Graphic1

2012

ISSN 1847-0564

MONITORING

WAR CRIME TRIALS

A REPORT

FOR 2011

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

MONITORING

WAR CRIME TRIALS

A REPORT

FOR 2011

 e report is edited by:

Mladen Stojanović and Marko Sjekavica

February 2012

Centre for Peace, Nonviolence and Human Rights-Osijek

Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past

Civic Committee for Human Rights

 e Report is prepared under the project

“Monitoring War Crime Trials in the Process of Dealing with the Past”

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Publisher:

Centre for Peace, Nonviolence and Human Rights-Osijek

On behalf of the publisher:

Miljenko Šmit

Edited by:

Mladen Stojanović and Marko Sjekavica

Translation:

Mirsad Mujkanović and Suzana Lazarević

Print and Layout

Graﬁ ka, Osijek

Circulation

150 copies

Osijek, 2012

ISSN 1847-0564

All texts may be used with the reference to the source.

 is publication is funded by the European Union.  e contents of these documents are the

sole responsibility of the Centre for Peace, Nonviolence and Human Rights - Osijek and can

under no circumstances be regarded as re ecting the position of the European Union.

 is project is also funded by:

Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Zagreb

Embassy of the Republic of Finland in Zagreb

OSCE O ce in Zagreb

Embassy of Australia in Zagreb

 e following persons participated in preparing the texts:

Milena Čalić Jelić, Jelena Đokić Jović, Veselinka Kastratović, Vlatka Kuić, Maja

Kovačević Bošković, Katarina Kruhonja, Miren Špek and Vesna Teršelič

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

OBSERVATIONS

Political and social context in which trials are taking place

Closing negotiations with the EU in spite of politisation of war crimes prosecution

Negative reactions against the ICTY verdict in the case of Gotovina, Markač and Čermak

Non-objective media coverage of the non- nal ICTY verdict against generals Gotovina and Markač

Improving the normative framework for war crimes prosecution as opposed to “the Nullity Act”

a) Strategy for Investigation and Prosecution of War Crimes Committed between 1991 and 1995

b) Amendments to the Act on the Application of the Statute of the International Criminal Court and

the Prosecution of Crimes against International Law of War and Humanitarian Law

- with regard to courts’ competences

- with regard to use of evidence collected by the ICTY

 e Act Declaring Null and Void certain Legal Documents of the Judicial Bodies of the former JNA, the former

SFRY and the Republic of Serbia – jeopardizing regional cooperation in the prosecution of crime perpetrators

Availability of data concerning war crimes prosecution

DORH database

Data on criminal o ences committed during and a er the military-police

operation “Storm” - no one was sentenced by a  nal verdict for war crimes

E ciency and quality of war crimes prosecution

Only one   h of recorded crimes was resolved – mostly in defendants’ absence

Slow and ine cient prosecution

Examples of cases which courts are unable to complete by rendering a  nal verdict

Increased transferral of cases to county courts in Zagreb, Split, Rijeka and Osijek

Trials in absentia – current practice and reopening of trials

Reopened criminal proceedings

Sexual violence as a way to commit a war crime in criminal proceedings in the Republic of Croatia

Regional cooperation in prosecution of perpetrators

Cooperation between the DORH and competent prosecutors o ce in Montenegro

Evident results in cooperation between the DORH and competent

prosecutors o ce in the Republic of Serbia

Conditional release of sentenced war criminals from prison

Support to victims and witnesses of criminal o ences

Development of support

Support strategy to victims and witnesses has not been dra ed yet

Further guidelines for development

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Reparations of civilian victims - necessary precondition for a stable and healthy society

Status of civilian victims

 e still unresolved issues of compensation of damage caused by the killing of a close person and

of the costs of lost lawsuits

Command responsibility – responsibility for omission of a commander

and judicial practice in Croatia

MONITORED TRIALS IN 2011

New indictments

a) Indictment against Tomislav Merčep

b) Crimes in Sisak

c) Crimes in detention camps

Trials monitored at county courts

Monitored sessions at the Croatian Supreme Court

OPINIONS ON INDIVIDUAL TRIALS

Trial against Milenko Vidak, charged with a war crime against civilians

Reopened trial against Nikola Munjes, charged with a war crime against civilians

Trial against Čedo Jović, charged with a war crime against civilians

Trial against Goran Amanović, charged with a war crime against civilians

Trial against Ivan Husnjak and Goran Sokol, charged with a war crime against civilians

Reopened trial against Janko Radmanović and Radisav Stojanović, previously sentenced in

absentia for committing a war crime against civilians

 e third (second repeated) trial against Milan Jurjević and Davor Tošić, charged with a war

crime against civilians

Trial against Jablan Kejić, charged with a war crime against prisoners of war

Fourth (third repeated) trial against Luka Markešić, Zdenko Radić, Zoran Maras and Ivan

Orlović, charged with a war crime against prisoners of war and a war crime against civilians

Press-release in respect of the trial for the crime in Ribarska Koliba in Marino Selo

APPENDIX 1 – OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORED WAR CRIME TRIALS

BEFORE CROATIAN COUNTY COURTS IN 2011

Trials in which  rst instance verdicts were rendered by county courts in 2011

Trials with ongoing main hearings

Trials in which main hearings were scheduled but not held mostly because defendants were

unavailable, and in respect of which no decisions were made to try them in their absence

APPENDIX 2 – TABLE OVERVIEW OF THE VSRH APPEALS CHAMBERS’

SESSIONS REGARDING WAR CRIME TRIALS IN 2011

102

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE TEXT

ARWB Autonomous Region of the Western Bosnia

BiH the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

DORH the State Attorney’s O ce of the Republic of Croatia

HV Croatian Army

HVO Croatian Defence Council

ICC International Criminal Court

ICTY  e International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

ICTR International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

JNA Yugoslav National Army

KZRH Criminal Law Act of the Republic of Croatia

MP Member of Parliament

MUP (RH) Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Croatia

OG O cial Gazette

OKZRH Basic Criminal Law Act of the Republic of Croatia

PU Police Administration

RC the Republic of Croatia

RS the Republic of Serbia

RSK the Republic of Serb Krajina

SAO Krajina Serb Autonomous Region Krajina

SFRY the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

SNO People’s Defence Secretariat

SUS Independent USKOK Company (military unit)

TO Territorial Defence

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

USKOK O ce for Prevention of Corruption and Organised Crime, under the DORH

VSRH the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia

ZKP Criminal Procedure Act

ZNG Croatian National Guard

ŽDO County State Attorney’s O ce

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Centre for Peace, Nonviolence and Human Rights-Osijek

Documenta - Centre for Dealing with the Past

Civic Committee for Human Rights

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Summary and recommendations

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 e year 2011, to which this report pertains as an overview of issue of war crimes trials in the Republic

of Croatia, was a markedly dynamic period in terms of war crimes prosecution and the related process

of dealing with the past.  e objective of this publication is to document all noticed trends and high-

light important moments, elaborated in more detail below in the text.

Closing of negotiations chapters on Croatia’s accession to the European Union, particularly of Chapter

23 “Judiciary and Fundamental Rights”, lead to the improvement of legislative framework in which

prosecution of war crimes and of other grave forms of violation of values protected by the international

law takes place, through synergy of criticism by international organizations and organizations dealing

with human rights protection and recommendations by the European Commission.  is primarily

involves amendments to the Act on the Application of the Statute of the International Criminal Court

which created a normative starting point for specialization of courts competent to try war crimes

, as

well as a possibility to use evidence collected by the bodies of the International Criminal Tribunal for

the former Yugoslavia in criminal proceedings in the Republic of Croatia.

However, in order for the

mentioned specialization to take place, more resolute changes are necessary in the forthcoming period.

 e adoption of the Act Declaring Null and Void certain Legal Documents of the Judicial Bodies of the

former JNA, the former SFRY and the Republic of Serbia, which we deem to be anti-constitutional and

unlawful (we provide an explanation in a special chapter of this report) jeopardizes a painstakingly built

and increasingly e cient regional cooperation between the State Attorney’s O ce of the Republic of

Croatia and the War Crimes Prosecutor’s O ce of the Republic of Serbia which is, due to frequent

unavailability of defendants to judicial bodies of the country which prosecutes a crime, a conditio sine

qua non for e cient prosecution of all those responsible for war crimes.

Looking back at the political context in which trials are taking place, of particular concern is the fact

that it turned out to be politically pro table to base election campaign on the promotion of persons

sentenced for or indicted with war crimes. At the parliamentary elections held in December 2011,

no less than 6 MP seats went to the party Croatian Democratic Alliance of Slavonija and Baranja

(HDSSB) whose founder and member of presidency Branimir Glavaš is currently serving eight-year

prison sentence in Bosnia and Herzegovina for a war crime committed against civilians in Osijek. He

 ed to Bosnia and Herzegovina before the Croatian police and judicial bodies.  e party started its

 e amendments stipulated exclusive actual and local competence of county courts in Osijek, Rijeka, Split and Zagreb.

 e mentioned amendments will render it possible to use evidence collected by ICTY bodies in all criminal proceedings that

will be initiated after the amendments have come into force. However, in criminal proceedings which were initiated before, most

probably it will not be possible to use evidence collected by ICTY bodies. Namely, after the amendments came into force, the War

Crimes Council of the Osijek County Court in the repeated trial against Damir Kufner et al. refused to use witness depositions

collected by ICTY Prosecutor’s O ce investigators which was later upheld by the VSRH.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Summary and recommendationsSummary

election campaign with attempted appointment of Branimir Glavaš as head of all their election lists.

 is, as well as participation of a top ranking party member in an attempted bribe of VSRH judges

in order to obtain a more favourable outcome of the appellate procedure for their ideological leader,

represents violation of constitutional principles and principles of a law-based state that needs to be

viewed in the context of ethnic intolerance and disruption of restitution of co-existence between war-

con icted ethnic groups.

During 2011, with a visible delay, after persistent advocating by civil society organizations, indictments

were laid in cases that we emphasise for large scale, cruelty and systematicness of committed crimes. Al-

though indications of criminal responsibility of certain persons existed and the public was aware of them,

due to lack of political good will investigations against them have not been initiated for many years.  ose

are criminal proceedings against Tomislav Merčep, war advisor in Croatian MUP for the crime in Pakračka

Poljana and at the Zagreb Fair and the case against Vladimir Milanković and Drago Bošnjak for a war crime

against Serb civilians in Sisak.

Likewise, indictment was issued against Aleksandar Vasiljević and Miroslav

Živanović for a war crime against Croatian civilians and war prisoners in detention camps of Begejci,

Stajićevo, Sremska Mitrovica and Niš in Serbia and the detention camp Stara Gradiška in Croatia.

In spite of increased number of cases in which prosecuted commanders were charged that, with their

failure to act, they omitted to prevent the crimes, the establishment of practise in indicting and adju-

dicating such cases is still at an early stage.  is is pointed at by a relatively large number of (non) nal

acquitting verdicts in such cases.

In addition to that, although witness testimonies and the facts established in certain criminal war

crimes cases indicate (potential) responsibility by individual high ranking military and political of-

 cials, criminal proceedings against them have not been initiated.

Although the appointment of Branimir Glavaš as head of election lists was permitted by the Act on the Election of Representatives

to the Croatian Parliament, after the statement of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia that it was unacceptable in

terms of Constitution for Glavaš to be the head of election lists, the HDSSB abandoned the idea.

Suspect Đuro Brodarac, direct superior to these two defendants who was under investigation, passed away in detention before

indictment was issued.

Apart from Rahim Ademi, who was previously acquitted of charges by a  nal verdict (crime in Medak pocket), during 2011

Damir Kufner was acquitted of charges by a  nal verdict (crime in Marino Selo), charges were rejected by a  nal verdict in relation to

Davor Šimić, while Ivan Husnjak and Goran Sokol were acquitted of charges by a  rst-instance verdict (arson in Pušine and Slatinski

Drenovac). All of them are/were accused that, as commanders of Croatian formations, although they were aware that their subordinates

commit crimes, they failed to prevent them from doing so, thus they agreed with the commission and consequences of those crimes.

Apart from Mirko Norac Kevo, previously sentenced by a  nal verdict (crime in Medak pocket), only member of Serb formations Čedo

Jović was sentenced for this kind of command responsibility by a  rst-instance verdict during 2011 (crime in Dalj IV).

No criminal proceedings were initiated against Davor Domazet Lošo, whose responsibility is indicated by a  nally completed trial

for the crime in Medak pocket. On several occasions the DORH issued statements that inquests for the crimes in Medak pocket

were underway, both in relation to persons responsible pursuant to command responsibility and in relation to direct perpetrators.

Following the repeated mentioning of Vladimir Šeks in the context of possible responsibility for the su ering of Serb civilians on

the territory of Osijek and Eastern Slavonija in 1991, at the beginning of 2011 the DORH issued a statement that inquests had

been carried out and there was no basis for criminal prosecution.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Summary and recommendations

 e continuation of previously noticed trend of ine ciency of the judiciary re ected itself this year

through several examples of multiple repeated criminal proceedings.  e most glaring such example is

trial against indicted member of Croatian formations Mihajlo Hrastov for unlawful killing of 13 and

injuring 2 enemy soldiers on the Korana Bridge in Karlovac which has been conducted for twenty

years already.  e mentioned trial continued in 2011 and 2012, respectively, following the decision of

the Croatian Constitutional Court which opposed procedural interpretations by the VSRH, released

 nally sentenced Hrastov from prison and remanded the case for a retrial. Glaring examples of inef-

 ciency are also criminal proceedings against defendant Luka Markešić et al. for the crime in Bjelovar,

against defendant Petar Mamula for the crime in Baranja, against defendant Enes Viteškić for the crime

in Paulin Dvor, against defendant Rade Miljević for the crime on Pogledić hill near Glina etc.

After several examples from domestic practise and ICTY practise in which persons sentenced for grave

violations of international criminal law were conditionally released from prison after having served two

thirds of the sentence although they often did not express remorse for the crimes they had committed

or regret for the victims whose su ering they were pronounced responsible for, a need appeared for

public discussion on the topic of conditional release of persons sentenced for this speci c type of crimi-

nal o ences. In a legal and interdisciplinary discussion that we will attempt to initiate in the forthcom-

ing period it will be necessary to valorise arguments pro et contra, some of which point at the equality

of criteria for conditional release of perpetrators of criminal o ences of general crime and criminal of-

fences of war crimes, while the others point at particularly harmful consequences of the latter criminal

o ences for the entire community and their distinction in relation to other crimes, as well as the fact

that they do not fall under statute of limitations.

 e event which de nitely marked the observed period is pronouncement of the  rst-instance ICTY

verdict in a criminal case against defendants Ante Gotovina, Ivan Čermak and Mladen Markač in

which Gotovina and Markač were found guilty and sentenced to 24 and 18 years in prison, respec-

tively, for the crimes committed against humanity and violation of laws and customs of warfare and

for participation in joint criminal enterprise the objective of which was permanent expulsion of Serb

population from the area of the so-called Republic of Srpska Krajina.

Signi cant degradation in the

process of dealing with the past was most evident in the relation of political elites, public television and

the majority of media towards this verdict. What was terrifying was a lack of piety and sensitisation for

the victims of criminal o ences which were the subject of this large-scale and long criminal procedure.

Petty political commentaries, elevation of persons sentenced by  rst-instance verdicts at the pedestal of

national heroes, organization of support protests throughout Croatia where nationalistic rhetoric and

hate speech were used, are the result of biased media reporting on the course of criminal procedure,

along with quoting non-objective and interest-related involved representatives of defence teams.  e

media completely ignored the facts and legal conclusions on the basis of which criminal responsibility

of defendants in the verdict was established. Politicians, including top ranking state o cials, interpret-

In the  rst-instance verdict it was stated that, apart from Gotovina and Markač who were sentenced by a  rst-instance

verdict, other participants of the joint criminal enterprise were Franjo Tuđman, Gojko Šušak, Zvonimir Červenko, as well as

other representatives of the Croatian political and military top structures who participated at presidential meetings and who were

Tuđman’s close associates (Jure Radić, Davor Domazet Lošo, Ivan Jarnjak, Miroslav Tuđman…)

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Summary and recommendationsSummary

ed the mentioned ICTY verdict, almost as a rule, as a verdict in which the entire Homeland War was

characterized as a criminal enterprise. Responsibility for creating stadium-like atmosphere of support

to defendants and inexplicable minimization of victims’ su ering, primarily on the part of public tel-

evision but also on the part of all other television networks, is large. We can look at it as a consequence

of never-opened issue of political and moral responsibility for creating the atmosphere of lynch, fear

and impunity of crimes in the  rst half of the 90’s and, according to our opinion, possible criminal

responsibility of certain journalists for inciting a crime.

Arrests of the most-wanted and the last remaining ICTY fugitives, Ratko Mladić and Goran Hadžić,

marked a signi cant progress in ending impunity of the highest ranking military and political of-

 cials charged with grave violation of the international humanitarian law. Completion of criminal

proceedings against the mentioned persons will close the valuable circle of ICTY heritage which will

transform itself into the Residual Mechanism in 2013 thereby entering the  nal stage of its existence.

In relation to 2010, at the national level we did not notice any progress with regard to writing-o of

litigation costs of plainti s who lost lawsuits initiated against the Republic of Croatia for the purpose of

compensation of damage for the killing of close persons, as well as for property destroyed by the entities

for whom the Republic of Croatia is responsible. Plainti s mostly failed with their claims against the

Republic of Croatia due to the fact that in the majority of cases criminal responsibility of perpetrators

of criminal o ences that resulted in the killing of a close person or destruction of plainti s’ property

had not been previously established. Still, there is a light at the end of the tunnel, at least in relation to

compensation of non-pecuniary damage; in two verdicts rendered by the European Court for Human

Rights (Jularić v. Croatia and Skendžić v. Croatia) which ordered the Republic of Croatia to pay just

reparation to the plainti s for failing to carry out e cient and appropriate investigations about the

committed crimes. Unless the Government of the RC realizes that non-resolving the issue of victims

indemni cation causes injustice, plainti s/injured parties will be forced to exercise the right to pecuni-

ary satisfaction for the killing of their close family members outside the Republic of Croatia.

We also point at insu ciently investigated rapes as a modality of committed war crimes, as well as at

insu ciently psychologically pro led approach to questioning injured parties and eye witnesses who

are at the same time informants (insider witnesses) of the subject criminal o ences and who are exposed

to secondary victimization through multiple questionings in criminal procedures.

 is annual report on monitoring war crimes trials provides a detailed overview and table overview of all

war crimes trials that we monitored during the last year at competent courts in the Republic of Croatia.

On the basis of systematic monitoring of all war crimes trials at Croatian courts, as well as monitoring

ICTY court practise, we deem it necessary to do the following:

• To ensure true specialization of special departments at 4 county courts which will have exclusive com-

petence in trying war crime cases, the legislative framework for which has been established, but the

 e practise of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda went in the direction of establishing criminal responsibility

of media representatives for grave violation of the international humanitarian law, but there were no such cases before the ICTY.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Summary and recommendations

adoption of implementing strategy was lacking. We deem it necessary that judges from other county

courts with experience and successful work on war crimes cases are assigned to war crimes depart-

ments at specialized courts. It is necessary to ensure continuity in the work of judges trying these cases

in order to provide them with permanent professional education;

• Additional amendments to the Act on Application of the ICC Statute need to amend provisions

concerning composition of the VSRH chamber when it conducts hearing as a second-instance court

in such a manner that, instead of lay judges, professional judges will be exclusively appointed into

VSRH trial chambers and then, in cases of multiple quashed  rst-instance verdicts, to conduct hear-

ings before the VSRH as the second-instance court;

• To intensify e orts in order to prosecute as many direct perpetrators as possible, as well as military

and political o cials of con icting parties for whom indices exist that they are criminally responsible

for committed war crimes;

• To ensure a possibility of re-opening of criminal proceedings and prosecuting perpetrators in cases

in which, due to erroneous application of the Amnesty Act, certain number of persons who are

suspected of being responsible for the committed war crimes were amnestied during the 90's due to

political reasons

;

• To write o litigation costs of parties who failed with their lawsuits against Croatia for compensation

of damage due to the killing of a close person or destruction of property by the persons for whom

the Republic of Croatia is responsible and to come up with a political solution to indemnify all civil-

ian war victims in compliance with UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and

Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of

International Humanitarian Law;

• To actively include public radio and television in the process of dealing with the past, with its duty

and responsibility of objective and professional reporting about war crimes cases before domestic

judiciary, courts in the region and before the international tribunal;

• To repeal the Act Declaring Null and Void certain Legal Documents of the Judicial Bodies of the former

JNA, the former SFRY and the Republic of Serbia and to transfer evidence material in cases in which de-

fendants are unavailable to Croatian bodies of criminal prosecution to the judicial bodies of countries

in the region and to establish legal framework for cooperation between public prosecutor’s o ces of

the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina when dealing with war crimes cases;

• To publish all  nal indictments as well as  nal and non- nal verdicts on the DORH's web site, taking

into account data the DORH has at its disposal in its War Crimes Database;

• To conduct a public discussion on the conditions of conditional release from prison of persons sen-

tenced for the most severe forms of violations of values protected by the international law.

Once again we point at the still non- nally resolved war crimes cases in Novska, as well as the case of killing of D. Ž. by four HV

members at the Jakuševac garbage land ll in Zagreb.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

OBSERVATIONS

Political and social context in which trials are taking place

Closing negotiations with the EU in spite of politisation of war crimes prosecution

Year 2011 was marked by closing of negotiations in June and signing of the contract on accession of

the Republic of Croatia into the European Union in December, as well as by parliamentary elections

and change of Government.

Although war crimes prosecution in the Republic of Croatia received positive remarks by the interna-

tional community after many years of monitoring, there are still reasons for concern.

An important segment on which the assessment of readiness of the Republic of Croatia to close nego-

tiations depended was meeting the benchmarks contained in Chapter 23 “Judiciary and Fundamental

Rights” that, inter alia, pertained to improvement of war crimes prosecution. Immediately prior to

closing negotiations, the Republic of Croatia undertook necessary measures that should contribute to

qualitative progress in war crimes prosecution, as well as progress in investigating numerous crimes in

which perpetrators are, for the time being, unidenti ed - legislative framework was improved and the

strategy and action plan for war crimes prosecution were adopted.

However, during the entire 2011 and particularly before parliamentary elections in December, high

ranking politicians used the rhetoric and made moves which undermined the painstakingly achieved

progress in public attitudes about moral condemnation of all crimes, the need to prosecute all crime

perpetrators and respect all crime victims.

 e case of Tihomir Purda, Croatian defender arrested in Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was charged by

Serbian judicial bodies with committing a war crime in Vukovar in 1991 and publication of the  rst-

instance verdict of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in the case of

Gotovina, Markač and Čermak prompted protests at which the authorities were requested to abandon

war crimes prosecution against the accused members of Croatian formations, to suspend cooperation

with judicial bodies of the Republic of Serbia and suspend cooperation with the ICTY.

Pronouncement of the  rst-instance (non- nal) verdict in which Gotovina and Markač were found

guilty caused consternation in the major part of poorly informed Croatian public, negative reactions

by numerous politicians and top o cials of the Catholic Church in Croatia.

Amendments to the Court Standing Orders and the Act on the Application of the Statute of the International Criminal Court

rendered it possible to establish war crimes departments at county courts in Zagreb, Split, Rijeka and Osijek and stipulated exclusive

competence of the mentioned courts for trying war crime cases. It became possible to use evidence collected by the ICTY in

proceedings before Croatian courts.  e Ministry of Justice drafted the Strategy for Investigation and Prosecution of War Crimes

Committed in the Period between 1991 and 1995, the Ministry of the Interior adopted the Implementing Plan, while the DORH

adopted the Operational Programme.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

Politicians, including the highest-ranking state o cials, interpreted the mentioned ICTY verdict, al-

most as a rule, as a verdict which characterized the entire Homeland War as a criminal enterprise and

they used that platform to achieve political points before poorly informed electorate. Similar statement

by politicians continued in the months that followed, coming also from representatives of the newly-

appointed Government.

Because of that, we deem it necessary to call upon the leaders of the new

Government to more prudent reactions in relation to prosecution of all war crimes.

Concern is raised due to the fact that in the above-described atmosphere there is a clear lack of solidar-

ity with all victims, condemnation of all crimes and support for revealing all crimes, even in reactions

coming from top o cials of the Catholic Church in Croatia.

Media, including public television, played an important role with their biased reporting in inciting

public bitterness against the ICTY verdict. Even the arrest of Ratko Mladić (in May 2011) and Goran

Hadžić (in July 2011) and their extradition to the ICTY did not signi cantly in uence the change of

negative public attitude towards the work of the ICTY, although these arrests de nitely represent an

important step forward towards achieving justice for victims and ending impunity for perpetrators of

the most serious crimes.

At the parliamentary elections held in December 2011, the majority of seats in the Croatian Parliament went to “Kukuriku

Coalition” – a coalition between the Social Democratic Party of Croatia, Croatian People’s Party, Istrian Democratic Assembly and

Croatian Party of Pensioners

Examples:

- Zlatko Komadina, the Minister of Maritime A airs, Transport and Infrastructure in the newly-formed Government, stated

that “some of our countrymen in the Hague paid with their verdicts for Croatia’s accession to the European Union”;

- Ante Kotromanović, the new Minister of Defence, attended the marking of the anniversary of the 72

Military Police bat-

talion and failed to react after speakers on the platform denied crimes committed in military prison „Lora“ in Split as well as

 ndings contained in the  nal verdict. Otherwise, eight members of the 72

HV Military Police battalion were found guilty

by a  nal verdict for the crimes committed against civilians in “Lora”. In another trial in 2008, an indictment was laid against

six persons for crimes against war prisoners, while criminal investigations are underway in the third case because of a suspicion

of killing war prisoners.

HBK (Croatian Bishops’ Conference) Commission “Iustitia et pax” called upon the President of the Republic Ivo Josipović to

withdraw his decision on presenting an award on the occasion of the International Human Rights Day to Drago Hedl, a journalist

who undoubtedly contributed with his writing to revealing the crimes and establishing facts about the killings in Osijek and

Slavonija. In spite the fact that the alleged motive for the reaction by the Commission “Iustitia et pax” is Drago Hedl’s writing from

thirty years ago, the reaction did not contain solidarity with victims of crimes, but one can recognize intolerance towards the writing

of the mentioned journalist.

Mladić, former commander of the JNA Knin Corps and former commander of the Republika Srpska Army, was charged by

the ICTY that, in the period between 1992 and 1995, he participated in joint criminal enterprises the objective of which was to

eliminate or forcefully and permanently remove Bosnian Moslems and Croats from large parts of BiH territory, crimes against

civilian population of Sarajevo, taking UN personnel hostage in May and June of 1995 and genocide in Srebrenica in July of the

same year. Although several trials in absentia were conducted or are conducted against Mladić in the Republic of Croatia (in one

trial he received a  nal sentence to 20 years in prison) and although, according to DORH’s statement, in mid 2003 the ICTY’s

Prosecutor’s O ce received copies of cases against Ratko Mladić, the ICTY’s Prosecutor’s O ce did not charge Mladić with crimes

committed on the territory of the Republic of Croatia.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

Immediately before the parliamentary elections, the Act Declaring Null and Void certain Legal Docu-

ments of the Judicial Bodies of the former JNA, the former SFRY and the Republic of Serbia was adopted

in urgent procedure, in spite of numerous and serious warnings that it is detrimental and with adverse

e ects on hardly established regional cooperation between judicial bodies of Croatia and Serbia in

prosecution of war crimes perpetrators.

Likewise, disputes between Croatian and Serbian top state

o cials about the character and objective of the military-police action “Storm” have escalated.

 is

additionally deteriorates relations between the two countries that are still burdened by the unresolved

issue of missing persons, restitution of stolen cultural treasure, prosecution of war crimes and mutual

lawsuits for genocide.

It turned out that a part of political elites, which had worked for years on Croatia’s accession to the

European Union and successfully concluded negotiations on accession were ready, in order to pursue

their own interests, to promote attitudes contrary to impartial prosecution of crimes in their public

speeches and activities. Of particular concern is the fact that it turned out to be politically pro table

to base election success on the promotion of persons sentenced for or indicted with war crimes.  us

Branimir Glavaš, sentenced for a war crime against civilians, became a successful political brand of the

party he had founded.

Expressing support to Ante Gotovina, non- nally sentenced by ICTY verdict

for a war crime but in general public almost plebiscitary accepted as a hero of the Homeland War, was

a part of the usual pre-election folklore of almost all political parties.

Hadžić, former Prime Minister of the Government of the so-called Serb Autonomous District of Slavonija, Baranja and Western

Sirmium and later President of the so-called Republic of Srpska Krajina, is charged with participation in a joint criminal enterprise

the objective of which was forceful and permanent removal of Croats from parts of Croatia under Serb control. He is charged with

murder, detention, torture, prosecutions, destruction and looting of property in the territory of Slavonija, Baranja and Western

Sirmium.

Public statement issued by the Civic Committee for Human Rights, Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past and Centre

for Peace, Nonviolence and Human Rights - Osijek on the occasion of adopting the “Nullity Act”, published on 21 December

2011, was co-signed by Stipe Mesić, Predrag Matvejević, Tomislav Jakić, Čedo Prodanewć and Rajko Grlić.

Tensions in relations between Croatia and Serbia have for years been escalating at the beginning of August, at the time of

marking the Day of Victory and Homeland Gratitude and the Day of Croatian Defenders and the anniversary of the military-police

action „Storm“.  e immediate cause for new disputes about the character and objective of the “Storm” operation was the speech

delivered by the Prime Minister Kosor in Knin in which she greeted “all Croatian generals” whereby she particularly emphasised

non- nally sentenced Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač.

 e party Croatian Democratic Alliance of Slavonija and Baranja (HDSSB) announced that it would put Branimir Glavaš, a war

criminal sentenced with a  nal verdict, as head of their election lists for the parliamentary elections. By doing so, they opened a long

debate in the media in which they sent messages about non-recognizing the  nal court verdict and invited voters to give support

to the convicted war criminal. However, after the statement of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia that it was

unacceptable in terms of Constitution and laws that Glavaš was head of election lists, the HDSSB abandoned the idea. Although

the intention of the HDSSB was to express disrespect for the judiciary of the Republic of Croatia and although USKOK laid

indictment against four persons, including HDSSB MP Ivan Drmić for attempted bribe of judges of the Croatian Supreme Court

in order to pass a decision favourable for Glavaš, the mentioned political party achieved a much bigger success at the parliamentary

elections held in December when compared to previous parliamentary elections

 e popularity and in uence of Ante Gotovina is evident by his repeatedly broadcast call for citizens to vote in the referendum

and support the accession of the Republic of Croatia into the European Union.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

All of the mentioned indicates that reactions on prosecution of members of Croatian formations are

still negative and that additional e orts are needed on the part of authorities in order to establish social

and political framework conducive to prosecution of all war crimes.

 at would be contributed by

the acceptance of political responsibility for crimes which were not only “individual excesses by irre-

sponsible individuals”, as it is often worded, but they were planned and organized by high positioned

civilians and military persons, which is also con rmed by certain  nal verdicts.

Although it is well

known today that political and military leaders were aware of certain crimes immediately after they

were committed and that, instead of prosecuting them they were systematically covering them up,

political circles still do not want to talk about it.

Negative reactions against the ICTY verdict in the case of Gotovina, Marka~ and

^ermak

 e  rst-instance verdict in which generals Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač were found guilty for

crimes against humanity and violation of laws and customs of war through their participation in a joint

criminal enterprise (together with the-then highest-ranking Croatian politicians) with the objective

of permanent expulsion of Serb population from the area of the so-called Republic of Srpska Krajina

stirred almost general consternation among the general public, as well as negative reactions by the

highest-ranking political authorities.

Erroneous interpretations and clearly expressed negative reactions towards the verdict encouraged dis-

trust in the ICTY – an institution which played a major role in impartial prosecution of war crimes

committed on the territory of the former Yugoslavia, prosecuted at least a part of top-ranking o cials

belonging to political and military authorities of the con icting parties responsible for war crimes,

thereby providing a huge contribution to peace and recovery of societies devastated by war con icts.

