--- In icdsm-italia @ yahoogroups.com, <icdsm-italia@l...> ha scritto:

(Le straordinarie parole di Slobodan Milosevic nell'aula
dell'Aia, lo scorso 29 Novembre - Festa Nazionale per tutti
gli jugoslavi e le jugoslave -, naturalmente censurate dai
media dei paesi "liberi". Le riportiamo oggi, nella
ricorrenza del quarto anno dall'inizio della infame e
criminale farsa inscenata dalla NATO e dai suoi servi
in Olanda. ICDSM)

---------- Initial Header -----------

From : "Vladimir Krsljanin"
Date : Mon, 13 Feb 2006 02:11:28 +0100
Subject : ICDSM: Truth vs. Crime - The 4th Anniversary

ICDSM Sofia-New York-Moscow www.icdsm.org
Velko Valkanov, Ramsey Clark, Alexander Zinoviev (Co-Chairmen),
Klaus Hartmann (Chairman of the Board), Vladimir Krsljanin
(Secretary), Christopher Black (Chair, Legal Committee),
Tiphaine Dickson (Legal Spokesperson)
12 February 2006
Special Circular


On 12 December 2005, President Milosevic requested to
be provisionally released in order to obtain medical
treatment in Bakulev Scientific Institute in Moscow, headed
by Professor Leo Bockeria, Main Cardiosurgeon of
the Russian Federation. On the basis of President
Milosevic's request and opinions of leading international
medical specialists, including Professor Bockeria himself,
the Government of the Russian Federation issued appropriate
state guarantees to the Hague Tribunal on 17 January 2006.
Decision of the Trial Chamber is still pending.

What preceded was a dramatic warning about the state of
President Milosevic's health, made by an international
doctor's consilium on 4 November 2005, recommending urgent
break in the proceedings, six weeks of total rest and
additional examinations and treatment in a specialized
medical institution. That warning was echoed by the ICDSM
in its special session in Belgrade on 12 November, when an
urgent public appeal was signed by ICDSM co-chairs
Ramsey Clark and Velko Valkanov and Vice-President of the
Russian State Duma Sergei Baburin. Subsequently, groups of
medical specialists from Serbia and Germany also went
public with their own appeals. Sloboda collected in
only two days 25000 signatures to put the issue on agenda
of the Serbian Parliament (something that never happened,
in spite of the Serbian Constitution). Russian Duma
unanimously adopted a resolution expressing
serious concern about the President Milosevic's health.

The tribunal is acting slowly, bureaucratically
and hypocritically. Six weeks of urgently necessary
rest were granted to President Milosevic (who in
the meantime almost collapsed in the court room) only
in connection to usual court Christmas recess. And in
spite of all medical arguments and state guarantees
presented, the decision on provisional release has not
been made yet. All this in confirmation of Moscow Mayor
Yuri Luzhkov, who, welcoming the possibility that
President Milosevic comes to Moscow, stated on 21
January that President Milosevic's situation "is a
disgrace for a European court, which instituted legal
proceedings against him without sufficient reasons, kept
him under arrest for several years and now does not
know what to do. All their accusations fell apart, and
now they are trying to put a good face on the matter.
They do not want to apologize to Milosevic for several
years that have been crossed out of his life", adding
that there should be a rule in the judicial practices,
under which the judges who made a mistake should be kept
in custody as much time as the person, who was
illegally arrested through their fault.

But the most precise summary of what the four years of
the Hague proceedings represent was made by President
Milosevic himself in one of his most powerful addresses
in this process (of course, totally bypassed by the
Western media) - on 29 November (by chance, the National
Day of Yugoslavia) 2005, when he was, ill, forced to smash
(with the help of legal arguments of ICDSM and other
international lawyers) the attempt of the Tribunal to
severe three indictments against him (united before the
beginning of the process).

