> >STOP NATO: NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.HOME-PAGE.ORG > > >From: Milan Tepavac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: SN-VEST <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; SN-TALK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Tuesday, March 21, 2000 7:05 AM >Subject: TO ABOLISH KANGAROO COURT. > > >Before sending this text to the states members of the Security Council of >the UN I'd like to have anybody's well-intentioned comments and/or >suggestions. Especially about what kind of action would be most appropriate >in order to succeed in the basic aim of this initiative: to abolish this >perverse institution, which is disgrace for the concept of justice. It is >now main tool for satanisation of the Serbs and political and psychological >pressure on them and their state. >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >----------- > >INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE PROSECUTION OF PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR >SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW COMMITTED IN THE >TERRITORY OF THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA SINCE 1991 > > >REQUEST TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL >FOR ITS CANCELLATION > > >Indeed, the idea to exclude from criminal prosecution of those who inspired, >planned, assisted (including weapons), ignited and conducted secessionist >wars in Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina, and prosecute only >those who while killing one another failed to stick to the certain >stipulated rules (the rules of international humanitarian law), could be >born only in pervert and sick minds. Who those minds are is difficult to >say, but it is known that they are coming from Clinton's and Kohl's >environment. The predominant ones are, no doubt, Madeleine Albright, Samuel >Berger, Daniel Sheffer, James Rubin, William Cohen, Lawrence Eagleberger, >Richard Goldstone, the Nazi Hans Dietrich Genscher and who knows who not. >The oddest thing of all is, certainly, how the official politics of USA, >Germany and many other states could accept such an ugly idea for its >official attitude and impose it to the Security Council of the United >Nations which established a court based on such an idea. It is well known >that London Agreement of 8 August 1945 (which is, of course, still in force) >on punishment of the main Nazi criminals and its Statute, in the first place >incriminate exactly "the crimes against peace: namely, planning, >preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in >violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or >participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any >of the foregoing. Leaders, organisers, instigators and accomplices >participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy >to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed >by any persons in execution of such plan." (Article 6 (a) of the Statute of >the Tribunal). Violent secession - especially the one endangering >international peace and security as were those that broke SFR Yugoslavia >into pieces - surely fit into the formulation of the crime against peace. > >>From the time when someone had an idea to establish such a tribunal until >nowadays, the Tribunal has been called in question both on the grounds of >the body which established it (The Security Council of the United Nations) >and on the grounds of its jurisdiction ("trial of the persons responsible >for the serious violations of the international humanitarian law in the >territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1 January 1991."! It has been >contradicted not only by all the people who are significant for the >international humanitarian law, but also by all the people with common >sense. It can be said that the Tribunal was established by the people who >had no connection with international law, the inventors of the concept of >"The New World Order" according to which the force and political violence is >the only "law" recognised by them. Still we should define why the Serbian >nation was chosen for implementation of that concept. Why the mere attempt >of Serbian nation to defend its country from the secessionist crime >pronounced to be the crime, while at the same time that right is recognised >to all other nations? Even the chief sheriff of the New World Order does not >deny that right to the others. On 19 November 1999, on the Summit of >Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, held in Istanbul >Clinton said: "We believe Russia has not only the right, but the obligation >to defend its territorial integrity". Instead of recognition of the same >right to the Serbian nation, its striving to keep its state is pronounced to >be a crime and the Tribunal is established for its punishing!! > >I > >1. Establishment and jurisdiction of the Tribunal > >This Tribunal was, as it is well known, established by Resolution 827 of the >Security Council of the United Nations of 25 May 1993. Invoking the Chapter >VII of the United Nations Charter, the Resolution states that the Tribunal >has been established "solely for prosecution of the persons responsible for >serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the >territory of the former Yugoslavia between 1 January 1991 until the date >which shall be determined by the Security Council after the peace >establishment." At the end, under item 9, the Resolution states that the >Council "decides to remain actively seized of the matter". > >Statute of the Tribunal, adopted by the Security Council in the foregoing >Resolution, has determined that this "Tribunal" has jurisdiction as regards >the following crimes: > >- grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (Article 2), >- violations of the laws or customs of war (Article 3), >- genocide (Article 4) and >- crimes against humanity (Article 