lokii
Commanding Moderator
Posts: 126
|
Post by lokii on Jan 4, 2013 16:36:46 GMT -5
BELGRADE -- Hague Tribunal Chief Prosecutor Serge Brammertz has stated that evidence summarized on 1,300 pages was enough to unanimously convict two Croat generals.However, Brammertz said that one needed to accept the fact that three out of five judges did not see it that way. “ You will not be surprised that, in out opinion, evidence presented during the two-year trial and summarized on 1,300 pages in the initial verdict was enough to unanimously confirm the guilty verdict. However, we need to accept that three out of five judges saw it differently,” Brammertz told daily Večernje novosti. “ I understand emotional reactions in Serbia, especially because there is no doubt that crimes were committed during events that the verdict refers to. During the entire appeals proceeding in the Gotovina case we were explaining to the Appeals Chamber why we believed there was enough evidence to confirm the unanimous initial verdict of the court. The fact that the appeals verdict was made by a minimal number of judges necessary for the majority and that it was accompanied by separate opinions probably contributed to negative perception in Serbia,” the Hague Tribunal prosecutor was quoted as saying. “I would not say that the international justice has shown weakness. The majority of judges delivered a verdict in which they tried to apply rules and procedures that regulate appeal proceedings in the international court. However, the public reaction showed that there is a gap between the decision making process and the verdict on one side and the manner in which they are understood by the community and victims, and external factors on the other,” he underlined. When asked why he decided to voice his opinion, bearing in mind that he usually does not comment on verdicts, he said that he wanted to show respect for the victims’ suffering. “ The reality is such that the crimes were really committed and justice has not been served in the eyes of the victims and their families. Then, circumstances of the verdict, especially the sharp tone of the two dissenting opinions are unusual. Finally, I wanted to encourage the domestic judicial organs to continue investigations and persecution of crimes committed before and after the Operation Storm and to express my readiness to help them by giving them information from our data bases,” Brammerty said. “ The Prosecutor's Office can launch a retrial procedure within a period of one year as of the final verdict, but the motion will be approved only if there are proofs of new facts that the parties were not familiar with during the procedure, and which could have a considerable impact on the verdict,” he added.
He said that Serbia was not a party in the proceeding and therefore had no legal options in terms of the verdict. When asked how in concrete terms he saw Belgrade's decision to lower the relations with the Hague Tribunal to a technical level, Brammertz said that over the years efficient channels of cooperation with the authorities in Serbia had been established. “As I said in our report to the Security Council, this cooperation will remain important in the context of latest trials. Based on my recent talks with Serbian officials, I believe that this cooperation will continue,” the chief prosecutor concluded. www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes-article.php?yyyy=2013&mm=01&dd=04&nav_id=83989
|
|
|
Post by dalmatino on Jan 6, 2013 19:05:44 GMT -5
THE GROUNDS OF GOTOVINA'S CONVICTION:
The generals were found guilty of a JCE to remove Serbs from Croatia by means of an artillery barrage. The judges infamously established a 200 metre rule in which some 95% or so of shells fell within that range. Those that did not fall within that range - 5% or so - were considered unlawful and form the basis of the JCE. i.e. the intent was to frighten the Serb population into leaving.
Military Law Review and Major General Walter B. Huffman’s analysis of the Gotovina et al. ruling. Huffman is not someone to be ignored. He’s the former Judge Advocate General of the U.S. Army and currently Dean Emeritus and Professor of Law at the Texas Tech University School of Law. He has also commanded field artillery in both the United States and in combat in Vietnam. He is a man eminently qualified to comment on a conviction that “turns on the lawfulness vel non of the artillery fires against targets in the Krajina”.
ERROR OF LAW
“Neither the evidence in the record of trial nor field artillery doctrine and practice supports the court’s 200 meter standard. None of the military experts who testified at trial were asked to comment on a 200 meter standard or asked what an appropriate standard might be. Neither the prosecution nor the defense appears to have anticipated the court’s invention of, or reliance upon, this rigid accuracy standard. In fact, the court itself does not clearly explain the origin or basis of its 200 meter rule. Artillery experts, both prosecution and defense, reviewed the standard during appellate motions and unanimously agreed that this standard of accuracy is operationally and technically impossible to achieve, even under ideal conditions.”
“The 200 meter rule is not only operationally unrealistic, but also inconsistent with the existing legal framework. Targeting law focuses on intent at the time the decision to attack was made, not on a post hoc analysis of the accuracy of fires.”
