Serbia Cleared
The International Court of Justice: Judge Rosalyn Higgins delivers verdict.
International Court of Justice: Serbia Cleared of Genocide Charges
What was hailed as “a historical proceeding” where Serbian state was expected to be accused of committing a “genocide” by the U.N. International Court of Justice located also in the Hague, Netherlands, like the NATO Kangaroo Court for former Yugoslavia, has ended today in a ruling that cleared Serbia of Bosnian Muslim charges of genocide.
Indicative of the Western mainstream media’s assurance of a verdict that will finally nail Serbia to the eternal pillar of shame was the flurry of articles and “reports” by the likes of AP, BBC and Reuters’ Serbophobes who could barely contain their delight in announcing the proceeding as “one of the most momentous cases” which could leave “a permanent stain on Serbia in the eyes of history” and, indeed, hoping it would do so, since Bosnian Muslim lawsuit against Serbian state “is not a criminal case, and the standards of proof are looser than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ required for a criminal conviction. To hold Serbia liable, it is enough that a majority of judges finds a ‘balance of probabilities’,” as one of the Reuters’ scribes drooled hours before the ruling was issued. (Right after the verdict clearing Serbia of all charges was read, the same British agency went into an apparent toxic shock, spewing a spiteful piece titled “We Know What Happened, Serbians!” — so much for the “sober”, “unbiased”, “unprejudiced” reporting.)
The atmosphere filled with precipitous and palpable gloating by the calcified Serb-bashing choir, as well as the fact that standards the ICJ applies to reach a verdict are significantly “looser,” which would make it far easier to rule against Serbia on all counts of the Bosnian Muslim charge, makes the exonerating ruling overall immeasurably more valuable.
NATO’s “Supreme International Crime” of Aggression Cannot be Tried
Sued by Bosnian Muslims back in 1993, while the Bosnian civil war was still raging, the Court first had to establish that it does indeed have a jurisdiction over such a case. The reason for Serbia’s defense team raising the question of jurisdiction in this instance is that the same court decided in 2004 it does not have a jurisdiction over the lawsuit Serbian state has brought against NATO. Serbia has accused NATO of flagrant military aggression in 1999, deemed as the “supreme international crime” by the Nuremberg Tribunal, and for 78 days of merciless bombardment primarily against the civilian targets, including hospitals, schools, water plants, power plants and Serbia’s entire infrastructure. Regarding NATO’s aggression and war crimes, Walter J. Rockler, one of the prosecutors in the Nuremberg trial of German Nazi leaders wrote:
[...] We have engaged in flagrant military aggression, ceaselessly attacking a small country primarily to demonstrate that we run the world. The rationale that we are simply enforcing international morality, even if it were true, would not excuse the military aggression and wide spread killing that it entails. It also does not lessen the culpability of the authors of this aggression.
As a primary source of international law, the judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal in the case of the major Nazi war criminals is plain and clear. Our leaders often invoke and praise the judgment, but obviously have not read it. The International Court declared:
“To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime deferring only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
At Nuremberg, the United States and Britain pressed the prosecution of Nazi leaders for planing and initiating aggressive war. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the head of American prosecution staff, asserted “that launching a war aggression is a crime and that no political or economic situation can justify it.” He also declared that “if certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.” [...]
However, when it came to NATO, the UN Court decided it has “no jurisdiction over that case” based on technicality, since Serbia (or what was left of Yugoslavia at the time) was not a member of United Nations since 1992 until 2000, when it was re-admitted in the UN as Serbia and Montenegro. Obviously, the same “technicality” could have been safely applied in the case of Bosnian Muslims against Serbian state too, being that neither Serbia nor Yugoslavia-leftover was a member of the UN during the Bosnian civil war either (1992-1995), but in this case the Court ruled it does have a jurisdiction to try Serbia anyway. So, the whole thing seems to boil down to who is being accused: NATO simply cannot be charged or tried regardless of what it does, and that’s that.
According to ICJ Bosnian Civil War Was Not Genocide Against Bosnian Muslims
Fourteen years after the lawsuit has been submitted to the ICJ, the Court has ruled that during the civil war in Bosnia-Herzegovina the genocide over Bosnian Muslims did not take place “in the principal areas of Bosnia: Sarajevo, Drina River Valley, Prijedor, Banja Luka and Brcko” (as charged by the Bosnian Muslims). But, based on the two convictions by the Kangaroo Court, the ICJ deems that alleged “Srebrenica massacre” does constitute “an act of genocide.”
