"Order Seselj back in custody immediately"

If the Appeal Chamber wanted to order him back they should have issued the order. Only in the convoluted up-is-down / down-is-up world of the ICTY, does an appeal chamber issue an order for a trial chamber to overturn its own order. Laughable idiocy.

Amnesty Yugoslavia, 14 April 2015 14:48)
In the real legal world and not the fantasyland you have built for yourself, an appeals court very often sends orders to the court deciding on a case on what to do.
The Appeals court would not have a reason to order him back themselves as he has no case before the Appeals chamber, his case is before the trial chamber and the order is for the trial chamber not Seselj, himself.

Guess you were sick the day they taught that in your imaginary law school.

This is the perfect opportunity for Serbia to show they deserve to be included in the family of civilized nations. They must captured mad dog Seselj and deliver him to the Hague, alive if possible, but not necessarily required.

(doodah, 14 April 2015 15:51)The Appeals court would not have a reason to order him back themselves as he has no case before the Appeals chamber, his case is before the trial chamber and the order is for the trial chamber not Seselj, himself.

---

Since you allege this is not fantasy, then please provide reference to the ICTY case law for Appeals Chambers decisions on the breach of conditions for provisional release.
You may also wish to tell us: What conditions were presented and accepted by the accused, and which condition(s) did he breach? While you search, you'll probably come across this small ICTY Fact: The trial chamber presented NO conditions to the accused. This is reality. The fantasies of the ICTY and its apologists are a laughable comedy and I, as a spectator, thank you for this amusing spectacle.

No one is talking about seselj. First post is right and funny because court a is asking court "b" to undo what court "a" did! Why did court a do what it did anyway? If it doesn't matter that he has cancer now why did it then?

This is the perfect opportunity for Serbia to show they deserve to be included in the family of civilized nations. They must captured mad dog Seselj and deliver him to the Hague, alive if possible, but not necessarily required.
(The Count of Kosova, 14 April 2015 21:43)
---------------------------------
You talk about civilized nations and here you are sounding like a mad dog yourself. You are ready to make a wanted poster saying "Seselj a.k.a. Mad dog wanted, delivered alive or dead. No reward offered."
Do you not see how you sound at all?

@ count of Kosovo... and you Albanians are civilized. lol

The Hague are not only a joke, a cabal of unprofessional NATO lackey puppets who take orders from unelected neocons in Washington, but they are also inhumane. These people are so stupid it would be humorous if not so tragic. They keep a completely innocent man locked up for 11 years, without a decision, then release him because he has cancer, and now want him back in the cell, based on no evidence!! You can't make this stuff up, it's surreal. As for the hateful albo trolls on here talking as if they are part of the 'civilized world'...LOL. This is better than Monty Python.
Cheers!!

Seselj is the Stability and Peace of Serbia,
dont touch Him.

Arn.Sweden.

(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 14 April 2015 20:21)
Glad you are amused, have found throughout life the simple minded are easily amused. Have no interest in playing this game, nor interest in spending the time to peruse case law or tribunal rulings for common sense issues.
The tribunal did issue conditions but it did not require him to agree to them. They still have jurisdiction over him and if an arrest warrant is issued it will be up to Serbia to decide whether they want to deliver him to the authorities. Whether you are smiling or laughing, it makes no difference, they do not entertain your desires, and whether you think it is a bogus court is of no consequence.
Most criminals are of same mind in any court in any country, they all claim it is the courts that are corrupt and never that they actually deserve the justice they receive.
Seselj has proven that his following has diminished to a handful of ultranationalists such as yourself and while he may play his games and amuse himself, much the way you do, he is no longer a threat to any people.
IF he is truly ill, he may escape justice in this world but not in the next. The justice system there is without appeals, and is not subject to his manipulations of delay.
But anyone who has studied courts as much as you claim knows that there are always rulings that can be appealed to an appeals chambers on how a court is to proceed.

