Bosna i Hercegovina Босна и Херцеговина
Sud Bosne i Hercegovine Суд Босне и Херцеговине
Case Number: S1 1 K 003420 10 Kri (X-KR-09/684)
Date: Delivered on: 1 June 2012 Written copy issued on: 12 October 2012
Before the Panel composed of: Judge Minka Kreho, President Judge Željka Marenić Judge Ljubomir Kitić
CASE OF PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA v. Ratko Dronjak
VERDICT
Prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina: Džemila Begović
Defense Counsel for the Accused: Slobodan Perić, Attorney from Banja Luka
Marinko Brkić, Attorney from Banja Luka
Record-taker Emil Pinkas, Legal Advisor-Assistant
Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Number: S1 1 K 003420 10 KrI (Ref. No. X-KR-09/684) Sarajevo, 1 June 2012
IN THE NAME OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA!
The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, sitting on the Panel composed of Judge Minka Kreho, as the President, and Judge Željka Marenić and Judge Ljubomir Kitić, as members, with the participation of Legal Advisor-Assistant Emil Pinkas, as the record- taker, in the criminal case conducted against the Accused Ratko Dronjak, for the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity, in violation of Article 172(1)(h), as read with Sub-Paragraphs (a), (f), (i) and (k), and the criminal offense of War Crimes against Civilians, in violation of Article 173(1)(c) of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CC of B-H), as read with Article 180(1) and Article 29 of the CC of B-H, based on the Amended Indictment issued by the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina No. T 20 0 KT RZ 0000150 05 of 22 March 2012, following a public main trial from which the public was partially excluded, in the presence of the Accused Ratko Dronjak and his Defense Counsel, Attorney Slobodan Perić, and Džemila Begović, Prosecutor for the Prosecutor's Office of B-H, on 1 June 2012 rendered and publicly announced the following:
V E R D I C T
The Accused RATKO DRONJAK, son of Vojislav, born on 6 April 1962 in Drvar, ethnic …, citizen of …, Personal Identification Number …, secondary school qualifications, mechanical technician, with permanent residence at …, residence registered in CIPS is …, married, with two children, completed military service in Ohrid in 1983/1984, holds a rank of Sergeant 1st Class, in custody pursuant to the Decision of the Court of B-H No. X-KRN-09/684 since 22 January 2010;
HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY
Of the following:
2 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
In the period from May 1992 until the end of 1995, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, during the war and within a widespread and systematic attack carried out by the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS), police and paramilitary formations against the civilians in the territory of the Autonomous Region of Krajina (ARK), established by the Decision of the Assembly of the Serb People in 1991, which was to be comprised of 19 municipalities, including Drvar, Kulen Vakuf, Bosanski Petrovac, Ključ, Sanski Most, Kupres, and Bosanska Krupa, with a view to persecute Muslims, Croats and other non-Serb population in the territory of the ARK, which attack lasted from May 1992 to May 1993, and being aware of the attack, Ratko Dronjak, in the period from May 1992 at least until mid-1995, as a de iure and a de facto commander of the prison in the Slavko Rodić Elementary School in Drvar and the detention camp in the old Elementary School in the village of Kamenica (the Kamenica camp) in Drvar, together with other guards, including Dragan Rodić a.k.a. Šaula, and under the control of the military security members led by the chief who was a security officer, and the Military Police of the 2nd Krajina Corps and their commanders, participating in a Joint Criminal Enterprise, being fully aware of the common purpose – the widespread and systematic attack against the civilians, knowingly sharing the agreed criminal intent, he aided and abetted the implementation of the persecution plan, given that, as a superior to and a person responsible for the work of guards, he had effective control over the work and conduct of all guards and other persons who were engaged in the camp and all outsiders who would come to the camp, and supervised and had complete control of the living conditions, the lives and limbs of the detained civilians and prisoners of war, in as much as he participated in receiving the unlawfully arrested civilians at the Slavko Rodić Elementary School and the Kamenica camp, and personally participated in various forms of physical and mental violence against the detained Bosnian Muslims and Croats, in the conditions that were cruel and degrading, keeping the detainees without basic necessities such as food, potable water, medicines, and health care, in inadequate hygienic conditions and overcrowded rooms, subjecting them to frequent beatings, torture, humiliation and mental abuse, keeping them in constant fear for their
3 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
lives, whereby he instigated and aided in the persecution of the non-Serb civilian population on political, national, ethnic and religious grounds, by torture, beating, killing, inhuman treatment, inflicting injuries to body and physical health, subjecting them to forced labor and enforced disappearance, and, in violation of Articles 68, 69, 72 and 75 of the Additional Protocol I and Articles 4 and 5 of the Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions dated 12 August 1949, he participated in and supported various forms of physical and mental violence against members of the Army of BiH and the HVO [Croat Defense Council], aided, abetted, and incited the cruel and degrading detention conditions, by creating the atmosphere of terror and keeping the prisoners without basic necessities such as food, potable water, medicines, health care, in inadequate hygienic conditions and overcrowded rooms, subjecting them to frequent interrogations, beatings, torture, humiliation and mental abuse, keeping them in constant fear for their lives, whereby he instigated and aided in the persecution by torture, beating, killing, inhuman treatment, inflicting injuries on the body and physical health, whereby he contributed to and furthered the functioning of the camp system of abuse of prisoners of war;
therefore, with the intent of achieving the common purpose, he contributed to the functioning of the system of abuse by participating in the establishment of the system of abuse, with the common purpose to commit crimes against the detained civilians and soldiers, which also included maintaining the system of abuse of detainees, committed by him as well as the subordinated guards, the other camp staff, and those who came to the camp together with him or with his approval, in the manner as follows:
I. In the period from May 1992 until at least August 1992, he participated in establishing and maintaining the system of abuse in the Slavko Rodić Elementary School in Drvar, where he received the unlawfully arrested Bosnian Muslim and Croat civilians from the areas of Kulen Vakuf, Ključ, Sanski Most, Kupres and other ARK areas, and detained them on inadequate school premises where:
4 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
1. guards, military police officers and other soldiers who had access there with the camp commander’s approval, entered the premises where the civilians were detained, beat them up by jointly kicking and beating them with hands and various instruments, took them out for interrogations where they would continue with the beating, with Drago Žulj, professor Rasim Zulić and at least four other unidentified civilians having died as a result of that physical abuse, whereupon Ratko Dronjak, together with the guards, loaded their dead bodies onto a van and transported them to an unidentified location;
II. In the period from August 1992 until at least mid-1995, he participated in establishing and maintaining the system of abuse in the Kamenica camp, where he received and detained the civilians who had been unlawfully deprived of liberty in an organized way from the areas of Kulen Vakuf, Ključ, Sanski Most, Kupres, Bosanski Petrovac, Bosanska Krupa and other ARK areas, organized their detention on inadequate premises of the old school building, where they were starved, exposed to frequent beating and physical abuse, which left lasting consequences on the majority of the prisoners, including the following:
1. From mid-August until October 1992 at least, following days-long beating conducted in different periods of time, the guards took out civilians Jasmin Subašić and Fuad Subašić, who were brothers, Rufad Crnolić, Kalmin Kalić, Šaćir Omanović, and Enver Ćehić, under the pretext that they were taking them to a hospital or for an exchange, took them to an unknown direction, killed them and threw their bodies into the so-called Gigića Jama [Gigić’s pit; translator's note], also known as Golubnjača, in the area of Drvar, in which their bodies were later discovered and identified;
2. In the second half of 1992, immediately upon arriving in the Kamenica camp, in front of the camp entrance, the guards instantly separated civilians Fehim Kadić, Kemal Šepić, Ferid Velagić and Nusret Malkoč from the other camp inmates and detained them in an inadequate basement room within the camp, known as “the solitary,” where they were beaten up, constantly abused both
5 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
physically and mentally, with some of them being occasionally transferred among the other prisoners, and on an unidentified date they succumbed to the beatings in the Kamenica camp, whereupon they were thrown into the so- called Gigića Jama, also known as Golubnjača, in the Drvar area, in which their bodies have been discovered and identified;
3. In February 1993, after a group of Muslim civilians surrendered, having been persecuted and in hiding in the area of the Golaja woods, Sanski Most Municipality, among whom were Omer Huskić, his wife Duda Huskić, son Hasan Huskić, daughter-in-law Azra Fazlić-Huskić, who was heavily pregnant, Mumin Egrlić, Ferid Hukanović, Ćerim Jusić, Tehvid Baltić, Safet Hukanović, Ibrahim Keranović, Sakib Keranović, Rasim Jelečević, Hajrudin Jelečević, Derviš Dubica, they were referred and handed over to the Kamenica camp, upon the order by Vinko Kondić, the Ključ Public Security Station Chief, and have not been seen or heard of ever since;
4. The guards and others who came to the camp together with Ratko Dronjak or with his approval, frequently took out and beat up the detained civilians, among whom were Pavo Žulj, Redžep Međedović, Kasim Kulauzović, Hilmo Kozlica, and minor Sanel Dervišević, and inflicted on them severe mental and physical injuries by kicking and hitting them with fists, rubber police batons, wooden batons, shovels, most often knocking them down on the ground, as a result of which the prisoners sustained strong physical and mental pain, which left lasting consequences.
III. In the Kamenica camp, from mid-1994 until at least mid-1995, he supported and participated in establishing and maintaining the system of abuse of civilians and soldiers of the Army of the Republic of B-H and the HVO, by starving the civilians and soldiers, killing them, frequently beating them up, and mentally abusing them, in violation of Articles 68, 69, 72 and 75 of the Additional Protocol I and Articles 4 and 5 of the Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions dated 12 August 1949, including the following:
6 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
1. On 11 November 1994, following days-long beating due to which they were disfigured, the detained civilians Asim Elkasović and Adem Šepić asked the guards to escort them to the toilet from the room they shared with the other prisoners, whereupon the guards took Asim Elkasović out and held him for an hour or two, after which he was brought back to the room unconscious and died in the early morning, while Adem Šepić was taken out of the room and thrown back into the room dead after an hour, and the two dead men were thus left for two days in the same room with the other prisoners; their dead bodies were subsequently exchanged;
2. In November 1994, immediately upon being brought to the camp, civilians Hasan Hirkić and Sulejman Porčić, having been forced out of the truck along with the other civilians, were brutally beaten up by the guards and thrown into a room with the other prisoners, where they were exposed to beating for days, to which they eventually succumbed; their dead bodies were subsequently exchanged;
3. In November 1994, a civilian, an elderly man named Josip-Joso Majstorović, was taken by VRS members out of his house, although he suffered from a serious illness bearing visible traces of a recent surgery, and brought to the camp where the camp staff admitted him and where no medical treatment was provided to him, so that due to the illness and poor living conditions he died soon afterward; his dead body was subsequently exchanged;
4. In November 1994, having been taken out of his house in Vedro Polje by VRS members, a civilian, an elderly man named Drago Dujmović, was brought to and admitted in the camp by the camp staff, where he died as a result of the poor living conditions and lack of medical care; his dead body was subsequently exchanged;
7 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
5. In November 1994, having been brought to the camp, Captain Hazim Toromanović of the Army of B-H, although wounded, was repeatedly called out by the guards and taken out of the room he was detained in and then beaten up and brought back to the room with the other prisoners, and soon afterward died as a result of the beating; his dead body was subsequently exchanged;
6. In November 1994, Fikret Begić, a captured member of the Army of RB-H, was brought to the camp and, although seriously wounded, repeatedly called out by the guards and taken out for beating; his cries were heard by the other prisoners, and on an unidentified date, following an order, he was taken out by two prisoners and brought to the “reception room” where camp commander Ratko Dronjak was, who, having finished the interrogation, killed the prisoner by shooting him in the head; the prisoner’s dead body was subsequently exchanged;
7. In November 1994, having been brought to the camp, HVO member Marko Čavar was taken by the guards to forced labor, due to which he fell ill and, as a result of the lack of medical care, he died on an unidentified day in the room he shared with the other prisoners; his dead body was subsequently exchanged;
8. In November 1994, having been brought to the camp, HVO member Marijan Nikšić was exposed to continual beating by the guards, whereupon in January 1995 he was taken out, beaten up brutally and brought back to the room where he died soon afterward; his dead body was subsequently exchanged;
9. In November 1994, having been brought to the camp, Army of RB-H member Mirsad Hadžić was exposed to continual beating by the guards, due to which he died on an unidentified date in the room he shared with the other prisoners; his dead body was subsequently exchanged;
8 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
10. In December 1994, having been brought to the camp, Army of RB-H member Remzo Muminović was exposed to daily beatings by the guards, and frequently exposed to various forms of beating, including even throwing of his body, in front of the other prisoners with whom he shared the room, until he succumbed to the beating; his dead body was subsequently exchanged;
11. In December 1994, having been brought to the camp, Hase Ružnić, a captured member of the Army of RB-H, was beaten up by the guards, as a result of which he died on the same night in the room he was detained in; his dead body was subsequently exchanged;
12. In November 1992, having been brought to the camp, Rifet Kendić, a captured member of the Army of RB-H, was frequently taken out by the guards and beaten up, until he succumbed to the physical torture; his dead body was subsequently exchanged;
13. In late 1994, having been brought to the camp, Miroslav Fabulić, a captured HVO member, was frequently taken out by the guards and beaten in various manners, as a result of which he had open wounds on his body, and instead of being provided with medical care he was continually beaten up until he died; his dead body was subsequently exchanged;
14. Contrary to Articles 68, 69, 72 and 75 of the Additional Protocol I and Articles 4 and 5 of the Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, the camp commander, guards, as well as the persons from the outside allowed by commander Ratko Dronjak to do so, frequently took out and beat the civilians and the HVO and B-H Army members, severely abused them physically and mentally by punching them, kicking them, hitting them with rubber batons, wooden batons, shovels, most often knocking them down on the ground, due to which the prisoners sustained strong physical and mental pain, which left lasting consequences, the following prisoners having undergone the torture:
9 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Sabahudin Nadarević, Rusmir Pajić, Izet Kaljiković, Davor Marinčić, Enes Begić, Dževad Dupanović, Bajro Ljubijankić, Meho Mehić, Mirsad (father’s name Husnija) Hadžić, Mumin Grahović, Nermin Pečenković, Rifet Tahrić, Velaga Begić, Marko Ivušić, Stipo Petrović, Mile Mijuković, Kasim Duraković, Sulejman Kapić, Ibrahim Halkić, Mirhad Jusić, Armin Mulić, Mile Dujmović, Goran Dizdarević, Fikret Dolić, Zoran Franjić, and Sevad Veladžić a.k.a. Tašo;
thereby:
Under Counts I-1, II-1 and II-2: torture and depriving another person of his life, in violation of Sub-Paragraphs (f) and (a) respectively of Article 172(1) of the CC of B-H, Under Count II-3: enforced disappearance, in violation of Sub-Paragraph (i) of Article 172(1) of the CC of B-H, Under Count II-4: torture, in violation of Sub-Paragraph (f) of Article 172(1) of the CC of B-H, Under Counts III-1, III-2, III-5, III-6, III-8, III-9, III-10, III-11, III-12 and III-13: killings and intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon a person (torture), in violation of Sub-Paragraph (c) of Article 173(1) of the CC of B-H, Under Counts III-3, III-4 and III-14: inhuman treatment, in violation of Sub-Paragraph (c) of Article 173(1) of the CC of B-H,
Whereby, under Counts I-1, II-1, II-2, II-3, and II-4, he committed the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172(1)(h), and under Counts III-1, III-2, III-3, III-4, III-5, III-6, III-7, III-8, III-9, III-10, III-11, III- 12, III-13, and III-14, he committed the criminal offense of War Crimes against Civilians in violation of Article 173(1)(c) of the CC of B-H, as read with Articles 29 and 180(1) of the CC of B-H, all as read with Article 53 of the CC of B-H.
Therefore, the Court, in application of Articles 39, 42, 48, 49, and 50,
- for the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172(1)(h), as read with Sub-Paragraphs (a), (f), and (i), all as read with Articles 29 and 180(1) of the CC of B-H, sentences him to 10 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF 7 (SEVEN) YEARS;
- for the criminal offense of War Crimes against Civilians in violation of Article 173(1)(c), as read with Articles 29 and 180(1) of the CC of B-H, sentences him to
IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF 9 (NINE) YEARS, therefore, in application of Article 53(2)(b) of the CC of B-H, the Court,
SENTENCES HIM TO THE COMPOUND SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR A TERM OF 15 (FIFTEEN) YEARS
Pursuant to Article 284(c) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CPC of B-H), the Accused is hereby
ACQUITTED OF THE CHARGES
That:
1. On an unidentified date, he took at least five civilian prisoners and, together with a military police officer, bundled them into a van and drove them to a bridge over the Unac River, in the village of Bastasi, whereupon they took them to the river bank where Ratko Dronjak killed one unidentified person, about 45 years of age, whom the prisoners took inside the van and whom he left at the infirmary in Drvar when they returned, while he brought the other prisoners wet back to the prison;
2. On an unidentified date, after days-long beating, physical and mental abuse, Ratko Dronjak, together with his subordinate guard Dragan Rodić a.k.a. Šaula, bundled into a van the beaten civilian prisoners Fadil Halilović, Rezak Halilović, Said Halilović, Ifet Bukvić, and Suad Delić, and transported them in the direction of Pasjak, where Ratko Dronjak killed them with a pistol,
11 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
whereupon they threw them into the so-called Gigića Jama, also known as Golubnjača, in which their bodies were later discovered and identified,
Whereby he would have committed the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172(1)(h), as read with Sub-Paragraphs (a), (f), and (k) of the CC of B-H.
Pursuant to Article 56 of the CC of B-H, the time the Accused Ratko Dronjak spent in custody since 21 January 2010 shall be credited towards the imposed sentence of imprisonment.
Pursuant to Article 186(1) and (2), the Accused Ratko Dronjak is hereby relieved of the obligation to reimburse the costs of the criminal proceedings, which shall be paid from within the budget appropriations.
R E A S O N I N G
I. INTRODUCTION
A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1. The Indictment issued by the Prosecutor's Office of B-H No. T20 0 KTRZ 0000150 05 dated 10 June 2010 charged the Accused Ratko Dronjak and the Accused Dragan Rodić a.k.a. Šaula with the commission of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity, in violation of Article 172(1)(h), as read with Sub-Paragraphs (a), (e), (f), (i), and (k), and the criminal offense of War Crimes against Prisoners of War, in violation of Article 175(1)(a) and (b), all as read with Article 180(1) and (2) of the CC of B-H.
2. Having examined the evidence submitted with the Indictment, from which he concluded that there existed grounded suspicion that the Accused Ratko Dronjak and Dragan Rodić a.k.a. Šaula committed the acts as charged, the Preliminary Hearing Judge confirmed the Indictment on 15 June 2010. 12 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
3. After the file was submitted to the Trial Panel, the status conference was held on 19 August 2010 and the main trial commenced with the reading of the Indictment on 2 September 2010.
4. Given that the Accused Dragan Rodić a.k.a. Šaula had concluded a plea agreement with the Prosecutor's Office of B-H, on 14 October 2010 the Court rendered a decision to separate the proceedings related to the Accused Dragan Rodić. Having accepted the agreement, on 26 October 2010 the Court rendered a verdict No. X-KR- 09/684-1, finding the Accused Dragan Rodić guilty of the commission of the criminal offenses of Crimes against Humanity, in violation of Article 172(1)(h), as read with Sub– Paragraphs (a), (e), (f), (i), and (k), and the War Crimes against Prisoners of War, in violation of Article 175(1)(a) and (b), all as read with Article 180(1) and (2) of the CC of B-H, and sentencing him to a compound sentence of imprisonment for a term of eight years.
5. The referenced Verdict has become final and binding.
6. At the hearing held on 23 December 2010, the parties and Defense Counsel were informed that Judge Marjan Pogačnik, a Panel member, could no longer act as a judge in this case and that he would be replaced by Judge Ljubomir Kitić, who was present from the beginning of the main trial in this case, pursuant to Article 238(2) of the CPC of B-H.
7. On 23 March 2012, the Prosecution amended the Indictment, pursuant to Article 275 of the CPC of B-H, that is, filed the Indictment specified with respect to the Accused Ratko Dronjak.
8. The amended Indictment differs from the original one as it pertains solely to the Accused Ratko Dronjak, omits the charges related to command responsibility, and contains a more specific general part concerning the existence of a Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE).
9. In his motion commenting on the submitted Indictment, Defense Counsel for the Accused Ratko Dronjak stressed that he deemed that it aggravated the position of the
13 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Accused and that it was not founded on the adduced evidence, due to which he requested that it be filed with a Preliminary Proceedings Judge for confirmation.
10. However, Defense Counsel did not elaborate more specifically on the grounds for his argument concerning the aggravation of his client’s position.
11. Starting from the foregoing and with a view to preparing a defense, that is, presenting the Defense evidence, Attorney Slobodan Perić proposed in his Motion to the Court of 2 April 2012 the examination of witnesses Želimir Knežević and Slavko Lisica and expert evaluation by Slobodan Kosovac, as supplementary evidence.
12. However, given the fact that Slobodan Kosovac died on 23 March 2012 and that the Defense did not submit a proposal of a substitute expert witness, its only remaining supplementary evidence was the examination of witnesses Želimir Knežević and Slavko Lisica.
13. Finally, on 12 April 2012, the evidentiary proceedings were completed with the examination of witnesses Želimir Knežević and Slavko Lisica and the tendering of documentary evidence.
B. CLOSING ARGUMENTS
1. Prosecutor's Office of B-H
14. Following the presentation of evidence and the completion of the evidentiary proceedings, on 10 May 2012, the Prosecution gave its closing argument, which was also tendered into the case file in the written form.
15. In the closing argument the Prosecutor commented on the charges against the Accused Ratko Dronjak, that is, the Prosecutor particularly addressed the charges that the Accused was the commander of all camps in the 2nd Krajina Corps’ zone of responsibility, that is, the commander of prison facilities in the Slavko Rodić Elementary School in Drvar and the Kamenica Elementary School.
14 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
16. In line with such a description of facts, the Prosecutor stressed that the Indictment was divided into three Counts, the first one related to the Slavko Rodić Elementary School in Drvar, and the second and the third ones related to the Kamenica Elementary School.
17. Given that for the acts described in Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment the Accused Ratko Dronjak is charged with the commission of the offense of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172 of the CC of B-H, the Prosecutor set out to prove the existence of chapeau elements of this criminal offense, that is, the existence of a widespread and systematic attack against any civilian population. In this context the Prosecutor recalled the facts established by the ICTY Trial Chamber in Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin (case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgment of 1 September 2001), which this Court accepted pursuant to the Decision No. X-KR-09/684 of 13 October 2010.
18. With a view to proving the argument that these were coordinated activities in the ARK territory whose target was the civilian population, the Prosecutor pointed at the exhibits tendered under Nos. T-28, T-27, T-30, T-53, T-52, and T-56.
19. The Prosecutor deems that the referenced exhibits confirm that it was a pre- planned attack against the non-Serb civilian population, carried out under the pretext of disarmament.
20. In the closing argument, the Prosecutor also analyzed certain allegations against the Accused Ratko Dronjak and emphasized the fact that the events in the Slavko Rodić Elementary School and the Kamenica Elementary School were closely related to the events in the ARK territory.
21. Therefore, the Prosecutor deems that the link between the widespread and systematic attack against the non-Serb civilians in the ARK territory and the events in the detention facilities in the Slavko Rodić Elementary School in Drvar and the Kamenica Elementary School is incontestable.
22. In this respect, the Prosecutor drew particular attention to the long duration of the acts the Accused is charged with, that is, the fact that the 2nd Krajina Corps was headquartered in the Drvar Municipality. 15 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
23. The Prosecutor also commented on certain statements by the witnesses examined at the main trial who testified about the events in the Slavko Rodić Elementary School.
24. It was also stressed that it was not necessary to prove the identity of the killed persons (in terms of the first and the last name) for an accused to be found guilty of murder, that is, that it sufficed to prove that a victim was a human being and that a human life was taken by the acts of the accused.
25. The Prosecutor also addressed the Counts in the Indictment related to the Kamenica Elementary School and particularly pointed at the importance of the witnesses with indirect knowledge of the killing of certain persons. The Prosecutor stressed that certain eyewitnesses did not live to see freedom, but that they had an opportunity to give account of the events they had eyewitnessed to fellow inmates in the camp.
26. Therefore, in the case at hand, it is impossible to have eyewitnesses of certain events so, according to the Prosecutor, the Court would have to render a decision on the basis of the statements of the witnesses who have only indirect knowledge of the relevant events and other documentary evidence.
27. Also, analyzing the charges under Count 2 of the Indictment, the Prosecutor stressed that there was no need for repetition, that is, to point again at the evidence confirming the existence of the Kamenica Elementary School and that it served as a detention facility in which the Accused Ratko Dronjak was commander.
28. The Prosecutor also commented on the charges under Count 3 of the Indictment, that is, the charges concerning the criminal offense of War Crimes against Prisoners of War in violation of Article 175 of the CC of B-H.
29. In this context, the Prosecutor stressed that the persons injured by the acts described under Count 3 of the Indictment met the requirements and had the status of protected persons pursuant to Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention.
16 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
30. The Prosecutor analyzed the status of protected persons under the Third Geneva Convention in the context of Article 45 of the Additional Protocol I, stating that the Protocol protected all persons irrespective of the nature or origin of an armed conflict.
31. In the closing argument the Prosecutor also analyzed the killing referred to in Count III-2 of the Indictment, charging the Accused Ratko Dronjak with personally killing Fikret Begić from a pistol in cold blood, whereby, according to the Prosecutor, with the conclusive acts he gave an example of conduct the other guards in the Kamenica Elementary School were to follow.
32. Speaking about the conditions in the Kamenica Elementary School, that is, the condition in which the prisoners of war were when they were exchanged, the Prosecutor pointed at the assertions of multiple witnesses who stressed that some 15 days prior to the exchange they were given an opportunity to make themselves look decent and that in that period they were not exposed to beatings and abuse.
33. Finishing the closing argument, the Prosecutor analyzed the underlying acts of the Crimes against Humanity, in violation of Article 172, and War Crimes against Prisoners of War, in violation of Article 175 of the CC of B-H, clarifying in particular: (1) murder, (2) torture and other inhuman acts, (3) enforced disappearance, and (4) persecution.
34. The Prosecutor also touched briefly on the evidence presented by the Defense and emphasized that the alibi defense plan was presented almost at the end of the main trial.
35. Summing up the presented evidence, the Prosecutor also analyzed the institute of Joint Criminal Enterprise with which the Accused Ratko Dronjak is charged, and stated that all relevant elements, that is, the actus reus and the mens rea, were proven.
36. Finally, addressing the extenuating and aggravating circumstances, the Prosecutor stated that there were no extenuating circumstances for the Accused and that among the aggravating ones were persistence in the perpetration of crimes, the monstrosity, and the killing of more than 30 persons, with the majority of the bodies being thrown into the so-called “bottomless pits” so that some of them are still sought 17 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
after. The Prosecutor, therefore, proposed that the Accused be sentenced to a long-term imprisonment of not less than 30 years.
2. Defense
37. The Defense for the Accused Ratko Dronjak presented the closing argument on 17 May 2012 and also tendered it into the case file in the written form.
38. At the very beginning of his closing argument, Defense Counsel noted that he deemed that the proceedings were not conducted properly and that his client was convicted in advance, that is, even before the trial in this case began, all for the needs of everyday politics whose goal was not to establish the truth and have the justice served, and whose consequence was the persecution of the Accused and fellow members of his ethnic group.
39. Defense Counsel added that he considered the fact that the Accused Dronjak was in custody to be a clear sign that the Accused was considered guilty from the very beginning.
40. With respect to the foregoing, according to the Counsel, the Accused petitioned for disqualification of the Panel and that the Defense evidence should not be presented. However, according to the Counsel, the defense evidence was presented because of the principles of professional ethics.
41. Defense Counsel argued that the submission of an amended Indictment created an unclear procedural situation, that is, that it was not clear whether it was a new or an amended Indictment, that is, whether there were two Indictments against the Accused Ratko Dronjak. The Defense added that if it were regarded as an amendment of the original Indictment, it aggravated the position of the Accused, so it should have gone through the process of confirmation.
42. Given the allegedly unclear procedural situation, the Defense noted that they would present arguments within the framework of a presumed Indictment.
18 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
43. First of all, Defense Counsel stressed that, in their opinion, genocide was committed against the Serb population in the municipalities of the Western Krajina.
44. Also, analyzing the theory of the existence of a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population, Defense Counsel repeated that there did not exist an attack against the non-Serb population in the relevant area, quite the opposite.
45. Analyzing the chronology of the dissolution of the SFRY, the Defense stressed that it was beyond dispute that Bosnia and Herzegovina was granted international recognition, but that it was not the recognition of a Muslim state or Alija Izetbegović’s private state.
46. In the same context, the Defense also analyzed the events that led to the dissolution of the SFRY, stating that the Serb people in the relevant territory were exterminated. In addition, according to Defense Counsel, the only legal armies in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina were the JNA and the Armed Forces of B-H, while all the other armies were actually paramilitary formations. More precisely, given the fact that the VRS was the successor of the JNA, it can be considered, if not a legitimate, than the most legitimate army in B-H, compared to the other two armies that participated in the war in B-H.
47. The Defense analyzed the Indictment against the Accused Ratko Dronjak and stressed that it was impossible for a Joint Criminal Enterprise and co-perpetration to co- exist. The Counsel also analyzed the legal standards and criteria for the respective concepts of a JCE and co-perpetration.
48. In the end of the JCE analysis, the Defense stressed that the whole JCE concept was contested and that the Indictment did not contain all relevant facts. According to the Defense, JCE was formulated as a mere shell without any contents or purpose.
49. Defense Counsel then commented on the criminal offenses the Accused was charged with and added that there did not exist a widespread and systematic attack against the non-Serb civilians in the territory of Drvar Municipality, expressing satisfaction with the fact that the Prosecution also agreed about it. The Counsel also noted that he was of the opinion that the Accused could not have been aware of a 19 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
potential widespread and systematic attack, in which context the situation in Drvar Municipality should be taken into account.
50. The Defense also referred to the decision of the Trial Panel of the Court of B-H in Kličković, establishing that the existence of a widespread and systematic attack in the relevant area was not proven.
51. The Counsel also commented on individual charges against Ratko Dronjak, stressing that he considered them to be imprecise, that is, that the Accused was not at all connected to the events (acts) under certain Counts in the Indictment. The Counsel analyzed the described defects in the Indictment in the context of the verdict in the proceedings against the Accused Dragan Rodić as well, and added that his statement was not truthful and reliable.
52. The Counsel also analyzed the authorities of commander Ratko Dronjak, whose duties were reduced to the obligation of organizing the life in Kamenica and making sure that the persons brought by other military structures do not escape.
53. The Counsel also addressed the application of substantive law in this case, moving the Court to apply the CC of SFRY, and stressing that the indicted persons tried before the Court were in a less favorable position.
54. Finally, the Counsel also commented on the Prosecution closing argument and application of the Geneva Convention, and concluded that the Court should be guided by the principle of in dubio pro reo in this case and abandon the alleged double standards under which Serbs receive draconic sentences without any statutory grounds.
3. The Accused Ratko Dronjak
55. After the Prosecution and the Defense, the Accused Ratko Dronjak presented his closing argument.
56. At the very beginning he noted that he supported his Defense Counsel’s arguments and that the Prosecution had exaggerated his criminal liability by having
20 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
proposed the examination of certain witnesses who were at odds with the Accused, notably Milanko Knežević.
57. The Accused also commented on the statement of a witness who mentioned one Macedonian, stating that no such person had ever visited the premises of the Slavko Rodić Elementary School.
58. With respect to the credibility of witness Dragan Rodić, the Accused stressed that the witness was given a prefabricated house in exchange for testifying, which the witness’ wife allegedly reported.
59. Finally, the Accused pointed at the fact that the Prosecution’s allegation that he had personally killed 30 people has had harmful consequences for his family members.
C. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC AND DECISION ON PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR WITNESS
60. In the evidentiary proceedings, Duško Dronjak testified as a Prosecution witness at the main trial on 20 January 2011.
61. Given the Prosecution motion to exclude the public, the Court also gave an opportunity to the witness to present his reasons for requesting exclusion of the public.
62. Answering the questions, the witness stressed that due to the geographic proximity of the relevant areas and the general situation in Drvar Municipality, as well as his position in the community and the fact that he had a family, he requested not to be linked to this case.
63. The Defense stated in their response they opposed the exclusion of the public since the relevant statutory requirements were not met.
64. Having heard the arguments of the witness, the Court rendered a decision ordering the exclusion of the public during the witness’ testimony.
65. The Court was guided by the interests of the witness and his family.
66. Having in mind the previously submitted written motion, at the hearing held on 13 December 2011, the Court reviewed the witness’ request to be granted protective 21 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
measures, including the prohibition of publishing photographs of the witness and declaring his personal information confidential.
67. Commenting on the submitted motion, the witness noted that publishing his name or photograph might affect his regular work performance and may cause deterioration of family relations.
68. Taking the presented arguments as the starting point, the Prosecution noted that it considered that the motion should be reasoned additionally, in which case they would leave it to the Court to assess whether it found the motion for protective measures to be well-founded.
69. After the witness clarified what consequences might happen, pursuant to Article 13 of the Law on the Protection of Witnesses Under Threat and Vulnerable Witnesses, the Court assigned pseudonym O1 to the witness, declared his personal information confidential, and prohibited publishing photographs and video-material with the witness’ image.
D. OBJECTIONS TO THE EVIDENCE
1. Defense’s objections to the Prosecution evidence
70. The Defense objected to the relevance of the exhibits referred to hereinafter1, stating that the Accused did not participate in the events these exhibits pertained to and that they were not relevant for the proceedings at hand.
1 T-27: Instruction for the Organization and Activity of the Organs of the Serb People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary Circumstances, dated 19 December 1991; T-28: Decision on the Strategic Goals of the Serb People in B-H, No. 02-130/92, dated 12 May 1992; T-29: Official Gazette of the Serb People in B-H No. 1, dated 15 January 1992; T-30: Official Gazette of the Autonomous Region of Krajina No. 2, dated 5 June 1992; T-31: List of the Representatives in the Assembly of the Autonomous Region of Krajina; T-32: Decision on the Declaration of Imminent War Threat – Official Gazette of the R B-H No. 1, dated 9 April 1992, and Decision on the Declaration of the State of War – Official Gazette of the R B-H No. 7, dated 20 June 1992; T-33: Official Gazette of the Serb People of B-H No. 9, dated 13 June 1992; T-34: Decision to Form the Army of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina No. 03-234/92, dated 12 May 1992; T-35: Order of the Main Staff Commander of the Army of the Serb Republic of B-H, strictly confidential No. 30/18-17, dated 16 June 1992;
22 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
71. However, the Court evaluated the referenced exhibits with respect to the relevance and concluded that the relevance-related objection was unfounded. In other words, it is beyond doubt that the referenced exhibits do not relate to the Accused Ratko Dronjak, but they do considerably clarify the events and facts relevant to this case.
72. The Defense also objected to the relevance of a certain number of exhibits2 due to the fact that the referenced documentation originated several years after the relevant period, hence it cannot be useful for the proceedings. However, the Court did not accept the Defense argument because of the fact that the referenced exhibits actually confirmed the statements of the witnesses, that is, that they were used in order to additionally confirm the credibility of their testimonies and provide a clear and professional definition and description of injuries that certain individuals sustained on the relevant occasion.
73. The Defense also raised the relevance-related objection because the Prosecutor allegedly had not proved the facts that the exhibits related to3. However, the Court
T-36: Order of the Main Staff Commander of the Republika Srpska Army, strictly confidential No. 30/18- 25, dated 3 July 1992; T-37: Operations and Combat Activity Analysis in 1992, conclusions and assignments – 2nd Krajina Corps Command, strictly confidential 3-39, dated 7 March 1993; T-38: Sub-Region Meeting Conclusions, dated 7 June 1992; T-39: Review of People who Moved Out and Moved In – Security Service Centre (CSB), State Security Service (SDB) -- Banja Luka Sector, dated May 1993; T-59: Order to work on the documents as to the plan to use the RS Army – STATEMENT - No.101/21, dated 12 January 1994. 2 T-80: Decision for Kasim Duraković, Una-Sana Canton, Cantonal Ministry for War Veterans and Disabled War Veterans, No. 16-5-560-603/98, dated 13 November 1998; Anamnesis for Kasim Duraković, Health Centre of Velika Kladuša, 3 December 2003; Anamnesis for Kasim Duraković, Bihać Cantonal Hospital, 14 February 2007; Discharge letter for Kasim Duraković, Dr. Irfan Ljubijankić Cantonal Hospital in Bihać, 16 November 2001; T-81: Discharge letter from hospital for Velaga Begić, Bihać Cantonal Hospital, MB 16304; T-82: Anamnesis for Mirsad Hadžić, Kapić Private Doctor's Office, 11 November 2004; T-84: Statement of the International Committee of the Red Cross for Mile Mijuković, Zagreb, 20 July 1995; Discharge letter for Mile Mijuković, Dr. Irfan Ljubijankić Cantonal Hospital, MB 2503, 17 April 1998; T-85: Discharge letter for Josip Šantić, Dr Irfan Ljubijankić Cantonal Hospital Bihać, 2 October 1997; Finding and opinion for Josip Šantić, medical board to examine persons covered by the Law on the Rights of the Combatants and Their Families, No. 4059-2/06-T1-2151, dated 3 July 2006; T-86: Death Certificate for Marijan Nikšić No. 104/95. 3 T-99: DNA Reports: for Nusret Malkoč (JG-18), Kemal Šepić (JG-03), Ferid Velagić (JG-02), Fehim Kadić (JG-07), Fuad Subašić (JG-11), Drago Žulj (JG-16), Suvad Delić (JG-04), Rufad Crnolić (JG-05), Fadil Halilović (JG-10), Rasim Zulić (JG-12), Rezak Halilović (JG-14), Said Halilović (JG-17), Ifet Bukvić (JG-19). T-100: Statement on a Missing Person for Enver Čehić, Dead Body Identification Record, Exhumed Body Handover Record, No. 05-11/03-711/2001, dated 25 May 2001
23 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
considers this Defense argument to be unfounded, because the referenced exhibits were tendered exactly with a view to proving certain facts, so their existence and the status of being proved cannot be regarded as a precondition for the relevance of certain exhibits.
74. Finally, with respect to the relevance objection, the Defense stressed that it considered Prosecution Exhibit T-103 to be irrelevant4 given that it was not relevant to these proceedings. However, this objection was refused because of the fact that, according to the Prosecutor, the acts/events described in Counts I-1, I-2, and I-3 of the Indictment happened on the premises of the school shown in the photo-documentation.
75. Lastly, the Defense contested the authenticity of a certain number of exhibits5 with the explanation that these were copies that were not visible, that is, not sufficiently legible, and that it was not clear who compiled the documents concerned.
76. The Court analyzed Defense Counsel’s objection and concluded that in the case at hand the Counsel was right that it was very difficult to read the contents of the contested exhibits. However, it should be noted that they were sufficiently clear, that is, legible. Therefore, Defense Counsel is right to a certain extent when he points to the fact that those are hardly legible documents, but, given that it is possible to discern their contents, this objection has been overruled. In doing so, the Court had in mind the fact that these exhibits were corroborated by other documentary evidence and statements of the examined witnesses, both of which the Court evaluated and found to be authentic.
