here - Humanitarian Law Center/Fond za humanitarno pravo

adequate education or relevant previous experience working with people who have experienced
serious traumas. As a result, victims who are expected to testify do not receive adequate
assistance and are often exposed to secondary victimisation, affecting the quality of the
proceedings and the facts to be established on the basis of their testimonies. The Skočić case best
illustrates the effects of the poor performance of this service in 2012.
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and International Criminal
Tribunal for Rwanda established important victim and witness protection mechanisms but neither
the same nor similar practices have been used in war crimes trials in Serbia. Elsewhere in the
region, the Croatian Ministry of Justice has established a Division for Probation and Victim and
Witness Support whose units and departments offer adequate support to victims and witnesses
and the effects of this are visible during the examination of witnesses in Croatia.
5. Court of Appeal (War Crimes Chamber) in Belgrade an example of promptness
and efficiency
In 2012 the War Crimes Chamber of the Court of Appeal in Belgrade delivered five judgements
following appeals of first-instance rulings of the High Court in Belgrade and onethe ruling of
Court of Appeal in Belgrade. As in 2011 20 the Court of Appeal again acted promptly and reached
decisions on appeals in all the cases in which first-instance and second-instance rulings had been
delivered in 2011.
6. Sentencing policy
Sentencing policy in proceedings for war crimes in Serbia, except in cases conducted by the
courts of general jurisdiction, is established by the Court of Appeal in Belgrade and its judgments
are final. In 2012 this court handed down four decisions on merits, whereby these cases were
conclusively adjudicated. Sentencing by courts hearing war crimes cases is generally poor. The
courts, almost as a rule, tend to give far too much weight to mitigating circumstances and not
enough to aggravating circumstances. Also, the courts frequently make use of the option of
penalty reduction, which although available to them under the legislation, is not an obligation,
and doing so runs contrary to lawmakers’ intentions, which was to use this option only in
exceptional circumstances. It is quite inappropriate therefore to consider the aggregate weight of
mitigating circumstances found as the equivalent of one particularly mitigating circumstance.
Additionally, at least two such particular circumstances must be identified, with each of them
being special and not being an essential element of the crime charged. Hence, it can be concluded
20
Report on War Crimes Trials in Serbia in 2011, HLC, p. 9.
10