The indictment issued by the Chief Prosecutor of the so-called International
Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is legally invalid because this
Tribunal has no jurisdiction whatsoever in the case of Milosevic, or in any
other case.
The Tribunal derives its raison d'être exclusively from Security Council
resolution 827, which was adopted on May 25,1993. In this resolution, establishing
the so-called International Criminal Tribunal, the Security Council states that
it acts "under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations."
In adopting the above resolution, the Security Council acted ultra vires, i.e.
outside its actual competence. According to the provisions of the UN Charter,
the Council has no competence whatsoever in judicial matters. The provisions
of Chapter VII determine the Council's competence in matters of international
security but not in matters of criminal justice or other judicial matters. The
sole authority in international judicial matters rests with the International
Court of Justice.
The purely political nature of the indictment of Milosevic and the lack of any
legal validity of this decision can further be seen from the fact that the President
of the so-called Tribunal, the Chief Prosecutor, and the investigating judge
are citizens either of NATO member countries directly responsible for the undeclared
war against Yugoslavia or of countries that fully endorsed the NATO war.
If the Tribunal had taken general legal standards of impartiality seriously,
it would have been obliged to determine that there is a conflict of interest
when "judges" from countries that waged an undeclared war against
Yugoslavia sit on a panel initiating judicial action against the Head of State
of Yugoslavia.
If the Tribunal desires to at least prove its credibility in terms of basic
moral standards, in spite of its legal incompetence, it should also turn its
attention to the actions of the NATO coalition in its war against the people
of Yugoslavia (including the province of Kosovo).
The provisions of Article 3 of the so-called Tribunal identify a number of practices
as "violations of the laws or customs of war", including the following:
(a) "employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons calculated to cause
unnecessary suffering;" (c) "attack, or bombardment, by whatever means,
of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings;" etc.
NATO's use of depleted uranium missiles and cluster bombs, and its attacks on
villages, civilian buses, etc. fall clearly within the definition of "violations
of the laws or customs of war" as given in the Statute of the Tribunal,
not to mention the numerous grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949
committed by the NATO alliance, for which the Tribunal also claims to be competent
according to Article 2 of its Statute.
As long as the Tribunal does not take action against the NATO politicians and
military officers responsible for these grave breaches of international humanitarian
law, it can only be considered a corrupt exercise of political power.
The right to self-determination
Chapter I of the UN Charter states that international cooperation is necessary
to solve international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian
character.
Chapter I makes no reference to humanitarian problems of a national character.
It states that the UN is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of
its members, which is a fundamental principle of international law as well as
the basic guarantee of the right to self-determination of the world's peoples.
If a people does not have the right of sovereignty, the right to self-determination
is a sham.
This principle is completely denied by the creation of the International Criminal
Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The Tribunal itself has repeatedly denied
that the principle of self-determination applies to Yugoslavia.
The UN Charter also states that nothing contained in the Charter shall authorize
the UN to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction
of any state. This fundamental principle has also been fatally undermined by
the
creation of the Tribunal.
"A rogue court with rigged rules", The Times
of London, June 17, 1999
In order to give the appearance of being a judicial organ, the Tribunal has
appointed judges, prosecutors, clerks, and investigators. It has its own rules
of procedure and evidence, as well as its own prison system. It says that it
applies the principle of presumption of innocence, which means that a person
who appears before a judge in a court of law is presumed to be innocent until
proven guilty.
However, in contrast to normal criminal courts the Tribunal itself is involved
in preparing indictments. Issuance of an indictment requires the approval of
one of the Tribunal's judges, who signs it.
How can the judge subsequently presume the accused to be innocent, if he/she
has already approved and signed the indictment?
The presumption of innocence is compromised in other ways. Detention is automatic
after arrest. There is no bail and no form of release pending trial, unless
the prisoner proves "exceptional circumstances". Loss of job, loss
of contact with friends, family, or loss of country is not enough. Even ill
health has not been sufficient to get bail.
Prisoners are treated as if they had been convicted. They are kept in cells
and have to obey prison rules. They are subject to discipline if they do not,
and are under constant surveillance. Mail is censored, family visits are restricted,
communication with family is at the prisoner's own expense. Access to radio
or television is restricted. Prisoners have had to wait many months and in some
cases years before being brought to trial.
