Oric doesn't want to be extradited, Serbian request awaited

'According to Borovic, Switzerland will have 40 days after Serbia submits "serious proof and the Interpol warrant" to extradite Oric.'

The evidence is overwhelming, there is plenty of proof for what this genocidal butcher did to Serb civilians in the villages around Srebrenica.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.ca/2011/06/from-our-archives-forgotten-story-of.html
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2011/05/24/why-didnt-we-see-these-photos-before-bill-clinton-chose-to-support-the-muslims-in-bosnia-warning-graphic-images/
This war criminal proudly showed video of his mutilations to Bill Schiller of the Toronto Star. Just call Mr. Schiller to the stand. The fact that the Hague actually released Oric just shows what a total anti-Serb farce and kangaroo court it is. As for ignorant dipsticks like Bob, I won't even respond to his disgraceful comment. Bob, shut your mouth, your racist Serbophobe opinions are unwelcome and we all know you're a failed diplomat. Oric's day of reckoning for his crimes will come, one way or another, God willing.
Cheers!!

The ICTY did not try Oric's for his crimes nor those of the army he commanded.

The trial was focused on what PRISON GUARDS in Srebrenica were doing to captive Serbs, and other than they they focused on the looting and burning done by the Bosniaks who followed in their armies wake to grab things from the empty houses - after the local Serbs had fled or been killed Naser's forces.

The ICTY did not even call the witnesses to Naser's detailing and showing video proof of his and his mens' crimes.

John Pomfret of the Washington Post and Bill Schiller of the Toronto Star were two western reporters who traveled to Naser Oric's home on a day in January 1994 and were "treated" to videos the Srebrenica forces took of destroyed Serb villages, Serbs fleeing their attack, dead Serb bodies all over, etc.
Naser Oric even described how they were killed at the different villages.

The ICTY did not call those journalists, did not use the pictorial nor video evidence - did not even search for them.

Nor did they allow a Muslim who was witness to Naser Oric's describing how he killed a Serbian judge at the beginning of the war, and also other crimes perpetrated against Serbs by Srebrenica Muslims, to testify.

"Oric was found NOT guilty. What do Serbs want?"

Justice. Please try to explain to families of his victims that he is NOT guilty.

Oh dear. Usual rants again from folk eager to condemn Serbia.
Oric (amongst others) was fortunate to escape justice at his previous trial.
Naturally justice is still sought.
Why are you all so quick to highlight Serbian involvement yet reluctant to remind yourselves of other countries and individuals involvement in brutal acts?

Why are you all so quick to highlight Serbian involvement yet reluctant to remind yourselves of other countries and individuals involvement in brutal acts?
(Wee Kelpie, 13 June 2015 08:47)

Because being reminded that their own side committed unspeakable atrocities challenges their sanitized version of the 1990s. While Serbs are constantly pressured to admit their own guilt, Croats, Bosnians, and Albanians go out of their way to deny theirs.

Serbs, again, feel as if they are above the law. This issue has been dealt with. Oric was found NOT guilty. What do Serbs want?

Bob and El rey,

The murdered victims which included: Dragutin Kukić, Jakov Đokić, Dragan Ilić, Milisav Milovanović, Kostadin Popović, Branko Sekulić, Nedeljko Radić, Slavoljub Žikić, Zoran Branković, Nevenko Bubanj, Veselin Šarac, Ilija Ivanović, Ratko Nikolić,Rado Pejić, Stanko Mitrović, Mile Trifunović among countless other innocents that died in detention under Oric's command, or that perished in the attacks on Ratkovići, Gornji Ratkovići, Brađevina, Ježestica and other peaceful Yugoslav towns, deserve justice.

Unfortunately, the ICTY's token contribution to this aim consisted of laughable gross incompetence and contempt for justice by their complete failure to properly investigate, prosecute and judge the criminals.

They need to feed their Greater Serbia Victim Complex.

Take a pill Dragan. You need to calm yourself down.
(Bob, 15 June 2015 03:18)

When you present anti-Serb liars and propagandists with some plain facts and simple logic, this is the kind of response you get. They hate letting the truth get in the way of a good story. Let's keep hammering them with truth, because truth is on Serbia's side. They are scared to death that the truth will come out, but don't worry Bob, we will make sure the truth comes out and you will be exposed for the fraud that you are.
Cheers!!

(Dragan, 13 June 2015 03:09)
It matters not what evidence is delivered to Switzerland by Serbia whether it be real or created, if it covers crimes that he has already been tried for at the Hague, Switzerland will not extradite him but will let him go.
Serbia will have to present evidence of crimes that have not been presented at the ICTY.

@ ned taylor
"Marina K: Like many before you in varied situations you are confused about the meaning of justice. It is a process not a particular verdict. What you mean is that you want Oric to be found guilty, a foregone conclusion should he end up in Serbia."

I am not confused at all. What I mean is that I want a repeated fair trial to Oric anywhere, with all evidence, documentation, testimonies and witnesses previously rejected in Hag. That would mean that Srebrenica crime and all that senseless war would be probably seen in a new light. However, I don't think there is a political will for that in Europe.

Hope this helps.

(icj1, 14 June 2015 05:12) That's according to a certain "Amnesty Yugoslavia" who does not even present any credible arguments to support the point; the international community disagrees with you.

---

Commentaries on the failure and incompetence at the ICTY have been extensively discussed in International Law forums. I've directed you and others to Opinio Juris as well as Dov Jacob's and other International Law discussion forums.

icj1 apparently hasn't surveyed the "International Community" adequately. Here's one sample of the assessments published in one of the "International Community's" newspaper. The Times, London, June 18, 1999:
http://www.oldsite.transnational.org/SAJT/features/haaganomaly.html

I'll let the readers decide how to evaluate a certain icj1's argument whose sole logic is based on a claim of knowing the opinion of an "International Community".

Marina K: Like many before you in varied situations you are confused about the meaning of justice. It is a process not a particular verdict. What you mean is that you want Oric to be found guilty, a foregone conclusion should he end up in Serbia. He should be serving a very long sentence in a Bosnian prison for numerous other crimes not related to the 1992-5 conflict and ironically had he been doing so he wouldn't have been in Switzerland.

(icj1, 18 June 2015 04:26) take the testimony of person X (which you consider as hearsay evidence) in Blaksic case and apply the US rules of evidence the conclusion is going to be the same conclusion as the ICTY judges that that testimony of person X is admissible.
---

Wrong. In US courts, the judge would rule on the objection by evaluating the evidence for exception to the hearsay rule and would provide a ruling on the objection before admitting the evidence.

In contrast to US courts, the Blaskic case did not test the testimony for any exception to the hearsay rule. The appeals chamber writings lifted the prohibition to hearsay without any consideration of exception.

Consequently, there are NO SPECIFIC instances for you, me or anyone to review whether the ICTY applies exceptions to hearsay. The ICTY has no hearsay rule, nor any exception to the hearsay rule. Hearsay is allowed without requiring a judge to rule on it's admissibility.

You deny this fact and continually ask for a specific ruling on the exception to hearsay, when you know: 1. that no hearsay rule exists at the ICTY and 2. there are no rulings on exceptions to non-existent rules that the ICTY.

Your false argument is based on the rigged rules at the ICTY that exclude ANY SPECIFIC review of hearsay admissibility during a trial. That you repeatedly ask me for evidence which the ICTY process excludes, demonstrates the depth of corruption both of the ICTY and their apologists.

Balkan Anthropologist, 13 June 2015 15:58)

Spot on!

I'll let the readers decide how to evaluate a certain icj1's argument whose sole logic is based on a claim of knowing the opinion of an "International Community".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 15 June 2015 12:54)
A fair proposal, and just like the fool Jeremic who proposed a debate in the UNGA on the ICTY you will find that Serbs and some few supporters will criticize the dealings of the ICTY and others will line up country after country and sing the praises of the accomplishments of the ICTY.

Much like the abortion debate in the US, you have some that feel very strongly as you do on one side or the other and they will present clear cut evidence to prove their view only to be rejected by those who have just as strong of sentiment for the opposing side. It is doubtful you or ICJ1 will convince anyone in these forums that you are right that did not already feel so.

This is an emotional issue and your views of the matter are just as immersed in emotion and what is easily proof to you will not be to someone else. As you have a predetermined course to seek out that which supports your view and dismiss that which opposes it. In other words you did not enter the arena with an open mind.
Those of you who feel that Serbs have been convicted without evidence also feel that those accused of crimes against Serbs are guilty with no doubt without any evidence.

(icj1, 16 June 2015 05:22) ICTY operates per decision of UNSC which represents the international community.

---

The permanent members of the UNSC are not representative of the "international community". It is over-represented by former European colonial powers. Without permanent membership for countries from South America or Africa, and better representation of the large population in Asia, I don't think anyone accepts your fantasy that the UNSC represents the "international community" anymore than the tales of WMD that the same "international community" previously tried to legitimize.



(icj1, 16 June 2015 05:22) Because the email writings of Mr. Harhoff were not the result of a due process of law, evidence presented in court, cross-examination, legal reasoning, review by other judges or an appeal court, etc...

---

The wrtings of Judge Harhoff are part of the public record. That the ICTY refused to conduct a review, inquiry or provide for any process at all, speaks volumes about the corruption at the ICTY

(icj1, 16 June 2015 05:22) All things that make ICTY's writings being beyond reasonable doubt.

---

That's if you ignore the hooded witnesses, hearsay evidence and other contortions of logic and law.

(icj1, 18 June 2015 04:24) the judge will rule that he/she will make a decision about a specific piece of evidence once that specific piece of evidence is presented and see if it falls into the admissible or inadmissible cases of hearsay evidence. ICTY does the same.

---

Wrong. No such instance at the ICTY exists. Please provide a reference to an ICTY trial transcript that demonstrates a judge evaluating hearsay evidence for admissibility or inadmissibility during the course of a trial.

US judges rely on detailed US law extensively describing the prohibition of hearsay and the exceptions to the rule. There is no hearsay rule at the ICTY nor any consideration of exception to hearsay.

According to Western Propaganda -

"Oric and His assosiates some 8000 men,
was all Murdered by the Serbian Forces when they tok Srebrenica".

Only the Devil believe this.

Arn.Sweden.

This war criminal proudly showed video of his mutilations to Bill Schiller of the Toronto Star. Just call Mr. Schiller to the stand. The fact that the Hague actually released Oric just shows what a total anti-Serb farce and kangaroo court it is. As for ignorant dipsticks like Bob, I won't even respond to his disgraceful comment. Bob, shut your mouth, your racist Serbophobe opinions are unwelcome and we all know you're a failed diplomat. Oric's day of reckoning for his crimes will come, one way or another, God willing.
Cheers!!
(Dragan, 13 June 2015 03:09)

Take a pill Dragan. You need to calm yourself down.

Justice. Please try to explain to families of his victims that he is NOT guilty.
(Marina K., 13 June 2015 02:11)

That's not how criminal justice works in the civilized world, dear. It is the accuser who needs to explain why the accused is guilty of the alleged crimes; it's not the accused who needs to explain to families of his alleged victims that he is NOT guilty

(a New day, 15 June 2015 14:48) ...others will line up country after country and sing the praises of the accomplishments of the ICTY.

---

There are many fools in the UN as evidenced by their goose-stepping, blind support of falsified tales of genocide, WMDs and other manipulative lies.

(a New day, 15 June 2015 14:48) It is doubtful you or ICJ1 will convince anyone in these forums that you are right that did not already feel so... As you have a predetermined course to seek out that which supports your view and dismiss that which opposes it.

----

I don't have to convince anyone. The ICTY's writings alone provide ample evidence of absolute and utter failure. In one example, the ICTY's own Judge Harhoff wrote that verdicts at the ICTY are not based on evidence or law, but are rather subject to external political dictat. I repeat, this is not my argument, it's the ICTY's own Judge!


(a New day, 15 June 2015 14:48) In other words you did not enter the arena with an open mind.

---

My mind is open. Why should I not believe the ICTY's own Judge and recognize a farcical circus masquerading as tribunal that legal experts and high ranking insider buried long ago?

I don't have to convince anyone.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 05:34)

of course; you have no chance with the trash you write :)
----------

The ICTY's writings alone provide ample evidence of absolute and utter failure. In one example, the ICTY's own Judge Harhoff wrote that verdicts at the ICTY are not based on evidence or law, but are rather subject to external political dictat.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 05:34)

That's an example of why your writings are trash. The email writings of Mr. Frederik Harhoff are not an example of ICTY's writings. It's suprising that you, who are such as expert in international criminal law, are not able to understand the difference between the two, but I'll explain it for you below.
----------

Why should I not believe the ICTY's own Judge...
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 05:34)

Because the email writings of Mr. Harhoff were not the result of a due process of law, evidence presented in court, cross-examination, legal reasoning, review by other judges or an appeal court, etc... All things that make ICTY's writings being beyond reasonable doubt.

Now, is there a chance that Mr. Harhoff is correct and ICTY's verdicts were dictated by Israel, US, Serbia or aliens from Mars? Of course there is! But conclusions can't be believed just because somebody wrote them (as you often do) without considering the process, evidence and reasoning that backs them up, all things that are absent from the writings of Mr. Harhoff.

