CANTONAL COURT IN SARAJEVONUMBER: K-162/97Sarajevo, 06.10.1998

iN THE NAME OF PEOPLE!

On 06.10.1998, the Cantonal Court in Sarajevo, sitting in Tribunal consistingof a judge Maksumic Saban, president of Tribunal, judge Bazdarevic Izet, as Tribunalmember and a full-time judge in this Court, a lay judge Jaric Simo, Causevic Velijaand Tahmaz Husnija as Tribunal members, and Krupalija Vasvija as a record keeper,in criminal case against defendant DJEDOVIC IBRAHIM for the criminal offence ofwar crime against civil population as per Article 142. Paragraph 1. of the CriminalLaw and other, and after main verbal and public hearing, in presence of DeputyCantonal Prosecutor in Sarajevo, Arnautovic Hikmet, and defendant in person, and his

0defence attorneys, Senka Nozica, a lawyer from Sarajevo, and Martin Raguz, a lawyerfrom Sarajevo, passed and publicly announced the following

VERDICT

DEFENDANT: DJEDOVIC IBRAHIM, son of Meho and mother Hava (maidenMujanovic), born on 26th of October, 1961 in Kikaci village, Kalesija municipality,citizen of BiH, officer in former INA - Captain First Class, married, two juvenilechildren, having permanent place of residence in Matulji Municipality - Republic ofCroatia

GUILTY

FOR:

1. During the period from January 1994 to 21st of August, 1994, in the capacity of theChief of Police Station in Velika Kladusa, and in the capacity of Deputy Minister ofDefence in charge of police matters, and within the period from 29th of November1994 to July 1995, in the capacity of a member of the Supreme Command of self-declared Autonomous Province West Bosnia, during the aggression on Bosnia andHerzegovina by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, paramilitary forces of the FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia, military and paramilitary forces of the Serb Democratic Partyand the Republic of Srpska Krajina, in cooperation with military units of self-declaredAutonomous Province West Bosnia, based on his functions amongst which thehighest was a member of the Supreme Command of National Defence of AutonomousProvince West Bosnia, being in charge of the Head of Security, and given the power,influence on and control of security situation in the territory of Velika Kiadusa

18.FEB199*DOQ684

t.

Municipality, contrary to Article 146. and 147. IV. of Geneva Convention onprotection of civilians during war, he ordered detention of persons considered tobecome, at a certain moment, directly or indirectly potential supporters to the forces ofextreme part of the 5th Corps, thus, together with members of security bodies of civiland military authorities, he consciously and willingly took part in detention ofcivilians in so-called “detention centres” and required from the commanders of“detention centres” to keep him informed on the conditions and number of detainedpersons, so that numerous civilians were detained, without any explanation of thereasons, to the facilities of Drmeljevo, Miljkovici-Valionica, Dubrave, Nepeke,Rasetin zid, Dolovi, Ponikve and since then “detention centres” have becomeconcentration camps so that the guards and camp personnel, contrary to Article 75.,76. and 77. of Supplementary Protocol to Geneva Convention on protection of victimsof international armed conflicts dated 12th of August, 1994 inhumanely treateddetained civilians, amongst them women, pregnant women, juvenile children, personswith acute diseases and persons over 60, including inadequate room in which theywere detained, low temperatures, no heating, insufficient food, lack of water, lack ofmeans for personal hygiene, lack of medical assistance and forcing of men to serve inthe armed forces of APWB:

C)0

m= tortured by policemen-guardians, investigators and third persons in such a way that

they were beaten by wooden bats, fists, feet, parts of personal armament, forced topass through the cordon on which occasion they were beaten by wooden and rubbersticks, amongst whom were the civilians: Nadarevic Arif, Feriz Alija, DizdarevicIzet, Omeragic Fata, Salkic Nura, Muselic Hasan, Kulic Salih, Duric Fatima, KekicVejza, Galijasevic Hasija, Mahmutovic Haso, Miljkovic Kasim, Djogic Rifet,Kapic Fikret, Karajic Ibrahim, Mahmutovic Sead, Sakinovic Sulejman, MackovicIsmet, Pehlic Hasan and Kadic Husein;

the following civilians were taken from Drmeljevo camp to “dispanzer”/HealthCentre: Cano Kasim, Odobasic Smail, Hozanovic Enver, Trivcic Emin, TrivcicEjub, Feriz Alija, Milak Mujo, Husic Semso, Dzanih Hasan, Redzic Emir, JusicMehmed and Adilagic Aziz, where they were accommodated in a small room withlack of light and air, and then beaten with wooden sticks on which occasion JusicMebmed was injured (arm fracture) and Adilagic Aziz (arm fracture);

beaten so heavily that Erdic Rasim, Kahric Selim and Keserovic Osman died frominjuries, while Alagic Farko, June Smiljan and Cano Enver died from injuries soonafter they left the camp;

= taken from Drmeljevo camp to forced labour in the area of Stari Grad and VelikaKladusa Municipality, where they were harassed in such a way that they wereforced to cut thorny bushes, shrubs and remove wastes, while running and withoutany tools, suffered thirst, while Sadikovic Enver and Okanovic Mujo werephysically assaulted, beaten, stripped and turned towards the sun and, after that,forced to lay on the ant-hill;

= they were forced to labour such is digging of trenches, engineering works on thelocations for the armed forces of the Serb and autonomous military units in the

t

vicinity of the line of separation from the units of BiH Army, as well as at the timeof fighting so that Rizvic Bajro, Miljkovic Kasim, Sabic Osman, Mackovic Ismet,Miljkovic Mehmed, Keserovic Besir and Kapic Fikret were killed while carryingout these works, while Trajkovic Sinisa was wounded,

thus, he committed criminal offence - war crime against civilian population as perArticle 142. Paragraph 1. of the Criminal Law,

so that, pursuant to the above mentioned legal regulation and applying Article 5., 33.,38. and 41. of the Criminal Law, the Court

SENTENCED HIM

TO IMOPRISONMENT OF TEN (10) YEARS

Pursuant to Article 50. of the Criminal Law, time spent in detention is included in 8sentenced imprisonment to the defendant, that is, as of 09.05.1997.

Pursuant to Article 98. Paragraph 4. of the Law on Criminal Procedure, the defendantis exempted from paying the costs of criminal proceedings and court fee, which willbe paid from the court budget. . . .

On the other hand, on the basis of Article 350 point 3 of the Law on CriminalProcedure (ZKP),

r

THE ACCUSED: DJEDOVIC IBRAHIM, personal details as aforementioned

IS ACQUITTED OF CHARGES

THAT HE:

2. In the same time period and in the same capacity, opposite to Article 3 paragraph 1of the item A and C III of the Geneva Convention on Treatment of Prisoners ofWar of 12 August 1949, issued an order to imprison the detained soldiers of theBiH Army in the camps where they were exposed to inhuman acts like beingaccommodated in inadequate and unheated cells, lacking sufficient clothes andblankets at low temperatures, being underfed, lacking water and hygienic means,being deprived of medical help;

• forced to serve the Army of the self-proclaimed Autonomous Province of theWestern Bosnia;

• exposed to physical ill-treatment in the way of being beaten; among them wereTalic Mirsad, Sulejmanagic Senad, Latic Hasan, Balic Zlatko, Palic Rasim, PehlicSaban, Cuturevic Muhamed, Sakinovic Ensad, Sakinovic Mirsad, Dolic Zuhdija,Gracanic Mehmed, Mahmutovic Senad, Hodzic Enes, Hadzipasic Enes, andHailcic Senad died due to injuries caused by ill-treatment.

