Archive
MONUMENT TO 1600 SARAJEVO CHILDREN KILLED BY SERBIAN TERRORISTS
PHOTO: Bosnian girls lay flowers at a newly inaugurated memorial to children of Sarajevo, Saturday, May 9, 2009. The memorial is dedicated to the children of Sarajevo who were killed by the Bosnian Serb troops during the 43-months siege of Bosnia’s capital during which more than 12,000 people, including more than 1,600 children, were killed.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) convicted two Serb generals of numerous crimes against humanity, including on terror charges, in their conduct of the siege. Serb Gen. Stanislav Galic and Gen. Dragomir Milosevic were found guilty on terrorist charges and sentenced to life imprisonment and 33 years imprisonment, respectively.
The monument consists of a glass unfinished sand castle in the shape of a pyramid. It symbolises the play of children being cut short by death. The pyramid has partially been made from the spent cartridges that were found in the city after the war.
The Siege of Sarajevo is the longest siege of a capital city in the history of modern warfare. Serb forces of the self-proclaimed Republika Srpska and the Yugoslav People’s Army (later to become the Army of Serbia and Montenegro) besieged Sarajevo, the capital city of Bosnia and Herzegovina, from April 5, 1992 to February 29, 1996 during the Bosnian War.
PHOTO: Bosnian children throw flowers into the Miljacka river from a bridge where the first civilian victim of Sarajevo’s 1992-1995 siege was killed April 6, 2009. The Bosnian capital marks each April 6 as the anniversary date of the beginning of its devastating siege.
After Bosnia and Herzegovina had declared independence from Yugoslavia the Serbs – whose strategic goal was to create a new Serbian State of Republika Srpska (RS) that would include the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina – encircled Sarajevo with a siege force of 18,000 stationed in the surrounding hills, from which they assaulted the city with weapons that included artillery, mortars, tanks, anti-aircraft guns, heavy machine-guns, multiple rocket launchers, rocket-launched aircraft bombs, and sniper rifles. From May 2, 1992, the Serbs blockaded the city.
The Bosnian government defence forces were poorly equipped and unable to break the siege. More than 12,000 civilians were killed during the Sarajevo siege. The three-and-a-half year war claimed at least 100,000 lives, and 2.2 million people were forced to flee.
DON’T MISS – Editor’s Picks:
(1.) General Lewis MacKenzie: Sarajevo Concentration Camp Rapist with Diplomatic Immunity
(2.) Translated Transcript of Genocide Prevention Ceremony in Sarajevo (2009)
(3.) VIDEO: Genocide Prevention Month in Sarajevo (2009)
(4.) United Nations Report: Serbs Responsible for 1995 Sarajevo Markale Market Massacre
(5.) VIDEO: Upcoming Genocide Conference in Sarajevo, Kathleen Young (2007)
(6. Serb Gen Stanislav Galic guilty of Sarajevo terrorism & markale massacre
(7.) U.N. Court rules Serbs responsible for 1994 Sarajevo’s markale massacre
(8.) U.N. Conclussions: Serbs responsible for 1995 Sarajevo’s markale massacre
(9.) Life Imprisonment for Sarajevo Terror: Serb Gen. Stanislav Galic Transfered to Germany
(10.) Milorad Trbic transfered to Sarajevo to stand Genocide Trial
(11.) Rupert Smith Markale Massacre Testimony in Front of the U.N Court: “No evidence Muslims shelled themselves”
(12.) David Harland Markale Massacre Testimony in Front of the U.N. Court: Witness Admits Responsibility for Neutral Statement Leading to Serbian Myths and Propaganda About Markale Massacre in Sarajevo
(13.) VIDEO: Christmas Eve in Sarajevo (2007)
(14.) Pictures of Beautiful Sarajevo, photo tour (2005)
(15.) Use Search Box in the left-hand top corner to find more in-depth research by Srebrenica Genocide Blog Team.
LIFE IMPRISONMENT: STANISLAV GALIC TRANSFERED TO GERMANY TO SERVE HIS SENTENCE
PHOTO: Bosnian Serb terrorist, Gen. Stanislav Galic, was sentenced to life imprisonment by the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) on 30 November 2006. He was found guilty of terrorizing Sarajevo, including Serb army’s responsibility for 1994 Markale massacre. His trial was the first time the court dealt with the charge of terror, as defined in the 1949 Geneva Convention. His colleague, Dragoljub Milosevic, was also found guilty by the ICTY on terrorism charges, including the second Markale market massacre of 28 August 1995.
On 5 December 2003, the Trial Chamber sentenced Galić to 20 years’ imprisonment for murder, inhumane acts and acts of violence the primary purpose of which was to spread terror amongst the civilian population of Sarajevo. In its judgement, the Trial Chamber found that the civilian population of Sarajevo was subject to deliberate and unprovoked attacks by sniper and mortar fire by the Sarajevo Romanija Corps. As commander of this Corps, Galić was responsible for the crimes carried out by his subordinates – not only was he informed of these crimes, the Trial Chamber also found that he controlled the pace and scale them.