5). > >So, the Security Council has not - as it was emphasised in the beginning of >the text - given jurisdiction to the Tribunal regarding crimes against peace >and security of the humanity as aggression, planning and conducting >secessionist war and alike. The reason is obvious - in order not to >prosecute those who directed and ignited Yugoslav tragedy, that is the >leaders of Yugoslav secessionist republics and their foreign protectors, >masters and other accomplices. In other words, the Security Council sent the >message to Yugoslavs: it is all right to kill one another, but it is not all >right to do it without compliance with the rules stated under the Articles >2-5 of the Statute! > >And, that is not all! The Statute defined the foregoing crimes, but in many >ways differently than they were defined by modern international law! In that >manner the Security Council took the role of legislator to which, of course, >it is not entitled according to the United Nations Charter! > >Pursuant to the Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Statute, the Security Council >has even abolished capital punishment for international crimes, although it >was introduced by the Article 27 of the Statute of the Tribunal for trial of >Nazis. Of course, one may be for or against capital punishment, but it is >certainly not in the competence of the Security Council to decide whether it >shall exist in international law or be abolished. > >It should be also emphasised that the crimes as stated under the Articles 2 >and 3 (violations of Geneva Conventions and war laws and customs) may be >committed only in the armed conflicts of international character, not in >internal conflicts. That way the Security Council beforehand took the >position that the conflict in Yugoslavia was of an international character, >although the real answer to that question may come only from the science of >international law, and not from the Security Council, which is a political >and not an expert body. > >Apart from the fact that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited, only >to ius in bello, and not to ius ad bellum, the territorial limitation >("region of former Yugoslavia") as well as time limit ("since 1 January >1991") give special dimension of absurdity to this institution. > >Russia and NR China voted for this Resolution as well. > > >2. Structure and Financing (for details see FACT SHEET on www.un.org/icty ) > > >Tribunal consists of the following judges: > >President: Claude Jorda (France), Vice-President: Florence Ndepele Mwachande >Mumba (Zambia). > >Presiding Judges: David Anthony Hunt (Australia), Richard George may (United >Kingdom) and Almiro Simoes Rodrigues (Portugal). > >Judges: Lal Chand Vohrah (Malaysia), Fouad Abdel-Moneim Riad (Egypt), >Mohamed Shahabuddeen (Guyana), Wang Tieya (China), Rafael Nieto-Navia >(Colombia), Mohamed Bennouna (Morocco), Patrick Lipton Robinson (Jamaica), >Patricia Wald (United States of America) and Fausto Pocar (Italy). > >PROSECUTOR: > >Chief Prosecutor: Justice Carla del Ponte (Switzerland), since 15 September >1999. > >Deputy Prosecutor: Graham Blewitt (Australia), since 15 February 1994. > >As we can see Russia and NR China do not have their judges in the Tribunal. > >The Tribunal has so far grown up in a monster consisting of 832 officers >from 68 states, handling budget of 95,942.600 dollars for 2000 - ten times >more than the International Court of Justice! It is financed by mostly USA >and Arab states. > > >3. Work of the Tribunal (for more details see FACT SHEET on www.un.org/icty) > >Up to now 93 persons were accused, most of them being Serbs. Out of these 93 >accused, seven died - two in casemates of the Tribunal under questionable >circumstances (Dokmanovic and Kovacevic), while the two were killed by SFOR >while trying to kidnap them in Bosnia (Drljaca and Gagovic). > >In the cells of Tribunal in the Hague there are 35 prisoners, 30 of them >being Bosnian Serbs among whom there are generals of the Army of Republic of >Srpska Momir Talic (kidnapped in Vienna, under the Tribunal's order, by >Austrian police while attending international gathering under the auspices >of the OSCE and Austrian Ministry of Defence!!!), Radislav Krstic and Milan >Simic, 4 Croats and 1 Muslim. This very fact speaks against whom this >Tribunal has been established. So far, the Tribunal brought several >verdicts. Of course, it cannot be said how many person shall be indicted and >who are those persons, even more because its practice is to have so-called >"secret indictments". As it is well-known, the Tribunal also indicted >citizens of FR Yugoslavia - Slobodan Milosevic, President of FRY; Milan >Milutinovic, President of Serbia; Nikola Sainovic, Dragoljub Ojdanic, Vlajko >Stojiljkovic, Mile Mrksic, Miroslav Radic and Veselin Sljivancanin. > >On the basis of the indictment against the president of FR Yugoslavia and >other high officials, the United States of America has these days committed >crime without precedent in the international relations: it offered 5 million >dollar reward to anyone who helps their kidnapping, murder and alike. By >this the current regime in USA showed and proved that it outlawed and placed >itself out of civilisation norms, as well as introduced the "Wild West law" >in the international relations, while the Tribunal showed to be blind >instrument of that politics, not a court of law and justice. > >Not one of the persons accused by the Tribunal is responsible for the war. >The war was imposed to them; they are its victims as the millions of >Yugoslavs. On the other hand, Tribunal did not accuse any of the real >culprits for Yugoslav tragedy: leaders of secessionist republics and their >foreign planners, instigators and other accomplices from USA, EU, NATO and >Vatican. This fact best indicates the true nature of the Tribunal. Although >the author of this text addressed the Tribunal several