employs more than 1,000 people and has a 100 million dollar budget'. And 'A sign of the progress it has made is that currently five former Balkan leaders are in detention or awaiting sentence.' (True, though not 'Balkan leaders', but rather 'Serb leaders'.) Interesting technical point: Cassese has one regret only, that they couldn't 'employ some sort of official who would gather and filter evidence for both prosecution and defence, thus shortening the time some defendants spend in detention awaiting trial - and so cutting costs.' Does this mean they don't have anybody gathering evidence (investigating) or filtering evidence (reading documents)? I should say so, judging by the proceedings. Couldn't one of those 1,000 people be assigned to do that? Couldn't Cassese before and Jorda now, with judges, 300-staff Registrar Office and the Prosecution Office divide some of those 100 million dollars with few serious investigators or must they grab each and every cent for themselves? Am I that silly to ask such questions, doubting that human greed knows no bounds?

  Such an article is perfectly synchronized with another two pieces by Mirko Klarin and this same Chris Stephen, both bemoaning the message given to the Yugoslav authorities by Pierre-Richard Prosper during his recent visit: only 4 more indictees still on the run have to be delivered to The Hague (Karadzic, Mladic, Sljivancanin, Radic) and the US will no longer threat with sanctions. The IWPR scribes came to the terrible conclusion: the US will obviously gladly give up 19 out of 23 plus all possible future indictees, close the shop at The Hague and move on to another region. And what about the poor NGOs such as IWPR whose bread and butter the ICTY has been for 10 years now? And the ICTY staff themselves? They counted to switch to the ICC (Carla even let such intentions leak to the press), but this is going too slow. Pera, you're right: by letting the ICTY live, the NATO countries have opened a can of worms they would like somehow to prevent from crawling about. Why would they want the ICC to start living at all when it could prosecute their leaders (e.g. Blair) for their future criminal role in Iraq? So, the end of the Stephen's article tellingly informs how next week at the States Conference for the ICC in New York 72 nations are supposed to elect judges and prosecutor, 'but there are no candidates for the post of prosecutor, even though the ICC extended the application deadline late last year.' I believe Carla got a hint not to apply. Perhaps all of them can recreate their cushy jobs at the announced new ad-hoc tribunal for Iraq.

  Do you know that the English site of FreeSerbia is closed until further notice? The reason being they 'are not in position to keep the desired level of quality anymore.' I haven't noticed any change in the level of quality whatsoever (the same wooden high-school English, the same Official-Truth spreading with few minor excursions into objectivity). What I did notice is what I wrote in my last post: the protected witness C-013 was described in the FreeSerbia report as the 'secretary of interior affairs in SAO Slavonija, Baranja and Western Srem'. Could it be that FreeSerbia is banned because blowing up the cover of a protected witness?
  
  Vera Martinovic
  Belgrade
  Yugoslavia

• Sunday February 02, 2003 at 12:24 am
  Vera,

  Free Serbia did more than that they said, "C-013 was a police officer in Vukovar until spring 1991. Then he was secretary of interior affairs in SAO Slavonija, Baranja and Western Srem. After the war he worked at Croatian police."

  Anybody who wanted to badly enough could figure out who he was based on that information.

  Now we see this stuff on FreeSerbia about a witnesses children being threatened. Was that ever mentioned in open session? As far as I know Nice brought up something about an upcoming witness at the end of January 30th and then they went into closed session for the rest of the day while Nice delt with that and Milosevic finished up with C-031 in the same closed session.

  What I wonder is how would FreeSerbia know what happened in that closed session?

  On the 31st Milosevic was objecting because the prosecutor had changed the order of the witnesses again. And Nice sneered back something to the effect that that's what you get for threatening witnesses. But nowhere did I see from the open sessions anything about the witnesses kids.

  My question is how in the hell would FreeSerbia know what was going on during the closed sessions?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Sunday February 02, 2003 at 12:36 am
  For that matter, was all of this stuff about C-013 being a police officer in Vukovar, the secretary of interior affairs in SAO Slavonija, Baranja and Western Srem and working for the Croatian police after the war? Was any of that brought up in open session? I don't think it was. Maybe Vera can correct me if I'm wong.

  But if I'm not just mistaken I have to wonder. How does FreeSerbia know this stuff?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Sunday February 02, 2003 at 12:48 am
  One more thing. Since this upcoming witness whose kids were allegedly threatened was a protected witness. How do we know that he even exists to begin with?

  How do we know the Prosecutor didn't just make somebody up out of thin air, put him on the witness schedule, and then at the last minute say that he was threatened and won't be appearing, just so that he can make Milosevic look bad and so that he can mess-up the order of witnesses and make it difficult for Milosevic to prepare his defense?
  
