Servicios jurídicos – Traducciones – Propiedades inmuebles – Bienes raíces –Sucesiones – Poderes – Inscripción de propiedades – Contratos – Testamentos
Legal services: Civil and commercial – Translations – Real Estate – Probate Proceedings – Powers of Attorney – Property registration – Contracts – Wills
Pravne usluge – Prijevodi – Nekretnine – Ostavinski postupci – Punomoći – Upis pravo vlasništva – Ugovori– Oporuke
Dra. Adriana Smajic – Abogada y Traductora pública de idioma croata – Attorney at Law – Odvjetnica – Abogado croata – Traductor croata http://www.adrianasmajic.blogspot.com/ adriana.smajic@gmail.com
Joza Vrljicak – Master in Economics (Concordia U, Montreal) joza.vrljicak@gmail.com
(+54-11) 4811-8706 (+54-911) 6564-9585 (+54-911) 5112-0000
Florence Hartmann’s trial. Hearing July 1st, 2009.
This hearing was dedicated to the end of Natasa Kandic’s testimony. Mainly it was the cross-examination of the well-known Serbian activist and for the prosecution M. Mc Farlane adopted a very offensive strategy.
First, he tried to rebut Ms Kandic as a valid witness by describing her both as an activist whose only purpose in this trial was to promote her objectives, and as a personal friend of Ms Hartmann who could only stand with her for personal reasons. Those who know Ms Kandic won’t be surprised to read that she retorted very firmly, precisely and in a most determined way.
She made a point that her standing as a witness for the defence had nothing to do with emotions, but with principles first, and second that her objectives in this trial were purely based on the defence of these principles.
She demonstrated with a great deal of examples that both the existence of the minutes of the DSC and the decision to classify them in order to prevent the ICJ to use them in the case of genocide were public knowledge and commonly discussed in the media and the Human Rights organisations well before the publishing of Mrs Hartmann’s book. She even recalled some discussions in Serbia in 2007 where M. Stovanovic -who had been the leader of the Serbian defence team at the ICJ - had said that he would like these documents made public.
Being accused of partiality because she was discussing the necessity to grant protection to Serbia, Ms Kandic made a clear statement that is worth noticing and can be used in the future: it is obvious, she said that protection must be granted to the people who accept to testify about crimes that they witnessed; obvious also that some states that are not accused of these crimes, but may hold information that can be used against alleged criminals, must be granted this same protection for their “national security”. But she said, it should be different when the states are incriminated to having committed crimes, as is the case for Serbia during the Milosevic years.
Citing Prosecutor S. Brammetz declarations about the absolute necessity of having the states cooperating with the Tribunal, M. Mc Farlane suggested that it was necessary to grant this protection to Serbia in order to obtain its true and sincere cooperation in searching alleged criminals and sending them to The Hague. But Ms Kandic refuted this risk of “blackmail” as most unlikely and never heard of through all these years.
As spectators of this hearing, we were surprised by the toughness, unkindness and sometime extreme rudeness of M. Mc Farlane towards Ms Kandic. We appreciated all the more the several occasions when Judge Güney asked questions giving Ms Kandic the opportunity to precise how she, as a Serb living in Serbia was asking for this protection to be withheld in order to give some hope of “a radiant future” for her country.
Let’s end with this statement: as M. Mc Farlane was asking her “ so you would not like to see her (MS Hartmann) convicted?” Ms Kandic answered quite clearly “ I will correct: I truly believe that there is not a single valid reason to sentence her (Ms Hartmann)”.
No need to say we think the same.
The trial is due to continue Friday, July 3rd, with the conclusions of the prosecution and the defence.
FR : Procès de Florence Hartmann. Audience du 1 er juillet 2009.
Cette audience fut consacrée à la fin du témoignage de Natasa Kandic. Il s’est agi principalement du contre-interrogatoire de la militante des Droits de l’Homme bien connue, et pour l’accusation Mr Mc Farlane adopta une stratégie très offensive.
Dans un premier temps, il essaya de relativiser le témoignage de Mmme Kandic en la faisant passer pour une militante dont la seule préoccupation dans ce procès était de promouvoir sa cause, tout en la présentéant comme une amie de Mme Hartmann défendant son amie pour des raisons personnelles.
Ceux qui connaissent Mme Kandic ne s’étonneront pas de lire qu’elle déjoua ces manœuvres avec fermeté, dignité et une grande determination.
Elle déclara très nettement d’une part que sa présence en tant que témoin de la défense n’avait rien à voir avec des sentiments mais au contraire était basé sur des principes et d’aure part que ses objectifs dans ce procès étaient précisément de defender ces principes.
Elle démontra grace à de très nombreux exemples que tant l’existence des comptes rendus du CSD que la decision de les classer confidentiels afin d’en empêcher l”’utilisation par la CIJ dans le proces pour genocide contre la Serbie étaient du domaine public bien avant la parution du livre de Mme Hartmann et étaient couramment discutés par les media et les organisations de défense des Droits de l’Homme. Elle rappela même des discussions publiques au cours desquelles Mr. Stovanovic – qui avait dirigé la défense de la Serbie devant la CIJ – avait déclaré souhaiter que ces documents soient rendus publics.