It is not only shameful that the highest legal institution the world has is basing its ruling on the fishiest, most ridiculed Kangaroo Court in the history of humanity such as the Albright-Soros’ ICTY that has disgraced itself with an army of false witnesses and heaps of false testimony, that takes mere hearsay as proof of guilt and has released the proven Butcher of Serbs, Bosnian Muslim Srebrenica warlord Naser Oric, after he served only two years in detention, it is also shocking that such an institution has backed an entirely unproven claim of radical Islamic Sarajevo regime.
We know that there could not have been “7,000 Muslim men” killed in Srebrenica because more than 3,000 of those who were allegedly killed by Serbs have later on voted in the Bosnian elections. So, either there were no more than 4,000 Muslim men killed, or Bosnian Muslim leaders were rigging elections by assigning votes to dead men. We also know there could not have been even 3,000 Muslim men killed, since there are no bodies to support even that number, twelve years after the event.
Furthermore, this would be a rather unique case of “genocide” where Bosnian Muslim women, old men and children from Srebrenica were sent to safety, rather than being summarily executed if the purpose indeed was to exterminate Srebrenica Muslims. This unique form of “genocide” cannot possibly be considered as such, since Serbian army was not engaged against ordinary civilians because they are Muslims, but against fully armed members of the Bosnian mujahedeen army, who have been exterminating Serbian civilians.
As a matter of fact, apart from the obvious issues and problems with declaring this single episode in the Bosnian civil war “an act of genocide,” the ICJ has clearly failed to take into consideration the reason for Serbian army to focus on Srebrenica in the first place. It has been proven beyond any doubt that Bosnian mujahedeens led by Naser Oric were using “Srebrenica safe haven” to attack Serbian villages surrounding the town of Serbrenica and have been massacring, raping, beheading and torturing Serbian civilians from over 100 villages prior to Serbian takeover. Naser Oric proudly boasted about these attacks to foreign reporters and was showing his personal video footage of carnage he and his troops of butchers were committing from Serbrenica. Serbian general Ratko Mladic has repeatedly warned the United Nations that such massacres of civilian population will not be tolerated and the “safe haven” status cannot be honored if the international community continues to shield Muslim butchers while allowing them to commit the most gruesome atrocities in the surrounding villages. The massacres continued, and the Serbian army has decided to put an end to carnage on July 12, 1995. So, it is rather questionable which “genocide” are we talking about, since it could be argued that Srebrenica Muslims have committed a genocide over Serbian civilian population: men, women and children, prior to Serbian army entering Srebrenica.
However, being that it is not common for courts to write history (or rewrite it, as this would be the case), the ICJ’s proclamation regarding Srebrenica remains yet to be proven and further examined.
Serbian State Exonerated
The Court that has had fourteen years to establish connections between Serbia’s Government and that of the leaders of Bosnian Serbs in Republika Srpska, that would show Serbia has sent its troops or has taken part in the Bosnian civil war has been unable to do so. Let’s not fool ourselves — it is not that they didn’t try or want to. In fact, we can safely conclude that, if there was any inkling of Serbian state’s direct involvement in the Bosnian civil war, the ICJ would have tagged Serbia with the genocide label without blinking an eye. But since no such connection could have been established in fourteen years, the Court has ruled overwhelmingly in Serbia’s favor (13-2 votes by the panel of judges, including the vote of the Bosnian Muslim judge), rejecting Bosnian Muslim charges.
On the alleged genocide outside Bosnia and Herzegovina: “The Court finds that the Applicant (Bosnian Muslims and Croats) has not established to the satisfaction of the Court any facts in support of the allegation according to which acts of genocide, for which the Respondent (Serbia) was allegedly responsible, also took place on the territory of the FRY (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia).”
ICJ: No Overall Plan or Intent to Commit Genocide by Republika Srpska Leadership Either
On the question of pattern of acts said to evidence an intent to commit genocide: “The Applicant relies on the alleged existence of an overall plan to commit genocide throughout the territory, against persons identified everywhere and in each case on the basis of their belonging to a specified group.”
