WELCOME TO IWPRS ICTY - TRIBUNAL UPDATE No. 611, July 24, 2009 KARADZIC CHALLENGES SREBRENICA DEATH COUNT Accused requests that his experts be given access to DNA samples taken from mass graves. By Simon Jennings in The Hague
LIFE TERM FOR MILAN LUKIC Former Serb paramilitary found guilty on all charges, including burning alive of 120 civilians. By Simon Jennings in The Hague SESELJ CONVICTED OF CONTEMPT OF COURT Politician given jail term for disclosing identity of protected witnesses. By Simon Jennings in The Hague FORMER KOSOVO MINISTER ACQUITTED Tribunal appeals chamber reverses contempt conviction. By Simon Jennings in The Hague WITNESS SAYS GOTOVINA HAD NO CONTROL OVER ARMY COURT Former official testifies that general was not connected to Croatian tribunal mandated to investigate war crimes. By Velma Saric in Sarajevo SERB GENERAL MILOSEVIC APPEALS He seeks acquittal on all charges while prosecution calls for life sentence. By Andrew W Maki in Washington DC **** NEW ************************************************************************************ NEW VACANCIES AVAILABLE http://iwpr.net/vacancies BECOME A FAN OF IWPR ON FACEBOOK: http://iwpr.net/facebook FOLLOW US ON TWITTER at http://twitter.com/iwpr **** IWPR RESOURCES ****************************************************************** INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE/ICTY PROGRAMME HOME: http://iwpr.net/icty IWPR COMMENT: http://iwpr.net/comment **** www.iwpr.net ******************************************************************** TRIBUNAL UPDATE RSS: http://www.iwpr.net/en/tri/rss.xml RECEIVE FROM IWPR: Readers are urged to subscribe to IWPR's full range of free electronic publications at: http://www.iwpr.net/index.php?apc_state=henh&s=s&m=p GIVE TO IWPR: IWPR is wholly dependent upon grants and donations. For more information about how you can support IWPR go to: http://www.iwpr.net/donate.html **** www.iwpr.net ******************************************************************** KARADZIC CHALLENGES SREBRENICA DEATH COUNT Accused requests that his experts be given access to DNA samples taken from mass graves. By Simon Jennings in The Hague Former Bosnian Serb president Radovan Karadzic, awaiting trial in The Hague for war crimes, this week challenged the established figure for the number of Bosnian Muslim victims of the genocide in Srebrenica in July 1995. Everything in relation to Srebrenica that has been presented so far is erroneous, Karadzic said in a courtroom meeting this week. We do not believe that a conclusion can be made on a number [of victims]. Karadzic is charged by prosecutors at the Hague war crimes tribunal with being the political force behind the mass slaughter of the enclaves Bosniak men and boys who were taken away to their deaths in July 1995. According to the indictment, Commencing in the days immediately preceding the 11 July 1995 implementation of the plan to eliminate the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica and continuing until 1 November 1995, Radovan Karadzic participated in a joint criminal enterprise to eliminate the Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica by killing the men and boys. Karadzic is also charged with a second count of genocide in an alleged bid to remove non-Serbs from large parts of Bosnia during 1992, in addition to extermination and murder charges for the 44-month siege of Sarajevo which resulted in around 12,000 civilian deaths. Karadzic said this week that he wants the experts assisting him to inspect DNA samples accessed by the prosecution that were taken from the mass graves of the victims of the Srebrenica massacre. We are convinced that there is a multifold exaggeration [of the number of victims] here, Karadzic said, adding that one piece of DNA could have been recorded three times resulting in the representation of three different people. We wish to establish who perished and whose DNA was provided in order to say yes, this number of victims is beyond contention. Karadzic accepted that some of those who died at Srebrenica had been buried with their hands bound together. Based on that, we can assume those people were executed but this is a generalisation that cannot be used to establish the guilt for an entire people, he said. In the 2001 judgement handed down by the tribunal in the case of the Bosnian Serb army corps commander Radislav Krstic, judges described the fate of the military-aged Bosniak men of Srebrenica. As thousands of them attempted to flee the area, they were taken prisoner, detained in brutal conditions and then executed. More than 7,000 people were never seen again, judges ruled. The tribunal ruled that the killings constituted genocide Karadzic said that the real number of victims of the massacre could differ by thousands from this