This post is also available in:
State Prosecutor Sanja Jukic said that Bosniak civilians who had been deported were examined as witnesses, explaining that the actions undertaken by indictee Dolic could not be justified by a military operation.
For those reasons, Prosecutor Jukic requested the Trial Chamber of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina to pronounce him guilty and sentence him.
“The Court should particularly consider the statements given by Prosecution witnesses, who testified as Defence witnesses at this trial, but they abode by their statements,” Jukic said.
Dolic, former member of Jastrebovi (Hawks) Reconnaissance Squad with the Croatian Defence Council, HVO, is charged with having committed rape, mistreatment and physical abuse of Bosniak civilians in Druzinovici village, Prozor municipality at the end of July and beginning of August 1993.
The State Prosecution’s indictment alleges that the indictee raped protected witness S1 in a house in Lapsunj village, in which more than 30 civilians were accommodated, on several occasions.
Analyzing the statements given by certain witnesses, including Bosniak civilians, the Prosecutor said that they testified in a clear manner and showed no wish for revenge.
“State Prosecution witness Edina Kmetas was also examined as a Defence witness. The fact that she testified in a clear way on both occasions gives strength to her testimony. She does not show any wish for revenge, but trust in justice. Her statement is in accordance with other witnesses’ statements,” the Prosecutor said.
During the course of the trial Defence witnesses tried to provide the indictee with an alibi, but the Prosecution maintained they had failed to do so.
“Jozo Dolic, the indictee’s father, did not manage to provide his son with an alibi during the course of his testimony,” Prosecutor Jukic says.
In addition, the Prosecutor said that when rendering its verdict the Trial Chamber should particularly consider statements given by witnesses who spoke about rape because, she said, those statements were “unambiguous, consistent and described in detail”.
Mentioning protected witness S1’s statement as an example, the Prosecutor said that her testimony contained “concrete facts and details” related to the commission of the crime, adding that she gave a detailed description of “the contact and communication between her and the indictee, which shows the extent to which those events have affected her”.
The Defence of the indictee is due to present its closing statement on Thursday, April 21.
S.U.
