 |
 |
|
|
||
      |
||
|
Press StatementThis site is managed by the Bureau of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of State. External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.
Posted on 04/07/2002 6:09:08 PM PDT by SKS Snajperi
KANGAROO COURT
We have already explained that the defence of Radovan Karadzic and the spreading of the truth about him also presupposes the truth about the Serbian people, its defenders and its victims, and in that sense we consider it our duty to make a statement in connection with the latest ruling by the trial chamber of the Hague Tribunal in the case of Mr Momcilo Krajisnik.
Even though he was arrested already on 3 April 2000, on the basis of a secret indictment, after a year and half the trial chamber has by decision of two judges, Richard May and Mohamed Fassi Fihri, with judge Patrick Robinson dissenting, ruled to reject Krajisnik’s demand that, with guarantees both from the government in Banja Luka and the government in Belgrade, he be released from detention in order to defend himself in freedom.
On this occasion the trial chamber concluded that Krajisnik had not provided convincing proof that he does not constitute a threat to the victims and witnesses. Worse still, this chamber concluded that the treatment of Momcilo Krajisnik and Biljana Plavsic must differ for three reasons: Krajisnik is fifty-six and Plavsic is seventy-one; she had voluntarily given herself up to the Tribunal whereas he had been arrested; she cooperates with the office of the prosecutor (that is, she has "spilled the beans") whereas he, on the advice of his defence counsel, keeps firmly quiet.
This kind of detention policy is contrary to international law, and in particular contrary to article 9, para. 3 of the International Covenant on civil and political rights which states: "It shall not be the general rule that persons awaiting trial shall be detained in custody ..." Against this, the Hague Tribunal argues on the basis of its hypothetical incapacity to recapture Krajisnik should he escape during his provisional release. However, as judge Ptrick Robinson correctly connncluded in his dissenting opinion, this is not a solid argument: "A judicial institution cannot assert its peculiarities to justify derogation from the rule of respect for individual freedom."
Even more contentious is the case law of the Tribunal whereby it demands of the indicted person who is asking to be provisionally released that he himself should prove that he will not constitute a threat to the victims and the witnesses, and that he would return to prison just before the trial. This case law is wrong because the burden of proof is on the indicted, instead of the Prosecutor demanding proof that the indicted is threatening the victims and the witnesses and that he is not a potential fugitive – since freedom should be the rule, and detention an exception.
Special attention should be paid to the assertion that Biljana Plavsic has been released because she cooperates with the Office of the Prosecutor, whilst Momcilo Krajisnik does not cooperate. This argument, too, is rather flimsy given that the indictee has the basic right not to provide any proof about his or someone else’s alleged guilt and, what is more, the assumption must be that he is innocent until proved guilty.
Finally, the reason given for the provisional release of Biljana Plavsic is that she had voluntarily given herself up to the Tribunal, whereas Momcilo Krajisnik had not done so. The truth, however, is that Krajisnik had no idea whatsover that he had been indicted, and it cannot be claimed that he would not have voluntarily given himself up had he known it.
Above all, the most serious breech, on the part of the Hague Tribunal, of international law in case law is the length of detention which is without any time limit. Article 9, para.3 of the International Covenant on civil and political rights states that the arrested person "shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release". Moreover, overlong detention is contrary not only to this covenant on civil and political rights, but also to the practice of the European Court for human rights which applies the European convention on human rights and basic liberties, and which limits the detention period to two years. Momcilo Krajisnik has already been in detention for one year and nine months and by April 2002, when his trial is reportedly planned to commence, more than two years will have exoired since the moment of his arrest. The most drastic case is that of Momir Talic who has been, from the moment of his arrest (into which he had been tricked) in Vienna on 25 August 1999, already two years and four months in detention, the trial chamber still not finding it necessary to determine the precise date of the commencement of his trial.
All this leads us, once again, to the conclusion that the Hague Tribunal is systematically breeching international law, and that it represents an inadmissible mockery of justice. Hence it is no wonder that many Western experts refer contemptuously to the Hague Tribunal as a "kangaroo court".
VRN
VRN
Unfortunately, he is saying the right things to quiet some people and look nice. IMHO.:)
|
|
|
|
||
|
||
|
Where exactly do you get your information from?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.