-Caveat Lector-
----- Original Message -----
From: Vladimir Krsljanin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <Undisclosed-Recipient:;>
Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 2:44 AM
Subject: URGENT - HAGUE: Imposition of International Dictatorship
> HAGUE: IMPOSITION OF INTERNATIONAL DICTATORSHIP
>
> NATO/US/UN "Tribunal" at The Hague decided today to impose a counsel on
> Slobodan Milosevic against his will.
>
> This way this para-judicial creation overran the Nazi court which tried
> Dimitrov and Apartheid court which tried Mandela.
>
> The decision was made immediately after the opening speech of President
> Milosevic, which was the most concentrated presentation of arguments and
> historical facts that totally annulled the NATO anti-Serbian war
propaganda.
> This speech also announced the President Milosevic's strategy - to beat
the
> false indictments by proving the real guilt of those who broke-up, bombed
> and abolished the glorious European nation, Yugoslavia.
>
> This is another aggressive crime against this country and its people,
> against the International Law and against freedom and sovereignty of
> peoples.
>
> At the same time, this is a total denial of the whole international system
> of human rights protection.
>
> Brutal force imposes its own "international law" to silence, convict and
> eliminate each political opponent or freedom fighter. This new "law" is an
> art of punishing innocent.
>
> Our struggle enters a new phase - phase of open struggle against
> international dictatorship which has absolutely no scrupules.
>
> Our struggle, which is people's struggle, remains a struggle for freedom.
In
> our struggle, truth remains our strongest weapon.
>
> Our main slogan and our imminent goal is:
>
> FREEDOM FOR SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC!
>
> RAISE YOUR VOICE NOW!
> LAUNCH A MOST POWERFUL ACTION NOW!
>
> The open dictatorship legitimizes all forms of resistance!
>
> SLOBODA/ICDSM
>
> 2nd September 2004-09-02
>
> *****************************************************************
>
> COMPARE YOURSELF THE ARGUMENTS:
>
> ARGUMENTS OF JUSTICE AND LOW THROUGH THE VOICE OF 100 INTERNATIONAL
LAWYERS
> AND LAW PROFESSORS AND
>
> POLITICAL ARGUMENTS OF THE EMPIRE THROUGH THE VOICE OF MICHAEL SCHARF,
> ALBRIGHT'S LEGAL ADVISER AND THE AUTHOR OF ICTY STATUTE.
>
> ****************************************************************
>
> IMPOSITION OF COUNSEL ON SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC THREATENS THE FUTURE OF
> INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE LIFE OF THE DEFENDANT
>
> H.E. Mr. KOFI ANNAN, Secretary General of the United Nations,
> H.E. Mr. JULIAN ROBERT HUNTE, President of 58th Session of the UN General
> Assembly
> Russian Presidency of the UN Security Council,
> To all members of the UN Security Council, to all members of the UN
> Cc: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
>
> We the undersigned, jurists, law professors, and international criminal
> lawyers, hereby declare our alarm and concern that the International
> Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) is preparing the
> imposition of counsel upon an unwilling accused, Slobodan Milosevic.
>
> This apparently punitive measure is contrary to international law,
> incompatible with the adversarial system of criminal justice adopted by
the
> Security Council in Resolution 808, and ignores the court's obligation to
> provide adequate medical care and provisional release to the defendant.
The
> ICTY, instead of taking appropriate measures to alleviate Slobodan
> Milosevic's long-standing medical problems, has compounded them. The ICTY
> has ignored repeated requests for provisional release, to which everyone
> presumed innocent is entitled, has imposed unrealistically short
preparation
> periods on the defence, and has permitted the introduction of an
inordinate
> quantity of Prosecution evidence, much of which was bereft of probative
> value, thereby increasing Mr. Milosevic's level of stress, the principal
> trigger of his illness. Chamber III has been informed of this by their
> chosen cardiologist. The defendant has been denied examination by his own
> physician, a further violation of his rights.
>
> Now, having brought about the very degradation of President Milosevic's
> health of which it had been warned, the ICTY seeks to impose counsel upon
> him over his objections, rather than granting him provisional release in
> order to receive adequate and proper medical care, a reasonable measure
> reflected in domestic and international law and practice. The envisaged
> imposition of counsel constitutes an egregious violation of
internationally
> recognized judicial rights, and will serve only to aggravate Mr
Milosevic's
> life-threatening illness and further discredit these proceedings.
