Ekskluzivno Frensis Bojl, tvorac bh. tužbe protiv SCG

[Haqqani]

Ekskluzivno Frensis Bojl, tvorac bh. tužbe protiv SCG

BiH će presudom dobiti stotinu milijardi dolara


Najvažnije je ukidanje Republike Srpske * Vijeće sigurnosti naredit će zapljenu imovine Srbije * Primjer tužbe Nikaragve protiv SAD

Bosna i Hercegovina već je dobila tužbu za genocid koju je podnijela Međunarodnom sudu pravde u Hagu (ICJ) prije 13 godina. To se može vidjeti iz odluka Suda iz polovine aprila i od septembra 1993. Za mene je sada pitanje šta uraditi s presudom.
Vlastima BiH sugerirao sam prošlog jula da se suđenje i presuda iskoriste kako bi bila ukinuta Republika Srpska, ističe Frensis Bojl (Francis Boyle), profesor prava na Univerzitetu u Čikagu i tvorac tužbe za genocid.
U razgovoru za "Dnevni avaz" Bojl govori ne samo o tužbi već i o modalitetima realizacije presude.

Jednostavan zadatak


Kako bi RS trebala biti ukinuta?

- To uopće nije težak zadatak. U septembru 1993. godine nadmoćno sam dobio ocjenu suda (14:1) da je Oven-Stoltenbergov plan - genocidan! Zamislite kakav je tek stav kada je RS u pitanju.
Imate nekoliko presuda - Krstić, naprimjer - u kojima je genocid dokazan pred Tribunalom za ratne zločine (ICTY). Dakle, moji argumenti iz septembra 1993. i nove činjenice dovest će do toga da sud mora odlučiti da RS bude ukinuta!

Praktično, kako bi to trebalo izgledati?

- Sud će donijeti odluku o ukidanju RS i to će ići pred Vijeće sigurnosti UN-a na provedbu.

A ratna šteta?

- Tom pitanju nismo se mnogo posvetili u vrijeme kada je tužba nastajala. Bošnjaci i Bosanci bili su na ivici istrebljenja, a Srbija je nastojala s lica zemlje zbrisati BiH. Zato je težište tužbe bilo na genocidu kako bismo time ukinuli odluku o embargu na isporuku oružja braniocima BiH i zaustavili podjelu zemlje po planovima različitih međunarodnih izaslanika.
Onda me predsjednik Alija Izetbegović zamolio da mu dam procjenu ratne odštete. Neka gruba procjena koju sam mu dao iznosila je oko stotinu milijardi dolara.

Koliko?

- Do tog iznosa došao sam analizom slučaja "Nikaragva protiv SAD". Ova centralnoamerička država od SAD je tražila 13 milijardi dolara za smrt 30.000 ljudi te zbog uništavanja polovine zemlje. Moja procjena bila je da je u BiH izginulo oko 250.000 ljudi i da su ogromne štete nanesene cijeloj državi.
Naravno, radi se o gruboj procjeni. Sud će odrediti detaljan iznos odštete nakon donošenja presude. Tada će biti otvorena nova procedura radi utvrđivanja tačnog iznosa.

Oduzimanje imovine


Kako će odšteta biti naplaćena?

- ICJ će narediti Srbiji da plati štetu. Ako oni to ne urade, onda će se od Vijeća sigurnosti zatražiti akcija, uvođenje sankcija, zapljena imovine...
Usto, na osnovu presude Suda, svaki advokat na svijetu moći će krenuti na sudove svuda u svijetu i tražiti da se odšteta naplati. Sve što je u vlasništvu Srbije, osim diplomatskih predstavništava, može biti oduzeto i dato BiH na ime odštete.

Vi uopće ne razmišljate o mogućnosti da BiH izgubi tužbu?

- Ne! Pogledajte dvije odluke suda o kojima sam govorio tokom ovog razgovora u više navrata i vidjet ćete da je čak i ruski sudija, a Rusija je uvijek podržavala Srbiju, u svojim mišljenjima istakao da su te odluke jednake osudi za genocid. I to je tačno. Uvjeren sam da će BiH dobiti presudu u svoju korist.
Podsjetit ću da je prošlog ljeta Vijeće ministara SCG izdalo zvanično izvinjenje u kojem je preuzelo pravnu odgovornost za događaje u Srebrenici. Oni su samo naveli da se tamo desio ratni zločin, umjesto termina genocid. Time su priznali krivnju.

