[L-I] The Hague Rambouillet (Statement of the ICDSM and Sloboda)

**************************************************************
INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC
ICDSM           Sofia-New York-Moscow            www.icdsm.org
**************************************************************
SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION - Member of the World Peace Council
Belgrade
www.sloboda.org.yu
**************************************************************

COOPERATE, OR ELSE:
THE ICTY RAMBOUILLET

JOINT STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE TO DEFEND SLOBODAN MILOSEV=
IC
AND OF THE SLOBODA/FREEDOM ASSOCIATION

Issued: 31 October 2004

The integrity of President Milosevic's consistent refusal to recognize th=
e
ICTY as a judicial body, and his determination to demonstrate the West's
active destruction of Yugoslavia-- and this despite his own constant
efforts, largely successful, to negotiate peace in the face of a concerte=
d
campaign to increase hostilities, divisions, unrest, and violence, unto
months of bombing, in stunning violation of international law-- has
succeeded in showing the dead end of the institution's imposition of
counsel, and, ultimately, of the institution itself.

And, as President Milosevic argued in his opening statement, just before
counsel was imposed:

"I am aware, gentlemen, that it is illusory to look for logic in a show
trial. There were such processes before, the one of Dreyfuss or of
Dimitrov - regarding the Reichstag fire, but this process exceeds those b=
y
the depth of the tragic consequences that it entails. I do not even wish =
to
say anything on a personal note in this, but I would like to stress the
depth of the tragic consequences for the whole world since the universal
legal order has been destroyed.

In the past, there were honourable authors who have carved the truth into
history so that coming generations would be ashamed and would not repeat =
the
mistakes. In the true history of this era, your ad hoc "justice" will be
listed as an illustration of monstrous events on the toggle between the t=
wo
centuries.

You, gentlemen, cannot imagine how big privilege it is, even in these
conditions that you have imposed on me, to have truth and justice as alli=
es.

You certainly, I am sure about that, cannot even conceive this."




Counsel to resign, ICTY to shut down?

On Tuesday, October 26th, Steven Kay, QC, and his colleague, Gillian
Higgins, filed a request to withdraw as imposed lawyers for President
Milosevic, arguing that they could not ethically carry out their function=
s
as defense counsel in absence of instructions from him, or cooperation fr=
om
his witnesses. This comes at a significant moment in the ICTY's now clear=
ly
threatened existence.

Despite a subsequent denial from Washington, US media last weekend publis=
hed
comments by undersecretary for arms control John Bolton, stating that the
current administration was dissatisfied with proceedings at the ICTY, and
wished to see its "completion strategy" accelerated.  In other words, clo=
se
it down, transfer cases back to domestic courts, and even grant amnesty.
Last June, the ICTY adopted an amendment to its rules of procedure and
evidence permitting just such deferrals. Undersecretary Bolton and other
senior State Department officials are said to believe that the "ICTY has
degenerated into a politicized tribunal", but their complaints are aimed
solely at Carla Del Ponte, and not at any of the other equally politicize=
d
organs of the institution. Washington also clearly stated its frustration
with the pace of the Milosevic case, which has as of yet failed to produc=
e a
conviction.  From Bolton's comments, it is obvious that President Milosev=
ic
would not be a suitable candidate for transfer to the jurisdiction of Ser=
bia
and Montenegro, unlike, for example, Operation Storm's Ante Gotovina, who=
se
indictment-- described as "bogus"-- could conveniently be deferred to
Croatia.  Mere days after this article was published in the Washington
Times, ICTY President Theodor Meron traveled to Zagreb, to discuss the
"completion strategy" with the Croatian government, according to an ICTY
press release.

An institution whose birth-- keeping in mind that former ICTY President
Gabrielle Kirk-MacDonald described Madeleine Albright as the "mother of t=
he
Tribunal"-- and death are the result of political decisions cannot be sai=
d
to be judicial. This has been President Milosevic's argument from the sta=
rt,
and it is becoming increasingly apparent that he has been correct all alo=
ng.
Imposition of counsel immediately before defense witnesses are called was
therefore required to put a stop to a presentation that would have
embarrassed the institution far more than an illegitimate conviction. For
the past two months, President Milosevic has demanded his right to
self-representation be restored. The Trial Chamber's president, Patrick
Robinson, has called these requests "petulant" and "puerile". Prosecutor
Nice has called Milosevic "irrational".



