Creator DEN ISM IIF 1 04390 Title Verdict against DJA.)Ic, Novislav. Summary Verdict of guilty against DJA.JIc, Novislav, brought by the Bayer Higher Court. Source Reference 3 St 20/96; 2 BJs 85/95-5; 2 StE 10/96 fEvent-------·-·-·· I, Date From Date To I Locations FOC3; Brod; Djedjevo; Trnovaca; Trbuscc; ~--------,----.----. Crime Types killing; Victim Details Witness Details Perpetrator Details • •~-- ..--------.--.--------------. Submitter unknown Submission Date 04-Dec-98 Originator BRIESSMANN, FNU; KEHRSTEPHAN, FNU, HlI_GER, FNU; KALIEBE, FNU, DR. PONGRATZ, FNU; BayernHighcr Court Receiver STAKER, Christopher ~~~~-- 72 ~ertif_ie_d__ N_O_JS..LS_ig=-n_e_d_ NO I Chain of Custody NO [Restricted To Statement Location Statement Date ·-··_··_· __·_-_ .. · __.- .. __.. _--------------------------_.. -----... ---- .... ----..--------.---- ..-- Interviewers Interviewing Organisation 1 i I ______ --------.. ---"---.. -~.--"----.-----.. ---- ~Associated ERNs 0066-7062-0066-7194 [ End of IIF 104390 (printed 19-Jan-99) 1 PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/484ae2/ Translation 3 St 20/96 24/5 2 BJ 85/95-5 2 StE 10/96 Bavarian State Court of Appeals In the name of the people JUDGEMENT The third Appeals Chamber of the Bavarian State Court of Appeals, in the criminal case against Novislav DJAJIC for complicity in genocide, La., in the public session of 23 :May 1997 held on the basis of the main proceedings of 25, 26,27 February; 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, 19,20 March; 9, 10, 15,22,29,30 April; and 12, 13, 14, 16 and 23 May 1997, at which participated 1. as judges, the presiding judge of the Bavarian State Court of Appeals, Justice Briessmann, and the judges of the Bavarian State Court of Appeals, Justices Kehrstephan, Hilger, Kaliebe and Pongratz; 2. as officials of the Public Prosecutor's Office, Senior public prosecutor at the Federal High Court Mr. Hemberger, Public prosecutor Mrs. Dreher, Federal attorney Mr. Griesbaum; 3. as defence counsel, attorneys Messrs. Dingfelder and Von Mariassy; 4. as representative of the joint plaintiff, attorney Mr. Potschke; S. for the registry of the court, senior legal ofticer Mr. Gebhart, legal ofticer Mrs. Schuhwerk, supervisor Mr. Trindl, djajic-n.doc/gm PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/484ae2/ Translation has ruled as follows: 1. Novislav DJAJIC, born 1 January 1963 in Foca (former Yugoslavia), single, tile-layer, Yugoslavian national, last place of residence: Schliiterstr. 7, 80805 Munich, at present in pre-trial custody in relation to this case in the Stadelheim prison in Munich, is guilty of complicity in 14 cases of murder and in one case of attempted murder, for which he is sentenced to a prison term of five years. n. The accused shall bear the costs of the proceedings and of the expenditure necessarily incurred by the joint plaintiff Esad Mujanovic. Legal provisions applied: paragraphs 211, 22, 23, 27, 35(2), and 49 of the Criminal Code. djajic-n.doc/gm PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/484ae2/2 Translation Contents 00678236 Page A) Findings of fact 5 I. Political developments in Yugoslavia 5 1. Until 1991 5 2. Until the breakaway ofthe republics 5 3. Developments in Serb-populated areas 5 4. Military conflicts in Bosnia-Herzegovina 6 5. Involvement of the JNA 6 rI. Ethnic cleansing 7 Ill. The local situation 8 I. In the town and municipality of Foca 8 2. In Brad, Djedjevo, Trnovaca, Trbusce 8 IV. Developments in the municipality of Foca in 1992 9 I. The significance of the town of Foca 9 2. The take-over of the town of Foca 10 3. The occupation of the municipality of Foca 10 4. The attack of Djedjevo on 20 and 21 April 1992 10 5. The occupation of Trnovaca 10 djajic·n.doc/gm PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/484ae2/3 00678237 T ranslarian 6. The killings on the bridge at Brod 11 7. The deportation of the Muslim population from 11 Djedjevo, Trbusce and Tmovaca V. Events of 22 June 1992 11 VI: Involvement of the accused 13 djajic-n.doc/gm PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/484ae2/4 Translation 00678238 B) Assessment of the evidence 14 1. The evidence available 14 1. Reports of the UN Commission of Experts 15 2. Cali c report 15 3. Fischer report 16 4. Pintaric report 16 5. Nedopil and Weber reports 16 6. Cekic report and testimony 17 7. Testimony of the accused l7 8. Witness testimony about events in Djedjevo, 18 Trnovaca and Trbusce 9. Testimony of witness Milan Djajic 18 10. Testimony of witness Rudzo MaJevic 19 11. Testimony of witnesses Prof. Memisevic, Tafro, Bradaric 19 n. Piece-by-piece assessment of the evidence 20 1. for A I 20 2. for A n 21 3. for A III 21 4. for A IV 1-3 21 5. for A IV 4 (Djedjevo) 21 6. for A IV 5 (Trnovaca) 22 7. for A IV 5 (Trbusce) 23 8.