T-101: Statement on a Missing Person for Kalmin Kalić, Dead Body Identification Record, Exhumed Body Handover Record, dated 17 May 2001 T-102: Sketch of the scene – the Golubnjača mass grave; Record of exhumation on a CD; Photo- documentation of the mass grave. 4 Photo-documentation of the Elementary School in Drvar. 5 T-67: Dispatch of the Banja Luka CSB No. 11-140, dated 14 May 1992; T-70: Document of the Intelligence and Security Section – 11th Krupa Infantry Brigade, No. 247/45, dated 15 December 1992 (information for Muslim civilians requested); T-84: Statement of the International Committee of the Red Cross for Mile Mijuković, Zagreb, dated 20 July 1995; Discharge letter for Mile Mijuković, Dr. Irfan Ljubijankić Cantonal Hospital, MB 2503, dated 17 April 1998.
24 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
77. Finally, with respect to Prosecution Exhibit T-84, the Court sustained the objection of Defense Counsel that the document was not signed and did not bear a seal, given that it did not have an opportunity to verify its authenticity in any other way.
2. Prosecution’s objections to the Defense evidence
78. The Court analyzed the Prosecution’s objections to the Defense evidence6 in the context of the Defense’s argument that the authorities of the Accused Ratko Dronjak were very restricted, that all important decisions related to the situation in the zone of the 2nd Krajina Corps, Kamenica included, were made on a higher command level, and that there was no attack on the civilian population in the relevant area.
79. In application of these standards, the Court sustained the Prosecution’s objection to Exhibits O1-20 and O1-29 because of the fact that, according to the Defense, they relate to micro-locations (cemetery) where combat positions were located, which, in any case, is not relevant to the area comprising some 10 municipalities, and because of the fact that the Indictment does not relate to the armed conflict between the units of the Army of B-H and the National Defense of Western Bosnia.
80. In the remaining part, given the defined standards, the Court overruled the Prosecution’s objection as to the relevance.
6 O1-8: TO Bihać Staff – Order dated 9 May 1992 on preparations for combat; O1-11: Order of the 2nd Krajina Corps Command dated 21 May 1992 on general mobilization; O1-13: List of types and quantities of armament and ammunition that must be surrendered; O1-19: Order to the 2nd Krajina Corps Logistics dated 7 August 1992; O1-20: Order dated 25 August 1992 of the 2nd Bihać Brigade on the deployment and covering of the line, with which we prove that the military line was established in a cemetery so as to create the impression that the Serb forces were shelling the cemetery. O1-21: Report on the status of medical supplies in the Military Police 2nd Battalion, dated 30 August 1992; O1-23: Order of the 2nd Krajina Corps, dated 22 November 1992, sent to the Medical Service; O1-24: Order to the 2nd Krajina Corps Logistics, dated 22 November 1992; O1-25: Order for quartermaster support, dated 22 November 1992; O1-29: Official Note of the National Defense of the Western Bosnia, dated 7 March 1995, on the military activities of the 5th Corps in Bihać, confirming witness’ averments on the existence of an inter-Muslim conflict.
25 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
II. GENERAL STANDARDS OF PROOF
81. The task of every court is to evaluate evidence in accordance with the applicable procedural law, that is, the Criminal Procedure Code of B-H. Also, when analyzing every individual piece of evidence, the Court must apply the principle of presumption of innocence to the Accused, stipulated in Article 3 of the CPC of B-H, which also constitutes the fundamental principle of contemporary criminal legislation.
82. Therefore, the application of presumption of innocence is primarily reflected in the fact that the burden of proof lies with the Prosecution.
83. In other words, in the period while the Prosecution conducts investigation, gathers evidence and files an Indictment, a suspect/accused is considered innocent and, with a view to securing that status, he is not obliged to present exonerating evidence.
84. Also, after the filing of an Indictment and the commencement of the evidentiary proceedings in which the Accused may present evidence aimed at contesting the Prosecution’s arguments, the Court is obliged, when evaluating witnesses’ statements, to take into account their conduct and character to the extent possible, as well as the logic and consistency of their statements.
85. With respect to all witnesses, the Court must take into account the probability, consistency and other evidence, circumstances of the case, as well as the personal interest in these criminal proceedings that certain witnesses demonstrated.
86. Throughout the whole trial the Court shall be mindful of the fact that witnesses’ credibility depends on their knowledge of the facts they testify about, their capacity to perceive adequately the circumstances they testify about, their sincerity, and the fact that they swore to tell the truth.
87. In case when the Court deems that a witness has testified truthfully, the key question is whether such a statement is reliable and whether it reflected all relevant circumstances.
26 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
88. In this part we must particularly address the statement of witness Dragan Rodić, who was originally a co-accused in this case, but who was examined as a witness having entered a plea agreement.
89. Quite logically, his statement was evaluated with particular attention for many reasons, including the fact that even after the conclusion of the plea agreement he had a certain interest to minimize his own criminal liability.
90. One of the ways to do so is to downplay the intensity and gravity of the consequences of one’s acts while placing emphasis on the role and acts of other persons, such as the Accused Ratko Dronjak.
91. Given the foregoing, first the substance of the statement of witness Dragan Rodić were presented, as well as his relationship with the Accused Ratko Dronjak, during and after the relevant period. It is obvious that witness Dragan Rodić’s statement, if taken independently, cannot actually be of much help. It should be particularly noted that Dragan Rodić has testified several times and that every time he stated he could not tell when certain events he was describing had taken place or specify the identity of the victims. Under such conditions, the only way for the Court to create a full picture of the events was through the evaluation of other witnesses’ statements and documentary evidence, which was possible in certain situations only.
92. As an example of a situation in which witness Dragan Rodić’s statement was not particularly helpful to the Court, we can cite the events referred to in Counts I-3 and II-7 of the Indictment, where on the basis of other evidence the Court could not get a full picture of the events the witness testified about.
93. With respect to witness Dragan Rodić’s statement about the events described in Count I-3 of the Indictment, it should be noted that other witnesses presented the key fact concerning the identity of the aggrieved parties in a considerably different manner, stating that professor Rasim Zulić succumbed to the consequences of the beatings in the Slavko Rodić Elementary School, unlike witness Dragan Rodić, who stated that a certain professor was in a group of people who were killed next to the pit.
27 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
94. Without this fact, which would have constituted a key link in establishing the identity of the victims, it was not possible to establish with certainty that Dragan Rodić was referring to the event under the referenced Count in the Indictment.
95. Similarly, with respect to Count II-7 of the Indictment, Dragan Rodić was not of particular help as the Court could not establish with certainty whether the witness was testifying about the relevant event, given that he was not specific about the time the event happened, and the number of victims that he provided did not match the number of victims that followed from the other adduced evidence. Therefore, in this case witness Rodić was not of particular help, either.
96. With respect to the remaining part of witness Dragan Rodić’s testimony, the Court did not find any considerable contradictions or reason to suspect its truthfulness.
97. The fact that the Accused and the Defense contested his credibility was regarded within the context of an absolutely clear interest on the part of the Accused Dronjak to minimize the harmful aspects of the witness’ statement, as well as the fact that it was actually the Accused Dronjak who appointed witness Dragan Rodić the actual guard shift commander in Kamenica, counting on his reliability.
98. In other words, the Defense absolutely logically tried to contest witness Dragan Rodić, but by doing so it disregarded the fact that the Accused also considered him a reliable and trustworthy person.
99. So, as described above, the Court believed the statement of witness Dragan Rodić, but it was used and accepted only to the extent possible, that is, in the circumstances when it was precise and determinable, that is, when it was possible to establish its correspondence with the other adduced evidence.
100. During the whole trial the Court was also mindful of the fact that the statements on the facts that had happened many years before the testifying were marked by uncertainty due to the instability of human perception of traumatic events and memories thereof.
28 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
101. However, in a case like the one at hand it should be noted that it was primarily necessary to establish that certain events constituted only a component part of customary practice.
102. Therefore, in this case it was primarily relevant to establish that certain events were customary and regular phenomena, without any special need to establish the smallest details regarding each individual incident.
103. The Court particularly evaluated the statements of the witnesses who had been exposed to strong stress and trauma while present during the events they testified about. In the opinion of the Court, certain discrepancies regarding the sequence and duration of the events do not affect the credibility of the statements on whether certain events actually happened. As noted above, in the situations where certain persons are confined for longer periods on inadequate premises and where certain events occur on a regular basis, that is, where the said persons are repeatedly moved from one room to another, the rooms as a rule being very small and receiving minimal light, it is absolutely logical that witnesses might err concerning the sequence of these events or the duration of stay in individual rooms. The Court also accepted the fact that such witnesses could make mistakes when describing the presence and behavior of certain persons.
104. However, in cases when the other evidence confirmed the presence of a certain person, and when that followed from the statements of the witnesses who were guards or enjoyed a relatively favorable treatment and certain degree of freedom for other reasons, the Court fully believed the descriptions and details provided by such witness.
105. It should be noted that the view that circumstantial evidence is acceptable has become quite common in the jurisprudence. However, pursuant to Article 15 of the CPC of B-H, the Court may evaluate such evidence freely. Nevertheless, such evidence must be reliable, that is, if those are the witness statements, they must be given voluntarily, true, and obtained lawfully. Specifically, the probative value of circumstantial evidence depends on the context and character of the statement concerned and/or on whether the statement is also corroborated with other corresponding evidence.
29 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
106. Circumstantial evidence essentially represents evidence of facts, that is, events or criminal offense from which the relevant fact logically follows. Given that some of the events concerned in all likelihood happened at the time when there were not many witnesses at the scene, and since the possibility of establishing relevant facts through witness statements and documentary evidence directly confirming these facts was problematic or made difficult, circumstantial evidence became the key element, not only for the Prosecution, but for the Accused as well.
107. As an example here we can quote facts that indirectly tell of the Accused’s awareness or knowledge of the relevant events at the Slavko Rodić Elementary School and the Kamenica Elementary School.
108. In that respect, we may emphasize the statements of witnesses who participated in exchanges and who stated that they received information about the number and identities of the persons in the referenced facilities from the Corps security bodies. This practically implies that there existed a chain of command and reporting, so it is logical to conclude that the Accused was informed about the changes to the number of detained persons -- if not about all, then about the majority of them, their exchange, death or potential escape.
109. Similarly, the fact (confirmed by several witnesses) that as a superior the Accused Ratko Dronjak was strict and required discipline from the guards, and that he appointed persons he trusted the guard shift commanders, implies that he was informed about the situation and events in the facilities, and that he did not undertake any activities aimed at improving the situation.
110. Therefore, as described above, such pieces of evidence may be insufficient if regarded individually, but if regarded as a whole, their collective and cumulative character may be revealing and sometimes decisive.
111. Particularly important for the Court was the sequence and temporal connection of the events referred to in the Indictment, as well as the identical way in which they happened.
30 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
112. In the case at hand, the documentary evidence, to the extent it was available and with clarifications by some witnesses, was of particular importance for obtaining a true and complete picture of the relevant events.
113. In the course of the trial the Defense also offered an alibi for the Accused, presented the evidence indicating the difficult conditions in the relevant area, and tried to minimize the responsibilities and duties of the Accused.
114. However, with respect to the contesting of the existence of a widespread and systematic attack in the relevant area, which the Defense did, it should be noted that the Court was satisfied from the presented evidence that there were incidents on all sides, but that certain incidents were often used as a pretext for attacks against civilian population.
115. Therefore, the Court accepted the evidence of the Defense in this respect, but did not accept the Defense’s interpretation thereof, that is, the conclusion that there did not exist an attack against the civilian population in the relevant municipalities.
116. However, with respect to the existence of the attack on the civilian population in the period from May 1993 to late 1995, it should be noted that the Defense successfully refuted the Prosecution’s averment, that is, the Court was not satisfied that it was proven that there existed an attack against the civilian population in the relevant period.
117. Finally, when it comes to the Defense evidence related to the alibi, it should be noted that the Defense expert witness Dragan Danelišan addressed the course of the treatment and stressed that the most intensive part of it lasted several months, but that the Accused would never fully recover.
118. In other words, although part of his alibi was the fact that the Accused did not come to Kamenica during a certain period, it should be noted that no charge was refuted in that way, given that, in accordance with the Indictment, the acts the Accused is charged with do not date from the period when the medical treatment was provided.
31 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
119. Also, when it comes to documentary evidence, the fact that a document bears no signature or seal does not necessarily mean that it is not authentic (this particularly concerns various records and logbooks).
120. The Court did not consider that documents without signature and seal are a priori not authentic. All the time bearing in mind the principle that the burden of proving the authenticity lay with the Prosecution, the Court reviewed all submitted documents, one by one, and is satisfied that the Prosecution has proved their authenticity beyond any reasonable doubt.
121. When evaluating the authenticity of the documents, the Court reviewed them in terms of their correspondence with all the other adduced evidence, such as the other documentary evidence and the witnesses’ statements. In addition, even when it was convinced that an evaluated document was authentic, the Court did not automatically accept that the statements contained therein represented an accurate presentation of facts, but evaluated the credibility of the contents in each specific case.
122. Article 15 of the CPC of B-H establishes the principle of free evaluation of evidence, entitling the Court to freely evaluate the existence or non-existence of facts. Evaluation whether or not a fact exists is not linked to or restricted by special formal evidentiary rules. The probative value is not laid down in advance, either quality- or quantity-wise. So, even when there existed corresponding corroboration and decisions on the status or certain relevant facts, the Court could still re-evaluate their existence.
123. With respect to free evaluation of evidence, the Court has both the right and the obligation to conscientiously evaluate each piece of evidence individually and its correspondence with the rest of the evidence, and, based on such evaluation, conclude whether a fact has been proven, the evaluation including the logical and psychological evaluation of evidence.
124. In other words, free evaluation of evidence is limited by the principle of lawfulness of evidence and nothing else.
125. It is also important to note that Article 10 of the CPC of B-H defines unlawful evidence, stipulating that legally invalid evidence consists of the findings obtained or 32 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
adduced in the manner prohibited by the statute. The evidence obtained through violations of fundamental human rights and freedoms, as well as essential violations of the procedural law, is regarded as unlawfully obtained evidence. It constitutes legally invalid evidence on which a court’s decision cannot be based.
Also, the issue of the original version or a photocopy of a document whose contents are important for the evidentiary proceedings often arises. Although it is regarded in principle that documents should be submitted to the Court in original version, this position does not inherently rule out a possibility of using a copy of a document as lawful evidence. Courts in other countries of the region share this view, hence the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia stated in its Decision No. I Kž-645/01: "The accused are right when they state that all memoranda that amount to evidence should be filed in original version, which in the case at hand was not done with the Record of the examination of suspect N.Š. dated 8 May 1999 (sheet 72-74 in case file). Despite its efforts, the First Instance Court did not manage to obtain the original during the proceedings. However, contrary to allegations in the appeal, it cannot be accepted that it is an unlawful evidence, pursuant to Article 9(2) of the CPC, merely because of that formal omission, given that the Accused Š. does not contest the authenticity of that Record and that it was not obtained through a violation of the rights to a defense as guaranteed by the Constitution, law or international law. When giving his defense at the main trial, the Accused reiterated that line of defense, which was then read out, whereupon he said that what was read out was exactly what he had said before the police authorities. In addition, given the fact that the Accused Š. fully denied the perpetration of the offense, it is not acceptable to base the contested verdict on that piece of evidence. Therefore, even if it were accepted that it was the evidence referred to in Article 9(2) of the CPC, the appeal ground of unlawful violation, referred to in Article 367(2) of the CPC, does not exist."
126. With respect to the position of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) on evaluation of evidence, it should be noted that a general rule has been established that national courts shall be the ones to deal with the evaluation of evidence. Since the Convention does not contain an explicit provision about it, the ECtHR did not embark on
33 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
establishing the rules on evidence and firmly reiterated its position that its task was not to adjudicate whether the evidence was accepted in a trial in an appropriate way, which, in principle, is a matter regulated in line with national laws, but to establish whether the court proceedings were fair as a whole.
127. Therefore, the ECtHR and the neighboring countries’ judiciaries took a stance that the principal objective of criminal proceedings was to establish material truth7, due to which they set the fairness of the criminal proceedings as a whole as the lower threshold regarding the lawfulness of evidence, not restricting themselves to individual aspects of the proceedings.
III. APPLICABLE LAW
128. With respect to the applicable substantive law, the Defense objected to the application of the Criminal Code of B-H, stressing that the Criminal Code of the SFRY should have been applied instead, since it was in effect at the time of the relevant events. The Defense considers that the application of any other law but the CC of the SFRY, in effect in the period relevant to this case, constitutes a violation of the principle of legality. In this context, the Defense refers to Article 7(2) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR).
129. Article 3 of the CC of B-H regulates the principle of legality, that is, that criminal offenses and criminal sanctions shall be prescribed only by law, and 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.
130. Article 4 of the CC of B-H stipulates that the law that was in effect at the time when the criminal offense was perpetrated shall apply to the perpetrator of the offense; if the law has been amended on one or more occasions after the offense was perpetrated, the law that is more lenient to the perpetrator shall be applied.
7 The only potential deviations from this principle could be the institutes of plea agreement and guilty plea by the accused.
34 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
131. Article 7(1) of the ECHR also sets forth the principle of legality. Pursuant to Article 2(2) of the Constitution of B-H, the ECHR has priority over all other law in B-H. Also, this provision of the ECHR stipulates the general principle prohibiting imposing a heavier penalty than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was committed, but it does not stipulate the application of the most lenient law.
132. Article 4a) of the CC of B-H sets forth that Articles 3 and 4 of the CC of B-H 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 international law.”
133. Article 7(2) of the ECHR stipulates the same exception, reading that Paragraph 1) of the same 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.”8
134. This creates a possibility to deviate from the principle contained in Articles 3 and 4 of the CC of B-H (and Article 7(1) of the ECHR) in the described circumstances, and from application of the Criminal Code that was in effect at the time of the commission.
135. When evaluating the Defense’s objection, it should be noted that no provision of the CC of the SFRY, which was in effect at the relevant period, dealt exclusively with crimes against humanity in the manner set forth in Article 172 of the CC of B-H. However, taking into account the other provisions of the substantive law in effect and the general principles of international law, the Court could not sustain this objection by the Defense as well-founded.
136. The Court notes that the criminal offenses the Accused was found guilty of were criminal according to customary international law and, therefore, fell under “general principles of international law”, set forth in Article 4a) of the Law on Amendments to the Criminal Code of B-H, and “the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations”,
8 Also see Article 15(1) and (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as it contains similar provisions. Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a successor state of Yugoslavia, has ratified the Pact.
35 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
set forth in Paragraph (2) of Article 7 of the ECHR. Based on the foregoing, the CC of B- H is applicable in the case at hand.
137. It should particularly be emphasized that the status that crimes against humanity have in customary international law, as well as the attributing of individual criminal responsibility in the period relevant to the Indictment, is, inter alia, referred to in the Report of the UN Secretary General, pursuant to Paragraph 2 of the Security Council Resolution 808 dated 3 May 1993, the International Law Commission, the Commentaries on the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996), and the respective caselaw of the ICTY and the ICTR (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda). These institutions consider that punishing crimes against humanity is an imperative among the standards of international law, or jus cogens (International Law Commission, Commentary to Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), Article 26).
138. Finally, with respect to the application of the CC of B-H, especially its Article 172 (criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity), a reference should be made to the ECtHR Decision in the case No. 51552/10 (Boban Šimšić v. Bosnia and Herzegovina) reading that “having in mind the flagrantly unlawful nature of his acts, which included murders and torture of Bosniaks within the context of a widespread and systematic attack against the Bosniak civilian population ..., even the most cursory reflection ... would have indicated that they risked constituting a crime against humanity ...”, due to which the application of the convicted person Boban Šimšić was rejected as manifestly ill-founded.
139. Based on the foregoing, it follows clearly that in 1992 crimes against humanity constituted part of customary international law, and that their legal formalization as part of the national legislation through the CC of B-H and the application of the CC of B-H do not constitute a violation of the rights guaranteed by the ECHR.
140. Finally, the application of the CC of B-H is also justified by the fact that the imposed sentence is, in any case, more lenient than the death penalty that was in effect at the time of the perpetration, whereby the principle of time constraints regarding the
36 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
applicability of the criminal code, that is, application of the law more lenient to the perpetrator, has been satisfied.
141. Also, with respect to the application of Article 173 of the CC of B-H, the Defense did not contest the very application of the CC of B-H, which incriminates certain conduct and acts, but contested the part pertaining to the sanction, that is, the application of Article 173 of the CC of B-H in light of Article 38(2) of the CC of the SFRY, under which the most stringent sanction was imprisonment for a term of 20 years.
142. However, the Court did not accept the arguments of the Defense, given that the foregoing constitutes the application of the CC of B-H in line with the position taken by Section I of the Appellate Division of the Court of B-H in its Verdict against Abduladhim Maktouf No. KPŽ 32/05 dated 4 April 2006, and the Verdict against Dragoje Paunović No. KPŽ 05/16 dated 27 October 2006.
143. The Constitutional Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina deliberated on this issue in the case of Appeal filed by A. Maktouf (AP 1785/06) and stated in its Decision dated 30 March 2007: “68. In practice, legislation in all countries of former Yugoslavia did not provide a possibility of imposing either a sentence of life imprisonment or long-term imprisonment, as often done by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (the cases of Krstic, Galic, etc.).”
144. “At the same time, the concept of the SFRY Criminal Code was such that it did not stipulate either long-term imprisonment or life sentence, but death penalty, in case of a serious crime, or a 15 year maximum sentence in case of a less serious crime.”
145. “Hence, it is clear that a sanction cannot be separated from the totality of goals sought to be achieved by the criminal policy at the time of the application of the law.” 69. “In this context, the Constitutional Court holds that it is simply not possible to ‘eliminate’ the more severe sanction under both earlier and later laws, and apply only other, more lenient, sanctions, so that the most serious crimes would in practice be left inadequately sanctioned.”
146. In the case at hand, the Court considers it established that the Accused should have known that during the state of war the application of international rules has priority, 37 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
and that any violation of internationally protected values would result in serious consequences.
147. At the time of perpetration, Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a successor state of the SFRY, was a signatory to all relevant international conventions on human rights and international humanitarian law protecting human rights in times of war and peace.9
148. Likewise, the customary status of criminal responsibility for Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes against Civilians, and individual responsibility for the war crimes committed in 1992, was also confirmed by the UN Secretary General10, the International Law Commission11, and the respective caselaw of the ICTY and the ICTR12.
149. These institutions have found that criminal responsibility for Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes against Civilians constitutes an imperative standard of international law, that is, jus cogens.13 It therefore appears incontestable that in 1992 Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes against Civilians constituted part of customary international law. This conclusion was also confirmed in the study on customary international humanitarian law14 made by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). According to the Study, “Serious violations of international humanitarian law constitute war crimes“ (Rule 156); “Individuals are criminally responsible for war crimes they commit“ (Rule 151); and “States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or armed forces, or on their territory, and, if
9 This includes in particular: the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948); the Geneva Conventions (1949) and their Additional Protocols (1977); Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery of 1956; Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966); International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966); Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity (1968); International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973); the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1979); the UN Convention against Torture (1984). 10 Report of the UN Secretary General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of Security Council Resolution 808 dated 3 May 1993, paras. 34-35 and 47-48. 11 International Law Commission, Commentary to Draft Code of Crimes Against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996). 12 ICTY, Appeals Chamber in Tadić, Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995, para. 151; ICTY, Trial Chamber, Tadić Judgment dated 7 May 1997; paras. 618-623. 13 International Law Commission, Commentary to Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), para 26. 14Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Luise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law; ICRC, Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 568 onward.
38 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
appropriate, prosecute the suspects. They must also investigate other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects.” (Rule 158).
150. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, customary international humanitarian law obliges every country in the world, irrespective of whether or not it has ratified the relevant international legal instruments. Thus every country is obliged to prosecute or extradite (aut dedere aut judicare) all persons suspected of having committed a violation of customary international humanitarian law.
151. The principles of international law recognized by the UN General Assembly Resolution 95 (I) (1946) and the International Law Commission (1950) pertain to the “Nuremberg Charter and Judgments of the Tribunal”, hence to war crimes in general. “The Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal“, adopted by the International Law Commission in 1950 and submitted to the General Assembly, stipulate as follows: Principle No. 1, “Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment.” Principle 2 reads: “The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law.”
152. Therefore, the criminal offenses of Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes against Civilians should be in any case subsumed under “the general principles of international law“, referred to in Articles 3 and 4a) of the CC of B-H. That is why, irrespective of whether it is regarded from the aspect of customary international law, international law of treaties, or “principles of international law“, it is incontestable that Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes against Civilians constituted criminal offenses in the relevant period, that is, that the principle of legality was also satisfied with respect to nullum crimen sine lege and nulla poena sine lege.
153. Therefore, based on the foregoing, Articles 3 and 4a) reflect the principles of international law whereby the Defense objections to the application of substantive law in this case are unfounded.
39 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
IV. SUMMARY OF THE CHAPEAU ELEMENTS OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENSES REFERRED TO IN THE INDICTMENT
A. CHAPEAU ELEMENTS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY
154. The Accused Ratko Dronjak has been found guilty of the commission of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172(1)(h), as read with Sub-Paragraphs (a), (f), and (i) of the CC of B-H.
155. For a criminal offense to be defined as Crimes against Humanity, the statute stipulates that, in addition to the specific elements of individual criminal offenses, the Prosecutor must also prove the chapeau elements of Crimes against Humanity, as follows:
1. The existence of widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population;
2. The knowledge of the Accused of the existence of such an attack;
3. The knowledge of the Accused that his acts constitute or may constitute a part of the attack.
1. Legal standards applied to the established state of facts
156. The Prosecution charged the Accused Ratko Dronjak with the commission of persecution by murder, torture, enforced disappearance and inhuman acts intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to physical or mental health.
157. Below is a definition/explanation of the meaning of certain terms.
(a) Murder means depriving another person of his life and is characterized by the following elements:
1. Death of a victim;
40 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
2. Death that is a consequence of the act or omission to act by the Accused or his subordinate; 3. The Accused or his subordinate intended to deprive the victim of his life or inflict a serious injury to the victim’s bodily integrity, which is an injury he could reasonably assume would cause death.
158. The required mens rea of murder is the intent to commit murder or the intent to inflict serious bodily injury together with reckless disrespect for human life. The required mens rea standard requires intentional killing with premeditation.
159. The consequence is a result of premeditation when the perpetrator formed his intent to kill, having carefully deliberated on it. The consequence is intended when it represents the perpetrator’s goal or when the perpetrator is aware that it will happen following the customary course of events.
160. We should now draw attention to the specific characteristics of the position of the Accused Ratko Dronjak, who, given the duty he carried out, should have known that his acts represented a model for the guards. Thus the murder of Fikret Begić represented a key demonstration of the will and awareness of the Accused toward the detained persons. In other words, the murder of Fikret Begić, committed in the manner described in Section III-6 of the operative part, could not be interpreted in any other way but as a model for the guards what to do, and the Court considers this circumstance as a clear proof that the Accused agreed with the killings of the detained persons.
(b) Torture contains the following elements:
1. Infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, by act or omission to act;
2. The act or the omission must be intentional;
3. The act or the omission must be carried out for the purpose of obtaining information or confession, or punishment, intimidation or coercion of the victim or a third person, or for discrimination of the victim or a third person on any ground.
41 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
161. Essentially, torture represents one of the most severe attacks on a person’s mental and physical integrity, and it differs from other kinds of abuse by the purpose and severity of the attack against the victim. Torture as a criminal offense is not a groundless act of violence; its goal is to achieve a certain result or purpose by inflicting severe mental or physical pain. Therefore, if such purpose or goal does not exist, not even a very severe inflicting of pain can be qualified as torture.
(c) Enforced disappearance of persons means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a state or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with an aim of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.
(d) Other inhuman acts of a similar character represent the acts intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to physical or mental health, for which it is necessary to prove the existence of acts or omissions of similar gravity as for the other crimes referred to in Article 172(1) of the CC of B-H; 1. An act or omission by which mental or physical suffering or injury is inflicted, that is, which represents a serious attack on human dignity; 2. An act or omission deliberately committed by the Accused and the person(s) for whose acts or omissions the Accused is held criminally responsible.
162. The evaluation of seriousness of such an act or omission is relative. What must be taken into account is all factual circumstances, including the character of the act or the omission, the context in which it took place, its duration and/or repetition, the physical, mental, and moral effect of the act on the victim, and the victim’s personal circumstances, including the age, sex, and health. The suffering that the referenced act causes to the victim does not have to be permanent; it suffices that it is real and serious.
163. The required mens rea element is present if, at the time of the commission or the omission of the act, the principal perpetrator had the intent to inflict severe physical or mental suffering, to commit a serious attack on the victim’s human dignity, or if he knew
42 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
that his act or omission would probably result in the inflicting of severe physical or mental suffering, or a serious attack on human dignity, yet he recklessly disregarded the possibility of such suffering or attack occurring as a consequence of his act or omission.
(e) Persecution means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights, contrary to international law, by reason of the identity of a group or collectivity.
164. The essence of the criminal offense of persecution is that persons are being deprived of certain rights because they belong to a certain group. Therefore, in order for an offense to reach the threshold of persecution, it is necessary to prove the selective approach, that is, discriminatory intent.
165. A specific circumstance in the case at hand is that there existed a tacit agreement of all protagonists that the non-Serb men, mainly civilians, were to be treated as prisoners of war and that crimes were to be committed against them, that is, that they were to be killed, tortured, and subjected to inhuman acts and enforced disappearance.
B. CHAPEAU ELEMENTS OF WAR CRIMES AGAINST PRISONERS OF WAR
166. The Indictment charges the Accused with the commission of the criminal offense of War Crimes against Prisoners of War in violation of Article 175(a) and (b) of the CC of B-H, that is, violation of the provisions of the Third Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions.
167. In its relevant parts, Article 175(a) stipulates: "Whoever, in violation of the rules of international law, orders or perpetrates in regard to prisoners of war any of the following acts: a) Depriving another persons of their life (murders), intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon persons (tortures), inhuman treatment, …; b) Causing of great suffering or serious injury to bodily integrity or health; …shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not less than ten years or long-term imprisonment.”
168. Two preliminary requirements must be fulfilled for the existence of the criminal offense in violation of Article 175 (a) and (b) of the CC of B-H. First, there must exist an armed conflict, international or non-international, at the time relevant to the Indictment. Two additional requirements must also be fulfilled for the offense to be tried pursuant to 43 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Article 175(a) and (b) of the CC of B- H. Article 175 of the CC of B-H transfers the jurisdiction to the Court provided that the act constitutes a violation of rules of international law, while Common Article 3 stipulates that the victim is a person taking no active part in the hostilities at the time of the commission.
169. Based on the foregoing, the law shall not apply unless the alleged criminal offenses were committed in the context of an armed conflict and with sufficient nexus between the alleged offenses and the armed conflict.
1. Violation of international law referred to in Article 175(a) and (b) of CC of B-H
170. The charges of inhuman treatment and inflicting serious suffering or physical injury to prisoners, and other acts that the Accused is charged with, as violations of laws and customs of warfare in the case at hand, are based on Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which sets forth a minimum core of mandatory rules and reflects the fundamental humanitarian principles upon which the Geneva Conventions, in their entirety, are based. It is also generally accepted that Common Article 3 constitutes part of customary international law15 and that inhuman treatment represents a grave violation of international humanitarian law, which, naturally, implies individual criminal responsibility.16
C. CHAPEAU ELEMENTS OF WAR CRIMES AGAINST CIVILIANS
171. Article 173(1)(c), War Crimes against Civilians, stipulates:
“Whoever in violation of rules of international law in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, orders or perpetrates any of the following acts
15 Decision on Jurisdiction in Tadić, para. 89; Appeals Judgment in Čelebići, para. 143. 16 Appeals Judgment in Čelebići, paras. 153-174, especially para 167. The Trial Chamber states that provisions of the Criminal Code of SFRY, adopted by Bosnia and Herzegovina in April 1992 (CC of SFRY, the 1990 edition, Articles 142-143), determines the jurisdiction of the courts in B-H for war crimes committed in times of war, armed conflict or occupation, not differentiating between an international and a non-international armed conflict. That is why the Accused in the case at hand may be considered individually criminally responsible under domestic law for the crimes the Indictment charges him with.
44 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
c) Killings, intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon a person (torture), inhuman treatment, biological, medical or other scientific experiments, taking of tissue or organs for the purpose of transplantation, immense suffering or violation of bodily integrity or health;
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not less than ten years or long-term imprisonment.”
172. The following chapeau elements of the criminal offense of War Crimes against Civilians follow from its legal definition:
1. The act of the perpetrator must be committed in violation of international law; 2. The violation must take place in time of war, armed conflict or occupation; 3. There must exist a nexus between the act of the perpetrator and war, armed conflict or occupation; 4. The perpetrator must order or perpetrate the relevant act.
1. Persons enjoying protection pursuant to Article 173 of CC of B-H
173. The ECtHR noted in its judgment following the Application by Boban Šimšić (case No. 51552/10), with respect to the issue of legality: ”The Court reiterates that the guarantee enshrined in Article 7, which is an essential element of the rule of law, occupies a prominent place in the Convention system of protection”. However, in this context, it also adds that the Court’s function “under Article 7 § 1 is to consider whether the applicant’s acts, at the time when they were committed, constituted an offense defined with sufficient accessibility and foreseeability by domestic or international law”. In that context, the Court notes that ”having in mind the flagrantly unlawful nature of his acts, which included murders and torture of Bosniacs …, even the most cursory reflection by the applicant would have indicated that they risked constituting a crime … for which he could be held criminally accountable”, and finally that “the Court concludes that the applicant’s acts, at the time when they were committed, constituted an offense defined with sufficient accessibility and foreseeability by international law.”
174. Therefore, based on the foregoing opinion of the ECtHR, it appears obvious that, when evaluating the legality of certain criminal offenses, the Court was guided by the
45 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
question whether the underlying acts were of flagrantly unlawful nature and concluded that murders and tortures indeed were.
175. In other words, the Court considers that under international law, murders and tortures, that is, the acts that can be identified with them, constitute the acts carrying criminal liability.
176. Also, deliberating on the issue of persons enjoying protection from murder and torture or other similar treatment, especially in the context of analysis of the character of an armed conflict (hence also the application of the Additional Protocol I and the Additional Protocol II), the Panel of the Appellate Division of the Court of B-H, in its Verdict No. X-KRŽ-06/197 dated 21 November 2007, upheld the opinion of the Trial Panel in the Verdict No. X-KR-06/197 dated 17 July 2007, that for the application of Article 173 of the CC of B-H it is not required to determine whether the armed conflict was international or non-international17.
177. In addition, both the Trial and the Appellate Panels of the Court of B-H agree that, in accordance with Article 173 of the CC of B-H, protection applies to civilians and persons placed hors de combat18, which implies that, under Article 173 of the CC of B-H and in accordance with the relevant regulations, civilians and persons placed hors de combat enjoy protection from murders, tortures and other inhuman treatment.
178. The Panel concluded that all persons referred to in Section III of the Verdict and the relevant Sub-Sections fulfilled the conditions to be treated as civilians or persons placed hors de combat and, in application of the relevant provisions of Articles 68, 69, 72, and 75 of the Additional Protocol I and Articles 4 and 5 of the Additional Protocol II, the Panel established the responsibility of the Accused Ratko Dronjak for the commission of the criminal offense of War Crimes against Civilians in violation of Article 173 of the CC of B-H.
17 Verdict of the Appellate Panel of the Court of B-H No. X-KŽ-06/197 dated 21 November 2007, p. 4; Verdict of the Trial Panel of the Court of B-H No. X-KR-06/197 dated 17 July 2007, pp. 13, 14. 18 Verdict of the Appellate Panel of the Court of B-H No. X-KŽ-06/197 dated 21 November 2007, p. 4; Verdict of the Trial Panel of the Court of B-H No. X-KR-06/197 dated 17 July 2007, p. 10.
46 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
V. FACTUAL FINDINGS ON THE GROUNDS OF EVIDENCE
A. GENERAL FRAMEWORK OF THE CASE, WIDESPREAD AND SYSTEMATIC ATTACK DIRECTED
AGAINST THE CIVILIAN POPULATION
179. The Court has analyzed a large body of evidence concerning the general factual framework of the case, or the events that took place in the territory of the Autonomous Region of Krajina (ARK) from May 1992 until the end of 1995 and the existence of a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian population. The Decision of the Court No. X-KR-09/684 of 13 October 2010 accepting a large number of facts established in the ICTY Trial Chamber Judgment in Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin should be the starting point in addressing the relevant events.
180. The establishment of ARK constituted an integral part of the overall political events in Bosnia and Herzegovina since 1991. Pursuant to these facts, the Bosnian Serb leadership embarked on a program of linking Serb populated territories in BiH with a view to establishing a separate state of Bosnian Serbs. This objective implied the removal of majority non-Serbs from the territories where it was planned to establish a state of Bosnian Serbs by applying force and fear.
181. Once the strategic goals have been defined, the next phase in the implementation thereof anticipated the establishment of Serb autonomous regions, including the ARK. After the ARK was established, certain actions were taken with an obvious view to implementing the Strategic Plan, including, among other things, imposing of such living conditions on the non-Serb population in Krajina with a view to permanently removing the non-Serb population, namely destroying homes of the non-Serb population, and allocating non-destroyed houses to Serb refugees.
182. In addition to destroying homes, the implementation of the plan implied setting up detention facilities for mass-scale detentions of Bosnian Muslims and Croats, and actions of sacking professional non-Serb workers, selective disarming of paramilitary formations and individuals who possessed weapons, and resettlement of population.
47 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
183. Specifically, the events that took place in certain municipalities, inter alia, include the following: detention of Muslims and Croats at the Jasenica School and Petar Kočić School in the Municipality of Bosanska Krupa, detention of men at the working site of the Kozila Timber Company and the Police Station in Bosanski Petrovac, detention of Muslims at the Nikola Mačkić School and SUP in the Municipality of Ključ, and finally, detention of Bosnian Muslims and Croats in detention facilities in Sanski Most.
184. It is clearly apparent from the facts established in the ICTY Judgment that in spring 1992, that is, May 1992, a widespread and systematic attack was launched against the non-Serb civilian population in the Krajina territory. With regard to these findings of the Court, however, a string of documentary evidence corroborating the findings of the ICTY Trial Chamber should also be mentioned.
185. The then political circumstances and the circumstances that preceded the forcible resettlement of the population, that is, their persecution, are obvious from the Prosecution Exhibit T-27 (Instruction for the Organization and Activity of the Organs of the Serb People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary Circumstances dated 19 December 1991), Exhibit T-28 (Decision on the Strategic Goals of the Serb People in BiH), Exhibit T-29 (Official Gazette of the Serb People in BiH, No. 1, dated 15 January 1992 publishing the Decision Establishing the Assembly of the Serb People in BiH and other pertaining decisions), Exhibit T-30 (Official Gazette of the Autonomous Region of Krajina dated 5 June 1992, publishing among others the Decision Establishing the Crisis Staff of ARK), Exhibit T-31 (List of the Assembly Representatives of the ARK). This evidence clearly confirms the findings of the ICTY Trial Chamber, that is, the facts accepted by this Panel as established. In other words, the conclusions drawn by the ICTY Panel clearly ensue from the above referenced evidence. In the light of evidence adduced during the main trial concerning the implementation of strategic goals, it is further necessary to point to the Prosecution Exhibit T-38 (Sub-region Meeting Conclusions dated 7 June 1992). In addition to the mere tone in which they were articulated, the following conclusions should be emphasized: Conclusion No. 1 on the establishment of Serb state in the territory of the former Republic of BiH, Conclusions Nos. 4 and 6 concerning the replacement of Muslims and Croats from their positions within the First Krajina Corps, that is, resettlement of Muslims and Croats from the sub-
48 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
region territory (Bihać, Bosanski Petrovac, Srpska Krupa, Sanski Most, Prijedor, Bosanski Novi and Ključ).