(a New day, 16 June 2015 14:01) "As you have a predetermined course to seek out that which supports your view and dismiss that which opposes it. In other words you did not enter the arena with an open mind."
Case closed, just like your "open"mind!

---

The grotesque practice of admitting hooded witnesses and hearsay evidence is sufficient example for the open mind. I did not seek out Judge Harhoff. His disclosure was voluntary. Just like Ed Snowden and other brave whistle-blowers was conscious choice stand in stark contrast to the 100's or 10000's employees that remain silent in corrupt organization.

The written words of Judge Harhoff are more damning than the silence of supporters. Asking me, or anyone else, to cover our ears and close our eyes in order to "open our mind" is the same contorted (il)logic used to close cases and pass verdicts at the ICTY.

The written words of Judge Harhoff are more damning than the silence of supporters. Asking me, or anyone else, to cover our ears and close our eyes in order to "open our mind" is the same contorted (il)logic used to close cases and pass verdicts at the ICTY.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:11)
So anyone who speaks against the group is telling the truth?? A good meter to use.
The more you speak the more you support my post. On the contrary I do not ask you to cover your ears and close your eyes but rather use an open mind and see the overwhelming evidence of guilt that is presented.

You inference to hooded witnesses amuses me. Any witness that spoke against Seselj at trial with their identity known, had his name published for diehard supporters such as yourself to utilize that information however someone such as yourself would. Not implying that you would personally persecute anyone who speaks up against your hero, but...
Also remember the witness that Serbia had that proved of the organ harvesting??? His identity and his voice were distorted to "protect him". And he announced how as a very young man he was being trained to do organ transplants in the field, in case any of the KLA leaders were wounded in conflict and needed an emergency transplant. The Serbian war crimes prosecutor became such a laughing stock that no one ever heard of this witness again. But I bet you believed it were possible with your "open mind"!

(icj1, 17 June 2015 14:31) So, almost all countries in the world (except Kosovo, Taiwan and the Vatican) accept "my fantasy" as long as they don't withdraw from their membership in the UN.

---

You may wish to acknowledge the struggle of the majority of UN members that have been struggling to change the UNSC.

"The UN Security Council reform, being debated since two decades is too long overdue and the necessary expansion must be made considering how much the world has changed. ”
—Ban Ki-Moon

icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) Of course, since you did not provide any example of a SPECIFIC piece of hearsay evidence which is inadmissible but ICTY admited.

----

For one of the early specifics, please do consult the Blaksic case and the decision that there is no prohibition on the admission of hearsay evidence.

U.S. Courts allow a defendant to object to hearsay. The rules at the ICTY do not permit any objection. Your fantasies that the ICTY examines admissibility on a case by case basis are false.
Despite countless attempts by defense to object to hearsay, the ICTY has used the Blaksic decision as precedent to allow hearsay admission without prohibition.

Please read the Blaksic appeal decision and you you'll find that the terminology "without prohibition" contradicts your false claim on how the ICTY views hearsay.

(icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you) but that does not mean they are the result of a due process of law, evidence presented in court, cross-examination, legal reasoning, review by other judges or an appeal court, etc...
---

The writings of Judge Harhoff, that you selectively dismiss, are part of the ICTY record. His writings were reviewed and assessed by Judges Moloto, Liu and Hall in a decision delivered 28 Aug 2013. Their process reviewed and recognized the content as an authentic assessment by Judge Harhoff. That a biased Judge accused the ICTY of absolute corruption was the final, in a series of fatal events that irreversibly removed any doubt about the illegitimacy of the ICTY.

I expect nothing more from self-contradictory ICTY apologists, than blatant disregard for the ICTY's own records.

Further, that the ICTY subsequently refused to initiate an investigation into corruption and launch a ANY process, as you requested, speaks volumes about the depths of corruption. Thank you for your self-defeating argument and highlighting this additional failure of the ICTY.

(a New day, 17 June 2015 15:15) Any witness that spoke against Seselj at trial with their identity known, had his name published for diehard supporters such as yourself to utilize that information however someone such as yourself would. Not implying that you would personally persecute anyone who speaks up against your hero, but..

---

My hero is the peace loving Yugoslav.

The ICTY publishes the names of witnesses whose identities are known. Please direct your concern to the ICTY; they may use your input as justification for concealing all future witnesses.

The only persecuted witnesses in the Seselj trial were hostile witnesses for the prosecution that provided exculpatory evidence for the defense. That the OTP and Judges force hooded some of these individuals in order to distort their exculpatory testimony is another ICTY's grotesque rape of justice.

I used the names of so called prosecution "expert witnesses" whose identities were known in my due diligence. That the OTP paraded a list of fools such as Andreas Ridlemayer, Reynaud Theunens, Anthony Oberschall and others is another monumental scandal. This aspect of the trial was watched by tens of thousands TV viewers in Serbia and Seselj's cross-examination of these idiots provided for rib-breaking laughter and comedy that still echoes today.

View the cross examination of Ridlemayer whose expertise, as recognized by the Judge, is perjury. This evidence will test the openness of your mind.

(icj1, 19 June 2015 05:30) I asked for an example where a party objected to a specific piece of hearsay evidence. If nobody has objected to any specific piece of hearsay evidence at the ICTY ever, not sure what you're talking about lol
---

If you're not sure, then let me simply summarize this week's exchange:

1. In contrast to US courts, parties at the ICTY CAN NOT OBJECT to the admissibility of hearsay.

2. icj1 refuses to admit point 1.

3. Readers laugh at point 2.

4. Amnesty Yugoslavia reiterates point 1.

5. Repeat steps 2 to 4

(icj1, 19 June 2015 05:40) The writings of Judge Harhoff, that you selectively dismiss, are part of the ICTY record.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:31)

I did not say that they are not But thanks for the reminder :)
----------


YOU questioned the record.
Now, your laughable double negative responses superbly reflect the emptiness of your arguments. I'm surprised that you can still breath given the magnitude of contortions and convolutions that you must employ with each response. You should hear the unrestricted roar of laughter on my end.


(icj1, 19 June 2015 05:40) Nobody is disputing that Judge Harhoff wrote X. So your point is?!
----------

Perhaps you should consult a neurocognitive specialist. You've become so twisted by your contortions that cerebral hypoxia has clearly affected your short term memory. You can't even remember that YOU questioned the meaning of "public record". My point cited the public record with the judicial review and authentication of Judge Harhoff`s writings.

(icj1, 19 June 2015 05:40) Sure, just clarify that you are referring to your "doubts". The international community has no such doubts.
----

Let`s take this one step at a time. You should first demonstrate that you can consistently speak for yourself and remember what you said, before we tackle your delusions about an "international community".

Unfortunately, the ICTY's token contribution to this aim consisted of laughable gross incompetence and contempt for justice by their complete failure to properly investigate, prosecute and judge the criminals.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 13 June 2015 16:10)

That's according to a certain "Amnesty Yugoslavia" who does not even present any credible arguments to support the point; the international community disagrees with you and the choice whom to believe between a nobody like "Amnesty Yugoslavia" and the international community is an easy one!

Commentaries on the failure and incompetence at the ICTY have been extensively discussed in International Law forums. I've directed you and others to Opinio Juris as well as Dov Jacob's and other International Law discussion forums.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia)

Just because something is written in an online forum, does not make it valid :)
----------

icj1 apparently hasn't surveyed the "International Community" adequately. Here's one sample of the assessments published in one of the "International Community's" newspaper. The Times, London, June 18, 1999:
[link]
(Amnesty Yugoslavia)

Yes, I've not surveyed "The Times" because I'm not aware that the "international community" has appointed "The Times" to speak for the "international community". Do you have evidence of that?
----------

I'll let the readers decide how to evaluate a certain icj1's argument whose sole logic is based on a claim of knowing the opinion of an "International Community".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia)

That's not a claim mate; it's a fact that the international community does not share your assessment about ICTY. As somebody who is well acquainted with international law and opinions of distinguished jurists you should be aware that ICTY operates per decision of UNSC which represents the international community, and the UNSC (i.e. the international community) would have corrected the situation if ICTY were to be incompetent and fail to do its job as you allege.

@icj1

"That's not how criminal justice works in the civilized world, dear. It is the accuser who needs to explain why the accused is guilty of the alleged crimes; it's not the accused who needs to explain to families of his alleged victims that he is NOT guilty".

Had you red my comment carefully, you would have understood that I suggested that BOB should explain that N.O. is NOT guilty, not the accused. I was talking to BOB.

The accuser will have a hard time to explain anything to the court that is anything but transparent, ethical or honest.

The wrtings of Judge Harhoff are part of the public record.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:58)

Yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you) but that does not mean they are the result of a due process of law, evidence presented in court, cross-examination, legal reasoning, review by other judges or an appeal court, etc...
----------

That's if you ignore the hooded witnesses, hearsay evidence
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:58)

Of course, since you did not provide any example of a SPECIFIC piece of hearsay evidence which is inadmissible but ICTY admited. There is no absolute prohibition of hearsay evidence anywhere in the world; it's a case-by case abalysis; sometimes it's admissible; sometimes it's not - it depends on the particular type of hearsay evidence and the circumstances. Come on mate, you are an expert of these things and should know such simple stuff - think a bit, don't just regurgitate what you read in forums from "distinguished jurists"
----------

and other contortions of logic and law.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:58)

evidence? Or your argument is just because you say so, as usual?!

@icj1
"In the civilized world it is the side that alleges a crime (the accuser, you, the victim, or whatever) that needs to explain why the accused IS guilty of the alleged crimes, not the other way around. The accused is presumed innocent, so the burden of proof is on those who allege that the accused committed a crime."

I am just going to repeat my comment:

The accuser will have a hard time to explain anything to the court that is anything but transparent, ethical or honest.

And it goes without saying that civilized world has civilized courts. Otherwise, you can keep explaining why the accused is guilty 'till you are blue in the face, but no good can come of it.

(a New day, 17 June 2015 15:15) So anyone who speaks against the group is telling the truth?? A good meter to use.
---
No, all speakers are not equal. Countless reputable jurists and scholars have mocked the sham ICTY; the words of a Judge from the ICTY do carry an added significance.

(a New day, 17 June 2015 15:15) use an open mind and see the overwhelming evidence of guilt that is presented.

---

I've followed ICTY proceedings in great detail with an open mind. I agree: the ICTY is guilty of a contempt for justice not seen since medieval inquisitions and Salem witch trials.

(icj1, 22 June 2015 14:07) Of course I can't remember saying that because I wrote nowhere that I "question the meaning of "public record"". Citations mate, citations... You make a lot of empty talk without citations.
----------

On June 16 16:58 I commented that the writings of Judge Harhoff are part of the public record.

icj1 (icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) then wrote: "Yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you)"

---

Your parenthetic remark expressed with the phrase "whatever that means" apparently questioned my use of the term of public record. If you now deny questioning my use of the term "public record", then please tell us your aim in adding the words "whatever that means".

Your contortions and convolutions with regard to the term "public record" in our exchange are as hollow as your denial that trial chambers DO NOT ALLOW objections to hearsay during the presentation of evidence at the ICTY.

I do enjoy seeing you contorting and squirming. Please continue.

(icj1, 22 June 2015 14:07) Sure mate the international community (except Kosovo, Taiwan and the Vatican) which has established ICTY is deluded except you!

---

icj1's contorting prose above states that the "international community" has established the ICTY is deluded. I agree.

(icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) wrote: "Yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you)"

and then

(icj1, 27 June 2015 03:13) So where did I "question the meaning of "public record""?!

B92 readers can decide for themselves whether your 27 June comment contradicts your 10 June parenthetic remark.

(icj1, 27 June 2015 03:30) I can't deny something that nobody showed to exist :) You could not show even a single example of a judgement where ICTY took into account a piece of hearsay evidence without consideration as to its relevance and probative value - not a single example! So this was much ado about nothing...

---

icj1, please consult a first year law student to learn that judgments are first preceded by the presentation of evidence. In reputable judiciaries, the presentation and admission of evidence is governed by rules. Laughably, at the ICTY circus, there are no rules for presenting and admitting hearsay evidence. Nothing. Zero. Nil. Empty. That you gloat over this abomination demonstrates the warped contempt for justice held by ICTY apologists.

Courts that aim for justice, have rules against hearsay that are applied DURING the presentation of evidence. Parties may object during the presentation and demand a ruling on admissibility or inadmissibility before closing arguments and before deliberation begins on the admitted evidence.

The ICTY has no rules on hearsay. All hearsay is admitted. Defense can not object, nor can the defense cross-examine the originating source of the hearsay evidence.

Clearly the ICTY does not believe that cross-examination is a “legal engine invented for the discovery of truth". "Truth" at the ICTY is laughably predetermined by the Judges.

(icj1, 4 July 2015 16:13) Not sure which dictionary you used to make "question" a synonym of "whatever"!

---

If you are unsure, then please do consult any number of dictionaries (e.g. Merriam Webster, or Oxford) that define "whatever" as a pronoun used in place "what". I am sorry you are unsure about the English language and do not realize that "whatever" can be used as a pronoun, determiner, adverb, or exclamation.