Centre for Peace Osijek and Documenta were included in Platform 112 – for Croatia as a law-based state, a platform comprising

approximately 20 civil society organizations which, on the eve of parliamentary elections, forwarded to political parties and

independent slates a list with 112 requests, the ful lment of which they expect from the new Government.  e requests by civil

society organizations were grouped into  ve areas, one of which was War Heritage, Dealing with the Past and Peace Building.

Tihomir Orešković, formally the secretary at the Gospić Operational Headquarters but actually … “a person in whose hands all the

power in Gospić was concentrated …” (VSRH verdict No. I Kž 985/03-9 of 2 June 2004), was found guilty by a  nal verdict for the

crimes committed in Gospić and was sentenced to 15 years in prison; Mirko Norac

Kevo, at the incriminating time commander of the

118

Brigade in Gospić, was sentenced by a  nal verdict to 12 years in prison for the same crime; Branimir Glavaš, at the incriminating

time secretary of the Municipal Secretariat for People’s Defence, the actual commander of the 1

battalion of Osijek defenders and for

a part of the incriminating period also commander of Osijek defence, was sentenced by a  nal verdict to 8 years in prison.

Example:

According to testimonies by several witnesses, after the killing of 18 civilians in Paulin Dvor near Osijek at the beginning of

December 1991, state o cials were informed about the crime. However, the crime was covered up, allegedly due to expectations

of international recognition of the Republic of Croatia. On the next day after the commission, victims’ bodies were buried in a

military warehouse near Osijek, while the house in which the victims were killed was mined. In 1997, victims’ bodies were secretly

transported to a secondary grave in the village of Rizvanuša near Gospić, 500 km away from the place of commission. In 2002,

victims’ bodies were found by ICTY’s investigators.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

 us it was stated “that the  rst-instance chamber established that Croatia participated in a joint criminal

enterprise, which is unacceptable for the Government of the RC” (Prime Minister of the Government of

RC, Jadranka Kosor) and that “the formulation of ‘joint criminal enterprise’ is ill-founded and a serious

insult to the Croatian people, as well as to justice in general” (the Croatian Bishops’ Conference).

Although a bit more moderate, the assessments by Croatian President Ivo Josipović were unexpected (for

instance, “We will respect the ICTY verdict, but we do not have to admire them”), even more so because it

was precisely President Josipović, on his own or together with President of the Republic of Serbia Boris

Tadić, who signi cantly contributed to the establishment of trust between the countries formed after

the disintegration of the former Yugoslavia by visiting the places of su ering, paying respect to all war

victims on the territory of the former Yugoslavia and by advocating prosecution of all crimes.

After the pronouncement of verdict against the generals, legally well-founded activities performed by

the former President Mesić related to cooperation with the Hague Tribunal were also brought into

question.  e Government announced and then subsequently abandoned investigation related to de-

livery of evidence to the ICTY.

Due to all of the mentioned, when delivering a report to the UN Security Council on 6 June 2011,

ICTY Prosecutor Serge Brammertz stated that it is “unfortunate that in the aftermath of the judgment,

the highest ranking state o cials failed to comment objectively on the outcome of the trial.”

Non-objective media coverage of the non-final ICTY verdict against generals

Gotovina and Marka~

During the court proceedings, the majority of media, including public television, only sporadically and

very often in a biased manner, reported about court proceedings. Unlike other countries in the region,

programmes that would regularly inform the public about the case before the ICTY (such as the pro-

gramme of SENSA Agency) could not be broadcast on any TV station in the Republic of Croatia. Croa-

tian media was announcing the acquitting verdict. By doing so, they contributed to the fact that publica-

tion of the verdict would cause shock and a feeling of injustice among the majority of the public, as well

as to the escalation of a deeply rooted standpoint which denies/justi es crimes committed by “our guys”.

Expressions of support and empathy with the sentenced generals completely suppressed informing the

public about the scope of crimes (killings, inhumane treatment, plundering and destruction of prop-

erty) and the mass-scale exodus of the Serb population.  ere was a lack of empathy and reverence for

the victims of committed crimes.

Explanations that a joint criminal enterprise does not represent the responsibility of the state, but a

special form of individual criminal responsibility, that a decision by the state’s top political and military

leaders to ethnically cleanse the area of the so-called Republic of Srpska Krajina from Serb population

was proclaimed criminal, but not legitimate decision of the Croatian authorities to use military force

to crush rebellion of the Serb population in the so-called RSK and regain control over its territory, such

explanations did not have room in the media nor did they reach wider audience.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

 e impression about non-professional and biased reporting by the public television was supported by

the results of the Analysis of Contents Broadcast in Central News and Current A airs Programme of

the Public Television – Dnevnik after the Verdict against the Generals between 15 April and 30 April

2011.

Editions of Dnevnik broadcast in the mentioned period mostly presented citizens, the so-called

vox populi. Although journalists and editors-in-chief may only use vox populi to present a whole range

of attitudes in the society, in this case it served them to present an almost uniformed attitude, whereby

it was often possible to hear hate speech. In all analyzed editions of Dnevnik, victims’ families and

victims themselves were presented on only three occasions. Journalistic reports disregarded victims’

testimonies provided during the two-year trial, the description of their su ering, documented footage

that illustrates their su ering and evidence that substantiated their testimonies.

In all footages and commentaries there was a complete mess in relation to DORH data about the

proceedings and war crimes victims during and after the “Storm” operation.  e key information that

was missing was the fact that not a single person has been sentenced by a  nal verdict for a war crime

committed during or after the “Storm” operation.

Improving the normative framework for prosecution of war crimes as

opposed to “Nullity Act”

In order to achieve a qualitative step forward in investigation and prosecution of war crimes, new legal

documents were adopted or the existing ones were amended in Croatia during 2011.  is contributed

to the ful lment of benchmarks contained in Chapter 23 “Judiciary and Fundamental Rights” pertaining

to war crimes trials.

Normative framework for more e cient prosecution of war crimes was improved by adopting or

amending the following legal documents:

a) Strategy for Investigation and Prosecution of War Crimes Committed between

1991 and 1995

On 11 February 2011, the Ministry of Justice adopted the Strategy for Investigation and Prosecution of

War Crimes Committed between 1991 and 1995.

For the purpose of implementing the Strategy, the Ministry of the Interior adopted the Implementing

Plan, while the DORH adopted the Operational Programme which elaborated coordination between

the MUP and the DORH, determined resources and responsible persons.

Back in 2010, the MUP and the DORH agreed on the list of priority crimes in which perpetrators have

still not been identi ed. A total of 127 crimes were determined as priorities. Out of that number, 8

crimes were determined as priorities at the national level, while others were priorities at regional levels.

Eugen Jakovčić and Suzana Kunac: Results of Research of Contents Broadcast in Dnevnik on the Public Television after the

Verdict against Generals Gotovina, Markač and Čermak, Zagreb, 4 August 2011, Documenta – Centre for Dealing with the Past.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

Teams comprising police o cers, state attorneys and their deputies have been established to work on

those cases.  e Ministry of the Interior established a total of 20 police investigating teams (8 charged

with national and 12 with regional priorities). 120 police o cials were included in teams.  e State

Attorney’s O ce tasked 15 deputy state attorneys to prosecute national priorities, while 34 deputy state

attorneys were tasked with regional priorities.

During 2011, with a visible delay, after persistent advocating by civil society organizations, indictments

were laid for crimes in Pakračka Poljana, at the Zagreb Fair, in Sisak, as well as in detention camps in

Begejci, Stajićevo, Sremska Mitrovica and Niš in Serbia and Stara Gradiška in Croatia. Whether more

intensi ed work by the police and the DORH will lead to new long-awaited indictments will become

clear during 2012 and the next several years.

b) Amendments to the Act on the Application of the Statute of the International

Criminal Court and the Prosecution of Crimes against International Law of War

and Humanitarian Law

- with regard to courts’ competences

For several years we have been warning about the problems arising due to dispersion of war crimes trials

over a large number of county courts. We emphasised the need to stipulate exclusive (not facultative)

competence of county courts in Zagreb, Split, Rijeka and Osijek in war crimes trials.

We emphasised

that concentration of trials at a smaller number of “specialized courts” would create conditions for bet-

ter quality of trials - specialization of judges working with this type of cases, harmonization of court

practise, facilitated regional cooperation, providing support for witnesses and victims and eliminating

the possibility of negative in uences on court proceedings in local environments.

Changes in that sense were undertaken during 2011.  e Croatian Parliament on two occasions

amended the Act on the Application of the ICC Statute. In May, immediately prior to closing negotiations

on accession, the Act was amended for the  rst time, but since those amendments from May contained

certain  aws, the Act was also amended at the end of October.

 e amendments stipulated exclusive (actual and local) competence of county courts in Osijek, Ri-

jeka, Split and Zagreb to try criminal proceedings for war crimes in all “new” cases - cases in which

criminal proceedings have yet to start.

As an alternative to stipulation of exclusive competence of the four mentioned courts, we proposed the establishment of one

court specialized exclusively for dealing with war crimes cases.

Amendments were published in the O cial Gazette No. 55, 18 May 2011 and No. 125, 7 November 2011.

 us, the Osijek County Court has local competence in war crimes cases also for the areas of county courts in Slavonski Brod

and Vukovar, the Rijeka County Court for the areas of county courts in Pula and Karlovac, the Split County Court for the areas of

county courts in Dubrovnik, Šibenik and Zadar, while the Zagreb County Court for the areas of county courts in Bjelovar, Sisak,

Varaždin and Velika Gorica.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

Amendments to the Act also regulated the competence in criminal cases which were initiated prior to

coming into force of the amendments to the Act.

In compliance with amendments to the Court Standing Orders from March 2011, special war crimes

departments were established at county courts in Zagreb, Osijek, Rijeka and Split. A total of 16 inves-

tigating judges and 38 trial and extra-trial judges were appointed in those departments.

Such legal amendments ensure that new proceedings will not be initiated at smaller courts which nei-

ther had su cient personnel capacities nor spatial and technical preconditions and which very often

had insu cient good will/courage to professionally and impartially conduct a trial. Likewise, judges

from civil departments will no longer be appointed into war crimes councils.

However, the fact is that real specialization of courts (and judges) has yet to be conducted. Namely,

taking into account current personnel capacities of county courts in Osijek, Rijeka and Split, almost

all judges from criminal and investigating departments of the mentioned courts were appointed into

war crimes departments.  e same judges try “USKOK” cases which are under exclusive competence

of the mentioned four county courts, while at the same time they also try other criminal cases. Because

of that, real specialization of judges for the time being cannot take place

In order to ensure continuity of work of individual judges in war crimes cases which would contribute

to their specialization, it is necessary to appoint them into war crimes departments for a period of several

years. Apart from that, we are of the opinion that it would be purposeful to also assign judges from other

county courts to war crimes departments at the four county courts, judges who distinguished themselves

in war crimes trials with their previous experience and the number of verdicts upheld by the VSRH.

Although we emphasized the need that the Act on the Application of the ICC Statute should be amended

with a provision that would stipulate the composition of the VSRH’s council when it conducts hear-

ings as the second-instance court in such a manner that lay judges are excluded from the council’s

composition and that council members should comprise VSRH judges exclusively, such amendments

did not take place.

- with regard to use of evidence collected by the ICTY

In March 2010, the VSRH quashed the verdict against defendant Damir Kufner et al. (crime in Marino

Selo) deeming that it was not possible to use witness depositions taken by the ICTY Prosecutor’s Of-

 ce investigators as evidence in criminal procedures before domestic courts. Immediately thereafter we

If trial is ongoing in a criminal case that was initiated before the amendments to the Act, the trial will continue before the county

court which is competent pursuant to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, even in these cases the President of the

VSRH may approve transfer of the trial to one of the four courts, upon an explained proposal by the Chief State Attorney. In trials

in which a verdict is quashed pursuant to legal remedy and the case is remanded for a retrial, the trial will be repeated before one of

the four county courts. A trial may be repeated before the court which rendered a quashed verdict only if the facts in the quashed

 rst-instance verdict were correctly established and if the verdict was quashed due to essential violation of criminal procedure

provisions and it is evident that the trial will be easier to conduct in such a manner.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

pointed at the need to amend the Act on the Application of the ICC Statute in order to render it possible

to use the mentioned evidence.

Namely, ICTY investigators conducted numerous investigations after which the ICTY Prosecutor’s

O ce did not issue indictments because the ICTY Prosecutor’s O ce mostly focused on issuing in-

dictments against top ranking persons from military and civilian authorities of the con icting parties.

Some of such cases were transferred to the judiciary of the Republic of Croatia, but the impossibility of

using the mentioned depositions decreases the possibility to prosecute perpetrators.

Amendments to the Act on the Application of the ICC Statute stipulated that evidence collected by ICC

(ICTY) bodies may be used in criminal proceedings in the RC providing that this evidence was pre-

sented in a manner governed by the Statute and ICC (ICTY) Rules of Procedure and Evidence and that

it may be used before that court.

 e mentioned amendments will render it possible to use evidence collected by ICTY bodies in all

criminal proceedings that will be initiated after the amendments have come into force.

However, in criminal proceedings which were initiated before, most probably it will not be possible to

use evidence collected by ICTY bodies. Namely, in June 2011, after the amendments came into force,

the War Crimes Council of the Osijek County Court in the repeated trial against Damir Kufner et al.

refused to use witness depositions collected by ICTY Prosecutor’s O ce investigators. In November

2011, the VSRH fully upheld the  rst-instance verdict rendered by the Osijek County Court.

would not be good to apply such practice in two other proceedings which were initiated before the

amendments to the Act on the Application of the ICC Statute came into force and which pertain to

crimes that were of interest for the ICTY.  ose are proceedings against Tomislav Merčep for torture

and liquidation of civilians in Kutina, Pakrac and Zagreb and against Frano Drljo et al. for liquidation

of civilians in Grubori after the “Storm” operation.

The Act Declaring Null and Void certain Legal Documents of the Judicial Bodies

of the former JNA, the former SFRY and the Republic of Serbia – jeopardizing

regional cooperation in the prosecution of crime perpetrators

 e Nullity Act was adopted at the initiative of the-then ruling party (HDZ) in urgent parliamentary

procedure on 21 October 2011, immediately before dissolving the Croatian Parliament due to forth-

coming parliamentary elections.

 is Act, adopted at the pre-election time in order to gain political

In Osijek County Court’s verdict rendered after the repeated trial and upheld by the VSRH, out of six defendants for the crime

in Marino Selo only two direct perpetrators were sentenced by a  nal verdict.  ree defendants were acquitted of charges, while

charges were dropped in relation to one defendant.  e indictment included detention and torture of 24 civilians of Serb ethnicity,

of whom 17 were killed. No one was found guilty according to command responsibility for the crime of such large proportions.

 e Nullity Act was published in the O cial Gazette No. 124/2011 on 4 November 2011.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

points, is detrimental because it jeopardizes cooperation between judicial bodies of Croatia and Serbia

in investigation and prosecution of crimes. Because of that, it needs to be repealed as soon as possible.

 e general public was presented that the motive for adopting the Nullity Act was non- nal sentence

of Croatian defender Veljko Marić at the Belgrade Higher Court and indictment against Vladimir Šeks

and 43 other persons which the JNA Military Prosecutor’s O ce issued in 1992.

After the mentioned

events, the-then ruling coalition, with the exception of the SDSS (Serb Democratic Independent Party)

sharply attacked the Serbian Act on the Organization and Competences of State Bodies in War Crimes

Proceedings, i.e. any possibility that Croatian citizens could be prosecuted in the Republic of Serbia for

crimes committed on the territory of the Republic of Croatia.

Subsequently it turned out that the most responsible politicians from the Government and advocates

of this Act were aware of the indictment against Šeks et al. months before the information was released

to the public, at the beginning of pre-election campaign.

 e Act pronounced null and void legal acts of judicial bodies of the former JNA, the former SFRY

and of the Republic of Serbia in which citizens of the Republic of Croatia are suspected, indicted and/

or sentenced for criminal o ences against the values protected by the international law and which were

committed on the territory of Croatia. It also anticipated exceptions from nullity providing the acts

meet certain legally stipulated but nevertheless insu ciently de ned criteria (“Nullity does not pertain

to acts for which judicial bodies of the Republic of Croatia have determined that they meet legal stand-

ards from criminal legislation of the Republic of Croatia”). It stipulated that decisions on handling

requests for legal assistance in war crimes cases received from Serbia will be left at the discretion of the

Minister of Justice of the RC.  ereby, a totally unnecessary and detrimental political arbitration was

introduced into judicial procedures.

On 23 September 2011 at the Belgrade Higher Court, Veljko Marić, arrested and detained in the Republic of Serbia, was found

guilty by a  rst-instance verdict that, as a member of Croatian formations in October 1991 in the vicinity of Grubišno Polje he

killed one civilian of Serb ethnicity. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison. It is important to mention that indictment against

Marić for the mentioned criminal o ence was also issued in January 2011 in the Republic of Croatia.

A few days after the pronouncement of the non- nal verdict against Veljko Marić, it was published that the Republic of Serbia

forwarded indictment issued by the former JNA Military Prosecutor’s O ce against 44 members of Croatian formations in which,

inter alia, Vladimir Šeks, Branimir Glavaš, Ivan Vekić and Tomislav Merčep were also indicted.

 e Act on the Organization and Competences of State Bodies in War Crimes Proceedings has been in force in the Republic of

Serbia since 2003. Since then, it has been amended on several occasions. It stipulated that state bodies of the Republic of Serbia are

competent to try proceedings for war crimes that were committed on the territory of the former SFRY regardless of citizenship of

perpetrators or victims.

During the  rst half of 2011, the Osijek ŽDO conducted inquests pertaining to possible responsibility of Vladimir Šeks for

the su ering of Serb civilians on the territory of Eastern Slavonija in 1991 and it reached a conclusion that there was no basis

for criminal prosecution. Inquests were carried out after Amnesty International at the beginning of 2011 mentioned possible

responsibility of Vladimir Šeks for the mentioned crimes.

After the parliamentary elections, Amnesty International again pointed out the need to re-assess the role and possible responsi-

bility of Vladimir Šeks for the mentioned crimes, but also of Davor Domazet Lošo for the crimes in Medak Pocket in 1993.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

We are of the opinion that the Nullity Act, contrary to interpretations of the act’s purpose, actually jeop-

ardizes RC citizens who were possibly ill-foundedly indicted by Serbjudicial bodiesbecause legal acts

which indicted and/or sentenced them continue to exist outside of Croatian borders regardless of their

non-recognition in Croatian legal system. Instead of examining well-foundedness of such acts and thereby

removing ill-founded prosecutions or possibly inciting prosecutions of actual perpetrators, the Nullity Act

narrows down cooperation between prosecutor’s o ces of the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of

Serbia.  erefore it is actually more favourable for perpetrators of crimes, whether those living in Serbia

or Croatia, because their chances of not having to stand trial for the committed crimes have increased.

President of the RC Ivo Josipović, Chief State Attorney of the RC Mladen Bajić, opposition politicians

and representatives of non-governmental organizations assessed the adoption of the Nullity Act as detri-

mental for regional cooperation and achieving justice in prosecution of war crimes. Chief Prosecutor of

the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Serge Brammertz, War Crimes Prosecu-

tor of the Republic of Serbia Vladimir Vukčević and the European Commission also assessed the Act to

be detrimental.

A lack of consensus at the political scene when adopting this Act was also indicated by the manner of its

adoption because, when the Parliament was voting about the Act it barely managed to have a quorum.

Although it could be considered an organic act because it regulates the manner of work of state bodies, it

was voted by the majority vote of present MPs, not by the majority vote of all MPs.  e Act is also con-

trary to the international treaties which regulate international legal assistance between Croatia and Ser-

bia, the legal power of which supersedes the Act. At the end of December, President Josipović forwarded

to the Croatian Constitutional Court a request for assessment of constitutionality of the Nullity Act.

Availability of data concerning war crimes prosecution

In the past decade, progress was made with regard to issue of availability of data concerning war crimes

prosecution in the Republic of Croatia.

Since 2004, the State Attorney’s O ce of the Republic of Croatia has been publishing statistical data in

its annual reports on the number of prosecuted persons.  e Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia

publishes decisions of its chambers in war crimes cases on its web site.

Web site of the Centre for Peace, Nonviolence and Human Rights - Osijek contains data (information

about each individual case, indictments, reports on monitored trials, verdicts) about 134 cases (106 in

 e request stresses that the Nullity Act disrupts constitutional right of Homeland War defenders to defend themselves in a

potential criminal procedure for war crimes, that it exposes them to legal insecurity and deprives them of a possibility to remove

ill-founded accusations in cooperation with competent bodies of the Republic of Serbia. Since this is an organic act, the President of

the Republic of Croatia deems that the Croatian Parliament did not adopt the Act according to the majority vote stipulated by the

Constitution.  e request also stresses that, contrary to the Constitution, the Minister of Justice received powers to decide whether

or not some actions from the competence of regular courts will be conducted, as well as that the Act was contrary to constitutional

provisions pertaining to relation between international treaties and domestic acts.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

the Republic of Croatia, others in BiH and Montenegro) which were tried or are still being tried in the

period between 2004 and 2011.

During 2011, the State Attorney’s O ce of the Republic of Croatia, mostly when marking anniversa-

ries of individual crimes, on several occasions published data on criminal proceedings in which indi-

vidual crimes were prosecuted. Such practice needs to be welcomed and it needs to continue, but it also

needs to be improved – by publishing complete data about proceedings (more complete information

that would contain names of indicted/sentenced persons, factual description of committed crimes,

names of victims and outcomes of the proceedings).

Unfortunately, not a single web site provides the public with data on all crimes which were prosecuted in

a simple and well laid out manner. Taking into account information that they possess in its War Crimes

Database – an IT programme which the DORH set up in the past several years, we estimate that such step

forward could be made precisely by the State Attorney’s O ce of the Republic of Croatia. Public has the

right to know and have in one place insight into all  nal indictments, non- nal and  nal verdicts.

DORH database

DORH’s War Crimes Database contains data on crimes, victims, evidence and identi ed perpetrators.

It also needs to facilitate exchange of information with competent bodies from other countries which

has, in the past several years, proved essential for e cient prosecution of war crimes perpetrators.

 e DORH publishes statistical data from its Database about the number of persons against whom

criminal proceedings were initiated, the number of indicted persons, the number of persons in relation

to whom proceedings were completed and the number of prosecuted persons according to their a li-

ation with the con icting sides.

However, the mentioned data is insu cient in order to establish actual progress in investigation and

prosecution of crimes during many years. Namely, the establishment of Database changed the catego-

rization of crimes, thus data on prosecuted crimes during the years are not comparable.

We hope that

classi cation has been established now that will be applied through the years to come and that would

render it possible to monitor progress in prosecution of crimes.

Data on criminal offences committed during and after the military-police operation

„Storm“ – no one was sentenced by a final verdict for war crimes

After the  rst-instance ICTY verdict in the case against generals Gotovina, Markač and Čermak, the

public was interested in data on criminal o ences, primarily war crimes, committed during and af-

In its 2007 report, the DORH stated that its database contains 703 war crimes – out of which number criminal proceedings

against suspected persons were initiated for 301 crimes while perpetrators of 402 crimes were unidenti ed. In the newly established

Database they recorded a total of 490 crimes. Criminal proceedings were initiated against perpetrators of 316 crimes, while

perpetrators of 174 crimes are unidenti ed.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

ter the „Storm“ operation which were prosecuted by domestic judicial bodies. With that regard, the

DORH published a document titled Data on Reports, Prosecuted Cases, War Crimes Victims and Proceed-

ings Related to Criminal O ences Committed during and after the “Storm” Operation.

According to the mentioned Data, a total of 6,390 criminal reports was  led with regard to criminal o ences

committed during and immediately after the “Storm” operation. A total of 4,128 known perpetrators were

reported, out of whom 3,728 were prosecuted and 2,380 persons were sentenced. O ences in question

mostly included criminal o ences against property and, to a lesser extent, killings and war crimes.

DORH records contain data on 214 killed persons of whom 167 persons died as victims of war crimes

while 47 persons died as victims of criminal o ences of murder.

Perpetrators of killing of 26 victims

have not been identi ed. 33 persons were prosecuted for the killing of 21 persons, out of whom 14

persons were sentenced.

Out of the total number of criminal reports, 27 were registered as war crimes. In 24 reported war

crimes, the commission of which caused death to 156 persons, perpetrators are unidenti ed. 10 mem-

bers of Croatian formations were prosecuted in three cases for the killing of 11 persons however no one

has been sentenced up to now. Trials against 8 persons are underway, while trials against two persons

were discontinued.

Efficiency and quality of war crimes prosecutions

Only one fifth of recorded crimes was resolved – mostly in defendants’ absence

DORH’s Database contains data of 490 crimes. Each individual crime contains one or several cases

that are logically, geographically and time-wise linked, which mostly include a large number of

As opposed to DORH data, data from the Croatian Helsinki Committee for Human Rights (HHO), registered 677 victims,

while the Directorate for Detained and Missing Persons with the Ministry of the Family, Veterans’ A airs and Intergenerational

Solidarity has records on 697 exhumed persons and additional 563 persons are listed as missing. Bearing in mind signi cantly

di erent data, the DORH stated that victims of criminal o ences of murder and victims of war crimes often cannot be di erentiated

from war victims – for whom there is no criminal responsibility of con icting parties for their deaths.

Monitoring team of the Centre for Peace, Documenta and Civic Committee for Human Rights does not have at its disposal

data on all cases involving perpetrators of murder who were sentenced. Information about the number of sentenced perpetrators

of murder was presented by DORH representatives at the Public Discussion on Non-prosecuted Crimes during and after the Military-

police Action Storm”, held in the Human Rights House in Zagreb on 28 April 2011.

Trials:

- Božo Bačelić, Ante Mamić, Luka Vuko and Jurica Ravlić are indicted for the crime in Prokljan. Since the 1

defendant Bačelić

is unavailable to Croatian judiciary, the court ordered the stay of proceedings;

- an investigation was conducted for the crime in Grubori after which the State Attorney’s O ce laid indictment against Frano

Drljo, Božidar Krajina and Igor Beneta, while deciding not to prosecute Berislav Garić. Investigation against Frano Drljo (the

defendant for the crime in Grubori) and Željko Sačić for the crime in Ramljani has continued;

- we have no data on the third trial, which was discontinued and which was conducted against one accused person.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

perpetrators and victims.

393 crimes (80%) were committed by members of the Yugoslav People’s

Army or formations of the so-called SAO Krajina, 86 (18%) by members of the Croatian Army or

police, two (less than 1%) by members of the so-called People’s Defence of the Autonomous Prov-

ince of Western Bosnia, and seven crimes (1.4%) by members of, for the time being, unidenti ed

formations.

On 21 October 2011, the State Attorney’s O ce of the Republic of Croatia had information on

perpetrators in 316 crimes (in 849 criminal cases). In 174 recorded crimes, perpetrators are still un-

known. Out of 316 crimes in which perpetrators were identi ed, 103 were resolved. It ensues from the

mentioned that, starting from 490 recorded crimes, only 1/5 of the crimes (21%) was resolved in its

entirety.

According to data from the State Attorney’s O ce, criminal proceedings were initiated against 3,432

persons (of whom 104 were members of Croatian formations, or 3.03%). In a large number of cases

in relation to no less than 2,998 persons (87%) criminal proceedings were initiated in their absence

(87%).

At various stages proceedings were discontinued or acquitting or rejecting verdicts were rendered in

relation to 1,921 persons. A total of 554 persons were sentenced by a  nal verdict (of whom 29 were

members of Croatian formations, or 5.23%).

 e majority of a total number of persons sentenced by

a  nal verdict were sentenced in absentia.

Slow and inefficient prosecution

At various stages, criminal proceedings are underway in relation to 993 persons.

 e dynamics of

resolving cases in 2011, which is in compliance with trends in the past decade, is a warning that not all

initiated criminal proceedings will be completed any time soon.

During 2011, indictments were laid against 29 persons. In 28  rst-instance trials in which main hear-

ings were held, 65 persons were indicted. Out of the mentioned 28 trials, 16 are new while 12 were

In 490 crimes the DORH recorded 5,987 killed persons, 2,266 seriously injured, 2,336 maltreated, 67 raped and 3,085 victims

who were injured parties.

Data from the Report on the Ful lment of Obligations from Chapter 23 – Judiciary and Fundamental Rights, Government of the

Republic of Croatia, 12 May 2011.

A total number of sentenced persons has decreased by 48 in relation to the number of sentenced persons which was published

for 2004.  is can be explained by reopening of proceedings against individual persons who were previously sentenced in absentia

and which were conducted after the requests for reopening were  led by the convicts themselves (to a lesser extent) or pursuant

to a request by state attorney’s o ces (in the majority of cases). After a reopening was approved, proceedings against previously

sentenced persons mostly ended with state attorney’s o ces abandoning prosecution, changes of legal quali cations of criminal

o ences from the indictments into armed rebellion, application of amnesty or with rendering acquitting verdicts.

 e mentioned number includes defendants against whom the investigation is ongoing or suspended, indicted persons and

persons in relation to whom  rst-instance verdicts were rendered.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

repeated (42.8%). County courts rendered  rst-instance verdicts in 17 criminal proceedings which

included 36 defendants.

Sessions of appeals chambers of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia were held in 13 criminal

cases (in relation to 23 defendants). A  nal verdict was rendered in respect of 12 defendants. Only 5

defendants were sentenced by a  nal verdict!

Examples of cases which courts are unable to complete by rendering a final verdict

Judicial bodies are unable to complete by a  nal verdict certain trials that we monitored during 2011

or in previous years. Some of them have been lasting for 10 or more years, mostly they are active but

the VSRH, as a rule, on several occasions (two, three or even four times) quashes verdicts rendered by

 rst-instance courts. In our opinion, the length of these proceedings represents violation of the rights

of both defendants and victims.

Below in the text we will mention several such trials:

- trial against Mihajlo Hrastov (crime on Korana Bridge) has been conducted since 1992. Hrastov is

charged that, as a member of Croatian special police, he killed 13 and wounded two detained JNA

reservists on Korana Bridge in Karlovac, whereby he committed a criminal o ence against humanity

and international law by unlawful killing and injuring the enemy. It is the most glaring example of

ine ciency of Croatian courts.  e Supreme Court of the RC two times quashed the acquitting ver-

dicts of the Karlovac County Court and then, after the third acquitting  rst-instance verdict, decided

to conduct hearing itself. After the conducted hearing, the VSRH Chamber sentenced Hrastov to 8

years in prison, but in 2009 the sentence was reduced to 7 years.  e trial then became a case before

the Supreme and the Constitutional Court, respectively, because the Constitutional Court in 2010

quashed the convicting verdict rendered by the Supreme Court of the RC and remanded the case to

the Supreme Court for a retrial.  e VSRH decided to conduct hearing again and it began at the end

of January 2012;

- in trial against defendant Petar Mamula (crime in Baranja), the VSRH in November 2011 quashed

for the fourth time the  rst-instance convicting verdict rendered by the Osijek County Court and

remanded the case to the mentioned Court for a  fth hearing. After the conducted fourth (third re-

peated) trial, the defendant was pronounced guilty and sentenced to 3 years and 6 months in prison.

Previously the VSRH also quashed the verdicts in which the defendant was sentenced to 5 years and

6 months in prison in the  rst trial, i.e. to 4 years and 10 months in prison in the second and third

trials. He is charged that, while interrogating an unlawfully arrested catholic priest, he beat him and

mentally maltreated him.  e indictment was issued in 2001;

- in the trial against defendant Enes Viteškić (crime in Paulin Dvor) the third (second repeated) main

hearing is ongoing. Trial has been conducted since 2002. So far, the VSRH two times quashed the

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

acquitting verdict rendered by the Osijek County Court.  e defendant is charged that, as a member

of Croatian formations, out of retribution participated in liquidation of 18 civilians in Paulin Dvor;

- in the trial against defendant Radoslav Čubrilo (crime in Lovinac) in October 2011, after the con-

ducted third (second repeated) trial the  rst-instance verdict was pronounced in which the defendant

was found guilty and sentenced to 15 years in prison.  e trial has been conducted since the 90’s in

the absence of defendant Čubrilo. He is charged with killing six persons of Croatian ethnicity;

- in the trial against defendant Rade Miljević (crime on Pogledić hill near Glina) the third (second

repeated) main hearing is ongoing.

 e VSRH two times quashed the convicting verdicts rendered

by the Sisak County Court in which the defendant was sentenced to 14 and 12 years in prison, re-

spectively.  e defendant is charged that, as a member of Serb formations and according to a previous

agreement with direct perpetrators, he took four civilians out of the prison and handed them over so

that they would be executed.

