Second instance - Sud Bosne i Hercegovine

Босна и Херцеговина
Bosna i Hercegovina
Sud Bosne i Hercegovine
Суд Боснe и Херцеговинe
Case No. S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
Rendered on:
Written copy sent on:
8 November 2013
17 April 2014
Before the Panel of Judges:
Azra Miletić, Presiding
Dragomir Vukoje, member
Senadin Begtašević, member
PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
v.
BOŠKO LUKIĆ AND MARKO ADAMOVIĆ
SECOND INSTANCE VERDICT
Prosecutor of the BiH Prosecutor’s Office:
Ms. Džemila Begović
Counsel for the Accused:
Mr. Husein Mušić, Attorney for the accused Boško Lukić
Mr. Branko Gudalo, Attorney for the accused Marko Adamović
Kraljice Jelene br. 88, 71 000 Sarajevo, Bosna i Hercegovina, Tel: 033 707 100, Faks: 033 707 155
Краљице Јелене бр. 88, 71 000 Сарајево, Босна и Херцеговина, Тел: 033 707 100, Факс: 033
707 155
Bosna i Hercegovina
Босна и Херцеговина
Sud Bosne i Hercegovine
Суд Боснe и Херцеговинe
1
V E R D I C T ....................................................................................................................................... 4
R e a s o n i n g ................................................................................................................................ 14
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................ 14
II. THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED ................................................................................................................................... 15
III. PROCEDURAL DECISIONS ................................................................................................................................. 16
A. EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC ..................................................................................................................................... 16
B. PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE WITNESSES ....................................................................................................... 16
C. MAIN TRIAL ADJOURNED FOR LONGER THAN 30 DAYS............................................................................................ 18
IV. CLOSING ARGUMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 19
A. PROSECUTION ......................................................................................................................................................... 19
B. CLOSING ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENSE .................................................................................................................. 21
1. Closing argument of the Defense for the accused Boško Lukić ....................................................... 21
2. Closing argument of the Defense for the accused Marko Adamović .............................................. 23
V. STANDARDS OF PROOF ...................................................................................................................................... 24
VI. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY ............... 29
A. WIDESPREAD AND/OR SYSTEMATIC ATTACK .......................................................................................................... 29
(a) Widespread nature of the attack ............................................................................................................. 31
(b) The attack was directed against the civilian population ....................................................................... 44
(c) The Accused were aware of the attack and that their acts formed part of the attack ...................... 45
VII. PERSECUTION ...................................................................................................................................................... 54
i. Murder – depriving another person of his life ............................................................................. 59
ii. Deportation or forcible transfer of population ............................................................................ 59
iii. Imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty .............................................. 60
iv. Other inhumane acts of similar character ................................................................................. 60
v. Unlawful confinement into camps ............................................................................................... 60
Sud Bosne i Hercegovine, Sarajevo, ul. Kraljice Jelene br. 88
Telefon: 033 707 100, 707 596; Fax: 033 707 225
vi. Attack against civilian population, settlements, individual civilians, which resulted in
death, and attack or shelling, using any means, of undefended villages and
residences .................................................................................................................................. 61
vii. Deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial .................................................................. 61
VIII. INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ACCUSED WITHIN A JOINT CRIMINAL
ENTERPRISE ......................................................................................................................................................... 62
A. ELEMENTS OF THE BASIC JCE ............................................................................................................................... 64
(a) Actus reus element (act of commission) ................................................................................................ 64
(b) Mens rea element (knowledge and intent) ............................................................................................. 67
B. JCE IN THE CONCRETE CASE ................................................................................................................................. 68
(a) Actus reus elements .................................................................................................................................. 68
(i) Plurality of persons ................................................................................................................................. 68
(ii) The existence of a common purpose or intent .................................................................................. 73
(iii) Certain direct perpetrators commit individual criminal offenses by which the common
criminal design or purpose is being implemented .......................................................................... 85
(iv) The Accused’s participation in the common design which includes commission of one of
crimes ................................................................................................................................................... 85
a. The accused Boško Lukić ................................................................................................................ 85
b. The accused Marko Adamović ........................................................................................................ 93
(b) Mens rea (guilty mind) .............................................................................................................................. 98
IX. INDIVIDUAL INCRIMINATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 103
A. INCIDENT IN THE CRLJENI VILLAGE ...................................................................................................................... 103
B. KILLING OF DUŠAN STOJAKOVIĆ AKA DUĆA, DEPUTY COMMANDER OF THE SJB KLJUČ ................................ 105
C. AMBUSH IN BUSIJE AND THE ATTACK ON YOUNG SOLDIERS ............................................................................... 105
D. SECTION 1 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE CONVICTING PART OF THE VERDICT ........................................... 106
E. SECTION 2 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE CONVICTING PART OF THE VERDICT ........................................... 118
F. SECTION 3 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE VERDICT ...................................................................................... 123
G. SECTION 4 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE VERDICT ...................................................................................... 131
H. COUNT 5 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE CONVICTING PART OF THE VERDICT ............................................. 143
(a) Charges under Section 5.a) of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict ............. 145
(b) Charges under Section 5.b) of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict ............. 150
(c) Charges under Section 5.c) of the enacting clause of the Verdict ................................................... 158
(d) Charges under Section 5.d) of the enacting clause of the Verdict ................................................... 163
(e) Charges under Section 5.e) of the enacting clause of the Verdict ................................................... 169
X. APPLICABLE LAW ................................................................................................................................................ 177
XI. SENTENCING ........................................................................................................................................................ 180
A. THE PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT ............................................................................................................................. 180
B. RULES FOR METING OUT PUNISHMENTS AND INDIVIDUALIZATION OF PUNISHMENTS............................................ 181
2
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
XII. ACQUITTING PART OF THE VERDICT .......................................................................................................... 183
A. COUNT 5 OF THE AMENDED INDICTMENT.............................................................................................................. 183
B. COUNT 6 OF THE AMENDED INDICTMENT .............................................................................................................. 188
(a) Count 6.d) of the Amended Indictment ................................................................................................. 188
(b) Count 6.g) of the Indictment ................................................................................................................... 190
(c) Count 6 h) of the Indictment ................................................................................................................... 195
(d) Charges under Count 6.i) of the Indictment ......................................................................................... 199
C. COUNT 7 OF THE AMENDED INDICTMENT.............................................................................................................. 202
D. CONCLUSION ON THE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT IN RELATION TO WHICH THE ACCUSED WERE ACQUITTED
OF CHARGES ...................................................................................................................................................... 205
XIII. DECISION ON THE COSTS OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS .................................................................... 208
XIV. ANNEX 1 .............................................................................................................................................................. 209
A. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE ...................................................................................................................................... 209
1. Witnesses for the Prosecution ..................................................................................................................... 209
2. Documentary Evidence of the Prosecutor’s Office ................................................................................... 212
B. WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE ............................................................................................................................. 235
C. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE FOR THE ACCUSED BOŠKO LUKIĆ ................................................. 236
1. Evidence accepted from the first instance proceedings ........................................................................... 236
2. Evidence accepted at the hearing before the Appellate Division Panel ................................................ 236
D. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE FOR THE ACCUSED MARKO ADAMOVIĆ ......................................... 237
XV. ANNEX 2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 237
A. ESTABLISHED FACTS ............................................................................................................................................. 237
3
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Number: S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
Sarajevo, 8 November 2013
IN THE NAME OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA!
The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, in the Panel of the
Appellate Division comprised of Judges Azra Miletić, as the Panel President, and Dragomir
Vukoje and Senadin Begtašević, as members of the Panel, with the participation of the
Legal Advisor-Assistant Nevena Aličehajić, as the record-taker, in the criminal case
against the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović, for the criminal offense of Crimes
against Humanity in violation of Article 172(1)(h) of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, as read with Article 180(1) of the same Code, acting upon the confirmed
Indictment of the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina No. KT-RZ-44/08 of
5 June 2008, amended on 25 April 2011, following a main hearing held before the
Appellate Division, open for the public in part, in the presence of Ms. Džemila Begović,
Prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mr. Husein Mušić,
Counsel for the accused Boško Lukić and Mr. Branko Gudalo, Counsel for the accused
Marko Adamović, on 8 November 2013 rendered, and on 20 December 2013 publicly
announced the following:
VERDICT
The Accused:
BOŠKO LUKIĆ, son of Mane, born on 25 November 1940 in Fajtovci, Ključ Municipality,
with registered place of residence in …, retired teacher, Personal Identification Number …,
widower, father of two children, .. by ethnicity, citizen of …, currently at large
MARKO ADAMOVIĆ, son of Dušan, born on 28 February 1946 in Peći, Ključ Municipality,
with residence in …, Personal Identification Number …, married, father of two children, …
by ethnicity, citizen of …, in custody in the KPZ „Banja Luka“ under the Decision of the
Court of BiH No. S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk of 20 December 2013,
ARE GUILTY
Because:
From April 1992 until late June 1992, in the territory of Ključ Municipality, within a
widespread and systematic attack of the Army of Serb Republic of Bosnia and
4
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Herzegovina, that is, Republika Srpska, the police of the Ministry of Interior of Serb
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or Republika Srpska, launched against the Croat
and Muslim civilian population in the Ključ Municipality area, they participated in a joint
criminal enterprise with a plan to undertake all activities at the Ključ Municipality level
under the Instruction for the Organization and Activities of the Organs of the Serb People
in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary Circumstances of 19 December 1991, so that
Serbs completely take over the power in the municipal institutions, whereby the
Municipality of Ključ would be included in the category of Serb municipalities and then join
the Autonomous Region of Krajina and the Republic of the Serb People of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, as prescribed under the Strategic Goals, knowing that with their actions they
participated in the preparation, organization and carrying out of a widespread and
systematic attack directed against the civilian population, in order to implement the
activities planned and initiated by the SDS Main Board, through the Assembly of Serb
People of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and the established Autonomous
Region of Krajina, in complicity and in agreement with the President of the Ključ
Municipality, and members of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipality, the Commander of
the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, the leadership of civilian authorities in the Ključ Municipality
and the military authorities of the 30th Partisan Division, the 1st Krajina Corps of the VRS,
and the 2nd Krajina Corps of the VRS BiH, aware that the realization of such common plan
and goals, the creation of a separate state of Bosnian Serbs, which was supposed to be
implemented by the Army and the Police together is only possible through serious and
systematic violations of international law, persecution of the Muslim and Croat population,
which makes this plan a joint criminal enterprise in which,
BOŠKO LUKIĆ
Aware of the plan and the set goals, ready to support and personally contribute to the
successful implementation of the plan and the realization of the set goals, back in late
1991 accepted the offered position of the Commander of the Municipal Staff of the
Territorial Defense of the Ključ municipality and, in that capacity, became a member of the
Crisis Staff of the Municipality established by the Municipal Organization of the Serb
Democratic Party. At that time he started with the preparation of a new manner of
organization of the Territorial Defense Staff units in accordance with the guidelines
arranged at the meetings of the Serb Democratic Party, later the Crisis Staff of the Ključ
municipality, that is, War Presidency, that would be ready to launch armed attacks against
the settlements not populated by Serbs, with a view to persecute by means of disarming,
killing, imprisoning and otherwise severely depriving people of physical liberty, by shelling
undefended villages and residential buildings, deportation and forcible transfer of
population, and the destruction of religious buildings. In January 1992, he took over active
command and control over the Territorial Defense Staff, ignoring SR BiH laws, in
accordance with the “Instruction on Organization of Serb People…” He organized the
Territorial Defense Staff as a monoethnic unit and, in April 1992, he transformed it into the
composition of the Territorial Defense, that is, the military as the Armed Forces of the Serb
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He implemented the Decision of the Ministry of
5
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
National Defense of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the manner that he
undertook activities concerning the mobilization and establishment of new Territorial
Defense units, their organization and training, in cooperation with JNA units. Thereby he
directly took part in creating pre-requisites and conditions for the creation and
establishment of the Army of Republika Srpska, when in the first half of June 1992,
together with his staff and the units of Territorial Defense as a nucleus, in the capacity of
the Chief of Staff, he started with the establishment and deployment of the 17th Light
Infantry Ključ Brigade, which continued the commenced persecution activities in the
territory of Ključ municipality even after the arrival of Commander of the Brigade,
MARKO ADAMOVIĆ
Aware of the plan and the set goals, ready to support and personally contribute to the
successful implementation of the plan and the realization of the set goals, from April 1992,
in the capacity of a reserve officer of the Territorial Defense with significant experience, he
took part in the realization of the conclusions of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipality
with respect to the implementation of the Decision of the Ministry of National Defense and
the securing of conditions for the creation of the Territorial Defense as the Armed Forces
of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Aware of the reasons for such a manner
of organization, already in the second half of April 1992, after the mobilization of the Ključ
Territorial Defense Battalion, that is the Army, in the capacity of Battalion Deputy
Commander, he took part in the training of the unit members in order to train them and
render them capable for launching attacks against the settlements not populated by Serbs,
with a view to persecute that population by means of disarming, killing, imprisoning and
otherwise severely depriving people of physical liberty, by shelling undefended villages
and residential buildings, deportation and forcible transfer of population and the
destruction of religious buildings. Therefore, in the beginning of the widespread and
systematic attack against the non-Serb population, he was appointed Town Defense
Commander and, in that capacity, he took an active part in the work of the Municipal Crisis
Staff, where together with the Public Security Station Chief he reported about the situation
in the field and, directly, in the field, with the units, took part in the military attack launched
against civilians of the settlements populated by Muslims and Croats. After the
establishment of the 17th Light Infantry Ključ Brigade, as Assistant Commander for
Intelligence, Moral and Religious Issues, with the goal to implement the set plans, he
continued the commenced persecution in the territory of the Ključ Municipality,
Whereby they directly contributed to and participated in the realization of the plan of
persecution, in as much as they
1. On 27 May 1992, as part of the power takeover by the Serb forces, the army and
the police started unlawfully arresting and depriving of liberty non-Serb civilians in
downtown Ključ, on no legal grounds whatsoever, bringing them to the Public
Security Station without informing them about the reasons for their arrest, where
they were exposed to physical abuse by police members and various
6
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
investigators, who used punches, kicks and various implements to beat them all
over their bodies, asking them to confess that they were preparing all kinds of
crimes against the Serb population, which created fear among prisoners not only
for their own destiny, but for the destiny of their family members. They were held
in the Public Security Station detention cells, which were inadequate to hold a
large number of prisoners without food and basic hygienic conditions. A day or
two later, at least 22 civilians, including Luka Brkić, Muhamed Filipović, Leopold
Flat, Behrem Šarić, Muhamed Eljezović, Mehmed Šistek, Fadil Jakupović, Smajil
Muslimović, Darko Džaja, Mirsad Šehić, Fadil Medić, Domagoj Rebac, Husein
Kozarac, Fahrudin Krivić, Abid Dervišević, Mehmed Begić, Mustafa Koljić, Alija
Bilić, Mirsad Mršić, Dževad Mistrić, Teufik Vučkić and Šaban Kujundžić, were
transported to the Stara Gradiška camp, and Šaban Kujundžić died as a result of
beatings on the way to the camp, while others were beaten during their admission
into the camp and their stay there, and approximately fifteen days later they were
transferred to another camp on Manjača,
2. On 28 May 1992, the Ključ Battalion, assisted by the 30 th Partisan Division of the
First Krajina Corps, launched an artillery attack on the Ključ settlements of Pudin
Han and Velagići, inhabited by the Muslim population, where there were no
legitimate military targets, which lasted for at least two days, while the shelling
caused the death of at least 12 fleeing persons, including Esma Bečić, Refika
Bečić aka Keka, Hamdo Bečić and Refik Draganović,
3. On 1 June 1992, after all Muslim men from the hamlets of Vojići, Hasići, Nezići,
Hadžići and other settlements of the village of Velagići were called to come to the
police checkpoint in Velagići, military police officers took personal belongings
from those who responded to the call and forced them into the premises of the old
school, where they imprisoned them although they knew they had no legal
grounds to do so, and then, in the late evening hours, they forced them out and
executed them, on which occasion they killed at least 78 persons, including Denis
Zukić, Rezak Nezić, Esad Zečević, Kasim Bajrić, Husein Fazlić, Mesud Bajrić, Atif
Nezić, Safet Draganović, Šefik Bajrić, Fadil Delić, Ilijaz Ćehić, Emsud Bečić,
Hasan Zukić, Đulaga Burzić, Rešid Dervišević, Asim Keranović, Karanfil
Dervišević, Asim Ćehić, Husein Nezić, Dedo Muheljić, Ramiz Draganović, Emir
Keranović, Emsud Draganović, Muharem Bajrić, Fehim Bajrić, Ibro Bajrić,
Sabahudin Ćemal, Derviš Kujundžić, Adem Muheljić, Fehret Draganović, Hilmo
Draganović, Nijaz Draganović, Saim Halilović, Saif Ćemal, Omer Zečević, Refik
Bečić, Nijaz Nezić, Ramiz Zukić, Rifet Bajrić, Husein Bajrić, Mustafa Bajrić,
Ibrahim Muratović, Dževad Hotić, Islam Nezić, Hilmo Draganović, Mesud
Draganović, Adem Draganović, Teufik Draganović, Fadil Draganović, Elvedin
Čarkić, Nedim Bajrić, Mirsad Ćehić, Šaban Bilajac, Esmin Draganović, Husein
Ćehić, Almir Delić, Tifo Bukvić, Jasmin Keranović, Zikret Bajrić, Džemal
Draganović, Meho Bajrić, Ramiz Aličić, Emil Delić, Hamdija Draganović, Safet
Nezić, Rufad Draganović, Emir Gromilić, Ismet Jukić and Safet Dervišević, who
were later exhumed from the mass grave Lanište II. The police continued to
7
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
search for those who survived,
4. On 1 June 1992, after soldiers of the Serb Republic of BiH, together with Marko
Adamović, entered the undefended village of Prhovo, dragging Hamdo Islamagić
tied to a personnel carrier, they forced the inhabitants out of their houses and
ordered them to gather in front of a shop in the village. After the inhabitants
gathered as ordered, they forced them into the frontyard of Abid and Karanfil
Osmanović’s house, and thereafter started beating them and singling out men, on
which occasion they killed at least seven persons, including Safet Medanović,
Hasan Medanović, Šefik Medanović, Izet Hadžić, Isak Mešić, Halil Medanović,
Hašim Hadžić and Fatima Medanović. Then, they separated a number of men,
including those who were underage, and took them on foot away from the village,
while opening fire from various weapons at the women, children and elderly who
remained in the yard, killing at least thirty of them, including Ramiza Jusić, Esma
Mešić, Hadžira Medanović, child Indira Medanović, Azemina Jusić, Midheta
Medanović, child Emira Jusić, Rabija Hadžić, Enesa Medanović, Hava
Medanović, Rasema Brković, child Samira Jusić, Hilmo Jusić, Ferida Medanović,
Nasiha Okić, child Nisveta Brković, child Amela Hadžić, Enisa Jusić, Karanfil
Osmanović, Rufad Osmanović, Arif Medanović, child Mujo Medanović, Teufik
Medanović, Nermin Jusić, Osman Jusić and Hajro Hadžić, who were later
exhumed from a mass grave in Prhovo. They marched the men who were taken
away from the village, in the direction of the Peći village, and on the way there
killed at least 15 persons, including Ahmo Medanović, Tehvid Osmanović, Suad
Hadžić, Zijad Hadžić, Suad Medanović, Ilfad Brković, Ekrem Hadžić, Ismet Mešić,
Enes Medanović, Ćamil Medanović, Vahid Medanović, Senad Hadžić, Mehmed
Dedić, Nedžad Jusić and Latif Jusić, who were later exhumed from the mass
grave of Ciganska dolina. Those who survived were handed over to the police
who beat them throughout the night, keeping them tied outdoors on the ground,
as a result of which Sulejman Medanović died, while the others were transported
to the premises of the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ. The survivors fled
the village and were hiding in the neighboring villages and in the woods, where
the search for the men who survived continued. They were arrested and
imprisoned in the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ and the Public Security
Station.
5. Starting from late May until the end of 1992 at least, the Ključ Battalion of the
Territorial Defense, i.e. the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, with the police assistance,
following the shelling of undefended villages and settlements of Ključ, populated
by non-Serbs, undertook activities and continued with persecution and
disarmament with the ultimatum to surrender all the weapons or the village would
be attacked. Following the surrender of weapons they started with unlawful
arrests and imprisonment of men in the Public Security Station or other facilities
designated for that purpose, like primary schools, with killings, forcing people out
of their houses, deportation and forceful movement of population, unlawful
destruction and stealing of property not justified by military needs, destruction of
8
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
religious buildings, in as much as they:
a) After the shelling, the population of Pudin Han, Velagići, including the
hamlets of Hađići, Vojići, Hasići, Nezići and others, scared senseless, were
ordered to leave their houses and gather near the Community Center in
Velagići; when several hundred women, children and men came in front of
the Centre, they were ordered to go in front of the Ključ Public Security
Station, and then they were stopped at a police checkpoint near ROPS,
where some residents of the mentioned settlements had surrendered
directly, from where a number of men were bussed to the Nikola Mačkić
elementary school in Ključ, after they were robbed of their money, personal
documents and personal belongings, while part of the population, men,
women and children, who had been deprived of liberty at the check-point,
were taken to the Šip warehouse where men were separated from the
women and children, and then hours later the women and children were
released but banned from returning to their homes until the Ključ authorities
allow their return, while the men were registered and interrogated, and some
of them were released to go home from there, while more than 200 of them
were unlawfully deprived of liberty and imprisoned in the Nikola Mačkić
elementary school in Ključ,
b) On or around 28 May 1992, with the task to mop up the villages on the route
Pudin Han – Vukovo Selo – Humići – Plamenice – Prhovo – Peći, they
expelled the Muslim population from their houses, threatening they would kill
anyone who was hiding and who was hiding weapons, conducted searches
looking for weapons that have not been turned in and men who were hiding,
sent a group of men fit for military service for interrogation by the Police at
the primary school in Humići. In Vukovo Selo they killed Šefik Čajić, while, in
the presence of Marko Adamović and without any legal grounds, Hamer
Ljutić and Muharem Ljutić were arrested on Ljutića Brdo and later found
killed in a nearby woods,
c) In late May 1992, all men from Donja Sanica and Gornja Sanica, including
the hamlets, were ordered to surrender weapons and come to designated
places. Therefore, the men from Donja Sanica had to come to the former
railway station in Sanica, from where, following interrogation, they were
transferred to the primary school in Sanica, where men from Gornja Sanica
were imprisoned without a legal basis, insulted by various curses, without the
right to know why they were imprisoned, along with individual beatings, which
created great fear among the imprisoned civilians, both for their destiny and
the destiny of their families. On the following day, some of them were
released and a large number of them transported to the Nikola Mačkić
primary school in Ključ,
d) Men, women and children of Muslim and Croat ethnicity from the city center
9
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
were ordered, via Radio Ključ, to gather at designated locations, such as the
machine factory in Halinovsko Vrelo and the football stadium in Ključ, which
they did out of fear for their lives. Afterwards, women, children and one group
of men were released to their homes while the other group of men were
interrogated about the possession of weapons, and, after the interrogations,
a large number of men were released, while at least 6 of them, without any
legal grounds and deprived of all rights, were imprisoned in the Public
Security Station,
e) As of 26 June 1992, an attack was launched on the undefended Muslim
villages of Ramići, Krasulje, the hamlets of Hripavci and Ošiljak, on which
occasion the population was forced out of their houses, terrorized and
intimidated by shots from fire weapons, curses and threats. On that occasion
at least 21 civilians were killed, including Sabro Čarkić, Husein Čarkić, Derviš
Čarkić, Sabit Husić, Safet Husić, Omer Husić, Teufik Husić, Ifet Vučkić,
Smajo Kalabić, Mirsad Jukić, Šefik Delalović, Ibrahim Delalović, Rezak
Đuzić, Remzo Đuzić, Hakija Đuzić, Sabit Salihović, Ajiz Fazlić, Esad Frmić,
Mirsad Jamaković and Šukrija Bajraktarević. The men from Ramići who
survived were brought to the primary school in Ramići, and men from
Krasulje to the primary school in Krasulje, which is when Marko Adamović
brought in Safet Sadiković and Edin Sadiković; following the registration and
interrogation, at least 90 of them, who were unlawfully deprived of liberty,
without any legal ground, were transferred to and imprisoned in the Nikola
Mačkić primary school in Ključ,
Therefore, within a widespread and systematic attack directed against the civilian
population, with discriminatory intent, aware of such an attack and knowing that their
actions constituted part of such an attack, as participants in a joint criminal enterprise with
the objective to persecute the entire Muslim and Croat population on ethnic and religious
grounds, they committed persecution by the actions described below:
 under Count 1) – murders, deportation and forcible transfer of population,
imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
fundamental rules of international law, other inhumane acts of similar
character, intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to
physical or mental health, unlawful confinement to camps;
 under Count 2) – attack against civilian population, settlements, individual
civilians, which resulted in death, the shelling, using any means, of
undefended cities, villages, residences or buildings,
 under Count 3) – murder, imprisonment and other severe deprivation of
physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, other
inhumane acts of similar character intentionally causing great suffering or
serious injury to body or to physical or mental health,
 under Count 4) – murder, imprisonment and other severe deprivation of
10
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, other
inhumane acts of similar character intentionally causing great suffering or
serious injury to body or to physical or mental health; forcible transfer of
population,
 under Count 5a) – imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical
liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law,
 under Count 5b) – murder and other inhumane acts of similar character
intentionally causing great suffering or serious injury to body or to physical or
mental health, imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty
in violation of fundamental rules of international law,
 under Count 5c) – imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical
liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, deprivation of
rights to a fair and impartial trial,
 under Count 5d) – imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical
liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, deprivation of
rights to a fair and impartial trial,
 under Count 5e) – murder, imprisonment and other severe deprivation of
physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law,
deprivation of rights to a fair and impartial trial.
Whereby
They committed the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity referred to in
Article 172(1)(h) of the CC of BiH, in conjunction with Article 180(1) of the CC BiH
Wherefore this Panel of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, for the referenced criminal
offense, on the grounds of the same legal regulations and Article 285 of the Criminal
Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and applying Article 39, 42, 42b and 48(1) of
the CC BiH
SENTENCES
The accused Boško Lukić TO A PRISON TERM OF 14 (FOURTEEN) YEARS
The accused Marko Adamović TO A LONG-TERM IMPRISONMENT OF 22 (TWENTY
TWO) YEARS.
Pursuant to Article 56 of the CC BiH, the time the Accused spent in custody shall be
credited towards the sentence imposed as follows:
- the accused Boško Lukić, from 20 March 2008 through 30 May 2011, and from the
date of his arrest under the Decision of the Court of BiH No. S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
of 20 December 2013 onwards,
11
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
- the accused Marko Adamović, from 20 March 2008 through 24 February 2009, and
from 20 December 2013 onwards
Pursuant to Article 284(c) of the CPC BiH, the accused Boško Lukić and Marko
Adamović are hereby
ACQUITTED OF CHARGES
that:
From April 1992 until late December 1992, within a widespread and systematic attack of
the Army of Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, that is, Republika Srpska, the
police of the Ministry of Interior of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or
Republika Srpska, directed against the Croat and Muslim civilian population of the Ključ
Municipality, as participants in a joint criminal enterprise with a plan to undertake
persecution of the Muslim and Croat civilian population of the Ključ municipality, the
accused Boško Lukić, as the Commander of the Municipal Staff of the Territorial Defense
of the Ključ municipality, and Marko Adamović, in the capacity of Deputy Battalion
Commander of the Territorial Defense Ključ and Town Defense Commander, or Assistant
Commander for Morale and Religious Issues of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade committed:
5. On 10 July 1992, after soldiers entered the undefended villages and hamlets of the Ključ
Municipality - Donji Biljani, Botonjići, Domazeti, Brkići and Jabukovica, with the police
assistance, they brought all men whom they found there without any legal ground to the
premises of the primary school in Donji Biljani, where the police registered the captives,
and then they were taken out and killed. Some of the men were loaded onto buses, taken
in an unknown direction and killed, while some were hunted down and killed at various
locations in the mentioned hamlets, on which occasion at least 219 persons were killed
that day, including Najil Botonjić, Husein Dervišević, Džemal Omeradžić, Almir Jašarević,
Aiz Dervišević, Rifet Botonjić, Osman Hodžić, Smajil Mulahmetović, Hazim Zukanović,
Salih Zukanović, Nijaz Avdić, Zijad Domazet, Elvir Ćehić, Safet Džaferagić, Adnan Ćehić,
Ćamil Botonjić, Feriz Botonjić, Jasmin Kapidžić, Ramiz Botonjić, Vehbija Džaferagić, Sabit
Jašarević, Hamdija Mujezinović, Nedžad Ćehić, Zuhdija Botonjić, Muharem Mujezinović,
Hilmo Botonjić, Bećir Kapidžić, Kemal Jašarević, Nail Mujezinović, Mehmed Domazet,
Enes Jašarević, Avdo Balagić, Besim Jašarević, Fadil Domazet, Muharem Botonjić, Fuad
Avdić, Asmir Domazet, Asim Mujezinović, Vehbija Balagić, Husein Botonjić, Enid
Omanović, Elmedin Šušnjar, Aiz Botonjić, Derviš Domazet, Ahmet Džaferagić, Ismet
Mujezinović, Raif Jašarević, Emsud Avdić, Suad Mešanović, Hajrudin Avdić, Omer
Dervišević, Saudin Omanović, Rifet Domazet, Safet Domazet, Saim Botonjić, Hamid
Domazet, Muharem Kuburaš, Feriz Avdić, Abid Balagić, Ale Ćajić, Smail Avdić, Zifad
Mujezinović, Fikret Balagić, Sadik Botonjić, Hakija Avdić, Šefko Avdić, Hikmet Botonjić,
Efraim Ćehić, Sulejman Ćehić, Šerif Pehadžić, Muhamed Mešanović, Sulejman Botonjić,
Lejla Sinanović, Osman Mujezinović, Ahmo Ćehić, Husein Zukanović, Adil Hodžić,
Muharem Avdić, Hamid Botonjić, Hamdija Domazet, Rasim Ćehić, Derviš Hodžić, Hamed
Botonjić, Adil Omanović, Suad Ćehić, Suad Botonjić, Hilmo Omanović, Zijad Botonjić,
Asim Ćehić, Sabahudin Botonjić, Nihad Kuburaš, Sabrija Botonjić, Hamed Domazet,
Miralem Ćehić, Habir Avdić, Meho Domazet, Islam Domazet, Nail Avdić, Asim Avdić,
Omer Omanović, Mujo Botonjić, Fadil Subašić, Nail Domazet, Asim Mešanović, Ejub
Botonjić, Smajil Avdić, Nijaz Botonjić, Vehbija Botonjić, Izedin Subašić, Hamdija
Džaferagić, Enes Avdić, Besim Avdić, Abid Hodžić, Teufik Ćehić, Omer Botonjić, Fahrudin
Domazet, Nail Ćehić, Ibrahim Bajrić, Fuad Domazet,
Emir
Mujezinović,
Elkaz
12
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Omanović, Mustafa Omanović, Džafer Botonjić, Latif Ćehić, Zuhdija Omanović, Abid
Omanović, Samir Mulahmetović, Bego Jašarević, Abid Avdić, Salko Omeradžić, Omer
Omanović, Azra Sinanović, Mehmed Džaferagić, Smail Zukanović, Besima Džaferagić,
Hajrudin Domazet, Meho Šušnjar, Fadil Botonjić, Mesud Crnalić, newborn child Amila
Džaferagić, child Almir Džaferagić, Abid Avdić, Sead Avdić, Refik Avdić, Nermin Avdić,
Asmir Mešanović, Hamdija Botonjić, Ibrahim Avdić, Nail Botonjić, Mujaga Zukanović, Asim
Domazet, Husein Domazet, Smail Mujezinović, Hamdija Ćehić, Hasib Mujezinović, Faik
Domazet, Ćazim Botonjić, Sabit Šljivar, Asim Omanović, Tehvid Omanović, Šefkija
Omanović, Pašo Omanović, Abid Džaferagić, Ejub Jašarević and Juso Jašarević, who
were later exhumed from the mass graves Lanište I and Crvena zemlja,
6. d) They continued to raid the undefended villages and hamlets Gornja Sanica, Donja
Sanica, Šljivari, Bašići, Botonjići, Domazeti, Gornji Budelj, Donji Budelj, Biljani, where they
terrorized and intimidated population by shooting around the villages, searching houses
and stealing property, torching buildings and killing at least 30 civilians, including Mehmed
Harambašić, Bećo Čehić, Mehmed Konjević, Hašim Babović, Hazim Džafić, Rasim
Omeragić, Derviš Kučuković, Edhem Keranović, Miralem Pehađić and his son Dinko
Pehađić, Husein Kučuković, Šukrija Medić, Kemal Harambađić, Fikret Karađić, Ćamka
Huskić, Mustafa Huskić, Supha Karađić, Avdo Karadžić, Vinc Horst, Ibrahim Šljivar, Fehim
Šljivar, Rasim Bosnić, Ramiz Kožanjić, Smajo Šljivar, Ćamil Šljivar, Arif Šljivar, Emin
Crnalić, Abid Botonjić, Mujo Šljivar, Muharem Šljivar, Hasan Fazlić, Osmo Lović and Bečić
Mehmed, who were later exhumed from graves found in the mentioned settlements and
identified,
g) Men, from the area of the Ključ municipality, who were collected in their settlements
and villages, and imprisoned in the Nikola Mačkić primary school without any legal ground,
having ran gauntlet made of Serbs, civilians, soldiers, women, citizens of Ključ, who were
hitting them with various implements, were placed in a gym without any conditions for stay,
where they sat on bare parquet floor, from where they were taken out for interrogation
followed by beatings with the use of kicks, punches, various implements, rifle butts all over
their bodies, required to confess that they were organizers of Muslim government or army,
that they were preparing various crimes against Serbs or composed lists for their
liquidation, with their basic human needs like food and personal hygiene restricted, without
the right to a fair trial, which caused humiliation and violation of human dignity and created
additional fear for their lives and the lives of their families. Afterwards one group was
released home, while around 200 men were transported to the primary school in Sitnica,
where they stayed for a couple of days on bare floor, without mats or blankets, without
enough food or conditions for maintaining personal hygiene, in constant fear for their lives.
They were lined up in a column, and walked for at least 20 km by a macadam road to the
camp on Manjača. At least 1160 prisoners were transported to the “Manjača” camp on
Manjača in various ways. Immediately upon arrival, Husein Delalović passed away, and
Omer Filipović and Esad Bender succumbed to beatings. After the disbandment of the
camp, in December 1992, prisoners were deported outside of the territory of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, while a smaller number were transported to the Batkovići camp in Bijeljina,
h) During and after a joint attack, settlements and villages inhabited by the Muslim
and Croat population were systematically destroyed or damaged, including the Muslim part
of the town of Ključ, Pudin Han, Velagići, Biljani, Plamenice, Prhovo, Krasulje, Crljeni and
Sanica, as well as the property, including homes, business premises and outbuildings,
while the movable property of those who were killed, imprisoned in detention facilities and
camps and displaced from the municipality was looted in an organized manner, and then
collected in war booty warehouses in an organized manner, and it was handled
13
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
following the instructions and under the control of the Municipal Crisis Staff, under the
control of the police, while the population which was not deprived of liberty or imprisoned
was displaced from the municipality area in an organized manner, having signed that they
were permanently leaving the municipality territory on their own free will and that they were
leaving all their property voluntarily to the authorities, as long as the municipality
authorities considered that necessary,
i) On 8 August 1992, they forced all the inhabitants who had survived 10 July 1992
out of their houses in the hamlet of Botonjići, then separated at least seven men, two
underage boys, and three women, and took them in the direction of the Kamen location.
On the way there they killed old Abid Botonjić, and killed and burned the rest of them in
Hilmo Botonjić’s barn, while the women and children who survived were expelled to the
neighboring village of Crnalići,
7. Without military justification, in order to permanently prevent the return of the population
and secure their expulsion from the Ključ municipality, in order to destroy traces of the
existence of other religious groups, they undertook activities, mined and tore down the
Catholic Church and mosques including: the mosque in Tičevići, the village of Velagići, the
mosque in Krasulje, the new mosque in Velagići, the mosque in Biljani, the city mosque in
Ključ
whereby:
they would have committed the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity
referred to in Article 172(1)(h) of the CC of BiH, in conjunction with Article 180(1) of
the Criminal Code of BiH.
Pursuant to Article 188(4) and Article 189(1) of the CPC BiH, the Accused shall be
relieved of the duty to reimburse the costs of criminal proceedings, which will be fully paid
from within the budget appropriations of the Court.
Reasoning
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
1.
The Amended Indictment of the Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina
No. KT-RZ-44/08, of 25 April 2011, charged the accused Boško Lukić and Marko
Adamović with the commission of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity in
violation of Article 172(1)(h) of the Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CC BiH), as
read with Article 180(1) of the same Code.
2.
The Trial Verdict of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina No. S1 1 K 003349 08
Kri (with reference to X-KR-05/119) of 30 May 2011 acquitted the accused Boško Lukić
14
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
and Marko Adamović of the incriminations for the criminal offenses charged against them
under the Amended Indictment.
3.
The Decision of the Appellate Panel No. S1 1 K 003359 12 Krž 5 of 11 October
2012 granted the appeal filed by the BiH Prosecutor’s Office on the grounds of established
essential violations of the criminal procedure provisions, wherefore the Trial Verdict was
revoked and a hearing ordered before the Appellate Division Panel.
II.
4.
THE EVIDENCE ADDUCED
All the Prosecution and Defense evidence adduced in the first instance
proceedings was accepted at the hearing held before the Appellate Panel, while the
testimonies of certain witnesses were reproduced in the courtroom directly before the
Appellate Panel.1
5.
The Appellate Panel has also accepted all the facts established in Brđanin et al.
No. IT-99-36-T of 1 September 2004, which were accepted under the Trial Panel’s
Decision No. S1 1 K 003359 08 KrI of 27 March 2009 pursuant to Article 4 of the Law on
Transfer of Cases.2
6.
The Prosecution proposed no new evidence to be adduced.
7.
The Defense for the accused Boško Lukić moved the Appellate Panel to admit into
the case record 16 evidentiary documents enumerated in Annex 1 to the Verdict, and the
Appellate Panel accepted it.
1
All the Prosecution and Defense evidence, subjective and documentary, is enumerated in Annex 1 to this
Verdict and form an integral part thereof.
2
The established facts accepted in this criminal case are enumerated in Annex 2 to this Verdict and form an
integral part thereof.
15
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
III. PROCEDURAL DECISIONS
A.
8.
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
Having acted in compliance with the duty to keep in effect the protective measures
granted to the witnesses in the first instance proceedings, including the exclusion of the
public while the witnesses give evidence, the Appellate Panel excluded the public, in part,
from the hearings held on 13 May and 14 May 2013, when the testimonies of the
witnesses granted with such a protection in the first instance proceedings were
reproduced.
9.
The parties and the Attorneys made no objections to keeping such protective
measures further in effect.
B.
10.
PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THE WITNESSES
The Appellate Panel has accepted and kept in effect all the protective measures
granted to the witnesses during both the investigation phase and the first instance
proceedings.
11.
Rule 75(F)(i) of the ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence stipulates that “Once
protective measures have been ordered in respect of a victim or witness in any
proceedings before the Tribunal, such protective measures shall continue to have effect,
mutatis mutandis, in any other proceedings before the Tribunal and another jurisdiction
unless and until they are rescinded, varied or augmented in accordance with the
procedures set out in this Rule”. Applying this Rule, the Trial Panel of the Court rendered,
on 9 March 2009, a decision to keep in effect, in the then matter of Vinko Kondić 3, Boško
Lukić and Marko Adamović, the protective measures granted to the witnesses pursuant to
the decisions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY):
12.
The witness who testified before the ICTY in the Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin,
in closed sessions and under the pseudonym BT-26, and with the same measures testified
mutatis mutandis in Prosecutor v. Momčilo Krajišnik under the pseudonym KRAJ-26, also
testified at the hearing before the Court of BiH at the session closed for the public, under
the pseudonym A.
3
The criminal proceeding relating to Vinko Kondić was subsequently severed.
16
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
13.
The witness who testified before the ICTY in Prosecutor v. Momčilo Krajišnik,
under the pseudonym KRAJ-188, with the image and voice distortion, also testified in the
proceedings before the Court of BiH with the same measures – use of an electronic device
for image and voice distortion, under the pseudonym B.
14.
The witness who testified before the ICTY in Prosecutor v. Slobodan Milošević
under the pseudonym B-1047 with the image and voice distortion, also testified in the
proceedings before the Court of BiH with the same measures – use of an electronic device
for image and voice distortion, under the pseudonym C.
15.
Pursuant to the quoted provision, the protective measures were kept in force also
in relation to the witness who testified before the ICTY in Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin
under the pseudonym BT-79, by which he was addressed during the proceedings and
which he also used out of the courtroom; the witness testified at the closed session; these
measures may be mutatis mutandis applied in any other proceedings before the Court of
BiH; in the case at hand, the witness testifies at the session closed for the public, under
the pseudonym D.
16.
All personal details of the witnesses testifying under the pseudonyms, their first
and last names, constitute an official secret. Also, the addresses, places of residence,
other identification data about the witnesses, as well as their earlier statements obtained
from the ICTY shall be considered as official secret. The persons performing ex officio
duties or who otherwise learn or come into possession of confidential information about
the witnesses must keep such information confidential. Pursuant to Article 24 of the Law
on the Protection of Witnesses under Threat and Vulnerable Witnesses (Law on the
Protection of Witnesses), any unauthorized disclosure of such information is a criminal
offence.
17.
Under the same Decision, the Prosecution was ordered not to disclose to the
Accused and their Defense teams the confidential information concerning the witnesses
testifying under pseudonym. Pursuant to Article 12(8) of the Law on the Protection of
Witnesses, the Prosecution must disclose to the Accused and their Defense teams
sufficient information so that the Defense can make preparations to examine the
witnesses, namely 15 days at the latest before the witness testifies at the trial.
18.
It should be noted that the pseudonyms given to the witnesses do not amount to
an amendment or reinforcement of the earlier
ordered
protective
measures
17
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
because the type and nature of the measures ordered by the ICTY were not essentially
changed, but rather differently marked for the purpose of these proceedings. The Court
accepted no changes or modifications of the measures the witnesses had enjoyed before
the ICTY, having held that such an action would be in violation of Rule 75(H) of the Rules
on Procedure and Evidence.
19.
Pursuant to the foregoing, while reproducing the testimonies of witnesses C and D
in the proceeding before the Appellate Panel, the Panel applied the same measures
granted to these witnesses at the earlier stages of the proceedings, that is, adopted from
the proceedings conducted before the ICTY, under which they had testified at the man trial
in the first proceedings. In relation to the witnesses A and B, whose testimonies were not
reproduced at the hearing before the Appellate Panel, the Panel has protected their
identity pursuant to the protective measures granted to them.
C.
20.
MAIN TRIAL ADJOURNED FOR LONGER THAN 30 DAYS
Article 251(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina (CPC
BiH) stipulated that: “The main trial that has been adjourned must recommence from the
beginning if the composition of the Panel has changed or if the adjournment lasted for
longer than 30 days. However, with the consent of the parties and the defense attorney,
the Panel may decide that in such a case the witnesses and experts not be examined
again and that no new crime scene investigation be conducted, but that the minutes of the
crime scene investigation and the testimony of the witnesses and experts given at the prior
main trial be used instead”.
21.
Article 317(1) of the CPC BiH stipulated that “Provisions that apply to the main trial
in the first instance proceeding shall be accordingly applied to a hearing before the Panel
of the Appellate Division”. Pursuant to both the above referenced Article and Article 251(2)
of the CPC BiH, if a hearing before the Panel of the Appellate Division was adjourned for
longer than 30 days, it must be recommenced.
22.
A period longer than 30 days expired in the proceedings conducted before the
Appellate Panel in this case, between the hearings held on 18 June and 20 August 2013,
and the hearings held on 3 September and 7 October 2013. Due to the objective reasons
apparent from the obligation of the BiH Prosecutor’s Office to use a collective annual
leave, the planned annual leave of members of the Appellate Panel seized of the case and
of the Accused’s Defense Attorneys, and due to the other objective circumstances,
18
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
adjournment of the hearing could not be scheduled within the statutory time-frame.
23.
For the foregoing reasons, at the hearing held on 17 June 2013, when the
dynamics of the trial for the upcoming period was to be planned, the Panel requested and
received consent by the parties and the Defense attorneys that the adjournment of the
hearing be scheduled after the expiry of 30-day deadline. The Prosecutor, the Accused
and their Counsel stated they would not challenge, further in the course of the
proceedings, the decision to adjourn the hearing before the Appellate Panel after the 30day deadline expiry, nor would they require the recommencement of the main trial. On the
basis of the foregoing, the Panel rendered, on 18 June 2013 and 3 September 2013, the
decisions adjourning the main trial for longer than 30 days.
IV. CLOSING ARGUMENTS
A.
24.
PROSECUTION
Opening its closing argument, the Prosecution argued that sufficient evidence was
presented to prove that the accused Marko Adamović and Boško Lukić committed the
criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity under Article 172(1)(h) of the CC BiH, as
described in the Disposition of the Amended Indictment, and that all the elements of the
criminal offense charged against them were satisfied by their acts.
25.
The Prosecution argued that the only possible conclusion on the basis of the
adduced evidence is that, not only that the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović
were aware that such an attack existed in the territory of Ključ municipality, but also
actively participated in the attack, and were highly positioned within the chain of authorities
in the territory of the municipality in which they were active.
26.
The Prosecution further referred to the elements of joint criminal enterprise (JCE).
The Panel found that both actus reus and mens rea elements were proved in the way as
set up by the case law. As to the first actus reus element, referring to the activities of the
plurality of persons, the Prosecution considered it proved that Boško Lukić and Marko
Adamović were members of the civilian and military structures of the Ključ municipality
authorities, and that together with other members of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff and
other representatives of both the civilian and military authorities in the newly established
Serb Republic of BiH, they acted in furtherance of the common design policy
19
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
implementation.
27.
As to the second element of the existence of common purpose or common intent,
the Prosecution argues it was proved that, by the functions they held, the accused Boško
Lukić and Marko Adamović participated in the implementation of common purpose by
committing the criminal offense.
28.
With regard to the third element requiring the accused to participate in the
implementation of common purpose by committing any of the criminal offenses stipulated
by the law, the Prosecution’s view is that, by their acts and activities, the accused Boško
Lukić and Marko Adamović demonstrated the same line of thinking, and that they fully
supported the decisions aimed at creating ethnically cleansed areas in the BiH territories.
29.
The Prosecution deemed it proved that the Accused formed part of a joint criminal
enterprise by being a part of the system functional within the Ključ municipality,
established with a view to successfully implementing the strategic plan in the part of the
Serb Republic BiH, where they formed the authority structures.
30.
The Prosecution argued that the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović,
together with other members of the Crisis Staff and supporters of the Strategic Plan
implementation, promoted, participated and instigated the implementation of the policy to
achieve the goal of the joint criminal enterprise, that is, forcible and permanent transfer of
the majority of Muslim and Croat population from the municipality, within a widespread and
systematic attack on the civilian population. According to the Prosecution, the adduced
evidence showed that the Accused played a significant role in providing their support to
and active participation in the activities of the Crisis Staff, which governed the Ključ
municipality at the critical time, with a task to coordinate the implementation of the joint
criminal enterprise goal.
31.
In view of the foregoing, the Prosecution moved the Court of BiH to find the
Accused guilty as charged and sentence them to a long-term imprisonment. As to the
fashioning of the criminal sanction, the Prosecution argued that the high-ranking position
of the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović, their persistence in and a large number
of acts committed, resulting in the permanent consequences for the victims should be
regarded as aggravating circumstances, including the facts that they were role-models for
their soldiers, and that the victims of crime are still being deprived of information about the
bodies of their beloved ones, which they certainly possess as the perpetrators of the
20
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
crimes committed in the territory of Ključ municipality. The Prosecution argued that the
obvious lack of remorse on the part of the Accused and their conduct before the Court are
particularly aggravating circumstances.
B.
CLOSING ARGUMENT OF THE DEFENSE
1. Closing argument of the Defense for the accused Boško Lukić
32.
Counsel for the accused Lukić submitted that, both in the first instance
proceedings and the proceedings before the Appellate Panel, they had no objections to
the fairness of the trial, that the equality of arms between the Prosecution and the Defense
was fully satisfied, and that the trial was conducted in a fair and honest way.
33.
Counsel further argued that it was not proved that the accused Boško Lukić indeed
committed the crime in the form charged against him under the Prosecution’s Indictment.
The Accused was charged with the most controversial form of liability, or the liability under
the principle of JCE. The Defense argued that the foregoing was not proved in the
concrete case. Counsel argued in his closing argument that it is possible and it has been
known to happen that the perpetrators of the concrete crime, including the crimes
committed in the territory of the Ključ municipality, remain unpunished owing to the
referenced principle. Despite a large body of evidence with which the Defense was
“swamped” in these criminal proceedings, the referenced principle does not apply to the
concrete case, and the Prosecution failed to prove it.
34.
According to Counsel, the Prosecution charged the Accused only on the ground of
the function he performed during the critical period. Contrary to the Prosecution's theory,
Counsel argued that the Accused was neither a member nor a supporter of the SDS, that
he was appointed Commander of the Territorial Defense Staff only owing to his character
and the fact that, from among several candidates for the function, he was given support by
the SDA, and that his appointment to the function was legal.
35.
Counsel further argued, contrary to the Prosecution's theory, that the Accused was
not a member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff. Ultimately, even the Prosecution
admitted in its closing argument that the referenced fact of the Accused's membership in
the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff remained “unclear”, but that it was anyway irrelevant.
The Accused’s Counsel submitted that the referenced fact, that the Accused was not a
member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, is both relevant and very significant
21
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
for the issue of the Accused’s guilt, and that it should be considered in favorem of the
Accused.
36.
Truly, the Territorial Defense indeed became monoethnic by its composition.
Counsel, however, argued that the blame for that could not be shifted onto the accused
Lukić, and that such a development of the events resulted from the fact that members of
the Bosniac4 and Croat peoples had left the TO on their own. The accused Lukić's
activities as the Territorial Defense Commander were supervised by his Deputies, Muslims
by ethnicity, who gave evidence in these proceedings using no abusive words for the
Accused. All the foregoing only illustrates the character and personality of the accused
Lukić.
37.
Counsel argued that the Prosecution also failed to prove that the Accused
possessed information about the events in the field. Such information did not reach the TO
Staff, and the Accused only had information falling within scope of information ordinary
citizens of Ključ could have had.
38.
Contrary to the Prosecution's theory, the Accused's participation in the
establishment of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade also remained unproved.
39.
Counsel submitted that the Prosecution did not prove the existence of a
widespread and systematic attack either. On the contrary, there was an armed conflict in
the territory of the Ključ municipality, and witnesses Asim Egrlić and Senad Medanović,
who was captured with an automatic rifle in his possession, confirmed that Muslims and
Croats had also armed themselves.
40.
Counsel also submitted that the testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses, Enes
Salihović and Jusuf Omerović, were incorrect and untrue. Counsel highlighted the fact that
these witnesses were minority in relation to a number of the other examined Prosecution
witnesses who gave negative comments about the accused Lukić.
41.
In view of the foregoing, Counsel added that the Prosecution failed to prove that
the Accused committed the criminal offenses as charged, individually or with the intent to
4
As to the use of term Bosniak, the Panel finds it noteworthy that, at the critical period, the term was not
commonly accepted, that it is historic, ethnical and cultural notion which has been equaled with members of
the Muslim people. The relevant ethnic and national elements are contained in the term Bošnjak.
22
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
join anyone, or that he joined anyone. Counsel therefore moved the Appellate Panel to
acquit the Accused of the referenced charges.
42.
The accused Boško Lukić fully supported his Counsel’s arguments and stated he
did not commit the criminal offenses charged against him.
2. Closing argument of the Defense for the accused Marko Adamović
43.
Attorney Branko Gudalo stated in his closing argument that the accused Marko
Adamović was not a criminal, and that he did not commit any of the crimes charged
against him. Counsel therefore moved the Court to acquit the Accused of charges under
all Counts of the Indictment.
44.
Counsel submitted that the Indictment, upon which the main trial in the concrete
case was conducted, addresses the JCE apart from all admissible standards because the
Prosecution left at the Court’s discretion to select the type of JCE, and accordingly to
determine both the elements of awareness and intent and members of the alleged JCE.
According to Counsel, acting in such a way was inadmissible considering that insufficient
explanation of the allegations in the Indictment was offered, which was of decisive
importance for exercising the right to a defense.
45.
With regard to the existence and implementation of the plan to commit crimes, it is
clear that the crucial decisions and steps in implementing the plan to take over control and
potentially establish a Serb state were made during 1991. Therefore, given the fact that
the Indictment covered the period since April 1992, it is impossible to assert that, already
at the time, the accused Adamović formed part of the structures which had made those
decisions.
46.
Counsel Branko Gudalo argued that, at the time covered by the Indictment, no
widespread and systematic attack in the Ključ Municipality existed at all, and that this
ensues from the evidence adduced by both the Prosecution and the Defense.
47.
The Defense for Marko Adamović pointed to an undoubted conclusion that the
Accused’s acts contained neither particular no general elements of the criminal offense of
Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172(1)(h) of the CC BiH, as read with Article
23
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
180(1) of the CC BiH.
48.
As to the individual charges described in the Indictment, it can be concluded
based on the testimonies of a number of examined witnesses, including Ćerim Hrnčić,
Nafo Smajić, Muharem Islamagić and many others, that according to the accused
Adamović’s Counsel, the Accused had undertaken no acts that would form part of a
widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population, being aware of such an
attack, and of the persecution of any individual on racial, national, ethnic, cultural or any
other grounds.
49.
For the foregoing reasons, Counsel moved the Court to render a decision
acquitting the accused Marko Adamović of all charges.
50.
Counsel further referred to the issue of the law application. Counsel argued that
the adopted CC SFRY is the more lenient law in relation to the accused Marko Adamović,
and that Article 4 of the CC BiH unequivocally shows that the CC BiH applies only
exceptionally, if it is in a concrete case more lenient than the law which was in effect at the
time when the accused committed the offense. According to Counsel’s view, if the Court
nevertheless renders a convicting verdict against the accused Adamović, the CC SFRY
needs to be applied as the more lenient law.
51.
The accused Adamović fully supported his Counsel’s arguments and stated he
had not committed the criminal offenses charged against him.
V. STANDARDS OF PROOF
52.
Pursuant to Article 281(2) of the CPC BiH, the procedure to render a verdict
implies an obligation of the Court to conscientiously evaluate every item of evidence and
its correspondence with the rest of the evidence. In this process, the Court is bound to
take account of the fundamental principles set up in both the CPC BiH and the European
Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms (ECHR), which pursuant to Article II.2 of the
Constitution of BiH, has primacy over all national laws.
53.
One of the fundamental principles of criminal proceeding, the principle of legality,
aims at ensuring that no innocent persons should be convicted, and that the perpetrator of
24
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
a crime receives a punishment or other criminal sanction within the scope prescribed by
the criminal code provisions.
54.
In rendering this Verdict, the Panel particularly bore in mind the presumption of
innocence, contained in Article 3 of the CPC BiH, which provides as follows: “A person
shall be considered innocent of a crime until his/her guilt has been established by a final
verdict”, and the principle of in dubio pro reo, provided for in Article 3(2) of the CPC BiH,
which reads as follows: “A doubt with respect to the existence of facts constituting
elements of a criminal offense or on which the application of certain provisions of criminal
legislation depends shall be decided by the Court verdict in the manner more favorable for
the accused.”
55.
Ultimately, the principle of equality of arms, guaranteed under Article 14 of the
CPC BiH, provides for the obligation of the Court to treat the parties and the defense
attorney equally and to provide each with equal opportunities to access evidence and to
present evidence at the main trial, as well as the obligation of the Court, the Prosecutor
and other bodies participating in the proceedings to study and establish with equal
attention facts that are exculpatory as well as inculpatory for the suspect or the accused.
56.
The principle of free evaluation of evidence, provided for in Article 15 of the CPC
BiH, which is applicable in our legal system, means that the finding of the Court that a
decisive fact is proved or unproved is neither related or limited to special formal evidentiary
rules. Pursuant to Article 281(1) of the CPC BiH, the Court shall reach a verdict solely
based on the evidence presented at the main trial, and it is obligated to conscientiously
evaluate the evidence in the way stipulated under Article 281(2) of the CPC BiH, as
already indicated in para. 52 of the Verdict.
57.
The Panel has rendered its Verdict fully in compliance with the referenced
principles, and upon evaluation of all presented evidence of both the Prosecution and the
Defense, subjective and documentary, bearing in mind the abundant evidentiary
documentation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Panel could not refer to each item of
the presented evidence individually in the reasons for the Verdict. Therefore, in rendering
its Verdict, the Panel reviewed and evaluated each item of the presented evidence, but in
the reasons for the Verdict it only referred to the items of evidence that were significant for
the state of facts as established for both the existence of the criminal offense and the guilt
of the Accused.
25
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
58.
In the concrete case, the evidentiary documentation was to a large extent formed
of the testimonies of the witnesses. Their evaluation and the evaluation of the witnesses’
credibility was therefore challenging for this Panel, as it would be for any other panel
acting in a similar situation. In evaluating the witnesses’ testimonies, the Panel shall not a
priori accept as true all that was stated by the witnesses, be it a statement incriminating or
exculpating the Accused. A special attention must be paid to the evaluation of the
witnesses’ testimonies, particularly the contents thereof, and to the overall impression left
by the witnesses, their related conduct, voice tone, attitude, physical and emotional
reactions to the questions posed, the witnesses’ attitude and behavior in relation to the
parties and the Defense Attorneys. The Panel is under obligation to consider the witness’s
testimony taking the account of the overall atmosphere in which he gives evidence.
59.
This is particularly important in relation to the testimonies of both direct and
indirect victims of the committed crimes, which are the subject of charges in this case.
When the witnesses, who had experienced and survived any trauma, have to speak again
about their experiences, they are being subjected to further traumatization. In such
circumstances, one should be particularly careful when assessing the reliability of such
evidence.
60.
It is not only important that the witness’s evidence is given sincerely (the Panel
first assumes that any witness, particularly after taking an oath before the Court, intended
to testify honestly about the facts and the circumstances about which he/she possesses
information), but that it is reliable too. A variety of factors affect the credibility of a witness’s
testimony. Particularly important are one’s capacities to make observations, the instability
of human perception, the elapsed period of time, the traumatic nature of the incident per
se as well as the partiality of the witness. All the foregoing may result in the fact that the
two witnesses, who had attended the same incident, view this incident from different
psychological, physical and even chronological perspectives, and therefore give different
evidence. Therefore, in evaluating the testimonies of the witnesses, the Panel compared
the facts about which certain witnesses testified with the facts established by other
witnesses, and the facts ensuing from the documentary evidence, and on the basis of such
a comprehensive evaluation, drew the conclusion on the reliability of the testimony of a
certain witness.
61.
The Panel also notes that, evaluating the witnesses’ evidence, it has found that
certain witnesses were sincere and reliable even
to
their
own
detriment.
Certain
26
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
witnesses were sincere, but parts of their evidence were not convincing. The reasons for
the foregoing vary from the witnesses’ limited perception and poor ability of observation, to
the time effect, personal interests, and their interest in affecting the outcome of the
proceeding, their loyalty to the Accused or bias towards either the Accused or the victims.
As a result of the foregoing, the witnesses could draw certain conclusions about what they
had indeed seen or heard. Nevertheless, there were instances when the Panel found that
parts of the evidence of even such witnesses were unreliable, or that they contained
precise observations on certain facts. In such instances, the Panel‘s view was that
rejecting such testimonies in their entirety would not serve the interests of justice.
Therefore, in respect of such testimonies, the reliability and accuracy of each fact or the
circumstance about which questions were posed to the witness were evaluated.
62.
The Panel has also compared the statements the witnesses gave at various
stages of the proceedings, analyzed the statements given in the investigation, when
certain discrepancies regarding the decisive facts were found in relation to the evidence
from the main trial, and on the basis of such an evaluation concluded which evidence
could be credited.
63.
In addition to the witnesses’ statements in the concrete case, a large body of the
documentation was tendered in the case record by both the Prosecution and the Defense
for the Accused, which forms a segment of evidence important for proving the existence of
the offense and the Accused’s guilt. The Panel has evaluated the foregoing evidence
primarily in the light of Article 10 of the CPC BiH, which governs the matter of lawful
evidence.
64.
The Panel has evaluated the authenticity of the documents within the scope of all
other presented evidence, such as the other documentary evidence and the testimonies of
the witnesses.
65.
Furthermore, even when the Panel was satisfied that the considered document
was authentic, it did not automatically accept that the contents of these documents
accurately presented the facts, but rather the reliability of the contents was evaluated in
each concrete case individually.
66.
In view of the foregoing, and bearing in mind the referenced principles set up in
the national law, and Article 6(1) of the ECHR binding all courts to “point in sufficiently
clear manner to the grounds on which they decision is made”, the Panel has made a
27
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
comprehensive evaluation of all the adduced evidence, to be presented further in the
reasoning of the Verdict.
28
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
VI. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE CRIMINAL OFFENSE OF CRIMES
AGAINST HUMANITY
67.
The Indictment of the BiH Prosecutor’s Office charged the Accused with
committing the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity under Article 172(1)(h) of the
CC BiH. The relevant part of the referenced Article reads as follows:
“Whoever, as part of a widespread or systematic attack, directed against any
civilian population, with knowledge of such an attack perpetrates any of the
following acts:
…
h) persecutions against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial,
national, ethnic, cultural, religious, sexual or other grounds that are universally
recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any
offense listed in this Code or any offense falling under the competence of the
Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina;
…
Shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not less than ten years or longterm imprisonment.
The notion of persecution per se is defined under Article 172(2)(g) of the CC BiH as
follows:
“Persecution means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights,
contrary to international law, by reason of the identity of a group or collectivity.”
68.
The general elements of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity are 1)
the existence of a widespread or systematic attack; 2) the attack is directed against any
civilian population, and 3) the accused were aware of the attack and that their acts formed
part of the attack (nexus).
A.
69.
WIDESPREAD AND/OR SYSTEMATIC ATTACK
The Appellate Panel has found, based on the adduced evidence, that during the
period in relation to which the Accused were found guilty, that is, from April to late June
1992, in the territory of the Ključ municipality, there was a widespread and systematic
attack of the army of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or the Republika
Srpska, and the police of the Ministry of Interior of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and
29
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Herzegovina, or Republika Srpska, directed against Muslim and Croat civilians of the
Municipality.
70.
It suffices for the existence of the criminal offense of crimes against humanity to
prove that the attack was either widespread or systematic because these elements are
alternatively set up under the law. In practice, however, an attack often satisfied both these
elements, such as in the concrete case, where the attack was both widespread and
systematic, according to the Panel.
71.
To better understand the reasoning of the Verdict, the Panel will first explain the
characteristics of the two above referenced terms and what the notion of attack genuinely
implies.
72.
For the purpose of Article 5 of the ICTY Statute, an “attack” is described as a
“course of conduct involving the commission of acts of violence”. In the context of Crimes
Against Humanity, an “attack” is not limited to the use of armed force; it also encompasses
any mistreatment of the civilian population...The attack could precede, outlast or continue
during the armed conflict, without necessarily being part of it...“5 The phrase widespread
refers to a large-scale nature of the attack and the number of targeted persons6. The Panel
of this Court in Mejakić et al.7 has found that as factors of the widespread character of the
attack the following should be taken into consideration: the consequences of the attack on
the targeted population, the number of victims, the nature of the acts and the cumulative
effect of a series of inhumane acts or the single effect of one act of a large scale.
74.
The phrase systematic attack refers to the organized nature of the acts of violence
and the improbability of their random occurrence. Therefore, as the ICTY concluded in
Kordić and Čerkez8 Judgment, patterns of crimes – in the sense of the non-accidental
repetition of similar criminal conduct – on a regular basis, are common expressions of
such systematic occurrence.
5
Prosecutor v. Brđanin, case No. IT-99-36-T, Trial Chamber Judgment No. IT-99-36-T, para. 131- referral to
the Judgment in Kunarac.
6
Prosecutor v. Kordić and Čerkez, IT-95-14/2-A, Appeals Chamber Judgment of 17 December 2004, para.
94.
7
Trial Chamber Judgment of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Željko Mejakić (X-KR-06/2009 of 30
May 2008), para. 206.
8
Prosecutor v. Kordić and Čerkez, IT-95-14/2-A, Appeals Chamber Judgment of 17 December 2004, para.
94.
30
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
75.
Pursuant to the international case law, the criteria to be considered in determining
if an attack satisfied the requisite of a widespread or systematic nature, or both, are the
following: (i) the consequences of the attack upon the targeted population, (ii) the number
of victims, (iii) the nature of the acts and (iv) the possible participation of officials or
authorities or any identifiable patterns of crime9.
(a) Widespread nature of the attack
76.
Many witnesses examined at the main trial testified that the attack was directed
against the Muslim and Croat civilian population, which occurred in the wider area of the
Ključ municipality and its surroundings during April, May and June 1992. It can be
concluded from their evidence that, in terms of its nature and the number of victims, the
attack was widespread within its meaning under the quoted national and international case
law.
77.
As stated above, the attack itself “is not limited to the use of armed force, it also
encompasses any mistreatment of the civilian population.”10 This Panel has concluded that
the attack was first launched by members of the Territorial Defense and subsequently by
the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, together with the police and other military and paramilitary
formations, and that it was manifested through the variety of activities such as the
apprehension of respectable citizens, disarming the Muslim and Croat population,
searching their apartments and houses for weapons, restriction of movement, unlawful
detention, prohibiting Muslims and Croats to work at their work posts, subsequent serious
beatings, killings, shelling of undefended villages, destruction and setting on fire houses
and religious buildings.
78.
Heard at the main trial were witnesses who had, in the spring of 1992, resided in
the town of Ključ and its surroundings. All these witnesses testified about tensions that
rose among the population which was, up until that time, equal and unified; about tensions
among nations; and about the subsequent hardships to which the Muslim and Croat
citizens were subjected. In the Panel’s view, the Prosecution successfully proved that such
events were preceded by the activities undertaken by the Republic higher levels
authorities, the establishment of the Assembly of the Serb people in BiH in Sarajevo,11 the
9
Appeals Judgment in Kunarac, para. 95.
Vasiljević, Trial Chamber, Judgment of 29 November 2002, para. 29-30.
11
Exhibit T-132.