Both the prosecution and defence appealed the Judgement. On 30 November 2006, the Appeals Chamber rendered its decision, dismissing all 19 grounds of appeal by Galić and allowing the prosecution appeal on length of sentence. It found that the sentence rendered by the Trial Chamber had underestimated the severity of Galić’s criminal conduct and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
An information sheet concerning the case can be found on the Tribunal’s website at this pdf link.
The Tribunal indicted 161 persons for serious violations of humanitarian law committed on the territory of former Yugoslavia between 1991 and 2001. Proceedings against 116 persons have been concluded.
RUPERT SMITH: NO EVIDENCE MUSLIMS SHELLED THEMSELVES
A CASE AGAINST SERBIAN PROPAGANDA ABOUT SARAJEVO MARKALE MASSACRE
(2.) “NO EVIDENCE MUSLIMS SHELLED THEMSELVES” – testifies General Rupert Smith
(3.) UN Report also found Serbs to be responsible for the massacre,
(4.) The International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia already convicted Bosnian Serb General, Stanislav Galic, for terrorizing Sarajevo and for responsibility for Markale Massacre, read here.
Today, former UNPROFOR commander Rupert Smith testified at the Hague trial of General Dragomir Milošević.
The former British general took the stand yesterday at the trial of the former Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) Sarajevo-Romanija Corps commander charged with the shelling of Sarajevo and sniper campaign against its civilians from August 1994 to November 1995.
In a brief examination-in-chief the prosecution went through the most relevant paragraphs in General Smith’s comprehensive written statement. It was admitted into evidence together with other documents whose authenticity was confirmed by the witness.
Yesterday Smith confirmed the prosecution’s description of the Bosnian Serb strategy, the nature of command and control in the VRS and the peculiar manner in which General Mladić exercised command. General Smith described it as “centralized”.
The former UNPROFOR commander said that the use of the artillery – to shell Sarajevo – was controlled at the level of the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, and consequently of the accused General Milošević who commanded the Corps.
The witness thought the sniper activities were coordinated at the battalion level, but they could have been “controlled from higher levels”. Smith said that the Corps command could have issued orders to limit the sniper activity or to steer them to certain targets.
General Rupert Smith confirmed that he had concluded “beyond reasonable doubt” the mortar shell that caused the Markale 2 massacre had come “from the Serb positions around Sarajevo.”He told the court he reached the conclusion by putting together the results of two investigations, undertaken by the UN military observers and the UNPROFOR Sarajevo Sector experts.
At the end of the examination-in chief, prosecutor Alex Whiting asked Smith whether he had any knowledge of the Bosnian Army “shelling and sniping at its own civilians”. The former UNPROFOR commander said that he had “heard of such allegations”, but that he was never shown “a single piece of evidence to corroborate them”.
General Milošević’s defense counsel took those claims as the starting point for the cross-examination. One of the defense lawyers referred to the book written by General Michael Rose, Smith’s predecessor at the post of UNPROFOR commander, and the testimony of General Nikolai, General Smith’s former chief of staff.
Smith said that he “had not read General Rose’s book.” He went on to testify that General Rose himself “never told him anything about the Bosnian Army shooting at its own people”. As for Nikolai’s statement, Smith said that the Dutch general “merely presented unsubstantiated claims”.
DAVID HARLAND RESPONSIBLE FOR REVISIONIST MARKALE MASSACRE MYTH
David Harland, former head of UN Civil Affairs in BH, admitted today he was responsible for the creation of the myth that UNPROFOR was unable to determine who had fired the mortar shells that caused the Markale 2 massacre on 28 August 1995. Forty-three people were killed and seventy-five injured at the entrance to the Town Market in Sarajevo.
Markale 2 is one of the 15 “illustrative examples” of the shelling campaign against Sarajevo listed in the indictment against the then commander of the VRS Sarajevo-Romanija Corps, General Dragomir Milosevic.
The myth that has survived for more than ten years, Harland said in response to Milosevic’s defense counsel Branislav Tapuskovic, was created because of a “neutral statement” made by General Rupert Smith, the UNPROFOR commander.
On the day when the second attack on Markale happened, General Smith stated “it is unclear who fired the shells, although at that time he already had the technical report of UNPROFOR intelligence section, determining beyond reasonable doubt that they were fired from VRS positions at Lukavica”.
Harland’s responsibility lies in the fact that he himself advised General Smith to make “a neutral statement in order not to alarm the Bosnian Serbs who would be alerted to the impending NATO air strikes against their positions had he pointed a finger at them”. That would have jeopardized the safety of UN troops in the territory under VRS control or on positions where they might have been vulnerable to retaliatory attacks by Serb forces.
In his cross-examination Harland denied claims made by Tapuskovic, Belgrade attorney, that between two and three thousand Serbs had “been killed, had their throats slit and been thrown into Kazani” during the war in Sarajevo .