  Andy Wilcoxson
  Washington, United States

• Sunday February 02, 2003 at 7:42 am
  

  The farce continues. Was C013 a police officer or the ice cream seller makes not difference to me if he could testify as witness to a crime, in a public and accountable court, accountable to a legal system and not to a nebulous notion of universal justice in a universe of bullies.

  Mr. Milosevic summarized it very well: "Yes Mr. May (NATO) false indictment goes together with false witnesses">

  freeserbia does not know more, I don't think than anyone who was present at the press gallery of the trial, that is to say they people there, those gentlemen of the press, were in real time and benefited from not watching, like us, the 30 minute delayed and edited transmission.

  Again as Mr. Milosevic put it: "The benefits of modern technology brings modern trial to a large public, but you Mr. May (NATO) has made it like a Middle Ages trial, secretive and behind doors"
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Sunday February 02, 2003 at 7:54 pm
  About the material served on Milosevic by the prosecution.

  One might hope that the material comes with indexes to find the different ducuments, statements, maps and whatever. But it takes considerably more time to glance through a page, and still grasp the essens of it, in a foreign language. I read a lot of english texts, but can't 'scan' them the way I do swedish. When it comes to videos and audiotapes, it is not possible to do that in any language, glance through, I mean.

  Anyway, Milosevic has managed to find some useful statemnents and documents in that 'haystack'. But just try to imagine the time spent by investigators and presecuters and translators to produce these truckloads. And the really interesting thing is that most of it probably is useless to either side!

  Remember that out of all statements taken, we get to hear the most 'incriminating' so imagine the others. The same goes for the 'intercepts'. As they where tapped by the Croats one can assume at the prosecution has received the better part of them, if not all. And look what they managed to bring forward.

  Another thing about the intercepts. I understand they have been called 'Hello Radovan - tapes' in media, implementing that Milosevic and Karadzic were on especially friendly terms. But I remember that Markovic said that Milosevic always addressed him as 'Radomir' whereas he always answered more formally. And Milan Babic also said (in closed session) that Milosevic called him 'Milan' and Kardzic 'Radovan', but that they both aswered with 'Mr President'. So he was never Slobo to anyone.

  Milan Babic testemony in closed session, by the way, is not yet available for 18th, 19th and 26th of November, but the transcript of the investigating video on the 25th is quite amusing.

  So again, this huge amount of material should really be in itself, by its very existence, a factor for the judges to consider. They of course are not supposed to read anything that is not 'admitted' as the say, but surely the choice of witnesses by the procecution as to credebility, insight, and so on, out of such an amount of statements given, would show that there is not much substance in the indictement.

  For Croatia they skipped 14 'lesser' witnesses for prolonged testemony by Milan Babic. What were they like???.

  And the young man with '20 brave men who defended Dubrovnic'. He was hiding in a cellar and didn't see much. So that part was worth nill. And his mistreatment in captivity he didn't want to talk about at all!! Even if traumatic, he was there to testify about it. And yet he had been considered one of the better to descibe whatever he was supposed to testify about.

  For the Kosovo part, I remember how Nice explained how they had chosen a small amount of events and villages out of a much greater collection of 'crimesites' and then reduced the number of witnesses at each site several times to fit in the timeframe. And again the choise fell on obscure 'crimes' with the lack of the 'pattern' they said they would show. The quetions arose; Did they at all occur and if so as the witnesses described?? Who were the perpetrators; army, police, paramilitaries, local people??? And the witnesses for most part lacked credebility. They all knew very little about the KLA. May and Nice had a conversation at some stage about how it was obviuos that they weren't truthfull about it. But one would think that when the only evidence are live witnesses under oath, that any lie or attemt not to tell the 'whole truth' should exclude that witness. And that reminds me of the young man from Dubrovnic again. He said that he could state whatever, that 'he was a woman' or what he liked. He should have been reminded that he was under oath and be excluded for that remark alone.
  
  Ann-Marie Laios
  Sollentuna
  Sweden

• Sunday February 02, 2003 at 9:02 pm
  About the protected witnesses.

  They should skip this entirely!

  Some witnesses have come forward with their names, but still had the face distorsion. That could be done for sensitive witnesses and also that some sensitive 'state secretes' could be talked about in closed session.

  But how can they even imagine that they can keep the identity of witnesses secret. First of all, its said that only the judges, the prosecutor and Milosevic are in the courtroom. To me it seems crowded with people, and then comes the translators too. Then the tongue slips by May and U.-R.(not sure how she is spelled) as well as Milosevic.

  And practically it must be so that when the name is revealed to Milosevic's assosiates, they must do some investigation and check criminal records and make other inquireries about the witnesses. How are they supposed to do that without at the same time give information who they are and why they want this information?

