HERE IS  THE STATEMENT OF GREECE'S SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT:

Twenty members of the Council of State (Greece's supreme
 administrative court) have issued a statement deploring the
 international crimes against Yugoslavia, which inaugurate a "period of lawlessness"
and bring us back to the "eras of the Holy Alliance and the Axis."
 NATO was found guilty of an unprecedented and barbaric attack
 against Yugoslavia in a statement signed by
20 high- ranking judges of the Greek Council of State,
headed by its most senior vice-president Michalis Dekleris. In this important statement, the judges condemn the NATO bombardments, denounce the international crimes being
committed by the NATO countries through this armed attack,
  and warn that any law passed deciding to involve Greece in this
 war will constitute a gross violation of the Constitution.

 For the first time since the bombing began, Greek judges
have taken a stand and, citing legal arguments, point out that the NATO
offensive against  Yugoslavia has inaugurated a period of lawlessness in
international relations,  bringing us back to the eras of the Holy Alliance and the
Axis. In fact, they pointed out that "this attack is accompanied by the
revival of black propaganda  that attempts to exploit the misfortunes of the refugees
to draw public attention  away from the violation of international law."

              1. NATO's offensive against a sovereign European state,
unprecedented in the post-war years, is an affront not only to the ethical
principles of Greek and  European civilisation, but also to the fundamental
precepts of international law. This latter is a legal issue and should not be
overshadowed by the moral revulsion that is justly provoked by this cowardly and
barbaric attack. On the contrary, this issue is of primary importance and must be
clarified in particular by  those who have a competent opinion about the Law, since
their duty is to serve it.

               2. This inexcusable attack is taking place in flagrant
violation of articles 1 and 2  of the United Nations Charter, which expressly prohibits
the use of violence in  international relations, and designates the Security
Council (article 41 ff.) exclusively competent in international crises. According
to these provisions, but also to the generally recognised precepts of
international law, there is no room for self-appointed crisis managers, nor is it permitted,
on any pretext whatsoever, for third countries to intervene in the
internal affairs of a sovereign state.

               3. But this attack even violates the NATO Charter, the
exclusive purpose of which is collective defence of the area defined therein
that coincides with the  boundaries of its member states, and which has expressly
committed itself in its international relations to refrain from the threat or use
of violence in any way  whatsoever that is incompatible with the principles and
purposes of the UN  (article 1). That is, by its own Charter, NATO has been
placed under the rule of   the UN Charter. And it could not have been otherwise,
since no international  organisation or alliance can be placed above the United
Nations.

               4. In addition, both the United Nations Charter and all
generally recognised  precepts of international law safeguard the equality and
sovereignty of all  peoples, irrespective of their numbers and power, and do
not recognise any  jurisdiction on the part of powerful nations to intervene
in the internal affairs of  weaker nations or to dictate solutions to their own
liking. Consequently, however serious the crisis in Kosovo may be, it remains
an internal Yugoslav  affair and belongs to the exclusive jurisdiction of the
sovereign Yugoslav state.  Any humanitarian or other interest on the part of the UN,
other international organisations or third countries may be manifested only
in a peaceful way and by  diplomatic means within the context of the UN Charter.

               5. And, in this case, the United Nations, respecting
these restrictions, remained  within its jurisdiction, recommending to the lawful
government of Yugoslavia that  they fulfil their obligations (Security Council
resolutions No 1160/31.3.1998 and  1199/23.9.1998). But behind the scenes, the NATO military
alliance appeared  in a self-appointed role, and without having - nor could
it have had - any  competence to become involved in this matter, having
first dictated an insolent  ultimatum disputing the very sovereignty of Yugoslavia,
then launched an  aggressive war against this state, demanding that it
conform to NATO demands.  This attack is accompanied by the revival of dark
propaganda that attempts to  exploit the misery of the refugees to draw public
attention away from the violation of international law.

               6. The legal significance of these actions should not be
concealed nor  underestimated. By their armed attack, the NATO countries
are committing the  following international crimes, in accordance with the
charter being drafted for  the International Criminal Court, which refers to the
Geneva Conventions dated 12 August 1949 (UN Doc. A/CONF/183/9) and in particular:
a) the crime of   waging an offensive war, with the violent destruction of
human life, cultural  monuments and entire settlements, b) the crime of
genocide by the deliberate  destruction of the infrastructure of the Serbian
community and the creation in it of  conditions that lead to its physical annihilation, and c)
the crime of ecological  destruction by the use of military technology that causes
damage to people's  health and to the natural environment, a crime also
committed against third  countries to which deadly pollution is carried.

               7. During the recent Washington summit, the leadership of
the attacking NATO  countries tried to amend the provisions of its Charter to
make it autonomous in  continuing the attack on Yugoslavia, and also with regard
to its plans for the  future in carrying out so-called peace-making and
humanitarian interventions  under the pretext of "crisis management"! It tried in
vain. The only valid crisis  management, according to international law, remains as
ever the UN. And no other organisation that is by definition inferior to it
can remove or usurp this role.   NATO cannot abolish international law nor can it produce
new, generally  recognised precepts of international legality. Its new
Charter affects only the  governments that signed it. And even if it is ratified by
the national Parliaments of  its member states, it will declare the intentions of just
19 out of a total of 158  states on the planet. The remaining states will not
tolerate the falsification or  mockery of international law. They reject the theory that
might is right, whether  overt or disguised. And small states like Greece will be
in danger if they  relinquish rights which have been undisputed for
centuries. The truth is that  NATO's attack on Yugoslavia inaugurates a period of
lawlessness in  international relations. We are returning to the era of
the Holy Alliance and the  Axis, against which humanity, and the Greeks in
particular, fought with such great sacrifices.

               8. Having become involved in this crisis Greece has no
option other than to do  what its culture and Constitution dictate, namely to
follow the generally recognised precepts of international law, to seek the
consolidation of peace, and  to use its armed forces only for defensive purposes
(article 2 para 2 and article 4  para 6 of the Constitution). In the light of these
provisions of the Constitution of  the Hellenic State and the provisions of the United
Nations Charter, it is possible  to interpret the provisions of articles 27 para 2 and 28
para 3 of the Constitution, which after a special law is passed, make
it possible for foreign troops to sojourn in or travel across the Hellenic State
or for national sovereignty  to be restricted. These provisions could, however, be
implemented only with  respect to the participation of Greece in a defensive
war, and not to facilitate an  attack against a third state. Consequently, the
involvement of Greece in this on-going war against Yugoslavia cannot be decided upon
even by law because  such a law would be totally unconstitutional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  In addition to Mr. Dekleris, this statement was signed by
the following Council of State members: St. Sarivalasis, Ioanna Mari, Dim.
Kostopoulos, Evdoxia Galanou, Sot. Rizos, Pan. Pikrammenos, Nik. Sakellariou,
Th. Papaevangellou,  Nik. Rozos, Dion. Marinakis, St. Haralambos and associate
judges Maria  Karamanov, Ekaterini Christoforidou, I. Kapelousos, Dim.
Alexandris, Eleni Anagnostopoulou, Euth. Antonopoulos, Varvara Kapitsi,
Theo. Aravanis.