From: "Debra Smith and Paul Watson" <algen-AT-netexcel.net.au> Subject: Fw: [hr-news] Yug - 2/2 Stament on the conflict of Kosovo and Nato's intervention. Date: Fri, 16 Apr 1999 21:41:15 +1000 -----Original Message----- From: Margarita Lacabe <marga-AT-derechos.org> To: Human Rights News Mailing List <hr-news-AT-derechos.net> Date: Tuesday, 13 April 1999 12:20 Subject: [hr-news] Yug - 2/2 Stament on the conflict of Kosovo and Nato's intervention. >Nizkor International Human Rights Team >Derechos Human Rights >Serpaj Europe >Information 2/2 >12Apr99 > >STATEMENT ON THE CONFLICT OF KOSOVO AND NATO'S INTERVENTION (PART II) > >c) International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: Jurisdiction and >competence. > >It is necessary to strengthen the international legal system, so that >resorting to the use of force may not become the way to solve States' >internal conflicts, as it has happened in this case; this is why the >consolidation of the universal criminal jurisdiction of domestic courts >is also needed, as we have witnessed in the Pinochet case, as well as >the consolidation of the "ad-hoc" tribunals, which directly concerns the >present case. In this sense, human rights organizations have made an >effort at an international level for the establishment of the >International Criminal Court, whose Statute includes the crime of >aggression. > >The General Secretariat of NATO's attitude, which denies the existence >of international law, may be considered as an act of aggression in terms >of International Law. There is no doubt that the jurisdiction of this >ad-hoc tribunal has never been used to denounce the genocide that, >according to the official communique of the General Secretariat of NATO, >motivates the beginning of the military assaults against indiscriminated >military objectives. The force of law has been replaced by the force of >weapons in what can be considered as the declaration of a veiled state >of exception in Europe. > >The Statute of the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was >adopted on May 25, 1993. This Tribunal, as specified in Security Council >Resolution 827, has been created for the prosecution of persons >responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law >committed in the territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991. This >Tribunal has competence on the following offenses: grave breaches of the >Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Article 2); violations of the laws or >customs of war (Article 3); genocide (Article 4) and crimes against >humanity (Article 5). > >These criminal offenses, as defined by the Statute of the Tribunal, are >enough to bring to trial the serbs, croats and kosovars responsible for >any acts that violate international humanitarian law. Those >collaborating in the planning and logistics aimed at committing these >offenses are also under the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. > >Article 7 of the Statute, taking into account Article 7 of the Nuremberg >Charter, establishes the indivicual criminal responsibility of all those >who committed such offenses: > >"1. A person who planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise >aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime >referred to in articles 2 to 5 of the present Statute, shall be >individually responsible for the crime. > >2. The official position of any accused person, whether as Head of State >or Government or as a responsible Government official, shall not releive >such person of criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment. > >3. The fact that any of the acts referred to in articles 2 to 5 of the >present Statute was committed by a subordinate does nor relieve his >superior of criminal responsibility if he knew or had reason to know >thet the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and >the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to >prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof. > >4. The fact that an accused person acted pursuant to an order of a >Government or of a superior shall not relieve him of criminal >responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the >International Tribunal determines that justice so requires." > >d) Violations of international humanitarian laws and, in particular, of >the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 additional protocols > >As mentioned above, given the deterioration of the situation in the >region of Kosovo, the Secretary General of NATO, Mr. Javier Solana, has >informed through a press release, dated March 27, 1999 [(1999)044], the >initiation of a broader range of Air Operations aimed at "bringing a >halt to violence in Kosovo and to prevent further humanitarian >catastrophy." He also stated that he had taken this decision with the >support of all Allied governments. That is to say, the justification at >all times used by the Secretary-General of NATO lies in the need of >protecting the kosovar civil population. > >Since the Alliance intervention has provoked, regardless of its legality >or illegality, the internationalization of an armed conflict, its State >Parties are compelled to anticipate a humanitarian device to help the >civil population who do not participate directly in the hostilities, >specially when there was a foreseeable flow of refugees. > >Therefore Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August >1949, related to the Protection of Victims of International Armed >Conflicts (Protocol I), adopted on 8 June 1977 by the Diplomatic >Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International >Humanitarian Law applicable in Armed Conflicts (entry into force 7 >December 1979), is applicable. All Allied States along with the Federal >Republic of Yugoslavia are Parties to the same. > >The General Secretariat of NATO and the Parties to the treaty were >legally bound by this Protocol and therefore they should have proceed >according to the provision contained in Article 5, which obliges the >Parties to the conflict "to secure the supervision and implementation of >the Conventions and of this Protocol by the application of the system of >Protecting Powers, including inter alia the designation