President Milosevic (don't miss to read the full transcript
of his remarks further below) told the judges:

"The present situation is the direct result of a
megalomaniac ambition by the other side and most
probably by the desire to have the quantity of
material replace any serious proof and evidence
against me. Quantity over quality. Because you cannot
have evidence and valid proof for untruths. And
you have supported the other side through your
tolerant relationship with them, and asking them to
be limited in their scope.
I am the main victim of having been bombed by various
documents, material witnesses, and so on, that the
opposite side has been allowed to present with the
go-ahead from you. I think that this is a form of
torture and a form of cynicism to put that burden
of responsibility upon me, all the more so if this
is linked to my health situation, which has been
significantly impaired because of the torture I have
been exposed to.

"And what is this phantom of a joint criminal enterprise
that is being discussed here? And what is it that
is exactly being alleged? People who are sitting here,
including me, including you, on the one hand, simply
cannot know all the things that are referred to in all
these documents that Mr. Nice served - a million pages,
no less - and no one knows what the Prosecutor is
prosecuting, including the Prosecutor herself. She
doesn't know it either. I think that even Franz Kafka
would feel that he did not have great imagination
compared to this.
"This entire Court was envisaged as an instrument
of war against my country. It was founded illegally
on the basis of an illegal decision and carried
through by the forces that waged war against my
country. There is just one thing that is true here:
It is true that there is a joint criminal enterprise,
but not in Belgrade, not in Yugoslavia as its center,
but those, who, in a war that was waged in Yugoslavia
from 1991 onwards, destroyed Yugoslavia.
"Do you want to tell me who pays your salary? Do you
wish to claim that you receive a salary from the
United Nations? Who finances this Court, Mr. Bonomy?
Who established this Court, Mr. Bonomy?
Who effected an aggression against my country, Mr. Bonomy?
Your country. And who am I asking to come in
to testify? Your presidents and Prime Ministers.
"Yugoslavia did not disintegrate or disappear in
some manner, but it was destroyed in a planned manner,
forcefully, through a war, and that war is still
being waged, is still going on. And one of the
instruments of this war is your illegal Tribunal.
"Let me say straight away, as far as your judgements
are concerned and rulings in joinders or not joinders,
I'm not afraid of them at all, because if you judge
according to the law and the truth, then there would
never have been this trial in the first place. But
as we do have a trial, it can end only in one way:
A decision on the non-existence of culpability. And
if you don't rule based on justice and truth, then
your ruling will disintegrate and will burst like a
bubble of soap, because the court of the world and the
court of justice and the truth is stronger than any
other court. It is up to each one of us, and each
one of you gentlemen, to opt and choose what place
we're going to have before that court of history,
and what its decision will be. So don't harbour any
illusions on that score.
"Let us hear what the truth is, and let the actual
perpetrators of what happened in Yugoslavia actually
be exposed, although you said yourself, Mr. Robinson,
at one point in time, that you are not in charge of
trying NATO for what they did, although you know what
they did and you know that the basic tenet of any
law in the world is that the law that does not apply to
one and all is not law at all."


Tuesday, 29 November 2005
[Motion Hearing]
[Open session]
--- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

JUDGE ROBINSON: The Chamber scheduled
a hearing this morning to hear
submissions from the parties on the
question of severing the Kosovo
indictment and concluding that part
of the trial. We'll hear first from the
MR. NICE: We filed a paper late
yesterday afternoon. I don't know if the
Chamber has had an opportunity to consider it. (.)

[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Kay, we'll hear from
the accused before you.

PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] I shall
take up far less time than Mr. Nice did.
I addressed you two weeks ago with a
request that you respect the position
of the team of doctors from Russia,
France, and Serbia to allow me a period
of rest, because that was observed on
the basis of their findings that my
health had not been stabilised, that
the possibility of complications
existed, and that a period of rest
was indicated for at least a period of
six weeks.
You asked to hear the views of the
Dutch physicians in that regard, and now
what is the state of that? What have
they found? You have that in the
report. Dr. van Dijkman, who is a
cardiologist, a specialist, one that you
selected here, in his report, wrote,
among other things, the following: "[In
English] I strongly advise provision
for sufficient rest."
[Interpretation] And he added:
"[In English] And it seemed to me that the
six-week rest period is somewhat too
much." [Interpretation] So the
cardiologist selected by you has
confirmed the need for rest. The only
question is whether six weeks is
somewhat too much. So that is one fact and
one point I wish to address.
Not a single one of the doctors who
considered the report that you supplied
them with questioned the findings
of the consilium of physicians from
Russia, France, and Serbia.
Otherwise, on the 15th of November --
and Mr. Nice here noted that I
strolled in, and he said that I wasn't
able to work. I know exactly what I
said: I said that I wasn't feeling
well, and that was the first time that I
did so in the past four years, the
first time I said that in a four-year
period, the first time I asked the
session to be interrupted because I
really didn't feel well. And even
then this request of mine was met on your
part by keeping me in that small
room on this floor an hour and a half while
your physician examined me.
Now, all the time that you have
been questioning the positions taken by the
consilium, which has now been confirmed
by your own doctors, the doctor at
the prison forbid me to come into court,
first of all on the 12th of
November and then on a second occasion
on the 21st of November. I had
prepared myself to come in here to
court. I had put on my shirt and tie, and
then I was told there would be no
transport and I wasn't able to come. So
when Mr. Bonomy says that I didn't
come, I didn't come because it was your
own doctor who forbid me to come.
I would like to make that quite clear.
Now, finally, this question that I
complained about on the 15th and waited
patiently for two months, with growing
problems, health problems, that
needed to be addressed, the question of
my very serious symptoms, very high
pressure that I feel in my ears and
oversensitivity to sound in general, at
the medical centre of the Leiden
University, Dr. Dalal examined me fully and
wrote an objective finding. When I say
"objective," I'm referring to the
finding that was written without the
active part of the patient, so it was
only the passive participation of
the patient, since the findings are based
on long-term electronic examination,
and he told me that those objective
findings of his fully confirmed the
symptoms that I complain of and the
problems -- health problems that I complain of.
Therefore, the physicians of my own
choice who came here because my state
had not improved at all during those
two months, and also the doctors you
selected yourselves, have come to the
same conclusions, to all intents and
purposes. Your prison doctor told me
that, over the past few days, he
supposed that I had managed to amass
enough energy to deal with the pressure
that I have in my ears because he
told me that Dr. Dalal, who is a very
highly placed professional in the area,
is preparing some sort of solution
which will make it easier for me to deal
with my health situation or do away
with the symptoms at all. So that is a
very interesting standpoint from the
medical point of view, but I'm not
going to comment on it now.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, we have
not had the benefit of seeing Dr.
Dalal's report. You have been referring
to it, so I just wanted you to know that.
Mr. Robinson, I have not seen it
myself either, but I do know what he
told me, after having examined me. I
was at the medical center of the
university in Leiden, I underwent a lengthy
examination there. It was with the
help of electronic instruments. It lasts
a long time. The patient has to lie
down. There are no questions and answers
or anything of that kind. It is
electronic sounding, using electronic
instruments. And then he told me after
that examination that his objective
findings confirmed the symptoms that I
complain of. That's what he told me,
and I assume he wrote that in his report.
Dr. Falke came and told me that he
has good news for me, that Dr. Dalal
considers that he's going to be able
to mitigate those symptoms or put them
right. I asked him a logical question:
When? And he said, Well, in the next
few days. We'll do our best to hurry
