Judge Theodor Meron – Croatia, the War, and the Future

Croatia Suffered Genocide And Prevented It In Bihac!

March 27, 2014 by inavukic 27 Comments

Vukovar, Croatia 1991
Serb Chetnik and Serb-led Yugoslav army
march into Vukovar singing:
“Slobo, Slobo (as in Slobodan Milosevic) send
us some salad, there will be meat, we’ll slaughter
the Croats” (BBC newsreel screenshot)

Croatian Cultural Council, on its Croatian Weekly portal has published an article written by dr Slobodan Lang in relation to the Croatia Vs Serbia genocide lawsuit and case currently being heard in the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

I have translated that article into English and bring it to you with the hope that it will increase your understanding of and knowledge about what Croatia had to endure during the Serb aggression of 1990’s. This is important for the whole of the humanity, for the world simply needs to cease saying “Never again (genocide)” while real threats of new genocide loom before us – it must punish the states whose policy was to employ genocide in order to take over territory of another sovereign state. Ina Vukic, Prof. (Zgb) B.A., M.A.Ps. (Syd)

By dr Slobodan Lang,
Hrvatski Tjednik (Croatian Weekly), 10 March 2014

In its defence from Serb aggression Croatia has achieved a greater success in the prevention of genocide than anyone else in history. Genocide is the gravest of crimes among people. Its intentions are to kill, or at least deport a certain population from a territory in which it has jointly lived be it through aggression or conquest. The Convention on the prevention and punishment of genocide was passed in the night before the Universal Declaration of Human rights was adopted.

However, that was after the Holocaust had already happened. The entire humanitarian activity in WWII was weak and the new rules for the future were brought about on the basis of the experience of failure rather than success. The problem of genocide was avoided for many years, usually with the words “Never again”. It was the 1990’s wars of Serb aggression that prompted the world to confront itself with crimes against humanity and genocide. Again because of punishment, and not prevention.

The world has not solved the question of genocide: intent, prevention, stopping, judgment and punishment. The truth about genocide is the question and responsibility of the world. It is necessary to punish that which is done, but the most important thing is to contribute to the prevention of future genocide, anywhere in the world, using the new knowledge and experiences. For this reason, the primary task of the trial of Croatia’s lawsuit against Serbia for genocide, which commenced at the beginning of March, is to contribute to a better future world, and not just convict the evil that has already occurred.

It is difficult for me to write this text, but I must and I want to pass onto you the ideas and the experiences I carry with me. In order to achieve something one needs to have ideas, one needs to mobilise a group to join in and, to personal danger or risk, one needs to organize and implement an action, for which one hopes will be accepted by the people, and the desired results will be achieved.

Only through such jointly utilised ideas, actions, courage, influence and change in the way of life results are achieved in any sphere: humanitarian, economic, political … and so too in the sphere of prevention of genocide.

It’s difficult for me to write because I carry the painful inheritance of the Holocaust in my own family.

I have turned it into the post-holocaust with the aim to turn the Jewish suffering from hatred, persecution, camps, theft, ignorance and killing into the future strengthening of the prevention from such crimes for any nations. It’s difficult because I do not feel the awareness of the whole depth and the whole suffering of the people in today’s leadership of Croatia. I do not know that they had participated as war veterans, or even in the civilian actions in the defence of Croatia.

I listen to them as they attempt to explain the suffering, genocide, and so the Holocaust at well, as the suffering of some other people from the past who don’t concern us and for whom too much money or emotion shouldn’t be spent. I do not feel the presence of a soul in the Croatian leadership.

Likewise, I think that today’s Serbia and Serbs have not at all confronted themselves with their responsibility and are attempting to escape into a concept of equal guilt, into the forgetfulness of the past and into the well known phrase “who, on earth, pushed us into a feud” (‘tko nas, bre, zavadi‘). I feel an inadequate wish and will from the Serbian leadership, intelligence, Church, and consequently in their people to stop being a nation of hate and inequality and to start being a nation of tolerance and good. Such conditions make it most difficult for the International community and court to come to the truth and bring about a just ruling.

