[L-I] IN SUPPORT TO THE FREEDOM FIGHT OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC

***********************************************************
Greek Committee for International D=E9tente and Peace (EEDYE)
***********************************************************

Athens September 15 2004

To the International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Milosevic

To the Organization SLOBODA of Serbia & Montenegro

To the International Association of Democratic Lawyers

Dear friends

It is with great concern and anger that we follow the developments
around the "trial" of the former president of the FR of Yugoslavia
Slobodan Milosevic at the famous "International Criminal Tribunal for
Yugoslavia (ICTY)", where basic rights of the defendant and every sense
of democratic and human rights are being violated day by day.

Since two years and around 300 days of trial the accusations being
presented are aiming in legitimizing the crimes of NATO during the
barbarous and inhuman bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999.

During this period various violations of fundamental rights to which any
defendant is entitled to, have been marked. Slobodan Milosevic was
hindered systematically in his communication with his family and his
advisors, which led (amongst others) to obstacles in the collection of
new elements of evidence and means for his innocence. Furthermore the
time for his preparation and defense was drastically suppressed along
with the fact that the number of defense witnesses was restricted and
the list of charges was extended after the trial had already started.

Culmination of the violations constitutes the fact that despite the
clear reference of the ICTY-statute (Art.21 Par.4), which is stating
that the defendant has the right "to be tried in his presence, and to
defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choice",
we are witnessing the flagrant violation of this right through the
imposition of counsel of defence by the court, against the strong and
categorical objection of Slobodan Milosevic and his insistence to defend
himself.

We believe that this development confirms the political character of the
court and trial itself, a procedure that constitutes a provocation for
every lawyer but as well for any legal system humanity has experienced.
The right Slobodan Milosevic is being deprived of was not refused by the
Apartheid regime to Nelson Mandela, or even by the Nazis to Georgi
Dimitrof.

On behalf of the Greek Committee for International D=E9tente and Peace
and of all peace loving people in Greece, we express our vehement
protest to the United Nations Organization, for this parody of trial,
which is not serving the slightest guaranty for a free and fair trial.

We express from the bottom of our heart our solidarity to the peoples of
Yugoslavia in their struggle for peace and progress, against the
imperialist plans on the Balkans

For the Greek Committee for International D=E9tente and Peace (EEDYE)

Evangelos Mahairas

President of EEDYE
President of Honor of the World Peace Council (WPC)
Former President of the Lawyers Association of Athens

************************************************************
************************************************************
BRITISH HELSINKI HUMAN RIGHTS GROUP
************************************************************

International Tribunal or Star Chamber? The ICTY's decision to impose
counsel on Slobodan Milosevic

Date: 13 September 2006

           On 10th September 2004, the International Criminal Tribunal fo=
r
the former Yugoslavia imposed defence counsel on its most famous defendan=
t,
Slobodan Milosevic.  This decision overturned previous rulings:  the
Prosecution had tried, at the beginning of the trial, to force a lawyer o=
n
Milosevic, and the judges had addressed the issue several times during th=
e
hearings.

            On 3rd July 2001, the very first day of the trial, the presid=
ing
judge, the late Sir Richard May, said, "Mr. Milosevic, I see that you're =
not
represented by counsel today. We understand that this is of your own choi=
ce.
You do have the right, of course, to defend yourself."[1]

            On 30th August, Judge May again said, "The accused is entitle=
d
to represent himself."[2]  The judge announced that amici curiae would be
appointed in order to ensure that the trial was fair.  May emphasised tha=
t
the role of the amici would not be to represent the accused.

Despite these clear statements, the Prosecution again argued that counsel
should be imposed.  Although Judge May had already ruled on this, Judge
Patrick Robinson intervened and made the following statement:

"Mr. Ryneveld, I have heard your submission. However, I do not consider i=
t
appropriate for the Chamber to impose counsel upon the accused. We have t=
o
act in accordance with the Statute and our Rules which, in any event,
reflect the position under customary international law, which is that the
accused has a right to counsel, but he also has a right not to have couns=
el.
He has a right to defend himself, and it is quite clear that he has chose=
n
to defend himself. He has made that abundantly clear. The strategy that t=
he
Chamber has employed of appointing an amicus curiae will take care of the
problems that you have outlined, but I stress that it would be wrong for =
the
Chamber to impose counsel on the accused, because that would be in breach=
 of
the position under customary international law."[3]

