DOCSLIB.ORG

Naletilic and Martinovic

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Naletilic and Martinovic UNITED NATIONS International Tribunal for the Case No. IT-98-34-T Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of Date: 31 March 2003 International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Former Yugoslavia since 1991 Original: English IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER Before: Judge Liu Daqun Judge Maureen Clark Judge Fatoumata Diarra Registrar: Mr. Hans Holthuis Judgement of: 31 March 2003 PROSECUTOR v. Mladen NALETILIC, aka “TUTA” And Vinko MARTINOVIC, aka “ŠTELA” JUDGEMENT The Office of the Prosecutor: Mr. Kenneth Scott Mr. Douglas Stringer Mr. Vassily Poriouvaev Mr. Roeland Bos Counsel for the Accused: Mr. Krešimir Krsnik For Mladen Naletilic Mr. Christopher Meek Mr. Branko Šeric For Vinko Martinovic Mr. Želimir Par CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................1 A. THE ACCUSED AND THE CHARGES ................................................................................................1 B. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE EVALUATION OF THE EVIDENCE .............................2 II. GENERAL FINDINGS................................................................................................................5 A. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................5 B. THE CONFLICT IN THE AREA .......................................................................................................10 1. Sovi}i and Doljani- the attack on 17 April 1993 and the following days..............................10 2. Mostar – events between 9 May 1993 and January 1994......................................................14 3. Ra{tani- the attack on 22 September 1993.............................................................................19 4. The impact of the conflict ......................................................................................................20 C. INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY AND SUPERIOR RESPONSIBILITY ...................................20 1. The law...................................................................................................................................20 (a) Individual criminal responsibility under Article 7(1) of the Statute ..................................... 21 (b) Command or superior responsibility under Article 7(3) of the Statute................................. 22 (c) Concurrent application of Articles 7(1) and 7(3) of the Statute ........................................... 26 2. The general command structure in the Croatian Defence Council (HVO)............................27 3. The Convicts’ Battalion (KB)................................................................................................29 (a) Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 29 (b) Mladen Naletilic’s command position................................................................................ 30 (c) The units of the KB............................................................................................................ 32 (i) The mother unit KB Široki Brijeg ................................................................................... 33 (ii) Vinko Martinovic and the Vinko Škrobo ATG or Mrmak ATG ..................................... 33 (iii) The Baja Kraljevic ATG ............................................................................................... 35 (iv) The Benko Penavic ATG .............................................................................................. 37 (v) The Kruško ATG ........................................................................................................... 37 (vi) Further Members of the KB .......................................................................................... 38 (d) Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 39 4. Command position of the accused in the individual operations............................................39 (a) Sovici and Doljani ............................................................................................................. 39 (b) Mostar ............................................................................................................................... 46 (i) The command structure of the HVO in Mostar................................................................ 46 (ii) Mladen Naletilic’s command position in the operations in Mostar relevant to the Indictment .................................................................................................................... 48 a. The attack on 9 May 1993 ........................................................................................... 48 b. The attack on 17 September 1993................................................................................ 51 c. The superior-subordinate relationship .......................................................................... 52 (iii) Vinko Martinovic’s command position in the operations in Mostar relevant to the Indictment .................................................................................................................... 54 (c) Ra{tani............................................................................................................................... 55 D. REQUIREMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE STATUTE.................................................................60 1. Armed Conflict and nexus to the alleged crimes ...................................................................60 2. Character of the conflict.........................................................................................................61 (a) Direct intervention of the army of the Republic of Croatia (HV)......................................... 64 (b) Overall control exercised by the Republic of Croatia over the HVO................................... 67 3. Protected persons and property..............................................................................................69 (a) Civilians and Prisoners of war............................................................................................ 69 (b) Prisoners of war................................................................................................................. 71 (c) Occupation ........................................................................................................................ 