established figure. [It] is the least the court can do to allow my experts to see every single piece of material, all the DNA analysis, all the post mortems. Then we will end up with the true list of victims which will differ by thousands in respect of what is believed at the moment, he said in court. Karadzic said that many of those who disappeared at Srebrenica were the victims of military combat in the forests after the fall of the enclave and that some people listed as missing are even living abroad. We have to establish the truth about when somebody died, whether they died in 1992, 1993 or 1995, whether they were killed in combat or whether they were killed as a result of executions, he said. Pre-trial judge Iain Bonomy asked Karadzic, who is representing himself, Are you saying people are falsifying DNA results or is this a hopeful assertion you are making? At the meeting in court this week judges also discussed with prosecutors their order for them to reduce the scope of the 11-charge indictment against Karadzic, which is aimed at ensuring a fair and expeditious trial. Prosecutors currently plan to present evidence from more than 500 witnesses which will run to 490 hours of courtroom testimony. The four-year trial of the late Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic, which was never completed after he died in his cell in The Hague in 2006, heard evidence from nearly 300 prosecution witnesses. Following a discussion about alleged incidents such as deportations and forcible transfers that could be omitted from the indictment which covers 27 separate Bosnian municipalities prosecutor Alan Tieger agreed to respond to Judge Bonomys order with suggested reductions by August 31. Karadzic did not oppose the current extensive charge sheet filed by the prosecution on February 27 this year, arguing that he was keen to present his views on all incidents which occurred during the war in Bosnia. I am not against a broad indictment as long as the defence can produce any evidence they want, he said. I am in favour of re-examining every incident, he said earlier, referring to judgments already made on wartime events in previous cases at the court. The former politician, who was arrested in Belgrade a year ago this week, also revealed some of the arguments he will present in his defence. On July 22, he filed motions with judges asking them to help him obtain documents from NATO and the state of Belgium which he claims would support his argument that he never intended to destroy Bosniaks as an ethnic group and did not take part in a criminal plan to murder or deport them from Srebrenica. In a motion seeking documents from NATO, Karadzic claims that weapons were flown into Bosnia during February and March 1995 in spite of the United Nations arms embargo in place which were then supplied to the Bosnian army. He argues that the 1995 attack on enclaves such as Srebrenica were therefore militarily legitimate since they had become a safe haven to which weapons were being smuggled and from which attacks on Serb civilians were being launched. Judges have invited NATO to respond to Karadzics filing. Karadzic also alleged this week in another motion that during the siege of Sarajevo it was the Bosniaks themselves, and not the Bosnian Serbs, who shelled the citys Markale market place on February 5, 1994, and August 28, 1995, killing and injuring large numbers of civilians. He is seeking intelligence and security reports filed by Belgian members of the UN protection force about the incident at the time. The shellings were committed by the Bosnian Muslim army to attempt to show the Bosnian Serbs in a bad light and to obtain intervention on their behalf by the international community, Karadzic said in his filing. The prosecution has taken no position on either motion. At the end of this weeks hearing, Judge Bonomy scheduled a further meeting between the parties to help prepare for the trial. The meeting, which Karadzic and his legal advisers, the prosecution and Judge Bonomy will attend, will be held behind closed doors on August 20. The pretrial judge repeated his previous assertion that the trial would begin in September. Simon Jennings is an IWPR reporter in The Hague. LIFE TERM FOR MILAN LUKIC Former Serb paramilitary found guilty on all charges, including burning alive of 120 civilians. By Simon Jennings in The Hague An ex-Bosnian Serb warlord has been sentenced to life imprisonment at the Hague tribunal and his cousin and accomplice to 30 years in jail, for perpetrating some of the most horrific crimes of the 1992-1995 Bosnian war. Milan Lukic appeared tense as he sat in the dock on July 20, when judges convicted him of the murder of up to 132 Bosnian Muslim civilians in the town of Visegrad in south-eastern Bosnia in 1992. The 42-year-old