186. The Prosecution Exhibit T-39 (Review of People who Moved Out and Moved In – Security Service Centre, SDB Banja Luka Sector dated May 1993) can be taken as a closing document concerning the forcible removal of population from the Krajina territory. It is apparent from this Exhibit that a large number of Muslims and Croats moved out of the Ključ, Sanski Most, Petrovac, Kupres and Krupa at Una areas. For example, 43,300 Muslims left Krupa at the River Una.
187. With regard to the evidence adduced during the main trial, it should be noted that many witnesses testified before the Court about the events that took place in the places where they had lived, that is, about the unlawful detentions and attacks on their settlements. Witnesses Hilmo Kozlica and Šefkija Kozlica gave evidence about the attack launched against the village of Orašac.
188. The Court has found on the grounds of the evidence adduced that in the territory of Municipalities of Drvar, Kulen Vakuf, Bosanski Petrovac, Ključ, Sanski Most, Kupres and Bosanska Krupa, a widespread and systematic attack was launched against the civilian population that lasted from May 1992 through May 1993. The Court has analyzed each piece of evidence, both separately and mutually (as mentioned above), accepted it in its entirety, and established the facts as described in the introduction of the operative part of the Verdict pertaining to the existence of attack whose objective was to persecute Muslims and Croats from the ARK territory.
189. In addition to the fact that there existed an attack, the Court undoubtedly established on the grounds of the evidence adduced that the Accused was aware of the attack too, namely that his acts constituted an integral part thereof.
49 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
190. Within this context, it should be again started from the Accused’s submission, or the fact that, having testified in his own defense, the witness confirmed that he had spent most of the time in the battalion’s duty room or in a coffee bar.19
191. At this point, it should be noted that a military formation within the VRS 2nd Krajina Corps was in question, namely that this unit operated in the entire zone of responsibility. Therefore, it is quite clear that, having spent most of his time in the duty room of the Battalion Military Police, the Accused was aware of the activities thereof and thereby generally had knowledge about the events taking place in the territory covered by the 2nd Krajina Corps.
192. It should be also added that the Accused was a Director of the Slavko Rodić Primary School and Kamenica Primary School, and that he himself confirmed that there existed a significant difference between the treatment accorded to Serb and non-Serb detainees, both with respect to the detention procedure and the internment conditions. It should be added along this line that during the critical period, established procedures and definitions existed regarding the persons who should be considered prisoners of war (Prosecution Exhibit T-60 – Order on the treatment of prisoners of war). It is obvious, however, that civilians were indeed detained in Kamenica and Slavko Rodić Primary Schools. The Accused explained that it was not part of his job description to deal with the status of detained persons.
193. In other words, the Accused was aware that operations were ongoing in the areas falling within the zone of responsibility of the 2nd Krajina Corps, and that within these events civilians were being detained without pertaining documentation. According to the Accused, these problems were not an integral part of the description of his activities and duties.
194. In the part addressing the treatment accorded to, or better to say, behavior toward non-Serbs, the evidence of witness Dragan Rodić should be also taken into
19 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak dated 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak) p. 9.
50 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
account. This witness testified that his actions just mirrored the euphoria that prevailed during the critical period.20
195. In the light of treatment accorded to the civilians of different ethnic origin, the Prosecution Exhibits T-21 and T20 should be also emphasized. This evidence demonstrates that the highest-ranking officers of the 2nd Krajina Corps considered it acceptable to threaten Muslims and their families with reprisals with the view to forcing the civilians into cooperation.
196. Pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court has diligently evaluated all the pieces of evidence adduced, both individually and mutually. The Court concluded that during the period from May 1992 through May 1993, in the territory of Municipalities of Drvar, Kulen Vakuf, Bosanski Petrovac, Ključ, Sanski Most, Kupres and Bosanska Krupa, there existed a widespread and systematic attack directed against the Muslim and Croat civilian population, that the accused Ratko Dronjak had knowledge about the attack and was aware that his acts constituted an integral part thereof.
197. In drawing the referenced conclusion, the Court has analyzed the evidence presented during the main trial. The Court found that the analyzed documentary evidence fully confirmed the facts as established by the ICTY Trial Chamber in Radoslav Brđanin. The Court also established that the listed witnesses were convincing, credible and sufficiently definable so that the Court could beyond a reasonable doubt draw the conclusion about the facts as established in the introduction of the operative part of the Verdict concerning the persecution of non-Serb civilian population from the ARK territory.
B. INDISPUTABLE FACTS
198. During the proceedings, neither the Prosecution nor the Defense contested that certain facts existed and that the Accused himself confirmed these facts in his evidence.
199. The Accused himself testified that he was mobilized and deployed in the Livno and Grahovo territory to carry out combat tasks. Having returned from a combat post,
20 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak dated 21 October 2010 (Dragan Rodić) p. 11.
51 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
the Chief of Security, Mikajlo Mitrović instructed the Accused to report to the Police Command as there was a vacancy post for a warden of the military-remand prison in Kamenica which had not still been established at the time. No prison or detention unit existed in Drvar during this period. Prior to the establishment of the military-remand prison in Kamenica, however, a detention unit was established in the Slavko Rodić Primary School in Drvar and operated within the Military Police Battalion.21
200. The Accused testified that he served as a warden in the military-remand prison in Kamenica from summer 1992 through late 1995, with occasional breaks. The Accused testified that, in general, the warden was responsible for the prison, the organization of life and work within the prison, and securing the persons brought to the prison. The course of his service was interrupted on 20 May 1994 after he had been wounded. The Accused returned to his post of warden after 4-5 months.22
201. With regard to the circumstances of his appointment to the post of warden, the Accused testified that during a morning line-up of the Military Police Battalion at the stadium of the Marija Bursać Secondary School Center in May 1992, an order was read appointing him a warden in the military-remand prison in Kamenica in its formative stage.23
202. The Accused testified that a shift commander existed in Kamenica, who was the warden’s deputy in his absence, and that in addition to him and the guards, a security officer was coming there on a daily basis. The guards had to safeguard the persons brought to them. Most frequently, the shift commander was a person who reported to the warden on a daily basis on the situation and events from a previous night or day. Barović was a commander of one shift, and Rodić of the other.24
203. The Accused reported to the Chief of Security in the 2nd Krajina Corps, Colonel Mikajlo Mitrović, on the events in Kamenica.25
21 Main trial transcript in Dronjak, dated 19 January 2012, (Ratko Dronjak) p. 5. 22 Testimony of Ratko Dronjak, p. 5-6. 23 Testimony of Ratko Dronjak, p. 8.-9. 24 Testimony of Ratko Dronjak, p. 9.-10. 25 Testimony of Ratko Dronjak, p. 12.
52 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
204. Bearing in mind the Order appointing the Accused a warden of the military- remand prison in Kamenica that was read during a troop review of the Military Police Battalion in May 1992, practically by inertia the Accused performed the duty of detention commander unit in the Slavko Rodić Primary School that had existed prior to the establishment of the Kamenica prison in August 1992.26
205. The prisoners were continually interrogated in 1992 and it was the security officer that carried out these interrogations. The Accused could not attend these interrogations, that is, he was not authorized to question anyone bearing in mind the function and duties he discharged.27
206. The Exchange Commission led by Milan Ivančević was directly linked to the prison (Kamenica), so they knew who was detained therein at any time.28
207. From 1992 to 1995, the military-remand prison in Kamenica, led by the warden- accused Ratko Dronjak, was under the command of Chief of Security.29
208. The shift leader usually reported to the Accused on the death incidents occurring in Kamenica. Deceased persons were put in black bags and buried within the prison compound.30
209. The accused Ratko Dronjak testified that he did not know what was happening in the camps on a regular basis pursuant to international humanitarian law. The Accused also stated that he did not even try to obtain any information as to the camp warden obligations arising from international humanitarian law.31
210. The accused Ratko Dronjak knew that special premises were arranged at Pasjak where the International Committee of Red Cross visited the detained persons from Kamenica. The objective of the foregoing was to mislead the Committee with regard to
26 Testimony of Ratko Dronjak, p. 9 and 12. 27 Testimony of Ratko Dronjak, p. 19-20. 28 Testimony of Ratko Dronjak, p. 23. 29 Testimony of Ratko Dronjak, p. 32. 30 Testimony of Ratko Dronjak, p. 33. 31 Testimony of Ratko Dronjak, p. 46.
53 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
the conditions in which these persons were interned. In certain cases, the detainees were kept in a damp basement, on the stone-floor and on dark premises in Kamenica.32
211. Dragić Barović was also among the guards dismissed from Kamenica by the accused Ratko Dronjak.33
C. FINDINGS OF THE COURT 1. Section I
212. With regard to the charges against Ratko Dronjak related to the Slavko Rodić Primary School and Kamenica Primary School facilities, the Court has first considered the conditions in which the men were detained and the Accused’s role in the detention thereof.
213. More specifically, witness Dragan Rodić testified that he was deployed in the Military Police Company on 1 June 1992 and after two-three days transferred to secure the prison in the Slavko Rodić Primary School under the Accused’s command. The witness also testified that Muslims and Croats were detained at the School only on the grounds of their ethnic origin, and that they were held on premises unfit for internment. Muslims were held in dressing-rooms and Serbs in a gym. In addition, the witness testified that in the School that operated as a camp until late August 1992, the guards worked under the instructions of the warden/accused, and that the detainees were from the Bosanska Krupa, Ključ and Sanica area.
214. Witness Dragan Rodić testified about the treatment accorded to and the conditions in which Muslims and Croats were interned in the School. The witness stated that the conditions were improved when mats were thrown into the premises given that during the first month the Muslims slept on the concrete and that the Serbs were in a more privileged position. No criminal proceedings were conducted against Muslims and
32 Testimony of Ratko Dronjak, p. 46 and 47. 33 Testimony of Ratko Dronjak, p. 54.
54 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Croats, and unlike the Serb detainees, they were issued with no decisions ordering them into custody for a term of 10 to 60 days.34
215. Witness Dragan Rodić further testified that soldiers and civilians were detained in the Slavko Rodić Primary School in Drvar, as confirmed by witness Emir Lasić too. Witness Lasić testified that of his own will he left the unit in which he had been deployed, and that after being arrested by the civilian police in early June, he was transferred to the School in Drvar. In the School, witness Lasić was taken over by the accused Ratko Dronjak who introduced himself as a detention unit commander. The others addressed him in this way too. Witness Lasić further testified that the Accused punched the witness in his nose on this occasion, causing his nose to bleed.
216. Like witness Rodić, witness Lasić confirmed that they were held on the School premises unfit for internment, namely that they slept on the dressing-room floor, that they could not attend the basic hygienic needs, that they were allowed to visit toilette but were beaten and abused upon returning back, that they preferred urinating in a bucket placed in the dressing-room to avoid being physically abused by the guards, and that at the time when he was interned in Kamenica, people from Ključ, Sanski Most, Sanica and Kulen Vakuf were brought there.
217. As to the lawfulness of their detainment, witness Lasić further testified that he was not issued with a decision ordering him into custody, and that upon his release the Accused gave him a pass which enabled him to reach Ključ.35
218. Witness Duško Dronjak also testified about the conditions of internment in the Slavko Rodić Primary School. In June 1992, this witness was deployed in the Military Police Battalion. The witness recalls that at the time, a prison was founded or in the process of foundation, and that it was led by a prison warden. In addition to the warden, several other persons were hired to secure the prison. As to the premises on which the prisoners were detained, witness Duško Dronjak testified that the Muslims were
34 Main trial audio-recording dated 21 October 2010, witness Dragan Rodić, 8:00-9:00 hrs, 10:25-10:56 hrs, 12:57-13:30 hrs, 14:28-15:00 hrs, 16:00-16:20 hrs, 21:00-21:30 hrs, 31:10-34:40 hrs and 40:00-42:00 hrs.
55 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
detained in the dressing-room, while the Serbs were in classrooms, in better conditions, and that they could even move around.36
219. Witness Muho Mašinović testified about the conditions of internment and detention on the premises of the Slavko Rodić Primary School. This witness stated that in late May 1992, he was transferred from Kulen Vakuf together with his brother and six other men and detained in the school in Drvar. Witness Mašinović testified that he was age 17 at the time but that this fact had no effect on his detention, namely that he was detained regardless of the fact that he was a minor. This witness also testified that they were held on premises unfit for detention, namely that they slept on boards. The witness also stated that the prison warden hit him a couple of times on entering this dark room.
220. Witness Muho Mašinović was subsequently transferred to Prekaja, thereupon from Prekaja to Kozile, and finally to Kamenica. The witness testified that while he was in Kamenica no proper legal framework existed for their detention. More specifically, the witness learned from a soldier in Kamenica that they had been detained only for being Muslims.
221. With regard to the conditions in Kamenica, witness stated that the detainees could use the toilette but were frequently beaten on their way back, wherefore they used a bucket to relieve themselves. The witness stated that he was not allowed to have a bath for two months.37
222. The accused Ratko Dronjak testified about the foundation of detention facility in the school in Drvar. In his evidence before the Court, the Accused stated that in May 1992, he was assigned the duty of a prison warden, and that this detention facility was in its full operational capacity no sooner than when it was transferred to Kamenica.
223. Bearing in mind all the above referenced evidence evaluated both individually and mutually, and having accepted the mentioned witnesses’ statements to which the Panel
35 Main trial audio-recording dated 13 January 2011, witness Emir Lasić, 10:33-11:30 hrs, 15:33-16:53 hrs, 15:33-16:53 hrs, 16:55-17:25 hrs, 22:00-22:18 hrs, 25:30-26:50 hrs, 29:30-34:13 hrs and 37:15-38:10 hrs. 36 Main trial audio-recording dated 20 January 2011, witness Duško Dronjak, 1:06:45-1:07:10 hrs, 1:10:53- 1:13:00 hrs and 1:15:00-1:16:33 hrs.
56 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
gave credence having found them clear, convincing and consistent with the essential facts as they were given on the basis of personal observations of the witnesses/detainees who only presented the facts that they saw and heard as detainees and whose most important parts were emphasized, the Court determined all the relevant facts as described in Section I of the operative part of the Verdict. The Court concluded that the accused Ratko Dronjak participated in the set up and maintenance of the system of abuse in the Slavko Rodić Primary School, where he received unlawfully detained Muslim and Croat civilians from the territory of Kulen Vakuf, Ključ, Sanski Most and Kupres and held them on the premises unfit for detention. The Court also concluded on the grounds of the adduced evidence that the detainees were subjected to mistreatment as corroborated by the evidence analyzed in the part of the reasoning pertaining to Section I-1 of the Verdict.
(a) Section I-1
224. The factual findings of the Court under Section I-1 of the Verdict were made on the grounds of the large body of evidence adduced, primarily the evidence of witnesses Duško Dronjak, Emir Lasić, Muho Mašinović, Dragan Rodić, Hilmo Kozlica, Šefkija Kozlić, Muharem Beganović, Samir Družić, Emir Demirović, Nihad Linić and the accused Ratko Dronjak.
225. The evidence of witness Dragan Rodić and the accused Ratko Dronjak himself should be taken into account with regard to the general circumstances in the Slavko Rodić Primary School. Witness Dragan Rodić testified in detail that the detainees were abused in the School and that they were usually mistreated in the interrogations during which members of the military police, superior officers or guards beat them. Witness Dragan Rodić testified, and the other witnesses confirmed, that the detainees were beaten with no particular reason, and that military batons, hands and available tools were used for this purpose.38
37 Main trial audio-recording dated 21 April 2011, witness Muho Mašinović, 9:00-10:40 hrs, 14:00-15:30 hrs, 20:00-21:20 hrs, 41:30-41:50 and 53:00-55:00 hrs. 38 Main trial audio-recording dated 21 October 2010, witness Dragan Rodić, 19:35-20:55 hrs.
57 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
226. That the persons other than guards who were present in the Slavko Rodić Primary School had contacts with the prisoners was also confirmed by the Accused himself. The Accused stated that the school resembled a bus station to which many persons used to come and go; that the Military Police Battalion was founded at the time and that it could happen that the men were beaten. More specifically, the Accused did mention in his testimony that he could not have known that the men were beaten, wherefore he could undertake no actions along this line.39
227. The Court has carefully analyzed the evidence of the witness/accused Ratko Dronjak, the concept of his defense, and the course of examination itself. The Court concluded that his evidence is almost fully consistent with all the evidence adduced, but that the witness avoided testifying about certain facts having tried to bring about a more favorable position. It is obvious that the Accused does not deny most of the evidence in his testimony pertaining to the Slavko Rodić and Kamenica Primary Schools, and that in a way, he even more so confirms this evidence and comments on it. The Accused, simply considered he was not a competent person who had adequate powers from which his criminal liability would ensue. The Accused also testified that he was not even aware of certain events.
228. Consistently with witness Dragan Rodić, the Accused testified that particularly the guard service in the Slavko Rodić Primary School and his powers were not of such a nature so as to stop the beatings carried out by the persons who were present in the school. A significant difference in the testimony of the mentioned witnesses, however, exists in this regard. As previously indicated, the Accused testified that the conduct of third-persons could not be controlled. Guard Dragan Rodić and guard-driver Duško Dronjak, however, consistently testified that there existed a guard service of 4-5 military police officers, including Vjekoslav Bašić, Boro Milivojac, Mićo Pećanac and Dragan Rodić aka Šaula, that the Accused was a Detention Unit Commander,40 and that it was not possible to control third-persons because as soon as they entered the room with the prisoners they started beating the detainees. In these circumstances, the guards could no longer stop the beating, on the contrary, they rather joined the persons from outside
39 Testimony of Ratko Dronjak, p. 61 and 62.
58 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
to beat the prisoners themselves. The guards did so because the prisoners were beaten by the persons who were seen spending time with the Accused, visiting the dressing- rooms in his company (where the prisoners were held), and who argued that it was exactly the Accused who allowed them access to the prisoners.41
229. Witness Emir Lasić testified almost similarly as witness Dragan Rodić that the men held in the dressing-rooms were beaten. Witness Lasić stated that he first learned from members of the VRS that a group of around 7-8 Muslims from Martin Brod and Kulen Vakuf had been brought to one of the dressing-rooms; that screams and shouts were heard from this room until late night hours; that on the following morning when they were taken out for a breakfast, they saw an olive-gray van parked in reverse and the soldiers taking out the bodies in bags and loading them onto the van. The witness concluded based on the form of bags or their configuration that the corpses where in these therein.42
230. With regard to the referenced event, witness Emir Lasić additionally confirmed that, at the time, he was aware that the accused Ratko Dronjak was a prison warden, that his office was near the dressing-room and that he was superior to the Military Police officers.43
231. Like witness Emir Lasić, witness Duško Dronjak testified that the bodies taken out of the school were most likely driven away in the van and, more importantly, that the accused Ratko Dronjak knew everything about this. More specifically, this witness testified that not all men left the Slavko Rodić Primary School alive and that a certain number of bodies were once taken out of the School. The witness described that on one occasion the Accused had told him to park the van in reverse in front of the School, and that after he had acted upon the Accused’s order, soldiers started taking out the dead
40 Main trial audio-recording dated 20 January, witness Dronjak, 1:15:30-1:16:35 h. 41 Main trial audio-recording dated 21 October 2010, witness Dragan Rodić, 33:55-36:30 hrs. 42 Main trial audio-recording dated 13 January 2011, witness Emir Lasić, 25:20-38:25 hrs. 43 Main trial audio-recording dated 13 January 2011, witness Emir Lasić, 55:10-59:10 hrs.
59 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
men (four or five bodies), and loading them up on the van. Having seen this scene, the Accused felt nausea and exhaustion and thereupon walked away.44
232. Like the above mentioned witnesses, including witness Emir Lasić, witness Muho Mašinović, whose evidence the Court finds reliable and credible, testifies exactly in the same way that the accused Ratko Dronjak was a warden in the Slavko Rodić Primary School and that his office was near the dressing-rooms.45
233. On the grounds of evidence presented in these proceedings, the Court found beyond a reasonable doubt that the persons detained in the school were abused and that, in addition to this mistreatment, at least four unidentified persons died as a result of being abused in this School, including Professor Rasim Zulić and Drago Žulj. The Court’s conclusion that they died in the Slavko Rodić Primary School in Drvar is drawn on the grounds of evidence of witnesses Hilmo Kozlica, Šefkija Kozlica, Muharem Beganović, Samir Družić, Emir Demirović and Nihad Linić. The Court accepted the statements of these witnesses in their entirety having found them clear and convincing given that these witnesses were detainees themselves, that they eye-witnessed and experienced all the events as they too were abused.
234. Witness Hilmo Kozlica testified that he learned from deceased Kalmin Kalić that the men detained in the Slavko Rodić Primary School were mistreated, that they were beaten by the prison warden, the guards and police officers almost on a daily basis. This witness testified that in addition to seven young men from Vojići, Professor Rasim Zulić, who had been taken prisoner in Orašac, and Pavo Žulj’s relative, who died as a result of sustained wounds, were also among these men.46
235. Like witness Hilmo Kozlica, witness Šefkija Kozlica also confirmed that also detained in the school in Drvar were men from Orašac, Klisevići and Kulen Vakuf, that
44 Main trial audio-recording dated 20 January 2011, witness Duško Dronjak, 1:18:00-1:20:50 hrs. 45 Main trial audio-recording dated 21 April 2011, witness Muho Mašinović, 17:00-19:30 hrs. 46 Main trial audio-recording dated 30 September 2010, witness Hilmo Kozlica, 1:22:00-1:25:40 hrs.
60 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
he learned from them that Professor Rasim Zulić had been held in the school, that he was beaten up and died as a result of the wounds sustained in the school.47
236. Similarly to the above referenced witnesses, witness Muharem Beganović described in a convincing way that Kalmin Kalić and the other persons brought to Kamenica from the Slavko Rodić Primary School recounted that Professor Rasim Zulić had been beaten to death in the School. Witness Muharem Beganović further testified that he learned that Drago Žulj, Pavo Žulj’s relative, was killed in the School and that Pavo Žulj confirmed this to witness Muharem Beganović while he was in Kamenica.48 This sequence of events was similarly and in a fully convincing manner confirmed by witness Samir Družić. Witness Družić testified that he learned from Pavo Žulj that Pavo had been captured somewhere near Kupres together with his relative, and that Pavo’s relative, whose name he did not know, died in the School in Drvar as a result of beatings.49
237. Witnesses Emir Demirović and Nihad Linić consistently confirmed that Kalmin Kalić, who was subsequently killed, told them that Rasim Zulić from Orašac was held in the Slavko Rodić Primary School in Drvar and killed there.50
238. The Court drew its conclusions with regard to the death of Professor Rasim Zulić and Drago Žulj on the grounds of the Prosecution documentary evidence too. Upon a thorough evaluation, the Court accepted this evidence in its entirety, as it was issued by the relevant authorities. The above evidence essentially confirms the statements of certain witnesses, namely that the foregoing persons died of the beatings, that they were taken out of the school and transported in an olive-gray van. That the referenced persons were traced and exhumed confirms Exhibit T-98 (Record of the Cantonal Court in Bihać on Exhumation and Identification of Bodies Found in the Golubnjača-Podova Mass Grave, Municipality Drvar, No. KRI-21/01 dated 17 April 2001), Exhibit T-99 (DNA reports for Rasim Zulić and Drago Žulj) and Exhibit T-102 (Photo-documentation of
47 Main trial audio-recording dated 4 November 2010, witness Šefkija Kozlica, 1:12:05-1:15:45 h. 48 Main trial audio-recording dated 10 February 2011, witness Muharem Beganović, 1:32:15-1:34:12 h. 49 Main trial audio-recording dated 24 February 2011, witness Samir Družić, 38:55-39:55 h. 50 Main trial audio-recording dated 12 May 2011, witness Emir Demirović, 54:30-55:25 h and main trial audio-recording dated 30 June 2011, witness Nihad Linić, 2:17:00-2:17:30 h.
61 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Podovi grave Golubnjača, Municipality Drvar and the crime scene sketch of the Podova grave Golubnjača, Municipality Drvar).
239. Pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court of BiH conscientiously evaluated all pieces of evidence, both individually and mutually, and found that the guards, Military Police officers and other soldiers clubbed and beat the detained civilians in the Slavko Rodić Primary School in Drvar, on the premises where the detained persons were held during the time when the accused Ratko Dronjak was a prison commander, in the way as described in Section I-1 of the operative part of the Verdict, as a result of which Professor Rasim Zulić, Drago Žulj and at least four other unidentified civilians died, and that thereupon the accused Ratko Dronjak organized the transportation of their bodies.
240. In drawing this conclusion, the Court has analyzed the evidence presented during the main trial and found that the referenced witnesses were convincing and credible, definable to a sufficient extent so that the Court could draw the conclusion beyond a doubt about the facts established in Section I-1 of the operative part of the Verdict.
2. Section II
241. The Accused’s submissions, that is, the facts he confirmed in his testimony should be first taken into account when it comes to the establishment of camp in Kamenica. The Accused testified that he was appointed a warden in Kamenica, but in practice, he was a warden in the temporary facility located in the Slavko Rodić School, and that the men who had been held in the School were transferred to Kamenica, where a group from Kozile joined them too.51
242. The Accused testified that he discharged the duty of warden from the summer 1992 to late 1995. More specifically, the Accused testified before the Court that he had assumed the duty of warden in Kamenica in August 1992 and that he left upon the guards to agree on the way in which shifts would be organized.
51 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak dated 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 12 and 14.
62 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
243. With respect to the Accused’s submissions, it should be noted that many witnesses confirmed before the Court that they were held in Kozile whereupon they were transferred to Kamenica, and that they saw the Accused himself during their load up on the vehicles. The Accused also confirmed these facts, having explained that the Chief of Security had ordered him to go to Kozile and transfer a group of Muslims to Kamenica together with their guards, which he did.52
244. As to the setting up of the Kamenica facility, the Accused testified that a construction group from the 2nd Krajina Corps had prepared and adapted the premises in Kamenica.53
245. The Accused testified about the conditions or the premises where the detainees were held. The Accused stated that instead of asking for the ICRC support to ensure better conditions in Kamenica, his superiors ordered him to organize a visit of the ICRC to a school at Pasjak so as to improve the reputation of the army, that is, to conceal the improper conditions in which the detained Muslims and Croats were held in Kamenica. In speaking about the conditions of internment of the detained Muslims and Croats, the Accused testified that it was difficult to provide better conditions in ten rooms, while at Pasjak only one room was adjusted. The Accused also stated that he could count on no one’s help. More specifically, the Accused confirmed that the men were held in a damp basement, on the stone-floor, with no day light, and that, practically, the only way to improve the internment conditions was to construct an annex, that is, to divide the space and make four solitary cells.54
246. Witness Dragan Rodić testified that a group of men from the Slavko Rodić Primary School in Drvar and a group of men from Kozile were transferred to Kamenica, that these men were mostly soldiers, that is, they were in military uniforms, but that civilians were among them too. In addition, the Accused stated that the civilians were detained only for being non-Serbs. This confirms the fact that the civilians and the soldiers were detained on the same premises. The witness stated that twice as many
52 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak dated 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 11, 12, 17 and 45. 53 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak dated 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 14 and 15. 54 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak dated 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 30 and 47.
63 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
blankets were needed, that the detained persons were twice a day taken to the toilette, and that meanwhile they used a bucket placed inside the room where they were held to relieve themselves.
247. Finally, the witness confirmed that warden Dronjak selected the men who stood guard in Kamenica.55
248. Witness Muho Mašinović was also held in the Slavko Rodić P.S. wherefrom he was transferred to Prekaja, thereupon from Prekaja to Kozile, and finally to Kamenica. The witness confirmed that no appropriate legal ground existed for their detention in Kamenica, namely that he learned from one of the soldiers in Kamenica that they had been detained only for being Muslims.
249. With regard to the conditions in Kamenica, the witness testified that they could use the toilette, but that they were frequently beaten on their way back wherefore they used a bucket to relieve themselves.56
250. Almost all witnesses, including Šefkija Kozlica, confirmed the submissions of witness Mašinović regarding the camp conditions and the fact that they used a bucket to relieve themselves. The Accused himself confirmed the foregoing too and stated that during the night the detainees used the bucket to relieve themselves.57
251. When it comes to the way in which the men were detained in Kamenica and the civilian or military status of the detained men, the Accused testified that Serb detainees were usually brought in with issued orders to serve disciplinary measures. Among others, witness Dragan Rodić confirmed this fact too. The Accused, however, accepted the detention of men other than Serbs with no proper documentation. It was sufficient that the military police just brought these men in and say they were prisoners of war. According to his own interpretation, the Accused had no powers to arrest or release any prisoner from Kamenica, or to examine the legal grounds of these persons’ detention
55 Main trial audio-recording dated 21 October 2010, witness Dragan Rodić, 42:55-43:55 hrs, 52:48-53:00 hrs, 1:01:30-1:03:30 hrs, 1:05:00-1:05:30 hrs and 1:05:45-1:06:50 hrs. 56 Main trial audio-recording dated 21 April 2011, witness Muho Mašinović, 9:00-10:40 hrs, 14:00-15:30 hrs, 20:00-21:20 hrs, 41:30-41:50 and 53:00-55:00 hrs. 57 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak dated 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 16.
64 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
regardless of the fact that the men were his acquaintances. In explaining his actions, the Accused stated that the foregoing was not within his job description.58
252. The Accused testified that the detainees in Kamenica had two meals a day and that it could happen that there was a lack of food if a number of detainees unexpectedly changed. The Accused also added that everyone in Kamenica ate the same food, namely that no one was treated with privileges.59 The Court, however, notes that in this part of his testimony too, the Accused tried to minimize his responsibility, that is, to present the situation better than it objectively was. Along this line, the witnesses who, in addition to testifying about the poor conditions of internment on the premises also testified about food, among others, are the following: Mile Dujmović, Stipo Petrović, Davor Marinčić, Husnija Mehulić, Fadil Kartal and Mirhad Jusić. These witnesses consistently testified that the food supply in Kamenica was far from satisfactory. Certain witnesses were even more specific about this: Hilmo Kozlica60 lost 35kg, Fikret Dolić61 lost 36kg, Goran Dizdarević62 lost 35kg, Enes Begić63 lost 20kg, Armin Mulić64 lost 45kg, Dževad Dupanović65 lost 40kg, Muharem Beganović66 lost 30kg, Midho Družić67 lost 70kg, Rifet Tahrić68 lost 41kg, Josip Šantić69 lost 16kg, Izet Kaljiković70 lost 46kg, Emir Demirović71 lost 28kg, Nihad Linić72 lost 36kg and Nermin Pečenković73 lost 43kg.
253. The Court took into account the consistency in the evidence of the referenced witnesses, a number of whom were detained at other sites prior to being brought to Kamenica, even though the witnesses could not state precisely how many kilograms they had lost in Kamenica. Having evaluated each testimony individually and mutually,
58 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak dated 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 25, 50, 51 and 60. 59 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak dated 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 17 and 42. 60 Main trial audio-recording dated 30 September 2010, witness Hilmo Kozlica, 2:03:20-2:03:38 hrs. 61 Main trial audio-recording dated 11 November 2010, witness Fikret Dolić, 1:31:00-1:31:20 hrs. 62 Main trial audio-recording dated 2 December 2010, witness Goran Dizdarević, 1:52:35-1:52:47 hrs. 63 Main trial audio-recording dated 27 January 2011, witness Enes Begić, 1:36:04-1:37:30 hrs. 64 Main trial audio-recording dated 27 January 2011, witness Armin Mulić, 2:15:00-2:15:40 hrs. 65 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 February 2011, witness Dževad Dupanović, 55:00-56:00 hrs. 66 Main trial audio-recording dated 10 February 2011, witness Muharem Beganović, 1:50:30-1:50:55 hrs. 67 Main trial audio-recording dated 17 February 2011, witness Midho Družić, 51:20-53:10 hrs. 68 Main trial audio-recording dated 10 March 2011, witness Rifet Tahrić, 3:00:55-3:01:10 hrs. 69 Main trial audio-recording dated 17 March 2011, witness Josip Šantć, 35:00-38:10 hrs. 70 Main trial audio-recording dated 14 April 2011, witness Izet Kaljiković, 1:55:55-1:56:40 hrs. 71 Main trial audio-recording dated 12 May 2011, witness Emir Demirović, 44:05-47:05 hrs. 72 Main trial audio-recording dated 30 June 2011, witness Nihad Linić, 2:04:50-2:07:05 hrs.
65 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
the Court concluded that, in addition to very poor conditions of internment, the men detained in Kamenica were exposed to starvation too.
254. With respect to the conditions in which the detainees were held, the Prosecution documentary evidence should be also mentioned, namely Exhibits T-2 and T-3 or the photos of the Kamenica Primary School depicting in the best way the appearance of the premises where the men were detained.
255. Pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court evaluated all the referenced statements whose most significant parts were previously addressed. The Court also took into account that these statements were individually completely convincing, that they mutually constituted a logical and complete entirety, and that they supplemented and supported each other, as well as the Accused’s testimony and the fact that the documentary evidence corroborates these statements. The Court concluded that all key facts described in Section II of the operative part of the Verdict were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(a) Section II-1
256. Almost the largest number of evidence adduced and the witnesses heard during the main trial pertained to Section II-1 of the Verdict, that is, to the detention of aggrieved parties Jasmin Subašić, Fuad Subašić, Rufad Crnolić, Kalmin Kalić, Šaćir Omanović and Enver Ćehić in Kamenica, their abuse and ultimately their death. Many witnesses heard have almost identically described the destiny of these aggrieved parties. The Court finds that certain minor inconsistencies in the witnesses’ statements concerning the time of apprehension and the sequence thereof are quite logical and normal bearing in mind the long period of time elapsed since the critical events and the conditions and circumstances in which these witnesses lived. In other words, the most important thing for the survived witnesses was not to be called out and taken for beating or to a physician due to the obvious fear for their lives. In fact, it can be concluded from the witnesses’ evidence that it was most important to them not to be separated from the other detainees.
73 Main trial audio-recording dated 27 October 2011, witness Nermin Pečenković, 38:00-46:50 hrs.
66 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
257. As already mentioned, the Court has observed certain inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses Hilmo Kozlica, Šefkija Kozlica, Muharem Beganović, Midho Družić, Ale Družić, Samir Družić, Alan Konjević, Kasim Kulauzović, Muho Mašinović, Emir Demirović, Nihad Linić, Šido Subašić, Fadil Kartal, Esma Ćehić and Umirana Kalić. The referenced inconsistencies, however, are not of such a nature so as to contest the evidence of the mentioned witnesses, or raise a suspicion into their accuracy and reliability. More specifically, the witnesses testified about the critical events that had occurred almost twenty years ago in a completely normal and expected manner.
258. In the light of evaluation and analysis of the evidence adduced during the main trial concerning Section II-1 of the Verdict that rely on the other Sections too, the Court will further present and evaluate the evidence that should be stated in a written copy of the Verdict.
259. In evaluating the evidence under Section I-1 of the Verdict, the Court has analyzed the statements of a large number of witnesses who, in fact, almost had no direct information about the critical events, but rather testified about what they had learned from a group of persons brought from the Slavko Rodić Primary School. In recounting the events in the school in Drvar, the witnesses had best memories of Kalmin Kalić, but of the other persons too, including Pavo Žulj.
260. Witness Emir Lasić recalls that at the time when he was held at the Slavko Rodić P.S., Kalmin Kalić from the Municipality of Sanski Most was brought in with two other Muslim men from Sanica, Municipality of Ključ, who had been taken prisoners in their attempt to breakthrough to Bihać. This witness added that all three of them were alive on 24 July 1992 when he was released from the Slavko Rodić P.S.74
261. The submissions of witness Midho Družić logically and consistently support the testimony of witness Emir Lasić. Witness Družić confirmed that six men were brought to Kamenica while he was held there, that they told him they were from Sanica, Sanski Most and Bugojno, and that they were previously held in the school in Drvar, where they had been tortured and beaten. These persons were the Subašić brothers, Šaćir
74 Main trial audio-recording dated 13 January 2011, witness Emir Lasić, 33:10-34:50 hrs.
67 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Omanović, Enver Ćehić, Kalmin Kalić, all from Sanski Most, three men from Sanica, one from Vojići and Rufad from Sanica. In addition to these men, Pavo Žulj was brought from Drvar.75
262. Witness Družić confirmed that Rufad was first taken away from Kamenica, then Fuad and Jasmin Subašić, after them Šaćir Omanović and Enver Ćehić, and thereupon Kalmin Kalić too. 76
263. As stated earlier, witness Hilmo Kozlica resolutely and consistently confirmed the submissions of witnesses Emir Lasić and Midho Držić. During the main trial, witness Hilmo Kozlica recalled that six men were in Kamenica, namely Pavo Žulj, Rufad Crnolić, brothers Jasmin and Fuad Subašić, Šaćir Omanović, Kalmin Kalić and Enver Ćehić. These men were beaten up and tortured to such an extent that they could not help each other, but rather just stuck together. They all had open wounds on their bodies. They were delirious and moaned in pain. After a while, a van came to pick up Rufad Crnolić; the accused Ratko Dronjak was seen on this occasion too; Rufad was driven to see a doctor whereupon his traces have been lost ever since.77 According to witness Hilmo Kozlica, the Subašić brothers, Kalmin Kalić, Enver Ćehić and Šaćir Omanović, that is, the persons who had been brought in wounds from the Slavko Rodić Primary School were taken away from Kamenica in a similar way.78
264. Witness Muharem Beganović testified almost identically about this incident. Witness Beganović confirmed that Rufad Crnolić, Enver Ćehić, Fuad Subašić, Jasmin Subašić, Šaćir Omanović and Kalmin Kalić were in Kamenica, that Rufad’s health condition was very bad, that he was delirious, and that all these men were thereupon driven away by a van under explanation that they were taken to see a doctor.79
265. Like all the foregoing witnesses, witness Alan Konjević also testified that the men referred to in Section II-1 of the operative part of the Verdict were in Kamenica, that they
75 Main trial audio-recording dated 17 February 2011, witness Midho Družić, 43:45-46:00 hrs. 76 Main trial audio-recording dated 17 February 2011, witness Midho Družić, 43:45-46:00 and 49:50-51:10 hrs. 77 Main trial audio-recording dated 30 September 2010, witness Hilmo Kozlica, 1:17:20-1:22:10 hrs. 78 Main trial audio-recording dated 30 September 2010, witness Midho Družić, 1:25.40-1.28.00 hrs. 79 Main trial audio-recording dated 10 February 2011, witness Muharem Beganović, 1:27:30-1:32:20 hrs.