71 E. REQUIREMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 3 OF THE STATUTE .................................................................75 F. REQUIREMENTS UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THE STATUTE..................................................................78 III. FINDINGS ON THE RESPECTIVE COUNTS ....................................................................84 A. COUNTS 2-8: UNLAWFUL LABOUR AND HUMAN SHIELDS...........................................................84 1. The law...................................................................................................................................84 (a) Inhuman treatment, cruel treatment and inhumane acts....................................................... 84 (b) Murder and wilful killing................................................................................................... 85 (c) Unlawful labour................................................................................................................. 85 2. The findings............................................................................................................................91 (a) Detainees working for Vinko [krobo ATG......................................................................... 91 (i) Incidents on 17 September 1993 ..................................................................................... 97 a. The wooden rifles incident........................................................................................... 97 b. The use as human shields and killing of approximately 15 detainees.......................... 104 (b) Detainees working in the [anti}eva street ........................................................................ 105 (c) Detainees performing military tasks in Ra{tani................................................................. 106 (d) Detainees performing military tasks in Stotina ................................................................. 108 (e) Assisting KB members in the process of looting Muslim houses and property .................. 108 (f) Detainees working in private properties of members and commanders of the KB.............. 111 (i) “Tuta’s pool” in [iroki Brijeg ....................................................................................... 111 (ii) Construction of the private villa of Mladen Naletili} .................................................... 112 (iii) Digging of a trench in the vicinity of Mladen Naletili}’s villa ..................................... 112 (iv) Other labour performed on a private basis for members of the KB .............................. 115 a. Members of the Vinko [krobo ATG .......................................................................... 115 b. Other members of the KB.......................................................................................... 115 (g) Detainees building defences in positions of the KB, HV or HVO forces at locations other than the frontlines ..........................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The War in Bosnia and Herzegovina Or the Unacceptable Lightness of “Historicism”
    The War in Bosnia and Herzegovina Or the Unacceptable Lightness of “Historicism” Davor Marijan War Museum, Zagreb, Republic of Croatia Abstract The author in this study does not intend to provide a comprehensive account of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in part because the cur- rent level of research does not enable this. The only way to understand this conflict is through facts, not prejudices. However, such prejudices are particularly acute amongst Muslim-Bosniac authors. They base their claims on the notion that Serbs and Croats are the destroyers of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that both are equally culpable in its destruction. Relying on mainly unpublished and uncited documents from the three constitutive nations of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the author factually chal- lenges basic and generally accepted claims. The author offers alternative responses to certain claims and draws attention to the complexity of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has been mainly viewed in terms of black or white. The author does, however, suggest that in considering the character of the war it is necessary to examine first the war in Croatia and the inter-relationship between the two. The main focus is on 1992 and the Muslim and Croat differences that developed into open conflict at the beginning of 1993. The role of the international community in the war and the partition of Bosnia and Herzegovina are also discussed. At the end of the 20th century in Europe and the eclipse of Communism from the world political scene, it is not easy to trace the indelible marks left behind after the collapse of Yugoslavia and the wars that ensued.
    [Show full text]
  • Case 1:10-Cv-05197 Document 1 Filed 08/17/10 Page 1 of 40
    Case 1:10-cv-05197 Document 1 Filed 08/17/10 Page 1 of 40 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION GENOCIDE VICTIMS ) OF KRAJINA, ) ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Case No.: 1:10-CV- _____ ) L-3 COMMUNICATIONS ) Corp. and ) MPRI, Inc., ) JURY DEMAND ) Class Action ) Defendants. ) ) COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Genocide Victims of Krajina, including Milena Jovic and Zivka Mijic, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, for their Complaint against Defendants L-3 Communications Corp. (“L-3”) and MPRI, Inc. (“MPRI”), allege the following: Nature of the Action 1. This is a class action brought by ethnic Serbs who resided in the Krajina region of Croatia up to August 1995 and who then became victims of the Croatian military assault known as Operation Storm—an aggressive, systematic military attack and bombardment on a demilitarized civilian population that had been placed under the protection of the United Nations. Operation Storm was designed to kill or forcibly expel the ethnic Serbian residents of the Krajina region -1- Case 1:10-cv-05197 Document 1 Filed 08/17/10 Page 2 of 40 from Croatian territory, just because they were a minority religio-ethnic group. Defendant MPRI, a private military contractor subsequently acquired by Defendant L-3 Communications Inc., trained and equipped the Croatian military for Operation Storm and designed the Operation Storm battle plan. Operation Storm became the largest land offensive in Europe since World War II and resulted in the murder and inhumane treatment of thousands of ethnic Serbs, the forced displacement of approximately 200,000 ethnic Serbs from their ancestral homes in Croatian territory, and the pillaging and destruction of hundreds of millions of dollars worth of Serbian-owned property.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom House, Its Academic Advisers, and the Author(S) of This Report