Imposition of counsel to prevent a political defense before a political b=
ody

Imposed counsel appealed the September 2nd ruling assigning them to
represent Slobodan Milosevic. Steven Kay told the Appeals Chamber that
President Milosevic's objection to imposition, as well as his choice to
present his own case-- derided by the Prosecutor, of all people, as
"political" and "irrational"-- was "a rational demonstration of his posit=
ion
rather than anything irrational."

Indeed, President Milosevic demonstrated during this hearing how impositi=
on
of counsel was the result of a campaign to silence him, (as well as his
witnesses) and set out the sequence of events that led to imposition. He
first pointed out that Madeleine Albright had attended the ICTY the very =
day
it expressed its intention to "radically" reform the process last July,
which visit was soon followed by that of US War Crimes Ambassador
Pierre-Richard Prosper.  Then came a blatantly political attempt to have
counsel imposed in the Washington Post by Michael Scharf, a former
high-level employee of Albright's. Professor Scharf clearly stated that t=
he
very objectives of the ICTY, at the moment of its creation in 1993, were
already to "pin responsibility on Milosevic", to "educate Serbs" about th=
e
crimes committed by his "regime", and, oddly, already in 1993, "promote
catharsis", by permitting "newly-elected" leaders to distance themselves
from the policies of the past.

Those most intimately connected with the creation of this Security Counci=
l
institution advocate imposition of counsel, in the media, for political
reasons. Imposition violates international law, and is at odds with the
right to self-representation granted by such dubious examples of fairness=
 as
Apartheid South Africa and Nazi Germany in the Mandela and Dimitrov trial=
s,
respectively. Furthermore, they have no hesitation candidly demonstrating
that this process is fundamentally political, and a tool of Western forei=
gn
policy. At the very least, the principle of equality of arms and basic
concepts of fairness and equity should support President Milosevic's righ=
t
to represent himself, and to present his case without interference from
those who would have the surprising gall to call it "political".

As President Milosevic informed the court, a petition signed by 100 lawye=
rs
from the world over, establishing the basis under international law for t=
he
right to self-representation, was sent to the Security Council, the
Secretary-General of the United Nations, and to the ICTY. The Belgrade Ba=
r
Association has similarly published a considered and well-argued statemen=
t
objecting to the violation of Mr. Milosevic's rights under international
human rights instruments and the ICTY's own rules.


Imposed Counsel and "non-cooperation"

Slobodan Milosevic's witnesses have acted with integrity in pointing out
that they had agreed to testify for his defense, and not an ICTY-appointe=
d
defense, designed by lawyers who had been acting on behalf of another par=
ty
for years, and in particular as "friends of the court", this "court" whic=
h
Mr. Milosevic still refuses to recognize. That conflict of interest, know=
n
in Great Britain as "professional embarrassment", is a cause for removal
from a brief under the British Code of conduct to which the two imposed
counsel are subject.  Mr. Kay and Ms. Higgins had already in August
indicated that they would be professionally embarrassed if imposed agains=
t
the will of President Milosevic. Yet, when imposed as counsel for Milosev=
ic
on September 2nd, they accepted their assignments without question. And a=
s
they began their presentation of witnesses, without even requesting a
minimal period of preparation, -- this after having themselves stated, in
their August 13th motion opposing imposition of counsel, that witnesses
would likely not cooperate with them-- the issue of professional
embarassment, conflict of interest, or absence of instructions from
President Milosevic were not raised. A mere five witnesses were called ov=
er
a period of 2 months, punctuated by interruptions, and increasingly publi=
c
opposition, by the witnesses, to any participation in the violation of
President Milosevic's rights. And despite their "client's" consistent
objection to their representation, the realization that it is impossible
ethically to present his defense only just occurs?

Yet the imposed counsel, while acting as amici curiae, argued last August
that: "To impose counsel against the will of an accused is to contravene =
his
right to self-representation," and added that imposition could also cause
its own delays as the defense counsel would need a long time to familiari=
ze
themselves with the case. These delays-- the avoidance of which had been =
the
Chamber's stated preoccupation mere months before-- have indeed been caus=
ed
by imposition itself, and not because imposed counsel requested time to
prepare. Delays no longer seem such a central concern. Imposed counsels
simply do not have what they describe as the "cooperation" of the defenda=
nt,
or of his witnesses, and therefore frequently had nothing to present.

In contrast, former amicus curiae Branislav Tapuskovic had been approache=
d
over the summer months by the ICTY Registry and been asked whether he wou=
ld
consider acting as imposed counsel for Slobodan Milosevic. He flatly
refused, and in an interview with the German daily Junge Welt, argued tha=
t
defendants have a right to self-representation that cannot be defeated by
their ill health. He further stated: "If the physicians conclude that
Slobodan Milosevic is ill, unfit to defend himself, and cannot be present=
 in
the court, then there can be no trial at all." His former colleagues Kay =
and
Higgins did not articulate that position.