“The Court notes that this argument of the Applicant moves from the intent of the individual perpetrators of the alleged acts of genocide complained of, to the intent of higher authority, whether within the VRS or the Republika Srpska, or at the level of the Government of the Respondent (Serbia) itself. Having examined, in context, the Decision on Strategic Goals issued in May 1992 by Momcilo Krajisnik as the President of the National Assembly of Republika Srpska, which in the Applicant’s view approaches an official statement of an overall plan, the Court does not see the 1992 Strategic Goals as establishing the specific intent.”
In other words, neither the leaders of Bosnian Serbs (Republika Srpska), nor those of Serbia had an intention to commit a “genocide” over Bosnian Muslims or any other ethnic/religious group in Bosnia or elsewhere on the territory of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
Therefore, “the Court finds that the Applicant (Bosnian Muslims and Croats) has not established the existence of that intent on the part of the Respondent (Serbia), either on the basis of a concerted plan, or on the basis that the events reviewed above reveal a consistent pattern of conduct which could only point to the existence of such intent.”
Serbia Not Guilty, Bears No International Responsibility
Exonerating Serbia regarding Srebrenica issue: “At the relevant time, July 1995, according to the Court, neither the Republika Srpska nor the VRS (Vojska Republike Srpske, Republika Srpska Army) could be regarded as mere instruments through which the FRY was acting, and as lacking any real autonomy. [...] The Court therefore finds that the acts of genocide at Srebrenica cannot be attributed to the Respondent (Serbia) as having been committed by its organs or by persons or entities wholly dependent upon it, and thus do not on this basis entail the Respondent’s (Serbia’s) international responsibility.”
“In the view of the Court, the Applicant has not proved that instructions were issued by the federal authorities in Belgrade, or by any other organ of the FRY, to commit the massacres, still less that any such instructions were given with the specific intent (dolus specialis) characterizing the crime of genocide. All indications are to the contrary: that the decision to kill the adult male population of the Muslim community in Srebrenica was taken by some members of the VRS Main Staff, but without instructions from or effective control by the FRY.”
“The Court concludes from the foregoing that the acts of those who committed genocide at Srebrenica cannot be attributed to the Respondent (Serbia) under the rules of international law of State responsibility: thus, the international responsibility of the Respondent (Serbia) is not engaged on this basis.”
The International Court of Justice has also stated that, contrary to Bosnian Muslim allegations, neither the Bosnian Serbs, nor Serbian leadership has ever offered any kind of “admission” for committing a “Srebrenica genocide.” The ICJ blames Serbia for “failing to prevent” Serbian takeover of Srebrenica. In regards to that, it could be argued that if any of the Western powers were to be tried (ever!), most of them could easily be charged and blamed for failing to prevent real genocides — Rwanda being one of the latest such cases where Clinton’s U.S.A, Blair’s UK, France, Germany and all the rest did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, allowing the carnage to go on in front of our own eyes. Instead, they preferred to let blacks kill other blacks (up to one million of them), while they were busy helping expel and kill Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia, during the civil wars that followed Western-initiated dismemberment of Yugoslavia.
Oh, and by the way, the ruling of the World Court is final, without a possibility of an appeal.
Comments
According to the Summary on the ICJ website:
"The Court turns to the findings in the Krstic case, in which the Appeals Chamber endorsed the findings of the Trial Chamber in the following terms:
“In this case, having identified the protected group as the national group of Bosnian Muslims, the Trial Chamber concluded that the part the VRS Main Staff and Radislav Krstic targeted was the Bosnian Muslims of Srebrenica, or the Bosnian Muslims of Eastern Bosnia. This conclusion comports with the guidelines outlined above. The size of the Bosnian Muslim population in Srebrenica prior to its capture by the VRS forces in 1995 amounted to approximately forty thousand people. This represented not only the Muslim inhabitants of the Srebrenica municipality but also many Muslim refugees from the surrounding region. Although this population constituted only a small percentage of the overall Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time, the importance of the Muslim community of Srebrenica is not captured solely by its size.”
The Court sees no reason to disagree with the concordant findings of the Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber."
So, the ICJ agrees with the ICTY's rejection of the Krstic appeal whereby it redefines the meaning of 'genocide'. This avoids having to mention that there was (as in the Dutch NIOD report: http://213.222.3.5/srebrenica/ ) a break out from Srebrenica to Tuzla by the ArBih in which these men not only were ambushed along the way by the ArRS, but that the men fired upon each other in the confusion and a substantial portion made it to Tuzla.