    Croatia by Tena Prelec Capital: Zagreb Population: 4.17 million GNI/capita, PPP: $22,880 Source: World Bank World Development Indicators. Nations in Transit Ratings and Averaged Scores NIT Edition 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 National Democratic 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.75 Governance Electoral Process 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3.25 3 3 3 Civil Society 2.75 2.75 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 2.75 Independent Media 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.25 4.25 Local Democratic 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 3.75 Governance Judicial Framework 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 and Independence Corruption 4.5 4.5 4.25 4 4 4 4 4.25 4.25 4.25 Democracy Score 3.71 3.71 3,64 3.61 3.61 3.68 3.68 3.68 3.71 3.75 NOTE: The ratings reflect the consensus of Freedom House, its academic advisers, and the author(s) of this report. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the author(s). The ratings are based on a scale of 1 to 7, with 1 representing the highest level of democratic progress and 7 the lowest. The Democracy Score is an average of ratings for the categories tracked in a given year.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Aspects of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna
    Book review Miljenko Brekalo (Croatia) Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar – Local center Osijek CONSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS OF THE CROATIAN COMMUNITY OF HERCEG-BOSNA Abstract The political context in which the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna came to be was defined by two political moments – an expressed desire of the Serbian people to join Great Serbia on the one hand and the Muslim (Bosnian) attempt to create a concept of a unified BiH where an ethnic-territorial Bosnian majority would be present on the other. In such circumstances, the official policy of the Republic of Croatia, especially the one by the first president dr. Franjo Tuđman, was unfoundedly prescribed by the Great Serbia policy and Bosnian fundamentalism with a basic thesis that he, along with Milošević, “divided” Bosnia and Herzegovina on meetings in Karađorđevo and Tikveš. However, that thesis is rebuttable on two bases. Firstly, the carriers for the idea of Great Serbia with Milošević were “armed to the neck” by the military arsenal of the JNA. Secondly, the democratic rule in Croatia with Tuđman at its forefront was very poorly armed, forced to buy very expensive weaponry on the “black market”: According to this, Milošević needed no military-political agreement on BiH. At that time, the fall of Vukovar and the occupation of one third of the national territory of Croatia point to the fact that there is no basis for the thesis on the “division” of BiH between Tuđman and Milošević. In order to better grasp the constitutional aspects of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna i.e. its creation, existence and disappearance, this paper will show the legal analysis and portray the content of the book by the constitutional judge dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorial of the Republic of Croatia
    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASE CONCERNING THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE (CROATIA v. YUGOSLAVIA) MEMORIAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF CROATIA APPENDICES VOLUME 5 1 MARCH 2001 II III Contents Page Appendix 1 Chronology of Events, 1980-2000 1 Appendix 2 Video Tape Transcript 37 Appendix 3 Hate Speech: The Stimulation of Serbian Discontent and Eventual Incitement to Commit Genocide 45 Appendix 4 Testimonies of the Actors (Books and Memoirs) 73 4.1 Veljko Kadijević: “As I see the disintegration – An Army without a State” 4.2 Stipe Mesić: “How Yugoslavia was Brought Down” 4.3 Borisav Jović: “Last Days of the SFRY (Excerpts from a Diary)” Appendix 5a Serb Paramilitary Groups Active in Croatia (1991-95) 119 5b The “21st Volunteer Commando Task Force” of the “RSK Army” 129 Appendix 6 Prison Camps 141 Appendix 7 Damage to Cultural Monuments on Croatian Territory 163 Appendix 8 Personal Continuity, 1991-2001 363 IV APPENDIX 1 CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS1 ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE CHRONOLOGY BH Bosnia and Herzegovina CSCE Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe CK SKJ Centralni komitet Saveza komunista Jugoslavije (Central Committee of the League of Communists of Yugoslavia) EC European Community EU European Union FRY Federal Republic of Yugoslavia HDZ Hrvatska demokratska zajednica (Croatian Democratic Union) HV Hrvatska vojska (Croatian Army) IMF International Monetary Fund JNA Jugoslavenska narodna armija (Yugoslav People’s Army) NAM Non-Aligned Movement NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
    [Show full text]
  • Naletilic and Martinovicsta
