W R I T O F S U M M O N S
S. MILOSEVIC VERSUS THE STATE OF THE NETHERLANDS
1.Whereas at the abduction of plaintiff out of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia fundamental human rights of plaintiff were gravely violated;
2.Whereas after all by this abduction the basic rights that are due to every person regarding an intended extradition are blatantly infringed;
3.Whereas the State of the Netherlands has a heavy joint responsibility for this violation of basic human rights of plaintiff and by reason of this fact is liable for the concerned actions in tort imposed upon plaintiff;
4.Whereas because of the deprivation of liberty, plaintiff is subdued, also fundamental human rights of plaintiff are violated, that do present protection against arbitrary deprivation;
5. Whereas the State of the Netherlands also carries a direct co-responsibily for this deprivation of freedom, imposed upon plaintiff in breach of the basic legal standards;
6.Whereas the State of the Netherlands considers itself as bound, without any reservation, to the law of 1994 with regard to the installation of the so called tribunal in the Netherlands;
7.Whereas, from this point of view, the legal circumstances, under wich plaintiff is forced to undergo custody, constitutes also a severe violation of his fundamental rights;
8.Whereas also on itself the so called tribunal lacks all legal base and therefore also its usurpation of jurisdiction is void;
9.Whereas in all important human rights treaties a penal court only then is being considered as lawfull, when it is democratically legitimazed, wich element is lacking for the so called tribunal;
10.Whereas the most fundamental pillar of international law is the principle of equality and equal rights of all peoples and states and a so called tribunal, only directed against a small faction of the world community, is totally contradictory to this fundamental concept of international law, wich makes the so called tribunal also void;
11.Whereas, even in case of any judgment that this should be different, nevertheless the so called tribunal couldn't be considered as an independant and impartial legal institution, according to the standards of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Righst, by virtue of its shameless NATO-friendliness en NATO-dependence, his criminal arrest policy, his unremitting violation of basis human rights regarding to kidnapping, his overt discriminating prosecution policy, his so called rules of own concoction, his manner of conduct of the cases, his pattern of behaviour, his public statements and the origin of many of his funds;
11.Whereas therefore the exercise of legal competence of this institute upon plaintiff is only carried through unlawfully, under illegal coercion and contradictory to fundamental human rights of plaintiff;
12.Whereas the whole concept that this institute should judge by his self about his competence and legitimacy is a sad joke;
13.Whereas the State of the Netherlands is also, and not in the last place, deeply involved by granting this so called tribunal a place on Dutch territory, by co-operation with and by facilitating of this institute;
14.Whereas plaintiff invokes the legal protection of the Dutch judge against the violation of his rights, he is exposed on as a result of the actions of the so called tribunal, as well as against the jurisdiction the so called tribunal intend to pose upon him illegally;
15.Whereas after all the Dutch judge is the competent judge regarding legal protection on human rights of all people being on Dutch territory;
16.Whereas Article 13 of the European Charter on Human Rights states that the national judge must give acces in case of violation of human right abuse, so that this due acces to the Dutch court involves also on itself another basic human right that plaintiff is also explicitly claiming;
19.Whereas plaintiff as a (former) head of State can claim immunity, even if the so called tribunal should be considered as a competent and legitimate penal institution, wich is not the case;
16.Whereas the ruling that the so called tribunal doesn't recognise any immunity is as void as the establishing of the so called tribunal itself - it's not up to the Security Council or to the so called tribunal to decide about immunities, but to the international law;
17.Whereas plaintiff claims that the State of the Neterlands should ensure, without any further delay - or to make every necessary effort for this -, that plaintiff will be immediately and unconditionally released, or will be immediately and unconditionally repatriated to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, according to the following demands;
IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH :
The President of the District Court in the Hague is requested:
to order that the State of the Netherlands should proceed to the unconditional release of plaintiff, within 8 hours after the announcement of the verdict;
Alternatively
to order that the State, within 24 hours after the announcment of the verdict, should proceed to repatriate plaintiff or to make him repatriate to the territory of the Federal Republic of Jugoslavia;
More alternatively
to order that the State, without any delay, should explicitly
urge the immediate and uncondional release of plaintiff at all relevant international institutes and embodiments;
Further alternatively
to order that the State, without any delay, should explicitly urge the immediate repatriation of plaintiff to the territory of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at all relevant international institutes and embodiments;
-00000000000-