YouSaid · the spoken record

Kuburovic

lines on the record: 36
first: 2018-06-06
most recent: 2019-07-17
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

“I continue to believe that our efforts will be recognized and reflected objectively in the next reports. I hope that I am not overly optimistic in that belief.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“I once again call on the Mechanism's representatives and on the representatives of the relevant institutions that the Secretary-General may appoint for the purpose to visit Serbia, tour its penitentiary institutions and inspect them themselves. We would welcome it if this esteemed institution presented its position regarding the serving of sentences by the persons sentenced before the Tribunal. It would be a very good sign. I therefore call on the Security Council to become actively involved. By realizing the initiative, a positive message would be sent that perpetrators can resocialize by serving sentences in their country of origin. In conclusion, let me point out that Serbia's cooperation with the Mechanism continues to be successful and that my country has no outstanding issues with the Mechanism.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“In my statements in June and December 2018 (see S/PV.8278 and S/PV.8416), I proposed that the Secretary-General request the Mechanism to prepare a comprehensive assessment of the problem in order to make it possible for the Security Council to proceed and review the existing practice relative to the serving of prison sentences and take a decision on requisite changes. Serbia is ready to accept strictly defined international monitoring and to provide clear guarantees that the sentenced persons will not be released early, short of an appropriate decision by the Mechanism or another organ of the United Nations entrusted with the matter in the future.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“The situation in Serbia has changed drastically since the wars in the former Yugoslavia. I highlighted that fact in my previous statements to the Council and during the visits of the Mechanism's officials to Belgrade. Last November, I was reassured by the then President of the Mechanism, Judge Meron, that there were no obstacles to the realization of Serbia's initiative. I was advised to refer the issue of the initiative to the Security Council, which established the Tribunal and the Mechanism.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“The indications that certain changes will occur in respect of early release affect, in an indirect way, the initiative of Serbia, launched more than 10 years ago, to have its nationals sentenced before the Tribunal serve their sentences in Serbia. That initiative was motivated by Serbia's resolve to assume the responsibility for the serving of prison sentences handed down to its nationals by the Tribunal. The purpose of punishment includes, among other things, the resocialization of the sentenced persons. I believe that it is difficult to expect that that purpose will be achieved if the persons serve their sentences in faraway countries, whose language they do not speak and in which the possibility for them to receive visits from, and contact with, relatives is reduced to a bare minimum.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“Persons who have been sentenced before the Tribunal and served their sentences cannot be the topic of the Mechanism Prosecutor's report to the Security Council. Upon presentation of an indictment and, finally, upon the delivery of a judgment, the Prosecutor's job is ended. After serving a sentence, no one can be further sanctioned for whatever reason, nor can he or she be deprived ofa personal or civil right. Let me bring to the Council's attention another very important matter. As I said at the beginning of my statement, certain tendencies taking shape at the time the Mechanism is about to end its work may change the decades-long practice of serving the sentences handed down by the Tribunal and the Mechanism. It is my opinion that the issue should be resolved before the Mechanism completes its mandate.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“Since their establishment by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government in Pristina, the Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor's Office in The Hague have made no progress whatsoever. Likewise, the European Union's Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) Prosecutor's Office in Pristina extended no request for assistance to the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor in Belgrade in the reporting period. However, under the mutual legal assistance procedures, the Serbian Prosecutor's Office extended 16 requests to the EULEX Office, out of which only one request has received a reply. That prevents the crimes committed against Serbs and other non-Albanians from being prosecuted and tried and is surely one of the reasons that no one is called to account for the persecution of the Serbs of Kosovo and Metohija.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“Let me remind the Council that, under resolution 1244 (1999) of 10 June 1999, Kosovo and Metohija have been under the protectorate of the United Nations, the institution in which we convene today. Due to the widely known circumstances, the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo has judicial competences over this part of Serbia's territory. Yet each and every attempt of my country to have the war crimes committed against its population in Kosovo and Metohija investigated and their perpetrators brought to justice has yielded no result. No one has been held accountable for the persecution and killing of Serbs and other non-Albanians. Justice for the victims of war crimes in Kosovo and Metohija continues to be unattainable.