here - Humanitarian Law Center/Fond za humanitarno pravo

The court also found that the defendants Vukšić, Strigić and Hrnjak, on 17 October 1991,
pursuant to a previous agreement between Vukšić and Zoran Madžarac, killed four Croatian
civilians, members of the Čičak family 156 . The defendants transported the Čičaks in a Black
Maria to the ‘Karaševo’ farmhouse. First they took Mate Čičak from the van, after which Vukšić
stabbed him in the neck and then killed him with a shot to the head from a Colt handgun. After
that, Ivan, Vinko and Ante were taken out of the van and killed by Vukšić with shots to the head
and torso. The accused Strigić fired at Ante’s dead body with his automatic weapon.
Stating the reasons for the judgment, the presiding judge said, among other things, that the
responsibility for this crime lay not only with the accused but also with their superior officers
who were aware of the crime and knew who the perpetrators were but failed to prosecute any of
them. The murder of the Čičaks would not have happened, said the court, had Vukšić been
arrested for some earlier crimes against Croatian Civilians that his superior officers knew of.
Analysis of proceedings
The HLC cannot analyze the judgment pronounced on 19 June 2012, because of the Higher
Court’s practice of denying access to non-final judgments delivered by this court. 157 However,
the proceedings which resulted in this judgment were free from substantial violations of CPC
provisions that could have affected the legality and properness of the judgment rendered.
With regard to penalties, i.e. the length of prison sentences imposed, each deserves a separate
comment. For example, 20 years’ prison sentence imposed on Zoran Vukšić, as the maximum
penalty prescribed for such an offence, is appropriate given the number of criminal acts he
committed, his conduct and mental attitude towards the crime. On the other hand, the penalty
imposed on Velimir Bertić does not correspond with the crimes he is charged with. Imposing
prison sentences below the statutory minimum in war crimes trials is unacceptable, regardless of
the age of a perpetrator at the time of the commission of a criminal offence. Given all the
aggravating circumstances present, the position that there existed circumstances that justify such
a lenient penalty is untenable. Despite his very young age (21) at the time of the crime, and the
fact that he did not take part in the killing of civilians, Bertić showed determination and
ruthlessness in the commission of his crime. Such a light penalty for this type of crime will not
help establish a value system that could prevent similar crimes from re-occurring.
A remark given by the presiding judge during the pronunciation of judgment about the
responsibility of the superior officers of the accused deserves special attention. The court
established that the said superior officers were aware of the crimes and knew who the
perpetrators were but failed to prosecute them. The court emphasized that the murder of Čičak
family members would not have happened had Vukšić been arrested by his commanding officers
before. Testimonies by Vukšić’s superiors - Radoslav Zdjelarević, head of the SUP in Beli
156 Vinko, Mate, Ivan and Ante Čičak.
157 For more details regarding this TRZ practice, see page 13.
69