Cou Rl of Rosnla and Hcrzcgo\';Na Numbcr: X-KRZ-OS/04 Sarajevo, 7 August 2007

$Cou Rl of Rosnla and Hcrzcgo\';Na Numbcr: X-KRZ-OS/04 Sarajevo, 7 August 2007$

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA Cou rl of Rosnla and Hcrzcgo\';na Numbcr: X-KRZ-OS/04 Sarajevo, 7 August 2007

IN THE NAME OF I:IOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA!

Coun of Bosnio nnd Herzellovina, the Panel of the Appellate Division of Section I for War Crimes comprised of Judge Azra Miletie, as President of the Panel, and Judges Jose Ricardo de Prada So laesa and Finn l.ynghjem, as the Panel Members, with ieljko Mnrenic panicipating as a legal advisor, in the criminal case against the accused Bobon SimSie for the criminal offence of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Anicle 172 (I) (h) in conjunction with Subparagraphs a), d), e), I), g), i) and k) of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Her:tegovina, with respect to the Indictment of the Prosecutor's Omce of Bosnia and Herzegovina Number KT-RZ-2105 of 28 June 2005, confirmed on 8 July 2005, upon the trial held in the presence of the Prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Omce of Bosnia and Her~egovina Mirko Letic, the accused Bobon SimSic and his Defence Counsel, attorney Veljko CivSa, rendered and on 14 August 2007 publici)' announced the following

VERDICT

THE ACCUSED S08AN SIMSIC, son of father Siobodan and mother Jelena, nee Mosie, born in ViSegrad on 7 December 1967, wilh pennanenr residence in the village of Zlijeb al Number 3.5, ViSegrad Municipalily, Serb, police omcer by occupalion, compleled secondary educalion - locksmilh, married, falher oflwo minor children, served Ihe mililar)' lerm as member of Ihe fonner JNA in 1986 in Slip, regislered in Ihe mililary records of Ihe Municipal Depanmenr of the Minislry of Defence in ViSegrad, has nOI been decoraled, indigenl, no previous conviclions, cilizen of BiH, personal ID number 171296713364 7, in cuslody of the Coun of BiH since 24 January 2005

Is found guilty Becnuse: As a pan of a widespread and S),Slemolic auack of Ihe Serb Army. Police and paramilitary Serb fornlDtions led againstlhe Bosniak civilian population in Ihe terrilory of the ViSegrad MunicipalilY, being aware of thaI attock, as a member of Ihe Reserve Police Forces of the Republika Srpska Minislr)' of the I",erior, ViSegrad Police Slolion, in the period from April 10 July 1992, he persecuted Bosniak civilian population on polilical, national, elhnic, cuilltral and religious background, by committing murders, incarceralion, lonure, enforced disappcarance of persons and assisting in Ihe rape inasmuch os:

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ I. On 18 June 1992: at around 10:00 am, together, in a group of several members of the Serb Army and Police armed with rines, he panicipated in the allack on the village of Kuka in the Vi$egrad Municipality and arrest and unlawful imprisonment of several d07.ens of Bosniak civilians, including women, children and men whom they took and detained on the premises of the Hasan Veletovac Elementary School in Vi$egrad: except for Orner Kari$ik and Redt.o Sabanovi~ whom they took away from the village and who have becn unaccounted for ever sincc;

10. On 25 July 1992, together, in a group of approximately tcn mcmbers of the Scrb AmI)' and Police, he panicipated in the anaek on the village of Velji Lug in the ViSegrad Municipality in which. armed with rines, the)' killed Mediha Ahmetspahi~, Amela Ahmetspahi~, Razija Ahmetspahi~, Fata Su~eska, Safet Alji~, Latifa Ahmetspahi~, Smaila MentiSevi~, set ablaze the houses and business facilitics owned by Bosniaks and took away several dozcns of Bosniak civilians, including women, childrcn and men and unlawfully detained them on the premises of the Hasan Vcletovae Elementary School in ViSegrad;

2. In the second half of June 1992, as a member of the Reserve Police Forces of the Republika Srpska Ministry of the Interior of Vi$egrad Police Station: while performing the duty of the guard in charge of securing Bosnisk civilians detained on the prcmises of the Hasan Veleto\,ac Elementary School building in Vikgrad, several hundnids of them including women, children and men, together with other members of the Serb Army, Police and paramilitllry fomlations, hc pllnicipated in the killings: enforccd disappearance and tonure of the detainees, and he aided and abclled in cocrcing girls and young women into sexual intereoursc in as much as:

2.0) On an undetermined date in the second halfof June 1992, together with Milan Luki~, he singlcd out the Bosniak civilians Ismel Bulato\'if, Semso Poljo, Enlz Smajif from the premises of the Hasan VCletOV3c Elementary School in ViSegrad in which civilians were incarcerated, and they took them out of the school, whereupon they hove been unaccounted for,

2.b) During the second half of June 1992: on several occasions, he Singled out girls and young women who were unlawfully detained on the premises of the Hasan Veletovac Elementary School and took them oway for procuring to other members of the Serb Army who were commilling multiple rapes, beating up and humiliation of a number of female persons including: 1·l.L.; S.F.; A.N.; N.A.; H.S.; M.Z.; U.M.; H.A.

2.t) On an undetermined date, mOSt likely on 28 June 1992, while being aware of acts which were going to be commilled, he allowed Milan Luki~ lind other members of the Serb Army to enter the premises of the Hasan Veletovac Elementary School where Bosniak civilians had been unlawfully detained, whereupon they:

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ • singled out around twenty men and ordered them to go into another room whcrc thcy kicked, punched and hit them with solid objeclS, inmcting serious physical injurics and mentsl sufferings on _Ju~uf Poljo, Mehmed Bajramo'-ic, Ramo Hurem, Hamed Hodiic, Ibri~im Hadiit, A,-do Aljit, A\'do Ferit, Abid Alijn~e\'ie, Ibro Melllie, Nail Ramie. Ibro Subunovlc, after which, in Ihe same nighl, Mehmed Bajramo\'ic wus laken OUI of Ihe huilding of the Hasan Veletovac Elementary School whcreupon hc has been unaccounted for, and the next morning, when Mehmed's wife asked the accused SimSic to tell her what had happened to her hUSband, he cursed "her Balijs's mother" /lrans/aIOI'S lIote:. 8(1/ij(l Is a derogatory' lerm for MI/slims! and slapped her across the face so that she fell down to the ground with her child;

• singled out Hamed Hadtic whom they bent up kicking him and treading on his bod)' while he W05 lying on the noor, and when HaSa Hudiie, 1·lamed' wife, ran up to beg that they refrain from abusing him because he was a hean patien!, she hcrself sufTercd serious physical abuse having received multiple blows on the jaw, and aftcr she had sufTercd thc jaw fracturc due 10 Ihc forcc of Ihc blow and fallen down, they continued with kicking hcr all ovcr her body;

• after Ihe accused, logether with a group of the Serb AmlY members, hod laken Ihe minor girl S.H. oul of Ihe room in which Ihe civilians were imprisoned, and after Ihe girl hod managed 10 escape and free herself, Ihey hod immediately singled out her mother H.R. aka Suhra and in a corridor one of the soldiers from the group, holding her rather long hair with his both hands, lifted her ofT the ground and turned her body several times. thus pulling Out most of her hair after which he staned beating her On the head, chest, legs and back saying: "Why did you lell S. to run away from us" and then led her into the room together with the Accused and said: "Now we're going to rip your heans out and fry them on these plates", pointing at red·hot plates of an electric stove and the Accused said laughing: "You'll eat now unlil you're stufTed", and then the unknown soldier struck her again and on that occasion he broke her nose thus causing her heavy bleeding; • took (bro Sabuno,'ic, Bosniak civilian, out of the large roonl in which he was unlawfully detained together with other civilians inlo the corridor where Milan Lukic cut his throat with a knife and then threw his cut-ofThead among the other detained civilians;

The r e ro r e, by the actions described in Sections I, Ia, 2a, 2b, 2c or the operative pan of the Verdict, as a pan of Ihe widespread and systematic allack directed againsl Ihe Bosniak civilian population, being aware of such allack, he persecuted Bosniok civilian population on political, national, ethnic, cultural and religious grounds, in connection with murder, detention, tonure, enforced disappearance or persons and aiding and abelling in the rapes,

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ •

Whereby he commincd the criminal offence of Crimcs agoinst Humanity in violation of Aniclc 172 (I) h) in conjunction with Subparagraphs: a) depriving another person of his life (murder), e) imprisonment, f) tonure, g) coercing another by force or by threat of immediate anack upon his life or limb, or the life or limb of a person close to him, to sexual intercourse or BII equivalem sexual OCt (rape); i) enforced disappearance of persons; all of this in conjunction with Anicics 29 and 31 of thc Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina,

hence, by applying the referenced legal provisions and Aniclcs 39, 42 and 48 of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Coun

SENTENCES

HIM TO IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF 14 (founeen) YEARS

Pursuamto Aniclc 56 ofthc BiH ce, the timc spcm in custody pending trial, staning on 24 January 2005 until comminal to scrvc the scntence, shall be creditcd towards the scmence of imprisonment of the Accuscd.

Pursuamto Anicle 188 (4) of the BiH CPC, the Accused is relieved ofdut)'to reimburse the COStS of criminal proceedings.

Pursuant to Anicle 198 (I) of the BiH CPC, the injured ponies Nail Ramie, Ibrum!n AsiC, Cura Glu~evie, H.H., N.A., Hoseno Bojrnmovie, Vasvijo Glu$~evie, Hajrijo Kopetonovie, Almasa Ahmctspahic, Almir Aljic, Salem Ahl1lctspahie, Ibro Mcmie, M.U., Fehimo Cakic, Sajma Sabanovic, Rusmira Bulatovic, Fotima Poljo, L.H., KBdB Spohic, F.S., Sevka Sehie, R.H., Timko Kapetanovic, Ha$a Hadtie and Romila Sabanovic with their claims undcr propcny law arc instructed to take civil action.

By contrast: The accused Boban Sim~ic

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ is acquiucd of Ihe charge (Anicle 284, Paragraph c) Ihal:

I. On 17 June 1992, together with a group of several members of the Serb Amly and Police armed wilh rines, he panicipated in the attack and unlawful arrest of several dozens of civilians from the village of llijeb, including women, children and men, first firing their rines at Bosniak houses ordered them to leave their houses and propeny and gather lit the location of Carina; then they crammed them into the trucks by which they transponed them and detained on Ihe premises of the firehouse in Vi~egrad; 2. On an undetermined date in the second half of June 1992, he took five girls and five )'oung women, including H.H., out of the rOOm in the Firehouse in Vi~grad where the Bosniak civilians were detained, and took them to the adjacent room, and then, together with two Serb soldiers he beat them first with batons and kicked them and then, aner all the girls and women had stripped naked upon his order, they raped them by turns, which lasted for tWO or three hours, on which occasion H.H. sustained injuries to her head in the forn1 of hematomas and bumps as well as injuries to genitals in the form of bleeding;

3. On 18 June 1992, together with Milan Luki( he singled out the following Bosniak civilians from the room in the Firehouse in Vi~grnd in which they were previously unlawfully incarcerated: Mujo Glu~evie, Hasan GluS¢evie, Hasib Glu~evie, Meho Agie, Emin Agie, Meho Softie, Samir Softie, Mustafa Sabanovie, Avdija Nuhanovic, Sead Hodt.ie, Adem Kozie, O'-elal Hod!i¢, Ot.evad Hodt.ie, Salko Sueeska, Huso Bulatovie, Husein Vilie, Hamed Ke~mer, Ibrahim KeSmer and took them out of the Firehouse whereupon they have been unaccounted for, with the exception of Mujo GluS~evie, Ibrahim KeSmer, Hamed KeSmer, Samir Softie, Emin Agie, Hasib GluS¢evie, Sead Hodt.ie, Huso Bulatovie, O'-elal Hodt.iC and Adem Kozic whose corpses were found during the exhumation at the location of Slap·~epa; 4. In June 1992, while imprisoning civilians on the premises of the Hasan Veletovac Elementary School, Ihe Accused, together with other members of the Serb Army and Police, panicipated in the forcible uppropriulion of money and goldell jewell/')' from several hundred of imprisoned Bosniak civilians on which occasion they searched the civilians ordering them stripe naked, and ex toned money from the imprisoned civilians by taking a group of male prisoners out of the prison room and demanding that their wives and mothers collect ransom money if they wanted to see them alive again;

5. During the slay on the premises of the Hasan Veletovac Elementary School, in the second half of June 1992, the Accused, together with other members of the Serb Army and Police, panicipated in the beating up of the unlawfully imprisoned Bosniak civilians by singling out a group of about twenty prisoners, including Ramo Hurem, IbriSim Hadlic, Amer Hadtic, Avdo Feric, Mustafa Smajie, Nail Ramie, whom they would order to beat one another all over their bodies with a wooden shaft (wooden handle of a pick) which caused many to fall on the ground, and of all prisoners they in panicular used to

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ beal up cvery night Nail Ramie whom, on the (irst day he was imprisoned, they placed under the basket whilc a group of Serb soldiers including the Aecused were playing basketball targcting alternatively the basket and Nail's head with the ball so strongly that the injured pany, Nail, would fall unconscious; on one of thc subsequent evenings, the Accused, togcther with several unknown Serb soldiers, took Nail Ramie and four other prisoncrs out of the prison room and beat them up in another room by punching them and kicking them with their army boots and rine butts on their head and back and pulled their hair out, which causcd Nail to faint, while his eyes were complctely shut due to the blows he received on the e)'e area; during the search and appropriation of money from Mehmed Spahie, the Accused beat him up by hitting him several times with the rine butt on the chest, head and the area between his shoulders due to which hc was not able to walk without ossistanee so that some prisoners carried him on their arms on their way back to the prison room; • because it has not been proved that the Accused committed the referenced criminal acts constituting thc criminal offence - Crimcs against Humanity in violation of Anicle 172 (I) of the BiH Criminal Code.

REASONING

By the Indictment of the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Her.:egovina (Prosecutor's Office of BiH), Number KT·RZ·2105 of28 June ZOOS, amended al the main trial of 19 June 2006, the accused Bobon Sim~ie was charged that, by the actions detailed under CountS Ia, I b, 2, 3, 40, 4b, 4c, 50, 5b, 5c, Sd, 5e, Sf, Sg and 5h, he committed the criminal offence of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Anicle 172 (I) h) in conjunction wilh Subparagraphs a), d), e), I), g), i) and k), and all of these in conjunction with Anicle 29 Mthe BiH CC.

By the Verdict of Ihe Coun of Bosnia nnd Herzegovina, Number X·KR·05/04 of II July 2006, the accused Boban SimSic was found !luihy Ihat, by the acts described in the operative pan of the referenced Verdict, under Sections Sb) he aidcd Serb Army members in causing enforeed disappearance of persons nnd Se) aided Serb Army members in coercing another person by force or by the threat of immediate attack upon their limb to sexual intereourse or an equivalent sexual act (rape), he committed the criminnl offence of Crime ogoinst Humanity in violation of Anicle 172 (I) of the BiH CC, in conjunction with Paragraph i) - in relation to Section I.S.b) of the operative pan and Subparagraph g) in relotion to Section 1.5.e) of the operative pan, Dnd these all in conjunction with Anicle 31 of the BiH CC (Accessory).

For the aforcmcntioned criminal offence the first· instance Coun sentenced him to imprisonment for the teml of 5 years, and pursuant to Aniclc 56 of the BiH CC, the time spent in custody pending trial, staning on 24 January 2005, was credited towards the sentcncc, whereas pursuant to Anicle 188 (4) of the BiH CPC, hc was n:licvcd of Ihe duty to reimburse the coSts of the criminal proceedinlJs.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ By Ihe same Verdicl, Ihe Accused was acquined of the charge Ihal, in Ihe manner described under Seclions I b), 2, 3, 40), 4c), Sa), 5c), 5d), 51), 5g) and Sh), he had commined Ihe criminal offence of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172 (I) h) in conjunction wilh Paragraphs a) depriving anolher person of his life (murder), b) forcible lransfer of population, e) imprisonment, f) torture and k) other inhumane aCIS of a similar character inlenlionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to physical or mental heahh, and all as read wilh Article 29 of the BiH CC, so that the charge that the Accused, under Sections In) and 4b), had commined the criminal offence of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172 (I) h) in conjunction with Subparagraphs f) Dnd k) of the BiH CC, WIIS dismissed. By the Decision of the Appellate Panel, Number KRZ-05/04 of 5 January 2007, appenls of the Proseclllor's Office of BiH and the Defence Counsel for the accused Bobnn Sim~i~ were upheld, so thut the Verdict of the COUrt of BiH, Number X-KR-05/04 of II July 2006 was revoked in respect of the convictin!! and acquining part, and it was ordered that a trial be held before the Panel of the Appellate Division of Ihe Depart men I I for War Crimes of the Coun of BiH. Allhc trial which was hcld, pursuant 10 Article 317 of the BiH CPC, before the AppeliAle Panel of the Court of BiH, the Prosecutor of the ProSeclllOr'S Office of BiH read out the nmended Indictment, Number KT-RZ-2/05 of 19 June 2006, completely mainlaining the opening statement given in the first-instance proceedings. In the opening StOlement, the Defence Counsel for the Accused made a short reference to thc evidence adduced 81 the previous trial, and he announced the presentUlion of new documentary evidence. According to the Decision of thc Appellate Pancl, pursuant to Article 317 (2) of the BiH CPC, the following evidence was adduced during the trial before the Appellate Panel: As evidence of the Prosecutor's. Office of BiH, audio and video recordings of the following witnesses were heard and viewed: H.H., N.A., Hasena Bajramovi~, Ahmo Kari~ik, Hajrn Kapetanovie, Hamdo AhmelSpahie, Ibrum~ Agi~, Cura Glu~cevic, Vasvija Glu~evic, Almasa Ahmetspahie, Ahnir Aljic, Salim Ahmetspahi~, Ibro Memi~, Fehima Caki( Sajma Sabanovic, Rusmira Bulalovi~, Nail Ramie, Fatima Poljo, Kada Spahie, L. H., M. U., F. S., Sevka Sehie, Timka Kapetanovi~, R. H., Ha!a Hadtic and Ramiza Sabanovie, as well as the confrontation between the witnesses Almasa AhmelSpahic and Slavi~ Jovanovic.

In addition, the Court reviewed a video recording of the statement given by the ex pen witness Or. Hamza Zujo (report by forensic medicine expert witness Dnd exhumations conducted at the place of Slap near Zepa and To¢ilo), Dr. Zdenko Cihlar1 (report by forensic medicine expert witness and exhumations conducted in the area of the place of Velji Lug, ViSegrod Municipality) Dnd by the forensic pathologist Or. John Clark who conducted forensic pathology analysis and identification of the victims from the mass grave Slap-Zepa, Rogatica Municipality; also, the Record of the statement of the wimess Muniba Glu~evic - the statement given for the Record of the Crime Police Sector in Gorv.de of 2 7 January 2004 - was read oul.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ •

Funhermore, the examination of the following documentary evidence was made: Judgmem of lIle Imemational Criminal Tribunal for the fonncr Yugoslavia (ICTY) IT· 98/32 ·Vi~cgrad" Prosecutor vcrsus Mitar Vasiljevic, Witness Examination Rccord for Nail Ramie made at the Goratdc Crime Police Sector Number: 070213·1 of 27 January 2004 and Witness Examination Record for Nail Ramic made at the Prosecutor's Office of Bil·1 Number: KT·RZ·2105 of 26 May 2005, Witness Examination Record for Ibrum~a Agic made at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2105 of 26 May 2005, Witness Examination Record for Cura Glu~evie made at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2105 of 31 May 2005, Witness Examination Record for Hedija Hod1ic madc at the Prosccutor's Officc of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2105 of 30 May 2005, Witness Examination Record for Naila Ahmctagic madc at the Gora1de Crime Police Sector Number: 07·213·1 of 9 April 2004 and Witness Examination Record for Naila Ahmetagic made at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2/05 of 25 May 2005, Witness Examination Record for Vasvija Glu~evit made at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT ·RZ·2105 of 24 May 2005, Witness Examination Record for Hajra Kapetanovie made at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2/0S of 30 May 2005, Witness Examination Record for Almasa Ahmetspahic made at the Goratde Crime Police Sector Number: 07·0213·1 of I February 2005 and Witness E.~amination Record for Almasa Ahmetspahie made at the Prosecutor's Office ofBiH Number: KT·RZ·2/05 of 31 May 2005, Witness Examination Record for Hamdo Ahmetspahic made at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·210S of 3 June 2005, Witness Examination Record for Ahmo Kari~ik made at the Gorn1de Crime Police Sector Number: 07·0213·1 of 7 Jnnuary 2004 and Witness Examination Record for Ahmo Kari~ik made at the Prosecutor'S Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2I05 of 3 June 2005, Statement by Ahmo Kari~ik of 29 October 1999, Witness Examination Record for Almir Aljic made at the Gora1de Crime Police Sector Number: 07·0213·1 of I February 2005 and Witness Examination Record for Almir Aljic made at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2I05 of27 May 2005, Witness E.~amination Record for Salim Ahmetspahic made at the Gorn1de Crime Police Sector Number: 07·02/3·1 of I February 2005 and Witness Examination Record for Salim Ahmetspahic made at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2/0S of 27 May 2005, Witness Examination Record for Ibro Memit made at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2/05 of 21 June 2005, Witness Examinalion Record for Mula U~i¢anin made al Ihe Proseculor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2I05 of 31 May 2005, Witness E.xaminOlion Record for Fehima Cakic made at the Gorn1de Crime Police Depanment Number: 07·0213·1 of 8 February 2005 and Wimess E.~aminalion Record for Fehima Cakic made al the ProseCUIOr's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2/05 of 26 May 2005, Wilness E.~aminalion Record for Saima Sabanovic made al Ihe Goratde Crime Police Seclor Number: 07 ·02/3·1 of 19 November 2003 and Witness Examination Record for Saima Sabanovic made at the Proseculor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2105 of25 May 2005, Witness Examination Record for Fatima Poljo made at the Gorntde Crime Police Sector Number: 07·02/3·1 of 5 May 2004 and Witness Examination Record for Fatima Poljo made at the Prosecutor's Office of l3iH Number: KT·RZ·2105 of24 May 2005, Witness Examination Record for Rusmira Bulatovic made at the GoraMe Crime Police Sector Number: 07·0213·1 of 5 May 2004 and Witness Examinalion Record for Rusmi.a l3ulalovic made at the Prosecutor's Office

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2/05 of 24 Muy 2005, Wilness Examination Record for Latifa Hodtic mode DI the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT ·RZ·2105 of 30 May 2005, Witness Examination Record for Kada Spahic made at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2/05 of 26 Mal' 2005, Witness Examination Record for fata Sobanovic made nr the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2/05 of 24 Mol' 2005, Wimess Examination Record for Sevka Sehic mode at the Goratde Crime Police Sector Number: 07·02/3·1 of 5 Mol' 2004 and Witness Examinution Record for Sevka Sehic mode at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2/05 of 25 May 2005, Witness Examination Record for Rozija Hurem made at the Goratde Crime Police Sector Number: 07·02/3·1 of 8 february 2005 and Witness Examination Record for Razija Hurem mede at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2/05 of 25 May 2005, Witness Examination Record for H~a Hadtic made at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2105 of 25 Mol' 2005, Witness Examination Record for Timka Kapetanovic mode at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number: KT·RZ·2105 of 30 May 2005. Death Certificate for Red~o Sabanovic Number: 04-202·7218/04 of 30 November 2004, Death Certificate for Ismet Bulatovic Number: 202·5293104 of 21 June 2004, Exhumation Record, Contonal Court in Sarajevo Number: Kri·364100 with photo-documentation, sketch of the scene and autopsy report (Mujo Glu~tevic), E.~humation Record, Cantonal Court in Sarajevo Number: Kri-358100 with photo-doeumentation, sketch of the scene and autopsy repon (Ibrahim Ke~mer), Exhumation Record, Cantonal Coun in Sarajevo Number: Kri·357/00 with photo·documentation, sketch of the scene and autopsy report (Homed K~mer), Exhumation Record, Cantonal Court in Sarajevo Number: Kri·332100 with photo· documentation, sketch of the scene and autopsy report (Samir Sonic), Exhumation Record, Cantonal Court in Sarajevo Number: Kri·367/00 with photo·documentation, sketch of the scene and aU/opsy repon (Emin Allie), Exhumation Record, Camonol Court in Sarajevo Number: Kri·347100 with photo·documentation, sketch of the scene ond autopsy repon (Hasib Glu~tevic), Exhumation Record, Cantonal Court in Sarajevo Number: Kri-448/00 with photo·documentation, sketch of the scene and autopsy report (Sead Hodt.ic), Exhumation Record, CantoMI Court in Sarajevo Number: Kri·335100 with photo·documentation, sketch of the scene and autopsy report (Huso Bulatovie), Exhumation Record, Cantonal Court in Sarajevo Number: Kri·334100 with photo documentation, sketch of the scene and autopsy report (Dt.elal HoM.ic), Reports 011 forensic search of the scene, Ministry of Internal Affairs - Sarajevo (refers to evidence under Number 52·58), six (6) reports, ExhUmation Record, Cantonal Court in Sarajevo Number: Kri-456/00 with photo-documentation. sketch of the scene and autopsy report,

Exhumation Record, Cantonal Court in Sarajevo Number: Kri-493/00 with photo· documentation and autopsy report (Hasan Glu~evic), Photo-documentation of the exhumation, Velji Lug, Vi~egrad, Number: 15103 with sketch of the scene Number: 14/2003, Report on Forensic Expertise and DNA Analysis for Sofet Aljic (case Number 608), Photo-documentotion of the exhumation, Velji Lug, Vi~e!!rad, Number: 15/03 with sketch of the scene Number: 1412003, Repon on Forensic Expertise (case Number 609), Photo·documentation of the exhumation, Vclji Lug, Vi~e8rad, Number: 15103 with sketch of the scene Number: 1412003, Report on Forensic Expertise (case Number 610), Photo·documentation of the exhumation, Velji Lug, Vi~grad, Number: I SI03 with

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ sketch of the scene Number: l

At the trial, a review of the I AugUSt 1992 Payroll was conducted. This Payroll includes the members of the reserve police forces of the Vi~grad Public Security Station employed on permanent basis who were paid June 1992 salaries. The following documents were also reviewed: Death Certilicate for Samir Sofii~ Number 03·202· 225/05 of II July 2005, Death Certilicate for Hasan Glu~Cevit Number 03·202·223/05 of II July 2005, Death Certilieate for Dtelal Hodiit Number 03·202.224/05 of I I July 2005, Death CenilicOIe for Omer Kari~ik Number 0)·202·221105 of II July 2005, Death Cenilicate for Redio Sabanovit Number 03·202·222/05 of II July 2005.