The devil is in the detail and the ICJ saw it safer (or maybe because they couldn't be bothered to look at it in detail) to ignore the details. Funny how the Media talks of 7,000 Bosnians massacred, but don't ask, 1: how many were members of ArBih; 2: how many were killed in ambushes and amongst themselves on the way to Tuzla; how many of them were armed (NIOD report proves they were not 'disarmed'); 4: How many were actually executed and if this was a result of summary justice in the field, i.e. for war crimes committed against Serb civilians in the surrounding area since 1992. These are details that have to be found out and publicized as this is the weakest part of the ICTY's (and thus the ICJ's) ruling that 'genocide occurred in Srebrenica'.
Also, applying the same redefinition of 'genocide' as employed by the ICTY, we can look back at a number of conflicts during the 19th and 20th century that can now be reclassified as 'genocide' or where 'act of genocide have occured', starting with the British during the second Boer War: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Boer_War#The_concentration_camps. So if there is talk of 'revisionism' in history, the ICTY and the ICJ are a clear support for it. The can of worms is opened.
Posted by: Aleks | February 27, 2007 09:18 AM
Excellent analysis, Aleks, thank you!
Posted by: Svetlana | February 27, 2007 04:21 PM
One of the possible repercussions of this redefinition is that it will lend succor to Historians who are always eager to look for possible new interpretations/angles to history and particularly suits the revisionists, which 'funnily' enough, the Germans are trying to ban EU wide. It will also lead to a further dilution of the Holocaust as the singularly most atrocious event in the 20th century (and no doubt other lesser genocides will be relativized). It's not good.
Another thing that surprised me the most (though it shouldn't have) was that the 'hurrah genocide crowd' assumed that the ICJ would just rubber stamp the charges of the prosecution at the ICTY (it doesn't really matter if any of them are proved or not). Amongst the Media, they discussed two issues, which logically they should have joined and asked important questions, i.e.
1: US opposition to the newly created International Criminal Court (ICC) which they fear that US personel would be 'unfairly' targetted for crimes (something which to me would have made it a much more creditable institution);
2: That they maintained the fiction that the Prosecution and the Judges were actually separate, but in their reports wrote of the Prosecution charges as if it were just a formality for them to be confirmed by the judges.
One of the main arguments that those who say the ICTY is corrupt is that there is practically no separation between the role of the Prosecution and the Judges.
They refused to question this behavior and ask "What kind of court is this"?
In relation to the long established ICJ, they failed/refused to make the linkage that because the ICTY was an Ad Hoc tribunal and so its scope was very narrowly drawn to exclude charging anyone from outside the region with crimes (i.e. no question of anyone there asking the US why it was supplying weapons to the Bosnian moslems, refused military intelligence it had of an impending Serb attack on Srebrenica to the Dutch (as can be read in the NIOD report)). It's almost as if the foreign powers never actually existed in Bosnia, save to make 'reports', rather than being an active, though indirect participant in the conflict. The US and others did not need to demand immunity,! Their 'evidence' was treated as if it had come from a pure and untainted source, rather than from an indirect party to a civil war!
Again, linking the two courts, how could all those who know (particularly the Media), actually believe
that Serbia would be found guilty? The ICJ was not created primarily to try the Serbs as the guilty party as the ICTY was. The ICJ had to give a 'decent' judgment in the genocide case that would stand the test of time. The onus on the ICJ was enormous because it would have to retain and even bolster its credibility globally, i.e. not just pander to its paymasters (europe and the US in particular as the ICTY has), but everyone everywhere. The ICJ would have destroyed its own credibility as an inpartial and respected body globally as well as that of the nascent ICC if they went along and accepted all sorts of half-assed allegations. Otherwise, it would have been seen as just another club where there are special rules for the 'big boys'.
A couple of final points.
Re: genocide; how is it that if Serbia was responsible for 'genocide', that official international red cross statistics, shows that by the end of 1992 (it can be found on the ICRC website) there were 1 million registered refugees in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia?
Lastly; from a legal(sic) point of view, the most stunning reading from the ICJ ruling was they basically said the Bosnian Moslems damaged their own chance of a more favorable ruling by excluding the Bosnian Croats as Applicants in the genocide action against FRY/S&M/whatever!