Nevertheless, the truth that in its defense from Serbia’s aggression, Yugoslav People’s Army and the rebel Serbs, Croatia had successfully prevented, stopped and warned about the danger of genocide, is very important. Croatia is responsible towards the whole world and towards its own people, its future and towards all the suffering victims as well as all war veterans to demonstrate and show to the ICJ court in The Hague why and how it defended itself and why and how it prevented the crimes of genocide while defending itself from the aggression that had as its aim the conquering of parts of Croatia by use of excessive military destructive force and by causing the Croats to flee their homes (in order to save their bare lives) through perpetration of the worst imaginable crimes (murder, rape, torture, incarceration in concentration camps).

This is the first time that a world court considers a lawsuit of one state accusing another for having perpetrated an aggression with the aim of taking away the conquered territory through the perpetration of crimes against the nationally undesirable population, using hatred, destruction, ethnic persecution – in short, genocide. The International court in The Hague had in the genocide case of Bosnia and Herzegovina Vs Serbia avoided to deliver a clear decision on guilt in its judgment, but it had in an unambiguous manner condemned Serbia for not preventing the genocide in Srebrenica.

Sparked by this decision, I wrote an open letter (3 November 2012) to the president of Serbia asking him to seek the release of Croatian Generals Gotovina and Markac from the Hague, to state how the Operation Storm prevented genocide in Bihac and, as a state condemned for not having prevented genocide to call for a world summit on the prevention of genocide. But he did not reply to my letter. Does he understand at all that my letter was an offering of the hand of the future to him, to Serbia and to Serbs?

In the modern times, the idea of hatred, inequality and violence was set in motion in 1986 by only 15 SANU Academics (Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts). They wrote the following in their Memorandum: “The achievement of equality and independent development for the Serbian people have a deeper historical sense. For less than fifty years, in two consecutive generations, twice exposed to physical destruction, forced assimilation, religion change, cultural genocide, ideological indoctrination, devaluation and denial of own tradition under the imposed complex of guilt, intellectually and politically disarmed, the Serbian people have been exposed to most difficult of temptations, which have surely left traces in the spiritual state, which, at the end of this century of great technological advances in human intellect, should not be ignored. If the Serbian people count on its future in the family of cultured and civilised people of the world they must receive the opportunity to once again find themselves and become a historical subject, to renew their conscience of their historical and spiritual being ...”

Slobodan Milosevic became their entrepreneur. He firstly maimed Serbia and the Serbian people by turning them into a nation of hate. Just as Hitler did against the Jews, he started with initiating hatred and actions against Albanians within Serbia. After that he went forth with the aggression and rebellion in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The attacks always followed the same pattern: excessive military artillery shelling against all buildings regardless of what they were, which resulted in enormous destruction and numerous civil casualties.

Many survivors fled and found shelter in the surrounding areas. After conquering the areas, armed soldiers, volunteers from Serbia and the local Serbs looted, burned the houses, chased people away, killed and raped. Therefore, cleansing had been implemented. Unlike this pattern, Croatia’s defence had from its first day emphasised antifascism and rejected crimes and hatred.

The Serb aggression was based upon the attitude that hatred and genocide are worthwhile, that they are the path to the realisation of Greater Serbia. The people were to follow and accept such a leader and leadership. The Croatian defence leaned upon the good and upon tolerance as the path toward realising the freedom of Croatia and Croats. The people decided for responsibility of freedom at the referendum. The whole nation had linked itself into one so that it could defend the Homeland and the homes.

The civilian initiatives (Wall of Love, Convoy Libertas, emigrants …) were in 1991 the greatest force in the Croatian defence. The mere defence of Vukovar was, in fact, an attempt to prevent that which was to happen after the conquest: killing of patients, rape of women, torture, looting, taking to the concentration camps, persecution, only because they are Croats. There were more and more veterans every day. And so it was all until the victorious Operation Storm with which the Croatian army had prevented genocide in Bihac, in August of 1995.

