[Nel 20.mo anniversario del rapimento di S. Miloševic
english / српскохрватски / italiano / deutsch]
20 godišnjica od otmice S. Miloševica
0) Dokumentarni film "DRŽAVNIK" i serija "PORODICA"
Ricordiamo che, sulla figura di Miloševic, è in stampa presso Zambon editore il libro 
La tragica vicenda di Slobodan Milošević da capro espiatorio ad accusatore per la distruzione del suo paese
II edizione italiana, rivista ed ampliata a cura di Jugocoord Onlus
Se ne veda la presentazione sul nostro sito: 
=== 0 ===
ДРЖАВНИК  [LO STATISTA – film-documentario su S. Miloševic]

(duža verzija) Dokumentarni film "Državnik" govori o nekadašnjem predsedniku Srbije i SRJ , Slobodanu Muloševiću, koji je sav svoj život posvetio borbi za dobrobit Srbije i srpskog naroda a doživeo je tragičan kraj. 
Stradao je od ruke onih zlotvora koji su Srbima i Srbiji vekovima činili zlo i potkusurivali se njome kad god im se prohte.
Vreme, istorija svakog će staviti na svoje mesto, pa i Slobodana Miloševića. Srpski rodoljubi veruju da će Slobodan Milošević uskoro Srbima biti ono što on, u stvari, i jeste- primer, uzor državnika koji je celog sebe stavio u službu svog naroda i svoje zemlje.
U dokumentarnom filmu "Državnik" govore:
- Prof. dr. Uroš Šuvaković,
- Prof. dr. Slobodan Antonić,
- Prof. dr. Ratko Marković, potpredsednik Vlade Republike Srbije 1994-2000. godine
- Radovan Kalabić, istoričar,
- Mitar Balević, organizator odbrane Srba na KiM,
- Miloš Marković, novinar i
- Dragoljub Milanović, generalni direktor RTS-a u vreme NATO bombardovanja Srbije

I DEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5dr87ZQ9d0
II DEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wwoFZxQiJ4
Milijana Baletić s teškom mukom odgledala seriju 'PORODICA': Gospodo izvršioci ovoga sočinjenija ono što imam prema svima vama duboki je prezir! (Glas javnosti 2021-04-04)
Mada sa teškom mukom, odgledah celu serije „Porodica“ o Slobodanu  Miloševiću, koju je u nedelji za nama, emitovao RTS – medijska kuća države Srbije?!
=== 1 ===
Izvor: http://www.sloboda.org.rs , 28.6.2021.


Пожаревац на Видовдан 2021. - Поводом обележавања 20 годишњице од отмице бившег Председика СРЈ и Србије Слободана Милошевића у Пожаревцу је на Видовдан 2021 године одржан протесни скуп грађана у организацији Удружења „Слобода“. На протесту се окупљеним грађанима обратио Никола Шиновић подсећајући на све неуставне и незаконите поступке ДОС-овог режима начињене одлуком да се Милошевић изручи тзв Хашком трибуналу.
=== 2 ===
Auf Deutsch: „WIE SLOBODAN MILOŠEVIĆ GESTORBEN WURDE“ (von Peter Betscher, 14. März 2021)

Vor 15 Jahren, am 11.03.2006, wurde der jugoslawische Präsident tot in seiner Zelle in Scheveningen aufgefunden...

Peter Betscher: “They did Everything for Slobodan Milošević to Die”
ICSM, 22/03/2021

15 years ago, on March 11, 2006, the Yugoslav president was found dead in his cell in Scheveningen.

by Peter Betscher

The title of this article is also the title of the last chapter of the book “The Milošević Trial” by Bulgarian journalist Germinal Civikov. He was the only journalist who had been an observer throughout the entire trial, “often sitting all alone in the initially crowded room for spectators.” (1)

The circumstances surrounding Milošević’s death have never been fully clarified, and efforts made by the family, the International Committee for the Defense of Slobodan Milošević (ICDSM) (2) and Russia to clarify the situation have so far been thwarted by the illegal Hague Tribunal, which posed as a court, investigative commission and court of appeals in one.