times - more >precisely 23 May 1995, 4 September 1995, 14 October 1995, 9 May 1996, 2 July >1997 and 21 July 1998 - requesting initiation of the criminal proceedings >against all these main culprits for Yugoslav tragedy and endangering >international peace and security, the Tribunal and its chief prosecutor did >nothing. The Nuremberg and the Tokyo tribunals did exactly that: they tried >main criminals, while all others were left to national courts. > >Furthermore, the chief prosecutor of the Tribunal Carla Del Ponte >persistently refuses to initiate investigation and procedure against the >leaders of the NATO member states and officials of that aggressor alliance >for aggression on FR Yugoslavia and on that occasion committed crimes, >though she herself says that she received numerous requests (including >mine - 12 October 1998, 21 February 1999, 29 March 1999 and 15 May 1999) and >voluminous documentation accusing them, including evidence submitted by >Russian Duma. > > >II > > >Since the first day of its existence, the Tribunal has been challenged on >all the grounds not only by numerous international lawyers but also by many >other people with common sense. Many arguments have been presented that it >is the instrument of politics of force of the United States of America and >its satellites (NATO and EU) for destruction of Yugoslavia (former and >current) and all the Serbian nation and not court of law. At the same time, >the people in Yugoslavia constantly wander how it is possible that Russia >and China did nothing to oppose the establishment of this institution, which >represents mockery of justice and equity. > >In challenging this institution, first of all it is emphasised that the >Security Council of the United Nations had no right according to the United >Nations Charter to establish international criminal court, to limit its >jurisdiction territorially and temporally, to prescribe for which >international crimes it shall have jurisdiction and for which not by >excluding its jurisdiction with regards to the most serious crimes against >peace and security such as aggression, armed secession, intervention in >internal affairs, international terrorism. It is also emphasised that it was >a political self-will of the Security Council aimed against Serbian nation, >that the real goal of establishment of this Tribunal was pointing a finger >at the party which was not responsible in order to protect the real >culprits, etc. Therefore, FR Yugoslavia did not recognise this Tribunal >until it was forced to sign, although vague, obligation of co-operation with >it in Dayton. The Americans, by permanent pressure to satisfy all the >Tribunal's requests, constantly terrorise FR Yugoslavia and the entire >Serbian nation. > >If the Security Council of the United Nations by establishing this Tribunal >(and the one for Rwanda) overstepped its authorisations and resorted to >self-will, it has done it even in greater and more dangerous degree by >prescribing new international crimes by the Statute of the Tribunal for >Yugoslavia, thus awarding itself with legislator's function in the >international field! In fact, pursuant to the Articles 2 and 3 of the >Statute, the Council prescribed that the rules of international humanitarian >law, which are otherwise referring to the international armed conflicts, >should apply to the armed conflict in Yugoslavia, although it is >non-international (internal) armed conflict for which the legal rules >referring to the internal conflicts should be valid, i.e., first of all the >joint Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Supplemental Protocol II >to these Conventions adopted in 1977. Furthermore, if the Article 5 of the >Statute could be considered to be valid for the case of war and in peace, >the Security Council added to that Article some of its own "rules" which are >not part of modern international humanitarian law, such as "jail", >"torture", "rape", "other non-humane actions" (?!). > >Because of such a state of affairs, international lawyers more and more >often demand that the issue of judicial, i.e. legal, control of the >decisions and documents of the organisation of the United Nations is to be >solved urgently, and first of all the decision of the Security Council, so >as to prevent its self-will. > >The course of the trials so far before this Tribunal indicate what the real >role and power of this Tribunal is, and it shall be even clearer. For >example, in the beginning of the trial of the Serbian Dusko Tadic we heard >the prosecutor and one witness of the prosecution, a James Gau, British, as >"an expert for Yugoslav affairs". In reply to the key question who holds >responsibility for the destruction of Yugoslavia and commencement of war, >they say the same what their paymasters are blowing into the trumpet from >the very beginning: Serbs! Since they could not possibly deny the fact that >any normal person knows that the Serbs fought to remain in Yugoslavia and >that the others left it by anti-constitutional violent secession, they say: >well, they had to, because they had good reasons to be afraid of Serbian >nationalism! And so on. Some signs show that the things will not go the way >they imagined. For instance, the President of the Trial Chamber of the Court >in Tadic case as well as the Defence asked some, for them unpleasant >questions such as: how Yugoslav National Army could be occupier in its own >country?! "Could American Army occupy, e.g. Texas?", asked the President of >the Trial Chamber American Gabriella Kirk McDonald. Does the state have >right to defend itself from secession? The American surely knows history of >her country that well to be aware how the former president of her country >Lincoln dealt with secession. Furthermore, the sentence of Tadic caused >headache to the Tribunal's inventors: namely, the sentence stated that it >was non-international armed conflict