poziv na akciju!Mladićev advokat gost Woodrow Wilson Centra

[tempora]

Ja nisam dobila jos uvijek nikakav odgovor, ali kada ovo procitam, bolje i da nisam. Sta dalje?

[IBM]

hmmm bez veceg angazovanja medija, srebrenicki udruzenja, intelektualne mase ali i forumasa, bojim se da ce ovo biti bez fajde....no ima jos do maja mjeseca.....We can do it

[pitt]

vala ni ja nista jos dobio nisam

[Bosanac sa dna kace]

jel mozete samo navest tacan datum odrzavanja ovog dogadjaja?
i gdje su sad bosnajci.net i kongres Bosnjaka Sjervene Amerike?

[IBM]

Negdje u maju, imas tamo u prvom postu, link pa pogledaj. Dobro pitanje gdje su sad "zastitnici bosnjacki interesa"? Nece sad da reaguju iako su upoznati sa ovim slucajem.

[Bosanac sa dna kace]

Negdje u maju, imas tamo u prvom postu, link pa pogledaj. Dobro pitanje gdje su sad "zastitnici bosnjacki interesa"? Nece sad da reaguju iako su upoznati sa ovim slucajem.

nece??????

[lady midnight]

ufffffff, mamu im njihovu

evo, ja sam srochila odgovor... ko hoce nek shalje.
a ko misli da je preoshtar za osjetljive americhke koje su navikle na diplomatiju, nek slobodno ublazhi, ja nemam namjeru.


---------------------

Dear Mrs. McCarter,

Thank you very much for providing me with this answer, which opens up many interesting perspectives on the mission, objectives and - unfortunately - very doubtful ethics the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars seems to be guided by in this particular situation.

Please note that we consider your explanation to be unsatisfactory in many respects.

Mrs. McCarter, the very fact that Mr. Lykourezos holds views on the Bosnian war which are -- supposedly -- shared by the majority of the Greek population does not alter the fact that he is a denier of the genocide in Srebrenica, which has been defined as such by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
The decision makers at a research center that aims at maintaining an "informed dialogue on issues that affect our globalized societies" should be aware of the impossibility to precisely identify such a thing as a "political view" of a whole society. Even if we consider this possible, public opinion in Greece and emotional attachments of Greek citizens do not alter historical facts nor can they account for the actions of a respectable research center like WWICS.

The WWICS, a research institution established by the US Congress, is going to honor the "positive impact the (awardees') accomplishments have had on our global culture" by having the award ceremony headed by the very man who himself admits to sympathize with the most prominent European war criminal of our time and to have had contact with him 2 years after the genocide in Srebrenica was committed. In my view, this is a strong contradiction to the Center's objectives and self-description.

These are not matters of politics nor of plurality of political views. A denial of genocide is a matter of ethics. Honoring in this way a person who denies a recognized genocide and sympathizes with those who committed it casts a dark shadow of doubt on the ethical and political commitments of the WWICS and on its claim not to endorse actions that are against freedom, justice and democracy.

Best regards,

XXXXXXXXXX

[lady midnight]

evo i druge verzije, sa josh par vazhnih dodataka od @danas...

---------------------------

Dear Mrs. McCarter,

Thank you very much for providing me with this answer, which opens up many interesting perspectives on the mission, objectives and - unfortunately - very doubtful ethics the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars seems to be guided by in this particular situation.

Please note that we consider your explanation to be insulting, as well as unsatisfactory in many respects.

Mrs. McCarter, the very fact that Mr. Lykourezos holds views on the Bosnian war which are -- supposedly -- shared by the majority of the Greek population does not alter the fact that he is a self-admitted 'friend' of an internationally indicted war-criminal and a public denier of the genocide in Srebrenica, which has been unmistakably defined as such by the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
The decision makers at a research center that aims at maintaining an "informed dialogue on issues that affect our globalized societies" should be aware of the impossibility to precisely identify such a thing as a "political view" of a whole society. Even if we consider this possible, public opinion in Greece and emotional attachments of Greek citizens do not alter historical facts nor can they account for the actions of a respectable research center like WWICS. The explanation you offer in your response leads one to believe that the WW Center would perhaps gladly involve in its activities even General Mladic himself, because his views on the Bosnian 'crisis' (as you so blithely define it) are 'shared by much of the Serb population'?

The WWICS, a research institution established by the US Congress, is going to honor the "positive impact the (awardees') accomplishments have had on our global culture" by having the award ceremony headed by the very man who himself admits to sympathize with the most prominent European war criminal of our time and to have had contact with him 2 years after the genocide in Srebrenica was committed. In my view, this is a strong contradiction to the Center's objectives and self-description.

These are not matters of politics nor of plurality of political views. A denial of genocide is a matter of ethics, as well as of the historical facts. Honoring in this way a person who denies a recognized genocide and sympathizes with those who committed it casts a dark shadow of doubt on the ethical and political commitments of the WWICS and on its claim not to endorse actions that are against freedom, justice and democracy.

Best regards,

XXXXXXXXXX

[pitt]

najmanji je problem sto je on njegov advokat......svak ima pravo na to.....ali sta bi bilo da je neko nakon ninberga tako pricao za one zlocince...da su prijatelji i ta sranja

[bosn.om]

Njen odgovor je toliko bezobrazan i tako mi se ucinio netrpljiv da sam morao nesto da posaljem, iako mozda malo agresivno, ali nekad malo treba i udariti sakom od stol, ova zena je bezmjerno glupa i drska. Ubacio sam i njene sefove i sve vise manje vezane za predmet. Nadam se da nisam nesto zajebao, ali kad je vec doslo do te mjere da se ovakvi caste, mislim da nisam nista mogao pogorsati.


Dear Mrs. McCarter, All,
I have just read your response on Mr. Alexandros Lykourezos' issue and I have been deeply struck by this part of your answer I'm quoting here below:

"Mr. Lykourezos is a prominent lawyer in Athens", with a significant presence in Greek society and in that context he has been asked to chair and support this internationally acknowledged event in honor of the Ecumenical Patriarch and Mr. Paraskevaides. We are pleased to have the benefit of his leadership and both awardees are enthusiastic about his role in this event.
Although we at the WWICS respect any and all opinions, the Center does not endorse any actions against the principles of freedom, justice and democracy.