10
31
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
rendering of the decision on the Strategic goals of the Serb People of BiH12, the
Instructions for the Organization and Activity of Organs of the Serb People in Bosnia and
Herzegovina in Extraordinary Circumstances13. The Panel will refer to all these documents
and events further in the Verdict, and this analysis will be restricted only to the evidence
relevant to the conclusion that the attack which occurred satisfied all the characteristics of
a widespread and systematic attack.
79.
As it follows from the facts established in the ICTY judgments “The war and the
secession of Slovenia and in particular of Croatia had a significant impact on the sociopolitical situation in BiH. From late summer 1991, many military aged men from BiH were
mobilized to join the JNA in order to fight in Croatia. A large number of Bosnian Serbs
responded, but Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, supported by their respective
leaders, generally did not. This led to increased tension between the ethnicities, especially
in the Bosnian Krajina region bordering Croatia.14 As from the autumn of 1991, another
source of anxiety and stress for the people in the Bosnian Krajina was the demeanour of
the soldiers returning from the battlefields in Croatia. These soldiers often behaved in a
threatening manner towards Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats. They would insult
people and fire their guns at houses, shops or religious buildings. In some municipalities,
shops or private homes belonging to Bosnian Muslims or Bosnian Croats were blown up or
set on fire. There were several incidences in which returning Bosnian Serb soldiers killed
Bosnian Muslims.15 Many examined witnesses testified that, due to the increased anxiety
and tensions in the town, the population started obtaining weapons. Witness Muhamed
Filipović testified that, while the arming of Muslims and Croats was individual and sporadic,
often by buying rifles from Serbs at the prices of up to DM 1000.00, the Serbs were armed
in an organized manner with the arms originating from the JNA and the former Territorial
Defense.
81.
In April and May 1992, the Serbs took over the control in the town of Ključ.
Witnesses Muhamed Filipović and Asim Egrlić similarly testified that, in the spring of 1992,
the then authorities were removed from power, more precisely, the Serbs took over control
in the town of Ključ on their own initiative. The specific situation regarding the national
12
Exhibit T-154.
Exhibit T-126.
14
Established fact I-3.
15
Established fact I-4.
13
32
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
structure of the town of Ključ (49% Serbs, 47% Muslims, 1 % Croats and 2% from among
the ranks of Others according to the 1991 Census), resulted in a tight inter-ethnic structure
in the Ključ Municipal Assembly, which mostly comprised representatives of the Muslim
parties (SDA and MBO) and the Serb party (SDS), but in relation to the Muslims, the Serbs
had one representative more and made all decisions by majority votes. In such a way,
already in January 1992, a decision was made to merge the Ključ municipality with the
Autonomous Region of Krajina (ARK)16 despite the fact that Muslim and Croat
representatives voted against such a decision. Similarly, pursuant to the decision of the
Assembly of the Serb People in BiH putting out of force all the insignia with the image of
Josip Broz Tito, and of the former state in the town Ključ and introducing new Serb signs.
Thus, witnesses Atif Džafić, Mustafa Lepirica and some other witnesses testified that
instead of the former insignia on their uniforms, the police wore uniforms with the insignia
of the Serb Republic of BiH, instead of the former caps with five-pointed stars, berets with
the flag of the Serb Republic of BiH were used, all of which contributed to the feeling of
discomfort created among the Muslim and Croat population.
82.
As it ensues from the established facts: “In the spring of 1992, all employees in
local Public Security Services (“SJBs”) and other public services were required to sign an
oath of loyalty to the Bosnian Serbian authorities. Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats
who refused to sign the declaration of loyalty were dismissed. Those who accepted to sign
could remain within the service. However, by June 1992, the policy changed. To start, all
non-Serbs holding managerial positions were fired and replaced by the Bosnian Serbs.
Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats were dismissed from the judiciary, local enterprises,
the media, hospitals, the police forces and the army. By the end of 1992, almost the entire
Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat community had been dismissed from their jobs. Many
people who showed up for work during this period were turned back and denied access to
their workplace. Generally speaking, people were sent home, told not to come back, and
then fired soon thereafter.”17 Furthermore, “By the end of 1992, {...} in Bosanska Krajina
{...}, nearly all Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats had been dismissed from their jobs in
amongst others, the media, the army, the police, the judiciary and public companies.
Numerous crimes were committed against Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, including
murder, torture, beatings, rape, plunder and the destruction of property. Villages were
16
17
Exhibit T-129.
Established fact II-18.
33
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
shelled, houses were torched and looted. In the spring of 1992, a number of detention
camps where Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilians were arrested and detained en
masse were established throughout the ARK. In several instances, mass killings of
civilians took place. {...} tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats were
forcibly expelled from the ARK by the Bosnian Serbs and taken in convoys of buses and
trains to Bosnian Muslim held territory in BiH or to Croatia. {...}“18
83.
Witness Muhamed Filipović also testified that “all non-Serbs” in the Ključ
municipality ceased working on 27 May 1992, and that already 15-20 days prior to this
date guards had been introduced at these work posts. Only Muslims and Croats were
searched by guards in uniforms with the Serb insignia, while Serb employees passed
without being searched and checked. Barricades had already been set up in the town.
Despite the initial presence of Muslim police officers at these barricades, it was only a
“cover” as they had no say in anything.
84.
Witness Asim Egrlić also described such a development of the events in the Ključ
municipality. Until 7 May 1992, witness Egrlić worked as the President of the Executive
Board in the Municipal Assembly Ključ (SO Ključ), together with Jovo Banjac, who was the
President of the Municipality. The witness explained that, already prior to this date, and
despite the objections of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ Municipality, Serb signs and
insignia were introduced, and spike strips and check points placed at the main
intersections in the town and its surroundings, where Serb soldiers and members of the
police were deployed, and which no one could pass without being announced in advance.
On 7 May 1992, after coming to work, the witness was first searched by a doorman “who
was new and uniformed”, and who told the witness that he had been ordered to search
people. The witness entered the building and went to his office, but spent a short period of
time there. Upon seeing that there was no place for him anymore, the witness went back
home. Witnesses Hasan Salihović, Mirsad Puškar, Merima Filipović, Hadžija Bajrić and
many others testified that, during the referenced period, Muslims and Croats stopped
working at their work posts. Witness Fahrudin Ćemal testified about the way in which
Serbs had taken control over the Ključ municipality. The witness stated that, even though
Muslim citizens had already been facing problems, the Serbs took over full control on
7 May 1992. This was particularly obvious from the separation of the police, which had
18
Established fact II-20.
34
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
become exclusively Serb police. Muslims and Croats were forced out from their work
posts, and they could not any more attend the sessions of the Ključ Municipal Assembly.
Therefore, Muslims and Croats started organizing themselves in an attempt to form their
own municipality of Bosanski Ključ at Pudin Han. Witness Atif Džafić, pre-war Police
Commander, described the replacement of the authorities through the events in the Public
Security Station where he had worked. On 7 May 1992, all active police officers of Muslim
and Croat ethnicity were called for an interview, and requested to sign a loyalty statement,
which implied giving a solemn oath which the Serbs employed with the police had already
given, to replace their uniforms with new ones, with Serb three-color and “Police” insignia
written in Cyrillic. After refusing to sign such a loyalty statement, the witness was sent on
leave. Around 15 days after the witness’s and the others’ refusal to sign the loyalty
statement, that is, on 22 or 23 May 1992, they were called for another interview, where
they maintained their unchanged position. They were therefore relieved of their duties of
police officers upon Vinko Kondić’s order. On or about 20 May 1992, guards at the check
points already set up at the main intersections in the town and its surroundings were not
mixed but rather monoethnic, comprised of Serbs. On his way back home, the witness saw
military vehicles and soldiers on move. The witness’s wife also lost her job, and he too
worked no more. The school year ended earlier. The witness therefore concluded that a
conflict was inevitable, and that the safety of Muslims and Croats was jeopardized.
Therefore, he went with his family to Sanica. In late May 1992, Serb soldiers, members of
the reserve and active military force, arrived in Sanica and called men to join a convoy, to
go with them for making agreement on their lives further on. The witness joined the convoy
voluntarily, but anyway he had no choice because those soldiers were armed and kept
their arms pointed at his family. The witness and the other men were taken to the Sanica
Primary School, and ultimately detained at the Manjača camp.
87.
Witness Luka Brkić also testified that he had lost his job in late May 1992. Shortly
after an incident in Busije, soldiers and members of the police came to his house and
searched it for weapons. The witness “put on his bed” a hunting rifle he had possessed.
He was thereupon taken to the police for interrogation, beaten up there, and then together
with a group of men from Ključ taken first to the Stara Gradiška camp and thereupon to the
Manjača camp.
88.
Witness Mustafa Lepirica, also a pre-war active police officer, consistently
described the replacements that had occurred in the police station. In early May, the
35
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
witness was invited to a meeting, where Vinko Kondić, already wearing a new uniform with
four “S” letters, told them the time had come when they had to decide who of them would
stay and continue working. Witness Lepirica refused to sign the statement of loyalty to the
new authorities, wherefore he was taken back to his house in Velečevo, to collect and
hand over his weapons and to return his uniform. The witness stated that from that
moment on, they lived in fear, and therefore hid in the woods. That is when the plundering
of Muslim and Croat houses and the destruction of their property began. The witness was
taken for interrogation and detained. He managed to leave Ključ in September of the same
year. The movement of Muslims and Croats was restricted in the March-September
period, while Serbs could move around freely, and they even had bus lines in function.
89.
Witness Jusuf Omerović testified that the outbreak of war in Croatia had also
affected the situation in Ključ and its surroundings. Serbs from the local community
Sokolovo in which he had worked started going to frontlines in Croatia. Once these Serbs
returned to their homes, they incited provocations in his settlement of Crljeni, inhabited by
Muslims, with frequent night shootings. Any attempt to peacefully resolve the situation at
the meetings failed, and provocations continued. Serb reservists, the men he had known
very well and with whom he had worked for years, were already at the time uniformed and
well-armed. They often provoked him, swore at him and showed him three-finger signs
while he waited for bus to go to work. Such a situation continued until 26 May 1992, after
which date his village was also attacked. The villagers thereupon escaped to the village of
Plamenice. After being given various promises that no harm would be done to them, the
witness and a group of men from his village surrendered to their Serb neighbors,
whereupon they were detained in a camp.
90.
Witness Hilmija Hamedović, retired employee of the MUP, CJB Ključ, testified that,
on 9 May 1992, he was arrested in his own cafe-bar by the so called “red berets”, who
had, according to him and other heard witnesses, appeared in Ključ in the spring of 1992,
patrolled the town and caused fear among the Muslim population. According to the
witness, on 9 May 1992 six members of the referenced formation “burst” into his coffee-bar
searching for weapon. The witness handed over to them his pistols, for which he
possessed regular licenses, and they captured him, brought him to a cell in the police
building, and repeatedly beat him severely. The witness’s colleagues with whom he had
worked stood guard in front of the cell where the “red berets” had locked him up, beat him
up and “ill-treated him until they got tired”. The witness asked Ključ police officers, his
36
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
colleagues with whom he had worked, to help him. He was told that nothing was in their
power, and that Chief Vinko Kondić, with whom he wanted to speak, could not receive him.
After spending some time in the cells of the SJB Ključ, where he was brutally beaten,
members of the “red berets” took the witness to a “small camp”, and subsequently to the
Manjača and Batković camps.
91.
Citizens of the town of Ključ testified that the “ethnic cleansing” started on 27 May
1992. The Serb military and the police began arresting Muslim and Croat men, first the
most respected citizens of Ključ, 21 of them listed by their names in Section 1 of the
enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict. Witnesses Muhamed Filipović, Asim
Egrlić, Luka Brkić, Leopold Flat and some other testified about this incident in a detailed,
convincing and consistent way. On the referenced day or a day after, Muslim and Croat
citizens of Ključ were invited via Radio Ključ to report to certain points, or collection
centers, where men were separated, interrogated and beaten. Muslim and Croat citizens
of Ključ were ordered to leave open their houses and apartments. The Serb military and
the police searched and ransacked their houses, while men were often taken to the CJB
for interrogation. A certain number of men did not return home from the SJB. They were
rather taken to the camps, or even killed.
92.
Witness Hadžija Bajrić testified that, after 27 May 1992, it was unimaginable even
to go out of the house, let alone to have a job. They were practically detained at their
homes, while the police and soldiers with Serb insignia patrolled the streets. Many
witnesses mentioned a “notorious” red van, owned by the SJB Ključ, which had patrolled
around the town and its surroundings, and caused fear among the population. This is so
because a large number of citizens of Ključ were taken by this van to various camps, or
were killed.
93.
Further testifying about the spring of 1992, the witnesses stated that the number of
soldiers they saw in the Ključ territory and its surroundings increased continually. Witness
Mirsad Puškar testified that, in May 1992, members of the reserve military force were
interned in the Kopjenica House and at Lanište, and that they had ties with the local Serb
population. Witness Puškar further stated that, from a far end of the village he had
watched Serb soldiers passing by and “dragging the equipment, mortars, even an 82mmmortar”, and settling at the Brežčice plateau, from which Pudin Han and Velagići were
subsequently shelled; while soldiers took another road towards Vukovo Selo to “cleanse
the terrain” as the other witnesses testified. Witness Fahrudin Ćemal testified that a TO
37
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
unit was dislocated to Lanište, that its Commander was Boško Lukić, and that Pudin Han
and Velagići were shelled from this site in late May 1992. Witness Ibrahim Bajrić, formerly
employed with the Šumarstvo Ključ Company as a tractor driver at Lanište, testified that, in
February 1992, they were informed that soldiers would come and that therefore workers
went on strike. Even though representatives of the leading Ključ parties, the SDS and the
SDA, gave certain guarantees that the military would not come, it was not the case
because around 100 Serb workers were issued with uniforms and supported the arrival of
Serb soldiers at Lanište. Soldiers who came to Lanište were from Knin. The witness,
however, stated that members of the TO, citizens of Ključ and its surroundings, had
caused Muslims more problems. The witness explained that, in the meantime, the TO
became a monoethnic Serb structure, and that from the New Year 1992 onwards, Muslims
were rarely called up. Ultimately, in the spring of 1992, when members of the TO came to
Lanište, the TO was already monoethnic, comprising Serbs only.
94.
The population in the surrounding villages of the Ključ municipality, mostly or
exclusively inhabited by Muslims, described the beginning of the attack on their villages by
the Serb military and the police in the spring of 1992. They all consistently described the
situation as it had developed.
95.
Witness Enes Salihović stated that, prior to 7 May 1992, he had lived in the MZ
Velagići and that the police were multiethnic at the time. A part of the Muslim population,
mostly women and children, had already left the village as they had felt uncertain. Ablebodied men who had stayed in Velagići stood night guards attempting to protect the safety
of the remaining population in Velagići. Tensions in the place were running high as
columns of people from Serbia, Croatia, and domestic ones with extremist behavior, were
passing through the village, and opening fire at the religious facilities. That same column
eventually came back, from which the witness concluded they were not intended to go to
the Croatian frontlines at all, but rather to “spread fear” in the villages inhabited by
Muslims. They could not leave Velagići as they had heard that military fit Muslim men were
separated at check points. The situation worsened during the period from 7 to 27 May
1992, and an open conflict broke out on 27 May. The new Serb authorities requested them
to surrender their weapons, which they did, whereupon men surrendered of their own free
will. Instead of being transferred to the free territory, as promised, the men were detained
at collective centers where they were beaten severely. They were subsequently
transferred to the camps in Stara Gradiška, Manjača or Batković, and subjected to a
38
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
variety of torture and ill-treatment.
96.
In 1992, witness Ekrem Čehić lived in the village of Vojići, which formed part of the
MZ Velagići. The witness almost identically described the situation in the village in the
spring of 1992. First, check points were set up where the villagers, including his brother,
stood guard. At the beginning, guards were ethnically mixed, but subsequently members
of Red Berets arrived. The Serbs took over, his neighbors were ill-treated at Lanište, his
brother was expelled from the police. The witness felt insecure and therefore bought a rifle
from a JNA reservist. Some time in May, however, villagers were via Radio Ključ invited to
surrender their weapons, which they did. Despite that, the MZ Velagići was shelled, and
they fled to Nezići. Men from the MZ Velagići were again, via Radio Ključ, invited to come
and collect free movement passes. However, soldiers stopped them at the Rejzovići check
point, loaded them onto buses, escorted to the Nikola Mačkić primary school, where they
interrogated them, seized money and gold from them and ultimately beat them. Witness
Čehić stated that they were “mostly interrogated by their fellow citizens from Ključ who
were most responsible for the beatings they received”. The witness was subsequently
transferred from the Nikola Mačkić primary school to Manjača.
97.
Witness Ramo Duranović, a religious official from Velagići, also testified that the
population was called via Radio Ključ to surrender their weapons, ordered to report at
certain collection points, and prohibited from returning to their village. Witness Duranović
stated that, when they were ultimately allowed to come back to the village, they found their
houses and the mosque torched. The only possibility to leave the Ključ municipality was
only if they gave a statement at the police station that they would leave behind all their
property. The witness also testified that certain villagers of Muslim ethnicity in the village
were killed.
98.
Once witness Ibrahim Bajrić ceased working at the Lanište forest farm, he lived in
Rejzovići with his wife and three minor children. The witness believes it was on 29 May
1992, when they were ordered, via Radio Ključ, to report to the factory and leave their
houses unlocked in order to be searched. They had to report inside the factory where
members of the TO stood guard. Women and children were released to go home, and a
certain number of men were kept there. Some of these men were beaten, and thereupon
taken to the cells in the police station. From there, some of these men, including the
witness, were first taken to the Stara Gradiška camp, and subsequently to the Manjača
39
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
camp.
99.
Muslims from the other villages inhabited by Muslims were also taken to and
detained in the camps. Witness Mirsad Puškar testified that, once soldiers with the artillery
deployed at the Brežčica plateau above his village, from where Pudin Han and Velagići
were shelled in late May, they never returned to the village along the same road they came
there, but rather proceeded further from Brežčice along the other road towards Vukovo
selo and Prhovo.
100.
The villagers of the referenced and other villages, who had come across soldiers
on the road, described their passing by and the related events. The village of Vukovo Selo,
inhabited by the Muslim population only, was the village to which many citizens from the
Kjuč suburb areas and the other villages fled because there was a cave nearby. According
to witness Ajiz Bečić, they believed they would find a shelter against shells thrown at his
village of Hadžići. The inhabitants of Pudin Han believed the same, as they had been
shelled first. Witness Zaim Smajić testified that, attempting to save themselves and their
families, some 30 of them went to (the village of) Vukovo Selo, with a plan to stay there for
a couple of days until the situation calmed down. Following the shelling of Pudin Han and
Velagići, however, soldiers went towards Vukovo Selo to “cleanse the terrain”. Villagers of
Vukovo Selo and those who had fled there, like Zaim Smajić, described the event of
soldiers passing through the village, and particularly strong feeling of humiliation and fear
caused by the threats they made and random killings they committed on that occasion.
101.
Witnesses Zaim Smajić and Mimka Brkić consistently testified that, in late May,
soldiers passed through Vukovo Selo and ordered its villagers to come out of their houses
and line up with their hands lifted above their heads. Witness Mimka Brkić described the
fear she felt when soldiers threatened them that they would “kill them all”, or when one of
the soldiers, after requesting her disabled brother to hand over to him weapons her brother
did not possess at all, punched him so fiercely that he “fell over the fence” and asked him
“why did he run away”. Particularly memorable was an incident which raised fear in the
villagers of Vukovo Selo, that is, the murder of young man, Šefko Čajić, immediately in
front of them, several meters away. The referenced witnesses described this incident in a
consistent manner. The villagers were further ordered to hoist white flags on their houses,
while those who had come to Vukovo Selo from the surrounding villages were requested
to return to their villages with white flags. Inhabitants of the villages through which soldiers
passed further along their way, like the Humići
village
and
the
hamlets
40
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
of
Jodanovići, Krantići and others, were treated almost identically like the inhabitants of
Vukovo Selo. Witnesses Bedrudin Brkić and Salko Krantić stated that after their arrival,
soldiers ordered them to surrender, put their hands above their heads and line up. Some
men were singled out and beaten. Villagers were thereupon allowed to return to their
homes and threatened that if they turned around, soldiers would come after them.
102.
The villagers of Plamenica, including Muharem Islamagić, testified that, during
May, Serb soldiers first passed through his villages searching for their weapons. Several
days after the collection of weapons, a “hunt” after men started. Men were rounded up,
taken to a school with their hands behind their heads. No harm was done to the witness at
the time, but a red police van from Ključ took 17 villagers from his village for interrogation.
After several peaceful days, the shelling started and all the villagers from his village fled to
(the village of) Humići, only to find their own village levelled down upon return from Humići.
Nevertheless, they stayed in their village but not for long, because several days later the
police came from Ključ, took the men to a school in Humići, beat them and thereupon
detained them at the Manjača camp.
103.
Several villagers of Prhovo19 were heard at the hearing. Prhovo is a Muslim village
in the Ključ municipality which suffered heavy damage. All these witnesses consistently
testified that soldiers had arrived in the village and searched their houses for weapons;
apprehended the villagers, men, women and children and lined them up in the village
center; sent an ultimatum to those who had earlier escaped to the woods that the
remaining population in the village would be killed unless they returned; beat the men and
randomly torched houses. After soldiers had left the village, the population continued living
in an illusion of peace. After a couple of days, however, soldiers came back to the village
and carried out the executions described in Section 4 of the enacting clause of the Verdict.
A large number of villagers of Prhovo were killed, certain number of able-bodied young
men apprehended to detention facilities and subsequently to the camps. Attempting to
save their lives, a certain number of villagers fled to the neighboring villages inhabited by
Muslims.
104.
According to the testimonies of the witnesses who had lived in the village of
Sanica, one of the villages in the Ključ municipality with the majority Muslim population, in
19
The testimonies of witnesses Sadeta Medanović, Nermina Medanović, Alem Hadžić, Hamid Hadžić, Kana
Međić and Nevres Mešić.
41
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
April, May and June 1992, it also had a very similar destiny like the other areas inhabited
by Muslims. Witnesses Atif Džafić and Ismet Kujundžić consistently described the arrivals
of the military and the police in the village. Witness Kujundžić stated that they first
searched for the weapons, and then called out men to march in a column towards the
Sanica Elementary School where they were interned in a gym. Witness Džafić stated that
despite the fact that he had joined the column voluntarily, the weapons were pointed at his
family so that, in fact, he had no choice. Many men who had been brought to the Sanica
Elementary School were escorted to the Nikola Mačkić primary school, and thereupon
killed or taken to the Manjača and Batković camps. Just a few of them returned to their
homes because they received certificates, as described by witness Huso Crnolić. Despite
this fact, however, they could not continue the life they had lived up until that moment. Due
to their constant feeling of fear, they looked for the way to leave the Ključ territory. They
could do it only if they made a statement waiving all their property. Witness Crnolić stated
that, on 28 August 1992, he gave a statement that he “voluntarily waived all his property,
that he would voluntarily leave the area and that he would not incriminate anyone”. After
this, he was allowed to go to the free territory.
105.
In the Panel’s view, all the foregoing are the circumstances relevant for conclusion
that the attack in the territory of Ključ municipality was widespread in nature. The attack
covered a wide area of the Ključ municipality, its urban downtown, the suburbs and all the
villages and the hamlets inhabited by Muslims in the Ključ municipality. In addition, with
the adduced evidence (Regular combat reports of the Command of the 1 st Infantry
Brigade, command post20 and the 1st Krajina Corps of 28 and 29 May 199221), the
Prosecution also proved that the attack was not limited only to the territory of the Ključ
municipality, but also involved the other areas of Bosanska Krajina, such as the
municipalities of Sanski Most and Prijedor. Severe beatings, killings, unlawful confinement,
and inhuman treatment of several thousand civilians, or tens of thousands of people
considering those who were forced to leave their homes,22 including the number of victims,
show that the element of widespread nature of the attack, as an underlying element of the
criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity, was satisfied.
20
T-161.
T-162.
22
See Established fact II-20 „...tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats were forcibly
expelled from the ARK by the Bosnian Serbs and taken by convoys of buses and trains to Bosnian Muslim
held territory in BiH or to Croatia...“.
21
42
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Systematic nature of the attack
When it comes to the systematic nature of the attack, the presented evidence, particularly
analyzed testimonies of the heard witnesses, showed that the attack followed a pattern
characteristic for all the territories wherein it was launched. By taking control over the Ključ
municipality, which had become Serb municipality exclusively, preconditions for launching
such an attack were created. First, the Serb population was armed and wore uniforms with
a new state insignia; the signs and symbols on the main institutions were changed; the
movement of Muslims and Croats was restricted; propaganda activities were launched via
Radio Ključ, to which the prefix “Serb” was also attributed; and houses were searched for
weapons. Ultimately, also carried out were the actions of apprehension, beating, unlawful
detention and killing of the population. In relation to disarmament of the population, the
established facts showed that “the decisions of 4 and 9 May 1992 on disarmament were
expressly directed at ‘paramilitary formations’ and ‘individuals who possessed weapons
illegally.’ On 18 May 1992, the ARK Crisis Staff further clarified which individuals had to be
disarmed: all formations that were not within the Army of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina, or Banja Luka Security Services Centre in the Autonomous Region of
Krajina shall be considered paramilitary formations and must be disarmed.”23 The heard
witnesses testified, in a detailed and convincing manner, that the disarmament was
exclusively related to Muslims and Croats who possessed weapons, or who had obtained
it in some other way. Particularly convincing was the testimony of witness Fahrudin
Ćemal.24 The Prosecutor asked the witness “whether the population of Kopjenica was
requested to hand over the weapons”, and he responded: “No, they did not request it, why
would they request it ... That is, Kopjenica also forms part of the Velagići Local Community
where Serbs also had lived”. Undefended Muslim villages were shelled and the houses
and religious facilities torched. Ultimately, the villagers who had not been taken to camps,
or who were not killed, were forced to leave their homes and face uncertainty, to go
abroad or to the other territories in BiH that were not under the Serb control provided that,
before leaving, they signed statements waiving their whole property in favor of the Serb
Republic of BiH.
23
Established fact II-16 and Exhibit T-139 Conclusions from the ARK session held on 18 May 1992.
Transcript from the main trial in the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 29 April 2008, the testimony of witness
Fahrudin Ćemal, p. 22.
24
43
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
106.
In the Panel’s view, all the foregoing indicates that, in addition to being widespread
and systematic, the attack also implied an organized nature of the acts of violence, carried
out pursuant to a certain pattern, against the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ
municipality and the wider area, wherefore it was systematic in nature.
(b) The attack was directed against the civilian population
107.
All persons against whom the attack was directed were civilians. None of the
heard witnesses testified that they wore any uniform or had any weapons on them when
they were arrested or taken to camps. All these witnesses were mostly forced out of their
houses in civilian clothing. They offered no resistance and they were not armed. The fact
that some individuals possessed weapons does not bring into question the civilian status
of the targeted population because they were not involved in any military activities when
they were arrested, they handed over their weapons voluntarily, and they were not
organized in any combat formations, except possibly in the village guards in which
individuals participated but which were of no combat formation character.
108.
The testimonies of the witnesses show that civilians, rather than a strategic military
goal, was the target of the attack; that the settlements mostly inhabited by Muslims and
Croats were shelled, their houses destroyed and torched and the mosques levelled down;
and that the civilian population in those places was killed, sometimes entire families, and
the men who had been captured at the time or who surrendered were taken to the
collection centers and camps. Certainly, all the foregoing was not a legitimate military
target. In the Panel’s view, the individuals referred to in the enacting clause of the Verdict,
the victims of the crime, both those who were arrested, captured and taken to the camps
and those who were killed, were undoubtedly civilians. Many of the witnesses testified that,
as a result of the artillery attack on Pudin Han and Velagići, 9 civilians were killed,
including several women and a child; in the attack on Prhovo, civilians, including several
women or children, were killed. According to the witnesses, at least two minors were in a
column of men from Prhovljani which was taken under escort towards Peć. When soldiers
passed through Vukovo Selo, they killed a young boy Čehić, age 15, who undoubtedly
was not an able-bodied man, or a member of any military formation.
109.
Therefore, the civilian Muslim and Croat population was the primary target of the
attack.
44
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
110.
In determining the status of victims, the Panel first referred to common Article 3 of
the Geneva Conventions which, pursuant to Annex 6 to the Dayton Peace Agreement,
applies in the national legislation, and which pursuant to the ICTY’s case, forms an integral
part of common law. The referenced Article defines the conditions under which individuals
enjoy the protection of the Conventions and specifies that civilians are: persons taking no
active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their
arms, and those placed hors de combat.
111.
Based on the adduced evidence, the Panel has found beyond a doubt that all
these persons enjoyed protection under common Article 3 of the Conventions at the time
when they were arrested and detained at the specified facilities. The Panel bore in mind
that these persons were deprived of liberty mostly by being forcibly taken away from their
homes, or were invited to voluntarily report and come to the sites designated as collective
centers, under the excuse of reaching agreement on the way of life, surrender of weapons
or receiving licenses for free movement. They were then taken to the camps. None of the
arrested persons was uniformed, or had any weapons, or took any active participation in
any hostilities. Since common Article 3 of the Conventions provides absolute protection to
civilians, and considering that they cannot be a target of any attack under any conditions,
there is no doubt that the acts directed at their unlawful arrest and detention, the beatings,
killings and all other acts taken within the attack on the referenced population, did not have
the character of a legitimate military target.
(c) The Accused were aware of the attack and that their acts formed part of the attack
112.
An analysis of the psychological relation (mens rea) of the Accused towards the
committed offense, at the time when the referenced criminal offenses were committed, as
the ICTY found in Kupreškić et al.25, should be limited to the determination of (1) the intent
to commit the underlying offense, combined with (2) knowledge of the broader context in
which that offense occurs. Therefore, in order for this essential element of the criminal
offense of Crimes against Humanity to be satisfied, it should be proved not only that the
perpetrator had the intent to commit a criminal offense or offenses underlying the crime,
but also that he must have known that his acts comprise part of a pattern of widespread or
systematic crimes directed against a civilian population, and that his acts fit into such a
25
See the decision of the Trial Chamber in Kupreškić et al., 14 January 2000, para. 556.
45
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
pattern26. The accused need not know the details of the attack or approve of the context in
which his or her acts occur.27 It suffices that the accused must understand the general
context of his act28.
113.
The Panel has found that the Accused had knowledge of the attack and that their
acts formed part of the attack. The Panel has so concluded upon considering this aspect
of awareness and taking into account both the functions the Accused held at the critical
time, and their acts undertaken directly in the field.
114.
The accused Lukić did not contest through his defense that, although already
retired in December 1991, he assumed the function of Commander of Territorial Defense
Staff in the Ključ municipality. Contrary to his Defense’s theory, the Panel found proved
that he had become a member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff formed by the SDS
municipal organization, and that he had played an active role at the Crisis Staff meetings,
and thereby in the policy-making for the new Serb authorities in the municipality,
considering that the Crisis Staff was the highest body of the municipal authorities from the
spring 1992 onwards. In addition, in late May and during June 1992, in the capacity of the
TO Battalion Commander, which formed part of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade (17.Libr),
the accused Boško Lukić undertook activities in the field and directly participated in the
attack on the civilian Muslim and Croat population.
115.
The basis of the accused Lukić’s defense was the theory that he was not an active
member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, that he had attended several meetings
merely to obtain information about the situation on the ground, but only within his domain
relating to the material and technical equipment (MTS), that he had not attended the
crucial sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff where the positions relating to the
security situation in the Municipality and the strategic goals of the Assembly of the Serb
people in BiH, as well as on the town defense command, were decided on. The Accused
also denied he had been present on the ground with any units.
116.
The Panel, however, did not find proved such a defense of the Accused. Upon
analyzing the ample evidence adduced at the hearing, individually and in combination, the
26
Appeals Judgment in Tadić, para. 248.
Trial Judgment in Limaj, para.190.
28
Ibid. Referral to the Trial Judgment in Kordić, para.185.
27
46
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Panel drew quite the opposite conclusion about the Accused’s role and acts during the
critical period.
117.
The accused Lukić denied being a member of the SDS and, along this line,
presented evidence in the proceedings before the Appellate Division Panel (List of
members of the OO SDS and IO OO SDS Ključ, with the record of attendance at the
meetings of the referenced bodies)29. Even though the Accused’s membership in the SDS
was not proved beyond a doubt, the records from the sessions of the SDS Municipal
Executive Board (IO OO), during the first half of 1992, that is, after the Accused’s
appointment as the TO Staff Commander, undoubtedly confirm that he had attended the
referenced sessions and played an active role therein, regardless of whether he was
formally a member of the party itself or not. In addition, the records from the sessions of
the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff confirmed beyond a doubt that, during the critical period,
the Accused had played an active role in the activities of the highest authority body.
118.
In the Panel’s view, the record from the session of the SDS Municipal Board of
24 October 1991 shows that the appointment of the accused Lukić to the referenced
position was not accidental, because already at the time, Veljko Kondić, President of the
OO SDS Executive Board, informed the attendees that “Boško Lukić had been interviewed
and that he accepted full cooperation and appointment as the Ključ TO Staff
Commander”30. The foregoing confirms the Prosecution’s theory that the earlier
Commander of the Ključ Staff Commander, Dušan Petrović, had not ceased performing
this function due to the expiration of his mandate, as the official documents indicated 31, but
rather because he was not a person loyal to the SDS, and obviously did not accept the “full
cooperation” as the accused Lukić did. The foregoing was also confirmed by the testimony
of witness Enes Mršić, who had been employed with the TO Staff until 7 May 1992.
Witness Mršić testified that Dušan Petrović had been removed because he was not an
SDS member, and that Lukić Boško assumed his post32. That loyalty to the party was
crucial for the appointment to the referenced position ensues from the further course of the
session where, already at the time, an issue was raised as to whether the Accused was a
29
AO-13 – the same documents were also tendered as the Prosecution's Exhibits T-89 and T-90.
Exhibit T-209 Record from the 5th session of the OO SDS Executive Board of 24 October 1991.
31
Exhibit T-206 Proposal for appointment of the TO Ključ Staff Commander recommending the accused
Lukić for this post of 15 October 1991.
32
Testimony of witness Enes Mršić at the main trial, transcript in the case No. X-KR-5/119 of 26 April 2010,
p. 11.
30
47
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
member of the SDS, or otherwise, his non-membership would cast doubt on the trust in
him. Ultimately, the meeting resulted in Lukić being proposed as Ključ TO Staff
Commander. His activities at the future sessions, regardless of whether he had formally
signed up and became a member of the party, confirm that he had acted along the line of
the party’s policy implementation. As it ensues already from the record made at the
following session of the OO SDS Ključ Executive Board33, it was decided that the Ključ
Municipality Crisis Staff be established pursuant to the Instructions for the Organization
and Activity of Organs of the Serb People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary
Circumstances, and, among others, a president of the TO Staff was also appointed to the
Crisis Staff. At the same session, after deciding to form the TO Crisis Staff and to
automatically include the TO Staff Commander in this newly established body, it was also
concluded that a decision removing the earlier TO Commander, Dušan Petrović, from the
function, shows that this body of the new authorities could not include just anybody. A
decision of the Republic body appointing the accused Lukić to the referenced position was
issued on 24 December 1991. According to the Accused, he received it on 26 December
1991. From this date on, the Accused played an active role in the implementation of the
SDS policy which he had earlier consented to support and implement, that is, he “accepted
full cooperation” as Veljko Kondić had stated.
119.
The Prosecution’s evidence (to be particularly addressed in the reasoning of the
JCE concept within which the Accused were also active, according to the Panel’s findings),
showed that the organization of the attack on the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ
municipality, in fact, had started at the SDS sessions and continued at the meetings of the
Municipal Crisis Staff, pursuant to the instructions issued at the sessions of the Serb
people of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the SDS Main Staff, whose
extended hand throughout the former Socialist Federative Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina were exactly the Crisis Staffs of the new established Serb autonomous
regions, including the Autonomous Region of Krajina, and subsequently the municipal
Crisis Staffs established by the SDS, including the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff.
120.
The Panel has examined the contents of records from the sessions of the OO SDS
of the Ključ municipality34 and the records from the meetings of the Ključ Municipality Crisis
33
34
th
T-210, Record from the 6 session of the OO SDS Executive Board of 23 December 1991.
T-209 through T-219.
48
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Staff,35 and clearly concluded that those bodies carried the heaviest burden in terms of
organizing the attack. Specifically, at the meetings of the OO SDS held in late 1991, at the
time when Boško Lukić was still not officially appointed the TO Staff Commander, but
when an interview had been made with him and a formal decision resolving this matter
was pending, the need for weapons, training of reservists and organization of the TO “to
be able to carry out all tasks“36 had already been discussed. Having received the decisions
appointing him to the function of the TO Staff Commander, the accused Lukić attended
several meetings of the OO SDS. It ensues from the accused Lukić’s presentations at the
IO OO SDS sessions that he attended, and subsequently from the sessions of the Ključ
Municipality Crisis Staff, that despite his non-attendance of the session of the IO OO SDS
discussing the formation of TO units in the Municipality and the security situation in the
municipal territory, the Accused accepted, followed and further implemented all the
decisions rendered along this line. At the session held on 23 December 1991 discussed
were the issues of the TO organization. It was concluded that the TO had to be made
capable of carrying out all tasks, and that all TO-related issues, including the removal of
the earlier commander and the deployment of around 400 men at the frontlines as the
basis to request weapons at the meeting with General Talić, had to be completed no later
than 10 January 1992. The record from the session of the OO SDS of 22 January 199237,
shows that the accused Lukić had, already at the time, undertaken the activities to
establish the TO pursuant to the set up instructions, and that, after it was noted that the
TO had to be manned based on ethnic composition, the accused Lukić stated that the
manning of TO in the MZ (local communities) had to be carried out separately due to the
specific nature of each area. The record of the 8th session held on 6 March 199238 shows
that the accused Lukić was actively involved in the organization and training of men within
the TO, because after Veljko Kondić’s address the Accused briefed the attendees in detail
about this item of the agenda. The session held on 23 March 1992, where it was inter alia
noted that the TO weapons had been removed, shows that the organization, training and
finding solutions to improve the professional capability were discussed in detail. Ultimately,
at the session held on 30 March 1992, Lukić himself stated that “all non-engaged men
needed to be engaged...and activities needed to be undertaken at any place”. The Panel
has presented all the foregoing with a view to seeing a big picture of what had preceded
35
T-229, T-231.
th
See Exhibit T-210-Record from the 6 session of the IO OO SDS of 23 December 1991.
37
T-218.
36
49
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
the attack itself on the non-Serb population. Therefore, the acts of armament, training of
men and organization of the TO, which had in the meantime become monoethinc, were
actively undertaken and the accused Lukić obviously played an important role therein.
121.
If the referenced activities relating to the TO organization were viewed in isolation
from the other evidence, it could be possibly said that the Accused acted within the scope
of powers vested upon him by the function to which he had been appointed. Correlating
the referenced evidence with all the subsequent events, however, clearly shows that all
the foregoing was carried out with the aim to carry out the attack. As it ensues from the
testimonies of the witnesses heard at the man trial (to be addressed in more detail in the
explanation of the charges in the individual Sections of the convicting part of the Verdict),
members of the TO, together with members of the police and the military, actively
participated in the disarmament of the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ
municipality, captured and escorted them to the CJB Ključ, where a large number of
citizens of Ključ were subjected to severe beatings, and to the sites marked as collective
centers. They also participated in securing the men who had surrendered at these places,
and subsequently in the attack itself, shelling from artillery weapons and cleansing the
wider area of the Ključ municipality.
122.
As stated above, the Panel did not find proved the Accused’s defense directed at
proving that he was not a member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff. That the accused
Lukić was indeed a member of the Crisis Staff first ensues from Exhibit - Instructions for
the Organization and Activity of Organs of the Serb People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in
Extraordinary Circumstances, pursuant to which the commander or the chief of the TO
Municipal Staff comprised the Crisis Staff, as the body of the highest authority. The
reasoning provided in para. 119 shows that, for this very reason, a person loyal to the
party had to be appointed to the function of Staff Commander. In addition, the records from
the Crisis Staff sessions attended by the Accused, where he was marked as a member,
held on 14 May 199239, 1, 5, 6, and 30 June 199240, the diary kept by Witness D41, the
testimony of witness Muratagić who stated that by his formation the accused Lukić had to
be a member of the Crisis Staff, the proposal of the organizational scheme of the activities
38
T-218.
T-231.
40
T-229.
41
T-453.
39
50
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
of the Municipal bodies in war conditions42, where the accused Lukić was marked as a
member of the Crisis Staff, deny such a defense of his. During the critical period, the Crisis
Staff undertook the activities as the highest body of the authorities: made decisions at its
sessions to disarm and arrest Muslims and Croats; considered the issue of transportation
of the arrested men to Gradiška and of the removal of Muslims and Croats from their
positions, first from the top positons, and then generally; addressed the issue of their
employment, and organized removal of the Muslim and Croat population from the territory
of the Ključ municipality. During the days after 27 May 1992, the Crisis Staff was regularly
informed about the situation on the ground, and, among others, the accused Lukić43 also
submitted his reports.
123.
That the Accused’s activities related to the organization and training of members
of the TO were taken exactly with the aim to undertake such subsequent actions, that he
was aware of certain segments of the attack on the Muslim and Croat civilian population of
the Ključ municipality, and that he wanted his acts to form part of the attack was
undoubtedly confirmed by the audio-recording tendered by the Prosecution as Exhibit T-9.
This Exhibit shows not only that the Accused knew that Muslims were captured in Ključ,
that Omer Filipović and Asim Egrlić were arrested and handed over to the relevant bodies,
that the witnesses, particularly Omer Filipović’s brother, Muhamed Filipović, and Asim
Egrlić directly testified what the “processing by relevant bodies” or the police had implied,
but also that as the TO Staff Commander alone, and together with other supporters of the
plan, he undertook the activities to implement this plan. The referenced audio-recording
shows that the Accused further stated that the “Muslim extremists will be forced to
surrender and hand over their weapons, that they had no chance in any other form, and
that they better do this as soon as possible.”44 A large number of the witnesses-Muslims
who had surrendered and handed over their weapons were heard at the main trial. These
men were not extremists, if such existed at all, but rather civilians, who had come from
their homes to the places designated as surrender sites, with their hands lifted up, or
under white flags as ordered. However, despite all this, the accused Lukić stated at the
audio-recording that they had no chance because many of them were killed, or at least
beaten and detained at the camps. In addition, the Panel has found that the Prosecution’s
42
T-225.
T-229.
44
Exhibit T-9, recording time from 45:30 to 46:40 min.
43
51
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Exhibits, Regular combat reports45 signed by Major Boško Lukić, addressing the activities
of the “terrain cleansing” in the villages, where these reports were made after late May and
early June, within which a variety of atrocities had occurred, do not bring into doubt the
Accused’s involvement into the attack and his awareness of the attack.
124.
In the Panel’s view, the conclusion that the accused Marko Adamović was aware
of the attack and that there was a nexus between his acts and the attack, namely that his
acts formed part of the attack, were undoubtedly proved by the fact that a number of
witnesses identified accused Adamović as person who had led soldiers through the
villages were a massacre occurred. As a former teacher and a person born in the
referenced territory, the accused Adamović was known among the people, not only by his
physical appearance and voice, but also as a person whose presence at first sight inspired
confidence46; but they soon eye-witnessed the crimes committed by soldiers he had led. A
number of the villagers of Prhovo identified the accused Adamović as a person who had,
from a personnel carrier, called men to surrender, or instructed Sadeta Medanović to call
via megaphone the men from the village to surrender, threatening her that he would have
no mercy either to her or the baby she had held in her arms. The mother of slain Hamer
Ljutić asked the accused Adamović himself where he had taken her son. She saw her son
alive only one more time after this incident, whereupon two soldiers took her son away.
Several days later, the witness found his body in a nearby wood. Muharem Islamagić,
whose brother was killed by being tied to the personnel carrier, also identified the accused
Adamović as a person who had led soldiers. The accused Adamović was identified by
other villagers of Prhovo, Vukovo Selo, Krantići, and by those who did not see him, but
rather heard that he had led soldiers who committed the massacre. Witness Mirsad Puškar
identified the accused Adamović as a person who had transported the artillery to the
Brežčice plateau, from which the villages of Pudin Han and Velagići were shelled.
125.
Even though the accused Adamović denied being a member of the Ključ
Municipality Crisis Staff, the Panel has found that such a defense of his was ill-founded.
Contrary to the accused Adamović’s testimony, there is an array of Prosecution’s evidence
directly connecting the Accused with the activities of the Municipal Crisis Staff and
confirming his membership therein, although not during the first days of the functioning of
this body but somewhat later. Just at the time when the activities related to the “terrain
45
Exhibits T-175 - T-179.
52
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
cleansing” in the wider area of the Ključ municipality were initiated, the accused Adamović
was the person who, together with Vinko Kondić and Boško Lukić, reported at the
meetings of the Crisis Staff about the situation and developments on the ground47. The
Prosecution’s Exhibit-Proposal of the organizational scheme of the activities of the
municipal bodies at times of war48 listed the accused Adamović, under number 4, among
members of the Crisis Staff. The accused Adamović formed part of the Crisis Staff in the
capacity of the Town Defense Commander. The Panel has not find reasonable the
Defense’s theory that the referenced body never really became operational. Boško Lukić
was originally proposed as its commander49, but Marko Adamović was eventually
appointed. The evidence confirms that the Town Defense Command indeed existed, but
that Marko Adamović was appointed its Commander, rather than the initially proposed
Boško Lukić. The record from the session of the SO Ključ Crisis Staff of 3 June 1992
shows that the accused Adamović attended the session of the Crisis Staff exactly in the
capacity of the Town Defense Commander, which in the Panel’s view, fully denies the
Defense’s assertions that the body at issue had not become real. Logically, an issue arises
as to why would the document, such as a handwritten record from the Crisis Staff session,
mention the accused Adamović in a function he did not perform. Despite denying the
functioning of this body, since his testimony is to a large extent aimed at supporting the
Accused and avoiding his own criminal liability, since he too was a member of the Crisis
Staff, Defense witness Rajko Kalabić confirms that he had proposed the accused
Adamović for the post of the Town Defense Commander. Witness Mršić, however, testified
that the plans for the town defense should have been created by Chief Zukić pursuant to
his duties within the TO staff, but he was not allowed to do so, but the task was entrusted
to the accused Adamović, for which purpose a room inside the Municipal building was
provided. According to the Panel, not only that all the foregoing leaves no dilemma that the
Accused had knowledge about the attack but also indicates, beyond a doubt, that by his
acts, the Accused participated in it.
46
See, e.g. the testimony of witness Kana Mešić, transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 6 July 2009.
Exhibit T-229, records from the sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff of 2 and 3 June 1992,
18 June 1992 and 30 June 1992.
48
Exhibit T-225.
49
T-229 Record from the Crisis Staff session of 29 May 1992, Exhibit T-164 Document of the Commander of
th
the 30 Partisan Division sp.No. 939-1 of 31 May 1992 which reads as follows: „Ključ Defense Command to
be established in the zone of the Ključ municipality comprising: -... – Commander of the Ključ TO Staff , -...
47
53
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
127.
In the Panel’s view, all the foregoing leaves no doubt whatsoever that the third
element, essential for the existence of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity,
has been satisfied, namely that the Accused had knowledge of the attack, that their acts
were an integral part of the attack, or more precisely, that there was a nexus between their
acts and the attack.
VII. PERSECUTION
128.
The Amended Indictment of the BiH Prosecutor's Office charged the Accused, and
the Verdict found them guilty of committing the criminal offense of Crimes against
Humanity under Article 172(1)(h) of the CC BiH, namely that they committed persecution
of the civilian Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality by a series of unlawful
acts, namely: murder, deportation and forcible transfer of population, unlawful confinement
and other severe deprivations of physical liberty, other inhuman acts of similar character,
attack on the civilian population, settlement, certain civilians, which attack resulted in the
death, the shelling of undefended villages and hamlets with any artillery and deprivation of
the right to a fair and impartial trial.
129.
Persecution, as defined under Article 172(1)(h) of the CC BiH, means:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
The intentional and severe,
contrary to international law
deprivation of fundamental rights,
by reason of the identity of a group or collectivity
against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural,
religious or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under
international law;
f. in connection with any offense listed in this paragraph of this Code, any offense listed in
this Code or any offense falling under the competence of the Court of Bosnia and
Hercegovina.
130.
Article 172(2)(g) of the CC BiH provides for the meaning of the term persecution:
“Persecution means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights,
contrary to international law, by reason of identity of a group or collectivity.”
The case law of the ICTY50 defines persecution as the crime against humanity as follows:
50
Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., IT-98-30/1-A, Judgment of 28 February 2005, para. 320.
54
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
1) discriminates in fact and which denies and infringes upon a fundamental right laid down
in international customary or treaty law; and
2) was carried out deliberately, with the intention to discriminate on one of the listed
grounds, specifically race, religion or politics.“
131.
Persecution so defined may be committed by all acts which, in whole or in part,
amount to intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights, contrary to
international law, by reason of the identity of a group or collectivity.
132.
It may be inferred from the foregoing that persecution is a form of discrimination on
racial, religious or political grounds with the intent to and resulting in infringements upon
fundamental rights of individuals. Specifically international law recognizes racial, religious
and political grounds as the exclusive grounds for the commission of persecution as
crimes against humanity.
133.
Persecution is therefore a criminal offense underlying crimes against humanity.
Crimes against humanity are gross and flagrant violations of the fundamental rights, while
in the context of the referenced criminal offense, the existence of discriminatory intent also
need to be proved for the crime of persecution.
134.
The Judgment of the Appellate Panel of this Court in Bundalo et al. concluded the
following:
“Only gross and flagrant denials of fundamental human rights may constitute
Crimes against Humanity. An additional requirement for persecution as a Crime
against Humanity is that it must be committed with a discriminatory intent. The
individual criminal acts may not necessarily rise to this standard if the individual
criminal act is evaluated in isolation. Therefore, for the crime of persecution the
criminal acts must be taken as a whole, and together must reach this standard.”51
135.
The crimes of which the accused Adamović and Lukić were found guilty
undoubtedly amount to gross violations of the basic human rights and fundamental
freedoms, contrary to international law. In the Panel’s view, these crimes were committed
with a discriminatory intent.
136.
An array of details points to such a nature of the committed crimes. As already
described in the part of the Verdict explaining the issue of satisfied requirements of wide
51
Second Instance Verdict of the Court of BiH in Bundalo et al., No. X-KRŽ-07/419, para. 302.
55
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
and systematic nature of the attack, as the essential elements of the criminal offense of
Crimes against Humanity, the exclusive reason for which certain unlawful acts in violation
of international law were undertaken against groups of citizens was their ethnicity,
specifically the fact that they were Muslims or Croats.
137.
The records from the sessions of the Crisis Staff, a certain number of which was
also attended by the accused Adamović and Lukić, and the testimonies of a number of the
heard witnesses show that in April, May and June 1992, only Muslims and Croats lost their
jobs. Witness Filipović also confirmed that those of them who had not fully stopped
performing the jobs at the posts assigned to them were searched upon their arrival at
work. As it ensues from the testimony of witness Lepirica, Muslims and Croats were
separated from convoys at check points and their movement was restricted. A number of
witnesses52 confirmed that Muslims and Croats had to obtain appropriate movement
permits in order, for example, to come from their villages to the town. The witnesses
particularly described the requests of the new authorities in the town of Ključ under which
Muslims and Croats had to sign that they would leave all their property to the Serb
Republic of BiH in order to be able to freely leave the territory of Ključ, where the living had
become unbearable for them due to the constant fear for the mere fact that they were
Muslims or Croats. In addition, Muslim and Croat men apprehended to the premises of the
SJB Ključ, and subjected to severe beatings, were not informed, either at the time or
subsequently, about the reasons for which they were deprived of liberty or beaten, and the
only reason they could relate to such acts is the fact that they were Muslims or Croats.
They were detained on the CJB premises and crammed in small cells and their only
common characteristic was that they were non-Serbs. Muslim and Croat citizens were
invited via Radio Ključ to surrender their weapons, or to report to specific collection
centers. When the military passed through the villages of the Ključ municipality, mostly
inhabited by Muslims, since a small number of Croats had lived in the area, villagers were
forced out of their houses. They had to stand in front of them, and line up with their hands
lifted above their heads, with no exemptions for the elderly or sick people. For example,
Muslims from Vukovo Selo were demanded to hoist white flags on their houses.
138.
Therefore, such unlawful acts were always, without exemption, undertaken against
Muslims and a few Croats, and only for the reason of their ethnicity or religion. In the
56
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Panel’s view, all the foregoing points to the discriminatory nature of the attack launched
against the Muslim and Croat population in the Ključ municipality solely on ethnic and
religious grounds.
139.
In order to find the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović guilty of the crime
of persecution as Crimes against Humanity it was necessary to prove that they themselves
had this discriminatory intent. The ICTY’s Trial Chamber in Prosecutor v. Radislav Brđanin
has found the following:
“Discriminatory intent may not be inferred directly from the general discriminatory
nature of an attack against a civilian population. However, it may be inferred from
the context of the acts, as long as, in view of the facts of the case, circumstances
surrounding the commission of the alleged acts substantiate the existence of
such intent.“53
140.
The Panel has found that, in the concrete case, exactly the facts of the case and
the circumstances surrounding the commission of the criminal offenses at issue confirm
the existence of such a discriminatory intent on the part of the accused Lukić and
Adamović.
141.
In the Panel’s view, the conclusion on the accused Lukić’s and Adamović’s
discriminatory intent ensues from their diligent carrying out of the tasks vested upon them
pursuant to their respective functions with the view to implementing the common design
policy, established on the strategic goals set up at the Assembly of the Serb people in BiH
held on 12 May 1995, and primarily the first strategic goal – demarcation from the two
other ethnic groups.
142.
It ensues from the records from the sessions of the OO SDS of the Ključ
municipality and of the Crisis Staff that the accused Lukić actively undertook the actions
relating to gathering, training and engaging the TO units pursuant to the instructions of the
new Serb municipal authorities, in line with the referenced strategic goals, which he
himself had accepted. These new TO units, in whose establishment the accused Lukić
was engaged, were monoethnic and comprised only Serb residents of Ključ. Many heard
witnesses testified about the foregoing facts. As it was shown later, these units were
subsequently trained and engaged in the attack against the Muslim and Croat population
52
The testimonies of witnesses C, Ćerim Hrnčić, Salko Krantić, Mimka Brkić, Nafa Smajić, Alem Hadžić and
Enes Mršić.
57
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
of the Ključ municipality, launched against this population solely for their ethnic and
religious origin. Witness Mršić’s testimony directly confirmed that the Accused himself
shared this discriminatory intent. This witness stated that Boško Lukić had sent him and
two other prewar workers of the TO Staff to a vacation, and on 27 May 1992 personally
informed them there was no place for them in the TO Staff any more. These persons were
removed from their work posts only on the grounds of their ethnicity.
143.
Following the decision on general mobilization at the level of the Serb Republic of
BiH, the TO Staff, led by Boško Lukić, gathered at Sitnica these mobilized members of the
new TO units, specifically of the Ključ Battalion, in whose training the accused Marko
Adamović also took part. The fact that the mobilization itself and the Battalion gathering at
Sitnica were carried out pursuant to the Decision on general mobilization at the level of the
Serb Republic BiH, in compliance with the earlier established strategic goals, undoubtedly
suggests the aim for which the Battalion was gathered at Sitnica, of which the Accused
engaged in the Battalion command structure had to be undoubtedly aware, or specifically,
which they had to share. After 27 April 1992, the Battalion was engaged in the attack on
the Muslim villages in the Ključ municipality (to be addressed in more detail in the part
concerning individual incriminations). However, already at Sitnica, the Battalion was armed
with the TO weapons, which had been earlier transferred to Kula. According to witness
Mršić, a decision and order for doing so could only be issued by the TO Staff Commander,
that is, the accused Lukić. In May, the accused Adamović, together with some other
members of the Ključ Battalion, transferred the weapons and artillery to the sites from
which the undefended Muslim villages in the Ključ municipality would be shelled once the
attack is launched.54 In the Panel’s view, the Accused undoubtedly showed through such
activities that they shared the discriminatory intent, or more precisely, that they willingly
participated in the attack on the settlements inhabited exclusively by Muslims and Croats,
the sole basis of which was the ethnicity and religion of the referenced population.
144.
The conclusion on the existing discriminatory intent on the part of the Accused
ensues from their activities following 27 May 1992. The recording, Exhibit T-9 and the
presentation of the accused Lukić clearly show he was aware of the unlawful arrests of
Muslim (and Croat) citizens, and that he supported such arrests. The referenced audio-
53
ICTY Judgment in Prosecutor v. Radislav Brđanin No. IT-99-36-T of 1 September 2004, para. 997, and
Appeals Judgment in Krnojelac, para.184.
54
Testimony of witness Mirsad Puškar.
58
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
recording shows that the accused Lukić called “Muslim extremists” to surrender. The
ground for the unlawful confinement of these persons was their ethnicity, which is clear
from the accused Lukić’s audio-recorded presentation, as confirmed by the phrase
“Muslim extremists” which he had used.
145.
The activities of the accused Adamović undertaken on the ground undoubtedly
show his discriminatory intent. Soldiers, identified as “Marko’s soldiers” by many
inhabitants of different villages in the Ključ municipality, took part in the “cleansing” of the
villages inhabited by Muslims. It is clear from the testimonies of the witnesses that they
were searched, arrested and beaten for the mere fact that they were Muslims by ethnicity.
The accused Adamović’s discriminatory intent was particularly obvious in the village of
Prhovo when he called members of “Green berets” (zelene beretke) to surrender,
threatening he would kill all inhabitants in the village.
146.
Upon analyzing the whole contextual basis of the crimes, to be described in detail
through individual incriminations, in whose preparation and implementation the accused
Lukić and Adamović undoubtedly played their roles, the Panel has concluded, beyond a
doubt, not only that the attack was discriminatory in nature, but also that the Accused
themselves had and shared this discriminatory intent.
147.
In the Panel’s view, the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity by
persecution was committed through a series of unlawful acts as described in the
substratum of the Indictment, namely by:
i. Murder – depriving another person of his life
148.
Murder means depriving another person of his/her life, and the criminal offense of
murder laid down in Article 172(1)(a) of the CC is depriving another person of his/her life
within a widespread and systematic attack against a civilian population, with the accused’s
awareness and knowledge of the deprivation of life. The essential elements of the criminal
offense of murder are: a) death of the victim; b) death resulted from the act or omission of
the accused or his subordinate; c) the accused or his subordinate had the intent to deprive
the victim of his/her life or cause violence to life and person, which he may have
reasonably assumed will result in death.
ii. Deportation or forcible transfer of population
149.
Deportation or forcible transfer of population means forced displacement of the
59
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are
lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law.
iii. Imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty
150.
In order for imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty to exist
as a criminal offense of crimes against humanity, or to amount to an act of commission of
persecution of the Muslim and Croat population, as in the concrete case, it must be in
contravention of the rules of international law. The ICTY has described the elements of
unlawful confinement as a crime against humanity as follows: “a person was deprived of
liberty; deprivation was arbitrary, that is, there is no legal ground for deprivation of liberty;
act or omission by which a person is being deprived of liberty is an act of the accused, or
person(s) for whom the accused is held criminally liable with the intent to arbitrarily deprive
person of liberty, or knowing that his act or omission may lead to arbitrary deprivation of
liberty.“
iv. Other inhumane acts of similar character
151.
Other inhumane acts of a similar character are those committed with the intention
of causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to physical or mental health. For
these acts, just like the other acts provide for in Article 172 of the CC BiH, the existence of
act or omission of similar gravity need to be proved. Even though the formulation “other
inhuman acts of similar character” is rather imprecise, it is selected exactly with the
purpose of preventing any perpetrator from avoiding punishment for any form of inhuman
acts, including those non-specified by law. Thus, the ICTY’s Chamber has determined in
Kupreškić which acts must be considered as inhumane acts, namely that “an exhaustive
categorization would merely create opportunities for evasion of the letter of the
prohibition.”
v. Unlawful confinement into camps
152.
Considering that the CC BiH provides no definition of what is to be considered an
unlawful confinement into camps, by which action the persecution of Muslims and Croats
was also committed, as the Panel found on the basis of adduced evidence, the Panel has
referred to the established ICTY case law in defining this category. With regard to the
60
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
referenced issue, the ICTY’s Appeals Chamber in Čelebići55 has found that: “to establish
that someone has committed the offense of unlawful confinement, something more must
be proved than mere knowing ‘participation’ in the general system or operation pursuant to
which civilians are confined. E.g., such responsibility is more properly allocated to those
who actually place a person in detention without reasonable grounds to believe that he
constitutes a security risk; or who, having some powers over the place or detention,
accepts a civilian into detention without knowing that such grounds exist; or who, having
power or authority to release detainees fails to do so despite knowledge that no
reasonable ground for their detention exist”.
vi. Attack against civilian population, settlements, individual civilians, which resulted in
death, and attack or shelling, using any means, of undefended villages and residences
153.
Attack directed against any civilian population means a course of conduct
involving multiple perpetrations of acts referred to in paragraph 1 of this Article against any
civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to
commit such attack.
154.
Attack or shelling by using any means, of undefended villages and residences, has
been defined within the scope of the criminal offense of Violating the Laws and Practices
of Warfare under Article 179 of the CC BiH, and, in the concrete case, according to the
Panel, it is an act of commission of persecution as a crime against humanity.
vii. Deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial
155.
The Panel has also found that the deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial
trial was a form of persecution of the Muslim and Croat population in the Ključ municipality.
In defining the notion of deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial, the Panel has
referred to the ICTY’s case law. The Trial Chamber in Brđanin found that the case
concerned the deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial on discriminatory grounds,
that is, deprivation of the right to a fair trial as a form of persecution of Muslims and Croats,
on the basis of the fact that “Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats in the municipalities of
the ARK were arbitrarily arrested and detained in camps and other detention facilities for a
considerable length of time. Most of them were never informed of the charges against
55
ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Judgment in Čelebići, para. 342.
61
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
them, and, in addition, were never charged before a court. In fact, there was a near-total
absence of judicial process, including the right of access to a court.”56
VIII. INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ACCUSED
WITHIN A JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE
156.
In the Panel’s view, the Prosecution proved beyond a reasonable doubt that, as
participants in a joint criminal enterprise, the accused Adamović and Lukić committed the
criminal acts factually described in the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict,
by which the essential elements of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity under
Article 172(1)(h) of the CC BiH, as read with Article 180(1) of the came Code, have been
satisfied.
157.
Article 180(1) of the CC BiH provides for the acts of commission and forms of
participation in the commission of the criminal offenses by which a person becomes
personally responsible for certain offenses enumerated in Chapter XVII of the CC BiH
(Crimes against Humanity and Values Protected by International Law), including Crimes
against Humanity (Article 172 of the CC BiH), with which the Accused in the concrete case
were charged.
158.
Article 180(1) of the CC BiH is identical to Article 7(1) of the ICTY’s Statute, and it
became part of the national legislation after Article 7(1) of the Statute was enacted and
interpreted by the ICTY to include, specifically, joint criminal enterprise as a mode of coperpetration by which personal criminal liability would attach57.
159.
International judicial interpretation of the term "perpetration" in Article 7(1), which
was incorporated in domestic law as Article 180(1), establishes a mode of perpetration of a
crime where the issue of guilt is connected with the earlier existent “criminal design”. Thus
each perpetrator becomes responsible not only for his own perpetration in crimes but also
for the acts of other participants in the crime. Joint criminal enterprise describes a
collective nature of criminality and provides for the punishment of political and military
56
Trial Chamber Judgment in Brđanin, IT-99-36-T of 1 September 2004, para. 1044.
See Verdict of the Trial Panel of the Court of BiH in the case No. X-KR-06/275 of 22 February 2008, p.
103, referral to the Tadić case.
57
62
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
leaders, because the focus of trial is shifted from the level of individual crimes (which must
be always proved) to a general level, addressing the issue of the existent common
purpose or plan and the significance of the contribution given by the participants in the
enterprise to the implementation of the plan or design.
160.
Even though the ICTY does not explicitly mention joint criminal enterprise, the
ICTY Appeals Chamber in Tadić58 has established a customary status of this mode of
participation and the criminal liability derived from it in international criminal law. This was
also adopted by the other ICTY chambers based on an analysis of relevant international
documents and case law of 27 countries, which has as such satisfied the requirement of
the principle of legality in international criminal law. Other international tribunals have
adopted the ICTY’s doctrine of joint criminal enterprise by incorporating it in the Rome
Statute. Certain courts apply for this mode of participation and liability the instrument of
indirect perpetration, which was incorporated into the criminal legislation of many
countries, e.g. of the Republic of Serbia (Article 33 of the Criminal Code).
161.
Joint criminal enterprise has been considered as a mode of co-perpetration with
the following elements: (1) a plurality of persons (2) these persons share a common
criminal intent or purpose (3) certain direct perpetrators committed individual crimes in
furtherance of the common plan or purpose, (4) the concrete accused whose guilt is being
decided participated in the enterprise, sharing the common criminal intent and gave to it an
essential or significant contribution to its perpetration. If all the foregoing elements are
proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused will be found guilty not only of his
contribution to the enterprise, but also of all individual crimes directly perpetrated by other
participants in the enterprise in furtherance of the common purpose.
162.
Joint criminal enterprise, as a mode of perpetration of a crime, is not in itself a
criminal offense but rather a special form of co-perpetration, as a mode of participation in
the commission of crime. Three distinct types of JCE have been crystalized through
international case law. In Tadić, the ICTY Appeals Chamber originally found three distinct
categories of JCE, while, subsequently, these three categories of criminal collectivity were
through the ICTY case law defined as the basic or general, systemic or concentration
58
Prosecutor v. Tadić, IT-95-1-A, Appeals Chamber Judgment, 15 July 1999 (“Tadić Second Instance
Judgment”) paras. 191-193, para. 220.
63
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
camp, and extended JCE. All three types of JCE have the same actus reus elements, but
differ with regard to the element of awareness or the mens rea element.
163.
The first category, basic or general form of JCE, is relevant to the concrete case,
and the Panel will further below address its definition and elements.
164.
The basic form of JCE is characterized by a group of people who act together
pursuant to a “common design” and possess the same criminal intent. If a crime is
committed by such a group, pursuant to that common design, persons who voluntarily
participated in an aspect of that design and intended the criminal outcome can be held
personally criminally liable as co-perpetrators59. An example is a plan formulated by the
participants in the joint criminal enterprise to kill where, although each of the participants
may carry out a different role, each of them has the intent to kill.60
A.
ELEMENTS OF THE BASIC JCE
(a) Actus reus element (act of commission)
165.
Actus reus elements of all types of JCE, including the basic JCE, imply the
following:
1. A plurality of individuals. They need not be organized in a military, political or
administrative structure.
