YouSaid · the spoken record

Čedomir Backović

lines on the record: 57
first: 2020-06-08
most recent: 2020-12-14
sittings or episodes: 2
sources: un-security-council

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

“It is hard to understand why my country’s efforts to resolve certain questions, also presented in the Council, are met with official indifference. It sometimes seems that we are being convened here only for an informal meeting of interested parties and that the real decision-making takes place elsewhere. That does not benefit the Mechanism, and it is demeaning for the United Nations and disruptive of the international legal order. The only way to bridge the differences, overcome the impasse and embark on the path to addressing the initiative of my country is to get the Security Council actively engaged in this matter and provide answers and solutions, which we have long awaited.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“The investigation of unknown perpetrators was initiated in 11 cases. The investigation of 134 persons in 30 cases has been ceased, mainly because the defendants are at large and their whereabouts are unknown. One of the priorities in the work of the Office is a solution to the issue of the large number of missing persons. In view of the importance of the issue, alongside the Commission on Missing Persons of the Government of the Republic of Serbia, the Office is regularly engaged in the pursuit of solutions to outstanding matters at the bilateral and regional levels and, to that end, a representative of the Office took part in a working meeting held on 23 October between the Commission and its Croatian counterpart.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“Furthermore, another indictment was issued last July, but it was dismissed due to insufficient evidence. The prosecution is now expected to come back with stronger evidence. Five more cases are to be taken over as soon as complete evidence is received from regional prosecution agencies. In one case a decision of the Mechanism is awaited following a request to change protection measures. The main trial is ongoing before first- instance courts in 15 cases against 37 persons, and three convictions were handed down under the indictments issued by the Office in the same period. Fifty-four persons are currently being investigated by the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia in eight cases. Two investigations were initiated in the period from May to November, and the others date back to the previous period.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“One such project was launched last November with the participation of a number of representatives from the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor and the Mechanism and the inclusion of a thorough analysis of category II cases, assistance requests, regional cooperation, the cases in which evidence is ceded, documents, information and the cases in which witness testimonies are ensured. Let me point out that the Office was very active in the period from May to November and issued three indictments, taken over from the prosecution agencies of Bosnia and Herzegovina within the framework of regional cooperation. Two of the indictments refer to the commission of offences that accounted for a large number of casualties, while one was issued in a complex case with a large number of offences and casualties in which a high-ranking person was indicted.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“The cooperation was very extensive in the reporting period, and a number of working meetings were held, including conference calls due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The most recent meeting was held at the level of Chief Prosecutors in October and focused on category II matters, which had also been the subject of discussion at the regional conference in Sarajevo in 2019. The Office took over the prosecution of a category II case, while the receipt of unredacted statements from the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina is awaited following the changes in protection measures. Cooperation with the Mechanism continues through joint projects.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“She also invoked a statement of the Mechanism to the effect that it would help regional Prosecutor’s Offices of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro and Serbia to strengthen their capacities. The State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia is left out, which, in her opinion, is a further indication that Croatian prosecutors should be exempted from regional training courses. The Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia remains committed to strengthening cooperation with the Mechanism, which is one of the basic activities it engages in under the strategic documents in force in Serbia — the National Strategy for the Prosecution of War Crimes and the prosecutorial strategy, as well as the Chapter 23 action plan.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“In that connection, mention should be made that, after the Regional Prosecutors’ Conference held in Belgrade in 2019, the representative of the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia presented in her letter of 2 October 2019 the position of her Office that its prosecutors acting in matters of war crimes should be exempted from regional training courses carried out jointly with the Prosecutor’s Offices of other countries. She said that she was guided by the fact that Croatia is an EU member State and a signatory party to the conventions implemented under its criminal legislation and that, in view of the fact that its legislative solutions are different, its prosecutors need a different training.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“Between May and November, the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia submitted to the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia 55 requests for assistance, nine of which were responded to, while no response has been received for any of the other 46 such requests. The State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia submitted to the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia 12 requests for assistance, seven of which were responded to, while five are still being considered.