The Woodrow Wilson Center respects others opinions and personal choices, and it does not represent or endorse particular political views. Mr. Lykourezos was not asked his political views when he was asked to be a dinner chairman for an event honoring two extraordinary individuals. The Center notes that Mr. Lykourezos’ views on the Bosnian crisis of the 1990s are views shared by much of the Greek population and that in fact he has indicated that he had no direct or indirect contact with General Mladic after 1997 or with Slobodan Milosevic after 2000.

Best Regards,

Sharon McCarter"



I would't like to look insulting, but, please allow me to say that this is one of the stupidest things I have heard in my life. According to your first sentence, should I understand that you would have invited the Nazi lawyers from Nürnberg as most of them had a prominent role in post-war Germany, or why don't you invite European extreme right politicians like Le Pen, who as well are playing prominent roles in their respective countries.

You will find any possible arguments in the world to defend your position, I don't doubt it, nevetheless the truth is that you are defending a person that was playing chess with the commander of the biggest genocide committed on European ground after World War 2 one day before it happened and not just anywhere, but in the area of the under-siege Srebrenica:

http://aycu22.webshots.com/image/45381/ ... 366_rs.jpg
http://aycu14.webshots.com/image/45613/ ... 299_rs.jpg

I could also remind you that Srebrenica, though the most monstruous one, has been the last of the massacres perpetrated under the commandment of Ratko Mladic, so it cannot be accepted that the Greek lawyer wasn't aware and well informed of these facts, however he had mentioned several times the tight friendship ties he's having with the General. You know, no case has been raised against Mladic before 1997, Srebrenica happening in Summer 1995, what has this Greek lawyer come to see Mladic for then if it's not friendship and sharings of similar political ideas. We have had many "intellectuals" from the Orthodox European countries coming to visit the Serbian forces in Bosnia during the war, some films have been found when they're celebrating with them the occupations of cities followed by horrible massacres, some are even shooting at Sarajevo from surrounding hills showing loads of enthusiasm doing it, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea to provide you with the list of names before you think of granting them a chair, too.
Also, I really have no idea how to interpret your sentence where you're saying that Mr. Lykourezos' views on the Bosnian crisis are shared by much of the Greek population, what does that mean, are you really convinced you're saying something cleaver here? Most of the Arabs believe the NYC 9/11 attack has been done by the Jews, does the simple fact that it is a broadly spread oppinion amongst them mean it is true and that it gives you the sufficient excuse to invite someone sharing these views to a want-to-be democracy and freedom enhancing event???? Sorry, this sentence is very insulting on the contrary and it shows the intellectual level of the organization.
I was hoping this had been a misunderstanding in the first place, but after such a response, I can only express my disappointment and a total discredit of your organization. I don't know what attitude Mr.Wilson would have adopted, knowing his pacifist ideas he'd for sure be giving more importance to our complaints, but I can see the Center is ruled by totally other kind of people now. Bosnian and Croatian people as a whole and hundreds of associations like Mothers of Srebrenica are disapointed and will make everything possible to spread the word and make as many as possible worldwide aware of what kind of ideology and people are being granted chairs by Wilson Center. Of course, it is probably too late to organize anything efficient enough to prevent you from holding this event with the current attendees, but we are not in a hurry, we have the time to work on showing anyone at our reach how Wilson Center is dealing with friends of a person who took part in killing 200,000 Bosnian innocent civilians and wounded or displaced one million more, organizing concentration camps and everything else imaginable to destroy a whole ethnic group! Getting the lost credit back should be impossible for you eventually.
The good thing with the internet is that in the first place it allows a huge diffusion of the information and in the second place it archives everything so nothing is lost, and for the eternity you will have been sitting at the same table as a person like Mr. Lykourezos, choosing to stand for his defense, not hesitating to use arguments a 2nd grader would be ashamed of.
No need to respond, I don't need any useless-discussion answer.


Kind regards,
M.K.

[tempora]

Ja sam zauzeta sa pismom gospodji Beugel, redateljki dokumentarca "Na grcki nacin". Cilj moga pisma ( na kojem jos uvijek radim) bi bio obavjestiti je o spornom slucaju kao i zamoliti je da se ukljuci u isto. Ovo zadnje nemamo pravo traziti ali mozemo pokusati? Imate li nekih ideja, sta je prioritet da napisem u tom pismu. Ja sam se mislila osvrnuti na odgovor ponudjen od organizacije, nekima od vas, medjutim sama nisam dobila odgovor.
Sta i kako dalje? Nastavljamo li sa akcijom ? I kako da se dalje organizujemo?

[Krugman]

Ja sam im danas takodjer poslao mail. Nisam jos nikakav odgovor dobio.

Da li se mogu animirati bosanska udruzenja u Americi da reagiraju. Nasa intervencija bi mogla da napravi razliku jer su argumenti neprikosnoveni. Isto kao u slucaju Darka Trifunovica. Ovo je stvarno sramota. Saljite im mailove.

[IBM]

Zdravo ljudi,

Ovako necete svi ni dobiti odgovor jer WWC odgovara samo ljudima koji su poslali pismo ispred nekog centra, organizacije, institucije itd.
Akcija treba ici u pravcu medija, reagovanje intelektualaca, politicara itd. Tako da treba njih obavijestiti. Nasa uloga ovdje je minimalna ali ne i neprimjetna!
Ja sam ocekivao barem da ce nas sa-x podrzati u ovome,(samo da objave vijest o tome!) no, oni se nisu udostojili ni da odgovore na moj email. Nazalost....

[Bosanac sa dna kace]

[bosn.om]

Zdravo ljudi,

Ovako necete svi ni dobiti odgovor jer WWC odgovara samo ljudima koji su poslali pismo ispred nekog centra, organizacije, institucije itd.
Akcija treba ici u pravcu medija, reagovanje intelektualaca, politicara itd. Tako da treba njih obavijestiti. Nasa uloga ovdje je minimalna ali ne i neprimjetna!
Ja sam ocekivao barem da ce nas sa-x podrzati u ovome,(samo da objave vijest o tome!) no, oni se nisu udostojili ni da odgovore na moj email. Nazalost....

Ma pusti ih prvo da nauce pisati kako treba, nema recenice bez gramaticko-ortografske greske, ako je kom' trebao dokaz da stela radi...il' treba cekati da zavrse s mnogo prioritetnijim vijestima, kao sto su svrab na p... neke od samonazvanih US "manakenki-filmskih zvijezda", ustvari luksuznih drolja. Mozda i ova vijest onda dodje na red, ko zna...