I,

• questioned without being warned that they did not have to answer any questionexcept for giving personal details; they were not given the IDs; they were deprivedof having medical treatment and check-up at least once a month; they weredeprived of the right to appeal; they were unable to have representative of theprisoners of war and deprived of receiving salaries.

on the basis of which he would commit a criminal act of war crime against prisonersof war under Article 144 of the Criminal Code (KZ).

On the basis of Article 99 paragraph 1 of the ZKP, the expenses of thecriminal procedure in the discharging part of the judgement shall be born by thebudgetary funds of the court.

C)0

m

0CC)m

mCl)

0z

EXPLANATION-Im

The Cantonal Prosecutor’s Office in Sarajevo filed to this court an indictment numberKT 182/97 of 7 October 1997 charging the accused Djedovic Ibrahim with thecriminal act of war crime against civil population from Article 142 paragraph 1 of theKZ and with criminal act of war crime against prisoners of war from Article 144 ofthe KZ. The Cantonal Prosecutor’s Office in Sarajevo made the mentioned indictmentprecise regarding the state of fact on 21 September 1998 and proposed to proclaim theaccused person guilty and to punish him in accordance with the Law.

This court fulfilled the obligations set by the procedure and the instructions for filing acase to the International Criminal Court for the Fonner Yugoslavia in accordance withthe measures agreed on 18 February 1996 /“Rules of the Road”!. The Internationalcourt received the obtained documents before initiating criminal investigation and,after having insight into the aforementioned documents, the Prosecutor of theInternational Court informed this court on 24 March 1997 that this criminal case wasplaced in the category “A” of the standard marks and that the proofs submitted by thiscourt would be, according to the international standards, sufficient to provide areasonable basis for coming to the conclusion that the accused Djedovic hadcommitted a serious violation of the International Humanitarian Law. Also, afterhaving filed the indictment, this Court submitted to the International Court in Hag theentire act and this court was informed on 29 January 1998 that the Prosecutor of theInternational Court for War Crimes, after having insight into the proofs, placed this

criminal case in the category “A” of the standard marks and the proofs submitted andmarked by the Prosecutor were sufficient for having justified suspicion that theaccused Djedovic Ibrahim, according to international standards, had committedserious violations of the International Humanitarian Law.

The accused Djedovic Ibrahim stated in his defence that it was true that he had beenthe Chief of the Public Security Station of Velika Kiadusa in the period between 29January 1994 to 21 August 1994 and that according to the decision on his appointmentto this position, he had also been appointed Deputy Minister of Defence and Police ofthe Autonomous Province of the Western Bosnia (APZB), and that he had beenappointed by the Minister of Defence and Police of the Autonomous Province of theWestern Bosnia. He especially mentioned that he had been appointed Deputy Ministerof Defence and Police of the Autonomous Province of the Western Bosnia in chargeof police matters only formally, but that he had been actually acting as the Chief of thePublic Security Station of Velika Kiadusa only. Later on, on 12 November 1994 inthe so-called “II Autonomy”, he had been appointed the Officer of the OperationalInstructional Department of the Supreme Command of the Autonomous Province ofthe Western Bosnia, and that he had occupied that position until 5 December 1994,

C,when he had been replaced. On 5 December 1994 he had been appointed the Head ofthe Security Department of the Supreme Command of the People’s Defence APZBand remained there until 7 January 1995, when he had been replaced. His position hadbeen given to Rasidovic Resad. Furthermore, he stated that the he had been appointedthe Officer of the Instructional Department by the Head of the Supreme Command ofthe People’s Defence, Mustanagic Serif, and that he had been appointed the Head ofthe Security Department of the Supreme Command of the People’s Defence by FikretAbdic, President of the so-called APZB and Commander-in-Chief. Following theappointment for the Head of Security, he had been appointed the Head of theIntelligence Security Department of the Supreme Command of the People’s Defenceof APZB. He had remained there until 21 January 1995 when he had been replaced.After that, he had got a task to organize the system of the civil police, because all theactivities at that time had been within the area of responsibility of the military police.This act had been aimed at separating the military and civil police, but the process hadnever been accomplished and the aforementioned had never been realized. He alsomentioned that he had not contributed to the establishment of camps on the territory ofVelika Kiadusa, as well as to their organization and functioning and that he had neverhad anything to do with the camps. It is a fact that he knew about establishment of thecollective center “Drmeljevo” and the military prison “Miljkovici - Valionica”, whichhad been used for prisoners of war. He mentioned that he had never been in any of thecamps, that he had known nothing about the conditions in the camps, that he hadfound out about the existence of the camps mentioned in the indictment during theinvestigation itself, but that he had known about a camp called “Nepeke” and a prison“Hebina kuca”. He stated that he believed that those camps-prisons had been underauthority of military brigades located in those places and that he had had noauthorities or interferences over those camps, i.e. collective centers. As the Head ofSecurity of the Supreme Command of the People’s Defence, he had received reportsfrom the collective centers “Ponikve and Nepeke” for the period between 5 December1994 and 21 January 1995. He had never made any list of civilians or perhaps of someother persons to be detained and he had never issued an order to someone to do thiswork on his behalf. He had never dealt with detaining people in the mentionedcollective centers and prisons, as it is mentioned in the indictment, as well as he had

never prepared any documents for depriving any category of persons of freedom. Healso stated that he had never appointed heads of the mentioned collective centers orprisons and he had never either appointed guards or organized guarding service, and ifhe remembered well, the commanders of the police stations had been in charge of thisactivity and they had appointed the heads and guards of the collective centers andprisons, particularly of the camp “Drmeljevo”, following the order of the Chief ofPolice of Velika Kladusa.

As for the torturing and physical maltreatment of some individuals in detentioncenters and prisons , the defendant stated that he was not aware of the details relatedto the above mentioned facts, but that he knew that it was happening in Ponikve campand that he reacted and strongly opposed to these actions as well as that consideringall the offices that he performed he could not prevent these actions. He also opposedto forced labor of prisoners from “Drmeljevo”, and he was not aware of the facts thatsome individuals mentioned in the indictment were physically maltreated - beaten ,inother words, that some persons died or were killed as it was described in theindictment except for two cases related to Rasim Erdic and Osman Keserovic. He wasaware of the fact that two or three days after detention of Rasim Erdic in

“ 0Drmeljevo” detention camp, members of the “OBL” security unit took him to forcedlabor to Stan grad and that the order for these works was given by the Minister ofDefense and Police as well as that Rasim Erdic did not return alive from these worksand that it was only established that on that occasion he suffered a stroke. As forOsman Keserovic he was aware of the fact that “fire” was opened from the house ofOsman Keserovic when the special police unit of the Police Station from VelikaKiadusa tried to arrest him, and after that he was taken into the Police Station inVelika Kladusa and later he learned that the body of Osman Keserovic was transferredfrom the Police Station to the medical center in other words the doctor informed himthat Osman died of stroke or heart attack, meaning that the doctor could notpositively identify cause of death, meaning that there were no visible signs of injurieson the body of Osman Keserovic, so after that he went to the competent prosecutor’soffice , informed them about the case and requested them to take all actions withintheir competencies. He stated that he was not involved in the activities related toPOWs of the Army of R BiH during the period of so-called “I. Autonomy”, whilelater when he was in the capacity of the Head of Security Department of the SupremeCommand of National Defense he tried for all actions related to arrest to be organizedand carried out in a lawful manner, but that, in that period, he did not have anyinformation that some POWs were possibly physically maltreated or possibly thatsome of those imprisoned were killed. During the short period when he actually had acontact with prisoners he tried to fully implement laws, that is to say to provide theprisoners with all conditions related to food, medical treatment, in other words toimprove all conditions and to introduce individual “cards” for every POW. Duringthis period he tried to limit detaining of civilians to 72 hours in detention camps andthat was the reason for conflict with his superior and the reason for his removal fromthe Supreme Command of the National Defense. As for the order of the A P ZBGovernment dated June 17,1994 , the defendant stated that he was not ware of theorder, and that in accordance with the order he was not assigned any tasks and that hedid not issue any other orders based on this order. He stated that he did not sign theorder dated June 11, 1994 , No 12-8-2-547/94 and as for the report on numbers andclassification of persons in “Dimeljevo” center dated July 6,1994 he stated that it wastrue that he made the report and that he made it because he wanted to indicate all

