DOCSLIB.ORG

PUBLIC/JAVNO 738 MICT-16-99-A A738-A547 07 February 2017 AJ

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PUBLIC/JAVNO 738 MICT-16-99-A A738-A547 07 February 2017 AJ MICT-16-99-A 738 PUBLIC/JAVNO A738-A547 07 February 2017 AJ BCS original received 19 December 2016 Filed as PUBLIC per Appeal Chamber's instruction. Mechanism for International Case No: MICT-16-99-A Criminal Tribunals IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge Theodor Meron, Presiding Judge Lee G. Muthoga Judge Florence Rita Arrey Judge Ben Emmerson Judge Ivo Nelson de Caires Batista Rosa Registrar: Mr John Hocking Date: 19 December 2016 Submission number 7sl. THE PROSECUTOR v. PROFESSOR VOJISLAV ŠEŠELJ PROFESOR VOJISLAV SEŠELJ’S RESPONDENT’S BRIEF The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr Mathias Marcussen Ms Barbara Goy The Accused: Prof essor Vojislav Šešelj Expert team assisting the defence: Zoran Krasi ć Nataša Jovanovi ć Milan Terzi ć Petar Joji ć Nemanja Šarovi ć Ljiljana Mihajlovi ć Vjerica Radeta Ognjen Mihajlovi ć Jadranko Vukovi ć Filip Stojanovi ć Miroljub Ignjatovi ć Jovo Ostoji ć MICT-16-99-A 737 PUBLIC/JAVNO Translation MECHANISM FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS The Prosecutor v. Professor Vojislav Šešelj Case No: MICT-16-99-A Submission number 7sl. PROFESSOR VOJISLAV ŠEŠELJ’S RESPONDENT’S BRIEF MAIN RESPONSE TO THE PROSECUTION APPEAL Introduction 1. With the Practice Direction related to the requirements and procedures for appeals of 6 August 2013 (Hereinafter: Practice Direction MICT/10) the President of the Mechanism for International Criminal Tribunals (hereinafter: MICT), judge Theodor Meron, regulated the formal and procedural requirements as well as the substance of appeals claims, from the Notice of Appeal to all possible submissions to follow in the appeals proceeding before the MICT. 2. On 2 May 2016 the Prosecution filed its Notice of Appeal pursuant to 2 MICT-16-99-A 736 PUBLIC/JAVNO Translation Article 23 of the MICT Statute and Rule 133 of the MICT Rules of Procedure and Evidence against the judgement of Trial Chamber III (of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia – hereinafter: ICTY), in the case of The Prosecutor v. Vojislav Šešelj , case no. IT-03-67-T, of 31 March 2016 (hereinafter: Judgement of acquittal). 3. The Prosecution’s Notice of Appeal of 2 May 2016 (hereinafter: Notice of Appeal) had to be drafted in such a way that it contains everything regulated under A.2. of Practice Direction MICT/10. Immediately after receiving the Prosecution’s Notice of Appeal, Professor Vojislav Šešelj noted and established all the procedural, formal and substantial deficiencies of the Notice of Appeal that render pointless any response. Indeed, Professor Vojislav Šešelj neither has the right nor authority to teach or correct the Prosecution, who are persecuting him. 4. All the deficiencies and variances of the Prosecution’s Notice of Appeal in relation to Practice Direction MICT/10 have become completely conspicuous and largely obvious with the filing of the confidential corrigendum to the Prosecution Appeal Brief of 18 July 2016 (hereinafter: Appeal Brief). The Notice of Appeal is not in accordance with or pursuant to Practice Direction MICT/10, and the Prosecution’s Appeal Brief does not correspond either to the Notice of Appeal or the rule prescribed under C.5. of Practice Direction MICT/10. 5. The Prosecution tried to do something in the corrigendum to the Appeal Brief of 29 August 2016 (hereinafter: Corrigendum), but it just further complicated its situation so that it is even more obvious that in the sense of criminal law, it does not know what it wants. Professor Vojislav Šešelj recalls that with the Corrigendum the Prosecution altered the following: - 12 paragraphs (paragraphs: 16, 63, 98, 118, 147, 161, 162, 173, 176, 208, 231, 2369 /as printed/) of the total of 251 paragraphs in their Appeal Brief; - two subtitles of their Appeal Brief; - 20 footnotes (footnotes: 18, 100, 161, 186, 188, 211, 220, 294, 320, 379, 381, 429, 434, 437, 439, 447, 470, 698, 668, 689) of the 701 the footnotes in their Appeal Brief, including even the declaration enclosed with the Appeal Brief. 