former paramilitary was found guilty on all charges, including the burning alive of about 120 civilians after trapping them inside two separate houses and setting them on fire. As the president of the Hague court, Judge Patrick Robinson, described each of his crimes, a stony-faced Lukic shook his head and tapped his foot nervously. Lukic had pleaded not guilty to a total of 21 counts of crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war including murder, torture and extermination relating to six incidents in Visegrad between 1992 and 1994. His cousin, Sredoje Lukic, who was a police officer in Visegrad, was convicted of aiding and abetting the first of the house fires on the towns Pionirska Street as well as joining Milan Lukic in the beating and mistreatment of civilians at the Uzamnica prison camp. Sredoje, who fought back tears as the verdict was read out, was found to have been present as Milan rounded up the victims, stripped and robbed them before shutting them inside the Pionirska Street house which he then set ablaze. He was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment. Judge Robinson, who headed the three-judge panel hearing the trial, said both mens crimes were characterised by a callous and vicious disregard for human life. Judge Robinson then described the torching of the second house, in the Bikavac area of the town. Gunshots were fired at the house and grenades were thrown inside, setting the house on fire, he said, citing witnesses who had described the cries of the people inside as sounding like the screams of cats. Judges this week emphasised the brutal way in which Milan Lukic carried out the attack at Bikavac. He used the butt of his rifle to push people into the house, saying, Come on, lets get as many people inside as possible. After the victims were locked inside, he shot at the house, threw grenades into it and subsequently set it on fire using petrol, Judge Robinson said. However, by a majority of two judges to one, the bench acquitted Sredoje Lukic of any involvement in the Bikavac fire, ruling that the evidence against him had been inconclusive. In reaching their verdict, judges dismissed the evidence of the Milan Lukic defence, which had sought to challenge the occurrence of both house fires. They ruled that the conclusions of the defence experts, who visited the original site of the fires in January 2009 17 years after the events were practically without foundation. Among their conclusions was that there could not have been a fire inside the room of the house on Pionirska Street of the nature alleged by the prosecution. However judges noted that under cross-examination the experts agreed with prosecutors that a fire could have taken place at the house. Judges also dismissed the evidence of the defences psychological expert, George Hough, which questioned the testimony of the only survivor of the Bikavac fire, Zehra Turjacanin. Emotionally and physically scarred for life, Turjacanin had travelled to The Hague to give her evidence about the savage events of June 1992, and in their ruling judges confirmed her to be a witness of truth. Sentencing Milan Lukic to a life imprisonment, Judge Robinson said, The Pionirska Street fire and the Bikavac fire exemplify the worst acts of inhumanity that a person may inflict upon others. In the all too long, sad and wretched history of mans inhumanity to man, the Pionirska Street and Bikavac fires must rank high. These horrific events stand out for the viciousness of the incendiary attack, for the obvious premeditation and calculation that defined it, for the sheer callousness and brutality of herding, trapping and locking the victims in the two houses, thereby rendering them helpless in the ensuing inferno, and for the degree of pain and suffering inflicted on the victims as they were burnt alive. In addition to the fires, Milan Lukic was convicted of the murder of five men on the banks of the Drina river on June 7, 1992. Judge Robinson described how evidence had shown that he had taken seven Bosnian Muslim men from the town before shooting them in cold blood. He and the soldiers then shot the men in the back, killing some of them instantly and then returning to fire additional shots into those bodies they thought to still be alive, Robinson said. Milan Lukic was also convicted of a second incident in which he took seven Bosnian Muslims from their place of work at Visegrads Varda furniture factory and in similar style shot them by the river in full view of one victims relatives. While the defence had presented an alibi for the two shooting incidents claiming that Milan Lukic was in Belgrade and Novi Pazar in Serbia from June 7 to 10, 1992 judges said that this suffered from a number of glaring inconsistencies and found the testimony of two