|
THE RETURN TO LEGITIMACY OF THE ONLY LEGAL AND
INTERNATIONALLY RECOGNIZED CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
CONSTITUTION
OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA FROM YEAR 1992 IS
BASED ON U.N. AND E.U. CONVENTIONS ON HUMAN RIGHTS, EQUALITY
AND CONSTITUTIONAL RECOGNITION OF ALL CITIZENS OF REPUBLIC
OF BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, AND THE REGIONAL DECENTRALIZATION FOR
THE BENEFIT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND REGIONS WITHIN THE
CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM OF REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA.
UNDER THE
CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, ALL
CITIZENS (REGARDLESS OF ETHNICITY OR RELIGION), WERE
CONSIDERED EQUAL AND THERE WAS NO NEED FOR AGGRESSION FROM NEIGHBOURING
STATES, WHICH WAS CARRIED OUT UNDER THE PRETEXT
THAT IN REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA SOME CITIZENS
WOULD HAVE BECOME UNEQUAL. THE CONSTITUTION OF REPUBLIC OF
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA WAS A SECULAR CONSTITUTION WITH EQUAL
PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW FOR ALL CITIZENS OF REPUBLIC OF
BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA.
ON THE REFERENDUM
HELD ON FEBRUARY 29, AND MARCH 1, 1992 THE CITIZENS OF
BOSNIA VOTED WITH 64 PERCENT MAJORITY FOR SOVEREIGN AND
INDEPENDENT REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA, COUNTRY WITH
EQUALITY FOR ALL ITS CITIZENS AND ETHNIC GROUPS. IMMEDIATELY
AFTER THAT REFERENDUM THERE WAS AN AGGRESSION FROM SERBIA
AND MONTENEGRO AND SOON AFTER THAT FROM CROATIA RESULTING
IN: ABOUT 200,000 CITIZENS OF REPUBLIC BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA
KILLED, TENS OF THOUSANDS OF INVALIDS, THOUSANDS OF RAPED
WOMEN, ABOUT TWO MILLION CITIZENS FORCED FROM THEIR HOMES,
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN THAT HAVE LOST ONE OR BOTH
PARENTS, AND ENORMOUS MATERIAL DAMAGE. THE PURPOSE OF THAT
AGGRESSION WAS AND STILL IS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE REPUBLIC
OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA. THAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED TO A LARGE
DEGREE, SO THE LEGITIMATE AND LEGAL CONSTITUTION OF THE
REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA HAS BEEN SUSPENDED
ILLEGALLY.
WE, THE OVERWHELMING
MAJORITY OF CITIZENS OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA,
HAVE DEFENDED AND CONTINUE TO DEFEND THE LEGITIMATE
CONSTITUTION, LAWFULLY CONSTITUTED STATE, AND HUMAN RIGHTS
OF ALL CITIZENS OF THE REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINA,
REGARDLESS OF RELIGION, ETHNICITY OR ANY OTHER
DISTINGUISHING ATTRIBUTE.
|
|
|
EXPLANATION
|
| |
|
ACCORDING TO NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW
THE DAYTON CONSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL
1. Article II of the
Genocide Convention defines the international crime of
"genocide" as follows: In the present Convention,
genocide means any of the following acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical,
racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of
the group;
(b) Causing serious
bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately
inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to
bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures
intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly
transferring children of the group to another group.
In the year 1993, The
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina filed a lawsuit at
the International Court of Justice in the Hague with a
charge that the former Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)
had
committed the act of genocide, as defined in parts (a), (b),
(c), and (d) of the Article II of the genocide convention
above. Furthermore, Bosnia and Herzegovina has won every
stage of the still ongoing legal process, with only the oral
arguments and verdict still pending.
The citizens of Bosnia
and Herzegovina demand that the Serbian Republic, as created
by genocide, be pronounced illegal and the Constitution
of the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina be restored.
2. The Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina was an
internationally recognised country and 177th in the order of recognized members in the UN. Under the UN
Charter, the constitution and the institutions of a member state of the UN cannot be changed with
aggression by any other country and even the United Nations have no right to
meddle in the internal affairs of its members.
Article 2, paragraph 7 of the UN charter states:
Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters
which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit
such matters to settlement under the present Charter.