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“The international legal framework, namely, the international agreement on cooperation in criminal matters, has long been amended by memorandums, bilateral agreements and protocols among the Ministries of Justice and the Prosecutor’s Offices of the countries of the region. Between May and November, the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted to the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia 27 requests for assistance, 11 of which were responded to, while 16 are still being considered. In the same period, the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia submitted 67 requests to the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 21 of which were responded to, while responses to 46 are still awaited.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“It is not clear why. The job of the Office of the ICTY Prosecutor is completed once a judgment is handed down. After they serve their sentences, those persons cannot be further sanctioned on any basis or denied a personal or civil right. The position of the Office on the denial and glorification of war crimes is therefore irrelevant and selective, just as it is replete with political messages, which is well beyond the bounds of its competence. The importance of regional cooperation in the field of war crimes is essential for prosecuting all suspects effectively, irrespective of the country in which they reside.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“The return of the documents is of paramount importance not only because of the responsibility that we all have for documenting the events that took place in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, but also because of the enormous amount of material and the need to enlist the help and assistance of many Serbian institutions. It is not a simple task, and it has been continually postponed pending the completion of the Mechanism’s work. The issue of the ICTY Information Centre in Serbia and the legacy of the Tribunal should not in any way be confused with the return of the documents. A standard part of the six-monthly reports, including this one, deals with the denial and glorification of war crimes. In each report mention is made of public appearances by persons, sometimes expressly named, who have served sentences imposed by the Tribunal.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“We submitted a large number of documents to the Office of the ICTY Prosecutor, the defence teams and the ICTY Trial Chambers. We believe that the documents submitted to the Prosecutor of the Tribunal, and subsequently the Mechanism, and not used as evidence in the proceedings should be returned to the authorities that submitted it. Our belief is predicated on the fact that the proceedings have been completed and that Serbia will not destroy the documents, will keep them in a proper way and will fully respect the standards of document safekeeping and use. No concrete reply has yet been received to that request. The officials of the Mechanism continue to ignore our proposals.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“No mechanism is provided for the appeals procedure. The decisions made by the Tribunal contrary to its founding act resulted in far-reaching consequences, that is, sentences of many years imposed without recourse to legal remedy and absent any instruction in that regard. Some of the persons on whom life sentences were imposed — Tolimir and Beara — died while serving the sentences, which makes the need for the resolution of this legal nonsense even more apparent, all the more so now since the imposition of the first-instance sentences on Franko Simatović and Jovica Stanišić and the second-instance sentence on Ratko Mladić is expected to take place in May 2021. Another issue of exceptional importance to my country is the fate of the Tribunal’s archives.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“In determining the terms of imprisonment, the Trial Chamber shall have recourse to the general practice regarding prison sentences in the courts of the former Yugoslavia.” The Updated Statute is widely available on the Tribunal’s website. Nevertheless, the Tribunal and the Mechanism imposed life sentences on the Serbian citizens Stanislav Galić, Ljubiša Beara, Vujadin Popović and Zdravko Tolimir and a first-instance life sentence on Ratko Mladić. Life sentences were also imposed on Milan Lukić and Radovan Karadžić, persons of Serbian nationality but not Serbian citizens. At that time, Serbia provided for a sentence of up to 40 years in prison for the most serious crimes. The only conclusion to be drawn from this punishment policy is that the Tribunal imposed the said sentences contrary to its own statute.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“Instead, each country in which the convicted persons serve their sentences upholds its own principles. Consequently, the treatment is significantly better in developed countries, as they attach greater importance to resocialization and their higher standards are reflected in all aspects of life, including the conditions under which the sentences are served. I would like once again to bring to the Council’s attention the failure to heed the provisions of the Updated Statute of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia of September 2009. Paragraph 1 of its article 24, on penalties, states: “The penalty imposed by the Trial Chamber shall be limited to imprisonment.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“In view of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, his transfer to another prison or the Scheveningen UNDU without the possibility to establish contact with his family would be tantamount to additional, inappropriate punishment. Once again, Serbia is ready to take up the obligation, as well as the responsibility, in this and in all other cases, for the enforcement of sentences and is agreed to have relevant supervision. The competent Serbian institutions are ready to provide clear guarantees that convicted persons will not be released early short of a decision by the Mechanism. Another point is worth mentioning. Unfortunately, the treatment of persons serving sentences imposed by the Tribunal varies from country to country. Neither the Tribunal nor the Mechanism has managed to set general standards that would be respected by all.