<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

CONCERNS WITH THE CONDUCT OF THE TRIAL

Insufficient Evidence to Establish Facts from the Indictment

“Denunciation” Not Proved

In criminal trials in the former Yugoslavia, the prosecution has the burden of proof that the accused has committed the crime alleged in the indictment. The county court in Vukovar concluded that the prosecutor had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Savic had “aided and abetted in the inhuman treatment of the civilian population.” That finding pertains to the inhumane treatment of three Croats who were taken from Vukovar to Serbia on an unspecified date in November or December 1991, and ill-treated in Serbia. The court found that Savic, among others, was responsible for their hardship.

The evidence presented in the trial offers no basis for such a conclusion. Following the fall of Vukovar in November 1991, those Serbs and Croats civilians who did not depart to Serbia or other parts of Croatia took shelter in the few houses and buildings that had survived the fighting, including the warehouse belonging to the “Velepromet” enterprise. Seven witnesses who testified in the Savic trial in Osijek (in 1993-94) had been placed in that warehouse, under the guard of armed Serbs. Six witnesses had testified in the original trial that Savic had entered the premises one night in the company of a Serb soldier carrying a flashlight. The witnesses’ accounts of what happened next were so contradictory that no intelligible conclusion could be drawn. Nonetheless, the court in Osijek accepted as credible the testimony of witnesses who claimed that Ivanka Savic had denounced Janos Barn, who was taken away soon thereafter and had never been seen since.¹⁵ The court also concluded that the [taking away] and eventual disappearance of Blazenka Garvanovic, another person placed in the warehouse, was related to the denunciation by Savic on that night.¹⁶

When the Supreme Court of Croatia heard the appeal against the decision of the Osijek county court in December 1994, it accepted the conclusion of the Osijek court in relation to Savic’s alleged involvement in the disappearance of Barn and Garvanovic.¹⁷  However, at the trial in Vukovar, on December 8, 2003, a female witness who had given evidence in the Osijek trial regarding the disappearance of Janos Barn told the court she had not been present in the warehouse at any time during the night visit by Savic, and that her statement from 1993 was based only on rumors she had heard.¹⁸ The Vukovar county court also found no evidence showing that armed Serbs have taken away Blazenka Garvanovic as result of identification by Savic.¹⁹ 

Despite rejecting the allegations linking Savic to the disappearance of Janos Barn and Blazenka Garvanovic, the Vukovar court accepted the testimony of a single witness incriminating the defendant for the “denunciation” of three other individuals present in the warehouse on the night in question—Juraj Grabusic, Ivo Pleckovic, and Mato Gombovic.²⁰ Several days after the event, the three men were transferred to a detention camp in Serbia where they were subject to inhuman treatment.

Grabusic, Pleckovic and Gombovic testified at the 1993-1994 trial in Osijek. Their testimony exculpates Savic. Gombovic explicitly denied that, during the night visit, Savic pointed at him or said something about him. Pleckovic said that Savic did not say anything, and that the only person who spoke was the soldier, who informed one of the civilians present about the death of his son. Grabusic told the court that he had never even seen Savic at “Velepromet.”

Two more witnesses testified in 1993-1994 about the night visit. One stated that Savic said nothing and did not point at anybody. Another witness stated that he could not hear or see well what, if anything, was happening.

It is also worth noting that Gombovic and Pleckovic did not know Savic prior to that night. A reasonable inference is that Savic did not know Gombovic and Pleckovic either, and for that reason alone she could not have identified them. The Vukovar court failed to establish whether Grabusic had known the accused before the critical night, and whether she had known him.

Savic told the court in Vukovar that, on the critical night, the soldier took her from another “Velepromet” premises in which she and her neighbors were located, to the premises in which the witnesses were staying. As she did not know anybody in the premises, she asked the soldier to allow her to return to the first premises with her neighbors and stay there.²¹   

The court in Vukovar offered no explanation as to why it accepted the claim of the witness who allegedly saw and heard Ivanka Savic identifying Gombovic, Pleckovic, and Grabusic. The court merely asserted that his testimony was “clear, logical, and persuasive.”²² The court thus completely disregarded the evidence from Gombovic, Grabusic, and Pleckovic that Savic did not point at them during the event, and the fact that Gombovic and Pleckovic – and possibly Grabusic as well – did not even know Savic at the time of the alleged incident (so she was unlikely to have identified them).