Slobodan Milošević had been arrested in early April 2001 by the new government, shortly before the U.S. ultimatum expired, threatening the cancellation of finances to Yugoslavia and sanctions; and was extradited to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in The Hague on June 28 – again prior to expiration of the U.S. ultimatum – in a cloak-and-dagger action that was in violation of Yugoslavia’s Constitution. With this extorted kidnapping, NATO, in the face of a growing number of its war lies having been exposed, was seeking to retrospectively impose a legitimization for its war of aggression against Yugoslavia.

Already at the first hearing, Milošević made it clear that he would not recognize this court, saying it was the wrong court and the wrong indictments. The objective of the trial, he said, was “to provide a false justification for the war crimes committed in Yugoslavia by the NATO Pact.” The insecure Judge Richard May responded each time to such statements by cutting off the microphone, even throughout the rest of the trial. Non-recognition of the Tribunal meant that, unlike other prisoners in The Hague, Milošević had to raise his own funds for his defense – with the help of supporters.

At his 2nd hearing before the “Tribunal” (on 30.01.2002), Slobodan Milošević was not allowed to make his statement concerning the illegitimacy of The Hague “Tribunal”. His statement read, in part:

The illegitimate criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia undermines jurisprudence and law because it is incapable of acting even-handedly between one state and another, or within the politically targeted state. It augments violence, division, and the risk of war between neighboring nations and peoples, as well as, within Yugoslavia among segments of the society that the U.S. balkanization policy has pitted one against the other in the former Yugoslavia, as well as against the new government that the U.S. has installed for its own objectives. Even if the United Nations Charter would have empowered the Security Council to establish criminal courts, even then, it would not be empowered to establish a court for a single nation or a single episode for the political purpose of prosecuting select groups or individuals, and such a court would be incapable of administering unbiased justice under rule of law. An ad hoc court violates the most fundamental legal principles. Equality is the mother of justice. An international court established to prosecute acts in a single nation and primarily, if not entirely, of a selected group is predisposed to biased prosecution.” (3)

Initially, Slobodan Milošević had to endure 24 hours of glaring light in his cell. Then the cell was placed under constant video surveillance. In addition to the daily eight-hour hearings, wherein he had to keep abreast of thousands of pages of transcripts, countless films and tape recordings, the court often switched, without notice, the order of witnesses he was to cross-examine. He had to prepare for his defense late into the night and, evenings, he was given the choice between eating dinner and taking a short walk. Meetings with his defense team were regularly obstructed. He was banned from access to the Internet or a library. While the prosecution disposed of an elaborate apparatus, for his defense, Milošević only had a rechargeable card telephone at his disposal.

On Feb. 12, 2002, Slobodan Milošević’s ICTY trial began in The Hague. He was charged with 66 counts of crimes against humanity and grave war crimes in Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina – including genocide in the latter. In his interminable opening statement, Prosecutor Geoffrey Nice attempted to reinforce the charges by drawing on long-since debunked allegations (such as the “Racak massacre” staged by U.S. Ambassador William Walker). This allegation was later expunged from the indictment, in spite of this event having been the pretext for NATO’s war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. On the third day of the trial, the prosecutor put NATO on the stand. Whereas, countless articles, television and radio reports with innumerable preliminary condemnations rattled through the press, over the airwaves and on the screens, throughout the first two weeks of the “trial of the century,” everything suddenly went silent on all channels.

On 27.09.2002 the NZZ commented (4): “Apparently, there is still no clear evidence that Milosevic had ordered and commanded the crimes in Kosovo, for which he is being charged. And this is despite the fact that the former autonomous province – unlike Croatia and Bosnia – was under Belgrade’s direct administration and Milosevic had been Yugoslavia’s president and commander-in-chief of the army. Proving direct responsibility is likely to be even more difficult in the cases of Bosnia and Croatia.”

