FORUM
 JURIST >> LEGAL NEWS >> Forum >> Milosevic Defense... 

Current Column | Discussion
覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧
MILOSEVIC DEFENSE WILL PUT NATO ON TRIAL
Professor Marjorie Cohn
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
JURIST Contributing Editor

The most significant international war crimes trial since Hitler痴 henchmen were tried at Nuremberg is scheduled to begin on February 12. Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic will appear in the dock at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague to answer charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

But Milosevic, often referred to in Western circles as the 釘utcher of the Balkans, maintains it is really the leaders of NATO who should be tried for their crimes against the people of Yugoslavia. In 1999, thousands of Yugoslavs were killed or wounded by NATO痴 bombs, allegedly to stop the ethnic cleansing of the Albanians in Kosovo.

As The New York Times said on February 9: 展hen Mr. Milosevic sneers at the tribunal here as 宋ictor痴 justice, he is not entirely wrong. Former President William Clinton, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and U.S. military leaders orchestrated the use of laser-guided and cluster bombs and depleted uranium that devastated the people and the land of Yugoslavia. They will never face charges at The Hague.

Milosevic contends he acted in defense of the Serbs against Muslim extremists. He claims he was fighting the same type of terrorism the United States is now battling in Afghanistan and elsewhere. At that time, the United States gave active support to the Kosovo Liberation Army, a Muslim terrorist group financed by the Third World Relief Agency, through which Osama bin Laden and others funneled $350 million. Milosevic insists that his pleas to Clinton to get bin Laden out of Kosovo were ignored; instead, Clinton allied with the Albanian Muslims against the Serbs.

A centerpiece of Milosevic痴 defense is that he maintained friendly relations with U.S. and British leaders after the wars in Bosnia and Croatia. He was even called a peacemaker when the Dayton Peace Accords were signed in 1995, ending the war in Bosnia. He reportedly plans to call Western leaders such as Clinton, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana to testify. It is unlikely they will appear, however, since the tribunal has no subpoena power.

Milosevic has also challenged the legitimacy of the tribunal itself. Because he refuses to recognize it as an independent and impartial court, he has refused to appoint counsel to represent him. Against his will, the judges have appointed three 殿mici curiae or friends of the court to help Milosevic with his defense. But these lawyers have filed motions with no supporting documentation, and they sat mute when Milosevic痴 microphone was cut off in mid-speech as he tried to address the court. Milosevic has been denied the right to confidential consultation with his unofficial counsel.

The charges against Milosevic stem from incidents in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo. They were initially filed in three separate indictments, but Prosecutor Carla Del Ponte successfully convinced the Appeals Chamber to consolidate all three for trial. In December, the Trial Chamber had joined the Bosnia and Croatia indictments, which deal with events that occurred from 1991-1995. But the Trial Chamber had refused to consolidate the Kosovo indictment with the other two.

The events alleged in the Kosovo indictment occurred in 1999, more than three years after the Bosnia and Croatia incidents. Under the tribunal痴 statute, two or more crimes may be joined together in one indictment if the underlying events formed the same transaction, which was part of a common scheme, strategy or plan.

In a lengthy opinion, the Trial Chamber rejected the prosecutor痴 argument that Milosevic participated in a joint criminal enterprise, a plan to create a Greater Serbia. The Trial Chamber considered the nexus 鍍oo nebulous to constitute a common scheme, strategy or plan. Finally, the Trial Chamber was concerned about prejudice to the fair trial rights of the accused if the Kosovo indictment was joined with the others.

Scheduled to begin the trial on the Kosovo indictment in February, the prosecutor became very concerned about the lack of witnesses to testify about Milosevic痴 alleged involvement in the Kosovo atrocities. As a result, she appealed the Trial Chamber痴 joinder decision to the Appeals Chamber. Without giving reasons, the Appeals Chamber saved the prosecution痴 case from imminent collapse by ordering the Kosovo indictment consolidated with the others in one trial. The Appeals Chamber stated that the acts alleged in all three indictments formed the same transaction.

Ironically, some contend that Milosevic himself effectively argued for joinder when he told the tribunal that the NATO countries formed a joint criminal enterprise with the Albanian Muslim terrorists and the narco-mafia, against the Serbs and other non-Muslim Albanians.

In spite of overwhelming public opinion against Milosevic in the West, the prosecutor faces some significant proof problems in this trial. Under the doctrine of 田ommand responsibility, she must prove Milosevic knew or had reason to know his subordinates were about to commit the criminal acts, and he failed to prevent them.

This case could set an important precedent if it establishes that a commander is responsible for atrocities that occur far away. Christopher Black, the Canadian lawyer who heads the International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic, told me: 的t would be easier to pin command responsibility on President Nixon for the My Lai massacre or President Bush for the mass murder of prisoners by US forces at Mazar e-Sharif.

Del Ponte hopes to call Milosevic痴 close associates to testify against him, but many who are facing criminal indictments will likely refuse to incriminate themselves. The prosecutor may offer them immunity in exchange for their testimony, but it is uncertain whether they would ever agree to testify even in the face of contempt charges. Reportedly, much of the evidence against Milosevic comes from Western intelligence sources, who may be unwilling to compromise their security by revealing the evidence in court.

If convicted, Milosevic faces life in prison, as the tribunal痴 statute does not allow for the death penalty. He could serve his sentence in Norway, Sweden, Finland, France, Spain, Italy or Austria, all of which have agreements with the Hague tribunal to incarcerate convicted prisoners.

There is speculation the prosecutor will ask for a postponement on Feb. 12 to secure witnesses for the Kosovo portion, which will comprise the first part of the trial. Whenever the trial ultimately begins, it will likely span two or three years. The tribunal - and the court of public opinion - will hear allegations not just about Milosevic痴 atrocities, but those of NATO as well.


Marjorie Cohn, an associate professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, teaches and writes about international human rights law. She is on the national executive committee of the National Lawyers Guild..

February 11, 2002

覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧
Discussion

JURIST welcomes your reaction to our columns and op-eds...