But the Tribunal still insists that the indicted are presumed innocent. Then
why are they treated as convicted prisoners?
Special rules of evidence, no laymen
In virtually all Western countries, hearsay evidence - which means evidence
that is not first-hand - is either inadmissible in a court of law or is considered
to be virtually without value.
But the Tribunal has set aside this tradition and relies heavily on hearsay
evidence.
There is no jury or any other participation by laymen. Witnesses can testify
anonymously, or can refuse to appear in court. In its yearbook for 1994, the
Tribunal stated that "The Tribunal does not need to shackle itself with
restrictive rules which have developed out of the ancient trial-by-jury system."
The Tribunal's rules allow for closed hearings in circumstances which are vaguely
defined, as well as secret trials, which are the essence of injustice and of
political
courts.
The Tribunal is increasing its use of sealed indictments, so that no one knows
if they have been charged until the military police arrest them.
Suspects, i.e. persons who are not indicted, can be detained for up to 90 days
without charge. All that is needed is a statement by the Tribunal that the person
in question is suspected. No evidence is required.
One of the Tribunal's most dangerous rules is Rule 92, which states that confessions
shall be presumed to be free and voluntary unless the contrary is established
- by the prisoner. After 90 days at the mercy of military police and prosecutors,
the prisoner has to prove possible coercion.
Almost every other court in the world presumes the opposite. Many courts are
currently moving to entirely prohibit the use of confessions made in police
custody, because such confessions are notoriously unreliable.
There is even a special provision for obtaining evidence from NGO's (Non-Governmental
Organizations) such as George Soros' Open Society Foundation, whose conflict
of interest is described below.
On paper, accused have the right to choose counsel, but in reality that right
is infringed by the Registrar, who can disqualify counsel for all sorts of reasons,
including being unfriendly to the Tribunal.
In some cases, the Registrar of the Tribunal has barred lawyers from particular
countries because the Tribunal considers that too many of them already represent
accused persons. Lawyers have been subject to large fines for contempt.
No citizen of any country in the world would consider him/herself fairly tried
before a court that was paid for, staffed and assisted by private citizens or
corporations
who had a direct stake in the outcome of the trial and who were, themselves,
in practical terms, immune from the court.
It is a well-established principle of law that a party in a legal action, whether
civil or criminal, is entitled to ask for the removal of any judge sitting on
the case when there exists a reasonable apprehension of bias. In the case of
the Tribunal, a compelling argument can be made that the bias is not only apprehended,
but is real.
It is not only the individual judge who is biased. It is the entire Tribunal,
which is not a judicial body worthy of international respect but a kangaroo
court established for political purposes.
As a political instrument the Tribunal is designed to violate and destroy the
integrity and sovereignty of a country. The creation of the Tribunal is a crime
against peace under the Nuremberg Principles. Instead of resolving conflict,
the Tribunal is used to justify conflict, Instead of creating peace, it is used
to justify war and therefore is an instrument of war.
Who finances the Tribunal? Who runs it?
According to Article 16 of the Tribunal's own statutes, the Prosecutor "shall
act independently as a separate organ of the Tribunal and shall not seek or
receive
instruction from any government or any other source" (author's emphasis).
According to Article 32, the expenses of the Tribunal shall be borne by the
regular budget of the United Nations.
Both of these provisions have been openly and continuously violated.
The Tribunal itself has openly referred to its particularly close ties to the
American government. In her remarks to the United States Supreme Court in Washington,
DC on April 5, 1999 Judge Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, a US citizen who was then
President of the Tribunal said:
"We benefited from the strong support of concerned governments and dedicated
individuals such as Secretary Albright. As the permanent representative to the
United Nations, she had worked with unceasing resolve to establish the Tribunal.
Indeed, we often refer to her as the 'mother of the Tribunal'."
If Madeleine Albright was the mother, Bill Clinton was the father. Louise Arbour
confirmed this when she reported the decision to indict Milosevic to the President
of the United States two days before she announced it to the rest of the world,
in blatant violation of her duty to remain independent.
Arbour also made several public appearances with US officials, including Madeleine
Albright, and both Arbour and Albright stated publicly that they rely on NATO
governments for investigations. These governments were and are interested in
undermining the government of Yugoslavia.