However, in spite of the collapse of the “Kosovo indictment,” the “trial” still continued seamlessly with the two remaining Bosnia and Croatia “indictments.” For this, Milošević had been given 90,000 pages of material from the “prosecutors” along with some 500 videotapes. To the court, he calculated that reading these pages once, would take a year. But the “court’s” timetable stipulated that the questioning of the prosecution witnesses on Bosnia and Croatia be completed by May 2003. As early as April 2002, the “court” surprisingly shortened the length of the trial, with “Judge” May’s remarkable explanation that “the longer the trial takes, the more difficult it will be to reach a verdict.” (5)

In the meantime, his prison conditions, as well as the conditions under which he had to prepare his defense, outlined above, had taken a toll on Slobodan Milošević’s health. As early as August 2002, doctors detected an “increased risk of a heart attack” in the course of a medical examination. Their prescriptions at the time were either not implemented, or only partially implemented, throughout the further course of the trial. The prescribed rest periods were greatly reduced, and all-day hearings – which had been completely discouraged – were reinstated. On November 11, 2002, 13 doctors and therapists from Germany wrote to the Tribunal: It is not only incomprehensible, but outrageous, that Mr. Milosevic is not under constant medical observation and check-ups and does not get adequate medical treatment. This way of dealing with a person whose life is – with all consequences – in your responsibility, can only be called irresponsible and leads to the question of motives. It is in total contradiction to various documents and resolutions of the United Nations concerning the treatment of imprisoned persons. Those regulations should be fully recognized by representatives of UN institutions.” (6)

On November 4, 2005, Slobodan Milošević, at his own request, was examined by an international medical team. The results were the recommendation for additional examinations (which never occurred), and that a six-week pause for rest was urgently needed. The report, lastly, recommended that given the fact that the Russian government had already provided all guarantees that Slobodan Milošević would return following treatment, that the patient be released for medical treatment at the Bakulev Institute in Moscow. Initially, the judges ignored this recommendation and, aside from a pause, due to illness, continued trial proceedings until the Christmas recess.

On February 24, 2006, the Tribunal rejected Milošević’s demand for a temporary release for medical treatment in a special clinic in Moscow. “In the form of a handwritten letter to the Russian Foreign Minister on March 8, 2006, Slobodan Milošević made a final request – asking once again for emergency admission to the Bakulev Institute for Cardiovascular Diseases. He died 3 days later, on Saturday, March 11, in cell E04. He was preceded in death by Slavko Dokmanović, Milan Kovačević, and Milan Babić, all at the Scheveningen Detention Center. The autopsy, performed by the Netherlands Institute of Forensics, determined that Slobodan Milošević had died of a heart attack and that he had had no traces of toxic substances in his blood. It is out of the question that Slobodan Milošević’s death can be attributed to the normal and foreseeable course of his cardiovascular illness, had he been properly treated. It is therefore a case of ‘judicial murder,’ caused by the inhumane conditions of detention and the improper and inadequate medical care administered with the ‘consent’ of doctors and under orders of the prison administration.” (7)

At the press conference on 14.03.2006 in The Hague, the legal spokeswoman for Slobodan Milošević, the Canadian lawyer Tiphaine Dickson said: “Our hope is that the confidentiality surrounding all medical records, doctors’ reports, medications, as well as the medical examination results will be lifted, without exception, and made available for an investigation.” This hope was not fulfilled.

The “Tribunal” conducted its own investigation, known as the Parker Report, named after the Vice President of the “Tribunal” Kevin Parker. On May 30, 2006, this report (8), which exonerated the “Tribunal” of all charges, was published. Canadian lawyer Christopher Black “had been hired by President Milošević’s family to investigate the circumstances of his death and to find ways to bring those responsible to justice.

It is now clear that this objective cannot be reached without full support of public opinion and an international investigation into his capture, conditions of detention, and trial. There is much to be learned. Wikileaks have revealed that the head of the detention center, McFadden, unlawfully provided information on Milošević to the U.S. Embassy, in violation of both his own authority and prison statutes, and the ICTY subsequently swept this offense under the rug.

This sheds light on who is really in control of the situation, and who must definitely be included for the investigation into the circumstances surrounding his death. (…) This matter pertains to the death of a head of state, at the hands of the United Nations and, therefore, a simple investigation by Dutch police – the police force of a NATO country – is worthless. The case calls for an international commission of inquiry.” (9)

On April 6, 2011, Christopher Black’s request to the “Tribunal” for the release of documents relating to Slobodan Milošević’s health, tissue and blood samples, and access to the medical records at the United Nations Detention Unit (UNDU) was refused by the “Tribunal,” on the grounds of its own internal rules. The detainees’ data would be confidential, there would be a comprehensive and far-reaching ban on the dissemination of all detainee information in the UNDU, and the Dutch legal system would require patient consent for doctors to disclose medical information.

