 MILOSEVIC TRIAL DISCUSSION ARCHIVE |
| JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS - WORLD LAW >> Discussion >> Milosevic Trial Discussion Archive |
—————————————————————————————
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic is on trial for war crimes in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague. This marks the first time a head of state has been personally prosecuted before an international criminal court.
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
- Monday September 01, 2003 at 1:30 am
Andy !-Ian is right about you calling HIS HONOR by all those names ..........
vytas abrutis
phila
PA usa- Monday September 01, 2003 at 1:34 am
to the folks who read at least some transcripts or watched some trial on video - is obvious that the scumbag has no conscience, no honor .......... and even no concept of what he is doing there........ - though he is wearing that funny robe all his behavior resembles that of a dog with a good sense of who the GOOD GUYS are and which one is bad,,,,,,,,,and being as stupid as he us vicious he has no brains to hide it..........
-But in general its a very good report...........
vytas a
phila,PA
usa- Monday September 01, 2003 at 10:59 am
As I too agree with Ian Davis, in that "when you can't say something good about someone, it is better to say nothing directly about them", I shall not at all be discussing mrs. del Ponte.But is it not remarkable, that while in this ICTY "trial" against mr. Milosevic the Prosecution's case is now grinding towards a halt within months (or at least within the not too distant future lest the Prosecutor is granted still another extension of the time available?), the "trial" against mr. Milutinovic, mr. Sainovic and mr. Ojdanic, originally based on the very same Indictment of May 22 (or 24?), 1999, has hardly left off?
Commencing on April 26, 2002 untill this day a series of altogether 11 "initial appearances", "motion hearings" and "status conferences" etc. has led the ICTY Trial Chamber, - consisting (surprise, surprise?) of Judge Richard May (Presiding!), Judge Patrick Robinson and Judge O-Gon Kwon to deny (after duly noting and considering a decision)- , to refuse a motion for the provisional release of mr. Milutinovic (a former President of Serbia), mr. Sainovic (a former Prime Minister of Serbia and Deputy Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) and mr. Ojdanic (a former General Chief of Staff of the VJ).
The next status conference is due to 24 September, 2003 I believe...
It seems quite logical, that since the Trial Chamber members (as well as the Prosecutor!) are the very same persons as in the "trial" against mr. Milosevic, these "trials" cannot be run at the same time - unless they were run as one altogether (how would one find, say, someone to replace or double, even vaguely resemble mr. May?)
It is less clear (at least to me), whether it would make any sense to repeat a "prosecution's case" based on (essentially) the same Indictment - which in the hands of mr. Geoffrey Nice has long since (and to no avail?) run out of credible and relevant arguments (and/or witnesses).
Would it not be an extraordinary situation, even for the standards of the ICTY, if the Prosecution were to run its case against mr. Milutinovic, mr. Sainovic and mr. Ojdanic - the former "al.'s" of mr. Milosevic - concurrently (or stranger even: after?) the defense case of mr. Milosevic?
Would it be fair? Could anybody maybe kindly clarify the logic of the "trial strategies" of the ICTY for me, a layman?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Monday September 01, 2003 at 11:50 am
Godfred You can see that the whole case rest on the star witness the prosecutor is not able to bring to Hague. For now they are filling the show with comedians while the star witness or witnesses get the OK to take the stand.
Vasile Ianos
NJ- Monday September 01, 2003 at 8:55 pm
In the New World no international trial chambers are required
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Tuesday September 02, 2003 at 10:03 am
Milosevic to outline defence strategy before UN tribunal
Playing now, don't miss it!
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Tuesday September 02, 2003 at 10:53 am
From teh previous article:Even though experts feel the prosecution case is going well, the general public has had great difficulty following the marathon trial, which has been touted as a historical precedent for international justice.
LET THESE EXPERTS STEP FORWARD AND MAKE THEMSELVES (AND THEIR FEELINGS) KNOWN!!
Peter Varavejke
Belgium- Tuesday September 02, 2003 at 10:57 am
And the media can blame itself that the general public has difficulty following this phoney tral.
Peter Varavejke
Belgium- Tuesday September 02, 2003 at 11:01 am
Make the page shorter please moderator.
arandjel pasic
SCG- Tuesday September 02, 2003 at 11:33 am
Yes, - let even a single expert, who "feels" that the Prosecution's Case at the "Milosevic trial" is "going well", make himself known to the general public, as Peter Varavejke is suggesting!Let us hear the arguments, - now!
And by the way: Can we please also learn the name of the author or at least of the source of said little article (Milosevic to outline defence strategy before UN Tribunal. 2 September, 2003, 9.11)?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Tuesday September 02, 2003 at 12:00 pm
The wonders of modern science.When I type "hte" my super smart computer immediatedy corrects my error and inserts the word "the".
It would seem that in the latest versions of MicroSoft Word have a new function (at least the versions used by journalists).
Whenever they type the word "Srebrenica" their computers always add the following:
"the 1995 massacre of thousands of Muslims at Srebrenica, Europe's worst single atrocity since World War II.
"More than 7,000 Muslim men and boys were summarily executed after Bosnian Serb forces took the UN declared safe area of Srebrenica on July 11, 1995."
I fear that one day we will all be forced to use similar computers.
Michael Thomas
London
UK- Tuesday September 02, 2003 at 1:09 pm
Milosevic Denied Two Years' Freedom to Prepare Case
What a surprise!
The report ommits the main argument for his defence, how can he prepare it, how can he have the freedom to prepare his defence under, as May (NATO) put it, custody , will Bill Clinton visit him in his cell for an interview?