Not denying the crimes committed against Serbs, and Bosniaks too, by Caco and his men, Harland categorically stated that “the huge majority of the Serbs killed in the town, inside the conflict lines, were killed by artillery and sniper fire originating from the positions of the VRS Sarajevo-Romanija Corps”.
This line of cross-examination prompted Presiding Judge Robinson to ask the defense counsel “what is the point of this defense, even if the figures you’re presenting are correct”. In other words: “what impact will it have on the responsibility of General Milosevic for the crimes he is charged with”. Tapuskovic’s reply was that Caco’s crimes had engendered great fear among the Serbs that the same thing could happen to them if they were to be under Bosniak power. They therefore “held the positions around Sarajevo firmly”.
While Tapuskovic claims that the Sarajevo Serbs “feared Caco more than bombs”, Harland believes that “the great majority of Serbs wanted to leave Sarajevo but couldn’t do so”. The reason why they wanted to leave town was “the siege and a great risk they ran of getting killed by shells or sniper fire from Serb positions”.
Louis Fortain took the stand after David Harland. Fortain, a lieutenant-colonel in the Canadian Army, was UNPROFOR’s liaison officer with the Sarajevo-Romanija Corps. He was stationed in the Lukavica barracks.
SERB GENERAL STANISLAV GALIC – GUILTY
CVO/P.I.S/ 807e
JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE THE PROSECUTOR V. STANISLAV GALIC –
STANISLAV GALIC SENTENCED TO 20 YEARS’ IMPRISONMENT
Please find below the summary of the Judgement delivered by Trial Chamber I, composed of Judges Orie (Presiding), El Mahdi and Nieto-Navia, as read out by the Presiding Judge.
Summary of Judgement
Introduction
Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is sitting today to deliver its Judgement in the trial of General Stanislav Galic.
General Galic is accused of having conducted, between September 1992 and August 1994, a campaign of sniping and shelling attacks on the civilian population of Sarajevo, causing death and injury to civilians, with the primary purpose of spreading terror among the civilian population.
For the purposes of this session, the Trial Chamber will give a brief explanation of the reasons for its Judgement. The only authoritative account, however, is the written Judgement. Copies of this will be made available to the parties and to the public at the conclusion of the session.
The Trial Chamber’s Judgement is rendered by a majority of its members (the Majority). Judge Nieto-Navia is dissenting in part, and will explain briefly, at the end of my speech, the reasons for his dissent. The Majority reached its decision after being convinced of the correctness of its conclusions as to the law, and after impartial appreciation of the facts.
The facts of this case
The Accused’s trial concerned events which took place in and around Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia-Herzegovina. At the time of those events, an entity known as Republika Srpska had established itself within the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Army of Republika Srpska were engaged in armed conflict.
The Army of Republika Srpska was known as the VRS. By September 1992 one branch of the VRS, called the Sarajevo Romanija Corps, or SRK, had virtually encircled Sarajevo.
General Galic was the commander of the SRK throughout the Indictment period, that is, from September 1992 to August 1994.
The major part of Sarajevo was under the control of the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, or ABiH. A confrontation line around Sarajevo separated the warring sides.
The Prosecutor alleges that General Galic is criminally responsible for a campaign conducted by the SRK of sniping and shelling attacks on civilians in the parts of Sarajevo controlled by the ABiH. The campaign is said to have resulted in a large number of deaths and injuries to civilians. According to the Prosecutor, there was thus a violation international humanitarian law. The principle of distinction, which forms part of that body of law, obliges military commanders to distinguish between military objectives, on the one hand, and civilians, on the other, and not to attack civilians under any circumstances.
The Prosecutor claims that the Accused ordered the campaign of attacks on civilians, or otherwise failed to prevent or punish the crimes of his subordinates. For this General Galic is charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. He is also charged with the crime of terror. Terror, it is said, was the primary purpose of the campaign of attacks.
I should point out that the Indictment is not concerned with legitimate military attacks by forces under the control of the Accused, even if such attacks may have resulted in unintended civilian casualties.
The Defence contests the allegations and argues that the Prosecutor did not establish that civilian casualties were caused by deliberate or indiscriminate shelling or sniping by the SRK.
The Defence’s case is that civilian casualties were collateral to legitimate military activity. The casualties resulted as well from targeting errors and stray bullets. According to the Defence, some casualties may have been the result of ABiH forces firing upon their own civilians.
The Trial Chamber was confronted with a large amount of evidence, testimonial and documentary. A total of 171 witnesses were heard. The number of exhibits, including written reports, film, photographs, maps, and sound-recordings, amounted to 1,268 items, in addition to which there were 15 experts’ reports.
Many witnesses were the victims of attacks, or had otherwise been caught up in sniping or shelling incidents. Witnesses included international military personnel stationed in Sarajevo, as well as members of the armed forces of the parties to the conflict. Several expert witnesses with specializations ranging from history to ballistics were called by the Prosecutor and the Defence.
The Trial Chamber was mindful when assessing and drawing conclusions from the evidence that one party to the conflict – the ABiH army – was positioned in close proximity with the civilian population of Sarajevo, and that much of the fighting was conducted in a confined urban setting in which military targets were not always clearly separated from civilian objects.
