Data: 05/02/2002 21:57
Da: Vladimir Krsljanin
Oggetto: Borislav Milosevic: Intervju o "intervjuu"

Sovjetska Rusija, 5. februar 2002.

Pre nekoliko dana se u listu "Izvestija" pojavio "ekskluzivni
intervju" Slobodana Milosevica koji je on navodno tajno dao dopisniku
ITAR-TASS u Italiji Olegu Osipovu. Duboku sumnju izazivaju kako sadrzaj
"intervjua" tako i okolnosti njegovog pojavljivanja. Zato je "Sovjetska
Rusija" odlucila da se obrati coveku koji, po svoj prilici, moze
najkompetentnije suditi o njegovoj verodostojnosti. To je Borislav
Milosevic - brat bivseg predsednika Savezne Republike Jugoslavije.

P. Borislave Svetozarevicu, citali ste "intervju" Slobodana
Milosevica u "Izvestijama". Koliko Vam se cini verodostojnim?

O. To je vrlo cudna prica. "Intervju" je navodno dobijen preko
"pres-sluzbe umerenog lidera kosovskih Albanaca I. Rugove". Kakva
kojestarija. Izmedju S. Milosevica i I. Rugove nikad nije bilo tako
prijateljskih odnosa da bi se sad odjednom Rugova pozabavio
organizacijom "tajnog intervjua".
Dalje sledi jos zakukuljenije. "Intervju" je navodno bio moguc
samo uz koriscenje sredstava "iz arsenala agenta 007" uz primenu
nekih tamo "sicusnih mikrocipova" koje koriste zapadne
specijalne sluzbe. To je jos veca kojestarija. Slobodan je pod
tako strogom kontrolom da je nemoguce koristiti bilo
kakve "mikrocipove". Svi njegovi telefonski razgovori se
zvanicno snimaju. On je pod neprestanom prismotrom pomocu videokamera
i infracrvenih kamera. Pokusaj sugerisanja citaocima da je u takvim
uslovima moguc nekakav tajni intervju - to je racunanje na sasvim
naivne ljude.

P. A koliko se moze smatrati verodostojnim sadrzaj tog teksta?

O. Ocigledno ga je napisao covek koji se nikad nije sreo sa
Slobodanom, pa cak nije citao ni njegove clanke i nastupe. "Ja sam
simbol istocnoevropskog sveta", "vodim dnevnik da bih potomcima preneo
lucu istorije zapaljenu svescu Srba". Tako kitnjast stil apsolutno nije
svojstven Slobodanu Milosevicu. Dovoljno je procitati njegove nastupe u
natovskom "tribunalu", objavljene u "Sovjetskoj Rusiji", da bi se
shvatilo da je "intervju" napisan stilom koji mu je apsolutno stran.
Jos jednom ponavljam: oni koji su pripremali taj falsifikat cak nisu
nasli za shodno ni da se upoznaju s radovima S. Milosevica. "Intervju"
sadrzi mnogo svakojakih gluposti koje, medjutim, uopste nisu bezazlene.

P. Zasto je, po Vasem misljenju, sve to pokrenuto?

O. Pocnimo od toga da list "Izvestija" u predgovoru tog
"intervjua" izliva bujicu blacenja i laznih optuzbi na S. Milosevica.
Vec iz toga se moze steci slika o zamisli te provokacije. Ima nekoliko
mogucih razloga. Glavni je u tome sto se natovski "tribunal" suocava sa
znatnim problemima. On ne raspolaze dokazima krivice S. Milosevica za
zlocine koji mu se pripisuju. A kroz nedelju dana, 12. februara,
pocinje glavno sudjenje.
Zato se izvodi svojevrsna "propagandna artiljerijska priprema". Sve to
je uobicajeni postupak zapadnih "zastitnika ljudskih prava": javna
glasila iznose najnezamislivije optuzbe i blate coveka. Teze da
ga "satanizuju" (kako to sami nazivaju) da bi javnost prihvatila
najmonstruozniju osudu.
Takvim falsifikatima pokuzavaju da uguse njegove prave izjave u haskom
"tribunalu", koje se izmedju ostalog objavljuju i u "Sovjetskoj Rusiji".
Drugo. U svetu jacaju sumnje u zakonitost samog "Medjunarodnog
tribunala". Sve vise ljudi, pa i poznatih strucnjaka za medjunarodno
pravo, smatra da je nelegalno stvoren. "Tribunal" je nastao po odluci
Saveta bezbednosti OUN. Medjutim, po Povelji OUN Savet bezbednosti nema
pravo da formira sudske organe. Poznati francuski advokat Zak Verzes je
bukvalno prekjuce u jednosatnom radio-intervjuu taj "tribunal"
pretvorio u prah i pepeo, dokazavsi njegovu nelegalnost. Veliko je
pitanje i oko izvora finansiranja "tribunala", od kojih znatan deo
stize iz "privatnih izvora".
Mnogi pravnici osudjuju i "samouspostavljanje" proceduralnih normi
"tribunala" koje mu dozvoljavaju koriscenje, na primer, anonimnih
svedoka.
Pa to je najgrublje krsenje opsteprihvacenih pravnih normi. Cak ni u
nacistickim sudovima nije bilo anonimnih svedoka.
Uzged, imam podatke da se i rukovodstvo Rusije prema delatnosti
"tribunala" odnosi bez preteranog entuzijazma. Ministarstvo inostranih
poslova Rusije postavlja svojim zapadnim partnerima pitanje skorog
zavrsetka delatnosti "tribunala".