6. In Practice Direction MICT/10 under 5 it is prescribed that the grounds of appeal and arguments must be set out and numbered in the same order as in the 3 MICT-16-99-A 735 PUBLIC/JAVNO Translation appellant’s Notice of Appeal. A perusal of the Notice of Appeal shows that it consists of a total of 12 paragraphs, with Ground 1 of appeal in paragraphs 2-8 (inclusive) and Ground 2 of appeal in paragraphs 9-12. Clearly the Prosecution had some problems. The grounds of appeal as presented in the Prosecution’s Appeal Brief simply cannot be squared with the grounds of appeal in the Prosecution’s Notice of Appeal. 7. Ground 1 of appeal in the Notice of Appeal reads as follows: - The Trial Chamber erred in law by failing to deliver a reasoned judgement. This would have to be an error on a question of law that invalidates the Judgement of acquittal pursuant to C.5.(iii) of Practice Direction MICT/10. Is this even possible? 8. Ground 1 of appeal in the Appeal Brief reads as follows: - The Chamber erred in law by failing to deliver a reasoned judgement. While the Prosecution’s Notice of Appeal contains only a single reference (paragraph 2) to the “Majority” of judges, the Appeal Brief uses the formulation “the Majority” or “the Majority fails” in almost all references to the Trial Chamber that issued the Judgement of acquittal. 9. In the Notice of Appeal, as Ground 1 of appeal against the Judgement of acquittal the Prosecution states that the Trial Chamber: - failed to provide sufficient reasons for key conclusions; - failed to address the Prosecution arguments and clearly relevant evidence; - failed to adjudicate essential issues in the case; - did not explain the substantive law it applied. The Prosecution claims that the errors of the “reasoned judgement” are to be found in paragraphs 14-357 and in the Disposition of the Judgement of acquittal on page 107. It is not at all clear how Trial Chamber III was supposed to deliver a reasoned Judgement of acquittal on page 107 and not err, as the Prosecution claims. Professor Vojislav Šešelj recalls that the Judgement of acquittal has a total of 357 paragraphs and the Disposition. This means that a total of 343 paragraphs of 357 paragraphs and the Disposition of the Judgement of acquittal lack any rationale. It is really not clear how Ground 1 of appeal in the Notice of Appeal does not encompass the title page and first 13 paragraphs of the Judgement of acquittal. It seems that the 4 MICT-16-99-A 734 PUBLIC/JAVNO Translation title page and first 13 paragraphs alone, in the opinion of the Prosecution, meet the criteria of proper application of law when reasoning the Judgement. 10. In the Appeal Brief, for Ground 1 of appeal, under II, the Prosecution states: - B. The Majority fails to address evidentiary issues and clearly relevant evidence (which would correspond to the claim in the Prosecution’s Notice of Appeal that it “failed to address the Prosecution arguments or clearly relevant evidence”). - C. The Chamber fails to provide a reasoned opinion for findings regarding charged crimes (it is not possible to figure out to which part of the Prosecution’s Notice of Appeal this refers). - D. The Majority fails to provide a reasoned opinion on joint criminal enterprise /JCE/ liability (this refers to paragraph 5, item 6 of the Prosecution’s Notice of Appeal), although it is not clear why “opinion” rather than findings. - E. The Majority fails to provide a reasoned opinion on instigation liability (in Ground 1 of appeal of the Prosecution’s Notice of Appeal nowhere does the word instigation appear), although this can be interpreted as the failure from Ground 1 of appeal in the Notice of Appeal that the Chamber “fail/ed/ to explain the substantive law it applied”. - F. The Majority fails to explain the substantive law it applies (which would correspond to the claim in the Prosecution’s Notice of Appeal that it “fail/ed/ to explain the substantive law it applied”). 11. In light of Ground 1 of appeal, stated in paragraph 8 of the Notice of Appeal, the Prosecution requests the Appeals Chamber to: - revise the Judgement of acquittal and find Professor Vojislav Šešelj guilty as charged, or, - reverse the Judgement of acquittal in its entirety and order a retrial. 