irregularities which were happening at that time in order to “make up a fuss” aboutthe issue with this report. He did not receive the information on the visit to militaryprison “Dubrave” officially but he spoke with the president of the Court and on thatoccasion they concluded that the situation must be improved. He stated that it was truethat on December 4,1994 he gave the order No / 05-23/94/ to detention camp“Ponikve” to inform him on daily basis about situation, structure of prisoners and thathe did it because the above mentioned detention center was under the control of theCommand of the II Brigade of the National Defense and because “ all sort of thingswere happening” so in this manner he wanted to establish legal proceedings and thatlater these reports were sent to him on daily basis, actually during the period when hewas in capacity of Head of the Security of the Supreme Command of NationalDefense. He was not aware whether those who participated in detention of persons todetention centers were issuing any decisions so he only requested legality of work tobe ensured. He stated that he was familiar with a fact that the state of Bosnia andHerzegovina was internationally recognized and that considering his knowledge aboutthe situation, he made himself available to the Territorial Defense of the Republic ofBill , but at the end he was assigned compulsory work order in Agrokomerc“Transport” company in Velika Kiadusa. In the period of the “I. Autonomy” he was

C,not aware of, that is he did not notice, the presence of the members of so-called SÃOKrajina or members of former JNA. In the period of “II. Autonomy” there wererumors that instructors of the National Defense army of West Bosnia were Serbs buthe did not know where these people were coming from, and that only on twooccasions he had a contact with army officers who actually were commanders oftactical groups who were coming to report to the Supreme Command and thathappened during the period when he was the Head of Security. During the periodwhen he performed these duties he applied laws of the Autonomous Province of WestBosnia which practically were taken over from the Republic of Bosnia andHerzegovina and in that period he did not have a contact with the leadership of so-called SÃO Krajina, Serbia, Montenegro and Yugoslavia but he attended the militaryparade in so-called SAO Krajina because his superiors explicitly ordered him toattend the military parade and during the parade there were no contacts. As for theDecision on Proclamation of the State of War in R BiH he stated that he was familiarwith that fact but that he did not know when it was passed. After he took the office ofthe Head of the Police Station in Velika Kladusa he tried to put in order the policebecause numerous irregularities and illegal work were present and due to that he hadmany inconveniences and consequences to his personal security. So, he stated that heordered a ban for “long guns” in the city, he decreased number of police employees,dismissed all those who violated the law, introduced a curfew and similar things. Inthe period of “II. Autonomy” he insisted on the fact that all elderly and women shouldbe released from the detention center “Ponikve” but afterwards he found out that thiswas not fulfilled, that is to say that they failed to proceed accordingly, because ofwhich he went to the spot where he found out that there were many problems, so onthat occasion he had conflict with a person called Ulemekom, as well as that later hisrequest was fulfilled and that exactly in that period of time civilians were detained bymilitary police forces of the brigades and that he in the capacity of Head of theSecurity of the National Defense Supreme Command he was not informed about thatand that military police forces of the brigades made lists of persons to be arrested. Atthe end he stated that he was not aware of the fact that members of A P ZB NationalDefense possibly cooperated with various military, paramilitary Serb units of SÃOKrajina, Serbia and Montenegro. He stated that in the above mentioned period he did

not have any specific competencies related to BiH Army POWs , that he did not meetthem and that he was not issuing any orders as well as that he was not present whenallegedly imprisoned persons were working but once he saw works on regulation ofriver bed of Grabarska river. These works were carried out under the control of CivilDefense and, as far as he knew, in this case, work of POWs was approved by theCommander of the Supreme Command and then he insisted on the use of machines infuture in order to avoid abuse of prisoners and that at later stage his request waslargely fulfilled. Then he stated that he did not issue written document explicitlyordering detention of individuals who were direct or indirect supporters of the 5th

Corps of the BiH Army as well as that he received reports only from some detentioncenters during short period of time.

During the presentation of evidence, the Court presented its evidence by hearingtestimonies of the following witnesses: Mirsada Taric, Arifa Nadarevic, SamiraBegovic, Ajka Suman, Saliha Kudic, Mehmed Jusic, Senada Sulejmanagic, SeadMahmutovic, Semsudin Husic, Refik Sulejmanagic, Hasan Grahovic, Anisa Gracanin,Dervisa Ponjevic,Atifa Mujezinovic, Hasan Mehic, Kasima Miljkovic, SenijaMackovic, Dika Miljkovic, Rasima Sabic, Hasan Latic, Nurija Omanovic, Esadhodzic, Zemira Alicajic, Enes Hadzipasic, Enver Murgic, Enver Osmanovic, SeadSarajlija, Husein Kadic, Jasna Topcagic, Kasim Cano, Mirsad Ouric, Smail Odobasic,Rasim Redzic, Ejub Tricic, Miralem Hodzic, Alen Miljkovic, Zaim Sakanovic, SinisaTrajkovic, Alija Feriz, Edina Mezildzic, Hasan Museljic, Aziz Adilagic, SulejmanKendic, Rizah Grahovic, Rifet Djogic, Sulejman Sakinovic, Ramiz Drekovic, HuseinHadzic, Sulejman Bebric, Sejfa Mustafic, Ismet Husidic, Nijaz Muhanovic, AhmetHuskic, with the approval of Parties the Court made an insight into the Decision No:12-8/052-89/94 from March 9, 1994, the Order from June 11, 1994, the Order fromJune 11, 1994 No: 12-8-2-547/94, then made an insight into the Order No:12-8-2-611/94, made an insight into the Order No: 01-2-663/94 from July 2, 1994, made aninsight into the report from July 6, 1994 No: 01-2-692/94, made an insight into theOrder No: 01-2-721/94 from July 13, 1994, made an insight into the Information No:01-2-754/94 from July 17, 1994, made an insight into the Instruction No: 01-2-784/94from July 19, 1994, made an insight into the report No: 01-2-935/94 from Aug 17,1994, made an insight into the proposition of measures from Oct 18, 1994, made aninsight into the report from Dec 8, 1994, made an insight into the request No: 05/228-1 from Dec 10, 1994, made an insight into the Order No: 05/234-1 from Dec 11, 1994,made an insight into the information No: SU-6/94 from Dec 19, 1994, made an insightinto the Order No: 05/3 13 from Dec 20, 1994, made an insight into the InformationNo: SU-4/94 from Dec 30, 1994, made an insight into the distribution of operationalofficer-on-duty in “Nepeke” on Jan 28, 1995 No: 01-3-SP-3/95, made an insight intothe report No: 04/3-29 from Feb 4, 1995, made an insight into the Request from Feb10, 1995 No: 04/505-1, made an insight into the Approval No: 303/95, from March12, 1995, made an insight into the Decree No: 01/227-1/95 from March 20, 1995,made an insight into the Information No: SU: 252/95 from April 23, 1995, made aninsight into the Note from the meeting from May 28, 1995, made an insight into theCheck of Data issued on July 11, 1995 No: 04/2-SP-88/95, made an insight into thecopy of the Official Gazette from Jan 22, 1994 No: 03/1-017-131/94 / number of theDecision!, made an insight into the Order No: 12-8-2-585/94 from June 20, 1994,made an insight into the Order No: 0 1/355-1 from Dec 25, 1994, made an insight intothe requests from Dec 28 and Dec 30 1994, made an insight into the delivery of thelist from Jan 1, 1995, made an insight into the report from June 16, 1995 No: 285/95,

