DOCSLIB.ORG

The International Criminal Tribunal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The International Criminal Tribunal MICT-13-55-A 2313 A2313 - A2081 23 December 2016 SF THE MECHANISM FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS No. MICT-13-55-A IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before: Judge Theodor Meron Judge William Hussein Sekule Judge Vagn Prusse Joensen Judge Jose Ricardo de Prada Solaesa Judge Graciela Susana Gatti Santana Registrar: Mr John Hocking Date Filed: 23 December 2016 THE PROSECUTOR v. RADOVAN KARADZIC Revised Public Redacted Version RADOVAN KARADZIC’S APPEAL BRIEF ________________________________________________________________________ Office of the Prosecutor: Laurel Baig Barbara Goy Katrina Gustafson Counsel for Radovan Karadzic Peter Robinson Kate Gibson No. MICT-13-55-A 2312 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 4 II. THE TRIAL WAS UNFAIR.......................................................................................... 5 1. The Trial Chamber violated President Karadzic’s right to self-representation by requiring him to be questioned by counsel when testifying ............................................. 5 2. The Trial Chamber erred in conducting a site visit in President Karadzic’s absence... 9 3-5. The Trial Chamber erred in convicting President Karadzic on Counts Four, Seven, and Eleven where the Indictment was defective ............................................................. 13 6. The Trial Chamber’s failure to limit the scope of the trial and remedy the Prosecution’s disclosure violations made the trial unfair ............................................... 17 7. The Trial Chamber erred in taking judicial notice of adjudicated facts ..................... 31 8-9. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to enable President Karadzic to interview Prosecution Rule 92 bis witnesses .................................................................................. 38 10. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to call Prosecution Rule 92 bis witness Ferid Spahic for cross-examination .......................................................................................... 42 11-12. The Trial Chamber erred in excluding Defence Rule 92 bis evidence ................ 45 13. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to admit written evidence from Pero Rendic and Branko Basara .......................................................................................................... 58 14. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to admit the written evidence of Borivoje Jakovljevic ...................................................................................................................... 62 15. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to admit the written evidence of deceased witness Rajko Koprivica ................................................................................................. 65 16. The excessive number of adjudicated facts and Rule 92 bis evidence violated the presumption of innocence and shifted the burden of proof ............................................ 68 17. The Trial Chamber erred in delaying disclosure of the identities and statements of Prosecution witnesses ..................................................................................................... 72 18. The Trial Chamber erred in denying protective measures for Defence witnesses and granting protective measures for Prosecution witnesses ................................................ 75 19. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to subpoena four Defence witnesses .............. 82 20. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to compel General Mladic to answer President Karadzic’s questions ....................................................................................................... 88 21. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to assign counsel to Defence Witness Predrag Banovic ........................................................................................................................... 93 22. The Trial Chamber erred in admitting evidence of illegally intercepted telephone conversations................................................................................................................... 95 23. The Trial Chamber erred in admitting the testimony of war correspondents without a valid waiver of the privilege ...................................................................................... 103 24. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to recognise the parliamentary privilege ...... 107 25. The Trial Chamber erred in excluding Defence evidence under the tu quoque principle ........................................................................................................................ 111 26. The Trial Chamber erred in refusing to hear the testimony of General Radivoje Miletic ........................................................................................................................... 118 No. MICT-13-55-A 2 2311 27. The Trial Chamber erred when one of its judges deliberated on the credibility of a person with whom he was associated ........................................................................... 123 III. THE MUNICIPALITIES .......................................................................................... 127 28. The Trial Chamber erred in finding that there was a common plan to permanently remove Muslims and Croats from Serb territory to create a homogeneous entity ....... 127 29. There are cogent reasons to hold that for JCE III liability, the extended crime must be more than a possibility ............................................................................................. 