The so-called ‘International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’ (ICTY) was established under the UN Security Council’s Resolution 827, but because the Security council has no judicial authority it can not delegate to a court powers which it does not have itself. Therefore the ICTY is illegal under the UN’s own rules.
An illegal court
The illegality of the ICTY was reconfirmed by international law expert Alexander Mezyaev on 25 May 2013, the 20th anniversary of its establishment: “The UN Charter does not give either the Security Council or any other UN body the right to create international law courts, which means that the creation of the Tribunal was unlawful. Those who established the ICTY were fully aware that they were acting unlawfully, but went ahead nevertheless.”
Officially, the ICTY was established to punish those responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law during the armed conflict in the former Yugoslavia. Its real aim, however, was to destroy the top political and military leadership of just one of the countries involved in the Yugoslav conflict – the country that was the target of its aggression: Serbia. The actions of the culprits who started the war in Yugoslavia – NATO and its allies the US, Germany and the UK – were never investigated by the ICTY, including their use of depleted uranium munitions, but yet these lawbreakers received full and jubilant vindication from the court.
A court of anarchy
NATO’s illegal Blitzkrieg against the former Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SFRY) was the proxy means by which the West, oddly supported by the US and Britain, succeeded in achieving Hitler’s failed goals in the Balkans. The bombing of Yugoslavia was, however, merely the start of a trail of further warmongering and wanton destruction which NATO blatantly extended to the Middle East and North Africa.
Unnoticed by many, NATO succeeded in spreading its political and military anarchy into the domain of jurisprudence by means of its own self-appointed ICTY, a kangaroo court which made NATO a law unto itself and set it up as judge, jury and executioner over its victim countries without any need to respect international law, and even in breach of its own Charter. NATO also boosted its plans by employing the ICTY as a propaganda weapon for disseminating a false history of events in Yugoslavia.
Not only did the Tribunal, despite masquerading under the auspices of the UN, illegally appropriate to itself the sole power of judgement of war crimes in the SFRY, but it even included in advance the word ‘criminal’ in its own self-styled title, which revealed its real purpose as a biased witch hunt for prejudging and convicting its targeted victims as criminals, mostly without evidence, instead of trying them fairly and objectively. In this sense it differed starkly, for example, from the unique International Military Tribunal (IMT) established at Nuremberg in 1945 by judging and condemning individuals whom it did not like, while completely failing to pursue the real criminals of the Yugoslav war – NATO, the US and their complicit allies the UK and Germany,2 whose illegal 78-day air assault killed over 2,000 innocent civilians.
A court of lies
A ‘kangaroo court’ is – to summarise dictionary definitions – a judicial tribunal or assembly that ignores recognised standards of law or justice, has no official status in the territory which it concerns, and does not comply with standards of international law. A good example was the so-called People’s Revolutionary Tribunal in Cambodia in 1979, with which the ICTY has much in common.
The ICTY was exclusively controlled by the US and NATO and was founded from the outset on the West’s demonization of the Serbs, our gallant allies who foiled the aims of Nazi Germany in World War 2. It deliberately twisted the facts and churned out propaganda to make people believe that the Serbs were not only the cause of the Balkans conflict, but also the only side engaged in it. The ICTY was thus guilty of conducting an ignominious assault on the concept of truth itself. Nobel prizewinner English playwright Harold Pinter put the real facts accurately and bluntly: “The NATO action in Serbia had nothing to do with the fate of the Kosovan Albanians; it was yet another blatant and brutal assertion of US power.”
Every crime and atrocity committed during the conflict should have been considered and judged in the light of this overarching crime of which NATO and its Western allies are guilty, but when the judge is corrupt, how can the defendants be declared innocent?
A court of bias
Alexander Mercouris, London-based legal expert, writer on international affairs, and Editor-in-Chief of The Duran, is of the same opinion and says that the setup of the SFRY Tribunal was flawed from the very beginning by its lack of impartiality, because it was set up in the 1990s mainly at the instigation of the Western Powers at the time when these were blaming Serbia and its Government, and the Serbian people of Bosnia, for the war in Bosnia: “That is a problematic step to take, because when the same people instigated the setting up of the Tribunal after they have already identified who they think is responsible for a war, it becomes very difficult to expect that Tribunal to act impartially.”
