Glas dijaspore





ONLINE NEWSLETTER International, No. 946
National Congress of The Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina (NCR B&H)
March 2, 2017



B-1. Congress to Prof. David Schaffer (a member of Bosnian legal team at ICJ)

B-2. Bosnian Presidency members to send replies to ICJ separately

B-3. Bosnian agent at the ICJ was nominated permanently in 2002 and was never removed from that position


This issue of the newsletter goes on 3,089 e-mail addresses on our "International" mailing list and on 64,295 addresses in our "Bosnian" mailing list. If you do not want to receive this Online Newsletter just reply with "UNSUBSCRIBE" in the subject line.

B-1. Bosnian Congress to Prof. David Schaffer (a member of Bosnian legal team at ICJ)

Dear Prof. Schaffer,

Thank you very much for your help to the Bosnian legal team.

We are Bosnians and friends of Bosnia. We call ourselves Bosnian Congress. Our purpose is to inform the public about important political events that affect Bosnia. We regularly send a Bosnian language newsletter to 65,000 e-mail subscribers in Bosnia and in the diaspora. We also have an English language newsletter that we send to 3000 friends of Bosnia including diplomats and academics. The English version is sent less often, only when we have major developments to discuss.

We have closely followed the progress of the genocide lawsuit since its inception during the war. As you know Bosnia has already won the judgment in 2007 that the Republic of the Serbs committed genocide in Srebrenica. On the other hand, Serbia was convicted only for non-prevention of genocide. Even so, this judgment is a very valuable tool in countering genocide denial, and is a powerful argument in favor of a just and democratic future for Bosnia, and against the carving of Bosnia into states with territories where ethnic purity was created by genocide.

Of course, we agree fully with your intended outcome for this trial, as stated in the NY Times on 2/24/2017. It is obvious that the aggression and genocide in Bosnia were conceived, planned and executed by the Milosevic regime in Serbia. It is obvious that their campaign of ethnic cleansing -- the euphemism for genocide that they coined -- started in 1992 and occurred in many different areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The fact that the ICJ stopped short of recognizing that full scope, and Serbia's true role and intent, in 2007 is a miscarriage of justice. We have pored over that outcome and we understand the factors that led to it -- inadequacy of the Bosnian presentation for meeting the high standard of proof that the ICJ set, and the omission of evidence from the ICTY trials. However, given the obvious truth, and given your qualifications, we hope and expect that you will be successful in your goals for appeal.

We offer you our help with anything that is within our means. As we mentioned, our primary mission is informing the public, and to that end we can translate into Bosnian and distribute your statements, or any other information of interest that you wish to share with our Bosnian and international readers. To begin, we invite you to send us a statement regarding the appeal to the ICJ. In addition, we are knowledgeable about the war and politics in Bosnia and Serbia, and are ready to discuss and answer any questions you may have.

Finally, events are happening quickly, and a challenge to your appeal has already been made. Namely, Mladen Ivanić, the Serb member of the Bosnian Presidency has sent a letter to the ICJ noting that he did not give consent to proceed with the lawsuit, which he claims is required for such decisions under the Dayton Constitution. However, his point is baseless, and repeats a similar unsuccessful challenge from 2002. Simply, this appeal is part of the same lawsuit that has already been properly authorized by Bosnia's government in 1993. Continuing with it does not require Mr. Ivanić's consent, as that represents no change. In fact, withdrawing the lawsuit would be a change requiring consent, which Mr. Izetbegović did not give.

Thanks and Regards,

Tarik Borogovac
National Congress of the Republic of BiH

B-2. Bosnian Presidency members to send replies to ICJ separately

ZAGREB, Croatia, March 2 (HINA) -- Members of Bosnia and Herzegovina's collective State Presidency on Thursday failed to reach agreement on a joint position on a request by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to clarify the status of the country's legal representative before that court, and all three Presidency members will send separate letters to the ICJ, with their personal positions on the matter.

Presidency Chairman Mladen Ivanić said in a statement forwarded to the media that the Presidency held "informal consultations" on the ICJ request that arrived in Sarajevo earlier this week requiring a reply by 6 pm on March 2.

"It was agreed at the consultations that each Presidency member should individually deliver their own opinion to the ICJ," reads Ivanić's statement.

