[L-I] New York today and tomorrow: ON MILOSEVIC IN THE UN

ICDSM and SLOBODA announce that Mr. Ramsey Clark, former US Attorney Gene=
ral
and Ms. Tiphaine Dickson, international criminal lawyer from Montreal wil=
l
hold, on behalf of already 90 lawyers and law professors from 17 countrie=
s
who signed a petition to the UN against the violation of International La=
w
and rights of President Milosevic, a press-conference in the Press Room o=
f
the UN Headquarters in New York on Tuesday, 17 August 2004 at 11 a.m.
The press conference will be hosted by New York historian Barry Lituchy, =
as
representative of  ICDSM-US.
Mr. Clark and Ms. Dickson will before that, on Monday, 16 August hand the
text of the petition to the UN officials.
***********************************************************
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
Below we give 5 documents:
1. Official announcement of the press conference
2. Lawyers' Petition with the updated list of signatures
3. Artists' Appeal for Milosevic
4. Sloboda letter to the UN and Serbian authorities
5. Letter of Ramsey Clark to the UN from February 2004
All this and lot of other relevant material can be found at
www.icdsm.org
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

****************************************************
ICDSM-US
Press Release: 16 August 2004
Media Contacts: Sara Flounders, 212-633-6646
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.icdsm-us.org

For immediate release:

IMPOSITION OF COUNSEL ON SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC THREATENS THE FUTURE OF
INTERNATIONAL LAW AND THE LIFE OF THE DEFENDANT

PRESS CONFERENCE

TUESDAY, 17 August 2004, 11:00 a.m.
United Nations Press Room

On behalf of 85 lawyers and law professors from 17 countries who submitte=
d a
petition under the above title to the UN Security Council, General Assemb=
ly
and Secretary General, the media will be addressed by:

Ramsey CLARK, former US Attorney General
and
Tiphaine DICKSON (Montreal), international criminal lawyer,
author of the petition.

On behalf of the US scholars and activists engaged in the US National
Section
of the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM), the
press conference will be hosted by

Barry LITUCHY,  historian (City University of New York)

Under the auspices of the UN and in the name of international justice, th=
e
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague is
threatening, by its recent politically motivated actions, to further
discredit this
process and cause unforeseeable damage to  human rights, International La=
w
and
future of the peoples in the Balkans. Deeply concerned, many legal expert=
s
of
different political orientations and from different countries of Europe,
America and Asia, motivated only by their professional ethics, decided to
alert
the highest UN bodies and to urge them to prevent such a development.

Mr. Clark, Ms. Dickson and Mr. Lituchy will explain the details of the
initiative and will be available to answer all questions related to the
subject, to
the trial of the former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic and to the
works
of the "ad hoc" tribunals. Journalists will be served with the text of th=
e
petition, complete list of signatures and other relevant material.


****************************************************

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 t=
he
Security Council in Resolution 808, and ignores the court's obligation to
provide adequate medical care and provisional release to the defendant. T=
he
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 preparat=
ion
periods on the defence, and has permitted the introduction of an inordina=
te
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 international=
ly
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. Th=
e
fundamental, minimum rights provided to a defendant under the Rome Statut=
e
of the International Criminal Court, as well as the under the Statutes of
the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia, include t=
he
right to defend oneself in person. The general economy of these provision=
s
all envisage the reality that rights are afforded to an accused,  not to =
a
lawyer. The right afforded is to represent oneself against charges brough=
t
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 h=
is
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 expe=
rt,
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 defens=
e
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 "defe=
nce
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 an=
d
unacceptable legal fiction. Unless the accused has acquiesced in such
representation, the defense presented is not the defense guaranteed him b=
y
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 tha=
t
imposition of counsel on an unwilling accused is the practice of politica=
l
courts, and does not have its place in a democratic system of justice, mu=
ch
less before an institution that will generate precedent for a truly
legitimate international criminal jurisdiction, whose establishment has b=
een
the fruit of half a century of struggle:

