Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

cpi.hr
12.07.2015 Views

39115same body he had first seen on 5 August 1995) on 11 or 12 August 1995. 1451 However,on 13 May 2008 he testified that he himself had only seen one body, and that he hadbeen told about the others by a woman who was not “quite sane”. 1452 Further, whenasked on 13 May 2008 to confirm in court the accuracy of the statement given in 1997,Witness 69 stated that a stroke suffered after he gave the 1997 statement had affectedhis memory, but he was eventually able to confirm the content of the statement, and itsadmission of which was not objected by the parties. 1453 Having observed his demeanourin court and analyzed his testimony in its entirety, also in relation to other availableevidence, the Trial Chamber found him credible in relation to the events he personallywitnessed on 5 August 1995.350. Dmitar Rašuo was last seen alive in Žagrović on 5 August 1995, and on 13August 1995 his body was identified by ðuja Nonković in the same village. Around 6p.m. on 5 August 1995, Witness 69 heard a burst of gunfire shortly after Dmitar Rašuo,aged 81, went with a uniformed man behind a house. Although Witness 69 was not ableto identify with certainty from which direction the burst of gunfire came from, he alsostated that “it’s like it was half a kilometre away, when, in fact, it was 50 metres”. TheTrial Chamber also considered the Gotovina Defence’s contention, contained inparagraph 938 of their final brief, that the burst of gunfire heard by Witness 69 wasconnected to ongoing armed clashes in the vicinity of Žagrović. However, the evidenceonly indicates armed fighting in the Golubić area on 5 August 1995, with Golubić beingabout 5 km away from Žagrović. Considering that Witness 69 heard the burst shortlyafter Dmitar Rašuo and the uniformed man disappeared from Witness 69’s sight, as wellas the distance between Golubić and Zagrović, the Trial Chamber finds that theuniformed man fired the burst. The Trial Chamber has further considered the forensicevidence, according to which the victim died of a gunshot injury to the chest.Considering the above, the Trial Chamber finds that the uniformed man seen by Witness69 shot and killed Dmitar Rašuo, a Serb, shortly after they disappeared behind thehouse. Based on the presence of Croatian insignia on the perpetrator’s uniform, as wellas on the fact that on 5 August 1995 the 3rd Infantry Battalion of the HV 4th GuardsBrigade operated in the area of Žagrović, the Trial Chamber finds that the perpetratorwas a member of the HV. Therefore, the Trial Chamber will further consider this1451 P179 (Witness 69, witness statement, 31 May 1997), pp. 3-4.1452 Witness 69, T. 2699.1453 Witness 69, T. 2700-2702.200Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `

39114incident in relation to Counts 1, 6, and 7 of the Indictment in chapters 5.3.2 and 5.8.2(b) below.351. Witness 69 last saw Ilija Petko and Milica Petko, on 5 August 1995 in Žagrović.Ilija Petko was unarmed. After he witnessed the HV soldier taking Dmitar behind thehouse, Witness 69, who was hiding in the woods, saw a group of people referred to asHV soldiers in the village. In this respect, the Trial Chamber recalls its findings inchapter 4.2.9 that these soldiers were HV soldiers. Around 10 p.m. on the same day andon 11 or 12 August 1995, Witness 69 saw in a yard in Žagrović Ilija Petko’s dead bodylying on its back in a puddle of blood. According to the forensic evidence, both IlijaPetko and Milica Petko died of gunshot wounds to the chest. The Trial Chamber hasconsidered the HV soldiers’ presence and behaviour in Žagrović on 5 August 1995, aswell as Witness’s 69 evidence that on that day “there was shooting all around” and thefact that, as in the case of Dmitar Rašuo, gunshot wounds to the chest caused the deathof Ilija and Milica Petko. The Trial Chamber has further considered the fact that IlijaPetko was found dead on the day when Dmitar Rašuo was killed. On this basis, the TrialChamber finds that one or more members of the HV present in Žagrović on 5 August1995 shot and killed Ilija and Milica Petko. The Trial Chamber will further consider thisincident in relation to Counts 1, 6, and 7 of the Indictment in chapters 5.3.2 and 5.8.2(b) below.352. ðuro Rašuo’s body was found and identified by a fellow villager on 13 August1995 at the doorstep of ðorñe Rašuo’s house. The body was about two metres from thebody of Dmitar Rašuo. The Trial Chamber has received no evidence concerning theexact time of ðuro Rašuo’s death, nor has it received evidence concerning hiswhereabouts on 5 August 1995. In addition, it cannot be established with sufficientcertainty whether the forensic evidence pointed out in paragraph 674 of theProsecution’s final brief relates to ðuro Rašuo. The Trial Chamber has also receivedinsufficient evidence to make any finding on the unidentified body in Schedule no. 3 ofthe Indictment. Under these circumstances, the Trial Chamber will not further considerthese parts of this incident in relation to Counts 1, 6, and 7 of the Indictment.201Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `

39115same body he had first seen on 5 August 1995) on 11 or 12 August 1995. 1451 However,on 13 May 2008 he testified that he himself had only seen one body, and that he hadbeen told about the others by a woman who was not “quite sane”. 1452 Further, whenasked on 13 May 2008 to confirm in court the accuracy of the statement given in 1997,Witness 69 stated that a stroke suffered after he gave the 1997 statement had affectedhis memory, but he was eventu<strong>al</strong>ly able to confirm the content of the statement, and itsadmission of which was not objected by the parties. 1453 Having observed his demeanourin court and an<strong>al</strong>yzed his testimony in its entir<strong>et</strong>y, <strong>al</strong>so in relation to other availableevidence, the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber found him credible in relation to the events he person<strong>al</strong>lywitnessed on 5 August 1995.350. Dmitar Rašuo was last seen <strong>al</strong>ive in Žagrović on 5 August 1995, and on 13August 1995 his body was identified by ðuja Nonković in the same village. Around 6p.m. on 5 August 1995, Witness 69 heard a burst of gunfire shortly after Dmitar Rašuo,aged 81, went with a uniformed man behind a house. Although Witness 69 was not abl<strong>et</strong>o identify with certainty from which direction the burst of gunfire came from, he <strong>al</strong>sostated that “it’s like it was h<strong>al</strong>f a kilom<strong>et</strong>re away, when, in fact, it was 50 m<strong>et</strong>res”. TheTri<strong>al</strong> Chamber <strong>al</strong>so considered the <strong>Gotovina</strong> Defence’s contention, contained inparagraph 938 of their fin<strong>al</strong> brief, that the burst of gunfire heard by Witness 69 wasconnected to ongoing armed clashes in the vicinity of Žagrović. However, the evidenceonly indicates armed fighting in the Golubić area on 5 August 1995, with Golubić beingabout 5 km away from Žagrović. Considering that Witness 69 heard the burst shortlyafter Dmitar Rašuo and the uniformed man disappeared from Witness 69’s sight, as wellas the distance b<strong>et</strong>ween Golubić and Zagrović, the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber finds that theuniformed man fired the burst. The Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber has further considered the forensicevidence, according to which the victim died of a gunshot injury to the chest.Considering the above, the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber finds that the uniformed man seen by Witness69 shot and killed Dmitar Rašuo, a Serb, shortly after they disappeared behind thehouse. Based on the presence of Croatian insignia on the perp<strong>et</strong>rator’s uniform, as wellas on the fact that on 5 August 1995 the 3rd Infantry Batt<strong>al</strong>ion of the HV 4th GuardsBrigade operated in the area of Žagrović, the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber finds that the perp<strong>et</strong>ratorwas a member of the HV. Therefore, the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber will further consider this1451 P179 (Witness 69, witness statement, 31 May 1997), pp. 3-4.1452 Witness 69, T. 2699.1453 Witness 69, T. 2700-2702.200Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!