I do not know how Croatia will present itself at the court in The Hague, I do not know how the politicians will trade among themselves either in secret or publicly nor do I know what the final court verdict will be. But I do know that the Serbian aggression was made up of the plan to conquer by employing hatred and crimes all the way to the full genocide. I know that the Croatian defence, despite all the sufferings, had prevented this in Croatia. The Homeland war, therefore, contains more experience in the prevention of genocide than any other war in the world. Judge Theodor Meron, with his origins, his experience and knowledge had recognised this, made a judgment and freed Gotovina and Markac.

How much of this do the Croatian political leadership and defence understand? When you read this you will know one more thing that is of worldly importance: how our Croatia was created and defended. Be justifiably proud of the past, but it needs to be passed onto the future of the world as well as into the success of today’s Croatia.
_________________

About dr. Slobodan Lang. Born to Jewish family 8 October 1945 in Zagreb, Croatia. Physician, author, writer, politician and former personal adviser to the first Croatian President dr. Franjo Tudjman. His paternal grandfather Ignjat was the president of the Jewish community in Vinkovci (Croatia) and his grandmother Terezija was a housewife. In 1941 Catholic priest Hijacint Bošković, distinguished Dubrovnik and Croatian Dominican, was engaged in an extraordinary attempt to rescue the Langs from Nazi persecution. Bošković traveled from Dubrovnik to Vinkovci with a special permit that allowed him to relocate the Langs to Dubrovnik. Langs grandfather refused to leave, saying that he “was the president of Jews in peace and he will stay one in the war”. Both of his grandparents were killed in the concentration camp during the Holocaust. He graduated at the University of Zagreb School of Medicine and is a specialist in social medicine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Lang)

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Croatia, genocide, Holocaust, ICJ, International Court of Justice, Judge Theodor Meron, SANU, Serb aggression, Serbia, Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Slobodan Lang, the Hague

The Competence of Judge Güney and the Boomerang Effect

October 2, 2013 by inavukic 5 Comments

Judge Mehmat Güney Photo: World Bulletin

Judge Mehmet Güney
Photo: World Bulletin

Reblogged from http://www.miseticlaw.blogspot.com.au

By Luka Mistetic

Declarations of war often have a boomerang effect, causing more damage to the attacker than the attacker had ever anticipated. Just ask George Bush what happened after he declared “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. In The Hague, the war launched on the ICTY’s judges in early 2013 continues. As I have noted previously, Judge Theodor Meron has been subjected to what I figuratively refer to as a “Joint Criminal Enterprise” by a disgruntled few. More recently, Judge Frederic Harhoff discovered the “boomerang effect” when he launched an attack on Judge Meron in an email to 56 of his “closest friends,” only to find himself attacked on multiple fronts by multiple defendants and ultimately disqualified from the Seselj case by a panel of his judicial colleagues.

Today comes a new attack on ICTY Judge Mehmet Güney of Turkey, this time on the pages of the Süddeutsche Zeitung (“SZ”). In an article titled, “The Fight for Supremacy on the UN Tribunal,” the SZ reports (citing those sinister “anonymous sources,” but widely believed to be sourced by a certain “Balkan journalist” based in The Hague) that Judge Güney is “no longer really sure on his feet,” that he “communicates only in writing,” and “is no longer able to monitor long conversations and at meetings loses his orientation.” Moreover, the “anonymous sources” allege that Judge Meron is “pulling Judge Güney along with him for as long as Judge Meron thinks he needs Judge Güney’s vote.” SZ then states that had Judge Güney not voted with the “American President of the Tribunal, then there would be no stunning 3-2 decision in favor of the acquittal of the two Croats.”

The article concludes by stating that a “medical examination of one of the judges can only be ordered by the President of the Tribunal,” and therefore the “incompetent” Judge Güney cannot be removed from the ICTY before the end of his mandate in 2015 unless the judges elect a new judge to replace Judge Meron as President of the ICTY on October 1st. This statement, combined with the article’s title, (“The Fight for Supremacy on the UN Tribunal”), makes it clear that the article is really just part of the campaign to discredit Judge Meron on the eve of ICTY elections for President of the Tribunal, a campaign which has been organized for months by the “Balkan journalist” based in The Hague.

