Bosna i Hercegovina Босна и Херцеговина

Sud Bosne i Hercegovine Суд Боснe и Херцеговинe

Case No. S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk

Rendered on: 8 November 2013 Written copy sent on: 17 April 2014

Before the Panel of Judges: Azra Miletić, Presiding Dragomir Vukoje, member Senadin Begtašević, member

PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA v. BOŠKO LUKIĆ AND MARKO ADAMOVIĆ

SECOND INSTANCE VERDICT

Prosecutor of the BiH Prosecutor’s Office:

Ms. Džemila Begović

Counsel for the Accused:

Mr. Husein Mušić, Attorney for the accused Boško Lukić

Mr. Branko Gudalo, Attorney for the accused Marko Adamović

Kraljice Jelene br. 88, 71 000 Sarajevo, Bosna i Hercegovina, Tel: 033 707 100, Faks: 033 707 155 Краљице Јелене бр. 88, 71 000 Сарајево, Босна и Херцеговина, Тел: 033 707 100, Факс: 033 707 155

Bosna i Hercegovina Босна и Херцеговина

Sud Bosne i Hercegovine Суд Боснe и Херцеговинe

1

V E R D I C T ...... 4 R e a s o n i n g ...... 14

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...... 14

II. THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED ...... 15

III. PROCEDURAL DECISIONS ...... 16

A. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC ...... 16 B. PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE WITNESSES ...... 16 C. MAIN TRIAL ADJOURNED FOR LONGER THAN 30 DAYS ...... 18

IV. CLOSING ARGUMENTS ...... 19

A. PROSECUTION ...... 19 B. CLOSING ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENSE ...... 21 1. Closing argument of the Defense for the accused Boško Lukić ...... 21 2. Closing argument of the Defense for the accused Marko Adamović ...... 23

V. STANDARDS OF PROOF ...... 24

VI. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ...... 29

A. WIDESPREAD AND/OR SYSTEMATIC ATTACK ...... 29 (a) Widespread nature of the attack ...... 31 (b) The attack was directed against the civilian population ...... 44 (c) The Accused were aware of the attack and that their acts formed part of the attack ...... 45

VII. PERSECUTION ...... 54

i. Murder – depriving another person of his life ...... 59 ii. Deportation or forcible transfer of population ...... 59 iii. Imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty ...... 60 iv. Other inhumane acts of similar character ...... 60 v. Unlawful confinement into camps ...... 60

Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225

vi. Attack against civilian population, settlements, individual civilians, which resulted in death, and attack or shelling, using any means, of undefended villages and residences ...... 61 vii. Deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial ...... 61

VIII. INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ACCUSED WITHIN A JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE ...... 62

A. ELEMENTS OF THE BASIC JCE ...... 64 (a) Actus reus element (act of commission) ...... 64 (b) Mens rea element (knowledge and intent) ...... 67 B. JCE IN THE CONCRETE CASE ...... 68 (a) Actus reus elements ...... 68 (i) Plurality of persons ...... 68 (ii) The existence of a common purpose or intent ...... 73 (iii) Certain direct perpetrators commit individual criminal offenses by which the common criminal design or purpose is being implemented ...... 85 (iv) The Accused’s participation in the common design which includes commission of one of crimes ...... 85 a. The accused Boško Lukić ...... 85 b. The accused Marko Adamović ...... 93 (b) Mens rea (guilty mind) ...... 98

IX. INDIVIDUAL INCRIMINATIONS ...... 103

A. INCIDENT IN THE CRLJENI VILLAGE ...... 103 B. KILLING OF DUŠAN STOJAKOVIĆ AKA DUĆA, DEPUTY COMMANDER OF THE SJB KLJUČ ...... 105 C. AMBUSH IN BUSIJE AND THE ATTACK ON YOUNG SOLDIERS ...... 105 D. SECTION 1 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE CONVICTING PART OF THE VERDICT ...... 106 E. SECTION 2 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE CONVICTING PART OF THE VERDICT ...... 118 F. SECTION 3 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE VERDICT ...... 123 G. SECTION 4 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE VERDICT ...... 131 H. COUNT 5 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE CONVICTING PART OF THE VERDICT ...... 143 (a) Charges under Section 5.a) of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict ...... 145 (b) Charges under Section 5.b) of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict ...... 150 (c) Charges under Section 5.c) of the enacting clause of the Verdict ...... 158 (d) Charges under Section 5.d) of the enacting clause of the Verdict ...... 163 (e) Charges under Section 5.e) of the enacting clause of the Verdict ...... 169

X. APPLICABLE LAW ...... 177

XI. SENTENCING ...... 180

A. THE PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT ...... 180 B. RULES FOR METING OUT PUNISHMENTS AND INDIVIDUALIZATION OF PUNISHMENTS ...... 181

2

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

XII. ACQUITTING PART OF THE VERDICT ...... 183

A. COUNT 5 OF THE AMENDED INDICTMENT...... 183 B. COUNT 6 OF THE AMENDED INDICTMENT ...... 188 (a) Count 6.d) of the Amended Indictment ...... 188 (b) Count 6.g) of the Indictment ...... 190 (c) Count 6 h) of the Indictment ...... 195 (d) Charges under Count 6.i) of the Indictment ...... 199 C. COUNT 7 OF THE AMENDED INDICTMENT ...... 202

D. CONCLUSION ON THE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT IN RELATION TO WHICH THE ACCUSED WERE ACQUITTED OF CHARGES ...... 205

XIII. DECISION ON THE COSTS OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS ...... 208

XIV. ANNEX 1 ...... 209

A. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE ...... 209 1. Witnesses for the Prosecution ...... 209 2. Documentary Evidence of the Prosecutor’s Office ...... 212 B. WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE ...... 235 C. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE FOR THE ACCUSED BOŠKO LUKIĆ ...... 236 1. Evidence accepted from the first instance proceedings ...... 236 2. Evidence accepted at the hearing before the Appellate Division Panel ...... 236 D. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE FOR THE ACCUSED MARKO ADAMOVIĆ ...... 237

XV. ANNEX 2 ...... 237

A. ESTABLISHED FACTS ...... 237

3

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Number: S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk Sarajevo, 8 November 2013

IN THE NAME OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA!

The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, in the Panel of the Appellate Division comprised of Judges Azra Miletić, as the Panel President, and Dragomir Vukoje and Senadin Begtašević, as members of the Panel, with the participation of the Legal Advisor-Assistant Nevena Aličehajić, as the record-taker, in the criminal case against the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović, for the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172(1)(h) of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as read with Article 180(1) of the same Code, acting upon the confirmed Indictment of the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina No. KT-RZ-44/08 of 5 June 2008, amended on 25 April 2011, following a main hearing held before the Appellate Division, open for the public in part, in the presence of Ms. Džemila Begović, Prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Husein Mušić, Counsel for the accused Boško Lukić and Mr. Branko Gudalo, Counsel for the accused Marko Adamović, on 8 November 2013 rendered, and on 20 December 2013 publicly announced the following:

V E R D I C T

The Accused:

BOŠKO LUKIĆ, son of Mane, born on 25 November 1940 in Fajtovci, Ključ Municipality, with registered place of residence in …, retired teacher, Personal Identification Number …, widower, father of two children, .. by ethnicity, citizen of …, currently at large

MARKO ADAMOVIĆ, son of Dušan, born on 28 February 1946 in Peći, Ključ Municipality, with residence in …, Personal Identification Number …, married, father of two children, … by ethnicity, citizen of …, in custody in the KPZ „Banja Luka“ under the Decision of the Court of BiH No. S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk of 20 December 2013,

ARE GUILTY

Because:

From April 1992 until late June 1992, in the territory of Ključ Municipality, within a widespread and systematic attack of the Army of Serb Republic of Bosnia and

4

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Herzegovina, that is, Republika Srpska, the police of the Ministry of Interior of Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or Republika Srpska, launched against the Croat and Muslim civilian population in the Ključ Municipality area, they participated in a joint criminal enterprise with a plan to undertake all activities at the Ključ Municipality level under the Instruction for the Organization and Activities of the Organs of the Serb People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary Circumstances of 19 December 1991, so that Serbs completely take over the power in the municipal institutions, whereby the Municipality of Ključ would be included in the category of Serb municipalities and then join the Autonomous Region of Krajina and the Republic of the Serb People of Bosnia and Herzegovina, as prescribed under the Strategic Goals, knowing that with their actions they participated in the preparation, organization and carrying out of a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian population, in order to implement the activities planned and initiated by the SDS Main Board, through the Assembly of Serb People of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the established Autonomous Region of Krajina, in complicity and in agreement with the President of the Ključ Municipality, and members of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipality, the Commander of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, the leadership of civilian authorities in the Ključ Municipality and the military authorities of the 30th Partisan Division, the 1st Krajina Corps of the VRS, and the 2nd Krajina Corps of the VRS BiH, aware that the realization of such common plan and goals, the creation of a separate state of Bosnian Serbs, which was supposed to be implemented by the Army and the Police together is only possible through serious and systematic violations of international law, persecution of the Muslim and Croat population, which makes this plan a joint criminal enterprise in which,

BOŠKO LUKIĆ

Aware of the plan and the set goals, ready to support and personally contribute to the successful implementation of the plan and the realization of the set goals, back in late 1991 accepted the offered position of the Commander of the Municipal Staff of the Territorial Defense of the Ključ municipality and, in that capacity, became a member of the Crisis Staff of the Municipality established by the Municipal Organization of the Serb Democratic Party. At that time he started with the preparation of a new manner of organization of the Territorial Defense Staff units in accordance with the guidelines arranged at the meetings of the Serb Democratic Party, later the Crisis Staff of the Ključ municipality, that is, War Presidency, that would be ready to launch armed attacks against the settlements not populated by Serbs, with a view to persecute by means of disarming, killing, imprisoning and otherwise severely depriving people of physical liberty, by shelling undefended villages and residential buildings, deportation and forcible transfer of population, and the destruction of religious buildings. In January 1992, he took over active command and control over the Territorial Defense Staff, ignoring SR BiH laws, in accordance with the “Instruction on Organization of Serb People…” He organized the Territorial Defense Staff as a monoethnic unit and, in April 1992, he transformed it into the composition of the Territorial Defense, that is, the military as the Armed Forces of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He implemented the Decision of the Ministry of 5

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

National Defense of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the manner that he undertook activities concerning the mobilization and establishment of new Territorial Defense units, their organization and training, in cooperation with JNA units. Thereby he directly took part in creating pre-requisites and conditions for the creation and establishment of the Army of Republika Srpska, when in the first half of June 1992, together with his staff and the units of Territorial Defense as a nucleus, in the capacity of the Chief of Staff, he started with the establishment and deployment of the 17th Light Infantry Ključ Brigade, which continued the commenced persecution activities in the territory of Ključ municipality even after the arrival of Commander of the Brigade,

MARKO ADAMOVIĆ

Aware of the plan and the set goals, ready to support and personally contribute to the successful implementation of the plan and the realization of the set goals, from April 1992, in the capacity of a reserve officer of the Territorial Defense with significant experience, he took part in the realization of the conclusions of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipality with respect to the implementation of the Decision of the Ministry of National Defense and the securing of conditions for the creation of the Territorial Defense as the Armed Forces of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Aware of the reasons for such a manner of organization, already in the second half of April 1992, after the mobilization of the Ključ Territorial Defense Battalion, that is the Army, in the capacity of Battalion Deputy Commander, he took part in the training of the unit members in order to train them and render them capable for launching attacks against the settlements not populated by Serbs, with a view to persecute that population by means of disarming, killing, imprisoning and otherwise severely depriving people of physical liberty, by shelling undefended villages and residential buildings, deportation and forcible transfer of population and the destruction of religious buildings. Therefore, in the beginning of the widespread and systematic attack against the non-Serb population, he was appointed Town Defense Commander and, in that capacity, he took an active part in the work of the Municipal Crisis Staff, where together with the Public Security Station Chief he reported about the situation in the field and, directly, in the field, with the units, took part in the military attack launched against civilians of the settlements populated by Muslims and Croats. After the establishment of the 17th Light Infantry Ključ Brigade, as Assistant Commander for Intelligence, Moral and Religious Issues, with the goal to implement the set plans, he continued the commenced persecution in the territory of the Ključ Municipality,

Whereby they directly contributed to and participated in the realization of the plan of persecution, in as much as they

1. On 27 May 1992, as part of the power takeover by the Serb forces, the army and the police started unlawfully arresting and depriving of liberty non-Serb civilians in downtown Ključ, on no legal grounds whatsoever, bringing them to the Public Security Station without informing them about the reasons for their arrest, where they were exposed to physical abuse by police members and various 6

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

investigators, who used punches, kicks and various implements to beat them all over their bodies, asking them to confess that they were preparing all kinds of crimes against the Serb population, which created fear among prisoners not only for their own destiny, but for the destiny of their family members. They were held in the Public Security Station detention cells, which were inadequate to hold a large number of prisoners without food and basic hygienic conditions. A day or two later, at least 22 civilians, including Luka Brkić, Muhamed Filipović, Leopold Flat, Behrem Šarić, Muhamed Eljezović, Mehmed Šistek, Fadil Jakupović, Smajil Muslimović, Darko Džaja, Mirsad Šehić, Fadil Medić, Domagoj Rebac, Husein Kozarac, Fahrudin Krivić, Abid Dervišević, Mehmed Begić, Mustafa Koljić, Alija Bilić, Mirsad Mršić, Dževad Mistrić, Teufik Vučkić and Šaban Kujundžić, were transported to the Stara Gradiška camp, and Šaban Kujundžić died as a result of beatings on the way to the camp, while others were beaten during their admission into the camp and their stay there, and approximately fifteen days later they were transferred to another camp on Manjača,

2. On 28 May 1992, the Ključ Battalion, assisted by the 30th Partisan Division of the First Krajina Corps, launched an artillery attack on the Ključ settlements of Pudin Han and Velagići, inhabited by the Muslim population, where there were no legitimate military targets, which lasted for at least two days, while the shelling caused the death of at least 12 fleeing persons, including Esma Bečić, Refika Bečić aka Keka, Hamdo Bečić and Refik Draganović,

3. On 1 June 1992, after all Muslim men from the hamlets of Vojići, Hasići, Nezići, Hadžići and other settlements of the village of Velagići were called to come to the police checkpoint in Velagići, military police officers took personal belongings from those who responded to the call and forced them into the premises of the old school, where they imprisoned them although they knew they had no legal grounds to do so, and then, in the late evening hours, they forced them out and executed them, on which occasion they killed at least 78 persons, including Denis Zukić, Rezak Nezić, Esad Zečević, Kasim Bajrić, Husein Fazlić, Mesud Bajrić, Atif Nezić, Safet Draganović, Šefik Bajrić, Fadil Delić, Ilijaz Ćehić, Emsud Bečić, Hasan Zukić, Đulaga Burzić, Rešid Dervišević, Asim Keranović, Karanfil Dervišević, Asim Ćehić, Husein Nezić, Dedo Muheljić, Ramiz Draganović, Emir Keranović, Emsud Draganović, Muharem Bajrić, Fehim Bajrić, Ibro Bajrić, Sabahudin Ćemal, Derviš Kujundžić, Adem Muheljić, Fehret Draganović, Hilmo Draganović, Nijaz Draganović, Saim Halilović, Saif Ćemal, Omer Zečević, Refik Bečić, Nijaz Nezić, Ramiz Zukić, Rifet Bajrić, Husein Bajrić, Mustafa Bajrić, Ibrahim Muratović, Dževad Hotić, Islam Nezić, Hilmo Draganović, Mesud Draganović, Adem Draganović, Teufik Draganović, Fadil Draganović, Elvedin Čarkić, Nedim Bajrić, Mirsad Ćehić, Šaban Bilajac, Esmin Draganović, Husein Ćehić, Almir Delić, Tifo Bukvić, Jasmin Keranović, Zikret Bajrić, Džemal Draganović, Meho Bajrić, Ramiz Aličić, Emil Delić, Hamdija Draganović, Safet Nezić, Rufad Draganović, Emir Gromilić, Ismet Jukić and Safet Dervišević, who were later exhumed from the mass grave Lanište II. The police continued to 7

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

search for those who survived,

4. On 1 June 1992, after soldiers of the Serb Republic of BiH, together with Marko Adamović, entered the undefended village of Prhovo, dragging Hamdo Islamagić tied to a personnel carrier, they forced the inhabitants out of their houses and ordered them to gather in front of a shop in the village. After the inhabitants gathered as ordered, they forced them into the frontyard of Abid and Karanfil Osmanović’s house, and thereafter started beating them and singling out men, on which occasion they killed at least seven persons, including Safet Medanović, Hasan Medanović, Šefik Medanović, Izet Hadžić, Isak Mešić, Halil Medanović, Hašim Hadžić and Fatima Medanović. Then, they separated a number of men, including those who were underage, and took them on foot away from the village, while opening fire from various weapons at the women, children and elderly who remained in the yard, killing at least thirty of them, including Ramiza Jusić, Esma Mešić, Hadžira Medanović, child Indira Medanović, Azemina Jusić, Midheta Medanović, child Emira Jusić, Rabija Hadžić, Enesa Medanović, Hava Medanović, Rasema Brković, child Samira Jusić, Hilmo Jusić, Ferida Medanović, Nasiha Okić, child Nisveta Brković, child Amela Hadžić, Enisa Jusić, Karanfil Osmanović, Rufad Osmanović, Arif Medanović, child Mujo Medanović, Teufik Medanović, Nermin Jusić, Osman Jusić and Hajro Hadžić, who were later exhumed from a mass grave in Prhovo. They marched the men who were taken away from the village, in the direction of the Peći village, and on the way there killed at least 15 persons, including Ahmo Medanović, Tehvid Osmanović, Suad Hadžić, Zijad Hadžić, Suad Medanović, Ilfad Brković, Ekrem Hadžić, Ismet Mešić, Enes Medanović, Ćamil Medanović, Vahid Medanović, Senad Hadžić, Mehmed Dedić, Nedžad Jusić and Latif Jusić, who were later exhumed from the mass grave of Ciganska dolina. Those who survived were handed over to the police who beat them throughout the night, keeping them tied outdoors on the ground, as a result of which Sulejman Medanović died, while the others were transported to the premises of the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ. The survivors fled the village and were hiding in the neighboring villages and in the woods, where the search for the men who survived continued. They were arrested and imprisoned in the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ and the Public Security Station.

5. Starting from late May until the end of 1992 at least, the Ključ Battalion of the Territorial Defense, i.e. the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, with the police assistance, following the shelling of undefended villages and settlements of Ključ, populated by non-Serbs, undertook activities and continued with persecution and disarmament with the ultimatum to surrender all the weapons or the village would be attacked. Following the surrender of weapons they started with unlawful arrests and imprisonment of men in the Public Security Station or other facilities designated for that purpose, like primary schools, with killings, forcing people out of their houses, deportation and forceful movement of population, unlawful destruction and stealing of property not justified by military needs, destruction of 8

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

religious buildings, in as much as they:

a) After the shelling, the population of Pudin Han, Velagići, including the hamlets of Hađići, Vojići, Hasići, Nezići and others, scared senseless, were ordered to leave their houses and gather near the Community Center in Velagići; when several hundred women, children and men came in front of the Centre, they were ordered to go in front of the Ključ Public Security Station, and then they were stopped at a police checkpoint near ROPS, where some residents of the mentioned settlements had surrendered directly, from where a number of men were bussed to the Nikola Mačkić elementary school in Ključ, after they were robbed of their money, personal documents and personal belongings, while part of the population, men, women and children, who had been deprived of liberty at the check-point, were taken to the Šip warehouse where men were separated from the women and children, and then hours later the women and children were released but banned from returning to their homes until the Ključ authorities allow their return, while the men were registered and interrogated, and some of them were released to go home from there, while more than 200 of them were unlawfully deprived of liberty and imprisoned in the Nikola Mačkić elementary school in Ključ,

b) On or around 28 May 1992, with the task to mop up the villages on the route Pudin Han – Vukovo Selo – Humići – Plamenice – Prhovo – Peći, they expelled the Muslim population from their houses, threatening they would kill anyone who was hiding and who was hiding weapons, conducted searches looking for weapons that have not been turned in and men who were hiding, sent a group of men fit for military service for interrogation by the Police at the primary school in Humići. In Vukovo Selo they killed Šefik Čajić, while, in the presence of Marko Adamović and without any legal grounds, Hamer Ljutić and Muharem Ljutić were arrested on Ljutića Brdo and later found killed in a nearby woods,

c) In late May 1992, all men from Donja Sanica and Gornja Sanica, including the hamlets, were ordered to surrender weapons and come to designated places. Therefore, the men from Donja Sanica had to come to the former railway station in Sanica, from where, following interrogation, they were transferred to the primary school in Sanica, where men from Gornja Sanica were imprisoned without a legal basis, insulted by various curses, without the right to know why they were imprisoned, along with individual beatings, which created great fear among the imprisoned civilians, both for their destiny and the destiny of their families. On the following day, some of them were released and a large number of them transported to the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ,

d) Men, women and children of Muslim and Croat ethnicity from the city center 9

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

were ordered, via Radio Ključ, to gather at designated locations, such as the machine factory in Halinovsko Vrelo and the football stadium in Ključ, which they did out of fear for their lives. Afterwards, women, children and one group of men were released to their homes while the other group of men were interrogated about the possession of weapons, and, after the interrogations, a large number of men were released, while at least 6 of them, without any legal grounds and deprived of all rights, were imprisoned in the Public Security Station,

e) As of 26 June 1992, an attack was launched on the undefended Muslim villages of Ramići, Krasulje, the hamlets of Hripavci and Ošiljak, on which occasion the population was forced out of their houses, terrorized and intimidated by shots from fire weapons, curses and threats. On that occasion at least 21 civilians were killed, including Sabro Čarkić, Husein Čarkić, Derviš Čarkić, Sabit Husić, Safet Husić, Omer Husić, Teufik Husić, Ifet Vučkić, Smajo Kalabić, Mirsad Jukić, Šefik Delalović, Ibrahim Delalović, Rezak Đuzić, Remzo Đuzić, Hakija Đuzić, Sabit Salihović, Ajiz Fazlić, Esad Frmić, Mirsad Jamaković and Šukrija Bajraktarević. The men from Ramići who survived were brought to the primary school in Ramići, and men from Krasulje to the primary school in Krasulje, which is when Marko Adamović brought in Safet Sadiković and Edin Sadiković; following the registration and interrogation, at least 90 of them, who were unlawfully deprived of liberty, without any legal ground, were transferred to and imprisoned in the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ,

Therefore, within a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian population, with discriminatory intent, aware of such an attack and knowing that their actions constituted part of such an attack, as participants in a joint criminal enterprise with the objective to persecute the entire Muslim and Croat population on ethnic and religious grounds, they committed persecution by the actions described below:

 under Count 1) – murders, deportation and forcible transfer of population, imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, other inhumane acts of similar character, intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to physical or mental health, unlawful confinement to camps;  under Count 2) – attack against civilian population, settlements, individual civilians, which resulted in death, the shelling, using any means, of undefended cities, villages, residences or buildings,  under Count 3) – murder, imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, other inhumane acts of similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to physical or mental health,  under Count 4) – murder, imprisonment and other severe deprivation of 10

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, other inhumane acts of similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to physical or mental health; forcible transfer of population,  under Count 5a) – imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law,  under Count 5b) – murder and other inhumane acts of similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to physical or mental health, imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law,  under Count 5c) – imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, deprivation of rights to a fair and impartial trial,  under Count 5d) – imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, deprivation of rights to a fair and impartial trial,  under Count 5e) – murder, imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, deprivation of rights to a fair and impartial trial.

Whereby

They committed the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity referred to in Article 172(1)(h) of the CC of BiH, in conjunction with Article 180(1) of the CC BiH

Wherefore this Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, for the referenced criminal offense, on the grounds of the same legal regulations and Article 285 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and applying Article 39, 42, 42b and 48(1) of the CC BiH

S E N T E N C E S

The accused Boško Lukić TO A PRISON TERM OF 14 (FOURTEEN) YEARS

The accused Marko Adamović TO A LONG-TERM IMPRISONMENT OF 22 (TWENTY TWO) YEARS.

Pursuant to Article 56 of the CC BiH, the time the Accused spent in custody shall be credited towards the sentence imposed as follows:

- the accused Boško Lukić, from 20 March 2008 through 30 May 2011, and from the date of his arrest under the Decision of the Court of BiH No. S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk of 20 December 2013 onwards, 11

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

- the accused Marko Adamović, from 20 March 2008 through 24 February 2009, and from 20 December 2013 onwards

Pursuant to Article 284(c) of the CPC BiH, the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović are hereby

ACQUITTED OF CHARGES that:

From April 1992 until late December 1992, within a widespread and systematic attack of the Army of Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is, Republika Srpska, the police of the Ministry of Interior of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or Republika Srpska, directed against the Croat and Muslim civilian population of the Ključ Municipality, as participants in a joint criminal enterprise with a plan to undertake persecution of the Muslim and Croat civilian population of the Ključ municipality, the accused Boško Lukić, as the Commander of the Municipal Staff of the Territorial Defense of the Ključ municipality, and Marko Adamović, in the capacity of Deputy Battalion Commander of the Territorial Defense Ključ and Town Defense Commander, or Assistant Commander for Morale and Religious Issues of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade committed:

5. On 10 July 1992, after soldiers entered the undefended villages and hamlets of the Ključ Municipality - Donji Biljani, Botonjići, Domazeti, Brkići and Jabukovica, with the police assistance, they brought all men whom they found there without any legal ground to the premises of the primary school in Donji Biljani, where the police registered the captives, and then they were taken out and killed. Some of the men were loaded onto buses, taken in an unknown direction and killed, while some were hunted down and killed at various locations in the mentioned hamlets, on which occasion at least 219 persons were killed that day, including Najil Botonjić, Husein Dervišević, Džemal Omeradžić, Almir Jašarević, Aiz Dervišević, Rifet Botonjić, Osman Hodžić, Smajil Mulahmetović, Hazim Zukanović, Salih Zukanović, Nijaz Avdić, Zijad Domazet, Elvir Ćehić, Safet Džaferagić, Adnan Ćehić, Ćamil Botonjić, Feriz Botonjić, Jasmin Kapidžić, Ramiz Botonjić, Vehbija Džaferagić, Sabit Jašarević, Hamdija Mujezinović, Nedžad Ćehić, Zuhdija Botonjić, Muharem Mujezinović, Hilmo Botonjić, Bećir Kapidžić, Kemal Jašarević, Nail Mujezinović, Mehmed Domazet, Enes Jašarević, Avdo Balagić, Besim Jašarević, Fadil Domazet, Muharem Botonjić, Fuad Avdić, Asmir Domazet, Asim Mujezinović, Vehbija Balagić, Husein Botonjić, Enid Omanović, Elmedin Šušnjar, Aiz Botonjić, Derviš Domazet, Ahmet Džaferagić, Ismet Mujezinović, Raif Jašarević, Emsud Avdić, Suad Mešanović, Hajrudin Avdić, Omer Dervišević, Saudin Omanović, Rifet Domazet, Safet Domazet, Saim Botonjić, Hamid Domazet, Muharem Kuburaš, Feriz Avdić, Abid Balagić, Ale Ćajić, Smail Avdić, Zifad Mujezinović, Fikret Balagić, Sadik Botonjić, Hakija Avdić, Šefko Avdić, Hikmet Botonjić, Efraim Ćehić, Sulejman Ćehić, Šerif Pehadžić, Muhamed Mešanović, Sulejman Botonjić, Lejla Sinanović, Osman Mujezinović, Ahmo Ćehić, Husein Zukanović, Adil Hodžić, Muharem Avdić, Hamid Botonjić, Hamdija Domazet, Rasim Ćehić, Derviš Hodžić, Hamed Botonjić, Adil Omanović, Suad Ćehić, Suad Botonjić, Hilmo Omanović, Zijad Botonjić, Asim Ćehić, Sabahudin Botonjić, Nihad Kuburaš, Sabrija Botonjić, Hamed Domazet, Miralem Ćehić, Habir Avdić, Meho Domazet, Islam Domazet, Nail Avdić, Asim Avdić, Omer Omanović, Mujo Botonjić, Fadil Subašić, Nail Domazet, Asim Mešanović, Ejub Botonjić, Smajil Avdić, Nijaz Botonjić, Vehbija Botonjić, Izedin Subašić, Hamdija Džaferagić, Enes Avdić, Besim Avdić, Abid Hodžić, Teufik Ćehić, Omer Botonjić, Fahrudin Domazet, Nail Ćehić, Ibrahim Bajrić, Fuad Domazet, Emir Mujezinović, Elkaz 12

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Omanović, Mustafa Omanović, Džafer Botonjić, Latif Ćehić, Zuhdija Omanović, Abid Omanović, Samir Mulahmetović, Bego Jašarević, Abid Avdić, Salko Omeradžić, Omer Omanović, Azra Sinanović, Mehmed Džaferagić, Smail Zukanović, Besima Džaferagić, Hajrudin Domazet, Meho Šušnjar, Fadil Botonjić, Mesud Crnalić, newborn child Amila Džaferagić, child Almir Džaferagić, Abid Avdić, Sead Avdić, Refik Avdić, Nermin Avdić, Asmir Mešanović, Hamdija Botonjić, Ibrahim Avdić, Nail Botonjić, Mujaga Zukanović, Asim Domazet, Husein Domazet, Smail Mujezinović, Hamdija Ćehić, Hasib Mujezinović, Faik Domazet, Ćazim Botonjić, Sabit Šljivar, Asim Omanović, Tehvid Omanović, Šefkija Omanović, Pašo Omanović, Abid Džaferagić, Ejub Jašarević and Juso Jašarević, who were later exhumed from the mass graves Lanište I and Crvena zemlja,

6. d) They continued to raid the undefended villages and hamlets Gornja Sanica, Donja Sanica, Šljivari, Bašići, Botonjići, Domazeti, Gornji Budelj, Donji Budelj, Biljani, where they terrorized and intimidated population by shooting around the villages, searching houses and stealing property, torching buildings and killing at least 30 civilians, including Mehmed Harambašić, Bećo Čehić, Mehmed Konjević, Hašim Babović, Hazim Džafić, Rasim Omeragić, Derviš Kučuković, Edhem Keranović, Miralem Pehađić and his son Dinko Pehađić, Husein Kučuković, Šukrija Medić, Kemal Harambađić, Fikret Karađić, Ćamka Huskić, Mustafa Huskić, Supha Karađić, Avdo Karadžić, Vinc Horst, Ibrahim Šljivar, Fehim Šljivar, Rasim Bosnić, Ramiz Kožanjić, Smajo Šljivar, Ćamil Šljivar, Arif Šljivar, Emin Crnalić, Abid Botonjić, Mujo Šljivar, Muharem Šljivar, Hasan Fazlić, Osmo Lović and Bečić Mehmed, who were later exhumed from graves found in the mentioned settlements and identified,

g) Men, from the area of the Ključ municipality, who were collected in their settlements and villages, and imprisoned in the Nikola Mačkić primary school without any legal ground, having ran gauntlet made of Serbs, civilians, soldiers, women, citizens of Ključ, who were hitting them with various implements, were placed in a gym without any conditions for stay, where they sat on bare parquet floor, from where they were taken out for interrogation followed by beatings with the use of kicks, punches, various implements, rifle butts all over their bodies, required to confess that they were organizers of Muslim government or army, that they were preparing various crimes against Serbs or composed lists for their liquidation, with their basic human needs like food and personal hygiene restricted, without the right to a fair trial, which caused humiliation and violation of human dignity and created additional fear for their lives and the lives of their families. Afterwards one group was released home, while around 200 men were transported to the primary school in Sitnica, where they stayed for a couple of days on bare floor, without mats or blankets, without enough food or conditions for maintaining personal hygiene, in constant fear for their lives. They were lined up in a column, and walked for at least 20 km by a macadam road to the camp on Manjača. At least 1160 prisoners were transported to the “Manjača” camp on Manjača in various ways. Immediately upon arrival, Husein Delalović passed away, and Omer Filipović and Esad Bender succumbed to beatings. After the disbandment of the camp, in December 1992, prisoners were deported outside of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, while a smaller number were transported to the Batkovići camp in Bijeljina,

h) During and after a joint attack, settlements and villages inhabited by the Muslim and Croat population were systematically destroyed or damaged, including the Muslim part of the town of Ključ, Pudin Han, Velagići, Biljani, Plamenice, Prhovo, Krasulje, Crljeni and Sanica, as well as the property, including homes, business premises and outbuildings, while the movable property of those who were killed, imprisoned in detention facilities and camps and displaced from the municipality was looted in an organized manner, and then collected in war booty warehouses in an organized manner, and it was handled 13

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

following the instructions and under the control of the Municipal Crisis Staff, under the control of the police, while the population which was not deprived of liberty or imprisoned was displaced from the municipality area in an organized manner, having signed that they were permanently leaving the municipality territory on their own free will and that they were leaving all their property voluntarily to the authorities, as long as the municipality authorities considered that necessary,

i) On 8 August 1992, they forced all the inhabitants who had survived 10 July 1992 out of their houses in the hamlet of Botonjići, then separated at least seven men, two underage boys, and three women, and took them in the direction of the Kamen location. On the way there they killed old Abid Botonjić, and killed and burned the rest of them in Hilmo Botonjić’s barn, while the women and children who survived were expelled to the neighboring village of Crnalići,

7. Without military justification, in order to permanently prevent the return of the population and secure their expulsion from the Ključ municipality, in order to destroy traces of the existence of other religious groups, they undertook activities, mined and tore down the Catholic Church and mosques including: the mosque in Tičevići, the village of Velagići, the mosque in Krasulje, the new mosque in Velagići, the mosque in Biljani, the city mosque in Ključ whereby:

they would have committed the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity referred to in Article 172(1)(h) of the CC of BiH, in conjunction with Article 180(1) of the Criminal Code of BiH.

Pursuant to Article 188(4) and Article 189(1) of the CPC BiH, the Accused shall be relieved of the duty to reimburse the costs of criminal proceedings, which will be fully paid from within the budget appropriations of the Court.

R e a s o n i n g

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. The Amended Indictment of the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina No. KT-RZ-44/08, of 25 April 2011, charged the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović with the commission of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172(1)(h) of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CC BiH), as read with Article 180(1) of the same Code.

2. The Trial Verdict of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina No. S1 1 K 003349 08 Kri (with reference to X-KR-05/119) of 30 May 2011 acquitted the accused Boško Lukić 14

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

and Marko Adamović of the incriminations for the criminal offenses charged against them under the Amended Indictment.

3. The Decision of the Appellate Panel No. S1 1 K 003359 12 Krž 5 of 11 October 2012 granted the appeal filed by the BiH Prosecutor’s Office on the grounds of established essential violations of the criminal procedure provisions, wherefore the Trial Verdict was revoked and a hearing ordered before the Appellate Division Panel.

II. THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED

4. All the Prosecution and Defense evidence adduced in the first instance proceedings was accepted at the hearing held before the Appellate Panel, while the testimonies of certain witnesses were reproduced in the courtroom directly before the Appellate Panel.1

5. The Appellate Panel has also accepted all the facts established in Brđanin et al. No. IT-99-36-T of 1 September 2004, which were accepted under the Trial Panel’s Decision No. S1 1 K 003359 08 KrI of 27 March 2009 pursuant to Article 4 of the Law on Transfer of Cases.2

6. The Prosecution proposed no new evidence to be adduced.

7. The Defense for the accused Boško Lukić moved the Appellate Panel to admit into the case record 16 evidentiary documents enumerated in Annex 1 to the Verdict, and the Appellate Panel accepted it.

1 All the Prosecution and Defense evidence, subjective and documentary, is enumerated in Annex 1 to this Verdict and form an integral part thereof. 2 The established facts accepted in this criminal case are enumerated in Annex 2 to this Verdict and form an integral part thereof.

15

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

III. PROCEDURAL DECISIONS

A. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC

8. Having acted in compliance with the duty to keep in effect the protective measures granted to the witnesses in the first instance proceedings, including the exclusion of the public while the witnesses give evidence, the Appellate Panel excluded the public, in part, from the hearings held on 13 May and 14 May 2013, when the testimonies of the witnesses granted with such a protection in the first instance proceedings were reproduced.

9. The parties and the Attorneys made no objections to keeping such protective measures further in effect.

B. PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE WITNESSES

10. The Appellate Panel has accepted and kept in effect all the protective measures granted to the witnesses during both the investigation phase and the first instance proceedings.

11. Rule 75(F)(i) of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence stipulates that “Once protective measures have been ordered in respect of a victim or witness in any proceedings before the Tribunal, such protective measures shall continue to have effect, mutatis mutandis, in any other proceedings before the Tribunal and another jurisdiction unless and until they are rescinded, varied or augmented in accordance with the procedures set out in this Rule”. Applying this Rule, the Trial Panel of the Court rendered, on 9 March 2009, a decision to keep in effect, in the then matter of Vinko Kondić 3, Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović, the protective measures granted to the witnesses pursuant to the decisions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY):

12. The witness who testified before the ICTY in the Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, in closed sessions and under the pseudonym BT-26, and with the same measures testified mutatis mutandis in Prosecutor v. Momčilo Krajišnik under the pseudonym KRAJ-26, also testified at the hearing before the Court of BiH at the session closed for the public, under the pseudonym A.

3 The criminal proceeding relating to Vinko Kondić was subsequently severed.

16

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

13. The witness who testified before the ICTY in Prosecutor v. Momčilo Krajišnik, under the pseudonym KRAJ-188, with the image and voice distortion, also testified in the proceedings before the Court of BiH with the same measures – use of an electronic device for image and voice distortion, under the pseudonym B.

14. The witness who testified before the ICTY in Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević under the pseudonym B-1047 with the image and voice distortion, also testified in the proceedings before the Court of BiH with the same measures – use of an electronic device for image and voice distortion, under the pseudonym C.

15. Pursuant to the quoted provision, the protective measures were kept in force also in relation to the witness who testified before the ICTY in Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin under the pseudonym BT-79, by which he was addressed during the proceedings and which he also used out of the courtroom; the witness testified at the closed session; these measures may be mutatis mutandis applied in any other proceedings before the Court of BiH; in the case at hand, the witness testifies at the session closed for the public, under the pseudonym D.

16. All personal details of the witnesses testifying under the pseudonyms, their first and last names, constitute an official secret. Also, the addresses, places of residence, other identification data about the witnesses, as well as their earlier statements obtained from the ICTY shall be considered as official secret. The persons performing ex officio duties or who otherwise learn or come into possession of confidential information about the witnesses must keep such information confidential. Pursuant to Article 24 of the Law on the Protection of Witnesses under Threat and Vulnerable Witnesses (Law on the Protection of Witnesses), any unauthorized disclosure of such information is a criminal offence.

17. Under the same Decision, the Prosecution was ordered not to disclose to the Accused and their Defense teams the confidential information concerning the witnesses testifying under pseudonym. Pursuant to Article 12(8) of the Law on the Protection of Witnesses, the Prosecution must disclose to the Accused and their Defense teams sufficient information so that the Defense can make preparations to examine the witnesses, namely 15 days at the latest before the witness testifies at the trial.

18. It should be noted that the pseudonyms given to the witnesses do not amount to an amendment or reinforcement of the earlier ordered protective measures 17

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

because the type and nature of the measures ordered by the ICTY were not essentially changed, but rather differently marked for the purpose of these proceedings. The Court accepted no changes or modifications of the measures the witnesses had enjoyed before the ICTY, having held that such an action would be in violation of Rule 75(H) of the Rules on Procedure and Evidence.

19. Pursuant to the foregoing, while reproducing the testimonies of witnesses C and D in the proceeding before the Appellate Panel, the Panel applied the same measures granted to these witnesses at the earlier stages of the proceedings, that is, adopted from the proceedings conducted before the ICTY, under which they had testified at the man trial in the first proceedings. In relation to the witnesses A and B, whose testimonies were not reproduced at the hearing before the Appellate Panel, the Panel has protected their identity pursuant to the protective measures granted to them.

C. MAIN TRIAL ADJOURNED FOR LONGER THAN 30 DAYS

20. Article 251(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CPC BiH) stipulated that: “The main trial that has been adjourned must recommence from the beginning if the composition of the Panel has changed or if the adjournment lasted for longer than 30 days. However, with the consent of the parties and the defense attorney, the Panel may decide that in such a case the witnesses and experts not be examined again and that no new crime scene investigation be conducted, but that the minutes of the crime scene investigation and the testimony of the witnesses and experts given at the prior main trial be used instead”.

21. Article 317(1) of the CPC BiH stipulated that “Provisions that apply to the main trial in the first instance proceeding shall be accordingly applied to a hearing before the Panel of the Appellate Division”. Pursuant to both the above referenced Article and Article 251(2) of the CPC BiH, if a hearing before the Panel of the Appellate Division was adjourned for longer than 30 days, it must be recommenced.

22. A period longer than 30 days expired in the proceedings conducted before the Appellate Panel in this case, between the hearings held on 18 June and 20 August 2013, and the hearings held on 3 September and 7 October 2013. Due to the objective reasons apparent from the obligation of the BiH Prosecutor’s Office to use a collective annual leave, the planned annual leave of members of the Appellate Panel seized of the case and of the Accused’s Defense Attorneys, and due to the other objective circumstances, 18

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

adjournment of the hearing could not be scheduled within the statutory time-frame.

23. For the foregoing reasons, at the hearing held on 17 June 2013, when the dynamics of the trial for the upcoming period was to be planned, the Panel requested and received consent by the parties and the Defense attorneys that the adjournment of the hearing be scheduled after the expiry of 30-day deadline. The Prosecutor, the Accused and their Counsel stated they would not challenge, further in the course of the proceedings, the decision to adjourn the hearing before the Appellate Panel after the 30- day deadline expiry, nor would they require the recommencement of the main trial. On the basis of the foregoing, the Panel rendered, on 18 June 2013 and 3 September 2013, the decisions adjourning the main trial for longer than 30 days.

IV. CLOSING ARGUMENTS

A. PROSECUTION

24. Opening its closing argument, the Prosecution argued that sufficient evidence was presented to prove that the accused Marko Adamović and Boško Lukić committed the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity under Article 172(1)(h) of the CC BiH, as described in the Disposition of the Amended Indictment, and that all the elements of the criminal offense charged against them were satisfied by their acts.

25. The Prosecution argued that the only possible conclusion on the basis of the adduced evidence is that, not only that the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović were aware that such an attack existed in the territory of Ključ municipality, but also actively participated in the attack, and were highly positioned within the chain of authorities in the territory of the municipality in which they were active.

26. The Prosecution further referred to the elements of joint criminal enterprise (JCE). The Panel found that both actus reus and mens rea elements were proved in the way as set up by the case law. As to the first actus reus element, referring to the activities of the plurality of persons, the Prosecution considered it proved that Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović were members of the civilian and military structures of the Ključ municipality authorities, and that together with other members of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff and other representatives of both the civilian and military authorities in the newly established Serb Republic of BiH, they acted in furtherance of the common design policy

19

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

implementation.

27. As to the second element of the existence of common purpose or common intent, the Prosecution argues it was proved that, by the functions they held, the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović participated in the implementation of common purpose by committing the criminal offense.

28. With regard to the third element requiring the accused to participate in the implementation of common purpose by committing any of the criminal offenses stipulated by the law, the Prosecution’s view is that, by their acts and activities, the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović demonstrated the same line of thinking, and that they fully supported the decisions aimed at creating ethnically cleansed areas in the BiH territories.

29. The Prosecution deemed it proved that the Accused formed part of a joint criminal enterprise by being a part of the system functional within the Ključ municipality, established with a view to successfully implementing the strategic plan in the part of the Serb Republic BiH, where they formed the authority structures.

30. The Prosecution argued that the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović, together with other members of the Crisis Staff and supporters of the Strategic Plan implementation, promoted, participated and instigated the implementation of the policy to achieve the goal of the joint criminal enterprise, that is, forcible and permanent transfer of the majority of Muslim and Croat population from the municipality, within a widespread and systematic attack on the civilian population. According to the Prosecution, the adduced evidence showed that the Accused played a significant role in providing their support to and active participation in the activities of the Crisis Staff, which governed the Ključ municipality at the critical time, with a task to coordinate the implementation of the joint criminal enterprise goal.

31. In view of the foregoing, the Prosecution moved the Court of BiH to find the Accused guilty as charged and sentence them to a long-term imprisonment. As to the fashioning of the criminal sanction, the Prosecution argued that the high-ranking position of the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović, their persistence in and a large number of acts committed, resulting in the permanent consequences for the victims should be regarded as aggravating circumstances, including the facts that they were role-models for their soldiers, and that the victims of crime are still being deprived of information about the bodies of their beloved ones, which they certainly possess as the perpetrators of the 20

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

crimes committed in the territory of Ključ municipality. The Prosecution argued that the obvious lack of remorse on the part of the Accused and their conduct before the Court are particularly aggravating circumstances.

B. CLOSING ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENSE

1. Closing argument of the Defense for the accused Boško Lukić

32. Counsel for the accused Lukić submitted that, both in the first instance proceedings and the proceedings before the Appellate Panel, they had no objections to the fairness of the trial, that the equality of arms between the Prosecution and the Defense was fully satisfied, and that the trial was conducted in a fair and honest way.

33. Counsel further argued that it was not proved that the accused Boško Lukić indeed committed the crime in the form charged against him under the Prosecution’s Indictment. The Accused was charged with the most controversial form of liability, or the liability under the principle of JCE. The Defense argued that the foregoing was not proved in the concrete case. Counsel argued in his closing argument that it is possible and it has been known to happen that the perpetrators of the concrete crime, including the crimes committed in the territory of the Ključ municipality, remain unpunished owing to the referenced principle. Despite a large body of evidence with which the Defense was “swamped” in these criminal proceedings, the referenced principle does not apply to the concrete case, and the Prosecution failed to prove it.

34. According to Counsel, the Prosecution charged the Accused only on the ground of the function he performed during the critical period. Contrary to the Prosecution's theory, Counsel argued that the Accused was neither a member nor a supporter of the SDS, that he was appointed Commander of the Territorial Defense Staff only owing to his character and the fact that, from among several candidates for the function, he was given support by the SDA, and that his appointment to the function was legal.

35. Counsel further argued, contrary to the Prosecution's theory, that the Accused was not a member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff. Ultimately, even the Prosecution admitted in its closing argument that the referenced fact of the Accused's membership in the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff remained “unclear”, but that it was anyway irrelevant. The Accused’s Counsel submitted that the referenced fact, that the Accused was not a member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, is both relevant and very significant 21

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

for the issue of the Accused’s guilt, and that it should be considered in favorem of the Accused.

36. Truly, the Territorial Defense indeed became monoethnic by its composition. Counsel, however, argued that the blame for that could not be shifted onto the accused Lukić, and that such a development of the events resulted from the fact that members of the Bosniac4 and Croat peoples had left the TO on their own. The accused Lukić's activities as the Territorial Defense Commander were supervised by his Deputies, Muslims by ethnicity, who gave evidence in these proceedings using no abusive words for the Accused. All the foregoing only illustrates the character and personality of the accused Lukić.

37. Counsel argued that the Prosecution also failed to prove that the Accused possessed information about the events in the field. Such information did not reach the TO Staff, and the Accused only had information falling within scope of information ordinary citizens of Ključ could have had.

38. Contrary to the Prosecution's theory, the Accused's participation in the establishment of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade also remained unproved.

39. Counsel submitted that the Prosecution did not prove the existence of a widespread and systematic attack either. On the contrary, there was an armed conflict in the territory of the Ključ municipality, and witnesses Asim Egrlić and Senad Medanović, who was captured with an automatic rifle in his possession, confirmed that Muslims and Croats had also armed themselves.

40. Counsel also submitted that the testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses, Enes Salihović and Jusuf Omerović, were incorrect and untrue. Counsel highlighted the fact that these witnesses were minority in relation to a number of the other examined Prosecution witnesses who gave negative comments about the accused Lukić.

41. In view of the foregoing, Counsel added that the Prosecution failed to prove that the Accused committed the criminal offenses as charged, individually or with the intent to

4 As to the use of term Bosniak, the Panel finds it noteworthy that, at the critical period, the term was not commonly accepted, that it is historic, ethnical and cultural notion which has been equaled with members of the Muslim people. The relevant ethnic and national elements are contained in the term Bošnjak.

22

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

join anyone, or that he joined anyone. Counsel therefore moved the Appellate Panel to acquit the Accused of the referenced charges.

42. The accused Boško Lukić fully supported his Counsel’s arguments and stated he did not commit the criminal offenses charged against him.

2. Closing argument of the Defense for the accused Marko Adamović

43. Attorney Branko Gudalo stated in his closing argument that the accused Marko Adamović was not a criminal, and that he did not commit any of the crimes charged against him. Counsel therefore moved the Court to acquit the Accused of charges under all Counts of the Indictment.

44. Counsel submitted that the Indictment, upon which the main trial in the concrete case was conducted, addresses the JCE apart from all admissible standards because the Prosecution left at the Court’s discretion to select the type of JCE, and accordingly to determine both the elements of awareness and intent and members of the alleged JCE. According to Counsel, acting in such a way was inadmissible considering that insufficient explanation of the allegations in the Indictment was offered, which was of decisive importance for exercising the right to a defense.

45. With regard to the existence and implementation of the plan to commit crimes, it is clear that the crucial decisions and steps in implementing the plan to take over control and potentially establish a Serb state were made during 1991. Therefore, given the fact that the Indictment covered the period since April 1992, it is impossible to assert that, already at the time, the accused Adamović formed part of the structures which had made those decisions.

46. Counsel Branko Gudalo argued that, at the time covered by the Indictment, no widespread and systematic attack in the Ključ Municipality existed at all, and that this ensues from the evidence adduced by both the Prosecution and the Defense.

47. The Defense for Marko Adamović pointed to an undoubted conclusion that the Accused’s acts contained neither particular no general elements of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172(1)(h) of the CC BiH, as read with Article

23

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

180(1) of the CC BiH.

48. As to the individual charges described in the Indictment, it can be concluded based on the testimonies of a number of examined witnesses, including Ćerim Hrnčić, Nafo Smajić, Muharem Islamagić and many others, that according to the accused Adamović’s Counsel, the Accused had undertaken no acts that would form part of a widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population, being aware of such an attack, and of the persecution of any individual on racial, national, ethnic, cultural or any other grounds.

49. For the foregoing reasons, Counsel moved the Court to render a decision acquitting the accused Marko Adamović of all charges.

50. Counsel further referred to the issue of the law application. Counsel argued that the adopted CC SFRY is the more lenient law in relation to the accused Marko Adamović, and that Article 4 of the CC BiH unequivocally shows that the CC BiH applies only exceptionally, if it is in a concrete case more lenient than the law which was in effect at the time when the accused committed the offense. According to Counsel’s view, if the Court nevertheless renders a convicting verdict against the accused Adamović, the CC SFRY needs to be applied as the more lenient law.

51. The accused Adamović fully supported his Counsel’s arguments and stated he had not committed the criminal offenses charged against him.

V. STANDARDS OF PROOF

52. Pursuant to Article 281(2) of the CPC BiH, the procedure to render a verdict implies an obligation of the Court to conscientiously evaluate every item of evidence and its correspondence with the rest of the evidence. In this process, the Court is bound to take account of the fundamental principles set up in both the CPC BiH and the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms (ECHR), which pursuant to Article II.2 of the Constitution of BiH, has primacy over all national laws.

53. One of the fundamental principles of criminal proceeding, the principle of legality, aims at ensuring that no innocent persons should be convicted, and that the perpetrator of

24

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

a crime receives a punishment or other criminal sanction within the scope prescribed by the criminal code provisions.

54. In rendering this Verdict, the Panel particularly bore in mind the presumption of innocence, contained in Article 3 of the CPC BiH, which provides as follows: “A person shall be considered innocent of a crime until his/her guilt has been established by a final verdict”, and the principle of in dubio pro reo, provided for in Article 3(2) of the CPC BiH, which reads as follows: “A doubt with respect to the existence of facts constituting elements of a criminal offense or on which the application of certain provisions of criminal legislation depends shall be decided by the Court verdict in the manner more favorable for the accused.”

55. Ultimately, the principle of equality of arms, guaranteed under Article 14 of the CPC BiH, provides for the obligation of the Court to treat the parties and the defense attorney equally and to provide each with equal opportunities to access evidence and to present evidence at the main trial, as well as the obligation of the Court, the Prosecutor and other bodies participating in the proceedings to study and establish with equal attention facts that are exculpatory as well as inculpatory for the suspect or the accused.

56. The principle of free evaluation of evidence, provided for in Article 15 of the CPC BiH, which is applicable in our legal system, means that the finding of the Court that a decisive fact is proved or unproved is neither related or limited to special formal evidentiary rules. Pursuant to Article 281(1) of the CPC BiH, the Court shall reach a verdict solely based on the evidence presented at the main trial, and it is obligated to conscientiously evaluate the evidence in the way stipulated under Article 281(2) of the CPC BiH, as already indicated in para. 52 of the Verdict.

57. The Panel has rendered its Verdict fully in compliance with the referenced principles, and upon evaluation of all presented evidence of both the Prosecution and the Defense, subjective and documentary, bearing in mind the abundant evidentiary documentation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Panel could not refer to each item of the presented evidence individually in the reasons for the Verdict. Therefore, in rendering its Verdict, the Panel reviewed and evaluated each item of the presented evidence, but in the reasons for the Verdict it only referred to the items of evidence that were significant for the state of facts as established for both the existence of the criminal offense and the guilt of the Accused.

25

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

58. In the concrete case, the evidentiary documentation was to a large extent formed of the testimonies of the witnesses. Their evaluation and the evaluation of the witnesses’ credibility was therefore challenging for this Panel, as it would be for any other panel acting in a similar situation. In evaluating the witnesses’ testimonies, the Panel shall not a priori accept as true all that was stated by the witnesses, be it a statement incriminating or exculpating the Accused. A special attention must be paid to the evaluation of the witnesses’ testimonies, particularly the contents thereof, and to the overall impression left by the witnesses, their related conduct, voice tone, attitude, physical and emotional reactions to the questions posed, the witnesses’ attitude and behavior in relation to the parties and the Defense Attorneys. The Panel is under obligation to consider the witness’s testimony taking the account of the overall atmosphere in which he gives evidence.

59. This is particularly important in relation to the testimonies of both direct and indirect victims of the committed crimes, which are the subject of charges in this case. When the witnesses, who had experienced and survived any trauma, have to speak again about their experiences, they are being subjected to further traumatization. In such circumstances, one should be particularly careful when assessing the reliability of such evidence.

60. It is not only important that the witness’s evidence is given sincerely (the Panel first assumes that any witness, particularly after taking an oath before the Court, intended to testify honestly about the facts and the circumstances about which he/she possesses information), but that it is reliable too. A variety of factors affect the credibility of a witness’s testimony. Particularly important are one’s capacities to make observations, the instability of human perception, the elapsed period of time, the traumatic nature of the incident per se as well as the partiality of the witness. All the foregoing may result in the fact that the two witnesses, who had attended the same incident, view this incident from different psychological, physical and even chronological perspectives, and therefore give different evidence. Therefore, in evaluating the testimonies of the witnesses, the Panel compared the facts about which certain witnesses testified with the facts established by other witnesses, and the facts ensuing from the documentary evidence, and on the basis of such a comprehensive evaluation, drew the conclusion on the reliability of the testimony of a certain witness.

61. The Panel also notes that, evaluating the witnesses’ evidence, it has found that certain witnesses were sincere and reliable even to their own detriment. Certain 26

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

witnesses were sincere, but parts of their evidence were not convincing. The reasons for the foregoing vary from the witnesses’ limited perception and poor ability of observation, to the time effect, personal interests, and their interest in affecting the outcome of the proceeding, their loyalty to the Accused or bias towards either the Accused or the victims. As a result of the foregoing, the witnesses could draw certain conclusions about what they had indeed seen or heard. Nevertheless, there were instances when the Panel found that parts of the evidence of even such witnesses were unreliable, or that they contained precise observations on certain facts. In such instances, the Panel‘s view was that rejecting such testimonies in their entirety would not serve the interests of justice. Therefore, in respect of such testimonies, the reliability and accuracy of each fact or the circumstance about which questions were posed to the witness were evaluated.

62. The Panel has also compared the statements the witnesses gave at various stages of the proceedings, analyzed the statements given in the investigation, when certain discrepancies regarding the decisive facts were found in relation to the evidence from the main trial, and on the basis of such an evaluation concluded which evidence could be credited.

63. In addition to the witnesses’ statements in the concrete case, a large body of the documentation was tendered in the case record by both the Prosecution and the Defense for the Accused, which forms a segment of evidence important for proving the existence of the offense and the Accused’s guilt. The Panel has evaluated the foregoing evidence primarily in the light of Article 10 of the CPC BiH, which governs the matter of lawful evidence.

64. The Panel has evaluated the authenticity of the documents within the scope of all other presented evidence, such as the other documentary evidence and the testimonies of the witnesses.

65. Furthermore, even when the Panel was satisfied that the considered document was authentic, it did not automatically accept that the contents of these documents accurately presented the facts, but rather the reliability of the contents was evaluated in each concrete case individually.

66. In view of the foregoing, and bearing in mind the referenced principles set up in the national law, and Article 6(1) of the ECHR binding all courts to “point in sufficiently clear manner to the grounds on which they decision is made”, the Panel has made a 27

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

comprehensive evaluation of all the adduced evidence, to be presented further in the reasoning of the Verdict.

28

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

VI. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY

67. The Indictment of the BiH Prosecutor’s Office charged the Accused with committing the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity under Article 172(1)(h) of the CC BiH. The relevant part of the referenced Article reads as follows:

“Whoever, as part of a widespread or systematic attack, directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of such an attack perpetrates any of the following acts:

…

h) persecutions against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, sexual or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any offense listed in this Code or any offense falling under the competence of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina;

…

Shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not less than ten years or long- term imprisonment.

The notion of persecution per se is defined under Article 172(2)(g) of the CC BiH as follows:

“Persecution means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights, contrary to international law, by reason of the identity of a group or collectivity.”

68. The general elements of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity are 1) the existence of a widespread or systematic attack; 2) the attack is directed against any civilian population, and 3) the accused were aware of the attack and that their acts formed part of the attack (nexus).

A. WIDESPREAD AND/OR SYSTEMATIC ATTACK

69. The Appellate Panel has found, based on the adduced evidence, that during the period in relation to which the Accused were found guilty, that is, from April to late June 1992, in the territory of the Ključ municipality, there was a widespread and systematic attack of the army of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or the Republika Srpska, and the police of the Ministry of Interior of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and

29

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Herzegovina, or Republika Srpska, directed against Muslim and Croat civilians of the Municipality.

70. It suffices for the existence of the criminal offense of crimes against humanity to prove that the attack was either widespread or systematic because these elements are alternatively set up under the law. In practice, however, an attack often satisfied both these elements, such as in the concrete case, where the attack was both widespread and systematic, according to the Panel.

71. To better understand the reasoning of the Verdict, the Panel will first explain the characteristics of the two above referenced terms and what the notion of attack genuinely implies.

72. For the purpose of Article 5 of the ICTY Statute, an “attack” is described as a “course of conduct involving the commission of acts of violence”. In the context of Crimes Against Humanity, an “attack” is not limited to the use of armed force; it also encompasses any mistreatment of the civilian population...The attack could precede, outlast or continue during the armed conflict, without necessarily being part of it...“5 The phrase widespread refers to a large-scale nature of the attack and the number of targeted persons6. The Panel of this Court in Mejakić et al.7 has found that as factors of the widespread character of the attack the following should be taken into consideration: the consequences of the attack on the targeted population, the number of victims, the nature of the acts and the cumulative effect of a series of inhumane acts or the single effect of one act of a large scale.

74. The phrase systematic attack refers to the organized nature of the acts of violence and the improbability of their random occurrence. Therefore, as the ICTY concluded in Kordić and Čerkez8 Judgment, patterns of crimes – in the sense of the non-accidental repetition of similar criminal conduct – on a regular basis, are common expressions of such systematic occurrence.

5 Prosecutor v. Brđanin, case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Chamber Judgment No. IT-99-36-T, para. 131- referral to the Judgment in Kunarac. 6 Prosecutor v. Kordić and Čerkez, IT-95-14/2-A, Appeals Chamber Judgment of 17 December 2004, para. 94. 7 Trial Chamber Judgment of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Željko Mejakić (X-KR-06/2009 of 30 May 2008), para. 206. 8 Prosecutor v. Kordić and Čerkez, IT-95-14/2-A, Appeals Chamber Judgment of 17 December 2004, para. 94.

30

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

75. Pursuant to the international case law, the criteria to be considered in determining if an attack satisfied the requisite of a widespread or systematic nature, or both, are the following: (i) the consequences of the attack upon the targeted population, (ii) the number of victims, (iii) the nature of the acts and (iv) the possible participation of officials or authorities or any identifiable patterns of crime9.

(a) Widespread nature of the attack

76. Many witnesses examined at the main trial testified that the attack was directed against the Muslim and Croat civilian population, which occurred in the wider area of the Ključ municipality and its surroundings during April, May and June 1992. It can be concluded from their evidence that, in terms of its nature and the number of victims, the attack was widespread within its meaning under the quoted national and international case law.

77. As stated above, the attack itself “is not limited to the use of armed force, it also encompasses any mistreatment of the civilian population.”10 This Panel has concluded that the attack was first launched by members of the Territorial Defense and subsequently by the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, together with the police and other military and paramilitary formations, and that it was manifested through the variety of activities such as the apprehension of respectable citizens, disarming the Muslim and Croat population, searching their apartments and houses for weapons, restriction of movement, unlawful detention, prohibiting Muslims and Croats to work at their work posts, subsequent serious beatings, killings, shelling of undefended villages, destruction and setting on fire houses and religious buildings.

78. Heard at the main trial were witnesses who had, in the spring of 1992, resided in the town of Ključ and its surroundings. All these witnesses testified about tensions that rose among the population which was, up until that time, equal and unified; about tensions among nations; and about the subsequent hardships to which the Muslim and Croat citizens were subjected. In the Panel’s view, the Prosecution successfully proved that such events were preceded by the activities undertaken by the Republic higher levels authorities, the establishment of the Assembly of the Serb people in BiH in Sarajevo,11 the

9 Appeals Judgment in Kunarac, para. 95. 10 Vasiljević, Trial Chamber, Judgment of 29 November 2002, para. 29-30. 11 Exhibit T-132.

31

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

rendering of the decision on the Strategic goals of the Serb People of BiH12, the Instructions for the Organization and Activity of Organs of the Serb People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary Circumstances13. The Panel will refer to all these documents and events further in the Verdict, and this analysis will be restricted only to the evidence relevant to the conclusion that the attack which occurred satisfied all the characteristics of a widespread and systematic attack.

79. As it follows from the facts established in the ICTY judgments “The war and the secession of Slovenia and in particular of Croatia had a significant impact on the socio- political situation in BiH. From late summer 1991, many military aged men from BiH were mobilized to join the JNA in order to fight in Croatia. A large number of Bosnian Serbs responded, but Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, supported by their respective leaders, generally did not. This led to increased tension between the ethnicities, especially in the Bosnian Krajina region bordering Croatia.14 As from the autumn of 1991, another source of anxiety and stress for the people in the Bosnian Krajina was the demeanour of the soldiers returning from the battlefields in Croatia. These soldiers often behaved in a threatening manner towards Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats. They would insult people and fire their guns at houses, shops or religious buildings. In some municipalities, shops or private homes belonging to Bosnian Muslims or Bosnian Croats were blown up or set on fire. There were several incidences in which returning Bosnian Serb soldiers killed Bosnian Muslims.15 Many examined witnesses testified that, due to the increased anxiety and tensions in the town, the population started obtaining weapons. Witness Muhamed Filipović testified that, while the arming of Muslims and Croats was individual and sporadic, often by buying rifles from Serbs at the prices of up to DM 1000.00, the Serbs were armed in an organized manner with the arms originating from the JNA and the former Territorial Defense.

