Undead Milosevic invited to decide fate of Kosovo

[Victor Galis]

Well ok, not really, but I thought that made for a better title:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6077280.stm

Vote card sent to dead president

Slobodan Milosevic died at the detention unit in March
Former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic has been invited to vote in an upcoming referendum, despite having died while awaiting trial in March.
Serbia's Press newspaper said a voting card had been sent out, inviting him to a polling station in a Belgrade suburb.

Milosevic died of natural causes on March 11 before the conclusion of a war crimes tribunal in The Hague over his conduct during the Bosnian war.

The referendum this weekend will gauge public opinion on Kosovan independence.

It follows an amendment to the constitution last month stating that the breakaway region of Kosovo is a sovereign Serbian territory.

Milosevic fought a bloody war in the late 1990s to prevent Kosovo seceding from Serbian-dominated Yugoslavia.

The conflict led to a Nato war against Serbia in 1999, in the aftermath of which Milosevic was overthrown by a popular uprising.

He was extradited to the Hague war crimes tribunal in 2001 and died of a heart attack while on trial for charges including genocide.

[BeBMan]

*thinks about FG jokes*

[DRoseDARs]

He is RISEN!

[Tattila the Hun]

I'd imagine he'd oppose it.

[Apocalypse]

natural causes

lies

[Imran Siddiqui]

Can it be Undead Zombie Milosevic?

[Ninot]

Originally posted by BeBro
*thinks about FG jokes*

Don't joke about FG, he died man.

[BeBMan]

lies

:tinfoil hat:

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by Ninot


Don't joke about FG, he died man.

But he is better now.



Bwaiins!

[Cort Haus]

He was effectively murdered by being denied the medical treatment he needed.

[BeBMan]

No, he was denied to travel to Russia for treatment. The argument was that the same kind of treatment was possible where he was in the Netherlands.

[Cort Haus]

When was the equivalent local treatment offered? According to the Hague's Dr. Leclercq from France, and Dr. Tavernier from Belgium, he didn't need any treatment at all.

Dr Tavernier: "there is no test that if carried out would have helped detect or prevent the cause of death."

Leclercq : "unfortunately, the possibilities of preventive treatment are almost nil."

[BeBMan]

In the court's decision against his travel to Russia the court agrees that care can be provided in the Netherlands.

The official view of the ICTY was that he was repeatedly examined by experts related to the ICTY as well as independent experts, sometimes on Milosevics request, and that he was given medicaments under supervision, and that in several cases the trial was suspended for a longer period due to his health.

Originally posted by Cort Haus
Dr Tavernier: [i]"there is no test that if carried out would have helped detect or prevent the cause of death."

Leclercq : "unfortunately, the possibilities of preventive treatment are almost nil."

As for your quotes, depends what they meant. For both quotes we would need more context. And both do not necessarily mean that he wasn't given or offered the correct treatment. For example the first: people can die even when they are given treatment - so the statement that they couldn't prevent his death at some point doesn't mean he received no treatment. The second is so short that I don't even know what he's talking about - is it about Milosevic in general, certain health problems, etc.

To my knowledge the claim of inadequate treatment came mainly from Milosevic himself (in a letter to the Russian gov) and from certain doctors that had close ties to him (like Andric) - it's not that difficult to identify some self-interest here. To be fair - there are also some conflicting reports from several other doctors, some indeed spoke of inadequate treatment as well, but not all came to the conclusion that the travel to Russia and the treatment there would have been the only solution.

In any case I fail to see any conclusive proof that the decision to deny him the travel means he was murdered. Let's not forget that there were also suspicions that he worsened his health himself by taking inadequate stuff to get permission to go to Russia, simply to escape the trial. That's not proven as well, but given the info we have it's not impossible per se.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by BeBro
The official view of the ICTY was that he was repeatedly examined by experts related to the ICTY as well as independent experts, sometimes on Milosevics request, and that he was given medicaments under supervision, and that in several cases the trial was suspended for a longer period due to his health.

This is side-stepping the salient point, which is the refusal to allow treatment in Moscow.

As for your quotes, depends what they meant. For both quotes we would need more context.

Paragraph 100 of the Parker Report: http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/parkerreport.pdf

The tribunal is relying on the opinions of these doctors to avoid responsibility for Milosevic's death. saying effectively "Look, there was nothing we could do".

In para 65 of the same report though, it refers to another group of doctors that advised on heart surgery at the Bakoulev Centre for Cardiovascular Surgery in Moscow.