143 30. The Trial Chamber erred when convicting President Karadzic of persecution by forcible transfer of prisoners—a crime not charged in the indictment ......................... 151 31. The Trial Chamber erred when convicting President Karadzic of scheduled incidents based solely on untested evidence ................................................................. 153 IV. SARAJEVO .............................................................................................................. 157 33. The Trial Chamber misapplied principles of the law of armed conflict in its analysis of the shelling of Sarajevo ............................................................................................ 157 34. The Trial Chamber erred when concluding that the VRS fired the shell that landed on the Markale market on 5 February 1994 .................................................................. 166 36-37. The Trial Chamber erred when finding that President Karadzic shared the common purpose of spreading terror among the civilian population of Sarajevo and in relying on a meeting that never occurred ...................................................................... 174 V. SREBRENICA ........................................................................................................... 182 38-39. The Trial Chamber erred when finding that President Karadzic shared the common purpose of removing the Bosnian Muslims from Srebrenica and when relying on Directive 7 ................................................................................................................ 182 40. The Trial Chamber erred when concluding that President Karadzic agreed to the killing of Bosnian Muslim males from Srebrenica and shared the common purpose of eliminating them ........................................................................................................... 189 41. The Trial Chamber erred when concluding that President Karadzic had the mens rea for genocide .................................................................................................................. 204 42-43. The Trial Chamber erred in finding President Karadzic responsible as a superior for 13 July killings ........................................................................................................ 213 VI. HOSTAGE TAKING ............................................................................................... 219 44-45. The Trial Chamber erred in convicting President Karadzic of hostage taking.. 219 46. The Trial Chamber erred in finding that there is an absolute prohibition of reprisals against protected persons .............................................................................................. 225 VII. SENTENCING ........................................................................................................ 230 47-50. The Trial Chamber erred in declining to find mitigating circumstances when sentencing President Karadzic ...................................................................................... 230 VIII. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 233 No. MICT-13-55-A 3 2310 I. INTRODUCTION 1. President Radovan Karadzic made his initial appearance on 31 July 2008, invoking his right to self-representation.1 The Pre-Trial Judge entered a not guilty plea on 29 August 2008.2 Trial began on 27 October 2009,3 and ended on 7 October 2014.4 On 24 March 2016, the Trial Chamber convicted President Karadzic of ten counts of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes, acquitted him of one count of genocide, and sentenced him to 40 years imprisonment.5 This is his appeal. 2. President Karadzic recognises that an appeal is not a trial de novo. He has limited his appeal to alleging errors of law by the Trial Chamber that, individually or cumulatively invalidate the judgement, and errors of fact that have
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Case: Branko Grujić Et Al – 'Zvornik' War Crimes Chamber Belgrade District Court, Republic of Serbia Case Number: KV.5/05
    Case: Branko Grujić et al – ‘Zvornik’ War Crimes Chamber Belgrade District Court, Republic of Serbia Case number: KV.5/05 Trial Chamber: Tatjana Vuković, Trial Chamber President, Vesko Krstajić, Judge, Trial Chamber Member, Olivera Anđelković, Judge, Trial Chamber Member War Crimes Prosecutor: Milan Petrović Accused: Branko Grujić, Branko Popović, Dragan Slavković a.k.a. Toro, Ivan Korać a.k.a. Zoks, Siniša Filipović a.k.a. Lopov, and Dragutin Dragićević a.k.a. Bosanac Report: Nataša Kandić, Executive Director of the Humanitarian Law Centre (HLC), and Dragoljub Todorović, Attorney, victims representatives 30 November 2005 Branko Popović’s defence Branko Popović, who used the alias of Marko Pavlović, was in charge of the Zvornik TO Staff. He was born and lived in Sombor in Serbia. Besides working for the socially-owned company Sunce, he had a firm of his own and helped Serb refugees from Croatia through the „Krajina‟ association. The first person from Zvornik he met, through Rade Kostić, the deputy minister of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Serb Krajina, was witness K. The meetings in Mali Zvornik in Serbia Shortly before the war, that is, at the end of March 1992, the SDS president in Zvornik invited Popović to a meeting at the Hotel Jezero in Mali Zvornik with volunteers from Serbia who wanted to help and to give an „inspiration to the Serb people should it come to war.‟ The accused said that it was there that he met Vojin Vučković a.k.a. Žuća, a man named Rankić, a man named Bogdanović, and Žuća‟s brother Dušan Vučković a.k.a.
