<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

SUMMARY

On January 21, 2004, the county court in Vukovar sentenced seventy-seven-year-old Ivanka Savic to four-and-a-half years’ imprisonment for war crimes. The crimes were allegedly committed in the Croatian town of Vukovar after it fell into the hands of the Yugoslav Army and Croatian Serb rebels in November 1991. Her conviction is a blatant miscarriage of justice. It also illustrates the present shortcomings in the conduct of war crimes trials by courts in Croatia—shortcomings which seriously inhibit the fairness of the proceedings.

Human Rights Watch is not in a position to determine whether Savic carried out the acts of which she is accused. However, having examined the case files and attended the last day of the trial, Human Rights Watch finds that the evidence does not warrant the conviction of the accused on the charges laid.¹ The court in Vukovar accepted allegations against Savic that found no corroboration in testimonies heard at the trial; the court misinterpreted key testimonies in the trial and used the distorted statements against the accused; and, erroneously applied provisions of international humanitarian law (the laws of war) and Croatian law.

While the decision of the Vukovar county court may stem from a lack of requisite competence in applying municipal law and provisions of international humanitarian law, Human Rights Watch is concerned that the decision may also reflect pervasive ethnic bias against Serb defendants in war crimes prosecutions in Croatia. This bias has been documented by Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)² and Human Rights Watch.³ 

County courts outside large cities—which have heard the majority of war crimes cases—are particularly prone to bias and lack of professionalism in the conduct of war crimes trials. The Supreme Court of Croatia has recently annulled a number of county courts’ acquittals or decisions resulting in lenient sentences, in war crime prosecutions against with ethnic Croat defendants, and sent all the cases for retrial. The Supreme Court has also overruled most guilty verdicts of ethnic Serbs convicted of war crimes by county courts during the same period, and sent those cases back to the original courts for retrial.⁴ The continued annulment of the majority of trial court decisions in war crimes cases is not sustainable in the long term, however.

In October 2003, the Croatian parliament adopted legislation that would permit the transfer of war crimes cases from county courts with territorial jurisdiction to county courts in Croatia’s four biggest cities – Zagreb, Osijek, Rijeka, and Split.⁵ 

Case History

Ivanka Savic (born in 1926) lived in Vukovar before the war. She remained in the town while it was under siege by Serb and Yugoslav forces between August and November 1991. In April 1992, when the Serb forces expelled the remaining group of ethnic Croats from Vukovar, Ivanka Savic joined the expellees and went to the territory controlled by the Croatian government.⁶ 

In December 1992, Savic was detained in Osijek, and in April 1993 she was indicted for genocide. The trial in Osijek took place between June 1993 and June 1994. In December 1993, in the midst of the trial, Croatian authorities exchanged Savic and a group of other Serbs for a group of Croat prisoners of war. The trial nevertheless continued in her absence. In April 1994, the prosecutor changed the genocide charge against Savic into a charge of war crimes against civilian population. On June 29, 1994, the county court in Osijek sentenced Savic in absentia to an eight years’ imprisonment, finding violations of article 120 of the Croatian Penal Code, with reference to articles 3(1), 27, and 33 of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.⁷ Savic appealed the Osijek court decision, claiming errors of fact and law, as well as violations of the procedure prescribed by the law.⁸

It was only in 1997 that the authority of the Croatian government was fully restored in Vukovar, ending a two-year transitional period after the war, during which the U.N. administered the area. Ivanka Savic was arrested by the Croatian police in Vukovar in October 2000 in order to serve her sentence. Savic requested retrial, a right provided by the Croatian law.⁹  Vukovar County Court granted the request. The new trial started in May 2001, on identical charges, but this time in presence of the defendant. In August 2001, the court approved provisional release of Savic (a measure similar to bail in common law countries).

Savic’s new trial was suspended after only two sessions, and resumed in November 2003. With the agreement of the parties, the Vukovar court admitted the statements from twelve witnesses who testified in the trial in 1993-94. Five additional witnesses testified in December 2003 and January 2004. On January 21, 2004, the court set aside the June 1994 judgment by the Osijek county court and entered a new conviction of Savic. Savic has appealed the January 2004 decision, and the case is pending before the Supreme Court.

The Charges Against Savic

In Savic’s new trial, the County Prosecutor asked the Vukovar court to leave in force her 1994 conviction by the Osijek County Court. The court in Osijek had found Savic guilty of the crimes she allegedly committed between November 1991 and April 1992. The Osijek court found that Savic had “denounced” (identified at the request of the Serb forces) non-Serbs who participated in defense of the town, and that as result of her denunciation, Blazenka Garvanovic and Janos Barn, had been taken away from a detention facility by armed Serbs and not seen since. The Osijek court also found that Savic had intimidated and ill-treated Marija Blazinic, an ethnic Croat woman from Vukovar, by forcing Blazinic to serve and cook for her, and by telling Blazinic that she was Savic’s servant. The Osijek court also found that Savic had stolen valuables from the house of Marija Blazinic and from another house in the neighborhood.¹⁰ 

The Osijek court found that, by carrying out the above acts, Savic committed war crimes against civilian population. Specifically, in the opinion of the court, she (1) intentionally (sa umisljajem) aided and abetted in the inhumane treatment of civilians; (2) employed means of intimidation and ill-treatment against civilians; and (3) pillaged civilian property. These acts were punishable under article 120 of Croatian Penal Code, which was in force when the crimes were alleged to have been committed.¹¹ The court found that Savic acted in violation of articles 3(1), 27, and 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.¹²

Court Findings Against Savic

In the new trial, the Vukovar court found Ivanka Savic guilty on the same charges as the Osijek court ten years earlier. However, while reaching the same legal conclusions, the Vukovar court differed from the Osijek court on one important issue of fact, and for that reason the court set aside the wartime conviction and entered a new one. The disappearance of Blazenka Garvanovic and Janos Barn, in the opinion of the Vukovar court, was not related to any “denunciation” by the accused.¹³ The court nevertheless found Ivanka Savic guilty of “denunciation.” The part of the judgment where the court gives the reasons for the decision stated that Savic had “denounced” Juraj Grabusic, Ivo Pleckovic, and Mato Gombovic, ethnic Croats who were then taken to Serbia and ill-treated there.¹⁴