Pismo Međunarodnog ekspertnog tima Instituta za istraživanje genocida, Kanada u vezi neophodne revizije presude u slučaju bivšeg načelnika Generalštaba Vojske Jugoslavije Momčila Perišića.

February 06, 2014

 

Serge Brammertz,

Prosecutor

Office of the Prosecutor

International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia,

 

Cc:

 

Judge Theodor Meron, President of the ICTY

 

John Hocking, Registrar of the ICTY

 

Judges of ICTY: Carmel Agius, Koffi Kumelio Afande, Jean Claude Antonetti, Guy Delvoie, Christoph Flugge, Mehmet Guney, Burton Hall, Khalida Rachid Khan, O-Gon Kwon, Liu Daqun, Bakone Justice Moloto, Howard Morrison, Mandiaye Niang, Alphons M.M. Orie, Fausto Pocar, Arlette Ramaroson, Patrick Lipton Robinson, William Hussein Sekule, Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov, Melville Baird, Flavia Latanzi, Kesia-Mbe Mindua

 

Dear Prosecutor Brammertz,

 

On behalf of the victims of the international conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina and genocide of her citizens; on behalf of Americans and Canadians and their organisations, friends of truth and justice; on behalf of the call for the necessity to return the practices of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) upon the path of justice and fairness, the Institute for the Research of Genocide, Canada would like to express its resolute support for the motion filed by your office on February 3, 2014 before the ICTY Appeals Chamber requesting that it reconsider its acquittal of the former Chief of Staff of the Yugoslav Army Momcilo Perisic for aiding and abetting crimes committed in Sarajevo and Srebrenica between 1993 and 1995. We could not agree more with the assertion in your motion that “the erroneous reversal of Mr. Perisic’s lawful convictions and 27 year sentence must be corrected to redress the grave injustice caused to the tens of thousands of men, women and children killed or injured in Sarajevo and Srebrenica and to their families.”

 

We agree that the revision of the Judgment in the case of the former Chief of Staff of the Army of Yugoslavia, a certain Perisic, is necessary due to the following considerations:

 

1. In a separate opinion with respect to the Judgment to exonerate Perisic, Justice Liu warns that the criteria of “a specific direction” which was the basis for the majority to annul the Judgment at the first instance, has not been applied in a principled or judicial fashion in court practices and does not represent the necessary condition of proving the individual criminal responsibility for aiding and abetting crime.

 

2. Insistence upon “a specific direction” substantially raises the onus of proof and enables those who consciously aid and abet the gravest crimes to evade responsibility. The various standards of proof within international law during the ascertaining of the individual criminal responsibility in given cases are in conflict with the universal legal principle of equality and, as such, ought to be disallowed. Introducing the legal standard of “a test of specific direction” brings about a conscious and deliberate narrowing of the criminal responsibility of the commanders, and fosters the culture of non-punishment for the gravest crimes against humanity and violations of international law, and is condemned by the civilized world.

 

3. The court practices of the ICTY point out that culpability for aiding and abetting can be ascertained even without conditions that actions of the indicted be necessarily oriented to crimes. Perisic’s actions are examples of behaviour which qualifies as aiding and abetting crime. Even if the “specific direction” were a necessary condition for proving aiding and abetting, the exonerating Judgement would not have been adequate given the continuous nature of aid which Perisic used to give to the Army of the Republic of Srpska. In the cases of Tadic and Celebic of the Appellate Council, the direct involvement of the military forces of SR Yugoslavia was confirmed (Judgement of the Appellate Council in the Tadic case, 1999, paragraph 162, Judgement of the Appellate Council in the case of Celebic 2001, paragraph 50). It is necessary to take into account details of the Judgement of the Appellate Council in the case of Tadic, para. 150, 151, 152-addendum 189, 155, 160.

 

4. The Perisic Judgement is a negative turn in the court practices of the ICTY which substantially raises the onus for ascertaining the culpability for aiding and abetting. That, in and of itself, erodes the purpose of such culpability and enables those who directly or indirectly aid and abet gravest of crimes to be exonerated from individual criminal responsibility.

 

5. In reacting to the Judgement of the Appellate Council, experts in international criminal law find that such and exonerating Judgement for Perisic brings into question earlier findings of the ICTY with respect to the liaison between the Yugoslav Army and the Army of the Republic of Srpska, as well as that it could lead to requests for revisions of some earlier convictions which would have a negative effect upon truth and justice in the world.

 

6. We remind your Office about your earlier statement that the exonerating Judgement for Perisic violates international law and does not reflect the court practices of the ICTY.

