Speech by Branislav Tapušković at the Global Conference on Multipolarity, 29 April 2023

Branislav Tapušković, Serbian Lawyer for more than 60 years (known also as Amicus Curiae in the case against Slobodan Milošević in the Hague Tribunal for Ex-Yu and Rwanda – expected to be against Slobodan Milošević, but as a justful person, he was not, he deconstructed their case and he was asked to leave the “Tribunal”.

I am deeply convinced that there is no justice without universal justice. Twenty years ago, I have been Amicus Curiae for three years in the Hague Tribunal for ex/Yu and Rwanda, in their case against President Slobodan Milošević.

He was convinced for war crimes in May 1999, while NATO bombing of Yugoslavia was still going on. This was for the first time in history that the chief of the sovereign state was convinced and brought to trial. At the same time, no NATO countries chiefs of states were called for responsibility for 75 days of bombing of civilians and civilian infrastructure with the ammunition with depleted uranium / although they acted in total opposition with UN and international law principles.

There is something I would like to outline in order to make things more clear. In the introductory notes in the case against President Slobodan Milošević, on February 13th, 2002, Karla Del Ponte noted that it had benn the first case in history that the chief of sovereign country was brought to trial. Then, she had invited her deputy, the prosecutor Rheinfeld to speak and to better explain her words, in details. Then, he said: “Honourable Court, more than half a century ago, Judge Jackson, the main prosecutor of International Military Court in Nurnberg said as follows: ‘The wrongdoings which we now attempt to prosecute were so deliberate, so evil and so destructive, that civilization could not survive their repeating.’ “ This is a sentence of judge Jackson which Rheinfeld quoted and then he added: “Jackson had spoken about the heavy responsibility which came from the first trial held on the occasion of crimes against peace. In that time, the Court hoped that the ruling will serve as deterrent factor for world leaders. The hope was that this kind of trials, like Nurnberg would not be necessary, again. It seems that hope was in vain, it looks like history is repeating and that lessons are not learnt, if they ever were. Or they were ignored and forgotten. This trial represents the start and the first world prosecution of the ex chief of state for the crimes committed while he was the chief of state.

And this is the problem which I mentioned at the very beginning – about universal justice. Two months ahead Karla del Ponte’s speech, I was talking at that Court exactly about universal justice and that it was not possible to talk about justice of only two spots in the Globe – Rwanda and former Yugoslavia, but that talk should be universal.

One year after those events, International Permanent Criminal Court in The Hague was established in order to prosecute every chief of any state if they started a war and committed crimes against peace. And you all know what is the fact and what has been happening since 2002 – what kind of wars were started.

Now there is that clash in Ukraine – and now there is only one question: who is in charge to select the crime to be prosecuted? How and why, the Prosecutor of the Permanent Criminal Court in the Hague decided to start a criminal case and procedure against Russian head of state - ok, maybe he has to do that – but in the case he has to do that, universal justice demands that everyone, every chief of state ahead of him, who has committed crime against peace, since 2002 – I do not even want to mention their names or to mention their war crimes, which has not expired, since Hiroshima to the present day. There has not been a day without war since the end of WW2. There must be responsibility for the crimes against peace and it has to be a universal rule for justice and it has to have universal dimension and everyone, who committed a crime has to be prosecute. Everyone.