In this overview we also mention trial against defendant Božo Bačelić et al. (crime in Prokljan), which

is currently in recess due to unavailability of the  rst defendant Bačelić. Defendants Božo Bačelić, Ante

Mamić, Luka Vuko and Jurica Ravlić are charged with killing two elderly persons of Serb ethnicity

upon the completion of the military-police operation “Storm”.  e trial was initiated in 2001. In the

verdict rendered by the Šibenik County Court in 2002 the defendants were acquitted of charges, but

the VSRH quashed the verdict in 2007 and ordered the defendants to be taken into custody. Since then

Bačelić has been a fugitive from justice, while other defendants were taken into custody. After expiry of

the maximum detention period, detention was vacated.

 e  nal outcome of trials conducted against indicted members of Croatian formations to whom the

Amnesty Act was previously erroneously applied is still uncertain. Two such trials which pertain to

killings of Serb civilians in Novska were conducted during 2010 before the Sisak County Court.

 e VSRH has still not decided about appeals against the verdicts by the Sisak County Court in these

cases. In the third trial, it is still not possible to see a remedy of consequences of erroneous application

of amnesty. After the State Attorney’s O ce in 2010 dismissed criminal report in which wife of a killed

person attempted to re-initiate criminal prosecution of perpetrators, the chances of crime perpetrators

ever being punished are next to zero.

 e indictment was laid in 2006.  e defendant is currently attending the trial undetained. He was in detention from March

2006 until December 2010.  en detention was vacated due to expiry of the maximum detention period.

In the  rst trial on 16 April 2010, the War Crimes Council of the Sisak County Court sentenced the absent defendant Damir

Vid Raguž to 20 years in prison, while present defendant Željko Škledar was acquitted of charges.

n the second trial on 19 November 2010 the Council, presided over by the same judge as in the  rst trial, by way of application of

the ne bis in idem institute, rendered a verdict rejecting the charge in relation to present defendants Željko Belin, Dejan Milić, Ivan

Grgić and Zdravko Plesec, deeming that it is a matter previously decided upon by a  nal verdict.

 e criminal report  led by the injured person S. G.-Ž. against R. A., D. Š., D. K. and V. K. due to a war crime against

civilians committed to the detriment of D. Ž. was dismissed. D. Ž. was a distinguished engineer working in the Sisak oil re nery

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

We also mention trial against defendant Luka Markešić et al. (crime in Bjelovar). In this case, after

the conducted fourth (third repeated)  rst-instance trial, in November 2011 the  rst-instance verdict

by the Zagreb County Court was pronounced in which the defendants were acquitted of charges.  e

mentioned  rst-instance trial was conducted at the third county court.  e VSRH had previously two

times quashed the acquitting verdicts by the county courts in Bjelovar and Varaždin and in February

2011 it also quashed the convicting verdict rendered by the Varaždin County Court.  e indictment

was issued back in 2001 and afterwards it was modi ed on several occasions. Eventually, the defendants

were charged that, as members of Croatian formations, they aided and abetted unknown persons in the

commission of war crime against war prisoners and war crime against civilians. 6 persons were killed in

the incriminating event and one person survived.

Increased transferral of cases to county courts in Zagreb, Split, Rijeka and Osijek

 e Act on Application of the ICC Statute rendered it possible even before the amendments that President

of the VSRH, upon explained proposal of the Chief State Attorney, permits transferral of a trial to one

of the four county courts. Bearing in mind that leading judicial o cials deemed that war crimes trials

should/could be conducted at all county courts, the mentioned possibility was used only exceptionally.

Trial against Branimir Glavaš and other defendants for the crime in Osijek was for several years the only

case in which local competence was transferred pursuant to the Act on Application of the ICC Statute.

 is possibility of delegating competences started to be used more intensively two years ago.  us in

2010 transferrals to one of the four county courts were requested in nine criminal cases, while in 2011

in even thirty cases. President of the VSRH granted all requests in which he has passed a decision up

to now.

Trials in absentia – current practice and reopening of trials

 e majority of a total of 554 persons sentenced by a  nal verdict for war crimes at Croatian courts was

sentenced in absentia.

Conducting trials in absentia may only be explained by social need to achieve justice after the war un-

der circumstances when defendants are unavailable to the judiciary. However, there are serious objec-

tions which may be addressed at in absentia prosecutions of defendants for war crimes before Croatian

who was executed by members of the Sisak ZNG at the Zagreb garbage land ll Jakuševac in November 1991.  e criminal report

was dismissed because, according to the opinion of the ŽDO, there was no broader context of the events than the one which had

already been factually described in the proceedings held before the Zagreb Military Court when the o ence was legally quali ed as

murder. Proceedings before the Military Court were suspended by way of application of the-then valid Act on Amnesty from Criminal

Prosecution and Procedures for Criminal Acts Committed in Armed Con icts and in the War against the Republic of Croatia.

We do not have the exact number of persons sentenced in absentia. After the adoption of a new ZKP in 2008, the DORH

submitted requests for reopening of trials in relation to 94 persons sentenced in absentia, trials against the majority of whom have

already been suspended, and they presented data according to which a total of 464 persons were sentenced in absentia in 118 cases.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

courts. A large number of such trials was conducted unprofessionally and ethnically biased. Convict-

ing verdicts were rendered on the basis of poor indictments and without su cient evidence, against

which court-appointed defence counsels often did not lodge appeals.  ereby defendants’ rights were

violated, while such proceedings did not bring satisfaction to victims because the convicts, unavailable

to Croatian criminal prosecution bodies, did not serve pronounced sentences.

Since during the 90’s unprofessional and ethnically biased trials in absentia were systematically con-

ducted, legislative and judicial authorities of the Republic of Croatia started to rectify damage done and

establish di erent practice in war crimes prosecution.

In 2004 the DORH assumed a standpoint that it will oppose trials in absentia in the future. Since

then we have witnessed more and more separations of criminal proceedings and trials conducted only

in relation to present defendants. Although we still notice cases of in absentia trials, in the past several

years the number of cases in which hearings are conducted in the absence of defendants has been de-

creasing.

Reopened criminal proceedings

 e Criminal Procedure Act even before its amendments from 2008 rendered possible reopening of tri-

als conducted in absentia providing convicted persons became available to judicial bodies and requested

reopening.

However, in order to rectify consequences of a large number of war crimes trials which were not

conducted pursuant to criteria of objective and fair trial, the new Criminal Procedure Act from 2008

rendered it also possible for state attorney’s o ces to request reopening of trials. Apart from that, a pos-

sibility to request a reopening was also granted to unavailable convicts. Unlike the previous legal solu-

tion, pursuant to which a condition to request reopening was return to Croatia, the new Act rendered

it possible for convicts to request reopening regardless of whether they are available to the court or not.

State attorney’s o ces  led requests for reopening in 2009 and 2010. According to DORH data from

December 2011, state attorney’s o ces requested reopening of trials in relation to 94 persons previ-

ously sentenced in absentia (all members of Serb formations).

Courts positively assessed all requests

by state attorney’s o ces and permitted reopening of trials.  e majority of reopened trials was com-

pleted, thus following the change of legal quali cation of the o ences contained in the indictments

and application of the Pardon Act, trials were suspended in relation to 69 persons who were previously

convicted by  nal verdicts. In one trial in relation to two convicts, the previous convicting verdict was

 us, during 2011, in 6 cases hearings were conducted against 23 absent defendants. However, out of that number, in only one

case hearing was conducted in the absence of 15 defendants, while in one case it was conducted in relation to two persons after

reopening of proceedings was granted upon request by the State Attorney’s O ce.

Approximately 20% of total number of persons was sentenced in absentia.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

upheld, while in relation to other persons reopening was permitted, but proceedings are still at the

investigating or indicting stages.

In order for convicted persons to be able to check whether they are on the list of convicted persons

and then, possibly, request reopening of trials themselves, in July 2010 the Croatian Ministry of Justice

forwarded to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Serbia a list with names of 1,543 persons who

were convicted (538), charged (563) or against whom investigations are taking place in Croatia (433)

for criminal o ences of war crime.

However, requests for reopening of trials by convicted persons are still quite rare. According to DORH

data, 22 convicted persons (12 present and 10 absent) requested reopening of trials.

Requests were granted to all present defendants. In reopened trials, following the change of legal quali-

 cation of the o ences contained in the indictments and application of the Pardon Act, trials against six

persons were discontinued, four persons were acquitted of charges, while no decision has been reached

in relation to two persons.

Out of ten absent convicted persons, requests for reopening were denied in relation to 7 of them, reo-

pening of trials were granted in relation to 2 convicts, while in relation to one convict no decision has

been reached whether reopening of trials would be granted.

Sexual violence as a way to commit a war crime in criminal proceedings in the

Republic of Croatia

Motivated by public testimonies of women raped during the occupation of Vukovar, we have analyzed

available court documentation and singled out 17 court cases which are at various stages of criminal

proceedings (from indictments to  nal verdicts) and which, as a way to commit a war crime, also con-

tain elements of sexual abuse of civilians and war prisoners.

Rape/sexual violence in analyzed cases was committed during detention (in camps, prisons, detention

facilities or other locations of detention) or in settlements (during the attacks on villages and cities or

in settlements during the occupation).

In analyzed cases, 28 persons were indicted - 26 direct perpetrators and 2 persons indicted according

to command responsibility. In several cases, indictments contain elements of sexual abuse or rape as an

exclusive, single act of committing a war crime, while in the majority of cases, apart from rape, defend-

ants were also charged with other ways of committing a war crime.

Out of the mentioned 17 trials, in 11 of them courts rendered verdicts (3 acquitting verdicts, of which

one is non- nal, 8 convicting verdicts, of which 6 were rendered in the absence of defendants who have

up to now been unavailable to Croatian judiciary). Prison sentences were pronounced ranging from 3

years and 6 months up to 15 years, while in some verdicts a maximum prison sentence of 20 years was

pronounced.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

While monitoring court proceedings in which the subject of proceedings was war crime with elements

of sexual violence, we noticed that not in a single case the councils applied measures of protection of

victim’s identity such as: testimonies taken from another room via video-link, modi cation of face and

voice or use of victim’s pseudonym. Only in some cases during victims’ testimonies public was excluded

from the main hearing.

Victims/witnesses, while providing testimonies, did not receive psychological support because the ma-

jority of trials were conducted during the 90’s when departments for support to victims and witnesses

were not established.

In analyzed cases there are 27 victims of rape/sexual violence.

Apart from the mentioned cases, we also noticed one case conducted before the former Bjelovar Mili-

tary Court which was legally quali ed as murder and rape. Perpetrator, member of Croatian forma-

tions, not long after he was  nally sentenced to 15 years in prison was released from prison by the act

of pardon by the President of the state.

 e actual number of raped and sexually abused persons during the war is di cult to determine and

has up to now de nitely not been determined. Because of trauma, shame or fear that they will be

condemned and marked in their community or in family, victims very often do not talk about it, thus

crimes remain non-reported. Victims of rape and sexual abuse must be provided with psychological

support before and during criminal proceedings which did not happen in analyzed cases, bearing in

mind that they were mostly conducted before the establishment of services for support to victims and

witnesses of criminal o ences at courts.

Regional cooperation in prosecution of perpetrators

Cooperation between judicial bodies of all countries in the region is essential in order to bring as many

various war crimes perpetrators before justice as possible. In the Republic of Croatia investigations were

conducted against the majority of

persons, indictments were issued or verdicts were adopted in their

absence. Crime perpetrators mostly reside in neighbouring countries, primarily in Serbia. Bearing in

mind that countries are not able to extradite their own citizens, it is necessary to establish as e cient

cooperation as possible so that perpetrators would be prosecuted in countries of their citizenship, in

which they mostly reside.

Agreements on cooperation in prosecution of perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against human-

ity and genocide, which facilitated exchange of evidence, documents and data, were signed between

the State Attorney’s O ce of the RC and competent prosecutor’s o ces in Serbia and Montenegro in

2006. Still, e cient prosecution of perpetrators also requires close cooperation with judicial bodies of

DORH’s Database recorded 67 raped victims. Perpetrators of rape of 57 victims are identi ed, while perpetrators of rape of

10 victims are not identi ed.  e State Attorney’s O ce issued a press release at the beginning of January 2012 in which it called

victims to contact them for the purpose of providing a testimony because, without their testimonies, proving this particularly

odious form of war crime against civilians is almost impossible.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

Bosnia and Herzegovina. Agreement, such as the one the DORH concluded with prosecutor’s o ces

of Serbia and Montenegro in 2006, was not concluded with the Prosecutor’s O ce of Bosnia and Her-

zegovina, while similar agreement was not concluded between the War Crimes Prosecutor’s O ce of

the Republic of Serbia and the Prosecutor’s O ce of Bosnia and Herzegovina either. Its conclusion was

expected in July 2011, but it was postponed because the B-H side abandoned the idea.

Cooperation between the DORH and competent prosecutor’s office in

Montenegro

According to data of the State Attorney’s O ce of the Republic of Croatia, on the basis of the Agree-

ment on Cooperation in Prosecution of Perpetrators of War Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and Genocide,

signed by the DORH and the competent prosecutor’s o ce in Montenegro, the DORH transferred

two cases to Montenegro which pertain to 7 persons. One case (in relation to 6 persons) was accepted

by the Montenegrin prosecutor’s o ce. It is a trial for the crime committed against detained Croatian

prisoners and civilians in the Montenegrin camp of Morinj in which, in January 2012 after the re-

peated  rst-instance trial, a non- nal verdict was rendered.

In another case which relates to one person, the Montenegrin prosecutor’s o ce rejected a request for

action because subsequent veri cations established that the defendant was not a citizen of Montenegro,

but a citizen of the Republic of Serbia.

Evident results in cooperation between the DORH and competent prosecutor’s

office in the Republic of Serbia

Cooperation between prosecutor’s o ces of Croatia and Serbia brings more evident results. During

the last several years, 10 persons (all members of Serb formations) were sentenced by a  nal verdict in

Serbia in trials in which the DORH forwarded evidence to the War Crimes Prosecutor’s O ce of the

Republic of Serbia on the basis of the Agreement on Cooperation in Prosecution of Perpetrators of War

Crimes, Crimes against Humanity and Genocide from 2006.

In the  rst-instance verdict dated 25 January 2012, defendants Mlađen Govedarica and Zlatko Tarle were acquitted of charges,

while Boro Gligić was sentenced to 3 years in prison, Ivo Gojnić to two, Špiro Lučić to 3 and Ivo Menzalin to 4 years in prison

 e following persons were sentenced by a  nal verdict:

- Milan Španović to 5 years in prison for maltreatment in Stara Gradiška camp;

- Boro Trbojević to 10 years in prison for participation in taking hostages and killing of 5 civilians in Grubišno Polje;

- Pane Bulat to 20 and Rade Vranešević to 13 years in prison for the killing of 6 civilians in Banski Kovačevac;

- Zdravko Pašić to 10 years in prison for the killing of one civilian in Slunj;

- Milorad Lazić to 3, Mirko Marunić to 2 and Nikola Konjević to 3 years in prison for maltreatment of a captured and wounded

HV member in Medak;

- Darko Radivoj to 12 years in prison for the killing of a captured and wounded HV member in Ćelije;

- Stanko Vujanović to 9 years in prison for the killing of 4 and injuring one person in Vukovar, but since he had been previously

sentenced to 20 years in prison by a  nal verdict for the crime in Ovčara, he was pronounced a joint prison sentence in the

duration of 20 years.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

According to DORH’s data, on the basis of the Agreement the DORH forwarded to the Prosecutor’s

O ce evidence and data in 30 criminal cases which pertain to a total of 55 persons.

Statistical data of the War Crimes Prosecutor’s O ce of the Republic of Serbia include cooperation in

war crimes cases on the basis of the mentioned Agreement from 2006 and on the basis of the Memoran-

dum on Realization and Enhancement of Co-operation in Fighting All Forms of Grave Crimes. According

to the Prosecutor’s O ce data, on the basis of the Agreement and Memorandum the DORH forwarded

to the Prosecutor’s O ce evidence and data in 41 cases against 80 persons.

Out of that number, the DORH’s request was rejected or criminal report was dismissed against 23

persons, criminal proceedings in various stages are ongoing against 30 persons, 10 persons were sen-

tenced by a  nal verdict, proceedings was discontinued in relation to one person, while in relation to

16 persons requests are being reviewed (veri cations are conducted and additional evidence collected).

 e Prosecutor’s O ce forwarded to the DORH evidence and data in 15 cases against 22 persons who

are in certain cases unidenti ed.  e DORH rejected requests or dismissed criminal reports against

7 persons, one person passed away, request was accepted for 4 persons, while requests are still being

reviewed against 10 persons.

According to information from the prosecutor’s o ces, contacts between prosecutors working on war

crimes cases are very frequent.  us during 2011, the DORH requested assistance (documents, infor-

mation and reports) from the Prosecutor’s O ce on the basis of the Memorandum in 39 cases.

Apart from the mentioned forms of cooperation, data on which we obtained from competent pros-

ecutor’s o ces, while monitoring trials we also noticed an increasing number of requests for legal as-

sistance when questioning witnesses. Witnesses are questioned pursuant to requests or are heard via

video-conference link.

However, evident progress which was made in the past several years in cooperation between judicial bod-

ies of Croatia and Serbia, as already mentioned, was put into jeopardy by the Act Declaring Null and Void

certain Legal Documents of the Judicial Bodies of the former JNA, the former SFRY and the Republic of Serbia.

Conditional release of sentenced war criminals from prison

Conditional release as a criminal institute which reduces coercion in society and brings human face to

a pronounced prison sentence is known to all modern liberal legislations and is often used in relation

to persons sentenced before the ICTY.

In Croatia, the issue of using the institute of conditional release, as well as of a body competent for its

approval, was opened after conditional release of Mirko Norac from a prison where he served sentence

for committed war crimes.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

Although Norac did not express remorse for liquidation of Serb civilians in Gospić or for his responsi-

bility for the killing of civilians and war prisoners in Medak Pocket, the Commission for Conditional

Release of the Ministry of Justice approved his request for conditional release after having served two

thirds of his prison sentence.

Bearing in mind that war crimes are criminal o ences with broad and far-reaching detrimental conse-

quences for the whole society which do not fall under statute of limitations, we deem it necessary to

conduct expert discussion on the topic of conditional release of persons sentenced for war crimes and

the manner of deciding about it.

Support to victims and witnesses of criminal offences

Victims and witnesses of criminal o ences have been neglected for years. Until several years ago there

were no services in the Republic of Croatia that would provide support to victims and witnesses of

criminal o ences at any stage of (pre)criminal proceedings.

Bearing in mind the fact that many crimes were not prosecuted at all, victims and witnesses of war crimes

gradually lost con dence in the judicial system. Proceedings, conducted most often in the absence of de-

fendants, often caused additional anxiety among victims and lead to their secondary victimization.

Apart from emotional consequences that a crime and the conduct of proceedings caused to victims,

there were other consequences that negatively re ected themselves on criminal prosecution of crime

perpetrators, as well. Due to previous negative experiences, victims and witnesses are often not inter-

ested in criminal proceedings and do not want to take part in them.

Development of support

 e origins of support to victims and witnesses of criminal o ences at courts in the Republic of Croatia

are linked with the beginning of functioning of the Association of volunteers for support to victims/

witnesses in Vukovar.  e mentioned Association provided support to victims/witnesses since 2006 at

the Vukovar County Court as a part of the project  nancially supported by the Embassy of the Great

Britain to the Republic of Croatia.

Pursuant to the new Criminal Law Act which should come into force on 1 January 2013, the competence to decide about a

proposal for conditional release will rest with a court. According to the mentioned Act, the court may release a prisoner from prison

if he/she has served at least half of the sentence which was pronounced and if there are reasonable expectations that he/she will not

commit a criminal o ence, providing that the convict agrees with this.

We tried to collect data on the number of sentenced war criminals who were conditionally released from prisons, but the

Directorate for Prison System at the Ministry of Justice informed us that it was not possible to forward the requested data due to

their con dentiality.

Example: In a trial for the crime in Lovas which is conducted before the Belgrade Higher Court against fourteen members of

Serb formations, numerous witnesses/victims do not want to testify.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

Development expanded in 2008 when departments for support at the county courts in Osijek, Vuko-

var, Zadar and Zagreb and at the Criminal department of the Zagreb Municipal Court started to work

as a result of cooperation between the Ministry of Justice of the RC and UNDP within the framework

of the project „Assistance to the development of system of support to witnesses and victims“. Upon the

completion of the project, the mentioned departments were incorporated in court administration of

the mentioned courts. Supervision of their work, coordination, strategic development of the support

system, as well as provision of support in special cases is performed by the Sector for Support to Victims

and Witnesses of Criminal O ences with the Ministry of Justice.

Expanding the network of o ces at courts took place at the beginning of 2011 when, at the second

stage of the project, the Ministry of Justice and UNDP opened new departments at county courts in

Split, Rijeka and Sisak.

Employees and volunteers of departments at the mentioned seven county courts provide informative

and emotional support to victims and witnesses of criminal o ences. Witnesses are provided general

information about criminal proceedings and on their role therein. Special waiting rooms were arranged

for victims and witnesses, except at the Zagreb County Court.

Support strategy to victims and witnesses has not been drafted yet

Establishment of o ces for support to victims and witnesses at seven county courts represents progress

for the Croatian judiciary. However, since the existing system needs to be developed and improved,

the Government of the Republic of Croatia in January 2010 established the Commission for Monitoring

and Improving the System of Support to Victims and Witnesses.  e task of the Commission is to draft a

National strategy for support to victims and witnesses, i.e. establish a uni ed national support system

to victims and witnesses which would link all criminal bodies and public institutions that provide sup-

port to victims and witnesses.

However, the strategy has still not been adopted. According to information at our disposal, the Com-

mission should draft the Strategy at the beginning of 2012 and forward it to the Government for

adoption.

Further guidelines for development

We are of the opinion that scope of support needs to be expanded.

Apart from informative and emotional support, support should also include provision of logistical sup-

port (organization of accommodation for victims and witnesses and their travelling arrangements). In

war crime trials the need for organization of witnesses’ travelling arrangements from their place of resi-

dence to the place where trials are conducted became evident after the amendments to the Act on Ap-

plication of the ICC Statute which stipulated exclusive competence of county courts in Osijek, Zagreb,

Rijeka and Split for all war crimes cases. Even more so because victims and witnesses of war crimes are

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

predominantly elderly persons, of poor  nancial situation, who often come from smaller rural places

poorly connected with places in which trials are conducted.

Protection of victims’ interests should not be limited exclusively at the provision of support during

court proceedings. Victims and witnesses need support from the moment a criminal o ence was com-

mitted until the completion of court proceedings. Because of that, it is necessary to expand the existing

system of support also within the bodies of criminal and pre-criminal proceedings and to establish de-

partments for support within the State Attorney’s O ce and the police, but also to expand the scope of

support and, in order to alleviate consequences of committed criminal o ences, provide psychological

and legal assistance to victims and witnesses.

Development of a support system de nitely needs to be followed by adequate training of judges, state

attorneys and police o cials with the objective of their sensitisation for the needs of witnesses and vic-

tims in (pre)criminal proceedings and for understanding the role and importance of witness support.

Only with a comprehensive support system it is possible to respond to the needs of witnesses and

victims, to protect their rights and prevent or at least decrease secondary victimization, whereby con-

tributing to a quality and e cient functioning of all criminal prosecution bodies and a more e cient

prosecution of crime perpetrators. Strengthening and expanding a comprehensive support system will

continue to depend primarily on Government’s e orts and on e cient cooperation between involved

ministries, state institutions and civil society organizations.

Reparations of civilian victims - necessary precondition for a stable and

healthy society

Status of civilian victims

Status of civilian victims of the Homeland War, both of civilian invalids and members of families whose

dearest ones were killed or went missing, is regulated by the Act on the Protection of Military and Civilian

War Invalids and can be exercised under administrative procedure.  e mentioned Act and the accompa-

nying subordinate acts have been subject to strong criticism for years. Non-recognition of rights belong-

ing to certain civilian war victims, determined deadlines for submission of requests, impossibility to ob-

tain credible documentation and linking the possibility of exercising rights with material status are some

of the reasons for a failure in exercising the status and rights of civilian victims and their family members.

Data on 359 bene ciaries of family disability bene ts left behind civilian war invalids

compared to ap-

During the investigation for the crimes in Sisak which was conducted at the Osijek County Court, Documenta was approached

by several summoned witnesses who were not in a position to organize trip to Osijek and respond to the summons since there is no

direct public transportation line between Osijek and Sisak.

Source: http://www.mzss.hr/hr/zdravstvo_i_socijalna_skrb/socijalna_skrb/uprava_za_zastitu_zrtava_i_sudionika_rata/godisnji_

prikaz_broja_korisnika_iz_sustava_zastite_vojnih_i_civilnih_invalida_rata

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

proximately 6,670 civilians killed during the Homeland War in Croatia

talks about failure to exercise

the rights of civilian victims and their family members.

Victims and their family members are dissatis ed with the existing legal solutions.  e Union of As-

sociations of Croatian Civilian Su erers from the Homeland War requests alignment of all victims and

alignment of compensations received by all civilian and military war victims.

While contacting representatives of raped or sexually abused persons, we learned that victims of these

crimes are not able to exercise the rights adequate to their su ering in the procedure of recognising the

status of a civilian war victim.

Likewise, the rights of victims of mine devices on mine-contaminated areas are regulated by the men-

tioned Act. However, we deem it necessary to ensure quality support for mine victims and their fami-

lies, particularly at the territory of psychosocial reintegration and rehabilitation of children of mine

victims.

The still unresolved issues of compensation of damage caused by the killing of a

close person and of the costs of lost lawsuits

Former authority holders were not willing to resolve the issue of crime victims’ family members who

attempted to receive compensation of damage caused by the loss of their close relatives through indem-

nity lawsuits before Croatian courts. Family members mostly lost the lawsuits in which they requested

compensation of damage from the Republic of Croatia. Apart from that, they were also obliged to pay

the costs for the lost lawsuits.

We base our conclusions on the analysis of 108 initiated court proceedings. In the majority of proceed-

ings, claims were rejected. Plainti s were successful mostly in lawsuits in which criminal responsibility

of crime perpetrators had been previously established. However, in numerous cases where claims were

 led although criminal responsibility of perpetrators had not been previously established, the plainti s/

injured parties, almost as a rule, lost the lawsuits.

 e decision of the Government of the RC of 28 May 2009 by which claims for court expenses

awarded in respect of plainti s/injured parties were written o only a ects the plainti s who initiated

proceedings pursuant to Article 180 of the Civil Obligations Act (until 1996 when the mentioned Arti-

cle was revoked).  e mentioned decision did not include the majority of plainti s/injured parties who

initiated proceedings after the mentioned deadline.

Source: Dr.sc. Dražen Živić and prof. Bruna Esih: War crime – Means and Consequence of Serbian Aggression on the Republic

of Croatia, Institute of Social Sciences Ivo Pilar; http://www.studiacroatica.org/zivic/zivicesih.htm

Even in 2011 plainti s were called upon to settle the costs of lost lawsuits.  us Jasenka Borojević from Sisak, whose husband

Stevo Borojević was detained, tortured and killed in October 1991, received on 16 March 2011 a request from the Sisak Municipality

Court to pay litigations costs in the amount of 26,950 kuna. Jasenka Borojević’s income, as is the case with the majority of plainti s

who lost their lawsuits, is only a small pension. Crime perpetrators have not been sentenced.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

We deem it unacceptable that family members of the killed are additionally punished by charging them

with high litigation costs. Here we particularly stress the fact that most often the reason for loss of liti-

gations is a lack of criminal prosecution of perpetrators, which is the obligation of the state.

Implementation of acts adopted in 2003

which  lled a legal vacuum that occurred after Article 180 of

the Civil Obligations Act was repealed and on the basis of which civilian victims or their family mem-

bers requested compensation of damage from the Republic of Croatia for damage caused by a terrorist

act or by the activities performed by unknown perpetrators, members of Croatian formations, resulted

in fatal and scandalous consequences for civilian victims and their close family members.

Bearing in mind that the process of indemni cation of civilian victims of war and post-war period has

not been resolved in a satisfactory manner, it is necessary to do the following:

a) Pass a decision in which the RC waives the charging of litigation costs from all plainti s who were

unsuccessful with their requests for compensation of damage for the death of a close person;

b) Adopt the National Programme and the Act on the Establishment of the Fund for Indemni cation of

all War Victims which would regulate the issue of compensation of damage in compliance with UN

Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations

of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law.

Unless the Government of the RC realizes that non-resolving the issue of indemni cation of victims

causes injustice, plainti s/injured parties whose close family members were mostly killed in, for the

time being, non-prosecuted or insu ciently prosecuted crimes will be forced to request the right to

pecuniary satisfaction for the killing of their close family members outside the Republic of Croatia.

 e judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in two cases (the case of Jularić v. Croatia and

the case of Skendžić v. Croatia) ordered the Republic of Croatia to pay reparation to the plainti s for

failing to carry out appropriate investigations about the crime.

Command responsibility – responsibility for omission of a commander and

judicial practice in Croatia

Prepared and edited by: Marko Sjekavica, Jelena Đokić Jović and Maja Kovačević Bošković

Command or superior responsibility, as de ned by the international law doctrine, indicates the ac-

countability of a military or civilian superior who does not take all measures which he is required

to take so as to prevent his subordinates from committing war crimes, crimes against humanity or

genocide, i.e. the accountability of a commander who does not attempt to punish the perpetrator af-

 e Act on Responsibility for Damage Caused by the Acts of Terrorism and Public Demonstrations (OG No. 117/03) and the Act on

Responsibility of the Republic of Croatia for Damage Caused by Members of Croatian Armed and Police Forces during the Homeland War

(OG No. 117/03).

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

ter the commission of crimes.  is form of criminal liability has been established with the purpose of

improving compliance with international humanitarian law, and is applied to both international and

non-international armed con icts.

 e doctrine of command responsibility has been summarised in Article 7 (3) of the ICTY Statute, Article

6 (3) of International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

Statute and Article 28 of the Rome Statute of the

ICC.

By way of judicial practice, the two ad hoc international tribunals have developed and reinforced

the command responsibility concept, clearly distinguishing it from individual criminal liability

. By do-

ing so, they enabled prosecution and punishment of those in the military and political chain of command

responsible for failing to prevent and punish their subordinates who have committed crimes. Such judicial

practice also de ned conditions which have to be met for command responsibility to exist:

1) Superior-subordinate relationship: this is manifested through commanders’ e ective control over

persons directly committing a crime, i.e. through material, factual ability to prevent and punish

unlawful acts of their subordinates.  ere are di erent forms of e ective control - in order for com-

mand responsibility to exist, de facto control su ces, or de facto and de iure control at the same time,

but not merely de iure control if it solely entails a form of legal authority not manifested as e ective

control;

2)  e fact that a defendant knew (actual knowledge) or had reasons to know (constructive knowl-

edge, a stricter standard of responsibility compared to negligence

) that his subordinates were about

to commit a crime; the presumption is that this knowledge existed if a commander could have

gained relevant information about committed o ences, and had not done so on purpose;

3) Failure of a defendant to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent a crime or punish its

perpetrators.

 e distinction between international and non-international con icts is important for the application of material law. For

instance, the precondition for the application of Article 2 of the ICTY Statute, Gross violations of 1949 Geneva Conventions, is

the existence of an international con ict.

 ese two ad hoc tribunals have solved the issue of command responsibility in an identical manner, stipulating requirements

which should be met cumulatively so as to  nd a defendant criminally liable under the concept of superior responsibility.

