Hague prosecution: Šešelj's detention is legal

In a separate thread last week dealing with the Seselj case I predicted this absurdity and that the ICTY would use its own post-hoc propio motu order on "provisional release". Most have realized that the "provisional release" was in fact ICTY Orwellian double-speak for unconditional house arrest. The June 13th post hoc propio motu order was issued after the rejection by the June 6th Appeal Chamber against continuation of proceedings, and in reaction to Seselj's June 10th justifiable submission detailing the unlawful detention. The trial chamber never intended to release Seselj, and the post-hoc order was simply an effort to cover-up its own incompetence. Truly laughable when the lunacy becomes predictable.

How can more than a decade detention be legal without a guilty verdict ?

If he now is released and not found guilty of charge,
shall his more than a decade lost of life go without compensation ?

Arn.Sweden.

Based on a well entrenched pattern by the ICTY in the Seselj case, he will never be truly released. The ICTY certainly intends to dispose of him and would prefer unconditional detention in another jurisdiction so that they can absolve themselves of the legal responsibility of his death when he does expire. At some point in the future, Seselj's medical condition will further deteriorate until he will no longer be conscious or responsive, and at that point the ICTY will demand that Serbia accept his provisional "release".

Comedy has been defined in formulistic terms as tragedy + time and has been appropriately exemplified in the absurd duration and tragic manipulations by all of the organs of the ICTY (OTP, President, Trial Chamber, Appeals Chamber, Registrar, Secreteriat etc.) during the Seselj case. We can both laugh and cry at the same time.

@ (Bam Bam, 16 July 2014 03:30),

The moniker is a reference to prisoners of conscience in the geographic region that includes the "southern slavs" i.e. Yug, or Jug meaning south from proto-slavic etymology. Yugoslavia was a country long before Tito. Regarding your reference of "Srboslavia", perhaps you should realize that Tito, who was not a "Srb" or "Serb", estbalished a corrupt judicial system in which prisoners of conscience were illegitimately detained and proscecuted through kangoroo criminal courts. As a matter of fact, the prosecution of the Seselj case at the ICTY grossly exceeds the abuses of YU-communist political show trials, by orders of magnitude.
Lastly, your assertion I admitted Yugoslavia was a "stepping stone" for anything - is false. Historically, I have read the generally known fact that Yugoslavia in the first eleven years of its existence (1918-1929) was also known as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and the state was ruled by the Serbian dynasty of Karađorđević.

@Amnesty Yugoslavia - Are you aware that YU is a defunct country. For heavens sake stop using the name.

Anyway back to the topic, why on gods Earth would the ICTY release an animal like Seselj. This so called individual has been causing trouble even when your beloved YU was still somehow functioning. Amnesty you wish for a return of Tito's YU but then you cry that right wing Serb terrorist like Seselj should be released. You have just admitted what all non-Serbs have been saying for years. YU was a stepping stone for a greater Srboslavia, nothing more nothing less.

ICJ1,

Of the many absurdity's is the use of the term "release". The ICTY didn't propose a "release" but rather stipulated strict detention in communicado, in another jurisdiction. Read the ICTY record. Laughable.

Another example: The submission detailing the unlawful detention specifies the period from February 2003 - June 10th, 2014. The ICTY and OTP defend themsleves and illogically state that accused refused the offer for "provisional release". One of the many problems with the ICTY logic is that their offer was made post-hoc, i.e after the event, on June 13th through the propio motu order. How can an action on June 13 2014 be used to clear unlawful acts spanning the period Feb 2003 - June 10th 2014? Laugable.

For more laugable legal absurdity that is entirely unprecedented in crimial law, like how a pre-trail and trial that involved a biased Judge is not sufficient to declare a mistrial, you may wish to consult the ICTY record and a frist year law student.

More laughter you ask? Even the blind and illogical defenders of the ICTY circus try to defend the ICTY and claim that the writings of Judge Harhoff are laughable.

Do you agree with Judge Harhoff's assertion regarding the actions of President Judge Meron?

Have you borken a rib yet from laughter?

@(Bam Bam, 17 July 2014 03:20),

Please note that Yugoslavia during Tito's rule was not YU , but was actually SFRY or SFRJ and known as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

The reaction you apparently suffer upon hearing a certain word phrase is generally known as "Onomatophobia"- i.e. fear of hearing a certain word or phrase.

I sincerely hope that my explanations may help you overcome this rare disability.

Tito's birth name was Josip Broz, the son of Franjo Broz.

I am curious, is your onomatophobia restricted to "Yugoslavia" or does it extend to the other names associated with Tito, such as Josip, Franjo, or Broz?

(thats nice, 17 July 2014 01:51),

The implications are much broader and are relevant to modern day jurisprudence in International Law.

Though reputable jurists and experts are laughing and crying at this comic tragedy, they aren't celebrating this event which is driving a nail in the coffin of International Criminal Law.

Whether it is determined that his incarceration is found to be excessive say 50 years from now is not relevant. The fact is he is in prison will remain there probably the rest of his natural life, a song comes to mind:
"Oh Happy Day"

@Amnesty Yugoslavia,

By using the name YU, your actually insulting the victims who suffered under Tito's dictorial regime. 2,000,000 killed, 4,000,000 exiled and another 4,000,000 seeking asylum abroad for better economic opportunities. All this in a 50 year period. I ask you once again as a victim of Tito's brutality use another name.

Though reputable jurists and experts are laughing and crying at this comic tragedy, they aren't celebrating this event which is driving a nail in the coffin of International Criminal Law.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 July 2014 11:22)

Yeah, reputable jurists and experts like a certain Amnesty Yugoslavia are laughing and crying...

As a matter of fact, the prosecution of the Seselj case at the ICTY grossly exceeds the abuses of YU-communist political show trials, by orders of magnitude.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 July 2014 13:06)

Just a small correction... the above is a matter of opinion of a certain Amnesty Yugoslavia, not a matter of fact.

