This post is also available in: Bosnian
The indictment, which was read before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, alleges that Macic, former member of the Public Safety Station in Konjic, killed two Serb civilians in Bradina village, Konjic municipality in late May 1992.
In a plea hearing the indictee admitted guilt for killing one civilian. That specific count alleges that, in mid May 1992 Macic came to a house, searched it, took Srdjan Koprivica out of the house and took him to the central part of Bradina. The indictee told Koprivica to walk in front of him alongside the road leading from Mostar to Sarajevo and fired two bursts of bullets, killing the man.
At this hearing the Trial Chamber said that it would make a decision concerning the admission of guilt for the charges contained in the first count at a later stage.
According to the charges, following the capture of a number of Serb civilians in Bradina on May 27, 1992, Macic caused severe bodily injuries to Bosko Gligorevic by jumping on his back until Gligorevic fainted, hit Borislav Gligorevic with a cable and forced him to eat newspaper sheets.
Presenting her introductory arguments, State Prosecutor Sanja Jukic said that the Prosecution would prove that Macic used his superior position in order to commit “criminal actions”. Dusko Tomic, Defence attorney of the indictee, pointed out that his client was “just a small spot” in the criminal enterprise.
Tomic said that the Supreme Command of the armed forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Ministry of Internal Affairs of Bosnia and Herzegovina bore the biggest responsibility for the crimes in Bradina.
“The rich powerful people were the brain of the crime. At the same time, they appear as witnesses against indictee Macic,” Defence attorney Tomic said.
Tomic said that the Macic case was a unique one, because the Mostar Cantonal Court previously sentenced Macic to 12 years in prison for committing the murder of four persons in Konjic municipality in July 1992, while the current indictment was filed only after Macic had served the original sentence.
“When they arrested him in order to try him for that crime, they could have tried him for this crime at the same time, instead of filing a new indictment against him after he had served his sentence. That is why he admitted guilt for the first count contained in the indictment. He is not guilty of the other charges,” Tomic said.
The first State Prosecution witness is due to testify on October 26, 2011.
M.B.