up. So how am I expected to work in the
meantime? Well, I -- he said, well,
I assume you have accumulated enough
strength to persevere, you've lasted
that long, and things along those
lines. I was in Bronovo Hospital in
September for the magnetic resonance
test, and before that an ENT specialist
saw me. That's been going on for
months, for three months, and the
situation became worse and worse as time
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I just
wanted to clarify that we did not
have the report to which you have
been referring. Proceed with your
submissions on the question --
I don't have it either. Yes, I'll get
to that, but it's all linked up. As
I was saying, I assume you do have the
Dr. van Dijkman's report, do you?
JUDGE ROBINSON: Yes, we have Dr.
van Dijkman's report.
And it says here -- very well. "[In
English] We strongly advise provision
for sufficient rest." [Interpretation]
That's what it says in his report.
JUDGE ROBINSON: But as you noted, he
went on to say that he did not
consider a period of six weeks to be required.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: "Somewhat too much."
[Interpretation] That's what he said.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] And
I pointed that out. I didn't want
to quote it one-sidedly, quote what
he said one-sidedly. Therefore,
gentlemen, it is my right to demand of
you to enable me to have the right to
protect my own health, and I think it
is your duty to protect that right and
support it. And that right is over and
above all the other preoccupations
for which you have convened these
proceedings here this morning. So my
request is this - I hope it is sufficiently
clear - and I request that you
enable me to have a pause, that is
to say, a period of rest in which to
recuperate. I understand that your
basic preoccupation ...
[Trial Chamber confers]
JUDGE ROBINSON: Proceed, Mr. Milosevic.
PRESIDENT MILOSEVIC: [Interpretation] Yes,
I was waiting for you to finish your discussion.
Mr. Nice, among other things, mentioned
the question of whether I was
taking my medicaments or not. That
can only be said by somebody who doesn't
know what prison procedure is like.
You have to take your pills in front of
the guards in prison. That does not
only apply to me, it applies to
everyone. And then the time at which
you took your medications is recorded
into a log book.
I myself requested Falke to carry
out a laboratory analysis to see how my
medicines were working, within the
context of all my general efforts to help
myself. And I should like to mention
the doctors that I invited came more
than two months after I put in a
request to Falke and from the time they
sent me for my first examination. So
all this was organised without
upsetting any of your plans.
So let's make each other understood
there, let's be clear on that point. I
don't want to hear any more of the
nonsensical kinds of things that Mr. Nice
has been saying.
Gentlemen, your principal preoccupation
is time, and you have been devoting
such great effort to the question of
time that when you speak of my health
state, you are looking at it exclusively,
as it says in paragraph 6 of your
guidelines, the state of factors that
upset these proceedings, the time
factors upsetting these proceedings,
in your order. So that I think that the
protection of health and the measure
to which this megalomaniac procedure,
with your permission, has been pursued
by the opposite side is upsetting my
health, that, judging by all factors,
doesn't seem to be important to you.
I would like to remind you gentlemen
of the following: In paragraph 4 of
your order, which we have here before
us on the table, you put forward the
chronology of your efforts to ensure
expediency of this trial. I'm not going
to quote those passages because you have
them in front of you. However, it
is interesting to note, and also indicative,
that that chronology of
events - that is to say, that enormous
wish to have expediency - begins in
July 2004, and that is what your chronology
shows, which is a point in time
when it is up to me to present my Defence
case. And the time I was given by
you was 150 days, and you said that that
was the same as the 300 days
allocated to the other side. Several weeks
ago, I mentioned here that the
number of hours which I was given by the
opposite side shows the sum of --
which is lacking in 72 days. You didn't
allow me to continue along those
lines, so I stopped, and I'm not going
to talk about that now either, but
I'd just like to say that that remains
as a fact.
So your concerns over expediency and
efficiency started when my half time
began, and to my detriment. And the
speed at which the proceedings have been
evolving became important when it came
to my presentation of facts, and took
precedence over those facts and
precedence over my state of health as well.
Now, had you expressed such concern
over expediency during the time of
Nice's and Del Ponte's Prosecution case,
then you would not have allowed
different witnesses to appear.
