The Hague Against Justice: International Criminal Tribunal Fiasco in the Case of Tribunal Prosecutor vs. general Djordje Djukic [Belgrade 1996]

Hag Protiv Pravde: Bruka Medjunarodnog krivicnog suda za bivsu Jugoslaviju u slucaju Tuzilac Suda protiv generala Djukica [Beograd 1996]

The Hague Against Justice Revisited: The Case of Dr. Radovan Karadzic [Belgrade 1997]

We present the informative studies of one of the most distinguished Serbian legal experts dr. Kosta Cavoski, full professor of the Faculty of Law in Belgrade, entitled The Hague against Justice and The Hague against Justice (Again): The Case of Radovan Karadzic.

Professor Cavoski obtained his master's degree having defended a thesis wherein, for the first time in Serbian, he provided a coherent and thoroughly affirmative survey of the origins and functioning of the American constitutional and legal system as the most distinguished model of liberal law and politics. As an advocate of the liberal concept of "rule of law" and a very knowledgeable critic of the Bolshevik-Communist monstrosity of ideological and party-controlled state, Cavoski gained a reputation as a dissident of the Communist regime: as such, he was ousted from the Faculty of Law in the early 70s, to return there in the capacity of a lecturer only after 15 years. He was the initiator and a founding member of the first opposition party in Serbia (The Democratic Party). He is the author of a well-known book about Slobodan Milosevic's dictatorship, as well as a number of other scientific and journalistic works.

In the two above-mentioned studies professor K. Cavoski, as a legal expert, analyses the work of The International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia situated at The Hague. In particular, he points out various legal precedents connected with this Tribunal including its establishment, legal organisation and its manner of implementation of international law in practice, documented in a number of cases.

The first study offers an analysis, from a legal point of view, of the case of general Djordje Djukic, that of colonel Aleksa Krsmanovic, as well as a number of others, while the second study analyses the transformation of legal precedents into political (pseudo-legal) practice of the oad hocoe International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, which has been given the political assignment of bringing up indictment against Radovan Karad`ic and general Ratko Mladic for owar crimesoe. Professor Cavoski proves that the Tribunal, in all the cases so far, has gravely erred against the basic principles of international law and the moral postulates of the Western civilisation:

• the defendants are presumed to be guilty and treated as if their guilt has already been proved;

• neither international law nor the procedural rules of the ad hoc Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia itself are observed.

Dealing with its very first case, the Tribunal exhibited all its shortcomings when Djordje Djukic and Andrija Krsmanovic, who had been kidnapped and taken as hostages by the Muslim government in order to force the Serbian side to release some prisoners, were taken to The Hague without any charges being brought against them. First of all, groundless charges were brought against them. The charges were later dropped due to lack of evidence and procedural errors, but the defendants were proclaimed to be witnesses brought before the Tribunal by force: the prosecutor tried to obtain from them evidence necessary for bringing up charges against Karad`ic and Mladic u using coercion and threats (namely, they were threatened with being sent back to Sarajevo and into the hands of Alija IzetbegovicAEs judges, who abide by the sharia law).

When the two, under duress, would not give false testimony incriminating Karad`ic and Mladic, Djukic alone was charged again, but as he refused to give in to the TribunalAEs attempts at blackmail, he was released from prison being gravely ill (suffering from cancer) shortly before his death.

After Richard Goldstone had dropped the charges against him, Aleksa Krsmanovic was not released; as had been threatened, when he failed to testify as the Tribunal demanded of him, he was sent back to Sarajevo handcuffed, although innocent, and handed over to the Muslims (oBosnjaksoe). After further torture and failed charges against him, they exchanged him as a prisoner of war. Thus the International Hague Tribunal practically validated the lawlessness in the Muslim-held Sarajevo and participated in the cover-up of Muslim hostage taking - a war crime that the Tribunal itself is supposed to sanction.

As never before in legal history, the ad hoc International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia at The Hague has laid down its very own rules that it does not adhere to:

• (1) the prosecution is not one of the parties in the dispute but a privileged oorgan of the Tribunaloe (Article 11 of the Statute);

• (2) the charges are kept secret and evidence is gathered in an illegal manner (by means of threats, tapping phone calls, recordings made secretly by intelligence services);

• (3) while giving testimony some witnesses are masked (bringing back memories of the Inquisition);

• (4) law is enforced without sovereignty (as a consequence of the dubious basis for the establishment of the ad hoc Tribunal at The Hague);

• (5) the basic principle of equal treatment of the defendants is blatantly ignored to the detriment of the Serbs (the indicted Croatian general Tihomil Blaskic, instead of being in prison, resides in a luxurious villa with guards, whereas the gravely ill Serbian general Djordje Djukic, although a defendant turned witness, was kept in prison until shortly before his death).

Antonio Casese, then Chairman of the International Tribunal, stated: The decision (to bring charges against R. Karad`ic) represents a fundamental step. Let us see now who will sit down to negotiate with someone who is indicted of genocide... those gentlemen will not be able to take part in peace talks. That is to say, somebody more co-operative than Karad`ic was needed on the Serbian side for the ensuing peace talks. That is the political (diplomatic) objective that The Hague Tribunal is subordinated to, the purpose of its establishment and the reason why Serbs do not trust it.

In the second study, professor K. Cavoski provides relevant documentation for a truthful and just assessment of the responsibility of Radovan Karad`ic for those war crimes that the Serbian side, among others, committed in Bosnia.

The Serbian people is in the process of overcoming, with utmost difficulty, the heritage of the Communist regime, wherein the courts served as a non-autonomous means of disposing of political opponents. In the East, great hopes were and still are placed in the legal principles of the liberal West. In addition to that, the Serbs hope to find Christian justice there.

Those who really care about peace among nations and states, as well as just punishment of real war criminals, must create a permanent and better court than this ad hoc Tribunal at The Hague which tries Serbs one way and all the other nationals from the former Yugoslavia in an entirely different manner.