(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation K. 1419/04 IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE, THE DISTRICT COURT IN BELGRADE, in a chamber consisting of Judge Vinka BERAHA-NIKICEVIC as. the presiding judge, Judge Gordana BOZILOVIC-PETROVIC as a member of the chamber, and judge-jurors Moméilo MUJANOVIC, NadeZda MIROVIC and Slobodan JOVANOVIC, with recording clerk Aleksand/%a/ GAVRILOVIC, in the criminal proceedings against Milan LUKIC, Oliver KRSMANOVIC, Dragutin DRAGICEVIC and Dorde SEVIC, accused of war crimes against civilians under Article 142, paragraph 1 of the KZ /Criminal Code/ of the FRY /Federal Republic of Yugostavia/, pursuant to the indictment by the Belgrade District Public Prosecutor Kt. No. 94/02 of 17 October 2002, which was amended by special submission on 20 November 2002, amended in its factual basis at the trial held on 22 September 2003, and amended by special submission on 7 July 2005, and following a public trial held on 13 July 2005 in the presence of the Belgrade Deputy ONT (District Public Prosecutor/, Milena VUKASINOVIC; the accused Dorde SEV! and Dragutin DRAGICEVIC; counsel for the accused, namely, attorney Milomir , counsel for the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, attorney Slobod: EVIC, counsel for the accused Dorde SEVIC, attorney Zoran POPOVI counsel for the accused Milan LUKIC pursuant to a substitute power of attorney from attorney Nikola GAVRILOVIG, and attorney Milan VUJIN, counsel for the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC; and the authorised representatives of the injured parties, namely, attorney Dragoliub TODOROVIC, representing Dzevad KODZIC, Rasim PECIKOZA, Hanka DAUTOVIC and Rasim CATOVIC, and Sefko ALOMEROVIC, representing the injured party Fikret HODZIC, has adopted and publicly proclaimed ‘on 15 July 2005 the following JUDGMENT 1. The accused Milan LUKIC, son of Mile and Kata, born on 6 September 1967 in Foéa, permanent address in Belgrade at Slobodana Peneziéa Street no. 5, citizen of the FRY, literate, plumber by occupation, currently at large. 2. The accused Oliver KRSMANOVIG, aka Orlié and Orao, son of Milan, born on 13 August 1963 in ViSegrad, citizen of the FRY, literate, waiter by ‘occupation, last known permanent address in Branesevei, Cajetina Municipality, currently at large, 3. The accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, aka Bosanac, son of Radomir and Miljana née VASIC, born on 19 February 1968 in Srebrenica, Serb, literate, completed secondary school, tradesman by occupation, permanent address. in Srebrenica at Karadordeva bb /no number/, unemployed, no prior convictions, no other criminal proceedings being conducted against him, currently detained in Belgrade District Prison pursuant to decision Ki, No. 279/02 of 29 April 2002, his period of detention dating from 3 June 2002, when he was arrested, and continuing ‘until final judgment is rendered. (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 1(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation 4. The accused Dorde SEVIC, son of Stevan and Ljubiea, née MIDIC, born 17 November 1972 in Sremska Mitrovica, Serb, citizen of the SCG /Serbia and Montenegrof, literate, completed elementary school, labourer by occupation, has not performed military service, discharged from military service as an emotionally immature person, unemployed, making a living through occasional self-employment, convicted of the crime defined in Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Law on the Procurement and Carrying of Weapons and Ammunition on 25 February 1993 and sentenced to a prison sentence of three months suspended for two years, no other criminal proceedings being conducted against him, detained in Belgrade District Prison pursuant to decision Ki. No, 279/02 of 29 April 2002, his period of detention dating from 24 October 2002, when he was arrested, and continuing until final judgment is rendered. ARE GUILTY Because: On 22 October 1992, in the village of Mioge, Rudo Municipality, Bosnia and Herzegovina, in violation of the provisions of International Law in Time of Armed Conflict, contrary to Article 33, paragraph 1, item A, of the Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva Convention IV) of 12 August 1949, ratified by the National Assembly of the FNRY /Pederative People’s Republic of Yugoslavial (Official Gazette of the ENRY, no, 24/50) and contrary to Article 13 of Protocol II Additional to this Convention, the accused Milan LUKIC, Oliver KRSMANOVIC, Dragutin DRAGICEVIC and Dorde SEVIC, together with five other unidentified persons, as members of the Osvetnici JAvengers! paramilitary formation, which was under the command of the accused Milan LUKIC, tortured, violated life and person and murdered civilian persons in the following manner: the night before, they agreed in an apartment in Viegrad, in which the accused Dorde SEVIC occasionally stayed, to carry out an “interception” operation and on the following day, in the morning of 22 October 1992, they carried out this operation. The accused Milan LUKIC, who was armed, stopped a bus owned by the Raketa company from Uzice travelling on the Priboj — Rudo — Priboj route, with driver Velisav STOJKANOVIC, while the other accused, together with the other unknown co- perpetrators, were standing with weapons on both sides of the road. When the bus stopped, the accused LUKIC, who was armed, entered the bus with two unidenti armed co-perpetrators, with whom he checked the ID cards of the passengers, and ordered Muslim, passengers. Mehmed SEBO, Zafer HADZIC, Medo HODZIC, Medredin HODZIC, Ramiz BEGOVIC, Dervis SOFTIC, Mithad SOFTIC, Mujo ALIHODZIC, Alija MANDAL, Sead PECIKOZA, Mustafa BAIRAMOVIC, Hajrudin SAITAREVIC, Esad DZIHIC, Idriz. GIBOVIC, Ramahudin CATOVIC and Mevlida KOLDZIC to get off the bus, which they did, and then the accused, together with the other co-perpetrators, escorted them at gunpoint to a red Zastava 615 truck with a canvas cover, which was driven by Oliver KRSMANOVIC. They got on the iruek as ordered and were transported on that truck, followed by a Lada and a Passat passenger vehicle carrying the accused Milan LUKIC, Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, Dorde SEVIC and other unidentified co-perpetrators, to the Vilina vias Motel in Visegrad. In front of the motel, the accused and the other co-perpetrators searched ‘them and confiscated their ID documents, then took them 10 a corridor inside the motel, where they abused them physically, beating them with wooden sticks all over (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 2(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation their bodies, and then took them to the bank of the River Drina, where they killed them, - Thereby they committed as co-perpetrators a war crime against civilian persons as defined in Article 142, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in conjunction with Article 22 of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. - The cour, therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Article 142, paragraph 1 of the KZ. of the FRY and applying the provisions of Articles 3, 4, 5, 8, paragraph 1, 11 paragraph 1, 33, 38, 41 and 50 of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, hereby CONVICTS THE ACCUSED MILAN LUKIE to a prison sentence of 20 (twenty) years. THE ACCUSED OLIVER KRSMANOVIC to a prison sentence of 20 (twenty) years. THE ACCUSED DRAGUTIN DRAGICEVIE to a prison sentence of 20 (Qwwenty) years, THE ACCUSED DORDE SEVIC to prison sentence of 15 (fitcen) years, Pursuant to Article 50 of the KZ of the FRY, the time that the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC and Dorde SEVIC have spent in prison shall be credited toward their prison sentences as follows: for the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC dating from 3 June 2002 onward until final judgement is rendered and for the accused Dorde SEVIC dating from 24 October 2002 onward until final judgement is rendered. The accused shall be exempt from paying the costs of the criminal pro and fixed court charges. vedings The injured parties — the families of the injured parties are advised to seek camages through a civil suit Statement of Reasons The District Public Prosecutor in Belgrade, with indictment Kt, No. 94/02 of 17 October 2002, which was amended by submission on 20 November 2002, amended in the factual basis of the crime at the trial held on 22 September 2003, and amended by special submission on 7 July 2005, charged the accused with committing as co-perpetrators a war crime against civilian persons ay defined in Article 142, Paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in conjunction with Article 22 of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Pursuant to decision Kv. No, 2254/02 of 4 December 2002 adopted by the ‘Trial Chamber of the District Court in Belgrade, it was decided to try the accused (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation Milan LUKIG and the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC in absentia pursuant to the above-mentioned indictment for war crimes against civilian persons as defined Article 142, paragraph I, of the KZ of the FRY, considering that the accused were beyond the reach of state organs, while the severity of the crime they are charged with and the length of the envisaged sentences justify trying them in absentia Immediately after receiving the indictment, the court assigned counsel for the accused Milan LUKIC, Dragutin DRAGICEVIC and Dorde SEVIC. The accused Dorde SEVIC was questioned before the investigating judge for the first time on 6 March 2002, Pursuant to the provisions of the ZKP flaw on Criminal Procedure/ which was in force at the time, bearing in mind that the /eurrent/ Law on Criminal Procedure entered into force on 29 March 2002, the accused Dorde SEVIC waived his right to the presence of counsel during the first questioning by the investigating judge. Pursuant to the provision of Article 70, paragraph 1, of the ZIKP, which was in force at the time of his questioning, it is prescribed that if the accused is mute, deaf or incapable of defending himself successfully, or if the proceedings are conducted because of a crime for which the death penalty may be pronounced, the accused must have counsel from the very first questioning, Since at the time of the first questioning of the accused Dorde SEVIC a prison sentence of five to twenty years was prescribed for the above-mentioned crime that he is charged with, the presence of counsel was not mandatory during the first questioning, but according to paragraph 2 of Article 70 of the ZKP, when an indictment is issued for a crime for which a prison sentence of ten or more years may be pronounced, the accused must have counsel at the time when the indictment is delivered, so the court acted accordingly. The Deputy District Public Prosecutor proposed to the court in her closing ‘arguments to pronounce the accused Milan LUKIC, Oliver KRSMANOVIC, Dragutin DRAGICEVIC and Dorde SEVIC guilty of perpetrating a war crime against civilian persons as defined in Article 142, paragraph 1, of the KZ. of the FRY, in conjunction with Article 22 of the KZ. of the FRY. She stated that the evidence gathered during the preliminary proceedings and presented so far at the trial established beyond doubt that the accused had committed the crime they are charged with as co-perpetrators. The Supreme Court of Serbia found in its decision that there is no doubt that this was an internal armed conflict and that the warring sides were obliged to adhere to the rules of the International Law of War, both in military operations and in their treatment of civilians. There is no doubt that the perpetrators of the crime treated those civilian persons contrary to Article 3 of the Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva Convention IV) of 1949, All the relevant facts on which the indictment is based have been established on the basis of evidence presented during the proceedings. The accused Milan LUKIC and the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC did not present a defence because they are being tried in absentia, considering that they are beyond the reach of the court. ‘The accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC exercised his right to remain sient throughout the proceedings, while the accused Dorde SEVIC did present a defence, both during the investigation and the trial, and in his defence, he practically confessed to all the relevant facts which constitute the core of the crime in question. In his statement given both in the preliminary proceedings and at the trial, the accused Dorde SEVIC described in detail how the civilians had been abducted and who had taken part, which means that he admitted that they had embarked on the “interception” operation at the initiative of Milan LUKIC, who was their commander. (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 4(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation In addition, the accused SE'VIC recognised in photographs belonging to the case files the accused LUKIC, KRSMANOVIC and DRAGICEVIC, as well as the witness TIMOTIC, a journalist who took these photographs. During the investigation, an identification of persons was carried out, and on this occasion, on the premises of the Central Prison, the accused SEVIC recognised unmistakably the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC as one of the kidnappers. However, the accused Borde SEVIC docs not admit that he took part in the physical abuse and murder of the victims, or rather, he denies that he was at the Vilina Vias Hotel, and he also denies that he knew in advance what kind of operation he was embarking on and what exactly he would do as a participant in the operation. However, in the view of the public prosecutor, this part of his defence cannot be accepted because it is aimed at avoiding criminal responsibility, and it also contradicts other evidence. his part of his defence has been refuted first of all by the statement of the witness Dragana DEKTC, with whom he was in a relationship a the time and with whom he lived together in a studio in ViSegrad that, according to her, had been given to them by Milan LUKIC and his girlfriend, or rather fiancé, a certain Mira. She explained that many soldiers had visited them there, and among their names, she also mentioned the accused. She described the event by saying that on the evening of 21 October 1992, she was in the studio together with the accuse the journalist TIMOTIC and some other soldiers, and that Milan LUKIC arrived and told those present that they would embark tomorrow on an “interception” operation; and that in the carly morning of the next day, the accused SEVIC joined that operation. In her statement, she refuted the part of the statement of the accused SEVIC where he said that after returning from the “interception” operation of, rather, after taking away some civilians from a bus, he had not gone to the Vilina Vlas Motel, or to be more precise, she explained that she had gone to that motel after being summoned to give medical aid to a certain fighter and that she saw the accused and other fighters whom she knew in front of the motel, and when she was shown photographs taken by the witness TIMOTIG, a journalist, in front of the Vilina Vias Motel, she also recognised the accused SEVIC in them. She explained that she had also found the accused Milan LUKIC, Oliver KRSMANOVIC and a fighter known as Bosanac, as well as the journalist Milan TIMOTIC, in front of the motel and that they were all wearing uniforms and were armed with automatic rifles or, rather, all except TIMOTIC had automatic rifles, while TIMOTIC had a camera and a pistol. She said that when she entered the motel, she saw lying on the floor next to a corridor a large group of persons with visible wounds to their heads, bleeding and evidently beaten up, and that on the other side of the corridor she saw a weeping woman sitting in a chair. She described this woman and the woman's description matches the appearance of the abducted Mevlida KODZIC. She noticed that all of those people were wearing civilian clothes, were in horrible positions, bruised, some were silent and others were crying and moaning, and they were all visibly exhausted and scared. As she was leaving the motel, she spoke in front with the accused LUKIC, who told her that the persons in the hotel were mujahidin and that the clothes scattered in front of the hotel were theirs. She added that a litte later she saw murdered civilians on the bank of the Drina and that she saw that they were the same civilians that she had previously se beaten up in the Vilina Vias Motel. She saw fighters around these civilians on the riverside, and among them also the accused LUKIC, SEVIC, Bosanae and Orlig, which means also the accused KRSMANOVIC and DRAGICEVIC, considering that Oliver KRSMANOVIC’s nickname is Orli¢ and that she identified KRSMANOVIC ‘as Orlié and the accused DRAGICEVIG, aka Bosanac, as Bosanac, ‘The bodies of ic (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 5(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation those civilians were mutilated, covered with blood and bruised, and as far as she could see, there were about 15 to 20 of them. She also said that she walked over to the dead bodies, that she saw that their throats had been slit and that SEVIG pushed her away and did not allow her to watch that scene, The statement of this witness is also supported by photographs, which according fo the witness Dragana DEKIC were taken at the time in question by the witness, journalist TIMOTIC. The Public Prosecutor further stated that based on the evidence presented at the trial she had reached an unequivocal conclusion that these people were members of the Osvemici paramilitary formation and that the accused Milan LUKIC was the commander of, rather, the leader and organiser of that paramilitary formation; this is also evident from the statement of the accused SEVIC, who explained that after arriving in Visegrad for the second time he went to the studio where Dragana DEKIC was staying, that he received weapons there, that he already had a uniform, and that the accused Milan LUKIC told him previously that he intended to establish a unit for special tasks — which he evidently did establish, and the accused SEVIC explained that this was the unit under LUKIC’s command, Passengers from the bus who were heard as witnesses during the proceedings stated that they did not know which army the persons who had abducted their fellow passengers on the occasion in question belonged to, but that those persons did not Jook like a regular army. Those persons differed from regular soldiers because they were undisciplined, carried strange flags, had different caps, some had cockades and were masked, and moreover, regular soldiers used fo stop them at certain checkpoints, bbut there was no regular checkpoint on that occasion at the place where they were stopped. The Public Prosecutor also referred to the statement of the witness Luka DRAGICEVIC, who was the commander of the 2" Light Infantry ViSegrad Brigade as of 26 October 1992, and who told the court what he knew about the accused Mian LUKIC and the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC, whom he had seen for the first time in late fall 1992 when he was brought to him at the Brigade Staff in order to be transferred to another combat position due to his state of health, He said that the first ime he had seen Milan LUKIC was in ViSegrad in the winter of 1993 when his driver showed him LUKIC, who evidently, according to the statements of many witnesss was well-known in that region, ‘The witness thus confirmed that Oliver KRSMANOVIC had been a member of the 1" Light Infantry Visegrad Brigade, but he said that the Brigade had never taken part in such or similar actions, and that it could not have occurred that the brigade would carry out this action on its own initiative without his being aware of it. This further leads 10 the conclusion that Oliver KRSMANOVIC could also have been a member of another unit of his own volition, as he evidently was, because he was a member of the paramilitary formation under LUKIC’s command. When photographs from the case file of members of the Osveinici paramilitary formation were shown to the witness Luka DRAGICEVIC, he said that he recognised Milan LUKIC and Oliver KRSMANOVIC in the photographs, but that they were wearing uniforms and had caps which the army under his command id not have. These uniforms had more white details and the emblems on the uniforn worn by these individuals were unfamiliar to him, and he stated categorically that they did not belong to the Army of Republika Srpska. (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 6(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation The testimony by Professor GRUBAC also confirmed that this was a paramilitary formation, ‘The witness, testifying at the trial, explained that he had received information from Ratko MLADIG in Rudo that this was the paramilitary formation called Osvetnici, whose bus he °GRUBACT had seen earlier, first in Sjeverin when the meeting or, rather, the assembly was being held, and then in front of the hotel in Rudo. He said among other things that this paramilitary formation had its own flag with something writen on it, but he could not see well what was written there, and the locals at the meeting told him that the writing said: Osvetnici In the view of the Public Prosecutor, the evidence presented at the trial confirmed beyond doubt that the accused had committed the erime in question as co- perpetrators. The number of victims was indicated as an especially aggravating factor, and the manner in which the crime was committed reveals brutality, an exceptional degree of cold-bloodedness and an exceptional degree of inhumanity and cruelty, which caused grave mental and physical suffering to the abducted persons, who were ‘of Muslim ethnicity, while the fact that these persons, after being tortured, abused and mistreated, were finally killed is especially aggravating. The Public Prosecutor requested the lengthiest possible prison sentences, because she believes that only such sentences can serve as both an individual and ‘general deterrent, bearing in mind that each individual must be punished for violating the law and international conventions in particular in such a way that neither he nor anybody else will violate the law or international conventions in the future. The authorised representative of the injured parties Sefko ALOMEROVIC stated in his closing arguments that he agreed with the amended indictment by the Deputy Public Prosecutor with regard to the responsibility of the accused for participation in the abduction of the passengers, their abuse and finally liquidation, but that he did not agree with the statement that the accused had been members of the Osvetnici paramilitary formation. ‘The authorised representative of the injured parties Dragoljub TODOROVIC said in his closing arguments that this was not a case, as the Deputy OJT had specified, of paramilitary formations, and that he disagreed with the Public Prosecutor in that respect. The responsibility of the accused has been established beyond doubt, ‘The statement of the witness Dragana DEKIC, which she gave in the preliminary proceedings, should be fully accepted, because during her testimony at the trial she did not give a single reason for changing her mind and /did not say/ whether she changed her mind because somebody had threatened her. The statement given in the preliminary proceedings was corroborated by other evidence. A particularly important Piece of evidence is photograph number 17 on page 13 of the photo album of the members of the, Osvemici par formation which shows the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC, Mujo ALIHODZIC and Ramiz BEGOVIC. It is not disputed that ‘only Muslims were taken off the bus, as stated by the witness Slobodan IKONIC, the river of the other bus, who confirmed that there were only Serbs on his bus with the exception of a young boy who was Musfim and whose identity could not be established. ‘They will seek damages subsequently in a separate civil suit, and they joined the criminal prosecution. (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth a(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation In their closing arguments, counsel for the accused disputed the allegations in the amended indictment by the District Public Prosecutor in Belgrade concerning both the factual basis of the crime and the legal categorisation of the crime which the accused are charged with. ‘The defence stated that it was not established based on the evidence presented that the accused had committed a war crime against civilian persons as defined in Article 142, paragraph I, of the KZ. of the FRY, as charged in the amended indictment. For this reason, the defence proposed that the court acquit the accused pursuant to Article 355, paragraph 1, item 3, of the ZKP. Counsel for the accused Milan LUKIG, attorney Zoran POPOVIC, stressed that the District Court in Belgrade was not competent to conduet the criminal proceedings, regardless of the legal opinion of the Supreme Court on the matter of competence, both in terms of territorial jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction, se itis beyond dispute that the accused Milan LUKIC is being tried in absentia, which means that he has neither temporary nor permanent residence in our country. ‘The files of the Uzice District Court, number Ki. 118/02, include a certificate issued by the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina confirming that the accused Milan LUKIC is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, therefore the accused Milan LUKIC i not a citizen of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro. On the other hand, the case files also contain the indictment by the Prosecutor of The Hague ‘Tribunal issued against the accused Milan LUKIC, as well as other persons. It is beyond dispute that The Hague Tribunal has primacy over national courts and national proceedings against these same persons. This description of actions, as in the amended indictment, has already been covered in the indictment by The Hague ‘Tribunal under item 2, where the actions described under item 20, under a, b, € and d, are the actions of the accused Milan LUKIC; namely, in the period between May 1992 and 10 October 1994, he killed several dozen non-Serbian civilians, treated non-Serbs cruelly and inhumanely, and unlawfully detained and abused’ them, which all constitutes a crime against humanity according to the indictment pursuant to Article 5 of the Statute of the International Tribunal. For these reasons, he moved to discontinue this criminal case against the accused Milan LUKIC, because the actions were the same as in the amended indictment by the OIT in Belgrade. It does not even follow from the evidence presented so far that there was a war, an armed conflict or occupation, nor has any evidence been presented with regard to these circumstances. 142, paragraph 1, of sed LUKIC was “a member of a paramilitary formation”, not a member of a military, police or administrative organisation, so for this reason, he cannot be the perpetrator of this ‘essary precondition for cach perpetrator of this crime is intent, which must be premeditated, and only in a specific case may one talk about possible intent. Based on the evidence obtained by hearing numerous witnesses, one cannot draw the conclusion which is mentioned as the action in this indictment — that following prior agreement, the accused LUKIC physically abused the above- mentioned 16 persons of Muslim ethnicity, beating them with wooden sticks all over their bodies, and that he then transferred them by truck to the bank of the River Drina, where they killed all of them, Not a single piece of evidence has been presented with (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 8(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation regard to these claims about a prior agreement on physical abuse and murder, or that they took them by truck to the bank of the River Drina, It can only be established and concluded from the testimony of the witness Dragana DEKIC that the civilians in the Vilina Vlas Motel were bruised and covered with blood, but this witness does not know who did that, least of all that the accused LUKIC did it, On the contrary, it can be coneluded that this was done by the civilians. ‘who were present there and who, according to this witness, demanded that the soldiers. let them in to lynch the civilians, but they did not allow this. It can be concluded from the statement of this witness that she does not know whether those civilians, and which ones, were killed with firearms, in view of the fact that those persons were stoned by civilians. It has also been established based on the statement of this witness that the accused LUKIC told her that the civilians were supposed to be exchanged for dead Serbs, but that the Muslims had rejected the exchange and that those civilians were then Killed, but not by LUKIC, because as the witness stated: “LUKIC did not tell me that he had killed them, but that they had killed them.” So the question arises as to who are those who killed them — was it the civilians whom this witness saw stoning them, or was it someone else, and who that someone is? During the proceedings this question has not been answered. Ithas been established on the basis of written evidence that there are only five death certificates for the 16 persons said to have been killed according to the indictment; however, the only proof of death of a person is a death certificate or a final court decision declaring the person dead. ‘The submitted photographs are also disputed, because the report from the BIA /Security Intelligence Ageney/ mentions that the BIA does not have the negatives of these photographs. This means that the BIA and the MUP /Ministry of the Interior/ obtained in an unknown way various photographs showing different people in different time periods and in. various cireumstanees, he questioned witnesses possess no information about these criminal actions. The statement of the witness Tomislav IVANOVIC, a shop owner, that he has never seen the accused Milan LUKIC in his shop and that during the assembly attended by representatives of the authorities the shop was not even open, is contrary to the statement of the questioned witness Ramiz CATOVIC. It follows from the statement of the witness Milié POPOVIC that there was some kind of an exchange and that the persons who were taken off the bus. were supposed to be exchanged for dead persons of Serbian ethnicity. This could be a crime of abduction as defined in Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Serbia, but the statute of limitation for this erime has expired. Attorney Milomir SALIG, counsel for the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, said in his closing arguments that it_was not proven that the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC had committed the crime in question, and proposed that he be acquitted due to lack of evidence. (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth »(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation He said that prior agreement was disputed because it had not been stated what kind of agreement this had been and what the role of the accused in the perpetration of the crime they are charged with had been. Did they just take part in the exe: decision, and whose decision, on the forcible abduction, torture and killing of civilians? In this respect, co-perpetration is disputed both objectively and subjectively and the court must establish. participation in the crime individually for each participant. On the other hand, there is no description of the aetion of each individual co-perpetrator. Objections with regard to the description of the committed erime have not been addressed in the amended indictment either. Concerning the description of the action of each co-perpetrator, there is no description of the participation of Dragutin DRAGICEVIC or the other accused except for saying that “the others stood on the side”. The question arises as to who saw DRAGICEVIC standing on the side, what vehicle he drove away in, where he was standing and what car he returned in. ‘The witness Dragana DEKIC changed her statement several times and finally withdrew all her previous statements at the trial, saying that they were not true and that they had been forced upon her by state security personnel. Even if her earlier statement was to be taken into account, it could not lead to the conviction of Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, because it does not confirm the allegations in the indictment and only ‘one part mentions him — that he was seen, but did not carry out a single action in the torture and murder The matters of the role of the accused and the causal relationship between the described actions and the consequences remain unresolved. The origin and the manner in which two albums of photographs in the case files were acquired are disputed. He said further that the statement of the witness Luka DRAGICEVIC could not be aecepted as proof that they had not been members of the above-mentioned unit in view of the fact that he (DRAGICEVIC/ said that he also knew that Oliver KRSMANOVIC had been a member of that unit because he had requested transfer to an easier duty. KRSMANOVIC could not be a member of Osvernici as a paramilitary formation and a member of a regular military unit at the same time and such a statement by Luka DRAGICEVIC can be explained by fear because of his own command responsibility for the event in the zone of responsibility of his unit, With regard to the accused DRAGICEVIC, there is no evidence that he took part in committing any of the actions mentioned in the indictment bearing the characteristics of violence to life and person, torture or killing of civilians Attorney Slobodan BATRICEVIG, counsel for the accused Dorde SE! said in his closing arguments that he thought that it had not been established based on the evidence presented that the accused Dorde SEVIC had committed the crime in question and proposed that he be acquitted. He