Article 28 of the ICC Statute de nes command responsibility with regard to military and civilian commanders.  is rule makes

an explicit distinction between military and civilian chains of command.  e di erence is apparent also in terms of the degrees of

guilt (mens rea) of a perpetrator.  e mentioned article demands the fourth element of command responsibility to be present: a

causal relationship with regard to the failure of the commander to prevent commission of such crimes.  e concept “should have

known” practically implies negligent commission because the commander did not know about unlawful acts of his subordinates.

Individual criminal responsibility is a form of criminal liability whereby a person directly commits or contributes to the

commission of a crime by way of di erent commission modes (joint commission, soliciting, aiding, inducing, planning, issuing

orders, abetting, and joint criminal enterprise).

Namely, ICTY and ICTR rejected negligence as the basis of command responsibility, and this stricter, standardized degree of

guilt has materialized in the verdict of the ICTR Appeals Chamber in the case against Ignace Bagilishema, as well as in the ICTY

proceedings against defendant Tihomir Blaškić.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

 is step forward in international criminal law, taken by the two ad hoc international tribunals, has

not had as successful application in national war crimes trials in Croatia. Apart from the political fac-

tor, which ensured impunity for the continuingly powerful members of military and political elites,

the occurrence of various legal dilemmas in uenced the current state of a airs, especially as these legal

issues were accompanied by the ability to process war crimes in the national legal system on the basis

of command responsibility. Until the 2004 amendments to the Criminal Law, command responsibility

did not exist in the Croatian legal system as a general legal principle parallel to criminal liability.  at

is to say, war crimes committed in the period from 1991 to 1995 are processed under the legal basis of

the Basic Criminal Law of the Republic of Croatia, as binding law tempore criminis, in concreto Article

28.

 is provision serves the Croatian courts as the legal basis when processing war crimes in the con-

text of command responsibility. Due to the constitutional ban on retroactive application of law, and to

the principle of legality, it is not possible to process defendants on the basis of command responsibility

for crimes which had been committed approximately 10 years before the above mentioned legislative

novelty was passed. Furthermore, with regard to mens rea of a defendant and according to some crimi-

nal law theoreticians, the situation in which a defendant “had reasons to know“ of crimes committed

by his subordinates, puts command responsibility very close to the concept of objective responsibil-

ity and introduces negligence as a defendant’s degree of guilt (negligence is punishable only if this is

explicitly stipulated by law, which is not the case with responsibility for war crimes in the Croatian

criminal justice legislation).

In terms of processing of war criminals in Croatia in general, a certain

positive development is noticeable when it comes to ethnic impartiality towards direct perpetrators,

and there is a trend in the growing number of cases against members of the Croatian armed forces for

crimes committed against Serb civilians and prisoners of war.

However, apart from a few examples,

criminal prosecution of political and military commanders has been absent, especially in cases of crimes

committed against members of a national minority group. Exemptions, which paved the way for the

introduction of the concept of command responsibility into the Croatian legal practice, are, without

doubt, the criminal proceedings against Rahim Ademi and Mirko Norac, as well as the trial of Branimir

Glavaš et al.  ese proceedings concluded with  nal and conclusive judgements elaborating in detail

key elements of this form of defendants’ criminal liability.

 e criminal justice process against Rahim Ademi and Mirko Norac represents a turning point in legal

practice because the judges combined the legal basis provided in Article 28 of the Basic Criminal Law

of the Republic of Croatia with the principle of responsibility of military commanders for acts of their

Article 28 of the Basic Criminal Law of the Republic of Croatia stipulates that a crime can be perpetrated only by “commission”

or “omission”. A crime can be perpetrated by “omission” only if a perpetrator failed to perform an act when he had a duty to do so.

Only the 2004 amendments to the Criminal law have explicitly introduced commanders’ liability for crimes perpetrated by their

subordinates, and of which they “should have known“, Article 167 a, paragraph 2.

 e criminal proceedings in the Zagreb County Court against defendant Emil Črnčec et al. (all members of the Croatian Army),

for the war crime against prisoners of war (members of the Republic of Srpska Army), committed in the villages of Mlinište and

Halapići, Bosnia and Herzegovina.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

subordinates, as de ned in international law.

 e  rst instance decision (con rmed in the appellate

procedure) which declared Branimir Glavaš et al. guilty of war crimes committed against Serb civilians

in Osijek, followed the mixed concept of command responsibility, but in this case, with regard to the

command hierarchy.

 e following criminal proceedings, which we monitored in several county courts, have either in indict-

ments or judgements also touched upon the issue of defendants’ liability via command responsibility:

• Criminal procedure against defendant Čedo Jović, which was repeatedly, for the third time, held

in the Osijek County Court, for the crime in Dalj, concluded with a non- nal and non-conclusive

judgement sentencing the defendant to  ve years in prison. In his capacity of the actual commander

of a military police unit of the so-called Republic of Srpska Krajina, he was found guilty of knowing

that, in the period from the end of December 1993 to June 1995, his subordinates were ill-treating

non-Serb members of a manual labour platoon, and of failing to take measures to punish the per-

petrators – in fact, of consenting to their subsequent unlawful acts (beating to death of one of the

injured persons, Antun Kundić, and beating of another  ve persons). During the proceedings it was

important to establish whether he had e ective control over the military police unit. It is less impor-

tant, in our opinion, whether defendant Jović was formally a commander.  e court of  rst instance

concluded that Jović was not a formal commander, but that he was de facto issuing orders to the

military police. It based its conclusion primarily on witness testimonies given by military policemen

who were referring to Jović as the “main guy“ but had never heard him issue orders. Further evidence

proved beyond doubt that Jović reported the death of Kundić to his superiors.  e inquest and au-

topsy were done straight away. If the defendant had indeed been the military police commander, it

is certain that he could have put the perpetrators in detention. However, the defendant claimed that

he wasn’t their commander, but merely a security o cer, while only a brigade commander could

have punished the perpetrators. Immediately after the incident nobody was prosecuted for Kundić’s

 e then judicial practice considered de jure position of defendants tempore criminis, without taking into account their de facto

control and e ective command over subordinates; for example, the sentencing judgement for a crime committed in Šodolovci and

Koprivna, upheld in the appellate procedure and rendered in a trial led in the Osijek County Court against defendant Stojan Živković

et al.

In the criminal proceedings against Branimir Glavaš et al. the Council has, consistently following international law doctrine,

found Branimir Glavaš criminally responsible on the basis of his eﬀ ective command, i.e. actual control over his subordinates

(members of the Protection squad).

In the criminal proceedings against Rahim Ademi and Mirko Norac, instead of relying on the term “e ective control“, the

Chamber reasoned that a commander cannot be held criminally responsible unless he possesses both formal and actual command-

ing authority and power in the full and necessary capacity, and this is considered a prerequisite for taking e ective measures to

prevent and punish unlawful acts committed by his subordinates.

In terms of the degree of guilt (mens rea or criminal consciousness) the Chamber determined that the existence of a defendant’s ac-

tual knowledge is necessary for  nding him criminally liable.  erefore, command responsibility can exist only if a commander knew of

unlawful acts and did not do anything to prevent or stop or punish them. Also, knowledge of just one unlawful killing of civilians su ces

because after gaining such information the commander should have taken adequate measures to prevent such acts from repeating (criminal

proceedings against Rahim Ademi and Mirko Norac).

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

death. In 2008 a  nal and conclusive judgement declared direct perpetrators Novak Simić, Miodrag

Kikanović and Radovan Krstinić guilty of committing a war crime against civilians. Based on this

decision their commander, Čedo Jović, was subsequently found guilty in a non- nal and non-conclu-

sive judgement. Simić was sentenced to 10 years in prison, Kikanović received 6 years and 6 months,

and Krstinić 5 years.

• Criminal proceedings against defendants Zlatko Jušić and Ibrahim Jušić, held in the Rijeka County

Court for the crime committed in Velika Kladuša, concluded with the acquittal in relation to the  rst

defendant, and with conviction in relation to the second defendant.  e judgement became  nal and

conclusive in the Supreme Court decision of September 2010. Zlatko Jušić was declared not guilty

of charges listed in the indictment concerning a quasi-command responsibility for commission, that

is, that he planned and organized unlawful detention of civilians, their physical and psychological

abuse and inhuman treatment, forcing them to work, and serve in the army of the so-called Autono-

mous Region of the Western Bosnia. Precisely, he was charged for participating in the work of the

government at the time the order, personally signed by him, was made, and based on which civilians

were taken to camps and collective centres where they su ered from inhuman treatment.  e court

established that civilians had been taken to camps even prior to that and beyond doubt before the

mentioned order was passed.  e Supreme Court decision, which upheld the  rst instance judge-

ment of the Rijeka County Court, established that in order to determine that criminal liability of

the  rst defendant cannot be proved, it is crucial to determine that the authorities of the Autono-

mous Region of the Western Bosnia (ARWB) functioned “parallely”.  e exclusive, absolute power in

ARWB was held by its president Fikret Abdić.  e  rst defendant, in his capacity as president of the

technocratic government, did not know of isolation, inhuman treatment and abuse of civilians.  e

second defendant Ibrahim Jušić, tempore criminis the Head of Department for Prevention of Crime

of the Public Security Unit and the Head of State Security of the Autonomous Region of Western

Bosnia, was found guilty on the basis of personal (individual) responsibility as a direct perpetrator,

and on the basis of command responsibility in a wider sense (quasi-command responsibility) for is-

suing orders for abuse of civilians.

• After repeating the trial, the War Crimes Council of the Slavonski Brod County Court in June 2011

rendered a verdict which entirely upheld the 1993 judgement of the Požega District Court declaring

Janko Radmanović and Radisav Stojanović guilty of war crimes against humanity and international

humanitarian law, and war crimes against civilians, for issuing orders for indiscriminate shelling of

Slavonski Brod.  e defendants were convicted based on quasi-command responsibility (commis-

sion).

•  e non- nal and non-conclusive judgement of the Bjelovar County Court of May 2011 acquitted

defendants Ivan Husnjak and Goran Sokol of war crime charges for omission.  e Council found

that the members of Unit A of Battalion II of Brigade 132 of the Croatian Army “R“ had a type of

dependent relationship with defendant Ivan Husnjak as a commander of Battalion II and defendant

Goran Sokol as a commander deputy of the same unit.  e prosecution charges accusing defendants

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Observations

of knowing about unlawful acts, yet doing nothing to prevent and punish them, were considered as

“unclearly and unspeci cally formulating command responsibility”. By explaining its reasons for the

acquittal, the Council reasoned that evidence did not point to the conclusion that defendants knew

(actual knowledge) that members of their formation were about to commit a crime, that is, that they

were preparing to commit a crime.  e Council also held that it was not proven that they had any

knowledge of this at the time when the crime was committed, that is, in the afternoon hours of the

day in question, but that they received the information about the committed arson and possible per-

petrators the following day.  e Council analysed the situation where the commander did not have

the information that his subordinates were preparing to commit a crime, and where he should have

known (constructive knowledge) and should have taken necessary and reasonable measures to pre-

vent the crime (the defendant issued three orders in which he prohibited the destruction of residential

buildings; in the order referring to the incident in question and after acquiring knowledge about

the arson of villages, he asked his subordinates for a report) and therefore the court decided that

defendants had taken reasonable measures to prevent the crime, although in this particular case the

crime eventually did occur. When considering the elements of command responsibility established

by international law, the Council reasoned that they were not cumulatively met and thus acquitted

the defendants.

For all the reasons mentioned above, we propose that during investigative proceedings and preparation of

indictments, the O ce of the State Attorney makes more e ort to de ne and establish criminal liability of

persons who, as military or superior civilian o cers, had a duty to guarantee security and protection of civilians

and war prisoners in their areas of responsibility, in which their subordinates committed war crimes. Based on

the fact that key command positions within the military and political hierarchy were tempore criminal occupied

by for instance: Vladimir Šeks

, Ivan Vekić

, Ivan Jarnjak

, Davor Domazet Lošo

, Mate Laušić

, Miroslav

At the time of the commission of the crime against Osijek civilians in 1991, Vladimir Šeks had an o ce on the  rst  oor of

the People’s Defence Secretariat building, while the civilians were tortured and killed in the garages located in the yard of the same

building.

At the time of the commission of the crimes in Pakračka Poljana and Zagrebački Velesajam (from 8 October to mid-December

1991) Ivan Vekić held a function in the Croatian Ministry of Interior (31 July 1991 to 15 April 1992) and as such was superior to

defendant Tomislav Merčep, the then advisor in the Ministry of the Interior and commander in the Reserve Unit of the Ministry

of the Interior.

Ivan Jarnjak served as a deputy in the Ministry of the Interior at the time of the commission of the crimes in Pakračka Poljana

and Zagrebački Velesajam, and in the period from 15 April 1992 to 16 December 1996 he served as the Minister of Interior, during

which period the Medak pocket and the military operation “Storm” crimes were committed. Members of the Special Police Force

of the Ministry of Interior took part in both of these.

Davor Domazet Lošo was an envoy of the Head of the General Sta of the Croatian Army during operation “Pocket 1993“

with commanding authority and de facto led the whole operation in which numerous crimes were committed against the civilian

population and prisoners of war.

Mate Laušić was the Head of the Military Police Headquarters in the Croatian Armed Forces from 1992 to 2002, and his

subordinates committed war crimes against civilians and war prisoners in the Lora prison, Split, in the period from March to

September 1992, and in the Kuline prison, Šibenik, in the period from May to July 1993.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Overview of Monitored Trials

Observations

Tuđman

, Jure Radić

, we think it needs to be investigated whether the above mentioned persons

had an actual ability to prevent or punish their subordinates – direct perpetrators of crimes. Without

establishing criminal responsibility of persons in the highest military and political positions for failing

to prevent and punish their subordinates for committing war crimes, there cannot be an absolute and

wholesome catharsis in the society which should bear responsibility for crimes committed in its name.

Miroslav Tuđman served as the Director of the Croatian Intelligence Service from 1993 to 1998, at the time of the

commission of the crimes in the military operation “Storm“, other crimes committed in the same period all over Croatia, and

crimes committed by the Croatian army in Bosnia and Herzegovina. At the end of 1996 and beginning of 1997, the intelligence

community coordinated the transport of corpses of Serb civilians (killed in the night between 11 and 12 December 1991 in

Paulin Dvor near Osijek by members of the Croatian Army), from the primary locality (military warehouse by Čepin) to the

secondary locality (Rizvanuša by Gospić), in order to cover up the crimes. Miroslav Tuđman held the most important position

in the central service of the intelligence community (at the same time the main executive service of the O ce of the National

Security), which was tasked to unite, analyze and evaluate data obtained through direct operational work or received by other

members of intelligence community. In the  rst instance judgement against Ante Gotovina et al. the ICTY found that Miroslav

Tuđman was one of the members of the joint criminal enterprise the purpose of which was to permanently remove the ethnic

Serb population from the Krajina region.

Jure Radić served as a Minister of Reconstruction and Development from October 1994 to May 1999 and was a close assistant

to the then Croatian president Franjo Tuđman. According to the facts established by the ICTY in the  rst instance judgement

against Ante Gotovina et al. he was a member of the joint criminal enterprise the purpose of which was to permanently remove

the ethnic Serb population from the Krajina region. With regard to the function which he tempore criminis held, he signi cantly

contributed to the prevention of return of ethnic Serb refugees, taking away their property (Law on Temporary Take-Over and

Administration of Speci ed Property, O cial Gazette 73/1995), as well as to the ethnic engineering and populating the Krajina

region with ethnic Croats.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Overview of Monitored Trials

MONITORED TRIALS IN 2011

New indictments

During 2011, state attorney’s o ces laid indictments against 29 persons (18 members of Croatian

and 11 members of Serb formations) in relation to war crimes. Only against one member of Croatian

formations the indictment was laid in his absence. On the other hand, almost all accused members of

Serb formations are unavailable to Croatian judicial bodies. Namely, out of 11 defendants, only two

indictments were laid in their presence.

Among the crimes for which indictments were laid during 2011, we de nitely need to stress those

which were for more than a decade subject of interest for international organizations and domestic

organizations dealing with human rights protection because of the number of victims, the severity of

crime and its systematic approach in committing the crime.

a) Indictment against Tomislav Mer~ep

At the beginning of June 2011, indictment was laid against Tomislav Merčep. He is charged that, as

commander of the MUP reserve unit stationed in Pakračka Poljana and at the Zagreb Fair and as ad-

viser to the Croatian MUP, he personally issued orders to have civilians unlawfully con ned, tortured

and killed in the period from October to December 1991. Although he knew that his subordinates,

with no authority, were con ning civilians, plundering them, mistreating, torturing and killing them,

he failed to prevent such unlawful actions. Hence in the area of Kutina, Pakrac and Zagreb, his subordi-

nates unlawfully con ned 52 persons, out of which number 43 persons were killed, three went missing

whereas the remaining persons survived the torture and abuse in icted upon them;

Defendants who are members of Croatian formations:

- Veljko Marić – in absentia (crime in Grbišno Polje);

- Željko Maglov, Tvrtko Pašalić, Damir Boršić and Milorad Paić (crime in Kuline);

- Tomislav Merčep (crime in Kutina, Pakrac and Zagreb);

- Tihomir Šavorić, Ivica Krklec and Alen Toplak (crime in Mrkonjić Grad);

- Stjepan Klarić, Dražen Pavlović, Viktor Ivančan, Željko Živec and Goran Štrukelj (crime in Kerestinec);

- Ante Babac and Marin Jakovljević (crime in Nos Kalik);

- Vladimir Milanković and Drago Bošnjak (crime in Sisak).

Defendants who are members of Serb formations:

- Aleksandar Vasiljević – in absentia and Miroslav Živanović – in absentia (crime in detention camps);

- Milan Marinković, Jovan Jakovljević – in absentia, Dragan Rakanović – in absentia, Milenko Mihajlović – in absentia and Jovica

Vučenović – in absentia (crime in Borovo Selo);

- Marko Bolić (crime in Barilović);

- Mirko Korelije – in absentia, Miroslav Peškir - in absentia and Ranko Šimulija – in absentia (crime in Miočinovići).

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Overview of Monitored Trials

 e crimes with which Tomislav Merčep was charged were subject of investigation by Hague investiga-

tors.  e case was transferred from the ICTY to Croatia as a „Category 2” case. However, the question

is whether the main hearing will be conducted in this trial because the defendant’s capacity to stand

trial is questionable due to his poor health condition.

b) Crimes in Sisak

An indictment was issued in December against Vladimir Milanković, commander of police forces

in broader area of Sisak and Banovina and deputy head of Sisak Police Administration, and Drago

Bošnjak, member of special unit “Vukovi” with the Sisak Police Administration.  ey were charged

with violent entrances into houses and apartments, unlawful searches and attacks, as well as unlawful

abuse of a large number of civilians of Serb ethnicity, whereupon a total of 24 civilians were killed.

Investigation for crimes in Sisak began in June 2011. It was also conducted against Đuro Brodarac who,

at the incriminating time, performed duties of wartime Head of Sisak Police Administration, Head of

Command HQ for the area of Banija and Kordun and member of Regional Crisis HQ for Sisak and

Banija. In July 2011 Brodarac passed away and criminal proceedings against him were suspended.

No sooner than in September 2010 was the investigation of these crimes transferred to the Osijek

County State Attorney’s O ce because nothing had been done in Sisak to reveal their perpetrators.

c) Crimes in detention camps

An indictment was laid in April 2011 against Aleksandar Vasiljević, the former Head of the Security Di-

rectorate of the Federal People’s Defence Secretariat, and against Miroslav Živanović, lieutenant-colonel

of the JNA and member of the Security Directorate.  ey were charged with crimes committed in deten-

tion camps at the territory of the Republic of Serbia (Begejci, Stajićevo, Sremska Mitrovica and Niš) and

of the Republic of Croatia (Stara Gradiška) against Croatian civilians and prisoners of war.  e crimes

were committed against a large number of detainees and prisoners of war who sustained severe physical

injuries, 19 persons were killed and several women were systematically raped and sexually abused.

Bearing in mind that the defendants are residing in the Republic of Serbia, actual prosecution of the de-

fendants, as well as conduct of an investigation against direct perpetrators, will depend on cooperation

between Croatian and Serbian prosecution o ces, i.e. on the assessment of the Serbian prosecution

o ce whether the indictment laid by the Osijek ŽDO is well-founded.

Trials monitored at county courts

During 2011, main hearings were scheduled in 39 criminal proceedings at county courts – 32 against

members of Serb and 7 against members of Croatian formations. In those trials 84 persons were charged

- 60 members of Serb and 24 members of Croatian formations. Hearings were held in 28 criminal pro-

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Overview of Monitored Trials

ceedings. Although scheduled, hearings did not take place in 11 criminal cases (against 19 defendants),

mostly due to unavailability of defendants, in relation to whom no decision on trial in absentia was

passed. Defendants in those cases mostly reside in the Republic of Serbia.

In 28 trials in which main hearings were conducted, 65 persons were charged – 41 members of Serb

and 24 members of Croatian formations.

Out of 41 charged members of Serb formations, 24 did not attend the hearings, thus hearings were

conducted in their absence. It involves 7 criminal proceedings which were completed (4 cases – 19

defendants), partially conducted (2 cases – two defendants) or proceedings in those cases are about to

be reopened pursuant to requests by the State Attorney’s O ce (1 case – 2 defendants) or trials are be-

ing conducted in defendants’ absence.

Out of 24 charged members of Croatian formations, only one

hearing against one of them was conducted in his absence.

During 2011, county courts rendered  rst-instance verdicts in 17 trials which included a total of 36

defendants - 19 members of Croatian and 17 members of Serb formations.

14 defendants were acquitted by  rst-instance verdicts – 11 members of Croatian and 3 members of

Serb formations (one of them was acquitted in absentia).

21 defendants received non- nal convicting verdicts (verdicts before appeal) – 14 members of Serb

formations (5 in absentia, out of whom two defendants were sentenced in reopened trials pursuant to

a request by the State Attorney’s O ce) and 7 members of Croatian formations.

Charges were rejected in relation to one accused member of Croatian formations.

Main hearings were scheduled at 13 county courts.  ey were conducted at 10 courts (in Sisak, Karlo-

vac, Slavonski Brod, Bjelovar, Zagreb, Zadar, Šibenik, Rijeka, Osijek and Vukovar). Although scheduled

in certain cases, main hearings did not take place at county courts in Dubrovnik, Split and Varaždin.

 us, no hearings took place in war crimes cases at the Split County Court for the second year in a row

although it has the status of one of four “specialized” courts.

Hearings were conducted or are being conducted in the absence of the following defendants:

Miloš Stanimirović, Stevan Srdić, Dušan Stupar, Boško Miljković, Dragan Sedlić, Branislav Jerković, Jovo Janjić, Milenko

Stojanović, Dušan Dobrić, Đuro Dobrić, Jovan Miljković, Katica Maljković (proceedings were discontinued due to her death in

2011), Nikola Tintor, Željko Krnjajić and Radoslav Stanimirović (crime in Tovarnik);

- Nebojša Baljak and Stevo Ivanišević (crime in Ravni Kotari II);

- Stojan Letica (crime in Novo Selište);

- Radoslav Čubrilo (crime in Lovinac);

- Dubravko Čavić (crime in villages along Una river near Hrvatska Kostajnica);

- Davor Tošić (crime in Kruševo);

- Janko Radmanović and Radisav Stojanović (crime by shelling of Slavonski Brod), which was reopened pursuant to the request

by the State Attorney’s O ce.

Hearing was conducted in the absence of defendant Igor Beneta (crime in Grubori).

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Overview of Monitored Trials

Out of 28 trials in which main hearings were conducted during 2011, 16 are new trials, while even 12

trials were repeated (42.8%).

In two trials the fourth (third repeated) hearing took place after the VSRH quashed verdicts by  rst-

instance courts on three occasions.

In six trials main hearings were conducted for the third time because the VSRH quashed verdicts by

 rst-instance courts on two occasions.

Monitored sessions at the Croatian Supreme Court

During 2011, the VSRH Appeals Chamber held sessions in 13 criminal cases (in relation to 23 defendants).

In relation to 9 defendants (4 members of Croatian and 5 members of Serb formations) the VSRH

quashed the  rst-instance convicting verdicts and remanded the cases to  rst-instance courts for retrial.

In relation to 6 defendants (3 members of Croatian and 3 members of Serb formations) the VSRH

upheld the  rst-instance acquittals.

In relation to 3 defendants (two members of Croatian and one member of Serb formations) the VSRH

upheld the  rst-instance convicting verdict; in relation to two defendants (one member of Croatian

and one member of Serb formations)  rst-instance convicting verdicts were modi ed in the decision

on sentence and defendants received sentences which were lower than the ones rendered by the  rst-

instance verdicts).

In relation to one defendant (member of Croatian formations) the VSRH upheld the  rst-instance

verdict rejecting the charge.

You can  nd more details on proceedings before county courts and before the VSRH in Appendixes –

Table Overviews at the end of this Report.

It concerns trials against defendant Petar Mamula (crime in Baranja) and against defendant Luka Markešić et al. (crime in Bjelovar).

It concerns trials defendant Čedo Jović (crime in Dalj IV), defendant Milan Jurjević et al. (crime in Kruševo), defendant Radoslav

Čubrilo (crime in Lovinac), defendant Mićo Cekinović (crime in Slunj and surrounding villages), defendant Rade Miljević (crime

on Pogledić hill near Glina) and defendant Enes Viteškić (crime in Paulin Dvor).

 e following persons received  nal acquitting verdicts:

- members of Croatian formations Damir Kufner, Pavao Vancaš and Antun Ivezić (crime in Marino Selo);

- members of Serb formations Milan Jurjević and Davor Tošić (crime in Kruševo) and Boško Surla (crime in Tenja).

 e following persons received  nal convicting verdicts:

– members of Croatian formations: Tomica Poletto to 15 and Željko Tutić to 12 years in prison (crime in Marino Selo); Božidar

Vukušić to 8 years in prison (crime in Dragišići).

– members of Serb formations: Dušan Zinajić to 4 years (crime in Borovo Naselje) and Bogdan Kuzmić to 5 years and 6 months

in prison (crime in Vukovar hospital).

Charges against Davor Šimić were rejected by a  nal verdict (crime in Marino Selo).

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

CRIME IN SUNJSKA GREDA

OPINIONS ON INDIVIDUAL TRIALS

Trial against Milenko Vidak, charged with a war crime against

civilians

Sisak County Court

Criminal oﬀ ence: war crime against civilians under Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH

Defendant: Milenko Vidak

War Crimes Council (panel): judge Snježana Mrkoci, Council President, judges Predrag Jovanić and Alenka Lešić,

Council Members

Prosecution: Ivan Petrkač, Sisak County Deputy State’s Attorney

Defence: Domagoj Rupčić, lawyer practising in Sisak, court-appointed defence counsel

Opinion

On 8 November 2010 the main hearing began before the Sisak County Court in the trial against

Milenko Vidak charged that as member of illegal armed formation of the so-called “Republic of Srpska

Krajina” on 29 August 1993 in Sunjska Greda while observing the positions of National Guard and

Croatian Police members, hidden in a small forest he noticed civilian Stjepan Sučić. Once the civilian

came near him, he  red a burst  re and killed him instantly.

On 20 December 2010, the verdict was pronounced in which the defendant was found guilty as

charged for the commission of war crime against civilians under Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZ-

RH. He was sentenced to eight years in prison.

On the basis of an international arrest warrant, the defendant was arrested in the territory of the Re-

public of Turkey in the Trabzon Province of the Black Sea Region.  e decision on his extradition to

Croatia for murder and not for war crime was made by the Trabzon Court for Serious Crimes.  is

decision was made pursuant to international criminal justice assistance and was issued on 4 August

2009. In the quoted decision, it was explicitly stated that the defendant was extradited for murder, not

for war crime.

Jelena Đokić Jović monitored this trial and reported thereof.

Predrag Jovanić and Alenka Lešić are judges from the civil department of the Sisak County Court.

On 12 July 2011, the VSRH’s Appeals Chamber quashed the Sisak County Court’s  rst instance verdict due to essential violation

of criminal procedure provisions and remanded the case back to the Court for retrial.

Namely, defendant Milenko Vidak was arrested on the basis of an international arrest warrant issued in the criminal case No. Kio-

36/99, in which he was suspected of committing a murder speci ed under Article 90 of the KZRH. In this criminal proceedings

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

On 17 September 2009, the Government of the Republic of Turkey issued a decision in which it grant-

ed the extradition request by the Republic of Croatia with the purpose to proceed with criminal pro-

ceedings against the extradited person because of “a war crime against civilians committed by murder”.

By taking into consideration the contents of the provision of Article 18 of the Criminal Code of the

Republic of Turkey which explicitly stipulates that decision on permissibility of extradition to the

applicant country is made by the competent court, whereby the execution of that decision is within

the competence of the Government, and that the Government’s decision must not be contrary to the

court’s decision, it seems that the procedural presumption for allowing the prosecution did not exist

during the entire trial conducted in the Republic of Croatia.

During the presentation of evidence, the court refused to obtain documentation from the Republic of

Turkey related to the defendant’s extradition to the Republic of Croatia. It would have been evident

from this documentation whether the defendant was extradited due to criminal proceedings for the

crime speci ed under Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH. Explaining its decision, the court

stated that the relevant documentation concerning the extradition already exists in the case  le.

Namely, the applicant country is authorised to prosecute or punish an extradited person only for the

crimes in respect of which the extradition was approved. In this speci c case, it is evident from the

Decision of the Court in Trabzon that the defendant was extradited for one criminal o ence only,

and the decision on extradition was consummated by issuing a  rst-instance (non- nal) conviction in

the criminal case No. K-24/10 in which the extradited person was sentenced for murder by the  rst-

instance verdict. For that reason, the specialty rule speci ed in Article 14 of the European Convention

on Extradition was also violated.

No approval by the competent authority had been obtained until the conclusion of the main hearing.

 e trial is currently in the  rst-instance decision-making phase. In our opinion, in accordance with

Article 353, item 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the trial should have been ended with a judgement

of refusal.

conducted by the Sisak County Court and registered under case  le No. K-24/10, the Court rendered in the meantime a  rst

instance convicting verdict (non- nal).

 e verdict of the Sisak County Court, No. K-14/10 of 20 December 2010, page 3.

 e European Convention on Extradition dated 13 December 1957, Additional Protocol to the European Convention on

Extradition of 15 October 1975 and the Second Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Extradition of 17 March

1978, published in the “O cial Gazette – International agreements” No. 14/1994, entered into force in the Republic of Croatia

on 25 April 1995.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

CRIME IN PERU[I]

Reopened trial against defendant Nikola Munjes, charged with a

war crime against civilians

Zadar County Court

Criminal oﬀ ence: war crime against civilians under Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH

Defendant: Nikola Munjes, extradited from Montenegro, held in the Zadar Prison detention facility since 20 October

2010

War Crimes Council (panel): judge Boris Radman, Council President, judges Dijana Grancarić and Ante Anić, Coun-

cil Members

Prosecution: Radovan Marjanović, Zadar County Deputy State’s Attorney

Defence: Slaven Dmitrović, lawyer practising in Zadar

Opinion after the conducted reopened trial

Following the extradition of Nikola Munjes from Montenegro, who had previously been sentenced in

absentia, the Zadar County Court reopened the trial.

 e Zadar County Court rendered a verdict on 4 February 2011 in which it was decided that the pre-

vious verdict rendered by that Court in relation to defendant Nikola Munjes, dated 9 October 1995,

would be fully upheld.  e prison sentence in the duration of 9 years rendered against the defendant

included the time he had spent in the extradition detention and in the Zadar Prison detention facility

since 23 March 2010.

During the renewed trial, the Council established the same facts as it did in the  rst trial and therefore

it fully upheld its previous verdict, including the sentence pronounced in that trial.

Course of the proceedings

On 9 October 1995 the Zadar County Court rendered a verdict which found defendant Munjes guilty

and sentenced him in absentia to 9 years in prison.  e Court found that on 22 September 1991 in

Perušić near Benkovac, as a member of militia of the so-called „Republic of Srpska Krajina” – who

followed the great-Serbian policy on the temporarily occupied territory of Croatia and who, together

with several other members of the same militia, threatened and physically abused inhabitants of Croat

ethnicity – during a chance meeting with Duje Pešut who was, together with Grgo Pešut, brought to

Benkovac militia station under suspicion that he was collaborating with the Croatian Army, the de-

fendant, totally unprovoked, started to hit Duje Pešut with his legs and a ri e stock.  en he bit Mr.

