The Hague Indictment Against Milosevic

Timed Law

The American government had handed over evidence on massacres in Kosovo to the International Tribunal a few days before the indictment was raised, and a week later, the agreement on entrance of foreign troops into Yugoslavia was reached

AIM Podgorica, 6 June, 1999 (By AIM correspondent from Belgrade)

The public in Serbia was convinced that raising the indictment for war crimes against president of FRY Slobodan Milosevic two months after the beginning of NATO air strikes may mean only one thing: that the Alliance had decided to start a total war against Yugoslavia. This, however, did not happen: the international envoys continued negotiations with Milosevic as if he were not the first head of the state since World War II who was indicted in this way, and reached an agreement with him which brought to NATO what it had wanted in the first place: 50 thousand foreign soldiers in Kosovo.

The arrival of the indictment made public in Yugoslavia with a 24-hour delay although without the original content caused first the reactions of the ruling parties which interpreted the decision of the Tribunal to raise charges mostly as an "attack on the Serb people" motivated by a wish "to destroy it" and "continue bombing to extermination". The opposition parties reacted in a somewhat quieter tone, as well as experts of international law, assessing the indictment as a direct attack on peace negotiations. In its statement for the public, the Democratic Party estimated that the Tribunal could have raised charges against Milosevic three months ago, and not in the days of 24-hour bombing of Serbia. The Democrats believe that Milosevic "should be judged by the voters in Serbia and not the Tribunal".

But, the indictment raised on 22 May and published on 27 May by Louise Arbour, chief prosecutor of the International Tribunal for War Crimes committed in Former Yugoslavia remains, and probably the well informed American defence secretary William Kohen declared on 28 May that "some day" Milosevic would be brought to justice. In order to avoid any confusion, spokesman of US Department of State James Rubin stated that "American government supports the conviction of the prosecutors that Milosevic is personally responsible for the crimes in Kosovo", and that it (the government) just before charges were raised had handed in satellite pictures to the Tribunal which, according to Rubin, prove three of the massacres mentioned in the indictment. He further on explained that Yugoslav authorities exhumed the bodies of Kosovo Albanians from mass graves and buried them individually, or cremated. "This shows that the Serbs admit that war crimes have been committed and that Serb troops were trying to conceal evidence", said spokesman Rubin, assuming the role of Louise Arbour.

What is written in the indicttment against Milosevic, president of Serbia Milan Milutinovic, deputy prime minister of FRY Nikola Sainovic, Republican minister of police Vlajko Stojiljkovic and head of the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia Dragoljub Ojdanic?

At the end of a comprehensive background of political developments in Yugoslavia, Serbia and Kosovo in the past 12 years, it is stated that in mid 1995, the Kosovo Liberation Army (UCK) was established, that it advocated an armed uprising and violent resistance to the Serb authorities, that in the middle of 1996 they started attacking Yugoslav and Serbian police, that in the course of 1997, the mentioned police forces started violent operations against UCK bases and "those who support them".

The conflict became intensive in February 1998 when the Army of Yugoslavia (VJ), both police forces and paramilitary formations launched the campaign of shelling towns and villages of Kosovo Albanians, extensive destruction of property and banishment of the civilian population from the area of activity of UCK: "As a result of an orchestrated action, towns, villages, whole regions became uninhabitable for Kosovo Albanians". Forces of FRY and Serbia physically and verbally ill-treated and humiliated Kosovo Albanians. Then illegal deportations and forcible evictions of thousands of the Albanians were organised. Altogether, it is said that by mid October 1998 more than 285 thousand people, or about 15 per cent of the population were displaced, either within Kosovo or without it.

After that, the period of the war is described (as of 24 March). It is written in the indictment that from the beginning of NATO air strikes, forces of FRY and Serbia "intensified the systematic campaign" and forcibly banished hundred thousands of Kosovo Albanians, and that in this period a certain number of murders were committed, and that by 20 May one third of the population - about 740 thousand Kosovo Albanians - were banished from Kosovo. It is claimed that Yugoslav and Serbian forces looted personal and commercial property of Kosovo Albanians, that "border forces stole personal vehicles" and deprived the deported Albanians of their identity papers in order to destroy every trace of their life in Kosovo. In the end, the indictment speaks of murders: 45 killed in Racak on 15 January; at first 12 (10 women and children among them) in Bela Crkva on 25 March and then another 65 men on the same day and in the same place; 105 men in Mala and Velika Krusa; six men in Djakovica; 20 in Crkolez; 130 in Izbica, and again on 2 April in Djakovica 20 persons, 19 women and children among them.

Milosevic and his associates are accused of crimes against humanity and crimes against war law and customs, precisely - deportations, murders and persecution on political, racial and religious grounds.

No connection is made in the indictment between the fact that majority of refugees left Kosovo at the time of the everyday and everynight two-month NATO bombing of Kosovo, that is when the Albanians were exposed to both Serbian security forces and bombs which were allegedly saving them, that NATO (as it itself admitted) killed a considerable number of ethnic Albanians in refugee convoys at the border and elsewhere and wounded many more - including women and children, that shelling and bombing of Kosovo may have had certain share in the fact that "whole regions" have become uninhabitable for Kosovo Albanians. Perhaps the cause for that is that satellite photos of that surely have not been sent to the Tribunal by the American government. And finally - judging by the experience of the Tribunal in bringing the accused to the Hague - it is not highly probable that the Yugoslav and the Serbian leaders will soon become the inmates of the prison in Seveningen. But, the indictment against Milosevic could serve for yet another purpose - to amnesty of NATO of accusations that it was its action that created conditions for a real humanitarian catastrophe in Kosovo and to hush up violation of perhaps every relevant principle of international law during its attack on FRY.

Spomenka Lazic

ENTREFILET

Concern called aggression

On 3 June, the International Tribunal in the Hague rejected accusations of FRY against ten NATO countries of aggression against Yugoslavia. FRY demanded from the Tribunal to order interruption of air strikes as a temporary measure because they caused genocide, but the judges in the Hague took the stand that there were no indications of the intention to destroy a whole ethnic group, in other words that conventions on genocide were violated. At the same time, the Tribunal expressed "deep concern" because of the legal foundation for use of NATO forces against Yugoslavia. Article 2 of the UN Charter, as the supreme international legal document, prescribes that "all members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state". According to the definition of aggression adopted by UN General Assembly on 4 december 1947, it is stated (Article 1) that "aggression is use of force by a state against sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state", and that an act of aggression is among other "invasion or attack by armed forces of a state on the territory of another state" and "bombing by armed forces of a state against the territory of another state or use of any arms by a state against the territory of another state" (Article 3). As assessed on 3 June by London The Guardian, the judges of this Tribunal have always been highly aware of the political moment they were acting in.