(Anon, 15 April 2015 01:26)

I merely replied to your request: "Since you allege this is not fantasy, then please provide reference to the ICTY case law for Appeals Chambers decisions on the breach of conditions for provisional release."

I said no more. You are free to laugh with yourself but I personally have said nothing about precedence (you will, however, find references to precedence in the cited documents).

The word 'look' implies nothing with respect to the act of 'reading', so you are (incorrectly) making another assumption.

I am no ICTY apologist. I merely provided links to some publicly accessible information in direct response to a question, you are now taking that response and expanding it into many other (incorrect) statements through assumption. But to respond to your last point, in my opinion it is better that a body can publicly judge and comment upon itself (and any mistakes that are made) rather than create a fake veil to hide them. There is no way for a system to be corrected without the propagation of error. This therefore should be welcomed rather than laughed at.

Since you allege this is not fantasy, then please provide reference to the ICTY case law for Appeals Chambers decisions on the breach of conditions for provisional release.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 14 April 2015 20:21)

---

It's really simple if you look, it's all publicly available online and the following clearly state the breach of conditions:

http://www.icty.org/x/cases/seselj/tdec/en/150410_1.pdf
10 April 2015: INTERLOCUTORY DECISION BEFORE RULING ON THE MERIT OF THE REVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONAL RELEASE OF THE ACCUSED

http://www.icty.org/x/cases/seselj/acdec/en/150330.pdf
30 March 2015: DECISION ON PROSECUTION APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION ON THE PROSECUTION MOTION TO REVOKE THE PROVISIONAL RELEASE OF THE ACCUSED

http://www.icty.org/x/cases/seselj/tdec/en/150113.pdf
13 January 2015: DECISION ON PROSECUTION MOTION TO REVOKE PROVISIONAL RELEASE


The appeal being (with references to the presented evidence): http://icr.icty.org/LegalRef/CMSDocStore/Public/English/Request/NotIndexable/IT-03-67-AR65%231/MOT10186R0000442330.pdf

(Anon, 15 April 2015 01:26)It's really simple if you look, ...
[link]
10 April 2015: INTERLOCUTORY DECISION BEFORE RULING ON THE MERIT OF THE REVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONAL RELEASE OF THE ACCUSED

---

Rather than look, let's read one small tidbit of this legal lunacy:

Niang writes: " It (the Appeals Chamber) places the Trial Chamber Judges in the uncomfortable, even untenable - not to say unacceptable - position of having to rule, while having lost their imperium, since there is nothing left for them to rule on."

Yes it is indeed very simple...a judge from the trail Chamber is mocking the AC. Laughable.

(Anon, 15 April 2015 13:27) in my opinion it is better that a body can publicly judge and comment upon itself (and any mistakes that are made) rather than create a fake veil to hide them. There is no way for a system to be corrected without the propagation of error. This therefore should be welcomed rather than laughed at.

---

We are making progress as we now both agree ICTY erred.

The problem is that in most reputable judiciaries errors are rectified during the Appeal process. At the ICTY in contrast, errors are introduced and propagated by the Appeals Chamber. What is the recourse if the Appeals Chamber introduces and propagates error? Propagation of errors during Appeal should not be welcomed. It is total incompetence and a corruption of justice. I guess if you welcome it, so be it; but if you can't laugh, then for the sake of justice, you should at least be crying.

(Anon, 15 April 2015 01:26) It's really simple if you look, it's all publicly available online and the following clearly state the breach of conditions:
---

Case law is precedent in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court. That Anon and ICTY apologists use the current case as an example of precedent is more laughable idiocy consistent with ICTY convoluted logic.

(doodah, 15 April 2015 22:08)As far as "why" they released him in the first place, will probably be one of those life long mysteries that has no rationale.

---

According to Judge Harhoff, the ICTY does not rely on rationale, evidence or law but is instead guided by external political diktat.