Your twisted responses and contorted rebuttals often substantiate your confusions. You do not have to emphasize your unsureness, it is plainly evident with your well entrenched nihilistic philoosphy.

(icj1, 4 July 2015 16:43) If that's the case, please provide a single example where a piece of hearsay evidence was used by ICTY to decide facts in a judgement, without consideration to objections from the parties and without regard to or analysis of the relevance and probative value of that piece of evidence. Basically, was somebody incorrectly sent to jail or set free because of a piece of hearsay evidence?

It you don't have even a single example, than it's much ado about nothing :) Arguments can't be taken as being being correct just because you say so!
----

It's the ICTY that does not allow objections to hearsay. No cross examination is possible since the originating source of evidence is laughably not required not required at the ICTY. The ICTY admits all hearsay. Among reputable jurists the ICTY is indeed nothing.

(icj1, 10 July 2015 04:58) Yup, I did consult them in advance haha and none of them defined "whatever" as "question";
---
icj1, you're obviously unfamiliar with dictionaries. Words such as "whatever" or "what" are categorized as pronouns, determiners or adverbs. In the English language, such words are used in questions.


(icj1, 10 July 2015 04:58) You provided not a single example where ICTY decided facts in a judgement relying on a piece of hearsay evidence, without consideration to objections from the parties, regard to or analysis of the relevance and probative value of that piece of evidence. In addition, if you do a minimum research of ICTY's judgements, I'm sure you can easily find that ICTY has declined to rely on hearsay evidence at least once, which is sufficient to prove that you're wrong!
---

The issue of verdicts on indictments is another comedic topic from the ICTY circus. We are focused on the laughable farce for ICTY rules of evidence. Beyond the warped ICTY world, you'll learn in reputable judiciaries verdicts are preceded by the presentation of evidence where rules of evidence govern admissibility or inadmissibility. At the ICTY, there are NO RULES against hearsay. Parties CAN NOT object during the presentation of evidence and consequently, there is no example of consideration of an objection, because the ICTY does not allow objections to hearsay and admits all hearsay. Laughable.

(icj1, 12 July 2015 16:43) So are you saying that ICTY has never declined to rely on hearsay evidence in its judgements?

---

I am saying that the processes at the ICTY are corrupted at stages that PRECEDE judgment or verdicts on indictments. Reputable judiciaries, such as US courts determine admissibility or admissibility of hearsay during the presentation of evidence (and prior to starting deliberation) based on defined and detailed rules. No such rules exist at the ICTY. The standard of evidence presented and admitted at the ICTY is laughable.

The OTP uses the deplorable standards for evidence and scandalous rules to paralyze and inhibit any possible defense. Cases at the ICTY commonly have more than one million documents during pre-trial disclosure, most of which are irrelevant and provide for little first hand evidence or testimony. No reputable judiciary would tolerate such rubbish.

That idiotic land claims judges at the ICTY, who prior to their appointment at the ICTY never adjudicated a criminal trial, can't distinguish eyewitness testimony from seventh-hand hearsay is a separate issue distinct from the laughable rules of evidence.

(icj1, 12 July 2015 16:43) Yeah, but I did not ask a question so there was no question to use it in, in the first place :
---

Let's recap the sequence of our exchange from 16-19 June:
1.(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:58) The writings of Judge Harhoff are part of the public record.

then icj1 in parentheses questions my meaning of public record
2. (icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) Yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you)

At which point I responded:
3. (Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:31) the writings of Judge Harhoff are part of the ICTY record.

4. icj1 then thanks me for answering the question of my meaning
ICTY record. (icj1, 19 June 2015 05:40) "...thanks for the reminder"

Epilogue: icj1 should consult a neurocognitive specialist immediately as he/she has clinically impaired recall capacity.

(icj1, 15 July 2015 04:18) The question still remains, whether this "corrupted" process has led to a situation where ICTY has never declined to rely on hearsay evidence in its judgements. Ultimately, it is the judgement that sends somebody to jail or sets him/her free.
---

Wrong. False. Completely untrue. The following is fact supported by evidence you and readers know: At the ICTY and with their corrupt processes, an allegation or indictment based on scandalous rules of evidence is all that is required to arrest and jail someone. In this corrupt system, there are cases where people have been jailed for more than 10 years, or have died during incarceration without ANY judgement. That blind ICTY apologists refuse to recognize these crimes speaks volumes about their complete disregard for justice.

I don't have to convince anyone. The ICTY's writings alone provide ample evidence of absolute and utter failure. In one example, the ICTY's own Judge Harhoff wrote that verdicts at the ICTY are not based on evidence or law, but are rather subject to external political dictat. I repeat, this is not my argument, it's the ICTY's own Judge!


(a New day, 15 June 2015 14:48) In other words you did not enter the arena with an open mind.

---

My mind is open. Why should I not believe the ICTY's own Judge and recognize a farcical circus masquerading as tribunal that legal experts and high ranking insider buried long ago?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 05:34)

Thank you for proving my point! There have been more than a hundred judges that have presided in the ICTY but you have ONE who reinforces what you have said therefore you are ready to accept his words as gospel!
How was it I said in the original post?
"As you have a predetermined course to seek out that which supports your view and dismiss that which opposes it. In other words you did not enter the arena with an open mind."
Case closed, just like your "open"mind!

Had you red my comment carefully, you would have understood that I suggested that BOB should explain that N.O. is NOT guilty, not the accused. I was talking to BOB.
(Marina K., 16 June 2015 23:40)

It does not matter whom you were asking to explain that N.I. is NOT guilty.

In the civilized world it is the side that alleges a crime (the accuser, you, the victim, or whatever) that needs to explain why the accused IS guilty of the alleged crimes, not the other way around. The accused is presumed innocent, so the burden of proof is on those who allege that the accused committed a crime.

Without permanent membership for countries from South America or Africa, and better representation of the large population in Asia, I don't think anyone accepts your fantasy that the UNSC represents the "international community"
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:58)

Mate, I understand that you have run out of arguments, but don't continue with stating even more stupid stuff. South Africa and other 192 states have signed a document called UN Charter which says that "[i]n order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the SECURITY COUNCIL ACTS ON THEIR BEHALF" (emphasis addded).

So, almost all countries in the world (except Kosovo, Taiwan and the Vatican) accept "my fantasy" as long as they don't withdraw from their membership in the UN. Probably you live in another virtual world, I guess :)

You may wish to acknowledge the struggle of the majority of UN members that have been struggling to change the UNSC.

"The UN Security Council reform, being debated since two decades is too long overdue and the necessary expansion must be made considering how much the world has changed. ”
—Ban Ki-Moon
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 June 2015 20:17)

Sure, sure, I ackowledge all of that - I said nowhere that I oppose UNSC reforms or reforms of other international organizations!

So now back to what we were discussing. You said: "I don't think anyone accepts your fantasy that the UNSC represents the "international community" (Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:58)". Obviously your thought was wrong because South Africa and other 192 countries have signed (and still are signatories) of a document called UN Charter which says among other things that the "SECURITY COUNCIL ACTS ON THEIR BEHALF". So you are proven wrong with documentary evidence from the UN - however that's not a suprise; it's so easy to prove you wrong.

For one of the early specifics, please do consult the Blaksic case and the decision that there is no prohibition on the admission of hearsay evidence
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 June 2015 22:38)

I did and did not find any SPECIFIC hearsay evidence that ICTY admitted that was inadmissible. Which SPECIFIC piece of evidence, document, testimony etc did ICTY admit that was scandalous for you?! Court judgements are not the forum for abstract declarations - you need to refer to SPECIFIC pieces of facts and evidence. But, I get it why you refuse to provide a SPECIFIC piece of evidence as an example to support your arguments (even though I have repeatedly asked you) - because you can't find any example!
----------

U.S. Courts allow a defendant to object to hearsay. The rules at the ICTY do not permit any objection.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 June 2015 22:38)

U.S. Courts allow a defendant or the prosecution to object to a SPECIFIC piece of hearsay evidence. If the defendant or the prosecution asks a US court to prohibit hearsay evidence in principle, the US court will say that hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition in principle but the judge will rule that he/she will make a decision about a specific piece of evidence once that specific piece of evidence is presented and see if it falls into the admissible or inadmissible cases of hearsay evidence. ICTY does the same.

Despite countless attempts by defense to object to hearsay, the ICTY has used the Blaksic decision as precedent to allow hearsay admission without prohibition.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 June 2015 22:38)

Oh dear, has the defense made the same amateurish arguments you're making here?! No wonder their objections were overuled - they would have been overruled in most courts of the civilized world! Do this test to convince yourself: if we take the testimony of person X (which you consider as hearsay evidence) in Blaksic case and apply the US rules of evidence the conclusion is going to be the same conclusion as the ICTY judges that that testimony of person X is admissible.
----------

Please read the Blaksic appeal decision and you you'll find that the terminology "without prohibition" contradicts your false claim on how the ICTY views hearsay.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 June 2015 22:38)

I did not find anything that contradicts what I said. Cite me and ICTY side by side and show where is the contradiction. Entertain us a bit regurgitating what you've read on online forums from "distinguished jurists" :)

The accuser will have a hard time to explain anything to the court that is anything but transparent, ethical or honest.

And it goes without saying that civilized world has civilized courts. Otherwise, you can keep explaining why the accused is guilty 'till you are blue in the face, but no good can come of it.
(Marina K., 17 June 2015 22:53)

Of course, if the accuser does not have sufficient evidence and arguments to explain why the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the accuser can keep explaining 'till he/she is blue in the face, but no good can come of it. It's not the fault of the court why the accuser's case does not pass the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

The problem with people like you is that you believe that by repeating something 'till you're blue in the face, that will make it true :)

I've followed ICTY proceedings in great detail with an open mind. I agree: the ICTY is guilty of a contempt for justice not seen since medieval inquisitions and Salem witch trials.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:45)
The Salem witchcraft trials is a good one. I doubt you ever had an open mind, but I agree the ICTY is guilty of contempt for justice, in allowing the continual delays and manipulations of Seselj to continue to put justice for his victims off for more than a decade is a shame. But Serbs say the only people capable of creating a court to oversee crimes committed by the KLA during the Kosovo War, are the very people who created this one and would employ judges from a mixture of countries just like this one. What would be different???

(a New day, 18 June 2015 14:34) ICTY is guilty of contempt for justice, in allowing the continual delays and manipulations of Seselj to continue

---

How much time did Seselj use in presenting the defense case?
Fact: Zero seconds

Other questions and facts for you to ask yourself on this new day:
How long did the ICTY take before they STARTED the trial: Four Years!
How long did the OTP use to present a case and closing arguments: FIVE Years!
Who modified the (I've lost count) times indictment? The OTP
Who assigned a biased Judge to the trial chamber: Meron and the UNSC.
Who has been deliberating a verdict for (no end in sight): the ICTY

Do you want me to continue presenting evidence of manipulation by the OTP, TC, AC, registrar, secretary, and President or is this sufficient to open your mind?

(a New day, 18 June 2015 14:34) the only people capable of creating a court to oversee crimes committed by the KLA during the Kosovo War, are the very people who created this one and would employ judges from a mixture of countries just like this one. What would be different???

---

Nothing. Based on the failures of the ICTY, I have no-to-low expectations.

@icj1
"Of course, if the accuser does not have sufficient evidence and arguments to explain why the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the accuser can keep explaining 'till he/she is blue in the face, but no good can come of it. It's not the fault of the court why the accuser's case does not pass the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

The problem with people like you is that you believe that by repeating something 'till you're blue in the face, that will make it true :)"

The problem with people like you is that you cannot tell the difference between facts and reasonable doubt. Or you just don't care which is which:)
Autopsy reports of dr Zoran Stanojevic sent to Haig are the facts. Everything 'beyond' that is twisting, turning or spinning.

Suggested bedtime reading for you: http://www.nspm.rs/sudbina-dejtonske-bih-i-republika-srpska/nekaznjeni-zlocini-nad-srbima-u-podrinju.html?alphabet=l

Please provide a reference to an ICTY trial transcript that demonstrates a judge evaluating hearsay evidence for admissibility or inadmissibility during the course of a trial.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 15:53)

Mate, you are becoming laughing stock at this point!

In order for a judge to evaluate something, one of the parties has to ask for it. Show the specific piece of hearsay evidence that a party objected to and I'll show you the evaluation from the judge of that objection. It should be very easy for you to find an example since according to most "distinguished jurists" ICTY commits this mortal sin left and right lol
----------

Wrong. In US courts, the judge would rule on the objection by evaluating the evidence for exception to the hearsay rule and would provide a ruling on the objection before admitting the evidence.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 15:44)

Wrong what?! You are confirming what I wrote that "U.S. Courts allow a defendant or the prosecution to object to a SPECIFIC piece of hearsay evidence. If the defendant or the prosecution asks a US court to prohibit hearsay evidence in principle, the US court will say that hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition in principle but the judge will rule that he/she will make a decision about a specific piece of evidence once that specific piece of evidence is presented and see if it falls into the admissible or inadmissible cases of hearsay evidence".

