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.

39279different uniforms in the Krajina. 138 Where a victim, witness or other observer providedevidence of “HV soldiers”, “Croatian soldiers” or similar gener<strong>al</strong> qu<strong>al</strong>ifications, theTri<strong>al</strong> Chamber was satisfied that this qu<strong>al</strong>ification was based at least on the factu<strong>al</strong>observation of a person wearing a military-type uniform. 139 In the absence of indicationsof a factu<strong>al</strong> basis for a given gener<strong>al</strong> qu<strong>al</strong>ification, the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber did not rely on thequ<strong>al</strong>ification without further corroboration. However, if the evidence establishedspeci<strong>al</strong>ized knowledge in recognizing and distinguishing different units, the Tri<strong>al</strong>Chamber did not necessarily require evidence of a further factu<strong>al</strong> basis for a givenqu<strong>al</strong>ification.67. When victims, witnesses or other observers reported a qu<strong>al</strong>ification with a highdegree of specificity (e.g. by identifying the unit of the <strong>al</strong>leged perp<strong>et</strong>rators), the Tri<strong>al</strong>Chamber inferred that this specificity either must have been based on what the personobserved or that the person giving the qu<strong>al</strong>ification possessed speci<strong>al</strong>ized knowledge inthis respect. Consequently, the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber did rely on such qu<strong>al</strong>ifications.68. In relation to assessing the evidence under Count 4, the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber wasmindful that objects taken away in 1995 may have been looted from expelled Croats in1991, thus possibly not being owned by Krajina Serbs. However, this <strong>al</strong>ternativeexplanation could not be made sufficiently plausible by the presented evidence, 140leading the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that objects gener<strong>al</strong>lywere owned by the person(s) in whose house(s) they were located.138 See e.g. T. 2543, 3370-3371, 4717-4718, 4720, 5440, 8201-8202, 9734-9735.139 The Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber employed a similar reasoning for the qu<strong>al</strong>ification of “policemen”.140 See for a gener<strong>al</strong> account of this scenario: D1842 (Joško Morić, witness interview, 17 January 2004),pp. 185-187, 206-208; Joško Morić, T. 25613-25614, 25646, 25670-25671, 25692-25693, 25708-25709,25927.36Case 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!