 

7. The Appellate Council of the ICTY had, on February 28, 2013, annulled the conviction of Perisic who was found guilty for aiding and abetting the crimes committed in Sarajevo and Srebrenica and, in doing so, had practically exonerated Serbia of any culpability for the aggression against Bosnia and Herzegovina although the consequences of the destructive and inhumane actions are rather obvious in the material and objective meaning. Further, Judgement for Taylor runs counter to the Judgement of the Appellate Council, with which Judgement Perisic was exonerated for aiding and abetting war crimes.

 

8. In its final Judgement in the case of former Serbian political, military and police officials Nebojsa Pavkovic et al, the ICTY found that the Judgement exonerating Perisic from culpability for crimes committed was based upon a false legal standard. The Conclusion, delivered by the Head of the Council, Justice Theodor Meron, with respect to the Judgement of Perisic about “a specific direction” being the necessary condition for conviction of aiding and abetting crimes, had been tossed out. The Appellate Council was of opinion that that Conclusion within the final Judgement with which Meron exonerated Perisic from culpability for crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina was not in harmony with the court practices of the ICTY, and further, is not in harmony with Judgements for Sljuivancaninc and Mrksic for crimes in Vukovar,as well as for Milan and Sredoje Lukic for monstrous murders in Visegrad. “The test of specific direction” does not accumulate to the prescribed legal element which is essential in ascertaining the existence of individual criminal responsibility.

 

9. The exonerating Judgement for Perisic is in direct and essential conflict with the prevailing court practices and international customary law. The exonerating Judgement represents a dangerous precedent which would enable the uniform rules of process to be changed during process and that could result in appeals against previous convictions and would also have negative effect upon other, future, judgements, which in its totality would take away from the materiality of the crimes committed. That would put into question the very raison d’être of the ICTY as well as the existence of law and uniform application of same.

 

10. Judgement for Perisic substantially narrows the individual criminal culpability of the commanders and ignores the participation of the ranking military, police and political officials in carrying out crimes, which officials have a de iure and de facto culpability crimes being perpetrated in the meaning of preventing crimes and punishing the perpetrators after the fact.

 

Based on the above considerations we have agreed with your concern since the Perisic Appeal Judgement was announced in February 2013 “that the ‘specific direction’ requirement was incorrect and should be overturned.”  We concur now as well when you relate “that the Perisic Appeal Judgement is in ‘direct and material conflict’ with the prevailing jurisprudence and with customary international law,” and we share your hope that “reconsidering the Perisic Appeal Judgement will help secure justice for the victims.”

 

In the name of victims of, and witnesses to, the international conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Institute for Research of Genocide, Canada would like to express its support for the motion filed by your office on February 3, 2014 before the ICTY Appeals Chamber requesting that it reconsider its acquittal of the former Chief of Staff of the Yugoslav Army Momcilo Perisic for aiding and abetting crimes committed in Sarajevo and Srebrenica between 1993 and 1995.  We ask the President and Justices of the ICTY to exercise their prerogatives so as to keep the ICTY upon the path of truth and justice by revising the exonerating Judgement for said Perisic.

 

We stand prepared to be of whatever further assistance you may deem appropriate.

 

Sincerely,

 

Signatories:

 

Emir Ramic, Professor

Director of the Institute for Research of Genocide Canada

Smail Cekic, PhD

Professor of History at the Sarajevo University

Director of the Institute for Research of Crimes against Humanity and International Law, University of Sarajevo

Hamdija Custovic, MBA

President of the Congress of North American Bosniaks

David Pettigrew, PhD

Professor of Philosophy, Southern Connecticut State University,

Steering Committee, Yale University Genocide Studies Program,

Board Member, Bosnian American Genocide Institute and Education Center, Chicago

Marko Attila Hoare, PhD

Professor at the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Kingston University

Florence Hartmann

French journalist and author

Former spokesperson for Judge Carla Del Ponte at the International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Steven Leonard Jacobs, PhD 

Historian, Professor of the University of Alabama

Carole Hodge, PhD

Post Genocide Education Foundation

Anatoly Isaenko, PhD

Professor of History, Appalachian State University

Professor Erhard Busek

Special Coordinator of the Stability Pact for South Eastern Europe

Senadin Lavic, PhD

Professor at the Sarajevo University

President of the Bosniac Cultural Association, Preporod, Sarajevo

Esad Durakovic, PhD

Professor at the Sarajevo University

Member of Academy of Sciences and Arts of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Mustafa Ceric, PhD