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“Under Polish law, for instance, Sreten Lukić, sentenced by the Tribunal, will have completed two thirds of his sentence by January, and the Polish authorities intend to transfer him immediately upon that completion to some other country to continue to serve the rest of the sentence or to return him temporarily to the United Nations Detention Unit (UNDU) in Scheveningen. Is it not only too obvious that it would be in everybody’s best interest to transfer him to serve the rest of his sentence in Serbia? A person who has fulfilled the conditions for an early release, Sreten Lukić is being additionally punished by the above-mentioned procedural obstacles and a long wait for a reply to his request.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“In addition, Serbia is a today democratically developed country and a candidate for European Union (EU) membership; its system of sentence enforcement is aligned with international standards in the area and is sometimes more progressive than those in some EU member States. Many of Serbia’s penitentiaries were built recently and are suitable for the enforcement of the sentences imposed for war crime offences, while the country has the legal basis for the enforcement of the sentences imposed for the criminal offences laid down in the statute of the Mechanism. Serbia’s Government has agreed to have the organs designated by the Tribunal or the Mechanism carry out supervision of the enforcement of sentences. The importance of the initiative is particularly relevant now in the light of recent developments.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“The armed conflicts on the territory of the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ended more than two decades ago; the opinion of the Secretary- General contained in paragraph 121 of the report (S/25704) adopted along with the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) statute on 3 May 1993 to the effect that convicted persons should serve sentences outside of the territory of the former Yugoslavia was a reasonable position at the time when the territory was engulfed in armed conflict; today, though, that position is anachronistic and, in the light of the manner in which sentences are enforced, generates harmful consequences both for the convicted persons and their families.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“Notwithstanding the convincing arguments that we have continually made to highlight the importance of the initiative, we have to date received no reply from the Security Council. The following are some of the arguments.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“Serbia has done its best to reply quickly and effectively to the request for expression of interest in connection with early release. Under the newly introduced practice, the President of the Mechanism contacts the country to which a convicted person is to return, and in March, May and November 2020 Serbia received three requests for Radivoje Đorđević, Sreten Lukić and Vlastimir Đorđević. It replied instantly. In view of the failure of the competent organs of the Mechanism to provide answers regarding the conditional regime of early release, let me point out once again the importance of Serbia’s initiative launched in 2009 related to serving sentences imposed on its citizens by the Tribunal in Serbia.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“The completion of the work of the Mechanism and its budget are technical problems, not an excuse for sluggishness on its part. In legal systems all over the world, the “silence of the administration” is perceived as a procedural-legal institution concerning untimely decision-making, that is, failure to institute an act that is bound to produce multiple legal consequences. The personal position of President Agius of non-belief in the rehabilitation of persons convicted by the Tribunal does not rest on the teachings of penology, yet it does end up producing consequences. In my opinion, no judge, even the President of the International Residual Mechanism, should have such liberty in decision-making. His only control mechanism is the founder of the Mechanism, the Security Council, and it must act.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“The previous Presidents of the Tribunal and the Mechanism decided this matter without interference by the Office of the Prosecutor. Of course, the President has the right to consult whomever he may deem relevant. Yet the interference by the Office in the sense of requesting changes in the Mechanism’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence is unacceptable. This is all happening at a time when several Serbian citizens have made requests for early release after having served two thirds of their sentences. So far, a reply has been received to only one of those requests, and it has been rejected. Others are still waiting for a reply. Such important decisions related to human rights and the destiny of the convicted persons and, by extension, of their families must not be trated as a game of three-card monte.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“After all, the Mechanism’s mission is not only to end the remaining cases but also to address all questions still in dispute. My country will continue to insist that all key issues unaddressed in its cooperation with the Mechanism be resolved. In resolution 2422 (2018), the Mechanism is encouraged to consider a conditional regime of early release. The latest report informs us that the Office of the Prosecutor is seriously concerned over the fact that the vast majority of the persons convicted have been unconditionally released after serving only two thirds of their sentences. Let me reiterate the position of my country in that regard: the “concern” is in fact a call for introducing unjustified changes into the work of the Mechanism. The institution of conditional release is a legal achievement of civilized society.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“It is instructive, though, that the decision was brought in accordance with article 1 of the statute of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, on “Competence of the International Tribunal”, which reads: “The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 in accordance with the provisions of the present Statute.” Accordingly, it is evident that obstruction of justice does not belong under “serious violations of international humanitarian law”. The extension of the operating period of the Mechanism until June 2022 brings into focus the issue of the consideration of those cases that remain unresolved.