81. In April and May 1992, the Serbs took over the control in the town of Ključ. Witnesses Muhamed Filipović and Asim Egrlić similarly testified that, in the spring of 1992, the then authorities were removed from power, more precisely, the Serbs took over control in the town of Ključ on their own initiative. The specific situation regarding the national

12 Exhibit T-154. 13 Exhibit T-126. 14 Established fact I-3. 15 Established fact I-4.

32

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

structure of the town of Ključ (49% Serbs, 47% Muslims, 1 % Croats and 2% from among the ranks of Others according to the 1991 Census), resulted in a tight inter-ethnic structure in the Ključ Municipal Assembly, which mostly comprised representatives of the Muslim parties (SDA and MBO) and the Serb party (SDS), but in relation to the Muslims, the Serbs had one representative more and made all decisions by majority votes. In such a way, already in January 1992, a decision was made to merge the Ključ municipality with the Autonomous Region of Krajina (ARK)16 despite the fact that Muslim and Croat representatives voted against such a decision. Similarly, pursuant to the decision of the Assembly of the Serb People in BiH putting out of force all the insignia with the image of Josip Broz Tito, and of the former state in the town Ključ and introducing new Serb signs. Thus, witnesses Atif Džafić, Mustafa Lepirica and some other witnesses testified that instead of the former insignia on their uniforms, the police wore uniforms with the insignia of the Serb Republic of BiH, instead of the former caps with five-pointed stars, berets with the flag of the Serb Republic of BiH were used, all of which contributed to the feeling of discomfort created among the Muslim and Croat population.

82. As it ensues from the established facts: “In the spring of 1992, all employees in local Public Security Services (“SJBs”) and other public services were required to sign an oath of loyalty to the Bosnian Serbian authorities. Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats who refused to sign the declaration of loyalty were dismissed. Those who accepted to sign could remain within the service. However, by June 1992, the policy changed. To start, all non-Serbs holding managerial positions were fired and replaced by the Bosnian Serbs. Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats were dismissed from the judiciary, local enterprises, the media, hospitals, the police forces and the army. By the end of 1992, almost the entire Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat community had been dismissed from their jobs. Many people who showed up for work during this period were turned back and denied access to their workplace. Generally speaking, people were sent home, told not to come back, and then fired soon thereafter.”17 Furthermore, “By the end of 1992, {...} in Bosanska Krajina {...}, nearly all Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats had been dismissed from their jobs in amongst others, the media, the army, the police, the judiciary and public companies. Numerous crimes were committed against Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, including murder, torture, beatings, rape, plunder and the destruction of property. Villages were

16 Exhibit T-129. 17 Established fact II-18.

33

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

shelled, houses were torched and looted. In the spring of 1992, a number of detention camps where Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilians were arrested and detained en masse were established throughout the ARK. In several instances, mass killings of civilians took place. {...} tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats were forcibly expelled from the ARK by the Bosnian Serbs and taken in convoys of buses and trains to Bosnian Muslim held territory in BiH or to Croatia. {...}“18

83. Witness Muhamed Filipović also testified that “all non-Serbs” in the Ključ municipality ceased working on 27 May 1992, and that already 15-20 days prior to this date guards had been introduced at these work posts. Only Muslims and Croats were searched by guards in uniforms with the Serb insignia, while Serb employees passed without being searched and checked. Barricades had already been set up in the town. Despite the initial presence of Muslim police officers at these barricades, it was only a “cover” as they had no say in anything.

84. Witness Asim Egrlić also described such a development of the events in the Ključ municipality. Until 7 May 1992, witness Egrlić worked as the President of the Executive Board in the Municipal Assembly Ključ (SO Ključ), together with Jovo Banjac, who was the President of the Municipality. The witness explained that, already prior to this date, and despite the objections of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ Municipality, Serb signs and insignia were introduced, and spike strips and check points placed at the main intersections in the town and its surroundings, where Serb soldiers and members of the police were deployed, and which no one could pass without being announced in advance. On 7 May 1992, after coming to work, the witness was first searched by a doorman “who was new and uniformed”, and who told the witness that he had been ordered to search people. The witness entered the building and went to his office, but spent a short period of time there. Upon seeing that there was no place for him anymore, the witness went back home. Witnesses Hasan Salihović, Mirsad Puškar, Merima Filipović, Hadžija Bajrić and many others testified that, during the referenced period, Muslims and Croats stopped working at their work posts. Witness Fahrudin Ćemal testified about the way in which Serbs had taken control over the Ključ municipality. The witness stated that, even though Muslim citizens had already been facing problems, the Serbs took over full control on 7 May 1992. This was particularly obvious from the separation of the police, which had

18 Established fact II-20.

34

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

become exclusively Serb police. Muslims and Croats were forced out from their work posts, and they could not any more attend the sessions of the Ključ Municipal Assembly. Therefore, Muslims and Croats started organizing themselves in an attempt to form their own municipality of Bosanski Ključ at Pudin Han. Witness Atif Džafić, pre-war Police Commander, described the replacement of the authorities through the events in the Public Security Station where he had worked. On 7 May 1992, all active police officers of Muslim and Croat ethnicity were called for an interview, and requested to sign a loyalty statement, which implied giving a solemn oath which the Serbs employed with the police had already given, to replace their uniforms with new ones, with Serb three-color and “Police” insignia written in Cyrillic. After refusing to sign such a loyalty statement, the witness was sent on leave. Around 15 days after the witness’s and the others’ refusal to sign the loyalty statement, that is, on 22 or 23 May 1992, they were called for another interview, where they maintained their unchanged position. They were therefore relieved of their duties of police officers upon Vinko Kondić’s order. On or about 20 May 1992, guards at the check points already set up at the main intersections in the town and its surroundings were not mixed but rather monoethnic, comprised of Serbs. On his way back home, the witness saw military vehicles and soldiers on move. The witness’s wife also lost her job, and he too worked no more. The school year ended earlier. The witness therefore concluded that a conflict was inevitable, and that the safety of Muslims and Croats was jeopardized. Therefore, he went with his family to Sanica. In late May 1992, Serb soldiers, members of the reserve and active military force, arrived in Sanica and called men to join a convoy, to go with them for making agreement on their lives further on. The witness joined the convoy voluntarily, but anyway he had no choice because those soldiers were armed and kept their arms pointed at his family. The witness and the other men were taken to the Sanica Primary School, and ultimately detained at the Manjača camp.

87. Witness Luka Brkić also testified that he had lost his job in late May 1992. Shortly after an incident in Busije, soldiers and members of the police came to his house and searched it for weapons. The witness “put on his bed” a hunting rifle he had possessed. He was thereupon taken to the police for interrogation, beaten up there, and then together with a group of men from Ključ taken first to the Stara Gradiška camp and thereupon to the Manjača camp.

88. Witness Mustafa Lepirica, also a pre-war active police officer, consistently described the replacements that had occurred in the police station. In early May, the

35

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

witness was invited to a meeting, where Vinko Kondić, already wearing a new uniform with four “S” letters, told them the time had come when they had to decide who of them would stay and continue working. Witness Lepirica refused to sign the statement of loyalty to the new authorities, wherefore he was taken back to his house in Velečevo, to collect and hand over his weapons and to return his uniform. The witness stated that from that moment on, they lived in fear, and therefore hid in the woods. That is when the plundering of Muslim and Croat houses and the destruction of their property began. The witness was taken for interrogation and detained. He managed to leave Ključ in September of the same year. The movement of Muslims and Croats was restricted in the March-September period, while Serbs could move around freely, and they even had bus lines in function.

89. Witness Jusuf Omerović testified that the outbreak of war in Croatia had also affected the situation in Ključ and its surroundings. Serbs from the local community Sokolovo in which he had worked started going to frontlines in Croatia. Once these Serbs returned to their homes, they incited provocations in his settlement of Crljeni, inhabited by Muslims, with frequent night shootings. Any attempt to peacefully resolve the situation at the meetings failed, and provocations continued. Serb reservists, the men he had known very well and with whom he had worked for years, were already at the time uniformed and well-armed. They often provoked him, swore at him and showed him three-finger signs while he waited for bus to go to work. Such a situation continued until 26 May 1992, after which date his village was also attacked. The villagers thereupon escaped to the village of Plamenice. After being given various promises that no harm would be done to them, the witness and a group of men from his village surrendered to their Serb neighbors, whereupon they were detained in a camp.

90. Witness Hilmija Hamedović, retired employee of the MUP, CJB Ključ, testified that, on 9 May 1992, he was arrested in his own cafe-bar by the so called “red berets”, who had, according to him and other heard witnesses, appeared in Ključ in the spring of 1992, patrolled the town and caused fear among the Muslim population. According to the witness, on 9 May 1992 six members of the referenced formation “burst” into his coffee-bar searching for weapon. The witness handed over to them his pistols, for which he possessed regular licenses, and they captured him, brought him to a cell in the police building, and repeatedly beat him severely. The witness’s colleagues with whom he had worked stood guard in front of the cell where the “red berets” had locked him up, beat him up and “ill-treated him until they got tired”. The witness asked Ključ police officers, his

36

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

colleagues with whom he had worked, to help him. He was told that nothing was in their power, and that Chief Vinko Kondić, with whom he wanted to speak, could not receive him. After spending some time in the cells of the SJB Ključ, where he was brutally beaten, members of the “red berets” took the witness to a “small camp”, and subsequently to the Manjača and Batković camps.

91. Citizens of the town of Ključ testified that the “ethnic cleansing” started on 27 May 1992. The Serb military and the police began arresting Muslim and Croat men, first the most respected citizens of Ključ, 21 of them listed by their names in Section 1 of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict. Witnesses Muhamed Filipović, Asim Egrlić, Luka Brkić, Leopold Flat and some other testified about this incident in a detailed, convincing and consistent way. On the referenced day or a day after, Muslim and Croat citizens of Ključ were invited via Radio Ključ to report to certain points, or collection centers, where men were separated, interrogated and beaten. Muslim and Croat citizens of Ključ were ordered to leave open their houses and apartments. The Serb military and the police searched and ransacked their houses, while men were often taken to the CJB for interrogation. A certain number of men did not return home from the SJB. They were rather taken to the camps, or even killed.

92. Witness Hadžija Bajrić testified that, after 27 May 1992, it was unimaginable even to go out of the house, let alone to have a job. They were practically detained at their homes, while the police and soldiers with Serb insignia patrolled the streets. Many witnesses mentioned a “notorious” red van, owned by the SJB Ključ, which had patrolled around the town and its surroundings, and caused fear among the population. This is so because a large number of citizens of Ključ were taken by this van to various camps, or were killed.

93. Further testifying about the spring of 1992, the witnesses stated that the number of soldiers they saw in the Ključ territory and its surroundings increased continually. Witness Mirsad Puškar testified that, in May 1992, members of the reserve military force were interned in the Kopjenica House and at Lanište, and that they had ties with the local Serb population. Witness Puškar further stated that, from a far end of the village he had watched Serb soldiers passing by and “dragging the equipment, mortars, even an 82mm- mortar”, and settling at the Brežčice plateau, from which Pudin Han and Velagići were subsequently shelled; while soldiers took another road towards Vukovo Selo to “cleanse the terrain” as the other witnesses testified. Witness Fahrudin Ćemal testified that a TO 37

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

unit was dislocated to Lanište, that its Commander was Boško Lukić, and that Pudin Han and Velagići were shelled from this site in late May 1992. Witness Ibrahim Bajrić, formerly employed with the Šumarstvo Ključ Company as a tractor driver at Lanište, testified that, in February 1992, they were informed that soldiers would come and that therefore workers went on strike. Even though representatives of the leading Ključ parties, the SDS and the SDA, gave certain guarantees that the military would not come, it was not the case because around 100 Serb workers were issued with uniforms and supported the arrival of Serb soldiers at Lanište. Soldiers who came to Lanište were from Knin. The witness, however, stated that members of the TO, citizens of Ključ and its surroundings, had caused Muslims more problems. The witness explained that, in the meantime, the TO became a monoethnic Serb structure, and that from the New Year 1992 onwards, Muslims were rarely called up. Ultimately, in the spring of 1992, when members of the TO came to Lanište, the TO was already monoethnic, comprising Serbs only.

94. The population in the surrounding villages of the Ključ municipality, mostly or exclusively inhabited by Muslims, described the beginning of the attack on their villages by the Serb military and the police in the spring of 1992. They all consistently described the situation as it had developed.

95. Witness Enes Salihović stated that, prior to 7 May 1992, he had lived in the MZ Velagići and that the police were multiethnic at the time. A part of the Muslim population, mostly women and children, had already left the village as they had felt uncertain. Able- bodied men who had stayed in Velagići stood night guards attempting to protect the safety of the remaining population in Velagići. Tensions in the place were running high as columns of people from Serbia, Croatia, and domestic ones with extremist behavior, were passing through the village, and opening fire at the religious facilities. That same column eventually came back, from which the witness concluded they were not intended to go to the Croatian frontlines at all, but rather to “spread fear” in the villages inhabited by Muslims. They could not leave Velagići as they had heard that military fit Muslim men were separated at check points. The situation worsened during the period from 7 to 27 May 1992, and an open conflict broke out on 27 May. The new Serb authorities requested them to surrender their weapons, which they did, whereupon men surrendered of their own free will. Instead of being transferred to the free territory, as promised, the men were detained at collective centers where they were beaten severely. They were subsequently transferred to the camps in Stara Gradiška, Manjača or Batković, and subjected to a

38

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

variety of torture and ill-treatment.

96. In 1992, witness Ekrem Čehić lived in the village of Vojići, which formed part of the MZ Velagići. The witness almost identically described the situation in the village in the spring of 1992. First, check points were set up where the villagers, including his brother, stood guard. At the beginning, guards were ethnically mixed, but subsequently members of Red Berets arrived. The Serbs took over, his neighbors were ill-treated at Lanište, his brother was expelled from the police. The witness felt insecure and therefore bought a rifle from a JNA reservist. Some time in May, however, villagers were via Radio Ključ invited to surrender their weapons, which they did. Despite that, the MZ Velagići was shelled, and they fled to Nezići. Men from the MZ Velagići were again, via Radio Ključ, invited to come and collect free movement passes. However, soldiers stopped them at the Rejzovići check point, loaded them onto buses, escorted to the Nikola Mačkić primary school, where they interrogated them, seized money and gold from them and ultimately beat them. Witness Čehić stated that they were “mostly interrogated by their fellow citizens from Ključ who were most responsible for the beatings they received”. The witness was subsequently transferred from the Nikola Mačkić primary school to Manjača.

97. Witness Ramo Duranović, a religious official from Velagići, also testified that the population was called via Radio Ključ to surrender their weapons, ordered to report at certain collection points, and prohibited from returning to their village. Witness Duranović stated that, when they were ultimately allowed to come back to the village, they found their houses and the mosque torched. The only possibility to leave the Ključ municipality was only if they gave a statement at the police station that they would leave behind all their property. The witness also testified that certain villagers of Muslim ethnicity in the village were killed.

98. Once witness Ibrahim Bajrić ceased working at the Lanište forest farm, he lived in Rejzovići with his wife and three minor children. The witness believes it was on 29 May 1992, when they were ordered, via Radio Ključ, to report to the factory and leave their houses unlocked in order to be searched. They had to report inside the factory where members of the TO stood guard. Women and children were released to go home, and a certain number of men were kept there. Some of these men were beaten, and thereupon taken to the cells in the police station. From there, some of these men, including the witness, were first taken to the Stara Gradiška camp, and subsequently to the Manjača

39

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

camp.

99. Muslims from the other villages inhabited by Muslims were also taken to and detained in the camps. Witness Mirsad Puškar testified that, once soldiers with the artillery deployed at the Brežčica plateau above his village, from where Pudin Han and Velagići were shelled in late May, they never returned to the village along the same road they came there, but rather proceeded further from Brežčice along the other road towards Vukovo selo and Prhovo.

100. The villagers of the referenced and other villages, who had come across soldiers on the road, described their passing by and the related events. The village of Vukovo Selo, inhabited by the Muslim population only, was the village to which many citizens from the Kjuč suburb areas and the other villages fled because there was a cave nearby. According to witness Ajiz Bečić, they believed they would find a shelter against shells thrown at his village of Hadžići. The inhabitants of Pudin Han believed the same, as they had been shelled first. Witness Zaim Smajić testified that, attempting to save themselves and their families, some 30 of them went to (the village of) Vukovo Selo, with a plan to stay there for a couple of days until the situation calmed down. Following the shelling of Pudin Han and Velagići, however, soldiers went towards Vukovo Selo to “cleanse the terrain”. Villagers of Vukovo Selo and those who had fled there, like Zaim Smajić, described the event of soldiers passing through the village, and particularly strong feeling of humiliation and fear caused by the threats they made and random killings they committed on that occasion.

101. Witnesses Zaim Smajić and Mimka Brkić consistently testified that, in late May, soldiers passed through Vukovo Selo and ordered its villagers to come out of their houses and line up with their hands lifted above their heads. Witness Mimka Brkić described the fear she felt when soldiers threatened them that they would “kill them all”, or when one of the soldiers, after requesting her disabled brother to hand over to him weapons her brother did not possess at all, punched him so fiercely that he “fell over the fence” and asked him “why did he run away”. Particularly memorable was an incident which raised fear in the villagers of Vukovo Selo, that is, the murder of young man, Šefko Čajić, immediately in front of them, several meters away. The referenced witnesses described this incident in a consistent manner. The villagers were further ordered to hoist white flags on their houses, while those who had come to Vukovo Selo from the surrounding villages were requested to return to their villages with white flags. Inhabitants of the villages through which soldiers passed further along their way, like the Humići village and the hamlets of 40

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Jodanovići, Krantići and others, were treated almost identically like the inhabitants of Vukovo Selo. Witnesses Bedrudin Brkić and Salko Krantić stated that after their arrival, soldiers ordered them to surrender, put their hands above their heads and line up. Some men were singled out and beaten. Villagers were thereupon allowed to return to their homes and threatened that if they turned around, soldiers would come after them.

102. The villagers of Plamenica, including Muharem Islamagić, testified that, during May, Serb soldiers first passed through his villages searching for their weapons. Several days after the collection of weapons, a “hunt” after men started. Men were rounded up, taken to a school with their hands behind their heads. No harm was done to the witness at the time, but a red police van from Ključ took 17 villagers from his village for interrogation. After several peaceful days, the shelling started and all the villagers from his village fled to (the village of) Humići, only to find their own village levelled down upon return from Humići. Nevertheless, they stayed in their village but not for long, because several days later the police came from Ključ, took the men to a school in Humići, beat them and thereupon detained them at the Manjača camp.

103. Several villagers of Prhovo19 were heard at the hearing. Prhovo is a Muslim village in the Ključ municipality which suffered heavy damage. All these witnesses consistently testified that soldiers had arrived in the village and searched their houses for weapons; apprehended the villagers, men, women and children and lined them up in the village center; sent an ultimatum to those who had earlier escaped to the woods that the remaining population in the village would be killed unless they returned; beat the men and randomly torched houses. After soldiers had left the village, the population continued living in an illusion of peace. After a couple of days, however, soldiers came back to the village and carried out the executions described in Section 4 of the enacting clause of the Verdict. A large number of villagers of Prhovo were killed, certain number of able-bodied young men apprehended to detention facilities and subsequently to the camps. Attempting to save their lives, a certain number of villagers fled to the neighboring villages inhabited by Muslims.

104. According to the testimonies of the witnesses who had lived in the village of Sanica, one of the villages in the Ključ municipality with the majority Muslim population, in

19 The testimonies of witnesses Sadeta Medanović, Nermina Medanović, Alem Hadžić, Hamid Hadžić, Kana Međić and Nevres Mešić.

41

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

April, May and June 1992, it also had a very similar destiny like the other areas inhabited by Muslims. Witnesses Atif Džafić and Ismet Kujundžić consistently described the arrivals of the military and the police in the village. Witness Kujundžić stated that they first searched for the weapons, and then called out men to march in a column towards the Sanica Elementary School where they were interned in a gym. Witness Džafić stated that despite the fact that he had joined the column voluntarily, the weapons were pointed at his family so that, in fact, he had no choice. Many men who had been brought to the Sanica Elementary School were escorted to the Nikola Mačkić primary school, and thereupon killed or taken to the Manjača and Batković camps. Just a few of them returned to their homes because they received certificates, as described by witness Huso Crnolić. Despite this fact, however, they could not continue the life they had lived up until that moment. Due to their constant feeling of fear, they looked for the way to leave the Ključ territory. They could do it only if they made a statement waiving all their property. Witness Crnolić stated that, on 28 August 1992, he gave a statement that he “voluntarily waived all his property, that he would voluntarily leave the area and that he would not incriminate anyone”. After this, he was allowed to go to the free territory.

105. In the Panel’s view, all the foregoing are the circumstances relevant for conclusion that the attack in the territory of Ključ municipality was widespread in nature. The attack covered a wide area of the Ključ municipality, its urban downtown, the suburbs and all the villages and the hamlets inhabited by Muslims in the Ključ municipality. In addition, with the adduced evidence (Regular combat reports of the Command of the 1st Infantry Brigade, command post20 and the 1st Krajina Corps of 28 and 29 May 199221), the Prosecution also proved that the attack was not limited only to the territory of the Ključ municipality, but also involved the other areas of Bosanska Krajina, such as the municipalities of Sanski Most and Prijedor. Severe beatings, killings, unlawful confinement, and inhuman treatment of several thousand civilians, or tens of thousands of people considering those who were forced to leave their homes,22 including the number of victims, show that the element of widespread nature of the attack, as an underlying element of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity, was satisfied.

20 T-161. 21 T-162. 22 See Established fact II-20 „...tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats were forcibly expelled from the ARK by the Bosnian Serbs and taken by convoys of buses and trains to Bosnian Muslim held territory in BiH or to Croatia...“.

42

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Systematic nature of the attack

When it comes to the systematic nature of the attack, the presented evidence, particularly analyzed testimonies of the heard witnesses, showed that the attack followed a pattern characteristic for all the territories wherein it was launched. By taking control over the Ključ municipality, which had become Serb municipality exclusively, preconditions for launching such an attack were created. First, the Serb population was armed and wore uniforms with a new state insignia; the signs and symbols on the main institutions were changed; the movement of Muslims and Croats was restricted; propaganda activities were launched via Radio Ključ, to which the prefix “Serb” was also attributed; and houses were searched for weapons. Ultimately, also carried out were the actions of apprehension, beating, unlawful detention and killing of the population. In relation to disarmament of the population, the established facts showed that “the decisions of 4 and 9 May 1992 on disarmament were expressly directed at ‘paramilitary formations’ and ‘individuals who possessed weapons illegally.’ On 18 May 1992, the ARK Crisis Staff further clarified which individuals had to be disarmed: all formations that were not within the Army of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or Banja Luka Security Services Centre in the Autonomous Region of Krajina shall be considered paramilitary formations and must be disarmed.”23 The heard witnesses testified, in a detailed and convincing manner, that the disarmament was exclusively related to Muslims and Croats who possessed weapons, or who had obtained it in some other way. Particularly convincing was the testimony of witness Fahrudin Ćemal.24 The Prosecutor asked the witness “whether the population of Kopjenica was requested to hand over the weapons”, and he responded: “No, they did not request it, why would they request it ... That is, Kopjenica also forms part of the Velagići Local Community where Serbs also had lived”. Undefended Muslim villages were shelled and the houses and religious facilities torched. Ultimately, the villagers who had not been taken to camps, or who were not killed, were forced to leave their homes and face uncertainty, to go abroad or to the other territories in BiH that were not under the Serb control provided that, before leaving, they signed statements waiving their whole property in favor of the Serb Republic of BiH.

23 Established fact II-16 and Exhibit T-139 Conclusions from the ARK session held on 18 May 1992. 24Transcript from the main trial in the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 29 April 2008, the testimony of witness Fahrudin Ćemal, p. 22.

43

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

106. In the Panel’s view, all the foregoing indicates that, in addition to being widespread and systematic, the attack also implied an organized nature of the acts of violence, carried out pursuant to a certain pattern, against the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality and the wider area, wherefore it was systematic in nature.

(b) The attack was directed against the civilian population

107. All persons against whom the attack was directed were civilians. None of the heard witnesses testified that they wore any uniform or had any weapons on them when they were arrested or taken to camps. All these witnesses were mostly forced out of their houses in civilian clothing. They offered no resistance and they were not armed. The fact that some individuals possessed weapons does not bring into question the civilian status of the targeted population because they were not involved in any military activities when they were arrested, they handed over their weapons voluntarily, and they were not organized in any combat formations, except possibly in the village guards in which individuals participated but which were of no combat formation character.

108. The testimonies of the witnesses show that civilians, rather than a strategic military goal, was the target of the attack; that the settlements mostly inhabited by Muslims and Croats were shelled, their houses destroyed and torched and the mosques levelled down; and that the civilian population in those places was killed, sometimes entire families, and the men who had been captured at the time or who surrendered were taken to the collection centers and camps. Certainly, all the foregoing was not a legitimate military target. In the Panel’s view, the individuals referred to in the enacting clause of the Verdict, the victims of the crime, both those who were arrested, captured and taken to the camps and those who were killed, were undoubtedly civilians. Many of the witnesses testified that, as a result of the artillery attack on Pudin Han and Velagići, 9 civilians were killed, including several women and a child; in the attack on Prhovo, civilians, including several women or children, were killed. According to the witnesses, at least two minors were in a column of men from Prhovljani which was taken under escort towards Peć. When soldiers passed through Vukovo Selo, they killed a young boy Čehić, age 15, who undoubtedly was not an able-bodied man, or a member of any military formation.

109. Therefore, the civilian Muslim and Croat population was the primary target of the attack.

44

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

110. In determining the status of victims, the Panel first referred to common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which, pursuant to Annex 6 to the Dayton Peace Agreement, applies in the national legislation, and which pursuant to the ICTY’s case, forms an integral part of common law. The referenced Article defines the conditions under which individuals enjoy the protection of the Conventions and specifies that civilians are: persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and those placed hors de combat.

111. Based on the adduced evidence, the Panel has found beyond a doubt that all these persons enjoyed protection under common Article 3 of the Conventions at the time when they were arrested and detained at the specified facilities. The Panel bore in mind that these persons were deprived of liberty mostly by being forcibly taken away from their homes, or were invited to voluntarily report and come to the sites designated as collective centers, under the excuse of reaching agreement on the way of life, surrender of weapons or receiving licenses for free movement. They were then taken to the camps. None of the arrested persons was uniformed, or had any weapons, or took any active participation in any hostilities. Since common Article 3 of the Conventions provides absolute protection to civilians, and considering that they cannot be a target of any attack under any conditions, there is no doubt that the acts directed at their unlawful arrest and detention, the beatings, killings and all other acts taken within the attack on the referenced population, did not have the character of a legitimate military target.

(c) The Accused were aware of the attack and that their acts formed part of the attack

112. An analysis of the psychological relation (mens rea) of the Accused towards the committed offense, at the time when the referenced criminal offenses were committed, as the ICTY found in Kupreškić et al.25, should be limited to the determination of (1) the intent to commit the underlying offense, combined with (2) knowledge of the broader context in which that offense occurs. Therefore, in order for this essential element of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity to be satisfied, it should be proved not only that the perpetrator had the intent to commit a criminal offense or offenses underlying the crime, but also that he must have known that his acts comprise part of a pattern of widespread or systematic crimes directed against a civilian population, and that his acts fit into such a

25 See the decision of the Trial Chamber in Kupreškić et al., 14 January 2000, para. 556.

45

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

pattern26. The accused need not know the details of the attack or approve of the context in which his or her acts occur.27 It suffices that the accused must understand the general context of his act28.

113. The Panel has found that the Accused had knowledge of the attack and that their acts formed part of the attack. The Panel has so concluded upon considering this aspect of awareness and taking into account both the functions the Accused held at the critical time, and their acts undertaken directly in the field.

114. The accused Lukić did not contest through his defense that, although already retired in December 1991, he assumed the function of Commander of Territorial Defense Staff in the Ključ municipality. Contrary to his Defense’s theory, the Panel found proved that he had become a member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff formed by the SDS municipal organization, and that he had played an active role at the Crisis Staff meetings, and thereby in the policy-making for the new Serb authorities in the municipality, considering that the Crisis Staff was the highest body of the municipal authorities from the spring 1992 onwards. In addition, in late May and during June 1992, in the capacity of the TO Battalion Commander, which formed part of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade (17.Libr), the accused Boško Lukić undertook activities in the field and directly participated in the attack on the civilian Muslim and Croat population.

115. The basis of the accused Lukić’s defense was the theory that he was not an active member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, that he had attended several meetings merely to obtain information about the situation on the ground, but only within his domain relating to the material and technical equipment (MTS), that he had not attended the crucial sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff where the positions relating to the security situation in the Municipality and the strategic goals of the Assembly of the Serb people in BiH, as well as on the town defense command, were decided on. The Accused also denied he had been present on the ground with any units.

116. The Panel, however, did not find proved such a defense of the Accused. Upon analyzing the ample evidence adduced at the hearing, individually and in combination, the

26 Appeals Judgment in Tadić, para. 248. 27 Trial Judgment in Limaj, para.190. 28 Ibid. Referral to the Trial Judgment in Kordić, para.185.

46

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Panel drew quite the opposite conclusion about the Accused’s role and acts during the critical period.

117. The accused Lukić denied being a member of the SDS and, along this line, presented evidence in the proceedings before the Appellate Division Panel (List of members of the OO SDS and IO OO SDS Ključ, with the record of attendance at the meetings of the referenced bodies)29. Even though the Accused’s membership in the SDS was not proved beyond a doubt, the records from the sessions of the SDS Municipal Executive Board (IO OO), during the first half of 1992, that is, after the Accused’s appointment as the TO Staff Commander, undoubtedly confirm that he had attended the referenced sessions and played an active role therein, regardless of whether he was formally a member of the party itself or not. In addition, the records from the sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff confirmed beyond a doubt that, during the critical period, the Accused had played an active role in the activities of the highest authority body.

118. In the Panel’s view, the record from the session of the SDS Municipal Board of 24 October 1991 shows that the appointment of the accused Lukić to the referenced position was not accidental, because already at the time, Veljko Kondić, President of the OO SDS Executive Board, informed the attendees that “Boško Lukić had been interviewed and that he accepted full cooperation and appointment as the Ključ TO Staff Commander”30. The foregoing confirms the Prosecution’s theory that the earlier Commander of the Ključ Staff Commander, Dušan Petrović, had not ceased performing this function due to the expiration of his mandate, as the official documents indicated31, but rather because he was not a person loyal to the SDS, and obviously did not accept the “full cooperation” as the accused Lukić did. The foregoing was also confirmed by the testimony of witness Enes Mršić, who had been employed with the TO Staff until 7 May 1992. Witness Mršić testified that Dušan Petrović had been removed because he was not an SDS member, and that Lukić Boško assumed his post32. That loyalty to the party was crucial for the appointment to the referenced position ensues from the further course of the session where, already at the time, an issue was raised as to whether the Accused was a

29 AO-13 – the same documents were also tendered as the Prosecution's Exhibits T-89 and T-90. 30 Exhibit T-209 Record from the 5th session of the OO SDS Executive Board of 24 October 1991. 31 Exhibit T-206 Proposal for appointment of the TO Ključ Staff Commander recommending the accused Lukić for this post of 15 October 1991. 32 Testimony of witness Enes Mršić at the main trial, transcript in the case No. X-KR-5/119 of 26 April 2010, p. 11.

47

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

member of the SDS, or otherwise, his non-membership would cast doubt on the trust in him. Ultimately, the meeting resulted in Lukić being proposed as Ključ TO Staff Commander. His activities at the future sessions, regardless of whether he had formally signed up and became a member of the party, confirm that he had acted along the line of the party’s policy implementation. As it ensues already from the record made at the following session of the OO SDS Ključ Executive Board33, it was decided that the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff be established pursuant to the Instructions for the Organization and Activity of Organs of the Serb People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary Circumstances, and, among others, a president of the TO Staff was also appointed to the Crisis Staff. At the same session, after deciding to form the TO Crisis Staff and to automatically include the TO Staff Commander in this newly established body, it was also concluded that a decision removing the earlier TO Commander, Dušan Petrović, from the function, shows that this body of the new authorities could not include just anybody. A decision of the Republic body appointing the accused Lukić to the referenced position was issued on 24 December 1991. According to the Accused, he received it on 26 December 1991. From this date on, the Accused played an active role in the implementation of the SDS policy which he had earlier consented to support and implement, that is, he “accepted full cooperation” as Veljko Kondić had stated.

119. The Prosecution’s evidence (to be particularly addressed in the reasoning of the JCE concept within which the Accused were also active, according to the Panel’s findings), showed that the organization of the attack on the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality, in fact, had started at the SDS sessions and continued at the meetings of the Municipal Crisis Staff, pursuant to the instructions issued at the sessions of the Serb people of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the SDS Main Staff, whose extended hand throughout the former Socialist Federative Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina were exactly the Crisis Staffs of the new established Serb autonomous regions, including the Autonomous Region of Krajina, and subsequently the municipal Crisis Staffs established by the SDS, including the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff.

120. The Panel has examined the contents of records from the sessions of the OO SDS of the Ključ municipality34 and the records from the meetings of the Ključ Municipality Crisis

33 T-210, Record from the 6th session of the OO SDS Executive Board of 23 December 1991. 34 T-209 through T-219.

48

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Staff,35 and clearly concluded that those bodies carried the heaviest burden in terms of organizing the attack. Specifically, at the meetings of the OO SDS held in late 1991, at the time when Boško Lukić was still not officially appointed the TO Staff Commander, but when an interview had been made with him and a formal decision resolving this matter was pending, the need for weapons, training of reservists and organization of the TO “to be able to carry out all tasks“36 had already been discussed. Having received the decisions appointing him to the function of the TO Staff Commander, the accused Lukić attended several meetings of the OO SDS. It ensues from the accused Lukić’s presentations at the IO OO SDS sessions that he attended, and subsequently from the sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, that despite his non-attendance of the session of the IO OO SDS discussing the formation of TO units in the Municipality and the security situation in the municipal territory, the Accused accepted, followed and further implemented all the decisions rendered along this line. At the session held on 23 December 1991 discussed were the issues of the TO organization. It was concluded that the TO had to be made capable of carrying out all tasks, and that all TO-related issues, including the removal of the earlier commander and the deployment of around 400 men at the frontlines as the basis to request weapons at the meeting with General Talić, had to be completed no later than 10 January 1992. The record from the session of the OO SDS of 22 January 199237, shows that the accused Lukić had, already at the time, undertaken the activities to establish the TO pursuant to the set up instructions, and that, after it was noted that the TO had to be manned based on ethnic composition, the accused Lukić stated that the manning of TO in the MZ (local communities) had to be carried out separately due to the specific nature of each area. The record of the 8th session held on 6 March 199238 shows that the accused Lukić was actively involved in the organization and training of men within the TO, because after Veljko Kondić’s address the Accused briefed the attendees in detail about this item of the agenda. The session held on 23 March 1992, where it was inter alia noted that the TO weapons had been removed, shows that the organization, training and finding solutions to improve the professional capability were discussed in detail. Ultimately, at the session held on 30 March 1992, Lukić himself stated that “all non-engaged men needed to be engaged...and activities needed to be undertaken at any place”. The Panel has presented all the foregoing with a view to seeing a big picture of what had preceded

35 T-229, T-231. 36 See Exhibit T-210-Record from the 6th session of the IO OO SDS of 23 December 1991. 37 T-218.

49

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

the attack itself on the non-Serb population. Therefore, the acts of armament, training of men and organization of the TO, which had in the meantime become monoethinc, were actively undertaken and the accused Lukić obviously played an important role therein.

121. If the referenced activities relating to the TO organization were viewed in isolation from the other evidence, it could be possibly said that the Accused acted within the scope of powers vested upon him by the function to which he had been appointed. Correlating the referenced evidence with all the subsequent events, however, clearly shows that all the foregoing was carried out with the aim to carry out the attack. As it ensues from the testimonies of the witnesses heard at the man trial (to be addressed in more detail in the explanation of the charges in the individual Sections of the convicting part of the Verdict), members of the TO, together with members of the police and the military, actively participated in the disarmament of the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality, captured and escorted them to the CJB Ključ, where a large number of citizens of Ključ were subjected to severe beatings, and to the sites marked as collective centers. They also participated in securing the men who had surrendered at these places, and subsequently in the attack itself, shelling from artillery weapons and cleansing the wider area of the Ključ municipality.

122. As stated above, the Panel did not find proved the Accused’s defense directed at proving that he was not a member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff. That the accused Lukić was indeed a member of the Crisis Staff first ensues from Exhibit - Instructions for the Organization and Activity of Organs of the Serb People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary Circumstances, pursuant to which the commander or the chief of the TO Municipal Staff comprised the Crisis Staff, as the body of the highest authority. The reasoning provided in para. 119 shows that, for this very reason, a person loyal to the party had to be appointed to the function of Staff Commander. In addition, the records from the Crisis Staff sessions attended by the Accused, where he was marked as a member, held on 14 May 199239, 1, 5, 6, and 30 June 199240, the diary kept by Witness D41, the testimony of witness Muratagić who stated that by his formation the accused Lukić had to be a member of the Crisis Staff, the proposal of the organizational scheme of the activities

38 T-218. 39 T-231. 40 T-229. 41 T-453.

50

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

of the Municipal bodies in war conditions42, where the accused Lukić was marked as a member of the Crisis Staff, deny such a defense of his. During the critical period, the Crisis Staff undertook the activities as the highest body of the authorities: made decisions at its sessions to disarm and arrest Muslims and Croats; considered the issue of transportation of the arrested men to Gradiška and of the removal of Muslims and Croats from their positions, first from the top positons, and then generally; addressed the issue of their employment, and organized removal of the Muslim and Croat population from the territory of the Ključ municipality. During the days after 27 May 1992, the Crisis Staff was regularly informed about the situation on the ground, and, among others, the accused Lukić43 also submitted his reports.

123. That the Accused’s activities related to the organization and training of members of the TO were taken exactly with the aim to undertake such subsequent actions, that he was aware of certain segments of the attack on the Muslim and Croat civilian population of the Ključ municipality, and that he wanted his acts to form part of the attack was undoubtedly confirmed by the audio-recording tendered by the Prosecution as Exhibit T-9. This Exhibit shows not only that the Accused knew that Muslims were captured in Ključ, that Omer Filipović and Asim Egrlić were arrested and handed over to the relevant bodies, that the witnesses, particularly Omer Filipović’s brother, Muhamed Filipović, and Asim Egrlić directly testified what the “processing by relevant bodies” or the police had implied, but also that as the TO Staff Commander alone, and together with other supporters of the plan, he undertook the activities to implement this plan. The referenced audio-recording shows that the Accused further stated that the “Muslim extremists will be forced to surrender and hand over their weapons, that they had no chance in any other form, and that they better do this as soon as possible.”44 A large number of the witnesses-Muslims who had surrendered and handed over their weapons were heard at the main trial. These men were not extremists, if such existed at all, but rather civilians, who had come from their homes to the places designated as surrender sites, with their hands lifted up, or under white flags as ordered. However, despite all this, the accused Lukić stated at the audio-recording that they had no chance because many of them were killed, or at least beaten and detained at the camps. In addition, the Panel has found that the Prosecution’s

42 T-225. 43 T-229. 44 Exhibit T-9, recording time from 45:30 to 46:40 min.

51

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Exhibits, Regular combat reports45 signed by Major Boško Lukić, addressing the activities of the “terrain cleansing” in the villages, where these reports were made after late May and early June, within which a variety of atrocities had occurred, do not bring into doubt the Accused’s involvement into the attack and his awareness of the attack.

124. In the Panel’s view, the conclusion that the accused Marko Adamović was aware of the attack and that there was a nexus between his acts and the attack, namely that his acts formed part of the attack, were undoubtedly proved by the fact that a number of witnesses identified accused Adamović as person who had led soldiers through the villages were a massacre occurred. As a former teacher and a person born in the referenced territory, the accused Adamović was known among the people, not only by his physical appearance and voice, but also as a person whose presence at first sight inspired confidence46; but they soon eye-witnessed the crimes committed by soldiers he had led. A number of the villagers of Prhovo identified the accused Adamović as a person who had, from a personnel carrier, called men to surrender, or instructed Sadeta Medanović to call via megaphone the men from the village to surrender, threatening her that he would have no mercy either to her or the baby she had held in her arms. The mother of slain Hamer Ljutić asked the accused Adamović himself where he had taken her son. She saw her son alive only one more time after this incident, whereupon two soldiers took her son away. Several days later, the witness found his body in a nearby wood. Muharem Islamagić, whose brother was killed by being tied to the personnel carrier, also identified the accused Adamović as a person who had led soldiers. The accused Adamović was identified by other villagers of Prhovo, Vukovo Selo, Krantići, and by those who did not see him, but rather heard that he had led soldiers who committed the massacre. Witness Mirsad Puškar identified the accused Adamović as a person who had transported the artillery to the Brežčice plateau, from which the villages of Pudin Han and Velagići were shelled.

125. Even though the accused Adamović denied being a member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, the Panel has found that such a defense of his was ill-founded. Contrary to the accused Adamović’s testimony, there is an array of Prosecution’s evidence directly connecting the Accused with the activities of the Municipal Crisis Staff and confirming his membership therein, although not during the first days of the functioning of this body but somewhat later. Just at the time when the activities related to the “terrain

45 Exhibits T-175 - T-179.

52

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

cleansing” in the wider area of the Ključ municipality were initiated, the accused Adamović was the person who, together with Vinko Kondić and Boško Lukić, reported at the meetings of the Crisis Staff about the situation and developments on the ground47. The Prosecution’s Exhibit-Proposal of the organizational scheme of the activities of the municipal bodies at times of war48 listed the accused Adamović, under number 4, among members of the Crisis Staff. The accused Adamović formed part of the Crisis Staff in the capacity of the Town Defense Commander. The Panel has not find reasonable the Defense’s theory that the referenced body never really became operational. Boško Lukić was originally proposed as its commander49, but Marko Adamović was eventually appointed. The evidence confirms that the Town Defense Command indeed existed, but that Marko Adamović was appointed its Commander, rather than the initially proposed Boško Lukić. The record from the session of the SO Ključ Crisis Staff of 3 June 1992 shows that the accused Adamović attended the session of the Crisis Staff exactly in the capacity of the Town Defense Commander, which in the Panel’s view, fully denies the Defense’s assertions that the body at issue had not become real. Logically, an issue arises as to why would the document, such as a handwritten record from the Crisis Staff session, mention the accused Adamović in a function he did not perform. Despite denying the functioning of this body, since his testimony is to a large extent aimed at supporting the Accused and avoiding his own criminal liability, since he too was a member of the Crisis Staff, Defense witness Rajko Kalabić confirms that he had proposed the accused Adamović for the post of the Town Defense Commander. Witness Mršić, however, testified that the plans for the town defense should have been created by Chief Zukić pursuant to his duties within the TO staff, but he was not allowed to do so, but the task was entrusted to the accused Adamović, for which purpose a room inside the Municipal building was provided. According to the Panel, not only that all the foregoing leaves no dilemma that the Accused had knowledge about the attack but also indicates, beyond a doubt, that by his acts, the Accused participated in it.

46See, e.g. the testimony of witness Kana Mešić, transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 6 July 2009. 47 Exhibit T-229, records from the sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff of 2 and 3 June 1992, 18 June 1992 and 30 June 1992. 48 Exhibit T-225. 49 T-229 Record from the Crisis Staff session of 29 May 1992, Exhibit T-164 Document of the Commander of the 30th Partisan Division sp.No. 939-1 of 31 May 1992 which reads as follows: „Ključ Defense Command to be established in the zone of the Ključ municipality comprising: -... – Commander of the Ključ TO Staff , -...

53

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

127. In the Panel’s view, all the foregoing leaves no doubt whatsoever that the third element, essential for the existence of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity, has been satisfied, namely that the Accused had knowledge of the attack, that their acts were an integral part of the attack, or more precisely, that there was a nexus between their acts and the attack.

VII. PERSECUTION

128. The Amended Indictment of the BiH Prosecutor's Office charged the Accused, and the Verdict found them guilty of committing the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity under Article 172(1)(h) of the CC BiH, namely that they committed persecution of the civilian Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality by a series of unlawful acts, namely: murder, deportation and forcible transfer of population, unlawful confinement and other severe deprivations of physical liberty, other inhuman acts of similar character, attack on the civilian population, settlement, certain civilians, which attack resulted in the death, the shelling of undefended villages and hamlets with any artillery and deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial.

129. Persecution, as defined under Article 172(1)(h) of the CC BiH, means: a. The intentional and severe, b. contrary to international law c. deprivation of fundamental rights, d. by reason of the identity of a group or collectivity e. against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law; f. in connection with any offense listed in this paragraph of this Code, any offense listed in this Code or any offense falling under the competence of the Court of Bosnia and Hercegovina.

130. Article 172(2)(g) of the CC BiH provides for the meaning of the term persecution:

“Persecution means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights, contrary to international law, by reason of identity of a group or collectivity.”

The case law of the ICTY50 defines persecution as the crime against humanity as follows:

50 Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., IT-98-30/1-A, Judgment of 28 February 2005, para. 320.

54

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

1) discriminates in fact and which denies and infringes upon a fundamental right laid down in international customary or treaty law; and 2) was carried out deliberately, with the intention to discriminate on one of the listed grounds, specifically race, religion or politics.“

131. Persecution so defined may be committed by all acts which, in whole or in part, amount to intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights, contrary to international law, by reason of the identity of a group or collectivity.

132. It may be inferred from the foregoing that persecution is a form of discrimination on racial, religious or political grounds with the intent to and resulting in infringements upon fundamental rights of individuals. Specifically international law recognizes racial, religious and political grounds as the exclusive grounds for the commission of persecution as crimes against humanity.

133. Persecution is therefore a criminal offense underlying crimes against humanity. Crimes against humanity are gross and flagrant violations of the fundamental rights, while in the context of the referenced criminal offense, the existence of discriminatory intent also need to be proved for the crime of persecution.

134. The Judgment of the Appellate Panel of this Court in Bundalo et al. concluded the following:

“Only gross and flagrant denials of fundamental human rights may constitute Crimes against Humanity. An additional requirement for persecution as a Crime against Humanity is that it must be committed with a discriminatory intent. The individual criminal acts may not necessarily rise to this standard if the individual criminal act is evaluated in isolation. Therefore, for the crime of persecution the criminal acts must be taken as a whole, and together must reach this standard.”51

135. The crimes of which the accused Adamović and Lukić were found guilty undoubtedly amount to gross violations of the basic human rights and fundamental freedoms, contrary to international law. In the Panel’s view, these crimes were committed with a discriminatory intent.

136. An array of details points to such a nature of the committed crimes. As already described in the part of the Verdict explaining the issue of satisfied requirements of wide

51 Second Instance Verdict of the Court of BiH in Bundalo et al., No. X-KRŽ-07/419, para. 302.

55

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

and systematic nature of the attack, as the essential elements of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity, the exclusive reason for which certain unlawful acts in violation of international law were undertaken against groups of citizens was their ethnicity, specifically the fact that they were Muslims or Croats.

137. The records from the sessions of the Crisis Staff, a certain number of which was also attended by the accused Adamović and Lukić, and the testimonies of a number of the heard witnesses show that in April, May and June 1992, only Muslims and Croats lost their jobs. Witness Filipović also confirmed that those of them who had not fully stopped performing the jobs at the posts assigned to them were searched upon their arrival at work. As it ensues from the testimony of witness Lepirica, Muslims and Croats were separated from convoys at check points and their movement was restricted. A number of witnesses52 confirmed that Muslims and Croats had to obtain appropriate movement permits in order, for example, to come from their villages to the town. The witnesses particularly described the requests of the new authorities in the town of Ključ under which Muslims and Croats had to sign that they would leave all their property to the Serb Republic of BiH in order to be able to freely leave the territory of Ključ, where the living had become unbearable for them due to the constant fear for the mere fact that they were Muslims or Croats. In addition, Muslim and Croat men apprehended to the premises of the SJB Ključ, and subjected to severe beatings, were not informed, either at the time or subsequently, about the reasons for which they were deprived of liberty or beaten, and the only reason they could relate to such acts is the fact that they were Muslims or Croats. They were detained on the CJB premises and crammed in small cells and their only common characteristic was that they were non-Serbs. Muslim and Croat citizens were invited via Radio Ključ to surrender their weapons, or to report to specific collection centers. When the military passed through the villages of the Ključ municipality, mostly inhabited by Muslims, since a small number of Croats had lived in the area, villagers were forced out of their houses. They had to stand in front of them, and line up with their hands lifted above their heads, with no exemptions for the elderly or sick people. For example, Muslims from Vukovo Selo were demanded to hoist white flags on their houses.

138. Therefore, such unlawful acts were always, without exemption, undertaken against Muslims and a few Croats, and only for the reason of their ethnicity or religion. In the

56

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Panel’s view, all the foregoing points to the discriminatory nature of the attack launched against the Muslim and Croat population in the Ključ municipality solely on ethnic and religious grounds.

139. In order to find the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović guilty of the crime of persecution as Crimes against Humanity it was necessary to prove that they themselves had this discriminatory intent. The ICTY’s Trial Chamber in Prosecutor v. Radislav Brđanin has found the following:

“Discriminatory intent may not be inferred directly from the general discriminatory nature of an attack against a civilian population. However, it may be inferred from the context of the acts, as long as, in view of the facts of the case, circumstances surrounding the commission of the alleged acts substantiate the existence of such intent.“53

140. The Panel has found that, in the concrete case, exactly the facts of the case and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the criminal offenses at issue confirm the existence of such a discriminatory intent on the part of the accused Lukić and Adamović.

141. In the Panel’s view, the conclusion on the accused Lukić’s and Adamović’s discriminatory intent ensues from their diligent carrying out of the tasks vested upon them pursuant to their respective functions with the view to implementing the common design policy, established on the strategic goals set up at the Assembly of the Serb people in BiH held on 12 May 1995, and primarily the first strategic goal – demarcation from the two other ethnic groups.

142. It ensues from the records from the sessions of the OO SDS of the Ključ municipality and of the Crisis Staff that the accused Lukić actively undertook the actions relating to gathering, training and engaging the TO units pursuant to the instructions of the new Serb municipal authorities, in line with the referenced strategic goals, which he himself had accepted. These new TO units, in whose establishment the accused Lukić was engaged, were monoethnic and comprised only Serb residents of Ključ. Many heard witnesses testified about the foregoing facts. As it was shown later, these units were subsequently trained and engaged in the attack against the Muslim and Croat population

52 The testimonies of witnesses C, Ćerim Hrnčić, Salko Krantić, Mimka Brkić, Nafa Smajić, Alem Hadžić and Enes Mršić.

57

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

of the Ključ municipality, launched against this population solely for their ethnic and religious origin. Witness Mršić’s testimony directly confirmed that the Accused himself shared this discriminatory intent. This witness stated that Boško Lukić had sent him and two other prewar workers of the TO Staff to a vacation, and on 27 May 1992 personally informed them there was no place for them in the TO Staff any more. These persons were removed from their work posts only on the grounds of their ethnicity.

143. Following the decision on general mobilization at the level of the Serb Republic of BiH, the TO Staff, led by Boško Lukić, gathered at Sitnica these mobilized members of the new TO units, specifically of the Ključ Battalion, in whose training the accused Marko Adamović also took part. The fact that the mobilization itself and the Battalion gathering at Sitnica were carried out pursuant to the Decision on general mobilization at the level of the Serb Republic BiH, in compliance with the earlier established strategic goals, undoubtedly suggests the aim for which the Battalion was gathered at Sitnica, of which the Accused engaged in the Battalion command structure had to be undoubtedly aware, or specifically, which they had to share. After 27 April 1992, the Battalion was engaged in the attack on the Muslim villages in the Ključ municipality (to be addressed in more detail in the part concerning individual incriminations). However, already at Sitnica, the Battalion was armed with the TO weapons, which had been earlier transferred to Kula. According to witness Mršić, a decision and order for doing so could only be issued by the TO Staff Commander, that is, the accused Lukić. In May, the accused Adamović, together with some other members of the Ključ Battalion, transferred the weapons and artillery to the sites from which the undefended Muslim villages in the Ključ municipality would be shelled once the attack is launched.54 In the Panel’s view, the Accused undoubtedly showed through such activities that they shared the discriminatory intent, or more precisely, that they willingly participated in the attack on the settlements inhabited exclusively by Muslims and Croats, the sole basis of which was the ethnicity and religion of the referenced population.

144. The conclusion on the existing discriminatory intent on the part of the Accused ensues from their activities following 27 May 1992. The recording, Exhibit T-9 and the presentation of the accused Lukić clearly show he was aware of the unlawful arrests of Muslim (and Croat) citizens, and that he supported such arrests. The referenced audio-

53 ICTY Judgment in Prosecutor v. Radislav Brđanin No. IT-99-36-T of 1 September 2004, para. 997, and Appeals Judgment in Krnojelac, para.184. 54 Testimony of witness Mirsad Puškar.

58

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

recording shows that the accused Lukić called “Muslim extremists” to surrender. The ground for the unlawful confinement of these persons was their ethnicity, which is clear from the accused Lukić’s audio-recorded presentation, as confirmed by the phrase “Muslim extremists” which he had used.

145. The activities of the accused Adamović undertaken on the ground undoubtedly show his discriminatory intent. Soldiers, identified as “Marko’s soldiers” by many inhabitants of different villages in the Ključ municipality, took part in the “cleansing” of the villages inhabited by Muslims. It is clear from the testimonies of the witnesses that they were searched, arrested and beaten for the mere fact that they were Muslims by ethnicity. The accused Adamović’s discriminatory intent was particularly obvious in the village of Prhovo when he called members of “Green berets” (zelene beretke) to surrender, threatening he would kill all inhabitants in the village.

146. Upon analyzing the whole contextual basis of the crimes, to be described in detail through individual incriminations, in whose preparation and implementation the accused Lukić and Adamović undoubtedly played their roles, the Panel has concluded, beyond a doubt, not only that the attack was discriminatory in nature, but also that the Accused themselves had and shared this discriminatory intent.

147. In the Panel’s view, the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity by persecution was committed through a series of unlawful acts as described in the substratum of the Indictment, namely by: i. Murder – depriving another person of his life

148. Murder means depriving another person of his/her life, and the criminal offense of murder laid down in Article 172(1)(a) of the CC is depriving another person of his/her life within a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population, with the accused’s awareness and knowledge of the deprivation of life. The essential elements of the criminal offense of murder are: a) death of the victim; b) death resulted from the act or omission of the accused or his subordinate; c) the accused or his subordinate had the intent to deprive the victim of his/her life or cause violence to life and person, which he may have reasonably assumed will result in death. ii. Deportation or forcible transfer of population

149. Deportation or forcible transfer of population means forced displacement of the 59

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law. iii. Imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty

150. In order for imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty to exist as a criminal offense of crimes against humanity, or to amount to an act of commission of persecution of the Muslim and Croat population, as in the concrete case, it must be in contravention of the rules of international law. The ICTY has described the elements of unlawful confinement as a crime against humanity as follows: “a person was deprived of liberty; deprivation was arbitrary, that is, there is no legal ground for deprivation of liberty; act or omission by which a person is being deprived of liberty is an act of the accused, or person(s) for whom the accused is held criminally liable with the intent to arbitrarily deprive person of liberty, or knowing that his act or omission may lead to arbitrary deprivation of liberty.“ iv. Other inhumane acts of similar character

151. Other inhumane acts of a similar character are those committed with the intention of causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to physical or mental health. For these acts, just like the other acts provide for in Article 172 of the CC BiH, the existence of act or omission of similar gravity need to be proved. Even though the formulation “other inhuman acts of similar character” is rather imprecise, it is selected exactly with the purpose of preventing any perpetrator from avoiding punishment for any form of inhuman acts, including those non-specified by law. Thus, the ICTY’s Chamber has determined in Kupreškić which acts must be considered as inhumane acts, namely that “an exhaustive categorization would merely create opportunities for evasion of the letter of the prohibition.” v. Unlawful confinement into camps

152. Considering that the CC BiH provides no definition of what is to be considered an unlawful confinement into camps, by which action the persecution of Muslims and Croats was also committed, as the Panel found on the basis of adduced evidence, the Panel has referred to the established ICTY case law in defining this category. With regard to the

60

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

referenced issue, the ICTY’s Appeals Chamber in Čelebići55 has found that: “to establish that someone has committed the offense of unlawful confinement, something more must be proved than mere knowing ‘participation’ in the general system or operation pursuant to which civilians are confined. E.g., such responsibility is more properly allocated to those who actually place a person in detention without reasonable grounds to believe that he constitutes a security risk; or who, having some powers over the place or detention, accepts a civilian into detention without knowing that such grounds exist; or who, having power or authority to release detainees fails to do so despite knowledge that no reasonable ground for their detention exist”.

vi. Attack against civilian population, settlements, individual civilians, which resulted in death, and attack or shelling, using any means, of undefended villages and residences

153. Attack directed against any civilian population means a course of conduct involving multiple perpetrations of acts referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack.

154. Attack or shelling by using any means, of undefended villages and residences, has been defined within the scope of the criminal offense of Violating the Laws and Practices of Warfare under Article 179 of the CC BiH, and, in the concrete case, according to the Panel, it is an act of commission of persecution as a crime against humanity.

vii. Deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial

155. The Panel has also found that the deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial was a form of persecution of the Muslim and Croat population in the Ključ municipality. In defining the notion of deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial, the Panel has referred to the ICTY’s case law. The Trial Chamber in Brđanin found that the case concerned the deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial on discriminatory grounds, that is, deprivation of the right to a fair trial as a form of persecution of Muslims and Croats, on the basis of the fact that “Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats in the municipalities of the ARK were arbitrarily arrested and detained in camps and other detention facilities for a considerable length of time. Most of them were never informed of the charges against

55 ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Judgment in Čelebići, para. 342.

61

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

them, and, in addition, were never charged before a court. In fact, there was a near-total absence of judicial process, including the right of access to a court.”56

VIII. INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ACCUSED WITHIN A JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE

156. In the Panel’s view, the Prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that, as participants in a joint criminal enterprise, the accused Adamović and Lukić committed the criminal acts factually described in the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict, by which the essential elements of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity under Article 172(1)(h) of the CC BiH, as read with Article 180(1) of the came Code, have been satisfied.

157. Article 180(1) of the CC BiH provides for the acts of commission and forms of participation in the commission of the criminal offenses by which a person becomes personally responsible for certain offenses enumerated in Chapter XVII of the CC BiH (Crimes against Humanity and Values Protected by International Law), including Crimes against Humanity (Article 172 of the CC BiH), with which the Accused in the concrete case were charged.

158. Article 180(1) of the CC BiH is identical to Article 7(1) of the ICTY’s Statute, and it became part of the national legislation after Article 7(1) of the Statute was enacted and interpreted by the ICTY to include, specifically, joint criminal enterprise as a mode of co- perpetration by which personal criminal liability would attach57.

159. International judicial interpretation of the term "perpetration" in Article 7(1), which was incorporated in domestic law as Article 180(1), establishes a mode of perpetration of a crime where the issue of guilt is connected with the earlier existent “criminal design”. Thus each perpetrator becomes responsible not only for his own perpetration in crimes but also for the acts of other participants in the crime. Joint criminal enterprise describes a collective nature of criminality and provides for the punishment of political and military

56 Trial Chamber Judgment in Brđanin, IT-99-36-T of 1 September 2004, para. 1044. 57 See Verdict of the Trial Panel of the Court of BiH in the case No. X-KR-06/275 of 22 February 2008, p. 103, referral to the Tadić case.

62

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

leaders, because the focus of trial is shifted from the level of individual crimes (which must be always proved) to a general level, addressing the issue of the existent common purpose or plan and the significance of the contribution given by the participants in the enterprise to the implementation of the plan or design.

160. Even though the ICTY does not explicitly mention joint criminal enterprise, the ICTY Appeals Chamber in Tadić58 has established a customary status of this mode of participation and the criminal liability derived from it in international criminal law. This was also adopted by the other ICTY chambers based on an analysis of relevant international documents and case law of 27 countries, which has as such satisfied the requirement of the principle of legality in international criminal law. Other international tribunals have adopted the ICTY’s doctrine of joint criminal enterprise by incorporating it in the Rome Statute. Certain courts apply for this mode of participation and liability the instrument of indirect perpetration, which was incorporated into the criminal legislation of many countries, e.g. of the Republic of Serbia (Article 33 of the Criminal Code).

161. Joint criminal enterprise has been considered as a mode of co-perpetration with the following elements: (1) a plurality of persons (2) these persons share a common criminal intent or purpose (3) certain direct perpetrators committed individual crimes in furtherance of the common plan or purpose, (4) the concrete accused whose guilt is being decided participated in the enterprise, sharing the common criminal intent and gave to it an essential or significant contribution to its perpetration. If all the foregoing elements are proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused will be found guilty not only of his contribution to the enterprise, but also of all individual crimes directly perpetrated by other participants in the enterprise in furtherance of the common purpose.

162. Joint criminal enterprise, as a mode of perpetration of a crime, is not in itself a criminal offense but rather a special form of co-perpetration, as a mode of participation in the commission of crime. Three distinct types of JCE have been crystalized through international case law. In Tadić, the ICTY Appeals Chamber originally found three distinct categories of JCE, while, subsequently, these three categories of criminal collectivity were through the ICTY case law defined as the basic or general, systemic or concentration

58 Prosecutor v. Tadić, IT-95-1-A, Appeals Chamber Judgment, 15 July 1999 (“Tadić Second Instance Judgment”) paras. 191-193, para. 220.

63

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

camp, and extended JCE. All three types of JCE have the same actus reus elements, but differ with regard to the element of awareness or the mens rea element.

163. The first category, basic or general form of JCE, is relevant to the concrete case, and the Panel will further below address its definition and elements.

164. The basic form of JCE is characterized by a group of people who act together pursuant to a “common design” and possess the same criminal intent. If a crime is committed by such a group, pursuant to that common design, persons who voluntarily participated in an aspect of that design and intended the criminal outcome can be held personally criminally liable as co-perpetrators59. An example is a plan formulated by the participants in the joint criminal enterprise to kill where, although each of the participants may carry out a different role, each of them has the intent to kill.60

A. ELEMENTS OF THE BASIC JCE

(a) Actus reus element (act of commission)

165. Actus reus elements of all types of JCE, including the basic JCE, imply the following:

1. A plurality of individuals. They need not be organized in a military, political or administrative structure.

2. The existence of a common purpose which amounts to or involves the commission of a crime provided for in the Statute. There is no necessity for this plan, design or purpose to have been previously arranged or formulated. It may materialize extemporaneously and be inferred from the fact that a plurality of persons acts in unison to put into effect a joint criminal enterprise.

3. Certain direct perpetrators who commit certain crimes to put up into effect the criminal purpose often are not themselves participants in a joint criminal enterprise.

4. Participation of the accused in the common purpose involving the perpetration of one of the crimes provided in the Statute. This participation need not involve commission of a specific crime under one of the provisions (murder, extermination, torture, rape, etc), but may take the form of assistance in, or contribution to, the execution of the common plan or purpose. The contribution need not be necessary or substantial,

59 Verdict of the Trial Panel of the Court of BiH in Trbić, No. X-KR-07/386, para. 214, with reference to the Appeals Chamber Judgment in Tadić, para. 196. 60 Ibid, reference to the Appeals Chamber Judgment in Vasiljević, para. 97.

