Longer Sentence, Acquittal or Retrial
This post is also available in: Bosnian
Federal Prosecutor Tihomir Jurko told the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina that he stuck to an appeal, under which the Cantonal Prosecution in Mostar requested a longer imprisonment sentence against the indictee.
The Defence of the indictee appealed due to violations of the criminal proceedings and law, as well as the incompletely and wrongly determined factual status. It proposed to the Court to either acquit the indictee of charges or order a retrial.
In 2012 the Mostar Cantonal Court sentenced Jarak, former member of “Knez Domagoj” Brigade with the Croatian Defence Council, HVO, with having participated in the unlawful detention and forced resettlement of the Bosniak population from Stolac.
According to the verdict, on July 17, 1993 the indictee, who was accompanied by two other HVO members, arrested three people in Osanici village and took them to a house, where the HVO Command was situated, knowing that they would be taken to Kostana hospital and Dretelj later on. Also, he was sentenced for forced resettlement of the population from Stolac. Women and children were transported from Stolac to Blagaj, while men were taken to detention camps.
Jarak was acquitted of the charges that he visited Munib and Muhiba Topic at their house several times and threatened them by saying that he would set them on fire and that Muhiba Topic committed suicide due to his threats.
Branko Karadeglic, Defence attorney of the indictee, said that the Cantonal Prosecution revised the indictment at the last hearing and that the Defence was not enabled to present evidence related to those circumstances.
“The Prosecutor added the taking of people to Kostana hospital. We were caught by surprise. We are sorry because the first instance Court did not allow us to present evidence related to that circumstance,” the Defence attorney explained.
In its appeal the Cantonal Prosecution requested the Supreme Court to also pronounce the indictee guilty of the charges of which the first instance court acquitted him. Prosecutor Jurko said that he considered that the violation of the factual status had happened.
The Defence said that the first instance Court ignored the fact that three military formations existed in the Stolac area during the critical period of time and that military service was obligatory for local residents.
“Each citizen represented a potential threat to others. The injured parties, former members of HVO, left the unit voluntarily. As soon as they had a chance to do it, they pointed their guns, which they had received while being members of HVO, towards HVO members,” Karadeglic said.
Indictee Jarak did not attend the presentation of appeals. His Defence attorney said that his absence was caused by health reasons.
The Appellate Chamber will render a decision concerning the appeals at a later stage.
