Wednesday, 19 May 2010

Honorable Minister,

As the elected delegate for Serbian Diaspora in Australia for NSW, ACT, QLD and NZ which according to ABS represents more than 46,000¹ voters at the federal level, the plight and incarceration of Daniel Snedden (born as Dragan Vasiljkovic) has been brought to my attention.

Daniel Snedden ( after spending nearly 4 years in jail without any Australian charges or convictions) is in custody again pending a determination by you of an extradition request to Croatia following the decision of the  High Court  judges to overrule their Full Federal Court colleagues. The basis for their decision has been that – “there is manifestly no evidence that he would not be given a fair trial in Croatia”. Unfortunately this does not accord with the current practice in Croatia, as so clearly set out in the reasons of the Full Federal Court (including racial discrimination), and as also documented, amongst others, by the latest European Union Progress report on Croatia as well as those of Amnesty International. All such evidence confirms that the legacy of the 1991 – 95 violent succession war by Croatia against Yugoslavia still “continues to overshadow human rights in Croatia”, particularly against the Serbian minority.

The decision as to whether or not to extradite Daniel Snedden rests with your Office, and we urge you when you are considering the issues prior to making your judgement to consider the above division in the 2 highest Courts of Australia and the following aspects of the case before you:

1. Snedden is an Australian citizen and the bona fides of the allegations against him should  be examined by the Australian Courts in the first instance.

2. There is no reciprocity or mutuality in the extradition process such that Croatian citizens cannot be extradited to Australia, that is this is a one-way extradition agreement. When Croatian president Ivo Josipovic “welcomed the arrest” of Snedden on 13/5/10, he did not mention that his country under its constitution cannot extradite its citizens to Australia and had repudiated the principles of mutuality and reciprocity in inter-country relationships.

3. Snedden has an unfinished defamation legal process before the Australian Courts which has a direct bearing on the judicial status of the plaintiff.

4. The International Crimes Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia expressed in writing that it has no interest in Daniel Snedden.

5. Snedden was a highly successful and charismatic personality who successfully organised the defence of the Serbian constituent and indigenous population (later branded a minority by the Croatians) in the Krajina region of the current new country Croatia – which experienced one of the largest ethnic cleansing operation by the Croatian military in the Balkans after he had left. Delivering him into the hands of his former foes is highly unlikely to result in his unbiased treatment. The Full Federal Court referred to this in its decision.

In supporting the above claims that  Daniel Snedden would not be given a fair trial in Croatia I have included the following reports and press releases by Amnesty International in the last 3 years:

• Briefing to the European Commission and member states of the European Union (EU) on the progress made by the Republic of Croatia in prosecution of war crimes

23 April 2010

Report       EUR 64/002/2010

This briefing is submitted by Amnesty International on the occasion of the discussion between the European Commission, the European Union Member States and the Government of the Republic of Croatia on the progress made by Croatia in fulfilling its commitments in the area of the judiciary and human rights. In particular, it provides an analysis of the latest measures undertaken by the Croatian authorities in the investigation and prosecution of war crimes and in providing the victims of wartime atrocities with access to justice and reparation as stipulated by international law.

The organization continues to be concerned that both case selection by the prosecution, as well as an extensive use of mitigating circumstances in cases where the accused were members of the Croatian Army and police forces, provide for bias in the judiciary against Croatian Serbs. 

According to Amnesty International’s research, most of the prosecutions which have taken place since the end of the war relate to crimes committed by members of the Croatian Serb population while the crimes committed by members of the Croatian Army and police forces remain largely unaddressed.

The report goes on to say that:

“The research of Amnesty International and many other NGOs and international organizations indicates that the events in Sisak and surrounding villages followed a pattern which included killings, torture and enforced disappearances of Croatian Serbs in the town of Sisak; cases of killings, torture and other ill-treatment in the ORA detention facility in Sisak; as well as the 22 August 1991 military operation conducted by the “Thunders” unit in the surrounding villages. The estimates on the numbers of victims vary from 35 to more than 600 with the most reliable number of around 100 persons killed or disappeared, almost all of them Croatian Serbs.” ^{(pp 07)}

The UN Human Rights Committee, which in October 2009 reviewed the second periodic report submitted by the government of Croatia on its implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), raised concerns about “reports that many potential cases of war crimes remain unresolved, and that the selection of cases has been disproportionally directed at ethnic Serbs”. ^{(pp 09)}

• Croatia: Briefing to the United Nations Committee against Torture

15 April 2010

Report       EUR 64/001/2010

This briefing outlines Amnesty International’s concerns about the failure of the authorities to take adequate measures to implement some of the provisions of the Convention and some of the recommendations made by the Committee against Torture (hereafter, the Committee) following its examination of Croatia’s third periodic report in May 2004 (UN Doc: CAT/C/CR/32/3). Amnesty International considers that these failures have resulted in ongoing violations of the rights of individuals which are guaranteed under the Convention.