[tempora]

Gospodo, redateljka Ingeborg Beugel je reagovala! Da ne bude zabune, nije reagovala zahvaljujuci meni.
Pozivam vas, da osvjezite ovu akciju svakodnevnim slanjem mailova !!! Znaci, potrebno je da i dalje saljemo mailove a ko ima mogucnost, neka ukljuci i medije te ih obavijesti o ovoj tematici. To: SHARON A. McCARTER
Director, Outreach & Communications
Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars
202.691.4016
[email protected]



From:

Ingeborg Beugel

Director/producer Dutch Public Television (IKON TV)

+ 31 651072443

[email protected]





Amsterdam, March 29th 2008



Dear Mrs. McCarter,



With amazement and astonishment I have seen your correspondence with Mr. Takis Michas (author of the internationally praised book: 'The Unholy Alliance, Greece and Serbia in the 90ies') and with Mr. Ahmet Alibasic, Director of the Center of Advanced Studies in Sarajevo.



As a former correspondent of the War in Former Yugoslavia for the Dutch radio, television and writing press and as a respected documentary maker for Dutch Public television (IKON TV), I consider the position of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars incomprehensible, not to say despicable.



How can a self respecting International Center for Scholars - supported by public money as well as by private donations - for people, who are supposed to seek for scientific and historical truth, invite a person who denies historical facts?



Your argument:



"Although we at the WWICS respect any and all opinions, the Center does not endorse any actions against the principles of freedom, justice and democracy.



The Woodrow Wilson Center respects others opinions and personal choices, and it do not represent or endorse particular political views. Mr. Lykourezos was not asked his political views when he was asked to be a dinner chairman for an event honoring two extraordinary individuals. The Center notes that Mr. Lykourezos' views on the Bosnian crisis of the 1990s are views shared by much of the Greek population and that in fact he has indicated that he had no direct or indirect contact with General Mladic after 1997 or with Slobodan Milosevic after 2000."



is illogical, ridiculous and undermines the very universal values you claim to stand for: freedom, justice and democracy.



1) Inviting an important public person who openly expresses feelings of loyalty, compassion and friendship for war criminals such as Mladic, Karadzic and when he was still alive Milosevic, who are officially accused for war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for The Former Yugoslavia in The Hague and who are after Osama Bin Laden among the most 'internationally wanted' men on this planet, will seriously harm your international reputation.



2) Respecting liberty of speech, opinion and religion - which every Scholar Center should - has internationally acknowledged limits. Drawing the line at 'denial of the holocaust' is obvious. You certainly would. So why do you invite someone who openly denies the atrocities by the Serbs in Srebrenica - which are thoroughly documented as you must be well aware? I invite you to read the Dutch NIOD report on Srebrenica (that caused the Dutch government to fall in 2002) and the report of the Dutch parliamentary inquiry committee - and to look at my documentaries about Srebrenica.

Of course the personal and political views of Mr. Lykourezos should matter to you and even more so: judged by you. I can not imagine that you would invite a well known, maybe even locally 'popular' lawyer or MP who happens to be a neo-Nazi, or a radical fundamentalist Muslim who condones Al Qaida for that matter, to be your dinner chairman at such an important event. Not considering Mr. Lykourezos views on history is in this case many things, but certainly not evidence of respect for democracy and justice.



3) Anyone of those two 'extraordinary individuals', who are invited to a dinner where Mr. Lykourezos will be the chairman, will or should not feel honored at all. On the contrary, if they are as 'extraordinary' as you say, the only thing they can do to save their reputation is to refuse to attend. Accepting any award in the presence of Mr. Lykourezos will totally devaluate their award.



4) Your statement that Mr. Lykourezos views 'are shared by much of the Greek population' is laughable: 'quantity' - the 'majority' of a population – is, as you should know, never evidence of historical truth.

It also shows that you have absolutely no knowledge of what is going on in that region.

It is widely known that for a whole decade the Greek population has been collectively misled by the Greek press which blindly copied the Milosevic's war propaganda – except for some courageous Greek journalists who refused and who pay the price until today. Greece had no correspondents - none - during the war on 'the other side'. Greek journalists only reported biased and one sided from Belgrade and Pale. Therefore the Greek press denied flagrantly facts and figures of the war and supported the Greek authorities who helped Milosevic to oil his war machine – and sabotaged many times investigations of the International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague, to the deep, also well documented, frustration of the head prosecutors Louise Arbour and Carla Del Ponte.



(5) The fact that Mr. Lykourezos has no contact anymore with Mladic or Karadzic has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with anything. I am amazed that you mention this. It is too silly to discuss; I really do not want to sink to such a level.)



All this is very well documented in internationally published articles, studies, in Mr. Takis book and my own film 'The Greek Way', (IKON TV 2002, it will be broadcasted again on national Bosnian TV for the memorial of Srebrenica.) If you are not aware of these publications, how can you be a 'prestigious institution'?

Most Greeks today have more or less accepted that they were very, very wrong at the time. Although it still seems difficult to express that publically and politically - which is indeed worrisome for a full and important member of the EU.

Mr. Lykourezos has not yet openly stated he changed his views.

I can not imagine that a respectable institute like the WWICS, by inviting Mr. Lykourezos (who evidently still represents these proven incorrect views), would want to support this black page in Greece's history.



Last but not least: what about the suffering and the horrors of 'much' of the Bosnian and Kosovo population during the war? What about the Bosnian and Kosovo 'views'? Would the WWICS in the eyes of the world want to support their 'views on ethnical cleansing' or those of Mr. Lykourezos, nowadays a few stubborn Greeks and 'much' of the Serb population?

(The New York Review of Books, Volume LV, Number 5, April 3, 2008, page 4:

"...Serbs do not consider the consequences of their actions. The simple truth that sooner or later you may have to pay for killing women and children and chasing hundreds of thousands of blameless people out of their homes is beyond their comprehension.")



Mr. Lykourezos has not committed any crime, but he should 'pay' for the crimes he condones: by not getting invited by the WWISC.



By the way: 400.000 poor Serb women, children and men were killed or brutally chased form their Croatian homes in the Krajne. The press in Europe never denied that sad part of the war in Former Yugoslavia. The International Criminal Tribunal in The Hague has brought a number of Croatians responsible for these horrors to justice - a fact that Mr. Lykourezos also openly denies.