According to Judge Harhoff, the ICTY does not rely on rationale, evidence or law but is instead guided by external political diktat.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 April 2015 13:30)
One mans opinion and now there are 2 of you!
Previously you had ask me to quote rules or precedents that allowed the appeals chamber from issuing orders back to the trial chamber when petitioned, I give you the same challenge but I will not limit it to the Hague, find any judicial system in the world that has in writing that the appeals court (if they have one) does not have authority to review cases and decisions made by lower courts and issue rulings and orders, once they have been petitioned to do so.
See you in about 25 years when you have exhausted every avenue trying to find such a thing.

(doodah, 16 April 2015 13:59)One mans opinion and now there are 2 of you!
---

I'm glad that you also recognize the written opinions of ICTY Judges are as credible as any individual's internet comments; many other legal experts agree with us and have buried the ICTY coffin long ago.

(doodah, 16 April 2015 13:59) Previously you had ask me to quote rules or precedents that allowed the appeals chamber from issuing orders back to the trial chamber when petitioned.

---

I asked no such thing.
Please use your scroll function and reread my request which I ask of you again: "please provide reference to the ICTY case law for Appeals Chambers decisions on the breach of conditions for provisional release".

I asked you to quote any preceding decisions by the Appeal Chamber on breach of conditions for provisional release.

The March 30th AC decision is convoluted illogical drivel which is being mocked by the ICTY's judical clowns. I simply asked you: what is the precedence for this specific legal lunacy? What were the other AC decisions on the same subject?

No one is talking about seselj. First post is right and funny because court a is asking court "b" to undo what court "a" did! Why did court a do what it did anyway? If it doesn't matter that he has cancer now why did it then?
(Brian, 14 April 2015 22:27)
Brian you are wrong on the scenario of court b and court a. The appeals chamber sole purpose is to review decisions made by the trial chamber. Either party, the prosecution or the defense has the right to appeal any decision, not necessarily verdicts, as any decision rendered during the course of the trial can be appealed. They do not take on cases or decisions or orders that have not gone through the trial chamber first.
As far as "why" they released him in the first place, will probably be one of those life long mysteries that has no rationale.

If the Appeal Chamber wanted to order him back they should have issued the order. Only in the convoluted up-is-down / down-is-up world of the ICTY, does an appeal chamber issue an order for a trial chamber to overturn its own order. Laughable idiocy.

Amnesty Yugoslavia, 14 April 2015 14:48)
In the real legal world and not the fantasyland you have built for yourself, an appeals court very often sends orders to the court deciding on a case on what to do.
The Appeals court would not have a reason to order him back themselves as he has no case before the Appeals chamber, his case is before the trial chamber and the order is for the trial chamber not Seselj, himself.

Guess you were sick the day they taught that in your imaginary law school.

This is the perfect opportunity for Serbia to show they deserve to be included in the family of civilized nations. They must captured mad dog Seselj and deliver him to the Hague, alive if possible, but not necessarily required.

(doodah, 14 April 2015 15:51)The Appeals court would not have a reason to order him back themselves as he has no case before the Appeals chamber, his case is before the trial chamber and the order is for the trial chamber not Seselj, himself.

---

Since you allege this is not fantasy, then please provide reference to the ICTY case law for Appeals Chambers decisions on the breach of conditions for provisional release.
You may also wish to tell us: What conditions were presented and accepted by the accused, and which condition(s) did he breach? While you search, you'll probably come across this small ICTY Fact: The trial chamber presented NO conditions to the accused. This is reality. The fantasies of the ICTY and its apologists are a laughable comedy and I, as a spectator, thank you for this amusing spectacle.

(Anon, 15 April 2015 01:26)It's really simple if you look, ...
[link]
10 April 2015: INTERLOCUTORY DECISION BEFORE RULING ON THE MERIT OF THE REVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONAL RELEASE OF THE ACCUSED

---

Rather than look, let's read one small tidbit of this legal lunacy:

Niang writes: " It (the Appeals Chamber) places the Trial Chamber Judges in the uncomfortable, even untenable - not to say unacceptable - position of having to rule, while having lost their imperium, since there is nothing left for them to rule on."

