Serbia as a Suspect

Last Friday, on June 30th, the draft of the Law against Terrorism was sent back to the Federal Government for reinstallation. The first who attempted to gain some profit out of that was the Serbian Radical Party which, the day before the Parliament's session, announced that its representatives would not vote that law until it is perfected and in accordance with the legal system. Also, the day before the Parliament's session, on Thursday, the media still broadcast the defence of that law by the Radical Federal Minister of Justice, while the Minister of Internal Affairs of Serbia and member of the Main Board of SPS, Vlajko Stojiljkovic accused the West of direct financing and organising of terrorism which, according to his words, 'are supposed to be put into effect by way of the terrorist-fascist movement, known as the Resistance as well as other non-governmental organisations which, in fact, work for the West'. From the statement of the Federal Minister, Groan Mastic, addressing the Russian media, could also be concluded that this law's primary task is to thwart the Resistance. Zivko Soklovacki, a representative of JUL (the Yugoslav Left) stated, during the Parliament's session, that 'the only aim of this law is to struggle against terrorism, so it is not the law against terrorism which is anti-civilisational, but terrorism itself'. Vice-President of the Federal Government, professor of Law, Dr. Vladan Kutlesic, only declared that the law was withdrawn due to reinstallation and improvement.

Is it only the lack of harmony in the coalition in power, as it was described by Dr. Vladan Batic? The political scientist, Dusan Pavlovic, an associate of the Institute of European Studies, briefly says: 'That love will not be broken!' He sees no conceptual basis of the conflict - it would exist, if Seselj estimated that he could gain some profit from breaking the partnership with Slobodan Milosevic, as it happened in '93 or '99, after the conflicts with NATO, when he thought that he could accuse Milosevic of national treason. Seselj gave up that idea. What happened this time does not belong to that type of conflicts or quarrels, it is only a market trade.

COMPLICATIONS: It is something else they stumbled over, perhaps the recognition that one political campaign, however, does not give a desired result. The Pozarevac case (the systematic maltreatment and intimidation of one member of Resistance, which ended with beating up of three people) leads towards the regime's fiasco and court embarrassment. That case is very similar to this 'withdrawn law', perhaps the law was created according to the 'Pozarevac case'. After the direction of the republic Public Prosecutor, one member of the Resistance (Momcilo Veljkovic) was accused of an attempt of murder, though the Board of the District Prosecutor's Office of Pozarevac decided that all participants in the conflict of May 2nd in the Pozarevac cafe 'Pasaz' should only be accused of participation in the said conflict. That was the cause of misunderstanding - four more people (two on each side) were accused of taking part in the conflict, while the prosecutors gave up pressing charges against three more people, which are known for enjoying a high private protection. Owing to this case, the former District Prosecutor, Jovan Stanojevic and the Deputy President of the Municipal Court in Pozarevac, Djordje Jankovic as well as Judge of the Municipal Court, Goran Petrovic, left the judicial functions and became lawyers.

Nor did the Novi Sad case end without complications - lawyers of the Board of Protection of Man's Rights of the Lawyers' Chamber of Vojvodina are announcing an accusation against MUP (the Ministry of Internal Affairs) of Serbia due to a notification of the police of Novi Sad that, since May 15th, two activists of the Resistance, Stanko Lazentic and Milos Gagic are sought after in order to 'light up the circumstances under which the assassination of the president of the Executive Board of Vojvodina, Bosko Perosevic was carried out'. President of this Board, Vladimir Horovic stated to the press that he had been convinced by the Municipal Courts of Novi Sad and Backa Palanka that no charges had been brought against Lazentic and Gagic. It means that two cases, upon which the whole campaign was based, failed to confirm the regime's constructions.

CAMPAIGN: The story about Resistance and 'fascism' was initiated last Spring by the Radicals, just as, last Winter, two days before the Congress of SPS (the Socialist Party of Serbia), they 'stole' the thesis of Slobodan Milosevic about the non-existing 'janissary' opposition. Since the beginning of May and the Pozarevac case, the subject of 'terrorism' was taken over by JUL. After the murder of Bosko Perosevic, the subject was again transferred to SPS, and accusations of 'terrorism' and 'fascism' were labelled to almost political activists in Serbia. In the meantime, the popularity of the infamous movement grew rapidly. The Resistance announced the accusation against the Federal Minister of Justice due to his qualification of that movement as a 'fascist organisation'. Moreover, no evidence was disclosed to the public about any constructive results - in terms of public security - of those actions, such as systematic arrests of more than eight members of the Resistance, young or very old. There are at least two video recordings about those groups of thugs which beat up the Resistance activists of Pozarevac and Belgrade in April and May this year, but nothing was done against that.

SPECIAL AUTHORISATIONS: The Political Scientist, Dusan Pavlovic, an associate of the Institute of European Studies, says that this law can be regarded as a means of legalisation of the existing practice. Lawyer Srdjan Radovanovic is of the opinion that this law was proposed in order to enhance the authorisation of the police, and even to give the same authorisations to the citizens, which are no policemen. In that way, the creation of para-political formations is becoming a legal matter, which should, in order to 'fight against terrorism with good intentions' - create terrorist organisations. This aim could not have been achieved with alterations to the Criminal Law.

