Death of President Slobodan Milosevic in NATO Prison Remains a Central Question in International Justice
On March 11, 2006, President Slobodan Milosevic died in a NATO prison. No one has been held accountable for his death.
Christopher Black and Alexander Mezyaev.- In the 7 years since the end of the lonely struggle to defend himself and his country against the false charges invented by the Nato powers, no country has demanded a public inquiry into the circumstances of his death. The only demand for any investigation was made by the Russian Foreign Minister, Serge Lavrov, when he stated that Russia did not accept the ICTY’s denial of responsibility and demanded an investigation be conducted. The ICTY then made its own investigation and as expected exonerated itself from all blame.
Yet, his death cannot lie unexamined, the questions unanswered, those responsible unpunished. The world cannot continue to accept the substitution of war and brutality for peace and diplomacy. It cannot continue to tolerate governments that have contempt for peace, for humanity, the sovereignty of nations, the self-determination of peoples, and the rule of law.
The murder of countless civilians in the Nato led wars since the end of the Second World War is a crime of such immensity that mankind itself stands condemned for letting it happen. First, there was Korea, perhaps 5 million people killed, then Vietnam, another 3 to 5 million killed. These were followed by smaller wars and counter-insurgency operations by countries against their own citizens, but the suffering was the same; Africa, Latin America, Asia; few have been spared.
But since the temporary eclipse of Russian influence and prestige in the early 1990’s the Nato powers, in particular the United States of America, have not only killed the populations of countries resisting their aggression. They have progressed to the murder of the national leaders of those countries, an act considered to be a war crime because it is not only the murder of a person, but an attack on the nation itself, a negation of its right to exist.
Since 1950 the list of national leaders who have been assassinated directly or with the aid of the United States and its allies is
legion-Lumumba of the Congo, Diem of Vietnam, Torrillos of Panama, Allende of Chile, Hussein of Iraq, Habyarimana of Rwanda, Ntayaramira of Burundi, Arafat of Palestine, Ghaddafi of Libya, are but a few. Sometimes they dress up the murders in legal cloth by purporting to issue “indictments” against their victims issued by tribunals set up or controlled by the Nato
powers whose one purpose is to create propaganda to attempt to justify their crimes. Others have been thrown into prisons on false charges and outside of any lawful jurisdiction or fair process; Noriega of Panama, Gbagbo of Ivory Coast, Taylor of Liberia, Kambanda of Rwanda, Hussein of Iraq. The tragic Muammar Ghaddafi was hunted down and murdered like a dog
in the street, so far have these powers sunk below morality and civilised behaviour. One must ask whether the murder of Muammar Ghaddafi would have happened if those responsible for the death of President Milosevic had been exposed and brought to justice.
In fact, in 2010 Ghaddafi called the United Nations to conduct an investigation of all the coup-d’etats in UN member states and “an investigations of all heads of UN member states assassinations.” These proposals were never acted on by the GeneralAssembly.
The death of Slobodan Milosevic was clearly the only way out of the dilemma the Nato powers had put themselves by charging him before the ICTY. The propaganda against him was of an unprecedented scale. The trial was played in the press as one of the world’s great dramas, world theatre in which an evil man would be made to answer for his crimes. But of
course, there had been no crimes, except those of the Nato powers, and the attempt to fabricate a case against him collapsed into farce.
The trial was necessary from Nato’s point of view in order to justify the aggression against Yugoslavia and the putsch by the DOS forces in Belgrade supported by Nato, by which democracy in Yugoslavia was finally destroyed. His illegal arrest by Nato forces in Belgrade, his illegal detention in Belgrade Central Prison until his illegal rendition to the former Nazi
prison near The Hague and the show trial that followed were all part of the drama played out for the world public and it could only have one of two endings, the conviction or the death of President Milosevic.