Yes it is indeed very simple...a judge from the trail Chamber is mocking the AC. Laughable.

This is the perfect opportunity for Serbia to show they deserve to be included in the family of civilized nations. They must captured mad dog Seselj and deliver him to the Hague, alive if possible, but not necessarily required.
(The Count of Kosova, 14 April 2015 21:43)
---------------------------------
You talk about civilized nations and here you are sounding like a mad dog yourself. You are ready to make a wanted poster saying "Seselj a.k.a. Mad dog wanted, delivered alive or dead. No reward offered."
Do you not see how you sound at all?

(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 14 April 2015 20:21)
Glad you are amused, have found throughout life the simple minded are easily amused. Have no interest in playing this game, nor interest in spending the time to peruse case law or tribunal rulings for common sense issues.
The tribunal did issue conditions but it did not require him to agree to them. They still have jurisdiction over him and if an arrest warrant is issued it will be up to Serbia to decide whether they want to deliver him to the authorities. Whether you are smiling or laughing, it makes no difference, they do not entertain your desires, and whether you think it is a bogus court is of no consequence.
Most criminals are of same mind in any court in any country, they all claim it is the courts that are corrupt and never that they actually deserve the justice they receive.
Seselj has proven that his following has diminished to a handful of ultranationalists such as yourself and while he may play his games and amuse himself, much the way you do, he is no longer a threat to any people.
IF he is truly ill, he may escape justice in this world but not in the next. The justice system there is without appeals, and is not subject to his manipulations of delay.
But anyone who has studied courts as much as you claim knows that there are always rulings that can be appealed to an appeals chambers on how a court is to proceed.

Seselj is the Stability and Peace of Serbia,
dont touch Him.

Arn.Sweden.

(Anon, 15 April 2015 01:26) It's really simple if you look, it's all publicly available online and the following clearly state the breach of conditions:
---

Case law is precedent in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court. That Anon and ICTY apologists use the current case as an example of precedent is more laughable idiocy consistent with ICTY convoluted logic.

No one is talking about seselj. First post is right and funny because court a is asking court "b" to undo what court "a" did! Why did court a do what it did anyway? If it doesn't matter that he has cancer now why did it then?

The Hague are not only a joke, a cabal of unprofessional NATO lackey puppets who take orders from unelected neocons in Washington, but they are also inhumane. These people are so stupid it would be humorous if not so tragic. They keep a completely innocent man locked up for 11 years, without a decision, then release him because he has cancer, and now want him back in the cell, based on no evidence!! You can't make this stuff up, it's surreal. As for the hateful albo trolls on here talking as if they are part of the 'civilized world'...LOL. This is better than Monty Python.
Cheers!!

(Anon, 15 April 2015 13:27) in my opinion it is better that a body can publicly judge and comment upon itself (and any mistakes that are made) rather than create a fake veil to hide them. There is no way for a system to be corrected without the propagation of error. This therefore should be welcomed rather than laughed at.

---

We are making progress as we now both agree ICTY erred.

The problem is that in most reputable judiciaries errors are rectified during the Appeal process. At the ICTY in contrast, errors are introduced and propagated by the Appeals Chamber. What is the recourse if the Appeals Chamber introduces and propagates error? Propagation of errors during Appeal should not be welcomed. It is total incompetence and a corruption of justice. I guess if you welcome it, so be it; but if you can't laugh, then for the sake of justice, you should at least be crying.

(doodah, 16 April 2015 13:59)One mans opinion and now there are 2 of you!
---

I'm glad that you also recognize the written opinions of ICTY Judges are as credible as any individual's internet comments; many other legal experts agree with us and have buried the ICTY coffin long ago.

(doodah, 16 April 2015 13:59) Previously you had ask me to quote rules or precedents that allowed the appeals chamber from issuing orders back to the trial chamber when petitioned.

---

I asked no such thing.
Please use your scroll function and reread my request which I ask of you again: "please provide reference to the ICTY case law for Appeals Chambers decisions on the breach of conditions for provisional release".

