Verdict against Salihovic, Oric and Ahmic Quashed
This post is also available in: Bosnian
In September 2012 the Cantonal Court in Tuzla sentenced Oric to three and Salihovic and Ahmic to one year each for having committed war crimes against civilians on July 17, 1995.
They were sentenced for having beaten up Savo Tesic. They transported Tesic, who was unconscious, from his house yard in Jasenica to Ciljuge village, where an unknown person cut his throat, so he bled to death.
The Cantonal Prosecution in Tuzla appealed the verdict, requesting longer imprisonment sentences for the indictees. The Defence of Oric and Ahmic appealed due to violations of the criminal proceedings and criminal code, wrongly and incompletely determined factual status and decision about the sentence, requesting the Court to either acquit them of charges or order a new trial.
The Supreme Court of BiH upheld the Defence’s appeals, quashed the first instance verdict and ordered a retrial.
In its explanation the Supreme Court said that, according to the first instance verdict, unknown persons committed certain actions against injured party Tesic, leading to the death of the injured party.
“The first instance Court was obliged to specify, in its verdict, the full and concrete reasons on the basis of which it determined that such severe bodily injuries caused to the injured party were the result of actions committed by the indictees,” the explanation says.
The Supreme Court explained that the first instance Court failed to mention the complete reasons on the basis of which one could determine that the indictees were aware of the fact that their actions might abet others to endanger the injured party’s life.
Although the Defence of Salihovic did not appeal the first instance verdict, the Supreme Court quashed the verdict against him too.
“Considering the fact that the reasons for which the first instance verdict has been quashed on the basis of appeals filed by indictees Oric and Ahmic are also beneficial for co-indictee Salihovic, who did not file an appeal,” the decision says.