12. Ground 2 of appeal in the Notice of Appeal reads as follows: - The Trial Chamber erred in fact by acquitting the accused. 13. Ground 2 of appeal in the Prosecution Appeal Brief reads as follows: - The Chamber erred in fact by acquitting the accused. 14. In the Notice of Appeal, for Ground 2 of appeal against the Judgement of acquittal, the Prosecution is incomparably more specific and states that the Trial 5 MICT-16-99-A 733 PUBLIC/JAVNO Translation Chamber erred in fact and that no “reasonable trial chamber” (meaning that Trial Chamber III was unreasonable) could have found that: -a) the chapeau elements of crimes against humanity were not proven (paragraphs 192-198 of the Judgement of acquittal); -b) the Accused is not responsible for crimes as a member of a JCE (paragraphs 225-281 of the Judgment of acquittal); -c) the Accused did not instigate crimes (paragraphs 282-285 of the Judgement of acquittal); -d) the Accused did not aid and abet crimes in which Šešeljevci participated (paragraphs 297-350 of the Judgment of acquittal); -e) the Accused did not physically commit persecutions, deportation and other inhumane acts – forcible transfer (paragraphs 354-357 of the Judgement of acquittal), and -f) ultimately, the Accused is not criminally responsible (Disposition, Judgement of acquittal, p.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Human Rights Defenders in Serbia
    Humanitarian Law Center Research, Documentation and Memory 67 Makenzijeva, 11110 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro Tel/Fax: +381 11 3444 313 +381 11 3444 314 Email: [email protected] Home Page: http://www.hlc.org.yu 26 March 2006 Human Rights Defenders in Serbia Throughout the rule of Slobodan Milošević, Human Rights Organizations and Human Rights Defenders were treated as harmless marginal groups and individuals. Between 1991 and 1999 the regime of Slobodan Milošević did not ban a single anti-war demonstration by nongovernmental organizations because they served as proof to the international community of his ‘democratic’ attitude towards the ‘handful’ that did not support him. The regime and its media paid little attention to the reports of domestic human rights organizations on human rights and humanitarian law violations during the armed conflict because the regime felt secure and supported by the majority of citizens. The period of the NATO bombing campaign from 24 March until 9 June 1999 united the opposition, civil society and regime. Nongovernmental organizations led the way in criticizing the international community and urging the citizens to keep their differences with the government aside as long as bombs kept dropping on the country. It was in those circumstances that several Human Rights Defenders and human rights organizations became the target of government media and secret services above all for publicly pointing out that the regime was taking advantage of the NATO campaign to settle with the Albanians. Because of its attitude during the NATO campaign, the Humanitarian Law Centre (HLC) was twice visited by members of the military security service, who threatened to bring charges of espionage against the HLC Executive Director; also, financial police examined the organization’s accounts and financial records for three weeks.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights in Serbia 2019
    HUMAN RIGHTS IN SERBIA 2019 Belgrade Centre for Human Rights The Belgrade Centre for Human Rights was established by a group of human rights experts and activists in February 1995 as a non-profit, non- governmental organisation. The main purpose of the Centre is to study human rights, to disseminate knowledge about them and to educate individuals engaged in this area. It hopes, thereby, to promote the development of democracy and rule of law in Serbia. Since 1998 Belgrade Centre for Human Right has been publishing Annual Human Rights Report. This Report on Human Rights in Serbia analyses the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Serbia with respect to the civil and poli- tical rights guaranteed by international treaties binding on Serbia, in particular the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the