Pešut’s throat, telling him that he was going to drink ustashi blood and then he cut the victim’s throat

with a ri e bayonet, drank his blood and continued to hit his head with the ri e stock. When Grgo

Maja Kovačević Bošković and Martina Klekar monitored the trial and reported thereof.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

Pešut objected to such treatment, saying that he was going to kill a righteous man, the defendant re-

plied to Grgo Pešut “that the ustashi and snakes can only be destroyed like that”.  en, one member of

the same group hit Grgo Pešut in the chest with a ri e barrel.  ereby, having violated the rules of the

international law during an armed con ict by personally attacking individual civilians, torturing them,

inhumanely treating them and by applying measures of terror against civilians, the defendant com-

mitted a criminal o ence against humanity and international law - war crime against civilians under

Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH.

On 6 November 1995, the aforementioned verdict became  nal and an international arrest warrant

was issued after defendant Munjes since he was unavailable to Croatian state bodies. On 23 March

2010, the defendant was arrested in the Republic of Montenegro and placed in extradition detention

pursuant to a decision of the Podgorica Higher Court. Pursuant to a decision of the Ministry of Justice

of the Republic of Montenegro dated 28 September 2010, the defendant was extradited to Croatia on

20 October 2010 in order to be transferred to the competent court for the purpose of serving a prison

sentence. On 21 October 2010, the defendant  led a request for reopening of subject criminal proceed-

ings.  at request was granted by a decision of the Zadar County Court dated 9 November 2010. In a

decision dated 12 November 2010, the Zadar County Court suspended the prison sentence served by

defendant Munjes and put him under detention.

 e Court based its verdict of 4 February 2011 on witness testimonies of the injured persons, Duje

Pešut and Grgo Pešut, and on the witness testimony of Ante Pešut and did not accept the defendant’s

defence.

 e Court reached a conclusion that the incriminating event took place precisely on the incriminating

day - 22 September 1991 – on the basis of harmonized witness testimonies provided by Duje Pešut and

Grgo Pešut who stated that, on one Sunday at the end of September, they were working on a village

road, after which, in the afternoon hours, the incriminating event took place.  at the event actually

took place on that day is also evident from the fact that 22 September 1991 was indeed Sunday and it

also follows from the witness testimony of Ante Pešut.

On the testimonies of the aforementioned witnesses the Court also based its conclusion that a group

of uniformed members of “SAO Krajina Militia”, among whom was the defendant, intercepted Duje

Pešut on the road in the afternoon hours. After that, the uniformed group split in such a manner

that one part of the group took Duje Pešut to a military vehicle, while the other part of the group,

which included the defendant, went to Grgo Pešut’s house. Grgo Pešut was taken out of the house

and brought to the same military vehicle and then both injured persons were driven to the Benkovac

police station.  e Court established that the defendant was indeed a member of the aforementioned

group, which acted as described above on the incriminating day, on the basis of witness testimonies by

Ante and Duje Pešut, but also indirectly pursuant to conducted identi cation process by witness Ante

Pešut.  e Court established that Ante Pešut saw precisely the defendant among the aforementioned

group on the incriminating day on the basis of the fact that Pešut knew the defendant from before and,

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

above all, that he identi ed the defendant after twenty years among  ve similar persons. Witness Duje

Pešut did not know the defendant, but only saw him on two occasions – on 16 September 1991 and

on 22 September 1991. Duje Pešut learned that the person in question was defendant Nikola Munjes,

member of the “SAO Krajina Militia”, from his brother Ante Pešut, after he had described that person

to him. Apart from that, he had also heard the name Nikola Munjes from members of the “SAO Kra-

jina Militia” - Jugoslav Novković, Duško Bukarica and Dragiša Pupovac, when he inquired about the

person who had tortured him.

 e Court did not deem as relevant the fact that, during the identi cation process, Duje Pešut and

Grgo Pešut failed to identify the defendant with an explanation that almost twenty years have passed

since the critical event and that both injured persons were beaten on that occasion and were not al-

lowed to look at their attackers.

Taking into account all of the above-mentioned, the Court did not accept the defence presented by

the defendant in which he denied that he had participated in subject incriminations, assessing that his

defence was designed and oriented exclusively towards avoiding criminal responsibility.

On the basis of harmonized witness testimonies provided by Duje Pešut and Grgo Pešut, substanti-

ated by the witness testimony of Ante Pešut by hearsay, the Court reached a conclusion that the facts

contained in the description of the criminal o ence with which Nikola Munjes was charged in the

indictment were proven in their entirety.

In the enacting terms of the verdict, the Court stated that it was proven that the defendant acted with

direct pre-meditation because of which the Court, after the conducted renewed criminal proceedings,

pursuant to the provision of Article 411, paragraph 3 of the ZKP, decided to fully uphold the previous

verdict of the same Court dated 9 October 1995. While explaining the decision on pronounced sen-

tence, the Court stated that, since the factual description remained the same as in the previous verdict

and since the previous verdict was fully upheld, it was necessary to con rm the prison sentence in the

duration of nine years, rendered in the previous verdict, as well. According to the standpoint of this

Court, bearing in mind the presence of extenuating circumstances (the defendant’s youth at the time of

commission of the o ence, with no prior convictions) and aggravating circumstances (persistence and

determination in the commission of the o ence, ruthlessness, hatred, extreme lack of sympathy, the

fact that Duje Pešut’s health has deteriorated and fear that he su ered), along with the severity of the

criminal o ence itself, danger that the o ence presents to the society and the minimum and maximum

stipulated sentences, the pronounced sentence was fully justi ed.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Trial against ^edo Jovi}, charged with a war crime against

civilians

Osijek County Court

Criminal oﬀ ence: war crime against civilians under Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH in conjunction with

Article 28 of the same Act

Defendant: Čedo Jović

War Crimes Council (panel): judge Darko Krušlin, Council President, judges Katica Krajnović and Ante Kvesić,

Council Members

Prosecution: Dragan Poljak, Osijek County Deputy State’s Attorney

Defence: Tomislav Filaković, lawyer practising in Osijek

Opinion following the conclusion of the third (second repeated) first

instance proceedings

Even after the third (second repeated) trial, the Osijek County Court’s War Crimes Council found de-

fendant Čedo Jović guilty of committing a war crime against civilians under Article 120, paragraph 1 of

the OKZRH, in conjunction with Article 28 of the same Act, and sentenced him to 5 years in prison.

 e Verdict pronounced on 15 March 2011 found defendant Jović guilty that, with the rank of a cap-

tain, as actual commander of a military police unit of the so-called RSK Army’s 35

Slavonija Brigade,

in Dalj and surrounding area, from the end of December 1993 until June 1995, although he knew that

his subordinate military police commander Novak Simić, military policemen Miodrag Kikanović and

Radovan Krstinić and other unidenti ed military policemen were repeatedly torturing non-Serb mem-

bers of the so-called manual labour platoon, he failed to take any action within his powers to punish

the perpetrators and to prevent further unlawful conduct.  us, by accepting the continuation of their

impermissible actions, he agreed to the consequences: thus Simić, Kikanović and Krstinić were beating

Antun Kundić, in icting him numerous injuries because of which he died soon afterwards the torture

and they also physically tortured  ve more civilians.

Defendant Jović is held in custody as of 7 July 2008. At the pronouncement of the verdict, his deten-

tion was extended.

In this court case, the VSRH quashed two  rst-instance verdicts rendered before. Both of the men-

tioned verdicts found Jović guilty and sentenced him to 5 years in prison: the  rst one was quashed for

formal reasons (violation of the provisions of criminal procedure), while the second one was quashed

due to erroneous and incomplete establishment of facts.

Mladen Stojanović monitored this trial and reported thereof.

CRIME IN DALJ IV

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

In the VSRH’s decision which quashed the second verdict and remanded the case back to the  rst-

instance court for a third retrial, the VSRH ordered the  rst-instance court to adduce evidence on

the basis of which it would be established who in the military formation had the authority to issue

commands to the military police unit (military police platoon’s commander and/or commander of the

entire military formation and/or security body commander); whether the defendant, in addition to

the indisputable fact that he was a security o cer, was formally a superior commander to the military

police (and in this speci c case this is not really of crucial importance); was he a

de facto commander; did

he take any action after the event of 3 May 1995 when Antun Kundić was killed.

With this in mind, the  rst-instance court was ordered to hear a competent person who is a military

organisation expert familiar with the commanding system over the military police in the former JNA.

 e court was also requested to gather information whether any criminal prosecution was instigated in

respect of Antun Kundić’s death and was the then-commander of the Dalj Police Station relieved of his

duties due to the omission to take action in this particular case. In addition, the court had to collect

data on the formation organisation of the 35

Slavonija Brigade and to take testimonies from several

witnesses regarding the defendant’s position in the army, his conduct after the event on 3 May 1995, as

well as to examine which person initiated pre-investigation activities in respect of this event.

As an expert-witness the court heard Slavko Kit, a retired HV colonel who used to be a JNA o cer

until 1991. However, the defence was of the opinion that his testimony contained inconsistent state-

ments and therefore proposed, as it had been the case in the previous main hearings, to take deposition

from another competent witness - a retired general Imra Agotić, but the court rejected this proposal

by the defence.

Furthermore, competent institutions provided the court with information that no person had been

criminally prosecuted for the killing of Antun Kundić.

Considering the defendant’s position in the brigade and his conduct after the killing of Antun Kundić,

the court also heard, among others, Dušan Grahovac (security o cer, direct superior to defendant Jović

at the critical time). However, his deposition in which he stated that the defendant briefed him on the

event and that the defendant took necessary measures, the Court assessed as unconvincing and in con-

tradiction with other presented evidence and directed to be in favour of the defendant.  e court con-

cluded that the defendant did not take necessary measures to sanction the perpetrators because he did

not report the names of the persons responsible for Kundić’s death despite the fact that he knew this.

Unlike the prosecution and the court’s establishment, the defence deemed that manual labour platoon

members could not have a civilian status because they were receiving mobilisation invitations and had

a formation position within the brigade, that the defendant had neither formal nor actual commanding

powers over military police members and that the witnesses, who were providing information on the

defendant’s superior role over military police members, formed their conclusions on the basis of village

hearsay, and that none of them actually saw the defendant issuing orders to any of the military police

members.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

In the opinion following the conclusion of the second ( rst repeated) trial, we pointed out at the pos-

sibility that the VSRH quashes the  rst-instance verdict, particularly having in mind numerous evi-

dence proposed by the defence which the  rst-instance court’s council rejected to present at that time.

Although in the course of the third trial the  rst-instance court carried out the majority of evidence

which had been indicated at by the VSRH or which was proposed by the defence (but the proposal to

hear the expert-witness Imra Agotić was not accepted), it remains uncertain whether the VSRH will be

of the opinion that facts were established correctly and completely.

Both formal omissions which were made during the  rst trial and erroneous and incomplete establish-

ment of facts in the second trial have extended the length of the mentioned proceedings. During that

time, the defendant has been held in custody. If the VSRH quashes this last  rst-instance verdict and

remands the case for retrial the fourth time, the maximum period under which the defendant may be

kept in custody will most likely expire.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

CRIME IN SUKNOVCI AND OKLAJ

Trial against Goran Amanovi}, charged with a war crime against

civilians

Šibenik County Court

Criminal oﬀ ence: war crime against civilians under Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH

Defendant: Goran Amanović

War Crimes Council (panel): judge Nives Nikolac, Council President, judges Sanibor Vuletin and Branko Ivić, Coun-

cil Members

Prosecution: Emilio Kalabrić, Šibenik County Deputy State’s Attorney

Defence: Mladen Klarić, lawyer practising in Šibenik

Opinion

On 31 January 2011 the main hearing began at the Šibenik County Court in the trial against Goran

Amanović who was extradited to Croatia from Bosnia and Herzegovina.  e defendant was indicted

that he committed a war crime against civilians under Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH in the

villages Suknovci and Oklaj in the Promina area.

Having concluded the main hearing on 20 May 2011, the Court acquitted the defendant of the charge

that he committed the crime as he was charged in the indictment.

During the presentation of evidence, the court presented all evidence available to it.  e War Crimes

Council authorized its President to carry out identi cation of the defendant by three witnesses in the

premises of Šibenik-Knin Police Administration, although such investigative actions are more typical

for investigation proceedings and even for re-investigation activities when police authorities carry them

out on the basis of the state attorney’s order.

Having assessed all presented evidence and the defendant’s defence, the court found that it could not be

beyond reasonable doubt established that defendant Goran Amanović was the perpetrator of the crimes

that he had been charged with and which constituted an extended criminal o ence of war crime against

civilians. It decided so because “none of the heard witnesses recognized defendant Goran Amanović as

the perpetrator of the mentioned crime”, as was stated in the explanation of the  rst-instance verdict.

Jelena Đokić Jović monitored this trial and reported thereof.

 e ŽDO Šibenik’s indictment laid on 27 December 2010 charges the defendant that, as member of Serb paramilitary units in

Suknovci and Oklaj from the end of 1991 until 1994 at the then-temporarily-occupied Promina Municipality area, contrary to the

international law rules, he physically abused and beat elderly civilians of Croatian ethnicity, causing the death of one elderly man by

sustained injuries. He is also charged with rape of one elderly female civilian, attempted rape of one woman and with threatening,

intimidating and terrorising civilians and plundering their property.

 e Šibenik County Court’s Verdict No. K-44/2010 of 20 May 2011, page 10.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

However, the court found it indisputable, as it was unambiguously established during the presentation

of evidence, that the criminal o ences which form the corpus of an extended war crime in fact occurred

and that they were committed to the detriment of civilians, local female and male residents of Suknovci

and Oklaj villages in the Promina area, who were mentioned individually in the indictment issued by

the Šibenik County State Attorney’s O ce.

 e court took into consideration the fact that the trial was conducted against presumable crime perpe-

trator. Because of presumption of the defendant’s innocence, it decided to resolve unclear situations in

a manner which is more favourable to the defendant. In this speci c case, the court rested its acquittal

on the principle “in dubio pro reo” (when in doubt, the court must decide in favour of the defendant)

which presents one of the elements of presumption of innocence of the accused.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

ARSON IN THE VILLAGES OF PU[INA AND SLATINSKI DRENOVAC

Trial against Ivan Husnjak and Goran Sokol, charged with a war

crime against civilians

Bjelovar County Court

Criminal oﬀ ence: war crime against civilians under Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH in conjunction with

Article 28, paragraph 2 of the same Act

Defendants: Ivan Husnjak and Goran Sokol

War Crimes Council (panel): judge Sandra Hančić, Council President, judges Mladen Piškorec and Ivanka Šarko,

Council Members

Prosecution: Branka Merzić, Bjelovar County State Attorney

Defence: Marko Dumančić, lawyer practising in Osijek representing the 1

defendant; Zdravko Dumančić, lawyer

practising in Osijek representing the 2

defendant

Opinion following the conclusion of the first instance trial

On 24 May 2011, the Bjelovar County Court rendered the  rst instance verdict (verdict-before-appeal)

No. K-9/09 and acquitted Ivan Husnjak and Goran Sokol of the charge that they committed a war

crime against civilians, as indicted by the Bjelovar ŽDO.

 is trial is rather interesting because Croatian Army (HV) o cers were charged on the basis of com-

mand responsibility

with committing a war crime against civilians, but the mentioned crime did not

include any victims. Instead, the crime included a large-scale destruction of private property which is

not justi able by military needs.  e Basic Criminal Law Act of the Republic of Croatia (the OKZRH)

was in force when the crime was committed and therefore it was applied in respect of the mentioned

command responsibility.

 e indictment No. K-DO-6/06 of 23 September 2008 issued by the Bjelovar ŽDO does not contain

full information about injured parties.  e quoted Indictment contains only numbers of the houses set

on  re in Pušina and Slatinski Drenovac. Names of their owners are not mentioned. For that reason,

this indictment is imprecise. At the last trial hearing, the mentioned indictment was made more precise

by entering the names of two injured parties who contacted the Bjelovar ŽDO having learned from

the media that this trial was underway. As already mentioned, owners and complete addresses of their

burned/damaged property were not stated in the indictment, but only the house numbers. Moreover,

on page 3 of the indictment the ŽDO mentioned 43 facilities. Before that, it mentioned 17 facilities

in Pušina, 19 in Slatinski Drenovac, the Orthodox church tower and the hunter’s lodge. Hence, a total

of 38 facilities.

Veselinka Kastratović and Milena Čalić Jelić monitored this trial and reported thereof.

Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH in conjunction with Article 28, paragraph 2 of the same Act.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

 e War Crimes Council of the Bjelovar County Court established in the verdict that arson in Pušina

and Slatinski Drenovac was performed on 1 February 1992, after the cleansing action.  is cleansing

action (in the surrounding area of the mentioned villages) was carried out between 08.00 and 13.00

hours by members of “A” Company and the reconnaissance platoon of the 2

Company under the

132

HV “R” Brigade.  e Council established that arson occurred in the afternoon hours when the

mentioned “A” Company was returning to the hunters’ lodge in Jankovac. It also established that the

defendants, together with soldiers subordinated to them, were not present in the mentioned villages at

the critical time.

 e Council found that arson of property committed in the course of an armed con ict represents a

large-scale destruction of property that could not be justi ed by military needs.  us, it represents a

war crime against civilians - criminal oﬀ ence under Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH. When

the perpetrators act in the aforementioned manner, they act contrary to the provision of Article 53 of

the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons.

In the quoted verdict, the Council wa s of the opinion that the war crime which had been committed

by omission (non-doing) was “explicitly regulated by the international criminal law and, in particular,

by the 1949 Geneva Conventions together with their additional protocols issued in 1977”

. For that

reason, in its explanatio n of the acquitting verdict, the Council analysed the provision of Article 86

of the Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions in respect of conduct performed by both de-

fendants.  e Council established that members of “A” Company of the 2

Battalion under the 132

HV “R” Brigade were under certain subordination in relation to defendant Ivan Husnjak being the

commander of the 2

Battalion and to defendant Goran Sokol being the deputy commander of that

company. Prosecution’s accusation that the defendants were aware of unlawful actions going on in the

 eld but failed to take any action to prevent and punish such unlawful actions, the Council found to

be “an unclear and unspeci ed formulation of command responsibility”.

Explaining the acquittal, the Co uncil stated that not a single presented evidence lead to a conclusion

that the defendants knew that their unit members would commit a crime, i.e. that they were preparing

to do it. Moreover, the Court also considers unproven that the defendants had knowledge about the

crime at the time when it was committed (i.e. in the afternoon hours), and it considers that the defend-

ants learned about the committed arson and possible perpetrators the following day.

 e Council also analysed the situation in which the commander had no knowledge that his subordi-

nates were preparing to commit a crime, but he should have known it and should have taken necessary

and reasonable measures to prevent it. It is evident from the depositions provided by the witnesses

and by the defendants themselves, in view of Zlatko Mesić’s report of 31 December 1991, that the

battalion’s reconnaissance unit members had previously compromised themselves by excessive alcohol

consumption, disturbance of public order and commission of certain criminal o ences.

 e verdict of the Bjelovar County Court’s War Crimes Council, No. K-9/09 of 24 May 2011, page 16, section 2.

 e Verdict of the Bjelovar County Court0s War Crimes Council, No. K-9/09 of 24 May 2011, page 16, section 4.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

In respect of defendant Ivan Husnjak, the Council founded its decision on the fact that he issued three

orders (15 December 1991, 18 December 1991 and 31 January 1992) in which he prohibited destruc-

tion of housing facilities. In the order relating to this speci c event, “the 1

defendant issued an order

to unit commanders to brief all soldiers about the meaning of the task as well as the need for order

and discipline”

. Having analysed presented personal evidence, the Council stated witness deposi-

tions which made a mention of commands issued in October 1991 that contained instructions on the

treatment of prisoners, material and technical means and civilians in line with all conventions which

were in force. In addition, it was stated that unlawful actions performed before the critical event had

already been investigated and that some members of the 132

HV Brigade had been prosecuted.  e

Council found indisputable that defendant Ivan Husnjak, upon learning about the village being set on

 re, requested from his subordinate commanders to submit reports on the event. From the analysis of

presented evidence, the court concluded that the defendants took reasonable measures to prevent the

crime, although, in this particular case it did occur.

As regards the defendants, the Council established that there was no guilt on the part of commanders,

“not even the mildest form of negligence in relation to the crime and there was no causal connection

with the crime between the actions of the 1

defendant as commander and the 2

defendant as his

deputy.”

Furthermore, the Council found tha t no n-establishing the names of perpetrators of criminal o ence

may only represent “a separate criminal o ence of non-reporting a crime or a possible criminal o ence

of aiding and abetting the perpetrator following the crime in respect of which, in accordance with gen-

eral provisions, the statute of limitations for criminal prosecution had set it.

100

”

 e Bjelovar ŽDO  led an appeal again st the acquittal.  erefore, it will be interesting to see whether

the Supreme Court will accept the reasons for acquittal in respect of both defendants. Namely, the

Council in its verdict did not separately assess the scope of command authority as regards both defend-

ants, particularly as regards defendant Goran Sokol as deputy commander of the 2

Company under

the 132

HV “R” Brigade. In the trial concluded with the  nal judgment against defendants Rahim

Ademi and Mirko Norac

101

, the VSRH accepted the  rst-instance court’s opinion that absence of com-

mand authority and power represents absence of criminal liability of the defendants - as was the case

with defendant Goran Sokol, and the Bjelovar County Court’s War Crimes Council did not engage

itself into determining this. If we follow the logic of the trial completed with a  nal judgment for the

crimes in Medak Pocket, in that case a deputy commander (under the rules of the former JNA but also

under HV rules) has a di erent description of duties, powers and obligations and he is not included,

as is the case with the commander, in the zone of criminal responsibility. In respect of defendant Ivan

 e Verdict of the Bjelovar County Court0s War Crimes Council, No. K-9/09 of 24 May 2011, page 18, section 2.

 e Verdict of the Bjelovar County Court0s War Crimes Council, No. K-9/09 of 24 May 2011, page 19, section 5.

100

 e verdict of the Bjelovar County Court’s War Crimes Council (No. K-9/09 of 24 May 2011), page 19, section 5.

101

 e verdict of the Zagreb County Court’s War Crimes Council (No. II K-rz 1/06 of 30 May 2008).

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

Husnjak’s acquittal, the question remains whether the War Crimes Council prematurely concluded

that the defendant acted in accordance with the provision of Article 86 of the Protocol I Additional to

the Geneva Conventions, by viewing Mirko Koić’s witness deposition (commander of “A” Company

of the 2

Battalion under the 132

HV “R” Brigade) which he provided during the investigation.  e

witness then said that he wrote a report on 3 February 1992, which he still supports and in which he

provided the names of his company members who were setting houses on  re in Pušina, but defendant

Ivan Husnjak and none of his superiors failed to initiate any action against these persons.  is court

verdict reopens the question of applicability and scope of command responsibility in national law.

About the trial

 e indictment NO K-DO-6/06 of 23 September 2008 issued by the Bjelovar ŽDO charges the de-

fendants that they – the 1

defendant Husnjak as commander of the 2

battalion of the 132

HV “R”

brigade and the 2

defendant Sokol as deputy commander – failed to take on 1 February 1992 any

action to prevent and punish unlawful conducts of their subordinates.  e Indictment alleges events

preceding the aforementioned incrimination event. Previously, on 18 December 1991 the HV forces

freed the wider Orahovica area and villages under Papuk mountain. In particular, the special police

forces from Osijek and police station Orahovica took control over the mentioned area. Following to

that, on 31 January 1991 the defendant Husnjak ordered a cleansing of occupied villages Pušina and

Slatinski Drenovac. During that cleansing operation several unidenti ed members – subordinates to

the defendants – began with setting  re to abandoned Serb-ethnicity people’s houses that entered later

because of such actions into a con ict with members of the special police and of the police who at-

tempted without success to prevent them.  us, the Indictment charges the 1

and the 2

defendant

that, although aware of unlawful actions going on, they failed to take any action and therefore agreed

to continued actions by their subordinates and consequences thereof. As alleged in the Indictment, the

consequences included 17 destroyed houses in Pušina caused by the arson attack, the Orthodox church

damaged by  re shots, 19 houses set on  re in Slatinski Drenovac including the hunters’ lodge between

Pušina and Slatinski Drenovac.

Both defendants had their defence counsels.  ey pleaded not guilty in respect of the allegations con-

tained in the indictment.

 e trial began in March 2010 and a total of 5 main trial hearings were held. Due to a recess of almost

a year, the trial started anew on 23 may 2011 before the same Council.  at Council, however, failed

to provide any explanation to the parties in the trial in respect of non-scheduling the hearings.

During the presentation of evidence, 17 witnesses and 2 injured parties were heard.  ey learned from

the newspaper about the trial going on and contacted the Bjelovar ŽDO.

 e Court  le contains: original record of event, inspection record  le, report to the special unit com-

mander addressed at Zdenko Minarik and Miroslav Buneta, command No. 24-1/92 of 31 January

1992 signed by defendant Ivan Husnjak.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

SLAVONSKI BROD SHELLING CRIME

Reopened trial against Janko Radmanovi} and Radisav

Stojanovi}, previously sentenced in absentia for committing a

war crime against civilians

102

Slavonski Brod County Court

Criminal oﬀ ence: war crime against civilians under Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH

Defendants: Janko Radmanović and Radisav Stojanović

War Crimes Council: judge Jadranka Đaković, Council President, judges Mirko Svirčević and Zlatko Pirc, Council

Members

Prosecution: Stjepan Haramustek, Slavonski Brod Deputy County State’s Attorney

Defence: lawyer Ivanka Dugandžić representing the  rst defendant; lawyer Tomislav Skutari representing the second

defendant

Opinion after the conducted reopened trial

On 1 June 2011, after the conducted renewed trial, the War Crimes Council of the Slavonski Brod

County Court pronounced a verdict which fully upheld the verdict rendered by the Požega District

Court dated 25 October 1993 which found Janko Radmanović and Radisav Stojanović guilty of com-

mitting a criminal o ence against humanity and international law of war - war crime against civilians

and they were sentenced to 15 ( fteen) years in prison each.

Both proceedings (before the Požega District Court and the renewed trial before the Slavonski Brod

County Court) were conducted and verdicts were pronounced in the defendants’ absence because they

were unavailable to Croatian judiciary since 9 December 1991 when they were exchanged as prisoners

of war.

Although the proceedings were renewed after the Požega County State Attorney’s O ce requested

so because of presentation of new facts or submission of new evidence on behalf of the convicts

, the

Council of the Slavonski Brod County Court, after the conducted main hearing, established the same

facts as the Požega District Court had done.

We are of the opinion that the evidence presented in the renewed proceedings was not new by its nature

and content as to grant the renewal in the  rst place. However, it remains to be seen what standpoint

the VSRH will assume in a decision it will pass during the appellate procedure.

Bearing in mind that the previous verdict was fully upheld, the Court also upheld the 15-year prison

sentences pronounced in the previous verdict. However, by looking at the court practice, we are of the

102

Miren Špek and Veselinka Kastratović monitored the trial and reported thereof.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

opinion that the pronounced sentences are too long. In many war crimes proceedings which resulted

in deaths, the perpetrators received (signi cantly) shorter prison sentences.

Course of the proceedings

In the verdict of the Požega District Court from 1993, Radmanović and Stojanović were found guilty

because, as commanders of the “Ivan Senjug-Ujak” military barracks in Slavonski Brod, on 15 and 16

September 1991 they issued orders to open  re from all available weapons on certain parts of the city

regardless of the activities performed by the regular Croatian forces.  eir subordinate o cers and

soldiers carried those orders so that they destroyed and damaged a large number of facilities

103

by  ring

from all available weapons, on which occasion civilian Ivan Babić sustained a severe physical injury,

while Marica Miloš, Konstantin Bašić, Marijan Kovačević and Drago Vidaković sustained light physi-

cal injuries.  us, they were found guilty of ordering a non-selective attack aimed at civilians that led

to unlawful large scale destruction of property. On 4 May 1995, the VSRH denied the defendants’

appeals as unsubstantiated and upheld the verdict rendered by the Požega District Court.

Based on a request for renewal of the proceedings  led by the Požega County State Attorney’s O ce,

on 2 February 2010 the Extra-trial Chamber of the Slavonski Brod County Court passed a decision

which allowed the renewal of criminal proceedings.

Since the convicts were still unavailable to the Croatian judicial bodies, the request was  led on the

basis of Article 501, paragraph 1, item 3 of the ZKP (if new facts or new evidence are presented which

alone or in relation to previous evidence appear likely to lead to the acquittal of the person who was

convicted or to his conviction on the basis of a more lenient criminal law provision

It was stated in the request that the defendant Radmanović forwarded letters to the DORH and the

Slavonski Brod County Court on several occasions.  us, in a submission dated 1 September 2007,

he proposed the hearing of injured persons, as well as those witnesses for whom it was unclear whether

they had been questioned during the criminal proceedings. Namely, in the verdict of the Požega Coun-

ty State it was stated that a large number of witnesses had been heard, but it remained unclear whether

injured persons were heard as witnesses, as well as Dr. Jozo Meter and Franjo Piplović.

 ree witnesses were heard before the War Crimes Council of the Slavonski Brod County Court: Jozo

Meter – President of the War-time Presidency of the former Slavonski Brod Municipality, Frano Piplović

– President of the Crisis Headquarters and Ivo Petrić – Defence Commander of the former Municipality.

From the testimonies of the aforementioned witnesses it is evident that defence preparations were on-

going. Because of the order issued by the Supreme Commander of the Croatian Armed Forces about

blocking the military barracks, JNA o cers and soldiers were being called upon to surrender peacefully.

103

“Ivana-Brlić Mažuranić” Memory Home, supermarkets “Vesna” and “Bambi”, hotels “Park” and “Brod”, “Klasije” Sports Hall,

primary school “Mika Babić”, kindergarten “Pčelica”, “Plavo polje” hospital, the Basilian Convent, the Catholic church of the Saint

Nikola Tavelić.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

Negotiations were also taking place between representatives of municipal authorities and ZNG on one

side and the garrison commanders on the other. Due to speci c location of the military barracks, con-

trol checkpoints were set up in its vicinity.  us an attempt was made to prevent possible JNA move-

ments in the direction of the city.

According to witness testimony of Ivo Petrić, he entered the military barracks together with Josip

Dokuzović, the-then Culture Commissioner. Inside the barracks perimeter they saw organized circular

defence, adapted to the barracks con guration.  ey saw an abundance of weapons, cases, shell boxes.

Weapons barrels were soot-stained.

All other pieces of evidence were read, with the consent of parties to the proceedings: minutes contain-

ing 116 witness testimonies, defendants’ defences provided before the investigating judge of the Požega

District Court in 1991,

104

minutes containing witness testimonies by the injured persons,  nding and

opinion of a court-appointed expert about the injuries sustained by the injured persons, minutes on

the crime scene investigation made on 17 September 1991, proposal for de-blocking of the Slavonski

Brod commanding garrison facility dated 15 September 1991, letter from the Slavonski Brod Munici-

pality Assembly’s Crisis Headquarters dated 15 September 1991, excerpt from the Bukovlje guards’

log, minutes on damage investigation on the facilities in Gupčeva Street dated 18 September 1991,

an overview of war damages caused in the period between 15/16 September and 15 November 1991,

letter from the Commission for the Assessment of War Damage dated 29 September 1993, letter from

the District Court dated 29 September 1993 and a letter from the Medical Centre dated 12 October

1993. An insight was made into photographic documentation, the photocopy of an article in Brodski

list daily, the city plan. A video recording was presented which contained footage of the subject events.

During the main hearing, the Council President presented the content of the statements provided by

two persons that were forwarded to the Court by the convicts, as well as the content of submissions and

letters from convict Radmanović.  e enacting terms of the verdict failed to specify whose statements

were those or what was the content of the letter by defendant Radmanović.

