30 May 2013 - ICTY

49279
cooperate with Milan Martić from April 1991, Stanišić took the risk that the SAO Krajina
Police would commit crimes when establishing and maintaining Serb control over large areas
of Croatia. However, as above, the Trial Chamber understands such knowledge and
acceptance of the risk that crimes would be committed to be insufficient for the first form of
JCE liability. The majority, Judge Picard dissenting, does not consider that the only
reasonable inference from Stanišić’s actions with regard to the SAO Krajina Police is that he
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
majority, Judge Picard dissenting, allows for the reasonable possibility that Stanišić’s intent in
relation to the SAO Krajina Police was limited to assisting local SAO Krajina authorities in
establishing and maintaining Serb control over large areas of Croatia. Under these
circumstances, the majority, Judge Picard dissenting, does not consider the evidence
regarding Stanišić’s actions in relation to the SAO Krajina Police, in itself or in light of the
totality of the evidence regarding the Accused, to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that
Stanišić shared the intent to further the alleged common criminal purpose through the
commission of crimes.
2333. With regard to the SDG, the Trial Chamber recalls its findings (chapters 3.6.1 and
3.6.2) that in September 1995, the SDG committed the crimes of persecution and murder of
65 non-Serb civilians in Sasina and of eleven non-Serb men in Trnova, both in the context of
the Banja Luka 1995 operation. The Trial Chamber also recalls its findings in chapter 6.4.4
that during this operation, the Accused financed the involvement of the SDG by paying per
diems to a number of SDG members. The evidence does not establish that the Accused
undertook any other actions, such as issuing instructions or providing information or other
support, in relation to the commission of these murders by the SDG members. In light of the
crimes committed by the SDG in 1991 and 1992 in the SAO SBWS, Bijeljina and Zvornik, 5005
the Trial Chamber is satisfied that it was reasonably foreseeable to the Accused that the SDG
would commit murders in Sanski Most municipality, during the period that the Accused
financed them. However, although the evidence establishes that the Accused financed the
SDG at the time of the murders, it does not establish that the Accused financed the SDG with
a view to the commission of the murders. In this respect, the Trial Chamber considers that the
Accused financed the SDG on a number of separate occasions between 1994 and 1995 which
do not appear to have been linked to crimes on which the Trial Chamber has made
5005 The Trial Chamber refers to its findings in chapters 3.2, 3.3.1, and 3.8.2.
Case No. IT-03-69-T 839
30 May 2013