~AIV6 n 9. for A V 24 10. for A VI 25 11. relative to the subjective elements constituting 26 djajic-n.doclgm PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/484ae2/5 T Tanslalion 00678239 genocide 12. about the background of the accused 27 C) The legal assessment of the facts of the case 27 1. 14 intentional killings, 1 unaccomplished attempt 28 2. Accused's aiding in the killing 28 3. The motives for the murder 29 4. Complicity in 14 killings and one attempt 30 S. No grounds for justification or excuse 30 6. No complicity in genocide 30 7. Penalty under the law of the country of commission 31 djajic-n.doc/gm PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/484ae2/6 Translation OUtl78210 D) Procedural requirements for the application of German law and jurisdiction 1. Introduction 31 2. Paragraph 6(no.9) Cr. Code 32 3. Paragraph 7(2)(no.2) Cr. Code 35 4. Nexus with Germany 36 /,- ~.. E) Assessment of punishment 37 I. Personal backgro\md 37 H. Criminal record 38 Ill. Sentencing limits 38 1. Mitigation under para. 27(2)(2nd sent.) Cr. Code 39 2. Mitigation under para. 35(2) Cr. Code 39 IV. Sentencing I. Exculpatory factors 39 2. Inculpatory factors 40 3. Deduction of time in pre-trial detention 40 4. Yugoslavian law 40 F) Costs 41 djajic-n.doc/gm PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/484ae2/7 Translatiol1 00678241 Reasons A. Findings of fact 1. Political developments in Yugoslavia 1. The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia established following the Second World War consisted of the republics of Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia­ ~•.. Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Macedonia and of the autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina. These republics each promptly asserted their inclination to go it alone on the basis of their historic and regional identity and of the If1arked national consciousness of their inhabitants. After Tito's death in 1980, the yearnings for independence on the part of the ethnic groups and republics grew stronger as a result of the diverging political approaches and objectives pursued by the national elites, conflicting social and economic interests, a fundamental crisis in the economic and political system, and a constantly waxing nationalism. In late 1989-early 1990 this even led to the split-up of the Communist League, the party of Yugoslav unity. The republics gradually broke off their political and economic dealings with one another, and in some instances even engaged in economic warfare (Slovenia­ Serbia) where each levied duties on imports from the other. 2. Finally, independence was declared by Slovenia on 25 June 1991, by Croatia provisionally on 25 July 1991 and definitively on 8 October 1991, and by Bosnia-Herzegovina on 6 March 1992. As Serbia and Montenegro wanted to maintain the state of Yugoslavia, each of the declarations of independence was followed almost at once by fighting djajic-n.doclgm PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/484ae2/8 00678242 Translation between the annies of the republics and the Yugoslav National Army, also involving irregulars of the various ethnic groups. The fighting was over quickly in Slovenia but came to a provisional end in Croatia only in January 1992, after the Croatian Serbs had occupied almost 30% of all Croatian tern tory. 3. As the disintegration of the state of Yugoslavia progressed, the demand for self-determination by the Serb people, which also included the two million Serbs living in Croatia or Bosnia-Herzegovina, became more acute. Of this figure, lA million Serbs lived in Bosnia-Herzegovina and accounted for roughly 31 % of that republic's population. As early as in September 1991 the Serbs in Bosnia-Herzegovina declared four autonomous areas (eastern and Old Herzegovina, Bosnian Krajina, Romanja, north-eastern Bosnia). Subsequently the autonomous areas of northern Bosnia and Bihac were added. These terntorial claims were hot based solely on national policy plans, but also to a large extent on strategic considerations and economic interests, which is why they aJso bore on areas which were not inhabited primarily by Serbs. A referendum carried out by the Bosnian Serb SDS party among the Bosnian Serbs yielded a 98% majority in favour of an independent Bosnian Serb Republic. As a result, the "Assembly of the Serb people In Bosnia­ Herzegovina" declared on 21 November 1991 the districts of Krajina, Herzegovina (i.a. including Foca), Romanja, Semberija and northern Bosnia to be part of the terntory of this republic. On 21 December 1991 the "Assembly of the Serb people in Bosnia­ Herlegovina" announced the establishment of a Serb state within the republic and appointed its own government. On 8 January 1992 it proclaimed the Serb Republic of Bosnia-Herlegovina. On 28 February 1992 it adopted its own djajic-n.doc/gm PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/484ae2/9 00678243 Translation constitution, and on 7 April 1992 the Serb in Republic was declared independent.