68 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
were in a very bad condition, that during their detention in Kamenica they were beaten by the guards. The witness particularly described the incidents concerning the aggrieved party Enver Ćehić. The witness stated that Enver Ćehić had survived an execution at Velagići, whereupon he was captured in his house and taken to Kamenica in his pajama-sweat and slippers. They were called out and allegedly taken for medical treatment, but have never returned.80
266. The statements of witnesses Muho Mašinović and Muharem Beganović are to a great extent mutually consistent and even supplement each other. Witness Muho Mašinović recalls one of the prisoners who had a kind of knife-inflicted-hole, who screamed in pains and who was killed with five other men.81 On the other hand, witness Muharem Beganović testified that the person who had a hole on his forehead was Rufad Crnolić and that he moaned in pains. In the referenced part of his testimony, witness Muho Mašinović added that among five other men, there was one who had survived an execution near Biljani, and that they were all allegedly taken to Banja Luka for medical treatment.
267. Almost identically to the foregoing witnesses, witness Ale Držić resolutely testified that a man who had wounds all over his body and who smelled badly was brought to Kamenica and taken away after a while. The witness also recalled Enver Ćehić who had survived the execution at Velagići, but was subsequently taken prisoner and brought to Kamenica, where he was called out and taken away. His traces have been lost ever since.82 According to this witness, Šaćir, Kalmin Kalić, Fuad Subašić and Sudo Subašić were taken away in the same way.83
268. Finally, it should be added that everyone from his own point of view, witnesses Šefkija Kozlica, Samir Družić, Emir Demirović, Nihad Linić, Šida Subašić, Fadil Kartal, Esma Ćehić and Umirana Kalić confirmed the Court’s conclusions pertaining to Section II-1 of the Verdict. The witnesses confirmed that the aggrieved parties were present in
80 Main trial audio-recording dated 24 February 2011, witness Alan Konjević, 2:00:00-2.05:20 hrs. 81 Main trial audio-recording dated 21 April 2011, witness Muho Mašinović, 48:30-51:20. 82 Main trial audio-recording dated 17 February 2011, witness Ale Družić, 1:56:30-1:59:00 h. 83 Main trial audio-recording dated 17 February 2011, witness Ale Družić, 1:52:20-1:53:10 and 1:54:30- 1:54:40h.
69 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Kamenica. Witness Šefkija Kozlica recalled the Subašić brothers and that their mother had visited them. The witness recalled that these brothers were called out one evening with an explanation that they were going to Banja Luka for medical treatment due to their poor health. Their bodies, however, were found in a mass-grave and their personal items observed behind the School.84 Witnesses Emir Demirović85, Samir Družić86 and Fadil Kartal87 confirmed too that the brothers were taken away and killed. Witnesses Kasim Kulauzović88 and Nihad Linić89 additionally confirmed seeing the warden/accused Ratko Dronjak taking away the aggrieved parties.
269. The family members of aggrieved parties, Šida Subašić, Umirana Kalić and Esma Ćehić confirmed that their close relatives were killed. The Prosecution Exhibits T-98 (Record of the Cantonal Court in Bihać on Exhumation and Identification of Bodies from the Mass gravesite “Golubnjača-Podovi” Municipality of Drvar, No. KRI-21/01 of 17 April 2001), T-99 (DNA reports for Fuad Subašić, Jasmin Subašić, Šaćir Omanović, Rufad Crnolić), T-100 (Statement on a Missing Person dated 14 May 2001, Corpse Identification Record and Exhumed Corpse Hand-over Record made in the PS Sanski Most, No. 05-10/03-711/2001 dated 25 May 2012 for Enver Ćehić), T-101 (Statement on a Missing Person dated 12 May 1998, Corpse Identification Record and Exhumed Corpse Hand-over Record made in the PS Sanski Most, No. 05-10/03-678/2001 dated 17 May 2012 for Kalmin Kalić) and T-102 (Photo-documentation Podovi-Golubnjača pit, Municipality Drvar and a crime-scene sketch for Podovi- Golubnjača Pit, Municipality Drvar), confirm the witnesses’ submissions and the Court’s conclusions under Section II- 1 of the Verdict, namely that the aggrieved parties Jasmin Subašić, Fuad Subašić, Enver Ćehić, Kalmin Kalić, Rufad Crnolić and Šaćir Omanović were killed and their bodies thrown in a pit called Golubnjača.
84 Main trial audio-recording dated 4 November 2010, witness Šefkija Kozlica, 1:37:45-1:40:00 h. 85 Main trial audio-recording dated 12 May 2011, witness Ale Družić, 50:45-53:00 h. 86 Main trial audio-recording dated 24 February 2011, witness Samir Družić, 51:30-53:30 h. 87 Main trial audio-recording dated 6 October 2011, witness Fadil Kartal, 1:07:20-1:11:00 and 1:11:50- 1:13:45 h. 88 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 March 2011, witness Kasim Kulauzović, 2.08:00-2:10:50 and 2:51:00- 2:54:35 h. 89 Main trial audio-recording dated 30 June 2011, witness Nihad Linić, 2:16:10-2:19:47 h.
70 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
270. In view of all the evidence analyzed above and the fact that many witnesses, to whose testimony the Court gave credence as they were convincing, consistent and logical, which both individually and mutually constituted a logical whole, confirmed that Jasmin Subašić, Fuad Subašić, Rufad Crnolić, Kalmin Kalić, Šaćir Omanović and Enver Ćehić were killed as described in Section II-1 of the Verdict, this Court concluded that all key facts described therein were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(b) Section II-2
271. Among the evidence adduced, the statements of witnesses Hilmo Kozlica, Šefkija Kozlica, Muharem Beganović, Midho Družić, Samir Družić and Kasim Kulauzović should be primarily considered with respect to the destiny of aggrieved parties Fehim Kadić, Kemal Šepić, Ferid Velagić and Nusret Malkoč or the Court’s findings pertaining to Section II-2 of the Verdict.
272. Pursuant to their observations, the above mentioned witnesses have consistently and in detail described the destiny of the four referenced persons.
273. With respect to the general context or the sequence of events, the testimony of witness Kasim Kulauzović should be first taken into account. This witness confirmed that on 21 August 1992, he was transferred to Kamenica together with a group of persons.90 On this occasion, the following persons were singled out from this group by the guards: Kemal Šepić, Nusret Malkoč, Fehim Kadić and Ferid Velagić.91
274. Witness Kasim Kulauzović further testified that he had no other opportunity to see the four men singled out by the guards, but that Bajro Šabić provided them with all information about these men. According to the witness, Bajro Šabić stated that the persons at issue were in bad condition and that they would not survive.92
275. Witness Kulauzović himself had an opportunity to directly verify that Bajro’s submissions were true since he saw Ferid Velagić at the beginning. According to the
90 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 March 2011, witness Kasim Kulauzović, 1:54:30-1:54:40 h. 91 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 March 2011, witness Kasim Kulauzović, 2:00:40-2:01:30 h. 92 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 March 2011, witness Kasim Kulauzović, 2:10:54-2:14:40 h.
71 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
witness, Ferid looked swollen and told him that they were subjected to unbearable tortures and would not survive.93
276. Almost identically to the previous witness, witness Hilmo Kozlica testified that four persons were singled out from a group brought from Bosanska Krupa to Kamenica and detained in a separate room. Ferid Velagić was among these four men. At some point, Ferid joined the group of other detainees who observed traces of the beatings he underwent. Ferid also told them that they were beaten up on a daily basis in the room in which they had been separately held, that they sustained injuries and that he doubted they would survive. Ferid was subsequently returned to the solitary cell. The witness could see that two men were taken out to wash themselves and that they were caked in blood. Finally, witness Kozlica learned from the men who were bringing them food that the men who had been in the solitary cell were almost dead, that they were defaced and that they were finished.94
277. Witness Šefkija Kozlica almost identically confirmed the submissions of the two foregoing witnesses. Witness Kozlica recalled that Pavo Žulj was brought in the room in which he was held because the men from Krupa, including Šepić, Malkoč and Kadić were brought to the solitary cell where Pavo had been previously held.95 Like Hilmo Kozlica, the witness had an opportunity to see the persons from the solitary cell being taken to wash their faces, that their faces and heads were swollen to an almost impossible extent.96
278. After being exchanged, witness Kozlica learned from Midhat Družić and Asim Vojić that they were bringing food to Kemal Šepić and the other men from the group, that they returned the food, that is, did not eat it, and that they assumed, in fact, that these men were killed in the camp (Kamenica).97
279. Witness Samir Držić confirmed in his testimony the referenced events. Witness Držić testified that Pavo and soldier Imširović were brought from the solitary cell to the
93 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 March 2011, witness Kasim Kulauzović, 2:15:00-2:16:15 h. 94 Main trial audio-recording dated 30 September 2010, witness Hilmo Kozlica, 1:32:00-1:35:55 h. 95 Main trial audio-recording dated 4 November 2010, witness Šefkija Kozlica, 1:10:00-1:10:20 h. 96 Main trial audio-recording dated 4 November 2010, witness Šefkija Kozlica, 1:24:12-1:26:30 h.
72 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
room where he had been held, and that four men from Krupa were brought to the solitary cell. This witness also testified that one of these four men was subsequently transferred to their room. This man was corpulent, black and his name was Ferid. He told them that the men who had been detained in the solitary cell were beaten every night.98
280. Witness Midho Družić also confirmed that a group of men from Bosanska Krupa was brought to Kamenica, and that upon their arrival four men were singled out from the group, including Kadić and Professor Kemal Šepić. Witness Družić added further in his testimony that he was assigned to bring them food down in the basement and that he could see they were dirty and tormented.99 The witness testified that they were bringing food to these men for some time and thereupon ceased doing so.100
281. Witness Muharem Beganović also testified about a group of men brought from Bosanska Krupa, detained in the solitary cell and their destiny. The witness testified that he was once taken to the toilette and stayed there for a while. The witness could then see two men taking a body out of the solitary cell, most likely the body of Kemal Šepić, professor from Bosanska Krupa.101
282. Quite logically and understandably, the statements of the referenced witnesses are corroborated by the Prosecution documentary evidence adduced during the proceedings, namely: Exhibits T-98 (Record of the Cantonal Court in Bihać on exhumation and identification of bodies found in the mass gravesite ''Golubnjača-Podovi Pit'' Municipality Drvar, No. KRI-21/01 dated 17 April 2001), T-99 (DNA reports for Nusret Malkoč, Kemal Šepić, Ferid Velagić and Fehim Kadić) and T-102 (Photo- documentation Podovi-Golubnjača pit, Municipality Drvar and crime-scene sketch for Podovi-Golubnjača pit, Municipality Drvar). The evidence clearly confirms that the dead bodies referred to in Section II-2 of the operative part, that is, the bodies of Nusret
97 Main trial audio-recording dated 4 November 2010, witness Šefkija Kozlica, 1:29:54-1:31:55 h. 98 Main trial audio-recording dated 24 February 2011, witness Samir Družić, 48:30-50:25 h. 99 Main trial audio-recording dated 17 February 2011, witness Midho Družić, 45:50-47:53 h. 100 Main trial audio-recording dated 17 February 2011, witness Midho Družić, 1:22:20-1:22:40 h. 101 Main trial audio-recording dated 10 February 2011, witness Muharem Beganović, 1:41:50-1:44:10 h.
73 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Malkoč, Kemal Šepić, Ferid Velagić and Fehim Kadić were thrown in a pit called Golubnjača.
283. Pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court has evaluated the referenced statements whose most significant parts were emphasized, the facts that each testimony individually was completely convincing and mutually constituted a logical and complete whole, that they mutually supplemented and supported each other, and that they were corroborated by objective documentary evidence. The Court found that all the key facts described under Section II-2 of the operative part of the Verdict were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(c) Section II-3
284. During the proceedings, the Court has heard the testimony of witnesses Dragan Rodić, Dragić Barović, Milanko Knežević, Ahmo Jukić and Ifet Hukanović with regard to the persons and the related events as referred to under Section II-3 of the Verdict. The Court has also reviewed the Prosecution Exhibit T-96 (Death Register Excerpt for Josip Majstorović). Bearing in mind the events described under Section II-3 of the Verdict, the reasoning should be started with the documentary evidence adduced.
285. Prosecution Exhibit T-21 (Work Plan on the Detection of Sabotage Group in the Golaja (Krasulje) Area) pertains to late 1992 (dated 1 December 1992), and was drafted in the SJB Ključ. This exhibit demonstrates that the available information and estimates stated that a sabotage group existed in the Golaja woods area and that a series of actions had to be taken with a view to liquidating them. The anticipated actions primarily imply coordination among all forces in the mentioned area, prevention from supply and movement and search for Muslims who would be engaged as collaborators.
286. The testimony of witness Ahmo Jukić logically supports the contents of Exhibit T- 21. This witness testified that he had lived in the village of Kalabe-Krasulja during the critical period. According to Exhibit T-21, the assignment was to find and identify
74 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
possible collaborators in this village, and it was this witness who established cooperation and communication with the persons who were in the Golaja woods.102
287. Witness Ahmo Jukić testified that he provided help to the men who had been in Golaja. At the beginning, there were 20-30 persons in the woods, whereupon this number decreased to 10-15 men, including two women. According to the witness, these persons were civilians, and a few of them were armed. In early January 1993, when they ran out of money, they asked the witness to contact Milan Tomić and agree on their surrender and subsequent exchange. Witness Jukić first contacted police officer Dušan Čutura who referred the witness to Milan Tomić.103
288. In this part of the adduced evidence analysis, it should be noted that it was exactly Milan Tomić, Assistant Commander of the PS Ključ, who developed the Work Plan for Detection of Sabotage Group in the Golaja Area (Exhibit T-21).
289. Bearing in mind the requests of men from Golaja and the previously mentioned communication with Milan Tomić, the witness agreed on their surrender, which was subsequently carried out. On this occasion, 12-15 persons surrendered, including two women. The persons who surrendered were told that they would be exchanged and transferred to third countries. According to Edo Keranović, who currently most likely lives in Australia, these persons were transported to Lanište, and thereupon to Kamenica.104
290. The submissions of witness Ahmo Jukić are corroborated by Prosecution documentary Exhibit T-22 (Document-Notice of the SJB Ključ, No. 3/93 dated 6 February 1993 sent to the Chief of CSB Banja Luka in person). It ensues from this Exhibit that on 6 February 1993, at 11:00 hrs, in cooperation with the II Krajina Corps military organs, employees of the SJB Ključ arrested a group of 15 Muslim outlaws who had escaped to the Golaja woods with their weapons. This evidence also confirms the submissions of witness Ahmo Jukić, namely that the collection of information about the outlaws started on 12 January 1993 and that they eventually surrendered.
102 Main trial audio-recording dated 16 June 2011, witness Ahmo Jukić, 1:29:00-1:31:00 h. 103 Main trial audio-recording dated 16 June 2011, witness Ahmo Jukić, 1:32:00-1:38:00 h. 104 Main trial audio-recording dated 16 June 2011, witness Ahmo Jukić, 1:42:00-1:49:00 h.
75 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
291. It ensues from Exhibit T-22 that on 6 February 1993, the following persons surrendered: Mumin Egrlić, Ferid Hukanović, Ćerim Jusić, Elvedin Keranović, Tehvid Baltić, Safet Hukanović, Ibrahim Keranović, Sakib Keranović, Rasim Jelečević, Hajrudin Jelečević, Derviš Dubica, Omer Huskić, Duda Huskić, Hasan Huskić and (Hasan Huskić’s wife) Azra Fazlić.
292. Exhibit T-22 further confirms the submissions of witness Ahmo Jukić too. This witness confirmed that the persons who surrendered were civilians, but that only a few of them were armed. This is so because the same evidence demonstrates that 4 automatic rifles, one Thomson gun, 2 pistols, 2 hand grenades and a rifle were seized from some of them.
293. Having analyzed Exhibit T-22 in relation to the findings under Section II-3 of the Verdict, the Court concluded that all the persons at issue were escorted to the Kamenica prison near Drvar.
294. Prosecution Exhibit T-20 (Information on the Detection and Capture of an Enemy Sabotage Group No. Str. Conf. No. 15/22-67 dated 12 February 1993 drafted by the Chief of Intelligence Department of the II Krajina Corps, Mikajlo Mitrović, and sent to the MS of the Republika Srpska Army - Intelligence Affairs Administration) confirms that Ahmo Jukić was contacted on 1 February 1993. Ahmo Jukić confirmed that a group of 10-15 persons was present in the Golaja area and that they tried to obtain some food and cigarettes with his help. The information describes in detail the development of events, that is, the communication and agreements with Ahmo Jukić. Of particular importance was the confirmation that the persons who had surrendered were eventually escorted to the Kamenica camp. More specifically, Exhibit T-20 demonstrates that Mumin Egrlić, Ferid Hukanović, Ćerim Jusić, Elvedin Keranović, Tehvid Baltić, Safet Hukanović, Ibrahim Keranović, Sakib Keranović, Rasim Jelečević, Hajrudin Jelečević, Derviš Dubica, Omer Huskić, Duda Huskić, Hasan Huskić and Azra Fazlić were boarded onto vehicles and escorted to Kamenica.
295. The accuracy of information provided under the above mentioned Prosecution evidence is also corroborated by Exhibit T-23 (Official Note of the CSB Banja Luka, National Security Sector, RO Ključ, dated 16 February 1993). It ensues from this Exhibit 76 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
that fifteen persons surrendered on 6 February 1993. Exhibit T-23 also confirms the claims of witness Ahmo Jukić both with regard to the weapons in possession of the persons who surrendered and the number of these persons. Finally, it is particularly important that the credits of the acquaintance and friendly contact Plavi, that is, witness Ahmo Jukić, were emphasized in Exhibit T-23.
296. Page 2 of Exhibit T-23 states that cooperation between SNB, SJB and VRS was at high level during the referenced action. This fact indirectly further corroborates the credibility of Exhibits T-20, T-21, T-22 and T-23 exactly because these documents pertain to all three referenced structures and because the information contained therein is practically identical. Within the evidence analysis, it should be also noted that Exhibit T-23 is consistent with the other previously analyzed evidence, namely with an extremely important fact that Mumin Egrlić, Ferid Hukanović, Ćerim Jusić, Elvedin Keranović, Tehvid Baltić, Safet Hukanović, Ibrahim Keranović, Sakib Keranović, Rasim Jelečević, Hajrudin Jelečević, Derviš Dubica, Omer Huskić, Duda Huskić, Hasan Huskić and Azra Fazlić were escorted to Kamenica.
297. With regard to the events addressed under Section II-3 of the Verdict, also noteworthy is Prosecution Exhibit T-24 (Report on the work of SJB Ključ employees in detecting a sabotage group in the Golaja area from February 1993). This exhibit is a sort of recapitulation of the activities undertaken, whose objective was the surrender of persons hidden in the Golaja woods. The referenced Report analyzed in detail all the major activities undertaken with a view to forcing the group into surrendering. The Report states that a Work plan was drafted (Exhibit T-21) on 1 December 1992, cooperation with Dušan Čutura realized and collaborators subsequently recruited, including Žućo (witness Ahmo Jukić). The Report stated that the surrender-related activities continued, and that on 6 February 1993, at 10:00 hrs, fifteen persons surrendered, namely Mumin Egrlić, Ferid Hukanović, Ćerim Jusić, Elvedin Keranović, Tehvid Baltić, Safet Hukanović, Ibrahim Keranović, Sakib Keranović, Rasim Jelečević, Hajrudin Jelečević, Derviš Dubica, Omer Huskić, Duda Huskić, Hasan Huskić and Azra Fazlić and that they possessed 4 automatic rifles, one Thomson gun, 2 pistols, 2 hand grenades, a hunter’s rifles and some ammunition.
77 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
298. The report also stated that, in the implementation of the plan, cooperation was established with the Command of the II Krajina Corps Drvar, and that the persons who had surrendered were escorted to the Kamenica prison.
299. The Court has accepted the above referenced documentary evidence in its entirety, having found it credible and indisputable since it was issued by the then civilian and military structures. The above referenced evidence and the testimony of witness Ahmo Jukić prove that a group of fifteen persons was arrested in the Golaja woods and escorted to Kamenica.
300. That this group indeed reached Kamenica was confirmed by witnesses Ifet Hukanović, Milanko Knežević and Dragić Barović in their evidence.
301. Witness Ifet Hukanović confirmed that he knew that a group of men from the woods was arrested, taken to Ključ and thereupon escorted to Kamenica, that the only survived person from this group was one Keranović who lives in Australia.105 Witness Ahmo Jukić confirmed this fact too. The previously analyzed documentary evidence also shows that Elvedin Keranović was captured in Golaja too.
302. Contrary to the submissions of the above referenced witnesses, the accused Ratko Dronjak testified that, in fact, the group from Ključ was never brought to Kamenica.106 The Court, however, did not find the Accused’s claims convincing given a number of contradictions that the referenced claims implied. Noteworthy at this point is that the Accused107 repeated twice that the information was exchanged, namely that at any moment the Exchange Commission had information about the number of men in Kamenica, as provided by the security body (which reported that the group at issue was escorted to Kamenica, Exhibit T-20). Therefore, there is an obvious contradiction in this part of the testimony by witness/accused Ratko Dronjak. The Accused claimed that there existed a guard roster in Kamenica where all relevant events were recorded, including the changes in numerical strength.108 The foregoing could also provide an
105 Main trial audio-recording dated 7 July 2011, witness Ifet Hukanović, 27:30-31:00 h. 106 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak dated 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 36. 107 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak dated 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 23 and p. 40. 108 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak dated 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 26.
78 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
answer to the contradictory claims of the Accused and Exhibit T-20. The referenced roster, however, was not tendered as evidence given the Accused’s testimony that it was, like everything else, destroyed in a shelling. This claim, however, appears completely unconvincing given the fact that the Accused testified that the chain of command functioned even at this point, namely that they left Kamenica only upon the approval of the Chief of Security109, that the situation in Kamenica was not as difficult as the Accused presented it, and that Kamenica was not abandoned in panic, but that rather a planned withdrawal was carried out.
303. It should be added at this point that there were no victims in the Kamenica evacuation, namely that no guard or detained person was injured. According to the Accused, only the cattle and dogs were killed.
304. Witness Dragan Rodić testified that Kamenica was abandoned twice, and that the shelling described by the Accused caused no severe consequences. Like witness Dragan Rodić, the Accused too testified that Dragan Rodić was the last effective warden of the relocated prison given the fact that the Accused had been reassigned to other duties in Banja Luka.110
305. Bearing in mind certain deficiencies in the testimony, as well as contradictions regarding the guard roster and the Accused’s claims that the roster was destroyed regardless of the fact that he had no direct information about the events in Kamenica, the Court concluded that the submissions of the Accused were not sufficiently convincing so as to contest the contents of a number of previously analyzed documentary evidence and the statements of several witnesses who, contrary to the Accused, had no interest in the final outcome of these criminal proceedings.
306. Witnesses Dragić Barović and Milanko Knežević consistently testified about the destiny of the group of persons originating mostly from the Vrhpolje-Sanski Most area, including two women, who were captured in the Golaja woods. These witnesses consistently stated that they knew that a group of Muslims originating from Sanski Most
109 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak dated 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 26. 110 Main trial audio-recording dated 21 October 2010, witness Dragić Barović, 1:43:20-1:49:30 h.
79 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
or Ključ, including two women, were held in Kamenica, that they had been found in the woods,111 namely that one group of persons from Sanski Most were in Kamenica, including two women (mother-in-law and daughter-in-law),112 and that they were in civilian clothing.113
307. Both these witnesses (Dragić Barović and Milanko Knežević) confirmed that this group was in Kamenica when they finished their shift, and that upon returning to work, they were told that this group had left, namely that it had been exchanged; however, the referenced persons have never been found, except for Elvedin Keranović.
308. The Court has evaluated all the referenced documentary evidence and the statements of witnesses heard at the main trial, whose most important parts were previously indicated, the fact that during the critical events three different institutions issued documentary evidence in close cooperation, and the fact that the witnesses’ statements individually are completely convincing and mutually constitute a logical and complete whole, namely that they supplement and support each other, and that they are corroborated by the objective documentary evidence. Pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court concluded that all key facts as described in Section II-3 of the operative part of the Verdict have been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
309. It is noteworthy that witness Dragan Rodić’s testimony was also carefully analyzed with regard to the foregoing conclusion of the Court. Bearing in mind the substance of the referenced testimony, namely the fact that the witness mentioned a five-person group in relation to the Kulen Vakuf and Orašac sites and that the event at issue pertains to autumn 1993114, the Court found that this testimony is not in compliance with the factual description under Section II-3 of the operative part of the Verdict, namely that it cannot be determined with certainty whether the referenced part of witness Dragan Rodić’s testimony pertains to the previously described events.
111 Main trial audio-recording dated 23 December 2010, witness Dragić Barović, 1:00:00-1:02:40 h. 112 Main trial audio-recording dated 16 June 2011, witness Milanko Knežević, 38:50-39:40 h. 113 Main trial audio-recording dated 16 June 2011, witness Milanko Knežević, 54:30-55:10 h. 114 Main trial audio-recording dated 21 October 2010, witness Dragan Rodić, 1:20:35-1:26:12 h.
80 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
(d) Section II-4
310. Practically all witnesses in possession of detailed information about the events, or the treatment accorded to the persons detained in Kamenica confirmed at the main trial that the men were beaten. More specifically, detainees Hilmo Kozlica, Šefkija Kozlica, Mićo Rakić, Goran Dizdarević, Armin Mulić, Dževad Dupanović, Kasim Duraković, Muharem Beganović, Midho Družić, Ale Družić, Samir Družić, Alan Konjević, Sanel Dervišević, Kasim Kulauzović, Emir Demirović, Muho Mašinović, Fadil Kartal, guards Dragan Rodić, Dragić Barović, Duško Dronjak, Milanko Knežević, military police officer Draško Rodić and finally the accused Ratko Dronjak testified about this.
311. The testimony of the Accused Ratko Dronjak and his claims should be first addressed at this point. The Accused stated that there were problems in Kamenica related to the abuse of detainees but that everything was settled once Zorić was removed from Kamenica together with his group. More specifically, the Accused testified that, after Zorić’s departure, only the military police were bringing in persons with visible wounds, persons who had been obviously beaten up.115 The Accused further testified that after Zorić’s departure, in fact, none of the guards mistreated the non-Serb detainees and that the Serb detainees posed a greater problem.116
312. The accused Ratko Dronjak testified that already at the time when the prisoners were in the Slavko Rodić Primary School in Drvar he had information that Dragan Rodić was bringing the battalion soldiers to beat both the Serb and non-Serb detainees.117 Having obviously trusted Dragan Rodić instead of verifying these claims, the Accused concluded that there was nothing questionable in such a conduct of his.
313. The Accused also testified that one of the prisoners complained to him that Dragan Rodić had beaten him up, and that, having seen these injuries personally, he locked Rodić into a solitary cell to punish him.118 The Accused added that this was not an
115 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak of 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 19. 116 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak of 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 24. 117 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak of 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 40. 118 Transcript of main trial in Dronjak of 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 53, 54 and 55.
81 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
isolated incident, that Rodić was detained in a solitary cell on a number of occasions, but that, in fact, the accused could not alone determine who beat the detainees.119
314. In addition to the foregoing submissions of the Accused, many witnesses consistently confirmed that the beating of detainees was not just an isolated incident, but rather a usual practice that lasted from the very establishment of Kamenica until the disbandment thereof.
315. The testimony of witness Hilmo Kozlica should be first addressed along this line. This witness was detained at Kozile and thereupon transferred to Kamenica. When the witness was still at Kozile, Emir Demirović and two other detained persons were also beaten by the accused Ratko Dronjak. In a wider context of events, the Accused’s claims that the beatings at Kozile or frequent taking of detainees to beatings particularly in the evening hours had been but a “prelude“ to what they suffered in the Kamenica camp.120
316. Witness Emir Demirović testified that witness Kozlica’s submissions were true. Witness Demirović described the transfer from Kozile to Kamenica and stated that on climbing up the truck he was hit on his head. The witness subsequently learned that, in fact, it was the accused Ratko Dronjak who had hit him. This witness also testified that upon returning from work he once had an opportunity to speak with the Accused. The Accused asked him whether he was the person whom he had hit at the load up in Kozlice, and added that he hit him out of revolt. Witness Demirović finally described that the days in Kamenica were more bearable in relation to the nights which were most difficult because the men were taken out, abused and beaten.121
317. The evidence adduced also confirms that the detainees were taken out in the evening hours for beating, and that the living in uncertainty and a constant fear resulted in severe consequences for their mental state. Witness Šefkija Kozlica testified about this before the Court. The witness described the beatings of detainees, and stated that,
119 Transcript of man trial in Dronjak of 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), p. 56. 120 Main trial audio-recording dated 30 September 2010, witness Hilmo Kozlica, 1:27:30-1:27:40 h and 3:06:25-3:07:00 h.
82 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
in fact, they even had no courage to speak about this at all. The witness further testified that the detainees were occasionally taken out and requested to sing Serb songs, and that, depending on how satisfied they were with their singing, the guards determined the extent to which the detainees would be beaten. In addition to the described beatings and the beating of Pavo Žulj, the witness stated that he personally was not beaten, but that this was because he did not leave the room to go to the toilette, and that those who went there were mostly the ones beaten. The witness described that he was traumatized one evening when, at around 1 o’clock after midnight, the guard Janko Ćosić opened the door and called ''Kozlica'' out, but fortunately for the witness, it was not Šefkija but Hilmo Kozlica who was called out. On the following morning, the witness saw Hilmo who was in wounds all over his body and who was, according to the witness, beaten to death.
318. Witness Šefkija Kozlica testified that his brother Hilmo was beaten up on one occasion. This occurred when Jovica Radak and Boro Kecman brought certain documentation related to his brother, according to which Hilmo was allegedly the biggest extremist.
319. Witness Muho Mašinović confirmed the submissions of witness Šefkija Kozlica. Witness Muhanović remembered that his neighbor, police officer Jovica Radak from Kulen Vakuf, came to Kamenica and that Hilmo Kozlica was beaten up at the time. This witness also added that the detainees were taken out for beatings during the night, and that they could hear the men moaning under the window.122
320. Witness Mićo Rakić was among many witnesses who testified about the beatings. This witness was among the most undisciplined VRS soldiers, which is why he repeatedly ended up in Kamenica. In his testimony, this witness confirmed that the detainees were indeed beaten. What makes his evidence particularly important is the
121 Main trial audio-recording dated 12 May 2011, witness Emir Demirović, 37:00-39:00 h, 47:06-49:20 h, 1:02:40-1:04:10 h, 1:06:30-1:08:26 h and 1:12:10-1:14:00 h. 122 Main trial audio-recording dated 21 April 2011, witness Muho Mašinović, 45:30-47:30 h, 51:25-53:10 h, 57:00-59:10 h, 1:02:30-1:03:50 h, 1:06:40-1:08:40 h, 1:11:00-1:12:20 h, 1:14:00-1:15:00 h and 1:19:00- 1:20:50 h.
83 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
fact that the Accused participated in the beatings depending on his mood. If the Accused was ''inebriated'', the beating would follow-up.123
321. The Accused stated that the detainees were indeed beaten in Kamenica in certain instances, but that he did not succeed in stopping such a practice. With regard to the foregoing, the testimony of witness Goran Dizadervić should be taken into account. Witness Dizdarević testifies that the Accused had personally beaten him up three times. This witness described the way in which the Accused had beat him, adding that the beating was a usual practice and that he knew that Mumin Grahović and Rifet Kendić were also among the beaten detainees. Witness Dizdarević stated that many objects, from bats to boots, were used for the beating purposes.124
322. Witness Armin Mulić too testified that the beatings in Kamenica were not sporadic incidents deserving no special attention. This witness confirmed before the Court that the beatings commenced immediately upon their arrival and continued onwards. The witness testified that they were kicked with boots, hit with shovels, handles, and that at dusk, there was like in a roll-call. The detainees were singled and taken out, beaten and thereupon returned, day after day. The witness confirmed that he was beaten three or four times, and that several times he lost consciousness as a result of strong blows. The detainees were also beaten when they went to the toilette. This confirms the submission of witness Šefkija Kozlica that he was not beaten exactly due to the fact that he did not leave the room where he was held.
323. Witness Mulić described the beatings he received. The witness remembers that he was taken to a little house in front of the camp building, that there were two small settees in there and that he thought that it was exactly the commander who beat him.
123 Main trial audio-recording dated 2 December 2010, witness Mićo Rakić, 18:30-20:00 h, 25:00-25:55 h, 27:00-28:10 h, 34:40-35:30 h, 39:40-41:10 h, 45:15-46:44 h and 49:30-50:30 h. 124 Main trial audio-recording dated 2 December 2010, witness Goran Dizdarević, 1:25:00-1:26:00 h, 1:26:20-1:27:40 h, 1:27:55-1:33:50 h, 1:36:10-1:36:33 h, 1:39:48 – 1:41:23 h and 1:51:50-1:52:20 h.
84 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
The witness stated it was a person who walked with a limp. The Accused and the Defense expert witness, Dragan Danelišan, confirmed this fact too.125
324. Witness Dževad Dupanović confirmed that the beating itself did not imply only the infliction of pain and suffering, but rather had far more severe and complex substance. This witness testified before the Court that it was not just a question of beating and hitting, but it rather implied different forms of abuse and humiliation too. Witness Dupanović described the mistreatments in which, among other things, the guards asked which detainees among them were cold and those who responded were beaten up. Thereupon, the guards again asked them if they were cold, and when the detainees answered negatively, the guards seized their blankets. Witness Dupanović confirmed that the most severe forms of beatings pertained to the arrival of a Lada vehicle by which the commander used to come. The witness stated that Zlatko had usually informed them about the commander’s arrival.126
325. As indicated above, the witnesses described that the physical abuse itself was particularly difficult for them. Witness Kasim Duraković testified that he was beaten since his very arrival in Kamenica, and that this was particularly difficult for him as he was aware that the detainees were beaten one by one, and that he would be the next one.127
326. Like the above witnesses, witnesses Muharem Beganović,128 Midho Družić and Ale Družić consistently confirmed that the beatings of detainees were usual and that the men were beaten for no particular reason, even though there were cases when the men were punished by beatings, for example when they spoke with the ICRC.129 Witness Ale Družić testified that the beating was called “a dancing party” and that the men taken out would return in bruises. The detainees were usually taken out in the evening hours. Only
125 Main trial audio-recording dated 27 January 2011, witness Armin Mulić, 2:07:45-2:08:05 h, 2:12:42- 2:13:00 h, 2:15:00-2:16:00 h, 2:18:10-2:19:05 h, 2:21:25-2:21:55 h, 2:31:40-2:33:35 h, 2:51:30-2:52:00 h and 2:53:00-2:55:15 h. 126 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 February 2011, witness Dževad Dupanović, 29:00-32:00 h, 34:00- 34:44 h, 38:05-39:20 h, 41:55-44:05 h and 47:30-48:20 h. 127 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 February 2011, witness Kasim Duraković, 1:10:38-1:11:35 h and 1:18:40-1:20:15 h. 128 Main trial audio-recording dated 10 February 2011, witness Muharem Beganović, 1:24:20-1:25:10 h. 129 Main trial audio-recording dated 17 February 2011, witness Midho Družić, 47:50-49:20 h, 1:04:00- 1:05:10 h, 1:15:20-1:16:10 h and 1:22:48-1:23:10 h.
85 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Pavo Žulj was beaten during the day since his brother Pero was charged with the killing of 500 Serbs.130
327. Witness Fadil Kartal too testified that Pavo was particularly severely beaten. Speaking about Pavo, this witness stated that Pavo underwent the worst tortures, that he was beaten almost every night because his brother was a commander in a Croat unit.131
328. Witnesses Kasim Kulauzović132, Sanel Dervišević133, Alan Konjević134 and Samir Družić135 consistently testified that the beatings in the evening hours were a widespread and almost regular practice in Kamenica, which was of particular gravity. These witnesses confirmed that the beatings in Kamenica occurred practically on a daily basis. The witnesses testified that, in addition to the guards, men who had no connections with Kamenica also participated in their beating, that is, members of the VRS who served their sentences for disciplinary offenses.
329. It should be added that the guards stationed at Kamenica confirmed that the detainees were abused and beaten, that the Accused was aware of this fact, but failed to take any action to prevent such a practice. Along this line, the reasoning of Section III- 14 of the Verdict will analyze in detail the statements of the witnesses who were guards in Kamenica, that is, members of the Military Police within the 2nd Krajina Corps of the VRS.
330. Having considered all the referenced evidence and statements, whose most important parts were earlier addressed, including the facts that the Accused himself testified that the detainees at Kamenica were beaten and hit, and that the Accused
130 Main trial audio-recording dated 17 February 2011, witness Ale Družić, 1:50:45-1:52:15 h, 1:55:00- 1:56:15 h, 2:00:05-2:01:00 h and 2:17:30-2:18:50 h. 131 Main trial audio-recording dated 6 October 2011, witness Fadil Kartal, 57:40-1:00:00 h, 1:29:50-1:30:30 h and 2:09:00-2:10:45 h. 132 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 March 2011, witness Kasim Kulauzović, 2:04:00-2:06:30 h, 2:21:30- 2:23:41 h, 2:24:55-2:25:30 h, 2:40:20-2:40:50 h, 2:45:00-2:49:30 h and 2:57:00-2:57:15 h. 133 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 March 2011, witness Sanel Dervišević, 20:00-21:10 h, 22:50-24:50 h, 1:05:45-1:06:35 h and 1:26:10-1:27:40 h. 134 Main trial audio-recording dated 24 February 2011, witness Alan Konjević, 1:56:00-2:00:00 h, 2:05:20- 2:10:45 h and 2:37:00-2:37:50 h. 135 Main trial audio-recording dated 24 February 2011, witness Samir Družić, 33:45-39:14 h, 40:00-39:14 h, 42:25-43:50 h.
86 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
participated therein, that the beatings were carried out in a particularly severe way, mostly during the evening hours when the detainees were in strong fear that they would be taken next and that their lives would be jeopardized, the Court gave credence to the statements of the witnesses which were individually completely convincing, and mutually constituted a logical and complete whole, supplemented each other and were consistent in the essential facts. Along this line, the Court has also analyzed the testimony of the accused Ratko Dronjak. The Court found that the concept of the Accused’s testimony was to diminish his own responsibility, which became apparent from the analysis of the course of his testimony. The Accused first stated that the beatings of detainees ceased after Zorić’s departure. Thereupon, the Accused confirmed that the guards nevertheless did beat the detainees and that he had no available effective methods whatsoever to establish control to this effect.
331. In view of the foregoing, it is a fact that the beatings were of such extreme gravity that they resulted in severe consequences for the detained civilians, both mental and physical. Having evaluated these facts pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that all key facts described in Section II-4 of the operative part of the Verdict were proved, namely that the referenced acts have satisfied all the elements of torture pursuant to Article 172(1)(h), as read with sub- paragraph f) of the CPC of BiH.
3. Section III
332. With regard to the founding and maintenance of the system previously established in Kamenica, it should be noted that the reasoning of Section II of the Verdict stated the most important evidence on the grounds of which the Court drew the conclusion about the conditions in Kamenica in which the detainees were held.
333. In other words, it is completely apparent from the adduced and analyzed evidence that since the Kamenica set up in August 1992 until the disbandment thereof in late 1995, detainees were continually mistreated, starved, physically and mentally abused and killed, and that, in fact, it was the number and structure of detained persons that changed over this period. At the beginning, mostly detained were civilians who were a target of the widespread and systematic attack, and at least since the second half of 87 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
1994 the detainees were civilians that came under the control of the VRS or soldiers, and who were unfit for combat because they had been wounded or arrested.
