This post is also available in: Bosnian
The Bosnian state prosecution proposed to extend custody measures for Milisav Ikonic and Zoran Ilic, both suspected of having committed war crimes in Rogatica. The defendant’s defense attorneys both objected to this proposal.
Ikonic, Ilic, and Dragan Lubarda were arrested on March 4, 2015. They are suspected of having participated in the rape of Bosniak women in Rogatica in the summer of 1992. The suspects are all former members of the Bosnian Serb Army’s Rogatica Brigade.
Prosecutor Miroslav Janjic said the defendants could potentially attempt to influence witnesses, and that Ilic might attempt to influence accomplices or destroy evidence.
Janjic said the prosecution was currently searching for one of the injured parties. He said after her hearing, he planned on interrogating fighters who had fought alongside Ikonic.
Janjic said according to witness testimony, Ilic is also suspected of having participated in the enforced disappearance of 17 men from Rudo in the municipality of Rogatica. Janjic said those 17 men “have never been seen alive again.” As such, Janjic said there was a risk that Ilic could influence his former fellow soldiers, who have yet to be interrogated.
The defense attorneys of the suspects requested that the extension of custody measures be rejected, on the grounds that the request was not made in a timely manner.
Zorana Carkic, Ikonic’s defense attorney, said the state prosecution had not offered any new evidence in the case. She said the prosecution only interrogated two witnesses during her client’s custody. Carkic added that her client and his alleged criminal offenses were not mentioned in the testimony of certain witnesses.
In response to accusations from the state prosecution that Ikonic had threatened a witness, Carkic said the Rogatica police had confirmed that no criminal proceedings were pending or underway against her client.
Zoran Ilic’s defense said the state prosecution’s proposal made it clear that “reasonable suspicion has been spread.” Ilic’s defense said his client has the right to know what he is suspected of in a timely manner, otherwise his right to defend himself is jeopardised.
The court will decide on this proposal at a later stage.