The evidence demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that Sarajevo civilians were indeed made the object of deliberate attack by SRK forces. The Trial Chamber heard from local witnesses who had experienced a multiplicity of attacks in their neighbourhoods. They were attacked while attending funerals, while in ambulances, trams, and buses, and while cycling. They were attacked while tending gardens, or shopping in markets, or clearing rubbish in the city. Children were targeted while playing or walking in the streets.
These attacks were mostly carried out in daylight. They were not in response to any military threat. The attackers could for the most part easily tell that their victims were engaged in everyday civilian activities.
The topography of Sarajevo, with its ridges and high-rise buildings, provided vantage-points for SRK personnel to target civilians in the city. Certain locations in Sarajevo became notorious sniping spots. For example, several witnesses testified that the main thoroughfare in Sarajevo was known as “Sniper Alley”.
Although civilians adapted to some extent to the frequent attacks, by closing schools, by living at night and hiding during the day, by moving around Sarajevo as little as possible, and by setting up steel containers to shield against sniper fire, they were still not safe. They were still seen and targeted. There was little effective protection against shelling.
Many witnesses provided the Trial Chamber with general impressions as to the frequency and pattern of shelling and sniping attacks over the protracted period which is the subject of the Indictment. Other witnesses concentrated on specific incidents, which were presented to the Trial Chamber often in minute detail.
The Prosecutor listed certain sniping and shelling incidents as exemplary of the campaign against civilians. The Majority has found that 18 of the 26 listed sniping incidents and all five of the listed shelling incidents were proven by the Prosecutor as exemplifying the campaign. I will not go into these in any detail, except to give an example of two sniping incidents accepted by the Trial Chamber, and of a shelling incident accepted by the Majority.
The first sniping incident I shall discuss concerns the killing of Munira Zametica, a 48-year-old civilian woman on 11 July 1993.
Mrs Zametica had gone to the Dobrinja river to fetch water. She remained for a while on the north-western side of the bridge. The bridge shielded her from sniping fire that had been on-going through that day. The half-dozen people standing with her hesitated to approach the river bank, for this would have meant leaving the shelter of the bridge. When Mrs Zametica overcame her hesitation, and went down to the river to fill her bucket, she was struck by a bullet. The shooting continued. The bystanders and Mrs Zametica’s daughter, who had arrived in the meantime, could not approach the victim because of the danger. Mrs Zametica was face down in the river, bleeding. She was finally pulled out of the water and taken to hospital, where she died. The Trial Chamber has concluded that she was deliberately shot from the area of the Orthodox church in Dobrinja, a well-known source of sniper fire under SRK control.
In another incident, on a sunny afternoon in September 1993, an eight-year-old girl, Elma, and her mother went out to collect some textbooks from one of Elma’s fellow pupils. Their neighbourhood on that day had been peaceful. Mother and daughter, holding hands, followed a line of steel containers which had been put up to provide cover from SRK snipers operating on Hrasno Hill. There were no soldiers or other possible military targets in the immediate vicinity. As the two emerged from the shelter of the containers, they were shot. A single bullet struck the mother’s thigh, passed through the flesh, and penetrated Elma’s stomach. Both fell to the ground. Another bullet whizzed past them. No bystanders dared to come to their assistance. Mother and daughter managed to crawl away from the exposed ground. They spent almost two weeks in hospital. The evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the fire came from SRK positions. Elma and her mother were targeted from there, deliberately.
I will now mention the Majority’s finding on one of the listed shelling incidents. On 5 February 1994 a mortar shell exploded in the Markale market in downtown Sarajevo, killing some 60 people and injuring more than a hundred. The Trial Chamber heard about this incident in great detail. We examined the contemporary investigations conducted by United Nations personnel and by local investigators, as well as the analyses of experts called by the parties in this case. A variety of new information was brought to light. The Majority has concluded that the mortar shell which caused the explosion was fired from territory controlled by the SRK. It was a devastating attack against a civilian target.
The Majority is thus convinced that civilians in Sarajevo were attacked directly or without distinction from SRK-controlled territory. The exact number of civilian casualties from these attacks is not known. What is known is that hundreds of civilians were killed and thousands were injured in sniping and shelling incidents over the two-year period covered by the Indictment. A fraction of these, but no more than a fraction, may have been accidents.
Because, to the Majority, it is clear from the evidence that civilians were deliberately attacked by the SRK in a large number of incidents over a long period of time, we are persuaded that the attacks were not isolated incidents but amounted to a widespread or systematic campaign.
In addition to supporting the existence of a campaign, the evidence as understood by the Majority reveals that the campaign against civilians was intended primarily to terrorize the civilian population. It had no discernible significance in military terms. The frequency of attacks may have fluctuated from day to day, but they always underscored the fact that no civilian of Sarajevo was safe anywhere.