In a separate thread last week dealing with the Seselj case I predicted this absurdity and that the ICTY would use its own post-hoc propio motu order on "provisional release". Most have realized that the "provisional release" was in fact ICTY Orwellian double-speak for unconditional house arrest. The June 13th post hoc propio motu order was issued after the rejection by the June 6th Appeal Chamber against continuation of proceedings, and in reaction to Seselj's June 10th justifiable submission detailing the unlawful detention. The trial chamber never intended to release Seselj, and the post-hoc order was simply an effort to cover-up its own incompetence. Truly laughable when the lunacy becomes predictable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 15 July 2014 18:03)

You predicted the "absurdity" without citing anything to prove the "absurdity" other than rumblings like the above of unconnected thoughts that even yourself have no idea what they mean or what you're trying to say. You just make unsubstantiated statements not based on any shred of evidence which is why what you write above is simply trash...

For example, you make the statement "The trial chamber never intended to release Seselj"... Where is the documentary evidence for that? Or we should just take your word for it as the word of God :)

That's why the only thing laughable in all of this is what you're writing!

ICJ1,

The misunderstanding is yours. You claim that the Seselj didn't detail which of Judge Harhoff decisions were biased. It appears that you, like the ICTY, misunderstand a basic concept of justice and you don't realize that the burden of proof is not on the accused, but rests with prosecutor and the court. Reasonable doubt was certainly provided when the court recognized the bias of Harhoff and fired him.
The request of detail and proof from the accused is laughable and contrary to concepts of justice.

ICJ1,

You ask "So, what did you expect ICTY to do? Offer “provisional release" to Seselj before he was detained instead of after?!!!! Isn’t what you are saying laughable, dear?"

The unlawful detention covered in the June 10th submission details the continuous detention from Feb 2003 through to June 10th, 2014. You ask what could have been expected? I would have logically expected an offer of provisional release during the period of detention and logically before June 10th, 2014. I believe they had an opportunity of more than 4200 days. Please explain to me why a propio motu order was issued 3 days after the submission, yet there was no offer for provisional release during the more than 4200 days spanning the period of unlawful detention?

In its argument supporting the legality of detention, the prosecutor uses the June 13 offer of provisional release. B92 quotes the prosecutor.

ICJ1,

You also claim "...let's not forget that in case a mistrial is incorrectly declared, that would be a gross injustice to Seselj who will then have to go through many other years of a new trial."

That is Seselj's decision to make and he has requested a retrial or acquittal.

The gross injustice was already inflicted on the accused when a biased Judge heard the entire case and influenced the pre-empted deliberations with the two remaining judges. A replacement judge who did not attend even one second of the original proceedings will now attempt to judge the case. Please. Dear ICJ1, how can you logically consider this justice? This is not justice. It is laughable. The ICC states that an accused must be present during a trial. The ICTY has now established precedence that a judge need not be present. Laughable.

ICJ1,

You claim that "The key word above is assertion?" and that you "can’t neither agree nor disagree until (you) see the evidence that Judge Harhoff had to make those assertions".

I agree that Harhoff's communication to other jurist may be considered "assertions". However, the email was not a criticism of a personal nature, such as an opinion on a bad restaurant or movie, but specifically dealt with the (un?)professional adjudication at the ICTY; Harhoff's communication wasn't to an immediate family member, but included other jurists. The apologists for the ICTY and their justification of Harhoff's action as a "personal communication" are not even laughable, perhaps they are more pathetic than laughable? I am open to further discussion with you on how we should classify Harhoff's email.

Harhoff's allegations are very serious and claim Judicial Intimidation by the tribunal president and sponsoring state(s). I wholeheartedly support you in the demand for an investigation and a hearing of evidence in these alleged unlawful acts of judicial intimidation; the allegations are more serious than "witness intimidation" and certainly should be considered as a grave contempt of court. Your demand for a hearing of evidence is noble. Until then it appears that both you and I can agree that the lack of an ICTY investigation into this serious incidence is unfortunately, --- laughable.

ICJ1,

You state that "The burden of proof on (2) is on Seselj since a Court’s decisions are presumed to be unbiased."

The confusion is obviously yours. Please consult the court record, published on 28 Aug 2013 was the following decision:

"As such an unacceptable appearance of bias exists. Therefore, the Majority, Judge Liu dissenting, finds that the presumption of impartiality has been rebutted. Accordingly, the Majority finds that the allegation of bias against Judge Harhoff is founded."

Perhaps criminal procedure 101 at the ICTY permit you to ignore court decisions and claim that Harhoff should be presumed unbiased, but the court's own record contradict your (laughable?)statement, Dear. That's logic 101.

ICJ1,

You incorrectly assert that "say they did as you say and offered it on 24 April 2011… You would have said “One of the many problems with the ICTY logic is that their offer was made post-hoc, i.e after the event, on 24 April".

Dear ICJ1, Please consult the court record again paying specific to the dates. The submission summarizing unlawful detention specifies the dates 24 Feb 2003 to June 10th 2014. The last date of detention. ie 10 June 2014, is the relevant date.
If the ICTY had offered a provisional release on 24 April 2011, then that would be considered during the period unlawful detention, and not post-hoc.
If under your hypothetical proposal, there was a preceding motion for unlawful detention that specified the period from 24 Feb 2003 to 21 April 2011, then an offer of provisional release on 24 April 2011 would be considered as offered post-hoc.

The logic is based on a simple chronological calendar and the last day of claimed unlawful detention. June 10th, 2014 precedes June 13th, 2014. But perhaps calendars at the ICTY, like criminal procedure 101, follow a different convention? If so, please send me the ICTY calendar.

ICJ1

You claim that "Judges were present (2 out of 3). So, again there is nothing laughable"

This is perhaps one of the more laughable aspects of the Seselj case. If you read Harry Edwards (Univ of Penn Law Review 2003) sates that finding the right answer is made more likely when “‘until a final judgment is reached, judges participate as equals in the deliberative process– each judicial voice carries weight, because each judge is willing to hear and respond to differing positions.”

The newly reconstituted Seselj trial chamber is not composed of three equal judges, wherein two heard the evidence differently from a third judge. Can we expect that the new judge’s views will legitimately test the perspectives of the judges who were actually present throughout the course of the trial? You may wish to discuss this with a law student who knows that this runs counter to the established practice of deferring to trial judges who—precisely because they were present throughout the course of the trial—are presumed in a better position to assess the facts than judges who later review court records.

This specific aspect has been covered extensively in blog discussions among reputable jurists and certainly was regarded as one of the most laughable.

ICJ1,

You state "There is nothing laughable. We are in the 21st century. Everything that happened in the Courtroom during these years has been recorded and transcribed."