" Accordingly, the Court concludes that it should deal with the matter on the basis that the targeted group must in law be defined positively, and thus not negatively as the “non-Serb” population. The Applicant has made only very limited reference to the non-Serb populations of Bosnia and Herzegovina other than the Bosnian Muslims, e.g. the Croats. The Court will therefore examine the facts of the case on the basis that genocide may be found to have been committed if an intent to destroy the Bosnian Muslims, as a group, in whole or in part, can be established.
This was a fundamental mistake.
I've worked with lawyers for long enough(why me?) for this to really stand out. This point leaves me with two questions; 1: was the quality of legal advice to the Bosnian Moslems in this case just plain bad (I can't imagine so, but then again, strange things happen at the Cercle K)?; or, did the Bosnian Moslem leadership so thoroughly believe their own propaganda (as well as the same propaganda amplified back to them by the likes of the NYT/Newsday et al) and become so detached from reality of their 'genocide victim' status, that any thought, let alone any suggestion of including the Croats (however abhorrent and perverse it may be), was rejected totally and finally out of hand?!!!
To me, it's certainly a lesson about not staying above your own propaganda.
Posted by: Aleks | February 28, 2007 02:52 PM
The Dutch report http://213.222.3.5/srebrenica/ has been mentioned. Its authors didn't bother examining hoaxes such as Trnopolje "death camp" (Part 1, chapter 6) and "rapes" by Serbs in Bosnia (chapter 9).
On the assumption that it was the truth, the Dutch authors go on and on about the circumstances of humanitarian interventionism to stop Balkan genocide, rapes etc. As was pointed out, the ICJ ruling belies military interventions to stop mass crimes in the Balkans. Logically, the blame for the civil wars must land on the other actors, some of whom have partly justified interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq with a professed failure of the "international community" to intervene tough enough in the Balkans. The release of the Dutch report would not be allowed, if it interfered in with the interventionist doctrines of subsequent wars.
Yet, the manipulations of obvious hoaxes by the establishment politicians, and by their servile media, should have been exposed in the Dutch report as they have underpinned Western actions regarding the Balkans. NATO PsyOps have targeted primarily the Western public and decision makers. Examples of gullibility to NATO propaganda are the Dutch statesmen ("the whole of the Netherlands" was in agreement about armed intervention in Bosnia, according to the Dutch report) and the Polish prime minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki.
A failure to expose the hoaxes and their connection to illegal aggressions indicates a bias in the Dutch report. Since at the time of its preparation (initiated 1996, made public 2002) the hoaxes have been already clarified, it is an intended bias, in my opinion. BTW, what took so long to prepare and publish the report? Was it really independent? Perhaps it started independent, but then it was massaged by NATO con artists?
Consider this quote from the conclusions in chapter 6:
"The pictures that the British ITN television company had taken in Trnopolje raised a substantial echo in the media and had shocked public opinion, but they failed to lead to military intervention. On the contrary, it had become clear – though in August 1992 it was far from being as clear as outlined here – how cynical the attitude of the American government was with regard to the gross violations of human rights in Bosnia-Hercegovina since they had suppressed the reports in order not to be forced into military intervention. What also became obvious was the lack of alertness of parts of the UN in their reaction to this sort of report."
"Cynical attitude"? Or the report is cynical?
Washington and US media ignored International Red Cross's report (4.8.1992) that Serbs had not ran proportionately more camps than the other sides of the conflict, and also ignored the terrible camps ran by Bosnian Muslims and Croats.
George Kenney, a staff at the Yugoslav desk of the US state department, who quit in August 1992 in a protest against US policy in Yugoslavia, knew Gutman's fraudulent articles on the "Serbian death camps" before they went to print. Gutman asked the US consulate in Zagreb to check by satellite photos of the the camps. Kenney recalled later that reports of this kind could shock the public, and Keeney therefore strived at informing the chiefs of the state department, especially deputy secretary Lawrence Eagleburger, about Gutman's actions.
The department's Margaret Tutwiler and Tom Niles went ahead with accusatory statements in public, before any US investigation was completed, thereby radicalizing the media. A statement that the US government knew about Gutman's allegations, i. e . had read them, the media misinterpreted as proof that the state department had an independent confirmation from the US intelligence. According to Kenney, media suspicions could not be answered, as the US government knew very little, having decided in the beginning of 1992 to stay away from the Balkan crisis in an election year.