There is some testimony, which the Majority has scrutinized carefully, that the ABiH sought to attract the sympathy of the international community by periodically staging attacks on its own civilians, knowing that the SRK would be blamed for them. The Majority does not believe that this evidence amounts to much. In any case, even if such things happened occasionally, they do not alter the Majority’s conclusions as to which party perpetrated the vast number of sniping and shelling attacks on civilians which were considered in the course of this trial.
Legal characterization of the crimes
The Prosecutor charged General Galic with the crime of terror and with the crime of attack on civilians. Both are said to be prohibited by Article 51 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. These charges are brought under Article 3 of the Statute as violations of the laws or customs of war.
Moreover, murder and inhumane acts are charged as crimes against humanity under Article 5 of the Statute. (The legal notion of “inhumane acts” is meant to cover the non-fatal injuries inflicted in the course of the attacks on civilians.)
The Trial Chamber has found that the International Tribunal does indeed have jurisdiction over the crime of attack on civilians under Article 3 of the Statute. Not only does this crime have a sound basis in customary international law, in the present case it has a foundation in conventional law. This is because the warring sides were treaty-bound to respect the law on the conduct of hostilities contained in an agreement they signed on 22 May 1992. This agreement reproduced the prohibitions contained in Article 51 of Additional Protocol I.
The Trial Chamber explains in its Judgement that the crime of attack on civilians is constituted of acts of violence, wilfully directed against the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct part in hostilities, causing death or serious injury to body or health within the civilian population.
As for the crime of terror as a violation of the laws and customs of war, this is the first time the International Tribunal has had to pronounce on its material and mental elements.
For the reasons detailed in the Judgement, the Majority finds that the International Tribunal has jurisdiction over the crime of terror under Article 3 of the Statute. The prohibition against this crime is found in Article 51 of Additional Protocol I. That provision had been brought into effect by the aforementioned agreement of 22 May 1992.
The Majority’s discussion of the crime of terror takes up many pages of the Judgement. Suffice to say here that the crime is constituted of the same legal elements as the crime of attack on civilians, plus an additional mental element.
In particular, for the Accused to be convicted of the crime of terror, the Prosecutor must prove that the attack on civilians for which the Accused has been shown to be responsible was carried out with the primary purpose of spreading terror among the civilian population.
Upon review of the factual findings made in the Judgement, the Majority is satisfied that attacks were carried out by SRK forces against the civilian population of Sarajevo with the primary purpose of spreading terror among that population.
The Trial Chamber is satisfied that the SRK’s attacks may be characterized also as murder and inhumane acts within the meaning of Article 5 of the Statute, namely as crimes against humanity.
Criminal Responsibility of General Galic
I shall now address issue of whether responsibility for the crime of terror, attack on civilians, and murder and inhumane acts is to be imputed to the Accused.
The Trial Chamber has considered whether General Galic effectively controlled the actions of his troops and knew of the crimes committed by them. We are convinced by the evidence that the sniping and shelling activity of the SRK were under the control of the SRK’s chain of command. The Trial Chamber is also satisfied that General Galic had the material ability to punish those who would go against his orders, who violated military discipline, or who committed crimes.
It is therefore established that General Galic, as commander of the SRK, had effective control of SRK troops.
There is ample evidence that General Galic was informed of the attacks against civilians committed by SRK forces. Formal complaints were lodged with him, and he was duly informed through his chain of command of the actions of his troops. The Trial Chamber has no doubt that the Accused was well aware of the unlawful activities of his troops.
However, in the view of the Majority, General Galic was not simply kept abreast of the crimes of his subordinates. He actually controlled the pace and scale of those crimes. For example, several witnesses testified to a reduction in the frequency of attacks on civilians by the SRK after pressure was put on General Galic to have them stopped. This drop in frequency never lasted long. The attacks would again increase in intensity. The SRK troops performed at the level which their commander decided they should perform in the circumstances.
The Majority is convinced that the SRK’s widespread attacks against the civilian population of Sarajevo could not have occurred without this being the will of the corps’ commander. It is clear that General Galic, through his orders, and by other means of facilitation and encouragement, conducted the campaign of attacks. He did so with the primary aim to spread terror among the civilian population of Sarajevo.
The gravity of the crime for which General Galic is responsible is determined by the scale, pattern, and reiteration of the attacks, on an almost daily basis, over many months. The civilian population of Sarajevo – men and women of all ages, including children – were killed in their hundreds and wounded in their thousands, with the intent to terrorize the entirety of the population. The Majority takes into consideration the physical and psychological suffering inflicted on civilians over the two-year span of the Indictment period.
Finally, the Majority finds that the fact that General Galic occupied the position of corps commander in the VRS, a very senior position of public trust and duty, and repeatedly breached that duty and trust, counts as an aggravating factor in determining the penalty.
The Defence argued that the ABiH itself committed crimes against civilians of Serbian ethnicity and conducted hostilities under the shield provided by its own civilian population. While there is some evidence to support this view, the occasional unlawful conduct of one party to a conflict cannot possibly excuse the opposing party’s attacking civilians as part of a protracted campaign of terror.