"In the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only on=
e
tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwillin=
g
defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber. Th=
at
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 Chamb=
er
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 absen=
ce
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 ta=
kes
on special significance." Article 21 of the ICTY's Statute  states that t=
he
Chamber must exercise this obligation "with full respect for the rights o=
f
the accused." However,  expediency has become,  as the defendant is set t=
o
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 malignan=
t
hypertension; it will not provide the defendant with the time and conditi=
ons
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.  I=
f
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 medi=
cal
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 measu=
res
are not taken to treat Mr. Milosevic's malignant hypertension, a conditio=
n
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 t=
his
institution. By imposing counsel, the ICTY would not only violate his rig=
ht
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 agains=
t
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, a=
s
he does not recognize the ICTY as a judicial body, and signals this
non-recognition by refusing to assign counsel. Slobodan Milosevic is a la=
w
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 t=
he
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 th=
e
South African judiciary did not impose counsel to silence him. The ICTY i=
s
poised to threaten the future of international law by doing what even
apartheid-era judges dared not do - gag a defendant and impair his abilit=
y
to respond to a case.  A case, we note, made unwieldy, unintelligible and
inexplicably lengthy by the Prosecutor, with the Chamber's assent, and no=
t
by Slobodan Milosevic. Indeed, most observers of the process have noted t=
hat
the Prosecutor failed to present compelling evidence to support any of th=
eir
charges; rather than stay the proceedings, the ICTY permitted the Prosecu=
tor
to present additional witnesses, in apparent desperation to make somethin=
g
stick.

The right to defend oneself in person is at the heart of the Internationa=
l
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 couns=
el
constitutes an irrevocable precedent, and potentially deprives any accuse=
d
person of the right to present a meaningful defence in the future. In the
case of Slobodan Milosevic, this measure will only increase his hypertens=
ion
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

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 Montenegr=
o

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, It=
aly

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), Sof=
ia,
Bulgaria

Jean-Marie Dermagne, Lawyer, Rochefort-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

Professor Stevan Djordjevic, International Law, Belgrade, Serbia and
Montenegro

Bj=F8rn 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 Protectio=
n),
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, Russ=
ian
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 Presiden=
t,
Commission for Security of the State Duma), Moscow, Russian Federation

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, Bulga=
ria

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), Mosco=
w,
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 Ministr=
y
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, Nation=
al
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 Tr=FCmpy, Lawyer, Switzerland

Professor Velko Valkanov, (President, Bulgarian Committee for Human Right=
s,
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, It=
aly

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 Zangh=EC, International Law, University "La Sapienza", =
Rome,
Italy

**********************************************************
Artists' Appeal for Milosevic

For over two years now, Slobodan Milosevic has been on trial before the
International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia - a Security Counci=
l
institution of dubious legality - charged with 66 counts of war crimes,
crimes against humanity and genocide. Over 500,000 pages of documents and
5000 videocassettes have been filed as evidence by the Prosecution. There
have been some 300 trial days. More than 300 witnesses have testified. Th=
e
trial transcript is near 33,000 pages. Yet after all this time and effort=
,
the Prosecution has failed to present significant or compelling evidence =
of
any criminal act or intention of President Milosevic.

In fact, it has been revealed that some prosecution witnesses have been
coerced to lie under oath, others have committed perjury. Former NATO
commander Wesley Clark, was allowed, in violation of the principle of an
open trial, to give testimony in private, with Washington able to apply f=
or
removal of any parts of his evidence from the public record they deemed t=
o
be against US interests.

President Milosevic was indicted during the 78 day continuous bombardment=
 of
Yugoslavia by US-led NATO forces, which used cluster bombs and depleted
uranium, attempted to assassinate Milosevic by bombing his residence, kil=
led
thousands of civilians and caused billions of dollars of damage to the
country's infrastructure. This illegal act of undeclared war is in clear
violation of the NATO Charter, the UN Charter, and International Law. Yet
neither Wesley Clark, nor the leaders of NATO countries have been indicte=
d
for the crimes of which Slobodan Milosevic is accused.

The proceedings of the ICTY against Slobodan Milosevic, as a large and
growing number of international jurists has publicly stated, respect neit=
her
the principles nor even the appearance of justice. According to Ramsey
Clark, the former Attorney-General of the United States, "the spectacle o=
f
this huge onslaught by an enormous prosecution support team with vast
resources pitted against a single man, defending himself, cut off from al=
l
effective assistance, his supporters under attack everywhere and his heal=
th
slipping away from the constant strain, portrays the essence of unfairnes=
s,
of persecution". And now that presiding judge Richard May has resigned hi=
s
position for unspecified health reasons, it appears inevitable, the issue
prejudged, that the trial will nevertheless continue, in spite of the
virtual impossibility that a new judge will be able to come to grips with
the mountain of evidence presented so far.