Out of all presented material pieces of evidence, the Council did not accept only the testimonies

provided by JNA soldiers who were at the “Ivan Senjug-Ujak” military barracks at the critical time.

 e Council did not accept the defendants’ defences in which they claimed that they had defended

the barracks from the attack by the Croatian armed forces, that they had believed in peaceful con ict

resolution and that they had had no intention to shoot.  e Court did not accept the aforementioned

testimonies because they were contrary to the testimonies of citizens questioned as witnesses and mate-

rial evidence on large scale damage that had occurred.

 e Council reached a conclusion that it was a destructive and pre-meditated action on the part of

members of JNA armed forces which cannot be justi ed under any circumstances and which were

104

Although the Council forwarded a request to the Republic of Serbia asking for the defendants to be questioned, it did not

happen.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

performed upon the defendants’ order. Such actions hit the city of Slavonski Brod and its civilian

population.

 e Council assessed as a particularly extenuating circumstance the letter by Janko Radmanović titled

„Proposal for de-blocking” which he forwarded on 15 September 1991 to local civilian and military

authorities. In that letter he threatened with “retaliation” by the JNA Tuzla Corps unless the attacks by

the Croatian forces stopped.

 e Court fully accepted the standpoint of the Požega District Court, thus it did not accept the de-

fendants’ defence which claimed that the defendants’ actions were not premeditated. According to the

Court’s standpoint, they acted with premeditation because they were aware that their actions (order) or

a lack thereof (a lack of prohibition) may lead to prohibited consequences, to the occurrence of which

they consented.

 e only evidence motion that both Councils rejected as irrelevant was a proposal by the defence to

perform ballistic expertise in order to determine the intensity of devastation of Slavonski Brod by the

missiles  red from Bosnia.  e evidence motion was rejected with an explanation that it had been es-

tablished with other presented pieces of evidence.

Although the verdict of the Slavonski Brod County Court failed to state other aggravating and extenu-

ating circumstances, by fully upholding the previous verdict, the Court accepted the assessment of

the Požega District Court which, when deliberating the sentence, took into account the situation and

time in which the event took place (the disintegration of a country, disintegration of its armed forces,

non-acceptance of newly occurred changes, desire to maintain the existing situation), the aggravating

circumstances: faith in the power and force of the JNA and its indestructibility, self-con dence and

aggressiveness and the extenuating circumstances: both defendants were citizens of Slavonski Brod,

they o ered and accepted the request for surrender because of which they were relieved of their duties.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

CRIME IN KRU[EVO

The third (second repeated) trial against Milan Jurjevi} and

Davor To{i}, charged with a war crime against civilians

105

Zadar County Court

Criminal oﬀ ence: war crime against civilians under Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZ RH

Defendants: Milan Jurjević and Davor Tošić

War Crimes Council: judge Enka Moković, Council President; judges Antun Klišmanić and Dijana Grancarić, Coun-

cil Members

Prosecution: Radovan Marjanović, Zadar County Deputy State’s Attorney

Defence: lawyer Ivica Ivanić representing Milan Jurjević; lawyer Rikard Perković representing Davor Tošić

Opinion

On 8 June 2011, after the conducted third (second repeated) trial, the War Crimes Council of the

Zadar County Court presided over by judge Enka Moković pronounced a verdict which acquitted the

 rst defendant Milan Jurjević and the second defendant Davor Tošić of charges that they committed a

war crime against civilians.

Milan Jurjević was tried in his presence, while Davor Tošić was tried in absentia.

We are of the opinion that the repeated trial was conducted correctly, in compliance with legal regula-

tions. After the Zadar County Court pronounced the acquitting verdict, these long-lasting criminal

proceedings were  nally brought to an end.  e standpoint of the  rst-instance court was also upheld

by the verdict of the VSRH dated 16 November 2011 in which it was stated that the Zadar County

Court provided clear and detailed reasons for its decision.  us the acquitting verdict became  nal.

Course of the proceedings

 e indictment issued by the Zadar ŽDO on 18 June 1997 charged the defendants that on 19 De-

cember 1991 in Kruševo, in the area called Karamarkuša, during an armed con ict between the former

Yugoslav Army and Serb paramilitary formations and the Croatian armed forces, as members of the

so-called 4

light Obrovac Brigade of the so-called RSK Army, they killed Mile Brkić by shots  red

from  rearms in such a manner that the second defendant Davor Tošić  red several shots at Mile Brkić.

When the injured person fell to the ground and started to yell and scream for help, the  rst defendant

Jurjević  red three more shots from his semi-automatic ri e into Mile Brkić, as a result of which he died

on the spot. Afterwards, they left the crime scene in a truck leaving the dead body behind

After the conducted  rst-instance proceedings, the acquitting verdict was pronounced on 1 December

1997.  e Court deemed that it was not proven during the proceedings that the defendants commit-

105

Martina Klekar and Maja Kovačević Bošković monitored the trial and reported thereof.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

ted the criminal o ence with which they were charged. Heard witnesses did not provide an insight

into whether the defendant Jurjević participated in the killing of the injured person Mile Brkić.  e

Court concluded, by invoking the  ndings of a psychiatric expert, that the defendant Jurjević was an

immature person who was not able to realistically and objectively see the consequences and severity of

the testimony he had provided during the investigation in which he had confessed the commission of

the o ence. His confession did not  t with the  nding and the opinion of the expert pathologist about

the position of the injured person at the moment when he sustained the injuries.

 e Prosecution lodged an appeal against the aforementioned and it was upheld by the VSRH decision

dated 13 September 2000, the verdict was quashed and the case was reversed to the  rst-instance court

for a retrial. In the explanation of the decision it was stated that it was not possible to accept the stand-

point expressed by the  rst-instance court that Jurjević’s defence provided during the investigation was

brought into question by the results of the expertise preformed by a neuro-psychiatrist and a patholo-

gist and that the Zadar County Court failed to perform a comprehensive analysis of the defendant’s

defence provided during the investigation when he confessed the commission of the o ence.

On 15 September 2005, after the conducted repeated trial, the War Crimes Council of the Zadar

County Court rendered a verdict which found defendants Jurjević and Tošić guilty as charged. Jurjević

was sentenced to 4 years in prison, while Tošić received 15 years.

 e defendants’ lawyers and the State Attorney’s O ce both lodged appeals against this verdict. On

14 March 2007 the VSRH upheld the defendants’ appeals and reversed the case for a retrial. Before

considering the defendants’ appeals, the VSRH found that the  rst-instance court made an essential

violation of the criminal procedure provisions in the challenged verdict. Namely, the  rst-instance

court heard police o cer Mirko Lukić as a witness in relation to the informative talk he performed

with the-then suspect Milan Jurjević. Apart from that, the VSRH deemed that the convicting verdict

was based exclusively on Milan Jurjević’s defence provided during the investigation procedure and or-

dered the  rst-instance court to try to  nd in the repeated proceedings persons who were present at the

incriminating event, as well as persons who might have certain information about the event.

 e third (second repeated) trial commenced in May 2010 and it lasted until June 2011. Numerous

material and personal evidence was presented, including  ndings and opinions of the court-appointed

ballistics and weapons expert and expert pathologist. Approximately 30 testimonies from already heard

witnesses were read with the consent of parties to the proceedings. None of heard witnesses charged

the defendants. Although defendant Jurjević confessed during the investigation to have committed

the criminal o ence, in the defence presented at the main hearing he denied the commission with an

explanation that the confession he provided during the investigation was the result of fear and that

he was going through a di cult state of mind.  e Court gave credibility to the witness testimony

of Mirko Lukić, a police o cer who performed the informative talk with the defendant. In his testi-

mony, witness Lukić claimed that defendant Jurjević was not coerced into providing his confession.

Still, the  rst-instance court did not consider the confession provided before the investigating judge

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

to be well-founded. According to the standpoint of the  rst-instance court, Jurjević’s defence and his

confession were neither detailed enough nor did they describe the circumstances of the incriminating

event, bearing in mind the conducted crime-scene investigation from May 2010 as well as the ballistic

expert’s  nding and opinion. Not a single witness testimony con rmed them.  e claim by defendant

Jurjević, that the deceased Mile Brkić was shot at from a semi-automatic ri e and then also from a gun,

was challenged with the ballistic expert’s  nding and opinion and the pathologist. It was established

that the shells discovered during the crime-scene investigation conducted on 11 May 2010 belonged

to an automatic ri e, not to a semi-automatic one.  ere were no injuries on the deceased person’s

skull and no shells belonging to a gun were found during the crime-scene investigation. According to

the harmonized opinions of the experts based on material evidence, at the moment the deceased Mile

Brkić was shot at, he faced the source of shooting, not backwards as defendant Jurjević claimed during

the investigation. According to the standpoint of the  rst-instance court, other claims by defendant

Jurjević provided during the investigation were not con rmed, either. Although he claimed that he

had committed the incriminating o ence as a member of the so-called 4

light Obrovac Brigade of the

so-called RSK Army, it was established from the testimony of the heard witness that on 19 December

1991, when the incriminating o ence was committed, the subject Brigade was not even established

and, furthermore, defendant Milan Jurjević was not even member of that formation as stated in the

indictment, while defendant Tošić was its member but only after 1992.

According to the standpoint of the  rst-instance court, the aforementioned facts disputed defendant

Jurjević’s confession provided during the investigation procedure and resulted in the adoption of an

acquitting verdict.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

CRIME IN ZRIN

Trial against Jablan Keji}, charged with a war crime against

prisoners of war

106

Sisak County Court

Criminal oﬀ ence: war crime against prisoners of war under Article 122 of the OKZRH

Defendant: Jablan Kejić, detained

War Crimes Council (panel): judge Snježana Mrkoci, Council President, judges Predrag Jovanić and Višnja Vukić,

Council Members

Prosecution: Ivan Petrkač, Sisak County Deputy State’s Attorney

Defence: Zorko Konstanjšek, lawyer practising in Sisak

Opinion

On 5 September 2011, the Sisak County Court’s War Crimes Council found Jablan Kejić guilty for

war crime against prisoners of war under Article 122 of the OKZRH. He received a prison sentence in

the duration of 7 (seven) years.

He was found guilty because, as a member of armed unit of the so-called SAO Krajina, on 27 July 1991

he captured wounded member of the Croatian Ministry of Internal A airs Še k Pezerović in Dušan

Vinčić’s barn in the village of Kuljani, tied his arms with a belt, took him to the village of Kirišnica,

beat him up and kicked his head and body.  en, he took the injured party with his arms tied up at his

back to the school in Jovac where several villagers gathered including Mirko Ćurčija, Milenko Milković

and Momčilo Buinac who were also members of the Territorial Defence of the so-called SAO Krajina.

Together with defendant Jablan Kejić they were beating and kicking Še k Pezerović’s head and body.

Following his attempt to run away, they tied him up with wire and continued beating him and then

they put him in a trunk of “Zastava 101” vehicle tied up like that and took him to Ćore (Ćoriće),

Šakanlije and Lotine.  ey stopped in the aforementioned places where they were beating and kick-

ing Še k Pezerović again, in icting him injuries of which he died.  en, they left his dead body at a

meadow near Zrin.

Separation of proceedings

In the indictment No. K-DO-37/10 of 13 December 2010 issued by the Sisak ŽDO, Jablan Kejić,

Mirko Ćurčija, Milenko Milković and Momčilo Buinac were charged with the commission of de-

scribed war crime. Bearing in mind the fact that all defendants, except Jablan Kejić, are unavailable to

Croatian judiciary, the court decided to separate the proceedings in respect of available Kejić. Defend-

ant Kejić expressed no objection against this separation. Additional factors that in uenced the decision

106

Milena Čalić Jelić monitored this trial and reported thereof.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

on separation were: the defendant’s detention status, the need to increase e ciency of completing the

trial in his case, but also non- ful lling of presumptions that other defendants would be tried in their

absence because no international arrest warrant had been issued against them during the previous trial.

The issue of how quickly was resolved the detention case

 e defendant was arrested on 13 October 2010. He was put in custody due to danger of escape and

particularly grave circumstances of crime commission.  e indictment was laid on 13 December 2010.

 e main hearing commenced on 14 April 2011 and lasted for  ve months. In total, six trial hearings

were held, 14 witnesses including an expert pathologist were heard and the case  le’s material docu-

mentation was examined. Unlike the main hearing which was carried out within a reasonable time-

frame, four months elapsed from the day the indictment was laid until the  rst trial hearing.

Presentation of evidence

 e entire trial, although initiated only in 2010 before the court well-experienced in war crimes pros-

ecution, contained procedural irregularities in taking depositions during the investigation. Certain wit-

ness depositions provided during the investigation proceedings could not have been used in the trial be-

cause the minutes on interrogations were signed by court advisors. In accordance with ZKP provisions,

they had the authority to prepare the implementation of certain investigative activities, take statements

and proposals by parties and independently take certain investigating activities entrusted to them by

the investigative judge. At the latest forty eight hours after the activity was undertaken, the investiga-

tive judge must verify the minutes on such activities, and in this particular trial this was not the case.

In addition, we noticed during our monitoring that the defendant’s understanding of the indictment,

the court proceedings and his procedural position were very questionable. Namely, the defendant is an

illiterate person without any professional quali cation.

During the presentation of evidence, having heard 14 witnesses and carrying out examination of mate-

rial documentation, the Council decided not to hear certain witnesses again and not to summon four

more witnesses whose residence addresses in Serbia could not have been determined.  e Council was

of the opinion that presentation of the aforementioned evidence was not necessary and that the facts,

about which the witnesses were to be heard, were su ciently established.

 e defendant denied that he was beating the injured party and participation in bringing him away

from Jovac in the direction of a meadow near Zrin.

During the trial, the court did not establish the exact cause of Še k Pezerović’s death, whose body was

exhumed in 2000.  e expert pathologist stated in his  nding and opinion that the injured party was

found in a barn in the village of Kuljani already wounded in the head and arm. For that reason, the fact

that the injured party was killed from  rearms was omitted from the indictment. Instead, it was stated

that he passed away due to injuries caused by the beating.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

It is indisputable that defendant Kejić took the injured party from Kuljani to other villages. Only one

witness mentioned in his testimony the names of persons (by mentioning all defendants) who were

severely abusing the imprisoned and wounded soldier.  e Court gave credence to this witness’ depo-

sition. Other witnesses con rmed that injured party Še k Pezerović was captured, taken around and

abused in the mentioned villages.

Decision on sentence

 e court assessed as extenuating circumstances the defendant’s family situation, the fact that at the

time of crime commission he was a relatively young person (25 years) and that he acted tempore acti

together with other persons and for that reason not the entire criminal quantity was imputed to him.

 e court assessed as aggravating circumstances the maximum level of guilt (direct intention), viola-

tion of the most protected value (human life) and previous criminal record (in the period from 2007

to 2010 he had been sentenced for crime).

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

CRIME IN BJELOVAR

Fourth (third repeated) trial against Luka Marke{i}, Zdenko

Radi}, Zoran Maras and Ivan Orlovi}, charged with a war crime

against prisoners of war and a war crime against civilians

107

Zagreb County Court

Criminal oﬀ ence: war crime against prisoners of war under Article 122 of the OKZRH in conjunction with Article 22

of the same Act and war crime against civilians under Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH in conjunction with

Article 22 of the same Act

Defendants: Luka Markešić, Zdenko Radić, Zoran Maras and Ivan Orlović

War Crimes Council (panel): judge Željko Horvatović, Council President, judges Marijan Garac and Zdravko

Majerović, Council Members

Prosecution: Jurica Ilić, Zagreb County Deputy State’s Attorney

Defence: lawyer Gordana Grubeša representing defendant Markešić; lawyer Marijan Ramuščak representing defend-

ant Radić; lawyer Zorislav Krivačić and lawyer Ana Marija Gospočić representing defendant Maras; lawyer Rajko

Rudnički representing defendant Orlović

Opinion following the conclusion of the fourth (third repeated) first-instance trial

On 17 November 2011, the Zagreb County Court’s War Crimes Council rendered a  rst-instance

(non- nal) verdict No. K-rz-4/11. Pursuant to the provision of Article 354 of the ZKP, it acquitted

Luka Markešić, Zdenko Radić, Zoran Maras and Ivan Orlović of charges that they committed a war

crime against prisoners of war under Article 122 of the OKZRH and a war crime against civilians

stated in Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH, both in conjunction with Article 22 of the same Act.

 is acquittal was expected and it was the only possible outcome because of Varaždin County State

Attorney’s O ce made a mistake by amending the indictment against the aforementioned defendants.

In the amended indictment, the crime with which the defendants were charged was not ware crime. In

other words, it was not described how the defendants were aiding and abetting the commission of war

crime against prisoners of war and against one civilian.

 e trial is rather interesting for several reasons:

- six prisoners of war were killed and one civilian was severely wounded; they were taken out of the

Bjelovar Police Administration’s detention facility;

- despite attempts to investigate exactly what happened and who were the perpetrators immediately

after the commission of the crime, threats were made to Koprivnica Police Administration police of-

 cers who were involved in police investigation; these threats suspended pre-investigation activities

until 2001 and thus the crime was investigated again not sooner than ten years after its commission;

107

Maja Kovačević Bošković and Veselinka Kastratović monitored the trial and reported thereof.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

- much of the material evidence collected by the police somehow disappeared between Bjelovar, Ko-

privnica and Zagreb;

- after the autopsy and identi cation, victims’ bodies were handed over to an unidenti ed undertaker

and for that reason the place where victims were buried is unknown.

Despite the e orts made to instigate criminal proceedings for several years and unsuccessful attempt to

bring the charges, the fact is that this crime remained insu ciently investigated because of which the

perpetrators have remained unpunished. In the course of many years, the defendants were acquitted

two times on the basis of a  rst-instance verdict and convicted once by a  rst-instance verdict. On the

basis of the last  rst-instance verdict, they were acquitted again because the court was of the opinion

that the o ence they were charged with was not a criminal o ence.

During the trial, when observing the presented evidence, it became completely clear that in this spe-

ci c case we were not talking bout an individual excess.  e injured parties, war prisoners who were

detained after liberation of the military barracks, as well as civilian Savo Kovač arrested in his apartment

on 2 October 1991, were taken to the Bjelovar Police Administration’s detention facility.  ey were all

put together in the same room and listed. On that critical evening when the crime was committed, one

or two persons came in with a list to pick up the injured parties and take them away in a vehicle used

by the Bjelovar Police Administration. According to the statement provided by civilian Savo Kovač

who was the only person who survived the  ring squad execution, four persons in uniforms wearing

balaclavas were shooting at the injured parties.  erefore it is quite clear that it was known about the

detainees, and that their bringing away, killing them and in icting serious wounds to one person was

not a random act by unidenti ed perpetrators. Unfortunately, this premeditated crime is still remained

unpunished. It was not been even established who ordered the crime. It was not investigated why the

prisoners of war (soldiers or reservists) were detained in the Bjelovar Police Administration’s deten-

tion facilities, or why and how it was possible to detain a civilian without any warrant and keep him

in detention for more than 24 hours. One can only hope that the state attorney’s o ce will continue

investigating this case, perhaps already as part of the investigation conducted against the Bjelovar crisis

headquarters war president J.Š. due to reasonable suspicion that he ordered execution of three prisoners

after the entry of Croatian military and police formations in the Bjelovar military barracks.

The trial overview

 e criminal proceedings against the aforementioned defendants have been ongoing for more than ten

years.  e quoted  rst-instance verdict was rendered at the fourth (third repeated) trial.  e Bjelovar

ŽDO laid charges in 2001 against the mentioned defendants for co-perpetration in the commission of

war crime against prisoners of war and for war crime against civilians.

As a result of the trial conducted in 2001 before the Bjelovar County Court, the  rst-instance acquit-

ting verdict was rendered.  e Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia quashed that verdict in 2004

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

due to erroneous and incomplete establishment of facts and ordered the court to carry out a new trial

before a completely changed composition of the court council.

 e case was transferred to the Varaždin County Court which rendered the acquittal on 28 February

2005.  e VSRH Appeals Chamber quashed that verdict on 14 February 2007 due to erroneous and

incomplete establishment of facts and instructed the  rst-instance court to repeat the trial and, follow-

ing the repeated presentation of evidence and its evaluation, to assess whether the defendants were co-

perpetrators or whether “they – with their indisputably determined actions – aided and abetted direct

crime perpetrators to commit crimes more easily”.

108

On 27 November 2007, the Varaždin ŽDO amended the indictment. With this amendment, the

defendants were charged that “based on a previous agreement aiming to enable the perpetrators to kill

war prisoners and civilian Savo Kovač, ... in the night between 3 and 4 October 1991 they came to the

police administration building and took the keys from the head of the shift operation duty Tihomir

Wagner. All defendants knew that the war prisoners and civilian Savo Kovač would be taken out of

the building to a convenient place where they would be killed, and so unidenti ed persons took the

war prisoners and civilian Savo Kovač out of the building and put them into a delivery vehicle... they

were then brought to Česma woods near Mali Korenov and shot by multiple shots by individual and

burst  ring … thus in icting Radovan Barberić, Zdravko Dokman, Radovan Gredeljević, Ivan Hojsak,

Boško Radonjić and one more unidenti ed person numerous gunshot wounds to their heads, bodies

and limbs that caused their immediate deaths, whereas civilian Savo Kovač survived although he sus-

tained serious bodily harm, i.e a shot-through wound on the left side of his face and on the right lower

leg,... therefore, the defendants aided and abetted other persons with premeditation, thus violating the

international law rules at the time of armed con ict, to kill war prisoners and attack a civilian causing

him serious bodily harm...”.

 e Varaždin County Court’s War Crimes Council rendered the  rst-instance (not  nal) verdict of

conviction on 21 December 2007.

109

 e  rst instance court accepted the factual description contained

in the indictment. It was of the opinion that the incriminating actions by the defendants represent

aiding and abetting actions within the meaning of Article 22 of the OKZRH, because they enabled

unknown perpetrators to take injured persons out of the detention facilities and to transport them to

the place where they executed them and thus, “…with the incriminating actions, the defendants cre-

ated favourable preconditions for unidenti ed perpetrators to commit war crimes against the injured

persons”.

110

In respect of the quoted verdict, appeals were lodged by all defendants and by the Varaždin

County State Attorney’s O ce, but only concerning the decision on sentence for all defendants.

108

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber decision No. I Kž-581/05 of 14 February 2005, page 4.

109

In the  rst-instance verdict No. V.K. 11/07 of 21 December 2007 issued by the Varaždin County Court’s War Crimes Council,

defendant Luka Markešić was sentenced to a joint prison sentence in the duration of 4 years, while defendants Zdenko Radić, Zoran

Maras and Ivan Orlović were sentenced to joint prison sentences in the duration of 3 years each.

110

Page 27 of the  rst-instance verdict No. V.K. 11/07 of 21 December 2007 issued by the Varaždin County Court’s War Crimes

Council.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Opinions on Individual Trials

 e VSRH’s Appeals Chamber issued the decision No. I Kž-336/08 of 1 February 2011 in which it

accepted the defendants’ appeals and quashed the quoted  rst-instance verdict due to essential viola-

tion of the criminal procedure provisions under Article 367, paragraph 1, item 11 of the ZKP, i.e.,

“enacting terms of the verdict were contrary to the reasons which were unclear and contradictory

themselves”.

111

 e Council was of the opinion that in the defendants’ described actions “there is no

criminal o ence – aiding and abetting in a war crime against war prisoners …and aiding and abetting

in a war crime against civilians, as charged… because the defendants’ criminal activity as it had been

described, which is reduced basically only to taking the keys of the basement facilities where injured

persons were placed, does not contain by itself objective elements of the mentioned crimes”… On the

other hand, the disputed verdict also has no mention of the reasons on crucial facts in respect of the

previous agreement incriminated to the defendants, because it contains no explanation what this agree-

ment was about,….

112

Considering the fact that the Varaždin ŽDO lodged an appeal only in respect of

the decision on sentence, the VSRH Appeals Chamber ordered the  rst-instance court to repeat the tri-

al and to “primarily remove the violations which this Decision had indicated at, by taking into account

that the verdict may not be amended to the detriment of the defendants (Article 381 of the ZKP)”.

113

 e Chief State Attorney of the Republic of Croatia provided on 20 May 2011 his consent to transfer

local jurisdiction over this case to the Zagreb County Court, in accordance with the provision of Article

12 of the Act on the Application of the ICTY Statute.

 e Zagreb County Court’s War Crimes Council presented all personal and material evidence in the

repeated trial, but because of the mistake made when indicting, this court was in a situation that it

could not discuss the merits but could only apply the provision of Article 354, item 1 of the ZKP and

render an acquittal because the o ence that the defendants were accused of was not a criminal o ence.

111

 e VSRH’s Appeal Chamber decision No. I Kž – 336/08 of 1 February 2011, page 3.

112

 e VSRH’s Appeal Chamber decision No. I Kž – 336/08 of 1 February 2011, page 3.

113

Prohibition reformatio in peius.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Press-release

Press-release in respect of the trial for the crime in Ribarska

Koliba in Marino Selo Osijek

114

On 13 June 2011, the Osijek County Court concluded the repeated  rst-instance trial against six Croa-

tian Army (HV) members of the 76

Battalion’s Military Police Platoon, indicted with the commission

of a war crime against civilians under Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH, in Marino Selo in the

“Ribarska Koliba” [Fisherman’s Lodge] motel (hereinafter: Ribarska Koliba).

In November 1991, 24 inhabitants of the villages of Kip and Klisa were apprehended and detained in

Ribarska Koliba which was used at the time as the 76

Pakrac Battalion intervention platoon’s base.

Seventeen victims were tortured, abused and humiliated in the worst possible manner. Fifteen of them

were eventually killed by  rearms, while two persons died as a result of torture and inhumane treat-

ment. Bodies of six victims were found, while mortal remains of other persons are still searched for.

In the  rst-instance (not  nal) verdict, three defendants were acquitted of charges that they committed

a war crime against civilians. During the trial, after legal quali cation of the indictment was changed,

the court rejected charges against the 2

defendant that he committed a criminal o ence of unlawful

incarceration because the statute of limitation for criminal prosecution had set in. Two defendants were

found guilty of committing a war crime against civilians and received prison sentences in the duration

of 12 and 15 years, respectively.

Pronouncement of the  rst-instance verdict stirred up many questions.  e prosecutor’s appeal was an-

nounced and the VSRH is expected to provide its opinion. Unfortunately, in the repeated trial, the evi-

dence procedure was restricted by the VSRH’s standpoint regarding the validity of evidence collected

by ICTY Prosecutor’s O ce investigators. Our war crime trials monitoring team has been repeatedly

warning in its reports that, because of such VSRH’s decision, problems would surface in further war

crimes trials.  is will happen in cases in which evidence appears that was collected by the ICTY Pros-

ecutor’s O ce, speci ed under categories 2 and 3 and transferred by the ICTY to our judiciary.

Criminal prosecution was initiated only after the ICTY Prosecutor’s O ce transferred the evidence

material to the State Attorney’s O ce of the RC. More precisely, it involved statements provided by

three witnesses who were detained in Ribarska Koliba in Marino Selo, even though the criminal report

and certain pre-investigation activities had been carried out immediately after the event. Such evidence,

partially upheld by the repeated testimonies, as well as the presented material evidence, constituted the

basis for the convicting verdict rendered by the Požega County Court in March 2009. However, on the

basis of the defendant’s appeal, the VSRH quashed this verdict for procedural reasons and remanded

the case for a retrial.  e VSRH’s Appeals Chamber deemed that the  rst-instance verdict was based

on illegally obtained evidence – records with depositions from survived victims from Marino Selo pro-

114

Centre for Peace, Nonviolence and Human Rights-Osijek, Documenta and Civic Committee for Human Rights signed and

published this opinion on 20 July2011, only a few days after the  rst-instance verdict was rendered. On 22 November 2011, the

VSRH con rmed the Osijek County Court’s verdict in its entirety.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Press-release

vided to ICTY Prosecutor’s O ce investigators.  e VSRH delegated the repeated trial to the Osijek

County Court.

Amendments to the Act on the Application of the Statute of the ICC were adopted in May 2011.  e

Act was amended so as to allow use of evidence collected by ICTY bodies in criminal proceedings car-

ried out in Croatia. For that reason, the Osijek ŽDO proposed to present evidence, which was previ-

ously assessed as illegal, but the War Crimes Council of the Osijek County Court rejected this proposal

by invoking the VSRH’s decision.

 is trial for war crimes against civilians committed in Ribarska Koliba in Marino Selo raised many di-

lemmas with regard to: use of evidence collected by ICTY investigators in trials before national courts;

preparedness of witnesses to testify without any fear of condemnation or retaliation in small places

where they live; protection of witnesses/survived victims; and continued non-identi cation of crime

perpetrators who are still mentioned only by their nicknames in investigations and trials.

Witness depositions sound almost unbelievably that they [the witnesses] had no knowledge about the

existence of detained civilians in Ribarska Koliba in Marino Selo. Pakrac, Lipik and surrounding vil-

lages because they are situated in such a small area that people know one another very well and thus

taking away several civilians from a village cannot remain unnoticed. Besides, the day when civilians

were  nally taken out of Ribarska Koliba basement (24 November 1991), they remained on that loca-

tion which was used as the Military Police base. Civilians have nothing to do in such a base. Stories by

Military Police members from Bjelovar that they saw certain civilians, including two women, but did

not know what they were doing there are unconvincing. Equally unconvincing are stories that people

learned about torture, abuse and killing of detained persons from newspaper articles. Unfortunately,

even 20 years after the critical event, witnesses are actually killing the victims once again with their

depositions claiming to have no knowledge about the victims. It is up to the court to justly explain its

verdict, particularly in respect of the section where it assesses the presented evidence, especially personal

evidence where the majority of discrepancies in witness depositions could be found when compared to

the depositions presented during the investigation and during the  rst trial.  is in particular applies

to the role of the  rst defendant who was indicted as the actual (de facto) commander of the aforemen-

tioned military police platoon.

Judicial procedure gave no answer to the question: who was commander of the Military Police Platoon

attached to the 76

HV Independent Battalion at the incriminating time of the event in November

1991? Members of that platoon certainly did not arbitrarily determine their tasks and it is also ques-

tionable how they procured  rearms, who sent them to check point, who supplied them with food,

ammunition and other military equipment, to whom were they submitting their reports. Finally, why

did they take detained persons to Marino Selo and to whom did they surrender the detained persons

there? Such a serious crime has been brought to absurd, although the Požega ŽDO made serious e orts

in putting together pieces of the indictment.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Press-release

By observing the entire trial, an attentive observer can clearly see that people knew about the crime in

Marino Selo already at the moment when military policemen from Daruvar went to Kip and learned

that civilians were taken away from the village, when civil police in Daruvar apprehended a military

unit member from Marino Selo who con rmed that houses in Kip had been searched and that civilians

had been taken to Marino Selo, when a Daruvar inhabitant reported the taking-away of her father and

brother. People knew about the crime also when three detained persons showing visible signs of torture

were taken out of the basement in Ribarska Koliba to Daruvar. People also knew about the crime after

four survived civilians were  nally released from Ribarska Koliba in Marino Selo and when they arrived

to their villages. O cial reports were written about the aforementioned events. Unfortunately, nothing

was done that could have prevented the commission of the crime or at least render possible e cient

prosecution of its perpetrators.

 e question remains: what about the victims and their dignity? What was the reason that judiciary

did not initiate a timely investigation? Why it was waited for the ICTY to investigate crimes which

took place on the territory of the Republic of Croatia?  e VSRH’s decision to assess evidence col-

lected by ICTY Prosecutor’s O ce as illegal merely represents a follow-up to a sad story, but this time

it was wrapped up in the form of interpretation of one Article from the Act which had been amended

in the meantime.  e form had been satis ed with the conviction rendered against two defendants.

 e same also applied to the crimes committed in Paulin Dvor, the Medak Pocket and on the Korana

Bridge - someone got sentenced, after all. At present, nobody is mentioning new investigations and

 nding other perpetrators.  erefore, we ask the DORH to initiate a new investigation and we expect

from the VSRH to apply the amended act which renders it possible to use evidence of survived persons

in this criminal proceedings.

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Trials in which first instance verdicts were rendered by county courts in 2011

Case Criminal oﬀ ence / Court / Council

CRIME IN PERU[I]

After defendant Nikola Munjes was extradited from Monte

Negro, the trial against him was reopened at the Zadar County

Court.

On 4 February 2011, he was sentenced to 9 years in prison by

a  rst-instance (non- nal) verdict, thus upholding the verdict

of 9 October 1995 rendered by the same court when he was

sentenced in absentia and received the same punishment.