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“Those narratives have been churned out by propaganda mills to vindicate the 78-day bombing of my country exactly 20 years ago. The brutalization took place without any reason and was carried out, as the Council knows very well, without its decision. No one seems to be held to account for or found guilty regarding the victims of that monstrous act and the loss of thousands of human lives, in which evidence has been collected through the judicial system of Serbia, except that the highest-ranking Serbian officials have been sentenced by the very Tribunal for criminal offences committed in the territory of Kosovo and Metohija. Their crime was the defence of their country.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“Twenty-seven cases, involving 132 persons, have been suspended on that basis. In the light of efforts to make my statement informative and to bring before the Security Council my county's cooperation with the Tribunal and the Mechanism, which is second to none, I feel disappointed by the contention in paragraph 83 of the report, in which it is stated: "Nonetheless, it is of significant concern that [as of the present], no senior or mid-level official has yet been held accountable [...] for the ethnic cleansing of 800,000 civilians in Kosovo in March and April 1999." The allegations of ethnic cleansing and of 800,000 civilian victims thereof have been made in very poor taste. The allegations are wrong, while number games lead to blind alleys of bias and partiality and are often fraught with far-reaching and unforeseeable consequences.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“The course was organized by the Serbian Judicial Academy and provided practical training on investigating and prosecuting sexual violence in conflict as an international crime. The Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor sought six indictments in the period from 1 November 2018 to 1 July 2019. Three of them were taken over from the competent authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Currently, 20 cases are being tried, while 54 persons in six cases are being investigated. In the reporting period, the Higher Court in Belgrade delivered judgments in five cases, while the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor reached a guilty plea agreement with one person. All persons involved are Serbs. Serbia continues its practice of no trial in absentia with respect to war crimes committed against the Serbian population.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“On the contrary, in comparison to the previous reporting period, regional cooperation today is much broader than before. The adoption of the Prosecutorial Strategy for the Investigation and Prosecution of War Crimes in Serbia recognized the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor as the primary organ for improving efficiency and effectiveness in prosecuting war crimes. Further, the Serbian Government has provided resources to improve the Office's capacities and increase the number of employees, in particular deputy prosecutors. The Prosecutor's Office of the Mechanism also rendered support to improving the work of the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor. The Mechanism's prosecutors were invited as instructors to a five-day training course for deputy and assistant prosecutors in Belgrade last April.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“Furthermore, meetings of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia with her colleagues in the region is proof of Serbia's ongoing efforts aimed at regional cooperation. The regional prosecutors conference on cooperation, benchmarks and standards in the prosecution of war criminals was held in Belgrade in May. In addition to high-ranking officials from the War Crimes Prosecutor's Offices of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro and Serbia, the International Residual Mechanism's Prosecutor, Mr. Brammertz, took part in the conference. We therefore find it difficult to subscribe to the report's assessment that "regional judicial cooperation in war crimes matters in not satisfactory" (S/2019/417, annex 11, para. 81).”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“In addition, a ministerial meeting was held in Zagreb in February. These meetings and the work of the commissions are important steps being taken by Serbia and Croatia to address outstanding bilateral issues between our two countries. Specifically, the State's Attorney Office of the Republic of Croatia submitted 21 requests, of which 9 have been fulfilled, while 11 are still under consideration. The Office of the War Crime Prosecutor ofthe Republic ofSerbia submitted 18 requests, ofwhich 6 have received replies, leaving 12 requests without a reply. These numbers show the progress achieved in comparison to the previous reporting period, when we received no reply from Croatia to any request for evidence and information.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“The Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted 29 requests, 25 of which were fulfilled, while the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia submitted 45 requests, 28 of which have received replies. Serbia's Prosecutor's Office has taken over three indictments from the competent authorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is our hope that our cooperation with Croatia will also improve. Following a meeting of Justice Ministers between our two countries in March 2018, two commissions were established to exchange lists of persons indicted or sentenced for war crimes and to draft a bilateral criminal trials agreement. The first of the two commissions completed its task, while the other continues to hold meetings, the last of which took place in Belgrade last week.