made and insight into the Order No: 05-23/94 from Dec 04, 1994, made an insightinto the report of the Detention Center “Ponikve” No: 01/94 from Dec 4, 1994 NO:02/94 from Dec 5, 1994, No:03/94 from Dec 6, 1994, No: 5/94 from Dec 7, 1994, No:9/94 from Dec 8, 1994, No: 15/94 from Dec 9, 1994, No: 21/94 from Dec 9, 1994,No: 22/94 from Dec 10, 1994, No: 23/94 from Dec 11, 1994, No: 26/94 from Dec 13,1994, No: 36/94 from Dec 14, 1994, No: 48/94 from Dec 21, 1994, No: 37/94 fromDec 15, 1994, No: 39/94 from Dec 16, 1994, No: 40/94 from Dec 17, 1994, No: 41/94from Dec 18, 1994, No: 46/94 from Dec 19, 1994, No: 47/94 from Dec 20, 1994, No:50/94 from Dec 22, 1994, No: 53/94 from Dec 23, 1994, made an insight into thereport of the Detention Center “Nepeke” No: 54/94 from Dec 24, 1994, No: 60/94from Dec 28, 1994, No: 61/94 from Dec 29, 1994, No: 95/95 from Jan 4, 1995, No:7/95 from JaN 6, 1995, No: 14/95 from Jan 6, 1995, No: 22/95 from Jan 15, 1995, No:25/95 from Jan 17, 1995, No: 33/95 from Jan 21, 1995, No: 46/95 from Jan 29, 1995,No: 85/95 from Feb 17, 1995, No: 102/95 from Feb 25, 1995, made an insight into thereports of the detention Center “Dolovi from May 21, 1995, July 22, 1995, July 23,1995 and July 27, 1995, made an insight into the list of detained persons, made aninsight into the certificate from Aug 5, 1995, made an insight into the excerpt from theprotocol of the Urgent Medical Center from July 17, 1997, made an insight into theexcerpt from the protocol from July 17, 1997 (for Trajkovic Sinisa), made an insight 8into the medical documentation- report from Aug 5, 1997, made an insight into theprotocol of the Urgent Medical Center from Feb 17, 1997, made an insight into thedata from te protocol of the Health Center from July 17, 1997 for Osman Sabic, IsmetMackovic, Osman Keserovic and Mehmed Miljkovic, made an insight into the photo-documentation, made an insight into the Decision from Feb 23, 1994, made an insightinto the decision from March 20, 1994, made an insight into the Decision from Aug13, 1’994, made an insight into the decision from Nov 22, 1993, made an insight intothe Initiative on establishment of the Autonomous Province, made an insight into thereport from March 4, 1995, made an insight into the Order of the SupremeCommandeer from Jan 18, 1995, , made an insight into the Elaborate on ProvidingSecurity in the Detention Center from Dec 20, 1994, made an insight into the Decisionfrom May 9, 1994, made an insight into the decision from June 11, 1994 and Aug 13,1994, made an insight into the Order of the Supreme Commandeer from Nov 28,1994, made an insight into the Minutes on Transfer of Responsibilities from Nov 29,1994, made an insight into the decision on Organising the Board from April 30, 1995,made an insight into the Report from July 20, 1995, made an insight into deathcertificates for Rasim Erdic, Selima Kahric, Osman Sabic, Ismet Mackovic, MehmedMiljkovic, Kasim Miljkovic and Bajro Rizvic, made an insight into the Decision fromJan 22, 1994, made an insight into the document No: 934/95 from July 21, 1995,made an insight into the joint statement from Oct 21, 1993, made an insight into theAgreement from Feb 24, 1994, made an insight into the Declaration from Oct 22,1993, made an insight into the Decision No: 0 1-9/94 from Dec 8, 1993, made aninsight into the Minutes from Dec 3, 1993, then Minutes from Dec 21, 1993, made aninsight into the Report from Dec 20, 1994, made an insight into the document fromJuly 18, 1995, made an insight into the document No: 19/1-95 from May 14, 1995,made an insight into the document No: 03/231-347 from July 3, 1995, made an inisghtinto the document No: 03/26 1 from June 27, 1995, made an insight into the documentNo: 157/62 from Jan 12, 1995, made an insight into the document No: 01-11-2/94from Oct 15, 1994, made an insight into the document No: 01-17/93 from Oct 31,1993, listened directly to coyrt medicine expert, Dr. Ilijas Dobraca, made an insightinto the daily report of the Detention Center “Ponikve” for Nov 30, 1994, Dec 2,

1994, Dec 3, 1994, Dec 4, 1994, Dec 5, 1994, made an insight into the list of personssent to the prison “Ponikve” from Dec 11, 1994, made an insight into the report of thedetention Center “Ponikve” from Dec 12, 1994, made an insight from Dec 16, 1994,made an insight into the report of the Detention Center “Nepeke” for Dec 25, 1994,Dec27, 1994,Dec3O, 1994,Jan5, 1995,Jan 11, 1995 ,Jan 16, 1995,Jan2O, 1995,Jan 28, 1995, Feb 16, 1995 and Feb 24, 1995, made an insight into the subject ofdetention from the detentiion Center “Nepeke” from Jan 29, 1995, made an insightinto the Order No: 04/3-740-1 from March 9, 1995, made an insight into the Minutesfrom June 27, 1995, made an insight into the death report for members of the 5th CorpsNo: 05/101-610 from July 20, 1995, made an insight into the Official Note of theHigher Court of West Bosnia from Aug 1, 1995, made an insight into the Informationon Visiting farm DOL No: 266/95 from May 26, 1995, made an insight into the dataon hiring persons for Nov 27, 1994, made an insight into the request for assigningprisoners from Dec 27, 1994, made an insight into the request for approving prisonersfrom Dec 30, 1994, made an insight into the Report on hiring persons for some workson Nov 30, 1994, made an insight into the request for works for Jan 1, 1995, Jan 2,1995, Jan 6, 1995, Jan 6, 1995 No: E-P.03/5-1, made an insight into the approval forworks from March 22, 1995, made an insight into the request for works in the headingof the document with no number or date / it is related to Jan 1, 1995/, made an insightinto the Information on isolation of persons No: 12-8-2-607/94 from June 24, 1994,made an insight into the Information on delivery of data No: 0 1-2-753/94 from July17, 1994, made an insight into the Information on isolation of persons No: 01-2-649from July 1, 1994, made an insight into the Information No: 01-2-664/94, made aninsight into the Information No: 01-2-754/94 from July 17, 1994, made an insight intothe Report No: 01-2-935/94 from Aug 17, 1994, made an insight into the letter of theICTY Hague from March 24, 1997 and the letter of the said Court from Jan 29, 1998,after which the Court assessed the presented evidence separately, as well as in theirmutually connection, as well as it assessed the same evidence in the framework of thedefense of the defendant, after which it passed the above mentioned Verdict out of thefollowing reasons:

