Ponedjeljak, 6. Juli 2020






Izdanja iz 2005. godine

 |  Kategorija: Uncategorised
 |  Klikova: 59801  | Srijeda, 21 Avgust 2013 14:36

Indeks članka

http://republic-bosnia-herzegovina.com/2013/components/com_jce/editor/tiny_mce/plugins/article/img/pagebreak.png); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">

http://republic-bosnia-herzegovina.com/w2013/components/com_jce/editor/tiny_mce/plugins/article/img/pagebreak.png); color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: Tahoma, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;">

No. 320

February 19, 2005

1. Dayton Peace Agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina is Result of Genocide



1. Dayton Peace Agreement in Bosnia and Herzegovina is Result of Genocide

Interview with Prof. Francis A. Boyle for The Muslim Observer and Bosnian Media by Vahid Sendijarevic

Introduction: The International Court of Justice (ICJ), which is principal organ of the United Nations (UN), made an announcement a few days ago that Public hearings in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) will open on Monday February 27, 2006. This is the first time after the Nuremberg Trial that nations are on trial for the crime of genocide. In the period from 1992 to 1995, two countries of former Yugoslavia committed aggression over sovereign nation of Republic Bosnia and Herzegovina and committed genocide by killing over 250,000 innocent civilians. Just in Srebrenica 10,000 Muslim men and boys (ethnic Bosniacs) were killed, 15,000 Bosniacs killed in Prijedor, and over 20,000 Bosniac women raped. 50% of territory of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was cleansed from all those who were non-ethnic Serbs (Bosniacs and Croats). In process, aggressors destroyed all monuments of the non-ethnic Serb cultures, including religious monuments and grave yards. All these crimes were well documented at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia during the trials to individuals for the war crimes in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including a trial of Mr. Milosevic, President of Serbia and former Yugoslavia.

The war in Bosnia and Herzegovina ended with Dayton Agreement in 1995 which instead of punishing Serbia and Montenegro for aggression and genocide, rewarded them by creating ethnic Serb state Serbian Republic (Republika Srpska) on the territory of the sovereign nation of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. One signatory of the Dayton deal was Mr. Milosevic who is now indicted for war crimes and genocide in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

We had an opportunity to talk with Professor Francis A. Boyle regarding the significance of this announcement by ICJ. He is a professor of International Law at University of Illinois at Champaign. In 1993, as a representative of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Professor Boyle initiated the law suit of genocide against Serbian and Montenegro at the ICJ. In this interview, Professor Boyle agreed to give us his perspective on the significance of the announcement by ICJ about the scheduled Public Hearing for February 27, 2006 where Bosnia and Herzegovina is going to present its case against Serbia and Montenegro for crimes of genocide committed in the war from 1992 to 1995.

Sendijarevic: What is the significance of the law suit brought up at International Court of Justice by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro?

Boyle: The only chance we have to get rid of Dayton [agreement/constitution] is this lawsuit. We are talking here about the future not the past. What happened in the past is terrible, and there is no question about it – but, I already won the merits of the law suit, so what we really have to focus now is on the future, on where to go, what to do with this law suit, and we need to use the lawsuit to undermine Dayton and get rid of Serb Republic [Republika Srpska].

The order has been issued now that the trial will open in February 2006. That is final, that can not be changed. But what we have to do now is get the second order, saying O.K. it will be 10 weeks [of public hearings], if we get more than 10 weeks that is even better. The Nuremberg prosecutions took a year.

Sendijarevic: Why is it so important to get more time at the court?

Boyle: The point is this: the European Union has taken over Bosnia from NATO and the United States. Now the Americans are sort of washing their hands of Bosnia, giving it to Europeans. Europeans could not care less about Bosnia, let alone Bosnian Muslims and just recently last week the European Union foreign minister Javier Solana was in Bosnia and he gave an interview in which he said they were not going to change Dayton. So basically we are stuck with Dayton.

Sendijarevic: Professor Boyle, for the readers of the Muslim Observed can you explain how Dayton agreement came to be?