64

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

but should at least be a significant contribution to the crimes for which the accused is found responsible.61

166. When it comes to a plurality of persons, to consider this essential actus reus element satisfied, it should be determined that a plurality of persons were members of the JCE, but there is no need to identify the participants by name. Furthermore, a common criminal purpose should be precisely defined, in terms of both the criminal goal intended and its scope (for example the temporal and geographic limits of this goal and the general identities of the intended victims). In addition, the Panel should make a finding that this criminal purpose is not merely the same, but also common to all of the persons acting together within a JCE, and characterize the contribution of the accused in this common plan. The contribution of the accused to the crimes for which he is to be found responsible should at least be a significant contribution.62

167. In addition to satisfying all the referenced actus reus elements, there is a variety of modes of action and participation of a perpetrator in a joint criminal enterprise, for which he may be found responsible. Thus, the ICTY found in Krnojelac63 that the ways in which an individual may commit a crime as a participant in the JCE are the following:

(i) by participating directly in the commission of the agreed crime itself (as a principal offender);

(ii) by being present at the time when the crime is committed, and (with knowledge that the crime is to be or is being committed) by intentionally assisting or encouraging another participant in the joint criminal enterprise to commit that crime; or

(iii) by acting in furtherance of a particular system in which the crime is committed by reason of the accused’s position of authority or function, and with knowledge of the nature of that system and intent to further that system.

168. Therefore, by undertaking any of the foregoing acts, by which he participates in the furtherance of a common purpose, design or plan, regardless of whether the act is an act of commission of a concrete crime, or it in other way contributes or facilitates in the furtherance of common purpose, design or plan, the perpetrator may be held responsible on the basis of JCE. It ensues from the foregoing that any accused will be found guilty if,

61 Ibid, reference to the second instance Judgment in Brđanin, para. 414; Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, IT-00-39-A, Judgment, 17 March 2009 (“Krajišnik Appeals Chamber Judgment”) para. 215. 62 Ibid, reference to the second instance Judgment in Brđanin, para. 430. 63 Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, IT-97-25-T, Judgment, 15 March 2002 (“Krnojelac Trial Chamber Judgment”) para. 81.

65

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

as a participant in a JCE, he contributed in the realization of a common purpose, design or plan, with the intent to put into effect this prohibited purpose, or that he personally committed the agreed crime as a principal perpetrator, or if he, as a co-perpetrator, assisted the principal perpetrator to commit the agreed crime, or, if by his acts he supported a particular system in which the crime was committed by reason of the accused’s positon of authority or function, and with knowledge of the nature of that system and intent to further that system. Therefore, as the ICTY's Appeals Chamber explained in Vasiljević „it is sufficient for a participant in a joint criminal enterprise to perform acts that in some way are directed at the furtherance of the common design.“64

169. If one of the participants in a joint criminal enterprise commits the agreed crime, all participants in the joint criminal enterprise in question will be held liable regardless of the role each of them played in its commission.65 Although only some members of the group may physically perpetrate the criminal act (murder, extermination, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, etc.), the participation and contribution of the other members of the group is often vital in facilitating the commission of the offense in question. It follows that the moral gravity of such participation is often no less – or indeed no different - from that of those actually carrying out the acts in question.66

170. Under these circumstances, to hold criminally liable as a perpetrator only a person who materially performs the criminal act would disregard the role as a co-perpetrators /de coateur/ of all those who in some way made it possible for the perpetrator /auteur principal/ physically to carry out that criminal act. At the same time, depending upon the circumstances, to hold the latter liable only as an aider and abettor might understate the degree of their criminal liability.67

171. An accused or another member of a JCE may use the principal perpetrators to carry out the actus reus of the crime. However “an essential element in order to impute to any accused member of the JCE liability for the crime committed by another person is that the crime in question forms part of the common criminal purpose”.68 This may be inferred, inter alia, from the fact that “the accused or any other member of the JCE closely

64 Vasiljević, Appeals Chamber Judgment, para. 102. 65 Krnojelac, Appeals Chamber Judgment, para. 82. 66 ICTY Appeals Chamber in Krnojelac, para 29. 67 Ibid.

66

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

cooperated with the principal perpetrator in order to further the common criminal purpose.”69

172. It should be also noted that all persons (principal perpetrators) who carried out the actus reus of the crime need not be members of a joint criminal enterprise70. At the same time, the accused need not be present as a member of a joint criminal enterprise at the time the crime is committed for this type of liability to be incurred.71

(b) Mens rea element (knowledge and intent)

173. The requisite mens rea for the basic JCE is that the accused must possess the intent to perpetrate a certain crime (this being the shared intent on the part of all co- perpetrators)72 and the intent to participate in a common plan aimed at its commission.73 If the common criminal purpose involves the commission of a crime requiring special intent, for example the crime of persecution, the participant must also share the same intent.74 However, a common intent, even a special intent, may be inferred.75

174. Nevertheless, the concept of JCE should not be set up and viewed too broadly, so the case law has narrowed it. Thus, the Verdict of this Court in Stupar et al.76 noted the following:

“Neither the case law nor the literature supports the proposition that a single basic JCE can stretch from the highest echelons of the military leadership to the lowliest foot soldier, including persons with such disparate roles and parts and assigning them all the same level of criminal responsibility.”

68 Appeals Chamber Judgment in Martić, para. 68 quoting Prosecutor v. Martić, IT-95-11-T, Judgment, 12 June 2007 („Trial Chamber Judgment in Martić“), para. 438. 69 Appeals Chamber Judgment in Martić, para. 68 quoting the Trial Judgment in the same case, para. 438; Appeals Chamber Judgment in Brđanin, para. 418. 70 Brđanin, Appeals Chamber Judgment, para. 414. 71 Krnojelac, Appeals Chamber Judgment, para. 81. 72 Vasiljević, Appeals Chamber Judgment, paras. 97 and101; Krnojelac, Appeals Chamber Judgment, para. 31. (emphasis added). 73 Brđanin, Appeals Chamber Judgment, para. 356 quoting the Appeals Chamber Judgment in Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., IT-98-30/1-A, 28 February 2005, (“Kvočka et al. Appeals Chamber Judgment”) para. 82 (requiring “intent to effect the common purpose”). 74 Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., IT-98-30/1-T Judgment, 2 October 2001 (“Kvočka et al., Trial Chamber Judgment”) para. 288. 75 Kvočka, Trial Chamber Judgment, para. 288. 76 See Trial Verdict in Stupar et al., No. X-KR-05/24, p. 173, with reference to Antonio Cassese, International Criminal Law, (Oxford: Oxford University Pres, 2nd Edition), ps. 209-10.

67

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

175. This form of co-perpetration of a crime is not appropriate for any case or any accused. It has been cautiously applied to certain perpetrators whose acts and intent satisfy the requisite standards.

B. JCE IN THE CONCRETE CASE

(a) Actus reus elements

(i) Plurality of persons

176. The Panel has found that the Prosecution proved beyond a doubt, based on the presented evidence, that in addition to the accused Adamović and Lukić, a plurality of persons took part in the furtherance of the common purpose or plan of creating a separate state of Bosnian Serbs by persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality through a series of unlawful actions to be analyzed in detail further in the reasoning.

177. Even though certain issues will be addressed in analyzing the second actus reus element, the existence of a common purpose or design, the Panel must at this point deal with certain issues in order to correlate all, or at least a certain number, of persons who participated in the JCE together with the Accused.

178. The plan to create a separate state of Bosnian Serbs and persecute Croats and Muslims is not a plan envisaged at the level of the Ključ municipality, but rather forms part of the policy of the higher authorities in the newly established Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. As already presented in para. 120 of the Verdict, such a plan of persecution of Muslims and Croats, implemented through a widespread and systematic attack already described, was a part of the policy set up at the Assembly of the Serb people of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose extended hand throughout the whole former Socialistic Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina were the Crisis Staffs of the new Serb autonomous areas, including the Autonomous Region of Krajina, and Municipal Crisis Staffs established by the SDS, including the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, whose members became and within which the accused Adamović and Lukić also acted, together with other supporters of the common design in question.

179. Such a plan was strategically developed since late 1991 after the issuance of the decision establishing the Assembly of Serb People in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the

68

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

decision of the Serb people to remain within the common state of Yugoslavia, the Instruction of the SDS Main Board for the Organization and Activities of the Organs of Serb People in BiH in Extraordinary Circumstances, to the final formal articulation of the persecution plan at the session of the Assembly of Serb People in BiH of 12 May 1992, when the strategic goals were set up. The first strategic goal, separation from the other two ethnic collectivities, could not be realized in a peaceful manner, as apparent from shorthand transcripts from the referenced session, particularly from the presentations of Radovan Karadžić, Ratko Mladić and Momčilo Krajišnik77. The instructions set up at the sessions of the Assembly of the Serb Republic BiH by the leading persons of the SDS Main Board, primarily Karadžić and Krajišnik, and then also Radislav Brđanin, who was appointed head of the new ARK, as President of the ARK Crisis Staff, were infiltrated to lower levels exactly through the activities of persons holding functions in the lower-level authorities.

181. Radislav Brđanin was therefore part of the JCE already from its initial phase. As a member of the Assembly of Serb People in BiH, whose sessions he attended, Brđanin transferred the policy created at this level to the ARK level, as an appointed head of the ARK. This autonomous region, like the three other regions (to be explained in detail in the part addressing the common purposes as the second actus reus element of JCE), was established for the purpose of easier realization of the policy created at the highest level of the authorities of the state which is being established, the SDS Main Board and the Assembly of Serb People in BiH to persecute the Muslim and Croat population in order to create a separate state of Bosnian Serbs.

182. As apparent from the ARK Official Gazette No. 2/92, by the decisions of the ARK Assembly and the ARK Crisis Staff formed pursuant to the Instructions, Radislav Brđanin ensured the implementation of the instructions and the policy set up at the Assembly of the Serb People in BiH, which were most obviously manifested in the Instructions – its Variant A. As a leading figure and the President of the ARK Crisis Staff, Radislav Brđanin signed a series of decisions ensuring the realization of the set common purpose. Crisis Staffs were established as the highest authorities, which launched the activities related to the

77 See Exhibit T-154, Record from the 16th session of the Serb People in BiH held on 12 May 1992 in Banja Luka.

69

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

disarmament of the population78, mobilization79, and removal of judges and prosecutors from their functions. Specifically, municipal presidents were requested to propose judges and prosecutors for basic courts, and only the most professional staff absolutely loyal to the Serb Republic of BiH could be appointed to the leading positions in the socially-owned and public subjects. In addition, the issues of displacement and removal of the Muslim and Croat population and the cooperation between the civilian and military authorities were considered, and a series of decisions made in relation to those and similar issues.

183. At its session held on 27 May 1992, the Ključ Municipal Crisis Staff gave legitimacy to decisions of the ARK Crisis Staff. Many witnesses testified that the decisions concerning the disarmament and prohibition to come to work, relocation and arrests were implemented in practice. Clearly, members of the Ključ Municipal Crisis Staff followed this policy and implemented such decisions at the Ključ municipality level. All decisions had only one goal – realization of the plan of persecution. That the decisions of the ARK Crisis Staffs were obligatory already before the issuance of the decision giving legitimacy to the Crisis Staffs on 27 May 1992 is shown by the fact that much before this date, one of the agenda items at the sessions of the Ključ Municipal Crisis Staff was consideration of the conclusions from the ARK sessions. The decisions of the municipal Crisis Staff, in fact, followed the decisions already made by the ARK80.

184. The foregoing ensues from the records from the sessions of the OO SDS in Ključ, and subsequent records from the sessions of the Ključ Municipal Crisis Staff, where more or less the same persons were active, namely Jovo Banjac, President of the SO Ključ, Veljko Kondić, President of the SDS Municipal Board, Vinko Kondić, Chief of the CJB Ključ. These men were at the same time members of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, together with the accused Lukić and Adamović. Having informed the attendees about the Instructions on the Organization and Activities of the Serb People in Extraordinary

78 Conclusion from the session of the ARK Crisis Staff (ARK CS) of 9 May 1992 „...we again urge that presidents of SNO immediately undertake activities to disarm paramilitary formations and individuals who are illegally in possession of the weapons and ammunition. Weapons should be handed over to the closest SJB no later than 11 May 1992“; Conclusion from the ARK CS session of 11 May 1992, „the deadline for hand- over of illegally obtained weapons is prolonged by 14 May 1992.“ 79 Conclusion from the session of the ARK CS of 9 May 1992: “Any person in business and public entities who did not respond to the to-date calls for mobilization cannot participate in deciding on the process of work and in securing the facilities …” 80 See Record from the CS session of 13/14 May 1992, Exhibit T-231.

70

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Circumstances at one of the OO SDS sessions, in late 1991, Veljko Kondić noted, inter alia, that Karadžić’s proposals may be accepted even “by sight unseen”81.

185. Vinko Kondić, member of the OO SDS, subsequently of the Ključ Municipal Crisis Staff, and at the same time Chief of the SJB Ključ, acted as a member of the JCE. Already in the autumn 1991, Vinko Kondić acted as an activist in the OO SDS Ključ, attended sessions where members of the OO SDS were informed about the Instructions and the guidelines set up at the established Assembly of the Serb People in BiH. As the leading police figure, he significantly contributed to the realization of the common purpose. As witnesses Mustafa Lepirica, Atif Džafić and some other witnesses testified, Kondić first appeared among the police prewar workers in a uniform with the Serb insignia, called prewar Muslim and Croat employees to sign loyalty statements, and removed Muslims and Croats from their work posts. Witness Muhamed Filipović testified that “Vinko’s police” drove his brother Omer away after he had been called to surrender and surrendered. Omer was severely beaten in the camps and ultimately killed at the Manjača camp. The witnesses testified that a red police van had rounded up Muslim men in the villages, and brought them to the police station where they were interrogated, beaten and then transferred to various camps, while some of them were even killed. It ensues from the testimonies of many witnesses that the police are to be most credited for the arrests of Muslim citizens in the Ključ and its surroundings. Many of them, who had known Vinko Kondić from before, asked for an interview with him upon being arrested, but failed to meet him. In fact, exactly Vinko Kondić supported all these unlawful acts and participated in their commission as a part of the system of persecution of Muslims and Croats in order to further the common purpose.

186. It was not possible to implement any of the foregoing without cooperation with the military authorities. Superiors in the military bodies within the 30th Partisan Division, Colonel Stanislav Galić, and Momir Talić and Boro Grujić, Commanders of the I and II Krajina Corps (the KC) respectively, played a significant role and held positions important for the realization of the persecution plan. That the referenced representatives of the military authorities were engaged in furtherance of the common design, specifically, that there was a close cooperation between the civilian and military authorities, is confirmed by Exhibit T-155, Record from the meeting of the municipal representatives in the zone of

81 T-209, Record form the 6th session of the IO OO SDS of 23 December 1991 when Brana Vojvodić stated:

71

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

responsibility of the 30th Division, held on 14 May 1992, and attended, among others, by Colonel Galić. The strategic goals set up at the meeting in Banja Luka were presented at the referenced meeting. Jovo Banjac and Boško Lukić, who had attended the meeting, briefed the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff about the results of the meeting.

188. The plan to persecute the civilian Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality was tactically developed at the sessions of the OO SDS and the Municipal Crisis Staff, while the activities aimed at implementing this plan were undertaken on the ground, where the police and the military played the key role. Therefore, there is no doubt that the leading figure of the police, Chief of the SJB Ključ-Vinko Kondić, and the TO Staff Commander, Boško Lukić, acted as members of the JCE. Clearly, the adduced evidence, the records from the sessions of the OO SDS and the Crisis Staff, showed that crucial discussions were held and plans developed at those meetings as to how to engage, mobilize and arm the TO, reorganize and improve the professional skills of the command staff. Boško Lukić, and subsequently Marko Adamović, played significant roles in those issues.

189. The TO itself was reorganized and became monoethnic. As such, it was armed with the weapons that belonged to the former state, and which had been relocated exactly for the purpose of preventing Muslims and Croats from obtaining weapons in any way. The TO closely cooperated with the remaining parts of the JNA, which were deployed in the territory of the Ključ municipality pursuant to the decisions made at the sessions of the OO SDS and the Crisis Staff. All those units were linked and formed the basis for the establishment of the Army of the Serb Republic of BiH, subsequently the VRS, while the most credit for its establishment at the ARK level goes to the above mentioned Stanislav Galić, Momir Talić and Boro Grujić. One should not, however, disregard the role of the other actors at the lower municipal levels, such as the accused Lukić, who had undertaken the actions to establish the Serb TO, mobilize the Infantry Battalion and subsequently the 17th Ključ Light Infantry Brigade, which also comprised the previously established Infantry Battalion (Exhibit T-196). At certain period of time, all these units were engaged in the persecution of the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality (17th Light Infantry Brigade, and subsequently in the wider area), with the aim of implementing the common design for the purpose of which they were established in the first place.

„I can accept all Karadžić's proposals without seeing them“.

72

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

190. The above referenced participants in the JCE were linked and active at different levels of authority, from the highest state level (or the new established Serb Republic of BiH) and the SDS Main Board, to members of the ARK Crisis Staff, the OO SDS and the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, that is, they acted as a plurality of persons within the referenced JCE. The foregoing is apparent from the Record from the 11th session of the Ključ SDS Executive Board held on 30 March 1992, which was attended by the accused Lukić. At the referenced session, Veljko Kondić informed the attendees that he had attended meetings in Sarajevo and Banja Luka, where Karadžić had briefed them “about the discussions regarding BiH and other issues”. Even though this information was entered in the Record as quoted here, the conclusion ensuing from this presentation leaves no dilemma as to what Karadžić’s information about BiH indeed concerned. The conclusion stated that “all relevant services should undertake all necessary activities to ensure best response to the mobilization”. At the same meeting, it was noted that the TO Staff weapons had been relocated. The accused Boško Lukić further stated that “all free manpower should be gathered... and defense preparations addressed”.

191. The accused Adamović also became a member of the JCE even though, in the beginning, he did not attend the Crisis Staff sessions. His activities at Sitnica, related to the training of the military reserve personnel, reporting at the sessions of the Crisis Staff in the capacity of the Town Defense Commander and the activities on the ground directed at persecuting Muslims and Croats were undoubtedly acts undertaken with the view to implementing the common design. In view of the foregoing, the Panel has concluded that the Prosecution proved the participation of a plurality of persons in the JCE that was carried out in the territory of the Ključ municipality. The role of individual participants, or at least of most participants, will become clearer further in the reasoning of the Verdict addressing the second actus reus element of the JCE, the existence of a common design and intent.

(ii) The existence of a common purpose or intent

192. In the Panel’s view, the Prosecution proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that there was a common design, purpose or intent, formulated as the establishment of a separate state of the Bosnian Serbs, which could be implemented exclusively by way of serious and systematic violations of international law – by persecution of Muslims and Croats on discriminatory grounds.

73

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

193. To better understand a common purpose, as the second actus reus element of the JCE, the overall political situation needs to be viewed in more detail, starting from the multi-partisan elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in November 1990, to the spring of 1992, both throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the territory of the Ključ municipality.

194. The facts established by the ICTY show the following: “In November 1990, the first multi-party elections were held in BiH, whereby the people voted for the Assembly of the SRBH, the Presidency of the SRBH and the municipal and local Assemblies in all the municipalities in BiH. The SDA, SDS and HDZ collectively won an overwhelming majority of the votes. The vote accurately portrayed the polarization amongst the ethnic communities taking place in BiH at the time. Pursuant to a power sharing agreement reached prior to the elections, the SDA, having obtained a majority at the republican level, was allowed to designate the President of the seven persons Presidency. Alija Izetbegovic was appointed to this position. The SDS designated the President of the Assembly of the SRBH, Momcilo Krajisnik, and the HDZ designated the President of the Executive Council, i.e., the Prime Minister, Jure Pelivan”82. “Cooperation among the three nationalist parties was initially good, even enthusiastic, in the euphoria that followed the defeat of the League of Communists. However, the break-up of the SFRY commencing in 1991 resulted in the deterioration of both the situation in BiH in general and the relations between the ethnicities in particular. On 25 June 1991, the Parliaments of Slovenia and Croatia respectively issued declarations of independence, which led to armed conflicts in both these break-away republics. In Slovenia, the JNA withdrew after a 10-day war. In Croatia, the war lasted longer. The Croatian army was opposed by the JNA and by local paramilitary groups organized by Croatian Serbs and Serbs from the Republic of Serbia. On 2 January 1992, the hostilities in Croatia came to a provisional halt with a ceasefire agreement between the JNA and Croatia. UN forces (United Nations Protection Force – “UNPROFOR”) were deployed to maintain peace. On 15 January 1992, the European Community recognized the new states of Slovenia and Croatia.”83

195. Different positions among the national parties were becoming more obvious, and particularly confronting regarding the BiH constitutional position: Thus, the following ensued from the established facts: “In this atmosphere of tension the three main nationalist

82 Established fact I-1.

74

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

parties, having separate national agendas with conflicting interests, failed to reconcile their differences and started moving in opposite directions. Most importantly, they disagreed on the question of the constitutional status of BiH. While the SDA and the HDZ promoted the secession of the SRBH from the SFRY, the SDS strongly advocated the preservation of Yugoslavia as a state, in order to ensure that the Serbs would continue to live together in a single state, and would not become a minority in an independent Bosnian state. On 15 October 1991, SDS President Radovan Karadzic made an impassioned speech before the Assembly of the SRBH in Sarajevo, indicating the possibility that Bosnian Muslims could disappear as a group if they declared the independence of the SRBH from the SFRY. SDA President Alija Izetbegovic responded that Karadzic’s threatening message and its method of presentation illustrated why the SRBH might be forced to separate from the SFRY. After the Republican Assembly of the SRBH had adjourned for the day and the SDS delegation had departed, HDZ and SDA delegates reconvened without them and passed a “Declaration of Sovereignty”, a measure that moved the SRBH a step closer to independence.”84

196. Therefore, already in the second half of 1991, the contours became visible of the strategic goals of the Serb people, proposed a half of year later by Radovan Karadžić and unanimously adopted at the Assembly of the Serb people in BiH. “During the 16th session of the SerBiH Assembly that took place on 12 May 1992, at a time when the armed conflict had already begun, Radovan Karadzic articulated the six strategic goals of the Serbian People of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The first {...} goal was the “separation from the other two national communities – separation of states”. The other goals concerned the establishment of a corridor between Semberija and Krajina; the establishment of a corridor in the Drina Valley; the establishment of a border on the Una and Neretva rivers; the division of the city of Sarajevo into Serb and Muslim sectors; and, finally, securing access to the sea for the SerBiH.”85

197. In addition, already on 15 October 1991, “the SDS Party Council discussed strategies on how to set up a Serbian government, which included establishing parallel government bodies, the regionalization of BiH and organizing militarily.”86

83 Established fact-I-2. 84 Established fact -I-5. 85 Established fact II-17. 86 Established fact-II-6.

75

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

198. In such circumstances, “On 24 October 1991, the SDS Deputies in the Assembly of the SRBH, in a meeting of their club, established a separate Assembly of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina (“SerBiH Assembly”) and elected Momcilo Krajisnik as its President. The SerBiH Assembly authorized a plebiscite of the Serbian people of BiH on the question of whether or not they wanted BiH to remain within Yugoslavia. On 9 and 10 December 1991, the Bosnian Serbs voted overwhelmingly to remain a part of the SFRY.”87

199. However, it soon became obvious that the decision to remain within Yugoslavia was only a screen for some other activities. Making such a decision only opened the space for the realization of the set common goals, from taking control in certain municipalities to the implementation of the ultimate goal of establishing a separate state of Bosnian Serbs by persecution of Muslims and Croats. Such a conclusion particularly ensues from the “Recommendation to cease placing signs with the name and image of Josip Broz Tito”, unanimously adopted several months later at the 14th session of the Assembly of Serb people in BiH held on 27 March 1992.88 It should be noted here that the referenced Recommendation followed the discussion and ceremonial adoption of the Constitution of the Serb Republic BiH, when Radovan Karadžić, inter alia, stated the following: “… I may say there is no Serb who refused the ultimate strategic goal of the Serb people to live in a single state, which he might temporarily put aside for tactical reasons, that is, in a community of states, in an alliance of states …”

200. “In a speech given on the occasion of the “Plebiscite of the Serb People” in Sarajevo in November 1991, Radovan Karadzic instructed SDS members representing the municipalities to impose complete Bosnian Serb authority in their respective municipalities, regions and local communities. On 11 December 1991, the SerBiH Assembly voted to recommend the establishment of separate Serbian municipalities. The declared aim of this decision was “to break up the existing municipalities where Serbs are not in a majority.“89 The referenced goal was further developed through the Instructions for the Organization and Activity of Organs of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary Circumstances adopted by the SDS Main Board in December 1991, marked as “strictly

87 Established fact -I-6. 88 Exhibit T-142, Agenda Item No. 4. 89 Established fact -II-7.

76

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

confidential”90. As also noted in the established facts: “On 19 December 1991, the Main Board of the SDS issued a document entitled “Instructions for the Organization and Activity of Organs of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary Circumstances” (the Instructions). These instructions provided for the conduct of specified activities in all municipalities in which Serbs lived, and essentially mapped out the take- over of power by Bosnian Serbs in municipalities where they constituted a majority of the population (“Variant A”) and where they were in a minority (“Variant B”). The stated purpose of the Variant A and B Instructions was “to carry out the results of the plebiscite at which the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina decided to live in a single state” and to “increase mobility and readiness for the defense of the interests of the Serbian people“.91 “The Variant A and B Instructions included, amongst others, the directive that the SDS Municipal Boards should form Crisis Staffs of the Serbian people in their respective municipalities. The “tasks, measures and other activities” referred to in the Variant A and B Instructions were to be carried out exclusively at the order of the President of the SDS.”92

201. While the Muslim and Croat parties in BiH supported the independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a state following the signing of the Declaration of Independence of 15 October 1991, and despite the split within the SR BiH Assembly which was abandoned on 24 October 1991 by Serb delegates, who established a separate Assembly of Serb People in BiH, the activities of Muslim parties, primarily of the SDA, towards achieving the independence of the state, did not cease. “In early 1992, the SDA increased the pressure to secure independence of the SRBH from the SFRY. A referendum on the question of independence was held on 29 February and 1 March 1992. It was largely boycotted by the Bosnian Serbs and yielded an overwhelming majority of votes in favour of the independence of BiH. In view of the result of the referendum, on 6 April 1992, the European Community recognized BiH as an independent state. Recognition by the US followed on 7 April 1992”93. At the same time, however, the Bosnian Serb leadership worked actively to achieve its goals, so “In early 1992, while international negotiations to resolve the question of the status of BiH were ongoing, the Bosnian Serb leadership enforced its plan to separate the territories claimed by them from the existing structures of

90 Exhibit T-126. 91 Established fact -II-8. 92 Established fact -II-9. 93 Established fact- I-7.

77

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

the SRBH and to create a separate Bosnian Serb State. On 9 January 1992, the SerBiH Assembly proclaimed the SerBiH, which on 12 August 1992 was renamed Republika Srpska (“RS”). It was composed of so-called Serbian autonomous regions and districts, which included the Autonomous Region of Krajina”.94

202. In this way commenced the implementation of the strategic goals which, although officially proclaimed by Radovan Karadžić at the Assembly of the Serb Republic of BiH no sooner than May 1992, obviously had existed for a much longer period of time, considering all the above analyzed activities and all the activities undertaken for their realization.

203. Regional organization is one of the main links in the process of the power-take over. The established autonomous regions facilitated coordination and provided for a more efficient implementation and realization in practice of the common design - creation of the state of Bosnian Serbs, which could be effected only by persecuting the Muslim and Croatian population.

204. The ARK played the most significant role in the Ključ municipality. Radislav Brđanin, a member of the Assembly of the Serb people in BiH, was also appointed leader of the ARK, specifically, the President of the Crisis Staff, established in compliance with the above referenced Instructions. In this way, Brđanin could implement, directly in the ARK territory, all decisions passed by the Assembly of the Serb people in BiH and the SDS Main Board. Thus Radislav Brđanin, as the leading person, President of the ARK Crisis Staff, signed a series of decisions providing for the implementation of the established common design. The Crisis Staffs were established as the highest authority bodies, and the activities commenced to disarm the population95, raise mobilization-related issues96, remove judges and prosecutors from their office, and specifically, municipal presidents were ordered to propose judges and prosecutors for basic courts, and that only most professional experts loyal to the Srpska Republika BiH could be appointed to the

94 Established fact II-10. 95 T-139, Conclusion from the session of the ARK CS of 9 May 1992, „..We again urge the presidents of SNO to immediately undertake the actions to disarm the paramilitary formations and individuals who unlawfully possessed weaponry and ammunition. Weaponry should be handed over in the nearest SJB no later than 11 May 1992. “; Conclusion from the session of the ARK CS of 11 May 1992, stating that “the deadline for handing over illegally obtained weapons was extended until 14 May 1992. “ 96 T-139, Conclusion from the session of the ARK CS of 9 May 1992: “All persons employed with commercial and public companies which did not respond to the mobilization calls to date cannot take part in making decisions on the work process and in the securing the facilities …”.

78

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

leading positions in social and public subjects.97 Also considered were the issues of relocation of Muslims and Croats98, cooperation between the civilian and military authorities,99 and a series of decisions made regarding those and similar issues. In the Panel’s view, the fact that already on 11 May 1992 a decision was made at the ARK level ordering that the school year is to end no later than 20 May 1992, with an obvious goal to prevent children from being an obstacle to the planned activities, shows how far the plan of implementation of the common design reached.

205. As to the leadership of the Ključ municipality, the ethnic structure and the way in which the SDS made important political decisions by outvoting were explained in para. 81 of the Verdict. In this way, and despite the objections of Muslim and Croat representatives, a decision was made to join the Ključ municipality with the Autonomous Region of ''Bosanska Krajina'' (ARK).100 Witness Egrlić explained in detail the circumstances relating to the accession of the Ključ municipality, first to the Banja Luka region, and subsequently to the ARK. The witness stated that the initiator of the decisions on regional organization was the SDS leadership, particularly Radislav Brđanin. Such regions had been already established in Croatia, so the regional organization in BiH just followed the same pattern. In the beginning, regional organization was carried out on the economic basis. Also established on this basis was the region of Banja Luka, to which Ključ municipality generally belonged within the context of economic organization, wherefore Muslim delegates in the Town Assembly considered the accession decision unnecessary. However, this form of regional organization lost its ostensible character and became an organization on political ground. Established fact II-13 addressed it as follows: “On 7 April 1991, the SDS Regional Board decided to create the Community of Municipalities of Bosnian Krajina (“ZOBK”). Vojo Kupresanin was elected President of the ZOBK Assembly, while the Accused was elected First Vice-President and Dragan Knezevic was elected Second Vice-President. The ZOBK was composed of sixteen municipalities from the Bosnian Krajina, all of which, except Kljuc, had substantial Bosnian Serb majorities. {...} Unlike the Banja Luka Community of Municipalities (“ZOBL”) which had existed previously, the ZOBK’s mandate included a strong defense component. Decisions of the ZOBK

97 T-139 Conclusion from the session of the ARK CS of 26 May 1992. 98 T-139 Conclusion from the session of the ARK Crisis Staff of 29 May 1992: “A decision was made enable all Muslims and Croats, who wanted to leave the ARK territory, to do so …”. 99 T-139 Conclusion from the session of the ARK Crisis Staff of 27 May 1992. 100 Exhibit T-129 Decision on Accession of the Ključ Municipality to the Autonomous Region of ''Bosanska Krajina'' number 05-023-3/92 of 16 January 1992.

79

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Assembly and minutes from its meetings show that this was an association intended to co- ordinate all major areas of administrative government in the municipalities that joined the ZOBK, and that its agenda was a political one.”101

206. The political character of the new Serb regions particularly became apparent at the stage when the ZOBK had already become the ARK. Specifically, “At its 7th session, held on 16 September 1991, the ZOBK Assembly transformed itself into the Autonomous Region of Krajina (“ARK”). The decision in question states that the ARK was being established “as an inseparable part of the Federal State of Federative Yugoslavia and an integral part of the Federal Unit of BiH”. On the same date, the Statute of the ARK, which was almost identical to the ZOBK Statute, was adopted. Like the ZOBK, the ARK had its seat in Banja Luka.” 102 “The ARK possessed authority over a wide range of issues. It was a political body vested with powers that belonged to the municipalities, including powers in the area of defense. Pursuant to its Statute, the ARK was in charge, inter alia, of the realization of socio-political objectives. In the legal parlance of the former Yugoslavia, socio-political communities were meant to denote governmental units. A regional association of municipalities, as provided for by the law, was not a governmental unit, and could therefore not have jurisdiction over defense matters, which were reserved to socio- political communities, including the republican and the municipal authorities.103 „The ARK did have jurisdiction in the area of defense. It’s Statute provided that the ARK “shall monitor the situation and co-ordinate activities for the organization and implementation of preparations for All Peoples’ Defense in accordance with the Law, municipal defense plans and the republican defense plan”. The ARK Statute also included a provision to the effect that the ARK Assembly shall have a permanent “Political Council” dealing with “issues of development of the political system” and a permanent “Peoples’ Defense Council” dealing with “issues from the area of peoples’ defense which are relevant to the Autonomous Region of Krajina.” {...}104

207. Opposition of the Muslim delegates to the accession of the Ključ municipality to the ZOBL, and subsequently to the ZOBK and the ARK, was not successful. As witness Egrlić testified, at the meeting with Stojan Župljanin, Jovo Banjac, Veljko Kondić and Vinko

101 Established fact II-13. 102 Established fact II-2. 103 Established fact II-4. 104 Established fact II-5.

80

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Kondić in Banja Luka, which he had attended together with Omer Filipović in an effort to find a compromise solution, Omer and he were “mocked“. The witness stated that none of his questions had been taken seriously. When he asked Župljanin, “Where are we, Bosniaks, in all this?”, Župljanin responded to him: “You should recognize yourselves, as you have anyway originated from Serbs”. On this occasion, Župljanin gave Omer and the witness two berets with a three-color symbol of the Serb state. Thereafter, at the session of the municipal assembly, the SDS representatives made a decision to merge the Ključ municipality with the newly established regional organization. According to witness Filipović, Muslim delegates left this session after a deliberately provoked incident which was the last attempt aimed at preventing the issuance of such a decision and outvoting.

208. In January 1992, upon a verification of the previously made decision on accession, the Ključ municipality became a member of the ARK, a regional area established pursuant to the directive of the SDS Main Board and the Assembly of the Serb people in Banja Luka.

209. Records from the sessions of the OO SDS show that the political life of the Ključ municipality itself had, already at the time, functioned pursuant to the these directives and instructions, rather than pursuant to the policy at the level of the Socialistic Republic of BiH.

210. Pursuant to the Instructions Variant A, the SDS Ključ Municipal Board decided, at its session on 23 December 1991, to establish a municipal crisis staff, which would comprise Banjac, Veljko Kondić, Vinko Kondić, Ljuban Bajić, Tihomir Dakić and some other persons. Pursuant to the Instructions, the TO Staff Commander was also a member of this Municipal Crisis Staff. As already explained in para. 119, Boško Lukić became a TO Staff Commander. Marko Adamović subsequently became a member of the Crisis Staff as the Town Defense Commander, as also explained in para. 126 of the Verdict.

211. Record from the 6th session of the OO SDS Executive Board, at which the attendees were notified of the Instructions, and pursuant to its contents, a decision rendered establishing the Ključ Municipal Crisis Staff, indicates that members of the SDS Municipal Board and Assembly of the Serb people in BiH specifically shared the common design established at the higher levels. That members of the SDS Municipal Board, including Jovo Banjac, Veljko Kondić, Vinko Kondić, the accused Boško Lukić, and subsequently Marko Adamović, became supporters and followers of the established

81

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

common design is shown by the records from the following sessions of the OO SDS and the Ključ Municipal Crisis Staff. All SDS activities were directed at the implementation of the goals set up in the Instructions. In addition to the decision establishing the Crisis Staff, which will become the highest body of the municipal authorities, also discussed at the sessions were the obligation to comply with the Federal laws, the TO organization, the arming and removal of the TO weapons, the need to remove non-Serb personnel, etc.. In parallel with the issuance of the Assembly decision to cease using the symbols related to Josip Broz Tito,105 the Serb symbols were introduced in the Ključ municipality. Witnesses Asim Egrlić, Muhamed Filipović, Enes Salihović and many others consistently testified about the foregoing. They stated that a three-color flag, the symbol of Serb people in Bosnia and Serbia, was hoisted on the municipal building, and that the military and the police also wore this symbol.

212. The Crisis Staff became the highest body of the municipal authorities.106 At the Crisis Staff Session held on 27 May 1992, the ARK decisions were made legitimate, and addressing the ARK decisions had already become a regular issue at the Crisis Staff sessions.107 That the Crisis Staff shared the established common design is particularly shown by the fact that it was constantly in session since the beginning of the attack on the civilian Muslim population,108 and that reports from the field were regularly submitted at the Crisis Staff sessions, in the activities of which the roles of the accused Lukić, Adamović and Vinko Kondić, as the Chief of the SJB, were of particular significance. The contents of the records of the Crisis Staff sessions and the Report on the activities of the Crisis Staff/ /War Presidency of the SO Ključ for the period after 15 May 1992 (the Crisis Staff was under a subsequent decision renamed War Presidency, but the composition of its members and its activities undoubtedly show it was one and the same body), indicate that this body rendered key decisions related to the actions by which Muslim and Croat civilians were persecuted from the Ključ municipality, namely that its members followed the common design established at the higher levels of the new state authorities.

105T- 142 Shorthand transcript of the 14th session of the Assembly of Serb people in BiH; “Recommendation to cease using symbols related to Josip Broz Tito”, at the 14th session of the Assembly of Serb people in BiH held on 27 March 1992. 106 T-229 Conclusion from the session of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff of 27 May 1992 (Item 3), T-260 „Report on the Activities of the Crisis Staff/ War Presidency/SO Ključ during the period from 15 May 1992 to date “- The document originated from July 1992. 107 Exhibit T-229. 108 T-229 Records of the sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff of 27-30 May, 1-6 June 1992, including even 9 June 1992.

82

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

213. In the Panel’s view, the foregoing is particularly obvious from the Record of the meeting of the Municipal Crisis Staff dated 30 May 1992, which stated the following: “The session of the Crisis Staff attended by the Commanders concluded as follows: (1) accepted hereby is the Commanders’ decision to impose a blockade on (the villages of) Ramići, Plamenica, Vukovo Selo, Krasulje and Kamičak, with an obligation to call (the population) into unconditional surrender and surrender of their weapons, and, if no resistance is offered, to cleanse the terrain...” The referenced conclusion should be viewed in relation to the testimonies of a number of witnesses who testified exactly about the events that occurred in the mentioned villages when Serb soldiers passed through them on these and the days that followed, which will be addressed in the part relating to the individual charges in the enacting clause of the Verdict. On several occasions, discussed at the Crisis Staff sessions was the issue of the transfer of Muslim population. Reports were submitted to the Crisis Staff about the activities conducted on the ground, including both military actions of the terrain cleansing and the police activities related to disarmament, deprivation of liberty and processing of the arrested.109 At the session held on 1 June 1992, Vinko Kondić, as the Chief of the SJB, notified the Crisis Staff, inter alia, about “the processing of arrested individuals.” This record was correlated with the testimonies of all the witnesses who had been arrested and captured in the period from 27 May through 1 June, and subsequently escorted either to the CJB or Nikola Mačkić primary school, or some other place designated for the processing of arrested individuals. According to all the witnesses, the “processing” implied severe beatings of persons, before escorting those who had survived this torture to some of the established camps. All the foregoing raised no doubts that members of the Crisis Staff supported the common design in furtherance of which all the referenced activities were undertaken.

214. Within the context of common design, one should also consider the decisions of the Crisis Staff relating to the (in)ability of Muslim employees to work, their placement on waiting lists, the removal of judges and prosecutors from their duties and the appointment of Serb personnel instead of them. Many of the witnesses heard explained that the exclusive standard for which certain persons were prohibited from coming to their work posts, and for which their employment was terminated, was their ethnicity. Such activities were undertaken based on the Crisis Staff decisions. In view of the foregoing, such decisions clearly formed part of the persecution of Muslims and Croats from the territory of

109 T-229 Record of the session of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff of 1 June 1992.

83

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

the Ključ municipality (and, viewed in a broader context, from the ARK territory too, because the decisions of the Municipal Crisis Staff regarding this matter were in compliance with similar decisions of the ARK Crisis Staff), all with a view to realizing the common design – creating a separate state of Bosnian Serbs.

215. The Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff played a crucial role related to the issues of removal of the civilian Muslim and Croat population. This issue was one of the agenda items at a number of sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff held during the critical period. The Crisis Staff issued a Press Release No. 20/92110 which stated as follows:

“1. All citizens in the Ključ municipality expressing their wish to permanently leave the territory of the Ključ municipality, will be provided with an organized transfer from the territory of the Ključ municipality by international humanitarian organizations and relevant bodies in the Assembly of the Ključ municipality.

2. Citizens interested in the foregoing may report to the Municipal Assembly – Civil Defense Department or to local committees in the local communities...”

216. The Panel has evaluated the referenced Press Release together with a conclusion, drawn two days later at the Crisis Staff session, that “the issue of organized relocation of the Muslim population should be resolved”. It ensues from this conclusion that the issue of relocation did not concern the Serb population. Together with the foregoing, the Panel also evaluated the testimonies of the witnesses who had described the procedures related to their leaving the Ključ municipality. Witnesses Ćerim Hrnčić, Mimka Brkić, Merim Filipović, Enes Mršić, and some other witnesses consistently testified that the leaving of the Ključ municipality was everything but a voluntary one. All the circumstances preceding such a decision of the referenced witnesses, all Muslim citizens, due to which further living there became unbearable, resulted in their decision to leave their houses. However, prior to their leaving, they had to give a statement that “they are leaving all their property to the Serb Republic of BiH”. Prior to that, the witnesses who had lived in the villages of the Ključ municipality had to obtain, in their local communities or similar places, certificates for free movement to the town in order to be able to give statement that they would leave their property to the new authority. Return of the citizens who had already, in certain way, abandoned the territory of the Ključ municipality, was prohibited under the decision of the Crisis Staff rendered at its session on 27 May 1992. The Panel has

110 Press release of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff No. 20/92 of 4 June 1992.

84

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

concluded, on the basis of the foregoing, that the referenced decisions were also rendered with the view to implementing the persecution goal.

217. In view of the foregoing, the Appellate Panel concluded that the second actus reus element of the JCE, the existence of a common design (purpose or intent), has been satisfied too.

(iii) Certain direct perpetrators commit individual criminal offenses by which the common criminal design or purpose is being implemented

218. This requisite for the existence of JCE will be addressed in more detail in the reasoning relating to the individual charges in Chapters IX A through H of the Verdict. It should be noted here that the commission of individual crimes has been proved, and that the Defense teams did not contest the objective commission itself of these crimes, but denied any contribution of their clients to the commission thereof.

(iv) The Accused’s participation in the common design which includes commission of one of crimes

219. The Appellate Panel has concluded that the Prosecution proved, beyond a doubt, that by their acts both these Accused contributed to the persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality, and that their contribution was aimed at the implementation of common design, creating a separate state of Bosnian Serbs, which renders them liable as participants in the JCE. Having acted from their respective positions, the TO Staff Commander and a member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff (Boško Lukić), and a reserve TO officer, subsequently Assistant Commander for Information, Morale and Religious Matters (Marko Adamović), being aware of the system of persecution, and with the intent to support this system, both these Accused supported the system, and by their actions, to be explained in detail in the description of their participation, contributed to the realization of the common design. a. The accused Boško Lukić

221. As reasoned in paras. 116-119 of the Verdict, the Panel concluded that the defense of the accused Boško Lukić, who denied being a member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff at the critical time, was ill-founded. The Panel also concluded that, regardless of the fact whether the accused Boško Lukić was formally a member of the SDS or not, the

85

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

adduced evidence confirms that, since January 1992 when the accused Lukić was appointed as the TO Staff Commander, he attended several meetings of the OO SDS. Not only that the accused Lukić attended those meetings, but he also took an active part both in those meetings and the subsequent meetings of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff. 223. Analyzing his activities at the referenced meetings and on the ground, the Panel will explain the element of participation as an actus reus element of the JCE.

224. It follows from the chronology of the Indictment that the Accused was charged that, after assuming the function of the TO Staff Commander, he actively led and commanded over the TO Staff, organized and trained new TO units, and thereupon undertook activities to establish the 17th Light Infantry Brigade. Even though the TO-related activities quite certainly fall within the scope of duties and tasks of the mandate of the TO Staff commander, considering that the Accused was appointed to this post under the decision of the Republic body (SRBiH)111, which fact was particularly highlighted by the defense during the proceedings, it would be logical that he complied with the instructions of the Republic bodies. However, the Accused led and commanded over the TO pursuant to the Instructions, ignoring the Republic laws and acting in compliance with the policy of the Assembly of the Serb People in BiH and the SDS policy.

225. As it transpires from the records from the sessions of the OO SDS held in early 1992, attended by the Accused, he actively undertook actions to organize the TO Staff units. Thus, the Record from the 5th session of the OO SDS and the Club of the Board members held on 22 January 1992112, shows that one of the items on the agenda (Item 3) is “establishment of the TO units in the municipality”, and that, presenting this issue, Boško Lukić stated as follows: “The manning of the TO would be done in each LC individually,113 particularly due to the specific character of each territory”. It was concluded at the same meeting that all the activities relating to the TO organization should be completed by the end of January 1992. However, the Record from the session of the Executive Board of the OO SDS held on 25 February 1992 shows that not all the activities were completed within the referenced period, because the first agenda item was “Supplementing the TO”, and that, with reference to this item, Veljko Kondić emphasized the “need to complete all the

111 Exhibit T-443. 112 Exhibit T-218. 113 L.C. is an abbreviation for a local community.

86

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

TO-related activities in the local communities”.114 Already at the next session of the Executive Board of the OO SDS, held on 6 March 1992, and attended by Boško Lukić, one of the discussed agenda items was the “Information about defense preparations in the territory of the Ključ municipality”. After Vinko Kondić had stated that “our men should be organized and trained”, the accused Boško Lukić got the floor and, according to the record, stated he was “in more detail informed about this item.”115 After Lukić’s presentation, Jovo Banjac proposed that all the TO weapons be “relocated to Kula”. Ljuban Bojić pointed to the need to train the men. The evidence to be further examined shows that this proposal was accepted, and that the accused Lukić actively participated in the training. At the same session, the following was also noted: “Local boards should be urgently summoned and a concept developed, with no paperwork”. At the next, 9th session of the OO SDS Executive Board, held on 12 March 1992, actively discussed were the lack of weapons, necessary cooperation with the JNA, the need to increase the number of reserve officers for Ključ, for the execution of which Slobodan Jurišić was engaged, while a few other members, including Boško Lukić, were engaged in all other jobs and activities. Veljko Kondić stated: “We will engage in supplying additional weapons.”116 The Record from the 10th session of the OO SDS Executive Board, held on 23 March 1992117, confirms that the initiated activities actively continued. The first agenda item at this session was an “Analysis of the implemented conclusions from the last session of the Executive Board”, within which the accused Lukić stated as follows: ”It is good that L.B.s118 keep  their records. As earlier agreed, platoons should be enlarged to a company size. He further discussed officers who might be helpful regarding professional skills. Živko Babić is tasked with establishing the necessary cooperation with Rudenice”. The Executive Board thereupon concluded that all the activities related to the TO organization should be completed by the end of the week. In addition, Vinko Kondić noted a need to send 250 men to the Lanište site, and the conclusion was drawn “to engage all relevant bodies to ensure that all Serbs respond to a military exercise.”

226. By early April, the TO organization-related activities were almost completed. At the session of the Executive Board of the SDS Ključ Municipal Board, held on 30 March 1992,

114 Exhibit T-211. 115 Exhibit T-212. 116 Exhibit T-214. 117 Exhibit T-214. 118 L.B. means a local board.

87

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

it was noted that: “the weapons of the TO staff were relocated”. Veljko Kondić further informed the attendees, including Boško Lukić, about his meetings with Karadžić in Sarajevo and Banja Luka and his visit to General Talić. Further discussed was a need to undertake all measures to ensure a better response of Serbs to mobilization. The accused Lukić stated at the referenced meeting that: “All unemployed men should be gathered, as well as men from the WO119 who do not work in full capacity. The activities should be carried out everywhere …”120

227. Considering all the preparations done, the Ključ TO Staff led by Boško Lukić, was on stand-by when the Ministry of Peoples Defense of the Serb Republic of BiH issued two decisions on 16 April 1992121, on the basis of the decision of the Presidency of the Serb Republic of BiH of 15 April 1992, stating as follows:

“1.The Territorial Defense of Srpska Republika Bosna i Hercegovina has been established as an armed force of the SRBiH. The territorial defense will be under the command of the municipal, district, regional and republic staff of the TO SRBiH.

2. The decision on the other components of the armed forces will be issued pursuant to the solution of the political organization of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the JNA Status.

The second decision of the Presidency reads as follows:

“1. An Imminent Danger of War has been declared.

2. General public mobilization of the TO is ordered in the entire territory of the SRBiH.

- all military conscripts must report to the TO municipal staffs in the SRBiH territory.”

228. The accused Lukić denied his activity and participation in the engagement of the TO Battalion at the Sitnica site. The accused Lukić, however, knew that the Battalion was deployed at the Sitnica site, between 18 and 23 April 1992, but he stated he had not participated in its formation. Also, the Accused denied being present at Sitnica because the referenced Battalion was “formed by the 30th Division”. The Accused tried to present

119 WO stands for a work organization. 120 Exhibit - 215. 121 Exhibit - 441 Decision of the Peoples Defense Ministry of the Srpska Republika BiH, No. 1/92 of 16 April 1992 signed by Bogdan Subotić.

88

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

that he was aware of the Battalion formation exclusively because the road towards Banja Luka led across Sitnica, and that passing along this route he saw the activities at issue.

229. The Panel, however, concluded that the evidence adduced by the Prosecution denied such a defense of the Accused. The examined Crisis Staff sessions’ Minutes showed that active preparations of the command structures of the TO units and the mobilization of manpower, comprising exclusively Serbs, were conducted. As it ensues from the analysis of para. 121 of the Verdict, the accused Lukić played a significant role in the process.

230. Witness Radenko Kuburić122 testified that, in April 1992, he had seen both Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović at the Sitnica site.

231. The Prosecution Exhibit T-196, Contribution to the Monograph of the I Krajina Corps, and Exhibit T-361, Document of the Command of the 30th Partisan Division, marked as “strictly confidential”, of 9 June 1992, confirm that the Battalion actually comprised TO units, and was not really formed by the 30th Division and the 13th Partisan Brigade, as the accused Lukić tried to prove through his defense.

232. It ensues from Exhibit T-196 that “…the establishment of this Ključ Battalion commenced on 18 April 1992. The initial activities were carried out in stages: establishing the command nucleus, appointing superiors in subordinate units, selecting men for units, and creating the material basis for the unit’s formation. The units were gathered on 26 April 1992 in the v. of Sitnica…” The referenced document further showed that the Battalion was armed with the weapons of the Ključ Municipality TO (taken) from the Kula barracks. If the Battalion used the weapons of the Ključ Municipality TO, which had been obviously relocated to Kula with the aim of arming those units pursuant to the SDS Instructions,123 and the order which could have been given exclusively by Boško Lukić, as the TO Staff Commander, as witness Enes Mršić124 testified, the Panel can only conclude that this Battalion was formed out of the TO units.

233. Exhibit T-361 should also be examined in order to exclude any doubts into such a conclusion. This Exhibit shows that the first Battalion of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade was

122 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-06/119 of 10 June 2009. 123 T-229, T-212 Minutes of the 8th Session of the IO SDS Ključ of 6 February 1992, T-215 Record of the 11th session of the IO SDS Ključ of 30 March 1992.

89

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

formed out of the TO Ključ Detachment, which was as such re-subordinated to it. This is in compliance with the contents of the examined Exhibit T-196, which stated that the Ključ Battalion formed part of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade as the First Battalion.

234. As it ensues from the adduced evidence, the accused Lukić also actively worked on the establishment and deployment of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, which continued the activities commenced by the TO, the police and various paramilitary formations to persecute Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality. The accused Lukić’s activities along this line are apparent from the contents of the Minutes from the sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff. In early June 1992, at the Crisis Staff sessions, the Accused briefed its members about the activities related to the Brigade establishment. On 2 June 1992, Boško Lukić informed members of the Crisis Staff that it was possible to obtain certain technical equipment for the needs of the future light infantry brigade likely to be formed in Ključ. Already on 9 June 1992, the Accused briefed the Crisis Staff about the establishment of the Brigade and the defense organization in the Ključ municipality. Ultimately, at the Crisis Staff session held on 30 June 1992, the accused Lukić again addressed the organization of the Brigade, and the personnel solutions to be discussed in the next following days. The 17th Light Infantry Brigade was established in early June.125

235. Considering that, at the beginning of armed combats, the Ključ Battalion was deployed to cleanse the town and the surrounding villages, as it ensues from Exhibit T- 196, and as confirmed by the witnesses who had seen the Ključ Battalion in action on the ground – in their villages126, the accused Lukić’s participation in the execution of persecution of the Muslim and Croat population from the Ključ municipality was not brought into doubt. The accused Lukić’s Defense has made efforts to contest the referenced, previously examined, Prosecution’s evidence. Along this line, the Defense submitted, in the proceedings before the Appellate Panel, Regular Combat Reports of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps127 to prove their assertions that the Ključ Battalion was not deployed in the territory of the Ključ municipality. However, considering that the Ključ Battalion was not re-subordinated to the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps until 9 June

124Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 26 April 2010, p. 20-21, Exhibit T-214. 125 Exhibit T-182, testimony of Slobodan Jurišić – established on 4 June 1992. 126 Witness Mimka Brkić stated she had also seen „Boško, teacher from Velagići“, when the military passed through her village. 127 Exhibits AO-1 through AO-6.

90

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

1992128, it is clear that any information about the deployment and engagement of the 2nd Krajina Corps cannot ensue from the Regular Combat Reports of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps. Therefore, the Panel’s finding about the Battalion’s role in the Ključ territory and its surrounding was drawn based on the previously analyzed, mutually consistent, subjective and objective Prosecution’s evidence, where the participation of some other units in the attack on the civilian Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality in the concrete case was fully indisputable.

236. In June, the accused Lukić, together with Marko Adamović and Vinko Kondić, informed the Crisis Staff about the situation on the ground. Quite certainly, the Accused could not have done so if he had not been present on the ground together with the TO units, or with the established Ključ Battalion. It ensues from Lukić’s and Kondić’s report of 28 May 1992, submitted at the Crisis Staff session, that “the connection with the Serb areas should be activated; that contacts should be made among sectors, and solutions given in the territories inhabited by the Muslim population; the new Company should be provided with additional weapons, namely the weapons from the contingent of seized weapons; Boško Lukić and Dane Pejić are in charge for providing the equipment.”129

237. Exhibits T-175 through T-179, Regular Combat Reports drafted by the accused Boško Lukić, according to his signature therein, undoubtedly proved his participation in the activities related to the persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality in furtherance of the common design. The referenced documents, originating from the period of 12-17 June 1992, stated the following:

“…I have decided to strengthen the control over the territory with the main forces with the aim to secure and reconnoitre the occupied territory, and to gather information about the Muslim extremists’ movement, and with a portion of the forces, in cooperation with the police, to block, search and sweep the area of the villages Islamagići-Ljutići and capture the remaining Muslim extremists …”130

“…I have decided to strengthen the control over the territory with the aim to secure and reconnoitre the occupied territory, and to gather information about the Muslim extremists’ movement, and with a portion of the forces, in cooperation with the police and an armored personnel carrier again block, search and sweep the area of the villages Islamagići (k.2333,417) and Josipovići - Đukići, with the aim to capture, destroy and disarm the remaining Muslim extremists…during the action carried out by the SJB on 12 June of the current year, a number of

128 Exhibit T-361. 129 Exhibit T-229. 130 Exhibit T-175 – Regular combat report by the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strictly confidential No.1-25/92 of 12 June 1992.

91

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Muslims from the Islamagići village were apprehended for operative processing and a certain quantity of firearms and ammunition seized. Our requests for supplying our units with the necessary equipment remain unchanged …”131

“…I have decided to strengthen control over the territory with the aim to secure and reconnoitre the occupied territory, and to gather information about the movement of Ustasha forces hidden in the woods in the Golaj and Plamenica area, and with a portion of forces, in cooperation with the police, to block, search and sweep the village of Dubočani with a view to collecting the remaining quantities of ammunition and weapons …”132

“…I have decided to continue the sweeping and control of the territory with the aim to round up the remaining portion of the Ustasha forces hidden in the Golaj area and at the banks of the Sana River and Vukovo Selo. The remaining forces will control and search the territory, and patrol throughout the deployment area within their zone of responsibility...”133

“…I have decided to force the remaining Ustasha forces into unconditional surrender by way of blocking, sweeping and searching the terrain in the area of Ljutića Brdo-Islamagići-Gornje Prhovo, and thereupon to search the whole territory of the local communities of Humići and Peći, with the aim to capture and liquidate the remaining Ustasha outlaws in this area…”134

238. The accused Lukić contested that he had any relations with the referenced documents and stated that he had not created them despite the fact that they contained his name. The Panel, however, found no basis for such averments of his, as there is no logical or adequate reason to justify signing Major Lukić’s name on such documents if he himself had not drafted them. The Panel has analyzed, through these documents, the territory which the Accused decided to further control and sweep the terrain, as he stated, and correlated them with Exhibit T-196, and concluded that those were one and the same terrain and the same villages in whose attack the very same Ključ Battalion had initially participated.

239. As to the analysis of the accused’s Lukić participation, as the third actus reus element of the JCE, Exhibit T-9, one should also not disregard the Video-recording depicting the accused Lukić’s open call to the “Muslim extremists” into surrender with a note that otherwise they “would stand no chance”.

131 Exhibit T-176, Regular combat report by the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strictly conf. No. 1-31/92 of 13 June 1992. 132 Exhibit T-177, Regular combat report by the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strictly conf. No. 1-12/92, of 10 June 1992. 133 Exhibit T-178, Regular combat report by the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strictly conf. No. 1-05/92, of 7 June 1992. 134 Exhibit T-179, Regular combat report by the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strictly conf. No. 1-31-5/92, of 17 June 1992.

92

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

240. Evaluating and examining the presented evidence, the Panel has concluded that, by his actions, the accused Lukić significantly contributed to the persecution of the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality, and that the persecution was carried out through a series of unlawful actions which are, by their nature and significance, the acts of commission of a crime by a plurality of persons. The requisite level of personal participation of the Accused as an accomplice in the concrete joint criminal enterprise has been thereby satisfied. b. The accused Marko Adamović

241. As confirmed by many of the witnesses heard and the evidence presented, the accused Adamović testified that he had gone to Sitnica in April 1992 and took part in the training of the mobilized TO Battalion.

242. The accused Adamović testified that, in April 1992, he received an invitation to report to the mobilization post in the village of Sitnica, where he learned that an infantry battalion would be established within the 30th Infantry Division. Appointed as the Battalion Commander was Branko Ribič, and the Accused as his Deputy.

243. The foregoing is partially in compliance with the contents of the documentary Exhibit T-196, which shows that the formation of the Ključ Battalion commenced on 18 April 1992 in Sitnica; that it was carried out in several stages; that the units gathered on 26 April 1992 when the Battalion Command was established; and that Marko Adamović as the Deputy Battalion Commander formed part of the superior personnel. The Defense teams for the accused Lukić and Adamović, however, made efforts to present that the Battalion formed in Sitnica was not related to the TO units, but rather belonged to the 30th Division or the Partisan Brigade. In the Panel’s view, contrary to such Accused’s defense, the documentary Exhibits (T-196 and T-361) showed beyond a doubt that this Battalion was indeed formed of the TO units.

244. Witness Radenko Kuburić testified he had been called to Sitnica in May 1992 for a military exercise, that the 17th Ključ Brigade was established at the time, and that he became a member thereof. The witness stated he had scarcely known the command personnel, but that Boro Pešović and Marko Adamović, whom he had seen in Sitnica, formed part of the command personnel.

245. Even though the Defense witnesses Dušan Prolić, Krstan Škavić, Drago Radojčić,

93

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Branko Kosić made efforts, through their testimonies, to exculpate the accused Adamović in relation to the activities after 27 May 1992, to which the Panel will particularly refer, they all consistently testified about the mobilization at Sitnica in April 1992, and the fact that the accused Adamović was there as part of the Battalion’s superior personnel.

246. Testifying in the capacity of a witness for the Defense, the accused Adamović stated that, until 12 May 1992, he had performed the duty of the Deputy Battalion Commander, and that he assumed the duty of the Commander for Information, Morale and Religious Affairs following the establishment of the VRS. Witnesses Kosić and Škavić confirmed the foregoing. Documentary Exhibit T-368, however, confirms that Adamović assumed the post of the Commander for Information, Morale and Religious Affairs much later, because such a proposal for his appointment to this function, as the referenced document shows, was filed no sooner than 29 December 1993, rather than on 12 May 1992, as the accused Adamović claimed, and even no sooner than 18 April 1992, as apparent from his personal record.135 Notwithstanding the position the Accused formally held during the period May-June 1992, the Panel has concluded, based on a number of consistent testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses, that the Accused led the Battalion, established in late April 1992 in Sitnica, to cleanse the villages in the Ključ municipality.

247. Exhibit T-196 shows that:

“At the beginning of armed combats in Ključ, the whole Battalion was relocated to the Ključ suburb and used to cleanse the town and the surrounding villages. A decision about its deployment for this task was made on 27 May 1992, and the units were used as follows:

“The 1st Company attacked in the direction of Reizovići-Hadžići- Pudin Han villages;

The 2nd Company and anti-armored vehicles attacked from the Brežčica position, in the direction of the villages Poni…- Hadžići-Pudin Han.

The task of the Companies was to disarm all paramilitary formations in the direction of the attack, and to apprehend under coercion members of those formations…

…

On the following day, the Battalion was, with the same task, deployed at the direction of the villages Pudin Han-Vukovo Selo, Humići-Plamenice-Prhovo-Peći. The next task was to cleanse the villages of Kamičak and Vrhpolje, where the

135 Exhibit T-365.

94

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Battalion joined the Sanski Most Brigade. The Battalion was next deployed to control and secure the territory of the Ključ municipality towards Velagići, Pudin Han-Ramići-Krasulje-Peći. In the course of carrying out this task, the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ was established and the Battalion formed part of it as the First Battalion …”

248. That the Battalion was, on the very 27 May 1992, re-deployed from Sitnica to the Ključ territory confirmed the accused Adamović in his testimony given in the capacity of a witness, even though he denied knowing in which area and with what task the Battalion was re-deployed. The Battalion’s re-deployment to the Ključ suburb was confirmed by the testimonies of the other Defense witnesses, Dragić, Krstan Škavić, Dušan Prolić and Drago Radojičić, but they all “distanced” themselves from any further activities. Witness Dragić stated that, after the military exercise on exactly 26 May 1992, he went home for mowing, and that his relative informed him about the events. Witness Prolić testified that the Battalion was first interned at Šip, and subsequently at a school in Ramići, that he was engaged with the medical corps and that, except for being aware of reconnaissance activities, he knew nothing about any other activities. Witness Prolić denied that any apprehensions were carried out during the time when he was with the Battalion in Ramići.

249. The Panel could not credit the testimonies of the referenced witnesses related to the Battalion’s further engagement. The Panel has concluded that these testimonies were contrary to the testimonies of the eye-witnesses to the horror to which certain villages in the Ključ municipality were subjected, and who identified perpetrators of those atrocities as the “soldiers led by Marko Adamović”.

250. Exhibit T-196 related to the Battalion activities is supported by the testimonies of witnesses Mirsad Puškar, Muharem Islamagić, Senad Medanović, Sadeta Medanović, Hamida Hadžić, Kana Mešić, Edina Hadžić, Salko Krantić, Bejrudin Brkić, Mimka Brkić, Nafa Smajić, witness C, Muhamed Kozarac, Teufik Bajrić and some other witnesses.

