30 May 2013 - ICTY

49266
8. Dissenting opinion of Judge Michèle Picard
2364. This Judgement covers a multitude of events and actors spread over a vast territory and
a long period of time; it addresses almost the entire war in the former Yugoslavia. I will focus
on the most significant aspects in relation to the criminal intent of both Accused. As a
preliminary matter, I wish to make it clear that I also dissent in relation to a number of
deportation incidents, which I will not further elaborate upon in this dissenting opinion. Many
of the findings made with regard to the involvement of the Accused do not, in my view,
address the reality of their actual involvement. Although I do not dissent with respect to every
detail of the findings made in the Judgement, I do dissent with regard to the conclusions
reached by the majority.
2365. I find that I am unable to embrace the opinion of my colleagues, who have decided that
the evidence in our possession could give rise to multiple reasonable interpretations and that,
therefore, the intent to participate (mens rea) in carrying out the common purpose of the joint
criminal enterprise (JCE) was not the sole reasonable interpretation of the events. Quite to the
contrary, I am of the view that the sole reasonable interpretation of the vast amount of
evidence that the Trial Chamber has received is that the Accused shared with the other
members of the JCE the intent to establish their control over the regions pertinent to the
Indictment by deporting the non-Serb population by criminal means.
2366. The close ties the Accused maintained with the criminal groups that committed the
crimes, not only in SAO Krajina, but also in SAO SBWS, RSK, and Bosnia-Herzegovina, as
well as the robust support they provided to them, establish that both of the Accused played a
key role in the process of ethnic cleansing for the purpose of establishing Serbian territories,
and that they did this deliberately because they shared that same intent.
2367. Any ambiguity regarding their criminal intent has been swept away. My colleagues
have reviewed the evidence in an isolated fashion in the course of reaching their conclusion,
whereas it is my profound conviction that it is when one surveys the entire picture that one is
able to view the situation as it really was.
2368. It is likewise necessary, in my view, to assess these events by taking into account the
broader military and political context at that time. Before enumerating the factors that I
consider to be decisive in reaching such a conclusion, I think it useful to recall that the two
Accused are not soldiers but men from the Serbian intelligence service, whose duty it was to
protect the security of the Serbian (not Federal) state, not to participate in military or
Case No. IT-03-69-T 852
30 May 2013