  So they should skip this protection altogether and everything would be easier for everybody. If there are any threats, they probably wouldn't increase if the witnesses were known to all. Maybe some people think that this hiding is cowardly behaviour and that could be a reason the threats would decrease instead.

  And anyway, what are the threats? Anonymous letters, telephone calls. And what is said?

  Clearly, it is not in Milosevic's interest to threaten anyone, because he knows that it matters very little whatever the witnesses say. The outcome of this trial will be what the judges 'decide' is the truth. And that will probably be decided by other criteria. The witnesses evidence will be used (included or excluded) only to 'prove' that decision.
  
  Ann-Marie Laios
  Sollentuna
  Sweden

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 3:17 am
  Pera, Carla is a liar. She said she has no evidence against Nato, and yet here she seems to be bragging about her inside information.

  The US has kidnapped foreign suspects to the US. Now it seems clear how the practice was adopted in Holland more recently. The US may even think it has the right to do this. Remember, the US doesn't recognize the ICJ's jurisdiction unless it can be certain it wins the case, so the recent Congo v. Belgium judgment leaves it cold too.

  However, dear Americans, it doesn't work that way. You are still bound, as a member state of the UN and as a supposedly peace-loving state, to the principle of "sovereign equality" enshrined in the UN Charter. So if you allow the kidnappings, then it becomes established practice in international law, which the other states have the right to adopt thanks to sovereign equality (at least vis-à-vis Americans). You can't create law in your own legal system with such far-reaching effects and say it has no international legal effects whatsoever. Well, it has, especially when Israel does the same.

  I mentioned Mugabe, because he is one of the few world leaders who has actually been able to win the British-led smear campaign against him. The international organizations, too, were trying to do the same to him as they had done to Milosevic: to "monitor" the elections. Mugabe knows this game like the back of his hand. He knows what MI6 is.

  If Belgium, the US and Israel can promulgate laws with universal effect, what keeps any African state from doing the same? I think many of them are just as pissed off by the hypocrisy of the ICTR as we are by that of the ICTY. And to top that, anybody must be offended that Belgium, with an unparallelled track record in killing people (20 million in Congo Free State), can now show the world its "justice" at work when it manages to bring more black people to Belgium to answer for their crimes. Well, Belgium was one of the aggressor states in 1999, and if it wants to be the vanguard of the postmodern immunity rules, let the Belgian leaders answer for their crimes.

  Here we have a two-pronged approach. Any state can promulgate a universal law with civil effect (like the US 1789 statute) as well as one with a criminal law effect (like the Belgian law). There would be a lot of buzzwords to sling around to show that this is exactly what the international legal system need (a so-called teleological interpretation). First, war crimes arguably affect the whole mankind, so that all states have an interest in prosecuting them (erga omnes). On the other hand, we must get rid of the Westphalian model, which means (if does mean anything) that States have been compelled restrict their jurisdiction to their own territory until now. We have seen that international organization don't function properly. Maybe the reason is that they are still based on the Westphalian model. This means that we have to decentralize international criminal law and empower every national jurisdiction to deal with any war criminal. In fact, this is pretty much established doctrine in regard to genocide, which is part of the jus cogens. What would keep other war crimes from becoming jus cogens too, especially when the ICTY Statute mentions other war crimes side by side with genocide?

  The better the Nato countries make themselves look, the worse off they would ultimately be. Am I right in assuming that no (repeat: no) war crimes convictions have been handed down in the Nato countries after the 1999 bombing?

  Now let us imagine when a head of state or a member of the government would become guilty pursuant to Art. 7(3) of the ICTY Statute ("command responsibility"). It is an established principle that legislative, executive and judicial power have to be separated. But how can a head of state (who is primarily part of the executive) influence the judicial branch, which is supposedly independent from him? It is the judicial branch which should see to it that the war criminals are prosecuted. There is not much he can do. Either the courts convict the war criminals or they don't.

  But the case becomes gloomier if the executive branch uses it influence to persuade the courts not to prosecute war criminals. And prosecution is something that the executive branch does. However, the judicial branch doesn't have this excuse in civil cases.

  As a warning example let us see what has been happening in Holland. In the district court of Amsterdam, the Dutch Government was sued for the war time damage. The Goverment answered by referring to Carla's decision not to investigate Nato war crimes. That means the Carla has now issued a general absolution, and the Governments are expected not to open separate war crimes investigations. But the moral of the story is this: the district court in Amsterdam accepted the Government's argument, which means that the judicial branch has been deprived of its autonomy in regard to the executive. The judiciary can whitewash itself by arguing that the ICTY had decided not to investigate Nato crimes - and ICTY is a judicial organ (if only it were!). But the national courts cannot argue like this. If the international tribunal fails to prosecute war crimes, then it is up to the national courts to do so.

