YouSaid · the spoken record

Popović

lines on the record
17
first
2022-06-14
most recent
2022-06-14
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. “The Republic of Serbia pursues a responsible policy of reconciliation in the region, without which there can be no future, stability, economic development or normalization of relations.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  2. “A meeting was held with the Office of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina to discuss issues of legal assistance in specific cases, including the issue of taking over and transferring criminal prosecution, which is expected to be realized in the coming period. In conclusion, the Republic of Serbia strongly believes that every war crime must be adequately punished, regardless of who commits it. For that reason, I particularly emphasize that it is essential that the other countries of the region take the same steps, as Serbia is the only one sincerely offering a hand of reconciliation. In that regard, I would like to underline that the Serbian Ministry of Justice and the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor stand ready to implement activities within their competences on the issue.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  3. “In May, for the purpose of improving regional cooperation, the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia invited the Chief State Attorney of Croatia to hold a bilateral meeting in order to, among other things, effectively conduct joint activities on improving the efficiency of war crimes proceedings and cooperation in the area of protection, support and assistance to victims and witnesses. In the reporting period, Serbia made significant efforts to improve regional cooperation, especially with the Offices of the Prosecutor of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of Croatia, respectively.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  4. “I would like to emphasize that the agreement between Serbia and Croatia on processing war crimes was not concluded because Croatia insisted on the abolition of universal jurisdiction in Serbia’s legal system. Universal jurisdiction is a legacy of international humanitarian law and applies to gross violations of human rights. For that reason, we believe it should necessarily be an integral part of Serbia’s legal system. That type of jurisdiction is known in Croatia’s legal system as well as those of other EU member States, which makes us question why Croatia insisted that it be removed from Serbia’s legal system.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  5. “In addition, both countries are party to the relevant conventions of the Council of Europe, including, but not limited to, the European Convention on Extradition and the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters. Those conventions of the Council of Europe take precedence over bilateral agreements. The Mechanism’s Office of the Prosecutor did not state any reason as to why it would be necessary to conclude a special bilateral agreement for the effective administration of justice. Serbia remains open to further negotiations with Croatia on improving criminal prosecution for gross violations of international humanitarian law committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, based on the principle of the rule of law.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  6. “In that context, I would like to point out that the Office of the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia forwarded 10 requests for assistance to the European Union (EU) Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo (EULEX) in Pristina that remain unanswered to this day. Let me remind members that EULEX conducts its activities under the authority of the Security Council. The Mechanism’s Office of the Prosecutor points to a standstill in the negotiations between Serbia and Croatia on agreeing to the establishment of a framework for the processing of war crimes. We note that this is a bilateral issue that does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Mechanism, nor is it of special interest for its functioning, since Serbia and Croatia have very similar provisions for their criminal and criminal procedure codes.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  7. “I would like to take this opportunity to once again point to the problems that arose in connection with the requests by so-called Kosovo for the extradition of a person who had already been convicted before the Mechanism and the obligation of the Mechanism to act in accordance with resolution 1244 (1999) in carrying out its activities. The Office of the Prosecutor of the ICTY completely failed to conduct investigations and hold trials for the crimes against Serbs and non-Albanian civilians committed in Kosovo and Metohija. That significantly damaged the reputation of and trust in the ICTY and the Mechanism. Impunity for the horrific crimes committed against the Serbian population became for all practical purposes a policy that found its main support in the work of the ICTY Prosecutor’s Office.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  8. “In that context, I would like to point out that Serbia is a democratic country in which freedom of speech, as well as professional and scientific criticism, is guaranteed and to which the judgments of the ICTY and the Mechanism are subject, as in any other democratic country. In the report, the Office of the Prosecutor further states that the cooperation on war crimes between the Republic of Serbia and so-called Kosovo did not improve. We welcome the position of the Mechanism’s Office of the Prosecutor that all references to so-called Kosovo should be considered in full compliance with resolution 1244 (1999). It is indisputable that everyone involved in the proceedings regarding war crimes and cooperation in the fight against crime has an obligation to act in full accordance with that resolution.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  9. “The Mechanism’s experts also held a practical training session for the representatives of the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor on investigations of conflict- related sexual abuse as an international crime. And cooperation between the Mechanism and the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor is being fostered through the implementation of the relevant activities set up in the Action Plan for Chapter 23. One of the objections of the Mechanism’s Office of the Prosecutor is that certain individuals have delegitimized facts that contradict the official standpoints of the Prosecutor’s Office and arise from the judgments of the ICTY or the Mechanism.