>
> The right to defend oneself against criminal charges is central in both
> international law and in the very structure of the adversarial system. The
> fundamental, minimum rights provided to a defendant under the Rome Statute
> of the International Criminal Court, as well as the under the Statutes of
> the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, include
the
> right to defend oneself in person. The general economy of these provisions
> all envisage the reality that rights are afforded to an accused, not to a
> lawyer. The right afforded is to represent oneself against charges brought
> by the Prosecution and subsidiary to this, to receive the assistance of
> counsel, if an accused expresses the wish to receive such assistance.
> However, if, as Slobodan Milosevic, a defendant unequivocally expresses
his
> objection to representation by counsel, his right to represent himself
> supercedes a court's or prosecutor's preference for assigning defence
> counsel. As stated by the U.S. Supreme Court, with respect to the Sixth
> Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which bears a striking similarity to
> Article 21 of the ICTY Statute:
>
> "It speaks of the 'assistance' of counsel, and an assistant, however
expert,
> is still an assistant. The language and spirit of the Sixth Amendment
> contemplate that counsel, like the other defense tools guaranteed by the
> Amendment, shall be an aid to a willing defendant - not an organ of the
> State interposed between an unwilling defendant and his right to defend
> himself personally. To thrust counsel upon the accused, against his
> considered wish, thus violates the logic of the Amendment. In such a case,
> counsel is not an assistant, but a master; and the right to make a defense
> is stripped of the personal character upon which the Amendment insists."
> Faretta v.California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)
>
> The ICTY Statute (as well as ICTR and ICC Statutes) similarly grant
"defence
> tools," such as the right to be represented by counsel, or the right for
> counsel to be provided free of charge, if the accused is indigent. The
> essence of the right to represent oneself is defeated when the right to
> counsel becomes an obligation. As stated in Farretta, supra:
>
> "An unwanted counsel 'represents' the defendant only through a tenuous and
> unacceptable legal fiction. Unless the accused has acquiesced in such
> representation, the defense presented is not the defense guaranteed him by
> the Constitution, for, in a very real sense, it is not his defense."
> Id.
>
> Nor would the defence of Slobodan Milosevic be the defence guaranteed him
> under international law, were he to have counsel imposed upon him against
> his will.
> The ICTY's general structure is that of an adversarial system of criminal
> justice. Other legal influences have been integrated to the Rules of
> Procedure and Evidence, but the nature of the proceedings, which involve a
> prosecutor and defendant, as parties, presenting evidence before a panel
> whose function is that of arbiter, is unquestionably of an adversarial
> nature. In the adversarial system, history has eloquently illustrated that
> imposition of counsel on an unwilling accused is the practice of political
> courts, and does not have its place in a democratic system of justice,
much
> less before an institution that will generate precedent for a truly
> legitimate international criminal jurisdiction, whose establishment has
been
> the fruit of half a century of struggle:
>
> "In the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only one
> tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling
> defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber.
That
> curious institution, which flourished in the late 16th and early 17th
> centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial character, and
> characteristically departed from common-law traditions. For those reasons,
> and because it specialized in trying 'political' offenses, the Star
Chamber
> has for centuries symbolized disregard of basic individual rights."
> Faretta, Id.
>
> Recently, the ICTY has ordered the Prosecutor, and only the Prosecutor,
to
> provide an opinion with respect to the imposition of counsel in the
absence
> of instructions or cooperation from Mr. Milosevic. The Chamber has
> repeatedly referred to its obligation to carry out a fair trial, and held,
> when it acknowledged the right to self-representation in April 2003, that
it
> "has indeed an obligation to ensure that a trial is fair and expeditious;
> moreover, where the health of the Accused is in issue, that obligation
takes
> on special significance." Article 21 of the ICTY's Statute states that
the
> Chamber must exercise this obligation "with full respect for the rights of
> the accused." However, expediency has become, as the defendant is set to
> present essential and potentially embarrassing evidence, the Chamber's
> apparently overwhelming concern.