251. Witness Puškar stated that, in late May, he had seen Serb soldiers passing across the Brežčice plateau, and dragging equipment, mortars, including one mortar 82 mm. Among these soldiers, the witness also saw Marko Adamović. Pudin Han, which was according to the witness, 1km away as the crow flies, was shelled from that site. After these soldiers had left towards Pudin Han, the witness saw empty shells at the Brežčice plateau. The shelling of Pudin Han on the referenced day resulted in the death of 12 persons, as described in Section 2 of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the

95

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Verdict.

252. After a couple of peaceful days, soldiers came again to Humići from the direction of Vukovo Selo and Joldanovići, and proceeded towards Krantići, Ljutića Brdo, and further towards Plamenice and Prhovo. From the place where he stood, the witness watched in the villages he could see (Joldanovići, Humići with the crossroads towards Krantići and Ljutića Brdo) soldiers capturing people, selecting men for lining them up, beating them, and he heard screaming, crying, people escaping …136

253. Witness Muharem Islamagić testified that, following the shelling of his village Plamenice, all villagers fled to Humići. On 1 June 1992, the witness and his brother came across soldiers at the intersection in Humići. The soldiers captured his brother and started beating him. The witness asked Radenko Kuburić, one of the soldiers, to help him release his brother. Radenko told him: “Marko is down there, I dare not come any closer”137, implying Marko Adamović. After a while, the witness saw Adamović going after the soldiers who had tied up his brother and took him thus tied up towards Prhovo.

254. Upon their arrival in Prhovo, soldiers carried out a massacre as described in Section 4 of the enacting clause of Verdict. The villagers of Prhovo testified that, after a couple of shells had fallen at the village outskirts, soldiers entered the village on a personnel carrier to which the almost dead brother of witness Islamagić was tied. Together with soldiers, or more precisely, soldiers were led by “Captain” Adamović, as certain witnesses saw and described him. All the witnesses consistently testified that Sadeta Medanović was singled out from a group of villagers of Prhovljani, previously gathered in front of the village store and that a soldier in a uniform ordered her to repeat his words, and to call via megaphone all „green berets” to surrender or otherwise the soldiers would kill all the villagers, including her and her baby. Witnesses Senad Medanović and Kana Mešić testified with certainty that this “Captain” is the accused Adamović. Earlier on that day, Radenko Kuburić told witness Islamagić that he (Adamović) was “in charge”, or more precisely, that he dare not do anything because Marko was there. All the villagers of Prhovo examined at the hearing also testified that, while they stood gathered in front of the village store, 5 young men were singled out and killed. Witness Kana Mešić had known

136 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 20 May 2009, evidence of witness Mirsad Puškar, pp. 18- 19. 137 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 15 June 2009, testimony of witness Muharem Islamagić, p.39-40.

96

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Adamović from before, and, at first, she felt secure when she saw him leading the soldiers. Witness Mešić testified that exactly the accused Adamović ordered the summary execution of the five villagers of Prhovo after they had been singled out, and that after the execution, Adamović stated: “May their souls rest in peace”. Edin Hadžić, who had been before the massacre taken by soldiers with a group of men from Prhovo towards the village of Peći, heard that the accused Adamović ordered that the women and children in the village be killed.

255. Witness Salko Krantić testified he had heard the women-refugees from Prhovo mentioning “Adamović in relation to genocide in Prhovo”. The witness stated he had believed those stories because Marko Adamović had passed through the village of Krantići, went towards the village of Plamenice and entered the village of Prhovo. The witness stated that, passing through his village with soldiers, Marko told the villagers “the unit was under his commanded so they need not be afraid”.

256. Witness Mimka Brkić saw Marko Adamović when soldiers passed through Vukovo Selo. This created a strong feeling of fear among the population, which was further intensified due to the fact that Šefko Ćajić was then killed without any reason whatsoever.

257. Marko Adamović’s soldiers, among whom witness Nafa Smajić identified both the Accused and Radenko Kuburić, also passed though the village of Plamenice, from where Hamir Ljutić and Muharem Ljutić were taken away and killed. It also ensues from the testimony of deceased witness Mina Ljutić, which was read out, that Marko Adamović led soldiers who came to the village, and that she asked him where his soldiers were taking her son.

258. Witness Muhamed Kozarac from Hripavci testified that Marko Adamović was in charge, and that he was in the Musići village when 22 men were captured, beaten and taken to Manjača.

259. Witness Teufik Bajrić testified that the men from Ramići and Krasulje intended to flee, but could not do so through the Golaja woods. They came back and got captured. The witness saw many soldiers on the occasion, including the accused Adamović.

260. Therefore, the testimonies of the witnesses confirmed, beyond a doubt, that the accused Adamović, with soldiers on the ground, participated in the attack on the undefended Muslim villages through a series of actions to be described in the individual

97

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Counts of the Indictment.

261. That the accused Adamović participated in the attack on the civilian Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality is additionally proved by the Minutes of the Crisis Staff sessions which he attended, that is, most actively exactly on the days when those villages were attacked most intensively – in late May and early June.

262. At the Crisis Staff sessions held on 3, 4, 5 June and on 18 and 30 June, the accused Adamović briefed the Crisis Staff about the events on the ground, daily activities, the destruction of enemy and about the disarmament-related activities. Considering his presence on the ground, the Accused understandably could not attend all the sessions of the Crisis Staff. However, the sessions which the Accused attended, and at which he briefed the attendees about the situation and the events on the ground, in the Panel’s opinion, undoubtedly confirm his involvement in the attack.

263. In view of the foregoing, the Panel has concluded that the actus reus element for the responsibility under the principle of JCE, i.e. participation in a common design, that is, in the act of commission or acts of contribution to common purpose of the crime, has been also satisfied on the part of the accused Marko Adamović. The Panel has concluded that, by his acts, the accused Adamović significantly contributed to the persecution of the civilian Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality, carried out in furtherance of common design.

(b) Mens rea (guilty mind)

264. The mens rea required for finding an accused guilty of the basic JCE, as established in both national and international jurisprudence, implies that the accused must have the requisite intent to perpetrate a certain crime (this being the shared intent of all co- perpetrators),138 and must intend to participate in a common plan aimed at its commission.139

265. In establishing the element of awareness, or more precisely, in determining whether the requisite mens rea for the basic JCE exists on the part of the accused, the

138 Appeals Chamber Judgment in Vasiljević, paras. 97,101; Appeals Chamber Judgment in Krnojelac, para. 31 (emphasis added). 139 Appeals Chamber Judgment in Brđanin, para. 356 quoting the Appeals Chamber Judgment in Kvočka et al., para. 82 (the requisite „intent to effect the common purpose“).

98

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Panel must take account of the conduct of the accused person(s) from which the requisite mens rea ensues, as defined by the ICTY’ Trial Chamber in Krajišnik:

“The Accused’s knowledge of events, acceptance of new circumstances, and general intentionality during the indictment period, are one area where inferences must be made. The information the Accused received during this period is an important element for the determination of his responsibility, because knowledge combined with continuing participation can be conclusive as to a person’s intent.”140

266. The Appellate Panel concluded, based on the adduced evidence, that the accused Lukić and Adamović were aware of the situation in both the ARK and the town of Ključ itself and its surroundings, and that they shared the intent to commit the crime of persecution of the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality, as a crime against humanity, aimed at furtherance of the common plan.

267. As already stated, the Strategic goals were adopted at the Assembly of Serb People in BiH, held on 12 May 1992, wherein the first goal was defined as the “separation from the two other national groups”. The Instructions for the Organization and Activity of Organs of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary Circumstances were adopted much before this time, in accordance to which the OO SDS, and subsequently the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff acted and planned their respective activities. As it ensues from the OO SDS sessions, it was mostly the accused Boško Lukić who undertook the activities aimed at establishing a new, monoethnic TO, the mobilization of the Serb population to fill in the new TO, in cooperation with other members of the OO SDS, all pursuant to the referenced Instructions and guidelines established at the higher levels of the authorities of the Serb Republic BiH.

268. Even though the TO detachment gathering at Sitnica, in April 1992, was organized as a “military exercise”, all the further activities point to the conclusion that this was just a screen for the future activities related to the establishment of the Infantry Battalion. The Defense’s witness Dušan Prolić testified about the mobilization days at Sitnica. The witness stated that they lived up there like in a “peacetime days”, and that this was not a military exercise in the true sense of the word. On the other hand, the accused Adamović confirmed in his testimony that, after his arrival at Sitnica, he learned that an infantry battalion was to be established. As it ensues from Exhibit T-196, a battalion of the kind

140 Judgment in Prosecutor v. Momčilo Krajišnik, No. IT-00-39-T of 27 September 2006, para. 890.

99

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

was indeed established, but, understandably, it could not be fully established at once. From the day the TO units gathered at Sitnica on 18 April 1992, the process of the battalion establishment went through several stages, from the first stage of the establishment of a core Command, to the final gathering of units on 26 April 1992. The accused Adamović formed part of the Battalion since the early days of its formation. There is no evidence proving that the Accused changed either his position or function even when the Battalion became a part of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade after its establishment. In the meantime, the formed Battalion, the so called Ključ Battalion, was armed with the TO equipment, which had been previously relocated to Kula upon an order which could have been given only by the Staff Commander, that is, the accused Lukić, as noted at the Crisis Staff session, also attended by the accused Lukić.141

269. Through the meetings of the OO SDS and the subsequent sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff which he attended, the accused Lukić undertook all the TO establishment-related activities in compliance with the directions of the Assembly of the Serb People in BiH, and the Variant A of the Instructions; he was aware of the strategic goals adopted on 12 May 1992 by the Assembly; together with Jovo Banjac142 the Accused attended the meeting held in the zone of responsibility of the 30th Division where these strategic goals were discussed and information presented about the security situation in the Ključ municipality, and in the afternoon hours of the same day at the Crisis Staff session, where its members were notified of the conclusions from the referenced meeting;143 in such circumstances, the Accused undertook further activities to organize the 17th Light Infantry Brigade which was also to comprise the Battalion on the formation of which he had actively worked since assuming his function of the TO Staff Commander. These are all the circumstances showing that the Accused had the intent to both commit the crime of persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality and to participate in a common plan, with the aim to implement it.

270. The accused Lukić’s further activities, his participation in the “cleansing of the terrain” with the TO units in the wider area of the Ključ municipality inhabited by Muslims and Croats, the fact that he was aware of the arrest of Omer Filipović and Asim Egrlić, and of all other arrests carried out in the Ključ municipality (as undoubtedly confirmed by

141 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 26 April 2010, testimony of witness Enes Mršić, p.21. 142 Exhibit T-155. 143 Exhibit T-1.

100

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Exhibit T-9), the activities directed at the surrender of the Muslim population and their disarmament, which were carried out by severe violations of the provisions of international humanitarian law (to be described in detail through individual charges), additionally confirm the element of the Accused’s awareness, specifically his intent to effectuate the policy of persecution under the first strategic goal (removal of non-Serb population).

271. As a person who had been aware of the goal of the mobilization since the early days of this mobilization at Sitnica, the establishment of the Infantry Battalion, and the person who was part of the team of superiors of the Infantry Battalion since the early days of its establishment, the accused Adamović must have undoubtedly known the reason for its establishment, which became obvious with the Battalion’s engagement in the attacks in the wider area of the Ključ municipality.

272. That the accused Adamović had the intent to persecute Muslims and Croats of the Ključ municipality evidently confirms the fact that, in late May but before 27 May 1992, when the artillery attack on the villages of Pudin Han and Velagići was launched from the Brežčica plateau, he was seen with the other members of the Battalion dragging the artillery to this very plateau from which the attack was launched. The presented evidence confirms that soldiers, together with the accused Adamović, went from this spot through the other villages of the Ključ municipality, mostly or fully inhabited by the Muslim population, searched houses, seized weapons, that they were engaged in beating and taking away a number of men whose traces have been lost ever since, in individual killings like in Vukovo Selo, or in mass killings of a larger number of villagers, such as the crime committed in Prhovo. The villagers of Vukovo Selo, Prhovo and Krantići, and of many other places through which the military passed, identified the accused Adamović, whom they had known from before as a teacher, as a person who led soldiers. In the Panel’s view, all these circumstances do not bring into doubt the conclusion that the accused Adamović had the intent to persecute Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality.

273. Despite the facts that the accused Adamović denied he had connection with the Crisis Staff, and that he was a Commander of the Town Defense Command, established in Ključ,144 the Appellate Panel has concluded, based on the adduced evidence, that the referenced body (Town Defense Command) was operational, and that the accused

144 Testimonies of Rajko Kalabić, Marko Adamović, Boško Lukić.

101

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Adamović acted and attended the sessions of the Crisis Staff exactly in the capacity of the Commander of the Town Defense Command.

274. It ensues from the May 1992 Proposal of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipal Assembly of the structure of municipal bodies in time of war,145 that the accused Adamović was also listed among members of the Crisis Staff. The Document of the 30th Partisan Division of 31 May 1992, containing the order to establish the Ključ Town Defense Command, which inter alia noted that the Commander of the Ključ TO Staff is consistent with the contents of the Minutes of the session of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff,146 when Boško Lukić was proposed as a Town Defense Commander. However, already since 2 June 1992, Marko Adamović, as the Town Defense Commander, also attended the Crisis Staff sessions and reported about the situation on the ground. The Minutes of the session dated 2 June 1992, undoubtedly confirms that the referenced body became operational, because the accused Adamović, as the Town Defense Commander, discussed before members of the Crisis Staff certain “organizational issues, the establishment of units and armament...”, and that the Crisis Staff assigned certain duties to the Town Defense Command.

275. At the Crisis Staff further meetings held in June 1992, Adamović submitted regular reports from the ground, attended the sessions discussing a variety of issues, such as the relocation of the population, capturing and disarmament of Muslims, appointments to and releases from the posts in the Basic Courts and the Municipal Petty Offense Court, ban on work of the SDA and MBO “extremist organizations”, and general issues relating to the security and political situation and the activities on the ground. All the foregoing undoubtedly points to the conclusion that the Accused supported the policy of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, implemented it pursuant to the directives of the ARK and the Assembly of the Serb People in BiH, as already explained above, and that, just like the accused Lukić, he shared the intent to effectuate the policy of persecution under the first strategic goal (removal of the non-Serb population).

276. In view of the foregoing, the Appellate Panel has concluded that the accused Adamović had the requisite intent to commit the crime and participate in the common plan with the intent to implement it.

145 T-164. 146 T-229 Record of 29 May 1992.

102

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

IX. INDIVIDUAL INCRIMINATIONS

277. The Accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović were found guilty of participating in the persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality, by unlawful acts such as: murder, deportation and forcible transfer of the population, imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, other inhumane acts of similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to physical or mental health, unlawful bringing people into concentration camps, attack against civilian population, settlements, individual civilians, which resulted in death; the shelling, using any means, of undefended cities, villages, residences or buildings, and thereby satisfied the essential elements of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity.

278. Before addressing the individual Counts of the Indictment, the Panel will first refer to certain incidents, described by many witnesses as a turning point in the life of the Ključ municipality, and the moments when the tensions culminated. As it ensues from the witnesses’ testimonies, these incidents served as an excuse, or a possible trigger, but certainly not as a justified reason for all other subsequent activities, as the Defense teams tried to present through their evidence.

A. INCIDENT IN THE CRLJENI VILLAGE

279. The village of Crljeni, in the Sokolovo Local Community, Ključ municipality, is the first village where a serious incident occurred already on 26 May 1992. Witness Jusuf Omerović147 testified that the tensions in the village escalated through the continued, sporadic shootings and insults by soldiers returning from Croatia frontlines. The villagers failed in resolving the tensions through peacemaking meetings to which representatives of the Serb and Muslim Municipal bodies were invited. The tensions, lasting for months, culminated on 26 May 1992. Witness Omerović testified that he had walked back to the village on this date and heard shots from the hill of „Malevića strana“. The witness heard from the villagers, mostly women and children, running into him, crying and shouting that „they had been attacked“ and „the war had started“. The witness went to the village

147 Transcript of the main trail in the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 22 October 2008.

103

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

outskirt to check what was happening, and came across a group of villagers who had captured 7 Serb armed soldiers, who even had a machine gun „Garo 53“. The soldiers told the villagers that they had been sent to the Crljeni village with the intent to cause an incident, which would be the first major incident in the territory of the Ključ Municipality. The villagers, mostly armed with hunting rifles or pistols they had had from before, took the captured soldiers to the village and placed them in a house, intending to keep them as a proof that the village of Crljeni was the first village in the territory of the Ključ Municipality attacked by the Serb reservists. The Crljeni villagers notified the representatives of Bosniak authorities in Ključ, Omer Filipović and Asim Egrlić, of the capture of Serb reservists, but they made no response. At the same time, the villagers received a letter from Captain Miličević who threatened them that “the village would be razed to the ground“ if the captured soldiers were not released by night. Aware of the fact that the Crljeni village was surrounded by Serb villages, and in fear of retaliation, they decided to leave the village and go towards Plamenice, the nearest village inhabited by the Muslim population.

280. It was not an easy task for the villagers to leave the village. They had to move along the Sana River canyon. The first bridge to cross over to its other bank was in the neighboring Serb village. They did not dare go there, so they had to cross the river. The witness stated that, because of the rain season, the river was 30-40m wide, and at some parts up to 3-4m deep. Nevertheless, around 570 villagers of Crljeni crossed the river and reached Plamenice. They brought the captured soldiers along with them, and sent them from Plamenice further to Krasulje.

281. In Plamenice, they faced a new, difficult situation because the settlement had insufficient number of houses to accommodate all newly arrived villagers of Crljeni. While they were in Plamenice, they heard about the events in Ključ, arrests, apprehensions and the shelling of Pudin Han and Velagići. Men mostly hid in the woods above the Sana River canyon. Due to the difficult situation in which they found themselves, in fact deceived and called to surrender their weapons, with the assurances given by the TO Staff Commander, Boško Lukić, that they would be provided with a safe return to their village, they decided to surrender. They were subsequently taken first to the Nikola Mačkić primary school and thereupon to the Manjača camp.

104

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

B. KILLING OF DUŠAN STOJAKOVIĆ AKA DUĆA, DEPUTY COMMANDER OF THE SJB KLJUČ

282. A large number of the heard witnesses for both the Prosecution and the Accused’s Defense, identified the moment when Dušan Stojaković aka Duća, Deputy Commander of the SJB Ključ, was killed as the beginning of war activities in the territory of the Ključ municipality. On 27 May 1992, between 11:00 and 11:30 hrs, Dušan Stojaković known as Duća was killed, and several other persons wounded in the Krasulje area. The witnesses testified that this caused a general chaos among the population. Vinko Kondić and Omer Filipović went from Ključ together to the crime scene in order to take over the body of the killed Deputy Commander. However, Radio Ključ launched its propaganda activities „that Muslim extremists had killed and kept the bodies of the Commander and some other persons“. Witness Fahrudin Krivić testified that a strange silence reigned over the town. After Filipović and Kondić had gone to Krasulje, tensions were eased but for a short period of time. The witness stated that, already on the following day, mass-scale arrests around the town of Ključ and its surroundings started. All subsequent events described in sections of the convicting part of the enacting clause of the Verdict will be analyzed further in the reasoning.

283. Witness Muhamed Filipović testified that no crime investigation had been carried out, and that the perpetrator of Dušan Stojaković’s murder had been never identified. However, it ensues from the duty transfer log148 that, on the previous day, he was sent to the Krasulje area, where women and children had been on the move, with the task to determine together with the TO whether the check point should be closed.

C. AMBUSH IN BUSIJE AND THE ATTACK ON YOUNG SOLDIERS

284. On the same day when Dušan Stojaković was killed, armed Muslims from Busije stopped a bus transporting young soldiers who had been withdrawing from frontlines in Croatia. Around 20 soldiers were wounded in this ambush. Witnesses Lako Aničić and Dušan Grabež described the referenced incident. Witness Grabež testified that he had been near a gas station at the entrance to the town, when he heard a heavy burst of fire.

148 Exhibit T-13.

105

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Thereupon, he saw soldiers without caps, belts and blouses jumping from a bus and running behind the Izletnik Inn, where construction blocks on pallets were stored, and hid behind them. He heard that there were wounded and killed persons among them. The witness saw this when he entered the bus.

285. The Prosecution witnesses also described the incident which occurred at Busije on 27 April 1992. Witness Muhamed Filipović testified that villagers made trenches at the entrance to the village in order to protect it. In compliance with the testimonies of the other Prosecution’s witnesses, witness Filipović stated figuratively that, at the time, the military, the Knin Corps and the police, walked around Ključ as if „it was a hunting time”. Those men from Krasulje went out to protect their households. Nevertheless, it was not established if there had been any motive to attack the bus with young reservists withdrawing from the frontlines, and it is irrelevant to this case. It is indisputable that the referenced incident indeed occurred, and that many witnesses marked it as a motive for the subsequent events. The propaganda activities of Radio Ključ confirmed the foregoing. Journalist Volaš called the inhabitants of Šarić Brdo not to shoot at the bridge and members of the reserve forces. Witness Aničić, who was present at the referenced site, stated that no shooting could be heard at all, and that it can be concluded that the purpose of Radio Ključ was to additionally increase the tensions, worsen the already tense situation and, in fact, to provoke an attack on the settlements inhabited by the Muslim population.

D. SECTION 1 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE CONVICTING PART OF THE VERDICT

“On 27 May 1992, as part of the power takeover by the Serb forces, the army and the police started unlawfully arresting and depriving of liberty non-Serb civilians in downtown Ključ, bringing them to the Public Security Station without informing them about the reasons for their arrest, where they were exposed to physical abuse by police members and various investigators, who used punches, kicks and various implements to beat them all over their bodies, asking them to confess that they were preparing all kinds of crimes against Serb population, which created fear among prisoners not only for their own destiny, but for the destiny of their family members. They were held in the Public Security Station detention cells, which were inadequate to hold a large number of prisoners without food and basic hygienic conditions. A day or two later at least 22 civilians, including Luka Brkić, Muhamed Filipović, Leopold Flat, Behrem Šarić, Muhamed Eljezović, Mehmed Šistek, Fadil Jakupović, Smajil Muslimović, Darko Džaja, Mirsad Šehić, Fadil Medić, Domagoj Rebac, Husein Kozarac, Fahrudin Krivić, Abid Dervišević, Mehmed Begić, Mustafa Koljić, Alija Bilić, Mirsad Mršić, Dževad Mistrić, Teufik Vučkić and Šaban Kujundžić, were transported to the Stara Gradiška camp, and Šaban Kujundžić died as a result of beatings on the way to the camp, while others were beaten during their admission into the camp and their stay there, and approximately fifteen days later they were transferred to

106

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

another camp on Manjača.”

286. A large number of the Prosecution’s witnesses testified with regard to the circumstances described under Section 1 of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict. These witnesses were directly injured by the described acts. The Prosecution also adduced a certain number of pieces of the documentary evidence in support of the claims in the referenced section of the enacting clause. It should be noted that the Defense did not contest the events described in the referenced section either, except for contesting only the Accused’s connection with the acts at issue. Nevertheless, the Panel has concluded that the referenced acts were undertaken with the aim to persecute the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality, and that they comprised part of the policy adopted at the sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff.

287. That the persons mentioned in Section 1 of the enacting clause of the Verdict were apprehended and taken to the Police Station Ključ on 27 May 1992, and a few of them in the morning hours of 28 May 1992, ensues first from the „Duty transfer log“149 for 27/28 May 1992, noting for all the referenced persons, except for Alija Bilić, when precisely they were apprehended and detained. The Duty transfer log further stated that the 22 individuals apprehended on the previous day, on 28 May 1992 at around 18:30 hrs, were all taken under escort to Banja Luka. The foregoing is compliant with the testimonies of all the witnesses examined with regard to the circumstances described in the referenced Section of the enacting clause, namely the testimonies of Muhamed Filipović, Luka Brkić, Fahrudin Krivić, Behrem Šarić, Mehmed Begić and Leopold Flat. These witnesses testified that the Small Camp (Mali Logor) in Banja Luka was just a transitory station, where they were stopped, unloaded from the truck and severely beaten, then loaded again onto the truck and driven towards the Stara Gradiška prison. Exhibit T-321, List of the persons detained at the SJB Ključ150, includes the names of 22 persons transported to the Stara Gradiška camp on 28 February 2013. Even though the date indicated on the document itself is 29 May 1992, a handwritten note on it (Gradiška, 27 May ’92) clearly shows that it refers to the persons who had been deprived of liberty and unlawfully detained on 27 and 28 May 1992 at the Police Station Ključ, and transported to Stara Gradiška in the afternoon hours of 28 May.

149 Exhibit T-13. 150 Exhibit T-231, List of detained persons, 29 May 1992, SJB Ključ, with a signature of the Chief of the SJB, Vinko Kondić.

107

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

288. The referenced documentary evidence is fully supported by the testimonies of witnesses Muhamed Filipović, Luka Brkić, Fahrudin Krivić, Behrem Šarić, Mehmed Begić and Leopold Flat. All these witnesses first described their own arrests by soldiers, as obvious from the analysis of their evidence, or more precisely, by members of the TO or the police. These witnesses were escorted to the SJB Ključ, and questioned in the offices of Todo Gajić or Sreto Aničić, police officers of the SJB Ključ, without being informed of the reasons for their arrest. After the questioning, these witnesses were taken to the basement cells of the SJB Ključ, which were unfit for the internment of a larger number of detainees held therein. On the same day (those arrested on 28 May 1992), or on the following day (those arrested on 27 May 1992 who spent the night in these cells), the 22 men from Ključ, whose names were listed in Exhibit T-321, as consistently described by all the above referenced witnesses, were transported by a trailer truck to the Stara Gradiška camp, during which transport they were severely beaten, as a result of which Šaban Kujundžić even died. After around 15 days, they were transferred to the Manjača camp.

289. All the heard witnesses testified that 22 men, Muslims and Croats from Ključ, were in a group of detainees who were transported in a truck to the Stara Gradiška camp and 15 days later moved to the Manjača camp, and that one of them, Šaban Kujundžić, died on the road towards the Stara Gradiška camp as a result of severe beatings.

290. Witness Luka Brkić 151 testified that, in 1992, he lived in the town of Ključ. In late May, a group of “soldiers or police officers” came to his house searching for weapons, and the witness handed his hunting rifle over to them. The witness further stated that the persons who had come to search his house contacted Tode Gajić,152 who ordered them to take him to the MUP and continue the search. On the way to the MUP, they beat the witness and “applauded” for the fact of his being taken to the MUP. Once they reached the MUP, the real interrogation and beating followed. They questioned the witness if he had had any weapons, sub-machine guns, etc. The witness told them he had had no weapons, and that he had already handed over his hunting rifle, for which he possessed a regular firearm license. Ranko Kovačević153 and one Đaković, whom the witness knows by his last

151 Transcript from the case No. X-KR:05/119 of 12 November 2008, testimony of witness Luka Brkić. 152 As it ensues from the testimonies of the witnesses and Exhibit T-308, Tode Gajić was an employee of the then police and his name is included in the „List of police employees and other authorized officials who signed the solemn declaration.“ 153 Exhibit T-308, List of police employees and other authorized officials who signed the solemn declaration, No. 19.

108

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

name, beat him in the course of the questioning, in the presence of Tode Gajić. The witness stated he did not know the reason for his apprehension, and believes it was probably because he was a non-Serb, and because they thought he had been preparing something against them. In the meantime, Fadil Medić, a land surveyor from Ključ, was brought in. They also questioned and beat him, and forced him to eat a piece of paper on which he wrote in the Latin script „This is Serbia, the Cyrillic script is used here“. After the interrogation and beating, the witness was taken to a cell in the basement of the SJB Ključ, where he saw a larger number of Muslims and Croats from Ključ, also detained therein. They spent a night in this cell. On the following morning, a soldier wearing a red beret came and called them out, using the words: „Come out, Ustashas! “ They climbed up the stairs, whereupon their hands were tied up behind their backs. They were loaded onto a truck with a tarpaulin parked in front of the MUP building. A total of 22 of them were in the truck. While they kneeled with their hands tied up, three soldiers came in and started beating them. The beating lasted for half of an hour. Šaban Kujundžić was most severely beaten, and was unconscious all the time after the beating. The truck, escorted by the police vehicle in front of and behind it, headed first towards the Small Camp (Mali logor) in Banja Luka, where they were thrown out of the truck and severely beaten. Thereupon they were again loaded onto the truck, and transported to Stara Gradiška. Upon leaving the truck, they passed through a gauntlet of soldiers who kicked them, and beat them with chains and other implements, and thereupon brought them into a room, where they were leaned against the wall, while soldiers beat them with batons. The men spent around 15 days in the Gradiška camp, whereupon they were transferred to Manjača.

291. Witness Muhamed Filipović testified that, on 28 May 1992, on his way back home, he came across two neighbors of his, Miralem Atiković and Salih Gomilović. They told him they had overheard via Radio Ključ (which acted pursuant to the directive of the Ključ Municipal Crisis Staff as described above), that he had been called to surrender. When the witness came home, his wife told him “in a flutter” that “soldiers had just been here looking for you”. The witness asked what soldiers were in question, and his wife and daughter-in- law told him that soldiers who had come spoke the Serbian ekavian dialect, and that one of them had even said he was from Kragujevac. They searched his house, seized his pistol and a book in geodesy, and stated that “the Ustasha prepared an attack on Belgrade“. The witness was a land surveyor by profession and the author of the reference book was from Belgrade. The witness stated he got angry upon seeing that the house of his brother Omer, located next to his own house, had been ransacked and his brother’s 109

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

vehicle make “Zastava 101”, driven away. Therefore he went to the police station to speak with Vinko Kondić, who was in his opinion, together with Jovo Banjac, as members of the Crisis Staff, responsible for the events in Ključ.

292. However, already at the far end of his „garden“, the witness bumped into Ratko Radojičić and Radenko Čavka, members of the TO reserve force. They asked for his identity card even though they had known him from before, and then escorted him to the police station. On the way towards the police station, they came across a large group of soldiers and police officers who started beating the witness, as a result of which he fainted. When he regained his consciousness, he realized he was stripped to his underpants in Tode Gajić’s office in the MUP building. Tode questioned him, but during the questioning, Tode left the office every 15-20 minutes, and a group of soldiers, in olive-gray and dark blue, camouflage, police uniforms came in to beat him. The witness is certain that those persons were not from Ključ. The witness believes that the questioning and beating in Tode Gajić’s office lasted approximately from 11:00 hrs, when he was brought in, through 18:00 hrs, when he was taken to the basement cell. Down there in the cell, the witness saw a large number of captured men from Ključ, among whom he identified Darko Džajić, Dr. Leopold Flat, Luka Brkić and some other persons. The witness realized that all the detainees had something in common – they were non-Serbs, and that the sole reason for their apprehension was their ethnicity.

293. Consistently with witness Luka Brkić, witness Filipović testified that they were taken out of the cells, in the afternoon hours, that their hands were tied up, and they were taken outside, in front of the MUP building, where a truck with the a tarpaulin and ladders leaned against it had already awaited them. They were forced to climb up in the truck. They, 21 of them, climbed up into the truck. Šaban Kujundžić already lied there in a “death rattle”, as a result of the sustained beatings. In addition to witness Filipović, Dr. Leopold Flat, Darko Džajić, Luka Brkić, Fadil Jakupović, Mehmed Begić, Teufik Vučkić, Enes Mršić and some other men were also in the truck. They did not know where they were being taken. The witness stated that they (soldiers) stopped the truck for a couple of times to beat them. They were most severely beaten in the Small Camp (Mali logor) in Banja Luka, where the truck-side was opened, the 22 of them thrown out on a pile and beaten. They were thereupon again loaded onto the truck and the drive continued. The police escorted the truck. They drove them to the Stara Gradiška prison. When they got off the truck and entered the prison, the detainees had to pass through a gauntlet formed by soldiers, who

110

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

beat them with rifle butts. The four detainees carrying immobile Šaban Kujundžić were most severely beaten. The total of 21 detainees were interned in a small cell, surface 6-7 m², except for Kujundžić whom he had seen no more, and who had died, as the witness heard. The witness stated that, in order to have air in this cell, a half of them had to squat alternatively, while the other half stood. On the following morning, they were placed in other cells, where they had blankets, but in general the conditions were bad, and food supply poor. For example, one leaf of bread was distributed among 44 persons. The witness’s leg was severely injured and black and blue, as indigo, and his back hurt as a result of the sustained beatings. When he visited a physician once, witness Filipović saw himself in a mirror: his head was like a football. He received 10 penicillin injections, which saved his life.

294. While he was imprisoned at Gradiška, witness Filipović met his brother Omer. His brother Omer, who had also been captured, heard that the last name Filipović was called out for injection. Thus he succeeded to arrange their meeting. Omer told witness Filipović how he had surrendered, and threatened that all civilians would be shot dead unless he surrendered. Despite knowing that his surrender would mean nothing, he surrendered under the pressure of the civilians at Pudin Han. Already at the moment when he entered the police vehicle, his thoughts became true. The shelling of Pudin Han started immediately. Witness Muhamed Filipović further testified that Omer told him he had guessed they would be transferred to Manjača, which indeed occurred on 15 June. His brother Omer Filipović and Esad Bender were killed at Manjača in July 1992. Witness Muhamed Filipović stayed in the camp until 15 September 1992, when representatives of the Red Cross came there. He was among the 68 detainees called out from the camp and deported to London.

295. Witness Fahrudin Krivić testified that he had been apprehended and taken to the police station on 27 May 1992 to give a statement, as he was told. Already along the road to the police station, the witness saw some citizens of Ključ armed with automatic rifles and machine-guns. In the park, he saw a large number of soldiers wearing white eagles insignia. Aničić was the first person who came to the police station. He was not a police officer, but he wore a blue police shirt, as a part of the uniform. Thereupon, three soldiers wearing green, camouflage uniforms, came in to beat and question him about “green berets”. The witness was thereupon taken to a cell in the basement, where he saw Šaban Kujundžić and Luka Brkić, already beaten and in a bad condition. The witness stated they

111

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

were subsequently taken out to the duty room, where their hands were tied up. Then they were loaded onto a trailer truck with a tarpaulin. Consistently with witnesses Filipović and Brkić, witness Krivić further stated that they were beaten along the road to the Stara Gradiška camp, and again when they came down from the truck. The witness stated that he was one of the four men who carried Šaban Kujundžić on the stretcher. Therefore, they could not walk fast enough, or protect themselves, as a result of which they were beaten most. Once they entered the camp, they saw Šaban Kujundžić no more. The remaining 21 detainees were placed in a small cell.

296. Witness Krivić testified that they had stayed in the Stara Gradiška camp for 14 days, whereupon they were transferred to the Manjača camp. They were occasionally questioned there. Witness Krivić knows that some of the detainees were taken for questioning and beating. He was beaten only once. Witness Krivić heard from the inmate Behrem Šarić that they had been detained on a suspicion for Duća’s murder. Even though the investigator had found, already on 29 May, that they had not been connected with the referenced killing, they were not released, but rather kept in the Stara Gradiška camp and thereafter relocated to Manjača, where the witness stayed until December 1992.

297. Witness Behrem Šarić testified that, on 27 May 1992, he had gone fishing. Along the road, he and his colleague noticed a large number of armed soldiers in uniforms. Witness Šarić stated they were all Serb soldiers, some of them had no insignia, some of them wore caps and berets, with a three-color sign, or without it. The witness stated that “at the time, it was beyond a comprehension that a Muslim armed with a rifle should walk along the road.154 Around noon, an elderly soldier approached them, and told them that Duća had been killed and that they should go home. They obeyed him and went off. On their way back home, however, they were captured and locked up in a furniture van. When he saw that two older Muslim men were singled out from a bus which had passed by, and locked up together with them, the witness realized how serious the situation was, and that Muslims were arrested regardless of whether any of them had done anything wrong. They were subsequently taken under escort to the police station Ključ. In the meantime, they were beaten, and the witness was cut in his ribs with a bayonet. In the police station, they were taken to Tode Gajić’s office on the upper floor. Once witness Šarić gave a statement, he was taken down to the basement where he saw a dozen of men, most of them he had

154 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 12 January 2009, p.8.

112

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

known and who had visible injuries. They noticed that there were detainees in other cells as well. They were kept in the cells until the evening, when they were taken out, with their hands tied up. They, 21 in total, were ordered to get into a trailer truck parked in front of the police building. They were beaten while entering the truck. The truck stopped at the Small Camp in Banja Luka, where they were thrown out of the truck on a pile and beaten. Then they were again ordered to enter the truck. Šaban Kujundžić remained lying on the ground, so he was thrown back into the truck, but made no move any more. The next stop was in Stara Gradiška. The witness described the arrival and stay in the Stara Gradiška camp similarly as the other heard witnesses. They were beaten at the very entrance to the camp, and thereupon placed in a small cell where they could not all sit down at the same time. After spending the night in this cell, they were placed in other cells. During the internment in the camp, they were beaten and ultimately transported to Manjača. From the Manjača camp, witness Šarić first went to Karlovac, and he subsequently went abroad, pursuant to the agreement reached between the authorities and the Red Cross that they could not return to their homes but may go to the third countries.

298. Witness Mehmed Begić testified that, in the early morning hours of 28 May 1992, six persons in military uniforms, among whom he had identified only one, came to his door, and started beating him already there. He was thereupon taken to the police station where he met Tode Gajić. Even though they had been good friends, Gajić told him: “Begić, you will be the first one whose throat I will slit. The Sava River will take your decapitated body to the Black Sea.”155 The witness was then taken to the office on the upper floor for interrogation. He received the first blow after arriving in the police station, namely one Ćirić, whom he had known from before, kicked him in his face with military boots on his legs. After the questioning in the office on the upper floor, Sreto Aničić called two police officers, told them to take him away and cut off one of his ears. They took the witness to a room on the ground floor, where men unknown to him, wearing camouflage military uniforms, came to question him. They interrogated and beat him simultaneously all the time, mostly with police butts on his hands, as a result of which his hands were black and blue, and all covered in blood. After such a long and painstaking interrogation, they took the witness to the basement cell where he saw seven men from Ključ whom he knew. The men from Ključ were locked up in the other cells too. They were all together taken out to the hallway to be registered, tied up and transported to the Stara Gradiška camp. The

113

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

witness stated he had known all the 22 men from Ključ gathered in the hallway of the police station, and they all had in common the fact that they were non-Serbs. They were mostly Bosniaks, a few Croats and a German, dr. Leopold Flat.

299. Witness Begić testified they had been loaded onto a truck parked in front of the police building, and at the same time beaten by uniformed persons, whom he could not identify either as soldiers or police officers. The witness counted 20 blows that he received on his head by a button, as a result of which he lost his consciousness. As a result of those blows, his head deformed. The truck trailer stopped at the Small Camp in Banja Luka. The detainees were forced out of the truck on a pile and beaten. They were jumped on and hit by rifle butts and barrels all over their bodies. The witness eye-witnessed the hardship of Šaban Kujundžić, who was thrown out of the truck, and who fell with his head on the concrete ground. After the beating, they were ordered to get back onto the truck, thus they picked up Šaban Kujundžić as he lied immobile on the ground. Dr. Flat checked Kujundžić and stated he believed Kujundžić would not survive, and he indeed did not survive. A police vehicle escorted the truck all the time.

300. Witness Begić stated that, upon their arrival in Stara Gradiška, they passed through a gauntlet, receiving blows all over their bodies. Like the other witnesses, witness Begić stated that the room where they were placed was so small that they could not all sit in it at the same time. On the following day, they were moved to other cells. The witness stated they were taken to Manjača on 11 June, where he stayed until 14 December 1992. He was released from the camp owing to the Red Cross. However, the witness could not go back home, but rather to the third countries based on the documents he had previously signed.

301. The testimony of witness Leopold Flat does not essentially differ from the above analyzed testimonies of the other witnesses. On 27 May 1992, witness Flat was at his work in the Health Center. Around 11:00/12:00 hrs, all Serbs left their work posts, and shortly thereafter they gathered “armed from head to foot”. The witness went back home, but 5-6 persons unknown to him came to his house, beat him and took him to the Secretariat of Internal Affairs, and locked him up in a cell. In the evening, they took him to Tode Gajić for interrogation, which lasted throughout the night, and during which he was beaten. As a result of this beating, the witness was all covered with blood. After the

155 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 10 March 2010, testimony of witness Mehmed Begić, p.18. 114

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

interrogation, they did not take him to the same cell, in order to prevent the other detainees, still not subjected to such abuse, from seeing him beaten so heavily. They were subsequently taken out of the cells and their hands were tied up with a rope. They registered the names of the detainees and ordered them to enter the truck. Witness Flat also testified they had been ill-treated while entering the truck. They stopped at the Small Camp in Banja Luka, where they were forced out from the truck and beaten with sticks. Their final destination was Stara Gradiška. Witness Flat also described a small cell where they were placed, where they stayed until the morning with insufficient ventilation, whereupon they were placed in other cells. As a result of the beatings he received, Šaban Kujundžić died. They stayed in Gradiška for 15 days, whereupon they were transported to Manjača, where the witness stayed until 15 September 1992.

302. All the witnesses consistently testified that, after being arrested by members of the military, or the TO, like in the case of Muhamed Filipović, or by members of the police force, they were taken to the police station, where they were severely beaten, both at the entrance to the police building and during the interrogation itself; that they were subsequently locked up in the basement cells in the police station building, which were unfit for interment, and in which those arrested on 27 May 1992 spent a night, and those arrested on 28 May 1992 spent a certain period of time; that in the afternoon hours they were taken out from these cells, registered in the police station hallway, with their hands tied up; that they were thereupon forced to climb up the truck trailer already parked in front of the police station building, and that the gathered soldiers and police officers beat them while they entered the truck. In addition, all the witnesses consistently testified that the truck which transported them to the Stara Gradiška camp was escorted by the police along the entire way, that it stopped at the Small Camp (Mali logor) in Banja Luka, which is when uniformed persons entered the trailer and beat them on their heads with batons, threw them out of the truck on a pile, jumped all over them and beat them with rifle butts and barrels, and that as a result of this abuse 21 detainees sustained severe bodily injuries, while the injured party Šaban Kujundžić died. Upon their arrival in Gradiška, they were beaten, interrogated by individuals during their 15-day stay in this prison, in poor conditions, whereupon they were transferred to Manjača. Some of these men were subsequently deported to third countries since it was the only way to leave the camp, but with a ban on return to Ključ.

303. The above referenced acts have satisfied the elements of all individual

115

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

incriminations by which the criminal offense of persecution as a war crime against humanity was committed, namely:

304. Murder – as consistently described by all the heard witnesses, the referenced acts resulted in the death of at least one person, Šaban Kujundžić. The witnesses testified that Kujundžić was brought to the Stara Gradiška camp in the “death rattle” caused by the beatings he had received. The witnesses stated that already at the stop-over at the Small Camp in Banja Luka Kujundžić was thrown into the truck as he stayed lying unconscious on the ground after the beating, and that upon their arrival in the Gradiška camp four detainees had to carry him out of the truck. None of the 21 men from Ključ, brought to Gradiška in the same truck-trailer together with Kujundžić saw him thereafter. They heard that Kujundžić was in Gradiška and that he was dead. Witness Asim Egrlić confirmed this was true. Witness Egrlić was, on the same day, transported to the Stara Gradiška camp by a car vehicle escorting the truck with the captured men from Ključ. This witness testified about the events described by the above referenced witnesses, including the severe beatings in the Small Camp in Banja Luka. After the arrival in Stara Gradiška, witness Egrlić was placed in a cell, where a man in „death rattle” had already been placed, and identified him as Šaban Kujundžić. The witness stated that, no sooner than the following evening, a physician or a nurse came and said Kujundžić had to be taken out. Witness Egrlić subsequently learned that Kujundžić had died. The death of the victim Kujundžić was confirmed by an excerpt from the Register of Deaths.156

305. Imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law – all the witnesses-injured parties consistently testified that they had been arrested and imprisoned solely because of their ethnicity, that there was no legal ground for that, and that they were not informed about the reasons for such deprivation or imprisonment.

306. Other inhumane acts of similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to physical or mental health – the above analyzed testimonies of the witnesses are consistent regarding the fact that the beating to which they were subjected after being arrested, or taken to the police station, during the interrogations and the subsequent transport to the Stara Gradiška camp, and in the camp itself, were extremely severe and brutal, that they resulted in serious bodily injuries and mental

116

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

suffering of the injured parties, the consequences of which they still feel. Therefore, the referenced acts are of such a gravity and consequences whose intensity is not lesser than the other consequences of the other described acts. This is why the Panel has concluded that the referenced acts certainly have the character of the acts of commission of the persecution of Muslims and Croats of the Ključ municipality, within the policy of persecution created at the high levels of the authority, and the policy of creation of a separate Serb state and the proclamations defined under the Strategic goals.

307. Deportation and forcible transfer of population – All heard witnesses consistently testified that, even after a long period of time they had spent in the camps, they were prohibited from returning to the town of Ključ. They were required to sign a statement that they would leave to the third countries. In the Panel’s view, the fact that the injured parties, detained at the camps for months, most often knew nothing about their families, who had stayed in the town of Ključ after their arrests, should also be taken into account. However, the only way to leave the camp was to consent to go to distant countries, which they did. Therefore, the referenced acts of unlawful deprivation of liberty, unlawful imprisonment and unlawful confinement in concentration camps, whereby men were separated from their families, and the women and children remaining in Ključ most often found their way out in abandoning their homes and going into unknown direction, resulted in the forcible transfer of entire Muslim and Croat families from Ključ and its surroundings. In this way, the goal of the common policy of the highest bodies of the new state was furthered and implemented by the Municipal Crisis Staff through the activities of the military and the police.

308. Unlawful confinement to concentration camps – Similarly to the fact that there was no legal ground for deprivation of liberty, which was effectuated for the reason of the ethnicity of the injured parties, their confinement to camps, where they were subjected to poor and harsh conditions of life, the beatings to which a certain number of detainees succumbed (Omer Filipović and Esad Bender), undoubtedly had no legitimate grounds, and constituted an action of commission of persecution as a crime against humanity. The referenced individuals, arrested as civilians, taken away from their homes or from fishing, like witness Behrem Šarić, quite certainly posed no security risk, and as described, there was no legal ground for their imprisonment.

156 Exhibit T-452.

117

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

309. In view of all the foregoing, the Panel has concluded that the acts described in Section 1 of the enacting clause of the Verdict formed part of the policy of persecution of Muslims and Croats of the Ključ municipality, created through the activities of the military and the police, as well as the conditions for its effectuation at the sessions of the Municipal Crisis Staff, where the accused Lukić and Adamović undoubtedly played a significant role, as already explained. Even though none of them played no active role in the concrete acts of persecution, described in this Sections, given that it concerns the early days of the attack on the civilian Muslim and Croat population, in the preparation of which they actively participated, as described above, they were undoubtedly aware of such activities of the military and the police, and they wanted their commission. The recorded presentation by Boško Lukić (Exhibit T-9), the activities of both the Accused at the Crisis Staff sessions and on the ground, to be explained in detail in further sections of the reasoning, confirm beyond a doubt that they were aware of both the unlawful arrests and interrogations, and the common design, which they personally shared, and for the furtherance of which the referenced actions were undertaken, which renders them, as participants in the JCE, also liable for the acts described in Section 1 of the enacting clause of the Verdict.

E. SECTION 2 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE CONVICTING PART OF THE VERDICT

“On 28 May 1992, the Ključ Battalion, assisted by the 30th Partisan Division of the First Krajina Corps, launched an artillery attack on the Ključ settlements Pudin Han and Velagići, inhabited by the Muslim population, where there were no legitimate military targets, which lasted for at least two days, while the shelling caused death of at least 12 persons, including Esma Bečić, Refika Bečić, aka Keka, Hamdo Bečić and Refik Draganović.”

310. According to many witnesses, Pudin Han and Velagići, the two settlements in the Ključ municipality inhabited by the Muslim population, were among the first ones that were, already on 28 May 1992, subjected to severe shelling. The witnesses testified that the shelling was carried out from the Brežčice plateau, Stari grad and Lanište, from which Velagići was mostly shelled. The shelling of Pudin Han and Velagići followed after the population of these settlements had been given an ultimatum to surrender their weapons, but the fire was opened before the expiration of the set deadline. Witness Hasan Salihović testified that, at the time when Vinko Kondić called them to surrender their weapons, they saw howitzers and a personnel carrier at the checkpoint near the ROPS, directed at Pudin Han.

311. The Defense teams for the accused Lukić and Adamović did not contest the referenced events and the killing of 12 civilians as described in this section of the 118

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

enacting clause of the Verdict. However, by proving that the Ključ Battalion was not deployed at the referenced sites, at the critical time, and that it had no heavy weaponry. In an effort to contest any connection of the Accused with the referenced activities, the Defense particularly relied on the finding of expert witness Slobodan Kosovac, the testimonies of witnesses Drago Radojičić and Krstan Škavrić, and the evidence the Accused gave themselves. Considering the evidence presented by the Prosecution, however, the Panel has concluded that such a defense of the Accused was neither convincing nor proven.

312. Even though it is undoubtedly true that the rest of the Knin Corps was deployed at Lanište, following the approval by the OO SDS for the deployment of the JNA units at the territory of the Ključ municipality, as confirmed by many heard witnesses, the Panel bore in mind the testimonies of the witnesses, who had consistently and convincingly testified that a unit of the TO Staff, under Boško Lukić’s command, was also dislocated to Lanište. Witnesses Enes Salihović and Ibrahim Bajrić consistently testified about the foregoing. Witness Ibrahim Bajrić, a tractor driver in the Lanište Forest Industry Company, testified that Muslim employees had more problems with members of the TO, which had in the meantime become monoethnic, who were in uniforms and armed, and who supported the arrival of soldiers at Lanište, to which Muslim workers opposed more than to the arrival of members of the Knin Corps which had also arrived. Thus, both witness Ibrahim Bajrić and witness Enes Salihović confirmed that members of the TO Staff, out of which the Ključ Battalion was formed as already described, were located at Lanište, at the site from which Velagići was shelled. Witness Mehmed Begić testified he had learned from his acquaintances that on 27 May 1992, at Lanište, all barrels were pointed at the town. In addition, the forces of the 30th Partisan Division were also deployed at the Lanište area, as ensues from the documents of the Command of the 5th Corps dated 3 April 1992.157

313. On 27 May 1992, witness Enes Salihović lived in his village of Velagići. Having heard from people that it was broadcast that Dušan Stojaković had been killed, he eye- witnessed the passage of a column of military vehicles, pinzgauers, equipped with two- machine guns each, heading towards Pudin Han and Ključ. Around 5 -10 minutes after their passage, the witness first heard a short burst of fire and then horrible shooting coming from the Ključ direction. The shooting also started at the Velagići check point.

119

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Even though it was a situation of “panic and chaos”, Šefik Muratović was wounded, some houses torched, there were no more casualties on that day. The lull, however, did not last for long. Already on the following day, “an all-out artillery fire” was launched on the center of Velagići from the Lanište direction. The witness testified that as a result of the shelling, the villagers fled and the settlement remained unprotected. The shelling lasted throughout the day, until late night hours.

314. It ensues from the consistent testimonies of the witnesses that, simultaneously with the shelling of Velagići from the Lanište direction, Pudin Han was shelled from the Brežčica and Stari Grad direction.

315. In May 1992, witness Mirsad Puškar, originally from the village of Humići, moved to an old house in the village of Ratkovići due to a tense situation and the fear he felt. This witness testified that, in late May 1992, soldiers, among whom he identified Marko Adamović, Milan Adamović and Branko Ribič, passed towards the Brežčice plateau, “dragging the equipment, mortars, even an eighty-two piece158“.The witness could see from his village the Brežčice plateau, where soldiers climbed up, thus he monitored what was going on. Witness Puškar saw that only one truck went back thorough the village. They “fired” at Pudin Han from the Brežčice plateau. The witness heard the sounds of shells being fired and the sounds of their falling down, since Pudin Han was only 1 km far away as the crow flies. When the fire ceased, the witness headed towards the plateau where soldiers had been earlier located and found cartridge cases, empty shells, etc. Considering that soldiers did not return through the village, the witness concluded they had left the Brežčice plateau taking the road towards Pudin Han.

316. The Panel has correlated this witness’s testimony with the documentary Exhibit T- 196 (Contribution to the Monograph of the 1st Krajina Corps). In the Panel’s view, the contents of the referenced Exhibit support the testimony of witness Mirsad Puškar, as it shows that, on 27 May 1992, the Ključ Battalion, the command structure of which included Commander Branko Ribič and his Deputy Marko Adamović, was relocated from the Sitnica area, where it underwent a training program, and that a company of this Battalion attacked from the Brežčice position in the Pudin Han direction.

157 Exhibit T-144 „...c) 2/13. Partisan Brigade was deployed in the area of the Lanište pass, to the west from Ključ, covering 15 km of the AVNOJ road...“. 158 Mortar caliber 82mm.

120

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

317. Witnesses Ajiz Bečić, Latif Salihović, Senad Draganović and some other witnesses testified about the shelling of Pudin Han. Witness Ajiz Bečić testified he had lived in Hadžići when the shooting started. He fled, together with other villagers, towards a cave near Vukovo Selo, believing they would find shelter against shells falling all around them. However, at an intersection, a shell hit a mass of refugees, specifically members of his closer family. The witness testified:

„...Thus, I saw my wife in front of me. Those small pieces of shrapnel did not hurt her, but further below, I saw my son fallen on the ground, he had carried his small daughter in his arms. My daughter fell down on the other side, struggling, her legs separated from the rest of her body. I lifted my son’s head, and he died in my arms. I took with me his small daughter, and we headed back, up there to Hadžići, to the woods...”159

318. At least 12 people were killed by a shell which hit the crossroads.160 Witness Latif Salihović also eye-witnessed the tragic scene after a tractor was hit by the shell and inhabitants of Hadžići who, fleeing from the shells falling around the woods, tried to find a shelter in a cave in Vukovo Selo. At least 12 of them failed in this effort. The witness saw the bodies torn into pieces. He subsequently learned that Fikret Draganović and the Bečić family had been killed. Witness Marinko Vejin also confirmed that, as a police officer on duty, he noted in the duty log161 that, on 28 May 1992, the Health Center notified them of the death of Esma Bečić.

319. Witness Enes Salihović testified that, when everyone had abandoned Velagići after the heavy shelling, he went to Pudin Han, where Omer Filipović and Asim Egrlić formed a “body which they could address“, and by which they contacted the Police Station Ključ. Witness Salihović stated that Omer Filipović made contacts with the Police Station Ključ, and that Vinko Kondić and Colonel Stanislav Galić requested him to surrender as they held his wife and children. People gathered around Omer, requesting him to surrender because of numerous victims. According to the witness, Omer “desperately cried” at the time, pointing with his hand towards the Draganovići intersection where a tractor was hit by a mortar shell, with the bodies of killed men, women and children around it.

159 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 16 September 2009, the testimony of witness Ajiz Bečić, p.8. 160 T-451 Record of autopsy and identification with accompanying documents, in the Velagići territory, T-452 Excerpts from the Register of Deaths listed from Nos. 95-104. 161 Exhibit T-13.

121

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

320. Witness Muhamed Filipović, who had met his brother Omer Filipović in the Stara Gradiška prison, testified that his brother had told him about the events that had occurred in Pudin Han on 28 May 1992. (His brother) Omer told him that the Serbs from Ključ requested him to surrender, or otherwise they would kill the civilians. He added that the Muslims gathered at Pudin Han got divided between those requesting his surrender, and those requesting him not to do so. Omer stated he would surrender if that would save 5000 civilians, but that the situation would be the same for them “both with or without him”, irrespectively of his surrender. Omer indeed surrendered. He was right when he stated his surrender would change nothing. As Omer told his brother Muhamed, already at the moment when he entered the police vehicle, the shelling of Pudin Han started.

321. As described in the Prosecution’s Indictment, and uncontested by the Defense itself, the Panel concluded it was proved that the artillery attack on Pudin Han and Velagići started on 28 May 1992, that it lasted for at least 2 days, and that it resulted in the death of at least 12 civilians, including the Bečić family and Senad Draganović. Contrary to the Defense’s submissions, however, the Panel concluded it was proved that the Ključ Battalion took part in the attack on these villages, in cooperation with the units of the 30th Division. Apart from the already analyzed testimonies of the witnesses and the documentary evidence, addressing the engagement of the Ključ Battalion in the referenced artillery attack, the Panel also took into account the evidence relating to the activities of the 30th Division of the 1st Krajina Corps in the referenced territory.162

322. In addition to already examined Exhibit T-144, Deployment of the forces of the 30th Partisan Division, showing that a certain number of forces were deployed in the Lanište area, in the Ključ municipality, the Prosecution’s Exhibit T-161163 noted as follows:

“The units of the 1st Krajina Corps are located at the earlier taken positions and the frontline was not moved. Cooperation with the MUP SR BiH in the terrain cleansing and seizure of weapons from illegal formations in the territory of Prijedor, Sanski Most and Ključ has continued.”

The Panel has correlated the above referenced Exhibit with the Prosecution’s Exhibit T- 329, Activity report of Ključ Public Security Station during combat activities in the territory of the Ključ municipality 164 of July 1992, stating that, following the incident in Busije, an

162 Exhibits T-144, T-156, T-161. 163 Exhibit T-161, Regular combat report No. 44-1/152 of 29 May 1992. 164 T-329.

122

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

„action of the units of the 30th Division, supported by the SJB Ključ forces“ will be launched. As it ensues from the referenced document, 7 soldiers were captured on the same day in the area of the Crljeni village, and

„The Command of the 30th Division ordered the use of the units of the Serb Republic of BiH....The action of the units of the 30th Division, supported by the forces of the SJB Ključ was fast, forceful and efficient. The resistance of extremists and fundamentalists was overcome. Greater losses in live force were effected and a number of material properties, from which the armed resistance had been offered, were destroyed. “

The Panel correlated and evaluated all the foregoing with the Report by Chief Kondić of 25 September 1992.165 The Report addressed the situation in the Municipality for the past period stating that, after an armed riot and an ambush in Busije, „our forces broke Muslims’ resistance with planned actions of the artillery and infantry”. The foregoing was also correlated with the testimony of witness Salihović. The witness stated that, after his arrival in Pudin Han from Velagići, the Serb party called Omer Filipović into surrender, namely that in addition to Chief of the SJB Ključ, Vinko Kondić, Commander of the 30th Division, Stanislav Galić, had also requested the surrender of Omer Filipović.

323. Exhibit T-455/24, War Logbook of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade for the period from 27 May 1992 through 21 March 1994, shows that, on 28 May 1992, several warning shells were fired at Pudin Han and Velagići. Although that was a War Logbook of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, it is clear that at the time the Brigade was still not formed, and that, obviously, this information was registered in relation to the units from which the Brigade was formed, and that one of those units was the Ključ Battalion.

324. In view of all the foregoing, the Panel has concluded that the evidence, evaluated individually and in combination, confirms the finding of fact described in Section 2 of the enacting clause of the Verdict. Since those were the early days of the attack launched against the civilian Muslim population in the Ključ municipality, in which the Ključ Battalion took part, the Panel has concluded, beyond a doubt, that the Accused were aware of this attack and wanted its realization in furtherance of the common design.

F. SECTION 3 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE VERDICT

“On 1 June 1992, after all Muslim men from the hamlets of Vojići, Hasići, Nezići, Hadžići and other settlements of the village of Velagići were called to come to the

165 Exhibit T-332.

123

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

police checkpoint in Velagići, military police officers took personal belongings from those who responded to the call and forced them into the premises of the old school, where they imprisoned them although they knew they had no legal grounds to do so, and then, in the late evening hours, they forced them out and executed them, on which occasion they killed at least 78 persons, including Denis Zukić, Rezak Nezić, Esad Zečević, Kasim Bajrić, Husein Fazlić, Mesud Bajrić, Atif Nezić, Safet Draganović, Šefik Bajrić, Fadil Delić, Ilijaz Ćehić, Emsud Bečić, Hasan Zukić, Đulaga Burzić, Rešid Dervišević, Asim Keranović, Karanfil Dervišević, Asim Ćehić, Husein Nezić, Dedo Muheljić, Ramiz Draganović, Emir Keranović, Emsud Draganović, Muharem Bajrić, Fehim Bajrić, Ibro Bajrić, Sabahudin Ćemal, Derviš Kujundžić, Adem Muheljić, Fehret Draganović, Hilmo Draganović, Nijaz Draganović, Saim Halilović, Saif Ćemal, Omer Zečević, Refik Bečić, Nijaz Nezić, Ramiz Zukić, Rifet Bajrić, Husein Bajrić, Mustafa Bajrić, Ibrahim Muratović, Dževad Hotić, Islam Nezić, Hilmo Draganović, Mesud Draganović, Adem Draganović, Teufik Draganović, Fadil Draganović, Elvedin Čarkić, Nedim Bajrić, Mirsad Ćehić, Šaban Bilajac, Esmin Draganović, Husein Ćehić, Almir Delić, Tifo Bukvić, Jasmin Keranović, Zikret Bajrić, Džemal Draganović, Meho Bajrić, Ramiz Aličić, Emil Delić, Hamdija Draganović, Safet Nezić, Rufad Draganović, Emir Gromilić, Ismet Jukić and Safet Dervišević, who were later exhumed from the mass grave Lanište II. The police continued to search for those who survived.“

325. A large number of witnesses testified about the circumstances addressed in Section 3 of the enacting clause of the Verdict. Importantly, it should be noted that the Defense for the Accused did not contest the events per se and the fact that they indeed occurred in the described way. The Defense rather contested that the two Accused had any connection with or that they participated in the commission of the described crimes.

326. The Appellate Panel, however, concluded it was proven that the events that occurred on 1 June 1992 at the Velagići check point, and the killings in the old school to which the men who had surrendered at the check point were brought, formed part of the JCE plan in which the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović participated and to which they significantly contributed.

327. As it ensues from the testimony of witness Hasan Salihović, after the shelling of Pudin Han on 28 May 1992, its villagers spent approximately 3 days away from their village (to be addressed in detail in Section 5a) of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict), and when their return to the village was approved, they found out that the village was burnt down. Nevertheless, they decided to stay in the village, so they gathered in a house which remained intact. Shortly after their return, however, Duje Vejin came to the village, wearing a uniform with rank insignia, and ordered the witness to visit the hamlets of the Velagići village, and to make lists of inhabitants, which he did. Witness Salihović brought these lists to the Velagići check point where he saw Colonel Marijanović. Thereupon Duje Vejin came and told him: „Hasan, come over here. What is that? You 124

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

must visit these hamlets. They did not come, and the busses will arrive.”166 The witness was ordered to visit again, on a tractor, the Velagići hamlets - Vojići, Hasići, Nezići, Čustovići, all the way to Pudin Han, and to pass them the order that all military fit men must report to the check point in Velagići for questioning and their security, which he did. The villages were rather ransacked. The witness learned that the military had cleansed the whole territory, of not only Pudin Han, but the entire Velagići territory. Visiting those villages, the witness came across a group of a dozen villagers, among whom he identified Meho Bajrić, heading towards Velagići. In the evening, the witness heard a detonation, and on the following day he learned that the men who had gone to the Velagići check point did not return, that they were killed and that the old school was blown up.