Dear ICJ1, as a follow-up to my post exemplifying the inequality of the judges in the reconstituted Seselj trial chamber, can you please provide me the reference from the ICTY records and transcripts in the Seselj case that addresses this basic legal principle?

There are a number of concerns with the ICTY, some are in the record and transcript, however, many others are notable as omissions.
In the Seselj case, there are examples of both.

ICJ1,


I make reference again to your assertion that "Everything that happened in the Courtroom during these years has been recorded and transcribed."

By courtroom, I assume that you mean the ICTY which include the trial chambers, appeal chambers, as well as other relevant organs of the tribunal. Please note that serious incriminating events which include Judge Harhoff's allegations of Judicial Intimidation by President Meron and sponsoring states were not investigated, recorded or transcribed.

The lack of any transparent investigation or record has been used by apologists to dismiss damning events with claims of "hearsay".

Unfortunately, "everything" was not recorded or transcribed.

ICJ1 alleges: "The court record above is unrelated to our discussion."
(icj1, 23 July 2014 05:03)

Wrong, Dear. The court record is proof of bias.

Consequently, when you erroneously stated that:
"The burden of proof on (2) is on Seselj..." (icj1, 22 July 2014 04:42)

You laughably disregard the doctrine of “stare decisis”.

Seselj need not provide proof of unbias because a precedent and proof of bias was already established and recognized by the court.

Your illogical rantings and allegations to the contrary are comical and I'll deal with them separately in upcoming posts.

ICJ1 states: "the decisions of Judge Harhoff before 28th August 2013 are unbiased"
(icj1, 23 July 2014 05:03)

ICJ1 ignores the documented fact that the ICTY Court considered submissions and evidence all dated earlier, prior to, and before August 28th 2013.

Your erroneous claim of "no bias before Aug 28th, 2013" is once again inconsistent with the court record. If you allege that no bias existed before Aug 28th, yet still recognize the Aug 28 decision, are you suggesting that the court based its decision on evidence after August 28th? By inference, do you also suggest the ICTY has supernatural powers and can prophetically deliver decision based on future events? I am impressed, knowing that the ICTY apologists may be blind to reasoning, but your grasp of chronology (in this instance and others), defies logic. Your arguments are certainly unprecedented and are either truly remarkable or...laughable.

ICJ1 writes: "If you are referring to the disqualification of Judge Harhoff, yes, that has been proven with immediate effect".
(icj1, 23 July 2014 05:03).

You, ICJ1, refer to the disqualification. I, in contrast, refer to the proven bias. It was the bias that was proven and not, as you state, the "disqualification". The disqualification on August 28th was the consequence of proven bias based on evidence the court considered... before August 28th.

Dear ICJ1 Mate, perhaps you may do yourself a favour and try to base your arguments with conventional logic and reasoning. Until then, we sincerely thank you and the ICTY for the limitless comedic material. Please keep it coming.

ICJ1,

While you are, ...cough...cough, thinking how to extract yourself from your illogical allegations of "no bias before Aug 28" , I'd sincerely enjoy hearing your thoughts and attempts at rebutting my demonstration that the reconstituted trial chamber now has three unequal judges.

Until then, I consider your lack of response as an admission that the reconstituted trial chamber is indeed now composed of unequal judges and the disqualification of Judge Harhoff should, consequently, be basis for a mistrial.

No harm done (to me at least, I can't speak for Justice). Biasness by judges and/or jurors is a common basis for mistrials in most reputable courts across many jurisdictions. Why the ICTY refused to ignore such a common precedent and tried to advance unprecedented arguments is ...you know...laughable.

We should of buried all you twisted supporters of communism in 41'. All you left wing wannabes will pay the piper !

@ (Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 July 2014 11:19)

Great, I see you finally are helping yourself by starting to provide the arguments on why you think in a certain way. Not that those arguments hold, but at least we can put you on the right track if we can show where your arguments are wrong :)
----------

Of the many absurdity's is the use of the term "release". The ICTY didn't propose a "release" but rather stipulated strict detention in communicado, in another jurisdiction. Read the ICTY record. Laughable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 July 2014 11:19)

ICTY proposed a “provisional release” from the ICTY detention unit to be replaced with “obligatory home confinement” in Serbia. It happens all around the world every day to people who have ongoing criminal proceeding against them. This is what was laughable to you?! Then you must be laughing 24 hrs a day for the rest of your life, dear – which actually might be good for your health :)

Another example: The submission detailing the unlawful detention specifies the period from February 2003 - June 10th, 2014. The ICTY and OTP defend themsleves and illogically state that accused refused the offer for "provisional release". One of the many problems with the ICTY logic is that their offer was made post-hoc, i.e after the event, on June 13th through the propio motu order. How can an action on June 13 2014 be used to clear unlawful acts spanning the period Feb 2003 - June 10th 2014? Laugable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 July 2014 11:19)

First of all there is no “unlawful detention” or “unlawful acts” unless you are able to show a court judgment determining that. Second, can you quote any documentary evidence, including page number, which says that the “provisional release" is being “used to clear unlawful acts spanning the period Feb 2003 - June 10th 2014”. Who said that? Third, you are shocked that “with the ICTY logic that their offer was made post-hoc, i.e after the event”. So, what did you expect ICTY to do? Offer “provisional release" to Seselj before he was detained instead of after?!!!! Isn’t what you are saying laughable, dear?

For more laugable legal absurdity that is entirely unprecedented in crimial law, like how a pre-trail and trial that involved a biased Judge is not sufficient to declare a mistrial, you may wish to consult the ICTY record and a frist year law student.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 July 2014 11:19)

Seselj did not provide any more detailed information allowing the Court to identify which of its decisions regarding the evidence have been influenced in any way by Judge Harhoff. Allegations have to be specific. For example, Seselj could have argued that in the Decision XYZ was biased because Judge Harhoff... If that decision is overturned as a result, at that point another decision will have to be taken about whether the biased Decision XYZ was sufficient to declare a mistrial. Anyway, Seselj did not make any specific arguments of that sort even though he had the opportunity to do so, and that’s not the fault of the Court. As for the pending judgment, Judge Harhoff will not have any part on it, so what’s the basis for the mistrial?

Also, let's not forget that in case a mistrial is incorrectly declared, that would be a gross injustice to Seselj who will then have to go through many other years of a new trial.