European Convention on Human Rights and Funda- mental Freedoms (ECHR) and its Proto- cols and standards established by the jurisprudence of the UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Where relevant, the Report also re- views Serbia’s legislation with respect to standards established by specific inter- national treaties dealing with specific human rights, such as the UN Convention against Torture, the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention on the Elimina- tion of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. For its achievements in the area of human rights, the Centre was awarded the Bruno Kreisky Prize for 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights and Democracy Violation Early Warning Weekly Newsletter No
    YUCOM Komitet pravnika za ljudska prava / Lawyers’ Committee for Human Rights 17 Svetogorska Street, 11000 Belgrade, Republic of Serbia Tel/Fax: +381 11 33 44 235; 33 444 25; e-mail yucomoffice@ gmail.com www.yucom.org.rs Human Rights and Democracy Violation Early Warning Weekly Newsletter No. 42 ICTY Sentence in the Milan and Sredoje Lukić Case On the 20th of July 2009 Court Chambers of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) with Patrick Robinson as a Presiding Judge, has sentenced Milan Lukić for a life term of imprisonment and his cousin Sredoje Lukić to a prison sentence of 30 years. Milan and Sredoje Lukić were sentenced for war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Bosnian Muslims in the Eastern-Bosnian town of Višegrad during the period from June 7th, 1992 until October 10th, 1994. Milan Lukić was found guilty for: persecution, murder, extermination, inhumane acts and cruel treatment as crimes against humanity and war crimes, while Sredoje Lukić was found guilty for committing and aiding and abetting crimes of: persecution, murder, cruel treatment and inhumane acts. Milan Lukić has committed the above named crimes in connection with six separate incidents : 1. Killing of 5 Bosnian Muslim men on the bank of River Drina on or about June 7 th , 1992; 2. Killing of 7 Bosnian Muslims in “Varda” furniture factory on or about June 10 th , 1992; 3. Burning alive 59 people (including women and children) in a barricaded house in Pionirska street in Višegrad on or about the June 14 th , 1992; 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Insider
    Table of content Open Parliament Newsletter PARLIAMENTARY INSIDER Introductory remarks 5 Issue 12 / March - April 2020 From discussing weapons to reviewing the fundamental role of the MPs in the state of emergency 5 Month in the parliament 7 Parliament in numbers 9 OUR HIGHLIGHTS: Analysis of the Open Parliament 11 Women in Parliament: XI Legislature 11 Introductory remarks: Selection of law abstracts 14 From discussing weapons to reviewing the fundamental role Law concerning the confirmation of the Protocol amending the Convention for the of the MPs in the State of Emergencynaslovna Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data 14 Proposal of the Law amending the Law on ID card 16 Open Parliament Analysis Proposal of the Law amending the Law on Road Safety 18 Women in Parliament: XI Legislature Law amending the Law on Local Elections 19 Summaries of the laws Law amending the Law on Election of the Members of Parliament 20 Law concerning the confirmation of the Protocol amending Law amending the Law on Population Protection from the Infectious Diseases 20 the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data Law amending the Law on Local Elections Summaries of the audio reports Strofa, Refren, Replika Law amending the Law on Election of the Members of Parliament 24th episode Law amending the Law on Population Protection from the Infectious Diseases 25th episode 26th episode Audio reports #StrofaRefrenReplika 27th episode 28th episode 29th episode 30th episode 31st episode INTRODUCTORY REMARKS From discussing weapons to reviewing the fundamental role of the MPs in the state of emergency The key highlights of March and April in the Parliament are the reduced activities of the MPs during Spring Session, proclamation of the state of emergency and convening of the first sitting during the state of emergency.