Disposition
GENERAL GALIC, PLEASE RISE:
For the reasons I summarized above, the Trial Chamber, with Judge Nieto-Navia dissenting, having considered all of the evidence and arguments of both the Prosecutor and the Defence, makes the following disposition:
General Galic, you are found GUILTY on the following counts, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute:
COUNT 1: Violations of the laws or customs of war (acts of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population, as set forth in Article 51 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949) under Article 3 of the Statute.
COUNT 2: Crimes against humanity (murder) under Article 5(a) of the Statute.
COUNT 3: Crimes against humanity (inhumane acts – other than murder) under Article 5(i) of the Statute.
COUNT 5: Crimes against humanity (murder) under Article 5(a) of the Statute.
COUNT 6: Crimes against humanity (inhumane acts – other than murder) under Article 5(i) of the Statute.
According to the rule against cumulation of convictions for the same acts, where one crime is only a more specific form of another, and both crimes are proven, a conviction should be entered for the more specific crime. The finding of guilt on count 1 – terror – has the consequence that Counts 4 and 7 – both charging the crime of attack on civilians which forms part of the crime of terror – are DISMISSED.
General Galic, the Trial Chamber by majority hereby SENTENCES you to a single sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment. Pursuant to Rule 101(C) of the Rules, you are entitled to credit for the time spent in detention.
GENERAL GALIC, YOU MAY BE SEATED.
Judge Nieto-Navia will now read a summary of his dissenting opinion.
Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Nieto-Navia
I regret to have to speak separately today as a dissenting Judge on many of the factual and legal conclusions reached by a majority of this Trial Chamber.
The principle of in dubio pro reo is one of the foundational precepts of criminal law which can be found in domestic and international legal systems as well in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal. According to this principle, the Prosecution must prove a fact aimed at a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. I indicated to the Majority my concerns and doubts about the evidence relating to 8 out of 23 scheduled sniping incidents, 3 out of 5 scheduled shelling incidents – including the Markale incident which is discussed in detail in my opinion – as well as certain unscheduled incidents. I considered these doubts to be reasonable. I had expected this plural Trial Chamber to accept my doubts as sufficient to establish that the Prosecution has failed to prove an allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. The Majority did not share this expectation and I have been obliged to express separately my disagreement with its assessment of the evidence.
The Prosecution has alleged that the SRK “conducted a protracted campaign of shelling and sniping upon civilians areas of Sarajevo and upon by the civilian population.” An army characterized by the level of competence and professionalism ascribed to the SRK by the Prosecution would be expected, when conducting during 23 months a campaign of purposefully targeting civilians living in a city of 340,000, to inflict a high number of civilian casualties in relation to the city’s total population. The results obtained by the Prosecution’s demographic experts based on an analysis of extensive sources indicate otherwise. Furthermore, the monthly number of civilian casualties dropped significantly over the 23 months of the Indictment Period. This evidence leads me to conclude that the SRK forces under the command of General Galic did not engage in a campaign of purposefully targeting civilians in Sarajevo throughout the Indictment Period. Such a conclusion accords with the evidence regarding the conduct of the SRK leadership, which relinquished voluntarily control of the airport, authorized the establishment of “blue routes” to allow for the distribution of humanitarian supplies and the safe passage of civilians in and out of the city, entered into anti-sniping agreements under the auspices of the United Nations and agreed to the establishment of the “Total Exclusion Zone”.
I now consider issues related to the applicable law and legal findings. The Majority has reached the conclusion that the offence of inflicting terror on a civilian population falls within the jurisdiction of this Trial Chamber. When proposing the establishment of this Tribunal, the U.N. Secretary-General explained that the application of the criminal law principle of nullum crimen sine lege would require that this international Tribunal apply rules which are beyond any doubt part of customary law. This principle has been consistently recognized in the jurisprudence of this Tribunal as requiring that a Trial Chamber verify that an offence alleged in an indictment reflects international customary law. For the first time in the history of this Tribunal, this Trial Chamber has had to consider whether the offence of inflicting terror on a civilian population falls within its jurisdiction. I would have therefore expected the Trial Chamber to confirm whether such an offence existed as a form of liability under international customary law, attracting individual criminal responsibility under that body of law. The Majority did not do so and, instead, relied on an argument based on conventional law to conclude that the Trial Chamber may consider such an offence. In my view, such an approach does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of this Tribunal. Since I am not aware of an established state practice regarding the criminalization of such an offence sufficient to prove the latter’s customary nature, I conclude that the offence of inflicting terror on a civilian population does not fall within this Trial Chamber’s jurisdiction. By concluding otherwise without establishing that the offence of inflicting terror on a civilian population attracted individual criminal responsibility under international customary law, or even under the conventional rule which it invokes, the Majority is furthering a conception of international humanitarian law which I do not support.