With the agreement of the panics, video-recordings of the testimonies of the following witnesses of the Defence were reviewed: Almasa Ahmetspahic, Fata Sabano\'it, Munir Ahmetagit, Samir Bulatovit, Asmir Spahit, Stojan Papit, Dragoljub Papit, Zoran Sim~it, Milosav Sim~it, Stanimir Sim~it, Goran MiliCevic, Miloje Joksimovit, Hana Sofiit, lIija Gavrilovit, Slavi~ Jovanovic, Slavi~ E>uri~, as well as the testimony of the accused Boban Sim~ic which he gave as a witness, and also the video·link of the testimony of the witness Mitar Vasiljevic given by video·conference between a detention unit in Graz (AUStria) and the Court of BiH. Also, the video·recording showing the testimony of the expen.witness of the Defence Sekula MiCi~ (forensic graphologist analysis) \Vos viewed as well ..

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Besides, the testimonies were rend out from a transcripl of the Irial before the ICTY in the Milar Vasiljev'lc Case, more precisely, of the Witness VO 105, as well as the Slatemems of the ..... imess Timko Knpetanovi~ given to a Hague investillDlor on 23 March 2001 and A.N. of 12 June 2000, also given before an ICTY investigDlor.

Muterial evidence of the Defence were reviewed: DVD recording of the Slutemem of the witness Ismet Softi~, given on 10 August 2005 (evidence secured by the coun), documents of the State Commission for the collection of facts on war crimes committed in the territory of the RBiH Numbers 9067195 and 4480/94, Statement of Fata Sabanovi~ Number 9067/95 of 1995, given to the employees of the State Commission for the collection of facts on war crimes, Official Lener of the Prosecutor's Office of BiH Number KT·RZ·2/05 of 18 August 2005, ICRC records on missing persons in the territory of BiH, issue of 1998, pages 355 and 357, Official Note of the Oora~de Crime Police Sector Number 07·0213·1·39 of6 June 2003, ICTY Judgment Number IT·98·32 in the Prosecutor versus Mitar Vasiljevi~ Case, photo·documentation, Death Cenilicale for D2elal Hod2ic Number: 03·202·224/05 of II July 2005 issued by the Registry Office of the Vi~grad Municipality, medical documents of the Health Institution in U2ice for SlavBa JovanoviC, Cenilicate Number 136112.05.2006 of the Stara Pa~ova Red Cross of the place of residence of Slavi!a Jovanovic, Cenilicate of Employment Number 255/06 of II May 2006 for Milosov Sim~ic, Death Cenilicate Number 03·202·287/05 of 7 September 2005 for Dragomir Sim~ic, Death Cenilicate for Perko Sim~ii: Number 03· 202·288/05 of 7 September 2005.

Funhennore, the following video·recordings of evidence obtained by the Coun in the lirst·instance proceedings were also reviewed: Statements of the witnesses Elbisa Ahmeta~ and Selma Kilalic, Statement of the expen witness Prof. Esad Bili~ (graphologist expen ..... itness), video.recording of the crime scene investigation in the Vi~egrad Firehouse and Hasan Veletovac Elementary School, currently named Vuk Karad1.ic, and also the photo-

At the trial, the Defence filed the fOllowing wrinen documents as ne ..... evidence: the Cenificate of the Novi Orad Municipality Number 04·41· 7·S1.107 of 14 February 2007 for Omer Kari~ik, Cenificnte of the VJ 5068 Number 30·25·22·12·03/41·1·2·80/00 of 17 April 2000 for Omer Kari~ik, Cenilicate of the Town Command of Visoko Number 06·650-42195 of 24 October 1995 for Red'-o Sabanovic, Cenilicate of the Zenica Administration for Defence Number 19·17·04·34·1-4·25510 I of II July 200 I for Fata Sabanovic, Cenilicate of the Federation Ministry of Defence Number 18·17·04-41·1-86- 1104·221 of 19 October 2004 for Red'-o Saba no vic, Decision of the Municipal Secretariat for Protection of War Veterans and Invalids Number 0912-5621-1.1/95 for Fata Sabanovic and Official Letter of the lIija~ Municipality Number 03-41-11107 of 25 January 2007 for Fata Sabanovit.

Both panics proposed the adducing of new evidence which \Vas not adduced during the flrst-instancc proceedings, and in this regard, the Prosecutor's Office of Bi'H proposed

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Ihal Mcdina Trebo bc hcard as a wimcss, whcreas Ihc Dcfcncc proposed Ihal Amra Hendo be heard as a wilncss in respeci oflhc cireumslances oflakinllihe slalcmcnl oflhe wimcss Almasa Ahmcispahic al Ihe Goratde Minislr)' of Ihc Inlcrior, and also in respcci of laking Sl8lemCnlS of some oihcr wilnesscs. The Defence funhcr proposed Ihal, pursuam 10 Aniclc 4 of Ihc Law on Ihe Transfer of Cases, Ihe faci Ihal Ihc accuscd Milar Vasiljcvic was hospilalized in Ihc U1icc Hospilal, Onhopcdic Clinic, in Ihc period from 14 1028 Junc 1992 due 10 fraclure of Ihe leg, laid down in Ihe Judgmcnl of Ihc Hogue Tribunal from Ihc Vasiljcvic Case be aceepled as proved, and in this regard, that Ihe Coun officially obtain the transcripts from the trial before Ihe ICTY in the Mitar Vasiljevic Casc, of the witncsses Aleksandar Mojevic (3 December 2001), Milojko Vasiljcvic (16 Novcmber 2001), Pewr Mitrovic (19 and 20 Novcmber 2001), IIija Zetevic (19 Novcmbcr 2001), Ratomir Sil1l~ic (20 Novcmber 2001), Zivorad Savic (20 and 21 November 200 I), Goran lontarevic (21 and 22 November 200 I), Miloje Novakovic (22 November 200 I), Dobrivoje Sikiric (22 November 200 I), Radomir Vasiljevic (22, 23 and 26 November 2001), Milena "oma~vic (26 November 2001), Siobodan SimiI.' (26 and 27 November 200 I), Siavica Pavlovic (27 and 28 November 200 I), Borislav Maninovic (29 November 200 I), Siavica JeVlovic (29 November 200 I) and Ivan Jovanovic (29 and 30 November 2001); as well ns documents: Record Book of the Heahh Center in Vi~egrad for the ),ear 1992 (Exhibil No. 26), Record Book of all the paliems for the )'eur 1992 of the Utice Hospilal (Exhibit No. 136), Book ofpalients from the theater of war of 6 April 1992 of Ihe U1ice Hospital (Exhibil No. 137), Discharge Card of the U1ice Hospital for Mitar Vasiljevic (Exhibit No. 30), and it was proposed in wriling Ihat the forensic medicine expen witness Dr. Igor E>okic and the maxillofacial surgery expen wilness Dr. Ralko Radovic be summoned.

The Coun rejected the StOled proposals of the Prosecutor's Office of BiH and of the Defence, finding Ihat Ihe Prosecutor's Office of BiH had nOI provided valid reasons, which could be regarded as legilimate, slaling Ihat the hearing of this witness was not possible in the firsl·inslance proceedings, whereas in respeel of Ihe wilness of Ihe Defence, Ihe Panel found Ihal il was indispulable Ihat Amra Hendo, the employee of Ihe Minislr), of Ihe Il1Ierior, had made official nOles on Ihe imerview made wilh Almasa Ahmelspahic, and iI considered Ihol summoning her as a wilness was not necessary nnd Ihat il would not be essential for eSlablishing relevanl facls in Ihese criminal proceedings.

As for Ihe olher pieces of evidence proposed b)' Ihe Defence which refer 10 the hip injury oflhe Defence witness Slavi~a Jovanovic 01 the time of the crilical event in Ihe village of Velji Lug and the alibi of Mitar Vasiljevic for the period bel ween 14 and 28 June 1992, Ihe Panel found thai Ihose facts were irrelevam for Ihe adjudication in this legal maller, because as such they do nOI exclude the possibilil)' Ihal Ihe Accused took the actions in Ihe Slaled lime periods, as charged, since he is prosecuted for Ihe actions which he personnll), and willfully took.

In addition, the Panel reviewed the ICTY Judgment in the Hague, Number IT·981J2, and it assessed, in the first place, that Milar Vasiljevic's alibi could nOI be the fact Ihal could be accepled as established because il could not pass Ihe test for accepting facts as established given that it refers to the individual criminal responsibilil)'; also, based on the

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Reasoning of Ihe referenced Judgmenl and us a resull oflhe preserned evidence, rhrough evoluolion of Ihe evidence, after complelion of Ihe leslimony of Ihe witness from Ihe lisl, dOled 19 May 2007, whose transcripl was requesled 10 be read OUl, il ensues Ihol even rhe Tribunal did nOI lind thai Milar VasiljeviC's olibi was on eSlablished facl, bUI he was acquined of charges for Ihe crilical period, by Ihe application of the ;/1 dubio pro rco principle.

Procedural Objeclions-

In Ihe Starus Conference of 14 February 2007, anomey Veljko Civ~, Defence Counsel for Ihe Accused, raised an objeclion conceming Ihe composition of Ihe Pand in respeci of Ihe rendering Ihe Verdici "In Ihe Name of BiH" pursuonl 10 the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH, given Ihal Ihe Panel is composed of two inlemalionol judges and one local judge, and all of Ihis in relalion 10 Ihe Righi 10 a fair trial referred 10 in Anicle 6 (I) of Ihe ECHR, stipuloling Ihol Ihe accused is enrilled 10 a fair trial before an independenr, impanial, competent Iribunal established by low.

The Coun complelely refused Ihis objeclion, given that according 10 the European Convenrion on I'rolection of Human Rights and Fundomental Freedoms (ECHR) and Ihe case law of Ihe European Coun for Human Rights (ECIHR), the primory inSlitutionol guoranlee for 0 fair trial is Ihol decisions shall nOI be token by polilicol inslilulions, bUI by impanial and independenl coun esloblished by law. II is beyond doubt Ihol Ihis Coun is free 10 toke decisions impanially, and Ihol il is compelenl 10 Iry Ihis case on Ihe basis of law. The objeclion wilh regard 10 Ihe impanialily is a very serious one and il concems each single member of Ihe I'anel, as well as Ihe I'anel as a whole. II is a well known fOCI Ihal Ihis Coun differs, bolh in ils organization and irs jurisdiclion, from olher couns in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Low on Ihe Coun of Bosnia and Herzegovina wos adopled by the Parliamenlory Assembly ofBiH, which implies Ihol il was adopred on Ihe basis of Ihe decision rendered by Ihe supreme legislalive body of Ihe Siale. Anicle 65 of Ihis Law slipulales:

(2) The President of the Court. after consultation with the inrcrnutiouul Regist .. r shall be competent to assign judges of Section I and Seclion II of Ihe Criminal and Appellute OiviSions to ony Chomber. or I'anel. Section I and Section II Punels shull he compused uf buth uutional und inlernutlonul judges.

(4) Ouring the transitionul period, a number of internutionul judgl!S mll)' be uppointed to Seclion lund Seclion II "f the Criminul and Appellute Di\'isions. An internutionul judge mu)' be u)lpointed to both Section I and Section II of the Criminal and Appellate Dil·isiolls. '"lernDlionnl judges shall not be citizens of Bosnia and Herl.egovina or of an)' neighboring Slate.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ (5) An Inrernllrional judge of Secrlon Innd Secrion II of rhe Criminnl nnd Appellare Dh'isions mn)' serve ns n preliminar)' proceeding judge, n preliminary hen ring judge or ns n single rrial judge in proceedings before Secrion I nnd Section II of the Criminal and Appellote Dh'isions,

(6) An Inrernationnl judge of Secrion I lind Secrion II of rhe Criminul and Appellare Oh'isions rna)' sen'e liS II judge In rhe panel as referred to in Article 24 (6) of rhe Criminol Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the pnnel ns referred ro in Article 16 of the Lnw on Protecrion of Wirnesses under Threar and Vulnerable Witnesses of Bosnia nnd Herzego\'ina, in proceedings before Section I and Section II of the Criminal and Appellate Oh'isions,

Funhcrnlore, Anicle 21 Oflhc Rules of Procedure Oflhc Coun ofBiH slipulales:

(I) Permnnent panels of Section I and Seclion II of the Criminal and Appellute Dil'ision (hereinufter: Seclion I and Section II) shull be composed of three judges, one of whom shnll be the Presiding Judge as decided by the President of the Court, There shall be international judges assigned to each pnnel during the transitional period pursunnt to lhe Law on the Court of BiH,

(4) A judge from a permanent panel rna)' sen'c us a preliminary proceedings judge, preliminary hearing judge, indh'idual rrial judge or a pnnel member in accordnnce with the In\\', If the low docs not deOne the composition of the Court when dcciding on a certain isslle, the individual judge or the presiding judge of the pnnel nssigned to thc specific case shall be competent to render decision,

The wording of lhe quoled anicles of lhe Law on Ihe Coun and lhe Rules of Procedure of lhe Coun is provided for lhe transilional period which, under lhe Low on lhe Coun, will nOl lasl longer Ihan 5 )'ears, whereupon only local judges will Ir), lhe cases before lhis Coun. Given lhar rhis Coun is eSlablished under lhe law, nnd lhal lhe legislalor deli ned lhe lerm of office of lhe international judges who, os is prescribed, mAy Imer alia serve as on individuollriol judge, and by Ihal very facl (e.g. under rhe agreement of ponies) reach a verdicl "In lhe Name of BiH", in lhal way, lhe independence and impanialilY of lhe Coun ore nOl called inlo queslion nor is lhe righl of lhe Accused 10 a foir lriol, as guaranleed by Anicle 6 of lhe ECHR, violaled. The ottribule "nalional coun" docs nOl orise from lhe nalionolilies of judges, bUl from the fOCI lhal il is eSlablished on Ihe low which is a pan of internallegislolion.

Evalualing nil lhe adduced pieces of evidence, bOlh individunll)' and in lheir correlalion, Ihe Coun decided as slaled in lhe operalive pan for lhe following reasons:

General elemenls of lhe criminal onence

The following general elemenls of lhis criminal offence ensue from lhe legal definilion of Ihe criminal offence of Crimes againsl HumanilY referred 10 in Anicle 172 (I) of lhe BiH

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ CC: in conjunclioll with Ihe aCls of commission slated in the operutive pan of the Verdict, wilh which the nccused is charged:

- the e.~istence of a widespread or systematic anack, - thaI the act was committed as a pan of such attack, - Ihat the attack was directed against civilian population, - that the Accused knew about such attack.

The Prosecutor's Office claimed that, at the lime when the Accused committed the offences he is charged with, there was nn ongoing widespread and systematic attack of Ihe Anny and Police of the Serb Republic who were assisted by the JNA forced and parumilitary units who used to come from Serbia Dnd MOn!enegro, which was directed against civilian population of Bosniak ethnicity in Ihe area of the Vi~egrad Municipality and in Eastern Bosnia.

For the purpose of proving this essen!ial elemen! of the criminal offence of War Crimes against Humanity: the Proseculor's Office moved that the Coun review the Judgmen!S of the ICTY Trial and Appellate Chambers in the Prosecutor versus Mitar Vasiljevie Case, more specilkally: IT-98-32-A of 25 February 2004 and IT-98-32-T: the Judgment of 29 November 2002: and pursuant to Anicle 4 of the Law on the Transfer of Cases from the ICTY to the Prosecutor'S Omce of BiH and the Use of Evidence Collected by ICTY in Proceedings before the Couns in BiH (Law on Transfer): to accept as established the facts referring 10 the existence of a widespread and systematic attack (widespread and planned attack) on civilian Bosniak population as set out in Ihe referenced Judgments and detailed in the proposal of the Prosecutor's Omce ofBiH of20 February 2006.

Considering the Motion of the Prosecutor's Omce referred to above: pursuant to Article 4 of the Law on Transfer, the Coun decided to partially granl the Motion. Thus, some of Ihe facts established in Ihe final ICTY Judgment in the Prosecutor vs. Mitar Vasiljevie case (fT-98-32) were accepted as relevant: Dnd those are:

- "front early 1992: Muslim citizens were disarmed or requested to surrender their weapons. In the meantime, Serbs staned anning Ihemselves

- "Muslims also attempted to organise themselves, although they were much less successful in doing SO". (p. 41)

- ::From 4 April 1992: Serb politicians repeatedly requested that the police be divided along ethnic lines ". (p. 42)

- ::$oon thereafter, both of the opposing groups raised barricades around Visegrad, which was followed by random acts of violence including shooting and shelling.:: (p. 42)

- ::Many civilians fearing for their lives ncd from their vii/ages". (p. 42)

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ - "The JNA also set up negotiations between the two sides to try to defuse ethnic tension". (p. 43)

- "Some Muslims, however, were concerned by lIIe fact that the Uzice Corps was composed exclusively of Serbs" . (p. 43)

- "Soon thercaftcr, convoys wcrc organised, emptying many villages of their non ·Serb population". (p. 44) - "On onc occasion, thousands of non-Serbs from villages on both sides of the Drina River from the arca around the town of Visegrad were taken to lIIc football stadium in Visegrad". (p. 44)

- "On 19 May 1992, the JNA withdrew from Visegrad. Paramilitary units stayed behind, and other paramilitaries alTived as soon as the anny had left town. Some locul Serbs joined them ". (p. 45)

- "Those non-Serbs who remained in the area of Viscgrad, or those who returned to their homes, found themselves trapped, disarmed and at the mercy of pnmmilitaries which operated with the complicity, or at least with the acquiescence, of the Serb authorities, in pnnicular by the then Serb-only police force". (p. 47)

- "As early as June 1992, non-Serb civilians were arbitrarilY killed". (p. 49)

- "Many other incidents of arbitrary killings of civilians took place in Visegrad during this period". (p. 5 I)

• "From early April 1992 onwards, non-Serb citizens also began to disappear". (I. 51)

• "Hundreds of other Muslim civilians of all ages and of both sexes were exhumed from mass graves in and around Visegrad municipality" (p. 52)

· "The number of disoppeoronces peaked in June and July 1992. Sixty-two percent of those who went missing in the municipality of Visegrod in 1992 disappeared during those two months. Most ifnot all of those who disappeared were civilians". (p. 53)

- "Many non-Serb civilians who had not yet ned were systemotieally expelled in an orderly fashion. Convoys of buses were organised to drive them away, and the police force sometimes esconed them". (p. 55)

• "Muslim homes were looted and onen burnt down". (p.SS)

- "The two mosques located in the town of Vise grad were destroyed". (p. 55)

· "Today, most of the people living in Visegrad are of Serb ethnicity". (p.56)

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ This pan of Ihe Judgmem of Ihe Trial Chamber W'dS nOI conlesled by Ihe final ICTY Judgmenl.

Anicle 4 of Ihe Law on Ihe Transfer of Cases slipulales Ihal Ihe couns, after hearing Ihe ponies, may proprio 1110/11 or al Ihe requesl of a pany decide 10 8ccepl 8S proven Ihose fam Ihal are eSlablished by legally binding decisions in any olher proceedings by Ihe ICTY. Given Ihallhe Law on Ihe Transfer of Cases does nOI slipulale erileria which mUSI be mel in order for a parlicular fOCI 10 be regarded as "udjudicUled", reviewing Ihe faclS relevanl for Ihe adjudicalion in Ihis legal maner and bearing in mind Ihe obligalion 10 respecI Ihe righls 10 u fuir Irial guarameed by Ihe European Convemion on Human Kighls and Fundamenlal Freedoms (ECHR), as well as by the BiH CPC, Ihe Panel applied Ihe criteria which Ihe ICTY, in Ihis regard, eSlablished in Ihe Decision of 28 February 2003 in Ihe Proseculor versus Mom¢ilo Kraji~nik Case.

The referred crileria which suppfemem Rule 94 (b) Gudicial nOlice) of Ihe fCTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence require Ihal an adjudicaled facI may be admilled if il is dislincl, concrele and identifiable; if it is restrictcd to factual findings and does nOI include legal eharacteriZlltions; il was comested Dl trial and forms a pan of judgment which has cilhcr nOI been appealed or has been finally senled on appeal; it was comestcd Dl Irial and now forms a pan of judgment which is under appeal bUI falls within issues which are nOI in dispute during the appeal; funhermore, it docs not attest to the criminal responsibililY of the accused; il is nOI the subject of a (reasonable) dispute between the ponies in the case; il is nOI based on plea agree men IS in previous cases and it does not impaci on Ihe righl of Ihe accused 10 a fair trial. Given thatlhe cited faclS from the ICTY final judgmenls complelcly fulfill the refercnced critcria, having considcrcd them, Ihc Coun draw a legal conclusion aboUilhe existence of a wide-spread and syslI:matic anaek on civilian populDlion, as was correctly cSlablished by Ihe firsl-instance Verdici of this Coun.

Thc conclusion that it indeed was a widespread and systematic anack directcd only againsl Ihe Bosniak civilian population is additionally subSlantiDlcd by thc stalements of the heard wilnesses, bOlh the wilnesses for the proseculion, including among others Nail Ramit, N.A., FDlima Poljo, Fata Sabanovic, Ibro Memic, R.H., Almusa Ahmelspahic, and Ihe wilnesses of the Defence: Hana Soft it, Ismet Softit, Asmir Spahic and Stunimir Sim~ic. All these wilnesses confimled and described in their stalemenls IhOI, HI Ihe lime SiDled in Ihe Indictmem, a mass perseelllion, elhnic cleansing, murder and rope of 3 lorge number of people - Bosniak civilian populnlion - were commined, due 10 which thaI populalion was exposed to a conslam physical and menial abuse.

From the Slalements of Ihe referenced witnesses, in respect of Ihe accepted facts, and bearing in mind Ihe panern and Ihe dynamics of the commi!ted crimes which look place in Ihe orea of Ihe ViSegrud Municipnlily (murders, rapes, taking people OW8Y, expulsion, deslruclion ond looting, and deslruclion of propenyl al Ihe relevanl time period, Ihe Appellute Panel concludes Ihal the acts of violence which resulted in a large number of viclims, were of an organized and sYSlem8lic n8lure, and Ihal they were aimed solely al Bosniak civilian populalion.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Regarding the olher essenlial elemenls of the criminal offence, il is bcyond doubl lhal in lhe indicaled lime period the Accused was a member of the Rescrve Forces of the RS Policc, which ensucs from the Ccnificatc of thc Ministry of thc Interior - CJB /Public Security Center/ ISlcXno Sarajevo Number 13-05/1-110.128/05 of 15 April 2005 confirming that Boban Sim!ic, born on 7 December 1967 in Vi!egrad, was employed by the RS Ministry of the Interior, Vi~egrod PS /Police Station/as a police offieer from 19 December 1993 to IS October 2003, and the Payroll of the CJB Trebinje-SJB /Public Security Sf!M'ice/ Vi!egrad daled I August 1992 indicating employees on a permanent basis and Reserve Forces of Police to be paid salaries for June 1992, where under number 35 the name of Boban Sim!it was listed. Besides, this ensues also from the testimonies of witnesses lIija Gavrilovic and Goran Militevic who werc heard as witnesses for the Defence. Finally, this fact is not contested by the Accused either as, in the testimony he gave as a witness during the hearing, he conftrmed that he had been mobilized in the Reservc Forces of Policc on 19 April 1992.

Bearing in mind the aforementioned, it has been found lhat the Accused was a pan of the dominant army and police fornlation which earried out the attack expounded above. From othcr facts and circumslances the Panel found the existence of a funher nexus betwecn the aClS of the Accused and the attack at the civilian populalion, morc specifically, lhc facl thal thc actions and pcrpetrations of thc Accused were directly connected with the attack.

In panicular, as a member of thc Reserve Police Forees, performing his regular pol icc duties of which hc himself testified, the Accused could not have been unaware of the daily developments due to the massive scale of the attack and the comprehensiveness of the operation of the Serb forces in the territory under their control. In the panicular case, it was b)' no means u sporadic and an isolated incident, or individual crimes which could be regarded as exception, but it was a systematic method of behavior towards the Bosniak civilians, their lives, freedom and propeny. Relevant evidence which will be stated for each Section of the operative pan of the Verdict respectively confirms that the accused Boban Sim~ic was involved in terrorizing of the non-Serb population in the villages and in the Hasan Veletovac Primary School where Bosniak civilians were unlawfully detained al the critical time period. He was present, i.e. he saw and personally panicipated in the events which took place in the villages of Kuka and Velji Lug, and consequently he must have known about the anack at lhe Bosniak civilian popUlation. Each individual offence of the Accused of which he was found guill)' by this Panel on the basis of the adduced evidence, was commilled by the Accused while he was a member of the Reserve Forces of the RS Police and was aimed at civilians, and it arises from the overall assessment of the heard witnesses' stalements, which will be analY-led in detail during their assessment in respect or individual actions which the Accused took, thal nOl only did he know about Ihe existence of a widespread and syslematic snack, but his actions constituted a part or lhst anack.

More specifically, the ract that the Accused panicipsted in the attack 81 the villages of Kuke and Velji Lug and enabled the abuse, rorced taking away and murders, as well as rape or the rorcibly detained Bosniak civilians which, beyond doubt, lit in the context of

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ a great number of the octs of violence toking ploce ot the time, clearly indicates thutthe Accused was fully owore of his actions and their consequences, and he just wonted them to be a pan of such on oUDck, whereby 011 the essential elemenls of Ihe criminal offence of Crimes againsl Humaniry are mel.