witnesses lacking in credibility. The trial chamber has rejected the alibi for the Drina river and Varda factory incidents as a cynical and callously orchestrated artifice, Robinson said. Robinson said that during the trial, judges had heard a very large amount of evidence about other crimes that were not in the Hague indictment, such as rapes, murders and beatings allegedly committed by the Lukic cousins. According to the written judgement, one witness testified that women had been raped in Visegrad by Milan Lukic. Before the Hague trial, prosecutors had unsuccessfully tried to add rape charges to the cousins indictment at the eleventh hour, less than a month before proceedings began on July 9, 2008. Following the verdict, spokeswoman for the prosecution Olga Kavran said that the judges recording of evidence of such crimes on the record did not alter the prosecutions inability to seek a conviction. Kavran said that due to the courts completion strategy under which it must wind up trials by the end of 2010 no more charges would be brought against the Lukic cousins in The Hague. However, she stated that local war crimes courts in the former Yugoslavia could bring new charges for any crimes not tried at the Hague tribunal. A spokesman for the prosecution at the Bosnian war crimes court in Sarajevo declined to comment on whether it was considering any additional charges against the two men. This was not Milan Lukics first conviction for crimes committed during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia. He has already been found guilty in absentia by the district court in Belgrade for abducting and murdering 16 Bosniaks in the Serbian town of Sjeverin in October 1992. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison for the crime, while he was evading justice at the Hague tribunal. Milan Lukic was arrested in Argentina in August 2005 after seven years on the run. According to a spokesperson for the Belgrade court, Lukic would still serve this sentence were he not to serve the entirety of the life sentence handed down in The Hague. When Lukic becomes available to [Serbian] domestic authorities, he will be sent to prison, Ivana Ramic confirmed to IWPR this week. However, because Lukic was sentenced in absentia he would have the right to request a re-trial. Simon Jennings is an IWPR reporter in The Hague. SESELJ CONVICTED OF CONTEMPT OF COURT Politician given jail term for disclosing identity of protected witnesses. By Simon Jennings in The Hague A Serbian nationalist politician on trial for war crimes in The Hague has been sentenced to 15 months in jail for revealing the names and personal details of protected witnesses in a book he published. Vojislav Seselj is currently on trial at the Hague tribunal for crimes of murder, torture and persecution committed during the Yugoslav war as he allegedly sought to drive out non-Serbs from parts of Croatia and Bosnia between August 1991 and September 1993. In January this year, the court hearing his war crimes case charged Seselj with having knowingly and willfully interfered with the administration of justice of the tribunal by disclosing confidential information in violation of orders granting protective measures to three witnesses [in his war crimes trial], and by disclosing excerpts of the written statement of a witness in a book authored by him. The name of the book has not been released by the court. Seselj pleaded not guilty to the contempt charge on March 6, and a trial was held on May 29. Delivering the verdict on July 24, Judge O-Gon Kwon noted that Seselj had admitted that the book was written on his orders and that it identified all three protected witnesses, thereby violating the orders of judges in the war crimes case that their identities should not be revealed. The book abounds with a myriad of detailed personal information related to the [protected] witnesses both under their own names and under the pseudonyms attributed to them in the Seselj case, Judge Kwon said. The panel of three judges hearing the contempt case also ruled that Seselj had published the book after judges hearing his war crimes trial had granted protective measures to each of the three witnesses. The bench ruled that Seselj had therefore deliberately ignored the judges order by publishing their details. The chamber notes with grave concern the deliberate way in which the protective measure decisions imposed by the Seselj trial chamber were defied, Judge Kwon said. The chamber considers this a serious interference with the administration of justice. Judge Kwon said the 15-month jail term was handed down both as a punishment for the defendants conduct as well as a deterrent against any similar future transgressions, The chamber recognises the need to discourage this type of behaviour, and to