            (Judge Robinson has since become the presiding judge, followi=
ng
the death of Judge May.)  After Robinson had made his intervention, May
returned to the subject a third time, saying "Let me add this, Mr Rynevel=
d:
Yes, that is the view of the Trial Chamber, that it would not be practica=
l
to impose counsel on an accused who wishes to defend himself."[4]

            As if this were all not enough, Judge May returned to the
subject again on 11th December.  "Mr. Milosevic," he said, "there's one
matter we want to raise with you. It's this: You haven't appointed counse=
l
to defend you. As you know, it's your right to defend yourself if you wis=
h,
although you may wish to reconsider that in the light of the complexity a=
nd
seriousness of these charges. But that's a matter for you."[5]

            The reason why the judges kept to this position is indeed tha=
t
the right of a accused person to defend himself is indeed enshrined in th=
e
statute of the International Criminal Tribunal.  Article 21.4.d states, "=
The
accused shall be entitled . to defend himself in person."  No qualificati=
on
or exceptions are laid out here.  Although the same article also says tha=
t
the accused is entitled "to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any
case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by hi=
m
in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it," it =
is
quite clear that this article does not mean the court has right to impose
counsel, but instead that the accused has the right to a lawyer if he nee=
ds
one.  This interpretation is itself used by the ICTY's own "Directive on =
the
Assignment of Defence Counsel," dated 28th July 2004, which reaffirms the
right of an accused to defend himself (Article 5).  This Directive makes =
it
clear that the assignment of counsel is a right enjoyed by the accused, n=
ot
a right of the court to assign one if the accused wishes to defend himsel=
f.

The right to defend oneself is enshrined in other documents too.  Using t=
he
very words which have since been integrated into the ICTY's own statute,
Article 6.3.c of the European Convention on Human Rights states:  "Everyo=
ne
charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:  . to
defend himself in person."  As with the ICTY statute, no exceptions or
derogations from this are provided for.  Perhaps the ICTY, being a UN bod=
y,
does not think it is bound by the European Convention even though it has
direct legal force in many European states.  But even the United Nations'
own documents also provide for this right.  Article 14.3.d. of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights also uses the same
language:  "In the determination of any criminal charge against him,
everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full
equality: . to defend himself in person".  No exceptions or derogations a=
re
provided:  indeed the right to defend oneself in person is a "minimum
guarantee".  It is a core right.

            In spite of this, on 8th November 2002, the Prosecution again
applied for defence counsel to be imposed.  It argued that the defendant
should have counsel imposed for health reasons.  Again, the Trial Chamber
rejected this, in an oral ruling on 18th December 2002.  On 4th April 200=
3,
the Trial Chamber issued a long document laying out its reasons for refus=
ing
to impose counsel.[6]  It reviewed the ICTY's own statute and concluded
rapidly that "A plain reading of this provision [Article 21.4.d] indicate=
s
that there is a right to defend oneself in person and the Trial Chamber i=
s
unable to accept the Prosecution's proposition that it would allow for th=
e
assignment of defence counsel for the Accused against his wishes in the
present circumstances."

The Trial Chamber then launched into a long discussion of the relevant la=
w,
drawing on cases from around the world.  It argued that the imposition of
counsel was a feature only of inquisitorial systems, not of the adversari=
al
systems used by the ICTY.   In support of its view that the imposition of
counsel was inadmissible, the Trial Chamber quoted the US Supreme Court c=
ase
Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), which states, "We confront he=
re
a nearly universal conviction, on the part of our people as well as our
courts, that forcing a lawyer upon an unwilling defendant is contrary to =
his
basic right to defend himself if he truly wants to do so." The Supreme Co=
urt
held that imposition of counsel would violate the spirit of the 6th
amendment.  The ICTY Trial Chamber commented:

"It [i.e. the Supreme Court] pointed out that only the sixteenth century
Star Chamber in the long history of English legal history adopted a pract=
ice
of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in criminal proceedings, a=
nd
recounted Stephen's comment on this procedure: 'There is something specia=
lly
repugnant to justice in using rules of practice in such a manner as to de=
bar
a prisoner from defending himself, especially when the professed object o=
f
the rules so used is to provide for his defence.' "