Indh'ldunl Sectlolls of the Operatl\'e Part of the Verdict

In respecl of Ihe specific actions that include all Ihe essentiol elements of thiS criminal offence, the Ponel concluded, based on the following pieces of evidence, Ihal the Accused committed Ihe criminal offence US indicated in Ihe operative pan oflhis Verdict:

In resptcl of the criminal actions of which Ihe Accused has been found guilly under Section J of Ihe convicling pan of Ihe Verdict (Counl 2. of the amended Indictment) which refers to Ihe fOCI Ihot on 18 June 1992, ot around 10:00 hours, together, in 0 group of several members of Ihe Serb Army and Police armed wilh rines, the Accused panicipated in Ihe anock on Ihe village of Kuke in Ihe Vi$egrad Municipalil)" Ihe arresl and unlawful imprisonment of several dozens of Bosniok civilians, including women, children and men whom they took away and incarcerated in the premises of the Hasan Veletoyac Elementary School in Vi$egrad, except for Orner Kori$ik and Redio Sabanovic whom Ihey took away from the village aner which they have been unaccounted for, the Coun bore in mind, in the firsl place, the teslimony of the wirness Seika Sehic as she was a direct eye·wirness of the referenced event, as well as the testimonies of the witnesses RomilO Sabanovic and Ahmo Kori$ik.

More specifically, the wilness Seflro Sehic staled in her leslimony that she had to leave her village of Mala Gostilja because of Chetniks who wanled 10 cleanse it and that she knew that all villages in Lupa, on the righl shore of Ihe lake facing Serbia, had been torched and cleansed by Chetniks and that they had ned 10 Vi~egrad shortly before May. When they decided to go to tepa, there were more than 50 of them; they reached Kuka and were watching with binoculars the following 5 members of the Sim~ic family coming down: Boban who unlike the others had a beard, Andrija, Cane, Milosav and loran.

Bobon, Milosav and Andrijo wore camounage Chetniks' uniforms and were equipped with bombs and Kalashnikovs. When the shooting started, the people dispersed and about ten remained, so they were caplured. Cane drove them as far as Gomja Kuka wherefrom the)' were marched on by Bobon and Andrija. They met there Omer Kari~ik and Redt.o Sabanovic tied with a measuring tape. She did not know how they had captured Redt.o and Omer. but she stated that Boban had had a black thing on his hands and that he had used that to hit them in their heads, which she had seen from the distance of 2·3 meters. She fUrther noted that the Accused had ordered the women to move downhill. Besides her, the group consisted of Hajrija Pjevo, her son Sudo who had epilepsy. Hanifa Sabanovi~, Romiza Sobanovic, Rahima Seta, Mujesira Karnhoda and her t"'O children. Boban torehed Himzo Sabonovie's house. He threw something into the loft and it immediately cought fire. She explained that in the front there were women followed by O.mer and Redto, whereas Bobon and Andrija were behind them all; "he had a Knlnshnikov and if someone went astray, he would hit himlher with a rine bUll". Some 4·

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ 5 meters funher down from Alija Junuzovic's house there WIIS a water-well. The women took a look and saw Mirsad Kari~ik-Kemura lying dead. Boban ordered them to wait ncar the school and he ordered Orner and Redia to come in the house of Alija Junuzovic, which they did. Boban and Andrija followed them. She did not walk tWo meters away when the house burst into flame. The witness did not sec that Orner and Redio came out of the house, (they did come in - but they did not comc out), nor did shc sec that Boban SimSic and Andrija moved away from thc house. She saw Boban later in the Hasan Vclctovac Primary School, only his beard was shavcd, thcn . She spent two days and one night and a half in the school; she did not dare to come out bccause the shooting came from all directions. "A Muslim could not walk around Vikgrad any morc." During the time spent at the school it seemed to her that Boban had not len the place at all, neither he nor Miloje or Lukic or Mitar Vasiljevic; according to her, "they had the power·'.

The Coun gave full credence to the t~stimony of this witness given that she described without any hesitation the developments in the village of Kuke, from the time of her arrival in the village of Kuke until the time of her being taken to the Hasan Veletovac Primary School, stating all the ~Ievant details penaining to the presence and the role of the accused Boban Sim~ic in the events that took place in the village of Kuke, even more so since her statements given at the Crime Police Sector in GoraMe of 5 May 2004 and at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 25 May 2004, do not essentially depan from the testimony given at the main trial. The insistence of the Defence on the difference in the statements given at the Prosecutor's Office and at the main trial, in respect of the fact of her being captured, given that she stated at the Prosecutor's Office that about ten of them were captured by Stanimir Sim~ic, aka Cane, Milosav Sim~ic and Andrija Sim~ic, without m~ntioning Boban SimSic and Zoran Sim~ic whom she mentioned at the main trial, this Panel does not find as decisive for establishing the essential facts referring to the criminal responsibility of the Accused for this Count of the Indictment. In panicular, there are no illogical or inconsistent points in the testimony of this witness when she described the panicipation of the Accused in the events in the village of Kuka, that is, when she testified about the fact that the Accused had panieipated in capturing the Bosniak civilians, torching the houses and in the enforced disappearance of Orner Kari~ik and Red20 Sabanovic, so thnt the Panel did not have a single reason not to believe the story of this witness as a reliable one, given that, in the panicular case, she is not the onl), witness - eye-witness - of those events and actS of the Accused. The witness who entirelY confirmed the established facts of this Section of the operath'e pan of the Verdict is Ramiza Sabanovic who personally w~s among the detained women in the village of Kuka, as was Sefka Sehic, too . . Describing her e.~perience, this witness stated that until the W:lr, she had lived with her husband and two sons in the village of Kuka. When the war began together with them, she was hiding in the woods from the Serb Army lest they be killed. That Army was shooting at their houses. They were hiding rrom May to June 1992; when they stoned moving to"'ards Zepa, the soldiers split them and began shooting at them; there were 30 of them. Then, ever)'one fled to the woods. They killed her 13-year old son. Among the soldiers, she recognised Boban Sim~ic and Cane. Boban was corpulent and blond; she recognised him lIS she used to visit his mother, whose name she forgOt, to have a sweater knitted by her. The witness explained that there were six of them - Sefka, Sarka, Salka,

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Hajrija, her son and the witness herself. She continued thal Boban had 18ken over Omer and Redto from some people; their hands were tied together. The Accused SIIid thm he would 18ke the two of them towards Zlijeb and he SIIid to the women that they should wait near the school. She further slaled Ihat, in addition 10 hers, the house of Alija Junuzovic WllS also torched. Although Ihe referenced testimony of the witness Ramiu Sabanovic is somewhat chronologically incoherent, it is by no means a reason, nor can it be a reason not to give credence to this testimony, as being objective and reliable one,. To the least extent can some incoherence in this testimony be unributed to the wilness herself, but it is more the omission of the one who asked the questions to which the witness answered following their sequence. As the statements of the referenced women·witnesses are in essence consistent, and as they stated their opinion quite clearly about all the details thnt, given the circumstances under which the event look place, they objectively were able to recall, the Coun, on the basis of these statements concluded, beyond any doubt, that the Accused commined the criminal offence, as indicated in the Section I of the operative pan of this Verdict.

Besides, the statements of these women-witnesses are completely substantiated by the statement of the witness Ahmo Kari~ik who also recogniled in the village of Kuka, on 18 June 1992, the accused Boban SimSic in the group of soldiers who were in the villal!e on that dOle, clearly describing the way in which Redto Sabanovic and Omer KariSik wer~ captured, the way in which the women were told to go towards the school in Vlahovici, and the role of the Accused in that all, that is, in which way he panicipsted in caplUring Redio Sabanovic and Omer KariSik who have been unaccounted for ever since and who have not been found to date, as the witness Fata Sabanoyic, Red20 SabanoYic's wife, continued in her statement. The aforementioned is supponed by Death Ceniticates for Redto Sabanoyic and Omer KariSik indicating that both persons died on 18 June 1992 in the place of Kuka, the Vi~egrad Municipality.

Funhemtore, the factual description of the Indictment shows that Mirsad K8ri~ik aka Kemo was murdered during the anack on the Yillage of Kuka. However, the Panel could nOI positiyely establish all the essential cireumstances of that event and whether and to what extent the accused Boban panicipated in it, which is why the Accused was not found guilty of these actions as charged in the Indictment.

Funhermore, in view of Section lu of the operative pan of the Verdict (Count 3 of the amended Indictment) in respect of which the Accused was found guilty, and it refers to the fact that, on 25 July 1992, in a group consisting of approximately ten members of the Serb AmlY and Police, he panicipated in the anack on the village of Velji Lug in the Visegrad Municipality, and in that attack, anued with rines, they killed Mediha Ahmetspahic. Amela Ahmetspahic, Razija AhmelSpahic, Fata Suceska, Safet Aljit, l..atifa AhmelSpahic, Smaila Men1i~evic, torched the houses and business facililies owned by 130sniaks and took away several dozens of 130sniak ciyilians, including women, children and men, and unlawfully detained them on the premises of the Hasan VeletovQc

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Elcmcnlary School in Vi~cgrad, tcstimonics wcre givcn by Almass Ahmctspahic, Hamdo Ahmctspahic, Almir Aljic, Salim Ahmctspahic, Slavi~ Jovanovic and Slavi~ E>uric.

The witness Almasa AhmetSpahic was 0 direct eye-witness of this even!. She slated in her testimony thot she had lived in a household together with her father and mother in the village of Velji Lug umil 25 July 1992 and tha!, ofter the murder of her mother on 2Sn6 July she crossed the Orina reaching the territory under control of the Army of Bi H. On 25 July 1992, she was a! home with her mother Rozija, Latifa Ahmetspohic and ,.imo Aljic. She recalled thot there were other inhabitantS in the village that night and she mentioned Osman Ahmetspahic, Mediha Ahmetspahic with her nine months old baby and some other female relativC5 from the Suceska fomily. She woke up at oround 6 in the morning. she heord shooting from automatic weapons, rushed out of the house ond 58W Mediha and the baby. She explained that Mediha had intended to leave the village at dawn because she stayed in the wood at da)1imes because of her small baby, whereas at nights she would go down to the village. She slarted towords the wood in the morning carrying her baby, and came across some soldiers. She wem out of the house barefoot and poorly dressed. From the distance of some 20 meters, she 58W a soldier coming from the direction of the wood. The soldier yelled ot her to stop ond she stopped for a while but then took nigh!. There was an orchard between the soldier and the witness, which made it dinicuh for the soldier to take oim. A shooting was heard and she hid herself in some bush, 0 raspberry bush next to the house, hoping that he would not see her there. From that raspberry bush, one could clearly see the house entrance door, the road going by the house ond her gate, so that she saw her mother and Latifa rushing out of the house. She did not see Tima, they, continued running on. The soldier started running oner them. A burst of lire was heard, and then a single-shot lire as well. Then, her mother and Latifa's painful scream was heard. Then 0 soldier appeared and she recognised Slavi~a Jovanovic. She was about to get up ond to speak to him. The soldier then said: "Boban, I killed two, but one gOt oway, to hell with them". Then she realised that she had escaped, and Boban was standing in front of her house (the witness poillled with her hand to the accused Boban Sim~ic at the main trial), he had an automatic rine with a folding bun ond so had Slavi~ Jovanovic. Boban wos carrying a small pail in his hand. He entered the house and wenl OUI a couple of minules later; shortly atler, a smoke appeared from the house, Boban walked up to the gote ond wem on, together with Slavi~a Jovanovic, along the road to the villoge. She alone withdrew uphill a couple of meters and she saw Mediha with the baby, her mother and a girl whose fantily name was Suceska. Boban and Jovanovic approached the house of Safet Aljic and then she heard the voice of Safel's mother saying, "What's going on, brothers", and then a burst of lire was heard, ond the house began to bum short I)' after and, some 5·10 minutes later, the other houses olso began to bum. She saw fire, names, smoke; she heard Safet screaming in pains. She heard the voice of Smojila, Mediha's mother, and she could see Mediha with her baby. She also saw a soldier with his hair trimmed short, wearing on olive drab uniform and with a rifle in his hand; he was turned to the witness with his back. Mediha's mother begged the soldier to spare her daughter and the small baby telling him that she had already lost twO sons. The soldier told her to stop talking. He wos pushing them to walk on, so that they were out of the witness's sight and afterwords a burst of lire was heard. Some 10·15 minutes later, she saw the following scene: the mother was still holding her

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ baby, both were lying down, the others were lying one over the other. Voices were heard bUI she "'OS not able 10 say whal they were lalking. Most dislinctive were screams and callie roaring. She heard Safel moaning with pain. Laler on, no sound was heard. They withdrew leaving behind only the ashes. Together with a nock of sheep, she also withdrew to the woods, alone. She went to the spot wherefrom Ihe entire village could be seen (she saw a lot of cigarette bUllS and small chocolates there, and thus she realized that they had spent the whole night there wailing for the dawn 10 anack them). She wus standing Ihere for an hour, barefoot, not knowing which way to loke. She came back to her house «gain and look her mOlher's bools from under 0 melal sheet. A shol \\'lIS heard and she left Ihe village again. She went at the top of a hill nnd from Ihere she saw some people slanding on the road. She thought thaI her father mighl have been among them nnd she went there. Lenk« Stanimirovic received her and sent her 10 Budimir l'ecikoza, and when his wife saw her, she began to wail asking her what happened. She was JUSt shrugging saying that she did not know. Budimir said to her that he wos not able to cscon her, but he instructed her 10 keep going through os far os the village of Jela~ and to contact his siSler's son there in order for her to be esconed by him to Bajina B~ta, to use the name of his daughter on Ihat occaSion, to introduce herself as a refugee from Bosnia, to say that she was a Serb, and he gave some bread and cream to her. Once she wos about to set off, Radmila Stanimirovic came and csconed her to the end of the road. When she got into the maize stubble field, Radmila called her, which her father heard and saw her gelling out of the maize stubble field. She stoned crying saying that she wanted to go to her mother. So, they returned and reached the place where her mother was lying, and there was blood all around, and the result of the burst of fire was evident on both of them (wounds on both legs). She took three rings from her mother and then they withdrew deeper in the woods where other Muslim people were also hiding. The witness stated that she had seen Boban Sim~ic for the first time in February 1992 when they were stopped at a barricade for a check up. On that occasion, a driver who was an Onhodox Christian, whose name \\'lIS Slavi~ E>uric and who was her brother'S friend, said to her: "That is Boban SimSic". In response to the specific question us to whether she wos cenain thaI the person she had seen at the barricade wos the same one she had seen in front of her house, the witness answered affirnlatively, saying: "One hundred percent". She knew 5lavi~ Jovanovic from Vi~grad, from school. He wos from Ihe village near hers. They used to tRke Ihe same palh to school.

Carefully assessing the statement of the witness Almasa AhmelSpahic concerning the events that occurred in the village of Velji Lug and, in this regard, the panicipation of the Accused in those events, Ihe Panel completely accepted this statement as true and credible. The point is thaI she is Ihe witness who, clearly and without any hesilation, identified the Accused as 3 person whom she had recognized in the village of Velji tug not only at the main trial, bUt also in the Witncss Examination Record at the Gorat.de Crime Police Sector of I February 2005 and the Witness Examination Record at the Prosecutor's Office of BiH of 31 May 2005. This is a consistent, convincing and, above all, imprcssivc tcslimony which docs not call into doubl thc fOCI thol Ihc Accuscd, in the way as dcscribcd by thc witncss, panicipatcd in thc attack on thc villagc of Vclji Lug whcn Mcdiha AhmclSpahic, Amela Ahmclspahic. Razijo Ahmctspahic, Fata 5uccskn, Safct Aljic, Latifa Ahmctspahic and 5moil0 Memi~vic wcre murdered.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ This statement was not called into doubt due to cenain differences in the statements given to the police and at the main trial, referring to the following: the distance from which she saw the soldier running towards her (20 or 100 meters), the distance from the house she covered escaping upon seeing Slavi~ Jovanovi~ (8 or 20 meters), whether or not she sought the tr:lces of shots on her mother'S body when she came to the house burnt down, and how she explained that, when she had come to her house and found the boots, she did not look for her mother's body at that moment, on which the Defence insisted trying thus to call into doubt the testimony of the witness. The point here is not about the differences which would, in their essencc, call into question thc established state of facts, nor do they call into question the truthfulness of the testimony from which it is evident that this witness did not say something which she had heard or learnt, but she said exactly what she had gone through and experienced. Assessing the statement of this witness, the Panel could not disregard the circumstances under which the event took place and the traumatic situation in which the witness had found herself (anack on the village, murder of her mother and neighbors, torching the houses and the fear for her life), given that the witness herself stated in her statement that "the whole of the event which happened that morning, it was at that time my waking up from a sleep, fear ... )·ou can't realize that it is happening to you", Hnd consequently, completely understandable are cel1.1lin discrepancies in her statement which do not lead to a diff~rent conclusion on the factS than the one based on which the Accused has been found guilty.

Given the aforementioned, the stntement of the witness SlaviSn Jovanovic by which the Defence tried to contest the averments of the witness Almasa Ahmetspuhic as well as the confrontation between those witnesses when the witness Jovnnovic disclaimed his presence in the village of Velji Lug on that panicular occasion, did not call the Coun intO doubt in respect of the veracit), of the witness Almasa Ahmetspahic's statements nor were they regarded as relevnnt for establishing decisive focts relative to the panicipation of the Accused in the referenced event, given that the witness SlaviSn Jovanovic did deny that he personally had panicipated in the attack on the village of Velji Lug, the reply of which is considered by the Panel as quite predictable and logical, since this witness is personally interested in the outcome of these proceedings (it is understandable that he wants to avoid criminal responsibility for the panicipation in the crime), but he did not state that the I\ccused personally did not take pan in the referenced event.

Funhermore, the fact that the witness A Imasa Ahmetspahic answered the question of the Defense Counsel affirmatively, i.e., stated that the person in question was SlaviSn Jovanovic, born in 1969, although it is e"ident from the available documentation that it actually is Slavi!a Jovano"ic, born in 1962, does not call into doubt her entire statement, and it is questionable if the witness understood at all this (trick) question of the Defence, and aner all, why should the witness know Slavi~a Jovanovic's year ofbinh.

As for the establishing of the fact whether the witness Almasa Ahmetspahic knew the accused Boban Sim~ic prior to that time, the witness of the Defence Slavi!a f)uric stated that he hnd not known the accused Bobon Sim~ic until 2003 and that he had no encounters with him of any kind. Until that point of time, he knew about Boban only that

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ he was u police officer whom he used to see in Vi~l!rud. He slliled that he did not know Almasa Ahmetspahic, nor did he say to anybody before the year 2003: "This is Boban Sim~ic".

The Panel did not take this statement as true and credible because, in the reverse case, it would be quite legitimate to ask the question as to why the witness named Slavi~ Durie, of all, as the person who showed 130ban Sinl~ic to her at the barricade, or why would she fabricate that event, for a still stronger reason that she must have known that, following her statement. he could be summoned by the Coun to answer that question. However, if for the Coun the statement of the wi mess Almasa Ahmetspahic was convincing, and given that she categorically maintained the assenion about the way in which she had previously seen 130ban Sim~ic, Stating the name and address of the person who showed him to her then, the Coun could not trust the testimony of the witness Slavi~ Durie and it regarded him as panial in favour of the Accused. Finally, the credibility of the statement of the wimess Almasa Ahmetspahic is not impaired even by the Official Note of the GoraMe Crime Police Sector of 6 June 2003. In panicular, this conccrns thc Official Notc of the police interview made on 14 May 2003 in the place of Velji Lug with Almasa AhmetSpahic in rcspect of the circumstances under which hcr mother Razija Ahmetspahic was murdered. In this Official Notc the witness did not mention Boban Sim~ic at all as a person who had panicipated in the events in the village of Velji Lug. Howevcr, the Coun notes that this Official Note was made subsequcntly, 20 days after the interview with A Imasn AhmetSpahit (thc interview of 14 May 2003, thc Official Notc of 6 Junc 2003), so thot the witness did not know what had bcen writtcn in the Official Note, nor did she read it or signed it. Since thc Official Note was not made in line with the applicablc legal regulOlions and is void of necessary warnings, it cannot be regarded as the sllltement of the witness obtained during the investigation and, as such, its contcnt cnnnot be presented to the witness during the questioning at the main trial in thc way as requested by the Dcfcncc. Taking into account the psychological Slote of the witness during that interview affected by the e.~humation of her mother'S monal rcmains (thc witness hcrself stated thot she was under stress on that occasion and that she wos more interested in finishing the mnner for which they hod came there, than in the statement she made), then it is one piece of evidence more for whieh the statement cannot be accepted us a proof to challenge her testimonies given subsequently in the course of the proceedings and on the basis of which a conclusion could be drown thot this witness was not telling the truth in her stAtements given to the police, the Prosecutor's Office and Btthe main trial.

In addition to the witness Almosa Ahmetspahic, the witnesses Humdo Ahmetspahic, Almir Aljit and Salim Ahmetspuhic also testified about the events in the village of Velji Lug. In their statements referring to those pans of the event about which the)" os witnesses, were knowledgeoble, they substantiated in the essence, the stotement of the witness AlmBsu Ahmetspahic.

The referenced witnesses consistently Slated thut at the night before the attack on the village, the ottock occurred in the morning on 25 July 1992, they slept by Hamdo's house which was nearest to the woods. In the morning, the shootings woke them up. Witness

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Hamdo Ahmctspahic stated that soldiers had invaded thc villa!!.c killing and sening to firc evcr)1hing they had came across. At that timc, his wifc Rozija, dau!!.htcr Almasa, neighbors Latifa Alispahic and Tima Aljic stancd genin!!. out of the house, and they ran behind the house, which the witness could not sce bccause of the fenec. A shot was hcard, and then, another burst of fire, and then the screams of his wife and Latifa could be heard. Then, he heard a male person saying: "Boban, I killed two women, but one got away from me, to hell with her." He also saw two soldiers who torched his house as well, but was not able to recognize any of them. He rccalled that had heard thc voice of thc neighbor Safija Aljic (60·70) and her husband Safct, and then he heard thc moan and shots. Later on, he saw on the road his wifc Razija and Latifa lying onc over thc othcr, and thcn he looked for his daughter Almasa. Hc heard someone calling hcr by her name, and when thcy met, he told her that her mother had been killed. Afterwards, on her asking, they went to the place where her mOlher's body was lying. In his leslimony Ihe witness Almir Aljic also confirmed Ihat on IWO occasions he had heard Ihe name of Boban being menlioned, more precisely, il was for Ihe firsl lime when Rode Lukic said: "Hurry up, Boban, I hav( 10 capture Ihis man alive", which ref(rred 10 Ihe wilness's falher Safet, and for the second lime, when Ihe neighbor Radmiln or Lenka said: "Boban, do nOI harm Safel, he is our neighbor". They look his father back to Ihe village where Ihe witness's grandmother was, who begged them to release him. Then, nothing else was heard, the houses burst inlo flame, whereas the witness Salem Ahmetspahic slaled Ihat he had heard Ihe voice of Ihe woman by Ihe name of Radmila saying: "Boban, whal are you doing?" Also, Ihe witness Almir Aljic confirmed Ihal he had seen behind the house four femnle corpses and a baby corpse whereas, on his way 10 Ihe woods, he found Ihe corpses of Razija Ahmetspahic and Lalifa, which was also staled in Ihe lestimony of the witness Sakm Ahmelspnhic who also slaled Ihal he knew Ihat Almasa Ahmelspahic had been in Ihe village on Ihal day and Ihat she had told him that a soldier said Ihe following after Ihe murder of her mOlher and Latifa: "Boban, I killed two women and one gOt away from me", cursing their balija's mother. Funhermore, all of the three referenced witnesses conlirmed the testimon)' of the witness Almasa Ahmetspahic in respect of the fact of the murder of Sofet Aljic whose body was found by his house.

Keeping in mind the statements of the mentioned witnesses which in essence are mutually consistent and complementary, the Coun is conlident of their credibility and truthfulness. The witnesses quite clearly testified about all the details which they actually were able to observe and recall, taking into account the circumstances under which the event hod taken place, and as such, their statements logically substantiate the statement of the witness Almasa Ahmetspahic. In respect of the presence and panicipation of the accused Boban SimSic in this event, the truth is that these witnesses' statements are consistent in that they did not see him at that time, nor did they know him from before. However, uncontested is the facI, on which all of these witnesses' statemen1S were consistent, that they had heard one man calling another by the nome of Boban, and they had also heard Radmila Stonimirovic mentioning that name. In itself, this does not necessarily mean that it was the accused Bobon Sim~ic, but given Ihe .statement of the wilness Almasa Ahmmpahic who saw and recognized Ihe Accused, it is indeed beyond doubt Ihot the person about whom the witnesses spoke, was the accused Boban Sim~i~,

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ himself. Alilhe more so, in view oflhe facllhallhe Coun 01 no poin! was led 10 SUSpeCI Ihal another person existed at the same time and in the same place by the name of Bob an. The name is most often used as a nickname for the name Siobodan and it is specific for that.