  Another example from Holland. A couple of court cases were pending in Holland in regard to the violations of human rights in the Scheveningen detention center. I wrote to the Dutch Ministry of Justice, and they wrote me back that the Dutch courts cannot do anything because it is the host country's duty to facilitate the activities of the tribunal. OK. But did you notice? Someone from the Ministry of Justice (i.e. the executive branch) is already killing the court cases in the judicial organs in advance. This is all the more dubious, because now we know that the Dutch government has an excuse not to prosecute its own war criminals only as long as Carla's integrity is not called into question. (The parliamentary inquiry concerning the activities of the Dutchbat in Srebrenica is just a show, and it will only give the judicial organs an absolution from the legislative organ.)

  This, ladies and gentlemen, is Art. 7(3) in action. The better the Western state look after the bombing, the higher up the responsibility can be tracked.

  Bush is eager to leave the Balkans. He was even hesitant to install Prosper in his office. So there wouldn't be much to pin the Clinton cover-up on him. But there is something the Bush administration should not have said (by the mouth of Ari Fleischer). Mr Fleischer justified the soon-to-be-established Saddam tribunal by saying that "it worked in Serbia, and it will work in Iraq". What worked? Did he mean the one-sided prosecutorial policy to dispose of the political leadership. So the Bush administration is only too willing to reap the harvest of Clinton's one-eyed justice.

  There has been minimal response to my call to show that there were or there were not 200-400 war crimes convictions in Serbia. There have been some press reports to that effect (and I saw one in Western media too), but I wouldn't trust the press (Serbian or Western) too much. What we now have is the testimony of Markovic. And as long as the situation is like this, the prosecution and others of that ilk will have an excuse to dismiss the Serbian war crimes convictions, because Markovic is a shady character.

  I trust that these convictions have taken place. I believe that Milosevic told the VJ not to harm the Albanian civilians. The real question for those few who really care is whether Milosevic had a hands-off policy toward the Special Police Units (PJP), as Markovic said, and if he did, should he have adopted a more hands-on policy. I think one of the more recent witnesses said that Milosevic controlled the PJP.

  But whatever Milosevic's position was, this is becoming so ludicrous one can hardly believe it. Were the alleged human rights violations by the anti-terrorist squad of the PJP the reason Nato attacked the country? Couldn't the anti-terrorist units not be expected to bend the rules a bit, concidering who they are dealing with? It was terrorism that the great powers should have quelled. In fact, the Security Council condemned the terrorist activities of the KLA expressly in its resolution 1160(1998), and the American Richard Gelbard did promise in early 1998 that the US government would never have any dealings with the KLA. So much for the "credibility" of the US foreign policy, which was the excuse to continue the bombing once it had started.
  
  Jari Nousiainen
  Finland

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 5:08 am
  

  It seems the prosecutors found themselves once again with a witness who speaks highly of Mr. Milosevic, of the UN less highly and whit little regard for Nato. Not bad for a UN official.

  So many strange things in this trial!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 5:24 am
  

  Of course in the industry of abduction there is already a nice hierarchic in place. Mr. Öçalan, the famous Turkish Kurd leader was timely abducted from Kenya, not by the Americans great friends of the secular Turkish Republic, but by the Israelis under US direction. Later Abduhla Öçalan saved his neck thanks to the EU progressive views on capital penalty, something the humanitarian Americans deplore. I can't stop thinking about the 50 plus Mexicans on death row across the US and now trying to have their sentences halted at the ICJ.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 5:57 am
  

  Pera Bora wrote:

  According to the newspaper Dnevnik: Mrs. Plavsic has asked the ICTY to allow her to spend her jail time in Sweden. It looks that her request will be met. In this case she would be practically pardoned, regardless of her sentence, for in Sweden all persons convicted and older than 72 are not to serving their sentence.

  The early release of criminals sentenced by the ICTY is subject to the legislation and penitentiary regulations of the country where they serve their term only to a limited extent. It is the President of the ICTY (presently Claude Jorda) which grants or rejects early release: 'ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence', 2001 edition, ISBN 92-1-056705-6, pp 293, rules 123-125. Rule 124 reads: "The President shall [..] determine [..] whether padon or commutation is appropriate."

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Holland

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 6:58 am
  

  Jari Noussianen wrote:

  Another example from Holland. A couple of court cases were pending in Holland in regard to the violations of human rights in the Scheveningen detention center. I wrote to the Dutch Ministry of Justice, and they wrote me back that the Dutch courts cannot do anything because it is the host country's duty to facilitate the activities of the tribunal. OK. But did you notice? Someone from the Ministry of Justice (i.e. the executive branch) is already killing the court cases in the judicial organs in advance. This is all the more dubious, because now we know that the Dutch government has an excuse not to prosecute its own war criminals only as long as Carla's integrity is not called into question. (The parliamentary inquiry concerning the activities of the Dutchbat in Srebrenica is just a show, and it will only give the judicial organs an absolution from the legislative organ.)