  • Wednesday February 13, 2002 at 1:58 pm
    If President Milosevic is found guilty, and sentenced to life in prison, where will he serve his sentence? Who will foot the bill? Can he then be charged by specific nations, and extradited to their courts? Thank you. John Dunn

    John P. Dunn
    Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College
    Georgia

  • Thursday February 14, 2002 at 9:04 am
    Many countries, e.g. Sweden, have agreed to house those convicted by the ICTY. Of course, given the political leanings of the ICTY structure (e.g. no death peanalty jurisdiction) the chance of him getting a life sentecne is very thin. The General convicted by the ICTY of complicity in murdering 5,000 people received 47 years. As for Milosevic's attack on the Court and the prosecution, most criminals, including Presidents Nixon and Clinton, attempt to villify the courts and the prosecution. Frequently, with the support of the media, some criminals succeed. Milosevic has a tougher row to hoe than most, but he should.

    Phillip D. Hatfield
    Oregon, USA

  • Friday February 15, 2002 at 9:11 am
    The wrong lessons are being taught to the world. If you are all powerful (like to USA and NATO) you can be genocidal and get away with it. It should be obvious to allies of the USA that they are dispensible: the US supported the Talibans against the USSR and now blast them to kingdom come;the US supported the Kosovo Muslim terrorists together with Osama bin Laden and now they are hunting these same terrorists all over the world. I wonder how long this lopsided morality of world politics will last. For sure,violence/power hunger will only beget more of it. America's domination will not last forever and when their wheel of fortune comes to its nadir, who will take over their place at the top?

    Chng Kooi Seng
    Malaysia.

  • Tuesday February 19, 2002 at 11:48 am
    In the Balkans region, religion plays no role whatsoever. The conflict between the Serbs and Albanians, which unfortunately during the 90's got transformed into an armed conflict, however, was purely ethnic by design. To anyone equipped with not more than basic knowledge on the Balkan political landscape, it would be clear that, for better or for worse, it is ethnicity that still matters here, rather than anything else. It is true that the Serbs belong to Orthodox Christianity, and the significant portion of ethnic Albanians is Muslim by faith. But this by no means is sufficient as to describe such a conflict on religious basis. As to this point, it should be stated that about 25 per cent of ethnic Albanians adhere to Albanian Orthdox Church, whereas over 10 per cent are Roman Catholics. Therefore, such a religious mix up of the Albanian entity and their geographical posture as a European nation, on the other hand, would, in my opinion, render any allegation on portraying especially Kosovo Albanian struggle as influenced by the bin Laden terrorist network rather unfounded and even by some point ridiculous.

    Jetish Jashari
    Kosovo-UNMIK

  • Wednesday February 20, 2002 at 2:32 pm
    As you said, the NATO-countries leaders will probably never face charges in The Hague. As I understood there are a couple of jurists in the US that considered the NATO actions as breaking the international law. At the same time there are possible war crimes committed by NATO during this intervention. Why don稚 these US law specialists start a lawsuit against the NATO leaders/countries?

    Mihai Martoiu Ticu
    The Netherlands

  • Wednesday February 20, 2002 at 6:52 pm
    If Milosevic gets convivted, I would suggest that China should be put on trial for the genocide in Tibet.

    dorli t rainey
    Washington/USA

  • Sunday February 24, 2002 at 8:32 am
    first Iam sorry about my language . My coment about mr milosevic is: this case is 1oo% political.internacional low is on milosevich said, hi just need to protected in this time serbian populations from croats fashists,, end muslim terorists,but we have home in the midl on the road end this is aor problem.

    Dragan
    craina croatia

  • Sunday February 24, 2002 at 8:14 pm
    I would expect that anyone remotely interested in justice, would condemn the ICTY for what it is. Surely no decent person would accept a special rape tribunal in the US, financed by the KKK and the Arian nation, that only investigated and prosecuted rapes committed by colored people and say that half justice is better than no justice? The ICTY relies heavily on volountary contributions and NATO countries are by far their greatest contributor. If NATO was to be indicted, these contributions would most likely be withdrawn and probably close to 80% of the tribunal's activities would have to be closed and most would be out of a very well paid job. Best Regards

    J Olsson
    Melbourne, Australia

  • Monday February 25, 2002 at 12:17 am
    There is more than ample evidence to suggest that Unmik and NATO have been working hand-in-glove with Albanian terrorists, whose stated aim has always been an ethinically pure Greater Albanian. How can the Hague or the Albanian lobby reconcile their ludicrous accustations with the fact that 150,000 albanians continued to live totally unmolested in Belgrade during the height of NATO's bombardment? Genocide? I don't think so. Further, more evidence is appearing all the time which links Thaci and Ceku with Al Qaida and various albanian banks. Milosevic's defense is easy. He just has to tell the truth.

    M. Cowper
    Sydney, Australia

  • Tuesday February 26, 2002 at 10:31 am
    Dear Sir: Where is the rule of law and due process in this trial? How can one defend himself with masked witnesses? How can one defend himself when he does not know who the witness against him will be until the witness arrives in court to testify against you? How can one defend himself when he cannot consult lawyers of his own choice? How can one defend himself when he cannot call his own witness and there is no power of a subpoena? If this trial was held by the rules of Canadian or American jurisprudence it would not last one week. It is time that American jurists speak out against this farce and if they stay silent history will find them negligent and co-conspirators with NATO.

