YouSaid · the spoken record

Holovka

lines on the record
9
first
2022-12-12
most recent
2022-12-12
sittings or episodes
1
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

  1. “We rightly expect that the Mechanism will act in accordance with its mandate in fostering regional cooperation and the provision of assistance to national jurisdictions. In that sense, we see merit in the Prosecutor’s assessments, particularly with regard to the conduct of one particular neighbouring country, the Republic of Croatia, and call upon its judicial authorities to cooperate. For its part, Serbia strongly believes that all crimes must be tried and adequately punished, regardless of the nationality of the perpetrator. It remains fully committed to a policy of reconciliation in the region, without which there is no future, stability, economic development or normalization of relations.”

    2022-12-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9217 (2022) · source

  2. “Regarding the claims related to the denial of crimes and glorification of war criminals, we must clearly state the position of the Republic of Serbia. With the many proceedings that it has concluded and harsh sentences that it has handed down, primarily to its citizens, for crimes committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, Serbia has proven its commitment to justice and accountability. On the other hand, several acquittals by the ICTY, a lack of cooperation by certain elements in the region and an evident lack of readiness to investigate horrendous crimes perpetrated against the Serbs or to try perpetrators, particularly members of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army in Serbia’s province of Kosovo and Metohija, have cast a serious shadow on the legacy of the Tribunal and the Mechanism.”

    2022-12-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9217 (2022) · source

  3. “We firmly stand by the position that the country in which the convicted person is serving a prison sentence and the Mechanism do not have jurisdiction to decide on the extradition of our citizens to a third country. Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the Mechanism to ensure that prison sentences are served in a country in which conditions provide for the adequate treatment of convicted persons. Another issue that is pending is the return of the extensive archives provided by Serbia to the ICTY or the Mechanism. We do not see any reason for the massive volumes of documentation that are no longer needed or that were never used to remain with the Mechanism and remain hopeful that the matter of the return of original documents will be dealt with, without further delay.”

    2022-12-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9217 (2022) · source

  4. “Furthermore, we believe that, in that way, not only would costs be reduced and the position of the families of convicted persons be eased, but the conditions would be created for proper rehabilitation, and the authority of the Mechanism would be strengthened. At this point, we are compelled to again appeal to the Security Council and the Mechanism to prevent all attempts to harass convicted citizens of Serbia and request the President of the Mechanism to immediately notify the Republic of Serbia of all requests for extradition or the provision of other kinds of legal assistance in criminal matters that concern its citizens who are serving sentences, and to enable it to participate in eventual proceedings.”

    2022-12-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9217 (2022) · source

  5. “With regard to the supervision over the execution of sentences, we would like to recall our readiness and repeat the request that the prison sentences handed down by the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the Mechanism be served in the Republic of Serbia, under the full authority and supervision of the Mechanism. We are firmly convinced that circumstances in the region have changed significantly since the opinion given by the Secretary-General pursuant to resolution 808 (1993), back in 1993. As the prosecution of war crimes today is exclusively within the competence of national judiciaries, we do not see any justification for maintaining the current policy.”

    2022-12-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9217 (2022) · source

  6. “We reiterate our readiness for the Jojić and Radeta case to be taken over by the judiciary of Serbia, and we are ready to provide assurances that the proceedings will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the proper administration of justice, with full respect for both the Mechanism and the rights of witnesses and the accused. Similarly, with regard to ongoing investigations in another case of contempt of court, the case of Prosecutor v. Vojislav Šešelj, should the Prosecutor decide to bring charges against certain individuals for contempt of court, we express our readiness for the trial to be conducted in the Republic of Serbia.”

    2022-12-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9217 (2022) · source

  7. “From the standpoint of Serbia, they are: the initiation of new cases before the Mechanism; supervision of the execution of sentences; provision of assistance to national jurisdictions; and management of the archives. In relation to the first issue, I wish to point to the repeated assertions of alleged non-cooperation of the Republic of Serbia with the Mechanism regarding the case of Prosecutor v. Petar Jojić and Vjerica Radeta. Serbia’s position in connection with that case remains consistent that its conduct does not represent a violation of its international obligations, but an effort to act in accordance with resolution 1966 (2010). We are convinced that, under the current circumstances, conducting proceedings before national judicial authorities can promote justice and strengthen confidence in national judicial systems.”

    2022-12-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9217 (2022) · source

  8. “We are particularly encouraged that, as reflected in the report and the briefings, the Mechanism’s leadership has paid very close attention to the resolution’s particular focus on the future of the Mechanism, including with respect to providing clear and focused projections of completion timelines for all of the Mechanism’s activities, as well as options regarding the transfer of its remaining activities in due course, and the fact that the new President has made it one of her core priorities to guide the Mechanism’s transition from an operational court to a residual institution. When those efforts come to fruition, the aims of resolution 1966 (2010) will have been achieved. In that vein, I would like to point out several issues stemming from the very nature of the Mechanism and its residual functions, which warrant our attention.”

    2022-12-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9217 (2022) · source

  9. “At the outset, I would like to thank the President and the Prosecutor of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals for the presentation of their comprehensive periodic report and for their briefings today. I also take this opportunity to congratulate Judge Graciela Gatti Santana on her appointment as President of the Mechanism. We are pleased that the Mechanism is aware of the major issues of concern, as set out in resolution 2637 (2022), and that it is investing efforts to implement the recommendations of the Informal Working Group on International Tribunals, as well as those of the Office of Internal Oversight Services.”

    2022-12-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9217 (2022) · source