>
> Imposition of counsel, even "standby counsel", as appears to be presently
> envisaged by the ICTY, will not alleviate any of the difficulties facing
the
> process: it will not treat, much less cure, Slobodan Milosevic's malignant
> hypertension; it will not provide the defendant with the time and
conditions
> to prepare his case; it will not redress the gross imbalance in the
> resources accorded the Prosecutor and the defence, a redress required by
the
> principle of equality of arms, which the Court professes to recognize. If
> counsel is imposed, Slobodan Milosevic's basic right to represent himself
> will be violated, and he will still have only 150 days to present his
> defence, only half of the time allotted to the Prosecution.
>
> It is presently unclear what role an imposed counsel would play. Whatever
it
> may be, it is certain that there is no benefit to be gained from going
> forward with this unprecedented measure. The ICTY Statute provides the
> minimum right to be present for one's trial. If Slobodan Milosevic's
medical
> condition does not permit him to attend the proceedings, and he does not
> waive his right to be present, the ICTY does not have the jurisdiction to
> hold hearings in his absence. Adjournments will continue as long as
measures
> are not taken to treat Mr. Milosevic's malignant hypertension, a condition
> that cannot be treated by further violating his rights, threatening to
> remove him from the process, or by transferring his defence to a complete
> stranger.
>
> The ICTY assigned three counsel to act as amicus curiae, and whose stated
> role is to ensure, inter alia, a fair trial. It is doubtful an imposed
> counsel, even a "standby counsel" could provide any additional assistance,
> without hijacking President Milosevic's defence, or simply silencing him.
> Furthermore, any reference to precedent with respect to the imposition of
> standby counsel is inapposite. In the case of Dr Seselj, "standby counsel"
> has been imposed, before the beginning of a trial, and to prevent
> "disruption" of the proceedings.
>
> President Slobodan Milosevic does not recognize the ICTY. He asserts his
> innocence, and steadfastly criticizes the ICTY and NATO. He is innocent
> until proven otherwise, and has every right to oppose the legitimacy of
this
> institution. By imposing counsel, the ICTY would not only violate his
right
> to self-representation, but his right to present relevant evidence
> demonstrating the repeated violations of Yugoslavia's sovereignty over a
> decade. These violations led to NATO's illegal war of aggression against
and
> bombing of Yugoslavia - at the very height of which an indictment against
> Slobodan Milosevic was confirmed by the ICTY - in a transparent bid to
> deprive the Yugoslav people of a voice to negotiate peace and in order to
> justify the continuation of that war of aggression.
>
> The trial of Slobodan Milosevic before the ICTY has been adjourned until
> August 31st, 2004. The Prosecutor has presented 295 witnesses in as many
> days, all of which have been cross-examined by the defendant in person, as
> he does not recognize the ICTY as a judicial body, and signals this
> non-recognition by refusing to assign counsel. Slobodan Milosevic is a law
> school graduate, was three times elected to the highest state offices of
> Serbia and Yugoslavia, and has by all accounts ably contested the
> Prosecution's case. There is no question as to his mental fitness and
> ability to waive his right to counsel. The ICTY may not enjoy President
> Milosevic's criticism. Nonetheless, the public benefits of respecting his
> right to self-representation far outweigh whatever embarrassment might be
> visited upon the ICTY. Justice demands that Slobodan Milosevic be given
the
> right to demonstrate that the Security Council institution detaining him
is
> a political weapon against the sovereignty and self-determination of the
> people of Serbia and all the peoples of Yugoslavia.
>
> Nelson Mandela represented himself during the infamous Rivonia trials of
the
> 1960s. Mandela mounted a political defence against apartheid, yet even the
> South African judiciary did not impose counsel to silence him. The ICTY is
> poised to threaten the future of international law by doing what even
> apartheid-era judges dared not do - gag a defendant and impair his ability
> to respond to a case. A case, we note, made unwieldy, unintelligible and
> inexplicably lengthy by the Prosecutor, with the Chamber's assent, and not
> by Slobodan Milosevic. Indeed, most observers of the process have noted
that
> the Prosecutor failed to present compelling evidence to support any of
their
> charges; rather than stay the proceedings, the ICTY permitted the
Prosecutor
> to present additional witnesses, in apparent desperation to make something
> stick.
>
> The right to defend oneself in person is at the heart of the International
> Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. The United Nations should not
> tolerate these continuing violations of international law in the name of
> expediency. Using a detained person's inappropriately treated illness as
an
> excuse to infringe upon his rights and silence him, and embark upon a
> "radical reform" of the proceedings-- as the Chamber is now considering,
by
> changing the rules in mid-trial, and to the defendant's detriment-- is a
> perversion of both the letter and spirit of international law.