    [Show full text]
  • Adobe Photoshop
    HISTORY OVERSHADOWED BY TRIVIA Regional Media Coverage of Radovan Karadzic Arrest Sarajevo, 2009. PUBLISHER: BIRN BIH in cooperation with the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, Sarajevo, 2009. PUBLICATION EDITORS: Nidzara Ahmetasevic and Marcus Tanner EDITORIAL TEAM: Gordana Igric, Ana Petruseva MONITORS: Nidzara Ahmetasevic and Merima Husejnovic PROOFREADING: Nadira Koric (Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian) and Anna McTaggart (English) TRANSLATION: Sunita Hasic and Haris Nezirovic DTP: Lorko Kalas CIRCULATION: 2,000 ------------------------------------------------- CIP - Katalogizacija u publikaciji Nacionalna i univerzitetska biblioteka Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo 316.774:[341.44:929 Karadžić R. HISTORY averschadowed by trivia : regional media coverage of Radovan Karadzic arrest / [publication editors Nidzara Ahmetasevic and Marcus Tanner ; translation Sunita Hasic and Haris Nezirovic]. - Sarajevo : BIRN BiH : Konrad Adenauer Foundation, 2009. - 90 str. ; 21 cm ISBN 978-9958-9005-1-8 1. Ahmetašević, Nidžara 2. Tanner, Marcus COBISS.BH-ID 17153542 ------------------------------------------------- CONTENTS 5 Introduction 7 ANALYSIS 9 Bosnia and Herzegovina: War Criminal or Poet? Nidzara Ahmetasevic 13 Serbia: Difference Between Tabloids and Serious Media Erased Aleksandar Roknic 19 Montenegro: Reading between the Lines Nedjeljko Rudovic 23 Croatia: Karadzic as Celebrity Goran Jungvirth 27 Kosovo: The Two Last Cards Krenar Gashi 31 MONITORING 33 Bosnia and Herzegovina 55 Serbia 69 Montenegro 79 Croatia 89 Life of Radovan Karadzic 5 INTRODUCTION: For the media, the arrest of Radovan Karadzic was certainly the most interesting event of 2008. However, a general look at media reports in Serbia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Koso- vo reveals that, while the public was almost overloaded with news pertaining to the arrest, it was at the same time deprived of certain basic, but very important, pieces of information.
    [Show full text]
  • Initial Report on the Implementation of the National Strategy for the Prosecution of War Crimes
    Initial Report on the Implementation of the National Strategy for the Prosecution of War Crimes 1 ISBN 978-86-7932-089-6 ISBN Initial Report on the Implementation of 1 the National Strategy for the Prosecution of War Crimes Belgrade, December 2017 Embassy of Switzerland in the Republic of Serbia The project was supported by the European Union and the Embassy of Switzerland to the Republic of Serbia and to Montenegro. The views herein expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the European Union or the Embassy of Switzerland to the Republic of Serbia and to Montenegro. Initial Report on the Implementation of the National Strategy for the Prosecution of War Crimes 2 Initial Report on the Implementation of the National Strategy for the Prosecution of War Crimes Content Acronyms and Abbreviations............................................................................................................................4 Preface....................................................................................................................................................................5 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................................7 General Findings on the Implementation of the National Strategy Implementation............................9 I. Case Prosecution Based on the Priorities Established in Accordance with the Criteria Defined by the Prosecutorial Strategy............................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • Transitional Justice Report 1999-2005
    Transitional Justice Report Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo, 1999-2005 Summary 1. Introduction reform, vetting and dismissals, or a combination thereof”.1 The report deals with state and civil initiatives to establish and tell the truth< with domestic and 2. The truth-finding initiatives international war crimes trials, and with repara- tions and other endeavours by society in Serbia The first official truth-telling initiative in Serbia was and Montenegro to come to terms with the mas- launched as a result of growing pressure by the sive crimes committed in the recent past. As to international community on the new government in Kosovo, the report discusses only trials for war Serbia and in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia crimes and ethnically motivated crimes, above all (FRY) to cooperate with International Criminal TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE REPORT SERBIA, MONTENEGRO AND KOSOVO 1999 - 2005 JUSTICE REPORT SERBIA, MONTENEGRO TRANSITIONAL because this mechanism of international justice is Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Faced most noticeable in that region. with such a situation, the then FRY president, Vojislav Kostunica, decided to set up a truth and With regard to the concept of transitional justice, reconciliation commission, a body presented to we are here using the definition given by the the public as a model of coming to terms with the United Nations (UN) Secretary-General in his past that had the potential to yield better results report of 23 August 2004> “The notion of transi- than trials by the ICTY. It soon emerged, however, tional justice...comprises the full range of process- that the commission represented an attempt on es and mechanisms associated with a society’s the part of a segment of the political elite to con- attempts to come to terms with a legacy of large- vince the international community that the ICTY scale past abuses, in order to ensure accounta- was unnecessary and that instead one should HUMANITARIAN LAW CENTER LAW HUMANITARIAN bility, serve justice and achieve reconciliation.