334. In the light of evidence analyzed in the reasoning of Section II of the Verdict, it should be again pointed out that the statements cover the entire relevant period and that it follows from those statements that there were no major changes. The Court considered the evidence adduced and analyzed in detail in Section II of the Verdict, and the evidence to be analyzed further in the reasoning. The Court took into account the fact that the statements were convincing, consistent and apparently constituted a whole, and were fully characteristic of the persons who had spent a longer period of time in the Kamenica-like environment and their way of recounting the events. Having analyzed the statements both individually and mutually pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court established all the facts as described in Section III of the operative part of the Verdict.
(a) Section III-1
335. With regard to the findings of the Court concerning the destiny of aggrieved Asim Elkasović and Adem Šepić, that is, the findings of the Court pertaining to Section III-1 of the Verdict, first to be addressed among the evidence adduced are the statements of witnesses Kasim Duraković, Bajro Ljubijankić, Izet Kaljiković, Dževad Dupanović, Enes Begić, Kasim Duraković and Milan Ivančević and the Prosecution Exhibit T-14 (List of exchanged bodies/killed at Kekića Klanac dated 1 December 1994).
336. Witness Kasim Duraković testified at considerable length about Šepić’s and Elkasović’s destiny. This witness testified that together with Elkasović he went to find some food and that on their way back they were taken prisoners in the Ostražnica area. This took place on 7 November 1994.136 They were thereupon taken to Lipik where they found Adem Šepić,137 wherefrom they were transported to Kamenica by truck. Upon their
136 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 February 2011, witness Kasim Duraković, 1:07:06-1:08:25 h. 137 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 February 2011, witness Kasim Duraković, 1:09:35-1:09:45 h.
88 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
arrival in Kamenica, both the guards and the escort started beating them.138 According to the witness, Adem Šepić’s and Elkasović’s heads were swollen after the beatings.139
337. Witness Duraković described in detail the death of victim Asim Elkasović. The witness confirmed that Elkasović moaned in pain, suddenly stood up and said he was going to the toilette. A guard took Elkasović out of the room. Some two hours later, Elkasović was brought back to the room. He moaned in pains so much that the others could not sleep. At around 04:00 hrs in the morning, Elkasović cried out and the witness went to check him out, but he saw that Elkasović was already dead. At around 09:00 hrs in the morning, in an almost identical way, Adem Šepić asked to go to the toilette. However, unlike Elkasović who had been returned to the room alive, Šepić was brought back dead on a stretcher. Their bodies were left in the room over the night, and taken out on the following day upon an order.140
338. Witness Bajro Ljubijankić confirmed from his perspective almost the entire testimony of witness Kasim Duraković. This witness remembers a group of 3-4 men including Elkasović, Duraković and another man. The witness confirmed that he had an opportunity to hear when these men were beaten, namely he heard them “crying“, whereupon the door was unlocked and these men thrown into the room. They were showing signs of life until the morning, but in the morning they were alive no more.141
339. Witness Izet Kaljiković shortly mentioned Adem Šepić in his testimony and described him as an older man who died in Kamenica.142
340. Witness Husnija Mehulić also testified that he saw the dead body of Adem Šepić, whom he described as a soldier, specifically a person who transported soldiers with horses.143
341. Witnesses Dževad Dupanović and Enes Begić testified about the destiny of Adem Šepić. Witness Dupanović testified that he remembered an old man who was beaten
138 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 February 2011, witness Kasim Duraković, 1:10:38-1:11:15 h. 139 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 February 2011, witness Kasim Duraković, 1:11:15-1:11:50 h. 140 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 February 2011, witness Kasim Duraković, 1:14:40-1:17:36 h. 141 Main trial audio-recording dated 12 May 2011, witness Bajro Ljubijankić, 2:00:00-2:02:25 h. 142 Main trial audio-recording dated 14 April 2011, witness Izet Kaljiković, 1:40:00-1:42:10 h.
89 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
while he was held in Kamenica and after the beating thrown in a basement where he died after a while as a result of the beatings. Witness Dupanović added that the old man had given him his coat.144 Witness Enes Begić testified that he met Dževad Dupanović in the room in which he was held. The witness recognized on him the coat that Dževad had taken off the old man who had died of the beatings and for whom witness Begić could not verify to be Adem Šepić.
342. Finally, also noteworthy is Prosecution Exhibit T-14 (List of exchanged bodies /killed at Kekića Klanac dated 1 December 1994). The names of aggrieved parties Asim Elkasović and Adem Šepić are listed on page 2, under Nos. 2 and 4 respectively. It ensues from this list that they were exchanged dead and that they were members of the 5th Corps. Witness Milan Ivančević confirmed that the data indicated in Exhibit T-14 were true.145
343. The Court has analyzed the above evidence in detail and concluded that they constituted a consistent and convincing whole, given the fact that certain witnesses have explained differently the circumstances of Šepić’s and Elkasović’s death. Certain witnesses testified that when they were returned to the room, Šepić and Elkasović were still alive. The witnesses’ statements were carefully analyzed within this context. It was concluded that the testimony of Kasim Duraković described the destiny of two referenced persons in the most reliable way. It is obvious that witness Duraković knew Šepić and Elkasović best, and that he was brought to Kamenica together with them. These three persons together underwent the tortures from the moment they were taken prisoners, the only difference being the fact that witness Duraković managed to survive. The Court has also taken into account that certain witnesses gave their conclusions as to the moment of death of these two persons. Witness Dževad Dupanović testified that he knew that an old man (Adem Šepić) had been beaten and thereupon thrown into the basement, where he died. In fact, witness Dupanović gave his conclusion as to the way and place of death of these persons.
143 Main trial audio-recording dated 25 August 2011, witness Husnija Mehulić, 12:30-14:25 h. 144 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 February 2011, witness Dževad Dupanović, 26:48-29:00 h. 145 Main trial audio-recording dated 26 May 2011, witness Milan Ivančević, 1:47:20-1:48:40 h.
90 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
344. It should be added that these two persons were beaten and returned to the room in the evening or night hours, wherefore it is logical that only the witnesses who knew the aggrieved parties very well and were in their vicinity could have complete information.
345. The Court has analyzed the previously presented arguments and reasons, and took into account all the statements, the evidence, and the facts that the documentary evidence corroborates the witnesses’ arguments which seem completely convincing, and mutually correlated constitute a logical and complete whole, that they supplement and corroborate each other, and that they are corroborated by objective documentary evidence. The Court has evaluated all the foregoing pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH and concluded that all key facts described under Section III-1 of the operative part of the Verdict have been proved beyond a doubt.
(b) Section III-2
346. With regard to the findings of the Court concerning the destiny of aggrieved parties Hasan Hirkić and Sulejman Porčić, that is, the findings of the Court pertaining to Section III-2 of the Verdict, noteworthy among the evidence adduced are first the evidence of witnesses Kasim Duraković, Rusmir Pajić, Milan Ivančević and Husnija Mehulić, and Prosecution Exhibit T-14 (List of exchanged/killed at Kekića Klanac dated 1 December 1994, and a List of prisoners of war, members of the 5th Corps of ABiH exchanged on 11 March 1995 in Ličko Petrovo Selo).
347. The testimony of witness Kasim Duraković should be first addressed with regard to the findings of the Court concerning Section III-2 of the Verdict. This witness testified about the circumstances surrounding his capture and the fact that together with Elkasović he was escorted to Lipik where he found Adem Šepić too. The witness further testified hat they stayed in Lipik for about three days, and that, most likely on 10 November 1994, they were transported to Kamenica. Witness Duraković also described that three other persons whom he did not know at the time joined them on their way to Kamenica. When they reached Kamenica, they were thrown out of the truck, whereupon both the escort and the guards started beating them. The three persons whom the witness had not known from before were swollen too as a result of the beatings 91 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
received.146 The witness subsequently learned that these three persons were Hasan Hirkić, Hasan Džehverović and Sulejman Porčić.147
348. After being thrown into this room, these men moaned in pain as a result of the beatings. At one moment, Mirsad Hadžić and Sulejman Porčić died in the basement. Witness Duraković explained that they were beaten on a regular basis while they were in the basement, and that almost after each beating one detainee was dead. The detainees were usually lined up in two lines, whereupon they would be taken out for beating, two by two. Other detainees could hear the cries of the beaten men who would come back to the room crawling on their hands and legs. Porčić and Hadžić groaned with pain, and eventually died. Witness Kasim Duraković testified that, when they were moved to a room upstairs, Hasan Hirkić was beaten up and died on his hands. The witness thought that Hirkić was asleep, but only when the guard said Hirkić was dead, the witness paid attention, observed water dripping from Hirkić’s mouth and realized that he was indeed dead.148
349. Prosecution Exhibit T-14, that is, the above referenced lists confirm the testimony of witness Kasim Duraković. The list dated 1 December 1994 stated that the body of Sulejman Porčić and almost thirty other unidentified bodies among other bodies were also exchanged. The list dated 11 March 1995 shows that Hasan Hirkić was also exchanged.
350. Witness Rusmir Pajić testified that two persons died in Kamenica as a result of beatings. Truly, this witness could not state with certainty in which of the rooms these two men died. The witness, however, thought that the old man, who wore a coat and corduroy trousers, died of the beatings in the first room. The witness subsequently added that the name of this old man was Sulejman Porčić, and that the other, older man, died too after they had been removed to a new room.149
146 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 February 2011, witness Kasim Duraković, 1:10:38-1:11:45 h. 147 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 February 2011, witness Kasim Duraković, 1:12:00-1:12:50 h. 148 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 February 2011, witness Kasim Duraković, 1:17:25-1:21:44 h. 149 Main trial audio-recording dated 24 March 2011, witness Rusmir Pajić, 36:00-38:40, 55:00-56:20 and 1:18:30-1:19:15 h.
92 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
351. In addition to the above witnesses, Husnija Mehulić also testified that there were death incidents in Kamenica, and that he knew that Hasan Hirkić and Sulejman Porčić had died as a result of cold, beatings and hunger.150
352. It should be added in the end that witness Sanel Dervišević too confirmed that Sulejman Porčić spent a certain period of time in Kamenica.151
353. Starting from the previously presented arguments, that is, the reasons and facts confirmed by many witnesses and the documentary evidence whose most important parts were emphasized above, the fact that the documentary evidence corroborates the witnesses’ statements which are completely convincing and mutually constitute a logical and complete whole as they supplement and support each other, and are corroborated by objective documentary evidence, the Court concluded pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH that all the key facts, as described in Section III-2 of the operative part of the Verdict, were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(c) Section III-3
354. With regard to the findings of the Court concerning the destiny of the aggrieved party, Josip-Joso Majstorović, that is, the findings of the Court pertaining to Section III-3 of the Verdict, the first to be emphasized among the evidence adduced are the statements of witnesses Dragić Barović, Mile Mijuković, Josip Šantić, Mile Dujmović, Davor Marinčić and Kata Dujmović.
355. Witness Kata Dujmović testified that in late 1994 combats were carried out in the Bihać area, and that during the critical period her father was in Zavalje. More specifically, the witness’s father Joso Majstorović underwent a minor surgery but had a difficult post-operative recovery as they could not provide adequate medicines to him. Witness Kata Dujmović also testified that Jozo was not a fearful person and that he believed Zavalje would not be captured, thus he neither wanted no was able to leave the village. The witness recalled in her testimony that last time when she dressed her father’s bandages he remained lying on the bed.
150 Main trial audio-recording dated 25 August 2011, witness Husnija Mehulić, 34:10-35:12 h.
93 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
356. Witness Davor Marinčić was among the persons who had been held in Kamenica when Joso Majstorović was brought there. Witness Marinčić testified that he was in Kamenica when civilians and soldiers from the Bihać area arrived. One woman and two old men above age 70 were among them. Witness Marinčić stated a sick old man was also among them, that is, who had underwent a surgery, but that he died too. The witness explained that the cause of his death was most likely the fact that Joso was not properly medically treated after his surgery.152
357. Further in his testimony, witness Davor Marinčić testified that poor conditions in which the old man aged 70 was held were the cause of his death, and that they would be fatal even to a much stronger man than this old man. The witness finally added that no medical aid was provided to him while he was held in Kamenica.153
358. Witness Mile Mijuković described the old man Majstorović as the first victim. This witness stated that Majstorović had been operated before he was brought to Kamenica, that he was above age 70 and that he died of his illness. The witness did not remember the first name of this old man, but knew that his last name was Majstorović and that he was a civilian from Zavalje.154
359. Witness Josip Šantić confirmed all the claims of the previous two witnesses. This witness, however, described the arrival of Joso Majstorović in much more detail. According to Šantić, Joso was brought to Kamenica on stretchers. Witness Šantić also added that Majstorović was a civilian.155
360. Witness Josip Šantić confirmed that Jozo Majstorović died, and that he knew this because they had been held in the same room. This witness testified that the body of Jozo Majstorović was put in a bag, buried within the Kamenca compound and that they saw all this through the window.156
151 Main trial audio-recording dated 3 March 2011, witness Sanel Dervišević, 41:50-43:20 h. 152 Main trial audio-recording dated 14 April 2011, witness Davor Marinčić, 17:20-19:50 h. 153 Main trial audio-recording dated 14 April 2011, witness Davor Marinčić, 24:30-26:40 h. 154 Main trial audio-recording dated 10 February 2011, witness Mile Mijuković, 25:38-26:40 h. 155 Main trial audio-recording dated 17 March 2011, witness Josip Šantić, 28:00-29:40 h. 156 Main trial audio-recording dated 17 March 2011, witness Josip Šantić, 39:40-40:50 h.
94 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
361. Witness Mile Dujmović testified that he was brought to Kamenica at a later point in time, where he found several men, including an old man, Joso or Jozo. The old man was brought several days before, he was age 70, and had undergone a surgery due to which he could not get up. According to witness Dujmović, the old man was, in fact, taken out of his house in the village of Zavalje and brought to Kamenica. This witness also confirmed that Joso received no medical help, wherefore he died several days later.157
362. One of the guards, Dragić Barović, confirmed that an old man had been held in Kamenica, that he was very ill and died there. This old man was held in a room with the other men. He had been operated some time ago and simply did not make it. The witness also added that he knew nothing about the circumstances of the old man arrest, but confirmed that the old man was buried in a valley near the school.158
363. Starting from the above presented arguments, that is, the reasons and facts confirmed by many witnesses that constitute a logical whole, the Court was mindful that the witnesses, each from his own perspective, described the events addressed in Section III-3 of the operative part of the Verdict in a completely logical way. Witness Kata Dujmović, Joso Majstorović’s daughter, described the health condition of her father in which she had left him. The other witnesses testified that they remembered the condition in which Joso Majstorović was brought there and that, shortly thereafter, he died in Kamenica due to poor conditions and lack of medical treatment. Therefore, the Court has undoubtedly concluded that the old man, Joso Majstorović, was brought to the Kamenica camp in a critical condition, that he received no medical help and that he died in Kamenica after several days.
364. On the grounds of the evidence adduced, whose most significant parts were addressed above, and bearing in mind that the witnesses’ statements were completely convincing, mutually constituting a logical and complete whole, that they supplemented and supported each other, pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH the Court
157 Audio-recording of the resumed main trial dated 17 March 2011, witness Mile Dujmović,1:28:00- 1:30:00 h. 158 Main trial audio-recording dated 23 December 2010, witness Dragić Barović, 56:30-59:50 h.
95 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
concluded that the key facts, as described in Section III-3 of the operative part of the Verdict, were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This is particularly so bearing in mind that the Defense for the Accused offered no piece of evidence whatsoever to contest these facts.
(d) Section III-4
365. As to the findings of the Court concerning the destiny of the aggrieved party Drago Dujmović, that is, the findings of the Court related to Section III-4 of the Verdict, the statements of witnesses Mile Mijuković, Josip Šantić, Mile Dujmović, Stipe Petrović, Davor Marinčić, Milan Ivančević, Josip Dujmović, the Prosecution documentary Exhibits T-14 (List of captured, exchanged and dead persons) and T96 (Excerpt from the Register of Deaths for Drago Žulj) should be addressed first among the evidence adduced.
366. The statements of witnesses Mile Dujmović and Josip Šantić are best to start with as regards the destiny of aggrieved party Drago Dujmović. These witnesses testified that they were taken prisoners on 25 November 1994 in Vedro Polje and thereupon brought to the Vedro Polje barracks. Witness Josip Šantić also testified that several civilians were captured in Vedro Polje too. Witness Mile Dujmović testified that Drago Dujmović was also among the captured old men who had been taken from their homes.
367. The above witnesses testified that after being taken prisoners they were transferred to Kamenica.
368. As a relative of the aggrieved party Drago Dujmović, witness Josip Dujmović confirmed that Drago lived in Vedro Polje, that he was not a military conscript, that he was taken prisoner in November 1994 and thereupon brought to Kamenica.159
369. More specifically, with regard to the destiny of Drago Dujmović or his death in Kamenica, the Court heard convincing witness statements, including the evidence of witness Mile Mijuković. This witness testified that there were many civilians in Kamenica, and that Drago Dujmović died there. The witness learned from his co-combatant that
96 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Drago suffered from diabetes, but that he was mentally ill too. The witness also added that Drago was not taken out for beating.160
370. Like witness Mile Mijuković, witness Josip Šantić testified that Drago Dujmović was not beaten during his interment in Kamenica. This witness stated that Drago suffered from dysentery during his internment in Kamenica, that Grunf and Makara changed his clothing and washed him while there, but that he eventually died.161
371. Like the above witnesses, witness Mile Dujmović testified that Drago Dujmović too was in Kamenica, and that he too died there. This witness added that they had been given some sour food, most likely during a holiday, and thereupon they all became ill with dysentery. Witness Dujmović testified that Drago Dujmović was among them too, that he fought dysentery for 2-3 days but eventually died. According to witness, Drago’s body was left in this messy condition until the afternoon when an order was issued to remove his body.162
372. Witness Stipo Petrović too confirmed the above witnesses’ statements. This witness testified that Drago Dujmović was in Kamenica and that he was ill. Witness Petrović testified that the other detainees called the guards to help him, but they answered that nothing would happen to Drago, yet he died nonetheless.163
373. Unlike the above witnesses who had mostly individually testified about the death of Drago Dujmović, witness Davor Marinčić also testified about the death of Miroslav Fabulić and Drago Dujmović. Witness Marinčić described the way in which Marko Čavar died, namely that Marko got a viral infection whereupon he died of the symptoms thereof, and Drago Dujmović died of the same symptoms too. This witness added that poor conditions, cold and hunger in Kamenica contributed to the death of Drago Dujmović.164
159 Main trial audio-recording dated 1 September 2011, Josip Dujmović, 22:00-23:00 and 24:55-26:00 h. 160 Main trial audio-recording dated 10 February 2011, witness Mile Mijuković, 26:35-30:40 h. 161 Main trial audio-recording dated 17 March 2011, witness Josip Šantić, 26:35-30:40 h. 162 Main trial audio-recording dated 17 March 2011, witness Mile Dujmović, 1:48:10-1:50:45 h. 163 Main trial audio-recording dated 24 March 2011, witness Stipo Petrović, 1:52:00-1:55:00 h. 164 Main trial audio-recording dated 14 April 2011, witness Davro Marinčić, 37:00-42:00 h.
97 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
374. The testimony of witness Milan Ivančević, that is, Exhibit T-14 should be taken into account with regard to the destiny of Drago Dujmović. Witness Milan Ivančević, the then Exchange Commission President, commented on Exhibit T-14. The witness stated that this was a working material, namely that official documents or reports were prepared on the grounds of such lists. The essence of Exhibit T-14 is apparent from the fact that Drago Dujmović was mentioned as an exchanged dead person.165
375. Also noteworthy is the Prosecution Exhibit T-96 (Excerpt from the Register of Deaths for Drago Dujmović), which shows that Drago died on 25 March 1995, and indicates Kamenica as the place of his death.
376. Starting from the above presented arguments, the reasons and facts confirmed by many witnesses that constitute a single and logical whole, in which the witnesses described and confirmed where Drago had lived, the circumstances in which he was deprived of liberty and escorted to Kamenica, and his very death, bearing in mind the way in which the witnesses testified, that their statements were completely convincing, and constituted a logical and complete whole, and were corroborated by the documentary evidence, that they mutually supplemented each other, were consistent in essential facts, and that the Defense for the Accused presented no piece evidence whatsoever to raise suspicion into these facts, the Court concluded pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH that all key facts, as described in Section III-4 of the operative part of the Verdict, were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
(e) Section III-5
377. With reference to the findings of the Court relevant to the facts specified under Section III-5 of the Judgment, firstly it should be noted that the death of Captain Hazim Toromanović and the death of Fikret Begić, when combined, the two amount to one of the incidents best recalled by witnesses who took the stand during the trial. Witnesses who testified to the killing of Hazim Toromanović include Armin Mulić, Bajro Ljubijankić, Dževad Dupanović, Mirsad Hadžić, Fikret Dolić, Dragić Barović, Enes Begić, Kasim Duraković, Mile Mijuković, Rifet Tahrić, Rusmir Pajić, Izet Kaljiković, Šuhret Fazlić, Milan
165 Main trial audio-recording dated 26 May 2011, witness Milan Ivančević, 22:05:30-2:08:53 h.
98 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Ivančević, Mirhad Jusić, including also the Defendant Ratko Dronjak himself, as well as documentary evidence of the Prosecution, Exhibit T-14 (List of Exchanged Bodies of the VRS Soldiers dated 11 March 1995 in Ličko Petrovo Selo) and Exhibit T-96 (Death Certificate to the name of Hazim Toromanović).
378. The evidence presented, or in fact witnesses in their live evidence confirm that the victim Hazim Toromanović during his time in Kamenica was accommodated in at least two rooms. Basement was the first of these two, or, in fact, a room referred to as solitary confinement by some detainees. Witnesses Dževad Dupanović, Mirsad Hažić, Rusmir Pajić and Mirhad Jusić testified about Hazim Toromanović’s detention in the basement.
379. In their evidence, Dževad Dupanović and Rusmir Pajić consistently confirmed that during their detention in the basement Hazim Toromanović was repeatedly taken out and beaten, despite being wounded.166
380. Further, not only that witnesses Mirsad Hadžić and Mirhad Jusić confirmed that Hazim Toromanović was beaten during his detention in the basement, but moreover, witness Mirsad Hadžić explained that Hazim Toromanović was wounded, so when he was to be beaten, he would be carried out of the room as he was unable to leave the room by himself. 167
381. In terms of evidence, or in fact testimonials on the fate of Hazim Toromanović in Kamenica, it is necessary to point to the testimonies of witnesses Bajro Ljubijankić and Fikret Dolić.
382. During his evidence, witness Bajro Ljubijankić was very clear, noting that at the time while they were in the upper room, Toromanović was taken out one night, punched and beaten and then returned, only to be found dead the following morning.168
166 Audio recording of the hearing held on 3 February 2011, witness Dževad Dupanović, 34:55-36:20 h and audio recording of the hearing held on 24 March 2011, witness Rusmir Pajić, 29:15-32:40 h. 167 Audio recording of the hearing held on 30 June 2011, witness Mirsad Hadžić, 18:40-19:40, 31:45-39:35 and 43:00-44:05 and audio recording of the hearing held on 20 October 2011, witness Mirhad Jusić, 19:45-20:35 h. 168 Audio recording of the hearing held on 12 May 2011, witness Bajro Ljubijankić, 2:15:10-2:16:50 h.
99 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
383. Similarly, witness Fikret Dolić confirmed in his evidence that during his stay in the classroom (which is another name for the room on the upper floor, or the upper room) Hazim Toromanović was taken out once, beaten and subsequently returned back to the room where he succumbed to the injuries.169
384. Further, in reference to the actual time of death, it is noteworthy to once again point to the testimony of Dževad Dupanović, who testified that he is aware that the guards beat Toromanović and that Toromanović succumbed in the arms of the witness. However, the witness was unable to recall the exact details regarding the time and place of Toromanović’s death.170
385. Witness Dupanović’s testimony is evidently an attempt to interpret events according to the best of his recollection, as indirectly corroborated by witness Rifet Tahrić in his testimony. Specifically, witness Tahrić described how the Battalion Commander of the 502nd Brigade succumbed in Kamenica, and that he was bleeding from his thigh and wailing in pain, to be found dead the next morning. He added that Dupanović, in whose arms Toromanović had succumbed according to his own account, reported the captain’s death to the guards. 171
386. Finally, other witnesses confirm that Hazim Toromanović succumbed as the result of beatings in Kamenica, such as witness Kasim Duraković, who testified that Hazim Toromanović died from beatings,172 and witness Izet Kaljiković, who noted that Hazim Toromanović could not have died of any other causes but from beatings.173
387. Finally, it is necessary to draw attention to the evidence of witness Enes Begić. In his account, the witness confirmed that, to his knowledge, no one took Toromanović out of the room, but when it comes to the manner of his death, witness Enes Begić fully confirmed the evidence given by the previously cited witnesses, and pointed out that he
169 Audio recording of the hearing held on 11 November 2010, witness Fikret Dolić, 43:55-44.50 h. 170 Audio recording of the hearing held on 3 February 2011, witness Dževad Dupanović, 34:55-36:20 h. 171 Audio recording of the hearing held on 10 March 2011, witness Rifet Tahrić, 1:33.00-1.35:50 h. 172 Audio recording of the hearing held on 3 February 2011, witness Kasim Duraković, 1:24.30-1:25:00 h. 173 Audio recording of the hearing held on 14 April 2011, witness Izet Kaljiković, 1:40:00-1:43:20 h.
100 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
was aware that Hazim Toromanović was sobbing in pain one night and was found dead the following morning.174
388. Witness Armin Mulić gave an ultimate retrospective of Hazim Toromanović’s death. The witness confirmed that he found Rifet Tahrić aka Tašo, Hazim Toromanović’s driver, in the larger room (classroom), who according to the accounts had succumbed before the arrival of witness Armin Mulić in Kamenica.175
389. That death of Hazim Toromanović strongly resonated among prisoners, as confirmed by witness Mile Mijuković, who was in another room where Croats were detained and who has no direct information about the circumstances surrounding the death of Hazim Toromanović. However, the witness testified to a strong echo that the information about the death of Captain Toromanović had had among detainees, describing it as a lightning strike, which made all of them believe that none would come out alive. 176
390. Finally, witnesses Šuhret Fazlić and Milan Ivančević confirmed in their testimonies that Hazim Toromanović was alive for a certain period of time in Kamenica. Specifically, these two witnesses were involved in the negotiations on the exchange, and, according to Ivančević, his mandate was to negotiate on Toromanović as if he were alive, which was also confirmed by Fazlić, who emphasized that he learned from Ivančević that Toromanović was alive; however, in the end, it was his body that was exchanged.177
391. Further, in reference to Hazim Toromanović, it should be noted that the Defendant Ratko Dronjak stated that he was aware that one captain Toromanović had spent some time in Kamenica,178 and also that witness Dragić Barović confirmed that
174 Audio recording of the hearing held on 27 January 2011, witness Enes Begić, 56:15-57:35 h. 175 Audio recording of the hearing held on 27 January 2011, witness Armin Mulić, 2:13:5-2:15:00 h. 176 Audio recording of the hearing held on 10 February 2011, witness Mile Mijuković, 43:50-44:50 h. 177 Audio recording of the hearing held on 26 May 2011, witness Šuhret Fazlić, 17:30-17:50 and audio recording of the hearing held on 26 May 2011, witness Milan Ivančević, 1:55:00-1:56:20 h. 178 Transcript of the hearing in Dronjak, dated 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak) p. 31.
101 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
there was a wounded captain Toromanović in Kamenica, and that the next time, when he returned to his shift, he learned that Toromanović died.179
392. Finally, it is also noteworthy to point to documentary evidence that clearly demonstrate that it was the body of Captain Hazim Toromanović that was ultimately exchanged.
393. Therefore, based on the previously outlined arguments, that is, reasons and facts corroborated by a number of witnesses, which thus amount to a unique and logical whole; that is, starting from the fact that witnesses, each of from own perspective, gave identical accounts of the events under Section III-5 of the operative part namely that Hazim Toromanović was in Kamenica, and was beaten despite being wounded, and that he died as the result of beating.
394. In other words, based on the evidence presented, with the most relevant elements outlined in the previous paragraphs, whilst mindful of the evidence of witnesses which appear fully convincing, and in mutual relation, these live testimonies amount to a logical and complete whole – these testimonies are mutually complementary and correlated, in addition to being corroborated by documentary evidence accepted in its entirety by the Court as clear, convincing and undeniable, especially bearing in mind that some were verified by testimonies of certain witnesses, in its evaluation pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court concluded beyond any reasonable doubt that all the key facts were proven in the way as described in Section III-5 of the operative part of the judgment.
(f) Section III-6
395. When it comes to the findings of the Court regarding the facts discussed in Section III-6 of the Judgment, it should be noted primarily that the murder of Fikret Begić, similarly to the death of Captain Hazim Toromanović, is one of the events best recalled by witnesses who testified during the proceedings. Witnesses who testified about the murder of Fikret Begić include, among other, Fikret Dolić, Ibrahim Halkić, Enes
179 Audio recording of the hearing held on 23 December 2010, witness Dragić Barović, 1:15:30-1:17:15 h.
102 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Begić, Armin Mulić, Dževad Dupanović, Rusmir Pajić, Izet Kaljiković, Mirsad Hadžić, Mirhad Jusić, Stipe Petrović, Rifet Tahrić, Dragić Barović, Milanko Knežević, Kasim Duraković, Dragan Rodić, Šuhret Fazlić and Enver Begić, as well as the documentary evidence of the Prosecution, specifically Exhibit T-96 (Death Certificate to the name of Fikret Begić).
396. In the course of the proceedings conducted against the Defendant Ratko Dronjak, a number of witnesses confirmed that they were aware that Fikret Begić was also among detainees in Kamenica. Some witnesses testified that Fikret’s wounds were dressed during his detention, while others argued that no medical assistance was offered to him. In the opinion of the Court, although this may seem a significant contradiction in the witnesses' accounts, it is actually a single logical unit. Specifically, witnesses who testified that Begić’s wounds were dressed mentioned that he would be taken out of the room where he was staying for the alleged bandaging. Accordingly, the majority of former Kamenica detainees were in no position to know with certainty if medical assistance was indeed administered to him or not. However, this bears no particular importance for Section III-6 of the Judgment, but is mentioned only in the context of the evaluation of evidence.
397. Furthermore, in addition to Fikret Begić’s actual detention in Kamenica, the Court had the opportunity to hear many compelling testimonies from a number of witnesses, including Fikret Dolić, Enes Begić Rusmir Pajić, Izet Kaljiković, Ibrahim Halkić, Armin Mulić and Dževad Dupanović, who consistently confirmed that during his time in Kamenica, Fikret Begić had the same treatment as all other prisoners, meaning that he was beaten in Kamenica, with the exception that he had to be carried outside for beating, as he was wounded in both legs and could not move.
398. In his evidence, witness Armin Mulić testified that he was taken out and beaten before Begić, and that he was delirious when he was returned to the room, but recalls that Fikret Begić was carried out and that he heard a shot. Subsequently, he learned
103 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
details about Fikret Begić being taken out, or in fact, that he was taken to a small house.180
399. Furthermore, it is necessary to point to the testimony of Fikret Dolić who confirmed in his live evidence that Fikret Begić was also among detainees, and that he was taken outside for beatings. Several days before they were to be registered by the ICRC, he was carried outside for a beating, a shot was heard and he never came back to the room.181
400. Witness Šuhret Fazlić with the Exchange Commission also confirmed that Fikret Begić was in Kamenica and alive at one point, before registration by the ICRC. In his evidence, witness Fazlić testified that during the negotiations in the presence of the ICRC, Fikret Begić was mentioned as someone who is alive and located in Kamenica, even though he was not officially registered at the time; however, his body was eventually exchanged.182
401. Furthermore, as previously indicated, in their evidence, witnesses Enes Begić,183 Rusmir Pajić184 and Izet Kaljiković185 consistently confirmed that one evening Fikret Begić was taken out, and then screams were heard, as emphasized in particular by witness Rusmir Pajić. Then only one shot was heard, and Fikret Begić never came back to the room.
402. Finally, in their evidence, witnesses Ibrahim Halkić186 and Dževad Dupanović187 also confirmed that there was beating on the relevant night; that Fikret Begić was carried outside and that a shot was heard, and also that two other men were then taken out (corroborated by witness Ibrahim Halkić) never to return to the room either, while witness Dupanović added that he too was taken out that evening but was returned to the other room.
180 Audio recording of the hearing held on 27 January 2011, witness Armin Mulić, 2:21:50-2:25:00 h. 181 Audio recording of the hearing held on 11 November 2010, witness Fikret Dolić, 51.00-52:12 h. 182 Audio recording of the hearing held on 26 May 2011, witness Šuhret Fazlić, 29:00-31:30 h. 183 Audio recording of the hearing held on 27 January 2011, witness Enes Begić, 59.00-101:20 h. 184 Audio recording of the hearing held on 24 March 2011, witness Rusmir Pajić, 41:05-42.45 h. 185 Audio recording of the hearing held on 14 April 2011, witness Izet Kaljiković, 1.40:00-1:43:20 h. 186 Audio recording of the hearing held on 20 January 2011, witness Ibrahim Halkić, 41:40-43:40 h. 187 Audio recording of the hearing held on 3 February 2011, witness Dževad Dupanović, 39:40-40.40 h.
104 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
403. Furthermore, as already described, two men took Fikret Begić outside, namely, witnesses Mirhad Jusić and Mirsad Hadžić. Witness Jusić stated in his live testimony that Fikret Begić was beaten for three nights. Every time, the two men would take him out and back later on. However, on the third night, Jusić carried Begić outside, as he testified, and Fikret was then beaten. Later, a shot was heard. In his evidence, the witness also noted that he and Mirsad Hadžić did not take him back nor did they have a chance later on to see him.188
404. Contrary to witnesses Jusić who was fairly brief in describing how Fikret Begić was taken out, witness Mirsad Hadžić described in great detail how he recalls Fikret Begić and that he was wounded in his arm and both legs, and that on the relevant night, he could hear the distinctive sound of a vehicle which they knew was used by the warden. That night, all hell broke loose, according to witnesses Hadžić, who carried Fikret Begić out together with Meho Meić, and they left him in a wooden kiosk. They returned back into the room, and heard a gunshot. According to the account, Begić was not crying but screaming; however, after the shot, no other sound was heard.189 The witness also confirmed that as they were lowering Begić, he could see three guards, one of whom was the warden. The witness could not explain how he knew that the person he saw was the warden, save for that he simply knew. 190
405. Witness Stipo Petrović also confirmed that Fikret Begić was taken out, or in fact, a person who was injured and detained in the room with members of the 5th Corps. The witness also added that he saw Fikret being carried towards a kiosk, followed by a shot which was then heard. The witness pointed out that others believed that a murder occurred.191
406. Furthermore, similarly to previous witnesses, Rifet Tahrić also testified about the night when Fikret Begić was killed. The witness stated that there was a lot of beating that night, and that Fikret Begić was taken out, but at that moment a shot was heard. He further testified that several other prisoners were also taken out after Begić, including
188 Audio recording of the hearing held on 20 October 2011, witness Mirhad Jusić, 24:30-26:25 h. 189 Audio recording of the hearing held on 30 June 2011, witness Mirsad Hadžić, 31:45-39:35 h. 190 Audio recording of the hearing held on 30 June 2011, witness Mirsad Hadžić, 1:28:40-1:31:20 h. 191 Audio recording of the hearing held on 24 March 2011, witness Stipo Petrović, 1:50:30-1.51:50 h.
105 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Dupanović, who did not return to the room, which was also confirmed by the witness. Eventually, witness Tahrić was also taken out. When he was brought into that room, Ratko Dronjak asked the witness to write a statement about Dragiša Barović and his cooperation with the men from Bihać. The witness also added that he felt the smell of brandy, and could see a bottle, further adding that the floor was wet, as if wiped clean. Witness Rifet Tahrić stressed that at the end Dronjak asked him to write a statement, telling him that he was the God in Kamenica and waved the gun around his head, at which point the witness could smell the gunpowder from the gun. Lastly, regarding the events of that night, witness Tahrić added that other guards were beating him while Dronjak was asking the witness to write a statement, and finally, when he decided to write a statement, Dronjak ordered that he be taken to solitary confinement, where he found people who had been taken out before him, but were not returned to the room. However, as this witness mentioned in his further evidence, Begić was not there, but the witness could hear a sound of what seemed like a death rattle in a dredged trench located near the guards post.192
407. Furthermore, when it comes to the killing of Fikret Begić, witness Kasim Duraković confirmed that he learned from other inmates that the Camp Commander killed Begić-Šargan, but the witness did not know who that was.193
408. The testimony of witness Duraković has a logical follow-up in the evidence of witnesses and guards Milanko Knežević and Dragić Barović. Namely, witness Milanko Knežević told the court that he saw traces of blood on duty officer’s premises on his arrival to the shift, and learned from his fellow guards from the previous shift that Dronjak killed a sniper194 from a pistol.195 This statement was confirmed by witness Dragić Barović, who pointed out that during his time in Kamenica among the wounded ones there was also a member of the Special Forces, wounded in both legs and whom they called Šarganovac (translator’s note: one of Šargan’s men).196
192 Audio recording of the hearing held on 10 March 2011, witness Rifet Tahrić, 2:00:30-2:11:40 h. 193 Audio recording of the hearing held on 3 February 2011, witness Kasim Duraković, 1:36:50-1:37:30 h. 194 Audio recording of the hearing held on 16 June 2011, witness Milanko Knežević, 50:10-51:20 h. 195 Audio recording of the hearing held on 16 June 2011, witness Milanko Knežević, 1:07:50-1:08:20 h. 196 Audio recording of the hearing held on 23 December 2010, witness Dragić Barović, 1:15:30-1.17:15 h.
106 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
409. According to Barović, Šarganovac was alive, but later, after the war, he learned most likely from Zoran Bašić that Šarganovac was killed in Kamenica and that it was Ratko Dronjak who did it. 197
410. Finally, in reference to the killing of Fikret Begić, it is noteworthy to point to the evidence of witness Dragan Rodić who described how the warden Ratko Dronjak came at one point and ordered that a person who was seriously wounded in his leg be brought to the room. After he was brought, according to Rodić, Dronjak went to interrogate him about some kind of ambush. After a while, there in the guards post, in the presence of other guards and Dronjak himself, the witness and Milovan Pećanac, Ratko Dronjak took a pistol from Pećanac and shot the prisoner in the head. Further, the witness also added that the body was taken out and left over night in the protective trench, as also confirmed by witness Tahrić. The body was later on buried and exchanged.198
411. Finally, when it comes to the murder of Fikret Begić, it is necessary to point to the testimony of Fikret’s brother Enver Begić. In his live evidence on 30 June 2011, he testified that he had heard from his father that when Fikret’s body was exchanged, there was a hole in his head.
412. Therefore, starting from the previously presented arguments or reasons and facts corroborated by a number of witnesses, which amount to one single and logical whole; or starting from the facts as presented by witnesses each from their own individual perspectives – from their acquaintance with Fikret Begić and his detention in Kamenica, through being taken out on the night of the incident and the shooting or, in fact, the killing of Fikret Begić, all witnesses gave an utterly logical description of the events outlined in Section III-6 of the operative part of the Judgment, namely that Fikret Begić was detained in Kamenica, and that he was wounded in both legs; despite being wounded, he was nevertheless beaten, and eventually killed by the Defendant Ratko Dronjak from a close range, by a pistol shot to the head.