fully accepted the closing arguments of attorney Milomir SALIC with regard to disputed legal and factual matters. Attorney Milan VUJIN, counsel for the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC, stated in his closing arguments that it had not established based on the evidence presented that the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC had committed the erime in question and proposed that he be acquitted. He stressed that this court was not competent to try the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC in absentia because he was a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He also said that the provisions of the Geneva (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth ry(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation Conventions could not apply to this event, because there were no two warring sides since the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina were not sides ina conflict. The accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC exercised his right to remain silent uring the inves 1 on 25 September 2003, he disputed the allegations of the indictment by the OFT in Belgrade, refusing to present his defence, and at the trial on 17 January 2008 he stated that he would exercise his legal right to remain silent, but that the allegations in the indictment were not true and that he had not abxlucted or killed anyone. In the closing arguments, he supported the arguments of his counsel. The accused Dorde SEVIC stated in his defence during the preliminary Proceedings, in a statement dated 6 March 2002, that since the outbreak of war in the territory of the former SFRY /Socialist Federative Republic of Yugostavia/ in 1991, hhe had been to the front several times as a volunteer, either through the Serbian Radical Party or individually, always for patriotic motives, to help protect the Serbian population in war-alfected areas. During the fall and winter of 1991, until January 1992, he was on the baitlefield in Okuéani in the former Republic of Croatia through the Serbian Radical Party. The volunteer unit which he belonged to was under the command of the Okuéani territorial defence /TO/ and he got his uniform and automatic rifle /as printed/ called papovka semi-automatic rifle/ from them. In April 1992, he went with 12 or 13 other volunteers from Ruma to Zvornik through the Loznica Board of the Serbian Radical Party and got in touch with members of the territorial defence in the town of Zvornik. During his stay in Zvornik, they were under the command of regular army units, but he could not say whether they were under the command of the Yugoslav People’s Army or the territorial defence of Zvornik. He stayed on this battleground until May 1992 and spent most of his time on guard duty around the town, without taking part in combat operations. His acquaintance and relationship with Dragana DEKIC, a medical orderly in his unit, and his acquaintance with the journalist Milan TIMOTIC date from this period In June 1992 he stayed in Visegrad for the first time. He stayed at the Vilina vias Hotel and it was then that he met Milan LUKIC who introduced himself using his full first and last name, Milan LUKIC was wearing a military uniform, but he does not remember Whether he had a rank at that time. In this period he also met the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, who was staying in the same hotel. He spent about five or six days there, but when he was not given a military assignment he returned to his village of birth near Zvornik, where he spent about three months, mostly in trench not taking part in combat operations, and then went back home to Ruma. With segard to the event in queion the accuse Dre SEVIC sid at Dragana DEKIC had called him about five or six days beforehand and asked whether hhe wanted to go to the battlefield in Viegrad. She informed him that she had been called before that by in LUKIC. He agreed, and several days later they met with the accused Milan LUKIC at the Palas Hotel in Belgrade. He told them on that 1 military unit in ViSegrad, some sort of (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth u(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation an intervention platoon which was supposed to be ready to intervene if the front lines toward the Muslims were breached, Milan LUKIC did not mention any abduction, or anything similar, on that or on other occasions. On arrival in ViSegrad, Dragana DEKIC, the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIG, the journalist Milan TIMOTIC and he moved into a studio. Five or six people gathered every day in that apartment and socialised, and the atmosphere in the apartment did not indicate that this was a military organisation, military headquarters or anything similar. He got an automatic rifle from the accused Milan LUKIC and Dragana DEKIC became a medical orderly at the ViSegrad hospital. ‘The evening before the event in question, the accused Milan LUKIC came to the studio and told them that the next morning they would go into action. ‘There were five or six people in the apartment at that moment. He cannot remember whether any of those present had asked the accused LUKIC what the action was about, but as far as he could remember, ILUKIC had told them that they would see what the operation was about when they arrived at the site. He could not remember the exact date, but he knows that it was in the morning when he left with about eight other people in a passenger car from ViSegrad and drove toward Serbia, Dragana DEKIC stayed in Visegrad. In the border area, they were stopped by Republika Srpska police at a police checkpoint, but on that occasion, although they were wearing uniforms, they easily crossed the border and passed by the police of the Republic of Serbia. They continued driving for a little longer and then stopped in some village. He did not know the area and there were no houses or any other buildings. ‘The area was hilly and forested. Milan LUKIC positioned them ‘on both sides of the road. There were about ten or twelve fighters with Milan LUKIC, and he is certain that the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC and the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC were among them, After some time, a bus full of passengers appeared. Milan LUKIC stopped the bus and when it stopped he went in. He saw that a group of passengers in civilian clothes were taken off the bus and that the passengers were mostly men, and only on their return to ViSegrad did he see that there was also a woman among the passengers. All passengers from the bus were taken by truck to Vikegrad, but he does not remember whether the truck had come from Vi8egrad or whether a truck had passed by in the meantime and they put the civilians onboard. Tt was a red Zastava truck with a canvas cover. While the civilians were climbing on the back of the truck, he and his fellow fighters were positioned on the sides of the road, in uniforms and armed, but he could not say whether their weapons were at the ready. (On the way back to Vigegrad, he was again in the passenger car with which he came to this location. When they arrived in ViSegrad, to the intersection from which the road leads right to the Vilina Vlas Hotel and left to the apartment where he was staying, he got out of the car and went to the apartment. He explained that he saw from the apartment that a lot of people had gathered in the centre of ViSegrad and he found out during the day that these civilian passengers from the bus had been taken to the Vilina vlas Hotel and later Killed, but he did not know who had killed them, On the next day he left Visegrad and returned to Ruma, He did not report to the accused Milan LUKIC when he left and he never saw him again after this event After he stated that he could recognise in the photos all the persons who had taken part in the operation with him on the occasion in question, photographs from the album of photographs of members of the Osvernici paramilitary formation were (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 2(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation shown to the accused. In photograph number one on page one of the album, he recognised the accused Milan LUKIC, in photograph two on page two, he recognised the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC, aka Orlié, and in photograph three on page three of the album, he recognised the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, who was known as Bosanac. In photograph number five on page five of the photo album, he recognised the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, aka Bosanac. He did not recognise the person in photograph 6, but in group photograph number seven on page seven of the photo album, he recognised himself holding a cigarette, and to his left, sitting at a table, Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, aka Bosanac, but he does not know the other person wearing a hat in front of him, nor does he know the name of that person, In photograph number eight on page seven, he recognised the accused Milan LUKIC, standing first to the left, and he recognised the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, aka Bosanac, squatting in the middle, but he does not know the other persons in this photograph by their first or last names, or their nicknames, and did not see them. The same persons from the previous photograph are in photograph number nine on page ight of the photo album, with the exception of a person in civilian clothes who is not in the previous photograph, while he recognised the person marked number four with a ballpoint pen as the journalist TIMOTIC. In photograph number 10 on page eight he recognised Dragana DEKIG, and in photograph number 11 on page nine, he recognised the first person on the left as the accused Milan LUKIC. In photograph number 12 on page ten of the photo album, he recognised on the right side the accused Milan LUKIC, but he does not know the person to the left of the accused LUKIC. In photograph number 13, he recognised the journalist TIMOTIC and the accused Milan LUKIC. In photograph number 14 on page II, he recognised Dragana DEKIC as the female person wearing a uniform and the person behind her is him, wearing a beret and a uniform, with a rifle, while he does not know the other civilians in this photograph and cannot say when the photograph was taken. In photograph number 15 there are two men whom he does not recognise, but he thinks that they are locals. He does not recognise either the persons in photograph number 16 on page 12 of the album, or the persons in the photograph on page 13. In the photograph on page 14, he recognised the accused Milan LUKIC, but did not recognise the person to the right of the accused LUKIC. In the photograph on page 15, he recognised the accused Milan LUKIC. In the photograph on page 16, he recognised the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC, aka Orli¢, but did not recognise the person in the photograph on page 17 and the photograph on page 18. With regard to the civilian passengers from the bus who had been abducted on. the occasion in question, he would not be able to recognise them. When he was shown the album of photographs of the abducted persons belonging to the case files and marked as attachment number one, the accused SEVIC stated that in photograph number two on page two — considering that the person was photographed from the back and comparing with the photographs in the album shown to him previously, the photo album of members of the Osvetnici paramilitary formation — if the photographs were taken at the same time, he thinks that the person wearing a uniform is Oliver KRSMANOVIC, aka Orlié. He did not recognise the other persons in the photographs in this photo album. He said that this was the first time he had seen these photographs and repeated that he had not been in the Vilina vias Hotel, that he had only heard from the stories of other people in ViSegrad that these civilian passengers from the bus had been killed, but that he did not know whether they had been beaten in the hotel and, if they had been beaten, who had beaten them and who had possibly killed them later (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 6(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation He added that he did not know that some Serbian fighters had been killed by the Muslims immediately before this operation, In his defence at the trial, in a record dated 20 January 2003, the accused Dorde SEVIC partly changed the statement he had given in the preliminary proceedings. He stated that he had reported to the Serbian Radical Party Board in Ruma as a volunteer and a patriot to serve on the battlefield and had been sent to the area of Slavonia and Okuéani. In April 1992, after returning from the front in Slavonia with ten or so other comrades from Ruma, he reported to the Serbian Radical Party Board in Loznica and they were transferred in an organised way to the territory of Zvornik. He reported there to the TO Staff and stayed in this area from April to the end of May 1992, During this period, he was mostly engaged in the defence of the town of Zvornik. He spent most of his time on guard duty in trenches and was armed with an automatic rifle and also had a camouflage uniform. In May 1992, he returned to Ruma where he spent several days, and when he found out thai a certain number of people from Ruma with whom he had been at the front had transferred to the battlefield in ViSegrad, he went to ViSegrad in early June 1992, but now on his own initiative and not through the party. In ViSegradska banja he got in touch with fighters from Ruma, who were staying in the Vilina Vias Hotels. ‘Territorial Defence units under the command of the Army of Republika Srpska were stationed in the same hotel, but he does not remember who the commander of that unit was. ‘The unit he was assigned to numbered about twenty fighters, mostly from Republika Srpska and volunteers from Serbia, and he was issued an automatic rifle. Aller spending about ten days in this unit, he reported to the authorities that he would leave the unit. He returned his uniform and weapons and went to the village of Osmaci near Zvornik, where he reported again for duty at the Territorial Defence Staff in Zvornik. He was issued a uniform and weapon and spent about three months there, mostly guarding the town, without participation in combat operations, and then returned home to Ruma, He said that as a member of the unit in the Territorial Defence in Visegrad he had met the accused Milan LUKIC, who was the commander of that unit at the time, and the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, who was a fighter in thal unit, but that he had met the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIG, whom he knew by his nickname Orlig, a little later. He stayed in the area of Zvornik ~ in the area of the village of Osmaci, about three months, and then went back to Ruma. While he was at the front in Zvornik, he met Dragana DEKIC and dated her. He knew that she had also returned from the front to Belgrade In October 1992, Dragana phoned from Belgrade to ask him to visit her. When he came to Belgrade, Dragana told him that the accused Milan LUKIC had called her and asked whether she wanted to go to the front and told her to call Dorde SEVIC, fade, the accused Milan LUKIG, the accused Dragut DRAGICEVIG, Dragana DEKIC and he met at the Palas Hotel, and LUKIC presented his plan to establish a special unit of fighters from the ViSegrad area. He accepted the invitation to join this unit, and in October 1992, Dragana DEKIC, the accused Milan LUKIC, LUKICs girlfriend and he went by car to ViSegrad, He said that he was not sure whether the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC had also been wi them. ‘They moved to a studio in Visegrad — Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, Dragana DEKIG, who was assigned as a medical orderly, Milan TIMOTIC, a photographer (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth ry(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation who introduced himself as a journalist from Zemun, and himself. Milan LUKIC came to this apartment only occasionally. _During his stay in this apartment, five or six days before the operation, Milan LUKIC brought every day two or three armed fighters to introduce them. He did not tell them who his deputy was. The evening before the event in question, in the presence of Dragana DEKIC and some other persons — but he is not sure who else was there ~ Milan LUKIC asked him to go into action early the next morning, without giving any details on what the ‘operation was about. He was not sure where they had gathered as a unit before going into action, but he knows, as far as he can remember, that there were about ten to twelve fighters and that they were in two passenger vehicles and a red Zastava truck with a canvas cover. At the front of the convoy there was a passenger vehicle with the accused Milan LUKIC, the truck was in the middle, and a Lada passenger vehicle with him was behind the truck. He does not remember which road they took, whether the police stopped them at the police checkpoint on the border between Bosnia and ‘bia, and he cannot say how long the drive took. They stopped in a hilly, forested and uninhabited area. At that location they divided into groups of a few men each and 100k up positions at about five to six meters on both sides of the road. Considering that it has been ten years since this event, he said that he could not remember all the details and who positioned the fighters, but he does think that the accused Milan LUKIG, who was the unit commander, may have done that. He does not remember whether he was behind a shelter, whether he was carrying the rifle on his shoulder or at the ready in his hands, and where the other fighters were. He explained that the accused Milan LUKIC stayed on the road, but he does not remember whether LUKIC was holding a rifle and whether another fighter also stayed on the road with LUKIC. Some of the fighters were camouflaged or, rather, they were wearing camouflage uniforms and caps on their heads. Some of them had cockades on their caps and some hters had painted their faces in different colours. He mentioned that the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC, aka Orlig, was among the fighters, but he does not remember whether the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC also took part in this operation. After some time, a bus carrying passengers appeared on the road. The accused Milan LUKIC stopped the bus and entered with a rifle in his hands. He said that before the bus arrived he had not seen a single person at the place where they had stopped, that he did not know the name of the village or whether it was in the territory of Bosnia or Serbia. He also said that he did not remember which door of the bus the accused Milan LUKIC used, but he did remember that after a short time passengers started to get off the bus one by one, He did not approach the bus at all. He is not sure whether two or three fighters other got on the bus with Milan LUKIC. He did not approach their group. He does not know what route this bus was driving on. He did not approach the persons who were taken off and he does not remember whether the passenger vehicles and the truck with the canvas cover were parked on the road or on the side of the road. He did not hear who ordered the passengers to get on the truck, whether Milan LUKIC or another one of the fighters who were with him on the bus. He said that he did not know exactly how many people had heen taken off the bus. He saw that it was a large group. He cannot remember whether a woman was taken off the bus. He did not hear or see that any of the passengers who were taken off the bus asked for any explanations. They climbed on the back of the truck single word. He did not see whether any of the fighters taking part in this operation climbed on the back of the truck together with the civilian passengers. At the moment (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 5(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation when these people were already on the truck under the cover, he approached the Lada car and got in, and then they returned to Visegrad using the same road. He does not remember that they were stopped at the police checkpoint between Serbia and Bosnia, As far as he can remember, they crossed without being stopped, and when they came to the centre of Visegrad, he got out of the car and went to the apartment that he was using. He did not go out to the town any more that day and he did not know what happened to the passengers. The following day, he travelled home to Ruma. Only after five or six days did he find out from the media that the people taken off the bus were of Muslim ethnicity, At the trial on 20 January 2003, the accused Dorde SEVIC was shown his defence presented in the preliminary proceedings, a defence which differed from the fone he presented at the trial, so he was asked to explain the difference in his statements regarding the crossing of the border between the Republic of Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina at the time in question, as well as the behaviour of the police at the police checkpoint and whether the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC also took operation, or whether there was a woman among the abducted passengers, ing that in the preliminary proceedings the accused Dorde SEVIC stated that Dragutin DRAGICEVIC had also taken part in the operation and that he had seen on the way back that a woman from the bus was also on the truck. With regard to these circumstances, the accused Dorde SEVIC said that the event had happened ten years ago, that he had presented his defence in the preliminary proceedings one year ago, and that due to the passage of time he could not remember the details concerning the crossing of the border and the conduct of the police of the Republic of Serbia toward them, or whether the accused DRAGICEVIC had taken part in this operation, He did accept the possibility that a woman had also been among the prevent civilians and that he had seen her on the way back to ViSegrad, He said that he could recognise all the fellow fighters who had taken part in this operation at the time in question, but that, as he had said earlier, he had only found out from newspapers after his return to Ruma that the unit which had carried out this operation was called Osvetici At the trial, the accused Dorde SEVIG was shown individual photographs from the photo album with members of the Osvemici paramilitary formation, and the accused stated that in photograph number one, he recognised with certainty the accused Milan LUKIC, In photograph numer two, he recognised the accused OI KRSMANOVIG, aka Orlié. In photograph number three, he recognised with cert the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, saying however that he recognised him as a fellow fighter from the unit, but that he was not sure whether he had participated directly in this operation. In photograph number five, he recognised the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC. In photograph number seven on page seven, the person marked number one with a ballpoint pen is himself, the accused Dorde explained that the photograph had been taken in the studio in Vi8egrad was staying. The accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC is to his left, but he does not recognise the other fighters in this photograph. In the group photograph marked number eight, he recognised the accused Milan LUKIC who is marked number one with a ballpoint pen, but he does not know the person marked with the numbers two and three with a ballpoint pen in this photograph, or the person in civilian clothes in the same photograph. Photograph number nine on page eight of the photo album shows the same persons that he recognised in photograph number eight, with the remark that the journalist Milan TIMOTIC is marked number four with a ballpoint pen. He explained that the photograph had been taken somewhere in ViSegrad. He (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 6(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation recognised Dragana DEKIC in photograph number ten on page eight of the photo album, In photograph number 11 on page nine, he recognised the accused Milan LUKIG, who is holding a sub-machine gun pointed in the air. In photograph number 12 on page ten, he recognised Milan LUKIC, who is marked number one. Photograph number 13 on page ten shows the accused Milan LUKIC, who is marked number one and the journalist Milan TIMOTIC, who is marked number two. In. photograph number 14 on page I1, he recognised Dragana DEKIC, who is standing next to a woman in black, and he can also be seen in the photograph with a white cap on his head. He does not remember the people in photograph number 15 on page 11 and did not see them, As far as he can remember, the unit he belonged to did not carry a flag with the inscription: “With faith in God, freedom or death”, which can be seen in this photograph. He did not recognise any of the persons in photograph number 16 on page 12. In photograph number 17 on page 13, he recognised the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC, who is holding a sub-machine gun pointed in the air and is wrapped in a black flag with a skull and crossbones, on which the inscription “Freedom of” can be seen. In photograph number I8 on page 14, he recognised the accused Milan LUKIC. In photograph number 19 on page 15, he recognised the accused Milan LUKIG, who is wearing a fur cap on his head and is marked number one with a ballpoint pen, He did not recognise the person in photograph number 20 on page 16 of the photo album, and in photograph number 21 on page 17, he recognised the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC, He did not recognise the person in photograph number 22.0n page 18, although he knew that the photograph had been taken in ViSegrad, but he did not know whether the scene was on the bank of a river or a lake. He said that he could not recognise the abducted persons ~ the passengers from the bus. When the accused Dorde SEVIC was shown the photograph on page two of the photo album of the abducted persons, the accused stated that he did not recognise the person in the photograph, but when he was shown photograph number 17 on page 13 of the photo album of the members of the paramilitary formation before photograph number two on page two of the photo album of the abducted persons for comparison, the accused stated, having seen the flag in which the soldier was wrapped, that he thought that it was Oliver KRSMANOVIC. After he was shown Photograph number eight on page six of the photo album of the abducted persons, the accused stated that he did not recognise the person in a camouflage uniform holding something in his hand. He did not recognise either the person wearing a camouflage ‘uniform and brown shoes in photograph number 15 on page ten of the photo album of the abducted persons. When asked to clarify the differences in his statement compared to the preliminary proceedings, when he stated that he had heard on arrival in Vigegrad that the abducted persons had been taken to the Vilina Vias Hotel, whereas at the trial he stated that he did not remember and did not know where they had been taken, the accused SEVIC said that he did not know where the abducted persons had been taken, that he also did not remember with certainty whether he had heard during his stay in ViSegrad that these persons had been killed or whether he had heard that later from the media, and that he could not remember the name of a single commander or officer from Visegrad from the time that he had spent in this town. He does not remember whether he took any instructions from any representatives of the authorities in Serbia or any political party when he went to the front, Furthermore, he does not know whether any Serbian fighters had been captured by the Muslims before this ‘operation was undertaken, He does not know that Visegrad Municipality was declared (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth "7(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation a Serbian municipality, but he did know that the Serbian army was located in this town and that he and other Serbian soldiers were mostly engaged in trenches, defending the town from Croatian and Muslim extremist. At the trial on 22 September 2003, the accused SEVIC stated that this ‘operation was the first organised operation that he had taken part in, and had been led by Milan LUKIC. On the oceasion in question, before the arrival of the bus, Milan LUKIC positioned fighters on both sides of the road, but he cannot remember who issued the order to stop the bus. He did not receive any direct orders on what he should do when the bus stopped. Presenting his defence at the trial on 17 January 2005, the accused Dorde SEVIC mostly repeated the defence he had presented in the preliminary proceedings and at /other/ hearings with regard to his departure to the front. He said that the first time that he had been at the front was in Okuéani in the winter of 1991, He went through the Serbian Radical Party, of which he was a member, together with ten or twelve other fighters. He volunteered. He did not join a single operation; he was only on guard duty. After that, he returned home to Ruma and stayed in Ruma until April 1992, when he went to Zvornik, also through the Serbian Radical Party. They were under the nd of the territorial defence. He was issued an SMB /olive drab/ @ camouflage uniform and an automatic rifle. He stayed at the front approximately until May 1992, He was mostly in trenches and on guard duty. Before hhe went home to Ruma, he reported to the territorial defence staff and returned his uniform and weapons. He went to ViSegrad in June 1992. Since his comrades went to ‘Zovornik, he spent five or six days in Visegradska banja where he stayed at the Vilina Vias Hotel. Before going to the Vilina Vias Hotel, he went to the territorial defence staff and they directed him to the hotel. At that time, there were volunteers, members and policemen in the hotel. They were all wearing uniforms, some camouflage and some SMB uniforms, and they were all armed. He could not distinguish between TO and Army of Republika Srpska members, but he found out through conversations who was who. He was armed with an automatic rifle. He was waiting for his military assignment, but since he did not receive a military assignment, he went to the village of Osmaci, which is located in the territory of Zvornik. Before going to the village of Osmaci, he reported to the ‘TO staff and returned his automatic rifle, but kept his uniform as it was his own uniform which he had brought from home. He stayed two to three months in Osmaci, where he was on guard duty, and then returned home to Ruma, When he returned home, Dragana DEKIC, whom he had met earlier in Zvornik and had been dating since then, called him and proposed that they go to the front in ViSegrad. She was a medical orderly. She told him on the phone that Milan LUKIC had called and had also asked for him to go to Visegrad. She proposed to meet with him at the Hotel Palas in Belgrade. He explained that he had met Milan LUKIC when he was in ViSegrad at the Vilina Vlas Hotel and that he had heard then that Milan LUKIC was a TO member. He knew that all those who were from the territory of Visegrad were TO members. 