>
> As jurists, we are deeply concerned that the planned imposition of
counsel
> constitutes an irrevocable precedent, and potentially deprives any accused
> person of the right to present a meaningful defence in the future. In the
> case of Slobodan Milosevic, this measure will only increase his
hypertension
> and place his life at risk.
>
> The ICTY and Security Council will be held responsible for the tragically
> predictable consequences of their actions.
>
> Signed:
>
> Tiphaine Dickson, Lawyer, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
>
> Christopher Black, Lawyer, Toronto, Canada
>
> Professor Smilja Avramov (Former President, International Law
Association),
> Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
>
> Milena Arezina, Judge (Former President, Comercial Court), Belgrade,
Serbia
> and Montenegro
>
> Sergei Baburin, Doctor of Law, Professor, (Vice-President, State Duma of
the
> Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation), Moscow, Russian Federation
>
> Dragoslava Backovic, Legal Representative, Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
>
> Professor Paolo Bargiacchi, Law of the European Union, University of
> Palermo, Italy
>
> Nicole Bergevin, Lawyer, Montreal, Quebec
>
> Professor Aldo Bernardini, International Law, University of Teramo, Italy
>
> Gen. Dr Nikolai Bezborodov, (Deputy President, Commission for Defense of
the
> State Duma), Moscow, Russian Federation
>
> Pierre de Boucherville, Lawyer, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
>
> Professor Erich Buchholz, Lawyer, Berlin, Germany
>
> Dr Milan Bulajic, International Law, (President, Fund for Genocide
> Research), Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
>
> Raffaele Cadin, University Researcher, University "La Sapienza", Rome,
Italy
>
> Professor Kosta Cavoski, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia and
> Montenegro
>
> Professor Panayotis G. Charitos, LLD, International Law, Supreme Court
> Attorney, Greece
>
> Professor Gian Luigi Cecchini, International Law, University of Trieste,
> Italy
>
> Ramsey Clark, Former US Attorney General, New York, USA
>
> Professor Ivan Cukalovic, International Law, University of Kragujevac,
> Serbia and Montenegro
>
> Goran Cvetic, Lawyer, Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
>
> Trendafil Danailov, Lawyer, (Former President, Sofia District Court),
Sofia,
> Bulgaria
>
> Jean-Marie Dermagne, Lawyer, Rochefort-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
>
> Professor Stevan Djordjevic, International Law, Belgrade, Serbia and
> Montenegro
>
> Bjřrn Elmquist, Lawyer, (Former MP), Copenhagen, Denmark
>
> Professor Peter Erlinder, (past-President, National Lawyers Guild, NYC),
> William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, MN, USA
>
> Armin Fiand, Lawyer, Hamburg, Germany
>
> Jeff Frazier, Lawyer, Houston, Texas, USA
>
> Dr Mikhail Fomichenko, (Head, Center for Human Rights and Legal
Protection),
> Moscow, Russian Federation
>
> Paolo Gemelli, Lawyer, Italy
>
> Sergei Glotov, Doctor of Law, Professor, (Deputy President, Commission on
> Administrative and Organizational Issues of the State Duma), Moscow,
Russian
> Federation
>
> Piera Graffer Ljubibratic, Italy
>
> Gerry Grainger, Lawyer, Ireland
>
> Veljko Guberina, Lawyer, (Former President, Lawyers Chamber of Yugoslavia,
> Lawyers Chamber of Serbia), Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
>
> Maria Paola Guidace, Lawyer, Italy
>
> Dr Heinrich Hannover, Lawyer, Worpswede, Germany
>
> Professor Yuri Ilyin, Lawyer, Moscow, Russian Federation
>
> Viktor Ilyuchin, State Counselor of Justice of II Order, (Deputy
President,
> Commission for Security of the State Duma), Moscow, Russian Federation
>
> David Jacobs, Lawyer, Toronto, Canada
>
> Vladislav Jovanovic, (Former Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs of FR
> Yugoslavia), Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
>
> Zivadin Jovanovic, (Former Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs of FR
> Yugoslavia), Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
>
> Strahinja Kastratovic, Lawyer, (Former President, Lawyers' Chamber of
> Belgrade), Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
>
> Professor Mikhail Kuznecov, Lawyer, (President, Tribunal for NATO Crimes
in
> Yugoslavia), Moscow, Russian Federation
>
> Nada Lazarevic-Jovovic, Podgorica, Serbia and Montenegro
>
> Mark Littman, Q.C., London, UK