197 Audio recording of the hearing held on 23 December 2010, witness Dragić Barović, 1:38:50-1.39:20 h. 198 Audio recording of the hearing held on 21 October 2010, witness Dragan Rodić, 1:26:30-1:29:44 h.
107 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
413. In other words, based on the evidence presented, with the most relevant elements outlined in the previous paragraphs, whilst mindful of the evidence of witnesses which appear fully convincing, and in mutual relation, these live testimonies amount to a logical and complete whole – these testimonies are mutually complementary and correlated, in addition to being corroborated by documentary evidence exhibit T-96; hence, in its evaluation pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court concluded beyond any reasonable doubt that all the key facts were proven in the way as described in Section III-6 of the operative part of the judgment, especially given that the Defense did not move or adduce any evidence to contest this state of the facts.
(g) Section III-7
414. When it comes to the findings of the Court concerning the facts discussed in Section III-7 of the judgment, or the circumstances surrounding the death of Marko Čavara, the Court was primarily guided by the following evidence, that is, testimonials of witnesses Mile Mijuković, Josip Šantić, Mile Dujmović, Stipe Petrović, Davor Marinčić and Jozo Čavar, and documentary evidence of the Prosecution, specifically Exhibit T-14 (List of exchanged soldiers of the VRS and the VRSK in Donji Zemunik on 25 May 1995 and the List of Captured, Exchanged and Killed Persons) and T-96 (Death Certificate to the name of Marko Čavara).
415. From among the previously mentioned witnesses, when it comes to the fate of Marko Čavara, or the fact that he was captured and then brought to Kamenica, where he succumbed after some time, one should start from the testimony of witness Davor Marinčić. Specifically, witness Marinčić, in his live evidence before the Court, described how he was captured on 4 November 1994 by members of the VRS in the Kupres area. The witness also added that Marko Čavara was captured together with him, and they were transferred to Kamenica during the night.
108 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
416. Further, the witness explained that they were separated on arrival, and placed in solitary confinement. After five to six days, together they were transferred into a room with a wooden floor. According to Marinčić, Čavara was frightened when he saw him. 199
417. Furthermore, when it comes to the actual event under Section III-7 of the judgment, it is particularly important to emphasize that witness Marinčić described the death of the late Marko Čavara in the spring of 20 March 1995. Specifically, as the witness noted in his statement, Čavara caught a virus due to their living conditions. He also added that younger prisoners were used to perform labor. Marko was working on Saturday, but later on, in the evening of that Saturday, he got symptoms of dysentery (pain, fever, and diarrhea). His condition further deteriorated on Sunday. In his testimony, witness Marinčić further noted that on Sunday evening Marko Čavara began losing consciousness, losing control, and he died in the morning. Additionally, according to witness Marinčić, soon after Čavara, Dujmović also died from the same symptoms. In the aftermath of the two deaths, for the first time prisoners washed their face, had their hair cut and got to drink boiled water.200
418. Similarly to Marinčić, in his description of the events in Kamenica, witness Stipo Petrović also testified that he remembers Marko Čavara, who was not healthy, according to his accounts. He also added that during the night they kept calling the guards and the commander, requesting that Marko be taken to see a doctor, but the guards kept saying that he would be fine. However, according to witness Petrović, Marko Čavara did not live to see the next day. Further, in an almost identical manner, further in his evidence, the witness described how Drago Dujmović succumbed to the same symptoms, and that the guards, when asked to assist, reacted in the same way as when Marko Čavara succumbed.201
419. Furthermore, in his live evidence before the Court, witness Mile Dujmović said he remembered one young man, who was from the area nearby Široki Brijeg, that is, from Herzegovina. His name was Marko Čavar and he quickly fell ill. According to Dujmović,
199 Audio recording of the hearing held on 14 April 2011, witness Davor Marinčić, 16:40-17:40 h. 200 Audio recording of the hearing held on 14 April 2011, witness Davor Marinčić, 37:00-42:00 h. 201 Audio recording of the hearing held on 24 March 2011, witness Stipo Petrović, 1:52:00-1:55:00 h.
109 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Marko died of dysentery. According to the witness, it was not before these two prisoners died that they brought in a doctor who gave them some kind of powder, probably to treat dysentery.202
420. Similarly to previous witnesses, witness Josip Šantić almost entirely corroborated the evidence of other witnesses, specifically that there was a 22-year-old Marko Čavara in Kamenica, who went to perform labor, and, according to the witness, one night Mark just moaned and died. He also added that he had symptoms, including cramps and diarrhea.203
421. Finally, witness Mile Mijuković, in his evidence before the Court, also confirmed that Marko Čavara was among the detainees. He added that the younger ones were taken out to carry firewood, but Marko came down with a fever and died from the disease. This witness testified that Čavara spent five (5) months in Kamenica, but eventually came down with a fever and died after two days.204
422. Finally, it should be noted that witness Jozo Čavara also testified in relation to the events under this Section of the Judgment on 18 August 2011, who confirmed that his brother was captured somewhere in the surroundings of Tomislavgrad, and that he succumbed in Kamenica on 20 March 1995.
423. As noted in the introductory part, in reference to Section III-7, certain exhibits were introduced, including also Exhibit T-14, which goes to confirm the evidence of witness Jozo Čavar who testified that Marko Čavar was exchanged on 25 May 1995, that is, the Death Certificate which also proves that Marko Čavar died on 20 March 1995 in Kamenica.
424. Therefore, starting from the previously presented arguments or reasons and facts corroborated by a number of witnesses, which amount to one single and logical whole; or starting from the facts as presented by witnesses, each from their own individual perspectives – from Marko being captured and brought to Kamenica, through performing
202 Audio recording of the hearing held on 17 March 2011, witness Mile Dujmović, 1:50:50-1:52:05 h. 203 Audio recording of the hearing held on 17 March 2011, witness Josip Šantić, 44:30-46:50 h. 204 Audio recording of the hearing held on 10 February 2011, witness Mile Mijuković, 41:40-43:20 h.
110 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
labor, and finally, the manner of his death, or specifically that he succumbed soon after the first symptoms of dysentery, all witnesses gave an utterly identical description of the events outlined in Section III-7 of the operative part of the Judgment.
425. In other words, based on the evidence presented, with the most relevant elements outlined in the previous paragraphs, whilst mindful of the evidence of witnesses which appear fully convincing, and in mutual relation, these live testimonies amount to a logical and complete whole – these testimonies are mutually complementary and correlated, in addition to being corroborated by documentary evidence exhibits T-14 and T-96, which was accepted in its entirety by the Court as clear, convincing and undeniable, especially given that the Defense did not in any way contest it, in its evaluation pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court concluded beyond any reasonable doubt that all the key facts were proven in the way as described in Section III-7 of the operative part of the judgment.
(h) Section III-8
426. When it comes to the findings of the Court concerning the facts discussed in Section III-8 of the Judgment, or the circumstances surrounding the death of Marijan Nikšić, the Court was primarily guided by the following evidence, that is, testimonials of witnesses Mile Mijuković, Josip Šantić, Mile Dujmović, Stipe Petrović, Davor Marinčić, Šuhret Fazlić and Miro Nikšić, and documentary evidence of the Prosecution, specifically Exhibit T-14 (Report on the Exchange on 11 April 1995 in Ličko Petrovo Selo) and T-96 (Birth Certificate to the name of Marijan Nikšić).
427. The Court had the opportunity to hear the testimony of witness Mile Mijuković, who spoke about Marijan Nikšić. In his evidence, witness Mijuković confirmed that they were in fear the entire time and that they were taken out every day for beating. They would be taken out from the room where members of the Army of BiH were detained, or from the room where the witness was detained together with other Croats. Men were taken out and beaten, but the witness said that detainees still could not believe that anyone would actually get killed. The witness added that he remembers Marijan’s words: “Schoolmate, if I’m taken out one more time, I won’t survive”. But Marijan was taken out along with Zlatko-Grunf and Marko Ivušić. When he came back, Marijan said he was 111 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
beaten severely and the next morning he was found dead. After Marijan’s death, they were all in shock because they did not think that something like that would ever happen.205
428. Finally, the witness further testified that they acted upon the instructions of the guards. Namely, the witness wrote Marijan’s full name, placed it around his neck, and then they placed his body in a bag for a subsequent exchange. This fact was confirmed also by Exhibits T-14 (Report of the Exchange on 11 April 1995 in Ličko Petrovo Selo) which clearly demonstrates that the exchange was carried out, including the exchange of Marijan’s body.
429. Furthermore, in his evidence, witness Mile Dujmović gave an almost identical account of Marijan Nikšić’s death. Specifically, he said he met Marijan in a small hall where they were detained in Kamenica. Sometime around New Year's, Croats from the small hall were accommodated in other cells. At that point, three men were separated - Marijan Nikšić, Zoran aka Mafija and Marko Ivušić aka Makara. After about half an hour later, Makara and Mafija were thrown into the room where witness Mile Dujmović was detained, and they had visible signs of beating. The witness further testified that they had confirmed that Marijan was also beaten together with them, but they do not know what happened to him, and one of detainees said that Marijan was killed. The next morning when they returned to the large room, the witness said that they did not find Marijan there and the witness subsequently learned that Marijan’s body was exchanged.206
430. In reference to Marijan Nikšić and his death, witness Josip Šantić has no direct knowledge but indirectly confirms the events described in Section III-8 of the judgment. Namely, the witness confirmed the rumors about Marijan’s killing, or, in fact, that he was killed by one of the guards jumping on his chest. Also, the witness said that Marijan was already gone when he returned to the large room.207
205 Audio recording of the hearing held on 10 February 2011, witness Mile Mijuković, 17:40-20:45 h. 206 Audio recording – the hearing held on 17 March 2011, witness Mile Dujmović, 1:57:00-2:00:08 h. 207 Audio recording – the hearing held on 17 March 2011, witness Josip Šantić, 40:50-42:45 h.
112 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
431. Furthermore, in his live testimony before the Court, witness Stipo Petrović said that there were deaths in Kamenica occurring as the result of beatings and malnutrition. He added that Marijan Nikšić was among them, who was taken out sometimes before the New Year, and beaten to the extent that he succumbed during the night.208
432. Davor Marinčić was also one of the witnesses who spoke about the fate of Marijan Nikšić. In his evidence, he testified that it was New Year’s or some other holiday, and that they then began transferring them to other rooms until they were crammed like sardines. They started beating one of the prisoners, and one of the guards jumped on his chest. The witness further stated that thereafter he only heard a rattle, and that the prisoner died from a beating there on the spot.209 According to the witness, this prisoner was Marijan Nikšić, and he was killed as a result of this physical violence. 210
433. Finally, in his account, witness Marinčić confirmed the allegations of witness Mile Mijuković, namely that Marijan was taken out and beaten a couple of times prior to this particular incident. 211
434. In addition, witness Marijan Nikšić’s sister Mira Nikšić, in her live evidence on 1 September 2011, also confirmed that her brother died in Kamenica and she heard that allegedly they jumped on his chest and that her brother died as a result.
435. Finally, it is noteworthy to mention witness Šuhret Fazlić who commented on Exhibit T-14 on behalf of the Exchange Commission, in his evidence on 26 June 2011, noting that Marjan Nikšić’s body was exchanged, but they have no information on the circumstances surrounding his death.
436. Therefore, starting from the previously presented arguments or reasons and facts corroborated by a number of witnesses, which amount to one single and logical whole; or starting from the facts as presented by witnesses each from their own individual perspectives – from being transferred to other cells, followed by beatings and also the death of Marijan Nikšić, all witnesses gave an utterly identical description of the events
208 Audio recording – the hearing held on 24 March 2011, witness Stipo Petrović, 1:52:00-1:55:00 h. 209 Audio recording – the hearing held on 14 April 2011, witness Davor Marinčić, 32:20-33:30 h. 210 Audio recording – the hearing held on 14 April 2011, witness Davor Marinčić, 43:00-43:25 h.
113 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
outlined in Section III-8 of the operative part of the Judgment. Hence, the Court gave credence to their accounts especially bearing in mind that the Defense did not adduce any evidence to raise any doubts or convince the Court to decide otherwise.
437. In other words, based on the evidence presented, with the most relevant elements outlined in the previous paragraphs, whilst mindful of the evidence of witnesses which appear fully convincing, and in mutual relation, these live testimonies amount to a logical and complete whole – these testimonies are mutually complementary and correlated, in addition to being corroborated by documentary evidence exhibits T-14 and T-96, in its evaluation pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court concluded beyond doubt that all the key facts were proven in the way as described in Section III-8 of the operative part of the judgment.
(i) Section III-9
438. When it comes to the findings of the Court concerning the facts discussed in Section III-9 of the Judgment, or the circumstances surrounding the death of Mirsad Hadžić, the Court was primarily guided by the following evidence, that is, testimonials of witnesses Fikret Dolić, Kasim Duraković, Rusmir Pajić, Izet Kaljiković, Bajro Ljubijankić, Šuhret Fazlić, Milan Ivančević, Mirsad Hadžić, Husnija Mehulić, Ibrahim Hadžić, Mirhad Jusić, and documentary evidence of the Prosecution, specifically Exhibit T-14 (List of Exchanged Bodies / Casualties -Kekića klanac dated 1 December 1994 and List of the VRS POWs to be exchanged on 11 March 1995 in Ličko Petrovo Selo) and T-96 (Death Certificate to the name of Mirsad Hadžić).
439. Witness Izet Kaljiković gave his evidence in relation to the circumstances referred to in Section III-9 of the Judgment. The witness testified that he was the commander and that he was on his way back with rookies when his entire platoon was captured. Among prisoners whom he joined in the basement in Kamenica, there were two men by the name of Mirsad Hadžić.212
211 Audio recording – the hearing held on 14 April 2011, witness Davor Marinčić, 57:50-59:45 h. 212 Audio recording – the hearing held on 14 April 2011, witness Izet Kaljiković, 1:19:20-1:20:15 h.
114 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
440. In Kamenica, beating of detainees occurred regularly, according to the evidence of witness Kaljiković, who also added that they were beaten every day, but Thursdays were the worst. According to the witness, on Thursdays, both shifts would beat them, since that was the day of the change of shifts.213 Mirsad Hadžić was among those who were beaten. According to Kaljiković, Mirsad was beaten heavily for about 10 days, and eventually he succumbed by the side of this witness. In the end, Mirsad’s body was taken out in a blanket and exchanged before the witness.214 This fact is also corroborated by prosecution evidence Exhibit T-14 (List of Exchanged Bodies / Casualties - Kekića klanac dated 1 December 1994) which clearly shows that the body of Mirsad Hadžić was exchanged on 1 December 1994, as well as Exhibit T-14 (List of the VRS POWs to be exchanged on 11 March 1995 in Ličko Petrovo Selo), demonstrating that witness Izet Kaljiković was indeed exchanged after the exchange of Mirsad Hadžić’s body.
441. Furthermore, when it comes to the death of Mirsad Hadžić, it is also noteworthy to point to the testimony of witness Rusmir Pajić. In his live evidence before the Court, the witness described that he would never forget one particular day, when he was taken out and beaten with shovel handles, also noting that one of the prisoners was beaten to the extent that they broke his arm, and that the prisoner succumbed there on the spot. In his evidence regarding Hadžić’s death, witness Pajić testified that he was taken out on that day together with Hadžić and Meho Mehić; that they were beaten by a group of guards and that witness Pajić and Meho Mehić were beaten in those times when they were trying to pull Hadžić out; however, according to the witness, Hadžić did not live to see the next day.215
442. Witness Bajro Ljubijankić also testified about Mirsad Hadžić. His description of the sequence of the events relative to the death of Mirsad Hadžić is somewhat different, noting that Mirsad succumbed on the 17th day into their detention. He described that they were beaten together, that he was alive for some time, or, in fact, that he survived
213 Audio recording – the hearing held on 14 April 2011, witness Izet Kaljiković, 1:20:10-1:25:15 h. 214 Audio recording – the hearing held on 14 April 2011, witness Izet Kaljiković, 1:40:00-1:43:20 h. 215 Audio recording – the hearing held on 24 March 2011, witness Rusmir Pajić, 22:20-29:15 h.
115 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
the whole night, and died after food distribution. In the end, he also explained that his body was taken out only the next day.216
443. Finally, witness Mirsad Hadžić testified about the circumstances surrounding the incident and killing of Mirsad Hadžić. Specifically, this witness was in the same platoon as the victim, as confirmed by Platoon Leader Izet Kaljiković, who stated that he had two soldiers with the same name (Mirsad Hadžić).
444. To wit, the witness testified that he was taken out and beaten together with Hadžić, the victim, and Velaga Begić. Next day during lunch time, Mirsad tried to eat, but according to the witness suddenly he became paralyzed. Dževad Dupanović administered aid to him and thus helped him come to. When the night came, the witness further stated that he even managed to get some sleep, but later on when he woke up he noticed that Mirsad Hadžić was dead. Mirsad’s body was brought out and exchanged before the witness,217 as corroborated by Prosecution Exhibit T-14 (List of Exchanged Bodies / Casualties - Kekića klanac dated 1 December 1994) which clearly shows that the body of Mirsad Hadžić was exchanged on 1 December 1994, as well as Exhibit T-14 (List of the VRS POWs to be exchanged on 11 March 1995 in Ličko Petrovo Selo), demonstrating that witness Mirsad Hadžić was indeed exchanged after the exchange of Mirsad Hadžić’s body.
445. Further, witnesses Husnija Mehulić218 and Mirhad Jusić also consistently confirmed that Mirsad Hadžić died in Kamenica as the result of beatings. Witness Mirhad Jusić219 further explained that he remembers that there was a bear bone showing on Mirsad’s right arm, and they simply just got up one morning, but Mirsad did not.
446. Finally, witnesses Fikret Dolić220 and Kasim Duraković221 also testified in court and confirmed that Mirsad Hadžić was in Kamenica, and died as a result of beating.
216 Audio recording – the hearing held on 12 May 2011, witness Bajro Ljubijankić, 1:56:35-2:00:10 h. 217 Audio recording – the hearing held on 30 June 2011, witness Mirsad Hadžić, 24:10-29:10 h. 218 Audio recording – the hearing held on 25 August 2011, witness Husnija Mehulić, 32:50-34:15 h. 219 Audio recording – the hearing held on 20 October 2011, witness Mirhad Jusić, 21:18-22:15 h. 220 Audio recording – the hearing held on 11 November 2010, witness Fikret Dolić, 1:36:10-1:36:45 h. 221 Audio recording – the hearing held on 3 February 2011, witness Kasim Duraković, 1:17:25-1:17:50 and 1:20:30-1:21:50 h.
116 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
447. In the end, it is noteworthy to mention Šuhret Fazlić and Milan Ivančević, who testified on 26 May 2011, and who confirmed that they talked about Mirsad Hadžić; however, a third person with the same name had been referred to a hospital in Banja Luka, while the body of Mirsad (father’s name Abid) Hodžić was exchanged.
448. Mirsad Hadžić’s brother Ibrahim also testified in court on 8 September 2011, and confirmed that he recognized his brother on TV, together with Velaga Begić, Izet Kaljiković and another Mirsad Hadžić, and that he subsequently learned that Mirsad had been beaten in Kamenica, where he eventually died.
449. When it comes to the evidence presented, or in fact a case where certain witnesses gave different accounts of Mirsad Hadžić’s last beating, it is important to emphasize that the beating in the critical period, according to witnesses, was almost a regular occurrence and that they were all beaten. It should be further added that in the critical period they were detained in the basement with only some light; hence, it is logical that not all witnesses could observe all the details, all the more so in the case of events taking place during the night. Therefore, as noted previously, bearing in mind the conditions of their detention, coupled with the fact that witnesses were exposed to fear, in a room with limited visibility, and finally the time-lapse of almost twenty years since the incident, the Court concluded that these discrepancies in testimonies are of such a nature that they do not call into question the credibility of witnesses. Namely, the fact that Mirsad Hadžić was beaten repeatedly and that witnesses differ on which one of the beating was his last, is not of such nature so as to challenge the conclusion of the Court – the conclusion being that Mirsad Hadžić was indeed detained in Kamenica, where he was beaten and died as a result of beating.
450. In other words, based on the evidence presented, with the most relevant elements outlined in the previous paragraphs, whilst mindful of the evidence of witnesses which appear fully convincing, and in mutual relation, these live testimonies amount to a logical and complete whole – these testimonies are mutually complementary and correlated, in addition to being corroborated by documentary evidence exhibits T-14 and T-96, which were accepted by the Court in entirety, and in its evaluation pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court concluded beyond any
117 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
reasonable doubt that all the key facts were proven in the way as described in Section III-9 of the operative part of the judgment, while at the same time concluding that the Defense did not provide the Court with a single valid proof to contest such a finding.
451. Therefore, starting from the previously presented arguments or reasons and facts corroborated by a number of witnesses, which amount to one single and logical whole; or starting from the facts as presented by witnesses each from their own individual perspectives – from being transferred to other cells, followed by beatings and also the death of Marijan Nikšić, all witnesses gave an utterly identical description of the events outlined in Section III-8 of the operative part of the Judgment; hence, the Court gave credence to their accounts.
452. In other words, based on the evidence presented, with the most relevant elements outlined in the previous paragraphs, whilst mindful of the evidence of witnesses which appear fully convincing considering that these witnesses were directly involved in the incident, and that in mutual relation, these live testimonies amount to a logical and complete whole – these testimonies are mutually complementary and correlated, in addition to being corroborated by documentary evidence exhibits T-14 and T-96, which were accepted by the Court in their entirety, considering that these documents were issued by authorized bodies and are not contradictory to live testimonies, nor were these in any way challenged at the main trial by defense evidence; hence, in its evaluation pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court concluded beyond any reasonable doubt that all the key facts were proven in the way as described in Section III-9 of the operative part of the judgment.
(j) Section III-10
453. When it comes to the findings of the Court concerning the facts discussed in Section III-10 of the Judgment, or the circumstances surrounding the death of Remzo Muminović in Kamenica, the Court was primarily guided by the following evidence, that is, testimonials of witnesses Ibrahim Halkić, Enes Begić, Armin Mulić, Kasim Duraković, Rifet Tahrić, Mile Dujmović, Bajro Ljubijankić, Milan Ivančević, Mirsad Hadžić and Redžep Muminović, and documentary evidence of the Prosecution, specifically Exhibit
118 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
T-14 (Report on the Exchange on 11 April 1995 in Ličko Petrovo Selo) and T-96 (Death Certificate to the name of Remzo Muminović).
454. Witness Armin Mulić also testified in relation to Section III-10 of the Judgment. The witness described that he remembers a young soldier in Kamenica who was allegedly captured with a sniper rifle. The witness added that there was a shortage of weapons at the time, and that this was a rifle that he was issued with at the frontline. Regardless, and owing to the fact that he was captured with a sniper rifle, at least they discussed it so amongst themselves, he was constantly abused and beaten. He was told to be a trained sniper, that he was paid for killing Serb soldiers and asked about the actual number of soldiers that he killed. Eventually, as a result of the abuse and beating, this young soldier died.222
455. In his description of Sniper’s fate, the witness testified that he was taken outside together with Sniper and beaten, adding that Sniper was beaten also inside the classroom. Witness Armin Mulić further explained that the two of them were the new ones there and thus they were beaten. Finally, Armin explained that Sniper succumbed on the 9th day into their detention as a result of beating, since there was no other possible cause of death. He was lying in a delirious state, unconscious; he even started losing hair, calling his mother, father, and sister. In the morning, they realized he was dead, and thereafter his body was taken out.223
456. Also, the witness added that he later learned that the last name of this young soldier or sniper was Muminović.
457. Furthermore, in his live testimony, witness Rifet Tahrić recalled a young soldier in Kamenica who was beaten every day and eventually succumbed on the eighth day. He added that he was also beaten inside the room, and that he was allegedly accused of being a sniper, until he was found dead one morning.224
222 Audio recording – the hearing held on 27 January 2011, witness Armin Mulić, 2:19:00-2:19:50 h. 223 Audio recording – the hearing held on 27 January 2011, witness Armin Mulić, 2:20:40-2:21:25 h. 224 Audio recording – the hearing held on 10 March 2011, witness Rifet Tahrić, 1:38:00-1:38:44 h.
119 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
458. Witness Mile Dujmović was detained in another room, but during his testimony he recounted an 18 or 19-year-old boy, who was close to the door so he could see him. His face was all disfigured – it was impossible to tell where his eye, mouth or nose was. Little Remzo was this boy, as witness Dujmović explained. He was beaten several days; they were beating him systemically, as he explained in his live evidence, and noted that this young man eventually succumbed due to the beatings. The witness explained that Remzo kept moaning all day and all night. Later on when they asked about him, they learned that he had succumbed to the beatings.225
459. Similarly to previous witnesses, Bajro Ljubijankić also confirmed that he recalls three or four guards bringing in a young man born in 1974, who was allegedly a sniper, and asked if something like that can be excused. They asked him to admit his deeds, and the number of Serbs he killed, and when he answered five - guards started beating him for about half an hour. They asked if any of the detainees would like to take part but did not force anyone to do it. The witness further described how one of the guards took Sniper, lifted him on his back and threw him onto the floor, in plain view of everyone in the room.226
460. In conclusion of his evidence about Sniper, witness Bajro Ljubijankić described that he was beaten while he was alive, and, according to the witness, he was kicked, punched and beaten with clubs, for as long as he was showing vital signs. When he died, his body was taken outside.227
461. Witness Mirsad Hadžić was also among witnesses who testified about incidents under Section III-10 of the judgment, who recalled a young man who was brought there. That young man was born in 1975 and was captured with a sniper rifle, which is why they called him Sniper. According to Mirsad, he was forced to say that he was a member of Šargan’s unit, and that he killed three Chetniks in the presence of Šargan, and that he was promised one hundred marks as a reward. Mirsad further confirmed that because of that Sniper was beaten to the extent that he was unconscious for his last seven days,
225 Audio recording – the hearing held on 17 March 2011, witness Mile Dujmović, 2:00:30-2:03:00 h. 226 Audio recording – the hearing held on 12 May 2011, witness Bajro Ljubijankić, 2:12:30-2:15:00 h. 227 Audio recording – the hearing held on 12 May 2011, witness Bajro Ljubijankić, 2:36:10-2:36:50 h.
120 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
until he eventually died. One could not tell that he was alive, and for the last seven days, he was unconscious and died in the room where they were detained. His body was then taken out.228
462. Furthermore, witness Kasim Duraković in his evidence in court also recalled a man by the name of Ćehajić, or in fact a young man from Cazin, with the last name of Ćehajić, born in 1975 and who was beaten until he eventually succumbed. Witness Duraković added that this young man was a member of Šargan’s unit.229
463. Enes Begić was also one of the witnesses who confirmed that Remzo Muminović was in Kamenica, and that Remzo was beaten in the room where they were detained. According to the witness, Remzo was nineteen at the time and he succumbed on the seventh or eighth day into their detention.230
464. Finally, it is noteworthy to point to the testimony of Ibrahim Halkić who described his arrival in Kamenica, and how he entered a dark room, and tried to find a place to sleep. The witness described that he crawled next to one of the detainees, and that there was no reaction. Later on, at daybreak, and after a guard came in, one of the detainees reported the death of Sniper, or in fact, the man the witness lay next to. Guards were calling Sniper but he did not respond, so they had him wrapped in a blanket and took him outside.231
465. When asked to clarify, witness Halkić confirmed that Sniper succumbed to beatings and that his name was Remzo Muminović.
466. Witness Redžep Muminović testified in court on 25 August 2011, and confirmed that he and his son Remzo lived in Tržačka Raštela, Cazin municipality, in the village of Ćehići; adding that his son was born in 1975, that he was a member of Šargan’s unit and that he was captured on 7 December 1994.
228 Audio recording – the hearing held on 30 June 2011, witness Mirsad Hadžić, 39:35-42:35 h. 229 Audio recording – the hearing held on 3 February 2011, witness Kasim Duraković, 1:25:30-1:27:03 h. 230 Audio recording – the hearing held on 27 January 2011, witness Enes Begić, 58:10-59:10 h. 231 Audio recording – the hearing held on 20 January 2011, witness Ibrahim Halkić, 18:20 – 21:30 h.
121 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
467. Finally, it is also noteworthy to mention witness Milan Ivančević, who commented on the documentary evidence and confirmed that prosecution Exhibit T-14 clearly shows that the body of Remzo Muminović was exchanged, as also corroborated by Exhibit T- 96 (Death certificate to the name of Remzo Muminović), which shows that Remzo Muminović was born in 1975.
468. Therefore, starting from the previously presented arguments or reasons and facts corroborated by a number of witnesses, which amount to one single and logical whole; or starting from the facts as presented by witnesses, each from their own individual perspectives, that Remzo Muminović was indeed brought to Kamenica, and that he was rumored to be a sniper and that he succumbed on the tenth day into his stay in Kamenica as a result of beating; hence, the Court established all the key facts in the manner as described in Section III-10 of the judgment.
469. In other words, based on the evidence presented, with the most relevant elements outlined in the previous paragraphs, whilst mindful of the evidence of witnesses which appear fully convincing considering that these witnesses were directly involved in the incident, and that in mutual relation these live testimonies amount to a logical and complete whole – these testimonies are mutually complementary and correlated, in addition to being corroborated by documentary evidence Exhibits T-14 and T-96, which were accepted by the Court in their entirety; hence, in its evaluation pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court concluded beyond any reasonable doubt that all the key facts were proven in the way as described in Section III-10 of the operative part of the judgment, and were not challenged by the Defense.
(k) Section III-11
470. When it comes to the findings of the Court concerning the facts discussed in Section III-11 of the Judgment, or the circumstances surrounding the death of Hase Ružnić in Kamenica, the Court was primarily guided by the following evidence, that is, testimonials of witnesses Armin Mulić and Kasim Duraković, and documentary evidence of the Prosecution, specifically Exhibit T-96 (Death Certificate to the name of Hase Ružnić).
122 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
471. Witness Kasim Duraković also testified in relation to circumstances under Section III-11 of the Judgment, and noted that he learned from one Ćehić and another detainee from Vitići – Cazin, that one Hase Ružnić was with them. All three of them were captured in Klokot. Further, Hase was born sometimes around 1940. According to them, on the same night when he was brought to Kamenica, Hasan Ružnić succumbed as a result of beating. Also, the witness learned that Hase was from Brekovica, or in fact, this was the man that the witness had met while he was working together with him in Kamnik, Slovenia.232
472. Furthermore, here it is necessary to point to Exhibit T-96 or Death Certificate to the name of Haso Ružnić, which shows that the man was born in 1940, as confirmed by witness Duraković, and that he was from Brekovica, as also noted by witness Duraković. It should also be noted that Exhibit T-14 shows that Hase Ružnić died on 7 December 1994 in Klokot, which is the place where Hase Ružnić was captured and brought from, according to witnesses Duraković.
473. Witness Armin Mulić also testified in relation to the circumstances of the death of Hase Ružnić, and noted that he recalls being captured on 7 December 1994, together with Hase Ružnić and another man in Klokot. 233 This fact was somewhat corroborated by Prosecution Exhibit T-96, which shows that Hase Ružnić died on 7 December 1994 in Klokot.
474. Also, in reference to witness Armin Mulić, it should be noted that he described that on their arrival to Kamenica they were ordered to take off their belts and shoelaces, and then to go into solitary confinement. All three of them were beaten, but according to the witness Hase was beaten more than the witness himself and the third man. On the same night, according to Armin Mulić, Ružnić succumbed. The witness also added that they were afraid to tell the guards that Ružnić died, so they said that he most probably froze to death. They then took belts and wrapped Ružnić in a sheet, took him outside and then came back to solitary confinement.234
232 Audio recording – the hearing held on 3 February 2011, witness Kasim Duraković, 1:27:55-1:30:10 h. 233 Audio recording – the hearing held on 27 January 2011, witness Armin Mulić, 2:02:20-2:06:00 h. 234 Audio recording – the hearing held on 27 January 2011, witness Armin Mulić, 2:08:30-2:09:55 h.
123 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
475. In addition, Armin Mulić testified in court that while Ružnić was in pain, he told him that he was originally from Brekovica so that the witness could pass the information further in case he did not survive, and that the witness understood his name to be Asim Ružnić. Witness then again described how Ružnić’s body was wrapped and taken out.
476. Finally, when it comes to Ružnić, witness Mulić stated that he did not recall that they were splashed with water at the time when they were brought to Kamenica, but recalls being beaten outside, and that Ružnić was sturdy.
477. Therefore, based on the evidence reviewed by the Court individually and in their correlation, while bearing in mind that instead of Hase witness Mulić mentioned Asim as the name, due to the fact that he did not know the man, but mentioned his name to the best of his recollection, and further, given that all other evidence, both testimonials and documentary evidence, specifically Exhibit T-96 consistently corroborate all the data, including the time of death, and place of birth, whereby it is obvious that the place and time of death entered are in fact the last known place where Hase was seen, the Court found beyond any reasonable doubt that all the facts indeed are as listed in Section III- 11 of the Judgment.
478. In other words, based on the evidence presented, with the most relevant elements outlined in the previous paragraphs, whilst mindful of the evidence of witnesses which appear fully convincing, and that in mutual relation these live testimonies amount to a logical and complete whole – these testimonies are mutually complementary and correlated, in addition to being corroborated by documentary evidence Exhibit T-96, which is actually a critical synthesis of the accounts of witnesses, and which was accepted by the Court in entirety, considering that the document was issued by authorized bodies, hence, in mutual evaluation of testimonials and documentary evidence pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court concluded beyond any reasonable doubt that all the key facts were proven in the way as described in Section III-11 of the operative part of the Judgment, whilst noting that the defense did not provide the Court with any evidence to challenge these facts.
124 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
(l) Section III-12
479. When it comes to the findings of the Court concerning the facts discussed in Section III-12 of the Judgment, or the circumstances surrounding the death of Rifet Kendić in Kamenica, the Court was primarily guided by the following evidence, that is, testimonials of witnesses Goran Dizdarević, Milan Ivančević and Hasib Kendić, and documentary evidence of the Prosecution, specifically Exhibit T-14 (List of Muslim Captives Exchanged on 9 December 1992 in Ličko Petrovo Selo) and Exhibit T-96 (Death Certificate to the name of Rifet Kendić).
480. When it comes to the fate of Rifet Kendić, the Court heard the testimony of witness Goran Dizdarević, who gave the most accurate description of Rifet Kendić’s death. In his evidence, Dizdarević stated that he was a member of the Army of BiH and that he was captured in Grabež on 13 November 1992. After some time, witness was transferred with several other men to Kamenica. In Kamenica, he was accommodated into an empty classroom with a pile of blankets. Soon thereafter, two men from the basement were brought in there.235
481. Rifet Kendić and Mumin Grahović were transferred from the basement, both disfigured due to beating, especially Rifet. They said that they had them taken outside to sing songs, and that they broke a rifle while beating Rifet, so Rifet succumbed to beatings two days prior to the exchange.236
482. In describing the details of Rifet Kendić’s death, witness Duraković further described that Rifet kept crying in pain all night, that they had a bottle of water, and that everyone there was beating them, but that Rifet was beaten the most. He also added that Mumin told them about Rifet being taken to Dronjak to sing, and confirmed that he had returned after half an hour in such a condition that it was impossible for him to make a move – he just lay there, moaning. After two to three days, Rifet succumbed. The next
235 Audio recording – the hearing held on 2 December 2010, witness Goran Dizdarević, 1:23:30-1:24:30 h. 236 Audio recording – the hearing held on 2 December 2010, witness Goran Dizdarević, 1:26:20-1:27:40 h.
125 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
morning, a guard came in and told them to place Rifet in a blanket and take him outside, and the witness and Mumin did as told.237
483. In the end, witness Dizdarević described how they first buried and later on exhumed the body of Rifet Kendić. Eventually, the witness, Mumin Grahović and the body of Rifet Kendić were all exchanged together238 on 9 December 1992. 239
484. Furthermore, the evidence of witness Goran Dizdarević is fully confirmed by documentary evidence, namely Prosecution Exhibit T-14, showing that the witness, Mumin Grahović and the body of Rifet Kendić were all exchanged together on 9 December 1992.
485. Also, these facts were confirmed by witness Milan Ivančević, who confirmed that he remembers taking the witness and Mumin Grahović over in Kamenica, while he could not recall where the body was taken from, but did confirm that the witness and Grahović were exchanged together with the body.
486. Furthermore, witness Hasib Kendić, Rifet’s brother, in his evidence on 8 September 2011, confirmed that his brother Rifet was drafted in November and captured in Grabež, and that he was detained in Kamenica together with Mumin Grahović and Goran Dizdarević, adding that he was exchanged on 9 December 1992.
487. Finally, it is noteworthy to point to Exhibit T-96, that is, Death Certificate, which reads that Rifet Kendić succumbed on 4 December 1992, in Grabež, where he was originally captured, according to his brother Hasib.
488. Therefore, based on the evidence reviewed by the Court individually and in their totality, where both testimonials and documentary evidence, specifically Exhibit T-96, constitutes a clear whole, starting from the time of death through place of death, as well as Exhibit T-14, which obviously lists the last known place where Rifet Kendić was captured as the place of death, the Court found beyond any reasonable doubt that all the facts indeed are as listed in Section III-12 of the Judgment.
237 Audio recording – the hearing held on 2 December 2010, witness Goran Dizdarević, 1:34:00-1:36:20 h.
126 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
489. In other words, based on the evidence presented, with the most relevant elements outlined in the previous paragraphs, whilst mindful of the evidence of witnesses which appear fully convincing, and that, in mutual relation, these live testimonies amount to a logical and complete whole – these testimonies are mutually complementary and correlated, in addition to being corroborated by documentary evidence Exhibits T-14 and T-96, which is actually a critical synthesis of the accounts of witnesses, hence, in mutual evaluation of testimonials and documentary evidence, individually and in their totality, pursuant to Article 281 of the CPC of BiH, the Court concluded beyond any reasonable doubt that all the key facts were proven in the way as described in Section III-12 of the operative part of the Judgment.
(m) Section III-13
490. When it comes to the findings of the Court concerning the facts discussed in Section III-13 of the judgment, or the circumstances surrounding the death of Miroslav Fabulić in Kamenica, the Court was primarily guided by the following evidence, that is, testimonials of Mile Mijuković, Josip Šantić, Mile Dujmović, Davor Marinčić and Milan Ivančević, and documentary evidence of the Prosecution, specifically Exhibit T-14 (List of exchanged soldiers of the VRS and the VRSK in Donji Zemunik on 25 May 1995 and the List of Captured, Exchanged and Killed Persons) and Exhibit T-96 (Death Certificate to the name of Miroslav Fabulić).
491. In his evidence in court, witness Mile Mijuković confirmed that Miroslav Fabulić from Bugojno was in Kamenica, and that along with Željko Tadić, Šaula would take outside the two of them the most, and they were beaten while taken outside.
492. The witness also added that Fabulić was taken outside and beaten, and that after some time, he got gangrene with such a heavy stench that it was unbearable, according to the witness. Furthermore, given Fabulić’s medical condition, the witness spoke to the
238 Audio recording – the hearing held on 2 December 2010, witness Goran Dizdarević, 1:36:30-1:39:55 h. 239 Audio recording – the hearing held on 2 December 2010, witness Goran Dizdarević, 1:36:35-1:39:55 h.