More laughter you ask? Even the blind and illogical defenders of the ICTY circus try to defend the ICTY and claim that the writings of Judge Harhoff are laughable. Do you agree with Judge Harhoff's assertion regarding the actions of President Judge Meron?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 July 2014 11:19)

The key word above is “assertion”? I can’t neither agree nor disagree until I see the evidence that Judge Harhoff had to make those assertions in his personal capacity. I don’t reach a conclusion just because somebody said so. I want to see first what the basis for the assertions that somebody makes is and we have no information about that in this case - so they are just assertions.
----------

Have you borken a rib yet from laughter?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 July 2014 11:19)

I have, indeed after seeing what your arguments were… I thought that you had discovered something scandalous or whatever, but it turned out to be just “misunderstandings” on your side which are hopefully clarified now and you can sleep in peace.

The misunderstanding is yours. You claim that the Seselj didn't detail which of Judge Harhoff decisions were biased. It appears that you, like the ICTY, misunderstand a basic concept of justice and you don't realize that the burden of proof is not on the accused, but rests with prosecutor and the court. Reasonable doubt was certainly provided when the court recognized the bias of Harhoff and fired him.
The request of detail and proof from the accused is laughable and contrary to concepts of justice.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 11:59)

You are so confused, dear. There are two separate issues. (1) The prosecution alleges that Seselj has committed crimes; (2) Seselj alleges bias in the Court’s decisions. The burden of proof on (1) is on the prosecution since Seselj is presumed innocent. The burden of proof on (2) is on Seselj since a Court’s decisions are presumed to be unbiased. That’s criminal procedure 101, dear.

The unlawful detention covered in the June 10th submission details the continuous detention from Feb 2003 through to June 10th, 2014. You ask what could have been expected? I would have logically expected an offer of provisional release during the period of detention and logically before June 10th, 2014.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 12:27)

OK, so say they did as you say and offered it on 24 April 2011… You would have said “One of the many problems with the ICTY logic is that their offer was made post-hoc, i.e after the event, on 24 April 2011 through the propio motu order. How can an action on 24 April 2011 be used to clear unlawful acts spanning the period Feb 2003 – 23 April 2011? Laugable” and so on until you get to when Seselj was still free… which is why your logic is laughable since it would require ICTY to offer “provisional release" to Seselj before he was detained instead of after.
----------

You also claim "...let's not forget that in case a mistrial is incorrectly declared, that would be a gross injustice to Seselj who will then have to go through many other years of a new trial."
That is Seselj's decision to make and he has requested a retrial or acquittal.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 15:14)

No, it’s also the Court’s responsibility to ensure that the accused does not unjustly have to be subjected to a lengthy re-trial.

The gross injustice was already inflicted on the accused when a biased Judge heard the entire case and influenced the pre-empted deliberations with the two remaining judges.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 15:14)

Where is the evidence that he influenced the two remaining judges?
----------

A replacement judge who did not attend even one second of the original proceedings will now attempt to judge the case. Please. Dear ICJ1, how can you logically consider this justice? This is not justice. It is laughable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 15:14)

There is nothing laughable. We are in the 21st century. Everything that happened in the Courtroom during these years has been recorded and transcribed. The new judge will only be allowed to deliberate on the case after certifying that he is familiar with the entirety of the record. If the new judge has doubts on parts of the record and may want to recall some or all the witnesses, he can do that. But it’s too early to speak about that now until the new judge has reviewed the record.
----------

The ICC states that an accused must be present during a trial. The ICTY has now established precedence that a judge need not be present. Laughable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 12:58)

Nope, you are wrong. Judges were present (2 out of 3). So, again there is nothing laughable, however hard you try :)

The apologists for the ICTY and their justification of Harhoff's action as a "personal communication" are not even laughable, perhaps they are more pathetic than laughable? I am open to further discussion with you on how we should classify Harhoff's email.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 15:14)

It does not really matter… Even if they were to be published in RT News or Xinhua, classify them however you want. Still they remain “assertions” without documentary evidence to back them up.
----------

Harhoff's allegations are very serious and claim Judicial Intimidation by the tribunal president and sponsoring state(s).
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 15:14)

Harhoff's allegations are not substantiated by any documentary evidence or corroborated by other judges at ICTY so, sorry, but nobody has time to waste with hearsay…

If the ICTY had offered a provisional release on 24 April 2011, then that would be considered during the period unlawful detention, and not post-hoc. If under your hypothetical proposal, there was a preceding motion for unlawful detention that specified the period from 24 Feb 2003 to 21 April 2011, then an offer of provisional release on 24 April 2011 would be considered as offered post-hoc. The logic is based on a simple chronological calendar and the last day of claimed unlawful detention. June 10th, 2014 precedes June 13th, 2014. But perhaps calendars at the ICTY, like criminal procedure 101, follow a different convention? If so, please send me the ICTY calendar.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 22 July 2014 11:33)

Mate, not sure if you have difficulties expressing yourself in English or understanding English or understanding and correctly translating what “reputable jurists” are saying in your blogs. I doubt you or anybody else can really understand what you are trying to say above.

The confusion is obviously yours. Please consult the court record, published on 28 Aug 2013 was the following decision:

"As such an unacceptable appearance of bias exists. Therefore, the Majority, Judge Liu dissenting, finds that the presumption of impartiality has been rebutted. Accordingly, the Majority finds that the allegation of bias against Judge Harhoff is founded."
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 22 July 2014 11:10)

The court record above is unrelated to our discussion. If you are referring to the disqualification of Judge Harhoff, yes, that has been proven with immediate effect and he stopped deliberating in the case last summer. However the matter that we were discussing was whether Judge Harhoff’s decisions prior to him being disqualified are biased. Nobody has said that they were and nobody has brought evidence that they were, not even Seselj. As you admitted before, a judge is presumed to be impartial. That presumption has been rebutted for Judge Harhoff since 28th August 2013 but it has not been rebutted for any decisions taken before then because nobody, Seselj included, has provided evidence to the contrary to the Court. So, since the decisions of Judge Harhoff before 28th August 2013 are unbiased and after 28th August 2013 Judge Harhoff has no longer been part of the deliberations, then there is no bias in the outcome of the trial so there is no basis for declaring mistrial based on the “bias” argument.