>
> Dr Djordje Lopicic, International Law, Ambassador, Belgrade, Serbia and
> Montenegro
>
> Jennie Lusk, J.D., Lawyer, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
>
> Mikhail Menev, Lawyer, (Former President, Sofia City Court), Sofia,
Bulgaria
>
> Dr Alexander Mezyaev, International Law, (Deputy Head, Department of
> Constitutional and International Law, Academy of Busyness, Kazan'; Member,
> Russian International Law Association; Member, Experts' Council of the
> Ombudsman of the Republic of Tatarstan), Kazan', Tatarstan, Russian
> Federation
>
> Professor Dimitar Mikhailov, Criminal Law, (Former Vice President, UN
> Committee Against Torture), Sofia, Bulgaria
>
> Oksana Mikhalkina, Lawyer (President, Moscow Lawyers' Association),
Moscow,
> Russian Federation
>
> Ilija Milanovic, M.A., (Former Consul and Deputy District Prosecutor),
> Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
>
> Oleg Mironov, Doctor of Law, Professor, (Director, Institute for Human
> Rights), Moscow, Russian Federation
>
> Dr Miodrag Mitic, International Law (Member, Legal Council of the Ministry
> of Foreign Affairs of Serbia and Montenegro), Belgrade, Serbia and
> Montenegro
>
> Professor Claudio Moffa, Ordinario, University of Teramo, Italy
>
> Dr Elvia Muscoli, Jurisprudence, Italy
>
> E. Olof, Lawyer, Zeist, Netherlands
>
> Professor Norman Paech, University for Econonomy and Politics, Hamburg,
> Germany
>
> Giuseppe Pelazza, Lawyer, Milan, Italy
>
> Vidosava Petkovic, Legal Adviser, Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
>
> Dmitrij Potockij, Lawyer, Moscow, Russian Federation
>
> Miljenko Reljic, Lawyer, Australia
>
> Antonio Ricca, Italy
>
> Professor Franco Sabatini, Labor Law, University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy
>
> Edoarda Sanci, Lawyer, Italy
>
> Professor Enyo Savov, International Law, Sofia, Bulgaria
>
> Professor Schirmer, International Law, Woltersdorf, Germany
>
> H.E. Schmitt-Lermann, Lawyer, Munich, Germany
>
> Dr Heinz Juergen Schneider, Lawyer, Hamburg, Germany
>
> Elena Semenovna, Lawyer, Moscow, Russian Federation
>
> David K. Sergi, Lawyer, San Marcos, Texas, USA
>
> Jitendra Sharma, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India (President,
> International Association of Democratic Lawyers)
>
> Dr Taras Shamba, Moscow, Russian Federation
>
> Sergei Shtin, Lawyer, Moscow, Russian Federation
>
> Valentina Shtraus, Lawyer, Rostov, Russian Federation
>
> Professor Augusto Sinagra, Law of the European Union, University "La
> Sapienza", Rome, Italy
>
> Cristiano Sinagra, Lawyer, Italy
>
> Professor Bhim Singh, Advocate, Supreme Court of India (President,
National
> Panthers Party)
>
> N.M.P. Steijnen, Lawyer, Zeist, Netherlands
>
> L.P.H. Stibru, Lawyer, Zeist, Netherlands
>
> Professor Zoran Stojanovic, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia and
> Montenegro
>
> Dr Milan Tepavac, International Law, Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
>
> Professor Andre Tremblay, Lawyer, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
>
> Jakob Trümpy, Lawyer, Switzerland
>
> Professor Velko Valkanov, (President, Bulgarian Committee for Human
Rights,
> Former MP), Sofia, Bulgaria
>
> Anna Lucia Valvo, Lawyer, Italy
>
> Jacques Verges, Advocate at the Court of Appeal, Paris, France
>
> Sava Vidanovic, Canada
>
> Pasquale Vilardo, Lawyer, Association of the Democratic Jurists, Rome,
Italy
>
> Milan Vujin, Lawyer, (Former President, Lawyers Chamber of Yugoslavia,
> Lawyers Chamber of Serbia), Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro
>
> Dr Friedrich Wolff, Lawyer, Berlin, Germany
>
> Professor Ivan Yatsenko (Vice-President, European Peace Forum), Moscow,
> Russian Federation
>
> Professor Claudio Zanghě, International Law, University "La Sapienza",
Rome,
> Italy
>
> **********************************************************
>
> The Washington Post
> August 29, 2004 Sunday
> Final Edition
> SECTION: Outlook; B02
> LENGTH: 1413 words
> HEADLINE: Making a Spectacle of Himself;
> Milosevic Wants a Stage, Not the Right to Provide His Own Defense
> BYLINE: Michael P. Scharf
>
> Almost everyone knows the old legal saying: "He who represents himself has
a
> fool for a client and an idiot for a lawyer." The trial of former Serbian
> leader Slobodan Milosevic suggests a related adage: "A judge who permits a
> rogue leader to represent himself in an international war crimes trial is
> just as misguided."