The climax in my documentary 'The Greek Way' is an interview with Mr. Lykourezos. He answers my questions in his elegant office, surrounded by pictures of himself next to, embraced by and playing chess with the above mentioned three war criminals - his lawyers practice is like a mausoleum of denial. It was a surreal experience. He openly states that he denies the fact that more than 7000 men and boys (and women and children) have been slaughtered in Srebrenica. At the time he used his personal friendship with Milosevic and Karadzic in his electoral campaign to become an MP. When I made my film in 2002, I filmed in Athens in the middle of the Greek local elections. I found a candidate of the PASOK party who wanted to become mayor in a municipality near Athens. Just like Lykourezos at the time, he pictured himself next to Karadzic during his visit to Greece in 1994 - which he had helped organizing – on the cover of his electoral brochure in order to get more votes! My film brought that to light and it did become for a while an embarrassment to Greece.

When my film was broadcasted, it was a shock for many people. Especially for Dutch tourists who always loved Greece, but decided not to go there anymore as long as the majority of the Greek people would deny history - their own history: 20 Greek mercenaries participated in the killings in Srebrenica, but the Greek authorities have shown no interest in pursuing them.

No country can become an adult and self respecting democracy when it denies its own history or the history of other countries. The Dutch know because of our shameful colonial past in Indonesia, the Germans know it too and so should the Greeks and the Americans. (And the Turks, lets not go into the denial of the Armenian Genocide....)

Therefore: if your institute wants to be a supporter of freedom, democracy and justice, you should act accordingly.



The international image of the United States has been seriously damaged in Europe because of Bush and the latest episodes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Very few Dutch believe nowadays in Americas 'good and democratic intentions'. A recent survey among Dutch scholars and students shows that they by far consider America today to be more dangerous for the world than Al Qaida.

Today Holland - and the EU – seems to have very little respect for Americas and NATOs supposed intention to catch Mladic and Karadzic. If you insist on Mr. Lykourezos as your dinner chairman, it will be very difficult for many people to take America's intention to bring Karadzic and Mladic to justice seriously,



I hope Mr. Lykourezos will openly change his views. If he does not, I do hope you will change your mind.

Of course I am willing to send 'The Greek Way' on DVD (I don't have an NTC copy; I hope you can watch it on a computer that is compatible with our system).

I am confident that after seeing this documentary, you will understand how much damage you are about to inflict on your beautiful and respectable institute.

Let me know if you are interested, I'll send it right away.



Sincerely,



Ingeborg Beugel

[nokia6170]

Hajde malo timskog rada...treba pricu bazirati vise sa pravne tacke gledista nego sa moralne...najbitnija stvar u cijeloj ovoj prici nije igranje saha ili da li doticni smatra krvnika prijateljem ili dobrim covjekom, vec cinjenica da on negira genocid.

Zasto najbitnije u ovom kontekstu? zato sto postoje dva zvanicna dokumenta koja potvrdjuju genocid...

1. Presuda Medjunarodnog suda pravde iz febfruara prosle godine
2. Rezolucija kongresa SAD-a koja takodje potvrdjuje genocid u Srebrenici

Znam da smo pisali o ovoj rezoluciji puno ovdje na forumu prije cini mi se dvije tri godine, pa molim lijepo administraciju ili nekoga ko ima dobro sjecanje da iskopa link te rezolucije.

Dakle, sustina je da je nedopustivo da doticna persona negira genocid potvrdjen najvisim aktom medjunarodnog prava te aktom samog americkog Kongresa u sklopu kojeg djeluje i sam taj Centar.

p.s. bilo bi super ako bi ko nasao neki clana na netu gdje doticni negira genocid u Srebrenici

p.s.s. takodje treba napomenuti da je negiranje genocida u mnogim zemljama krivicno djelo, kao sto je slucaj sa Svicarskom i Francuskom u pogledu genocida nad jermenima od strane Turske s pocetka proslog vijeka...

[tempora]

Hajde malo timskog rada...treba pricu bazirati vise sa pravne tacke gledista nego sa moralne...najbitnija stvar u cijeloj ovoj prici nije igranje saha ili da li doticni smatra krvnika prijateljem ili dobrim covjekom, vec cinjenica da on negira genocid.

Zasto najbitnije u ovom kontekstu? zato sto postoje dva zvanicna dokumenta koja potvrdjuju genocid...

1. Presuda Medjunarodnog suda pravde iz febfruara prosle godine
2. Rezolucija kongresa SAD-a koja takodje potvrdjuje genocid u Srebrenici

Znam da smo pisali o ovoj rezoluciji puno ovdje na forumu prije cini mi se dvije tri godine, pa molim lijepo administraciju ili nekoga ko ima dobro sjecanje da iskopa link te rezolucije.

Dakle, sustina je da je nedopustivo da doticna persona negira genocid potvrdjen najvisim aktom medjunarodnog prava te aktom samog americkog Kongresa u sklopu kojeg djeluje i sam taj Centar.

p.s. bilo bi super ako bi ko nasao neki clana na netu gdje doticni negira genocid u Srebrenici

p.s.s. takodje treba napomenuti da je negiranje genocida u mnogim zemljama krivicno djelo, kao sto je slucaj sa Svicarskom i Francuskom u pogledu genocida nad jermenima od strane Turske s pocetka proslog vijeka...

Ako neko ima vremena da pretrazi arhive i stavi na forum ili pp, ja cu preuzeti i proslijediti holandskim medijima jer trenutno na zalost nemam dovoljno vremena da potrazujem te dokumente. Bitno je svakako da nastavimo akciju i da se oglasavamo u sto vecem broju, svakodnevno!

[ivana111]

svaka cast na trudu da se tekst vidi

[IBM]

Ljudi genocid je Srebrenici je pravna istina, dokazana na sud nekoliko puta.Ne pada mi na pamet da nekome sad dokazujem da je ono bio genocid zato nema potrebe da saljemo presude i dekleracije, WWC vrlo dobro zna sta se tamo dogodilo. Nego su oni tvrdoglavi pa nece sad da povuku ovog advokata. Na nama je da vrsimo pritisak koliko mozemo, to je nas posao.

Dakle jedan email dnevno na svaku adresu!

do konacne pobjede!