The Majority also concludes that General Galic ordered his forces to attack civilians in Sarajevo deliberately, thereby finding him criminally responsible under Article 7(1) of the Statute. Its conclusion rests entirely on inferences though, since no witness testified to hearing General Galic issue such orders and no written orders were tendered which would indicate that he so instructed his troops. There is significant evidence which explicitly establishes the opposite: written orders signed by General Galic instructing his troops to respect the Geneva Conventions and other instruments of international humanitarian law, the testimonies of 16 SRK soldiers and officers posted throughout Sarajevo during the Indictment Period confirming that they had received orders not to target civilians, as well as other written evidence indicating that General Galic launched some internal investigations on a number of occasions when alerted by UN representatives about possible attacks on civilians by his forces. Based on the available evidence, I conclude that the Trial Record does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that General Galic issued orders to target civilians and dissent from the Majority’s conclusion on this issue.
Despite my aforementioned disagreements with the Majority, I share in the conclusion that the Prosecution has proved that, in a number of instances, the SRK either deliberately or recklessly fired upon civilians in Sarajevo during the Indictment Period, thereby committing the crimes of attacks on civilians, murders and inhumane acts. I also note that the evidence presented at trial establishes that General Galic, as the commander of the SRK, knew or had reason to know of these crimes, but did not take all the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent their commission or to punish the perpetrators. I therefore conclude that General Galic is guilty of the crimes of unlawful attacks against civilians, murder and inhumane acts under Article 7(3) of the Statute.
In light of this finding, I would sentence General Galic to 10 years’ imprisonment.
THE TRIBUNAL STANDS ADJOURNED
ICTY: SERBS RESPONSIBLE FOR 1994 SARAJEVO MARKALE MASSACRE
Milosevic Trial – The Hague – Court Room One
Day 273, 16 January 2004.
Bosnian Serbs Responsible for Sarajevo Markale Massacre, Expert Testifies
Update:
Serb General, Stanislav Galic, guilty for 1994 Sarajevo Markale Market MassacreBy: Judith Armatta
THE HAGUE – Berko Zecevic, an expert in designing ammunition who investigated the mortar shell that killed 68 and wounded 144 in Sarajevo’s Markale Marketplace on February 5, 1994, concluded that the shell could only have come from the Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) positions. His conclusion was presented in a report commissioned by the Office of the Prosecutor and introduced into evidence when he appeared in Court today.
The source of the 120 millimeter mortar shell that exploded in the middle of the busy market has been a matter of serious contention since it occurred. Initially, members of the United Nations Protection Force (UNPROFOR) said the shell was fired from Bosnian Government positions. From that, some concluded that the Bosnian Government was firing on its own people, to make it appear they were victims of Bosnian Serb aggression and gain international sympathy and, ultimately, international intervention on their behalf. A later, more indepth UNPROFOR report, however, noted a calculation error in the first UN report. Correcting the error led the UN to conclude that it was impossible to say which side had fired the shell.
Mr. Zecevic testified that, when he heard on television that authorities were unable to determine the source of the projectile, he offered his services as an expert to the judge investigating the incident. Working with two colleagues, their analysis revealed the direction from which the shell was fired and six possible locations from which it could have been fired (5 under VRS control and 1 under ABH (Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina) control). The site under ABH control was clearly visible to UNPROFOR personnel, who reported that no shell was fired from that position. The type of stabilizer fin (part of the projectile) found at the site was produced in one of two places, both under control of the VRS at the time. As a result of this and other technical measurements, Mr. Zecevic concluded the shell could only have come from one of the positions under VRS control.
While Mr. Zecevic’s experience and expertise in ammunition design and testing was impressive, the Accused questioned his objectivity based on his having worked for the ABH until shortly before the massacre. Mr. Zecevic insisted he conducted a professional and objective analysis, which was fully supported by facts and calculations that could be checked by any expert in the field. He added that his assistance to the ABH ended in July of the previous year. Before that, he worked for 17 years in the Research and Development Section of a major munitions factory in Bosnia. The factory was part of the former federal Yugoslavia’s interdependent military-industrial complex. When the JNA dissolved, the system was reorganized and Mr. Zecevic left.
An earlier witness, former UN officer David Howland, told the Court that UN investigations could not determine the source of the particular shell that exploded in the Markale Marketplace on February 5, 1994, but UN records showed that almost 100% of shells landing on the ABH side of the confrontation line were fired by the VRS. He also testified that, while the BHA sometimes provoked fire at civilian targets, it did not fire on its own people (the citizens of Sarajevo of all ethnicities).
During his cross examination, Milosevic read out a portion of the dissenting opinion in the Galic trial, where Judge Nieto-Navia concluded that the prosecution in that case had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the Bosnian Serb forces were responsible for the shell that exploded in the Markale Marketplace on February 5, 1994. He found support for his conclusion in the Special UN Team’s official findings communicated to the UN Security Council that “there is insufficient physical evidence to prove that one party fired the mortar bomb.” As Judge May noted, that is one judge’s view and nothing more. He might also have pointed out that the majority in the Galic case found beyond a reasonable doubt that the shell was deliberately fired from VRS-controlled territory, after extensively reviewing expert opinions, including Mr. Zecevic’s and the UN’s, as well as eye witness evidence.