@Amnesty Yugoslavia - Are you aware that YU is a defunct country. For heavens sake stop using the name.

Anyway back to the topic, why on gods Earth would the ICTY release an animal like Seselj. This so called individual has been causing trouble even when your beloved YU was still somehow functioning. Amnesty you wish for a return of Tito's YU but then you cry that right wing Serb terrorist like Seselj should be released. You have just admitted what all non-Serbs have been saying for years. YU was a stepping stone for a greater Srboslavia, nothing more nothing less.

In a separate thread last week dealing with the Seselj case I predicted this absurdity and that the ICTY would use its own post-hoc propio motu order on "provisional release". Most have realized that the "provisional release" was in fact ICTY Orwellian double-speak for unconditional house arrest. The June 13th post hoc propio motu order was issued after the rejection by the June 6th Appeal Chamber against continuation of proceedings, and in reaction to Seselj's June 10th justifiable submission detailing the unlawful detention. The trial chamber never intended to release Seselj, and the post-hoc order was simply an effort to cover-up its own incompetence. Truly laughable when the lunacy becomes predictable.

How can more than a decade detention be legal without a guilty verdict ?

If he now is released and not found guilty of charge,
shall his more than a decade lost of life go without compensation ?

Arn.Sweden.

Based on a well entrenched pattern by the ICTY in the Seselj case, he will never be truly released. The ICTY certainly intends to dispose of him and would prefer unconditional detention in another jurisdiction so that they can absolve themselves of the legal responsibility of his death when he does expire. At some point in the future, Seselj's medical condition will further deteriorate until he will no longer be conscious or responsive, and at that point the ICTY will demand that Serbia accept his provisional "release".

Comedy has been defined in formulistic terms as tragedy + time and has been appropriately exemplified in the absurd duration and tragic manipulations by all of the organs of the ICTY (OTP, President, Trial Chamber, Appeals Chamber, Registrar, Secreteriat etc.) during the Seselj case. We can both laugh and cry at the same time.

We should of buried all you twisted supporters of communism in 41'. All you left wing wannabes will pay the piper !

@ (Bam Bam, 16 July 2014 03:30),

The moniker is a reference to prisoners of conscience in the geographic region that includes the "southern slavs" i.e. Yug, or Jug meaning south from proto-slavic etymology. Yugoslavia was a country long before Tito. Regarding your reference of "Srboslavia", perhaps you should realize that Tito, who was not a "Srb" or "Serb", estbalished a corrupt judicial system in which prisoners of conscience were illegitimately detained and proscecuted through kangoroo criminal courts. As a matter of fact, the prosecution of the Seselj case at the ICTY grossly exceeds the abuses of YU-communist political show trials, by orders of magnitude.
Lastly, your assertion I admitted Yugoslavia was a "stepping stone" for anything - is false. Historically, I have read the generally known fact that Yugoslavia in the first eleven years of its existence (1918-1929) was also known as the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and the state was ruled by the Serbian dynasty of Karađorđević.

Whether it is determined that his incarceration is found to be excessive say 50 years from now is not relevant. The fact is he is in prison will remain there probably the rest of his natural life, a song comes to mind:
"Oh Happy Day"

@Amnesty Yugoslavia,

By using the name YU, your actually insulting the victims who suffered under Tito's dictorial regime. 2,000,000 killed, 4,000,000 exiled and another 4,000,000 seeking asylum abroad for better economic opportunities. All this in a 50 year period. I ask you once again as a victim of Tito's brutality use another name.

(thats nice, 17 July 2014 01:51),

The implications are much broader and are relevant to modern day jurisprudence in International Law.

Though reputable jurists and experts are laughing and crying at this comic tragedy, they aren't celebrating this event which is driving a nail in the coffin of International Criminal Law.

Though reputable jurists and experts are laughing and crying at this comic tragedy, they aren't celebrating this event which is driving a nail in the coffin of International Criminal Law.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 July 2014 11:22)

Yeah, reputable jurists and experts like a certain Amnesty Yugoslavia are laughing and crying...

As a matter of fact, the prosecution of the Seselj case at the ICTY grossly exceeds the abuses of YU-communist political show trials, by orders of magnitude.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 July 2014 13:06)

Just a small correction... the above is a matter of opinion of a certain Amnesty Yugoslavia, not a matter of fact.

In a separate thread last week dealing with the Seselj case I predicted this absurdity and that the ICTY would use its own post-hoc propio motu order on "provisional release". Most have realized that the "provisional release" was in fact ICTY Orwellian double-speak for unconditional house arrest. The June 13th post hoc propio motu order was issued after the rejection by the June 6th Appeal Chamber against continuation of proceedings, and in reaction to Seselj's June 10th justifiable submission detailing the unlawful detention. The trial chamber never intended to release Seselj, and the post-hoc order was simply an effort to cover-up its own incompetence. Truly laughable when the lunacy becomes predictable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 15 July 2014 18:03)

You predicted the "absurdity" without citing anything to prove the "absurdity" other than rumblings like the above of unconnected thoughts that even yourself have no idea what they mean or what you're trying to say. You just make unsubstantiated statements not based on any shred of evidence which is why what you write above is simply trash...

For example, you make the statement "The trial chamber never intended to release Seselj"... Where is the documentary evidence for that? Or we should just take your word for it as the word of God :)

That's why the only thing laughable in all of this is what you're writing!

@(Bam Bam, 17 July 2014 03:20),

Please note that Yugoslavia during Tito's rule was not YU , but was actually SFRY or SFRJ and known as the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

The reaction you apparently suffer upon hearing a certain word phrase is generally known as "Onomatophobia"- i.e. fear of hearing a certain word or phrase.

I sincerely hope that my explanations may help you overcome this rare disability.

Tito's birth name was Josip Broz, the son of Franjo Broz.

I am curious, is your onomatophobia restricted to "Yugoslavia" or does it extend to the other names associated with Tito, such as Josip, Franjo, or Broz?

ICJ1,

Of the many absurdity's is the use of the term "release". The ICTY didn't propose a "release" but rather stipulated strict detention in communicado, in another jurisdiction. Read the ICTY record. Laughable.