  --

  You are mixing up two totally different matters here: the alledged mistreatment of detainees in the ICTY's Detention Unit (over which the Dutch state has hardly any authority) and the prosecution of war crimes alledgedly committed by Dutch subjects.

  It is a misrepresentation of the facts to claim that a Justice Ministry spokesman is 'killing court cases' where he merely points out that the Dutch judiciary has no jurisdiction over the ICTY Detention Unit, much like the US judiciary has no jurisdiction over UN Headquarters in New York.

  The Dutch military prosecutor in Arnhem actually investigated a number of cases where the media accused Dutchbat staff of (aiding and abetting to) war crimes. The cases were dismissed for lack of evidence, but it is incorrect to state that the Dutch judiciary will not deal with allegations of war crimes.

  I agree with you that the Dutch Parliamentary Inquiry into the Srebrenica massacre was a farce, yet it has created an awareness in this country which will force the new Dutch government to pay serious attention to the survivors. So far Holland has spent EUR 600 million in BiH after Dayton; the inquiry and its extensive coverage in the media will lead to a long-term (talk is of 30 years) commitment to ease at least the material needs of the survivors. The EUR 10 million just contributed to the Potocari graveyard/memorial and DNA-identification process are just a small beginning.

  For the record: the inquiry suffered from refusals to testify by French general Janvier, Japanese diplomat Akashi and other high-level non-Dutch witnesses as much as from chairman Bakker's impardonable decision not to hear any survivors.

  The Association of Srebrenica Survivors (in which Zene Srebrenice, Majke Srebrenice i Podrinja and other grass-root organisations cooperate) is now preparing criminal charges against [elements of] Dutchbat to establish the level of responsibility it/they had for the massacre - and to possibly sue for damages. The Association is supported financially by IKV, the Dutch Council of Churches' Peace Initiative.

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Holland

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 9:59 am
  

  The Great Protector ot the NATO-TRUTH Mr. May (NATO) says genocide is a technical term just to issue his opinion and prove how biased this court is, him being its presiding judge, when Mr. Milosevic quoted a UN general deployed in the field saying he had not seeing or anyone had reported to him any indication of a genocide in the area.

  The UN lower echelon reports were not always accepted by the top leadership, there were disagreements and objections to the the description of certain camps as concentration camps instead of the more accurate according to the quoted general as transit camps. However and here is the evidence the famous picture showing the prisoners behind the barbed wires proved they were in a concentration the UN official said.

  In any event this same official praised Mr. Milosevic for his efforts towards a peaceful, political solution and to stop the armed conflict.

  Judge May (NATO) interrupted again and again, saying at one point, JNA general ( . . .) "had been appointed to slow down, obstruct the process..." but Mr. Milosevic said and proved otherwise. I think Mr. May (NATO) should take the witness stand making this outstanding institution of the ICTY and its 1,200 employed unique in the annals of jurisprudence, the trial of Joan of Arch notwithstanding.

  Those English judges!
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 10:43 am
  

  From todays Wall St. Journal for fair use only.

  Uncertainty Still Clouds Top War-Crimes Position By JEss Biuvir?j UNITED NATIONS?Who will be the world?s first permanent war-crimes pros- ecutor? That question was supposed to be an- swered at elections beginning here today, when delegates from nearly 90 countries belonging to the new International Crimi- nal Court choose its first judges. But dip- lomats say they have failed to find a ?con- sensus candidate,? and nominations closed without a single name, even after the deadline was extended a week in De- cember. The failure to find a prosecutor is an embarrassment for the ICC, which was conceived as a court of last resort for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity when national courts can?t or won?t take action. The court?s birth has been troubled, with Europe heralding it as a watershed for human rights, while Washington has attacked it as another world body ripe for exploitation by Ameri- cats enemies?a position that has further strained trans-Atlantic relations already roiled over trade issues and a possible war in Iraq. The U.S. refused to ratify the ICC treaty after failing to win a clause allow- ing the U.N. Security Council?and thus itself?to block ICC prosecutions. The Bush administration said its aim is to prevent political trials, while European negotiators said such a provision would itself inject politics into what they see as an independent judicial institution. While an administration official said the U.S. will never recognize ?this illegiti- mate court in The Hague,? the ICC?s backers, including the European Union, Canada and Australia, say Washington?s fears are preposterous. They hold out hope of someday winning the confidence of a future president, or at least routine cooperation from U.S. officials when the ICC pursues a case. With a nine-year term, the first ICC prosecutor will be pivotal in establishing the court?s credibility, balancing compet- ing demands to show results and yet not politicize the tribunal so as to further inflame Washington. ?Basically, we need someone with near-divine qualities,? said a European diplomat. Officials say they never intended a contested election but planned to select an unimpeachable prosecutor behind closed doors. Persons familiar with the prosecutor search said an early consensus had devel- oped for a German candidate, to symbol- ize that country?s progress since its Nazi regime was tried at Nuremberg. But ac- cording to one person, the plan fell through when Berlin?s likely nominee proved politically disastrous: Justice Min- ister Herta Daubler-Gmelin, who was forced from office in September after comparing President Bush?s rhetorical tactics to those of Adolf Hitler. Ever since, ICC members have strug- gled to find a candidate with sufficient skills, support and willingness to take the job. Some human-rights advocates pro- pose blunting Washington?s opposition by nominating an American. Said Geof- frey Robertson, an Australian who is president of the U.N. war-crimes court in Sie~a Leone: ?My suggestion is Rudy Giuliani.?