    Walter Trkla
    none
    Canada (British Columbia)

  • Tuesday February 26, 2002 at 10:31 pm
    Winners make the rules. Loosers weep. That is how it has been for centuries. Nothing has changed. In Isreal they assinate suspects and kill police officers who they admit that they have no evidence linking them to any particular crime, for the sole purpose of putting political pressure on the Palestinain authorities. In American law, this is called an "extrajudicial killing" and, again as a matter of case law, is state sponsored terrorisim. But they are winning, and thus, they will not face a tribunal. Nor will Bush call them 'terrorists' even though they meet all the legal definitions of terrorists, because these terrorists are allies. The moral to all who listen is "win at any cost". And heaven help the hindmost. kw

    R. K. Weaver
    USA

  • Wednesday February 27, 2002 at 11:07 am
    Some of the criticisms are right - in some ways this is lop-sided, victors' justice, by any other name. However, instead of blindly criticising, why not look at the alternatives. Either: (a) do nothing, or (b) endeavour to establish a Permanent International Criminal Court as soon as possible,in order to take such matters as these as far from the realms of international realpolitiks as possible. So, hopefully in the next few years the situation will improve but until then, imperfect justice (which is better than no justice at all) must prevail. In the meantime, we should have truth and reconciliation commissions in the Balkans, Rwanda, etc in order to try to find long term remedies to the wunds inflicted on these societies. Furthermore, the USA should stop gavelling, filibustering and quibbling its way to frustrate the aims of the Rome Statute and in order to protect its own back and preserve its self-proclaimed role as sole, independent defender of the free world.

    Rod
    Scotland

  • Sunday March 03, 2002 at 7:23 am
    I had never heard such ridiculous-nationalist-racist-theories like in this forum. Albanians are endemic Balkans people. It is well known historic fact that Slavic Serbs occupied Albanian territories and for ages tried to turn Albanians into uneducated slaves. Milosevic was a most perfidious one. When he couldn稚 do it he tried to clean up the entire Kosovo from Albanians. And when Albanians resisted they were called "terrorist" by Milosevics propaganda so he could justify his crimes. Bin Laden, Muslims, Albanians??? Sorry to say, but that痴 ordinary lack of common sense! And I dare to say Milosevics demagogic propaganda.

    Alban
    US

  • Monday March 04, 2002 at 8:43 am
    Nato is guilty and has to turn the attention on our people and our former president..It is just washing hands on innocent people..I feel very sorry for those poor hearts and troubled minds that very important today...We hope something will change one day

    Klara
    Vojvodina, Yugoslavia

  • Tuesday March 05, 2002 at 5:45 am
    This trial is ordinary farce. US dominated NATO made senseless and delibarate bombing of civil targets in entire country (60 bridges for example), not only Kosovo, in the name of "preventing humanitarian disaster"?!? This, and only this is the reason Milosevic has been put on trial. Wach out for statements of Nency Patterson (if I spell corect). She is women who wrote accusation and afterwhile admited she had not any evidence of it. She is now in Maryland, University of Brandace (if I spell corectly). Hague tribunal must arrest Tachi and other murderers and drug smuglers, instead putting them to rule in Kosovo.

    Zoran
    Yugoslavia

  • Tuesday March 05, 2002 at 8:39 am
    Somebody here is talking about bridges, but I知 talking about tens of thousands killed and unknown number of still missing bodies. Yes, a number of dead Kosovar women and Children bodies are recently mysteriously appeared around Belgrade. Among others the missing remains of Berisha family from Suhareka. The entire family was killed altogether with children and women. Only one wounded woman survived jumping out from the truck with bodies. Their only guiltiness was that they had hired their family house to OSCE mission. Who organised this? Nato? NATO bombing of the damned bridges could be easily prevented only if Milosevic wanted! That monster should be hanged immediately, not wasting time with trials. Trials are for humans.

    Alban
    US

  • Tuesday March 05, 2002 at 10:02 pm
    Mr. Alban, I thought this topic is about trial, not demonizing ex-president of Yugoslavia. We heard and said enough poisoned opinions about him. Also, I respect cultural differences between our nations including yours concept of criminal proceedings and sentencing. I must admit that I would not shed tears if some of western and Albanian politicians (or generals) leave us, but I rather see them brought to fair trial. In same way, I appreciate efforts in establishing international temple of justice. But, this grotesque in Hague abounds in fantastic indictments and phony witnesses. Is such justice the very hights of modern civilization as announced in big western media? Same media that never told Serbian side of (hi)story? Milosevic exploits humiliation that most of Serbs suffer by those ridiculous accusations of 屠oint criminal enterprise, and as many times before, he rides on their feelings. He is now on his best, confident and deeply convinced he did right decisions, energized by stupid prosecution people, witnesses who dare not look him in to the eyes and silent, but deep support in homeland and abroad. He had hundreds of ways to escape from Belgrade after loosing elections and spend rest of his life playing chess in monastery with Radovan Karadzic or smoking dope with Moamar Gadaffi. Instead, he chooses limelight to fight his last battle for Serbian version of history. As one of biggest celebrities among all politicians he will not miss slightest opportunity to shine in role of US favorite villain. And he has Oscar-deserving script. Theseus vs. Minotaur. Of course, he is the human one. And of course, 鉄lobodan means 擢reedom. Since the beginning of his defense he infuriated many pro-western oriented Serbs (including untastefully obedient Djindjic痴 government), but amused many more by distracting semi-blind witnesses who all suffer of severe memory damages. For the first time, in some paradox way, ICTY brought mirror in front of many Serbian opponents: look in it before you throw a stone.

    Zoran
    Yugoslavia

  • Thursday March 07, 2002 at 9:14 am
    Well Mr. Zoran I have to be agreed with you that this trial is sort of grotesque. Hey, as an experienced impostor, he had managed successfully to manipulate the majority of the Serb people with the (sic!)"World Conspiracy Theory" against Serbia, he has no difficulties to confuse the uneducated farmers and housewives whose only way to ignore the butcher of their families is to turn their back to him. Let痴 be patient and see the continuing of the trial however grotesque is. It is the only available trial at the moment. Or you would rather let him to smoke dope with Gadaffi? But he can join Radovan soon in the same "Hotel Den Hague". I hope and all other criminals of any nationality (including Albanian) that have done genocide against another people. You can notice that I have changed my "concept of criminal proceedings and sentencing".