Intimidation and Ill-treatment of Marija Blazinic Not Proved

In finding that Ivanka Savic intimidated and ill-treated Marija Blazinic, the Vukovar court relied primarily on Blazinic’s testimony.²³ Blazinic testified that her house was severely damaged during the siege of Vukovar, and that she moved in with a neighbor after the fall of the town as a result.²⁴  According to Blazinic, Ivanka Savic stayed with the same neighbor. Blazinic claimed that on a number of occasions —while armed Serb extremists (Chetniks) were present— Savic ordered Blazinic to cook for her and serve her, saying that time had come for Blazinic to be her “slave.”²⁵ The court accepted this testimony unreservedly, although it misunderstood Blazinic’s testimony as referring to events in her own house.²⁶

The Vukovar court’s unqualified reliance on the testimony of Marija Blazinic is not justified, because of Blazinic’s questionable credibility as witness. In her testimony before the Osijek court in June 1993, Blazinic claimed that, after the fall of Vukovar, Savic had nationalistic Serb insignia on her hat, on occasions carried a rifle, and used the rifle to shoot at Blazinic’s house.²⁷ All other witnesses, however, stated that they have never seen Savic with weapons or the insignia. Given that on Blazinic’s own evidence her house had already been “destroyed,” it appears unlikely that Savic would have shot at Blazinic’s house.²⁸  Blazinic also told the court that her husband and Ivanka Savic had had a disagreement just before the war.²⁹ Given that background, the court should have treated Blazinic’s allegations against Savic with caution rather than with unreserved trust.

To strengthen its conclusion about Savic’s harassment of Marija Blazinic, the Vukovar court also invoked testimony by Milica Arsenic, the neighbor with whom Blazinic and Savic stayed after the fall of Vukovar. The judgment repeatedly states that, according to Milica Arsenic, “her husband threw out Ivanka Savic from the house, because [Savic] mistreated and harassed Marija Blazinic.”³⁰ The judgment, however, simply falsifies this part of Arsenic’s statement. What this witness told the court was the following: “After a month or so, my husband threw out Ivanka Savic from the house, because the two of them, Marija Blazinic and Ivanka Savic, could not be there together.”³¹  Nowhere in her statement did Milica Arsenic suggest that Ivanka Savic “mistreated or harassed” Marija Blazinic.

Pillage Not Proved

Savic was convicted by the Vukovar court on two counts of pillage (pljacka). For each count, the court relied on the evidence of a sole witness. Marija Blazinic testified that Savic stole sheets, alarm clock, plates, a handcart, and a tapestry, from her house. The court’s full and exclusive reliance on the testimony by Marija Blazinic is questionable, given the pre-war resentments that may have induced the witness into making or exaggerating allegations about the accused. Other witnesses in the trial had no knowledge about the alleged pillage of Blazinic’s possessions by the accused.

Another witness, Joakim Mudri, testified that Savic stole pillows and blankets from Kruno Bradaric’s house, as well as coal and wood from Bradaric’s yard. The Vukovar court accepted Mudri’s testimony, although his credibility was shattered when Kruno Bradaric testified in the court. Mudri claimed in his evidence that at the time of the incident Bradaric was being held in “Velepromet,” and that he later saw Savic shouting insults at Bradaric.³² Bradaric told the court that he had left Vukovar months before the fall of the town, and returned only in November 2001, ten years after the alleged events.³³ Bradaric told the court he had no knowledge about the missing items from his house.