The conclusions in the Galic trial are not binding on the judges in the Milosevic trial. Here, as there, the judges will have to make a thorough review and analysis of all evidence submitted — by both the Prosecution and Defence — before making up their own minds. The question remains whether the matter will ever be finally resolved.
Mr. Zecevic also provided expert testimony that the source of significant quantities and types of ammunition used by the VRS against the citizens of Sarajevo came from Serbia. His conclusion was based on an analysis of unexploded ordnance in Sarajevo. The Prosecution produced numerous documents, showing that Mr. Zecevic’s former factory, military production enterprises in Serbia, the JNA/VJ and the VRS/RS took over and adapted the former federal Yugoslav military production network. Under it, as a number of the documents showed, Serbia and the JNA and its successor the VJ supplied weapons, ammunition and needed raw materials to the Bosnian Serbs. This practice violated the UN arms embargo. And, as Mr. Zecevic told the Court, “[I]t means that the country [Serbia/FRY – Federal Republic of Yugoslavia] was directly taking part in the killing of people who were unarmed,” i.e. the citizens of Sarajevo where the unexploded ordnance was found. The documents, together with Mr. Zecevic’s testimony, add yet more corroboration that Serbia was supporting the war by the RS against the Government of Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The Prosecution has long since succeeded in establishing that Serbia supplied the Bosnian Serbs with significant quantities of weapons and military equipment without which they could not have waged war. Milosevic faces a formidable task to discredit this evidence.
keywords: ICTY, International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, Berko Zecevic, UNPROFOR, Sarajevo Markale Marketplace Massacre, Markale Marketplace Massacre Sarajevo, Sarajevo Markale Massacre, Markale Massacre, Markale Sarajevo Massacre, Srebrenica Genocide, Srebrenica Massacre, Bosniaks, Bosnian Muslims, Bosnia-Herzegovina
UN REPORT: SERBS RESPONSIBLE FOR 1995 SARAJEVO MARKALE MASSACRE
UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Fifty-fourth session, Agenda item 42
The situation in Bosnia-Herzegovina
15 November 1999, pages 94-95
Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to General Assembly resolution 53/35
D. Attack on the Markale Marketplace in Sarajevo
439. On the day of the attack, the Force Commander based in Zagreb, who controlled the United Nations “key” to launch air attacks, was absent on personal business. The key had therefore passed temporarily to the UNPROFOR Commander in Sarajevo. The latter decided to initiate a request for NATO air strikes against the Serbs, calculating that force could be used to advantage. The goal of the “enforcement operation” would be to remove Serb weapons from within striking distance of the safe area of Sarajevo, and to lift the siege of the city. Two problems, however, prevented the UNPROFOR Commander from turning the key immediately. First, despite sustained efforts over two months to remove UNPROFOR troops from positions from which they could be taken hostage by Serb forces, a detachment of UNPROFOR troops was moving through Serb-held territory in eastern Bosnia, on its way out of Gora de. Second, UNPROFOR’s facilities in Sarajevo were, as ever, scattered across the floor of the valley in which Sarajevo lies, exposed to fire from Serb mortars and artillery in the surrounding hills.
440. The UNPROFOR Commander called Mladic to ensure that the movement of UNPROFOR troops out of Serb-held territory would not be hindered. Not wishing to arouse the Serbs’ suspicions, which could have led to the detention of the exposed UNPROFOR troops, the UNPROFOR Commander decided not to tell Mladic that UNPROFOR experts had confirmed that the mortar rounds had been fired by the Serbs, or that he was planning to launch an air campaign against the Serbs in response. Mladic was apparently satisfied, allowing the UNPROFOR unit in eastern Bosnia to proceed across the international border into the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a manoeuvre which was completed in the same evening. Again concerned not to arouse Serb suspicions, the UNPROFOR Commander also made a statement to the press in which he was equivocal, both as to who had fired the mortar rounds and as to how UNPROFOR intended to respond. The press, and the Bosnian Government authorities, were, like Mladic, convinced that there would be no dramatic response to the massacre. The Government lodged a protest against what it described as the latest example of a pattern of UNPROFOR inaction.
441. The UNPROFOR Commander turned his key at approximately 2000 hours on 28 August, without consulting his superiors in the United Nations or any of the troop- contributing countries. (The Secretariat noted with concern that it had learned of the decision only six hours later, and had not yet received any information confirming responsibility for the mortar attack itself.) The UNPROFOR Commander did, however, speak several times with the Commander of NATO’s Southern Command, holder of the NATO key. The latter dispatched a message stating that, in the common judgement of the UNPROFOR Commander and himself, the conditions for the initiation of air strikes against the set of targets in the Sarajevo area had been met. He said that he and the UNPROFOR commander had agreed that air strikes would begin as soon as the weather and technical considerations allowed. He added that the air strikes would continue until, in the common judgement of the NATO and United Nations military commanders, the attacks on, or threat to, Sarajevo had ceased.
Related article:
http://srebrenica-genocide.blogspot.com/2005/12/icty-serbs-responsible-for-1994.html
Srebrenica Massacre 