    Trial Chamber I Sentencing Judgement Statement 1. Trial Chamber I, Section A is sitting today to deliver the judgement in the trial of Vinko Martinovic and Mladen Naletilic. 2. For the purposes of this hearing, the Chamber will summarise briefly its findings , emphasising that this is a summary only, and that the only authoritative account of the Trial Chamber’s findings, and of its reasons for those findings, is to be found in the written judgement, copies of which will be made available to the parties and to the public at the conclusion of this hearing. 3. Before turning to the merits, the Chamber wishes to thank the legal support team, the translators and interpreters, the Court Management Section and the Victim and Witnesses Section for having facilitated the conduct of this trial. JUDGE DIARRA 4. The Indictment concerned events alleged to have occurred between April 1993 and January 1994, in the course of a conflict between the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Croat Defence Council in the South-western part of Bosnia and Herzegovina , and in particular, in Mostar and the surrounding municipalities. The Prosecution alleged that this conflict was international in nature and that the alleged crimes were part of a widespread, large-scale or systematic attack directed against the Bosnian Muslim population. 5. The accused Mladen Naletilic and Vinko Martinovic have been charged with having committed crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and violations of the laws or customs of war in their positions as commanders of the Convicts’ Battalion and of the Vinko Skrobo ATG respectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice, Accountability and Social Reconstruction: an Interview Study of Bosnian Judges and Prosecutors Laurel E
    Berkeley Journal of International Law Volume 18 | Issue 1 Article 3 2000 Justice, Accountability and Social Reconstruction: An Interview Study of Bosnian Judges and Prosecutors Laurel E. Fletcher Berkeley Law Harvey M. Weinstein Recommended Citation Laurel E. Fletcher and Harvey M. Weinstein, Justice, Accountability and Social Reconstruction: An Interview Study of Bosnian Judges and Prosecutors, 18 Berkeley J. Int'l Law. 102 (2000). Link to publisher version (DOI) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals and Related Materials at Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Berkeley Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Berkeley Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Justice, Accountability and Social Reconstruction: An Interview Study of Bosnian Judges and Prosecutors By The Human Rights Center and the International Human Rights Law Clinic, University of California, Berkeley, and the Centre for Human Rights, University of Sarajevo I. PREFACE This study of judges and prosecutors in Bosnia and Herzegovina (hereinaf- ter "BiHl") is the first report in a multi-year study undertaken by the University of California, Berkeley, Human Rights Center regarding the relationship be- tween justice, accountability and reconstruction in the former Yugoslavia.1 The Human Rights Center conducts interdisciplinary research on emerging issues in international human rights and humanitarian law. The International Human Rights Law Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall) and the Centre for Human Rights at the University of Sarajevo collaborated with the Human Rights Center to conduct this study.
    [Show full text]
  • An Analysis of Media Coverage of ICTY Verdicts in Croatian and Serbian Media
    How (not) to reconcile: An analysis of media coverage of ICTY verdicts in Croatian and Serbian media by Sara Ana Cemazar Submitted to Central European University Department of Political Science In partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Supervisor: Dr. Oana Lup CEU eTD Collection Budapest, Hungary 2018 Abstract This thesis investigates media coverage of International Criminal Court for former Yugoslavia’s verdicts in Croatia and Serbia in three cases. This Court was established to deal with atrocities committed during conflict between these two countries in the 1990-es and it set out to perpetrate the guilty. By using thematic and framing analysis on more than 250 articles in four newspapers, it can be seen that the observed verdicts to Gotovina et al., Karadzic and Prlic et al. were perceived ambivalently in two countries, which extends to the ongoing duality of narratives present in understanding common history between Croatia and Serbia. If the verdict’s outcome was perceived as favorable to the country, it was portrayed as just in the media, and vice versa. Given that this Court’s indirect aims were to individualize guilt and facilitate reconciliation, this study argues that this was not achieved. Namely, by media reporting that helped encourage collectivity of the guilt or innocence as an outcome of a verdict to an individual, reconciliation process between two nations was not made easier. CEU eTD Collection i Acknowledgements Since my MA Thesis marks the culmination of my education so far, I must acknowledge many people that have helped me on this way.
    [Show full text]
  • Commentary on the Judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) of 29 November 2017 (Case No
    Białostockie Studia Prawnicze 2018 vol. 23 nr 3 DOI: 10.15290/bsp.2018.23.03.09 Sławomir Redo Academic Council on the United Nations System [email protected] ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2018-4217 Commentary on the Judgment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) of 29 November 2017 (Case No. IT-04-74-T)1 I. Th is criminological commentary has been rendered on the grounds of the following facts. In case of Prosecutor v. Jadranko Prlić, Bruno Stojić, Slobodan Praljak, Milivoj Petković, Valentin Ćori ć and Berislav Pusić, the six Croat alleged war criminals before the Tribunal were charged with crimes that met its Statute’s disposition concerning the alleged acting of participating in a Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE). According to the bill of indictment, its goal was to permanently remove the Muslim population from Herceg-Bosna. All six defendants entered a ‘not guilty’ to each of the 26 off ences brought against them. In particular, all the defendants denied the displacement and/or confi nement of civilians, murder and destruction of property during attacks, ill-treatment and criminal damage during eviction operations, ill-treatment and harsh conditions in detention, the wide-spread and almost systematic use of detainees to carry out work on the frontline and even to serve as human shields at times, as well as murder and ill-treatment associated with this work and with the use of human shields and, fi nally, the displacement of detainees and their families from the territory of Herceg-Bosna following their release.