The ICTY Trial Chamber went on, "There is a further practical reason for =
the
right to self-representation in common law. While it may be the case that=
 in
civil law systems it is appropriate to appoint defence counsel for an
accused who wishes to represent himself, in such systems the court is
fulfilling a more investigative role in an attempt to establish the truth.
In the adversarial systems, it is the responsibility of the parties to pu=
t
forward the case and not for the court, whose function it is to judge.
Therefore, in an adversarial system, the imposition of defence counsel on=
 an
unwilling accused would effectively deprive that accused of the possibili=
ty
of putting forward a defence." [emphasis added].  It also concluded that,
"The obligation of 'putting a case,' i.e. putting forward the defence
version of events if it differs from that put forward by a witness, is
reflected in Rule 90 (H) of the Rules. As the Amici Curiae note, such an
obligation cannot be fulfilled by counsel who is not instructed by an
accused as to the defence to put forward."

The Trial Chamber then reviewed some of the other international documents
which uphold the right of a defendant to defend himself, including the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, mentioned above, th=
e
American Convention on Human Rights (Article 8.2.d), the European Convent=
ion
on Human Rights (mentioned aboive), and the Statute of the new Internatio=
nal
Criminal Court. (Article 67.1.d)  In this statute, the right to defend
oneself is limited only when the defendant behaves in a disruptive manner=
 in
the court room.  (The Rwanda tribunal, indeed, has imposed counsel on a
defendant for this very reason.)  The Trial Chamber discussed the imposit=
ion
of counsel in a case in Germany, a case which went to the European Court =
of
Human Rights,[7] but rightly found this case to be irrelevant to the
Milosevic case because the defendant was not defending himself.  Discussi=
ng
other cases too, the Trial Chamber concluded that the only relevant case =
did
not allow for exceptions to the general right to defend oneself (paragrap=
h
36). "The international and regional conventions (in similar language)
plainly articulate a right to defend oneself in person . In the Trial
Chamber's view, it is appropriate to be guided by the ICCPR and the Human
Rights Committee's interpretation of it, which confirms the right to self=
-
defence and rejects the imposition of defence counsel on an unwilling
accused." (paragraph 37)

The Trial Chamber then turned to practicalities and concluded that
imposition of counsel could simply not work because the defendant would
refuse to instruct counsel (paragraph 38).  Winding up its discussion, it
says that the imposition of counsel can occur only when the defendant
behaves in such a disruptive manner that he has to be removed from the
courtroom (paragraph 40) and concludes (paragraph 41) that although the
Trial Chamber has the duty to ensure an expeditious trial, it may do this
only by respecting the rights of the accused as laid out in Article 21 of
its own statute, i.e. by respecting the right of a defendant to defend
himself.

All the main points of this reasoning were summarily thrown out of the
window when Milosevic's defence started.  On 10th September 2004, the Tri=
al
Chamber ruled that counsel would be imposed.[8]  The reasons given for th=
is
astonishing volte-face are simply disingenuous.  Referring to the 4th Apr=
il
2003 ruling, Judge Robinson said, "the Trial Chamber, while holding that =
the
accused had a right to defend himself also held in paragraph 40 that the
right to defend oneself in person is not absolute."  This is disingenuous
because the Trial Chamber explicitly laid down the circumstances in which
the right might be limited (disruptive behaviour leading to expulsion fro=
m
the court room).  Even though Milosevic's health had been an issue ever
since the trial started in early 2002, the Trial Chamber made no mention =
of
this as a possible reason for imposing counsel on 4th April 2003.

In September 2004, the Trial Chamber suddenly adopted the Prosecution's
argument that Milosevic had not been taking his medicine as prescribed, b=
ut
it seemed not to care that it is obviously a basic human right to take
medication as one sees fit  -  unless the defendant is mentally incompete=
nt
either to stand trial or regulate his medicinal intake. Crucially, the Tr=
ial
Chamber offered no legal argument, i.e. by quoting precedent or law, for
using the health of the accused as a reason for imposing counsel.  It sim=
ply
rescinded all its earlier decisions, which had been grounded in law and
precedent;  it stated that international and domestic law provided
precedents for imposing counsel, without quoting a single one; and it sai=
d
that it was "in the interests of justice" to impose counsel.  No definiti=
on
was given of these interests.  The Trial Chamber concluded, "The fundamen=
tal
duty of the Trial Chamber is to ensure that the trial is fair and
expeditious," but in fact based its decision to impose counsel was ground=
ed
solely on expediency, at the expense of fairness. It should also be
remembered that the bench in the Milosevic trial permitted the prosecutio=
n
to ramble on for months with irrelevant "expert" testimony consuming
sessions far beyond its original allotted time while the prosecutors trie=
d
to induce someone -  anyone - from Serbia, to plead direct incrimination =
of
Milosevic  -  all without success.