If justice is not just, if prosecution is persecution, if international l=
aw
is flouted in order to "enforce international law", we are indeed now liv=
ing
in the dystopian world of George Orwell's 1984. The neighborhood bully ha=
s
decided the world is his back yard. The implications of this egregious us=
e
of "power politics" go beyond the unjust trial of Slobodan Milosevic: the
"new world order" now being implemented is simply inhuman and intolerable.
What can be done to change this cruel and criminal state of affairs?

Let us remember that it was not long ago that 15 million people marched o=
n
the same day in a gesture of international solidarity to say no to the Bu=
sh
junta's illegal war on Iraq. Now is the time for another such gesture. Fo=
r
if this trial continues, the only triumphs will be those of travesty over
justice, power over principle, disinformation over truth. And many feel t=
hat
the sum total of these acts constitutes state terrorism perpetrated on a
virtually defenseless country and its legally elected president.

As artists, our work is to broaden our horizons, to become more human and=
 to
share that humanity. And to create. Destruction is intolerable to us. It =
is
intolerable that courts be used to justify the killing of civilians, the
destruction of a sovereign nation, and the demonization and imprisonment =
of
that nation's leader. Let us now create a massive demonstration of our
humanity. Now is the time to make ourselves heard loud and clear, once
again, by publicly denouncing this injustice. We urge you to join your
efforts to those of the International Committee for the Defense of Slobod=
an
Milosevic.

Robert Dickson, poet (winner of the Governor General's award for French
poetry 2002), Canada

Harold Pinter, playwright, UK

Peter Handke, writer, Austria/France

Alexander Zinoviev, writer, philosopher, Russian Federation

Valeri Ganichev, writer (President of the Writers' Union of Russia), Russ=
ian
Federation

Vyacheslav Klykov, sculptor (President of the International Fund for
Slavonic Literacy and Culture), Russian Federation

Dimitri Analis, poet, Greece/France

Valentin Rasputin, novelist, Russian Federation

Fulvio Grimaldi, filmmaker, journalist, Italy

Vladimir Kostrov, poet (winner of Tyutchev and Bunin awards), Russian
Federation

Nadja Tesich, novelist, Yugoslavia/US

Rolf Becker, actor, Germany

Milos Raickovich, composer, Yugoslavia/US

Alan Mandell, theatre artist, US

Mick Collins, theatre artist, US/France

John Steppling, screenwriter, playwright, US/Poland

Joseph Goodrich, playwright, US

Godfred Louis-Jensen, architect, Denmark

David Morgan, poet, Canada

Larissa Kritskaya, composer, journalist, Russia/USA

Katarina Kostic, poet, writer, Canada

Paolo Teobaldelli, writer, philosopher, Italy

C=E9d=E9ric  Michaud, photographe,  Nouvel-Ontario, Canada

Nikolai Petev, writer (President of the Writers' Union of Bulgaria),
Bulgaria

Luchezar Elenkov, writer, Bulgaria

Rashko Stoikov, writer, Bulgaria

Elena Alekova, writer, Bulgaria

Natasha Manolova, writer, Bulgaria

Dimitar Tochev, writer, Bulgaria

Dimitar Bezhanski, writer, Bulgaria

Borislav Peichev, writer, Bulgaria

Anzhel Vagenstein, screenwriter, Bulgaria

Benzhamen Varon, writer, philosopher, Bulgaria

Luna Davidova, actor, Bulgaria

Venceslav Kisov, actor, Bulgaria

Snezhana Barova, pianist, Bulgaria

Antoinette Martens, painter, puppeteer, Canada

Pil Lenau, writer, Denmark

March-April 2004
Montreal-New York-Moscow-Paris

**************************************************************
IMPORTANT NOTICE: BOTH APPEALS CAN STILL BE CO-SIGNED
BY WRITING TO
[email protected]