Namely, in regard to the part of the Verdict related to sentence it is indisputable thatthe accused was in the capacity of the Head of the Police Station Velika Kiadusafrom Jan 1994 to Aug 21, 1994 and that at the same time he was in the capacity of theDeputy Defense and Police Minister in charge of police matters. Furthermore it isindisputable that the defendant carried out responsibilities of a member of theSupreme Command of the self-proclaimed Autonomous Province West Bosnia. Thesefacts arise not only from the statements of the defendant’s defense but also out ofobjective evidence in the documents, that is decisions of the AP WB Government No:03/1-017-3/94 from Jan 22, 1994, the Order of the Supreme Commandeer of theNational Defense No: 01/139-1 from Nov 28, 1994, which appointed the defendantfor the acting Head of the Security Department within the Supreme Command of theNational Defense, as well as the Order of the Supreme Commandeer of the NationalDefense West Bosnia No: 02/5-49-12 from Jan 18, 1995, which appointed thedefendant to the office of the Head of the Security-Intelligence Department within theSupreme Command of the National Defense. But according to the quotations of thedefendant’s defense, the period in which he was in the capacity of a member of theSupreme Command as the Security Head and the Head of the Security-IntelligenceDepartment within the Supreme Command of the National Defense was disputable, so

the defendant stated that he had actually performed these functions from Dec 7, 1994till Jan 25, 1995, when he had been dismissed from these offices.

These statements of the defendant’s defence were not accepted by the court sincethese statements of defense have no basis in the presented evidence, and the courtdocuments show that they are in contradiction with the above mentioned objectiveevidence, i.e. the orders which clearly prove when the defendant was appointed toperform the mentioned duties, and when he took over the duty. It’s a fact that there isno act on the dismissing the defendant from these duties in the Supreme Command,but it is clear that there are documents signedlissued by the defendant, where the dutyof the defendant on the occasion of issuing of those documents was mentioned, so thatit is obvious that the defendant performed the duties of a member of the SupremeCommand of National Defense until July 1995, which is clear from the information ofthe defendant sent to the Government of Western Bosnia no. 934/95 from 21 July1995 (it is the document under the title “Changes Regarding the Crossing of the StateBorder and Movement Through the Republic of Serb Krajina”), where it is clearlystated that the mentioned information was issued by the national defense of WesternBosnia-- the head of the intelligence department, i.e. the defendant, as well as fromthe request of the defendant from 10 Feb. 1995, no. 04/505-1 that was signed by thedefendant in the same capacity, and from the report that the defendant sent to theCommission for prisoners exchange no. 04/2-SP-88/95, from 11 July 1995, which thedefendant signed in the capacity of the head of the intelligence department of theSupreme Command of National Defense.

It is disputable whether the defendant ordered detention of persons who were judgedto be potentially of direct or indirect help to “the extreme part of 5th Corps” as is statedin the indictment, and whether the defendant in this way took part with members ofmilitary and civil security in detaining civilians in the so called “Isolation Centers,”i.e. the camps. Namely, the defendant precisely stated that he had neither ordered forany lists to be made according to which the arrests of civilians and other personswould be eventually made, nor had he ordered someone else to do it on his behalf, andeventually, that he had nothing to do with arrests as it was stated in the indictment.These statements of the defense were also not accepted by the court since thesestatements have no basis in the evidence presented in the court documentation, and thecourt therefore judged them as unfounded and obviously aimed at having him(Dj edovic) evade criminal responsibility in the concrete case. From the evidencepresented it is clear that the defendant ordered the making of lists of persons who“support the policy of 5th Corps and work intensively to undermine the system ofauthorities of AP WB,” and that he also ordered the police to make those listsalthough the security department was assigned to make those lists, but he still orderedit because of the “extraordinary” circumstances, which can all be seen from theinformation on isolation of persons on the free territory of AP WB no. 12-8-2-607/94from 24 June 1994. From this information it is also obvious that the isolation ofpersons was ordered according to the lists, and that the warehouse on the farm“Drmeljevo” was set to be used for isolation, and that the facility in Drmeljevo was tobe protected by four guards and a head of security; also, a phone line with the policestation in Velika Kiadusa was established (operational duty officer), which createdpossibility of a quicker intervention of police. The mentioned information wasdrafted and signed by the defendant in the capacity of a Deputy Defense and PoliceMinister. The report on the number and classification of persons in the isolation

center “Drmeljevo” that was also signed by the defendant in the capacity of the headof police station Velika Kladusa no. 01-2-692/94 from 6 July 1994, states that thedefendant stated in that report (sic.) that it was necessary to isolate a number ofpersons who were judged to be of potential direct or indirect help to the forces of“extreme part0f5th Corps BiH Army;” furthermore, the same report states that on 11June 1994, the arrests began according to precise lists and that internationalorganizations exerted pressure on West Bosnia authorities on several occasions in thatperiod because of the isolation of these persons, by sending out protests in which theystated that according to international conventions, the mentioned persons may not beisolated. The report on the isolation of persons on the free territory of AP WB no. 01-2-935/94 from 17 August 1994, states that the security department did not fulfill itsobligations within the agreed time limit, as regards the creation of lists of politicaldelinquents who were under reasonable doubt that they offered support to “theextreme part of the SDA leadership and the 5th Corps BiH Army,” and that theyworked intensely to undermine legal authorities of AP WB, because of which thepolice sector was the one to take up the obligation/order of the defendant regardingthe police sector, which can be seen in the information from 24 June 1994 as well asthe fact that the lists at the time were made in all police precincts of the police station

C,Velilca Kladusa and Cazin, and that arrests were made according to the existing plansby members of all police stations on their respective territory. The mentioned reportwas drafted and signed by the defendant Djedovic Ibrahim. Also, it is clear from theinformation regarding arrests of persons to be isolated no. 0 1-2-664/94 from 2 July1994, that the police station Velika Kladusa started to arrest persons according to listsmade by themselves through their operational work, and to detain them in theisolation center “Drmeljevo” (information on that was drafted and signed by thedefendant).

Regarding this, one should bear in mind the order issued by the head of police stationVelika Kiadusa no. 12-8-2-547/94 from 11 June 1994 (i.e. the defendant) whichrepresents de facto implementation of the order issued by the AP WB Government no.03/1-017-2290/94 from 11 June 1994, where it is clear that the police precincts of thepolice station Velika Kladusa should undertake prevention measures of arresting anddetaining persons who “threaten the public security,” and that these persons should bethen put in the “Drmelj evo” facility, and that the arrests should start on 11 June 1994.The order of the WB Government from 11 June 1994 passed at the extraordinarygovernment session at the proposal of the Defense and Police Ministry states that theorder enters into force on the day of its passage, i.e. on 11 June 1994, and that theDefense and Police Ministry was to implement it. Point 1 of this order states clearlythat the measure of tightened supervision, including the measure of total restriction ofmovement should be applied to all persons who happen to be on the territorycontrolled by legal authorities of AP ZP, and aid with their open actions, or cooperate, with the army or police of the extreme part of SDA from the occupied partsof the Province.