Mr. Robinson, Mr. Kwon, you will remember
full well that we had witnesses here
such some institute established in
haste in the space of a few days, right
near here in Amsterdam, and they
held a report about genocide against
the Armenians in Turkey and the
genocide in Rwanda and some other third
place, I can't remember which now,
and that Dutchman talked about that
at length, and you would never have
allowed things like that even to be
presented here at a place like this,
including many other irrelevant witnesses.
So we heard about the Armenians,
but we didn't hear about examples
which the Dutch institute and the only
Dutch word that everybody knows in
the world, the word "apartheid," how that
came into being. They didn't deal
with the question of apartheid, but they
did deal with the Armenians in Turkey
and Turks. So that was part of his
procedure, let alone other witnesses
who came to waste time here and talk
about minor issues.
So you showed an enormous amount
of understanding for the megalomaniac
ambitions of the opposite side to
-- Yes, Mr. Robinson.
JUDGE ROBINSON: You are now wasting
our time. We are here to consider two
issues: The question of severance and
the medical -- and your medical
condition. Confine your submissions to
those two issues.
Well, Mr. Robinson, you did not
interrupt Mr. Nice when he was making
the most absurd claims here, and I
think that these absurd claims of his
can be responded to --
JUDGE ROBINSON: If you're going to
continue like this, I will stop.
All right.
JUDGE ROBINSON: You told us you wish
to make submissions. If I did not
interrupt Mr. Nice, it was because
there was no reason to interrupt him. Let
us proceed.
Let us proceed. I'm referring to what
it says here in your own decision
concerning the order that we're discussing
today. So the time lost, you say, due
to my health, in the period when you
started expressing this intense interest
in the expeditiousness of the trial.
I want to draw your attention to the
fact that this time that you call lost
or wasted is much shorter than time
wasted due to another matter, and that
is when you unlawfully took away my
right to self-representation last year.
Because of what you did, some of the
deadlines that you had set yourselves
and that you mention in this chronology
were simply not met at the moment
when my Defence case finally started
after the decision made by that Appeals
Chamber of yours. So, gentlemen, do not
blame my health - and I'm not to be
blamed for the state of my health - for
time wasted, when you're the ones
who wasted the time. As for all the
time that's been taken up, and in terms
of my health, the other side there is
also to be blamed, because of the
torture that they have been exposing
me to due to their megalomaniac
designs. And you never oppose that.
In paragraph 5 from the end of your
order, your scheduling order for this
hearing, today's hearing, you deal
with the positions taken by the Appeals
Chamber. I think that, due to the
importance of what you note here, it is
necessary to see what it says there
in paragraph 26. It says that: "[In
English] If the prosecution fails to
discharge this responsibility, the
Trial Chamber has sufficient powers
under the Rules of Procedure and
Evidence to order the prosecution to
reduce its list of witnesses to ensure
that the trial remains as manageable as possible.
Finally, if with the benefit of hindsight
it becomes apparent to the Trial
Chamber that the trial has developed
in such a way as to become
unmanageable - especially if, for
example, the prosecution is either
incapable or unwilling to exercise
the responsibility which it bears to
exercise restraint in relation to
the evidence it produces - it will still
be open to the Trial Chamber at that
stage -" [Interpretation] I emphasise
that - "at that stage," just like I
pointed out the Prosecution a moment
ago - "[In English] to order a
severance of the charges arising out of one
or more of the three areas in the former Yugoslavia."
[Interpretation] So what is referred
to here are the resources that you
have available if the other side, and
that is what is emphasised, does not
act in accordance with its obligation
in paragraph 25, where it says that
the Prosecution has a great responsibility
to prevent the trial from being
unmanageable due to an overabundance of
material, et cetera, et cetera. So
your very own Chamber here says that:
"The prosecution will bear a heavy
responsibility to ensure that the
single trial ..." et cetera, et cetera,
that the trial is manageable.
It's not only that example, but also
the systematic interpretation of what
the Appeals Chamber said in the context
where the severance of trials is
discussed. Obviously, they took into
account the situation that came to pass
a long time ago because of the megalomaniac
ambitions of the Prosecution in
these proceedings that you call a trial.
I also want to note here that the
Appeals Chamber did not look at my health
at all, and I don't think that they
needed to look at it at all, at that