P. Moguce da su na Zapadu nervozni zbog propalog pokusaja da se
svetskom javnom mnjenju nametne predstava o bivsem predsedniku
Jugoslavije kao o "zlocincu"?

O. Potpuno tacno. Medjunarodna kampanja podrske Slobodanu
Milosevicu poprima zaista svetski karakter. Ona se vrlo aktivno vodi u
Zapadnoj Evropi i u SAD. Medjunarodni komitet za odbranu Slobodana
Milosevica podneo je tuzbu Evropskom sudu za ljudska prava zbog
kriminalne otmice S. Milosevica iz Beograda po porudzbini "tribunala".
U mnogim zemljama se odrzavaju mitinzi i protestne demonstracije. U
Hagu ce 12. februara poceti sudski proces protiv "tribunala" na
inicijativu holandskog pravnika koji optuzuje "tribunal" za
organizaciju otmice S. Milosevica.
Nedavno je grupa deputata Drzavne Dume - clanova Parlamentarne
skupstine Saveta Evrope zvanicno pred PSSE postavila pitanje o
mnogobrojnim krsenjima zakona u "slucaju Slobodana Milosevica". Takvo
pismo je, sa potpisima G. A. Zjuganova, I. I. Meljnjikova i deputata
parlamenta jos sest evropskih zemalja, upuceno Komitetu PSSE za pravna
pitanja i ljudska prava.
Medjutim, sve cesce se pojavljuju dokazi o povezanosti albanskih
naoruzanih separatista i terorista na Kosovu sa medjunarodnom
teroristickom mrezom Osame bin Ladena. Zapravo, i sam Slobodan
Milosevic je jos pre nekoliko godina o tome govorio zvanicnim
predstavnicima SAD. Sada, u jeku "antiteroristicke kampanje" Zapad bi
morao da prizna da se S. Milosevic u stvari borio sa medjunarodnim
terorizmom. A to se SAD i njihovim saveznicima uopste ne isplati. Jer,
ispostavlja se da su, podrzavajuci kosovske ekstremiste, podrzavali
terorizam. Zato se takve skrabotine i javljaju da bi se paznja svetske
javnosti odvratila od umesanosti Zapada u teror.

P. Zar ne iskljucujete mogucnost da se iza tog "intervjua" kriju
jos zloslutniji motivi od onih koje ste naveli?

O. Ne, ne iskljucujem. Vrlo je moguce da taj "intervju" treba da
pripremi teren za optuzbu Slobodana Milosevica za grubo krsenje
zatvorskih pravila i za ostro ogranicavanje njegovih prava, izmedju
ostalog i na kontakte s porodicom i pravnicima.
Istovremeno bih zeleo da obratim paznju na onaj deo tog
"intervjua" u kome S. Milosevic navodno karakterise svoje stanje
kao "visece uz bojazljivu nadu". Slobodan je po prirodi borac. I to je
svima dobro poznato. Medjutim, zapadna stampa i politicari vec odavno
svima sugerisu misao da je Slobodan navodno sklon samoubistvu. Svako ko
ga poznaje ili ga je prosto video na TV ekranu u akciji, tokom haske
sudanije, zna da je spreman za borbu u najtezim uslovima. Medjutim,
stalno nam podmecu ideju o "samoubistvu" da bi opravdali moguci fizicki
obracun s njim u slucaju kraha sudanije.