Srbija je već bankrotirala

- Za mene je pravo pitanje - šta s presudom. Uopće ne sumnjam da će BiH dobiti slučaj, ali šta onda. Srbija nema tih stotinu milijardi dolara! Za mene je ukidanje RS mnogo bitnije od naplate svog tog novca.
Ukidanjem RS, BiH postaje normalna država koja se može pridružiti EU i NATO-u.
Najbolji model za uređenje vaše zemlje je - švicarski. Ali, ljudi u BiH će odlučiti o tome. Jedino mogu reći da ni u kojem slučaju ne trebaju prihvatiti plan ustavnih promjena koje im sada nameće američka administracija. Njime se samo jača moć RS i dalje krči put za separaciju.

Tužba i za agresiju

- Optužbe za agresiju Srbije protiv BiH implicitno su sadržane u samoj tužbi. Morali smo se fokusirati na Konvenciju o genocidu kako bismo dokazali da su Srbija i Crna Gora rukovodile, de facto, trupama Radovana Karadžića te da se ne radi o građanskom ratu.
Advokat SCG, profesor Rozen iz Izraela, nastojao je uvjeriti Sud da je u pitanju građanski rat za koji SCG i Slobodan Milošević nisu odgovorni. No, to sam s uspjehom pobio.
Dakle, optužba da je na BiH izvršena agresija sadržana je u tužbi. No, sama tužba tako je zasnovana upravo zbog odredbi Konvencije o genocidu.

Razgovaro: Sead NUMANOVIĆ
AVAZ

[da pamtis]

Serbia tried for genocide but EU pulls its punches
By Anthony Browne and Rory Watson



SERBIA today becomes the first country to be tried for genocide at the world’s highest court — just as the European Union shies from punishing the Balkan nation for failing to hand over Ratko Mladic and other indicted war criminals.
The International Court of Justice hearing in The Hague will open this morning. It will decide whether Serbia made a premeditated attempt to destroy Bosnia’s Muslim population in 1992.



The case, brought by Bosnia, is the first time that an entire country has been tried for genocide. Billions of dollars of compensation are at stake.

However, EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels are expected to threaten only to “disrupt” economic and political ties with Serbia if it does not hand Mladic over by April 5.

EU diplomats insist that they are taking tough action, but the threats are a big disappointment for the UN’s chief war crimes prosecutor, Carla del Ponte, who has made clear that only full suspension of EU membership talks will force Serbia to surrender Mladic, who is considered a hero by many Serbian nationalists.

A source at the international war crimes tribunal, where Ms del Ponte works, said: “Only with the option of suspension will Belgrade take the move — otherwise they will not do anything. Any ambiguity will leave Belgrade with the feeling that they can wait. They don’t know what disruption means — they are only afraid of suspension. It has been 10½ years of wasted opportunity.”

Mladic, the former Bosnian Serb army leader who led the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslims in Srebrenica, has been on the run since. Ms del Ponte insists that he is being protected by Serbian authorities.

The stepping up of pressure on Serbia at the two different UN bodies in The Hague — the International Court of Justice and the war crimes tribunal — contrasts with the EU’s lack of definitive action.

On February 21 the EU began talks on political and economic ties with Serbia, leading to entry negotiations and ultimately full membership of the Union. Many EU countries believe that the prospect of eventual membership is the only way to stabilise Serbia, and play down the importance of surrendering indicted war criminals.

EU foreign ministers will threaten to delay the next stage of the talks, due on April 5, if Mladic is not handed over by then, but have rejected calls to suspend the talks indefinitely.

“ ‘Disruption’ would not freeze the talks, but would certainly slow them down and negotiations would not continue as planned. This is a clear shot across their bows,” an EU official said.

The hearing at the International Court of Justice is scheduled to last six weeks, although the 16 judges are expected to deliver their verdict in about a year.

times

[Prenj]

Nadam se da ce predstavnik nase tuzbe Sakib Softic, elokventniji i bolje argumentovan no sto je bio u javljanju na zadnjem Centralnom.
Ono je bilo zaista tuzno za gledati, kao da su uhvatili nekog slucajnog prolaznika a ne nekoga ko tu tuzbu treba da predstavlja i brani.

[da pamtis]

Serbia to be first nation charged with genocide
By Stephen Castle in Brussels
Published: 27 February 2006
Serbia will come under intense international klix today as it becomes the first nation to defend genocide charges, while separately facing censure for failing to surrender war crimes suspects.

Belgrade will be accused at the International Court of Justice of sponsoring ethnic cleansing in the 1990s which led to the worst massacres on European soil since the Second World War. Previously, only individuals have been charged with genocide, the most serious war crime.