Bearing in mind the aforementioned, the Court is of the opinion that the defendant,being in the capacity of the head of the police station Velika Kladusa and DeputyDefense and Police Minister, himself implemented the order of the so-called AP WBGovernment (from 11 June 1994) in the critical period, by ordering that the policesector make lists of persons “who are judged to be potential direct or indirect helpersof the forces of the extreme part of 5th Corps at a given moment,” and detain them in

the isolation centers, i.e. camps, which is obvious from the aforementionedinformation and orders issued and signed by the defendant. One should also bear inmind that the lists of civilians were made and that these people were eventuallyarrested by the policemen of the police station Velika Kiadusa, and that these actionswere performed without a legal basis, illegally and without an explanation, whichresulted in the detention of numerous civilians in the camps of”Drmeljevo,”“Miljkovici-hatchery,” “Dubrave,” “Nepeke,” “Raseta’ s Wall,” “Dolovi,” “Ponikve.”It is clear from the statements of heard witnesses who were detained in these campsthat they were detained without any reason, that they were arrested at home and takento the camps, and that most arrests were performed by the police from the policeprecincts within the police station Velika Kiadusa. Furthermore, the statements ofthese witnesses say that there were elderly persons in those camps, older than 60,pregnant women, women with children, sick people, minors, and that there were casesof men and women being detained together. It is clear from their statements whatkind of conditions were in those camps: the witnesses stated that there was no heating,that food was insufficient, water was lacking as well as means for personal hygiene,medical aid even in the simplest form, and especially that they were physically andpsychologically tortured by the staff of the camp and other persons who were incontact with the detainees, without any attempt to prevent that.

m

It transpires from the statements of the heard witnesses that the detainees weretortured by policemen - guards and investigator, namely: Arif Nadaravic, Alija Feriz,Izet Dizdarevic, Fata Omeragic, Nura Salkic, Hasan Museijic, Salih Kulic, FatimaDuric, Vejza Kekic, Hasija Galijasevic, Haso Mahmutovic, Kasim Miljkovic, RifetDjogic, Fikret Kapic, Ibrahim Karajic, Sead Mahmutovic, Sulejman Sakinovic, IsmetMackovic, Husein Pehlic and Husein Kandic who stated clearly how they werebeaten, who concretely harassed them on what occasion and what injuries they hadsustained. It further transpires from the heard witnesses that a certain number ofdetainees who were in the “Drmeljevo” camp were taken to a dispensary and thesepeople are : Kasim Cano, Smail Odobasic, Enver Hozanovic, Emin Trivic, EjubTrvcic, Alija Feriz, Mujo Bjelak, Smail Husic, Hasan Pjanic, Emir Redzic, MebmedHusic and Aziz Adilagic, and these people were physically harassed so that many ofthem sustained injuries: Mebmed Jusic sustained a hand injury and Aziz Adilagic alsoa hand injury. The witnesses stated that the majority of the witnesses, in other words,detainees, had died in the detention- camp of the inflicted injuries and these peopleare: Rasim Erdic, Scum Kahric and Osman Keserovic, and that a number of themsustained such injuries in the detention that they died upon their release from thecamp: Fako Alijagic, Smiljan Juric and Enver Cano. During their stay in the camp themajority of the prisoners in “Drmeljevo” were taken to work in the area of the OldTown in the Velika Kiadusa Municipality; during this work these people werephysically harassed in different ways and they were forced to dig trenches, improvethe combat positions, even Serb ones, as well as the formations of the Western BosniaNational Defence Units not only in the deep background but also in the vicinity of thefront lines with the Army of the R BiH so that the work was often done duringfighting when the following people lost their lives: Bajro Rizvic, Kasim Miljkovic,Osman Sabic, Ismet Mackovic, Mehmed Miljkovic, Besir Keserovic and Fikret Kapicwhile some of them were wounded like Sinisa Trajkovic. The Court accepted fullythe statements of the witnesses and judged them as credible and plausible andconsistent with each other and corroborated with objective evidence, ie, reports of theCamp Warden of “Ponikve”, “Nepeke”, and “Dolovi”, International Committee of the

Red Cross, information of the Court President on the occasion of the visits paid to thecamp, medical information, and findings and opinions of the forensic expert IlijasDobraca, death certificate, request for approval to take the prisoners to work andapproval of these requests, order No 12-8-2-585/94 dated 20 June 1994,photodocumentation and the statements of the Defendant. The Defendant stated in hisdefence that he issued the order No 05-23/94 dated 4 December 1994 to the effect thatall Centres-Camps’s Wardens were required to submit reports every day at 0700 hoursto the Security Unit on the condition of detainees which contained the number ofdetainees, structure of persons who were detained in terms of men, women, minors,people over 60 years of age, deceased, mature pregnancies and also how many enemysoldiers there were and civilians among the detainees. The same order states that thisinformation should be supplied on the Collection Centres “Dubrave” and CollectionCentre “Ponikve”. It is a fact that after this order the Collection Centres “Ponikve”,“Nepeke” and “Dolovi” submitted daily the requested information regarding thedetainees, and we mean here the reports to which the Court had access during thepresentation of evidence so that the requested information is all stated and also othercircumstances on the occasion of bringing these people to these Camps starting fromwho arrested them, what concretely happened to them and what body carried out the

0proceedings of interrogation, etc. The witness statements are based also on the reportsof the International Committee of the Red Cross which state the circumstances in theCamps and even the Defendant, in his report dated 6 July 1994 No 0 1-2-592/94, statedthat the international aid organisations sent protests against internment of these peopleand pointed at the fact that there were no grounds for isolations of these people. Theinformation of the Higher Court of AP ZB No SU -4/94 dated 30 December 1994clearly shows that, on the occasion of the visit to the Valionica Prison and CollectionCentre “Nepeke”, there were irregularities evident and it was also stated that theconditions were not adequate and that it was evident that various groups of peoplewere found in the vicinity of the Prison who harassed and tortured the detainees, andthere was special note of the irregularities of the Collection Centre “Nepeke” whereillegality was far more present and there were over 700 persons detained on the day ofthe visit. It is further clear from the evidence that these persons went to work which isvisible from the request for approval of he works and from the order issued by theChief of Police No 12-8-2-585/94 dated 20 June 1994 which states that the workforcefor position improvement was to be taken from the“Drmeljevo” Camp in the total of 50 persons/ Point 2 of the mentioned order/. Themedical documentation of the case file and the findings and opinion of the forensicexpert Dr Ilijas Dobraca shows clearly that the injuries sustained by certain personsand the causes of death for specific persons are stated in the medical documentationand the finding and opinion was fully accepted by the Court since it did not containany inconsistencies or shortcomings and there were no doubts of their accuracy either.

It is evident form the statements of the heard witnesses who were detained and whostated that these were camps with very harsh conditions of living that the facilities inwhich civilians were detained virtually functioned as prisoner camps and also thatthese facilities were under control of armed guards and they were physically fencedoff and the same transpires from the objective evidence of this file, that is, the reportof the Camp Warden, report of the ICRC, report of the Court President, andinformation, notification and orders which were signed by the Defendant and issuedwith numbers and dates. Upon the proposal of the defence the Court presentedevidence by the hearing of the witnesses Husein Hadzic, Sulejman Bebric, Sejfo

<fr

‘.

Mustafic, Ismet Kudusic, Nijaz Nuhanovic and Ahmet Huskic, whose statements werejudged by the Court equally as the other evidence presented to the Court, and theCourt is of the opinion that the content of the statements of the witnesses could nothave any influence on the factual state of affairs of the conviction itself since thewitnesses stated overall facts not knowing important facts regarding the conditions inthe camp and the possible irregularities in the camp and the concrete role of theDefendant in all of this, and the statement of the facts by these witnesses how theDefendant tried to establish the legality in the work inside SJB Bosnia VelikaKiadusa, that is, the functioning of the camps is in the opinion of this Court acircumstance which does not have any significance for the existence of the crime andcriminal responsibility of the Defendant in this concrete case. This Court also rejectedduring the process the motions of the defence which were stated in the trial solutionsfor reasons that the majority of these solutions in the opinion of the Court, which wererequests for additional documents, did not refer to the criminal case while thepresentation of other subjective evidence /witnesses/ in the opinion of the Court wasnot required because their hearing was virtually unnecessary since the evidence waspresented afready and the Court viewed it, and which is all explained in trial solutionsduring the main trial.