2. The existence of a common purpose which amounts to or involves the
commission of a crime provided for in the Statute. There is no necessity for this plan,
design or purpose to have been previously arranged or formulated. It may materialize
extemporaneously and be inferred from the fact that a plurality of persons acts in unison
to put into effect a joint criminal enterprise.
3. Certain direct perpetrators who commit certain crimes to put up into effect the
criminal purpose often are not themselves participants in a joint criminal enterprise.
4. Participation of the accused in the common purpose involving the perpetration
of one of the crimes provided in the Statute. This participation need not involve
commission of a specific crime under one of the provisions (murder, extermination,
torture, rape, etc), but may take the form of assistance in, or contribution to, the execution
of the common plan or purpose. The contribution need not be necessary or substantial,
59
Verdict of the Trial Panel of the Court of BiH in Trbić, No. X-KR-07/386, para. 214, with reference to the
Appeals Chamber Judgment in Tadić, para. 196.
60
Ibid, reference to the Appeals Chamber Judgment in Vasiljević, para. 97.
64
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
but should at least be a significant contribution to the crimes for which the accused is
found responsible.61
166.
When it comes to a plurality of persons, to consider this essential actus reus
element satisfied, it should be determined that a plurality of persons were members of the
JCE, but there is no need to identify the participants by name. Furthermore, a common
criminal purpose should be precisely defined, in terms of both the criminal goal intended
and its scope (for example the temporal and geographic limits of this goal and the general
identities of the intended victims). In addition, the Panel should make a finding that this
criminal purpose is not merely the same, but also common to all of the persons acting
together within a JCE, and characterize the contribution of the accused in this common
plan. The contribution of the accused to the crimes for which he is to be found responsible
should at least be a significant contribution.62
167.
In addition to satisfying all the referenced actus reus elements, there is a variety of
modes of action and participation of a perpetrator in a joint criminal enterprise, for which
he may be found responsible. Thus, the ICTY found in Krnojelac63 that the ways in which
an individual may commit a crime as a participant in the JCE are the following:
168.
(i)
by participating directly in the commission of the agreed crime itself (as a
principal offender);
(ii)
by being present at the time when the crime is committed, and (with
knowledge that the crime is to be or is being committed) by intentionally
assisting or encouraging another participant in the joint criminal enterprise
to commit that crime; or
(iii)
by acting in furtherance of a particular system in which the crime is
committed by reason of the accused’s position of authority or function, and
with knowledge of the nature of that system and intent to further that
system.
Therefore, by undertaking any of the foregoing acts, by which he participates in
the furtherance of a common purpose, design or plan, regardless of whether the act is an
act of commission of a concrete crime, or it in other way contributes or facilitates in the
furtherance of common purpose, design or plan, the perpetrator may be held responsible
on the basis of JCE. It ensues from the foregoing that any accused will be found guilty if,
61
Ibid, reference to the second instance Judgment in Brđanin, para. 414; Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, IT-00-39-A,
Judgment, 17 March 2009 (“Krajišnik Appeals Chamber Judgment”) para. 215.
62
Ibid, reference to the second instance Judgment in Brđanin, para. 430.
63
Prosecutor v. Krnojelac, IT-97-25-T, Judgment, 15 March 2002 (“Krnojelac Trial Chamber Judgment”)
para. 81.
65
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
as a participant in a JCE, he contributed in the realization of a common purpose, design or
plan, with the intent to put into effect this prohibited purpose, or that he personally
committed the agreed crime as a principal perpetrator, or if he, as a co-perpetrator,
assisted the principal perpetrator to commit the agreed crime, or, if by his acts he
supported a particular system in which the crime was committed by reason of the
accused’s positon of authority or function, and with knowledge of the nature of that system
and intent to further that system. Therefore, as the ICTY's Appeals Chamber explained in
Vasiljević „it is sufficient for a participant in a joint criminal enterprise to perform acts that in
some way are directed at the furtherance of the common design.“64
169.
If one of the participants in a joint criminal enterprise commits the agreed crime, all
participants in the joint criminal enterprise in question will be held liable regardless of the
role each of them played in its commission.65 Although only some members of the group
may physically perpetrate the criminal act (murder, extermination, wanton destruction of
cities, towns or villages, etc.), the participation and contribution of the other members of
the group is often vital in facilitating the commission of the offense in question. It follows
that the moral gravity of such participation is often no less – or indeed no different - from
that of those actually carrying out the acts in question.66
170.
Under these circumstances, to hold criminally liable as a perpetrator only a person
who materially performs the criminal act would disregard the role as a co-perpetrators /de
coateur/ of all those who in some way made it possible for the perpetrator /auteur principal/
physically to carry out that criminal act. At the same time, depending upon the
circumstances, to hold the latter liable only as an aider and abettor might understate the
degree of their criminal liability.67
171.
An accused or another member of a JCE may use the principal perpetrators to
carry out the actus reus of the crime. However “an essential element in order to impute to
any accused member of the JCE liability for the crime committed by another person is that
the crime in question forms part of the common criminal purpose”.68 This may be inferred,
inter alia, from the fact that “the accused or any other member of the JCE closely
64
Vasiljević, Appeals Chamber Judgment, para. 102.
Krnojelac, Appeals Chamber Judgment, para. 82.
66
ICTY Appeals Chamber in Krnojelac, para 29.
67
Ibid.
65
66
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
cooperated with the principal perpetrator in order to further the common criminal
purpose.”69
172.
It should be also noted that all persons (principal perpetrators) who carried out the
actus reus of the crime need not be members of a joint criminal enterprise 70. At the same
time, the accused need not be present as a member of a joint criminal enterprise at the
time the crime is committed for this type of liability to be incurred.71
(b) Mens rea element (knowledge and intent)
173.
The requisite mens rea for the basic JCE is that the accused must possess the
intent to perpetrate a certain crime (this being the shared intent on the part of all coperpetrators)72 and the intent to participate in a common plan aimed at its commission.73 If
the common criminal purpose involves the commission of a crime requiring special intent,
for example the crime of persecution, the participant must also share the same intent.74
However, a common intent, even a special intent, may be inferred.75
174.
Nevertheless, the concept of JCE should not be set up and viewed too broadly, so
the case law has narrowed it. Thus, the Verdict of this Court in Stupar et al.76 noted the
following:
“Neither the case law nor the literature supports the proposition that a single
basic JCE can stretch from the highest echelons of the military leadership to the
lowliest foot soldier, including persons with such disparate roles and parts and
assigning them all the same level of criminal responsibility.”
68
Appeals Chamber Judgment in Martić, para. 68 quoting Prosecutor v. Martić, IT-95-11-T, Judgment,
12 June 2007 („Trial Chamber Judgment in Martić“), para. 438.
69
Appeals Chamber Judgment in Martić, para. 68 quoting the Trial Judgment in the same case, para. 438;
Appeals Chamber Judgment in Brđanin, para. 418.
70
Brđanin, Appeals Chamber Judgment, para. 414.
71
Krnojelac, Appeals Chamber Judgment, para. 81.
72
Vasiljević, Appeals Chamber Judgment, paras. 97 and101; Krnojelac, Appeals Chamber Judgment, para.
31. (emphasis added).
73
Brđanin, Appeals Chamber Judgment, para. 356 quoting the Appeals Chamber Judgment in Prosecutor v.
Kvočka et al., IT-98-30/1-A, 28 February 2005, (“Kvočka et al. Appeals Chamber Judgment”) para. 82
(requiring “intent to effect the common purpose”).
74
Prosecutor v. Kvočka et al., IT-98-30/1-T Judgment, 2 October 2001 (“Kvočka et al., Trial Chamber
Judgment”) para. 288.
75
Kvočka, Trial Chamber Judgment, para. 288.
76
See Trial Verdict in Stupar et al., No. X-KR-05/24, p. 173, with reference to Antonio Cassese, International
nd
Criminal Law, (Oxford: Oxford University Pres, 2 Edition), ps. 209-10.
67
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
175.
This form of co-perpetration of a crime is not appropriate for any case or any
accused. It has been cautiously applied to certain perpetrators whose acts and intent
satisfy the requisite standards.
B. JCE IN THE CONCRETE CASE
(a) Actus reus elements
(i) Plurality of persons
176.
The Panel has found that the Prosecution proved beyond a doubt, based on the
presented evidence, that in addition to the accused Adamović and Lukić, a plurality of
persons took part in the furtherance of the common purpose or plan of creating a separate
state of Bosnian Serbs by persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality
through a series of unlawful actions to be analyzed in detail further in the reasoning.
177.
Even though certain issues will be addressed in analyzing the second actus reus
element, the existence of a common purpose or design, the Panel must at this point deal
with certain issues in order to correlate all, or at least a certain number, of persons who
participated in the JCE together with the Accused.
178.
The plan to create a separate state of Bosnian Serbs and persecute Croats and
Muslims is not a plan envisaged at the level of the Ključ municipality, but rather forms part
of the policy of the higher authorities in the newly established Serb Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina. As already presented in para. 120 of the Verdict, such a plan of persecution
of Muslims and Croats, implemented through a widespread and systematic attack already
described, was a part of the policy set up at the Assembly of the Serb people of the
Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose extended hand throughout the whole former
Socialistic Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina were the Crisis Staffs of the new Serb
autonomous areas, including the Autonomous Region of Krajina, and Municipal Crisis
Staffs established by the SDS, including the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, whose
members became and within which the accused Adamović and Lukić also acted, together
with other supporters of the common design in question.
179.
Such a plan was strategically developed since late 1991 after the issuance of the
decision establishing the Assembly of Serb People in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the
68
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
decision of the Serb people to remain within the common state of Yugoslavia, the
Instruction of the SDS Main Board for the Organization and Activities of the Organs of
Serb People in BiH in Extraordinary Circumstances, to the final formal articulation of the
persecution plan at the session of the Assembly of Serb People in BiH of 12 May 1992,
when the strategic goals were set up. The first strategic goal, separation from the other
two ethnic collectivities, could not be realized in a peaceful manner, as apparent from
shorthand transcripts from the referenced session, particularly from the presentations of
Radovan Karadžić, Ratko Mladić and Momčilo Krajišnik77. The instructions set up at the
sessions of the Assembly of the Serb Republic BiH by the leading persons of the SDS
Main Board, primarily Karadžić and Krajišnik, and then also Radislav Brđanin, who was
appointed head of the new ARK, as President of the ARK Crisis Staff, were infiltrated to
lower levels exactly through the activities of persons holding functions in the lower-level
authorities.
181.
Radislav Brđanin was therefore part of the JCE already from its initial phase. As a
member of the Assembly of Serb People in BiH, whose sessions he attended, Brđanin
transferred the policy created at this level to the ARK level, as an appointed head of the
ARK. This autonomous region, like the three other regions (to be explained in detail in the
part addressing the common purposes as the second actus reus element of JCE), was
established for the purpose of easier realization of the policy created at the highest level of
the authorities of the state which is being established, the SDS Main Board and the
Assembly of Serb People in BiH to persecute the Muslim and Croat population in order to
create a separate state of Bosnian Serbs.
182.
As apparent from the ARK Official Gazette No. 2/92, by the decisions of the ARK
Assembly and the ARK Crisis Staff formed pursuant to the Instructions, Radislav Brđanin
ensured the implementation of the instructions and the policy set up at the Assembly of the
Serb People in BiH, which were most obviously manifested in the Instructions – its Variant
A. As a leading figure and the President of the ARK Crisis Staff, Radislav Brđanin signed a
series of decisions ensuring the realization of the set common purpose. Crisis Staffs were
established as the highest authorities, which launched the activities related to the
77
th
See Exhibit T-154, Record from the 16 session of the Serb People in BiH held on 12 May 1992 in Banja
Luka.
69
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
disarmament of the population78, mobilization79, and removal of judges and prosecutors
from their functions. Specifically, municipal presidents were requested to propose judges
and prosecutors for basic courts, and only the most professional staff absolutely loyal to
the Serb Republic of BiH could be appointed to the leading positions in the socially-owned
and public subjects. In addition, the issues of displacement and removal of the Muslim and
Croat population and the cooperation between the civilian and military authorities were
considered, and a series of decisions made in relation to those and similar issues.
183.
At its session held on 27 May 1992, the Ključ Municipal Crisis Staff gave
legitimacy to decisions of the ARK Crisis Staff. Many witnesses testified that the decisions
concerning the disarmament and prohibition to come to work, relocation and arrests were
implemented in practice. Clearly, members of the Ključ Municipal Crisis Staff followed this
policy and implemented such decisions at the Ključ municipality level. All decisions had
only one goal – realization of the plan of persecution. That the decisions of the ARK Crisis
Staffs were obligatory already before the issuance of the decision giving legitimacy to the
Crisis Staffs on 27 May 1992 is shown by the fact that much before this date, one of the
agenda items at the sessions of the Ključ Municipal Crisis Staff was consideration of the
conclusions from the ARK sessions. The decisions of the municipal Crisis Staff, in fact,
followed the decisions already made by the ARK80.
184.
The foregoing ensues from the records from the sessions of the OO SDS in Ključ,
and subsequent records from the sessions of the Ključ Municipal Crisis Staff, where more
or less the same persons were active, namely Jovo Banjac, President of the SO Ključ,
Veljko Kondić, President of the SDS Municipal Board, Vinko Kondić, Chief of the CJB
Ključ. These men were at the same time members of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff,
together with the accused Lukić and Adamović. Having informed the attendees about the
Instructions on the Organization and Activities of the Serb People in Extraordinary
78
Conclusion from the session of the ARK Crisis Staff (ARK CS) of 9 May 1992 „...we again urge that
presidents of SNO immediately undertake activities to disarm paramilitary formations and individuals who are
illegally in possession of the weapons and ammunition. Weapons should be handed over to the closest SJB
no later than 11 May 1992“; Conclusion from the ARK CS session of 11 May 1992, „the deadline for handover of illegally obtained weapons is prolonged by 14 May 1992.“
79
Conclusion from the session of the ARK CS of 9 May 1992: “Any person in business and public entities
who did not respond to the to-date calls for mobilization cannot participate in deciding on the process of work
and in securing the facilities …”
80
See Record from the CS session of 13/14 May 1992, Exhibit T-231.
70
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Circumstances at one of the OO SDS sessions, in late 1991, Veljko Kondić noted, inter
alia, that Karadžić’s proposals may be accepted even “by sight unseen”81.
185.
Vinko Kondić, member of the OO SDS, subsequently of the Ključ Municipal Crisis
Staff, and at the same time Chief of the SJB Ključ, acted as a member of the JCE. Already
in the autumn 1991, Vinko Kondić acted as an activist in the OO SDS Ključ, attended
sessions where members of the OO SDS were informed about the Instructions and the
guidelines set up at the established Assembly of the Serb People in BiH. As the leading
police figure, he significantly contributed to the realization of the common purpose. As
witnesses Mustafa Lepirica, Atif Džafić and some other witnesses testified, Kondić first
appeared among the police prewar workers in a uniform with the Serb insignia, called
prewar Muslim and Croat employees to sign loyalty statements, and removed Muslims and
Croats from their work posts. Witness Muhamed Filipović testified that “Vinko’s police”
drove his brother Omer away after he had been called to surrender and surrendered.
Omer was severely beaten in the camps and ultimately killed at the Manjača camp. The
witnesses testified that a red police van had rounded up Muslim men in the villages, and
brought them to the police station where they were interrogated, beaten and then
transferred to various camps, while some of them were even killed. It ensues from the
testimonies of many witnesses that the police are to be most credited for the arrests of
Muslim citizens in the Ključ and its surroundings. Many of them, who had known Vinko
Kondić from before, asked for an interview with him upon being arrested, but failed to meet
him. In fact, exactly Vinko Kondić supported all these unlawful acts and participated in their
commission as a part of the system of persecution of Muslims and Croats in order to
further the common purpose.
186.
It was not possible to implement any of the foregoing without cooperation with the
military authorities. Superiors in the military bodies within the 30th Partisan Division,
Colonel Stanislav Galić, and Momir Talić and Boro Grujić, Commanders of the I and II
Krajina Corps (the KC) respectively, played a significant role and held positions important
for the realization of the persecution plan. That the referenced representatives of the
military authorities were engaged in furtherance of the common design, specifically, that
there was a close cooperation between the civilian and military authorities, is confirmed by
Exhibit T-155, Record from the meeting of the municipal representatives in the zone of
81
T-209, Record form the 6th session of the IO OO SDS of 23 December 1991 when Brana Vojvodić stated:
71
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
responsibility of the 30th Division, held on 14 May 1992, and attended, among others, by
Colonel Galić. The strategic goals set up at the meeting in Banja Luka were presented at
the referenced meeting. Jovo Banjac and Boško Lukić, who had attended the meeting,
briefed the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff about the results of the meeting.
188.
The plan to persecute the civilian Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ
municipality was tactically developed at the sessions of the OO SDS and the Municipal
Crisis Staff, while the activities aimed at implementing this plan were undertaken on the
ground, where the police and the military played the key role. Therefore, there is no doubt
that the leading figure of the police, Chief of the SJB Ključ-Vinko Kondić, and the TO Staff
Commander, Boško Lukić, acted as members of the JCE. Clearly, the adduced evidence,
the records from the sessions of the OO SDS and the Crisis Staff, showed that crucial
discussions were held and plans developed at those meetings as to how to engage,
mobilize and arm the TO, reorganize and improve the professional skills of the command
staff. Boško Lukić, and subsequently Marko Adamović, played significant roles in those
issues.
189.
The TO itself was reorganized and became monoethnic. As such, it was armed
with the weapons that belonged to the former state, and which had been relocated exactly
for the purpose of preventing Muslims and Croats from obtaining weapons in any way. The
TO closely cooperated with the remaining parts of the JNA, which were deployed in the
territory of the Ključ municipality pursuant to the decisions made at the sessions of the OO
SDS and the Crisis Staff. All those units were linked and formed the basis for the
establishment of the Army of the Serb Republic of BiH, subsequently the VRS, while the
most credit for its establishment at the ARK level goes to the above mentioned Stanislav
Galić, Momir Talić and Boro Grujić. One should not, however, disregard the role of the
other actors at the lower municipal levels, such as the accused Lukić, who had undertaken
the actions to establish the Serb TO, mobilize the Infantry Battalion and subsequently the
17th Ključ Light Infantry Brigade, which also comprised the previously established Infantry
Battalion (Exhibit T-196). At certain period of time, all these units were engaged in the
persecution of the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality (17th Light Infantry
Brigade, and subsequently in the wider area), with the aim of implementing the common
design for the purpose of which they were established in the first place.
„I can accept all Karadžić's proposals without seeing them“.
72
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
190.
The above referenced participants in the JCE were linked and active at different
levels of authority, from the highest state level (or the new established Serb Republic of
BiH) and the SDS Main Board, to members of the ARK Crisis Staff, the OO SDS and the
Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, that is, they acted as a plurality of persons within the
referenced JCE. The foregoing is apparent from the Record from the 11th session of the
Ključ SDS Executive Board held on 30 March 1992, which was attended by the accused
Lukić. At the referenced session, Veljko Kondić informed the attendees that he had
attended meetings in Sarajevo and Banja Luka, where Karadžić had briefed them “about
the discussions regarding BiH and other issues”. Even though this information was entered
in the Record as quoted here, the conclusion ensuing from this presentation leaves no
dilemma as to what Karadžić’s information about BiH indeed concerned. The conclusion
stated that “all relevant services should undertake all necessary activities to ensure best
response to the mobilization”. At the same meeting, it was noted that the TO Staff
weapons had been relocated. The accused Boško Lukić further stated that “all free
manpower should be gathered... and defense preparations addressed”.
191.
The accused Adamović also became a member of the JCE even though, in the
beginning, he did not attend the Crisis Staff sessions. His activities at Sitnica, related to
the training of the military reserve personnel, reporting at the sessions of the Crisis Staff in
the capacity of the Town Defense Commander and the activities on the ground directed at
persecuting Muslims and Croats were undoubtedly acts undertaken with the view to
implementing the common design. In view of the foregoing, the Panel has concluded that
the Prosecution proved the participation of a plurality of persons in the JCE that was
carried out in the territory of the Ključ municipality. The role of individual participants, or at
least of most participants, will become clearer further in the reasoning of the Verdict
addressing the second actus reus element of the JCE, the existence of a common design
and intent.
(ii) The existence of a common purpose or intent
192.
In the Panel’s view, the Prosecution proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
there was a common design, purpose or intent, formulated as the establishment of a
separate state of the Bosnian Serbs, which could be implemented exclusively by way of
serious and systematic violations of international law – by persecution of Muslims and
Croats on discriminatory grounds.
73
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
193.
To better understand a common purpose, as the second actus reus element of the
JCE, the overall political situation needs to be viewed in more detail, starting from the
multi-partisan elections in Bosnia and Herzegovina, in November 1990, to the spring of
1992, both throughout Bosnia and Herzegovina and in the territory of the Ključ
municipality.
194.
The facts established by the ICTY show the following: “In November 1990, the first
multi-party elections were held in BiH, whereby the people voted for the Assembly of the
SRBH, the Presidency of the SRBH and the municipal and local Assemblies in all the
municipalities in BiH. The SDA, SDS and HDZ collectively won an overwhelming majority
of the votes. The vote accurately portrayed the polarization amongst the ethnic
communities taking place in BiH at the time. Pursuant to a power sharing agreement
reached prior to the elections, the SDA, having obtained a majority at the republican level,
was allowed to designate the President of the seven persons Presidency. Alija Izetbegovic
was appointed to this position. The SDS designated the President of the Assembly of the
SRBH, Momcilo Krajisnik, and the HDZ designated the President of the Executive Council,
i.e., the Prime Minister, Jure Pelivan”82. “Cooperation among the three nationalist parties
was initially good, even enthusiastic, in the euphoria that followed the defeat of the League
of Communists. However, the break-up of the SFRY commencing in 1991 resulted in the
deterioration of both the situation in BiH in general and the relations between the
ethnicities in particular. On 25 June 1991, the Parliaments of Slovenia and Croatia
respectively issued declarations of independence, which led to armed conflicts in both
these break-away republics. In Slovenia, the JNA withdrew after a 10-day war. In Croatia,
the war lasted longer. The Croatian army was opposed by the JNA and by local
paramilitary groups organized by Croatian Serbs and Serbs from the Republic of Serbia.
On 2 January 1992, the hostilities in Croatia came to a provisional halt with a ceasefire
agreement between the JNA and Croatia. UN forces (United Nations Protection Force –
“UNPROFOR”) were deployed to maintain peace. On 15 January 1992, the European
Community recognized the new states of Slovenia and Croatia.”83
195.
Different positions among the national parties were becoming more obvious, and
particularly confronting regarding the BiH constitutional position: Thus, the following
ensued from the established facts: “In this atmosphere of tension the three main nationalist
82
Established fact I-1.
74
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
parties, having separate national agendas with conflicting interests, failed to reconcile their
differences and started moving in opposite directions. Most importantly, they disagreed on
the question of the constitutional status of BiH. While the SDA and the HDZ promoted the
secession of the SRBH from the SFRY, the SDS strongly advocated the preservation of
Yugoslavia as a state, in order to ensure that the Serbs would continue to live together in a
single state, and would not become a minority in an independent Bosnian state. On 15
October 1991, SDS President Radovan Karadzic made an impassioned speech before the
Assembly of the SRBH in Sarajevo, indicating the possibility that Bosnian Muslims could
disappear as a group if they declared the independence of the SRBH from the SFRY. SDA
President Alija Izetbegovic responded that Karadzic’s threatening message and its method
of presentation illustrated why the SRBH might be forced to separate from the SFRY. After
the Republican Assembly of the SRBH had adjourned for the day and the SDS delegation
had departed, HDZ and SDA delegates reconvened without them and passed a
“Declaration of Sovereignty”, a measure that moved the SRBH a step closer to
independence.”84
196.
Therefore, already in the second half of 1991, the contours became visible of the
strategic goals of the Serb people, proposed a half of year later by Radovan Karadžić and
unanimously adopted at the Assembly of the Serb people in BiH. “During the 16th session
of the SerBiH Assembly that took place on 12 May 1992, at a time when the armed conflict
had already begun, Radovan Karadzic articulated the six strategic goals of the Serbian
People of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The first {...} goal was the “separation from the other
two national communities – separation of states”. The other goals concerned the
establishment of a corridor between Semberija and Krajina; the establishment of a corridor
in the Drina Valley; the establishment of a border on the Una and Neretva rivers; the
division of the city of Sarajevo into Serb and Muslim sectors; and, finally, securing access
to the sea for the SerBiH.”85
197.
In addition, already on 15 October 1991, “the SDS Party Council discussed
strategies on how to set up a Serbian government, which included establishing parallel
government bodies, the regionalization of BiH and organizing militarily.”86
83
Established fact-I-2.
Established fact -I-5.
85
Established fact II-17.
86
Established fact-II-6.
84
75
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
198.
In such circumstances, “On 24 October 1991, the SDS Deputies in the Assembly
of the SRBH, in a meeting of their club, established a separate Assembly of the Serbian
People in Bosnia and Herzegovina (“SerBiH Assembly”) and elected Momcilo Krajisnik as
its President. The SerBiH Assembly authorized a plebiscite of the Serbian people of BiH
on the question of whether or not they wanted BiH to remain within Yugoslavia. On 9 and
10 December 1991, the Bosnian Serbs voted overwhelmingly to remain a part of the
SFRY.”87
199.
However, it soon became obvious that the decision to remain within Yugoslavia
was only a screen for some other activities. Making such a decision only opened the space
for the realization of the set common goals, from taking control in certain municipalities to
the implementation of the ultimate goal of establishing a separate state of Bosnian Serbs
by persecution of Muslims and Croats. Such a conclusion particularly ensues from the
“Recommendation to cease placing signs with the name and image of Josip Broz Tito”,
unanimously adopted several months later at the 14th session of the Assembly of Serb
people in BiH held on 27 March 1992.88 It should be noted here that the referenced
Recommendation followed the discussion and ceremonial adoption of the Constitution of
the Serb Republic BiH, when Radovan Karadžić, inter alia, stated the following: “… I may
say there is no Serb who refused the ultimate strategic goal of the Serb people to live in a
single state, which he might temporarily put aside for tactical reasons, that is, in a
community of states, in an alliance of states …”
200.
“In a speech given on the occasion of the “Plebiscite of the Serb People” in
Sarajevo in November 1991, Radovan Karadzic instructed SDS members representing the
municipalities to impose complete Bosnian Serb authority in their respective municipalities,
regions and local communities. On 11 December 1991, the SerBiH Assembly voted to
recommend the establishment of separate Serbian municipalities. The declared aim of this
decision was “to break up the existing municipalities where Serbs are not in a majority.“89
The referenced goal was further developed through the Instructions for the Organization
and Activity of Organs of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary
Circumstances adopted by the SDS Main Board in December 1991, marked as “strictly
87
Established fact -I-6.
Exhibit T-142, Agenda Item No. 4.
89
Established fact -II-7.
88
76
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
confidential”90. As also noted in the established facts: “On 19 December 1991, the Main
Board of the SDS issued a document entitled “Instructions for the Organization and Activity
of Organs of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary
Circumstances” (the Instructions). These instructions provided for the conduct of specified
activities in all municipalities in which Serbs lived, and essentially mapped out the takeover of power by Bosnian Serbs in municipalities where they constituted a majority of the
population (“Variant A”) and where they were in a minority (“Variant B”). The stated
purpose of the Variant A and B Instructions was “to carry out the results of the plebiscite at
which the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina decided to live in a single state” and
to “increase mobility and readiness for the defense of the interests of the Serbian
people“.91 “The Variant A and B Instructions included, amongst others, the directive that
the SDS Municipal Boards should form Crisis Staffs of the Serbian people in their
respective municipalities. The “tasks, measures and other activities” referred to in the
Variant A and B Instructions were to be carried out exclusively at the order of the President
of the SDS.”92
201.
While the Muslim and Croat parties in BiH supported the independence of Bosnia
and Herzegovina as a state following the signing of the Declaration of Independence of 15
October 1991, and despite the split within the SR BiH Assembly which was abandoned on
24 October 1991 by Serb delegates, who established a separate Assembly of Serb People
in BiH, the activities of Muslim parties, primarily of the SDA, towards achieving the
independence of the state, did not cease. “In early 1992, the SDA increased the pressure
to secure independence of the SRBH from the SFRY. A referendum on the question of
independence was held on 29 February and 1 March 1992. It was largely boycotted by the
Bosnian Serbs and yielded an overwhelming majority of votes in favour of the
independence of BiH. In view of the result of the referendum, on 6 April 1992, the
European Community recognized BiH as an independent state. Recognition by the US
followed on 7 April 1992”93. At the same time, however, the Bosnian Serb leadership
worked actively to achieve its goals, so “In early 1992, while international negotiations to
resolve the question of the status of BiH were ongoing, the Bosnian Serb leadership
enforced its plan to separate the territories claimed by them from the existing structures of
90
Exhibit T-126.
Established fact -II-8.
92
Established fact -II-9.
93
Established fact- I-7.
91
77
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
the SRBH and to create a separate Bosnian Serb State. On 9 January 1992, the SerBiH
Assembly proclaimed the SerBiH, which on 12 August 1992 was renamed Republika
Srpska (“RS”). It was composed of so-called Serbian autonomous regions and districts,
which included the Autonomous Region of Krajina”.94
202.
In this way commenced the implementation of the strategic goals which, although
officially proclaimed by Radovan Karadžić at the Assembly of the Serb Republic of BiH no
sooner than May 1992, obviously had existed for a much longer period of time, considering
all the above analyzed activities and all the activities undertaken for their realization.
203.
Regional organization is one of the main links in the process of the power-take
over. The established autonomous regions facilitated coordination and provided for a more
efficient implementation and realization in practice of the common design - creation of the
state of Bosnian Serbs, which could be effected only by persecuting the Muslim and
Croatian population.
204.
The ARK played the most significant role in the Ključ municipality. Radislav
Brđanin, a member of the Assembly of the Serb people in BiH, was also appointed leader
of the ARK, specifically, the President of the Crisis Staff, established in compliance with
the above referenced Instructions. In this way, Brđanin could implement, directly in the
ARK territory, all decisions passed by the Assembly of the Serb people in BiH and the
SDS Main Board. Thus Radislav Brđanin, as the leading person, President of the ARK
Crisis Staff, signed a series of decisions providing for the implementation of the
established common design. The Crisis Staffs were established as the highest authority
bodies, and the activities commenced to disarm the population95, raise mobilization-related
issues96, remove judges and prosecutors from their office, and specifically, municipal
presidents were ordered to propose judges and prosecutors for basic courts, and that only
most professional experts loyal to the Srpska Republika BiH could be appointed to the
94
Established fact II-10.
T-139, Conclusion from the session of the ARK CS of 9 May 1992, „..We again urge the presidents of
SNO to immediately undertake the actions to disarm the paramilitary formations and individuals who
unlawfully possessed weaponry and ammunition. Weaponry should be handed over in the nearest SJB no
later than 11 May 1992. “; Conclusion from the session of the ARK CS of 11 May 1992, stating that “the
deadline for handing over illegally obtained weapons was extended until 14 May 1992. “
96
T-139, Conclusion from the session of the ARK CS of 9 May 1992: “All persons employed with commercial
and public companies which did not respond to the mobilization calls to date cannot take part in making
decisions on the work process and in the securing the facilities …”.
95
78
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
leading positions in social and public subjects.97 Also considered were the issues of
relocation of Muslims and Croats98, cooperation between the civilian and military
authorities,99 and a series of decisions made regarding those and similar issues. In the
Panel’s view, the fact that already on 11 May 1992 a decision was made at the ARK level
ordering that the school year is to end no later than 20 May 1992, with an obvious goal to
prevent children from being an obstacle to the planned activities, shows how far the plan of
implementation of the common design reached.
205.
As to the leadership of the Ključ municipality, the ethnic structure and the way in
which the SDS made important political decisions by outvoting were explained in para. 81
of the Verdict. In this way, and despite the objections of Muslim and Croat representatives,
a decision was made to join the Ključ municipality with the Autonomous Region of
''Bosanska Krajina'' (ARK).100 Witness Egrlić explained in detail the circumstances relating
to the accession of the Ključ municipality, first to the Banja Luka region, and subsequently
to the ARK. The witness stated that the initiator of the decisions on regional organization
was the SDS leadership, particularly Radislav Brđanin. Such regions had been already
established in Croatia, so the regional organization in BiH just followed the same pattern.
In the beginning, regional organization was carried out on the economic basis. Also
established on this basis was the region of Banja Luka, to which Ključ municipality
generally belonged within the context of economic organization, wherefore Muslim
delegates in the Town Assembly considered the accession decision unnecessary.
However, this form of regional organization lost its ostensible character and became an
organization on political ground. Established fact II-13 addressed it as follows: “On 7 April
1991, the SDS Regional Board decided to create the Community of Municipalities of
Bosnian Krajina (“ZOBK”). Vojo Kupresanin was elected President of the ZOBK Assembly,
while the Accused was elected First Vice-President and Dragan Knezevic was elected
Second Vice-President. The ZOBK was composed of sixteen municipalities from the
Bosnian Krajina, all of which, except Kljuc, had substantial Bosnian Serb majorities. {...}
Unlike the Banja Luka Community of Municipalities (“ZOBL”) which had existed previously,
the ZOBK’s mandate included a strong defense component. Decisions of the ZOBK
97
T-139 Conclusion from the session of the ARK CS of 26 May 1992.
T-139 Conclusion from the session of the ARK Crisis Staff of 29 May 1992: “A decision was made enable
all Muslims and Croats, who wanted to leave the ARK territory, to do so …”.
99
T-139 Conclusion from the session of the ARK Crisis Staff of 27 May 1992.
100
Exhibit T-129 Decision on Accession of the Ključ Municipality to the Autonomous Region of ''Bosanska
Krajina'' number 05-023-3/92 of 16 January 1992.
98
79
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Assembly and minutes from its meetings show that this was an association intended to coordinate all major areas of administrative government in the municipalities that joined the
ZOBK, and that its agenda was a political one.”101
206.
The political character of the new Serb regions particularly became apparent at the
stage when the ZOBK had already become the ARK. Specifically, “At its 7th session, held
on 16 September 1991, the ZOBK Assembly transformed itself into the Autonomous
Region of Krajina (“ARK”). The decision in question states that the ARK was being
established “as an inseparable part of the Federal State of Federative Yugoslavia and an
integral part of the Federal Unit of BiH”. On the same date, the Statute of the ARK, which
was almost identical to the ZOBK Statute, was adopted. Like the ZOBK, the ARK had its
seat in Banja Luka.” 102 “The ARK possessed authority over a wide range of issues. It was
a political body vested with powers that belonged to the municipalities, including powers in
the area of defense. Pursuant to its Statute, the ARK was in charge, inter alia, of the
realization of socio-political objectives. In the legal parlance of the former Yugoslavia,
socio-political communities were meant to denote governmental units. A regional
association of municipalities, as provided for by the law, was not a governmental unit, and
could therefore not have jurisdiction over defense matters, which were reserved to sociopolitical communities, including the republican and the municipal authorities.103 „The ARK
did have jurisdiction in the area of defense. It’s Statute provided that the ARK “shall
monitor the situation and co-ordinate activities for the organization and implementation of
preparations for All Peoples’ Defense in accordance with the Law, municipal defense plans
and the republican defense plan”. The ARK Statute also included a provision to the effect
that the ARK Assembly shall have a permanent “Political Council” dealing with “issues of
development of the political system” and a permanent “Peoples’ Defense Council” dealing
with “issues from the area of peoples’ defense which are relevant to the Autonomous
Region of Krajina.” {...}104
207.
Opposition of the Muslim delegates to the accession of the Ključ municipality to
the ZOBL, and subsequently to the ZOBK and the ARK, was not successful. As witness
Egrlić testified, at the meeting with Stojan Župljanin, Jovo Banjac, Veljko Kondić and Vinko
101
Established fact II-13.
Established fact II-2.
103
Established fact II-4.
104
Established fact II-5.
102
80
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Kondić in Banja Luka, which he had attended together with Omer Filipović in an effort to
find a compromise solution, Omer and he were “mocked“. The witness stated that none of
his questions had been taken seriously. When he asked Župljanin, “Where are we,
Bosniaks, in all this?”, Župljanin responded to him: “You should recognize yourselves, as
you have anyway originated from Serbs”. On this occasion, Župljanin gave Omer and the
witness two berets with a three-color symbol of the Serb state. Thereafter, at the session
of the municipal assembly, the SDS representatives made a decision to merge the Ključ
municipality with the newly established regional organization. According to witness
Filipović, Muslim delegates left this session after a deliberately provoked incident which
was the last attempt aimed at preventing the issuance of such a decision and outvoting.
208.
In January 1992, upon a verification of the previously made decision on accession,
the Ključ municipality became a member of the ARK, a regional area established pursuant
to the directive of the SDS Main Board and the Assembly of the Serb people in Banja
Luka.
209.
Records from the sessions of the OO SDS show that the political life of the Ključ
municipality itself had, already at the time, functioned pursuant to the these directives and
instructions, rather than pursuant to the policy at the level of the Socialistic Republic of
BiH.
210.
Pursuant to the Instructions Variant A, the SDS Ključ Municipal Board decided, at
its session on 23 December 1991, to establish a municipal crisis staff, which would
comprise Banjac, Veljko Kondić, Vinko Kondić, Ljuban Bajić, Tihomir Dakić and some
other persons. Pursuant to the Instructions, the TO Staff Commander was also a member
of this Municipal Crisis Staff. As already explained in para. 119, Boško Lukić became a TO
Staff Commander. Marko Adamović subsequently became a member of the Crisis Staff as
the Town Defense Commander, as also explained in para. 126 of the Verdict.
211.
Record from the 6th session of the OO SDS Executive Board, at which the
attendees were notified of the Instructions, and pursuant to its contents, a decision
rendered establishing the Ključ Municipal Crisis Staff, indicates that members of the SDS
Municipal Board and Assembly of the Serb people in BiH specifically shared the common
design established at the higher levels. That members of the SDS Municipal Board,
including Jovo Banjac, Veljko Kondić, Vinko Kondić, the accused Boško Lukić, and
subsequently Marko Adamović, became supporters and followers of the established
81
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
common design is shown by the records from the following sessions of the OO SDS and
the Ključ Municipal Crisis Staff. All SDS activities were directed at the implementation of
the goals set up in the Instructions. In addition to the decision establishing the Crisis Staff,
which will become the highest body of the municipal authorities, also discussed at the
sessions were the obligation to comply with the Federal laws, the TO organization, the
arming and removal of the TO weapons, the need to remove non-Serb personnel, etc.. In
parallel with the issuance of the Assembly decision to cease using the symbols related to
Josip Broz Tito,105 the Serb symbols were introduced in the Ključ municipality. Witnesses
Asim Egrlić, Muhamed Filipović, Enes Salihović and many others consistently testified
about the foregoing. They stated that a three-color flag, the symbol of Serb people in
Bosnia and Serbia, was hoisted on the municipal building, and that the military and the
police also wore this symbol.
212.
The Crisis Staff became the highest body of the municipal authorities.106 At the
Crisis Staff Session held on 27 May 1992, the ARK decisions were made legitimate, and
addressing the ARK decisions had already become a regular issue at the Crisis Staff
sessions.107 That the Crisis Staff shared the established common design is particularly
shown by the fact that it was constantly in session since the beginning of the attack on the
civilian Muslim population,108 and that reports from the field were regularly submitted at the
Crisis Staff sessions, in the activities of which the roles of the accused Lukić, Adamović
and Vinko Kondić, as the Chief of the SJB, were of particular significance. The contents of
the records of the Crisis Staff sessions and the Report on the activities of the Crisis Staff/
/War Presidency of the SO Ključ for the period after 15 May 1992 (the Crisis Staff was
under a subsequent decision renamed War Presidency, but the composition of its
members and its activities undoubtedly show it was one and the same body), indicate that
this body rendered key decisions related to the actions by which Muslim and Croat
civilians were persecuted from the Ključ municipality, namely that its members followed the
common design established at the higher levels of the new state authorities.
105
T- 142 Shorthand transcript of the 14th session of the Assembly of Serb people in BiH; “Recommendation
to cease using symbols related to Josip Broz Tito”, at the 14th session of the Assembly of Serb people in BiH
held on 27 March 1992.
106
T-229 Conclusion from the session of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff of 27 May 1992 (Item 3), T-260
„Report on the Activities of the Crisis Staff/ War Presidency/SO Ključ during the period from 15 May 1992 to
date “- The document originated from July 1992.
107
Exhibit T-229.
108
T-229 Records of the sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff of 27-30 May, 1-6 June 1992,
including even 9 June 1992.
82
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
213.
In the Panel’s view, the foregoing is particularly obvious from the Record of the
meeting of the Municipal Crisis Staff dated 30 May 1992, which stated the following: “The
session of the Crisis Staff attended by the Commanders concluded as follows: (1)
accepted hereby is the Commanders’ decision to impose a blockade on (the villages of)
Ramići, Plamenica, Vukovo Selo, Krasulje and Kamičak, with an obligation to call (the
population) into unconditional surrender and surrender of their weapons, and, if no
resistance is offered, to cleanse the terrain...” The referenced conclusion should be viewed
in relation to the testimonies of a number of witnesses who testified exactly about the
events that occurred in the mentioned villages when Serb soldiers passed through them
on these and the days that followed, which will be addressed in the part relating to the
individual charges in the enacting clause of the Verdict. On several occasions, discussed
at the Crisis Staff sessions was the issue of the transfer of Muslim population. Reports
were submitted to the Crisis Staff about the activities conducted on the ground, including
both military actions of the terrain cleansing and the police activities related to
disarmament, deprivation of liberty and processing of the arrested.109 At the session held
on 1 June 1992, Vinko Kondić, as the Chief of the SJB, notified the Crisis Staff, inter alia,
about “the processing of arrested individuals.” This record was correlated with the
testimonies of all the witnesses who had been arrested and captured in the period from
27 May through 1 June, and subsequently escorted either to the CJB or Nikola Mačkić
primary school, or some other place designated for the processing of arrested individuals.
According to all the witnesses, the “processing” implied severe beatings of persons, before
escorting those who had survived this torture to some of the established camps. All the
foregoing raised no doubts that members of the Crisis Staff supported the common design
in furtherance of which all the referenced activities were undertaken.
214.
Within the context of common design, one should also consider the decisions of
the Crisis Staff relating to the (in)ability of Muslim employees to work, their placement on
waiting lists, the removal of judges and prosecutors from their duties and the appointment
of Serb personnel instead of them. Many of the witnesses heard explained that the
exclusive standard for which certain persons were prohibited from coming to their work
posts, and for which their employment was terminated, was their ethnicity. Such activities
were undertaken based on the Crisis Staff decisions. In view of the foregoing, such
decisions clearly formed part of the persecution of Muslims and Croats from the territory of
109
T-229 Record of the session of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff of 1 June 1992.
83
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
the Ključ municipality (and, viewed in a broader context, from the ARK territory too,
because the decisions of the Municipal Crisis Staff regarding this matter were in
compliance with similar decisions of the ARK Crisis Staff), all with a view to realizing the
common design – creating a separate state of Bosnian Serbs.
215.
The Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff played a crucial role related to the issues of
removal of the civilian Muslim and Croat population. This issue was one of the agenda
items at a number of sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff held during the critical
period. The Crisis Staff issued a Press Release No. 20/92110 which stated as follows:
“1. All citizens in the Ključ municipality expressing their wish to permanently leave
the territory of the Ključ municipality, will be provided with an organized transfer
from the territory of the Ključ municipality by international humanitarian
organizations and relevant bodies in the Assembly of the Ključ municipality.
2. Citizens interested in the foregoing may report to the Municipal Assembly –
Civil Defense Department or to local committees in the local communities...”
216.
The Panel has evaluated the referenced Press Release together with a
conclusion, drawn two days later at the Crisis Staff session, that “the issue of organized
relocation of the Muslim population should be resolved”. It ensues from this conclusion that
the issue of relocation did not concern the Serb population. Together with the foregoing,
the Panel also evaluated the testimonies of the witnesses who had described the
procedures related to their leaving the Ključ municipality. Witnesses Ćerim Hrnčić, Mimka
Brkić, Merim Filipović, Enes Mršić, and some other witnesses consistently testified that the
leaving of the Ključ municipality was everything but a voluntary one. All the circumstances
preceding such a decision of the referenced witnesses, all Muslim citizens, due to which
further living there became unbearable, resulted in their decision to leave their houses.
However, prior to their leaving, they had to give a statement that “they are leaving all their
property to the Serb Republic of BiH”. Prior to that, the witnesses who had lived in the
villages of the Ključ municipality had to obtain, in their local communities or similar places,
certificates for free movement to the town in order to be able to give statement that they
would leave their property to the new authority. Return of the citizens who had already, in
certain way, abandoned the territory of the Ključ municipality, was prohibited under the
decision of the Crisis Staff rendered at its session on 27 May 1992. The Panel has
110
Press release of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff No. 20/92 of 4 June 1992.
84
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
concluded, on the basis of the foregoing, that the referenced decisions were also rendered
with the view to implementing the persecution goal.
217.
In view of the foregoing, the Appellate Panel concluded that the second actus reus
element of the JCE, the existence of a common design (purpose or intent), has been
satisfied too.
(iii) Certain direct perpetrators commit individual criminal offenses by which the common
criminal design or purpose is being implemented
218.
This requisite for the existence of JCE will be addressed in more detail in the
reasoning relating to the individual charges in Chapters IX A through H of the Verdict. It
should be noted here that the commission of individual crimes has been proved, and that
the Defense teams did not contest the objective commission itself of these crimes, but
denied any contribution of their clients to the commission thereof.
(iv) The Accused’s participation in the common design which includes commission of one
of crimes
219.
The Appellate Panel has concluded that the Prosecution proved, beyond a doubt,
that by their acts both these Accused contributed to the persecution of Muslims and Croats
from the Ključ municipality, and that their contribution was aimed at the implementation of
common design, creating a separate state of Bosnian Serbs, which renders them liable as
participants in the JCE. Having acted from their respective positions, the TO Staff
Commander and a member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff (Boško Lukić), and a
reserve TO officer, subsequently Assistant Commander for Information, Morale and
Religious Matters (Marko Adamović), being aware of the system of persecution, and with
the intent to support this system, both these Accused supported the system, and by their
actions, to be explained in detail in the description of their participation, contributed to the
realization of the common design.
a. The accused Boško Lukić
221.
As reasoned in paras. 116-119 of the Verdict, the Panel concluded that the
defense of the accused Boško Lukić, who denied being a member of the Ključ Municipality
Crisis Staff at the critical time, was ill-founded. The Panel also concluded that, regardless
of the fact whether the accused Boško Lukić was formally a member of the SDS or not, the
85
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
adduced evidence confirms that, since January 1992 when the accused Lukić was
appointed as the TO Staff Commander, he attended several meetings of the OO SDS. Not
only that the accused Lukić attended those meetings, but he also took an active part both
in those meetings and the subsequent meetings of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff.
223.
Analyzing his activities at the referenced meetings and on the ground, the Panel
will explain the element of participation as an actus reus element of the JCE.
224.
It follows from the chronology of the Indictment that the Accused was charged that,
after assuming the function of the TO Staff Commander, he actively led and commanded
over the TO Staff, organized and trained new TO units, and thereupon undertook activities
to establish the 17th Light Infantry Brigade. Even though the TO-related activities quite
certainly fall within the scope of duties and tasks of the mandate of the TO Staff
commander, considering that the Accused was appointed to this post under the decision of
the Republic body (SRBiH)111, which fact was particularly highlighted by the defense during
the proceedings, it would be logical that he complied with the instructions of the Republic
bodies. However, the Accused led and commanded over the TO pursuant to the
Instructions, ignoring the Republic laws and acting in compliance with the policy of the
Assembly of the Serb People in BiH and the SDS policy.
225.
As it transpires from the records from the sessions of the OO SDS held in early
1992, attended by the Accused, he actively undertook actions to organize the TO Staff
units. Thus, the Record from the 5th session of the OO SDS and the Club of the Board
members held on 22 January 1992112, shows that one of the items on the agenda (Item 3)
is “establishment of the TO units in the municipality”, and that, presenting this issue, Boško
Lukić stated as follows: “The manning of the TO would be done in each LC individually,113
particularly due to the specific character of each territory”. It was concluded at the same
meeting that all the activities relating to the TO organization should be completed by the
end of January 1992. However, the Record from the session of the Executive Board of the
OO SDS held on 25 February 1992 shows that not all the activities were completed within
the referenced period, because the first agenda item was “Supplementing the TO”, and
that, with reference to this item, Veljko Kondić emphasized the “need to complete all the
111
Exhibit T-443.
Exhibit T-218.
113
L.C. is an abbreviation for a local community.
112
86
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
TO-related activities in the local communities”.114 Already at the next session of the
Executive Board of the OO SDS, held on 6 March 1992, and attended by Boško Lukić, one
of the discussed agenda items was the “Information about defense preparations in the
territory of the Ključ municipality”. After Vinko Kondić had stated that “our men should be
organized and trained”, the accused Boško Lukić got the floor and, according to the
record, stated he was “in more detail informed about this item.”115 After Lukić’s
presentation, Jovo Banjac proposed that all the TO weapons be “relocated to Kula”.
Ljuban Bojić pointed to the need to train the men. The evidence to be further examined
shows that this proposal was accepted, and that the accused Lukić actively participated in
the training. At the same session, the following was also noted: “Local boards should be
urgently summoned and a concept developed, with no paperwork”. At the next, 9th
session of the OO SDS Executive Board, held on 12 March 1992, actively discussed were
the lack of weapons, necessary cooperation with the JNA, the need to increase the
number of reserve officers for Ključ, for the execution of which Slobodan Jurišić was
engaged, while a few other members, including Boško Lukić, were engaged in all other
jobs and activities. Veljko Kondić stated: “We will engage in supplying additional
weapons.”116 The Record from the 10th session of the OO SDS Executive Board, held on
23 March 1992117, confirms that the initiated activities actively continued. The first agenda
item at this session was an “Analysis of the implemented conclusions from the last session
of the Executive Board”, within which the accused Lukić stated as follows: ”It is good that
L.B.s118 keep  their records. As earlier agreed, platoons should be enlarged to a company
size. He further discussed officers who might be helpful regarding professional skills. Živko
Babić is tasked with establishing the necessary cooperation with Rudenice”. The Executive
Board thereupon concluded that all the activities related to the TO organization should be
completed by the end of the week. In addition, Vinko Kondić noted a need to send 250
men to the Lanište site, and the conclusion was drawn “to engage all relevant bodies to
ensure that all Serbs respond to a military exercise.”
226.
By early April, the TO organization-related activities were almost completed. At the
session of the Executive Board of the SDS Ključ Municipal Board, held on 30 March 1992,
114
Exhibit T-211.
Exhibit T-212.
116
Exhibit T-214.
117
Exhibit T-214.
118
L.B. means a local board.
115
87
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
it was noted that: “the weapons of the TO staff were relocated”. Veljko Kondić further
informed the attendees, including Boško Lukić, about his meetings with Karadžić in
Sarajevo and Banja Luka and his visit to General Talić. Further discussed was a need to
undertake all measures to ensure a better response of Serbs to mobilization. The accused
Lukić stated at the referenced meeting that: “All unemployed men should be gathered, as
well as men from the WO119 who do not work in full capacity. The activities should be
carried out everywhere …”120
227.
Considering all the preparations done, the Ključ TO Staff led by Boško Lukić, was
on stand-by when the Ministry of Peoples Defense of the Serb Republic of BiH issued two
decisions on 16 April 1992121, on the basis of the decision of the Presidency of the Serb
Republic of BiH of 15 April 1992, stating as follows:
“1.The Territorial Defense of Srpska Republika Bosna i Hercegovina has been
established as an armed force of the SRBiH. The territorial defense will be under
the command of the municipal, district, regional and republic staff of the TO
SRBiH.
2. The decision on the other components of the armed forces will be issued
pursuant to the solution of the political organization of Bosnia and Herzegovina
and the JNA Status.
The second decision of the Presidency reads as follows:
“1. An Imminent Danger of War has been declared.
2. General public mobilization of the TO is ordered in the entire territory of
the SRBiH.
- all military conscripts must report to the TO municipal staffs in the SRBiH
territory.”
228.
The accused Lukić denied his activity and participation in the engagement of the
TO Battalion at the Sitnica site. The accused Lukić, however, knew that the Battalion was
deployed at the Sitnica site, between 18 and 23 April 1992, but he stated he had not
participated in its formation. Also, the Accused denied being present at Sitnica because
the referenced Battalion was “formed by the 30th Division”. The Accused tried to present
119
WO stands for a work organization.
Exhibit - 215.
121
Exhibit - 441 Decision of the Peoples Defense Ministry of the Srpska Republika BiH, No. 1/92 of 16 April
1992 signed by Bogdan Subotić.
120
88
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
that he was aware of the Battalion formation exclusively because the road towards Banja
Luka led across Sitnica, and that passing along this route he saw the activities at issue.
229.
The Panel, however, concluded that the evidence adduced by the Prosecution
denied such a defense of the Accused. The examined Crisis Staff sessions’ Minutes
showed that active preparations of the command structures of the TO units and the
mobilization of manpower, comprising exclusively Serbs, were conducted. As it ensues
from the analysis of para. 121 of the Verdict, the accused Lukić played a significant role in
the process.
230.
Witness Radenko Kuburić122 testified that, in April 1992, he had seen both Boško
Lukić and Marko Adamović at the Sitnica site.
231.
The Prosecution Exhibit T-196, Contribution to the Monograph of the I Krajina
Corps, and Exhibit T-361, Document of the Command of the 30th Partisan Division,
marked as “strictly confidential”, of 9 June 1992, confirm that the Battalion actually
comprised TO units, and was not really formed by the 30th Division and the 13th Partisan
Brigade, as the accused Lukić tried to prove through his defense.
232.
It ensues from Exhibit T-196 that “…the establishment of this Ključ Battalion
commenced on 18 April 1992. The initial activities were carried out in stages: establishing
the command nucleus, appointing superiors in subordinate units, selecting men for units,
and creating the material basis for the unit’s formation. The units were gathered on 26
April 1992 in the v. of Sitnica…” The referenced document further showed that the
Battalion was armed with the weapons of the Ključ Municipality TO (taken) from the Kula
barracks. If the Battalion used the weapons of the Ključ Municipality TO, which had been
obviously relocated to Kula with the aim of arming those units pursuant to the SDS
Instructions,123 and the order which could have been given exclusively by Boško Lukić, as
the TO Staff Commander, as witness Enes Mršić124 testified, the Panel can only conclude
that this Battalion was formed out of the TO units.
233.
Exhibit T-361 should also be examined in order to exclude any doubts into such a
conclusion. This Exhibit shows that the first Battalion of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade was
122
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-06/119 of 10 June 2009.
T-229, T-212 Minutes of the 8th Session of the IO SDS Ključ of 6 February 1992, T-215 Record of the
11th session of the IO SDS Ključ of 30 March 1992.
123
89
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
formed out of the TO Ključ Detachment, which was as such re-subordinated to it. This is in
compliance with the contents of the examined Exhibit T-196, which stated that the Ključ
Battalion formed part of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade as the First Battalion.
234.
As it ensues from the adduced evidence, the accused Lukić also actively worked
on the establishment and deployment of the 17 th Light Infantry Brigade, which continued
the activities commenced by the TO, the police and various paramilitary formations to
persecute Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality. The accused Lukić’s activities
along this line are apparent from the contents of the Minutes from the sessions of the Ključ
Municipality Crisis Staff. In early June 1992, at the Crisis Staff sessions, the Accused
briefed its members about the activities related to the Brigade establishment. On 2 June
1992, Boško Lukić informed members of the Crisis Staff that it was possible to obtain
certain technical equipment for the needs of the future light infantry brigade likely to be
formed in Ključ. Already on 9 June 1992, the Accused briefed the Crisis Staff about the
establishment of the Brigade and the defense organization in the Ključ municipality.
Ultimately, at the Crisis Staff session held on 30 June 1992, the accused Lukić again
addressed the organization of the Brigade, and the personnel solutions to be discussed in
the next following days. The 17th Light Infantry Brigade was established in early June.125
235.
Considering that, at the beginning of armed combats, the Ključ Battalion was
deployed to cleanse the town and the surrounding villages, as it ensues from Exhibit T196, and as confirmed by the witnesses who had seen the Ključ Battalion in action on the
ground – in their villages126, the accused Lukić’s participation in the execution of
persecution of the Muslim and Croat population from the Ključ municipality was not
brought into doubt. The accused Lukić’s Defense has made efforts to contest the
referenced, previously examined, Prosecution’s evidence. Along this line, the Defense
submitted, in the proceedings before the Appellate Panel, Regular Combat Reports of the
Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps127 to prove their assertions that the Ključ Battalion was
not deployed in the territory of the Ključ municipality. However, considering that the Ključ
Battalion was not re-subordinated to the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps until 9 June
124
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 26 April 2010, p. 20-21, Exhibit T-214.
Exhibit T-182, testimony of Slobodan Jurišić – established on 4 June 1992.
126
Witness Mimka Brkić stated she had also seen „Boško, teacher from Velagići“, when the military passed
through her village.
127
Exhibits AO-1 through AO-6.
125
90
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
1992128, it is clear that any information about the deployment and engagement of the 2 nd
Krajina Corps cannot ensue from the Regular Combat Reports of the Command of the 2nd
Krajina Corps. Therefore, the Panel’s finding about the Battalion’s role in the Ključ territory
and its surrounding was drawn based on the previously analyzed, mutually consistent,
subjective and objective Prosecution’s evidence, where the participation of some other
units in the attack on the civilian Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality in
the concrete case was fully indisputable.
236.
In June, the accused Lukić, together with Marko Adamović and Vinko Kondić,
informed the Crisis Staff about the situation on the ground. Quite certainly, the Accused
could not have done so if he had not been present on the ground together with the TO
units, or with the established Ključ Battalion. It ensues from Lukić’s and Kondić’s report of
28 May 1992, submitted at the Crisis Staff session, that “the connection with the Serb
areas should be activated; that contacts should be made among sectors, and solutions
given in the territories inhabited by the Muslim population; the new Company should be
provided with additional weapons, namely the weapons from the contingent of seized
weapons; Boško Lukić and Dane Pejić are in charge for providing the equipment.”129
237.
Exhibits T-175 through T-179, Regular Combat Reports drafted by the accused
Boško Lukić, according to his signature therein, undoubtedly proved his participation in the
activities related to the persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality in
furtherance of the common design. The referenced documents, originating from the period
of 12-17 June 1992, stated the following:
“…I have decided to strengthen the control over the territory with the main forces
with the aim to secure and reconnoitre the occupied territory, and to gather
information about the Muslim extremists’ movement, and with a portion of the
forces, in cooperation with the police, to block, search and sweep the area of the
villages Islamagići-Ljutići and capture the remaining Muslim extremists …”130
“…I have decided to strengthen the control over the territory with the aim to
secure and reconnoitre the occupied territory, and to gather information about the
Muslim extremists’ movement, and with a portion of the forces, in cooperation
with the police and an armored personnel carrier again block, search and sweep
the area of the villages Islamagići (k.2333,417) and Josipovići - Đukići, with the
aim to capture, destroy and disarm the remaining Muslim extremists…during the
action carried out by the SJB on 12 June of the current year, a number of
128
Exhibit T-361.
Exhibit T-229.
130
Exhibit T-175 – Regular combat report by the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strictly
confidential No.1-25/92 of 12 June 1992.
129
91
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Muslims from the Islamagići village were apprehended for operative processing
and a certain quantity of firearms and ammunition seized. Our requests for
supplying our units with the necessary equipment remain unchanged …”131
“…I have decided to strengthen control over the territory with the aim to secure
and reconnoitre the occupied territory, and to gather information about the
movement of Ustasha forces hidden in the woods in the Golaj and Plamenica
area, and with a portion of forces, in cooperation with the police, to block, search
and sweep the village of Dubočani with a view to collecting the remaining
quantities of ammunition and weapons …”132
“…I have decided to continue the sweeping and control of the territory with the
aim to round up the remaining portion of the Ustasha forces hidden in the Golaj
area and at the banks of the Sana River and Vukovo Selo. The remaining forces
will control and search the territory, and patrol throughout the deployment area
within their zone of responsibility...”133
“…I have decided to force the remaining Ustasha forces into unconditional
surrender by way of blocking, sweeping and searching the terrain in the area of
Ljutića Brdo-Islamagići-Gornje Prhovo, and thereupon to search the whole
territory of the local communities of Humići and Peći, with the aim to capture and
liquidate the remaining Ustasha outlaws in this area…”134
238.
The accused Lukić contested that he had any relations with the referenced
documents and stated that he had not created them despite the fact that they contained
his name. The Panel, however, found no basis for such averments of his, as there is no
logical or adequate reason to justify signing Major Lukić’s name on such documents if he
himself had not drafted them. The Panel has analyzed, through these documents, the
territory which the Accused decided to further control and sweep the terrain, as he stated,
and correlated them with Exhibit T-196, and concluded that those were one and the same
terrain and the same villages in whose attack the very same Ključ Battalion had initially
participated.
239.
As to the analysis of the accused’s Lukić participation, as the third actus reus
element of the JCE, Exhibit T-9, one should also not disregard the Video-recording
depicting the accused Lukić’s open call to the “Muslim extremists” into surrender with a
note that otherwise they “would stand no chance”.
131
Exhibit T-176, Regular combat report by the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strictly conf. No.
1-31/92 of 13 June 1992.
132
Exhibit T-177, Regular combat report by the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strictly conf. No.
1-12/92, of 10 June 1992.
133
Exhibit T-178, Regular combat report by the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strictly conf. No.
1-05/92, of 7 June 1992.
134
Exhibit T-179, Regular combat report by the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strictly conf. No.
1-31-5/92, of 17 June 1992.
92
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
240.
Evaluating and examining the presented evidence, the Panel has concluded that,
by his actions, the accused Lukić significantly contributed to the persecution of the Muslim
and Croat population of the Ključ municipality, and that the persecution was carried out
through a series of unlawful actions which are, by their nature and significance, the acts of
commission of a crime by a plurality of persons. The requisite level of personal
participation of the Accused as an accomplice in the concrete joint criminal enterprise has
been thereby satisfied.
b. The accused Marko Adamović
241.
As confirmed by many of the witnesses heard and the evidence presented, the
accused Adamović testified that he had gone to Sitnica in April 1992 and took part in the
training of the mobilized TO Battalion.
242.
The accused Adamović testified that, in April 1992, he received an invitation to
report to the mobilization post in the village of Sitnica, where he learned that an infantry
battalion would be established within the 30th Infantry Division. Appointed as the Battalion
Commander was Branko Ribič, and the Accused as his Deputy.
243.
The foregoing is partially in compliance with the contents of the documentary
Exhibit T-196, which shows that the formation of the Ključ Battalion commenced on
18 April 1992 in Sitnica; that it was carried out in several stages; that the units gathered on
26 April 1992 when the Battalion Command was established; and that Marko Adamović as
the Deputy Battalion Commander formed part of the superior personnel. The Defense
teams for the accused Lukić and Adamović, however, made efforts to present that the
Battalion formed in Sitnica was not related to the TO units, but rather belonged to the 30th
Division or the Partisan Brigade. In the Panel’s view, contrary to such Accused’s defense,
the documentary Exhibits (T-196 and T-361) showed beyond a doubt that this Battalion
was indeed formed of the TO units.
244.
Witness Radenko Kuburić testified he had been called to Sitnica in May 1992 for a
military exercise, that the 17th Ključ Brigade was established at the time, and that he
became a member thereof. The witness stated he had scarcely known the command
personnel, but that Boro Pešović and Marko Adamović, whom he had seen in Sitnica,
formed part of the command personnel.
245.
Even though the Defense witnesses Dušan Prolić, Krstan Škavić, Drago Radojčić,
93
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Branko Kosić made efforts, through their testimonies, to exculpate the accused Adamović
in relation to the activities after 27 May 1992, to which the Panel will particularly refer, they
all consistently testified about the mobilization at Sitnica in April 1992, and the fact that the
accused Adamović was there as part of the Battalion’s superior personnel.
246.
Testifying in the capacity of a witness for the Defense, the accused Adamović
stated that, until 12 May 1992, he had performed the duty of the Deputy Battalion
Commander, and that he assumed the duty of the Commander for Information, Morale and
Religious Affairs following the establishment of the VRS. Witnesses Kosić and Škavić
confirmed the foregoing. Documentary Exhibit T-368, however, confirms that Adamović
assumed the post of the Commander for Information, Morale and Religious Affairs much
later, because such a proposal for his appointment to this function, as the referenced
document shows, was filed no sooner than 29 December 1993, rather than on 12 May
1992, as the accused Adamović claimed, and even no sooner than 18 April 1992, as
apparent from his personal record.135 Notwithstanding the position the Accused formally
held during the period May-June 1992, the Panel has concluded, based on a number of
consistent testimonies of the Prosecution witnesses, that the Accused led the Battalion,
established in late April 1992 in Sitnica, to cleanse the villages in the Ključ municipality.
247.
Exhibit T-196 shows that:
“At the beginning of armed combats in Ključ, the whole Battalion was relocated to
the Ključ suburb and used to cleanse the town and the surrounding villages. A
decision about its deployment for this task was made on 27 May 1992, and the
units were used as follows:
“The 1st Company attacked in the direction of Reizovići-Hadžići- Pudin Han
villages;
The 2nd Company and anti-armored vehicles attacked from the Brežčica position,
in the direction of the villages Poni…- Hadžići-Pudin Han.
The task of the Companies was to disarm all paramilitary formations in the
direction of the attack, and to apprehend under coercion members of those
formations…
…
On the following day, the Battalion was, with the same task, deployed at the
direction of the villages Pudin Han-Vukovo Selo, Humići-Plamenice-Prhovo-Peći.
The next task was to cleanse the villages of Kamičak and Vrhpolje, where the
135
Exhibit T-365.
94
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Battalion joined the Sanski Most Brigade. The Battalion was next deployed to
control and secure the territory of the Ključ municipality towards Velagići, Pudin
Han-Ramići-Krasulje-Peći. In the course of carrying out this task, the 17th Light
Infantry Brigade Ključ was established and the Battalion formed part of it as the
First Battalion …”
248.
That the Battalion was, on the very 27 May 1992, re-deployed from Sitnica to the
Ključ territory confirmed the accused Adamović in his testimony given in the capacity of a
witness, even though he denied knowing in which area and with what task the Battalion
was re-deployed. The Battalion’s re-deployment to the Ključ suburb was confirmed by the
testimonies of the other Defense witnesses, Dragić, Krstan Škavić, Dušan Prolić and
Drago Radojičić, but they all “distanced” themselves from any further activities. Witness
Dragić stated that, after the military exercise on exactly 26 May 1992, he went home for
mowing, and that his relative informed him about the events. Witness Prolić testified that
the Battalion was first interned at Šip, and subsequently at a school in Ramići, that he was
engaged with the medical corps and that, except for being aware of reconnaissance
activities, he knew nothing about any other activities. Witness Prolić denied that any
apprehensions were carried out during the time when he was with the Battalion in Ramići.