But let’s look at the substance of the allegations against Judge Güney, who supposedly can “communicate only in writing” and is “pulled along by Judge Meron.” The Gotovina Appeals Chamber Judgement was delivered on 16 November 2012. Meanwhile, Judge Güney was the Presiding Judge and the Pre-Appeal Judge in the appeal of Milan Lukic, whose appellate judgement was delivered on 4 December 2012, almost three weeks after the Gotovina Appeals Judgement. As the Presiding Judge and the Pre-Appeal Judge in Lukic, Judge Güney had primary responsibility for administration of that case, including resolving motions and preparing the actual Judgement. Accordingly, those now anonymously attacking Judge Güney are also calling into question the legitimacy of the appeals convictions of Milan and Sredoje Lukic. Indeed, if the Judge most responsible for preparation of the Lukic Judgement was incompetent, then the Judgement is not sound and must be reviewed.

But was Judge Güney really able to “communicate only in writing”? The video of the delivery of the Lukic Judgement (again, delivered three weeks after the Gotovina and Markac acquittals), suggests that Judge Güney was able to communicate verbally without any problems. Furthermore, he delivered the Judgement for 36 consecutive minutes, contradicting the claim that he is “no longer able to monitor long conversations and at meetings loses his orientation.”

It should be noted that Judge Meron was not a member of the Lukic Appeals Chamber, so Judge Meron was not there to “pull along” Judge Güney, as the SZ article claims. Moreover, Judge Güney was a member of a 3-2 majority (along with Judges Agius and Morrison) that voted to grant two of Sredoje Lukic’s grounds of appeal. Unless the “anonymous sources” of SZ are willing to go so far as to suggest that Judges Agius and Morrison (like allegedly Judge Meron) are also “manipulators of the incompetent Judge Güney,” the 3-2 vote in Lukic suggests that Judge Güney is able to reach decisions competently and independently of Judge Meron or anyone else.

Finally, it should be noted that the Lukic and Gotovina Appeals Chambers had three common judges: Judges Güney, Agius and Pocar. If Judge Güney were “incompetent” at the time of the delivery of the Gotovina Appeals Chamber Judgement, Judges Agius and Pocar would have had to know about it. They would have had a duty to disclose to the parties in the Gotovina case that they believed one of their colleagues was incompetent at the time of judicial deliberations. Instead, Judges Agius and Pocar, despite vigorously dissenting from the Majority decision, never suggested in their dissents that the Majority had reached its decision where one member of the Majority was incompetent. Moreover, Judges Pocar and Agius then went on to sit with their colleague in the Lukic case, where they not only did not disclose any concern about Judge Güney’s fitness to be a member of the Appeals Chamber, but also had no concern about Judge Güney being named the Presiding Judge in the case. Indeed, Judge Agius in the Judgement went so far as to join Judge Güney (and oppose Judge Pocar) in forming a 3-2 Majority on certain issues in the Lukic Judgement.

Accordingly, the silence of Judges Agius and Pocar in the Gotovina and Lukic cases strongly suggests that Judge Güney was not incompetent at the time of delivery of both Judgements in November and December 2012. If it were true that Judge Güney was incompetent at the time of delivery of both judgements, and Judges Agius and Pocar kept silent, then Judges Pocar and Agius would have to be disqualified from both cases along with Judge Güney, because both Pocar and Agius would have breached their ethical duties to disclose information critical to determining whether the fundamental rights to a fair trial and to an independent and impartial tribunal were violated by Judge Güney’s membership on both panels.

Those “anonymous sources” attacking Judge Güney on the basis of his vote in the Gotovina Appeal are thus also inadvertently calling into question the ICTY’s conviction of Milan and Sredoje Lukic, once again demonstrating the “boomerang effect” of going to war on false pretenses.

Just ask “Boomerang Fred” Harhoff.