    [Show full text]
  • The Case of Croatian Wikipedia: Encyclopaedia of Knowledge Or Encyclopaedia for the Nation?
    The Case of Croatian Wikipedia: Encyclopaedia of Knowledge or Encyclopaedia for the Nation? 1 Authorial statement: This report represents the evaluation of the Croatian disinformation case by an external expert on the subject matter, who after conducting a thorough analysis of the Croatian community setting, provides three recommendations to address the ongoing challenges. The views and opinions expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation is publishing the report for transparency. Executive Summary Croatian Wikipedia (Hr.WP) has been struggling with content and conduct-related challenges, causing repeated concerns in the global volunteer community for more than a decade. With support of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, the Foundation retained an external expert to evaluate the challenges faced by the project. The evaluation, conducted between February and May 2021, sought to assess whether there have been organized attempts to introduce disinformation into Croatian Wikipedia and whether the project has been captured by ideologically driven users who are structurally misaligned with Wikipedia’s five pillars guiding the traditional editorial project setup of the Wikipedia projects. Croatian Wikipedia represents the Croatian standard variant of the Serbo-Croatian language. Unlike other pluricentric Wikipedia language projects, such as English, French, German, and Spanish, Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia’s community was split up into Croatian, Bosnian, Serbian, and the original Serbo-Croatian wikis starting in 2003. The report concludes that this structure enabled local language communities to sort by points of view on each project, often falling along political party lines in the respective regions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Third Entity – a Fiction? by Erich Rathfelder
    The third entity – a fiction? By Erich Rathfelder While Bosnia and Herzegovina is already dysfunctional with its two entities, the Croat Member of the Presidency, Dragan Čović, is striving for a third entity. This project is following the para-state “Herceg-Bosna,“ which was carrying out ethnic cleansing during the Bosnian War. In a first step, Čović is trying to undermine the functionality of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina by an Electoral Law reform. Slowly it was calming down in the almost full small lecture hall in the Culture Centre Kosača in Mostar on October 3, 2017. The approximately 100 people present were looking curiously at the podium, where Miroslav Tuđman, the son of the first President of the Republic of Croatia, was taking place to present his new book published in 2017 in Zagreb. The former head of the Croatian Secret Service, extremely resembling his father Franjo Tuđman, had to be patient for a little while though. Because, as customary in this region, several speakers first praised the author as a brilliant analyst and a great Croatian patriot. Indeed, the mind-set of Miroslav Tuđman provides important insight into the position of Croatian nationalism in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina. His book Druga strana rubikona – politička strategija Alije Izetbegovića [The Other Side of the Rubicon – Alija Izetbegović’s Political Strategy] strives to be a settlement with the former President of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which gained its independence from Yugoslavia in the spring of 1992. But not only that: It contains a fundamental positioning of Croatian nationalism and provides the background for the current politics of the Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina (HDZ-BiH).
    [Show full text]
  • Miccweb Cases Selection and Procedure
    Expanding Educational Content on War Crime Trial Narratives in the Western Balkans: The Cases Selection Procedure & Outcome The investigative educational research project "Expanding Educational Content on War Crime Trial Narratives in the Western Balkans" is funded under BIRN's Balkan Transitional Justice Programme. The goal M O D E L I N T E R N A T I O N A L of the research project is to investigate International Criminal Tribunal C R I M I N A L C O U R T for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) archives and to identify and develop as W E S T E R N B A L K A N S educational content two additional legal cases that would be implemented at the MICCWeB sessions from 2020-onward. The research project is divided into four phases: M I C C W E B (1) Preliminary Analysis of ICTY Archives & Pre-Selection of Legal Cases January - March, 2020 (2) Expert Review Committee Survey, Outcome & Cases Final Selection April - July, 2020 (3) Legal Simulation Cases Development & Materials Synthesis August - September, 2020 (4) Development of Two Lesson Plans Inspired by the New Cases September - October, 2020 Annex I specifies the process and work carried out during Phase 1. This document describes the process and work carried out during Phase 2, i.e. the Expert Review Committee survey, results, and final cases selection. Please note that prior to kicking off the Phase 3, BIRN input and www.webalkans.org approval is required for the two cases that were selected/suggested for development by the MICCWeB Expert Review Committee team.
    [Show full text]