Court’s Failure to Establish Legal Issues

In addition to failing to establish facts in a credible way, the court failed to examine a range of legal issues that ought to have been clearly resolved before any conclusion about commission of war crimes could reasonably be inferred. Specifically, the court failed to establish a causal link between the “denunciations” and inhuman treatment of the persons Savic allegedly denounced; failed to establish a criminal intent behind the “denunciations,” and; failed to show that Savic’s alleged treatment of Marija Blazinic amounted to a war crime.

No Causal Link Established Between “Denunciations” And Inhuman Treatment of Gombovic, Pleckovic, and Grabusic

The court in Vukovar acknowledged that in order for conduct to be considered as an act of aiding or abetting, punishable under criminal law, the conduct has to contribute in a concrete way to commission of the main crime, even if the contribution is not a decisive or the sole factor facilitating the commission of that crime.³⁴ The court, however, failed to establish any such causal link between the alleged “denunciation” of Juraj Grabusic, Ivo Pleckovic, and Mato Gombovic, and their transfer to, and inhumane treatment in, Serbia.

The court, for example, disregarded the fact that all three men testified how, upon their arrival to “Velepromet,” they were interrogated about their sons’ participation in the Croatian army. The men may therefore have been “punished” because of information about their sons’ activities they divulged during interrogation. The court did not explore this possibility. Under the inquisitorial system prevalent in the former Yugoslavia, it is the duty of the court to ascertain relevant facts, irrespective of the effort and the contribution by the opposing parties.

No Knowledge and Criminal Intent behind “Denunciations” Established

The court also disregarded other basic elements that need to be established when aiding and abetting are claimed to exist. Under Croatian law at the time the alleged crime took place, an aider and abettor must act with a requisite intent (umisljaj),³⁵ which exists when “the perpetrator is aware of his act and wishes to carry it out; or, he is aware that a prohibited consequence could result from his commission or omission, and he nevertheless accepts it.”³⁶ The Vukovar court simply stated that Ivanka Savic had the requisite awareness and intent, and offered no corroboration for the assertion.

Failure to Show that Treatment of Marija Blazinic Amounts to a War Crime

The Vukovar court accepted the allegations that Ivanka Savic had on a number of occasions compelled Marija Blazinic, in the presence of Chetniks, to serve and cook for her, and that such treatment amounted to a war crime. However, the court failed to make a legal analysis supporting this conclusion.

In Croatia, as in other parts of the former Yugoslavia, for a conduct to be a war crime it has to constitute a violation of international humanitarian law as codified in specific international conventions.³⁷ (Customary international law is not invoked in war crimes indictments and judgments.) In the judgment against Ivanka Savic, the Vukovar court invoked articles 3(1), 27, and 33, of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The court did not specifically state which provisions pertains to the acts Savic allegedly committed. As for the intimidation and ill-treatment of Marija Blazinic, the court may have had in mind violations of either article 27, or article 33, or both.³⁸ 

If the court was relying on article 33, because the term “intimidation” appears therein, it fell into error because the paragraph in which the term is used pertains to collective punishments, not to acts directed against an individual person.³⁹ If, however, the court applied Article 27 – which mandates humane treatment of civilians – the acts of the accused might indeed be a breach of that article. However, the court in Vukovar failed to show that having Marija Blazinic cook for Ivanka Savic, over a relatively short period of time and with an unknown frequency,⁴⁰ rose to the level of a war crime. No evidence was presented, for instance, that Ivanka Savic used force or violence or threat of violence to compel Marija Blazinic to work for her.

The conclusion about the court’s failure follows even if the Croatian Penal Code serves as the only point of reference in examining the nature of the conduct at issue. Article 120, the provision of Croatian Penal Code invoked by the court, prohibits two dozen acts. In the text of article 120, the prohibition of intimidation is preceded by the prohibition of forced deportation, forced conversion to another religion, forced prostitution, and rape; it is followed by the prohibition of hostage taking, collective reprisals, and illegal imprisonment to concentration camps. Given the gravity of these crimes, the court failed to explain show that the alleged actions reached the requisite level of ill-treatment to be war crimes.