Another example: The submission detailing the unlawful detention specifies the period from February 2003 - June 10th, 2014. The ICTY and OTP defend themsleves and illogically state that accused refused the offer for "provisional release". One of the many problems with the ICTY logic is that their offer was made post-hoc, i.e after the event, on June 13th through the propio motu order. How can an action on June 13 2014 be used to clear unlawful acts spanning the period Feb 2003 - June 10th 2014? Laugable.

For more laugable legal absurdity that is entirely unprecedented in crimial law, like how a pre-trail and trial that involved a biased Judge is not sufficient to declare a mistrial, you may wish to consult the ICTY record and a frist year law student.

More laughter you ask? Even the blind and illogical defenders of the ICTY circus try to defend the ICTY and claim that the writings of Judge Harhoff are laughable.

Do you agree with Judge Harhoff's assertion regarding the actions of President Judge Meron?

Have you borken a rib yet from laughter?

@ (Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 July 2014 11:19)

Great, I see you finally are helping yourself by starting to provide the arguments on why you think in a certain way. Not that those arguments hold, but at least we can put you on the right track if we can show where your arguments are wrong :)
----------

Of the many absurdity's is the use of the term "release". The ICTY didn't propose a "release" but rather stipulated strict detention in communicado, in another jurisdiction. Read the ICTY record. Laughable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 July 2014 11:19)

ICTY proposed a “provisional release” from the ICTY detention unit to be replaced with “obligatory home confinement” in Serbia. It happens all around the world every day to people who have ongoing criminal proceeding against them. This is what was laughable to you?! Then you must be laughing 24 hrs a day for the rest of your life, dear – which actually might be good for your health :)

Another example: The submission detailing the unlawful detention specifies the period from February 2003 - June 10th, 2014. The ICTY and OTP defend themsleves and illogically state that accused refused the offer for "provisional release". One of the many problems with the ICTY logic is that their offer was made post-hoc, i.e after the event, on June 13th through the propio motu order. How can an action on June 13 2014 be used to clear unlawful acts spanning the period Feb 2003 - June 10th 2014? Laugable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 July 2014 11:19)

First of all there is no “unlawful detention” or “unlawful acts” unless you are able to show a court judgment determining that. Second, can you quote any documentary evidence, including page number, which says that the “provisional release" is being “used to clear unlawful acts spanning the period Feb 2003 - June 10th 2014”. Who said that? Third, you are shocked that “with the ICTY logic that their offer was made post-hoc, i.e after the event”. So, what did you expect ICTY to do? Offer “provisional release" to Seselj before he was detained instead of after?!!!! Isn’t what you are saying laughable, dear?

For more laugable legal absurdity that is entirely unprecedented in crimial law, like how a pre-trail and trial that involved a biased Judge is not sufficient to declare a mistrial, you may wish to consult the ICTY record and a frist year law student.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 July 2014 11:19)

Seselj did not provide any more detailed information allowing the Court to identify which of its decisions regarding the evidence have been influenced in any way by Judge Harhoff. Allegations have to be specific. For example, Seselj could have argued that in the Decision XYZ was biased because Judge Harhoff... If that decision is overturned as a result, at that point another decision will have to be taken about whether the biased Decision XYZ was sufficient to declare a mistrial. Anyway, Seselj did not make any specific arguments of that sort even though he had the opportunity to do so, and that’s not the fault of the Court. As for the pending judgment, Judge Harhoff will not have any part on it, so what’s the basis for the mistrial?

Also, let's not forget that in case a mistrial is incorrectly declared, that would be a gross injustice to Seselj who will then have to go through many other years of a new trial.

More laughter you ask? Even the blind and illogical defenders of the ICTY circus try to defend the ICTY and claim that the writings of Judge Harhoff are laughable. Do you agree with Judge Harhoff's assertion regarding the actions of President Judge Meron?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 July 2014 11:19)

The key word above is “assertion”? I can’t neither agree nor disagree until I see the evidence that Judge Harhoff had to make those assertions in his personal capacity. I don’t reach a conclusion just because somebody said so. I want to see first what the basis for the assertions that somebody makes is and we have no information about that in this case - so they are just assertions.
----------

Have you borken a rib yet from laughter?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 July 2014 11:19)

I have, indeed after seeing what your arguments were… I thought that you had discovered something scandalous or whatever, but it turned out to be just “misunderstandings” on your side which are hopefully clarified now and you can sleep in peace.

ICJ1,

The misunderstanding is yours. You claim that the Seselj didn't detail which of Judge Harhoff decisions were biased. It appears that you, like the ICTY, misunderstand a basic concept of justice and you don't realize that the burden of proof is not on the accused, but rests with prosecutor and the court. Reasonable doubt was certainly provided when the court recognized the bias of Harhoff and fired him.
The request of detail and proof from the accused is laughable and contrary to concepts of justice.

ICJ1,

You ask "So, what did you expect ICTY to do? Offer “provisional release" to Seselj before he was detained instead of after?!!!! Isn’t what you are saying laughable, dear?"

The unlawful detention covered in the June 10th submission details the continuous detention from Feb 2003 through to June 10th, 2014. You ask what could have been expected? I would have logically expected an offer of provisional release during the period of detention and logically before June 10th, 2014. I believe they had an opportunity of more than 4200 days. Please explain to me why a propio motu order was issued 3 days after the submission, yet there was no offer for provisional release during the more than 4200 days spanning the period of unlawful detention?

In its argument supporting the legality of detention, the prosecutor uses the June 13 offer of provisional release. B92 quotes the prosecutor.

ICJ1,

You also claim "...let's not forget that in case a mistrial is incorrectly declared, that would be a gross injustice to Seselj who will then have to go through many other years of a new trial."

That is Seselj's decision to make and he has requested a retrial or acquittal.

The gross injustice was already inflicted on the accused when a biased Judge heard the entire case and influenced the pre-empted deliberations with the two remaining judges. A replacement judge who did not attend even one second of the original proceedings will now attempt to judge the case. Please. Dear ICJ1, how can you logically consider this justice? This is not justice. It is laughable. The ICC states that an accused must be present during a trial. The ICTY has now established precedence that a judge need not be present. Laughable.

ICJ1,

You claim that "The key word above is assertion?" and that you "can’t neither agree nor disagree until (you) see the evidence that Judge Harhoff had to make those assertions".