Much has been said about the death of President Milosevic and about the show trial they forced upon him. I will not repeat what others have said. His wife and friend, Mira Markovic, unable to attend his funeral in Serbia for fear of arrest by the Nato installed regime, referred, in a letter read at the funeral, to “the criminals who murdered you in The Hague.” John Laughland in his brave book, Travesty, wrote that the ICTY, “having abused numerous fundamental judicial principles during the trial,…abused the most elementary humanitarian considerations too…”
Since the conviction of President Milosevic was clearly not possible when all the evidence was heard, or at least a conviction that could be supported by any evidence, his death was the only way out for the Nato powers. His acquittal would have brought down the entire structure of the propaganda framework of the Nato war machine and the western interests that use it as their armed fist. Nato clearly did not expect President Milosevic to defend himself nor with such clarity and determination. The media coverage of the beginning of the trial was constant and front page. It was promised that it would be the trial of the century. Yet soon after it began the media coverage stopped and the trial was buried in the back pages. Things had gone terribly wrong for Nato right at the start. The key to the problem is the following statement to the judges of the ICTY made by President Milosevic:
“This is a political trial. What is at issue here is not at all whether I committed a crime. What is at issue is that certain intentions are ascribed to me from which consequences are later derived that are beyond the expertise of any conceivable lawyer. The point here is that the truth about the events in the former Yugoslavia has to be told here. It is that which is at issue, not the procedural questions, because I’m not sitting here because I was accused of a specific crime. I’m sitting here because I am accused of conducting a policy against the interests of this or another party…..
The prosecution, that is the United States and its allies, had not expected a real defence of any kind. This is clear from the inept indictments, confusion as to the actual charges, the complete failure to bring any evidence that could withstand even basic scrutiny. The prosecution case fell apart as soon as it began. But once started it had to continue. Nato was locked into a box of its own making. If they dropped the charges or if he was acquitted, the political and geostrategic ramifications were enormous. Nato would have to explain the real reasons for the aggression against Yugoslavia. Its leaders would face war crimes charges. The loss of prestige cannot be calculated. President Milosevic would once again be a popular political figure in the Balkans that they could not deal with. Since there was no real evidence against him, the only way out for Nato was to end the trial but without releasing Milosevic or admitting the truth about the war. This logic required his death in prison and the abandonment of the trial.
One of the writers was engaged by the family of President Milosevic to investigate his death and determine what could be done to bring those responsible to some justice. It is now clear that this objective cannot be realised without a full public and international inquiry into the circumstances of his arrest, his detention and the circumstances of the trial. There is much to be learned. The wikileaks revelation that the UN detention unit commander McFadden, had provided information on Milosevic
to the US embassy in violation of his role and prison rules, and subsequent whitewash of these actions by the ICTY sheds light on who really controlled the situation and is an important circumstance to be investigated in relation to his death. The Parker Report itself, the report issued by Judge Parker of the ICTY soon after the death provides a clear basis for such an inquiry. It contains within it circumstances that require thorough investigations and the calling and examination of witnesses. The ICTY prison rules call for an inquiry according to the kaws of the host nation in the event of the death of a prisoner. In the Netherlands, this entails a simple police inquiry. But if the ICTY had been based in Britain, the inquiry would have to be a public one with the hearing of witnesses and the presentation of evidence. Since this matter concerns the death of a head of state and in UN hands, a simple inquiry conducted by the Dutch police, the police of a Nato state are worthless. The only way forward is an international public inquiry.
This analysis of the Parker Report sets out the grounds for seeking such an inquiry.
Its purpose is to determine whether the Parker Report provides a basis for a criminal case to be made against the ICTY authorities of the UN who are responsible for his death. This analysis is necessary as we are unable to have access to all the information available concerning his death which has been refused to us and because no public inquiry has been conducted into the circumstances leading up to his death.
President Milosevic died between 7am too 9am alone in his cell. The Report states on page 4 that the guards failed to check on Milosevic even though he did not respond to the guards attempt to wake him . The Report states that “The actions of the guard in not taking a closer look at Mr. Milosevic cannot be fairly criticised in the circumstances as they represented themselves to the guard at the time.”
However, the circumstances at the time included the fact that Milosevic was reporting hearing problems, was being seen by several teams of doctors and had complained the night before of chest pains. This must have been noted in the logbook for those in charge of his prison wing and known to the Commanding Officer and all his staff. So, it is disturbing that the guard did not immediately check to see if he was alright and, if not, that he did not summon immediate medical attention. Yet no inquiry seems to have been made by anyone, including Judge Parker, as to why the guard was not questioned and his instructions determined. If the guard had not been made aware of Miloevic’s condition-why was that not done? For all anyone knows his death could have come at 9am, just as the guard went to the cell and perhaps he was revivable at that point.