The factual allegations of the Indictment referring to murders and taking civilians away in unknown direction, and torching the houses and industrial facilities in those villages, as stated by the witnesses for the Prosecution, have also been con finned by objective evidence, or rother, by the results of the exhumation and iden!ification of the murdered Bosniak civilians. The Coun inspected the contents of the following documents: Photo documentntion, Number: 1512003, subject: Body Exhumation, place: Vi~egrad - Velji Lug, dote of taking the photographs: 14 May 2003, NN 613 I, 2, 3 and 4. These photographs show, both from the close and distant perspective, the locality of the local graveyard in the village of Velji Lug, Vi~grad Municipality, where mona I remains of the body that most likely belonged to Razija Ahmetspahic were e.xhumed, which is indicated by the numbers 613.5 and 6. These two photographs show the pans of the monal remains of cxhumcd bodies. The sevcnth photograph shows the internal contcnts of thc gravcsite. Sketch of the scene, Number: 1412003, subject: Body ExhUmation, place: Vi~egrad-Velji Lug, date of drawing: 14 May 2003. NN 613 and 614 the sketch of the scene shows thc graveyard of the Ahmetspahics on the slope nbove Velji Lug which is connected by a locsl village road. The assumption is that, in the said graveyard, within the distance of aboUi 20 metcrs, the bodies of Rnzija Ahmetspahic and Lemana arc located in twO graves marked with numbers 613 and 614 respectivc!y, the Cantonal Prosecutor'S Office in Goratde, No. Ktn-I12004, Cnntonal Prosecutor: Mirsnd Bilajac, Repon on Forensic Pathology Re-cxpenise, Gravcsite: locality of Velji Lug, Municipality of Vi~grad, on 14 May 2003, Date of Re-expenise: 27 February 2004, place: Vitkovici, case number: 608" A, B, C, D, E. Conclusion: Ihe examincd and described skeletons arc remains of human origin and they belong to at Icast five (5) persons, 3 female adults, I male and I infant 608-E. On n fragment of the broken bones of the skull roof there is a defect which looks like a bullct exit perforation and, on the preserved skull, there is a diagonal defect on the frontal bone which was possibly caused by gunshot-graze elTect (Zdenko Cihlart, Expen Team Leader). Photo-documentation, Number 1512003, subject: Body Exhumation, place: Vi~egrad- Velji Lug, date of taking the photographs: 14 May 2003, NN 60 I and 2. "Iltese photographs show the locality of the village of Velji Lug in the Vi~grad Municipality, where a mass gmve was found with the remains of at least 5 victims, as follows: Mediha and Amela Ahmetspahic, Smajl Memi~evic. Fata Suceska and Safet Aljic. The 3rd photograph shows the contents of the mass grave. 4,5,6,7,8,9,10, II, 12,13,14,15,16, 17, 18 and 19. On all the aforementioned photographs, from close or distant perspective, exhumed human bones are seen being marked with numbers A, B, C, D and E. On photograph 20, as marked with a black arrow, skull defects on one of the bodies in the described mass grave are presented under number A. A DNA analysis will precisely identify the bones of persons who are supposed to be in the mass grave 21 and 22. Tltese tWO photogmphs show a child's snow-suit found in the mass grave, which supposedly belonged to Amela Ahmetspahic, a baby girl born on 3 October 1991 in fo~a, and a child's underwear (waterproof pants) and a toy can be seen next to it. The sketch of the scene, Number: 1412003, subject: Body Exhumation, location: Vi~egrad- Velji Lug, date of drawing: 14 May 2003. The sketch of the seene shows 8 wider area of the place

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Velji Lug in the Vi~egrod Municipality when: a mass grave was detected. The mass gravc was found about 100 mcters away from the ruincd housing facilitics whcre the houses of Ramo Ahmctspahic, Omcr Aljic and othcrs wcre located. It is assumcd that the bodics of Mcdiha and Amela Ahmctspahic, Fata Succska, Smajil Mcmi~evic and Safct Alji': arc in thc mass grave in the place of Vclji Lug shown in thc skctch.

Section 2.0 of the operoth'e port of the con"icting part of the Verdict

Funhermorc, thc Accuscd is charged (Count S.b. of thc amend cd Indictmcnt) that hc took pan in taking away of the following dctaincd civilians from the Hasan Velctovae Primary School: Ismet Bulatovic, Semso Poljo, Eniz Smajic, Salcm Lunic, Rasim Karahodtic, Jusuf Poljo, and Mehmed Memic aner which thcy havc been unaccounted for. In respect of this Count of the Indictment, Rusmira Bulstovic, Fatima Poljo, Hasena Bajr~movic, Nail Ramie, Hurem Razija and Ibro Memic testified.

Witness Rusmira Bulatovi':, the wife of Ismet Bulotovi': who was taken away on that occasion, was a direct e)'e·witness of that event. She stated in her testimony that she knew Boban Sim~i': as they were neighbors. She remembered being at her farm until Bairam, it was spring, she could not remember exactly, but she remembered that Boban Sim~ic's "Chetniks" had come, lined them up in front of the house in order to shoot them. Aftcr that, the)' were expelled from their house and taken to the school. She estimated thstthere had been approximately 300 people detaincd in the school. Boban Sim~ic, who was a police officer, used to come to the school. The witness remembered very well that her husband Is met, Semso Poljo and another man whose name she did not know had been taken by Boban SimSi': and Cvijovic. She has not found out anything about her husband since that time. When her son asked where they were taking his father, Boban said thnt he would be exchanged. The wilness also stated Ihat her husband Ismet was on good terms with the Accused, which was also stated by the Accused during the teSlimony.

Her slatement was confirmed by Ihe wi lOess Fatima Poljo, the wife of Semso Poljo who was also taken awo)' together with Ismet Bulatovic. She stated Ihal her husband Semso Poljo had been taken away from Ihe Hasan Veletovac school where they had been detained, by one C"ijovi':, the accused Boban Sim~ic, Milan Lukic, Sredoje Lukic and Dragan Lukic. Boban lold them Ihal Ihey were to go 10 the SUP ISecretarial of Interior Affairs/to give sante Slalements, aner which they have been unaccounted for.

The lestimonies of these IWO wilnesses are essenlially consislenl, since Ihey gave congruent accounts of Ihe manner in which their husbands had been laken away, for which reason Ihe Coun is satisfied Ihallhe leslimonies are reliable and lrulhful, especially bearing in mind that this concerns the testimony of close persons (relalives) who, given the imponance of the event to themselves, cenainly have preserved memory of all Ihe circumstances and details of what had been happening then. In addition, Hasena Bajramovit also testified about the taking the men away. She slated that Isonet Bulatovi':, Semso Poljo and Semso's son Enes had been called by Boban Simsic personally, and that, together with him, there were the other Serb soldiers, mentioning the names of Mitar Vasiljevic, Milan and Sredoje Lukic, Miloje Joksimovic,

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Gorun Mili~evie and one Milomir o.k.a. eiro, which was also confirmed by the wimess Razija Hurem who said in her statemenc that Ismet Bulatovic, Semso Poljo and Eniz Smajie had been taken away by Boban, Lukic and some others.

Finally, Ibro Memic also testified aboUl this Coune of the Indictment stating that three men, Semso Poljo, Ismet Bulatovie and Eniz Smajie, had been taken away from the school by soldiers, as did Nuil Ramie who stated that Ismet Bulatovie, Semso Poljo and Eniz Smajic had been at the Hasan Veletovoc school and that they had been taken aWO)' one night never to return. Bobun SimSic WllS on duty that nigh!.

Bya comprehensive analysis of these slatemencs the Panel found with censinty that, first of all, the civilians had been token away from the Huson Veletovac Elementary School and then that the accused Boban Simsic, together with Milan Lukic and his group, had panicipated in that taking away of people, aOer which those people have been unaccouneed for. The Coun notes that the Slatements of Ihe referenced witnesses are not identical: bUI are consislenl in respeci of Ihe aClions of the Accused and his panicipation in Ihe commission of the referenced criminal ofTence, and the observed inconsistencies are the produci of Ihe circumslances under which Ihe evenc took place and difTerenl perceptions of each of those witnesses: as well as difTerent capabilities to observe and perceive details and, above all, their capability to presene before the Coun ",hat they were able 10 objectively recall even aOer Ihe lapse of such h;lng period of time. Besides, the Coun does not find that the difTerences between their stotemenes call ineo queslion the credibility oflhese slatements, and Ihereby of the correctness of the factual findings.

Given thai Ihe Coun did not find with cenainey from Ihe testimonies of the heard wi messes that, on thai occasion, Salem Zunic, Rasim Karohodtic, Jusuf Poljo and Mehmed Memic had been taken away from the Hasan Veletovac Primary School besides Ismet Oulatovic, Semso Poljo and Eni? Smajic, because none of the witnesses linked clearly and definitely their taking away and disappearance with that event, or with the Accused, the Coun omined their names from the operative pan of the Verdict considering that taking them away in this evene was not proved beyond any doubt.

Establishing the criminal actions of which the Accused "'liS found guilty under Section 2b) of the operative pan of the convicting pan of the (Count S.e. of the amended Indictmene), the Coun has drawn its conclusion about the guilt of the Accused by assessing the testimonies of the witnesses Sajma Sabanovic, Hasena Oojromovic, L.H., M.U., F.S.: A.N., Fatima Poljo and Timko Kapetanovic.

More specifically, all the referenced witnesses were detained in the Hasan Veletovac Primary School in the second half of June 1992 and. in their statements. all of them confirnled multiple rapes, beating up and humiliation· of females in the thai school, as well as the role of the accused Boban Sim~ic in that.

Thus, witness Hasenn Bajramovic maintoined that she kncw thot, together with a group of Scrbs, the Accused used to single out womcn saying "you: you, you·· and they would leove only to be raped. It is knowlI that they took out N.A., A.N., aka Dodo, Z.M., and

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ R.Ii. Such a way of selecting the girls and young women by the Accused was also consiSlently confirmed by the witness F.~. who stated in her testimony that, when Bobon ~im~ic would come to the school with the others, he pointed his finger at women and girls saying: "you, you, you"; these women would go somewhere, whereas the others did not dare to ask where. On their return, they were tearful; some looked as if insane, they entered the school shaking", as was the wilness 1i.L. who stated thOl she had been raped and she quite clearly and convincingly described that, on the first day of their arrival in the school, she and two other girls hod been taken av.'By. Boban ~im~ic, together with three other soldiers, poimed his finger at the women who were to get up and come with them. She and two more girls were singled OUI. The witness begged him not to go becausc she had a baby. Yet, she had to leave the baby and they took her upstairs .. BObon ~im~ic assigned to classrooms, one girl and one soldier per classroom. She was roped by a soldier of "Bijeli Orlovi" (trollslator's lIote: "White Eagles "). He threatened her not to tell anyone whOl hod happened to her because he would kill both her and her child. She did not see Boban ~im~ic entering any classroom with any girl. After thaI she returned to the gym. Their hair was messed up and eyes tearful. The accused ~im~ic was deciding which women would be taken OUI by pointing his finger at the women who were expected 10 get up and follow him.

The witn~ss Fatima Poljo, talking about taking the women away, stated that Boban himself hod taken away her sister's daughters N. and 5., that her IOle sister begged Boban not to take S. because she hod a 9-month-old baby, and after that they returned her but took awny N., nnd L. and Ihree more women, whereas the witness Sojma Sabanovic stated in her statemenl that on onc occasion before dark, Boban Sill1~ic asked whelher there was anyone to make coffee for them, and when the witness and ~efka volunteered he responded to them that they did need grandmothers when there were girls around there. So, beside others, D.A., R.H. and Z.M. went there and stayed for 2-3 hours, although it takes live or ten minutes to make coffee, and upon their return they did not say anything about what was happening to them and no one dared to ask them anything about thaI.

The witness M.U. also testified about what she had experienced at the Hasan Veleto\'ac Primary SchOOl, saying that Milan Lukic took out her and the girl A.H., and then he and another soldier had taken them to a building in which the other soldier took her to an apanment and raped her there, whereas the witness A.N. also confirmed that Milan Lukic hod raped her, too, and that, besides her, other women had been token out and raped, mentioning among the others F. ~., D.N., Z.M. and R. As for herself, she said that they had taken her out every other night for rape, they would first sadisticnlly abuse her, especinlly Milan LukiC, while the others were laughing, beating and striking her, and that she used to see the accused BOban together with the others in the room where all that was taking place.

Finally, the witness Timka Kapetanovic stated in her testimony that during her detention in the school, young remales, twin sisters, had been taken away but she could not tell who had done thaI. The Prosecutor showed her the statement she Gave during the invesligation on 30 May 2005, where she stated that she had seen Boban Sim~ic entering the gym and

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ single out young girls to follow him, and on their return they looked awful, they were speechless, disheveled, and it WIlS obvious that they had been IIbused. After the I'rosecutor asked why she changed her statemelll, the witness said that she had been younger then and knew beller, thm she WIlS excited, and finally said that what she had stated before was true.

For the Court such explanation of the witness is conVincing, given that she is an elderly woman who indeed seemed to have been excited and embarrnssed for her coming to the Coun to testify. Given that her st8temelll from the investigation in respect of taking the girls away to be ruped is completely consistent with the statements of some other wirnesses, rhe Court did nor have any reason not 10 base on Ihis lestimony among the others, its conclusion concerning this Count of the Indictment being proved beyond any doubt in respecl ofresponsibililyofthe Accused.

Estimating the referenced statements, the Court reached the conclusion that they are objective, convincing and mutually consistenl. The fact is that statements of some of these witnesses seem to be inconsistent in some parts, but their Statements must be placed, first of all, within the cOlllext of the time in which the said events took place and the fact thm they went through extremely traumatic experience, being exposed to severe mental and physical abuse by a number of persons, and then, one has to bear in mind their feeling of sadness, being hurt and ashamed for what had happened to them, and therefore, dimcult recalling of all the details, and taking into accoumthe aforememioned, they cannot be reasonably expected to state with absolute certaimy (which after all cannot be expected from the other witnesses who testified in this case) all the details of the then evems in the Hasan Veletovac school.

However, they did testify very clearly and unequivocally about all the relevam circumstances referring both to the status and the role of the Accused at the Hasan Veletovac school and also in respect of the actions took by him, and evaluating these staremems, rhe COUrt eSlsblished beyond doubt Ihat the Accused procured girls and young women, who were unlawfully detained on the premises of the "Hasan Veletovac" Primary School, for orher members of the Serb Army who multiply raped, beat up and humiliated those women (as one of the witnesses, Nail Ramie said· women were taken out and when they relUrned they were in a bad condition, their hair was messed up, their clothes tom up, they were brutally ronured, some cried). The injured parties. realistically, did not have :lily opportunity to avoid the rape, and each atlemp! of avoiding i( posed (he risk to their life or limb. It clearly ensues from the adduced evidence that the Accused was aware of the fnct thnt the girls and young women would be raped, and given thnt he personally singled them out from the gym, pointing his finger at them, he Wlls willing to help the Serb soldiers to rape those women, and by selecting and taking the women OUI, he provided a moral suppo" to the direct perpetrators of the offence.

On thc contrary, by the assessmcnt of the adduced evidence, the Court did nOI cStablish that lhe Accuscd dircctly took lhe acts of rape, beating up and humiliating the Bosniak women, but he aided the main perpctrators to do that, for which rcason, in linc with

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Ihe faclual descriplion of Ihe Indictment amended and Ihe words "on a daily basis" were omincd from Ihe operalive part of the Verdicl, since Ihe Accuscd, as a guard in Ihe sehool, worked in shifts, so it is evident that he was not presenl in Ihe school on a daily hasis.

While eSlablishing Ihe criminal aClions Ihc Accllsed was found guilty of under Seclion lc) of Ihe opernl"·e purl of the convicling pan oflhe VerdiCI (Counl S.h oflhe amcnded Indicllllent, Ihe Coun drew its conclusion about the guilt of Ihe Accused by evalualing the testimonies of Ihe heard wilnesses, on which basis, il reliably found Ihal Ihe Accused had laken the referenced criminal aCls.

More specifically, at Ihe relevant lime, the Accused was a member of Ihe police rescrve forces of Ihe Vi~egrad Public SecurilY Sial ion and was a guard in Ihe HOSlln Veletovae Primary School in which Bosniak civilians were unlawfully detained. This facl beyond doubt ensues from Ihe stalements of Ihe heurd wilnesses who, al Ihe lime, were delnined in that school, in Ihe firsl place of Ihe witnesses Nail Ramie, Razijn Hurem, L.H., N.A., Hasena Bajmmovic, and this was also confirmed by olher wilnesses who at Ihe lime were, as was Ihe Accused, assigned the same dUly as he, including umong Ihe olhers Goran Mili~evic who slaled in his statemenl Ihal he had been mobilized in the reserve police forces, as was Boban Sim~ic, Ihal as Sim~ic, he was securing Ihe cilizens in Ihe HaSlln Velelovac school, pursuanl 10 Ihe assignmenl schedule Ihey would receive al Ihe Sial ion, so Ihnt IWO police officers would go 10 the sehool, and each shifllasled 12 hours; the day shift was from 7 am unlil 7 pm, and the nighl shill was from 7 pm until 7 am. He recalled Ihat he had worked one day shift logelher wilh Boban Sim~ic.

In respeci of Ihe referenced charges, the wilness Hasena Bajrnmovic clearly and precisely testified Ihol on the second nighl upon the arri\'ul in Ihe school (Ihey came on 21 June) a list of men, women and girls was made (S.H. was called 10 make Ihe lisl), and aner the lisl had gone, in lhe evening Boban Sim~ic, Milan and Sredoje Lukic, one Cvijelo and some Olher people whom she did nOI know, came and called Olll Ihe people 10 go inlo anolher room. There were around 50 men on Ihal lisl. Boban was calling Ihem OUI, whereupon each ont whose name was called Oul had 10 gel up and 10 go 10 Ihe other room. Ibro Sabanovic, Avdo Feric, Avdo Aljic, Hamed Had~c, Ibri~im Had~ic, Muslafa Smajic, Mehmed Bojrnmovic (her husband), Jusuf Poljo, Ramo Hurem, Nail Ramie, Ibro Memic, Abid Alija~evic were called OUI; she did nOI menlion all Ihe people called oul. Aner Ihey had been laken OUI inlo Ihe olher room from which loud weeping, screaming and crying could have been heard, which lasled for 10-1 S minules, Ihey came back bealen black and blue, being in a very poor eondilion, some walking in wilh greal dimculty. When Ihey had broughl Ihem back, Ihey lurned Ihe lighl ofT. Her slep-daughler Medina was crying, begging hinl 10 release her falher and 10 SlOp bealing him, bUI Boban said 10 her 10 gel back on her place and sil down. When Ihe people came in, her husband was blue, red, he did nOI have his leelh al all, and his blood was oozing OUI; her slep-dnughler said 10 her Ihal her falher's longue had been CUI ofT. Then, they were Inking men OUI again, and il wns her husband's lum, he left, and Ihere remained some elderly women and children. Thereafter, she never $11'" her husband again. She remembered Ihal Boban had asked her where her husband was, she had been holding in her onns n child who slill had

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ not turned three years of age, and she had answered to him "You took him away, Boban. I don't know anything about him". He answered to her that their tum would come, tOO; he slapped her face so hard thm she fell down with her child; she was semiconscious Hnd she could not recover immediutely. The Coun gave full trust to the statement of this witness, given that throughout her statement she confirmed in full the ullegations of the Indictment, and she consistently and unequivocally marked the Accused as the person who commilled the criminol offences indicated in this Count of the Indictment.

The vemcity of this was also confirmed by other witnesses heard, and thus the witness HoSa Hadtic stoted in her statement that she had been "forced" to the Hasan Veletovac school where she hod found Boban ~im$ic, Drugon Lukic, Milan ond Sredoje Lukic, ond there were some other soldiers, too. The women who were at school together with her said to her who Boban ~im$ic was (~evka, Timko, ~uhm), and she recogni1.ed him at he moin trial. Boban wore a military uniform then, a police uniform, and he himself and Dragan Lukic were the ones who spent more time in the school than onyone else. Apan from women, there were men in the school who were all separoted later from women ond forced out into the corridor; they brought out 60 men to beat them and to slit their throats, and later on, they forced out the children, males. lillie Medina came hurriedly over and said to Boban: "Uncle, don't beat my fother". She cried that they had cut her father'S tongue oIT and she rushed down into the gym. Mehmed was all covered with blood. Kada Spahic, stated during her testimony that her husband had told her that he had been beaten in the school by Milan Lukic and Mitar Vasiljevic. She remembered that Nail Ramie, Ibro Memie, Ibri~im Hadiic, Hasib Sabanovic, Ramo Hurem and others had been beaten up. Making the statement about the same event, Sajma Sabanovic confirmed that men had been taken out into the corridor and beaten, mentioning Milan Lukic in this context, forcing them to sing Chetniks' songs. Among them, her son was also brought out. She is confident that Doban ~im$ic was on duty that night, but she does not know if he took pan in the beating. She also stated that she had often seen Doban, whenever he was on guard, and whenever Milan Lukic came, Doban was on guard and he would always let Milan tukic in to abuse people, to beat them and to do whatever he wanted.

The witness ~evka ~ehic stated in her testimony that it had been June when she had had to leave her village and when she had been brought to the Hasan Veletovac school. The first night they slept in the school, and on the second day they were crammed in two trucks, and when they reached a spa in the Vilina Vias the shooting stnned at them, they were not allowed to go down the Drina, and were brought back to the school by the same trucks; they arrived late in the afternoon, Tasic Radoje wrote down their names, the families ~ehic, Hurem. ~abanovic, Kari$ik, one next to the other, as Tasic said. She knows that tlte men were taken out of the gYIll and beaten up, she does not know the exact date. but she knows that the accused Boban took them out and Lukuc did as well. "there were many of them". They beat Ibro Memic so badly thaI there was a pool of blood, and there were 20 more pcople, all of them died 6· 7 ycars latcr duc to such a brutal bcating. A lillic girl came over, Elvedina Bajmmovic was hcr name, and said: "Thc), cut oIT my father'S tongue", and she fcll down and faintcd.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ About this event also testified the witness Fehima Caki~ who stated that on 24 June she had left her village of Velika Gostilja because Mikan and Miloje Joksimovic had come there and said to them that they must move out. Vehicles arrived and brought them to the school in Vi~egrad. They said to them that they must spend the night there. In the morning they said to them that the trucks broke down so that thcy returned to the same gym. Late in the night, they came and collected their men and took them away, whereas, they turncd orr the light in their room. They wanted to slit their throats. They were yelling: "Giro, hurry up!" When 3 Woman screamed after her husband and started running aftcr him, one little girl let out a scream saying that they killed her fother, the child fell down, she was about to pick her up, but did not have the strength.

In respect of the evcnt in the primary school, the statement of this witness is Objective and as such accepted, because it consistently confirms the statements of the other witnesS

The witness of the Defence Asmir Spahic also testified about the incident of beating the men .. He stated that on the second night upon the arrival in the school gym (he was brought on 24 June), Milan and Sredoje Lukic had come and token away all the men to be shot. He did not know whDl was going on outside, but those who came back were beaten black and blue. That night the electricity was offso that the visibility WIIS poor.

Indeed, this witness denied the presence of Ihe Accused on thaI nighl, stating that he saw Boblln only during the day shift. However, ben ring in mind the consistent statements of other witnesses heard, and with regard 10 the foet of the presence of the Accused, which the Court trusted in full as being clear, consistent and objective, the witness Asmir Spohic's statement could not bring the Court into doubt and cause 0 different factual finding and acquittal orthe Accused of the criminal responsibility.

Bearing in mind Ihe testimonies of the stated witnesses, the Court did not accept as proved the allegations of this part of the Indictment, given that none of the witnesses confirmed that Mehmed Bajramovic's tongue had indeed been cut off, and their statements about that are mainly based on the stories of other people, mainly on what Mchmed's daughter said: "They CUI off my father'S tongue:' This pon of the factual

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ descriplion given in Ihe Indiclmenl is omilled in Ihe operalive part of Ihe Verdicl, as a conclusion like Ihis cannol be delermined beyond any doubl on such slalemenl alone.

Furthermore, Hasenn Bajramovic, Sevka Sehic, R.H., Ha~ Hadtic - Ihe injured party herself, and Fehima Cakic and Asmir Spahic leslified aboul Ihe bealing up of Hamed Hadtic and his wife (Coum 5 c of Ihe amended Indicllnenl) on Ihe same nighl when Ihe men had been laken OUI and bealen up.

Thus, Ihe wilness - injured pnny H!da Hadtic slaled in her Sllllemenl Ihal on Ihal nighl Ihe men had been separaled from women, driven OUI inlo Ihe corridor, which she had seen when she gOI OUI and lold aboul her husband. She was nOI able 10 see Ihose who were calling Ihe roll. After Selka Sehi~ said: "They slil I~ro SubanoviC's Ihroal", she gOI OUI imo Ihe corridor 10 defend her husband, Boban said 10 her 10 gel back, cursing Alija and Murat and God 10 her, and as she refused 10 get back, he hil her wilh his list and dislocaled her jaw, and laler on, he returned and he did Ihe same from Ihe other side, Ihe consequences of which she feels even loday. She fell down as a resuh of Ihe blow, and Boban moved away from her. She "'as lying in Ihe corridor, as she losl her consciousness. When she recovered and opened her eyes and when the Accused noticed that, he grabbed her by her plaits and forced her into the gym. In the gym, he hit her lower leg, so that she fell down, and he was after her there hilling her as much as he wished. Later on, Boban came to the door and wondered how she was still alive, so the witness said: "I may swear that there is no lie in this". Boban pulled her arm and told her to take all the clothing off and when one of them appeared, Boban asked for a knife on Ihree occasions to slaughter the Muslim woman, that she was naked and an unknown person said 10 Boban that he could do that whenever he wOOled to as Ihat was all in his hands, and he Ihrealened her nOI 10 pUI her clothes on when he was on his way 10 swilch Ihe lighl off.

Although Ihere is cenain confusion of lime and space in this slalement of the wilness, il nevenheless does not call inro do ubI Ihis statement in respect of an essential fact and thaI is Ihe presence and the role of Boban Sim~ic in Ihese events. The confusion in this stalement can be anribuled more to the (in)capability of this witness 10 imerpret what objectively was memorized, rather Ihan 10 her inrenlion 10 lell unrrulh and 10 invenr a Slory. Besides, il would be 100 much 10 expect from Ihis witness to remember all details after Ihe lapse of time, bearing in mind all the lerror and fear experienced, and 10 presenl the chronology of all Ihe events of thaI nighl (from bealing up the men to the murder of Ibro Sabanovi~). ThaI she failed to tell Ihe events in Ihe sequence as some wilnesses did does nOI mean al all thaI Ihose eveOls did nOI really happen or Ihal Ihis wi mess should not be lrusted for Ihol reason. The insiSlence oflhe Defence on the faclthatlhe wilness in one pan of her slatemenr given al Ihe ProseculOr's Office was lalking, in respecl of those evenls, aboul Mitar Vasiljevi~, but nOI aboul 130ban Sim~i( does nOI devalue this slalemenl 10 the eXlent 10 acquil Ihe accused 130ban Sim~ic of responsibililY, given Ihal, both in hcr Icstimony at thc main trial and in hcr Slalemcm given during Ihe investigation, Ihis wimess consislently mainlaincd Ihe asscnion Ihat Ihe Accused WDS presem and Ihal hc look pDn in bealing her up.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Thc veracity of this statcmem was confirmed by the witnesses \-Iasena Bajramovic and Sclka Schic, as well as the wi mess !-I.R., who consistently stated that Ha!a, after they hod tokcn her husband Hamed out of the gym imo the corridor to beat him, got out following them and begging that they let him go os he was a hean patient. Hasena Bajramovic pointed out that it was at the time when her daughter begged them to spore her father, and then Bobon, after he had come in and stood in the middle of the gym, said: "Don't get in here. They'll be bock". Ha!a's husband was unconscious and the)' ordered Ha~a to strip herself naked, and Boban and Mitar Vasiljevic asked for a knife to slit her throat; she was naked for half an hour, they were beating her, hining her, "her jaws were swollen, they were pulling her around the gym holding hcr hair".