328. Witness A was in his village of Hasići when Hasan Salihović came by a tractor to register the population, and in the evening of the same day again, when he told them: “Men, you must report to Velagići, up there in the Velagići primary school, to be issued with free movement licenses so that you can normally live in your houses.“167 His fellow villagers decided to act in compliance with the order passed by Hasan Salihović. They found a stick and made a white flag, and in a group headed towards the Velagići check point. Once they arrived there, the villagers of Vojići had already been there, and they waited for villagers from Čustovići and Hasići, who also arrived in the meantime. They were all lined up in a column and ordered to empty their pockets, throw their money and documents 2m in front of them. Soldiers and police officers subsequently collected the thrown money. The witness described that, upon entering the check point, he noticed a police container and a military dug out. Thereupon Zoran Dvizac, Željko Radojičić and two other soldiers came to register them, and some of the men were even beaten. The witness described that those two soldiers cursed their „balija’s mother“, and told them that Muslims had been preparing to establish a „djamahiria“. One of the soldiers cursed witness’s mother and threatened him with a knife. Even though they were ordered to keep their heads bowed down and to look down while they were in the column, the witness could see that Ramiz Zukić was severely beaten. He was taken, together with Husein Bajrić and Husein Fazlić, to the container where soldiers stripped off Ramiz’s clothes and jumped all over him. After the registration, they were ordered to enter the old school in a column. The witness believes that around 80 men were taken to the old school. The witness testified

166 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 13 April 2009, testimony of witness Hasan Salihović, p.26. 167 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 15 April 2009, testimony of Witness A, p.6.

125

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

that “we squatted in each other’s lap“168 in a small room and stayed there up until around 23:30 hrs. As it ensues from witness A’s evidence, confirmed by Marinko Miljević’s evidence, buses by which they were to be transported to Ključ, arrived at around 23:30 hrs. However, at least 78 of them had never been transferred to Ključ, but rather killed in the old school.

329. Witness A testified that, at around 23:30 hrs, they were ordered to leave the school and form a column, two by two, at the training ground in front of the school. At that moment, the witness noticed „two men squatting over there at the training ground,“ with automatic rifles, pointed at them. When they all went out, they were ordered to turn around, facing these two men, who had kept them covered. Then an order ”fire“ followed, and they started shooting in bursts of fire at the men taken out from the school. The witness immediately threw himself on the ground, and corpses kept falling over him. The witness survived below this pile of bodies. After the execution was over, soldiers got cheered, drank brandy, and sat on the dead bodies. The witness described it as follows: „I was pressured with such a burden that I was thinking to kill myself, to end my suffering. That was, that was unbearable...“169 The witness thereupon overheard soldiers discussing the way in which they would remove the bodies, that they would go to Lanište to bring an excavator and trucks. At one point, the witness heard the voice of Ismet Jukić, who had been wounded and who asked for „another bullet to end his suffering“. Even though these soldiers had been moving away from them, when they heard Jukić’s voice, they „went back”, fired another burst of fire in him and left. The witness stated he succeeded in making his way from below this pile of bodies. He first tried to check if his youngest brother, whose body lied on the top of his, gave any signs of life. Then he checked the others around him, but they were all dead. Nevertheless, he found Fadil Stričević and Enes Keranović alive. The witness told Enes that he “must flee“, and thereupon fled. He hid in juniper shrubs and later finally reached his village. However, the witness testified he had hid in the woods in the forthcoming period, until 23 June 1992, because soldiers ”searched the villages day-and-night for all men older than age 18 and they killed, arrested and apprehended whomever they found...“170. He reported to the police on 23 June 1992 because of the threats his family had received. He gave a statement and returned home. Shortly thereafter, he was arrested by the police and taken to police officer Stojčić for

168 Ibid.p.9. 169 Ibid., p.11.

126

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

interrogation. The witness was locked up in the police station, where he saw his acquaintance Boro Čekić and asked for his help. Čekić told him: ”I cannot help you. Chief Vinko Kondić attended a meeting today in Banja Luka, where it was decided to cleanse the terrain of Bosniaks.“ The witness was thereupon transferred to Manjača.

330. It ensues from the witnesses’ testimonies that the police and the military searched for the survivors after the summary execution, and that there were just a few of them. The witness did not tell even his family what he had survived. During the interrogation in the police station, he lied that a wound on his head, which he sustained in the execution that he had survived, resulted from the ladders falling on his head. The witness heard that two Muslims who had survived the execution, Enver Čehić and Ifet Bukviš, were killed, namely that Enver Čehić was killed at the Kamenica camp after admitting he had survived the summary execution at the Velagići check point.

331. In 1992, witness Mirsad Dervišević lived in (the village of) Hadžići. This witness also testified that Hasan Salihović had visited his village to inform the inhabitants that they had to surrender their weapons. The witness stated that, when the first group of villagers went towards Velagići, he did not want to go since he saw that none of those who had already gone there, returned. However, when his father headed off towards Velagići, he followed him. At the check point, they saw ”Chetnik reservists“ and neighbors-civilians whom he had known, and who started beating him using words ”here comes Mirso, the cab-driver”, and asking money from him. In this group of soldiers, the witness identified police officer Željo Radojičić, Boško Čurćija and Duje Vejin. In the meantime, buses from Sanica came along the road, escorted by a police vehicle make Golf. The witness saw Simo Vujičić in this police Golf vehicle, who asked him: ”What are you doing here, Mirsad?“ Simo Vujićić told a person in military uniform: “Commander, this one must go with me to the main SUP for interrogation.”171 The witness was taken to the SUP, and thus he successfully avoided the destiny of those who had together with him surrendered at the check point, who were thereupon detained at the old school and summarily executed, including his father.

170 Ibid, p.18. 171 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 23 March 2009, testimony of witness Mirsad Dervišević, p.19.

127

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

332. That police officers and soldiers at the check point knew what destiny awaited the men who had surrendered there, may be concluded from the analyzed testimony of witness Dervišević. In the police vehicle on the road towards SUP, the witness told Simo Vujičić that his father Rešad had stayed at the checkpoint, and Simo responded “Why didn’t you tell me so immediately? I would have taken along your father as well. I dare not go back any more. There is nothing I can do now.”172 Witness Željko Radojičić confirmed witness Dervišević’s statement. Witness Radojičić stated that he was picked up from the Velagići check point because he had been on good terms with Simo Vujičić. It can be concluded from these statements that Simo Vujičić decided to save Mirsad Dervišević because of their friendship. In the statement he had given in the investigation, but which was read out at the trial because the witness died in the meantime,173 witness Vujičić confirmed he was on good terms with Mirsad Dervišević. Obviously, in order to justify his act and avoid having any connections with the events at the Velagići check point, witness Vujičić stated that he had learned from a soldier escorting Dervišević that Dervišević was apprehended because he knew who had fired at young soldiers, and that he was allegedly taking him to the police station to give a statement with regard to this incident. Neither witness Dervišević nor any other person, arrested and detained at the Velagići School stated, however, said that anyone had asked them anything about the circumstances surrounding the shooting at young soldiers in Busije. Therefore, the Panel gave no credence to the averments contained in witness Vujičić’s statement.

333. Rešid Dervišević, father of witness Mirsad Dervišević, was exhumed from the Lanište II mass grave. Exhumed from the Lanište II mass grave also were the bodies of all those men whose names Witness A remembered in mentioning who had been killed near the old school.174 The exhumation records175 also show that the killed civilians were, on the following day, transported to the Lanište II site and buried in a mass grave. The school was blown up and the crime scene cleansed, and thereby the traces of the crime removed.

172 Ibid, p. 21. 173 Exhibit T-123, Witness Examination Record for Simo Vujičić, No. KT-RZ-119/05 of 25 February 2008 and excerpt from the Register of Deaths for Simo Vujičić. 174 When the witness mentioned persons killed by the old school, he stated: “There were my father Adem, brother Rufad, Safet, then there were ... well, all members of the families of three brothers lived in our village. There were our relatives from our father's side, Ramiz, his son Hamdija, brother Fehret, Fadil, Nijaz, Džemal, down there were (members of the family) Keranovići Asim, Enes, Emir, Jasmin... four brothers in total... then the Bajrić brothers, Rifet, Zikret, Mesud, Fehim, Mustafa, Muharem, Husein, Šefik, Nedim. I have already mentioned Rifet. There were also (members of the) Zečević family from that village of Častovići,

128

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

334. Even though the witnesses heard with regard to the referenced section, namely Witness A, Mirsad Dervišević and Hasan Salihović, could not state specifically in their testimonies of which units or formations the uniformed persons at the check point where they surrendered where members, or who had fired at the detained men in the late night hours of 1 June 1992. The Panel has concluded, on the basis of the Prosecution’s documentary evidence and the statement of witness Vitomir Gajić, who had investigated the referenced incident in 1992 as an authorized official person that the referenced actions were directly carried out by members of the military police.

335. Witness Gajić, confirmed that, in 1992, he took part in the investigation conducted in the referenced case, and that, even though he had not visited the crime scene, he examined in his office the persons suspected of this incident, and accordingly made official notes176. The witness testified at the hearing that, after 15 years, he remembered neither the persons he had talked to at the time nor what they had told them. The witness confirmed these were the notes he had made, and that they literally contain all they had told him. The referenced official notes reveal that military police officers, Mile Petrović, Nikola Ćuk, Marinko Miljević and Zoran Banjac described the killings of Muslims in the old school at the Velagići check point, of which they were suspected. They all mentioned an attempted flight in which those civilians had been killed. The same view was maintained by the Defense for the accused Lukić, which did not dispute the incident itself when the civilians in Velagići were killed, but rather made objections to the way in which the killings occurred. In the evidentiary proceedings before the Appellate Division Panel, the Defense adduced into evidence the document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 2 June 1992177 which also indicated that “the prisoners had escaped (the Muslim population) and the prisoners opened fire, as a result of which a larger group of men were killed”. Analyzing the entire course of the events, the facts that Muslims had first handed over their weapons, came to the Velagići check point under white flags as requested, and then detained in a small room in the old school, guarded by armed members of the military police, and as witness A described, taken out in the late night hours, almost 80 of them, and summarily executed on command, clearly show that this was not certainly an

Omer, Esad, Refik Bečić, Emsud, they were all from that upper part, then the Nezići family, Husein and Safet Nezić, Husein's two sons, Safet's son, etc. ...“. 175 Exhibits T-451 and T-452. 176 Exhibit T-39. 177 Exhibit AO-4, Act of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, str.conf. No. 2-65 of 2 June 1992.

129

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

attempted flight, and that such contents of their evidence had to be motivated by an attempt to avoid their own guilt. Testifying at the main trial before this Court, witness Marinko Miljević did not mention any attempted flight of the Muslims unlawfully detained in the old school. He rather stated that, in the evening hours, at around 22:00-23:00 hrs, “a man simply came with an 84-mm machine gun and killed them all”. Witness Miljević stated that, at the time, he had also seen Commander Amidžić among his soldiers “begging the person who fired not to kill those men.“

336. It should be born in mind, as relevant to the concrete case, that the Defense teams for the Accused also did not contest that the civilians in the Velagići school had been indeed killed, but rather the connection of the Accused with these acts. If the entire context of the events is analyzed, it is clear that the acts described in Section 3 of the enacting clause of the Verdict also form part of the persecution of the Muslim (and Croat) population of the Ključ municipality, shared by the Accused. These actions include the initial days of the attack on the Muslim villages in the Ključ municipality, unlawful deprivation of liberty, beatings, intimidation and seizure of personal documents in the way as the witnesses described in their evidence. They have all satisfied the essential elements of other inhuman acts of the kind. Ultimately, the killing of at least 78 persons is undoubtedly one of the segments of the attack which was, in furtherance of the common design, carried out by the military and police in cooperation, to which design the Accused also significantly contributed. Of course, neither the accused Lukić nor the accused Adamović could be physically present at all sites, at all times, but clearly, all the actions described in certain sections of the enacting clause of the Verdict, constitute a continued activity, the starting basis of which were the decisions of the Crisis Staff, in the rendering of which the Accused had also participated. When it comes to the incidents at the Velagići check point on 1 June 1992, Prosecution’s Exhibit T-167178 undoubtedly and additionally confirms the connection of the Crisis Staff, and thereby of the Accused, with the referenced activities. This Exhibit shows that the Crisis Staff and the SUP of the Ključ municipality were engaged in dealing with the issue of transportation of individuals who had surrendered at the Velagići check point, and after the crime in which at least 78 persons, whose names are mentioned in the enacting clause of the Verdict, had been killed and who were exhumed from the Lanište II179 mass grave, Vinko Kondić and Lieutenant Colonel Vukašević, were on the following

178 Criminal report No. KU 33/92 of 5 June 1992 against Goran Amidžić et al.. 179 Exhibit T-451.

130

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

morning engaged in organizing the removal and burial of the dead bodies of the killed individuals.

G. SECTION 4 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE VERDICT

“On 1 June 1992, after Serb soldiers, together with Marko Adamović, entered the undefended village of Prhovo, dragging Hamdo Islamagić tied to a personnel carrier, they forced the inhabitants out of their houses and ordered them to gather in front of a shop in the village. After the inhabitants gathered as ordered, they forced them into the front yard of Abid and Karanfil Osmanović’s house, and thereafter started beating them and singling out men, on which occasion they killed at least seven persons, including Safet Medanović, Hasan Medanović, Šefik Medanović, Izet Hadžić, Isak Mešić, Halil Medanović, Hašim Hadžić and Fatima Medanović. Then, they separated a number of men, including those who were underage and took them on foot away from the village while they opened fire from various weapons at the women, children and elderly who remained in the yard, killing at least thirty of them, including Ramiza Jusić, Esma Mešić, Hadžira Medanović, child Indira Medanović, Azemina Jusić, Midheta Medanović, child Emira Jusić, Rabija Hadžić, Enesa Medanović, Hava Medanović, Rasema Brković, child Samira Jusić, Hilmo Jusić, Ferida Medanović, Nasiha Okić, child Nisveta Brković, child Amela Hadžić, Enisa Jusić, Karanfil Osmanović, Rufad Osmanović, Arif Medanović, child Mujo Medanović, Teufik Medanović, Nermin Jusić, Osman Jusić and Hajro Hadžić, who were later exhumed from a mass grave in Prhovo. They marched the men who were taken away from the village, in the direction of the Peći village, and on the way there killed at least 15 persons, including Ahmo Medanović, Tehvid Osmanović, Suad Hadžić, Zijad Hadžić, Suad Medanović, Ilfad Brković, Ekrem Hadžić, Ismet Mešić, Enes Medanović, Ćamil Medanović, Vahid Medanović, Senad Hadžić, Mehmed Dedić, Nedžad Jusić and Latif Jusić, who were later exhumed from the mass grave Ciganska dolina. Those who survived were handed over to the police who beat them throughout the night, keeping them tied outdoors on the ground, as a result of which Sulejman Medanović died, while the others were transported to the premises of the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ. The survivors fled the village and were hiding in the neighboring villages and in the woods, where the search for the men who survived was continued. They were arrested and imprisoned in the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ and the Public Security Station.“

337. Witnesses Muharem Islamagić, Senad Medanović, Sadeta Medanović, Nermin Medanović, Hamid Hadžić, Kana Mešić, Edin Hadžić, Alem Hadžić, Salko Krantić, Milorad Hrgić, Radenko Kuburić, and the accused Adamović himself, in the capacity of a witness, testified about the circumstances referred to in Section 4 of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict.

338. None of the Accused contested or brought into question the crimes committed in Prhovo. They rather contested their own connection with those crimes under both this section and the other sections of the enacting clause of the Verdict. Marko Adamović was identified by a certain number of the villagers of Prhovo as the person who “had led the

131

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

soldiers” - executors of the massacre in this village. The Accused tried, through his defense, to prove that he was indeed present in Prhovo, but not on 1 June 1992, when the referenced massacre occurred, but when soldiers had once earlier passed through this village. Based on the examination of all presented evidence, the Panel has concluded beyond a doubt that soldiers visited the Prhovo village at least twice, in late May for the first time, when the weapons were collected, and then on 1 June 1992, when the described massacre occurred.

339. As it ensues from the description of facts under this Section, the Accused were charged that, on 1 June 1992, after Serb soldiers together with Marko Adamović entered the undefended village of Prhovo, dragging Hamdo Islamagić tied to a personnel carrier; forced the population out of their houses, beat them, singled out men, and killed at least 7 persons; marched a larger number of men from the village and opened fire from various weaponry at the women, children and elderly who remained in the yard, killing at least thirty of them; handed over to the police the men taken away from the village, including minors, and continued beating them, as a result of which Senad Medanović succumbed to the beating; and transferred the others to the Nikola Mačkić school. The survived population had to flee from their homes and hide in the neighboring villages and the woods.

340. Muharem Islamagić testified about the arrest and physical abuse of his brother, Hamdo Islamagić. This witness’s evidence was supported with the evidence of the other examined witnesses. Witness Muharem Islamagić stated that, on 1 June 1992, he left his village of Plamenice, together with the other villagers, and went to the neighboring village of Humići because the shelling of Plamenice had started. Despite being uncertain about and unable to specify the dates of the events he testified about, the witness had no dilemmas when it comes to the date when he had left his village. Witness Islamagić stated “I only know that when I went down to (the village of) Humići. I have never forgotten 1 June. I have never forgotten and I will never forget it, because this is the day when my brother went missing.”180 Thus, according to the witness, the whole village went to Humići on 1 June 1992 because Plamenice had been totally levelled to the ground as a result of 2-hour shelling. The witness went, together with his brother, to the Krantići and Bešići crossroads. At this place, they came across soldiers who captured his brother. The

132

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

witness explained that soldiers were present all around the area, from Ljutića Brdo, Krantići, and in bushes, where they were ambushed. The witness testified that those soldiers captured his brother and started beating him. Considering that Radenko Kuburić, whom he had known, was also present at the site, the witness asked him to help him save his brother and help them stay alive. Radenko, however, told him: “Marko is down there; I dare not even come close to him”.181 Thereupon two soldiers, accompanying Radenko, told the witness to leave his brother and hide in the bushes, because his life would also be taken. The witness obeyed them since he could do nothing about it. He kept watching what was happening with his brother. First a truck came to the intersection where soldiers had captured and beat his brother. Soldiers tied up his brother to the truck with ropes below his shoulders and dragged him away. The witness stated he watched his brother being thus dragged away for about 70 m up to a curve. The witness explained that his brother had been first tied up to the truck, and that several minutes later, a personnel carrier arrived, so they tied him to the hook on the personnel carrier and took him away. Shortly after his brother had been dragged away, when he could not see them any further because of the curve (the witness stated all this occurred within about ten minutes), Marko Adamović passed him by, heading in the same direction after them.

341. Witness Islamagić has not seen his brother any more. The witness stated that, on the same evening, Kadira Brković from Prhovo came to the village of Bešići. She was wounded and dirty, and she told the witness that his brother had been killed. Kadira told the witness the following:

“…Hare, come over here, I have to tell you something.…All of them had just been killed. I am wounded. Look at my legs and pieces of shrapnel. I saw when they brought Hamdo and when they killed him … Soldiers dragged him there … because, when soldiers killed all other young men, he too was killed. He was all slashed up, his body ripped up, his skin hanged from his body. He was lying on the ground, and he could not even speak. One of them approached him and killed him…”182

The witness explained that there was a 12-km-long dirt road between the intersection where his brother was captured and tied up to the personnel carrier, and the village of Prhovo.

180 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 15 June 2009, evidence of witness Muharem Islamagić, p.34. 181 Ibid., p. 40, the witness explained that, when Radenko Kuburić had said “Here comes Marko…”, he meant Marko Adamović. 182 Ibid. p.43.

133

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

342. Witness Hamid Hadžić eye-witnessed soldiers arriving in the village of Prhovo, which is when they brought in Hamdo Islamagić tied up to the personnel carrier. It ensues from the witnesses’ evidence that this was the second time that soldiers came to the village, because soldiers had already visited the village and collected their weapons, and abused some of the villagers. The witness testified that, on that day, the outskirts of the village were shelled, and there were rumors that the military was coming. Five-six soldiers came to the front of his house and ordered his father, Ilfad Brković, Fuad Hadžić and him, who had been there at the time, to go to a store in the village center, near Abid Osmanović’s house, where a larger number of the villagers of Prhovlje had already gathered. They were lined up in a column of 3-4 rows, when they saw a personnel carrier coming from the Plamenica direction and Hamdo Islamagić tied up to it, all covered with blood and beaten. The witness did not specify the date when the referenced incident occurred. Nevertheless, upon analyzing his evidence, and correlating it with the evidence of the other witnesses heard with regard to these circumstances, it becomes clear that it was exactly 1 June 1992, when the massacre, described in Section 4 of the enacting clause of the Verdict, was carried out.

343. Witness Hadžić further testified that, after the villagers of Prhovo, men, women and children, had gathered in front of Abid Osmanović’s and Karanfil’s house, they (soldiers) started singling out able-bodied men. They also singled out Dika Medanović,183 and they heard her calling “green berets” via megaphone to come to the village, or otherwise soldiers would kill the women and children. While witness Hadžić stood in the line, he heard, for the last time, the voice of his brother Hašim Hadžić, begging them not to kill him because he had five children. The witness also saw Izet Hadžić being singled out from the line. Izet Hadžić spat out, and one of the soldiers said: “Captain, look at him spitting at you”. Subsequently, heading towards the village of Peći in a group of able- bodied men, witness Hadžić saw the body of Izet Hadžić, who had been killed a couple of meters further down the road.

344. It ensues from the testimonies of the witnesses that, around half an hour after the soldiers’ arrival in the village, it was ordered that able-bodied men be singled out and taken to the other side of the road. Thus witness Hadžić stood in a line formed of around 40-50 men, with their hands placed behind their necks, and their heads bowed as low as

134

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

possible. They were ordered to take the road towards Peći, keeping this very position. Along the way, they saw the dead bodies of Šefik Medanović, Rufad Osmanović, Halil Medanović and his brother Mujo Medanović. Even though the witness did not see his brother’s body, he heard his brother had been killed. The witness also heard the voice of Fatima Medanović saying: “Kill me too, now that you killed my son”. Witness Hadžić subsequently learned she had been killed too.

345. Witness Hadžić further testified that the column heading towards Peći stopped for the first time in a field, around 200-300m away from the village, as they saw a car stuck in the mud. They were ordered to pull it out, but their effort failed. Those men who had pushed the car were killed, except for the witness who had accidentally slipped. A man wearing a uniform with 4 stars on his shoulder approached him, hit him with his rifle and the witness joined the column. The soldiers thereupon learned that one of their soldiers had been killed. The man with stars on his shoulder, ordered the soldiers who had stayed in the village, via megaphone, to kill the women and children and torch the village.

346. A column of men, joined by a personnel carrier, driving over the bodies of killed men, continued marching. Between 4 and 5 men were again killed at the intersection towards Peći and Donje Sokolovo. The largest number of men marching in the column were killed in the so called “Ciganska dolina”, when fire was again opened at the column, whereupon only 12 survivors continued marching towards Peći. The soldiers took them to Peći, abusing and beating them along the way (the witness stated that the last man in the column was beaten most, and most of the time Sulejman Medanović and Safet Jusić marched at the back of the column). They were handed over to the reserve police, which “made a party playing with them there.”184 The captured men stayed there over the night, and were on the following morning transferred to the SUP Ključ, and subsequently to the Nikola Mačkić primary school to give statements. A certain number of the captured men were thereupon transferred further to Manjača.

347. Witness Hadžić did not know Marko Adamović at the time. The witness learned from the villagers that Marko (was the person who) led soldiers and spoke via megaphone.

183 The witness explained that Dika is a nickname, that he knows the woman by her nickname, but does not know her first name. 184 The witness explained that they had been ordered to lie down facing the ground, their hands were tied up with wire and they were thus beaten.

135

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

348. Witness Edin Hadžić described the referenced events consistently with witness Hamid Hadžić. This witness also could not specify the date, as to whether it was on 31 May or 1 June 1992, when the villagers of Prhovo were called to form a line near Abid Osmanović’s house. It ensues from his testimony that this was already the soldiers’ second arrival in the village. Witness Edin Hadžić stated that one of the soldiers singled him out of the line near Abid Osmanović’s house and asked him if any villagers possessed weapons. The witness told him who had had weapons, and handed them over to the soldiers who had visited the village several days earlier. The witness was thereupon returned to the line. The witness stated that many soldiers and a personnel carrier stood near Abid Osmančević’s house where the villagers of Prhovo had been lined up.

349. Witness Edin Hadžić further testified that, at the distance of around 10 meters, he heard a voice saying “God rest their souls”. The witness also heard Hamdinica Medanović’s voice saying “Now that you killed my sons, kill me too”.

350. Witness Edin Hadžić stated that the soldiers had singled out men and marched them under escort towards Peći. Consistently with witness Hamid Hadžić, this witness also stated that the column first stopped at the Runjevica meadow, where several men were ordered to pull out a vehicle stuck in the mud. Fire was opened at the men pulling the car out of the mud, and some of them were killed. Like witness Hadžić, this witness had also overheard a conversation between two soldiers in their escort, who said that one of their soldiers had been killed. Marko Adamović thereupon ordered, via megaphone, that the women and children in the village be killed. Considering that the meadow, where they had stopped was only around 300m away from the village, they heard the shooting and hand grenades exploding around the village.

351. The column of men was ordered to proceed further towards Peći. The men in the column were beaten all along the way. They were ordered to take off their jackets in order to feel the blows they received more strongly. The men in the column were along the way killed individually, or in groups,185 so, ultimately, only 12 of them arrived in Peći. The soldiers who had brought them there handed them over to members of the military police. They ordered them to take off their shirts, tied up their hands behind their backs, forced

185The witness explained that Suad Hadžić, Ilfad Brković were killed, as well as minors Senad Hadžić and Ismet Mešić.

136

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

them to lie down on the asphalt road and beat them. Sulejman Medanović186 died after this beating. On the following morning, they were transported by a van to an elementary school in Ključ, where the ill-treatment of these men continued. They were forced to sing Chetniks’ songs. They were subsequently transferred to Sitnica, and thereafter to Manjača too.

352. Witness Edin Hadžić stated that, while they were standing in front of the school, they learned that the “Captain” who had been present with soldiers in the village was none other than Marko Adamović.

353. Witness Senad Medanović testified that, since 30 May 1992, men from the Prhovo village mostly hid in the woods. On 1 June 1992, the villagers were ordered to attend a meeting to be held in front of Šefik Medanović’s house. They were also told that those who did not attend would be liquidated. The witness stated that Marko Adamović addressed them via megaphone, standing on an armored vehicle that had arrived in the village. The witness stated they “fully trusted their Serb neighbors”. Thus the witness also headed towards the place in the village where the villagers had gathered. At one moment, however, he heard Milan Ris’s voice swearing “their Turkish company”, which deterred him from his initial intention to join the gathered villagers. The witness rather fled the village. Even though the village was already surrounded, and some soldiers opened fire at him, the witness successfully hid in a “brushwood”. He could not see from this spot what was happening down there in the village. The witness only heard the voice of his sister Sadeta speaking via megaphone, and calling “Green Berets to come out, or otherwise all the population would be killed, and the Captain would have no mercy even to an one-year baby or her mother.” The witness subsequently learned that Marko Adamović held the megaphone while she had to say what he had ordered her to say, holding her baby in her hands.

354. Witness Sadeta Medanović also stated that soldiers had visited the village for several times, beat male villagers and called them out by their first and last names. The witness therefore concluded they were their neighbors from the neighboring Serb villages. The witness also testified that they were once lined up near Karanfil Osmanović’s house, and that a man singled her out, and told her to call Green Berets into surrender. The

186 The witness explained that it was an old man, Sulejman Medanović, rather than a young one with the same first and last name, whose nickname is Uka.

137

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

witness stated she had to repeat his words fearing for her baby which she had held in her arms. Witness Nermina Medanović also confirmed that Sadeta Medanović was forced to call Green Berets into surrender upon an order of a soldier who had singled her out from the line, threatening that the entire village would be killed, including her baby. Consistently with the other witnesses, witness Kana Mešić described the referenced incident and identified a person, who had singled out Sadeta Medanović to call Green Berets into surrender, as Marko Adamović, whom she had known from before as a teacher.

355. It ensues from the evidence of witness Kana Mešić that provocations of Muslims by Serbs had started in May, and that already in late May the villagers of Prhovo started hiding in woods. The witness described that, on a Saturday in late May, armed soldiers, mostly their Serb neighbors, arrived in the village, captured and beat the men they found in the village, and then proceeded further towards Peći. However, they returned on Monday and carried out a massacre.187 The witness testified that on this Monday, when soldiers came to the village again, they forced the villagers outside “in front of a store”, in a sheep pen near the house of Adil and Karanfil Osmanović.

356. Witness Kana Mešić testified that Marko Adamović came together with soldiers. When she saw Marko Adamović, whom she had known from before as a teacher, the witness believed soldiers would not harm them. However, they started abusing them, as already described above. Marko Adamović singled out Sadeta Medanović, and thereupon Halil Medanović to call “Green Berets” into surrender. Since there was no one to surrender, they started singling out young boys and “beating them unconsciousness”. Her son Isak was also singled out and beaten. Despite covering her ears with her hands, the witness heard her son moaning and saw him bleeding.

357. Witness Mešić stated that Marko Adamović ordered that 5 young boys be singled out, including her son Isak, and that they were executed at the distance of 5 meters from the place where they had stood. Then she heard Marko Adamović saying “May God rest their souls”. The witness’s other son Ismet, age 15 at the time, was singled out in a group of men which was taken towards Peći. The witness has never seen her son again. The witness learned from Elvir Jusić that Ismet had been killed in Peći, while her son Isak’s body was found in the village.

187 It ensues from the witness's evidence that it was Monday, 1 June 1992, when the crime in Prhovo was committed, as also ensues from the 1992 calendar.

138

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

358. Witness Mešić further testified that, after these 5 young boys had been killed and a group of able bodied men separated to go towards Peći, soldiers threw something among them. They heard “a detonation” and soldiers opened fire at them. There was a total chaos, and the witness successfully escaped to Hripavci. In the meantime, she had also lost sight of her youngest son Nevres, age 9 at the time, but he successfully escaped from the village and eventually met her in Hripavci.

359. Nevres Mešić, also heard as a witness, described in the same way the events in the village that had occurred on 1 June 1992. The witness stated they were lined up near Osmanović’s house, facing the wall, under threats that they would be killed; the men were called out by their names, wherefore the witness concluded that neighbors who had known them were among those soldiers. The witness mentioned the beating and the killing of his brother Isak. The witness stated there was an explosion, that soldiers opened fire at them, that the villagers started fleeing, that he lost sight of his mother in this flight, but met her on the following day in Hripavci.

360. As a boy age 9 at the time, witness Nevres Mešić knew none of the soldiers who had arrived in the village. The witness, however, heard his mother mentioning teacher Adamović, Stojan and Boro Pešević as some of the perpetrators of the crime in Prhovo.

361. The accused Adamović’s defense made efforts to prove that he was not present in Prhovo on 1 June 1992 when the Muslim population was massacred, but rather in Ključ, attending a session of the Municipal Crisis Staff, and that the witnesses mentioned him because he had passed through the village with his soldiers prior to this incident, so they were confused about the day he was seen. In proving those assertions, the accused Adamović’s defense primarily relied on the testimonies of the witnesses who had known him, but who did not see him on the relevant day, like Witness C, or the witnesses who confirmed his alibi.

362. Witness C testified that soldiers had passed through his village on 1 June 1992, and that he heard soldiers saying they were going to Prhovo. On the following day, the witness learned from the refugees coming from Prhovo about the crimes committed there. Witness C however stated that he did not see Marko Adamović with the soldiers who had passed through his village. The witness saw Adamović with the soldiers who had on the previous day passed through the village, when he even said “Neighbors, don’t be afraid” and advised the elderly to sit in a shade. However, the mere fact that Witness C did not

139

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

see the accused Adamović leading the soldiers on 1 June 1992 certainly does not mean that he was not present in the village of Prhovo on the relevant day.

363. The Panel considers as ill-founded the Accused’s defense that, on 1 June 1992, he attended a session of the Crisis Staff. This averment of the accused Adamović, presented in his testimony as a witness for the Defense, was confirmed only by witness Rajko Kalabić, who had reasons to cover for the Accused’s acts due to his own engagement in the Municipal Crisis Staff. The Minutes of the session of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff held on 1 June 1992 did not list the attendees, nor can it be concluded from its contents that the accused Adamović attended the session at issue. However, considering a series of the activities on the ground, it would be logical to expect that, even if he indeed attended the referenced session, the Accused actively participated in its work, as he did at the sessions held on 2 and 3 June 1992, when he submitted reports from the ground and addressed certain organizational issues.

364. Bearing in mind a number of the witnesses’ consistent testimonies, the Panel gave no credence to the testimony of Radenko Kuburić who affirmed that, in addition to members of the military police, members of sabotage units from Drvar had also been present in the Prhovo area. Witness Kuburić stated that “quite a few persons indeed knew members of what army these men were; they had red scarfs and wore camouflage green uniforms”. None of the Prhovo villagers described soldiers who had come to the village in the referenced way. On the contrary, they rather stated that soldiers called the villagers of Prhovo by their names. The villagers concluded, based on this fact, that these men were their neighbors. At the intersection where his brother was captured, witness Muharem Islamagić met Radenko Kuburić, member of the Ključ Battalion. Since many witnesses identified the accused Adamović in the village on the critical day, as described above, the Panel has no doubts into the fact that, on 1 June 1992, members of the Ključ Battalion, led by the accused Adamović, committed the crime in Prhovo.

365. The Accused was not charged with the command responsibility, wherefore the issue of superior-subordinate relation was not the subject of evaluation by this Panel. In order to find the Accused guilty as a participant in the JCE, it was quite sufficient to determine his contribution to the crimes at issue, which ensues beyond a doubt from the consistent testimonies of the heard witnesses.

366. Bearing in mind a number of consistent statements of the witnesses who had

140

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

identified the accused Adamović in the village on the critical day, and who had no dilemma that it was exactly the Accused, the mere fact of whether he had or did not have stars and ranks on his uniform, or whether his eyebrows were joined or separated, are in the Panel’s view of no decisive importance for the establishment of proper findings of facts. There is no doubt that many witnesses affirmed that the others addressed the Accused as the Captain,188 as he called himself, that he led soldiers, that he ordered the killing of women and children. All the foregoing leaves no dilemma into both his significant, but also decisive contribution to the commission of the crime at issue.

367. In addition, the crime in Prhovo is undoubtedly a part of the policy of persecution of the Muslim and Croat population from the Ključ municipality. The attack on the undefended Muslim village of Prhovo resulted in the killing of more than 50 persons, including a certain number of women and children. After the arrival of soldiers in the village, the villages gathered in front of the house of Abid and Karanfil Osmanović; at least 7 persons were killed (5 men who were singled out from the line and executed, Izet Hadžić, a couple of meters further away, and Fatima Medanović who told soldiers to kill her after they had killed her son). A group of able bodied men was separated and taken towards Peći. Along the road, at least 15 persons were killed, and only 11 survived. Fire was opened from different types of weaponry at the villagers of Prhovo who had stayed in the village, mostly women and children, as a result of which at least 30 persons were killed. The remaining population had to flee in panic, without anything, and seek salvation in the neighboring Muslim villages. Villagers of Krantići, Vukovo Selo and other surrounding villages spoke about the refugees from Prhovo arriving in their villages. The men, escorted in a column from the village, were along the way severely beaten. Their beating culminated after their arrival in Peći, where the soldiers who had brought them there handed them over to the military police, whose members continued to beat them severely. A total of 11 persons, who had survived this torture, were detained at the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ.

368. Regular Combat Reports, signed by Major Boško Lukić, confirm the witnesses’ statements that, after the massacre in the village, soldiers continued cleansing the terrain. The Daily Report, strict. conf. No. 01-/92 of 5 June 1992, signed by Major Boško Lukić, stated under Item 2 the following:

188 The testimony of witness Sadeta Medanović.

141

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

“I have decided: ½ lab. To cleanse the Islamagići-Prhovo terrain with a task to force Ustashas in this area into surrender ….”189,

The foregoing ensues from the Report dated 17 June 1992,190 stating that the village of Prhovo Gornje was also targeted for cleansing, more specifically, for “capturing and liquidation of the remaining part of the Ustasha renegades”. Witness Senad Medanović testified he had made several attempts to approach the village during the 5 days after the crime commission, but failed because soldiers were present everywhere. He kept hiding in the neighboring Muslim villages. In the village of Kozarac, Safet Kozarac known as Cajo approached him, and told him that Marko Adamović had visited the village and threatened, not knowing if the witness was killed, that he would kill all the villagers of the Kozarci hamlet and in the wider area if anyone spotted him (the witness), and particularly if anyone gave him any food and water. Therefore, the search after the survivors continued.

369. The document also signed by Boško Lukić, of 9 June 1992, stated as follows:

“I have decided to continue the blockade, cleansing and control of the territory with the aim to prevent the Ustasha forces’ progress from the Kamičak-Peći and Vrpolje Sanica direction, and to secure the forces engaged in mopping up the terrain in the Plamenice-Prhovo area.”191

370. Witness Alem Hadžić, who had successfully escaped the massacre in Prhovo, stated that he had reported the incident to the Ključ authorities and requested approval for the burial of killed people. However, several days had passed until the burial was granted. The bodies were already in the state of decomposition. The Ključ authorities sent them an excavator and ordered them to dig a mass grave. They were not even allowed to separate men from women. Witness Hadžić further testified that soldiers secured the burial, that is, made sure that the terrain was clear. Witness Milorad Hrgić, member of the TO Battalion, testified that he had been present in Prhovo and secured the burial of the killed villagers of Prhovo.

371. The conclusion on the results of the committed crimes can be drawn on the basis of Exhibit T-451, Exhumation records, Identification records with sketches of the crime scene and photo-documentation of mass graves „Prhovo“ and „Ciganska dolina“, Crime Scene Investigation Record from the Brežica site, Identification and Autopsy Record with

189 Exhibit T-455/34. 190 Exhibit T-179. 191 Exhibit T-445/33.

142

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

attached documentation for Sulejman Medanović, and the Excerpt from the Register of Deaths for Sulejman Medanović.192 In addition, Exhibit T-440 enumerates the killed villagers of Prhovo by their names, with a note that they were killed in combat. Nevertheless, the consistent testimonies of the witnesses clearly show that there were no combats in Prhovo on the referenced day, that the villagers were first disarmed, and that in addition to the men whose names were indicated in the documents, a certain number of women and children were also killed, as stated in the enacting clause of the Verdict. Therefore, the Panel has concluded that the referenced document is obviously aimed at concealing the committed crime.

372. All the foregoing points to the conclusion that the attack on Prhovo, in the way as it was carried out, formed part of the plan of persecution of Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality, and that, as such, it was implemented through the acts of murder, unlawful imprisonment and other severe deprivations of physical liberty, in violation of the rules of international law, that is, on no legal grounds, and by other inhuman offenses of similar character committed with the intent to cause severe suffering or serious physical or mental harm, and by forcible removal of the population, that is, implemented as a part of the JCE, to the commission of which the accused Lukić and Adamović significantly contributed, which renders them responsible for the referenced charges.

H. COUNT 5 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE CONVICTING PART OF THE VERDICT

“5. Starting from late May until the end of June 1992 at least, the Ključ Battalion of the Territorial Defense, i.e. the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, with the police assistance, following the shelling of undefended villages and settlements of Ključ populated by non-Serbs, undertook activities and continued with persecution and disarmament with the ultimatum to surrender all the weapons or the village would be attacked. Following the surrender of weapons they started with unlawful arrests and imprisonment of men in the Public Security Station or other facilities designated for that purpose like primary schools, with killings, forcing people out of their houses, deportation and forceful movement of population, unlawful destruction and stealing of property that is not justified by military needs, destruction of religious buildings in as much as they:

After the shelling, the population of Pudin Han, Velagići, including the hamlets of Hađići, Vojići, Hasići, Nezići and others, scared senseless, were called to leave their houses and gather near the Community Center in Velagići, and when several hundred women, children and men came in front of the Centre, they were ordered to go in front of the Ključ Public Security Station, and then they were stopped at a police checkpoint near the ROPS, where a certain number of the

192 Exhibit T-452.

143

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

population of these villages immediately surrendered, and a certain number of men immediately bussed to the primary school Nikola Mačkić in Ključ after their money, documents and personal property were seized from them, while a part of the population, men women and children, arrested at the check point, were taken to the Šip warehouse, where the men were separated from the women and children, and then the women and children were released but banned from returning to their homes until approved by the authorities in Ključ, while the men were registered and interrogated, and some of them were released to go home from there,, while more than 200 of them were unlawfully deprived of liberty and imprisoned in the primary school Nikola Mačkić in Ključ.”

373. Before addressing the concrete charges described in Section 5, a) through e), of this Verdict enumerating the concrete acts of commission by which the persecution of Muslims and Croats from Pudin Han and Velagići with all its hamlets were committed during June 1992, the Panel considers it is necessary to further refer to the issue of the units which had participated in the attack, more specifically, to the issue of and the moment when the 17 Light Infantry Brigade was established, the units that comprised it, and the issue of cooperation between these units and the police.

374. It ensues from the testimonies of the witnesses and the documentary evidence tendered in the case record193 that the 17th Light Infantry Brigade was established in early June. Witness Rajko Kalabić said that the 17th Light Infantry Brigade was established on 4 June 1992. This was also confirmed by the accused Lukić and Adamović, both heard in the capacity of witnesses. Boško Lukić testified that the 17th Light Infantry Brigade had not existed on 27 May 1992 in the Ključ territory. Only the Ključ Battalion was present in the Sitnica area, which had come to the Ključ territory on 28 May 1992. The accused Lukić stated he did not know what its tasks were. Truly, the Accused stated that the referenced “Ključ Battalion” had no connections with the TO Battalion. The Panel, however, concluded that such assertions were unconvincing or unsupported with any other item of evidence, and therefore refused them as such.

375. The accused Adamović stated that, on 2 or 3 June 1992, they “received information” that the town defense command would not be formed and that, instead, the 17th Light Infantry Brigade would be formed. The Accused further stated that, already on 4 June 1992, an order was issued to merge the Ključ Battalion with the 17th Light Infantry Brigade as its 1st Battalion, and to subsequently form two Battalions. As it ensues from the

193 Exhibit T-189 – Brigade Command Operations and Activity Report of 28 July 1992 stating that „In early June of the current year, the long-awaited realization of the idea to establish the Ključ Brigade started...“.

144

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

presented evidence, the Ključ Battalion, namely the Battalion comprising the TO Ključ units, joined the 17th Light Infantry Battalion after its establishment.194

376. The witnesses consistently testified that Drago Samardžija was appointed Commander of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade. The following also ensued from the Order issued by the Commander of the 2nd Krajina Corps195 stating that Drago Samardžija was temporarily assigned to the 17th “Ključ” Brigade, and that he had to report to this duty on 9 June 1992. In an obvious attempt to exclude the Accused’s connection with any activities of the units on the ground during the relevant period, the accused Lukić’s Defense tendered the referenced Order as its evidence196 in the proceedings before the Appellate Panel. However, the adduced evidence showed that, in fact, Drago Samardžija assumed the duty of the Commander of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade no sooner than mid-June 1992, until which time the accused Boško Lukić had performed this duty. Regular combat reports for the referenced period show that they were signed by the Commander Drago Samardžija no sooner than 17 June 1992, and that up until this period the operations had been led by the accused Boško Lukić.197

377. During the stated period, the Ključ Battalion took part in the “cleansing of the town and its surrounding villages” in the Ključ198 municipality, first as the Battalion of the TO Ključ units, and subsequently as the 3rd Infantry Battalion of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade after its establishment. According to the witnesses, these activities were supported by members of the police force, both active and reserve (to be addressed in detail in the reasoning provided for each of the charges individually).

(a) Charges under Section 5.a) of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict

378. A large number of witnesses, including Fahrudin Ćemal, Enes Salihović, Ramo Duranović, Latif Salihović, Hasan Salihović, Witness A, Marinko Vejin, Senad Draganović, Mirsad Dervišević and some others were heard with regard to the circumstances described in Section 5.a) of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict.

194 Exhibits T-361 and T-196. 195 Exhibit T-455/49 – Order by the Commander of the 2nd Krajina Corps, strict. Conf. 11/28-201 of 9 June 1992, signed by Colonel Grujo Borić. 196 Exhibit AO-7. 197 Exhibits T-175-T-179, T-455. 198 Exhibit T-196.

145

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

379. All the witnesses consistently described the fear and panic in the villages of Pudin Han and Velagići caused by the shelling to which they were subjected,199 and the frantic state of their villagers after seeing fragmented bodies of the killed and wounded persons who had tried to find shelter against the falling shells.

380. The population of the referenced villages was subsequently ordered, both via Radio Ključ and via megaphone, to hand over their weapons and surrender. Witness Fahrudin Ćemal testified that “the rifles were just an excuse, and Bosniaks were killed”. Witness Fahrudin Ćemal stated that, due to numerous calls to surrender the weaponry, it had already been collected on 27/28 May 1992, and that two young men drove it to Ključ. However, after the shelling and calling all able bodied men to gather at the community center in Velagići, which the police had sent via megaphone through the villages, over 500 of men went to the center in Pudin Han. The men gathered at this place were directed to march towards Ključ. The witness cannot remember who had ordered them to march towards Ključ because:

“We received information, I do not know from whom, but the information was that we had to go down there. You understand that, after the first victims, this was very difficult and people were frantic...“200

381. They complied with the order and marched towards Ključ. When they came closer to the ROPS, they noticed buses parked there and members of the police, who had stopped around 50-100m in front of them and ordered them, via megaphone, to line up in a column “one by one”. Thus lined up, they entered the buses which transported them to Ključ, in a gym in the Nikola Mačkić primary school. In addition to the police at the check point where they had entered the busses, the witness also noticed soldiers, all armed. After arriving in front of the Nikola Mačkić school, they were taken to the gym. The witness described that as follows:

“They told us all to get out and forced us into a gym. They ordered us to enter the gym. While we walked towards the gym, we were abused and beaten... This was their method, the beating and all that. Unfortunately, I spent a long period of time in the camp. That is why I have mentioned it, normally …”201

199 See Section 2 of the convicting part of the Verdict. 200 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 24 September 2008, testimony of witness Fahrudin Ćemal, p.24. 201 Ibid, p. 26.

146

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

The witness further stated he was questioned by Boro Ljubljankić, who had worn the former JNA uniform and whom he had known from before as his neighbor. Members of the so called “Red Berets”, who had come to Ključ during the previous months, and some other men wearing hats whom he had not known, were also present in the school. The witness was subjected to severe beatings in the Nikola Mačkić primary school, thereupon transferred to Stara Gradiška, and ultimately to Manjača.

382. Witness Enes Salihović similarly described the events in Pudin Han and Velagići. The witness stated that Omer Filipović was the first person who surrendered after the shelling. Thereupon, the weaponry was handed over in compliance with an ultimatum given in order to stop the shelling. Around 40-50 men in Velagići had weapons. They loaded their weapons on a tractor and handed them over. However, despite handing over the weapons, it was ordered that those 40-50 from Velagići, who had owned and surrendered their weapons, come with a white flag to the ROPS checkpoint, which they did. They were lined up in a column by the road and searched. When the buses arrived, they were crammed into buses and transported to the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ.

383. Witness Latif Salihović also testified that, after the shelling of Pudin Han and Vinko Kondić’s ultimatum that the shelling would cease if the villagers of Pudin Han surrendered their weaponry and able bodied came “for an interview”, around 350 villagers of Pudin Han and Velagići, including all the hamlets202, decided to comply with the request. In the morning after the shelling of Pudin Han and Velagići, they went with a white flag “down from Busije” towards the checkpoint.203 At the checkpoint, the witness identified Dragan Stojčić, whom he had known from before. Stojčić contacted someone telling him that “there were many of them”, whereupon members of the reserve police force started arriving at the site. The witness stated that they wore same uniforms as Dragan. Thereupon buses arrived at the checkpoint, in which they were crammed and driven to front of the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ. They were “thoroughly searched” before entering the gym. The witness was searched by reserve police officer Gajić, whom he had known from before. The witness described the search as follows:

202 The witness stated that: „The Hadžići and Hasići families, whoever wanted to come, they came. Those who stayed were mostly killed.“ 203 The ROPS checkpoint is at Busije.

147

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

“He searched me and I asked him if I could keep my medicines. He told me I could keep only the medicines and that I must throw away everything else from my pockets …”204

They were separated (in groups) in the gym between those who had had weapons, and the others. They were thereupon taken to classrooms for interrogation, where they were beaten. The witness stated that after the interrogation and beatings, they were transferred to the camps, first to Stara Gradiška, and thereupon to Manjača.

384. In addition to the military fit men who had surrendered at the ROPS checkpoint, after Vinko Kondić’s ultimatum, a certain number of villagers, men, women and children, also complied with the surrender request and reported to the community center in Velagići. From this place, they were directed to go to the front of the SJB. However, they were stopped at the ROPS checkpoint and subsequently taken to the Šip warehouse.

385. Witness Ramo Duranović, a cleric from Velagići, testified that in late May, after they had been called via radio to surrender their weapons, which had been surrendered as he heard, the then authorities ordered the population to come to Ključ. All men, women and children from Velagići started off, but were stopped at Busije.205 The soldiers present there separated them in two columns, “searched” them and placed them in a vaulted space, a sort of a warehouse. A certain number of the Velagići villagers, who had together with them come to the Busije checkpoint, were immediately transported to other collective centers. On the other hand, a certain number of them stayed there until around 19:00 hrs in the evening, when they were released, but prohibited from returning to their homes. The witness stated they were told: “(The villages of) Huskići, Šehići are at your disposal…”

386. Witness Hasan Salihović testified that, after the weapons were surrendered upon Vinko Kondić’s order sent to the villagers of Pudin Han and Velagići via Radio Ključ, able bodied men were ordered to surrender in the community center in Pudin Han. His villagers complied with this order, and around 100 of them went there. While they were in front of the center, they were informed they all had to go to Ključ, able bodied men, women and children. Thus they went back to pick up the women and children who had stayed in the woods. The women and children who had stayed in the village, and the men who had earlier come to the surrender site, marched towards Ključ. At the checkpoint near the

204 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 8 April 2009, the testimony of witness Latif Salihović, p.14. 205 The checkpoint near the ROPS.

148

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

ROPS, they met members of the military and police force, who stopped them and interned them in a warehouse owned by the Šipad Komerc company. The witness stated he had considered this place as a camp because armed soldiers were all around the place and he saw no way out of there. While they stayed there, some people from Ključ arrived there in a red police van. It was a real “chaos” there with the population from Pudin Han, Rejzovići, and there were crying children who had “drunk water instead of milk”…In the evening, women and children were told they could leave, but could not return to their homes. They could go either to (the village of) Rejzovići or Ključ, while able bodied men were further kept in the Šipad Komerc warehouse. Members of the police force questioned and registered the men who had stayed there. The witness identified Todo Gajić and police officers Simo and Željko. After the questioning, police officers took a certain number of men to other places, while a certain number of them were released to go to Ključ. They were prohibited from returning to their villages. After returning to their villages after a while, they found out they had been burnt down.

387. The witnesses, who had been arrested and taken under escort to a gym in the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ, described that, even though they were interrogated, they had never been informed about the reasons for their arrest. Witness Fahrudin Ćemal stated they had never been told the reasons for their being there. The witness was ill- treated in various ways. He was threatened that they would cut off his two fingers unless he crossed himself with the cross sign, which he did with all five fingers. He was severely beaten as a result of which he was unconscious for a long period of time. The witness was also requested to name other Muslims imprisoned at the school gym who would be further beaten instead of him.

388. After the shelling of Velagići and the request that able bodied men report to the SJB Ključ to be issued with movement licenses, witness Ekrem Čehić complied with the request. However, he was issued with no free movement license, but was instead detained at the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ. The witness testified as follows:

“(The villages of) Vojići (entire village), Nezići, Hasići, parts of the population of the villages of Častovići, Pudin Han, Velagići, all of them went down there ... We all marched in the same direction, towards Ključ. A column of people walked

149

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

down Busije, down this main road towards Ključ, the column of men... we all met at the main road down from Busije...“206

They were crammed into buses at the checkpoint. The witness stated that “as soon as one bus was crammed with men, it went away, one after another.” They were brought to the Nikola Mačkić school in Ključ, where they were subjected to interrogation and beating by members of the police reserve force, and soldiers in uniforms of the former JNA. The witness was interrogated by Tode Gajić. The Prosecutor asked the witness if he knew the reasons why he had been beaten. The witness responded:

“I know why I was beaten. I speak for myself, and I know why I was beaten. In fact, they beat us only because of our names, and nothing else …”207

389. Therefore, the reasons for which these men were arrested and taken under escort to the Nikola Mačkić primary school, imprisoned and kept there on no legal grounds, and many of them subsequently transported to some of the established camps, were never disclosed to them. The only link to their deprivation of liberty was their ethnic origin. Such a deprivation of liberty, in combination with the inhuman treatment to which the captured men were subjected, was undoubtedly in violation of all rules of international law, committed with the intent to persecute the Muslim and Croat population from the Ključ municipality, within a common design of the JCE. The foregoing renders the Accused responsible for the referenced charges, not as the direct perpetrators of those crimes, but as the persons who consented to the referenced design and undertook the actions in furtherance of this design.

(b) Charges under Section 5.b) of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict

“5. b) As of 28 May 1992, with the task to mop up the villages on the route Pudin Han – Vukovo Selo – Humići – Plamenice – Prhovo – Peći, they expelled the Muslim population from their houses, terrorized and intimidated them, threatening they would kill anyone who was hiding and who was hiding weapons, conducted searches looking for weapons that have not been turned in and men who were hiding, sent a group of men fit for military service for interrogation by the Police at the primary school in Humići. In Vukovo Selo they killed Šefik Čajić, while, in the presence of Marko Adamović and without legal grounds, Hamer Ljutić and Muharem Ljutić were arrested on Ljutića Brdo and later found killed in a nearby woods,“

206 The witness earlier explained that this was a checkpoint on the main road, near the turn towards the ROPS, transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 23 March 2014, testimony of witness Ekrem Čehić, p. 20. 207 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 23 February 2009, testimony of witness Ekrem Čehić, p. 24- 25.

150

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

390. Many witnesses testified about the passage of soldiers through the villages in the Ključ municipality, the threats and fear they experienced at the time, particularly the villagers of Vukovo Selo. They testified that a young man, Šefik Čajić, was killed “in front of their eyes”, while they were standing lined up in a column; that Hamer Ljutić and Muharem Ljutić were taken away and that their bodies were subsequently found. A certain number of pieces of documentary evidence regarding these incidents were also tendered in the case record.

391. The Panel will again refer first to Exhibit T-196, Contribution to the Monograph of the 1st Krajina Corps. This Exhibit shows that, after 27 May 1992, the Ključ Battalion, whose Deputy Commander was Marko Adamović, was engaged in the attack launched in the direction of the villages of Rejzovići, Hadžići, Pudin Han. The Panel will also refer to Regular Combat Reports from early June 1992, signed by the accused Boško Lukić. These Reports show that the TO Ključ units, that is, the engagement of which was decided by the Accused, were deployed in cleansing the terrain in the area of the villages Islamagići-Ljutići,208 Golaja-Plamenice-Dubočani,209 Vukovo Selo,210 Ljutići-Islamagići- Gornje Prhovo, Humići and Peći,211 Islamagići-Prhovo,212 Kamičak-Peći, Vrpolje-Sanica.213 Many witnesses testified about the time when soldiers passed through these villages.

392. As already described, the first villages in the Ključ municipality which came under the shelling attack were Pudin Han and Velagići. Witness Zaim Smajić testified that, after the shelling of Pudin Han, he escaped towards Vukovo Selo with his family and around 30 neighbors. Some other witnesses214 testified that, knowing there was a cave in Vukovo Selo, they tried to find shelter there against the falling shells. Witness Zaim Smajić testified that, soon after their arrival in Vukovo Selo, soldiers entered the village already on 30 May 1992. They were ordered to come out of the houses and line up along the road. The witness further stated that, after the first group of soldiers passed, masked in hoods and

208 Exhibit T-175, Regular Combat Report, Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strict. conf. No. 1- 25/92 of 12 June 1992. 209 Exhibit T-177, Regular Combat Report, Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strict. conf. No. 1- 12/92, of 10 June 1992. 210 Exhibit T-178, Regular Combat Report, Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strict. conf. No. 1- 05/92, of 7 June 1992. 211 Exhibit T-179, Regular Combat Report, Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strict. conf. No. 1-31- 5/92, of 17 June 1992. 212 Exhibit T-455/34, Regular Combat Report of 17 June 1992. 213 Exhibit T-445/33, Regular Combat Report of 9 June 1992. 214 See, e.g., evidence of witness Ajiz Bečić, transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 16 September 2009.

151

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

tent-halves in order to hide their faces, and after they “secured their positions with their rifles pointed at them”, a second group of soldiers arrived there and started beating them. The witness stated that a soldier started beating Šefko Čajić, who had instinctively lifted up his leg whereupon this soldier asked someone with the words: “Commander, shall I kill him?” That person responded “Kill him”, and the soldier who had earlier beaten Šefko, pushed him away to a spruce bush and shot him in his abdomen. Some other soldier subsequently asked for an approval to finish Šefko off, whereupon Šefko’s body was left beside the road. Soldiers ordered the villagers to make white flags and mount them on their houses. Those who had come to Vukovo Selo from the neighboring villages were ordered to “go with white flags to the places from which they had come”. The witness stated that a group of soldiers waited for them. They went, with a white flag, to report at the Došani checkpoint.

393. Mimka Brkić also testified that soldiers had passed through Vukovo Selo in late May, and requested the villagers to come out and surrender. The villagers were ordered to lift up their hands and line up.

“They just came by, telling us not to be afraid and that they would do no harm to us. They told us to stand down there, with our hands lifted up, and our faces turned towards them... Thus they passed through the village. They wore black masks, with those balaclava caps, and they marched one after the other. There were many, many of them...they just told us to stand there and look at them...We all lifted our hands up...in order to surrender...We all kept our hands lifted up. Children held their hands lifted up, any child who could stand on his feet... My mother was age 72, and she also had to lift her hands up. She held her hands so lifted up and complained of the pain she felt in the hands, and she needed to put them down. I told her calmly, standing behind her back, that she dared not do that…” 215

Even though they had initially told us they would not harm us, the witness stated that a soldier in a blue cloth uniform and a white belt approached her disabled brother Muhamed and requested him to surrender his weapons. Her brother told him he had no weapons after which the soldier punched him fiercely, as a result of which her brother fell over the fence. The soldier asked her brother “Why are you running away?” Her brother managed to stand and the soldier ordered him to stand in the line next to her. The soldier thereupon came closer to Čajić216 and asked for his weapons too. Čajić responded he had no weapons and the soldier searched him all over. He pulled a pocket knife out from his

215 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 27 May 2009, evidence of witness Mimka Brkić, p. 41-42.

152

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

pocket,217 and some bread and onion. The soldier turned to his Commander telling him: “Commander, he stubbed me”, and asking what to do with him. Witnesses Mimka Brkić and Zaim Smajić heard the “Commander” saying “kill him”, after which the soldier threw Šefko Čajić aside, around 5 meters further away, and they opened fire at him. The young boy Čajić, as witness Brkić referred to him for several times, because of his very young age, survived the firing, so another soldier approached him later, kneeled next to him, “fired a bullet in his temple” and said: “I am killing him to save him from the suffering”. Šefko Čajić’s body was left lying by the road. Soldiers continued passing through the village, with tanks, personnel carriers, trucks. In a group of soldiers marching after those trucks, witness Brkić identified certain men from Ključ whom she had known from before, including Marko Adamović, Boško-teacher from Velagići and Obrad Ribič. The witness stated that Marko Adamović had worn a camouflage uniform with some stars on its pockets and shoulders.

394. Witness Bedrudin Brkić testified that, in May 1992, he was in the village of Humići (the hamlet of Bešići). On 30 May 1992, soldiers came from the direction of Vukovo Selo. The villagers were ordered to surrender, to put their hands behind their heads and line up. Soldiers also told them they would kill anyone who tried to hide. A certain number of the villagers were selected for beating. Among the soldiers who came to the village, the witness identified Marko Adamović, who had been his teacher in the school. After lining up of the villagers and the beating of certain individuals, they were ordered to go to their homes, but not to turn around. The witness nevertheless saw that near a store in Humići (the hamlet of Hamedovići), soldiers had also lined up the villagers and beat up Refik Pudić. Also near this store, the witness saw Marko Adamović “issuing commands”. The witness testified that Marko Adamović did not allow them to launch rockets from a personnel carrier aiming at his house. Soldiers left Humići in the direction of Krantići, and further towards Ljutino brdo, Plamenice, Prhovo. The witness explained that he watched soldiers marching along a certain section of the road.

395. Witness C testified that, after Dućo’s killing, they heard shooting from the direction of Pudin Han and Velagići. They subsequently heard some soldiers were coming from the direction of Vukovo Selo. When soldiers arrived in his village, they heard them shouting

216 The witness could not recall the last name, but she said “Čajić, who was subsequently killed...the one who had come from the village of Šehići“, thus it is clear that Šefik Čajić was in question. 217 A small penknife.

153

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

“Come out, do not let us find anyone hidden”. The villagers gathered in front of one Ćazim’s house, asked them about the whereabouts of “Zenga” members, and fired rounds above their heads. Then they ordered the villagers to turn around, lift up their hands, and keep them in that position for as long as soldiers were passing by. At one moment, they heard a voice familiar to them, Marko Adamović’s voice. He told them: “Neighbors, do not be afraid”, and told the elderly to be seated while soldiers were passing by. The witness stated that the soldiers went towards Krantići, Prhovo, and did not return. After the soldiers’ passage through the village, the witness learned from his neighbors’ about the beating of Refik Pudić and members of the Jodanović family, and about the killing of one Čajić from Vukovo Selo.

396. Witness Salko Krantić testified that soldiers passed through his village on 1 June 1992. He especially remembered their passage because of both their being lined up and the fear of the villagers of Krantići caused by their passage. It ensues from the witness’s testimony that, even prior to 1 June 1992, the military once passed through Krantići, but villagers had previously escaped and hid. A certain number of the villagers of Krantići, including the witness, were taken to a school in Humići for interrogation, where they also saw people from the neighboring villages. On this occasion, some of them were severely beaten.218 After the interrogations, a certain number of villagers were released to go home, but some of them, like Ajiz Krantić, were taken to the Manjača camp.

397. Many villagers of Prhovo heard at the main trial as witnesses testified that, already on Saturday - 30 May, prior to the massacre in their village on 1 June 1992219, the military had come to the village. They searched houses for weapons and torched one house in the village. Some of the villagers were beaten, but there were no major casualties. Witness Sadeta Medanović stated that they had fled to the woods. When they returned to the village due to the threats that the villagers who stayed in the village would be killed unless those who had been hiding in the woods returned to the village, they found broken doors on their houses, torched houses and soldiers in the village firing and beating men. Witness Nermina Medanović testified that soldiers had come to Prhovo, that they visited houses in groups of 2-3, rounded up men and took them to the village center, from where some of them were taken to their homes to hand over weapons, while some men were beaten.

218 The witness stated that Ajiz Krantić was beaten in the presence of Marko Adamović, who did nothing in reaction to the beating. 219 See the explanation provided for in Section 4 of the enacting clause of the Verdict.

154

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

398. Alem Hadžić also testified that soldiers arrived in Prhovo on 30 May 1992. They started ill-treating the villagers, forcing them to “lift up their hands and put them behind their necks”. The witness stated that younger men were beaten, while the older ones were “forced to keep their hands behind their necks, without turning around”. Soldiers also asked for their weapons. Among soldiers who had come to the village, the witness identified Marko Adamović, whom he had known from before, from the village of Peći. Witness Hadžić stated that Adamović wore a military shirt, but he did not see Marko Adamović mistreating anyone. Soldiers beat certain villagers and torched one house.

399. Witness Hamid Hadžić was not in the village when soldiers came to the village on 30 May 1992. On their way back to the village, 5-6 soldiers met him and a couple of his neighbors and took them under escort to the “village center”, where around 100 villagers had already been gathered, and who told them in this chaos that they had handed over the weapons they had in the village. They were all “forced out on a road.” Soldiers told them they would not come back any more. However, on 1 June 1992, the incident described in Section 4 of the enacting clause of the Verdict occurred. On this occasion, a rocket was fired from a Zolja hand-held rocket launcher at the house of his father, Hamed Hadžić.