“Gotovina could not have known that his indirect fires would be judged after the fact by this impossibly stringent standard of accuracy. The 200 meter rule’s variance from existing law and lack of legal or operational precedent raises serious and fundamental legal concerns.”
“…the Law of Armed Conflict focuses the culpability determination on the commander’s intent, not what happened in the exigencies of combat. And on this point, the conflicting evidence cannot be said to reach the criminal law standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or even a less probative standard.”
“…international humanitarian law adopts a posture of deference to the operational perspective of the combatants, who must apply its standards in the difficult circumstances of battle. Judicial decisions in this area of practice, to be credible, must be solidly based on current legal standards and give appropriate respect to the good faith judgment of combat commanders.”
“…proportionality judgments are to be based on information available at the time the targeting decision is made and not on the actual effects of the attack viewed in hindsight…. The law does not require the commander always to be right; instead it requires a good faith judgment based on information available in the heat of battle. Civilian casualties, property destruction, and impact locations viewed in hindsight are not enough to prove a commander guilty of indiscriminate attacks. The results of an attack are but one factor from which intent at the time of attack may be inferred.”
“…the court impermissibly placed the burden of proof on the defense…”
“…the Trial Chamber relied on an operationally invalid standard of accuracy that also transgresses fundamental and universally recognized principles of criminal law.
Huffman also notes that while the court had no qualms creating “a new strict liability standard for shelling in urban settings” and expanding “existing criminal liability for shelling well beyond any previous standard”, it did not apply such strict and measurable requirements to its own judgements. Indeed, “the court’s findings of wrongful intent were based on a sample of less than 13% of the rounds fired—how much less, the court could not say.” And its assessment of how many shells violated the 200 metre rule was merely “too many”.
Furthermore, this rule was “neither litigated by the parties nor raised by the prosecution at trial”. It is an invention of the court and the conviction of General Gotovina depends on it. Even though creating “a more stringent standard of substantive law exceeds the permissible role of any international tribunal” that is what has happened. The ICTY’s creation of an “arbitrary and unrealistic” post hoc 200 metre “standard of criminal liability”, goes “far beyond the framework of existing law”. And there is the danger that this “temptingly simple” rule will in the future be used “as a universal standard of accuracy”.
In short, the 200 metre rule:
• is operationally and technically impossible even in ideal conditions; • inconsistent with existing legal frameworks; • irrationally infers intent from post hoc analysis of shell fire; • shifts the burden of proof to the defence; • creates one stringent rule for military commanders while upholding contrastingly indeterminate assessments by the court; and • goes well beyond the permissible role of an international tribunal.
|
|
|
Post by dalmatino on Jan 6, 2013 19:43:33 GMT -5
In summary, ‘Oluja’ commanded by Ante Gotovina was a well planned and executed military four day operation aimed at restoring lawful control within Croatia's sovereign borders, not only that of the self proclaimed 'krajina entity' but also the 1/3 of Croatian territories siezed by serbian paramilty forces over a four year campaign of murder and ethnic cleansing. Crimes were perpetrated by individuals during Oluja and they should face justice and indeed most have been tried and convicted. However, Gotovina's professionalism and initiatives such as those in creating a safe corridor for the several hundred thousand fleeing serb civilians, ensuring a minimal loss of life. The professionalism and conduct of the vast majority of the Croatian army is evidenced by this fact and also that of the damage inflicted on Knin itself, which is in stark contrast to that of the drunken killing spree, the mass graves of Croats at Ovcara, and the destruction of Vukovar. Knin 1995 Vukovar 1991 Oluja was a fast and decisive victory with minimal collateral damage, it brought about an immediate cessation to hostilities, an end to the endless cycle of rape, killings, mass graves, destruction and suffering of civilians on all sides for four long years. Hell, Gotovina should never have even gone to trial. The Gotovina scalp is important to serbs because they need a 'big fish' so to speak, as is the case with many high profile serb leaders currently on trial, because in doing so it would reduce or remove the culpability of Serbia in having instigated a devastating war. Unfortunately for you it won't be forthcoming.
|
|
|
Post by littleboyfatman on Jan 10, 2013 2:49:52 GMT -5
they got justice...
this is it...
i know its hard for serbians to understand becouse of their iq...
that justice doesnt mean pro serbian...
|
|