    [Show full text]
  • War in Serbia (1991-2001): It Did Happen
    War in Serbia (1991-2001): It Did Happen War in Serbia (1991-2001): It Did Happen IMPRESSUM Authors Maja Žilić Anđela Savić Marko Milosavljević For the publisher Youth Initiative for Human Rights Dobračina Street 4, Belgrade Design & layout Ivo Matejin Translation Ivana Radović Printing Draslar List, Belgrade Circulation 1000 The contents of this publication represent the views of the Youth Initiative for Human Rights and do not in any way reflect the views of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Federal Repub- lic of Germany © Youth Initiative for Human Rights, Belgrade, Serbia May 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms 2 Introduction 5 Secret Mass Graves in Serbia 6 Prison camps in Serbia in the 1990s 18 Prison camps for Croats 1991-1992 18 Prison camps for Bosniaks 1995-1996 29 Forcible mobilisation in Serbia 39 Paramilitary Units in Serbia 53 Terrorising Minorities in Serbia in the 1990s 70 Terrorising Croat Minority in Vojvodina in the 1990s 70 Terrorising Bosniaks in Sandžak in the 1990s 80 Insurgency in the South of Serbia (2000-2001) 89 The Anti-War Movement in Serbia (1991-1999) 110 Instead of a Conclusion 126 Bibliography 127 ACRONYMS APV Autonomuos Province of Vojvodina MBT Motorized Brigade of the Yugoslav BH Bosnia and Herzegovina Army BIRN Balkan Investigative Reporting MNCS Muslim National Council of Sandžak Network MNE Montenegro BNC Bosnian National Council MUP Ministry of Internal Affairs of the CZKD Center for Cultural Decontamination Republic of Serbia ECHR European Court for Human Rights NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
    [Show full text]
  • Serbia 2018 International Religious Freedom Report
    SERBIA 2018 INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM REPORT Executive Summary The constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, as well as the right to change one’s religion, forbids the establishment of a state religion, guarantees equality for all religious groups, and prohibits incitement of religious hatred. Some religious groups and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) criticized the government for granting special privileges to seven religious groups it defined as “traditional” and protested difficulties in the registration process, without which religious groups lacked property rights, tax exemptions, and legal status. Four religious groups applied for registration or had applications pending during the year, and the government approved two of them, the Buddhist Religious Community Nichiren Daishonin and the LOGOS Christian Community in Serbia. In March the government appointed a chairperson to the supervisory board charged with overseeing the proper implementation of the law on Holocaust-era heirless and unclaimed property, enabling the board to commence work. During the year, the government restituted to religious groups 1,151.4 hectares (2,845 acres) of land and 1,618 square meters (17,416 square feet) of office and residential space confiscated since 1945. Jehovah’s Witnesses reported two incidents of physical assault and two instances of verbal death threats against their members and said prosecutors failed to respond adequately to the incidents. Protestants said persons frequently branded their religious groups as “sects,” which has a very strong negative connotation in the Serbian language. One Protestant group said its members sometimes hid their religious affiliation for fear of discrimination. Many smaller or nontraditional religious groups reported low-level public bias or discrimination against their members without citing specific examples.