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“Undoubtedly, the countries of the region needto work together to achieve mutual understanding, cooperation and reconciliation. Our future stability and economic development should be predicated on the normalization of relations rather than on political conditionality. The report's insistence on conditionality, especially against the backdrop of Serbia's extensive achievements in terms of cooperation with the Mechanism, is therefore unfair and ultimately unacceptable. Cooperation in our region is on the rise and best illustrated by the following. Serbia's cooperation with Bosnia and Herzegovina in the field of legal assistance is at a high level. In the period from 1 November 2018 to 1 July 2019, exchanges of requests for legal assistance between our countries took place.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“Furthermore, the report suggests that higher- ranking perpetrators have not been prosecuted, even though the President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the President of the Republic of Serbia, the Vice-President of the Federal Government, the Vice-President of the Government of the Republic of Serbia, three former Chiefs of the General Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia, the former Head of the State Security Service and many military and police generals were among the persons transferred to the Tribunal. No such requests were made of any other country. Others were spared for political reasons, even if there were surely legal reasons to prosecute them. This approach clearly falls outside the international legal order on which the United Nations is based.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“In the last reporting period, Serbia made progress in its activities related to the so-called legacy of the Tribunal by responding to the call made for the establishment of a Belgrade information centre to house ICTY materials and make them accessible to the general public. Since the inception of the Tribunal, my country's cooperation has yielded positive results, and its ownjudicial system has been changed and improved in the process. Making Serbia's progress to European integration conditional on extraneous issues would send a message that all those years of hard work and exceptional results have not been enough.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“The Mechanism is seen as a tool for exercising political pressure. Neither the Prosecutor nor the Mechanism are entrusted with such a mandate. Serbia's cooperation with the Mechanism has been successful and received wide acclaim. It has fulfilled the obligations it assumed and given the Mechanism free access to all evidence, documents, archives and witnesses. All the Mechanism's requests have been attended to with timely replies, and the documentation requested from the archives of Serbia's State organs have been forwarded to the Mechanism's Prosecutor, Chambers and Secretariat. Furthermore, witnesses have been allowed to testify, waiving their right not to with respect to State, military or official secrets.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“This fact calls into question the Mechanism's ability to complete the remaining cases prior to the projected closure and brings into focus the question of the institutional framework within which the issues unresolved at the deadline will be considered. However, certain assertions contained in the progress report of the Prosecutor for the period from 16 November 2018 to 15 May 2019 (S/2019/4l7, annex II) are unfounded and a cause for concern. In paragraph 29, the report says that the European Union's policy of conditionality, linking membership progress to full cooperation with the ICTY and the Mechanism, remains a key tool for ensuring cooperation with the Mechanism. This position seeks to shape the political context of Serbia's cooperation with the European Union, replacing legal arguments with political ones.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“I am grateful for the opportunity to address the Security Council on behalf of the Republic of Serbia today. As a potential witness to the completion of the work of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals in the foreseeable future, I take this opportunity to share some of the key moments in Serbia's cooperation with these institutions. I shall shed light on certain tendencies taking shape in the work of the Mechanism at this juncture, which may foreshadow future developments. The provision for the Mechanism to close in June 2020 is at odds with the assessments ofthe Mechanism's officials that some cases will not be completed by the end of that year.”
2019-07-17 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8576 (2019) · source
“After months of delay, prison doctors eventually prescribed therapy to a convicted person identical to that proposed by Serbian doctors long before. I wish to draw the attention of the Council to inadequate medical care in certain cases. I am doing so on this occasion since I believe that the provision of adequate health care must not be contingent on goodwill or subject to manipulation; it is, in short, a basic human right. In conclusion, I would like to point out that Serbia has no outstanding issues with the Mechanism and that its cooperation with it will continue to take place unhindered. We expect this fact to be reflected in future reports.”
2018-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8278 (2018) · source
“Convicted persons do not understand the language of distant countries and cannot meet their families and other relatives. More often than not, they are kept in inadequate conditions and receive substandard health care, which was brought out in the letters of Judge Meron, the Mechanism's President, to Estonian authorities, the most recent of which was sent at the beginning ofMay. Serbia is ready to provide guarantees that all security measures will be taken in the event that sentences are served in the country of origin. It also accepts international monitoring. We are concerned about the health of some accused and convicted persons. Despite Serbia's guarantees, the Mechanism rejected some requests to temporarily release certain persons for treatment.”