I agree that Harhoff's communication to other jurist may be considered "assertions". However, the email was not a criticism of a personal nature, such as an opinion on a bad restaurant or movie, but specifically dealt with the (un?)professional adjudication at the ICTY; Harhoff's communication wasn't to an immediate family member, but included other jurists. The apologists for the ICTY and their justification of Harhoff's action as a "personal communication" are not even laughable, perhaps they are more pathetic than laughable? I am open to further discussion with you on how we should classify Harhoff's email.

Harhoff's allegations are very serious and claim Judicial Intimidation by the tribunal president and sponsoring state(s). I wholeheartedly support you in the demand for an investigation and a hearing of evidence in these alleged unlawful acts of judicial intimidation; the allegations are more serious than "witness intimidation" and certainly should be considered as a grave contempt of court. Your demand for a hearing of evidence is noble. Until then it appears that both you and I can agree that the lack of an ICTY investigation into this serious incidence is unfortunately, --- laughable.

The misunderstanding is yours. You claim that the Seselj didn't detail which of Judge Harhoff decisions were biased. It appears that you, like the ICTY, misunderstand a basic concept of justice and you don't realize that the burden of proof is not on the accused, but rests with prosecutor and the court. Reasonable doubt was certainly provided when the court recognized the bias of Harhoff and fired him.
The request of detail and proof from the accused is laughable and contrary to concepts of justice.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 11:59)

You are so confused, dear. There are two separate issues. (1) The prosecution alleges that Seselj has committed crimes; (2) Seselj alleges bias in the Court’s decisions. The burden of proof on (1) is on the prosecution since Seselj is presumed innocent. The burden of proof on (2) is on Seselj since a Court’s decisions are presumed to be unbiased. That’s criminal procedure 101, dear.

The unlawful detention covered in the June 10th submission details the continuous detention from Feb 2003 through to June 10th, 2014. You ask what could have been expected? I would have logically expected an offer of provisional release during the period of detention and logically before June 10th, 2014.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 12:27)

OK, so say they did as you say and offered it on 24 April 2011… You would have said “One of the many problems with the ICTY logic is that their offer was made post-hoc, i.e after the event, on 24 April 2011 through the propio motu order. How can an action on 24 April 2011 be used to clear unlawful acts spanning the period Feb 2003 – 23 April 2011? Laugable” and so on until you get to when Seselj was still free… which is why your logic is laughable since it would require ICTY to offer “provisional release" to Seselj before he was detained instead of after.
----------

You also claim "...let's not forget that in case a mistrial is incorrectly declared, that would be a gross injustice to Seselj who will then have to go through many other years of a new trial."
That is Seselj's decision to make and he has requested a retrial or acquittal.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 15:14)

No, it’s also the Court’s responsibility to ensure that the accused does not unjustly have to be subjected to a lengthy re-trial.

The gross injustice was already inflicted on the accused when a biased Judge heard the entire case and influenced the pre-empted deliberations with the two remaining judges.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 15:14)

Where is the evidence that he influenced the two remaining judges?
----------

A replacement judge who did not attend even one second of the original proceedings will now attempt to judge the case. Please. Dear ICJ1, how can you logically consider this justice? This is not justice. It is laughable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 15:14)

There is nothing laughable. We are in the 21st century. Everything that happened in the Courtroom during these years has been recorded and transcribed. The new judge will only be allowed to deliberate on the case after certifying that he is familiar with the entirety of the record. If the new judge has doubts on parts of the record and may want to recall some or all the witnesses, he can do that. But it’s too early to speak about that now until the new judge has reviewed the record.
----------

The ICC states that an accused must be present during a trial. The ICTY has now established precedence that a judge need not be present. Laughable.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 12:58)

Nope, you are wrong. Judges were present (2 out of 3). So, again there is nothing laughable, however hard you try :)

The apologists for the ICTY and their justification of Harhoff's action as a "personal communication" are not even laughable, perhaps they are more pathetic than laughable? I am open to further discussion with you on how we should classify Harhoff's email.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 15:14)

It does not really matter… Even if they were to be published in RT News or Xinhua, classify them however you want. Still they remain “assertions” without documentary evidence to back them up.
----------

Harhoff's allegations are very serious and claim Judicial Intimidation by the tribunal president and sponsoring state(s).
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 21 July 2014 15:14)

Harhoff's allegations are not substantiated by any documentary evidence or corroborated by other judges at ICTY so, sorry, but nobody has time to waste with hearsay…

ICJ1,

You state that "The burden of proof on (2) is on Seselj since a Court’s decisions are presumed to be unbiased."

The confusion is obviously yours. Please consult the court record, published on 28 Aug 2013 was the following decision:

"As such an unacceptable appearance of bias exists. Therefore, the Majority, Judge Liu dissenting, finds that the presumption of impartiality has been rebutted. Accordingly, the Majority finds that the allegation of bias against Judge Harhoff is founded."

Perhaps criminal procedure 101 at the ICTY permit you to ignore court decisions and claim that Harhoff should be presumed unbiased, but the court's own record contradict your (laughable?)statement, Dear. That's logic 101.

ICJ1,

You incorrectly assert that "say they did as you say and offered it on 24 April 2011… You would have said “One of the many problems with the ICTY logic is that their offer was made post-hoc, i.e after the event, on 24 April".

Dear ICJ1, Please consult the court record again paying specific to the dates. The submission summarizing unlawful detention specifies the dates 24 Feb 2003 to June 10th 2014. The last date of detention. ie 10 June 2014, is the relevant date.
If the ICTY had offered a provisional release on 24 April 2011, then that would be considered during the period unlawful detention, and not post-hoc.
If under your hypothetical proposal, there was a preceding motion for unlawful detention that specified the period from 24 Feb 2003 to 21 April 2011, then an offer of provisional release on 24 April 2011 would be considered as offered post-hoc.

The logic is based on a simple chronological calendar and the last day of claimed unlawful detention. June 10th, 2014 precedes June 13th, 2014. But perhaps calendars at the ICTY, like criminal procedure 101, follow a different convention? If so, please send me the ICTY calendar.

ICJ1

You claim that "Judges were present (2 out of 3). So, again there is nothing laughable"

This is perhaps one of the more laughable aspects of the Seselj case. If you read Harry Edwards (Univ of Penn Law Review 2003) sates that finding the right answer is made more likely when “‘until a final judgment is reached, judges participate as equals in the deliberative process– each judicial voice carries weight, because each judge is willing to hear and respond to differing positions.”