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Tuesday September 02, 2003 at 6:25 pm
Did anyone catch today's proceedings during which May was outvoted by his two fellow "judges"? Milosevic sought to introduce as evidence a report written by the public prosecutor's office in Visegrad about Muslim crimes against the Serb population there. May declared that this was merely the "Serb side" sounding off, and thus worthless as evidence. Robinson and Kwon must have decided--I don't know if that's the case since they didn't give any reasons--that if this official report was disallowed, almost any other evidence could be disallowed as nothing more than partisan documentation of the "Serb side." A furious May voiced his dissent.To the best of my knowledge, this was the first time that May was outvoted. The question is this: Is May, with his barely concealed contempt for Milosevic and bias against the Serbs, becoming an embarrassment to the other two judges? More important, is he becoming an embarrassment to the tribunal?
I don't think the outcome of this "trial" is in doubt, for the obvious reason that if Milosevic is found innocent, then NATO must be guilty of waging aggressive war. However, the tribunal may prefer a more courteous, honey-toned "judge" presiding over these fraudulent proceedings. Any bets on whether May will step down sometime over the next few months on grounds of "ill health" or "needing to spend more time with his family"?
Robert Hessen
Seattle
Washington- Tuesday September 02, 2003 at 11:52 pm
Today's "trial" synopsis:http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg090203.htm
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States- Wednesday September 03, 2003 at 1:21 am
Robert Hessen,That little dispute actually provided a rather an odd moment.
Kwon and Robinson overruled May and allowed Milosevic to enter that document as a defense exhibit.
Mr. Groome objected on behalf of the prosecution because he said that documents written by one side of the warring factions were "notoriously unreliable." Groome claimed that Milosevic's document was a "Serb document."
After Mr. Groome got through explaining that the prosecution didn't present documents from the Muslim side as evidence because they were unreliable; Mr. May obviously upset that he had been overruled suggested that Mr. Groom should perhaps consider presenting the "unreliable" Muslim documents as evidence.
The prosecution (Judge May included) actually made a bit of a mistake here. They conceded the fact that the Muslim documents were unreliable.
Slobodan Milosevic on the other hand, asserts that the Serb documents are reliable, although he challenges the veracity of the Muslim documents.
So now the prosecution is in a position where if it attempts to introduce the Muslim documents it will be introducing documents which it admits are notoriously unreliable.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States- Wednesday September 03, 2003 at 12:00 pm
Today's Trial Report!http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/smorg090303.htm
P.S. I will not be able to watch the "trial" tomorrow. If somebody here could watch it and write up a report and post it here it would be most appreciated.
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States- Wednesday September 03, 2003 at 12:02 pm
Please find below an Original MessageFrom "Vladimir Krsljanin"
"THERE IS NO DEFENCE, ONLY PROSECUTION!"
Slobodan Milosevic, September 2nd, 2003
SLOBODA calls upon all organizations and individuals who care about freedom, justice and democracy to stand URGENTLY AND SOUNDLY against the perhaps final proof that the aim of the "tribunal" and it's NATO masters is to suppress freedom and to silence the truth.
Today's outrageous developments at the Hague require that no decent person remains silent.
Progressive forces and lawyers have a particular responsibility to stand up and let their voices be heard - there are thousands of arguments!
The alternatives of today's world are: freedom or slavery. In the version of the "judicial" arm of NATO the alternative is: truth or inquisition.
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC WILL HELP ALL OF US WINNING OUR BATTLE IF WE HELP HIM NOW!
Address the public and all relevant international factors!
ICDSM and all national committees will give the tone to this action.
Either the truth will be allowed to appear or destinies of another nations can be sealed for a long time.
TWO YEARS OF FREEDOM FOR THE VICTORY OF TRUTH!
Earlier today (2.9.03, gl-j)President Slobodan Milosevic addressed the "Tribunal", stating again, before being summarily shut down by Richard May, that he did not recognize the ICTY and that the exercise was "not a trial".
At a status conference scheduled today to establish the modalities of the "defense case", President Milosevic told the "ICTY" that two issues were central: time and circumstances.
He stated that two years to prepare a response to the allegations made was a bare minimum, that in fact the time required would be endless. In addition, President Milosevic has demanded direct and unsupervised contacts with witnesses and the ability to locate and obtain key documents to refute the lies that have been put forward in The Hague, which can only be done if he is released.
"I will need the conditions necessary for me to prepare my trial while at liberty," Slobodan Milosevic told the Chamber.
President Milosevic reminded Mr. May that the opposing side, represented by Carla Del Ponte, had filed the Kosovo indictment in 1999, practically three years before the beginning of his Hague "trial", and four and one half years before today. Other issues raised in the subsequent indictments with respect to Croatia and Bosnia date back to 1993.
President Milosevic pointed out that although he does not acknowledge the process as legitimate, Mr. May and his colleagues must provide him with adequate time for preparation, without which it will be clear that the ICTY does not respect the rights it claims to stand for, that in fact at the ICTY there is no defence, only a prosecution.
President Milosevic also demanded direct, unsupervised and unimpeded contact with witnesses under adequate conditions, at liberty. He added that he could not even begin to estimate the number of people working for the opposite side. He demanded to be given the ability to prepare witnesses properly, reminding the Chamber of the extent of preparation carried out by the other side.
President Milosevic stressed that it was the Chamber, not he, who claimed that "rights" were being afforded to him, and therefore they should see that he be given the possibility of realizing those rights. President Milosevic explained that the symbolic value of the equality of arms supported his demands to prepare his witnesses and documents in conditions that were adequate and suitable.