The witnesses, Selka Sehic and H. R. stated consistently that Ha!a's husband l'lamed had been beaten up by Milan Lukic and the aceused Boban Sim~ic. In describing that event, H. R. states thnt Hamed was thrown down on the ground and that they "stepped all over him". Both witnesses confirm that of all people in the spon hall, they beat H~a Hadtic the most by kicking her and forcing her to strip, and that the accused Boban Sim~ic panicipated in that, too.

Although the witness H. R. stated before the Prosecutor for the record on 25 May 2005, and in the police on 8 February 2005 that Homed Had1ic hod been beaten up in from of everybody in the spon hall, and not in the corridor as she said at the man trial, based on which the Defense attempted to discredit this testimony, the Coun observes thot there is no uncenainty in the testimony of this witness and that with her evidence she entirely confimled the testimonies of the previollsly mentioned witnesses regarding the panicipation of the accused in the evenlS concerned. Bearing in mind the traumDtic circumstances and the fear which this witness experienced herself that evening, which will be fllnher discussed bellow, as well os the elapsed period of time, it is indeed unrealistic to expect from the wilness 10 remember precisely and specifically whether someone was bealen up in the corridor or in Ihe spon hall. What is imponant and common for all these lestimonies is an honest, consiSlent and convincing testimony offall the menlioned wi messes, based on which the conclusion can be drown beyond an), doubt aboUl the criminal responsibility of the accused and his panicip:uion in lhe stated actions.

In addition to the mentioned witnesses, the witness Fehima Cakif, and the Defense wi mess, Asmir Spahic, also testified wilh regard to Ihis event.

The witness Fehima Cakic Slated Ihal she had seen when Ho~o Hadtic was beaten up, whom she hod known as well DS her husband Homed, Ihey were neighbors, Dnd she also knows that Homed died in Gora1de, emphasizing thai "he was beDlen up, his father was bealen up, Ihey did all son of things 10 Ihem". She explains that Ha!a was in fronl of her when she was beaten up by a man "wilh a red apron on, a heal on his head, who wanled a knife 10 slil her Ihroat, when Ha!a made an "naa" sound, he again hit her, and she was naked, only in her undershirt. Some men were good and protected her, he lold him not to beat her any more and that it was enough". The witness Asmir Spnhic confirmed this in essence, stating that Ihe only person who went OUI 10 Ihe corridor where the men were maltreated Ihal evening, was H~a Had1ic, "she went out in one moment because Ihey

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ were beUling her man, Dnd when Ihey saw her Ihere, 'hey brough, her buck (10 Ihe spon hall), he beal her up in from oflhem, forced her 10 slrip and look a knife 10 slil her throal. However, as someone said 'Please don't, Kum' IINllls/mor·.\·/I01c: close or jumilyjricmU, he does not known whelher it was his nick nome, so he did nOl do il in from oflhem".

These wi messes consislently confirm that Hamed Hodtic and his wife HaSD were beaten up Ihol evening, as also staled by the olher wilnesses who leslified aboul Ihis evenl, and therefore Ihere is no reason for the Coun nOt to give credence 10 this pan of their leslimony. However, although both these witnesses give imprecise stntemems with regard to Ihe persons who were presem Ihere on thnt occasion, wilhout mentioning any names, not even the nome of the accused Boban Sim~ic, and bearing in mind the leslimonies of the other wi messes who were calcgoricAI and consist em wilh regard to the fOCI of Ihe presence of the accused also to the event concerned, and to whom the Coun therefore gave full credence in their emirely, the stated testimonies of the witnesses Fehima Cokic and Asmir Spohic could nOI lead to 0 different factual conclusion with regord 10 Ihis aCI of commission of which Ihe accused was found guilly.

The injured panies, R.H., S. F., Nail Ramie, Fehima Cakie and Kada Spahic, testified about Ihe beoting up and lonuring of R. H. aka "Suhre" (Count S.d of the amended Indiclmem).

The injured pony R.H. herself, stated in her statemenl that she hod been in the eamp (the school) with her family, among olhers with her doughter S., who was 17 years old at the time. They were brought 10 the school in late June 1992. S. was with her until they took her awo)', on unknown man whose hair was all while, as if he hod had streoked hoir, ond one Ciro, whose name she does not know, ond both were soldiers of Milan Lukic ond they were olways coming in thaI group. That evening, when the)' had token her to the upper noor of the school, S. managed to escope ond thereoner An unknown mon come, called her to come OUI, namely called her by her name S., which is her second nAme in addition 10 R. He asked her whether she was the mOl her of S., and when she confirmed so, he wrapped her long hair around his hand and pulled her. There was a fire in the middle of the corridor mode of cardboards, while all the lights were lurned off. He brought her 10 a room, where she saw sloves, one nexi to another, and the heating plates were glowing hot, and Doban appeared later. A soldier asked her why she had inslrueled her daughler to run away, he cursed her gipsy mother and was hilling her head againsl a table and broke her nose. She stated that Bobon hod PUI 0 stOCking mask on and came there to assist Ihol soldier. One of them punched her, she fell down and the other one lifted her otT the ground, and Ihen it was happening all over again. Boban was kicking her with his boots, she sustained injuries, her broken nose was bleeding and her mouth was bleeding, Ihey lore OUI her hair, skin and all. While beating her up, the soldier was telling her "We will now pull OUI your heans and roost them on Ihese heating plates", and next to him stood Doban Sim~ic and only laughed and said "Now you will eat". The soldier COntinues hilling hcr head agoinst Ihe table, the door, she saw Ihal her nose was broken and she wos bleeding heavily. He was twisting bOlh her hand in order 10 break Ihem, bUI at the time she was somewhat slronger so she kept her hands sIitT.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Bearing in mind that this witness, in her StDlemcnt given in the Police - Crime Police Sector in Goratde of 8 February 2005, and in her statement givcn in thc BiH Prosecutor's Office on 25 Mal' 2005, and at the main trial too, eonsistcntly named the accused Boban SintSic as the person who was present, and who even panicipatcd in her tonure, the Coun has no reason to conclude that this witness is not telling the truth. The fact is that eenain inconsistency cxists with regard to thc scquenee of the events, as presented by the witness, but such presentation did not bring into question the tnllhfulness and credibility of the testimony itself.

In addition, this testimony was eonfimled by the testimonies of other witnesses (regarding the pans about which those witnesses had knowledge). Thus the witness S. F. stated that she knew H. R., aka "Suhra", and that she knew she had been abused in the school in which they had been detained. One evening, they took her out, they come and said "Suhra, come out". It was Boban SimSie, Suh", went out, returned after R while, and some two hours later, someone came again, told her to get up and to go with him. The witness assumed it was someone who had known Suhra and who knew precisely where she was. When the morning came Suhra appeared ot the door, her face was blue, she did not have a pan of hair at all, and she was wrupped in something. This witness also stated that she hod spoken with S. H. prior to this event, and thot she had told her that Boban SimSie had taken her away twice. She did not dare ask her whether she was raped since they were not allowed to ask each other anything. The witness Nail Ramie also testified with regard to this event. In his testimony, he stated that he had not seen when Suhro was taken out, but that he saw when they lit torehes that Suhra was lying under the table, in tom clothes, in an appalling condition, unconscious, with no clothes on her, with her hair completely pulled out, The witness Kado Spahie also testified about this event and stated that after the escape of S., R.H. was taken to another room and beaten up there. Her husband lold her Ihat he hod seen Suhra under the table, dead, only with her slip on, while the others who were there before her husband said that they had been there when she had been beaten and that one E>urie, they called him "Giro" said "that'S enough, you killed her". The witness personally saw "Suhra" after that and confirmed that she "'as all blue and in blood, that no one could talk to her since she kept her eyes closed. Therefore the Coun hod no reason not to gi\'e credence to this witness and a pan of her testimony when she speaks about what she was told by her husband. The witness further stated that Boban SimSic was at the door, for a while, and explains that he mostly moved around them, as well as Lukic, and when he would tell them not to be afraid, thaI he would be at the door that night, and that nothing would happen to them that night, the biggest massacre would happen on that particular night when they would come to beat the men. The witness Fehima takie also confirmed that H. R. was beaten up. To tell the truth, this witness Slated that she was not present and that she did not see when she was beaten up, because she had run away then, and when they returned her to the sport hall, Suhra was all blue, black. She asked what had happened to Suhra and she was told that her daughter had escaped from the school, so they caught Suhra and beaten her up. She repeated that she did not see when they had bealen her, butlhal she saw Suhra all swollen and block.

Having found that the stated testimonies of the witnesses are mutually complementary with regard to all essential facts, that they are objective and convincing, the Court had no

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ reason nOI 10 give credence 10 Ihese testimonies, since it was of Ihe opinion Ihat Ihey constituted a reliable basis for establishmenl of the criminal actions of the accused, as stated in this section of the operative pan of the Verdicr.

The witness H. R. testified about the killing of Ibro Sabanovic happening that some evening, who stBted that she hod been taken out from the spon hall aner the escape of her daughter S.: and she saw in the corridor that a man's throat was slit behind the door. This WIlS done by Milan Lukic who had a knife in his hand (and Ihe witness showed her neck): while Boblln Sim!ic stood next to him and held the hair of Ibro Sabanovic, that is, his head, with his hands. However, she did not walch Ihut through the end, because she was token away funher. The witness also stDled Ihot she had seen the elderly and the children in the corridor, which was confirnled by the witness Sajma Sabanovic in her lestimony, who stated that Ibro Sabanovic was taken away the night when the men and the children were lUken OUI to Ihe corridor ond abused, Ihot il was dork when someone called out Ibro: and Ihal Ibro had never come bock. The witness R.H. funher Slated that she heord IDler. people told her that the head of Ibro Sabanovic was thrown in among the people. . A/lhough she SIDled for Ihe record in Ihe Proseculor's Office that she saw the mom en! when Lukic mode a move with his knife and when the blood gushed fonh, there is no essential difference for the Coun between these two statements: since the willless describes the scene which she saw in the identical manner. The fact that at the main trial she did nOI literary say that she had seen the knife move and the blood: does not mean that that the witness did not lell Ihe lruth, all the more so because a conclusion can be undoubtedly drawn from her teslimony given at the main trial wilh regard 10 Ihe desliny of Ibro Sobanovic.

This IVOS also con finned by the other e.xamined witnesses. Thus S. F., A. N. and Asmir Spahic consistently conlinn Ihat on thaI crilical night Ihey came and look Ibro Sabanovic aWay. The witness S. F. Slales that on Ihal critical evening, Ihe electricilY WllS CUI off in Ihe school: thol Ihey saw something was burning somewhere, Ihal a shadow came 10 the door and asked who among Ihem was lbro Sabanovic. When Ibro wenl oullO Ihe corridor she heard a scream: as if someone screamed. At thaI momenl, a panic was crealed in the ·school, she heard Ihal somelhing had fallen on the floor, as if an object flew in omong Ihem, ond Ihereafter she henrd a voice saying "/bro Sabanovic's head". Thereupon she heard thnr somelhing was broken and heard the people rushing oul somewhere, bur she did nOI see whal was happening. AI Ihal momen!, N. approached her and told her "Fata. leI'S run away, my uncle'S Ihrool was slil'·. The following morning, Ihe people who hod escaped were caughl and relumed 10 Ihe school. This is con finned also by Ihe ",i1Oess A. N. in her slalemen!: who precisely said Ihal Milan Luki~ called Ibro Sabanovc to come OUI fonn Ihe spon hall: and Ihal he en Ie red Ihe holl logelher wilh Doban ~im~ic. Aner Ihey had laken him OUI forn! Ihe hall, Ihey firsl head laughler, sadislic aClions, and after /0-15 minules Ibro's head was broughl in by Milan who said" Balias, lonighl is Vidovdan, you will all end Up like Ihis". Boban also came in wirh Milan allhe lime, Ihey all come in. 11 was not difficuh for her 10 recognize Ihal il was Ibro's head, since he was her uncle, ond in addition 10 Ihar, he had big moustache. This could be seen because Someone was holding lorches. A man broke Ihe window gloss and she jumped OUI from the school.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Finally, the Defensc will1ess, Asmir Spahi~ also stated that in the darkness thcy coiled Ibro Sabanovi~, he wcnt out and never returned back. While they were beating up Ha!a Had1ic, somcone said "they slit the throat, they killed Ibro", a general panic staned, a man broke a side door to that hall from the stadium side, and around 40 persons jumped OUt then, some of them were returned the following morning, while some have been missing to this date. It was then when they stopped the maltreatment. His people did not go anywhere until 7-8 o'clock, when two policemen, who were in the shift, came and told them that they could not go to the corridor "because all sons of things happened that night", until it was cleared lip. Younger persons were called out to clean, they saw blood but not the body. The admissibility of the tcstimony of this witncss with regard to the presencc of Boban Sim~ic that evening in the school wos already discussed before, howcver, this witness, like the other mentioned witnesses, confinns that the night when Ibro Sabanovic was taken out he was killed, and that on that occasion, Ihe accused Boban Sim~i~ wos present indisputably ensues from the testimonies of the other examined witnesses, whose testimonies, viewed within the context of the overall events of that evening, testify in the convincing and consistent manner about his presence and his connection with this event. Bearing in mind that none of the witnesses examined confinns the testimony of the witness H.R., that it was the accused who held the head of Ibro Sabanovic while Milan Lukic slit his throat, the Coun omilled this act from Ihe factual description of this ponion of the operalive pan of VerdiCt, since il wos not able to establish the stated fact beyond any reasonable doubt only based on thutteslimony.

Upon drawing logical conclusions and correlating the testimonies of all the stated witnesses, and the evaluation of the factual circumstances in their entirelY, the Panel finds thaI the accused Boban Sim~ic \Vas undoubtedly a guard in the Primary School "Hasan Veletovac", that he secured the detained civilians when Milan Lukic was arriving wilh other Serb soldiers, that is, thaI the accused himself, although aware that Lukic was entering the school with other Serb soldiers only in order to plunder, tonure, rape, abuse and kill Bosniak civilians, enabled them to enter the school. All the testimonies of the exnmined witnesses are essentially mutually consistent in relation to the events of the relevant night in the spon hall of the school, and the faCl lhat with his behavior, lh. accused Boban Sim~ic actively panook in all thnt happened. The testimonies of the witnesses are sincere and credible to the decisive extent, and they logically describe all the events of that night, while cenain differences in the chronology and the description of the events, both mutually and in the testimonies of cenain witnesses given at the main trial and in the investigation, do not have any decisive significance with regard to the establishment of the state of facts concerning this section of the operative pan of the Verdict, and their nalure is not such so as to bring into question the credibility of their lestimonies. A II the inconsistencies noticed with respect to the events described, as already stated before, are the product of their different ability and capacitY, both to perceive and also to remember and reproduce what was seen and memorized, and cenainl)' not of their intention nOI 10 lellthe IMh. In the opinion of Ihis Panel, during \he cross-examination and the evidence adducing, the Defense failed in bringing into question the presence of the accused in the events that occurred that night. The insistence on the fact that the witnesses testify differently 8S 10 whether something happened in Ihe

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ corridor or in the spon hall, what hnppened prior to Ihat, and Wh31 lster on, whol nighl in a sequence it WllS or on which dule il precisely happened, bearing in mind Ihe horror, fear and lrouma experienced by Ihe witnesses, bolh on Ihol panicular night and on Ihe subsequenl nighls, is, 10 suy Ihe leusl, unreasonable and cannOI bring inlo queslion Ihe eSlablished Slale of facls.

Alllhe witnesses agree in one fncl- il was Ihe second half of June, while Ihe precise lime delerminalion, bearing in mind Ihe nnlure of Ihe crime and Ihe circumstances under which it was commilled, could nOI have been expected on Ihe pon of Ihe witnesses, although, according 10 Ihe assenions of Ihe witness A.N., Milan Lukic explicilly said "tonighl is Vidovdan", which points 10 the cenainty Ihal it was Ihe nighl of28 June 1992. Whnr is indeed imponant and whal Ihe wi messes mOSIly conlinned is Ihal Ihe accused himself I\'as securing the detained civilians on Ihat nighl when Milan Lukie and the others emered, and Ihal aner Ihal enlrance evel)1hing happened in the manner as described in the faclual descriplion of the operotive pan of the Verdicr. Slatemenls of the wilnesses are nOI identical (even if they were idenlical, it would cOnStilUle a problem, since an impression could be gained that they were speaking upon inSlruclions), but they are consistent wilh regard to the actions of the accused and his panicipation in the commission of the criminal offense concerned, and therefore Ihis Panel concludes Ihat Ihey are clear, aUlhentic and therefore reliable, while the objeclive eVents were nOI contested by Ihe Defense wilnesses either, although Ihey did Slale thai on that occasion they did not see Ihe accused Boban Sim~ie in Ihe school. The Coun did not give credence 10 this segment of Iheir teslimonies, considering that they remained alone wilh their assenion, bearing in mind the clear and undoubled testimonies of the olher witnesses who did not have any second Ihoughts with respect 10 Ihe presence of Ihe accused, all the more so because Ihe wilness Fehima Cakie, withoul a real explanalion, changed her stalement given in the investigation, which has already been discussed above. In addilion 10 Ihis, Ihe fact Ihal "bad and slupid" Ihings were happening whenever Ihe accused was on dUly ensues from Ihe lestimonies of Ihe examined witnesses, as Ihe witness Nail Ramie mildly PUI ii, and which was conlinned, among olhers, by Ihe wilnesses Sajma Sabanovie, N. A., Hnsena Bajromovic, Kada Spahie. The accused was the reserve policeman, and in Ihal capacity obliged to proteCI cilizens - civilians, as Ihe accused himself Slaled in his leslimony, Ihal is, he was responsible for securing Ihe Bosniak civilians delained in Ihe Primary School "Hasan Velelovac", and nOI 10 allow Milan Lukic and other members of Ihe Serb anny 10 enler the school, to kill, to beat and rope them. Many witnesses con linn that this was possible by stating the exanlple of Goran Militevic, who was also a reserve policeman, assigned to be a guard in the primary school, during whose duty on guard there were no problems of such kind in the school, and who resolutely stood up to Milan I-ukic and his group. Thus the witness Nail Ramie states in his testimony that "Ihere was one Goran Militevic, and when he was on guard, he did not let anyone maltreat us", the witness N. A. stated that Gor-llt Mili~evi~ was trying to protecl them as much as he could, when Goran was on guard there was no abu5C, or only slight, and she heard an argument once in the corridor when Goran was saying "do nOt 10llch the people, do not touch the children, do you have any feclings, do YOII have any consciousncss", he used to bring them water and make tea for the chi

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ while the witness Asmir Spahic states thal Goran Militevic did not allow anyone to mahreat them, and when he once came to the night shift and when he saw what the people looked like, he said "sleep peacefully tonight, no one will do any harnl to you". This witness also stated that they considered the policemen who guarded them as a salvation maw, but that they did not think they had been guarded so that something bad would not happen to them, but rather to prevent them from going anywhere. Unlike the foregoing, none of the witnesses said that the accused had cven tried to do anything likc that. Thc Prosecution wilOcsses, like the Defensc witnesses, undoubtedly agree conccrning the type of pcrsonalities that Milan and Srcdojc Lukic are, their reputation, both theirs and of the members of their group. Thcrefore, it is difficuh even to imagine that the accused, as a policeman who was aware of the events in Vi~egrad, where, as one witness said "Muslims could not freely move around", did not know and was unaware of their intention to commit crimes. On the contrary, by enabling Milan Lukic and the others to elller the school, ahhough he could have opposed to that successfully, or at least could have tried to, the accused was nOI only aware of their criminal intent, but he also shared that intent with them, wanting the prohibited consequence (d~ath, rape, physical and mental sufferings) as his own, in which manner he contribllled to a decisive extent to the commission of severe crimes against the civilians, to which the accused had an affirmative attitude even when not panicipating in them, while without such attitude of the accused towards the actions described (enabling Lukic and his group 10 enter the school), such crimes would nOI have been possible.

Bearing in mind all the foregoing, Ihe Panel established in quile reliable manner any beyond any doubt that the accused committed Ihe criminal aClions in Ihe manner, al the time and at the places as precisely slaled under Sections I.), I a.), 20.), 2b.) and 2c) of Ihe operative pan of the convicting pan of Ihe Verdict.

When il comes 10 Ihe applicalion of substantive low and legal qualificalion oflhe onense, bearing in mind Ihe principles prescribed under Anitles 3. 4. and 40) of Ihe Criminal Code of Bosnia and Her£egovina, the Panel applied in Ihe case at hand Ihe Criminal Code . of Bosnia and Her'£egovina, and found IhOl by the staled aClions, Ihe accused commilled Ihe criminal offense of Crimes againsl HumonilY in violotion of Anicle 172 (I) items 0), ~), I), g) and i) oflhe slaled Code.

With regard to the applicalion of the substantive law in this criminal case, Ihe Coun finds relevant twO legal principles: the Principle of Legality, according 10 which no punishment or other criminal sanclion may be imposed on any person for an aCI which, prior 10 being perpetrated, has not been defined as a criminal offence by law or internalional low, and for which a punishment has not been prescribed by law (Anicie 3 of Ihe CC of BiH) and the principle of Time ConSlraints Regarding ApplicabililY, according 10 which Ihe law IhOl was in effecl 81 the lime when Ihe criminal offence was perpetrated sholl apply 10 the perpetrator of the criminal offence and if the law has been amended on one or more occasions after the criminal offence was perpetrated, Ihe law that is more lenienl to Ihe perpetralor shall be applied (Anicle 4 of the CC ofBiH).

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ The principle of legality has also been prescribed by Anide 7 (I) of the European ConveOlion on Hllman Rights and Fundamemal Freedoms (hereinafter: tht ECHR) "nd Anicle 15 (I) ofrhe Inrern81ional Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (hereinafter: the ICCPR).

Anide 7 (I) of the ECHR prescribes: "No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any oct or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or internmionallaw at the time when it was committed. Nor sholl a heavier penolry be imposed than the one that ",ns npplicable at the time the criminal offence was committed." On the other hand, Anide 15 (I) of the ICCPR prescribes: "No one shall be held guilty of nny criminnl offence on accoum of nny act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence, under notional or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time when the criminal offence was committed. If, subsequent to the commission of the offence, provision is made by law for the impOSition of the lighter penalty, the offender shall benefit thereby."

Accordingly, these provisions prescribe the prohibition of imposing Q heavier penalty, but they do not stipulate the obligatory application of the most/more lenient law (if the low was amended on several occasions) on the perpetrator in relation to the punishment applicable at the time of the commission of the criminal offence.

However, Anicle 7 (2) of the ECHR prescribes: "This anicle shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was commilled, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by civilized notions." On the other hand, Anide 15 (2) of the ICCPR reads: "Nothing in this oMicie shall prejudice the trinl and punishment of any person for any act or omission Which, at the time when it was commined, was criminal according to the general prinCiples of law recognized by the community of nations."

Anicle 7 (2) of the ECHR and Anicle 15 (2) of the ICCPR COntain provisions constituting exceptions to the rule established under AMicie 7 (I) of the ECHR and Anicle 15 (I) of the ICCPR.

finally, the same e~ception is envisaged in Anide 40) of the CC of BiH prescribing that Anicles 3 and 4 of the CC of l3iH shall nOt prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it wns commined, was criminal accordinllto the general principles of international law. Thereby, in fact, Anide 7 (2) of the ECHR and Anide 15 (2) of the ICCPR were adopted, thus providing for exceptional depanure from the principle referred to in Anide 4 of the CC of l3iH. as well as the depanure from obligatory application of a more leniem law in the proceedings concerning criminal offcnces according to intcrnational law. It is cxactly thc case in thesc proceedings against the occused, os it actually concerns the incrimination which includcs the violation of the niles ofintcrnBtionallaw.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ The stme of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a successor statc of the fornler Yugoslavia ratified thc ECHR and ICCPR and thereby these agreements are obligatory for it, and the authorities of Bosnia and Herzegovina, including couns, must apply them. Therefore, Anicle 4a) of the CC of BiH is merely national legal reminder, as it is not necessary for the application of these agreements. Aniele 172 of the CC of BiH prescribes the criminal offence of Crimes against Humanity defined under Anicle 5 of the ICTY Statute as specific offences "when committed in arnled connict, whether international or internal in character, and directed against any civilian population." AI the time of the commission of the offences, Crimes against Humanity were not explicitly prescribed under Criminal Codes in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

The customary status of punishabilit), of crimes against humanity and prescribing individual criminal responsibility for their commission in 1992 was con finned by the UN Secretary General (Repon of the UN Secretary General pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Security Council Resolution 808, 3 May 1993, paragraphs 34-35 and 47-48), the International Low Commission (Commentary to Draft Code of Crimes againSt the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996), Anicle 18), as well lIS the jurisprudence of the ICTY and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) ICTY, Appellate Chamber, TUI/ie, Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, paragraph 141; ICTY Trial Chamber, Tudic judgment dOled 7 May 1997, paragraphs 618-623; ICTR, Trial Chamber, Aka_WSII, 2 September 1998, paragraphs 563- 577.

These institutions have assessed that the punishability of the crimes against humanity constitutes an imperative nonn of international law or jus cogens (International Law Commission, Commentary to the draft anicles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), "nicle 26), which is why it is indisputable that in 1992, crimes against humanity constituted a pan of customary international law. This conclusion was confirnled by the Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law (Jean-Marie-Henckaens and Louise Doswald-Beck; Customary International Humanitarian Law, ICRC, Cambridge University Press, 2005), produced by the International Committee of the Red Cross. According to the Study, "Serious violations of international humanitarian law cOnStilllle war crimes" (Rule 156), "Individuals are criminally responsible for W8r crimes they commit" (Rule 151), and "States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or anned forces, or on their territory, and, if approprime, prosecute the suspects. They must also investigate other war crimes over which they hove jurisdiction and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects." (Rule 158)

Anicle 40) of lhe CC of BiH deals with '~he general principles of international law". "nicle 7 (2) of the ECHR deals with "the general principles of Inw recognized by civili7.ed nations", and Anicle 15 (2) of the ICCPR with "the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations". Since neither international law nor Ihe ECHR recognize a ternl identical 10 the one used in Anicle 4a) of the CC of BiH, this tenn actually constitutes a combination of "the principles of international law" as recogni7.ed

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ by the UN Genel1ll Assembly and the International Low Commission, and "the general principles of low recognized by [he community of na[ions", as recognized by [he S[o[u[e of [he International Coun of Jus[ice Dnd Anicle 7 (2) of [he ECHR, as well us Anicle 15 (2) of [he ICCPR.