A more disturbing fact is that information exists that the surveillance cameras in his cell were turned off the night before he died and no explanation has been given as to why. What would the cameras have recorded if they had been working?
The cell was not checked again until 10:05am. It took 30 minutes for Dr. Falke to arrive after that. In that time no attempt to resuscitate Milosevic was made.
This amounts to gross negligence. They assumed he was dead. No one bothered to try to stimulate the heart until a doctor came. There is no reason given in the Report why they failed to take this basic step. Was it due to lack of training, that they did not care, something else?
Dutch coroners do not arrive until 6 hours later-at 16:15 and then 4 hours after that they take the body to the morgue. There is no reason given for the delayed arrival of the coroners. But this delay would affect any toxicological tests as with time substances degrade and disappear. Why was there such a long delay in this team arriving when it concerned such an important person?
The Report sets out Milosevic’s physical condition in some detail when he first arrived and after. It states that the UN treating cardiologist advised the Tribunal that he required reduced trial days and less stress due to his condition. It was known as far back as 2003 that he had heart problems that were significant.
The Report confirms that on December 12, 2005, Milosevic, in open session asked to be allowed to go to Russia for treatment which request was denied over two months later on February 23, 2006. Milosevic appealed this refusal on March 2, just before he died on March 11.
This is proof that CO McFadden and his staff were very aware of Milosevic’s state of health and makes it difficult to swallow the Report’s conclusions that the guards have no responsibility in the matter.
Milosevic died as he was preparing a very important witness, Momir Bulatovic, President of Montenegro. This witness never testified and nor have the rest of the defence witnesses been allowed to present the evidence so that Milosevic had the chance to present to the world his defence in toto. Instead of accepting to hear the evidence already scheduled and then rendering a judgement for the deceased-the trial was abruptly cancelled. To whose benefit was this? Clearly only to NATO.
In April 2006, Dr. Zdravko Mijailovic informed the Parker Inquiry that he had been forbidden to assist the Inquiry with his observations by the interference of the “authorities of Serbia and Montenegro”. Conveniently the Inquiry did not press the Serbian “authorities” to cooperate with the ICTY, a remarkable fact when ICTY pressure against Serbia has always been
rewarded with action.
The question is raised; why the Serbian “authorities” interfered in such an important matter. The Report does not state who exactly interfered not in what form and if in writing where the document now is. One would think the government of Serbia would want to assist in the Inquiry not withhold evidence relevant to it. This makes it look as if the Serbian ‘authorities” wanted to suppress facts for their own interests. Why and what were those interests?
The Report states that no traces of rifampicin had been found in the autopsy yet it had been found in his blood from a sample dated the 12th of January 2006. The Report states, “Rifampicin is an antibiotic usually used to treat leprosy and tuberculosis, which has a side effect by which the therapeutic effect of some antihypertensive drugs can be diminished or neutralised.”
It has this effect because it eliminates other drugs from the body more rapidly. This begs the question as whether it was used to mask other drugs or a poison.
One possibility is that the Report states that aside from several hypertension drugs and tranquilizers, the Institute fur Rechtsmedizin, Universtatsklinikum, in Bonn, Germany, “noted that there has been an indication of a possible but unconfirmed presence of a conversion product of droperidol, an antipsychotic, in the urine.”
The Report states that this drug had never been administered to him or prescribed. (page 11). And that, “this could have no relevance to his death.”
Yet it is clearly relevant as droperidol is also an anaesthetic and can be used to sedate patients and its presence risks a drops in blood pressure and death and is not recommended for older persons. Clearly the presence of both rifampicin on January 12 and droperidol later are relevant especially when rifampicin speeds up the metabolism of drugs like droperidol and droperidol itself has a very rapid rate of breakdown in the body. Less than two hours by some reports. Add to this the unexplained delay in the arrival of coroners at the site of death of 6 hours and the further 4 hour delay until taken to the morgue and a further delay until an autopsy the next day and a reasonable person can ask why Parker would say these facts combined together are not relevant and make no further inquiry.