Even by the appalling standards of the ICTY, the one-sidedness of this
decision to impose defence counsel (after reducing the time available to =
the
defendant's case to about half that granted to the prosecution) is shocki=
ng.
By going against all its own previous rulings on the matter, the Tribunal=
's
decision is a pure example of arbitrary rule.  As such, the ICTY has
demonstrated itself to be in contempt of the rule of law.  It suggests th=
at
achieving a verdict is the overriding concern of the Tribunal and given t=
hat
it was the Prosecution which demanded the imposition of counsel on Mr.
Milosevic, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that conviction at all
costs has become the guiding principle of the  Tribunal.


[1] http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/010703IA.htm, page 1

[2] http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/010830SC.htm, page 7

[3] http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/010830SC.htm, page 17

[4] http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/010830SC.htm, page 18

[5] http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/011211MH.htm, page 149

[6] http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/trialc/decision-e/040403.htm paragra=
ph
18

[7] Croissant v. Germany, European Court of Human Rights ("ECHR"), Case N=
o.
62/1001/314/385, Judgement, 25 September 1992 ("Croissant v. Germany").

[8] http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/trialc/order-e/040910.htm


************************************************************
************************************************************
GROUP OF WITNESSES FROM USA
************************************************************

President Slobodan Milosevic

 12 September 2004


Dear President Milosevic,

We, the undersigned, are outraged by the decision of the Hague Tribunal
 (ICTY) to impose counsel on you against your will and to deprive you of
your lawful and fundamental right to self-defense.  Although we previousl=
y
had agreed to testify in your defense, under these conditions we cannot a=
nd
will not participate as witnesses in these proceedings.

Not only does the Tribunal's decision violate basic legal and ethical nor=
ms,
it brazenly disregards its own rules. Under Article 21, paragraph 4 of th=
e
Statute of the ICTY, a defendant is entitled to certain "minimum
guarantees," including the right "to defend himself in person or though
legal assistance of his own choosing."
The Statute furthermore states that a trial should be conducted "with ful=
l
respect for the rights of the accused." We can only comment that our
understanding of the word "guarantee" evidently differs markedly from tha=
t
of the Court's.

We can assure you that we remain ready and willing to appear as witnesses=
 in
the event that your right to self defense is restored to you and you choo=
se
to invite us.
We stand united in our belief that the charges against you are false and
that they represent a continuation of the war against Yugoslavia and the
Serbian people by the U.S. and its NATO allies.
We are sending a copy of this letter to the court to inform them of our
decision.

Signed,

Gregory Elich
Sara Flounders
Barry Lituchy
Michael Parenti

cc.:  ICTY Registry, The Hague

**************************************************************
**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL ACTION CENTER (IAC)
**************************************************************

Milosevic denied universal right of self-defense--
U.S.-Created Court Gags Yugoslav President

By Sara Flounders

In the most drastic maneuver yet to silence the truth of the U.S./NATO wa=
r
on Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugosla=
via
(ICTY) on Sept. 2 denied former President Slobodan Milosevic of Yugoslavi=
a
the internationally recognized right to defend himself in court. This com=
es
after the prosecution took two years presenting its side of the case. The
ruling came on the very day Milosevic was finally to begin calling witnes=
ses
in his own defense.

President Milosevic vigorously presented his opening statement of his own
defense in person for two days on Aug. 31 and Sept. 1, immediately before
the Trial Chamber decided he "is not fit enough to represent himself." He
was apparently "fit enough" to perform that task.

The former president's introductory remarks set the tone for a strong
indictment of the U.S., Germany and other NATO powers for their 10-year w=
ar
of aggression against Yugoslavia. His defense case was expected to contin=
ue
in the same manner, exposing the crimes of the imperialist powers in the
Balkans.

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general and co-chair of the Internatio=
nal
Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM), stated in a letter to the
court: "Under International Law, every person accused of a crime has the
right to represent himself in person in the court.