0 He met with Dragana DEKIC and Milan LUKIC at the Hotel Palas and on that occasion LUKIC said that he was planning to establish a unit — an intervention unit which was supposed to be at the ready to intervene if the line di Serbs and the Muslims was breeched, He did not ask who the commander of that unit would. be. Since he was 19 years old at the time, he did not know and was not told who the commander of that intervention unit would be. ‘That same evening when they met al (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 18(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation the Hotel Palas, Milan LUKIG, Dragana DEKIC and LUKIC’s girlfriend departed for Visegrad in LUKIC's car, a maroon Passat. He does not know what licence plates the car had. Milan LUKIC mentioned at the Hotel Palas that they needed people for the intervention unit, but he did not ask for whom and he assumed that it was for the territorial defence staf. When they arrived in Visegrad, Milan LUKIC took him and Dragana BEKIC to studio in the centre of town, The following day, Milan LUKIG came to the studio with Dragutin DRAGICEVIG and the journalist Milan TIMOTIC. The first time he met Dragutin DRAGICEVIG was in Zvornik, but he did not know whether he was a TO fighter or a volunteer, The next time he saw him was in ViSegrad, and the first time he saw Milan TIMOTIC was in Zvornik. He knew that he was a journalist and that he was doing some interviews. When LUKIC brought them, he said that Dragulin DRAGICEVIC would be a member of the intervention unit. DRAGICEVIC and he got automatic les from LUKIC and Dragana DEKIC also got an automatic rifle and had her own, uniform, He could not remember whether Milan TIMOTIC was wearing a uniform and whether he had any weapons. He could not rem any talk about the intervention unit and upcoming operations. ‘One evening LUKIC came to the apartment in which there were about five or six of them and told them that they would go into action the next day, but he did not explain what the operation was about, and nobody asked what the operation was about. He did not give them any assignments at that time. After telling them about the operation, Milan LUKIC left. They left in the morning for the operation. There were about ten to fifteen of them. Two or three vehicles were parked in front of the building. He could not remember whether there was also a truck in addition to the passenger vehicles. Dragana DEKIC stayed in the studio, He claimed with certainty that he had seen Oliver KRSMANOVIC in front of the building and that he had been with them in the operation, but he thought that Dragutin DRAGICEVIC had stayed in the studio. Milan TIMOTIC also stayed in the studio because of some interviews. He did not know where they were going, because LUKIC had not told them where they were going. He thought that that was the intervention unit that LUKIC had established and which numbered about ten or eleven fighters. After driving for about a half an hour, they were stopped by the police at a police checkpoint. After that, they continued to drive and about a half an hour later they parked the vehicles, and as far as he can remember Milan LUKIC stopped the vehicles. Milan LUKIC positioned them on the side of the road. A bus appeared and Milan LUKIC stopped the bus. The bus crossed from the right side to the left side, and he was standing on the left side of the road from the bus, about five to six meters away. He did not know what he was supposed to do. He stood there pointing his at the ground and watched. He could not remember where the other fighters had been, but he said it was possible that somebody was standing next to him on the side. He saw Milan LUKIC get on the bus, but he could not say whether he used the front or the back door. He does not remember whether he was armed either. He does not know whether he said anything. After a certain time, he saw some people getting off the bus ~ civilians, about 15 or 16 of them. As far as he can remember there was also a woman, When the people got off the bus, he saw a small red civilian truck with a canvas cover. He said that he did not know who had told these people to get on the truck. He did not approach this, ‘group, and just stood on the side and watched. ‘The passenger vehicles with which (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 9(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation they came there were parked on the side of the road, ‘The people got on the truck and stayed there under the canvas cover, and as far as he can remember none of the ers climbed on the truck. After these people were taken off, the bus left ediately. He could not remember who ordered the bus fo leave. He stressed that had he known that there would be civilians, he would not have joined the operation. In spite of the fact that he saw that all the civilians had gotten off the bus, he could not move, and he stayed where he was. After that, they took the same road back to ViSegrad, but he could not remember whether they had been stopped by the police. As soon as they arrived in Vigegrad he went to the apartment, and Dragana was in the apartment. He could not remember whether he had talked to anybody in the car about the civilians who were on the truck, and he did not ask anybody what would happen to those people. He did not ask either where they were driving them. He simply went to ‘the apartment, without reporting to Milan LUKIG or anybody else. He did not like the fact that those people had been taken off the bus. He could not explain why he had not did not leave when he saw that civilians were being taken off the bus and he does not remember whether he was afraid of anyone. That same day he heard that the people who had been taken off the bus were Muslims. After that, he did not contact anyone and did not contact Milan LUKIC. He does not know what happened to the people and where they were taken. He assumes that Milan LUKIC was the commander of ‘that operation, but he does not know whether he had any deputies. On that occasion, he did not notice whether he was in touch with anyone or whether he had a radio station When the accused Dorde SEVIC was shown the statement he had given at the trial on 20 January 2003 — the part where he stated that he had found out only after ve or six days that the people taken off the bus were Muslims and that he had found ‘out about this from newspapers, whereas in the preliminary proceedings and at today’s trial he stated that he had heard that same day in ViSegrad that the persons taken off the bus were Muslims, the accused could not explain the difference in his statements. When he was also shown another part of his statement in the preliminary proceedings where he stated that he was certain that the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC had also been with them in the operation, whereas today he stated that he thought that he had not been in the operation, the ifference in his statements either, or to be more preci were coming back, he came to the conclusion that Dragutin DRAGICI been with them, EVIC had not The accused Dorde SEVIC was shown photographs from the photo album of the Osyemici paramilitary formation and the accused stated that the accused Milan LUKIC js in photograph number one, Oliver KRSMANOVIC js in photograph number two and Dragutin DRAGICEVIC is in photograph number, three. In photograph number five, he recognised the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC. In photograph number seven on page seven, he, Dorde SEVIC, is marked number one with a ballpoint pen, while Dragutin DRAGICEVIC i sitting opposite him, In the group photograph marked number eight, he recognised Milan LUKIC, who is marked number one. In photograph number nine on page eight of the photo album, Milan TMOTIC is marked number four and Milan LUKIC is the person marked number fone, while the person squatting on the left side is Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, In Photograph number ten on page eight, the female person with blond hair in a uniform (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 2(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation is Dragana DEKIC. In photograph number 11 on page nine, he recognised the accused Milan LUKIC, who is holding a sub-machine gun. In photograph number 12 on page ten, he recognised the accused Milan LUKIC. In photograph number 13 on page tei the accused Milan LUKIC is marked number one and the journalist Milan TIMOTIC is marked number two. In photograph number 14 on page 11, he recognised Dragana DEKIC and himself with a white cap on his head. In photograph number 18 on page 14, he recognised the accused Milan LUKIC. In photograph number 19 on page 15, he recognised the accused Milan LUKIC. Oliver KRSMANOVIC is in photograph number 21 on page 17. When the accused Dorde SEVIC was told that at the trial on 20 January 2003 he had stated that the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC was in photograph 17 on page 13, but that he did not recognise him today, and when he was asked to explain the difference, the accused said that he could not say that with certainty because the photograph had been taken from a side angle. He does not know who took the photographs. In his closing arguments he supported the closing arguments of his counsel The accused Milan LUKIC and the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC were tried in absentia in accordance with decision Ky, 2451/02 of the ‘Trial Chamber of this out of reach of state organs and the At the retrial, the court acted in accordance with the objections of the Supreme Court of Serbia in decision K7. 494/04 of 27 September 2004, During the presentation of evidence, the court heard representatives of the families of the injured parties, and with the approval of the parties, at the trial held on 12 July 2008, it read the statements of the injured parties Dzavid MANDAL, Sabrija HODZIC, Hanka DAUTOVIC and Ramiz CATOVIC from the record of 21 January 2003; read the statements of Mirsad BAJRAMOVIC, Hilmija ALILHODZIC, Dzevad HODZIC, Ibrahim SEBA, Mesud GIBOVIC, Behudin HODZIC and Nusret DZTHIC from the record of the trial held on 21 January 2003; and of Rasim PECIKOZA from the record of the trial held on 18 January 2005. With the approval of the parties, it read the statements of the witness Velisav STOJKANOVIC from the records of the trials held on 15 April 2003 and 19 January 2005, Biljana BOJOVIC from the records of the trials held on 22 January 2003 and 19 January 2005, and the statements of the witness Dragana DEKIC from the record of the preliminary proceedings on 27 March 2002 and from the records of the trials held on 23 January 2003 and 21 January 2008. During the presentation of evidence, the Court heard the witness Miloje UDOVICIC, on the record of 28 February 2005, and with the approval of the parties, it also read the statement of the witness Miloje UDOVICIC from the record of 22 January 2003, heard the witness Milan TIMOTIC and with the approval of the parties read the statement of the witness dated 22 January 2003, heard the witness Ilija KITIC and read the statement of the witness dated 17 March 2003, read the statement of the witness Desa KITIC from the record of 15. April 2003, heard the witness Radomir RAKOVIC and read the statement of the witness dated 15. April 2003, read the statement of the witness Dragoslav RAKOVIC dated 15 April 2003, heard the witness Dordije JANJUSEVIC and read the statement of the witness Dordije JANJUSEVIC from the record of the trial held on 16 April 2003, heard the witness Slavko ROMANDIC and read the statement of the witness dated 16 April 2003, heard the witness Milié POPOVIC and read the statement of the witness Milié POPOVIC from (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth a(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation the record of 18 April 2003, the injured parties /as printed/, heard the witness Luka DRAGICEVIC and read the statement of the witness from the record of 29 May 2003, heard the witnesses Slobodan IKONIC, Dragan MLANOVIC, Ivan IVANOVIC, Rahmo TVICO, Omer SKORUP and Professor Moméilo GRUBAC, examined the material sent by ‘The Hague Tribunal on a CD, read the statements of the witness Dragan PEROVIC from the record of the trial held on 29 May 2003, heard the witness ‘Tomislav [VANOVIC and read the statement of the witness from the record of the trial held on 16 April 2003, and examined the album of photographs of members of the Osvetnici paramilitary formation, the album of photographs of the persons abducted on 22 October 1992 from a passenger bus in the village of Mioge and photocopies of files on issued ID cards. A report of the Security and Inforn ‘Agency of Serbia was read, showing that they do not have the negatives of the with the above-mentioned photographs. A death certificate from Priboj Municipality was read, as well as a decision of the Municipal Court in Priboj declaring the following missing persons dead: Medo HODZIC, ldriz GIBOVIC, Zafer HADZIC, Alija MANDAL and Sead PECIKOZA. Copies of the files of ID cards of the following victims were exan Zaler HADZIC, Medo HODZIC, Medredin HODZI x IC, Mithad SOFTIC, Mujo ALIHODZIC, Alija MANDAL, Mustafa BAIRAMOVIG, Sead PECIKOZA, Hajrudin SAJTAROVIC, Fsad DZIHIC, Sabahudin CATOVIG, Idriz, GIBOVIC, Ramahudin CATOVIC and Mevlida KOLDZIC. Copies of the files of ID cards were used to establish the registration numbers of the ID cards, the fact that they head been issued by the Priboj SUP (Secretariat of the Interior/ in the names of the injured parties, that they were citizens with permanent residence in the general area of the Priboj OUP /Depariment of the Interior/ and that they were citizens of the FR /Pederal Republic/ of Yugoslavia and the Republic of Serbi A report from the Information Technology Department of the Belgrade GSUP WCity Secretariat of the Interior/ was read showing that the accused Milan LUKIC has permanent residence in Belgrade, in Slobodana Penezica street no. 5, followed by a report on the registration of permanent residence for Oliver KRSMANOVIG, showing that he had permanent residence in the village of VraneSevei, Cajetina Municipality. report showing that Dragutin DRAGICEVIC does not have a registered place of permanent residence in the Republic of Serbia, as well as a report on the permanent residence of the accused Dorde SEVIG in Ruma. A report was read from the Priboj Department of the Interior, dated 25 May 2002, on the missing persons from the Rudo Priboj bus. The findings and opinion of a commission of neuropsyc! experts for the accused Dorde SEVIC were read, as was a report from the KE ‘Kctiminal records/. A topographic map of the territory of the former SFRY /Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia/ was examined. Files Ki. 566/94 of the District Court in Belgrade and files Ki.No.118/92 of the Uzice District Court were read. In these files, the decision to open investigation of the accused Milan LUKIC in case Ki.No.566/94, dated 6 April 1994, and the decision on detention were read. Furthermore, a report sent to the Belgrade OJT, dated 14 June 1994, concerning the disappearance of persons and unlawful detention committed on 22 October 1992, was read. Decision Ki.No,56694 issued by the Trial Chamber of this Court on 27 April 1994 and decision Kz II 406/94 of the Supreme Court of Serbia, dated 24 May 1994, rejecting as unjustified the appeal of the OJT in Belgrade against decision Ky.No.5544 of the Court in Belgrade, were read. A submission was showing that a civil action had been conducted before the First Municipal Court pursuant to charges by the plaintiff Milan LUKIC against the Republic of Serbia (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 2(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation because of unlawful detention, From file Ki.No.118/92 of the District Court in Uzice in the proceedings against the accused Milan LUKIC and Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, the following documents were read: request to open investigation Kt. 216/92, decision to open investigation adopted on 30 October 1992, a decision on detention issued on the same date, a certificate on the co and decision Kv.No. 189/92 of the District and photographs showing the items cont accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC were examined. From this file, a certifi by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Visegrad Municipality, dated 4 November 1992, was read showing that Milan LUKIC from Visegrad is a ¢ the Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the SFRY and that the certificate was issued on the basis of information from the register of citizens for the village of Ruiste in Visegrad Municipality. cation of items from the accused in that case, Court in Uzice, dated 4 November 1992; The following certificates issued by the ViSegrad Brigade were read certificates in the names of Milan LUKIC and Dragutin DRAGICEVIC — for Milan LUKIC proving the status of soldier of Republika Srpska /as printed/ and for Dragutin DRAGICEVIC from Visegrad proving that he was engaged in a unit of the Army of Republika Srpska as of 2 June 1992, Both certificates were signed by chief of staff Lt. Colonel Luka DRAGICEVIC. The certificate in the name of Milan LUKIC shows that he was engaged in a unit of the Army of Republika Srpska from Visegrad Municipality as of 19 May 1992 and that the certificate was issued in order to prove the status of soldier in the Army of Republika Srpska. The following documents were read: receipts issued on 28 September 1992 in the name of Milan LUKIC under number KO 8135/92 Visegrad, showing that he had been issued a radio set — with a stamp of the Army of Republika Srpska; and a Certificate issued on the same date showing that Milan LUKIC had been issued by the Visegrad Territorial Defence a Thompson sub-machine gun, a 7.62-mm automatic rifle, an M-75 hand grenade and a 7.65 pistol. The receipt bears the signature of Milan LUKIC as the person who was issued the weapons and the stamp belongs 10 the Vikegrad command of the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina /as printed. A receipt dated 3 October 1992, issued by the Visegrad territorial defence, showing that Dragutin DRAGICEVIC was issued an M 762 automatic rifle and 150 7.62-mm bullets, was also read. A report from the criminal file of Dorde SEVIC was read, A certificate from the Poliester enterprise, dated 26 May 1992, in the name of Medo HODZIC from Zivinice, showing that the certificate was issued for the purpose of unhindered travel to work and home and that it could not he used for other purposes, was read. In the presentation of evidence, the order to issue an international arrest warrant for the accused Milan LUKIC and the accused Oliver KRSMANOV! was read. The indictment by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia against the accused Milan LUKIC was read. The Court examined all pieces of evidence individually and examined how they were related pursuant to Article 18 and Article 352 of the ZKP /Law on Criminal Procedure/ and established the Factual hasis as in the wording of the judgement. In view of the above, the court finds first of all that it is beyond dispute that the District Court in Belgrade has territorial jurisdiction over the trial in this case, because Article 30, paragraph 1, of the ZKP prescribes that if the site of a crime is (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth a(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation outside the territory of the SFRY, the court in whose area the accused has permanent ‘or temporary residence has jurisdiction, Based on the evidence presented, and bearing in mind the certificate of citizenship of the accused LUKIC, it has been established that he was a citizen of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the SFRY, and that he had permanent residence in Belgrade, which was determined on the basis of a report from the MUP MMinistry of the Interior/ of Serbia. ‘The accused Dorde SEVIC is a citizen of the SFRY and the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC is a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the SFRY who was in the territory of the FRY after the crime was committed, while the proceedings against the accused LUKIC were instituted before the District Court in Belgrade, which was the first to start the proceedings, this court thas subject-matter and territorial jurisdiction to conduct a trial for this crime. It is not disputed that the victims are FRY citizens, so the court considers that this is a case when the real principle is applied to determine the jurisdiction and the inal law of the FRY in this criminal case. Therefore, in this concrete case the jurisdiction of the District Court in Belgrade is not contrary to the provision of Article 107 of the Criminal Code of the ederal Republic of Yugoslavia, which prescribes that Yugoslav criminal law also applies to all foreigners who commit a crime from outside the territory of the FRY against itor its citizens, even when the case does not refer to crimes defined in Article 105 of this Law, if they are found in the territory of the FRY or are handed over to it The Court established on the basis of maps that Visegrad is a town in the south-eastern part of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is one of several towns on the River Drina and is located immediately next to the border with Serbia, ‘The town is on the main road connecting Belgrade and Uzice in Serbia with Gorazde and Sarajevo in Bosnia and Herzegovina, By examining a map of the Priboj ~ Rudo area, the court determined that the Rudo ~ Priboj road passes through the territory of Bosnia, then through the territory of Serbia, after that crosses again into the territory of Bosnia, and then goes again through the territory of Serbia. ‘The court found that at the time of this event, Bosnia and Herzegovina was engulfed in an internal conflict, which broke out after the collapse of the SFRY, the secession of the Republics of Slovenia and Croatia in 1991, the declaration of independence of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina on 3 March 1992 and the establishment of Republika Srpska in one part of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, with the establishment of civilian and administrative authorities, as well as the creation of the military forces of Republika Srpska. That internal conflict is exclusively an internal armed conflict, but nevertheless it is an armed conflict which exists when armed force is used or there is armed violence for an extended period of time between the authorities and organised groups, or between such groups within a country. In the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, a conflict broke out between members of the peoples that lived in Bosnia and Herzegovina — the Serbs, the Croats (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth m(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation and the Muslims, since the Serbs and the Croats did not accept the authority and the government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Therefore, the event in question took place at a time of armed conflict and the vietims of this crime are civilians as defined in Article 142 of the KZ. of the FRY and the provisions of the Geneva Conventions for the following reasons: Vilians are persons taking no active part in hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, and shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above- mentioned persons: violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; taking of hostages; outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment; the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judi es which are recognized ay indispensable by civilized peoples (Artic Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 1949) Article 1 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977 (Protocol II) prescribes that that Protocol, which develops and supplements Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions without modifying its existing conditions of application, shall apply to all armed conflicts which are not covered by Article I of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977 (Protocol I) and which take place in the territory of a High Contracting Party between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as 10 enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations. It is beyond dispute that a war crime occurred during the events relating to the actions described in the wording of the judgement, because various forms of inhumane treatment of certain categories of persons in time of war, oF relating to war, in violation of the rules of international law, are considered to be war crimes. Regardless of the kind of war crime, they have several characteristics. First, inhumane treatment of persons involving various acts of violence, such as the following: killing, torture, biological and other experiments, causing great suffering, violence to person, etc, Such behaviour is a violation of the rules of international law on the treatment of certain categories of persons. This is a case of violation of the rules of the 1949 Geneva Humanitarian Conventions relating to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, amelioration of the condition of wounded and sick members of the armed forces in time of war, and the treatment of prisoners of war. War crimes against the civilian persons have numerous and different forms, primarily inhumane treatment of these persons, but also other dangerous activities endangering the lives and security of people and property. (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 23(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation The entire non-combat population in a zone of combat operations, as well as a population removed from the territory in which it lived, is considered to be the civilian population. A war crime can be committed by ordering the execution of prohibited actions, oor by perpetrating these actions. A crime is committed when an order is issued, and the order need not be executed. In determining the perpetrator of a crime, the law uses the expression “who” which means that in principle it can be any person. When it comes to the perpetration of a war crime, it can be any person, although they are mostly participants in war or lary conflict, because establishing that a crime happened requires that the crime is, committed “by violating the rules of international law” and these rules apply specifically to participants in such events. Article 8 of Statute of the International ‘Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991 defines the territorial and temporal jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Territorial jurisdiction extends to the territory of the SFRY, including its land surface, airspace and territorial waters. The temporal ion of the Tribunal extends to a period beginning on 1 January 1991, Article 9, paragraph 1, of the Statute envisages that the Tribunal and national courts shall have concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute persons for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia since I January 1991 Article 9, paragraph 2, of the Statute envisages that the Tribunal shall have primacy over national courts. At any stage of the procedure, the ‘Tribunal may formaliy request national courts to defer to the competence of the Tribunal in accordance with the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal. Article 10, paragraph 1, of the Statute prescribes that no person shall be tried before a national court for acts constituting serious violations of international ‘humanitarian law under the Statute, for which he or she has already been tried by the ‘Tribunal. Paragraph 2 of this Article prescribes that a person who has been tried by a national court for acts constituting serious violations of international humanitarian law may be subsequently tried by the International Tribunal only 1) the act for which he or she was tried was characterized as an ordinary 2) the national court proceedings were not impartial or independent, were designed to shield the accused from nal responsibility, or the case was not dil It iy beyond dispute that the accused Milan LUKIC was indicted by the Prosecutor of The Hague Tribunal. The accused is at large and a trial has not yet started pursuant 10 the indictment. In the proceedings against Milan LUKIC for war crimes against civilian persons as defined in Article 142, paragraph 1, of the KZ of the FRY, the chamber of this court issued an order to issue an international arrest warrant through the competent state organs, Considering that the accused have been outside the reach of state organs, while the severity of the crime which they are charged with (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 6(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation or the length of the prescribed penalty justify their trial in absentia, this court decided to try the accused Milan LUKIC and Oliver KRSMANOVIC in absentia pursuant to the indictment by the OJT in Belgrade for war crimes against civilian persons as defined in Article 142, paragraph 1, of the KZ, of the FRY. As for the objection that the crime for which the accused Milan LUKIC is tried before this chamber has been covered by item 2 of the indictment by The Hague ‘Tribunal, the court finds that the indictment by The Hague Tribunal covers a specific crime, crime against humanity, and that the provisions of Article 10 of the Statute of the Tribunal may possibly apply before The Hague Tribunal, but the proceedings before the International ‘Tribunal for War Crimes Committed in the ‘Territory of the Former Yugoslavia do not rule out the jurisdiction of a national court to conduct a trial for a war crime against civilian persons as defined in Article 142, paragraph 1, of the KZ of the SFRY. Considering that the accused continue to be beyond the reach of the court and ‘other state organs, the court found that Milan LUKIG and Oliver KRSMANOVIC were not denied the right of every person accused of a crime to be present at the trial, 1 was their choice (o be beyond the reach of the court, not to defend themselves and not to follow the course of the trial The injured party Ramiz CATOVIC, father of the late Ramahudin CATOVIC, said that on the evening of 21 October 1992, his son Sabahudin CATOVIC disappeared about 50 meters from the house while returning home, and that on the morning of 22 October 1992, his other son Ramahudin CATOVIC was forced to get off a bus and taken away. His son Ramahudin was employed with the Rudo plast enterprise in the village of Ubac in the territory of Republika Srpska and was fired from work because he was a Muslim, after which he started working at the Poliester enterprise in Priboj. At the trial on 18 January 2005, he said that after the abduction and forcible detention of people, the locals, mostly relatives and friends of the missing persons, gathered in a meadow in Sjeverin, Representatives of the authorities of Priboj Municipality also came to the protest gathering, and in addition to the President of Priboj Municipality, some other officials were also there. During the gathering, the Jocals were surrounded by a group of about six armed men holding sub-machine guns, They demanded that the locals disperse, saying “go away, they are all alive and well”. During the questioning, he said that he recognised the accused Dorde SEVIC and that he was the one who said that they should all disperse and that everybody was alive. After this armed group left, he saw that they went to ‘Tomo’s store, which was about 50 meters from the place where they had gathered. Somebody told him not to go to the store, that he would be killed, and he replied to them that if his two sons were gone he could go as well. He went to the store and heard Tomo say to the accused SEVIC to put away his automatic rifle. He asked him what had happened to the 18 persons who had disappeared. There were seven of them in the store and they all said that they did not know anything about them. When asked why he had not pointed out the accused Dorde SEVIC during the first questioning as Per the record of the trial held on 21 January 2003, he said that he had been afraid to do so, but that nobody had threatened him. ‘The injured party Mirsada BAJRAMOVIC, sister of the late Sead PECIKOZA, said that her brother was 28 years old at the time of the event in estion, that he had one child, that after his disappearance his wife and son went to (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 2”(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation Sweden and that none of the family members had started a procedure to declare the missing person dead. She joined the criminal prosecution and declared a compensation request without specifying an amount. The, injured party Hilmija ALILHODZIG, brother of the late Mujo ALILHODZIC, said that his brother Mujo had lived in Sjeverin together with his wife and two children, that his family had not started a procedure to declare the missing person dead at the competent court, and that after the event in question his wife and children went to Germany to live there. He said that Mujo ALILHODZIC had been employed with the Poliester enterprise in the village of Uvac on the Bosnian side, that hhe knew that he had a certificate from the enterprise allowing him to take the bus every day to Work and back, and that on the morning in question he was on the bus on his way to work. He joined the criminal prosecution and declared a compensation request without specifying an amount, The injured party DZevad KOLDZIC, son of the late Mevlida KOLDZIC, said that his mother had been employed at the Poliester enterprise, that this enterprise had not worked for some time, and that on the day in question, his mother had left for Priboj to receive her salary. He found out about the event in question in the course of the day. He said that in addition to his mother, her brother Medo HODZIC had also been on the bus. There were cases earlier when passengers on this route were asked for their ID papers and taken off the bus, but these checks never ended in tragedy. When he was shown the album of photographs of the abducted persons, he said that he thought that Zafer HADZIC was in photograph number three on page three, in photograph number four on page three, Medo HODZIC is marked with the letter “a”, and the person in a chequered sweater lying next to him could be Idriz. GIBOVIC. He thinks that in photograph number five on page four, Mujo ALILHODZIC is marked with the letter “a” and has a chequered shirt. In photograph number six on page five, his uncle Medo HODZIC is marked number six, DZIHIC is marked with the letter “a”, and the person in a black jacket lying next to him is Alija MANDAL. In photograph number seven on page five, ALILHODZIC is marked with the letter “a” In photograph number ten on page seven, Idriz GIBOVIC is wearing a chequered sweater. In photograph number 11 on page eight, Medo HODZIC is marked with the letter “a”. In photograph number 12 on page nine, Alija MANDAL is wearing a black leather jacket and lying on the ground, In photograph number 13 on page nine, Medo HODZIC is at the bottom of the photograph wearing a grey sweater. In photograph number 15 on page 10, Alija MANDAL is marked with the letter “e” The injured party Ibrahim SEBO stated that his brother Mehmed SEBO was ‘one of the passengers who were taken off the bus af the time in question, that he was not married, that he lived in a family house with his mother in the village of Zabrde, that he was the only breadwinner and that he travelled every day from Sjeverin to Priboj because he was employed at the Poliester enterprise. When he was shown the album with the photographs of the abducted persons, he said that his brother Mehmed SEBO was in photograph number one on page one, as well as in photograph number ‘two on page two, and that the person in photograph number three on page three was probably Ramiz BEGOVIC. He joined the criminal prosecution and declared a claim for compensation, (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 2(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation The injured va Mesud GIBOVIG that his father Idriz GIBOVIC had been killed at the tim jon. On that day, he went as always by bus to work Priboj. His father lived in the same household with his mother, brother and his wife and child. Five months after the event in question, the family started and completed the procedure to declare the missing Idriz GIBOVIC dead in order to exercise the rights they are entitled to on the basis of his employment After this event, family members and friends of the abducted persons gathered several times at protest gatherings, requesting that someone from the competent organs tell ‘them what had happened to the passengers from the bus, and at one of the gatherings, Milié POPOVIC, President of the Municipality at the time, addressed the citizens. fier this abduction, the special police