12.07.2015 Views

Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

393047. The three Accused are each charged as participants in a joint crimin<strong>al</strong> enterprise.The <strong>al</strong>leged common crimin<strong>al</strong> purpose of the joint crimin<strong>al</strong> enterprise was thepermanent remov<strong>al</strong> of the Serb population from the Krajina region by force, fear orthreat of force, persecution, forced displacement, transfer and deportation, as well asappropriation and destruction of property. The Prosecution <strong>al</strong>leges that in addition to thecrimes forming part of the joint crimin<strong>al</strong> enterprise, the crimes of murder, inhumaneacts, and cruel treatment were committed, and were foreseeable as a possibleconsequence of the execution of the enterprise.8. In addition or in the <strong>al</strong>ternative, the Indictment charged each accused withindividu<strong>al</strong> crimin<strong>al</strong> liability under Article 7(1) of the Statute for <strong>al</strong>legedly planning,instigating and/or ordering each of the crimes charged in the Indictment; and/or aidingand ab<strong>et</strong>ting their planning, preparation and/or execution. Each accused is <strong>al</strong>so chargedwith individu<strong>al</strong> crimin<strong>al</strong> liability under Article 7(3) of the Statute for knowingly failingto prevent or punish the crimin<strong>al</strong> acts and/or omissions <strong>al</strong>leged in each count of theIndictment to have been committed by his subordinates, over whom they are each<strong>al</strong>leged to have possessed effective control.9. The Defence, on beh<strong>al</strong>f of each of the three Accused, have submitted that theAccused are not guilty and should therefore be acquitted.10. The presentation of evidence in the case lasted for well over two years andincluded the hearing of witnesses c<strong>al</strong>led by the Prosecution, <strong>al</strong>l three Defence teams,and the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber, as well as the tendering of a large number of documents by theparties. The amount of evidence provided the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber with a major ch<strong>al</strong>lenge andit spent significant time and effort reviewing and ev<strong>al</strong>uating this evidence. Although itconsidered <strong>al</strong>l the evidence before it, the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber could, due to the sheer volume,only explicitly address some of it. In this respect, it focused on the best availableevidence and the evidence to which the parties drew its attention in their fin<strong>al</strong> briefs andarguments.11. When reviewing the evidence in this case, the picture that emerged was that of <strong>al</strong>arge number of crimes being committed against numerous victims throughout theIndictment area. In particular, the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber heard and received many accounts ofburned, destroyed, and looted property. In some instances, the destruction encompassedwhole villages or parts of villages. The Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber <strong>al</strong>so received sever<strong>al</strong> accounts of11Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!