Following President Milosevic's presentation, "Judge" May did not hesitate to immediately deny, yet again, any request for provisional release made by President Milosevic, without stating any justification. Mr. May also summarily dismissed President Milosevic's request for two years to prepare his case.
After lengthy submissions from the "amicus" and opposite side, President Milosevic spoke again, and strongly criticized the "Prosecution's" suggestion that they were equal all on equal footing as absurd. He reiterated, before being cut off, that he did not recognize the "Tribunal" and that the process was not a "trial", but that the Chamber itself had claimed he had rights. After being told to be concrete by Mr. May, President Milosevic responded that he had been speaking in the most practical terms, and asked how it was possible for him to communicate with witnesses without direct and unsupervised contact with them. He stated that two years of preparation was a most modest evaluation of the time required under the so-called "Tribunal's" principles.
President Milosevic concluded his remarks by stating that it was well-known that at the ICTY there is only a prosecution and no defence, nor is there equality of arms.
The "Chamber" has not issued any formal rulings on the submissions heard today, but has already rejected President Milosevic's concrete demands without deliberations. A decision setting out the modalities of resident Milosevic's presentation of evidence is expected soon.
Recently, the "Tribunal" banned all visits of all SPS members, SLOBODA and other associated people to President Milosevic. By that, practically no witness could be prepared. Fighting that decision and the "rule" forbidding President Milosevic contacts with the media, earlier today SLOBODA sent to the president of the "Tribunal" a written request to annull that decision, naming dozens of arguments. The full text of the letter by Sloboda is attached as Appendix.
APPENDIX attached! ------------------------------------- SLOBODA urgently needs your donation
Please find the detailed instructions at:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sloboda.org.yu/ (Sloboda/Freedom association)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan Milosevic) now back in service!
http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
Denmark- Wednesday September 03, 2003 at 12:35 pm
HOW TO DONATE DIRECTLY TO SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC'S DEFENSEI have just received the following letter from Nico Varkevisser. It outlines how you can deposit money directly to the bank account of President Milosevic.
Dear friends,
Several people have written asking how, given the present disputed political situation in the ICDSM, money should be sent to President Milosevic's defense.
The most direct and 100% confident way to make sure the President receives donations is to send them to his personal bank account. Below is the proper bank account information, also the address for mailing checks.
I would urge everyone to post this information widely so that those who wish to donate to the President's work in The Hague may do so in full confidence that the funds will reach the desired recipient.
Kindly make donations directly to President Milosevic as follows:
Account (IBAN): NL13RABO0192325019
SWIFT code of the bank:
RABONL2UOf Penitentiair Complex
Scheveningen
Netherlands
Do not forget to mention:
At the attention of Slobodan Milosevic
UN Unit 9000058Checks should be sent to the President's assistants in The Hague:
Mr. Ognjanovic/Mr. Tomanovic
Laan van Meerdervoort 39A
2517AD Den Haag
NetherlandsBest regards,
Nico Varkevisser
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States- Wednesday September 03, 2003 at 12:39 pm
Since this must be seen as pertinent to the key question of whether "Slobodan Milosevic is getting a fair trial", I hereby relay the contents of a letter from:SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION
YUGOSLAV COMMITTEE FOR THE LIBERATION OF SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
Belgrade, Rajiceva 16, tel./fax +381 11 630 549
Belgrade, September 2, 2003
To: Judge Theodor Meron, President
ICTY,
The Hague, The Netherlands
URGENT (via fax +3170 512 8637)
REQUEST TO THE PRESIDENT FOR REVIEW OF THE REGISTRAR'S DECISION TO DENY REQUESTS FOR VISITS TO PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC AT THE DETENTION CENTRE, PURSUANT TO THE PRESIDENT'S SUPERVISORY POWERS, RULE 19 OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE
Hereby we request the President's intervention, on the basis of his powers set out at Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, to reverse the Registrar's decision to deny, until further notice, visits from members of the Freedom Association (SLOBODA). The Registrar's decision is supported by his claim that individuals having visiting President Slobodan Milosevic disclosed information to the media.
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
A. The Registrar's decision constitutes an arbitrary and illegal exercice of the discretion afforded by Regulation 33 (B) of the Regulations to Govern the Supervision of Visits to and Communications with detainees (the "Regulations") and Rule 66 (B) of the Rules of Detention, and should therefore be overturned;
B. The Registrar's decision violates the principle of equality of arms. The Registry permits, finances and otherwise aids and encourages unrestrained access to the media by the Prosecutor, while denying any such contact on the part of an accused person. The Registrar's decision should therefore be overturned;
C. The Registrar's decision violates the fundamental, universally recognized principle of presumption of innocence, and should therefore be overturned;
D. The Registrar's decision violates the fundamental principle of freedom of expression, has no legitimate aim, and is unnecessary. The Registrar's decision should be overturned;
E. The Registrar's decision is tantamount to ordering the isolation of President Milosevic, and should be overturned.
THE FACTS
1. On 11 August 2003, Mr. Bogoljub Bjelica, Chairman of the Freedom Association, a non-government association, applied, in accordance with the applicable rules and procedural requirements, for a visit with President Milosevic, who had also requested to meet with Mr. Bjelica.
2. On 15 August 2003, he received a copy of a fax sent by the Registrar to Mr. Milosevic denying "until further notice" visits from "members of the SPS and associated entities, such the Freedom Association" until further notice.