P. Vratimo se ipak izvorima: ITAR-TASS-u i listu "Izvestija".
Zasto se taj "ekskluzivni intervju" pojavio bas u Rusiji?

O. S velikim postovanjem se odnosim prema ITAR-TASS. To je jedna
od pet vodecih svetskih agencija. Pa i "Izvestija" su novine vrlo
ugledne proslosti. Zato me narocito cudi sto dozvoljavaju da ih koriste
za tudju i prilicno primitivnu provokaciju. Jer, taj "intervju" je
odmah preneo citav niz jugoslovenskih listova. Ocigledno se racunalo na
to da ce u Jugoslaviji vise verovati informacijama koje poticu iz
Rusije. Za zaljenje je sto je list "Izvestija" odlucio da publikuje
takvu jeftinu laz i to jos sa predgovorom urednistva koji protivureci
opstepoznatim cinjenicama. Jer, cak i Zapadna glasila cesto
objektivnije i odmerenije ocenjuju situaciju oko haskog procesa.
Uzgred, pre jedno tri nedelje se pojavila vest da su u
Jugoslaviji uhapseni bivsi lideri bosanskih Srba R. Karadzic i R.
Mladic, za kojima takodje traga natovski "tribunal". To saopstenje,
koje je izazvalo burno negodovanje u Jugoslaviji, pripisano je
predsedniku Kostunici. Bio je prinudjen da to specijalno demantuje.
Informacija je poticala iz ITAR-TASS i takodje je (navodno!) bila
dobijena od pres-sluzbe I. Rugove. To vec nikako nije slucajno.

P. Da li je, po Vasem misljenju, taj "interjvu" jednokratna
akcija ili deo sire kampanje?

O. To je deo siroke klevetnicke kampanje protiv S. Milosevica i
njegove porodice koja se vec preko 10 godina vodi. Licno sam 1993.
godine u Parizu video ulicne plakate sa likom S. Milosevica pored ....
Hitlera.
Kampanja lazi protiv njega bukne svaki put uoci nekih vaznih dogadjaja.
Tako je bilo 1995. godine kada je S. Milosevic vodio razgovore o
uspostavljanju mira u Bosni. Tada su ga u zapadnim glasilima u tolikoj
meri blatili da je svojim americkim partnerima izjavio da ce napustiti
razgovore ukoliko moralna ucena ne prestane. Ali, Slobodan sada ima
manje mogucnosti za odbranu od klevetnickih optuzbi. Inicijatori
provokacije to i koriste. Sada je u Jugoslaviji pocelo objavljivanje
izvesnih "stenograma telefonskih razgovora" koje je navodno hrvatska
obavestajna sluzba prisluskivala i snimila 1996-1998. godine. Jos jedan
falsifikat.

P. Svakako da bi bilo krajnje interesantno i vazno cuti
misljenje samog Slobodana Milosevica o ovome.

O. Bukvalno juce sam razgovarao telefonom sa njim. Taj
"intervju" je kod njega izazvao ironican osmeh.


Razgovarao V. Tetjokin


To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sps.org.yu/ (official SPS website)
http://www.belgrade-forum.org/ (forum for the world of equals)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.jutarnje.co.yu/ ('morning news' the only Serbian newspaper
advocating liberation)

DECISION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

Here is the second part of the text.
The first has been already distributed - see
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1554
The third - and last - follows in a subsequent posting.

===*===


After it was made on November 6, the Decision of the Federal
Constitutional Court on unconstitutionality of the the Federal
Government's Decree on cooperation with the so-called tribunal in the
Hague has finally been published. Here is an unofficial English
translation of it.


OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF FRY, No.70/01, December 28, 2001

(...) [for the first part see:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crj-mailinglist/message/1554%5d


III


1. The Federal Government regulated in
the contested Decree the procedure
for cooperation of the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia with the International
Criminal Tribunal in criminal prosecution
of individuals responsible for
grave crimes against the international
humanitarian law perpetrated in the
territory of ex-Yugoslavia since
1991(hereinafter: the International
Criminal Tribunal) and performance of
obligations of FRY stemming from the
Security Council Resolution 827(1993) and
the Statute of the International
Criminal Tribunal.