    Alban
    US

  • Thursday March 07, 2002 at 12:12 pm
    It would be a beautifull world if every major politician somehow could be forced to reveal his dids to juries and broadest audience, and to suffer adequate consequences. Unfortunately, civilization works in other way. There always be winners and losers. Winners prosecutes loosers. 展orld conspiracy against Serbia is equally ridiculous as 鉄erb conspiracy against all other Balkan nations. There is no winners among Balkan people. But, there are many authentic loosers among politicians. Many times I致e heard from educated Albanians: 努hat do you want fools we bring Americans to you! Well, maybe we do not need such allies, with such a bad manners. I think neither does Albanians. Considering Slobodan, I think this trial is the best thing that could happen to him. Let him carry his cross in coming years. And let痴 dream about real international court of real justice. Ah, and about Gadaffi: it is I who wishes to share some smoking experiences with him :) Did you saw his eyes? I did in Belgrade some years ago: it must be something very powerfull.. Forgot to say: neat comment from proffesor Marjorie Cohn. What do you think now, as trial begun Mrs. Cohn?

    Zoran
    Yugoslavia

  • Friday March 15, 2002 at 11:20 pm
    After all the U.S. efforts to set up the tribunal and bring Milosevic to trial, Bush suddenly calls for the tribunal to disband. I cannot help but think Milosevic's use of the tribunal to indict NATO has backfired against the U.S. government.

    Marjorie Cohn
    USA

  • Thursday March 21, 2002 at 4:59 pm
    Yes. Big blowback.

    Zoran
    Yugoslavia

  • Monday April 08, 2002 at 4:36 pm
    To me the "smoking gun" in the Kosovo war case is that British Foreign Minister Robin Cook told the UK Parliament that the largest group of people killed in Kosovo were civilian Serbs killed by the KLA. He said this 2 months before going to war to help the KLA. This proves (1)the KLA who were militarily vastly the weaker side were deliberately targeting civilians (& on a racial basis),(& Yugoslavia wasn't) this is called genocide.(2) The British, & since they closely share inteligence, the US & probably other Nato leaders were knowingly & deliberately going to war to assist in genocide. The fact far more people have been murdered in Kosovo under Nato's command authority (nearly 5000)than under Milosevic's underscores the point.The fact the court haven't indicted any leaders from Nato or EVEN the KLA proves that when Nato fund the court they are getting the best judges money can buy. If the International Criminal Court is set up it will be far worse than useless if it is allowed to accept money from interested parties (as is currently proposed).

    Neil Craig
    Scottish Liberal Democrat
    UK

  • Tuesday May 28, 2002 at 5:02 am
    For Mrs. Cohn: I have published on the site an article I called "20 Indictments against USA" in which I elaborated why I consider the US government should be put on trial (for crimes against the Serbian nation). The article is in Serbian, but you will surely find someone to translate it for you. Respectfully, Bane Popovic, Yugoslavia

    Bane Popovic
    none
    Yugoslavia

  • Thursday May 30, 2002 at 12:54 am
    Well, as Marko Lopusina and I wrote in the LAT op-ed piece on February 2002, Milosevic, as a scapegoat in a show trial with a predestined outcome, would be a perfect medium to exorcise the guilt of those who are trying to obliterate their complicity in provoking and expanding the Balkan wars. It will be voodoo justice: a desperate and dishonest attempt to close the 1990s chapter of the Balkan history. Milosevic is gone from the Balkan stage, but his departure gives additional credence to some inconvenient facts. The careful reading of the last 10 years suggests that the trial will be Milosevic's final act, designed, timed and scripted by higher powers to neatly wrap up the cautionary tale of the "butcher of the Balkans." Former Assistant Secretary of State John Shattuck wrote in a 2001 article in the Boston Globe that, if the 1995 Dayton agreement "prolonged Milosevic's rule ... it also sealed his fate." In it, Milosevic agreed to the tribunal that is now putting him on trial. When he was arrested in 2001, "the trap that had been set in 1995 at last slammed shut," wrote Shattuck. This confirmed a long-held suspicion that the U.S. manipulated Milosevic and world opinion. Were allegations of Milosevic's "war crimes" in Bosnia and Croatia true, he would have been indicted in 1995, instead of rubbing elbows with U.S. politicos at the Dayton peace talks. Were Washington serious about toppling him, it could have done so in 1996 by supporting the Serb opposition movement, Zajedno. Yet the U.S. seems to have been more interested in keeping Milosevic in power until the last part of the Pax Americana scenario in the Balkans played out with the NATO occupation of Kosovo. As the Balkans boogeyman on whom anything could be blamed, Milosevic was an invaluable public relations asset to NATO politicians who have been conveniently advancing their own geopolitical agenda in the region in tandem with Albanian secessionists. The individual charges against Milosevic are a double-edged sword: Every one of them could be applied to the wartime deeds of Croats and Bosnian Muslims, with regard to the Serbs and each other in a string of nasty three-way armed conflicts. From the overblown issues of "rape camps" to "concentration camps" to the true culprits in market bombings to provocations and setups in Srebrenica to Racak, the long list of myths conflicting with facts may prove to be embarrassing. The current war on terrorism brought to the limelight the ties between the Bosnian war effort and Osama bin Laden's network. The issue of simultaneous support from the CIA and Al Qaeda for the Kosovo Liberation Army in the 1990s will gain attention as well. As someone who has nothing to lose, Milosevic may well take the stand and turn the tables on his accusers. It may be only a matter of time before someone cries out that the emperor is naked. * Marko Lopusina and Andre Huzsvai are the writer and English editor, respectively, of "Spies, Lies, and Videotapes. The CIA Against Yugoslavia, 1947-2000" and "Balkan Death: The Albanian Narco-Mafia," both from Eurasia Communications, 2001.

    Andre Huzsvai
    Eurasia Communications, Inc.
    Massachusetts, U.S.