President of World Bosniak Congress

Professor Ferid Muhic

Professor at the Skopje University

The president of the Bosniak Academy of Sciences and Arts

Emir Suljagic, PhD

Coordinator of the March First Coalition

Omer Ibrahimagic, PhD

Member of the Bosniac Academy of Sciences and Arts

Sanja Drnovsek Seferovic, J.D., M.Ed.,

Director of the Institute for Genocide and Education

Zeljko Milicevic

President of the Justice for Bosnia Task Force, Ottawa, Canada

 

---

 

06. februar, 2014

 

Serge Brammertz,

Tužilac

Ofis Tužioca 

Internacionalni krivični tribunal za područije bivše Jugoslavije

 

Cc:

 

Theodor Meron, Predsjednik MKSJ

 

John Hocking, Sekretar MKSJ

 

Suduje MKSJ:Carmel Agius, Koffi Kumelio Afande, Jean Claude Antonetti, Guy Delvoie, Christoph Flugge, Mehmet Guney, Burton Hall, Khalida Rachid Khan, O-Gon Kwon, Liu Daqun, Bakone Justice Moloto, Howard Morrison, Mandiaye Niang, Alphons M.M. Orie, Fausto Pocar, Arlette Ramaroson, Patrick Lipton Robinson, William Hussein Sekule, Bakhtiyar Tuzmukhamedov, Melville Baird, Flavia Latanzi, Kesia-Mbe Mindua

 

 

Poštovani tužilac MKSJ

 

U ime žrtava meÄ‘unarodnog sukoba u Bosni i Hercegovini i genocida nad njenim graÄ‘anima,  u ime Amerikanaca i KanaÄ‘ana i njihovih organizacija, prijatelja istine i pravde, u ime neophodnog vraćanja sudske prakse MeÄ‘unarodnog krivičnog tribunala za bivšu Jugoslaviju {MKSJ } na put pravde i pravičnosti, Institut za istraživanje genocida, Kanada izražava svoju odlučnu podršku zahtijevu Tužilaštva MKSJ na čelu sa tužiocem Serge Brammertza od 3. Februara 2014. godine da  Žalbenom vijeću MKSJ ponovo razmotri svoju odluku o oslobaÄ‘anju bivšeg načelnika Generalštaba Vojske Jugoslavije Momčila Perišića optužbi za pomaganje i podržavanje zločina počinjenih u Sarajevu i Srebrenici od 1993. do 1995. godine. Potpuno se slažemo sa tvrdnjom Tužilaštva MKSJ da se pogrešno ukinuta pravovaljana osuÄ‘ujuća presuda i kazna od 27 godina izrečena gospodinu Perišiću mora korigovati kako bi se ispravila teška nepravda nanesena desetinama hiljada muškaraca, žena i djece koji su ubijeni ili ranjeni u Sarajevu i Srebrenici i njihovim porodicama.

 

Mi se slažemo da je neophodna revizija presude u slučaju bivšeg načelnika Generalštaba Vojske Jugoslavije Perišića zbog sljedećih razloga:

 

1.U izdvojenom mišljenju na oslobaÄ‘ajuću presudu Perišiću, sudija Liu upozorava da kriterijum « konkretne usmjerenosti » na osnovu kojeg je većina poništila prvostepenu presudu nije ni dosljedno ni strogo primjenjivan u sudskoj praksi i ne predstavlja neophodan uslov za dokazivanje individualne krivične odgovornosti za pomaganje i podržavanje zločina.

 

2.Insistiranje na « konkretnoj usmjerenosti » značajno podiže prag dokazivanja i omogućava onima koji svjesno pomažu najteže zločine da se izvuku od odgovornosti. Različiti meÄ‘unarodnopravni standardi dokazivanja prilikom  utvrÄ‘ivanja individualne krivične odgovornosti u konkretnim slučajevima  su u direktnoj suprotnosti sa univerzalnim pravnim načelom jednakosti i kao takvi nedopustivi. UvoÄ‘enjem pravnog standarda « test konkretne umsjrenosti » svjesno i namjerno se sužava individualna krivična dogovornost nadreÄ‘enih, čime se neposredno doprinosi kulturi nekažnjavanja za najteža krivična djela protiv čovječnosti i meÄ‘unarodnog prava koja osuÄ‘uje civilizovan svijet.

