Before sending this text to the states members of the Security Council of the UN I'd like to have

anybody's well-intentioned comments and/or suggestions. Especially about what kind of action
would be most appropriate in order to succeed in the basic aim of this initiative: to abolish this
perverse institution, which is disgrace for the concept of justice. It is now main tool for
satanisation of the Serbs and political and psychological pressure on them and their state.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

REQUEST TO THE SECURITY COUNCIL

FOR ITS CANCELLATION

Indeed, the idea to exclude from criminal prosecution of those who inspired, planned,
assisted (including weapons), ignited and conducted secessionist wars in Slovenia, Croatia and
Bosnia and Herzegovina, and prosecute only those who while killing one another failed to stick
to the certain stipulated rules (the rules of international humanitarian law), could be born only in
pervert and sick minds. Who those minds are is difficult to say, but it is known that they are
coming from Clinton's and Kohl's environment. The predominant ones are, no doubt, Madeleine
Albright, Samuel Berger, Daniel Sheffer, James Rubin, William Cohen, Lawrence Eagleberger,
Richard Goldstone, the Nazi Hans Dietrich Genscher and who knows who not. The oddest thing
of all is, certainly, how the official politics of USA, Germany and many other states could accept
such an ugly idea for its official attitude and impose it to the Security Council of the United
Nations which established a court based on such an idea. It is well known that London
Agreement of 8 August 1945 (which is, of course, still in force) on punishment of the main Nazi
criminals and its Statute, in the first place incriminate exactly "the crimes against peace: namely,
planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of
international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy
for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing. Leaders, organisers, instigators and accomplices
participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of
the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such
plan." (Article 6 (a) of the Statute of the Tribunal). Violent secession - especially the one
endangering international peace and security as were those that broke SFR Yugoslavia into
pieces - surely fit into the formulation of the crime against peace.
 >From the time when someone had an idea to establish such a tribunal until nowadays,
the Tribunal has been called in question both on the grounds of the body which established it
(The Security Council of the United Nations) and on the grounds of its jurisdiction ("trial of the
persons responsible for the serious violations of the international humanitarian law in the
territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1 January 1991."! It has been contradicted not only by
all the people who are significant for the international humanitarian law, but also by all the
people with common sense. It can be said that the Tribunal was established by the people who
had no connection with international law, the inventors of the concept of "The New World
Order" according to which the force and political violence is the only "law" recognised by them.
Still we should define why the Serbian nation was chosen for implementation of that concept.
Why the mere attempt of Serbian nation to defend its country from the secessionist crime
pronounced to be the crime, while at the same time that right is recognised to all other nations?
Even the chief sheriff of the New World Order does not deny that right to the others. On 19
November 1999, on the Summit of Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, held
in Istanbul Clinton said: "We believe Russia has not only the right, but the obligation to defend
its territorial integrity". Instead of recognition of the same right to the Serbian nation, its striving
to keep its state is pronounced to be a crime and the Tribunal is established for its punishing!!

1. Establishment and jurisdiction of the Tribunal

This Tribunal was, as it is well known, established by Resolution 827 of the Security
Council of the United Nations of 25 May 1993. Invoking the Chapter VII of the United Nations
Charter, the Resolution states that the Tribunal has been established "solely for prosecution of
the persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the
territory of the former Yugoslavia between 1 January 1991 until the date which shall be
determined by the Security Council after the peace establishment." At the end, under item 9, the
Resolution states that the Council "decides to remain actively seized of the matter".

Statute of the Tribunal, adopted by the Security Council in the foregoing Resolution, has
determined that this "Tribunal" has jurisdiction as regards the following crimes:

- grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (Article 2),

- violations of the laws or customs of war (Article 3),

- genocide (Article 4) and

 - crimes against humanity (Article 5).