*************************************************************
UN: H.E. Mr. Kofi ANNAN, Secretary General of the United Nations; H.E. Mr.
Andrei DENISOV, Permanent Representative of the Russian Federation to the
UN, Presiding the UN Security Council; H.E. Mr. Julian Robert HUNTE,
President of the 58th Session of the UN General Assembly; Ms. Louise Arbo=
ur,
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

ICTY: Mr. Theodor MERON, President; Mr. Patrick ROBINSON, Mr. O-Gon KWON,
Mr. Iain BONOMY, Judges of the Trial Chamber III; Mr. Steven KAY, Prof.
Timothy L.H. McCORMACK, Amici Curiae

Serbia and Montenegro: H.E. Mr. Svetozar MAROVIC, President of the State
Community Serbia and Montenegro; Mr. Zoran SAMI, Chairman of the Assembly=
 of
Serbia and Montenegro; H.E. Mr. Boris TADIC, President of the Republic of
Serbia; H.E. Dr. Vojislav Kostunica, Prime Minister of the Republic of
Serbia; Mr. Predrag MARKOVIC, Chairman of the National Assembly of the
Republic of Serbia; Heads of the Parliamentary Caucuses in the National
Assembly of the Republic of Serbia

URGENT CALL TO PROTECT INTERNATIONAL LAW, NATIONS' RIGHT FOR TRUTH AND LI=
FE
OF PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC

          During the whole lasting of the Hague process against President
Slobodan Milosevic the most responsible persons of the ICTY at The Hague
have been aware, on the basis of numerous doctors' reports and of numerou=
s
communications from our organization, from other organizations and
individuals, of the health situation of President Milosevic and of the fa=
ct
that the process itself puts his life at stake. In spite of this awarenes=
s,
the tribunal never treated President Milosevic's health situation properl=
y,
nor ever properly considered the legitimate demands for his release for
medical treatment, recovery and preparation for his case. By that and by =
the
way the process has been conducted, the tribunal only contributed to the
deterioration of the health of President Milosevic.

          Together with other international and national organizations an=
d
individuals from different countries, we were several times informing the
highest UN organs and highest organs of the Republic of Serbia and FR
Yugoslavia (now SC Serbia and Montenegro) about this situation, requestin=
g
their action and warning them of their share in responsibility.

          In the recent weeks, the tribunal has shown the sudden interest=
 in
the health situation of President Milosevic, trying to misuse it as an
excuse to impose him a counsel against his will and to change other rules=
 of
the proceedings on his detriment.

          These attempts of the tribunal are contrary to the Internationa=
l
Covenant of Civil and Political Rights, as the principal source of law fo=
r
the tribunal, to the ICTY's own Statute and to the basic principles of th=
e
adversarial system of law and of the democratic judiciary in general, as
explained in detail in the petition of 75 distinguished lawyers and law
professors, sent these days to the UN and to the ICTY. The proposed measu=
res
would only decisively act against the fair character and efficiency of th=
e
process and the life and health of President Milosevic, as declared motiv=
es
for their imposition. Above all, these measures would act against justice
and make establishing the truth impossible.

          By their essence, these attempts cannot be understood otherwise=
,
but as an intention to silence the truth, and by that to secure impunity =
for
the real criminals responsible for the break-up of Yugoslavia, tragedy of
its peoples and numerous victims and huge war damages produced by the 199=
9
NATO aggression against Yugoslavia. The amount of illegality contained in
the tribunal's intended decisions testifies about someone's panic.

          Its legal dimensions cannot characterize the current behavior o=
f
the ICTY otherwise, but as a crime in progress.

          We call upon the highest representatives of the UN, ICTY and
Serbia and Montenegro to act immediately to stop the crime. Refusal or
avoidance to act in this way would be a complicity in the crime. Reflecti=
ng
the opinion of the people of Serbia, the Freedom Association is determine=
d
to use all legal means to establish the criminal responsibility of all wh=
o
are or would be involved in this crime.

          The World Nations require respect of the International Law. The=
y
also have right for truth about the tragedy in the Balkans. President
Milosevic has right to live and to represent the truth and himself.

          Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!