127 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
guards, and Dragiša Barović was the only one who promised to try to help, but Fabulić succumbed after three days.240
493. Furthermore, similarly to the previous witness, witness Mile Dujmović also recalled Miro from Bugojno, who was beaten for two to three days in front of the building, together with Muslims, and he had nasty wounds on his arms and legs. After seeking help, a guard by the name of Baja came and asked that Miro be taken outside. According to the witness, together with Mate Štampar they carried Miro outside so that a nurse would dress his wounds, but she told them that he would not recover. Just like Fabulić, witness Dujmović testified that the wounds were terrible, with heavy stench, all infected, and the following night, after bandaging, Miro succumbed. The witness said that Fabulić was wailing in pain that night, until he became all quiet and eventually died.241
494. In the presentation of evidence, the Court also heard witness Josip Šantić, who confirmed that there was a man from Bugojno with him in Kamenica, who was taken outside and beaten so heavily that he wailed in pain the entire night and eventually died. He also added that he had something resembling gangrene and eventually succumbed in Kamenica.242
495. Finally, in his evidence, witness Davor Marinčić consistently confirmed that Miroslav Fabulić was also in Kamenica, and that the man was constantly beaten and thrown into the room. According to witnesses Marinčić, Fabulić had open wounds with a heavy stench, that eventually got infected and Fabulić succumbed.243
496. Further, witness Milan Ivančević in his evidence on 26 May 2011 confirmed the veracity of the content of T-14; namely, that the body of Miroslav Fabulić was exchanged on 25 May 1995 in Donji Zemunik.
497. Therefore, based on the evidence reviewed by the Court individually and in their totality, both testimonials and documentary evidence, specifically Exhibits T-14 and T-
240 Audio recording – the hearing held on 10 February 2011, witness Mile Mijuković, 31:48-34:30 h. 241 Audio recording – the hearing held on 17 March 2011, witness Mile Dujmović, 1:44:50-1:48:10 h. 242 Audio recording – the hearing held on 17 March 2011, witness Josip Šantić, 42:50-44:20 h.
128 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
96, which the Court accepted in totality as clear, convincing and indisputable, considering that the documents were issued by authorized bodies and were corroborated also by certain witnesses; hence, the Court concluded beyond any reasonable doubt that all the key facts were proven in the way as described in Section III-13 of the operative part of the Judgment.
498. In other words, based on the adduced evidence the key parts of which have been noted above, and in view of the convincing testimonial evidence that constitutes a complete and logical whole meaning that it is mutually complementary, as well as that testimonial evidence in its key segments is consistent with documentary evidence – Exhibits T-14 and T-96 that, in fact, provide a synthesis of the testimonial evidence, by evaluating them in accordance with Article 281 of the CPC BiH, the Panel established beyond any reasonable doubt that all the key facts have been proved as described in Section III-13 of the Verdict.
(n) Section III-14
499. During the presentation of evidence at the main trial, practically all witnesses who have knowledge of the events, more specifically of the treatment of detainees in Kamenica, confirmed that people had been beaten there. This was testified to by the following witnesses: Dragan Rodić, Dragić Barović, Duško Dronjak, Milanko Knežević, Fikret Dolić, Goran Dizdarević, Ibrahim Halkić, Enes Begić, Armin Mulić, Dževad Dupanović, Sulejman Kapić, Rusmir Pajić, Stipo Petrović, Davor Marinčić, Izet Kaljiković, Bajro Ljubijankić, Husnija Mehulić, Mirhad Jusić, Nermin Pečenković, Rifet Tahrić, Josip Šantić, Mile Dujmović, Mirsad Hadžić, Mile Mijuković, Šuhret Fazlić, and finally the Accused Ratko Dronjak himself.
500. With respect to Section III-14 of the Verdict, namely findings of the Panel concerning the torture of persons detained in Kamenica, a good starting point is the testimony of witnesses who were guards in Kamenica in their capacity as members of the military police.
243 Audio recording – the hearing held on 14 April 2011, witness Davor Marinčić, 34:10-36:00 h.
129 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
501. Primarily, attention should be drawn to the testimony of witness Dragan Rodić who confirmed that occasionally the situation in Kamenica was normal, but that there were cases of beatings, most frequently in front of the rooms where detainees were held. It often happened that an officer from the Corps would come to conduct interrogation, and in case he was not pleased with the answer, he ordered the guard to beat a prisoner. According to witness Rodić, in the absence of the Corps officers beatings were most frequently carried out upon the orders of shift leader, while there were also cases when the warden/Accused Dronjak came in person and ordered that a certain person be taken outside for beating and subsequently taken back to the room. Witness Rodić further testified that occasionally after being beaten detainees were able to walk back to the room, but on other occasions they were unable to do so. He confirmed that there were cases of detainees being beaten for talking to the ICRC, although in cases of repeated blows and beating with military police batons and other available implements it was done randomly.244
502. Moreover, similar to witness Rodić, Dragić Barović confirmed in his testimony before the Panel that persons detained in Kamenica had been beaten, that there were cases when the warden/Accused Dronjak came with certain members of his entourage and beat the prisoners. Witness Barović singled out a certain Kinez, Knežević, who worked in the logistics, who often came together with the warden. Finally, witness Barović confirmed that he had seen Rade (Accused Ratko Dronjak) beat prisoners and that the guards who stood out in beating the prisoners were Šaula and Stupar.245
503. Consistent with the above testimony, witness Duško Dronjak testified that he knew of the beating of detainees in Kamenica and that the person who stood out in the beating of prisoners was Šaula. He added that the Accused Ratko Dronjak was very
244 Audio recording of the hearing held on 30 September 2010, witness Dragan Rodić, 1:11:10-1:14:05, 1:17:00-1:18:45, 1:36:45-1:37:15, 1:41:45-1:42:20, 2:51:30-2:52:20 and 3:33:25-3:33:40. 245 Audio recording of the hearing held on 23 December 2010, witness Dragić Barović, 35:00-36:30, 1:19:10-1:20:30, 1:22:50-1:23:45, 1:27:40-1:29:10 and 1:46:30-1:47:10.
130 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
strict, with both guards and prisoners, and that he saw the Accused Dronjak beat at least one detainee.246
504. Milanko Knežević was another witness who testified that detainees in Kamenica had been beaten by members of the Accused Ratko Dronjak’s entourage, guards and Šobot who interrogated detainees. Witness Knežević confirmed that Šobot interrogated detainees and that there were cases when detainees had visible traces of beating on them after interrogation. He added that guards beat the prisoners too. According to witness Knežević, the guards who stood out in the beating of prisoners were Rodić, Milivojac and Bašić, while for Radenko Vekić he said that he had trained karate before and that for this reason he liked beating and practicing his moves on the helpless prisoners.
505. Finally, witness Milanko Knežević corroborated witness Dragić Barović’s testimony that certain Knežević (Kinez), who was on good terms with the Accused Ratko Dronjak, often visited there and beat the detainees.
506. Finally, as far as guards or members of the military police are concerned, the Panel also relied on the testimony of witness Draško Rodić who confirmed that it was known to him, or that there was a rumor, that Dragan Rodić ill-treated and humiliated detainees in Kamenica, and that Zoran Knežević a.k.a. Kinez, who was a quartermaster in the Military Police Battalion-logistics, participated in the ill-treatment and beating of detainees in Kamenica.247
507. Witness Fikret Dolić was among the detainees subjected to beatings and torture in Kamenica. Witness Dolić described how he was beaten already en route to Kamenica, then locked up in a solitary cell and subjected to ill-treatment three times a day. The testimony of this witness is even more relevant in light of the fact that it was consistent with the accounts of guards who testified before the Panel, that Šaula and Bašić were the guards who stood out in beating and ill-treatment of prisoners, while Dragiša (Dragić Barović) was trying to help him and advised him how to treat his wounds
246 Audio recording of the hearing held on 20 January 2011, witness Duško Dronjak, 1:51:10-1:52:10, 2:05:10-2:05:25 and 2:09:45-2:12:45. 247 Audio recording of the hearing held on 7 July 2011, witness Draško Rodić, 1:57:10-1:59:50.
131 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
after the exchange. In this context it should be added that witness Dolić had wounds and was taken to Drvar to have them dressed. During this period the beating stopped. However, on one occasion the Accused Dronjak himself beat him, that is, first he treated him with brandy and then started beating him inside the hut, with guards joining in the beating.
508. In reference to witness Fikret Dolić, the Panel takes cognizance of Prosecution Exhibit T-89 (two discharge letters for Fikret Dolić from the Irfan Ljubijankić Hospital and the ICRC statement) indicating that Fikret Dolić was detained for a while in Kamenica and beaten there, as a result of which he had to undergo hospital treatment after the exchange.
509. Further, as for the treatment or abuse of detainees, the Panel recalls the testimony of witness Goran Dizdarević who, like the above-mentioned witnesses, confirmed that he had been beaten during his detention in Kamenica. Witness Dizdarević confirmed that among other persons the Accused Dronjak himself beat him on a couple of occasions and that sometimes he brought other individuals, most probably civilian police officers248, to beat the prisoners, including witness Dizdarević.
510. Similar to other witnesses above, witness Ibrahim Halkić described the treatment in Kamenica to which all detainees were subjected, that is, he explained that no detainee was spared from beating. As for his own beating, he testified that a guard called him out on the basis of his membership to the brigade (511th Brigade), that is, witness Halkić was the only member of that brigade and he knew that they were, in fact, calling him out. He described how detainees were beaten both outside and inside the room in which they were detained. He was beaten outside in the snow and sustained blows with a baton to his head, which caused his hair to fall off rapidly. Among the persons singled out for beating he mentioned Izet Kaljiković, Fikret Begić, Nermin Pečenković, Enes Begić and Sabahudin Nadarević.249
248 Audio recording of the hearing held on 2 December 2010, witness Goran Dizdarević, 1:25:00-1:26:00, 1:26:20-1:27:40, 1:27:55-1:33:50, 1:36:10-1:36:33, 1:39:48-1:41:23 and 1:51:50-1:52:20. 249 Audio recording of the hearing held on 20 January 2011, witness Ibrahim Halkić, 23:30-26:00 and 27:50-32:15.
132 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
511. The fact that Enes Begić was among the persons beaten during their detention in Kamenica, as described by witness Halkić, was corroborated by witness Enes Begić himself, who said that he had been locked up in a van and very often beaten up on the occasions when he was taken outside to relieve himself. Witness Begić also confirmed that he received meager meals during his detention in Kamenica, and that better meals were usually “paid” with beatings. Finally, he testified that the Accused Dronjak hit him a couple of times telling him on those occasions that he was not going to leave Kamenica alive and that the only uncertainty was whether it was going to happen the next day, in a month or in a year. In reference to the testimony of Enes Begić, the Panel also relied on Prosecution Exhibit T-95 (Medical Report for Enes Begić dated 2 December 1996, Discharge letter for Enes Begić from the Irfan Ljubijankić Hospital, Discharge letter for Enes Begić dated 17 October 2000 and Medical evaluation of fitness for Enes Begić dated 4 June 2001) indicating that Enes Begić spent some time in detention, that during this time he was subjected to physical and mental abuse, that he had undergone medical treatment after the exchange and that his detention in Kamenica resulted in permanent consequences for his health.
512. Like the other fellow detainees, witness Armin Mulić testified that he was subjected to beatings from the moment he was brought there. After this first beating, beatings continued and on a couple of occasions he lost consciousness as a result of the blows he sustained. He added that they beat detainees with shovels and shafts, and stomped on them in their boots.250
513. Furthermore, witness Dževad Dupanović confirmed in his testimony that detainees had been beaten up in Kamenica. It was not a simple beating, as witness Dupanović put it, but he was forced to speak while being beaten up, which caused him to lose his breath. He added that the purpose of beating was to degrade and humiliate detainees.251
250 Audio recording of the hearing held on 27 January 2011, witness Armin Mulić, 2:07:45-2:08:05, 2:12:42-2:13:00, 2:15:00-2:16:00, 2:18:10-2:19:05, 2:21:25-2:21:55, 2:31:40-2:33:35, 2:51:30-2:52:00 and 2:53:00-2:55:15. 251 Audio recording of the hearing held on 3 February 2011, witness Dževad Dupanović, 29:00-32:00, 34:00-34:44, 38:05-39:20, 41:55-44:05 and 47:30-48:20.
133 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
514. In his testimony before the Panel, witness Sulejman Kapić said that Armin Mulić was not the only one who fainted as a result of beating. Witness Kapić was beaten up immediately upon his arrival in Kamenica and then detained in the basement where he was again subjected to beating, which caused him to lose consciousness a couple of times. He confirmed that Enes Begić had been detained for a short while in Kamenica together with him in the same room before he was moved to the van, while witness Kapić was forced to kiss the boots that beat him. He further explained how during the beating he was forced to put his head on the chopping block and that as a result of this beating he had twelve ribs and two vertebrae broken, which is corroborated by Prosecution Exhibit T-93 (Discharge letter for Sulejman Kapić from VMRC Arif Hasanagić – Gata).252
515. Furthermore, in addition to the above testimony, witnesses Rusmir Pajić253, Stipo Petrović254, Davor Marinčić255 and Izet Kaljiković256 consistently testified that the beating of detainees in Kamenica was a regular occurrence rather than isolated incidents. Some detainees were beaten because they communicated with the ICRC and additionally they were beaten and verbally abused on their way to the toilet, as described by witness Rusmir Pajić. Moreover, as a result of the severity of the beating to which they were subjected, detainees were unable to stand upright and walk back to the room in which they were detained, but they either crawled on all fours or were carried inside, which apart from witness Rusmir Pajić was confirmed by witnesses Stipo Petrović, Davor Marinčić and Izet Kaljiković.
516. Finally, as regards the witnesses who testified to the beating and torture of detainees in Kamenica, witnesses Bajro Ljubijankić,257 Husnija Mehulić,258 Mirhad
252 Audio recording of the hearing held on 10 March 2011, witness Sulejman Kapić, 16:00-17:15, 17:20- 18:15, 21:00-23:40, 30:20-33:10 and 45:50-49:50. 253 Audio recording of the hearing held on 24 March 2011, witness Rusmir Pajić, 17:00-22:10, 22:20- 29:15, 36:00-38:40 and 1:00:00-1:07:25. 254 Audio recording of the hearing held on 24 March 2011, witness Stipo Petrović, 1:39:00-1:40:00, 1:41:10-1:45:40 and 2:11:55-2:13:10. 255 Audio recording of the hearing held on 14 April 2011, witness Davor Marinčić, 11:20-11:40, 29:30- 32:40, 42:30-43:05 and 53:30-53:50. 256 Audio recording of the hearing held on 14 April 2011, witness Izet Kaljiković, 1:20:10-1:27:00, 1:32:00- 1:33:30, 1:40:00-1:42:10, 2:00:00-2:02:30 and 2:06:55-2:08:00. 257 Audio recording of the hearing held on 12 May 2011, witness Bajro Ljubijankić, 1:52:00-1:56:35, 1:56:40-2:00:00, 2:00:05-2:02:30 and 2:03:30-2:07:00.
134 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Jusić,259 Nermin Pečenković,260 Rifet Tahrić,261 Josip Šantić,262 Milo Dujmović,263 Mirsad Hadžić264, Milo Mijuković265 and Šuhret Fazlić266 consistently testified about regular beatings. Witness Rifet Tahrić described how he was beaten upon arrival and on the New Year’s Eve, how they sadistically abused him and beat him with a shovel, and how he was beaten as a punishment for talking to the ICRC. Moreover, out of the accounts of witnesses mentioned in this paragraph particularly interesting is that of witness Husnija Mehulić who testified to being beaten while cleaning the warden’s car, red-colored Lada. Allegedly, the warden was not pleased with his work and ordered that they beat him up.
517. That these beatings were carried out without any specific reason, that is, that their only purpose was to instill fear in detainees, was confirmed by witness Mirhad Jusić who testified that on one occasion the Accused Dronjak entered their room and pointed with the baton to detainees who were to get out. They eventually returned with visible injuries and on all fours, which filled witness Jusić with such terror that he fainted.
518. Witness Nermin Pečenković confirmed that he had been beaten up during interrogation and that he suffered a fracture as a result of the blows he sustained, while witness Mile Dujmović confirmed that he was beaten as a “punishment” for locking up Zlato and Stipo.
519. Finally, in light of this testimonial evidence it is necessary to point to Prosecution’s documentary evidence, namely Exhibits T-80 (Decision of the Department for Disabled Veterans’ Protection, Bužim dated 13 November 1998 for Kasim Duraković, Medical
258 Audio recording of the hearing held on 25 August 2011, witness Husnija Mehulić, 15:00-15:25, 22:10- 25:30, 25:40-27:40, 28:40-29:05, 31:10-31:35, 32:00-32:50, 46:00-49:10 and 52:45-53:30. 259 Audio recording of the hearing held on 20 October 2011, witness Mirhad Jusić, 11:54-13:20, 17:18- 18:40, 22:18-24:26, 26:48-29:50 and 39:00-40:45. 260 Audio recording of the hearing held on 27 October 2011, witness Nermin Pečenković, 29:40-30:28, 38:00-46:47 and 47:25-49:10. 261 Audio recording of the hearing held on 10 March 2011, witness Rifet Tahrić, 1:26:00-1:27:00, 1:27:52- 1:31:38, 1:43:30-1:47:38, 2:07:30-2:11:40, 2:13:45-2:19:15 and 2:26:20-2:31:00. 262 Audio recording of the hearing held on 17 March 2011, witness Josip Šantić, 32:20-34:50, 39:20-39:40 and 51:00-51:20. 263 Audio recording of the hearing held on 17 March 2011, witness Mile Dujmović, 1:37:00-1:44:20 and 2:31:30-2:32:05. 264 Audio recording of the hearing held on 30 June 2011, witness Mirsad Hadžić, 30:00-31:40. 265 Audio recording of the hearing held on 10 February 2011, witness Mile Mijuković, 20:30-24:55 and 31:48-34:30. 266 Audio recording of the hearing held on 26 May 2011, witness Šuhret Fazlić, 36:00-39:10.
135 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
history for Kasim Duraković dated 3 December 2003 and 14 February 2007 and Discharge letter for Kasim Duraković from Irfan Ljubijankić Hospital), T-81 (Discharge from the hospital for Velaga Begić), T-82 (Medical history for Mirsad Hadžić dated 11 November 2004), T-83 (Discharge letter for Rifet Tahrić dated 6 July 1995), T-84 (Discharge letter for Milo Mijuković dated 17 April 1998 and ICRC statement dated 20 July 1995), T-88 (Discharge letter for Nermin Pečenković dated 29 October 1995) and T- 94 (Discharge letter for Izet Kaljiković dated 29 May 1995).
520. In view of all the above listed testimonial and documentary evidence, key parts of which have been indicated, and given that most of the witness accounts are corroborated by physical evidence, and that the Accused Dronjak himself confirmed in his testimony that detainees in Kamenica had been subjected to beating and that the beatings were usually carried out during the night, causing the detainees to feel great terror and fear that they would be next to be taken outside, and that as a result their lives would be in danger, the Panel gave credence to witness testimony which, if viewed separately, appears entirely credible, and when viewed in combination with other evidence provide a clear and coherent whole, or in other words they mutually supplement each other and are complementary with respect to relevant facts.
521. As explained above in Section II-4 of the Verdict, the Panel did not accept the part of the Accused Ratko Dronjak’s testimony which was evidently directed at minimizing the beating or torture of detainees. His testimony confirms, however, that there were cases of beatings in Kamenica, though it is perfectly clear to the Panel that the Accused Dronjak portrays it as being significantly less severe than what the Panel heard from the witnesses, detainees who suffered this treatment, and whose accounts clearly showed that beatings were a regular occurrence in Kamenica from the time of its establishment until it was finally disbanded.
522. Based on the foregoing and the fact that beatings were evidently severe and left serious consequences on the detainees’ mental and physical health, by evaluating them in accordance with Article 281 of the CPC BiH the Panel finds beyond any reasonable doubt that all the key facts described in Section III-14 of the operative part of the Verdict
136 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
have been proved, that is, that the acts satisfy all elements of inhuman treatment under Article 173(1)(c) of the CC BiH.
D. INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ACCUSED 1. Joint criminal enterprise
(a) Actus reus
523. As for the acts of the Accused Dronjak by which he contributed to the realization of the goal of the joint criminal enterprise, initially in relation to the camp at the elementary school Slavko Rodić and then later the elementary school Kamenica, the Panel notes again that the Accused Dronjak in his testimony practically confirmed all the relevant facts.
524. In addition to a great deal of Prosecution’s physical evidence and viva voce testimony of the Prosecution’s witnesses, the Accused Dronjak confirmed that for the entire duration of the period covered in the Indictment there was a clear system of command and control. In other words, as the Accused Dronjak himself confirmed, his superior was Mikajlo Mitrović, Chief of the Intelligence-Security Organ, which follows from Prosecution Exhibit (Exhibit T-45 - Order on the transfer and appointment of Mikajlo Mitrović dated 1 September 1992), while on the other hand the Accused Dronjak was receiving daily reports about the situation from shift leaders who acted as his replacements in his absence and whom he himself appointed.267
525. Moreover, as for the flow of information about the situation in detention facilities, the Panel notes that the Accused Dronjak, when giving his testimony, confirmed that at the time when certain persons were brought to Kamenica, the Exchange Commission was informed of the number of detainees and names of the detainees in Kamenica through the Intelligence-Security Organ.
267 Transcript of the hearing in the Dronjak case, 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak) pgs. 9, 10, 26 and 28.
137 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
526. It is perfectly clear that there was a flow of information in Kamenica, and even more importantly there was co-ordination between different structures within the 2nd Krajina Corps.
527. Furthermore, with respect to the acts charged against the Accused Dronjak, the Panel notes that there is a great deal of evidence, which was analyzed in detail above, showing that the Accused Dronjak participated in the beating of some prisoners, and that he personally murdered Fikret Begić. In other words, it is clear that the acts of the Accused Dronjak had wider repercussions than those limited to the mere commission of specific crimes, of which the Accused Dronjak himself was aware given that his actions served as an example to other guards. In this context, the Panel notes that abundant evidence confirms that certain persons, with Kinez mentioned most frequently, used to visit Kamenica and abused the detainees either in the company or with the consent of the Accused Dronjak.
528. Finally, with respect to securing adequate conditions for detainees, in his response to questions the Accused Dronjak confirmed that the only improvement in terms of the accommodation of detainees was the construction of four new solitary cells.268 This goes to show that no significant effort was invested to ensure adequate conditions of detention. In the course of the proceedings, the Panel heard no evidence that would suggest that the Accused Dronjak tried to improve the situation, even to the extent of enabling detainees to use the toilet normally. On the contrary, it happened that detainees were beaten on the way to use the toilet. Additionally, in relation to conditions and the absence of help from other organs and organizations, the Panel recalls the part of the Accused Dronjak’s testimony concerning the organization of visit by the ICRC to Pasjak in order to portray the situation as better than it actually was.269
529. Essentially, in order to maintain the existing bad conditions of detention for detained persons, the Accused Dronjak, in co-operation with his superiors, participated in the deception of the ICRC representatives.
268 Transcript of the hearing in the Dronjak case, 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), pg. 47. 269 Transcript of the hearing in the Dronjak case, 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), pgs. 46 and 47.
138 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
530. As for the poor medical conditions, the Panel notes that some witnesses, former detainees, testified that some, though insufficient, medical assistance was provided to them, which is evident from the fact that some detainees spent some time in the infirmary. However, as described above, there were also cases of detainees who died in Kamenica as a result of poor and inadequate medical assistance.
531. With respect to the lack of adequate medical assistance in Kamenica, the Panel notes that the Accused Dronjak, in response to questions put to him, confirmed that there were cases of dysentery in Kamenica. He further stated that no guard died of this disease, while on the other hand the disease claimed the lives of 4-5 detainees. In fact, this statement by the Accused Dronjak, together with all witness accounts, best illustrates how detainees in Kamenica were deprived of medication and adequate medical assistance.270
532. Finally, as for the access to water, hygienic conditions and sufficient space in detention, the Panel finds that the rooms in which detainees were held were inadequate, particularly in light of the fact that they were overcrowded. This was confirmed by almost all witnesses who said that there were cases of over 30 detainees crammed in one room, transfer of detainees to the old van, as described by witness Begić, as well as the case when all of them were taken to the solitary cell on the New Year’s Eve.
533. In relation to the Accused Dronjak’s acts, the Panel accepted the Accused Dronjak’s testimony in the part where he said that he dismissed some guards from duty in Kamenica because of their treatment of detainees, and that there were cases of different sanctions imposed on guards for misconduct. However, the Panel observes that the Accused Dronjak himself treated detainees differently, that is, that he himself stated that detainees from Petrovac were treated much better than others.
534. In light of the adduced evidence, the Panel finds beyond a reasonable doubt that the system of abuse of detainees was established in the Slavko Rodić elementary school, where the Accused Ratko Dronjak, who was appointed the first camp warden in Slavko Rodić elementary school, established, organized and controlled the guards in the
270 Transcript of the hearing in the Dronjak case, 19 January 2012 (Ratko Dronjak), pgs. 32 and 52.
139 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
school. The camp became fully operational only after it was relocated to the premises of the school in Kamenica.
535. Having taken active part in its setting up, the Accused Dronjak, as he himself admitted, was the first warden of the detention facility whose purpose, as the adduced evidence suggests, was to facilitate the commission of crimes against the detained civilians and soldiers. Supporting such a system, apart from its establishment, involved its maintenance, in which process the Accused Dronjak actively participated by abusing, and even killing, some detainees, or condoning such acts committed by his subordinates or persons coming to the detention rooms either in his presence or with his approval.
(b) Mens rea
536. As for the Accused Dronjak’s mens rea, the Panel notes yet again that the Accused Dronjak, as he himself confirmed, participated actively from the very beginning in all events in the Drvar municipality and in a wider area, which goes to show that he was very much aware of the context in which he acted. It is evident that the Accused Dronjak was aware of the relevant circumstances from the very start, and it is in this light that the Panel interprets the testimony of witness Dragan Rodić who said that the period was characterized by euphoria and that the conduct of the Accused Dronjak was a reflection of the general state of euphoria.
537. In addition, with respect to the treatment or abuse of detainees, the Panel recalls its findings from Section I-1 of the Verdict, which clearly show that from the very beginning the Accused Dronjak had insight into all the relevant events, that is, even at this early stage the Accused Dronjak participated in the transport of persons who had succumbed to the beating. Therefore, from the very beginning the Accused Dronjak knew that the detention of persons in the school in Drvar involved their ill-treatment, with potentially fatal consequences, and yet in spite of this knowledge he continued to actively participate in maintaining the system of abuse.
538. Furthermore, the Panel explained above, although this is not an act included in the Indictment, that at the time of the transfer of detainees from Kozile to Kamenica he hit several detainees as they boarded the vehicles. It is evident that at the time of the
140 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
setting up of detention facility in Kamenica the Accused Dronjak demonstrated his knowledge of the system of abuse and that, by his acts and conduct, he obviously supported such a system of abuse.
539. Finally, the Panel notes that, as explained above, almost for the entire period of the operation of detention facilities, the Accused Dronjak periodically abused detainees, during which time he made it clear that he had absolute control over whether they live or die, that they would never leave Kamenica alive and that it was just a matter of time when they would be finished off. In this context, the Panel notes that the Accused personally killed detainee Fikret Begić, as described in Section III-6 of this Verdict.
540. Therefore, it is clear that from the very beginning the Accused Dronjak was aware that the detention of civilians and members of the Army of BiH and HVO in the Slavko Rodić and Kamenica elementary schools essentially implied subjecting them to the system of abuse whose purpose was to commit crimes against detained civilians and soldiers, and that by his actions he demonstrated his approval of the system of abuse and support for its further operation.
541. Based on the foregoing, the Panel finds that under the joint criminal enterprise doctrine the Accused Ratko Dronjak is guilty of the acts described in more detail in individual sections of this Verdict, that is, he is guilty of the commission of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172(1)(h), in conjunction with subparagraphs (a), (f) and (i) of the same Article of the CC BiH, and the criminal offense of War Crimes against Civilians in violation of Article 173(1)(c) of the CC BiH.
VI. ACQUITTING PART
(a) Count I-2 of the Indictment
542. The Panel carefully reviewed allegations and evidence adduced in relation to Count I-2 of the Indictment concerning the murder of an unidentified person, about 45 years of age, at the Unac river, Bastasi village. Relevant testimonial evidence is provided by the following witnesses: Dragan Rodić, Duško Dronjak and Nihad Linić.
141 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
543. For the purpose of establishing with the highest possible degree of certainty what had happened on the critical occasion at the Unac river, the Panel compared the evidence given by these three witnesses. Witness Dragan Rodić testified about what he had heard from Duško Dronjak, while witness Nihad Linić testified about the information he received from Kalmin Kalić.
544. Witness Duško Dronjak is practically the only witness with direct insight into the events described in Count I-2 of the Indictment. According to his testimony, it is true that the Accused Dronjak ordered that a group of detainees be taken from the Slavko Rodić elementary school to the Unac river for a bath, and that the group included a person who had difficulty moving, was of large built, with swellings on his body. He further described how he transported men to the Bastasi village, while the Accused Dronjak took the group of detainees in the direction of the Unac river. After a while, the group returned under the escort of the Accused Dronjak, but the man whom the witness Duško Dronjak described earlier as having difficulty moving, was carried by others because he was dead. They dragged rather than carried him, put his body into a van and drove him off to the infirmary in order to establish the cause of death.
545. Responding to the specific question put to him, witness Duško Dronjak said that while he was at the Unac river he heard a gunshot in the distance.271
546. Therefore, it clearly follows from the testimony of witness Duško Dronjak that detainees were taken to the Unac river for a bath, and that an individual died on that occasion. However, the evidence does not point to the cause of death of this person, and in particular there is no evidence to suggest that the Accused Ratko Dronjak killed that person.
547. With respect to unclear circumstances surrounding the death of this person at the Unac river, another testimony that is relevant is that of Dragan Rodić272 who said that the Accused Ratko Dronjak and Duško Dronjak took a group of 6-7 detainees for a bath,
271 Audio recording of the hearing held on 20 January 2011, witness Duško Dronjak, 1:21:00-1:27:50, 1:56:15-1:56:30 and 2:17:00-2:17:30. 272 Audio recording of the hearing held on 21 October 2010, witness Dragan Rodić, 25:20-28:10 and 2:30:45-2:31:45.
142 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
and that one of them, who was rather corpulent weighing around 100 kg, never returned. According to witness Rodić’s testimony, this person was a civilian from Kupres who died out of fear, which he learnt from witness Duško Dronjak.
548. As for the relevant part of witness Nihad Linić’s testimony concerning Count I-2 of the Indictment, he learnt from Kalmin Kalić that a group of detainees had been taken to the river for a bath at which time the Accused Ratko Dronjak allegedly killed one of them over some money.273
549. Clearly, the above evidence does not indicate that the Accused Ratko Dronjak committed the criminal offense of murder as described in Count I-2 of the Indictment, that is, the evidence is inconsistent with respect to key facts. Witness Nihad Linić testified that he had learned from Kalmin Kalić that the Accused Ratko Dronjak killed this person. However, what is missing here is the information on how this is known to Kalmin Kalić at all, since no witness stated that Kalmin Kalić was in the group of detainees taken to the river on that occasion, while on the other hand witness Dragan Rodić said that he had learnt from Duško Dronjak that the person died of fear.
550. In this situation, the Panel finds that the testimony of witness Duško Dronjak is the most credible, as he is the only witness with direct insight into the events from Count I-2 of the Indictment. It does not follow from his testimony that the Accused Ratko Dronjak committed this murder. Moreover, witness Duško Dronjak testified that the person was taken to the infirmary to establish the cause of death, which goes to show that the cause of death was not known to them. Based on all this evidence, the Panel finds that this concrete case did not involve murder.
551. Based on the foregoing, and in light of contradictions indicated above, having evaluated the evidence individually and in combination with other evidence in accordance with Article 281 of the CPC BiH, the Panel finds that it is not established beyond any reasonable doubt that the Accused Ratko Dronjak committed murder as alleged under Count I-2 of the Indictment. Consequently, the Panel acted in accordance
273 Audio recording of the hearing held on 30 June 2011, witness Nihad Linić, 2:17:00-2:17:30.
143 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
with Article 284(c) of the CPC BiH and acquitted the Accused Ratko Dronjak of the charge under Count I-2 of the Indictment.
(b) Count I-3 of the Indictment
552. In the course of the proceedings the Panel heard a great deal of evidence concerning persons mentioned in Count I-3 of the Indictment. However, the Panel was not presented with coherent evidence, but rather with incoherent and in some aspects contradictory evidence. Many witnesses (as described in Section I-1 of the Reasoning of the Verdict) testified about secondary school teacher Rasim Zulić and his fate, as well as the fate of Drago Žulj.
553. With respect to the above-mentioned persons, the Panel found that all relevant facts were proved, and explained them in Section I-1 of the operative part of the Verdict, while in relation to the other persons mentioned in this count of the Indictment the Court was not presented with sufficiently clear evidence. Here the Panel recalls the testimony of witness Dragan Rodić who described, in a quite detailed manner, how a group of detainees had been taken from school, transported to a location in the vicinity of which there was a pit and killed there. Dragan Rodić’s testimony was extremely vague with respect to the date of this incident and other relevant facts, such as the identity of victims. He only remembered that they were from Orašac or Kulen Vakuf, and that there was a teacher among them.
554. Additionally, Dragan Rodić’s testimony was not consistent in its key segments with other adduced evidence. On the contrary, many witnesses testified that secondary school teacher Rasim Zulić succumbed to the beating in the Slavko Rodić elementary school in Drvar, while a number of witnesses (Hilmo Kozlica, Esma Ćehić and Halil Halilović) said that the victims were from the Ključ municipality.
555. In light of the fact that the above evidence is not consistent and does not form a coherent whole, and that Dragan Rodić’s testimony is largely vague and lacking in important details, the Panel found that it was insufficient to establish the guilt of the Accused Ratko Dronjak beyond any reasonable doubt, and consequently acquitted him of the charges described in Section I-3 of the operative part of the Verdict.
144 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
VII. SENTENCING
A. SENTENCING THAT IS NECESSARY AND COMMENSURATE WITH THE GRAVITY OF THE
CRIMINAL OFFENSE
1. The sentence prescribed shall be necessary and commensurate with the level of the threat against persons and values protected
556. Analyzing all relevant facts in the present proceedings as they pertain to the Accused Ratko Dronjak, the Panel first considered the level of the threat against persons protected. More specifically, the Panel was mindful of the fact that a number of persons died as a result of acts of which the Accused Ratko Dronjak is found guilty in the present Verdict. With respect to the deceased persons, the Panel took into consideration the fact that their families still suffer the consequences of the loss of family members.
557. Moreover, a number of persons were injured by the acts of which the Accused Ratko Dronjak is found guilty, and still suffer consequences and health-related problems, which has an adverse effect on their general well-being and quality of life.
558. Therefore, it is evident that the level of the threat against persons and values protected is great, which is perfectly logical in view of the criminal sanction prescribed for the criminal offenses of Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes against Civilians.
2. Criminal sanction shall be commensurate with the extent of suffering, and be sufficient to deter others from similar criminal offenses in the future
559. Similar to the above, in light of the level of the threat against persons protected and given that a number of individuals died while others still suffer from the consequences of the offense long time after its commission, it is clear that the extent of suffering is great. Furthermore, given the high level of threat against values protected accompanied by great suffering, it is obvious that criminal sanction to be imposed on the Accused Ratko Dronjak should deter others from committing criminal offenses in the future.
145 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
3. The criminal sanction shall reflect the community’s condemnation of the conduct of the accused
560. Apart from objective circumstances such as the criminal offense and circumstances surrounding its perpetration, another important factor in sentencing is the need for the criminal sanction to reflect the community’s condemnation of the conduct of the accused.
561. In this case the Panel looks at the acts of the accused and the nature of those acts. More specifically, the Panel has to make a distinction between the acts characterized by a high level of enthusiasm and determination of the accused in carrying out the conduct and a relatively passive attitude, or only superficial interest of the accused in relation to the offense. This circumstance is particularly relevant when the accused does not act independently, that is, when he is only a small link in the chain of making and enforcing specific decisions.
562. As established in the course of the evidentiary proceedings, the facilities run by the Accused Ratko Dronjak operated under the control of the 2nd Krajina Corps and the treatment of detainees in these facilities was, in fact, reflective of the situation in the battlefield, hardships endured by the guards as a result of war-induced circumstances, acts of the accused, but also those higher up in the command structure and logistics organs.
563. In view of the very complex structure and decision-making process that had a bearing on the overall situation in the detention facilities/elementary schools of Slavko Rodić and Kamenica, the Panel deems it unfair that the Accused Ratko Dronjak should bear the entire burden of responsibility. The Panel analyzed the need for community’s condemnation of the conduct of the accused in the context in which it occurred and essentially for what it was. As already stated above, the Panel was cognizant of the fact that the accused was relatively passive in relation to most of the events taking place in the detention facilities both in terms of improving the situation for detainees, or alternatively making it worse for them. He obviously maintained the system that was put in place in accordance with the prevalent circumstances at the time and the will of his superiors. As an example, the Panel recalls the occasion of the ICRC’s visit to detainees 146 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
at the school in Pasjak when the accused, acting on the instructions of his superiors, organized a visit to another location.
564. As is evident from the above reasoning, irrespective of the level of the threat to protected persons and their suffering, the Panel finds that the acts of the accused are not of such nature that, apart from community’s condemnation of such conduct, they also warrant particular harshness in sentencing.
4. Criminal sanction shall be necessary and commensurate with the educational purposes of the Code, meaning that persons should be made aware of the danger of the crime as well as the justice inherent in punishing criminals
565. In the context of sentencing the Accused Ratko Dronjak, a clear reference was made to the need for community’s condemnation of the conduct of the accused. In addition, criminal sanction must also serve the purpose of making other persons aware of the danger of the crime as well as the justice inherent in punishing criminals.
566. Here, the Panel recalls the conduct of the accused, which is characterized primarily by his passivity, that is, an almost complete absence of initiative which is entirely left to the higher levels of command and control, shift leaders and guards who were in contact with the injured/aggrieved parties.
567. In such a situation, the educational purpose of sentencing must focus on the actual acts of the accused and the function he performs.
568. The Panel holds that the criminal sanction imposed on the accused in the present case is adequately suited to make others aware of the danger of the crime, as well as the justice inherent in punishing criminals.
B. THE SENTENCE OR CRIMINAL SANCTION MUST BE NECESSARY AND COMMENSURATE WITH
THE INDIVIDUAL PERPETRATOR
569. Apart from general principles that have to be taken into consideration when meting out/reducing the sentence, the Panel is particularly mindful of the need for the sentence to reflect all elements and circumstances pertaining to the individual 147 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
perpetrator. In meting out/reducing the sentence, the Panel has in its focus the individual perpetrator, that is, his actions, conduct, attitude in relation to the offense, his conduct after the commission of the offense and all other important factors relevant for sentencing.
570. In light of the above, in addition to prescribing the general maximum and general minimum as the range for sentencing of individual perpetrators of criminal offenses, the legislator envisaged an additional institute, namely that of reducing the sentence which, based on the need for individualization, may even go below the legally prescribed minimum for a particular offense.