3. On 19 August 2003, Mr Igor Raicevic of the Freedom Association requested the Registrar reconsider his decision to deny visits to members of the Freedom Association, which request did not get any reply;
ARGUMENT
The Registrar's decision to suspend visits is arbitrary and constitutes an abuse of discretion: a) the decision was not made in accordance with statutory authority;
b) the decision did not respect the principle of audi alteram partem;
c) the decision is overbroad and abusive with respect to its application over time;
d) the decision arbitrarily and unjustifiably targets persons and groups entirely unconnected to those allegedly in breach of rules governing visits and communication with detainees;
e) the decision is apparently unfounded, as no evidence is provided to support the Registrar's claim of transgression of the rules.
The decision was not made in accordance with statutory authority.
4. Regulation 33 (B) of the Regulations and Rule 66 of the Rules of Detention attribute discretion to the Registrar to deny visits to detainees. This discretionary power constitutes an exception to the general rule which provides that detainees have the right to meet with the person of their choice, subject to security considerations.
5. In absence of an express provision to the contrary, judicial review lies against administrative decisions before the ICTY.
6. This general prinicple is enunciated in Rule 92 of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners:
92. An untried prisoner shall be allowed to inform immediately his family of his detention and shall be given all reasonable facilities for communicating with his family and friends, and for receiving visits from them, subject only to restrictions and supervision as are necessary in the interests of the administration of justice and of the security and good order of the institution.
7. The ICTY Registrar's discretion is set out as follows in Rule 66 (B) of the Rules of Detention and 33 (B) of the Regulations:
(B) Permission may be denied if the Registrar has reason to believe that the purpose of the visit is to obtain information which may be subsequently reported in the media.
8. The Registrar may only deny visits if he has "reason to believe" that the purpose of the visit is that of obtaining information which may subsequently be reported in the media. Nowhere in the Registrar's fax to the Freedom Association is it alleged that the purpose of the visit made by 5 named SPS members was to obtain information that might subsequently be reported to the media.
9. The Registrar has not stated any reason to believe that any other member of the SPS, "associated entities" or members of the Freedom Association will apply for a visit with President Milosevic "for the purpose" of obtaining information which may subsequently be reported in the media.
10. The Registrar has simply banned, for an indeterminate period, members of a political party, members of an association, as well as persons unknown and unidentifiable, from visiting President Milosevic although those unknown have not yet expressed the desire to visit him, much less the intention of gathering information for the purposes of future publication in the media.
11. The decision is overbroadly prospective, and is ultra vires the discretionary authority provided by the Rules of Detention. The Decision is overbroad as to targeted individuals and groups, and is overbroad as to its duration.
12. The Registrar has misstated the Rule in his decision. In it he writes that the visitors had been advised that "dissemination to the media of any information disclosed to the media in any form is prohibited". The Rule merely confers discretion to the Registrar to prohibit visits if he has reason to believe that its purpose to obtain information that is subsequently reported by the media. Such a patent misstatement of the rule creates a reasonable apprehension that the Registrar also errs in the actual exercise of his discretion.
The decision did not respect the principle of audi alteram partem nor did respect procedural fairness;
13. Freedom Association/Sloboda is banned from visits to President Milosevic "until further notice". At no point was a representative of Sloboda/Freedom association called upon by the Registrar to provide a response to the charge of "flagrant (…) breach" of the Rules. It is obvious that the Registrar could not do so: No member of Freedom Association is even alleged to have breached the Rules. Yet the Registrar's decision arbitrarily bans its members from visits to Mr Milosevic.
14. In fact, all visits undertaken by Freedom Association members have been made without incident.
15. The Registrar's decision alleges a breach of Rules by two individuals, Mr. Vucelic and Mr. Andjelkovic. At no time prior to the ban were they given an opportunity to respond to the Registrar's allegations that they had violated their undertaking to comply with the rules and regulations of the ICTY. The Registrar has violated the most basic principles of natural justice.
16. The Registrar has not afforded an opportunity to the SPS, or its members, also subject to the Registrar's decision to deny visits to President Milosevic, to respond to his allegations before deciding to deny requests for visits "until further notice". The party, and its members, could not, in any event, reasonably be expected to respond to allegations made not against them, but against third parties. The Registrar's decision therefore violates the most basic tenets of natural justice.
17. The Registrar's failure to afford an opportunity to respond to non-confidential evidence has been held by the President of the ICTY to represent a failure to act with procedural fairness, and has resulted in the President quashing the Registrar's decision in Prosecutor v. Slijivancanin
18. The Registrar has banned, until further notice, visits to President Milosevic, by "associated entities" of the SPS. These "entities" are unspecified, and therefore unknown. It is strikingly evident that unspecified groups or entities have not had an opportunity to respond to the Registrar's allegations against third parties. The Registrar's decision constitutes an egregious violation of the most basic principles of natural justice.
The Registrar's decision is overbroad and abusive with respect to its application over time.
19. The Registrar's decision to deny request to visit President Milosevic to members of the SPS, the Freedom Association, as well as entities as to yet unknown and unspecified "until further notice" constitutes an excess of jurisdiction. Discretion is to be exercised on a case by case basis, as clearly envisaged by the relevant rules. An administrative decision in force "until further notice" removes all exercise of discretion, essentially applying one discrete factual evaluation to all future cases.
20. In addition, an adminissitrative decision taken "until further notice" is egregiously arbitrary with respect to the period of time in which it will be in force. The Registrar has failed to assert any legislative basis to justify the indeterminate nature of the decision. The Registrar has also failed to indicate what requirements or criteria, if any, would need to be met in order to terminate his decision to ban visits from persons and groups, some unspecified and yet to be identified. The decision is overbroad, and does not constitute an acceptable exercise of administrative discretion.