came during a protest by citizens to help them and inspire them with hope. He saw Milan LUKIC, who was with one group ina van, ‘They had camouflage uniforms, their faces were blackened and they had cockades on their fur caps. He does not know Milan LUKIC personally, but the people who were there pointed him out. Those people told them that they should hide or they would kill everybody. When he was shown the album of photographs of members of the Osvetnici paramilitary formation, he said that in photograph number one on page one he recognised the fur cap worn by the people on the afternoon of 22 Octoher 1992 when the gathering took plac In the album of photographs of the abducted persons, he thinks that Sead PECIKOZA is in photograph number one on page one and in photograph number two page two. Mchmed SEBO is in photograph number three on page three. In photograph number four on page three, Medo HODZIC is marked with the leter “a”. In photograph number four, [dri GIBOVIC has a chequered sweater and is lying on the ground next to Medo HODZIC. In photograph number six on page five, Esad DZIHIC is marked with the letter “a”, and he thinks that Ramiz BE marked with the letter “e”, while Medo HODZIC is marked with the letter “d”. Esad DZIHIG is marked with the letter “b” in photograph number seven on page five, and with the letter “a” in photograph number eight on page six. In photograph number nine on page seven, Ramiz BEGOVIC is marked with the letter “b”. Idriz GIBOVIC is the person wearing a chequered sweater in photograph number 10 on page seven, in photograph number 11 on page eight and in photograph number 13 on page nine. In Photograph number 14 on page 10, Esad DZIHIC is marked with the letter “b”. In photograph number 15 on page ten, Medredin HODZIC is marked with the letter “b”. He joined the criminal prosecution and declared a compensation request without specifying an amount The injured party Sabrija HODZIC, father of the late Medredin HODZIC, stated that his son had been employed at the Poliester enterprise. He said that he had ived with his parents in the family house and that on the day in question he had been on the bus to Priboj on his way to work. He joined the criminal prosecution and declared a compensation request without specifying an amount. The injured party Behudin HODZIC, son of the late Medo HODZIC, said that at the time in question he was performing military service in Prizren and that on that ‘occasion his father and aunt Mevlida were taken away. He shared a household with his father, mother and two other brothers. When he was shown the album with the photographs of the abducted persons, he said that Mehmed SEBO was in photograph number one on page one and in photograph number two on page two. Zafer HADZIC (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth »(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation is in photograph number three on page three. In photograph number four on page Uhree, his father is marked with the letter “a” and Idriz, GIBOVIC is wearing a chequered sweater. In photograph number five on page four, Mujo ALILHODZIC is wearing a chequered shirt and Ramiz BEGOVIC is marked with the leter “a”. In photograph number six on page five, his father Medo HODZIC is marked with the letter “b”, Esad DZIHIC is marked with the letter “a”, he thinks that Mustafa BAJRAMOVIC is marked with the letter “e”, Mujo ALILHODZIC is wearing a black leather jacket and chequered sweater, Alija MANDAL. is at the bottom of the photograph in a black jacket and Ramiz BEGOVIC is marked with the letter “e”. In photograph number seven on page five, Esad DZIHIC is marked with the letter “e”, Mujo ALILHODZIC is marked with the letter “a”, Alija MANDAL is marked with the letter “b”, and at the bottom of the photograph Mehmed SEBO is marked with the letter “d”. In photograph number eight on page six, Esad DZTHIC is marked with the letter “a” and he thinks that the person marked with the letter “e” is Dervis SOFTIC. In photograph number nine on page seven, Mujo ALIHODZIC is marked with the letter “a”, Ramiz BEGOVIC is marked with the letter “b”, the person who is squat is his father, and the person behind him marked with the letter “e” is Dervis SOFTIC In photograph number ten on page seven, Idriz GIBOVIC is wearing a chequered sweater and Dervis SOFTIC is marked with the letter “b”. In photograph number 11 eight, his father is marked with the arrow “a”, SOFTIC is marked with the and Idriz, GIBOVIC is wearing a chequered sweater. In photograph number 12. on page nine, Alija MANDAL is marked with the letter “e”. In photograph number 13 on page nine, SOFTIC is marked with the arrow “a”, Idriz is wearing a chequered sweater, his father is at the bottom of the photograph wearing a grey sweater and Ramiz BEGOVIC is the person with grey hair holding his head. In photograph number 14 on page ten, Esad CIHIC is marked with the letter “b". In photograph number 15 on page ten, Medredin HODZIC is marked with the letter “b” and Alija MANDAL is the person with bowed head next to ALILHODZIC, who is marked with the arror “a” He joined the criminal prosecution and declared a compensation request without specifying an amount. The injured party Nusret DZIHIC said that his brother Esad, who had worked at the Poliester enterprise, had been killed at the time in question, He knows about the ‘occasion in question based on what he heard from his son Admir DZIHIC, who was 13 years old at the time and was on the bus. His son told him that he KITIC husband and wife, and that when the knew, was checking the ID papers of the passengers, Ilija KITIC said that he, Admir KITIC, was their son, so the boy was not taken off the bus, although he was a Musli He knows the faces of the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC and Borde §\ because he used to see them every day at the border check-point in Bosnian te since he regularly waited for the bus there, and as of October 1992 the reserve police force of Republika Srpska was positioned there. Of all the soldiers he used to see at the checkpoint, he knew the faces and first and last names of Oliver KRSMANOVIC, Milan LUKIC and Momir SAVIC. He joined the criminal prosecution and declared a compensation request, and said that his son Admir DZTHIC now lived in Istanbul. ‘The injured party Hanka DAUTOVIC said that at the time in question her brother Zafer HADZIC, who lived in Sjeverin and travelled every day to Priboj where hhe was employed at the Bratstvo enterprise, was killed. Her brother told her that he had a document which allowed him to pass through this area safely and which was (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth »(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation given to him by the company. He lived together with his wife and two children, When she was shown the album with the photographs of the abducted persons, she said that her brother Zafer was in photograph number three on page three, in photograph number five on page four and in photograph number six on page five. In photograph number nine, her brother Zafer is lying on the ground naked, and as far as she can see ‘Alija MANDAL is marked with the arrow “a”. In photograph number 14 on page ten, her brother Zafer is naked in the top left corner. In photograph number 15 on page 19, her brother Zafer is sitting naked, and as far as she can see Alija MANDAL is marked with an arrow. She joined the criminal prosecution and declared a compensation request without specifying an amount The injured party Dzavid MANDAL, son of the late Alija MANDAL, said that his father Alija was killed at the time in question and that he was only ten years old at the time. At the time of the occasion in question, his father lived together with his mother, two sisters and him, His father was employed at the PAP factory in Priboj. The factory was not working during month before the event, but the employees received an announcement that on the day in question salaries would be paid out to the employees of this factory, so his father went to Priboj for this reason. His family completed the procedure to declare the missing person dead in order to exercise their rights relating to retirement and disability insurance. He joined the criminal prosecution and declared a compensation request without specifying an amount he injured party Rasim PECIKOZA, father of the late Sead PECIKC joined the criminal prosecution and declared an unspecified compensation request. The questioned representatives of the injured families said in their statements that they had not been on the bus on the day in question, but they all confirmed that at the time in question members of their families had been on the bus travelling on the Rudo — Priboj route, that they had disappeared — were forcibly taken away in the village of Mioge and that they were missing without trace. On the basis of the concurring statements of the witnesses Velisav STOJKANOVIG, the bus driver, and Biljana BOJOVIG, the conductor on the bus which was travelling on the Priboj — Rudo route, the court determined that the bus had parted from Pribo} in the morning, at around 0500 hours, and that it was supposed to return from Rudo at about 0600 hours, The bus was articulated. On the way out of Priboj, the road goes for five kilometres through the territory of the Republic of Serbia, then crosses into Bosnia and Herzegovina for ten kilometres, then for five Kilometres goes again through the territory of Serbia and finally crosses into the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina about half a kilometre from Rudo, Most passengers on this route were workers from the Rudo area going to factories in Priboj and students going to schools. On that day, there was nothing unusual on the way from Priboj to Rudo, On the way back from Rudo to Priboj, some passengers got on in Rudo and other passengers then got on at stops on the way to Priboj. Some passengers got on at th Toridge/, other passengers got on at the Sjeverin stop and some at the Wvinice and Sjeverin are in the territory of the Republic of Serbia. When they passed by all these stops, they came to the village of Mioge, which is in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Velislav STOJKANOVIC stated that before the bus stop in Mioge, in front of the café Amjora, as they were exiting from a bend on the road, he saw on the road in front of him three armed men with automatic rifles, wearing camouflage uniforms. One of them (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 3(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation motioned him to stop on a shoulder on the side of the road, and he did so. In addition to these three armed men in camouflage uniforms with automatic rifles, whose faces and hands were blackened, he saw on the road three or four other men, also in camouflage uniforms and with automatic rifles. When this armed person entered the bus after it stopped, he ordered him to turn off the ignition, which he first refused to do, saying that he would not be able to start it again, but he had to do as ordered, ‘because he interpreted his order seriously. When this armed person got on the bus, he asked to see the passenger's ID cards. He started checking the ID cards, walking from the front part of the bus to the back. There were two armed persons on the road next to the bus, and they stayed there, while the armed soldier who had got on the bus ordered some of the passengers to get off. He heard through the bus some commotion and a comment: “They are taking the Muslims away.” He saw in the side-view mirrors of the bus that two or three other men in camouflage uniforms with rifles also got on the bus, and there was some commotion on the bus about the checking of ID cards and the removal of passengers. The checking of ID cards and removal of passengers went very fast and lasted just a few minutes. During the check, a bus travelling on the Plevija — Priboj route passed by. Some of the armed men who remained on the road also stopped that bus, got ‘on and checked it, and then very soon let it continue. There were a small number of passengers on that bus and nobody was taken off the bus. According to STOJKANOVIC’s estimate, about 15 or 16 passengers were taken off the bus which he was driving on the Rudo — Priboj route. ‘These passengers were of different ages and were mostly workers employed in Priboj. He did not notice that there was a woman among the passengers who were taken off, but he heard later from the other passengers that there was a woman among those persons. He saw from the bus that the armed soldiers, who were wearing camouflage uniforms and whose faces and hands were blackened, were taking the passengers behind the café Amfora. He saw a parked truck with a canvas cover behind the café, and as far as he could see, it was a ‘Zastava 615 truck. When they finished taking away the passengers, the armed soldiers who had stopped him approached him and told him: “Start the engine and go!” The witness STOJKANOVIC said in reply: “Where are you taking those passengers, this is Yugoslavia?!” He said that because he did not know the intention of these armed persons who took the passengers away. This armed person replied: “Fuck Yugoslavia, give me your ID card.” Since he did not have an ID card, he showed him his driver's licence, and after checking it, the guy ordered him to start the engine and drive on. His conductor Biljana was sitting in the back all the time and did not get off the bus at all, When he arrived in Priboj, he immediately went to see the President of the Municipality, informed him of what had happened and then went to the SUP *Secretariat of the Interior/. He said that he could not recognise the armed persons who had entered the bus and those who standing next to the bus, because that was the first time he had seen them and their faces were blackened, but he is certain that they were not from Priboj. He said that he was very frightened because of this incident and that he fell ill after that He knew some of the passengers who were taken off the bus. He knew a person who worked as a registrar in Priboj Municipality, another passenger who was butcher in Priboj, and knew the others by sight, because he had always been driving on that route for about five or six years. When he was shown photographs of the abducted persons from their personal identity records, he said that he had seen Mehmed SEBO and Zafer HADZIG — he was the person who worked as a butcher in (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation Priboj and who always travelled on the Sjeverin — Priboj route. He knows that Ramiz BEGOVIG worked as a registrar in Priboj Municipality and always travelled on the Sjeverin — Priboj route. He knew Dervis SOFTIC by sight, as well as Midhat OFTIC, as passengers who always travelled on this route. He knew by sight Mustafa BAJRAMOVIC and Esad DZIHIC who worked at the Elektrodistribucija in Pribo He knew Ramahudin CATOVIC, as well as Meviida KOLDZIC, who worked at the Inkop enterprise in Priboj. When the photographs were shown to him, he said that he did not remember Medo HODZIC or Medvedin HODZIC. He stressed that he knew all of these people by sight, but that he was not sure whether all of them were on the bus that morning, He knows that there were several paramilitary formations, that some of them. were called the White Eagles, and there were also some guys called Arkan’s men, but he did not hear about the Osvera /Revenge/ paramilitary information, On the basis of the statement of the witness Biljana BOJOVIC, the conductor ‘on the bus travelling on the Priboj ~ Rudo ~ Priboj route at the time in question, the court established that she was sitting in the back seat at the conductor's place. She said that the bus was full of passengers and that the bus was stopped in an uninhabited area next to the café Amfora. She did not see who stopped the bus. ‘The driver opened all doors and two uniformed persons came in on the front door. They were wearing camouflage uniforms and their faces were blackened, They were masked and had socks over their faces. She heard them ask for ID cards and there was some ‘commotion among the passengers at that moment. They started taking passengers off the bus through the rear door, but she was so frightened that she did not see whether there were any other people around the bus. When the passengers were taken off, they drove away. She could not estimate how many passengers were taken off, or whether there was a woman among those passengers. It has been established based on the statement of the witness Hija KITIG that on 22 October 1992, together with his wife Desa and son Milovan, who was then a first-grade student in high school, he got on the bus travelling on the Rudo ~ Priboj route in the village of Zivinice, where he lives. The village of Zivinice is in the territory of the Republic of Serbia. From the bus stop in Zivinice, where they got on the bus, they travelled one and a half kilometres through the territory of the Republic of Serbia and then five kilometres through the territory of Bosnia, where combat operations were taking place at the time. As they were going through the territory of immediately at the entrance to the village of Mioce, when they had not passed even 500 metres, they were stopped by an armed soldier. He and his wife were standing in the front of the articulated bus. The face of the soldier who came in at the front door was blackened. In addition to this soldier, he saw two other armed persons in front of the bus. The person who got on the bus had a faded camouflage uniform and an automatic rifle, When he stopped the bus, this person was pointing his rifle, which was at the ready, at the people on the bus, and when he got on the bus, he asked for the ID cards of the passengers and slung his rifle over his shoulder. He was the first to show his 1D card, and was followed by his wife and then the other passengers who were in the front part of the bus. Their son was standing next to them, and there was another Muslim boy next to him — a neighbour whose name he does not know, but he knows that he was maybe a little younger than his son, When the soldier came to the children, as far as he can remember he said: “And you children?” and he replied: “Phe children are going to school.” There was a dead Silence in the front part (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth Fe(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation of the bus. He did not see anybody getting off or being taken off at the front door of the bus. In addition to this armed person who came in on the front door of the bus and checked the ID cards of passengers, as far as he can remember, another armed person entered at the back of the bus, but he is not certain about that. The bus was stopped at the entrance to the village of Mioée, at a place which is not designated as a bus stop, a little before the bus stop. He remembers that the soldier ordered the bus driver to turn right on the shoulder on the side of the road, and he did so. ‘The shoulder on which the bbus was stopped is in the immediate vicinity of the café Amfora. The café is on the right side of the road and was not working. There are no houses near the café, but there are a few clumps of trees there. He did not notice and freight or passenger vehicles by the road, At the bus stop in Zivinice, where he got on the bus, there were also other passengers — his daughter in-law Radojka KITIC, his relative Tomislav KITIC and ten other neighbours. The following neighbours got on the bus: Idriz GIBOVIC, Alija MANDAL, Medo HODZIC and his sister Mevlida KOLDZIC, the boy standing next to his son and his, uncle whose name he does not know. They stayed about 10 to 15 minutes on this shoulder. While they were there, the bus travelling on the Plievija — Priboj route passed by. That bus was also stopped and one of the armed persons checked the passengers on that bus, but he did not see that anyone was taken off the bus. He heard ‘that some Muslim passengers had permits to travel freely on this road. He said that there had been previous occasions when the ID cards of bus passengers were checked. When the armed persons finished checking the ID cards, they got off the bus and one of them ordered the driver to drive on, so they continued toward Priboj, and from the village to Mioge to Priboj, there were no comments among the passengers on the bus. He saw that several persons were taken off the bus, bul he did not know how many, who ordered them and where they were taken, As they were leaving the bus, these passengers did not say anything, they were not giving any resistance. He also said that about four kilometres before entering Priboj, near the village of Uvac, there was an improvised ramp in Bosnian territory at which there were armed persons. He could nol recognise any of the persons who got on the bus, because they were masked and their faces were blackened. He knows that Muslim citizens gathered in Sjeverin after this to protest and seek answers from the authorities about what had happened to their missing family members. ess Desa KITIC mostly repeated in her statement what her husband, the wi KITIC, had said about the place where they had got on the bus and, the place where they had been stopped in Mioge, in front of the café Amfora. She did not know whether passengers had been taken off the bus and how they had be ‘ordered to leave the bus. The only thing she remembers is that an armed soldier got on the bus, that people’s ID cards were checked and that a Muslim boy who lived in the neighbourhood and whose last name was DZTHIC was standing next to her son. She was very scared so she wasn’t following what was happening on the bus. She could not recognise the soldier who got on the bus and checked ID cards, because as she said: “If my child was masked like that with his face blackened, I could not recognise him.” On the day in question, when she returned home from work, she heard that some people who had been on the bus had disappeared and that they were Muslims. Aer this event, she heard that there were some gatherings by local Muslims, but she does not know in which way they protested, because she did not go to the gatherings which took place in Sjeverin, (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth M(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation It has been established based on the statement of the witness Radomir RAKOVIC that on 22 October 1992 he went from the village of Zivinice to work Priboj and that he was employed in the Ratko Mitrovié enterprise. That morning he {201 on the bus travelling on the Rudo — Priboj route in the village of Zivinice and was in the back of the bus. The bus was stopped in the village of Mioée, in front of the ccalé Amfora before the regular bus stop. ‘The bus was stopped by armed soldiers who were wearing camouflage uniforms and whose faces were masked and blackened. The masked soldier who came in through the back door and immediately asked for passengers’ ID cards spoke ina Bosnian accent. He had a rifle, which was slung over his shoulder when he got on the bus. He saw this armed soldier taking passengers off the bus through the back door. He could not see what was happening in the front part of the bus, because it was crowded, but he thinks that a soldier was also checking passengers there, He saw near the café Amfora a parked truck, a Zastava with a canvas cover as far as he could remember. The back was open, and there were two to three armed soldiers who were escorting these people and pointing their rifles at them. ‘There was panic on the bus. Nobody said a word on the bus, they were all scared and stayed quiet. He saw a large group of people who had been taken off the bus and he also saw a woman among these people, his neighbour Mevlida KOLDZIC, whom he knew. He remembers that the following persons were among the people who were taken off the bus: Alija MANDAL, Medo HODZIC, Medvedin HODZIC, Ramiz BEGOVIG, Sead PECIKOZA, Esad DZIHIC and Idriz, GIBOVIC, ‘The soldiers standing next to the bus were pointing their rifles at the bus, When they arrived in Priboj he went to work and talked with his colleagues about what had happened on the road. He knows that there was a gathering in Sjeverin of people who wanted to know what had happened to the people taken off the bus. He did not attend that gathering, because he was at work. When he was shown the album of photographs of the persons abducted on 22 October 1992, he said that he thought that photograph number one on page one and photograph number two showed a man called CATOVIC whose first name he could not remember. He thinks that the person marked with the letter “a” in photograph number four on page three is Medo HODZIC and he thinks that the person marked with the letter “d” in photograph number six on page five is also Medo HODZIC. In Photograph number 15 on page 10, he thinks that the person marked with the arrow “p” is Medvedin HODZIC. It has been established based on the statement of the witness Dordije IANJUSEVIC that on 22 October 1992 he went by bus to work in Priboj. He got on the bus at the bus stop in Sjeverin. He saw three or four locals at the bus stop ~ two SOFTIC’s and one CATOVIC. He is certain that they got on the bus. They were people from the village and he is certain that he saw them that morning, but they did not get off the bus in Priboj. He was sitting in the second seat behind the driver. The bus was stopped in the village of Mioge in front of the café Amfora. When the bus stopped, there were two armed and masked persons in front of the bus. The faces of both of them were blackened. They motioned to the driver to stop the bus, and after it stopped one of them got on the bus and the other remained by the bus with his rifle at the ready and pointed at the bus. The one who got on the bus ordered the passenger to show their ID cards and then ordered everyone not to turn their heads. Hija KITIC, his wife and child were standing in the front of the bus, right next to the front door Another child from the neighbourhood was standing next to them — a DZTHIC, as far as he can remember. This armed person who was checking ID cards was saying to (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 38(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation some passengers: “You go out, you go out.” As he was sitting, he noticed some people passing by the bus. The bus was parked parallel to the café Amfora, so he could not see a single ear parked behind the café or on the road from the place where he was sitting. As far as he could see, a group of people were taken off, but he did not know the number of people that were taken off and he did not see that there was also a woman in that group, but he did hear later that a woman had also been killed. After some time, the bus left after the uniformed person told the driver to drive on, After this event, the Muslims protested and demanded from the legal authorities to tell them where their family members were. When he was shown the album of photographs of the abducted persons, he said that he thought that the person marked with the letter “d” in photograph number six on page five was Medo HODZIC, and his neighbour Mithad SOFTIC was marked with the letter “b” in photograph 11 on page eight, The witness Milan TIMOTIC was questioned during the proceedings and he stated at the trial that he did not remember that he had been in Visegrad at the time in question, that he did not remember taking photographs of any persons or any event on 22 October 1992, He said in the preliminary proceedings that he did not remember that he knew any of the accused. He said at the trial that he did not remember that he was in the area of the war-engulfed Republika Srpska at all in October 1992 or that he was in the territory of Serbia, or concretely in Priboj, during that period. He said that in the year 2000, while he was covering the demonstrations in Belgrade before the October events, some time in the month of November, he was beaten up in front of the General Staff building in the centre of Belgrade. He was working as a photographer for Nedeljni telegraf at the time. This was an opposition newspaper and uring these demonstrations he sustained injuries in the form of a fracture of the clavicle and four ribs, his hand was injured because he was protecting himself from the blows, but he did not go see a doctor or request medical aid because he did not have health insurance. He said in the preliminary proceedings that the reason for his loss of memory was that thirty years ago he had been in a serious car accident and suffered a concussion, fractured the clavicle and was in a coma so he did not remember many events. He has family in Bosnia because his mother is from Bosnia, from Bosanski Novi, and many of his relatives were killed in World War TT and in the latest war in the nineties. He does not remember photographing anyone during this latest war in the territory of Bosnia, When he was shown a photograph from the case ile, from attachment number one ~ the album of photographs of the persons abducted on 22 October 1992, as well as the photographs in attachment number two — the album of photographs of members of the Osvemici paramilitary formation, the witness said that he did not remember photographing this event and these persons and that he did not remember the persons from attachment number two. He was asked to comment on photograph number nine on page eight concerning the person marked number four with a ballpoint pen and whether he knew that person, he replied that that person looked like him, but that he could not remember it and could not claim with certainty that that was him. He also said that he did not remember a person called Dragana DEKIC, Based on the statement of the witness Miloje UDOVICIC, the court established that at around 0600 hours on 22 October 1992, he was travelling from Priboj to Uzice in his Mercedes truck type 508 to transport a crane. He was alone in the truck. When he came to a place on the road called MeSin most — he had already (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 36(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation crossed into the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, he saw on the right side of the road a five-ton Zastava truck with a canvas cover, and on the left side there was a Lada passenger vehicle. ‘There were some armed people on the road, with faces blackened and holding automatic weapons. Some were wearing uniforms, some were wrapped in black flags, and he also saw a skull and erossbones on the flags. They stopped him and asked for fuel. After a short time, these armed persons concluded that they had enough fuel in their vehicle, and then they started to push their truck, managed to start the engine and got moving. He could not estimate how many armed persons there were, but he knows that there were several. When they left, he continued to drive on and caught up with them about a kilometre and a half later. At that moment he saw next to their truck, arriving from the opposite direction, a TAM truck, which they stopped. He heard them asking the driver to tow them, but he showed at his truck, saying that it was a more powerful truck and that he could do it better and faster. He towed them with his truck for about two kilometres. When they reached an uphill section, he could not tow them any longer. At that moment they started the engine of their truck by going backwards. While they were on the uphill section, he noticed that the canvas cover on the Zastava truck was torn on the side and at one moment he saw people on the back of the truck, below the canvas cover. One of them motioned him with his hand to move away. He just moved the canvas a little bit and waved his hand to signal him to go away. He did not see the face of that man, just his hand, He became afraid, because he realised that there were people under the ‘canvas and he interpreted this motion as a sign to drive his truck away and not to tow them. He saw at that place how many masked and armed people there were. ‘There were five of them in the Lada passenger vehicle. Three of them were on his Mercedes truck, and one was driving the Zastava truck, so he thinks that there were nine of them in total. They continued to drive. The Zastava truck was going uphill in front of him in the direction of Bijelo Brdo, there were three men with him in the vehicle, urging him to catch up with their truck, and the Lada also overtook him half-way up the hill ‘Along the way, he asked one of the fighters, who was the largest person in the driver’s cabin, where he was from, and he answered that he was from Serbia. When he asked him for a concrete answer about which part of Serbia he was from, the man answered that it was enough for him to know that he was from Serbia, so he stopped questioning hhim any further. At the top of Bijelo Brdo there is a motel. ‘The red Zastava truck stopped at the top of the hill, the Lada was also there, and these masked and armed people wi automatic rifles started to rej ey were hysterical with joy, some of them were shooting, and he got the impression that something very strange was taking place. All of that looked to him like scenes from movies he used to watch when Indians rejoiced when they caught a victim. He said that all of these people who had stopped him were masked, armed with automatic rifles and had their faces blackened, Some of them were wrapped in black flags on which he read the inscription “With faith in God, for King and the homeland” and next to that, in the middle of the flag, he saw a skull and cerossbones. One fighter had a German sub-machine gun, one had a Russian rifle and he knows that the third had an automatic rifle, but he does not know which model, Fe saw these persons for the first time that morning. Some of them had headbands, some caps, and their appearance was such that he could never be able to recognise them, Just before Bijelo Brdo, before these cars stopped and the armed people got off the Zastava truck, his truck and the passenger vehicles, he heard that the people who were on the back of the Zastava truck, under the canvas cover, as well as the armed persons who came out of the Lada, were singing the song “I am a Chetnik from head to toe, (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 