30 May 2013 - ICTY

49247
maintaining Serb military and civilian control and that they possibly did not care whether
non-Serbs would stay in Serb-ruled areas of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina (and perhaps be
suppressed) as long as they would not be in power.
2416. My task is not to assess what likely was the intent of the Accused but whether the
evidence allows me to establish beyond a reasonable doubt what they intended. It may be that
the Accused silently adhered not only to establishing and maintaining Serb military and
civilian control but also to creating purely Serb areas through the forcible and permanent
removal of non-Serbs. Yet, the evidence is ambiguous in that respect. It shows that the
Accused were involved in many activities, often meetings, which may well have served either
or both of these purposes. For example, if the evidence showed that the Accused met with
Milošević or Hadžić or others, it often does not provide details about the content of the
discussions and the positions taken by the Accused. It is very tempting to interpret the
meaning of the Accused’s presence at such meetings in light of the events that followed. But
then one must also keep in mind that these events did not solely involve the commission of
the crimes of deportation and forcible transfer but also the military operations of taking over
towns or villages. To go too easily from presence at meetings via the commission of crimes to
the intent for crimes of each participant of that meeting comes dangerously close to attributing
guilt by association. Another example is the meeting of 28 February 1993 between Simatović,
Mladić, Panić, and Ojdanić at Mount Tara, of which we do not know much more than that its
subject was the planning of Operation Udar. I do recall, apart from that, that the Judgement
states that the evidence was insufficient to find that any crimes were committed during, or as
part of, this operation. The lack of information as to the content of many discussions or
meetings obscures my view on issues which are vital to establishing the mens rea of the
Accused. 5111 Where the evidence does indicate the subject matter of certain meetings, the
discussions often focus on logistical or financial matters. I refer, by way of example, to the
meetings in late 1991 in the SUP Belgrade in relation to policemen to be sent to the SAO
SBWS for training local policemen, and in 1991 in Belgrade about equipment and assistance
to be provided to the SAO SBWS police (see chapter 6.7). Lastly, I want to address
5111 For example, see chapters 6.9 and 6.10 in relation to a meeting attended by Stanišić in Dalj prior to the fall of
Vukovar, and another meeting attended by Simatović prior to the fall of Vukovar. There was insufficient
evidence about the content of these meetings. Must I now assume that the Accused not only discussed the
military operational aspects of the operation, but that they also discussed the forcible and permanent removal of
the majority of non-Serbs and shared the intent to achieve this aim by crimes committed during the operations? It
is perhaps likely that they did, but it is not the only reasonable interpretation. Indifference as to the crimes that
might be committed, and a focus on the military aspects of the operation is still an inference that I cannot qualify
as so unreasonable that I can exclude it.
Case No. IT-03-69-T 871
30 May 2013