2018-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8278 (2018) · source
“It is expected that the other commission will commence it swork next month, which is of paramount importance for the two countries to address outstanding bilateral issues. Serbia will do its utmost to achieve visible progress in resolving the issue of missing persons in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo and Metohija, and bring closure to their families. The joint commissions of Serbia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina are charged with that task. As I said in my previous statement to the Security Council (see S/PV.8120), my country's initiative related to the enforcement of sentences in persons' countries of origin will help to achieve the purpose of punishment and resocialization, which the enforcement of the sentences in faraway countries fails to do.”
2018-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8278 (2018) · source
“In 2017 and 2018, judgements of Bosnia and Herzegovina courts were recognized in seven cases, with Serbian courts sentencing the defendants to 104 years in prison on the basis of those judgements. All those convicted are Serbs. However, one case, which is still pending, should not be used to dispute the cooperation with Bosnia and Herzegovina, as is done in the report. In the context of cooperation with Croatia, a meeting of the Ministers of Justice in Belgrade last March resulted in the establishment oftwo commissions charged, respectively, with the task of exchanging lists of persons accused or sentenced for war crimes and with preparing a bilateral treaty to address war crimes processing. The first commission convened on 26 April to exchange lists and agree on the modalities for future cooperation.”
2018-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8278 (2018) · source
“That exercise is irrelevant to the conduct of judicial proceedings before independent courts. It is in Serbia's interests to process that case. I confirm once again Serbia's readiness to take it over. We expect the Mechanism to avoid the practice of the Tribunal of procrastinating on some cases, and to complete the remaining cases within a reasonable time. Serbia continues to be committed to processing war crimes irrespective of the nationality of the perpetrators of grievous crimes against humanity. Successful proceedings also depend upon regional cooperation, most evident at the moment with Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbia's judicial institutions have recognized judgements handed down in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and have taken over the prosecution of certain cases in which all process requirements had been complied with.”
2018-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8278 (2018) · source
“The Amicus Curiae Prosecutor requested to be actively included in the proceeding and the Single Judge approved her request; she submitted her protestations to the Single Judge of the takeover of the case by Serbia. The Judge forwarded the submissions in the form of a court order to Serbia requesting it to state its position thereon within a certain period. The Ministry of Justice replied to the Judge on three occasions, in April and May. The purpose of including the Amicus Curiae Prosecutor in that case is not clear, unless it is intended to delay the proceedings. We are concerned about the Amicus Curiae Prosecutor's comments in that regard. She questions the competence of Serbian judicial institutions and the parliamentary immunity of Jojie and Radeta and analyses public opinion in Serbia.”
2018-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8278 (2018) · source
“Furthermore, Serbia cannot process the war crimes committed against the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija because of Pristina's continued refusal to cooperate with Belgrade and respond to the requests of the Office of the Prosecutor for War Crimes, as also reflected in the report. After the Mechanism took over from the Tribunal the case Prosecutor v. Petar Jojic' and Vjerica Radeta, Single Judge Aydin Sefa Akay requested Serbia to confirm that it could process that case. Proceeding from the opinion of the competent court and the Office of the Prosecutor, and with a commitment to providing all procedural guarantees for a fair trial, Serbia in fact confirmed its ability and readiness to take over the case.”
2018-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8278 (2018) · source
“In his report (S/2018/347, annex), the Mechanism's Prosecutor welcomes the number of cases processed in Croatia, the majority ofwhich were tried in absentia. Let me recall that Serbia's Office of the Prosecutor for War Crimes has suspended 30 cases, involving more than 70 indicted persons, because their whereabouts were unknown. Are we to understand that Serbia should have recourse to instituting trials in absentia in order to make the number of cases tried and resolved satisfactory? The Prosecutor goes on to say in his report that Serbia has not yet taken meaningful steps against high- level suspectsln that regard, it should be borne in mind that many of them were sentenced before the Tribunal and that its practice related to the acquittal of the indictees impacts the prosecution criteria and standards of the Serbian side.”
