Travnik: Time is the Biggest Enemy of Justice

Despite the fact that no war crime cases are currently underway before the Cantonal Court in Novi Travnik, central Bosnia, judges claim they are ready to tackle the wartime legacy and work to overcome eventual problems.

When they talk about the work of the court, the judges emphasise their ability to organise the work well and finalise the processes efficiently and promptly – despite the fact that they only have one Trial Chamber and one courtroom.

Representatives of the OSCE Human Rights Department, who are regular observers of war crimes trial and other criminal proceedings conducted before this court, express their optimism and praise the work of the court.

However, OSCE representatives noted that sentences delivered by the Cantonal Court in Novi Travnik in three war crimes case were increased upon appeal by the Supreme Court of the FBiH because they deemed the sentences imposed by the Cantonal Court to be too lenient.

On the other hand, the Cantonal Prosecution and attorneys who represented war crime indictees are concerned over the future processing of war crimes cases due to a lack of staff. They also point to many difficulties facing them in their work.

All sides agree that war crimes cases should be processed in a more efficient way and that the process should be completed soon “because the passage of time makes it more and more difficult to obtain evidence”.

However, the judicial authorities’ efforts to process war crime cases in a more efficient way are often undermined by lack of cooperation with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and associations of war victims and their families.

Representatives of these organisations show almost no interest in the work of the court, Justice Report has found.

Past and future processes

The Central Bosnia Canton (CBC)area, which falls under the jurisdiction of the prosecutor’s office and court situated in Travnik, includes 12 municipalities: Bugojno, Busovaca, Dobretici, Donji Vakuf, Fojnica, Gornji Vakuf, Jajce, Kiseljak, Kresevo, Novi Travnik, Travnik and Vitez.

According to data collected by the Research and Documentation Centre (RDC), an NGO from Sarajevo, more than 6,000 people were killed on that territory during the war. More than half died in the course of the conflict between the Army of BiH and the Croatian Defence Council (HVO) conducted in 1993.

The first domestic trial conducted by the Court of BiH to tackle war crimes committed in the central Bosnia area was that of Abduladhim Maktouf, a former member of the Army of BiH. In 2006, he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for having participated in crimes against civilians in Travnik.

The next case was the trial of Kreso Lucic, a former member of the Croatian Defence Council (HVO). He was sentenced, in 2007, by a first instance verdict to six years’ imprisonment for crimes committed in Kresevo.

Processes against Pasko Ljubicic, Zdravko Mihaljevic, Nisvet Gasal and Musajb Kukavica have now started before the Court of BiH, while Senad Dautovic and Enes Handzic are being held in custody. Dautovic and Handzic are charged in connection with crimes committed on the territory of Vitez, Kiseljak and Bugojno.

New arrests have been made as recent as last week of November. In the early hours of October 30, 2007, the State Investigation and Protection Agency (SIPA), acting on a warrant issued by the state prosecutor, arrested Mirko (son of Spiro) Pekez, Milorad Savic and Mirko (son of Mile) Pekez, former members of the Serbian Republic of BiH Army and reserve police forces with the Public Security Centre in Jajce, who are considered to have committed crimes in that area.

The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has also processed indictees charged with war crimes committed in central Bosnia.

Sentences totaling 116 years’ imprisonment have been handed down by the ICTY for crimes committed in that area – to Zlatko Aleksovski (seven years); Tihomir Blaskic (nine); Dario Kordic (25); Mario Cerkez (six); Ante Furundzija (ten); Drago Josipovic (12), Vladimir Santic (18), Darko Mrdja (17) and Ivica Rajic (12). All were former HVO members.

An appeal process is underway in the case of Enver Hadzihasanovic (sentenced by a first instance verdict to five years imprisonment) and Amir Kubura (sentenced to two and a half years). Both are former members of the Army of BiH, accused of crimes committed in Bugojno municipality.

The Cantonal Court in Novi Travnik was formed in 1997 and has since then gone through a number of structural and legislative changes. It began processing war crimes cases only in 2001.

Until 2004, all investigations were carried out by now defunct institution of investigative judges. Three years ago the Cantonal Prosecution was founded and took over investigations.

In the last six years, 12 processes against 14 persons have been opened. Most indictees were charged with war crimes against civilians or prisoners of war. There has been only one verdict of release, out of eight verdicts that have been pronounced so far. The last verdict was passed down in March this year.

A maximum sentence of 15 years’ imprisonment, which was eventually reduced to 13 years by the Supreme Court of the Federation of BiH on the basis of appeals filed by both parties, was pronounced in the case of Hanefija ‘Paraga’ Prijic, a former ABiH member.

Prijic, the first person processed before the Cantonal Court in Novi Travnik, was convicted for having attacked a group of Italian humanitarian workers near Gornji Vakuf.

The shortest sentence – a year and two months – was pronounced in the case of Mato Miletic, a former HVO member who was convicted for crimes committed in Kresevo area. The Supreme Court confirmed the verdict.

Katica Jozak-Madjar, President of the Cantonal Court, says that the current criminal sanctions policy is adequate bearing in mind the severity of the offences. She also pointed out that “justice is not measured by punishment”, but rather by the fact whether someone is proven and found to be guilty or not.

On the other hand, Chief Cantona lProsecutor Senad Dautovic considers that far more severe punishments should be available for war crimes.

Defence attorney Adil Lozo agrees. He thinks that the most appropriate criminal sanctions policy is the one applied by the ICTY, which also prescribes imprisonments for a term of less than five and more than 20 years.