>
> On Tuesday, Milosevic's trial -- more than two years old and counting --
is
> scheduled to resume before the International Criminal Tribunal in The
Hague.
> The opening act of the trial's new phase will be the judges' announcement
of
> their decision on whether to allow Milosevic to continue acting as his own
> lawyer.
>
> At the start of the trial in February 2002, the original presiding judge,
> Britain's Richard May, ruled that "under international law, the defendant
> has a right to counsel, but he also has a right not to have counsel."
> Virtually everything that has gone wrong with the Milosevic trial can be
> traced back to that erroneous ruling.
>
> The decision has caused the trial to drag on twice as long as anticipated.
> Because of concerns about Milosevic's high blood pressure (240 over 120),
> the judges have had to scale back the length and frequency of the
> proceedings to ensure that the former leader is not "tried to death." As a
> result, the trial takes place only three times a week as opposed to the
> standard five; the number of hours per day has been reduced from eight to
> four; and there are frequent lengthy recesses to allow the
defendant-lawyer
> to regain his strength. These delays have taken their toll on justice.
Judge
> May recently died of cancer and a replacement had to be found; witness
> memories are fading; and the international community is losing interest.
>
> The judges have given Milosevic wider latitude than an ordinary defendant
or
> lawyer. Normally, the accused addresses the court only when he takes the
> stand to give testimony, and he must take an oath to tell the truth.
> Moreover, he is limited to offering evidence that is relevant to the
> charges, and is subject to cross-examination by the prosecution. By acting
> as his own counsel, Milosevic was able to begin the trial with an
> 18-hour-long opening argument, which included Hollywood-quality video and
> slide-show presentations showing the destruction wrought by the 1999 NATO
> bombing campaign.
>
> As his own defense counsel, Milosevic has been able to treat the
witnesses,
> prosecutors and judges in a manner that would earn ordinary defense
counsel
> a citation or incarceration for contempt of court. In addition to
regularly
> making disparaging remarks about the court and browbeating witnesses,
> Milosevic pontificates at length during cross-examination of every
witness,
> despite repeated warnings from the bench. Milosevic, who spends his nights
> at the tribunal's detention center, has no incentive to heed the judges'
> admonitions.
>
> Milosevic's caustic defense strategy is unlikely to win him an acquittal,
> but it isn't aimed at the court of law in The Hague. His audience is the
> court of public opinion back home in Serbia, where the trial is a
top-rated
> TV show and Milosevic's standing continues to rise.
>
> Opinion polls have reported that 75 percent of Serbs do not feel that
> Milosevic is getting a fair trial, and 67 percent think that he is not
> responsible for any war crimes. "Sloba Hero!" graffiti is omnipresent on
> Belgrade buses and buildings. Last December, he easily won a seat in the
> Serbian parliament in a national election.
>
> In creating the Yugoslavia tribunal statute, the U.N. Security Council set
> three objectives: first, to educate the Serbian people, who were long
misled
> by Milosevic's propaganda, about the acts of aggression, war crimes and
> crimes against humanity committed by his regime; second, to facilitate
> national reconciliation by pinning prime responsibility on Milosevic and
> other top leaders and disclosing the ways in which the Milosevic regime
had
> induced ordinary Serbs to commit atrocities; and third, to promote
political
> catharsis while enabling Serbia's newly elected leaders to distance
> themselves from the repressive policies of the past. May's decision to
allow
> Milosevic to represent himself has seriously undercut these aims.