The principles of interna[ional low as recognized by [he General Assembly Resolu[ion 95(1) (1946) and [he Interno[ional Law Commission (1950) penoin [0 [he "Choner of [he Nurnberg Tribunal and [he JudgmeJU of [he Tribunal", thus [0 crimes ogains[ humanity. "Principles of Intema[ional Law Recognized in [he Chaner of [he Numberg Tribunal and in [he Judgmen[ of [he Tribunal" adopted by [he International Low Commission in 1950 and submiued [0 [he General Assembly, Principle VJ.c. prescribes [hal Crimes against humanity are punishable as crimes under interna[ional law. Principle I prescribes: "Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under intemational low is responsible [here fore and liable [0 punishment." Principle II prescribes: "The foct [hal internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under interno[ional law does not relieve the person who commilled [he act from responsibility under intemationallaw."

The jurisprudence of the European Coun of Humon Rights emphasizes [he application of of Anicle 7 (2) in relotion to the opplicotion of Anicle 7 (I) of [he ECHR in several similar cases (See e.g. ECHR Judgmen[ in the Nulelilie v. CrOUlia cose, 51891199 and the Judgment), in which the subject mailer of discussion was the existence ond punishability of crimes againsl humanil)' as a criminal offence. In the Kolk and KisMI' v. £slQlllo case the European Coun "recalls Ihal Ihal Ihe interprelation and application of domeslic law falls in principle within Ihe jurisdiction of the national couns ... (See Papoll 1'. France No. 54210/00, ECHR 2001·XII and TOllviu v. Frollce. No. 29420/95, decision of Ihe Commission dated 13 Januory 1997), which is applicable also when the domestic law penains 10 Ihe rules of general inlemalionallaw or inlerna[ional treaties.

Accordingly, [he criminal offence of crimes ogains[ humanity can in any case be subsumed under "general principles of interna[ional law" referred [0 in Anicle 4a} of [he CC of l3iH. Therefore, regardless of whether viewed from [he viewpoint of in[emational customary law or [he viewpoint of "principles of imernOlionallaw", i[ is indispulable [hal crimes against hUnlanilY COnS[iIU[ed 8 criminal offence in [he period relevaOl [0 Ihe Indic[ment and Ihal Ihe principle of legalilY has been mel. In doing so, Ihe fOCI should nOI be neglected that the criminal octS referred 10 in Anicle 172 of the CC of BiH con be found in the low thOl was in effect in the relevant lime period (Ihe CC SfR V), in OIher words Ihal Ihe aCls charged in Ihe lndiclmenl were punishable under Ihe then applicable criminal code. Finally, wilh regard to Anicle 7 (I) of the r;CHR, [he Coun nOles Ihal [he applicalion of Anicle 40) is addilionally juslified by Ihe fact Ihal Ihe pronounced punishment is in an)' case more lenient than the dealh penalty applicable allhe time oflhe commission of Ihe offence, which satisfies Ihe applicolion of the principle of time conStraints regarding applicability of the criminal code. In addition 10 [his, in Ihe decision upon the appeal by Abduladhim Maktouf, the Constitulional Coun of Bosnia and Herzegovina concluded on 30 March 2007 [hal in [he concrete case Ihe issue of

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ application ofthc CC BiH in thc proceedings bcfore the Court of BiH did not constitutc a violation of Articlc 7 (I) ofthc Europcan Convcntion.

Whcn it comcs to thc qualification of individual acts undcrtakcn by the accuscd, thc Panel cstablished that the acts described under Sections I and la of thc operative part of the Verdict include all substantivc clements of the criminal offcnec of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Articlc 172 (I) (c) of the CC of BiH, given that the established state of facts suggcsts that the acts undertaken by the accused constitute bcyond any doubt thc deprival of personal frecdom by violating the fundamcntal niles of international law since the detainces were not voluntarily present in the Primary School Hasall Ve/etol'm: and had no possibility to Icave that place (as the witness Asmir Spahie said "the guards were there to prevcnt us from going anywhere). Having actcd with the direct intent, since he was aware of the oct of commission and wanted to commit the act, the accused committed beyond any doubt the criminal offense as charged under the stated counts.

In the aclS described under Sections I, 2n) and 2c) all substantive elements of the criminal offence of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172 (I) (i) of the CC of BiH have been met, given that it ensues beyond any doubt from the adduced evidence that the nccused, as a member of the RS police, participnted in the arrests of civilians on no grounds, after which those people have been unaccounted for. To wit, the accused was aware in which capacity he acted when he arrested the civilians, intending by their obduction to remove them from the protection of low, in which manner he also acted with the direct intent.

Furthermore, in the acts described under Sections I 0) and 2c), all substantive elements of the criminal offence of Crimes against Humanity - depriving another person of his life (murder) in viololion of Article 172 (I) item 0) of the CC BiH have been met, since it ensues from the established state of facts thai the persons mentioned in Ihese Sections of the operative pan of the verdict were deprived of their lives, and pursuant to the described and proved actions of the accused with regard to the Sections concerned, he acted with direct intent, being aware of the oct he committed nnd wanting the commission of the oct.

In the acts described under Section 2b) of the operative part of the Verdict, all substanlive elements of the criminal offence of Crimes against Humanity - aiding in coercing another by force or by threat of immediate attack upon his life or limb, or the life or limb of a person close to her, 10 sexual intercourse or an equivalent sexual oct (rape), sexual slavery, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity in violation of article 172 (I) item g) of the CC BiH, in conjunction with Artiele 31 of the CC BiH have been met. With regard to this Section of the operative pan of the Verdict, it clearly ensues from the evidence adduced that the accused was nwtlte of the fact that the girls and young women would be raped, and since he personally singled them out from the sport hall by pointing his finger at them, he also had the will to help Serb soldiers to rape those women.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Fin.lly, il ensues from lhe evidence adduced lhul by lhe .ClS described under Seclion 2c) of lhe operalive pan of lhe Verdict, the accused committed the criminal offense of Crimes agoinst Humanity - tonure in violalion of Anicle 172 (I) item f) of the CC BiH. Rele\'ont elements for the commission of the act of tonure are as follows: thaI the crime WIIS committed against u person who wus under contro,! of the perpetrator, that severe physical or mental pain or suffering were innicted on the victim by the crime, thut the crime is intentional, .nd that it is not a consequence of the execution ofle@ol sanctions. With regard to this criminal act, lhe results of the evidence adduced suggest beyond any doubt that 011 the SlOtul0I)' elements of the action charged hove been mel, Ihal Ihe accused \YDS enlirely aware of Ihem, and Ihal he wanled their commission.

For all Ihe foregoing, Ihe Punel concludes with cenainty Ihal each of the stated actions of Ihe accused constilules a severe and nagrant, contrary to international law deprivalion of fundamental rights of a person, such as the righl to life, freedom and safelY, Ihe righl nOl 10 be subject to tonure or cruel and humilialing treatment, Dnd all for being a member of a group of people or a comlllunity of unother, that is, different ethnicily. religion, namely uclush'ely on D discriminatory basis and with discriminatory intent. By aCling wilh direcl intent, aware thOl by laking the actions concerned he is violating the rules of intern.lional low, Wilh lhe facl lhat in addition 10 lhat he wonts lhe prohibited consequence, this Panel concludes lhal, regardless ofthe number of acts of commission, lhe accused committed a compound criminal offense of Crimes ogoinst Humanity persecution referred /0 ill item h), in conjunclion wilh items 0), e), f), g) ond i), Paragraph I of Anicle 172 of the CC BiH, in conjunction with Anide 29 and 31 of the CC BiH, of which crime he was found guilty.

The Coun found no grounds for Ihe Defense assenion lhat forcible disappearances and rapes were nOl accepled as crimes againsl humanity pursuant 10 lhe cuslomary inlernalional low. To wit, Ihe Coun nOles Ihat Ihe Slated actions are indisputably criminal offenses which al Ihe time of war acquire the characteristics and the meaning of war crimes, and when a censin action is prescribed as a crime nt the time when it WllS laken, ifit is committed with a high degree ofcrueh)', inhumanily and general criminal conducl, which, in addition, is 0 pan of a plan and system in lhe crime commission judges have a discretion 10 qualify such aClion as a crime againsl humanily 100, because it is a dynamic process which adjusts 10 lhe lime and indispulably new ways of crime commission.

Funhermore, lhe prohibition of rape and se\'ere sexual abuse during armed connicts has become a pan of illlemalional customary law. h gradually emerged from Ihe explicit prohibition of rape referred to under Anicle 44 of Ihe Lieber's Code and general provisions referred 10 under Anicle 44 of lhe Book of Rules in lhe Annex IV 10 The Hague Convenlion, which should be illlerpreled logelher with Ihe "Manen's clause" which is slaled in lhe in the Preamble of lhe Convenlion. Although lhe Nurnberg Coun did nOI conducl seporOle criminal proseculions for lhe rape and sexual assauhs, lhe rape has been qualified as crime against humanity pursuant 10 Anicle " (I) (c) of Ihe Law No.IO of the Conlrol Counei I.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ The Imcmational Military Coun in Tokyo convicted generals Toyoda and Matsui based on their command responsibility for violations of the laws and customs of war which were committed by their soldiers in Nanking, which included a mass scale rape and sexual assaults. The fonner Japanese Minister of Forcign Affairs, Hirota, was also convicted of such crimes.

This decision, as well as the decision of the Military Commission of the United States in the I'alllushita case, in addition to the fact that the fundamental prohibition "violation of personal dignity" from the common Anicle has become a pan of international customary law, have comributed to the developmem of universally accepted norms of imernational law which prohibit rope and severe sexual assaults. Those nOmlS arc applicable to any ann cd connic!.

In addition to this, no international human rights instrument prohibits explicitly rope and other severe s~.~ual offenses, and yet, those criminal offenses are implicitly prohibited by th~ provisions protecting the bodily imegrity, which constitute a pan to all relevam international treaties. The right to bodily integrity is a fundamentul right which is reneeted in nmional legislDlure, and therefore it undoubtedly constitutes a pan of international customary law.

With regard to enforced disappearances, the Appellale panel finds thm, pursuant to the ICTY jurisprudence, mutilation and other fOmls of severe bodily injuries, beating up and other violent offenses, severe physical and mental injuries, enforced relocation, inhuman and humiliating treatment, enforced prostitution and enforced disappearance of persons are listed in the ICTY case law as the offenses falling under the category of "other inhumane offenses".

Bearing in mind the principle 11111111111 crimell sill/! lege, the Appellate Panel notes that the category of "other inhuman acts, as a generul category of crimes aguinst humanity, constitutes u part of intcrnutionul customary luw, while the fnct that that the CC BIH singled out the enforced dIsappearance of I,ersons und defined il separately in Article 172 (1) item i), and "olher inhumun., ucts" methodologicully cutegorized under item k) of the some Article, does nOI deny this aCI the SlalUS of a norm of imemational cuSlomnry low in any cose.

II should be olso noted th~1 "Olher inhumane acts" Ihemselves conslitute crime pursuant to internalional criminal law. In suppon of the above, the Ponel nOles that convicling judgments were rendered on Ihal basis by the International Military Coun in Numberg, Ihe ICTY, and the International Tribunal for RUMda (wilh reference to the Military Coun in Numberg, see e.g. Tile Medical Cose. Ihe JIIslice Case. lire Minislriel' Case Will Ihe Higlr COII/II/lI/leI Cose, Trio/s of IVor Crill/es, Vol. I, p. 16, Vol. II, p.17S·180, Vol. III, p.23, Vol. XIV, p.467, Vol. X, p.29,36, 462; the ICTY, the first inslance judgment in the Kllpreskie case, the first inSlance judgment in the Kvo~ka case, the first inslance judgment in the Nalelilic case, the first inslance judgment in the Go/ie case; for the International Tribunal for Ruanda, see e.g. the first inslance judgment in Ihe Akayesli case).

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ In deciding about the sanction, the !'anel was guided by the general niles for meting out punishment referred to in Anide 48 of the CC BiH, and olso by the purpose of punishment prescribed under Anide 39 of the CC BiH. The panel is therefore satisfied thut the purpose of punishment will be entirely achieved by the imposed sentence, bearing in mind the degree of criminal liability of the accused and the gmvity of the consequences that ensued. The Panel is of the opinion that the punishment should reflect the gravity and the severity of the crime, that it mUSt ensure an adequate punishment for the perpetrator and achieve the final goal, thot is, the justice as a universal principle. With regard to the mitigating circumstances, the Panel took into account that the accused is 0 family man, father of tWO minor children, without prior convictions, while with regard to the aggravating circumstances, the number of criminal aClions the accused was found guilty of and their conlinuous nalure. Truly, the Coun did not find any panicular cruelty and persistency in the commission of the crimes, bUI al the same time, the accused commiued cenain criminal aclS as a guard from whom il was e.~pecled to prolect the civilians, who constituted an especially vulnerable category due to the fact that they were detained for a number of days. Beoring in mind that this panicular criminal offense constitutes one of the mOSt severe orrenses of violation of internotional humanitarian law with grave consequences, the sentence of imprisonment for a tenn of 14 years imposed on the accused constitutes an adequate reflection of the gravity of the orrense, its consequences, the motives due to which it was commiued, DS well as the degree of criminal liability of the accused, by which both individual and general prevention will be achieved, that is, a warning to others not to commil the same or similar crimes.

Pursuant 10 Anicle 56 oflhe CC BiH, lhe time the accused spent in custody stoning from 24 January 2005 shall be credited lowards the imposed sentence, while with respect to his poor financial standing, pursuant to Anicle 188 (4) of the CPC l3iH, lhe accused shall be relieved of lhe duty to compensate the COStS of the criminal proceedings, since the sustenance of Ihe persons for whose suppon he is responsible would be brought into question if the COSts were paid by the accused.

In deciding on the propeny claim, along the lines of Anicle 198 (I) of the epe BiH, lhe Coun instructed the injured panies, whose names were Slated in the operative pan of the Verdict, that they may lake a civil action to pursue their claims under propeny law, because the establishment of the facts with regard to the amoum ofpropeny claim would require 0 considerable period of time whieh would delay these criminal proceedings.

When it comes to the acquitting pan of the Verdict regarding Count I b) of the amended Indictment, under which the accused is charged that on 17 June 1992, together with a group of several members of the Serb army and police, anned with rifles, he panicipated in the allack and unlawful arrest or several dozens or civilians from Zlijcb, including womcn, children and men, their confinement, by prior shooting from thc rifles at the Bosniak houses, Dnd thcreafter ordering thcm to Icave their houses and propcny, and gather at thc location of Carina, thcrcupon loading them into trucks by which they drovc

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ them to the premises of the Firehouse in Vikgrad, the Court cxamincd thc witnesses - Nail Rmnic, Cura Glu$¢evic, Vasvija Glu~tevic, H. H., Ibrum~ Agie, Hana Softie and Ismet Softie.

The witness Nail Ramie tcstified that he kncw the accused well, that they were on good temts bcfore the war as ncighbors in the village of t.lijeb, that at the beginning of the war he used to see the accused who was amled and wearing a uniform coming with a group of people to the village; th3t thc group consisting of peoplc mainly unknown to him came to thc villagc, harnsscd him and shot at his housc; one night thc group including the accused came to his house and beat him up. He thcn realized that he had to hide in the ncarby woods which lasted until mid-June when he was orrested ond taken to thc Elemcmary School Hasan Velctovac. Somc of the people flecingtowards £cpa told him thai Boban Sim~ic hnd inquired about him and told him "run, Boban's group is coming". In his opinion, the men who arrested him in the 1Y00ds were the men of Boban Sim~ic.

The witness Curu Glusce,·ic testified that umil the war she hud lived in the village of llijeb from IYhich Muslims were persecuted on 17 June 1992. She remembers thut on thut day the armed persons arrived: Radoje Milieevic, Goran Milicevic, Spasoje Milicevic, Miloje Novakovic, Cvele and Ljubo, as well os Boban Sim~ic, some of them wearing uniforms, others not. They staned shooting at Muslim houses and said that within an hour they had to leave the village. All Muslim inhabitants galhered at the Carine site. Boban Sim~ic was also there. From that place they wem to Obranje where they loaded them into trucks and drove them in front of the Firehouse in Vi~egrad.

The witness Vns\"ijll Gluscc"ic did not confirm that she had seen the accused when the Muslim inhabitunts had been expelled from the village of Zlijeb under the threat of weapons, however although, as she said she did nOt recognize him personally then at the Carine site where they were ordered to gather, she heard obout his presence at that place from Dervi~ Softie and A vdija Nuhanovic who are dead now.

The witness H. H. testified that she did not sec Boban SimSic, whom she did not know aner all, 011 the critical day when she left the villQge or t.lijeb. She stoted thol she heard from other inhabitants (she concluded from whot they said) and that he was the worst among them.

The witness Ibrum~o Agic stated she knew Bobon Sim~ic well ever since he was a child, as well as his parems. At the beginning orthe war, ormed soldiers, whom she mostly did not know, used to come to the villoge of 2:lijeb. The witness described thot on onc occasion a group of soldiers, among whom she did not see Boban, arrived and gathered approximately 150 inhabitants ond transponed them in trucks to the Firehouse in Vi~egrod.

The witness Hano Softie Slated that the Muslim inhabitants had left the village of llijeb when shooting stoned that night from 011 sides. They directed them towards ViSegrad, the Firehouse, wherein they were detoined for 5-6 doys and then on to Olovo And when the truck broke down on Lijesko they retumed them to Vi~egrad, the elementary school. She

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ is categorical in saying that Boban Sim!ic WIIS not present while they were taken away from the village. As neighbors they had good relations with him and he made no harm 10 anyone.

Her husband Ismel Sofric, who .was e)(amined on 10 Augusl 2005 in the capacity of a witness by the Preliminary Proceedings Judge within the securing of evidence by the Coun (Anicle 273/1 of the CPC of BiH), and whose SlUtement was reproduced from a compact disc 01 the main trial since the witness deceased in Ihe meonlime, stDled that the inhabitanls of Ihe village ofZlijeb were taken on IS July 1992 first to Obranje where they were loaded imo Ihe lrucks and then to the firehouse in Vi!egmd. Like his wife, this witness also claims that Boban Sim!ic was not among the members of the patrol that took them OUI of the ,'illage.

Aner the evaluntion of the stated witnesses' testimonies, stoning front the testimonies of the wilnesses Ibrum!a Agic, Hana Sonic and Ismet Sonic, who staled that they had not seen the accused at all when the civilians were taken away from the village to the testimonies of Vasvija Glu!~evic and H. H. who did not see him on that occasion, but who had heard from others that the accused was among the soldiers on that critical day, and finally of Cura GluS~evie, who only testified that she had seen the accused armed in the village, together with the other soldiers (she was also the only one who listed by names the soldiers who were in the village), who had ordered thent to leave the village in an hour, the Panel was not able to conclude, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the accused panicipated in the allack on the village of Llijeb. The testimony of the witness Cura GluS~evie, as evaluated with regard to the testimonies of the other witnesses, was not sufficient so as to draw such factual conclusion, and it was not confirmed to a decisive extent by the testimony of the witness Nail Ramie either, considering the contradiction between his stotement and his evaluation presented during his giving evidence, which have no connection whatsoever with an objective observation (when asked by the defense counsel how he knew that the people who hod arrested him in the woods were members of the [lobon Sim!ie's group, the witness responded Ihat it was in his opinion). In addition to this, this witness did not give his specific statement regarding the attack on the village of !Iijeb, because he was personally arrested in the woods where he had hid himself, while his statemenlS that "it was known to him" that the accused panicipated in the inhabitants persecution from the village, ond that he was "one of the leaders of that", do not have 0 big evidentiary value so as to establish the facts regarding this COUnt of the Indictment. Bearing in mind the foregoing, and from the results of the evidence adduced, the Panel was not able to draw an indisputable conclusion regarding the responsibility of the accused for this COUnt of the Indictment, due to which the accused was acquitted of the charges for the commission of the described criminal actions. Funherrnore, on the basis of the adduced evidence. the Panel also could not establish beyond any reasonable doubt that on an unidentified date in the second half of June 1992. the Bccused took out from the premises where Bosniak civilians were detained in the Firehouse in Vi!cgrad, five girls Bnd five younger women, including H. H., and took them to the adjacent room, then togcther with two Serb soldiers hit them with batons and kicked them first, and thereafter, after all girls and women were upon his order stripped

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ naked, raped them taking tums which lasted for two or three hours, and on that occasion, H. H. sustained injuries of her head in the fornl of hematoma and bumps, and also the injuries of her genital organs in the fonn of bleeding (Count 4.a of the amended Indict l11ent). In testifying about the events in the Firehouse, the witness Timka Kapctanovic stated, IlIIer a/ill, that there were cases of abuse of young women and girls in the Firehouse, Ihal one H. was taken out even three times per night, she had two children, a father-in-law, the children would slay wilh Ihe mother-in-law, cried, and when she would come back, in a miserable condition and with their hair ruffied, and when asked where she had been, she did not dare answer. To wit, this witness docs not correlate thc accuscd with taking this young woman away, nor docs the witness Vasvija Glu~cevic either, who stated that she had stayed only for four-live days in the Firehouse, that they would came and abuse them every night, Milan Lukic used to come every day, every night they took away, they said "Come on, H., get up", and the woman thereafter returns in a miserable condition, raped. The witness IbrumSa Agie stated that in the Firehouse, Lukie used to take aWII)' her cousin's wife every night, but she did not see that Boban took her oway, whom generall~' she sow in the Firehouse only once. It ensues from the statement of the witness Munibu Glus;:e\'ic given for the record with the police in Gora~de in 2004 that during her detention in the Firehouse in Vi~egrad, the some evening after she had been punched with a fist by Mitar Vasiljevie, and after she had regained her consciousness, she wus told by other women Ihllt some of them had been raped, which was happening every night during her seven-dAYs detention in the Firehouse. This witness also does not bring the accused into connection with the alleged rapes of women. Finally, the witness H. H. states in her testimony that seven years before the war broke out, she lived in the village of Zlijeb, with her father-in-law, husband and three children. Her husband got killed. She heard from her neighbors that Boban was the worst of all, although she does not know the names of the neighbors who said that to her. She did not see Boban on the day when she len the village but she saw him down there in Vi~egrad, in the Firehouse 10 where Ihey were lransponed by lrucks and imprisoned. Before her arrival in the Firehouse, she did nOI see Boban Sim~ie around and Ihe people said il was Boban Sim~ic, and he slayed Ihere for a shon while and Ihen relurned. She described him os being neilher biS nor small, she does nOI remember if he was armed or how he was dress~d - as she was scored. She SIOles Ihal, apan from Ihe accused, Milan Lukic wos also in Ihe Firehouse. She was raped in Ihe Firehouse, Boban Sim~ic raped her and was bealing her with some balon and she suffers from consequences, in her head. She explained Ihal Ihe accused had laken her 10 Ihe upper noor, 10 a room which was unfurnished and where she had 10 undress, and he did whalever he wanled 10. She adds Ihal, on Ihree occasions, he look Ihem OUI, live women and live girls on each occasion, and Ihal il was Boban Sim~ie who look Ihem all away and thaI, excepl for him, she did nOI see anyone else on Ihe upper noor. She said Ihal he also beal olher women wilh a balon and raped Ihem. He previously asked Ihem 10 slrip naked, which Ihey did. She is cenain Ihal Boban Sim~ic raped Ihem. When he look Ihem aWII)' for Ihe second lime, IWO olher soldiers accompanied him and she could nOI recogni7.e them. On Ihal occasion, Ihe accused ordered them 10 undress and 10 dance around him. Duringlhe sexual intereourse the accused used a balon, and Ihe olher IWO soldiers participaled in Ihe rape, the witness said "well yes, of course Ihey did", Ihey also Slripped naked. However, she connol

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ remember the names of the girls and women except that they were from the villages of Kuke and Vluhovici. She does not know if any of them knew him. They stayed in the room for two to two and a half hours. Her sexual organ wos bleeding. He was beating her in the head whenever she refused to undress. While he wus !Uking them to be raped for the third time, she did not see if anyone else was with him. At the main trial, the wiUless was not able to identify the accused. She stated th31 she could not recall as she hod for!lonen his appearance. She sow the accused Boban only in the Firehouse, she had not seen him before her arrival 0( the Firehouse - the School. She married a man from the village ofZlijeb and came to live there in 1984, and she had srayed there 011 the time until they left the village. She cannot remember an)' of the persons who took them away, including the way in which a person whom they called Boban Sim~ic was dressed. She remembers that he was standing guard one whole day in the Firehouse. Evaluating the statement of the witness H.H. in its entirety, the Panel observes a series of illogical facts in iI, staning from the fact that this witness did not know the accused Sim~ic Boban at all, although she had lived for 7 years before the war in the village from which the accused was, that she did not remember who was taken with her from the village to the Firehouse, that aner all that she had experienced by the accused in the Firehouse, according to her statement, she could not recognize him in the counroom (she forgol his appearance), that she does not know names of any other women of 9 women who were raped together with her, to the statement that the accused raped 10 women on three occasions (first time alone, the second time with another two soldiers, and the third time she did not see whether anyone else panicipated with him?). The Panel did not find any reasonable explanation whatsoever for such an unconvincing testimony of the witness. It was only possible to draw a conclusion that this was a fabricated construction, without any realistic, objective ground, QI1d when it is taken into account that none of other examined witnesses confimls such testimony, the Panel could not bring the accused into connection with the alleged rapes, because of which the accused was acquiued of the charges that he eommiued the criminal offense as described in Coum 4a) of the amended Indictment.