Possible problems and solutions
The Cantonal Court in Travnik has been dealing with war crime cases since 1998. In the beginning, investigations were conducted by investigative judges. The court did not process any war crime indictees. After the establishment of the Cantonal Prosecutor’s Office on March1, 2004, which replaced the former Office of the Cantonal Public Prosecutor,all war crimes investigations have been referred to it.

At present, 25 investigations against 230 persons are conducted by the Cantonal Prosecutor’s Office in Travnik. No suspects are held in custody. Of the ten persons who have been processed so far, six defended themselves while on bail.

There is no special department for war crimes with the prosecution or the court. Four prosecutors deal with war crime cases in parallel to other cases. Prosecution representatives claim that cooperation with the police is good, but the prosecution does not have the”logistics” which is available at the state level. Consequently, the investigations take longer.

There are three judges in the criminal department with the court who deal with war crimes as well as general crime cases.

Court President Katica Jozak-Madjar says that all judges were trained in war crimes procedures and they analyzed the available literature and passed down some verdicts that were”praised” by the Supreme Court.

According to Court President Jozak-Madjar, the Cantonal Court in Novi Travnik has not encountered many technical or economic problems in the processing of war crimes, but she thinks that such problems may arise in the future – particularly in relation to witness protection programmes.

Nevertheless, she considers that the eventual problems can be overcome by good organisation of work.

“We have not had the opportunity to introduce any witness protection measures, because there were no protected witnesses in the processes conducted so far. Should a witness request protection, we would try to work out some protection mechanisms, in cooperation with the relevant Cantonal and State institutions,” she explained.

However, there is one obstacle that cannot be overcome.

Officials are aware that the passage of time makes the witnesses’ recollections, on which most indictments are based, become more and more vague.

Some witnesses are reluctant to appear before the court because they are afraid that they will not be able to recall all events and provide a realistic overview of what happened.

“Time is an enemy to the solving of war crime cases. It is therefore necessary to complete the whole process as soon as possible,” Jozak-Madjar thinks.

The prosecution claims that it is hard to get in touch with potential witnesses, who often change their address or leave the country.

They claim that, despite the fact that it is “well-known” that testimonies do not have much influence on proving some facts at court, most war crime indictments rely on these testimonies, due to the nature of crimes.

“They are the most important factor in the process, because we do not have many pieces of material evidence. It is unlikely that we will get hold of potential key material evidence, such as video recordings of the crimes or written orders for execution of a certain number of people,” said Prosecutor Senad Dautovic.

Defence attorneys are also aware that the passage of time, and difficulties in bringing potential witnesses to courtrooms, represent problems. Adil Lozo says that “we are losing an opportunity to prove certain facts” due to the passage of time.

“The witnesses lose interest in testifying and remembering of some things that happened earlier. We should also bear in mind that a large number of war crime perpetrators are old and, therefore, we may not have an opportunity to process them,” said Lozo.

“Time passes by, people go away and we lose chances, while [those who committed] crimes remain unidentified,” he concluded.

Lack of cooperation

The Prosecutor’s Office believes that the associations of war victims and their families might provide useful information in war crime investigations.

However, these groups do not seem to be very interested in cooperating with the judicial authorities.

Prosecutor Dautovic says that his office has not had any communication with these associations, Croat and Bosnian alike.

Commenting the work of the court and the verdicts pronounced so far, Zdenko Dominovic, president of the Association of Croatian Fatherland War Disabled (HVIDR) from Novi Travnik, says that his association “does not follow those trials” and adds that he thinks that “very few people in this area do”.

He does not know if any HVID Rmembers testified at war crime trials or gave statements.

Sacir Srebrenica, president of the Detainees Association of the Central Bosnia Canton, said that their members did not have an opportunity to collaborate with the prosecution, because nobody contacted them or told them which processes were underway.

“We have had cooperation with the ICTY in The Hague and the Court of BiH, but not with the Cantonal Court. If they are not interested in the processing of war crimes, neither am I,” Srebrenica told Justice Report.

The Prosecution of CBC and the ex-officio attorneys, appointed to represent war crime indictees, face similar problems in their work.

Attorney Adil Lozo represented an indictee who was acquitted of the charges by a verdict pronounced by the Cantonal Court. This was the only verdict of release pronounced by this court.

The attorney says that he faces problems in collecting data and in trying to obtain evidence and contact potential witnesses.

Lozo further says that another problem the defence teams face is the fact that potential witnesses more often decide to testify as prosecution witnesses, “because the Prosecutor’s Office and the police can ensure their protection in the course of investigations”.

Lozo considers that arrangements should be made within the judicial system to ensure better access to defence. He sees the establishment of research centres for defence as a possible solution.

He also believes that adequate processing of war crime indictees could be achieved only if it is done by specialised courts, prosecutors’ offices and defence attorneys.

“Only then could we achieve promptness and efficiency. They cannot be achieved in the way things are done at present. Courts and prosecutors’ offices are overloaded with other tasks and they, most probably, find it difficult to tackle these cases. There is no analytical approach to this issue and we should work on it,” Lozo said.

Merima Husejnovic is a journalist with Justice Report. Justice Report is an online publication of BIRN Bosnia and Herzegovina. This article has been produced as part of BIRN’s Justice Series project “Local justice under the spotlight”, which has been made possible by the support of American people through USAID.