In its Concluding Observations on the Republic of Croatia in May 2004 the Committee expressed its concerns in relation to torture and ill-treatment which occurred in the context of the 1991-1995 war. Those concerns included:

“(i)     The reported failure of the State party to carry out prompt, impartial and       full           investigations, to prosecute the perpetrators and to provide fair and     adequate compensation to the victims;

(ii)      Allegations that double standards were applied at all stages of               the             proceedings against Serb defendants and in favour of Croat        defendants in war crime trials;

(iii)     The reported harassment, intimidation and threats faced by witnesses and      victims testifying in proceedings and the lack of adequate protection from        the State party.”

The Committee recommended that Croatia undertake “effective measures       to ensure impartial, full and prompt investigations into all allegations of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, the prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators as appropriate and irrespective of their ethnic origin, and the provision of fair and adequate compensation for the victims.”

Amnesty International is concerned that despite some efforts undertaken in the recent years the authorities have failed to adequately implement the above-mentioned recommendations by the Committee. ^{(pp 06)}

• Croatia: Croatia urged to end impunity for war crimes and to defend journalists

3 November 2009

Document       EUR 64/002/2009

• Croatia: Briefing to the Human Rights Committee on the Republic of Croatia

21 January 2009

Report       EUR 64/001/2009

This briefing outlines Amnesty International’s concerns about the failure of the Croatian authorities to meet its obligations to respect and protect the rights to life, to freedom from torture and other ill-treatment and to a remedy for violations of these rights without discrimination; as well as the right to freedom of expression, as required under Articles 6, 7, 2 and 26 and 19 of the ICCPR (respectively), in particular in relation to the human rights violations which took place during the 1991-1995 war.

In particular, this briefing highlights concerns related to:

The failure of the Croatian authorities to provide an effective remedy for war crimes committed by the members of the Croatian Army and police forces against Croatian Serbs and members of other minority communities by failing to ensure independent, impartial and thorough investigations and prosecutions of these war crimes which includes:

• Discrimination in charging depending on the ethnicity of the accused and the victim;
• Discriminatory use of the in absentia trials;
• Discrimination in sentencing depending on the ethnicity of the accused.

Croatia’s failure to guarantee the right to freedom of expression by not undertaking adequate measures to protect journalists from attacks and intimidation and by not investigating, prosecuting and punishing those responsible for these attacks.

• Croatia: Further information on fear for safety: Drago Hedl (m)
  5 December 2008

Urgent Action       EUR 64/007/2008

On 4 December, police investigations identified a man who is believed to be responsible for the latest death threats against Croatian journalist Drago Hedl. The case was sent to the County Prosecutor in Osijek for further investigation.

• Croatian journalists under attack | Amnesty International

1 December 2008

Story      

• Croatia: Government must investigate attacks against journalists

29 November 2008

Press Release    

• Croatia: Fear for safety: Drago Hedl (m)

28 November 2008

Urgent Action       EUR 64/006/2008

Journalist Drago Hedl has received a series of death threats, most recently on 27 November. The threats are believed to be connected to his investigative reports linking a high-level Croatian politician to the killing of Croatian Serbs in the town of Osijek during the 1991-1995 war. Drago Hedl’s life is in danger.

I therefore urge you when considering making your determination in relation to the extradition request to Croatia in respect of Daniel Snedden to exercise your unencumbered judgement and decline extradition and not open the floodgates for similar abuses of our judicial system for the political ends of other countries.

I look forward to meeting with you at the earliest opportunity, once satisfactory arrangements have been made.

Yours sincerely

Dragan Milovanović

DELEGATE OF SERBIAN DIASPORA FOR NSW, ACT, QLD & NZ

___________________

1 Officially ABS Census data (B08 ANCESTRY(a) BY COUNTRY OF BIRTH OF PARENTS) stipulates that there is 95,365 SERBS living in Australia, however unofficially there is more than 200,000 SERBS living in Australia. This discrepancy between the official ABS and unofficial data is due to the fact that SERBS as predominant constituent population lived in all of the Republics of former Yugoslavia (Note 2/3 of todays Croatia, Serbia with Kosovo and Metohija, all of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia and Montenegro are ancient Serbian lands that fell into occupation by Ottoman Empire from 1389 til 1912) These Republics have become new Balkan countries due to break up of former Yugoslavia. Hence when answering question pertaining to country of birth of parents they have thus entered the names of former Republics. Also many Serbian refugees from Serbian Krajina part of today’s Croatia have not declared themselves as Serbs in fear of persecution.