In contrast to US courts, the Blaskic case did not test the testimony for any exception to the hearsay rule.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 15:44)

Which testimony are you referring to? And did any of the parties object to that testimony being admitted? Details mate, details, that's where your arguments collapse.
----------

there are NO SPECIFIC instances for you, me or anyone to review whether the ICTY applies exceptions to hearsay.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 15:44)

So, no party ever filed a motion for an ICTY judge to review the admissibility of hearsay evidence?! What’s the problem that keeps you awake at night, then :)
----------

You deny this fact and continually ask for a specific ruling
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 15:44)

I did not ask for a specific ruling. I asked for an example where a party objected to a specific piece of hearsay evidence. If nobody has objected to any specific piece of hearsay evidence at the ICTY ever, not sure what you're talking about lol
----------

Your false argument is based on the rigged rules at the ICTY that exclude ANY SPECIFIC review of hearsay admissibility during a trial.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 15:44)

Show which article of ICTY's rules of procedure "exclude ANY SPECIFIC review of hearsay admissibility during a trial" without regard to the relevance or probative value of that specific piece of evidence. Rules are not rigged just because you say so without providing any arguments.

The writings of Judge Harhoff, that you selectively dismiss, are part of the ICTY record.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:31)

I did not say that they are not But thanks for the reminder :)
----------

His writings were reviewed and assessed by Judges Moloto, Liu and Hall in a decision delivered 28 Aug 2013. Their process reviewed and recognized the content as an authentic assessment by Judge Harhoff.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:31)

Well, the decision notes that Judge Harhoff in an email to friends said X (X being the content of the email). Nobody is disputing that Judge Harhoff wrote X. So your point is?!
----------

That a biased Judge accused the ICTY of absolute corruption was the final, in a series of fatal events that irreversibly removed any doubt about the illegitimacy of the ICTY.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:31)

Sure, just clarify that you are referring to your "doubts". The international community has no such doubts.
----------

Further, that the ICTY subsequently refused to initiate an investigation into corruption and launch a ANY process, as you requested, speaks volumes about the depths of corruption.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:31)

I did not request anything and I could not since the email of Judge Harhoff did not contain any evidence or argument in support of what he wrote. Not sure what's to investigate! Conspiracy theories?! There has to be a minimum of facts or evidence for investigation.

1. In contrast to US courts, parties at the ICTY CAN NOT OBJECT to the admissibility of hearsay.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:26)

That's according to a certain Amnesty Yugoslavia who provided no specific examples (i.e. a specific hearsay testimony or document) where one of the parties objected and but ICTY refused to analyze the objection and rule on the relevance and probative value of that specific piece of evidence.
----------

2. icj1 refuses to admit point 1.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:26)

Sorry, but there is nothing to admit. If no parties ever objected (you did not provide a single example of a specific hearsay testimony or document a party ojected to), you're making a moot point.
---------

3. Readers laugh at point 2.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:26)

Of course readers would laugh at you arguing for days on a moot point :)
----------

4. Amnesty Yugoslavia reiterates point 1.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:26)

Yup and please continue as if that's going to make your point correct lol
----------

YOU questioned the record.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:29)

Where? You make a lot ot statements you said this and you said that but no citations. But don't worry mate; it's known that you have big challenges with citations :)

Now, your laughable double negative responses superbly reflect the emptiness of your arguments.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:29)

Why? Or as usual because you say so!

Perhaps you should consult a neurocognitive specialist. You've become so twisted by your contortions that cerebral hypoxia has clearly affected your short term memory. You can't even remember that YOU questioned the meaning of "public record".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:29)

Of course I can't remember saying that because I wrote nowhere that I "question the meaning of "public record"". Citations mate, citations... You make a lot of empty talk without citations.
----------

My point cited the public record with the judicial review and authentication of Judge Harhoff`s writings.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:29)

You are trying to confuse things because clarity makes your arguments collapse. There are two issues that you are trying to confuse into one:

A. Did Judge Harhoff wrote an email saying X (X being the email's content)?

B. Is X true?

There is no dispute about (A) so not sure why are you trying to make a dispute out of something where there is no dispute. The dispute is about (B) and ICTY's writings have nowhere determined that X is true. ICTY has only written that Judge Harhoff wrote X. Your point is?!
----------

your delusions about an "international community".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:29)

Sure mate the international community (except Kosovo, Taiwan and the Vatican) which has established ICTY is deluded except you! I reccomend that perhaps you emigrate to the Moon and built your own intternational community there!

(icj1, 22 June 2015 14:07) Sure mate the international community (except Kosovo, Taiwan and the Vatican) which has established ICTY is deluded except you!
---
icj1's contorting prose above states that the "international community" has established the ICTY is deluded. I agree.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 23 June 2015 13:23)

Excellent! After almost all your arguments were shown to not be supported by any evidence, we agree on that as well. It's great though that while almost the entire international community is deluded, there is somebody (i.e. you) who is not :) Hopefully one day you will illuminate the world with your thoughts haha
----------

(icj1, 22 June 2015 14:07) Of course I can't remember saying that because I wrote nowhere that I "question the meaning of "public record"". Citations mate, citations... You make a lot of empty talk without citations.
----------
On June 16 16:58 I commented that the writings of Judge Harhoff are part of the public record.
icj1 (icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) then wrote: "Yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you)"
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 23 June 2015 06:55)

So where did I "question the meaning of "public record""?! still impatiently waiting you to provide the quote! If you can't don't worry - as I said before it's already known that citations are very challenging for you lol

If you now deny questioning my use of the term "public record", then please tell us your aim in adding the words "whatever that means".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 23 June 2015 06:55)

Not sure how I can deny something I did not say lol I did not ask you any question about what "public record" means for you and I did not dispute your understanding of the "public record". Do you know the meaning of the verb "question" in English?!

So not sure where you read that I "questioned" your use of the term "public record"! You have a very vivid fantasy and comment on what you wanted somebody to write not on what that somebody actually wrote :)
----------

your denial that trial chambers DO NOT ALLOW objections to hearsay during the presentation of evidence at the ICTY.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 23 June 2015 06:55)

I can't deny something that nobody showed to exist :) You could not show even a single example of a judgement where ICTY took into account a piece of hearsay evidence without consideration as to its relevance and probative value - not a single example! So this was much ado about nothing...

(icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) wrote: "Yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you)"

and then

(icj1, 27 June 2015 03:13) So where did I "question the meaning of "public record""?!

B92 readers can decide for themselves whether your 27 June comment contradicts your 10 June parenthetic remark.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 30 June 2015 06:14)

Wow, finally! I see you're starting to make some progress in your ability to citate lol At least we're getting some results from these postings!

In this case though, what you are citating proves that your statement that I "question the meaning of "public record"" is wrong. "Whatever" in English means "it is not important what is; it makes no difference what (is):". Not sure which dictionary you used to make "question" a synonym of "whatever"!

And finally, even if we forget about what "whatever" or "question" mean in English (which apparently you are not aware of), I wrote "whatever that means for you" not just "whatever that means". Therefore your statement "question the meaning of "public record"" misses the "for you" part at the end.

Sorry mate that you embarked on an exercise to nowhere, which in any case was dismantled like the rest of your amateurish arguments. But I hope you learned how useful the citations are! They clarify immediately if somebody (i.e. you in this case) is wrong :)

Laughably, at the ICTY circus, there are no rules for presenting and admitting hearsay evidence. Nothing. Zero. Nil. Empty. That you gloat over this abomination demonstrates the warped contempt for justice held by ICTY apologists.

Courts that aim for justice, have rules against hearsay that are applied DURING the presentation of evidence. Parties may object during the presentation and demand a ruling on admissibility or inadmissibility before closing arguments and before deliberation begins on the admitted evidence.

The ICTY has no rules on hearsay. All hearsay is admitted. Defense can not object, nor can the defense cross-examine the originating source of the hearsay evidence.

Clearly the ICTY does not believe that cross-examination is a “legal engine invented for the discovery of truth". "Truth" at the ICTY is laughably predetermined by the Judges.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 30 June 2015 06:56)

If that's the case, please provide a single example where a piece of hearsay evidence was used by ICTY to decide facts in a judgement, without consideration to objections from the parties and without regard to or analysis of the relevance and probative value of that piece of evidence. Basically, was somebody incorrectly sent to jail or set free because of a piece of hearsay evidence?

It you don't have even a single example, than it's much ado about nothing :) Arguments can't be taken as being being correct just because you say so!

If you are unsure, then please do consult any number of dictionaries (e.g. Merriam Webster, or Oxford) that define "whatever" as a pronoun used in place "what".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 6 July 2015 16:20)

Yup, I did consult them in advance haha and none of them defined "whatever" as "question"; same thing that you found above. Mate, this is very simple: if you are trying to say that I said "whatever that means for you" about your mention of "public record", yeah I said that :)
-----------

It's the ICTY that does not allow objections to hearsay. No cross examination is possible since the originating source of evidence is laughably not required not required at the ICTY. The ICTY admits all hearsay. Among reputable jurists the ICTY is indeed nothing.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 6 July 2015 16:37)

Sure. Just the usual disclaimer that "reputable jurists" in this case means a certain Amnesty Yugoslavia. And obviously the statement above can't be seriously taken as the only argument provided is because you said so.

You provided not a single example where ICTY decided facts in a judgement relying on a piece of hearsay evidence, without consideration to objections from the parties, regard to or analysis of the relevance and probative value of that piece of evidence. In addition, if you do a minimum research of ICTY's judgements, I'm sure you can easily find that ICTY has declined to rely on hearsay evidence at least once, which is sufficient to prove that you're wrong!

icj1, you're obviously unfamiliar with dictionaries. Words such as "whatever" or "what" are categorized as pronouns, determiners or adverbs. In the English language, such words are used in questions.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 10 July 2015 13:48)

Yeah, but I did not ask a question so there was no question to use it in, in the first place :) So that option of the meaning you are trying to assign does not apply. You see mate, regardless of how you try to spin it, you always reach a dead end. As I said, this is very simple - just quote what I said in regards to your mentioning of public record: "whatever that means for you"
----------

At the ICTY, there are NO RULES against hearsay.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 10 July 2015 13:48)

So are you saying that ICTY has never declined to rely on hearsay evidence in its judgements?

Let's recap the sequence of our exchange from 16-19 June:
1.(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:58) The writings of Judge Harhoff are part of the public record.

then icj1 in parentheses questions my meaning of public record
2. (icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) Yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you)

At which point I responded:
3. (Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:31) the writings of Judge Harhoff are part of the ICTY record.

4. icj1 then thanks me for answering the question of my meaning
ICTY record. (icj1, 19 June 2015 05:40) "...thanks for the reminder"
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 14 July 2015 07:00)

Thanks for the recap (the quotations part) so I did not have to waste time to find them. So, yes, you are correct that I said "whatever that means for you". But I did not thank you "for answering the question of [your] meaning of ICTY record" because I did not ask any question about that! I said "thanks for the reminder" and "answer" is not a synonym of "reminder". As I said earlier, regardless of how you spin it, you always reach a dead end. Let's see the next spin now - I'm sure it will have the same fate lol

(icj1, 12 July 2015 16:43) So are you saying that ICTY has never declined to rely on hearsay evidence in its judgements?
---
I am saying that the processes at the ICTY are corrupted at stages that PRECEDE judgment or verdicts on indictments.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 14 July 2015 06:57)

Well, that's your opinion. You have not provided a shred of evidence about that. But let's assume it is so.

The question still remains, whether this "corrupted" process has led to a situation where ICTY has never declined to rely on hearsay evidence in its judgements. Ultimately, it is the judgement that sends somebody to jail or sets him/her free.

In other words, if the Court says that exhibit X can be addmitted (or as you like to call it - be part of the public record) and then in the judgement the Court says that it declined to rely on exhibit X, the practical impact is the same as if had not been admitted. That's why I'm asking you about the judgement - this is very simple dear; it's not rocket science, especially for a distinguished jurist like you!

(icj1, 15 July 2015 04:18) The question still remains, whether this "corrupted" process has led to a situation where ICTY has never declined to rely on hearsay evidence in its judgements. Ultimately, it is the judgement that sends somebody to jail or sets him/her free.
---

Wrong. False. Completely untrue.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 15 July 2015 15:44)

Have you checked all ICTY's judgements and found that ICTY has never declined to rely on hearsay evidence?! Just because you say "Wrong. False. Completely untrue" doesn't make it so!
----------

The following is fact supported by evidence you and readers know: At the ICTY and with their corrupt processes, an allegation or indictment based on scandalous rules of evidence is all that is required to arrest and jail someone.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 15 July 2015 15:44)

That's not a fact - it's a blatant lie. "An allegation or indictment" is NOT "all that is required to arrest and jail someone". A judge has to confirm the indictment and issue an order/warrant for the arrest, detention, surrender or transfer of someone
----------

In this corrupt system, there are cases where people have been jailed for more than 10 years, or have died during incarceration without ANY judgement.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 15 July 2015 15:44)

You have not provided any evidence to support the above. You might want to start with showing, at least, one case where ICTY has jailed a person "for more than 10 years without ANY judgement"

Serbs, again, feel as if they are above the law. This issue has been dealt with. Oric was found NOT guilty. What do Serbs want?

They need to feed their Greater Serbia Victim Complex.

