Lalicic’s Verdict on May 21
This post is also available in: Bosnian
Lalicic has been charged with the rape and sexual abuse of a woman and the physical and mental abuse of a detained civilian in 1992 and 1993.
Prosecutor Vladimir Simovic said all of the evidence presented at the trial indicated that Lalicic unquestionably committed the crimes he has been charged with under the revised indictment.
Simovic said he considered it evident that the defendant, whom witnesses recognized, was a member of the Bosnian Army and a guard in a detention facility located in the basement of an unfinished building in Hrasnica. He also said it was clear that the injured parties were unarmed civilians.
Simovic said the prosecution had proven allegations in the indictment through witness testimony.
He said the allegations were particularly bolstered by testimony given by injured party and protected witness S.M., who said that she’d been raped in an improvised bathroom when male prisoners were taken out to perform forced labour. She confirmed that once she was taken to a room where the defendant slapped her twice, pulled her by the hair, hit her with a baseball bat and threatened her.
The prosecution said witness Radovan Dubljevic heard the injured party’s cries, but didn’t incriminate the defendant. He said Dubljevic said the prisoners were physically mistreated.
Simovic said Dubljevic was taken to other locations, mainly in Butmir, to perform forced labour in 1993. He said the defendant beat Dubljevic several times.
The prosecution also mentioned testimony given by a protected witness for the defense known as O-1, who had said there was no mistreatment in Hrasnica, but during cross-examination had said that she had “heard some cries.”
Lalicic’s defense attorney, Sabina Mehic, said she believed the prosecution hadn’t proven the allegations contained in the indictment.
Mehic said “the prosecutor requests the court to sentence the defendant on the basis of two, three sentences.”
She said the prosecution could have examined S.M. in greater detail during her testimony.
Mehic said the prosecution hadn’t proven that the defendant committed even one rape, let alone ten, and said the injured party did not describe the act of the rape itself, although she should have done so for the sake of providing detailed testimony.
Mehic said an expert examination of the injured party’s mental health also should have been ordered.
According to Mehic, defense witnesses Sead Tekac, Sead Corbo and O-1 said no one saw or heard anything happening in the bathroom, which had no doors, and that there was always more than one guard present.
Mehic said Tekac described the defendant as a professional soldier.
Mehic said that with regards to Dubljevic’s testimony, it wasn’t clear whether he was referring to the defendant, since he also mentioned another person in his testimony.