Belgrade, 6 August 2004

On behalf of the Freedom Association,
Bogoljub Bjelica, president /signed/

*************************************************************
February 12, 2004

                   Re: The Trial of Slobodan Milosevic, Former President =
of
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Before the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia


Dear Secretary General Annan,

          The Prosecution of the former President of the Federal Republic=
 of
Yugoslavia is scheduled to end its presentation of evidence to the
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on Febru=
ary
19, 2004, more than two years after its first witness testified.*

          Over 500,000 pages of documents and 5000 videocassettes have be=
en
placed in evidence.  There have been some 300 trial days.  More than 200
witnesses have testified.  The trial transcript is near 33,000 pages.

          The Prosecution has failed to present significant or compelling
evidence of any criminal act or intention of President Milosevic.  In the
absence of incriminating evidence, the Prosecution apparently hoped to
create a record so massive that it would be years, if the effort was ever
made, before scholars could examine and analyze the evidence to determine
whether it supported a conviction.

          Meanwhile the spectacle of this huge onslaught by an enormous
prosecution support team with vast resources pitted against a single man,
defending himself, cut off from all effective assistance, his supporters
under attack everywhere and his health slipping away from the constant
strain, portrays the essence of unfairness, of persecution.

          In contrast, the Prosecution of the "first trial in history for
crimes against the peace of the world" at Nuremberg began November 20, 19=
45
against 19 accused and ended just over three months later on March 4, 194=
6
after four nations presented evidence.  In his opening, Chief Prosecutor
Robert H. Jackson observed

"There is a dramatic disparity between the circumstances of the accusers =
and
the accused that might discredit our work if we should falter, in even mi=
nor
matters, in being fair and temperate. ... We must never forget that the
record on which we judge these defendants is the record on which history
will judge us tomorrow.  To pass these defendants a poisoned chalice is t=
o
put it to our lips as well."

           The Prosecution began its investigation of President Milosevic
under Richard Goldstone of South Africa in October 1994.  When he left
office in December 1996 he had found no evidence to support an indictment.
His successor, Louise Arbour of Canada, continued the investigation witho=
ut
formal action until late May 1999 when President Milosevic was first
indicted for acts allegedly committed earlier in 1999.

          The indictment came during the heavy U.S./NATO bombing of all
Serbia including Kosovo, a war of aggression.  It had killed civilians
throughout Serbia and destroyed property costing billions of dollars to
replace.  It had destroyed President Milosevic's home in Belgrade in an
assassination attempt on April 22, 1999.  The Chinese Embassy in Belgrade
had been bombed on May 7, 1999.  Depleted uranium, cluster bombs and supe=
r
bombs had targeted civilians and civilian facilities.  Hundreds of civili=
an
facilities were destroyed and civilians killed from Nova Sad to Nis to
Pristina.

          The initial indictment made no allegations of any crimes in
Croatia, or Bosnia.  It dealt exclusively with alleged acts by Serb force=
s
in Kosovo in 1999.  All of Serbia, including Kosovo, remained under heavy
U.S./NATO bombardment at the time of the indictment.  There were no U.S.,=
 or
NATO forces, or ICTY investigators in Kosovo.  Investigation was impossib=
le.
The indictment was purely a political act to demonize President Milosevic
and Serbia and justify U.S. and NATO bombing of Serbia which was itself
criminal and in violation of the U.N. and NATO Charters.

          As U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Madeleine Albright led the U.S.
effort to cause the Security Council to create the ICTY. Later she wrote =
in
her memoir that while she was U.S. Secretary of State she had sought remo=
val
of President Milosevic from office for years:

            "With colleagues Joschka Fischer and others, I urged Serb
opposition leaders to build a real political organization and focus on
pushing Milosevic out... In public remarks I said repeatedly that the Uni=
ted
States wanted Milosevic 'out of power, out of Serbia, and in the custody =
of
the war crimes tribunal.'"

          President Milosevic was indicted and is on trial because he
intended and acted to protect and preserve Yugoslavia, a federation that =
was
essential to peace in the Balkans.  Powerful foreign interests, supportin=
g
nationalist and ethnic groups and business interests within the several
republics of Yugoslavia, were, for their various reasons, determined to
dismember Yugoslavia.  Foremost among these was the United States.  Germa=
ny
played a major role.  Later NATO lent its name to the effort in violation=
 of
its own Charter.  The violence that followed was foreseeable and tragic.