 

3.Sudska praksa MKSJ ukazuje da se odgovornost za pomaganje i podržavanje može utvrditi i bez uslovljavanja da postupci optuženog budu konkretno usmjereni na zločine.  Perišićeve radnje su primjer ponašanja koje se kvalifikuje kao pomaganje i podržavanje zločina. ÄŒak i da je « konkretna usmjerenost » neophodan uslov za dokazivanje pomaganja i podržavanja, oslobaÄ‘ajuća presuda ne bi bila odgovarajuća, imajući u vidu kontinuiranu prirodu pomoći koju je Perišić pružao Vojsci Republike Srpske.  U predmetima Tadić i ÄŒelebići od strane Žalbenog vijeća potvrÄ‘eno je direktno učešÄ‡e  snaga SR Jugoslavije (Presuda Žalbenog vijeća u predmetu ÄŒelebići, 2001, paragraf 33.). MKSJ je primjenom standarda opšte kontrole zaključio da su oružane snage Republike Srpske djelovale pod opštom kontrolom i za račun SR Jugoslavije. (Presuda Žalbenog vijeća u predmetu Tadić, 1999, paragraf 162, Presuda Žalbenog vijeća u predmetu ÄŒelebići  2001, paragraf 50.) Detaljnije pogledati obavezno Presudu Žalbenog vijeća u predmetu Tadić par. 150, 151, 152-fusnota 189, 155, 160.

 

4.Presuda Perišiću  je negativan zaokret u sudskoj praksi MKSJ, kojom se  značajno podiže prag za utvrÄ‘ivanje odgovornosti za pomaganje i podržavanje. A to podriva samu svrhu tog oblika odgovornosti i omogućava onima koji direktno ili indirektno pomažu užasne zločine da su osloboÄ‘eni individualne krivične odgovornosti.

 

5.U reakcijama na presudu Žalbenog vjeća, eksperti  meÄ‘unarodnog krivičnog prava ocjenjuju da tako obrazložena oslobaÄ‘ajuća presuda Perišiću dovodi u pitanje ranije nalaze MKSJ o vezi i odnosima izmeÄ‘u Vojske Jugoslavije i Vojske Republike Srpske, kao i da bi mogla dovesti do zahtjeva za reviziju nekih ranijih osuÄ‘ujućih presuda, što bi negativno uticalo na istinu i pravdu u svijetu.

 

6.Podsjećamo vas na izjavu vašeg ureda u kojoj ste izmeÄ‘u ostalog rekli, da je oslobaÄ‘anje Perišića  povreda meÄ‘unarodnog prava, koja ne odražava sudsku praksu MKSJ.

 

7.Apelaciono vijeće MKSJ je 28. Februara prošle godine poništilo presudu kojom je Perišić proglašen krivim za pomaganje i podržavanje zločina počinjenih u Sarajevu i Srebrenici, te je, praktično, i Srbija izuzeta od bilo kakve odgovornosti za agresiju na Bosnu i Hercegovinu, iako su posljedice destruktivnog i nehumanog djelovanja više nego evidentne u materijalnom - objektivnom smislu. A presuda Tayloru suprotna je odluci tog Apelacionog vijeća  prema kojoj je srbijanski general Perišić osloboÄ‘en od tačke optužnice za pomaganje i poticanje ratnih zločina.

 

8.PresuÄ‘ujući konačno u slučaju bivših srpskih političkih, vojnih i policijskih zvaničnika Nebojše Pavkovića i drugih, MKSJ je konstatovao da je presuda kojom je Perišić osloboÄ‘en odgovornosti za zločine zasnovana na pogrešnom pravnom standardu. Odbačen je zaključak vijeća predsjednika MKSJ, sudije Theodora Merona iz presude Perišiću o "konkretnoj usmjerenosti" kao neophodnom uvjetu za osudu za pomaganje i podržavanje zločina. Žalbeno vijeće je smatralo da taj zaključak iz konačne presude kojom je Meron oslobodilo Perišića odgovornosti za zločine u Bosni iHercegovini nije u skladu sa sudskom praksom MKSJ, odnosno nije u skladu sa presudama Šljivančaninu i Mrkšiću za zločine u Vukovaru, kao i Milanu i Sredoju Lukiću za monstruozna ubistva u Višegradu. « Test konkretne usmjerenosti »  ne čini kumulativno propisani pravni element koji je kao takav nužan prilikom utvrÄ‘ivanja postojanja  individualne krivične odgovornosti.

 

9.OslobaÄ‘ajuća presuda za Perišića je u neposrednom i bitnom protivrječju sa prevladavajućom sudskom praksom  i meÄ‘unarodnim običajnim pravom. OslobaÄ‘ajuća presuda postavlja opasan presedan kojim bi se dozvolilo tokom procesa mijenjati uniformirana pravila suÄ‘enja što bi moglo rezultirati u apelima na već donešene presude u drugim slučajevima i imalo negativan utjecaj na druge, buduće presude, i time bi se potpuno odvratilo od materijalnosti počinjenih zločina. Time bi MKSJ samom sebi osporio zakonsko postojanje, te postojanje zakona i ravnomjernu primjenu istih.

