04.05.2006.

BELGRADE: NO EVIDENCE GENOCIDAL PLAN EXISTED

While she did not deny that “there were crimes and serious violations of international norms” in BH, Belgrade’s legal representative Faveau-Ivanovic denied the existence of genocidal intent and plan as the second round of SaM arguments before the International Court of Justice continued. Her argument was that the crimes did not target other ethnic groups but political opponents of the Bosnian Serbs
03.05.2006.

DEFENSE, MILOSEVIC-STYLE

In their efforts to challenge the allegations made by the BH party on Belgrade's responsibility for the crimes committed by the Red Berets, Arkan’s men, Seselj’s men and Scorpions, SaM representatives use arguments used by Milosevic in his trial before the ICTY to defend himself against the same charges
02.05.2006.

OFFICERS WERE NOT PAID TO FIGHT WAR

Belgrade’s representatives use the fact that Belgrade continued to pay Republika Srpska Army officers seven years after the peace accords as evidence that even before Dayton they had not been paid to fight the war
24.04.2006.

BH DEMANDS TO ICJ

Sarajevo’s agent urges the judges of the highest world court to find Serbia and Montenegro responsible for genocide and to obligate it to pay reparations to the state and citizens of BH. The court is asked to state that SaM continues to violate the Genocide Convention by failing to surrender Mladic and the other indictees
21.04.2006.

SERBIAN BOOMERANG

The attempt by SaM legal representatives to raise again the issue of ICJ’s jurisdiction reminds US professor Thomas Franck of Australians who, as he says, “first invented the boomerang and then spend the rest of their lives trying to throw it”
21.04.2006.

MLADIC – BH’S TRUMP CARD BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

During the second round of arguments before the International Court of Justice, none of BH legal representatives failed to mention Ratko Mladic and Radovan Karadzic, stressing that SaM continues to violate the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, by failing to comply with its obligation to surrender them to the ICTY
20.04.2006.

BH: GENOCIDAL PROJECT WAS RUN BY THE STATE, NOT AN INDIVIDUAL

As the hearings before the International Court of Justice continue, Sarajevo’s representatives tackle the claims made by Belgrade that what happened in Srebrenica was not genocide, but “local revenge”, that “rapes occur in every war” and that BH is “amplifying the number of victims”
19.04.2006.

CRIME PATTERN REVEALS PERPETRATOR'S GENOCIDAL INTENT

Sarajevo's legal representatives challenge Belgrade's arguments about the interpretations of the Genocide Convention and its applicability to the BH vs. SaM case. The fact that Belgrade assisted Fikret Abdic is not evidence of lack of genocidal intent against Muslims, but "maximum travesty" that "sowed the seeds of self-destruction in the targeted group", "using group members to destroy the group", Professor Brigitte Stern noted today
18.04.2006.

EVIDENCE BELGRADE NEVER PRESENTED TO ICJ

At the beginning of the second round of arguments in the BH vs. SaM case, Sarajevo's legal representative noted all the evidence Belgrade could have presented in order to challenge the genocide charges, yet failed to do so before the International Court of Justice
29.03.2006.

ROSE: BELGRADE ASSISTED, BUT DID NOT CONTROL MLADIC

Over the past few days, the seven witnesses called by Serbia and Montenegro tried to convince the judges of the highest world court that a civil war had been waged in BH, a war for territorial gain, that all three parties had fought in it, that crimes had been committed on all sides, that Belgrade had not had any control over the Bosnian Serbs, Republika Srpska and its army and could hence bear no responsibility for genocide, if there had been genocide at all
28.03.2006.

MLADIC WAS MILOSEVIC’S AGENT

To illustrate why he considered Mladic’s regular consultations with Milosevic extremely unusual, British general Richard Dannatt said it would be as if he, as the commander of the British Land Command were to go to Paris to consult the French president on military operations in Northern Ireland. Andras Riedlmeyer, the second BH expert to testify before the International Court of Justice, said that in BH the “cultural landscape was transformed” parallel to the ethnic cleansing of the non-Serb population: it was cleansed of the minarets and Catholic church spires. They “disappeared together with the people who used to see those landmarks as the visible signs of their presence on that soil”
23.03.2006.

TESTIMONY CONTINUES BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

The first witness called by Belgrade is former VRS prime minister, Vladimir Lukic. He stepped in for Zoran Lilic, who refused to come to The Hague without the blessing of PM Kostunica and President Tadic
20.03.2006.

BH TO CALL JUST TWO WITNESSES

British general Richard Dannatt is the second, and last witness to be called by the BH side at the hearings before the International Court of Justice. The question is whether SaM will lose its key witness – former FRY president Zoran Lilic
17.03.2006.

WITNESS TESTIMONY BEGINS

The hearing before the International Court of Justice in the case of BH against Serbia and Montenegro continued with the hearing of witnesses. The testimony is public, but the contents may not be made public until 28 March, when this stage of the hearings ends. The first witness called by BH is Andras Riedlmayer, an expert for the Ottoman cultural heritage in the Balkans from the Harvard University
15.03.2006.

BELGRADE: GENOCIDE IS SARAJEVO'S "WAR PROPAGANDA"

SaM legal representatives claim that BH was "very successful in war propaganda"; according to them, the allegations of genocide are just a result of the propaganda