400. Witnesses Kana Mešić and Nevres Mešić also described the arrival of soldiers in the village in late May. Witness Kana Mešić testified that they were all “forced into a lane”, that a certain number of men were beaten and Hamid Hadžić’s house torched. Witness Nevres Mešić remembered that he had heard someone saying: “A man builds his house all his life, and it disappears in an instant”. Witness Kana Mešić testified that from Prhovo, soldiers went towards the village of Peći, and that one of the soldiers told them: “You were lucky today. I guarantee you nothing for the next time”. This “next time” occurred on 1 June 1992 when the massacre was committed.

401. Witnesses Nafa Smajić and Senad Pervić gave evidence about the killing of Hamer Ljutić and Muharem Ljutić when soldiers passed through the village of Ljutića Brdo. Along this line, also read out was the testimony of witness Mina Ljutić, who had in the meantime died.220

220 Exhibit T-122. Witness Examination Record for Mina Ljutić, KT-RZ-119/05 of 10 April 2008, and an excerpt from the Register of Deaths for Mina Ljutić.

155

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

402. Witness Mina Ljutić testified about the arrival of soldiers in her village. The witness stated she was at her home, while her children, son Hamir221 and daughter Nafa, and Nafa’s friend Enisa, were in a field collecting hay. The witness first heard some villagers shouting “soldiers are coming”. She went out of the house and saw soldiers marching towards Ljutići “like ants”. The witness called her children to come home. Around 500 soldiers came to the village on that occasion, among whom she identified teacher Marko Adamović and a “brother-in-law Đorđe”, also a teacher from Humići. Witness Ljutić stated that the soldiers “had rounded-up” all men from the village and taken them away, including her son Hamir. The witness asked Marko where and why he was taking her son. Marko told her he would not harm her son and that he would be back. The witness testified she had continually stood at the spot from which she could see where her son was taken. She remembered seeing her son Hamir returning to the village and those soldiers (she had earlier stated that she saw four soldiers among whom she identified Stojan Vuković), getting him back again. The witness stated “they took him away again”, whereupon she “lost herself”.222

403. Witness Nafa Smajić confirmed such testimony of witness Mina Ljutić. Witness Smajić testified that, after the arrival of soldiers in the village, the villagers were separated, namely men were separated from women. The witness stated that “even a boy age 6 had to go to the other side together with adult men.” This was an order given by Marko Adamović. The witness stated that, among soldiers present in the village, she identified Marko Adamović, and that she had seen him “standing amidst those soldiers,” shouting:

“and swearing our Alija’s state, you can have your Alija’s state, you have become vampires like Islamagić, you are firing at my soldiers, and many other insulting words that he said at that moment. I am already upset when I remember those insulting words that he said.”223

The witness stated that her mother had begged them not to take Hamir with them. Marko told her that “not a hair of Hamir’s head would be harmed”, but soldiers took him away. She heard they had been taken to a school in Humići for interrogation. The witness and her friend Enisa stayed in her mother’s house. Her mother fainted at one moment. While she poured water on her face, her mother regained consciousness and heard her saying “Where are they taking him now?” When the witness turned around, she saw three

221 Witness Nafa Smajić explained that her brother's name was Hamer, but he was nicknamed Hamir. 222 Witness Nafa Smajić explained that the phrase „she lost herself“ means that she fainted. 223 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 15 June 2009, evidence of witness Nafa Smajić, p. 11.

156

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

soldiers taking her brother Hamir away. Her mother subsequently found Hamir’s body in Plamenice. She also found the body of Muharem Ljutić.

404. In her statement, Mina Ljutić described the search for her son Hamir. She searched him everywhere, visiting houses in the Serb village of Plamenice and looking for anyone who could have information as to where her son had been taken away. At the door of Ratko Vuković’s house, she saw his son and identified him as one of the soldiers who had taken Hamir. The witness stated in her statement that finally, in the woods at Grabež, she found a dead man, whom she identified as Muharem Ljutić based on his clothing. On her way back, in one place she also found the dead body of her son Hamir Ljutić.

405. Witness Nafa Smajić testified that, among soldiers who arrived in the village on the referenced day, she identified Radenko Kuburić, Drago Vranković, and Boško Dević, who also recognized her and Enisa, and promised them he would let them go to their village. However, Marko Adamović interfered with this conversation and told him (Boško) he could not let anyone leave as he was not the commander, and that only the Commander, Marko Adamović personally, could let them go.

406. Records on exhumation and crime scene investigation and Identification and Autopsy Records for victims Muharem Ljutić and Hamer Ljutić224 serve as evidence that Hamir and Muharem Ljutić were killed. The testimony of witness Senad Pervić also serves the same purpose. This witness testified that he learned from Hamer Ljutić’s mother, after the soldiers had passed through the village of Ljutića Brdo, that she had found Hamer and Muharem dead, thus he and several neighbors went to collect their bodies.

407. The accused Adamović also did not contest that the referenced incident and the killing indeed occurred. He only contested having any connection with it. The Accused also did not contest he was present with soldiers on the referenced day in the village of Ljutića Brdo. The Accused made his case exactly on the fact that, after soldiers in his presence had taken Hamer Ljutić to the school in Humići, he returned to the village unharmed, which is when his mother saw him coming. However, the Panel has concluded that the presentation of the events in such a way is undoubtedly the Accused’s attempt to exculpate him by taking the referenced incident out of its full context. Specifically, witness Mina Ljutić asked directly the Accused, rather than any other soldier, where they were

224 T-451.

157

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

taking her son. Witness Nafa Smajić herself heard the Accused ordering the lining up, and separation of men from women, and she heard him “shouting in the middle of the village”. Ultimately, the Accused himself bragged he was the “Commander” and the only person who could decide and allow her to go to her village.

408. With regard to the incident in the village of Plamenice, the Defense for the accused Lukić presented as evidence before the Appellate Panel the Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, strict. conf. 2-69, of 3 June 1992225 stating that “the Muslim extremists in the village of Plamenice, Ključ Municipality, refused to surrender weapons, which may lead to a conflict”. However, the above analyzed, mutually consistent testimonies of the witnesses, show that the population of the referenced and surrounding villages surrendered their weaponry, that already on 1 June 1992 men were separated from women and taken away from the village, that there was no resistance offered by the Muslims who had lived there, and that this document did not bring into doubt the findings of facts relating to the conclusions in this section of the enacting clause of the Verdict.

409. In view of the foregoing, the Panel has concluded that the acts described in this section of the enacting clause, resulting in the unlawful imprisonment of a large number of men, beating, causing fear in and humiliation of the inhabitants of the referenced villages, which have satisfied the elements of other inhuman acts of similar character, but also resulting in the killing of at least three persons, formed part of the plan of persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality exclusively because of their ethnic origin, to which the accused Lukić and Adamović consented and the commission of which they wanted.

(c) Charges under Section 5.c) of the enacting clause of the Verdict

“5.c) In late May 1992, all men from Donja Sanica and Gornja Sanica, including the hamlets, were ordered to surrender weapons and come to designated places. Therefore, the men from Donja Sanica had to come to the former railway station in Sanica, from where, following interrogation, they were transferred to the primary school in Sanica, where men from Gornja Sanica were imprisoned without a legal basis, insulted by various curses, without the right to know why they were imprisoned, along with individual beatings, which created great fear among the imprisoned civilians, both for their destiny and the destiny of their families. On the following day, some of them were released and a large number of them transported to the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ .

225 Exhibit AO-6, Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, str.conf.2-69, of 3 June 1992.

158

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

410. In late May 1992, the destiny of the Muslim and Croat population in Sanica did not essentially differ from the destiny of Muslims and Croats residing in the other areas of the Ključ municipality. Witnesses Atif Džafić, Ismet Kujundžić, Huso Crnolić, Esad Šulić, Mirsad Dervišević, Mile Radulović and Željko Radojičić testified with regard to the above referenced fact.

411. The Defense teams for the Accused also did not contest the events that had occurred in the Sanica area, in late May 1992, as described in this section of the enacting clause of the Verdict, but rather the connection of these two Accused with the incriminating actions.

412. Atif Džafić testified that, after he had stopped working in the police for his refusal to sign a loyalty statement as requested by the new Serb authorities, he went with his family to Sanica, where his entire family had lived. It was Sunday, 31 May 1992, when the military, both members of active and reserve force, came to Sanica. They stopped in front of each house and requested men to join the “convoy”, or a column marching towards the Sanica Primary School. According to the witness, the group of soldiers which arrested and took them under escort to the SP Sanica comprised “mixed members of the military and police”, which the witness distinguished based on their uniforms. The Panel has concluded that such witness’s identification was reliable considering the witness’s status of a prewar Commander of the Police Station Ključ.

413. These men were told that they were going to make arrangements for their future way of life. Witness Džafić stated that he had voluntarily joined the column, and explained it as follows:

“I did it voluntarily because these men were armed. One of the soldiers, my first neighbor Petar Mandić stood above my house holding a sniper. Our house was located below a small hill, and his sniper took aim at my whole family, mother, wife, two children, brothers. How could I not surrender when I had no weapons, no such intentions and this man is threatening to kill them, etc...“226

Witness Džafić testified that, around 150 men from Sanica, all Muslims and one Croat, aged between 18 and 60-70, were captured on the referenced day and interned in a gym in the Sanica primary school. In the gym, Milan Tomić told them that investigators from Ključ would come to interrogate them, and that those found not guilty would be released.

226 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 29 October 2008, evidence of witness Atif Džafić, p. 44.

159

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

They spent the night imprisoned at this school, secured by members of the reserve police armed with long and short gun-barrels. The witness stated that the conditions of their internment were bad: there were no mattresses except for a couple of benches on which the elderly had sat, while the others had sat on the ground. They could not leave the gym to go to a toilet without reporting to the guards. This was unsafe because those who had gone out subsequently had problems with the guards who hit them, punched or kicked them, and seized their rings and watches. Witness Džafić stated the following:

“The atmosphere was already such that, I mean, the situation was such that …., you could lose it as soon as you went out in the darkness. This was simply because, one could feel it, this fear, tensions, ill-treatment, etc....“227

A certain number of the witness’s neighbors, mostly the elderly, who had been apprehended together with him, were released on the following day, while at least 150 of them were crammed in three buses and transported to the Nikola Mačkić Primary School in Ključ.228 As a police officer, the witness knew the arrest, deprivation of liberty and imprisonment procedures. The witness, however, stated that no one had ever informed him about the reasons for which he was arrested or previously removed from work, or why he had spent such a long period of time imprisoned at the Manjača camp, where he was subsequently removed. They were searched at the entrance to the gym, and all that they had on them on the occasion (watches, wedding rings, home and car keys) was seized from them. Members of both active and reserve police force, and members of the military police beat and slapped them. During the time he spent in the Nikola Mačkić primary school, the witness was subjected to severe beatings. The witness was thereupon transferred again to Sitnica, and subsequently to Manjača.

414. In May 1992, witness Ismet Kujundžić lived in Donja Sanica. The witness testified that first a patrol came by in May requesting him to hand over his weapons. The witness handed over a pistol for which he possessed a regular license. Subsequently, probably on 31 May 1992, personnel carriers came to the village and all men were invited to give statement. Around 60-70 men gathered. From a checkpoint set up at the cross-roads, they marched in a column towards the railway station, where they were called out and taken one by one to a room for interrogation. Thereupon one Boro arrived there. The witness

227 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 3 November 2008, evidence of witness Atif Džafić, p. 10. 228 The witness explains that each bus had 50 seats, they were crammed in the bus, and on this basis he calculated the number of men transported to Ključ.

160

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

stated Boro had worked with him before, but “he was a soldier now” who took him for interrogation. After the interrogation, they were taken under escort to the gym in the Sanica primary school. When they arrived in the school gym, they saw there a large number of men from Gornja Sanica. They were all civilians, like the witness himself. They stated that, once they arrived there, provocations, interrogations and separation of men started. The witness stated that a police station was located near the school. The Prosecutor asked the witness why they failed to seek police protection while they were escorted to the school by soldiers, to which the witness responded:

“How could I do that when this was a police operation, they escorted us under guns and submachine guns to the gym. You had no one to speak with, and you were not allowed to talk to anyone. Forget it, there is no talk when a submachine gun is aimed at you, and there is no way you can ask mister police officer anything. You cannot speak with anyone because you are not allowed to do so. There is no talk, they just point a submachine gun at you, and that’s that.”229

415. At one moment, they were ordered to come out in front of the school. A member of the active police force, standing in front of the door, ordered them to throw away everything they had in their pockets for they would need those items no more. The witness had a military ID and 100 Swiss Francs which he threw in front of him. Parked in the school yard, in front of the school, were 3 or 4 buses, and they were ordered to enter those buses. While they were entering the buses, soldiers in olive-gray uniforms standing near the buses beat them with rifle butts, or punched them on their heads. In the bus, they were ordered to keep their heads bowed down in their laps. They did not know where they were being taken. When the bus stopped, and when they were taken out, the witness realized they were in Ključ, in front of the Nikola Mačkić primary school. They were taken through a gauntlet of soldiers and police officers and brought to the school gym.

416. Witness Huso Crnolić was also taken under escort, first to the Sanica primary school, and thereupon to the Nikola Mačkić primary school. Witness Crnolić testified that, in late May, the military and the police arrived in his village. He identified them by their uniforms because the police had standard blue uniforms, while the police had olive-gray uniforms. Among those soldiers, the witness recognized men from Sanica whom he had known from before. All villagers were taken to a road towards Sanica. Men were separated from women and children, whereupon the men, mostly able bodied men, were bussed to a meadow, where they saw a certain number of members of the military and the police.

161

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

From this place, two by two in a column, escorted by members of the active and reserve police force, they marched to the Sanica railway station. They were brought in two rooms for interrogation. First younger men were taken into a room, interrogated and beaten during the interrogation. After the interrogation, they were in the evening hours taken to the Sanica Primary School and interned in a gym, where they saw a large number of men from Sanica, whom the witness had known from before. The witness stated:

“When I entered the gym, I saw men from Sanica whom I had personally known. There were teachers and tradesmen who had been beaten there.“230

Around midnight, they were bussed to the Nikola Mačkić PS in Ključ. The witness stated he was not beaten in the Sanica PS gym even though he noticed men who had been beaten there. He was only beaten when he entered the bus which transported them to Ključ, as two of their men stood by the bus beating the men entering the bus. The witness stated that 4 buses arrived, and that each bus carried around 40-50 men. No one informed them about the reasons for which they were deprived of liberty or detained. After their arrival in the Nikola Mačkić PS in Ključ, they had to empty their pockets. In a gym to which they were brought, and where they spent the night, they saw a horrific situation:

“The gym was all dirty, it was all covered in blood, and it was dirty of all sorts of things... I saw there, when we saw the gym was crammed and that men had been beaten there, that there was... Some men were all black and blue, some were all covered in blood, there was …”231

The witness further stated that, after spending the night in the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ, they were crammed into buses which would allegedly take them back to their homes. However, when the buses reached a checkpoint at Biljani, held by Serb soldiers and TO reservists, they were sent back to the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ.

417. Witness Mirsad Dervišević, who had been present on 1 June 1992 at the Velagići checkpoint, stated that buses transporting the men from Sanica arrived, and that in one of the buses he recognized Atif Džafić. These buses were stopped at the checkpoint and sent back in the same direction from which they had come. That the buses transporting the

229 Transcript in the case No. X-KR-05/119, 24 February 2010, evidence of witness Ismet Kujundžić, p. 19. 230 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 14 October 2009, evidence of witness Huso Crnalić, p. 11. 231 Ibid, p. 13.

162

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Muslims from Sitnica were sent back from the checkpoint again to the Nikola Mačkić primary school ensues from the testimony of witness Simo Vujičić.232

418. Some men, e.g. Huso Crnolić, were nevertheless brought back home to Sanica via roundabout way, while for some of them, like Atif Džafić, the period of imprisonment had just started there, considering he was transferred to Sitnica, and subsequently to the Manjača camp.

419. Bearing in mind the consistent testimonies of the witnesses relating to the charges described in this Section, and the events uncontested by the Accused’s Defense teams, the Panel has concluded that the referenced events indeed occurred in the described way. Considering that the villagers of Gornja and Donja Sanica were arrested and imprisoned exclusively on the ground of their ethnic origin, but with no legal ground justifying such acts, and that the arrested men had never been given any explanation for their arrest, particularly bearing in mind the inhuman treatment to which they were subjected after the arrest, undoubtedly point to the unlawful character of the referenced acts which are, as such, in violation of the rules of international law. The men deprived of liberty, as it ensues from their consistent testimonies, were never provided with an opportunity to be taken before a court, nor were issued with any decision showing the reasons for their deprivation of liberty and confinement. According to the Panel, these actions were carried out with the intent to persecute the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality, in furtherance of a common design of the JCE, while the Accused, although not being direct perpetrators in the criminal acts described in this section, consented to the referenced design, and acted in furtherance thereof, which renders them also responsible for the referenced actions that form part of that common design.

(d) Charges under Section 5.d) of the enacting clause of the Verdict

“5.d) Men, women and children of Muslim and Croat ethnicity from the city center were ordered, via Radio Ključ, to gather at designated locations, such as the machine factory in Halinovsko Vrelo and the football stadium in Ključ, which they did out of fear for their lives. Afterwards, women and children were released to their homes, while the men were questioned about the possession of weapons, and after interrogation, most of men were released home, but at least 6 of them, without any legal grounds and deprived of all rights, were imprisoned in the SJB.“

232 Exhibit T-123, Witness Examination Record for Simo Vujičić No. KT-RZ-119/05 of 25 February 2008, p.11-12 and Excerpt from the Register of Deaths for Simo Vujičić.

163

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

420. Many witnesses, Muslim residents of Ključ, testified that, in late May, particularly on 27 May 1992, tensions and fear culminated, and the life of Muslims in the town center became unbearable.

421. Witness Senada Turkanović testified that the “cleansing” commenced on 27 May 1992. The witness stated that Radio Ključ broadcast information that Muslims should not go to the center, particularly without their IDs, and advised them not to leave their houses. On 28 May 1992, they were informed that the inhabitants of Bebići, part of the town where the witness had lived, must leave their homes and go to the town stadium. They were also ordered to leave their houses open, as they would be searched. On the way from her home to the stadium, the witness saw an armed reservist on the bridge, while on the playground itself she saw her fellow citizens, Serbs from Ključ, uniformed and armed, securing the gathered people. After a certain period of time they had spent there, men were ordered to stay at the stadium, as they would be questioned, while the women and children were released to go homes, but were told that their houses would be searched. The witness went back home with her mother, while her father stayed at the stadium, together with the other men. The police came to search her house, but found no weapons or anything alike, because her father and brothers, who had gone to Slovenia already in early May, possessed no weapons. Her father came back home after the search was over. Even though the whole family was gathered at home, the witness stated their movement was restricted. They were informed via Radio Ključ that they should not move around “for their own safety”. The witness stated they were even prohibited from going out to their yards in certain periods of time during the day. The restriction of movement exclusively included Muslims, Bosniaks, as Radio Ključ informed them. They lived in a constant fear, which proved to be justified, because around 20 June 1992, a red police van came to the front of their house, and 5-6 active and reserve police officers took her father, and with beatings233 drove him to the Police Station Ključ. On the following morning, they received information that her father had died in the hospital. However, the witness learned from physician Macan that her father had been brought dead from the police station, but that he had to write down that her father had died due to the disease from which he suffered.

422. Witness Merima Filipović also testified about the situation in Ključ after 27 May 1992, when she stopped working. The witness stated she had observed something was

164

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

going on in the town on the referenced day. Many people headed towards the TO building, and returned from there, and at one moment, there was a stir. People were taken for informative interviews. Since her husband, Omer Filipović, had earlier gone to Velagići, her brother in-law took her and her children to his home. She was present when her brother-in- law’s house was searched for weapons. Her brother-in-law, Muhamed Filipović, was on the following day taken for informative interview. The Muslim citizens of Ključ were ordered to go to the playground. The witness stated that all Muslims from this part of the town went to the playground. There were men, women and children too. They were surrounded by “members” in different uniforms and armed, who stood at the distance of around 10 meters away from them and secured them. At around noon, women and children were released to go home. Men stayed at the town stadium. The witness stated she did not know what had further happened to them. The witness heard that those men were subsequently also released.

423. Witness Hadžija Bajrić also had to report to the Ključ stadium with her family. Consistently with witness Senada Turkanović, this witness too stated that they had been detained in their homes since 27 May 1992. Muslims were continually urged via Radio Ključ to hand over their weapons. One day (the witness believes it was on 1 June234) two neighbors of hers came to take them to the stadium where around 2000 men had already been gathered, mostly Muslims and a few Croats. The witness stated there were men, women and children. Members of the police force and men in olive-grey uniforms were deployed around the stadium. At one moment, Dragan Stojčić told them via megaphone that men had to be separated from women and children, that men would stay at the stadium, while women and children were released to go home. When the witness went back home with her daughters, one Dvizac, also known as Pančo, whom she had known to be mobilized in the police, came together with several police officers to search the house. One of them was a younger boy, and her daughter even tried to greet him as her schoolmate, but he told her “as of today, we are not schoolmates”. They searched the house, and “turned upside down all they could, and kicked around their belongings”. Around 30 minutes later, having found nothing, they left the house threatening them they

233 The witness stated she had seen her father being hit once, but that she heard him begging them not to beat him because he was ill. Thus the witness assumed that he was severely beaten. 234 However, it is obvious that this happened a couple of days earlier, considering that the witness herself stated that Asim Egrlić called them to surrender their weapons, and he testified he had been arrested on 28 May 1992.

165

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

would come again. At around 16:00 hrs, on the same day, the witness’s husband and son returned from the stadium. “Their everyday hardship started” no sooner than that date. The witness further testified:

“…They walked around our house every day. Both “zolja” rockets and hand grenades were thrown. There were patrols as well. We were not safe at all, so to say. We all slept in a small space between a larder and a toilet, because we were afraid. After two hand grenades had been thrown in front of our house, we feared and thought our lives would be endangered.... Indeed, our lives were endangered, because they had already started taking men away. A red vehicle make Golf and a red van patrolled around the area. We in Ključ named them ominous vehicles as these were police station vehicles. It was a known fact that anyone taken away in this vehicle was going either to Manjača or death...“235

424. The second, so called „gathering site” where Muslim and Croat citizens of the Ključ downtown were called to report was a machines factory in Halinovsko vrelo.

425. Witness Mehmed Banjalučkić stated that, in May 1992, he had lived in the village of Halinovići, which was not shelled, but men, women and children were rounded up. The witness testified that:

“Soldiers from Ključ arrived. (it was) TO… They told us to get out and take the road towards Halinovsko vrelo, where a factory existed, which had been built before the war. We were all in this factory. We were there until the evening of that day, …”236

426. Witness Banjalučkić testified that around 200 of men were imprisoned at the factory. Villagers of Rejzovići were also imprisoned there. At one moment, two soldiers came in, and with no explanation whatsoever, started separating women and children from men. Women and children were released to go home, while men were kept for interrogation. The witness stated that soldiers asked them about weapons. The witness told them he had already handed over his hunting rifle to the police patrol which had visited the village. Men were also released in the evening hours.

427. When witness Džemal Draganović realized that something strange was happening in Ključ on 27 May 1992, he fled to the woods with his family. Having spent a night in the open, the witness and his wife decided to go back home with their children. After they returned, shooting started around their house. The witness learned from his sister-in-law

235 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 11 March 2009, evidence of woman witness Hadžija Bajrić, p. 12. 236 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 11 March 2009, evidence of witness Mehmed Banjalučkić, p. 21.

166

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

that Radio Ključ broadcast information that they all had to report to certain „collection sites“. A factory in the Halinovsko vrelo was a collection place for his local community, so the witness went with his family in the factory direction. They were also instructed to leave their houses unlocked, in order to prevent breaking the doors for search purposes. People were placed inside the factory, and were secured by armed men in uniforms. Several hours later, women and children were released to go home, while men stayed there. A group of men wearing camouflage uniforms and hats arrived to question them. When the witness went to ”report“ to the four men who had interrogated them, Željko Todorović, a young man whom he had known, but did not know he was a member of police force, asked him: „Đems, where is your rifle?“, and told him to go over there to report himself. The witness told him that he had had a rifle, an automatic rifle, which was bought upon his wife's persuasion, for protection as they had owned a store, but which had never been used, and which he had thrown away on his way back from the village. Six of them were separated aside. Ibrahim Bajrić, Mustafa Kojić, Refik Muslimović, Mustafa Muslimović and another man with the last name Muslimović, whose first name the witness could not remember, stayed together with him. Tode Gajić came with some police officers and drove six of them to the police station, where they were beaten and thereupon locked up in the basement cells. A Serb neighbor of theirs protected them there from being further beaten, and in the late evening hours, they were transferred to Gradiška, and after 14 days spent there, to Manjača.

428. Witness Ibrahim Bajrić also testified that, in an already tense situation in Ključ, in late May 1992, they were called, via Radio Ključ, to report to the factory at Halinovsko vrelo. Ključ was surrounded by the Serb military, and they had to report there as they had no other choice. The order to report to the factory was issued by the Crisis Staff. The witness stated that when they arrived in the factory, where all villagers of Rejzovići had gathered, the TO forces, comprising Serbs only, secured them. Several hours later, Tode Gajić came and told women and children to go home, while men were kept there for interrogation. After the interrogation, a certain number of men were released to go home, while six of them were kept, and transferred to the police station and locked up in a cell. The witness stated that, while they were kept in the cell, there was “a horror of beating, crying and shouting, and they kept their ears covered out of fear”. While they were kept there, they were not beaten. These men were from the SJB Ključ transferred in a police van to Gradiška, and after 14 days, to Manjača.

167

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

429. None of the witnesses heard with regard to the circumstances surrounding this Count of the Indictment said that there was any reason, or that they were notified of the reasons for which they were deprived of liberty and imprisoned. There was no legal ground for deprivation of their liberty, nor did they receive any certificate or decision on the deprivation of liberty. At no moment whatsoever, from the moment they were arrested and detained at one of the collection centers, or subsequently, when six apprehended men were taken to the SJB Ključ and locked up in the cells there, were they brought before a judge, or in any other way informed about the reasons for their arrest and imprisonment. As it ensues from the witnesses’ testimonies, this was based on a sole reason that they were Muslims. Such a deprivation of liberty and imprisonment was undoubtedly in violation of the fundamental principles of international law.

430. Even though the accused Lukić and Adamović took no direct part in arresting and capturing any of the referenced persons, the Panel has concluded that their role and guilt for these actions undoubtedly exists. This is so because, as it ensues from the presented evidence, these acts are the acts of persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality within a common design of the JCE. Having so concluded, the Panel was primarily mindful of the fact that the notification, specifically the order issued to Muslims and Croats in the Ključ municipality to report to the collection centers, was broadcast via Radio Ključ, which was under the control of the Crisis Staff, as it ensues from Exhibit T- 225.237 This document stated that “Radio Ključ will operate pursuant to the directions of the Crisis Staff”. Such a status was also confirmed by the minutes of the sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff.238 In addition, such a state of facts is also confirmed by the testimony of witness Ibrahim Bajrić. The witness testified that the order that they must report to the machines factory in the Halinovsko vrelo was issued by the Crisis Staff.

431. Witness Hadžija Bajrić testified that, in the meantime, it was proclaimed that all Muslims who leave their property behind could leave Ključ. This was also one of the conclusions drawn at the Crisis Staff sessions. A clear message was thereby sent to Muslims and Croats that there was no place and no life for them in Ključ. Therefore, due to all the events in the town and its surroundings which caused their fear for their own lives and existence, they decided to leave their homes even at the price of leaving behind

237 T-225 Proposal of the organizational scheme of the operations of the municipal bodies in time of war, May 1992. 238 T-229.

168

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

everything they had been obtaining for years. Witness Bajrić stated she had been seeking a way to save her children. She got an opportunity to do so, but no sooner than October 1992, when she left Ključ.

432. All the witnesses consistently testified that members of the TO, or their neighbors “Serbs” were in charge of securing the places designated as “collection centers”, like the factory in Halinovsko vrelo and the Ključ town stadium. Considering the role of the accused Boško Lukić in the mobilization and training of members of the TO, in the way that it had become monoethnic, comprising only Serbs, and the role of the accused Marko Adamović, in the activities with the Battalion comprising the TO units on the ground, exactly in those first days of the conflict in the territory of the Ključ municipality, the Panel has concluded that these facts indicate, beyond a doubt, that even though they could not be present at all places at any time, both the Accused took an active part in the implementation of the “cleansing” policy as witness Hadžija Bajrić called it, or in the persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality, inter alia, by the acts of deprivation of liberty and imprisonment, in violation of the fundamental rules of international law, deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial. By the referenced acts, the Accused consented to these acts and wanted the execution thereof, exactly in the way as described in this Section of the enacting clause of the Verdict.

(e) Charges under Section 5.e) of the enacting clause of the Verdict

“5.e) As of 26 June 1992, an attack was launched on the undefended Muslim villages of Ramići, Krasulje, the hamlets of Hripavci and Ošiljak, on which occasion the population was forced out of their houses, terrorized and intimidated by shots from fire weapons, curses and threats. On that occasion at least 21 civilians were killed, including Sabra Čarkić, Husein Čarkić, Derviš Čarkić, Sabit Husić, Safet Husić, Omer Husić, Teufik Husić, Ifet Vučkić, Smajo Kalabić, Mirsad Jukić, Šefik Delalić, Ibrahim Delalović, Rezak Đuzić, Ramo Đuzić, Hakija Đuzić, Sabit Sadiković, Aziz Fazlić, Esad Frmić, Mirsad Jamaković and Šukrija Bajraktarević. The men from Ramići who survived were brought to the primary school in Ramići, and men from Krasulje to the primary school in Krasulje, which is when Marko Adamović brought Safet Sadiković and Edin Sadiković in; following the registration and interrogation, at least 90 of them, who were unlawfully deprived of liberty, without any legal ground, were transferred to and imprisoned in the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ.”

433. Witness Muhamed Kozarac testified that, in 1992, he had lived in the village of Hripavci with his mother and brother. The village was surrounded by the Serb military, and the population lived in fear of Serb soldiers. Their fear further intensified in early June, when refugees from Prhovo arrived in Hripavci and told them about the massacre committed by soldiers led by Marko Adamović. The witness stated they had 169

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

lived in the village, but hiding from Serb soldiers to avoid being killed. However, they were in their houses when Serb soldiers occupied them. Twenty two people, mostly members of his family Kozarac and Jusić239 were gathered in front of his house. The witness stated that “(members of the families) Mušići and Muherine were captured up there”. Subsequently in the camp, the witness learned from the villagers of those hamlets that Marko Adamović was present among the soldiers who had “captured” them in (the hamlet of) Mušići. The witness further described what 22 of them had been through after being rounded up by Serb soldiers in front of his house:

“Then they started beating us. They forced us towards piled pieces of logs. There was a septic tank (in my yard). They had mounted a piece of log across this septic tank and brought us there. They made threats to us with axes and beat us with sticks. Then they turned on chainsaws threating to cut our heads off. We were severely beaten there. They subsequently took us up there to (the hamlet of) Musići and waited for all of us from Balinići, Musići and Muherine to gather there. We were all rounded up in Musići…”240

They even beat up a woman, Hasija Kozarac, even though generally they did no harm to women and children, whom they had left in the village. After being tortured and beaten, all the men gathered at this place from the village of Hripavci, the village of Krasulje and its hamlets of Balijagići, Musići, Muherine and Kozarac were taken under escort to the Musići intersection, and lined up there. They were ordered as follows: “Put your hands on your heads, you must not lift up your heads; you must not look anywhere aside. Then they started beating us, hitting us with rifles, rifle butts at our backs, they beat us all …”.241 Subsequently, armed soldiers and a personnel carrier driving behind them took the captives to the Krasulje primary school, under threats that they would kill anyone who tried to escape. Witness Kozarac stated that in the Krasulje School they were taken to the offices for interrogation, during which they were beaten. No one had informed them about the reasons for which they were arrested. The witness explained:

“That is because I am a Muslim. They did not tell me so, but this is the reason why I was taken in … Since Muslims and Croats were captured, it means that this was the reason for taking us in.”242

239 The witness explains those were the last names of the male members of these two families. 240 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 14 September 2009, testimony of witness Muhamed Kozarac, p. 8. 241 Ibid, p. 9. 242 Ibid, p. 11.

170

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

The witness further stated that, once he was interrogated and beaten, he was brought back to the playground in front of the school, among the other arrested Muslims. The witness saw some other men being taken for interrogation. After the interrogation, “they brought buses”, which transported the able bodied men to the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ. When they entered the bus, and also after their arrival in the Nikola Mačkić, where they were interned in a school gym, they were all severely beaten. The witness eye-witnessed the death of Ifet Vučkić, Ibrahim Delalović and Mirsad Jukić who had succumbed to the beatings they received.

434. Witness Kozarac stated that the men from Krasulje were taken to the Krasulje primary school, while the men from Ramići, after the village had been shelled and “taken over” by Serb soldiers, were taken to the Ramići primary school. Witnesses Ćazim Bajrić and Teufik Bajrić testified about these events.

435. Witness Ćazim Bajrić described the situation in his village of Ramići since late May 1992. The village was shelled, the village mosque destroyed, and the men, including the witness, taken to the Police Station in Ključ for interrogation. The villagers withdrew to the woods, but when the woods were shelled too, they fled further towards the village of Ošiljak. The Serb military, which had already at the time “cruised in personnel carriers around the village”, called them to return to the village, telling them they would be safe, and designated a checkpoint where they would hand over their weapons. Around 60-70 able bodied men, who had weapons, also surrendered. The witness stated that men, women and children were ordered to report to the Ramići school, but the men were prior to that stopped at the checkpoint where weapons had been handed over. Meanwhile, soldiers searched houses which they had to leave open. The witness testified that, after handing over their weapons, they were told that the women and children present in the Ramići School would be released after the men came to the school, which they did. The witness stated that, in the school:

“All those men on personnel carriers, with some radio – stations on their chests waited for them. Some of them had stocking on their heads. They were mostly soldiers and members of the police. We dare not look at anyone. We were already captives. We dared not look anyone in his eyes, because whoever looked some of them in his eyes, it was his end. They ordered us to bow down our heads. They swore our balija’s mothers, asking what are you looking at, why

171

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

you are looking, where are you going, etc. The hardship of our captivity started already there. We were already prisoners there...“243

From the Ramići School, they were transported by two crammed buses to the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ. When they arrived there, they were searched. They had to empty their pockets and take out personal documents, keys and money and to throw all that on a pile. They were told they would need these items no more. The men were interned in a gym, where they were subjected to severe beatings and humiliations. For example, the witness was forced to kiss the Serb three-color flag. The witness described this humiliation as follows:

“I hit the bottom with this; this was a total humiliation. There is nothing else beyond this. It was something unimaginable and bad for me...“244

On the following day, the elderly were released to go home, and those who stayed, including the witness, were transferred to the Manjača camp.

436. Witness Teufik Bajrić also resided in the village of Ramići. The witness stated that after the shelling of Pudin Han and Velagići, he learned from the inhabitants of these villages who had taken refuge in Ramići that there had been many dead and killed people. He eye-witnessed that a large number of people were taken to camps. When they all learned that it was “Ramići’s turn”, they tried to protect the population by making an improvised shelter in the woods. However, when the shelling of the woods started, the men from Krasulje and Ramići tried to flee, but only managed to reach the Golaja woods. When they realized they could not go any further, they returned to the village, where they learned that the women and children had been detained in the Ramići School, the men called via a megaphone to surrender their arms, which they did. Two neighbors of his took the witness to a school in Donji Ramići. The witness stated they “carried out an exchange”, namely that they released women and children to brought men in. After a while, buses arrived and they were transported to a primary school in Ključ. They were interned in a gym, and subjected to beatings during interrogations to which they had been taken. Ultimately, they were transferred to Manjača.

437. Witness Safet Sadiković testified that many soldiers had come to his village in late June. Soldiers had already taken away 12 men from the entrance to the village. Witness

243 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 9 September 2009, testimony of witness Ćazim Bajrić, p.14. 244 Ibid, p.16.

172

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Sadiković subsequently learned that those people had never returned. The witness stated there was shooting, random single shots, and that men were rounded up. The most memorable and traumatic event for the witness was reasonably the moment when he was captured.

438. Witness Sadiković testified that, in late June 1992, he was arrested in his house in Krasulje. The witness was taken to the other hamlet and beaten. Thereupon he was taken over by Ratko Buvač, who took him to the hamlet of Čarkići and handed him over to the accused Marko Adamović. The accused Adamović drove the witness and minor Edin Sadiković to the Krasulje primary school and handed them over. As witness Muhamed Kozarac also testified, most of those men were from this place transferred to the Nikola Mačkić school in Ključ.

439. Even though certain heard witnesses tied their capturing to the earlier period, or late May, the Panel concluded, based on the testimony of witness Sadiković who was certain that he had been captured in late June 1992, and the documentary evidence confirming his testimony as such,245 that the incident when witness Sadiković was captured had occurred in late June 1992. As it ensues from Exhibit T-185, Commander of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade (17th LIB), Drago Samardžija issued an Order, strict. conf. No. 01- 93/92 of 25 June 1992 for search and cleansing of the terrain in the area of Velagići- Ramići-Ošijak and the Krasulje area, that the 1st Battalion of the 17th LIB was to participate in this action, and that a military police unit of the SJB Ključ shall receive the arrested men, process them and, if necessary, transfer them to the SJB Ključ for further processing. Exhibit – Supplement to Monograph of the 1st Krajina Corps246 shows that Ratko Buvač was a Commander of the 2nd Company of the 1st Battalion of the 17th LIB. As it ensues from the testimony of witness Sadiković, exactly Buvač handed him and minor Edin Sadiković over to the accused Marko Adamović. Witness Muhamed Kozarac saw the accused Adamović at the referenced site during the cleansing of the Krasulje area, who subsequently took them to the Nikola Mačkić primary school.

440. Witness Sadiković was present in the school when Muharem Delalović and Mirsad Jukić succumbed to the beatings they had received. The witness also knows that Derviš

245 Exhibit T-185, Order no. strict. conf. No.01-93/92 of 25 June1992. 246 Exhibit T-196.

173

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Čarkić and Aiz Fazlić were brought dead to the village of Krasulje, after they had been previously taken away. The witness was in a group of around 120 men bussed to Manjača.

441. In addition to the names of those whose death was eye-witnessed by witnesses Sadiković, Kozarac, Teufik Bajrić or Ćazim Bajrić, the Autopsy and Identification Records from single graves in the Krasulje I-VIII site, with enclosed photo-documentation and crime-scene drawings247, confirm the death of persons whose names were enumerated in the enacting clause of the Verdict.

442. The Panel has analyzed the cleansing itself of the villages of Ramići, Krasulje with hamlets Hripavci and Ošiljak, even though the Defense teams for the Accused essentially did not contest these incidents, but rather the Accused’s connection with the referenced activities.

443. The defense of the accused Marko Adamović was based on the averments that, at the relevant time, he was not present on the ground in the territory of the Ključ municipality, but that he had rather gone to the Jajce frontline. The Panel, however, did not find that this defense of his was well-founded. The Panel has concluded that the testimony of witness Sadiković can be fully credited, because the witness convincingly identified the accused Adamović as the person who took him over after he had been arrested, and handed him over at the Nikola Mačkić primary school. Witness Sadiković explained that he had known the Accused since 1970, when he was his superior during pre-military exercises. According to the Panel, the fact that witness Sadiković identified a person who had handed him over to the accused Adamović as Ratko Buvač, Commander of the 2nd Company of the same Battalion whose member the Accused was, who told him his name even though the witness had not known Buvač from before, points to the reliability of the testimony of the referenced witness. Therefore, the witness had no grounds whatsoever to connect the Accused with Commander Buvač for any other reason but exclusively for the fact that the referenced incident indeed occurred as the witness described it.

444. The Panel did not give credence to the defense of the accused Adamović who tried to prove that he had not been present in the territory of the Ključ municipality already since mid-June 1992, and fully absent from 20 June 1992, but rather at the Jajce frontline, specifically in Magaljdol, with the Tactic Group 2 (TG 2). With regard to the foregoing, the

247 Exhibit T- 455.

174

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Defense heard witness Cvijo Popović, who confirmed the referenced averments, but to whose testimony the Panel gave no credence.

445. The Prosecution contested the testimony of witness Cvijo Popović through the documentary evidence tendered within Exhibit T-455,248 which is essentially a series of orders. It clearly ensues from those orders that, the Ključ Battalion, whose member the accused Adamović was, did not join the TG2 in the Magaljdol area not even by 29 June 1992, but that it was further deployed and active in the territory of the Ključ municipality. In addition, the Panel concluded that the testimony of witness Popović was too pretentious and contrived in an attempt to help the accused Adamović in avoiding his criminal liability. Thus witness Popović described the accused Adamović as a “communist emotional person”, and stated “that he had never done anything bad or unlawful … that there was nothing like that in his mindset”.

446. Therefore, according to the Panel, contrary to the testimonies of witness Cvijo Popović and the accused Adamović, who testified in the capacity of a witness, there stands solid and convincing documentary evidence of the Prosecution, upon the analysis of which the conclusion is drawn fully contradicting the averments presented by this Accused’s Defense.

447. The Prosecution’s documentary evidence shows that the Tactic Group 1 (TG 1) was formed under the order of the Commander of the 2nd Krajina Corps, Colonel Grujo Borić, of 16 June 1992,249 out of the units of the 1st Brigade Drvar, and that it comprised: a part of the Command of the 1st Brigade, headquarters administration of the 1st and 2nd Infantry Brigade, hab 105 mm and a section of the logistics company, that 1st Class Captain Cvijo Popović was appointed Commander of the TG 1. The referenced TG was tasked with carrying out the Pliva 92 action, for the purpose of which it was formed. As it ensues from the presented evidence, the units of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade never formed part of the TG 1.

448. As to the TG2, witness Cvijo Popović testified that he had been appointed Commander of the TG 2 deployed in the Magaljdol area in mid-April (13 April 1992), which position he held for a month, that the Adamović joined it already at the time when the

248 Prosecution’s Exhibits tendered as the rebuttal evidence. 249 Exhibit T-455/10.

175

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

witness was the TG Commander, and stayed there even after he (the witness) had left the TG. Such averments, however, were unsupported with any piece of evidence whatsoever. On the contrary, the Panel concluded, based on the adduced evidence, that the information about the TG 2, deployed in the Magaljdol area, originated only from the Regular Combat Report of 25 June 1992250 sent by Commander Cvijo Popović to the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps. Therefore, it follows from the foregoing, contrary to the testimony of witness Popović, that even in late June he was the Commander of the TG 2, but also that, at the time, the units of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade had not still been present and deployed within the TG 2. It follows from the referenced document that Commander Popović reported that the status of moral in the unit was problematic, and that the units requested to be replaced at their positions, about which Commander Boro Grujić notified the RS Main Staff through the Report of 29 June 1992.251

449. The units were replaced on the ground no sooner that the above referenced date, but the Regular Combat Report sent by the 2nd Krajina Corps to the RS Main Staff on 1 July 1992 confirms that, even back then, the forces of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade were still deployed in the wider area of the Ključ municipality.252

450. The Panel has concluded that all the foregoing, correlated with the testimony of witness Sadiković, who identified with certainty the accused Adamović as a person who had taken him over after being captured and brought him to the Nikola Mačkić primary school, confirms with certainty that both the Accused and the units of the Ključ Battalion were present in the Krasulje and Ramići area during the critical period covered by this Section of the enacting clause of the Verdict.

451. Moreover, it ensues from the testimonies of the witnesses who testified about the circumstances described in this section of the enacting clause of the Verdict, that the attack on the villages of Ramići and Krasulje, including the hamlets of Hripavci and Ošiljak, was a part of the policy of persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality, that is, a continuation of the activities described in the previous Sections, in which the Panel described in detail the role of the Accused. The testimony of witness Teufik Bajrić particularly points to such a conclusion. Witness Bajrić stated they had learned that

250 Exhibit T-455/1. 251 Exhibit T-455/9. 252 Exhibit T-455/8.

176

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

“Ramići were next” in the cleansing that had been already started in the other villages. Therefore, the attack on the villages of Ramići and Krasulje is a part of the JCE plan, in which the Accused played a significant role, and to which they significantly contributed. The participation of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, in whose command structure the accused Adamović also participated, as well as his personal participation in the arrests of Muslims on the ground, in order to unlawfully detain them at the Nikola Mačkić primary school, leave no doubts into his guilt.

452. In view of all the foregoing, the Panel has concluded that the described acts of the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović satisfied all the essential elements of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity under Article 172(1)(h) of the Criminal Code of BiH, as read with Article 180(1) of the same Code, of which they were found guilty.

X. APPLICABLE LAW

453. Under the Amended Indictment, the Prosecution charged the Accused with the commission of the criminal offense of War Crimes against Humanity under Article 172(1)(h) of the CC BiH, as read with Article 180(1) of the same Code.

454. During the entire course of the proceedings, the Defense teams for both the Accused argued that the law to be applied to the concrete case is the adopted CC SFRY, as the law that was in effect at the time when the criminal offense was committed.

455. Starting from the fundamental principles of criminal law, relying on Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Articles 3, 3a, 4 and 4a) of the CC BiH, and bearing in mind both the Prosecution’s position and the Defense’s objections relating to the application of substantive law, the Panel has analyzed which law is to be applied in the concrete case.

456. The Prosecution’s Indictment covered the period between April and December 1992, while the Accused were found guilty of the acts undertaken during the period between April and late June 1992. During the above referenced period, the adopted 1976 CC SFRY was in effect, and the offense charged against the Accused was qualified pursuant to the CC BiH, which came into effect in 2003.

177

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

457. Article 7 of the ECHR provides the following:

“No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offense on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offense under national 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 the criminal offense was committed.”

458. Not only that the ECHR has primacy over all other laws in its application, but the referenced provision was also, almost literally, adopted into the national legislation through Article 3 of the CC BiH. This Article addresses the principle of legality and stipulates that no punishment or other criminal sanction may be imposed on any person for an act which, prior to being perpetrated, has not been defined as a criminal offense by law or international law, and for which a punishment has not been prescribed by law.

459. Article 4 of the CC BiH further prescribes that the law that was in effect at the time when the criminal offense was perpetrated shall apply to the perpetrator of the criminal offense, and if the law has been amended on one or more occasions after the criminal offense was perpetrated, the law that is more lenient to the perpetrator shall be applied.

460. Although Article 7 of the ECHR provides for the principle of legality and the general principle prohibiting the imposition of a more stringent punishment than the one which was applicable at the time when the criminal offense was committed, it does not prescribe the application of the most lenient law. Article 7(2) further stipulates that “this Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.“ The referenced principle is almost identically also contained in Article 15(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Both the ECHR and the ICCPR have been ratified by BiH, as the successor of the former SFRY, wherefore they are binding in nature.

461. Article 7(2) of the ECHR has been adopted in the positive legislation of Bosnia and Herzegovina also through Article 4.a) of the CC BiH. It ensues from this provision that, despite the prohibitions contained in Articles 3 and 4 of the CC BiH, these provisions do not preclude prosecution and punishment of any person for act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of international law.

462. Pursuant to the principle of universal jurisdiction, customary 178

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

international humanitarian law is binding on any state in the world, regardless of whether it has ratified appropriate international legal instruments. Thus, any state is under obligation to prosecute and extradite (aut dedere aut judicare) any person suspected of having violated customary international humanitarian law. Any restriction imposed by a state relating to the extradition of a person charged with violations of international customary humanitarian law amounts to a violation of international obligations of the state concerned.

463. War crimes, including crimes against humanity, as the offense charged against the Accused in the concrete case, are undoubtedly crimes pursuant to the provisions of international law, and, along this line, should be subsumed under “general principles of international law“, as provided for under Article 4.a) of the CC BiH, or under “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations,” as provided for under Article 7(2) of the ECHR. The foregoing renders the application of the CC BiH in the concrete case justified, as argued in the Prosecution’s Indictment.

464. It should be also noted, in the context of the foregoing, that on 10 April 2012, the Panel of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg rendered a judgment upon the appeal filed by the convicted person Boban Šimšić refusing the appeal as ill-founded. The referenced Judgment stated as follows:

“The Court observes that the present applicant was convicted in 2007 of persecution as a crime against humanity with regard to acts which had taken place in 1992. While the impugned acts had not constituted a crime against humanity under domestic law until the entry into force of the 2003 Criminal Code, it is evident from the documents cited in paragraph 8-13 above that the impugned acts constituted, at the time when they were committed, a crime against humanity under international law. In that regard, it is noted that all the constituent elements of a crime against humanity were satisfied in this case: the impugned acts were committed within the context of a widespread and systematic attack targeting a civilian population and the applicant was aware of that attack (contrast Korbely, cited above, §§, §§ 83-85).

1. The applicant argued that he could not have foreseen that his acts could have constituted a crime against humanity under international law. It is noted, however, that the applicant committed those acts as a police officer. The Court has held that persons carrying on a professional activity must proceed with a high degree of caution when pursuing their occupation and can be expected to take special care in assessing the risks that such activity entails (see Kononov, cited above, § 235). Furthermore, having in mind the flagrantly unlawful nature of his acts, which included murders and torture of Bosniacs within the context of a widespread and systematic attack against the Bosniac civilian population of the Višegrad Municipality, even the most cursory reflection by the applicant would have indicated that they risked constituting a crime against humanity for which he could be held criminally accountable.

2. The Court concludes that the applicant’s acts, at the time when they 179

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

were committed, constituted an offence defined with sufficient accessibility and foreseeability by international law.

This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.”

465. Even though the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity was not stipulated by the CC SFRY as a separate offense, in the way as it is prescribed by the new law, the forms of commission of the referenced criminal offense were covered by individual charges in Articles 136, 141-147, 154, 155 and 186 of the CC SFRY. It follows from the foregoing that these criminal offenses were also punishable under the then applicable law, which did not require that all elements of crimes against humanity be proved. This supports the fact that the application of the CC BiH is justified, as also concluded by this Panel.

XI. SENTENCING A. PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT

466. Article 2(1) of the CC BiH prescribes that criminal offenses and criminal sanctions shall be prescribed only for acts threatening or violating personal liberties and human rights, as well as other rights and social values guaranteed and protected by the Constitution of BiH and international law in such a manner that that their protection could not be realized without criminal justice compulsion. Accordingly, the conclusion ensues that the purpose of the application of criminal justice compulsion, or the purpose of sanction is protection of these personal freedoms and human rights, or other rights and social values, that is, protection of the society against certain socially threatening activities. Article 2(2) of the CC BiH prescribes that the range of criminal sanctions shall be based on the necessity and proportionality with the degree and nature of the danger to the protected values.

467. Article 39 of the Criminal Code defines that the purpose of punishment is: a) to express the community’s condemnation of a perpetrated criminal offense253; b) to deter the perpetrator from perpetrating criminal offenses in the future and encourage his re- education (special deterrence); c) to deter others from perpetrating criminal offenses

253 Ban on commission of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity has been also prescribed by a series of international documents, and it represents a ius cogens in international law, which cannot be derogated from.

180

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

(general deterrence); and d) to increase the consciousness of citizens of the danger of criminal offenses and of the fairness of punishing perpetrators.

468. In fashioning the sentence, the purpose of punishment set up in the referenced way requires that an account be given to imposing an adequate sentence, or more precisely, a sentence necessary and proportionate with the objectives and circumstances already taken into account in relation to the offense itself and to the effect on the community, but, at the same time, adjusted to the needs of deterring the commission of new offenses and re-educating the concrete perpetrator.

469. In meting out the punishment, the Panel must be mindful of the legally prescribed limits of the punishment for the crime at issue, but also of all the circumstances affecting the imposition of a more lenient or more stringent punishment (mitigating and aggravating circumstances).

470. The circumstances on which the Panel has relied in fashioning the punishment for the purpose of re-education and deterrence from the commission of new crimes by the concrete perpetrator are, inter alia, the degree of responsibility, the conduct of the Accused prior to the commission of crime, immediately before its commission and during the commission of criminal acts, as well as after the commission of the crime, motives, the perpetrator’s personality. These circumstances may affect both the type and duration of the punishment to be imposed within the limits provided by law and depending on whether the referenced circumstances are considered as aggravating or mitigating ones.

B. RULES FOR METING OUT PUNISHMENTS AND INDIVIDUALIZATION OF PUNISHMENTS

471. In order to achieve the purpose of punishment, the legislator also prescribes, through Article 48 of the CC BiH, the general principles of meting out punishments, in particular the degree of criminal liability, the motives for perpetrating the offense, the degree of danger or injury to the protected object, the circumstances in which the offense was perpetrated, the past life of the perpetrator, his personal situation and his conduct after the perpetration of the criminal offense, as well as the other circumstances related to the personality of the perpetrator. The Panel has considered all the foregoing circumstances in meting out the punishment for the accused Lukić and Adamović.

472. The Panel was first mindful of the fact that the most stringent sentences are prescribed for the crime at issue – not less than 10 years in prison or a long-term

181

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

imprisonment. The Panel has further taken into account that the Accused were found guilty of the persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality, which they perpetrated as members of a joint criminal enterprise through a series of unlawful acts, in severe violation of international law. A large number of civilians were killed, many families lost their closest relatives, and the consequences, both physical and mental, for those who have survived the hardship and horror to which they had been subjected, are permanent, immeasurable and do not cease over the time elapsed. In the context of violations of the protected value, the Panel has, with due diligence, considered the capacity and number of victims, namely that the victims were civilians, men and often women and children, who had in no way contributed to the commission of crime. Surely, the injured parties-survived victims will, for the rest of their lives, feel permanent and deep consequences as a result of the experienced suffering, in terms of their traumas, mental and physical pain, and the loss of their beloved ones.

473. The Panel further bore in mind that the crimes at issue were committed against Muslims, and Croats to a lesser extent, from the Ključ municipality, where they lived in an atmosphere of constant fear, and that, in certain situations, the Accused even abused the trust the citizens of Ključ and its surrounding villages had had in them, as their fellow- citizens and teachers, who directly participated or significantly contributed to the commission of the referenced crimes. Having so concluded, the Panel was first mindful of the testimony of witness Kana Mešić, who felt relieved after the arrival of soldiers in Prhovo, when she saw Marko Adamović, because she had known him from before as a teacher, and believed he would do no harm to them. However, as described in Section 4 of the enacting clause of the Verdict, a massacre followed in the village, to the commission of which the accused Adamović contributed significantly and decisively. As to the accused Lukić, witness Jusuf Omerović similarly testified that his villagers trusted the guarantees offered by the accused Lukić that they would not be harmed if they surrendered, which they did, but nevertheless were subjected to severe beatings, while many inhabitants from his village, including the witness, were detained in camps. Witness Mimka Brkić, who had identified several soldiers passing through Vukovo Selo, including teachers Lukić and Adamović, testified that “even though we knew them, they told us nothing”.

474. In the Panel’s view, all the foregoing circumstances are aggravating in their nature.

475. The Panel also bore in mind that the conduct of these two Accused before the Court was proper, that they dully responded to all summonses, but that the referenced 182

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

circumstances are not mitigating in nature, since such a conduct is expected and the only acceptable one.

476. The Panel has found no particularly mitigating circumstances on the part of the Accused, except for the fact that these persons are elderly, and have no prior convictions.

477. Nevertheless, considering the role and contribution of each Accused individually, the Panel has concluded that the contribution of the accused Adamović, particularly in the concrete actions taken on the ground is more significant, and leaves no options for imposing a sentence more lenient than a 22-year long-term imprisonment. On the other hand, even though the accused Lukić gave a decisive and significant contribution to the commission of crimes at issue, the Panel has concluded that the degree of his guilt is lesser, and that by the sentence of 14 years in prison the purpose of both special and general deterrence will be achieved.

478. The Panel bore in mind that any crime must be adequately punished, but that no punishment is either sufficient or adequate for such a crime, particularly for the injured parties and members of victims’ families. Nevertheless, since each crime resulting in a death of one, let alone a large number of persons, is horrible, as well as severe beatings and forcible removal of the population, one should bear in mind that a certain gradation must exist in a prison sentence and a long-term imprisonment in relation to the role and degree of guilt of the accused in a particular case, but also in relation to the sentences imposed on various persons in different cases and for different crimes. Unfortunately, even though the crime at issue is extremely serious, there are also crimes that resulted in the death of a larger number of victims. Considering both the order-issuing role of the Accused, or their command responsibility, and the range of sentences prescribed by law, it should be ensured that the punishment for the persons found to have a greater extent of guilt or where the consequences of crime are more severe than the concrete ones, meet the principle of fairness.

XII. ACQUITTING PART OF THE VERDICT

A. COUNT 5 OF THE AMENDED INDICTMENT

“From April 1992 until late December 1992, within a widespread and systematic attack of the Army of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or Republika Srpska, the police of the Ministry of Interior of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and 183

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Herzegovina, or Republika Srpska, directed against the Croat and Muslim civilian population of the Ključ municipality, as participants in a joint criminal enterprise with a view to persecuting the civilian Muslim and Croat population from the Ključ municipality, the accused Boško Lukić, in the capacity of a Commander of the Municipal Staff of the Territorial Defense of the Ključ municipality, and Marko Adamović, in the capacity of the Ključ TO Battalion Deputy Commander and Town Defense Commander, or Assistant Commander for Moral and Religious Issues of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, committed:

5. On 10 July 1992, after soldiers entered the undefended villages and hamlets of the Ključ Municipality - Donji Biljani, Botonjići, Domazeti, Brkići and Jabukovica, with the police assistance, they brought all men whom they found there without any legal ground to the premises of the primary school in Donji Biljani, where the police registered the captives, and then they were taken out and killed. Some of the men were loaded onto buses, taken in an unknown direction and killed, while some were hunted down and killed at various locations in the mentioned hamlets, on which occasion at least 219 persons were killed that day, including Najil Botonjić, Husein Dervišević, Džemal Omeradžić, Almir Jašarević, Aiz Dervišević, Rifet Botonjić, Osman Hodžić, Smajil Mulahmetović, Hazim Zukanović, Salih Zukanović, Nijaz Avdić, Zijad Domazet, Elvir Ćehić, Safet Džaferagić, Adnan Ćehić, Ćamil Botonjić, Feriz Botonjić, Jasmin Kapidžić, Ramiz Botonjić, Vehbija Džaferagić, Sabit Jašarević, Hamdija Mujezinović, Nedžad Ćehić, Zuhdija Botonjić, Muharem Mujezinović, Hilmo Botonjić, Bećir Kapidžić, Kemal Jašarević, Nail Mujezinović, Mehmed Domazet, Enes Jašarević, Avdo Balagić, Besim Jašarević, Fadil Domazet, Muharem Botonjić, Fuad Avdić, Asmir Domazet, Asim Mujezinović, Vehbija Balagić, Husein Botonjić, Enid Omanović, Elmedin Šušnjar, Aiz Botonjić, Derviš Domazet, Ahmet Džaferagić, Ismet Mujezinović, Raif Jašarević, Emsud Avdić, Suad Mešanović, Hajrudin Avdić, Omer Dervišević, Saudin Omanović, Rifet Domazet, Safet Domazet, Saim Botonjić, Hamid Domazet, Muharem Kuburaš, Feriz Avdić, Abid Balagić, Ale Ćajić, Smail Avdić, Zifad Mujezinović, Fikret Balagić, Sadik Botonjić, Hakija Avdić, Šefko Avdić, Hikmet Botonjić, Efraim Ćehić, Sulejman Ćehić, Šerif Pehadžić, Muhamed Mešanović, Sulejman Botonjić, Lejla Sinanović, Osman Mujezinović, Ahmo Ćehić, Husein Zukanović, Adil Hodžić, Muharem Avdić, Hamid Botonjić, Hamdija Domazet, Rasim Ćehić, Derviš Hodžić, Hamed Botonjić, Adil Omanović, Suad Ćehić, Suad Botonjić, Hilmo Omanović, Zijad Botonjić, Asim Ćehić, Sabahudin Botonjić, Nihad Kuburaš, Sabrija Botonjić, Hamed Domazet, Miralem Ćehić, Habir Avdić, Meho Domazet, Islam Domazet, Nail Avdić, Asim Avdić, Omer Omanović, Mujo Botonjić, Fadil Subašić, Nail Domazet, Asim Mešanović, Ejub Botonjić, Smajil Avdić, Nijaz Botonjić, Vehbija Botonjić, Izedin Subašić, Hamdija Džaferagić, Enes Avdić, Besim Avdić, Abid Hodžić, Teufik Ćehić, Omer Botonjić, Fahrudin Domazet, Nail Ćehić, Ibrahim Bajrić, Fuad Domazet, Emir Mujezinović, Elkaz Omanović, Mustafa Omanović, Džafer Botonjić, Latif Ćehić, Zuhdija Omanović, Abid Omanović, Samir Mulahmetović, Bego Jašarević, Abid Avdić, Salko Omeradžić, Omer Omanović, Azra Sinanović, Mehmed Džaferagić, Smail Zukanović, Besima Džaferagić, Hajrudin Domazet, Meho Šušnjar, Fadil Botonjić, Mesud Crnalić, newborn child Amila Džaferagić, child Almir Džaferagić, Abid Avdić, Sead Avdić, Refik Avdić, Nermin Avdić, Asmir Mešanović, Hamdija Botonjić, Ibrahim Avdić, Nail Botonjić, Mujaga Zukanović, Asim Domazet, Husein Domazet, Smail Mujezinović, Hamdija Ćehić, Hasib Mujezinović, Faik Domazet, Ćazim Botonjić, Sabit Šljivar, Asim Omanović, Tehvid Omanović, Šefkija Omanović, Pašo Omanović, Abid Džaferagić, Ejub Jašarević and Juso Jašarević, who were later exhumed from the mass graves Lanište I and Crvena zemlja;”

479. The Prosecution heard a number of witnesses in relation to the events that

184

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

occurred on 10 July 1992 in the villages of Gornji and Donji Biljani, with the hamlets of Botonjići, Domazeti, Brkići and Jabukovica. Witnesses Lazo Kričković, Feriz Dervišević, Mujo Čajić, Makbula Mešanović, Dragan Vukić, Šemso Džaferagić, Ismet Zukanović, Ahmet Crnolić, Mile Radulović, Asim Vučkić, Naila Botonjić and Witness B consistently and convincingly gave evidence about the arrival of the military and the police in the undefended Muslim villages, searched houses, apprehension of Muslim men to the Biljani school, and the killing of a large number of arrested men. The Panel concluded on the basis of these testimonies that the described events had occurred exactly in the way as described in Count 5 of the Prosecution’s Amended Indictment.

480. The witnesses consistently described that, after May, the villagers of Biljani lived in fear, that their houses were searched, that there was occasional shooting and that they kept guard. The situation culminated on 10 July 1992. As it ensues from the testimonies of the heard witnesses, the villages were surrounded by the Serb military and police. Witness Dragan Vukić, a member of the reserve police force, testified that on 10 July 1992, the terrain was cleansed, and that his neighbor, Hamdija Čehić, was killed on that occasion. The witness further testified that corpses were everywhere, that members of the military and the police apprehended civilian men and kept them in a school in Biljani, and that he had seen three or four corpses at a site above the Biljani school.

481. That the terrain in the Biljani area was cleansed exactly during the referenced period also ensues from the Order for further actions of 9 July 1992,254 where Commander Drago Samardžija ordered:

“…Fully block, search and cleanse the terrain in the villages of D.Biljani, Domazeti, Botonjići, Jabukovac, Brkići…”.

It further ensues from the same document that a reconnaissance platoon was deployed on the ground on 9 July 1992, that the “cleansing of the terrain”, according to the witnesses, started on 10 July 1992, and that a “checkpoint for further processing of the suspects” was formed in the area of the D. Biljani school.