          Throughout there was no more conciliatory leader than President
Milosevic who avoided all out war as Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Macedo=
nia
seceded from the Federal Republic.  For his later defense of Yugoslavia,
reduced to Serbia and Montenegro, he will be remembered primarily for his
compromises at Dayton, Ohio and, later, to end the brutal U.S. bombing of
Serbia from March to June 1999.  His conduct intended peace and the survi=
val
of a core federation of southern Slavs which in a better day might seed a
broader federation of Balkan states which is essential to peace, politica=
l
independence and economic viability in the region.  The U.S. and others
intended otherwise.

          The consequences have been disastrous for each of the former
states of the federal republic.  Today there is economic intervention and
stagnation, political unrest, public dissatisfaction and growing threats =
of
violence in former Yugoslavia.  The U.S. is courting Croatia for membersh=
ip
in NATO as the base for European forces to control the region and maintai=
n
its division.  Croatia has sent a small military unit to assist NATO in
Afghanistan and is being pressured to send troops to Iraq, thereby
continuing its confrontations with Muslim peoples in Croatian and Bosnia.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, met with the nationalist leadership o=
f
Croatia, including the President and Prime Minister, on February 8, 2004.
He proclaimed "I look forward to the day when Croatia becomes a part" of
NATO.

          The former President of Yugoslavia is on trial for defending
Yugoslavia in a court the Security Council had no power to create.  In
contrast, the President of the United States, who has openly and notoriou=
sly
committed war of aggression, "the supreme international crime", against a
defenseless Iraq killing tens of thousands of people, spreading violence
there and elsewhere, faces no charges.  President Bush continues to threa=
ten
unilateral wars of aggression and presses for U.S. development of a new
generation of nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear bombs, after invading Ira=
q
on the fabricated claim it was a threat to the U.S. and possessed weapons=
 of
mass destruction.  This can happen only because power, not principle, sti=
ll
prevails.

         The United Nations cannot hope to end the scourge of war until i=
t
finds the will to outface power and stands united for the principles of
peace.  What better evidence is needed of U.S. intention to stand above t=
he
law and rule by force than the extensive U.S. efforts to destroy the
International Criminal Court and coerce bilateral treaties in which natio=
ns
agree not to surrender U.S. citizens to the ICC.  Compound this obstructi=
on
of justice with the June 30, 2002 statement of the U.S. Permanent
Representative to the U.N., Ambassador John Negroponte, demanding immunit=
y
for the U.S. from foreign prosecution, to which the Security Council
submitted.  Negroponte threatened that the U.S. would veto a pending
Security Council resolution to renew the U.N. peacekeeping mission in
Bosnia-Herzegovina, unless the Security Council provided immunity, that i=
s
impunity, for personnel contributed to Security Council authorized peace
keeping missions.  The purpose was to place U.S. personnel and U.S.
surrogates above the law while U.S. enemies are victims of discriminatory
prosecution in illegal courts.

          The ICTY and other ad hoc criminal tribunals crated by the
Security Council are illegal because the Charter of the United Nations do=
es
not empower the Security Council to create any criminal court.  The langu=
age
of the Charter is clear.  Had such power been placed in the Charter in 19=
45
there would be no U.N.  None of the five powers made permanent members of
the Security Council in the Charter would have agreed to submit to a U.N.
criminal report.

          The ICC was created by treaty, recognizing the U.N. had no powe=
r
without amendment of its Charter to create such a court.  Creation of the
ICC should preclude creation of any additional criminal tribunals and cal=
ls
for the abolition of those that exist.  They were created to serve geo
political ambitions of the U.S.  The issue is of the highest importance. =
 It
determines whether the Security Council itself is above the Charter and t=
he
rule of law.