  Rudy Giuliani was the last New York city major and run the city with an iron fist.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 10:49 am
  

  Questions marks are "." in the original.
  
  G C
  Conn., USA

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 12:16 pm
  First, of all, let me say that Mr Tiggelaar is very stupid, although he keeps misspelling my name just to annoy me, because he is losing the argument. So that explains why he feels I am mixing up two entirely different things just by mentioning them together. Mr T thinks that any attempt to sue the Dutch government and Nato is a farce. After all, he knows more about NOS than any of us.

  The Ministry of Justice spokesman is killing court cases if he states that the Dutch authorities have no jurisdiction over the detention facilities. Especially when this is not true. The immunity of the ICTY can be revoked, and in this regard there is no distinction between the detention centre and other areas of the ICTY.

  For instance, Art. XXI (3) says:

  "The Tribunal shall observe all security directives as agreed with the host country or as issued, in coordination with the United Nations Security Service, by the competent authorities responsible for security conditions within the penitentiary institution of the host country where the Tribunal area for detention is located, as well as all directives of the competent authorities responsible for fire prevention regulations."

  The Ministry of Justice is killing court cases if it is not considering the revocation of the immunity.

  I didn't know that the parliamentary inquiry "was" a farce. In fact, I never heard about the inquiry again, which suggests that Mr T wasn't happy about. It was just plain evident that such an inquiry is a whitewash. Though not for the reason Mr T thinks. Who is he to call anything "impardonable"?

  But the moral of the story is that the Muslims are preparing a court case. So should we. Somebody wake up Ramsey Clark quick and let him make a couple of phone calls to different "Third World" capitals. Any real trial has to be held outside Europe, where the clowns of the European Court of Human Rights have no say. You know, Mr T, they ruled that the Milosevic trial was impartial. Could somebody be mixing up two different things?
  
  J N
  Finland

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 12:28 pm
  The abduction of Noriega to the Us is interesting, because it shows the total disregard of the US to the judgments of the ICJ. The ICJ had told the US to keep its hands off Nicaragua, and the next thing you know, the US is abducting their President.

  Things are not much better in Europe. Let us call it the "free circulation of inadimissibility". One court rules a case inadmissible. The plaintiff goes to another court, and the court invokes the earlier ruling to the effect that the case was inadmissible and rules the case inadmissible. This happens especially in that promised land of international justice, Holland, which has distinguished itself by the denial of justice. Naletilic goes to the Dutch courts and complains of his detention in the ICTY. The Dutch courts wash their hands, so Naletilic goes to Strasbourg (European Court of Human Rights). ECHR says that the ICTY Statute says the trial in ICTY are impartial, so they are.

  Then comes Milosevic. He goes to the district court in The Hague. The court invokes the Naletilic ruling. Milosevic then goes to Strasbourg, but the ECHR throws the case out, because Milosevic hasn't exhausted all remedies (i.e. appealed the decision of the distict court). And what would he have heard in appellate court? Only that the ECHR had ruled the case inadmissible. This, Mr T, is denial of justice.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 12:40 pm
  Another example of the free circulation of inadmissibility. The ICJ ruled the Yugoslav plea for provisional measures in the Legality of Use of Force inadmissible. Now that ruling is interpreted in the brilliant minds as meaning that the bombing was legal.

  I don't how it goes (maybe no-one does), but if the Yugoslav plea was declared inadmissible in the ICJ, the Yugoslav government might go to the Dutch courts. Such a measure would be dramatic, but necessary, because the Dutch courts don't take into account ex officio the possibility that the bombing might have been illegal. You know, Mr T, the Dutch legal system is a monistic one, so nothing except the Dutch lack of courage keeps the courts from applying the Nuremberg crime of aggression against the Dutch government.