Security Council of the United Nations in its resolution 752 from year 1992 declared Serbia and
Montenegro aggressors on the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and in resolution 757 from the year
1992 it started punishing aggressors by imposing economic sanctions.
The United Nations should not have allowed for the start of negotiations about constitutional change of a
member state, victim of aggression, regardless of the fact that the president of the presidency of the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina consented to participate in such negotiations. The result of such
negotiations is forceful change of the constitution of a state that is the victim of aggression.
3. Under the Dayton agreement, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina found itself under the guardianship
of SR Yugoslavia and the Republic of Croatia, which is forbidden under article 2 of the UN Charter.
International law, protection of member states, and the obligation of the UN to secure that protection,
exists except if the member state itself waves those rights but the waver must not be the result of
illegitimate representation, reinterpretation of
subjects of negotiations and the deception by officials of their own constituents. Concerning their scheme
(which involve negotiations about constitution behind closed doors
and outside of state institutions), Bosnian
negotiators were hiding and still hide with falsehood that there is no law but only conspiracies.
Article 2.1 of the UN charter states:
The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its members.
4. Because the constitution of one country is an expression of sovereignty and equality of member
states of the UN, it is clear that negotiation about constitution by neighbouring countries is a direct
violation of article 2 of UN Charter, as the paramount norm of international law. It is a fact the Socialist
Republic of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Croatia became participants in negotiations about the
constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, by which they attempted to change the constitution of the
Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina through the use of war and armed aggression, which is contrary to the Article
2 of the UN Charter.
People that have, ever since Lisbon in 1992, through Geneva in 1993, and Dayton in 1995 given the aggressor
a vision of success by agreeing to discuss their own constitution today defend their actions under the
excuse of international pressure, all the while hiding the facts of unquestionable, indivisible, and
non-transferrable sovereignty as well as the fact that any agreement under pressure, falsehood, or through
illegitimate acts is null and void.
5. From the position of international law, negotiating about the constitution of the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina and agreeing to Dayton Constitution, the act of treason is committed against
the Republic that is seen from articles 154, and 155 of constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina,
which state:
Article 154:
It is a sacred and inalienable right and duty of citizens, all members of all ethnic groups living in
Bosnia and Herzegovina to protect and defend the liberty, independence, sovereignty, territorial
integrity and unity, and the organization of the Republic defined by the Constitution.
Article 155:
No person has the right to recognize or to sign the capitulation, or to accept or recognize occupation of
the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina or any single part of it. No person has the right to prevent the
citizens of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina from fighting any aggressor against the Republic. Such
acts are unconstitutional and they are punishable as treason against the Republic. Treason against the
Republic is the heaviest offence against the people and is treated as a criminal act of the highest
degree.
The legitimate representative of the Croat people in Bosnia-Herzegovina -- Kresimir Zubak -- did not
consent to signing even the preliminary peace agreement in Dayton, so in the name of Croats from
Bosnia-Herzegovina that agreement was signed by representatives from the neighbouring country of
Croatia, which is unheard of in international law.
Annex 4 of the final version of the peace agreement, the Paris Agreement, which is currently used in place
of the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina was never ratified by the Parliament of the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina, which proves the illegitimacy of the actions of the negotiating representatives of
Bosnia and Herzegovina and the signers of the Paris Agreement. That means that Annex 4 never passed the
legal procedure for constitutional changes prescribed in the previous, at the time the only valid
Constitution of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
6. From the aspect of the conventions of international agreements, the Vienna convention of 1969, amended to
the UN Charter, considers invalid those agreements that are contrary to international law, that is, those
agreements that are contrary to the UN Charter. It is important for Bosnia and Herzegovina that the Article
53 of the above mentioned convention even considers invalid agreements that are brought voluntarily, if
they are contrary to the international law. Additionally , as an agreement, the Dayton
Constitution stands in contradiction to the referenced convention for international agreements,
under which as agreements are considered only those that are negotiated
between countries, excluding the possibility that they also contain a constitution of
some member country.
Therefore, the Dayton Constitution is an act of the illegal constitutional capitulation that is signed
and vouched for by two neighbouring countries, both of which intended changing the constitution of the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as one of their primary war objectives. With that, the Republic of
Bosnia and Herzegovina was successfully denied the implementation of the UN Charter, and the application
of the international laws against states guilty of aggression and genocide.
|
|