Meanwhile, EU foreign ministers in Brussels will threaten to hold up talks on the creation of a free trade zone with Serbia because of Belgrade's failure to arrest the former Bosnian Serb military commander, Ratko Mladic.

This rebuke may not satisfy the UN's chief war crimes prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, who has called on the EU to put pressure on Belgrade and privately pressed for a formal suspension of the negotiations.

The two events underline the extent to which the region's bloody past overshadows Belgrade's effort to draw closer to the EU.

Today's hearing at the World Court comes 13 years after Bosnia and Herzegovina first charged the Serb authorities, accusing them of the worst case of ethnic cleansing since the Nazis' Final Solution. Though the Serb military was not involved in the war, Belgrade stands accused of backing the Bosnian Serb forces.

Were the case to be proved, the Belgrade could be forced to pay billions of euros in compensation, as well as suffering the disgrace of being labeled a state sponsor of genocide.

Bosnia argues that only by acknowledging Belgrade's role in massacres there can reconciliation be achieved.

Genocide was outlawed under the 1948 Genocide Convention, though the first conviction came 50 years later when a UN court on Rwanda sentenced a former mayor, Jean-Paul Akayesu, to life imprisonment.

Since then, hearings at the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague have decided that genocide took place at Srebrenica. The tribunal has convicted the Bosnian Serb military commanders Radislav Krstic and Vidoje Blagojevic of the offence.

But showing that genocide - a difficult crime to prove - was committed by a state will be more difficult. A paper produced by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting argues that genocide "requires a particular mindset - namely the special intent to destroy a population - which, on the face of it at least, appears difficult to attribute to a state".

It points out that, because Serbia's alleged sponsorship of genocide was through proxies, it will be even harder to prove.

The World Court may decide it does not have legal jurisdiction. A case taken by Serbia against Nato countries was thrown out in 2004 because Yugoslavia was not a member of the UN at the time. Belgrade is likely to argue that, if it cannot initiate a case at the World Court, if cannot be called on to defend one.

Serbia will come under intense international klix today as it becomes the first nation to defend genocide charges, while separately facing censure for failing to surrender war crimes suspects.

Belgrade will be accused at the International Court of Justice of sponsoring ethnic cleansing in the 1990s which led to the worst massacres on European soil since the Second World War. Previously, only individuals have been charged with genocide, the most serious war crime.

Meanwhile, EU foreign ministers in Brussels will threaten to hold up talks on the creation of a free trade zone with Serbia because of Belgrade's failure to arrest the former Bosnian Serb military commander, Ratko Mladic.

This rebuke may not satisfy the UN's chief war crimes prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, who has called on the EU to put pressure on Belgrade and privately pressed for a formal suspension of the negotiations.

The two events underline the extent to which the region's bloody past overshadows Belgrade's effort to draw closer to the EU.

Today's hearing at the World Court comes 13 years after Bosnia and Herzegovina first charged the Serb authorities, accusing them of the worst case of ethnic cleansing since the Nazis' Final Solution. Though the Serb military was not involved in the war, Belgrade stands accused of backing the Bosnian Serb forces.

Were the case to be proved, the Belgrade could be forced to pay billions of euros in compensation, as well as suffering the disgrace of being labeled a state sponsor of genocide.
Bosnia argues that only by acknowledging Belgrade's role in massacres there can reconciliation be achieved.

Genocide was outlawed under the 1948 Genocide Convention, though the first conviction came 50 years later when a UN court on Rwanda sentenced a former mayor, Jean-Paul Akayesu, to life imprisonment.

Since then, hearings at the UN's International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague have decided that genocide took place at Srebrenica. The tribunal has convicted the Bosnian Serb military commanders Radislav Krstic and Vidoje Blagojevic of the offence.

But showing that genocide - a difficult crime to prove - was committed by a state will be more difficult. A paper produced by the Institute for War and Peace Reporting argues that genocide "requires a particular mindset - namely the special intent to destroy a population - which, on the face of it at least, appears difficult to attribute to a state".

It points out that, because Serbia's alleged sponsorship of genocide was through proxies, it will be even harder to prove.

The World Court may decide it does not have legal jurisdiction. A case taken by Serbia against Nato countries was thrown out in 2004 because Yugoslavia was not a member of the UN at the time. Belgrade is likely to argue that, if it cannot initiate a case at the World Court, if cannot be called on to defend one.

indipendent