Luka Misetic Photo: Darko Tomas/Cropix

About Luka Misetic: Lawyer, based in the United States of America. Luka Misetic represents clients in state, federal and international litigation, including commercial, civil, white-collar criminal and international criminal cases. In business litigation, Mr. Misetic represents corporations and partnerships, as well as their directors, officers and partners in breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims, regulatory matters, trade secrets claims, fraud and negligence suits, and a variety of other claims. Mr. Misetic represented Croatian General Ante Gotovina before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in The Hague, The Netherlands

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: Ante Gotovina, Croatia, ICTY, Judge Carmel A. Agius, Judge Fausto Pocar, Judge Mehmet Güney, Judge Theodor Meron, Luka Misetic, Milan Lukic, Mladen Markac, Sredoje Lukic

Professional Suicide Of A Hague Judge

June 28, 2013 by inavukic 7 Comments

ICTY Judge Frederik Harhoff

Written by Vesna Skare-Ozbolt, published by Croatian portal Dnevno.hr 26 June 2013

(Translated into English by Ina Vukic)

Danish newspaper Berlingske June 13 published judge Frederik Harhoff’s letter, in which he expresses his suspicions that the Hague court president Theodor Meron is under the U.S.A. and Israel governments’ influence, and that he had pressured the judges to deliver judgment of acquittal in Gotovina-Markac, Perisic and Stanisic – Simatovic cases. Judge Harhoff sent his letter to his colleagues and friends at 56 addresses and it is still not known who had leaked it to the media, reportedly without his knowledge.

Harhoff gives no evidence to support his statements but says: “Have any American or Israeli officials ever exerted pressure on the president of the tribunal, we will probably never know, or, it appears that judge Orie was also under pressure from the president of the tribunal”, etc. Dov Jacobs, professor of international law and international criminal law at the renowned Leiden university, Netherlands, says: “The letter uses typical language of conspiracy theories for which it is also typical to subtly shift the burden of proof onto others or onto those who do not believe in conspiracy. It’s a win-win situation for the ‘conspirationists’, because evidence about the existence of conspiracy can be utilised in many ways.”

After the Gotovina-Markac case judgment, and especially after the acquittal verdict in the Perisic and Stanisic – Simatovic cases an interesting debate developed in international legal circles and opinions were divided with regards to the judgments. However, not one of the critics of these recent judgments attempted to defame judge Meron or his court politics in the media by using “a third side”. How come, then, that judge Harhoff decided to abandon the frame of a cautious and reasonable lawyer – which, judging from his biography, he undoubtedly is – and undertake this undoubtedly planned move? Why did he not firstly direct his complaint to the tribunal’s president, and after that, if the latter was unresponsive, to the founder of the Tribunal, i.e. to the UN Security Council. He did not even attempt to take this course – for, if he had he would have surely revealed it now – exactly because the goal was for the letter to come to the media. It’s not known whether anyone or who stands behind judge Harhoff for him to embark so courageously upon – what is clear by now – a professional suicide. Attorney Luka Misetic , who June 19 published on his blog an article titled “Joint criminal enterprise against judge Theodor Meron” and made interesting revelations, will possibly try to find the answer to this.

It became apparent quite quickly that one judge alone, more than politics itself, can demolish the tribunal’s credibility with his political moves with which he only put wind into the backs of all those who attempt to relativise the former and the future Hague judgments.

Hence, the family of late BiH Army general Rasim Delic has June 18 (of this year) lodged an application with the Hague tribunal to have the judgment against him reviewed (Delic was convicted in 2005 to 3 years prison on command responsibility) and their reasoning or explanation is that judge Harhoff’s letter infers his inclination to convict anyone who engaged in a high position in the war and that, therefore, his judicial integrity is doubtful. That is, judge Harhoff was a member of the tribunal in Delic case and his opinion was the decisive one that rendered the convicting judgment. In their application to the Hague court the attorneys representing late Delic’s family claim that had the defence known at the time about such exclusive opinions held by judge Harhoff they would have sought his disqualification from hearing the case.

Judge Harhoff is a member of the tribunal in dr. Vojislav Seselj case and the judgment is expected in October of this year. Kevin Jon Heller, a professor at faculty of law in Melbourne, says that it’s to be expected that the lawyers representing Seselj will seek disqualification of the judge on the basis of the fact that it’s possible to conclude from judge Harhoff’s letter without a doubt that he is “inclined to convict”.