Boyle: We are going to be stuck with Dayton and Serb Republic [Republika Srpska], which is a genocidal little state that Clinton and rest of them gave to Milosevic and Karadzic. This little state controls 50% of Bosnia and it is run by a gang of genocidal criminals who had never been indicted and prosecuted for the most part. And this little state, Serb Republic, is based on genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and the mass rape of the Bosnian women. There is no way that the European Union or NATO Partnership for Peace are going to accept Bosnia for membership with Serb Republic. They all know that half of Bosnia is run by gang of criminals. So the future of Bosnia depends on us undermining Dayton in order to get rid of Serb Republic. Only way we can do that now is by means of this law suit, to put on all the crimes and atrocities and everything that we possible can that was done to create Serb Republic, and then to use the trial to put Dayton on trial and Serb Republic on trial, and to try to convince Europe and the United States and the entire World that Serb Republic has to go. Now, to do that, we need as much time as possible.

My understanding from the public accounts is that Serbia has asked for 10 weeks for the trial. For some reason, unknown to me, Mr. Softic, the Bosnian agent, now has said he only wants 4 weeks. 4 weeks is not enough to do the job. We should be asking for 12 weeks, for 4 months, or 5 months. How are you going put on trial for deaths of 250 thousand Bosnians, the mass rape of 20 thousand Bosnian women, the ethnic cleansing of three quarters of Bosnia, in 4 weeks? It can not be done. It certainly can not be done in a way to undermine Dayton and get rid of Serb Republic. So we need Mr. Softic to go in there and demand 20 weeks not 10 weeks and then see what the president of the court will accept. But right now, I advised the President Tihic that we should go for at least 10 weeks proposed by Serbia, not the 4 weeks proposed by Mr. Softic. But my advice was rejected. I don't know why it was rejected? As of today, Thursday December 9th, to the best of my knowledge Mr. Softic will be going to the meeting at the World Court with the President and Serbia's lawyer before Christmas and only ask for 4 weeks. So we have to do all we can to pressure President Tihic, to pressure Mr. Softic to demand 20 weeks. If they have to settle for 10 weeks or 15 weeks, fine take it.

We need as much time as we can to put this whole atrocity, genocide, and aggression on trial before the entire world, and use it to get Dayton rewritten so that Serb Republic is eliminated.

Sendijarevic: What are chances at the World Court for Bosnia and Herzegovina to win this case?

Boyle: We already won on the merits. Basically, the court admitted that in the two world court orders that I won for Bosnia on April, 1993 and September 1993. The Russian judge in his dissents basically admitted that these were pre-judgments on the merits. So we already won. The issue is what to do with the trial? Of course we'll have to go in there and introduce our evidence, but as far as [ICJ] court is concerned we already won.

We have to go through the formality of the trial. The question is what do we use the trial for, assuming we've already won, which we have? And what we use the trial for is to undermine Dayton and get rid of Serb Republic.

Sendijarevic: What you are saying is that this is more-or-less a won case. That the outcome is in the hands of Bosnians?

Boyle: That is correct. It is in our hands and this is the only chance we will ever have to rewrite Dayton in order to eliminate Serb Republic, and then at that point for Bosnia to enter into the European Union Partnership for Peace and our future will be secure. People in Bosnia must understand, we are not just talking about the past. I know as the attorney for the Mothers of Srebrenica and Podrinje the suffering is incalculable. We must look at the future of Bosnia and concentrate on the future and how do we use this lawsuit to preserve and insure the future of Bosnia as an independent and united state for all of its citizens.

Sendijarevic: This is an opportunity to undo the injustice with Dayton agreement?

Boyle: This is the only opportunity we will have to undo the Dayton because the Europeans want to enforce it. Javier Solana made that very clear and as of now the Americans have pretty much walked away. So this is the only chance we have. We have to take it or the alternative will be the Bosnia will remain carved up for a number of years in two parts and then finally as they planned to do all along they'll give half of it to Serbia (Serb Republic) and the other half to Croatia.

Sendijarevic: If this law suit is won, then the opportunity is to go back to the united Bosnia and Herzegovina. Is there an opportunity to go back to the pre-war constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which was undone as result of the genocide?