[tempora]

Ja sam obavijestila svjetski savez BiH dijaspore , te savez BiH gradjana u Holandiji, te ih pozvala da regrutiraju svoje clanove i ukljuce medije u isto. Sve sugestije su dobro dosle.

[melb26sa]

The Library of Congress > THOMAS Home > Bills, Resolutions > Search Results

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill 1 of 113
GPO's PDF Display Congressional Record References Bill Summary & Status Printer Friendly Display - 11,905 bytes.[Help] XML Display
[Help]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the continuing effects of the genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina. (Introduced in House)

HRES 679 IH


110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. RES. 679
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the continuing effects of the genocide , crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 25, 2007
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


RESOLUTION
Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the continuing effects of the genocide , crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Whereas H. Res. 199 and S. Res. 134 (109th Congress) resolved that from April 1992 to November 1995, Serb forces committed aggression and genocide against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its population, with the direct support from authorities in Serbia and Montenegro;

Whereas the perpetrators and the supporters of the aggression and genocide , including the Yugoslav People's Army and its Ministry of Interior, the Army of Republika Srpska, the Police of Republika Srpska, and other regular and paramilitary forces under Serb control, intended to destroy, through slaughter, rape, torture, and expulsion, the unique multiethnic culture of Bosnia and Herzegovina woven through a thousand years of tolerance, respect, mutual trust, and dignified coexistence of all of Bosnia and Herzegovina's ethnically and religiously diverse citizens;

Whereas the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has found numerous Serb political and military officials guilty of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of genocide against the non-Serb population of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina;

Whereas the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in its judgment of February 26, 2007, ruled that the execution of more than 7,000 civilians in and around Srebrenica in July 1995 by the institutions of the then self-styled Republika Srpska entity, and in particular its army and police, was a crime of genocide , as defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ;

Whereas Srebrenica and other areas of eastern Bosnia from which the victims of genocide hail continues to be under the jurisdiction of the Republika Srpska entity and its institutions, especially the Police of Republika Srpska, that committed genocide ;

Whereas the ICJ also ruled that Serbia had violated the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by failing to prevent the genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina and punish its perpetrators;

Whereas the ICJ's judgment declares that significant sections of the documents detailing the proceedings of the Supreme Defense Council of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later Serbia and Montenegro) were redacted and therefore not available to the ICJ at the time of that judgment;

Whereas the findings of the RS Srebrenica Commission report unequivocally stated that Republic of Srpska's Interior Ministry (i.e. the Police of Republika Srpska) has `failed to provide specific data on several hundred individuals deployed in Srebrenica in July 1995 under the direct or indirect auspices of the RS';

Whereas the Office of the High Representative in Bosnia and Herzegovina concluded that the Srebrenica Commission `must complete the list of names, currently standing at 892, of those implicated in the Genocide who are currently employed in BH or Republic of Srpska institutions, and forward a completed list to the BH Prosecutor and to the ICTY.';

Whereas all countries are obliged not to recognize as lawful the situation created by the crime of aggression and the crime of genocide , as well as to cooperate in the application of measures designed to eliminate the consequences of such crimes;

Whereas the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina (commonly referred to as the `Dayton Peace Accords'), that was made possible through the strong leadership of the United States, ended the aggression, genocide , war crimes, and crimes against humanity against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its non-Serb population, but it failed to achieve its intended goal of reversing the effects of those crimes;

Whereas due to the failure to ensure sustainable return of refugees and displaced persons to their homes of origins, as guaranteed by Annex VII of the Dayton Peace Accords, the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Annex IV of the Dayton Peace Accords) has evolved into an ethno-territorial arrangement that now institutionalizes the results of the genocide , crimes against humanity, and war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

Whereas one of the most ominous of the ethno-territorial provisions of this Constitution is an entity voting mechanism, which allows a small number of Serb deputies from Republika Srpska in the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina, constituting less than one-quarter of the Parliament, to block any proposed legislation or decision;

Whereas the entity voting mechanism has been used to block various crucial State-level legislation, including the proposed changes to the Citizenship Law of Bosnia and Herzegovina which in its current form threatens to permanently deny over 500,000 Bosnians their Bosnian citizenship, effectively continuing the project of genocide and ethnic cleansing;

Whereas 300,000 Bosnian-Americans live in the United States as fully engaged citizens with a significant potential to further strengthen the ties between the United States and Bosnia and Herzegovina;

Whereas the political leadership of the Republika Srpska entity has continuously blocked all attempts to move beyond the ethno-territorial basis of the Dayton Constitution and create a fully democratic and functioning system of government, as has been demonstrated by, among other things, the Republika Srpska entity's unwillingness to agree to the reform of the police force structures within Bosnia and Herzegovina in line with the standards demanded by the European Union;

Whereas Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina need `a stronger energetic state capable of advancing the public good' and pledged that the United States will remain a dedicated partner to Bosnia and Herzegovina as it moves toward further Euro-Atlantic integration;

Whereas Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns has unequivocally stated that the Dayton Peace Accords `cannot be the way that the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina organize themselves for the next ten years' and that `it is time for [the people of] Bosnia and Herzegovina ... to go beyond the Dayton Accords and to build a modern constitutional state';

Whereas the European Parliament and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have recently adopted Resolutions calling for an in-depth reform of the Dayton constitutional arrangements, and particularly for the reduction and elimination of the entity voting mechanism;

Whereas there continues to be, within Republika Srpska ethnic exclusivity, which has effectively discouraged and prevented the return of the ethnically-cleansed non-Serb population to this region of Bosnia and Herzegovina; and

Whereas the constitutional arrangements of Bosnia and Herzegovina must satisfy the interests of all of its people by guaranteeing full civil, cultural, individual, and religious rights to all citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and promoting the integration of the entire region of Southeast Europe into the Euro-Atlantic political and security structures: Now, therefore, be it


Resolved, That--

(1) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--

(A) Bosnia and Herzegovina should begin the process of adopting a new constitution that is based on civic representation and that fully eliminates the ethno-territorial arrangements which reflect and institutionalize the effects of the genocide , war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina;

(B) the new constitution should advance the principles of civic democracy, full equality of citizens, tolerance and protection of all ethnic groups, and should reflect the highest standards of individual human rights and liberties;

(C) the new constitution should eliminate the ethnic power-sharing principles that reflect the ethnic divisions imposed by the perpetrators of the genocide , crimes against humanity, and war crimes;