'According to Borovic, Switzerland will have 40 days after Serbia submits "serious proof and the Interpol warrant" to extradite Oric.'

The evidence is overwhelming, there is plenty of proof for what this genocidal butcher did to Serb civilians in the villages around Srebrenica.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.ca/2011/06/from-our-archives-forgotten-story-of.html
http://www.barenakedislam.com/2011/05/24/why-didnt-we-see-these-photos-before-bill-clinton-chose-to-support-the-muslims-in-bosnia-warning-graphic-images/
This war criminal proudly showed video of his mutilations to Bill Schiller of the Toronto Star. Just call Mr. Schiller to the stand. The fact that the Hague actually released Oric just shows what a total anti-Serb farce and kangaroo court it is. As for ignorant dipsticks like Bob, I won't even respond to his disgraceful comment. Bob, shut your mouth, your racist Serbophobe opinions are unwelcome and we all know you're a failed diplomat. Oric's day of reckoning for his crimes will come, one way or another, God willing.
Cheers!!

The ICTY did not try Oric's for his crimes nor those of the army he commanded.

The trial was focused on what PRISON GUARDS in Srebrenica were doing to captive Serbs, and other than they they focused on the looting and burning done by the Bosniaks who followed in their armies wake to grab things from the empty houses - after the local Serbs had fled or been killed Naser's forces.

The ICTY did not even call the witnesses to Naser's detailing and showing video proof of his and his mens' crimes.

John Pomfret of the Washington Post and Bill Schiller of the Toronto Star were two western reporters who traveled to Naser Oric's home on a day in January 1994 and were "treated" to videos the Srebrenica forces took of destroyed Serb villages, Serbs fleeing their attack, dead Serb bodies all over, etc.
Naser Oric even described how they were killed at the different villages.

The ICTY did not call those journalists, did not use the pictorial nor video evidence - did not even search for them.

Nor did they allow a Muslim who was witness to Naser Oric's describing how he killed a Serbian judge at the beginning of the war, and also other crimes perpetrated against Serbs by Srebrenica Muslims, to testify.

This war criminal proudly showed video of his mutilations to Bill Schiller of the Toronto Star. Just call Mr. Schiller to the stand. The fact that the Hague actually released Oric just shows what a total anti-Serb farce and kangaroo court it is. As for ignorant dipsticks like Bob, I won't even respond to his disgraceful comment. Bob, shut your mouth, your racist Serbophobe opinions are unwelcome and we all know you're a failed diplomat. Oric's day of reckoning for his crimes will come, one way or another, God willing.
Cheers!!
(Dragan, 13 June 2015 03:09)

Take a pill Dragan. You need to calm yourself down.

Oh dear. Usual rants again from folk eager to condemn Serbia.
Oric (amongst others) was fortunate to escape justice at his previous trial.
Naturally justice is still sought.
Why are you all so quick to highlight Serbian involvement yet reluctant to remind yourselves of other countries and individuals involvement in brutal acts?

Bob and El rey,

The murdered victims which included: Dragutin Kukić, Jakov Đokić, Dragan Ilić, Milisav Milovanović, Kostadin Popović, Branko Sekulić, Nedeljko Radić, Slavoljub Žikić, Zoran Branković, Nevenko Bubanj, Veselin Šarac, Ilija Ivanović, Ratko Nikolić,Rado Pejić, Stanko Mitrović, Mile Trifunović among countless other innocents that died in detention under Oric's command, or that perished in the attacks on Ratkovići, Gornji Ratkovići, Brađevina, Ježestica and other peaceful Yugoslav towns, deserve justice.

Unfortunately, the ICTY's token contribution to this aim consisted of laughable gross incompetence and contempt for justice by their complete failure to properly investigate, prosecute and judge the criminals.

Take a pill Dragan. You need to calm yourself down.
(Bob, 15 June 2015 03:18)

When you present anti-Serb liars and propagandists with some plain facts and simple logic, this is the kind of response you get. They hate letting the truth get in the way of a good story. Let's keep hammering them with truth, because truth is on Serbia's side. They are scared to death that the truth will come out, but don't worry Bob, we will make sure the truth comes out and you will be exposed for the fraud that you are.
Cheers!!

"Oric was found NOT guilty. What do Serbs want?"

Justice. Please try to explain to families of his victims that he is NOT guilty.

Why are you all so quick to highlight Serbian involvement yet reluctant to remind yourselves of other countries and individuals involvement in brutal acts?
(Wee Kelpie, 13 June 2015 08:47)

Because being reminded that their own side committed unspeakable atrocities challenges their sanitized version of the 1990s. While Serbs are constantly pressured to admit their own guilt, Croats, Bosnians, and Albanians go out of their way to deny theirs.

Unfortunately, the ICTY's token contribution to this aim consisted of laughable gross incompetence and contempt for justice by their complete failure to properly investigate, prosecute and judge the criminals.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 13 June 2015 16:10)

That's according to a certain "Amnesty Yugoslavia" who does not even present any credible arguments to support the point; the international community disagrees with you and the choice whom to believe between a nobody like "Amnesty Yugoslavia" and the international community is an easy one!

I don't have to convince anyone.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 05:34)

of course; you have no chance with the trash you write :)
----------

The ICTY's writings alone provide ample evidence of absolute and utter failure. In one example, the ICTY's own Judge Harhoff wrote that verdicts at the ICTY are not based on evidence or law, but are rather subject to external political dictat.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 05:34)

That's an example of why your writings are trash. The email writings of Mr. Frederik Harhoff are not an example of ICTY's writings. It's suprising that you, who are such as expert in international criminal law, are not able to understand the difference between the two, but I'll explain it for you below.
----------

Why should I not believe the ICTY's own Judge...
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 05:34)

Because the email writings of Mr. Harhoff were not the result of a due process of law, evidence presented in court, cross-examination, legal reasoning, review by other judges or an appeal court, etc... All things that make ICTY's writings being beyond reasonable doubt.

Now, is there a chance that Mr. Harhoff is correct and ICTY's verdicts were dictated by Israel, US, Serbia or aliens from Mars? Of course there is! But conclusions can't be believed just because somebody wrote them (as you often do) without considering the process, evidence and reasoning that backs them up, all things that are absent from the writings of Mr. Harhoff.

(Dragan, 13 June 2015 03:09)
It matters not what evidence is delivered to Switzerland by Serbia whether it be real or created, if it covers crimes that he has already been tried for at the Hague, Switzerland will not extradite him but will let him go.
Serbia will have to present evidence of crimes that have not been presented at the ICTY.

Marina K: Like many before you in varied situations you are confused about the meaning of justice. It is a process not a particular verdict. What you mean is that you want Oric to be found guilty, a foregone conclusion should he end up in Serbia. He should be serving a very long sentence in a Bosnian prison for numerous other crimes not related to the 1992-5 conflict and ironically had he been doing so he wouldn't have been in Switzerland.

Commentaries on the failure and incompetence at the ICTY have been extensively discussed in International Law forums. I've directed you and others to Opinio Juris as well as Dov Jacob's and other International Law discussion forums.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia)

Just because something is written in an online forum, does not make it valid :)
----------

icj1 apparently hasn't surveyed the "International Community" adequately. Here's one sample of the assessments published in one of the "International Community's" newspaper. The Times, London, June 18, 1999:
[link]
(Amnesty Yugoslavia)

Yes, I've not surveyed "The Times" because I'm not aware that the "international community" has appointed "The Times" to speak for the "international community". Do you have evidence of that?
----------

I'll let the readers decide how to evaluate a certain icj1's argument whose sole logic is based on a claim of knowing the opinion of an "International Community".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia)

That's not a claim mate; it's a fact that the international community does not share your assessment about ICTY. As somebody who is well acquainted with international law and opinions of distinguished jurists you should be aware that ICTY operates per decision of UNSC which represents the international community, and the UNSC (i.e. the international community) would have corrected the situation if ICTY were to be incompetent and fail to do its job as you allege.

The wrtings of Judge Harhoff are part of the public record.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:58)

Yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you) but that does not mean they are the result of a due process of law, evidence presented in court, cross-examination, legal reasoning, review by other judges or an appeal court, etc...
----------

That's if you ignore the hooded witnesses, hearsay evidence
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:58)

Of course, since you did not provide any example of a SPECIFIC piece of hearsay evidence which is inadmissible but ICTY admited. There is no absolute prohibition of hearsay evidence anywhere in the world; it's a case-by case abalysis; sometimes it's admissible; sometimes it's not - it depends on the particular type of hearsay evidence and the circumstances. Come on mate, you are an expert of these things and should know such simple stuff - think a bit, don't just regurgitate what you read in forums from "distinguished jurists"
----------

and other contortions of logic and law.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:58)

evidence? Or your argument is just because you say so, as usual?!

@ ned taylor
"Marina K: Like many before you in varied situations you are confused about the meaning of justice. It is a process not a particular verdict. What you mean is that you want Oric to be found guilty, a foregone conclusion should he end up in Serbia."

I am not confused at all. What I mean is that I want a repeated fair trial to Oric anywhere, with all evidence, documentation, testimonies and witnesses previously rejected in Hag. That would mean that Srebrenica crime and all that senseless war would be probably seen in a new light. However, I don't think there is a political will for that in Europe.

Hope this helps.

Balkan Anthropologist, 13 June 2015 15:58)

Spot on!

According to Western Propaganda -

"Oric and His assosiates some 8000 men,
was all Murdered by the Serbian Forces when they tok Srebrenica".

Only the Devil believe this.

Arn.Sweden.

I'll let the readers decide how to evaluate a certain icj1's argument whose sole logic is based on a claim of knowing the opinion of an "International Community".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 15 June 2015 12:54)
A fair proposal, and just like the fool Jeremic who proposed a debate in the UNGA on the ICTY you will find that Serbs and some few supporters will criticize the dealings of the ICTY and others will line up country after country and sing the praises of the accomplishments of the ICTY.

Much like the abortion debate in the US, you have some that feel very strongly as you do on one side or the other and they will present clear cut evidence to prove their view only to be rejected by those who have just as strong of sentiment for the opposing side. It is doubtful you or ICJ1 will convince anyone in these forums that you are right that did not already feel so.

This is an emotional issue and your views of the matter are just as immersed in emotion and what is easily proof to you will not be to someone else. As you have a predetermined course to seek out that which supports your view and dismiss that which opposes it. In other words you did not enter the arena with an open mind.
Those of you who feel that Serbs have been convicted without evidence also feel that those accused of crimes against Serbs are guilty with no doubt without any evidence.

Justice. Please try to explain to families of his victims that he is NOT guilty.
(Marina K., 13 June 2015 02:11)

That's not how criminal justice works in the civilized world, dear. It is the accuser who needs to explain why the accused is guilty of the alleged crimes; it's not the accused who needs to explain to families of his alleged victims that he is NOT guilty

I don't have to convince anyone. The ICTY's writings alone provide ample evidence of absolute and utter failure. In one example, the ICTY's own Judge Harhoff wrote that verdicts at the ICTY are not based on evidence or law, but are rather subject to external political dictat. I repeat, this is not my argument, it's the ICTY's own Judge!


(a New day, 15 June 2015 14:48) In other words you did not enter the arena with an open mind.

---

My mind is open. Why should I not believe the ICTY's own Judge and recognize a farcical circus masquerading as tribunal that legal experts and high ranking insider buried long ago?
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 05:34)

Thank you for proving my point! There have been more than a hundred judges that have presided in the ICTY but you have ONE who reinforces what you have said therefore you are ready to accept his words as gospel!
How was it I said in the original post?
"As you have a predetermined course to seek out that which supports your view and dismiss that which opposes it. In other words you did not enter the arena with an open mind."
Case closed, just like your "open"mind!

Had you red my comment carefully, you would have understood that I suggested that BOB should explain that N.O. is NOT guilty, not the accused. I was talking to BOB.
(Marina K., 16 June 2015 23:40)

It does not matter whom you were asking to explain that N.I. is NOT guilty.

In the civilized world it is the side that alleges a crime (the accuser, you, the victim, or whatever) that needs to explain why the accused IS guilty of the alleged crimes, not the other way around. The accused is presumed innocent, so the burden of proof is on those who allege that the accused committed a crime.

Without permanent membership for countries from South America or Africa, and better representation of the large population in Asia, I don't think anyone accepts your fantasy that the UNSC represents the "international community"
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:58)

Mate, I understand that you have run out of arguments, but don't continue with stating even more stupid stuff. South Africa and other 192 states have signed a document called UN Charter which says that "[i]n order to ensure prompt and effective action by the United Nations, its Members confer on the Security Council primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the SECURITY COUNCIL ACTS ON THEIR BEHALF" (emphasis addded).

So, almost all countries in the world (except Kosovo, Taiwan and the Vatican) accept "my fantasy" as long as they don't withdraw from their membership in the UN. Probably you live in another virtual world, I guess :)

The written words of Judge Harhoff are more damning than the silence of supporters. Asking me, or anyone else, to cover our ears and close our eyes in order to "open our mind" is the same contorted (il)logic used to close cases and pass verdicts at the ICTY.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:11)
So anyone who speaks against the group is telling the truth?? A good meter to use.
The more you speak the more you support my post. On the contrary I do not ask you to cover your ears and close your eyes but rather use an open mind and see the overwhelming evidence of guilt that is presented.