take such steps as it can to ensure that there is no repetition of such conduct on the part of the accused or any other person. Seselj, who introduced himself at the judgement hearing as chief enemy of the Hague tribunal, was also ordered to ensure that the book is withdrawn from his website by August 7. Seseljs trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, which started in November 2007, was suspended indefinitely on February 11, 2009, after prosecutors alleged that their witnesses were being intimidated, an accusation that the defendant and his associates deny. Seselj has been in custody in The Hague since surrendering to the court in February 2003 and he will remain there pending the resumption of his war crimes case. He continues to lead the Serb Radical Party from his prison cell. Simon Jennings is an IWPR reporter in The Hague. FORMER KOSOVO MINISTER ACQUITTED Tribunal appeals chamber reverses contempt conviction. By Simon Jennings in The Hague Appeal judges at the Hague tribunal have reversed the conviction of Kosovos former culture minister, who was found guilty in December 2008 of warning a witness off testifying at the war crimes trial of former prime minister Ramush Haradinaj. Trial judges had sentenced Astrit Haraqija and his former assistant and political journalist Bajrush Morina to five months and three months imprisonment respectively for contempt of court after it found that the two ethnic Albanians from Kosovo had interfered with the administration of justice by interfering with a protected witness. Haraqija had been found guilty of persuading Morina to meet a witness known only as witness two to conceal his identity and ask him not to give evidence. Morinas conviction and sentence were both affirmed this week after judges dismissed his appeal as well as the prosecutions call for tougher sentences for both men. Haradinaj, a former commander of the Kosovo Liberation Army, KLA, was acquitted by the tribunal in April 2008 after the prosecution failed to prove charges of war crimes committed against Serbs in Kosovo in 1998. Prosecutors are currently appealing against the acquittal. Hague judges said that some of the witnesses scheduled to testify in the Haradinaj trial had been afraid to travel to The Netherlands. The trial was being held in an atmosphere where witnesses felt unsafe, said Judge Alphons Orie in the judgement acquitting Haradinaj of persecution, torture and rape. According to a statement issued by the court on July 23, appeal judges granted Haraqijas appeal, ruling that trial judges had placed too much weight on evidence - most of it double or even triple hearsay- that Haraqija had pressured Morina into dissuading witness two from giving evidence. Although the trial chamber reasonably concluded that Morinas personal situation as well as the content of his conversation with witness two suggested that he was pressured, it does not necessarily follow that this pressure came from Haraqija, read the appeal judgement. Haraqija and Morina had been on provisional release from custody in The Hague since February 9 and April 8 respectively when both completed the sentences handed down by the trial chamber. Simon Jennings is an IWPR reporter in The Hague. WITNESS SAYS GOTOVINA HAD NO CONTROL OVER ARMY COURT Former official testifies that general was not connected to Croatian tribunal mandated to investigate war crimes. By Velma Saric in Sarajevo The former chairman of the military tribunal in Split, Zoran Matulovic, testified that Ante Gotovina had no influence over the court, which was responsible for investigating and prosecuting Croatian Army, HV, troops suspected of war crimes in 1995. The witness appeared this week for the defence in the Hague tribunal trial of Croatian general Gotovina. The commander of the Croatian army's Split military district during Operation Storm, Gotovina is accused by prosecutors of having failed to prevent or punish crimes committed by his troops at that time. However, Matulovic said this week that Gotovina had no influence over the court, which was mandated with investigating reports of crimes committed by Croatian soldiers in the Serb-controlled Krajina region of Croatia. He also told judges that there was no connection between the Split command division headed by Gotovina and the military tribunal, which came under the authority of Croatias justice ministry. Everything the military tribunal did was under close scrutiny by the ministry of justice. A military commander could in no way have influenced the work of the tribunal. Mr Gotovina had no possibility of influencing the [courts] processes, Matulovic said. He said as far as he knew, Gotovina had never tried to become involved with the work of the court, In my five years of work, I never heard of him having