21. Rule 63 (A) and Rules and Rule 33 (B) of the Regulations clearly confers discretion to refuse a single visit-- not all visits,-- for an undisclosed, potentially indefinite period. The Rule requires the Registrar to treat each case individually, which he has failed to to do. Instead he has restricted his discretion and thus exceeded and/ or not excercised his jurisdiction. The Registrar has rendered an illegal decision, which should be reversed.
The Registrar's decision arbitrarily and unjustifiably targets persons and groups entirely unconnected to those allegedly in breach of rules governing visits and communication with detainees.
22. It is trite to point out that banning visits by persons not even alleged to have breached rules is a violation of any legal standard. Not only does the impugned decision target all members of a political party, present and future, as well as present and future members of the Freedom Association, but outrageously extends the ban on visits to "associated entities" of the SPS. The Registrar has in essence banned unknown, unidentified, and unidentifiable groups from visiting President Milosevic. This decision is simply unprecedented and violates every fundamental principle of transparency. It is guilt by association, and worse, it targets people unknown.
23. By extending the ban on visits to undefined groups, the Registrar has usurped legislative jurisdictionve and conferred absolute discretion onto himself. The Registar's decision is patently ultra vires.
The Registrar's decision is apparently unfounded, as no evidence is provided to support the Registrar's claim of transgression of the rules
24. The Registrar's decision laconically states that "two articles were published in the media in Belgrade". The Registrar has provided no copy of publication, no date of publication, and has not identified the media in question. The Registrar has failed to poisitively identify the type of media alleged to have published details of a visit. The Registrar points to "factual inaccuracies" in the "articles". The paucity of information provided to support such a sweeping ban is well below any standard of transparency required in the drafting of his decision. The Registrar's claim that a "flagrant breach" of the Rules occurred is unreasonable, The his reasons stated by the Registrar are simply inadequate.
The Registrar's decision violates the principle of equality of arms. The Registry permits, finances and otherwise aids and encourages unrestrained access to the media by the Prosecutor, while denying any such contact on the part of an accused person. The Registrar's decision should therefore be quashed
25. The Registry facilitates, finances and otherwise supports joint press briefings of the ICTY's Spokesman for Registry and Chambers with Office of the Prosecutor's spokeswoman. Summaries of these press conferences are made available on the ICTY's website at http://www.un.org/icty/latest/index.htm .
26. Article 21 of the ICTY Statute sets out the minimum rights of accused persons. These rights encompass the principle of the equality of arms.
27. The principle of equality of arms, in the context of a trial, is to be interpreted as meaning that each party must be afforded a reasonable opportunity to present its case, under conditions that do not place it at a substantial disadvantage vis à vis the opposing party.
28. The Registrar's ban puts President Milosevic at "a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis the opposing party" as, simply put, the "opposing party" maintains a channel of communication with the media, which it uses to present its case, and does so with the assistance and support of the Registry.
29. Equality of arms is violated when the Registrar simultaneously bans visits to an accused, based on the prohibition on contact with the media, while facilitating joint press briefings of the Tribunal and Prosecutor's spokespeople. The imbalance is striking.
30. The Registrar's decision to ban visits to President Milosevic based on prohibition of contact with the media could not be made in other United Nations Tribunals. No rule permitting such discretion has been adopted at exists in the legal documents of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, the Special Court for Sierra Leone, or the International Criminal Court. These Tribunals are held to the respect of the principle of the equality of arms.
The Registrar's decision violates the fundamental principle of freedom of expression, and should be quashed
31. Some security considerations can legitimately justify the non-disclosure of certain information to the media by visitors such as the details of floor plans of Detention Unitcenter, for instance. Security considerations are a pattern throughout legislation governing visits to detention unitscenters under international and domestic law.
32. In contrast, the Registrar's decision constitutes a blanket prohibition of contact with the media. No security considerations have been asserted in support of the ban, which is tantamount to a gag order.
33. The ICTY is held to apply and respect the provisions of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights.
34. The accused is innocent, presumed as such by Article 21 of the ICTY Statute until proof has established, beyond a reason doubt, the contrary. The accused preserves his freedom of expression.
35. Visitors of the accused also enjoy the right to freedom of expression, a fundamental freedom set out in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
"Everyone has the right to the freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
36. The Appeals Chamber of the ICTY has recognized the public's right to receive information from the press as a component of freedom of expression. On interlocutory appeal in Prosecutor v. Brdjanin, the Appeals Chamber overturned the Trial Chamber's decision to issue a subpoena to Jonathan Randall. The Appeals Chamber held:
As has been noted, the right to freedom of expression includes not merely the right of journalists and media organizations freely to communicate information. It also incorporates a right of members of the public to receive information. As the European Court of Human Rights put it in its decision in Fresso and Roire v. France: “Not only does the press have the task of imparting information and ideas on matters of public interest: the public also has a right to receive them.”
37. Brdjanin described the vital role of war correspondents in the work of the Tribunal, and concluded:
The Appeals Chamber will not unnecessarily hamper the work of professions that perform a public interest.
38. The House of Lords, in Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte Simms (A.P.) Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex Parte O'Brien overturned the British Home Secretary's ban on verbal interviews between convicted prisoners serving sentences and the media.
39. The O'Brien case establishes that convicted prisoners have the right to conduct interviews with the media and discuss the unfairness of their trials. Lord Steyn stated:
The prisoners are in prison because they are presumed to have been properly convicted. They wish to challenge the safety of their convictions. In principle it is not easy to conceive of a more important function which free speech might fulfil.