  • Sunday June 09, 2002 at 3:35 pm
    I am shocked that this circus is still being allowed to continue in The Hague. What has America become? During the Second World War, and for that matter, The First Worls War; Serbia fought on the side of America whereas Croatia and the Albanians fought with Hitler. The Serbians rescued over 500 American airmen shot down over the Balkans and saved them from the Germans, the Croatians and the Albanians. Have we no sence of memory? Why isn't the president of Bosnia indicted for blowing up the Marketal Square and killing his own people. Is it because he knows too much? The entire Clinton adminstration should be standing in front of that kangaroo they help create. Albright will go down in histroy as one of the most evil people on earth along with Clinton and Dole and Holbrooke. We have evolved into one of the most corupt governments in the world with one million of our troops stationed throughout the world. We hold nations hostage through the use of IMF and the World Bank; all the while we are the largest merchant of arms in the world. Since Wprld War Two, 100,000,000 people have died globely due to armed conflict; yet only one tribunial exists, and it was created solely to persecute Serbians. Where is the conscious of the world? America as richh as it is still reads at an 8th grade level; which when you stop and think, is to the advantage to our political adminstrations. The average American is more concerned with the Super Bowl and the home run records than any other issue. The National Geographic Magazine took a poll in which they asked a number of Americans to find Afghanistan on the map; 80% could not find it, the other 20% couldn't find America. Now you know why things are the way they are.

    Peter J. children
    Mason City, Iowa 50401 USA

  • Wednesday June 19, 2002 at 4:59 am
    What about the funding of the ICTY by bussiness-empire of George Soros and media corporation AOL/Time/Warner of mr Ted Turner? Ain't a bit controversial when CNN shows the news on Milosevic, when that company is funding his trial? Robert M. Hayden is a professor at the University of Pittsburg, (probably a colleague of yours mrs. Cohn?) he wrote a book on Yougoslavia, (blueprints for a house divided) and is to say the least very critical of NATO actions from 1990 to 2000. I haven't read the book yet, but i will.

    Bas Rentrop, law student
    University of Nijmegen
    The Netherlands

  • Monday June 24, 2002 at 10:49 am
    Why US consider fair and legal the ICTY and refuse the ICC? Maybe because they consider better to establish clearly who are the evils before the trials take place and thus escape the risk to be on trial themselves?

    Francesca
    Italy

  • Thursday July 25, 2002 at 12:50 am
    A must read: The Saturday, July 19, 2002 issue of the New York Times (Arts and Ideas section): The Show Trial: A Larger Justice? - Some Legal Theorists Are Arguing That a War Crimes Tribunal Like That Trying Slobodan Slobodan Milosevic SHOULD be a Show., By Daphne Eviatar. I don't want to repost the whole number here, causing a new run-in with our moderator, and thus far I have no url for it. It's available from the NYT archive for a fee, and boy, is it worth a few bucks!The item is both fascinating in its insolence and stomach-turning at the same time. Highlights: ".. a small but growing number of legal theorists are making the unsettling argument that a 'show trial' is precisely what a war crimes proceeding should be. An effective war crimes trial, they argue, should be a performance that's carefully orchestrated to teach history to a world audience." In his new book, 'The Memory of Judgment: Making Law and History in the TRials of the Holocaust,' Lawrence Douglas, associate professor in the department of law, jurisprudence and social thought at Amherst College [argues] that a post-genocide trial shouldn't be just about applying legal rules to the narrow facts of one individual case ... it should aim more broadly, offering a stage for survivor testimony and creation of an official historical record.... Mr. Douglas admits that there are risks, including sacrificing the truth and the defendant's rights. But trials always involve risk, he said, adding that even a flawed trial where some facts get skewed can bring out a LARGER TRUTH [emphasis mine - A.H.]..It's a bit like a television mini-series, Mr. Douglas explains. The picture of history that's going to come out isn't nuanced, but that's not necesserily bad.' A trial can be staged with didactic purposes without degenerating into a political farce, he says, so long as the judge-director makes good use of legal procedure." "Mark Osiel, a professor at Iowa Law School and author of 'Mass Atrocity, Collective Memory and the Law,' envisions trials in the aftermath of large-scale brutality as a 'transformative opportunity in the lives of individuals and societies.'" To Mr. Osiel, a trial is like a theater. Lawyers and judges should thus heed the 'poetics' of 'legal storytelling.' The judge should use the law 'to recast the courtroom drama in terms of the 'theater of ideas' where large questions of collective memory and even national identity are engaged.'... to maximize their pedagogic impact, such trials should be unabashedly designed as monumental spectacles.", etc. I stop here before throwing up. My first reaction was to cry out loud: "Comrade Vyshinskiy, come back! All is forgiven!", but a more sober review yielded the following observation: That this is a show trial, we knew all along. What's really fascinating is that some in the legal profession are warming up to the idea of characterizing it as such, unavoidable as it is ONLY NOW, in lieu of the prosecution's failure to prove its monumental case. Slipping back to theater lingo apperas to be a clever marketing ploy aiming at making the "show" essence of the ongoing proceedings both legitimate and more palatable for the general public, rewriting the rules one more time. Would love to hear Marjorie Cohn's reaction on the matter.

    Andre
    Huzsvai
    U.S.

  • Tuesday September 10, 2002 at 6:14 pm
    I wouldn't favor a "show trial." But a truth and reconciliation process, like that in South Africa, might lead to some healing of the intense pain on both sides of this tragic historical conflict.

    Marjorie Cohn
    California/USA

  • Wednesday January 22, 2003 at 3:32 pm
    I can easily agree that international law be respected and Milosevic be tried at The Hague. The troubling fact is that more recently the International Criminal Court was created after being subscribed by over 60 countries and the USA wasn't one of them. Istead of that they threatned to withdraw from peace keeping missions if those countries didn't agree in sending any suspect war criminals with US citizenship to the USA instead of the tribunal and also reserved the right to use any means necessary to free thir prisioneers.

    Ralitsa Zaitseva
    Kaliningrad, Kaliningradskaia Oblast\', Russia

  • Friday January 24, 2003 at 9:19 am
    The Milosevic trial at the Hague should stand on the merits of the case itself. That is what the legal system is supposed to provide. Nothing less...nothing more. There is either evidence to support the charges..or a lack of evidence which should lead to the proper verdict of not guilty. The focus of all concerned should be on the merits of the case, and the proper conduct of the court itself. Attempts to make a political issue out of this event detracts from the sole issue for which it was intended. Debate about the bias of the world court is a healthy debate. I think it is fair to say that the world court should pursue the truth about all alleged attrocities that happened during the conflicts in question. The purpose of tribunals like this is to make a statement to the world that crimes against humanity are not going to be tolerated by the world community. No system is without flaws. It would take perfect people to create a perfect system. We are all the victims of our own imperfections. Let's all stand together and support the search for the truth to what actually happened with the events in question. History will be the true judge of these tribunals. Let's search for the truth, and let the chips fall where they may. The most important thing now is to make sure the trial is being conducted a fair and impartial manner. If all of those concerned would keep their focus on that, then we can all expect justice to be served.

