This is a political trial
In violation of international law and its own rulings on procedural matters, the NATO-run International Court trying Slobadan Milosevic in The Hague has decided to impose a counsel chosen by the Court. Its aim is to silence Milosevic speaking in his own defence. In justification of its ruling the Court claimed that it was motivated by Milosevic's health. He is suffering from hypertension. In contesting the decision before the Court, President Milosevic said it was his deep conviction that the decision to take away his right to represent himself was not prompted by health reasons nor legal reasons but by political reasons. Milosevic quoted an August 29 article in the Washington Post, "At the start of the trial in February 2002, the original presiding judge, Britain's Richard May, ruled that 'under international law, the defendant has a right to counsel but he also has a right not to have counsel.'" "Virtually everything that has gone wrong with the Milosevic trial can be traced back to that erroneous ruling", the Washington Post article alleges. "By acting as his own counsel, Milosevic was able to begin the trial with an 18-hour long opening argument, which included Hollywood-quality video and slide-show presentations showing the destruction wrought by the 1999 NATO bombing campaign." The Washington Post article, said Milosevic, shows that "we're not talking about law here but politics". The Washington Post article went on: "In creating the Yugoslavia tribunal statute, the UN Security Council set three objectives: First, to educate the Serbian people, who were long misled by Milosevic propaganda, about the acts of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by his regime ..." Milosevic responded: "As you can see, the Washington Post is citing a political reason which only a twisted mind can use in view of the fact that there was no war in Serbia and that Serbia was the only one that maintained the structure of population as it was before and that there was no discrimination at all. This is part of the propaganda which is being affirmed here." Court-imposed counsel About the question of assigning counsel Milosevic said: "I would like to also draw your attention to this question of assigning counsel that about 100 prominent legal scholars, professors, experts in international and criminal law from Serbia, Russia, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Germany, the United States, Canada, India, Belgium, Denmark, Bulgaria, Hungary, Netherlands, Czech Republic, Great Britain and France, submitted a petition to the General Secretary [of the UN] and to the United Nations Security Council. "You probably did not pay attention to this, but many arguments were stated there against this decision which was adopted by the Trial Chamber." The petition said: "This apparently punitive measure is contrary to international law, incompatible with the adversarial system of criminal justice adopted by the Security Council in Resolution 808, and ignores the Court's obligation to provide adequate medical care and provisional release to the defendant." The petition goes on: "The envisaged imposition of counsel constitutes an egregious violation of internationally recognised judicial rights, and will serve to only aggravate Mr Milosevic's life-threatening illness and will further discredit these proceedings. "The fundamental, minimum rights provided to a defendant under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as well as under the Statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia include the right to defend oneself in person." Speaking to the Tribunal Milosevic said: "In the long history of British criminal jurisprudence, there was only one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in criminal proceedings. The Tribunal was the Star Chamber. That curious institution, which flourished in the late 16th and early 17th centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial character and characteristically departed from common law traditions. For those reasons, and because it specialised in trying "political" offences, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolised disregard of basic individual rights. "The right to defend oneself in person is at the heart of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights. The United Nations should not tolerate these continuing violations of international law in the name of expediency. Using a detained person's inappropriately treated illness as an excuse to infringe upon his rights and silence him and embark on a 'radical reform' of the proceedings — as the Chamber is now considering, by changing the rules in the mid-trial, and to the defendant's detriment — is a perversion of both the letter and the spirit of international law. "So, I would like to be very brief. I would like my right to be restored to me. "I therefore demand my right to represent myself back. I believe that my legal position cannot be changed in the middle of the trial, or my capacity to defend myself, and I demand my right back. Thank you", concluded Milosevic. The International Committee to Defend Slobodan Milosevic (ICDSM) has made an urgent appeal for financial assistance. It says, "We need professional, legal work now more than ever. President Milosevic has the truth and law on his side. In order to use that advantage to achieve his freedom, we must fight this totally discredited tribunal and its patrons through professionally conducted actions which would involve the Bar Associations, the European Court, the UN organs in charge and the media. "Our practice has shown that ad hoc voluntary work is not enough to deal properly with these tasks. Please organise fundraising activity urgently and send donations to the following ICDSM accounts: Peter Betscher Stadt-und Kreissparkasse Darmstadt, Germany IBAN:DE 21 5085 0150 0102 1441 63 SWIFT-BIC: HELADEF1DAS or Vereinigung f|r Internationale Solidaritdt (VIS) 4000 Basel, Switzerland PC 40-493646-5J