482. Witness Mujo Čajić testified that, in May 1992, he lived in a constant fear after he had refused to sign a loyalty statement as a police officer and returned his uniform and personal weapons, and that his movement was restricted. Before the dawn of 10 July

254 Exhibit T-187, Order for further actions, str.conf.no.03-135 of 9 July 1992.

185

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

1992, they were ordered to report to a “collection site”, where Serb soldiers waited for them, including their neighbor Marko Samardžija, a teacher whom he had known from before, and whom soldiers addressed. From this site, they were taken to the Biljani school, and were severely beaten along the way.

483. Witness Makbula Mešanović also testified that, in the early hours of 10 July 1992, two soldiers and a police officer came to her door and ordered the men in the house to come out. They searched the house, and took away her husband and son. The witness saw from the upper floor of her house that the village was full of the military and the police. From a window on her house the witness saw Smail Mujezinović “being tortured”, and heard a “scream like a lion’s roar”. She saw Smail falling down, and assumed he was dead. This proved to be true because on the following morning, the witness saw Smail’s mother and wife digging something in their garden, and a blanket with which they had probably wrapped him. The witness knows that Smail was exhumed from this site. The witness’s sister-in-law, whose house was located near the primary school in Biljani, told the witness that the men, including the witness’s husband and son, previously apprehended to the school, were taken out and ordered to pass through a gauntlet where they were beaten, and thereupon loaded in two busses, alive.

484. The witnesses, and eye-witnesses to the events in the Biljani school, and survivors of these events, described the sequence of events after their arrest. These witnesses consistently testified that around 200 men were detained at the Biljani school. Survived witnesses Šemso Džaferagić, Čajić Mujo, and Witness B said they were registered right there. A number of men were taken out of the school and killed in the immediate vicinity of the school, while a certain number of men were bussed into unknown direction. Witness Šemso Džaferagić, who by chance was not taken into any of those two buses where the men from the school were loaded, eye-witnessed when certain older men were taken out of the school and told “It’s Friday today, you may go and attend your Friday prayer service (juma Friday service)”, and were “forced” towards the mosque, from where they were subsequently exhumed, which means that they had been killed there.

485. Witness B was in one of the two buses into which the men from the Biljani school were loaded. The buses were crammed. The witness stated that the bus headed towards Ključ, but after around 50 meters the driver told them “he had to reduce the number of passengers in the bus”. Five men were taken out of the bus, including Witness B. Two members of the police special force took them behind a house. The witness saw four 186

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

dead bodies at this site. After realizing that they would be killed too, these men started running, which is when the special unit members in their escort opened fire at them.

486. Witness B started running together with one Besim, but he (Besim) was killed in a burst of fire. After Besim fell down dead, shot by a round in his back, the witness’s legs started buckling and he too fell on the ground. The witness heard one Rufad moaning. He too had fallen down after being shot with a number of rounds. The witness also heard a voice coming from the direction of the road where the special unit members, who had taken them out of the bus, were deployed. The voice said: “That one in a multi-colored T- shirt is still alive”, whereupon another burst of fire was fired in Rufad’s direction. Witness B further heard a voice shouting: “Come on, you two, we have to leave for Ključ”, and they went away. The witness stayed alive laying on that meadow. He hid in corn fields and returned his home in the evening.

487. While he was hidden in the corn fields, Witness B heard excavators and trucks which were brought there to collect the corpses. Witness Džaferagić consistently confirmed the foregoing. Witness Džaferagić stated that one could walk within a 1 km range around his house, which is the area around the school, because of the corpses, and that they were collected by excavators and trucks.

488. The men who were alive when they were taken out of the school in Biljani and loaded into two buses, were exhumed from the “Lanište I” and “Crvena zemlja II”255 mass graves. The Prosecution tendered as evidence a List of captured persons imprisoned in the Biljani primary school on 10 July 1992. 256 As it ensues from Exhibits T-451 and T-452, the names enumerated on the list matched to a large extent with the names of the persons exhumed from the referenced mass graves. In addition, Witness B stated that all names he mentioned in his evidence as the men who had been together with him detained in the school, and then in the bus, were exhumed at the Crvena zemlja site. On two occasions, a total of 15 bodies each time were exhumed, while around 150 bodies were exhumed at Lanište and the Bezdan hole.

489. The Panel has therefore concluded, on the basis of the consistent testimonies of the heard witnesses, corroborated with the presented documentary evidence, that the

255 Exhibit T- 451 and T- 452. 256 Exhibit T- 421.

187

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

incident in the village of Biljani of 10 July 1992 had occurred exactly as described in Count 5 of the Indictment, and that, as such, this incident was not brought into doubt by the Defense teams of either the accused Adamović or Lukić, except that they contested that these two Accused had any connection whatsoever with these referenced incident. This Panel also could not find such a theory proved based on the evidence adduced, about which it will provide its reasons in the “conclusion” relating to all the charges of which these Accused were acquitted (Chapter XII D of the Verdict).

B. COUNT 6 OF THE AMENDED INDICTMENT

(a) Count 6.d) of the Amended Indictment

“6. d) They continued to raid the undefended villages and hamlets Gornja Sanica, Donja Sanica, Šljivari, Bašići, Botonjići, Domazeti, Gornji Budelj, Donji Budelj, Biljani, where they terrorized and intimidated population by shooting around the villages, searching houses and stealing property, torching buildings and killing at least 30 civilians, including Mehmed Harambašić, Bećo Čehić, Mehmed Konjević, Hašim Babović, Hazim Džafić, Rasim Omeragić, Derviš Kučuković, Edhem Keranović, Miralem Pehađić and his son Dinko Pehađić, Husein Kučuković, Šukrija Medić, Kemal Harambađić, Fikret Karađić, Ćamka Huskić, Mustafa Huskić, Supha Karađić, Avdo Karadžić, Vinc Horst, Ibrahim Šljivar, Fehim Šljivar, Rasim Bosnić, Ramiz Kožanjić, Smajo Šljivar, Ćamil Šljivar, Arif Šljivar, Emin Crnalić, Abid Botonjić, Mujo Šljivar, Muharem Šljivar, Hasan Fazlić, Osme Lović and Bečić Mehmed, who were later exhumed from graves found in the mentioned settlements and identified,”

490. This Count of the Indictment covered the subsequent events, and raids of the military and the police in the villages of the Ključ municipality which further continued after the initial events that had occurred in late May and in early June 1992, through the end of the year at issue.

491. Witnesses Hasiba Šljivar, Ahmet Crnolić, Esad Šulić, Šemso Džaferagić, Ismet Kujundžić, Naila Botonjić, Mile Radulović and some others testified about the circumstances described in these Counts of the Indictment.

492. The attack on these villages, raids of the Serb military and police, apprehension of men, search, plundering and torching of houses started in the same way as in the other villages in the Ključ municipality already in late May 1992. The witnesses, however, testified that such events did not cease, and that the psychosis and fear of the population of these villages continued through the second half of 1992, and that, in certain phases, the units which had raided the villages and intimidated the population were just replaced

188

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

by other units.

493. Witness Ismet Kujundžić testified, as detailed within Section 5.c) of the convicting part of the Verdict, that personnel carriers arrived in Donja Sanica on 31 May 1992. They stopped right in front of his house and called men to gather at certain “collection sites”. A certain number of soldiers went to the Botonjići village, rounded up men and brought them to a school in Sanica. Witness Naila Botonjić described the subsequently aroused chaos, the Serb neighbors whom she had identified among soldiers, and the events that followed. It ensues from the testimony of witness Botonjić that some other soldiers subsequently came as support, and ordered that the remaining population in the village, apart from the men taken to Sanica, be transferred to the neighboring village of Crnolići.

494. Witness Hasiba Šljivar, resident of the hamlet of Šljivari within the village of Donja Sanica, also described the attack on her village. The witness stated that the villagers of Šljivari had been expelled and hid in the neighboring village of Crnolići. The hamlet of Šljivari remained exposed to the Serb military and the police which plundered and torched their houses.

495. Witness Šljivar testified that, after some of the elderly villagers of Šljivari had returned from the Manjača camp257, they tried to reorganize the life in the village. However, soldiers continued raiding the village and intimidating and threatening the villagers. On an unspecified day, but in the evening hours as obvious from the witness’s evidence, soldiers came to the village. The witness stated that masked soldiers arrived in the village and surrounded the villagers, with their automatic rifles pointed at them. The witness noticed that the villagers, earlier returned from Manjača, were also lined up along the road. The witness described the fear and hopelessness of the villagers of Šljivari in these moments. The witness was addressed by Muharem Šljivar, asking her: “Hasiba, haven’t you gone?...Women and children went down the road…” Then a soldier ordered Muharem Šljivar to kneel down, swearing at him and telling him: “We will drink your blood tonight.” Muharem only said: “Yes Sergeant, will kneel down!” Witness’s brother, Hasan Fazlić, and some other men were lined up next to Muharem Šljivar. None of them survived.

257Exhibit T-190, Document of the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, strictly conf. No. 21-50 of 6 August 1992, showing that a selection among war prisoners at Manjača was ordered, as well as to „liberate a part of the space“ and select persons who may be sent to their homes and those who must stay in the Manjača camp; Exhibit T-285, Order by the CSB of 19 August 1992 showing that, no sooner than 20 August 1992, operative teams of workers were sent to the camp to select detainees.

189

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

496. The women and children were ordered to go to the Crnolići village, and they did so. Witness Hasiba Šljivar stated that, leaving the village, they saw that the house in front of which they had left the gathered men, was on fire. Her sister-in-law screamed “My Hasan is burning!” On the following day, after returning to the village, they found the charred bodies of Ibrahim Šljivar, Rasim Bosnić, Rasim Kozanić and Smajo Šljivar near the house of Omer Bašić, where the men had stayed with soldiers.

497. Witness Mile Radulović confirmed the statements of the witnesses-injured parties regarding the events in Sanica. Witness Radulović testified that no safety was guaranteed to Muslims, that they had no rights whatsoever, and that they lived in fear even when they obtained permits for movement, of which they had been deprived. Their lives were jeopardized, and Muslim villagers were killed in their houses, frontyards, and fields. The witness specified the names of the persons he knew had been killed, and for whose death no one has ever been prosecuted.258

498. The Defense teams for the Accused did not contest the events described in this Count of the Indictment either. They rather only contested any connection of the Accused with the incriminating acts. The Panel has also found no such connections, the reasons of which will be provided in the conclusion for the acquitting part of the Verdict.

(b) Count 6.g) of the Indictment

“g) Men, from the area of the Ključ municipality, who were collected in their settlements and villages, and imprisoned in the Nikola Mačkić primary school without any legal ground, having ran gauntlet made of Serbs, civilians, soldiers, women, the citizens of Ključ, who were hitting them with various implements, were placed in a gym without any conditions for stay, where they sat on bare parquet floor, from where they were taken out for interrogations followed by beatings with the use of kicks, punches, various implements, rifle butts all over their bodies, required to confess that they were organizers of Muslim government or army, that they were preparing various crimes against Serbs or composed lists for their liquidations, with their basic human needs like food and personal hygiene restricted, without the right to a fair trial, which caused humiliation and the violation of human dignity and created additional fear for their lives and the lives of their families. Afterwards one group was released home, while around 200 men were transported to the primary school in Sitnica, where they stayed for a couple of days on bare floor, without mats or blankets, without enough food or conditions for maintaining personal hygiene, in constant fear for their lives. They were lined up in a column, and walked for at least 20 km by a macadam road to the camp on Manjača. At least 1160 prisoners were transported to the “Manjača”

258 Mehmed Harambašić, Mehmed Konjević, Rasim Omeragić, Hašim Babović, Hazim Džafić, Derviš Kučuković, Edhem Keranović who was killed in a potato field while collecting potatoes, Miralem Pehadžić and his son Dinko, Šukrija Medić, and Kemal Harambašić.

190

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

camp on Manjača in various ways. Immediately upon arrival, Husein Delalović passed away, and Omer Filipović and Esad Bender succumbed to beatings. After the disbandment of the camp, in December 1992, prisoners were deported outside of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and a smaller number transported to the Batkovići camp in Bijeljina.”

499. As it ensues from the Prosecution evidence,259 under the order by Commander Colonel General Vladimir Vuković, str.conf. No. 15-1 of 7 January 1992, collection centers were established for prisoners of war, namely the “collection camp for war prisoners in the former KPD Stara Gradiška, and a “reserve camp for war prisoners in the facilities of the VU Karađorđevo, Kozara training ground in the village of Dobrnja- Manjača.“ The order noted that the removal of the war prisoners’ camp from the Stara Gradiška area (former KPD) to the reserve camp will be carried out upon a received transfer order. The Manjača camp was a final destination for a large number of unlawfully detained men from Ključ during the period from late May, June and the following months, when many of them were subjected to and survived a variety of tortures, and a certain number of them died.

500. As already described in Section 1 of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict, a group of men from Ključ, deprived of liberty and captured between 27 and 28 May 1992, on no legal grounds, spent one-two days in the SJB Ključ, where they were interrogated by the SJB employees Tode Gajić, Lake Aničić, and some other investigators unknown to the witnesses. They were subsequently transferred to the Stara Gradiška camp, and, after around 15 days spent in that camp, were bussed to the Manjača camp. A certain number of men from Ključ, also after being unlawfully arrested and imprisoned, were transferred to the Manjača camp after they had spent a certain period of time at the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ and the Sitnica primary school.

501. Witnesses Fahrudin Ćemal, Jusuf Omerović, Teufik Bajrić, Mujo Šehić, Esad Šulić and many others testified how they were taken to and tortured at the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ. It ensues from the testimonies of the referenced witnesses that the Nikola Mačkić primary school was one of the collection centers for captured Muslim and Croat men from the town of Ključ and its surroundings. Men were mostly bussed there after being called to gather at certain designated sites to hand over their weapons, obtain movement permits or under the excuse of making arrangements for their further life there.

259Exhibit T-128.

191

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

502. Witness Fahrudin Ćemal was in a group of the first 500 captured men who had been brought from Pudin Han to the Nikola Mačkić primary school on 28 May 1992. The witness testified that they had first been intimidated, their money seized from them and, thereupon, under constant abuse and beatings, taken to a gym, where they sat on the bare parquet floor, and where they were subjected to interrogation, physical and mental abuse. They were never informed about the reasons for being deprived of liberty and imprisoned. They were transferred from the Nikola Mačkić primary school to the Gradiška camp, and, after 14 days, bussed to the Manjača camp.

503. Witness Ćerim Hrnčić also testified that they were beaten while entering a gym in the Nikola Mačkić school. Serb soldiers and civilians formed a gauntlet outside the bus, which they had to leave, leading towards the school entrance, and they beat and insulted the captured men. The witness identified a “woman from the pharmacy shop” who swore their “balija’s mother and Alija”, and one Dragan Bajić, who had stood there with his rifle, but turned down, beating the men in their faces and causing their cut eyes to bleed.

504. The other witnesses brought to the Nikola Mačkić primary school similarly described the search, seizure of personal belongings, passage through the gauntlet of police officers and civilians, where they were kicked, punched, hit with rifle butts or other implements, their bringing into the gym where they sat on the parquetted floor, and subsequent severe beatings, and physical and mental abuse to which they were subjected.

505. The Nikola Mačkić primary school was one of the collection centers in which a primary “processing” of the captured Muslim and Croat men was carried out, and from where a few of them were released to go home,260 while a larger number of the men initially detained at this site were transferred to the other collection centers or camps.

506. Witnesses Ćerim Hrnčić and Edin Hadžić were in a group of men bussed from the Nikola Mačkić primary school, first to the Sitnica primary school, where they stayed for around 5 days, and where they were guarded by armed members of the police force. The conditions at Sitnica were also bad, they sat on the parquetted floor, they could not meet their hygienic needs, and the food was very poor – a small sandwich a day, because of which they abruptly lost their weight, as witness Hrnčić described. After 5-6 days spent in

260 E.g., witness Ćerim Hrnčić, transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 10 December 2008.

192

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

the Sitnica school, they marched under escort to the Manjača camp. A group of elderly men, mostly from the Prhovo village, was bussed there.

507. Witness Lako Aničić attested to the testimonies of the referenced witnesses. As a member of the police force of the SJB Ključ, the witness was tasked with securing the captured civilians at Sitnica and taking them under escort to the Manjača camp. Witness Aničić testified that “after staying for several days in unfit conditions in the Sitnica primary school, exhausted, tired and beaten, these men marched to the Manjača camp.”

508. The camp at Manjača was established as a “reserve camp for war prisoners”. At least 1160 captives from the Ključ municipality were taken to this camp. Prisoners were taken to the Manjača camp after already being subjected to various methods of torture, severe beatings, and in fear for their own lives, that is, in a completely and extremely bad mental and physical state. Some of the men died immediately after arriving in Manjača, like Esad Delalović.261 After their arrival at the Manjača camp, prisoners were often immediately subjected to a round of beating, about which all heard witnesses consistently testified. Thereupon, prisoners were interned in the spaces fully unfit for the accommodation of people – sheds for cattle. Witness Bajrić stated that the sheds were called “pavilions”, and that they lied there on the bare concrete. Witness Muhamed Filipović testified that the cold concrete “caused their bruises to fade”, and that, even if keeping the prisoners in these sheds was as an extremely inhuman way of treatment, it was perhaps exactly lying on the cold concrete that helped them stay alive.

509. Apart from the inhuman living conditions, where the men were literally interned in the sheds for cattle, many of them significantly lost weight due to the poor diet; many were subjected to severe beatings during the imprisonment at the Manjača camp, which was, with no exception, confirmed by all the heard witnesses. Esad Bende and Omer Filipović succumbed to the beatings. Brother of Omer Filipović, Muhamed, saw his brother alive for the last time in July 1992 at Manjača, whereupon he heard his cries and moans while he was beaten to death in front of the shed in which they were interned.

261 See transcript from the case no. X-KR-05/119 of 9 September 2009, testimony of witness Ćazim Bajrić, p. 24. The witness stated in relation to the killing of Delalović: „...Delalović, a corpulent, nice man, age 25-30, he had, or they killed him too, he lived through only two nights, his tongue was all the time out of his mouth, he moaned all the time, his kidneys were damaged as a result of the beatings and he died at Manjača...“.

193

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

510. It ensues from the testimonies of the heard witnesses that the captured men were brought to the Manjača camp from various collection centers mostly by the police of the SJB Ključ, and that, even subsequently, police officers came to the camp to interrogate them.

511. The captured men stayed at the Manjača camp for several months. After the ICRC representatives visited the camp, the conditions in the camp improved to a certain extent, mostly in relation to food, the quality of which was better, but still, the living conditions were far from the normal ones. A certain number of prisoners were released after several months spent in the camp, and after disbandment of the camp itself, but could not return to their homes. They were conditioned to leave for third countries, while a part of the prisoners were transferred to the Batković camp.

512. Over 40 Prosecution witnesses testified consistently and convincingly about the circumstances described in this Count of the Indictment, which could not be brought into doubt by anything. The Defense teams for the Accused also did not bring into question the referenced events. Therefore, the Panel had no reason not to credit the testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses. The Panel has concluded, beyond a doubt, that the events at issue had occurred exactly in the way as described. The Panel, however, has considered that the referenced events were already described, in part, through counts of the Indictment of which the Accused were found guilty and which were part of their awareness and knowledge, namely that, as such, referenced events formed part of their intent. The subsequent events in the Manjača camp, however, particularly the transfer of a certain number of prisoners to the Batković camp, are in the Panel’s view, too distant events, of which the Accused were probably aware, but to which they no more contributed by their acts in the way that they could be held responsible for or guilty of them. There are concrete perpetrators of these acts, who had undertaken them independently, or within another joint criminal enterprise, and, as such, they should and must be held accountable.

513. Within certain sections of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict (Sections 4, 5a), c) and e), the Accused were already found guilty of the acts of unlawful deprivation of liberty, and unlawful imprisonment of the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality, including the imprisonment at the Nikola Mačkić primary school as the act of persecution of Muslims and Croats in furtherance of a common plan of the JCE. In addition, charges under this section are more a modality of the occurrence of the events, the course itself of the events in the territory of the Ključ municipality, with no specific 194

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

timeframe and concrete perpetrators so as to be able to examine the guilt of the Accused. Therefore, the Panel has concluded that it is reasonable to render an acquittal regarding the accused Lukić and Adamović in relation to this count of the Indictment.

(c) Count 6 h) of the Indictment

“h) During and after a joint attack, settlements and villages inhabited by the Muslim and Croat population were systematically destroyed or damaged, including the Muslim part of the town of Ključ, Pudin Han, Velagići, Biljani, Plamenice, Prhovo, Krasulje, Crljeni and Sanica, as well as the property, including homes, business premises and outbuildings, while the movable property of those who were killed, imprisoned in detention facilities and camps and displaced from the municipality was looted in an organized manner, and then collected in war booty warehouses in an organized manner, and it was handled following the instructions and under the control of the Municipal Crisis Staff, under the control of the police, while the population which was not deprived of liberty or imprisoned was displaced from the municipality area in an organized manner, having signed that they were leaving the municipality territory on their own free will and that they were leaving all their property voluntarily to the authorities, as long as the municipality authorities considered that necessary.“

514. With regard to the circumstances described in this section of the enacting clause of the Verdict, the Prosecution examined a number of witnesses, including Ismet Muratagić, Safet Sadiković, Ćazim Bajrić, Muhamed Kozarac, and Teufik Bajrić, and presented a certain amount of documentary evidence, which undoubtedly showed that the referenced events occurred exactly in the way as described in Count 6.h) of the Indictment.

515. The consistent testimonies of the heard witnesses showed that, after the initial raids of the military and the police in the parts of Ključ inhabited by Muslims or in the surrounding villages in the Ključ municipality (Pudin Han, Velagići, Biljani, Plamenice, Prhovo, Krasulje, Crljeni and Sanica), the arrest and capturing of men, their transfer to the collection centers and/or camps, soldiers continued raiding the villages, plundering property and intimidating the population, which, because of that, was not able to live peacefully in their homes.

516. Witness Ramo Duranović, an imam from Velagići, testified that after the villagers of Velagići, who had not been taken to any camp, were allowed to return to their homes, they found out that the village was plundered and torched. The witness could hardly attend his religious prayers at home, and he did not dare to gather villagers. They lived in a constant fear. The witness stated that “these soldiers who ravaged around…they were our worst threat.” As a result of such a situation, most Muslims and Croats from 195

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

the Ključ municipality looked for a way to flee. Witness Duranović also stated that information was broadcast via radio that those who wanted to leave the Ključ municipality had to come to the SUP Ključ for a certificate, where they had to sign a statement waiving their entire property, whereupon they could leave Ključ in convoys. On 22 September 1992, the witness finally obtained a SUP certificate, whereupon he left Ključ with his family and headed towards Travnik.

517. Witness Ćerim Hrnčić testified that, after being arrested, detained and questioned in the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ, he was released to go home. He was issued with a certificate noting that “that he was not guilty and that he may leave Dubočani with no problems…” Witness Hrnčić returned to his village and stayed there until 9 September 1992. That, however, was not a peaceful and safe life. The witness stated that the police “held control” over the village which was continually visited by patrols. Even though men from his village were not further taken away, the witness learned from his wife that a good friend of theirs from Velečevo, Alija Lemeš, had been taken away and killed. The witness stayed in the village until 9 September 1992, when he obtained a certificate and left with one of the organized convoys. The witness stated that “it was not a problem to leave…you just had to obtain a certificate for able bodied men”, and “go to the Municipality building to donate all your property to the Republika Srpska, Ključ municipality“.

518. Inhabitants of the other villages in the Ključ municipality similarly described the way, reasons and conditions of leaving their homes. Witness Mimka Brkić testified that after the soldiers’ first passing through the village, the then committed crimes, and the intimidation and humiliation they suffered, she lived in her house until 15 September 1992. However, they lived in a constant fear. Soldiers kept appearing, coming in smaller groups, taking their golden jewelry, money, cattle, with no asking or approval. As a result of the foregoing, and after learning that Muslims and Croats could leave the Ključ municipality upon obtaining a certificate, the witness went to (the village of) Humići to obtain the certificate for both her and her brother, who, as a male, had no freedom of movement. The witness gave a statement that ”she voluntarily leaves the town of Ključ, and leaves all her property to the Serb Republic BiH and signed it“. There were around 30 vehicles, buses and trucks in a convoy with which the witness left the town. Only Muslims and Croats, mostly women and children, and a few men left the town.

519. Witness Senada Turkanović testified that her house was searched by members of the military and the police and that her father had been once taken away and 196

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

killed. The witness and her mother lived in the Bebići residential area of Ključ inhabited by the Muslim population through September 1992, and left it with the first convoy organized for the removal of Muslims. The witness, her mother and all others who went away in this convoy had to sign a statement donating their property to the Ključ municipality, and that they simply had no further connections with this property.

520. Many other heard witnesses also confirmed the foregoing.

521. It ensues from the consistent testimonies of many heard witnesses that a uniform pattern existed for the removal of the population from the territory of the Ključ municipality. The police and the military “raided” houses and plundered property. Already at the time certain remaining Muslims men were sporadically taken away, and an atmosphere of fear was created for the Muslim population and a smaller number of Croats who had lived in the Ključ municipality. They were provided with a possibility to seemingly voluntarily leave the Municipality in convoys organized by the Ključ authorities, provided that they signed statements ceding their property to the Serb Republic of BiH.

522. The Prosecution supported such testimonies of the witnesses, and made them indisputable, with Records of Statements given by persons262 who are “voluntarily and permanently leaving the Ključ municipality”, with the indicated property they owned and ceded to the Municipality pursuant to the War Presidency Decision No.05-01-136 of 30 July 1992.

523. Even though there is no dilemma that the witnesses testified they had voluntarily abandoned the Ključ municipality, clearly there was nothing voluntary in those decisions, but they decided to leave the territory of Ključ municipality because their living conditions had become unbearable, and in fact, they had no choice whatsoever. Witness Miladin Ristić testified in support of such a situation in the Ključ municipality. The witness stated that the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality were constantly uncertain and concerned about their own lives and the lives of their family members. The witness stated the following:

“Witness: There was heavy partying over the night, and shooting too. The shooting was aimed at forcing Bosniaks to decide to go to safer places... Prosecutor: Nevertheless, one has to leave his/her home, so certainly a much

262 Exhibit T-387.

197

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

stronger reason for doing so must exist, doesn’t it? Witness: Well, it is most likely that they were not safe at the time...“263

524. Given the fact that he was a Chairman of the Central Commission for Spoils of War, witness Ristić was undoubtedly aware of the situation in the town of Ključ, particularly when it comes to the issue of unlawful deprivation of property and transfer of Muslims. The witness himself stated that the Commission was tasked with managing the movable property owned by Muslims and Croats of the Ključ municipality. The witness added that the property was seized and stored in a warehouse near the Municipality building. The stored movable property also included tractors, farm rotary hoes, mowers, and other farming machines, motor vehicles, furniture and a series of other items. Therefore, the fact that a separate commission264 was formed, as well as a warehouse for the property seized in the referenced way from Muslims and Croats of the Ključ municipality, point to a mass- scale nature of such an unlawful alienation of property.

525. Even though the events described in Count 6h) of the Indictment are indisputable, and even though the Defense teams for the Accused did not contest that the property was seized in the referenced way, and Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality transferred in an organized way, the presented evidence shows that the referenced activities in the territory of the Ključ municipality were initiated and organized by the Ključ Municipal War Presidency. Records of statements taken from persons show that individuals were “voluntarily and permanently leaving the Ključ municipality”, that the described conditions which Muslims and Croats of the Municipality had to meet in order to be allowed to leave its territory were defined in the War Presidency Decision No. 05-01- 136 of 30 July 1992. Even though the Decision has not been tendered in the case record, it can be clearly concluded from the consistent testimonies of the heard witnesses what these conditions had in fact implied.

526. Despite the referenced indisputable facts, the Panel could not correlate the Accused with the activities at issue. Specifically, all the events relating to the alienation of property, both movable and immovable, took place to a decisive extent after June 1992 (even though a number of plunders were carried out even before). In addition, the War Presidency, despite succeeding the Crisis Staff as the highest municipal authority body

263 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 26 August 2009, testimony of witness Miladin Ristić, p.16. 264 Exhibit T-70a Decision appointing a Commission for Admission of Spoils of War Acquired in Other Ways, No. 05-01-96/92 of 13 July 1992.

198

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

(the Crisis Staff became this new organ of the civilian authorities), there is no evidence that the accused Lukić and Adamović were members or took an active part in the activities of this body. This is the period when the accused Lukić and Adamović had other capacities and functions, and when, undoubtedly, the roles they played in the beginning of wartime events in the territory of the Ključ municipality were diminished, as well as their involvement in these events, considering that the accused Lukić, from the position of the TO Main Staff Commander and for a while Commander of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, after Drago Samardžija assumed this position, quite certainly loses the role he played at the first stages of the attacks, while the accused was already at the time transferred with his unit to the frontlines in the Jajce territory.

527. For the foregoing reasons, the Panel could not directly correlate the acts of the Accused and the incriminating events relating to the unlawful seizure of property, and therefore it did not find them guilty as charged under this Count of the Indictment.

(d) Charges under Count 6.i) of the Indictment

“i) On 8 August 1992, they forced all the inhabitants who had survived 10 July 1992 out of their houses in the hamlet of Botonjići, then separated at least seven men, two underage boys, and three women, and took them in the direction of the Kamen location. On the way there they killed old Abid Botonjić, and killed and burned the rest of them in Hilmo Botonjić’s barn, while the women and children who survived were expelled to the village of Crnalići.“

528. With regard to this Count of the Indictment, the Prosecution presented evidence by hearing witnesses Naila Botonjić, Huso Crnolić, Amet Crnolić, Šemso Džaferagić, Lazo Kričković and Mile Radulović. In addition, the Record on Crime Scene Investigation, Exhumation and Identification carried out in the mass grave found on a site in the village of Botonjići, known as ”Kamen”, with the related documentation and a drawing of the crime scene,265 and Excerpts from the Register of Deaths from the List numbers 48 - 59266 confirmed that the villagers of Botonjići were killed at the Kamen site.

529. The Panel has already, within Section 5 of the enacting clause of the acquitting part of the Verdict, referred to the testimonies of the witnesses who stated that, on 10 July 1992, the men from Botonjići had been taken under escort to the Biljani primary school, where a large number of them were killed. The Defense for the accused Lukić and

265 Exhibit T-451.

199

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Adamović did not contest this incident, and they did not contest the incident described in this Section of the enacting clause of the Verdict either.

530. The villagers of Botonjići, who had stayed in the village despite a mass-scale apprehension of men on 10 July 1992, will never forget another traumatic event which occurred on 8 August 1992.

531. Witness Naila Botonjić testified that in the evening hours of 8 August 1992, she visited with her son age 6, his relative and a schoolmate of the same age in the house of Ibrahim Botonjić, when soldiers came into the village, kicking the house door and ordering the population to come out. Soldiers separated 12 persons in total, including the witness’s minor son and his friend Teufik, and three women Ajša Botonjić, Esma Botonjić and Azemina Botonjić. They took this group of villagers towards the site of Kamen, while the remaining villagers were ordered to start off towards the village of Crnolići. The witness stated that, on the referenced night, they heard shooting from the direction of Kamen and horrible cries of the people taken away; the only house that had not been torched until that day was burning throughout the night. The witness stated that the site of Kamen was not far away from the village of Crnolići, and “if one shouted loud enough, you could understand from Crnolići what he had said at Kamen…” An old man, from the group of killed men, was found on the following day below a bridge on the river, with his three fingers cut off; the women who went to Crnolići on the following day stated that in the only remaining house at Kamen, which had been torched on that night, they saw that men had been also burnt in it. This woman stated that unbearable smell not originating from charred wood was felt around, and they also saw a burning scull. Witness Naila Botonjić has never found her son’s bones, and at the time she gave evidence he was still registered on the list of missing persons.

532. Witness Huso Crnolić also eye-witnessed the events that occurred on 8 August 1992 at the Kamen site. Like witness Naila Botonjić, this witness too described crying and shouting coming that night from the village of Botonjići. He recognized Abid Botonjić’s voice saying to someone at the small bridge near his house “Save me, Mile”, and then heard a shot. On the following morning, the police arrived in the village, and upon the police’s order, witness Huso Crnolić pulled out from the water the dead body of Abid Botonjić, and buried him together with his brother-in-law.

266 Exhibit T-45.2. 200

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

533. Witness Ahmet Crnolić testified about the events that occurred in his village of Crnolići in late May. The witness was arrested together with a group of his villagers and taken, first to a gym in the Sanica school, and then to Ključ, but was released based on a certificate. The life in the village after his return was not safe at all. The witness stated that groups of “their soldiers” would arrive in the village, and “searched for cattle, oil and anything else they could think of.” The witness knew that the certificate he had been given was unworthy, and therefore he hid in the woods together with the men from Crnolići who had survived the initial apprehensions of men. The witness stated that they were saved by the woods where they had hid:

“All others who could not, or had no possibility to hide, were killed. Botonjići, for e.g., (its villagers) could not go to the woods. All those people who had received certificates were killed after that date, that’s why I say so.”267

Witness Crnolić stated that the village of Botonjići was in the neighborhood of the village of Crljeni, separated only by the Sana River. The witness stated that those men who had hid in the woods could hear what happened with the villagers of Botonjići when soldiers raided the village in the evening. Not only that they heard voices, but they identified them. Witness Ahmet Crnolić, consistently with witness Huso Crnolić, testified they had heard the voice of Mile Škrbić known as Marijan when Abid Botonjić was killed on the bridge and then thrown in the water. The witness heard Abid Botonjić’s voice “crying, brothers, we have done no harm to you, why are you doing this to us, what happened to us”, and then he heard that same Mile swearing his “balija’s mother”, whereupon he heard shots and the sounds of a body falling in the water. The witness heard on the following day that the police arrived and ordered that the body be taken out of the water and buried. His brother- in-law buried him.

534. The killing of 12 civilians from the village of Botonjići in the Kamen area was confirmed by the other witnesses too, including Mile Radulović and Lazo Kričković. Witness Radulović stated he had been at a checkpoint on that day and noticed soldiers returning from that direction. Witness Lazo Kričković, as a police officer in the SJB Ključ, went with his team to the Kamen site to conduct a crime scene investigation as some men were killed. The witness testified that certain men were killed at that site, and a shed was burnt down, but that the perpetrators of the crime have never been identified.

267 Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 7 December 2009, testimony of witness Ahmet Crnolić, p.33.

201

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

C. COUNT 7 OF THE AMENDED INDICTMENT

“7. Without military justification, in order to permanently prevent the return of the population and secure their expulsion from the Ključ municipality, in order to destroy traces of the existence of other religious groups, they undertook activities, mined and tore down the Catholic Church and mosques including: the mosque in Tičevići, the village of Velagići, the mosque in Krasulje, the new mosque in Velagići, the mosque in Biljani, the city mosque in Ključ.”

535. This Count of the Indictment covered the destruction of religious facilities in the territory of the Ključ municipality, both Catholic churches and mosques, specifically: the mosques in Tičevići-Velagići village, Krasulje, a new mosque in Velagići, the mosque in Biljani and the mosque in the Ključ town. Many witnesses testified that the referenced religious facilities were destroyed, and the Defense teams for the Accused did not contest these facts either. Even the accused Adamović, testifying in the capacity of a witness, stated that, due to the destruction of the town mosque in Ključ, in late May 1992, the house or the barrack where he had lived with his family was damaged, as a result of which he moved to Murfeta Zupčević’s apartment.

536. Witnesses Haždija Bajrić and Fikreta Zukanović testified about the destruction of the mosque in Ključ. They stated that, after 27 May 1992, at around 03:00 hrs in the morning, the town mosque in Ključ was destroyed after being blown up by mines.

537. Witness Safet Muratagić eye-witnessed the destruction of the mosque in Humići.

538. Protected witness A watched both the shelling and destruction of the mosque in Velagići. Witness Ramo Duranović testified that, after being absent from Velagići for several days, and following his return home in early June, he found the village fully destroyed and houses burnt down, including both his house which was located near the mosque in which he served as an imam, and the mosque itself, which was fully destroyed.

539. As the Director of the Islamic Culture Centre, witness Kemal Zukić visited, after 1995, the territory of the Ključ municipality and produced an abundant photo- documentation concerning the situation on the ground. The photos contained in Exhibit T- 120 depict the destroyed religious buildings, inter alia, the mosques in Ključ, Velagići, Krasulje and Biljani.

540. The referenced witnesses confirmed that, in the town of Ključ, also burnt and destroyed was the Catholic Church of the Most Holly Mother of God Maria. This also ensues from a letter sent by Bishop Franjo Komarica to the Head of Municipality, Jovo 202

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Banjac,268 stating, inter alia, that “the referenced Church was torched in an insane and unjustified manner, in the night of 1/2 January”, which confirmed the Bishop’s impression of the ongoing “fascistic ethnic cleansing” in the territory of the Ključ municipality. The foregoing also ensued from the Official Note No. Kri 1/93 of 2 January 1993,269 which indicated that the Catholic Church in Ključ was burnt down on the previous night.

541. Some buildings were blown up by mines, like the town mosque in Ključ, as confirmed by witnesses Hadžija Bajrić and Fikreta Zukanović. This was also confirmed by witness Esad Šulić, who learned from guards at the Manjača camp that one “Stijak” had blown up the mosque in Ključ with explosive devices. Witness Enes Salihović testified that certain religious facilities were shelled from the same locations from which Ključ and its surroundings were also shelled.

542. The Panel has concluded beyond a doubt, on the basis of the presented and consistent evidence, that the religious buildings in the referenced villages were indeed destroyed. Despite the conclusion that the destruction of religious buildings formed part of the awareness of the participants in the JCE, wherefore the referenced act of commission was maintained within the part of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict concerning chapeau elements for each Accused individually, the Panel has held that finding the Accused guilty of the acts described in this Section would amount to both inadmissible extension of the principle of individual responsibility and a double punishment, in part. For example, within Section 2 of the enacting clause of the Verdict, the accused Lukić and Adamović were found guilty of the artillery attack launched on Velagići, within which the mosque in this village was also destroyed. The Accused were also found responsible for the attacks on the villages of Krasulje and Ramići, but they were acquitted of the charges for the attack on the village of Biljani. This is so because the referenced event did not occur within the period of time for which their guilt was established. In addition, the Accused certainly cannot be held responsible for the destruction of the Catholic Church in Ključ, in January 1993, since this period is not within the domain of their responsibility, which will be especially reasoned in the conclusion. Ultimately, the accused Lukić and Adamović cannot be held responsible for blowing up or planting explosive devices with the aim to destroy the town mosque in Ključ because there is no evidence about those who had undertaken the referenced act, and there is no

268 Exhibit T-274.

203

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

evidence showing any connection of the Accused with the referenced unidentified perpetrators.

543. It ensues both from the testimony of the accused Adamović and witness Murfeta Zubčević, that the Accused’s house was significantly damaged exactly by the destruction of the town mosque in Ključ, to such an extent that it became unfit for living. It is therefore unrealistic to expect that the Accused would participate in the activities by which he would jeopardize the lives of members of his family, who had lived in that house together with him.

544. The Prosecution made efforts to prove, through the presented evidence, that the Accused “usurped” Murfeta Zupčević’s apartment right after the shack in which he had lived was damaged after the town mosque had been blown up. Through the Accused’s personally acquired benefit, the Prosecution implied that the Accused was involved in the destruction of the mosque. The Panel, however, concluded that this Prosecution’s theory was not proved. It was indisputable for the Panel that the accused Adamović indeed moved to Murfeta Zupčević’s apartment. The Accused himself did not contest this either. In addition, given the overall events in the town of Ključ and its surroundings, the Panel did not consider convincing the Accused’s statement that Murfeta Zupčević had voluntarily left Ključ with her family. As it ensues from the testimony of witness Zupčević, this voluntariness, in fact, resulted from the overall situation and events in Ključ and its surroundings, where Muslim citizens, like the witness herself, were unwanted. Witness Zupčević did not contest that the accused Adamović had helped her and her husband to leave Ključ, as he organized their transport to Banja Luka. The witness believed this was the Accused’s attempt to pay them off for the ceded apartment. Nevertheless, the Panel did not find proved that witness Zubčević had left Ključ with her family due to Marko Adamović’s threats and blackmails. Otherwise, it would be illogical that the witness specifically asked the Accused to help her organize the transport to leave the town, or that the Accused participated in the destruction of the town mosque by mines, whereby he would damage his own property, and consequently expel the Zupčević family in order to usurp their apartment.

545. Therefore, the Panel has concluded that there is no doubt that religious facilities in the territory of the Ključ municipality were indeed destroyed, and that those actions were

269 Exhibit T-439. 204

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

undertaken with a view to persecuting the Muslim and Croat population from the Ključ municipality, but that the accused Lukić and Adamović could not be found guilty of the acts specifically described in this Section.

D. CONCLUSION ON THE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT IN RELATION TO WHICH THE ACCUSED

WERE ACQUITTED OF CHARGES

546. When it comes to the acquitting part of the Verdict, the Panel has held that the events, described in Counts 5, 6d), g), h) and i), and Count 7 of the Amended Indictment, are undoubtedly the events that followed the same pattern with the same goal, persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality, but also the events which cannot be directly, to a sufficient extent, correlated with the acts of the two Accused.

547. The accused Lukić’s role in all incriminating acts is being tied to the functions he performed, first as the TO Staff Commander and then as the acting Commander of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade before Drago Samardžija assumed this duty. However, as it ensues from the presented evidence, after the 17th Light Infantry Brigade had been established on 4 June 1992, Drago Samardžija was already on 9 June 1992, under the order by the Commander of the 2nd Krajina Corps270, assigned to the function of the Commander of the 17th LIB. It ensues from Regular combat reports that Samardžija, in fact, did not assume the referenced function until 17 June 1992. In support of such a finding of fact, the Prosecution tendered, and the Panel rendered them reliable, Regular combat reports271 signed by Major Lukić, which addressed the activities relating to the terrain search by the units about whose formation and engagement the accused Lukić made decisions. Those activities are compliant with the evidence given by the witnesses-inhabitants of many villages in the Ključ municipality in relation to the attack launched by the Serb military units on their villages, as analyzed within the convicting part of the Verdict.

548. However, since 17 June 1992, Major Boško Lukić was no more the signatory of regular combat reports, field search orders and the other documents, as he used to be until the referenced date. It is clear that Drago Samardžija, in fact, assumed the function of Commander of the 17th LIB, to which he had been formally assigned on 9 June 1992.

270 Exhibit T-455/49 Order by Commander of the 2nd Krajina Corps, conf. No. 11/28-201of 9 June 1992, signed by Colonel Grujo Borić. 271 Exhibits T-175-T-179, as well as evidence within Exhibit T-455.

205

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

549. In view of the foregoing, the Panel has concluded that the role of the accused Boško Lukić in those activities was undoubtedly gradually reduced. Therefore, the units of the Army of Serb Republic BiH which were under establishment procedure, were finally established and structured. In addition, separate military authorities were also established. As established, Boško Lukić was a member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, and he played an active role in its activities, both by being present at its sessions and by submitting regular reports from the ground.272 However, the Crisis Staff lost the role it had played as the highest authority organ during the first days of the conflict. In July 1992, the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff was also renamed to War Presidency. There is no information, however, whether the Accused’s maintained his membership in that organ of the authorities in the referenced further period.

550. The accused Marko Adamović’s defense was based on the assertion that, already in mid-June, he had gone to the Jajce frontline, specifically that he joined the TG 2, which had been deployed at the Magaljdol. The Defense tried to prove this theory through the testimony of witness Cvijo Popović. The Panel has considered this testimony unconvincing, as earlier reasoned in Paras. 443-448. The Panel noted in para. 447 that any data about the TG2 were available no sooner than July.

551. Even though the witnesses for the Defense of the accused Adamović, Drago Radojičić, Dušan Dragić and Dušan Prolić, tried to provide the Accused with an alibi, stating that, already on 20 July 1992, the Accused had been present with his Battalion in the Mrkonjić Grad area, or specifically, within the TG 2, Magaljdol site, the Panel considered these testimonies as unconvincing. Witness Dušan Prolić stated that he had moved to Kula, but that he allegedly knew that, in late June, the Battalion had gone to the Magaljdol area to carry out military operations in Jajce. Nevertheless, he further stated that the operations in Jajce had been carried in July, rather than in June 1992.

552. Witness Kosić was the accused Adamović’s driver. He was supposed to ensure the Accused’s alibi by stating that, already during the period from 10 to 20 June 1992, he had several time driven the Accused to and from Jajce. In the Panel’s view, witness Kosić’s testimony was not convincing. The witness spoke about the accused Adamović’s positive personal characteristics: that he was on good terms with Muslim inhabitants, that he and the Accused visited the villages of Kozarci and Krasulje on their way from Ključ to Jajce,

272 Exhibit T-229. 206

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

where the Accused visited certain Muslim villagers. The Prosecutor asked the witness about the situation in the referenced villages and the witness responded that “everything was normal, and villagers were there”. Considering the development of the events in the mentioned villages already since late May, when practically the entire Muslim male population had been taken away, as many heard witnesses testified, these assertions have no footing whatsoever. Therefore, the Panel has concluded that this witness testified with an obvious attempt to help the accused Adamović to avoid, or at least diminish, his criminal liability.

553. In order to avoid being held criminally liable, the Accused tried to prove that he had arrived in the Magaljdol area much earlier than he actually did. The Panel had no dilemma that he indeed came to the frontline at issue, but some time later, in fact, already in late June, or even in early July 1992, when the information about the TG2 activities appeared. As already noted, Exhibit T-455/1, Report by the TG2 2 Command for 24/25 June 1992, showed that the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps was notified only through this report that “soldiers sought for replacement at the position within several-day deadline”. The Report submitted by the 2nd Krajina Corps, No. Str.conf.No. 2-174 of 1 July 1992, confirmed that the 17th Light Infantry Brigade had been present in the wider area of Ključ already since 1 July 1992.

554. In the Panel’s view, all the foregoing indicates that there was undoubtedly a certain link between the conduct and activities of the key persons and the referenced events during the first stages of the attack on civilians, but that the link gradually waned. One could say that the events from July or August 1992, particularly the events until the end of the year, were a predictable consequence, that is, the Accused could have knowledge of the forthcoming events. However, the Panel has not found proved that these Accused had knowingly acted in furtherance of these activities, namely that their authority over the referenced crimes was significantly reduced to such an extent that all the elements, requisite for finding the Accused guilty of these crimes, could not be established.

555. Considering the foregoing, and relying on the fundamental principles of the criminal proceedings, the principle of innocence and the principle of in dubio pro reo, the Panel has decided as stated in the enacting clause of the acquitting part of the Verdict. The Panel bore in mind that all the facts to the detriment, or in peius of the Accused, must be established with certainty, or otherwise they would be considered as non-existent. On the other hand, the facts in favor (in favorem) of the Accused, will be considered as 207

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

established even when they are found probable. In this regard, Article 3(2) of the CPC BiH, stipulates that “a doubt with respect to existence of facts constituting the elements of a criminal offense, or on which the application of certain provision of criminal legislation depends shall be decided by the Court verdict in the manner more favorable for the accused”.

556. The Panel bore in mind both the referenced provisions and Article 284(c)of the CPC BiH stipulating that “the Court shall pronounce the verdict acquitting the accused of the charges if it is not proved that the accused committed the criminal offense with which he is charged”. The Panel also bore in mind that, after a conscientious evaluation of every item of evidence pursuant to Article 281(2) of the CPC BiH, it could not establish beyond a doubt that there was a concrete link between the accused Lukić and Adamović and the acts described in Counts 5, 6d), g), h), and i) and Count 7 of the Amended Indictment, of which actions the Panel could not find them guilty either, without bringing into doubt the events per se, which had indeed occurred as described in the Indictment. Therefore, the accused Lukić and Adamović were acquitted of charges pursuant to Article 284(c) of the CPC BiH.

XIII. DECISION ON THE COSTS OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS

557. Having considered the family situation of the Accused and their financial situation, the Panel has decided, pursuant to Article 188(4) of the CPC BiH, to relieve the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović of the obligation to reimburse the costs of criminal proceedings, which will be paid from within the budget appropriations of the Court, and of all the expenses accrued in relation to the acquitting part of the Verdict, pursuant to Article 189(1) of the CPC BiH.

RECORD-TAKER PANEL PRESIDENT

Nevena Aličehajić J U D G E

Azra Miletić

NOTE ON LEGAL REMEDY: Pursuant to Article 317a(1) of the CPC BiH, an appeal from the part of the Verdict finding the Accused guilty as charged may be filed with the Third- Instance Panel of the Appellate Division of the Court within a 15-day deadline after the service of the Verdict.

208

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

XIV. ANNEX 1

A. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE 1. Witnesses for the Prosecution Witness Date of testimony 1.Fahrudin Ćemal 25 September 2008 2.Muhamed Filipović*273 29 September 2008 6 and 8 of October 2008 3.Asim Egrlić* 13 October 2008 15 October 2008 20 October 2008 4.Jusuf Omerović* 22 October 2008 27 October 2008 5.Atif Džafić 29 October 2008 3 November 2008 5 November 2008 10 November 2008 6.Luka Brkić 12 November 2008 7.Mustafa Lepirica 24 November 2008 8.Hilmija Hamedović 1 December 2008 3 December 2008 9.Ćerim Hrnčić 10 December 2008 10.Fahrudin Krivić 15 December 2008 11.Behrem Šarić 12 January 2009 15 January 2009 12.Enes Salihović* 15 January 2009 26 January 2009 4 February 2009

13.Ibrahim Bajrić 9 February 2009 14.Džemal Draganović 11 February 2009 15.Ekrem Čehić 23 February 2009 25 February 2009

16.Ramo Duranović 4 March 2009 17.Senada Turkanović 9 March 2009 18. Hađija Bajrić 11 March 2009

273 The witnesses whose testimonies were reproduced at the hearing before the Appellate Division Panel are marked with asterisk.

209

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

19. Adnan Teminović 16 March 2009 20. Senad Draganović 18 March 2009 21. Mirsad Dervišević 23 March 2009 22. Lako Aničić 30 March 2009 23. Ismet Bilajac 1 April 2009 24. Radomir Radinković 6 April 2009 25. Salihović Latif 8 April 2009 26. Salihović Hasan 13 April 2009 27. Witness A 15 April 2009 28. Vitomir Gajić 6 May 2009 29. Miljević Marinko 11 May 2009 30. Radojčić Željko 11 May 2009 31. Enes Lemaš 13 May 2009 32. Nikola Savanović 13 May 2009 33. Zlatan Medić 18 May 2009 34. Hamida Hadžić 18 May 2009 35. Mirsad Puškar* 20 May 2009 36. Devla Halep-Pehadžić 20 May 2009 37. Lazo Kričković 25 May 2009 38. Zaim Smajić 27 May 2009 39. Mimka Brkić * 27 May 2009 40.Bedrudin Brkić 1 June 2009 41.Salko Kranić 1 June 2009 42.Hrgić Milorad 8 June 2009 43.Kuburić Radenko* 8 June 2009 10 June 2009 44. Witness C* 10 June 2009 45. Nafa Smajić* 15 June 2009 46. Muharem Islamagić 15 June 2009 47. Senad Pervić 17 June 2009 48. Elvir Jusić 17 June 2009 49. Alem Hadžić* 22 June 2009 50. Senad Medanović* 22 June 2009 29 June 2009 51. Hamid Hadžić 29 June 2009 52. Sadeta Medanović 1 July 2009 53. Nermina Medanović 1 July 2009 54. Kana Mešić* 6 July 2009 55. Nevres Mešić 6 July 2009 56. Edin Hadžić 10 August 2009

210

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

57. Safet Muratagić 24 August 2009 58. Miladin Ristić 26 August 2009 59. Ismet Muratagić 7 September 2009 60. Safet Sadiković * 7 September 2009 61. Ćazim Bajrić 9 September 2009 62. Muhamed Kozarac 14 September 2009 63. Ajiz Bečić 16 September 2009 64. Teufik Bajrić 23 September 2009 65. Naila Botonjić 7 October 2009 66. Murfeta Zubčević 12 October 2009 67. Huse Crnalić 14 October 2009 68. Šemso Džaferagić 26 October 2009 69. Ismet Zukanović 28 October 2009 70.Feriz Dervišević 2 November 2009 71. Protected witness B 4 November 2009 72. Mujo Čajić 9 November 2009 73.Makbula Mešanović 11 November 2009 74. Dragan Vukić 18 November 2009 75. Hasiba Šljivar 30 November 2009 76. Ahmed Crnolić 7 December 2009 77. Fikreta Zukanović 14 December 2009 78. Šehić Mujo 14 December 2009 79. Milenko Mlađenović 16 December 2009 80. Mile Radulović 16 December 2009 81. Mehmed Banjalučkić 21 December 2009 82. Marinko Vejin 23 December 2009 27 January 2010 22 February 2010 83. Ismet Kujundžić 24 February 2010 84.Stevan Karač 8 March 2010 85. Mehmed Begić 10 March 2010 86.Hazim Lošić 15 March 2010 87. Esad Šulić 17 March 2010 88. Leopold Flat 22 March 2010 89. Merima Filipović 24 March 2010 90. Kemal Zukić 12 April 2010 91. Nermin Kapetanović 19 April 2010 92. Asim Vučkić 21 April 2010 93. Enes Mršić* 26 April 2010 94. Witness D * 18 April 2011 Prosecution's rejoinder 211

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

2. Documentary Evidence of the Prosecutor’s Office Exhibit T-1 – Record of Examination of the Witness Fahrudin Ćemal No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 4 April 2007; T-2 – Record of Examination of the Witness Muhamed Filipović No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 2 April 2007; T-3 – Map of Ključ, a document certified by ICTY; T-4 – Press release of the Ključ SDA /Party of Democratic Action/ Town Board, number 33/91, dated 21 September 1991; T-5 – Initiative to hold a good will gathering on Wednesday 25 September 1991 MBO/Muslim Bosniak Organization/, MBO Town Board Ključ, No. 35/91 dated 23 September 1991; T-6 – Order of SDS Sarajevo, No. 45487 SOKLJ YU, 45135 SO CEL YU T-7 – Press release of MBO, MBO Town Board in Ključ, SDA, Town Board Ključ, No. 44/91 dated 31 January 1991; T-8 – Document titled “Bosanski Ključ Municipality“, ICTY Exhibit No. 00595279 (the first page is relevant, other pages filed because of the ICTY certification); T-9 – Video recording “Ključ 1992“ with supporting documents as the proof that the recording originates from ICTY; T-10 – Record of Examination of the Witness Asim Egrlić, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 1 April 2007; T-11 – Record of Examination of the Witness Jusuf Omerović, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 8 April 2007; T-12 – Topographic map of the Ključ Municipality (one part); T-13 – Certified copy of the duty handover log book dated 28 February 1992- PSS Ključ (Exhibit is in a separate box in a book-case); T-14 – Certified copy of the roster for May 1992-September 1993 (Exhibit is kept in a separate boy in a book-case); T-15 – Record of Examination of the Witness Atif Džafić No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 31 January 2008; T-16 – Record of Examination of the Witness Luka Brkić No. KT-RZ-119/08 dated 4 April 2007; T-17 – Record of Examination of Mustafa Lepirica, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 2 April 2007; T-18 – Record of Examination of the Witness Hilmija Hamedović, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 4 June 2007; T-19 – Record of Examination of the Witness Ćerim Hrnčić, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 5 April 2007; T-20 – Record of Examination of the Witness Fahrudin Krivić, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 22 November 2007; T-21 – Record of Examination of the Witness Behrem Šarić, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 29 January 2008; 212

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

T-22 – Record of Examination of the Witness Enes Salihović, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 26 December 2007; T-23 – Record of Examination of the Witness Ibrahim Bajrić, No. 05-1/08-1-145/08 dated 22 February 2008; T-24 – Record of Examination of the Witness Džemal Draganović, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 3 December 2007; T-25 – Record of Prosecutor's Office of BiH of Examination of the Witness Ekrem Čehić No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 26 December 2007; T-26 – Record of Prosecutor's Office of BiH of Examination of the Witness Ramo Duranović No. KT-RZ 119/05 dated 27 December 2007; T-27 – Record of Prosecutor's Office of BiH of Examination of the Witness Senada Turkanović No. 05-1/08-1-144/08 dated 22 February 2008; T-28 – SIPA Record of Examination of the Witness Hađija Bajrić No. 17-11/3-04-2- 126/06 dated 5 April 2006; T-28a – Record of Prosecutor's Office of BiH of Examination of the Witness Hađije Bajrić No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 24 January 2008; T-29 – Record of Prosecutor's Office of BiH of Examination of the Witness Adnan Teminović No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 4 June 2007; T-30 – Record of Prosecutor's Office of BiH of Examination of the Witness Senad Draganović No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 14 December 2007; T-31 – Record of Examination of the witness Mirsad Dervišević conducted in the Third Police Department No. 05-1/8-1-682/07 of 8 December 2007; T-32 – duty handover log book from 1 August 1992 to 7 October 1992; T-33 – Record of Examination of the Witness Laka Aničić conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 24 January 2008; T-34 – Record of Examination of the Witness Radomir Radinković conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 24 December 2007; T-35 – Official Note of the deaths of Omer and Enes Filipović made by Radomir Radinković dated 30 July 1992; T-36 – Record of Examination of the Witness Latif Salihović conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 5 December 2007; T-37 – Record of Examination of the Witness Hasan Salihović conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 30 November 2007; T-38 – Record of Examination of the Witness A conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 3 April 2007; T-39 – Four Official Notes of 5 June 1992 made by Vitomir Gajić; T-40 – Record of Examination of the Witness Vitomir Gajić conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 29 February 2008; T-41 – Record of Examination of the Witness Marinko Miljević conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 25 February 2008; T-42 – Record of Examination of the Witness Željko Radojčić conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 17 December 2007; 213

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

T-43 – Record of Examination of the Witness Enes Lemeš conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office of BiH on 23 January 2008; T-44 – Record of Examination of the Witness Nikola Savanović conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of BiH in 2008; T-45 – Official Note dated 16 July 1992 made in the Police Station in Ribnik. T-46 – Record of Examination of the Witness Zlatan Medić conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 7 February 2008; T-47 – Record of Examination of the Witness Hamid Hadžić conducted by the Prosecutor’s Office on 23 January 2008; T-48 – Record of Examination of the Witness Mirsad Puškar conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 27 December 2007; T-49 – Record of Examination of the Witness Devla Halep-Pehadžić conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 26 December 2007; T-50 – Record of Examination of the Witness Lazo Kričković conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 5 February 2008; T-51 – Record of Examination of the Witness Zaim Smajić conducted by the prosecutor's Office of BiH on 9 April 2008; T-52 – Record of Examination of the Witness Mimka Brkić No. 05-1/08-1-320/08 dated 10 August 2008; T-53 – Record of Examination of the Witness Bedrudin Brkić dated 30 March 2007 and 7 June 2007; T-54 – Record of Examination of the Witness Salko Krantić dated 29 March 2006; T-55 – Record of Examination of the Witness Milorad Hrgić dated 12 May 2008; T-56 – Record of Examination of the Witness Radomir Kuburić dated 23 May 2008; T-57 – Record of Examination of the Witness Nafa Smajić of 2008; T-58 – Record of Examination of the Witness Muharem Islamagić dated 9 April 2008; T-59 – Record of Examination of the Witness Senad Pervić dated 9 April 2008; T-60 – Record of Examination of the Witness Elvir Jusić dated 13 April 2008; T-61 – Record of Examination of the Witness Alem Hadžić dated T-62 – Record of Examination of the Witness Senad Medanović dated T-63 – Record of Examination of the Witness Hamid Hadžić dated T-64 – Record of Examination of the Witness Sedet Medanović dated 8 April 2008; T-65 – Record of Examination of the Witness Nermin Medanović dated 8 April 2008; T-66 – Record of Examination of the Witness Kana Mešić dated 14 April 2006; T-67 – Record of Examination of the Witness Nerves Mešić dated T-68 – Record of Examination of the Witness Safet Muratagić dated 8 April 2008; T-69 – Record of Examination of the Witness Miladin Ristić dated 21 December 2007; T-70a – Decision on Appointment of Committee for War Booty, 05-01-96/92 dated 13 July 1992; T-70b – Receipt for Received Items issued by PSC Banja Luka, Ključ Police Station. T-71 – Record of Examination of the Witness Ismet Muratagić dated 21 November 2007; T-72 – Record of Examination of the Witness Safet Sadiković dated 21 November 2007; 214

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

T-73 – Record of Examination of the Witness Ćazim Bajrić dated 4 December 2007 and 30 November 2007; T-74 – Record of Examination of the Witness Muhamed Kozarac dated 30 November 2007; T-75 – Record of Examination of the Witness Ajiz Bečić dated 25 December 2007; T-76 – Record of Examination of the Witness Teufik Bajrić dated 4 December 2007; T-77 – Record of Examination of the Witness Naila Botonjić dated 26 December 2007; T-78 – Record of Examination of the Witness Murfeta Zubčević dated 28 January 2008; T-79 – Record of Examination of the Witness Huso Crnalić dated 5 December 2009; T-80a – Record of Examination of the Witness Šemso Džabegagić dated 15 July 2005 (certified copy); T-80b – Record of Examination of the Witness Šemso Džabegagić dated 31 January 2008; T-81a – Record of Examination of the Witness Ismet Zukanović dated 16 July 2005 (certified copy); T-81b – Record of Examination of the Witness Ismet Zukanović dated 4 February 2008; T-82a – Record of Examination of the Witness Dervišević Feriz dated KT 160/97-RZ dated 11 May 2005; T-82b – Record of Examination of the Witness Feriz Dervišević No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 25 December 2009; T-83a – Record of Examination of the Witness B dated 11 July 2005, CONFIDENTIAL; T-83b – Record of Examination of the Witness B dated 27 December 2007 CONFIDENTIAL; T-84 – Record of Examination of the Witness Mujo Čajić KT-RZ-4/05 dated 28 July 2005; T-85 – Record of Examination of the Witness Dragan Vukić No. KT-RZ-4/05 dated 11 August 2005; T-87 – Personal questionnaire of RS MoI for Vinko Kondić, confidential, dated 19 October 1992, certified copy; T-88 – Ključ Crisis Staff of SDS, photos of Vinko Kondić and Boško Lukić, certified copy, T-89 – List of members of Ključ SDS Executive and Municipal Board from 1990, indicating the name of Vinko Kondić, certified copy; T-90 – List of members Ključ SDS Executive Board including the name of Kondić, certified copy; T-91 – List of SDS activity including Boško Lukić and Vinko Kondić, certified copy; T-92 – Decision on the establishment of the War Presidency of the Ključ Municipality dated 13 July 2009, under Item 8 there is a name of Vinko Kondić, certified copy; T-93 – Handwritten lists of attendees at the SDS sessions –certified copy, T-94 – Dispatch of the Head of PSC Prijedor Simo Drljača No. 14-227-6/95 dated 2 August 1995, appointment of the HQ including Vinko Kondić- certified copy; T-95 – Excerpt from the RS Official Gazette pg. 82 dated 8 March 1996, Decision on Appointment of the Minister of Health and Social Care, Vinko Kondić is appointed the Assistant. 215

