Aleksander Mezyaev: ‘In his time, General Mladich demanded that I would plead his cause’

'It was a coercive decision'

Aleksander Borisovich (Mezyaev – editor's note), I heard about your point of view that the Hague Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia is not a legitimate judicial body.

Although the ICTY is called a criminal tribunal, it almost has no connection with law. First, the Tribunal was created with violation of international law. But due to the fact that such body as the Security Council violated international law, no one dared to oppose. But if we look at the UN Charter, we can see that the Security Council has no authority to create criminal tribunals. But since it was a coercive decision, the Tribunal was created.

In the follow-up activity it demonstrated a complete disregard for the law. We have seen many times how the Tribunal simply rewrote the rules of international law when it was necessary to condemn or justify a particular defendant.

What do you think about the sentence to Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžićwho was sentenced to 40 years in prison?

In its activities, the ICTY violated not only international conventions, although as the international Tribunal, it was obliged to implement, but it violated its own Charter. The ICTY Charter says that the court must establish the liability under the article 7, which stipulates all forms and types of liabilities. However, individual judges of the Tribunal began to apply a certain theory called Joint criminal enterprise and to establish guilt under that theory. It is not enshrined in any document of the Tribunal. Moreover, it is contrary to article 7 of the Charter.

But when you start to analyze why they introduced this theory, everything becomes clear. The application of this theory in specific cases allows finding guilty not only those who physically commit the crime but on the third category of Joint criminal enterprise to condemn those who didn't even know about these crimes. The case of Karadžić is only an episode to punish one side in the conflict. No leader from other parties of the conflict who started the war has not been convicted. And the leaders of the Serbs in all the republics, including Croatia, Bosnia and Serbia — the only Republic of Yugoslavia, where there was no war (Slobodan Milošević) — were convicted.

'The case of Karadžić is only an episode to punish one side in the conflict. No leader from other parties of the conflict who started the war has not been convicted.' Photo: washingtonpost.com

In the absence of any evidence of their personal guilt this concept was introduced, which allows to judge the individuals who didn't even know about the crime. That is, the Office of Public Prosecutor has freed itself from all responsibilities – not only to prove the guilt of crimes, but also even to prove that the accused knew about the crime.

As for the case of Karadžić, the higher the status of the accused, the less his rights are secured. In fact, no right of Karadžić was secured, including the right to personal defence. Eventually, he achieved that he was allowed to be pleaded, but it was preceded by a very long struggle. And if to recall another accused, who is next week on Thursday (31 March) will have been sentenced — Vojislav Šešelj (the leader of the Serbian Radical Party), he achieved recognition of their right for legal defence only being on the brink of death on the thirtieth day of hunger strike.

How have the rights of Karadžić been pleaded in this process? One of the witnesses stated that he was kidnapped, he was subjected to pressure by the Prosecutor of the Tribunal to give false testimony against Karadžić. But the judges replied that the witness can say whatever he wanted, it wouldn't make any difference. The judges demonstrated their disregard for the rights of the accused and even the basic norms of law.

Two judges from the Judicial Chamber represent NATO countries – the UK and Italy. If we remember that NATO countries were directly involved in the war against the Bosnian Serbs, we see another example of defiance of the law. Because these violations are always possible somehow to hide or at least to mitigate, to find a judge from a neutral party, who would hold a desired position of the Tribunal. No, there is a demonstrative violation of all principles of law.

'In its activities, the ICTY violated not only international conventions, although as the international Tribunal, it was obliged to implement, but it violated its own Charter.' Photo: icty.org

'I participated in the defence of the former President of Serbia'

Do you concede that Karadžić can be guilty?

There is no need to concede or guess. If Karadžić was to blame, it would had to be proven at trial. When we see that each charge is associated with the false witnesses, it's got something to tell us about. There is no any proof of personal guilt of Karadžić. In order to find him guilty, they had to apply the concept not provided for in the documents of the Tribunal.

In the minds of people who for 20 years have being seen on TV that Karadžić, Milošević and Serbs are criminals, they were tarred with different brushes. People, even those who had a positive attitude towards Milošević, get the feeling that perhaps something had really been.