249.
The Panel could not credit the testimonies of the referenced witnesses related to
the Battalion’s further engagement. The Panel has concluded that these testimonies were
contrary to the testimonies of the eye-witnesses to the horror to which certain villages in
the Ključ municipality were subjected, and who identified perpetrators of those atrocities as
the “soldiers led by Marko Adamović”.
250.
Exhibit T-196 related to the Battalion activities is supported by the testimonies of
witnesses Mirsad Puškar, Muharem Islamagić, Senad Medanović, Sadeta Medanović,
Hamida Hadžić, Kana Mešić, Edina Hadžić, Salko Krantić, Bejrudin Brkić, Mimka Brkić,
Nafa Smajić, witness C, Muhamed Kozarac, Teufik Bajrić and some other witnesses.
251.
Witness Puškar stated that, in late May, he had seen Serb soldiers passing across
the Brežčice plateau, and dragging equipment, mortars, including one mortar 82 mm.
Among these soldiers, the witness also saw Marko Adamović. Pudin Han, which was
according to the witness, 1km away as the crow flies, was shelled from that site. After
these soldiers had left towards Pudin Han, the witness saw empty shells at the Brežčice
plateau. The shelling of Pudin Han on the referenced day resulted in the death of
12 persons, as described in Section 2 of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the
95
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Verdict.
252.
After a couple of peaceful days, soldiers came again to Humići from the direction
of Vukovo Selo and Joldanovići, and proceeded towards Krantići, Ljutića Brdo, and further
towards Plamenice and Prhovo. From the place where he stood, the witness watched in
the villages he could see (Joldanovići, Humići with the crossroads towards Krantići and
Ljutića Brdo) soldiers capturing people, selecting men for lining them up, beating them,
and he heard screaming, crying, people escaping …136
253.
Witness Muharem Islamagić testified that, following the shelling of his village
Plamenice, all villagers fled to Humići. On 1 June 1992, the witness and his brother came
across soldiers at the intersection in Humići. The soldiers captured his brother and started
beating him. The witness asked Radenko Kuburić, one of the soldiers, to help him release
his brother. Radenko told him: “Marko is down there, I dare not come any closer”137,
implying Marko Adamović. After a while, the witness saw Adamović going after the soldiers
who had tied up his brother and took him thus tied up towards Prhovo.
254.
Upon their arrival in Prhovo, soldiers carried out a massacre as described in
Section 4 of the enacting clause of Verdict. The villagers of Prhovo testified that, after a
couple of shells had fallen at the village outskirts, soldiers entered the village on a
personnel carrier to which the almost dead brother of witness Islamagić was tied. Together
with soldiers, or more precisely, soldiers were led by “Captain” Adamović, as certain
witnesses saw and described him. All the witnesses consistently testified that Sadeta
Medanović was singled out from a group of villagers of Prhovljani, previously gathered in
front of the village store and that a soldier in a uniform ordered her to repeat his words,
and to call via megaphone all „green berets” to surrender or otherwise the soldiers would
kill all the villagers, including her and her baby. Witnesses Senad Medanović and Kana
Mešić testified with certainty that this “Captain” is the accused Adamović. Earlier on that
day, Radenko Kuburić told witness Islamagić that he (Adamović) was “in charge”, or more
precisely, that he dare not do anything because Marko was there. All the villagers of
Prhovo examined at the hearing also testified that, while they stood gathered in front of the
village store, 5 young men were singled out and killed. Witness Kana Mešić had known
136
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 20 May 2009, evidence of witness Mirsad Puškar, pp. 18-
19.
137
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 15 June 2009, testimony of witness Muharem Islamagić,
p.39-40.
96
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Adamović from before, and, at first, she felt secure when she saw him leading the soldiers.
Witness Mešić testified that exactly the accused Adamović ordered the summary
execution of the five villagers of Prhovo after they had been singled out, and that after the
execution, Adamović stated: “May their souls rest in peace”. Edin Hadžić, who had been
before the massacre taken by soldiers with a group of men from Prhovo towards the
village of Peći, heard that the accused Adamović ordered that the women and children in
the village be killed.
255.
Witness Salko Krantić testified he had heard the women-refugees from Prhovo
mentioning “Adamović in relation to genocide in Prhovo”. The witness stated he had
believed those stories because Marko Adamović had passed through the village of
Krantići, went towards the village of Plamenice and entered the village of Prhovo. The
witness stated that, passing through his village with soldiers, Marko told the villagers “the
unit was under his commanded so they need not be afraid”.
256.
Witness Mimka Brkić saw Marko Adamović when soldiers passed through Vukovo
Selo. This created a strong feeling of fear among the population, which was further
intensified due to the fact that Šefko Ćajić was then killed without any reason whatsoever.
257.
Marko Adamović’s soldiers, among whom witness Nafa Smajić identified both the
Accused and Radenko Kuburić, also passed though the village of Plamenice, from where
Hamir Ljutić and Muharem Ljutić were taken away and killed. It also ensues from the
testimony of deceased witness Mina Ljutić, which was read out, that Marko Adamović led
soldiers who came to the village, and that she asked him where his soldiers were taking
her son.
258.
Witness Muhamed Kozarac from Hripavci testified that Marko Adamović was in
charge, and that he was in the Musići village when 22 men were captured, beaten and
taken to Manjača.
259.
Witness Teufik Bajrić testified that the men from Ramići and Krasulje intended to
flee, but could not do so through the Golaja woods. They came back and got captured.
The witness saw many soldiers on the occasion, including the accused Adamović.
260.
Therefore, the testimonies of the witnesses confirmed, beyond a doubt, that the
accused Adamović, with soldiers on the ground, participated in the attack on the
undefended Muslim villages through a series of actions to be described in the individual
97
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Counts of the Indictment.
261.
That the accused Adamović participated in the attack on the civilian Muslim and
Croat population of the Ključ municipality is additionally proved by the Minutes of the Crisis
Staff sessions which he attended, that is, most actively exactly on the days when those
villages were attacked most intensively – in late May and early June.
262.
At the Crisis Staff sessions held on 3, 4, 5 June and on 18 and 30 June, the
accused Adamović briefed the Crisis Staff about the events on the ground, daily activities,
the destruction of enemy and about the disarmament-related activities. Considering his
presence on the ground, the Accused understandably could not attend all the sessions of
the Crisis Staff. However, the sessions which the Accused attended, and at which he
briefed the attendees about the situation and the events on the ground, in the Panel’s
opinion, undoubtedly confirm his involvement in the attack.
263.
In view of the foregoing, the Panel has concluded that the actus reus element for
the responsibility under the principle of JCE, i.e. participation in a common design, that is,
in the act of commission or acts of contribution to common purpose of the crime, has been
also satisfied on the part of the accused Marko Adamović. The Panel has concluded that,
by his acts, the accused Adamović significantly contributed to the persecution of the
civilian Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality, carried out in furtherance of
common design.
(b) Mens rea (guilty mind)
264.
The mens rea required for finding an accused guilty of the basic JCE, as
established in both national and international jurisprudence, implies that the accused must
have the requisite intent to perpetrate a certain crime (this being the shared intent of all coperpetrators),138 and must intend to participate in a common plan aimed at its
commission.139
265.
In establishing the element of awareness, or more precisely, in determining
whether the requisite mens rea for the basic JCE exists on the part of the accused, the
138
Appeals Chamber Judgment in Vasiljević, paras. 97,101; Appeals Chamber Judgment in Krnojelac, para.
31 (emphasis added).
139
Appeals Chamber Judgment in Brđanin, para. 356 quoting the Appeals Chamber Judgment in Kvočka et
al., para. 82 (the requisite „intent to effect the common purpose“).
98
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Panel must take account of the conduct of the accused person(s) from which the requisite
mens rea ensues, as defined by the ICTY’ Trial Chamber in Krajišnik:
“The Accused’s knowledge of events, acceptance of new circumstances, and
general intentionality during the indictment period, are one area where inferences
must be made. The information the Accused received during this period is an
important element for the determination of his responsibility, because knowledge
combined with continuing participation can be conclusive as to a person’s intent.”140
266.
The Appellate Panel concluded, based on the adduced evidence, that the accused
Lukić and Adamović were aware of the situation in both the ARK and the town of Ključ
itself and its surroundings, and that they shared the intent to commit the crime of
persecution of the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality, as a crime
against humanity, aimed at furtherance of the common plan.
267.
As already stated, the Strategic goals were adopted at the Assembly of Serb
People in BiH, held on 12 May 1992, wherein the first goal was defined as the “separation
from the two other national groups”. The Instructions for the Organization and Activity of
Organs of the Serbian People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary Circumstances
were adopted much before this time, in accordance to which the OO SDS, and
subsequently the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff acted and planned their respective
activities. As it ensues from the OO SDS sessions, it was mostly the accused Boško Lukić
who undertook the activities aimed at establishing a new, monoethnic TO, the mobilization
of the Serb population to fill in the new TO, in cooperation with other members of the OO
SDS, all pursuant to the referenced Instructions and guidelines established at the higher
levels of the authorities of the Serb Republic BiH.
268.
Even though the TO detachment gathering at Sitnica, in April 1992, was organized
as a “military exercise”, all the further activities point to the conclusion that this was just a
screen for the future activities related to the establishment of the Infantry Battalion. The
Defense’s witness Dušan Prolić testified about the mobilization days at Sitnica. The
witness stated that they lived up there like in a “peacetime days”, and that this was not a
military exercise in the true sense of the word. On the other hand, the accused Adamović
confirmed in his testimony that, after his arrival at Sitnica, he learned that an infantry
battalion was to be established. As it ensues from Exhibit T-196, a battalion of the kind
140
Judgment in Prosecutor v. Momčilo Krajišnik, No. IT-00-39-T of 27 September 2006, para. 890.
99
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
was indeed established, but, understandably, it could not be fully established at once.
From the day the TO units gathered at Sitnica on 18 April 1992, the process of the
battalion establishment went through several stages, from the first stage of the
establishment of a core Command, to the final gathering of units on 26 April 1992. The
accused Adamović formed part of the Battalion since the early days of its formation. There
is no evidence proving that the Accused changed either his position or function even when
the Battalion became a part of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade after its establishment. In the
meantime, the formed Battalion, the so called Ključ Battalion, was armed with the TO
equipment, which had been previously relocated to Kula upon an order which could have
been given only by the Staff Commander, that is, the accused Lukić, as noted at the Crisis
Staff session, also attended by the accused Lukić.141
269.
Through the meetings of the OO SDS and the subsequent sessions of the Ključ
Municipality Crisis Staff which he attended, the accused Lukić undertook all the TO
establishment-related activities in compliance with the directions of the Assembly of the
Serb People in BiH, and the Variant A of the Instructions; he was aware of the strategic
goals adopted on 12 May 1992 by the Assembly; together with Jovo Banjac142 the Accused
attended the meeting held in the zone of responsibility of the 30th Division where these
strategic goals were discussed and information presented about the security situation in
the Ključ municipality, and in the afternoon hours of the same day at the Crisis Staff
session, where its members were notified of the conclusions from the referenced
meeting;143 in such circumstances, the Accused undertook further activities to organize the
17th Light Infantry Brigade which was also to comprise the Battalion on the formation of
which he had actively worked since assuming his function of the TO Staff Commander.
These are all the circumstances showing that the Accused had the intent to both commit
the crime of persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality and to
participate in a common plan, with the aim to implement it.
270.
The accused Lukić’s further activities, his participation in the “cleansing of the
terrain” with the TO units in the wider area of the Ključ municipality inhabited by Muslims
and Croats, the fact that he was aware of the arrest of Omer Filipović and Asim Egrlić, and
of all other arrests carried out in the Ključ municipality (as undoubtedly confirmed by
141
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 26 April 2010, testimony of witness Enes Mršić, p.21.
Exhibit T-155.
143
Exhibit T-1.
142
100
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Exhibit T-9), the activities directed at the surrender of the Muslim population and their
disarmament, which were carried out by severe violations of the provisions of international
humanitarian law (to be described in detail through individual charges), additionally confirm
the element of the Accused’s awareness, specifically his intent to effectuate the policy of
persecution under the first strategic goal (removal of non-Serb population).
271.
As a person who had been aware of the goal of the mobilization since the early
days of this mobilization at Sitnica, the establishment of the Infantry Battalion, and the
person who was part of the team of superiors of the Infantry Battalion since the early days
of its establishment, the accused Adamović must have undoubtedly known the reason for
its establishment, which became obvious with the Battalion’s engagement in the attacks in
the wider area of the Ključ municipality.
272.
That the accused Adamović had the intent to persecute Muslims and Croats of the
Ključ municipality evidently confirms the fact that, in late May but before 27 May 1992,
when the artillery attack on the villages of Pudin Han and Velagići was launched from the
Brežčica plateau, he was seen with the other members of the Battalion dragging the
artillery to this very plateau from which the attack was launched. The presented evidence
confirms that soldiers, together with the accused Adamović, went from this spot through
the other villages of the Ključ municipality, mostly or fully inhabited by the Muslim
population, searched houses, seized weapons, that they were engaged in beating and
taking away a number of men whose traces have been lost ever since, in individual killings
like in Vukovo Selo, or in mass killings of a larger number of villagers, such as the crime
committed in Prhovo. The villagers of Vukovo Selo, Prhovo and Krantići, and of many
other places through which the military passed, identified the accused Adamović, whom
they had known from before as a teacher, as a person who led soldiers. In the Panel’s
view, all these circumstances do not bring into doubt the conclusion that the accused
Adamović had the intent to persecute Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality.
273.
Despite the facts that the accused Adamović denied he had connection with the
Crisis Staff, and that he was a Commander of the Town Defense Command, established in
Ključ,144 the Appellate Panel has concluded, based on the adduced evidence, that the
referenced body (Town Defense Command) was operational, and that the accused
144
Testimonies of Rajko Kalabić, Marko Adamović, Boško Lukić.
101
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Adamović acted and attended the sessions of the Crisis Staff exactly in the capacity of the
Commander of the Town Defense Command.
274.
It ensues from the May 1992 Proposal of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipal
Assembly of the structure of municipal bodies in time of war,145 that the accused Adamović
was also listed among members of the Crisis Staff. The Document of the 30th Partisan
Division of 31 May 1992, containing the order to establish the Ključ Town Defense
Command, which inter alia noted that the Commander of the Ključ TO Staff is consistent
with the contents of the Minutes of the session of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff,146
when Boško Lukić was proposed as a Town Defense Commander. However, already
since 2 June 1992, Marko Adamović, as the Town Defense Commander, also attended the
Crisis Staff sessions and reported about the situation on the ground. The Minutes of the
session dated 2 June 1992, undoubtedly confirms that the referenced body became
operational, because the accused Adamović, as the Town Defense Commander,
discussed before members of the Crisis Staff certain “organizational issues, the
establishment of units and armament...”, and that the Crisis Staff assigned certain duties to
the Town Defense Command.
275.
At the Crisis Staff further meetings held in June 1992, Adamović submitted regular
reports from the ground, attended the sessions discussing a variety of issues, such as the
relocation of the population, capturing and disarmament of Muslims, appointments to and
releases from the posts in the Basic Courts and the Municipal Petty Offense Court, ban on
work of the SDA and MBO “extremist organizations”, and general issues relating to the
security and political situation and the activities on the ground. All the foregoing
undoubtedly points to the conclusion that the Accused supported the policy of the Ključ
Municipality Crisis Staff, implemented it pursuant to the directives of the ARK and the
Assembly of the Serb People in BiH, as already explained above, and that, just like the
accused Lukić, he shared the intent to effectuate the policy of persecution under the first
strategic goal (removal of the non-Serb population).
276.
In view of the foregoing, the Appellate Panel has concluded that the accused
Adamović had the requisite intent to commit the crime and participate in the common plan
with the intent to implement it.
145
146
T-164.
T-229 Record of 29 May 1992.
102
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
IX. INDIVIDUAL INCRIMINATIONS
277.
The Accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović were found guilty of participating
in the persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality, by unlawful acts such
as: murder, deportation and forcible transfer of the population, imprisonment and other
severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law,
other inhumane acts of similar character intentionally causing great suffering or serious
injury to body or to physical or mental health, unlawful bringing people into concentration
camps, attack against civilian population, settlements, individual civilians, which resulted in
death; the shelling, using any means, of undefended cities, villages, residences or
buildings, and thereby satisfied the essential elements of the criminal offense of Crimes
against Humanity.
278.
Before addressing the individual Counts of the Indictment, the Panel will first refer
to certain incidents, described by many witnesses as a turning point in the life of the Ključ
municipality, and the moments when the tensions culminated. As it ensues from the
witnesses’ testimonies, these incidents served as an excuse, or a possible trigger, but
certainly not as a justified reason for all other subsequent activities, as the Defense teams
tried to present through their evidence.
A. INCIDENT IN THE CRLJENI VILLAGE
279.
The village of Crljeni, in the Sokolovo Local Community, Ključ municipality, is the
first village where a serious incident occurred already on 26 May 1992. Witness Jusuf
Omerović147 testified that the tensions in the village escalated through the continued,
sporadic shootings and insults by soldiers returning from Croatia frontlines. The villagers
failed in resolving the tensions through peacemaking meetings to which representatives of
the Serb and Muslim Municipal bodies were invited. The tensions, lasting for months,
culminated on 26 May 1992. Witness Omerović testified that he had walked back to the
village on this date and heard shots from the hill of „Malevića strana“. The witness heard
from the villagers, mostly women and children, running into him, crying and shouting that
„they had been attacked“ and „the war had started“. The witness went to the village
147
Transcript of the main trail in the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 22 October 2008.
103
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
outskirt to check what was happening, and came across a group of villagers who had
captured 7 Serb armed soldiers, who even had a machine gun „Garo 53“. The soldiers told
the villagers that they had been sent to the Crljeni village with the intent to cause an
incident, which would be the first major incident in the territory of the Ključ Municipality.
The villagers, mostly armed with hunting rifles or pistols they had had from before, took the
captured soldiers to the village and placed them in a house, intending to keep them as a
proof that the village of Crljeni was the first village in the territory of the Ključ Municipality
attacked by the Serb reservists. The Crljeni villagers notified the representatives of
Bosniak authorities in Ključ, Omer Filipović and Asim Egrlić, of the capture of Serb
reservists, but they made no response. At the same time, the villagers received a letter
from Captain Miličević who threatened them that “the village would be razed to the ground“
if the captured soldiers were not released by night. Aware of the fact that the Crljeni village
was surrounded by Serb villages, and in fear of retaliation, they decided to leave the
village and go towards Plamenice, the nearest village inhabited by the Muslim population.
280.
It was not an easy task for the villagers to leave the village. They had to move
along the Sana River canyon. The first bridge to cross over to its other bank was in the
neighboring Serb village. They did not dare go there, so they had to cross the river. The
witness stated that, because of the rain season, the river was 30-40m wide, and at some
parts up to 3-4m deep. Nevertheless, around 570 villagers of Crljeni crossed the river and
reached Plamenice. They brought the captured soldiers along with them, and sent them
from Plamenice further to Krasulje.
281.
In Plamenice, they faced a new, difficult situation because the settlement had
insufficient number of houses to accommodate all newly arrived villagers of Crljeni. While
they were in Plamenice, they heard about the events in Ključ, arrests, apprehensions and
the shelling of Pudin Han and Velagići. Men mostly hid in the woods above the Sana River
canyon. Due to the difficult situation in which they found themselves, in fact deceived and
called to surrender their weapons, with the assurances given by the TO Staff Commander,
Boško Lukić, that they would be provided with a safe return to their village, they decided to
surrender. They were subsequently taken first to the Nikola Mačkić primary school and
thereupon to the Manjača camp.
104
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
B. KILLING OF DUŠAN STOJAKOVIĆ AKA DUĆA, DEPUTY COMMANDER OF THE SJB KLJUČ
282.
A large number of the heard witnesses for both the Prosecution and the Accused’s
Defense, identified the moment when Dušan Stojaković aka Duća, Deputy Commander of
the SJB Ključ, was killed as the beginning of war activities in the territory of the Ključ
municipality. On 27 May 1992, between 11:00 and 11:30 hrs, Dušan Stojaković known as
Duća was killed, and several other persons wounded in the Krasulje area. The witnesses
testified that this caused a general chaos among the population. Vinko Kondić and Omer
Filipović went from Ključ together to the crime scene in order to take over the body of the
killed Deputy Commander. However, Radio Ključ launched its propaganda activities „that
Muslim extremists had killed and kept the bodies of the Commander and some other
persons“. Witness Fahrudin Krivić testified that a strange silence reigned over the town.
After Filipović and Kondić had gone to Krasulje, tensions were eased but for a short period
of time. The witness stated that, already on the following day, mass-scale arrests around
the town of Ključ and its surroundings started. All subsequent events described in sections
of the convicting part of the enacting clause of the Verdict will be analyzed further in the
reasoning.
283.
Witness Muhamed Filipović testified that no crime investigation had been carried
out, and that the perpetrator of Dušan Stojaković’s murder had been never identified.
However, it ensues from the duty transfer log148 that, on the previous day, he was sent to
the Krasulje area, where women and children had been on the move, with the task to
determine together with the TO whether the check point should be closed.
C. AMBUSH IN BUSIJE AND THE ATTACK ON YOUNG SOLDIERS
284.
On the same day when Dušan Stojaković was killed, armed Muslims from Busije
stopped a bus transporting young soldiers who had been withdrawing from frontlines in
Croatia. Around 20 soldiers were wounded in this ambush. Witnesses Lako Aničić and
Dušan Grabež described the referenced incident. Witness Grabež testified that he had
been near a gas station at the entrance to the town, when he heard a heavy burst of fire.
148
Exhibit T-13.
105
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Thereupon, he saw soldiers without caps, belts and blouses jumping from a bus and
running behind the Izletnik Inn, where construction blocks on pallets were stored, and hid
behind them. He heard that there were wounded and killed persons among them. The
witness saw this when he entered the bus.
285.
The Prosecution witnesses also described the incident which occurred at Busije on
27 April 1992. Witness Muhamed Filipović testified that villagers made trenches at the
entrance to the village in order to protect it. In compliance with the testimonies of the other
Prosecution’s witnesses, witness Filipović stated figuratively that, at the time, the military,
the Knin Corps and the police, walked around Ključ as if „it was a hunting time”. Those
men from Krasulje went out to protect their households. Nevertheless, it was not
established if there had been any motive to attack the bus with young reservists
withdrawing from the frontlines, and it is irrelevant to this case. It is indisputable that the
referenced incident indeed occurred, and that many witnesses marked it as a motive for
the subsequent events. The propaganda activities of Radio Ključ confirmed the foregoing.
Journalist Volaš called the inhabitants of Šarić Brdo not to shoot at the bridge and
members of the reserve forces. Witness Aničić, who was present at the referenced site,
stated that no shooting could be heard at all, and that it can be concluded that the purpose
of Radio Ključ was to additionally increase the tensions, worsen the already tense situation
and, in fact, to provoke an attack on the settlements inhabited by the Muslim population.
D.
SECTION 1 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE CONVICTING PART OF THE VERDICT
“On 27 May 1992, as part of the power takeover by the Serb forces, the army and
the police started unlawfully arresting and depriving of liberty non-Serb civilians in
downtown Ključ, bringing them to the Public Security Station without informing
them about the reasons for their arrest, where they were exposed to physical
abuse by police members and various investigators, who used punches, kicks
and various implements to beat them all over their bodies, asking them to
confess that they were preparing all kinds of crimes against Serb population,
which created fear among prisoners not only for their own destiny, but for the
destiny of their family members. They were held in the Public Security Station
detention cells, which were inadequate to hold a large number of prisoners
without food and basic hygienic conditions. A day or two later at least 22 civilians,
including Luka Brkić, Muhamed Filipović, Leopold Flat, Behrem Šarić, Muhamed
Eljezović, Mehmed Šistek, Fadil Jakupović, Smajil Muslimović, Darko Džaja,
Mirsad Šehić, Fadil Medić, Domagoj Rebac, Husein Kozarac, Fahrudin Krivić,
Abid Dervišević, Mehmed Begić, Mustafa Koljić, Alija Bilić, Mirsad Mršić, Dževad
Mistrić, Teufik Vučkić and Šaban Kujundžić, were transported to the Stara
Gradiška camp, and Šaban Kujundžić died as a result of beatings on the way to
the camp, while others were beaten during their admission into the camp and
their stay there, and approximately fifteen days later they were transferred to
106
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
another camp on Manjača.”
286.
A large number of the Prosecution’s witnesses testified with regard to the
circumstances described under Section 1 of the enacting clause of the convicting part of
the Verdict. These witnesses were directly injured by the described acts. The Prosecution
also adduced a certain number of pieces of the documentary evidence in support of the
claims in the referenced section of the enacting clause. It should be noted that the
Defense did not contest the events described in the referenced section either, except for
contesting only the Accused’s connection with the acts at issue. Nevertheless, the Panel
has concluded that the referenced acts were undertaken with the aim to persecute the
Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality, and that they comprised part of the
policy adopted at the sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff.
287.
That the persons mentioned in Section 1 of the enacting clause of the Verdict were
apprehended and taken to the Police Station Ključ on 27 May 1992, and a few of them in
the morning hours of 28 May 1992, ensues first from the „Duty transfer log“149 for 27/28
May 1992, noting for all the referenced persons, except for Alija Bilić, when precisely they
were apprehended and detained. The Duty transfer log further stated that the 22
individuals apprehended on the previous day, on 28 May 1992 at around 18:30 hrs, were
all taken under escort to Banja Luka. The foregoing is compliant with the testimonies of all
the witnesses examined with regard to the circumstances described in the referenced
Section of the enacting clause, namely the testimonies of Muhamed Filipović, Luka Brkić,
Fahrudin Krivić, Behrem Šarić, Mehmed Begić and Leopold Flat. These witnesses testified
that the Small Camp (Mali Logor) in Banja Luka was just a transitory station, where they
were stopped, unloaded from the truck and severely beaten, then loaded again onto the
truck and driven towards the Stara Gradiška prison. Exhibit T-321, List of the persons
detained at the SJB Ključ150, includes the names of 22 persons transported to the Stara
Gradiška camp on 28 February 2013. Even though the date indicated on the document
itself is 29 May 1992, a handwritten note on it (Gradiška, 27 May ’92) clearly shows that it
refers to the persons who had been deprived of liberty and unlawfully detained on 27 and
28 May 1992 at the Police Station Ključ, and transported to Stara Gradiška in the
afternoon hours of 28 May.
149
Exhibit T-13.
Exhibit T-231, List of detained persons, 29 May 1992, SJB Ključ, with a signature of the Chief of the SJB,
Vinko Kondić.
150
107
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
288.
The referenced documentary evidence is fully supported by the testimonies of
witnesses Muhamed Filipović, Luka Brkić, Fahrudin Krivić, Behrem Šarić, Mehmed Begić
and Leopold Flat. All these witnesses first described their own arrests by soldiers, as
obvious from the analysis of their evidence, or more precisely, by members of the TO or
the police. These witnesses were escorted to the SJB Ključ, and questioned in the offices
of Todo Gajić or Sreto Aničić, police officers of the SJB Ključ, without being informed of the
reasons for their arrest. After the questioning, these witnesses were taken to the basement
cells of the SJB Ključ, which were unfit for the internment of a larger number of detainees
held therein. On the same day (those arrested on 28 May 1992), or on the following day
(those arrested on 27 May 1992 who spent the night in these cells), the 22 men from Ključ,
whose names were listed in Exhibit T-321, as consistently described by all the above
referenced witnesses, were transported by a trailer truck to the Stara Gradiška camp,
during which transport they were severely beaten, as a result of which Šaban Kujundžić
even died. After around 15 days, they were transferred to the Manjača camp.
289.
All the heard witnesses testified that 22 men, Muslims and Croats from Ključ, were
in a group of detainees who were transported in a truck to the Stara Gradiška camp and
15 days later moved to the Manjača camp, and that one of them, Šaban Kujundžić, died
on the road towards the Stara Gradiška camp as a result of severe beatings.
290.
Witness Luka Brkić 151 testified that, in 1992, he lived in the town of Ključ. In late
May, a group of “soldiers or police officers” came to his house searching for weapons, and
the witness handed his hunting rifle over to them. The witness further stated that the
persons who had come to search his house contacted Tode Gajić,152 who ordered them to
take him to the MUP and continue the search. On the way to the MUP, they beat the
witness and “applauded” for the fact of his being taken to the MUP. Once they reached the
MUP, the real interrogation and beating followed. They questioned the witness if he had
had any weapons, sub-machine guns, etc. The witness told them he had had no weapons,
and that he had already handed over his hunting rifle, for which he possessed a regular
firearm license. Ranko Kovačević153 and one Đaković, whom the witness knows by his last
151
Transcript from the case No. X-KR:05/119 of 12 November 2008, testimony of witness Luka Brkić.
As it ensues from the testimonies of the witnesses and Exhibit T-308, Tode Gajić was an employee of the
then police and his name is included in the „List of police employees and other authorized officials who
signed the solemn declaration.“
153
Exhibit T-308, List of police employees and other authorized officials who signed the solemn declaration,
No. 19.
152
108
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
name, beat him in the course of the questioning, in the presence of Tode Gajić. The
witness stated he did not know the reason for his apprehension, and believes it was
probably because he was a non-Serb, and because they thought he had been preparing
something against them. In the meantime, Fadil Medić, a land surveyor from Ključ, was
brought in. They also questioned and beat him, and forced him to eat a piece of paper on
which he wrote in the Latin script „This is Serbia, the Cyrillic script is used here“. After the
interrogation and beating, the witness was taken to a cell in the basement of the SJB Ključ,
where he saw a larger number of Muslims and Croats from Ključ, also detained therein.
They spent a night in this cell. On the following morning, a soldier wearing a red beret
came and called them out, using the words: „Come out, Ustashas! “ They climbed up the
stairs, whereupon their hands were tied up behind their backs. They were loaded onto a
truck with a tarpaulin parked in front of the MUP building. A total of 22 of them were in the
truck. While they kneeled with their hands tied up, three soldiers came in and started
beating them. The beating lasted for half of an hour. Šaban Kujundžić was most severely
beaten, and was unconscious all the time after the beating. The truck, escorted by the
police vehicle in front of and behind it, headed first towards the Small Camp (Mali logor) in
Banja Luka, where they were thrown out of the truck and severely beaten. Thereupon they
were again loaded onto the truck, and transported to Stara Gradiška. Upon leaving the
truck, they passed through a gauntlet of soldiers who kicked them, and beat them with
chains and other implements, and thereupon brought them into a room, where they were
leaned against the wall, while soldiers beat them with batons. The men spent around 15
days in the Gradiška camp, whereupon they were transferred to Manjača.
291.
Witness Muhamed Filipović testified that, on 28 May 1992, on his way back home,
he came across two neighbors of his, Miralem Atiković and Salih Gomilović. They told him
they had overheard via Radio Ključ (which acted pursuant to the directive of the Ključ
Municipal Crisis Staff as described above), that he had been called to surrender. When the
witness came home, his wife told him “in a flutter” that “soldiers had just been here looking
for you”. The witness asked what soldiers were in question, and his wife and daughter-inlaw told him that soldiers who had come spoke the Serbian ekavian dialect, and that one
of them had even said he was from Kragujevac. They searched his house, seized his
pistol and a book in geodesy, and stated that “the Ustasha prepared an attack on
Belgrade“. The witness was a land surveyor by profession and the author of the reference
book was from Belgrade. The witness stated he got angry upon seeing that the house of
his brother Omer, located next to his own house, had been ransacked and his brother’s
109
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
vehicle make “Zastava 101”, driven away. Therefore he went to the police station to speak
with Vinko Kondić, who was in his opinion, together with Jovo Banjac, as members of the
Crisis Staff, responsible for the events in Ključ.
292.
However, already at the far end of his „garden“, the witness bumped into Ratko
Radojičić and Radenko Čavka, members of the TO reserve force. They asked for his
identity card even though they had known him from before, and then escorted him to the
police station. On the way towards the police station, they came across a large group of
soldiers and police officers who started beating the witness, as a result of which he fainted.
When he regained his consciousness, he realized he was stripped to his underpants in
Tode Gajić’s office in the MUP building. Tode questioned him, but during the questioning,
Tode left the office every 15-20 minutes, and a group of soldiers, in olive-gray and dark
blue, camouflage, police uniforms came in to beat him. The witness is certain that those
persons were not from Ključ. The witness believes that the questioning and beating in
Tode Gajić’s office lasted approximately from 11:00 hrs, when he was brought in, through
18:00 hrs, when he was taken to the basement cell. Down there in the cell, the witness
saw a large number of captured men from Ključ, among whom he identified Darko Džajić,
Dr. Leopold Flat, Luka Brkić and some other persons. The witness realized that all the
detainees had something in common – they were non-Serbs, and that the sole reason for
their apprehension was their ethnicity.
293.
Consistently with witness Luka Brkić, witness Filipović testified that they were
taken out of the cells, in the afternoon hours, that their hands were tied up, and they were
taken outside, in front of the MUP building, where a truck with the a tarpaulin and ladders
leaned against it had already awaited them. They were forced to climb up in the truck.
They, 21 of them, climbed up into the truck. Šaban Kujundžić already lied there in a “death
rattle”, as a result of the sustained beatings. In addition to witness Filipović, Dr. Leopold
Flat, Darko Džajić, Luka Brkić, Fadil Jakupović, Mehmed Begić, Teufik Vučkić, Enes Mršić
and some other men were also in the truck. They did not know where they were being
taken. The witness stated that they (soldiers) stopped the truck for a couple of times to
beat them. They were most severely beaten in the Small Camp (Mali logor) in Banja Luka,
where the truck-side was opened, the 22 of them thrown out on a pile and beaten. They
were thereupon again loaded onto the truck and the drive continued. The police escorted
the truck. They drove them to the Stara Gradiška prison. When they got off the truck and
entered the prison, the detainees had to pass through a gauntlet formed by soldiers, who
110
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
beat them with rifle butts. The four detainees carrying immobile Šaban Kujundžić were
most severely beaten. The total of 21 detainees were interned in a small cell, surface 6-7
m², except for Kujundžić whom he had seen no more, and who had died, as the witness
heard. The witness stated that, in order to have air in this cell, a half of them had to squat
alternatively, while the other half stood. On the following morning, they were placed in
other cells, where they had blankets, but in general the conditions were bad, and food
supply poor. For example, one leaf of bread was distributed among 44 persons. The
witness’s leg was severely injured and black and blue, as indigo, and his back hurt as a
result of the sustained beatings. When he visited a physician once, witness Filipović saw
himself in a mirror: his head was like a football. He received 10 penicillin injections, which
saved his life.
294.
While he was imprisoned at Gradiška, witness Filipović met his brother Omer. His
brother Omer, who had also been captured, heard that the last name Filipović was called
out for injection. Thus he succeeded to arrange their meeting. Omer told witness Filipović
how he had surrendered, and threatened that all civilians would be shot dead unless he
surrendered. Despite knowing that his surrender would mean nothing, he surrendered
under the pressure of the civilians at Pudin Han. Already at the moment when he entered
the police vehicle, his thoughts became true. The shelling of Pudin Han started
immediately. Witness Muhamed Filipović further testified that Omer told him he had
guessed they would be transferred to Manjača, which indeed occurred on 15 June. His
brother Omer Filipović and Esad Bender were killed at Manjača in July 1992. Witness
Muhamed Filipović stayed in the camp until 15 September 1992, when representatives of
the Red Cross came there. He was among the 68 detainees called out from the camp and
deported to London.
295.
Witness Fahrudin Krivić testified that he had been apprehended and taken to the
police station on 27 May 1992 to give a statement, as he was told. Already along the road
to the police station, the witness saw some citizens of Ključ armed with automatic rifles
and machine-guns. In the park, he saw a large number of soldiers wearing white eagles
insignia. Aničić was the first person who came to the police station. He was not a police
officer, but he wore a blue police shirt, as a part of the uniform. Thereupon, three soldiers
wearing green, camouflage uniforms, came in to beat and question him about “green
berets”. The witness was thereupon taken to a cell in the basement, where he saw Šaban
Kujundžić and Luka Brkić, already beaten and in a bad condition. The witness stated they
111
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
were subsequently taken out to the duty room, where their hands were tied up. Then they
were loaded onto a trailer truck with a tarpaulin. Consistently with witnesses Filipović and
Brkić, witness Krivić further stated that they were beaten along the road to the Stara
Gradiška camp, and again when they came down from the truck. The witness stated that
he was one of the four men who carried Šaban Kujundžić on the stretcher. Therefore, they
could not walk fast enough, or protect themselves, as a result of which they were beaten
most. Once they entered the camp, they saw Šaban Kujundžić no more. The remaining 21
detainees were placed in a small cell.
296.
Witness Krivić testified that they had stayed in the Stara Gradiška camp for 14
days, whereupon they were transferred to the Manjača camp. They were occasionally
questioned there. Witness Krivić knows that some of the detainees were taken for
questioning and beating. He was beaten only once. Witness Krivić heard from the inmate
Behrem Šarić that they had been detained on a suspicion for Duća’s murder. Even though
the investigator had found, already on 29 May, that they had not been connected with the
referenced killing, they were not released, but rather kept in the Stara Gradiška camp and
thereafter relocated to Manjača, where the witness stayed until December 1992.
297.
Witness Behrem Šarić testified that, on 27 May 1992, he had gone fishing. Along
the road, he and his colleague noticed a large number of armed soldiers in uniforms.
Witness Šarić stated they were all Serb soldiers, some of them had no insignia, some of
them wore caps and berets, with a three-color sign, or without it. The witness stated that
“at the time, it was beyond a comprehension that a Muslim armed with a rifle should walk
along the road.154 Around noon, an elderly soldier approached them, and told them that
Duća had been killed and that they should go home. They obeyed him and went off. On
their way back home, however, they were captured and locked up in a furniture van. When
he saw that two older Muslim men were singled out from a bus which had passed by, and
locked up together with them, the witness realized how serious the situation was, and that
Muslims were arrested regardless of whether any of them had done anything wrong. They
were subsequently taken under escort to the police station Ključ. In the meantime, they
were beaten, and the witness was cut in his ribs with a bayonet. In the police station, they
were taken to Tode Gajić’s office on the upper floor. Once witness Šarić gave a statement,
he was taken down to the basement where he saw a dozen of men, most of them he had
154
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 12 January 2009, p.8.
112
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
known and who had visible injuries. They noticed that there were detainees in other cells
as well. They were kept in the cells until the evening, when they were taken out, with their
hands tied up. They, 21 in total, were ordered to get into a trailer truck parked in front of
the police building. They were beaten while entering the truck. The truck stopped at the
Small Camp in Banja Luka, where they were thrown out of the truck on a pile and beaten.
Then they were again ordered to enter the truck. Šaban Kujundžić remained lying on the
ground, so he was thrown back into the truck, but made no move any more. The next stop
was in Stara Gradiška. The witness described the arrival and stay in the Stara Gradiška
camp similarly as the other heard witnesses. They were beaten at the very entrance to the
camp, and thereupon placed in a small cell where they could not all sit down at the same
time. After spending the night in this cell, they were placed in other cells. During the
internment in the camp, they were beaten and ultimately transported to Manjača. From the
Manjača camp, witness Šarić first went to Karlovac, and he subsequently went abroad,
pursuant to the agreement reached between the authorities and the Red Cross that they
could not return to their homes but may go to the third countries.
298.
Witness Mehmed Begić testified that, in the early morning hours of 28 May 1992,
six persons in military uniforms, among whom he had identified only one, came to his door,
and started beating him already there. He was thereupon taken to the police station where
he met Tode Gajić. Even though they had been good friends, Gajić told him: “Begić, you
will be the first one whose throat I will slit. The Sava River will take your decapitated body
to the Black Sea.”155 The witness was then taken to the office on the upper floor for
interrogation. He received the first blow after arriving in the police station, namely one
Ćirić, whom he had known from before, kicked him in his face with military boots on his
legs. After the questioning in the office on the upper floor, Sreto Aničić called two police
officers, told them to take him away and cut off one of his ears. They took the witness to a
room on the ground floor, where men unknown to him, wearing camouflage military
uniforms, came to question him. They interrogated and beat him simultaneously all the
time, mostly with police butts on his hands, as a result of which his hands were black and
blue, and all covered in blood. After such a long and painstaking interrogation, they took
the witness to the basement cell where he saw seven men from Ključ whom he knew. The
men from Ključ were locked up in the other cells too. They were all together taken out to
the hallway to be registered, tied up and transported to the Stara Gradiška camp. The
113
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
witness stated he had known all the 22 men from Ključ gathered in the hallway of the
police station, and they all had in common the fact that they were non-Serbs. They were
mostly Bosniaks, a few Croats and a German, dr. Leopold Flat.
299.
Witness Begić testified they had been loaded onto a truck parked in front of the
police building, and at the same time beaten by uniformed persons, whom he could not
identify either as soldiers or police officers. The witness counted 20 blows that he received
on his head by a button, as a result of which he lost his consciousness. As a result of
those blows, his head deformed. The truck trailer stopped at the Small Camp in Banja
Luka. The detainees were forced out of the truck on a pile and beaten. They were jumped
on and hit by rifle butts and barrels all over their bodies. The witness eye-witnessed the
hardship of Šaban Kujundžić, who was thrown out of the truck, and who fell with his head
on the concrete ground. After the beating, they were ordered to get back onto the truck,
thus they picked up Šaban Kujundžić as he lied immobile on the ground. Dr. Flat checked
Kujundžić and stated he believed Kujundžić would not survive, and he indeed did not
survive. A police vehicle escorted the truck all the time.
300.
Witness Begić stated that, upon their arrival in Stara Gradiška, they passed
through a gauntlet, receiving blows all over their bodies. Like the other witnesses, witness
Begić stated that the room where they were placed was so small that they could not all sit
in it at the same time. On the following day, they were moved to other cells. The witness
stated they were taken to Manjača on 11 June, where he stayed until 14 December 1992.
He was released from the camp owing to the Red Cross. However, the witness could not
go back home, but rather to the third countries based on the documents he had previously
signed.
301.
The testimony of witness Leopold Flat does not essentially differ from the above
analyzed testimonies of the other witnesses. On 27 May 1992, witness Flat was at his
work in the Health Center. Around 11:00/12:00 hrs, all Serbs left their work posts, and
shortly thereafter they gathered “armed from head to foot”. The witness went back home,
but 5-6 persons unknown to him came to his house, beat him and took him to the
Secretariat of Internal Affairs, and locked him up in a cell. In the evening, they took him to
Tode Gajić for interrogation, which lasted throughout the night, and during which he was
beaten. As a result of this beating, the witness was all covered with blood. After the
155
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 10 March 2010, testimony of witness Mehmed Begić, p.18.
114
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
interrogation, they did not take him to the same cell, in order to prevent the other
detainees, still not subjected to such abuse, from seeing him beaten so heavily. They were
subsequently taken out of the cells and their hands were tied up with a rope. They
registered the names of the detainees and ordered them to enter the truck. Witness Flat
also testified they had been ill-treated while entering the truck. They stopped at the Small
Camp in Banja Luka, where they were forced out from the truck and beaten with sticks.
Their final destination was Stara Gradiška. Witness Flat also described a small cell where
they were placed, where they stayed until the morning with insufficient ventilation,
whereupon they were placed in other cells. As a result of the beatings he received, Šaban
Kujundžić died. They stayed in Gradiška for 15 days, whereupon they were transported to
Manjača, where the witness stayed until 15 September 1992.
302.
All the witnesses consistently testified that, after being arrested by members of the
military, or the TO, like in the case of Muhamed Filipović, or by members of the police
force, they were taken to the police station, where they were severely beaten, both at the
entrance to the police building and during the interrogation itself; that they were
subsequently locked up in the basement cells in the police station building, which were
unfit for interment, and in which those arrested on 27 May 1992 spent a night, and those
arrested on 28 May 1992 spent a certain period of time; that in the afternoon hours they
were taken out from these cells, registered in the police station hallway, with their hands
tied up; that they were thereupon forced to climb up the truck trailer already parked in front
of the police station building, and that the gathered soldiers and police officers beat them
while they entered the truck. In addition, all the witnesses consistently testified that the
truck which transported them to the Stara Gradiška camp was escorted by the police along
the entire way, that it stopped at the Small Camp (Mali logor) in Banja Luka, which is when
uniformed persons entered the trailer and beat them on their heads with batons, threw
them out of the truck on a pile, jumped all over them and beat them with rifle butts and
barrels, and that as a result of this abuse 21 detainees sustained severe bodily injuries,
while the injured party Šaban Kujundžić died. Upon their arrival in Gradiška, they were
beaten, interrogated by individuals during their 15-day stay in this prison, in poor
conditions, whereupon they were transferred to Manjača. Some of these men were
subsequently deported to third countries since it was the only way to leave the camp, but
with a ban on return to Ključ.
303.
The above referenced acts have satisfied the elements of all individual
115
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
incriminations by which the criminal offense of persecution as a war crime against
humanity was committed, namely:
304.
Murder – as consistently described by all the heard witnesses, the referenced acts
resulted in the death of at least one person, Šaban Kujundžić. The witnesses testified that
Kujundžić was brought to the Stara Gradiška camp in the “death rattle” caused by the
beatings he had received. The witnesses stated that already at the stop-over at the Small
Camp in Banja Luka Kujundžić was thrown into the truck as he stayed lying unconscious
on the ground after the beating, and that upon their arrival in the Gradiška camp four
detainees had to carry him out of the truck. None of the 21 men from Ključ, brought to
Gradiška in the same truck-trailer together with Kujundžić saw him thereafter. They heard
that Kujundžić was in Gradiška and that he was dead. Witness Asim Egrlić confirmed this
was true. Witness Egrlić was, on the same day, transported to the Stara Gradiška camp by
a car vehicle escorting the truck with the captured men from Ključ. This witness testified
about the events described by the above referenced witnesses, including the severe
beatings in the Small Camp in Banja Luka. After the arrival in Stara Gradiška, witness
Egrlić was placed in a cell, where a man in „death rattle” had already been placed, and
identified him as Šaban Kujundžić. The witness stated that, no sooner than the following
evening, a physician or a nurse came and said Kujundžić had to be taken out. Witness
Egrlić subsequently learned that Kujundžić had died. The death of the victim Kujundžić
was confirmed by an excerpt from the Register of Deaths.156
305.
Imprisonment and other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of
fundamental rules of international law – all the witnesses-injured parties consistently
testified that they had been arrested and imprisoned solely because of their ethnicity, that
there was no legal ground for that, and that they were not informed about the reasons for
such deprivation or imprisonment.
306.
Other inhumane acts of similar character intentionally causing great suffering or
serious injury to body or to physical or mental health – the above analyzed testimonies of
the witnesses are consistent regarding the fact that the beating to which they were
subjected after being arrested, or taken to the police station, during the interrogations and
the subsequent transport to the Stara Gradiška camp, and in the camp itself, were
extremely severe and brutal, that they resulted in serious bodily injuries and mental
116
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
suffering of the injured parties, the consequences of which they still feel. Therefore, the
referenced acts are of such a gravity and consequences whose intensity is not lesser than
the other consequences of the other described acts. This is why the Panel has concluded
that the referenced acts certainly have the character of the acts of commission of the
persecution of Muslims and Croats of the Ključ municipality, within the policy of
persecution created at the high levels of the authority, and the policy of creation of a
separate Serb state and the proclamations defined under the Strategic goals.
307.
Deportation and forcible transfer of population – All heard witnesses consistently
testified that, even after a long period of time they had spent in the camps, they were
prohibited from returning to the town of Ključ. They were required to sign a statement that
they would leave to the third countries. In the Panel’s view, the fact that the injured parties,
detained at the camps for months, most often knew nothing about their families, who had
stayed in the town of Ključ after their arrests, should also be taken into account. However,
the only way to leave the camp was to consent to go to distant countries, which they did.
Therefore, the referenced acts of unlawful deprivation of liberty, unlawful imprisonment
and unlawful confinement in concentration camps, whereby men were separated from their
families, and the women and children remaining in Ključ most often found their way out in
abandoning their homes and going into unknown direction, resulted in the forcible transfer
of entire Muslim and Croat families from Ključ and its surroundings. In this way, the goal of
the common policy of the highest bodies of the new state was furthered and implemented
by the Municipal Crisis Staff through the activities of the military and the police.
308.
Unlawful confinement to concentration camps – Similarly to the fact that there was
no legal ground for deprivation of liberty, which was effectuated for the reason of the
ethnicity of the injured parties, their confinement to camps, where they were subjected to
poor and harsh conditions of life, the beatings to which a certain number of detainees
succumbed (Omer Filipović and Esad Bender), undoubtedly had no legitimate grounds,
and constituted an action of commission of persecution as a crime against humanity. The
referenced individuals, arrested as civilians, taken away from their homes or from fishing,
like witness Behrem Šarić, quite certainly posed no security risk, and as described, there
was no legal ground for their imprisonment.
156
Exhibit T-452.
117
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
309.
In view of all the foregoing, the Panel has concluded that the acts described in
Section 1 of the enacting clause of the Verdict formed part of the policy of persecution of
Muslims and Croats of the Ključ municipality, created through the activities of the military
and the police, as well as the conditions for its effectuation at the sessions of the Municipal
Crisis Staff, where the accused Lukić and Adamović undoubtedly played a significant role,
as already explained. Even though none of them played no active role in the concrete acts
of persecution, described in this Sections, given that it concerns the early days of the
attack on the civilian Muslim and Croat population, in the preparation of which they actively
participated, as described above, they were undoubtedly aware of such activities of the
military and the police, and they wanted their commission. The recorded presentation by
Boško Lukić (Exhibit T-9), the activities of both the Accused at the Crisis Staff sessions
and on the ground, to be explained in detail in further sections of the reasoning, confirm
beyond a doubt that they were aware of both the unlawful arrests and interrogations, and
the common design, which they personally shared, and for the furtherance of which the
referenced actions were undertaken, which renders them, as participants in the JCE, also
liable for the acts described in Section 1 of the enacting clause of the Verdict.
E.
SECTION 2 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE CONVICTING PART OF THE VERDICT
“On 28 May 1992, the Ključ Battalion, assisted by the 30th Partisan Division of the
First Krajina Corps, launched an artillery attack on the Ključ settlements Pudin
Han and Velagići, inhabited by the Muslim population, where there were no
legitimate military targets, which lasted for at least two days, while the shelling
caused death of at least 12 persons, including Esma Bečić, Refika Bečić, aka
Keka, Hamdo Bečić and Refik Draganović.”
310.
According to many witnesses, Pudin Han and Velagići, the two settlements in the
Ključ municipality inhabited by the Muslim population, were among the first ones that were,
already on 28 May 1992, subjected to severe shelling. The witnesses testified that the
shelling was carried out from the Brežčice plateau, Stari grad and Lanište, from which
Velagići was mostly shelled. The shelling of Pudin Han and Velagići followed after the
population of these settlements had been given an ultimatum to surrender their weapons,
but the fire was opened before the expiration of the set deadline. Witness Hasan Salihović
testified that, at the time when Vinko Kondić called them to surrender their weapons, they
saw howitzers and a personnel carrier at the checkpoint near the ROPS, directed at Pudin
Han.
311.
The Defense teams for the accused Lukić and Adamović did not contest the
referenced events and the killing of 12
civilians as described in this section of the
118
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
enacting clause of the Verdict. However, by proving that the Ključ Battalion was not
deployed at the referenced sites, at the critical time, and that it had no heavy weaponry. In
an effort to contest any connection of the Accused with the referenced activities, the
Defense particularly relied on the finding of expert witness Slobodan Kosovac, the
testimonies of witnesses Drago Radojičić and Krstan Škavrić, and the evidence the
Accused gave themselves. Considering the evidence presented by the Prosecution,
however, the Panel has concluded that such a defense of the Accused was neither
convincing nor proven.
312.
Even though it is undoubtedly true that the rest of the Knin Corps was deployed at
Lanište, following the approval by the OO SDS for the deployment of the JNA units at the
territory of the Ključ municipality, as confirmed by many heard witnesses, the Panel bore in
mind the testimonies of the witnesses, who had consistently and convincingly testified that
a unit of the TO Staff, under Boško Lukić’s command, was also dislocated to Lanište.
Witnesses Enes Salihović and Ibrahim Bajrić consistently testified about the foregoing.
Witness Ibrahim Bajrić, a tractor driver in the Lanište Forest Industry Company, testified
that Muslim employees had more problems with members of the TO, which had in the
meantime become monoethnic, who were in uniforms and armed, and who supported the
arrival of soldiers at Lanište, to which Muslim workers opposed more than to the arrival of
members of the Knin Corps which had also arrived. Thus, both witness Ibrahim Bajrić and
witness Enes Salihović confirmed that members of the TO Staff, out of which the Ključ
Battalion was formed as already described, were located at Lanište, at the site from which
Velagići was shelled. Witness Mehmed Begić testified he had learned from his
acquaintances that on 27 May 1992, at Lanište, all barrels were pointed at the town. In
addition, the forces of the 30th Partisan Division were also deployed at the Lanište area, as
ensues from the documents of the Command of the 5th Corps dated 3 April 1992.157
313.
On 27 May 1992, witness Enes Salihović lived in his village of Velagići. Having
heard from people that it was broadcast that Dušan Stojaković had been killed, he eyewitnessed the passage of a column of military vehicles, pinzgauers, equipped with twomachine guns each, heading towards Pudin Han and Ključ. Around 5 -10 minutes after
their passage, the witness first heard a short burst of fire and then horrible shooting
coming from the Ključ direction. The shooting also started at the Velagići check point.
119
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Even though it was a situation of “panic and chaos”, Šefik Muratović was wounded, some
houses torched, there were no more casualties on that day. The lull, however, did not last
for long. Already on the following day, “an all-out artillery fire” was launched on the center
of Velagići from the Lanište direction. The witness testified that as a result of the shelling,
the villagers fled and the settlement remained unprotected. The shelling lasted throughout
the day, until late night hours.
314.
It ensues from the consistent testimonies of the witnesses that, simultaneously
with the shelling of Velagići from the Lanište direction, Pudin Han was shelled from the
Brežčica and Stari Grad direction.
315.
In May 1992, witness Mirsad Puškar, originally from the village of Humići, moved
to an old house in the village of Ratkovići due to a tense situation and the fear he felt. This
witness testified that, in late May 1992, soldiers, among whom he identified Marko
Adamović, Milan Adamović and Branko Ribič, passed towards the Brežčice plateau,
“dragging the equipment, mortars, even an eighty-two piece158“.The witness could see from
his village the Brežčice plateau, where soldiers climbed up, thus he monitored what was
going on. Witness Puškar saw that only one truck went back thorough the village. They
“fired” at Pudin Han from the Brežčice plateau. The witness heard the sounds of shells
being fired and the sounds of their falling down, since Pudin Han was only 1 km far away
as the crow flies. When the fire ceased, the witness headed towards the plateau where
soldiers had been earlier located and found cartridge cases, empty shells, etc. Considering
that soldiers did not return through the village, the witness concluded they had left the
Brežčice plateau taking the road towards Pudin Han.
316.
The Panel has correlated this witness’s testimony with the documentary Exhibit T-
196 (Contribution to the Monograph of the 1st Krajina Corps). In the Panel’s view, the
contents of the referenced Exhibit support the testimony of witness Mirsad Puškar, as it
shows that, on 27 May 1992, the Ključ Battalion, the command structure of which included
Commander Branko Ribič and his Deputy Marko Adamović, was relocated from the Sitnica
area, where it underwent a training program, and that a company of this Battalion attacked
from the Brežčice position in the Pudin Han direction.
157
Exhibit T-144 „...c) 2/13. Partisan Brigade was deployed in the area of the Lanište pass, to the west from
Ključ, covering 15 km of the AVNOJ road...“.
158
Mortar caliber 82mm.
120
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
317.
Witnesses Ajiz Bečić, Latif Salihović, Senad Draganović and some other
witnesses testified about the shelling of Pudin Han. Witness Ajiz Bečić testified he had
lived in Hadžići when the shooting started. He fled, together with other villagers, towards a
cave near Vukovo Selo, believing they would find shelter against shells falling all around
them. However, at an intersection, a shell hit a mass of refugees, specifically members of
his closer family. The witness testified:
„...Thus, I saw my wife in front of me. Those small pieces of shrapnel did not hurt
her, but further below, I saw my son fallen on the ground, he had carried his
small daughter in his arms. My daughter fell down on the other side, struggling,
her legs separated from the rest of her body. I lifted my son’s head, and he died
in my arms. I took with me his small daughter, and we headed back, up there to
Hadžići, to the woods...”159
318.
At least 12 people were killed by a shell which hit the crossroads.160 Witness Latif
Salihović also eye-witnessed the tragic scene after a tractor was hit by the shell and
inhabitants of Hadžići who, fleeing from the shells falling around the woods, tried to find a
shelter in a cave in Vukovo Selo. At least 12 of them failed in this effort. The witness saw
the bodies torn into pieces. He subsequently learned that Fikret Draganović and the Bečić
family had been killed. Witness Marinko Vejin also confirmed that, as a police officer on
duty, he noted in the duty log161 that, on 28 May 1992, the Health Center notified them of
the death of Esma Bečić.
319.
Witness Enes Salihović testified that, when everyone had abandoned Velagići
after the heavy shelling, he went to Pudin Han, where Omer Filipović and Asim Egrlić
formed a “body which they could address“, and by which they contacted the Police Station
Ključ. Witness Salihović stated that Omer Filipović made contacts with the Police Station
Ključ, and that Vinko Kondić and Colonel Stanislav Galić requested him to surrender as
they held his wife and children. People gathered around Omer, requesting him to
surrender because of numerous victims. According to the witness, Omer “desperately
cried” at the time, pointing with his hand towards the Draganovići intersection where a
tractor was hit by a mortar shell, with the bodies of killed men, women and children around
it.
159
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 16 September 2009, the testimony of witness Ajiz Bečić,
p.8.
160
T-451 Record of autopsy and identification with accompanying documents, in the Velagići territory, T-452
Excerpts from the Register of Deaths listed from Nos. 95-104.
161
Exhibit T-13.
121
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
320.
Witness Muhamed Filipović, who had met his brother Omer Filipović in the Stara
Gradiška prison, testified that his brother had told him about the events that had occurred
in Pudin Han on 28 May 1992. (His brother) Omer told him that the Serbs from Ključ
requested him to surrender, or otherwise they would kill the civilians. He added that the
Muslims gathered at Pudin Han got divided between those requesting his surrender, and
those requesting him not to do so. Omer stated he would surrender if that would save
5000 civilians, but that the situation would be the same for them “both with or without him”,
irrespectively of his surrender. Omer indeed surrendered. He was right when he stated his
surrender would change nothing. As Omer told his brother Muhamed, already at the
moment when he entered the police vehicle, the shelling of Pudin Han started.
321.
As described in the Prosecution’s Indictment, and uncontested by the Defense
itself, the Panel concluded it was proved that the artillery attack on Pudin Han and Velagići
started on 28 May 1992, that it lasted for at least 2 days, and that it resulted in the death of
at least 12 civilians, including the Bečić family and Senad Draganović. Contrary to the
Defense’s submissions, however, the Panel concluded it was proved that the Ključ
Battalion took part in the attack on these villages, in cooperation with the units of the 30th
Division. Apart from the already analyzed testimonies of the witnesses and the
documentary evidence, addressing the engagement of the Ključ Battalion in the
referenced artillery attack, the Panel also took into account the evidence relating to the
activities of the 30th Division of the 1st Krajina Corps in the referenced territory.162
322.
In addition to already examined Exhibit T-144, Deployment of the forces of the 30th
Partisan Division, showing that a certain number of forces were deployed in the Lanište
area, in the Ključ municipality, the Prosecution’s Exhibit T-161163 noted as follows:
“The units of the 1st Krajina Corps are located at the earlier taken positions and
the frontline was not moved. Cooperation with the MUP SR BiH in the terrain
cleansing and seizure of weapons from illegal formations in the territory of
Prijedor, Sanski Most and Ključ has continued.”
The Panel has correlated the above referenced Exhibit with the Prosecution’s Exhibit T329, Activity report of Ključ Public Security Station during combat activities in the territory
of the Ključ municipality 164 of July 1992, stating that, following the incident in Busije, an
162
Exhibits T-144, T-156, T-161.
Exhibit T-161, Regular combat report No. 44-1/152 of 29 May 1992.
164
T-329.
163
122
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
„action of the units of the 30th Division, supported by the SJB Ključ forces“ will be
launched. As it ensues from the referenced document, 7 soldiers were captured on the
same day in the area of the Crljeni village, and
„The Command of the 30th Division ordered the use of the units of the Serb
Republic of BiH....The action of the units of the 30th Division, supported by the
forces of the SJB Ključ was fast, forceful and efficient. The resistance of
extremists and fundamentalists was overcome. Greater losses in live force were
effected and a number of material properties, from which the armed resistance
had been offered, were destroyed. “
The Panel correlated and evaluated all the foregoing with the Report by Chief Kondić of
25 September 1992.165 The Report addressed the situation in the Municipality for the past
period stating that, after an armed riot and an ambush in Busije, „our forces broke
Muslims’ resistance with planned actions of the artillery and infantry”. The foregoing was
also correlated with the testimony of witness Salihović. The witness stated that, after his
arrival in Pudin Han from Velagići, the Serb party called Omer Filipović into surrender,
namely that in addition to Chief of the SJB Ključ, Vinko Kondić, Commander of the 30th
Division, Stanislav Galić, had also requested the surrender of Omer Filipović.
323.
Exhibit T-455/24, War Logbook of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade for the period
from 27 May 1992 through 21 March 1994, shows that, on 28 May 1992, several warning
shells were fired at Pudin Han and Velagići. Although that was a War Logbook of the 17th
Light Infantry Brigade, it is clear that at the time the Brigade was still not formed, and that,
obviously, this information was registered in relation to the units from which the Brigade
was formed, and that one of those units was the Ključ Battalion.
324.
In view of all the foregoing, the Panel has concluded that the evidence, evaluated
individually and in combination, confirms the finding of fact described in Section 2 of the
enacting clause of the Verdict. Since those were the early days of the attack launched
against the civilian Muslim population in the Ključ municipality, in which the Ključ Battalion
took part, the Panel has concluded, beyond a doubt, that the Accused were aware of this
attack and wanted its realization in furtherance of the common design.
F. SECTION 3 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE VERDICT
“On 1 June 1992, after all Muslim men from the hamlets of Vojići, Hasići, Nezići,
Hadžići and other settlements of the village of Velagići were called to come to the
165
Exhibit T-332.
123
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
police checkpoint in Velagići, military police officers took personal belongings
from those who responded to the call and forced them into the premises of the
old school, where they imprisoned them although they knew they had no legal
grounds to do so, and then, in the late evening hours, they forced them out and
executed them, on which occasion they killed at least 78 persons, including
Denis Zukić, Rezak Nezić, Esad Zečević, Kasim Bajrić, Husein Fazlić, Mesud
Bajrić, Atif Nezić, Safet Draganović, Šefik Bajrić, Fadil Delić, Ilijaz Ćehić, Emsud
Bečić, Hasan Zukić, Đulaga Burzić, Rešid Dervišević, Asim Keranović, Karanfil
Dervišević, Asim Ćehić, Husein Nezić, Dedo Muheljić, Ramiz Draganović, Emir
Keranović, Emsud Draganović, Muharem Bajrić, Fehim Bajrić, Ibro Bajrić,
Sabahudin Ćemal, Derviš Kujundžić, Adem Muheljić, Fehret Draganović, Hilmo
Draganović, Nijaz Draganović, Saim Halilović, Saif Ćemal, Omer Zečević, Refik
Bečić, Nijaz Nezić, Ramiz Zukić, Rifet Bajrić, Husein Bajrić, Mustafa Bajrić,
Ibrahim Muratović, Dževad Hotić, Islam Nezić, Hilmo Draganović, Mesud
Draganović, Adem Draganović, Teufik Draganović, Fadil Draganović, Elvedin
Čarkić, Nedim Bajrić, Mirsad Ćehić, Šaban Bilajac, Esmin Draganović, Husein
Ćehić, Almir Delić, Tifo Bukvić, Jasmin Keranović, Zikret Bajrić, Džemal
Draganović, Meho Bajrić, Ramiz Aličić, Emil Delić, Hamdija Draganović, Safet
Nezić, Rufad Draganović, Emir Gromilić, Ismet Jukić and Safet Dervišević, who
were later exhumed from the mass grave Lanište II. The police continued to
search for those who survived.“
325.
A large number of witnesses testified about the circumstances addressed in
Section 3 of the enacting clause of the Verdict. Importantly, it should be noted that the
Defense for the Accused did not contest the events per se and the fact that they indeed
occurred in the described way. The Defense rather contested that the two Accused had
any connection with or that they participated in the commission of the described crimes.
326.
The Appellate Panel, however, concluded it was proven that the events that
occurred on 1 June 1992 at the Velagići check point, and the killings in the old school to
which the men who had surrendered at the check point were brought, formed part of the
JCE plan in which the accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović participated and to
which they significantly contributed.
327.
As it ensues from the testimony of witness Hasan Salihović, after the shelling of
Pudin Han on 28 May 1992, its villagers spent approximately 3 days away from their
village (to be addressed in detail in Section 5a) of the enacting clause of the convicting
part of the Verdict), and when their return to the village was approved, they found out that
the village was burnt down. Nevertheless, they decided to stay in the village, so they
gathered in a house which remained intact. Shortly after their return, however, Duje Vejin
came to the village, wearing a uniform with rank insignia, and ordered the witness to visit
the hamlets of the Velagići village, and to make lists of inhabitants, which he did. Witness
Salihović brought these lists to the Velagići check point where he saw Colonel Marijanović.
Thereupon Duje Vejin came and told him:
„Hasan, come over here. What is that? You
124
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
must visit these hamlets. They did not come, and the busses will arrive.”166 The witness
was ordered to visit again, on a tractor, the Velagići hamlets - Vojići, Hasići, Nezići,
Čustovići, all the way to Pudin Han, and to pass them the order that all military fit men
must report to the check point in Velagići for questioning and their security, which he did.
The villages were rather ransacked. The witness learned that the military had cleansed the
whole territory, of not only Pudin Han, but the entire Velagići territory. Visiting those
villages, the witness came across a group of a dozen villagers, among whom he identified
Meho Bajrić, heading towards Velagići. In the evening, the witness heard a detonation,
and on the following day he learned that the men who had gone to the Velagići check point
did not return, that they were killed and that the old school was blown up.