You inference to hooded witnesses amuses me. Any witness that spoke against Seselj at trial with their identity known, had his name published for diehard supporters such as yourself to utilize that information however someone such as yourself would. Not implying that you would personally persecute anyone who speaks up against your hero, but...
Also remember the witness that Serbia had that proved of the organ harvesting??? His identity and his voice were distorted to "protect him". And he announced how as a very young man he was being trained to do organ transplants in the field, in case any of the KLA leaders were wounded in conflict and needed an emergency transplant. The Serbian war crimes prosecutor became such a laughing stock that no one ever heard of this witness again. But I bet you believed it were possible with your "open mind"!

Despite countless attempts by defense to object to hearsay, the ICTY has used the Blaksic decision as precedent to allow hearsay admission without prohibition.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 June 2015 22:38)

Oh dear, has the defense made the same amateurish arguments you're making here?! No wonder their objections were overuled - they would have been overruled in most courts of the civilized world! Do this test to convince yourself: if we take the testimony of person X (which you consider as hearsay evidence) in Blaksic case and apply the US rules of evidence the conclusion is going to be the same conclusion as the ICTY judges that that testimony of person X is admissible.
----------

Please read the Blaksic appeal decision and you you'll find that the terminology "without prohibition" contradicts your false claim on how the ICTY views hearsay.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 June 2015 22:38)

I did not find anything that contradicts what I said. Cite me and ICTY side by side and show where is the contradiction. Entertain us a bit regurgitating what you've read on online forums from "distinguished jurists" :)

The accuser will have a hard time to explain anything to the court that is anything but transparent, ethical or honest.

And it goes without saying that civilized world has civilized courts. Otherwise, you can keep explaining why the accused is guilty 'till you are blue in the face, but no good can come of it.
(Marina K., 17 June 2015 22:53)

Of course, if the accuser does not have sufficient evidence and arguments to explain why the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the accuser can keep explaining 'till he/she is blue in the face, but no good can come of it. It's not the fault of the court why the accuser's case does not pass the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

The problem with people like you is that you believe that by repeating something 'till you're blue in the face, that will make it true :)

(icj1, 14 June 2015 05:12) That's according to a certain "Amnesty Yugoslavia" who does not even present any credible arguments to support the point; the international community disagrees with you.

---

Commentaries on the failure and incompetence at the ICTY have been extensively discussed in International Law forums. I've directed you and others to Opinio Juris as well as Dov Jacob's and other International Law discussion forums.

icj1 apparently hasn't surveyed the "International Community" adequately. Here's one sample of the assessments published in one of the "International Community's" newspaper. The Times, London, June 18, 1999:
http://www.oldsite.transnational.org/SAJT/features/haaganomaly.html

I'll let the readers decide how to evaluate a certain icj1's argument whose sole logic is based on a claim of knowing the opinion of an "International Community".

(a New day, 15 June 2015 14:48) ...others will line up country after country and sing the praises of the accomplishments of the ICTY.

---

There are many fools in the UN as evidenced by their goose-stepping, blind support of falsified tales of genocide, WMDs and other manipulative lies.

(a New day, 15 June 2015 14:48) It is doubtful you or ICJ1 will convince anyone in these forums that you are right that did not already feel so... As you have a predetermined course to seek out that which supports your view and dismiss that which opposes it.

----

I don't have to convince anyone. The ICTY's writings alone provide ample evidence of absolute and utter failure. In one example, the ICTY's own Judge Harhoff wrote that verdicts at the ICTY are not based on evidence or law, but are rather subject to external political dictat. I repeat, this is not my argument, it's the ICTY's own Judge!


(a New day, 15 June 2015 14:48) In other words you did not enter the arena with an open mind.

---

My mind is open. Why should I not believe the ICTY's own Judge and recognize a farcical circus masquerading as tribunal that legal experts and high ranking insider buried long ago?

You may wish to acknowledge the struggle of the majority of UN members that have been struggling to change the UNSC.

"The UN Security Council reform, being debated since two decades is too long overdue and the necessary expansion must be made considering how much the world has changed. ”
—Ban Ki-Moon
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 June 2015 20:17)

Sure, sure, I ackowledge all of that - I said nowhere that I oppose UNSC reforms or reforms of other international organizations!

So now back to what we were discussing. You said: "I don't think anyone accepts your fantasy that the UNSC represents the "international community" (Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:58)". Obviously your thought was wrong because South Africa and other 192 countries have signed (and still are signatories) of a document called UN Charter which says among other things that the "SECURITY COUNCIL ACTS ON THEIR BEHALF". So you are proven wrong with documentary evidence from the UN - however that's not a suprise; it's so easy to prove you wrong.

For one of the early specifics, please do consult the Blaksic case and the decision that there is no prohibition on the admission of hearsay evidence
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 June 2015 22:38)

I did and did not find any SPECIFIC hearsay evidence that ICTY admitted that was inadmissible. Which SPECIFIC piece of evidence, document, testimony etc did ICTY admit that was scandalous for you?! Court judgements are not the forum for abstract declarations - you need to refer to SPECIFIC pieces of facts and evidence. But, I get it why you refuse to provide a SPECIFIC piece of evidence as an example to support your arguments (even though I have repeatedly asked you) - because you can't find any example!
----------

U.S. Courts allow a defendant to object to hearsay. The rules at the ICTY do not permit any objection.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 17 June 2015 22:38)

U.S. Courts allow a defendant or the prosecution to object to a SPECIFIC piece of hearsay evidence. If the defendant or the prosecution asks a US court to prohibit hearsay evidence in principle, the US court will say that hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition in principle but the judge will rule that he/she will make a decision about a specific piece of evidence once that specific piece of evidence is presented and see if it falls into the admissible or inadmissible cases of hearsay evidence. ICTY does the same.

(a New day, 17 June 2015 15:15) Any witness that spoke against Seselj at trial with their identity known, had his name published for diehard supporters such as yourself to utilize that information however someone such as yourself would. Not implying that you would personally persecute anyone who speaks up against your hero, but..

---

My hero is the peace loving Yugoslav.

The ICTY publishes the names of witnesses whose identities are known. Please direct your concern to the ICTY; they may use your input as justification for concealing all future witnesses.

The only persecuted witnesses in the Seselj trial were hostile witnesses for the prosecution that provided exculpatory evidence for the defense. That the OTP and Judges force hooded some of these individuals in order to distort their exculpatory testimony is another ICTY's grotesque rape of justice.

I used the names of so called prosecution "expert witnesses" whose identities were known in my due diligence. That the OTP paraded a list of fools such as Andreas Ridlemayer, Reynaud Theunens, Anthony Oberschall and others is another monumental scandal. This aspect of the trial was watched by tens of thousands TV viewers in Serbia and Seselj's cross-examination of these idiots provided for rib-breaking laughter and comedy that still echoes today.

View the cross examination of Ridlemayer whose expertise, as recognized by the Judge, is perjury. This evidence will test the openness of your mind.

I've followed ICTY proceedings in great detail with an open mind. I agree: the ICTY is guilty of a contempt for justice not seen since medieval inquisitions and Salem witch trials.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:45)
The Salem witchcraft trials is a good one. I doubt you ever had an open mind, but I agree the ICTY is guilty of contempt for justice, in allowing the continual delays and manipulations of Seselj to continue to put justice for his victims off for more than a decade is a shame. But Serbs say the only people capable of creating a court to oversee crimes committed by the KLA during the Kosovo War, are the very people who created this one and would employ judges from a mixture of countries just like this one. What would be different???

1. In contrast to US courts, parties at the ICTY CAN NOT OBJECT to the admissibility of hearsay.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:26)

That's according to a certain Amnesty Yugoslavia who provided no specific examples (i.e. a specific hearsay testimony or document) where one of the parties objected and but ICTY refused to analyze the objection and rule on the relevance and probative value of that specific piece of evidence.
----------

2. icj1 refuses to admit point 1.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:26)

Sorry, but there is nothing to admit. If no parties ever objected (you did not provide a single example of a specific hearsay testimony or document a party ojected to), you're making a moot point.
---------

3. Readers laugh at point 2.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:26)

Of course readers would laugh at you arguing for days on a moot point :)
----------

4. Amnesty Yugoslavia reiterates point 1.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:26)

Yup and please continue as if that's going to make your point correct lol
----------

YOU questioned the record.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:29)

Where? You make a lot ot statements you said this and you said that but no citations. But don't worry mate; it's known that you have big challenges with citations :)

Now, your laughable double negative responses superbly reflect the emptiness of your arguments.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:29)

Why? Or as usual because you say so!

Perhaps you should consult a neurocognitive specialist. You've become so twisted by your contortions that cerebral hypoxia has clearly affected your short term memory. You can't even remember that YOU questioned the meaning of "public record".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:29)

Of course I can't remember saying that because I wrote nowhere that I "question the meaning of "public record"". Citations mate, citations... You make a lot of empty talk without citations.
----------

My point cited the public record with the judicial review and authentication of Judge Harhoff`s writings.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:29)

You are trying to confuse things because clarity makes your arguments collapse. There are two issues that you are trying to confuse into one:

A. Did Judge Harhoff wrote an email saying X (X being the email's content)?

B. Is X true?

There is no dispute about (A) so not sure why are you trying to make a dispute out of something where there is no dispute. The dispute is about (B) and ICTY's writings have nowhere determined that X is true. ICTY has only written that Judge Harhoff wrote X. Your point is?!
----------

your delusions about an "international community".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 19 June 2015 12:29)

Sure mate the international community (except Kosovo, Taiwan and the Vatican) which has established ICTY is deluded except you! I reccomend that perhaps you emigrate to the Moon and built your own intternational community there!

(a New day, 16 June 2015 14:01) "As you have a predetermined course to seek out that which supports your view and dismiss that which opposes it. In other words you did not enter the arena with an open mind."
Case closed, just like your "open"mind!

---

The grotesque practice of admitting hooded witnesses and hearsay evidence is sufficient example for the open mind. I did not seek out Judge Harhoff. His disclosure was voluntary. Just like Ed Snowden and other brave whistle-blowers was conscious choice stand in stark contrast to the 100's or 10000's employees that remain silent in corrupt organization.

The written words of Judge Harhoff are more damning than the silence of supporters. Asking me, or anyone else, to cover our ears and close our eyes in order to "open our mind" is the same contorted (il)logic used to close cases and pass verdicts at the ICTY.

(icj1, 16 June 2015 05:22) ICTY operates per decision of UNSC which represents the international community.

---

The permanent members of the UNSC are not representative of the "international community". It is over-represented by former European colonial powers. Without permanent membership for countries from South America or Africa, and better representation of the large population in Asia, I don't think anyone accepts your fantasy that the UNSC represents the "international community" anymore than the tales of WMD that the same "international community" previously tried to legitimize.



(icj1, 16 June 2015 05:22) Because the email writings of Mr. Harhoff were not the result of a due process of law, evidence presented in court, cross-examination, legal reasoning, review by other judges or an appeal court, etc...

---

The wrtings of Judge Harhoff are part of the public record. That the ICTY refused to conduct a review, inquiry or provide for any process at all, speaks volumes about the corruption at the ICTY

(icj1, 16 June 2015 05:22) All things that make ICTY's writings being beyond reasonable doubt.

---

That's if you ignore the hooded witnesses, hearsay evidence and other contortions of logic and law.

@icj1

"That's not how criminal justice works in the civilized world, dear. It is the accuser who needs to explain why the accused is guilty of the alleged crimes; it's not the accused who needs to explain to families of his alleged victims that he is NOT guilty".

Had you red my comment carefully, you would have understood that I suggested that BOB should explain that N.O. is NOT guilty, not the accused. I was talking to BOB.

The accuser will have a hard time to explain anything to the court that is anything but transparent, ethical or honest.

(icj1, 17 June 2015 14:31) So, almost all countries in the world (except Kosovo, Taiwan and the Vatican) accept "my fantasy" as long as they don't withdraw from their membership in the UN.

---

You may wish to acknowledge the struggle of the majority of UN members that have been struggling to change the UNSC.

"The UN Security Council reform, being debated since two decades is too long overdue and the necessary expansion must be made considering how much the world has changed. ”
—Ban Ki-Moon

icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) Of course, since you did not provide any example of a SPECIFIC piece of hearsay evidence which is inadmissible but ICTY admited.

----

For one of the early specifics, please do consult the Blaksic case and the decision that there is no prohibition on the admission of hearsay evidence.

U.S. Courts allow a defendant to object to hearsay. The rules at the ICTY do not permit any objection. Your fantasies that the ICTY examines admissibility on a case by case basis are false.
Despite countless attempts by defense to object to hearsay, the ICTY has used the Blaksic decision as precedent to allow hearsay admission without prohibition.

Please read the Blaksic appeal decision and you you'll find that the terminology "without prohibition" contradicts your false claim on how the ICTY views hearsay.

@icj1
"In the civilized world it is the side that alleges a crime (the accuser, you, the victim, or whatever) that needs to explain why the accused IS guilty of the alleged crimes, not the other way around. The accused is presumed innocent, so the burden of proof is on those who allege that the accused committed a crime."

