[L-I] Milosevic: This is a political trial (21 October transcript)

**********************************************************
NOTE: After the 21 October session of the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY, mo=
st
of the Western media were quoting Steven Kay and not President Milosevic.
These days, after he files a "request for withdrawal", instead of a simpl=
e,
although late resignation, again it is Steven Kay who gets all the
publicity.
The Appeals Chamber session was open. Its transcript (like for any other
session) was done next day and had to be available to all parties. For da=
ys,
and with different excuses, it was denied to assistants of President
Milosevic to get the transcript in the electronic form. Finally, when the=
re
were no more excuses, the transcript appeared on the ICTY web site.
Additional proof that it appeared only due to the pressure from President
Milosevic's team is the fact that the transcript of 19 October, when ICDS=
M
Vice-Chair Liana Kanelli slammed the ICTY had not been posted yet. Here w=
e
give the words of President Milosevic, that someone tried to hide from th=
e
public as long as possible.
The whole transcript can be read at:
http://www.un.org/icty/transe54/041021DR.htm
The whole text of the 'Lawyers Petition' extensively quoted by President
Milosevic can be read at:
http://www.icdsm.org/Lawappeal.htm
Everything about the political campaign to silence President Milosevic ca=
n
be read at:
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/DIC410A.html
************************************************************
Thursday, 21 October 2004
[Appeal Proceedings]
[Open session]

PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: In my deep conviction concerning this decis=
ion
to take away my right to represent myself, this was not prompted by healt=
h
reasons nor legal reasons but by political reasons.

Health reasons were taken exclusively as an excuse or pretext.

I would like to turn your attention to the fact that there was a campaign
conducted not to permit me to speak. On the 29th of August, one of the
drafters of your Statute, Michael Scharf published in the Washington Post=
 an
article as part of this campaign in which he said, amongst other things -=
-
I'm not going to quote the entire article, I would just like to point to =
a
few things or excepts from it.

"At the start of the trial in February 2002, the original presiding judge=
,
Britain's Richard May, ruled that 'under international law, the defendant
has a right to counsel but he also has a right not to have counsel.'
Virtually everything that has gone wrong with the Milosevic trial can be
traced back to that erroneous ruling."

As part of that campaign, therefore, things set out from insisting that t=
he
Chamber, which was presided by Judge May, wrongly decided to enable me to
speak, and then this is explained by stating:

"By acting as his own counsel, Milosevic was able to begin the trial with=
 an
18-hour long opening argument, which included Hollywood-quality video and
slide-show presentations showing the destruction wrought by the 1999 NATO
bombing campaign."

That is what disturbed all those who do not wish to hear the truth from t=
his
place, because for three years now, the other side has been explaining
crimes that I did not commit, ascribing to me intentions which I never ha=
d.
We're talking about legal alchemy here, which is jeopardized by the
possibility that truth be spoken here and that what really happened be
talked about here.

In his article, Scharf explains that or provides an explanation from whic=
h
it can be seen that we're not talking about law here but politics. I will
quote just one more excerpt:

"In creating the Yugoslavia tribunal statute, the UN Security Council set
three objectives: First, to educate the Serbian people, who were long mis=
led
by Milosevic propaganda, about the acts of aggression, war crimes and cri=
mes
against humanity committed by his regime ..."

As you can see, he is citing a political reason which only a twisted mind
can use in view of the fact that there was no war in Serbia and that Serb=
ia
was the only one that maintained the structure of population as it was
before and that there was no discrimination at all. This is part of the
propaganda which is being affirmed here.

Secondly, "to facilitate national reconciliation by pinning prime
responsibility on Milosevic and other top leaders and disclosing the way =
in
which the Milosevic regime had induced ordinary Serbs to commit atrocitie=
s;
and third, to promote political catharsis while enabling Serbia's newly
elected leaders to distance themselves from the repressive policies of th=
e
past. May's decision to allow Milosevic to represent himself has seriousl=
y
undercut these aims."

He also explains that this is also very wrong because this trial is being
followed, because the majority of the citizens in Serbia give their suppo=
rt
to me, which is not a surprise, because everybody had the opportunity to
hear what is being said here.

For example, this statement of mine of the 31st of August and the 1st of
September was published in newspapers with the broadest circulation. It w=
as
also broadcast on television. It was published in hundreds of thousands o=
f
copies. So I can expose myself to the trial of the -- or to the scrutiny =
of
the public, whereas the other side cannot. And that is the main reason wh=
y
it is not being permitted here, the truth, or arguments be brought out in
favour of the truth and that this truth be proved by facts.