328.
Witness A was in his village of Hasići when Hasan Salihović came by a tractor to
register the population, and in the evening of the same day again, when he told them:
“Men, you must report to Velagići, up there in the Velagići primary school, to be issued
with free movement licenses so that you can normally live in your houses.“167 His fellow
villagers decided to act in compliance with the order passed by Hasan Salihović. They
found a stick and made a white flag, and in a group headed towards the Velagići check
point. Once they arrived there, the villagers of Vojići had already been there, and they
waited for villagers from Čustovići and Hasići, who also arrived in the meantime. They
were all lined up in a column and ordered to empty their pockets, throw their money and
documents 2m in front of them. Soldiers and police officers subsequently collected the
thrown money. The witness described that, upon entering the check point, he noticed a
police container and a military dug out. Thereupon Zoran Dvizac, Željko Radojičić and two
other soldiers came to register them, and some of the men were even beaten. The witness
described that those two soldiers cursed their „balija’s mother“, and told them that Muslims
had been preparing to establish a „djamahiria“. One of the soldiers cursed witness’s
mother and threatened him with a knife. Even though they were ordered to keep their
heads bowed down and to look down while they were in the column, the witness could see
that Ramiz Zukić was severely beaten. He was taken, together with Husein Bajrić and
Husein Fazlić, to the container where soldiers stripped off Ramiz’s clothes and jumped all
over him. After the registration, they were ordered to enter the old school in a column. The
witness believes that around 80 men were taken to the old school. The witness testified
166
167
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 13 April 2009, testimony of witness Hasan Salihović, p.26.
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 15 April 2009, testimony of Witness A, p.6.
125
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
that “we squatted in each other’s lap“168 in a small room and stayed there up until around
23:30 hrs. As it ensues from witness A’s evidence, confirmed by Marinko Miljević’s
evidence, buses by which they were to be transported to Ključ, arrived at around 23:30
hrs. However, at least 78 of them had never been transferred to Ključ, but rather killed in
the old school.
329.
Witness A testified that, at around 23:30 hrs, they were ordered to leave the
school and form a column, two by two, at the training ground in front of the school. At that
moment, the witness noticed „two men squatting over there at the training ground,“ with
automatic rifles, pointed at them. When they all went out, they were ordered to turn
around, facing these two men, who had kept them covered. Then an order ”fire“ followed,
and they started shooting in bursts of fire at the men taken out from the school. The
witness immediately threw himself on the ground, and corpses kept falling over him. The
witness survived below this pile of bodies. After the execution was over, soldiers got
cheered, drank brandy, and sat on the dead bodies. The witness described it as follows: „I
was pressured with such a burden that I was thinking to kill myself, to end my suffering.
That was, that was unbearable...“169 The witness thereupon overheard soldiers discussing
the way in which they would remove the bodies, that they would go to Lanište to bring an
excavator and trucks. At one point, the witness heard the voice of Ismet Jukić, who had
been wounded and who asked for „another bullet to end his suffering“. Even though these
soldiers had been moving away from them, when they heard Jukić’s voice, they „went
back”, fired another burst of fire in him and left. The witness stated he succeeded in
making his way from below this pile of bodies. He first tried to check if his youngest
brother, whose body lied on the top of his, gave any signs of life. Then he checked the
others around him, but they were all dead. Nevertheless, he found Fadil Stričević and
Enes Keranović alive. The witness told Enes that he “must flee“, and thereupon fled. He
hid in juniper shrubs and later finally reached his village. However, the witness testified he
had hid in the woods in the forthcoming period, until 23 June 1992, because soldiers
”searched the villages day-and-night for all men older than age 18 and they killed, arrested
and apprehended whomever they found...“170. He reported to the police on 23 June 1992
because of the threats his family had received. He gave a statement and returned home.
Shortly thereafter, he was arrested by the police and taken to police officer Stojčić for
168
169
Ibid.p.9.
Ibid., p.11.
126
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
interrogation. The witness was locked up in the police station, where he saw his
acquaintance Boro Čekić and asked for his help. Čekić told him: ”I cannot help you. Chief
Vinko Kondić attended a meeting today in Banja Luka, where it was decided to cleanse the
terrain of Bosniaks.“ The witness was thereupon transferred to Manjača.
330.
It ensues from the witnesses’ testimonies that the police and the military searched
for the survivors after the summary execution, and that there were just a few of them. The
witness did not tell even his family what he had survived. During the interrogation in the
police station, he lied that a wound on his head, which he sustained in the execution that
he had survived, resulted from the ladders falling on his head. The witness heard that two
Muslims who had survived the execution, Enver Čehić and Ifet Bukviš, were killed, namely
that Enver Čehić was killed at the Kamenica camp after admitting he had survived the
summary execution at the Velagići check point.
331.
In 1992, witness Mirsad Dervišević lived in (the village of) Hadžići. This witness
also testified that Hasan Salihović had visited his village to inform the inhabitants that they
had to surrender their weapons. The witness stated that, when the first group of villagers
went towards Velagići, he did not want to go since he saw that none of those who had
already gone there, returned. However, when his father headed off towards Velagići, he
followed him. At the check point, they saw ”Chetnik reservists“ and neighbors-civilians
whom he had known, and who started beating him using words ”here comes Mirso, the
cab-driver”, and asking money from him. In this group of soldiers, the witness identified
police officer Željo Radojičić, Boško Čurćija and Duje Vejin. In the meantime, buses from
Sanica came along the road, escorted by a police vehicle make Golf. The witness saw
Simo Vujičić in this police Golf vehicle, who asked him: ”What are you doing here,
Mirsad?“ Simo Vujićić told a person in military uniform: “Commander, this one must go with
me to the main SUP for interrogation.”171 The witness was taken to the SUP, and thus he
successfully avoided the destiny of those who had together with him surrendered at the
check point, who were thereupon detained at the old school and summarily executed,
including his father.
170
Ibid, p.18.
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 23 March 2009, testimony of witness Mirsad Dervišević,
p.19.
171
127
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
332.
That police officers and soldiers at the check point knew what destiny awaited the
men who had surrendered there, may be concluded from the analyzed testimony of
witness Dervišević. In the police vehicle on the road towards SUP, the witness told Simo
Vujičić that his father Rešad had stayed at the checkpoint, and Simo responded “Why
didn’t you tell me so immediately? I would have taken along your father as well. I dare not
go back any more. There is nothing I can do now.”172 Witness Željko Radojičić confirmed
witness Dervišević’s statement. Witness Radojičić stated that he was picked up from the
Velagići check point because he had been on good terms with Simo Vujičić. It can be
concluded from these statements that Simo Vujičić decided to save Mirsad Dervišević
because of their friendship. In the statement he had given in the investigation, but which
was read out at the trial because the witness died in the meantime, 173 witness Vujičić
confirmed he was on good terms with Mirsad Dervišević. Obviously, in order to justify his
act and avoid having any connections with the events at the Velagići check point, witness
Vujičić stated that he had learned from a soldier escorting Dervišević that Dervišević was
apprehended because he knew who had fired at young soldiers, and that he was allegedly
taking him to the police station to give a statement with regard to this incident. Neither
witness Dervišević nor any other person, arrested and detained at the Velagići School
stated, however, said that anyone had asked them anything about the circumstances
surrounding the shooting at young soldiers in Busije. Therefore, the Panel gave no
credence to the averments contained in witness Vujičić’s statement.
333.
Rešid Dervišević, father of witness Mirsad Dervišević, was exhumed from the
Lanište II mass grave. Exhumed from the Lanište II mass grave also were the bodies of all
those men whose names Witness A remembered in mentioning who had been killed near
the old school.174 The exhumation records175 also show that the killed civilians were, on the
following day, transported to the Lanište II site and buried in a mass grave. The school
was blown up and the crime scene cleansed, and thereby the traces of the crime removed.
172
Ibid, p. 21.
Exhibit T-123, Witness Examination Record for Simo Vujičić, No. KT-RZ-119/05 of 25 February 2008 and
excerpt from the Register of Deaths for Simo Vujičić.
174
When the witness mentioned persons killed by the old school, he stated: “There were my father Adem,
brother Rufad, Safet, then there were ... well, all members of the families of three brothers lived in our
village. There were our relatives from our father's side, Ramiz, his son Hamdija, brother Fehret, Fadil, Nijaz,
Džemal, down there were (members of the family) Keranovići Asim, Enes, Emir, Jasmin... four brothers in
total... then the Bajrić brothers, Rifet, Zikret, Mesud, Fehim, Mustafa, Muharem, Husein, Šefik, Nedim. I have
already mentioned Rifet. There were also (members of the) Zečević family from that village of Častovići,
173
128
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
334.
Even though the witnesses heard with regard to the referenced section, namely
Witness A, Mirsad Dervišević and Hasan Salihović, could not state specifically in their
testimonies of which units or formations the uniformed persons at the check point where
they surrendered where members, or who had fired at the detained men in the late night
hours of 1 June 1992. The Panel has concluded, on the basis of the Prosecution’s
documentary evidence and the statement of witness Vitomir Gajić, who had investigated
the referenced incident in 1992 as an authorized official person that the referenced actions
were directly carried out by members of the military police.
335.
Witness Gajić, confirmed that, in 1992, he took part in the investigation conducted
in the referenced case, and that, even though he had not visited the crime scene, he
examined in his office the persons suspected of this incident, and accordingly made official
notes176. The witness testified at the hearing that, after 15 years, he remembered neither
the persons he had talked to at the time nor what they had told them. The witness
confirmed these were the notes he had made, and that they literally contain all they had
told him. The referenced official notes reveal that military police officers, Mile Petrović,
Nikola Ćuk, Marinko Miljević and Zoran Banjac described the killings of Muslims in the old
school at the Velagići check point, of which they were suspected. They all mentioned an
attempted flight in which those civilians had been killed. The same view was maintained by
the Defense for the accused Lukić, which did not dispute the incident itself when the
civilians in Velagići were killed, but rather made objections to the way in which the killings
occurred. In the evidentiary proceedings before the Appellate Division Panel, the Defense
adduced into evidence the document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 2 June
1992177 which also indicated that “the prisoners had escaped (the Muslim population) and
the prisoners opened fire, as a result of which a larger group of men were killed”.
Analyzing the entire course of the events, the facts that Muslims had first handed over
their weapons, came to the Velagići check point under white flags as requested, and then
detained in a small room in the old school, guarded by armed members of the military
police, and as witness A described, taken out in the late night hours, almost 80 of them,
and summarily executed on command, clearly show that this was not certainly an
Omer, Esad, Refik Bečić, Emsud, they were all from that upper part, then the Nezići family, Husein and Safet
Nezić, Husein's two sons, Safet's son, etc. ...“.
175
Exhibits T-451 and T-452.
176
Exhibit T-39.
177
Exhibit AO-4, Act of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, str.conf. No. 2-65 of 2 June 1992.
129
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
attempted flight, and that such contents of their evidence had to be motivated by an
attempt to avoid their own guilt. Testifying at the main trial before this Court, witness
Marinko Miljević did not mention any attempted flight of the Muslims unlawfully detained in
the old school. He rather stated that, in the evening hours, at around 22:00-23:00 hrs, “a
man simply came with an 84-mm machine gun and killed them all”. Witness Miljević stated
that, at the time, he had also seen Commander Amidžić among his soldiers “begging the
person who fired not to kill those men.“
336.
It should be born in mind, as relevant to the concrete case, that the Defense teams
for the Accused also did not contest that the civilians in the Velagići school had been
indeed killed, but rather the connection of the Accused with these acts. If the entire context
of the events is analyzed, it is clear that the acts described in Section 3 of the enacting
clause of the Verdict also form part of the persecution of the Muslim (and Croat) population
of the Ključ municipality, shared by the Accused. These actions include the initial days of
the attack on the Muslim villages in the Ključ municipality, unlawful deprivation of liberty,
beatings, intimidation and seizure of personal documents in the way as the witnesses
described in their evidence. They have all satisfied the essential elements of other
inhuman acts of the kind. Ultimately, the killing of at least 78 persons is undoubtedly one of
the segments of the attack which was, in furtherance of the common design, carried out by
the military and police in cooperation, to which design the Accused also significantly
contributed. Of course, neither the accused Lukić nor the accused Adamović could be
physically present at all sites, at all times, but clearly, all the actions described in certain
sections of the enacting clause of the Verdict, constitute a continued activity, the starting
basis of which were the decisions of the Crisis Staff, in the rendering of which the Accused
had also participated. When it comes to the incidents at the Velagići check point on 1 June
1992, Prosecution’s Exhibit T-167178 undoubtedly and additionally confirms the connection
of the Crisis Staff, and thereby of the Accused, with the referenced activities. This Exhibit
shows that the Crisis Staff and the SUP of the Ključ municipality were engaged in dealing
with the issue of transportation of individuals who had surrendered at the Velagići check
point, and after the crime in which at least 78 persons, whose names are mentioned in the
enacting clause of the Verdict, had been killed and who were exhumed from the Lanište
II179 mass grave, Vinko Kondić and Lieutenant Colonel Vukašević, were on the following
178
179
Criminal report No. KU 33/92 of 5 June 1992 against Goran Amidžić et al..
Exhibit T-451.
130
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
morning engaged in organizing the removal and burial of the dead bodies of the killed
individuals.
G.
SECTION 4 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE VERDICT
“On 1 June 1992, after Serb soldiers, together with Marko Adamović, entered the
undefended village of Prhovo, dragging Hamdo Islamagić tied to a personnel
carrier, they forced the inhabitants out of their houses and ordered them to gather
in front of a shop in the village. After the inhabitants gathered as ordered, they
forced them into the front yard of Abid and Karanfil Osmanović’s house, and
thereafter started beating them and singling out men, on which occasion they
killed at least seven persons, including Safet Medanović, Hasan Medanović,
Šefik Medanović, Izet Hadžić, Isak Mešić, Halil Medanović, Hašim Hadžić and
Fatima Medanović. Then, they separated a number of men, including those who
were underage and took them on foot away from the village while they opened
fire from various weapons at the women, children and elderly who remained in
the yard, killing at least thirty of them, including Ramiza Jusić, Esma Mešić,
Hadžira Medanović, child Indira Medanović, Azemina Jusić, Midheta Medanović,
child Emira Jusić, Rabija Hadžić, Enesa Medanović, Hava Medanović, Rasema
Brković, child Samira Jusić, Hilmo Jusić, Ferida Medanović, Nasiha Okić, child
Nisveta Brković, child Amela Hadžić, Enisa Jusić, Karanfil Osmanović, Rufad
Osmanović, Arif Medanović, child Mujo Medanović, Teufik Medanović, Nermin
Jusić, Osman Jusić and Hajro Hadžić, who were later exhumed from a mass
grave in Prhovo. They marched the men who were taken away from the village,
in the direction of the Peći village, and on the way there killed at least 15
persons, including Ahmo Medanović, Tehvid Osmanović, Suad Hadžić, Zijad
Hadžić, Suad Medanović, Ilfad Brković, Ekrem Hadžić, Ismet Mešić, Enes
Medanović, Ćamil Medanović, Vahid Medanović, Senad Hadžić, Mehmed Dedić,
Nedžad Jusić and Latif Jusić, who were later exhumed from the mass grave
Ciganska dolina. Those who survived were handed over to the police who beat
them throughout the night, keeping them tied outdoors on the ground, as a result
of which Sulejman Medanović died, while the others were transported to the
premises of the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ. The survivors fled the
village and were hiding in the neighboring villages and in the woods, where the
search for the men who survived was continued. They were arrested and
imprisoned in the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ and the Public Security
Station.“
337.
Witnesses Muharem Islamagić, Senad Medanović, Sadeta Medanović, Nermin
Medanović, Hamid Hadžić, Kana Mešić, Edin Hadžić, Alem Hadžić, Salko Krantić, Milorad
Hrgić, Radenko Kuburić, and the accused Adamović himself, in the capacity of a witness,
testified about the circumstances referred to in Section 4 of the enacting clause of the
convicting part of the Verdict.
338.
None of the Accused contested or brought into question the crimes committed in
Prhovo. They rather contested their own connection with those crimes under both this
section and the other sections of the enacting clause of the Verdict. Marko Adamović was
identified by a certain number of the villagers of Prhovo as the person who “had led the
131
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
soldiers” - executors of the massacre in this village. The Accused tried, through his
defense, to prove that he was indeed present in Prhovo, but not on 1 June 1992, when the
referenced massacre occurred, but when soldiers had once earlier passed through this
village. Based on the examination of all presented evidence, the Panel has concluded
beyond a doubt that soldiers visited the Prhovo village at least twice, in late May for the
first time, when the weapons were collected, and then on 1 June 1992, when the
described massacre occurred.
339.
As it ensues from the description of facts under this Section, the Accused were
charged that, on 1 June 1992, after Serb soldiers together with Marko Adamović entered
the undefended village of Prhovo, dragging Hamdo Islamagić tied to a personnel carrier;
forced the population out of their houses, beat them, singled out men, and killed at least 7
persons; marched a larger number of men from the village and opened fire from various
weaponry at the women, children and elderly who remained in the yard, killing at least
thirty of them; handed over to the police the men taken away from the village, including
minors, and continued beating them, as a result of which Senad Medanović succumbed to
the beating; and transferred the others to the Nikola Mačkić school. The survived
population had to flee from their homes and hide in the neighboring villages and the
woods.
340.
Muharem Islamagić testified about the arrest and physical abuse of his brother,
Hamdo Islamagić. This witness’s evidence was supported with the evidence of the other
examined witnesses. Witness Muharem Islamagić stated that, on 1 June 1992, he left his
village of Plamenice, together with the other villagers, and went to the neighboring village
of Humići because the shelling of Plamenice had started. Despite being uncertain about
and unable to specify the dates of the events he testified about, the witness had no
dilemmas when it comes to the date when he had left his village. Witness Islamagić stated
“I only know that when I went down to (the village of) Humići. I have never forgotten 1
June. I have never forgotten and I will never forget it, because this is the day when my
brother went missing.”180 Thus, according to the witness, the whole village went to Humići
on 1 June 1992 because Plamenice had been totally levelled to the ground as a result of
2-hour shelling. The witness went, together with his brother, to the Krantići and Bešići
crossroads. At this place, they came across soldiers who captured his brother. The
132
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
witness explained that soldiers were present all around the area, from Ljutića Brdo,
Krantići, and in bushes, where they were ambushed. The witness testified that those
soldiers captured his brother and started beating him. Considering that Radenko Kuburić,
whom he had known, was also present at the site, the witness asked him to help him save
his brother and help them stay alive. Radenko, however, told him: “Marko is down there; I
dare not even come close to him”.181 Thereupon two soldiers, accompanying Radenko, told
the witness to leave his brother and hide in the bushes, because his life would also be
taken. The witness obeyed them since he could do nothing about it. He kept watching
what was happening with his brother. First a truck came to the intersection where soldiers
had captured and beat his brother. Soldiers tied up his brother to the truck with ropes
below his shoulders and dragged him away. The witness stated he watched his brother
being thus dragged away for about 70 m up to a curve. The witness explained that his
brother had been first tied up to the truck, and that several minutes later, a personnel
carrier arrived, so they tied him to the hook on the personnel carrier and took him away.
Shortly after his brother had been dragged away, when he could not see them any further
because of the curve (the witness stated all this occurred within about ten minutes), Marko
Adamović passed him by, heading in the same direction after them.
341.
Witness Islamagić has not seen his brother any more. The witness stated that, on
the same evening, Kadira Brković from Prhovo came to the village of Bešići. She was
wounded and dirty, and she told the witness that his brother had been killed. Kadira told
the witness the following:
“…Hare, come over here, I have to tell you something.…All of them had just been
killed. I am wounded. Look at my legs and pieces of shrapnel. I saw when they
brought Hamdo and when they killed him … Soldiers dragged him there …
because, when soldiers killed all other young men, he too was killed. He was all
slashed up, his body ripped up, his skin hanged from his body. He was lying on
the ground, and he could not even speak. One of them approached him and
killed him…”182
The witness explained that there was a 12-km-long dirt road between the intersection
where his brother was captured and tied up to the personnel carrier, and the village of
Prhovo.
180
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 15 June 2009, evidence of witness Muharem Islamagić,
p.34.
181
Ibid., p. 40, the witness explained that, when Radenko Kuburić had said “Here comes Marko…”, he
meant Marko Adamović.
182
Ibid. p.43.
133
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
342.
Witness Hamid Hadžić eye-witnessed soldiers arriving in the village of Prhovo,
which is when they brought in Hamdo Islamagić tied up to the personnel carrier. It ensues
from the witnesses’ evidence that this was the second time that soldiers came to the
village, because soldiers had already visited the village and collected their weapons, and
abused some of the villagers. The witness testified that, on that day, the outskirts of the
village were shelled, and there were rumors that the military was coming. Five-six soldiers
came to the front of his house and ordered his father, Ilfad Brković, Fuad Hadžić and him,
who had been there at the time, to go to a store in the village center, near Abid
Osmanović’s house, where a larger number of the villagers of Prhovlje had already
gathered. They were lined up in a column of 3-4 rows, when they saw a personnel carrier
coming from the Plamenica direction and Hamdo Islamagić tied up to it, all covered with
blood and beaten. The witness did not specify the date when the referenced incident
occurred. Nevertheless, upon analyzing his evidence, and correlating it with the evidence
of the other witnesses heard with regard to these circumstances, it becomes clear that it
was exactly 1 June 1992, when the massacre, described in Section 4 of the enacting
clause of the Verdict, was carried out.
343.
Witness Hadžić further testified that, after the villagers of Prhovo, men, women
and children, had gathered in front of Abid Osmanović’s and Karanfil’s house, they
(soldiers) started singling out able-bodied men. They also singled out Dika Medanović,183
and they heard her calling “green berets” via megaphone to come to the village, or
otherwise soldiers would kill the women and children. While witness Hadžić stood in the
line, he heard, for the last time, the voice of his brother Hašim Hadžić, begging them not to
kill him because he had five children. The witness also saw Izet Hadžić being singled out
from the line. Izet Hadžić spat out, and one of the soldiers said: “Captain, look at him
spitting at you”. Subsequently, heading towards the village of Peći in a group of ablebodied men, witness Hadžić saw the body of Izet Hadžić, who had been killed a couple of
meters further down the road.
344.
It ensues from the testimonies of the witnesses that, around half an hour after the
soldiers’ arrival in the village, it was ordered that able-bodied men be singled out and
taken to the other side of the road. Thus witness Hadžić stood in a line formed of around
40-50 men, with their hands placed behind their necks, and their heads bowed as low as
134
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
possible. They were ordered to take the road towards Peći, keeping this very position.
Along the way, they saw the dead bodies of Šefik Medanović, Rufad Osmanović, Halil
Medanović and his brother Mujo Medanović. Even though the witness did not see his
brother’s body, he heard his brother had been killed. The witness also heard the voice of
Fatima Medanović saying: “Kill me too, now that you killed my son”. Witness Hadžić
subsequently learned she had been killed too.
345.
Witness Hadžić further testified that the column heading towards Peći stopped for
the first time in a field, around 200-300m away from the village, as they saw a car stuck in
the mud. They were ordered to pull it out, but their effort failed. Those men who had
pushed the car were killed, except for the witness who had accidentally slipped. A man
wearing a uniform with 4 stars on his shoulder approached him, hit him with his rifle and
the witness joined the column. The soldiers thereupon learned that one of their soldiers
had been killed. The man with stars on his shoulder, ordered the soldiers who had stayed
in the village, via megaphone, to kill the women and children and torch the village.
346.
A column of men, joined by a personnel carrier, driving over the bodies of killed
men, continued marching. Between 4 and 5 men were again killed at the intersection
towards Peći and Donje Sokolovo. The largest number of men marching in the column
were killed in the so called “Ciganska dolina”, when fire was again opened at the column,
whereupon only 12 survivors continued marching towards Peći. The soldiers took them to
Peći, abusing and beating them along the way (the witness stated that the last man in the
column was beaten most, and most of the time Sulejman Medanović and Safet Jusić
marched at the back of the column). They were handed over to the reserve police, which
“made a party playing with them there.”184 The captured men stayed there over the night,
and were on the following morning transferred to the SUP Ključ, and subsequently to the
Nikola Mačkić primary school to give statements. A certain number of the captured men
were thereupon transferred further to Manjača.
347.
Witness Hadžić did not know Marko Adamović at the time. The witness learned
from the villagers that Marko (was the person who) led soldiers and spoke via megaphone.
183
The witness explained that Dika is a nickname, that he knows the woman by her nickname, but does not
know her first name.
184
The witness explained that they had been ordered to lie down facing the ground, their hands were tied up
with wire and they were thus beaten.
135
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
348.
Witness Edin Hadžić described the referenced events consistently with witness
Hamid Hadžić. This witness also could not specify the date, as to whether it was on 31
May or 1 June 1992, when the villagers of Prhovo were called to form a line near Abid
Osmanović’s house. It ensues from his testimony that this was already the soldiers’
second arrival in the village. Witness Edin Hadžić stated that one of the soldiers singled
him out of the line near Abid Osmanović’s house and asked him if any villagers possessed
weapons. The witness told him who had had weapons, and handed them over to the
soldiers who had visited the village several days earlier. The witness was thereupon
returned to the line. The witness stated that many soldiers and a personnel carrier stood
near Abid Osmančević’s house where the villagers of Prhovo had been lined up.
349.
Witness Edin Hadžić further testified that, at the distance of around 10 meters, he
heard a voice saying “God rest their souls”. The witness also heard Hamdinica
Medanović’s voice saying “Now that you killed my sons, kill me too”.
350.
Witness Edin Hadžić stated that the soldiers had singled out men and marched
them under escort towards Peći. Consistently with witness Hamid Hadžić, this witness also
stated that the column first stopped at the Runjevica meadow, where several men were
ordered to pull out a vehicle stuck in the mud. Fire was opened at the men pulling the car
out of the mud, and some of them were killed. Like witness Hadžić, this witness had also
overheard a conversation between two soldiers in their escort, who said that one of their
soldiers had been killed. Marko Adamović thereupon ordered, via megaphone, that the
women and children in the village be killed. Considering that the meadow, where they had
stopped was only around 300m away from the village, they heard the shooting and hand
grenades exploding around the village.
351.
The column of men was ordered to proceed further towards Peći. The men in the
column were beaten all along the way. They were ordered to take off their jackets in order
to feel the blows they received more strongly. The men in the column were along the way
killed individually, or in groups,185 so, ultimately, only 12 of them arrived in Peći. The
soldiers who had brought them there handed them over to members of the military police.
They ordered them to take off their shirts, tied up their hands behind their backs, forced
185
The witness explained that Suad Hadžić, Ilfad Brković were killed, as well as minors Senad Hadžić and
Ismet Mešić.
136
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
them to lie down on the asphalt road and beat them. Sulejman Medanović186 died after this
beating. On the following morning, they were transported by a van to an elementary school
in Ključ, where the ill-treatment of these men continued. They were forced to sing
Chetniks’ songs. They were subsequently transferred to Sitnica, and thereafter to Manjača
too.
352.
Witness Edin Hadžić stated that, while they were standing in front of the school,
they learned that the “Captain” who had been present with soldiers in the village was none
other than Marko Adamović.
353.
Witness Senad Medanović testified that, since 30 May 1992, men from the Prhovo
village mostly hid in the woods. On 1 June 1992, the villagers were ordered to attend a
meeting to be held in front of Šefik Medanović’s house. They were also told that those who
did not attend would be liquidated. The witness stated that Marko Adamović addressed
them via megaphone, standing on an armored vehicle that had arrived in the village. The
witness stated they “fully trusted their Serb neighbors”. Thus the witness also headed
towards the place in the village where the villagers had gathered. At one moment,
however, he heard Milan Ris’s voice swearing “their Turkish company”, which deterred him
from his initial intention to join the gathered villagers. The witness rather fled the village.
Even though the village was already surrounded, and some soldiers opened fire at him,
the witness successfully hid in a “brushwood”. He could not see from this spot what was
happening down there in the village. The witness only heard the voice of his sister Sadeta
speaking via megaphone, and calling “Green Berets to come out, or otherwise all the
population would be killed, and the Captain would have no mercy even to an one-year
baby or her mother.” The witness subsequently learned that Marko Adamović held the
megaphone while she had to say what he had ordered her to say, holding her baby in her
hands.
354.
Witness Sadeta Medanović also stated that soldiers had visited the village for
several times, beat male villagers and called them out by their first and last names. The
witness therefore concluded they were their neighbors from the neighboring Serb villages.
The witness also testified that they were once lined up near Karanfil Osmanović’s house,
and that a man singled her out, and told her to call Green Berets into surrender. The
186
The witness explained that it was an old man, Sulejman Medanović, rather than a young one with the
same first and last name, whose nickname is Uka.
137
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
witness stated she had to repeat his words fearing for her baby which she had held in her
arms. Witness Nermina Medanović also confirmed that Sadeta Medanović was forced to
call Green Berets into surrender upon an order of a soldier who had singled her out from
the line, threatening that the entire village would be killed, including her baby. Consistently
with the other witnesses, witness Kana Mešić described the referenced incident and
identified a person, who had singled out Sadeta Medanović to call Green Berets into
surrender, as Marko Adamović, whom she had known from before as a teacher.
355.
It ensues from the evidence of witness Kana Mešić that provocations of Muslims
by Serbs had started in May, and that already in late May the villagers of Prhovo started
hiding in woods. The witness described that, on a Saturday in late May, armed soldiers,
mostly their Serb neighbors, arrived in the village, captured and beat the men they found in
the village, and then proceeded further towards Peći. However, they returned on Monday
and carried out a massacre.187 The witness testified that on this Monday, when soldiers
came to the village again, they forced the villagers outside “in front of a store”, in a sheep
pen near the house of Adil and Karanfil Osmanović.
356.
Witness Kana Mešić testified that Marko Adamović came together with soldiers.
When she saw Marko Adamović, whom she had known from before as a teacher, the
witness believed soldiers would not harm them. However, they started abusing them, as
already described above. Marko Adamović singled out Sadeta Medanović, and thereupon
Halil Medanović to call “Green Berets” into surrender. Since there was no one to
surrender, they started singling out young boys and “beating them unconsciousness”. Her
son Isak was also singled out and beaten. Despite covering her ears with her hands, the
witness heard her son moaning and saw him bleeding.
357.
Witness Mešić stated that Marko Adamović ordered that 5 young boys be singled
out, including her son Isak, and that they were executed at the distance of 5 meters from
the place where they had stood. Then she heard Marko Adamović saying “May God rest
their souls”. The witness’s other son Ismet, age 15 at the time, was singled out in a group
of men which was taken towards Peći. The witness has never seen her son again. The
witness learned from Elvir Jusić that Ismet had been killed in Peći, while her son Isak’s
body was found in the village.
187
It ensues from the witness's evidence that it was Monday, 1 June 1992, when the crime in Prhovo was
committed, as also ensues from the 1992 calendar.
138
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
358.
Witness Mešić further testified that, after these 5 young boys had been killed and a
group of able bodied men separated to go towards Peći, soldiers threw something among
them. They heard “a detonation” and soldiers opened fire at them. There was a total
chaos, and the witness successfully escaped to Hripavci. In the meantime, she had also
lost sight of her youngest son Nevres, age 9 at the time, but he successfully escaped from
the village and eventually met her in Hripavci.
359.
Nevres Mešić, also heard as a witness, described in the same way the events in
the village that had occurred on 1 June 1992. The witness stated they were lined up near
Osmanović’s house, facing the wall, under threats that they would be killed; the men were
called out by their names, wherefore the witness concluded that neighbors who had known
them were among those soldiers. The witness mentioned the beating and the killing of his
brother Isak. The witness stated there was an explosion, that soldiers opened fire at them,
that the villagers started fleeing, that he lost sight of his mother in this flight, but met her on
the following day in Hripavci.
360.
As a boy age 9 at the time, witness Nevres Mešić knew none of the soldiers who
had arrived in the village. The witness, however, heard his mother mentioning teacher
Adamović, Stojan and Boro Pešević as some of the perpetrators of the crime in Prhovo.
361.
The accused Adamović’s defense made efforts to prove that he was not present in
Prhovo on 1 June 1992 when the Muslim population was massacred, but rather in Ključ,
attending a session of the Municipal Crisis Staff, and that the witnesses mentioned him
because he had passed through the village with his soldiers prior to this incident, so they
were confused about the day he was seen. In proving those assertions, the accused
Adamović’s defense primarily relied on the testimonies of the witnesses who had known
him, but who did not see him on the relevant day, like Witness C, or the witnesses who
confirmed his alibi.
362.
Witness C testified that soldiers had passed through his village on 1 June 1992,
and that he heard soldiers saying they were going to Prhovo. On the following day, the
witness learned from the refugees coming from Prhovo about the crimes committed there.
Witness C however stated that he did not see Marko Adamović with the soldiers who had
passed through his village. The witness saw Adamović with the soldiers who had on the
previous day passed through the village, when he even said “Neighbors, don’t be afraid”
and advised the elderly to sit in a shade. However, the mere fact that Witness C did not
139
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
see the accused Adamović leading the soldiers on 1 June 1992 certainly does not mean
that he was not present in the village of Prhovo on the relevant day.
363.
The Panel considers as ill-founded the Accused’s defense that, on 1 June 1992,
he attended a session of the Crisis Staff. This averment of the accused Adamović,
presented in his testimony as a witness for the Defense, was confirmed only by witness
Rajko Kalabić, who had reasons to cover for the Accused’s acts due to his own
engagement in the Municipal Crisis Staff. The Minutes of the session of the Ključ
Municipality Crisis Staff held on 1 June 1992 did not list the attendees, nor can it be
concluded from its contents that the accused Adamović attended the session at issue.
However, considering a series of the activities on the ground, it would be logical to expect
that, even if he indeed attended the referenced session, the Accused actively participated
in its work, as he did at the sessions held on 2 and 3 June 1992, when he submitted
reports from the ground and addressed certain organizational issues.
364.
Bearing in mind a number of the witnesses’ consistent testimonies, the Panel gave
no credence to the testimony of Radenko Kuburić who affirmed that, in addition to
members of the military police, members of sabotage units from Drvar had also been
present in the Prhovo area. Witness Kuburić stated that “quite a few persons indeed knew
members of what army these men were; they had red scarfs and wore camouflage green
uniforms”. None of the Prhovo villagers described soldiers who had come to the village in
the referenced way. On the contrary, they rather stated that soldiers called the villagers of
Prhovo by their names. The villagers concluded, based on this fact, that these men were
their neighbors. At the intersection where his brother was captured, witness Muharem
Islamagić met Radenko Kuburić, member of the Ključ Battalion. Since many witnesses
identified the accused Adamović in the village on the critical day, as described above, the
Panel has no doubts into the fact that, on 1 June 1992, members of the Ključ Battalion, led
by the accused Adamović, committed the crime in Prhovo.
365.
The Accused was not charged with the command responsibility, wherefore the
issue of superior-subordinate relation was not the subject of evaluation by this Panel. In
order to find the Accused guilty as a participant in the JCE, it was quite sufficient to
determine his contribution to the crimes at issue, which ensues beyond a doubt from the
consistent testimonies of the heard witnesses.
366.
Bearing in mind a number of consistent statements of the witnesses who had
140
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
identified the accused Adamović in the village on the critical day, and who had no dilemma
that it was exactly the Accused, the mere fact of whether he had or did not have stars and
ranks on his uniform, or whether his eyebrows were joined or separated, are in the Panel’s
view of no decisive importance for the establishment of proper findings of facts. There is
no doubt that many witnesses affirmed that the others addressed the Accused as the
Captain,188 as he called himself, that he led soldiers, that he ordered the killing of women
and children. All the foregoing leaves no dilemma into both his significant, but also
decisive contribution to the commission of the crime at issue.
367.
In addition, the crime in Prhovo is undoubtedly a part of the policy of persecution
of the Muslim and Croat population from the Ključ municipality. The attack on the
undefended Muslim village of Prhovo resulted in the killing of more than 50 persons,
including a certain number of women and children. After the arrival of soldiers in the
village, the villages gathered in front of the house of Abid and Karanfil Osmanović; at least
7 persons were killed (5 men who were singled out from the line and executed, Izet
Hadžić, a couple of meters further away, and Fatima Medanović who told soldiers to kill
her after they had killed her son). A group of able bodied men was separated and taken
towards Peći. Along the road, at least 15 persons were killed, and only 11 survived. Fire
was opened from different types of weaponry at the villagers of Prhovo who had stayed in
the village, mostly women and children, as a result of which at least 30 persons were
killed. The remaining population had to flee in panic, without anything, and seek salvation
in the neighboring Muslim villages. Villagers of Krantići, Vukovo Selo and other
surrounding villages spoke about the refugees from Prhovo arriving in their villages. The
men, escorted in a column from the village, were along the way severely beaten. Their
beating culminated after their arrival in Peći, where the soldiers who had brought them
there handed them over to the military police, whose members continued to beat them
severely. A total of 11 persons, who had survived this torture, were detained at the Nikola
Mačkić primary school in Ključ.
368.
Regular Combat Reports, signed by Major Boško Lukić, confirm the witnesses’
statements that, after the massacre in the village, soldiers continued cleansing the terrain.
The Daily Report, strict. conf. No. 01-/92 of 5 June 1992, signed by Major Boško Lukić,
stated under Item 2 the following:
188
The testimony of witness Sadeta Medanović.
141
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
“I have decided: ½ lab. To cleanse the Islamagići-Prhovo terrain with a task to
force Ustashas in this area into surrender ….”189,
The foregoing ensues from the Report dated 17 June 1992,190 stating that the village of
Prhovo Gornje was also targeted for cleansing, more specifically, for “capturing and
liquidation of the remaining part of the Ustasha renegades”. Witness Senad Medanović
testified he had made several attempts to approach the village during the 5 days after the
crime commission, but failed because soldiers were present everywhere. He kept hiding in
the neighboring Muslim villages. In the village of Kozarac, Safet Kozarac known as Cajo
approached him, and told him that Marko Adamović had visited the village and threatened,
not knowing if the witness was killed, that he would kill all the villagers of the Kozarci
hamlet and in the wider area if anyone spotted him (the witness), and particularly if anyone
gave him any food and water. Therefore, the search after the survivors continued.
369.
The document also signed by Boško Lukić, of 9 June 1992, stated as follows:
“I have decided to continue the blockade, cleansing and control of the territory
with the aim to prevent the Ustasha forces’ progress from the Kamičak-Peći and
Vrpolje Sanica direction, and to secure the forces engaged in mopping up the
terrain in the Plamenice-Prhovo area.”191
370.
Witness Alem Hadžić, who had successfully escaped the massacre in Prhovo,
stated that he had reported the incident to the Ključ authorities and requested approval for
the burial of killed people. However, several days had passed until the burial was granted.
The bodies were already in the state of decomposition. The Ključ authorities sent them an
excavator and ordered them to dig a mass grave. They were not even allowed to separate
men from women. Witness Hadžić further testified that soldiers secured the burial, that is,
made sure that the terrain was clear. Witness Milorad Hrgić, member of the TO Battalion,
testified that he had been present in Prhovo and secured the burial of the killed villagers of
Prhovo.
371.
The conclusion on the results of the committed crimes can be drawn on the basis
of Exhibit T-451, Exhumation records, Identification records with sketches of the crime
scene and photo-documentation of mass graves „Prhovo“ and „Ciganska dolina“, Crime
Scene Investigation Record from the Brežica site, Identification and Autopsy Record with
189
Exhibit T-455/34.
Exhibit T-179.
191
Exhibit T-445/33.
190
142
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
attached documentation for Sulejman Medanović, and the Excerpt from the Register of
Deaths for Sulejman Medanović.192 In addition, Exhibit T-440 enumerates the killed
villagers of Prhovo by their names, with a note that they were killed in combat.
Nevertheless, the consistent testimonies of the witnesses clearly show that there were no
combats in Prhovo on the referenced day, that the villagers were first disarmed, and that in
addition to the men whose names were indicated in the documents, a certain number of
women and children were also killed, as stated in the enacting clause of the Verdict.
Therefore, the Panel has concluded that the referenced document is obviously aimed at
concealing the committed crime.
372.
All the foregoing points to the conclusion that the attack on Prhovo, in the way as it
was carried out, formed part of the plan of persecution of Muslim and Croat population of
the Ključ municipality, and that, as such, it was implemented through the acts of murder,
unlawful imprisonment and other severe deprivations of physical liberty, in violation of the
rules of international law, that is, on no legal grounds, and by other inhuman offenses of
similar character committed with the intent to cause severe suffering or serious physical or
mental harm, and by forcible removal of the population, that is, implemented as a part of
the JCE, to the commission of which the accused Lukić and Adamović significantly
contributed, which renders them responsible for the referenced charges.
H. COUNT 5 OF THE ENACTING CLAUSE OF THE CONVICTING PART OF THE VERDICT
“5. Starting from late May until the end of June 1992 at least, the Ključ
Battalion of the Territorial Defense, i.e. the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, with the
police assistance, following the shelling of undefended villages and settlements
of Ključ populated by non-Serbs, undertook activities and continued with
persecution and disarmament with the ultimatum to surrender all the weapons or
the village would be attacked. Following the surrender of weapons they started
with unlawful arrests and imprisonment of men in the Public Security Station or
other facilities designated for that purpose like primary schools, with killings,
forcing people out of their houses, deportation and forceful movement of
population, unlawful destruction and stealing of property that is not justified by
military needs, destruction of religious buildings in as much as they:
After the shelling, the population of Pudin Han, Velagići, including the hamlets of
Hađići, Vojići, Hasići, Nezići and others, scared senseless, were called to leave
their houses and gather near the Community Center in Velagići, and when
several hundred women, children and men came in front of the Centre, they were
ordered to go in front of the Ključ Public Security Station, and then they were
stopped at a police checkpoint near the ROPS, where a certain number of the
192
Exhibit T-452.
143
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
population of these villages immediately surrendered, and a certain number of
men immediately bussed to the primary school Nikola Mačkić in Ključ after their
money, documents and personal property were seized from them, while a part of
the population, men women and children, arrested at the check point, were taken
to the Šip warehouse, where the men were separated from the women and
children, and then the women and children were released but banned from
returning to their homes until approved by the authorities in Ključ, while the men
were registered and interrogated, and some of them were released to go home
from there,, while more than 200 of them were unlawfully deprived of liberty and
imprisoned in the primary school Nikola Mačkić in Ključ.”
373.
Before addressing the concrete charges described in Section 5, a) through e), of
this Verdict enumerating the concrete acts of commission by which the persecution of
Muslims and Croats from Pudin Han and Velagići with all its hamlets were committed
during June 1992, the Panel considers it is necessary to further refer to the issue of the
units which had participated in the attack, more specifically, to the issue of and the
moment when the 17 Light Infantry Brigade was established, the units that comprised it,
and the issue of cooperation between these units and the police.
374.
It ensues from the testimonies of the witnesses and the documentary evidence
tendered in the case record193 that the 17th Light Infantry Brigade was established in early
June. Witness Rajko Kalabić said that the 17th Light Infantry Brigade was established on
4 June 1992. This was also confirmed by the accused Lukić and Adamović, both heard in
the capacity of witnesses. Boško Lukić testified that the 17th Light Infantry Brigade had not
existed on 27 May 1992 in the Ključ territory. Only the Ključ Battalion was present in the
Sitnica area, which had come to the Ključ territory on 28 May 1992. The accused Lukić
stated he did not know what its tasks were. Truly, the Accused stated that the referenced
“Ključ Battalion” had no connections with the TO Battalion. The Panel, however, concluded
that such assertions were unconvincing or unsupported with any other item of evidence,
and therefore refused them as such.
375.
The accused Adamović stated that, on 2 or 3 June 1992, they “received
information” that the town defense command would not be formed and that, instead, the
17th Light Infantry Brigade would be formed. The Accused further stated that, already on
4 June 1992, an order was issued to merge the Ključ Battalion with the 17th Light Infantry
Brigade as its 1st Battalion, and to subsequently form two Battalions. As it ensues from the
193
Exhibit T-189 – Brigade Command Operations and Activity Report of 28 July 1992 stating that „In early
June of the current year, the long-awaited realization of the idea to establish the Ključ Brigade started...“.
144
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
presented evidence, the Ključ Battalion, namely the Battalion comprising the TO Ključ
units, joined the 17th Light Infantry Battalion after its establishment.194
376.
The witnesses consistently testified that Drago Samardžija was appointed
Commander of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade. The following also ensued from the Order
issued by the Commander of the 2nd Krajina Corps195 stating that Drago Samardžija was
temporarily assigned to the 17th “Ključ” Brigade, and that he had to report to this duty on
9 June 1992. In an obvious attempt to exclude the Accused’s connection with any activities
of the units on the ground during the relevant period, the accused Lukić’s Defense
tendered the referenced Order as its evidence196 in the proceedings before the Appellate
Panel. However, the adduced evidence showed that, in fact, Drago Samardžija assumed
the duty of the Commander of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade no sooner than mid-June
1992, until which time the accused Boško Lukić had performed this duty. Regular combat
reports for the referenced period show that they were signed by the Commander Drago
Samardžija no sooner than 17 June 1992, and that up until this period the operations had
been led by the accused Boško Lukić.197
377.
During the stated period, the Ključ Battalion took part in the “cleansing of the town
and its surrounding villages” in the Ključ198 municipality, first as the Battalion of the TO
Ključ units, and subsequently as the 3rd Infantry Battalion of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade
after its establishment. According to the witnesses, these activities were supported by
members of the police force, both active and reserve (to be addressed in detail in the
reasoning provided for each of the charges individually).
(a) Charges under Section 5.a) of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict
378.
A large number of witnesses, including Fahrudin Ćemal, Enes Salihović, Ramo
Duranović, Latif Salihović, Hasan Salihović, Witness A, Marinko Vejin, Senad Draganović,
Mirsad Dervišević and some others were heard with regard to the circumstances
described in Section 5.a) of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict.
194
Exhibits T-361 and T-196.
nd
Exhibit T-455/49 – Order by the Commander of the 2 Krajina Corps, strict. Conf. 11/28-201 of 9 June
1992, signed by Colonel Grujo Borić.
196
Exhibit AO-7.
197
Exhibits T-175-T-179, T-455.
198
Exhibit T-196.
195
145
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
379.
All the witnesses consistently described the fear and panic in the villages of Pudin
Han and Velagići caused by the shelling to which they were subjected,199 and the frantic
state of their villagers after seeing fragmented bodies of the killed and wounded persons
who had tried to find shelter against the falling shells.
380.
The population of the referenced villages was subsequently ordered, both via
Radio Ključ and via megaphone, to hand over their weapons and surrender. Witness
Fahrudin Ćemal testified that “the rifles were just an excuse, and Bosniaks were killed”.
Witness Fahrudin Ćemal stated that, due to numerous calls to surrender the weaponry, it
had already been collected on 27/28 May 1992, and that two young men drove it to Ključ.
However, after the shelling and calling all able bodied men to gather at the community
center in Velagići, which the police had sent via megaphone through the villages, over 500
of men went to the center in Pudin Han. The men gathered at this place were directed to
march towards Ključ. The witness cannot remember who had ordered them to march
towards Ključ because:
“We received information, I do not know from whom, but the information was that
we had to go down there. You understand that, after the first victims, this was
very difficult and people were frantic...“200
381.
They complied with the order and marched towards Ključ. When they came closer
to the ROPS, they noticed buses parked there and members of the police, who had
stopped around 50-100m in front of them and ordered them, via megaphone, to line up in
a column “one by one”. Thus lined up, they entered the buses which transported them to
Ključ, in a gym in the Nikola Mačkić primary school. In addition to the police at the check
point where they had entered the busses, the witness also noticed soldiers, all armed.
After arriving in front of the Nikola Mačkić school, they were taken to the gym. The witness
described that as follows:
“They told us all to get out and forced us into a gym. They ordered us to enter the
gym. While we walked towards the gym, we were abused and beaten... This was
their method, the beating and all that. Unfortunately, I spent a long period of time
in the camp. That is why I have mentioned it, normally …”201
199
See Section 2 of the convicting part of the Verdict.
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 24 September 2008, testimony of witness Fahrudin Ćemal,
p.24.
201
Ibid, p. 26.
200
146
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
The witness further stated he was questioned by Boro Ljubljankić, who had worn the
former JNA uniform and whom he had known from before as his neighbor. Members of the
so called “Red Berets”, who had come to Ključ during the previous months, and some
other men wearing hats whom he had not known, were also present in the school. The
witness was subjected to severe beatings in the Nikola Mačkić primary school, thereupon
transferred to Stara Gradiška, and ultimately to Manjača.
382.
Witness Enes Salihović similarly described the events in Pudin Han and Velagići.
The witness stated that Omer Filipović was the first person who surrendered after the
shelling. Thereupon, the weaponry was handed over in compliance with an ultimatum
given in order to stop the shelling. Around 40-50 men in Velagići had weapons. They
loaded their weapons on a tractor and handed them over. However, despite handing over
the weapons, it was ordered that those 40-50 from Velagići, who had owned and
surrendered their weapons, come with a white flag to the ROPS checkpoint, which they
did. They were lined up in a column by the road and searched. When the buses arrived,
they were crammed into buses and transported to the Nikola Mačkić primary school in
Ključ.
383.
Witness Latif Salihović also testified that, after the shelling of Pudin Han and
Vinko Kondić’s ultimatum that the shelling would cease if the villagers of Pudin Han
surrendered their weaponry and able bodied came “for an interview”, around 350 villagers
of Pudin Han and Velagići, including all the hamlets202, decided to comply with the request.
In the morning after the shelling of Pudin Han and Velagići, they went with a white flag
“down from Busije” towards the checkpoint.203 At the checkpoint, the witness identified
Dragan Stojčić, whom he had known from before. Stojčić contacted someone telling him
that “there were many of them”, whereupon members of the reserve police force started
arriving at the site. The witness stated that they wore same uniforms as Dragan.
Thereupon buses arrived at the checkpoint, in which they were crammed and driven to
front of the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ. They were “thoroughly searched” before
entering the gym. The witness was searched by reserve police officer Gajić, whom he had
known from before. The witness described the search as follows:
202
The witness stated that: „The Hadžići and Hasići families, whoever wanted to come, they came. Those
who stayed were mostly killed.“
203
The ROPS checkpoint is at Busije.
147
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
“He searched me and I asked him if I could keep my medicines. He told me I
could keep only the medicines and that I must throw away everything else from
my pockets …”204
They were separated (in groups) in the gym between those who had had weapons, and
the others. They were thereupon taken to classrooms for interrogation, where they were
beaten. The witness stated that after the interrogation and beatings, they were transferred
to the camps, first to Stara Gradiška, and thereupon to Manjača.
384.
In addition to the military fit men who had surrendered at the ROPS checkpoint,
after Vinko Kondić’s ultimatum, a certain number of villagers, men, women and children,
also complied with the surrender request and reported to the community center in Velagići.
From this place, they were directed to go to the front of the SJB. However, they were
stopped at the ROPS checkpoint and subsequently taken to the Šip warehouse.
385.
Witness Ramo Duranović, a cleric from Velagići, testified that in late May, after
they had been called via radio to surrender their weapons, which had been surrendered as
he heard, the then authorities ordered the population to come to Ključ. All men, women
and children from Velagići started off, but were stopped at Busije.205 The soldiers present
there separated them in two columns, “searched” them and placed them in a vaulted
space, a sort of a warehouse. A certain number of the Velagići villagers, who had together
with them come to the Busije checkpoint, were immediately transported to other collective
centers. On the other hand, a certain number of them stayed there until around 19:00 hrs
in the evening, when they were released, but prohibited from returning to their homes. The
witness stated they were told: “(The villages of) Huskići, Šehići are at your disposal…”
386.
Witness Hasan Salihović testified that, after the weapons were surrendered upon
Vinko Kondić’s order sent to the villagers of Pudin Han and Velagići via Radio Ključ, able
bodied men were ordered to surrender in the community center in Pudin Han. His villagers
complied with this order, and around 100 of them went there. While they were in front of
the center, they were informed they all had to go to Ključ, able bodied men, women and
children. Thus they went back to pick up the women and children who had stayed in the
woods. The women and children who had stayed in the village, and the men who had
earlier come to the surrender site, marched towards Ključ. At the checkpoint near the
204
205
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 8 April 2009, the testimony of witness Latif Salihović, p.14.
The checkpoint near the ROPS.
148
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
ROPS, they met members of the military and police force, who stopped them and interned
them in a warehouse owned by the Šipad Komerc company. The witness stated he had
considered this place as a camp because armed soldiers were all around the place and he
saw no way out of there. While they stayed there, some people from Ključ arrived there in
a red police van. It was a real “chaos” there with the population from Pudin Han, Rejzovići,
and there were crying children who had “drunk water instead of milk”…In the evening,
women and children were told they could leave, but could not return to their homes. They
could go either to (the village of) Rejzovići or Ključ, while able bodied men were further
kept in the Šipad Komerc warehouse. Members of the police force questioned and
registered the men who had stayed there. The witness identified Todo Gajić and police
officers Simo and Željko. After the questioning, police officers took a certain number of
men to other places, while a certain number of them were released to go to Ključ. They
were prohibited from returning to their villages. After returning to their villages after a while,
they found out they had been burnt down.
387.
The witnesses, who had been arrested and taken under escort to a gym in the
Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ, described that, even though they were interrogated,
they had never been informed about the reasons for their arrest. Witness Fahrudin Ćemal
stated they had never been told the reasons for their being there. The witness was illtreated in various ways. He was threatened that they would cut off his two fingers unless
he crossed himself with the cross sign, which he did with all five fingers. He was severely
beaten as a result of which he was unconscious for a long period of time. The witness was
also requested to name other Muslims imprisoned at the school gym who would be further
beaten instead of him.
388.
After the shelling of Velagići and the request that able bodied men report to the
SJB Ključ to be issued with movement licenses, witness Ekrem Čehić complied with the
request. However, he was issued with no free movement license, but was instead detained
at the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ. The witness testified as follows:
“(The villages of) Vojići (entire village), Nezići, Hasići, parts of the population of
the villages of Častovići, Pudin Han, Velagići, all of them went down there ... We
all marched in the same direction, towards Ključ. A column of people walked
149
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
down Busije, down this main road towards Ključ, the column of men... we all met
at the main road down from Busije...“206
They were crammed into buses at the checkpoint. The witness stated that “as soon as one
bus was crammed with men, it went away, one after another.” They were brought to the
Nikola Mačkić school in Ključ, where they were subjected to interrogation and beating by
members of the police reserve force, and soldiers in uniforms of the former JNA. The
witness was interrogated by Tode Gajić. The Prosecutor asked the witness if he knew the
reasons why he had been beaten. The witness responded:
“I know why I was beaten. I speak for myself, and I know why I was beaten. In
fact, they beat us only because of our names, and nothing else …”207
389.
Therefore, the reasons for which these men were arrested and taken under escort
to the Nikola Mačkić primary school, imprisoned and kept there on no legal grounds, and
many of them subsequently transported to some of the established camps, were never
disclosed to them. The only link to their deprivation of liberty was their ethnic origin. Such a
deprivation of liberty, in combination with the inhuman treatment to which the captured
men were subjected, was undoubtedly in violation of all rules of international law,
committed with the intent to persecute the Muslim and Croat population from the Ključ
municipality, within a common design of the JCE. The foregoing renders the Accused
responsible for the referenced charges, not as the direct perpetrators of those crimes, but
as the persons who consented to the referenced design and undertook the actions in
furtherance of this design.
(b) Charges under Section 5.b) of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict
“5. b) As of 28 May 1992, with the task to mop up the villages on the route Pudin
Han – Vukovo Selo – Humići – Plamenice – Prhovo – Peći, they expelled the
Muslim population from their houses, terrorized and intimidated them, threatening
they would kill anyone who was hiding and who was hiding weapons, conducted
searches looking for weapons that have not been turned in and men who were
hiding, sent a group of men fit for military service for interrogation by the Police at
the primary school in Humići. In Vukovo Selo they killed Šefik Čajić, while, in the
presence of Marko Adamović and without legal grounds, Hamer Ljutić and
Muharem Ljutić were arrested on Ljutića Brdo and later found killed in a nearby
woods,“
206
The witness earlier explained that this was a checkpoint on the main road, near the turn towards the
ROPS, transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 23 March 2014, testimony of witness Ekrem Čehić, p.
20.
207
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 23 February 2009, testimony of witness Ekrem Čehić, p. 2425.
150
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
390.
Many witnesses testified about the passage of soldiers through the villages in the
Ključ municipality, the threats and fear they experienced at the time, particularly the
villagers of Vukovo Selo. They testified that a young man, Šefik Čajić, was killed “in front of
their eyes”, while they were standing lined up in a column; that Hamer Ljutić and Muharem
Ljutić were taken away and that their bodies were subsequently found. A certain number of
pieces of documentary evidence regarding these incidents were also tendered in the case
record.
391.
The Panel will again refer first to Exhibit T-196, Contribution to the Monograph of
the 1st Krajina Corps. This Exhibit shows that, after 27 May 1992, the Ključ Battalion,
whose Deputy Commander was Marko Adamović, was engaged in the attack launched in
the direction of the villages of Rejzovići, Hadžići, Pudin Han. The Panel will also refer to
Regular Combat Reports from early June 1992, signed by the accused Boško Lukić.
These Reports show that the TO Ključ units, that is, the engagement of which was decided
by the Accused, were deployed in cleansing the terrain in the area of the villages
Islamagići-Ljutići,208 Golaja-Plamenice-Dubočani,209 Vukovo Selo,210 Ljutići-IslamagićiGornje Prhovo, Humići and Peći,211 Islamagići-Prhovo,212 Kamičak-Peći, Vrpolje-Sanica.213
Many witnesses testified about the time when soldiers passed through these villages.
392.
As already described, the first villages in the Ključ municipality which came under
the shelling attack were Pudin Han and Velagići. Witness Zaim Smajić testified that, after
the shelling of Pudin Han, he escaped towards Vukovo Selo with his family and around 30
neighbors. Some other witnesses214 testified that, knowing there was a cave in Vukovo
Selo, they tried to find shelter there against the falling shells. Witness Zaim Smajić testified
that, soon after their arrival in Vukovo Selo, soldiers entered the village already on 30 May
1992. They were ordered to come out of the houses and line up along the road. The
witness further stated that, after the first group of soldiers passed, masked in hoods and
208
Exhibit T-175, Regular Combat Report, Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strict. conf. No. 125/92 of 12 June 1992.
209
Exhibit T-177, Regular Combat Report, Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strict. conf. No. 112/92, of 10 June 1992.
210
Exhibit T-178, Regular Combat Report, Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strict. conf. No. 105/92, of 7 June 1992.
211
Exhibit T-179, Regular Combat Report, Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strict. conf. No. 1-315/92, of 17 June 1992.
212
Exhibit T-455/34, Regular Combat Report of 17 June 1992.
213
Exhibit T-445/33, Regular Combat Report of 9 June 1992.
214
See, e.g., evidence of witness Ajiz Bečić, transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 16 September
2009.
151
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
tent-halves in order to hide their faces, and after they “secured their positions with their
rifles pointed at them”, a second group of soldiers arrived there and started beating them.
The witness stated that a soldier started beating Šefko Čajić, who had instinctively lifted up
his leg whereupon this soldier asked someone with the words: “Commander, shall I kill
him?” That person responded “Kill him”, and the soldier who had earlier beaten Šefko,
pushed him away to a spruce bush and shot him in his abdomen. Some other soldier
subsequently asked for an approval to finish Šefko off, whereupon Šefko’s body was left
beside the road. Soldiers ordered the villagers to make white flags and mount them on
their houses. Those who had come to Vukovo Selo from the neighboring villages were
ordered to “go with white flags to the places from which they had come”. The witness
stated that a group of soldiers waited for them. They went, with a white flag, to report at
the Došani checkpoint.
393.
Mimka Brkić also testified that soldiers had passed through Vukovo Selo in late
May, and requested the villagers to come out and surrender. The villagers were ordered to
lift up their hands and line up.
“They just came by, telling us not to be afraid and that they would do no harm to
us. They told us to stand down there, with our hands lifted up, and our faces
turned towards them... Thus they passed through the village. They wore black
masks, with those balaclava caps, and they marched one after the other. There
were many, many of them...they just told us to stand there and look at them...We
all lifted our hands up...in order to surrender...We all kept our hands lifted up.
Children held their hands lifted up, any child who could stand on his feet... My
mother was age 72, and she also had to lift her hands up. She held her hands so
lifted up and complained of the pain she felt in the hands, and she needed to put
them down. I told her calmly, standing behind her back, that she dared not do
that…” 215
Even though they had initially told us they would not harm us, the witness stated that a
soldier in a blue cloth uniform and a white belt approached her disabled brother Muhamed
and requested him to surrender his weapons. Her brother told him he had no weapons
after which the soldier punched him fiercely, as a result of which her brother fell over the
fence. The soldier asked her brother “Why are you running away?” Her brother managed
to stand and the soldier ordered him to stand in the line next to her. The soldier thereupon
came closer to Čajić216 and asked for his weapons too. Čajić responded he had no
weapons and the soldier searched him all over. He pulled a pocket knife out from his
215
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 27 May 2009, evidence of witness Mimka Brkić, p. 41-42.
152
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
pocket,217 and some bread and onion. The soldier turned to his Commander telling him:
“Commander, he stubbed me”, and asking what to do with him. Witnesses Mimka Brkić
and Zaim Smajić heard the “Commander” saying “kill him”, after which the soldier threw
Šefko Čajić aside, around 5 meters further away, and they opened fire at him. The young
boy Čajić, as witness Brkić referred to him for several times, because of his very young
age, survived the firing, so another soldier approached him later, kneeled next to him,
“fired a bullet in his temple” and said: “I am killing him to save him from the suffering”.
Šefko Čajić’s body was left lying by the road. Soldiers continued passing through the
village, with tanks, personnel carriers, trucks. In a group of soldiers marching after those
trucks, witness Brkić identified certain men from Ključ whom she had known from before,
including Marko Adamović, Boško-teacher from Velagići and Obrad Ribič. The witness
stated that Marko Adamović had worn a camouflage uniform with some stars on its
pockets and shoulders.
394.
Witness Bedrudin Brkić testified that, in May 1992, he was in the village of Humići
(the hamlet of Bešići). On 30 May 1992, soldiers came from the direction of Vukovo Selo.
The villagers were ordered to surrender, to put their hands behind their heads and line up.
Soldiers also told them they would kill anyone who tried to hide. A certain number of the
villagers were selected for beating. Among the soldiers who came to the village, the
witness identified Marko Adamović, who had been his teacher in the school. After lining up
of the villagers and the beating of certain individuals, they were ordered to go to their
homes, but not to turn around. The witness nevertheless saw that near a store in Humići
(the hamlet of Hamedovići), soldiers had also lined up the villagers and beat up Refik
Pudić. Also near this store, the witness saw Marko Adamović “issuing commands”. The
witness testified that Marko Adamović did not allow them to launch rockets from a
personnel carrier aiming at his house. Soldiers left Humići in the direction of Krantići, and
further towards Ljutino brdo, Plamenice, Prhovo. The witness explained that he watched
soldiers marching along a certain section of the road.
395.
Witness C testified that, after Dućo’s killing, they heard shooting from the direction
of Pudin Han and Velagići. They subsequently heard some soldiers were coming from the
direction of Vukovo Selo. When soldiers arrived in his village, they heard them shouting
216
The witness could not recall the last name, but she said “Čajić, who was subsequently killed...the one
who had come from the village of Šehići“, thus it is clear that Šefik Čajić was in question.
217
A small penknife.
153
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
“Come out, do not let us find anyone hidden”. The villagers gathered in front of one
Ćazim’s house, asked them about the whereabouts of “Zenga” members, and fired rounds
above their heads. Then they ordered the villagers to turn around, lift up their hands, and
keep them in that position for as long as soldiers were passing by. At one moment, they
heard a voice familiar to them, Marko Adamović’s voice. He told them: “Neighbors, do not
be afraid”, and told the elderly to be seated while soldiers were passing by. The witness
stated that the soldiers went towards Krantići, Prhovo, and did not return. After the
soldiers’ passage through the village, the witness learned from his neighbors’ about the
beating of Refik Pudić and members of the Jodanović family, and about the killing of one
Čajić from Vukovo Selo.
396.
Witness Salko Krantić testified that soldiers passed through his village on 1 June
1992. He especially remembered their passage because of both their being lined up and
the fear of the villagers of Krantići caused by their passage. It ensues from the witness’s
testimony that, even prior to 1 June 1992, the military once passed through Krantići, but
villagers had previously escaped and hid. A certain number of the villagers of Krantići,
including the witness, were taken to a school in Humići for interrogation, where they also
saw people from the neighboring villages. On this occasion, some of them were severely
beaten.218 After the interrogations, a certain number of villagers were released to go home,
but some of them, like Ajiz Krantić, were taken to the Manjača camp.
397.
Many villagers of Prhovo heard at the main trial as witnesses testified that, already
on Saturday - 30 May, prior to the massacre in their village on 1 June 1992219, the military
had come to the village. They searched houses for weapons and torched one house in the
village. Some of the villagers were beaten, but there were no major casualties. Witness
Sadeta Medanović stated that they had fled to the woods. When they returned to the
village due to the threats that the villagers who stayed in the village would be killed unless
those who had been hiding in the woods returned to the village, they found broken doors
on their houses, torched houses and soldiers in the village firing and beating men. Witness
Nermina Medanović testified that soldiers had come to Prhovo, that they visited houses in
groups of 2-3, rounded up men and took them to the village center, from where some of
them were taken to their homes to hand over weapons, while some men were beaten.
218
The witness stated that Ajiz Krantić was beaten in the presence of Marko Adamović, who did nothing in
reaction to the beating.
219
See the explanation provided for in Section 4 of the enacting clause of the Verdict.
154
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
398.
Alem Hadžić also testified that soldiers arrived in Prhovo on 30 May 1992. They
started ill-treating the villagers, forcing them to “lift up their hands and put them behind
their necks”. The witness stated that younger men were beaten, while the older ones were
“forced to keep their hands behind their necks, without turning around”. Soldiers also
asked for their weapons. Among soldiers who had come to the village, the witness
identified Marko Adamović, whom he had known from before, from the village of Peći.
Witness Hadžić stated that Adamović wore a military shirt, but he did not see Marko
Adamović mistreating anyone. Soldiers beat certain villagers and torched one house.
399.
Witness Hamid Hadžić was not in the village when soldiers came to the village on
30 May 1992. On their way back to the village, 5-6 soldiers met him and a couple of his
neighbors and took them under escort to the “village center”, where around 100 villagers
had already been gathered, and who told them in this chaos that they had handed over the
weapons they had in the village. They were all “forced out on a road.” Soldiers told them
they would not come back any more. However, on 1 June 1992, the incident described in
Section 4 of the enacting clause of the Verdict occurred. On this occasion, a rocket was
fired from a Zolja hand-held rocket launcher at the house of his father, Hamed Hadžić.