time, that is. But not even bearing
that in mind, they emphasised need to
rest. Please, in paragraph 27, it says:
"[In English] As has been shown to
be necessary in all long trials before
this Tribunal, the Trial Chamber will
from time to time have to take a break
in the hearing of evidence to enable
the parties to marshal their forces and,
if need be, for the unrepresented
accused to rest from the work involved."
[Interpretation] So, gentlemen, the
only effect that my health can have on
these proceedings is the fact that breaks
are taken if my health gets worse,
or, with any luck, to have proper short
rest periods so that any worsening
of my health is prevented. However,
I am quoting your own decision when you
say that these are factors that
constantly impede the trial. And I have read
out paragraph 26 to you, and you say --
you quote paragraph 26 when you say
that the trial becomes unmanageable,
but it is the other way around. I have
quoted paragraph 26 to you, and the
Appeals Chamber has instructed you how
to make the trial more manageable:
To give breaks from time to time, and so
on and so forth.
Now, gentlemen, do you really think
that somebody would be crazy enough to
believe that the Appeals Chamber would,
in paragraph 26, instruct measures
to be taken that would be in
contravention of paragraph 26 of their own
decision? Do you think that your colleagues
are that unreasonable that they
call for pauses in the trial, breaks
in the trial, and that that is
counter-productive? That's the way
it should be, according to what Mr. Nice
said here too. Of course, that's wrong.
The right way of interpreting it is
that by severing the trial, you are
actually acting against the decision of
the Appeals Chamber and you are
incorrectly interpreting their words. So
that would be an abuse of a document
in order to violate that same document,
which is quite unbelievable. It is
illogical and unlawful acrobatics. Also,
for years, you have been violating --
JUDGE BONOMY: Mr. Milosevic, what you
ignore entirely in that submission is
that these words of the Appeal Chamber
were pronounced when this trial could
sit five days a week, and elaborate
arrangements have been made to give you
rest throughout the period since 2003.
When was it that you gave me a break,
a rest? Just remind me, please.
JUDGE BONOMY: Every week you get a rest,
because you can only do three days
a week.
No one works five days a week here,
especially for such a long period of time,
so please don't count on me --
please, in Dr. Van Dijkman's report,
in a part that I did not quote, in the
paragraph that precedes the one that
I quoted, it says: "In view of the
current work schedule [In English]
it is understandable -- In view of the
current work schedule, it is understandable
that the patient feels fatigued.
He has three court sessions per week
and spends the rest of the time
preparing for them, including
interviewing witnesses."
[Interpretation] So how is it that you
think that I can interview witnesses
during these remaining days if I'm supposed
to get some rest then?
JUDGE ROBINSON: You can get the rest --
you could get the rest if you
utilised the services that are available
to you. You do not have to
interview witnesses. That could be
done by assigned counsel. You have chosen
to do that.
I have seen how the assigned counsel
work with witnesses when you made it
possible for them to question
witnesses, by force, and I concluded
that it was absolutely inadequate.
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, what
comes to mind -- what comes to my mind
are the words of Marc Antony in his
funeral oration for Julius Caesar:
"Ingratitude, more strong than traitors'
arms ..." You are an ingrate in
relation to the work of the assigned
counsel and the help they have given
you. It does you no credit for taking
that approach to assigned counsel.
I do not wish to insult Ms. Higgins
or Mr. Kay, not in the least bit. But
they know full well that they know
very little about the situation in the
territory of the former Yugoslavia,
especially regarding issues that I am
being indicted for here by Mr. Nice
and this entire side that he represents.
Mr. Nice made absurd assertions
here, allegations regarding my alleged
participation in various things in
Bosnia, and during the presentation
of his case, he did not give a shred of
evidence about my alleged crimes in
Bosnia-Herzegovina. He talked about
events that occurred in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
But, on the other hand, there is
ample evidence that my greatest efforts
over all those years was to attain
peace, and I was given credit for that
by all sorts of Western leaders as
the person who gave the greatest
contribution to that and --
JUDGE ROBINSON: Mr. Milosevic, I have
stopped you. I want submissions on
the two issues before us: Severance
and, to the extent relevant, your
health. We'll take an adjournment for 20 minutes.

--- Recess taken at 10.39 a.m.

(1/2 - continues)

--- Fine messaggio inoltrato ---