At paragraph 36 the Report states that Milosevic died of a heart attack and that Dr. Bokeria of Russia agrees with this. But this does not explain what caused the heart attack to occur at the time it did. We have asked for all the reports discussed in the Report but have been told we cannot have them.
Paragrphs 40, 41, 42 of the Report detail the initial examination and treatment of Milosevic on arrival at the ICTY prison and after. At paragraph 42 the Report states,
“Dr. Mijailovic in 2001noted further that Mr. Milosevic was at a high risk of a stroke, a heart attack, a sudden cardiac death, or a sudden malignant heart rhythm disorder … for which he recommended several medications and reduction of “workload, stress…” Despite this diagnosis, the trial commenced instead of being postponed until Milosevic was in a better condition.
In other words, the Tribunal, instead of acting according to doctors instructions and reducing his stress, deliberately decided to increase it with an order to commence the trial which began in February 2002. However after further test in July 2002 a reduced trial schedule was put in place. See paras 43, 44, 45. In November 2002 the UN cardiologist Dr, Dijkman again recommended rest and reported higher blood pressure “a sharp increase”.
On 25 March 2003 there was another high blood pressure crisis and once again all doctors recommended increased rest and if he got it “his blood pressure would not rise as much as in the past” But surely the point was to lower his blood pressure to safe levels.
Instead of getting a cessation of the trial and release for recuperation, the Tribunal forced the trial to go on, seeming to be satisfied that he was being treated in a manner sufficient to keep him alive and forced to undergo the trial but in a manner dangerous to his health or life.
In the September 2003 blood pressure crisis Dr Dijkman, “found that Milosevic displayed symptoms of exhaustion and extreme fatigue and that his blood pressure had risen to unacceptable levels (210/120mmHG). Dr. van Dijkman noted that the timetable of the Tribunal hindered proper medical treatment.” More rest was recommended.
The trial schedule was reduced to 3 days a week but the Tribunal continued to push the continuance of the trial knowing full well that in his days out of court he was working under a lot of stress to prepare the defence so he was getting no rest at all.
Dr Golukhova examined him in “early 2004”. (Why no date is mentioned is not explained as that would be recorded with the UNDU.) Parker claims that her report was not received by the Tribunal until Dr, Bokeria sent it in to the Inquiry by letter of April 5, 2006.
This is difficult to understand. Inquiry must be made with Dr. Golukhova about her report and if it was sent to the ICTY. This is important because her findings were very serious. Her report states that he had high blood pressure, which was poorly controlled, significant EEG abnormalities, T-wave abnormalities,, ventricular beats, and she recommended T1 scintigraphy, coronary angiography, electrophysiology study and other investigations. She noted that “according to European guidelines relevant to his condition Milosevic had a high risk of fatal arythmias and sudden cardiac death.
It must be assume that Dr Golukhova’s report was serious enough to be sent to the ICTY. If it was in the hands of the ICTY then they would have known in 2004 that the trial could not go on as it was going to kill Milosevic unless he was allowed to be fully treated and recovered before it resumed. Yet the ICTY pushed ahead once again. The UN doctor, Dijkman, once again
also warned the ICTY of consistently high blood pressure, general fatigue along with mental stress of “an unknown nature”. This last comment is bizarre when it is clear that the source of the stress was the trial.
But the ICTY was more interested in the trial than in the prisoners health-he was being used for their propaganda purposes even though the proceedings risked killing him. They deliberately and intentionally not only took that risk but amplified it by forcing him to start the defence case
Then in July 2004, concerned about a delay to the trial if he was too ill, the ICTY called in Dr Tavernier from Ghent. He found “organ damage and grade III hypertension and found he was not fit to defend himself-he was too ill and resuming the trial would result in high blood pressure with all the risks associated with that.” This advice was ignored.
The defence case commenced on August 31, 2004. No explanation was given as to why this happened in view of his condition and the fact that the defence phase is much more stressful than the prosecution stage. So that as of April 2005 Dr. Dijkman once again noted high blood pressure and recommended rest. Once again the primary concern of Dijkman and the ICTY is to keep him in a condition where he could still attend trial –that was their focus-not the health and well-being of the prisoner. Once again they deliberately pushed him and willingly took the risk that it would kill him.