400.
Witnesses Kana Mešić and Nevres Mešić also described the arrival of soldiers in
the village in late May. Witness Kana Mešić testified that they were all “forced into a lane”,
that a certain number of men were beaten and Hamid Hadžić’s house torched. Witness
Nevres Mešić remembered that he had heard someone saying: “A man builds his house
all his life, and it disappears in an instant”. Witness Kana Mešić testified that from Prhovo,
soldiers went towards the village of Peći, and that one of the soldiers told them: “You were
lucky today. I guarantee you nothing for the next time”. This “next time” occurred on 1 June
1992 when the massacre was committed.
401.
Witnesses Nafa Smajić and Senad Pervić gave evidence about the killing of
Hamer Ljutić and Muharem Ljutić when soldiers passed through the village of Ljutića Brdo.
Along this line, also read out was the testimony of witness Mina Ljutić, who had in the
meantime died.220
220
Exhibit T-122. Witness Examination Record for Mina Ljutić, KT-RZ-119/05 of 10 April 2008, and an
excerpt from the Register of Deaths for Mina Ljutić.
155
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
402.
Witness Mina Ljutić testified about the arrival of soldiers in her village. The witness
stated she was at her home, while her children, son Hamir221 and daughter Nafa, and
Nafa’s friend Enisa, were in a field collecting hay. The witness first heard some villagers
shouting “soldiers are coming”. She went out of the house and saw soldiers marching
towards Ljutići “like ants”. The witness called her children to come home. Around 500
soldiers came to the village on that occasion, among whom she identified teacher Marko
Adamović and a “brother-in-law Đorđe”, also a teacher from Humići. Witness Ljutić stated
that the soldiers “had rounded-up” all men from the village and taken them away, including
her son Hamir. The witness asked Marko where and why he was taking her son. Marko
told her he would not harm her son and that he would be back. The witness testified she
had continually stood at the spot from which she could see where her son was taken. She
remembered seeing her son Hamir returning to the village and those soldiers (she had
earlier stated that she saw four soldiers among whom she identified Stojan Vuković),
getting him back again. The witness stated “they took him away again”, whereupon she
“lost herself”.222
403.
Witness Nafa Smajić confirmed such testimony of witness Mina Ljutić. Witness
Smajić testified that, after the arrival of soldiers in the village, the villagers were separated,
namely men were separated from women. The witness stated that “even a boy age 6 had
to go to the other side together with adult men.” This was an order given by Marko
Adamović. The witness stated that, among soldiers present in the village, she identified
Marko Adamović, and that she had seen him “standing amidst those soldiers,” shouting:
“and swearing our Alija’s state, you can have your Alija’s state, you have become
vampires like Islamagić, you are firing at my soldiers, and many other insulting
words that he said at that moment. I am already upset when I remember those
insulting words that he said.”223
The witness stated that her mother had begged them not to take Hamir with them. Marko
told her that “not a hair of Hamir’s head would be harmed”, but soldiers took him away.
She heard they had been taken to a school in Humići for interrogation. The witness and
her friend Enisa stayed in her mother’s house. Her mother fainted at one moment. While
she poured water on her face, her mother regained consciousness and heard her saying
“Where are they taking him now?” When the witness turned around, she saw three
221
Witness Nafa Smajić explained that her brother's name was Hamer, but he was nicknamed Hamir.
Witness Nafa Smajić explained that the phrase „she lost herself“ means that she fainted.
223
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 15 June 2009, evidence of witness Nafa Smajić, p. 11.
222
156
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
soldiers taking her brother Hamir away. Her mother subsequently found Hamir’s body in
Plamenice. She also found the body of Muharem Ljutić.
404.
In her statement, Mina Ljutić described the search for her son Hamir. She
searched him everywhere, visiting houses in the Serb village of Plamenice and looking for
anyone who could have information as to where her son had been taken away. At the door
of Ratko Vuković’s house, she saw his son and identified him as one of the soldiers who
had taken Hamir. The witness stated in her statement that finally, in the woods at Grabež,
she found a dead man, whom she identified as Muharem Ljutić based on his clothing. On
her way back, in one place she also found the dead body of her son Hamir Ljutić.
405.
Witness Nafa Smajić testified that, among soldiers who arrived in the village on the
referenced day, she identified Radenko Kuburić, Drago Vranković, and Boško Dević, who
also recognized her and Enisa, and promised them he would let them go to their village.
However, Marko Adamović interfered with this conversation and told him (Boško) he could
not let anyone leave as he was not the commander, and that only the Commander, Marko
Adamović personally, could let them go.
406.
Records on exhumation and crime scene investigation and Identification and
Autopsy Records for victims Muharem Ljutić and Hamer Ljutić224 serve as evidence that
Hamir and Muharem Ljutić were killed. The testimony of witness Senad Pervić also serves
the same purpose. This witness testified that he learned from Hamer Ljutić’s mother, after
the soldiers had passed through the village of Ljutića Brdo, that she had found Hamer and
Muharem dead, thus he and several neighbors went to collect their bodies.
407.
The accused Adamović also did not contest that the referenced incident and the
killing indeed occurred. He only contested having any connection with it. The Accused also
did not contest he was present with soldiers on the referenced day in the village of Ljutića
Brdo. The Accused made his case exactly on the fact that, after soldiers in his presence
had taken Hamer Ljutić to the school in Humići, he returned to the village unharmed, which
is when his mother saw him coming. However, the Panel has concluded that the
presentation of the events in such a way is undoubtedly the Accused’s attempt to
exculpate him by taking the referenced incident out of its full context. Specifically, witness
Mina Ljutić asked directly the Accused, rather than any other soldier, where they were
224
T-451.
157
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
taking her son. Witness Nafa Smajić herself heard the Accused ordering the lining up, and
separation of men from women, and she heard him “shouting in the middle of the village”.
Ultimately, the Accused himself bragged he was the “Commander” and the only person
who could decide and allow her to go to her village.
408.
With regard to the incident in the village of Plamenice, the Defense for the
accused Lukić presented as evidence before the Appellate Panel the Document of the
Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, strict. conf. 2-69, of 3 June 1992225 stating that “the
Muslim extremists in the village of Plamenice, Ključ Municipality, refused to surrender
weapons, which may lead to a conflict”. However, the above analyzed, mutually consistent
testimonies of the witnesses, show that the population of the referenced and surrounding
villages surrendered their weaponry, that already on 1 June 1992 men were separated
from women and taken away from the village, that there was no resistance offered by the
Muslims who had lived there, and that this document did not bring into doubt the findings
of facts relating to the conclusions in this section of the enacting clause of the Verdict.
409.
In view of the foregoing, the Panel has concluded that the acts described in this
section of the enacting clause, resulting in the unlawful imprisonment of a large number of
men, beating, causing fear in and humiliation of the inhabitants of the referenced villages,
which have satisfied the elements of other inhuman acts of similar character, but also
resulting in the killing of at least three persons, formed part of the plan of persecution of
Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality exclusively because of their ethnic origin,
to which the accused Lukić and Adamović consented and the commission of which they
wanted.
(c) Charges under Section 5.c) of the enacting clause of the Verdict
“5.c) In late May 1992, all men from Donja Sanica and Gornja Sanica, including
the hamlets, were ordered to surrender weapons and come to designated places.
Therefore, the men from Donja Sanica had to come to the former railway station
in Sanica, from where, following interrogation, they were transferred to the
primary school in Sanica, where men from Gornja Sanica were imprisoned
without a legal basis, insulted by various curses, without the right to know why
they were imprisoned, along with individual beatings, which created great fear
among the imprisoned civilians, both for their destiny and the destiny of their
families. On the following day, some of them were released and a large number
of them transported to the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ .
225
Exhibit AO-6, Document of the Command of the 2
nd
Krajina Corps, str.conf.2-69, of 3 June 1992.
158
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
410.
In late May 1992, the destiny of the Muslim and Croat population in Sanica did not
essentially differ from the destiny of Muslims and Croats residing in the other areas of the
Ključ municipality. Witnesses Atif Džafić, Ismet Kujundžić, Huso Crnolić, Esad Šulić,
Mirsad Dervišević, Mile Radulović and Željko Radojičić testified with regard to the above
referenced fact.
411.
The Defense teams for the Accused also did not contest the events that had
occurred in the Sanica area, in late May 1992, as described in this section of the enacting
clause of the Verdict, but rather the connection of these two Accused with the incriminating
actions.
412.
Atif Džafić testified that, after he had stopped working in the police for his refusal
to sign a loyalty statement as requested by the new Serb authorities, he went with his
family to Sanica, where his entire family had lived. It was Sunday, 31 May 1992, when the
military, both members of active and reserve force, came to Sanica. They stopped in front
of each house and requested men to join the “convoy”, or a column marching towards the
Sanica Primary School. According to the witness, the group of soldiers which arrested and
took them under escort to the SP Sanica comprised “mixed members of the military and
police”, which the witness distinguished based on their uniforms. The Panel has concluded
that such witness’s identification was reliable considering the witness’s status of a prewar
Commander of the Police Station Ključ.
413.
These men were told that they were going to make arrangements for their future
way of life. Witness Džafić stated that he had voluntarily joined the column, and explained
it as follows:
“I did it voluntarily because these men were armed. One of the soldiers, my first
neighbor Petar Mandić stood above my house holding a sniper. Our house was
located below a small hill, and his sniper took aim at my whole family, mother,
wife, two children, brothers. How could I not surrender when I had no weapons,
no such intentions and this man is threatening to kill them, etc...“226
Witness Džafić testified that, around 150 men from Sanica, all Muslims and one Croat,
aged between 18 and 60-70, were captured on the referenced day and interned in a gym
in the Sanica primary school. In the gym, Milan Tomić told them that investigators from
Ključ would come to interrogate them, and that those found not guilty would be released.
226
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 29 October 2008, evidence of witness Atif Džafić, p. 44.
159
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
They spent the night imprisoned at this school, secured by members of the reserve police
armed with long and short gun-barrels. The witness stated that the conditions of their
internment were bad: there were no mattresses except for a couple of benches on which
the elderly had sat, while the others had sat on the ground. They could not leave the gym
to go to a toilet without reporting to the guards. This was unsafe because those who had
gone out subsequently had problems with the guards who hit them, punched or kicked
them, and seized their rings and watches. Witness Džafić stated the following:
“The atmosphere was already such that, I mean, the situation was such that ….,
you could lose it as soon as you went out in the darkness. This was simply
because, one could feel it, this fear, tensions, ill-treatment, etc....“227
A certain number of the witness’s neighbors, mostly the elderly, who had been
apprehended together with him, were released on the following day, while at least 150 of
them were crammed in three buses and transported to the Nikola Mačkić Primary School
in Ključ.228 As a police officer, the witness knew the arrest, deprivation of liberty and
imprisonment procedures. The witness, however, stated that no one had ever informed
him about the reasons for which he was arrested or previously removed from work, or why
he had spent such a long period of time imprisoned at the Manjača camp, where he was
subsequently removed. They were searched at the entrance to the gym, and all that they
had on them on the occasion (watches, wedding rings, home and car keys) was seized
from them. Members of both active and reserve police force, and members of the military
police beat and slapped them. During the time he spent in the Nikola Mačkić primary
school, the witness was subjected to severe beatings. The witness was thereupon
transferred again to Sitnica, and subsequently to Manjača.
414.
In May 1992, witness Ismet Kujundžić lived in Donja Sanica. The witness testified
that first a patrol came by in May requesting him to hand over his weapons. The witness
handed over a pistol for which he possessed a regular license. Subsequently, probably on
31 May 1992, personnel carriers came to the village and all men were invited to give
statement. Around 60-70 men gathered. From a checkpoint set up at the cross-roads, they
marched in a column towards the railway station, where they were called out and taken
one by one to a room for interrogation. Thereupon one Boro arrived there. The witness
227
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 3 November 2008, evidence of witness Atif Džafić, p. 10.
The witness explains that each bus had 50 seats, they were crammed in the bus, and on this basis he
calculated the number of men transported to Ključ.
228
160
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
stated Boro had worked with him before, but “he was a soldier now” who took him for
interrogation. After the interrogation, they were taken under escort to the gym in the
Sanica primary school. When they arrived in the school gym, they saw there a large
number of men from Gornja Sanica. They were all civilians, like the witness himself. They
stated that, once they arrived there, provocations, interrogations and separation of men
started. The witness stated that a police station was located near the school. The
Prosecutor asked the witness why they failed to seek police protection while they were
escorted to the school by soldiers, to which the witness responded:
“How could I do that when this was a police operation, they escorted us under
guns and submachine guns to the gym. You had no one to speak with, and you
were not allowed to talk to anyone. Forget it, there is no talk when a submachine
gun is aimed at you, and there is no way you can ask mister police officer
anything. You cannot speak with anyone because you are not allowed to do so.
There is no talk, they just point a submachine gun at you, and that’s that.”229
415.
At one moment, they were ordered to come out in front of the school. A member of
the active police force, standing in front of the door, ordered them to throw away
everything they had in their pockets for they would need those items no more. The witness
had a military ID and 100 Swiss Francs which he threw in front of him. Parked in the
school yard, in front of the school, were 3 or 4 buses, and they were ordered to enter those
buses. While they were entering the buses, soldiers in olive-gray uniforms standing near
the buses beat them with rifle butts, or punched them on their heads. In the bus, they were
ordered to keep their heads bowed down in their laps. They did not know where they were
being taken. When the bus stopped, and when they were taken out, the witness realized
they were in Ključ, in front of the Nikola Mačkić primary school. They were taken through a
gauntlet of soldiers and police officers and brought to the school gym.
416.
Witness Huso Crnolić was also taken under escort, first to the Sanica primary
school, and thereupon to the Nikola Mačkić primary school. Witness Crnolić testified that,
in late May, the military and the police arrived in his village. He identified them by their
uniforms because the police had standard blue uniforms, while the police had olive-gray
uniforms. Among those soldiers, the witness recognized men from Sanica whom he had
known from before. All villagers were taken to a road towards Sanica. Men were separated
from women and children, whereupon the men, mostly able bodied men, were bussed to a
meadow, where they saw a certain number of members of the military and the police.
161
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
From this place, two by two in a column, escorted by members of the active and reserve
police force, they marched to the Sanica railway station. They were brought in two rooms
for interrogation. First younger men were taken into a room, interrogated and beaten
during the interrogation. After the interrogation, they were in the evening hours taken to the
Sanica Primary School and interned in a gym, where they saw a large number of men from
Sanica, whom the witness had known from before. The witness stated:
“When I entered the gym, I saw men from Sanica whom I had personally known.
There were teachers and tradesmen who had been beaten there.“230
Around midnight, they were bussed to the Nikola Mačkić PS in Ključ. The witness stated
he was not beaten in the Sanica PS gym even though he noticed men who had been
beaten there. He was only beaten when he entered the bus which transported them to
Ključ, as two of their men stood by the bus beating the men entering the bus. The witness
stated that 4 buses arrived, and that each bus carried around 40-50 men. No one informed
them about the reasons for which they were deprived of liberty or detained. After their
arrival in the Nikola Mačkić PS in Ključ, they had to empty their pockets. In a gym to which
they were brought, and where they spent the night, they saw a horrific situation:
“The gym was all dirty, it was all covered in blood, and it was dirty of all sorts of
things... I saw there, when we saw the gym was crammed and that men had
been beaten there, that there was... Some men were all black and blue, some
were all covered in blood, there was …”231
The witness further stated that, after spending the night in the Nikola Mačkić primary
school in Ključ, they were crammed into buses which would allegedly take them back to
their homes. However, when the buses reached a checkpoint at Biljani, held by Serb
soldiers and TO reservists, they were sent back to the Nikola Mačkić primary school in
Ključ.
417.
Witness Mirsad Dervišević, who had been present on 1 June 1992 at the Velagići
checkpoint, stated that buses transporting the men from Sanica arrived, and that in one of
the buses he recognized Atif Džafić. These buses were stopped at the checkpoint and
sent back in the same direction from which they had come. That the buses transporting the
229
Transcript in the case No. X-KR-05/119, 24 February 2010, evidence of witness Ismet Kujundžić, p. 19.
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 14 October 2009, evidence of witness Huso Crnalić, p. 11.
231
Ibid, p. 13.
230
162
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Muslims from Sitnica were sent back from the checkpoint again to the Nikola Mačkić
primary school ensues from the testimony of witness Simo Vujičić.232
418.
Some men, e.g. Huso Crnolić, were nevertheless brought back home to Sanica via
roundabout way, while for some of them, like Atif Džafić, the period of imprisonment had
just started there, considering he was transferred to Sitnica, and subsequently to the
Manjača camp.
419.
Bearing in mind the consistent testimonies of the witnesses relating to the charges
described in this Section, and the events uncontested by the Accused’s Defense teams,
the Panel has concluded that the referenced events indeed occurred in the described way.
Considering that the villagers of Gornja and Donja Sanica were arrested and imprisoned
exclusively on the ground of their ethnic origin, but with no legal ground justifying such
acts, and that the arrested men had never been given any explanation for their arrest,
particularly bearing in mind the inhuman treatment to which they were subjected after the
arrest, undoubtedly point to the unlawful character of the referenced acts which are, as
such, in violation of the rules of international law. The men deprived of liberty, as it ensues
from their consistent testimonies, were never provided with an opportunity to be taken
before a court, nor were issued with any decision showing the reasons for their deprivation
of liberty and confinement. According to the Panel, these actions were carried out with the
intent to persecute the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality, in
furtherance of a common design of the JCE, while the Accused, although not being direct
perpetrators in the criminal acts described in this section, consented to the referenced
design, and acted in furtherance thereof, which renders them also responsible for the
referenced actions that form part of that common design.
(d) Charges under Section 5.d) of the enacting clause of the Verdict
“5.d) Men, women and children of Muslim and Croat ethnicity from the city center
were ordered, via Radio Ključ, to gather at designated locations, such as the
machine factory in Halinovsko Vrelo and the football stadium in Ključ, which they
did out of fear for their lives. Afterwards, women and children were released to
their homes, while the men were questioned about the possession of weapons,
and after interrogation, most of men were released home, but at least 6 of them,
without any legal grounds and deprived of all rights, were imprisoned in the SJB.“
232
Exhibit T-123, Witness Examination Record for Simo Vujičić No. KT-RZ-119/05 of 25 February 2008,
p.11-12 and Excerpt from the Register of Deaths for Simo Vujičić.
163
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
420.
Many witnesses, Muslim residents of Ključ, testified that, in late May, particularly
on 27 May 1992, tensions and fear culminated, and the life of Muslims in the town center
became unbearable.
421.
Witness Senada Turkanović testified that the “cleansing” commenced on 27 May
1992. The witness stated that Radio Ključ broadcast information that Muslims should not
go to the center, particularly without their IDs, and advised them not to leave their houses.
On 28 May 1992, they were informed that the inhabitants of Bebići, part of the town where
the witness had lived, must leave their homes and go to the town stadium. They were also
ordered to leave their houses open, as they would be searched. On the way from her
home to the stadium, the witness saw an armed reservist on the bridge, while on the
playground itself she saw her fellow citizens, Serbs from Ključ, uniformed and armed,
securing the gathered people. After a certain period of time they had spent there, men
were ordered to stay at the stadium, as they would be questioned, while the women and
children were released to go homes, but were told that their houses would be searched.
The witness went back home with her mother, while her father stayed at the stadium,
together with the other men. The police came to search her house, but found no weapons
or anything alike, because her father and brothers, who had gone to Slovenia already in
early May, possessed no weapons. Her father came back home after the search was over.
Even though the whole family was gathered at home, the witness stated their movement
was restricted. They were informed via Radio Ključ that they should not move around “for
their own safety”. The witness stated they were even prohibited from going out to their
yards in certain periods of time during the day. The restriction of movement exclusively
included Muslims, Bosniaks, as Radio Ključ informed them. They lived in a constant fear,
which proved to be justified, because around 20 June 1992, a red police van came to the
front of their house, and 5-6 active and reserve police officers took her father, and with
beatings233 drove him to the Police Station Ključ. On the following morning, they received
information that her father had died in the hospital. However, the witness learned from
physician Macan that her father had been brought dead from the police station, but that he
had to write down that her father had died due to the disease from which he suffered.
422.
Witness Merima Filipović also testified about the situation in Ključ after 27 May
1992, when she stopped working. The witness stated she had observed something was
164
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
going on in the town on the referenced day. Many people headed towards the TO building,
and returned from there, and at one moment, there was a stir. People were taken for
informative interviews. Since her husband, Omer Filipović, had earlier gone to Velagići, her
brother in-law took her and her children to his home. She was present when her brother-inlaw’s house was searched for weapons. Her brother-in-law, Muhamed Filipović, was on
the following day taken for informative interview. The Muslim citizens of Ključ were ordered
to go to the playground. The witness stated that all Muslims from this part of the town went
to the playground. There were men, women and children too. They were surrounded by
“members” in different uniforms and armed, who stood at the distance of around 10 meters
away from them and secured them. At around noon, women and children were released to
go home. Men stayed at the town stadium. The witness stated she did not know what had
further happened to them. The witness heard that those men were subsequently also
released.
423.
Witness Hadžija Bajrić also had to report to the Ključ stadium with her family.
Consistently with witness Senada Turkanović, this witness too stated that they had been
detained in their homes since 27 May 1992. Muslims were continually urged via Radio
Ključ to hand over their weapons. One day (the witness believes it was on 1 June234) two
neighbors of hers came to take them to the stadium where around 2000 men had already
been gathered, mostly Muslims and a few Croats. The witness stated there were men,
women and children. Members of the police force and men in olive-grey uniforms were
deployed around the stadium. At one moment, Dragan Stojčić told them via megaphone
that men had to be separated from women and children, that men would stay at the
stadium, while women and children were released to go home. When the witness went
back home with her daughters, one Dvizac, also known as Pančo, whom she had known
to be mobilized in the police, came together with several police officers to search the
house. One of them was a younger boy, and her daughter even tried to greet him as her
schoolmate, but he told her “as of today, we are not schoolmates”. They searched the
house, and “turned upside down all they could, and kicked around their belongings”.
Around 30 minutes later, having found nothing, they left the house threatening them they
233
The witness stated she had seen her father being hit once, but that she heard him begging them not to
beat him because he was ill. Thus the witness assumed that he was severely beaten.
234
However, it is obvious that this happened a couple of days earlier, considering that the witness herself
stated that Asim Egrlić called them to surrender their weapons, and he testified he had been arrested on
28 May 1992.
165
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
would come again. At around 16:00 hrs, on the same day, the witness’s husband and son
returned from the stadium. “Their everyday hardship started” no sooner than that date. The
witness further testified:
“…They walked around our house every day. Both “zolja” rockets and hand
grenades were thrown. There were patrols as well. We were not safe at all, so to
say. We all slept in a small space between a larder and a toilet, because we were
afraid. After two hand grenades had been thrown in front of our house, we feared
and thought our lives would be endangered.... Indeed, our lives were
endangered, because they had already started taking men away. A red vehicle
make Golf and a red van patrolled around the area. We in Ključ named them
ominous vehicles as these were police station vehicles. It was a known fact that
anyone taken away in this vehicle was going either to Manjača or death...“235
424.
The second, so called „gathering site” where Muslim and Croat citizens of the
Ključ downtown were called to report was a machines factory in Halinovsko vrelo.
425.
Witness Mehmed Banjalučkić stated that, in May 1992, he had lived in the village
of Halinovići, which was not shelled, but men, women and children were rounded up. The
witness testified that:
“Soldiers from Ključ arrived. (it was) TO… They told us to get out and take the
road towards Halinovsko vrelo, where a factory existed, which had been built
before the war. We were all in this factory. We were there until the evening of that
day, …”236
426.
Witness Banjalučkić testified that around 200 of men were imprisoned at the
factory. Villagers of Rejzovići were also imprisoned there. At one moment, two soldiers
came in, and with no explanation whatsoever, started separating women and children from
men. Women and children were released to go home, while men were kept for
interrogation. The witness stated that soldiers asked them about weapons. The witness
told them he had already handed over his hunting rifle to the police patrol which had
visited the village. Men were also released in the evening hours.
427.
When witness Džemal Draganović realized that something strange was happening
in Ključ on 27 May 1992, he fled to the woods with his family. Having spent a night in the
open, the witness and his wife decided to go back home with their children. After they
returned, shooting started around their house. The witness learned from his sister-in-law
235
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 11 March 2009, evidence of woman witness Hadžija Bajrić,
p. 12.
236
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 11 March 2009, evidence of witness Mehmed Banjalučkić,
p. 21.
166
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
that Radio Ključ broadcast information that they all had to report to certain „collection
sites“. A factory in the Halinovsko vrelo was a collection place for his local community, so
the witness went with his family in the factory direction. They were also instructed to leave
their houses unlocked, in order to prevent breaking the doors for search purposes. People
were placed inside the factory, and were secured by armed men in uniforms. Several
hours later, women and children were released to go home, while men stayed there. A
group of men wearing camouflage uniforms and hats arrived to question them. When the
witness went to ”report“ to the four men who had interrogated them, Željko Todorović, a
young man whom he had known, but did not know he was a member of police force,
asked him: „Đems, where is your rifle?“, and told him to go over there to report himself.
The witness told him that he had had a rifle, an automatic rifle, which was bought upon his
wife's persuasion, for protection as they had owned a store, but which had never been
used, and which he had thrown away on his way back from the village. Six of them were
separated aside. Ibrahim Bajrić, Mustafa Kojić, Refik Muslimović, Mustafa Muslimović and
another man with the last name Muslimović, whose first name the witness could not
remember, stayed together with him. Tode Gajić came with some police officers and drove
six of them to the police station, where they were beaten and thereupon locked up in the
basement cells. A Serb neighbor of theirs protected them there from being further beaten,
and in the late evening hours, they were transferred to Gradiška, and after 14 days spent
there, to Manjača.
428.
Witness Ibrahim Bajrić also testified that, in an already tense situation in Ključ, in
late May 1992, they were called, via Radio Ključ, to report to the factory at Halinovsko
vrelo. Ključ was surrounded by the Serb military, and they had to report there as they had
no other choice. The order to report to the factory was issued by the Crisis Staff. The
witness stated that when they arrived in the factory, where all villagers of Rejzovići had
gathered, the TO forces, comprising Serbs only, secured them. Several hours later, Tode
Gajić came and told women and children to go home, while men were kept there for
interrogation. After the interrogation, a certain number of men were released to go home,
while six of them were kept, and transferred to the police station and locked up in a cell.
The witness stated that, while they were kept in the cell, there was “a horror of beating,
crying and shouting, and they kept their ears covered out of fear”. While they were kept
there, they were not beaten. These men were from the SJB Ključ transferred in a police
van to Gradiška, and after 14 days, to Manjača.
167
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
429.
None of the witnesses heard with regard to the circumstances surrounding this
Count of the Indictment said that there was any reason, or that they were notified of the
reasons for which they were deprived of liberty and imprisoned. There was no legal ground
for deprivation of their liberty, nor did they receive any certificate or decision on the
deprivation of liberty. At no moment whatsoever, from the moment they were arrested and
detained at one of the collection centers, or subsequently, when six apprehended men
were taken to the SJB Ključ and locked up in the cells there, were they brought before a
judge, or in any other way informed about the reasons for their arrest and imprisonment.
As it ensues from the witnesses’ testimonies, this was based on a sole reason that they
were Muslims. Such a deprivation of liberty and imprisonment was undoubtedly in violation
of the fundamental principles of international law.
430.
Even though the accused Lukić and Adamović took no direct part in arresting and
capturing any of the referenced persons, the Panel has concluded that their role and guilt
for these actions undoubtedly exists. This is so because, as it ensues from the presented
evidence, these acts are the acts of persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ
municipality within a common design of the JCE. Having so concluded, the Panel was
primarily mindful of the fact that the notification, specifically the order issued to Muslims
and Croats in the Ključ municipality to report to the collection centers, was broadcast via
Radio Ključ, which was under the control of the Crisis Staff, as it ensues from Exhibit T225.237 This document stated that “Radio Ključ will operate pursuant to the directions of the
Crisis Staff”. Such a status was also confirmed by the minutes of the sessions of the Ključ
Municipality Crisis Staff.238 In addition, such a state of facts is also confirmed by the
testimony of witness Ibrahim Bajrić. The witness testified that the order that they must
report to the machines factory in the Halinovsko vrelo was issued by the Crisis Staff.
431.
Witness Hadžija Bajrić testified that, in the meantime, it was proclaimed that all
Muslims who leave their property behind could leave Ključ. This was also one of the
conclusions drawn at the Crisis Staff sessions. A clear message was thereby sent to
Muslims and Croats that there was no place and no life for them in Ključ. Therefore, due to
all the events in the town and its surroundings which caused their fear for their own lives
and existence, they decided to leave their homes even at the price of leaving behind
237
T-225 Proposal of the organizational scheme of the operations of the municipal bodies in time of war,
May 1992.
238
T-229.
168
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
everything they had been obtaining for years. Witness Bajrić stated she had been seeking
a way to save her children. She got an opportunity to do so, but no sooner than October
1992, when she left Ključ.
432.
All the witnesses consistently testified that members of the TO, or their neighbors
“Serbs” were in charge of securing the places designated as “collection centers”, like the
factory in Halinovsko vrelo and the Ključ town stadium. Considering the role of the
accused Boško Lukić in the mobilization and training of members of the TO, in the way
that it had become monoethnic, comprising only Serbs, and the role of the accused Marko
Adamović, in the activities with the Battalion comprising the TO units on the ground,
exactly in those first days of the conflict in the territory of the Ključ municipality, the Panel
has concluded that these facts indicate, beyond a doubt, that even though they could not
be present at all places at any time, both the Accused took an active part in the
implementation of the “cleansing” policy as witness Hadžija Bajrić called it, or in the
persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality, inter alia, by the acts of
deprivation of liberty and imprisonment, in violation of the fundamental rules of
international law, deprivation of the right to a fair and impartial trial. By the referenced acts,
the Accused consented to these acts and wanted the execution thereof, exactly in the way
as described in this Section of the enacting clause of the Verdict.
(e) Charges under Section 5.e) of the enacting clause of the Verdict
“5.e) As of 26 June 1992, an attack was launched on the undefended Muslim
villages of Ramići, Krasulje, the hamlets of Hripavci and Ošiljak, on which
occasion the population was forced out of their houses, terrorized and intimidated
by shots from fire weapons, curses and threats. On that occasion at least 21
civilians were killed, including Sabra Čarkić, Husein Čarkić, Derviš Čarkić, Sabit
Husić, Safet Husić, Omer Husić, Teufik Husić, Ifet Vučkić, Smajo Kalabić, Mirsad
Jukić, Šefik Delalić, Ibrahim Delalović, Rezak Đuzić, Ramo Đuzić, Hakija Đuzić,
Sabit Sadiković, Aziz Fazlić, Esad Frmić, Mirsad Jamaković and Šukrija
Bajraktarević. The men from Ramići who survived were brought to the primary
school in Ramići, and men from Krasulje to the primary school in Krasulje, which
is when Marko Adamović brought Safet Sadiković and Edin Sadiković in;
following the registration and interrogation, at least 90 of them, who were
unlawfully deprived of liberty, without any legal ground, were transferred to and
imprisoned in the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ.”
433.
Witness Muhamed Kozarac testified that, in 1992, he had lived in the village of
Hripavci with his mother and brother. The village was surrounded by the Serb military, and
the population lived in fear of Serb soldiers. Their fear further intensified in early June,
when refugees from Prhovo arrived in Hripavci and told them about the massacre
committed
by
soldiers
led
by
Marko
Adamović. The witness stated they had
169
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
lived in the village, but hiding from Serb soldiers to avoid being killed. However, they were
in their houses when Serb soldiers occupied them. Twenty two people, mostly members of
his family Kozarac and Jusić239 were gathered in front of his house. The witness stated that
“(members of the families) Mušići and Muherine were captured up there”. Subsequently in
the camp, the witness learned from the villagers of those hamlets that Marko Adamović
was present among the soldiers who had “captured” them in (the hamlet of) Mušići. The
witness further described what 22 of them had been through after being rounded up by
Serb soldiers in front of his house:
“Then they started beating us. They forced us towards piled pieces of logs. There
was a septic tank (in my yard). They had mounted a piece of log across this
septic tank and brought us there. They made threats to us with axes and beat us
with sticks. Then they turned on chainsaws threating to cut our heads off. We
were severely beaten there. They subsequently took us up there to (the hamlet
of) Musići and waited for all of us from Balinići, Musići and Muherine to gather
there. We were all rounded up in Musići…”240
They even beat up a woman, Hasija Kozarac, even though generally they did no harm to
women and children, whom they had left in the village. After being tortured and beaten, all
the men gathered at this place from the village of Hripavci, the village of Krasulje and its
hamlets of Balijagići, Musići, Muherine and Kozarac were taken under escort to the Musići
intersection, and lined up there. They were ordered as follows: “Put your hands on your
heads, you must not lift up your heads; you must not look anywhere aside. Then they
started beating us, hitting us with rifles, rifle butts at our backs, they beat us all …”.241
Subsequently, armed soldiers and a personnel carrier driving behind them took the
captives to the Krasulje primary school, under threats that they would kill anyone who tried
to escape. Witness Kozarac stated that in the Krasulje School they were taken to the
offices for interrogation, during which they were beaten. No one had informed them about
the reasons for which they were arrested. The witness explained:
“That is because I am a Muslim. They did not tell me so, but this is the reason
why I was taken in … Since Muslims and Croats were captured, it means that
this was the reason for taking us in.”242
239
The witness explains those were the last names of the male members of these two families.
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 14 September 2009, testimony of witness Muhamed
Kozarac, p. 8.
241
Ibid, p. 9.
242
Ibid, p. 11.
240
170
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
The witness further stated that, once he was interrogated and beaten, he was brought
back to the playground in front of the school, among the other arrested Muslims. The
witness saw some other men being taken for interrogation. After the interrogation, “they
brought buses”, which transported the able bodied men to the Nikola Mačkić primary
school in Ključ. When they entered the bus, and also after their arrival in the Nikola
Mačkić, where they were interned in a school gym, they were all severely beaten. The
witness eye-witnessed the death of Ifet Vučkić, Ibrahim Delalović and Mirsad Jukić who
had succumbed to the beatings they received.
434.
Witness Kozarac stated that the men from Krasulje were taken to the Krasulje
primary school, while the men from Ramići, after the village had been shelled and “taken
over” by Serb soldiers, were taken to the Ramići primary school. Witnesses Ćazim Bajrić
and Teufik Bajrić testified about these events.
435.
Witness Ćazim Bajrić described the situation in his village of Ramići since late May
1992. The village was shelled, the village mosque destroyed, and the men, including the
witness, taken to the Police Station in Ključ for interrogation. The villagers withdrew to the
woods, but when the woods were shelled too, they fled further towards the village of
Ošiljak. The Serb military, which had already at the time “cruised in personnel carriers
around the village”, called them to return to the village, telling them they would be safe,
and designated a checkpoint where they would hand over their weapons. Around 60-70
able bodied men, who had weapons, also surrendered. The witness stated that men,
women and children were ordered to report to the Ramići school, but the men were prior to
that stopped at the checkpoint where weapons had been handed over. Meanwhile,
soldiers searched houses which they had to leave open. The witness testified that, after
handing over their weapons, they were told that the women and children present in the
Ramići School would be released after the men came to the school, which they did. The
witness stated that, in the school:
“All those men on personnel carriers, with some radio – stations on their chests
waited for them. Some of them had stocking on their heads. They were mostly
soldiers and members of the police. We dare not look at anyone. We were
already captives. We dared not look anyone in his eyes, because whoever
looked some of them in his eyes, it was his end. They ordered us to bow down
our heads. They swore our balija’s mothers, asking what are you looking at, why
171
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
you are looking, where are you going, etc. The hardship of our captivity started
already there. We were already prisoners there...“243
From the Ramići School, they were transported by two crammed buses to the Nikola
Mačkić primary school in Ključ. When they arrived there, they were searched. They had to
empty their pockets and take out personal documents, keys and money and to throw all
that on a pile. They were told they would need these items no more. The men were
interned in a gym, where they were subjected to severe beatings and humiliations. For
example, the witness was forced to kiss the Serb three-color flag. The witness described
this humiliation as follows:
“I hit the bottom with this; this was a total humiliation. There is nothing else
beyond this. It was something unimaginable and bad for me...“244
On the following day, the elderly were released to go home, and those who stayed,
including the witness, were transferred to the Manjača camp.
436.
Witness Teufik Bajrić also resided in the village of Ramići. The witness stated that
after the shelling of Pudin Han and Velagići, he learned from the inhabitants of these
villages who had taken refuge in Ramići that there had been many dead and killed people.
He eye-witnessed that a large number of people were taken to camps. When they all
learned that it was “Ramići’s turn”, they tried to protect the population by making an
improvised shelter in the woods. However, when the shelling of the woods started, the
men from Krasulje and Ramići tried to flee, but only managed to reach the Golaja woods.
When they realized they could not go any further, they returned to the village, where they
learned that the women and children had been detained in the Ramići School, the men
called via a megaphone to surrender their arms, which they did. Two neighbors of his took
the witness to a school in Donji Ramići. The witness stated they “carried out an exchange”,
namely that they released women and children to brought men in. After a while, buses
arrived and they were transported to a primary school in Ključ. They were interned in a
gym, and subjected to beatings during interrogations to which they had been taken.
Ultimately, they were transferred to Manjača.
437.
Witness Safet Sadiković testified that many soldiers had come to his village in late
June. Soldiers had already taken away 12 men from the entrance to the village. Witness
243
244
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 9 September 2009, testimony of witness Ćazim Bajrić, p.14.
Ibid, p.16.
172
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Sadiković subsequently learned that those people had never returned. The witness stated
there was shooting, random single shots, and that men were rounded up. The most
memorable and traumatic event for the witness was reasonably the moment when he was
captured.
438.
Witness Sadiković testified that, in late June 1992, he was arrested in his house in
Krasulje. The witness was taken to the other hamlet and beaten. Thereupon he was taken
over by Ratko Buvač, who took him to the hamlet of Čarkići and handed him over to the
accused Marko Adamović. The accused Adamović drove the witness and minor Edin
Sadiković to the Krasulje primary school and handed them over. As witness Muhamed
Kozarac also testified, most of those men were from this place transferred to the Nikola
Mačkić school in Ključ.
439.
Even though certain heard witnesses tied their capturing to the earlier period, or
late May, the Panel concluded, based on the testimony of witness Sadiković who was
certain that he had been captured in late June 1992, and the documentary evidence
confirming his testimony as such,245 that the incident when witness Sadiković was captured
had occurred in late June 1992. As it ensues from Exhibit T-185, Commander of the 17th
Light Infantry Brigade (17th LIB), Drago Samardžija issued an Order, strict. conf. No. 0193/92 of 25 June 1992 for search and cleansing of the terrain in the area of VelagićiRamići-Ošijak and the Krasulje area, that the 1st Battalion of the 17th LIB was to participate
in this action, and that a military police unit of the SJB Ključ shall receive the arrested men,
process them and, if necessary, transfer them to the SJB Ključ for further processing.
Exhibit – Supplement to Monograph of the 1st Krajina Corps246 shows that Ratko Buvač
was a Commander of the 2nd Company of the 1st Battalion of the 17th LIB. As it ensues
from the testimony of witness Sadiković, exactly Buvač handed him and minor Edin
Sadiković over to the accused Marko Adamović. Witness Muhamed Kozarac saw the
accused Adamović at the referenced site during the cleansing of the Krasulje area, who
subsequently took them to the Nikola Mačkić primary school.
440.
Witness Sadiković was present in the school when Muharem Delalović and Mirsad
Jukić succumbed to the beatings they had received. The witness also knows that Derviš
245
246
Exhibit T-185, Order no. strict. conf. No.01-93/92 of 25 June1992.
Exhibit T-196.
173
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Čarkić and Aiz Fazlić were brought dead to the village of Krasulje, after they had been
previously taken away. The witness was in a group of around 120 men bussed to Manjača.
441.
In addition to the names of those whose death was eye-witnessed by witnesses
Sadiković, Kozarac, Teufik Bajrić or Ćazim Bajrić, the Autopsy and Identification Records
from single graves in the Krasulje I-VIII site, with enclosed photo-documentation and
crime-scene drawings247, confirm the death of persons whose names were enumerated in
the enacting clause of the Verdict.
442.
The Panel has analyzed the cleansing itself of the villages of Ramići, Krasulje with
hamlets Hripavci and Ošiljak, even though the Defense teams for the Accused essentially
did not contest these incidents, but rather the Accused’s connection with the referenced
activities.
443.
The defense of the accused Marko Adamović was based on the averments that, at
the relevant time, he was not present on the ground in the territory of the Ključ
municipality, but that he had rather gone to the Jajce frontline. The Panel, however, did not
find that this defense of his was well-founded. The Panel has concluded that the testimony
of witness Sadiković can be fully credited, because the witness convincingly identified the
accused Adamović as the person who took him over after he had been arrested, and
handed him over at the Nikola Mačkić primary school. Witness Sadiković explained that he
had known the Accused since 1970, when he was his superior during pre-military
exercises. According to the Panel, the fact that witness Sadiković identified a person who
had handed him over to the accused Adamović as Ratko Buvač, Commander of the 2 nd
Company of the same Battalion whose member the Accused was, who told him his name
even though the witness had not known Buvač from before, points to the reliability of the
testimony of the referenced witness. Therefore, the witness had no grounds whatsoever to
connect the Accused with Commander Buvač for any other reason but exclusively for the
fact that the referenced incident indeed occurred as the witness described it.
444.
The Panel did not give credence to the defense of the accused Adamović who
tried to prove that he had not been present in the territory of the Ključ municipality already
since mid-June 1992, and fully absent from 20 June 1992, but rather at the Jajce frontline,
specifically in Magaljdol, with the Tactic Group 2 (TG 2). With regard to the foregoing, the
247
Exhibit T- 455.
174
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Defense heard witness Cvijo Popović, who confirmed the referenced averments, but to
whose testimony the Panel gave no credence.
445.
The Prosecution contested the testimony of witness Cvijo Popović through the
documentary evidence tendered within Exhibit T-455,248 which is essentially a series of
orders. It clearly ensues from those orders that, the Ključ Battalion, whose member the
accused Adamović was, did not join the TG2 in the Magaljdol area not even by 29 June
1992, but that it was further deployed and active in the territory of the Ključ municipality. In
addition, the Panel concluded that the testimony of witness Popović was too pretentious
and contrived in an attempt to help the accused Adamović in avoiding his criminal liability.
Thus witness Popović described the accused Adamović as a “communist emotional
person”, and stated “that he had never done anything bad or unlawful … that there was
nothing like that in his mindset”.
446.
Therefore, according to the Panel, contrary to the testimonies of witness Cvijo
Popović and the accused Adamović, who testified in the capacity of a witness, there
stands solid and convincing documentary evidence of the Prosecution, upon the analysis
of which the conclusion is drawn fully contradicting the averments presented by this
Accused’s Defense.
447.
The Prosecution’s documentary evidence shows that the Tactic Group 1 (TG 1)
was formed under the order of the Commander of the 2 nd Krajina Corps, Colonel Grujo
Borić, of 16 June 1992,249 out of the units of the 1st Brigade Drvar, and that it comprised: a
part of the Command of the 1st Brigade, headquarters administration of the 1st and 2nd
Infantry Brigade, hab 105 mm and a section of the logistics company, that 1st Class
Captain Cvijo Popović was appointed Commander of the TG 1. The referenced TG was
tasked with carrying out the Pliva 92 action, for the purpose of which it was formed. As it
ensues from the presented evidence, the units of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade never
formed part of the TG 1.
448.
As to the TG2, witness Cvijo Popović testified that he had been appointed
Commander of the TG 2 deployed in the Magaljdol area in mid-April (13 April 1992), which
position he held for a month, that the Adamović joined it already at the time when the
248
249
Prosecution’s Exhibits tendered as the rebuttal evidence.
Exhibit T-455/10.
175
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
witness was the TG Commander, and stayed there even after he (the witness) had left the
TG. Such averments, however, were unsupported with any piece of evidence whatsoever.
On the contrary, the Panel concluded, based on the adduced evidence, that the
information about the TG 2, deployed in the Magaljdol area, originated only from the
Regular Combat Report of 25 June 1992250 sent by Commander Cvijo Popović to the
Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps. Therefore, it follows from the foregoing, contrary to the
testimony of witness Popović, that even in late June he was the Commander of the TG 2,
but also that, at the time, the units of the 17 th Light Infantry Brigade had not still been
present and deployed within the TG 2. It follows from the referenced document that
Commander Popović reported that the status of moral in the unit was problematic, and that
the units requested to be replaced at their positions, about which Commander Boro Grujić
notified the RS Main Staff through the Report of 29 June 1992.251
449.
The units were replaced on the ground no sooner that the above referenced date,
but the Regular Combat Report sent by the 2nd Krajina Corps to the RS Main Staff on
1 July 1992 confirms that, even back then, the forces of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade
were still deployed in the wider area of the Ključ municipality.252
450.
The Panel has concluded that all the foregoing, correlated with the testimony of
witness Sadiković, who identified with certainty the accused Adamović as a person who
had taken him over after being captured and brought him to the Nikola Mačkić primary
school, confirms with certainty that both the Accused and the units of the Ključ Battalion
were present in the Krasulje and Ramići area during the critical period covered by this
Section of the enacting clause of the Verdict.
451.
Moreover, it ensues from the testimonies of the witnesses who testified about the
circumstances described in this section of the enacting clause of the Verdict, that the
attack on the villages of Ramići and Krasulje, including the hamlets of Hripavci and Ošiljak,
was a part of the policy of persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality,
that is, a continuation of the activities described in the previous Sections, in which the
Panel described in detail the role of the Accused. The testimony of witness Teufik Bajrić
particularly points to such a conclusion. Witness Bajrić stated they had learned that
250
Exhibit T-455/1.
Exhibit T-455/9.
252
Exhibit T-455/8.
251
176
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
“Ramići were next” in the cleansing that had been already started in the other villages.
Therefore, the attack on the villages of Ramići and Krasulje is a part of the JCE plan, in
which the Accused played a significant role, and to which they significantly contributed.
The participation of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, in whose command structure the
accused Adamović also participated, as well as his personal participation in the arrests of
Muslims on the ground, in order to unlawfully detain them at the Nikola Mačkić primary
school, leave no doubts into his guilt.
452.
In view of all the foregoing, the Panel has concluded that the described acts of the
accused Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović satisfied all the essential elements of the
criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity under Article 172(1)(h) of the Criminal Code
of BiH, as read with Article 180(1) of the same Code, of which they were found guilty.
X. APPLICABLE LAW
453.
Under the Amended Indictment, the Prosecution charged the Accused with the
commission of the criminal offense of War Crimes against Humanity under Article
172(1)(h) of the CC BiH, as read with Article 180(1) of the same Code.
454.
During the entire course of the proceedings, the Defense teams for both the
Accused argued that the law to be applied to the concrete case is the adopted CC SFRY,
as the law that was in effect at the time when the criminal offense was committed.
455.
Starting from the fundamental principles of criminal law, relying on Article 7 of the
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and Articles 3, 3a, 4 and 4a) of the CC
BiH, and bearing in mind both the Prosecution’s position and the Defense’s objections
relating to the application of substantive law, the Panel has analyzed which law is to be
applied in the concrete case.
456.
The Prosecution’s Indictment covered the period between April and December
1992, while the Accused were found guilty of the acts undertaken during the period
between April and late June 1992. During the above referenced period, the adopted 1976
CC SFRY was in effect, and the offense charged against the Accused was qualified
pursuant to the CC BiH, which came into effect in 2003.
177
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
457.
Article 7 of the ECHR provides the following:
“No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offense on account of any act or
omission which did not constitute a criminal offense under national or
international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty
be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offense was
committed.”
458.
Not only that the ECHR has primacy over all other laws in its application, but the
referenced provision was also, almost literally, adopted into the national legislation through
Article 3 of the CC BiH. This Article addresses the principle of legality and stipulates that
no punishment or other criminal sanction may be imposed on any person for an act which,
prior to being perpetrated, has not been defined as a criminal offense by law or
international law, and for which a punishment has not been prescribed by law.
459.
Article 4 of the CC BiH further prescribes that the law that was in effect at the time
when the criminal offense was perpetrated shall apply to the perpetrator of the criminal
offense, and if the law has been amended on one or more occasions after the criminal
offense was perpetrated, the law that is more lenient to the perpetrator shall be applied.
460.
Although Article 7 of the ECHR provides for the principle of legality and the
general principle prohibiting the imposition of a more stringent punishment than the one
which was applicable at the time when the criminal offense was committed, it does not
prescribe the application of the most lenient law. Article 7(2) further stipulates that “this
Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission
which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles
of law recognized by civilized nations.“ The referenced principle is almost identically also
contained in Article 15(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR). Both the ECHR and the ICCPR have been ratified by BiH, as the successor of
the former SFRY, wherefore they are binding in nature.
461.
Article 7(2) of the ECHR has been adopted in the positive legislation of Bosnia and
Herzegovina also through Article 4.a) of the CC BiH. It ensues from this provision that,
despite the prohibitions contained in Articles 3 and 4 of the CC BiH, these provisions do
not preclude prosecution and punishment of any person for act or omission which, at the
time when it was committed, was criminal according to the general principles of
international law.
462.
Pursuant
to
the
principle
of
universal
jurisdiction,
customary
178
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
international humanitarian law is binding on any state in the world, regardless of whether it
has ratified appropriate international legal instruments. Thus, any state is under obligation
to prosecute and extradite (aut dedere aut judicare) any person suspected of having
violated customary international humanitarian law. Any restriction imposed by a state
relating to the extradition of a person charged with violations of international customary
humanitarian law amounts to a violation of international obligations of the state concerned.
463.
War crimes, including crimes against humanity, as the offense charged against the
Accused in the concrete case, are undoubtedly crimes pursuant to the provisions of
international law, and, along this line, should be subsumed under “general principles of
international law“, as provided for under Article 4.a) of the CC BiH, or under “general
principles of law recognized by civilized nations,” as provided for under Article 7(2) of the
ECHR. The foregoing renders the application of the CC BiH in the concrete case justified,
as argued in the Prosecution’s Indictment.
464.
It should be also noted, in the context of the foregoing, that on 10 April 2012, the
Panel of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg rendered a judgment upon
the appeal filed by the convicted person Boban Šimšić refusing the appeal as ill-founded.
The referenced Judgment stated as follows:
“The Court observes that the present applicant was convicted in 2007 of
persecution as a crime against humanity with regard to acts which had taken
place in 1992. While the impugned acts had not constituted a crime against
humanity under domestic law until the entry into force of the 2003 Criminal Code,
it is evident from the documents cited in paragraph 8-13 above that the impugned
acts constituted, at the time when they were committed, a crime against humanity
under international law. In that regard, it is noted that all the constituent elements
of a crime against humanity were satisfied in this case: the impugned acts were
committed within the context of a widespread and systematic attack targeting a
civilian population and the applicant was aware of that attack (contrast Korbely,
cited above, §§, §§ 83-85).
1. The applicant argued that he could not have foreseen that his acts could have
constituted a crime against humanity under international law. It is noted,
however, that the applicant committed those acts as a police officer. The Court
has held that persons carrying on a professional activity must proceed with a high
degree of caution when pursuing their occupation and can be expected to take
special care in assessing the risks that such activity entails (see Kononov, cited
above, § 235). Furthermore, having in mind the flagrantly unlawful nature of his
acts, which included murders and torture of Bosniacs within the context of a
widespread and systematic attack against the Bosniac civilian population of the
Višegrad Municipality, even the most cursory reflection by the applicant would
have indicated that they risked constituting a crime against humanity for which he
could be held criminally accountable.
2. The Court concludes that the
179
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
applicant’s acts, at the time when they
8 November 2013
were committed, constituted an offence defined with sufficient accessibility and
foreseeability by international law.
This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant
to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.”
465.
Even though the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity was not stipulated
by the CC SFRY as a separate offense, in the way as it is prescribed by the new law, the
forms of commission of the referenced criminal offense were covered by individual
charges in Articles 136, 141-147, 154, 155 and 186 of the CC SFRY. It follows from the
foregoing that these criminal offenses were also punishable under the then applicable law,
which did not require that all elements of crimes against humanity be proved. This
supports the fact that the application of the CC BiH is justified, as also concluded by this
Panel.
XI. SENTENCING
A.
466.
PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT
Article 2(1) of the CC BiH prescribes that criminal offenses and criminal sanctions
shall be prescribed only for acts threatening or violating personal liberties and human
rights, as well as other rights and social values guaranteed and protected by the
Constitution of BiH and international law in such a manner that that their protection could
not be realized without criminal justice compulsion. Accordingly, the conclusion ensues
that the purpose of the application of criminal justice compulsion, or the purpose of
sanction is protection of these personal freedoms and human rights, or other rights and
social values, that is, protection of the society against certain socially threatening activities.
Article 2(2) of the CC BiH prescribes that the range of criminal sanctions shall be based on
the necessity and proportionality with the degree and nature of the danger to the protected
values.
467.
Article 39 of the Criminal Code defines that the purpose of punishment is: a) to
express the community’s condemnation of a perpetrated criminal offense253; b) to deter the
perpetrator from perpetrating criminal offenses in the future and encourage his reeducation (special deterrence); c) to deter others from perpetrating criminal offenses
253
Ban on commission of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity has been also prescribed by a
series of international documents, and it represents a ius cogens in international law, which cannot be
derogated from.
180
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
(general deterrence); and d) to increase the consciousness of citizens of the danger of
criminal offenses and of the fairness of punishing perpetrators.
468.
In fashioning the sentence, the purpose of punishment set up in the referenced
way requires that an account be given to imposing an adequate sentence, or more
precisely, a sentence necessary and proportionate with the objectives and circumstances
already taken into account in relation to the offense itself and to the effect on the
community, but, at the same time, adjusted to the needs of deterring the commission of
new offenses and re-educating the concrete perpetrator.
469.
In meting out the punishment, the Panel must be mindful of the legally prescribed
limits of the punishment for the crime at issue, but also of all the circumstances affecting
the imposition of a more lenient or more stringent punishment (mitigating and aggravating
circumstances).
470.
The circumstances on which the Panel has relied in fashioning the punishment for
the purpose of re-education and deterrence from the commission of new crimes by the
concrete perpetrator are, inter alia, the degree of responsibility, the conduct of the
Accused prior to the commission of crime, immediately before its commission and during
the commission of criminal acts, as well as after the commission of the crime, motives, the
perpetrator’s personality. These circumstances may affect both the type and duration of
the punishment to be imposed within the limits provided by law and depending on whether
the referenced circumstances are considered as aggravating or mitigating ones.
B.
471.
RULES FOR METING OUT PUNISHMENTS AND INDIVIDUALIZATION OF PUNISHMENTS
In order to achieve the purpose of punishment, the legislator also prescribes,
through Article 48 of the CC BiH, the general principles of meting out punishments, in
particular the degree of criminal liability, the motives for perpetrating the offense, the
degree of danger or injury to the protected object, the circumstances in which the offense
was perpetrated, the past life of the perpetrator, his personal situation and his conduct
after the perpetration of the criminal offense, as well as the other circumstances related to
the personality of the perpetrator. The Panel has considered all the foregoing
circumstances in meting out the punishment for the accused Lukić and Adamović.
472.
The Panel was first mindful of the fact that the most stringent sentences are
prescribed for the crime at issue – not less than 10 years in prison or a long-term
181
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
imprisonment. The Panel has further taken into account that the Accused were found guilty
of the persecution of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality, which they
perpetrated as members of a joint criminal enterprise through a series of unlawful acts, in
severe violation of international law. A large number of civilians were killed, many families
lost their closest relatives, and the consequences, both physical and mental, for those who
have survived the hardship and horror to which they had been subjected, are permanent,
immeasurable and do not cease over the time elapsed. In the context of violations of the
protected value, the Panel has, with due diligence, considered the capacity and number of
victims, namely that the victims were civilians, men and often women and children, who
had in no way contributed to the commission of crime. Surely, the injured parties-survived
victims will, for the rest of their lives, feel permanent and deep consequences as a result of
the experienced suffering, in terms of their traumas, mental and physical pain, and the loss
of their beloved ones.
473.
The Panel further bore in mind that the crimes at issue were committed against
Muslims, and Croats to a lesser extent, from the Ključ municipality, where they lived in an
atmosphere of constant fear, and that, in certain situations, the Accused even abused the
trust the citizens of Ključ and its surrounding villages had had in them, as their fellowcitizens and teachers, who directly participated or significantly contributed to the
commission of the referenced crimes. Having so concluded, the Panel was first mindful of
the testimony of witness Kana Mešić, who felt relieved after the arrival of soldiers in
Prhovo, when she saw Marko Adamović, because she had known him from before as a
teacher, and believed he would do no harm to them. However, as described in Section 4 of
the enacting clause of the Verdict, a massacre followed in the village, to the commission of
which the accused Adamović contributed significantly and decisively. As to the accused
Lukić, witness Jusuf Omerović similarly testified that his villagers trusted the guarantees
offered by the accused Lukić that they would not be harmed if they surrendered, which
they did, but nevertheless were subjected to severe beatings, while many inhabitants from
his village, including the witness, were detained in camps. Witness Mimka Brkić, who had
identified several soldiers passing through Vukovo Selo, including teachers Lukić and
Adamović, testified that “even though we knew them, they told us nothing”.
474.
In the Panel’s view, all the foregoing circumstances are aggravating in their nature.
475.
The Panel also bore in mind that the conduct of these two Accused before the
Court was proper, that they dully responded
to all summonses, but that the referenced
182
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
circumstances are not mitigating in nature, since such a conduct is expected and the only
acceptable one.
476.
The Panel has found no particularly mitigating circumstances on the part of the
Accused, except for the fact that these persons are elderly, and have no prior convictions.
477.
Nevertheless, considering the role and contribution of each Accused individually,
the Panel has concluded that the contribution of the accused Adamović, particularly in the
concrete actions taken on the ground is more significant, and leaves no options for
imposing a sentence more lenient than a 22-year long-term imprisonment. On the other
hand, even though the accused Lukić gave a decisive and significant contribution to the
commission of crimes at issue, the Panel has concluded that the degree of his guilt is
lesser, and that by the sentence of 14 years in prison the purpose of both special and
general deterrence will be achieved.
478.
The Panel bore in mind that any crime must be adequately punished, but that no
punishment is either sufficient or adequate for such a crime, particularly for the injured
parties and members of victims’ families. Nevertheless, since each crime resulting in a
death of one, let alone a large number of persons, is horrible, as well as severe beatings
and forcible removal of the population, one should bear in mind that a certain gradation
must exist in a prison sentence and a long-term imprisonment in relation to the role and
degree of guilt of the accused in a particular case, but also in relation to the sentences
imposed on various persons in different cases and for different crimes. Unfortunately, even
though the crime at issue is extremely serious, there are also crimes that resulted in the
death of a larger number of victims. Considering both the order-issuing role of the
Accused, or their command responsibility, and the range of sentences prescribed by law, it
should be ensured that the punishment for the persons found to have a greater extent of
guilt or where the consequences of crime are more severe than the concrete ones, meet
the principle of fairness.
XII. ACQUITTING PART OF THE VERDICT
A. COUNT 5 OF THE AMENDED INDICTMENT
“From April 1992 until late December 1992, within a widespread and systematic
attack of the Army of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or Republika
Srpska, the police of the Ministry of Interior of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and
183
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Herzegovina, or Republika Srpska, directed against the Croat and Muslim civilian
population of the Ključ municipality, as participants in a joint criminal enterprise
with a view to persecuting the civilian Muslim and Croat population from the Ključ
municipality, the accused Boško Lukić, in the capacity of a Commander of the
Municipal Staff of the Territorial Defense of the Ključ municipality, and Marko
Adamović, in the capacity of the Ključ TO Battalion Deputy Commander and
Town Defense Commander, or Assistant Commander for Moral and Religious
Issues of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, committed:
5. On 10 July 1992, after soldiers entered the undefended villages and hamlets of
the Ključ Municipality - Donji Biljani, Botonjići, Domazeti, Brkići and Jabukovica,
with the police assistance, they brought all men whom they found there without
any legal ground to the premises of the primary school in Donji Biljani, where the
police registered the captives, and then they were taken out and killed. Some of
the men were loaded onto buses, taken in an unknown direction and killed, while
some were hunted down and killed at various locations in the mentioned hamlets,
on which occasion at least 219 persons were killed that day, including Najil
Botonjić, Husein Dervišević, Džemal Omeradžić, Almir Jašarević, Aiz Dervišević,
Rifet Botonjić, Osman Hodžić, Smajil Mulahmetović, Hazim Zukanović, Salih
Zukanović, Nijaz Avdić, Zijad Domazet, Elvir Ćehić, Safet Džaferagić, Adnan
Ćehić, Ćamil Botonjić, Feriz Botonjić, Jasmin Kapidžić, Ramiz Botonjić, Vehbija
Džaferagić, Sabit Jašarević, Hamdija Mujezinović, Nedžad Ćehić, Zuhdija
Botonjić, Muharem Mujezinović, Hilmo Botonjić, Bećir Kapidžić, Kemal Jašarević,
Nail Mujezinović, Mehmed Domazet, Enes Jašarević, Avdo Balagić, Besim
Jašarević, Fadil Domazet, Muharem Botonjić, Fuad Avdić, Asmir Domazet, Asim
Mujezinović, Vehbija Balagić, Husein Botonjić, Enid Omanović, Elmedin Šušnjar,
Aiz Botonjić, Derviš Domazet, Ahmet Džaferagić, Ismet Mujezinović, Raif
Jašarević, Emsud Avdić, Suad Mešanović, Hajrudin Avdić, Omer Dervišević,
Saudin Omanović, Rifet Domazet, Safet Domazet, Saim Botonjić, Hamid
Domazet, Muharem Kuburaš, Feriz Avdić, Abid Balagić, Ale Ćajić, Smail Avdić,
Zifad Mujezinović, Fikret Balagić, Sadik Botonjić, Hakija Avdić, Šefko Avdić,
Hikmet Botonjić, Efraim Ćehić, Sulejman Ćehić, Šerif Pehadžić, Muhamed
Mešanović, Sulejman Botonjić, Lejla Sinanović, Osman Mujezinović, Ahmo
Ćehić, Husein Zukanović, Adil Hodžić, Muharem Avdić, Hamid Botonjić, Hamdija
Domazet, Rasim Ćehić, Derviš Hodžić, Hamed Botonjić, Adil Omanović, Suad
Ćehić, Suad Botonjić, Hilmo Omanović, Zijad Botonjić, Asim Ćehić, Sabahudin
Botonjić, Nihad Kuburaš, Sabrija Botonjić, Hamed Domazet, Miralem Ćehić,
Habir Avdić, Meho Domazet, Islam Domazet, Nail Avdić, Asim Avdić, Omer
Omanović, Mujo Botonjić, Fadil Subašić, Nail Domazet, Asim Mešanović, Ejub
Botonjić, Smajil Avdić, Nijaz Botonjić, Vehbija Botonjić, Izedin Subašić, Hamdija
Džaferagić, Enes Avdić, Besim Avdić, Abid Hodžić, Teufik Ćehić, Omer Botonjić,
Fahrudin Domazet, Nail Ćehić, Ibrahim Bajrić, Fuad Domazet, Emir Mujezinović,
Elkaz Omanović, Mustafa Omanović, Džafer Botonjić, Latif Ćehić, Zuhdija
Omanović, Abid Omanović, Samir Mulahmetović, Bego Jašarević, Abid Avdić,
Salko Omeradžić, Omer Omanović, Azra Sinanović, Mehmed Džaferagić, Smail
Zukanović, Besima Džaferagić, Hajrudin Domazet, Meho Šušnjar, Fadil Botonjić,
Mesud Crnalić, newborn child Amila Džaferagić, child Almir Džaferagić, Abid
Avdić, Sead Avdić, Refik Avdić, Nermin Avdić, Asmir Mešanović, Hamdija
Botonjić, Ibrahim Avdić, Nail Botonjić, Mujaga Zukanović, Asim Domazet, Husein
Domazet, Smail Mujezinović, Hamdija Ćehić, Hasib Mujezinović, Faik Domazet,
Ćazim Botonjić, Sabit Šljivar, Asim Omanović, Tehvid Omanović, Šefkija
Omanović, Pašo Omanović, Abid Džaferagić, Ejub Jašarević and Juso Jašarević,
who were later exhumed from the mass graves Lanište I and Crvena zemlja;”
479.
The Prosecution heard a number of witnesses in relation to the events that
184
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
occurred on 10 July 1992 in the villages of Gornji and Donji Biljani, with the hamlets of
Botonjići, Domazeti, Brkići and Jabukovica. Witnesses Lazo Kričković, Feriz Dervišević,
Mujo Čajić, Makbula Mešanović, Dragan Vukić, Šemso Džaferagić, Ismet Zukanović,
Ahmet Crnolić, Mile Radulović, Asim Vučkić, Naila Botonjić and Witness B consistently
and convincingly gave evidence about the arrival of the military and the police in the
undefended Muslim villages, searched houses, apprehension of Muslim men to the Biljani
school, and the killing of a large number of arrested men. The Panel concluded on the
basis of these testimonies that the described events had occurred exactly in the way as
described in Count 5 of the Prosecution’s Amended Indictment.
480.
The witnesses consistently described that, after May, the villagers of Biljani lived in
fear, that their houses were searched, that there was occasional shooting and that they
kept guard. The situation culminated on 10 July 1992. As it ensues from the testimonies of
the heard witnesses, the villages were surrounded by the Serb military and police. Witness
Dragan Vukić, a member of the reserve police force, testified that on 10 July 1992, the
terrain was cleansed, and that his neighbor, Hamdija Čehić, was killed on that occasion.
The witness further testified that corpses were everywhere, that members of the military
and the police apprehended civilian men and kept them in a school in Biljani, and that he
had seen three or four corpses at a site above the Biljani school.
481.
That the terrain in the Biljani area was cleansed exactly during the referenced
period also ensues from the Order for further actions of 9 July 1992,254 where Commander
Drago Samardžija ordered:
“…Fully block, search and cleanse the terrain in the villages of D.Biljani,
Domazeti, Botonjići, Jabukovac, Brkići…”.
It further ensues from the same document that a reconnaissance platoon was deployed on
the ground on 9 July 1992, that the “cleansing of the terrain”, according to the witnesses,
started on 10 July 1992, and that a “checkpoint for further processing of the suspects” was
formed in the area of the D. Biljani school.
482.
Witness Mujo Čajić testified that, in May 1992, he lived in a constant fear after he
had refused to sign a loyalty statement as a police officer and returned his uniform and
personal weapons, and that his movement was restricted. Before the dawn of 10 July
254
Exhibit T-187, Order for further actions, str.conf.no.03-135 of 9 July 1992.