Funherrnore, under Count 4c) of the amended Indictment, the accused is charlled that on 18 June 1992, together with Milan Lukic, in the Firehouse in Vi~grad, from the room in which they were unlawfully imprisoned, he singled out [losniak civilians, namely: Mujo GluS¢evie, Hasan GluS¢evie, Hasib GluS~evic, Meho Agic, Emin Agic, Meho Softie, Samir Softie, Mustsf3 Saba nov ie, A vdija Nuh3novie, Sead Hodtic, Adem K07.ie, Dtelal Hod%ic, Dievad Hodtic, Salko Suceska, Huso [lulatovic, Husein Vilic, Hamed Ke~mer, Ibrahim KeSmer, and Ihereaner look them away from the Firehouse, and who have been unaccounted for ever since, except for Mujo Glu~fevie, Ibrahim KeSmer, Hamed Ke~mer, Samir Softie, Emin Agie, Hasib Glu~~evic, Sead Hodtie, Huso Bulatovie, Dtelal Hod,je and Adem K07.ie, whose corpses were found during the exhumation at the local ion of Slap '-epa.

The fact that out of 18 men who were takcn alVay from the Firehouse on that critical occasion, Ihe corpses of the aforementioned pcrsons wcre cxhumed, and that the othcrs, whose names lVere also mentioned, have been reported as persons unaccounted for, is not disputable for this COlin considering the irrefutable material evidence - Records on

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ E.~humations and Identifications as well as testimonies given by e;ocpen witnesses - forensic pathologists.

The Cantonal Coun in Sarajevo, Number: Kri:3577/00 of 9 October 2000, produced an on-sile Record on the Exhumalion between 9 and 14 October 2000, at the locality of the village of Slap-tepa, with regard 10 the exhumation of scveral individual gravcsites (!!ravcsitc marked with 10). The body exhumed from the gravesile marked with number 10 has bccn identified as Hamed Ke~mer (Ibrahim Hadtit, Investigating Judge) (Hamza tujo, Forensic Patholollist).

Mol, Crime Invcstigation Police Sector, Unit for Crime Scenc Investigntion Techniqucs Sarajevo produced the following: Photo-documentation number: 2515/00, Subject: exhumotion, post-monem examination and identification Kri: 347100 G.S. 64, Site: Rogatica, Zepo, Slap, Date of photographing: II October 2000. Photograph I shows a brooder view of the site where I corpse was exhumed in the place of Slap, Zepa, Municipality of Rogatica. Photograph 2 - the corpse photographed while in the grave. Photograph 3 - the corpse photographed nfter being taken OUt of the grave. Photogruph 4 - the corpse photographed at the dissecting room prior to post-monem examination. Photograph 5 - the eorpse photographed after the anthropological re-association of the body pans. No injuries on the bones of the eorpse have been recorded.

Mol, Crime Investigation Police Sector, Unit for Crime Scene Investigation Techniques Sarajevo produced the following: Drawing of the crime scene, number: 2493/00 - 2625/00, Subject: exhumation, Site: Zepa Slap, Municipality of Rogatica, Date of photographing: from 9 October to 14 October 2000. In the period from 2 October 2000 to 14 October 2000, bodies of the murdered Bosniaks, who were buried in the place called tepa Slap, Municipality of Rogatica, were exhumed.

The Cantonal Coun in Sarajevo, number: Kri 364/00, Sarajevo, 9 October 2000, produced an on-site Record on the Exhumalion in the period from 09 to 14 October 2000, nt the locality of the village of Slap-tepa, with regard to the exhumation of several individual gravesites (gravesite marked with 88). The bod)' exhumed from the gravesite marked with number 88 has been identified as Mujo Glu~eevit (Ibrahim Hadiic, Investigating Judge) (Hamza lujo, Forensic PnthOlogist).

Mol, Crime Investigation Police Sector, Unit for Crime Scene Investigation Techniques Sarajevo produced the following: Photo-documentation number: 2526/00, Subject: exhumotion, post-monem examination and identificotion Kri: 358/00 G.S. 9, Site: Rogatica, tepa, Slap, Date of photographing: II October 2000. Photograph I - shows a brooder view of the site where I corpse was exhumed in the place of Slap, tepa, Municipality of Rogatico. Photograph 2 - same as the previous photograph, taken from a closer distance. Photograph 3 - wedges found on the occasion of digging up the graves are marked with arrows. Photograph 4 - the corpse photographed whi Ie in the grave. Photograph 5 - the corpse photographed after being taken OUt of the grave. Photograph 6 - the corpse photographed at the dissecting room prior to post-monem examination. Photograph 7 - the corpse photographed after the anthropological re-association of the

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ body puns. Ph olograph 8 - arrows on Ihe phOIO!!raph point al an injury on the right 8'" rib and 01 dilaceraled venebras "1"6 and 7.

Mol, Crime Investigalion Police Seclor, Unit for Crime Scene Investigation Techniques Sarajevo produced Ihe following: Drawing of the crime scene, number: 2493/00 - 2625/00, Subject exhumalion, Silc: Zepa Slap, Municipality of Rog81ica, Date of photographing: from 9 October 10 14 OClober 2000. In Ihe period from 2 OClober 2000 10 14 OClober 2000, bodies of Ihe murdered Bosnioks, who werc buried in Ihe place called Zepa Slap, MunicipalilY of Rogalica, were exhumed.

The Cantonal Coun in Sarajevo, number: Kri 358/00, Sarajevo, 9 OClober 2000, produced an on-sile Rccord on Ihe Exhumalion in Ihc period from 9 10 14 OClobcr 2000, al Ihe loco lilY of Ihe village of Slap-tepa, wirh regard 10 Ihe e.~humalion of several individual gravesilcs (gravesilc marked wilh 9). The body exhumed from Ihe gravesile marked with number 9 has becn identified as Ibrahim Kdmer (Ibrahim Hadtic, Invesligaling Judge) (Hamza tujo, Forensic Palhologisl).

Mol, Crime Invesligalion Police Seclor, Unil for Crime Scene Invesligalion Techniques Sarajevo produced Ihe following: Pholo-documenlalion number: 2532100, Subjecl: exhumalion, posl-monem examinalion and identificalion Kri: 364/00 G.S. 88, Sile: Rogalica, tepa, Slap, Dale of pholographing: II OClober 2000. Pholograph I shows a broader view of Ihe sile where I corpse was exhumcd in Ihc placc of Slap, tepa, MunicipalilY of Rogarica. PhOlograph 2 - Ihe corpse pholographed while in Ihe grave. Phorograph 3 - Ihc corpse phOlographed aOer bcing laken OUI of Ihe grave. Ph olograph " - Ihc corpse pholographed al Ihe dissecling room prior 10 posl-monem examinalion. PhOtograph 5 - Ihc corpse phOlographed aner Ihe anlhropological re-associalion of Ihc body pans. No injurics on Ihe bones of Ihc corpse have been recorded.

Mol, Crime Invesligalion Policc Seclor, Unil for Crime Scene Invesligalion Tcchniques Sarajevo produced Ihe follo\\'ing: Drawing of Ihe crime scene, number: 2493/00 - 2625/00, Subjecl: e.xhumalion, Sile: Zepa Slap, MunicipalilY of Rogalico, Dale of phorographing: from 9 OClober 10 14 OClober 2000. In Ihe period from 2 Ocrober 2000 to I" OClober 2000, bodies of Ihe murdered Bosniaks, who were buried in Ihe place called tepa Slap, Municipalily of Rogalica, were exhumed.

The Conlonal Coun in Sarajevo, number: Kri 335100, Sarajevo, 9 Octobcr 2000, produccd an on-sile Record on the Exhumnrion in the period from 09 10 14 Ocrober 2000, 01 Ihe 10calilY of Ihc villagc of Slap-tepa, wilh regard 10 Ihe exhumalion of several individual gravesiles (gravesile marked wilh 73). The body exhumed from Ihe gravesile markcd wilh number 73 has been idcntified as Huso Bulatovie (Ibrahim Had,-ie, Invcsligating Judgc) (Ham7.a Zujo, Forensic Parhologisl).

Mol, Crime Invesligalion Police Seclor, Unil for Crime Scene Invesligalion Techniques Sarajevo produced Ihe following: Pholo-documcnlalion numbcr: 2616/00, SUbjcct: cxhumalion, posl-mortem cxaminalion and idenlificalion Kri: 448/00 G.S. 100, Silc: Rogalica. tepa, Slop, Dalc of pholographing: 13 OClober 2000. Pholograph I - shows 0

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ broader vicw of thc site wherc I corpse was exhumcd in the place of Slap, 2.epa, Municipalit)' of Rogatica. Photograph 2 - thc corpse photographed while in the gravc. Photograph 3 - the corpse photographed after being taken out of the grave. Photograph 4 - the corpse photographcd at the dissceting room prior to post-monem examination. Photograph 5 - the corpse photographed after thc anthropological re-assoeiation of the th bod)' pans. Photograph 6 - arrows on the photograph point at fractures of the 4"', 9 , lOth right ribs and fracture of Silo left rib innicted b), firearm. Photograph 7 - arrows on thc photograph point at a semicircular holc, I em in diametcr, in the Icft 5th rib in thc anterior axillar)' line coming from the inside. Photograph 8 - an arrow on the photograph points at two round bullet holes, 0.4 cm in diamcter each. Photograph 9 - a elosc-up photograph of round bullet holes.

Mol, Crime Investigation Police Sector, Unit for Crime Scene Investigation Techniques Sarnjevo produced the following: Drawing of the crime scene, number: 2493/00 - 2625100, SUbject: exhumation, Site: Zepa Slap, Municipalit)' of Rogatica, Date of phOIOgt1lphing: from 9 October to 14 October 2000. In the period from 2 October 2000 to 14 October 2000, bodies of the murdered Bosniaks, who were buried in the place called iepa Slap, Municipulit)' ofRogntica, were exhumed.

The Cantonal Coun in Sarajevo, number: Kri 448/00, Sarajevo, 9 October 2000, produced an on-site Record on the Exhumation in the period from 9 to 14 October 2000, at the locality of the village of Slap-Zepa, with regard to the exhumation of several individual gravesites (grnvesite marked with number 100). The bod)' exhumed from the gravesite marked with number 100 has been identified as Sead Hodtic (Ibrahim Had1ic, Investigating Judge) (Hamza Zujo, Forensic Pathologist).

Mol, Crime Investigation Police Sector, Unit for Crime Scene Investigation 'r echniques - Sarajevo produced the following: Photo-

Mol, Crime Investigation Police Sector, Unit for Crime Scene Investigation Techniques Sarajevo produced the following: Drawing of the crime scene, number: 2493/00 - 2625/00, Subject: exhumation, Site: lepa Slap, Municipalit)' of Rogatica, Date of photographing: from 9 October to 14 October 2000. Within the period of time from 2 October 2000 to 14 October 2000, bodies of Ihe murdered Bosnisks, who were buried in the place called '-epa Slap, Municipality of Rogalics, were exhumed.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ The Cantonal Coun in Sarajevo, number: Kri 347100, Sarajevo, 9 October 2000, produced an on-site Record on the Exhumation in the period from 9 to 14 October 2000, at the locality of the village of Slap-Zepn, with regard to the exhumation of several individuol gravesites (gravesite marked with 64). The body e;-.:humed from the grovesite marked with number 64 has been identilied os Hosib Glu~evic (Ibrahim Hadtic, Investigating Judge) (HamZll Zujo, Forensic Pathologist).

Mol, Crime Investigation Police Sector, Unit for Crime Scene Investigation Techniques Sarajevo produced the following: Photo-documentation number: 2525/00, Subject: exhumotion, post-monem examination and identification Kri: 357/00 G.S. 10, Site: Rogatica, 2.epa, Slap, Date of photographing: II October 2000. Photograph I - shows a broader view of the site where I corpse was exhumed in the place of Slap, 2.epa, Municipality of Rogatica. Photograph 2 - wedges found on the occasion of digging up the grave are marked with arrows. Photograph 3 - the corpse photographed while in the grave. Photograph 4 - the corpse photographed aner being taken out of the grove. Photograph 5 - the corpse photographed at the dissecting room prior to post-monem e.xamination. Photograph 6 - the corpse photographed aner the anthropological re association of the bod)' pans. The autopsy did not indicate the existence of any injuries on the bones of the corpse.

Mol, Crime Investigation Police Sector, Unit for Crime Scene Investigation Techniques Sarajevo produced the following: Drawing of the crime scene, number: 2493/00 - 2625/00, Subject: exhumation, Site: 2.epo Slap, Municipality of Rogatica, Date of photographing: from 9 October to 14 October 2000. Within the period of time from 2 October 2000 to 14 October 2000, bodies of the murdered Bosniaks, who were buried in the place called Zepa Slap, Municipality of Rogatica, were exhumed.

The Cantonal Co un in Sarajevo, number: Kri 334/00, Sarajevo, 9 October 2000, produced an on-site Record on the Exhumation in the period from 9 to 14 October 2000, at the locality of the village of Slap-tepa. with regard to the exhumation of several individual gravesites (gravesite marked with 72). The body exhumed from the grovesite marked with number 72 hos been idemified os D'-elal Hodtic (Ibrahim Hadt.ic, Investigating Judge) (Ham7.3 tujo, Forensic Pathologist).

Mol, Crime Investigation Police Sector. Unit for Crime Scene Investigation Techniques Sarajevo produced the following: Photo-documentation number: 2502100, Subject: exhumation, post-monem examination and identification Kri: 334/00 C.S. 72, Site: Rogatica, tepa, Slap, Date of photographing: 10 October 2000. Photograph I - shows D broader view of the site where I corpse was exhumed in the place of Slap, tepa, Municipality of Rogatica. Photograph 2 - same as the previous photograph, taken from shon distance. Photogroph 3 - the corpse photographed while in the grove. Photograph 4 - the corpse photographed after being taken out of the grave. Photograph 5 - thc corpse photographed at the dissecting room prior to post-monem examination. Photograph 6 - the corpse photographed after the anthropological re-association of the

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ body parts. Photograph 7 - arrows on the photograph points at injuries of the right clav~cle thand of~temum. Photograph 8 - an arrow on the photograph points at the injury of 6 ,7 and 8 thoracic vertebras.

Mol, Crime Investigation Policc Sector, Unit for Crime Scenc Invcstigation Techniques Sarajevo produced the following: Drawing of the crime scene, number: 2493/00 - 262S100, Subject: exhumation, Site: tepa Slap, Municipality of Rogatica, Datc of photographing: from 9 October to 14 October 2000. In the period from 2 October 2000 to 14 October 2000, bodies of thc murdered Bosniaks, who were buried in thc place callcd tepa Slap, Municipality of Rogatica, were exhumed.

The Cantonal COllrt in Sarajevo, number: Kri 367/00, Sarajevo, 9 October 2000, produced an on-site Record on the Exhumation in the period from 9 to 14 October 2000, at the locality of the village of Slap-Zepa, with regard to the exhumation of several individual gravesiles (gravesite marked with 91). 'rhe body exhumed from the gravesite marked with number 91 has been identified as Emin Agi~ (Ibrahim Hadti~, Invesligaling Judge) (HamZllZujo, Forensic Pathologist).

Mol, Crime Investigation Police Sector, Unit for Crime Scene Investigation Techniques Sarajevo produced the following: Photo-documentation number: 2500/00, Subject: exhumation, pOSt-mortem e.~amination and identification Kri: 334100 G.S. 72, Site: Rogatica, Zepa, Slap, Date of photographing: 10 October 2000. Photograph I - shows a broader view of the site where I corpse was exhumed in the place of Slap, :2:epa, Municipality of Rogatica. Photograph 2 - the corpse photographed while in the grave. Photograph 3 - the corpse photographed atler being token out of the grave. Photograph 4 - the corpse photographed at the dissecting room prior to post-mortem examination. Photograph 5 - the corpse photographed afler the anthropological re-association of the body parts. Photographs 6 and 7 - show the fireaml skull injuries. Photographs 8 and 9- show a long-established Perthes disease of both hips, with extremely nnuened part of femur heads. Photograph 10 - a bullet fragment in the remains photographed next to a mler.

Mol, Crime Investigation Police Sector, Unit for Crime Scene Inyestigation Techniques Sarajevo produced the following: Drawing of the crime scene, number: 2493/00 - 2625100, Subject: exhumation, Site: tepa Slap, Municipality of Rogatica, Date of photographing: from 09 October to 14 October 2000. In the period from 2 October 2000 to 14 October 2000, bodies of the murdered Bosniaks, who were buried in the place called tepa Slap, Municipality of Rogatica, were exhllmed.

The Cantonal Court in Sarajevo, number: Kri 493/00, Sarajevo, 14 November 2000, produced an on-site Record on the Exhumation on 14 November 2000 at the locality of Kamenifko To¢ilo II, Municipality of Vi~grad, with regard to the exhumation of mortal remains of unidentified persons. Mortal remains which have been marked with number I and which belong to a male skeletised corpse have been identified as Hasan Glu$fevi~. Mortal remains marked with number 2, which belong to a male sceletised corpse, have not been identified. Mortal remains marked with number 3: which belong to a male

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ sk~letis~d corpse, have been id~ntified as Kasim Fehric. Monal remains marked with number 4 (0 skull only), hove not been identified. (Ibrahim Hadtic, Investigating Judge) (Hamzo iUjo, rorensic POlhologisl).

Mol, Crime Invesligotion Police Sector, Unil for Crime Scene Investigalion Techniques Snrnje\'o produced Ihe following: Pholo-documenlolion number: 2863/00, Subjecl: exhumalion: posl-monem examinolion ond idenrificalion Kri: 493/00, Sile: Vi~egrnd, To~ionik, Luke, T~ilo; D3Ie of phologrnphing: 14 November 2000. Phologrnph I - shows a broader view of Ihe exhumation site in Ihe place of Luke ToWo, To~ionik, MunicipalilY. of Vi~egrad. Phologruph 2 - same as Ihe previous pholograph, a close-up phologrnph. Photogrnph 3 - Ihe grave photographed from anolher ungle. Phologruph 4 - a close-up pholograph of Ihe grave. Photogrnph 5 - the corpse marked with number I photographed while in the grave. Photograph 6 - the corpse skull photographed while in the grave. Photograph 7 - the corpse photographed in the dissectin~ room prior to post monem examin8lion. Photograph 8 - shows fracture of lib and 8 (horacic venebras. Photogrnph 9 - objects found during the post-monem examination. Pholograph 10- appearance of the site where IWO corpses were found. Photograph II - a close-up photograph of the exhumation site. Photograph 12 - corpses pholographed aOer detecting the grave - marking of corpses. Phologrnph 13 - skulls of corpses pholographed while in (he grave. Photograph 14 - a corpse marked with number 2 photographed while in the grave. Photograph 15 - a corpse marked wilh number 2 photographed aOer the anthropological re-association of the body pans. Photograph 16- shows the injuries on the skull's forehead during the lifetime. Photographs 17 and 18 - show a perforating wound through the skull, entry wound on the leO side of the temporal bone: and exit would on Ihe right side. Photograph 19 - a corpse marked with number 3 photogrnphed while in Ihe grave. Photogrnph 20 - a corpse marked with number 3 pholographed in the dissecting room prior 10 posl-monem examination. Pholograph 21 - a corpse marked with number 3 photographed after the anthropological re-association of the body pans. Photograph 22 - a pocket watch found wilh the corpse during Ihe post monem examinOlion. PhOlograph 23 - a pan of (he skull marked ",ilh number 4 found in the close vicinity of Ihe grave. Photograph 24 - a skull photogrnphed from anolher angle. PhOlograph 25 - a close-up photograph of Ihe skull. Photograph 26 - a skull pholographed after Ihe marking. Pholograph 27 - same as the previous photograph: a close-up pholograph. Photograph 28 - a skull pholographed prior to pOSI-monem e.~aminalion. Photograph 29 - a close-up ph Olograph of Ihe skull. Pholograph 30 - n skull photogrnphed after re-association.

The Instilule of Forensic Medicine: Faculty of Medicine 31 the University of Sarnjevo. produced ~ Record on Autopsy: Vi!egrnd, T~ilovo No. I: number: Kri:493/00, Judge: Ibrahim Had'-ic, Dale of e.~humalion: 14 November 2000: Dale of aUlopsy: 25 January 2001. Conclusion: Death was violent and caused by injUries of the thoracic organs. Dcslruction of 7rt1 nnd Sib thoracic vencbras was cnused by a firearm miSsile. (Hamzo Zujo, Forensic Pathologisl).

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ While giving his cescimony ac che main crial on 8 May 2006, John Clark (55), Forensic Pachologisc from Greac Bricain (Scotland), in his capacicy as Forensic Pachologisc who performed his ducy in various countries and wlto also gave his expen evaluation wich regard 10 the ICTY cases on cwo occasions, maintained Ihe stated resuhs of au COPS)' ac the localicy of Slap. Scueing his posilion on Ihe cause of deDlh of che exhumed bodies. he confimled chac in mosc cases Ihe wounds originnced from firearms. Also, Prof. Dr. Ha~lza Zujo, con finned in his ccslimony che findings rei aced co che cxhumacion of bodies ac Ihe local icy of iepa. The Coun gave full credence 10 chcse forcnsic expens holding chac cheir cxpenisc and conclusions wcre scieneificallY grounded and chat chcy ,,'ere experienced forcnsic cxpcns were.

Howevcr, wich chis indisputable faci thai the mcn werc taken away from Ihe Firehouse, and Ihac che bodies of some of chem were found, while nOlhing has been known abouc che ochers co chis dace, whal is proved dispucable is Ihe panicipalion of che accused in che cake away of chose men - Civilians, chac is, che act of perpelrncion by che accused himself which would cause his criminal responsibilicy for che crime concerned. The Coun examined 8 number of wilnesses in order 10 cscablish Ihul.

The wicness H. H. states Ihal on che said occasion she ssw chac Boban SimSic, as she specified, singled OUI Ihree men within one hour, came back and did that again, and Ihal the caking of men away lasted for cwo days. When che cime come for him co cake oue her man, whose monal remains were found at a lacer poine in cime ac che locolicy of Slap, her mocher-in-Iaw, now deceased, said: "Boban, do nO! coke my son OUI. Who will provide for Iheir children?", he responded by cursing Iheir balia mocher nnd by saying thai il was noc him who had made chem. Previously, when che ProseculOr asked che wicness if anyone had been taking lhe men OUI from lhe Firehouse, che witness scaced chal she could nO! remember. In explaining wltac cite accused was doing ofter caking che men away, che wicness said: "He cook chem away and killed Ihem", and when asked how she knew chal Ihe accused had killed Ihem, Ihe wicness said: "Yes he did, who else bUI him. He killed Ihem all".

The Panel has already slaled ils opinion regarding che credibilily of this witness when it considered her ccscimony wilh regard co chc prcvious Counc, and ic should be only added here Ihntthe witness drawing conclusions based on the assumplions she presents does nOI contribule in any way to the credibility and aUlhenticity oflhis cestimony.

The wilness Vasvija GluS~~vic also teslilied about the men being taken away from Ihe Firehouse. She staled that the morning aner their arrival, Milan Lukic and Milar Vasiljevic came 10 the Firehouse and staned taking men out, three by three, and when Ihey took out all 18 of Ihem, they said Ihal they would take Ihem for exchan!!e. There were additional 5-6 masked men wilh Lukic and Vasiljevic, while her husband and her 14.5 years old son were among che men laken away. She did nOI state Ih81 the accused Boban Sim~ic was also among the ones who had caken lhem away, and che witness Hajra Kapelanovic did not slBte lhal eilher. She Slated Ihal she had not seen Boban coming in, ifhe had been ac che door, buc Ihat he did nOI come in among chem. She recognized Milan Lukic who had taken out the delained men, cwo by cwo, including Sifet Mufteric, Mujo,

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Emin Agi~, Meho Agie, Meho Softi~ and his I::randson Emir, Husein Vilic, Muslnfo Sobonovic, Salko Suceska, Mujo Glu~fevic, Hasib Glu~evie, a 14 years old child. Out of all the men, only Ismet remained. It seems to her Ihat in total 18 men were taken. She heard when Hano jumped up And said "Ask for Bobon, Ismet got a hean anack". 'Illey did not toke Away Hanu's husband Ismet Softie. Boban protected him lind he swyed. Boban did not emer the Firehouse, Lukic did, and when Hana asked them to look for Boban, he must hove been at the door.

The witness Curo Glu~fevic, in testifying about this evem in the Firehouse, also does not stare thar Boban Sim~ic "'as present when the men were taken away. She stmed that after .he arrival to the Firehouse in Vi~grad, on 17 June 1992, Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic made a list of them in from of the Firehouse, in the manner that Sredoje made a lisl of women and Milan mode a list of men, on two occasions. Next day, on 18 June 1992, about 15:00 hrs., Milan Lukic, Sredoje Lukic, Mitar Vasiljevic and Dragan Lokic came and took the men away, tWO by IWO, to imerrogate them - as they said and, they have never seen them again. On that occasion, the witness enumerated 16 persons who had been taken away, as follows: her husband Mujo Glu~~evic, Sifet Glu~fevic, Hasib Glu~evic, Hasan Glu~fevic, Meho Agic, Emin Agic, Seod Hodtic, Otelal Hodiic, Huso Bulatovic, Husein Vilic, Hamed Ke~mer, Ibrahim Ke~mer, Salko Suceska, Adem Kozic, Mustafa Sabanovic and Avdija Nuhanovic. Half on hour later, Boban Sim~ic appeared at the door. Fata Ke$mer and Vosvija Glu~evic, but not the witness, asked him if he could bring their men back. He made a dismissive hand gesture and told them to get lost. Her husband Mujo's body was found in tepa, at a IDter point in time. He wos thrown into the "'ater and she was present at the identification of his body.

Therefore, it follows from the statement of this witness that the accused Boban Sim$ie was nOI prcscnl allhe time when the aforesaid Bosniak civilians were token away.