    John
    The voice of reason
    Planet earth

  • Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 6:53 pm
    I've been watching and participating in this discussion for about a year. Now, after I came back to NYC, I see that the forum either ceased to exist (just fading away with losing the interest of participants -?) or was terminated. I am wondering what happened? Milosevich is still alilve and the "Trial" probably is still in session. Could somebody clarify the status of the forum please? Thank you, VG

    valentina gor
    Floorida, USA

  • Tuesday March 11, 2003 at 6:55 pm
    I've been watching and participating in this discussion for about a year. Now, after I came back to NYC, I see that the forum either ceased to exist (just fading away with losing the interest of participants -?) or was terminated. I am wondering what happened? Milosevich is still alilve and the "Trial" probably is still in session. Could somebody clarify the status of the forum please? Thank you, VG

    valentina gor
    Floorida, USA

  • Sunday May 11, 2003 at 3:14 am
    Valentina, ALL current discussion located at: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/ issue_milo_discuss.php

    justice for all
    usa

  • Wednesday December 17, 2003 at 2:44 pm
    the us is doing bad politic in the world but it wont go very far in the eyes of the arab world it is like satan.NO matter how many strong armies you have if the peolple dont like you ,you can never win

    sven
    Norway

  • Wednesday January 07, 2004 at 3:19 pm
    i thiink that these court has no jursidiction whatsoever to try Milosevic...AND I agree with you all that this whole court setup is just a "show-trial".. If it really has any jusridiction, then it should bring NATO to justice too..

    zarlo
    thomson
    canada

  • Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 4:33 pm

    Carla del Ponte may be put on trial before the ICC for crimes committed against humanity. By Petar Borojevic

    Relevant URLs:

    ICC:

    URL: http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/index.php

    URL: http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/show.php?id=home&l=EN

    URL: http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/show.php?id=basicdocuments

    Jurist Discussion Group:

    URL: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/issue_milo_discuss.php

    Last week I have started reading Statut of the International Criminal Court (ICC). I have concluded that since the Satatut of the ICC has come into effect on 1st Julay 2002 it is applicable to the trial of Mr. Milosevic and all other inmates in The Hague.

    For example: the statut allows for criminal prosecution in the following cases:

    Article 8 War crimes: (vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

    Article 7 Crimes against humanity: ( h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; Who can be proseccuted for this crime?

    Article 27 Irrelevance of official capacity

    1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

    2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

    After reading parts of the ICC statut it appears to me that it is possible to complain before the ICC that the president of the Internationa Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, his prosecutrors and judges are in a process of comminting abouve listed crimes. It can be argued that while Serbs are primary victims that other nationalitis living on the teritories of the Former Yugoslavia are secondary ones.

    There are numerous methods that are used against Serbian defendants in the ICTY in order to make them guilty. They are very well identified by articles of Jared Israel, Serge Trifkovic, Nebojsa Malic, other analists of the ICTY trials and numerous participants of the Jurist Discussion Group on Fairnes of the Trial of Mr. Milosevic. The unfairnes towords all Serbian defendants in the ICTY is at its worst, so they are primary victims of the listed crimes. The crimes allegedly commited by Serbs are differently cathegorized than the crimes commited by other nationalities. For example, in the case of the alleged crime at Medac Pocket the government of Croatia is not accused of this crime. In the case of the alleged crime at Racak the Serbian government and its officials are indentified as main coulprits. So one can argue that since in the Racak case the leadership is accused for the crime the lower rank officials and military and police chiefs are thenks to that approach absolved of their role in comiting the crime. In the case of Medac Pocket it is the oposit. The leadership walks free and the lower reank officials get accused. The unfairnes of this procedure does not require additional proof.. One can even argue that Bosnian, Croatian and Albanian defendants are unfairly treated because they are not only prosecuted as executioners of the crimes but also as ones that have initietid crimes on their own. So this is why I am treating them as secondary victims of the crime of inhumant treatment by the ICTY. When esencially a government is accused of war crimes, crimes of apparhade and inhuman acts there is tendency to assume that the population of the contry is indirectly responsible for the crimes, as well. This has enormous negative consequences for the country and its people (sanctins, putting parts of the country as the whole or only its parts under the international control and rule, denial of access to humanitarian aid, international organizations, international funding, harasment of its people in diaspora and so on and so on ) In the opposite case the population goes free of charge. It becomes clear that even if only the president of Serbia is misstreated in the ICTY and he is accused of more crimes than he has comommited people of Serbia will suffer consequences. In the international arena they will be exposed to treatments amounting to appartheid. The development of the country will be slowed down which amounts to the crime of genocide. The beauty of this approach is that what ever officials at the ICTY do is subject to the scrutiny of the ICC.

    Lawyers, Law Societes, Profesors of Law, Governments, Parliaments, NGOs and organized citizens are required to put actions in place in order to put on trial Carla del Ponte, Judge May et al before The International Criminal Court for the crimes against Serbian people as a primary victim and all the other peoples of Former Yugoslavia as secondery ones.

    If I am right in my esecial assumption and construction of the ICC statut this can explode in the faces of many politicians especially in the NATO countries. Indirecly it may affect USA, as well.

    It may be possible to use the ICC to obtain documents of the NATO countries and NATO its self and their secret services for the trial of Mr. Milosevic and other victimes of the ICTY.