I would like to also draw your attention, gentlemen, because you are all
experts in the legal profession, that in relation to this question of
assigning counsel, denying me my right, taking away my right, about 100
prominent legal scholars, professors, experts in international and crimin=
al
law from Serbia, Russia, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Germany, the United Stat=
es,
Canada, India, Belgium, Denmark, Bulgaria, Hungary, Netherlands, Czech
Republic, Great Britain, France, submitted a petition to the General
Secretary and to the United Nations Security Council.

You probably did not pay attention to this, but many arguments were state=
d
there against this decision which was adopted by the Trial Chamber.

They say that this imposition of counsel, "This apparently punitive measu=
re
is contrary to international law, incompatible with the adversarial syste=
m
of criminal justice adopted by the Security Council in Resolution 808, an=
d
ignores the Court's obligation to provide adequate medical care and
provisional release to the defendant. ... The ICTY has ignored repeated
requests for provisional release, to which everyone presumed innocent is
entitled, has imposed unrealistically short preparation periods ..."

I warned you, Mr. Meron, the last time that we had a discussion here and
when we were talking about me being granted three months for preparations
compared to several years that the other side had, I drew your attention
specifically to the existing decision of doctors that I can only work for
three days a week and that that time is very short. At the time, you said
that you would review all of these things. There has been no subsequent
review of these issues.

I would also like to remind you that in the decision of the Appeals Chamb=
er
of the 18th of April, 2002, comprising of Claude Jorda, David Hunt, Mehme=
t
Guney, Fausto Pocar and Theodor Meron - that's what it states here on the
cover page - in paragraph 27 it was stated since the reasons for decision=
 on
Prosecution interlocutory appeal from refusal to order joinder was being
discussed at the time,

"As has been shown to be necessary in all long trials before this Tribuna=
l,
the Trial Chamber will from time to time have to take a break in the hear=
ing
of evidence to enable the parties to marshal their forces and, if need be=
,
to unrepresented accused to rest from the work involved."

This was not respected either. And in connection with that, I would like =
to
say that when the three-day work rule was being respected, these three
workdays are not only days spent in court but three workdays in general.
This was not taken into account. But there were no problems at the time. =
I
will come back to that later.

In the petition, it says: "The envisaged imposition of counsel constitute=
s
an egregious violation of internationally recognised judicial rights, and
will serve to only aggravate Mr. Milosevic's life-threatening illness and
will further discredit these proceedings.

"The fundamental, minimum rights provided to a defendant under the Rome
Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as under the Statute=
s
of the Internation Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia include t=
he
right to defend oneself in person."

I will skip over. "As stated by the US 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."

And then there is a quote from the Faretta versus California case, from
which they -

"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 defence 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 defenc=
e
is stripped of the personal character upon which the Amendment exists."

And then it goes on to say:

"The essence of the right to represent oneself is defeated when the right=
 to
counsel becomes an obligation. As stated in Faretta, supra:

"An unwanted counsel 'represents' the defendant only through a tenuous an=
d
unacceptable legal fiction."

Then Faretta case. There's another quote from that case.

"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 proceedings. The Tribunal was the Star Chamber. T=
hat
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 specialised in trying 'political' offences, the Star Chamb=
er
has for centuries symbolized disregard of basic individual rights."

Gentlemen, we are facing a practice here which, as you can see, is being
dealt with in a way which is not a -- which does not serve as a complimen=
t.
In this case, it says:

"Imposition of counsel, even 'standby counsel', as appears to be presentl=
y
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," et cetera.

"If Slobodan Milosevic's medical condition does not permit him to attend =
the
proceedings, and he does not waive his right to be present, the ICTY does
not have the jurisdiction to hold hearings in his absence.

Adjournments will continue as long as measures are not taken to treat Mr.
Milosevic's malignant hypertension, a condition that cannot be treated by
further violating his rights, threatening to remove him from the process,=
 or
by transferring his Defence to a complete stranger.

"By imposing counsel, the ICTY would not only violate his right to
self-representation, but his right to present relevant evidence
demonstrating the repeated violations of Yugoslavia's sovereignty over a
decade.

