Short Sentence or Wrong Conclusions

Prosecutor Munib Halilovic said that the first instance Chamber came to the wrong conclusions, when it decided to acquit Saric of responsibility for the disappearance of Zahid Pandzic on June 14, 1992.

“The Court is not in a dilemma over whether the indictee committed the crime or not, but the way in which it was done – whether he personally took Pandzic away or if Pandzic was taken away as per his order,” Halilovic said, adding that, when deciding on the sentence, the Chamber overrated the mitigating circumstances.

Under the first instance verdict, Saric, former Chief of the Public Safety Station in the Serbian municipality of Centar, was pronounced guilty of having supervised and participated in dividing men, who were held in Jagomir psychiatric hospital, in three groups after having been detained in the hospital on June 19, 1992.  
 
One group of the detainees was sent to the territory controlled by the Army of BiH, 29 men were taken to detention camps in Vogosca, while the third group stayed there. Their bodies were found at Skakavac.
 
The Defence finds the conclusions about the indictee’s function and role most disputable.
 
“There is no evidence that Saric was appointed Chief of the Public Safety Station or released from those duties.
 
The first instance Chamber determined that the indictee was not present in that area on June 19, 1992 and that the actions were committed via his subordinate Tomo, who said, at the trial, that he did not receive any orders,” Defence attorney Ozrenka Jaksic said. 

While mentioning that the witness, who transported the detainees, said that he did it as per an order by military command, Jaksic said that one could not conclude that Saric had de-facto control. 

 
She said that the first instance Chamber did not properly explain its conclusion that a crime against humanity was committed and that it did not take the fact into consideration that an armed conflict happened in that area. Prosecutor Halilovic denied those allegations as unfounded. 
 
“The Defence is putting an equation mark between legitimate military operations and an attack against civilians. It is not questionable that military division lines and armed formations existed, but Nahorevo was deep behind those lines. Even if the weapons confiscation operation had been legitimate, a mass detention or deportation of those people was conducted seven days later,” Halilovic explained.
 
Refik Serdarevic, second Defence attorney of Saric, said that the evidence showed that the attack was conducted by paramilitary and military units and that members of the Territorial Defence offered brief resistance before surrendering, adding that the Army had control over them.  
 
The Appellate Chamber will render a decision concerning the appeals at a later stage.