 

10.U slućaju da ostane oslobaÄ‘ajuća  presuda Perišiću, to bi bio definitivni poraz MKSJ, definitivni poraz meÄ‘unarodne pravde i definitivni poraz onih koji su podržavali  i  osnovali MKSJ. OslobaÄ‘ajuća presuda Perišiću znatno sužava individualnu krivičnu odgovornost nadreÄ‘enih odnosno zanemaruje i ignoriše učešÄ‡e visokopozicioniranih vojnih, policijskih i političkih rukovodilaca u izvršenju zločina koji imaju de jure i de facto odgovornost na činjenje u smislu sprečavanja zločina i kažnjavanja počinilaca kad je zločin već počinjen.

 

Imajuću u vidu nabrojane  argumente, kao i dobra i vrijednosti za čiju zaštitu je čovječanstvo posebno zainteresovano, imajući u vidu značaj pobjede istine i pravde za budućnost čovjeka i civlizacije, imajući u vidu da MKSJ treba biti oličenje te istine i pravde, u ime žrtava Institut za istraživanje genocida, Kanada potpuno  podržava Tužilaštvo MKSJ koje je od objavljivanja drugostepene presude u predmetu Perišić u februaru 2013. godine dosljedno i energično tvrdilo da uslov "konkretne usmjerenosti" nije valjan i da bi trebao biti poništen.

 

U ime žrtava i svijedoka meÄ‘unarodnog sukoba u Bosni i Hercegovini, Institut za istrazivanje genocida, Kanada izražava potpunu podršku prijedlogu vašeg ureda od 3. februara 2014. godine, da Žalbeno vijeće MKSJ ponovo razmotri svoju odluku o oslobaÄ‘anju bivšeg načelnika Generalštaba Vojske Jugoslavije Momčila Perišića optuženog za pomaganje i podržavanje zločina počinjenih u Sarajevu i Srebrenici od 1993. do 1995. godine.

 

Istovremeno tražimo i od predsjednika i sudija u MKSJ da upotrebe svoje ovlasti kako bi MKSJ ostao na tragu istine i pravde, revizijom presude za Perišića.

 

Mi vam stojimo na raspolaganju za bilo koju vrstu pomoći u ovom procesu.

 

Potpisnici:

 

Profesor Emir Ramić

Direktor Instituta za istraživanje genocida Kanada

Profesor Smail Čekić

Direktor  Instituta za istraživanje zločina protiv čovječnosti i meÄ‘unarodnog prava Univerziteta u Sarajevu

Magistar Hamdija Čustović

Predsjednik Kongresa Bošnjaka Sjeverne Amerike

Dr. David Pettigrew

Profesor filozofije, Southern Connecticut State University

Nadzorni odbor – Yale University Genocide Studies Program,

Član Bosansko-američki Insituta i edukacijskog centra o genocidu u Čikagu

Dr Marko Attila Hoare

Profesor Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, Kingston University

Florence Hartmann

Francuska novinarka i autorka

Bivša glasnogovornica Glavne tužiteljice Carle del Ponte na  MeÄ‘unarodnom suda za ratne zločine počinjene na području bivše Jugoslavije i Ruande

Profesor Steven Leonard Jacobs

Historičar, profesor na universitetu Alabama

Profesor Carole Hodge

Fondacija – Obrazovanje protiv genocida

Professor Anatoly Isaenko

Profesor historije,  Appalachian državni univerzitet

Profesor Erhard Busek

Specijalni koordinator Pakta za stabilnost za jugoistočnu Evropu

Akademik Esad Duraković

Redovni član Akademije nauka i umjetnosti BiH

Dr Mustafa Cerić

Predsjednik Svijetskog bošnjačkog kongresa

Akademik Ferid Muhić

Predsjednik Bošnjačke akademije nauka i umjetnost

Akademik Omer Ibrahimagić

ÄŒlan Bošnjačke akademije nauka i umjetnosti

Profesor Senadin Lavić

Predsjednik Bošnjačke zajednice kulture Preporod, Sarajevo

Magistar Sanja Drnovšek Seferović

Direktor Instituta za genocid i obrazovanje

Dr Emir Suljagić

Koordinator  Koalacije prvi mart

Željko Miličević

Predsjednik Pokret Pravda za BiH, Otava, Kanada