In relation to the same evem, the witness Ibrum~u Agic stated that after they had loaded them like canle onto the trucks and trnnsponed to Vi$Cgrad, to the Firehouse, after they gOt out of the trucks, they listed down their sumames, lind Milan Lukic and several othcr persons ClIme there and cursed them, and then Ihey were taken to the upper noor where Lukic placed one bag for money and another for golden jewellery. The accused Boban came on the second or the third day and Fata Agie approached him asking him to bring them some bread. She Slales Ihal she did nOI see Ihe accused save once; Boban went to school wilh her daughter; she grew up with his father and she does not know what Boban "'OS doing with that Army. As for (Milan) Lukic, he deserved to suffer for what he had done to them. When asked why she stated in the investigation thai after the money oppropriUlion, Milan Lukic, accompanied by Boban SimSic, had emered the spon hall and singled 0111 16 men, including her husband, the witness literally responded: "I did not see Sobon. All the women said thai they had seen Sobun". On thm occosion, she said precisely thut Vasvija and other women said that they had seen him standing at the door. She e)(plains that she wos making a statement before a person Bukira and that she had told her· yOU must do this, you must do thut and, in response to his question as to what thut meant and who \\'as Bakira and whether she wos persuading her what to state during her testimony, Ibmm~ Agic said word for word: "I do nOt know, from TV. Yes, she WIlS persuading me to have to say what other women stated. I said: "Bakirs, I cannot say

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ I have nOI seen. Do nOI persuade me 10 do Ihal". She said: "If you do nOI want 10 say Ihal, I shall havc your pcnsion cancelled". "You can cancel my pcnsion. I have losl evcrylhin8, my loved ones". The wilness also slaled Ihal Ihe accused did nOI make any ham! 10 her and her husband.

The Coun finds Ihe tcstimony of this witness honest and convincing, and the explanation as 10 why she changed her statement given in the investigation acceptable in ils entirety, and therefore the Coun did not find proved on the basis of this witness lestimony either Ihat the accused panicipated togelher with Milan Lukic in the taking 18 men away from Ihe Firehouse.

The wilness Timko Knpe'QnO\'i~'s testimony suppons such conclusion. She Slates that she was born in Ihe village of !Iijeb, that she knows Soban ~im~ic from his childhood, and Ihal he was her neighbor. From the time when Ihe war broke OUl, she saw Soban for Ihe lirst lime in Ihe Firehouse in Vi~egrnd where more than 100 persons from !Iijeb were placed. Lukic and Vasiljevic took 18 men away from the Firehouse and aner thaI Ihey have been unaccounted for. Female detainees begged Boban ~im~ic to keep their men safe, and he only kept silent and did nOlhing to help them.

During the investigation (Record of the Prosecutor's Office dated 30 May 2005) and with regard to the eireumstanee of taking the men away from Ihe Firehouse, this wilness stated Ihat Milan Lukic, Mitar Vasiljevic and Dragan Lukic used to come there every night and take men away, three by Ihree between Ihemselves, but that she had not noticed Boban ~i~ic on that occasion. He appeared at the door only on the third day of their stay there, he said nOlhing and he was only walehing Ihem. In Ihe night before Ihe day on which he appeared at Ihe door, 18 men hod been 10k en away. When Boban appeared al Ihe door, many women, including herself, approached him asking aboul Ihe men, in tenns of whal happened 10 Iheln, were Ihey alive, imprisoned - and he only kepI silent.

In evolualing Ihis leslimony, Ihe Coun observes Ihal whal is imponant and common wilh Ihe leslimonies of Ihe aforemenlioned wilnesses is Ihe fael Ihal Ihe accused Boban ~im~ic did nOI panicipOle in the laking Ihe men away, but Ihal he appeared in from of Ihe Firehouse only after Ihal.

Such conclusion of Ihe Panel is also confirmed by Ihe witnesses Ismel Softic and Hana Sonic, who also Icslified wilh regard 10 Ihis Count of Ihe Indiclment. In his leslimony, which was audio and video reproduced allhe main Irial held on 14 April 2006, wilhin the Coun securing Ihe evidence, Ihe wilness Ismel Softic Slales Ihal Ihey look away 18 men from his village, Ihal Ihey wanted 10 take him away 100, bUI Ihal he was lucky to slay alive because Soban ~il11~ic came by. He Slales Ihat he was laken out from the room only to Ihe door, Ihal his wife addressed Soban, Ihat Soban lislencd 10 her and said "lsl11el, go 10 your placc. Nobody mUSI louch you". Boban only appeared at Ihe door and Ihey did nOI sec him a8ain. This was confirmed by his wife HUlla Sofeic 100, when she slaled in her leslimony Ihal she saw Soban aner Ihey had laken 18 men away. She explained Ihal Ihcy look her husband 100, and when Ihey broughl him to Ihc door 10 lake him away, Boban camc and preventcd thaI. Shc Slales Ihal Ihe women rushed loward Sobon 10 bCI!

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ him for their husbands, but it was lute. Boban told them not to be afraid, that they would come back. Also, the protected witness V.C.IOS, whose statement, as given in the Proseclltor v. Milllr Vasiljevii: case at the hearing before the ICTY on 24 September 200 I, was read at the main trial, denies the presence of the accused when the men were taken away from the Firehouse, and states that Lukic and Vasiljevic, no one else, took away 18 men from the Firehouse, namely on the third day after their arrival, and that they were all taken away on the same day.

Finally, during his examination in the witness capacity, in his statement regarding this event in the Firehouse, the accused himself stated that during his regular potrolling around the town, thut is, in the ureo I in ViSegrad, he was passing by the Firehouse and soli' fantiliar persons on the door of the Firehouse. He came up to the door and sew persons rrom his village: Hana Softic, Ibrum~a Agic, Fata Ke$nter, Vasvija Glu$Cevic, Suhrn Glu$Cevic, and a few others. There were children among them, as well. He stayed there for 5·10 minutes and exchanged severn I sentences with them. He did not notice that the husbands of other women were there, seve Hana Softic's husband who was on the door taken somewhere by some persons. He told Ismet that he was not to make any statement, to go back and Ismet immediately returned to the Firehouse. He notes that Hana begged him for Ismet, and that those ones obeyed him. He lalked to Fota Ke$mer and Hana Sonic, but he could not remember what they were talking about. He stopped by the Firehouse because he was patrOlling in his area, that on that occasion he did not know that people were imprisoned in lhe Firehouse, and that he quite accidentally dropped by and saw some persons he knew.

By evaluating the testimonies of the witnesses in their entirety and bringing them in mutual correlation with regard to the events concerning this Count of the Indictment, the Panel finds that it was not proved that the accused panicipoted in taking away of the men from the I'irehouse, namely that the evidence adduced does not constitute the basis for the finding as in the factual allegations of the Indictment. Almost all examined witnesses conlirnled that the accused did not enter the I'irehouse (some of them do not mention him at all), that he came only at n later point in time, when the men had already been taken away (the witness Cum Glu~cevic says it was a half an hour after their taking away), and that therefore he cannot be brought into connection with the group of Milan I.ukic which took the men in on unknown direction. Wilh regard to this issue. paniculnrly convincing for the Coun is (he testimony of the witness Vasvija Glu$¢evic, who does not even mention the accused Boban Sim~ic in her st3tement regarding this segment of the events in the I'irehouse. Considering that her husband ond her 14 yeors old SOn were token own)' on that occnsion, hod the accused also been present on thot occasion, she would ha\'e cenoinly mentioned lhat in her testimony.

Under Count 5g) of the amended Indictment, the accused is charged with the beating of unlawfully imprisoncd civilians on thc premiscs of the primary school "Hasen Vclctovoc" in the second halfof June 1992, about 20 of them, including: Romo Hurem, Ibri$im [.Iodtic, 1·lomer Hod~ic, Avdo Feric, MUStAfa Smajic, Nail Ramie, who were ordered to beat each other with a wooden stick (a woodcn shaft holding a pick) over all

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Ihe pans of Ihcir bOdies due 10 which many of Ihem were falling down. Every night Ihey ponicularly bcat Nail Ramie whom, on the first day of his imprisonmelll, Ihey placed undcr Ihc basket whcn 3 group of Scrb soldiers, logcther with Ihc aceuscd, wcre playing b3skelbalilarseling alternativel)' Ihc baskel and Nail's hcad wilh the ball so slronsly Ihal Nail was fainting repeatcdly. One of Ihe following niShts, Ihe accused and severol Scrb soldiers led Nail and four OIher prisoners OUi of Ihe prison room and beal Ihem up in anOlhcr room, punching them and kicking them with Iheir military boots, bcaling Ihcm with rine buns in Ihe hcads and backs and tore OUI Iheir hair duc to which Nail fainted. Due 10 receiving punchcs in the orca of his eyes, his eyes were complclely closed. During Ihc search and opproprialion of money from Mehmed Spahie, the accused beat him up by hilling him rcpealcdly with the rine bun ovcr his chest, his hcad and thc back belwccn the shoulder joinlS due to which hc could 1\01 walk and some delainces carried him on Iheir anns back 10 Ihe room in which they were imprisoned.

In teslifying with regard 10 this Counl of the Indiclment, the witness Rusmira Bulatovie slaled Ihat Ihere were elderly people, that the men were forced 10 beal each other with wooden sticks in the evening after the lighls were switched off, and if one did not hit anolher slrongly enough, Boban used 10 lake over Ihe stick ond to demonstrale how they should hil each other. Basically, Rusmiro also Slaled Ihol during the invesligalion bUI, she did nOI slute indeed a detail according 10 which Boban was demonslroting how they should hit each olher. However, in her statement made to the police in Goro~de on 5 May 2004, Rllsmiro did not make any statement about this incidenl al all.

The wilness I'oljo Falima learnt about Boban SimSic from olher people during her stay in Ihe school. She SlDtes thut Hasib Snbanovic, Mehmed Had tic, Abid Hurem and Ragib Hurem died due 10 the consequences of being bealcn up. She explains thm Boban, Ihe Lukic brothers, Cvijovie, tiro from Loznica and Miloje were standing, but that they lold Ihe men 10 hit each other, and if one was nOI hil slrongly, then he would hil Ihat person in the head wilh a rine, and the man falls down unconscious". She sialed in Ihe cross exnmination that Ihey were all elderly people "he hilS him with a club illlo his head, Ihen he says il was nOI good, hit harder, you make Ihe man bleed and Ihen he hits you wilh his rine in your back".

In leslif)'ing wilh regard to this event, the wilness S. F. slaled Ihat one evening Boban SimSic and Milan Lukic came 10 Ihe door Ql\d look all men 10 slil Iheir Ihroals. All men, including her IWO children, were laken out to Ihe counyard. She lold her mOlher-in-law lhal she would hersel f go aner them 10 be slaughlered, 100. She Slopped in Ihe corridor for a momenl and looked Ihrough lhe windows. She could nOI see her children as il was dark, bUI she saw whnl was going on. They gave some sticks 10 the men 10 hit each other, she could see lhat Ramo Hurem rell down on the ground, she could see thai becnuse or the lighls, she saw her rather-in-Inw Hasib, and when she saw Ihat they were coming back, she rushed into the spon hall to the place where she previously hod been. Annlyzing Ihe testimony of this wilness, the Coun concludes Ihal it has no logic and Ihereby the credibility considering Ihatthe wilness stotes that due to the darkness outside

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ she could not see her children, but that she saw evel11hing else thitt happened, including her father-in-law, Ramo Hurem falling down on the ground. The witness, probably being aware of thai lack of logic herself Slales Ihat she could see thai because of Ihe lighl, bUI she does nOI explain which light and where Ihal lighl came from.

The wilness H. L. stOles IhOl Boban wus preseO! Ihere while she was in Ihe school for 4 days. Wilh regard 10 Ihe men being bealing up, she staled that the men were forced to stand on one fOOl in the middle of the gym, Ihal they beal them while Ihey were arranged in a circle, while Nail Rami~ was Ihe one who was bealen Ihe mosl. He was all swollen, his eyes closed, he was all blue, he could nOI move. Nail's wife and daughlers begged Boban for protetlion, bUI no one could get prolection from him, as he was Ihe one who wus ordering who will be taken for the bealing.

The wi mess Ibro Memie lestifies that upon their retum to Vi~grad, they were placed in Ihe spon hall in which they were esposed 10 maltrealment and beDling, and that Nail Ramie, Mustafa Smaji~ and he, the witness himself, hod suffered the most. He SIDled Ihol, upon Ihe arrival of the Lukic brolhers, one evening they took out all men in Ihe yard ond told Ihe women that they would kill all Ihe men if they did nOI give Ihem every single mark they had. Milan was with the women, Sredoje wilh the men, and as soon as Abid Hurem said "either let us go, or kill us" Sredoje stoned hilling him. Milan ClIme and took a cone from Ibri~im Hod tic, the oldest man among the Bosniak civilians, Dnd gave it to him (the wi mess) to beat other people, but he said that he could not do that staling that his arm was injured. Milan took the cane and gave illo Ramo Hurem who was hilling them in Ihe head. During Ihal time, they had to sing the Chemik songs while Milan used to tunl a radio set on and asked someone on the line if they could hear them singing the songs. Aller that, they were told that they could return to the spon hall.

With regard 10 the incident of the beoling of the men. the witness Asmir SpDhic slates thai he was among some 15 children younger Ihon 14 years of age, for whom Ihey asked Ihe ransom to be paid. Thai was Ihe nighl on which Lukic intended to shool him. Lukic said IhOl all men were 10 be shot, they lined them up two by tWo, forced Ihem to sing Chelniks songs and they had to go Ihrough IWO corridors to come out in front of the school. There, they were lined up into three ronks on the stairs and Milan and Sredoje were slOnding in front of them. Apan from the two of Ihem, he did not see anyone else Ihere nor did he see anybody else while they were being taken through the corridors. Milan staned interrogating people who were older Ihan 65, and then he began 10 hil them with a wooden stick. As some people still gave money and gold, children were spared from funher troubles. In testifying wilh regard 10 these events, the witness Nail Ramie stated that he had been ben len up every night in the school in which he was detained, and that it lasted for ten - twelve days. He was bealen up by soldiers, even the civilians who used to come there. One night when they took him OUt into Ihe corridor with five more men, the light wos swilched off, and they lighted up some torehes, leaned them against the wall wilh their back opposite to Ihe wall, and stoned beating them relentlessly, kicking them with their boo IS on, hining them with rines, pulling hairs from their heads. In addition to him, there were also Medo Liska, Hurem Ramo and some two - three men whom he did nOI

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ One of the men who were beating them told him "you have fallen into my hands, I am now a big shot for you", he recognized the voicc of Soban Sim~it. He was beaten up so much thai he could see on his eyes. On one occasion he begged Saban Sim~it for help, but he only laughed.

He statcd that they playcd baskctball in the span hall where thcy were intcmed, that he was under the basket, and they wcre hitting him strongly in thc head whcncver they misscd Ihe baskcl until he lost his consciousness. Boban was on dUlY Ihal evening, bill he did nOI play basketball, he only watched.

He snw Milao and Sredoje Lukic on several occasions in the prison, and they were beating him so much that he remained permanently disnblcd. They forced thc witness to run in circl~s jlround the spon hall unlil he fell down ond Ihen they were beating him up until he lost his consciousness. Soban Sim~ic was present, and he was on duty "i f h~ wus not watching behind a comer, normally that he was wlltching, I was half fainted". The witness also Sloted thot one night they took 10-15 men outSide since the order came that all women should collect money, otherwise the men would be taken to the Orina River and their Ihr09ts would be slit. OutSide they told Ihem to stand in circle, they brought a stick ond alTered any of them 10 hit each other in Ihe head, the buck, "and if the first one did not want to do it, then someone else had to take the stick and beat Ihe other one, Ihus they all had 10 use the baton incessantly'·.

The witness concluded lhat Soban was cenainl), selling him up to be beaten more than Ihe olhers, because when he begged him to help the accused, he did not want so, although he could do il.

Once his SlBtement given in Ille investigalion on 26 May 2005 was presented to him, where he stated that the first day upon his arrivol, a group of Chetniks came to ploy basketball, including Boban Sim~i( who played basketball togelher wilh them, the witness exploined that Sim!it had come with that group, that he lei Ihe men play baskclball, that he held the prison keys, and that he allowed all thai to happen to them, while in Ihe end he snid thnt Sim~ic was watching nil from the sideline.

In nnal~"ling the Slated evidence regarding the pan of Ihe Indiclment conceming Ihe beatings of Ihe unlawfully detained Bosniak civilians, wilh a wooden shaft, the Coun could not conclude beyond any reasonable doubt, based on Ihe evidence adduced, Ihat the occused Soban Sim~ic panicipated in thai bealing up. The witnesses Ibro Memic and Asmir Spahic do nOI mention him in Iheir testimonies, that is, they specifically state Milan and Sredoje Lukic as Ihe persons who did so. In describing that segment of the event, even the witness Nail Ramie does not mention him, although in his testimony this witness blamed the accused Boban Sim~ie for ever)1hing bad that happened to him in Ihat school.

Bearing in mind the statementS of those witnesses, who were the victims of the beatings, and nevenheless do not charge the accused with that, the testimonies of the witnesses Rusmira Bulotovi':, Fatima Poljo and S. F. appeor queslionoble, and the Coun therefore

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ could not give them full credence, because their testimonies did not constitute a sufficient ground for establishing the fam on which the criminal responsibility of the accused could be based.

With regard to the pan of the Indictment concerning the beating up of Nail Ramie, there is no doubt for the Coun that he was e.xposed to severe beatings and physical maltreatment while detained in the Primary School "Hasan Veletovac", since this was con finned by almost all witnesses heard who were detained together with him in the school concerned.

To wit, describing the manner in which the Serb soldiers played basketball, the witness states in the investigation that the accused also played basketball with the others, while at the main trial (oller the Coun's intervention), he states that the accused, contrary to the factual description referred to in the Indictment, was standing on the sideline and watched them. In general, playing basketball in the spon hall in which civilians were detained, in the manner as described by this witness, was not confinned by any other examined witness, although almost all of them testified about the beating of Nail Rami( even the witness N. A., which only deepens the lack of credibility of this evidence. Also, the testimony of Nail Ramie with regard to the event in the corridor when he was bealen up togelher with five more men and when he recognized the accused by his voice as one of those who had beaten him, is not con finned by any other examined witness. In addition to this, even Ramie himself is not convinced, but he thinks that the accused also beat him.

In addition to this, the statement of the witness that he thinkS that the accused had set him up all that also brings into question the credibility of this testimony, because in this manner he expresses an open arbitrariness with regard to the accused, even hostility, and therefore an indisputable conclusion on the criminal responsibility of the accused with regard to the criminal actions referred to in the Nail Ramie testimony could not be drawn.

Therefore, the Coun could not establish with cenointy Ihe panicipation of the accused Boban Sim~ic in the beating of Nail Ramie and other persons mention cd , beyond thc actions included in the section 2.c of the convicting pan of the Verdict.

Under Count 51) of the Indictment, the accused is charged that in June 1992, together with other members of the Serb anny and police, he pnnicipated in the forcible seizure of monel' and golden jewellery from severnl hundreds Bosniak civilians detained in the Primary School "Hasan Veletovac", and on that occasion searched the civilians ordering them to strip nuked, and foreillg out money from them by taking a group of men outside the prison premises, and in return demanded that their mothers and wives collect monty for their ransom in order to retum them alive.

Commenting this Count of the Indictment, the witness S. F. stOles that on Ihnt occasion 320 persons, including children and the elderly, were detained in one room with her. She used to see Soban Sim~ic in the school every day and every night. Milan Lukic, Sredoje Lukic and Dragan Lukic \Yould also come with him, and upon the nrri\'nl, their first words were money, gold, foreign currency, all they hod, nnd if they find it on someone, Ihey \Yould kill him instanlly. They had 10 surrender their /Iloney, but it was not

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ since they had to strip n~ked. The most difficult was when her 6 years old daughtcr had to strip in front of Milan Lukic and Boban Sim~ic.

The Coun did not give credence to the assenions of the witness that she used to see Boban Sim$ic every day and night, because what would otherwise be the purpose of the day and night police shins, which were, ;lIIl!r alill, memioned by the Defense witness, Goran Milicevic, also a reserve policeman who was present in the school.

The wi mess Rusmirn Bulatovic also states thai Boban Sim$ic together with Milan and Sredoje Lukic requested Ihal Ihe money be surrendered, Ihat she had money on her, gold, jewellery, Ihal Ihey look il all from her, while her sisler was beaten so much by Ihem Ihlll she losl her sighl because she had no money, Ih31 the ear-rings were removed from Ihe girls' ears, and thsi Boban Sim$ic did il. She confirmed 31 Ihe main Iriallhn! Ihe accused had kicked her siSler Falimo in her back when she did nOI surrender Ihe money, while she slaled for Ihe record in Ihe Gora2de police Ihat she hod remembered Ihal when her siSler FOlima I'oljo, after she had refused 10 surrender money since she did nOI have any, one soldier whom she did nOI know, kicked her in her back. Explaining Ihe change of her stalement: Ihe witness responds Ihat Ihis was because Ihal soldier had a cap and a slocking on his head: and wilh relalion 10 her slalemem al Ihe main Irial Ihal il was Boban: she Slales Ihal she was lold so by her siSter when she asked her who beat her. In Ihe opinion of the Count it is obvious Ihat such Rusmirn's explanalion oflhe difference in her statements is Ihe expression of her finding a way out more Ihan giving a convincing response.

The wi mess Haseoa RajramO\'ic slated that the accused had a bag like a shin-made envelope in which he had put money and gold: and when her IUm came, she lold him Ihat she neither had money nor gold, then Boban told her to slrip naked and to give him money: which she had to do: while Milan and Sredoje I,ukic and other Serbs were there. Sredoje said "Since Ihat woman had no money, let her go": and Boban cursed her balia mOl her and told her impudently to gel out.

Comrary to Rusl1lira and Hascna: Ihe witness Snjnlll Snhano\'it leslifics Ihn! Sredojc Lukic collected the money in the spon hall, that he held a freezer bag ~nd a pistol in his hand, while Milan Lukic stood in thc corridor. When she came ill with her daughlcr nnd mOlhcr-in-law, Sredoje cocked Ihe piSIOl, and said - moncy and gold. Since she had only the car-rings, she took them off and pUl in the bag. Since the accused Boban was Ihere on first nighl, she thinks that he was present also on Ihal occasion on Ihe guard. Thc witness (bro Memit SlalCS consistently with Sajma that Milan and Srcdojc Lukic wcre laking money by singling Ihcm out: one by one, or IWO to Ihe olher room: and lold Ihem "money in 5 minutcs", he held Ihe pislol in his righl hand saying that he would shoot, but Ihis wilness does nOl mention Boban Sim~ic at all. Kudo Spuhic also teslifies, consislently wilh Sajmn and Ibro, at Ihe main lrial held on 3 February 2006 when staling that bOlh Lukic brothers eollecled jewellery and money from the delainccs, in Ihe manner Ihal Sredoje held the gun and Milan the bag, thai is: Kada does nOI mention the accused explicitly with rcgard to this segmenl of the events in Ihc primary school, excepl that shc Ihinks that he was al the door, as Slated by Sajma. The witness Husn Hlldtic stales thaI Ihey were plundered the firsl night upon their arrival 10 Ihe school, namely LukiC, who

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ held the pistol and a bag, one unknown person and Sobon $im~ic, while in the record given in the Prosecutor's Office on 25 May 2005 she did not state that Boban $imSic had been presem on that occasion. Comrary to the other witnesses, Sef1ul Sehlc assens that the accused plundered them by bringing his gun to them, demanding money, gold and that Miloje had said thut Mala Gostilja was weallhy, that they striped her naked (the s:lme term used by Hasena), that the gold was in her bread. However, in her statement given for the record in the Goratde police on 5 May 2004, this witness does not mention Soban $im~ic at all with regard to the episode of the money and gold seizure, and she e\'en does not mention any other person on thot occasion, but she only States that in that room they were pUlling gold, money und foreign currencies into three bags which were on the rable. She maintained sllch statement when she was interviewed in the BiH Prosecutor's Office on 2S May 2005, when she reiterated that during the search, she was forced. to strip naked, that is, in frolll of several Chetniks so that they could find money and gold, when she again does not mention in any way the participation of the accused in all that. Not only due to the observed inconsistency in her testimony, but also due to the incoherence and lack of clarity of her thoughts in the responses, the Court could not give credence to this witness in any way. The witness A. N. states thai during Ihe delention in the school, they had to colleci money and gold in order that they return male children to them who had been laken away prior to thaI. She states that this was demanded by Milan LukiC, and that the accused Boban and MOl11ir Savic were with him. Asmir Spahic also testified with regard to that, but this witness denies the presence of Boban $im~ic, Slating that Milan and Sredoje Lukic requested money and gold for the children, and that nobody except them was present there .

• Regarding this Count of the Indictment, the Panel is of the opinion that in addition to the fact that the teslimonies of the witnesses are mutually contradictory, and Ihal some of them are contradictory even to themselves, considering the dirrerences in their statements given in the investigation and at the main trial, the arbitrarily set actions of commission that the accused was charged with constituted an additional aggravating circumstance for a correct establishment and proving of the state of facts. Regardless of the fact that the money and valuable items were indeed seized from the detainees, in relation to which, certain witnesses mentioned the accused as the co-perpetrator in those actions, it is indisputable that the accused WlIS not present in the school every day. Therefore, the Coun could not establish with certainty how frequently that happened, in terolS of establishing the value of the sei7.ed property which mUSI be significant or pernlanenl and related to a largcr number of persons so as to conslilule a severe violation of inlernalional humanitarian law. Considering the impossibility 10 establish this fact in on undoublful and credible manner, the Coun acquined Ihe accused from the responsibility for the commission of the criminal acts described in this Count of the Indictmenl.

Bearing in mind thor the Coun could not conclude with cenainty the necessary couse and-crrect relation between the aCIS of the uccused ond Ihe consequences thereof, os stated in Counts I b), 4a), 4c), Sf and 5g) of Ihe Indictment, that is, since it has not been proved that the accused commirred the stated oCIS within Ihe criminal orrense of Crimes against Humunity in violution of Article 172 (I) of the Criminal Code ifBiH, due to the stated reason und pursuant to Article 284 item c) of the CPC SIH, it acquined the accused of those charges.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/ Record-raker PRESIDENT OF THE PANEL Judge

2cljka Marcnic Azra Milclic

NOTE ON LEGAL REMEDY: An appeal from lhis Verdict shall not be allowed.

We: /rl!-reby certify ,hm ,his (loclll1~111 Is 0 Irrtr lralls/witm of 11tt: origlna/ "'rfllr!1I ill iJosnian /Croatian IStrblan lang ling •.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/15f318/