(D) the new constitution must restructure the ethno-territorial organization of Bosnia and Herzegovina and eliminate its division into entities, cantons, and municipalities with a view to creating a single, unified economic space and increasing efficiency and sustainability of the country and its governing apparatus;

(E) the entity voting mechanism, which has proved to be a serious obstacle to the functioning of Bosnia and Herzegovina's Parliament, must be eliminated;

(F) Srebrenica and other areas of eastern Bosnia should be placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the institutions of Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to ensure that the situation created by genocide is not recognized as lawful;

(G) the police reform in Bosnia and Herzegovina must create a single police structure, replacing entity police forces with a single police at the state level, and in particular eliminating the Police of the Republika Srpska entity, which was identified in the ICJ judgment as one of the institutions of Republika Srpska that participated in the commission of the crime of genocide ;

(H) the Republika Srpska entity cannot persist under its current name which represents the ethnically-exclusive political philosophy of its founders and which perpetuates the effects of the genocide and ethnic cleansing;

(I) Serbia must immediately honor its international legal obligations towards Bosnia and Herzegovina, stemming from the Convention on the Prevention and the Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the ICJ judgment, by immediately apprehending and transferring to the ICTY all individuals indicted for participating in the commission of the crime of genocide , particularly Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic; and

(J) it is in the national interest of the United States that all individuals who are responsible for war crimes, genocide , and crimes against humanity in Bosnia and Herzegovina should be held accountable for their actions, and the Republika Srpska entity, Serbia, and Montenegro must therefore fully cooperate with the ICTY;

(2) the United States reaffirms its strongest support for the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and supports the transformation of Bosnia and Herzegovina into a state with governmental institutions commensurate with EU and NATO membership, as this will ensure a lasting peace and greater prosperity for all of the people and states of the entire region; and

(3) the House of Representatives calls for an immediate, refocused, and concentrated diplomatic effort by the United States to achieve the objectives stated in this Resolution in order to achieve definitive success in reversing the effects of genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina and building a modern, functional, self-sustainable, and a fully democratic state.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT GO TO
Next Hit Forward New Bills Search
Prev Hit Back HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Help
Contents Display
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THOMAS Home | Contact | Accessibility | Legal | USA.gov
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c ... c110MW0O39::

[melb26sa]

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)

See also : Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina)


Application Incidental Proceedings Merits Written Proceedings Oral Proceedings Other documents Orders Judgments Summaries of Judgments and Orders Press releases


Press Release 2007/8

26 February 2007

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide ( Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro )
The Court affirms that it has jurisdiction to deal with the case
The Court finds that Serbia has violated its obligation under the Genocide Convention to prevent genocide in Srebrenica and that it has also violated its obligations under the Convention by having failed fully to co-operate with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)






THE HAGUE, 26 February 2007. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), principal judicial organ of the United Nations, today rendered its Judgment in the case concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro).

In its Judgment, which is final, binding and without appeal, the Court

“(1) by ten votes to five,

Rejects the objections contained in the final submissions made by the Respondent to the effect that the Court has no jurisdiction; and affirms that it has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to adjudicate upon the dispute brought before it on 20 March 1993 by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina;

in favour: President Higgins; Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna; Judge ad hoc Mahiou;

against: Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Skotnikov; Judge ad hoc Kreća;

(2) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that Serbia has not committed genocide, through its organs or persons whose acts engage its responsibility under customary international law, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

in favour: President Higgins; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov; Judge ad hoc Kreća;

against: Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judge ad hoc Mahiou;

(3) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

in favour: President Higgins; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov; Judge ad hoc Kreća;

against: Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judge ad hoc Mahiou;

(4) by eleven votes to four,

Finds that Serbia has not been complicit in genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide;

in favour: President Higgins; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Sepúlveda-Amor, Skotnikov; Judge ad hoc Kreća;

against: Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Keith, Bennouna; Judge ad hoc Mahiou;

(5) by twelve votes to three,

Finds that Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995;

in favour: President Higgins; Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Owada, Simma, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna; Judge ad hoc Mahiou;

against: Judges Tomka, Skotnikov; Judge ad hoc Kreća;

(6) by fourteen votes to one,

Finds that Serbia has violated its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by having failed to transfer Ratko Mladić, indicted for genocide and complicity in genocide, for trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and thus having failed fully to co-operate with that Tribunal;

in favour: President Higgins; Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov; Judge ad hoc Mahiou;

against: Judge ad hoc Kreća;

(7) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that Serbia has violated its obligation to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Court on 8 April and 13 September 1993 in this case, inasmuch as it failed to take all measures within its power to prevent genocide in Srebrenica in July 1995;

in favour: President Higgins; Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna; Judge ad hoc Mahiou;

against: Judge Skotnikov; Judge ad hoc Kreća;

(8) by fourteen votes to one,

Decides that Serbia shall immediately take effective steps to ensure full compliance with its obligation under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to punish acts of genocide as defined by Article II of the Convention, or any of the other acts proscribed by Article III of the Convention, and to transfer individuals accused of genocide or any of those other acts for trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and to co-operate fully with that Tribunal;

in favour: President Higgins; Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov; Judge ad hoc Mahiou;

against: Judge ad hoc Kreća;

(9) by thirteen votes to two,

Finds that, as regards the breaches by Serbia of the obligations referred to in subparagraphs (5) and (7) above, the Court’s findings in those paragraphs constitute appropriate satisfaction, and that the case is not one in which an order for payment of compensation, or, in respect of the violation referred to in subparagraph (5), a direction to provide assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, would be appropriate.

in favour: President Higgins; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov; Judge ad hoc Kreća;

against: Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judge ad hoc Mahiou.”

History of the proceedings

The whole procedural history of the case may be found in Press Release No. 2006/9 of 27 February 2006.

Reasoning of the Court

- Identification of the respondent party

The proceedings were instituted against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (later “Serbia and Montenegro”), which then consisted of the two Republics of Serbia and Montenegro. Since Montenegro became an independent State on 3 June 2006, the Court first needs to identify the Respondent in the current proceedings. Having considered the views of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro, it concludes that the Republic of Serbia is at the date of the present Judgment the only Respondent. It however recalls that any responsibility for past events determined in its Judgment involved at the relevant time the State of Serbia and Montenegro.

