Mihaljevic: Retrial

The Appellate Chamber of the State Court upheld the appeal filed by the State Prosecution, revoking the first-instance verdict under which Zdravko Mihaljevic was acquitted of taking part in crimes against humanity committed in Kiseljak Municipality in 1993, and ordering a retrial.

The Prosecution charges Mihaljevic, as a former member of the Second Battalion with the Croatian Defence Council, HVO, and as Commander of the “Maturice” Special Purposes Squad, with having participated in attacking, and then torturing and murdering civilians in Tulice village, Kiseljak Municipality.

In its decision revoking the first-instance verdict, the Appellate Chamber said there was a basis for the Prosecution’s allegations of wrongly determined facts, because the way in which the Trial Chamber had assessed the evidence and its conclusions were “not of such quality that they exclude any other conclusion, leaving doubt in regard to the correctness of the determined facts”.

“In its appeal, the Prosecution rightly points to the fact that the first-instance Chamber failed to consider the integrity of witness C, because it failed adequately to address his previous statements which were part of the evidence material. Due to this the Appellate Chamber suspects the correctness of the determined facts,” the decision reads.

During the trial protected witness C testified as a Prosecution witness and then as a Defence witness. The public was excluded from both hearings.

The Appellate Chamber upheld the Prosecution’s objection stating that the first-instance Chamber wrongly determined the fact about “Mihaljevic’s membership and command of ‘Maturice'” during the time when the crimes were committed. The first-instance verdict maintained that the Prosecution “failed to prove the command role of the indictee”.

“Concerning the appeal, the Appellate Chamber considers that the first-instance Chamber failed to provide clear and persuasive reasons concerning verification of this fact. In other words, it failed to assess the presented evidence concerning this circumstance and their inter-relation. The Court should have referred to the material evidence related to this fact and have linked it to the statements given by Defence witnesses,” the decision reads.

The Appellate Chamber considered the Prosecution’s appeal concerning violation of the Law on Criminal Proceedings as ungrounded, rejecting it.