NO VERDICT - NO GENOCIDE
By JUDGMENT IT-98-33-T of 2.8.2001 The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) declared gen. Krstić guilty of genocide. But, the Second Instance “Appeal Chamber”, of that very same tribunal, quashed the said genocide verdict on 19.4.2014, convicting him instead of "aiding and abetting genocide". However, the Court failed to establish in its Judgment, who is a perpetrator of genocide, so without having anyone previously been convicted of genocide by a final sentence (res iudicata), there can be no abettor as well.
On 20.3.1993, - i. e. 66 days before the UN Security Council Resolution 827 to constitute ICTY (The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia) and 2,5 years BEFORE the "genocide" in Srebrenica even took place - Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) sued the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) for PERPETRATING genocide, not only in Srebrenica, but also outside of BiH. Instead of dismissing the case, The International Court of Justice (ICJ) after 14 years, on 26.2.2007, delivered JUDGMENT No. 91 and established, that SERBIA "had not committed genocide", but "violated obligation to stop genocide". Also the ICJ failed to establish by its judgment if the genocide took place, and if yes - by whom was it perpetrated.
Apart from the aforesaid evidence, after the "classified report" of the Ministry of Defence MO7/18/5G of 11.7.1995. was published, which had been declassified by the Great Britain on 4.1.2020, the public found out, that "the BSA /Bosnian Serbs Army/ attack on Srebrenica enclave was prompted by constant BiH attacks over the previous 3 months...". Thus, the United Kingdom undisputedly documented and corroborated, that BSA middle of July 1995 defended itself, and had no intent of destroying Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica.
Fund for the Development of Democracy
(details in enclosure hereto)
OPPOSING PARTIES/PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS:
For the International Court of Justice to be able to proceed upon the Application filed by BiH on 20.3.1993 against FRY, it had to establish in the first place, if the sued party FRY is a member state of the United Nations, i. e. does it have passive legitimation, and - if there is no such legitimation - to dismiss the application. Precisely that very basic prerequisite for conducting the proceedings did not exist, for the following grounds:
After former SFR of Yugoslavia fell apart and ceased to exist, the General Assembly of the UN admitted on 22.5.1992 BiH, Croatia and Slovenia to membership, informing at the same time the FRY, that it could not be legal successor of the former SFRY, but it had to file application for admission to membership, the same way BiH, Croatia, Slovenia etc. had done it. Following the received instruction, the FRY filed on 27.10.2000 application for admission to membership, so it was admitted to the UN membership by virtue of Resolution 55/12 of the General Assembly only on 1.11.2000, i. e. 7 years after BiH filed its Application to the ICJ.
After Montenegro became independent - Serbia on 3.6.2006 ruled on its independence by filing the application for admission to the UN membership.
Since neither the FRY nor Serbia were UN member states until 1.11.2000, the ICJ had to dismiss the BiH's Application, since only the UN member states can be parties to the proceedings before the ICJ (Art. 35 of the ICJ Statute). Exactly for these reasons, the ICJ dismissed the Application filed by the FRY on 19.4.1999 against the USA, Germany and other countries, that without UN's approval, bombed Serbia for 78 days.
Moreover, the ICJ had to dismiss the BiH's Application, since it was filed in violation of the Constitution of BiH, with only two of its constituent people supporting it, and against the will of Serbs as its third constituent people.
The third ground to dismiss Application is that there was neither "genocide" in Srebrenica at the moment the Application was filed on 20.3.1993, nor in the years to follow. Mid-1995, in the Srebrenica area greater conflicts and crimes occurred by fault of the Army of BiH, as corroborated among others by the declassiefied report on Srebrenica situation background of the Ministry of Defense of the United Kingdom MO 6/18/5G od 11.7.1995. (declassified on 4.1.2020).
The said report states: "The recent BSA /Army of the Republic of Srpska/ attack on Srebrenica enclave was prompted by constant BiH attacks over the previous 3 months on the BSA supply route to the south of the enclave. The BSA attacks are almost certainly initiated by the local commander and we do not think they are part of a Pale /capital of the Republic of Srpska/ inspired plan to overrun the enclave... The BSA conducted an attack last night at about 20.00hrs local with approximately one company and four tanks... The BSA action is in direct response to BiH pressure on a BSA line of communications and the BSA reacted by forcing the BiH back towards Srebrenica. The Serbs found that there was little resistance and so they were able to exploit further then their original objectives..."
Nobody mentioned the conflicts and victims between 10.-19.7.1995 in Srebrenica, not even the leader of Bosnian Muslims Alija Izetbegović, during negotiating and signing the Dayton Peace Agreement seven months later, nor in the years to follow, up until High Representative Paddy Ashdown came into OHR office.
INTENT TO COMMIT GENOCIDE:
Throughout the proceedings in which the Judgment on BiH's application was delivered, the ICJ have not established, nor checked, nor produced/heard/adduced evidence, whether the criminal offense genocide was committed, if any natural person was convicted by way of final sentence of genocide, whether the BSA in the period between 10.-19.7.1993 in Srebrenica had genocidal intent and similar.
Failing to dismiss Application and produce evidence, the ICJ, after 14 years of filing the Application, took over the crime qualification from the reasoning of the Judgment against gen. Krstić, who was not convicted of genocide, but of "aiding and abetting” genocide committed in Srebrenica between 13. and 19. July 1995.
Acting in such manner, failing to check and produce adequate evidence, the ICJ also copied the allegation from the proceedings against gen. Krstić, that after 19.7.1995 "more than 7,000 people were never seen again"?
Neither the ICTY nor ICJ checked nor established: who and how established that people count; how many of "those 7,000" people were military capable man between the age of 16 and 70; how many BiH Army fighters; how many Muslims; how many Mujaheddins and other foreign fighters, if any; how many died in battles those days, how many were killed in showdowns/conflicts among themselves, how many of those before and after those battles deserted, emigrated and similar?
The Judgment against gen. Krstić is also faulty, since it was not returned by the permanent International Criminal Court, founded by the United Nations, and exclusively competent, but by the former International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which had unauthorisedly (ultra vires) been founded by the UN Security Council.
Under such circumstances, improper pressure is being exercised against the Republic of Srpska, Serbia and the High Representative to sweep under carpet the aforesaid shortcomings by imposing arbitrarily/illegally the law to forbid any mentioning of the genocide against the Serbs committed until 10.7.1995 in the area of Srebrenica (burning whole Serbian villages down to the ground etc.), i. e. to ban negating unproved "genocide" against Muslims in Srebrenica between 10. and 19.7.1995.
By the way, all rights and duties of Inzko and other high Representatives of the OHR are exclusively enumerated in Annex 10 of the Dayton Peace Agreement, that was negotiated and signed by parties to the Agreement, i. e.: Republic of Srpska; Serbia, BiH, Federation BiH and Croatia. Annex 10 forbids to Ashdown, Inzko or any other High Representative to self-styled, arbitrarily and without decision of the parties amend or impose laws, deposes functionaries, applies conclusions of "citizen's groups" from meeting held in Bonn on 10.12.1997 (so called „Bonn Powers“) or to prevents abolishing OHR by fulfilment of "5+2 Program", established by other "citizen's group" (illegal political directors, illegal Steering Board of the illegal PIC) from Brussels meeting of 27. February 2008
Fund for the Development of Democracy