and acceptance >of those Powers, in accordance with the following paragraphs. Protecting >Powers shall have the duty of safeguarding the interests of the Parties >to the conflict.". Neither the occupation of a territory nor the >application of the Conventions and this Protocol shall affect, according >to Article 4, the legal status of the territory in question. > >It is obvious that at no time the requirements anticipated by >humanitarian law anticipates were taken. Furthermore, the fact of having >previously planned the military operations, the lack of a real military >danger, the disparity of the force relationships between the NATO >military forces of those of the Federal Republic of the Former >Yugoslavia, should have made it possible at all times to fulfill these >agreements and no possible extenuating circumstance may be invoked to >justify their non accomplishment. > >In this sense, it is to our undertanding that the principle of command >responsibility as understood by military and humanitarian criminal >jurisdiction could be applicable to the General Secratariat of NATO; the >same could be said of the officials compelled to anticipate humanitarian >actions according to law; these humanitarian actions under no >circumstance can be implemented by non governmental organizations, which >not only lack training and structure in this regard, but also are not >recognized in to act legally in the framework of this type of conflicts. > >It is obvious that an assistance system capable of facing the >foreseeable displacement of non beligerent civil population towards >conflict free zones should have been established in the border >territories, as it has occurred in all armed conflict, no matter their >nature, since World War I, and even in not generalized armed conflicts, >such as Vietnam, Nicaragua, Guatemala, the Great Lakes , Rwanda, former >Zaire, Colombia, etc. > >Therefore, it is necessary to determine all political, military and >legal responsibilities arising from the nonobservance of these >Conventions and from the deaths that this conduct has provoked and will >provoke, either by action or by omission. > >As indicated in the Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security >of Mankind (International Law Commission Report. 48 Session), the >military necessity or convenience can never be used to justify the >violation of positive norms. International law is a prohibitive law. >Articles 46, 47 and 50 of the 1907 Hague Convention do not establish >those exceptions to its application. The rights of the innocent >population established by them must be respected at all times even if >military necessity or convenience demand otherwise. > >e) Aggression within the framework of the international legal system. > >According to Resolution 3314/XXIX, adopted by the General Assembly on >December 14, 1974, aggression consists of "the use of armed force by a >State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political >independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with >the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this Definition.". In >this Definition the term "State" includes the concept of a "group of >States" where appropriate. > >The first convention on the definition of aggression was prepared on >April 24, 1933. The Convention declares as acts of aggression: a) >declaration of war; b) invasion; c) armed attack d) naval blockade and >e) support given to armed bands. > >In 1945 the Nuremberg International Tribunal declared as "crimes against >peace", in Article 6, p. 2, the planning, preparation, initiation and >waging of a war of aggression. This definition was added by the >International Law Commission to the Nuremberg principles on July 29, >1950, and was incorporated to the Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace >and Security of Mankind through its Article 16 (International Law >Commission. 48 Session). Also, the debates on the Draft Code >corresponding to 1950, came also to the conclusion that any act of >aggression, including the use of armed forces by the authorities of a >State against another State, may constitute a crime against the peace >and security of mankind if this act is not motivated by collective self >defense or if this act is not exercised following a decision or a >recommendation issued by a competent UN body. > >On December 18, 1967, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution >2330/XXII and created an Special Committee on the Question of Defining >Aggression. After seven years of work, this Committee's draft was >finally approuved by the General Assembly through its Resolution >3314/XXIX, of December 14, 1974. > >In addition to the already mentioned definition of aggression, as set >out in its Article 1, its preamble reaffirms the fact that "the >territory of a State shall not be violated by being the object, even >temporarily, of military occupation or of other measures taken by >another State in contravention of the Charter...", contravention that >has taken place in this case in the light of the above arguments. > >Article 3 states: > >"Any of the following acts, regardless of a declaration of war, shall, >subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify >as an act of aggression: a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces >of a State of the territory of another State, or any military >occupation, however temporarily, resulting from such invasion or attack, >or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State >or part thereof; b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against >the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State >against the territory of another State; c) The blockade of the ports or >coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State; d) An attack by >the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine >and air fleets of another State; e) The use of armed forces of one State >which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of >the receiving State, in contravention of the conditiond provided for in >the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory >beyond the termination of the agreement; f) The action of a State in >allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another >State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of >aggression against a third State; g) The sending by or on behalf of a >State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out >acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount >to the acts listed above, or ita substantial involvement therein." > >Article 5 provides that "1. No consideration of whatever nature, wether >political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification >for aggression. 