2018-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8278 (2018) · source
“In the context of the implementation of the national and prosecution strategies, as well as of the capacity of the Prosecutor's Office for War Crimes of Serbia, it is important to point out that a Deputy Prosecutor was appointed recently and that the election of two other deputies is expected to take place within a month. In addition, the Government allocated funds to capacity improvements last May, while the Ministry of Justice increased the number of Prosecutor's assistants by four and approved the appointment of three more deputies. In addition, the Judicial Academy is preparing a curriculum to train prosecutors and judges to update their knowledge of techniques for investigating and trying war crimes and for protecting victims and witnesses. The training will take place in cooperation with the Mechanism's Office of the Prosecutor.”
2018-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8278 (2018) · source
“The reports are published in both Serbian and English on the website of the Ministry of Justice. The Mechanism's Office of the Prosecutor has extended full support to Serbia's draft prosecutorial strategy for the investigation and prosecution of war crimes for the period 2018-2023. In supporting the draft strategy, the Prosecutor stated that the Office reiterates its full commitment to supporting Serbia's Prosecutor's Office in carrying out its important mandate to fight impunity for war crimes in Serbia. Serbia's Prosecutor's Office for War Crimes adopted the strategy on 4 April.”
2018-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8278 (2018) · source
“In its continuous efforts to improve its judicial system, Serbia has followed the guidelines defined, among others, by its national strategy for the prosecution of war crimes. The strategy was adopted by the Government of the Republic of Serbia on 20 February 2016 in full support of all judicial and executive bodies included in investigations, as well as the organizations monitoring and reporting on those proceedings as independent observers. On 26 August 2017, the Government established a body to monitor the implementation of the strategy. It consists of representatives from all the relevant institutions, including the War Crimes Prosecutor, and is chaired by the Minister of Justice. Two reports had been adopted by 31 March, while a third is being prepared for adoption in July.”
2018-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8278 (2018) · source
“Notwithstanding the promise that the unused documents that do not belong to the court records will be returned to Serbia, that has not happened yet. In that context, let me point out that the general question of the Tribunal's archives has not been resolved; its fate and use are related to the establishment of information centres in the States that emerged from the former Yugoslavia. During the latest visit of the Tribunal's President Agius to Belgrade, Serbia indicated its readiness to establish such a centre in Belgrade and designated a representative to a joint working group that would also include representatives of the Tribunal. Yet, despite two overtures, no response has been received in that regard to date.”
2018-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8278 (2018) · source
“In responding to the requests and proceeding from the recommendations of the competent institutions, Serbia asked for the application of Trial Chamber protective measures. Requests to testify by two persons, who are members of Serbia's security services, have also been made and approval has been granted. They, too, have been relieved of their obligations with respect to State, military and/or official secrets. Trial Chamber protective measures have been requested in that case as well. Over more than 20 years, Serbia has handed over to the Tribunal's Office of the Prosecutor, its Chambers and defence teams hundreds of thousands of documents, many of which, however, have not been used in the proceedings.”
2018-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8278 (2018) · source
“Serbia continues to facilitate the Mechanism's Office of the Prosecutor's free access to all evidence, documents, archives and witnesses; evidently, the completion of the work of the Tribunal has had no impact on cooperation with the Mechanism. The cooperation takes place unencumbered. All requests have been addressed, including those of the Office of the Prosecutor, the Chambers and the Registry. And the documents from the archives of State organs are forwarded expeditiously. The ongoing cooperation is centred on the case Prosecutor v. Petar Jojic and Vjerica Radeta. On two occasions, the Office of the Prosecutor requested 1,677 documents comprising several thousand pages.”
2018-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8278 (2018) · source
“I thank the Security Council for this opportunity to address it today on behalf of the Republic of Serbia. Serbia fulfils all its obligations regarding cooperation with the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. After the closing of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), only one first-instance case and two appeal cases remain before the Mechanism. My country has harmonized its legislation with the relevant standards and facilitated cooperation with the Mechanism with regard to all acts recognized by the Security Council in the ICTY statute as serious international crimes. By doing so Serbia has proved that it is committed to fighting impunity. That commitment is also reflected also in the number and rank of accused persons processed by the Tribunal.”
2018-06-06 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8278 (2018) · source