I am just going to repeat my comment:

The accuser will have a hard time to explain anything to the court that is anything but transparent, ethical or honest.

And it goes without saying that civilized world has civilized courts. Otherwise, you can keep explaining why the accused is guilty 'till you are blue in the face, but no good can come of it.

(icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you) but that does not mean they are the result of a due process of law, evidence presented in court, cross-examination, legal reasoning, review by other judges or an appeal court, etc...
---

The writings of Judge Harhoff, that you selectively dismiss, are part of the ICTY record. His writings were reviewed and assessed by Judges Moloto, Liu and Hall in a decision delivered 28 Aug 2013. Their process reviewed and recognized the content as an authentic assessment by Judge Harhoff. That a biased Judge accused the ICTY of absolute corruption was the final, in a series of fatal events that irreversibly removed any doubt about the illegitimacy of the ICTY.

I expect nothing more from self-contradictory ICTY apologists, than blatant disregard for the ICTY's own records.

Further, that the ICTY subsequently refused to initiate an investigation into corruption and launch a ANY process, as you requested, speaks volumes about the depths of corruption. Thank you for your self-defeating argument and highlighting this additional failure of the ICTY.

(a New day, 17 June 2015 15:15) So anyone who speaks against the group is telling the truth?? A good meter to use.
---
No, all speakers are not equal. Countless reputable jurists and scholars have mocked the sham ICTY; the words of a Judge from the ICTY do carry an added significance.

(a New day, 17 June 2015 15:15) use an open mind and see the overwhelming evidence of guilt that is presented.

---

I've followed ICTY proceedings in great detail with an open mind. I agree: the ICTY is guilty of a contempt for justice not seen since medieval inquisitions and Salem witch trials.

(icj1, 18 June 2015 04:26) take the testimony of person X (which you consider as hearsay evidence) in Blaksic case and apply the US rules of evidence the conclusion is going to be the same conclusion as the ICTY judges that that testimony of person X is admissible.
---

Wrong. In US courts, the judge would rule on the objection by evaluating the evidence for exception to the hearsay rule and would provide a ruling on the objection before admitting the evidence.

In contrast to US courts, the Blaskic case did not test the testimony for any exception to the hearsay rule. The appeals chamber writings lifted the prohibition to hearsay without any consideration of exception.

Consequently, there are NO SPECIFIC instances for you, me or anyone to review whether the ICTY applies exceptions to hearsay. The ICTY has no hearsay rule, nor any exception to the hearsay rule. Hearsay is allowed without requiring a judge to rule on it's admissibility.

You deny this fact and continually ask for a specific ruling on the exception to hearsay, when you know: 1. that no hearsay rule exists at the ICTY and 2. there are no rulings on exceptions to non-existent rules that the ICTY.

Your false argument is based on the rigged rules at the ICTY that exclude ANY SPECIFIC review of hearsay admissibility during a trial. That you repeatedly ask me for evidence which the ICTY process excludes, demonstrates the depth of corruption both of the ICTY and their apologists.

(icj1, 18 June 2015 04:24) the judge will rule that he/she will make a decision about a specific piece of evidence once that specific piece of evidence is presented and see if it falls into the admissible or inadmissible cases of hearsay evidence. ICTY does the same.

---

Wrong. No such instance at the ICTY exists. Please provide a reference to an ICTY trial transcript that demonstrates a judge evaluating hearsay evidence for admissibility or inadmissibility during the course of a trial.

US judges rely on detailed US law extensively describing the prohibition of hearsay and the exceptions to the rule. There is no hearsay rule at the ICTY nor any consideration of exception to hearsay.

(a New day, 18 June 2015 14:34) ICTY is guilty of contempt for justice, in allowing the continual delays and manipulations of Seselj to continue

---

How much time did Seselj use in presenting the defense case?
Fact: Zero seconds

Other questions and facts for you to ask yourself on this new day:
How long did the ICTY take before they STARTED the trial: Four Years!
How long did the OTP use to present a case and closing arguments: FIVE Years!
Who modified the (I've lost count) times indictment? The OTP
Who assigned a biased Judge to the trial chamber: Meron and the UNSC.
Who has been deliberating a verdict for (no end in sight): the ICTY

Do you want me to continue presenting evidence of manipulation by the OTP, TC, AC, registrar, secretary, and President or is this sufficient to open your mind?

(a New day, 18 June 2015 14:34) the only people capable of creating a court to oversee crimes committed by the KLA during the Kosovo War, are the very people who created this one and would employ judges from a mixture of countries just like this one. What would be different???

---

Nothing. Based on the failures of the ICTY, I have no-to-low expectations.

@icj1
"Of course, if the accuser does not have sufficient evidence and arguments to explain why the accused is guilty beyond reasonable doubt, the accuser can keep explaining 'till he/she is blue in the face, but no good can come of it. It's not the fault of the court why the accuser's case does not pass the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard.

The problem with people like you is that you believe that by repeating something 'till you're blue in the face, that will make it true :)"

The problem with people like you is that you cannot tell the difference between facts and reasonable doubt. Or you just don't care which is which:)
Autopsy reports of dr Zoran Stanojevic sent to Haig are the facts. Everything 'beyond' that is twisting, turning or spinning.

Suggested bedtime reading for you: http://www.nspm.rs/sudbina-dejtonske-bih-i-republika-srpska/nekaznjeni-zlocini-nad-srbima-u-podrinju.html?alphabet=l

Please provide a reference to an ICTY trial transcript that demonstrates a judge evaluating hearsay evidence for admissibility or inadmissibility during the course of a trial.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 15:53)

Mate, you are becoming laughing stock at this point!

In order for a judge to evaluate something, one of the parties has to ask for it. Show the specific piece of hearsay evidence that a party objected to and I'll show you the evaluation from the judge of that objection. It should be very easy for you to find an example since according to most "distinguished jurists" ICTY commits this mortal sin left and right lol
----------

Wrong. In US courts, the judge would rule on the objection by evaluating the evidence for exception to the hearsay rule and would provide a ruling on the objection before admitting the evidence.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 15:44)

Wrong what?! You are confirming what I wrote that "U.S. Courts allow a defendant or the prosecution to object to a SPECIFIC piece of hearsay evidence. If the defendant or the prosecution asks a US court to prohibit hearsay evidence in principle, the US court will say that hearsay evidence may not be subject to any prohibition in principle but the judge will rule that he/she will make a decision about a specific piece of evidence once that specific piece of evidence is presented and see if it falls into the admissible or inadmissible cases of hearsay evidence".

In contrast to US courts, the Blaskic case did not test the testimony for any exception to the hearsay rule.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 15:44)

Which testimony are you referring to? And did any of the parties object to that testimony being admitted? Details mate, details, that's where your arguments collapse.
----------

there are NO SPECIFIC instances for you, me or anyone to review whether the ICTY applies exceptions to hearsay.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 15:44)

So, no party ever filed a motion for an ICTY judge to review the admissibility of hearsay evidence?! What’s the problem that keeps you awake at night, then :)
----------

You deny this fact and continually ask for a specific ruling
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 15:44)

I did not ask for a specific ruling. I asked for an example where a party objected to a specific piece of hearsay evidence. If nobody has objected to any specific piece of hearsay evidence at the ICTY ever, not sure what you're talking about lol
----------

Your false argument is based on the rigged rules at the ICTY that exclude ANY SPECIFIC review of hearsay admissibility during a trial.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 15:44)

Show which article of ICTY's rules of procedure "exclude ANY SPECIFIC review of hearsay admissibility during a trial" without regard to the relevance or probative value of that specific piece of evidence. Rules are not rigged just because you say so without providing any arguments.

The writings of Judge Harhoff, that you selectively dismiss, are part of the ICTY record.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:31)

I did not say that they are not But thanks for the reminder :)
----------

His writings were reviewed and assessed by Judges Moloto, Liu and Hall in a decision delivered 28 Aug 2013. Their process reviewed and recognized the content as an authentic assessment by Judge Harhoff.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:31)

Well, the decision notes that Judge Harhoff in an email to friends said X (X being the content of the email). Nobody is disputing that Judge Harhoff wrote X. So your point is?!
----------

That a biased Judge accused the ICTY of absolute corruption was the final, in a series of fatal events that irreversibly removed any doubt about the illegitimacy of the ICTY.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:31)

Sure, just clarify that you are referring to your "doubts". The international community has no such doubts.
----------

Further, that the ICTY subsequently refused to initiate an investigation into corruption and launch a ANY process, as you requested, speaks volumes about the depths of corruption.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:31)

I did not request anything and I could not since the email of Judge Harhoff did not contain any evidence or argument in support of what he wrote. Not sure what's to investigate! Conspiracy theories?! There has to be a minimum of facts or evidence for investigation.

(icj1, 19 June 2015 05:30) I asked for an example where a party objected to a specific piece of hearsay evidence. If nobody has objected to any specific piece of hearsay evidence at the ICTY ever, not sure what you're talking about lol
---

If you're not sure, then let me simply summarize this week's exchange:

1. In contrast to US courts, parties at the ICTY CAN NOT OBJECT to the admissibility of hearsay.

2. icj1 refuses to admit point 1.

3. Readers laugh at point 2.

4. Amnesty Yugoslavia reiterates point 1.

5. Repeat steps 2 to 4

(icj1, 19 June 2015 05:40) The writings of Judge Harhoff, that you selectively dismiss, are part of the ICTY record.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:31)

I did not say that they are not But thanks for the reminder :)
----------


YOU questioned the record.
Now, your laughable double negative responses superbly reflect the emptiness of your arguments. I'm surprised that you can still breath given the magnitude of contortions and convolutions that you must employ with each response. You should hear the unrestricted roar of laughter on my end.


(icj1, 19 June 2015 05:40) Nobody is disputing that Judge Harhoff wrote X. So your point is?!
----------

Perhaps you should consult a neurocognitive specialist. You've become so twisted by your contortions that cerebral hypoxia has clearly affected your short term memory. You can't even remember that YOU questioned the meaning of "public record". My point cited the public record with the judicial review and authentication of Judge Harhoff`s writings.

(icj1, 19 June 2015 05:40) Sure, just clarify that you are referring to your "doubts". The international community has no such doubts.
----

Let`s take this one step at a time. You should first demonstrate that you can consistently speak for yourself and remember what you said, before we tackle your delusions about an "international community".

(icj1, 22 June 2015 14:07) Of course I can't remember saying that because I wrote nowhere that I "question the meaning of "public record"". Citations mate, citations... You make a lot of empty talk without citations.
----------

On June 16 16:58 I commented that the writings of Judge Harhoff are part of the public record.

icj1 (icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) then wrote: "Yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you)"

---

Your parenthetic remark expressed with the phrase "whatever that means" apparently questioned my use of the term of public record. If you now deny questioning my use of the term "public record", then please tell us your aim in adding the words "whatever that means".

Your contortions and convolutions with regard to the term "public record" in our exchange are as hollow as your denial that trial chambers DO NOT ALLOW objections to hearsay during the presentation of evidence at the ICTY.

I do enjoy seeing you contorting and squirming. Please continue.

(icj1, 22 June 2015 14:07) Sure mate the international community (except Kosovo, Taiwan and the Vatican) which has established ICTY is deluded except you!

---

icj1's contorting prose above states that the "international community" has established the ICTY is deluded. I agree.

(icj1, 22 June 2015 14:07) Sure mate the international community (except Kosovo, Taiwan and the Vatican) which has established ICTY is deluded except you!
---
icj1's contorting prose above states that the "international community" has established the ICTY is deluded. I agree.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 23 June 2015 13:23)

Excellent! After almost all your arguments were shown to not be supported by any evidence, we agree on that as well. It's great though that while almost the entire international community is deluded, there is somebody (i.e. you) who is not :) Hopefully one day you will illuminate the world with your thoughts haha
----------

(icj1, 22 June 2015 14:07) Of course I can't remember saying that because I wrote nowhere that I "question the meaning of "public record"". Citations mate, citations... You make a lot of empty talk without citations.
----------
On June 16 16:58 I commented that the writings of Judge Harhoff are part of the public record.
icj1 (icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) then wrote: "Yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you)"
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 23 June 2015 06:55)

So where did I "question the meaning of "public record""?! still impatiently waiting you to provide the quote! If you can't don't worry - as I said before it's already known that citations are very challenging for you lol

If you now deny questioning my use of the term "public record", then please tell us your aim in adding the words "whatever that means".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 23 June 2015 06:55)

Not sure how I can deny something I did not say lol I did not ask you any question about what "public record" means for you and I did not dispute your understanding of the "public record". Do you know the meaning of the verb "question" in English?!

So not sure where you read that I "questioned" your use of the term "public record"! You have a very vivid fantasy and comment on what you wanted somebody to write not on what that somebody actually wrote :)
----------

your denial that trial chambers DO NOT ALLOW objections to hearsay during the presentation of evidence at the ICTY.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 23 June 2015 06:55)

I can't deny something that nobody showed to exist :) You could not show even a single example of a judgement where ICTY took into account a piece of hearsay evidence without consideration as to its relevance and probative value - not a single example! So this was much ado about nothing...

(icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) wrote: "Yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you)"

and then

(icj1, 27 June 2015 03:13) So where did I "question the meaning of "public record""?!

B92 readers can decide for themselves whether your 27 June comment contradicts your 10 June parenthetic remark.

(icj1, 27 June 2015 03:30) I can't deny something that nobody showed to exist :) You could not show even a single example of a judgement where ICTY took into account a piece of hearsay evidence without consideration as to its relevance and probative value - not a single example! So this was much ado about nothing...

---

icj1, please consult a first year law student to learn that judgments are first preceded by the presentation of evidence. In reputable judiciaries, the presentation and admission of evidence is governed by rules. Laughably, at the ICTY circus, there are no rules for presenting and admitting hearsay evidence. Nothing. Zero. Nil. Empty. That you gloat over this abomination demonstrates the warped contempt for justice held by ICTY apologists.

Courts that aim for justice, have rules against hearsay that are applied DURING the presentation of evidence. Parties may object during the presentation and demand a ruling on admissibility or inadmissibility before closing arguments and before deliberation begins on the admitted evidence.

The ICTY has no rules on hearsay. All hearsay is admitted. Defense can not object, nor can the defense cross-examine the originating source of the hearsay evidence.

Clearly the ICTY does not believe that cross-examination is a “legal engine invented for the discovery of truth". "Truth" at the ICTY is laughably predetermined by the Judges.

(icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) wrote: "Yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you)"

and then

(icj1, 27 June 2015 03:13) So where did I "question the meaning of "public record""?!

B92 readers can decide for themselves whether your 27 June comment contradicts your 10 June parenthetic remark.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 30 June 2015 06:14)

Wow, finally! I see you're starting to make some progress in your ability to citate lol At least we're getting some results from these postings!

In this case though, what you are citating proves that your statement that I "question the meaning of "public record"" is wrong. "Whatever" in English means "it is not important what is; it makes no difference what (is):". Not sure which dictionary you used to make "question" a synonym of "whatever"!

And finally, even if we forget about what "whatever" or "question" mean in English (which apparently you are not aware of), I wrote "whatever that means for you" not just "whatever that means". Therefore your statement "question the meaning of "public record"" misses the "for you" part at the end.

Sorry mate that you embarked on an exercise to nowhere, which in any case was dismantled like the rest of your amateurish arguments. But I hope you learned how useful the citations are! They clarify immediately if somebody (i.e. you in this case) is wrong :)

Laughably, at the ICTY circus, there are no rules for presenting and admitting hearsay evidence. Nothing. Zero. Nil. Empty. That you gloat over this abomination demonstrates the warped contempt for justice held by ICTY apologists.

Courts that aim for justice, have rules against hearsay that are applied DURING the presentation of evidence. Parties may object during the presentation and demand a ruling on admissibility or inadmissibility before closing arguments and before deliberation begins on the admitted evidence.

The ICTY has no rules on hearsay. All hearsay is admitted. Defense can not object, nor can the defense cross-examine the originating source of the hearsay evidence.

Clearly the ICTY does not believe that cross-examination is a “legal engine invented for the discovery of truth". "Truth" at the ICTY is laughably predetermined by the Judges.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 30 June 2015 06:56)

If that's the case, please provide a single example where a piece of hearsay evidence was used by ICTY to decide facts in a judgement, without consideration to objections from the parties and without regard to or analysis of the relevance and probative value of that piece of evidence. Basically, was somebody incorrectly sent to jail or set free because of a piece of hearsay evidence?

It you don't have even a single example, than it's much ado about nothing :) Arguments can't be taken as being being correct just because you say so!

(icj1, 4 July 2015 16:13) Not sure which dictionary you used to make "question" a synonym of "whatever"!

---

If you are unsure, then please do consult any number of dictionaries (e.g. Merriam Webster, or Oxford) that define "whatever" as a pronoun used in place "what". I am sorry you are unsure about the English language and do not realize that "whatever" can be used as a pronoun, determiner, adverb, or exclamation.

Your twisted responses and contorted rebuttals often substantiate your confusions. You do not have to emphasize your unsureness, it is plainly evident with your well entrenched nihilistic philoosphy.

(icj1, 4 July 2015 16:43) If that's the case, please provide a single example where a piece of hearsay evidence was used by ICTY to decide facts in a judgement, without consideration to objections from the parties and without regard to or analysis of the relevance and probative value of that piece of evidence. Basically, was somebody incorrectly sent to jail or set free because of a piece of hearsay evidence?

It you don't have even a single example, than it's much ado about nothing :) Arguments can't be taken as being being correct just because you say so!
----

It's the ICTY that does not allow objections to hearsay. No cross examination is possible since the originating source of evidence is laughably not required not required at the ICTY. The ICTY admits all hearsay. Among reputable jurists the ICTY is indeed nothing.

If you are unsure, then please do consult any number of dictionaries (e.g. Merriam Webster, or Oxford) that define "whatever" as a pronoun used in place "what".
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 6 July 2015 16:20)

Yup, I did consult them in advance haha and none of them defined "whatever" as "question"; same thing that you found above. Mate, this is very simple: if you are trying to say that I said "whatever that means for you" about your mention of "public record", yeah I said that :)
-----------

It's the ICTY that does not allow objections to hearsay. No cross examination is possible since the originating source of evidence is laughably not required not required at the ICTY. The ICTY admits all hearsay. Among reputable jurists the ICTY is indeed nothing.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 6 July 2015 16:37)

Sure. Just the usual disclaimer that "reputable jurists" in this case means a certain Amnesty Yugoslavia. And obviously the statement above can't be seriously taken as the only argument provided is because you said so.

You provided not a single example where ICTY decided facts in a judgement relying on a piece of hearsay evidence, without consideration to objections from the parties, regard to or analysis of the relevance and probative value of that piece of evidence. In addition, if you do a minimum research of ICTY's judgements, I'm sure you can easily find that ICTY has declined to rely on hearsay evidence at least once, which is sufficient to prove that you're wrong!

(icj1, 10 July 2015 04:58) Yup, I did consult them in advance haha and none of them defined "whatever" as "question";
---
icj1, you're obviously unfamiliar with dictionaries. Words such as "whatever" or "what" are categorized as pronouns, determiners or adverbs. In the English language, such words are used in questions.


(icj1, 10 July 2015 04:58) You provided not a single example where ICTY decided facts in a judgement relying on a piece of hearsay evidence, without consideration to objections from the parties, regard to or analysis of the relevance and probative value of that piece of evidence. In addition, if you do a minimum research of ICTY's judgements, I'm sure you can easily find that ICTY has declined to rely on hearsay evidence at least once, which is sufficient to prove that you're wrong!
---

The issue of verdicts on indictments is another comedic topic from the ICTY circus. We are focused on the laughable farce for ICTY rules of evidence. Beyond the warped ICTY world, you'll learn in reputable judiciaries verdicts are preceded by the presentation of evidence where rules of evidence govern admissibility or inadmissibility. At the ICTY, there are NO RULES against hearsay. Parties CAN NOT object during the presentation of evidence and consequently, there is no example of consideration of an objection, because the ICTY does not allow objections to hearsay and admits all hearsay. Laughable.

icj1, you're obviously unfamiliar with dictionaries. Words such as "whatever" or "what" are categorized as pronouns, determiners or adverbs. In the English language, such words are used in questions.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 10 July 2015 13:48)

Yeah, but I did not ask a question so there was no question to use it in, in the first place :) So that option of the meaning you are trying to assign does not apply. You see mate, regardless of how you try to spin it, you always reach a dead end. As I said, this is very simple - just quote what I said in regards to your mentioning of public record: "whatever that means for you"
----------

At the ICTY, there are NO RULES against hearsay.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 10 July 2015 13:48)

So are you saying that ICTY has never declined to rely on hearsay evidence in its judgements?

(icj1, 12 July 2015 16:43) So are you saying that ICTY has never declined to rely on hearsay evidence in its judgements?

---

I am saying that the processes at the ICTY are corrupted at stages that PRECEDE judgment or verdicts on indictments. Reputable judiciaries, such as US courts determine admissibility or admissibility of hearsay during the presentation of evidence (and prior to starting deliberation) based on defined and detailed rules. No such rules exist at the ICTY. The standard of evidence presented and admitted at the ICTY is laughable.

The OTP uses the deplorable standards for evidence and scandalous rules to paralyze and inhibit any possible defense. Cases at the ICTY commonly have more than one million documents during pre-trial disclosure, most of which are irrelevant and provide for little first hand evidence or testimony. No reputable judiciary would tolerate such rubbish.

That idiotic land claims judges at the ICTY, who prior to their appointment at the ICTY never adjudicated a criminal trial, can't distinguish eyewitness testimony from seventh-hand hearsay is a separate issue distinct from the laughable rules of evidence.

(icj1, 12 July 2015 16:43) Yeah, but I did not ask a question so there was no question to use it in, in the first place :
---

Let's recap the sequence of our exchange from 16-19 June:
1.(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:58) The writings of Judge Harhoff are part of the public record.

then icj1 in parentheses questions my meaning of public record
2. (icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) Yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you)

At which point I responded:
3. (Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:31) the writings of Judge Harhoff are part of the ICTY record.

4. icj1 then thanks me for answering the question of my meaning
ICTY record. (icj1, 19 June 2015 05:40) "...thanks for the reminder"

Epilogue: icj1 should consult a neurocognitive specialist immediately as he/she has clinically impaired recall capacity.

Let's recap the sequence of our exchange from 16-19 June:
1.(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 June 2015 16:58) The writings of Judge Harhoff are part of the public record.

then icj1 in parentheses questions my meaning of public record
2. (icj1, 17 June 2015 14:33) Yeah like many other things which are part of public records (whatever that means for you)

At which point I responded:
3. (Amnesty Yugoslavia, 18 June 2015 07:31) the writings of Judge Harhoff are part of the ICTY record.

4. icj1 then thanks me for answering the question of my meaning
ICTY record. (icj1, 19 June 2015 05:40) "...thanks for the reminder"
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 14 July 2015 07:00)

Thanks for the recap (the quotations part) so I did not have to waste time to find them. So, yes, you are correct that I said "whatever that means for you". But I did not thank you "for answering the question of [your] meaning of ICTY record" because I did not ask any question about that! I said "thanks for the reminder" and "answer" is not a synonym of "reminder". As I said earlier, regardless of how you spin it, you always reach a dead end. Let's see the next spin now - I'm sure it will have the same fate lol

(icj1, 12 July 2015 16:43) So are you saying that ICTY has never declined to rely on hearsay evidence in its judgements?
---
I am saying that the processes at the ICTY are corrupted at stages that PRECEDE judgment or verdicts on indictments.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 14 July 2015 06:57)

Well, that's your opinion. You have not provided a shred of evidence about that. But let's assume it is so.

The question still remains, whether this "corrupted" process has led to a situation where ICTY has never declined to rely on hearsay evidence in its judgements. Ultimately, it is the judgement that sends somebody to jail or sets him/her free.

In other words, if the Court says that exhibit X can be addmitted (or as you like to call it - be part of the public record) and then in the judgement the Court says that it declined to rely on exhibit X, the practical impact is the same as if had not been admitted. That's why I'm asking you about the judgement - this is very simple dear; it's not rocket science, especially for a distinguished jurist like you!

(icj1, 15 July 2015 04:18) The question still remains, whether this "corrupted" process has led to a situation where ICTY has never declined to rely on hearsay evidence in its judgements. Ultimately, it is the judgement that sends somebody to jail or sets him/her free.
---

Wrong. False. Completely untrue. The following is fact supported by evidence you and readers know: At the ICTY and with their corrupt processes, an allegation or indictment based on scandalous rules of evidence is all that is required to arrest and jail someone. In this corrupt system, there are cases where people have been jailed for more than 10 years, or have died during incarceration without ANY judgement. That blind ICTY apologists refuse to recognize these crimes speaks volumes about their complete disregard for justice.

(icj1, 15 July 2015 04:18) The question still remains, whether this "corrupted" process has led to a situation where ICTY has never declined to rely on hearsay evidence in its judgements. Ultimately, it is the judgement that sends somebody to jail or sets him/her free.
---

Wrong. False. Completely untrue.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 15 July 2015 15:44)

Have you checked all ICTY's judgements and found that ICTY has never declined to rely on hearsay evidence?! Just because you say "Wrong. False. Completely untrue" doesn't make it so!
----------

The following is fact supported by evidence you and readers know: At the ICTY and with their corrupt processes, an allegation or indictment based on scandalous rules of evidence is all that is required to arrest and jail someone.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 15 July 2015 15:44)

That's not a fact - it's a blatant lie. "An allegation or indictment" is NOT "all that is required to arrest and jail someone". A judge has to confirm the indictment and issue an order/warrant for the arrest, detention, surrender or transfer of someone
----------

In this corrupt system, there are cases where people have been jailed for more than 10 years, or have died during incarceration without ANY judgement.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 15 July 2015 15:44)

You have not provided any evidence to support the above. You might want to start with showing, at least, one case where ICTY has jailed a person "for more than 10 years without ANY judgement"