Accusée de partialité parce qu’elle discutait de l’opportunité d’accorder à la Serbie une protection de ses intérêts nationaux, Mme Kandic fit une distinction très claire qui vaut d’être notée pour une utilisation future : il est évident, dit-elle, que ces garanties de sécurité doivent être accordées aux personnes qui acceptent de témoigner à propos de crimes dont ils ont été témoins ; de même évidement faut-il garantir cette protection à des États qui, sans avoir participé aux crimes en question, acceptent de partager des informations utilisables contre des présumés criminels. Mais, dit-elle, il faudrait agir différemment avec les États qui sont accusés d’avoit participé directement à des crimes de guerre, comme la Serbie sous M Milosevic.
Citant la déclaration récente de Mr S. Brammetz, procureur général du TPIY, expliquant l’impérieuse nécessité d’obtenir la coopération des États dans la recherche et l’arrestation des personnes recherchées, M. Mc Farlane suggéra qu ‘il pouvait être nécessaire de donner ces garanties de confidentialité à un état comme la Serbie pour obtenir sa coopération réelle et sincère. Mais Mme Kandic réfuta ce risque de chantage comme hautement improbable et en tout cas jamais encore évoqué dans aucun pays.
En tant que spectateurs de cette audience, nous avons été surpris par la dureté, l’agressivité et parfois l’extrême rudesse de Mr Mc Farlane à l’égard de Mme Kandic. Nous n’en avons que mieux apprécié les interventions du Juge Güney qui permirent à Mme Kandic de préciser comment en tant que Serbe vivant aujourd’hui en Serbie elle réclamait la levée de ces garanties de confidentialité afin de rendre à son pays l’espoir d’un avenir radieux.
Terminons sur cette déclaration : répondant à Mr Mc Farlane qui lui demandait “vous ne voudriez donc pas qu’elle (Mme Hartmann) soit condamnée ?” Mme Kandic répondit très clairement “ je vais corriger cette question : je ne vois vraiment pas une seule raison valable pour sa condamnation”. <:I><:b>
. Inutile de dire que nous partageons ce jugement.
Le procès continue ce vendredi 3 juillet avec les plaidoiries de l’accusation et de la défense.
EN: Florence Hartmann’s trial. Hearing July 1st, 2009.
This hearing was dedicated to the end of Natasa Kandic’s testimony. Mainly it was the cross-examination of the well-known Serbian activist and for the prosecution M. Mc Farlane adopted a very offensive strategy.
First, he tried to rebut Ms Kandic as a valid witness by describing her both as an activist whose only purpose in this trial was to promote her objectives, and as a personal friend of Ms Hartmann who could only stand with her for personal reasons. Those who know Ms Kandic won’t be surprised to read that she retorted very firmly, precisely and in a most determined way.
She made a point that her standing as a witness for the defence had nothing to do with emotions, but with principles first, and second that her objectives in this trial were purely based on the defence of these principles.
She demonstrated with a great deal of examples that both the existence of the minutes of the DSC and the decision to classify them in order to prevent the ICJ to use them in the case of genocide were public knowledge and commonly discussed in the media and the Human Rights organisations well before the publishing of Mrs Hartmann’s book. She even recalled some discussions in Serbia in 2007 where M. Stovanovic -who had been the leader of the Serbian defence team at the ICJ - had said that he would like these documents made public.
Being accused of partiality because she was discussing the necessity to grant protection to Serbia, Ms Kandic made a clear statement that is worth noticing and can be used in the future: it is obvious, she said that protection must be granted to the people who accept to testify about crimes that they witnessed; obvious also that some states that are not accused of these crimes, but may hold information that can be used against alleged criminals, must be granted this same protection for their “national security”. But she said, it should be different when the states are incriminated to having committed crimes, as is the case for Serbia during the Milosevic years.
Citing Prosecutor S. Brammetz declarations about the absolute necessity of having the states cooperating with the Tribunal, M. Mc Farlane suggested that it was necessary to grant this protection to Serbia in order to obtain its true and sincere cooperation in searching alleged criminals and sending them to The Hague. But Ms Kandic refuted this risk of “blackmail” as most unlikely and never heard of through all these years.
As spectators of this hearing, we were surprised by the toughness, unkindness and sometime extreme rudeness of M. Mc Farlane towards Ms Kandic. We appreciated all the more the several occasions when Judge Güney asked questions giving Ms Kandic the opportunity to precise how she, as a Serb living in Serbia was asking for this protection to be withheld in order to give some hope of “a radiant future” for her country.
Let’s end with this statement: as M. Mc Farlane was asking her “ so you would not like to see her (MS Hartmann) convicted?” Ms Kandic answered quite clearly “ I will correct: I truly believe that there is not a single valid reason to sentence her (Ms Hartmann)”.
No need to say we think the same.
The trial is due to continue Friday, July 3rd, with the conclusions of the prosecution and the defence.
No comments:
Post a Comment