|
Post by SKORIC on Feb 2, 2009 22:53:15 GMT -5
|
|
CiKoLa
Amicus
Gotovina Heroj!
Posts: 3,728
|
Post by CiKoLa on Feb 2, 2009 23:17:14 GMT -5
was ordered to pay the court costs of the Republic of Croatia
Thats gotta hurt. Apparently a sum of 192 000. Skoro u gonna chip in?
|
|
|
Post by SKORIC on Feb 2, 2009 23:22:47 GMT -5
Wanna go halves?
|
|
|
Post by vinjak on Feb 3, 2009 0:45:46 GMT -5
I really dont understand how can he be held liable for croatia's court costs ?
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Feb 3, 2009 0:49:20 GMT -5
Because "Croatia" is a very corrupt "country" with a crooked judicial system... it is especially crooked when it "deals" with its ethnic Serb "minority".
|
|
|
Post by SKORIC on Feb 3, 2009 1:00:27 GMT -5
I really dont understand how can he be held liable for croatia's court costs ? Its the same country that wants 50 billion from Serbia LOL
|
|
CiKoLa
Amicus
Gotovina Heroj!
Posts: 3,728
|
Post by CiKoLa on Feb 3, 2009 1:57:16 GMT -5
I really dont understand how can he be held liable for croatia's court costs ? Its actually the court costs of the Commonwealth of Australia (prosecution) representing the Republic of Croatia. In Australia when u lose, u have to pay the other sides legal costs. Official judgement: www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2009/30.htmlThe Croatian judiciary 83. The Court has before it evidence which suggests that the Republic of Croatia has undertaken law reform in order to meet the preconditions for its admission to European Union Membership. The September 2006 OSCE Report states in respect of domestic war crimes trials in the Republic of Croatia: There are indications over the past year of an increasingly objective and impartial approach by prosecutors, judges, and police. This has entailed repudiating a past policy of politicized prosecution largely determined by the ethnic origin of victims and military affiliation of defendants in favour or even-handed prosecution. 84. The OSCE report entitled ‘Background Report: ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) Cases Involving Croatia as of August 2005’ records that the ECHR has stated that at least prospectively ‘the Constitutional Court can now be regarded as an effective remedy for an increased number of categories of fair trial issues’. The September 2006 OSCE Report also refers to co-operation in war crimes trials between the Republic of Croatia with regional States including Serbia, and with the ICTY. The report cites a matter in which the ICTY referred a war crimes matter to the Republic of Croatia, it having been satisfied that ‘there are appropriate measures now in place to ensure a fair trial’. 85. Other reforms have been made in the Republic of Croatia. For example, as referred to in the September 2006 OSCE Report, the county courts of Osijek, Rijeka, Split and Zagreb have been granted extra-territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon war crimes, thereby removing proceedings from local courts in areas most directly affected by the conflict. The Chief State Attorney may initiate proceedings at these courts with the consent of the President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia. 86. The Court has before it evidence that the Attorney General of the Republic of Croatia has assured the Attorney General of Australia that he will make a request to the President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia that the trial of the applicant be held before one of the above four courts having extra-territorial jurisdiction. The assurances so given give rise to the presumption that the Republic of Croatia is acting in good faith: see Ahmad et al v The Government of the United States of America [2006] EWHC 2927 (Admin) per Laws LJ at [74], [76]. 87. In Travica Laws LJ observed at [34] that the conflict between Serbia and the Republic of Croatia and its after-effects have been ‘especially acute In the Krajina region’. However, Laws LJ also observed at [35] that such circumstance did not by itself constitute a claim of prejudice ‘not least when set against the signs of improvement in the conduct of prosecutions which I have surveyed, and which cannot have failed altogether to touch the Krajina region’. At [30] Laws LJ also made comment of the ‘signal progress made in Croatia towards a justice system which meets international standards’. His Lordship’s observations are consistent with the evidence contained in the reports referred to above.
|
|
|
Post by SKORIC on Feb 3, 2009 2:30:19 GMT -5
Daniel Snedden or Captain Dragan Vasiljkovic is a 51 year old gentleman who first gained notoriety during the Balkan Wars. Kapetan Dragan as he was known then, lead the special unit from Krajina in a disciplined and coordinated manner which in turn lead to many successful missions and becoming one of Serbia's National Heroes in a time of deep depression.
It was during the ten years after the war though, when he cemented himself in the hearts of Serbians, as he raised millions of dollars to help rehabilitate and educate 67 000 victims of war and ex soldiers and provided support, scholarships and financial assistance to 14 000 children and orphans through the Foundation Kapetan Dragan. This was the biggest foundation of its kind in Balkan History.Kapetan Dragan and his Knindze during the warKapetan Dragan returns to Krajinaau.youtube.com/watch?v=hQoiDH2E32YDragan before the war.
|
|
CiKoLa
Amicus
Gotovina Heroj!
Posts: 3,728
|
Post by CiKoLa on Feb 3, 2009 2:36:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Novus Dis on Feb 3, 2009 4:07:37 GMT -5
Official judgement: www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/2009/30.htmlThe Croatian judiciary 83. The Court has before it evidence which suggests that the Republic of Croatia has undertaken law reform in order to meet the preconditions for its admission to European Union Membership. The September 2006 OSCE Report states in respect of domestic war crimes trials in the Republic of Croatia: There are indications over the past year of an increasingly objective and impartial approach by prosecutors, judges, and police. This has entailed repudiating a past policy of politicized prosecution largely determined by the ethnic origin of victims and military affiliation of defendants in favour or even-handed prosecution. 84. The OSCE report entitled ‘Background Report: ECHR (European Court of Human Rights) Cases Involving Croatia as of August 2005’ records that the ECHR has stated that at least prospectively ‘the Constitutional Court can now be regarded as an effective remedy for an increased number of categories of fair trial issues’. The September 2006 OSCE Report also refers to co-operation in war crimes trials between the Republic of Croatia with regional States including Serbia, and with the ICTY. The report cites a matter in which the ICTY referred a war crimes matter to the Republic of Croatia, it having been satisfied that ‘there are appropriate measures now in place to ensure a fair trial’. 85. Other reforms have been made in the Republic of Croatia. For example, as referred to in the September 2006 OSCE Report, the county courts of Osijek, Rijeka, Split and Zagreb have been granted extra-territorial jurisdiction to adjudicate upon war crimes, thereby removing proceedings from local courts in areas most directly affected by the conflict. The Chief State Attorney may initiate proceedings at these courts with the consent of the President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia. 86. The Court has before it evidence that the Attorney General of the Republic of Croatia has assured the Attorney General of Australia that he will make a request to the President of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia that the trial of the applicant be held before one of the above four courts having extra-territorial jurisdiction. The assurances so given give rise to the presumption that the Republic of Croatia is acting in good faith: see Ahmad et al v The Government of the United States of America [2006] EWHC 2927 (Admin) per Laws LJ at [74], [76]. 87. In Travica Laws LJ observed at [34] that the conflict between Serbia and the Republic of Croatia and its after-effects have been ‘especially acute In the Krajina region’. However, Laws LJ also observed at [35] that such circumstance did not by itself constitute a claim of prejudice ‘not least when set against the signs of improvement in the conduct of prosecutions which I have surveyed, and which cannot have failed altogether to touch the Krajina region’. At [30] Laws LJ also made comment of the ‘signal progress made in Croatia towards a justice system which meets international standards’. His Lordship’s observations are consistent with the evidence contained in the reports referred to above. And that contradicts me how?
|
|