"The right to defend oneself in person is at the heart of the Internation=
al
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 on a 'radic=
al
reform' of the proceedings - as the Chamber is now considering, by changi=
ng
the rules in the mid-trial, and to the defendant's detriment- is a
perversion of both the letter and the spirit of international law."

That is about 100 legal scholars and professionals said on this matter. I
mentioned them before.

Mr. Meron, we are talking here about the cogent norms of international la=
w,
ius cogens, imperative norms which do not allow a restrictive interpretat=
ion
and which in my deep conviction and according to the conviction of many
lawyers throughout the world say that I cannot be denied of my right to
represent myself. Therefore, the fact that you question my surprise at al=
l
that the Trial Chamber could have adopted such a decision at all is
something that does not surprise me but astonishes even many people
throughout the world, especially when we keep in mind that we're talking
here about the denial of the minimum rights which I should enjoy here.

So I would like to be very brief. I would like for my right to be restore=
d
to me.

As far as arguments that were utilised which say that because of my
hypertension many sittings had to be suspended, I would like to say that =
it
is my deep conviction that the doctors on this matter have also been
manipulated, because some elements were stated in a context in which they
cannot be considered to hold.

As you can see here, I have a letter from Dr. van Dijkman to the Detentio=
n
Unit physician, Dr. Falke, where he says -- this letter is dated on the 1=
0th
of June, 2004, and it says that on the 9th and 10th of June I was monitor=
ed
for 24 hours, my blood pressure was monitored for 24 hours, and it explai=
ns
" ... blood pressure during daytime 164/103." Et cetera. And he goes on t=
o
say, "I do not consider the blood pressure to be so high --  ... cease hi=
s
activities." Therefore, when it was high, he believed it did not justify =
a
cessation of my activities. On the 26th of July, the date when I was
examined the last time in order to agree in the future with Dr. Tavernier=
's
findings, my pressure was 150/95. Therefore, it was better. And then when=
 it
was better, it served as a basis for concluding that I was medically unfi=
t
to defend myself.

And furthermore, they manipulated the information about a loss of ten day=
s,
allegedly because of my health situation. And you will agree, gentlemen,
that when this piece of information is used, it is in relation to days wh=
en
my blood pressure was high. That's what it seems. However, that is not
accurate. I have an official document stamped and signed by the authorise=
d
officer of the Detention Unit, the only one who is in charge of medical
records, which states in view of the fact that on several occasions I had=
 a
very severe case of flu with high fever, and it says "Dates of flu." In
2001, it was one week. In 2002, it was one week. In early 2003, it was te=
n
days. In May 2003, two weeks. And finally in 2004, in February, two weeks.
In total, that amounts to six and a half weeks of flu involving high feve=
r
in various periods.

What happened then, gentlemen, then back in February 2004, when I was
running a high fever and having flu and was bedridden, I received
notification that the appeal -- that the Prosecution case had been comple=
ted
and that I was to prepare my list of witnesses. I therefore asked the
liaison officer from the Registry, who is sitting here, whether, being il=
l,
I was allowed to have an extension of that deadline because the task
involves a huge amount of work. In those six and a half weeks, I was
supposed to prepare a list of witnesses and was not able to start
immediately.

I was informed by a Trial Chamber, through their legal assistant or whate=
ver
they call it, that the deadline cannot be moved. Therefore, I practically
had to work from my bed at a very high intensity and to work very hard to
comply with the deadline and submit that list within the six weeks given =
me
from the time when I was informed of the completion of the Prosecution ca=
se.

That is what caused stress, shortage of sleep, and other problems.

And this complete disregard for the rule that I was allowed to work for o=
nly
three days a week drove my tension and blood pressure up. In other words,=
 it
was the Trial Chamber who caused it with their decision and the fact that
they set unreasonable deadlines. And then the resulting problems were use=
d
as an excuse to impose counsel on me with the explanation that I was unab=
le
to handle the preparations required myself. That is what happened.

I can give you this paper which shows exactly how many weeks were in issu=
e,
with appropriate dates and signatures. The loss of days caused by this wa=
s
completely unrelated to the problems I was experiencing. It is, therefore=
,
abundantly clear that this is a manipulation of findings and facts.

It is, as a consequence, abundantly clear that all talk of obstructionism=
 is
malicious, because if you say that about somebody who spent 300 days
examining the witnesses of the other side, calling him an obstructionist,
which he had never been in any of the 300 days of dealing with the case o=
f
the opposing side. It is nonsense, to say the least.