called, ordered, or asked for anyone or anything. Gotovina and generals Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac are accused of responsibility for the killing of dozens of people and the shelling and torching of Serb towns and villages as Croat troops retook the Krajina region during the Operation Storm counter-offensive. The assault, which began on August 4, 1995, ended after four days with a victory for the Croatian army. The three men are charged with taking part in a joint criminal enterprise, the aim of which was to drive the Serb population out of the Krajina region permanently though the use of force, persecution, and other crimes. The indictment says they instigated, encouraged and condoned crimes against Serbs by failing to report and/or investigate crimes or alleged crimes against them, to follow up on such allegations and/or investigations, and/or to punish or discipline subordinates and others in the Croatian authorities and forces over which they had effective control. It also accuses Gotovina of failing to establish and maintain law and order among, and discipline of, his subordinates, and neither preventing nor punishing crimes committed against the Krajina Serbs. At the beginning of this weeks session, a statement given by Matulovic in May this year was introduced as evidence. In this, Matulovic stated that the Split military tribunal was responsible for prosecuting those suspected of crimes committed in the Krajina area during and after Zagrebs military Operation Storm. During the trial, presiding judge Alphons Orie asked Matulovic what the head of the Split command division had been required to do, if he had heard reports of, for example, houses being burnt by forces in a territory under his control. He was supposed to inform the military police about this and nothing else, answered the witness. Defence attorney Luka Misetic asked Matulovic what would have happened if those suspected of atrocities had been released from military service before proceedings could be initiated against them. The military tribunals only had jurisdiction if a person was a soldier. If the person was a civilian or [his] military status had ended, then it was civilian courts that had jurisdiction and those cases would be transferred to civilian courts, the witness replied. He also said that if an investigation in a certain case against an individual had been closed or was still ongoing, and if that person had lost their military status, not a single phase of the proceedings would be repeated the trial would just continue in civilian courts. In cross-examination, prosecutor Prashanthi Mahindaratne suggested that in the part of the Krajina known as the Sector South, a multitude of crimes including murder, burning and pillaging were committed against Serb civilians by Croatian troops after Operation Storm. However, Matulovic answered that a multitude is a relative category and that in such a hypothetically presented situation which included no details about numbers of victims one could not know for sure who all the perpetrators had been. Is it not possible that those who fled burnt their own houses out of spite, knowing they couldnt use them anymore? asked the witness, stressing that he spoke merely hypothetically. Matulovic also said that the Split military tribunal and its prosecutors were mandated to investigate crimes committed against imprisoned members of the Serb Army of Krajina after Operation Storm. The indictment against the generals also charges them with responsibility for the murder of certain members of Serb armed forces who had laid down their arms or were otherwise out of action. However, Matulovic insisted that Serb soldiers detained around the time of Operation Storm were treated most appropriately. Not a single one of those prisoners was maltreated, he said, adding that the rule of law functioned normally in the Republic of Croatia at that time. Matulovic said the proper treatment of these prisoners of war was also confirmed by representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross, ICRC, who visited them in prison and informed the tribunal about their condition. Although it was not usual practice, the representatives would occasionally glance at the letters written by the prisoners of war, he said. The witness said that according to the ICRC representatives, in these letters, the [detainees] informed their relatives that they had no complaints regarding the prison conditions and that they were being treated in a fair and proper manner. Judge Orie asked whether the ICRC ever complained about the treatment of the prisoners. There never were any complaints by representatives of the Red Cross, either spoken or in writing, answered the witness. Velma Saric is an IWPR-trained journalist in Sarajevo. SERB