0

Judging the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the actions of the Defendantinclude all important features of a commission of a criminal act of war crime againstcivilian population under Article 142 Paragraph 1 of the Penal Code because ittranspires from the determined facts that the Defendant, through the commission ofthe described actions, breached the regulations of the Geneva Convention TV on theprotection of civilians in war time from 1949, namely, Articles 146 and 147. ThisCourt further considers it proven that the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina constitutedand act of aggression committed by the Yugoslav Army of SR Yugoslavia! Serbia andMontenegro/, therefore concluding that it was an international armed conflict whichjustified the application of the additional protocol of the Geneva Convention of 12August 1949 on the protection of the victims of international armed conflicts. Theattack on the R Bill was factually carried out on 4 April 1992 and the fact ofaggression was confirmed later in a UN Resolution No 752 of 18 May 1992, whichwas adopted by the Security Council and also by the London Conference held underthe organisation of the UN and the British Government in 1992, where SR Yugoslavia/Serbia and Montenegro! were specified as aggressor against the independentRepublic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The decision on the declaration of a state ofwar, which was made on 20 June 1992 by the Presidency of the Republic of Bosniaand Herzegovina, also states that this was an act of aggression against the Republic ofBosnia and Herzegovina by Serbia and Montenegro / SR Yugoslavia!, YugoslavNational Army and terrorists of the Serb Democratic Party, which decision also startsfrom the fact that the aggression was determined by the Resolution 752 adopted by theSecurity Council of the UN. Within this one should bear in mind the armed conflictbetween the units of the Army of R BiH and the units of the National Defence ofWestern Bosnia and the connection of the units of the National Defence and thecivilian structures with the military formations of the Yugoslav Army and the Armyof the so-called Republic of Serb Krajina and other paramilitary Serb formations, sothis conflict should be viewed within the context of the aggression against our countrywhich was led as formerly described because this armed conflict was staged andsupported by the aggressor against our country.

The fact that there was co-operation of military and civilian structures of thegovernment of the so-called AP ZB with the aggressor clearly results from thepresented evidence in the file, i.e. from the statements of the heard witnesses, reportsof camp wardens submitted to the National Defence of Zapadna Bosna (NO ZB),more precisely to the Supreme Command of the Security Unit (where the defendantwas deployed), which were submitted in accordance with an order of the defendant of4 December 1994, as well as from the document the defendant issued on 4 December1994, and from the document the defendant issued under No. 934/95 of 21 July 1995,the report of 22 December 1993, the Declaration of 22 October 1993, the Agreementof 24 February 1994, and the defence of the defendant. It is evident from thestatements of the heard witnesses Senad Sulejmanovi}, Sead Mahmutovi}, SulejmanKendi}, Anisa Ga—anin, Rifet \ogi}, Hasan Mehi}, Mirsad Tali}, Salih Kudi}, SamirBegovi} and Mehnied Ju{i} that some detainees were examined by members of theSerb police, that some prisoners were taken to SAO Krajina, as well as that policemenfrom the so-called SÃO Krajina came to “Dubrave” prison and beat prisoners, and thatit was done by members of the Serb Army. Further, it results from the statements ofthe said witnesses that some members of special units from Serbia came and beatprisoners, that they wore camouflage uniforms with Serb symbols, as well as that C,there were joint actions of units of the NO of the so-called AP ZB and the so-calledSerb Army against ARBiH units. Thus, the said witnesses stated that there was a jointguard organised by the Serb Army and NO units and that the lines of defence of theNO towards the Serb Army were suspended and were only established towardsARBiH units. It is evident from the report of the warden of “Ponikve” collectioncentre of 7 December 1994 that Omer Me {an was brought to the “Ponikve” collectioncentre on 7 December 1994 by Banija Corps Police (the Army of the so-calledRepublic of Srpska Krajina), as well as on that occasion Dervi { Dizdarevi} was alsobrought to the same camp by members of the Banija Corps. The said reportparticularly notes (p.4.) that the detainees No. 4 and 13 were immediately sent to thefrontline with NO and Banija Corps soldiers. It is evident from the report of 8December 1994, No. 05-94, that the detainees Zlatko Pa{i}, Suljo Jufurovi} and MujoPehli} were examined by the Banija Corps Police, who then took them to the“Ponikve” camp. Further, it is evident from the report of 21 December 1994, No.48/94, that Sead Rizvi}, Meho Ibrad’i} and Zijad Osman—evi} were injured uponarrest and then taken to the “Ponikve” camp, and that 19 persons, mainly elderly andwomen, were released from the said camp upon approval by the Head of Security ofthe Supreme Command, Ibrahim \edovi}, and Colonel Ulemek (who was a Serbofficer, according to the statements of the witnesses and the defendant). Also, thereport of 15 December 1994, No. 37/94, states that Abdulah Kurti} and Nijaz Duki}were at the Command of the Army of the so-called Republika Srpska Krajina and thatthey were examined and then taken to the “Ponikve” collection centre. It is evidentfrom the report of 22 December 1994 No. 50/94 that certain persons were releasedfrom the “Ponikve” camp at the request of the Tactical Group 2, Du{an Davidovi}, aswell as of the “Pauk” Command, and with approval of the operation security officersof the NO Supreme Command. It is evident from the Notification No. 954/93 of 21July 1995, issued and signed by the Head of the Supreme Command Intelligence-Security Unit, Ibrahim \edovi}, that there was such co-operation. It is clearly statedthat wounded soldiers can without approval cross the state border and pass through theso-called Republika Srpska Krajina to the hospital of the final destination, that thoseseverely wounded who are sent to further medical treatment in Banja Luka useapprovals signed by the Chief of Staff of the “Pauk” Command, and that for all

The fact that there was co-operation of military and civilian structures of thegovernment of the so-called AP ZB with the aggressor clearly results from thepresented evidence in the file, i.e. from the statements of the heard witnesses, reportsof camp wardens submitted to the National Defence of Zapadna Bosna (NO ZB),more precisely to the Supreme Command of the Security Unit (where the defendantwas deployed), which were submitted in accordance with an order of the defendant of4-December 1994, as well as from the document the defendant issued on 4 December1994, and from the document the defendant issued under No. 934/95 of 21 July 1995,the report of 22 December 1993, the Declaration of 22 October 1993, the Agreementof 24 February 1994, and the defence of the defendant. It is evident from thestatements of the heard witnesses Senad Sulejmanovi}, Sead Mahmutovi}, SulejmanKendi}, Anisa Gaanin, Rifet \ogi}, Hasan Mehi}, Mirsad Tali}, Salih Kudi}, SamirBegovi} and Mehmed Ju{i} that some detainees were examined by members of theSerb police, that some prisoners were taken to SAO Krajina, as well as that policemenfrom the so-called SAO Krajina came to “Dubrave” prison and beat prisoners, and thatit was done by members of the Serb Army. Further, it results from the statements ofthe said witnesses that some members of special units from Serbia came and beatprisoners, that they wore camouflage uniforms with Serb symbols, as well as that