- The Court’s jurisdiction

The Court examines the jurisdictional objection raised by the Respondent in its 2001 Initiative, in which it claimed that its admission to the United Nations in 2000 had shown that it had not been a Member of the United Nations from 1992 to 2000 and that it was thus not a party to the Statute of the Court when the case was filed in 1993.

After consideration of the Parties’ arguments, the Court recalls that it had already decided that it had jurisdiction in the present case in its Judgment on preliminary objections of 11 July 1996, and finds that this decision constituted res judicata, i.e. was not open to re-examination except by way of revision under Article 61 of the Statute. The Court notes that the Respondent already applied for revision of the 1996 Judgment in 2001 and that this Application was dismissed by the Court in a Judgment of 3 February 2003. The Court accordingly affirms its jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute.

- The applicable law

The Court goes on to address the issue of the applicable law and notes that its jurisdiction in the case is based solely on Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948 (“the Genocide Convention”). This means that the Court has power to rule on alleged breaches of obligations imposed by the Genocide Convention, but not on breaches of other obligations under international law, such as those protecting human rights in armed conflict, even if these breaches are of obligations under peremptory norms, or of obligations which protect essential humanitarian values.

The Respondent argued that “the Genocide Convention does not provide for the responsibility of States for acts of genocide”. After examination of all the relevant articles of the Convention, the Court finds that the obligation on States to prevent genocide under Article I of the Convention necessarily implies a prohibition against States themselves committing genocide, and that, if an organ of the State, or a person or group whose acts are attributable to the State, commits an act of genocide or a related act enumerated in Article III of the Convention, the international responsibility of the State is incurred. The Court observes in that respect that States can be held responsible for genocide or for complicity in genocide, even if no individual has previously been convicted of the crime by a competent court.

Reviewing other legal requirements of the Convention, the Court observes that for particular acts to be qualified as genocide, they must be accompanied by the intent to destroy the protected group, in whole or in part, as such. It stresses the difference between genocide and “ethnic cleansing”: while “ethnic cleansing” can be carried out by the displacement of a group of persons from a specific area, genocide is defined by the above-mentioned specific intent to destroy the group or part of it. The Court considers that the targeted group must be defined by particular positive characteristics - national, ethnical, racial or religious - and not by the lack of them. It therefore rejects the negative definition of the group advanced by the Applicant as the “non-Serb” population, and concludes that, for the purposes of the case, the group must be defined as the “Bosnian Muslims” in view of the very limited reference by the Applicant to other non-Serb groups.

- Questions of proof

With respect to the burden of proof, the Court reiterates that the Applicant must establish its case and that any party stating a fact must establish it.

Concerning the standard of proof, the Court requires that allegations that the crime of genocide or related acts enumerated in Article III of the Convention have been committed must be proved by evidence that is fully conclusive. As far as breaches of the obligation to prevent genocide and to punish and extradite perpetrators are concerned, the Court requires proof at a high level of certainty appropriate to the seriousness of the allegation.

With regard to the method of proof, the Court indicates that it will make its own determinations of fact based on the evidence presented, while accepting relevant findings of fact of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) at trial as highly persuasive. It will also give a certain weight to a statement of agreed facts and a sentencing judgment of the ICTY following a guilty plea. The Court also comments on a number of other sources of evidence and outlines the criteria upon which the value of these sources will be assessed. It notes that the report of the United Nations Secretary-General entitled “The Fall of Srebrenica” has considerable authority.

- The facts invoked by the Applicant

Before turning to the allegations of fact advanced by Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Court briefly outlines the background of the case relating to the break-up of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) and defines the different entities involved in the events complained of. The Court then examines the links between the Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) and the authorities of the Republika Srpska (which was the self-proclaimed “Republic of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina”). The Court finds that the FRY made its considerable military and financial support available to the Republika Srpska and that, had it withdrawn that support, this would have greatly constrained the options available to the Republika Srpska authorities.

The Court then sets out to examine the facts alleged by Bosnia and Herzegovina in order to decide: (1) whether the alleged atrocities occurred and, if established, (2) whether the facts establish the existence of an intent, on the part of the perpetrators, to destroy in whole or part the group of the Bosnian Muslims.

The Court makes long and detailed findings of fact on the alleged atrocities which are grouped according to the categories of prohibited acts described in Article II of the Genocide Convention.

With respect to “killing members of the protected group” (Article II (a) of the Convention), the Court finds that it is established by overwhelming evidence that massive killings throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina were perpetrated during the conflict. However, the Court is not convinced that those killings were accompanied by the specific intent on the part of the perpetrators to destroy, in whole or in part, the group of Bosnian Muslims. It acknowledges that the killings may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity, but that it has no jurisdiction to determine whether this is so.

The Court turns to the massacre at Srebrenica and carefully examines the evidence regarding that event, including the fact that the ICTY found in the Krstić and Blagojević cases that Bosnian Serb forces killed over 7,000 Bosnian Muslim men following the takeover of Srebrenica in July 1995. The Court concludes that both killings and acts causing serious bodily or mental harm occurred. The Court finds that the Main Staff of the VRS (the army of the Republika Srpska) had the necessary specific intent to destroy in part the group of Bosnian Muslims (specifically the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica) and that accordingly acts of genocide were committed by the VRS in or around Srebrenica from about 13 July 1995.

The Court then proceeds to examine evidence of acts “causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the protected group” (Article II (b) of the Convention). It finds that the Bosnian Muslims were systematically victims of massive mistreatment, beatings, rape and torture causing serious bodily and mental harm during the conflict. However, it finds that the specific intent to destroy the protected group is not conclusively established.

The Court then examines alleged acts of “deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part” (Article II (c) of the Convention). It finds that there is conclusive evidence that the alleged acts were committed, but that the necessary specific intent is not established.



With respect to Articles II (d) and (e) of the Convention - “imposing measures to prevent births within the protected group” and “forcibly transferring children of the protected group to another group” -, the Court cannot find that the evidence is sufficient to establish that such acts occurred.

The Court then finds that the Applicant has not demonstrated any overall plan to commit genocide on the basis of the 1992 Strategic Goals issued by the authorities of the Republika Srpska. It also rejects Bosnia and Herzegovina’s claim that the very pattern of the atrocities committed over many communities, over a lengthy period, focussed on Bosnian Muslims, can demonstrate the necessary specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part.