    The date of start of the application of the ICC statut is fixed. 1st Julay 2002. Criminal laws of member countires do not have this limitation, so they are obliged to prosecute war crimes and crimes c ommited against humanity commited before the 1st Julay 2002. The same applies for the ICTY. These courts does not want to prosecute these crime. I hope that the following argument, using Canada as an eaxample, is walid. Canada was a part of the bombing party that bombed Last Yugoslavia. Canadian courts are refusing to prossecute its government officials for the crime. The crime can not be prosecuted by the ICC directly. The courts in Canada are commiting a crime of not prosecuting their leaders for the bombing of Yugoslavia. This letest crime is commited as we speek. So one can complain to the ICC and argue that ICC should issue an order to the Canadian courts to start prosecuting the crime of bombing of Yugoslavia or else. Following this logic many other asspect of the special war against Former Yugoslavia and Last Yugoslavia and existance of genocide, apartheid, environment polution, unemplymen (distruction of industry), law birth rate (induced general poverty of people) can be covered by additional complaints to the ICC which can result in substantial reparations granted to the all affected people of all the nationalities of the Former Yugoslavia.

    Abstract from the statut of the ICC

    Part II of the Statute relates to the competence of the Court, which is restricted to the gravest crimes affecting the entire international community, in other words, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court is only competent in respect of crimes committed after its Statute came into effect, that is, 1st July 2002. Cases may be submitted to it either by the Security Council, or by a State Party, or by the ex-officio Prosecutor, acting on the basis of information received in particular from victims, NGOs or other sources it considers appropriate. When cases are submitted to the Court either by a State Party or by the Prosecutor acting in an ex-officio capacity, it may only exercise its competence when the State on whose territory the crimes took place or the State of which the person accused of the crime is a citizen have either ratified the Statute or accepted the Court痴 competence by means of a declaration filed with the Court Registrar. Without doubt, the most important principle of the Statute of Rome is that the Court complements national jurisdictions and that it may only exercise its jurisdiction if the States concerned are unable or unwilling to prosecute the perpetrators of crimes which fall within the competence of the Court. Part IX concerns international co-operation and legal assistance and provides that the States Parties must co-operate fully with the Court, especially with regard to handing over people prosecuted by the Tribunal or seeking items of evidence. In order to comply with this, in their national legislation the States Parties must provide for procedures enabling these forms of co-operation to be set up. The Court may also request the co-operation on an ad hoc basis of States which are not parties to the Statute, or the co-operation of inter-governmental organisations.

    Article 1

    The Court

    An International Criminal Court ("the Court") is hereby established. It shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. The jurisdiction and functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute.

    Article 4

    Legal status and powers of the Court

    1. The Court shall have international legal personality. It shall also have such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes. 2

    . The Court may exercise its functions and powers, as provided in this Statute, on the territory of any State Party and, by special agreement, on the territory of any other State.

    Article 7

    Crimes against humanity

    1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

    (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectively on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

    2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:

    (g) "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

    Article 8

    War crimes

    1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

    (vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

    Article 27

    Irrelevance of official capacity

    1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

    2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

    Pera Bora
    Ottawa/Canada

  • Wednesday February 04, 2004 at 4:33 pm

    Carla del Ponte may be put on trial before the ICC for crimes committed against humanity. By Petar Borojevic

    Relevant URLs:

    ICC:

    URL: http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/index.php

    URL: http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/show.php?id=home&l=EN

    URL: http://www.icc-cpi.int/php/show.php?id=basicdocuments

    Jurist Discussion Group:

    URL: http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/issue_milo_discuss.php

    Last week I have started reading Statut of the International Criminal Court (ICC). I have concluded that since the Satatut of the ICC has come into effect on 1st Julay 2002 it is applicable to the trial of Mr. Milosevic and all other inmates in The Hague.

    For example: the statut allows for criminal prosecution in the following cases:

    Article 8 War crimes: (vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

    Article 7 Crimes against humanity: ( h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; Who can be proseccuted for this crime?

    Article 27 Irrelevance of official capacity

    1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

    2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

    After reading parts of the ICC statut it appears to me that it is possible to complain before the ICC that the president of the Internationa Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, his prosecutrors and judges are in a process of comminting abouve listed crimes. It can be argued that while Serbs are primary victims that other nationalitis living on the teritories of the Former Yugoslavia are secondary ones.

    There are numerous methods that are used against Serbian defendants in the ICTY in order to make them guilty. They are very well identified by articles of Jared Israel, Serge Trifkovic, Nebojsa Malic, other analists of the ICTY trials and numerous participants of the Jurist Discussion Group on Fairnes of the Trial of Mr. Milosevic. The unfairnes towords all Serbian defendants in the ICTY is at its worst, so they are primary victims of the listed crimes. The crimes allegedly commited by Serbs are differently cathegorized than the crimes commited by other nationalities. For example, in the case of the alleged crime at Medac Pocket the government of Croatia is not accused of this crime. In the case of the alleged crime at Racak the Serbian government and its officials are indentified as main coulprits. So one can argue that since in the Racak case the leadership is accused for the crime the lower rank officials and military and police chiefs are thenks to that approach absolved of their role in comiting the crime. In the case of Medac Pocket it is the oposit. The leadership walks free and the lower reank officials get accused. The unfairnes of this procedure does not require additional proof.. One can even argue that Bosnian, Croatian and Albanian defendants are unfairly treated because they are not only prosecuted as executioners of the crimes but also as ones that have initietid crimes on their own. So this is why I am treating them as secondary victims of the crime of inhumant treatment by the ICTY. When esencially a government is accused of war crimes, crimes of apparhade and inhuman acts there is tendency to assume that the population of the contry is indirectly responsible for the crimes, as well. This has enormous negative consequences for the country and its people (sanctins, putting parts of the country as the whole or only its parts under the international control and rule, denial of access to humanitarian aid, international organizations, international funding, harasment of its people in diaspora and so on and so on ) In the opposite case the population goes free of charge. It becomes clear that even if only the president of Serbia is misstreated in the ICTY and he is accused of more crimes than he has comommited people of Serbia will suffer consequences. In the international arena they will be exposed to treatments amounting to appartheid. The development of the country will be slowed down which amounts to the crime of genocide. The beauty of this approach is that what ever officials at the ICTY do is subject to the scrutiny of the ICC.