40. O'Brien acknowledged the reality of miscarriages of justice, and the crucial role of the media in exposing them.
41. President Slobodan Milosevic asserts his innocence, and steadfastly criticizes the ICTY. He is innocent, until proven otherwise, and has every right to oppose the legitimacy of this institution. By banning contact with the media, the Registrar has violated the rights of Mr. Milosevic, of his visitors, and of the public at large.
42. The ICTY may not enjoy President Milosevic's criticism. Nonetheless, the public benefits of permitting him to communicate with the media far outweigh whatever embarassment might be visited upon the ICTY. As Lord Steyn stated it:
Freedom of expression is, of course, intrinsically important: it is valued for its own sake. But it is well recognised that it is also instrumentally important. It serves a number of broad objectives. First, it promotes the self fulfilment of individuals in society. Secondly, in the famous words of Mr. Justice Holmes (echoing John Stuart Mill), "the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.": Abraham v. United States 250 U.S. 616, at 630 (1919), per Holmes J. (dissent). Thirdly, freedom of speech is the lifeblood of democracy. The free flow of information and ideas informs political debate. It is a safety valve: people are more ready to accept decisions that go against them if they can in principle seek to influence them. It acts as a brake on the abuse of power by public officials. It facilitates the exposure of errors in the governance and administration of justice of the country: see Stone, Seidman, Sunstein and Tushnett, Constitutional Law, 3rd ed., (1996), 1078-1086. It is this last interest which is engaged in the present case. The prisoners argue that in their cases the criminal justice system has failed, and that they have been wrongly convicted. They seek with the assistance of journalists, who have the resources to do the necessary investigations, to make public the wrongs which they allegedly suffered.
43. The House of Lords contemplated the right of convicted criminals to conduct interviews with the media. Neither Mr. Milosevic nor his visitors have been convicted of any crimes, yet the Registrar's decision strips them of rights enjoyed by convicted persons in the United Kingdom.
Freedom of expression before the ICTY
44. In the matter of Brdjanin, the Appeals Chamber recognized freedom of expression as a fundamnetal right. It had been asked to recognize a specific privilege for war correspondents before the Tribunal, but established instead a two-pronged test to determine whether a decision violating freedom of expression should be overturned in particular cases where compelling testimony would reduce the "free flow of information" . The test developed by the majority of the Chamber is too narrow to apply to the instant matter.
45. Judge Shahabudeen's separate opinion, however, provides a useful test in the instant case. With respect to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, he stated:
8. The Covenant was not constructed with the International Tribunal in view. So far as the Tribunal is concerned, there is no “law” providing for restrictions under article 19(3). But, given that it is acknowledged that the principles of the Covenant apply in relation to the Tribunal, those principles have to be construed to mean that the right to freedom of expression is subject to restrictions on the exercise of it which result from the responsibilities and functions of the Tribunal. This opinion will proceed on the basis that the protection of the public interests which justifies those restrictions includes the protection of the essential elements of the administration of justice; the matter is so understood generally.
9. If a restriction is judged “necessary”, no balancing of interests is thereafter required. The balance is made by the provision; the task of the courts is to say whether the particular restriction of freedom of expression is “necessary ” on any of the permitted grounds. If the restriction is necessary, the restriction prevails - the testimony is compelled; if the restriction is not necessary, freedom of expression prevails - the testimony is not compelled. But it seems to me that there is a preliminary stage at which some balancing of competing interests has inescapably to be made in the process of determining whether a restriction of freedom of expression is “necessary” for the protection of a public interest.
46. The Registrar has not asserted any grounds to establish that his decision to ban President Milosevic from contact , until further notice, with members of the SPS, and "associated entities", including the Freedom Association is necessary to protect the public interest.
47. The Registrar thus justified his decision to ban visits, as a result of alleged contacts with the media by previous visitors :
"In view of the flagrant nature of this breach of the rules and regulations of the Tribunal, I have decided that it would be in the interests of the good administration of the Detention Unit to deny until further notice any requests from members of the SPS and associated entities, such as the Freedom Association, for visits with you at the Detention Unit."
48. "The good administration of the Detention Unit", is a legitimate administrative preoccupation, but falls far short of the standard set out by Judge Shahabudeen. The Registrar's decision fails to show how his decision would satisfy "the protection of the public interests which justifies those restrictions" to freedom of expression, a right enjoyed by the public and by the accused.
49. The protection of the essential elements of the administration of justice, as opposed to the administration of the Detention Unit, could justify a restriction on freedom of expression. The Appeals Chamber has further held that adequate weight must be given to the ability of war correspondents to provide vital information to citizens of the international community.
50. Brdjanin stands for the general proposition that the protection of the administration of justice includes the protection of the free flow of information to the international community. The Registrar has not justified his restriction of the free flow of information to the public, nor has he justified his restriction on the ability of members of the public to participate in, or contribute to, the free flow of information in the media.
51. Security considerations with respect to the administration of the Detention Unit are set out elsewhere in the Rules and Regulations adopted with respect to detention. It has not been shown that it is necessary to adopt additional measures which so severely curtail the fundamental rights of such a great number.
52. Transparency is required of any judicial institution. The Registrar's decision, absent justification, heightens concerns that the ICTY has something to hide.
53. In the course of a trial where the Prosecution has put the transparency of the accused's governance at issue, it is demeaning to the law to strip him of the right to contact media. To ban yet unidentified persons from visiting him is unconscionable.
The Registrar's decision violates the fundamental, universally recognized principle of presumption of innocence, and should therefore be overturned.
