ICTY
ICTY in the Hague is very busy these days with Prosecution responses and requests regarding the Application and Brief by 12 British, Canadian and American legal and military experts as Friends of the court filed on January 12 and subsequent responses by the appellants Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markac.
On February 6 The Prosecution has filed a motion to strike the January 23 response by General Mladen Markac defence team.
In its Motion the Prosecution claims that the Markac response:
a) Came too late or past the deadline – i.e. 20 days is too long after the Application and Brief by the 12 British, Canadian and American experts as Friends of the court;
b) If Markac’s January 23 response is to be viewed as his Response to Prosecution Response to the Application and Brief by 12 experts then Markac has no right to file such a response as he is not the applicant in the Application and Brief by the 12 experts.
Last week Markac’s defence team sought rejection of the Prosecution Response/Motion arguing, among other things, that Prosecution’s response was premature, i.e. that the Prosecution should have waited for an invitation from the court to file a motion. Also, Markac’s defence team claimed that the Prosecution was placing overly strict conditions upon Friends of the court applications and that the Prosecution’s interpretations were not in accordance with the court’s practices or rules.
In its latest Motion (above) the Prosecution now claims that Markac’s defence team is “playing” outside the court rules for filing responses.
One cannot avoid the feeling that there’s some significant nervousness coming out of the Prosecution camp at the ICTY.
Gotovina and Markac Appeal defences have invested a great deal of effort in trying to demolish the ICTY’s thesis of joint criminal enterprise that was part of the Trial Chamber’s conviction. In addition to this there came the Brief by the 12 British, Canadian and American legal and military experts. If the latter is accepted by the court then it’s hard to see how, after hearing the evidence from the Brief etc, the Appeal Chamber could confirm the Trial Chamber’s conviction of April 2011. Ina Vukic, Prof. (Zgb); B.A.,M.A.Ps.(Syd)
RSS - Posts
Isn’t it always the same old story? It’s so blatantly clear that it has never been in the prosecution’s interest to get to the truth of the matter, but rather to pollute issues with procedural paltriness that interferes with getting to that truth. I agree, there is an air of uneasiness surrounding the prosecution’s case, but I’m still afraid that there is little chance of a favourable verdict considering the absurd nature of the ICTY and its decision-making criteria.
Holding my breath in hope that things might change as far as decision making there. Always very wary about the prosecution’s tricks. It seemed from the very start they’d made up their mind as to what the outcome will be, but cannot lose hope in justice and truth. We will prevail.
http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/110mcrm.htm
Above is a link of the RICO Statue Law in the United States.I have studied the law and did a comparison on the generals charges.It turns out in my opinion that the prosecutor used this American law to fabricate the charges against the generals.Why is this comparison important? Because if the rulings are upheld against the generals then the same applications contained in the RICO Statue applies to all parties involved in the planning with the Generals. If the generals legal team were to research this and see the similar way the prosecution used this law they should be able to incite the Hague to bring British and American officials before the Hague. In fact in theory they could still file a motion for dismissal of the charges because no one else from foreign countries have been attached to the generals charges. In order for there to be a so called conspiracy and criminal act that the generals were charged with then everyone is to be included.After reading the Geneva convention rules I found no where that the Generals committed any offense that would be construed as illegal acts.The RICO Statue is the only law that I was able to find that has anything remotely close to what the generals are charged with. I am very concerned that if the prosecution used this American law to prosecute in the Hague that the American government has their hands involved in this illegal prosecution and furthers my beliefs that the generals are pawns.Everything I have read points to the fact that this law was used .
I besides believe therefore , perfectly composed post! .