The Decree covered, inter alia: transfer
of criminal proceedings held in the
national courts to the International
Criminal Tribunal if so requested;
proceedings and jurisdiction of courts
and other authorities for decision
making in such matters (Article 12 ad
13): the proceedings in national
courts after the transfer of the
proceedings to the International Criminal
Tribunal (Article 14): the possibility of
extradition of all the accused
(foreigners and Yugoslav citizens) to the
jurisdiction of the International
Criminal Tribunal and its investigation
bodies to undertake activities in
the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia(Articles 9 and 10); legal
assistance to
the International Criminal Tribunal,
including granting of transit of the
Yugoslav citizens through the territory
if the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia( Articles 18 and 19) and
others. The Decree contains references
to the application of the Statute of the
International Criminal Tribunal and
its Rules of Procedure and Evidence, to
be applied by judicial and other
authorities in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (Articles l, 2, 6, 12 and 17).

2. The provisions of Constitution of FRY
provided for the following: power
in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is
organized along the principle of
division of legislative, executive and
judicial power (Article 12); the
executive and judicial power are bound by
the laws, which are in compliance
with the Constitution (Article 9, pars 2
and 3); the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia honors in good faith, the
obligations under the international
treaties to which is a party, and the
international treaties ratified and
published in keeping with the
Constitution and generally accepted rules
of the international law that are an
integral part of the national legal system
(Article 16); a constituent republic is
sovereign in those matters not
covered by the Constitution of FRY as
competences of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia and that a constituent
republic may independently regulate its
governance under its own Constitution
(Article 6, pars 2 and 3); that no
Yugoslav citizen may be deprived of its
citizenship, expelled from his
country, or extradited to another
state(Article 17, par 3); that everyone
is entitle to personal freedom and no one
may be apprehended except in the
cases processed under the federal law and
that illegal apprehension is
punishable (Article 23, pars 1,2, and 6);
that everyone is entitled to equal
protection of his/her rights in legally
determined procedure (Article 26,
par 1); that no one may be punished for
any offense before it had been
perpetrated, was not set out in the law
or regulation based on the law as a
punishable offence, nor may be sentenced
to the term which was not legally
stipulated for such an offense (Article
27, par 1); that no one may be
repeatedly sentenced or punished for an
offense in the case finally
suspended or the indictment finally
dismissed or if he/she finally
acquitted or sentenced (Article 28); that
a foreigner may be extradited to
another state only in the cases
stipulated in the international treaties
which are binding on the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia, and that the right
to asylum is guaranteed to a foreign
national and a person without
citizenship persecuted due to democratic
views and on the grounds of his/her
participation in the movements for social
and national liberations, for
freedom and rights of a human being, or
for freedom of scientific or
artistic creative work (Article 66, pars
2 and 3); that only law may
stipulate the ways of realization of
individual freedoms and rights of man
and citizens when so stipulated under the
Constitution of FRY or necessary
for their realization and that freedoms
and rights recognized and guaranteed
by the Constitution of FRY enjoy judicial
protection (Article 67, pars. 2
and 4); as well as that the Federal
Government may enact the decrees,
decisions and other instruments for
implementation of the federal laws and
other regulations and general enactments
of the Federal Parliament (Article
99, par 1, item 4) .

The provisions of Chapters XXX and XXXI
of the Law on Criminal Proceedings
(Official Gazette of FRY Nos.4/77,
14/85,54/87,57/89,3/90 and Official
Gazette of FRY Nos. 27/92 and 24/94)
stipulated the procedure for
international legal assistance and
performance under the international
treaties in criminal matters as well as
the procedure for the extradition of
the accused and sentenced individuals.
Those provisions, inter alia,
stipulated territorial and actual
jurisdiction of national courts and other
state authorities in the procedure on the
request of the foreign authority
and even in case when the request
concerns criminal offence which under the
national regulations no extradition is
allows; that one of the conditions
for extradition of the accused or
sentenced individuals is that such an
individual is no Yugoslav citizen as well
as that the requested extradition
of any individual shall have been ruled
by the competent court.

3. The Federal Constitutional Court,
starting from the above stated
provisions of the Constitution of FRY and
the Law on Criminal Proceedings
finds that the contested Decree does not
comply with the Constitution and
the Law on Criminal Proceedings.