571. Therefore, it is evident that, under the existing legislation, the sentencing of the individual perpetrator in accordance with all facts that relate to him as an individual has primacy.
C. ACCUSED RATKO DRONJAK 1. The degree of liability
572. Before analyzing the degree of liability of the accused, the Panel notes that all circumstances analyzed in the context of meting out/reducing the sentence do not cast any doubt on the Panel’s finding that the Accused Ratko Dronjak is guilty of the offenses described in the operative part of the Verdict.
573. As part of the Panel’s finding on the guilt of the accused, it had to analyze all details and facts relevant for meting out the sentence.
574. Moreover, as already noted above in several instances, in analyzing the circumstances relevant for meting out the sentence, the Panel was mindful of particular importance of individualization of sentencing.
575. When analyzing the degree of the accused’s liability within these parameters, the Panel was mindful of the fact that his liability concerns the maintenance of the system of abuse in co-operation with his superiors and subordinates. In other words, the Panel did not find any circumstances that would put the Accused Ratko Dronjak in the category of perpetrators of criminal offenses with a high degree of liability.
148 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
576. In making this finding, the Panel also relied on information concerning the accused’s level of education, his rank and the function he performed. As already described above, in view of his relative passivity in relation to the acts of other individuals the accused should have been aware of all the negative implications of his passivity and his obligation to effectively control misconduct of his subordinates. Furthermore, he should have taken decisive action in relation to higher levels of command with the aim of ensuring adequate logistical preconditions for the normal operation of detention facilities.
577. In this context, in light of a somewhat unique function of the accused, that is, the fact that he was practically in charge of the only facility of this type within the area of responsibility of the 2nd Krajina Corps, the Panel infers that he had no opportunity to acquire knowledge and skills that would have helped him in performing his duties. This is particularly relevant because of the fact that the accused had the rank of Sergeant 1st Class and was assigned to the function more suited to someone with a higher rank. His insufficient knowledge of the relevant regulations and procedures, as well as the low rank of the accused, surely contributed to his passivity. On the other hand, the fact that the accused took on the job, for which he did not have relevant knowledge and training, cannot be held against him, in the Panel’s view, since he was evidently trying to avoid the risk of direct participation in combat.
2. The conduct and personal situation of the Accused
578. In the course of the criminal proceedings, each accused is expected to conduct himself properly and actively participate in the proceedings. However, in relation to the Accused Ratko Dronjak, the Panel notes that his conduct during the proceedings exceeded his obligations and duties under the relevant provisions of the CPC BiH and has to be taken as a mitigating circumstance on the part of the accused.
579. Conduct of the Accused Ratko Dronjak for the entire duration of the proceedings contributed both to the dignity and smooth conduct of the present proceedings. His co- operation and fair conduct significantly contributed to the efficiency of the proceedings, especially in light of his complex health condition.
149 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
580. The fact that the Accused Ratko Dronjak contributed to the dignity and efficiency of the proceedings, even when faced with the risk of potentially aggravating health condition, is accorded special weight by the Panel as a mitigating circumstance on the part of the accused.
581. Moreover, the Panel notes that the Accused Ratko Dronjak is a family man, father of two children and that he has no prior convictions. This additionally supports the Panel’s finding that the Accused Ratko Dronjak essentially followed the initiative of his superiors and that he did not show a tendency to commit criminal offenses.
3. Motive
582. In meting out/reducing the sentence, motive on the part of the accused plays an important role. In the present case, however, the Panel notes that the Accused Ratko Dronjak did not have a specific intent to cause harm to detainees. Quite the contrary, in cases when these detainees were his acquaintances he tried to help them.
583. In view of the absence of motive, that is, motive is limited to actions within a standard routine dictated by circumstances prevalent at the time and instructions of other organs, the Panel finds that this circumstance warrants a more lenient criminal sanction for the accused.
4. The personality of the Accused
584. For the entire duration of the proceedings the Accused Ratko Dronjak demonstrated the character of a calm person trying to focus on his family life and favorable outcome of the proceedings, as well as the person who is able to differentiate between permissible and prohibited conduct.
585. Additionally, the Panel notes that in his closing argument the only objection made by the Accused Ratko Dronjak was that the manner of presentation of the Prosecution’s closing argument adversely affected his family relations. In other words, the Panel took cognizance of the fact that the accused, in spite of obvious obstacles such as custody, used his procedural position for the purpose of preserving his family relations.
150 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
5. Deterrence and social rehabilitation
586. Furthermore, as for the personality of the Accused Ratko Dronjak, the Panel notes that he has shown readiness to act within certain established principles, that is, he displayed willingness to abide by dictates. In such situation, deterrence is not to be factored in the criminal sanction to be imposed on the Accused. In fact, the Panel holds that in light of the social rehabilitation element of the sentence and personal characteristics of the accused, any sentence within the legally prescribed range (including the reduction of sentence) would have a sufficient deterrent effect and would facilitate his reintegration in the society.
6. Reduction of punishment according to the Code
587. Having analyzed all the above facts, both those concerning the circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense and those pertaining to the character of the Accused Ratko Dronjak, the Panel finds that in their entirety they constitute highly extenuating circumstances within the meaning of Article 49(2) of the CPC BiH. Mindful of the need for individualization of sentencing for the criminal offenses of which the Accused Ratko Dronjak is found guilty, the Panel meted out sentences that are below the legally prescribed minimum, that is, sentences of imprisonment for the term of eight years for each of the offenses.
7. Conclusion
588. Having applied all the relevant principles on sentencing, and pursuant to Article 53(2)(b) of the CC BiH on the concurrence of criminal offenses, the Panel imposed a compound sentence of imprisonment on the Accused Ratko Dronjak for a term of fifteen years.
VIII. DECISION ON COSTS
In view of the fact that the Accused Ratko Dronjak is indigent and that there is no evidence of steady income in any significant amount, and that in case he was obliged to pay for the costs of the proceedings his personal sustenance and the sustenance of his 151 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
family would be jeopardized, pursuant to Article 188(4) of the CPC BiH the Panel decided to relieve him of the obligation to pay for the costs of the criminal proceedings.
PANEL PRESIDENT RECORD-TAKER – LEGAL ADVISOR JUDGE Emil Pinkas Minka Kreho
LEGAL REMEDY: This Verdict may be appealed within 15 days as of the receipt of the written copy thereof.
152 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
IN THE NAME OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA! ...... 2
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 12 A. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ...... 12 B. CLOSING ARGUMENTS ...... 14 1. Prosecutor's Office of B-H ...... 14 2. Defense ...... 18 3. The Accused Ratko Dronjak ...... 20 C. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC AND DECISION ON PROTECTIVE MEASURES FOR WITNESS ...... 21 D. OBJECTIONS TO THE EVIDENCE ...... 22 1. Defense’s objections to the Prosecution evidence ...... 22 2. Prosecution’s objections to the Defense evidence ...... 25 II. GENERAL STANDARDS OF PROOF...... 26
III. APPLICABLE LAW ...... 34
IV. SUMMARY OF THE CHAPEAU ELEMENTS OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENSES REFERRED TO IN THE INDICTMENT ...... 40 A. CHAPEAU ELEMENTS OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ...... 40 B. CHAPEAU ELEMENTS OF WAR CRIMES AGAINST PRISONERS OF WAR ...... 43 C. CHAPEAU ELEMENTS OF WAR CRIMES AGAINST CIVILIANS ...... 44 V. FACTUAL FINDINGS ON THE GROUNDS OF EVIDENCE ...... 47 A. GENERAL FRAMEWORK OF THE CASE, WIDESPREAD AND SYSTEMATIC ATTACK DIRECTED AGAINST THE CIVILIAN POPULATION ...... 47 B. INDISPUTABLE FACTS ...... 51 C. FINDINGS OF THE COURT ...... 54 1. Section I ...... 54 2. Section II ...... 62 3. Section III ...... 87 D. INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ACCUSED ...... 137 1. Joint criminal enterprise ...... 137 (a) Actus reus ...... 137 (b) Mens rea ...... 140 VI. ACQUITTING PART ...... 141 (a) Count I-2 of the Indictment ...... 141 (b) Count I-3 of the Indictment ...... 144 VII. SENTENCING ...... 145 A. SENTENCING THAT IS NECESSARY AND COMMENSURATE WITH THE GRAVITY OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE ...... 145 1. The sentence prescribed shall be necessary and commensurate with the level of the threat against persons and values protected ...... 145 2. Criminal sanction shall be commensurate with the extent of suffering, and be sufficient to deter others from similar criminal offenses in the future ...... 145 153 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
3. The criminal sanction shall reflect the community’s condemnation of the conduct of the accused ...... 146 4. Criminal sanction shall be necessary and commensurate with the educational purposes of the Code, meaning that persons should be made aware of the danger of the crime as well as the justice inherent in punishing criminals ...... 147 B. THE SENTENCE OR CRIMINAL SANCTION MUST BE NECESSARY AND COMMENSURATE WITH THE INDIVIDUAL PERPETRATOR ...... 147 C. ACCUSED RATKO DRONJAK ...... 148 1. The degree of liability ...... 148 2. The conduct and personal situation of the Accused ...... 149 3. Motive ...... 150 4. The personality of the Accused ...... 150 5. Deterrence and social rehabilitation...... 151 6. Reduction of punishment according to the Code ...... 151 7. Conclusion ...... 151 VIII. DECISION ON COSTS ...... 151
IX. ANNEX I (ADMITTED EVIDENCE) ...... 155
X. ANNEX II (ESTABLISHED FACTS) ...... 164
154 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
IX. ANNEX I (ADMITTED EVIDENCE)
A large body of evidence was admitted and a large number of witnesses heard in the course of the proceedings. In addition, the Court has evaluated the admitted documentary evidence, individually and in combination with the other admitted evidence.
Prosecution Evidence
The following Prosecution witnesses gave evidence in the proceedings: Hilmo Kozlica, Dragan Rodić, Šefkija Kozlica, Dolić Fikret, Mićo Rakić, Dizdarević Goran, Dragić Barović, Emir Lasić, Duško Dronjak, Ibrahim Halkić, Enes Begić, Armin Mulić, Dževad Dupanović, Kasim Duraković, Mile Mijuković, Muharem Beganović, Ale Družić, Midho Družić, Samir Družić, Alan Konjević, Sanel Dervišević, Kasim Kulauzović, Sulejman Kapić, Rifet Tahrić, Mile Dujmović, Josip Šantić, Rusmir Pajić, Stipe Petrović, Davor Marinčić, Izet Kaljiković, Muho Mašinović, Emir Demirović, Bajro Ljubijankić, Šuhret Fazlić, Milan Ivančević, Milanko Knežević, Ahmo Jukić, Mirsad Hadžić, Linić Nihad, Ifet Hukanović, Draško Rodić, Esma Ćehić, Umirana Kalić, Jozo Čavar, Halil Halilović, Husnija Mehulić, Mirsad Toromanović, Redžep Muminović, Mira Nikšić, Josip Dujmović, Enver Begić, Hasib Kendić, Ibrahim Hadžić, Kata Dujmović, Šida Subašić, Fadil Kartal, Mirhad Jusić i Nermin Pečenković.
The following Prosecution documentary exhibits were admitted: T-1-Witness Examination Record for Hilmo Kozlica No. KT-RZ-121/05 of 6 October 2008; T-2- Photos of detainees at the Kamenica camp; T-3- Photo-documentation, Kamenica Primary School; T-4 Witness Examination Record for Fikret Dolić No. KT-RZ-121/05 of 11 January 2010; T-5 Photos (from the Indictment 203); T-6 Video-footage (from the Indictment 194); T-7- Witness Examination Record for Mićo Rakić; T-8- Witness Examination Record for Goran Dizdarević No. KT-RZ-121/05 of 25 January 2010; T-9 Records of 26 December 2008, 29 April 2010 and 4 January 2010; T-10 Witness Examination Record for Duško Dronjak of 12 March and 3 June 2010; T-11 Witness Examination Record for Enes Begić, KT-RZ-121/05 of 20 March 2008; T-12 Witness
155 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Examination Record for Armin Mulić, KT-RZ-121/05 of 15 January 2010; T-13 Witness Examination Record for Kasim Kulauzović of 25 September 2008; T-14- Note from a meeting held with the Muslim Exchange Commission from Bihać of 2 July 1994; List of Muslims detained at the Kamenica prison and exchanged on 3 October 1992; List of Serbs-prisoners exchanged on 9 December 1992; Exchange of killed VRS soldiers from the 1st and 2nd Krajina Corps, List of exchanged Muslim prisoners (alive); Information on the exchange carried out on 26 April 1994 in Ličko Petrovo Selo; Information on the exchange carried out on 26. April 1994 in Ličko Petrovo Selo; List of VRS soldiers exchanged on 11 March 1995 in Ličko Petrovo Selo; List of VRS soldiers exchanged on 11 March 1995 in Ličko Petrovo Selo; List of exchanged alive soldiers of the Krajina Army published on 15 March 1995 in Ličko Petrovo Selo; Report on the exchange carried out on 11 April 1995 in Ličko Petrovo Selo; List of alive VRS soldiers exchanged in Donji Zemunik on 25 May 1995; List of prisoners in hand writing; T-15- Witness Examination Record for Milanko Knežević No. KTRZ-121/05 of 11 January 2010; T-16- Witness Examination Record for Draško Rodić No. KT-RZ-121/05 of 12 February 2010; T-17: Order of the 2nd Krajina Corps strict. conf., No. 307-1 of 5 August 1992, certified copy; T-18: Order of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, strict. conf. No. 153-1 of 25 June 1992; T-19: Order of the 2nd Krajina Corps No. 11/27-165 of 2 August 1992 relating to the assignment in combat formation in the 2nd Military Police Battalion; T-20: Information relating to the detection and capturing of hostile soldiers, Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 12 February 1993, verified by The Hague Tribunal; T-21: Document of the CJB Banja Luka SM Ključ strict. conf. 3/93 of 1 December 1992; T-22 Dispatch Note No. 3/93 of 6 February 1993; T-23 Official Note of the CSB Banja Luka of 16 February 1993; T-24 Report of the SJB Ključ on the activities of the SJB Ključ employees relating to the DTG detection in the Golaj territory drafted in February 1993; T-25 Official Note by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, strict. conf. No. 1-267 of 11 July 1992, certified copy; T-26 Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps (Response to the ICRC letter) 9-126 of 4 April 1995; T-27 Instruction on the Organization and Activities of the Bodies of the Serb People in BiH in Extraordinary Circumstances of 19 December 1991; T-28 Decision on the Strategic Goals of the Serb People in BiH, No. 02-130/92 of 12 May 1992; T-29 Official Gazette of the Serb People in BiH, No. 1, of 15 January 1992; T-30 Official Gazette of the Autonomous Region of
156 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Krajina, No. 2, of 5 June 1992; T-31 List of Representatives in the Assembly of the Autonomous Region Krajina; T-32 Decision Declaring Imminent Danger of War – Official Gazette of the R BiH, No. 1, of 9 April 1992 and the Decision Declaring the State of War – Official Gazette of the R BiH, No. 7, of 20. June 1992; T-33 Instruction for the Treatment of War Prisoners – Official Gazette of the Serb People in BiH, No. 9, of 13 June 1992; T-34 Decision on the Establishment of the Army of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, No. 03-234/92 of 12 May 1992; T-35 Order by the Commander of the Main Staff of the Army of the Serb Republic of BiH, Strict. conf. No. 30/18-17 of 16 June 1992; T-36 Order by the Commander of the Main Staff of the Army of the Republika Srpska, Strict. conf. No. 30/18-25 of 3 July 1992; T-37 Analysis of the activities and combats in 1992, conclusions, tasks – Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, Str. conf. No. 3-39 of 7 March 1993; T-38 Conclusions from the sub-regional meeting of 7 June 1992; T-39 Review of Migrated and Immigrated Citizens – CSB, Sector SDB Banja Luka of May 1993; T-40: Extract from VOB-8 for Ratko Dronjak, Personal file for Ratko Dronjak, Decision No. 1035803047 of 2 October 2002, Certificate of the Military Post 7256 concerning Ratko Dronjak, Rehabilitation Discharge Letter by “Dr. M. Zotović” concerning Ratko Dronjak, Discharge Letter for Ratko Dronjak, Clinical-Hospital Center Banja Luka, of 30 May 1994, Findings of the Surgery Department, Medical Center “27 July – Titov Drvar” for Ratko Dronjak of 20 May 1994 – handwritten, Specialist Finding for Ratko Dronjak – VMA Belgrade of 6 July 1994, Draft Card for Ratko Dronjak; T-41 Certificate, Military Post 7068 – Doboj; T- 42 Official ID for Slobodan Šobot; T-43 Criminal report by Military Post 7007 against Ratko Dronjak KV No.139/95 of 5 September 1995, Indictment of the Basic Military Prosecutor’s Office B.Luka I VTK: 5338/95 of 28 February 1996; T-44 Regular Combat Report – Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, Str. conf. No. 44-1/157 of 1 June 1992; T-45 Order of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, Strict. Conf. No.11/28-298-16 of 1 September 1992; T-46 Regular Combat Report – Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, Conf. No. 44-1/158 of 2 June 1992; T-47 Action Instruction – Conf. No. 18/28-205 of 28 May 1993; T-48 Meeting of Superiors of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, No. Sl.95-1 of 8 March 1993; T-49 Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, Conf., No. 307-3 of 5 August 1992; T-50 Order of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, Conf., No. 338-1 of 29 August 1992; T-51 Order of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, Strict. Conf., No. 3-2 of 5
157 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
January 1993; T-52 Order by the Commander of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, Strict. Conf. No. 90-1 of 8 June 1992; T-53 Order – Combat Assignment Op.No.1/92 – Disarmament Action in Sanski Most; T-54: Regular Report by Military Post 7256 No. 10- 342-1 of 2 December 1992, Regular Report, Military Post 7256 No. 10-344-1 of 3 December 1992, Regular Report, Military Post 7256 No. 10-388-1 of 25 December 1992, Regular Report, Military Post 7256 No. 10-387-1 of 25 December 1992, Regular Report, Military Post 7256 No. 10-376-1 of 19 December 1992, Regular Report, Military Post 7256 No. 10-61-93 of 1 February 1993, Regular Report, Military Post 7256 No. 10- 117-1 of 1 March 1993, Regular Report, Military Post 7256 No. 10-178-1 of 1 April 1993, Regular Report, Military Post 7256 No. 10-239-1 of 1 May 1993 T-55 List of representatives elected at the SDA– ORAŠAC assembly; T-56 Order by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, Strict. Conf. No. 90-1/1 of 9 June 1992; T-57 Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, Conf. No. 2-64 of 1 June 1992; T-58 Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 23 November 1994; T-59 Order to work on the documents relating to the plan to use the RS Army – STATEMENT – No.101/21 of 12 January 1994; T-60 Dispatch Note, Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, Conf. No. 307-2 of 5 August 1992; T-61 Unit personal file for soldier Fikret Begić, T-62 Unit personal file for Remzo Muminović; T-63 Unit personal file for Mirsad Hadžić; T-64: Review of personal details’ changes for Remzo Muminović, Review of personal details’ changes for Hazim Toromanović, Review of personal details’ changes for Mirsad Hadžić Review of personal details’ changes for Fikret Begić; T-65 Official Note, Sp.No. 03/269-32 of 8 June 1995; T-66 Notice, No. 03-328/95 of 14 June 1995; T-67 Dispatch Note, CSB Banja Luka, No. 11-140 of 14 May 1992; T-68 Document, RSM Kulen Vakuf, No. 1-3/93 of 29 January 1993; T-69 Document of the Military Security Sector, Command of the 5th Corps, Conf., No. 03/332-1 of 27 April 1994; T-70 Document of the OBP Section – 11th Krupa Infantry Brigade, No. 247/45 of 15 December 1992; T-71: Document of the RDB Section Drvar, No. 1/95 of 3 January 1995; Document of the RDB Section Drvar, No. 4/95 of 5 January 1995; T-72 List of prisoners from the Local Community Orašac-Kulen Vakuf; T-73 Lists of persons from the Kamenica camp; T-74 Report by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, Conf. No. 556-4 of 3 December 1992; T-75 Exchange Report by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, Strict. Conf. No. 9-184 of 10 June 1995; T-76 Letter of the Command of the 5th Corps, No. 03/269-8 of 28 March 1995, with the
158 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
attachment: List of exchanged members of the 5th Corps of the AR BiH and HVO; T-77 Report on the exchanges carried out in the Bihać area, Security Service of the 5th Corps, No. 03/253-1 of 21 February 1993; T-78 Identification Report No. 01/156-17 of 14 April 1995; T-79 Certificate of the death circumstances for Marijan Nikšić of 11 January 1997; T-80 Decision to the name of Kasim Duraković, Una-Sana Canton, Cantonal Ministry for the Issues of War Veterans and Disabled Homeland War Veterans, No. 16-5-560-603/98 of 13 November 1998, Disease History for Kasim Duraković, Health Center Velika Kladuša of 3 December 2003, Disease History for Kasim Duraković, Cantonal Hospital Bihać of 14 February 2007, Discharge Letter for Kasim Duraković, Cantonal Hospital “Dr. Irfan Ljubijankić” Bihać of 16 November 2001; T-81 Hospital Discharge Letter for Velaga Begić, Cantonal Hospital Bihać MB 16304; T-82 Disease History for Mirsad Hadžić, Private Clinic “Kapić” of 11 November 2004; T-83 Disease History for Rifet Tahrić, Cantonal Hospital “Dr. Irfan Ljubijankić“, No. 2485 of 6 July 1995; T-84: ICRC Statement for Mile Mijuković, Zagreb of 20 July 1995, Discharge Letter for Mile Mijuković, Cantonal Hospital “Dr. Irfan Ljubijankić”, MB 2503 of 17 April 1998; T-85 Discharge Letter for Josip Šantić, Cantonal Hospital “Dr. Irfan Ljubijankić” Bihać of 2 October 1997, Finding and Opinion relating to Josip Šantić, Physicians Commission for the Examination of Persons included in the Law on the Rights of Veterans and Members of Their Families, No. 4059-2/06-T1-2151 of 3 July 2006; T-86 Death Certificate for Marijan Nikšić No. 104/95; T-87 Decision issued to the name of Husnija Mehulić, Una- Sana Canton, Cantonal Ministry for the Issues of War Veterans and Disabled Homeland War Veterans Bihać, No. 04-560-427__/97 of 18 March 1999; T-88 Discharge Letter for Nermin Pečenković No. 686 95 of 29 October 1995; T-89 Discharge Letter for Fikret Dolić including Discharge Letter No. 11 849 and Certificate issued by the IRC relating to Dolić’s stay in Kamenica of 17 May 1995; T-90 (138-140 )- Discharge Letter of 29 January 1995 for Nermin Pečenković, Rtg. Finding and Opinion of 9 June 1995 and Discharge Letter of 2 July 1995, Discharge Letter of 8 April 1995; T-91 Disease History for Dževad Kovačević of 20 March 1995 and Discharge Letter for Kovačević, No. 674/95 of 22 October 1995; T- Disease History for Enes Mehmedagić of 16 March 1995, IRC Statement 313469 for Enes Mehmedagić – the last one is not verified; T-93 Discharge Letter for Sulejman Kapić 306/94 of 3 July 1994; T-94 Discharge Letter 307/95 of 29 May 1995 for Izet Kljiković; T-95 Findings and Opinion for Enes Begić,
159 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Physicians Commission for the Examination of Persons included in the Law on the Basic Rules for War Disabled Persons and Their Families, Discharge Letter of 16 May 2000, Discharge Letter MB13 163 of 17 October 2000 and Evaluation of Health Fitness for Reserve Military Conscripts 21-12-07/03 23-50-3/1 of 4 June 2001; T-96 Extract from Register of Deaths for Josif Majstorović Extract from Register of Deaths for Jusuf Eljazović, Extract from Register of Deaths for Hazim Toromanović, Extract from Register of Deaths for Fuad SUBAŠIĆ, Extract from Register of Deaths for Jasmin Subašić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Žulj Drago, Extract from Register of Deaths for Suvad Delić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Rifet Kendić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Ibrahim Keranović, Extract from Register of Deaths for Sakib Keranović, Extract from Register of Deaths for Derviš Dubica, Extract from Register of Deaths for Safet Hukanović, Extract from Register of Deaths for Tehvid Baltić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Ćerim Jusić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Hajrudin Jelečević, Extract from Register of Deaths for Mumin Egrilć, Extract from Register of Deaths for Drago Dujmović, Extract from Register of Deaths for Marijan Nikšić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Marko Čavar, Extract from Register of Deaths for Said Halilović, Extract from Register of Deaths for Rezak Halilović, Extract from Register of Deaths for Fadil Halilović, Extract from Register of Deaths for Ifet Bukvić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Mirsad Hadžić Extract from Register of Deaths for Enver Čehić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Fehim Kadić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Rasim Zulić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Rufad Crnolić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Adem Šepić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Ferid Hukanović, Extract from Register of Deaths for Kalmin Kalić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Sulejman Porčić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Hasan Hirkić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Fikret Begić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Nusret Malkoč, Extract from Register of Deaths for Ferid Velagić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Kemal Šepić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Remzo Muminović, Extract from Register of Deaths for Stipo Dujmović, Extract from Register of Deaths for Asim Elkasović, Extract from Register of Deaths for Miroslav Fabulić, Extract from Register of Deaths for Hase Ružnić; T-97 ICTY, Trial and Appellate Judgments in Brđanin; T-98 Exhumation Record, Cantonal Court in Bihać, No. KRI-21/01 of 17 April 2001; T-99 DNA Reports for: Nusret Malkoč (JG-18), Kemal Šepić (JG-03), Ferid Velagić (JG-02), Fehim Kadsić (JG-07) Fuad
160 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Subašić (JG-11) Drago Žulj (JG-16) Suvad Delić (JG-04), Rufad Crnolić (JG-05), Fadil Halilović (JG-10), Rasim Zulić (JG-12), Rezak Halilović (JG-14), Said Halilović (JG-17), Ifet Bukvić (JG-19); T-100 Missing Person Statement for Enver Čehić, Corpse Identification Record, Record of Exhumed Body Hand-Over, No. 05-11/03-711/2001 of 25 May 2001; T-101 Missing Person Statement for Kalmin Kalić, Corpse Identification Record, Record of Exhumed Body Hand-Over, of 17 May 2001; T-102 Sketch of the mass grave site Golubnjača, Exhumation Record and CD with photo-documentation relating to the same mass grave; T-103 Photo-documentation, Primary School in Drvar; T-104 List of the RS Defense Ministry No. 01/3-841-128 of 19 December 1994, Drvar Command Certificates for Dušan Glušica, Milanko Knežević and Zdravko Stupar, Certificates of Engagement (10 in total); T-105 Document of the Penal and Correctional Facility Banja Luka, No. 07-240-538 of 1 June 1995; T-106 Criminal Report filed by Security Organ-Sergeant Slobodan Šobot against Đžafer Palić; T-107: Exchange Report of 29 May 1995, 01-IP-914/95, List of the captured and Exchanged HVO Soldiers 01-IP- 1111/95 of 7 November 1995; T-108: Transfer Order for Slobodan Šobot of 22 October 1993 and Movement and Travel Permit for Slobodan Šobot of 31 January 1994, copy, the original reviewed by the Court; T-109: Judgment of the Cantonal Court in Bihać against Željko Despot.
Evidence of the Defense for the Accused Ratko Dronjak
The following Defense witnesses gave their evidence during the proceedings: Milan Ivančević, Draško Rodić, Nermin Pečenković, Vlado Lugonja, Petar Bošnjak, Witness O- 1, Veljko Cupać, Draženko Marjanović, Mile Marčeta, Željko Despot, Slavica Tomazović, Mira Kurbalija, the accused Ratko Dronjak in the capacity of a witness, Milorad Zorić, Slaviša Sabljić, Slavko Lisica, Želimir Knežević and Dragan Danelišan as the Defense’s expert witness.
The following Defense documentary evidence was admitted: O-1- Witness Examination Record for Vlado Lugonja of 29 October 2011; O-2- Witness Examination Record for Petar Bošnjak of 29 October 2011; O-3- Examination Record for Witness O-1 of 2 December 2011; O-4- Witness Examination Record for Veljko Cupać of 6 September
161 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
2011; O-5- Witness Examination Record for Slavica Tomazović of 10 November 2011 given to the attorney; O-6- Witness Examination Record for Mira Kurbalija of 10 November 2011; O-7: 1974 Constitution of the SR BiH on a CD and partially in a hardcopy; O-8: TO Staff Order of 9 May 1992, certified copy; O-9: Decision on general mobilization in the Autonomous Region Krajina of 4 May 1992 – Extract from Official Gazette; O-10: Regular Combat Report by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps TG of 10 June 1992 relating to disarmament in Kulen Vakuf; O-11: Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, Str.conf. No. 2-8, of 21 May 1992 – General mobilization of the Army of the Serb Republic BiH-Order; O-12: Order by the Command of the 1st Drvar Brigade of 15 June 1992 relating to combat activities on all the three belligerent parties; O-13: List, type and quantity of weapons to be handed-over by the Muslim forces; O-14: Minutes from the session of the SO Petrovac of 16 June 1992, addressing the apprehension of Muslims and seizure of weapons; O-15: Order to establish war prisoners camps in Srnetica; O-16: Order No. 284-1 by the Chief of the Staff of the II KC of 25 July 1992; O-17: Order of the 2nd KC of 5 August 1992; O-18: Document of the Command of the 2nd KC of 5 August 1992 dealing with the status of the camp in Kamenica; O-19 : Order for the logistics of the 2nd KC of 7 August 1992 relating to the provision of general medical aid, certified copy; O-20: Order of the SO Bihać 2nd KC Brigade 2/70-44 of 25 August 1992; O-21: Report on the medical supply status by the Command of the 2nd Battalion of the Military Police 11-2 of 30 August 1992, certified copy; O-22: Order imposing a disciplinary sanction on Mile Altagić, certified copy; O-23: Order of the 2nd KC, Conf. No. 372/7 of 22 November 1992; O-24: Logistics Order No. 7/95 of 22 November 1992; O-25: Supply Order by the 2nd KC of 22 November 1992; O- 26 Order of 5 January 1993 to organize Kamenica as a military prison; O-27: Order by the Command of the 2nd KC of 25 April 1993; O-28: Regular Combat Reports of 27 October 1994, 28 October 1994, 29 October 1994 and 30 October 1994, certified copies; O-29: Official Note 08/556-37 of 7 March 1995; O-30 Document of the Command of the 2nd KC (Response to ICRC letter) 9-126 of 4 April 1995; O-31: Witness Examination Record for Milan Ivančević of 27 February 2012, O-32 Witness Examination Record for Milorad Zorić of 31 January 2012; O-33 Witness Examination Record for Slaviša Sabljić of 3 March 2012; O-34 DVD recording; O-35 Findings by Forensic Expert Witness, Prof. Dr. Dragana Danelišen of 5 March 2012; O-36 List of
162 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
wounded persons from Velagići near Ključ of 28 May 1992; O-37 Certificate to the name of Munir Tabaković verified by a signature of Chief of the Staff of the 2nd KC in 1992; O- 38: List of members of the Muslim paramilitary formations in Kulen Vakuf, certified copy; O-39: List of Serbs from the Grmuša village, certified in the VRS Archive; O-40: Extract from Official Gazette No. 7 – relating to declaring the state of war and general mobilization; O-41: List of captured soldiers who were killed and List of prisoners detained in Bihać; O-42: Instructions relative to the treatment of captured persons made by the Defense Minister of the Serb Republic of BiH 21-26/92 of 13 June 1992, certified copy; O-43: Order by the Command of the 2nd KC, No. 153-1 of 25 June 1992; O-44: Official Note by the Command of the 2nd KC, Strict. Conf. No. 1-267 of 11 July 1992, certified copy; O-45: List of killed and wounded soldiers from Petrovac in mid- September, certified copy; O-46: Order by the Command of the II KC No. 306-2/12 of 8 August 1992, certified copy; O-47: List of killed soldiers in 1992; O-48: Photos of the Kamenica camp from September 1992; O-49: List of educational workers to be exchanged; O-50: List of our captured and missing soldiers; O-51: Prisoners and Civilians Exchange Report, Strict. Conf. of 19 July 1993; O-52: Letter of the leadership of Kupres Municipality forwarded to the Command of the 2nd KC; O-53: Note by Milan Ivančević concerning a meeting held by the Exchange Commission; O-54: Letter by the Exchange Commission 486/94 of 19 September 1994, certified copy; O-55: Letter to the VRS Main Staff signed by Galić; O-56: Letter of Marko Galić for the VRS Main Staff; O- 57: List of killed VRS soldiers, 1st and 2nd KC signed by Milan Ivančević; O-58: List of exchanged and alive war prisoners of the 2nd KC of 11 March in Ličko Petrovo Selo and List of members of the V Corps, 11 March 1995, drafted by Milan Ivančević; O-59: Official Note by the V Corps Command of 8 June 1995; O-60: List of the missing and killed soldiers on the Glamoč, Grahovo and Drvar frontlines drafted by the Command of the 2nd KC, certified copy; O-61: List of missing soldiers at the Bihać-Krupa frontline; O- 62: List of 11 March 1995; O-63: Exchange list with the Croat(s) side; O-64: Exchange Report by the 2nd KC, Strict. Conf. No. 9-184 of 10 June 1995; O-65: List of HVO soldiers No. 01-IP-1111/95 of 7 November 1995; O-66: Exchange Commission List of 19 December 1995; O-67: Video-recording (the first three minutes) of the treatment accorded by the V Corps to a prisoner; O-68: Record made by the USK Police Administration No. 05-1/04-5-741/ 10 of 4 October 2010 relating to the examination of
163 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Dragan Rodić; O-69 Witness Examination Record for Slavko Lisica of 7 April 2012; O-70 Witness Examination Record for Želimir Knežević of 7 April 2012; O-71: CD-Book of Statistical Data on the Population in BiH issued by the Croatian Institute, verified in The Hague; O-72 Three war tickets from 1992; O-73: Report by the Commander of the IX Corpus of 29 April 1992; O-74: Conclusions from the meetings held in the Command of the 2nd KC, Security Organ of 29 June 1992.
X. ANNEX II (ESTABLISHED FACTS)
Deciding upon a Prosecution Motion, pursuant to Article 4 of the Law on the Transfer of Cases by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to the Prosecutor’s Office and the Use of Evidence Collected by the ICTY in the Proceedings before the Courts in BiH, the Court issued, on 13 October 2010, a decision accepting as adjudicated the facts from the ICTY’s Trial Chamber Judgment in the case No. IT-99-36- T of 1 September 2001 (Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin), as follows:
61. In this atmosphere of tension the three main nationalist parties, having separate national agendas with conflicting interests, failed to reconcile their differences and started moving in opposite directions. In this atmosphere of tension the three main nationalist parties, having separate national agendas with conflicting interests, failed to reconcile their differences and started moving in opposite directions.
62. 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 Momčilo Krajišnik 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.
65. During the second half of 1991, it already appeared increasingly unlikely that the SRBH would remain within the SFRY. …. [t]hat during this period, the Bosnian Serb 164 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
leadership, including the members of the Main Board of the SDS and other members of the SDS, as well as Bosnian Serb representatives of the armed forces, formed a plan to link Serb-populated areas in BiH together, to gain control over these areas and to create a separate Bosnian Serb state, from which most non-Serbs would be permanently removed (“Strategic Plan”). The Bosnian Serb leadership knew that the Strategic Plan could only be implemented by the use of force and fear.
71. 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.
73. At the end of March 1992, the Bosnian Serb leadership, aiming to implement the Strategic Plan, took the necessary measures to separate the Bosnian Serb police forces from the non-Serb police forces and to put the Bosnian Serb police under the Bosnian
Serb civilian command. On 27 March 1992, the SerBiH Assembly established the Serbian Ministry of Internal Affairs (“MUP”). 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.
118. The conditions of life imposed on the non-Serb population of the Bosnian Krajina and the military operations against towns and villages which were not military targets were undertaken for the sole purpose of driving people away. Many people were kept in detention centers under horrendous conditions. As it was intended to permanently
165 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
remove these people from the territory of the SerBiH, many of their homes were destroyed in order to prevent them from returning. Bosnian Muslim homes that were not destroyed were allocated to Serb refugees from Croatia and other parts of BiH.
159. 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.
166. 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.
167. 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-Birač, 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 nd SerBiH Assembly during its 2 d session. By virtue of this ratification, the ARK and the other four Serbian Autonomous Districts became constituent parts of the SerBiH.
192. The ARK Crisis Staff was established primarily to ensure the cooperation between the political authorities, the army and the police at the regional level, with a view to coordinating the implementation by the different authorities of the Strategic Plan.
219. Municipal Crisis Staffs Crisis Staffs were involved in decisions and other matters relating to the military including assisting in the mobilization and the establishment of new Light Infantry Brigades, financing and procurement matters, discussions and decisions concerning detention facilities, the issuing of instructions relating to deadlines for the handing over of weapons, the allocation of abandoned houses and apartments to
166 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
Crisis Staff, military and other personnel, decisions relating to war booty and movable property, the transfer of detainees to camps and the removal of non-Serbs from municipalities.
230. The ARK Crisis Staff, acting as the highest civilian authority in the region, played a leading role in the implementation of the Strategic Plan by directing and coordinating the activities of the police, the army and the municipal authorities within the ARK. As set out above, the ARK Crisis Staff had de facto authority over the municipal authorities and the police and exercised great influence over the army.
232. The Trial Chamber has found evidence of implementation of the Strategic Plan in the following three areas: a) dismissals of non-Serb professionals; b) disarmament of paramilitary units and individuals who illegally possess weapons, selectively enforced against non-Serbs; and c) resettlement of the non-Serb population. … [T]he decisions of the ARK Crisis Staff in these three areas were issued in pursuit of the Strategic Plan and substantially contributed to the commission of the crimes.
608. The Trial Chamber finds that the town of Bosanska Krupa was shelled by Bosnian Serb forces on 22 April 1992. Houses predominantly inhabited by Bosnian Muslims were set on fire and destroyed. At the end of May 1992, men wearing army uniforms with an insignia of a white eagle looted a couple of houses in the village of Arapuša.
766. Beginning 21 April 1992, Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilians were confined in the Jasenica Elementary School at the orders of the Bosanska Krupa War Presidency, and were later transferred to the Petar Kočić School until 21 August 1992.
773. A detention facility was set up by the Bosanski Petrovac Crisis Staff at the beginning of July in the working site of the timber company 'Kozila', in the village of
Drinici, about 20 kilometers from the town of Bosanski Petrovac. Prior to that, and since around early to mid-June 1992, some Bosnian Muslim civilians had been detained at the Bosanski Petrovac police station.
167 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
774. The detainees of the Kozila logging camp were Bosnian Muslim men of between 25 and 65 years of age, although there were also between two to six underage detainees from Sanica, in the municipality of Ključ. There were at least 80 detainees, all of whom were civilians. They remained there until about mid-August 1992.
805. Following the Serb takeover of the municipality on 27 May, and during June 1992, Bosnian Muslim civilians from the town of Ključ and other villages in the municipality of Ključ were arrested, by the police and the Bosnian Serb military and taken to the SUP building and to the “Nikola Mačkić School”.
868. Beginning 27 May 1992, Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilians were detained both by regular and Bosnian Serb military police and confined in detention facilities in Sanski Most until about the end of August 1992.
168 Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88 Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225