C,there were joint actions of units of the NO of the so-called AP ZB and the so-calledSerb Army against ARBiH units. Thus, the said witnesses stated that there was a jointguard organised by the Serb Army and NO units and that the lines of defence of theNO towards the Serb Army were suspended and were only established towardsARBiH units. It is evident from the report of the warden of “Ponikve” collectioncentre of 7 December 1994 that Omer Me {an was brought to the “Ponikve” collectioncentre on 7 December 1994 by Banija Corps Police (the Army of the so-calledRepublic of Srpska Krajina), as well as on that occasion Dervi { Dizdarevi} was alsobrought to the same camp by members of the Banija Corps. The said reportparticularly notes (p.4) that the detainees No. 4 and 13 were immediately sent to thefrontline with NO and Banija Corps soldiers. It is evident from the report of 8December 1994, No. 05-94, that the detainees Zlatko Pa{i}, Suljo jufurovi} and MujoPehli} were examined by the Banija Corps Police, who then took them to the“Ponikve” camp. Further, it is evident from the report of 21 December 1994, No.48/94, that Sead Rizvi}, Meho Ibrad’i} and Zijad Osman—’evi} were injured uponarrest and then taken to the “Ponikve” camp, and that 19 persons, mainly elderly andwomen, were released from the said camp upon approval by the Head of Security ofthe Supreme Command, Ibrahim \edovi}, and Colonel Ulemek (who was a Serbofficer, according to the statements of the witnesses and the defendant). Also, thereport of 15 December 1994, No. 37/94, states that Abdulah Kurti} and Nijaz Duki}were at the Command of the Army of the so-called Republika Srpska Kraj ma and thatthey were examined and then taken to the “Ponikve” collection centre. It is evidentfrom the report of 22 December 1994 No. 50/94 that certain persons were releasedfrom the “Ponikve” camp at the request of the Tactical Group 2, Du{an Davidovi}, aswell as of the “Pauk” Command, and with approval of the operation security officersof the NO Supreme Command. It is evident from the Notification No. 954/93 of 21July 1995, issued and signed by the Head of the Supreme Command IntelligenceSecurity Unit, Ibrahim \edovi}, that there was such co-operation. It is clearly statedthat wounded soldiers can without approval cross the state border and pass through theso-called Republika Srpska Krajina to the hospital of the final destination, that thoseseverely wounded who are sent to further medical treatment in Banja Luka useapprovals signed by the Chief of Staff of the “Pauk” Command, and that for all

persons sent to hospitals in Belgrade requests are submitted to the said Unit, providedthat the request is verified by the Cabinet of the President of the so-called AP ZB,Fikret Abdi}. The defendant himself said in his defence that it was said that during theperiod of the so-called “Second Autonomy” the instructors in NO units would beSerbs. However, he was not aware of where they would be coming from or that hewas in contact with two officers who were actually commanders of tactical groups andwho came to report to the NO AP ZB.

In particular, one should take into account that the defendant himself, in the abovementioned conditions and circumstances and with the above-mentioned duties,ordered actual deportation of civilians to concentration camps, i.e. ordered the policesector to produce lists of persons who were to be arrested, and that those persons werethen arrested according to the lists, at the very time when the defendant was the Headof the Velika Kladu{a Public Security Station and Deputy Minister of Defence andPolice for Police Affairs. Many civilians were in that way detained in the said campswith no legal grounds and then psychologically and physically harassed, injured andkilled, as stated in the verdict, by guards, camp staff and others who came to thecamp, thus violating Articles 75, 76 and 77 of the Supplementary Protocol of theGeneva Convention of 12 August 1949 on Protection of Victims of internationalarmed conflicts, defendant was aware of as in his defence stated that there were someirregularities in “Drneljevo”, and from the witnesses’ testimonies, who stated that incertain situations they saw the defendant coming to the camps for a short time, andfrom the report of the manager of the camp and other objective evidence from the file.This court in the proceedings established that the defendant by its actions, such asgiving orders for detaining civilians in the camps, committed a crime from Article 142Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, actually its first form which means “ordering”.

From the evidence presented in the probative proceedings arises that the defendant onthe critical occasion was behaving with direct mediation which means that he wasaware of his actions, as well as that due to the fashion of approaching the execution hewanted to cause a forbidden consequence, bearing in mind the fact that he was aprofessional soldier, which means that he had more knowledge on the way howsoldiers should treat civilians during an armed conflict, and also he was familiar withother facts and circumstances, that is that the Republic of BiH became an independentand sovereign state and that it was in the state of war.

Taking into consideration established state of affairs, the consequence, and the causalrelation between them, the court found him guilty and pronounced a sentence of ten(10) year imprisonment for the criminal acts committed, considering that the samekind of criminal sanction, i.e. the pronounced sentence to imprisonment, isproportionate to an extremely high social danger arising from the committed actwhich reflects in a large volume of similar cases during the war, i.e. during theaggression, so that the court believes that the sentence pronounced will satisfy thepurpose of punishment from Articles 5 and 33 of the Criminal Code.

While meting out the sentence, the court took as mitigating circumstances thedefendant’s correct attitude towards the court, that he has family, that he fathers twominor children, that he has not been convicted in the past, while an aggravatingcircumstance was the consequences which the court discovered that had affected theimprisoned persons, and later during his imprisonment.

On the basis of Article 50 of the Criminal Code, the period of the defendant’simprisonment since 9 May 1997 onwards was taken into the period of the pronouncedsentence.

On the basis of Article 98, paragraph 4, of the Law on Criminal Procedure, thedefendant is released from an obligation to pay the costs of the criminal procedure andthe amount of the court’s rate, so that the said costs will be covered from the court’sbudget since the defendant is currently imprisoned, which makes it impossible for himto cover the above costs, and appreciating the family and financial circumstances ofhis family members.

As for the acquittal part of the statement of the verdict, the court, after it evaluated thepresented evidence, found that it was not proved that the defendant had committed acriminal act of the war crime against POW’s from Article 144 of the Criminal Code,with which he was charged in a detailed indictment in its item 2.

Namely, the defendant himself clearly stated in his defence that during hisperformance of the mentioned duty he had not issued any orders in relation to themilitary POW’s nor had he ever ordered anyone to do anything similar on his behalf,i.e. that he had not been involved in anything which would be related to the militaryPOW’s. Appreciating those statements made by the defence of the defendant, thecourt accepted those statements since they had been confirmed by the aforementionedevidence in the file, i.e. by the testimonies of the witnesses heard, as well as byobjective evidence in the file. It does not arise from the evidence that the defendantordered the activities against military POW’s given in the disposition of the criminalact of the war crime against POW’s from Article 144 of the Criminal Code, i.e. that hehad not ordered killings, harassment, inhuman treatment, biological, medical or anyother scientific experiments by taking their tissues or organs for the purpose oftransplantation which would cause great sufferings of injuries to the physical integrityor health, nor had he forced them to serve in armed forces of the enemy or deprivedthem of the right to proper and unbiased trial, or that possibly the defendant hadhimself committed any of the acts mentioned. Thus, the court in the concrete eventsin relation to the military prisoners of war who were also camp detainees did not fmda criminal accountability of the defendant either on the basis of his orders or apossible execution of any of the acts which form the disposition of the said criminalact, i.e. that he would violate the rules of international law by those acts.

As it was not proved that the defendant Ibrahim Djedovic committed a criminal act ofthe war crime against POW’a from Article 144 of the Criminal Code, the courtreleased him from the indictment for that same criminal act as is stated in the decisionof the verdict on the basis of the provisions of Article 350, item 3, of the Law onCriminal Procedure.

On the basis of Article 99, paragraph 1, of the Law on Criminal Procedure the costs ofthe criminal procedure in this acquittal part will be covered from the court budget.

Minute clerk Chairman of the Panel of JudgesKRUPALIJA VASVIJA Maksumic Saban

REMEDY:An appeal against this verdict may be filed via this court with the Supreme Court ofthe BiH Federation within 8 (eight) days.

C,0

‘ii

0C0m

mC’,

0zC’,>wI--lm0C-I

-I‘ii

mz-

18. F E 81999*0 0 0 68 4