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“With respect to the request to Serbia to surrender Vjerica Radeta and Petar Jojić for obstruction of justice, let me bring to the Council’s attention once again the fact that an independent Serbian court rejected the request by a legally valid — final — decision. The independence of the judiciary is one of the basic principles of a democratic society. Serbia is such a society, and there is no way in which that decision could have been influenced.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“It has been our duty to prosecute those responsible regardless of the national, ethnic or religious status of the perpetrators or the victims. The persons surrendered include the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a President of Serbia, a Federal Deputy Prime Minister, a Deputy Prime Minister of Serbia, three former Chiefs of the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia, a former Head of the State Security Agency and many army and police generals. That was not requested of any other State that emerged from the former Yugoslavia, even though the reasons were many. What there was not much of, to be exact, was political will. Now, is the non-selective cooperation of my country sufficiently appreciated? That is a call that each one of those present here must make.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“Replies are forwarded to the Office of the Prosecutor, the Trial Chambers and the secretariat of the Mechanism, while witnesses are exempted from the obligation to keep State, official and/or military secrets on a regular basis. With regard to the remaining cases, first-instance proceedings are currently under way in the retrials of Franko Simatović and Jovica Stanišić and in the appeal case of Ratko Mladić. Serbia has aligned its laws with the relevant standards, making cooperation possible and exception-free, including in matters recognized by the Security Council as serious international crimes under the statute of the Mechanism. My country’s commitment to combating impunity is also reflected in the number and rank of the accused persons whom it surrendered to the Tribunal.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“To that end, the question of communication limitations has been resolved, and Serbia considers its cooperation with the Mechanism one of its key obligations, the fulfilment of which is among its priorities. Serbia’s results in this field stand out when compared to those of the other countries of the region, in respect of cooperation with both the Mechanism and the domestic judiciary. Let me point out that Serbia has enabled unrestricted access by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Mechanism to all evidence, documents, archives and witnesses, and that cooperation with those organs is proceeding smoothly. All the requests have been attended to, and only those of more recent date are under consideration.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“I thank you, Mr. President, for this opportunity to speak to the Security Council on Serbia’s behalf. This is the second time this year that we are considering the regular six- monthly reports of the President and the Prosecutor of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals in an open video-teleconference. This is strong evidence of the great risk of the spread of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19), and I thank the President and the Prosecutor for their efforts to acquaint us with the work of the Mechanism in these extraordinary circumstances. We in Serbia adjusted to these circumstances, too, and advised the Mechanism immediately after the outbreak of the pandemic that we were going to cooperate and continue with the supervision of persons on parole under the conditions specified in the decisions of its Trial Chambers.”
2020-12-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/1236 (2020) · source
“I believe that, with the end of the Mechanism’s work in sight, the active engagement of the Council on all open issues is extremely important. Serbia expects answers to these questions. In lieu of a conclusion, let me point out that I believe that the highlights I made in my statement are elucidative enough to lead all present to conclude that my country’s cooperation with the Residual Mechanism has been successful indeed.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“In the most recent period, the War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Serbia continued to request the necessary documentation from the Mechanism for specific ongoing cases at all stages of criminal proceedings. The joint project of the IRMCT and the European Commission — the visiting national prosecutors programme — is still being implemented, which enables a representative of the War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office to stay and work at the IRMCT Prosecutor’s Office as a liaison officer who continuously searches the ICTY/IRMCT Prosecutor’s Office database and separates and submits documentation and evidence relevant to the proceedings within the jurisdiction of the War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office. In addition, case handlers regularly search databases by accessing the electronic disclosure system.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“On 12 May, the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia and the Chief Prosecutor of the Mechanism held a telephone meeting. The topics of conversation were the results achieved in the previous period by the Prosecutor’s Office, regional cooperation and cooperation between the War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office and the Mechanism. In December 2019, the Deputy Prosecutors for War Crimes and Assistant Prosecutors attended the introductory training in The Hague and, on that occasion, the experts of the Prosecutor’s Office of the IRMCT transferred to them the knowledge and experience gained through the work of the Mechanism.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“In the period from 17 to 19 December 2019, the representatives of Serbia’s War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office participated in the Regional Conference of Prosecutors in Sarajevo, which was attended by the representatives of Prosecutors from the region — Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and Montenegro, and the Chief Prosecutor of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. On 14 May, the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia held a telephone meeting with the Chief Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Gordana Tadić. The topic of discussion was the improvement of regional cooperation in specific cases. Cooperation with the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals remains active and constructive.