So, the Security Council has not - as it was emphasised in the beginning of the text -
given jurisdiction to the Tribunal regarding crimes against peace and security of the humanity as
aggression, planning and conducting secessionist war and alike. The reason is obvious - in order
not to prosecute those who directed and ignited Yugoslav tragedy, that is the leaders of Yugoslav
secessionist republics and their foreign protectors, masters and other accomplices. In other
words, the Security Council sent the message to Yugoslavs: it is all right to kill one another, but
it is not all right to do it without compliance with the rules stated under the Articles 2-5 of the
Statute!

And, that is not all! The Statute defined the foregoing crimes, but in many ways
differently than they were defined by modern international law! In that manner the Security
Council took the role of legislator to which, of course, it is not entitled according to the United
Nations Charter!

Pursuant to the Article 24, paragraph 1 of the Statute, the Security Council has even
abolished capital punishment for international crimes, although it was introduced by the Article
27 of the Statute of the Tribunal for trial of Nazis. Of course, one may be for or against capital
punishment, but it is certainly not in the competence of the Security Council to decide whether it
shall exist in international law or be abolished.

It should be also emphasised that the crimes as stated under the Articles 2 and 3
(violations of Geneva Conventions and war laws and customs) may be committed only in the
armed conflicts of international character, not in internal conflicts. That way the Security
Council beforehand took the position that the conflict in Yugoslavia was of an international
character, although the real answer to that question may come only from the science of
international law, and not from the Security Council, which is a political and not an expert body.

Apart from the fact that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is limited, only to ius in bello, and
not to ius ad bellum, the territorial limitation ("region of former Yugoslavia") as well as time
limit ("since 1 January 1991") give special dimension of absurdity to this institution.

Russia and NR China voted for this Resolution as well.

2. Structure and Financing (for details see FACT SHEET on www.un.org/icty )

Tribunal consists of the following judges:

President: Claude Jorda (France), Vice-President: Florence Ndepele Mwachande Mumba

(Zambia).

Presiding Judges: David Anthony Hunt (Australia), Richard George may (United Kingdom) and
Almiro Simoes Rodrigues (Portugal).

Judges: Lal Chand Vohrah (Malaysia), Fouad Abdel-Moneim Riad (Egypt), Mohamed
Shahabuddeen (Guyana), Wang Tieya (China), Rafael Nieto-Navia (Colombia), Mohamed
Bennouna (Morocco), Patrick Lipton Robinson (Jamaica), Patricia Wald (United States of
America) and Fausto Pocar (Italy).

PROSECUTOR:

Chief Prosecutor: Justice Carla del Ponte (Switzerland), since 15 September 1999.

Deputy Prosecutor: Graham Blewitt (Australia), since 15 February 1994.

As we can see Russia and NR China do not have their judges in the Tribunal.

The Tribunal has so far grown up in a monster consisting of 832 officers from 68 states,
handling budget of 95,942.600 dollars for 2000 - ten times more than the International Court of
Justice! It is financed by mostly USA and Arab states.

3. Work of the Tribunal (for more details see FACT SHEET on www.un.org/icty)
 Up to now 93 persons were accused, most of them being Serbs. Out of these 93 accused,
seven died - two in casemates of the Tribunal under questionable circumstances (Dokmanovic
and Kovacevic), while the two were killed by SFOR while trying to kidnap them in Bosnia
(Drljaca and Gagovic).

In the cells of Tribunal in the Hague there are 35 prisoners, 30 of them being Bosnian
Serbs among whom there are generals of the Army of Republic of Srpska Momir Talic
(kidnapped in Vienna, under the Tribunal's order, by Austrian police while attending
international gathering under the auspices of the OSCE and Austrian Ministry of Defence!!!),
Radislav Krstic and Milan Simic, 4 Croats and 1 Muslim. This very fact speaks against whom
this Tribunal has been established. So far, the Tribunal brought several verdicts. Of course, it
cannot be said how many person shall be indicted and who are those persons, even more because
its practice is to have so-called "secret indictments". As it is well-known, the Tribunal also
indicted citizens of FR Yugoslavia - Slobodan Milosevic, President of FRY; Milan Milutinovic,
President of Serbia; Nikola Sainovic, Dragoljub Ojdanic, Vlajko Stojiljkovic, Mile Mrksic,
Miroslav Radic and Veselin Sljivancanin.