To begin with, the contested Decree is
not in compliance with the
Constitution of FRY because it regulated
the procedure (means) of
realization of individual freedoms and
rights of a man and citizen
determined under the Constitution of FRY
by the competent authority. Namely,
further to the provisions of Article 67,
par 2, of the Constitution of FRY
the manner (procedure) of implementation
of individual freedoms and human
and civil rights may be stipulated by the
law only, provided however, that
this possibility is anticipated in the
Constitution of FRY or when it is
necessary for their implementation. The
provisions of Article 26, par 1 of
the Constitution of FRY it was further
laid down that everyone is entitled
to equal protection of its rights in the
legally prescribed procedure. By
the contested Decree the Federal
Government as the executive authority,
having regulated the possibility and the
procedure for transfer of criminal
proceedings underway in the national
court to the International Criminal
Tribunal at its request, having regulated
the application of the provisions
of the Chapter XXXI of the Law on
Criminal Proceedings which covers also
apprehension of the individual requested
to be extradited to the
International Criminal Tribunal, having
regulated the power of the
International Criminal Tribunal to
undertake investigation activities
against the individuals in the territory
of FRY, actually regulated the
manner (procedure) of realization,
limitation and protection of individual
freedoms and human and civil by a by-law.
The law only, as was already
mentioned, may regulate such a procedure,
enacted by legislative power,
which was done in the matters of criminal
legal protection under the law on
Criminal Proceedings.

The contested Decree of the Federal
Government regulated apart from the
procedure also the jurisdiction and
composition of courts and jurisdiction
of governments in constituent republics
to decide on the requests of the
International Criminal Tribunal despite
the fact that further to Article 6
of the Constitution of FRY a constituent
republic may autonomously regulate
governance and competences of its own
authorities.

Having stipulated the application of the
Statute of the International
Criminal Tribunal and its Rules of
Procedure and Evidence by the Courts and
other authorities in FRY the Federal
Government overstepped its
constitutional powers of the executive
branch because confirmation of the
International legal acts and their
integration into the internal legal
system falls within the exclusive purview
of the Federal Parliament, under
Article 78 of the Constitution of FRY, as
legislative and representative
body of the citizens of Yugoslavia and
her constituent republics.

Apart from the stated non-constitutionality
the disputed Decree is further
in conflict with the Constitution of FRY
because it regulates the
possibility of extradition of the
Yugoslav citizens even outside the area
of territorial jurisdiction and Yugoslav
judicial and other state authorities
although the Constitution of FRY in its
Article 17, par.3 explicitly bans
such a possibility in the case of
Yugoslav citizens. A foreign citizen may
be extradited only in the cases and under
the procedure stipulated in the
Constitution of FRY, the Law on Criminal
Proceeding and international
treaties. The Federal Constitutional
Court finds that the Constitution of
FRY, namely the mentioned Article 17 par
3, no extradition of the Yugoslav
citizens outside the sovereign territory
of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia irrespective whether the
request for extradition was submitted by
the court established by one state or
several states under an international
treaty or under the instrument of an
international organization, because the
provisions of the Constitution of FRY as
the basic law in FR Yugoslavia in
the hierarchy of legal regulations are
the norms of the highest legal
priority and therefore any other general
norms, including published
international treaties must comply with
its provisions.

The legal instruments of the federal and
republic governments, federal and
republic laws containing legal solutions
in conflict with the constitutional
provisions cannot stand in harmony with
the Constitution of FRY. Neither the
federal laws confirming the International
treaties can be in compliance if
such treaties contain provisions contrary
to the Constitution of FRY. Only
an act of legal strength equal to
constitution may change the
constitutional
provisions, specifically those relating
to human and civil rights such as
the provision of Article 17, par 3
prohibiting deprivation of citizenship,
expulsion from the country or extradition
of a Yugoslav citizen to others.
Since this provision is located within
the basic provisions of the
Constitution of FRY, the Federal
Constitutional Court submits that it
acknowledges and guarantees human and
civil rights and freedoms and citizens
in FR of Yugoslavia in keeping with the
Universal declaration on human
rights. The same goes for the possibility
provided for by the Decree if the
permission for transit of the Yugoslav
nationals through the territory of
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at the
request of the International
Criminal Tribunal. The Federal
Constitutional Court is competent to rule
whether any of the general norms are in
compliance with the Constitution of
FRY or not, and its rulings are generally
binding and final, with the legal
consequences set out in the Constitution
of FRY and the Law on the Federal
Constitutional Court.