The idea of the Tribunal was also, significantly, proposed by Former German politician Klaus Kinkel, whose country had collaborated in the massacre of the Serbs by the Nazis in fascist Croatia.
The CIA preposterously declared that Serb militants were responsible for 90% of all crimes including genocide, while NATO illegally intervened in a war in a sovereign country.
The blatant bias of the ICTY is proven by statistics. It indicted a total of 161 people for war crimes in the conflict. Disproportionately, over 68% of them were Serbs or Montenegrins, who received longer sentences that other ethnic groups. This is the equivalent of over 1,500 years meted out to Serbs, but only 300 years for Croats and 50 years for others (Bosniacs, Albanians and Macedonians). 94 convictions were against Serbs, but only 29 to Croats and others. Some of the cases were so lengthy that the defendants died while on trial at the Hague before they were even ‘convicted’.
A court of fake justice
“False witnesses did rise up; they laid to my charge things that I knew not.” (Ps. 35:11)
Space permits the mention of only three of the most notable victims of the ICTY, which Serbian Justice Minister Nikola Selakovic protested had more than once “spat in the face of the Serbian victims”: “Judging by everything, the tribunal was founded outside of international law in order to put the Serbian people on trial.”
The UN itself admitted that in addition Serbian civilian victims had been classified as military ones. Somewhat surprisingly, the Tribunal eventually exonerated its most famous victim, former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević, of war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war, but only after his death and his subjection to years of languishing in prison. At the outset of his ‘trial’ he had already called the court “unfair”, “infantile” and “a farce”. He was judged not to be part of “a joint criminal enterprise” to victimize Muslims and Croats during the war. In November 2017 Milošević was exonerated a second time by NATO’s farcical Hague Inquisition.
The former President of the Republika Srpska, Radovan Karadžić, was declared guilty of “ordering the Srebrenica genocide in 1995”, “war crimes”, and “crimes against humanity”, and sentenced to 40 years’ imprisonment. He threw the charges back against the ICTY, accusing it of “leading Bosnia and Herzegovina into hell” and “the Muslim people into annihilation”, and rightly blamed the US and Germany for having “their own interests in igniting wars in Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia”. In 2016 he filed an appeal against his conviction.
On 29 November 2017 the ICTY rejected the appeal of Croat leader General Slobodan Praljak, the heroic Croat General who fought against US intervention in Bosnia in 1993 who had been sentenced to 20 years in prison. Outraged, he took a vial of cyanide poison from his pocket, drank it, collapsed, and later died in hospital. Famous for ordering the destruction of the iconic Old Bridge (Stari Most) in Mostar 24 years ago – the real reason why he was put on trial – he had done it for the humanitarian purpose of separating Moslems and Croats, which the globalist media and the ICTY twisted to ‘ethnic cleansing’.
Praljak’s humanity and compassion were highly praised by Former Serbian Yugoslav People’s Army officer Veselin Sljivancanin for having saved lives on both sides of the conflict.
A court of ignomy
NATO and its warmongering allies, including the self-appointed judges of the ICTY, are themselves the guilty ones for having by design completed the failed mission of Nazi Germany in World War 2. British military historian Sir Anthony James Beevor, author of the book The Second World War, put it astutely when he said that Hitler was “bent on vengeance against the Serbian population because of its anti-Nazi stance”: “During World War II, Hitler’s hatred of the Serbs was only exceeded by his hatred of the Jews. […] The irony is that though Hitler may have failed in his objective of breaking up Yugoslavia, the West succeeded in the same objective five decades later.”
Hitler had wanted Yugoslavia to be broken up and morsels of territory given to his Hungarian, Bulgarian, and Italian allies. Croatia, under a fascist government, became an Italian protectorate, while Germany occupied Serbia. Did not NATO and the ICTY achieve some of these Nazi goals by another method? Was the ICTY, with its love of trials, condemnations and death, not in fact masquerading as a ‘civilised’ version of what the Nazis had done to their victims?
A famous poem called Todesfuge (Death Fugue) by the Romanian-born German poet Paul Celan symbolizes the horror and annihilation of the Jews in Nazi concentration camps. It is built around the statement “Death is a master from Germany”. There is an obvious parallel today with NATO and the ICTY.