    Lawyers, Law Societes, Profesors of Law, Governments, Parliaments, NGOs and organized citizens are required to put actions in place in order to put on trial Carla del Ponte, Judge May et al before The International Criminal Court for the crimes against Serbian people as a primary victim and all the other peoples of Former Yugoslavia as secondery ones.

    If I am right in my esecial assumption and construction of the ICC statut this can explode in the faces of many politicians especially in the NATO countries. Indirecly it may affect USA, as well.

    It may be possible to use the ICC to obtain documents of the NATO countries and NATO its self and their secret services for the trial of Mr. Milosevic and other victimes of the ICTY.

    The date of start of the application of the ICC statut is fixed. 1st Julay 2002. Criminal laws of member countires do not have this limitation, so they are obliged to prosecute war crimes and crimes c ommited against humanity commited before the 1st Julay 2002. The same applies for the ICTY. These courts does not want to prosecute these crime. I hope that the following argument, using Canada as an eaxample, is walid. Canada was a part of the bombing party that bombed Last Yugoslavia. Canadian courts are refusing to prossecute its government officials for the crime. The crime can not be prosecuted by the ICC directly. The courts in Canada are commiting a crime of not prosecuting their leaders for the bombing of Yugoslavia. This letest crime is commited as we speek. So one can complain to the ICC and argue that ICC should issue an order to the Canadian courts to start prosecuting the crime of bombing of Yugoslavia or else. Following this logic many other asspect of the special war against Former Yugoslavia and Last Yugoslavia and existance of genocide, apartheid, environment polution, unemplymen (distruction of industry), law birth rate (induced general poverty of people) can be covered by additional complaints to the ICC which can result in substantial reparations granted to the all affected people of all the nationalities of the Former Yugoslavia.

    Abstract from the statut of the ICC

    Part II of the Statute relates to the competence of the Court, which is restricted to the gravest crimes affecting the entire international community, in other words, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. The Court is only competent in respect of crimes committed after its Statute came into effect, that is, 1st July 2002. Cases may be submitted to it either by the Security Council, or by a State Party, or by the ex-officio Prosecutor, acting on the basis of information received in particular from victims, NGOs or other sources it considers appropriate. When cases are submitted to the Court either by a State Party or by the Prosecutor acting in an ex-officio capacity, it may only exercise its competence when the State on whose territory the crimes took place or the State of which the person accused of the crime is a citizen have either ratified the Statute or accepted the Court痴 competence by means of a declaration filed with the Court Registrar. Without doubt, the most important principle of the Statute of Rome is that the Court complements national jurisdictions and that it may only exercise its jurisdiction if the States concerned are unable or unwilling to prosecute the perpetrators of crimes which fall within the competence of the Court. Part IX concerns international co-operation and legal assistance and provides that the States Parties must co-operate fully with the Court, especially with regard to handing over people prosecuted by the Tribunal or seeking items of evidence. In order to comply with this, in their national legislation the States Parties must provide for procedures enabling these forms of co-operation to be set up. The Court may also request the co-operation on an ad hoc basis of States which are not parties to the Statute, or the co-operation of inter-governmental organisations.

    Article 1

    The Court

    An International Criminal Court ("the Court") is hereby established. It shall be a permanent institution and shall have the power to exercise its jurisdiction over persons for the most serious crimes of international concern, as referred to in this Statute, and shall be complementary to national criminal jurisdictions. The jurisdiction and functioning of the Court shall be governed by the provisions of this Statute.

    Article 4

    Legal status and powers of the Court

    1. The Court shall have international legal personality. It shall also have such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of its functions and the fulfilment of its purposes. 2

    . The Court may exercise its functions and powers, as provided in this Statute, on the territory of any State Party and, by special agreement, on the territory of any other State.

    Article 7

    Crimes against humanity

    1. For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:

    (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectively on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;

    2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:

    (g) "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;

    Article 8

    War crimes

    1. The Court shall have jurisdiction in respect of war crimes in particular when committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes.

    (vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;

    Article 27

    Irrelevance of official capacity

    1. This Statute shall apply equally to all persons without any distinction based on official capacity. In particular, official capacity as a Head of State or Government, a member of a Government or parliament, an elected representative or a government official shall in no case exempt a person from criminal responsibility under this Statute, nor shall it, in and of itself, constitute a ground for reduction of sentence.

    2. Immunities or special procedural rules which may attach to the official capacity of a person, whether under national or international law, shall not bar the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over such a person.

    Pera Bora
    Ottawa/Canada

  • Friday March 05, 2004 at 2:46 pm
    HI...THIS MIGHT SOUND WEIRD BUT i A M A STUDENT IN LAW AND i HAVE AN ORAL PRESENTATION ABOUT THE ARTICLE 32 OF THE rOME sTATUTE...i AM SUPPOSED TO TALK FOR 20 MIMNUTES BUT i DO NOT SEEM TO FIND ANY DOCUMENT THAT WILL ALLOW ME TO EXPLAIN TO ALL THE OTHER STUDENTS WHAT REALLY IS A DEFENSE OF MISTAKE...CAN YOU HELP PLEASE ?

    Lewis
    student in law
    Canada ,Ottawa

Your comments:*

Your Name:*
Organization:
E-Mail Address:
State/Country:*

* Required Field

CONTRIBUTING EDITOR

JURIST Contributing Editor Marjorie Cohn is an associate professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego, where she teaches Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, and International Human Rights Law. A news consultant for CBS News and a commentator for Court TV, she has co-authored a book on cameras in the courtroom with former CBS News Correspondent David Dow. Professor Cohn has also published articles about criminal justice, international human rights, U.S. foreign policy and impeachment. She is editor of the National Lawyers Guild Practitioner and is on the Roster of Experts of the Institute for Public Accuracy. A criminal defense attorney at the trial and appellate levels for many years, Professor Cohn was also staff counsel to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board. She has lectured at regional, national and international conferences, and was a legal observer in Iran on behalf of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers.

Professor Cohn is a graduate of Stanford University and the University of Santa Clara School of Law.