"The appearance of President Milosevic representing himself alone during =
the
prosecution case for over two years, nearly 300 trial days, cross examini=
ng
nearly 300 prosecution witnesses, coping with 500,000 documents, and 30,0=
00
pages of trial transcript, then at the very beginning of his presentation=
 of
his own defense being silenced and lawyers he rejects placed in charge of
his destiny, speaks of injustice."

Canadian attorney and international law expert Tiphaine Dickson, who is
assisting Milosevic's supporters, said: "The prosecutor is attempting, ye=
t
again, to force President Milosevic to accept legal counsel to represent
him, using his poor health as an excuse. President Milosevic has insisted
that he represent himself from the onset. Within the U.S., the Supreme Co=
urt
has recognized this as a right under the Sixth Amendment to the
Constitution. To refuse to allow him this right would turn the already
illegal ICTY hearings into a star-chamber proceeding."

Historically, even in past stage-managed trials where the prosecution hel=
d
total control and a guilty verdict was assured beforehand, many defendant=
s
have had the right to represent themselves. Nelson Mandela facing a racis=
t
apartheid court in South Africa, Fidel Castro brought before the court of
the Bastita dictatorship, or Georgi Dimirov before the Nazi court in the
1930s could speak in their defense.

Over 100 legal experts, lawyers and jurists from 17 countries signed a
letter entitled, "Imposition of Counsel on Slobodan Milosevic Threatens t=
he
Future of International Law and the Life of the Defendant."  This letter
urges the United Nations to allow Milosevic to continue defending himself
against war crimes charges.

The internationally circulated letter warns that imposing a defense lawye=
r
against Milosevic's wishes would violate international law. It is illegal
even under the statute of the Yugoslav tribunal and also under the
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights.

IMPOSING COURT-APPOINTED LAWYERS

Tiphaine Dickson, who drafted the petition, said the UN tribunal prosecut=
ing
Milosevic is trying to impose a defense counsel to strip him of a defense
"that may be embarrassing" to the court.

Ramsey Clark's letter also points out that "The very lawyers appointed by
the Trial Chamber have a direct conflict of interest. They have served by
appointment of the court as 'friends of the Court.' You cannot serve two
masters. Having served as friend of the Court, that same counsel selected=
 by
the Court to represent President Milosevic cannot ethically serve as his
counsel."

The two lawyers who have been appointed as defense council against
Milosevic's express wishes are Stephen Kay and his daughter Gilian Kay
Higgins. The two were appointed Amicus Curiae (friends of the court) agai=
nst
Milosevic's wishes in the prosecution part of the trial. In that appointe=
d
position, Stephen Kay was made very much aware of Milosevic's insistence =
on
his legal right to conduct his own defense.

Stephan Kay has long played a highly dubious role as appointed council in
earlier trials of both the Yugoslav and the Rwanda Tribunals. Where he wa=
s
appointed there were convictions in the trials. His appointment also allo=
wed
the courts to establish dangerous legal precedents for other trials.

Many outrageous judicial abuses have been legitimized by the ICTY over th=
e
past 10 years. The court accepts the use of hearsay evidence, offers redu=
ced
sentences in exchange for testimony, and allows the use of anonymous
witnesses and closed sessions.
ICTY transcripts show pages and pages blanked out because sensitive issue=
s
have been discussed in court. "Sensitive" issues means those relating to =
the
U.S. role.

In December 2003, when the former supreme commander of NATO, Wesley Clark=
,
testified in the Milosevic trial, the court agreed to let the Pentagon
censor its proceedings. The transcripts were not released until Washingto=
n
had given its approval.

A COURT TO JUSTIFY OCCUPATION

U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was behind this court's creatio=
n
in 1993. Since then, it has been financed and organized by funds from the
U.S. and Britain. Its 1,300 personnel are also overwhelmingly from Britai=
n
and the U.S.

 From the very beginning the court has functioned to justify the U.S.,
British and NATO role in the break-up of the Yugoslav Federation.

The decision to charge President Milosevic with war crimes was made towar=
d
the end of the 78-day U.S./NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. By charging the
elected Yugoslav president, the U.S./NATO forces placed increased pressur=
e
on him to capitulate rather than participate in the cease-fire negotiatio=
ns
or oppose the long-term U.S./NATO occupation of Kosovo.

The entire 1999 U.S. war against defenseless Yugoslavia, the bombing of
every major city, the destruction of 480 schools and 33 hospitals, along
with bridges, roads and the entire industrial infrastructure, was all
presented by the imperialist propaganda machine as necessary to stop an
alleged genocide in the Serbian province of Kosovo.