On the basis of the indictment against the president of FR Yugoslavia and other high
officials, the United States of America has these days committed crime without precedent in the
international relations: it offered 5 million dollar reward to anyone who helps their kidnapping,
murder and alike. By this the current regime in USA showed and proved that it outlawed and
placed itself out of civilisation norms, as well as introduced the "Wild West law" in the
international relations, while the Tribunal showed to be blind instrument of that politics, not a
court of law and justice.

Not one of the persons accused by the Tribunal is responsible for the war. The war was
imposed to them; they are its victims as the millions of Yugoslavs. On the other hand, Tribunal
did not accuse any of the real culprits for Yugoslav tragedy: leaders of secessionist republics and
their foreign planners, instigators and other accomplices from USA, EU, NATO and Vatican.
This fact best indicates the true nature of the Tribunal. Although the author of this text addressed
the Tribunal several times - more precisely 23 May 1995, 4 September 1995, 14 October 1995, 9
May 1996, 2 July 1997 and 21 July 1998 - requesting initiation of the criminal proceedings
against all these main culprits for Yugoslav tragedy and endangering international peace and
security, the Tribunal and its chief prosecutor did nothing. The Nuremberg and the Tokyo
tribunals did exactly that: they tried main criminals, while all others were left to national courts.

Furthermore, the chief prosecutor of the Tribunal Carla Del Ponte persistently refuses to
initiate investigation and procedure against the leaders of the NATO member states and officials
of that aggressor alliance for aggression on FR Yugoslavia and on that occasion committed
crimes, though she herself says that she received numerous requests (including mine - 12
October 1998, 21 February 1999, 29 March 1999 and 15 May 1999) and voluminous
documentation accusing them, including evidence submitted by Russian Duma.

II

Since the first day of its existence, the Tribunal has been challenged on all the grounds
not only by numerous international lawyers but also by many other people with common sense.
Many arguments have been presented that it is the instrument of politics of force of the United
States of America and its satellites (NATO and EU) for destruction of Yugoslavia (former and
current) and all the Serbian nation and not court of law. At the same time, the people in
Yugoslavia constantly wander how it is possible that Russia and China did nothing to oppose the
establishment of this institution, which represents mockery of justice and equity.

In challenging this institution, first of all it is emphasised that the Security Council of the
United Nations had no right according to the United Nations Charter to establish international
criminal court, to limit its jurisdiction territorially and temporally, to prescribe for which
international crimes it shall have jurisdiction and for which not by excluding its jurisdiction with
regards to the most serious crimes against peace and security such as aggression, armed
secession, intervention in internal affairs, international terrorism. It is also emphasised that it was
a political self-will of the Security Council aimed against Serbian nation, that the real goal of
establishment of this Tribunal was pointing a finger at the party which was not responsible in
order to protect the real culprits, etc. Therefore, FR Yugoslavia did not recognise this Tribunal
until it was forced to sign, although vague, obligation of co-operation with it in Dayton. The
Americans, by permanent pressure to satisfy all the Tribunal's requests, constantly terrorise FR
Yugoslavia and the entire Serbian nation.

If the Security Council of the United Nations by establishing this Tribunal (and the one
for Rwanda) overstepped its authorisations and resorted to self-will, it has done it even in greater
and more dangerous degree by prescribing new international crimes by the Statute of the
Tribunal for Yugoslavia, thus awarding itself with legislator's function in the international field!
In fact, pursuant to the Articles 2 and 3 of the Statute, the Council prescribed that the rules of
international humanitarian law, which are otherwise referring to the international armed
conflicts, should apply to the armed conflict in Yugoslavia, although it is non-international
(internal) armed conflict for which the legal rules referring to the internal conflicts should be
valid, i.e., first of all the joint Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Supplemental
Protocol II to these Conventions adopted in 1977. Furthermore, if the Article 5 of the Statute
could be considered to be valid for the case of war and in peace, the Security Council added to
that Article some of its own "rules" which are not part of modern international humanitarian law,
such as "jail", "torture", "rape", "other non-humane actions" (?!).