  Two Dutch organs, CAVV and AIV answered the Dutch minister that "humanitarian intervention" was no reason to skip the authorization of the Security Council. Amnesty International condemned the RTS bombing. Where does the myth of legality come from? Simple. The Nato governments invoke Carla's decision not to investigate Nato war crimes, and Carla invokes the general reliability of the Nato statements. Carla touched on the Amnesty International report in her own report. It would be interesting to read what she had to say.
  
  J N
  Finland

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 1:06 pm
  

  Frank, I am glad the latest news from Holland are so good i.e. that local courts in Holland and its investigators are getting involved into investigation of alleged criminal responsibility of Dutchbat. The need of such behavior by the local courts in the countries involved in the Yugoslav wars was recently very much debated and asked for in the discussion on this forum. I am pleased to here that Holland is investing money in finding out, at last, who the dead people from Srebrenica area are and how they died. Before completion of this aspect and other aspects of the Srebrenica investigation I can not see how events in Srebrenica can be properly named and characterized. I guess one who has to pay the damages suddenly wants to know for how many damages he/she is responsible. I am clear that Dutchbat will be considered guilty for not protecting Muslims in Srebrenica, but are they going to be held guilty for failing to protect Serbs living outside of Srebrenica from Naser Oric and his battalion that has turned Srebrenica from safe-haven into military camp. I am under impression that the Dutchbat was responsible to guaranty that the Srebrenica is a safe-haven.

  Having said all this I do not see how this absolves Holland government of responsibility for the condition of people detained on its territory.

  As in the case of Biljana Plavsic I am concerned that Holland is now in a mood to accept more guilt for the events in Srebrenica and its surroundings that it is responsible for. Why would government and people of Holland allow for the Dutchbat to serve as a scapegoats for the crimes committed by the Bosnian government or criminal activities of the UN, NATO and USA leaders is beyond me? As you have seen I want persons who were found guilty to serve their sentences. What I am afraid of is that we are still far away from a due process and that we are not there not because we do not know what is a due process but because we are intentionally prosecuting scapegoats and not the real culprits. Admitting any guilt and not the real guilt is not going to serve justice at all and is perfect cover up for the real culprits.

  
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 1:53 pm
  Gogol, it is really sad to see in what miserable state Mr. May is. He does not, even, bother to project him self as an impartial judge. He is a man on a dirty mission and he will do his job what ever pleases his masters.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 2:31 pm
  

  Pera,

  I was thinking while following the hearing this morning that there is not really any need to look for MI-6 or 5 at the trial chamber. The real Guardian and Protector is judge May (NATO), is there to stop any evidence of the complexity in this vast conspiracy involving not only Nato and the UN but the higher echelons of the US and in various degrees the governments of Nato countries. The opposition by the Americans to Vance-Owen Plan was again brought up and May (NATO) again under the pretext it is irrelevant (!) stop talking about it. That is only one example.
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 3:20 pm
  Gogol, I think that we now witness a new pattern emerging. Everything that speaks positive about Serbs or Mr. Milosevic will be treated as irrelevant. As we know this trial is irrelevant too, since Mr. Milosevic and the Serbs are pronounced already guilty.
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Canada

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 4:27 pm
  

  Fwd - Following program may be of interest to people following this list

  Carla del Ponte on Profiles at BBC World TV

  [from the BBC's website:] This week Profiles looks at Swiss lawyer Carla Del Ponte, the Chief Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Since taking her job at The Hague she has secured a reputation as a relentless pursuer of justice.

  Saturday February 8th 14:15 - 15:00 and 23:15 - 00:00 CET

  Sunday February 9th 10:15 - 11:00 and 19:15 - 20:00 CET

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Holland

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 4:47 pm
  

  But she did not get the ICC job. And I doubt she will get extended at the ICTY, so well deserved her reputation is.

  And what is it with the BBC, nobody else seem to have the same interest in justice./I>
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 4:49 pm
  
  
  G C
  Conn., USA

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 5:52 pm
  

  Talking about the devil:

  UN court slaps down Yugoslav appeal, clears way for Bosnian suit
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn., USA

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 5:54 pm
  Frank, thanks for posting the info on the BBC program on Mrs. Carla Del Ponte. I do not think that people who are following the Mr. Milosevic's trial closely need to watch BBC program to decide who Mrs. Carla Del Ponte is. For me this program will be more a test of BBC. I am just afraid that my bad opinion of BBC will be once more confirmed. Frank, has Mrs. Del Ponte ever asked for the members of Dutchbat to be prosecuted? Why BBC is more willing to make biographies of accused people in Hague and their prosecutors instead of regularly and neutrally covering the ICTY trials and especially one named the Trial of the Century? The reason is simple: They do not want people to make their own minds (DEMOCRACY) they want to brain wash the people (The Big Brother Controls (BBC) Minds of his subjects).
  