If something had been, it should be easily proven in court. But we face with amazing cases when at the trial the witnesses were lying. One of the prosecution witnesses Radomir Marković said that he was tortured to give false testimony against Milošević. If they have evidence, why torture a witness?

'The entire legal defence team of the former Vice President of the Democratic Republic of Congo has just been arrested'

Why attorneys do not use such obvious 'gifts' for the prosecution?

The position of attorneys is very difficult. At his time, General Mladić demanded the court that I would plead him. I came to the General in jail in the summer of 2011, and we started to prepare the defence strategy. However, the authorities of the ICTY stated that they would never allow me to defend, because they didn't like what I said about the Tribunal. It directly contradicts all norms of international law, but it is no wonder.

In particular, I published the results of the investigation of the death of Slobodan Milošević. I participated in the legal defence of the former President of Serbia. I proved that he was killed, to be exact — poisoned. In his blood it was found a drug used to neutralize poisons. The Tribunal was too angered by my behavior, it wasn't interested that the attorney of the General Mladić was someone who tried to sift out the truth.

Attorneys at the International Tribunal are in a very difficult position. On the one hand, they need simply to defend a particular accused. But in those conditions that are created in the International Tribunal, it can be very difficult. Defendants are not simple: they have a high position, were the leaders of large armies and states. And here we inevitably face the issue of sifting out of the truth in an armed conflict.

And it is the most dangerous for the Tribunal. They created a system that forces you to be very careful. The advocates can't say anything there and they are under constant fear of punishment. If an attorney says something that the judge wouldn't like, the judges can simply destroy this attorney, including the deprivation of the right to work as an attorney in their own countries. Therefore, attorneys are under such severe pressure that they practically do not have an opportunity to conduct real defence.

In this regard, I was dangerous for him because I had nothing to fear from their side.

Many attorneys are appointed for the accused against their will, and they work against the accused. There were cases when the accused at the ICTY demanded: 'Get this attorney out of me! He works against me.' The judges replied: 'You have no right to speak in court. Write a paper'. It is no coincidence that the attorney worked against the defendant.

'If Karadžić was to blame, it would had to be proven at trial.' Photo: gazeta.ru

There was General Vidoje Blagojević, who demanded from the court to get out of him attorneys who were working against them. Another General Dragomir Milošević also stated that his attorney did not defend him as he demanded. This part of the system where the accused faces not only a biased prosecutor who knows that the accused is innocent. They created a system of training fake witnesses. The judges know it. The accused sometimes face the problem when their attorneys work against them.

This is a big problem in international tribunals. Those attorneys who are really trying to defend the accused, are under threat of personal safety and even the ban on the profession. The tribunal can destroy the career of an attorney.

We have to look at the so-called international justice system, which has been created. The attorneys who actually try to defend run into danger. The entire defence team of the former Vice President of the Democratic Republic of Congo has just been arrested at the International Criminal Court based in the Hague. In such conditions the international justice works.

Yugoslav approbation

What are the real reasons of the conviction of Karadžić?

The reasons – the actions of the West to destroy Yugoslavia. The Tribunal is governed by the same states who had organized the war in the former Yugoslavia and stood on the side of Bosniaks and Croats, who, in their turn, acted as the main striking force of the war.

I had the opportunity to participate in a conference in Serbia, where there was a speech of the former Defense Minister of France Pierre Marie Gallois. He said that a few years before Tito's death the leadership of the United States, France (P.-M. Gallois was also there) and the Pope met in secret meeting and discussed their actions after the death of Tito. The conversation turned to that united Yugoslavia should not exist. When such evidence is heard directly from the participants of these meetings, it explains a lot. When someone else tells that, they shout about conspiracy. Here, the participant of this meeting himself tells us that the destruction of Yugoslavia was planned long ago and at the highest level.

Slobodan Milošević said: 'Yugoslav situation is an approbation of what it is planned for Russia.' In his words there is a lot of true, because the collapse of Yugoslavia – it is an attempt to test the destruction of the multinational state. Therefore, the study of the Yugoslav conflict and everything that is happening now with the help of international judicial institutions, it is essential for us.