185
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
1992, they were ordered to report to a “collection site”, where Serb soldiers waited for
them, including their neighbor Marko Samardžija, a teacher whom he had known from
before, and whom soldiers addressed. From this site, they were taken to the Biljani school,
and were severely beaten along the way.
483.
Witness Makbula Mešanović also testified that, in the early hours of 10 July 1992,
two soldiers and a police officer came to her door and ordered the men in the house to
come out. They searched the house, and took away her husband and son. The witness
saw from the upper floor of her house that the village was full of the military and the police.
From a window on her house the witness saw Smail Mujezinović “being tortured”, and
heard a “scream like a lion’s roar”. She saw Smail falling down, and assumed he was
dead. This proved to be true because on the following morning, the witness saw Smail’s
mother and wife digging something in their garden, and a blanket with which they had
probably wrapped him. The witness knows that Smail was exhumed from this site. The
witness’s sister-in-law, whose house was located near the primary school in Biljani, told
the witness that the men, including the witness’s husband and son, previously
apprehended to the school, were taken out and ordered to pass through a gauntlet where
they were beaten, and thereupon loaded in two busses, alive.
484.
The witnesses, and eye-witnesses to the events in the Biljani school, and survivors
of these events, described the sequence of events after their arrest. These witnesses
consistently testified that around 200 men were detained at the Biljani school. Survived
witnesses Šemso Džaferagić, Čajić Mujo, and Witness B said they were registered right
there. A number of men were taken out of the school and killed in the immediate vicinity of
the school, while a certain number of men were bussed into unknown direction. Witness
Šemso Džaferagić, who by chance was not taken into any of those two buses where the
men from the school were loaded, eye-witnessed when certain older men were taken out
of the school and told “It’s Friday today, you may go and attend your Friday prayer service
(juma Friday service)”, and were “forced” towards the mosque, from where they were
subsequently exhumed, which means that they had been killed there.
485.
Witness B was in one of the two buses into which the men from the Biljani school
were loaded. The buses were crammed. The witness stated that the bus headed towards
Ključ, but after around 50 meters the driver told them “he had to reduce the number of
passengers in the bus”. Five men were taken out of the bus, including Witness B. Two
members of the police special force took
them behind a house. The witness saw four
186
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
dead bodies at this site. After realizing that they would be killed too, these men started
running, which is when the special unit members in their escort opened fire at them.
486.
Witness B started running together with one Besim, but he (Besim) was killed in a
burst of fire. After Besim fell down dead, shot by a round in his back, the witness’s legs
started buckling and he too fell on the ground. The witness heard one Rufad moaning. He
too had fallen down after being shot with a number of rounds. The witness also heard a
voice coming from the direction of the road where the special unit members, who had
taken them out of the bus, were deployed. The voice said: “That one in a multi-colored Tshirt is still alive”, whereupon another burst of fire was fired in Rufad’s direction. Witness B
further heard a voice shouting: “Come on, you two, we have to leave for Ključ”, and they
went away. The witness stayed alive laying on that meadow. He hid in corn fields and
returned his home in the evening.
487.
While he was hidden in the corn fields, Witness B heard excavators and trucks
which were brought there to collect the corpses. Witness Džaferagić consistently
confirmed the foregoing. Witness Džaferagić stated that one could walk within a 1 km
range around his house, which is the area around the school, because of the corpses, and
that they were collected by excavators and trucks.
488.
The men who were alive when they were taken out of the school in Biljani and
loaded into two buses, were exhumed from the “Lanište I” and “Crvena zemlja II”255 mass
graves. The Prosecution tendered as evidence a List of captured persons imprisoned in
the Biljani primary school on 10 July 1992.
256
As it ensues from Exhibits T-451 and T-452,
the names enumerated on the list matched to a large extent with the names of the persons
exhumed from the referenced mass graves. In addition, Witness B stated that all names
he mentioned in his evidence as the men who had been together with him detained in the
school, and then in the bus, were exhumed at the Crvena zemlja site. On two occasions, a
total of 15 bodies each time were exhumed, while around 150 bodies were exhumed at
Lanište and the Bezdan hole.
489.
The Panel has therefore concluded, on the basis of the consistent testimonies of
the heard witnesses, corroborated with the presented documentary evidence, that the
255
256
Exhibit T- 451 and T- 452.
Exhibit T- 421.
187
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
incident in the village of Biljani of 10 July 1992 had occurred exactly as described in Count
5 of the Indictment, and that, as such, this incident was not brought into doubt by the
Defense teams of either the accused Adamović or Lukić, except that they contested that
these two Accused had any connection whatsoever with these referenced incident. This
Panel also could not find such a theory proved based on the evidence adduced, about
which it will provide its reasons in the “conclusion” relating to all the charges of which
these Accused were acquitted (Chapter XII D of the Verdict).
B.
COUNT 6 OF THE AMENDED INDICTMENT
(a) Count 6.d) of the Amended Indictment
“6. d) They continued to raid the undefended villages and hamlets Gornja
Sanica, Donja Sanica, Šljivari, Bašići, Botonjići, Domazeti, Gornji Budelj, Donji
Budelj, Biljani, where they terrorized and intimidated population by shooting
around the villages, searching houses and stealing property, torching buildings
and killing at least 30 civilians, including Mehmed Harambašić, Bećo Čehić,
Mehmed Konjević, Hašim Babović, Hazim Džafić, Rasim Omeragić, Derviš
Kučuković, Edhem Keranović, Miralem Pehađić and his son Dinko Pehađić,
Husein Kučuković, Šukrija Medić, Kemal Harambađić, Fikret Karađić, Ćamka
Huskić, Mustafa Huskić, Supha Karađić, Avdo Karadžić, Vinc Horst, Ibrahim
Šljivar, Fehim Šljivar, Rasim Bosnić, Ramiz Kožanjić, Smajo Šljivar, Ćamil Šljivar,
Arif Šljivar, Emin Crnalić, Abid Botonjić, Mujo Šljivar, Muharem Šljivar, Hasan
Fazlić, Osme Lović and Bečić Mehmed, who were later exhumed from graves
found in the mentioned settlements and identified,”
490.
This Count of the Indictment covered the subsequent events, and raids of the
military and the police in the villages of the Ključ municipality which further continued after
the initial events that had occurred in late May and in early June 1992, through the end of
the year at issue.
491.
Witnesses Hasiba Šljivar, Ahmet Crnolić, Esad Šulić, Šemso Džaferagić, Ismet
Kujundžić, Naila Botonjić, Mile Radulović and some others testified about the
circumstances described in these Counts of the Indictment.
492.
The attack on these villages, raids of the Serb military and police, apprehension of
men, search, plundering and torching of houses started in the same way as in the other
villages in the Ključ municipality already in late May 1992. The witnesses, however,
testified that such events did not cease, and that the psychosis and fear of the population
of these villages continued through the second half of 1992, and that, in certain phases,
the units which had raided the villages and intimidated the population were just replaced
188
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
by other units.
493.
Witness Ismet Kujundžić testified, as detailed within Section 5.c) of the convicting
part of the Verdict, that personnel carriers arrived in Donja Sanica on 31 May 1992. They
stopped right in front of his house and called men to gather at certain “collection sites”. A
certain number of soldiers went to the Botonjići village, rounded up men and brought them
to a school in Sanica. Witness Naila Botonjić described the subsequently aroused chaos,
the Serb neighbors whom she had identified among soldiers, and the events that followed.
It ensues from the testimony of witness Botonjić that some other soldiers subsequently
came as support, and ordered that the remaining population in the village, apart from the
men taken to Sanica, be transferred to the neighboring village of Crnolići.
494.
Witness Hasiba Šljivar, resident of the hamlet of Šljivari within the village of Donja
Sanica, also described the attack on her village. The witness stated that the villagers of
Šljivari had been expelled and hid in the neighboring village of Crnolići. The hamlet of
Šljivari remained exposed to the Serb military and the police which plundered and torched
their houses.
495.
Witness Šljivar testified that, after some of the elderly villagers of Šljivari had
returned from the Manjača camp257, they tried to reorganize the life in the village. However,
soldiers continued raiding the village and intimidating and threatening the villagers. On an
unspecified day, but in the evening hours as obvious from the witness’s evidence, soldiers
came to the village. The witness stated that masked soldiers arrived in the village and
surrounded the villagers, with their automatic rifles pointed at them. The witness noticed
that the villagers, earlier returned from Manjača, were also lined up along the road. The
witness described the fear and hopelessness of the villagers of Šljivari in these moments.
The witness was addressed by Muharem Šljivar, asking her: “Hasiba, haven’t you
gone?...Women and children went down the road…” Then a soldier ordered Muharem
Šljivar to kneel down, swearing at him and telling him: “We will drink your blood tonight.”
Muharem only said: “Yes Sergeant, will kneel down!” Witness’s brother, Hasan Fazlić, and
some other men were lined up next to Muharem Šljivar. None of them survived.
257
st
Exhibit T-190, Document of the Command of the 1 Krajina Corps, strictly conf. No. 21-50 of 6 August
1992, showing that a selection among war prisoners at Manjača was ordered, as well as to „liberate a part of
the space“ and select persons who may be sent to their homes and those who must stay in the Manjača
camp; Exhibit T-285, Order by the CSB of 19 August 1992 showing that, no sooner than 20 August 1992,
operative teams of workers were sent to the camp to select detainees.
189
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
496.
The women and children were ordered to go to the Crnolići village, and they did
so. Witness Hasiba Šljivar stated that, leaving the village, they saw that the house in front
of which they had left the gathered men, was on fire. Her sister-in-law screamed “My
Hasan is burning!” On the following day, after returning to the village, they found the
charred bodies of Ibrahim Šljivar, Rasim Bosnić, Rasim Kozanić and Smajo Šljivar near
the house of Omer Bašić, where the men had stayed with soldiers.
497.
Witness Mile Radulović confirmed the statements of the witnesses-injured parties
regarding the events in Sanica. Witness Radulović testified that no safety was guaranteed
to Muslims, that they had no rights whatsoever, and that they lived in fear even when they
obtained permits for movement, of which they had been deprived. Their lives were
jeopardized, and Muslim villagers were killed in their houses, frontyards, and fields. The
witness specified the names of the persons he knew had been killed, and for whose death
no one has ever been prosecuted.258
498.
The Defense teams for the Accused did not contest the events described in this
Count of the Indictment either. They rather only contested any connection of the Accused
with the incriminating acts. The Panel has also found no such connections, the reasons of
which will be provided in the conclusion for the acquitting part of the Verdict.
(b) Count 6.g) of the Indictment
“g) Men, from the area of the Ključ municipality, who were collected in their
settlements and villages, and imprisoned in the Nikola Mačkić primary school
without any legal ground, having ran gauntlet made of Serbs, civilians, soldiers,
women, the citizens of Ključ, who were hitting them with various implements,
were placed in a gym without any conditions for stay, where they sat on bare
parquet floor, from where they were taken out for interrogations followed by
beatings with the use of kicks, punches, various implements, rifle butts all over
their bodies, required to confess that they were organizers of Muslim government
or army, that they were preparing various crimes against Serbs or composed lists
for their liquidations, with their basic human needs like food and personal hygiene
restricted, without the right to a fair trial, which caused humiliation and the
violation of human dignity and created additional fear for their lives and the lives
of their families. Afterwards one group was released home, while around 200
men were transported to the primary school in Sitnica, where they stayed for a
couple of days on bare floor, without mats or blankets, without enough food or
conditions for maintaining personal hygiene, in constant fear for their lives. They
were lined up in a column, and walked for at least 20 km by a macadam road to
the camp on Manjača. At least 1160 prisoners were transported to the “Manjača”
258
Mehmed Harambašić, Mehmed Konjević, Rasim Omeragić, Hašim Babović, Hazim Džafić, Derviš
Kučuković, Edhem Keranović who was killed in a potato field while collecting potatoes, Miralem Pehadžić
and his son Dinko, Šukrija Medić, and Kemal Harambašić.
190
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
camp on Manjača in various ways. Immediately upon arrival, Husein Delalović
passed away, and Omer Filipović and Esad Bender succumbed to beatings. After
the disbandment of the camp, in December 1992, prisoners were deported
outside of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina and a smaller number
transported to the Batkovići camp in Bijeljina.”
499.
As it ensues from the Prosecution evidence,259 under the order by Commander
Colonel General Vladimir Vuković, str.conf. No. 15-1 of 7 January 1992, collection centers
were established for prisoners of war, namely the “collection camp for war prisoners in the
former KPD Stara Gradiška, and a “reserve camp for war prisoners in the facilities of the
VU Karađorđevo, Kozara training ground in the village of Dobrnja- Manjača.“ The order
noted that the removal of the war prisoners’ camp from the Stara Gradiška area (former
KPD) to the reserve camp will be carried out upon a received transfer order. The Manjača
camp was a final destination for a large number of unlawfully detained men from Ključ
during the period from late May, June and the following months, when many of them were
subjected to and survived a variety of tortures, and a certain number of them died.
500.
As already described in Section 1 of the enacting clause of the convicting part of
the Verdict, a group of men from Ključ, deprived of liberty and captured between 27 and 28
May 1992, on no legal grounds, spent one-two days in the SJB Ključ, where they were
interrogated by the SJB employees Tode Gajić, Lake Aničić, and some other investigators
unknown to the witnesses. They were subsequently transferred to the Stara Gradiška
camp, and, after around 15 days spent in that camp, were bussed to the Manjača camp. A
certain number of men from Ključ, also after being unlawfully arrested and imprisoned,
were transferred to the Manjača camp after they had spent a certain period of time at the
Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ and the Sitnica primary school.
501.
Witnesses Fahrudin Ćemal, Jusuf Omerović, Teufik Bajrić, Mujo Šehić, Esad Šulić
and many others testified how they were taken to and tortured at the Nikola Mačkić
primary school in Ključ. It ensues from the testimonies of the referenced witnesses that the
Nikola Mačkić primary school was one of the collection centers for captured Muslim and
Croat men from the town of Ključ and its surroundings. Men were mostly bussed there
after being called to gather at certain designated sites to hand over their weapons, obtain
movement permits or under the excuse of making arrangements for their further life there.
259
Exhibit T-128.
191
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
502.
Witness Fahrudin Ćemal was in a group of the first 500 captured men who had
been brought from Pudin Han to the Nikola Mačkić primary school on 28 May 1992. The
witness testified that they had first been intimidated, their money seized from them and,
thereupon, under constant abuse and beatings, taken to a gym, where they sat on the
bare parquet floor, and where they were subjected to interrogation, physical and mental
abuse. They were never informed about the reasons for being deprived of liberty and
imprisoned. They were transferred from the Nikola Mačkić primary school to the Gradiška
camp, and, after 14 days, bussed to the Manjača camp.
503.
Witness Ćerim Hrnčić also testified that they were beaten while entering a gym in
the Nikola Mačkić school. Serb soldiers and civilians formed a gauntlet outside the bus,
which they had to leave, leading towards the school entrance, and they beat and insulted
the captured men. The witness identified a “woman from the pharmacy shop” who swore
their “balija’s mother and Alija”, and one Dragan Bajić, who had stood there with his rifle,
but turned down, beating the men in their faces and causing their cut eyes to bleed.
504.
The other witnesses brought to the Nikola Mačkić primary school similarly
described the search, seizure of personal belongings, passage through the gauntlet of
police officers and civilians, where they were kicked, punched, hit with rifle butts or other
implements, their bringing into the gym where they sat on the parquetted floor, and
subsequent severe beatings, and physical and mental abuse to which they were
subjected.
505.
The Nikola Mačkić primary school was one of the collection centers in which a
primary “processing” of the captured Muslim and Croat men was carried out, and from
where a few of them were released to go home,260 while a larger number of the men
initially detained at this site were transferred to the other collection centers or camps.
506.
Witnesses Ćerim Hrnčić and Edin Hadžić were in a group of men bussed from the
Nikola Mačkić primary school, first to the Sitnica primary school, where they stayed for
around 5 days, and where they were guarded by armed members of the police force. The
conditions at Sitnica were also bad, they sat on the parquetted floor, they could not meet
their hygienic needs, and the food was very poor – a small sandwich a day, because of
which they abruptly lost their weight, as witness Hrnčić described. After 5-6 days spent in
260
E.g., witness Ćerim Hrnčić, transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 10 December 2008.
192
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
the Sitnica school, they marched under escort to the Manjača camp. A group of elderly
men, mostly from the Prhovo village, was bussed there.
507.
Witness Lako Aničić attested to the testimonies of the referenced witnesses. As a
member of the police force of the SJB Ključ, the witness was tasked with securing the
captured civilians at Sitnica and taking them under escort to the Manjača camp. Witness
Aničić testified that “after staying for several days in unfit conditions in the Sitnica primary
school, exhausted, tired and beaten, these men marched to the Manjača camp.”
508.
The camp at Manjača was established as a “reserve camp for war prisoners”. At
least 1160 captives from the Ključ municipality were taken to this camp. Prisoners were
taken to the Manjača camp after already being subjected to various methods of torture,
severe beatings, and in fear for their own lives, that is, in a completely and extremely bad
mental and physical state. Some of the men died immediately after arriving in Manjača,
like Esad Delalović.261 After their arrival at the Manjača camp, prisoners were often
immediately subjected to a round of beating, about which all heard witnesses consistently
testified. Thereupon, prisoners were interned in the spaces fully unfit for the
accommodation of people – sheds for cattle. Witness Bajrić stated that the sheds were
called “pavilions”, and that they lied there on the bare concrete. Witness Muhamed
Filipović testified that the cold concrete “caused their bruises to fade”, and that, even if
keeping the prisoners in these sheds was as an extremely inhuman way of treatment, it
was perhaps exactly lying on the cold concrete that helped them stay alive.
509.
Apart from the inhuman living conditions, where the men were literally interned in
the sheds for cattle, many of them significantly lost weight due to the poor diet; many were
subjected to severe beatings during the imprisonment at the Manjača camp, which was,
with no exception, confirmed by all the heard witnesses. Esad Bende and Omer Filipović
succumbed to the beatings. Brother of Omer Filipović, Muhamed, saw his brother alive for
the last time in July 1992 at Manjača, whereupon he heard his cries and moans while he
was beaten to death in front of the shed in which they were interned.
261
See transcript from the case no. X-KR-05/119 of 9 September 2009, testimony of witness Ćazim Bajrić, p.
24. The witness stated in relation to the killing of Delalović: „...Delalović, a corpulent, nice man, age 25-30,
he had, or they killed him too, he lived through only two nights, his tongue was all the time out of his mouth,
he moaned all the time, his kidneys were damaged as a result of the beatings and he died at Manjača...“.
193
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
510.
It ensues from the testimonies of the heard witnesses that the captured men were
brought to the Manjača camp from various collection centers mostly by the police of the
SJB Ključ, and that, even subsequently, police officers came to the camp to interrogate
them.
511.
The captured men stayed at the Manjača camp for several months. After the ICRC
representatives visited the camp, the conditions in the camp improved to a certain extent,
mostly in relation to food, the quality of which was better, but still, the living conditions
were far from the normal ones. A certain number of prisoners were released after several
months spent in the camp, and after disbandment of the camp itself, but could not return to
their homes. They were conditioned to leave for third countries, while a part of the
prisoners were transferred to the Batković camp.
512.
Over 40 Prosecution witnesses testified consistently and convincingly about the
circumstances described in this Count of the Indictment, which could not be brought into
doubt by anything. The Defense teams for the Accused also did not bring into question the
referenced events. Therefore, the Panel had no reason not to credit the testimonies of the
Prosecution witnesses. The Panel has concluded, beyond a doubt, that the events at issue
had occurred exactly in the way as described. The Panel, however, has considered that
the referenced events were already described, in part, through counts of the Indictment of
which the Accused were found guilty and which were part of their awareness and
knowledge, namely that, as such, referenced events formed part of their intent. The
subsequent events in the Manjača camp, however, particularly the transfer of a certain
number of prisoners to the Batković camp, are in the Panel’s view, too distant events, of
which the Accused were probably aware, but to which they no more contributed by their
acts in the way that they could be held responsible for or guilty of them. There are
concrete perpetrators of these acts, who had undertaken them independently, or within
another joint criminal enterprise, and, as such, they should and must be held accountable.
513.
Within certain sections of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict
(Sections 4, 5a), c) and e), the Accused were already found guilty of the acts of unlawful
deprivation of liberty, and unlawful imprisonment of the Muslim and Croat population of the
Ključ municipality, including the imprisonment at the Nikola Mačkić primary school as the
act of persecution of Muslims and Croats in furtherance of a common plan of the JCE. In
addition, charges under this section are more a modality of the occurrence of the events,
of the Ključ municipality, with no specific
the course itself of the events in the territory
194
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
timeframe and concrete perpetrators so as to be able to examine the guilt of the Accused.
Therefore, the Panel has concluded that it is reasonable to render an acquittal regarding
the accused Lukić and Adamović in relation to this count of the Indictment.
(c) Count 6 h) of the Indictment
“h) During and after a joint attack, settlements and villages inhabited by the
Muslim and Croat population were systematically destroyed or damaged,
including the Muslim part of the town of Ključ, Pudin Han, Velagići, Biljani,
Plamenice, Prhovo, Krasulje, Crljeni and Sanica, as well as the property,
including homes, business premises and outbuildings, while the movable
property of those who were killed, imprisoned in detention facilities and camps
and displaced from the municipality was looted in an organized manner, and then
collected in war booty warehouses in an organized manner, and it was handled
following the instructions and under the control of the Municipal Crisis Staff,
under the control of the police, while the population which was not deprived of
liberty or imprisoned was displaced from the municipality area in an organized
manner, having signed that they were leaving the municipality territory on their
own free will and that they were leaving all their property voluntarily to the
authorities, as long as the municipality authorities considered that necessary.“
514.
With regard to the circumstances described in this section of the enacting clause
of the Verdict, the Prosecution examined a number of witnesses, including Ismet
Muratagić, Safet Sadiković, Ćazim Bajrić, Muhamed Kozarac, and Teufik Bajrić, and
presented a certain amount of documentary evidence, which undoubtedly showed that the
referenced events occurred exactly in the way as described in Count 6.h) of the
Indictment.
515.
The consistent testimonies of the heard witnesses showed that, after the initial
raids of the military and the police in the parts of Ključ inhabited by Muslims or in the
surrounding villages in the Ključ municipality (Pudin Han, Velagići, Biljani, Plamenice,
Prhovo, Krasulje, Crljeni and Sanica), the arrest and capturing of men, their transfer to the
collection centers and/or camps, soldiers continued raiding the villages, plundering
property and intimidating the population, which, because of that, was not able to live
peacefully in their homes.
516.
Witness Ramo Duranović, an imam from Velagići, testified that after the villagers
of Velagići, who had not been taken to any camp, were allowed to return to their homes,
they found out that the village was plundered and torched. The witness could hardly attend
his religious prayers at home, and he did not dare to gather villagers. They lived in a
constant fear. The witness stated that “these soldiers who ravaged around…they were our
worst threat.” As a result of such a
situation, most Muslims and Croats from
195
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
the Ključ municipality looked for a way to flee. Witness Duranović also stated that
information was broadcast via radio that those who wanted to leave the Ključ municipality
had to come to the SUP Ključ for a certificate, where they had to sign a statement waiving
their entire property, whereupon they could leave Ključ in convoys. On 22 September
1992, the witness finally obtained a SUP certificate, whereupon he left Ključ with his family
and headed towards Travnik.
517.
Witness Ćerim Hrnčić testified that, after being arrested, detained and questioned
in the Nikola Mačkić primary school in Ključ, he was released to go home. He was issued
with a certificate noting that “that he was not guilty and that he may leave Dubočani with
no problems…” Witness Hrnčić returned to his village and stayed there until 9 September
1992. That, however, was not a peaceful and safe life. The witness stated that the police
“held control” over the village which was continually visited by patrols. Even though men
from his village were not further taken away, the witness learned from his wife that a good
friend of theirs from Velečevo, Alija Lemeš, had been taken away and killed. The witness
stayed in the village until 9 September 1992, when he obtained a certificate and left with
one of the organized convoys. The witness stated that “it was not a problem to leave…you
just had to obtain a certificate for able bodied men”, and “go to the Municipality building to
donate all your property to the Republika Srpska, Ključ municipality“.
518.
Inhabitants of the other villages in the Ključ municipality similarly described the
way, reasons and conditions of leaving their homes. Witness Mimka Brkić testified that
after the soldiers’ first passing through the village, the then committed crimes, and the
intimidation and humiliation they suffered, she lived in her house until 15 September 1992.
However, they lived in a constant fear. Soldiers kept appearing, coming in smaller groups,
taking their golden jewelry, money, cattle, with no asking or approval. As a result of the
foregoing, and after learning that Muslims and Croats could leave the Ključ municipality
upon obtaining a certificate, the witness went to (the village of) Humići to obtain the
certificate for both her and her brother, who, as a male, had no freedom of movement. The
witness gave a statement that ”she voluntarily leaves the town of Ključ, and leaves all her
property to the Serb Republic BiH and signed it“. There were around 30 vehicles, buses
and trucks in a convoy with which the witness left the town. Only Muslims and Croats,
mostly women and children, and a few men left the town.
519.
Witness Senada Turkanović testified that her house was searched by members of
the military and the police and that her
father had been once taken away and
196
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
killed. The witness and her mother lived in the Bebići residential area of Ključ inhabited by
the Muslim population through September 1992, and left it with the first convoy organized
for the removal of Muslims. The witness, her mother and all others who went away in this
convoy had to sign a statement donating their property to the Ključ municipality, and that
they simply had no further connections with this property.
520.
Many other heard witnesses also confirmed the foregoing.
521.
It ensues from the consistent testimonies of many heard witnesses that a uniform
pattern existed for the removal of the population from the territory of the Ključ municipality.
The police and the military “raided” houses and plundered property. Already at the time
certain remaining Muslims men were sporadically taken away, and an atmosphere of fear
was created for the Muslim population and a smaller number of Croats who had lived in
the Ključ municipality. They were provided with a possibility to seemingly voluntarily leave
the Municipality in convoys organized by the Ključ authorities, provided that they signed
statements ceding their property to the Serb Republic of BiH.
522.
The Prosecution supported such testimonies of the witnesses, and made them
indisputable, with Records of Statements given by persons 262 who are “voluntarily and
permanently leaving the Ključ municipality”, with the indicated property they owned and
ceded to the Municipality pursuant to the War Presidency Decision No.05-01-136 of 30
July 1992.
523.
Even though there is no dilemma that the witnesses testified they had voluntarily
abandoned the Ključ municipality, clearly there was nothing voluntary in those decisions,
but they decided to leave the territory of Ključ municipality because their living conditions
had become unbearable, and in fact, they had no choice whatsoever. Witness Miladin
Ristić testified in support of such a situation in the Ključ municipality. The witness stated
that the Muslim and Croat population of the Ključ municipality were constantly uncertain
and concerned about their own lives and the lives of their family members. The witness
stated the following:
“Witness: There was heavy partying over the night, and shooting too. The
shooting was aimed at forcing Bosniaks to decide to go to safer places...
Prosecutor: Nevertheless, one has to leave his/her home, so certainly a much
262
Exhibit T-387.
197
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
stronger reason for doing so must exist, doesn’t it? Witness: Well, it is most
likely that they were not safe at the time...“263
524.
Given the fact that he was a Chairman of the Central Commission for Spoils of
War, witness Ristić was undoubtedly aware of the situation in the town of Ključ, particularly
when it comes to the issue of unlawful deprivation of property and transfer of Muslims. The
witness himself stated that the Commission was tasked with managing the movable
property owned by Muslims and Croats of the Ključ municipality. The witness added that
the property was seized and stored in a warehouse near the Municipality building. The
stored movable property also included tractors, farm rotary hoes, mowers, and other
farming machines, motor vehicles, furniture and a series of other items. Therefore, the fact
that a separate commission264 was formed, as well as a warehouse for the property seized
in the referenced way from Muslims and Croats of the Ključ municipality, point to a massscale nature of such an unlawful alienation of property.
525.
Even though the events described in Count 6h) of the Indictment are indisputable,
and even though the Defense teams for the Accused did not contest that the property was
seized in the referenced way, and Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality
transferred in an organized way, the presented evidence shows that the referenced
activities in the territory of the Ključ municipality were initiated and organized by the Ključ
Municipal War Presidency. Records of statements taken from persons show that
individuals were “voluntarily and permanently leaving the Ključ municipality”, that the
described conditions which Muslims and Croats of the Municipality had to meet in order to
be allowed to leave its territory were defined in the War Presidency Decision No. 05-01136 of 30 July 1992. Even though the Decision has not been tendered in the case record,
it can be clearly concluded from the consistent testimonies of the heard witnesses what
these conditions had in fact implied.
526.
Despite the referenced indisputable facts, the Panel could not correlate the
Accused with the activities at issue. Specifically, all the events relating to the alienation of
property, both movable and immovable, took place to a decisive extent after June 1992
(even though a number of plunders were carried out even before). In addition, the War
Presidency, despite succeeding the Crisis Staff as the highest municipal authority body
263
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 26 August 2009, testimony of witness Miladin Ristić, p.16.
Exhibit T-70a Decision appointing a Commission for Admission of Spoils of War Acquired in Other Ways,
No. 05-01-96/92 of 13 July 1992.
264
198
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
(the Crisis Staff became this new organ of the civilian authorities), there is no evidence
that the accused Lukić and Adamović were members or took an active part in the activities
of this body. This is the period when the accused Lukić and Adamović had other capacities
and functions, and when, undoubtedly, the roles they played in the beginning of wartime
events in the territory of the Ključ municipality were diminished, as well as their
involvement in these events, considering that the accused Lukić, from the position of the
TO Main Staff Commander and for a while Commander of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade,
after Drago Samardžija assumed this position, quite certainly loses the role he played at
the first stages of the attacks, while the accused was already at the time transferred with
his unit to the frontlines in the Jajce territory.
527.
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel could not directly correlate the acts of the
Accused and the incriminating events relating to the unlawful seizure of property, and
therefore it did not find them guilty as charged under this Count of the Indictment.
(d) Charges under Count 6.i) of the Indictment
“i) On 8 August 1992, they forced all the inhabitants who had survived 10 July
1992 out of their houses in the hamlet of Botonjići, then separated at least seven
men, two underage boys, and three women, and took them in the direction of the
Kamen location. On the way there they killed old Abid Botonjić, and killed and
burned the rest of them in Hilmo Botonjić’s barn, while the women and children
who survived were expelled to the village of Crnalići.“
528.
With regard to this Count of the Indictment, the Prosecution presented evidence by
hearing witnesses Naila Botonjić, Huso Crnolić, Amet Crnolić, Šemso Džaferagić, Lazo
Kričković and Mile Radulović. In addition, the Record on Crime Scene Investigation,
Exhumation and Identification carried out in the mass grave found on a site in the village of
Botonjići, known as ”Kamen”, with the related documentation and a drawing of the crime
scene,265 and Excerpts from the Register of Deaths from the List numbers 48 - 59266
confirmed that the villagers of Botonjići were killed at the Kamen site.
529.
The Panel has already, within Section 5 of the enacting clause of the acquitting
part of the Verdict, referred to the testimonies of the witnesses who stated that, on 10 July
1992, the men from Botonjići had been taken under escort to the Biljani primary school,
where a large number of them were killed. The Defense for the accused Lukić and
265
Exhibit T-451.
199
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Adamović did not contest this incident, and they did not contest the incident described in
this Section of the enacting clause of the Verdict either.
530.
The villagers of Botonjići, who had stayed in the village despite a mass-scale
apprehension of men on 10 July 1992, will never forget another traumatic event which
occurred on 8 August 1992.
531.
Witness Naila Botonjić testified that in the evening hours of 8 August 1992, she
visited with her son age 6, his relative and a schoolmate of the same age in the house of
Ibrahim Botonjić, when soldiers came into the village, kicking the house door and ordering
the population to come out. Soldiers separated 12 persons in total, including the witness’s
minor son and his friend Teufik, and three women Ajša Botonjić, Esma Botonjić and
Azemina Botonjić. They took this group of villagers towards the site of Kamen, while the
remaining villagers were ordered to start off towards the village of Crnolići. The witness
stated that, on the referenced night, they heard shooting from the direction of Kamen and
horrible cries of the people taken away; the only house that had not been torched until that
day was burning throughout the night. The witness stated that the site of Kamen was not
far away from the village of Crnolići, and “if one shouted loud enough, you could
understand from Crnolići what he had said at Kamen…” An old man, from the group of
killed men, was found on the following day below a bridge on the river, with his three
fingers cut off; the women who went to Crnolići on the following day stated that in the only
remaining house at Kamen, which had been torched on that night, they saw that men had
been also burnt in it. This woman stated that unbearable smell not originating from charred
wood was felt around, and they also saw a burning scull. Witness Naila Botonjić has never
found her son’s bones, and at the time she gave evidence he was still registered on the list
of missing persons.
532.
Witness Huso Crnolić also eye-witnessed the events that occurred on 8 August
1992 at the Kamen site. Like witness Naila Botonjić, this witness too described crying and
shouting coming that night from the village of Botonjići. He recognized Abid Botonjić’s
voice saying to someone at the small bridge near his house “Save me, Mile”, and then
heard a shot. On the following morning, the police arrived in the village, and upon the
police’s order, witness Huso Crnolić pulled out from the water the dead body of Abid
Botonjić, and buried him together with his brother-in-law.
266
Exhibit T-45.2.
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
200
8 November 2013
533.
Witness Ahmet Crnolić testified about the events that occurred in his village of
Crnolići in late May. The witness was arrested together with a group of his villagers and
taken, first to a gym in the Sanica school, and then to Ključ, but was released based on a
certificate. The life in the village after his return was not safe at all. The witness stated that
groups of “their soldiers” would arrive in the village, and “searched for cattle, oil and
anything else they could think of.” The witness knew that the certificate he had been given
was unworthy, and therefore he hid in the woods together with the men from Crnolići who
had survived the initial apprehensions of men. The witness stated that they were saved by
the woods where they had hid:
“All others who could not, or had no possibility to hide, were killed. Botonjići, for
e.g., (its villagers) could not go to the woods. All those people who had received
certificates were killed after that date, that’s why I say so.”267
Witness Crnolić stated that the village of Botonjići was in the neighborhood of the village of
Crljeni, separated only by the Sana River. The witness stated that those men who had hid
in the woods could hear what happened with the villagers of Botonjići when soldiers raided
the village in the evening. Not only that they heard voices, but they identified them.
Witness Ahmet Crnolić, consistently with witness Huso Crnolić, testified they had heard
the voice of Mile Škrbić known as Marijan when Abid Botonjić was killed on the bridge and
then thrown in the water. The witness heard Abid Botonjić’s voice “crying, brothers, we
have done no harm to you, why are you doing this to us, what happened to us”, and then
he heard that same Mile swearing his “balija’s mother”, whereupon he heard shots and the
sounds of a body falling in the water. The witness heard on the following day that the
police arrived and ordered that the body be taken out of the water and buried. His brotherin-law buried him.
534.
The killing of 12 civilians from the village of Botonjići in the Kamen area was
confirmed by the other witnesses too, including Mile Radulović and Lazo Kričković.
Witness Radulović stated he had been at a checkpoint on that day and noticed soldiers
returning from that direction. Witness Lazo Kričković, as a police officer in the SJB Ključ,
went with his team to the Kamen site to conduct a crime scene investigation as some men
were killed. The witness testified that certain men were killed at that site, and a shed was
burnt down, but that the perpetrators of the crime have never been identified.
267
Transcript from the case No. X-KR-05/119 of 7 December 2009, testimony of witness Ahmet Crnolić,
p.33.
201
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
C. COUNT 7 OF THE AMENDED INDICTMENT
“7. Without military justification, in order to permanently prevent the return of the
population and secure their expulsion from the Ključ municipality, in order to
destroy traces of the existence of other religious groups, they undertook
activities, mined and tore down the Catholic Church and mosques including: the
mosque in Tičevići, the village of Velagići, the mosque in Krasulje, the new
mosque in Velagići, the mosque in Biljani, the city mosque in Ključ.”
535.
This Count of the Indictment covered the destruction of religious facilities in the
territory of the Ključ municipality, both Catholic churches and mosques, specifically: the
mosques in Tičevići-Velagići village, Krasulje, a new mosque in Velagići, the mosque in
Biljani and the mosque in the Ključ town. Many witnesses testified that the referenced
religious facilities were destroyed, and the Defense teams for the Accused did not contest
these facts either. Even the accused Adamović, testifying in the capacity of a witness,
stated that, due to the destruction of the town mosque in Ključ, in late May 1992, the
house or the barrack where he had lived with his family was damaged, as a result of which
he moved to Murfeta Zupčević’s apartment.
536.
Witnesses Haždija Bajrić and Fikreta Zukanović testified about the destruction of
the mosque in Ključ. They stated that, after 27 May 1992, at around 03:00 hrs in the
morning, the town mosque in Ključ was destroyed after being blown up by mines.
537.
Witness Safet Muratagić eye-witnessed the destruction of the mosque in Humići.
538.
Protected witness A watched both the shelling and destruction of the mosque in
Velagići. Witness Ramo Duranović testified that, after being absent from Velagići for
several days, and following his return home in early June, he found the village fully
destroyed and houses burnt down, including both his house which was located near the
mosque in which he served as an imam, and the mosque itself, which was fully destroyed.
539.
As the Director of the Islamic Culture Centre, witness Kemal Zukić visited, after
1995, the territory of the Ključ municipality and produced an abundant photodocumentation concerning the situation on the ground. The photos contained in Exhibit T120 depict the destroyed religious buildings, inter alia, the mosques in Ključ, Velagići,
Krasulje and Biljani.
540.
The referenced witnesses confirmed that, in the town of Ključ, also burnt and
destroyed was the Catholic Church of the Most Holly Mother of God Maria. This also
ensues from a letter sent by Bishop Franjo
Komarica to the Head of Municipality, Jovo
202
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Banjac,268 stating, inter alia, that “the referenced Church was torched in an insane and
unjustified manner, in the night of 1/2 January”, which confirmed the Bishop’s impression
of the ongoing “fascistic ethnic cleansing” in the territory of the Ključ municipality. The
foregoing also ensued from the Official Note No. Kri 1/93 of 2 January 1993,269 which
indicated that the Catholic Church in Ključ was burnt down on the previous night.
541.
Some buildings were blown up by mines, like the town mosque in Ključ, as
confirmed by witnesses Hadžija Bajrić and Fikreta Zukanović. This was also confirmed by
witness Esad Šulić, who learned from guards at the Manjača camp that one “Stijak” had
blown up the mosque in Ključ with explosive devices. Witness Enes Salihović testified that
certain religious facilities were shelled from the same locations from which Ključ and its
surroundings were also shelled.
542.
The Panel has concluded beyond a doubt, on the basis of the presented and
consistent evidence, that the religious buildings in the referenced villages were indeed
destroyed. Despite the conclusion that the destruction of religious buildings formed part of
the awareness of the participants in the JCE, wherefore the referenced act of commission
was maintained within the part of the enacting clause of the convicting part of the Verdict
concerning chapeau elements for each Accused individually, the Panel has held that
finding the Accused guilty of the acts described in this Section would amount to both
inadmissible extension of the principle of individual responsibility and a double
punishment, in part. For example, within Section 2 of the enacting clause of the Verdict,
the accused Lukić and Adamović were found guilty of the artillery attack launched on
Velagići, within which the mosque in this village was also destroyed. The Accused were
also found responsible for the attacks on the villages of Krasulje and Ramići, but they were
acquitted of the charges for the attack on the village of Biljani. This is so because the
referenced event did not occur within the period of time for which their guilt was
established. In addition, the Accused certainly cannot be held responsible for the
destruction of the Catholic Church in Ključ, in January 1993, since this period is not within
the domain of their responsibility, which will be especially reasoned in the conclusion.
Ultimately, the accused Lukić and Adamović cannot be held responsible for blowing up or
planting explosive devices with the aim to destroy the town mosque in Ključ because there
is no evidence about those who had undertaken the referenced act, and there is no
268
Exhibit T-274.
203
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
evidence showing any connection of the Accused with the referenced unidentified
perpetrators.
543.
It ensues both from the testimony of the accused Adamović and witness Murfeta
Zubčević, that the Accused’s house was significantly damaged exactly by the destruction
of the town mosque in Ključ, to such an extent that it became unfit for living. It is therefore
unrealistic to expect that the Accused would participate in the activities by which he would
jeopardize the lives of members of his family, who had lived in that house together with
him.
544.
The Prosecution made efforts to prove, through the presented evidence, that the
Accused “usurped” Murfeta Zupčević’s apartment right after the shack in which he had
lived was damaged after the town mosque had been blown up. Through the Accused’s
personally acquired benefit, the Prosecution implied that the Accused was involved in the
destruction of the mosque. The Panel, however, concluded that this Prosecution’s theory
was not proved. It was indisputable for the Panel that the accused Adamović indeed
moved to Murfeta Zupčević’s apartment. The Accused himself did not contest this either.
In addition, given the overall events in the town of Ključ and its surroundings, the Panel did
not consider convincing the Accused’s statement that Murfeta Zupčević had voluntarily left
Ključ with her family. As it ensues from the testimony of witness Zupčević, this
voluntariness, in fact, resulted from the overall situation and events in Ključ and its
surroundings, where Muslim citizens, like the witness herself, were unwanted. Witness
Zupčević did not contest that the accused Adamović had helped her and her husband to
leave Ključ, as he organized their transport to Banja Luka. The witness believed this was
the Accused’s attempt to pay them off for the ceded apartment. Nevertheless, the Panel
did not find proved that witness Zubčević had left Ključ with her family due to Marko
Adamović’s threats and blackmails. Otherwise, it would be illogical that the witness
specifically asked the Accused to help her organize the transport to leave the town, or that
the Accused participated in the destruction of the town mosque by mines, whereby he
would damage his own property, and consequently expel the Zupčević family in order to
usurp their apartment.
545.
Therefore, the Panel has concluded that there is no doubt that religious facilities in
the territory of the Ključ municipality were indeed destroyed, and that those actions were
269
Exhibit T-439.
204
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
undertaken with a view to persecuting the Muslim and Croat population from the Ključ
municipality, but that the accused Lukić and Adamović could not be found guilty of the acts
specifically described in this Section.
D.
CONCLUSION ON THE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT IN RELATION TO WHICH THE ACCUSED
WERE ACQUITTED OF CHARGES
546.
When it comes to the acquitting part of the Verdict, the Panel has held that the
events, described in Counts 5, 6d), g), h) and i), and Count 7 of the Amended Indictment,
are undoubtedly the events that followed the same pattern with the same goal, persecution
of Muslims and Croats from the Ključ municipality, but also the events which cannot be
directly, to a sufficient extent, correlated with the acts of the two Accused.
547.
The accused Lukić’s role in all incriminating acts is being tied to the functions he
performed, first as the TO Staff Commander and then as the acting Commander of the 17 th
Light Infantry Brigade before Drago Samardžija assumed this duty. However, as it ensues
from the presented evidence, after the 17th Light Infantry Brigade had been established on
4 June 1992, Drago Samardžija was already on 9 June 1992, under the order by the
Commander of the 2nd Krajina Corps270, assigned to the function of the Commander of the
17th LIB. It ensues from Regular combat reports that Samardžija, in fact, did not assume
the referenced function until 17 June 1992. In support of such a finding of fact, the
Prosecution tendered, and the Panel rendered them reliable, Regular combat reports271
signed by Major Lukić, which addressed the activities relating to the terrain search by the
units about whose formation and engagement the accused Lukić made decisions. Those
activities are compliant with the evidence given by the witnesses-inhabitants of many
villages in the Ključ municipality in relation to the attack launched by the Serb military units
on their villages, as analyzed within the convicting part of the Verdict.
548.
However, since 17 June 1992, Major Boško Lukić was no more the signatory of
regular combat reports, field search orders and the other documents, as he used to be
until the referenced date. It is clear that Drago Samardžija, in fact, assumed the function of
Commander of the 17th LIB, to which he had been formally assigned on 9 June 1992.
270
nd
Exhibit T-455/49 Order by Commander of the 2 Krajina Corps, conf. No. 11/28-201of 9 June 1992,
signed by Colonel Grujo Borić.
271
Exhibits T-175-T-179, as well as evidence within Exhibit T-455.
205
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
549.
In view of the foregoing, the Panel has concluded that the role of the accused
Boško Lukić in those activities was undoubtedly gradually reduced. Therefore, the units of
the Army of Serb Republic BiH which were under establishment procedure, were finally
established and structured. In addition, separate military authorities were also established.
As established, Boško Lukić was a member of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, and he
played an active role in its activities, both by being present at its sessions and by
submitting regular reports from the ground.272 However, the Crisis Staff lost the role it had
played as the highest authority organ during the first days of the conflict. In July 1992, the
Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff was also renamed to War Presidency. There is no
information, however, whether the Accused’s maintained his membership in that organ of
the authorities in the referenced further period.
550.
The accused Marko Adamović’s defense was based on the assertion that, already
in mid-June, he had gone to the Jajce frontline, specifically that he joined the TG 2, which
had been deployed at the Magaljdol. The Defense tried to prove this theory through the
testimony of witness Cvijo Popović. The Panel has considered this testimony
unconvincing, as earlier reasoned in Paras. 443-448. The Panel noted in para. 447 that
any data about the TG2 were available no sooner than July.
551.
Even though the witnesses for the Defense of the accused Adamović, Drago
Radojičić, Dušan Dragić and Dušan Prolić, tried to provide the Accused with an alibi,
stating that, already on 20 July 1992, the Accused had been present with his Battalion in
the Mrkonjić Grad area, or specifically, within the TG 2, Magaljdol site, the Panel
considered these testimonies as unconvincing. Witness Dušan Prolić stated that he had
moved to Kula, but that he allegedly knew that, in late June, the Battalion had gone to the
Magaljdol area to carry out military operations in Jajce. Nevertheless, he further stated that
the operations in Jajce had been carried in July, rather than in June 1992.
552.
Witness Kosić was the accused Adamović’s driver. He was supposed to ensure the
Accused’s alibi by stating that, already during the period from 10 to 20 June 1992, he had
several time driven the Accused to and from Jajce. In the Panel’s view, witness Kosić’s
testimony was not convincing. The witness spoke about the accused Adamović’s positive
personal characteristics: that he was on good terms with Muslim inhabitants, that he and
the Accused visited the villages of Kozarci and Krasulje on their way from Ključ to Jajce,
272
Exhibit T-229.
206
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
where the Accused visited certain Muslim villagers. The Prosecutor asked the witness
about the situation in the referenced villages and the witness responded that “everything
was normal, and villagers were there”. Considering the development of the events in the
mentioned villages already since late May, when practically the entire Muslim male
population had been taken away, as many heard witnesses testified, these assertions
have no footing whatsoever. Therefore, the Panel has concluded that this witness testified
with an obvious attempt to help the accused Adamović to avoid, or at least diminish, his
criminal liability.
553.
In order to avoid being held criminally liable, the Accused tried to prove that he had
arrived in the Magaljdol area much earlier than he actually did. The Panel had no dilemma
that he indeed came to the frontline at issue, but some time later, in fact, already in late
June, or even in early July 1992, when the information about the TG2 activities appeared.
As already noted, Exhibit T-455/1, Report by the TG2 2 Command for 24/25 June 1992,
showed that the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps was notified only through this report
that “soldiers sought for replacement at the position within several-day deadline”. The
Report submitted by the 2nd Krajina Corps, No. Str.conf.No. 2-174 of 1 July 1992,
confirmed that the 17th Light Infantry Brigade had been present in the wider area of Ključ
already since 1 July 1992.
554.
In the Panel’s view, all the foregoing indicates that there was undoubtedly a certain
link between the conduct and activities of the key persons and the referenced events
during the first stages of the attack on civilians, but that the link gradually waned. One
could say that the events from July or August 1992, particularly the events until the end of
the year, were a predictable consequence, that is, the Accused could have knowledge of
the forthcoming events. However, the Panel has not found proved that these Accused had
knowingly acted in furtherance of these activities, namely that their authority over the
referenced crimes was significantly reduced to such an extent that all the elements,
requisite for finding the Accused guilty of these crimes, could not be established.
555.
Considering the foregoing, and relying on the fundamental principles of the criminal
proceedings, the principle of innocence and the principle of in dubio pro reo, the Panel has
decided as stated in the enacting clause of the acquitting part of the Verdict. The Panel
bore in mind that all the facts to the detriment, or in peius of the Accused, must be
established with certainty, or otherwise they would be considered as non-existent. On the
other hand, the facts in favor (in favorem) of
the
Accused,
will
be
considered
207
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
as
established even when they are found probable. In this regard, Article 3(2) of the CPC BiH,
stipulates that “a doubt with respect to existence of facts constituting the elements of a
criminal offense, or on which the application of certain provision of criminal legislation
depends shall be decided by the Court verdict in the manner more favorable for the
accused”.
556.
The Panel bore in mind both the referenced provisions and Article 284(c)of the CPC
BiH stipulating that “the Court shall pronounce the verdict acquitting the accused of the
charges if it is not proved that the accused committed the criminal offense with which he is
charged”. The Panel also bore in mind that, after a conscientious evaluation of every item
of evidence pursuant to Article 281(2) of the CPC BiH, it could not establish beyond a
doubt that there was a concrete link between the accused Lukić and Adamović and the
acts described in Counts 5, 6d), g), h), and i) and Count 7 of the Amended Indictment, of
which actions the Panel could not find them guilty either, without bringing into doubt the
events per se, which had indeed occurred as described in the Indictment. Therefore, the
accused Lukić and Adamović were acquitted of charges pursuant to Article 284(c) of the
CPC BiH.
XIII. DECISION ON THE COSTS OF CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS
557.
Having considered the family situation of the Accused and their financial situation,
the Panel has decided, pursuant to Article 188(4) of the CPC BiH, to relieve the accused
Boško Lukić and Marko Adamović of the obligation to reimburse the costs of criminal
proceedings, which will be paid from within the budget appropriations of the Court, and of
all the expenses accrued in relation to the acquitting part of the Verdict, pursuant to Article
189(1) of the CPC BiH.
RECORD-TAKER
PANEL PRESIDENT
Nevena Aličehajić
JUDGE
Azra Miletić
NOTE ON LEGAL REMEDY: Pursuant to Article 317a(1) of the CPC BiH, an appeal from
the part of the Verdict finding the Accused guilty as charged may be filed with the ThirdInstance Panel of the Appellate Division of the Court within a 15-day deadline after the
service of the Verdict.
208
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
XIV. ANNEX 1
A.
PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
1. Witnesses for the Prosecution
Witness
1.Fahrudin Ćemal
2.Muhamed Filipović*273
3.Asim Egrlić*
4.Jusuf Omerović*
5.Atif Džafić
6.Luka Brkić
7.Mustafa Lepirica
8.Hilmija Hamedović
9.Ćerim Hrnčić
10.Fahrudin Krivić
11.Behrem Šarić
12.Enes Salihović*
Date of testimony
25 September 2008
29 September 2008
6 and 8 of October 2008
13 October 2008
15 October 2008
20 October 2008
22 October 2008
27 October 2008
29 October 2008
3 November 2008
5 November 2008
10 November 2008
12 November 2008
24 November 2008
1 December 2008
3 December 2008
10 December 2008
15 December 2008
12 January 2009
15 January 2009
15 January 2009
26 January 2009
4 February 2009
13.Ibrahim Bajrić
14.Džemal Draganović
15.Ekrem Čehić
9 February 2009
11 February 2009
23 February 2009
25 February 2009
16.Ramo Duranović
17.Senada Turkanović
18. Hađija Bajrić
4 March 2009
9 March 2009
11 March 2009
273
The witnesses whose testimonies were reproduced at the hearing before the Appellate Division Panel are
marked with asterisk.
209
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
19. Adnan Teminović
20. Senad Draganović
21. Mirsad Dervišević
22. Lako Aničić
23. Ismet Bilajac
24. Radomir Radinković
25. Salihović Latif
26. Salihović Hasan
27. Witness A
28. Vitomir Gajić
29. Miljević Marinko
30. Radojčić Željko
31. Enes Lemaš
32. Nikola Savanović
33. Zlatan Medić
34. Hamida Hadžić
35. Mirsad Puškar*
36. Devla Halep-Pehadžić
37. Lazo Kričković
38. Zaim Smajić
39. Mimka Brkić *
40.Bedrudin Brkić
41.Salko Kranić
42.Hrgić Milorad
43.Kuburić Radenko*
44. Witness C*
45. Nafa Smajić*
46. Muharem Islamagić
47. Senad Pervić
48. Elvir Jusić
49. Alem Hadžić*
50. Senad Medanović*
51. Hamid Hadžić
52. Sadeta Medanović
53. Nermina Medanović
54. Kana Mešić*
55. Nevres Mešić
56. Edin Hadžić
16 March 2009
18 March 2009
23 March 2009
30 March 2009
1 April 2009
6 April 2009
8 April 2009
13 April 2009
15 April 2009
6 May 2009
11 May 2009
11 May 2009
13 May 2009
13 May 2009
18 May 2009
18 May 2009
20 May 2009
20 May 2009
25 May 2009
27 May 2009
27 May 2009
1 June 2009
1 June 2009
8 June 2009
8 June 2009
10 June 2009
10 June 2009
15 June 2009
15 June 2009
17 June 2009
17 June 2009
22 June 2009
22 June 2009
29 June 2009
29 June 2009
1 July 2009
1 July 2009
6 July 2009
6 July 2009
10 August 2009
210
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
57. Safet Muratagić
58. Miladin Ristić
59. Ismet Muratagić
60. Safet Sadiković *
61. Ćazim Bajrić
62. Muhamed Kozarac
63. Ajiz Bečić
64. Teufik Bajrić
65. Naila Botonjić
66. Murfeta Zubčević
67. Huse Crnalić
68. Šemso Džaferagić
69. Ismet Zukanović
70.Feriz Dervišević
71. Protected witness B
72. Mujo Čajić
73.Makbula Mešanović
74. Dragan Vukić
75. Hasiba Šljivar
76. Ahmed Crnolić
77. Fikreta Zukanović
78. Šehić Mujo
79. Milenko Mlađenović
80. Mile Radulović
81. Mehmed Banjalučkić
82. Marinko Vejin
83. Ismet Kujundžić
84.Stevan Karač
85. Mehmed Begić
86.Hazim Lošić
87. Esad Šulić
88. Leopold Flat
89. Merima Filipović
90. Kemal Zukić
91. Nermin Kapetanović
92. Asim Vučkić
93. Enes Mršić*
94. Witness D *
24 August 2009
26 August 2009
7 September 2009
7 September 2009
9 September 2009
14 September 2009
16 September 2009
23 September 2009
7 October 2009
12 October 2009
14 October 2009
26 October 2009
28 October 2009
2 November 2009
4 November 2009
9 November 2009
11 November 2009
18 November 2009
30 November 2009
7 December 2009
14 December 2009
14 December 2009
16 December 2009
16 December 2009
21 December 2009
23 December 2009
27 January 2010
22 February 2010
24 February 2010
8 March 2010
10 March 2010
15 March 2010
17 March 2010
22 March 2010
24 March 2010
12 April 2010
19 April 2010
21 April 2010
26 April 2010
18 April 2011 Prosecution's
rejoinder
211
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
2. Documentary Evidence of the Prosecutor’s Office
Exhibit T-1 – Record of Examination of the Witness Fahrudin Ćemal No. KT-RZ-119/05
dated 4 April 2007;
T-2 – Record of Examination of the Witness Muhamed Filipović No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated
2 April 2007;
T-3 – Map of Ključ, a document certified by ICTY;
T-4 – Press release of the Ključ SDA /Party of Democratic Action/ Town Board, number
33/91, dated 21 September 1991;
T-5 – Initiative to hold a good will gathering on Wednesday 25 September 1991
MBO/Muslim Bosniak Organization/, MBO Town Board Ključ, No. 35/91 dated 23
September 1991;
T-6 – Order of SDS Sarajevo, No. 45487 SOKLJ YU, 45135 SO CEL YU
T-7 – Press release of MBO, MBO Town Board in Ključ, SDA, Town Board Ključ, No.
44/91 dated 31 January 1991;
T-8 – Document titled “Bosanski Ključ Municipality“, ICTY Exhibit No. 00595279 (the first
page is relevant, other pages filed because of the ICTY certification);
T-9 – Video recording “Ključ 1992“ with supporting documents as the proof that the
recording originates from ICTY;
T-10 – Record of Examination of the Witness Asim Egrlić, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 1
April 2007;
T-11 – Record of Examination of the Witness Jusuf Omerović, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated
8 April 2007;
T-12 – Topographic map of the Ključ Municipality (one part);
T-13 – Certified copy of the duty handover log book dated 28 February 1992- PSS Ključ
(Exhibit is in a separate box in a book-case);
T-14 – Certified copy of the roster for May 1992-September 1993 (Exhibit is kept in a
separate boy in a book-case);
T-15 – Record of Examination of the Witness Atif Džafić No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 31
January 2008;
T-16 – Record of Examination of the Witness Luka Brkić No. KT-RZ-119/08 dated 4 April
2007;
T-17 – Record of Examination of Mustafa Lepirica, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 2 April 2007;
T-18 – Record of Examination of the Witness Hilmija Hamedović, No. KT-RZ-119/05
dated 4 June 2007;
T-19 – Record of Examination of the Witness Ćerim Hrnčić, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 5
April 2007;
T-20 – Record of Examination of the Witness Fahrudin Krivić, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated
22 November 2007;
T-21 – Record of Examination of the Witness Behrem Šarić, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 29
January 2008;
212
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
T-22 – Record of Examination of the Witness Enes Salihović, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated
26 December 2007;
T-23 – Record of Examination of the Witness Ibrahim Bajrić, No. 05-1/08-1-145/08 dated
22 February 2008;
T-24 – Record of Examination of the Witness Džemal Draganović, No. KT-RZ-119/05
dated 3 December 2007;
T-25 – Record of Prosecutor's Office of BiH of Examination of the Witness Ekrem Čehić
No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 26 December 2007;
T-26 – Record of Prosecutor's Office of BiH of Examination of the Witness Ramo
Duranović No. KT-RZ 119/05 dated 27 December 2007;
T-27 – Record of Prosecutor's Office of BiH of Examination of the Witness Senada
Turkanović No. 05-1/08-1-144/08 dated 22 February 2008;
T-28 – SIPA Record of Examination of the Witness Hađija Bajrić No. 17-11/3-04-2126/06 dated 5 April 2006;
T-28a – Record of Prosecutor's Office of BiH of Examination of the Witness Hađije Bajrić
No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 24 January 2008;
T-29 – Record of Prosecutor's Office of BiH of Examination of the Witness Adnan
Teminović No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 4 June 2007;
T-30 – Record of Prosecutor's Office of BiH of Examination of the Witness Senad
Draganović No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 14 December 2007;
T-31 – Record of Examination of the witness Mirsad Dervišević conducted in the Third
Police Department No. 05-1/8-1-682/07 of 8 December 2007;
T-32 – duty handover log book from 1 August 1992 to 7 October 1992;
T-33 – Record of Examination of the Witness Laka Aničić conducted by the Prosecutor's
Office of BiH on 24 January 2008;
T-34 – Record of Examination of the Witness Radomir Radinković conducted by the
Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 24 December 2007;
T-35 – Official Note of the deaths of Omer and Enes Filipović made by Radomir
Radinković dated 30 July 1992;
T-36 – Record of Examination of the Witness Latif Salihović conducted by the
Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 5 December 2007;
T-37 – Record of Examination of the Witness Hasan Salihović conducted by the
Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 30 November 2007;
T-38 – Record of Examination of the Witness A conducted by the Prosecutor's Office of
BiH on 3 April 2007;
T-39 – Four Official Notes of 5 June 1992 made by Vitomir Gajić;
T-40 – Record of Examination of the Witness Vitomir Gajić conducted by the
Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 29 February 2008;
T-41 – Record of Examination of the Witness Marinko Miljević conducted by the
Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 25 February 2008;
T-42 – Record of Examination of the Witness Željko Radojčić conducted by the
Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 17 December 2007;
213
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
T-43 – Record of Examination of the Witness Enes Lemeš conducted by the
Prosecutor’s Office of BiH on 23 January 2008;
T-44 – Record of Examination of the Witness Nikola Savanović conducted by the
Prosecutor's Office of BiH in 2008;
T-45 – Official Note dated 16 July 1992 made in the Police Station in Ribnik.
T-46 – Record of Examination of the Witness Zlatan Medić conducted by the
Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 7 February 2008;
T-47 – Record of Examination of the Witness Hamid Hadžić conducted by the
Prosecutor’s Office on 23 January 2008;
T-48 – Record of Examination of the Witness Mirsad Puškar conducted by the
Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 27 December 2007;
T-49 – Record of Examination of the Witness Devla Halep-Pehadžić conducted by the
Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 26 December 2007;
T-50 – Record of Examination of the Witness Lazo Kričković conducted by the
Prosecutor's Office of BiH on 5 February 2008;
T-51 – Record of Examination of the Witness Zaim Smajić conducted by the prosecutor's
Office of BiH on 9 April 2008;
T-52 – Record of Examination of the Witness Mimka Brkić No. 05-1/08-1-320/08 dated
10 August 2008;
T-53 – Record of Examination of the Witness Bedrudin Brkić dated 30 March 2007 and 7
June 2007;
T-54 – Record of Examination of the Witness Salko Krantić dated 29 March 2006;
T-55 – Record of Examination of the Witness Milorad Hrgić dated 12 May 2008;
T-56 – Record of Examination of the Witness Radomir Kuburić dated 23 May 2008;
T-57 – Record of Examination of the Witness Nafa Smajić of 2008;
T-58 – Record of Examination of the Witness Muharem Islamagić dated 9 April 2008;
T-59 – Record of Examination of the Witness Senad Pervić dated 9 April 2008;
T-60 – Record of Examination of the Witness Elvir Jusić dated 13 April 2008;
T-61 – Record of Examination of the Witness Alem Hadžić dated
T-62 – Record of Examination of the Witness Senad Medanović dated
T-63 – Record of Examination of the Witness Hamid Hadžić dated
T-64 – Record of Examination of the Witness Sedet Medanović dated 8 April 2008;
T-65 – Record of Examination of the Witness Nermin Medanović dated 8 April 2008;
T-66 – Record of Examination of the Witness Kana Mešić dated 14 April 2006;
T-67 – Record of Examination of the Witness Nerves Mešić dated
T-68 – Record of Examination of the Witness Safet Muratagić dated 8 April 2008;
T-69 – Record of Examination of the Witness Miladin Ristić dated 21 December 2007;
T-70a – Decision on Appointment of Committee for War Booty, 05-01-96/92 dated 13
July 1992;
T-70b – Receipt for Received Items issued by PSC Banja Luka, Ključ Police Station.
T-71 – Record of Examination of the Witness Ismet Muratagić dated 21 November 2007;
T-72 – Record of Examination of the Witness Safet Sadiković dated 21 November 2007;
214
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
T-73 – Record of Examination of the Witness Ćazim Bajrić dated 4 December 2007 and
30 November 2007;
T-74 – Record of Examination of the Witness Muhamed Kozarac dated 30 November
2007;
T-75 – Record of Examination of the Witness Ajiz Bečić dated 25 December 2007;
T-76 – Record of Examination of the Witness Teufik Bajrić dated 4 December 2007;
T-77 – Record of Examination of the Witness Naila Botonjić dated 26 December 2007;
T-78 – Record of Examination of the Witness Murfeta Zubčević dated 28 January 2008;
T-79 – Record of Examination of the Witness Huso Crnalić dated 5 December 2009;
T-80a – Record of Examination of the Witness Šemso Džabegagić dated 15 July 2005
(certified copy);
T-80b – Record of Examination of the Witness Šemso Džabegagić dated 31 January
2008;
T-81a – Record of Examination of the Witness Ismet Zukanović dated 16 July 2005
(certified copy);
T-81b – Record of Examination of the Witness Ismet Zukanović dated 4 February 2008;
T-82a – Record of Examination of the Witness Dervišević Feriz dated KT 160/97-RZ
dated 11 May 2005;
T-82b – Record of Examination of the Witness Feriz Dervišević No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated
25 December 2009;
T-83a – Record of Examination of the Witness B dated 11 July 2005, CONFIDENTIAL;
T-83b – Record of Examination of the Witness B dated 27 December 2007
CONFIDENTIAL;
T-84 – Record of Examination of the Witness Mujo Čajić KT-RZ-4/05 dated 28 July 2005;
T-85 – Record of Examination of the Witness Dragan Vukić No. KT-RZ-4/05 dated 11
August 2005;
T-87 – Personal questionnaire of RS MoI for Vinko Kondić, confidential, dated 19
October 1992, certified copy;
T-88 – Ključ Crisis Staff of SDS, photos of Vinko Kondić and Boško Lukić, certified copy,
T-89 – List of members of Ključ SDS Executive and Municipal Board from 1990,
indicating the name of Vinko Kondić, certified copy;
T-90 – List of members Ključ SDS Executive Board including the name of Kondić,
certified copy;
T-91 – List of SDS activity including Boško Lukić and Vinko Kondić, certified copy;
T-92 – Decision on the establishment of the War Presidency of the Ključ Municipality
dated 13 July 2009, under Item 8 there is a name of Vinko Kondić, certified copy;
T-93 – Handwritten lists of attendees at the SDS sessions –certified copy,
T-94 – Dispatch of the Head of PSC Prijedor Simo Drljača No. 14-227-6/95 dated 2
August 1995, appointment of the HQ including Vinko Kondić- certified copy;
T-95 – Excerpt from the RS Official Gazette pg. 82 dated 8 March 1996, Decision on
Appointment of the Minister of Health and Social Care, Vinko Kondić is appointed the
Assistant.
215
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
T-96 – Excerpt from the Official Gazette whereby Gojko Kličković, pg.638 dated 30
August 1997, appointed Vinko Kondić chef de cabinet, certified copy;
T-97 – Document of RS MUP Mrkonjić Grad, Official Note dated 16 March 1994confidential, certified copy,
T-98 – MUP Sarajevo, dated 27 April 1994 Mićo Stanišić rendered the Decision
appointing Vinko Kondić the Deputy Head of PSC Prijedor- certified copy;
T-99 – MoI PSC Prijedor Decision on Issuance of Pistols No. 11-17-210-210 dated 27
June 1994;
T-100 – Excerpt from the Official Gazette, Decision on Appointment of Members of
Executive Board where Vinko Kondić is appointed Head.