The ICJ requested the Presidency members to state the current status of Sakib Softić, who ten days ago submitted to the ICJ's registrar's office, on behalf of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a request for a review of an ICJ ruling from 2007 that cleared Serbia of responsibility for the genocide committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Under a decision by the Presidency of 2002, Softić was the country's legal representative during the trial that ended ten years ago.

A decision on launching a procedure for a review of the ruling has not been made formally by any of Bosnia and Herzegovina's bodies, and Ivanić claims that that would constitute entirely new proceedings and require the appointment of a new legal representative.

The Bosniak Presidency member, Bakir Izetbegović, believes that the review request is a continuation of the same proceedings, launched with the submission of the lawsuit in 1993, and that the appointment of a new legal representative is not necessary.

The two Presidency members said earlier that they would submit such positions in responses requested by the ICJ.

The Croat member of the Presidency, Dragan Covic, refused to say publicly his position on Softic's status.

The ICJ's decision on whether Softić still has the right to represent Bosnia and Herzegovina will determine whether the request for a review of the ruling against Serbia will be accepted.

Izetbegović said previously that the review request was a result of a serious analysis of evidence that emerged after the 2007 ruling and that refers mostly to information that became available during the trial of Bosnian Serb wartime commander Ratko Mladic at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

The purpose of the review request is to try to prove, in new proceedings, that Belgrade played a direct role in war crimes committed in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including genocide in municipalities apart from Srebrenica.

B-3. Bosnian agent at the ICJ was nominated permanently in 2002 and was never removed from that position

The quoted article from Zagreb shows how the Serbian side of the story dominates even in Croatia. Namely, in 2002, when Sakib Softić was nominated for Bosnian agent at the ICJ, there was no any time limitation in that nomination. Yet HINA says "Softić was the country's legal representative during the trial that ended ten years ago."

The quoted sentence is obviously intended to mislead reader to believe that his nomination ended with the trial in 2007. If that was the case, we can be sure that Serbs would quote the sentence about the limitation from the original document.

On the other side, according to Bosnian media outlets, e.g. Bosnian news agency Patria, on February 27, 2017, Bosniak representative in Bosnian Presidency Izetbegović quoted the decision adopted in October 2002, by which there was no time limitation for Bosnian agent Softić at International Court of Justice. Unfortunately, media outlets outside Bosnia did not pay much attention. Nobody translated Izetbegović's interview to Patria, while many media published Ivanić's baseless letter to ICJ. We hope that Izetbegović sent the same response to ICJ as to that interview to Patria. (It is widely believed in Bosnia that Izetbegović filed the revision only because of enormous pressure from Bosniak public opinion.)

There was no procedural reason that Izetbegović should ask Representative of the "Serbian Republic". In addition, that does not make any sense that the convicted side, Serbian Republic, should be able to prevent or to choose the agent for the process against it (Serbian Republic).

I understand that Serbian politicians repeat baseless "arguments" from Ivanićs letter to ICJ, but it was a surprise to read in English that a Croatian news agency, supposedly professional, repeats that propaganda. In addition, have in mind that Croats in Bosnia were also victims of the same Serbian Republic, and siding with Serbs in this matter is an act without dignity.

Recall that Serbia was found guilty of two counts of violating the Convention of prevention and punishment of Genocide, a) Serbia did not prevent genocide in Srebrenica, and b) Serbia did not punish perpetrators of the genocide (typically former high ranking officers of the Serbian army). In addition, in the first trial in 2007, the Serbian puppet statelet in Bosnia, "Republika Srpska" (Serbian Republic) was found guilty for committing the genocide in Srebrenica.


The video for book "THE WAR IN BOSNIA: HOW TO SUCCEED AT GENOCIDE" has been launched. You may watch that short video at the link below.


Recall the book in Bosnian Language was bestseller in Bosnia. The book completely changed Bosnian public opinion about the war, negotiations, and outcome of the war.

This Page is Published on March 5, 2017 in the Web Magazine „ORBUS Belgium“

Nazad na prethodnu stranicu Nazad na početak stranice Naprijed na sljedeću stranicu

Napomena: Tekstovi koji vulgarno vrijeđaju: neku vjeru, navode na rasnu diskriminaciju i slično, ne dolaze u obzir.
Vaše priloge šaljite u TEXT ili HTML formatu na email: info@orbus.be
Page Construction: 05.03.2017 - Last modified:02.04.2017.