    [Show full text]
  • Prosecution Final Trial Brief
    IT-08-91-T 18146 D18146 - D17672 12 July 2012 SF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA Case No. IT-08-91-T IN TRIAL CHAMBER 11 Before: Judge Burton Hall, Presiding Judge Guy Delvoie Judge Frederik Harhoff Registrar: Mr. John Hocking Date filed: 12 July 2012 PROSECUTOR v. Mico STANISIC Stojan ZUPLJANIN PUBLIC PROSECUTION'S NOTICE OF FILING A PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION'S FINAL TRIAL BRIEF The Office of the Prosecutor: J oanna Korner Thomas Hannis Counsel for the Accused Slobodan Zecevic and Slobodan Cvijetic for Mico Stanisic Dragan Krgovic and Aleksandar Aleksic for Stojan Zupljanin IT-08-91-T 18145 THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA Case No. IT-08-91-T THE PROSECUTOR v. Mico STANISIC & Stojan ZUPLJANIN PUBLIC PROSECUTION'S NOTICE OF FILING A PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION OF THE PROSECUTION'S FINAL TRIAL BRIEF 1. The Prosecution hereby files a public red acted version of the Prosecution's Final Trial Brief,l attached at Annex A, pursuant to the Trial Chamber's 4 June 2012 "Order on filing of public red acted versions on final trial briefs,,2. 2. The Prosecution has red acted information that identifies protected witnesses,3 information that was brought into the court in private or closed session and information that reveals the content of exhibits filed under seal. 3. The corrections to the Final Trial Brief contained in the recently filed Corrigendum4 have been included in the public red acted version of the Prosecution's Final Trial Brief. Word Count: 330 Tom Hannis Senior Trial Attorney Dated this 12th day of July 2012 At The Hague, The Netherlands 1 Prosecutor v.
    [Show full text]
  • Décision Relative À La Requête De L'accusation Aux Fins De Dresser Le Constat Judiciaire De Faits Relatifs À L'affaire Krajisnik
    IT-03-67-T p.48378 NATIONS o ~ ~ 31 g -.D ~s 3b 1 UNIES J ~ JUL-j ~D)D Tribunal international chargé de Affaire n° : IT-03-67-T poursuivre les personnes présumées responsables de violations graves du Date: 23 juillet 2010 droit international humanitaire commises sur le territoire de l'ex­ Original: FRANÇAIS Yougoslavie depuis 1991 LA CHAMBRE DE PREMIÈRE INSTANCE III Composée comme suit: M.le Juge Jean-Claude Antonetti, Président M.le Juge Frederik Harhoff Mme. le Juge Flavia Lattanzi Assisté de: M. John Hocking, greffier Décision rendue le: 23 juillet 2010 LE PROCUREUR cl VOJISLAV SESELJ DOCUMENT PUBLIC A VEC ANNEXE DÉCISION RELATIVE À LA REQUÊTE DE L'ACCUSATION AUX FINS DE DRESSER LE CONSTAT JUDICIAIRE DE FAITS RELATIFS À L'AFFAIRE KRAJISNIK Le Bureau du Procureur M. Mathias Marcussen L'Accusé Vojislav Seselj IT-03-67-T p.48377 1. INTRODUCTION 1. La Chambre de première instance III (<< Chamb re ») du Tribunal international chargé de poursuivre les personnes présumées responsables de violations graves du droit international humanitaire commises sur le territoire de l'ex-Yougoslavie depuis 1991 (<< Tribunal ») est saisie d'une requête aux fins de dresser le constat judiciaire de faits admis dans l'affaire Le Procureur cl Momcilo Krajisnik, en application de l'article 94(B) du Règlement de procédure et de preuve (<< Règl ement »), enregistrée par le Bureau du Procureur (<< Ac cusation ») le 29 avril 2010 (<< Requête») 1. H. RAPPEL DE LA PROCÉDURE 2. Le 29 avril 2010, l'Accusation déposait sa Requête par laquelle elle demandait que soit dressé le constat judiciaire de 194 faits tirés du jugement rendu dans l'affaire Krajisnik (<< Jugement ») 2.
    [Show full text]
  • JUDGEMENT SUMMARY TRIAL CHAMBER United Nations (Exclusively for the Use of the Media
    JUDGEMENT SUMMARY TRIAL CHAMBER United Nations (Exclusively for the use of the media. Not an official document) Nations Unies The Hague, 27 March 2013 Trial Chamber Judgement Summary for Mićo Stanišić and Stojan Župljanin International Please find below the summary of the Judgement read out today by Judge Burton Criminal Tribunal for the former Hall. Yugoslavia Tribunal Pénal The Trial Chamber is sitting today to deliver its Judgement in the case of Prosecutor International pour v. Mićo Stanišić and Stojan Župljanin. I now read a summary of the Chamber’s findings. The l’ex-Yougoslavie full written Judgement will be made available at the end of today’s hearing. At the outset, the Chamber wishes to express its gratitude to counsel for the Prosecution and the Defence, the Registry staff, the Chamber’s own staff, and all others who have contributed to the conduct of this trial. The Judgement is a lengthy document, reflecting the size and complexity of this case. The trial commenced on 14 September 2009 and concluded on 1 June 2012. The Trial Chamber sat for 354 days, during which it admitted the evidence of 199 witnesses, entered 4,377 exhibits into evidence, and took judicial notice of 1,042 adjudicated facts. The concept of a Greater Serbia has a long history. One of its aspects was the extension of Serbia into those portions of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina containing substantial Serb populations. This was strongly pursued in the late 1980s and on into the 1990s. Through public speeches and the media, Serbian political leaders emphasised a glorious past and informed their audiences that, if Serbs did not join together, they would again be attacked by Ustashas, a term used to instil fear in Serbs.