Even Mr. Nice putting forward his arguments before the Trial Chamber, try=
ing
to deny me an extension, said that I was working very efficiently and did
not need an extension of the deadline. Therefore, in my then-health
situation, I experienced additional pressure which caused a deterioration=
 of
my health, which was then used as a pretext for assigning counsel on me.

When I did not have any other health problems, I worked quite efficiently
indeed, except for the times when I had flu with high fever, which nobody=
 is
immune from, and nobody can guarantee that it would not happen to them.

You asked me a number of questions that I will attempt to answer.

What is the best solution? The best and the only solution, in my opinion,=
 is
for you to give me back my rights. Your stand-by counsel is of no interes=
t
to me whatsoever.

Mr. Kay used to be an amicus curiae. He, as well as his colleague, upon
leave of the Trial Chamber, put questions to witnesses when he deemed fit.
As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to such practice at all. As
far as I'm concerned, in that capacity he can continue if you think that
necessary. He can continue to put questions to witnesses or perform any
other tasks.

But it is indubitable that the only solution, the only one I see as just,
fair, logical and reasonable is to give me back my right to represent
myself, to call witnesses, to examine them, and to lead evidence in my
Defence case.

That amounts, practically, to the guarantees I enjoy under every
international covenant, agreement, treaty, and finally your own Statute.

And I cannot agree to anything less because that is my principled positio=
n,
one from which I do not intend to retreat. So much, Mr. Meron. Thank you =
for
your attention.

THEODOR MERON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Mr. Milosevic, what would you
suggest to the Court? How should it act if you would have to reduce your
presence in the courtroom even beyond the three days that you have been a=
ble
to cope with in the past? Imagine for a moment that you could be in the
court, bearing also -- taking into account also the time you would need i=
n
the detention centre to prepare, only one day a week. Would you -- do you
believe that the Court can go on if the situation would arise in that
context? Do give us some practical suggestions to try and, in fairness, t=
o
remedy the situation that has arisen.

PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: Mr. Meron, your question is completely
logical. I believe, however, that one should take into account the histor=
y
of the accumulation of the present problems. Namely, several times - and
this is known to everybody sitting here and it can be seen from the
transcript - at the moment when this so-called trial began with charges f=
rom
the Kosovo indictments, indictments on Croatia and Bosnia were issued. At
that time, I received over half a million pages of material from the othe=
r
side in connection with the charges raised then.

On several occasions, I asked them, "When do you gentlemen suppose that I
can read this? Will you give me time to review this material, to familiar=
ise
myself with it and to respond?" The answer I constantly received was that
the Trial Chamber would consider it.

And finally we ended up in this situation where I have not been given tim=
e
to talk to my potential witnesses. In fact, I talked to as many witnesses=
 as
I had time to talk with. And during the summer recess and preparation, I =
was
allowed to receive witnesses three days a week.

I assume you know that the opposite side spends sometimes several days
speaking to one witness. I speak to one witness a day, sometimes two
witnesses per day. I cannot be any more expedient than that. I believe,
therefore, you should bear in mind that if it is true, and it is written =
in
para 10 of the reasoned decision of the Trial Chamber on the assignment o=
f
counsel, since on the 30th of September it heard the arguments of sides t=
o
the proceedings, the Trial Chamber made its decision on the basis of the
medical report concerning the accused's health that the Chamber would sit
three days each week.

That decision was made back then, and I believe that coupled with
observation of this rule, a three-day work rule for the courtroom, and in
view of the fact that I had not been given the opportunity in a timely
manner to talk to my witnesses, a compromise is being made now between th=
is
and the decision made as a result. You should see what is fair in this
situation. I believe that we can keep up the dynamics of three workdays p=
er
week with the proviso that weeks off should be taken occasionally so that=
 I
can proof witnesses I intend to call. And that would be a perfectly
reasonable timetable enabling us to conduct these proceedings in a perfec=
tly
normal manner, achieving all that we have to achieve.

Those are my practical suggestions.

THEODOR MERON: Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Of course, some of the difficult=
ies
that you have alluded to in terms of pressure on you, in terms of tension=
,
are a result of the fact that you chose not to have a counsel. You have y=
our
legal advisors. Had you named them as your counsel, they would have borne
some of the burden that you -- that you took upon yourself. And from the
perspective of the Court, shouldn't a person accept the consequences of h=
is
decision? You chose to go this way, and you made things so much more
difficult for yourself. Mr. Milosevic.

PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: Mr. Meron, in support and in favour of Mr.
Kay, who very correctly put forward his position, because I really have
nothing personal against him, and he is doubtlessly a very capable lawyer=
,
nevertheless, no lawyer, Mr. Kay or any other lawyer, is able to replace =
me
in this job. It is simply because of the nature of these charges.

This is a political trial. What is at issue here is not at all whether I
committed a crime. What is at issue is that certain intentions are ascrib=
ed
to me from which consequences are later derived that are beyond the
expertise of any conceivable lawyer.

The point here is that the truth about the events in the former Yugoslavi=
a
has to be told here. It is that which is at issue, not the procedural
questions, because I'm not sitting here because I was accused of a specif=
ic
crime. I'm sitting here because I am accused of conducting a policy again=
st
the interests of this or another party. The nature of the proceedings her=
e
is such that a lawyer cannot deal with it. In fact, even that is not the
issue. The issue is whether I have the right to represent myself under th=
e
Statute, and the Statute says I do.

PRESIDENT SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC: You should be clear on this mystification
regarding the alleged failure to comply with my therapy.

You can find out the truth from the authorised medical personnel at the
Detention Unit. I'm going to explain.

There is no mystification whatsoever. I was told one day that the next da=
y a
test would be made to ascertain how much of the medication I'm taking is
actually absorbed by my body, and that I would receive medication at 7.00
a.m. in order to take a blood sample five hours later at 2.00 p.m. and th=
e
concentration of the medication would be measured in my blood. There is a
record of this. At 7.00 a.m. exactly I took the medication, and two hours
later a blood sample was taken. The analysis, however, showed that the
concentration in my blood was not sufficient.

What business of that is mine? Please tell me. I don't know what was wron=
g,
whether there was enough of the concentration of the medication in the pi=
ll
itself or not or something else was the problem. In any case, I complied
with the procedure fully. Everything was done properly. And to base a the=
ory
on the allegation that I'm refusing to take my medicine is absolutely
senseless. The procedure could have been checked. Another method could ha=
ve
been chosen, because no method is absolutely foolproof, but to take such
conclusions is absolutely uncalled for, especially by laymen such as Mr.
Nice. I will not waste any more time on this.

Second, regarding the campaign, you intervened, Mr. Meron, when I used th=
e
word "campaign" and when I mentioned Michael Scharf. Michael Scharf used =
to
be the legal advisor of Madeleine Albright, as you know, I suppose. You a=
lso
know that I was brought here on the 5th of July, being ill when the Trial
Chamber ignored the fact that I'm ill, and the press came here to hear my
opening statement although they were not notified that there would be no
opening statement on that day.

You know, Madeleine Albright was here and that she personally is anxious,=
 in
view of her own responsibility for the bombing of my country and her own
participation in aiding Croatian forces in the Operation Storm when sever=
al
hundred thousand Serbs were expelled from Croatia.

And the next day, Mr. Prosper, the ambassador of your country, a person i=
n
charge of these issues, arrived.

Mrs. Albright is often referred to as the mother of this Tribunal and her
personal interest, vested interest, is indubitable. It is doubtless that =
she
has a role in this campaign, and you can see this argumentation that she
shares in the transcript of Mr. Nice's speech.

Mr. Nice spoke here, and I wish to respond to several of the things he sa=
id.
He said it was up to me whether I would accept what has been offered. Thi=
s
is not a situation of offering or accepting. We are not at the bazaar whe=
re
people are offering and taking. We have a completely different situation
here. We are discussing the minimum of my rights, on which I insist. It i=
s
not a case of offering and accepting or not accepting wherein I am to tak=
e
the consequences of my own refusal.

What is at issue here is to observe the minimum of my guaranteed rights.

Second, isn't it absolutely clear that I have the right to appoint counse=
l,
but I also have the right not to appoint counsel? I am exercising my righ=
t
not to appoint counsel; in other words, my right to represent myself.
Therefore, I am acting in full conformity with the spirit of the right gi=
ven
me.

Furthermore, Mr. Nice says that a judgement can be taken even without a
Defence case, because several witnesses have been here, none of which hav=
e
provided any evidence. So a judgement can be taken without a Defence. Tha=
t
is precisely their aim, because a Defence put forward by an imposed couns=
el
is not my defence. That, I hope, need not be proven.