GENERAL MILOSEVIC APPEALS He seeks acquittal on all charges while prosecution calls for life sentence. By Andrew W Maki in Washington DC Bosnian Serb general Dragomir Milosevic tried to have his conviction for his part in the 1992-95 siege of Sarajevo quashed at the Hague war crimes tribunal this week while prosecutors sought a life sentence. Both sides are appealing against a judgement given on December 12, 2007, that Milosevic was guilty of terror, murder and inhuman acts. Now aged 67, Milosevic was sentenced to 33 years in prison. Prosecutors are calling for a sentence of life imprisonment while the defence seeks an acquittal on all counts. The court found that between August 1994 and November 1995, the Bosnian Serb Sarajevo Romanija Corps, SRK, under Milosevics command, was responsible for continuous sniping and shelling in Sarajevo. The judgement said throughout this period, Milosevic ordered the targeting of civilians in Bosnias capital, resulting in thousands of deaths and a climate of extreme fear and insecurity. An estimated 10,000 civilians were killed and nearly 50,000 were wounded as a result of the siege. In its submission, which puts 12 grounds for appeal, Milosevics defence team argues that trial judges wrongly applied the law on the crimes of terror, murder, and inhuman acts. The defence also alleges that the court failed to establish essential elements of crimes beyond reasonable doubt, and also included in the judgement incorrect factual findings that areas of Sarajevo were civilian zones and that the SRK was behind specific sniper and artillery fire. The prosecution, meanwhile, is appealing against what it calls the manifestly inadequate sentence. During this weeks hearings, presiding judge Fausto Pocar asked prosecution and defence attorneys to clarify parts of their submissions. The defence began its oral arguments by focusing on Sarajevos wartime status, arguing that the judgement provided insufficient evidence to support the judges conclusion that at the time of the siege, Sarajevo was a civilian zone. In challenging this conclusion, it was seeking to show that SRK attacks could not be considered to be targeting the civilian population. To support its argument, the defence highlighted testimony and evidence during the trial which, it argues, demonstrates that areas of Sarajevo were under the control of the Army of Bosnia and Hercegovina, ABiH, at the relevant time. According to the defence, the trial chamber erred in its judgement because it did not adequately take into consideration the large number of regular soldiers of the ABiH who were constantly present in [Sarajevo]. Trial judges also erroneously concluded that the Bosnian police didnt play a supporting role in military operations, the defence claims. Defence lawyers also argued that mortars were deployed throughout Sarajevo by the ABiH, including in the vicinity of United Nations headquarters, making it extremely difficult for the Serbs to return fire. Can such an area, with such activities, be qualified as a civilian zone? defence attorney Branislav Tapuskovic asked. Judge Pocar sought further explanation. When a civilian city is under attack and uses armed military forces to defend [itself], does it lose, thereby, its civilian character and become a military objective? And in what situation or constellation of forces would an essentially civilian city retain its civilian status while using armed forces defensively? he asked. In response, the defence said that beginning in late 1994, Sarajevo was no longer a civilian area. During this time, there was not a house to be found that did not have weapons, Tapuskovic said. Every house was a military target, he added. To counter this, the prosecution said that international humanitarian law does not refer to military and civilian zones. What the law states is that civilians and civilian objects cannot be directly, indiscriminately, or disproportionately targeted. The presence of military objectives in an area does not change this A civilian population can never become a military target, prosecution attorney Paul Rogers said. Later in the hearing, the defence said it disagreed with the trial chambers view that the infliction of terror could serve as the evidence of the intent to terrorise. Pointing to the commission of a crime in order to establish intent is reversing the entire philosophy of criminal law, argued the defence. However, the prosecution said close attention should be paid to the treatment of the crime of terror in the appeals judgement in the case of Stanislav Galic. As the commander of the SRK before Milosevic, Galic was sentenced by the Hague tribunal to life imprisonment on appeal in 2006. The Galic appeals judgement explains that acts or threats of violence constitute the actus reus [the