NATO officials constantly referred to "mountains of corpses" and "killing
fields." In April 1999, the U.S. State Department claimed that 500,000
Kosovo Albanians had been rounded up and killed by Serbs. Other reports u=
sed
the number of 100,000 feared dead.

NO MASS GRAVES

Just as the weapons of mass destruction have never been found in Iraq, th=
e
charge of massacres, mass graves, ethnic cleansing and genocide proved to=
 be
an utter fabrication in Kosovo.

Immediately after the war, 20 forensic teams were sent to Kosovo by the
International Criminal Court at The Hague from 15 NATO countries, includi=
ng
the U.S.. They dug all summer of 1999 at the very sites where supposed
witnesses had reported mass graves.

By October 1999 they reported back to Chief Prosecutor for the Tribunal
Carla Del Ponte that they had been unable to find any mass graves in Koso=
vo
at all. They had found a total of 2,108 corpses in individual graves. How
many of that number may have been killed by the NATO bombing they did not
speculate.

All of this material, including the reports of NATO destruction of Yugosl=
av
cities and the Tribunal's own forensic teams' inability to find mass grav=
es,
was to be part of Milosevic's rebuttal. The attempt to remove Milosevic a=
s
his own attorney is an admission that President Milosevic is not guilty o=
f
the war-crimes charges. It adds to the U.S. and NATO guilt in planning,
executing and carrying out a 10-year war that broke up a strong and
successful Yugoslav Federation into a half- dozen weak colonies and
neo-colonies subservient to U.S. and Western European imperialism.

The breakup of the Yugoslav Federation meant that the many industries of
Yugoslavia, including steel, auto, pharmaceuticals, chemical plants,
railroads, mines, refining and processing, that had previously been owned=
 by
the whole population or by the workers in those plants have been forcibly
privatized. U.S., British and German corporations now own them. Social
programs, pension funds, free education and free health care have been
decimated. It is this history of the crime of occupation that NATO's cour=
t
is trying to silence by depriving Yugoslav President Milosevic of his rig=
ht
to present his own defense.

---------------------------------------------------------
Flounders is co-director of the International Action Center. She was
scheduled to testify in the opening phase of former Yugoslav President
Slobodan Milosevic's defense at the International Criminal Tribunal for t=
he
Former Yugoslavia at The Hague, Netherlands.
Flounders had met with President Milosevic in Scheveningen Prison at The
Hague for six hours on June 28 to help prepare testimony for the defense.
Milosevic has been held for three years at the prison. Material from a bo=
ok
published by the International Action Center in 2002, Hidden Agenda:
U.S./NATO Takeover of Yugoslavia, edited by Flounders and John Catalinott=
o,
was to be the basis of her testimony at the trial.

posted: September 10, 2004

International Action Center
39 West 14th Street, Room 206
New York, NY 10011
email: [email protected]
En Espanol: [email protected]
web: http://www.iacenter.org

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

************
www.icdsm.org
www.icdsm.org
www.icdsm.org
www.icdsm.org
www.icdsm.org

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

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

THE LIFE OF PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ARE IN PERIL.

JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL LAWYERS' PETITION:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm

JOIN THE INTERNATIONAL ARTISTS' APPEAL FOR MILOSEVIC:
http://www.icdsm.org/more/artists.htm

SUPPORT THE ICDSM:
http://www.icdsm.org/

*********************************************************
You can find detailed instructions at:
http://www.icdsm.org/battle.htm
(please also follow the links therein) or
*************************************************************
You can make transfers to ICDSM accounts in Europe:

Peter Betscher
Stadt- und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany
IBAN: DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63
SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS

or

Vereinigung f=FCr Internationale Solidarit=E4t (VIS)
4000 Basel, Switzerland
PC 40-493646-5
*************************************************************

*************************************************************
THE ILLEGAL HAGUE PROCESS MUST END.
Statement by the President of the World Peace Council Orlando Fundora (Cu=
ba)
http://www.icdsm.org/more/fundora.htm
*************************************************************
*************************************************************

VIDOVDAN PEOPLE'S RALLY IN BELGRADE ORGANIZED BY SLOBODA
to mark the third anniversary of kidnapping of President Milosevic
http://www.icdsm.org/more/galery2806.htm
**************************************************************

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