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  10. “During the reporting period the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia actively cooperated with the Office of the Prosecutor of the Mechanism. In addition to regular high-level meetings, cooperation was established in specific cases against two high-ranking officials, resulting in one case in the filing of an indictment and in an improvement to the investigation in the other. In the same period, a working group composed of representatives of the Mechanism and the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia was established in order to improve cooperation in specific cases, especially where the provision of evidence was concerned.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  11. “In the reporting period, Serbia responded to five of the 12 requests submitted by the Mechanism’s Office of the Prosecutor, and representatives of the Office questioned 11 persons as witnesses on the premises of the Office of the War Crimes Prosecutor of the Republic of Serbia. We would also like to emphasize that the Serbian authorities served the summonses for the hearing of the seven persons who have to be interrogated in the Office of the War Crime Prosecutor in Belgrade as suspects. In serving the summonses, Serbia fulfilled its obligations, and yet Prosecutor Brammertz did not include that fact in his report. Serbia therefore actually fulfilled two further requests of the Office of the Prosecutor. As the Chief Prosecutor is familiar with this matter, we assume that it will be incorporated into the next report.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  12. “We believe it is important to emphasize that the Mechanism was established by the Security Council to prosecute persons responsible for gross violations of international humanitarian law committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia. However, after more than 20 years of work, the Mechanism began to deal with violations of procedural discipline — more precisely, illegal behaviour that did not represent a significant danger to society. It therefore focused all its activities on this alleged illegal behaviour of minor significance, as described, despite the fact that it was not established to deal with such matters. All the requests are related to one case alone, that of Vojislav Šešelj, which has been finalized.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  13. “These archives consist of voluminous documentation forwarded to the ICTY and the Mechanism that was not used or is no longer needed for the ongoing trials before the Mechanism. There is currently only one ongoing appeal procedure before the Mechanism, the Stanišić and Simatović case, and we believe there is no reason for further delay in initiating the process of returning the original documents. In the reporting period, the Mechanism Prosecutor’s Office intensified its activities on issues related to contempt of court, submitted numerous requests for evidence and information and announced the filing of new indictments.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  14. “In addition, we strongly believe that this new practice violates the principle that was the basis for the actions of all the former presidents of the ICTY and the Mechanism to provide the same treatment to all convicts who find themselves in the same situation. Nevertheless, the Government of the Republic of Serbia stands ready to give assurances and guarantees that the conditions of early release will be fully respected, as they have been respected so far without any exception. I must emphasize that the Republic of Serbia has fulfilled all its guarantees in the past. Another outstanding issue where, for reasons unknown to us, there has been no progress, is the return of the extensive archives to Serbia.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  15. “I would also like to take this opportunity to once again remind the Council of our readiness for — and our request that — prison sentences imposed on our nationals by the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the Residual Mechanism be executed in the Republic of Serbia, under the supervision of the Mechanism. This has been presented to the Security Council several times before. Serbia strongly opposes the new practice of the Mechanism, which resulted in many years of non-decisions on requests for early release of our citizens, which flagrantly violates their basic human rights.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  16. “The conduct of the Republic of Serbia with regard to this case does not, as stated by the President of the Mechanism, constitute a violation of our international obligations, but it is an effort to comply with the resolution 1966 (2010). We believe that, in the current circumstances, proceedings before national courts can improve justice and strengthen confidence in national judicial systems which, in accordance with the aforementioned resolution, should take over prosecutions. This is further supported by the fact that the Higher Court in Belgrade issued a decision based on the merits that the preconditions for the extradition of Mrs. Radeta and Mr. Jojić were not met. This decision was confirmed by the Appellate Court in Belgrade, thus making it final.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source

  17. “Ms. Popović (Serbia): I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for the opportunity to address the Security Council on behalf of the Republic of Serbia with respect to the six-month progress report of the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and underline some of the key instances of the current cooperation between the Republic of Serbia and the Mechanism. In his briefing, the President of the Mechanism once again mentioned allegations of Serbia’s non-cooperation in connection with the Jojić and Radeta case. At previous Security Council meetings, Serbian representatives explained in great detail the reasons we do not accept annulling the decision of the Mechanism to transfer this case to the Serbian judiciary.”

    2022-06-14 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9062 (2022) · source