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“Its representatives participated at the technical level in the regional meeting held on 26 and 27 November 2019 in Sarajevo, in which, in addition to the representatives of Serbia’s War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office, the representatives of the Prosecutor’s Offices of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals, the Supreme State Prosecutor’s Office of Montenegro and the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia also participated.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“The Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia submitted seven requests for assistance to the State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia, of which three were granted, while four requests have not yet been answered. Six requests were submitted to the European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo Special Prosecutor’s Office in Priština, but so far none have been answered. The War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office was committed to strengthening regional cooperation in war crimes prosecutions.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“The Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted 16 requests for assistance to the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia, of which six requests were granted and eight processed; two requests were not granted due to formal deficiencies. The Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia submitted 18 requests for assistance to the Bosnia and Herzegovina Prosecutor’s Office, of which four were granted, while 14 have not yet been answered. The State Attorney’s Office of the Republic of Croatia submitted 10 requests for assistance to the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia, of which four requests were granted; six requests are still being processed.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“Last but not least, let me point out the cooperation at the regional level, which is the result of joint work on mutual understanding, cooperation and reconciliation. In the period from 16 November 2019 to 16 May 2020, the War Crimes Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Serbia filed two indictments, according to which proceedings are currently in progress before the court of first instance. In the same period, according to the indictments of the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia from the previous period, four first-instance convictions were handed down. In the second-instance procedure, one person was acquitted and two convicted. Cooperation with the competent prosecutor’s offices from the region continued with the exchange of requests for assistance.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“The precondition for the return of documentation is the fact that the criminal proceedings before the ICTY and the IRMCT have been finalized. So far, no concrete answer to this question has been provided. Our proposals to launch this great undertaking have not been met with a response from Mechanism officials. The return of documentation is extremely important, not only because of the responsibility for documenting events in the former Yugoslavia in the 1990s, but also because of the volume of material and additional engagement of the relevant institutions of Serbia. In any case, this is not an easy job, and it has been postponed until the last moment, when the end of the Mechanism’s work is already in sight.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“The question is how to solve problems of this kind, when decisions of the court are ignored by the Registry of that same court and while the President of the court leaves them to his administration without any reaction and even calls for the decisions of the court to be respected. The sixth issue is the fate of the ICTY archives. Serbia has submitted a large number of documents to the ICTY Prosecutor’s Office, the Defence and the ICTY Trial Chambers. The general position of Serbia is that the documentation submitted to the ICTY Prosecutor’s Office, and later to the Mechanism as well, which was not presented as evidence in the proceedings before the ICTY and the Mechanism, should be returned to the authorities that submitted it.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“In such a situation, the Minister of Justice of Serbia requested President Agius to take measures to save one human life and to maintain the authority of the court’s decision, endangered by the administration of that same court. President Agius’s response was that, in respect of the health of Mr. Mladić, his ability to react was limited and that this authority had been entrusted to the Appeals Chamber, which makes decisions in proceedings related to Mr. Mladić. In addition, he stated that the management of the United Nations Detention Unit, including the provision of medical services to detainees, is the general responsibility of the Registrar.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“An international medical expert team has been formed to protect the life and health of General Mladić. The unanimous assessment of that team was that the operation would pose an unnecessary risk to his life. Fortunately, General Ratko Mladić survived. A special problem is the non-enforcement of court decisions. According to the decision of the Appeals Chamber, the medical service of the Mechanism was ordered to provide information on the health status of Ratko Mladić to his medical team once a week. Contrary to that decision, official reports on his health are hidden from his family and his medical team, that is to say, the Secretariat does not respect the decision of the Appeals Chamber. The behaviour of the administration of the Detention Unit has remained unsanctioned.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“Regrettably, I have to pay special attention to a problem that regularly occurs in the Detention Unit of the Mechanism in Scheveningen and concerns the health status of General Ratko Mladić. On 30 March, Serbia’s Minister of Justice addressed the President of the Mechanism, Mr. Carmel Agius, conveying to him her concerns about the operation to which General Mladić was subjected, in the context of the pandemic and despite the recommendation of the Dutch authorities not to perform non-emergency medical procedures, about which his family was only subsequently informed. Due to similar actions by employees of the Detention Unit as well as the members of the medical service in charge of detainees, the family of Ratko Mladić had to intervene, even on previous occasions.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