Prof Bockeria of the Bakoulev Centre said "the patient died because of myocardial infarction due to narrowing of the LAD [left descending artery] and muscular bridge over that vessel. He could be treated easily at any place of the world either by minimally invasive surgery on the beating heart or by angioplasty and stenting." (para 96)

So, treatment in Holland should have been possible, but the Bakoulev Centre subsequently treated his brother for a similar condition - and succesfully. Medically, it would have been a good place to go, especially if the patient distrusts the care he had been recieving at the Hague. Did the tribunal even offer a local alternative?

In any case I fail to see any conclusive proof that the decision to deny him the travel means he was murdered.

Murder would be too strong, I accept, but I do think that denying him the travel meant denying him the treatment which the doctor who would have operated insists would have saved his life. Given that he did not trust the tribunal, it is understandable that he felt it essential to be treated in the benign environment of the Bakoulev Centre.

Let's not forget that there were also suspicions that he worsened his health himself by taking inadequate stuff to get permission to go to Russia, simply to escape the trial. That's not proven as well, but given the info we have it's not impossible per se.

The info we have makes it highly unlikely that he would either have deliberately worsened his health or wished to escape.

What we know is that he was comitted to fighting his corner, for the sake of the historical record. In a complex case, he needed the time to address the volume and detail of the charges levelled against him. Every delay due to illness encouraged the court to try and speed things along, effectively reducing the time he had to defend himself, and perhaps not even being allowed to defend himself at all.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

This is side-stepping the salient point, which is the refusal to allow treatment in Moscow.

IMO, the point is if there was adequate treatment. The court holds the view there was, and so it was not necessary to travel, esp. given the possibility that he could not return.

Paragraph 100 of the Parker Report: http://www.un.org/icty/milosevic/parkerreport.pdf

The tribunal is relying on the opinions of these doctors to avoid responsibility for Milosevic's death. saying effectively "Look, there was nothing we could do".

Again that doesn't mean that he was given not the correct treatment or that treatment in Moscow would have prevented his death. The part where the quotes come from states that those two doctors refer to a medical problem they do not see as cause for his death. That's the point why they thought that this problem didn't need treatment. That does not mean those two said he needs no treatment at all (and it also doesn't say if he was given any treatment, and if it was adequate or not).

In para 65 of the same report though, it refers to another group of doctors that advised on heart surgery at the Bakoulev Centre for Cardiovascular Surgery in Moscow.

Prof Bockeria of the Bakoulev Centre said "the patient died because of myocardial infarction due to narrowing of the LAD [left descending artery] and muscular bridge over that vessel. He could be treated easily at any place of the world either by minimally invasive surgery on the beating heart or by angioplasty and stenting." (para 96)

And as P101 says, both Leclercq and Tavernier wouldn't describe the cause as "myocardial infarction". And 102 says what I wrote - different opinions about the right way amongst the experts. If there's no agreement what the right treatment would have been the "surgery in Russia" (or, as 102 also says, any surgery at all) POV cannot be presented as if it was clearly the only right thing to do, esp. since there is also disagreement about the cause for his death.

Murder would be too strong, I accept, but I do think that denying him the travel meant denying him the treatment which the doctor who would have operated insists would have saved his life.

And as P97 states several doctors expessed other views before is death, and even Bockeria didn't speak of it three months before (Dec 2005), although he insists the need for surgery would have become appararent had Milosevic been long enough in Moscow. Still doesn't prove his opinion is the correct one, and that surgery was needed, and the right form of treatment.

The info we have makes it highly unlikely that he would either have deliberately worsened his health or wished to escape.

P103 say he didn't even do the basic things like following a diet, stop smoking etc.

P104 is also interesting, according to that he often didn't take medication he should, refused medical tests in some cases, refused hospitalization in another case.....

P105 says non-prescribed and unauthorized stuff was found in several cases too.

There are several other, similar points in the report......sure, there can be other explanations than that he tried to worsen his condition, still I find it difficult to accuse the court of denying him the right treatment when Milosevic himself didn't care about medical advice and treatment in several instances.

What we know is that he was comitted to fighting his corner, for the sake of the historical record. In a complex case, he needed the time to address the volume and detail of the charges levelled against him. Every delay due to illness encouraged the court to try and speed things along, effectively reducing the time he had to defend himself, and perhaps not even being allowed to defend himself at all.

How can you know his intentions?