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-