““Administrative silence” in administrative systems the world over is viewed as a procedural legal method for untimely enactment, that is, the non- enactment of acts, which has various legal consequences. The fifth question arises at the end, when convicts are released. The Mechanism Prosecutor’s Office continues to observe and monitor them. The regular part of the six-month reports, including this one, refers to the denial and glorification of war crimes. Each report mentions, sometimes by name, the appearance in public of persons who have served a sentence imposed by the ICTY. It is not clear why. The work of the Prosecutor’s Office has been completed by the handing down of a verdict. After serving the sentence, such persons cannot be further sanctioned, on any grounds, nor can anyone deprive them of any personal and civil rights.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“Certainly, the President of the Mechanism has the right to consult when he deems it relevant in making a decision on early release. Influence by the Prosecution, as well as third parties, in terms of amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Mechanism is inadmissible. Unfortunately, that change did take place. Persons who have become eligible for this condition are in this way additionally punished by procedural obstacles and long waits for a response. The answers to the requests are late, without a reason or justification. Any reason for terminating the work of the Mechanism and the budget at its disposal represents a technical problem; this cannot be an excuse for the non-expediency of the Mechanism.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“Serbia received a “call for a statement” for Radivoje Miletić in March 2020 and for Sreten Lukić in May 2020. A new practice has been introduced whereby the President of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals addresses the country to which the convict is to return, seeking guarantees that the State of which they are nationals will accept and monitor compliance with the conditions set by the Mechanism in the event of a positive decision on the early release to freedom. Serbia submitted positive answers to these calls for a statement within the set deadline. Conditional release is a legal achievement of a civilized society. The previous Presidents of the Tribunal and the Mechanism decided on this issue without anyone’s influence.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“Serbia insists that the same conditions should continue to apply to citizens of Serbia convicted before the Tribunal. Last year, most of the requests submitted by citizens of Serbia to the President of the Mechanism requesting early release after having served two thirds of their sentence were not resolved, for the first time. In 2019, two thirds of the prison sentences expired for the following citizens of Serbia: Radivoje Miletić, Sreten Lukić, Radoslav Brdjanin, Vlastimir Djordjević and Nebojša Pavković. All of them had submitted requests for early release. These are people of advanced age and fragile health, and the legal resolution of their cases, for reasons of humanity, should not be left out. At the beginning of 2020, the request by Radoslav Brdjanin for early release was denied.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“Serbia is ready to take on the obligation of, and responsibility for, the implementation of the prison sentences imposed on its citizens convicted before The Hague Tribunal and to accept international supervision in that regard. The competent institutions of Serbia are ready to provide clear guarantees that convicted persons will not be released early without appropriate decisions by the Mechanism. Once again, we invite the representatives of the Mechanism and the representatives of the relevant institutions designated by the Secretary-General to visit Serbia, tour its prison facilities and see for themselves if the prison conditions correspond to that purpose. The fourth major problem is the issue of changing the conditions for early release after two thirds of the prison sentence has been served.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“Is it not therefore logical that Serbia should be interested in resolving this issue? I believe that we must not allow this issue to remain unresolved until the end of the Mechanism’s mandate. The third problem has arisen because the treatment regime for ICTY detainees unfortunately differs from country to country. The treatment of convicts is much better in the most developed countries, which attach great importance to resocialization and where the level of standards is reflected in all other aspects of life, including the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences. Neither the Tribunal nor the Mechanism has succeeded in imposing general standards that will have to be respected, but, conversely, each of the countries where prison sentences are served has imposed its own principles.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source
“Decisions made by the Tribunal outside the rules of its founding act have resulted in far-reaching consequences, that is, the imposition of long-term penalties in cases where there is no possibility of a remedy or any instruction in this regard. Some of those who were sentenced to life imprisonment, Beara and Tolimir, have died while serving their sentences, so the need to resolve this legal nonsense is even more pronounced. Another problem that Serbia raised in 2009 refers to the initiative whereby Serbian citizens would serve the sentences imposed by the Tribunal in Serbia. We have not yet received a response from the Security Council in that respect. The largest number of convicted persons serving their sentences are persons of Serbian nationality and Serbian citizens.”
2020-06-08 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/2020/527 (2020) · source