30 May 2013 - ICTY

49286
and all the TO Commanders. 4974 The witness heard that the purpose of the meeting was to
discuss the situation of Vukovar. 4975 After the meeting, Stanišić returned to Belgrade. 4976
2315. The Trial Chamber has not received evidence about what was discussed at the meeting
called by Stanišić. Absent such information, the majority, Judge Picard dissenting, is unable
to infer that Stanišić’s presence at the meeting is evidence that he shared the common criminal
purpose. In relation to his frustrations that Vukovar had not surrendered yet, the majority,
Judge Picard dissenting, is similarly unable to infer that this can be interpreted as evidence
that he shared the common criminal purpose. The majority, Judge Picard dissenting, considers
that Stanišić’s actions in relation to Vukovar can also reasonably be interpreted as that his
intent was limited to support for the Serb forces’ successful military take-over of Vukovar.
2316. The Trial Chamber has reviewed the evidence regarding Stanišić’s telephone
conversation with Karadžić in January 1992 and regarding the meetings in Belgrade in
December 1993 and in Dalj in September 1991. For the reasons set out above, the majority,
Judge Picard dissenting, does not consider this evidence sufficient to establish Stanišić’s
intent to further the alleged common criminal purpose through the commission of crimes.
2317. Absent direct evidence indicating that Stanišić shared the intent to further the alleged
common criminal purpose of forcibly and permanently removing the majority of non-Serbs
from large areas of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Trial Chamber will now examine
whether such intent can be inferred from his actions during the Indictment period. The
Prosecution does not argue, and the Trial Chamber does not find that Stanišić carried out any
acts from which it is possible to directly infer intent. Such acts would be those that are
directly related to the alleged common criminal purpose, including criminal acts. Rather, the
Prosecution argues that the intent can be inferred from Stanišić’s acts in relation to the Serb
Forces, including arming, training, and deploying them. 4977 For example, the Prosecution
argues that the Accused’s intent can, in part, be inferred from the evidence that the Accused
knew that people over whom they had authority were committing crimes and continued to
allow them to do so. 4978 According to the Prosecution, the Accused’s intent can also be
inferred from the evidence that they knew that other JCE members were contributing to the
4974 P401 (Witness JF-032, witness statement, 17 May 1999), p. 8; P402 (Witness JF-032, Slobodan Milošević
transcript, 29-31 January 2003), pp. 15179-15180, 15317, 15319; Witness JF-032, T. 4659-4662, 4759-4760.
4975 P401 (Witness JF-032, witness statement, 17 May 1999), p. 8; P402 (Witness JF-032, Slobodan Milošević
transcript, 29-31 January 2003), pp. 15180-15181; Witness JF-032, T. 4662.
4976 P402 (Witness JF-032, Slobodan Milošević transcript, 29-31 January 2003), pp. 15180-15181; Witness JF-
032, T. 4662.
4977 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, 14 December 2012, para. 685.
Case No. IT-03-69-T 832
30 May 2013