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLLISHED by Radovan Karadzic: Wartime Leader’S Years on Trial
    PUBLLISHED BY Radovan Karadzic: Wartime Leader’s Years on Trial A collection of all the articles published by BIRN about Radovan Karadzic’s trial before the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia and the UN’s International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals. This e-book contains news stories, analysis pieces, interviews and other articles on the trial of the former Bosnian Serb leader for crimes including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity during the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Produced by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network. Introduction Radovan Karadzic was the president of Bosnia’s Serb-dominated Repub- lika Srpska during wartime, when some of the most horrific crimes were committed on European soil since World War II. On March 20, 2019, the 73-year-old Karadzic faces his final verdict after being initially convicted in the court’s first-instance judgment in March 2016, and then appealing. The first-instance verdict found him guilty of the Srebrenica genocide, the persecution and extermination of Croats and Bosniaks from 20 municipal- ities across Bosnia and Herzegovina, and being a part of a joint criminal enterprise to terrorise the civilian population of Sarajevo during the siege of the city. He was also found guilty of taking UN peacekeepers hostage. Karadzic was initially indicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in 1995. He then spent 12 years on the run, and was finally arrested in Belgrade in 2008 and extradited to the UN tribunal. As the former president of the Republika Srpska and the supreme com- mander of the Bosnian Serb Army, he was one of the highest political fig- ures indicted by the Hague court.
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering Wartime Rape in Post-Conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina
    Remembering Wartime Rape in Post-Conflict Bosnia and Herzegovina Sarah Quillinan ORCHID ID: 0000-0002-5786-9829 A dissertation submitted in total fulfilment of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy July 2019 School of Social and Political Sciences University of Melbourne THIS DISSERTATION IS DEDICATED TO THE WOMEN SURVIVORS OF WAR RAPE IN BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA WHOSE STRENGTH, FORTITUDE, AND SPIRIT ARE TRULY HUMBLING. i Contents Dedication / i Declaration / iv Acknowledgments / v Abstract / vii Note on Language and Pronunciation / viii Abbreviations / ix List of Illustrations / xi I PROLOGUE Unclaimed History: Memoro-Politics and Survivor Silence in Places of Trauma / 1 II INTRODUCTION After Silence: War Rape, Trauma, and the Aesthetics of Social Remembrance / 10 Where Memory and Politics Meet: Remembering Rape in Post-War Bosnia / 11 Situating the Study: Fieldwork Locations / 22 Bosnia and Herzegovina: An Ethnographic Sketch / 22 The Village of Selo: Republika Srpska / 26 The Town of Gradić: Republika Srpska / 28 Silence and the Making of Ethnography: Methodological Framework / 30 Ethical Considerations: Principles and Practices of Research on Rape Trauma / 36 Organisation of Dissertation / 41 III CHAPTER I The Social Inheritance of War Trauma: Collective Memory, Gender, and War Rape / 45 On Collective Memory and Social Identity / 46 On Collective Memory and Gender / 53 On Collective Memory and the History of Wartime Rape / 58 Conclusion: The Living Legacy of Collective Memory in Bosnia and Herzegovina / 64 ii IV CHAPTER II The Unmaking
    [Show full text]
  • MOMCILO KRAJISNIK and BILJANA PLAVSIC AMENDED
    THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA Case No. IT-00-39 & 40-PT THE PROSECUTOR OF THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST MOMCILO KRAJISNIK and BILJANA PLAVSIC AMENDED CONSOLIDATED INDICTMENT The Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, pursuant to her authority under Article 18 of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia ("the Statute of the Tribunal"), charges: MOMCILO KRAJISNIK and BILJANA PLAVSIC with GENOCIDE, CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY and VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF WAR as set forth below: THE ACCUSED 1. Momcilo KRAJISNIK, son of Sreten and Milka (née Spiric) was born on 20 January 1945 in Zabrdje, municipality of Novi Grad, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. He was a leading member of the Serbian Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina ("SDS") and he served on a number of SDS bodies and committees. On 12 July 1991, Momcilo KRAJISNIK was elected to the Main Board of the SDS. He was President of the Assembly of Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina ("Bosnian Serb Assembly") from 24 October 1991 until at least November 1995. He was a member of the National Security Council of the Bosnian Serb Republic and from the beginning of June 1992 until 17 December 1992, he was a member of the expanded Presidency of the Bosnian Serb Republic. 