International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) (Full name: International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991), is the United Nations organization designed to bring justice to the former Yugoslavia. The tribunal is located in The Hague.
Origin
The tribunal was established by UN Security Council resolution 827. It was passed on 25 May 1993 in the face of the serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991, and as a response to the threat to international peace and security posed by those serious violations[1].
Jurisdiction
Serbia To Shortly Ascend to the EU Says SPAIN.
Irrefutable Proof ICTY Is Corrupt Court/Irrefutable Proof the Hague Court Cannot Legitimately Prosecute Karadzic Case
http://lpcyu.instablogs.com/entry/nato-says-the-hague-tribunal-or-icty-belongs-to-nato- truth-bites-for-te-hague-lately/
edNations# (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 remind everyone, when I attended those ICC Preparatory Meetings in 2001, witnessing first hand the country plenipotentiary representatives present with me discussing so openly, trading judicial funding of a new international criminal court, for its direct judicial appointments and judicial verdicts, those same state powers were
concurrently,
those same countries and people were already simultaneously, funding the already established ICTY which was issuing at that time, arrest warrants for Bosnian Serbs (primarily) under false diplomatic pretenses.
The ICTY and ICC is just where it should be for once. Cornered and backed into and an international wall, scared like a corned animal (and I bet it reacts in the same way a rabid cornered animal does too in such circumstances). (ICTY associates)
ormerYugoslavi# (Documents: Hague war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has destroyed all material evidence about the
monstrous KLA (ALbanian) organ trade of Kosovo)
I believe strongly that ICYU assocaites murdered former Serb President, Slobodan Milosevic, tried to murder me, as well and other Serbs prisoners and presently places , Doctor Radovan Karadzic’s life in direct danger as well as Ratko Mladic’s life in danger should he be brought there.
The ICTY has no other choice than to halt all further court proceedings against, Doctor Radovan Karadzic, and others there both serving sentences and awaiting trials. Miss JIll Louise Starr (The UN Security Council has no choice but to act on this now).
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.
The tribunal has the authority to prosecute and try four types of offences committed in the former Yugoslavia since 1991:
- Grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
- Violations of the laws or customs of war.
- Genocide.
- Crimes against humanity.
They only have the authority to try and prosecute individual people and not organizations, political parties or governments (ex. they cannot try "Serbia"). They can take over national investigations and proceedings if it is in the interest of international justice[2].
Accomplishments
The following is a list of accomplishments taken from the ICTY's official website[1]:
- Spearheading the shift from impunity to accountability
- Establishing the facts
- Bringing justice to thousands of victims and giving them a voice
- Strengthening the Rule of Law
Its accomplishments in international law include;
- It has expanded upon the legal elements of the crime of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 by further defining the test of overall control, identifying the existence of an international armed conflict, and also the extended and exact definition of protected persons under the Conventions
- It has narrowed the differences that are perceived between the laws or customs of war applicable in internal and in international conflicts, thus approaching both standards for the protection of individuals
- It has identified a general prohibition of torture in international law which cannot be derogated from by a treaty, internal law or otherwise
- It has made significant advances in international humanitarian law pertaining to the legal treatment and punishment of sexual violence in wartime
- It has specified crucial elements of the crime of genocide, in particular the definition of the target of such crime, a group or part if a group of individuals
- It has made several pivotal determinations with regard to crimes against humanity committed against civilians, in particular that this crime can be committed not only as part of, but also just during an armed conflict, thus identifying a wide scope of protection
- It has specified the definitions of enslavement and persecution as parts of crimes against humanity, resulting in the first convictions after World War II for enslavement on the basis of a broadened definition
- It has identified and applied the modern doctrine of criminal responsibility of superiors, so-called command responsibility, clarifying that a formal superior-subordinate relationship is not necessarily required for criminal responsibility
- In the same vein, it has removed uncertainty about the level of knowledge to be expected from a superior, whose subordinates were about to commit crimes he did not prevent, or about crimes actually committed by them
- It has made numerous contributions to procedural law issues, some of which are in the areas of protective measures for witnesses, the confidentiality and disclosure of information relevant for the national security of States, guilty pleas of accused, and duress as a defense
- It was the first tribunal established under Chapter VII of the UN Charter as a measure to maintain international peace and security
- It was the first truly international war crimes tribunal
- It was the first international criminal court to enforce the existing body of international humanitarian law, and in particular judicially determine its customary law aspects
- It has created an independent system of law, comprising of elements from adversarial and inquisitory criminal procedure traditions
- It has established the most modern court facilities in the world, the layout and technical equipment of which will be copied and taken as a model in other modern courtrooms, for example the ICC and the Special Court for Sierra Leone
- It has established, developed and maintained an effective victims and witnesses programme
- It has established a unique legal aid system, and groomed a group of defense attorneys highly qualified to represent accused in war crimes proceedings
- The Tribunal has created a Judicial Database of all its jurisprudence, soon to be available on the internet, providing access to a vast amount of decisions and orders in and international procedural and criminal law
Criticisms
The ICTY has received much criticism in its short years of existence[3] [4] [5] [6]
Common criticisms include:
- The failure of the tribunal to prosecute non-Serb offenders
- The failure of the court to promote reconciliation, many view it as impeding reconciliation
- The failure of the court to give trials of reasonable length
- The failure to apprehend indictees, such as Ratko Mladic. However the court has no power to arrest individuals
- The cost of sustaining the court
References
- ↑ http://www.un.org/icty/glance/keyfig-e.htm
- ↑ http://www.un.org/icty/glance/keyfig-e.htm
- ↑ The Hague Tribunal:The Political Economy of Sham Justice
- ↑ Jury Still Out on Tribunal's Success
- ↑ Lengthy Hague Trials Under Scrutiny
- ↑ The Hague Tribunal and Balkan Reconciliation.
