Naime, Srbi sada govore da je Sud pravde dokazao da Srbija nije agresor jer su Srbi iz BiH počinili genocid. To je jedna obična laž i novi mit koji pokušavaju napravit, ali ovaj put to je naprosto nemoguće. Kao prvo Sud pravde o tome nije ni odlučivao jer to nije u njegovoj nadležnosti. Sud pravde sudi samo prema Konvenciji o genocidu i razmatra pitanje zločina, a ne karaktera rata. Nažalost i neki naši građani potpuno neosnovao krive pravni tim BiH jer "nije tužio Srbiju za agresiju nego samo za genocid". I ovo je jedna floskula nastala na neznanju, jer se tužba ne može podnijeti za agresiju, nego samo za one tačke navedene u Konvenciji o sprečavanju genocida.
Druga stvar je pojam agresija. To je kolokvijalni pojam, a ne pravni. Ispravan pravni termin je internacionalni rat, rat u kome učestvuje više zemalja. A rat u BiH je bio upravo takav. To je do sada dokazano u pet predmeta u onom drugom Tribunalu koji sudi ratnim zločincima (ICTY), evo sažetka tih presuda, i molim da svi Bosanci i Hercegovci sačuvaju ove linkove, jer su to nepobitni dokazi agresije na BiH verifikovani na međunarodnom nivou:
Nažalost dok se npr. Hrvatska lomila da ubaci prijatelje suda iz Hrvatske na suđenje Prliću, te da ospori ranije presude o karakteru rata, za to vrijeme naši mediji su mahali ušima i terorisali javnost nebulozama, prepirkama, svađama, vehabijama, Dodikom, izborima itd.http://hrw.org/reports/2004/ij/icty/2.htm#_Toc62882595
Conflict between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY):
Tadic, (Appeals Chamber), July 15, 1999, para. 156, 162: “It is sufficient to show that [the Yugoslav Army] exercised overall control over the Bosnian Serb Forces. Such control manifested itself not only in financial, logistical and other assistance and support, but also, and more importantly, in terms of participation in the general direction, coordination and supervision of the activities and operations of the VRS [the Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina/Republika Srpska]. This sort of control is sufficient for the purposes of the legal criteria required by international law.” “[F]or the period material to this case (1992), the armed forces of the Republika Srpska were to be regarded as acting under the overall control of and on behalf of the FRY [the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)]. Hence, even after 19 May 1992 the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina between the Bosnian Serbs and the central authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina must be classified as an international armed conflict.” See also Tadic, (Appeals Chamber), July 15, 1999, para. 87.
Mucic et al., (Appeals Chamber), February 20, 2001, para. 33, 48, 50: “The Trial Chamber’s finding as to the nature of the conflict prior to 19 May 1992 is based on a finding of a direct participation of one State on the territory of another State. This constitutes a plain application of the holding of the Appeals Chamber in Tadic that it ‘is indisputable that an armed conflict is international if it takes place between two or more States,’ which reflects the traditional position of international law. . . .” “Although the Trial Chamber did not formally apply the ‘overall control’ test set forth by the Tadic Appeal Judgement, . . . the Trial Chamber’s legal reasoning is entirely consistent with the previous jurisprudence of the Tribunal.” “The Trial Chamber came to the conclusion, as in the Tadic case, that the armed conflict taking place in Bosnia and Herzegovina after 19 May 1992 could be regarded as international because the FRY remained the controlling force behind the Bosnian Serbs armed forces after 19 May 1992. . . [T]his Appeals Chamber is satisfied that the facts as found by the Trial Chamber fulfil the legal conditions as set forth in the Tadic case.”
http://hrw.org/reports/2004/ij/icty/2.htm#_Toc62882594
Conflict between Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia
Prosecutor v. Rajic, Case No. IT-95-12 (Trial Chamber), Review of the Indictment pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, September 13, 1996, para. 13, 26, 32: “[F]or purposes of the application of the grave breaches provisions of Geneva Convention IV, the significant and continuous military action by the armed forces of Croatia in support of the Bosnian Croats against the forces of the Bosnian Government on the territory of the latter was sufficient to convert the domestic conflict between the Bosnian Croats and the Bosnian Government into an international one.” “between 5000 to 7000 members of the Croatian Army, as well as some members of the Croatian Armed Forces (‘HOS’), were present in the territory of Bosnia and were involved, both directly and through their relations with Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna (‘HB’) and the Croatian Defence Council (‘HVO’), in clashes with Bosnian Government forces in central and southern Bosnia. [T]he Bosnian Croats can, for the purposes of these proceedings, be regarded as agents of Croatia in respect of discrete acts which are alleged to be violations of the grave breaches provisions of the Geneva Conventions. It appears that Croatia, in addition to assisting the Bosnian Croats . . . inserted its own armed forces into the conflict on the territory of Bosnia and exercised a high degree of control over both the military and political institutions of the Bosnian Croats.”
Blaskic, (Trial Chamber), March 3, 2000, para. 83-123: The Trial Chambers concluded that “based on Croatia’s direct intervention in BH [Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina]” there was “ample proof to characterise the conflict as international,” and that Croatia’s “indirect control over the HVO [Croatian Defence Council] and HZHB [Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna]” and “indirect intervention” would “permit the conclusion that the conflict was international.” The Trial Chamber found that “Croatia, and more specifically former President Tudjman, was hoping to partition Bosnia and exercised such a degree of control over the Bosnian Croats and especially the HVO that it is justified to speak of overall control. [T]he close ties between Croatia and the Bosnian Croats did not cease with the establishment of the HVO.”
Kordic and Cerkez, (Trial Chamber), February 26, 2001, para. 108-146: The Trial Chamber concluded that the relevant issues were (a) whether Croatia intervened in the armed conflict between the Bosnian Muslims and the Bosnian Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina through its troops and, alternatively, (b) whether the HVO [Croatian Defence Council] acted on behalf of Croatia. “The Chamber concludes that the evidence in this case satisfies each of the alternative criteria set forth . . . for internationalising an internal conflict.”
Ovih gore pet presuda su najvredniji dokument za historiju koja će se pisat o proteklom ratu, zato ako neće naši mediji da tome pridaju neki značaj, onda ćemo to uradit pojedinačno. Downloadujte ove presude, promovišite ih, čuvajte ih, da se ne zaboravi, i da se zlo ne ponovi.
Ustvari ceka se da Srbija skupi pare za placanje ratne odstete.