7(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation hey Alija, fuck your child”, While they were on Bijelo Brdo, not a single civilian or any other person was killed in his presence. He explained that at that time there was no administrative border between the Republic of Serbia and Bosnia, but that there was an improvised border at the entrance to Bosnia consisting of a fallen plank or tree, and that armed locals, members of the Republika Srpska army and po standing there next to the border. He said that he had not reported this case, that he hhad not reported towing this truck, but that he talked freely about it with people in Priboj. He feared for his life, because he heard stories in the town that a good man, Stanko PECIKOZA, had been killed just for driving Muslims, He heard later that these people — the Muslims who had been in the Zastava, were killed, and when he heard who they were, he realised that he knew most of them by sight, because they often came to his café Zlatibor in Priboj. When the witness was shown the album of photographs of the abducted persons, he said that he thought that Zafer HADZIC, the butcher, was in photograph number three on page three, and that in photograph number 11 on page eight, the person marked with the arrow ““b” was Ramiz’s son. When he was shown the album of photographs of the Osvemnici paramilitary formation, he said that when they stopped him they were wearing exactly the same Clothes as in these photographs. Such as in photograph number two on page two of the album, and in photograph number 15 on page I he recognised the flag. He did not recognise a single person from this photograph. He said that he did not know Milan LUKIC, but that he was a legend at the time, that he was the leader of his unit and that he had his own men. He knew Oliver KRSMANOVIC as a child, but he could not recognise him in the photographs. He does not know the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC and Dorde SEVIC. During the questioning of the witness Dragana DEKIC, the chamber decided to close the proceedings to the general public pursuant to /Article/ 204 and conjunction with Article 292 of the ZKP in order to preserve public law and order in the courtroom and outside. When she was questioned by the investigating judge the witness Dragana F id that she was afraid and concerned that she would suffer grave consequences because of what she was saying and that she and her family had been threatened, so for this reason she asked for protection, and in accordance with Article 109, paragraph 3, of the ZKP, the witness Dragana DEKIC was under protection outside the courtroon in which she was questioned at the trial. The witness Dragana DEKIC, who was questioned in the preliminary proceedings on 27 March 2002 and at the trial which was closed to the public on 23 January 2003, said that the first time she went to the front was in 1991 in the Republic of Croatia, in the area of Eastern Slavonia, and that she was assigned there to the medical corps as an orderly. She stayed there until January 1992, when she transferred to the front in Bosnia, in the territory of Zvornik. Over there, she was also assigned to the medical corps as an orderly. In September 1992, she transferred to the front in the Visegrad area, because there was a need for medical orderlies at that front. While she was in Zvornik, she met the accused Dorde SEVIC and the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, She met Doctor Mira and her boyfriend, the accused Milan LUKIC, in Visegrad. A very short time after she moved from Zvornik to Visegrad, Dorde SEVIC and Dragutin (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 38(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation DRAGICEVIG came to this front, While she was on a short leave in Belgrade, Doctor Mira phoned her and told her that she needed to return to the hospital in ViSegrad, that LUKIC and she would drive to Belgrade and that she could return to ViSegrad with them if she wanted to, After that she phoned Dorde SEVIC, who she knew was at home in Ruma at the time, and proposed to him to return with her to Visegrad. Several days later, Dorde SEVIC, Milan LUKIC, Doctor Mira and she met at the Palas Hotel in Belgrade, but she does not remember whether the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC was also with them at the meeting. On that occasion, the accused Milan LUKIC told them that the situation in ViSegrad was difficult, that some combat Positions had been penetrated and that they needed more men for that front. ‘That same evening, Milan LUKIC drove Dorde SEVIC, Doctor Mira and her to rad, bul she does not remember whether the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC was also with them. When they arrived in ViSegrad, she reported to the hospital where she received her assignment, and Dorde SEVIC reported to the Staff of the Visegrad Light Infantry Brigade, where he got his assignment. She moved into a studio in Vigegrad with Dorde SEVIC. Many people came to the studio every day, including the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, Oliver KRSMANOVIC and Milan LUKIC. At that time, Visegrad was attacked from several directions by the Muslims and all persons who were issued weapons had to be armed while they were in town, and they were also armed when they came to her apartment. The fighters she saw had automatic rifles. Lt Colonel Luka DRAGICEVIC was the commander of the units in ViSegrad. He was a ber of the Republika Srpska Army and the commander of all units in the area of d. Milan LUKIC did not have any rank. She heard soldiers addressing him as Vojvoda Imilitary leader/, but as far as she can ber he did not have any rank insignia on his uniform. The evening before the event in question, the accused Milan LUKIC came to the studio where she was staying. Dorde SEVIC was with her in the apartment. She is not sure whether Dragutin DRAGICEVIC was there, but she knows that several other people were there. She heard Milan LUKIC ask Dorde SEVIC to join an operation the next day to “intercept the mujahidin” who were going in the direction of Gorazde. She does not remember at what time Dorde SEVIC left for the ‘operation, but she knows that she went to work in the ViSegrad hospital between 0700 and 0800 hours in the morning. Soon after she came to Work at the hospital, Milan LUKIC’s best man came and called her to go to the Vilina vlas hotel, because one of the fighters needed help. She went with a medical corps car to the Vilina vlas hotel and saw a truck in front of the hotel. She noticed that the hack of the truck was covered with a canvas. There Was a large group of people, soldiers, in front of the hotel, between twenty and fifty, as well as local civilians. The present civilians, and there were some women among them as wel asking the soldiers to let them center the hotel to lynch the mujahidin, She found in front of the Vilina vias Hotel the accused Milan LUKIC, Dorde SEVIG, a fighter whose nickname was Bosanac, and that was Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, a person whom they called Crnogorac ‘/Montenegrin/, who was from Montenegro by origin, SiniSa KOVACEVIC, who was from Serbia by origin, Oliver KRSMANOVIC, aka Orli¢é, Dorde SEVIC and Vecernje novosti photographer Milan TIMOTIC, who was wearing a camouflage uniform, and who had a camera and was armed with a pistol. She knew Milan TIMOTIC from before. He used to come to her apartment in ViSegrad, socialised with the soldiers, ‘and also photographed her one time before this event, Milan TIMOTIC was taking shotographs all the time at that place. When she approached the accused Dorde ‘VIC, who was her boyfriend at the time, and asked him who the people that the civilians wanted to lynch were, he did not reply. She saw some things scattered in front of the hotel — parts of civilian clothes, as well as papers — these were 1D (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 30(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation documents, and a large pile of wooden sticks next to the staircase. Milan LUKIC then told her that there were mujahidin in the hotel, and when she asked who the clothes and documents which were scattered in front of the hotel belonged to, he replied that they belonged to them. She accepted this explanation, because there had been previous cases of Muslims carrying weapons under civilian clothes. She explained that the name mujahidin was used in jargon among the military and the Serbian population in the territory of Republika Srpska for mercenaries who came to the war from elsewhere to help the Bosnian Muslims and the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina. They did not call the local Muslim civilian population mujahidin, When she provided the necessary medical aid to a fighter, she entered the hotel and saw a large group of people lying on the floor in a corridor in the hotel. These people had been beaten up, were covered with blood, and had injuries on their heads and all over their bodies. Some of them ‘were moaning and crying for help. Most of them had head injuries and it was obvious that they had been beaten up. None of them were without clothes. She noticed in another part of the hotel, separately from this group of people who were lying on the floor, a large light-tanned woman with brown or blond hair who was weeping. She was visibly frightened and shaking, but she did not notice any injuries on this woman, When she came out of the Vilina vias Hotel again, she saw the same people in front — SEVIG, the accused DRAGICEVIC, Milan LUKIC, Oliver KRSMANOVIC and several other fighters. She did not stay there long, She went with the medical corps car to the Rujiste area, from where the Mustim attack had started that day. It takes about 15 minutes of normal driving from the Vilina vias Hotel to the village of Rujiste, but she could not say how long it took from Rujiste to Visegrad, although she said that it was not far and did not take a Tong time. On her way back from Rujiste to {that day, at the entrance to Visegrad, she saw a group of people, much larger than the one gathered in front of the Vilina vias Hotel, and there were many civilians in that group. She could not say precisely what time it was, but she said that it was between 1200 and 1500 hours. She asked the driver to stop the car, got out of the ear and about five to six meters below the road where they stopped, she saw about 15 to 20 mutilated and bruised bodies, and they were the civilians whom she had scen that the Vila vias Hotel, These bodies were below the road, om aroused Dorde SEVIC, the accused Milan ik Oliver KRSMANOVIC, as well as some other yelling: “These are the mujahdin who wanted to g0 to Gorasde to fight” § pushed her away so she would not see this horrible scene, Right next to the road, at the place where the dead civilians were lying, next to the ed, she also saw a group of civilians who were throwing stones at the Muslims’ bodies. She heard again when Milan LUKIC, who was next to the bodies of the dead civilians, right by the Drina, below the road, yelled: “These are their fi They will get them back just like they gave us ours.” She explained that she knew that Serbian fighters had been killed in those days in the GoraZde area, close to the village of Meremislje, and she heard that negotiations had taken place with Muslim representatives to exchange the dead Serbian fighters, but the Muslin wanted only live Muslim fighters, so this exchange did not occur. She did not look at the bodies of the civilians individually and she did not notice that the body of the woman whom she had seen that morning at the Vilina vlas Hotel was there. (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 40(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation The following day, she met the accused Milan LUKIC at the ViSegrad hospital and when she asked him what had happened, he said that he had received information that these were the mujahidin who would pass through that area, that he had them with the intention of exchanging them for dead Serbian soldiers who were in the area of the village of Meremislje, that negotiations had taken place with the intention of exchanging these live Muslims for dead Serbs, but when the Muslin refused that, they killed them. He did not say who had conducted negotiations to exchange the Muslims. None of the fighters told her where these Muslims had been abducted and in what way, and she heard only later from people she met in the town that these Muslims had been abducted from a bus, but she did not believe that story, although she does not know why. She does not know who the commander was of the unit to which the accused Dorde SEVIC belonged. She explained that before this event, people in Visegrad were saying that the unit’s name was Osvetnici, and she knew that the fighters called each other Osveiici. In January 1993, she broke up with Dorde SEVIG and in May 1993, she returned to Belgrade. Since that date, she has not seen Dorde SEVIC or any of the fighters whom she had met at the front in Visegrad. She found out from conversations with these fighters that Dorde SEVIC’s birthplace was Ruma, that Dragutin DRAGICEVIC's birthplace was in Bosnia, and that they called him Bosanae for this reason, She also added that she knew that all of these fighters had camouflage ‘uniforms when they were on combat assignments. They had caps on their heads, some with cockades, and when they were not in action, they often had civilian clothes. could not remember whether they were wearing camouflage uniforms or ci clothes when she saw them in front of the Vilina vias Hotel The witness was shown the statement which she had given in the preliminary proceedings — the part where she stated that she had also seen civilians whose throats hhad been slit among the dead, whereas at the trial on 23 January 2003, she stated that these people were mutilated and in bad shape. ‘The witness was asked to explain the difference in her statements, because she had stated in the preliminary proceedings before the investigating judge that she had returned soon from the Vilina vlas Hotel to the Visegrad hospital and that during the day word came of a Muslim attack from the direction of Rujiste and that it was only then that she went to the front toward RujiSte, while at the trial she said that she had gone from the Vilina vias Hotel toward the ‘Zupa combat position, to which the village of Rujiste also belongs. 'The witness stated that she would stick with her statement at the trial, that she was sure that she had gone from the Vilina vias Hotel toward the Zupa combat position, to which the village of Ryjiste also belongs, and that she had seen the scene which she testified about on the way back from Rujiste to Visegrad. She also said that army and police members had the same uniforms so it was difficult to distinguish between soldiers and policemen. On the day in question, she did not see any weapons, which Milan LUKIC claimed to have captured from these civilians, either in front of the Vilina vlas Hotel, in the corridor, or in front of the hotel ‘or at any other location, She only saw the weapons of the accused. Several days before this event, there was an attack by Muslim forces on Serbian army positions in Visegrad, and about twenty Serbian fighters were killed near the village of Meremislje, and two children were also butchered in a village near Visegrad, ‘The Serbian population talked about this event, so she assumes that these (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth a(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation events caused the indignation of the people who were in front of the Vilina vlas Hotel and on the bank of the Drina, She knows that the civilians and fighters in the Vi8egrad area called the road between Rudo and Visegrad the “Green road” and that Muslims who wanted to join the Muslim army were using this road, and she took part personally in two operations to intercept and detect these people. On both occasions, when she took part in these operations, groups of armed Muslims were detected as they were going on foot through this area, across the hills, and were wearing camouflage uniforms and black caps with the metal coat of arms of Bosnia and Herzegovina with lilies. She never came across a female “mujahidin”. The Muslim position nearest to Visegrad was about three kilometres from the village of Donja Lieska. She stated resolutely that none of the civilians whom she had seen in front of the Vilina vlas Hotel was armed, but she did notice sticks in a pile next to the entrance to the motel and she saw that some of the civilians were holding wooden “clubs”. She said that she could not recognise any of the Muslim civilians whom she had seen at the time in question on the floor in the Vilina vias hotel, but she said that she could recognise members of this unit and the accused who were being tried in this criminal case, whom she had seen at the time in question in front of the Vilina vlas Hotel and ‘on the bank of the Drina in ViSegrad, She recognised the accused Dorde SEVIC and the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC in the courtroom. When she was shown photographs from the photo album of members of the Osveinici paramilitary formation, she said that she recognised: in photograph number ‘one on page one the accused Milan LUKIG, in photograph number two on page two the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC, aka Orlié, in photograph number three on page three a fighter known as Bosanac, and in photograph number seven on page seven Dorde SEVIG who is marked with the number one, while the other persons in the photographs are familiar 10 her, but she does not remember their names. In photograph number eight on page seven, she recognised Milan LUKIC, who is marked with the number one, and is wearing a camouflage uniform and pointing his ifle in the air. The person marked with the number two in the same photograph is Milan LUKIC’s best man, and this was the very same person who came to the Vikegrad hospital to inform her that she needed to give medical aid to a wounded person in the Vilina vlas Hotel. Dragutin DRAGICEVIC is squatting in the middle of this group with a rifle in his hand. The person marked with the number three, who is, ig and has glasses, was known by everyone as Crnogorac. His real name is Njegos, but she cannot er his last name. In photograph number nine on page ight, Milan TIMOTIC is on the far left, Milan LUKIC is next to him, Dragutin DRAGICEVIG is the person who is squatting, and next to him is the man known as Crnogorac. In photograph number ten on page cight, Milan LUKIC’s father is marked with the number one, Dorde SEVIC is in the back wearing a white cap, and she is the woman in the back. She said that this photograph was taken in front of the Vilina vias Hotel. In photograph number 11 on page ten, she recognised Milan LUKIC with glasses on the far left, and the fighter known as Crnogorae is on the far right with a hat. Photograph number 12 on page 10 shows Milan LUKIC and his best man, and that photograph was taken in the studio where she lived. Milan TIMOTIC and Milan (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth a(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation LUKIC are in photograph number 13 on page ten and this photograph was also taken in the studio where she lived. In photograph number 14 on page 11 there is a woman in black whose two grandsons were killed by the director of the school in Visegrad, as that woman said when she saw her, and Borde SEVIC is in the back with a white cap. Photograph number 15 on page 11 shows fighters whose names she does not remember although she knows them by sight. In photograph number 17 on page 13, Oliver KRSMANOVIC is holding a sub-machine gun and is wrapped in a black flag with a skull and crossbones, and VIC is next to him, ‘That photograph was taken in front of the Vilina vlas Hotel on the day in question. In photograph number 18 on page 14, the man with the blackened face is Milan LUKIC, in photograph number 19 on page 15, Milan LUKIC thas a fur cap on his head and his best man is next to him. That photograph was taken in the studio where she lived. Oliver KRSMANOVIC is in photograph number 21 on page 17, but she could not say where this photograph had been taken. She said that she used to see Milan ‘TIMOTIC in Visegrad and that she continued to see him for a while longer after the event in question, but she could say with certainty whether he was continuously in Visegrad or whether he was coming and going. She said that she was sure that no person other than Milan TIMOTIC could have taken the photographs in front of the Vilina vias Hotel, that she had not seen anybody else there carrying a camera, and that she did see him with a camera. When she returned from the front, she did not have any contacts with Milan ‘TIMOTIC. While in ViSegrad, he spent most of his time with Milan LUKIC. She said that photograph number ten on page eight, in which she recognised Milan LUKIC’s father, and in which Dorde SEVIC is on the far right in the back, was taken on the day in question in front of the Vilina vlas Hotel, and that she noticed on the far right the elbow of a person wearing a Spitfire jacket. She claimed that Dragutin DRAGICEVIC usually wore such a jacket, and she was not aware that any other fighter had a jacket like this When she was shown the photo album with the photographs of the abducted persons and the photograph on page two, she said that the person in front of the civilians wrapped in a flag was Oliver KRSMANOVIC, that she recognised him by his hair, height and the flag that he was can 1¢ does not recognise the person in a camouflage uniform holding an item in his hand in photograph number eight on page six, and she also does not recognise the persons whose lower parts of camouflage uniforms can be seen in photograph number 13 on page nine. During the questioning by the investigating judge, she stated that in photograph number 13 on page nine of the photo album, Dorde SEVIC is in the top left corner, but she did not confirm that at the trial, so she was asked to explain these differences. in her statements, and she said that that was maybe the case, but she was not sure and for that reason she would maintain her statement given at the trial that she was not sure who that person was. She stressed that she could not distinguish between members of the Army of Republika Srpska and the Republika Srpska police, because both formations had the same uniforms. (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth “3(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation During the hearing of the key prosecution witness Dragana DEKIC, the chamber decided to close the proceedings to the general public at the trial as well pursuant to Article 294 and in conjunction with Article 292 of the ZKP /Law on Criminal Procedure. The proceedings were closed to the general public in order to maintain law and order in the courtroom, while members of the expert public and representatives of non-governmental organisations were present at the hearing. Before the start of her testimony at the trial on 21 January 2005, the witness Dragana DEKIC stated that she had suffered serious mental consequences after her testimony before the court. ‘The first time she had serious mental problems was when she was questioned by state security organs, and after that when she testified before the court, but nevertheless she stated that she could testify. ‘The witness Dragana DEKIC, heard at the trial on 21 January 2005, gave and repeated the portion of her testimony from the preliminary proceedings where she referred to how she went to the front. She said that she first went 0 the front in ‘Western Slavonia and that she reported to the territorial defence. In the year 1992, she was in Zvornik, because there was a need for medical orderlies, When she was in Zvomik, she met the accused Dorde SEVIC and Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, who was known as Bosanac. She then went to Vigegrad, but as far as she can re she spent a couple of months in Visegrad and left Visegrad in October or November 1992. When she was leaving ViSegrad, she reported to the command of the Republika srpska Army. She had an automatic rifle. At the Visegrad hospital, where she worked as a medical orderly, she met Milan LUKIC through Doctor Mira whose last name she cannot remember, but she knew that she was LUKIC"s fiancé. She lived in a studi the centre of ViSegrade with Dorde SEVIC, with whom she had a relationship. accused Dorde SEVIC was a volunteer. He had s camoufloge uniform and an automatic rifle. Since they lived together in the studio, she knew that he took part in operations. He would first go to the command of the Army of Republika Srpska and received, orders. on which operations to join from the commander. Luka DRAGICEVIC was the brigade commander at the time. The operations consisted of defending the front line. Milan LUKIC often came to their studio and other fighters also came. She knows that Milan LUKIC had a platoon of about 15 to 20 fighters and that he was the commander of that platoon. Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, Dorde SEVIC and Oliver KRSMANOVIC were members of his platoon, She met Oliver KRSMANOVIC for the first time in Vigegrad. He was a short, blond man. Dragu DRAGICEVIC and Oliver KRSMANOVIC also used to come to the studio. As far as she can remember, she stayed in the studio until October and then left Visegrad together with Dorde SEVIC. She went to Belgrade and Dorde SEVIC went to Ruma. Before they left ViSegrad, they reported to the commander Luka DRAGICEVIC to get his permission to leave the town. Dorde SEVIG and she went together to the ‘command, but she could not remember whether the commander Luka DRAGICEVIC had given them permission personally or whether jt was someone else on his behall. The permission had the signature of Luka DRAGICEVIC, the commander The next time she went to ViSegrad was in December 1992 and she spent a month to a month and a half there. She went of her own volition without anyone’s. invitation, ‘She met Milan is a journalist. He had a IMOTIC for the first time in ViSegrad and she knows that he mouflage uniform and a camera, He did not have a rifle. (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth a(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation She said that she did not know anything about the concrete event or any abduction. She heard from the media that some Muslims had been abducted, She heard that during the time when she was at home in Belgrade in November or December. As for the statements which she gave to the investigating judge and at the trial on 23 January 2003, she gave those statements on orders of people from the state security who were putting a lot of pressure on her. She just repeated what those people from the state security /DB/ had told her at the first questioning in 2000 and 2001. DB members forced her to give a statement such as the one she gave in the preliminary proceedings and at the trial and told her that they knew everything and that she had to say what they told her to say, and that she would sign the statement by hook or by crook. She was under psychological pressure by DB personnel who came to her home all the time and just the sight of them was pressure for her. She said that she had not heard that there were some paramilitary formations at the time and that she had never heard of any Osvemici. It was possible that the fighters called each other Osvetnici. When the court showed her the album of photographs of members of the Osvetnici paramilitary formation, she said that she recognised Milan LUKIC in photograph number one and Oliver KRSMANOVIG, whose face was always blackened, in photograph number two. She thinks that Dragutin DRAGICEVIC is in photograph number three on page three, although there was another man similar to him, She also thinks that Dragutin DRAGICEVIC is in photograph number five on page five, In photograph number seven on page seven, she recognised the studio Where she was staying and the person marked with number one is Dorde SEVIC. In photograph number eight on page seven, she recognised the accused Milan LUKIC, who is marked with the number one, and Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, but she does not recognise the other persons. She thinks that photograph number one and photograph number eight were taken at the same place, but she does not know where. In photograph number nine on page cight, she recognised Milan TIMOTIC, who is marked with the number four, Milan LUKIC, who is marked with the number one, and Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, who is marked with the number two. In photograph number ten on page eight, she is the woman with blond hair, the person marked wi the number one is LUKIC’s father, and she thinks that the person marked with the number seven is the accused Dorde SEVIC. In photograph number 11 on page she recognised Milan LUKI, who is marked with the number one. In photograph number 12 on page ten, the person marked with the number one with a fur cap is Milan LUKIC. The photograph was taken in the studio where she lived. In photograph number 13, Milan TIMOTIC is marked with the number two and Milan LUKIC is, marked with the number one. This photograph also shows her studio. In phot number 14 on page I, she is the blond woman and the accused Dorde SE? the back with a white cap. She does not know the other persons in the photograph. She also does not know the woman in black right next to her When she was shown the statement she had given in the preliminary proceedings in which she said that the woman in black was a woman whose two grandsons had been killed, she said that it was true that she had said that, but that she hhad just repeated what she was told by the people from the state security, (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 45(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation In photograph number 15 on page 11, she only recognised the Chetnik flag and she thinks that Milan LUKIC, just like his platoon, had such a flag, and she had seen them carrying such a flag. In photograph number 17 on page 13, Oliver KRSMANOVIC is holding a rifle and his face is blackened, and the person with a white cap is Dorde SEVIC. Milan LUKIC is in photograph number 18 on page 14, as well as in photograph number 19 on page 15, where Milan LUKIC is the person marked with the number one with a fur cap on his head. Oliver KRSMANOVIC is in photograph number 21 on page 17. The witness further said that she remembered that Milan LUKIG drove a maroon Passat at the time. She does not remember saying in the preliminary proceedings that Milan LUKIC’s best man is also in the photograph, She did not hear that any Serbs had been abducted. She said that she was trying to forget all the battlefronts at which she had been, DB personnel helped her to remember the time she spent at the front, but she did not remember it, she just repeated what they had told her. The witness Luka DRAGICEVIC said in his statement at the trials held on 29 May 2003 and 26 April 2005 that he had been a soldier until the beginning of the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina, as a Lt. Colonel at the Air Foree School Centre in Sarajevo. When war broke out in Bosnia and Herzegovina after the declaration of independence of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the people's army had until 19 May 1992 to retreat from this territory. His unit transferred from the Rajlovae area in Sarajevo to the Military Technical Institute in Zarkovo in Belgrade, As a professional soldier born in the territory of ViSegrad, where his mother and extended family lived, the INA FYugoslay People’s Army/ command allowed him to go to ViSegrad and put himself at the disposal of the Army of Republika Srpska, in the same way in which they allowed JNA members from other republics (e.g. the Slovenes, the Macedonians and the Serbs from Bosnia to go to the territory of the republic of their birth). On 19 July and until 26 October 1992 he was chief of staff of the Visegrad Brigade, operated in the Visegrad area. The Brigade had 1,500 members, including the quartermaster service and the medical corps. The brigade was made up of companies. ‘There were volunteers in the brigade, but no unit consisted exclusively of volunteers. Most volunteers came from Serbia or from other parts of Bosnia. In smaller placi and villages, there were special companies consisting of elderly people from the area who defended that area from raids by enemy troops. AS of 26 October 1992, he was commander of this brigade. He explained how volunteers were admitted and assigned to units in this brigade. At checkpoints /on the border/ with the Republic of Serbia, members of the Republika Srpska MUP /Ministry Of the Interior/ coordinated the reception and checking of volunteers, who were then sent to the Visegrad military department, where they were given mobilisation notices. After receiving notices, they received their assignment to a specific unit at the brigade command. All brigade members had mobilisation notices and only then were they entered in a special register as brigade members. When they left the territory or travelled around the territory in the zone of responsibility of this brigade, they had to have a freedom of movement permit. ‘These were standardised permits mentioning that the holder was a member of that brigacke down to company level. Fighters in this brigade were issued weapons in the command, mostly M-45 automatic rifles and (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 46(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation semi-automatic and M-48 rifles, He stated with certainty that there was not a single unit in the brigade which he commanded that consisted Solely of volunteers and that there were no paramilitary formations in the brigade. The brigade command was based in the village of Okoliste on the left side of the Drina, in a building in which the army had also been based earlier. Since he was born on the left side of the Drina, he was also responsible for the left side of the Drina. He claimed that there was no organised recruitment of volunteers for this unit and that volunteers