November 4, 2005 Drs LeClerq from France, Shumilina from Russia, and Andric from Serbia examined him at the UNDU. All 3 stated that, “his health was not stable and that further tests were necessary in order to identify the origin of his current complaints. Rest for a further 6 weeks and additional procedures were recommended. On November 15 he was given an adjournment of 13 days until the 29th November. On November 21 Dr. Falke reinforced the other 3 doctors opinion and told the ICTY that his blood pressure was again high and that the “trial be interrupted because of M,s cardiovascular problems.” But the ICTY maintained the date of November 29th, ignoring the recommendation of all the doctors. On November 22 Dijkman also recommended more rest but as much as six weeks. But he was in the minority.
Moreover, the tribunal’s officials started a campaign aimed to discredit Dr.Shumilina and her medical findings. In her letter of December 14, 2005 Dr.Shumilina stated that a number of doctors were trying to downplay the significance of her conclusions. For instance, she noted that, “atherosclerosis is the result not of age, as the prison doctors argued, but the result of the extended improper treatment of hypertension. She once again warned the authorities of the tribunal and prison that the “factor of cardiovascular development disease should not be underestimated”.
On the 29th November Milosevic asked for more rest, and due partly to the Christmas period and the normal trial break for that vacation period, was given until January 23, 2006.
Parker states that he then got the rest recommended-but in fact he did not as he was working a lot of that time on the preparation for the coming trial session-so in effect he had no real rest at all. The trial should have been stopped until he was fully rested, treated and recovered.
On December 12 2005 he asked to be provided bail so he could go to Moscow for required treatment. The trial chamber refused. Instead of dealing with the request on medical grounds the ICTY acted on jurisdictional and national grounds or political grounds, asking why it could not all be done in Netherlands.
But why could the required procedures (which included by-pass surgery) not also be done in Moscow- further in distance but easily done by plane in a few hours-and there was no flight risk as Russia was a member of the SC and a sponsor of the ICTY. The Judges did not even consider the guarantees presented by Russia without providing any reasons for failing to do so. But there is a clue to their reasons in the letter sent to Sergei Lavrov. But we have a clue in the letter Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister sent by Milosevic March 8, 2006 that stated he suspected someone was deliberately trying to destroy his health and that was the real reasons he was not allowed to go to Moscow.
One of the co-authors of the present article interviewed judge Ian Bonomy who took part in the decision to refuse his transfer to Russia for medical treatment, and asked him the reasons why the guarantees of Russia were not even considered. The judge refused to answer. Asked why the judges did not make any reference to the Russian guarantees in their decision, the judge again refused to answer. Nevertheless, the answer becomes obvious when we read the text of the guarantees. Russia’s guarantees were unprecedented: Russia said that it will implement any decision of the court. The wording of this document was so strong and clear that it was impossible to find any lacunae in it, so the judges decided simply to ignore the guarantees made.
On January 12, 2006 a blood test identified the presence of rifampicin in his blood. Parker spends several paragraphs speculating that Milosevic may have had this drug smuggled in to lower the effectiveness of the hypertension medications.
This is absurd. Milosevic would not deliberately put his life at risk just so he could fake being ill to delay the trial. All the doctors already agreed he was gravely ill. Further there is no means for him to obtain such a drug.
Then something strange occurs-Professor Urge, the Dutch toxicologist who detected rifampicin sent his report on February 17 to Dr. Touw. Dr. Touw sent them to Dr. Falke on the 23rd. Instead of conveying these results to Milosevic and the ICTY, Falke first consults with a lawyer and other colleagues (so the report states) regarding a concern about releasing these results to the ICTY without Milosevic’s consent.
Yet Falke never went to Milosevic and told him of the report and asked him permission to release this finding (if that was truly his concern.) Yet he “informally discussed the matter with the CO McFadden. So the concern about confidentiality appears contrived. So what was Falke really concerned about so that it involved the CO of the UNDU but not Milosevic himself? Was the finding of rifmapicin more unusual than they make out? Did Falke suspect that the source of that drug had to be in the UNDU itself-that is the staff? .