Boyle: Either the constitution of the Republic or for example something along the lines of Switzerland. But the current constitution, which is Dayton constitution with the Serb Republic, has to be undone. And this is the only way we can undo it, there is no other way to do it. And we need as long a trial as possible to do it.

Sendijarevic: Prior to the case of Bosnia and Herzegovina, isn't it unprecedented in international law that the constitution of one nation was changed as the result of genocide?

Boyle: That is the importance of the trial. You have to go in there and put on trial all the genocide that was inflicted on the Bosnians and that Dayton is result of Genocide. Indeed, in the second World Court order I won for Bosnians, I got support to strike down the Owen-Stoltenberg plan because it was genocidal. So we make the same argument about Dayton and get support either to strike down the Dayton or determine that Serb Republic is a criminal enterprise based upon genocide. And then the conclusion is obvious, Republic Srbska has to go! So Dayton could be amended to eliminate Serb Republic.

Sendijarevic: What about going back to the pre-war constitution of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina?

Boyle: That could be done too. The critical part is to get rid of Serb Republic which is entrained in Dayton. How could we possible do that in four weeks? I don't see how.

Sendijarevic: Is there any reason for the side of Bosnia and Herzegovina to limit the time in the ICJ court?

Boyle: My advice is if Serbian lawyers are asking for 10 weeks, take the 10 weeks. I was told if we went for 10 week, then Serbia would attempt to put on trial any atrocities we committed. But that is a non-answer. That is a bogus response because as I pointed out Serbia has already withdrawn its counter claims against us. We are not facing any claims here against us. So the argument that was given to me made no sense at all.

Sendijarevic: Did the trials at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia confirm that genocide already happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina?

Boyle: We can use all of the findings and evidence in the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, in Milosevic's case and everyone else's case. But the point is, we do not control the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. We can not appear, we can not ague [at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia]. The difference here [is], in the World Court law suit, we are in charge! We, Bosnians do not depend on anyone else to make our argument and to present our case and what remedy we are going to ask for and how we are going to pursue this. That is the big difference here.

Sendijarevic: What about reparations to the victims of genocide?

Boyle: President Izetbegovic asked about how much Bosnia could get. I estimated a minimum of 100 billion dollars.

Sendijarevic: Prof. Boyle, any concluding remarks?

Boyle: What we have to do now is everyone must pressure Softic [agent of Bosnia and Herzegovina at ICJ] to ask for as much time as we could get at the meeting that will take place [at International court of justice] in the next week. We want a minimum of 10 weeks, 12 weeks, 20 weeks, whatever they'll give us.

Sendijarevic: Since he is the Agent of government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, should Bosnians put pressure on Bosnian government?

Boyle: That's right. He takes his instructions from President Tihic. The lawsuit has always been run directly out of the presidency. I was appointed by president Izetbegovic and I was accountable to him not to the foreign minister.





1. Article II of the Genocide Convention defines the international crime of "genocide" as follows: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

In the year 1993, The Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina filed a lawsuit at the International Court of Justice in the Hague with a charge that the former Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) had committed the act of genocide, as defined in parts (a), (b), (c), and (d) of the Article II of the genocide convention above. Furthermore, Bosnia and Herzegovina has won every stage of the still ongoing legal process, with only the oral arguments and verdict still pending.

The citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina demand that the Serbian Republic, as created by genocide, be pronounced illegal and the Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina be restored.

2. The Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was an internationally recognised country and 177th in the order of recognized members in the UN. Under the UN Charter, the constitution and the institutions of a member state of the UN cannot be changed with aggression by any other country and even the United Nations have no right to meddle in the internal affairs of its members.

Article 2, paragraph 7 of the UN charter states:

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters
which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter.

Security Council of the United Nations in its resolution 752 from year 1992 declared Serbia and Montenegro aggressors on the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and in resolution 757 from the year 1992 it started punishing aggressors by imposing economic sanctions.

The United Nations should not have allowed for the start of negotiations about constitutional change of a
member state, victim of aggression, regardless of the fact that the president of the presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina consented to participate in such negotiations. The result of such negotiations is forceful change of the constitution of a state that is the victim of aggression.