2. Biljana PLAVSIC, daughter of Svetislav, was born on 7 July 1930 in Tuzla, Tuzla municipality, Bosnia and Herzegovina. She was a leading member of the SDS from the period of its establishment in Bosnia and Herzegovina. From 18 November 1990 until April 1992, Biljana PLAVSIC was a member of the collective Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards an Unsustainable Urban Development in Post-War Sarajevo
    Towards an unsustainable urban development in post-war Sarajevo Jordi Martín-Díaz Department of Geography University of Barcelona Jordi Nofre Interdisciplinary Centro of Social Sciences New University of Lisbon Marc Oliva Centre of Geographical Studies. University of Lisbon Pedro Palma Centre of Geographical Studies. University of Lisbon Martín‐Díaz, J., Nofre, J., Oliva, M., & Palma, P. (2015). Towards an unsustainable urban development in post‐war Sarajevo. Area, 47(4), 376-385.doi: 10.1111/area.12175 Abstract Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia and Herzegovina, is located in a karst geomorphological environment. The topographical setting strongly inßuences the urban geographical distribution and urban develop-ment, as well as the sustainability policies implemented in the city. The incorporation of an environ-mental agenda and the focus on sustainable development have characterised urban planning in cities in Central and Eastern Europe that are transitioning from socialist to capitalist economic systems. Environ-mental policies in Sarajevo are deÞned within the Sarajevo Canton Development Strategy developed under the supervision of international experts at the end of the three-and-a-half years of siege in December 1995, and this is expected to last until 2015. This paper argues that, despite the consensus achieved for developing Sarajevo through strategies aligned with European regulations for sustainability, the built environment of the city has moved in an increasingly unsustainable direction as a result of the need to deal with vulnerable groups in the population and the international policies that tend to promote a neoliberal urban development. The Þrst section of analysis focuses on SarajevoÕs existing particular geomorphological constraints on the development of a secure and sustainable built environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Matrix Network
    Table of contents: 3. The perpetrator directed an attack. P.1. Evidence of requirements for an attack. P.2. Evidence of attack occurring. P.3. Evidence with regard to direction of attack. P.4. Evidence of military presence in a particular area from which the attack was directed. Element: 3. The perpetrator directed an attack. P.1. Evidence of requirements for an attack. A. Legal source/authority and evidence: Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Judgement (TC), 31 January 2005, para. 282: "282. Pursuant to Article 49(1) of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions "attacks" are acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence. According to the ICRC Commentary an attack is understood as a "combat action" and refers to the use of armed force to carry out a military operation at the beginning or during the course of armed conflict.903 […]" "903 ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols, p 603. See also Kordić Appeals Judgment, para 47." Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgement (AC), 17 December 2004, para. 47: "47. The term attack is defined in Article 49 of Additional Protocol I as "acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or in defence".49 Therefore, in determining whether an unlawful attack on civilians occurred, the issue of who first made use of force is irrelevant." "49. This definition applies to the crime of unlawful attacks against civilian objects as well." Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Judgement (TC), 5 December 2003, para.