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber held its session on 9 November 2011.

We are not familiar with its decision.

War crime against civilians

Zadar County Court

War Crimes Council: judge Boris Radman, Council

President; judges Dijana Grancarić and Ante Anić,

Council Members



CRIME IN DALJ IV

After the VSRH quashed two times the convictions rendered

by the Osijek County Court in which the defendant was found

guilty and sentenced to 5 years in prison, and after the third

(second repeated) trial, the Osijek County Court’s War Crimes

Council on 15 March 2011 found the defendant guilty again

and sentenced him to 5 years in prison.

War crime against civilians

Osijek County Court

War Crimes Council in the third (second repeated)

trial:

judge Darko Krušlin, Council President;

judges Ante Kvesić and Katica Krajnović, Council

Members



CRIME IN BARANJA

After the fourth (third repeated) trial, the Osijek County

Courts’ War Crimes Council on 23 March 2011 found defend-

ant Petar Mamula guilty and sentenced him to 3 years and 6

months in prison.

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber held its session on 12 October

2011.  e VSRH quashed for the fourth time the  rst-instance

conviction rendered by the Osijek County Court.

In the previous three trials, he was sentenced to 5 years and 6

months in the  rst trial, and to 4 years and 10 months in the

second and the third trial, respectively.

War crime against civilians

Osijek County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Zvonko Vrban, Council President; judges Ružica

Šamota and Dubravka Vučetić, Council Members

Zločin u Baranji

Nakon provedenog četvrtog (trećeg ponovljenog)

postupka Vijeće za ratne zločine Županijskog suda

u Osijeku proglasilo je 23. ožujka 2011. optuženog

Petra Mamulu krivim i osudilo ga na kaznu zatvora u

trajanju od 3 godine i 6 mjeseci.



CRIME IN SUKNOVCI AND OKLAJ

After the main hearing, which began on 31 January 2011, the

Šibenik County Court’s War Crimes Council rendered the

verdict on 20 May 2011, in which the defendant was acquitted.

War crime against civilians

Šibenik County Court

War Crimes Council: judge Nives Nikolac, Council

President;

judges Sanibor Vuletin and Branko Ivić, Council

Members



Appendix 1 OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORED WAR CRIME

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Indictment No. / ŽDO

Defendants Names of victims



Indictment No. KT-9/95 of 27

June 1995 issued by the Zadar

District State Attorney’s O ce

Prosecution:

Radovan Marjanović, Zadar

County Deputy State’s Attorney

Nikola Munjes

Member of Serb formations

Extradited from Monte Negro and kept in the Zadar

prison custody as of 20 October 2010.

Victims - maltreated: Duje Pešut and

Grgo Pešut



Indictment No. K-DO-52/08

of 4 November 2008 issued

by the Osijek ŽDO, amended

(speci ed) on 31 March 2009

and at the hearing held on 15

March 2011.

Prosecution:

Dragan Poljak, Osijek County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Čedo Jović

Member of Serb formations

In detention as of 7 July 2008

Victims:

- killed: Antun Kundić

- physically abused: Ivan Horvat, Ivan

Bodza, Karol Kremerenski, Josip Ledenčan

and Emerik Huđik



Indictment No. KT-136/94 of 3

April 2001 issued by the Osijek

ŽDO, amended on 14 March

2002, 4 May 2006 and 23

March 2011.

Prosecution:

Miroslav Dasović, Osijek Coun-

ty Deputy State’s Attorney

Petar Mamula

Member of Serb formations

Spent time in detention from 6 October 2000 until

7 May 2003.

Attends the trial undetained

Victims:

- maltreated: Antun Knežević, Veljko

Salonja and Jovan Narandža

- the amended indictment of 23 March

2011 no longer charges the defendant with

maltreatment of Veljko Salonja and Jovan

Narandža



Indictment No. K-DO-30/06

of 27 December 2010 issued by

the Šibenik ŽDO.

Prosecution:

Emilio Kalabrić, Šibenik

County Deputy State’s Attorney

Goran Amanović

Member of Serb formations

Spent time in detention of the Šibenik prison. Ex-

tradited from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Croatia.

Victims:

- died from injuries sustained during

brutal beating: Krsto Cota

- rape victim: female person (we do not

mention her name)

- attempted rape victim: female person

(we do not mention her name )

- maltreated: Stanko Bara

TRIALS BEFORE CROATIAN COUNTY COURTS IN 2011

Translator’s note: the County State Attorney’s O ce (hereinafter: the ŽDO)

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Case Criminal oﬀ ence / Court / Council

ARSON IN THE VILLAGES OF PU[INA AND

SLATINSKI DRENOVAC

On 24 May 2011, the Bjelovar County Court’s War Crimes

Council pronounced the  rst-instance verdict in which the

defendants were acquitted.

War crime against civilians

Bjelovar County Court

War Crimes Council: judge Sandra Hančić, Council

President;

judges Mladen Piškorec and Ivanka Šarko, Council

Members



SLAVONSKI BROD SHELLING CRIME

Reopened trial, on the basis of the request for reopening sub-

mitted by the State Attorney’s O ce, was conducted in absence

of the accused persons.

On 1 June 2011, the verdict was pronounced which left in

force the previous verdict rendered by the Požega District Court

on 25 October 1993 in which the defendants were found guilty

and sentenced to 15 years in prison each.

War crime against civilians

Slavonski Brod County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Jadranka Đaković, Council President;

judges Mirko Svirčević and Zlatko Pirc, Council

Members



CRIME IN KRU[EVO

After the third (second repeated) trial, the Zadar County

Court’s War Crimes Council pronounced its verdict on 8 June

2011 in which it acquitted the defendants.

On 16 November 2011, the VSRH Appeals Chamber upheld

the acquittal.

Previously, the VSRH quashed two times the  rst-instance verdicts.

In 2000, it quashed the acquittal rendered on 1 December 1997,

and in 2007 it also quashed the verdict by which the  rst-instance

court, on 15 September 2005 found the defendants guilty and

sentenced defendant Jurjević to 4 years, and defendant Tošić to 15

years in prison, respectively.

War crime against civilians

Zadar County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Enka Moković, Council President;

judges Boris Babić and Dijana Grancarić, Council

Members



CRIME IN MARINO SELO

After the repeated trial, on 13 June 2011, the verdict was

pronounced in which defendants Poletto and Tutić were found

guilty. Poletto was sentenced to 15 and Tutić to 12 years in

prison. Defendants Kufner, Vancaš and Ivezić were acquitted,

whereas the charge was rejected in respect of defendant Šimić.

On 22 November 2011, the VSRH upheld in its entirety the

verdict rendered by the Osijek County Court.

Previously, the VSRH quashed the Požega County Court’s War

Crimes Council verdict dated 13 March 2009 in which the

defendants were found guilty and sentenced to prison, as follows:

Kufner 4 years and 6 months, Šimić 1 year, Vancaš 3 years, Poletto

16 years, Tutić 12 years and Ivezić 10 years.

Afterwards, the trial was transferred to the Osijek County Court.

War crime against civilians

Osijek County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Zvonko Vrban, Council President;

judges Miroslav Rožac and Darko Krušlin, Council

Members



Appendix 1 OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORED WAR CRIME

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Indictment No. / ŽDO

Defendants Names of victims



Indictment No. K-DO-6/06 of

23 September 2008 issued by

the Bjelovar ŽDO

Prosecution:

Branka Merzić, Bjelovar County

State’s Attorney

Ivan Husnjak and Goran Sokol

Members of Croatian formations

Attended the trial undetained

Injured parties – owners and possessors of

destroyed facilities:

- 17 houses destroyed and the Orthodox

Church tower were damaged in the village

of Pušina;

- 19 houses destroyed in Slatinski Dreno-

vac;

- destroyed hunter’s lodge between Pušina

and Slatinski Drenovac



Indictment No. KT-72/91 of 6

December 1991 issued by the

Požega District Public Prosecu-

tion, amended at the main hear-

ing held on 25 October 1993

– presently No. K-DO-8/10 of

the Slavonski Brod ŽDO

Prosecution:

Stjepan Haramustek, Slavonski

Brod County Deputy State’s

Attorney

Janko Radmanović and Radisav Stojanović

Members of Serb formations

Tried in absentia

Victims:

- sustained severe physical injuries: Ivan

Babić

- sustained light physical injuries: Marica

Miloš, Konstantin Bašić, Marija Kovačević

and Drago Vidaković



Indictment No. KT-266/97

of 18 June 1997 issued by the

Zadar ŽDO

Prosecution:

Radoslav Marjanović, Zadar

County Deputy State’s Attorney

Milan Jurjević and Davor Tošić

Members of Serb formations

Defendant Jurjević attended the trial undetained,

while defendant Tošić is a fugitive and thus was tried

in absentia

Victim – killed: Mile Brkić



Indictment No. K-DO-48/10

of 28 June 2010 issued by the

Osijek ŽDO, amended on 31

May 2011.

Prosecution:

Zlatko Bučević, Osijek County

Deputy State’s Attorney and

Božena Jurković, Slavonski

Brod County Deputy State’s

Attorney

Damir Kufner, Davor Šimić, Pavao Vancaš, Tomica

Poletto, Željko Tutić and Antun Ivezić

Members of Croatian formations

Defendants Damir Kufner, Davor Šimić and Pavao

Vancaš attended the trial undetained. Defendants

Tomica Poletto, Željko Tutić and Antun Ivezić spent

time in detention. Detention against Ivezić was

vacated after the pronouncement of the verdict.

Victims:

- maltreated and tortured: Branko

Stanković, Mijo and Jovo Krajnović (vil-

lagers from Kip); Milka Bunčić, Jeka Žestić

and Nikola Ivanović (villagers from Klisa)

- maltreated, tortured and killed:

Pero Novković, Mijo Danojević, Go-

jko Gojković, Savo Gojković, Branko

Bunčić, Nikola Gojković, Mijo Gojković,

Filip Gojković, Jovo Popović – Tein, Petar

Popović, Nikola Krajnović, Milan Popović

(villagers from Kip); Jovo Žestić, Jovo

Popović Simin, Slobodan Kukić, Rade

Gojković, Savo Maksimović, Josip Cicvara

(villagers from Klisa)

TRIALS BEFORE CROATIAN COUNTY COURTS IN 2011

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Case Criminal oﬀ ence / Court / Council

CRIME IN ZRIN

On 5 September 2011, the Sisak County Court’s War Crimes

Council found defendant Jablan Kejić guilty and sentenced him

to 7 years in prison.

Previously, the trial against defendant Kejić was separated from

the trial against unavailable defendants

Mirko Čurćija, Milenko Milković and Momčilo Buinac.

War crime against war prisoners

Sisak County Court

War Crimes Council: judge Snježana Mrkoci, Council

President; judges Predrag Jovanić and Višnja Vukić,

Council Members



CRIME IN FRKA[I] II

After the repeated trial, on 8 September 2011 the defendant

was found guilty. He was sentenced to 7 years in prison.

Previously, on 11 May 2011 the VSRH quashed for procedural

reasons the Gospić County Court’s War Crimes Council ‘s verdict of

25 February 2010 in which the defendant was sentenced to 7 years

in prison.

War crime against war prisoners

Karlovac County Court – O ce in Gospić

War Crimes Council: judge Dušan Šporčić, Council

President, judges Dubravka Rudelić and Matilda

Rukavina, Council Members



CRIME IN LOVINAC

After the third (second repeated) trial, the verdict was pro-

nounced on 18 October 2011, in which defendant Radoslav

Čubrilo was found guilty in his absence and sentenced to 15

years in prison.

Initially, the trial was conducted against  ve defendants. However,

the Rijeka ŽDO dropped charges against four defendants (Milorad

Čubrilo, Milorad Žegarac, Petar Hajduković and Gojko Mrkajlo).

War crime against civilians

Rijeka County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Jadranka Kovačić, Council President;

judges Nasta Mijatović and Srebrenka Šantić, Council

Members



CRIME IN MLINI[TE

On 24 October 2011, the Zagreb County Court’s War Crimes

Council rendered a verdict in which  ve defendants were found

guilty. Tihomir Šavorić and Nenad Jurinec were each sentenced

to 6 and Antun Novačić to 5 years in prison respectively for

committing the crime. Robert Precehtjel and Robert Berak

were each sentenced to 2 years in prison for aiding and abetting

commission of the crime.

 e 1

defendant Emil Črnčec and the 6

defendant Goran

Gaća were acquitted of charges.

War crime against war prisoners

Zagreb County Court

War Crimes Council: judge Marijan Garac, Council

President;

judges Rajka Tomerlin Almer and Zdravko Majerović,

Council Members



CRIME IN THE VILLAGES ALONG THE UNA

RIVER NEAR HRVATSKA KOSTAJNICA

After the repeated trial, on 8 November 2011, the defendants

were found guilty and sentenced as follows: Pero Đermanović

to 9, Dubravko Čavić to 7 and Ljubiša Čavić to 2 years in

prison.

War crime against civilians

Zagreb County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Zdravko Majerović, Council President;

judges Željko Horvatović and Tomislav Juriša, Council

Members



Appendix 1 OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORED WAR CRIME

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Indictment No. / ŽDO

Defendants Names of victims



Indictment No. K-DO-37/10

of 13 December 2010 issued by

the Sisak ŽDO

Prosecution:

Marijan Zgurić, Sisak County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Jablan Kejić

Member of Serb formations

In detention

Victim - killed: Še k Pezerović



Indictment No. K-DO-13/08

of 9 March 2009 issued by the

Gospić ŽDO

Prosecution:

Željko Brkljačić, Gospić

County Deputy State’s Attorney

Goran Zjačić

Member of Serb formations

In detention as of 28 September 2008.

Victims:

- physically abused: Johannes Tilder, Ivan

Čaić, Ivan Dadić (HV members); Marko

Tomić (HVO member); Kadir Bećirspahić

(BiH Army member)



Indictment No. K-DO-53/06

issued by the Rijeka ŽDO,

amended at the main hearing

held on 17 September 2006

Prosecution:

Darko Karlović, Rijeka County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Radoslav Čubrilo

Member of Serb formations

Unavailable to Croatian authorities. Tried in absen-

tia.

Victims - killed: Kata Šarić, Stjepan

Katalinić, Jure Sekulić, Marko Pavičić,

Ivan Ivezić, Martin Šarić, Milan Sekulić



Indictment No. K-DO-287/09

of 18 June 2010 issued by the

Zagreb ŽDO

Prosecution:

Jurica Ilić, Zagreb County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Emil Črnčec, Tihomir Šavorić, Antun Novačić,

Robert Precehtjel, Nenad Jurinec, Goran Gaća and

Robert Berak

Members of Croatian formations

In detention as of 28 October 2009.

Detention was extended in respect of Šavorić,

Jurinec and Novačić who received  rst-instance

sentences.

Detention was vacated after the pronouncement of

the verdict against Precehtjel and Berak as well as

against Črnčec and Gaća who received  rst-instance

acquittals.

Victims (killed): Radoslav Lakić, Pero

Vidović, Petar Jotanović, Dragoslav Mutić,

Borislav Vukić and one unidenti ed male

person



Indictment No. K-DO-10/09

of 5 November 2009 issued by

the Sisak ŽDO

Prosecution:

Robert Petrovečki, Zagreb

County Deputy State’s Attorney

Pero Đermanović, Dubravko Čavić and Ljubiša

Čavić

Members of Serb formations

Defendant Pero Đermanović is detained, defendant

Dubravko Čavić is unavailable and thus is tried in

his absence, whereas defendant Ljubiša Čavić at-

tended the repeated trial undetained. He spent time

in detention during the  rst trial.

Victims:

- unlawfully detained, tortured and killed:

Vladimir Letić

- burned houses: belonging to Stevo

Karanović and Ivo Karanović

- intimidated: Danica Devedžija

TRIALS BEFORE CROATIAN COUNTY COURTS IN 2011

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Case Criminal oﬀ ence / Court / Council

CRIME IN BJELOVAR

After the fourth (third repeated) trial, the Zagreb County

Court’s War Crimes Council pronounced on 17 November

2011 the verdict in which the defendants were acquitted.

 e VSRH quashed two times the acquittals rendered by the

county courts in Bjelovar and Varaždin.  en, on 1 February

2011 it quashed the verdict of 21 December 2007 rendered by the

Varaždin County Court in which the defendants were found guilty

and received the following sentences (joint prison terms): defendant

Luka Markešić to 4 years and defendants Zdenko Radić, Zoran

Maras and Ivan Orlović to 3 years each.

 e case was transferred then to the Zagreb County Court.

War crime against war prisoners and war crime

against civilians

Zagreb County Court

War Crimes Council: judge Željko Horvatović,

Council President, judges Marijan Garac and Zdravko

Majerović, Council Members



CRIME IN NOVO SELI[TE

On 9 December 2011, the  rst instance verdict was pro-

nounced in which defendant Letica was found guilty in his

absence and sentenced to 9 years in prison.

War crime against civilians

Sisak County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Melita Avedić, Council President;

judges Željko Mlinarić and Ljubica Rendulić Holzer,

Council Members



CRIME IN SLUNJ AND SURROUNDING

VILLAGES

After the third (second repeated) trial, the Rijeka County

Court’s War Crimes Council on 23 December 2011 found the

defendant guilty and sentenced him to 4 years in prison.

Previously, the VSRH quashed two times the verdicts rendered by

the Karlovac County Court in which the defendant was sentenced

to one and four years in prison, respectively.

 e main hearing in the third (second repeated) trial began on

2 March 2011 at the Karlovac County Court - O ce in Gospić.

However, the case was transferred later to the Rijeka County Court.

War crime against civilians

Karlovac County Court – O ce in Gospić

War Crimes Council:

judge Dušan Šporčić, Council President;

judges Dubravka Rudelić and Milka Vraneš, Council

Members

Rijeka County Court

War Crimes Council: judge Ika Šarić, Council Presi-

dent; judges Zoran Sršen and

Valentin Ivanetić, Council Members



CRIME IN DALJ

On 27 December 2011 the Osijek County Court’s War Crimes

Council found the defendant guilty and sentenced him to a

joint prison sentence in the duration of 1 year and 10 months.

 e main hearing began on 12 September 2006. Since the trial

often took longer recesses, the hearing had to start anew on

several occasions.

 us, the hearings were not held from December 2007 until 8

May 2009, and then from May 2009 until June 2011.

War crime against civilians and war crime against war

prisoners

Osijek County Court

War Crimes Council: judge Krunoslav Barkić, Coun-

cil President;

judges Zvonko Vekić and Ružica Šamota, Council

Members



Appendix 1 OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORED WAR CRIME

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Indictment No. / ŽDO

Defendants Names of victims



Indictment No. K-DO-57/01

of 25 September 2001 issued by

the Bjelovar ŽDO, amended by

a memo No. K-DO-27/04 of

23 February 2005 issued by the

Varaždin ŽDO, and at the main

hearing held on 27 November

2007.

Prosecution:

Jurica Ilić, Zagreb County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Luka Markešić, Zdenko Radić, Zoran Maras and

Ivan Orlović

Members of Croatian formations

Attend the trial undetained

Victims:

- killed: Radovan Berbetović, Zdravko

Dokman, Radovan Gredeljević, Ivan Hoj-

sak, Boško Radonjić and one unidenti ed

person

- survived: Savo Kovač



Indictment No. K-DO-44/06

of 26 November 2008 issued by

the Sisak ŽDO

Prosecution:

Sonja Rapić, Sisak County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Stojan Letica

Member of Serb formations

Unavailable to the judiciary of the Republic of Croa-

tia.  e VSRH issued a decision on 1 December

2010 according to which the defendant would be

tried in absentia.

Victim - killed: Stjepan Šubić



Indictment No. KT-36/95 of

30 July 2009 issued by the

Karlovac ŽDO, amended at the

main hearing on 4 May 2010,

and at the main hearing held on

4 October 2011.

Prosecution:

Doris Hrast, Rijeka County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Mićo Cekinović

Member of Serb formations, commander of TO

Primišlje

 e defendant is in detention as of 6 July 2009.

Victims:

- killed: Pavo Ivšić

- maltreated and unlawfully detained:

Tomo Kos and Mile Kos

- expelled: the majority of inhabitants of

Croatian ethnicity

- burned houses belonging to: Pavo and

Ruda Ivšić

- burned hayloft belonging to: Danijel

Mrdušan



Indictment No. KT-103/94 of 9

July 2004 issued by the Osijek

ŽDO

Prosecution:

Zlatko Bučević, Osijek County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Željko Čizmić

Member of Serb formations

Attends the trial undetained

Victims: – according to the indictment of

9 July 2004:

- beaten: Damir Buljević, Stipo Sušić, Filip

Đanko, Tomislav Hajduković, Marko

Andabak, Ištvan Bačko, Slavko Palinkaš,

Tomislav Kilić, Goran Šlinger, Vlatko

Nikolić, Imra Moger

- seized belongings: Ištvan Bačko

Victims: – according to the indictment of

14 December. prosinca 2011:

- Goran Šlinger and Vlatko Nikolić

TRIALS BEFORE CROATIAN COUNTY COURTS IN 2011

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Trials with ongoing main hearings

Case Criminal oﬀ ence / Court / Council Indictment No. / ŽDO

CRIME IN LOVAS

 e trial is ongoing.

War crime against civilians

Vukovar County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Jadranka Kurbel, Council

President;

judges Berislav Matanović and Željko

Marin, Council Members

Indictments: No. KT-265/92 of

19 December 1994 issued by the

Osijek ŽDO and No. DO-44/04 of 1

October 2004 issued by the Vukovar

ŽDO, merged into a single indict-

ment No. K-DO-39/00 which was

amended in respect of defendant

Ilija Vorkapić on 4 November 2011.

Prosecution:

Vlatko Miljković, Vukovar County

Deputy State’s Attorney



CRIME IN KARLOVAC

 e trial is ongoing.  e main hearing

began on 17 December 2010.

War crime against civilians

Zagreb County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Ivan Turudić, Council Presi-

dent; judges Lidija Vidjak and Ratko

Šćekić, Council Members

Indictment No. K-DO-188/10 of 22

November 2010 issued by the Zagreb

ŽDO.

Prosecution:

Jurica Ilić, Zagreb County Deputy

State’s Attorney



Appendix 1 OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORED WAR CRIME

Translator’s note: the County State Attorney’s O ce (hereinafter: the ŽDO)

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Defendants Names of victims



Ilija Vorkapić

Member of Serb formations

Attends the trial undetained.

On 29 April 2009, the trial in respect of present

defendants (Ilija Vorkapić and Milan Tepavac) was

separated from the trial against the defendants who are

unavailable to Croatian state authority bodies (Ljuban

Devetak, Milan Devčić, Milenko Rudić, Željko

Krnjajić, Slobodan Zoraja, Željko Brajković, Ilija

Kresojević, Milan Rendulić, Obrad Tepavac, Zoran

Tepavac, Milan Radojčić, Milan Vorkapić, Dušan

Grković and Đuro Prodanović).

In December 2010, the Tepavac case was separated

from the Vorkapić case due to the incapability of

defendant Tepavac to stand trial.

 e amended indictment charges defendant Vorkapić

with a war crime against civilians and no longer with

genocide as was the case before the mentioned amend-

ment.

Victims:

- 24 persons killed in a mineﬁ eld: Božo Mađarac, Mijo Šalaj, Tomis-

lav Sabljak, Slavko Štrangarić, Nikola Badanjak, Marko Vidić, Mato

Hodak, Tomo Sabljak – junior, Ivica Sabljak, Slavko Kuzmić, Petar

Badanjak, Marko Marković, Ivan Conjar, Ivan Kraljević – junior, Ivan

Palijan, Josip Turkalj, Luka Balić, Željko Pavlić, Darko Pavlić, Darko

Sokolović, Zlatko Božić, Ivan Vidić, Antun Panjek, Zlatko Panjek

- 45 persons killed on diﬀ erent locations in Lovas: Danijel Badanjak,

Ilija Badanjak, Antun Jovanović, Anka Jovanović, Kata Pavličević,

Alojzije Polić, Mato Keser, Josip Poljak, Ivan Ostrun, Dragutin Pejić,

Stipo Mađarević, Pavo Đaković, Stipo Pejić, Živan Antolović, Mi-

lan Latas, Juraj Poljak, Mijo Božić, Vida Krizmanić, Josip Kraljević,

Mirko Grgić, Mato Adamović, Marko Sabljak, Zoran Krizmanić, Josip

Jovanović, Marin Balić, Katica Balić, Josip Turkalj, Petar Luketić, Ante

Luketić, Đuka Luketić, Joze na Pavošević, Marijana Pavošević, Slavica

Pavošević, Stipo Luketić, Marija Luketić, Josip Rendulić, Rudolf Jonak,

Andrija Deličić, Pero Rendulić, Franjo Pandža, Božo Vidić, Zvonko

Martinović, Marko Damjanović, Anica Lemunović, Đuka Krizmanić

- 15 persons who sustained severe physical injuries in a mineﬁ eld:

Marko Filić, Emanuel Filić, Stjepan Peulić, Josip Sabljak, Stan-

islav Franković, Milko Keser, Ivica Mujić, Ljubo Solaković, Milan

Radmilović, Zlatko Toma, Josip Gešnja, Mato Kraljević, Petar Vuleta,

Lovro Geistener, Dragan Sabljak

- 18 persons who sustained severe physical injuries due to maltreate-

ment: Mato Mađarević, Đuro Filić, Zoran Jovanović, Marija Vidić,

Đuka Radočaj, Berislav Filić, Emanuel Filić, Pavo Antolović, Ivo

Antolović, Željko Francisković, Ivan Đaković, Anđelko Filić, Zvonko

Balić, Vjekoslav Balić, Man Pejak, Petar Sabljak, Marko Grčanac



Željko Gojak

Member of Croatian formations

In detention

Victims

– killed: Marko Roknić, minor Danijela Roknić and Dragica Ninković

TRIALS BEFORE CROATIAN COUNTY COURTS IN 2011

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Case Criminal oﬀ ence / Court / Council Indictment No. / ŽDO

CRIME IN TOVARNIK

 e trial is ongoing.  e main hearing

began on 13 April 2010.

Genocide and war crime against

civilians

Vukovar County Court

War Crimes Council: judge Nikola

Bešenski, Council President;

judges Nevenka Zeko and Zlata

Sotirov, Council Members

Indictment No. DO-K-34/00 of 1

February 2001 issued by the Vukovar

ŽDO

Prosecution:

Miroslav Šarić, Vukovar County

Deputy State’s Attorney



CRIME ON THE POGLEDI]

HILL NEAR GLINA

 e third (second repeated) trial is on-

going before the Sisak County Court’s

War Crimes Council.

 e last hearing was held on 5 April

2011 and therefore the hearing will

have to start anew.

Previously the VSRH quashed two times

the convictions rendered by the Sisak

County Court in which the defendant

was sentenced to 14 and 12 years in

prison, respectively.

War crime against war prisoners

Sisak County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Melita Avedić, Council Presi-

dent;

judges Alenka Lešić and Željko

Mlinarić, Council Members

Indictment No. K-DO-03/06 of 4

September 2006 issued by the Sisak

ŽDO, amended at the main hearing

held on 9 May 2007.

Prosecution:

Marijan Zgurić, Sisak County

Deputy State’s Attorney



Appendix 1 OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORED WAR CRIME

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Defendants Names of victims



Miloš Stanimirović, Stevan Srdić, Dušan Stu-

par, Boško Miljković, Dragan Sedlić, Branislav

Jerković, Jovo Janjić, Milenko Stojanović, Dušan

Dobrić, Đjuro Dobrić, Jovan Miljković, Nikola

Tintor, Željko Krnjajić and Radoslav Stanimirović

Members of Serb formations

All defendants are unavailable to the Croatian judi-

ciary and thus are tried in absentia.

Present defendants Milenko Stupar, Strahinja Ergić,

Dragoljub Trifunović, Đorđe Miljković, Mićo

Maljković and Janko Ostojić were tried before.

Stupar, Ergić, Trifunović and Maljković were acquit-

ted. Charges against Ostojić were rejected and Đorđe

Miljković was sentenced to 3 years in prison.

Later on, after arrest, Aleksandar Trifunović was also

tried but, during the main hearing, after his release

from detention, he  ed from Croatia.

 e trial was discontinued in respect of defendants

Jovan Medić and Božo Rudić because of their deaths.

At the hearing held on 11 February 2011, Council

President informed the parties and the audience that

trial against defendant Katica Maljković was discon-

tinued due to her death.

Victims (according to the indictment, in respect of 24 defendants):

- killed:

Ruža Jurić, Ivan Jurić, Željko Vrančić, Antun Šimunić, Berislava

Šimunić, Danijel Marinković, Mato Ćuk, Marijan Mioković, Rudolf

Rapp, Ivan Zelić, Stjepan Matić, Stipo Kovačević, ? Bilić, an unidenti-

 ed male person, Karlo Grbešić, Anto Markanović, Marko Bošnjak, Ivo

Maleševac, Đuro Grgić, Marin Mioković, Branko Salajić, Tomo Glibo,

Filomena Glibo, Ivan Burik, Pavao Vrančić, Ilija Džambo, Krešo Puljić,

Mato Čulić, Vojko Selak;

- tortured:

Mirko Markutović, Živan Markutović, Andrija Jurić, Tomislav Grgić,

Stjepan Marinković, Pavo Donković, Božo Grbešić, Žarko Grbešić,

Dragan Hajduk, Stjepan Glibo, Branko Šimunić, Ratko Dovičin, Ma-

rin Mitrović, Marijan Matijević;

- expelled:

Ilija Šimunić, Tomislav Grgić and his mother, Jozo Beljo and his family,

Vlatko Glavašić, Ivan Palijan’s family, Ivo Đurić, Juro Beljo, Mato Ćuk,

Mijo Siketić’s family, Andrija Jurić, Stipo Glibo, Vjekoslav Mioković,

Josip Đurčinović, Martin Djurčinović, Marija Topić, Marica Grgić,

Đuro Grgić, Ivan Zelić, Stjepan Matić, Dragan Hajduk, Mijo Petković;

- forced to labour:

Mijo Siketić, Mile Ivančić (wounded), Stipo Kovačević, Bilić, one

unidenti ed person, Martin Habčak;

- burned houses:

Marin Šijaković, Vlatko Glavašić, Rudolf Rapp, Dragan Hajduk;

- maltreated:

Marija Palijan, Tanja Palijan, Martin Habčak, Adam Čurčinović



Rade Miljević

Member of Serb formations

Spent time in detention as of 10 March 2006.

His detention was vacated in December 2010 be-

cause the maximum detention period had expired.

Victims

- killed civilians: Janko Kaurić, Milan Litrić, Borislav Litrić and Ante

Žužić

TRIALS BEFORE CROATIAN COUNTY COURTS IN 2011

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Case Criminal oﬀ ence / Court / Council Indictment No. / ŽDO

CRIME IN RAVNI KOTARI II

 e last hearing was held in March

2011 and therefore the main hearing

will have to start anew.

War crime against civilians

Zadar County Court

War Crimes Council: judge Marijan

Bitanga, Council President;

judges Dijana Grancarić and

Vladimir Mikolčević, Council

Members

Indictment No. K-DO-51/07 of 14

September 2009 issued by the Zadar

ŽDO

Prosecution:

Slobodan Denona, Zadar County

Deputy State’s Attorney



CRIME IN BERAK

 e trial is ongoing.  e main hearing

began on 3 November 2011.

War crime against civilians

Vukovar County Court

War Crimes Council: judge Nikola

Bešenski, Council President;

judges Milan Kojić and Irena Lenić,

Council Members

Indictment No. K-DO-42/01 of 5

April 2006 issued by the Vukovar

ŽDO, speci ed in respect of the de-

fendant by a memo No. K-DO-42/01

of 12 October 2011.

Prosecution:

Vlatko Miljković, Vukovar County

Deputy State’s Attorney



CRIME IN [KABRNJA

 e main hearing in the reopened trial

is ongoing.

Defendant Petrov was extradited to

Croatia from Germany.  e trial re-

opening was permitted because the de-

fendant was sentenced in his absence to

20 years in prison by the Zadar County

Court in 1995. Back then, the trial was

conducted against Goran Opačić and

25 other defendants and Petrov was

among them as the 14

defendant.