The Federal Constitutional Court,
starting from the nature of the legal
instrument, its substance and
promulgator, has not gone deeper into
structuring the final legal views on the
manner of the implementation of the
Decree, legal nature or the manner of
honoring the obligations created by
the establishment of the International
Criminal Tribunal under the Security
Council Resolution. Consequently, the
Federal Constitutional Court in this
Decision provided no complete replies to
the question: did the Security
Council, as one of the main bodies of the
United Nations, laid down in the
Charter, and primarily responsible for
maintenance of international peace
and security, and which in performing
that mandate must act in conformity
with the goals and principles of United
Nations (Article 24 of the Charter),
in establishing the International
Criminal Tribunal acted in keeping with
the United Nations Charter or overstepped
its powers, namely acted ultra
virus; whether the establishment of the
International Criminal Tribunal, as
an ad hoc measure which should though
criminal prosecution of the
individuals responsible for grave
violations of the international
humanitarian law, enable reestablishment
of peace in the territory of former
SFRY and its maintenance, in keeping with
the measures that the Security
Council may take as conducive to the
maintenance of the international peace
and security, in conformity with the
Charter and its own Rules of Procedure;
whether and in what way is FR of
Yugoslavia bound, as member of United
Nations, to cooperate with the
International Criminal Tribunal, which is not
a court authority envisaged by the United
Nations Charter, unlike the
International Court of Justice,
anticipated in Chapter XIV of the Charter,
but "a measure" of the Security Council;
whether the acts and measures of
the Security Council taken with reference
to the Charter of the United
Nations have the same force as the
Charter itself (whether they are its
integral part?); how to proceed under the
Statute and other by-laws of that
Tribunal, without harmonization of the
internal law with their substance;
whether the Statute and the Rules of the
Tribunal are based on generally
accepted principles and rules of
international law and particularly on the
rules on the function of the prosecutor
in the proceedings, ban of renewed
trial in the same case, detention,
duration of which is not limited, the so
called covert indictments, anonymous
witnesses, duration of the imprisonment
term, extradition of nationals etc.;
whether priority of legal instruments
exists in the hierarchy of international
law and whether the acts of the
United Nations bodies must be in
conformity with the Charter of the United
Nations, and which body and in which
procedure determines that concord; that
the members of the United Nations are
obliged to enforce the instruments of
UN only if they were adopted in
conformity with the Charter of the United
Nations, which member states accepted or
the obligation of the members
exists by the very act of acceptance of
the Charter, as a multinational
international treaty; whether some states
members of the United Nations,
which through their competent body,
adopted respective instruments on
cooperation with the International
Criminal Tribunal violated the Charter of
UN because they banned under these
instruments the extradition of their
nationals to that Court, because such
cooperation is prohibited by their
constitutions and why they had to adopt
such instruments if the Resolution
of the Security Council on the
establishment of the International Criminal
Tribunal 827 and the Statute of that
Court are integral parts of the
internal law of those states; why certain
member states of UN had to change
their constitutions which prohibited the
extradition of their nationals to
other states, to be able to pass the
instrument governing the cooperation
with the International Criminal Tribunal
which includes also the
extradition of their nationals to the
mentioned court, if the instruments of
the Security Council of the United
Nations, in the legal hierarchy have
priority over the constitutions of UN
member states, or have the same
strength, on the other hand; whether the
stated practice of these UN member
states clearly shows that the
constitution of UN member states are the
legal instruments with the highest legal
strength in every UN member state,
and that, consequently the instruments of
the competent state authorities
enabling the implementation of the
mentioned Resolution of the Security
Council and the Statute of the
International Criminal Tribunal, must be
approved in compliance with the
constitution of a member state, in formal
and material terms, and that the
instruments of the Security Council
therefore represent no legal merit for
direct implementation by the very
fact of their instruments, since every
UN member state has to make own
decision about their integration into the
legal system of every UN member
state, to determine, under its
constitution the competent authority and in
the prescribed manner; whether the act of
implementation/integration into
the national legal system passed by the
competent authority of UN member
state can set out the manner of
implementation of individual human rights
and freedom under the rules unpublished
and therefore inaccessible to a
citizen and man applicable to, despite
the fact that the constitution of
that state stipulated the publication of
all general norms as obligatory if
they constitute part of its legal order,
as is the case of the Constitution
of FR Yugoslavia; whether the
promulgation of an instrument for enforcement
of the mentioned Resolution and Statute
of the International Criminal
Tribunal would be in harmony with the
international treaties acceded to by
the UN member states and with the
generally accepted rule of international
law, and many other questions. This is
because the Federal Constitutional
Court submits that replies to all these
questions are irrelevant to the
Court ruling on constitutionality and
legality of the contested Decree.
Namely, the Federal Constitutional Court
in its proceedings determines, as a
preceding question, formal
constitutionality and legality of the contested
general legal instrument, e.g. whether it
was enacted by the competent
authority stipulated in the Constitution
of FRY, confirmed and published
international treaty and federal law.

(2/3 - continues)

After it was made on November 6, the Decision of the Federal
Constitutional Court on unconstitutionality of the the Federal
Government's Decree on cooperation with the so-called tribunal in the
Hague has finally been published. Here is an unofficial English
translation of it.


