To Mr. Claude Jorda
P.O. Box 13888
2501 EW the Hague
To Mr. Richard May
P.O. Box 13888
2501 EW the Hague
To Mr. Hans Holthuis
P.O. Box 13888
2501 EW the Hague
30 October 2001
To Ms. Carla Del Ponte
P.O. Box 13888
2501 EW the Hague
Dear Sirs/Madam,
Because there
exists no definite dividing line between the prosecutor and the judiciary in the
structure of the so-called tribunal and because as a consequence of this
build-up it is unclear who is finally responsible for the matters raised in this
letter, I write this letter to all of you.
Inspired by the
newest invention of the prosecutor in the latest 'Croatian' indictment about the
joint commander responsibility in the framework of a 'joint criminal
enterprise', I think I can consider the herewith relevant responsibilities with
regard to the so-called tribunal also as 'a joint enterprise'.
So therefore I address this writing to all of you jointly.
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.
This direct
communication between lawyer and client - an normal and indispensible part of
all lawsuits - was going to be already continiously frustrated by the refusal on
the part of the authorities of the so-called tribunal to grant me a free,
unimpeded and unmonitored access to my client.
As was implicitly confirmed by the letter adressed to me by Mr. Jorda, dated 21 August 2001, in which was stated that I was to be seen only as a normal visitor, subdued to the 60 to 66 rules of detention, fabricated by the so-called tribunal's representatives.
As far as you are
not already fully aware of this, such a severe breach on the basic right of
defence is going to be totally rejected by Mr. Milosevic and of course strongly
protested by me as well.
And as you also informed about, I have already held out the prospect of legal measures against this acting.
However, this
sharp restriction on the defence rights of Mr. Milosevic turned out obviously
to be not enough violation of this basic human right in the perception of the
so-called tribunal.
As your official Mr. Rohde wrote a few month ago to my collegue Mr. Ch. Black, in order to 'rationalize' or to 'mitigate' the decision to refuse him once again and for the umpteenth time access to Mr. Milosevic as a legal adviser of the last one: 'there is always also left the opportunity to communicate with Mr. Milosevic by mail'.
So I have tried
the open up a direct communication line with my client by post.
In order to
undertake the utmost to work in a joint effort with my client on the above
mentioned appeal.
Under these illegitimately restrictive circumstances created by your so-called tribunal, holding already a blatant interference with Mr. Milosevic human right on a decent defence and an utter violence of the principle of fair play.
But to my anger I must conclude that even this miserable attempt to create such a remaining communication channel has completely failed.
During the last
weeks I wrote my client no less than four letters, one with a great number of
annexes. This was on September 18, September 24, October 2 and October 18.
And I was sending each of these letters as registered mail.
But my client was
not giving a sign of live on any letter whatsoever.
And during my visit on Thursday October 25 I got to be informed by my cliënt that he had received only two of my letters. And this had happened only two days before my visit to him, namely exactly on the day that I let my intention to visit my client be known to the tribunal's functionaries.
So I strongly protest against this new appaling interference by the tribunal's administration with my client's basic right on a decent defence and against this pernicious attempt to even deprive him of the last possiblity to have a regular contact with his lawyer, in order to prepare his defence in the appeal-case against the State of the Netherlands.
During my visit to
Mr. Milosevic I was also confronted with an explicit injunction to hand over any
document or paper whatsoever.
Can you tell me
how it would be possible to prepare a defence anyhow in whatsoever case without
enabling the detainee and his lawyer to exchange papers and documents ?
It is impossible to interpret this prohibition as something else than a deliberate final blow in order to obstruct a decent defence for Mr. Milosevic in his case against the Netherlands, in which also the legitimacy of the so-called tribunal is involved.
I am simply
dumbfounded by the fact that my collegue Mr. Ch. Black now has been blacklisted
by the tribunal's officials and is not permitted any further communication with
Mr. Milosevic as he is accused of 'discussing world events' with him, which
comments later appeared in a Berlin magazine.
What a extremely bold sample of medieval inquisition methods this ban represents !
Mr. Black, who is also consistenly submitted to the same regime as I, just like all other legal advisers, assigned by Mr. Milosevic.
I am also
dumbfounded by the fact that, although Mr. Milosevic has insisted on his visit
many times as he told me during my visit, the tribunal's administration is
refusing flatly to give access to Mr Milosevic to my assistent Mr. N.
Varkenvisser, who has also an indispensible co-ordinating task with regard to
the legal advisers of Mr. Milosevic.
This refusal
totally contrary to the rules of detention fabricated by the tribunal itself.
What kind of people your functionaries are that they think that they can spread around such a abuse of power and arbitrariness ?
Next point is that
my conversation with Mr. Milosevic was monitored.
Just like the
conversation between Mr. Milosevic with all other legal advisers of his choice.
To make it even more arbitrary: with one exeption; Mr. Clark was enabled as the only one to talk with Mr. Milosevic for hours without any interference.
As you know: the fact that my conversation with Mr. Milosevic was monitored is blatantly against all legal standards and it is impossible to underline my objections against this way of acting sufficiently.
So I demand you to ensure me from now on a free, unimpeded and unmonitored access to my client Mr. Milosevic in his case against the State of the Netherlands.
In addition I
require that the non-arrival of my letters to my client Mr. Milosevic will be
thoroughly investigated and that I will be informed about the outcome of this
enquiry.
And of course I demand at last that I can henceforth freely exchange documents and papers with my client.
A last point is
this.
During my visit to
Mr. Milosevic he gave me order to undertake , in close co-operation with my
collegues Mr. Ch. Black, Mr. A. Tremblay, Mr. D. Jacobs, Mr. M. Ognjanovic and
Mr. Z. Tomanovic, all necessary legal action on the level of the European human
rights fora, in order to contest the consistent and multiple violation of his
human rights by the so-called tribunal, which he has to suffer.
Specifically by presenting applications to the European Court in Strasbourg.
In connection with
this I ask your attention for what is layed down in Article 3, par. 2.c of the
European Agreement relating to persons participating in Proceeding of the
European Commissision and Court of Human Rights.
This ruling is stressing that there is a need - and a specific legal standard as well - to guarantee me, and all my collegues involved in this largescaled legal task, access to Mr. Milosevic on a base as said in this Agreement.
I insist that you inform me as soon as possible that with regard to all above mentioned lawyers, assigned by Mr. Milosevic to fulfil this extensive task, will be guaranteed that Mr. Milosevic shall have 'the right to correspond and to consult out of hearing of other persons', as formulated in this Agreement.
Sincerely yours,
N.M.P. Steijnen