War crime against civilians

Zadar County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Boris Balić, Council President;

judges Vladimir Mikolčević and

Boris Radman, Council Members

Indictment No. KT-41/92 of 22 Au-

gust 1994 issued by the Zadar ŽDO,

modi ed on 20 September 2011.

Prosecution:

Sobodan Denona, Zadar County

Deputy State’s Attorney



CRIME IN PODVO@I]

 e trial is ongoing. It began on 5

September 2011.

War crime against civilians

Karlovac County Court

War Crimes Council: judge Ante

Ujević, Council President; judges

Alenka Laptalo and Denis Pancirov,

Council Members

Indictment No. K-DO-33/10 of 18

April 2011 issued by the Karlovac

ŽDO

Prosecution:

Gordana Križanić, Karlovac County

Deputy State’s Attorney



Appendix 1 OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORED WAR CRIME

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Defendants Names of victims



Nebojša Baljak and Stevo Ivanišević

Members of Serb formations

Residence of both defendants is unknown and they

are unavailable to Croatian state authority bodies

Victims

– intimidated, sustained physical injuries:

Zvonko Zelić, Bore Zelić, Mile Zelić, Ivan Paić, Stoja Paić



Milorad Momić

Member of Serb formations

 e defendant is in detention. He was extradited

from France on 2 September 2011.

Victims:

- killed: Kata Garvanović;

- beaten: Anđa Rušnov, Danica Rušnov, Mara Kujundžić



Renato Petrov

Member of Serb formations

On the basis of Interpol arrest warrant, he was ar-

rested in Dusseldorf at the beginning of April 2011,

and at the beginning of July 2011 he was extradited

to the Republic of Croatia.

Victims:

- 43 persons killed from  rearms; one female person run over by a tank

- defendant Petrov is charged with killing one elderly male person by

shooting him from a handgun.



Marko Bolić

Member of Serb formations

In detention

Victims

- killed: Marijan Jakšić and Darko Tuškan

TRIALS BEFORE CROATIAN COUNTY COURTS IN 2011

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Case Criminal oﬀ ence / Court / Council Indictment No. / ŽDO

CRIME IN PAULIN DVOR

 e third (second repeated) trial is

ongoing.  e main hearing began on

19 September 2011.

After the  rst-instance trial held in

April 2004, Nikola Ivanković was

found guilty and sentenced to 12 years

in prison, while Enes Viteškić was

acquitted.

Later, on 10 May 2005, the VSRH

modi ed the  rst-instance verdict in

respect of defendant Ivanković and

sentenced him to 15 years in prison,

while in respect of defendant Viteškić

it quashed the  rst-instance verdict and

remanded the case for retrial.

After the conclusion of the repeated

 rst-instance trial, on 29 January 2007

defendant Viteškić was acquitted again.

However, in 2010 the VSRH again

quashed the Osijek County Court’s ver-

dict and remanded the case for a retrial

before a completely changed composi-

tion of the council.

War crime against civilians

Osijek County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Darko Krušlin, Council

President;

judges Mario Kovač and Damir

Krahulec, Council Members

Indictment No. K-DO-68/2002 of

12 March 2003 issued by the Osijek

ŽDO, partially amended at the trial

hearing held on 5 April 2004.

Prosecution:

Miroslav Dasović, Osijek County

Deputy State’s Attorney



CRIME IN GRUBORI

 e main hearing began on 24 Novem-

ber 2011.

War crime against civilians

Zagreb County Court

War Crimes Council: judge Zdravko

Majerović, Council President;

judges Mirko Klinžić and Marijan

Garac, Council Members

Indictment No. K-DO-358/09 of 15

December 2010 issued by the Zagreb

ŽDO

Prosecution:

Robert Petrovečki, Zagreb County

Deputy State’s Attorney



CRIME IN KORENICA

 e main hearing in the repeated trial is

ongoing. It began on

25 October 2011.

Previously, the VSRH quashed the Rijeka

County Court’s verdict in which the de-

fendants were found guilty and sentenced

to 4 years (defendant Šuput), i.e. 3 years

and 6 months in prison (defendant

Panić).

War crime against civilians

Rijeka County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Jasenka Kovačić, Council

President;

judges Dina Brusić and Ksenija

Zorc, Council Members

Indictment No. K-DO-24/06 of 31

January 2007 issued by the Gospić

ŽDO, amended by the Rijeka ŽDO

on 2 October 2008.

Prosecution:

Darko Karlović, Rijeka County

Deputy State’s Attorney



Appendix 1 OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORED WAR CRIME

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Defendants Names of victims



Enes Viteškić

Member of Croatian formations

Attends the trial undetained

He spent time in detention during the  rst-instance

trial – until he received the  rst acquittal.

Victims (killed): Milan Labus, Spasoja Milović, Boja Grubišić, Božidar

Sudžuković, Bosiljka Katić, Dragutin Kečkeš, Boško Jelić, Milan Katić,

Dmitar Katić, Draginja Katić, Vukašin Medić, Darinka Vujnović, Anđa

Jelić, Milica Milović, Petar Katić, Jovan Gavrić, Milena Rodić, Marija

Sudžuković



Frane Drljo, Božo Krajina and Igor Beneta

Defendants Drljo and Krajina are in detention.

Defendant Beneta was a fugitive, thus a decision

to try him in his absence was issued. In November

2011, it was announced that his dead body was

found and that he committed a suicide. Trial against

him is still not discontinued.

Victims

- killed: Milica Grubor, Marija Grubor, Jovo Grubor, Jovan Grubor of

late Damjan, Miloš Grubor and Đuro Karanović



Željko Šuput and Milan Panić

Members of Serb formations

Defendants Željko Šuput and Milan Panić attend

the repeated trial undetained.

Victims:

- unlawfully detained:

Nikola Nikolić, Mile Lukač and Perica Bičanić

TRIALS BEFORE CROATIAN COUNTY COURTS IN 2011

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Trials in which main hearings were scheduled but not held mostly because

defendants were unavailable, and in respect of which no decisions were

made to try them in their absence

Case Criminal oﬀ ence / Court / Council

CRIME AT VELEPROMET

 e defendant received the summons in the Republic of Serbia to attend

the main hearing scheduled for 31 October 2011, but he did not respond

to the summons.  e hearing was postponed.

War crime against civilians

Vukovar County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Nikola Bešenski, Council President



CRIME AT VELEPROMET

On several occasions, the defendant did not respond to the summons for

the main hearing (22 September 2010, 28 March and 28 October 2011).

 e hearing was postponed.

War crime against civilians

Vukovar County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Slavko Teo lović, Council President



CRIME AT VELEPROMET

On 29 March and 28 October 2011 the defendant did not respond to the

summons and therefore the hearing was not held.

War crime against civilians

Vukovar County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Nikola Bešenski, Council President



CRIME IN PETROVCI

 e hearing did not begin on 10 October 2011 because the defendant

did not appear before the court. According to his defence counsel, the

defendant su ered from a serious mental and physical condition.

Allegedly, he died in the meantime, but nevertheless the trial has not been

discontinued yet.

War crime against civilians

Vukovar County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Nikola Bešenski, Council President;

judges Slavko Teo lović and Željko Marin,

Council Members



CRIME IN ]ELIJE

On 14 June 2011, the hearing was postponed.

On 20 December 2011, the trial against the defendant was discontin-

ued. It was stated in the decision on discontinuation of the proceedings

that the Vukovar ŽDO dropped charges because it received a notarised

copy of the verdict issued by the Belgrade Higher Court with the clause

claiming it to be a  nal judgement and that it withdrew from a criminal

prosecution in order to avoid violation of the principle „ne bis in idem“.

According to the verdict rendered by the Belgrade Higher Court and

upheld by the Belgrade Appeals Court, the defendant was sentenced by a

 nal judgement to 12 years in prison.

War crime against wounded and sick persons

Vukovar County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Nikola Bešenski, Council President



Appendix 1 OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORED WAR CRIME

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Indictment No. / ŽDO

Defendants Names of victims



Indictment No. DO-K-12/99 of 5 May

2003 issued by the Vukovar ŽDO.

Prosecution:

Miroslav Šarić, Vukovar County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Petar Rašić

Member of Serb formations

Unavailable to Croatian judiciary

Victim (beaten and maltreated):

Zvonimir Ivanišević



Indictment No. K-DO-11/04 of 29

September 2006 issued by the Vukovar

ŽDO

Prosecution:

Vlatko Miljković, Vukovar County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Savan Dakić

Member of Serb formations

Orderly receives summons, resides in Serbia

at the address which the court is familiar

with, but he does not respond to the sum-

mons.

Victims

- killed: Ivan Ravlić



Indictment No. K-DO-45/04 of 12

February 2007 issued by the Vukovar

ŽDO

Prosecution:

Vlatko Miljković, Vukovar County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Jovan Radan

Member of Serb formations

Orderly receives summons, resides in Serbia at

the address which the court is familiar with,

but he does not respond to the summons.

Victims

- killed: Daut Ziberi



Indictment No. K-DO-15/05 of 4

September 2007 issued by the Vukovar

ŽDO, amended in respect of defendant

Vujić on 11 July 2011 after the separa-

tion of the proceedings

Prosecution:

Vlatko Miljković, Vukovar County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Željko Vujić

Member of Serb formations

Allegedly, died at the end of 2011.

Victims

- physically abused: Irinej Nađorđ,

Željko Varga, Jaroslav Pap, Marijan Pap,

Nikola Pap and Miroslav Pavlović



Indictment No. K-DO-15/02 of 5

March 2003 issued by the Vukovar

ŽDO

Prosecution:

Miroslav Šarić, Vukovar County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Darko Radivoj

Member of Serb formations

Serving the sentence in the Republic of

Serbia.

Victim:

detained Croatian soldier Marijan Pleteš,

killed

TRIALS BEFORE CROATIAN COUNTY COURTS IN 2011

Translator’s note: the County State Attorney’s O ce (hereinafter: the ŽDO)

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Case Criminal oﬀ ence / Court / Council

CRIME IN TOVARNIK

On 28 October 2011, the defendant did not respond to the summons

and therefore the hearing was not held.

War crime against civilians

Vukovar County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Slavko Teo lović, Council President



CRIME IN THE VUKOVAR SURROUNDING

On 28 October 2011, the defendant did not respond to the summons

and therefore the hearing was not held.

War crime against civilians

Vukovar County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Slavko Teo lović, Council President



CRIME IN BA]IN

 e main hearing, which was scheduled for 26 January 2011, did not

begin at the Sisak County Court because eight defendants were absent.

 e court  le was then forwarded to the extra-trial council to decide on a

trial in absentia.

 en, the case was transferred to the Rijeka County Court.

War crime against civilians

Sisak County Court

War Crimes Council: judge Snježana Mrkoci,

Council President; judges Ljubica Balder and

Željko Mlinarić, Council Members

Rijeka County Court

War Crimes Council:

judge Ika Šarić, Council President



Appendix 1 OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORED WAR CRIME

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Indictment No. / ŽDO

Defendants Names of victims



Indictment No. DO-K-34/00 of 1

February 2001 issued by the Vukovar

ŽDO, after the separation of the trial

it was amended in respect of defendant

Aleksandar Trifunović on 29 March

2006.

Prosecution:

Miroslav Šarić, Vukovar County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Aleksandar Trifunović

Member of Serb formations

Defendant resides in the Republic of Serbia

and orderly receives summons but does not

respond to them.

Trifunović was kept in custody and was

present in the trial. However, the Vukovar

County Court accepted registration of his

property (a house) to serve as a guarantee for

the defendant’s presence during the trial and

thus it vacated his detention.  e Supreme

Court quashed the decision on guarantee and

on vacating detention but, prior to that, the

defendant  ed from the Republic of Croatia.

An international arrest warrant was issued

against him.

Victims:

- killed:

Đuro Grgić, Mato Živić, Željko Vrančić,

Đuro Miklošević, Marko Šijaković, Đuka

Došen, Ivan Zelić, Josip Šarčević, Miroslav

Zelenika, Ruža Ivković, Stepan Kovačić,

Jelka Krnić, Jozo Šišić, Ivan Adamović,

Danijel Perković, Karlo Grbešić, Danijel

Marinković, Marko Bošnjak, Ivan

Đankić, Vojislav Selak, Filomena Glibo,

Ante Markanović, Marijan Mioković,

Mato Balić, Mladenka Kuzmić, Franjo

Kuzmić, Danica Milosavljević, Antun

Šimunić, Đuro Carić, Manda Živić, Janko

Budim, Krešimir Puljić, Đuro Filić, Ilija

Džambo, Ivan Maloševac, Mato Ćurić,

Ivo Penava, Berislav Šimunić, Petar Bilić,

Stipo Matić, Adam Popović, don Ivan

Burik, Rudolf Rapp, Ivan Jurić, Ruža

Jurić, Janja Jurić and six more unidenti ed

persons.

- forced to labour:

Martin Habčak



Indictment No. K-DO-29/02 of 30

April 2003 issued by the Vukovar ŽDO

Prosecution:

Vlatko Miljković, Vukovar County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Radivoje Ivković

Member of Serb formations

Unavailable. Attempts to orderly summon

him were unsuccessful.

Victim (raped): one female person



Indictment No. KT-89/94 of 29 Octo-

ber 2010 issued by the Sisak ŽDO

Prosecution:

Stipe Vrdoljak, Sisak County State

Attorney

Branko Dmitrović, Slobodan Borojević,

Milinko Janjetović, Momčilo Kovačević,

Stevo Radunović, Veljko Radunović, Katica

Pekić, Marin Krivošić and Stevan Dodoš

Members of Serb formations

 e 8th defendant Marin Krivošić is the

only defendant available to the court. He

was extradited from Monte Negro and cur-

rently spends time in detention.

Victims

- killed: Antun Švračić, Marija Švračić,

Josip Antolović, Marija Batinović,

Nikola Lončarić, Soka Pezo, Mijo Čović,

Ana Ferić, Stjepan Sabljar, Terezija

Kramarić, Filip Jukić, Antun Đjukić,

Marija Đjukić, Ana Dikulić, Mijo Krnić,

Antun Mucavac, Katarina Vladić, Marija

Milašinović, Marija Jukić, Marija Šestić,

Antun Krivaić, Ana Tepić, Veronika

Jukić, Soka Volarević, Kata Lončar,

Marija Antolović, Katarina Alavančić,

Kata Ferić, Juraj Ferić, Terezija Alavančić,

Barbara Kropf, Ana Piktija, Pavao Kropf,

Ruža Dikulić, Veronika Stanković, Ivan

Kulišić, So ja Dikulić – all from Hrvat-

ska Dubica; Ana Blinja, Andrija Likić,

Ana Lončar, Josip Blinja, Kata Blinja

– all from Cerovljani; Mara Čorić from

Predor and thirteen other still unidenti-

 ed persons.

TRIALS BEFORE CROATIAN COUNTY COURTS IN 2011

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

100

Case Criminal oﬀ ence / Court / Council

CRIME IN ^ANAK

 e main hearing was scheduled for November 2010 and January 2011.

 e defendant was repeatedly failing to appear before the court and there-

fore the main hearing had to be postponed.

War crime against civilians

Gospić County Court



CRIME BY THE SO-CALLED PERU^A GROUP

 e main hearing was scheduled for 19 April 2011 but it did not begin

because the defendant did not appear before the court.

Previously, on 28 April 2009 the VSRH quashed the Split County Court’s

verdict of 9 June 2008. With this verdict in the reopened trial, the Sisak

County Court’s verdict of 26 May 1997 was left in force (it was upheld with

the VSRH’s verdict of 1 June 2000) – in which the defendant was found

guilty and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

War crime against civilians and war crime

against war prisoners

Split County Court



CRIME IN THE DUBROVNIK SURROUNDING

 e hearing was scheduled for 20 September but was not held because

the defendant failed to appear before the court.

War crime against civilians

Dubrovnik County Court



Appendix 1 OVERVIEW OF THE MONITORED WAR CRIME

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

101

Indictment No. / ŽDO

Defendants Names of victims



Indictment No. KT-23/97 of 16 Octo-

ber 2009 issued by the Gospić ŽDO

Prosecution:

Pavao Rukavina, acting Gospić County

State Attorney

Željko Žakula

Member of Serb formations

Resides in the Republic of Serbia. Unavail-

able to Croatian judiciary.

Victim

- killed: Blaž Grbac



Indictment No. KT-121/95, excerpt of

the same  led under No. K-DO-50/06

Prosecution:

Michele Squiccimaro, Split County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Mitar Arambašić

Member of Serb formations

Spent time in extradition detention from

5 September 2002 until 25 January 2006.

He spent time serving the sentence from

26 January 2006 until 17 May 2006. Spent

time in detention from 18 May 2006 until

the pronouncement of the VSRH’s decision

in April 2009.

 e defendant did not respond to the

summons. He resides in Canada where he

sought asylum.

Victims:

- killed civilians: Luca Cvitković,

Jozo Budić, Ivan Vidosavljević, Pava

Glavinić, Mara Vardić, Petar Kurdić,

Iva Cvitković, Iva Mihaljević, Blaž

Cvitković, Iva Cvitković (wife Blaža),

Ivan Knezović, Milica Jukić, Iva Jukić,

Ana Jukić, Marijan Bešlić and Filip

Bešlić

- killed war prisoners: Ivica Grubač, Bo-

goslav Lukić and Kažimir Abramović



Indictment issued by the Dubrovnik

ŽDO on 29 January 2008.

Marko Grandov

Member of Montenegrin formations

Unavailable to Croatian judiciary

TRIALS BEFORE CROATIAN COUNTY COURTS IN 2011

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

102

Case Criminal oﬀ ence / Court

CRIME IN DRAGI[I]I

 e VSRH partially accepted the defendant’s appeal. It modi ed the Šibenik

County Court’s verdict in which defendant Vukušić was sentenced to 9 years in

prison and sentenced him to 8 years in prison.

War crime against civilians

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber held

its session on 19 January 2011



CRIME IN TENJA

 e VSRH rejected the state attorney’s appeal and upheld the Osijek County

Court’s verdict of 4 July 2008 in which Boško Surla was acquitted of charges.

War crime against war prisoners

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber held

its session on 25 January 2011



CRIME IN BJELOVAR

 e VSRH quashed the Varaždin County Court’s verdict of 21 December 2007 in

which, following the third (second repeated) trial, the defendants were found guilty

and sentenced to the following prison sentences: defendant Markešić to 4 years and

other defendants (Radić, Maras and Orlović) to 3 years in prison each.

Later on the fourth (third repeated) trial was conducted at the Zagreb County Court. In

that trial held on 18 November 2011 the defendants were acquitted of charges.

War crime against war prisoners

and war crime against civilians

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber held

its session on 1 February 2011



CRIME IN BOROVO NASELJE

 e VSRH upheld the Vukovar County Court War Crime Council’s verdict in

which, on 12 June 2009, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to 4 years

in prison.

War crime against civilians



CRIME IN THE VUKOVAR HOSPITAL

 e VSRH partially accepted the appeal by the defendant’s defence counsel and it

modi ed the Vukovar County Court’s verdict of 15 July 2010 in which defendant

Kuzmić was sentenced in his absence to 7 years in prison, and it sentenced him

instead to 5 years and 6 months.

War crime against civilians

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber held

its session on 21 April 2011



Appendix 2 TABLE OVERVIEW OF THE VSRH APPEALS

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

103

Indictment No. / ŽDO

Defendants Names of victims



Indictment No. K-DO-16/10 of 15 July

2010 issued by the Šibenik ŽDO

Prosecution:

Emilijo Kalabrić, Šibenik County Deputy

State’s Attorney

Božidar Vukušić

Member of Croatian formations

In detention as of 17 June 2010

Victim

- killed: Jovan Ergić



Indictment No. K-DO-38/2007 of 14

January 2008 issued by the Osijek ŽDO

Prosectuion:

Zlatko Bučević, Osijek County Deputy

State’s Attorney

Boško Surla

Member of Serb formations

Defendant Boško Surla spent time in

detention from 15 May 2007 until

the pronouncement of his acquittal,

13 months in total.

Victims:

- killed civilians:

Ivan Valentić, Marija Cerenko, Ana Horvat,

Katica Kiš, Pero Mamić, Josip Medved, Josip

Penić, Evica Penić, Josip Prodanović, Vladimir

Valentić, Franjo Burča and Mato Nađ

- detained civilians:

Zoran Bertanjoli, family Vuko, Ivka and

Mato Krajina, Drago Balog and Rozalija

Varga

- killed war prisoners:

Ivica Lovrić, Franjo Ciraki, Miroslav Varga

and Ivan Vadlja



Indictment No. K-DO-57/01 of 25 Sep-

tember 2001 issued by the Bjelovar ŽDO,

amended by a memo No. K-DO-27/04 of

23 February 2005 issued by the Varaždin

ŽDO, and at the main hearing held on 27

November 2007

Luka Markešić, Zdenko Radić,

Zoran Maras and Ivan Orlović

Members of Croatian formations

Attend the trial undetained

Victims:

- killed: Radovan Berbetović, Zdravko Dok-

man, Radovan Gredeljević, Ivan Hojsak,

Boško Radonjić and one unidenti ed

person

- survived: Savo Kovač



Indictment No. K-DO-5/06 of 29 De-

cember 2006 issued by the Vukovar ŽDO,

amended on 9 June 2009.

Prosecution:

Vlatko Miljković, Vukovar County Deputy

State’s Attorney

Dušan Zinajić

Member of Serb formations

Attended the trial undetained

Victim (wounded): Tomislav Kovačić



Indictment No. DO-K-12/98 of 19

March 2001 issued by the Vukovar ŽDO,

amended by a memo of 6 July 2010.

Prosecution:

Vlatko Miljković, Vukovar County Deputy

State’s Attorney

Bogdan Kuzmić

Member of Serb formations

Fugitive, tried in absentia

Victims – unlawfully detained and later

killed in an unidentiﬁ ed manner: Marko

Mandić, Tomislav Hegeduš, Stanko Duvnjak,

Branko Lukenda and Martin Došen – in the

amended indictment of 6 July 2010 the defend-

ant is no longer charged with separating and

killing Stanko Duvnjak and Martin Došen

CHAMBERS’ SESSIONS REGARDING WAR CRIME TRIALS IN 2011

Translator’s note: the County State Attorney’s O ce (hereinafter: the ŽDO)

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

104

Case Criminal oﬀ ence / Court

CRIME IN FRKA[I] II

Due to essential violation of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, the

VSRH Council quashed the Gospić County Court War Crimes Council’s verdict of

25 February 2010 in which the defendant was found guilty and sentenced to 7 years

in prison.

After the repeated trial, on 7 September 2011 the defendant was found guilty. He was

sentenced to 7 years in prison.

War crime against war prisoners

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber

should have held its session on 11

May 2011. However, the session

was not held because the  rst-

instance verdict was quashed for

procedural reasons.



CRIME IN KORENICA

 e VSRH accepted on 8 June 2011 the defendants’ appeals. Accordingly, it

quashed the Rijeka County Court’s verdict in which the defendants were found

guilty and sentenced to the following prison sentences: defendant Šuput to 4 years

and defendant Panić to 3 years and 6 months.  e case was remanded to the Rijeka

County Court for a retrial.

 e repeated trial is ongoing.

War crime against war prisoners

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber held

its session on 8 June 2011



CRIME IN SUNJSKA GREDA

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber quashed the Sisak County Court’s  rst-instance ver-

dict due to essential violation of the criminal procedure provisions. In the quashed

verdict issued on 20 December 2010, the defendant was found guilty and sentenced

to 8 years in prison.

War crime against civilians

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber held

its session on 12 July 2011



CRIME ON THE KORANA BRIDGE

In the third (second repeated) trial, the Karlovac County Court acquitted defendant

Hrastov for the third time.

Deciding on the prosecution’s appeal, the VSRH Appeals Chamber decided in

September 2008 to hold a hearing at the VSRH.

After the conducted hearing, Hrastov was found guilty and sentenced to 8 years in

prison.

Deciding on the defendant’s appeal, the VSRH’s Council in November 2009modi-

 ed the verdict in the section on sentence and sentenced the defendant with a  nal

judgement to 7 years in prison.

However, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia quashed the

acquittals rendered by the Croatian Supreme Court and remanded the case to the

Supreme Court for retrial.

 e VSRH’s public session was held on 5 October 2011.

 e VSRH decided to hold the hearing itself.  e hearing was scheduled for 30 and

31 January and 2 February 2012.

Unlawful killing and wounding

the enemy

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber held

its session on 5 October 2011



Appendix 2 TABLE OVERVIEW OF THE VSRH APPEALS

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

105

Indictment No. / ŽDO

Defendants Names of victims



Indictment No. K-DO-13/08 of 9 March

2009 issued by the Gospić ŽDO.

Prosecution:

Željko Brkljačić, Gospić County Deputy

State’s Attorney

Goran Zjačić

Member of Serb formations

In detention as of 28 September

2008

Victims:

- physically abused (according to the indict-

ment and the verdict): Johannes Tilder, Ivan

Čaić, Ivan Dadić (HV members); Marko

Tomić (HVO member); Kadir Bećirspahić

(BiH Army member)



Indictment No. K-DO-24/06 of 31

January 2007 issued by the Gospić ŽDO,

amended by the Rijeka ŽDO on 2 October

2008.

Prosecution:

Darko Karlović, Rijeka County Deputy

State’s Attorney

Željko Šuput and Milan Panić

Members of Serb formations

Attend the trial undetained.

 ey spent time in detention during

the  rst-instance trial.

Victims

- maltreated:

Mile Lukač, Perica Bičanić and Nikola

Nikolić



Indictment No. K-DO-36/08 of 20 Sep-

tember 2010 issued by the Sisak ŽDO.

Prosecution:

Ivan Petrkač, Sisak County Deputy State’s

Attorney

Milenko Vidak

Member of Serb formations

In detention

Victim

- killed: Stjepan Sučić



Indictment No. KT-48/91 of 25 May 1991

issued by the Karlovac ŽDO, last time

amended on 6 March 2007.

Prosecution:

Ljubica Fikuš-Šumonja, Kalrovac County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Mihajlo Hrastov

Member of Croatian formations

Not detained

Victims:

- killed: Jovan Sipić, Božo Kozlina, Nebojša

Popović, Milić Savić, Milenko Lukač,

Nikola Babić, Slobodan Milovanović, Sveto-

zar Gojković, Miloš Srdić, Zoran Komadina,

Mile Babić, Vaso Bižić and Mile Peurača

- wounded: Duško Mrkić, Svetozar Šarac,

Nebojša Jasnić and Branko Mađarac

CHAMBERS’ SESSIONS REGARDING WAR CRIME TRIALS IN 2011

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

106

Case Criminal oﬀ ence / Court

CRIME IN BARANJA

 e VSRH quashed the verdict in which, following the fourth (third repeated) trial,

the Osijek County Court’s War Crimes Council sentenced Petar Mamula on 23

March 2011 to 3 years and 6 months in prison.

 e case was remanded to the Osijek County Court for the  fth trial.

War crime against civilians

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber held

its session on 12 October 2011



CRIME IN PERU[I]

On 4 February 2011, the Zadar County Court sentenced defendant Nikola Munjes

by the  rst-instance verdict to 9 years in prison, and thus the verdict rendered on 9

October 1995 by the same court in which he was sentenced in absentia to 9 years in

prison was therefore upheld.

We are not familiar with the VSRH’s decision.

War crime against civilians

Zadar County Court

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber held

its session on 9 November 2011



CRIME IN KRU[EVO

 e VSRH’s Appeals Council upheld the Zadar County Court War Crimes Coun-

cil’s verdict of 7 June 2011 in which, following the third (second repeated) trial, the

defendants were acquitted of charges.

Previously, the VSRH quashed two times the  rst-instance verdicts. In 2000, it quashed

the acquittal rendered on 1 December 1997. In 2007, it quashed the verdict of the  rst-

instance court rendered on 15 September 2005 in which it found the defendants guilty

sentencing defendant Jurjević to 4 years and defendant Tošić to 15 years in prison.

War crime against civilians

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber held

its session on 16 November 2011



CRIME IN MARINO SELO

On 13 June 2011, the Osijek County Court pronounced a verdict, following the

repeated trial, in which Poletto and Tutić were found guilty. Poletto was sentenced

to 15 and Tutić to 12 years in prison. Kufner, Vancaš and Ivezić were acquitted of

charges, whereas the charges against Šimić were rejected.

 e VSRH upheld the Osijek County Court’s verdict in its entirety.

War crime against civilians

 e VSRH Appeals Chamber held

its session on 22 November 2011



Appendix 2 TABLE OVERVIEW OF THE VSRH APPEALS

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

107

Indictment No. / ŽDO

Defendants Names of victims



Indictment No. KT-136/94 of 3 April

2001 issued by the Osijek ŽDO, amended

on 14 March 2002, 4 May 2006 and 23

March 2011.

Prosecution:

Miroslav Dasović, Osijek County Deputy

State’s Attorney

Petar Mamula

Member of Serb formations

Spent time in detention from 6 Oc-

tober 2000 until 7 May 2003.

Currently, attends the trial unde-

tained

Victims:

- maltreated: Antun Knežević



Indictment No. KT-9/95 of 27 June 1995

issued by the Zadar District State Attor-

ney’s O ce.

Prosecution:

Radovan Marjanović, Zadar County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Nikola Munjes

Member of Serb formations

In Zadar prison detention as of 20

October 2010

Victims

- maltreated: Duje Pešut and Grgo Pešut



Indictment No. KT-266/97 of 18 June

1997 issued by the Zadar ŽDO.

Prosecution:

Radoslav Marjanović, Zadar County

Deputy State’s Attorney

Milan Jurjević and Davor Tošić

Members of Serb formations

Defendant Jurjević attended the trial

undetained, whereas defendant Tošić

was a fugitive and thus was tried in

absentia

Victim

- killed: Mile Brkić



Indictment No. K-DO-48/10 of 28 June

2010 issued by the Osijek ŽDO, amended

on 31 May 2011.

Prosecution:

Zlatko Bučević, Osijek County Deputy

State’s Attorney and Božena Jurković,

Slavonski Brod County Deputy State’s

Attorney

Damir Kufner, Davor Šimić, Pavao

Vancaš, Tomica Poletto, Željko

Tutić and Antun Ivezić

Members of Croatian formations

Defendants Tomica Poletto and

Željko Tutić are in detention.

Victims:

- maltreated and tortured: Branko Stanković,

Mijo and Jovo Krajnović (villagers from

Kip); Milka Bunčić, Jeka Žestić and Nikola

Ivanović (villagers from Klisa)

- maltreated, tortured and killed: Pero

Novković, Mijo Danojević, Gojko Gojković,

Savo Gojković, Branko Bunčić, Nikola

Gojković, Mijo Gojković, Filip Gojković,

Jovo Popović – Tein, Petar Popović, Nikola

Krajnović, Milan Popović (villagers from Kip);

Jovo Žestić, Jovo Popović Simin, Slobodan

Kukić, Rade Gojković, Savo Maksimović,

Josip Cicvara (villagers from Klisa)

CHAMBERS’ SESSIONS REGARDING WAR CRIME TRIALS IN 2011

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

CENTRE FOR PEACE,

NONVIOLENCE AND

HUMAN RIGHTS-OSIJEK

Trg Augusta Šenoe 1

HR-31 000 Osijek

tel/fax: ++ 385 31 206 886

e-mail:

centar-za-mir@centar-za-mir.hr

web:

www.centar-za-mir.hr

DOCUMENTA – Centre for

Dealing with the Past

Selska 112 c

HR-10 000 Zagreb

tel: ++ 385 1 457 2398

fax:++ 385 1 549 9744

e-mail:

[email protected]

web:

www.documenta.hr

CIVIC COMMITTEE

FOR HUMAN RIGHTS

Selska 112 c

HR-10 000 Zagreb

tel/ fax: ++ 385 1 61 71 530

e-mail:

[email protected]

web:

www.goljp.hr

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/

Centre for Peace, Nonviolence and Human Rights-Osijek

Documenta - Centre for Dealing with the Past

Civic Committee for Human Rights

PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/2526e4/