I asked you to quote any preceding decisions by the Appeal Chamber on breach of conditions for provisional release.

The March 30th AC decision is convoluted illogical drivel which is being mocked by the ICTY's judical clowns. I simply asked you: what is the precedence for this specific legal lunacy? What were the other AC decisions on the same subject?

Since you allege this is not fantasy, then please provide reference to the ICTY case law for Appeals Chambers decisions on the breach of conditions for provisional release.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 14 April 2015 20:21)

---

It's really simple if you look, it's all publicly available online and the following clearly state the breach of conditions:

http://www.icty.org/x/cases/seselj/tdec/en/150410_1.pdf
10 April 2015: INTERLOCUTORY DECISION BEFORE RULING ON THE MERIT OF THE REVOCATION OF THE PROVISIONAL RELEASE OF THE ACCUSED

http://www.icty.org/x/cases/seselj/acdec/en/150330.pdf
30 March 2015: DECISION ON PROSECUTION APPEAL AGAINST THE DECISION ON THE PROSECUTION MOTION TO REVOKE THE PROVISIONAL RELEASE OF THE ACCUSED

http://www.icty.org/x/cases/seselj/tdec/en/150113.pdf
13 January 2015: DECISION ON PROSECUTION MOTION TO REVOKE PROVISIONAL RELEASE


The appeal being (with references to the presented evidence): http://icr.icty.org/LegalRef/CMSDocStore/Public/English/Request/NotIndexable/IT-03-67-AR65%231/MOT10186R0000442330.pdf

@ count of Kosovo... and you Albanians are civilized. lol

(doodah, 15 April 2015 22:08)As far as "why" they released him in the first place, will probably be one of those life long mysteries that has no rationale.

---

According to Judge Harhoff, the ICTY does not rely on rationale, evidence or law but is instead guided by external political diktat.

According to Judge Harhoff, the ICTY does not rely on rationale, evidence or law but is instead guided by external political diktat.
(Amnesty Yugoslavia, 16 April 2015 13:30)
One mans opinion and now there are 2 of you!
Previously you had ask me to quote rules or precedents that allowed the appeals chamber from issuing orders back to the trial chamber when petitioned, I give you the same challenge but I will not limit it to the Hague, find any judicial system in the world that has in writing that the appeals court (if they have one) does not have authority to review cases and decisions made by lower courts and issue rulings and orders, once they have been petitioned to do so.
See you in about 25 years when you have exhausted every avenue trying to find such a thing.

(Anon, 15 April 2015 01:26)

I merely replied to your request: "Since you allege this is not fantasy, then please provide reference to the ICTY case law for Appeals Chambers decisions on the breach of conditions for provisional release."

I said no more. You are free to laugh with yourself but I personally have said nothing about precedence (you will, however, find references to precedence in the cited documents).

The word 'look' implies nothing with respect to the act of 'reading', so you are (incorrectly) making another assumption.

I am no ICTY apologist. I merely provided links to some publicly accessible information in direct response to a question, you are now taking that response and expanding it into many other (incorrect) statements through assumption. But to respond to your last point, in my opinion it is better that a body can publicly judge and comment upon itself (and any mistakes that are made) rather than create a fake veil to hide them. There is no way for a system to be corrected without the propagation of error. This therefore should be welcomed rather than laughed at.

No one is talking about seselj. First post is right and funny because court a is asking court "b" to undo what court "a" did! Why did court a do what it did anyway? If it doesn't matter that he has cancer now why did it then?
(Brian, 14 April 2015 22:27)
Brian you are wrong on the scenario of court b and court a. The appeals chamber sole purpose is to review decisions made by the trial chamber. Either party, the prosecution or the defense has the right to appeal any decision, not necessarily verdicts, as any decision rendered during the course of the trial can be appealed. They do not take on cases or decisions or orders that have not gone through the trial chamber first.
As far as "why" they released him in the first place, will probably be one of those life long mysteries that has no rationale.