3. Under the Dayton agreement, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina found itself under the guardianship
of SR Yugoslavia and the Republic of Croatia, which is forbidden under article 2 of the UN Charter. International law, protection of member states, and the obligation of the UN to secure that protection, exists except if the member state itself waves those rights but the waver must not be the result of illegitimate representation, reinterpretation of
subjects of negotiations and the deception by officials of their own constituents. Concerning their scheme
(which involve negotiations about constitution behind closed doors and outside of state institutions), Bosnian
negotiators were hiding and still hide with falsehood that there is no law but only conspiracies.

Article 2.1 of the UN charter states:

The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members.

4. Because the constitution of one country is an expression of sovereignty and equality of member states of the UN, it is clear that negotiation about constitution by neighbouring countries is a direct violation of article 2 of UN Charter, as the paramount norm of international law. It is a fact the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Croatia became participants in negotiations about the constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, by which they attempted to change the constitution of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina through the use of war and armed aggression, which is contrary to the Article 2 of the UN Charter.

People that have, ever since Lisbon in 1992, through Geneva in 1993, and Dayton in 1995 given the aggressor
a vision of success by agreeing to discuss their own constitution today defend their actions under the excuse of international pressure, all the while hiding the facts of unquestionable, indivisible, and non-transferrable sovereignty as well as the fact that any agreement under pressure, falsehood, or through illegitimate acts is null and void.

5. From the position of international law, negotiating about the constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and agreeing to Dayton Constitution, the act of treason is committed against the Republic that is seen from articles 154, and 155 of constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which state:

Article 154:

It is a sacred and inalienable right and duty of citizens, all members of all ethnic groups living in Bosnia and Herzegovina to protect and defend the liberty, independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity, and the organization of the Republic defined by the Constitution.

Article 155:

No person has the right to recognize or to sign the capitulation, or to accept or recognize occupation of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina or any single part of it. No person has the right to prevent the citizens of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina from fighting any aggressor against the Republic. Such acts are unconstitutional and they are punishable as treason against the Republic. Treason against the Republic is the heaviest offence against the people and is treated as a criminal act of the highest degree.

The legitimate representative of the Croat people in Bosnia-Herzegovina -- Kresimir Zubak -- did not consent to signing even the preliminary peace agreement in Dayton, so in the name of Croats from Bosnia-Herzegovina that agreement was signed by representatives from the neighbouring country of Croatia, which is unheard of in international law.

Annex 4 of the final version of the peace agreement, the Paris Agreement, which is currently used in place of the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina was never ratified by the Parliament of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which proves the illegitimacy of the actions of the negotiating representatives of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the signers of the Paris Agreement. That means that Annex 4 never passed the legal procedure for constitutional changes prescribed in the previous, at the time the only valid Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

6. From the aspect of the conventions of international agreements, the Vienna convention of 1969, amended to the UN Charter, considers invalid those agreements that are contrary to international law, that is, those agreements that are contrary to the UN Charter. It is important for Bosnia and Herzegovina that the Article 53 of the above mentioned convention even considers invalid agreements that are brought voluntarily, if they are contrary to the international law. Additionally , as an agreement, the Dayton Constitution stands in contradiction to the referenced convention for international agreements, under which as agreements are considered only those that are negotiated between countries, excluding the possibility that they also contain a constitution of some member country.

Therefore, the Dayton Constitution is an act of the illegal constitutional capitulation that is signed and vouched for by two neighbouring countries, both of which intended changing the constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as one of their primary war objectives. With that, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina was successfully denied the implementation of the UN Charter, and the application of the international laws against states guilty of aggression and genocide.

The citizens of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina



It is very interesting that BBC knows, even before the Friday Prayer, what Bosnian Muslim leader Mustafa Ceric will talk about.




6. februar 2005.

Posjetilaca Online

Ko je na web-stranici: 302 gostiju i nema prijavljenih članova

© 2020 Online glasnik Bosanskog kongresa. Sva prava zadržana.
Joomla! je besplatan softver objavljen pod GNU General Public License.