  Pera Bora
  Ottawa
  Camada

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 5:57 pm
  

  Now I understand why judge May (NATO) was interested in averting much debate about genocide , click HERE
  
  Gogol Charlemagne
  Conn. USA

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 6:39 pm
  Jari,

  I won't mention the detention of the former president and general Augusto Pinochet of Chile by the UK and his subsequent release on apparently 'doddery old murderer' syndrome (don't know the medical term). Highlighting one of the most clear cases of hypocrisy over Human Rights by the vacuous Mr. T of no.10 Downing Street (in reality no.11) would be just too perverse!
  
  Alexei Gorbulski
  Brussels
  Soviet Socialist Republic of Belgium! ;)

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 9:55 pm
  

  Mr Noussianen, you have been trying to associate me with a children's comic character named Mr T for a while now. I therefore do not pay much attention to the correct spelling of your name. What a pity this offends you.

  In your posting I reacted to you were writing about "...the violations of human rights in the Scheveningen detention unit...". In your reaction to my alledgedly stupid posting you are quoting regulations about "security conditions" and "fire prevention regulations". I fail to see the relation between the violation of human rights and the article XXI (3) you quote.

  As for the Dutch parliamentary inquiry into the Srebrenica massacre: if you haven't heard anything about it you should not vent opinions until you have read the 3,000 page report - a Bosnian translation is to appear on the Internet in a couple of weeks. My right to criticise the inquiry is founded on the same principle of free speech which allows you to criticise the ICTY, NATO and myself, plus the fact that I am a Dutch citizen, voter (for the committee's chairman in last month's elections), taxpayer and my contributions to their efforts.

  As for your scorn of the European courts: why not ask Mr. Clark to press charges before a court in China, Russia, Belorussia, India, Cuba, Ukraine, Iraq, Libya or North Korea - to mention all of Slobo's friends from the song "Hej sloveni sta bi" which was very popular during the popular uprising against your great leader.

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Holland

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 10:09 pm
  

  Pera, do not blame me for what BBC does right or wrong. I haven't seen the program, so I hold no opinion of it - yet. All *I* can do is give you the 'raw material' from the Hague and a pointer now and then to what the media are making of it all.

  I do not know whether the ICTY has ever investigated Dutchbat. I believe troops deployed under UN command enjoy a certain degree of immunity, so I'm not sure the ICTY could press charges even it wanted to. I'll ask around in the Hague next week to find out.

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Holland

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 10:35 pm
  Dear Frank, In the last paragraph of your message from 09:55 you made two serious factual errors. Russia, Belorussia, and Ukraine ARE European countries. Second, majority of population in China, India, Cuba, Iraq, Lybia, and N. Korea ARE NOT "sloveni". Please be more accurate and specific.
  
  Pasha Ponomarneko
  Australia

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 10:35 pm
  Dear Frank, In the last paragraph of your message from 09:55 you made two serious factual errors. Russia, Belorussia, and Ukraine ARE European countries. Second, majority of population in China, India, Cuba, Iraq, Lybia, and N. Korea ARE NOT "sloveni". Please be more accurate and specific.
  
  Pasha Ponomarenko
  Australia

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 10:50 pm
  

  Pasha - I never said they were non-Europeans cq sloveni. The title of the song I was refering to is "Hej sloveni sta bi" Listen to it and you'll understand.

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Holland

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 10:57 pm
  

  JP USA WIS

  The trial of Milosevic, I predict will expose the US as a user of NATO to expand its dominance of the world. Your country is not only dispised by Islamic nations, but the rest of the world in general. Why else would your youth travel with Canadian flags on their backpacks?

  Serbia is to be sued for reparations over the Bosnian conflict. We can only hope that trial will not be held in closed session. Perhaps the CIA and Al'qaida links will be brought out in court. Judge May will not let Slobo bring it up.
  
  Pertti Lindroos
  Quesnel
  BC Canada

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 11:03 pm
  Frank, Thanks, I've got it about "Hej sloveni...".
  
  Pasha Ponomarenko
  Australia

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 11:07 pm
  Please note that the ICJ ruling on Bosnian vs. Yugoslavia is extremely helpful to the Yugoslav suit against the aggressor states within NATO

  So far already 4 of 9 ICJ Judges have indicated they are inclined to rule in Yugoslavia's favour. This would lead the way towards NATO states paying Yugoslavia some $100 Billion in reparations.

  
  
  AP V
  NY
  NY

• Monday February 03, 2003 at 11:16 pm
  

  Pertti, the ICJ has no such thing as closed sessions. If you want to know more about this case you should read 'The Bosnian People Charge Genocide' by professor Boyle and the relevant articles on his website http://www.francisboyle.net (which we at Domovina Net host).

  Croatia, btw, has also filed charges against the FRY. It is seeking damages of around EUR 15 billion.

  
  
  Frank Tiggelaar
  Holland