Vorringia
21-07-2004, 03:00
Slobodan Milosevic might be freed because the prosecution is inept, he has health problems and the overal tribunal is a sham. There was an article by John Laughland in The Spectator,: "Could Slobo deat the rap?".
Basically he talked about the fact that the tribunal is biased against the defendents since they assume you are guilty. It quoted Michael Scharf, specialist on the ICTY, that the rules were meant to minimize the possibility of charges being dismissed for lack of evidence.
He also discussed how Slobodan's defense has been run to date. The judges are poised to impose a defense upon him against his will and some say to prevent him from continuing his (until now) exemplary defense. The lead prosecutor, Geoffrey Nice, has persistently demanded that Milosevic be represented by a defense, presumably because they would be less knowledgeable on how everything went down. The trial started in 2002, and after 100 witnesses from the prosecution and 600,000 pieces of documentary evidence, nothing has proven Milosevic ordered anything. The only thing they can prove is his C&C failures over the Kosovo region. Certain key witnesse's such as an insider turned out to not even know what floor Milosevic's office was, Ante Markovic's testimony was disproved when Milosevic produce his diary contradicting himself. The former head of the Yugoslavian secret services, Radomir Markovic, expressly stated that Milosevic had never ordered any atrocities and that he had in fact instructed police forces to protect civilians. Note that these were the prosecution's witnesses. Proof of Milosevic's guilt was based on impression noted General Rupert Smith.
In February, the chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, admitted there was not enough evidence to convict Milosevic of the most serious charges. The courts objectiveness and impartiality is in question when Judge Antonio Cassese boasted that he encouraged the prosecution to add indictements against Milosevic, something that would have caused an instant dismissal in any domestic court. The judges have also admitted that some of the witnesses never saw anything and only have second hand information at best. The ICTY has also made it common to reduce sentences of men who will agree to testify against Milosevic.
Milosevic has not even started his own defense yet, due to health concerns.
So what does everyone else think? Is this international tribunal fair? Does it follow Western standards of innocent until proven guilty? How does this reflect unto the ICC? What would be the repercussions if Milosevic was found innocent?
Basically he talked about the fact that the tribunal is biased against the defendents since they assume you are guilty. It quoted Michael Scharf, specialist on the ICTY, that the rules were meant to minimize the possibility of charges being dismissed for lack of evidence.
He also discussed how Slobodan's defense has been run to date. The judges are poised to impose a defense upon him against his will and some say to prevent him from continuing his (until now) exemplary defense. The lead prosecutor, Geoffrey Nice, has persistently demanded that Milosevic be represented by a defense, presumably because they would be less knowledgeable on how everything went down. The trial started in 2002, and after 100 witnesses from the prosecution and 600,000 pieces of documentary evidence, nothing has proven Milosevic ordered anything. The only thing they can prove is his C&C failures over the Kosovo region. Certain key witnesse's such as an insider turned out to not even know what floor Milosevic's office was, Ante Markovic's testimony was disproved when Milosevic produce his diary contradicting himself. The former head of the Yugoslavian secret services, Radomir Markovic, expressly stated that Milosevic had never ordered any atrocities and that he had in fact instructed police forces to protect civilians. Note that these were the prosecution's witnesses. Proof of Milosevic's guilt was based on impression noted General Rupert Smith.
In February, the chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, admitted there was not enough evidence to convict Milosevic of the most serious charges. The courts objectiveness and impartiality is in question when Judge Antonio Cassese boasted that he encouraged the prosecution to add indictements against Milosevic, something that would have caused an instant dismissal in any domestic court. The judges have also admitted that some of the witnesses never saw anything and only have second hand information at best. The ICTY has also made it common to reduce sentences of men who will agree to testify against Milosevic.
Milosevic has not even started his own defense yet, due to health concerns.
So what does everyone else think? Is this international tribunal fair? Does it follow Western standards of innocent until proven guilty? How does this reflect unto the ICC? What would be the repercussions if Milosevic was found innocent?