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

T-96 – Excerpt from the Official Gazette whereby Gojko Kličković, pg.638 dated 30 August 1997, appointed Vinko Kondić chef de cabinet, certified copy; T-97 – Document of RS MUP Mrkonjić Grad, Official Note dated 16 March 1994- confidential, certified copy, T-98 – MUP Sarajevo, dated 27 April 1994 Mićo Stanišić rendered the Decision appointing Vinko Kondić the Deputy Head of PSC Prijedor- certified copy; T-99 – MoI PSC Prijedor Decision on Issuance of Pistols No. 11-17-210-210 dated 27 June 1994; T-100 – Excerpt from the Official Gazette, Decision on Appointment of Members of Executive Board where Vinko Kondić is appointed Head. T-101 – Decision on Appointment of Kondić, No. 08/1-134-3525 dated 20 October 1995, certified copy; T-102 – Request of Stojan Župljanin where he asks for approval for Vinko Kondić to go to SFRY No. 10/835, certified copy; T-103 – Document of MUP PSC Prijedor No. 14-105 dated 30 October 1995, explanation for extraordinary promotion of Vinko Kondić, certified copy; T-104 – Official Gazette No. 14 dated 3 July 1996 when Gojko Kličković appointed Kondić Minister of Labour and Social Protection, certified copy; T-105 – Record of Examination of the Witness Crnalić, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 4 February 2008; T-106 – Record of Examination of the Witness Fikret Zukanović, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 25 December 2007; T-107 – Record of Examination of the Witness Šahić Mujo, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 6 April 2007; T-108 – Record of Examination of the Witness Milenko Mlađenović, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 24 December 2007; T-109 – Record of Examination of the Witness Mile Radulović No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 26 May 2007; T-110 – Record of Examination of the Witness Mehmed Banjalučkić No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 26 December 2007; T-111 – Duty handover log book from 7 October 1992 to 18 December 1992; T-112 – Record of Examination of the Witness Marinko Vejin dated 22 January 2008; T-113 – Record of Examination of the Witness Ismet Kujundžić; T-114 – Record of Examination of the Witness Stevan Karač; T-115 – Record of Examination of the Witness Mehmed Begić; T-116 – Record of Examination of the Witness Hazim Lozić dated 3 December 2007; T-117 – Record of Examination of the Witness Esad Šulić dated 30 November 2007; T-118 – Record of Examination of the Witness Flata Leopold T-119 – Record of Examination of the Witness Merima Filipović T-120 – CD containing photographs of destroyed religious buildings T-121 – Record of Examination of the Witness Dušan Stanarević dated 28 January 2008, and death certificate for Dušan Stanarević; 216

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

T-122 – Record of Examination of Mina Ljutić dated 10 April 2008, and Death certificate for Mina Ljutić T-123 – Record of Examination of the Witness Simo Vujičić dated 25 February 2008, and Death Certificate for Simo Vujičić; T-124 – Record of Examination of the Witness Nermin Kapetanović No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 3 April 2007; T-125 – Document of Executive Board of SDS BiH No. 804-02/91 dated 22 October 1991; T-126 – Instructions for the Organization and Activity of Organs of the Serb People in BiH in Extraordinary Circumstances, copy No. 0 through 96 dated 19 December 1991; T-127 – Conclusion of the Assembly of Autonomous Region of Krajina, Banja Luka, dated 03-09/92 dated 3 February 1992; T-128 – Order to form a collective camp for prisoners of war No. 15-1 dated 7 January 1992; T-129 – Decision on accession of the Ključ Municipality to Autonomous Region of Bosanska Krajina No. 05-023-3/92 dated 16 January 1992; T-130 – Order of the Commander of the 5th Corps, Op Strictly Confidential, No. 24-3 dated 18 February 1992; T-131 – Opinion about applicants for selection of judges and a public prosecutor of SDS of the Ključ Municipality, No. 01/1-2-92 dated 26 February 1991; T-132 – Official Gazette of Serb People in BiH year I- No. I, dated 15 January 1992; T-133 – Official Gazette of Serb People in BiH year I- No. 3, dated 16 March 1992; T-134 – Decision on Strategic Objectives of Serb People in BiH Official Gazette pg. 866 No. 22 dated 26 November 1993; T-135 – Official Gazette of Republika Srpska, year I – No. I, dated 31 December 1992; T-136 – Declaration on the Government and Political System of the State, Official Gazette of Srpska Republika, year I – No. 14, dated 7 September 1992; T-137 – Decision on the return of displaced persons to the territory of Srpska Republika of BiH, Official Gazette of Serb People in BiH dated 8 June 1992; T-138 – Law on Defense, Official Gazette, year I – No. 7, dated 1 June 1992; T-139 – Decision on Public Mobilization Official Gazette of Autonomous Region of Krajina, year I – No. 2 dated 5 June 1992; T-140 – Official Gazette of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, year I – Number I dated 9 April 1992; T-141 – Decision on Declaration of State of War, Official Gazette of RBiH, No. 7, pg. 234 dated 20 June 1992; T-142 – Shorthand Transcript of the 14th session of the Assembly of the Serb People in BiH, dated 27 March 1992; T-143 – Report on the formation of the 13th Partisan Brigade, number 60, dated 23 March 1992; T-144 – Document of the Command of the Second Military District, the 5th Corps , strictly confidential, number 273-3, dated 3 April 1992 217

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

T-145 – Document of the Command of 30th Partisan Division; T-146 – Excerpt from Instructions for the work of Crisis Staff, a document of RS; T-147 – Minutes of the session of National Security Council dated 27 April 1992; T-148 – Press release of the Assembly of the Serb People in BiH, dated 4 April 1992 T-149 – Minutes of the plenum of the National Security Council held on 22 April 1992; T-150 – Decision of the Autonomous Region of Bosanska Krajina No. 01-1/92 dated 4 May 1992; T-151 – Document of the Command of the 5th Corps, strictly confidential No. 44-1/130 dated 7 May 1992, regular combat report; T-152 – Command of the Banja Luka Corps, confidential No. 420-1 dated 8 May 1992; T-153 – Document of the Command of the 6th Partisan Brigade, no date, signed by Branko Basara T-154 – Minutes of the 16th session of the Serb People Assembly dated 12 May 1992 held in Banja Luci; T-155 – Minutes of the meeting with representatives of municipalities in the area of responsibility dated 14 May 1992, signed by Momčilo Dmitrović T-156 – Document of the Command of the 30th Partisan Division, strictly confidential , No. 174-140 dated 16 May 1992; T-157 – Minutes of the session of the Government of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina dated 23 May 1992; T-158 – Instructions of the Government for the organization and work in municipalities in conditions of the imminent threat of war; T-159 – Document to the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, military secret-coded dated 27 May 1992; T-160 – Document of the Command of the 1st Partisan Brigade Šipovo dated 28 May 1992, No. I-121/92, regular combat report; T-161 – Document of the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 44- 1/92 dated 29 May 1992, regular combat report, military secret; T-162 – Decision on formation of war presidencies in municipalities at the time of imminent threat of war; T-163 – Document of the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps dated 31 May 1992; T-164 – Document of the Command of the 30th Partisan Division No. 939-1 dated 31 May 1992; T-165 – Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 44-1/ dated 2 June 1992, regular combat report, military secret; T-166 – Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 44-1/160 dated 2 June 1992, regular combat report, military secret; T-167 – Criminal Report of the Banja Luka Army Post Office to the Military Prosecutor dated 5 June 1992 No. KU-33/92 T-168 – Complaint about unlawful deprivation of liberty sent to General Talić, Corps Commander; T-169 – Statement of Boško Unčanin given to the authorized official person of the 218

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

military police; T-170 – Statement of Svetislav Račić given to the authorized official person of the military police; T-171 – Statement of Ilija Krčmar given to the authorized official person of military police; T-172 – Official Note dated 3 June 1992; Military Post Office 4627 T-173 – Conclusion of the meeting of Sub region (municipal political representatives) dated 7 June 1992; T-174 – Order of the Commander of the 2nd Krajina Corps for further operations, strictly confidential No. 90-1 dated 8 June 1992; T-175 – Daily Report of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, Strictly Confidential No. 01- 25/92 dated 12 June 1992; T-176 – Daily Report of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01- 31/92 dated 13 June 1992; T-177 – Daily Report of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01- 12/92 T-178 – Daily Report the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01/5- 92 T-179 – Combat Report of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01-31-5/92 dated 17 June 1992; T-180 – Document of the Command of the 1st Corps, Op. Strictly confidential No. 44- 1/180 dated 14 June 1992; T-181 – Document of the Command of the 1st Corps, Op. Strictly confidential No. 505-2 dated 14 June 1992; T-182 – Document of the Command the 1st Corps, Op. Strictly confidential No. 482-1 dated 1 June 1992; T-183 – Document of the Command of the 1st Corps No. 535-1 dated 19 June 1992; T-184 – Daily Report the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01-31- 8/92 dated 23 June 1992; T-185 – Order for further operations of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strictly confidential No. 01-93/92 dated 25 June 1992; T-186 – Document of the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 44- 1/201 dated 27 June 1992; T-187 – Order for further operations of the Army Post Office Ključ, strictly confidential No. 03-135 dated 9 July 1992; T-188 – Instructions of the Government of Srpska Republika of Bosnia and Herzegovina dated 13 July 1992, implementation of the decision of mandatory handover of the war booty; T-189 – Activity report of the Command of the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ dated 28 July 1992; T-190 – Command of the 1st Krajina Corps – Selection of prisoners of war in the Manjača PWC, No. 21-50 dated 6 August 1992; T-191 – Report of the Commission on visiting of collection centers and other facilities for 219

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

prisoners in the Autonomous Region of Krajina dated 17 August 1992; T-192 – Order of the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 765- 1/92 dated 15 December 1992; T-193 – Decision of the National Assembly of Republika Srpska repealing the decision on the establishment of war commissions in municipalities during the imminent threat of war or the state of war, number 02-1978/92, dated 17 December 1992; T-194 – Report to the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 01-326- 22/93 dated 16 February 1993; T-195 – Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 3- 93 dated 7 March 1993; T-196 – Contribution to the monograph of the 1st Krajina Corps T-197 – Analysis of activities by elements of combat readiness in 1992 of the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps from February 1993, marked as military secrets, strictly confidential; T-198 – Analysis of VRS combat readiness and activity in 1992 (Han Pijesak, 1993); T-199 – Document of the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, regular combat report op. Confidential, No. 44-1/151 dated 28 May 1992; T-200 – Minutes of the meeting attended by Vinko Kondić dated 26 March 1991; T-201 – Records of SDS Ključ duty trips from 1 April 1991 to (it is not indicated until when); T-202 – First joint press release of MBO and SDA; T-203 – Minutes of the meeting of the SDS Executive Board and presidents of local SDS boards dated 9 May 1991; T-204 – Minutes of the meeting of SDS Executive Board and presidents of local boards dated 15 May 1991; T-205 – Minutes of the 7th session of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 5 July 1991; T-206 – Nomination of candidate of the Ključ SDS Executive Board to the president of the Ključ National Defense Council for the position of the Ključ Territorial Defense Commander, No. 01/1-24/91 dated 15 October 1991; T-207 – Minutes of the 3rd session of the Executive Board dated 2 October 1991; T-208 – Minutes of the 4th session of the Ključ SDS Executive Board dated 14 October 1991; T-209 – Minutes of the 5th session of the Ključ SDS Executive Board dated 24 October 1991; T-210 – Minutes of the 6th session of the Ključ SDS Executive Board dated 23 December 1991; T-211 – Minutes of the 7th session of the Ključ SDS Executive Board dated 25 February 1992; T-212 – Minutes of the 8th session of the Ključ SDS Executive Board dated 6 March 1992; T-213 – Minutes of the 9th session of the Ključ SDS Executive Board dated 12 March 1992; 220

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

T-214 – Minutes of the 10th session of the Ključ Executive board dated 23 March 1992; T-215 – Minutes of the 11th session of the Ključ SDS Executive Board dated 30 March 1992; T-216 – Minutes of the 12th session of the Ključ SDS Municipal Board dated 14 July 1992; T-217 – Minutes of the 3rd session of the Ključ SDS Municipal Board dated 2 September 1991; T-218 – Minutes of the 5th session of the Ključ SDS Municipal Board and Caucus dated 22 January 1992; T-219 – Minutes of the 6th session of the Ključ SDS Municipal Board dated 18 February 1992; T-220 – Minutes of the 8th session of the Ključ SDS Municipal Board dated 29 April 1992; T-221 – Minutes of the session of the Presidency of the SDS Municipal Board dated 10 December 1992; T-222 – Excerpt from the session of the Ključ SDS Municipal Board held on 23 January 1993; T-223 – Document on informing the public about sessions of the Municipal Assembly and the Executive Board of Ključ from October 1991; T-224 – Information for the public from the sessions of the Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 29 December 199.; T-225 – Proposal of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipal Assembly of the structure of municipal bodies in time of war, May 1992; T-226 – Handwritten list of members of the Ključ Territorial Defense from the meeting dated 3 April 1992; T-227 – Order of the President of the National Defense Council of the Ključ Municipal Assembly, No. 05- 01-45/92 dated 5 May 1992; T-228 – Press release of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff signed by Jovo Banjac T-229 – Book of minutes of sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff; T-230 – Press release of the Crisis Staff and Command of the Ključ Municipality Defense No. 6/92 dated 2 June 1992; T-231 – Minutes of the session of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff 13 and 14 May 1992; T-232 – Order of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipal Assembly, strictly confidential No. 02/92 dated 15 May 1992, signed by Jovo Banjac; T-233 – Order of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipal Assembly, strictly confidential No. 22/92 dated 25 May 1992; T-234 – Order of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, strictly confidential No. 01/92 dated 27 May 1992; T-235 – Order of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff dated 28 May 1992; T-236 – Order of the Ključ Municipality Defense Command dated 29 May 1992; T-237 – Conclusion of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff No. 66/92 dated 18 June 1992; T-238 1. Report of the Main HQ of the Ključ Municipality dated 3 June 1992; 221

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

2. Warning and Information of the main HQ of the Ključ Municipality; 3. Announcement of the Main HQ of the Ključ Municipality; 4. Dispatch of the Public Security Service Center Banja Luka; 5. Decision on moving out of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipality; 6. Notice of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipality dated 8 June 1992; 7. Notice of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipality dated 9 June 1992; 8. Brigade Command warnings dated 15 June 1992; 9. Document of the Ključ Public Security Service; 10. Document of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff of combat activities; 11. Daily report of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff dated 27 June 1992; 12. Document of the Public Security Service dated 6 August 1992; 13. Report of the Public Security Station on convoy escort; 14. Regular Report of the Public Security Station dated 7 July 1992; 15. Document of the session of the War Presidency held on 22 July 1992; 16. Public Security Station Report of destruction of the Mosque in Ključ; 17. Public Security Station Report of unrests in the Ključ proper; 18. Report of the War Presidency of the Ključ Municipality about security situation in the beginning of the school year; T-239 – Order of the Crisis Staff of the Municipal Assembly of the Ključ Municipality No. 19/92 dated 4 June 1992; T-240 – Announcement of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 20/92 dated 4 June 1992; T-241 – Address of the Banja Luka Bishop’s Ordinariate sent to Jovo Banjac, No. 577/92 dated 13 August 1992; T-242 – Document of the ŠIP Company in Ključ, delivery of information to the Ključ Municipal Assembly about managerial staff No. 02-483/92 dated 21 June 1992; T-243 – Document of the ŠIP Company in Ključ, delivery of information about the managerial staff of the Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 01-737/92 dated 23 June 1992; T-244 – Ključ Municipal Assembly - Overview of managerial posts occupied by Muslims dated 26 June 1992; T-245 – Excerpt from the Minutes of the session of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 10 July 1992; T-246 – Decision of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 05-01-93/92 dated 13 July 1992; T-247 – Decision of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 05-01-99/92 dated 13 July 1992; T-248 – Conclusion made at the session of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 10 July 1992; T-249 – Conclusion of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 05-01- 100/92 dated 15 July 1992; T-250 – Excerpt from the Minutes of the 2nd session of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 21 July 1992; 222

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

T-251 – Decision on relieving of duty the President of the Executive Board of the Ključ Municipality dated 21 July 1992, Decision on Relieving of Duty of the Director of the Municipal Administration of Geodetic and Property Affairs and real Estate Cadastre dated 21 July 1992, Decision on Relieving of Duty of the Secretary of the Municipal Secretariat for General Administration dated 21 July 1992, Decision on Relieving of Duty of the Secretary of the Executive Board of Ključ Municipality dated 21 July 1992, Decision on Relieving of Duty of the Vice-president of the Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 21 July 1992, Decision of Relieving of Duty of the judge of the Basic Court in Ključ No. 05.03-7/92 dated 2 July 1992, Decision on Relieving of Duty of the judge of the Municipal Minor Offence Court in Ključ No. 05-03-4/92 dated 1 July 1992; T-252 – Decision on Appointment of Acting President of the Basic Court in Ključ No. No. 05-03-5/92 dated 1 July 1992, decision on Appointment of judges of the basic Court in Ključ No. 0503-6/92 dated 1 July 1992; T-253 – Decision of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly on Cessation of employment of all workers who failed to respond to a call-out notice for mobilization dated 21 July 1992; T-254 – Decision of War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 05.01-118/92 dated 21 July 1992, Decision of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 05.01./92 dated 21 July 1992; T-255 – Excerpt from the Minutes of the 3rd session of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 22 July 1992; T-256 – Excerpt from the Minutes of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 28 July 1992; T-257 – Decision of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly on criteria for moving out of the territory of Ključ municipality dated 30 July 1992; T-258 – Minutes of the 13th session of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 31 July 1992; T-259 – Minutes of the Commission for collection of information for moving the inhabitants out of the territory of Ključ Municipality No. 05-01-135-14/92 dated 31 July 1992, - Minutes of the Commission for collection of information for moving of residents out the territory of the Ključ Municipality No. 05-01.135-59/92 dated 3 August 1992, - Minutes of the Commission for collection of information for moving of residents out of the territory of Ključ Municipality No. 05-01-135-40/92 dated 3 August 1992, Minutes of the Commission for collection of information for moving of residents out of the territory of Ključ Municipality No. 05-01-135-130/92 dated 4 August 1992 – Minutes of the commission for collection of information for moving of residents out of the territory of Ključ Municipality No. 05-01-135-183 dated 3 August 1992, - Minutes of the Commission for collection of information for moving of residents out of the territory of the Ključ Municipality No. 05-01-135-298/92 dated 7 August 1992 – Minutes of the Commission for collection of information for moving of residents out of the territory of Ključ Municipality No. 05-01-135-367/92 dated 10 August 1992 – Minutes of the Commission for collection of information for moving of residents out of the territory of Ključ municipality No. 05-01- 135-470/92 dated 10 August 1992 – Minutes of the Commission for collection of 223

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

information for moving of resident out of the territory of Ključ Municipality No. 05-01-135- 753/92 dated 17 August 1992, - Minutes of the Commission for collection of information for moving of residents out of the territory of the Ključ municipality No. 05-01-155-787/92 dated 19 August 1992, - Minutes of the Commission for collection of information about moving of residents out of the territory of Ključ municipality No. 05-01-139763/92 dated 17 August 1992, - Minutes of the Commission for collection of information for moving of residents out of the territory of Ključ municipality No. 05-01-135-784/92 dated 18 August 1992, Minutes of the Commission for collection of information about moving of residents out of the territory of Ključ Municipality No. 05-01-135-1350/92 dated 8 September 1992; T-260 – Activity Report of the Crisis Staff of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly from 15 May 1992 to date; T-261 – Activity Report of the Executive Board of Ključ Municipal Assembly in the time period from 31 May 1992; T-262 – Excerpt from the Minutes of the 6th session of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 7 August 1992; T-263 – Order of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 7 August 1992; T-264 – Decision on Formation of the Disciplinary Commission No. 103/92; T-265 – Decision of the Basic Court in Ključ No. SU: 10/92 dated 18 August 1992 and the Decision of the Basic Court in Ključ No. SU: 108/92 dated 18 August 1992; T-266 – Request of the Basic Court in Ključ for opening of proceedings regarding disciplinary accountability of an employee Smajil Džaferagić and others No. 104/92 dated 17 August 1992; T-267 – Official Letter of the Ključ Forest Industry Company to Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 01-934/92 dated 4 September 1992; T-268 – Decision of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 05-01-194/92 dated 7 September 1992; T-269 – Minutes of the 14th session of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 29 December 1992; T-270 – Minutes of XII session of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly held on 23 December 92; T-271 – Minutes of the 15th meeting of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 28 January 1993; T-272 – Activity Report of the SDS Municipal Board in Ključ, to the SDS Executive in Pale No. 01/1-32/93 dated 27 October 1993; T-273 – Minutes of the 19th session of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 30 July 1993; T-274 – Letter of Banja Luka Bishop to the President of Ključ Municipal Assembly written in February 1993; T-275 – Official Note titled Štab dated 5 October 1991; T-276 – Document of the Security Service Center in Banja Luka No. 11-128 dated 31 July 1991, subject – conclusions of council of experts; T-277 – Agreement on association of municipalities of Bosanska Krajina dated 29 April 1991; T-278 – Order of the Ministry of the Interior No. 01-1/92 dated 15 May 1992; 224

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

T-279 – Conclusions of the plenary session of the Center's Council held on 6 May 1992, Public Security Center No. 11-144 dated 20 May 1992; T-280 – Dispatch of the Security Service Center Banja Luka No. 11-1/01-6 dated 1 July 1992; T-281 – Dispatch of Security Service Center Banja Luka No. 11-170 dated 20 July 1992; T-282 – Dispatch of Security Service Center Banja Luka, No. 11-1/02-1-301 dated 31 July 1992; T-283 – Srpska Republika Bosna and Herzegovina, MoI Sarajevo, Summary of the meeting of MoI managerial personnel dated 11 July 1992; T-284 – Srpska Republika Bosna and Herzegovina, MoI Sarajevo, Report of some aspects of the work and future tasks of 17 July 1992; T-285 – Dispatch of Security Service Center Banja Luka No. 11-1/01-od-439 dated 19 August 1992; T-286 – Instruction on training and usage of war units of Security Service Center No. 11- 08-262/92 dated 25 August 1992; T-287 – Minutes of the meeting of 11 February 1992 held in Banja Luka; T-288 – Dispatch of Security Service Center Banja Luka No. 11-1/01-72 dated 27 August 1992; T-289 – Order of the Ministry of the Interior of Srpska Republika No. 10-293/92 dated 6 September 1992; T-290 – Dispatch of Security Service Center, No. 11-/01-4 dated 1992; T-291 – Dispatch of Security Service Center Banja Luka No. 11-183 dated 18 September 1992; T-292 – Activity Report from July to September 1992, Republika Srpska, MoI, copy No. 31, Sarajevo October 1992; T-293 – Activity Report from April to December 1992, Republika Srpska, MoI, Bijeljina January 1993; T-294 – Report of Analysis of Work of the Public Security Station in 1992 in the area of Security Service Center in Banja Luka, Banja Luka, March 1993; T-295 – Assembly of Autonomous Region of Krajina, Municipal Secretariat for National Defense in Banja Luka, the list of dismissed and pardoned persons, No. 347/400 dated 7 October 1992; T-296 – Overview of incoming and outgoing persons from the territory covered by the Security Service Center in Banja Luka; T-297 – Dispatch of Security Services Center in Banja Luka No. 11-1/01-48 dated 28 May 1992; T-298 – Dispatch of the Security Services Center in Banja Luka No. 11-1/01-54 dated 12 June 1992; T-299 – Dispatch of Public Security Station Ključ, No. 88/91 dated 7 October 1991; T-300 – Operational Plan of Activities of Security Services Center in Banjaluka for Public Security Center in Ključ for February 1992; T-301 – Report of Ključ Public Security Station dated 24 October 1992; 225

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

T-302 – Document of Public Security Station in Ključ sent to the Municipal Secretariat for National Defense No. 11-8/08-83-16/92 dated 19 March 1992; T-303 – List of prisoners in Stara Gradiška Camp; T-304 – List of newly received prisoners in Stara Gradiška Camp, with list per category; T-305 – Overview of the number of prisoners in Stara Gradiška Camp per category of persons; T-306 – List of prisoners of war in the Manjača Camp, dated 15 June 1992; T-307 – List of Prisoner of War from Ključ (for release) and the list of other prisoners of war; T-308 – List of police employees and other official persons who signed an official oath. T-309 – List of employees of reserve police forces engaged in PSS in July 1992; T-310 – List of authorized employees of PSS Ključ who received official badges; T-311 – List of reservists who signed an official oath T-312 – War Recruitment and Systematization Plan of Ključ Public Security Station; T-313 – Photo / 21/ members of Ključ Public Security Station T-314 – Document of Public Security Station in Ključ No. 11-8/08-80-280/92 dated 23 October 1992, list of reserve forces of Traffic Safety Police Station; T-315 – Document of Public Security Station Ključ dated 4 July 1992; T-316 – Document of Public Security Station Ključ No. 11-8/08-80-96/92 dated 4 August 1992; T-317 – List of engaged members of Reserve Police Forces Gornji Ribnik in July 1992; T-318 – List of persons issued with arms, list was made by the Chief of Public security Station in Ključ, Vinko Kondić; T-319 – Dispatch Note of the Security Services Center in Banja Luka No. 11-1/01-180 date 22 October 1992, as well as the list of police – made by the Chief of Public Security Station Ključ, Vinko Kondić; T-320 – List of detained persons from the town of Ključ, not signed; T-321 – Public Security Station Ključ – list of persons detained on 29 May 1992; T-322 – PSS Ključ: List of persons brought in u SRN Sanica for further interrogation 14 June 1992; T-323 – Ključ Public Security Station Stanica – List of soldiers of enemy formations brought from the area of Sanica dated 16 June 1992; T-324 – Document of the Public Security Station in Ključ sent to the Command of Manjača Camp, No. sl/92 dated 24 June 1992; T-325 – Document of Ključ Public Security Station - two lists of persons apprehended during the mopping up of terrain of Ključ Municipality No. S1/92 dated 27 June 1992; T-326 – Request of the Ključ Public Security Station for consent of the SDS Executive Board, No. 11-8/01-01-20/92 dated 30 June 1992; T-327 – Official Note of Ključ Public Security Station dated 10 July 1992; T-328 – Document of Ključ Public Security Station – List of persons sent to the Manjača Camp dated 22 July 1992; T-329 – Activity report of Ključ Public Security Station during combat activities in the 226

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

territory of Ključ municipality No. 9/92 July 1992; T-330 – Document of Ključ Public Security Station sent to the Security Services Centre in Banja Luka, No. 437/92 dated 5 August 1992; T-331 – Document of the Ključ Public Security Station – List of prisoner from the territory of Ključ municipality in Manjača Camp for prisoners of war No. 11-8/01-01-SJ/92 dated 29 August 1992; T-332 – Dispatch of Ključ Public Security Station to Security Services Center in Banja Luka, No. 770/92 dated 25 September 1992; T-333 – Report of crimes committed in the area of municipality since the armed uprising started on 27 May 1992, No. 17/92 dated 28 September 1992; T-334 – Official Note of the sector of national Security of the war department in Ključ dated 29 September 1992; T-335 – Dispatch of the Security Services Center in Banja Luka, No. 11-1/02-1-441 dated 17 November 1992, and the document of Ključ Public Security Station; T-336 – Dispatch of Public Security Station Ključ No. 860/92 dated 24 November 1992; T-337 – Dispatch of Public Security Station Ključ No. 859/92 dated 24 November 1992; T-338 – Ključ Public Security Station - Plan of investigation into Sabotage and Terrorist Group in the area of Galaja, strictly confidential No. 3/93 dated 1 December 1992; T-339 – Dispatch of Public Security Station Ključ No. 3/93 dated 6 February 1993; T-340 – Report of Public Security Station Ključ for the first quarter, April 1993; T-341 – PSS Ključ: Contribution for monograph on participation of the police employees in the war No. 1112/01-80-25/93 dated 1 October 1993; T-342 – Dispatch of Ključ Public Security Station sent to Security Services Center Banja Luka dated 3 May 1993; T-343 – Ključ Public Security Station – List of able-bodied Muslim men dated 25 May 1993, at request of the Ministry of Defense; T-344 – Document of Ključ Public Security Station No. 7/93 dated 4 July 1993; T-345 – Document of Basic Public Prosecutor's Office sent to Ključ PSS dated 1 February 1993; T-346 – Document of Basic Public Prosecutor's Office Ključ sent to PSS Ključ from: 1 February, 24 November, 24 July and 10 August 1992 as well as 18 February, 23 November , 28 July and 1 February 1993; T-347 – Dispatch of Ključ Public Security, with no reference number dated 5 January 1991 sent to SSC Banja Luka; T-348 – Dispatch of Ključ PSS sent to SSC Banja Luka responding to the Dispatch of SSC 4, 8 and 16 February 1994 – three documents; T-349 – List of persons to be transferred from Ključ dated 3 March 1994; T-350 – Dispatch of Ključ PSS dated 11 March 1994 responding to the document of SSC Banja Luka; T-351 – Document of PSS Ključ dated 1 November 1993, that is the Dispatch explaining the employment in the police; T-352 – Dispatch of PSS Ključ dated 26 March 1993 sent to SSC Banja Luka; 227

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

T-353 – Work plan for the seizure of passenger vehicles kept by Serb citizens which they were obliged to hand over to the Municipal Committee since 1994; T-354 – Official Note dated 17 November 1992 by which we wish to prove looting of Muslims; T-355 – Commission for Seized Goods, Approval of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipality; T-356 – Decision of the War Presidency of Serb Municipality of Ključ dated 16 November 1992; T-357 – Activity Report of PSS Ključ on prevention of crime for third quarter; T-358 – Report of Islamic Community Board in Ključ on culturocide from March 1998; T-359 – Statistic Bulletin of the 1991 Census; T-360 – Notebook of five page handwriting of unidentified author as well as eight typed pages Manjača 1992; T-361 – Document of the 30th Partisan Division, strictly confidential dated 9 June 1992; T-362 – Photo-documents of the Specialized Crime Police Department Sanski Most dated 10 January 2008, photo documents of the Ključ municipality building dated 10 January 2008, photo-documents of football stadium dated 10 January 2008, photo- documents of the Municipal Court in Ključ dated 10 January 2008, photo-documents of religious buildings in Ključ dated 10 January 2008, photo-documents of Šipad Komerc in Ključ dated 10 January 2008 and photo-documents of PSS in Ključ with premises dated 10 January 2008; T-363 – Personal file of Boško Lukić; T-364 – Certificate of information registered in the master register of PIO /Pension and Disability Insurance/ in the name of Boško Lukić T-365 – Personal file of Marko Adamović, and Certificate of PIO – MIO from 1991; T-366 – Shorthand notes of the inaugural session of the Assembly of the Serb People in BiH, dated 24 October 1991 T-367 – Proclamation of Town Board of SDA and MBO in Ključ, dated 21 September 1991; T-368 – Document of the District Territorial Defense HQ dated 18 February 1991 on staffing of the TO of Ključ Municipality; T-369 – Document of District TO HQ dated 26 August 1991 on usage of business premises of the TO Municipal HQ; T-370 – Minutes of the first session of the War Presidency of Ključ dated 5 November 1994 signed by Jovo Banjac T-371 – Report of the Army Post Office Ključ on civil affairs dated 19 May 1993 with supporting document sent to the Ključ Municipal Assembly; T-372 – Decision of formation of commission on appointment within Serb Municipality of Ključ related to Boško Lukić and the Certificate approving Boško Lukić the financial support; T-373 – List of citizens from Kopljenica who surrendered their arms dated 22 November 1994;

228

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

T-374 – Decisions of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 6 July 1992; T-375 – Document of the Command the 17th Light Mountain Brigade 30 July 1995; T-376 – Decision on formation of the War Presidency of the Ključ Municipality dated 31 July 1995; T-377 – Document of PSS Ključ on systematization of posts in the police dated 24 September 1991 sent to SSC Banjaluka; T-378 – Support letter of the Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 27 August 1992; T-379 – Request for use of business premises in the Municipality of Ključ; T-380 – Document of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipality, certified by the Hague Tribunal; T-381 – Minutes of the meeting of the headquarters protection company of the Municipal Staff of the Territorial Defense Ključ, dated 25 October 1991; T-382 – Document of the Municipal Board for MBO and SDA dated 24 December 1992 Press Release of MBO Ključ dated 18 September 1991; T-383 – Notice of SDS to the SDS Municipal Board in Ključ T-384 – Document of the Ključ Municipal Assembly and Autonomous Region of Krajina dated 27 March 1992; T-385 – Document of the Executive Board of the Municipal SDS Ključ dated 24 September 1991; T-386 – Nomination of candidates for information, moral and religious affairs of SDS, application of Marko Adamović for membership in SDS RS dated 20 January 1991; T-387 – Record issued by the Ključ Municipal Assembly for Ivan Jakunđić, Record on financial standing of Slavko Blazević, Record on financial standing of Ismet Mešić, Record on financial standing of Kana Mešić, Record on financial standing of Suad Perdić, Record of financial standing of Kadir Brković; T-388 – List of persons to be brought in from Humići; T-389 – Document of the Ključ PSS, list of persons captured on 1 June 1992; T-390 – List of prisoners from enemy formations dated 26 June 1992, the list includes 7 persons; T-391 – Handwritten List of prisoners held in the gym, including 60 persons; T-392 – Order of the Crisis Staff and the Command of Ključ dated 30 May 1992; T-393 – List of PSS Ključ on persons who put up a resistance to the Serb forces dated 11 June 1992; T-394 – Document of PSS Ključ dated 20 July 1992, List of persons committed to the Manjača Prison Camp including 9 persons; T-395 – Document of PSS Ključ dated 30 August 1992, Report of activity of extremists of Green Berets; T-396 – List made by PSS Ključ of unprocessed persons from the settlement of Krasulje, list of members of enemy formations captured on 9 June 1992, list of members of enemy formations captured on 23 June 1992, list of persons from Rejzovići captured on 12 June 1992, list of members of enemy formations captured in Velagići, list of persons from the area of Ramići and Krasulje examined on 31 May 2010, list of persons released from the

PW Camp; 229

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

T-397 – Document of the Command of the 13th Partisan Brigade of Ključ Municipality dated 18 March 1992, the village of Baraci; T-398 – Document of the Ministry of Defense, Department of Ključ, sent to PSS Ključ dated 24 May 1993; T-399 – Document of the Radio Ključ Public Company dated 12 August 1992 Ministry of Information of the Srpska Republika of BiH, Document of Radio Ključ Public Company dated 5 February 1993, Document of the Radio Ključ Public Company dated 19 July 1992; T-400 – Official Announcement of MBO, Ključ Municipal Board dated 1 August 1991, Official Announcement of MBO, Municipal Board of Ključ dated 8 October 1991, Document of SDS of the Municipal Board in Ključ dated 10 August 1991, Document of V Kapetanović on the fifth anniversary of crime against Serb people, official announcement of the Ključ Municipal Assembly, Document of the President of Ključ Municipal Assembly, Radio Ključ. T-401 – Decision on general mobilization of Serb people in the Ključ Municipality T-402 – Decision disapproving the reunion of the Municipality of the Ključ, Autonomous Region of Bosanska Krajina; T-403 – Order of the Crisis Staff of Ključ Municipal Assembly on seizure of property benefit dated 30 May 1992; T-404 – Document of Defense HQ of Ključ, signed by Boško Lukić; T-405 – Certificate of the Command of Army Post Office of Ključ dated 28 September 1992; T-406 – Press release of the Crisis Staff of Ključ Municipal Assembly; T-407 – Document of the Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 8 May 1992 sent to the Prijedor Municipal Assembly; T-408 – Document of the HQ of the Municipal Territorial Defense dated 6 March 1992, Order of the Commander of Territorial Defense of the Ključ Municipality dated 6 March 1992, Ranko Viđinović, Order of the Commander of Territorial Defense of the Ključ Municipality dated 6 March 1992, Drago Ivanović, Order of the Commander of the Territorial Defense of Ključ Municipality dated 6 March 1992, Drago Macanović, Order of the Commander of the Ključ Municipality Territorial Defense dated 6 March 2010 of Zoran Savanović; T-409 – Document of the Nikola Mačkić Primary School and the record of inspection of the Ključ Municipality Building dated 26 June 1992; T-410 – Handwritten List of pieces of automatic weapon, including 101 persons; T-411 – Document sent to the District HQ of Banja Luka sent by the Republic HQ. Document made by the 1st Krajina Corps dated 17 May 1992; T-412 – Document of the Command of the 30th Partisan Brigade dated 28 April 1992; T-413 – Document of Municipal Board of SDS Ključ, appointment of the Commander of the TOHQ dated 6 November 1991; T-414 – Document of the Command of the 17th Mountain Brigade dated 15 June 1995, Report of subordinated units dated 7 July 1995, Report of subordinated units dated 6 230

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

July 1995, Report of subordinated units dated 23 June 1995, Report of subordinated units dated 7 July 1995, order of the 17th Mountain Brigade for carrying out of the combat activities dated 17 June 1995, Order of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps for taking actions in decisive defense; T-415 – Document of the Crisis Staff of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 5 June 1992, Order to star working of the UKUS Public Company Ključ; T-416 – Decision of the Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 29 December 1992, Official Gazette of the Ključ Municipality; T-417 – Decision of the President of the Ključ Municipal Assembly, T-418 – Combat Report of the Command of the 17th Partisan Light Brigade dated 18 June 1992; T-419 – Two handwritten sheets indicating events which took place in the area of the Ključ Municipality; T-420 – Law on All-people's Defense published in the Official Gazette dated 9 February 1984; T-421 – Handwritten List of prisoners in the Biljani School, photocopy of the notebook dated 10 July 1992 in the Primary School of Biljani. T-422 – Order of the Federal Secretariat of National Defense /SSNO/dated 28 November 1991; T-423 – Order of the Technical Administration of SSNO, confidential No. 2268-1 dated 30 December 1991; T-424 – Document of the Command of the 2nd Military District No. 31/103-6-1 dated 9 January 1992 T-425 – Mobilization Plan of Territorial Defense of SR BiH, strictly confidential No. 05/1898-4/87 dated 8 December 1989 with Charts; T-426 – Conclusions and tasks from the session of Army Council of SSNO dated 23 May 1991; T-427 – Request to the Yugoslav National Army No. 02-52/91 dated 11 December 1992; T-428 – Order of the Command of the 2nd Military District, strictly confidential No. 09/63- 56 dated 7 March 1992, Conclusion of the Command of the 2nd Military District dated 20 March 1992, Order of the Command of the 2nd Military District, strictly confidential No. 09/80-23 dated 4 April 199., Order of the Command of the 2nd Military District, DT No. 12/82-16 dated 10 March 1992; T-429 – Decision of the Serb People's Assembly dated 24 October 1991; T-430 – Decision of the Serb People's Assembly on formation of the Army of Serb Republic of BiH No. 03-234/92 dated 12 May 1992; T-431 – Document of the Command of the 30th Partisan Division, strictly confidential No. 865-2 dated 16 May 1992; T-432 – Document with Charts (List of units of the 2nd Military District, SSNO and War Aviation and Anti-Aircraft Defense in the Territory of the 2nd Military District; T-433 – Document of the Command of the 2nd Military District No. 31/104-40-1 dated 24 April 1992; 231

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

T-434 – Chart of the formation structure of the 2nd Military District; T-435 – Document of the Command of the 2nd Military District, strictly confidential No. 31/101-230 dated 7 April 1992; T-436 – Order to expand the structure of the Territorial Defense of the Armed Forces of SFRY from 1990 to 1995. T-437 – Order for collection and surrender of arms, strictly confidential No. 06/1-79-121 dated 23 October 1990; T-438 – Note from the meeting of the representatives of Federal Secretariat for National Defense regarding the Report of the Command of the 2nd Military District; T-439 – Official Note of the Basic Court in Ključ No. Kri 1/93 dated 2 January 1993 (about setting the Catholic Church ablaze); T-440 – List of (Chart) processed and detained persons from Prhovo; T-441 – Decision of the Republic Ministry of NRO No. 1/92 dated 16 April 1992; T-442 – Excerpt from the form Vob-8 for Marko Adamović and Military ID booklet bearing the name of Marko Adamović; T-443 – Personal profile of the Accused Boško Lukić – Excerpt from the Vob-8 form for Boško Lukić, Document of Boško Lukić sent to the Ministry of Defense of the Municipality of Serb Ključ (Ribnik), Permit bearing the name of Boško Lukić No. 01-38-RP/95, Decision on appointment, confidential No. 08/511-1 dated 5 December 1991, Certificate No. 05-023-2039/96 dated 17 September 1996 of the Executive Board Ključ issued under the name of Lukić Boško; T-444 – Order of the Commander of the Main Staff of the Republika Srpska Army strictly confidential No. 30/18-25 dated 3 July 1992; T-445 – Order of the War Presidency of the Ključ Municipality, No. 05-01-104/94 dated 8 November 1994; T-446 – Record of the persons brought in the Sanica-92 Department T-447 – ICTY Judgment in the Krajišnik case: IT-00-39, ICTY Judgment in the Brđanin case No. IT-99-36, ICTY Judgment in Kordić and Čerkez case No. IT 95-14/2 , submitted on CD. T-448 – Bosnian Serbs Crisis Staffs, Investigative report of Dorothea Hanson, dated 30 July 2002 and 26 November 2004; T-449 – Military situation in Bosanska Krajina 1992, situation analysis, military analyst Ewan Brown dated 27 November 2002; T-450 – Management of Bosnian Serbs 1990-1992, supplement to the power structure in the Autonomous Region of Krajina 1991, 1992, investigative report of Patrick J.Treanor. T-451 – List of documents with CD enclosed containing the scanned photo-documents of completed exhumation; T-452 – List of documents with CD enclosed containing the scanned death certificates T-453 – Diary of the witness “D” T-454 /rebuttal/ – Record of the examination of the witness “D” given to the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina No. KT-RZ-50/08 dated 17 October 2008 and No. KT- RZ-50/08 dated 10 October 2008; 232

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

T-455 – Group of 61 exhibits, the physical evidence listed in the documents of Prosecutor’s Office of BiH dated 15 April 2011 as follows: 1. Document of the Command of the TG 2 dated 25 June 1992; 2. Document of the Command of the TG 2 dated 2 October 1992; 3. Document of the Command of the TG 2 dated 21 October 1992; 4. Document of the Command of the TG 2 dated 29 September 1992; 5. Document of the Command of the TG 2 dated 27 September 1992; 6. Document of the Command of the TG 2 dated 24 September 1992; 7. Document of the Command of the TG 2 dated 22 September 1992; 8. Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps Drvar, strictly confidential No. 2-174 dated 1 July 1992; 9. Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps , strictly confidential No. 2-168 dated 29 June 1992; 10. Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, strictly confidential dated 90-5 dated 16 June 1992; 11. Document of the Command of the 1st Drvar Brigade, strictly confidential No. 90-4 dated 15 June 1992; 12. Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, strictly confidential, No. 2-113 dated 17 June 1992; 13. CD – PLIVA 92 14. Document of the Command of the 1st Drvar Brigade, confidential No. 18-13 dated 16 June 1992; 15. Document of the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01-31-8/92 dated 20 June 1992; 16. Document of the Command 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01-31-8/92 dated 23 June 1992; 17. Document of the Command V.P.2207 Ključ strictly confidential No. 01-31-18 dated 11 July 1992; 18. Document of the Command VP 2207 Ključ strictly confidential No. 01-31-23 dated 16 July 1992; 19. Document of the Command V.P. 7327 Ključ strictly confidential No. 01-31-05 dated 5 August 1992; 20. Document of the Command V.P. 2207 Ključ strictly confidential No. 01-31-32 dated 28 July 1992; 21. Document of the Command 7227 Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01-31-17 dated 17 August 1992; 22. Document of the Command 7327 Ključ strictly confidential No. 01-31-15 dated 15 August 1992; 23. Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 303-1 dated 4 August 1992; 24. Excerpt from the war diary of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade; 25. Order of the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade , strictly confidential 233

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

No. 01/257 dated 9 August 1992; 26. Order of the Command of TG 2 s.Magalj Dolj dated 1 September ; 27. Order of the Command of the TG2 of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strictly confidential No. 01/436 dated 12 October 1992; 28. Document of the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade dated 24 October 1992; 29. Document of the Command the 30 Krajina Corps Drvar, strictly confidential No. 174-544 dated 22 September 1992; 30. Document of the Command of TG 2, strictly confidential No. 1/372/92 dated 22 September 1992; 31. Document of the Command the 2nd Krajina Corps Drvar, strictly confidential No. 2/1-122 dated 27 October 1992; 32. Document of the Command the 2nd inzp strictly confidential No. 384-124 dated 9 June 1992; 33. Document of the Command the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01/08/92 dated 9 June 1992; 34. Document of the Command the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential, No. 01-1/92 dated 5 June 1992; 35. Document of the Command the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01/5-92; 36. Document of the Command the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01/5-1-92 dated 7 June 1992; 37. Document of the Command the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01-06-2/92; 38. Document of the Command the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, No. 01- 12/92; 39. Document of the Command the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01-20/92 dated 11 June 1992; 40. Document of the Command the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No 01-25/92 dated 12 June 1992; 41. Document of the Command the 17 Light Infantry Brigade, strictly confidential No 01-20-2/92 dated 12 June 1992; 42. Document of the Command 17 the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No 01-31/92 dated 13 June 1992; 43. Document of the Command 17 the 17 Light Infantry Brigade, strictly confidential No. 01-31-2/92 dated 13 June 1992; 44. Document of the Command 17 the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No 01-31-1/92 dated 15 June 1992; 45. Document of the Command 17 the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01-31-2/92 dated 15 June 1992; 46. Document of the Command 17 the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No 01-39-1/92 dated 15 June 1992; 234

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

47. Document of the Command 17 the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No 01-31-3/92 dated 16 June 1992; 48. Document of the Command 17 the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No 01-31-5/92 dated 17 June 1992; 49. Order, strictly confidential No. 11/28-201 dated 9 June 1992; 50. Order, strictly confidential No. 11/28-197 dated 9 June 1992; 51. Document of the Command VP 7327 Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01-31-20 dated 20 August 1992; 52. Document of the Command the 2nd Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 12/26-5 dated 15 June 1992; 53. Document of the Command the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01-31-6/92 dated 18 June 1992; 54. Document of the Command 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, No. 01-31-7/92 dated 18 June 1992; 55. Document of the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade No. 13 December 1992 at 24:00 hours 56. Order strictly confidential No. 11/27-187 dated 13 September 1992; 57. Law on Amendments to the Law on National Defense; 58. Decision No. 0-5 dated 19 May 1992; 59. Order confidential No. 380-1 dated 17 September 1992; 60. Order, confidential No. 01/365 dated 21 September 1992; 61. Document of the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, confidential No. 174-652.

B. WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE 1. Accused Boško Lukić examined as a 25 October 2010 witness 3 November 2010 2. Slobodan Jurišić * 8 November 2010 7 February 2011 3. Rajko Kalabić* 15 November 2010 4. Stevan Jovičić* 17 November 2010 5. Rade Malešević 17 November 2010 6 Vito Dvizac 22 November 2010 7 Witness D 24 November 2010 8 Accused Marko Adamović examined 29 November 2010 as a witness 1 December 2010 9 Drago Radojčić* 6 December 2010 10. Dušan Dragić * 8 December 2010 11. Dušan Prolić 13 December 2010 12. Mirko Kosić 15 December 2010 13. Dušan Grabež 15 December 2010

235

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

14. Rajko Kalabić* 20 December 2010 15 Milorad Bodiroža 22 December 2010 16 Cvijo Popović * 10 January 2011 17 Cvijo Škavić 12 January 2011 18 Ahmed Ćenanović 24 January 2011 19 Radenko Kuburić * 24 January 2011 20. Boro Kosić 26 January 2011 21 Slobodan Jurišić 7 February 2011 22 Expert witness Radomir Lukić (expert 28 February 2011 witness for the first and second accused) 23 Expert witness Slobodan Kosovac 21 March 2011 (expert witness for the first and second 23 March 2011 accused) 13 April 2011

C. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE FOR THE ACCUSED BOŠKO LUKIĆ 1. Evidence accepted from the first instance proceedings

O1-1 – Expert Opinion of Prof. Dr. Radomir Lukić, February 2011; O1-2 - Expert report “Defense system in RS, Ključ “ Expert Opinion of the military expert Slobodan Kosovac, 27 February 2011;

2. Evidence accepted at the hearing before the Appellate Division Panel

AO-1 Regular Combat Report by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 27 May 1992. AO-2 Regular Combat Report by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 28 May 1992. AO-3 Regular Combat Report by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 29 May 1992. AO-4 Regular Combat Report by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 2 June 1992. AO-5 Regular Combat Report by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 3 June 1992, status at 14:00 hrs. AO-6 Regular Combat Report by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 3 June 1992, status at 18:00 hrs. AO-7 Order issued by the Commander of the 2nd Krajina Corps on 9 June 1992. AO-8 Revoked orders for reserve officers of 6 March 1992. AO-9 Order issued by the Commander of the Ključ Municipality Territorial Defense of 6 March 1992. AO-10 Order issued by the Commander of the Ključ Municipality Territorial Defense of 6 March 1992 AO-11 Order issued by the Commander of the Ključ Municipality Territorial Defense of 6 March 1992 236

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

AO-12 Order issued by the Commander of the Ključ Municipality Territorial Defense of 6 March 1992 AO-13 Chart of registered names Nos. 00528275, 00528276, 00528278, 00528277, 00914549 AO-14 Submission by Attorney Milan D. Trbojević of 28 February 2013. AO-15 (T-226) List of registered names Nos. 00574372, 00574373, 00574375, 00574377 AO-16 (T-264) Order by the 2nd Krajina Corps Command of 5 June 1992.

D. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE FOR THE ACCUSED MARKO ADAMOVIĆ

O2-1 – Certificate of the Military Post Office 7041 Mrkonjić Grad No. 19-505 dated 20 November 1995 on the death of the military conscript Miodrag Marković; O2-2 – Expert opinion of Prof. Dr. Radomir Lukić, February 2011; O2-3 – Expert Report “Defense System in RS, Ključ “Expert Opinion of the military expert Slobodan Kosovac, 27 February 2011.

XV. ANNEX 2

A. ESTABLISHED FACTS

558. Applying Article 4 of the Law on Transfer of Cases, under its Decision of 27 March 2009, the Court ex officio accepted as proved the facts adjudicated in the final Judgment of the ICTY in Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin No. IT-99-36-T of 1 September 2004 to the extent as follows:

I

1. “In November 1990, the first multi-party elections were held in BiH, whereby the people voted for the Assembly of the SRBH, the Presidency of the SRBH and the municipal and local Assemblies in all the municipalities in BiH. The SDA, SDS and HDZ collectively won an overwhelming majority of the votes. The vote accurately portrayed the polarization amongst the ethnic communities taking place in BiH at the time. Pursuant to a power sharing agreement reached prior to the elections, the SDA, having obtained a majority at the republican level, was allowed to designate the President of the seven persons Presidency. Alija Izetbegovic was appointed to this position. The SDS designated the President of the Assembly of the SRBH, Momcilo Krajisnik, and the HDZ designated the President of the Executive Council, i.e., the

237

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

Prime Minister, Jure Pelivan”. (para. 56).

2. “Cooperation among the three nationalist parties was initially good, even enthusiastic, in the euphoria that followed the defeat of the League of Communists. However, the break-up of the SFRY commencing in 1991 resulted in the deterioration of both the situation in BiH in general and the relations between the ethnicities in particular. On 25 June 1991, the Parliaments of Slovenia and Croatia respectively issued declarations of independence, which led to armed conflicts in both these break-away republics. In Slovenia, the JNA withdrew after a 10-day war. In Croatia, the war lasted longer. The Croatian army was opposed by the JNA and by local paramilitary groups organized by Croatian Serbs and Serbs from the Republic of Serbia. On 2 January 1992, the hostilities in Croatia came to a provisional halt with a ceasefire agreement between the JNA and Croatia. UN forces (United Nations Protection Force – “UNPROFOR”) were deployed to maintain peace. On 15 January 1992, the European Community recognized the new states of Slovenia and Croatia.” (para. 57)

3. “The war and the secession of Slovenia and in particular of Croatia had a significant impact on the socio-political situation in BiH. From late summer 1991, many military aged men from BiH were mobilized to join the JNA in order to fight in Croatia. A large number of Bosnian Serbs responded, but Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, supported by their respective leaders, generally did not. This led to increased tension between the ethnicities, especially in the Bosnian Krajina region bordering Croatia”. (para. 58)

4. “As from the autumn of 1991, another source of anxiety and stress for the people in the Bosnian Krajina was the demeanor of the soldiers returning from the battlefields in Croatia. These soldiers often behaved in a threatening manner towards Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats. They would insult people and fire their guns at houses, shops or religious buildings. In some municipalities, shops or private homes belonging to Bosnian Muslims or Bosnian Croats were blown up or set on fire. There were several incidences in which returning Bosnian Serb soldiers killed Bosnian Muslims”. (para. 59)

5. “In this atmosphere of tension the three main nationalist parties, having separate national agendas with conflicting interests, failed to reconcile their

238

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

differences and started moving in opposite directions. Most importantly, they disagreed on the question of the constitutional status of BiH. While the SDA and the HDZ promoted the secession of the SRBH from the SFRY, the SDS strongly advocated the preservation of Yugoslavia as a state, in order to ensure that the Serbs would continue to live together in a single state, and would not become a minority in an independent Bosnian state. On 15 October 1991, SDS President Radovan Karadzic made an impassioned speech before the Assembly of the SRBH in Sarajevo, indicating the possibility that Bosnian Muslims could disappear as a group if they declared the independence of the SRBH from the SFRY. SDA President Alija Izetbegovic responded that Karadzic’s threatening message and its method of presentation illustrated why the SRBH might be forced to separate from the SFRY. After the Republican Assembly of the SRBH had adjourned for the day and the SDS delegation had departed, HDZ and SDA delegates reconvened without them and passed a “Declaration of Sovereignty”, a measure that moved the SRBH a step closer to independence.” (para. 61)

6. “On 24 October 1991, the SDS Deputies in the Assembly of the SRBH, in a meeting of their club, established a separate Assembly of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina (“SerBiH Assembly”) and elected Momcilo Krajisnik as its President. The SerBiH Assembly authorized a plebiscite of the Serbian people of BiH on the question of whether or not they wanted BiH to remain within Yugoslavia. On 9 and 10 December 1991, the Bosnian Serbs voted overwhelmingly to remain a part of the SFRY.”(para. 62)

7. “In early 1992, the SDA increased the pressure to secure independence of the SRBH from the SFRY. A referendum on the question of independence was held on 29 February and 1 March 1992. It was largely boycotted by the Bosnian Serbs and yielded an overwhelming majority of votes in favor of the independence of BiH. In view of the result of the referendum, on 6 April 1992, the European Community recognized BiH as an independent state. Recognition by the US followed on 7 April 1992.” (para. 63)

The same Decision accepted as proved the facts established in the final Trial Judgment of the ICTY in the Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin case number IT-99-36-T dated 1 September 2004 as follows:

239

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

II

1. “In September 1990, the JNA had ordered that weapons be removed from the depots under control of local TO units and moved to its own armories. {...} However, in late 1991 and early 1992, all three national parties began arming themselves. “(para. 87)

2. “At its 7th session, held on 16 September 1991, the ZOBK Assembly transformed itself into the Autonomous Region of Krajina (“ARK”). The decision in question states that the ARK was being established “as an inseparable part of the Federal State of Federative Yugoslavia and an integral part of the Federal Unit of BiH”. On the same date, the Statute of the ARK, which was almost identical to the ZOBK Statute, was adopted. Like the ZOBK, the ARK had its seat in Banja Luka.” (para. 166.)

3. “In the autumn of 1991, four other Serbian Autonomous Districts were created in SRBH. These were the Serbian Autonomous District of Herzegovina, the Serbian Autonomous District of Romanija-Birac, the Serbian Autonomous District of Semberija and the Serbian Autonomous District of Northern Bosnia. On 21 November 1991, the creation of the ARK and the other four Serbian Autonomous Districts was ratified by the SerBiH Assembly during its 2nd session. By virtue of this ratification, the ARK and the other four Serbian Autonomous Districts became constituent parts of the SerBiH. The SerBiH Assembly appointed Jovan Cizmovic, a member of the Ministerial Council of the SerBiH Assembly, as the coordinator of the governments of the ARK and the other Serbian Autonomous Districts. {...}” (para. 167.)

4. “The ARK possessed authority over a wide range of issues. It was a political body vested with powers that belonged to the municipalities, including powers in the area of defense. Pursuant to its Statute, the ARK was in charge, inter alia, of the realization of socio-political objectives. In the legal parlance of the former Yugoslavia, socio-political communities were meant to denote governmental units. A regional association of municipalities, as provided for by the law, was not a governmental unit, and could therefore not have jurisdiction over defense matters, which were reserved to socio-political communities, including the republican and the municipal authorities.” (para. 173)

240

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

5. “The ARK did have jurisdiction in the area of defense. Its Statute provided that the ARK “shall monitor the situation and co-ordinate activities for the organization and implementation of preparations for All Peoples’ Defense in accordance with the Law, municipal defense plans and the republican defense plan”. The ARK Statute also included a provision to the effect that the ARK Assembly shall have a permanent “Political Council” dealing with “issues of development of the political system” and a permanent “Peoples’ Defense Council” dealing with “issues from the area of peoples’ defense which are relevant to the Autonomous Region of Krajina.” {...}(para. 174)

6. “On 15 October 1991, the SDS Party Council discussed strategies on how to set up a Serbian government, which included establishing parallel government bodies, the regionalization of BiH and organizing militarily.” (para. 66)

7. “In a speech given on the occasion of the “Plebiscite of the Serb People” in Sarajevo in November 1991, Radovan Karadzic instructed SDS members representing the municipalities to impose complete Bosnian Serb authority in their respective municipalities, regions and local communities. On 11 December 1991, the SerBiH Assembly voted to recommend the establishment of separate Serbian municipalities. The declared aim of this decision was “to break up the existing municipalities where Serbs are not in a majority. “ (para. 68.)

8. “On 19 December 1991, the Main Board of the SDS issued a document entitled “Instructions for the Organization and Activity of Organs of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary Circumstances” (“Variant A and B Instructions”). These instructions provided for the conduct of specified activities in all municipalities in which Serbs lived, and essentially mapped out the take-over of power by Bosnian Serbs in municipalities where they constituted a majority of the population (“Variant A”) and where they were in a minority (“Variant B”). The stated purpose of the Variant A and B Instructions was “to carry out the results of the plebiscite at which the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina decided to live in a single state” and to “increase mobility and readiness for the defense of the interests of the Serbian people “. (para. 69)

9. “The Variant A and B Instructions included, amongst others, the directive that the SDS Municipal Boards should form Crisis Staffs of the Serbian people in their

241

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

respective municipalities. The “tasks, measures and other activities” referred to in the Variant A and B Instructions were to be carried out exclusively at the order of the President of the SDS.” (para. 70)

10. “In early 1992, while international negotiations to resolve the question of the status of BiH were ongoing, the Bosnian Serb leadership enforced its plan to separate the territories claimed by them from the existing structures of the SRBH and to create a separate Bosnian Serb State. On 9 January 1992, the SerBiH Assembly proclaimed the SerBiH, which on 12 August 1992 was renamed Republika Srpska (“RS”). It was composed of so-called Serbian autonomous regions and districts, which included the ARK.” (para. 71)

11. “{...} On 4 March 1992, the ARK Assembly during its 15th session adopted a decision to form the Security Services Centre of the ARK (“CSB”) with its seat in Banja Luka. Stojan Zupljanin was appointed Chief of the CSB. On 27 April 1992, the ARK Assembly issued a decision to establish a “Special Purpose Police Detachment” within the CSB. “ (para. 175)

12. “{...} On 27 March 1992, the SerBiH Assembly established the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs (“MUP”). The legislation on the MUP came into effect on 31 March 1992, when a Minister was appointed who answered to the SerBiH Assembly. During the spring and summer of 1992, most non-Serbs were dismissed from the police force. In doing so, the police was transformed into a Bosnian Serb force.” (para. 211)

13. “On 7 April 1991, the SDS Regional Board decided to create the Community of Municipalities of Bosnian Krajina (“ZOBK”). Vojo Kupresanin was elected President of the ZOBK Assembly, while the Accused was elected First Vice- President and Dragan Knezevic was elected Second Vice-President. The ZOBK was composed of sixteen municipalities from the Bosnian Krajina, all of which, except Kljuc, had substantial Bosnian Serb majorities. {...} Unlike the Banja Luka Community of Municipalities (“ZOBL”) which had existed previously, the ZOBK’s mandate included a strong defense component. Decisions of the ZOBK Assembly and minutes from its meetings show that this was an association intended to co-ordinate all major areas of administrative government in the municipalities that joined the ZOBK, and that its agenda was a political one.” (para. 165)

242

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

14. “At the municipal level, commanders of TO units, which later became Light Infantry Brigades either were permanent members of municipal Crisis Staffs, or ex officio members who attended meetings in order to brief Crisis Staffs or other governmental bodies on the current military situation and the development of combat operations. Decisions taken by the crisis staffs were communicated to the military.” (para. 218)

15. “{...} On 16 April 1992, the Ministry of National Defense of the SerBiH issued a decision on the establishment of the Territorial Defense (“TO”) as an army of the SerBiH, putting the command and control of the TO with municipal, district and regional staffs, as well as the staff of the SerBiH TO. In the same decision the Ministry of National Defense of the SerBiH declared an imminent threat of war and ordered public mobilization of the TO in the entire territory of the SerBiH. Moreover, the formation of TO staffs in the newly established Bosnian Serb municipalities was ordered.” (para. 73)

16. “{...} the 4 and 9 May 1992 decisions on disarmament were expressly directed at “paramilitary formations” and “individuals who illegally possess weapons”. On 18 May 1992, the ARK Crisis Staff further clarified which individuals had to be disarmed:

All formations that are not in the Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina or the Banja Luka Security Services Centre and are in the Autonomous Region of Krajina, are considered paramilitary formations and must be disarmed.

All those who are not part of the armed forces of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina or its police must return their weapons.

This decision also instructed the CSB to write instructions for the disarming of paramilitary formations. The military and civilian police were responsible for the implementation. In accordance with this decision, the chief of the CSB, Stojan Zupljanin, ordered all SJBs to report back to the CSB on the disarmament operations. The order contained detailed instructions on the expected contents of the report. The municipal SJBs, as ordered, reported back to the CSB on the operations implemented in their respective areas of control.” (para. 246)

17. “During the 16th session of the SerBiH Assembly that took place on 12 243

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013

May 1992, at a time when the armed conflict had already begun, Radovan Karadzic articulated the six strategic goals of the Serbian People of Bosnia and Herzegovina.140 The first and most fateful goal was the “separation from the other two national communities – separation of states”. The other goals concerned the establishment of a corridor between Semberija and Krajina; the establishment of a corridor in the Drina Valley; the establishment of a border on the Una and Neretva rivers; the division of the city of Sarajevo into Serb and Muslim sectors; and, finally, securing access to the sea for the SerBiH.” (para. 75)

18. “In the spring of 1992, all employees in local Public Security Services (“SJBs”) and other public services were required to sign an oath of loyalty to the Bosnian Serbian authorities. Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats who refused to sign the declaration of loyalty were dismissed. Those who accepted to sign could remain within the service. However, by June 1992, the policy changed. To start, all non-Serbs holding managerial positions were fired and replaced by Bosnian Serbs. Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats were dismissed from the judiciary, local enterprises, the media, hospitals, the police forces and the army. By the end of 1992, almost the entire Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat community had been dismissed from their jobs. Many people who showed up for work during this period were turned back and denied access to their workplace. Generally speaking, people were sent home, told not to come back, and then fired soon thereafter.” (para. 85)

20. “{...} in the Bosnian Krajina {...} by the end of 1992, nearly all Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats had been dismissed from their jobs in, amongst others, the media, the army, the police, the judiciary and public companies. Numerous crimes were committed against Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, including murder, torture, beatings, rape, plunder and the destruction of property. Villages were shelled, houses were torched and looted. In the spring of 1992, a number of detention camps where Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilians were arrested and detained en masse were established throughout the ARK. In several instances, mass killings of civilians took place. {...} Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats were forcibly expelled from the ARK by the Bosnian Serbs and taken in convoys of buses and trains to Bosnian Muslim held territory in BiH or to Croatia {...}” (para. 159)

244

S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk 8 November 2013