Endgame

There is little or no chance that the Appeals Chamber will overturn the
decision to impose counsel on President Milosevic. Too much is at stake, =
and
it is obvious the clock is winding down. Trial Chamber President Robinson
has repeatedly admonished President Milosevic that he himself was
responsible for the fact that a defense was not being presented, and that
"assignment" (the Chamber prefers this to "imposition", which perhaps giv=
es
the wrong impression) was made in the interests of a fair trial. These
interests apparently supercede an accused person's right to present his o=
wn
defense. And since President Milosevic is described by assigned counsel a=
s
the source of their ethical inability to further act, and that the Chambe=
r
has told him that he must cooperate with assigned counsel, which he will =
not
do, as it violates his rights, it could be absurdly suggested that it is =
he,
Slobodan Milosevic who is violating the ICTY's right to a fair trial.

Perhaps he has not violated the ICTY's "right" to a fair trial, at least =
as
envisaged by international law. It is, however, quite likely that he has
succeeded in derailing a process which was meant to attain the political
aims set out by Professor Scharf: to educate "Serbs", pin responsibility =
on
Milosevic, and to permit newly-elected leaders to distance themselves fro=
m
him-- and presumably move much closer to the West, in particular to those
countries who bombed Yugoslavia precisely when Milosevic was indicted. He
has simply inflicted collateral damage to their completion strategy.

If President Milosevic is deemed responsible for the deadlock, there is
little to be done but to wrap up the matter, and return the judgment. Thi=
s
has been Prosecutor Nice's position, and it is ultimately supported by Mr.
Kay's submissions to the effect that it is Mr. Milosevic's non-cooperatio=
n
which prevents him-- and indeed any other lawyer put in a similar positio=
n--
from representing him without violating several provisions of the ICTY's =
own
Code of professional conduct.  If no lawyer can represent him, as Kay
argues, without infringing professional ethics, then there are only two
possibilities:
(a) restore the right to self-representation, in accordance with the
provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, o=
r
(b) persist in misguided, illegal  imposition, and create a deadlock that
President Milosevic can conveniently be blamed for. The latter "solution"
would speed up pending matters before the ICTY considerably, and certainl=
y
contribute to an acceleration of the "completion strategy", setting the
stage for a deferral of cases to domestic jurisdictions such as Croatia a=
nd
Bosnia, and the granting of amnesty to select indictees.  Such a decision
would not be consistent with the requirements of legality, nor would it h=
ave
any legitimacy, no matter how forcefully the ICTY, its media cheerleaders=
,
or academic apologists would argue that "Milosevic brought it onto himsel=
f".

If the ICTY were not a political construct, it could and would simply
restore President Milosevic's right to self-representation. Judicial
institutions are independent bodies who suffer no interference from the
executive branch; they do not rewrite their own rules in mid-trial, they =
do
not emerge from the ether, survive for a few years, then hurry to shut do=
wn
their operations.  Criminal courts are committed to an unwavering respect
for the Rule of law, which in adversary proceedings means that people can
only be tried "in an ordinary manner, before the ordinary courts of the
land". Courts do not engage in public relations activities, "outreach
programs", nor do they attempt to influence the policies of foreign
governments.

And so, since Mr. Kay argues compellingly that no lawyer can meaningfully
represent President Milosevic, as assigned counsel, or even as "stand-by
counsel", nor can he or she do so without violating professional ethics, =
we
see that there can be no defense at all unless the right to
self-representation is restored.

But as Steven Kay told the Appeals Chamber: " in terms of a solution, it =
may
be that he undertakes his own consequences rather than us wasting resourc=
es
believing, and people kidding themselves, making believe that what is
happening here is a proper Defense."

"His own consequences".  A familiar phrase. Could it be that we are
witnessing the ICTY's sequel to Rambouillet? Let us endeavor to learn fro=
m
history, this time.


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

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 reorganized
and intensified.

We need professional, legal work now more than ever. Thus, the creation o=
f
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 th=
at
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 o=
nly
to cover the expenses of the stay and work of President Milosevic's legal
associates at The Hague (one at the time). The funds secured by the Germa=
n
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 lackin=
g.

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

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. To
obtain
additional information on the use of your donations or to obtain addition=
al
advice on the most efficient way to submit your donations or to make bank
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