guilty act] of the crime of terror but does not find that [those] acts or threats of violence must result in death or serious injury to civilians, the prosecution said. The last submission of the defence concerned Milosevics alibi at the time of the Markale market shelling, which killed or injured dozens of people and is widely considered to be one of the worst incidents of the siege. Tapuskovic argued that Milosevic should not be held responsible for this attack, even if the shells were fired from SRK positions, because he was in Belgrade at the time undergoing eye surgery. The prosecution contends that the court failed to consider the magnitude of these crimes, their cruelty and brutality, their effect on the entire population of Sarajevo for 14 months, Milosevics leading role, and his abuse of a high position of authority. These factors, according to the prosecution, merit a life sentence. At the conclusion of the appeal hearing, Milosevic briefly took the floor to say a few words in his own defence, asserting that the situation the SRK found itself in was even worse than hell. He also expressed regret for the number of people who were wounded and killed. I feel this deeply in my soul, he said, and committed his full readiness to pray on the graves of those who were killed and to pray for the fate of seriously disabled persons. The date of the appeal judgement has not yet been set. Andrew W Maki is an IWPR contributor. **** www.iwpr.net ******************************************************************** ICTY - TRIBUNAL UPDATE, which has been running since 1996, details events and issues at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, ICTY, in The Hague. These weekly reports, produced by IWPR's human rights and media training project, seek to contribute to regional and international understanding of the war crimes prosecution process. The opinions expressed in ICTY - Tribunal Update are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the publication or of IWPR. ICTY - Tribunal Update is supported by the European Commission, the Dutch Ministry for Development and Cooperation, the Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and other funders. IWPR also acknowledges general support from the Ford Foundation. ICTY - TRIBUNAL UPDATE: Editor-in-Chief: Anthony Borden; Managing Editor: Yigal Chazan; Senior Editor: Paul Bolding; Project Manager: Merdijana Sadovic; Translation: Predrag Brebanovic, and others. IWPR PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT: Executive Director: Anthony Borden; Head of Programmes: Niall MacKay; Head of Strategy: Mike Day. **** www.iwpr.net ******************************************************************** IWPR is an international network of four organisations which are governed by boards of senior journalists, peace-building experts, regional specialists and business professionals. IWPR builds democracy at the frontlines of conflict and change through the power of professional journalism. IWPR programmes provide intensive hands-on training, extensive reporting and publishing, and ambitious initiatives to build the capacity of local media. Supporting peace-building, development and the rule of law, IWPR gives responsible local media a voice. IWPR - Africa, P.O. Box 3317, Johannesburg 2121 Tel: +2 711 268 6077 IWPR - Europe, 48 Grays Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK Tel: +44 20 7831 1030 IWPR United States, 1325 G Street, NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20005, United States Tel: +1 202 449 7717 1515 Broadway, 11th Floor, New York, New York 10036, United States Tel: +1 202 903 1073 Stichting IWPR Nederland, Eisenhowerlaan 77 K, 2517 KK Den Haag, The Netherlands Tel: +31 70 338 9016 For further details on this project and other information services and media programmes, go to: www.iwpr.net ISSN 1477-7940 Copyright © 2009 The Institute for War & Peace Reporting **** www.iwpr.net ******************************************************************** If you wish to change your subscription details or unsubscribe please go to: http://www.iwpr.net/index.php?apc_state=henh&s=s&m=p This electronic mail message and any attached files are intended solely for the named recipients and may contain confidential and proprietary business information of the Institute for War & Peace Reporting (IWPR) and its affiliates. If you are not the named addressee, you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail. Institute for War & Peace Reporting. 48 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8LT, UK. Registered with charitable status in the United Kingdom (charity reg. no: 1027201, company reg. no: 2744185); the United States under IRS Section 501(c)(3); The Netherlands as a charitable foundation; and South Africa under Section 21.