OFFICIAL GAZETTE OF FRY, No.70/01, December 28, 2001

===*===

Third - and final - piece of the text:

===

By virtue of Article 16 of the
Constitution of FRY the international
treaties confirmed and published in
keeping with the Constitution and
generally accepted rules of international
law are integral parts of the
national legal order. Hence, the
international treaties and generally
accepted rules of international law,
according to their legal strength are
above the federal law.

According to the position of the
Federal Constitutional Court
distinction must be made between the
obligations of the stated under the
international community on the whole and
obligations towards a given state
or group of states. The confirmed and
published international treaties
constitute the international legal
obligation of FRY law beyond any doubt
towards all the states signatories
thereof, while the generally accepted
rules of the international law concern
all the states within the
international legal system and all the
personalities under the international
law have the obligation and shared
interest in their protection (the rules
ius cogeus). Besides, in the case of
non-observance of those internal legal
norms, sanctions shall be imposed,
primarily legal in nature, unlike the
political agreements where sanctions are
of not legal but political and/or
other nature.

The generally accepted rules of
international law represent legal
principles of the norms derived from
custom rules common to all the states
or known in the majority of legal systems
of the world. Those rules have
general, absolute and objective
character, but also their dynamic
development. At the same time the scope
and character of their changes
provoke different views. There is more
agreement about their identification,
particularly in process law, as the
principles of "reasonable time-limit","
fair trial",
"degrading treatment", "arbitrary
apprehension "presumption of innocence",
timely pronunciation of sentence", "right
to appeal" and other general
rules.

The Federal Constitutional Court
judges that the Resolution of the
Security Council 827 establishing the
International Criminal Tribunal does
not fall within the international law
which constitutes the part of the
internal legal order under Article 16 of
the Constitution of FRY. This is
because an ad hoc measure approved by the
Security Council under the
Resolution - the establishment of the
International Criminal Tribunal for
Criminal prosecution of individuals
responsible for grave violations of the
international humanitarian law-contains
no international legal norms
producing "validity" namely has no
"obligatory strength". Without such
properties that Resolution constitutes
but a political instrument which
entails political obligations, but the
legal validity shall be achieved only
upon its enforcement by the legitimate
and legal authority in individual
legal systems of each state.

Namely, UN member states, having
accepted the UN Charter. Accepted
legal validity of all its norms, and also
the legal instrument passed by UN
bodies in compliance with and in the
manner set out in the Charter. However,
the UN member states had never vested
judicial power to UN bodies. Except
those, naturally expressly specified in
the Statute of the International
Court of Justice, envisaged in the
Chapter XIV of the UN Charter. This is
not the case. That is why the Resolution
of the Security Council 827 in its
item 4 specified a political obligation
of all the states to "fully
cooperate with the International Criminal
Tribunal....and that all the
states undertake measures in keeping with
the national legislation conducive
to giving effect to the provisions" of
that Resolution. Hence, only if and
when that obligation under the mentioned
Resolution of the Security Council
is "translated into a legal norm" in
harmony with the national legislation,
the Statute and the Rules of the
International Criminal Tribunal, shall
obtain the normative character with legal
validity. Without it, those are
specific political obligations; the
non-performance may, of course, produce
very grave consequences for individual
states.

As was said, under Article 24 of the
United Nations Charter, concerning the
international peace and security, the
Security Council in implementing its
mandate, acts on behalf of the United
Nations.

Further to Article 25 of the
Charter - UN members have agreed to
accept and implement the decisions of the
Security Council in line with the
Charter.

In case that Security Council
should find that there exists threat
to peace or violation of peace, it shall
decide what measures are to be
taken to reestablish peace, the supreme
value of the whole international
system.

In conformity with the assessed
status of relations, causes and
consequences, Security Council decided to
establish a court under its
resolution 827 (1993) under the name "The
International Tribunal for
Prosecution of Individuals responsible
for grave violations of the
International Humanitarian Law in the
Territory of former Yugoslavia between
1991". Starting from the substance of
Articles 24, 25 and Article 29 of the
United Nations Charter, that Decision may
be viewed as one of the measures
for protection of peace in the territory
of former SFRY, taken by the United
Nations.

