This post is also available in: Bosnian
Babic was a former military police commander of the Bosnian Serb Army in Bratunac. In his first instance verdict, he was acquitted of charges that he assisted and failed to prevent the detention of non-Serb civilians in the Vuk Karadzic school building in Bratunac in May 1992.
Last year the appellate chamber revoked this verdict and ordered a retrial.
In his closing statements, prosecutor Predrag Tomic said the prosecution has proven that Babic was a commander of the military police and had control over the persons detained at the Vuk Karadzic school building.
“In his capacity as commander, Savo Babic had the responsibility to improve the conditions in that facility, but he failed to do so,” Tomic said. He said that witnesses had said that detainees held at the school were beaten and held in inhumane conditions.
Tomic said following an attack against the Bosniak population in the municipality of Bratunac, male residents were detained in the school. Tomic said Babic was aware of this.
“He was present in Bratunac. He performed the function of commander of military police. All the happenings took place in his immediate vicinity. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that compared to ordinary citizens or policemen, he had insight and knowledge about what was taking place,” Tomic said.
He proposed that Babic be found guilty and sentenced in accordance with the law.
Petko Pavlovic, Babic’s defense attorney, said that no new evidence had been presented at the retrial, and that he didn’t want to present his closing statement again.
Pavlovic commented on the prosecution’s allegations, and said they had arrived at the wrong conclusions about certain witnesses. He also said the prosecution had listed names of people who were not associated with the military police.
“I shall stick to my proposal to the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina to render a verdict of release on the basis of all evidence presented in this case,” Pavlovic said.
Babic addressed the court. He thanked the court for the way he had been treated as a defendant, and said he thought the truth was on his side.
The appellate chamber of the state court is expected to pronounce a verdict on March 12.