The ICTY was established in 1993 at the urging of Madeleine Albright by – the U.S.-dominated – United Nations Security Council. The then Secretary-General of the United Nations noted in his report that the normal way to establish such an international criminal tribunal would have been ‘an international treaty,’ drawn up and ‘recognized by member states, which are accorded full sovereignty.” (10)

NATO is the friend of the tribunal. (…) NATO countries are those that have provided the finance to set up the Tribunal, we are amongst the majority financiers,” Jamie Shea (NATO press spokesman) boasted at a press conference on May 16, 1999. But not only NATO countries financed the Tribunal, also among the financiers are the Rockefeller Foundation, stock market speculator, George Soros, media giant, Time Warner and the Institute for Peace – founded by Ronald Reagan.

On December 31, 2017, the ICTY shut down its activities, but continues indefinitely, as a so-called International Residual Mechanism (MICT), which can only try suspects, who have already been indicted by one of the “tribunals.” Furthermore, the MICT is responsible for the conditions of detention of those convicted, for the transfer of defendants to national courts, for appeals and public relations.

The International Committee for he Defense of Slobodan Milošević (ICDSM) was founded on March 25, 2001 in Belgrade and Berlin on the initiative of Velko Valkanov, President of the Anti-Fascist Union of Bulgaria, “who had realized that Milošević was threatened with a trial comparable to that of the Reichstag Fire Trial. Velko Valkanov (Bulgaria) was co-chair with Ramsey Clark (USA) and Alexander Zinoviev (Russia). The committee included some 160 prominent figures from around the world.” (11)

The ICDSM did not disband in the aftermath of Slobodan Milošević’s death, but realized that “the defense of the Serbian people, of international law and national sovereignty is all the more necessary, now,“(12) and changed its name to the International Committee Slobodan Milošević (ICSM). This year, the Committee celebrates its 20th anniversary.

Those interested in the recent history of Yugoslavia and the trials in The Hague will find an abundance of information at http://www.free-slobo.de/ and https://milosevic.co.Under the heading “Topics,” older articles are sorted by subject. Under the heading “More News” all articles are arranged in chronological order. Under the heading “Bibliography” one can find a rich offer in literature references.

Those who wish to support the German Section of the ICSM can do so by donating to the following account:

Sparkasse KölnBonn

IBAN: DE74 3705 0198 1929 9201 04


The aggressors will not write the history!

Peter Betscher, (Darmstadt, Germany) is a member of the German Section of the International Committee Slobodan Milošević (ICSM), a board member of the Federal Association of Workers’ Photography and a member of the regional board of the German Freethinkers’ Association of Hesse.                       Translation: George Pumphrey

See also: http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=27304https://www.freidenker.org/?p=9704


  1. Civikov G. (2006) „ Der Milošević-Prozess“ Promedia, Wien
  2. free-slobo.de
  3. Themen/Der Prozess: „Falsche Anklage vor falschem Tribunal“/30.August 2001
  4. Neue Zürcher Zeitung “Wenn jeder sich im Recht wähnt“; 27.09.2002
  5. Schütz C./Betscher P. (2003) „Das Treiben des Haager „Tribunals“ im Fall Milosevic“ Die Brücke 128, 2/2003
  6. „Die Zerstörung Jugoslawiens – Slobodan Milošević antwortet seinen Anklägern“, Zambon-Verlag 2006 (2. ) S.242
  7. S. 265
  8. https://www.icty.org/x/cases/slobodan_milosevic/custom2/en/parkerreport.pdf
  9. https://milosevic.co/609/christopher-black-and-alexander-mezyaev-death-of-president-slobodan-milosevic-in-nato-prison-remains-a-central-question-in-international-justice/
  10. (Report Nr. X S /25704, Abschnitt 18) Michael Collon „Solidaire“ Nr. 15 vom 04.2001
  11. free-slobo.de
  12. start page down