T-101 – Decision on Appointment of Kondić, No. 08/1-134-3525 dated 20 October 1995,
certified copy;
T-102 – Request of Stojan Župljanin where he asks for approval for Vinko Kondić to go
to SFRY No. 10/835, certified copy;
T-103 – Document of MUP PSC Prijedor No. 14-105 dated 30 October 1995, explanation
for extraordinary promotion of Vinko Kondić, certified copy;
T-104 – Official Gazette No. 14 dated 3 July 1996 when Gojko Kličković appointed
Kondić Minister of Labour and Social Protection, certified copy;
T-105 – Record of Examination of the Witness Crnalić, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 4
February 2008;
T-106 – Record of Examination of the Witness Fikret Zukanović, No. KT-RZ-119/05
dated 25 December 2007;
T-107 – Record of Examination of the Witness Šahić Mujo, No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated 6
April 2007;
T-108 – Record of Examination of the Witness Milenko Mlađenović, No. KT-RZ-119/05
dated 24 December 2007;
T-109 – Record of Examination of the Witness Mile Radulović No. KT-RZ-119/05 dated
26 May 2007;
T-110 – Record of Examination of the Witness Mehmed Banjalučkić No. KT-RZ-119/05
dated 26 December 2007;
T-111 – Duty handover log book from 7 October 1992 to 18 December 1992;
T-112 – Record of Examination of the Witness Marinko Vejin dated 22 January 2008;
T-113 – Record of Examination of the Witness Ismet Kujundžić;
T-114 – Record of Examination of the Witness Stevan Karač;
T-115 – Record of Examination of the Witness Mehmed Begić;
T-116 – Record of Examination of the Witness Hazim Lozić dated 3 December 2007;
T-117 – Record of Examination of the Witness Esad Šulić dated 30 November 2007;
T-118 – Record of Examination of the Witness Flata Leopold
T-119 – Record of Examination of the Witness Merima Filipović
T-120 – CD containing photographs of destroyed religious buildings
T-121 – Record of Examination of the Witness Dušan Stanarević dated 28 January 2008,
and death certificate for Dušan Stanarević;
216
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
T-122 – Record of Examination of Mina Ljutić dated 10 April 2008, and Death certificate
for Mina Ljutić
T-123 – Record of Examination of the Witness Simo Vujičić dated 25 February 2008, and
Death Certificate for Simo Vujičić;
T-124 – Record of Examination of the Witness Nermin Kapetanović No. KT-RZ-119/05
dated 3 April 2007;
T-125 – Document of Executive Board of SDS BiH No. 804-02/91 dated 22 October
1991;
T-126 – Instructions for the Organization and Activity of Organs of the Serb People in
BiH in Extraordinary Circumstances, copy No. 0 through 96 dated 19 December 1991;
T-127 – Conclusion of the Assembly of Autonomous Region of Krajina, Banja Luka,
dated 03-09/92 dated 3 February 1992;
T-128 – Order to form a collective camp for prisoners of war No. 15-1 dated 7 January
1992;
T-129 – Decision on accession of the Ključ Municipality to Autonomous Region of
Bosanska Krajina No. 05-023-3/92 dated 16 January 1992;
T-130 – Order of the Commander of the 5th Corps, Op Strictly Confidential, No. 24-3
dated 18 February 1992;
T-131 – Opinion about applicants for selection of judges and a public prosecutor of SDS
of the Ključ Municipality, No. 01/1-2-92 dated 26 February 1991;
T-132 – Official Gazette of Serb People in BiH year I- No. I, dated 15 January 1992;
T-133 – Official Gazette of Serb People in BiH year I- No. 3, dated 16 March 1992;
T-134 – Decision on Strategic Objectives of Serb People in BiH Official Gazette pg. 866
No. 22 dated 26 November 1993;
T-135 – Official Gazette of Republika Srpska, year I – No. I, dated 31 December 1992;
T-136 – Declaration on the Government and Political System of the State, Official
Gazette of Srpska Republika, year I – No. 14, dated 7 September 1992;
T-137 – Decision on the return of displaced persons to the territory of Srpska Republika
of BiH, Official Gazette of Serb People in BiH dated 8 June 1992;
T-138 – Law on Defense, Official Gazette, year I – No. 7, dated 1 June 1992;
T-139 – Decision on Public Mobilization Official Gazette of Autonomous Region of
Krajina, year I – No. 2 dated 5 June 1992;
T-140 – Official Gazette of Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, year I – Number I dated
9 April 1992;
T-141 – Decision on Declaration of State of War, Official Gazette of RBiH, No. 7, pg. 234
dated 20 June 1992;
T-142 – Shorthand Transcript of the 14th session of the Assembly of the Serb People in
BiH, dated 27 March 1992;
T-143 – Report on the formation of the 13th Partisan Brigade, number 60, dated 23
March 1992;
T-144 – Document of the Command of the Second Military District, the 5 th Corps , strictly
confidential, number 273-3, dated 3 April 1992
217
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
T-145 – Document of the Command of 30th Partisan Division;
T-146 – Excerpt from Instructions for the work of Crisis Staff, a document of RS;
T-147 – Minutes of the session of National Security Council dated 27 April 1992;
T-148 – Press release of the Assembly of the Serb People in BiH, dated 4 April 1992
T-149 – Minutes of the plenum of the National Security Council held on 22 April 1992;
T-150 – Decision of the Autonomous Region of Bosanska Krajina No. 01-1/92 dated 4
May 1992;
T-151 – Document of the Command of the 5th Corps, strictly confidential No. 44-1/130
dated 7 May 1992, regular combat report;
T-152 – Command of the Banja Luka Corps, confidential No. 420-1 dated 8 May 1992;
T-153 – Document of the Command of the 6th Partisan Brigade, no date, signed by
Branko Basara
T-154 – Minutes of the 16th session of the Serb People Assembly dated 12 May 1992
held in Banja Luci;
T-155 – Minutes of the meeting with representatives of municipalities in the area of
responsibility dated 14 May 1992, signed by Momčilo Dmitrović
T-156 – Document of the Command of the 30th Partisan Division, strictly confidential ,
No. 174-140 dated 16 May 1992;
T-157 – Minutes of the session of the Government of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina dated 23 May 1992;
T-158 – Instructions of the Government for the organization and work in municipalities in
conditions of the imminent threat of war;
T-159 – Document to the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, military secret-coded dated
27 May 1992;
T-160 – Document of the Command of the 1st Partisan Brigade Šipovo dated 28 May
1992, No. I-121/92, regular combat report;
T-161 – Document of the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 441/92 dated 29 May 1992, regular combat report, military secret;
T-162 – Decision on formation of war presidencies in municipalities at the time of
imminent threat of war;
T-163 – Document of the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps dated 31 May 1992;
T-164 – Document of the Command of the 30th Partisan Division No. 939-1 dated 31
May 1992;
T-165 – Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 44-1/ dated 2 June
1992, regular combat report, military secret;
T-166 – Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 44-1/160 dated 2
June 1992, regular combat report, military secret;
T-167 – Criminal Report of the Banja Luka Army Post Office to the Military Prosecutor
dated 5 June 1992 No. KU-33/92
T-168 – Complaint about unlawful deprivation of liberty sent to General Talić, Corps
Commander;
T-169 – Statement of Boško Unčanin given to the authorized official person of the
218
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
military police;
T-170 – Statement of Svetislav Račić given to the authorized official person of the
military police;
T-171 – Statement of Ilija Krčmar given to the authorized official person of military police;
T-172 – Official Note dated 3 June 1992; Military Post Office 4627
T-173 – Conclusion of the meeting of Sub region (municipal political representatives)
dated 7 June 1992;
T-174 – Order of the Commander of the 2nd Krajina Corps for further operations, strictly
confidential No. 90-1 dated 8 June 1992;
T-175 – Daily Report of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, Strictly Confidential No. 0125/92 dated 12 June 1992;
T-176 – Daily Report of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 0131/92 dated 13 June 1992;
T-177 – Daily Report of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 0112/92
T-178 – Daily Report the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01/592
T-179 – Combat Report of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No.
01-31-5/92 dated 17 June 1992;
T-180 – Document of the Command of the 1st Corps, Op. Strictly confidential No. 441/180 dated 14 June 1992;
T-181 – Document of the Command of the 1st Corps, Op. Strictly confidential No. 505-2
dated 14 June 1992;
T-182 – Document of the Command the 1st Corps, Op. Strictly confidential No. 482-1
dated 1 June 1992;
T-183 – Document of the Command of the 1st Corps No. 535-1 dated 19 June 1992;
T-184 – Daily Report the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01-318/92 dated 23 June 1992;
T-185 – Order for further operations of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strictly confidential
No. 01-93/92 dated 25 June 1992;
T-186 – Document of the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 441/201 dated 27 June 1992;
T-187 – Order for further operations of the Army Post Office Ključ, strictly confidential No.
03-135 dated 9 July 1992;
T-188 – Instructions of the Government of Srpska Republika of Bosnia and Herzegovina
dated 13 July 1992, implementation of the decision of mandatory handover of the war
booty;
T-189 – Activity report of the Command of the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ dated 28
July 1992;
T-190 – Command of the 1st Krajina Corps – Selection of prisoners of war in the
Manjača PWC, No. 21-50 dated 6 August 1992;
T-191 – Report of the Commission on visiting of collection centers and other facilities for
219
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
prisoners in the Autonomous Region of Krajina dated 17 August 1992;
T-192 – Order of the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 7651/92 dated 15 December 1992;
T-193 – Decision of the National Assembly of Republika Srpska repealing the decision
on the establishment of war commissions in municipalities during the imminent threat of
war or the state of war, number 02-1978/92, dated 17 December 1992;
T-194 – Report to the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 01-32622/93 dated 16 February 1993;
T-195 – Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No. 393 dated 7 March 1993;
T-196 – Contribution to the monograph of the 1st Krajina Corps
T-197 – Analysis of activities by elements of combat readiness in 1992 of the Command
of the 1st Krajina Corps from February 1993, marked as military secrets, strictly
confidential;
T-198 – Analysis of VRS combat readiness and activity in 1992 (Han Pijesak, 1993);
T-199 – Document of the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, regular combat report op.
Confidential, No. 44-1/151 dated 28 May 1992;
T-200 – Minutes of the meeting attended by Vinko Kondić dated 26 March 1991;
T-201 – Records of SDS Ključ duty trips from 1 April 1991 to (it is not indicated until
when);
T-202 – First joint press release of MBO and SDA;
T-203 – Minutes of the meeting of the SDS Executive Board and presidents of local SDS
boards dated 9 May 1991;
T-204 – Minutes of the meeting of SDS Executive Board and presidents of local boards
dated 15 May 1991;
T-205 – Minutes of the 7th session of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 5 July 1991;
T-206 – Nomination of candidate of the Ključ SDS Executive Board to the president of
the Ključ National Defense Council for the position of the Ključ Territorial Defense
Commander, No. 01/1-24/91 dated 15 October 1991;
T-207 – Minutes of the 3rd session of the Executive Board dated 2 October 1991;
T-208 – Minutes of the 4th session of the Ključ SDS Executive Board dated 14 October
1991;
T-209 – Minutes of the 5th session of the Ključ SDS Executive Board dated 24 October
1991;
T-210 – Minutes of the 6th session of the Ključ SDS Executive Board dated 23 December
1991;
T-211 – Minutes of the 7th session of the Ključ SDS Executive Board dated 25 February
1992;
T-212 – Minutes of the 8th session of the Ključ SDS Executive Board dated 6 March
1992;
T-213 – Minutes of the 9th session of the Ključ SDS Executive Board dated 12 March
1992;
220
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
T-214 – Minutes of the 10th session of the Ključ Executive board dated 23 March 1992;
T-215 – Minutes of the 11th session of the Ključ SDS Executive Board dated 30 March
1992;
T-216 – Minutes of the 12th session of the Ključ SDS Municipal Board dated 14 July
1992;
T-217 – Minutes of the 3rd session of the Ključ SDS Municipal Board dated 2 September
1991;
T-218 – Minutes of the 5th session of the Ključ SDS Municipal Board and Caucus dated
22 January 1992;
T-219 – Minutes of the 6th session of the Ključ SDS Municipal Board dated 18 February
1992;
T-220 – Minutes of the 8th session of the Ključ SDS Municipal Board dated 29 April 1992;
T-221 – Minutes of the session of the Presidency of the SDS Municipal Board dated 10
December 1992;
T-222 – Excerpt from the session of the Ključ SDS Municipal Board held on 23 January
1993;
T-223 – Document on informing the public about sessions of the Municipal Assembly and
the Executive Board of Ključ from October 1991;
T-224 – Information for the public from the sessions of the Ključ Municipal Assembly
dated 29 December 199.;
T-225 – Proposal of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipal Assembly of the structure of
municipal bodies in time of war, May 1992;
T-226 – Handwritten list of members of the Ključ Territorial Defense from the meeting
dated 3 April 1992;
T-227 – Order of the President of the National Defense Council of the Ključ Municipal
Assembly, No. 05- 01-45/92 dated 5 May 1992;
T-228 – Press release of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff signed by Jovo Banjac
T-229 – Book of minutes of sessions of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff;
T-230 – Press release of the Crisis Staff and Command of the Ključ Municipality Defense
No. 6/92 dated 2 June 1992;
T-231 – Minutes of the session of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff 13 and 14 May 1992;
T-232 – Order of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipal Assembly, strictly confidential No.
02/92 dated 15 May 1992, signed by Jovo Banjac;
T-233 – Order of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipal Assembly, strictly confidential No.
22/92 dated 25 May 1992;
T-234 – Order of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff, strictly confidential No. 01/92 dated
27 May 1992;
T-235 – Order of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff dated 28 May 1992;
T-236 – Order of the Ključ Municipality Defense Command dated 29 May 1992;
T-237 – Conclusion of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff No. 66/92 dated 18 June 1992;
T-238
1.
Report of the Main HQ of the Ključ Municipality dated 3 June 1992;
221
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Warning and Information of the main HQ of the Ključ Municipality;
Announcement of the Main HQ of the Ključ Municipality;
Dispatch of the Public Security Service Center Banja Luka;
Decision on moving out of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipality;
Notice of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipality dated 8 June 1992;
Notice of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipality dated 9 June 1992;
Brigade Command warnings dated 15 June 1992;
Document of the Ključ Public Security Service;
Document of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff of combat activities;
Daily report of the Ključ Municipality Crisis Staff dated 27 June 1992;
Document of the Public Security Service dated 6 August 1992;
Report of the Public Security Station on convoy escort;
Regular Report of the Public Security Station dated 7 July 1992;
Document of the session of the War Presidency held on 22 July 1992;
Public Security Station Report of destruction of the Mosque in Ključ;
Public Security Station Report of unrests in the Ključ proper;
Report of the War Presidency of the Ključ Municipality about security situation
in the beginning of the school year;
T-239 – Order of the Crisis Staff of the Municipal Assembly of the Ključ Municipality No.
19/92 dated 4 June 1992;
T-240 – Announcement of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 20/92
dated 4 June 1992;
T-241 – Address of the Banja Luka Bishop’s Ordinariate sent to Jovo Banjac, No. 577/92
dated 13 August 1992;
T-242 – Document of the ŠIP Company in Ključ, delivery of information to the Ključ
Municipal Assembly about managerial staff No. 02-483/92 dated 21 June 1992;
T-243 – Document of the ŠIP Company in Ključ, delivery of information about the
managerial staff of the Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 01-737/92 dated 23 June 1992;
T-244 – Ključ Municipal Assembly - Overview of managerial posts occupied by Muslims
dated 26 June 1992;
T-245 – Excerpt from the Minutes of the session of the War Presidency of Ključ
Municipal Assembly dated 10 July 1992;
T-246 – Decision of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 05-01-93/92
dated 13 July 1992;
T-247 – Decision of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 05-01-99/92
dated 13 July 1992;
T-248 – Conclusion made at the session of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal
Assembly dated 10 July 1992;
T-249 – Conclusion of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 05-01100/92 dated 15 July 1992;
T-250 – Excerpt from the Minutes of the 2nd session of the War Presidency of Ključ
Municipal Assembly dated 21 July 1992;
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
222
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
T-251 – Decision on relieving of duty the President of the Executive Board of the Ključ
Municipality dated 21 July 1992, Decision on Relieving of Duty of the Director of the
Municipal Administration of Geodetic and Property Affairs and real Estate Cadastre
dated 21 July 1992, Decision on Relieving of Duty of the Secretary of the Municipal
Secretariat for General Administration dated 21 July 1992, Decision on Relieving of Duty
of the Secretary of the Executive Board of Ključ Municipality dated 21 July 1992,
Decision on Relieving of Duty of the Vice-president of the Ključ Municipal Assembly
dated 21 July 1992, Decision of Relieving of Duty of the judge of the Basic Court in Ključ
No. 05.03-7/92 dated 2 July 1992, Decision on Relieving of Duty of the judge of the
Municipal Minor Offence Court in Ključ No. 05-03-4/92 dated 1 July 1992;
T-252 – Decision on Appointment of Acting President of the Basic Court in Ključ No. No.
05-03-5/92 dated 1 July 1992, decision on Appointment of judges of the basic Court in
Ključ No. 0503-6/92 dated 1 July 1992;
T-253 – Decision of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly on Cessation of
employment of all workers who failed to respond to a call-out notice for mobilization
dated 21 July 1992;
T-254 – Decision of War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 05.01-118/92
dated 21 July 1992, Decision of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly No.
05.01./92 dated 21 July 1992;
T-255 – Excerpt from the Minutes of the 3rd session of the War Presidency of Ključ
Municipal Assembly dated 22 July 1992;
T-256 – Excerpt from the Minutes of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly
dated 28 July 1992;
T-257 – Decision of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly on criteria for
moving out of the territory of Ključ municipality dated 30 July 1992;
T-258 – Minutes of the 13th session of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 31 July 1992;
T-259 – Minutes of the Commission for collection of information for moving the
inhabitants out of the territory of Ključ Municipality No. 05-01-135-14/92 dated 31 July
1992, - Minutes of the Commission for collection of information for moving of residents
out the territory of the Ključ Municipality No. 05-01.135-59/92 dated 3 August 1992, Minutes of the Commission for collection of information for moving of residents out of the
territory of Ključ Municipality No. 05-01-135-40/92 dated 3 August 1992, Minutes of the
Commission for collection of information for moving of residents out of the territory of
Ključ Municipality No. 05-01-135-130/92 dated 4 August 1992 – Minutes of the
commission for collection of information for moving of residents out of the territory of
Ključ Municipality No. 05-01-135-183 dated 3 August 1992, - Minutes of the Commission
for collection of information for moving of residents out of the territory of the Ključ
Municipality No. 05-01-135-298/92 dated 7 August 1992 – Minutes of the Commission for
collection of information for moving of residents out of the territory of Ključ Municipality
No. 05-01-135-367/92 dated 10 August 1992 – Minutes of the Commission for collection
of information for moving of residents out of the territory of Ključ municipality No. 05-01135-470/92 dated 10 August 1992 – Minutes of the Commission for collection of
223
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
information for moving of resident out of the territory of Ključ Municipality No. 05-01-135753/92 dated 17 August 1992, - Minutes of the Commission for collection of information
for moving of residents out of the territory of the Ključ municipality No. 05-01-155-787/92
dated 19 August 1992, - Minutes of the Commission for collection of information about
moving of residents out of the territory of Ključ municipality No. 05-01-139763/92 dated
17 August 1992, - Minutes of the Commission for collection of information for moving of
residents out of the territory of Ključ municipality No. 05-01-135-784/92 dated 18 August
1992, Minutes of the Commission for collection of information about moving of residents
out of the territory of Ključ Municipality No. 05-01-135-1350/92 dated 8 September 1992;
T-260 – Activity Report of the Crisis Staff of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal
Assembly from 15 May 1992 to date;
T-261 – Activity Report of the Executive Board of Ključ Municipal Assembly in the time
period from 31 May 1992;
T-262 – Excerpt from the Minutes of the 6th session of the War Presidency of Ključ
Municipal Assembly dated 7 August 1992;
T-263 – Order of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 7 August 1992;
T-264 – Decision on Formation of the Disciplinary Commission No. 103/92;
T-265 – Decision of the Basic Court in Ključ No. SU: 10/92 dated 18 August 1992 and
the Decision of the Basic Court in Ključ No. SU: 108/92 dated 18 August 1992;
T-266 – Request of the Basic Court in Ključ for opening of proceedings regarding
disciplinary accountability of an employee Smajil Džaferagić and others No. 104/92 dated
17 August 1992;
T-267 – Official Letter of the Ključ Forest Industry Company to Ključ Municipal Assembly
No. 01-934/92 dated 4 September 1992;
T-268 – Decision of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly No. 05-01-194/92
dated 7 September 1992;
T-269 – Minutes of the 14th session of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 29 December
1992;
T-270 – Minutes of XII session of the War Presidency of Ključ Municipal Assembly held
on 23 December 92;
T-271 – Minutes of the 15th meeting of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 28 January 1993;
T-272 – Activity Report of the SDS Municipal Board in Ključ, to the SDS Executive in
Pale No. 01/1-32/93 dated 27 October 1993;
T-273 – Minutes of the 19th session of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 30 July 1993;
T-274 – Letter of Banja Luka Bishop to the President of Ključ Municipal Assembly written
in February 1993;
T-275 – Official Note titled Štab dated 5 October 1991;
T-276 – Document of the Security Service Center in Banja Luka No. 11-128 dated 31
July 1991, subject – conclusions of council of experts;
T-277 – Agreement on association of municipalities of Bosanska Krajina dated 29 April
1991;
T-278 – Order of the Ministry of the Interior No. 01-1/92 dated 15 May 1992;
224
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
T-279 – Conclusions of the plenary session of the Center's Council held on 6 May 1992,
Public Security Center No. 11-144 dated 20 May 1992;
T-280 – Dispatch of the Security Service Center Banja Luka No. 11-1/01-6 dated 1 July
1992;
T-281 – Dispatch of Security Service Center Banja Luka No. 11-170 dated 20 July 1992;
T-282 – Dispatch of Security Service Center Banja Luka, No. 11-1/02-1-301 dated 31
July 1992;
T-283 – Srpska Republika Bosna and Herzegovina, MoI Sarajevo, Summary of the
meeting of MoI managerial personnel dated 11 July 1992;
T-284 – Srpska Republika Bosna and Herzegovina, MoI Sarajevo, Report of some
aspects of the work and future tasks of 17 July 1992;
T-285 – Dispatch of Security Service Center Banja Luka No. 11-1/01-od-439 dated 19
August 1992;
T-286 – Instruction on training and usage of war units of Security Service Center No. 1108-262/92 dated 25 August 1992;
T-287 – Minutes of the meeting of 11 February 1992 held in Banja Luka;
T-288 – Dispatch of Security Service Center Banja Luka No. 11-1/01-72 dated 27 August
1992;
T-289 – Order of the Ministry of the Interior of Srpska Republika No. 10-293/92 dated 6
September 1992;
T-290 – Dispatch of Security Service Center, No. 11-/01-4 dated 1992;
T-291 – Dispatch of Security Service Center Banja Luka No. 11-183 dated 18 September
1992;
T-292 – Activity Report from July to September 1992, Republika Srpska, MoI, copy No.
31, Sarajevo October 1992;
T-293 – Activity Report from April to December 1992, Republika Srpska, MoI, Bijeljina
January 1993;
T-294 – Report of Analysis of Work of the Public Security Station in 1992 in the area of
Security Service Center in Banja Luka, Banja Luka, March 1993;
T-295 – Assembly of Autonomous Region of Krajina, Municipal Secretariat for National
Defense in Banja Luka, the list of dismissed and pardoned persons, No. 347/400 dated 7
October 1992;
T-296 – Overview of incoming and outgoing persons from the territory covered by the
Security Service Center in Banja Luka;
T-297 – Dispatch of Security Services Center in Banja Luka No. 11-1/01-48 dated 28
May 1992;
T-298 – Dispatch of the Security Services Center in Banja Luka No. 11-1/01-54 dated 12
June 1992;
T-299 – Dispatch of Public Security Station Ključ, No. 88/91 dated 7 October 1991;
T-300 – Operational Plan of Activities of Security Services Center in Banjaluka for Public
Security Center in Ključ for February 1992;
T-301 – Report of Ključ Public Security Station dated 24 October 1992;
225
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
T-302 – Document of Public Security Station in Ključ sent to the Municipal Secretariat for
National Defense No. 11-8/08-83-16/92 dated 19 March 1992;
T-303 – List of prisoners in Stara Gradiška Camp;
T-304 – List of newly received prisoners in Stara Gradiška Camp, with list per category;
T-305 – Overview of the number of prisoners in Stara Gradiška Camp per category of
persons;
T-306 – List of prisoners of war in the Manjača Camp, dated 15 June 1992;
T-307 – List of Prisoner of War from Ključ (for release) and the list of other prisoners of
war;
T-308 – List of police employees and other official persons who signed an official oath.
T-309 – List of employees of reserve police forces engaged in PSS in July 1992;
T-310 – List of authorized employees of PSS Ključ who received official badges;
T-311 – List of reservists who signed an official oath
T-312 – War Recruitment and Systematization Plan of Ključ Public Security Station;
T-313 – Photo / 21/ members of Ključ Public Security Station
T-314 – Document of Public Security Station in Ključ No. 11-8/08-80-280/92 dated 23
October 1992, list of reserve forces of Traffic Safety Police Station;
T-315 – Document of Public Security Station Ključ dated 4 July 1992;
T-316 – Document of Public Security Station Ključ No. 11-8/08-80-96/92 dated 4 August
1992;
T-317 – List of engaged members of Reserve Police Forces Gornji Ribnik in July 1992;
T-318 – List of persons issued with arms, list was made by the Chief of Public security
Station in Ključ, Vinko Kondić;
T-319 – Dispatch Note of the Security Services Center in Banja Luka No. 11-1/01-180
date 22 October 1992, as well as the list of police – made by the Chief of Public Security
Station Ključ, Vinko Kondić;
T-320 – List of detained persons from the town of Ključ, not signed;
T-321 – Public Security Station Ključ – list of persons detained on 29 May 1992;
T-322 – PSS Ključ: List of persons brought in u SRN Sanica for further interrogation 14
June 1992;
T-323 – Ključ Public Security Station Stanica – List of soldiers of enemy formations
brought from the area of Sanica dated 16 June 1992;
T-324 – Document of the Public Security Station in Ključ sent to the Command of
Manjača Camp, No. sl/92 dated 24 June 1992;
T-325 – Document of Ključ Public Security Station - two lists of persons apprehended
during the mopping up of terrain of Ključ Municipality No. S1/92 dated 27 June 1992;
T-326 – Request of the Ključ Public Security Station for consent of the SDS Executive
Board, No. 11-8/01-01-20/92 dated 30 June 1992;
T-327 – Official Note of Ključ Public Security Station dated 10 July 1992;
T-328 – Document of Ključ Public Security Station – List of persons sent to the Manjača
Camp dated 22 July 1992;
T-329 – Activity report of Ključ Public Security Station during combat activities in the
226
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
territory of Ključ municipality No. 9/92 July 1992;
T-330 – Document of Ključ Public Security Station sent to the Security Services Centre in
Banja Luka, No. 437/92 dated 5 August 1992;
T-331 – Document of the Ključ Public Security Station – List of prisoner from the territory
of Ključ municipality in Manjača Camp for prisoners of war No. 11-8/01-01-SJ/92 dated
29 August 1992;
T-332 – Dispatch of Ključ Public Security Station to Security Services Center in Banja
Luka, No. 770/92 dated 25 September 1992;
T-333 – Report of crimes committed in the area of municipality since the armed uprising
started on 27 May 1992, No. 17/92 dated 28 September 1992;
T-334 – Official Note of the sector of national Security of the war department in Ključ
dated 29 September 1992;
T-335 – Dispatch of the Security Services Center in Banja Luka, No. 11-1/02-1-441
dated 17 November 1992, and the document of Ključ Public Security Station;
T-336 – Dispatch of Public Security Station Ključ No. 860/92 dated 24 November 1992;
T-337 – Dispatch of Public Security Station Ključ No. 859/92 dated 24 November 1992;
T-338 – Ključ Public Security Station - Plan of investigation into Sabotage and Terrorist
Group in the area of Galaja, strictly confidential No. 3/93 dated 1 December 1992;
T-339 – Dispatch of Public Security Station Ključ No. 3/93 dated 6 February 1993;
T-340 – Report of Public Security Station Ključ for the first quarter, April 1993;
T-341 – PSS Ključ: Contribution for monograph on participation of the police employees
in the war No. 1112/01-80-25/93 dated 1 October 1993;
T-342 – Dispatch of Ključ Public Security Station sent to Security Services Center Banja
Luka dated 3 May 1993;
T-343 – Ključ Public Security Station – List of able-bodied Muslim men dated 25 May
1993, at request of the Ministry of Defense;
T-344 – Document of Ključ Public Security Station No. 7/93 dated 4 July 1993;
T-345 – Document of Basic Public Prosecutor's Office sent to Ključ PSS dated 1
February 1993;
T-346 – Document of Basic Public Prosecutor's Office Ključ sent to PSS Ključ from: 1
February, 24 November, 24 July and 10 August 1992 as well as 18 February, 23
November , 28 July and 1 February 1993;
T-347 – Dispatch of Ključ Public Security, with no reference number dated 5 January
1991 sent to SSC Banja Luka;
T-348 – Dispatch of Ključ PSS sent to SSC Banja Luka responding to the Dispatch of
SSC 4, 8 and 16 February 1994 – three documents;
T-349 – List of persons to be transferred from Ključ dated 3 March 1994;
T-350 – Dispatch of Ključ PSS dated 11 March 1994 responding to the document of SSC
Banja Luka;
T-351 – Document of PSS Ključ dated 1 November 1993, that is the Dispatch explaining
the employment in the police;
T-352 – Dispatch of PSS Ključ dated 26 March 1993 sent to SSC Banja Luka;
227
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
T-353 – Work plan for the seizure of passenger vehicles kept by Serb citizens which they
were obliged to hand over to the Municipal Committee since 1994;
T-354 – Official Note dated 17 November 1992 by which we wish to prove looting of
Muslims;
T-355 – Commission for Seized Goods, Approval of the War Presidency of Ključ
Municipality;
T-356 – Decision of the War Presidency of Serb Municipality of Ključ dated 16 November
1992;
T-357 – Activity Report of PSS Ključ on prevention of crime for third quarter;
T-358 – Report of Islamic Community Board in Ključ on culturocide from March 1998;
T-359 – Statistic Bulletin of the 1991 Census;
T-360 – Notebook of five page handwriting of unidentified author as well as eight typed
pages Manjača 1992;
T-361 – Document of the 30th Partisan Division, strictly confidential dated 9 June 1992;
T-362 – Photo-documents of the Specialized Crime Police Department Sanski Most
dated 10 January 2008, photo documents of the Ključ municipality building dated 10
January 2008, photo-documents of football stadium dated 10 January 2008, photodocuments of the Municipal Court in Ključ dated 10 January 2008, photo-documents of
religious buildings in Ključ dated 10 January 2008, photo-documents of Šipad Komerc in
Ključ dated 10 January 2008 and photo-documents of PSS in Ključ with premises dated
10 January 2008;
T-363 – Personal file of Boško Lukić;
T-364 – Certificate of information registered in the master register of PIO /Pension and
Disability Insurance/ in the name of Boško Lukić
T-365 – Personal file of Marko Adamović, and Certificate of PIO – MIO from 1991;
T-366 – Shorthand notes of the inaugural session of the Assembly of the Serb People in
BiH, dated 24 October 1991
T-367 – Proclamation of Town Board of SDA and MBO in Ključ, dated 21 September
1991;
T-368 – Document of the District Territorial Defense HQ dated 18 February 1991 on
staffing of the TO of Ključ Municipality;
T-369 – Document of District TO HQ dated 26 August 1991 on usage of business
premises of the TO Municipal HQ;
T-370 – Minutes of the first session of the War Presidency of Ključ dated 5 November
1994 signed by Jovo Banjac
T-371 – Report of the Army Post Office Ključ on civil affairs dated 19 May 1993 with
supporting document sent to the Ključ Municipal Assembly;
T-372 – Decision of formation of commission on appointment within Serb Municipality of
Ključ related to Boško Lukić and the Certificate approving Boško Lukić the financial
support;
T-373 – List of citizens from Kopljenica who surrendered their arms dated 22 November
1994;
228
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
T-374 – Decisions of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 6 July 1992;
T-375 – Document of the Command the 17th Light Mountain Brigade 30 July 1995;
T-376 – Decision on formation of the War Presidency of the Ključ Municipality dated 31
July 1995;
T-377 – Document of PSS Ključ on systematization of posts in the police dated 24
September 1991 sent to SSC Banjaluka;
T-378 – Support letter of the Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 27 August 1992;
T-379 – Request for use of business premises in the Municipality of Ključ;
T-380 – Document of the Crisis Staff of the Ključ Municipality, certified by the Hague
Tribunal;
T-381 – Minutes of the meeting of the headquarters protection company of the Municipal
Staff of the Territorial Defense Ključ, dated 25 October 1991;
T-382 – Document of the Municipal Board for MBO and SDA dated 24 December 1992
Press Release of MBO Ključ dated 18 September 1991;
T-383 – Notice of SDS to the SDS Municipal Board in Ključ
T-384 – Document of the Ključ Municipal Assembly and Autonomous Region of Krajina
dated 27 March 1992;
T-385 – Document of the Executive Board of the Municipal SDS Ključ dated 24
September 1991;
T-386 – Nomination of candidates for information, moral and religious affairs of SDS,
application of Marko Adamović for membership in SDS RS dated 20 January 1991;
T-387 – Record issued by the Ključ Municipal Assembly for Ivan Jakunđić, Record on
financial standing of Slavko Blazević, Record on financial standing of Ismet Mešić,
Record on financial standing of Kana Mešić, Record on financial standing of Suad
Perdić, Record of financial standing of Kadir Brković;
T-388 – List of persons to be brought in from Humići;
T-389 – Document of the Ključ PSS, list of persons captured on 1 June 1992;
T-390 – List of prisoners from enemy formations dated 26 June 1992, the list includes 7
persons;
T-391 – Handwritten List of prisoners held in the gym, including 60 persons;
T-392 – Order of the Crisis Staff and the Command of Ključ dated 30 May 1992;
T-393 – List of PSS Ključ on persons who put up a resistance to the Serb forces dated
11 June 1992;
T-394 – Document of PSS Ključ dated 20 July 1992, List of persons committed to the
Manjača Prison Camp including 9 persons;
T-395 – Document of PSS Ključ dated 30 August 1992, Report of activity of extremists of
Green Berets;
T-396 – List made by PSS Ključ of unprocessed persons from the settlement of Krasulje,
list of members of enemy formations captured on 9 June 1992, list of members of enemy
formations captured on 23 June 1992, list of persons from Rejzovići captured on 12 June
1992, list of members of enemy formations captured in Velagići, list of persons from the
area of Ramići and Krasulje examined on 31 May 2010, list of persons released from the
PW Camp;
229
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
T-397 – Document of the Command of the 13th Partisan Brigade of Ključ Municipality
dated 18 March 1992, the village of Baraci;
T-398 – Document of the Ministry of Defense, Department of Ključ, sent to PSS Ključ
dated 24 May 1993;
T-399 – Document of the Radio Ključ Public Company dated 12 August 1992 Ministry of
Information of the Srpska Republika of BiH, Document of Radio Ključ Public Company
dated 5 February 1993, Document of the Radio Ključ Public Company dated 19 July
1992;
T-400 – Official Announcement of MBO, Ključ Municipal Board dated 1 August 1991,
Official Announcement of MBO, Municipal Board of Ključ dated 8 October 1991,
Document of SDS of the Municipal Board in Ključ dated 10 August 1991, Document of V
Kapetanović on the fifth anniversary of crime against Serb people, official announcement
of the Ključ Municipal Assembly, Document of the President of Ključ Municipal Assembly,
Radio Ključ.
T-401 – Decision on general mobilization of Serb people in the Ključ Municipality
T-402 – Decision disapproving the reunion of the Municipality of the Ključ, Autonomous
Region of Bosanska Krajina;
T-403 – Order of the Crisis Staff of Ključ Municipal Assembly on seizure of property
benefit dated 30 May 1992;
T-404 – Document of Defense HQ of Ključ, signed by Boško Lukić;
T-405 – Certificate of the Command of Army Post Office of Ključ dated 28 September
1992;
T-406 – Press release of the Crisis Staff of Ključ Municipal Assembly;
T-407 – Document of the Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 8 May 1992 sent to the
Prijedor Municipal Assembly;
T-408 – Document of the HQ of the Municipal Territorial Defense dated 6 March 1992,
Order of the Commander of Territorial Defense of the Ključ Municipality dated 6 March
1992, Ranko Viđinović, Order of the Commander of Territorial Defense of the Ključ
Municipality dated 6 March 1992, Drago Ivanović, Order of the Commander of the
Territorial Defense of Ključ Municipality dated 6 March 1992, Drago Macanović, Order of
the Commander of the Ključ Municipality Territorial Defense dated 6 March 2010 of
Zoran Savanović;
T-409 – Document of the Nikola Mačkić Primary School and the record of inspection of
the Ključ Municipality Building dated 26 June 1992;
T-410 – Handwritten List of pieces of automatic weapon, including 101 persons;
T-411 – Document sent to the District HQ of Banja Luka sent by the Republic HQ.
Document made by the 1st Krajina Corps dated 17 May 1992;
T-412 – Document of the Command of the 30th Partisan Brigade dated 28 April 1992;
T-413 – Document of Municipal Board of SDS Ključ, appointment of the Commander of
the TOHQ dated 6 November 1991;
T-414 – Document of the Command of the 17th Mountain Brigade dated 15 June 1995,
Report of subordinated units dated 7 July 1995, Report of subordinated units dated 6
230
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
July 1995, Report of subordinated units dated 23 June 1995, Report of subordinated
units dated 7 July 1995, order of the 17th Mountain Brigade for carrying out of the
combat activities dated 17 June 1995, Order of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps
for taking actions in decisive defense;
T-415 – Document of the Crisis Staff of Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 5 June 1992,
Order to star working of the UKUS Public Company Ključ;
T-416 – Decision of the Ključ Municipal Assembly dated 29 December 1992, Official
Gazette of the Ključ Municipality;
T-417 – Decision of the President of the Ključ Municipal Assembly,
T-418 – Combat Report of the Command of the 17th Partisan Light Brigade dated 18
June 1992;
T-419 – Two handwritten sheets indicating events which took place in the area of the
Ključ Municipality;
T-420 – Law on All-people's Defense published in the Official Gazette dated 9 February
1984;
T-421 – Handwritten List of prisoners in the Biljani School, photocopy of the notebook
dated 10 July 1992 in the Primary School of Biljani.
T-422 – Order of the Federal Secretariat of National Defense /SSNO/dated 28 November
1991;
T-423 – Order of the Technical Administration of SSNO, confidential No. 2268-1 dated
30 December 1991;
T-424 – Document of the Command of the 2nd Military District No. 31/103-6-1 dated 9
January 1992
T-425 – Mobilization Plan of Territorial Defense of SR BiH, strictly confidential No.
05/1898-4/87 dated 8 December 1989 with Charts;
T-426 – Conclusions and tasks from the session of Army Council of SSNO dated 23 May
1991;
T-427 – Request to the Yugoslav National Army No. 02-52/91 dated 11 December 1992;
T-428 – Order of the Command of the 2nd Military District, strictly confidential No. 09/6356 dated 7 March 1992, Conclusion of the Command of the 2nd Military District dated 20
March 1992, Order of the Command of the 2nd Military District, strictly confidential No.
09/80-23 dated 4 April 199., Order of the Command of the 2nd Military District, DT No.
12/82-16 dated 10 March 1992;
T-429 – Decision of the Serb People's Assembly dated 24 October 1991;
T-430 – Decision of the Serb People's Assembly on formation of the Army of Serb
Republic of BiH No. 03-234/92 dated 12 May 1992;
T-431 – Document of the Command of the 30th Partisan Division, strictly confidential No.
865-2 dated 16 May 1992;
T-432 – Document with Charts (List of units of the 2nd Military District, SSNO and War
Aviation and Anti-Aircraft Defense in the Territory of the 2nd Military District;
T-433 – Document of the Command of the 2nd Military District No. 31/104-40-1 dated 24
April 1992;
231
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
T-434 – Chart of the formation structure of the 2nd Military District;
T-435 – Document of the Command of the 2nd Military District, strictly confidential No.
31/101-230 dated 7 April 1992;
T-436 – Order to expand the structure of the Territorial Defense of the Armed Forces of
SFRY from 1990 to 1995.
T-437 – Order for collection and surrender of arms, strictly confidential No. 06/1-79-121
dated 23 October 1990;
T-438 – Note from the meeting of the representatives of Federal Secretariat for National
Defense regarding the Report of the Command of the 2nd Military District;
T-439 – Official Note of the Basic Court in Ključ No. Kri 1/93 dated 2 January 1993
(about setting the Catholic Church ablaze);
T-440 – List of (Chart) processed and detained persons from Prhovo;
T-441 – Decision of the Republic Ministry of NRO No. 1/92 dated 16 April 1992;
T-442 – Excerpt from the form Vob-8 for Marko Adamović and Military ID booklet bearing
the name of Marko Adamović;
T-443 – Personal profile of the Accused Boško Lukić – Excerpt from the Vob-8 form for
Boško Lukić, Document of Boško Lukić sent to the Ministry of Defense of the Municipality
of Serb Ključ (Ribnik), Permit bearing the name of Boško Lukić No. 01-38-RP/95,
Decision on appointment, confidential No. 08/511-1 dated 5 December 1991, Certificate
No. 05-023-2039/96 dated 17 September 1996 of the Executive Board Ključ issued
under the name of Lukić Boško;
T-444 – Order of the Commander of the Main Staff of the Republika Srpska Army strictly
confidential No. 30/18-25 dated 3 July 1992;
T-445 – Order of the War Presidency of the Ključ Municipality, No. 05-01-104/94 dated 8
November 1994;
T-446 – Record of the persons brought in the Sanica-92 Department
T-447 – ICTY Judgment in the Krajišnik case: IT-00-39, ICTY Judgment in the Brđanin
case No. IT-99-36, ICTY Judgment in Kordić and Čerkez case No. IT 95-14/2 , submitted
on CD.
T-448 – Bosnian Serbs Crisis Staffs, Investigative report of Dorothea Hanson,
dated 30 July 2002 and 26 November 2004;
T-449 – Military situation in Bosanska Krajina 1992, situation analysis, military analyst
Ewan Brown dated 27 November 2002;
T-450 – Management of Bosnian Serbs 1990-1992, supplement to the power structure in
the Autonomous Region of Krajina 1991, 1992, investigative report of Patrick J.Treanor.
T-451 – List of documents with CD enclosed containing the scanned photo-documents of
completed exhumation;
T-452 – List of documents with CD enclosed containing the scanned death certificates
T-453 – Diary of the witness “D”
T-454 /rebuttal/ – Record of the examination of the witness “D” given to the Prosecutor's
Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina No. KT-RZ-50/08 dated 17 October 2008 and No. KTRZ-50/08 dated 10 October 2008;
232
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
T-455 – Group of 61 exhibits, the physical evidence listed in the documents of
Prosecutor’s Office of BiH dated 15 April 2011 as follows:
1.
Document of the Command of the TG 2 dated 25 June 1992;
2.
Document of the Command of the TG 2 dated 2 October 1992;
3.
Document of the Command of the TG 2 dated 21 October 1992;
4.
Document of the Command of the TG 2 dated 29 September 1992;
5.
Document of the Command of the TG 2 dated 27 September 1992;
6.
Document of the Command of the TG 2 dated 24 September 1992;
7.
Document of the Command of the TG 2 dated 22 September 1992;
8.
Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps Drvar, strictly
confidential No. 2-174 dated 1 July 1992;
9.
Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps , strictly confidential No.
2-168 dated 29 June 1992;
10. Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, strictly confidential
dated 90-5 dated 16 June 1992;
11. Document of the Command of the 1st Drvar Brigade, strictly confidential No.
90-4 dated 15 June 1992;
12. Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, strictly confidential, No.
2-113 dated 17 June 1992;
13. CD – PLIVA 92
14. Document of the Command of the 1st Drvar Brigade, confidential No. 18-13
dated 16 June 1992;
15. Document of the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential No. 01-31-8/92 dated 20 June 1992;
16. Document of the Command 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential No. 01-31-8/92 dated 23 June 1992;
17. Document of the Command V.P.2207 Ključ strictly confidential No. 01-31-18
dated 11 July 1992;
18. Document of the Command VP 2207 Ključ strictly confidential No. 01-31-23
dated 16 July 1992;
19. Document of the Command V.P. 7327 Ključ strictly confidential No. 01-31-05
dated 5 August 1992;
20. Document of the Command V.P. 2207 Ključ strictly confidential No. 01-31-32
dated 28 July 1992;
21. Document of the Command 7227 Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01-31-17
dated 17 August 1992;
22. Document of the Command 7327 Ključ strictly confidential No. 01-31-15 dated
15 August 1992;
23. Document of the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No.
303-1 dated 4 August 1992;
24. Excerpt from the war diary of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade;
25. Order of the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade , strictly confidential
233
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
No. 01/257 dated 9 August 1992;
Order of the Command of TG 2 s.Magalj Dolj dated 1 September ;
Order of the Command of the TG2 of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade, strictly
confidential No. 01/436 dated 12 October 1992;
Document of the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade dated 24
October 1992;
Document of the Command the 30 Krajina Corps Drvar, strictly confidential
No. 174-544 dated 22 September 1992;
Document of the Command of TG 2, strictly confidential No. 1/372/92 dated
22 September 1992;
Document of the Command the 2nd Krajina Corps Drvar, strictly confidential
No. 2/1-122 dated 27 October 1992;
Document of the Command the 2nd inzp strictly confidential No. 384-124
dated 9 June 1992;
Document of the Command the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential No. 01/08/92 dated 9 June 1992;
Document of the Command the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential, No. 01-1/92 dated 5 June 1992;
Document of the Command the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential No. 01/5-92;
Document of the Command the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential No. 01/5-1-92 dated 7 June 1992;
Document of the Command the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential No. 01-06-2/92;
Document of the Command the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, No. 0112/92;
Document of the Command the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential No. 01-20/92 dated 11 June 1992;
Document of the Command the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential No 01-25/92 dated 12 June 1992;
Document of the Command the 17 Light Infantry Brigade, strictly confidential
No 01-20-2/92 dated 12 June 1992;
Document of the Command 17 the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential No 01-31/92 dated 13 June 1992;
Document of the Command 17 the 17 Light Infantry Brigade, strictly
confidential No. 01-31-2/92 dated 13 June 1992;
Document of the Command 17 the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential No 01-31-1/92 dated 15 June 1992;
Document of the Command 17 the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential No. 01-31-2/92 dated 15 June 1992;
Document of the Command 17 the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential No 01-39-1/92 dated 15 June 1992;
234
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
47. Document of the Command 17 the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential No 01-31-3/92 dated 16 June 1992;
48. Document of the Command 17 the 17 Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential No 01-31-5/92 dated 17 June 1992;
49. Order, strictly confidential No. 11/28-201 dated 9 June 1992;
50. Order, strictly confidential No. 11/28-197 dated 9 June 1992;
51. Document of the Command VP 7327 Ključ, strictly confidential No. 01-31-20
dated 20 August 1992;
52. Document of the Command the 2nd Krajina Corps, strictly confidential No.
12/26-5 dated 15 June 1992;
53. Document of the Command the 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, strictly
confidential No. 01-31-6/92 dated 18 June 1992;
54. Document of the Command 17th Light Infantry Brigade Ključ, No. 01-31-7/92
dated 18 June 1992;
55. Document of the Command of the 17th Light Infantry Brigade No. 13
December 1992 at 24:00 hours
56. Order strictly confidential No. 11/27-187 dated 13 September 1992;
57. Law on Amendments to the Law on National Defense;
58. Decision No. 0-5 dated 19 May 1992;
59. Order confidential No. 380-1 dated 17 September 1992;
60. Order, confidential No. 01/365 dated 21 September 1992;
61. Document of the Command of the 1st Krajina Corps, confidential No. 174-652.
B.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6
7
8
9
10.
11.
12.
13.
WITNESSES FOR THE DEFENSE
Accused Boško Lukić examined as a
witness
Slobodan Jurišić *
25 October 2010
3 November 2010
Rajko Kalabić*
Stevan Jovičić*
Rade Malešević
Vito Dvizac
Witness D
Accused Marko Adamović examined
as a witness
Drago Radojčić*
Dušan Dragić *
Dušan Prolić
Mirko Kosić
Dušan Grabež
15 November 2010
17 November 2010
17 November 2010
22 November 2010
24 November 2010
8 November 2010
7 February 2011
29 November 2010
1 December 2010
6 December 2010
8 December 2010
13 December 2010
15 December 2010
15 December 2010
235
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
14.
15
16
17
18
19
20.
21
22
Rajko Kalabić*
Milorad Bodiroža
Cvijo Popović *
Cvijo Škavić
Ahmed Ćenanović
Radenko Kuburić *
Boro Kosić
Slobodan Jurišić
Expert
witness
Radomir
Lukić
(expert
20 December 2010
22 December 2010
10 January 2011
12 January 2011
24 January 2011
24 January 2011
26 January 2011
7 February 2011
28 February 2011
witness for the first and second accused)
23
Expert witness Slobodan Kosovac
(expert witness for the first and second
accused)
C.
21 March 2011
23 March 2011
13 April 2011
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE FOR THE ACCUSED BOŠKO LUKIĆ
1. Evidence accepted from the first instance proceedings
O1-1 – Expert Opinion of Prof. Dr. Radomir Lukić, February 2011;
O1-2 - Expert report “Defense system in RS, Ključ “ Expert Opinion of the military
expert Slobodan Kosovac, 27 February 2011;
2. Evidence accepted at the hearing before the Appellate Division Panel
AO-1 Regular Combat Report by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 27 May 1992.
AO-2 Regular Combat Report by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 28 May 1992.
AO-3 Regular Combat Report by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 29 May 1992.
AO-4 Regular Combat Report by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 2 June 1992.
AO-5 Regular Combat Report by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 3 June 1992,
status at 14:00 hrs.
AO-6 Regular Combat Report by the Command of the 2nd Krajina Corps of 3 June 1992,
status at 18:00 hrs.
AO-7 Order issued by the Commander of the 2nd Krajina Corps on 9 June 1992.
AO-8 Revoked orders for reserve officers of 6 March 1992.
AO-9 Order issued by the Commander of the Ključ Municipality Territorial Defense of 6
March 1992.
AO-10 Order issued by the Commander of the Ključ Municipality Territorial Defense of 6
March 1992
AO-11 Order issued by the Commander of the Ključ Municipality Territorial Defense of 6
March 1992
236
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
AO-12 Order issued by the Commander of the Ključ Municipality Territorial Defense of 6
March 1992
AO-13 Chart of registered names Nos. 00528275, 00528276, 00528278, 00528277,
00914549
AO-14 Submission by Attorney Milan D. Trbojević of 28 February 2013.
AO-15 (T-226)
00574377
List of registered names Nos. 00574372, 00574373, 00574375,
AO-16 (T-264)
Order by the 2nd Krajina Corps Command of 5 June 1992.
D.
DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENSE FOR THE ACCUSED MARKO ADAMOVIĆ
O2-1 – Certificate of the Military Post Office 7041 Mrkonjić Grad No. 19-505 dated 20
November 1995 on the death of the military conscript Miodrag Marković;
O2-2 – Expert opinion of Prof. Dr. Radomir Lukić, February 2011;
O2-3 – Expert Report “Defense System in RS, Ključ “Expert Opinion of the military expert
Slobodan Kosovac, 27 February 2011.
XV. ANNEX 2
A.
558.
ESTABLISHED FACTS
Applying Article 4 of the Law on Transfer of Cases, under its Decision of 27 March
2009, the Court ex officio accepted as proved the facts adjudicated in the final Judgment
of the ICTY in Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin No. IT-99-36-T of 1 September 2004 to the
extent as follows:
I
1.
“In November 1990, the first multi-party elections were held in BiH, whereby
the people voted for the Assembly of the SRBH, the Presidency of the SRBH and the
municipal and local Assemblies in all the municipalities in BiH. The SDA, SDS and
HDZ collectively won an overwhelming majority of the votes. The vote accurately
portrayed the polarization amongst the ethnic communities taking place in BiH at the
time. Pursuant to a power sharing agreement reached prior to the elections, the SDA,
having obtained a majority at the republican level, was allowed to designate the
President of the seven persons Presidency. Alija Izetbegovic was appointed to this
position. The SDS designated the President of the Assembly of the SRBH, Momcilo
Krajisnik, and the HDZ designated the President of the Executive Council, i.e., the
237
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
Prime Minister, Jure Pelivan”. (para. 56).
2.
“Cooperation among the three nationalist parties was initially good, even
enthusiastic, in the euphoria that followed the defeat of the League of Communists.
However, the break-up of the SFRY commencing in 1991 resulted in the deterioration
of both the situation in BiH in general and the relations between the ethnicities in
particular. On 25 June 1991, the Parliaments of Slovenia and Croatia respectively
issued declarations of independence, which led to armed conflicts in both these
break-away republics. In Slovenia, the JNA withdrew after a 10-day war. In Croatia,
the war lasted longer. The Croatian army was opposed by the JNA and by local
paramilitary groups organized by Croatian Serbs and Serbs from the Republic of
Serbia. On 2 January 1992, the hostilities in Croatia came to a provisional halt with a
ceasefire agreement between the JNA and Croatia. UN forces (United Nations
Protection Force – “UNPROFOR”) were deployed to maintain peace. On 15 January
1992, the European Community recognized the new states of Slovenia and Croatia.”
(para. 57)
3.
“The war and the secession of Slovenia and in particular of Croatia had a
significant impact on the socio-political situation in BiH. From late summer 1991,
many military aged men from BiH were mobilized to join the JNA in order to fight in
Croatia. A large number of Bosnian Serbs responded, but Bosnian Muslims and
Bosnian Croats, supported by their respective leaders, generally did not. This led to
increased tension between the ethnicities, especially in the Bosnian Krajina region
bordering Croatia”. (para. 58)
4.
“As from the autumn of 1991, another source of anxiety and stress for the
people in the Bosnian Krajina was the demeanor of the soldiers returning from the
battlefields in Croatia. These soldiers often behaved in a threatening manner towards
Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats. They would insult people and fire their guns at
houses, shops or religious buildings. In some municipalities, shops or private homes
belonging to Bosnian Muslims or Bosnian Croats were blown up or set on fire. There
were several incidences in which returning Bosnian Serb soldiers killed Bosnian
Muslims”. (para. 59)
5.
“In this atmosphere of tension the three main nationalist parties, having
separate national agendas with conflicting interests, failed to reconcile their
238
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
differences and started moving in opposite directions. Most importantly, they
disagreed on the question of the constitutional status of BiH. While the SDA and the
HDZ promoted the secession of the SRBH from the SFRY, the SDS strongly
advocated the preservation of Yugoslavia as a state, in order to ensure that the
Serbs would continue to live together in a single state, and would not become a
minority in an independent Bosnian state. On 15 October 1991, SDS President
Radovan Karadzic made an impassioned speech before the Assembly of the SRBH
in Sarajevo, indicating the possibility that Bosnian Muslims could disappear as a
group if they declared the independence of the SRBH from the SFRY. SDA President
Alija Izetbegovic responded that Karadzic’s threatening message and its method of
presentation illustrated why the SRBH might be forced to separate from the SFRY.
After the Republican Assembly of the SRBH had adjourned for the day and the SDS
delegation had departed, HDZ and SDA delegates reconvened without them and
passed a “Declaration of Sovereignty”, a measure that moved the SRBH a step
closer to independence.” (para. 61)
6.
“On 24 October 1991, the SDS Deputies in the Assembly of the SRBH, in a
meeting of their club, established a separate Assembly of the Serbian People in
Bosnia and Herzegovina (“SerBiH Assembly”) and elected Momcilo Krajisnik as its
President. The SerBiH Assembly authorized a plebiscite of the Serbian people of BiH
on the question of whether or not they wanted BiH to remain within Yugoslavia. On 9
and 10 December 1991, the Bosnian Serbs voted overwhelmingly to remain a part of
the SFRY.”(para. 62)
7.
“In early 1992, the SDA increased the pressure to secure independence of the
SRBH from the SFRY. A referendum on the question of independence was held on
29 February and 1 March 1992. It was largely boycotted by the Bosnian Serbs and
yielded an overwhelming majority of votes in favor of the independence of BiH. In
view of the result of the referendum, on 6 April 1992, the European Community
recognized BiH as an independent state. Recognition by the US followed on 7 April
1992.” (para. 63)
The same Decision accepted as proved the facts established in the final Trial Judgment of
the ICTY in the Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin case number IT-99-36-T dated 1
September 2004 as follows:
239
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
II
1.
“In September 1990, the JNA had ordered that weapons be removed from
the depots under control of local TO units and moved to its own armories. {...}
However, in late 1991 and early 1992, all three national parties began arming
themselves. “(para. 87)
2.
“At its 7th session, held on 16 September 1991, the ZOBK Assembly
transformed itself into the Autonomous Region of Krajina (“ARK”). The decision in
question states that the ARK was being established “as an inseparable part of the
Federal State of Federative Yugoslavia and an integral part of the Federal Unit of
BiH”. On the same date, the Statute of the ARK, which was almost identical to the
ZOBK Statute, was adopted. Like the ZOBK, the ARK had its seat in Banja Luka.”
(para. 166.)
3.
“In the autumn of 1991, four other Serbian Autonomous Districts were
created in SRBH. These were the Serbian Autonomous District of Herzegovina, the
Serbian Autonomous District of Romanija-Birac, the Serbian Autonomous District of
Semberija and the Serbian Autonomous District of Northern Bosnia. On 21
November 1991, the creation of the ARK and the other four Serbian Autonomous
Districts was ratified by the SerBiH Assembly during its 2nd session. By virtue of this
ratification, the ARK and the other four Serbian Autonomous Districts became
constituent parts of the SerBiH. The SerBiH Assembly appointed Jovan Cizmovic, a
member of the Ministerial Council of the SerBiH Assembly, as the coordinator of the
governments of the ARK and the other Serbian Autonomous Districts. {...}” (para.
167.)
4.
“The ARK possessed authority over a wide range of issues. It was a political
body vested with powers that belonged to the municipalities, including powers in the
area of defense. Pursuant to its Statute, the ARK was in charge, inter alia, of the
realization of socio-political objectives. In the legal parlance of the former Yugoslavia,
socio-political communities were meant to denote governmental units. A regional
association of municipalities, as provided for by the law, was not a governmental unit,
and could therefore not have jurisdiction over defense matters, which were reserved
to socio-political communities, including the republican and the municipal authorities.”
(para. 173)
240
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
5.
“The ARK did have jurisdiction in the area of defense. Its Statute provided
that the ARK “shall monitor the situation and co-ordinate activities for the
organization and implementation of preparations for All Peoples’ Defense in
accordance with the Law, municipal defense plans and the republican defense plan”.
The ARK Statute also included a provision to the effect that the ARK Assembly shall
have a permanent “Political Council” dealing with “issues of development of the
political system” and a permanent “Peoples’ Defense Council” dealing with “issues
from the area of peoples’ defense which are relevant to the Autonomous Region of
Krajina.” {...}(para. 174)
6.
“On 15 October 1991, the SDS Party Council discussed strategies on how to
set up a Serbian government, which included establishing parallel government
bodies, the regionalization of BiH and organizing militarily.” (para. 66)
7.
“In a speech given on the occasion of the “Plebiscite of the Serb People” in
Sarajevo in November 1991, Radovan Karadzic instructed SDS members
representing the municipalities to impose complete Bosnian Serb authority in their
respective municipalities, regions and local communities. On 11 December 1991, the
SerBiH Assembly voted to recommend the establishment of separate Serbian
municipalities. The declared aim of this decision was “to break up the existing
municipalities where Serbs are not in a majority. “ (para. 68.)
8.
“On 19 December 1991, the Main Board of the SDS issued a document
entitled “Instructions for the Organization and Activity of Organs of the Serbian
People in Bosnia and Herzegovina in Extraordinary Circumstances” (“Variant A and
B Instructions”). These instructions provided for the conduct of specified activities in
all municipalities in which Serbs lived, and essentially mapped out the take-over of
power by Bosnian Serbs in municipalities where they constituted a majority of the
population (“Variant A”) and where they were in a minority (“Variant B”). The stated
purpose of the Variant A and B Instructions was “to carry out the results of the
plebiscite at which the Serbian people in Bosnia and Herzegovina decided to live in a
single state” and to “increase mobility and readiness for the defense of the interests
of the Serbian people “. (para. 69)
9.
“The Variant A and B Instructions included, amongst others, the directive that
the SDS Municipal Boards should form Crisis Staffs of the Serbian people in their
241
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
respective municipalities. The “tasks, measures and other activities” referred to in the
Variant A and B Instructions were to be carried out exclusively at the order of the
President of the SDS.” (para. 70)
10.
“In early 1992, while international negotiations to resolve the question of the
status of BiH were ongoing, the Bosnian Serb leadership enforced its plan to
separate the territories claimed by them from the existing structures of the SRBH and
to create a separate Bosnian Serb State. On 9 January 1992, the SerBiH Assembly
proclaimed the SerBiH, which on 12 August 1992 was renamed Republika Srpska
(“RS”). It was composed of so-called Serbian autonomous regions and districts,
which included the ARK.” (para. 71)
11.
“{...} On 4 March 1992, the ARK Assembly during its 15 th session adopted a
decision to form the Security Services Centre of the ARK (“CSB”) with its seat in
Banja Luka. Stojan Zupljanin was appointed Chief of the CSB. On 27 April 1992, the
ARK Assembly issued a decision to establish a “Special Purpose Police Detachment”
within the CSB. “ (para. 175)
12.
“{...} On 27 March 1992, the SerBiH Assembly established the Serbian
Ministry of Internal Affairs (“MUP”). The legislation on the MUP came into effect on
31 March 1992, when a Minister was appointed who answered to the SerBiH
Assembly. During the spring and summer of 1992, most non-Serbs were dismissed
from the police force. In doing so, the police was transformed into a Bosnian Serb
force.” (para. 211)
13.
“On 7 April 1991, the SDS Regional Board decided to create the Community
of Municipalities of Bosnian Krajina (“ZOBK”). Vojo Kupresanin was elected
President of the ZOBK Assembly, while the Accused was elected First VicePresident and Dragan Knezevic was elected Second Vice-President. The ZOBK was
composed of sixteen municipalities from the Bosnian Krajina, all of which, except
Kljuc, had substantial Bosnian Serb majorities. {...} Unlike the Banja Luka Community
of Municipalities (“ZOBL”) which had existed previously, the ZOBK’s mandate
included a strong defense component. Decisions of the ZOBK Assembly and minutes
from its meetings show that this was an association intended to co-ordinate all major
areas of administrative government in the municipalities that joined the ZOBK, and
that its agenda was a political one.”
(para. 165)
242
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
14.
“At the municipal level, commanders of TO units, which later became Light
Infantry Brigades either were permanent members of municipal Crisis Staffs, or ex
officio members who attended meetings in order to brief Crisis Staffs or other
governmental bodies on the current military situation and the development of combat
operations. Decisions taken by the crisis staffs were communicated to the military.”
(para. 218)
15.
“{...} On 16 April 1992, the Ministry of National Defense of the SerBiH issued
a decision on the establishment of the Territorial Defense (“TO”) as an army of the
SerBiH, putting the command and control of the TO with municipal, district and
regional staffs, as well as the staff of the SerBiH TO. In the same decision the
Ministry of National Defense of the SerBiH declared an imminent threat of war and
ordered public mobilization of the TO in the entire territory of the SerBiH. Moreover,
the formation of TO staffs in the newly established Bosnian Serb municipalities was
ordered.” (para. 73)
16.
“{...} the 4 and 9 May 1992 decisions on disarmament were expressly
directed at “paramilitary formations” and “individuals who illegally possess weapons”.
On 18 May 1992, the ARK Crisis Staff further clarified which individuals had to be
disarmed:
All formations that are not in the Army of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina or the Banja Luka Security Services Centre and are in the Autonomous
Region of Krajina, are considered paramilitary formations and must be disarmed.
All those who are not part of the armed forces of the Serbian Republic of Bosnia and
Herzegovina or its police must return their weapons.
This decision also instructed the CSB to write instructions for the disarming of
paramilitary formations. The military and civilian police were responsible for the
implementation. In accordance with this decision, the chief of the CSB, Stojan
Zupljanin, ordered all SJBs to report back to the CSB on the disarmament
operations. The order contained detailed instructions on the expected contents of the
report. The municipal SJBs, as ordered, reported back to the CSB on the operations
implemented in their respective areas of control.” (para. 246)
17.
“During the 16th session of the
SerBiH Assembly that took place on 12
243
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013
May 1992, at a time when the armed conflict had already begun, Radovan Karadzic
articulated the six strategic goals of the Serbian People of Bosnia and
Herzegovina.140 The first and most fateful goal was the “separation from the other
two national communities – separation of states”. The other goals concerned the
establishment of a corridor between Semberija and Krajina; the establishment of a
corridor in the Drina Valley; the establishment of a border on the Una and Neretva
rivers; the division of the city of Sarajevo into Serb and Muslim sectors; and, finally,
securing access to the sea for the SerBiH.” (para. 75)
18.
“In the spring of 1992, all employees in local Public Security Services
(“SJBs”) and other public services were required to sign an oath of loyalty to the
Bosnian Serbian authorities. Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats who refused to
sign the declaration of loyalty were dismissed. Those who accepted to sign could
remain within the service. However, by June 1992, the policy changed. To start, all
non-Serbs holding managerial positions were fired and replaced by Bosnian Serbs.
Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats were dismissed from the judiciary, local
enterprises, the media, hospitals, the police forces and the army. By the end of 1992,
almost the entire Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat community had been dismissed
from their jobs. Many people who showed up for work during this period were turned
back and denied access to their workplace. Generally speaking, people were sent
home, told not to come back, and then fired soon thereafter.” (para. 85)
20. “{...} in the Bosnian Krajina {...} by the end of 1992, nearly all Bosnian Muslims and
Bosnian Croats had been dismissed from their jobs in, amongst others, the media,
the army, the police, the judiciary and public companies. Numerous crimes were
committed against Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, including murder, torture,
beatings, rape, plunder and the destruction of property. Villages were shelled,
houses were torched and looted. In the spring of 1992, a number of detention camps
where Bosnian Muslim and Bosnian Croat civilians were arrested and detained en
masse were established throughout the ARK. In several instances, mass killings of
civilians took place. {...} Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats were forcibly expelled
from the ARK by the Bosnian Serbs and taken in convoys of buses and trains to
Bosnian Muslim held territory in BiH or to Croatia {...}” (para. 159)
244
S1 1 K 003359 12 Kžk
8 November 2013