Sunday, March 07, 2010
The Serbian government seem to be on the edge of a game changing move. They have asked for the extradition, from Britain, under an international warrant, of Ejup Ganic. Under international law there is no question that our government now has a duty to transfer him & he is currently in jail as various British politicians & media (ie C4) do their best to muddy the waters.
on May 3, 1992 .. a convoy of JNA soldiers was pulling back through Dobrovoljacka street, in central Sarajevo, to the barracks in Lukavica, remains unresolved.While there is doubt about the number dead there is none that some died. Nor that Ganic, as deputy President with Izetbegovic arrested had command authority. Nor that he personally had signed on the cease fire that was to allow the JNA (Jugoslav National Army) forces to leave. Nor that they were doing so peacefully & were therefore in no way combatant. There is, at the very least, a clear prima facie case that Ganic was responsible for mass murder. In his defence he may & now appears to be saying that the attack started without his permission. That is something a defence lawyer would be perfectly right to claim & a prosecution one to examine. The fact that neither Jusef Pasina nor anybody else has been arrested for what would be, if not so authorised, not only mass murder but mutiny.
In the middle of the convoy was Alija Izetbegovic, then President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was seated in the first armored transporter, having been seized by the JNA at Sarajevo airport the previous day.
As per a previously reached agreement, the president was to be released once the convoy had passed through the city safely to the barracks. But in the afternoon hours the convoy was disjoined and a number of soldiers were killed.
Seventeen years on, it is not known exactly how many died.
A criminal report filed by the Public Safety Centre from Eastern Sarajevo claimed up to 42 soldiers were killed and 73 wounded.
Jovan Divjak, then deputy commander of the Territorial Defence, who was present in the street, says he knew about only “between seven and nine victims”, however.
The investigation conducted by the Serbian Prosecution, meanwhile, mentions 18, while another criminal report, filed by the Republika Srpska authorities, mention 15.
Various media reports have named as possible suspects: two former members of the Bosnian wartime presidency Ejub Ganic and Stjepan Kljujic, the former Territorial Defence commander Divjak, Backovic.
The report filed with the Serbian War Crimes Prosecution accused the aforementioned Ganic and Kljujic of having “organised and ordered [two] Bosnian Army officers, the late Mustafa Hajrulahovic and Jusuf Pusina, then and now an Interior Ministry member, to attack the army convoy.”
It says Ganic and Kljujic ordered the attack even though an agreement had been made to allow the Second Military Regional Staffs of the JNA to leave Sarajevo peacefully.
The report alleges that, in this way, the two men “directly participated in killing and wounding several tens of JNA members”.
The Serbian government, which is recognised as the successor state of Yugoslavia has a clear interest here that may not apply to other cases - namely that the victims were serving members of the Yugoslav armed forces & presumably in most cases citizens of what is now Serbia. As such they have a remit which may not apply generally even though very many murders by our Bosnia Muslim, Croatian Nazi, KLA etc friends were much worse.
There is no question that we have undertaken a legal duty to extradite him if there is a case to answer.
The request is valid if it states that it is a request for a person accused or convicted of an offence and it is made by an appropriate authority of the requesting territory such as a diplomatic or consular representative.
Paperwork is needed to get the case off the ground:
particulars of the person whose return is requested
particulars of the offence of which he is accused or was convicted
in the case of a person accused of an offence, a warrant or a duly authenticated copy of a warrant for his arrest issued in the requesting state, or for a provisional arrest, details of such a warrant
in the case of a person unlawfully at large after conviction of an offence, a certificate or a duly authenticated copy of a certificate of the conviction and the sentence, or for provisional arrest, details of the conviction
evidence or information that would justify the issue of a warrant for arrest in the UK, within the jurisdiction of a judge of the court that would hold the extradition hearing.
If the court is satisfied that the request contains the required information an arrest warrant may be issued. It is sent to the police for execution.
NB Serbia is on a list of respectable countries which do NOT need to provide prima facie evidence in support of its extradition request. Likewise Bosnia and Herzegovina.
There is no question that there is a case to answer.
Legally the Serbs have the case bang to rights. It would be difficult to find a stronger legal case short of a confession. Of course legality has not been a significant consideration in British public life of recent years. Perhaps this is changing - we will see.