Defence through an imposed counsel is a legal fiction.

Furthermore, Mr. Nice says that I gave a list of witnesses to Mr. Kay. Th=
at
is not true. I disclosed my witness list through the liaison officer
answerable to the Trial Chamber. Mr. Kay, in his official capacity, has
access to that list of witnesses, and through no fault of his, he has -- =
he
doesn't know what to do with it, as he doesn't know what to do with the l=
ist
of thousands of exhibits that I made available, because if we keep this
limit of 150 days, Mr. Kay does not know what selection I personally woul=
d
have made out of the 1.600 witnesses to fit into the 150 days. And you wi=
ll
admit, gentlemen, that a bad use of witnesses and exhibits is worse than =
a
complete failure to use witnesses and exhibits.

Then Mr. Nice asked the question, Who is running this court? That is not =
the
question here. The question here is, Who is running my Defence, me or Mr.
Nice?

For the duration of their half time, I didn't show a shadow of intention =
to
interfere with their business, whereas they have wanted all the time to
organise my Defence and to dictate the terms and conditions of my exercis=
e
of my own rights. That is absolutely inappropriate. I didn't take away my
own right to self-representation; it was taken away from me by the Trial
Chamber.

I therefore demand my right to represent myself back. I believe that my
legal position cannot be changed in the middle of the trial, or my capaci=
ty
to defend myself, and I demand my right back. Thank you.


***********************************************************
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
 ICDSM   www.icdsm.org
 Sofia-New York-Moscow

 SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION - Member of the World Peace Council
 www.sloboda.org.yu
 Belgrade
*********************************************************

URGENT FUNDRAISING APPEAL

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

 After the Hague Tribunal declared war against human rights and
 International Law by banning President Milosevic's right to self-defense=
,
 our activities for his liberation and for the restoration of his freedom
and
 for the national sovereignty of the Serbian people need to be reorganize=
d
 and intensified.

 We need professional, legal work now more than ever. Thus, the creation =
of
 conditions for that work is the imperative at this moment.

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

 The petition of 100 lawyers and law professors from 18 countries,
and other related activities of the ICDSM Legal Committee, produced a pub=
lic
effect incomparable to any other previous action by the ICDSM.

 President Milosevic has the truth and law on his side. In order to use t=
hat
 advantage to achieve his freedom, we must fight this totally discredited
 tribunal and its patrons through professionally conducted actions which
 would involve the Bar Associations, the European Court, the UN organs in
 charge and the media.

 Our practice has shown that ad hoc voluntary work is not enough to deal
 properly with these tasks. The funds secured in Serbia are still enough
only
 to cover the expenses of the stay and work of President Milosevic's lega=
l
 associates at The Hague (one at the time). The funds secured by the Germ=
an
 section of the ICDSM (still the only one with regular contributions) are
 enough only to cover minimal additional work at The Hague connected with
 contacts and preparations of foreign witnesses. Everything else is lacki=
ng.

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

  3000-5000 EUR per month is our imminent need.

Our history and our people oblige us to go on with this necessary action.
But without these funds it will not be possible.

 Please organize urgently the fundraising activity
and send the donations to the following ICDSM accounts:


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

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

 All of your donations will be used for legal and other necessary
accompanying
 activities, on instruction or with the consent of President Milosevic. T=
o
obtain
 additional information on the use of your donations or to obtain additio=
nal
 advice on the most efficient way to submit your donations or to make ban=
k
 transfers, please do not hesitate to contact us:

 Peter Betscher (ICDSM Treasurer) E-mail: [email protected]
 Phone: +49 172 7566 014

 Vladimir Krsljanin (ICDSM Secretary) E-mail: [email protected]
 Phone: +381 63 8862 301

 The ICDSM and Sloboda need to address governments, international human
rights  and legal organizations, and to launch legal proceedings. The ICD=
SM
plans
a legal conference at The Hague. Sloboda has just sent to the patriotic
factions in
 the Serbian Parliament an initiative to adopt a parliamentary Resolution
 against the human rights violations by the Hague Tribunal and to form an
 international team of experts to make an extensive report on these
violations which would be submitted to the UN.

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

 For truth and human rights against aggression!
 Freedom for Slobodan Milosevic!
 Freedom and equality for people!


 On behalf of Sloboda and ICDSM,

 Vladimir Krsljanin,
 Foreign Relations Assistant to President Milosevic

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

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