2. A war of aggression is a crime against international >peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility. 3. No >territorial acquisition or special advantage resulting from aggression >is or shall be recognized as lawful." > >Taking the above arguments into account, we declare the following: > >1) That it is necessary to put an end to the military attacks against >the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. > >2) That it is the UN Security Council who, according to the Charter, >must determine the kind of violations committed by the Federal Republic >of Yugoslavia. > >3) That the Security Councel must carry out a legally binding >consultation before the International Court of Justice in order to >determine the legality of NATO's military action, and, in any case, to >clarify the correspondent individual responsibilities. > >4) That the State Parties to the Alliance file a complaint, through >their governments, in order to bring to trial those responsible for the >perpetration of illicit and illegal acts infringing international >humanitarian law and human rights, either on the part of the Yugoslavian >authorities or on the part of any other country involved in these types >of crimes. > >An investigation on the instigators of these acts must be carried out, >giving special relevance to the determination of the criminal >organizations that may have provided armament illegally and that may be >related to drug trafficking in the region. > >5) All States Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty must provide the >International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia with enough financial, >logistical and human resources, especially those States that have not >contributed to the same yet. These obligations must be controlled by the >European Parliament and executed by the European Commission, with >binding effects over the Community budgets. > >6) It is necessary that the governments order the armed forces deployed >in the area of the Former Yugoslavia to conduct the development of >international police operations aimed at guaranteeing the bringing >before the Tribunal of all those who have been indicted. > >7) All State Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty must provide the >International Committee of the Red Cross with enough financial and >logistical means in order to guarantee the assistance to the displaced >and refugees that have fled to neighbouring countries in compliance with >the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. > >8) Necessary financial resources must be provided in order to endow the >recipient countries with assistance, sanitary and communications >structures, including the endowment of human resources training, >assumed by the NATO military budgets and the regular budget of States >belonging to the Alliance. The said investments will be accounted as >donations in the affected States' national accounting and they will be >controlled by the European Parliament. > >9) The criteria of international human rights law should be used >regarding those members of the Atlantic Alliance that systematically >violate human rights, as it is the case of Turkey; hence, necessary >legal proceedings should be activated before an ordinary national court >because of the systematical human rights violations, which, in the case >of Turkey have been denounced by the European institutons themselves, >such as the European Parliament; at the same time, necessary legal >measures should be taken so that its membership to the European >institutions is suspended as long as these acts continue to take place. > >>From this point of view, the European Parliament should carefully >monitor the EU Foreign Policy towards those countries of the >Mediterranean basin that systematically violate human rights, such as >Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Israel and Turkey. This is a very important for >peace and stability in the region. > >10) The States Parties to the NATO must proceed to the ratification of >the ICC Statute and must activate all necessary diplomatic channels >aimed at its ratification by other States, thus contributing to >guaranteeing international humanitarian and human rights law. > >European Union, April 4, 1999 >---------------------------------------------------------------- >Full text in spanish to: >http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/press/kosovo1.html >-- >FIN DEL MENSAJE END OF MESAGGE EINDE BERICHT FIM DA MENSAGEM FINE >DEL MESSAGGIO ENDE NACHRICHT FIN DEL MENSAJE END OF MESAGGE EINDE >BERICHT FIM DA MENSAGEM FINE DEL MESSAGGIO ENDE NACHRICHT >************************************************************************ > >Information is an Urgent Solidarity service edited and disseminated by >Nizkor >International Human Rights Team. Nizkor is a member of the Peace and >Justice Service-Europe >(Serpaj), Derechos Human Rights (USA) and GILC (Global Internet Liberty >Campaign). >Mailbox: Desenganho, 12 - 5 Piso - 28004 - Madrid - Espanha. >Telephone: +34.91.526.7502 Fax: +34.91.526.7515 >http://www.derechos.org/nizkor - >In Spanish only Mailto: nizkor-AT-derechos.org >If you do not wish to receive Information messages send "unsubscribe" as >subject. >*********************************************************************** > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >Please note: Press releases by other organizations distributed in this >mailing list do not necessarily imply the endorsement of Derechos >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: hr-news-unsubscribe-AT-derechos.net >For additional commands, e-mail: hr-news-help-AT-derechos.net > >
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005