>
> May felt he had no choice in the matter because the tribunal's legal
charter
> stated that the defendant has the right "to defend himself in person or
> through legal assistance of his own choosing." But some experts -- and I'm
> including myself -- are now arguing that May got the law wrong.
>
> The language from the Yugoslavia tribunal statute originally comes from a
> human rights treaty known as the International Covenant on Civil and
> Political Rights. The negotiating record of the International Covenant
> indicates that the drafters' concern was with effective representation,
not
> self-representation. In other words, the drafters felt that a defendant
> should have a right to either be represented by a lawyer or to represent
> himself; they did not state that each defendant must be asked to choose
> between the two. Unlike Britain and the United States, most countries of
the
> world do not allow criminal defendants to represent themselves under any
> circumstances, and this has been deemed consistent with international law
by
> the European Court of Human Rights.
>
> Even if May was correct in his reading of the law as providing a right to
> self-representation, he was wrong to treat that right as absolute. As
> authority for his position, May cited the U.S. Supreme Court's 1975 ruling
> in Feratta v. California, which held that there was a fundamental right to
> self-representation in U.S. courts. But the high court also added a
caveat,
> which May overlooked, stating that "a right of self-representation is not
a
> license to abuse the dignity of the courtroom." U.S. appellate courts have
> subsequently held that the right of self-representation is subject to
> exceptions -- such as when the defendant acts in a disruptive manner, when
> self-representation interferes with the dignity of the proceedings or when
> the issues in the case are too complex for a defendant to represent
himself
> adequately.
>
> Milosevic's antics and poor health have repeatedly disrupted the trial,
> justifying appointment of counsel to represent him in court for the
> remainder of the proceedings. There's precedent for taking such a step: In
> the trial of former Serbian paramilitary leader Vojislav Seselj, the
> Yugoslavia tribunal required Seselj -- over his objection -- to accept
> "stand-by counsel," ready to step in as soon as the defendant became
> disruptive or the issues became too complex.
>
> In a sense, the tribunal has already appointed standby counsel for
Milosevic
> in the guise of Stephen Kay and the other amicus ("friends of the court")
> counsel. While not bound to follow the defendant's directives, their job
has
> been to ensure that legal arguments favoring the defense are presented to
> the judges. It would be a small step to transform the amicus counsel into
a
> full-blown defense team, and instruct it to represent Milosevic for the
rest
> of the trial. The lawyers are already intimately familiar with the case
and
> are willing to take on such a role. And unlike Milosevic, they will be
bound
> to play by the rules.
>
> If, on the other hand, the tribunal rules that Milosevic still has a right
> to represent himself, the precedent will affect other international cases.
> Saddam Hussein, whose war crimes trial is set to begin later this year,
will
> be able to argue that he, too, has a right to represent himself before the
> Iraqi Special Tribunal.
>
> If Hussein were allowed to follow Milosevic's playbook -- using the unique
> opportunity of self-representation to launch daily attacks against the
> legitimacy of the proceedings and the U.S. invasion of Iraq -- this would
> seriously undermine the goal of fostering reconciliation between the Iraqi
> Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis. The historic record developed by such a trial
> would forever be questioned. And the trial would transform Hussein and his
> subordinates into martyrs, potentially fueling violent opposition to the
new
> Iraqi government.
>
> Justice demands that Milosevic and Hussein be given fair trials. That can
> best be guaranteed by appointing distinguished counsel to defend them, not
> by permitting them to act as their own lawyers.
>
> Author's e-mail:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> </body>Michael Scharf is professor of law and director of the Frederick K.
> Cox International Law Center at Case Western Reserve University in
> Cleveland. His latest book is "Slobodan Milosevic on Trial" (Continuum).
> ***************************************************************
>
> 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)
> http://www.free-slobo.de/ (German section of ICDSM)
> http://www.icdsm-us.org/ (US section of ICDSM)
> http://www.icdsmireland.org/ (ICDSM Ireland)
> http://www.pasti.org/milodif.htm (ICDSM Italy)
> http://www.wpc-in.org/ (world peace council)
> http://www.geocities.com/b_antinato/ (Balkan antiNATO center)
>
www.ctrl.org
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