One of Ganic's supporters Robin Harris says
No one, knowing the circumstances, could imagine that Ganic would receive a fair trial in Belgrade. Yet Britain has limited its own options, by legislation passed in 2003 that reduces the scope for ministers to intervene to stop such cases.but it seems to me the exact opposite is true. That the Belgrade authorities will bend over backwards to be seen to produce a fair trial. After all if the evidence is that the event happened & he bore responsibility then a fair trial will convict. If it does not it will be because it has been proven that some other named person, currently being shielded by the Bosnian Nazis was responsible & Serbia could demand his extradition. The prosecution has nothing to fear from a fair trial & indeed quite a lot to gain from one, whichever way the verdict goes. The important thing for Serbia & indeed for the world is that the rule of law be established. The ICTY have previously refused to bring Ganic to trial, as indeed they have refused to bring almost all non-Serbs to trial but nobody really believes the ICTY have ever been interested in purely fair trials.
The problem for western governments is not that Ganic will not get a fair trial but that he will.
The legal maxim is Fiat justitia ruat caelum - meaning "May justice be done though the heavens fall." If it is not then we have no rule of law. If it is then perhaps perhaps the world has at least made the turn towards having one.
(The Documentary Secret United Nations ICC Meeting Papers Scanned Images)
This legal technicality indicates the Hague must dismiss charges against Dr Karadzic and others awaiting trials in the Hague jail; like it or not.
Unfortunately for the Signatures Of the Rome Statute United Nations member states instituting the ICC & ICTY housed at the Hague, insofar as the, Radovan Karadzic, as with the other Hague cases awaiting trial there, I personally witnessed these United Nations member states openly speaking about trading judicial appointments and verdicts for financial funding when I attended the 2001 ICC Preparatory Meetings at the UN in Manhattan making the iCTY and ICC morally incapable trying Radovan Karazdic and others.
I witnessed with my own eyes and ears when attending the 2001 Preparatory Meetings to establish an newly emergent International Criminal Court, the exact caliber of criminal corruption running so very deeply at the Hague, that it was a perfectly viable topic of legitimate conversation in those meetings I attended to debate trading verdicts AND judicial appointments, for monetary funding.
Jilly wrote:*The rep from Spain became distraught and when her country’s proposal was not taken to well by the chair of the meeting , then Spain argued in a particularly loud and noticably strongly vocal manner, “Spain (my country) strongly believes if we contribute most financial support to the Hague’s highest court, that ought to give us and other countries feeding it financially MORE direct power over its decisions.”
((((((((((((((((((((((((( ((((((((((((((((((((((((( Instead of censoring the country representative from Spain for even bringing up this unjust, illegal and unfair judicial idea of bribery for international judicial verdicts and judicial appointments, all country representatives present in the meeting that day all treated the Spain proposition as a ”totally legitimate topic” discussed and debated it between each other for some time. I was quite shocked!
The idea was "let's discuss it." "It's a great topic to discuss."
Some countries agreed with Spain’s propositions while others did not. The point here is, bribery for judicial verdicts and judicial appointments was treated as a totally legitimate topic instead of an illegitimate toic which it is in the meeting that I attended in 2001 that day to establish the ground work for a newly emergent international criminal court.))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
In particular., since "Spain" was so overtly unafraid in bringing up this topic of trading financial funding the ICC for influence over its future judicial appointments and verdicts in front of every other UN member state present that day at the UN, "Spain" must have already known by previous experience the topic of bribery was "socially acceptable" for conversation that day. They must have previously spoke about bribing the ICTY and
ICC before in meetings; this is my take an international sociological honor student. SPAIN's diplomatic gesture of international justice insofar as, Serbia, in all of this is, disgusting morally!
SPAIN HAS TAUGHT THE WORLD THE TRUE DEFINITION OF AN
"INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT."
I represented the state interests' of the Former Yugoslavia, in Darko Trifunovic’s absence in those meetings and I am proud to undertake this effort on Serbia’s behalf.
Retrospectively, it was all so simple, natural and matter of fact being on a boat restaurant in Belgrade, sitting with, laughing, drinking a two hundred bottle of wine and chatting about war and peace while Ratko Mladic held my hand. Mladic, a man considered the world’s most ruthless war criminal since Adolf Hitler, still at large and currently having a five million dollar bounty on his head for genocide by the international community. Yet there I was with my two best friends at the time, a former Serbian diplomat, his wife, and Ratko Mladic just chilling. There was no security, nothing you’d ordinarily expect in such circumstances. Referring to himself merely as, Sharko; this is the story of it all came about.
(Read My Entire Book Here For Free Now).
(Jill Starr's Entire American Expose Including the Secret Scanned Photo Documentary Evidence I Obtained From the CLOSED UN ICC Preparatory Meetings (2001)
(Jill Starr On Instablogs)
(Now Everyone Can Purchase My Rare Books)
Arrest is the correct word here since someone is only a hostage if they are being threatedned with death etc. The report makes it quite clear that the Yugoslav soldiers weren't.
In any case if, as you suggest, the Moslem negotiations were fraudulent from the start they shouldn't have involved the UN in that fraud.