54. Only a blatant disregard for the presumption of innocence can justify the violation of President Milosevic's fundamental right of freedom of expression, in addition to the violation of the rights of his potential visitors.
55. In effect, a ban on visits following alleged communication with the media supposes that President Milosevic is guilty and that his visitors are guilty by association. The ban assumes that Mr. Milosevic will tell his visitors bad things, which in turn will be reported in the media.
56. The ban also appears to prevent information favorable to Mr. Milosevic from being be published in the media, which could only be justified if his guilt were assumed.
57. In any event, the Registrar's decision suggests that the public cannot be trusted with any information that could be received in the course of a visit with Mr. Milosevic.
58. The Registrar's decision violates Rule 5 of the Rules of Detention, which states:
All detainees, other than those who have been convicted by the Tribunal, are presumed to be innocent until found guilty and are to be treated as such at all times.
The Registrar's decision is tantamount to ordering the isolation of President Milosevic, and should be overturned.
59. The governing principle with respect to detention has been set out above: All detainees, other than those who have been convicted by the Tribunal, are presumed to be innocent until found guilty and are to be treated as such at all times.
60. This principle is at the heart of the rule providing for detainees right to visitors of their choice, subject to security considerations. This general rule is consistent with UN protocols on detention.
61. Amnesty International provides the following justification for the principle of free access to visitors:
The rights of detainees to communicate with others and to receive visits are fundamental safeguards against human rights abuses such as torture, ill-treatment and "disappearances".
Detained and imprisoned people must be allowed to communicate with the outside world, subject only to reasonable conditions and restrictions.
62. Mr. Milosevic is has been deprived of visits from his wife and immediate family since March 2003. The Registrar's decision now bans visits from members of the Serbian Socialist Party's "associated entities". This could justify denying every request for visitation made by anyone close or affiliated not with the SPS, but with Slobodan Milosevic himself.
63. The Registrar's decision is tantamount to imposing isolation on Mr. Milosevic. The Rules of Detention only contemplate this measure pursuant to specific conditions or when a detainee has committed serious breaches to the Rule;
64. President Milosevic's isolation raises the apprehension that a punitive measure has been carried out, although he has committed no breach of rules and is innocent of the charges brought against him until proof of the contrary;
65. The isolation imposed as a result of the Registrar's decision is unwarranted, arbitrary and capricious;
RELIEF SOUGHT
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, PETITIONER, FREEDOM ASSOCIATION/ SLOBODA REQUESTS THE PRESIDENT OF THE ICTY :
DIRECT the Registrar to overturn his decision, rendered August 12th 2003, to deny visits from members of the SPS, "associated entities" and Freedom Association, until further notice;
DECLARE Rule 63 (B) of the Rules of Detention and Regulation 33 (B) of the Regulations to govern the supervision of visits to and communications with detainees contrary to article 21 of the ICTY Statute, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
(signed)
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Wednesday September 03, 2003 at 12:45 pm
False arrestA great fuss was made in the media of the fact that a Serb, Vladimir Jovanovic, was arrested for the murder of a UN policeman on 19 August 2003: in spite of the fact that there was no evidence to link him with the murder except for the circumstantial facts that he possessed weapons and lived in the vicinity - but so did many Albanians. Two weeks later he is quietly released:
Vladimir Jovanovic who was arrested under suspicion of killing a UN policeman Satish Menon in August has finally been set free. Be it coincidence or not, Jovanovic was arrested in the time of a series of terrorist attacks on Kosovo Serbs, including the massacre of Serb children in Gorazdevac, and his case served to the K/Albanian and some international press as an indicator that beside Albanian terrorism there is also a Serb terrorism in Kosovo. The press immediately spread the news that a Kosovo Serb killed the UN policeman although the police did not have any reliable proof against Jovanovic. Before Satish Menon was killed the attacker(s) shot at the car in which there was a Serb member of the UN run Kosovo Police Force.
Despite the fact that a number of murderous attacks have been made upon Serbs in Kosovo over the past few weeks resulting in the deaths of at least eight, including two teenagers, no arrests of Albanians has been made although many Albanians possess weapons!
Indeed over the past four years Kosovo’s minority populations have suffered at least 2,000 murders, including those missing presumed dead and that does not include the ‘more than one thousand Kosovars’ that Bujar Bukoshi claims have been murdered by the KLA. Not one person has been charged for any of these heinous crimes.
For the umpteenth time del Ponte has asserted that she will indict the KLA leaders when she has evidence: thus delivering yet another double dose of dishonesty. Sufficient evidence exists in court records in the testimony of protected witness K6. And indicting the KLA leaders will be an admission that Blair and his fellow war criminals supported terrorists and that will never be allowed to be exposed by the ICTY.
However this remains a dereliction of del Ponte’s duties. She is as guilty as the perpetrators for the ongoing slaughter of Kosovo’s citizens. Until the leaders of the terror brought to Kosovo by the KLA are brought to book themselves these crimes will continue. Madame del Ponte’s dereliction of duty gives them licence to kill with impunity.
Peter Taylor
Herts/UK- Wednesday September 03, 2003 at 1:00 pm
At:http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm
I found the below detailed instructions:
POMOZITE!
Da bi odbrana Slobodana Milosevica mogla da se nastavi, hitno je potrebna Vasa finansijska pomoc.