Oppositely, as was already
revealed, this Court was of the view that
the substance of the Charter of the
United Nations does not imply that the
Security Council has an exclusive power
to create and establish judicial
bodies as a protection measure, to deal
with the responsibility of the
citizens in the countries that violated
peace and security in the world. It
follows from the substance of the quoted
provisions of the Charter that such
a measure may be considered as an
international accomplished fact binding
on
any member state of United Nations. In
such a case an obligation is created
to legally regulate the issues concerning
constitutionally guaranteed
freedoms and rights of the citizens,
position of the state authorities and
provision of that protection, as well as
the conduct of local authorities in
giving legal assistance to protect the
international peace. One of the
rights of member states in this case, are
well-supported approaches to the
United Nation bodies to check the
correctness of the procedure.

The above quoted constitutional
and legal provisions imply no
obligation or possibility for the
national legal system, under the
extraordinary procedure and extraordinary
legal instrument, harmonize with
the international coercive measure.
Hence, these relations should be
established in constitutionally oriented
procedure, which shall observe and
be secured by international law, but also
the internal order of FR of
Yugoslavia, in observance of the Charter
of the united Nations,
International Declaration on Human
Rights, the International Covenant of
Civil and Political Rights, Constitution
of FRY and other legal instruments
of the national and international law.

III

4. The Federal Constitutional
Court, by virtue of Article 124, par
1, items 2 and 4 of the Constitution of
FRY and Articles 30, 58 and 68 par
1, items 2 and 4 of the Law on the
Federal Constitutional Court (Official
Gazette of FRY no.36/92), at its session
of 06.11.2001, passed the following


DECISION

It is ruled that the Decree on
the process of cooperation with the
International Criminal Tribunal (Official
Gazette of FRY no.30/01) is in no
conformity with Constitution of the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the
Law on Criminal Proceedings (Official
Gazette of SFRY Nos.4/77, 14/85,
74/87, 57/89, 3/90 and Official Gazette
of FRY No/ 27/92 and 24/94).

The Federal Constitutional Court
has passed the present Decision in
the following sitting: Acting Chairman of
the Federal Constitutional Court
Judge Milan Vesovic, and Judges Milorad
Gogic, Dr. Momcilo Grubac, Mr.
Milomir Jakovljevic, Veseling Lekic and
Aleksandar Simic.

The Federal Constitutional Court
Acting Chairman
of
the Federal Constitutional Court
Judge Milan Vesovic


To join or help this struggle, visit:
http://www.sps.org.yu/ (official SPS
website)
http://www.belgrade-forum.org/ (forum for
the world of equals)
http://www.icdsm.org/ (the international
committee to defend Slobodan
Milosevic)
http://www.jutarnje.co.yu/ ('morning
news' the only Serbian newspaper
advocating liberation)

"DEMOCRATICI" MEDIA JUGOSLAVI INVENTANO
DI SANA PIANTA INTERVISTA A MILOSEVIC

Alcuni media jugoslavi, citandosi a vicenda, e sulla base
di una fonte assolutamente ignota, hanno pubblicato estratti
di una "intervista" che il presidente Milosevic avrebbe
rilasciato al "corrispondente da Roma della agenzia russa
ITAR-TASS" e ad alcuni "altri giornalisti italiani".
Questa vile montatura, pregna di astio e spirito acido,
mira chiaramente a creare confusione in Jugoslavia,
dove la gente e' sempre piu' determinata ad appoggiare
il presidente Milosevic. Inoltre, l'intento e' di nascondere
il vero messaggio politico del presidente Milosevic, dando
molto risalto a simili montature.
(From: "Vladimir Krsljanin" - SPS)

UPOZORENJE: Tzv. intervju Milosevica ITAR-TASS-u je lazan!

Beogradski mediji, pozivajuci se jedan na drugog u krug,
non-stop citiraju ovu jeftinu izmisljotinu, lansiranu sa
ciljem da se stvori konfuzija u casu kada podrska
predsedniku Milosevicu raste, kao i da bi se
sakrile njegove prave poruke.
(From: "Vladimir Krsljanin" - SPS)

SO-CALLED MILOSEVIC'S INTERVIEW TO ITAR-TASS IS FALSE!

Some Yugoslav media, quoting each other, with completelly
unknown source, published excerpts from an "interview" of
President Milosevic given to the "Rome correspondent of
Russian agency ITAR-TASS" and to some "other Italian
journalists". This cheap fabrication, full of spirit of
bitterness and dissapointment has an obvious aim to create
confusion in Yugoslavia, where determination of the people in
support of President Milosevic increases. Also, intention is
to hide the true political messages of President Milosevic by
giving big publicity to fabricated sensations.
(From: "Vladimir Krsljanin" - SPS)