Because of such a state of affairs, international lawyers more and more often demand that
the issue of judicial, i.e. legal, control of the decisions and documents of the organisation of the
United Nations is to be solved urgently, and first of all the decision of the Security Council, so as
to prevent its self-will.

The course of the trials so far before this Tribunal indicate what the real role and power
of this Tribunal is, and it shall be even clearer. For example, in the beginning of the trial of the
Serbian Dusko Tadic we heard the prosecutor and one witness of the prosecution, a James Gau,
British, as "an expert for Yugoslav affairs". In reply to the key question who holds responsibility
for the destruction of Yugoslavia and commencement of war, they say the same what their
paymasters are blowing into the trumpet from the very beginning: Serbs! Since they could not
possibly deny the fact that any normal person knows that the Serbs fought to remain in
Yugoslavia and that the others left it by anti-constitutional violent secession, they say: well, they
had to, because they had good reasons to be afraid of Serbian nationalism! And so on. Some
signs show that the things will not go the way they imagined. For instance, the President of the
Trial Chamber of the Court in Tadic case as well as the Defence asked some, for them
unpleasant questions such as: how Yugoslav National Army could be occupier in its own
country?! "Could American Army occupy, e.g. Texas?", asked the President of the Trial
Chamber American Gabriella Kirk McDonald. Does the state have right to defend itself from
secession? The American surely knows history of her country that well to be aware how the
former president of her country Lincoln dealt with secession. Furthermore, the sentence of Tadic
caused headache to the Tribunal's inventors: namely, the sentence stated that it was non-
international armed conflict in Bosnia, which means that it was civil war, and not the
international, on which the prosecution insisted. That annihilates the entire concept, the entire
"philosophy" of the enemy of the Serbian nation - that the war in Bosnia and Croatia was in fact
aggression, of course made by FR Yugoslavia. Therefore the Tribunal's prosecutor lodged a
complaint against the judgement, and the Tribunal was ordered to revoke this judgement and
bring another according to which the conflict in Bosnia would be of "international character"!
Consequently, the norms of international law regulating internal conflicts have not been applied
for the war conducted on some parts of the former Yugoslavia, precisely the common Article 3
of the Geneva Conventions and Protocol II, but the norms covering armed conflicts of
international character!

All the above indicates that it is high time to initiate in the Security Council the question
of abolishment of this Tribunal, which represents monstrous monument to the tyranny of the
Untied States of America and their satellites over a small state and small nation which was in the
First and Second World War exposed to the horrible genocide by Croat and Muslim Ustasha's
(pro-fascist collaborators) and Nazis. That genocide is now continued by USA and their NATO
and EU satellites by means of sanctions, aggression and political isolation and terror. In these
crimes Tribunal is one of the most efficient instruments. Not only that it has to be abolished as
soon as possible, but it should not have ever been established.
 Therefore, the Security Council of the Untied Nations should bring the following
decision on the grounds of the item 9 of its Resolution 827:

1. The International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia is abolished.

2. All the convicted or accused persons who are in the prisons of the Tribunal are to be
delivered to their national states for the procedure before the jurisdictional courts for the crimes
imputed to them, together with all the documentation and evidence in their possession. The
Security Council shall control how the states are conducting the criminal procedures for the
violation of the international humanitarian law and shall take the necessary measures - including
sanctions anticipated by the United Nations Charter - against those states which would in any
manner avoid objective and fair actions.

3. All the states are called on to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal
Court as soon as possible, in order that the international community could have a real, permanent
international criminal court like the International Court of Justice.

Beograd, March 20, 2000 Milan Tepavac, Ph.D.

miltep@EUnet.yu

Member of the International Law Yugoslav Association

Member of the International Law World Association

Member of the Belgrade Bar Association

Member of the Serbian Bar Association