Jovan Buturovic points to the fact that the so-called provocative agents of this proposal are also freed of any responsibility. The criticism of that law could be heard by those lawyers who advocate the human rights (Vojin Dimitrijevic, Biljana Kovacevic-Vuco), by one part of expert public, while that part of expert public, which is closest to that matter, remained 'wisely' silent.

President of the Democratic Party of Serbia, Vojislav Kostunica, estimated that 'although the government withdrew the draft of the Law on Terrorism, the damage done with the mere fact that such an idea even occurred to someone, is already too huge to be removed just like that'... 'Many decisions proposed in the withdrawn draft could only be created as a product of a diabolical mind and a disturbed vision on the majority of human rights and the legal system.' The special UN supporter of human rights, Jirzi Dinstbir said last week in an interview for 'Danas' daily that the draft of that law was 'very dangerous because it was directed towards the fight against terrorism, but against those people with different opinions and those who are not terrorists.' There are classical examples of terrorism in Serbia, such as, for example, the murder of the president of Vojvodina's administration, the Minister of Defence and the failed attempt to kill Vuk Draskovic, but that has nothing to do with the opposition. Two hours after the assassination of Bosko Perosevic in Novi Sad, some state media already accused the Resistance as a participant in the murder, which is nonsense', said Dinstbir. He also added that, during a recent visit to Belgrade, he talked to both Minister of Justice, Dragoljub Jankovic and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Zivadin Jovanovic about that, 'warning them that it is a dangerous game'.

It is in the interest of all of us to reduce the violence in this country. The opposition has been concentrating, for almost eight months, upon the action 'Stop Terror'. They asked the regime to elucidate the background of many committed murders which, since they are not solved, have political implications.

'Osa', 'Pauk', branches of KLA in Belgrade, all those groups, without going into details how guilty they are and who formed them, are deprived of freedom and under criminal charges on the basis of the existing criminal laws, says lawyer Srdjan Radovanovic.

On the other side, it has not been proved by any of the solved cases that the opposition had anything to do with any of those murders, whereas the regime arrogantly reduces the answers to several drastic disasters of some opposition members (two assassination attempts on Vuk Draskovic, the announced assassination of Slavko Curuvija, etc.)

We find a single 'terrorist self-identification' with the arrested group 'Osa', which due to the reasons of propaganda, claimed to have carried out the attempt of assassination of Vuk Draskovic last October. Members of that group were confined, but the detail of the attempt of assassination itself is pushed in the background. The 'Pauk' group is on trial, but the story about the assassination of the President of the Republic is somehow forgotten, as well as the answer to the question who worked with them, who admitted them in the army, etc. After Arkan's murder and after the abduction of one of the accused by the Hague Tribunal, certain groups were discovered, but there is no evidence of the opposition's involvement. Instead, some policemen appeared as suspects. Only a pretty discreet statement of the Serbian Ministry of Police was recorded - that in that office, there are many criminal elements. The police has, for some reason, replaced the official identity cards.

There are, however, many unsolved murders, which smell of a dangerous mixture of dirty money and dirty politics. Those murders are 'political', above all due to the regime's stubborn refusal to 'open the Pandora's box', and permit the parliamentary investigation of that dreadful problem, to subject its officials to public control and face them with personal responsibility for the situation in their field of work. The misleading of the public are regular constants in the politics of this sensitive area.

Lawyer Jovan Buturovic, who used to be a Military Court judge, estimates (Press Club, Media Center, Monday July 3rd) that the latest proposal of the Anti-Terrorist Law, if it became a law, could represent a great threat to the freedom of citizens and their both legal and physical safety. According to him, this law brings discord into the area of material criminal law and the criminal procedure. The system of criminal procedure introduces a new term, the so-called preventive delay. According to the Constitution, only the court in a criminal procedure can determine whether taking into custody is necessary, and here, there is no criminal procedure in sight. The Criminal Law prescribes taking into custody when there is a deep-rooted suspicion, here it is said that it is enough to have the 'basis of suspicion' - the difference is enormous. According to article 10 of the proposed and withdrawn law, the President of the Federal Court and the Supreme Military Court are authorised to determine what the court should regard as a relevant proof, and that is the same as to prejudice a decision.

By that, says Buturovic, the whole system of presenting proofs is endangered... It is a violation of the entire system of criminal responsibility, the tradition fashioned some 200 years ago. Lawyer Srdjan Radovanovic (the same Press Club) says that the proclamation of the special law is - nonsense. Should we announce a law against thieves, then against traffic criminals... That is the fragmentation of the criminal legislation, and since the 19th century, we have a codification of the Criminal Law. Did the regime, with its announcement of the Anti-Terrorist Law, 'take off its mask', uncover its Stalin-like face, or did it just fawn over the police? Did it demonstrate its power or rather its weakness?

Dusan Pavlovic says that the announcement of this law signalises the state of panic among the circles in power - the regime is aware of losing the national support, which it had during the bombardment and immediately after the war. They desperately want to preserve that necessary electoral body at the same level, though in vain. Not only the infamous law, but also the enhanced degree of violence stand as a proof of that notion. It all demonstrates how the regime is aware of losing the support and how far it is ready to go. It is not bad that the Law on Terrorism is withdrawn, but they are obliged to give reasons to the public why such a law needed to be proposed at all.