Even after Kenney's resignation, Clinton's election campaigners immediately asked Kenney about death camps in Bosnia. President Bush appealed that the US Security Council authorize all means, except force, to provide aid to the camps. Not to be outperformed, Clinton-candidate appealed to bomb Serbian forces in Bosnia under the UN colours. Even Vatican's high representatives unofficially, but in the name of John Paul II, called for a military intervention to stop the "Serbian agressor" whom they compared to the German WWII Nazis.
The misrepresentation in the Dutch report regarding this important episode is not trivial. Under the pressure of the "death camp" false flag, UNSC resolutions 770 and 771 authorized the use of force in Bosnia for the first time, setting a precedence of "humanitarian intervention" and occupation, and setting the creation of the ICTY in motion.
Another example: the Dutch report discounts the evidence of a plan to abandon Srebrenica with losses: "Numerous conspiracy theories in respect of a wanton sacrifice of the enclave by political machinations circulated in Bosnia but no concrete evidence was found."
The evidence exists, for example:
- Orić's troops retreated from Srebrenica a week before the massacre by Serb forces. French general Germanos: "Oric had widely declared that they had abandoned Srebrenica because they'd wanted Srebrenica to fall. The "they" was Izetbegovic." [1]
- A massacre was plotted a year and a half in advance, when Kofi Annan's UN report stated: "Izetbegovic had learned that a NATO intervention into Bosnia was possible. But it would happen only if the Serbs forced their way into Srebrenica and massacred at least 5,000 people." [2]
- General Morillon: "It is Izetbegovic's people who opposed the evacuation of all those who had asked to be taken out […] Mladic fell into a trap at Srebrenica." [3]
- The Srebrenica Research Group found evidence that "Bosnian Muslim leaders, including Ibran Mustafić, founder of the ruling SDA party from Srebrenica, claimed that the Bosnian Presidency and Military High Command deliberately sacrificed the town in order to encourage NATO intervention." [4]
- From the beginning Clinton administration referred to spy photos as evidence of Srebrenica massacre. When it was not forthcoming, the White House gave an excuse of "secrecy". All files relevant to Srebrenica at the UN headquarters are not available to the ICTY, pursuant to a "secrecy of government documents" decision by the permanent members of the UN Security Council, USA, France and Great Britain. This is obstruction of justice to cover up own crimes.
- A BBC news item from the time of Srebrenica fall: "Bosnian government troops have accused the Serbs of trying to slaughter units of their army which fled after the fall last week of Srebrenica. The allegations have been made by some of the three thousand soldiers who reached Tuzla today after fighting their way through enemy lines. They say that the Serbs ambushed their retreating column killing hundreds if not thousands of soldiers. It's not been possible to confirm their claims." [5]
In this context, how do we know that other information in the Dutch report is not biased to whitewash NATO country leaders and allies: radical international Islam, local Muslim, Croat and Albanian extremists, and the Vatican? I'd love to cite the Dutch report in my research on Srebrenica, but am reluctant for this reason.
[1] French National Assembly, Srebrenica, Vol. 2, p 140-154. After Michel Collon, Milosevic: Test Your Media, 13.3.2006, http://news.serbianunity.net/bydate/2006/March_13/29.html
[2] UN Report of 28-29.11.1993. Quoted by: Collon, op. cit.
[3] French National Assembly, op. cit.
[4] Srebrenica Research Group, Srebrenica and the Politics of War Crimes, www.srebrenica-report.com/conclusions.htm, 11.7.2005; 11.7.2005, http://news.serbianunity.net/press/files/1121944426_1n2vtpriq63_Srebrenica_Politics_of_War_Crimes.pdf
[5] www.yugofile.co.uk/qt/1995071-_22Bull.mov, date unknown, provided by Tim Fenton on 28.2.2007.
Posted by: Pjotr | March 6, 2007 09:56 PM
Svetlana, if you can please insert quotation marks in my March 6, 2007 post, around "The pictures that the British ITN [...] parts of the UN in their reaction to this sort of report."
Pjotr
Posted by: Pjotr | March 10, 2007 07:44 PM
Of course, dear Pjotr - done!
Excellent post, I intend to publish the ICTY/ICJ excerpt from your paper for the Genocide Research Project (Hiroshima City University), that will be presented at the Columbia University’s Center for International Conflict Resolution in New York.
Great job, thank you!
Posted by: Svetlana | March 10, 2007 08:22 PM