The newly reconstituted Seselj trial chamber is not composed of three equal judges, wherein two heard the evidence differently from a third judge. Can we expect that the new judge’s views will legitimately test the perspectives of the judges who were actually present throughout the course of the trial? You may wish to discuss this with a law student who knows that this runs counter to the established practice of deferring to trial judges who—precisely because they were present throughout the course of the trial—are presumed in a better position to assess the facts than judges who later review court records.

This specific aspect has been covered extensively in blog discussions among reputable jurists and certainly was regarded as one of the most laughable.

ICJ1,

You state "There is nothing laughable. We are in the 21st century. Everything that happened in the Courtroom during these years has been recorded and transcribed."

Dear ICJ1, as a follow-up to my post exemplifying the inequality of the judges in the reconstituted Seselj trial chamber, can you please provide me the reference from the ICTY records and transcripts in the Seselj case that addresses this basic legal principle?

There are a number of concerns with the ICTY, some are in the record and transcript, however, many others are notable as omissions.
In the Seselj case, there are examples of both.

ICJ1,


I make reference again to your assertion that "Everything that happened in the Courtroom during these years has been recorded and transcribed."

By courtroom, I assume that you mean the ICTY which include the trial chambers, appeal chambers, as well as other relevant organs of the tribunal. Please note that serious incriminating events which include Judge Harhoff's allegations of Judicial Intimidation by President Meron and sponsoring states were not investigated, recorded or transcribed.

The lack of any transparent investigation or record has been used by apologists to dismiss damning events with claims of "hearsay".

Unfortunately, "everything" was not recorded or transcribed.

If the ICTY had offered a provisional release on 24 April 2011, then that would be considered during the period unlawful detention, and not post-hoc. If under your hypothetical proposal, there was a preceding motion for unlawful detention that specified the period from 24 Feb 2003 to 21 April 2011, then an offer of provisional release on 24 April 2011 would be considered as offered post-hoc. The logic is based on a simple chronological calendar and the last day of claimed unlawful detention. June 10th, 2014 precedes June 13th, 2014. But perhaps calendars at the ICTY, like criminal procedure 101, follow a different convention? If so, please send me the ICTY calendar.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 22 July 2014 11:33)

Mate, not sure if you have difficulties expressing yourself in English or understanding English or understanding and correctly translating what “reputable jurists” are saying in your blogs. I doubt you or anybody else can really understand what you are trying to say above.

The confusion is obviously yours. Please consult the court record, published on 28 Aug 2013 was the following decision:

"As such an unacceptable appearance of bias exists. Therefore, the Majority, Judge Liu dissenting, finds that the presumption of impartiality has been rebutted. Accordingly, the Majority finds that the allegation of bias against Judge Harhoff is founded."
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 22 July 2014 11:10)

The court record above is unrelated to our discussion. If you are referring to the disqualification of Judge Harhoff, yes, that has been proven with immediate effect and he stopped deliberating in the case last summer. However the matter that we were discussing was whether Judge Harhoff’s decisions prior to him being disqualified are biased. Nobody has said that they were and nobody has brought evidence that they were, not even Seselj. As you admitted before, a judge is presumed to be impartial. That presumption has been rebutted for Judge Harhoff since 28th August 2013 but it has not been rebutted for any decisions taken before then because nobody, Seselj included, has provided evidence to the contrary to the Court. So, since the decisions of Judge Harhoff before 28th August 2013 are unbiased and after 28th August 2013 Judge Harhoff has no longer been part of the deliberations, then there is no bias in the outcome of the trial so there is no basis for declaring mistrial based on the “bias” argument.

ICJ1 alleges: "The court record above is unrelated to our discussion."
(icj1, 23 July 2014 05:03)

Wrong, Dear. The court record is proof of bias.

Consequently, when you erroneously stated that:
"The burden of proof on (2) is on Seselj..." (icj1, 22 July 2014 04:42)

You laughably disregard the doctrine of “stare decisis”.

Seselj need not provide proof of unbias because a precedent and proof of bias was already established and recognized by the court.

Your illogical rantings and allegations to the contrary are comical and I'll deal with them separately in upcoming posts.

ICJ1 states: "the decisions of Judge Harhoff before 28th August 2013 are unbiased"
(icj1, 23 July 2014 05:03)

ICJ1 ignores the documented fact that the ICTY Court considered submissions and evidence all dated earlier, prior to, and before August 28th 2013.

Your erroneous claim of "no bias before Aug 28th, 2013" is once again inconsistent with the court record. If you allege that no bias existed before Aug 28th, yet still recognize the Aug 28 decision, are you suggesting that the court based its decision on evidence after August 28th? By inference, do you also suggest the ICTY has supernatural powers and can prophetically deliver decision based on future events? I am impressed, knowing that the ICTY apologists may be blind to reasoning, but your grasp of chronology (in this instance and others), defies logic. Your arguments are certainly unprecedented and are either truly remarkable or...laughable.

ICJ1 writes: "If you are referring to the disqualification of Judge Harhoff, yes, that has been proven with immediate effect".
(icj1, 23 July 2014 05:03).

You, ICJ1, refer to the disqualification. I, in contrast, refer to the proven bias. It was the bias that was proven and not, as you state, the "disqualification". The disqualification on August 28th was the consequence of proven bias based on evidence the court considered... before August 28th.

Dear ICJ1 Mate, perhaps you may do yourself a favour and try to base your arguments with conventional logic and reasoning. Until then, we sincerely thank you and the ICTY for the limitless comedic material. Please keep it coming.

ICJ1,

While you are, ...cough...cough, thinking how to extract yourself from your illogical allegations of "no bias before Aug 28" , I'd sincerely enjoy hearing your thoughts and attempts at rebutting my demonstration that the reconstituted trial chamber now has three unequal judges.

Until then, I consider your lack of response as an admission that the reconstituted trial chamber is indeed now composed of unequal judges and the disqualification of Judge Harhoff should, consequently, be basis for a mistrial.

No harm done (to me at least, I can't speak for Justice). Biasness by judges and/or jurors is a common basis for mistrials in most reputable courts across many jurisdictions. Why the ICTY refused to ignore such a common precedent and tried to advance unprecedented arguments is ...you know...laughable.