    [Show full text]
  • PROSECUTION APPEAL BRIEF Titre Du Document
    L-_ TRANSMISSION SHEET FOR FILING OF DOCUMENTS WITH THE MECHANISM FOR INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS/ FICHE DE TRANSMISSION POUR LE DEPOT DE DOCUMENTS DEVANTLE MECANISME POUR LES TRIBUNAUXPENAUXINTERNATIONAUX I - FILING INFORMATION / INFORMAnONS GENERALES ToIA: MICT Registryl Gretle du MTPI o Arushal Arusha I;g] The Haguel La Haye Froml o Chambersl o Defencel IZI Prosecutionl o Otherl Autre: De: Chambre Defense Bureau du Procureur Case Namel SESELJ Case Numberl MICT-16-99-A Affaire: Affaire tt": Date Createdl 29 Aug 2016 Date transmittedl 29 Aug 2016 No. of Pagesl 100 Date du: Transmis Ie : Nombre de pages: Original Language I I;g] Englishl o Frenchl o Kinyarwanda o B/C/S o other/Autre Langue de I'original : Anglais Frenceis (specifylpreciser) : Title of Documentl NOTICE OF FILING OF PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION OF PROSECUTION APPEAL BRIEF Titre du document: Classification Levell IZI Unclassifiedl o Ex Parte Defence excludedl Defense exclue Categories de Non c/assitie o Ex Parte Prosecution excludedl Bureau du Procureur exclu classification: o Confidentiall o Ex Parte R86(H) applicant excludedl Art. 86 H) requetentexclu Confidentiel o Ex Parte Amicus Curiae excludedl Amicus curiae exclu o Strictly Confidential/ o Ex Parte other exclusionl autre(s) partie(s) exclue(s) Strictement confidentiel (specifylpreciser) : Document typel o Motionl IZI Submission from parties/ o Indictmentl Type de document: Requete Ecritures deposees par des parties Acte d'accusation o Decisionl o Submission from non-partiesl o Warrantl Decision Ecriiures oeposees par
    [Show full text]
  • S/1994/674/Annex VIII Page 311 Operated by Military Police Units from Drvar. It Is Unclear If Guards from Camp Kozile Were Also
    S/1994/674/Annex VIII Page 311 operated by military police units from Drvar. It is unclear if guards from camp Kozile were also transferred here for duty. 4101 / 2580 . Prekaja : The existence of this detention facility has not been corroborated by multiple sources. Reportedly just near Drvar, in the village of Prekaja is an alleged Serb controlled concentration camp. 4102 / Allegedly operated by extremists, the interns were purportedly tortured and killed at this camp. 4103 / 2581 . Titov Drvar : The existence of this detention facility has been corroborated by a neutral source, namely Medecins Sans Frontieres. Medecins Sans Frontieres reportedly acquired evidence of two Serb controlled concentration camps in Titov Drvar. 4104 / The French source interviewed several Muslim refugees from the town of Kozarac who had been interned in the Serb controlled camps. 4105 / The French agency reported that more than half of the refugees had reportedly been tortured. 4106 / 2582 . Drvar Prison : (The existence of this detention facility has not been corroborated by multiple sources). Another report alleges the existence of a Bosnian Serb controlled camp at the prison. 4107 / This location was identified as of May 1993. 4108 / The source, however, did not provide additional information regarding either operation or prisoner identification. 78. Tomislavgrad 2583 . This municipality is located in central BiH, bordering Croatia to the west. According to the 1991 Yugoslav census, the county had a population of 29,261. Croats constituted 86.6 per cent of the population, Muslims 10.8 per cent, Serbs 1.5 per cent, and the remaining 1.1 per cent were classified as "other".
    [Show full text]
  • Paper Download (410996 Bytes)
    Heroes of yesterday, war criminals of today: the Serbian paramilitary units fifteen years after the armed conflict of former Yugoslavia Keywords: paramilitary, Serbia, war crimes, media, former Yugoslavia, veterans Abstract: The aim of the paper is to describe the transformation, primarily through the medias, the image of the Serbian paramilitary unit members employed during the armed conflict of the 90es in the period of the decomposition of the former Yugoslavia. At the beginning, represented as „heroes‟, „saviors‟, „protectors‟ of the „serbianhood‟ (srpstvo), ever present main figures of the public life – their public image has gone through a couple of change. Once they were the role models for the young generation, only after the fall of the regime (2000) their involvement in war crimes, mass rape, looting and genocide attained Serbia. Several landmark trials offered a glimpse into their role during the series of the conflicts. Once warlords, with a status of pop icons, the embodiment of mythical warriors and epic bandits, they are no more the living archetypes of collective remembrance, although their responsibility remain unquestionable for a part of the contemporary society. * The paper‟s aim is to describe the transformation, primarily through the medias, of the image of the Serbian paramilitary unit members employed during the armed conflict of the 90es in the period of the decomposition of the former Yugoslavia. At the beginning, represented as „heroes‟, „saviors‟, „protectors‟ of the „serbianhood‟, ever present as main figures of the public life – their public image has gone through a couple of change. Once they were the role models for the young generation, only after the fall of the Milošević regime (2000) their involvement in war crimes, mass rape, looting and genocide attained Serbia.
    [Show full text]