Mr. W. Kok

P.O. Box 2001

2500 AE the Hague

To the President of the District Court of the Hague

Mr. R.J. Paris

P.O Box 20302

2500 EH the Hague

                                           29 October 2001

Sirs,

Last Thursday, October 25, 2001 I have visited Mr. S. Milose­vic as his lawyer in his case against the State of the Nether­lands in the Detention Unit in Scheveningen.
 

An important aim of my visit was to work together on the pending appeal procedure in that case before the Court of Appeal in the Hague. 
 

And I have to raise the strongest protest also to you against the circum­stances, created by the so-called tribunal in order to fru­strate as much as possible the communication between Mr. Milosevic and me as his counsel in this case. In which case certainly also the legitimacy of the so-called tribunal is involved.
 

I got only a very limited time to communicate directly with my client - in fact only 45 minutes -; the tribunal's authorities stipulated that this access was not to be considered as a right, but merely as a favour; they forbade me to exchange papers and documents - can you tell me how it is possible to organise a decent defence when the laywer and his client are forbidden to exchange papers ? -; and the conversation was monitored ?

Since such a human rights violation takes place on Dutch terri­tory, it is also happening under your (at least co-)res­ponsibitity. As is indicated in the European Convention, which give the contracting parties as well as the domestic judge each their specific task to interfere when there are human rights violations involved on domestic territory.

So I call explicitly into account the State of the Netherlands and you as the relevant domestic judge for under­taking all action necessary to put a stop to this and other human rights violations which Mr. Milosevic has to suffer on Dutch territo­ry.

In front of these dreadful circumstances Mr. Milosevic gave me order to undertake all necessary legal steps on the domestic level and the European level as well, in order to combat the consistent and multiple human rights violations he is under­going.

More specifically he gave me also order to use all legal means to combat the amicus curiae-farce, that the so-called tribunal has brewed as a cover and a loincloth for to severe violation of his basic right to organise his own defence.

By its ruling of 31 August 2001, the Dutch court, i.e. the District Court in the Hague, declared itself incompetent as regards the claims of Mr. S. Milosevic, aimed at the observan­ce and full preservation of his basic human rights in the Netherlands.

As already indicated above, an appeal has been lodged agaist the afore-mentioned decision with the Court of Appeal in the Hague.

 

However, this appeal will take a long time.

In the meantime the situation is as follows.
 

On the occasion of the initial appearance before the so-called tribunal and the subsequent appearance at the end of August, my client has, time and again, denounced the illega­lity and illegitimacy of his detention in no uncert­ain terms.

Nevertheless, no response at all has been forthcoming on the complaint, so clearly put forward by my client, that his custo­dy is ille­gal and illegitimate.
 

A closer examination of the Rules of Procedure, which have been self-fabrica­ted by the so-called tribunal, learns that there is no legal provision w­hatsoever, which makes it possi­ble to chal­lenge the lawfulness of his his detention via a procedure leading to a speedy decision of the court.

The consequence of all this is that for anyone who falls in the hands of the so-called tribunal there is no recourse to a provision, like Article 5, par. 4 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which is part of the basic human rights, and reads:

"Every one who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful",

since, as is by now clearly revealed, such a provision is abesent in the Rule of Procedure of this so-called tribunal.

My client's attempt to apply otherwise to the domes­tic Dutch court in order to gua­rantee compliance with this basic right, has failed, now that the national Dutch court felt that it had to declare itself incompetent as regards the protection of my client's human rights.

All this makes it utterly clear that so far there has been no guarantee whatsoever that my client mr. Milosevic can exercise this fundamental right. In fact, untill this very moment, this fundamen­tal human right is simply denied him, both by the very structure of the so-called tribunal and by the refusal of the President of the domestic court in the Hague to face his legal responsibility.

Obviously, this state of affairs is absolutely unacceptable to my client.
 

Fundamental human rights are one and indivisable and ought to be equally guaranteed to everyone.
 

There not a single conceivable reason why my client, Mr. Milosevic, should put up with anything less than full compliance with his human rights.

On the other hand, the fact that it has by now been clearly proved that fundamental human rights are systematically denied by this so-called tribunal to victims who find themselves in its power again urgently shows which clear danger this kanga­roo court represents for civilization and the internatio­nal legal order.

The situation is now as follows.

 

My client Mr. Milosevic continues to claim his entitlement to take proceedings in order to obtain a speedily court decision on the lawfulness of his detention, as guaran­teed to him by Article 5, par. 4 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

In this context the following legal data are important.
 

Article 13 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms reads:

"Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority (...)"

The Dutch court has deliberately ignored to carry out the task assigned to it by this Convention in respect of Mr. Milosevic, and this while there is not even the possibility that the so-called tribunal is able, let alone willing, to offer an alter­native of any kind in order to guarantee this human right in respect of my client. This even apart from the question whe­ther the 'national authority', as mentioned in this Covenant, in itself should be entiteld, in term of this Treaty, to give a mandate concerning to this assignment to any other, non-natio­nal authority.

Now that the Dutch court, clearly the 'national authority' as referred to in Article 13 of the Convention, has thought that it must forsake its treaty-based duty to offer an 'effective remedy' against the violation of the human rights of my client Mr. Milosevic, and the so-called tribunal does not seem to care at all about the compliance with the fundamental right as led down in Article 5, par. 4 of the Convention an absolute dead­lock is created by this.

Under this circumstances, my client Mr. Milosevic, still deman­ding that his basic rights should be guaranteed unimpaired, demands that the State of the Netherlands and the Dutch 'nati­onal authority' within the meaning of Article 13 of the Conven­tion, will consult among each other and with the so- called tribu­nal, in order to decide how they can safegu­ard the human right, ex­pressed in Article 5, par. 4 of the Conven­tion for the Protec­tion of Human Rights and Funda­mental Free­dom, on respect of Mr. Milosevic and that they should present to me a workable solution for this stalemate created by them, and this at the latest within ten days after the date of this summons.

If you fail to comply with this demand, my client Mr. Milosevic will without delay institute legal action against the State of the Netherlands (the Minister of General Affairs and the Presi­dent of the District Court in the Hague), in order to

claim that they will consult among each other and with the so- called tribunal, and that they will jointly find a soluti­on in order to safeguard this specific human right towards him. 

Yours sincerely, 

Mr. N.M.P. Steijnen