          The ad hoc criminal tribunals are inherently discriminatory,
evading the principles of equality in the administration of justice.  The
discrimination is intended to destroy enemies.  The International Crimina=
l
Tribunal of Rwanda has not indicted a single Tutsi after nine years, thou=
gh
Faustin Twagirimungu, the first Prime Minister under the Tutsi RPF
government in 1994 and 1995, testified before it that he believed more
Hutu's than Tutsi's were killed in Rwanda in the tragic violence of 1994.
Hundreds of thousands of Hutu's were slaughtered later in Zaire, now the
Democratic Republic of Congo, and remain endangered today.  The ICTR is a=
n
instrumentality for U.S. support of Tutsi control in Uganda, Rwanda,
Burundi, and for a time and perhaps again, the Democratic Republic of Con=
go.

          ICTY prosecutions are overwhelmingly against Serbs and only Ser=
b
leaders have been indicted by it, including not only President Milosevic =
and
Serb leadership, but Serb leaders in Srpska, the segregated Serb part of
Bosnia.

          As the prosecution of the former President of Yugoslavia draws =
to
a close his health is seriously impaired and has become life threatening.
Hearings were cancelled last week because he was too ill to participate, =
but
the Tribunal added onerous hours of hearings for the two final weeks of t=
he
prosecution case.  Only yesterday the Tribunal was forced to reduce the
hearings to half days because of a medical report on President Milosevic
prepared by court appointed doctors.  President Milosevic has been kept i=
n
total isolation for months during the period he headed the socialist part=
y's
ticket in parliamentary elections and when his party joined the coalition
which elected the new speaker of the Parliament last week.  Earlier this
week the Tribunal extended his isolation for another month because of
political events in Serbia.

          President Milosevic, imprisoned, his health dangerously impaire=
d,
defending himself alone in the courtroom, has been given less than three
months to prepare his defense to more than two years of evidence before t=
he
defense presentation is scheduled to begin in May.  These most recent
actions of the Tribunal are representative of the gross consistent
unfairness of the proceedings during the years of President Milosevic
imprisonment and the prosecution case against him.

          To properly prepare the defense, it will be necessary to secure
and review tens of thousands of documents, find and interview hundreds of
potential witnesses and organize the evidence into a coherent and effecti=
ve
presentation.

          The United Nations must take the following acts in the interest=
 of
simple justice, to right former wrongs, to assess the legality and fairne=
ss
of a court it created and to maintain credibility in the eyes of the Peop=
les
of the United Nations:

1.     Declare a moratorium on all proceedings in all U.N. ad hoc crimina=
l
tribunals for a period of at least six months and for such additional
periods as may prove necessary for the United Nations to:

                                      A. Create a Commission of
international public law scholars and historians to examine the precedent=
s,
the drafting, language and intention of the Charter of the United Nations=
 to
determine whether the Charter empowers the Security Council to create any
criminal tribunal and, if so, the basis, authority and scope of such powe=
r,
or refer the issue to the International Court of Justice for decision.

                                      B. Create a commission of
international criminal law scholars to review the trial proceedings in th=
e
case against President Milosevic to determine whether legal errors,
violations of due process of law, or unfairness in the conduct of the tri=
al
compel dismissal of the proceedings, and whether the evidence presented b=
y
the prosecution against former President Milosevic to is sufficient under
international law, before any defense is presented, to support and justif=
y
continuation of the trial.

                                      C. Provide former President Milosev=
ic
with funds to retain advisory counsel, investigators, researchers, docume=
nt
examiners and other experts sufficient to effectively respond to the
evidence presented against him and assure the time required to complete t=
he
task before any further trial proceedings resume, such efforts being
essential even if the court is abolished, or the prosecution has been
dismissed in order to help establish historic fact for future peace.

                                      D. Provide funds to secure independ=
ent
medical diagnoses, treatment and care for former President Milosevic in
facilities in Serbia.


Respectfully submitted,

Ramsey Clark

The identical letter has been sent to:
-Members of the UN Security Council
-The President of the UN General Assembly
-The Secretary General of the UN
-The President of the United States
-The International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia


* Submitted with this letter is a 31-page document entitled Divide and
Conquer which supports in greater detail the facts, law and arguments set
forth and the relief requested herein. Its Table of Contents provides a
ready reference to the pages where subject matters of particular interest
will be found.

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
 READ THE COMPLETE TEXT OF "DIVIDE AND CONQUER"
by Ramsey Clark
http://www.iacenter.org/yugo/divide&conquer.htm
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D


*************************************************************

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)


_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international