Posaljite cek na nasu adresu:
SLOBODA
Rajiceva 16, 11000 Beograd, Srbija i Crna Gora, Yugoslavia
ili uplatite prilog na racun nasih prijatelja u Nemackoj:
German ICDSM, c/o Peter Betscher, Account Number (Konto-Nr.): 102013409
Bank: Volksbank Darmstadt, Bank Number (BLZ): 508 90 000, use: defense
VAZNO UPUTSTVO / IMPORTANT INSTRUCTIONS
YOUR HELP
The work for the defense of Slobodan Milosevic totally depends on your donations.
Send a check to our address:
SLOBODA
Rajiceva 16, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro, Yugoslavia
or transfer your donation to the following account:
Peter Betscher, Account Number (Konto-Nr.): 102013409
Bank: Volksbank Darmstadt, Bank Number (BLZ): 508 90 000, use: defense
PS: With reference to the above letter from Nico Varkevisser, as relayed by Andy Wilcoxson (September 03, 2003 at 12:35 pm) I ask these ICDSM representatives to kindly clarify, whether the "method" now recommended by themselves is to be regarded as more" direct" or in any other way to be preferable to the way recommended by the SLOBODA/Freedom Association?
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Wednesday September 03, 2003 at 2:15 pm
After all I have read,heard and seen I can only conclude that;judge Richard May is a corrected and upgraded reincarnation of the shameless Judge Webster Thayer ( Sacco and Vanzetti )
M P
Rep of Panama- Wednesday September 03, 2003 at 7:34 pm
re: two year pause in ICTY hearings to allow Pres. Milosevic time to prepare adequate defenseMay and Co. have a decent racket going right now, cushy jobs, decent salaries, big per diems, and fawning interns.........
does anyone really think May is going to give all that up for a 2 year break ?
If it wasn't for the ICTY gig......May would still be sitting on Traffic Court in the Midlands...........
May will drag the Milosevic hearings on as long as he possibly can out of pure self interest
AP V
NY
NY- Wednesday September 03, 2003 at 9:48 pm
Godfred Louis-Jensen,Your question is crazy. The process suggested by Nico Varkevisser allows financial contrabutions to be sent directly to President Milosevic's bank account.
If somebody wants to contribute to President Milosevic's defense, why on Earth would they want do it through a 3rd party such as Sloboda or Peter Betscher, when they can give the money directly to President Milosevic himself?
If somebody wanted to give money to you, would you rather have them send the money directly to you, or would you rather have them send the money to another person who in turn promises to send the money on to you?
Another problem with 3rd party contributions is that additional bank fees are added when the party who initally receives the money transfers the money to its ultimate destination. Therefore, donations made through Sloboda are deminished by the bank fees before they reach the President.
Another problem with giving money to Sloboda as opposed to giving it directly to the President is that it puts President Milosevic in a position where he has to ask Sloboda for money. If the money is given to President Milosevic directly then Sloboda has to ask him for the money.
And because it has been burried under some very lengthy documents I will now re-post the correct process for donating to President Milosevic's defense.
HOW TO DONATE DIRECTLY TO SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC'S DEFENSE
I have just received the following letter from Nico Varkevisser. It outlines how you can deposit money directly to the bank account of President Milosevic.
Dear friends,
Several people have written asking how, given the present disputed political situation in the ICDSM, money should be sent to President Milosevic's defense.
The most direct and 100% confident way to make sure the President receives donations is to send them to his personal bank account. Below is the proper bank account information, also the address for mailing checks.
I would urge everyone to post this information widely so that those who wish to donate to the President's work in The Hague may do so in full confidence that the funds will reach the desired recipient.
Kindly make donations directly to President Milosevic as follows:
Account (IBAN): NL13RABO0192325019
SWIFT code of the bank:
RABONL2UOf Penitentiair Complex
Scheveningen
NetherlandsDo not forget to mention:
At the attention of Slobodan Milosevic
UN Unit 9000058Checks [Payable to Slobodan Milosevic] should be sent to the President's assistants in The Hague:
Mr. Ognjanovic/Mr. Tomanovic
Laan van Meerdervoort 39A
2517AD Den Haag
NetherlandsBest regards,
Nico Varkevisser
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States- Thursday September 04, 2003 at 7:58 am
Judges Call for Medical Report on Milosevic
I smell a rat.
Gogol Charlemagne
Shangri-La- Thursday September 04, 2003 at 12:53 pm
As I see it, the simple answer to Andy Wilcoxson's question (03, 2003 at 9:48 pm) as to "why somebody would contribute to President Milosevic's defense through SLOBODA/Freedom Association" is, that this procedure is proposed by the ICDSMsee: (http://www.icdsm.org)
and seconded by i.a. the SLOBODA/Freedom Association
see: (http://www.sloboda.org.yu/pomoc.htm)
(whereas the latest alternative procedure outlined by Andy Wilcoxson is merely being urged by Nico Varkevisser).
Godfred Louis-Jensen
Copenhagen
D E N M A R K- Thursday September 04, 2003 at 10:28 pm
Godfred Louis-Jensen,President Milosevic was the director of Beogradska Banka during the 70s and early 80s. I think that he is fully qualified to manage his own bank account. I also consider him to be fully qualified to properly and most effectively allocate the financial resources he recieves for his own defense.
I believe that President Milosevic should be the one who holds the purse strings of Sloboda and the ICDSM. Because controlling the financial resources will give him leverage that he can use to control those organization and the people in them.
Quite honestly, I wonder how come Sloboda and the ICDSM are saying to give money to Sloboda when the money could be given directly to the President himself. Are they arrogant enough to consider Sloboda to be better qualified than President Milosevic to manage the financial resources connected to his defense?
Andy Wilcoxson
Washington, United States - Monday September 01, 2003 at 1:34 am