Changes to Testimonies Worry Bosnias Lawyers
This post is also available in: Bosnian
Lawyers say witnesses for the Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina are increasingly changing their testimonies in war-crime trials, which often affects the outcome of verdicts.
Witnesses attribute these differences in the trials to blackmail on the part of members of State Investigation and Protection Agency, SIPA, or simply say they became scared.
SIPA says it has no knowledge of investigators of the agency taking statements contrary to the rules.
They recall of one example where the witness reported an investigator for having put pressure on him on his testimony regarding crimes committed in Srebrenica.
However, they said later checks showed that the interrogation had been conducted properly.
The law says taking statements should always be recorded, particularly in the investigation phase.
But SIPA says that when witnesses are questioned on the ground, they are often unable to do so.
Before testimony begins, each witness reads out the oath and the Trial Chamber warns him or her that perjury is a criminal offence, for which one can be imprisoned.
Lawyers believe that changes in testimonies must be more carefully investigated in order to determine who is telling the truth.
Meanwhile, the judges state that if a verdict is based on the testimony of one witness, that testimony must be crystal clear. Otherwise, the verdict must be an acquittal.
Only one perjury conviction:
Since the War Crimes Department of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina began work in 2005, only one person, Bosko Lazic, has ever been convicted of perjury while one other, Murat Silajdzija, was convicted of attempting to change his statement.
In a second-instance verdict, Lazic was sentenced to one year and three months for perjury and Silajdzija to one year in prison.
The Prosecution may file charges for perjury after a verdict becomes effective in a trial in which the witness gave a controversial statement. Such an indictment was raised against Lazic in late 2011.
During the investigation process, Lazic had told the State Prosecution and SIPA that after entering the Vuk Karadzic school in Bratunac, he learned that Zoran Zivanovic had shot prisoners from Srebrenica.
However, at the trial, he said he was not sure whether what he told investigators and prosecutors was the truth.
He explained the difference by the fact that he had been frightened during interrogation in the investigation and had said what he knew and what he didnt know.
The verdict against Lazic, which the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina issued in February, stated that his first statements had serious consequences for Zivanovic, who, by the time the sentence was issued, had spent nearly two years in custody.
Two protected witnesses of the Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, meanwhile, were supposed to be crucial for proving the claim that Zoran Ilic committed war crimes against prisoners from Srebrenica in July 1995.
But at the trial, this changed. At the trial, witness NI-104 said that Ilic – by firing from a rifle near the depot of the farming cooperative in Kravica near Bratunac into a crowd of previously shot prisoners – exercised verification in order that there were no survivors.
During the investigation, this witness gave several statements, but in one he did not mention Ilic at all. He explained the difference by the fact that he later realized the seriousness of the situation and had decided to say everything.
A second witness, NI-101 was supposed to confirm at the trial that Ilic killed one prisoner from Srebrenica during the search of a field near Bratunac.
However, in his testimony he stated that the investigator had forced him to say that Ilic did it, although he considered that someone named Simo had in fact done it.
Towards the end of the trial, prosecutor Erik Larson noted that Ilic had not even been important until witness NI- 101 mentioned him in the investigation.
Larson said he believed that Ilic had threatened NI-101, which was why he cha