Savo Strbac, director of Veritas association, has June 13 (of this year) lodged an application with the Hague tribunal for a review of the judgment of acquittal in Gotovina – Markac case, calling upon new evidence (110 exhumed bodies to end of May 2013). It is interesting that in his application for the review Savo Strbac writes: “ … exhumations of the remains of Serbs killed in the aggression of the Croatian armed forces in August 1995 have been carried out”. Time will show whether it’s true that, besides coincidence of time, there is no direct connection between his application and judge Harhoff’s letter, as Savo Strbac claims.

It’s interesting that Harhoff places the acquittals of Gotovina and Markac in the same context as the acquittal of the heads of Serb military and intelligence and attributes all three tribunal judgments to the directive politics of great powers. Also, while he can privately think whatever he wants, it is unacceptable from the professional aspect that in his letter he claims how Gotovina and Markac were acquitted of guilt “for war crimes committed by the Croatian army which deported Serb population from the area of the so-called Republic of Serb Krajina (RSK) in 1995”. Judge Harhoff should know that the acquitting judgment found that it was not a matter of “deportation” (due to alleged excessive shelling) but a matter of planned evacuation in advance and in accordance with orders and through the organisation by the authorities of the so-called RSK at the time. Croatian Homeland War memorial-document centre possesses numerous documents even from Serbian sources about that, as well as about the evacuation drills carried out much before Operation Storm. I will further add – as I had personally participated in this – that the Croatian government had managed to purchase on the “black market” the authorities’ of the so-called RSK population evacuation plans, paying for them with not a small amount of money. During the liberating Operation Storm the Croatian army had done everything possible so that the evacuation routes remain free in order to ensure that any civilian casualties be brought down to the minimum. The judges of the Hague tribunal know all this very well.

This attempt at defaming judge Meron could have an impact (and) on the Herceg-Bosna Six generals case. That is, it’s not necessary to emphasise that judge Meron’s withdrawal from his position prior to an appeal decision being made in the case of the Six from Herceg-Bosna would suit, except Serbia and one EU member state. And, judging from the recent unfounded and concerning statements made by Bakir Izetbegovic about an alleged aggression against BiH by Croatia, such an outcome of this shameful story would also suit the Bosniaks.

Following all these events, I’m of the opinion that judge Harhoff cannot continue working at the Hague tribunal and professor Jacobs shares my opinion and says: “It seems that judge Harhoff does not hold much respect for presumption of innocence and that he has formed opinion in advance as to who should be pronounced guilty and who innocent. Besides that, Harhoff has in his letter explicitly apostrophised two of his colleagues (judge Meron and judge Gunaya) and so I really do not see how his continued work at the tribunal is possible.

“Despite the shortages the Hague tribunal has shown in its work to date it nevertheless represents a large civilised lunge forward. It’s become evident that, after Nuremberg, such adjudication is still possible. Although it hasn’t completely responded to its historical task the Hague tribunal has, nevertheless, brought some sort of satisfaction for the victims and their families and created a conscience that crimes are not permitted even in war.

“The International criminal justice is still in its juvenile stage. Prevention of crimes, which in itself is a goal of international war crimes tribunals, cannot occur immediately”, said judge Theodor Meron in his interview in BBC’s HardTalk program in March of this year where he, even though in advanced years of his life, lucidly and concentrated responded to the standard, direct and provocative questions put to him by the interviewer. Also, he added, ” reconciliation is not the job of the court, even though it can and it should contribute to it with its decisions, that which people seek above everything else is the criminal responsibility of the individual. Reconciliation is, after all, the job of politics.”

Vesna Skare-Ozbolt

About the writer: Vesna Škare-Ožbolt was a legal advisor of the late President Franjo Tuđman for ten years and the former Minister of Justice of the Republic of Croatia. She is also President of Democratic Centre, the party in coalition with HDZ (Croatian Democratic Union).