mostly came individually and in small numbers. He stated resolutely that the accused Milan LUKIG was not a member of the Army of Republika Srpska, that he was not a soldier and that he was not a member of any brigade. He heard about Milan LUKIC in the winter of 1993 and he remembers that his driver on that occasion pointed him out in the centre of ViSegrad. He could not explain what the driver had told him on that occasion about who Milan LUKIC was, but he knew that he had been well-known at that time. When he saw him for the first time on that occasion, he was wearing a camouflage uniform with mostly white details. After the war, he used to see Milan LUKIC in Visegrad as a civilian. He met the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC when he was brought to the brigade staff in the late fall of 1992, because he was afraid of the dark and needed a transfer to a combat position where there was enough light. KRSMANOVIC had medical records for this condition. He does not remember which unit Oliver KRSMANOVIC was assigned to, but he was a member of the Visegrad brigade. The brigade was poorly equipped, so the soldiers were wearing different uniforms. They were mostly armed with semi-automatic and automatic rifles, and they only received uniforms with emblems and the coat of arms of Republika Srpska in mid-1993. During the period when he was chief of staff, Vinko PANDUREVIC was the brigade ‘commander. He claimed that there were no police units in the ViSegrade brigade at the time. He explained that during the period in question when the event which is the subject of criminal proceedings took place, the unit under his command was surrounded and under attack by the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, and that not a single soldier, and certainly not the brigade commander, could have left the unit. He found out about this crime from the media and his friends and acquaintances when this criminal case was instituted. On 16 October 1992, the front was breeched in the village of Meremisije and the brigade suffered significant losses in personnel. A certain number of men were killed, and a large number were captured. He did not know whether there were any negotiations about a prisoner exchange right after this event, but later on, after about a month or two, there were negotiations with the Muslim side on a prisoner exchange and he took part in those negotiations He said that the Vilina vias Hotel in ViSegrad was the most secure place in the territory, and that this hotel was empty from July to October 1992 and that in. April 1993 this building was used for the rehabilitation of wounded soldiers. He stated resolutely that there were no paramilitary formations in the brigade, but he was not certain that there were no armed groups in the territory in which the brigade operated, He was not responsible for the territory of Visegrad Muncipality, because civilian authorities had been established there already in May 1992, but only for the front line as a member of the Army of Republika Srpska. He explained that members of his brigade had heen informed of rules relating to the treatment of civilians, Red Cross (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth a(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation members and medical personnel, since all members of this brigade had served in the army and had attended this kind of training. This also applies to volunteers, because they accepted volunteers who had performed military service. No person who had not performed military service could have received a mobilisation notice. He did not hear that a unit called Osvetnici existed, but he heard that fighters called each other by ifferent names. He heard about the White Eagles and the Osvemnici. It was common for soldiers to call themselves by different names. When the witness was shown certificates from the 1% Visegrad Light Infantry Brigade confirming that the conscript Dragutin DRAGICEVIC from Visegrad was a member of Army of Republika Srpska units in ViSegrad Municipality from 2 June 1992 onward, and that the purpose of the certificate was to prove the status of combatant in the Army of Republika Srpska and that it was signed by chief of staff Colonel Luka DRAGICEVIG, as well as a certificate confirming that Milan LUKIC is commander of a sabotage and reconnaissance group, that he was a member of the Army of Republika Srpska in Visegrad Municipality from 19 May 1992 onward, indicating that the purpose of the certificate was to prove the status of combatant the Army of Republika Srpska and that it was signed by chief of staff Colonel Luka DRAGICEVIC, the witness stated resolutely that the signature on the certificates is that the chief of staff did not issue such certificates, that if a personnel officer cd the certificate he would have added “for”, and that this was a forgery. He repeated that the accused Milan LUKIC is not a member of the Army of Republika rpska. Milan LUKIC’s name is not in a single register. He stated resolutely that the status of combatant cannot be proven on the basis of a certificate or receipt, but only with a military ID, because a military ID is the basic document. On the other hand, certificate should also contain the date of issue in order to see who was at that position at the time, but these certificates have no date. He explained that Milan LUKIC’s father had once visited him and, threatening foree, demanded that he enter the accused LUKIC in the register of combatants of the Visegrad Brigade, pointing a rifle at his stomach and a pistol at his head. He refused, however. He explained this. violent behaviour by LUKIC’s father by the fact that Milan LUKIC was in prison in Serbia for carrying a weapon without a permit, and that a document certifying that he was a member of the Army of Republika Srpska would make his position ea When he was shown a combat order for reconnaissance dated 25 October 1992, the witness said that it was true that he had signed this order, but that it was not true that he was the commander at the time, because he became commander on 26 October 1992, The order was issued to the commander of the sabotage and reconnaissance group because this sabotage and reconnaissance group existed according to the manning table, but he did not know who the commander of that group was. The witness was shown photographs from the album of photographs of members of the Osvetnici paramilitary formation and the witness recognised the accused Milan LUKIC and the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC in the photographs that were shown to him. He said that soldiers of the Army of Republika Srpska did not have caps like the one LUKIC had, He also said that he did not have a chance to see faces blackened to such an extent and added that that was not the practice in the Vigegrad Brigade, In photograph number two, he recognised the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC and said that he had never seen him masked like that, that members of the Army of Republika Srpska did not have the kind of weapons that (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth a8(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation KRSMANOVIC has in the photograph, and that he, as an officer, recognised that this, was an automatic rifle or a Kalashnikov, although he could not say whether this, conerete example was an Iranian, Hungarian or Romanian model, because these rifles were very similar, but he did recognise them by their handles. When the witness was shown photograph number 15 on page 11 of the photo album showing a flag with the inscription: “With faith in God, freedom or death”, he said that he did not know of any armed group in the territory of Vi8egrad which had this flag, but as far as he could remember, he saw this kind of flag at the entrance to ViSegrad on the premises of the Serbian Radical Party ~ in 1993 as far as he can remember. In photograph number 17 ‘on page 13 of the photo album he recognised the person holding a rifle in his hand with a flag over his body as Oliver KRSMANOVIG, whom he also recognised in photograph number 21 on page 17. In photograph number ten on page eight, he recognised under number one the person whom he had heard later was Milan LUKIC’s father. This was the same person, as he explained earlier, who pointed a rifle at his stomach and a pistol at his head and asked him to register Milan LUKIC as a member of the Vigegrad Brigade. He said that he had not accepted that although his ‘was threatened, As far as he knows, the abduction of Muslim citizens from Sjeverin is not registered in any reports of this brigade or any records, and at that time he was the chief of staff in ViSegrad. He does not know Dragana DEKIC and has never heard of her. He has not heard of Doctor Mira either. The witness Milié POPOVIC said in his statement that he had been appointed President of the Priboj SO /Municipal Assembly/ two months before the event in question. On 22 October 1992, at around 1000 hours in the morning, the chief of the ‘general administration service of the Priboj SO, Murat TVICA, informed him that Ramiz BEGOVIC, an employce in the municipality, had not come to work although he had always come to work from Sjeverin where he had a house. Murat TVICA also informed him that he had called the Rakera transportation enterprise and that they told hhim that the bus had arrived in Priboj, but that it had been late because some unknown armed persons had stopped the bus in the village of Mioge near the café Amora, taken off Muslim citizens and transferred these people toward Bijela Brda in ViSegrad. He immediately called the responsible people at the Priboj SUP /Secretariat of the Interior/ and asked them whether they had any information about this event. They confirmed that they had been notified that these persons had been taken in an unknown direction. He demanded that all measure be taken immediately to find out where the persons taken from the bus were located, He also informed the Head of the Zlatibor District VELMEZOVIC and asked him to take measures and inform the Government of the Republic of Serbia. Since he had information that these people had been take in the direction of Visegrad, he asked the Head of the Zlatibor District to take measures and contact people from neighbouring municipalities in order for the civilians to return to their homes. Since this bus was travelling on the Rudo ~ Priboj route, he also contacted the President of Rudo Municipality, Vojislav TOPALOVIC, and asked him to come to Priboj. ‘That same day, about an hour later, the President of Rudo Municipality and the President of the Executive Committee of Rudo Municipality, Dragan PAVLOVIC, came to the Priboj Municipal Assembly. The two of them informed him that they had found out that the abducted Muslims had been taken in the direction of Visegrad so that they could be exchanged for Serbian prisoners. When he asked them what citizens of Serbia had to do with their war, ‘TOPALOVIC informed him that Muslims from Serbia were taking part in the war in (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth a(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation Bosnia and Herzegovina, After that TOPALOVIC promised he would do everything in his power to return those people. He found out from representatives of the Rudo municipal authorities that the citizens of Sjeverin and neighbouring villa told those days, unofficially and in confidence, to be careful about their safety, and he heard from representatives of the Rudo authorities that they could not even guarantee his security if he used that road. He said that neither he nor any other competent ‘organs in Priboj Municipality had been informed about this earlier, nor did they get any kind of warning. On the same day, he went to the village of Sjeverin and found there a group of agitated people. He informed them of what he had already achieved and what concrete steps he had undertaken. The following day, he got a call from the Office of the President of the FR /Federal Republic/ of Yugoslavia, Dobriea COSIG ~ from the President's Advisor Vladimir MATOVIC, who told him that the Federal Government was awware of the case, that they had formed a federal commission and that they would come to Priboj. The following day, he organised in Priboj a meeting in his olfice, which was attended by Vladimir MATOVIC, the Federal Minister for Human Rights, Professor Momilo GRUBAC, Mahmut MEMIC and Smajo POLIMAG, President of the Priboj SDA /Party of Democratic Action/, KIANOVIC from the MUP and General Ratko MLADIC. The then Minister of the Interior of Montenegro, Pavle BULATOVIC, was also supposed to attend the meeting, but he called and said he could not join for health reasons. Professor Moméilo GRUBAC chaired the meeting, and then they went to Sjeverin, Before that, they asked Ratko MLADIC to ensure the safely of the SDA President Smajo POLIMAC on this road, since he also wanted to take part in the gathering in Sjeverin. He stressed that he remembers that before going Sjeverin, Smajo POLIMAC addressed Ratko MLADIC with a request to ensure safe passage for him, because Muslims did not dare go through the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina (in order to come to Sjeverin, one must go through part of Bosnian territory). He remembers that Ratko MLADIC then phoned someone and said that a delegation of the Federal Government and the municipal president would now pass on that road and that Smajo POLIMAC be allowed 10 pass on that road. The witness quoted the sentence used by Ratko MLADIC on that occasion: “Even if T say that Alija IZETBEGOVIC is coming, you will let him pass there.” The witness said that MATOVIC, GRUBAC and he weat to Sjeverin in one vehicle, and KUJANOVIC and Pera GOLUBOVIG from the territorial defence went in another vehicle, Mahmut MEMIC also arrived in Sjeverin a little later. In spite of the explicit order he heard Ratko MLADIC give, Smajo POLIMAC was not allowed to enter Bosnian territory, so he returned to Priboj. In Sjeverin they came across a large gathering of about a thousand citizens who were asking that the abducted persons be found and to guarantee their safety in the village. Professor Moméilo GRUBAC addressed the citizens and promised that the federal authorities would do everything within their power to find the abducted persons and return them to their homes. He promised that police and army organs would secure this place. While they were in Sjeverin, armed soldiers appeared at a certain moment on the road, wearing black uniforms and carrying black flags with the inscription “Avengers of the Serbian people”. Skulls and crossbones were drawn on the flags. The citizens started to run away, screaming “Here they are, here they are”. When one of them stood out and started walking toward the gathering, they all dispersed, and he found shelter together with GRUBAC in the basement of an unfinished house. One armed soldier approached them and told them to disperse or they would shoot. These armed persons stayed on the road, below the place where the gathering was taking place, for about 15-20 minutes and then left, (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth so(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation When the soldiers left, Professor GRUBAC proposed that they the President of Rudo Municipality and ask him to do everything possible to bring those people hack. He went to Rudo with GRUBAC and MATOVIC and met again with the president of the municipality, who promised that they would everything within their power. Mahmut MEMIC did not join them on that occasion, but rather stayed with the inhabitants of Sjeverin. Professor GRUBAC addressed the citizens telling them not to leave their houses, that strong police forces would arrive and that they would be safe. However, a large number left Sjeverin during that night and came to Priboj on foot across hills and forests. He explained that two days after the arrival of the delegation of the Federal Government, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbia Radoman BOZOVIC called him and told him that they had also established a commission which would arrive in Priboj to deal with this case. The president of that commission Zoran ARANDELOVIC, who was the Deputy Prime Minister at the time, and members ‘Zoran CETKOVIC, the then Minister of Justice, and Stojan MISIC, the then Assistant Minister of the Interior, arrived the following day and promised that they would do everything possible to find these people. He stressed that he had never seen those uniformed people or those flags before this event. The first time he heard about Milan LUKIC was when he was captured. He added that he did not know at that time that there were any paramilitary formations. He stressed that General MLADIC had said at the meeting in Priboj that the Army of Republika Srpska had not carried out the abduction and that he would do everything possible to bring them back. He showed a geographic map of this area in order to understand better how citizens of Serbia had to go through the territory of Bosnia to reach their homes. A photocopy of that map was added to the files. He said that it used to happen that members of the Army of Republika Srpska crossed into the territory of Serbia under the excuse that they were looking for fugitives, Serbs who did not want to go to the front, and on those occasions, members of the Army of Republika Srpska took advantage of the possibility to abuse Muslim citizens who had to use this road. He has never seen or known the accused LUKIC, DRAGICEVIC, KRSMANOVIC and SEVIC. He only found out that the passengers from the bus had heen killed when the criminal case began. After the event in question, representatives of Priboj Municipality and he personally tried to establish normal communication so that people from this. an could go to Priboj without obstruction, although they were warned by the authorits of Republika Srpska that they could not guarantee security. The witness especially stressed that due to his desire to establish normal communication and the flow of people and goods through this area, he had also contacted the then Minister of the Interior of the Republic of Serbia Radmilo BOGDANOVIC, from whom he found out in a conversation that Alija IZETBEGOVIC had met in Vienna once with the then President of the FRY Dobrica COSIC, who proposed to IZBTBEGOVIC that an armoured personnel carrier of the Yugoslav Army escort passengers through Bosnian territory, but IZETBEGOVIC said that that would mean interference in the internal affairs of Bosnia. The witnesses Dragan PEROVIC and Tomislav IVANOVIC said that they had not witnessed the forcible abduction of civitians from the bus, but that they had be (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 5(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation present at the time of the protest gatherings in Sjeverin. ‘The protests were mostly attended by Muslim civilians and both witnesses confirmed that representatives of the state delegation, led by Professor Mom@ilo GRUBAC and the President of Priboj Municipality Milié POPOVIC, were present at the gathering. ‘The witnesses confirmed that during the gathering in Sjeverin, where citizens had assembled, a car stopped nearby and some armed people got out. They had camouflage uniforms and some were carrying rifles in their hands, so the citizens which were protesting started to group together. After these events, the Muslim citizens of Sjeverin went to Priboj across the hills, because they feared for their lives. The witness Tomislav IVANOVIC said that on 22 October 1992, at around 1000 hours, he had heard from the inhabitants of Sjeverin that their neighbours had. been abducted and that members of a paramilitary formation had done this. Two or three months after the abduction, he heard that Milan LUKIC was the leader of a paramilitary formation. He stated that he knew that the families of the abducted Persons had staged a protest gathering in Sjeverin, at which the President of Priboj Municipality Milié POPOVIC and the Federal Minister for Human Rights Moméilo GRUBAC were present, About 200 people took part in the gathering. The witness ‘Tomislav IVANOVIC said that his wife had a food store in Sjeverin, Since all of that was happening 150 meters from his store, he locked the store and joined the gathering with his son Ivan, Security at the protest gathering was provided by policemen, maybe five to ten policemen. After about a half an hour, a person in a camouflage uniform approached the gathering and started a discussion. Several other uniformed persons appeared next 10 him. Their arrival upset the locals and word spread among the present people that they were members of a paramilitary formation, The Municipal President and the Minister for Human Affairs promised to the families of the abducted persons that they would do everything possible to bring back their loved ones. The protest gathering lasted one hour, after which he returned to the store. AS far as he ean remember, nobody had entered the store until the end of the day. When he was shown part of the statement of the injured party Ramiz CATOVIC where he said that after the gathering he went to the store where he found a group of uniformed persons, including the accused SEVIC, the witness stressed that nobody had entered the store that day and added that he knew that CATTOVIC had lost his son in the event which is the subject of this trial. He claimed that he did know the accused SEVIC and that the uniformed person who appeared at the gathering at the time did not differ from regular soldiers. When he was shown the album of photographs of the abducted persons, the witness recognised Medo HODZIC, marked with the letter “a” in photograph number four on page three, In photograph number five on page four, he recognised Ramiz BEGOVIC, who is marked with the letter “a”. He said that the person marked with the letter “a” in photograph number seven on page five resembled Mujo ALIHODZIC. In photograph number 17 on page 13 of the album, he also recognised Ramiz, BEGOVIC and Mujo ALIHODZIC in a chequered shirt. Further ‘on, as he was looking at the photographs of the uniformed persons, the witness said that it had happened that persons wearing such uniforms passed through the village, and he also said that he had seen the flag in photograph number 15 on page 11 when they passed by It has been established based on the statement of the witness Dragoslay RAKOVIC that on 22 October 1992 he got on the bus at the bus stop in the village of Zivinice and went 10 work in Priboj. The bus was crowded and all seats were ‘occupied. At a certain moment, the bus stopped and an armed soldier got on at the (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 2(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation front door. As he was in the front part of the bus that soldier approached him from that side, He does not know whether a soldier came in at the back door. He asked for their ID cards. After that, ha saw passengers leaving the bus at the back door. The bus was stopped at a place where there was no bus stop. The soldier who came in was masked ~ his face and hands were blackened. He did not know why these people were leaving the bus and he was afraid. He remembers that Alija MANDAL, Medo HODZIC, Esad DZIHIC, Idriz GIBOVIG and Mevlida HODZIC got on the bus with hhim, When he returned from work that day, he heard that the people whom he knew and whom he had seen get on the bus had disappeared. The witness Slavko ROMANDIG said that he did not know anything about this event and that he found out everything he knows from the media. He said that he knew Ramiz CATOVIC and that he sometimes came to Tomo IVANOVIC's store. He knows that CATOVIC’s sons were abducted, The witness Slobodan IKONIC said that on the day in question he was driving from Pljevija to Priboj. There were about 50 passengers on his bus and they were all Serbs with the exception of one Muslim boy. Next to the café Amfora a uniformed person in an olive-drab uniform motioned him to stop and he stopped next to a bus that was already parked there. He opened the front door of the bus and that uniformed person came in and told him also to open the back door and started to check ID cards. He saw in the rear-view mirror that a person in an olive-drab camouflage uniform ‘came in at the back door and was also checking ID cards. As far as he can remember, this person was not armed. With the exception of the parked bus, he did not see any other vehicles. He said that the passengers and he were not scared since it had happened before that soldiers stopped buses at checkpoints and away from checkpoints and checked ID cards, As far as he can remember, they stayed at that place about 10 to 15 minutes, after which the uniformed person who came in at his door said that they could go on. Other than the two above-mentioned uniformed persons, he did not see anybody else, and only when they left cid he find out from the passengers who were sitting behind him that the driver of the other bus was Velisav STOJKANOVIC. During the remainder of the trip, none of the passengers said that they had seen anything happen on the other bus. When he arrived in Priboj, he did not inform anyone of this incident and he only talked with colleagues at the bus stop. The same day he talked with driver Velisav STOJKANOVIC, who told him that the persons who had been checking ID cards had taken the Muslims from his bus. He knows that the White Eagles paramilitary formation existed at the time. Among the abducted passengers he knew the butcher Medo HODZIC, the registrar Ramiz BEGOVIC and the electrician Mithad. The witness Dragan MILANOVIC said that at the time of the incident in question he was head of transport at the Raketa enterprise and that he had no detailed Knowledge of the abduction. He knows from Velisav STOJKANOVIC that masked persons with blackened faces stopped his bus, came in, checked ID cards and took away some people. He also knows that Velisav STOJKANOVIC was very afraid. He heard in conversations with people that Muslims had been abducted from the bus. He did not do anything about this case, since he was not competent for that. ‘The abduction was an incident for him. ss Ivan IVANOVIC said that his parents had owned a store in He was 16 years old at the time, As far as he can remember, his The wit Sjeverin at the tim (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 5(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation father closed the store during the protest gathering and both of them joined the gathering. On that occasion, he saw the President of Priboj Municipality and members of the delegation whom he did not know. According to his estimate, there were about 200 people at the gathering. At one moment, there was a commotion among the people, because soldiers had appeared at the intersection, but he did not see it, he just heard it, He heard about the Orlici /eagle chicks! paramilitary formation, but he does not know anything detailed about it. He knows Ramiz CATOVIC, but he did not see hhim that day when the protest gathering took place. He knows both of Ramiz CATOVIC’S sons, and he heard that one of them had disappeared before the abduction of the people from the bus. He said that he was certain that they did not ‘open the store again that day. ‘The witness Rahmo TVICA said that at the time of the incident he was Head of Administration and Joint Affairs in the Priboj Municipal Assembly, where his good friend, the abducted Ramiz BEGOVIC, also worked. On 22 Octoher 1992, one of his colleagues told him that BEGOVIC had not come to work. Since he’ knew that BEGOVIC used to arrive in Priboj by bus between 0800 and 0900 hours, he called the Raketa enterprise and was informed that a group of masked persons had taken away the Muslim passengers from Sjeverin near the café Amfora. He immediately informed the President of the Municipality of the event. He has no information on what happened after that, because as a Bosniak he was not allowed to attend municipal meetings. He said that he knew that paramilitary formations had existed at the time, and by paramilitary formations he meant persons who did not belong to regular military units. When he was shown the album of photographs of the abducted persons, he said that he recognised Ramiz BEGOVIC, who is marked with the arrow “a” in photograph number five on page four. When he was shown the album of photographs of members of the Osveinici paramilitary formation, specifically photograph 17 on page 13, he said that he thought that Ramiz BEGOVIC’s forehead and grey hair could be seen on the right side. ‘The witness Omer SKORUPA said that he was an administrative employee in Priboj Municipality and that he had heard about the abduction at around 1200 hours that same day. The next day, he read a report in the Borba daily for which the source was the Uzice Corps that Said that the people from the bus had been taken to the Vilina vias Motel in Visegrad and killed, However, this information was. denied already the following day. He said that he had heard of the accused Milan LUKIC and ‘added that he had heard from his brother that Milan LUKIC had once got on a bus at Uvae and checked the ID cards of the passengers, including his brother, who told him how LUKIC had thrown the beret of a passenger out of the window on that occasion, and told him that his name was not good. His brother's name is Meho, He knows that that was Milan LUKIC, because his brother told him that he had introduced himself when he got on the bus. The witness Njegos IVANOVIC said that the accused Milan LUKIG was his cousin (his mother and LUKIC’s father are brother and sister) and afler he was advised about his rights, he invoked the legal possibility not to testify against a close relative. The witness Moméilo GRUBAC said that in October 1992 he was at the post of Federal Minister for Human and Minority Rights in the Federal Government of Milan PANIC. Ata celebration marking the 100 days of the Federal Government, he (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth s(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation was informed by the Prime Minister PANIC and the then President of the FRY Dobrica COSIC that a crime had been committed against the inhabitants of Sjeverin. ‘On that occasion, the Prime Minister told him to go to the site, establish the facts and convey the message to the locals that the federal government was treating this as a very serious incident and that they would undertake measures and do everything possible to return the abducted persons and that Muslims had no reason to leave vverin, because their safety would be guaranteed. Following this event, the President of the FRY Dobrica COSIC formed a commission, which was headed by his advisor Vladimir MATOVIC. Rear Admiral Milosav SIMIC was a member of the ‘commission, and as far as he knows a representative of the MUP of Montenegro, who was supposed to be designated by Pavle BULATOVIG, was also supposed to be commission member. However, he docs not know why the third member did not join them on the trip. When MATOVIC, SIMIC and he flew by helicopter to Priboj, Mahmut MEMIC was also supposed to join them, but he did not go with them and ‘came to Priboj from Novi Pazar instead, During the trip, he was informed that contact had been made with the VRS General Ratko MLADIC and that he would also come to Priboj. When they arrived in Priboj, a meeting was hosted by the President of Priboj Municipality Milié POPOVIC at which he conveyed the position of the federal government o the representatives of the local authorities, and he conveyed to Ratko MLADIC a request to return the abducted citizens and to provide security for Muslims in Priboj Municipality who are travelling through Bosnian territory. After the meeting, he insisted that they go to Sjeverin, although that was risky because a 17 kilometre Tong section of the road passes through the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina. He departed for S ‘ther with the President of the Municipality Milié POPOVIC. Mahmut MEMIC stayed in Priboj, because he thought it was risky for him to join, A large group of citizens waited for them in Sjeverin. He conveyed the positions of the federal government and asked them not to I in, saying that the federal government would do everything possible to ensure their personal safety and the safety of their property. He stressed that while he was speaking he saw a bus pass by full of uniformed persons with a black flag. ‘That bus did not stop, but rather continued toward Mioge. The inhabitants of Sjeverin told him Tater that the inscription on the flag on the bus was “Osvetnici” and that this was a group of uniformed persons who used to come from Rudo and shoot at the roofs of their houses. He felt indignation at that and knowing that General MLADIC was in Rudo, he decided to go there although he had been told that it was risky for him to go. On the way to Rudo, he saw two or three untidy territorials, who were drinking beer in front of an improvised border crossing next to a village canteen, He criticised them for keeping guard that way and allowing the passage of armed persons from the other side of the border, and they replied: “You stop them, Minister!” He arrived at the hotel which MLADIC was staying and saw in front the same bus which had appeared uring the gathering in Sjeverin. He protested strongly with MLADIC because of the violation of territorial integrity, considering that his units were entering the territory of the FRY. MLADIC replied that they were paramilitary formations, which he used ‘oceasionally in military operations, but that they were not under his command and he could not command them. On that occasion in Rudo he heard that the basic motive for the members of this formation was revenge, because members of their families had been killed by the Muslims, which the President of the Priboj SO Milié POPOVIC also confirmed. After the conversation with MLADIG, he returned to Sjeverin and {old the anxious villagers again to stay in the village. At a certain moment, a woman approached him and told him to take a child called Demir with him to Priboj, because (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth ss(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation she had some relatives there, Although his driver told him that it was risky, he took the child and brought him to Priboj. When he returned to Belgrade, on the next day, he informed the Prime Minister of everyt ecurity be provided for the inhabitants of Sjeverin, He knows that the Prime Minister contacted the President of Serbia Slobodan MILOSEVIC by phone and asked him to send a MUP unit there, which he did the next day, and then a oon after the arrival of these units, Milan LUKIC was arrested at the border crossing. There was a rumour at the time that Milan LUKIC could be guilty for the abduction, but there was no evidence. On 12 November 1992, Milan PANIC and he received a delegation from Sjeverin, but they were not able to find out before the end of their terms of office what had happened to the victims of this crime. When he was shown the photo album of photographs of the members of the Osvetnici paramilitary formation, specifically photograph number 15 on page 18, the witness said that the bus which can be seen in the photograph could be the one which appeared in Sjeverin during the gathering Evaluating the part of the defence of the accused Dorde SEVIC where he confirmed that he had taken part in this operation, described the place where they got ‘out of the vehicles on the road — mentioning that the place was deserted, forested, without any houses and people and without any inhabited buildings — that he waited armed on the side of the road and saw when the accused Milan LUKIC stopped the bus, while he and several other armed fighters were on the side of the road with rifles in their hands, that he saw that civilian passengers were heing taken away and, after they got off the bus, ordered to get on the back of a truck covered with a canvas cover, which was hidden behind the café Amjora, that the civilians were not offering any resistance, because they were afraid of the armed men, the court fully accepted it, because this defence, in the part where he said that he had participated in the operation, was also confirmed by the statement of the witness Dragana DEKIC, whose statement the court accepted as true, and who explained that the evening before the event in question, the accused Milan LUKIC had arrived while she was in the studio with SEVIC and announced that the following day, on 22 October 1992, they ‘would embark on an “interception” operation, and that the accused SEVIC did join that operation in the early morning of the following day. In connection with this, the court evaluated the statements of the witnesses who testified about the abduction of civilians in the village of Mice, deliberately and carefully finding relationships between them and the defence of the accused Dorde SEVIC, and the court accepted as irue the statements of the witnesses who had seen the abduction of the passengers from the bus. All witnesses, Velisay STOIKANOVIC, Biljana BOJOVIC, Thija KITIC, Desa KITIC, Radomir RAKOVIC, Dragoslav RAKOVIG and Dorde JANIUSEVIC confirmed that armed men’ had entered the bus, checked the passengers’ ID cards and ordered the Muslims to leave, that they had seen alongside the bus armed persons who stood there with rifles pointed at the bus and who received the passengers who were leaving the bus and then escorted them to a red Zastava 615 ‘ruck with a canvas cover. ‘The statements of the witnesses are essentially identical with regard to the description of the location, the time and the manner in which the passengers were removed from the bus and escorted to the truck by the armed persons, (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 56(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation The court also took into account the long period of time that has passed since the event in question until the moment when these persons were heard and that they could not remember precisely all the details about what happened at the site. There are some differences in their statements, but in the court’s opinion they are unimportant, because each witness when in such a situation perceives and recounts the event question differently, which depends on his current mental condition and current focus. ‘The witnesses who on the day in question were on the bus from which Mustim civilians were removed were in a special mental condition, triggered by the manner in which this action was carried out. The witnesses stated that they feared not only for the lives of the persons who were removed the bus, but their own lives as well. They explained that there had been cases earlier when armed persons checked the ID cards of passengers on buses, but that civilians were never taken away. So their fear affected their perception of the events, and later also their ability to recount the event, especially bearing in mind the passage of time. But in spite of everything, the statements of these witnesses are identical in important, decisive elements and they fit into the whole chronology of events on the day in question in the village of Mioge, when Muslim civilians were removed from the bus. The court did not accept the defence of the accused Dorde SEVIC that he did not know that civilians Would be abducted on the day in question, that he had not be present at the Vilina vlas Hotel, had not taken part in the physical abuse, inflicting of wounds and psychological abuse of the civilian victims, and that he was not present on the bank of the River Drina where the vietims were killed, because his defence is illogical, unpersuasive and has been refuted by the evidence presented, primarily by the testimony of the witness Dragana DEKIC, whose statements given inthe preliminary proceedings on 27 March 2002 and at the trial on 23 January 2003 the court accepts as true with regard to their important areas, while the defence of the accused Dorde SEVIC is also in contradiction with material evidence and the photographs in the case files, and is intended to avoid criminal responsibility. The accused Dorde SEVIC said in his defence that the Army of Republika Sepska was stationed in Visegrad, that there were no Muslims and that the territory of Vikegrad was under the control of the Army of Republika Srpska. Therefore, it is illogical that he does not know that when only some persons are taken off a bus full of nngers it is Muslim citizens that are taken off, Furthermore, what is also not logical is that when he saw that civilians were being taken off the bus, he could have stopped the operation, because it was clear that the objective was not a military one, and he had volunteered for the operation, but he did not do this. ‘Thus he consciously wanted to take part in the execution of a criminal operation, The witness Dragana DEKIC described in detail that the accused Dorde SEVIC was at the Vilina vlas Hotel, as well as the accused Milan LUKIC, Dragutin DRAGICEVIC and Oliver KRSMANOVIC. She also substantiated her claim when photographs from the files were shown to her by recognising the accused as the Persons whom she had seen at the time in question in front of the Vilina vlas Hotel and later on the bank of the River Drina, When she was shown photographs from the photo album of members of the Osvernici paramilitary formation, she said that Milan LUKIC’s father was the person marked with an arrow under number one in photograph number 10 on page eight, that Dorde SEVIC was in the same photograph in the back wearing a white cap, and that she was the blond woman in the back. She said that this photograph had been taken in front of the Vilina vias Hotel on the day in (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 7(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation «question when she found the abducted, bloodied and bruised civilians in the hotel. She also said that she recognised Oliver KRSMANOVIC in photograph number 17 on page 13 of the same album, holding a sub-machine gun pointed in the air and wrapped ina black flag with a skull and crossbones, and that the accused Dorde SEVIC was next 10 him in the same photograph with a white cap. She said that that photograph had been taken in front of the Vilina vlas Hotel on the day in question which is the subject of this trial. In photograph number nine on page eight of the album, she recognised the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC as the person squatting next to the person with glasses who is also squatting. In photograph number ten on page eight, scattered items can be seen, which confirms the claims from the statement of the witness Dragana DEKIC that she had seen scattered ID documents and other personal belongings of the victims on the ground in front of the entrance to the hotel corridor. ‘Therefore, the Court established unequivocally that the intention of the defence of the accused Dorde SEVIC, who said that he had not gone to the Vilina vlas Hotel when he returned from the operation to abduct certain civilians from a bus, is to avoid eriminal responsibility The witness Dragana DEKIC further said that all the accused were w« uniforms and were armed with automatic rifles and that the journalist Milan TIMOTIC had a camera and a pistol. When she entered the hotel, she saw a large group of civilians lying on the floor with visible head injuries, covered with blood and visibly beaten up, and on the other side of the corridor she saw a weeping woman sitting in a chair. She described that woman and the description matches the appearance of the abducted Mevlida HODZIC. She noticed that all of those people were Wearing civilian clothes and had been beaten up. Some were silent, others were weeping and moaning, and they were all visibly exhausted and frightened. On her way out of the hotel she talked in front with the accused LUKIC who told her that the people in the hotel were ““mujahidin” and that the scattered clothes were theirs. The defence of the accused Dorde SEVIC that he was not on the bank of the River Drina, similar to his claim that he was not in the Vilina vias Hotel just before that, is intended to avoid criminal responsibility, because the witness Dragana DEKIC stated resolutely that she had seen the accused Dorde SEVIG on the bank of the River Drina next to the bodies of the dead civilians, and that next to Milan LUKIC and SEVIC, with whom she had talked on that occasion, she had also seen the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC and Oliver KRSMANOVIC and some other fighters. The witness Dragana DEKIC described specifically that SEVIC had pushed her away when she came near the bodies so that she would not see the horrible scene. The witness further said that the accused Milan LUKIC had told her the next day in the Vigegrad hospital, where he came to see his girlfriend Mira, that “they had killed them”, meaning himself and the other accused. The court accepts as true the statements of the witness Dragana DEKIC in the preliminary proceedings on 27 March 2002 and at the trial on 23 January 2003 with regard to the important details. At the trial on 21 January 2005, she denied her testimony, saying that she did not know anything about the concrete event, that she did not know anything about the abduction and that state security members had forced her to give the kind of statement that she had given in the preliminary proceedings and. at the trial and that they had told her what to say. The court cannot determine the exact reasons for the changed statement, bul one can assume that the reason is fear Such a detailed description of the events, facts and information with regard to the (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 58(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation abducted civilians and the event itself on the bank of the River Drina could not have been known to the stale organs, and the testimony of Dragana DEKIG was substantiated by especially important material evidence — the photographs in the case The statement of the witness Dragana DEKIC in the preliminary proceedings and at the trial on 23 January 2003 has not been cast in doubt in any way and the Court accepted it, because on that occasion she testified about the concrete event in a clear, detailed, convincing and unequivocal way. By linking the statement of the above-mentioned witness with the material evidence, photographs and even the partial confession of the accused Dorde SEVIC in the preliminary proceedings, when he stated with certainty that the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC had also taken part in the operation, the court did not regard as credible the accused Dragulin DRAGICEVIC, who disputed the allegations in the prosecution and said that he had not abducted or killed anyone. The court evaluated the statement of witness Miloje UDOVICIC and accepted as true such a statement, finding that it was logical, unbiased and convincing. In his statement, he described in detail the behaviour and movement of the armed persons, the number of armed persons, their appearance, the way in which they were masked and the weapons which they were carrying. His statement shows the nature of the further treatment of the abducted persons, who were under the canvas cover on the back of the truck. These people were transferred by truck escorted by armed peop! who were masked, whose faces and hands were blackened, and some of whom were ‘wrapped in a black Nag with a skull and crossbones. The witness described how he hhad found out that there were people on the truck when he saw a human hand in a gap Where the canvas was cut. The hand was waiving at him and he concluded that it was showing him to go away, so that he would not tow with his truck the truck on which they were seated. The witness interpreted this as the desire of the abducted person to prevent their further transfer into the unknown, The witness also described how these people were humiliated, because he heard them singing a song which insulted their national feelings. The description of the armed persons by this witness is essentially identical to the description given in their statements by the witnesses who were passengers on the bus, both with regard to their appearance and the way in which they were masked. The witness UIDOVICIC described their behaviour when they arrived at their destination, that unbelievable euphoria because of the “success of the operation”, which he compared to the joy of Indians when they catch a victim. This witness also spoke about his fear for his life, not only while he was driving some of the armed people in the cabin of the truck, with which he was towing the truck with the abducted civilians. He described that he also feared for his lie later after this event and that he did not dare report the whole event to the competent organs, because he knew that people had been killed if they helped Muslims in any way. All of this indicates the fear which was present among the local population in the frontier areas along the border between Serbia and Bosnia, especially in the territory of Priboj municipality. The Court evaluated the part of the statement of the witness Slobodan IKONIC, the driver of the bus which passed by the café Amora, and by the bus from which the Muslims were taken off, where he stated that there were 50 passengers on his bus, that they were all Serbs with the exception of a Muslim boy, and that no passengers were removed his bus, and accepted this statement as true. (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 9(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation Considering all of the above, the court did not accept the position of the defence that the accused had not taken part in the torture and abuse of the abducted persons, and later their killing, and that their participation is based on the facts that the accused had been seen at the site of the event, that they had been seen next to the bodies of the mutilated persons, and that it was possible that this had been done by the indignant citizens of Visegrad. This position of the defence is in contradietion with the statements of the witnesses who have been heard and the photographs presented, Bearing in mind that the accused Milan LUKIC, Oliver KRSMANOVIG, Dragutin DRAGICEVIC and Dorde SEVIC were present at the site in the village of Mioge where the abduction took place, at the site of the torture, abuse and violence to person in the Vilina vias Hotel, as determined on the basis of the statement of the witness Dragana DEKIC and the photographs presented, and also next to the bodies at the site where the civilians were killed, the position of the defence that indignant citizens had done this cannot be accepted, because the civilian victims were under the control of the accused armed persons who were commanded by Milan LUKIC the entire time, Nobody could come close to the abducted persons without the permission of Milan LUKIC and the other accused. This was established based on the statement of the witness Dragana DEKIC, who described in detail the moment when indignant citizens wanted to enter the Vilina vlas Hotel to lynch the “mujahedin”, as she said, but the accused did not let them in. The fact that the accused members of the para formation who are present here had de facto control of the abducted civilians was also confirmed by the passengers on the bus, the witness Miloje UDOVICIC, who towed the truck with the abducted persons, and the witness Dragana DEKIC, when she explained the behaviour of a woman, whom she described as the woman in black in Photograph number [4, on page Il, of members of the Osvemici paramilitary formation, who, when she entered the Vilina vlas Hotel with her and wanted to settle scores with the civilians because of the killing of her two grandsons, also had to respect the order of the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, who stopped her and ordered her to leave the hotel corridor. The court only does not dispute the poss that the citizens of Visegrad stoned the civilian vietims after their murder by the accused, considering that the court established that the civilians had been killed in public on the bank of the River Drina, in the presence of a large number of citizens of Vigegrad. The court evaluated the statement of the witness Milan TIMOTIC that he did not remember that he had been in Visegrad at the time in question or that he had photographed anyone in the territory of Bosnia, and did not accept this statement as true, finding that his statement was illogical, unconvincing and intended to make the position of the accused in the proceedings easier. His statement that he does not remember being in Visegrad at the time in question is in contradiction with the statement of the witness Dragana DZEKIC and the material evidence — the photographs. It is beyond dispute that Milan TIMOTIC is in photograph number nine ‘on page eight of the album in which other members of this paramilitary formation can also be seen. The witness Dragana DEKIC stated that only the photographer Milan TIMOTIC could have taken the photographs, because she had seen him in front of the Vilina vlas Hotel and that he was the only person present there who had a camera. The court established beyond dispute that some photographs, which te: about the events in front of the Vilina vlas Hotel, had been taken on the day in question, which was also confirmed by the witness Dragana DZEKIC, These (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth o(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation photographs show the abducted civilians, who were tortured and injured by the accused, and the fact that the photographs were taken on the day in question was also confirmed by the testimony of the witness Rahmo TVICO, who recognised an abducted passenger, the victim Ramiz BEGOVIC, in photograph number 17 on page 13 of Ahe album off members of the Osvetnici paramilitary formation. The court did not accept the position of the defence of the accused that the Photographs could not be used in the proceedings as valid evidence, because the nogatives from which the photographs were developed could not be obtained during the proceedings. The court believes that the origin of the photographs is not the most important thing, and the court sees their value in the fact that they show the accused in front of the Vilina vias Hotel and show the condition of the victims after the torture and abuse. ‘The court therefore believes that these photographs are the evidence, which in conjunction with other evidence, proves the allegations in the indictment and the participation of the accused in committing the crime. ‘The defence of the accused stated during the proceedings that the court had not established the precise number of civilians who were first abducted from the bus, and then also the precise number of persons killed on the bank of the Drina. It is true that the court has not established where the bodies of the dead persons are, because they have not been found, but the court did establish the identity of the dead on the basis of the testimony of the injured parties and the testimony of the witnesses, as well as the decisions to declare the missing persons dead. The witness Tlija KITIC, a passenger on the bus, said that he had seen the following persons on the bus that morning: [diz GIBOVIC, Alija MANDAL, Medo HODZIC and Mevlida HODZIC. The witness Radomir RAKOVIC stated that he had seen the Following persons get on the bus, bul not Ieave the bus in Priboj: Alija MANDAL, 3 Ramiz BEGOVIC, Sead PECIKOZA, Esad DZIHIC and Idriz GIBOVIC. It has been established that Zafer HADZIC and Sead PECIKOZA were declared dead, and it has also been established that Medredin KODZIC, whom the witnesses had seen on the ‘bus, did not leave the bus. Dragoslay RAKOVIC remembers that Alija MANDAL, Medo HODZIG, Esad DZIHIG, Idriz GIBOVIG and Mevlida HODZIC had gotten on the bus with him, The court evaluated the parts of the statements of the witnesses Dragan PEROVIC, Tomislav IVANOVIC, Ivan IVANOVIC and Milié POPOVIC where they described the situation in the village of Sjeverin and the neighbouring villages in Priboj Municipality. The court accepted as true the statements of these witnesses where they spoke about the protests which took place in the village of Sjeverin, where Muslims protested, demanding that the state organs tell them where the missing mbers of their families were, because they were citizens of the FRY who had bee in the territory of Bosnia at the moment of their abduction, The court accepted this part of the statement of a witness who talked about the presence of armed persons at the moment when representatives of the state authorities and the commission formed by the then President of the FRY Dobrica COSI were with the people, when the President of the Municipality Mili¢ POPOVIC was also present. In his statement, he described in detail the protests of the citizens, the presence of the armed persons, the moment when he was met with representatives of the state commission, and the fear that spread not just among the citizens of Sjeverin, but also among the representatives of the state commission. The witness Milié POPOVIC spoke in detail about the situation in that part of the FRY at the time, which can also be seen later in his (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth o(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation ‘communication with the competent state organs — the Government of the Republic of Serbia and the Prime Minister of the Republic of Serbia, Based on the statements of these witnesses, the court established that there had been a collective movement by the Muslims, who, following the abduction and the protest, and after the town of Sjeverin was visited by these armed luals, left Sjeverin and the surrounding areas for Priboj fearing for their personal safety. The Court evaluated the statement by the witness Luka DRAGICEVIC, who at the time in question was chief of staff of the ViSegrad Brigade, and accepted as true ‘that part of the statement in which he described the establishment composition of the Vigegrad Brigade, and also his explanation concerning the manner in which he was admitted into the Army of Republika Srpska as a professional soldier and assigned to the post of chief of staff /and/ later, as of 26 October 1992, commander of the Visegrad Brigade. The court likewise deemed to be true that portion of the statement where the witness explained how volunteers who came from other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina and from the Republic of Serbia were admitted and assigned to the Brigade, as this testimony confirms the defence given by the accused Dorde SEVIC, who explained how volunteers were dispatched to units of the Army of Republika Srpska and the territorial defence of the town of Visegrad, which was how he himself first became a fighter in the territory of ViSegrad. The court likewise accepted as true that part of the statement where the witness indicated that the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC was a member of the Vibegrad Brigade, and that the latter was once brought to him because he was afraid of the dark and requested a transfer to logistics, since he recognised Oliver KRSMANOVIC when he was shown a photograph of him. Having examined the investigation files of the Uzice District Court and read documents certifying that Milan LUKIC and Dragutin DRAGICEVIC were members of Republika Srpska /as printed/, ie, Dragutin DRAGICEVIC from 2 June 1992 and Milan LUKIG from 19 May 1992 onward, and which were used in the proceedings before the Uzice District Court to certify that the accused had the status of combatants, ie. conscripts of the Army of Republika Srpska. /as printed/ Having examined receipts for weapons issued, it is likewise evident that Milan LUKIC and Dragutin DRAGICEVIC were issued weapons by the Visegrad command of the Army ‘ian Republic of BH. signed them, that the chief of staff did not issue such documents, and that even if the personnel officer had signed them, he would have added “for”. When questioned at the hearings on 29 May 2003 and 26 April 2005, he described how Milan LUKIC’s father had come to see him once and, threatening foree, demanded that he enter the accused LUKIC in the register of combatants of the Vi8egrad Brigade, pointing a rifle at his stomach and a pistol at his head; he refused, however. He explained this violent behaviour by LUKIC’s father by the fact that Milan LUKIC was in prison in Serbia for carrying a weapon without a permit, and that a document certifying that he was a combatant in the Army of Republika Srpska would make his position easier. He stated resolutely that Milan LUKIC had not been a member of the Army of Republika Srpska and did_ not belong to the Brigade, while concerning the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC he stated, as already indicated above, that he had been a member of (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth e(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation the ViSegrad Brigade. ‘The witness thus confirmed that the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIC had been a member of the First Visegrad Light Infantry Brigade. However, he stated categorically that this brigade had never taken part in such or similar actions, and that it could not have occurred that the brigade would carry out this action on its own initiative without his being aware of it; but he could not confirm that there were no armed groups in the territory where this brigade was active. ‘There were no paramilitary formations within the brigade, and if he had known that there were, he would have had to deal with them, The court accepted the veracity of this statement, regarding it as categorical, logical and true. In this connection, when photographs of members of the Osvemici /Avengers/ paramilitary group were shown to the witness Luka DRAGICEVIC, he indicated that he recognised Milan LUKIC and Oliver KRSMANOVIC in these photographs, and that they were wearing uniforms and caps which the army that he commanded did not have. These uniforms had a number of white details, and the emblems on the uniforms worn by these individuals were unfamiliar to him, and he stated categorically that they did not belong to the Army of Republika Srpska. The witness Luka DRAGICEVIC stated that the brigade which he commanded included volunteers who joined the brigade based on a mobilisation notice which they had received in the Visegrad Recruiting Office, where records on volunteers were also kept, while in the brigade command they were issued weapons and assigned to units. None of the accused except for Oliver KRSMANOVIC was registered in the brigade nand as a member of the brigade, The accused Dorde SEVIC stated that he had been a volunteer, and the witness Dragana DEKIC confirmed that he /SEVIC been a volunteer with the brigade commanded by the witness Luka DRAGIC However, this portion of the statement by the witness Dragana DEKIC cannot be regarded as credible, since itis refuted by the statement of the accused SEVIC who, in presenting his defence, said that he had been a volunteer, but had not reported to Luka DRAGICEVIC, as the commander, or to any other person in charge in the brigade ‘commanded by Luka DRAGICEVIC, nor had he been tasked or assigned in any way by anyone from that brigade. All of this confirms the witness Luka DRAGICEVIC’s statement, namely, that the accused Dorde SEVIG had not been a member of his brigade, which therefore means that he was also not a member of the Army of Republika Srpska. He was, rather, a member of the paramilitary formation ‘commanded by Milan LUKIC The witness Miloje UDOVICIC testified that he had heard that the accused Milan LUKIC was famous at that time, that he was leader of his unit and had his own, men, Which, among other things, confirms again that this was a case of a paramilitary formation. What has been mentioned here leads to only one reasonable conclusion, namely, that the accused Oliver KRSMANOVIG, as a member of the Visegrad Light Infantry Brigade, could also have been a member of a paramilitary formation of his ‘own volition, as he evidently was. ‘The court, in the reasoning set out above, has established without a doubt that Dragutin DRAGICEVIC and Borde SEVIC were also members of a paramilitary formation, and that this paramilitary formation was commanded by the accused Milan LUKIC. In presenting his defence during the proceedings, the accused Dorde SEVIC himself confirmed that the accused Milan LUKIC was the commander, when he stated that Milan LUKIC had informed him at (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth a(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation the Palas Hotel in Belgrade of his intention to form a special military unit in Vigegrad, similar to an intervention platoon. He stated that Milan LUKIC was commander of the unit, noting that it was from Milan LUKIC that the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC and he had received weapons, i.e. automatic rifles Therefore, in deciding on the status of the accused Milan LUKIC, Oliver KRSMANOVIC, Dragutin DRAGICEVIC and Dorde SEVIC at the time when the crime was committed, namely, whether they were members of regular military units and carrying out orders to forcibly abduct, torture and kill civilians, of, rather, were members of paramilitary formations, the court reliably established what is essential to these proceedings, namely, that the accused, as members of the Osvetnici paramilitary formation, which was commanded by Milan LUKIC, had jointly committed, of their own volition, the abduction, maltreatment and killing of civilians. The court thereby deemed irrelevant the fact that Oliver KRSMANOVIC was also a member of the First Light Infantry Brigade, and likewise whether some of the other accused were possibly also members of the brigade, since at the same time they could also have been, of their own volition, members of a paramilitary formation. Based on the evidence presented, and particularly the statement of the witness Luka DRAGICEVIG, it has been verified that the brigade never took part in such or similar actions, and that it could not have occurred that the brigade would carry out this action on its own initiative without his being aware of it, Therefore, the accused, as a paramilitary formation, an independent formation outside the integrated system of command, committed the crime in question through joint action and of their own volition The testimony by Professor GRUBAC, which the court deemed to be clear, detailed, persuasive and truthful, ay well as in accord with the other evidence presented, also confirmed that this was a paramilitary formation. ‘The witness, testifying at the trial on 12 July 2005, explained that he had received information from Ratko MLADIC in Rudo that this was the paramilitary formation called Osvetnici, whose bus he /7GRUBACY had seen earlier, first in Sjeverin when the meeting was being held, and then in front of the hotel in Rudo (/7MLADIC said that they were taking part in some military operations, but after that they were completely independent, that he did not command them, nor was he able to command them). Among other things, he /)GRUBACY also said that this paramilitary formation had a flag with something written on it, but he could not see what was wrilten there, and the locals at the meeting told him that the writing said: Osvemnici. When he was shown photographs in which the bus could be seen, as well as this flag, he stated that this was basically the same bus he had spoken about, and exactly the flag he had seen. Part of the statement by the witness Milié POPOVIC also illustrates. what the situation was like in this territory during armed conflict. He indicated that local military officers responsible for controlling the territory where the abduction of civilians from the bus on the Rudo — Priboj road took place had not permitted Smajo POLIMAC to pass through that way, despite an explicit order from General Ratko MLADIC The court also established what the situation was like in this territory during armed conflict and that paramilitary formations existed there from the statement by the witness Rahmo TVICA and Omer SKORUP, whose statements it accepted as true and who testified that they had been stopped on the road by various persons wearing camoutlage uniforms, with red berets and automatic rifles, (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth ot(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation The court did not accept the position of the defence that it was, probable, bearing in mind part of the testimony of the witness Dragana DEKIC, that the witnesses /as printed/ were abducted in order to be exchanged for Serbian fighters killed in fighting around Meremislje, because the witness Luka DRAGICEVIC said his hearing that he knew that Meremisle had fallen on 16 October 1992 and that there were many dead and captured, but that negotiations on a prisoner exchange took place only a month or two after the event and that he even took part in them personally. And because the abducted persons were civilians, who enjoy full protection in time of war and armed conflicts, as prescribed by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and incorporated in our law, as well as by Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1977. /as printed/ Being civilians first of all, the victims were citizens of the FRY and were not involved in the armed conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Pursuant to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and Protocol II Additional to the Conventions, in the event of an armed conflict which does not have the character of an international conflict, the parties to the conflict shall apply and adhere to the rules and act humanely without any adverse distinction founded on race, religion, sex or belief, and the following acts shall be prohibited: violence to life and person, murder, cruel treatment and torture, taking of hostages, outrages. upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, and the passing and carrying out of sentences without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, Based on the evidence presented during the proceedings, and bearing in mind the statement of the witness UDOVICIC, the court has established that before they were abused and murdered, the Muslim civilians had been degraded ‘on grounds of their religion, because the witness said that he had heard the civilians on the truck singing a song which was an insult to their national dignity: “Tam a Chetnik from head to toe, hey Alia, fuck your child”, The court does not accept the position of the defence that the accused may have committed the crime of abduction o the crime of unlawful imprisonment, but not the crime in question, because this position of the defence is in contradiction with the evidence presented, the statements of the witnesses heard and the photographs presented. Having read the investigation files in the case of the Uzice District Court, specifically decision KB 189/92 of 4 November 1992, it is evident that by accepting ‘the appeal of the defence attorney of the accused Milan LUKIC and acting ex officio, decision Ki. 119/92, dated 30 October 1992, of the investigating judge of the Uzice District Court was revised, rejecting as unjustified the request of 30 October 1992 to open investigation of the accused Milan LUKIG and the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC because of the crime defined in Article 33, paragraph 3, in conjunction with paragraph 2 of the ZOOM /Law on Firearms and Ammunition/, and of the accused Milan LUKIC because of the crime of forgery of an official document as defined in Article 233, paragraph 3, in conjunction with paragraph 1 of the KZ JCriminal Codef of the RS /Republic of Serbia/, due to the existence of circumstances ruling out prosecution. The accused were released from detention by the same decision. It proceeds from the statement of reasons for this decision that according to the provisions of Article 1, paragraph 2, of the ZOOM of the RS, the provisions of this law also apply to foreigners who are granted permission for permanent residence ‘or temporary residence of over one year, unless prescribed otherwise by an international treaty. It iy stated further that according (o the information available, the (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 6(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation accused, as foreigners, were not granted permits for permanent or temporary residence of over one year, so the provisions of this law, including those that refer to criminal responsibility, could not apply to them. ‘The statement of reasons indicates that there can be no question of carrying or possession of weapons and ammunition without a permit, hecause it proceeds from the evidence presented that they were issued their ‘weapons and ammunition by their military unit The court also examined and read the investigation files of the Belgrade District Court, Ki, No. 566/94, where it is evident that on 6 April 1994 a decision was adopted to open investigation of the accused Milan LUKIC and to detain him because of reasonable grounds for suspicion thet on 27 February 1993, at the Stepci railway station in the former Bosnia and Herzegovina, with a group of unknown persons, he had imprisoned unlawfully a certain number of train passengers, who lost their lives as a consequence of the unlawful imprisonment. Thereby, the accused LUKIC would have committed the crime of unlawful imprisonment as defined in Article 63, paragraph 5, in conjunction with paragraph 1, of the KZ. of the RS. Having heard several witnesses in this case, the chamber of the Belgrade Court issued decision Kv. No, 554/94 of 27 April 1994, acting at the proposal of the investigating Judge of the District Court, to discontinue the investigation of the accused Milan LUKIC and release him from detention for reasons defined in Article 171, paragraph 1, item 4, of the ZKP /Law on Criminal Procedure/, and found that it had no influence ‘ona different decision in this criminal case /as printed The court also evaluated the statements of witnesses who spoke about the protests in the village of Sjeverin after the abduction and disappearance of the civilians from the bus. It regards as credible the parts of their statements where they spoke about the appearance of armed persons in Sjeverin after the abduction, which is also confirmed by the fact that it was precisely in Sjeverin on 26 October 1992 that ‘organs of the MUP /Ministry of the Interior/ of Serbia arrested Milan LUKIC and Dragutin DRAGICEVIC in a passenger vehicle with a large quantity of weapons, for which they were investigated by the Uzice District Court as discussed above. Therefore, the presence in the territory of Serbia of these armed persons who moved freely through the border zone indicates that they did enter the territory of Serbia and that their presence did cause fear among the inhabitants of the frontier villages, primarily Muslim citizens, as mentioned by the witnesses who were heard during the proceedings and who described their feelings while travelling through this fi territory in the zone of military operations. The court evaluated the portion of the statement of the injured party Ramiz CATOVIC where he stated that he had seen the accused Dorde SEVIC in the store of the witness ‘Tomislav IVANOVIC during the protest gathering in Sjeverin and that ‘Toma had asked the accused to remove his automatic rifle, and where he explained that Dorde SEVIC was wearing white jeans on that occasion, and did not accept this statement, because when this portion of the statement was presented 0 the witness Tomislav IVANOVIC, the witness stated resolutely that he had never seen anybody with an automatic rifle in the store or told anybody to remove the rifle. He does not Know the accused Dorde SEVIC, and he court/ accepted this statement as true, finding it to be logical and persuasive. In this matter, the court took into account the fact that the injured party Ramiz, CATOVIC had never spoken about these circumstances during the proceedings and (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 6(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation found that he was in a specific emotional state, because he had lost his son Ramahudin at the time in question and his son Sabahudin the evening before the event in question, so it did not accept as true this part of the statement of the witness. At the trial on 12 July 2005, the material sent by The Hague Tribunal on a CD was examined. The submitted material includes among other things a reconstruction Of the incident in question, but one which was made by the authors of the film /as printed/, and /the court/ found that it could not lead 16 a different decision in this criminal case. During the proceedings, a neuropsychiatric and psychological examination of oer ,r—r—C—“*eEe— Branko MANDIC and Ana NAJMAN, Specialist in Clinical Psychology, in order to determine the mental health and mental responsibility of Dorde SEVIC, who was a young adult at the time of the crime, ‘The examination was carried out in view of the medical documents presented and the knowledge that Dorde SEVIC had been ‘exempted from military service in the JNA /Yugoslav People’s Army/ in 1992, It was established on the basis of the expert’s findings that the accused Dorde VIC has a simple personality structure of modest intellectual capacity, whieh is at the lower end of the average range. His early development was orderly and he acquired a modest education, concrete life experience and social communication skills. Poor educational development is evident and is certainly the consequence of growing up within an immediate family in unstimulating living conditions and also the consequence of the lack ambition on the part of the subject to improve his social status. In the emotional domain, it is evident that the accused Dorde SEVIC is characterised by impulsiveness, instability, a low threshold of tolerance to frustration, suggestibility and propensity to accept behavioural patterns of other persons as his own, These personality traits were more expressed during the subject’s adolescence and youth, which resulted in occasional asocial actions, as well as heteroaggressive and autoaggresive behaviour. During that period, the accused had a marked negative attitude toward authority and was declared unfit for military service because of this attitude. Later in life, the accused tried to fit into common social and ethical norms and patterns of behaviour, started non-marital relationships and engaged in work adequate for his education in an attempt to provide a living for himself and his family, in which he achieved relatively modest results. No psycho-pathological indicators were observed in the accused that would point to the existence of a personality disorder. It has been established from the expert findings that on the occasion in question, at the time of the involvement of the accused Dorde SEVIC in the crime he is charged with, taking into account that he was a young adult who was going through a development phase of his life, his ability to understand the significance of the act, as well as his ability to control his actions, was reduced, but not significantly, The court accepted the written findings and opinion of the expert commissi that were hased on an examination and conversation with the accused Dorde SEVIC and his medical documentation. ‘The conclusion of the findings indicates that the accused Dorde SEVIC does not need psychiatric treatment. 'The court accepted the findings, because they were given using the latest knowledge in this arca of science and the findings of this commission have not been cast in doubt. (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth or(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation In accordance with Article 22 of the KZ, of the FRY, if several persons commit 1 crime together by participating in the commission of the criminal act or in another way, cach will be sentenced to the penalty prescribed for that erime. On the basis of all the evidence presented, the manner in which events in this case unfolded, from the stopping of the bus, the removal of Muslim passengers, their transportation to the Vilina vlas Hotel to the consequences of these actions ~ the killings on the bank of the River Drina, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the accused carried out the abduction, abuse and killings as co-perpetrators, as a paramilitary formation. ‘This is a case of coordinated and consensual action by all the accused, who wanted the crime as theirs, so the court found that their actions were co- perpetrated. All of the accused, as co-perpetrators, knew exactly what they were supposed to do, where to do it and how to do it, and all of them had a role in the joi action and were aware of it. The evening prior to the event, the accused Milan LUKIC, as commander of the paramilitary formation, came to the studio where the accused SEVIC was staying with other members of the paramilitary formation and at his proposal they agreed to carry out an “interception” operation the following day. ‘The accused SEVIC, as he admitted himself, joined the operation the next day and met with the other fighters, including Dragutin DRAGICEVIG and Oliver KRSMANOVIG; therefore, he joined the operation of his own volition. The accused Milan LUKIG, who was armed, stopped the bus and entered with two fighters, while the other fighters were standing on both sides of the road with weapons. They checked the ID cards of the passengers, ordered Muslims to get off the bus, escorted them at ‘gunpoint to a red Zastava 615 truck with a canvas cover, without anybody telling anybody else what they were supposed to do, abused them at the Vilina vias Hotel, beat them with wooden slicks all over their bodies, and then brought them to the bank of the River Drina, where they killed them therefore, the agreement was implemented, which leads to the conclusion that they had a precisely defined role and awareness of the joint action, All of the accused knew that the reason for taking the Muslims to a site on the bank of the River Drina was to kill them. If the accused are all present at the same time and take part in a joint enterprise of unlawful abuse, each is criminally culpable from a legal point of view, although it has not been precisely proven for any individual accused that he opened fired or inflicted a blow causing the death of @ civilian, but they were all involved in the killings, With regard to the above, there is no need for the plan and the idea to be agreed or formulated in detail in advance. A joint agreement can be improvised on the spot, and it is derived from the fact that the accused are acting in accord in order to perpetrate a joint criminal enterprise and that the accused want to carry out the crime jointly, as their own action, so their actions constitute a natural and logical whole. Having evaluated the factual basis from a legal point of view, the court established that the accused Milan LUKIC, Oliver KRSMANOVIC, Dragutin DRAGICEVIC and Dorde SEVIC, at the time and at the place described in the disposition of this judgement, in violation of the provisions of International Law in ‘Time of Armed Conflict, contrary to Article 33, paragraph 1, item A, of the Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva Convention IV) of 12 August 1949, ratified by the National Assembly of the FNRY Mederative People’s Republic of Yugoslavia/ (Official Gazette of the FNRY, no, (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth os(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation 24/50) and contrary to Article 13 of Protocol II Additional to this Convention, together with five other unidentified persons, as members of the Osvetnici paramilitary formation, which was under the command of the accused Milan LUKIC, tortured, violated life and person and murdered civilian persons in the following manner: the night before, they agreed in an apartment in ViSegrad, in which the accused Dorde SEVIC occasionally stayed, to earry out an “interception” and on the following day, in the morning of 22 October 1992, they carried out this operation. The accused Milan LUKIC, who was armed, stopped a bus owned by the Raketa company from Uvice travelling on the Priboj ~ Rudo — Priboj route, with driver Velisav STOIKANOVIC, while the other accused, together with the other unknown co-perpetrators, were standing with weapons on both sides of the road ‘When the bus stopped, the accused LUKIC, who was armed, entered the bus with two unidentified armed co-perpetrators, with whom he checked the ID cards of the passengers, and ordered Muslim passengers Mehmed SEBO, Zafer HADZIC, Medo HODZIC, Medredin HODZIC, Ramiz, BEGOVIG, Dervis SOFTIC, Mithad SOFTIC, Mujo ALIHODZIC, Alija MANDAL, Sead PECIKOZA, Mustafa BAIRAMOVIC, Hajrudin SAITAREVIC, Esad DZIHIC, Idriz GIBOVIC, Ramahudin CATOVIC and Mevlida HODZIC to get off the bus, which they did, and then the accused, together with the other co-perpetrators, escorted them at gunpoint to a red Zastava 615 truck with a canvas cover, which was driven by Oliver KRSMANOVIC. They got on the truck as ordered and were transported on that truck, followed by a Lada and a Passat vehicle carrying the accused Milan LUKIC, Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, IC and other unidentified co-perpetrators, 0 the Vilina vias Motel in 1d. In front of the motel, the accused and the other co-perpetrators searched them and confiscated their ID documents, then took them to a corridor inside the motel, where they abused them physically, beating them with wooden sticks all over their bodies, and then took them to the bank of the River Drina, where they killed them; thereby they committed as co-perpetrators a war crime against eivilian persons as defined in Article 142, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in conjunction with Article 22 of the Criminal Code of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Since there were no circumstances which would rule out the criminal responsibility of the accused, the court pronounced them guilty and sentenced them Pursuant to the law. Based on the evidence presented, the court established that the victims, Muslim citizens of the FRY, were civilians and it is beyond doubt that as civilians they were protected persons pursuant to the provisions of Article 3 of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. On the ‘occasion in question, the accused acted contrary to the provision of Article 3, paragraph 1, item 1, of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, which prohibits all acts of violence to life and person, in particular murder, and the provisions of Article 33, paragraph 3, of this Convention, which prohibits any reprisals against civilians, including murder, and contrary to the Provisions of Article 4, paragraph 1, item “A” of the Protocol Additional of 197, which applies to non-international armed confliet, and which prohibits all violence 10 life, in particular the murder of civilians. The accused also acted contrary to Article 3 of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth o(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol ID), which prescribes that protection if they do not directly take part in hostilities. ns enjoy The court established that the culpability of the accused Milan LUKIC, Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, Oliver KRSMANOVIC and Dorde SEVIC, for each of the accused individually, in the commission of each individual action in the commission Of this crime, consists of premeditated intent, considering that the all of the accused were fully aware of their action and wanted to commit it, wanted to abuse civilian persons, just because they belonged to a different ethnic and religious group, and later killed them, therefore, they were aware, but in spite of that, they wanted to commit the act and did commit it Considering that the facts, as set out above, were established based on the evidence presented and explained in detail, the court did not explain specifically other evidence on which it did not base its decision, At the proposal of the Acting Deputy OJT /District Public Attorney/ in Belgrade, the court cancelled the testimony of the witness RadoS JACIMOVIC, who was Secretary of the Sjeverin Local Commune at the time of the crime, because the then President of Priboj Municipality, Mili¢ POPOVIC, was heard before this court as a witness, so it was necessary to hear him, The court rejected the proposal of the authorised representative of the injured parties Sefko ALOMEROVIC to obtain a report from the MUP of the Republic of Serbia on the arrest of Milan LUKIC and Dragutin DRAGICEVIG on 25 October 1992, because these reports are already included in investigation files and have bet read during the presentation of evidence. It rejected the proposal to obtain from the Assembly of the Republic of Serbia 523 pages of transcripts from the session on 29 October 1992 in which the then Minister of the Interior Zoran SOKOLOVIC confirmed a report from the MUP of Serbia “that the arrested persons belong to the group which has been brought into connection with the abduction of the group of citizens”, considering that it was not necessary to obtain this transcript and the factual basis would not be clarified and established on the basis of the transcript. Furthermore, it rejected proposals to hear witnesses mentioned in a written submission: the witness Zoran CIRKOVIG, a deputy in the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia at the time, the witness Dobrica COSIC, the then President of the PRY, Vladimir MATOVIC, an advisor to the PRY President at the time, Admiral Milosay SIMIC, the then chief of administration in the Ministry of Defence, Veljko GOLUBOVIC, the then chief of administration in the Federal Ministry of the Interior, Mahmut MEMIC, the then Assistant Federal Minister for Human Rights and the ection of Minorities, Radomir GOL, the then Chief of the Priboj SUP, Milenko the then Commander of the Police Station in Priboj, Petar GOLUBOVIC, the then Commander of the Territorial Defence for Priboj Municipality, Colonel Dusan LONCAR, the then Deputy Commander of the Uzice Corps, and Dragan BOROIEVIC, a security officer in the Uzice Corps at the time. It rejected a proposal to adopt a decision ordering the investigating judge to carry out additional investigative activities and to question Colonel Luka DRAGICEVIC, rejected a proposal to hear Sinisa KOVACEVIC, Brana SAVOVIG, President of the Visegrad SO /Municipal Assembly/, Lazar DRASKO, then a lieutenant in the Army of Republika Srpska, Rista PERUSIC, chief of the ViSegrad SUP at the time of the crime, Milan JOSIFOVIC, commander of the police station in Visegrad at the time of (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth 0(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation the event in question, Boban INJDIC, the then commander of the intervention platoon in the Vigegrad Brigade, Mijo MITRASINOVIC, commander of the third platoon at the time, Obrad POLUGA, commander of the Garavi /Blackened/ squad at the time, Novak POLUGA, member of the intervention platoon in the ViSegrad Brigade, Miodrag SEKARIC, a company commander in the ViSegrad Brigade at the time, Mirko KOVACEVIG, member of the intervention platoon at the time, Ranko DREKALOVIC, a platoon commander in one of the ViSegrade Brigade companies at Rajko KUSMAK, a company commander in the Visegrad Brigade, Mi deputy commander of the Skakvac /Grasshopper/ squad at the ‘member of the intervention company in the Visegrad Brigade, and Rade TANOVIC, deputy commander of the intervention company in the Vigegrad Brigade. The witnesses were supposed to be questioned about the circumstances surrounding the event in Sjeverin and in the territory of Pribo} Municipality after the abduction of Muslim citizens, especially concerning the protest by the inhabitants of Sjeverin and the promises given to them by representatives of the state authorities, and the court found that it was not necessary to hear these witnesses, that they did not possess direct knowledge of the actual commission of the crime or the persons who ted this act, and that a large number of witnesses were heard about the same circumstances that these witnesses would have testified about, as discussed in the statement of reasons of this judgement. The court also rejected a proposal to hear shters from the ViSegrad Brigade as witnesses, finding that their testimony is not necessary for the resolution of this criminal case, primarily bearing in mind the provisions of the ZKP which prescribe that these witnesses would have to be warned that they are not obliged as witnesses to answer questions which might incriminate them, so in this chamber’s opinion their testimony would not have contributed to establishing a different factual basis. The court rejected a proposal to adopt a decision to order the investigating judge to carry out additional investigation activities and 10 question Colonel Luka DRAGICEVIC, because Luka DRAGICEVIC was heard as a witness in the proceedings. The court rejected the proposal of counsel for the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC to request information from the General Staff of the Army of Republika Srpska on whether the accused Milan LUKIC, Oliver KRSMANOVIC, Dragutin DRAGICEVIC and Dorde SEVIC were members of the First Light Infantry Brigade from Visegrad at the time mentioned in the indictment and in which brigade unit, who their superiors were, how they were mobilised and when they were discharged, and what their specialities were and what weapons they were issued with, because it has been established by hearing the witness Luka DRAGICEVIC and based ‘on other evidence presented that the accused had committed the crime in question as members of the Osvemnici paramilitary formation. The court rejected the proposal of counsel for the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC to obtain medical documentation on the state of health of the witness. Dragana DEKIG, because there was no suspicion during the criminal proceedings about the mental responsibility of the witness so it would have been unnecessary to request a psychiatric examination, (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth n(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation The court cancelled the presentation of evidence on the basis of files from the High Court in Bijelo Polje, file K. number 5/98, in the case against the accused NebojSa RADISAVLIEVIC, because in spite of several requests, the High Court did not submit the requested files, and it was found that they were not necessary to resolve this eriminal case. In determining the type and length of criminal sanctions for the accused, the court, bearing in mind the general purpose of criminal sanctions, the purpose of sentencing and the range of sentences prescribed by law for the crimes the accused have been pronounced guilty of, took into account all of the circumstances defined in Article 41 of the KZ of the FRY that influence the length of the sentence in this concrete case. Bearing in mind that this crime was committed on 22 October 1992, in this concrete case the question arises as to whether to apply mitigating provisions from the Criminal Code. One should take into account Article 4 of the KZ. of the FRY, which prescribes in paragraph I that the perpetrator of a crime is subject to the law that was in force at the time when the crime was committed. General principles apply here: “That nobody shall be deemed guilty of a erime if it was not considered to be a crime Pursuant to national or international laws at the time when it was committed. The sentence may not be longer than the one that could have been pronounced at the time when the crime was committed.” Paragraph 2 of Article 4 of the KZ of the FRY prescribes that if the law changes one or more times afier a crime is committed, the law which is more favourable to the perpetrator shall be applied. Therefore, the hasic rule in criminal law is that a criminal code cannot be applied retroactively except in eases when a law is more favourable to the perpetrator and in those cases, retroactive application of that Jaw is mandatory. Article 38 of the KZ of the FRY prescribes that a prison sentence may not be shorter than fifteen days or longer than fifteen years. ‘The criminal code of the SFRY prescribes a minimum sentence of five years or the death penalty for the crime defined in Article 142, paragraph 1. Article 38, paragraph 2, of the KZ. of the SRY /Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia/ prescribed that for crimes for which the death penalty was prescribed the court could also pronounce a prison sentence of 20 years, Article 142, paragraph 1, of the KZ of the FRY, prescribes a minim sentence of five years or a prison sentence of 20 years. prison Article 37 of the KZ of the SERY prescribed that the death penalty could not be pronounced as the only penalty for a erime and that it could be pronounced only in the most serious cases of aggravated crimes for which it is envisaged, while Article 38, paragraph 2, of that same law prescribes that instead of the death penalty, when it is envisaged, the court may pronounce a prison sentence of up to 20 years, and that in the case of crimes committed with premeditated intent, when a prison sentence of 15 years is envisaged, a prison sentence of 20 years could be pronounced for aggravated Yorms of the crime. All of this means that in the system of sanctions in the Criminal Code of the SFRY and later the KZ, of the FRY, we had a prison sentence of 20 years (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth n(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation as a separate sentence. The court finds, taking into account repeated changes to the criminal codes of the SFRY and the FRY and the obligation to apply the most favourable Iaw, that if one law was in foree at the time when the crime was committed, another during the trial and meanwhile there have also been changes to the Criminal Code and the sanction for the concrete crime, that the court is obliged to apply the criminal code which is the most favourable to the accused, which in this concrete case means that it is most favourable to apply the law which prescribes for this concrete crime a minimum prison sentence of five years or a prison sentence of 20 years, and that is the KZ of the FRY of 16 July 1993. The court found that the mitigating circumstances for the accused Dorde SEVIC are that he has a family and two underage children, that he was a young adult at the time when the crime was committed and that his ability to comprehend the significance of the act and to control his actions at the time was diminished, but not significantly. As aggravating circumstances, the court established that he had been convicted of the crime defined in Article 33, paragraph 1, of the Law on the Acquiring, Possession and Carrying of Weapons and Ammunition on 25 February 1993 and had been sentenced to a three month prison sentence suspended for two years. Taking into account in particular the type and severity of the committed crime, the court found that there is a high degree of criminal responsibility on the part of the cused for the severe consequences of the crime, the death of 16 innocent persons, the circumstances under which the crime was committed, the abduction of the passengers of a bus who are civilian citizens of a state that did not take part in the armed conflict, and in view of the number of vietims, the manner in which the crime was committed, the fact that the persons were first tortured and mistreated and then Killed, the court sentenced the accused to a prison sentence of 15 years, towards which the time spent in detention has been credited pursuant to Article 50 of the KZ of the PRY. In determining the type and length of the sentence for the accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIG, the court found that a mitigating circumstance for the accused was his lack of prior convictions and an aggravating one the severe consequences of this crime, the death of 16 innocent civilians, the circumstances under which the crime was committed, the manner in which the crime was committed and the fact that these Persons were first tortured and abused and then killed, and sentenced him to a prison sentence of 20 years, towards which the time spent in detention has been credited pursuant to Article 50 of the KZ. of the FRY, In determining the criminal sanction for the accused Milan LUKIC and Oliver KRSMANOVIG, the court evaluated all of the circumstances envisaged by Article 41 of the KZ of the FRY and also took into account the exceptional severity of the crime with respect to the manner in which the crime was committed, the fact that 16 innocent persons were first tortured and abused and then killed, the demonstration of the utmost degree of criminal intent and utter ruthlessness, as well as the high level of criminal responsibility and threat to society, so the court sentenced the accused to prison sentences of 20 years in the belief that only with these sentences is it possible to achieve the purpose of punishment both with regard to the accused and as a general deterrent, as envisaged by Article 33 of the KZ of the FRY, and in Tine with the ‘general purpose of criminal sanctions as defined in Article 5, paragraph 2, of the KZ of the FRY. (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth n(0612-9497 0612-9575-El/Transtation The accused are exempt from paying the costs of the criminal proceedings and it has been decided that they will be covered from the court budget. In making this decision, the court took into account the fact that the accused SEVIC and the accused DRAGICEVIC are in detention and have no source of income so forcing them to pay the costs of the criminal proceedings would threaten the welfare of their immediate families. The families of the injured parties have been advised to seck damages throu; civil action. Based on all of the above, a decision has been made as in the wording of the judgement RECORDING CLERK PRESIDING JUDGE Aleksandra GAVRILOVIC Vinka BERAHA-NIKICEVIC ‘stamped! LEGAL REMEDY An appeal may be submitted against this judgement to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Serbia through this court within 15 days of receipt of a written copy. Sent to: 1. Belgrade OFT 2. District Prison Administration 3. Accused Dorde SEVIG, vi ct Prison Administration 4, Accused Dragutin DRAGICEVIC, via District Prison Administration 5. Counsel for the accused Judge (06 42-497-U642-9575-E doth "