Parker does not state the date when Falke discussed this with Mcfadden. Dr. Falke finally tells Milosevic about the rifampicin only on the 3rd of March. So, once again, why did Falke consult a lawyer prior to informing Milosevic? What was his real concern? Did he feel he might be a witness to a crime?
An inquiry was ordered by the trial chamber regarding the rifampacine but before Milosevic could make submissions he died.
At paragraph 76 of his report Parker makes an interesting statement- “This was the first time that a blood test of Milosevic had undergone the additional specific test for rifampicin. Normal testing would not have disclosed the presence of rifampicin”
Therefore rifampicin may have been in his blood for a long time as no one had ever tested for it before and may explain why his hypertension medication was not working-he was being given without his knowledge an agent that neutralised those drugs thereby heightening his risk of sudden death. Parker tries to set this aside by stating that the red colour of the urine common with taking rifampicin was not reported by Milosevic so he must have taken it himself. At paragraph 79 Parker tries to imply that his legal team brought it in to him. But this is incredible as if they had done so they took the risk of killing him.
Parker states at paragraph 81
“Nothing discovered in the course of this Inquiry provides any support for the allegation that Milosevic was the victim of criminal activities and of deliberate action to damage his health.”
First there was no real investigation done as to the origin of the rifampicin, Neither Dr. Urges nor Dr Falke were questioned as far as we know, about this, and secondly it is clear that the ICTY continuously acted in a manner designed to damage his health in order to push on with the trial and without any valid reason denied him the required medical treatment prescribed by the 4 doctors in 2005.
Parker also admits that his condition had worsened by January 2006 with pressure in his head and noise (all symptoms of high blood pressure) and he was more tired.
Amazingly he is given hearing tests only and told to keep going with the trial. This itself amounted to criminal negligence. In light of his conditions this type of symptom should have been an alarm bell demanding further cardiology tests
Parker also admits that other detainees had reported Milosevic complaining of chest pains a few days before his death.
One would think he made the same complaints to McFadden. Yet no doctor was called in nor was he taken to a hospital despite these being symptoms of a possible heart attack. It is acknowledged that he told the duty nurse on March 2 and she told Dr. Falke. He only saw him the next day March 3. He suspected a kidney stone-but against proper procedure he was no taken to a hospital for tests for further stones that could be present and could be passed at any time including in the trial. This failure to do a routine test is not explained.
Parker then reviews the medical opinions of all the doctors pointing out some differences in views but all agreed he had heart disease and needed rest and treatment. This was denied. But he quotes the pathology report that “As to the question of why this heart attack occurred precisely when it did the autopsy and subsequent microscopic examination showed no
anatomical factors which could be considered as triggering factors for a heart attack. The toxicological investigation showed no toxicologically identified factors which could induce a heart attack. Therefore, no (additional) factors were found which could explain why the heart attack occurred precisely when it did.””
But the autopsy report did not take into account rifampicin and the presence of droperidol or the delayed arrival of the coroners office doctors the day he died. Parker only states the obvious, that Milosevic’s heart stopped. But he admits no one can explain why it stopped on the 11th of March.
Parker then discusses the importance of Bokeria’s statement which raises negligence by the tribunal and he relies on the opinions of the 2 doctors engaged by the ICTY, LeCleq and Tavernier, to the effect that the left ventrical and myocardial bridge problems did not cause the heart attack.
The problem for Parker is that if these problems did not cause the heart attack then the autopsy report is wrong and then we have no cause of death.
In further questions to these 2 doctors they appear to change their view and state that the myocardial bridge and hypertrophy of the left ventricle could cause lack of oxygen to heart and an heart attack. So in the end they agree with Bokeria.
So in paragraph 102 Parker gets the ICTY out of trouble he thinks by stating that since these 2 doctors differed somewhat from the rest including the UN doctor Falke, that no one is responsible for not providing proper treatment.
The problem for the ICTY is that the majority of doctors all agreed and even these two agreed with Bokeria. Therefore the refusal of the ICTY to stop the trial by itself was criminal conduct that could have killed Milosevic.