In 1996, the prosecutor met with the Secretary-General of NATO and the Supreme
Allied Commander in Europe to "establish contacts and begin discussing
modalities of cooperation and Assistance". On May 9, 1996 a memorandum
of understanding between the Office of the Prosecutor and Supreme Headquarters
Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) was signed by both parties. The President of the
Tribunal also met with US General Wesley Clarke, who commanded the NATO war
against Yugoslavia in 1999.
The memorandum of May 9 defined the practical arrangements for support to the
Tribunal and the transfer of indicted persons to the Tribunal. In other words,
NATO forces - not UN forces - became the gendarmes of the Tribunal, and the
Tribunal put itself at the disposal of NATO. This relationship has continued
although the statute of the Tribunal requires it to be independent of any national
government and, by implication, of any group of national governments.
The Tribunal has received substantial funds from individual States, private
foundations and corporations in violation of Article 32 of its Charter. A large
share of these funds has come from the US government directly in the form of
cash and computer equipment. In the last year for which public figures are available,
1994/95, the United States provided USD 700,000 in cash and USD 2,300,000 worth
of equipment.
In the same year, USD 150,000 was provided by the Open Society Institute, a
foundation established by billionaire financier George Soros to bring "openness"
to former socialist countries in Eastern Europe. The Rockefeller Foundation
contributed USD 50,000 and other donations have been supplied by corporations
such as Time-Warner and Discovery Products, both US corporations.
It should also be noted that Mr. Soros' foundation donates funds not only to
the Tribunal, but also to the main KLA newspaper in Pristina, an obvious conflict
of interest that is not normally reported in the Western press.
The Tribunal also receives money from the Outreach Project of the United States
Institute for Peace. This project is a public relations arm of the Tribunal
that was set up to counter criticism in the former Yugoslav republics. Criticism
often points to the Tribunal's selective prosecution and double standards, and
is never answered by anyone at the Tribunal or by any of its sponsors.
The Institute for Peace is stated to be " an independent, non-partisan
federal institution created and funded by Congress to strengthen the nation's
capacity to promote the peaceful resolution of international conflict."
Established in 1984 under Ronald Reagan, its Board of Directors is appointed
by the President of the United States.
The Tribunal also receives support from the Coalition For International Justice,
another PR organization. The CIJ was founded and is funded by George Soros'
Open Society Institute and an organization called CEELI, the Central and East
European Law Institute, which was created by the American Bar Association and
lawyers close to the US government in order to promote the replacement of socialist
legal systems with "free-market" systems.
The above groups also have supplied many of the legal staff of the Tribunal.
In her speech to the Supreme Court, Judge McDonald said, "The Tribunal
has been well
served by the tremendous work of a number of lawyers who have come to the Tribunal
through the CIJ and CEELI..."
It should also be noted that the occasion of Judge McDonalds speech was her
acceptance of an award from the American Bar Association and CEELI. In the same
speech she also said," We are now seeking funding from states and foundations
to carry out this critical effort."
Tribunal prosecutor Carla Del Ponte has thanked the director of the FBI for
its assistance, stating "I am very appreciative of the important support
that the US government has provided the Tribunal. I look forward to their continued
support."
On September 29th, 1999, in response to a question as to whether the Tribunal
would be investigating crimes committed in Kosovo after June 10, or crimes committed
by others - meaning NATO - in the Yugoslav theatre of operations, Del Ponte
said "The primary focus of the Office of the Prosecutor must be on the
investigation and prosecution of the five leaders of the FRY and Serbia who
have already been indicted."
No further explanation was provided. If the Tribunal is impartial in accordance
with its statute, shouldn't it also focus on the NATO war crimes for which Clinton,
Blair, Schroeder, Chirac, and 63 other Western leaders are responsible?
Equally important, why was it necessary to continue investigations that support
the indictments against the leaders of the government and military of Yugoslavia?
The Indictments had already been issued. Were they not based on sufficient evidence?
Or was there no evidence at all?
Peter Cohen
NOTE: The above text is based on articles by Dr. Hans Koechler, who has served as a consultant to the UN, and Christopher Black, a Canadian lawyer who helped prepare the American Association of Jurist's indictment of Bill Clinton and 66 other NATO leaders for war crimes against the people of Yugoslavia. The indictment was refused by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. The articles are available at http://www.emperors-clothes.com