- The question of responsibility for events at Srebrenica under Article III, paragraph (a), of the Convention

Having concluded that acts of genocide were committed at Srebrenica by the army of the Republika Srpska, the Court turns to the question of whether the Respondent was legally responsible for these acts. In the light of the information available to it, the Court finds that the acts of those who committed genocide at Srebrenica cannot be attributed to the Respondent under the rules of international law of State responsibility. In particular, the Court concludes, judging on the basis of the materials before it, that the acts of genocide cannot be attributed to the Respondent as having been committed by persons or entities ranking as organs of the Respondent. The Court also finds that it has not been established that those massacres were committed on the instructions, or under the direction of the Respondent nor that the Respondent exercised effective control over the operations in the course of which the massacres were committed.

- The question of responsibility under paragraphs (b) to (e) of Article III of the Convention

The Court notes that the acts enumerated in paragraphs (b) to (d) of Article III are not relevant in the present case. With respect to paragraph (e) (complicity in genocide), the Court notes that there is little doubt that the atrocities in Srebrenica were committed, at least in part, with the resources which the perpetrators possessed as a result of the general policy of aid and assistance by the FRY. However, one of the very specific conditions for the legal responsibility of the Respondent is not fulfilled since it has not been conclusively established that, at the crucial time, the FRY supplied aid to the perpetrators of the genocide in full awareness that the aid supplied would be used to commit genocide.

- The question of responsibility for breach of the obligations to prevent and punish genocide (Article I of the Convention)

With respect to the obligation to prevent genocide, the Court states inter alia that the obligation is one of conduct and not one of result: responsibility is not incurred simply because genocide occurs but rather if the State manifestly failed to take all measures to prevent genocide which were within its power, and which might have contributed to preventing the genocide. The Court also notes that a State can be held responsible only if a genocide was actually committed, and that thus it will consider the Respondent’s conduct only in connection with the Srebrenica massacres. Finally, it is sufficient that the State was aware, or should normally have been aware, of the serious danger that acts of genocide would be committed.

The Court observes that the FRY was in a position of influence over the Bosnian Serbs who devised and implemented the genocide in Srebrenica, owing to the strength of the political, military and financial links between the FRY on the one hand and the Republika Srpska and the VRS on the other. The Court further recalls that although it has not found that the information available to the Belgrade authorities indicated, as a matter of certainty, that genocide was imminent, they could hardly have been unaware of the serious risk of it. In the view of the Court, the Yugoslav federal





authorities should have made the best efforts within their power to try and prevent the tragic events then taking shape, whose scale might have been surmised. Yet the Respondent has not shown that it took any initiative to prevent what happened, or any action on its part to avert the atrocities which were committed.

The Court concludes that the Respondent did nothing to prevent the Srebrenica massacres and that it thus violated its obligation to prevent genocide in such a manner as to engage its international responsibility under Article I of the Genocide Convention.

Regarding the obligation to punish perpetrators of genocide, the Court states that under Article VI of the Convention, States have an obligation to co-operate with “such international penal tribunal as may have jurisdiction” in the relevant matter, and considers that the ICTY constitutes such an international penal tribunal. The Court further observes that there is plentiful, and mutually corroborative, information suggesting that General Mladić, indicted by the ICTY for genocide, as one of those principally responsible for the Srebrenica massacres, was on the territory of the Respondent at least on several occasions and for substantial periods during the last few years and is still there now, without the Serb authorities doing what they could and can reasonably do to ascertain exactly where he is living and arrest him.

The Court thus finds that it is sufficiently established that the Respondent failed in its duty to co-operate fully with the ICTY. It concludes that this failure constitutes a violation by the Respondent of its duties under Article VI of the Genocide Convention.

- The question of responsibility for breach of the Court’s Orders indicating provisional measures

Finally, the Court finds that in respect of the massacres at Srebrenica in July 1995, the Respondent failed to fulfil the obligations indicated in the Court’s Order of 8 April 1993 and reaffirmed in its Order of 13 September 1993 to take all measures within its power to prevent commission of the crime of genocide and to ensure that any organizations and persons which may be subject to its influence do not commit any acts of genocide.

- The question of reparation

Having made its findings, the Court turns to Bosnia and Herzegovina’s request for reparation. With respect to the violation of the obligation to prevent genocide, the Court finds that, since it has not been shown that the genocide at Srebrenica would in fact have been averted if the Respondent had attempted to prevent it, financial compensation for the failure to prevent the genocide at Srebrenica is not the appropriate form of reparation. The Court considers that the most appropriate form of satisfaction would be a declaration in the operative clause of the Judgment that the Respondent has failed to comply with the obligation to prevent the crime of genocide.

As for the violation of the obligation to punish acts of genocide, the Court finds that a declaration in the operative clause that the Respondent is in breach of the Convention and that it has klix obligations as regards the transfer to the ICTY of persons accused of genocide would be appropriate satisfaction.

Finally, with regard to the breach of the Court’s Orders indicating provisional measures, the Court decides to include in the operative clause a declaration that the Respondent has failed to comply with the Court’s Orders indicating provisional measures.

Composition of the Court

The Court was composed as follows: President Higgins; Vice-President Al-Khasawneh; Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, Owada, Simma, Tomka, Abraham, Keith, Sepúlveda-Amor, Bennouna, Skotnikov; Judges ad hoc Mahiou, Kreća; Registrar Couvreur.



Vice-President Al-Khasawneh appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of the Court; Judges Ranjeva, Shi and Koroma append a joint dissenting opinion; Judge Ranjeva appends a separate opinion; Judges Shi and Koroma append a joint declaration; Judges Owada and Tomka append separate opinions; Judges Keith, Bennouna and Skotnikov append declarations; Judge ad hoc Mahiou appends a dissenting opinion; Judge ad hoc Kreća appends a separate opinion.

___________


A summary of the Judgment appears in the document “Summary No. 2007/2”, to which summaries of the declarations and opinions are annexed. In addition, the press release, the summary and the full text of the Judgment can be found on the Court’s website (http://www.icj-cij.org).

http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php ... tenegro%22

[Bosanac sa dna kace]

ja cu men se cini pocet skupljat bosancerose u Istanbulu da idemo protestvovat pred patrijarsiju na Vaskrs , nek nas bude 5-10, bilo bi super

[losha]

ja cu men se cini pocet skupljat bosancerose u Istanbulu da idemo protestvovat pred patrijarsiju na Vaskrs , nek nas bude 5-10, bilo bi super

Protiv cega protestvujete?