Parker then tries to get rid of the drug problem by talking about the alleged problems they had with Milosevic regarding medicines, and at para 111 makes the astounding conclusion that Milosevic took rifampicin himself to make himself more ill.
Parker then tries to blame his death, again, on his legal team by setting out all the privileges he had as a prisoner which allowed his team to function-in fact these privileges seem to be normal conditions for such a man to conduct his defence. But Parker uses these circumstances to raise suspicion that his team brought in unauthorised drugs-a slander against the team and false. No evidence exists that the team ever brought in such things. They were all searched before entering but Parker tries to make it look like the searches were not sufficient.
Parker reveals that on 19 December, just days before rifampicin is found in Milosevic’s blood, Mcfadden writes to the Registrar that the cannot take responsibility for Milosevic’s health, as he is not taking medicine as prescribed. This confirms that the ICTY knew Milosevic’s health was very bad and also raises a question as to why this letter was written at that time when seen in light of the finding of rifampicin in his blood.
Parker and the ICTY contradict themselves because after they claim that he might have been taking drugs to diminish the effectiveness of his medication, they complain that he was found with unprescribed antihypertenion drugs in his cell. This indicates that instead of trying to increase his risk of hypertension as Parker implies, Milosevic was in fact trying to lower it.
At paragraph 124 Parker asks the crucial question-how unauthorised drugs got into his system. His concluded that the defence team smuggled them in without any evidence they did. The only other way for these drugs to be introduced was by the UN staff. This possibility was dismissed out of hand.
At paragraph 136 Parker, after claiming that various Dutch doctors could not cooperate with the inquiry because Milosevic had not given permission to release his medical information to third parties states that under Rule 34 of the Rules of Detention a prisoners medical information can be released “in the interest of justice…by order of a Judge…..” Parker skips
over this and never explains why such an order was not made. So we do not know what those doctors would have said.
This is added proof that a public inquiry be called and witnesses questioned. Why did Parker not issue such an order?
These facts show that, based on this report alone, the ICTY engaged in conduct that would be considered criminal, resulting in the death of Milosevic. The Tribunal was told time and again that he was gravely ill with heart problems that needed proper investigation, treatment and complete rest before engaging in a trial. However, the Tribunal, time and again ignored the advice of the doctors and pushed him to keep going with the trial, well-knowing that the stress of the trial would certainly kill
The Tribunal refused prescribed medical treatment in Russia seemingly for political reasons-and once again put the Tribunal’s interests, whatever they are, ahead of the health of Milosevic. In other words they deliberately withheld necessary medical treatment and this lead to his death. This is a form of homicide and is manslaughter in the common law
However, there are several unexplained facts that need further investigation before ruling out poison or drugs designed to harm his health-rifampicin and droperidol being the two key ones. No proper investigation was conducted as to how these drugs could have been introduced into his body. No consideration was given to their effect. Their presence combined with the unexplained long delay in getting his body to a medical facility for tests raise questions that need to be answered.
The Parker Report itself, therefore, despite its final conclusions, provides the basis for a call for a public inquiry into the death of Milosevic. This is reinforced by the refusal of the ICTY set out in their letter of April 6 2011, from the Registrar, John Hocking that they cannot provide any information to us for independent evaluation that is not available in the public ICTY data base. It is further reinforced by the discovery that Mcfadden was supplying information the US authorities about
Milosevic throughout his detention according to Wikileaks documents, and the fact that the Office of the Prosecutor had engaged another cardiologist and toxicologist whose name does not appear in the Parker report.
A public international inquiry must be held.
Christopher Black & Alexander Mezyaev
Alexander Mezyaev is the Head of the Chair of the Academy on International Law and Governance in Kazan, Tatarstan, Russia. Alexander Mezyaev is a frequent contributor to international print and online media. His to the point and precise articles are deconstructing social constructionism, scapegoating and positioning in international politics, governance, conflict and law.
Christopher Black is an international lawyer and recognized worldwide, for his work against deviant developments in international justice. Christopher Black was the head of the Defense Committee for Slobodan Milosevic during his trial at the ICTY.
Both Alexander Mezyaev and Christopher Black are frequent contributors to nsnbc international. Their articles are published widely in international print and online media, including Strategic Culture Foundation, The 4th Media, GlobalResearch.