in Bosnia, which means that it was >civil war, and not the international, on which the prosecution insisted. >That annihilates the entire concept, the entire "philosophy" of the enemy of >the Serbian nation - that the war in Bosnia and Croatia was in fact >aggression, of course made by FR Yugoslavia. Therefore the Tribunal's >prosecutor lodged a complaint against the judgement, and the Tribunal was >ordered to revoke this judgement and bring another according to which the >conflict in Bosnia would be of "international character"! Consequently, the >norms of international law regulating internal conflicts have not been >applied for the war conducted on some parts of the former Yugoslavia, >precisely the common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Protocol II, >but the norms covering armed conflicts of international character! > >All the above indicates that it is high time to initiate in the Security >Council the question of abolishment of this Tribunal, which represents >monstrous monument to the tyranny of the Untied States of America and their >satellites over a small state and small nation which was in the First and >Second World War exposed to the horrible genocide by Croat and Muslim >Ustasha's (pro-fascist collaborators) and Nazis. That genocide is now >continued by USA and their NATO and EU satellites by means of sanctions, >aggression and political isolation and terror. In these crimes Tribunal is >one of the most efficient instruments. Not only that it has to be abolished >as soon as possible, but it should not have ever been established. > >Therefore, the Security Council of the Untied Nations should bring the >following decision on the grounds of the item 9 of its Resolution 827: > >1. The International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia is abolished. > >2. All the convicted or accused persons who are in the prisons of the >Tribunal are to be delivered to their national states for the procedure >before the jurisdictional courts for the crimes imputed to them, together >with all the documentation and evidence in their possession. The Security >Council shall control how the states are conducting the criminal procedures >for the violation of the international humanitarian law and shall take the >necessary measures - including sanctions anticipated by the United Nations >Charter - against those states which would in any manner avoid objective and >fair actions. > >3. All the states are called on to ratify the Rome Statute of the >International Criminal Court as soon as possible, in order that the >international community could have a real, permanent international criminal >court like the International Court of Justice. > > >Beograd, March 20, 2000 Milan Tepavac, Ph.D. >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Member of the International Law Yugoslav Association > Member of the International Law World Association > Member of the Belgrade Bar Association > Member of the Serbian Bar Association > > > > > >______________________________________________________________________ >To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb >Content-Type: text/html; > name="header.htm" >Content-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ><html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" >xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" >xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" >xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"> > ><head> ><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"> ><meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document> ><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 9"> ><meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 9"> ><link id=Main-File rel=Main-File href="cid:[EMAIL PROTECTED]"> ></head> > ><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>STOP NATO: NO PASARAN! - >HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.HOME-PAGE.ORG > ><P> > > ><div style='mso-element:footer' id=f1> > ><div >style='mso-element:frame;mso-element-wrap:auto;mso-element-anchor-vertical: >paragraph;mso-element-anchor-horizontal:margin;mso-element-left:right; >mso-element-top:.05pt;mso-height-rule:exactly'> > ><table cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 hspace=0 vspace=0 align=right> > <tr> > <td valign=top align=left style='padding-top:0cm;padding-right:0cm; > padding-bottom:0cm;padding-left:0cm'> > <p class=MsoFooter >style='mso-element:frame;mso-element-wrap:auto;mso-element-anchor-vertical: > paragraph;mso-element-anchor-horizontal:margin;mso-element-left:right; > mso-element-top:.05pt;mso-height-rule:exactly'><!--[if supportFields]><span > class=MsoPageNumber><span lang=EN-GB><span >style='mso-element:field-begin'></span>PAGE<span > style="mso-spacerun: yes">Ý </span><span >style='mso-element:field-separator'></span></span></span><![endif]--><span > class=MsoPageNumber><span lang=EN-GB>7</span></span><!--[if >supportFields]><span > class=MsoPageNumber><span lang=EN-GB><span >style='mso-element:field-end'></span></span></span><![endif]--><span > class=MsoPageNumber><span lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></span></p> > </td> > </tr> ></table> > ></div> > ><p class=MsoFooter style='margin-right:18.0pt'><font size=3 face=GeoSlab><span >lang=EN-GB style='font-size:12.0pt'><![if >!supportEmptyParas]> <![endif]></span><span >lang=EN-GB><o:p></o:p></span></font></p> > ></div> > > > ><hr> >To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]<br> >Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb<BR> ></body> > ></html> > > __________________________________ KOMINFORM P.O. Box 66 00841 Helsinki - Finland +358-40-7177941, fax +358-9-7591081 e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.kominf.pp.fi ___________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe/unsubscribe messages mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________