    [Show full text]
  • Letter Dated 18 December 2020 from the President of the Security
    United Nations S/2020/1236 Security Council Distr.: General 21 December 2020 Original: English Letter dated 18 December 2020 from the President of the Security Council addressed to the Secretary-General and the Permanent Representatives of the members of the Security Council I have the honour to enclose herewith a copy of the briefings provided by Judge Carmel Agius, President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, and Mr. Serge Brammertz, Prosecutor of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, as well as the statements delivered by the representatives of Belgium, China, the Dominican Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Indonesia, the Niger, the Russian Federation, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, South Africa, Tunisia, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the United States of America and Viet Nam, in connection with the video-teleconference on “The International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals” convened on Monday, 14 December 2020. Statements were also delivered by His Excellency Mr. Čedomir Backović, Assistant Minister of Justice of Serbia, and by the representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Rwanda. In accordance with the procedure set out in the letter by the President of the Security Council addressed to the Permanent Representatives of the members of the Security Council dated 7 May 2020 (S/2020/372), which was agreed in the light of the extraordinary circumstances caused by the coronavirus disease pandemic, these briefings and statements will be issued as a document of the Security Council. (Signed) Jerry Matthews Matjila President of the Security Council 20-17547 (E) 231220 250121 *2017547* S/2020/1236 Annex 1 Statement by the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, Judge Carmel Agius [Original: English and French] It is my sincere pleasure to address the Security Council once again to present the seventeenth progress report of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT).
    [Show full text]
  • War Criminals in the 2020 Election Campaign
    WAR CRIMINALS IN THE 2020 ELECTION CAMPAIGN YOUTH INITIATIVE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS / JUNE 2020 / YIHR.RS Introduction Legislative framework Candidates convicted for war crimes Vojislav Šešelj Dragan Vasiljković Candidates engaged in war activities Ljiljana Mihajlović TABLE OF Vjerica Radeta i Petar Jojić Božidar Delić CONTENT Svetozar Andrić Momir Stojanović War criminals as supporters of electoral lists Vladimir Lazarević Veselin Šljivančanin Nikola Šainović Conclusion Recommendations The Youth Initiative for Human Rights wishes to warn and report about the participation of war criminals in public life out of the conviction that their participation is an insult to victims, a threat to regional peace and a hindrance to democratic and European processes of the country. An overview of the participation of war criminals in the election campaign, as well as persons associated with crimes, indicates that regardless of the party they support, INTRODUCTION the pattern is similar and their themes and values are shared: denial of crimes, delegitimization of the Hague Tribunal, opposition to Serbia’s EU accession, and spreading hatred and intolerance towards peoples in the region. Convicted war criminals in Serbia have been glorified by those in power through media and institutions. Seeing how they’ve played quite a large role in this electoral process, it is safe to assume that a war criminal will have a seat in Parliament for the next for another four years. Regular parliamentary, provincial, and local elections, initially scheduled for 24 April, due to the declaration of the state of emergency because of the COVID-19 pandemic, have been postponed for 21 June 2020. Twenty-one electoral lists applied for parliamentary election, while a part of the opposition opted to boycott the elections.
    [Show full text]
  • Forum for International Criminal Justice Newsletter: February 2017
    Forum for International Criminal Justice Newsletter: February 2017 Welcome to the IAP’s Forum for International Criminal Justice (FICJ) February 2017 Newsletter which focuses on the prosecution of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, including a roundup of video highlights, legal analysis, announcements, events, new publications and major news developments from the past month. This Newsletter also includes a special interview with Kristy Sim about her move from working as a lawyer in Canada to an Assistant Trial Lawyer with the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court in the FICJ’s ‘In Profile’ feature. *Please have a look at the FICJ forum page on the IAP website and feel free to contribute: the Forum provides individual prosecutors with a password protected space to post news, announcements, etc. and to pose questions to fellow prosecutors from around the world. Your contributions will also be posted in this monthly newsletter. Passwords are provided to IAP members – if you do not have a password, check your membership status by contacting the IAP Office Manager, Evie Sardeman: [email protected]. Danya Chaikel – IAP FICJ Coordinator | email: [email protected] Video Highlights Click here to watch a panel discussion on the Click here to watch Ambassador Stephen J. ongoing controversy over the scope of Rapp speak on the International Criminal immunity under international Join law, the and FICJ in community: WWW.IAPCourt,-ASSOCIATION.ORG/FICJ ‘hybrid’ tribunals and the/HOME difficulty of particular whether heads of state enjoy creating the third wave of international 1 immunity from prosecution for intl crimes.
    [Show full text]