Gotovina et al Judgement Volume I - ICTY

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

12.07.2015 Views

38723outside her home when a group of soldiers arrived at her house. 4183 The soldiers referredto Urukalo as a “Chetnik whore”, smashed some of her belongings, and fired shots ather house. 4184 Then the soldiers forced her to strip down to her underwear and playbasketball with a naked elderly neighbour, Dušan Urukalo, in the yard behind herhome. 4185 Eventually, the soldiers told her that she could get dressed, and she wentinside to clothe herself. The soldiers then left, and the witness estimated that they couldnot have made it more than half way through her village by the time her grandson,Joško Šiklić, arrived at her home in his military vehicle. 4186 Joško Šiklić was the son ofUrukalo’s daughter Slavic, who married a Croat, Dane Šiklić. Joško told Urukalo thathe belonged to the 1st Brigade. Urukalo was in tears and still undressed when hergrandson arrived. He asked Urukalo to tell him who had forced her to strip, but she didnot disclose the names of the soldiers to her grandson, nor did she ask him to go afterthe soldiers, because she was afraid that they would kill her grandson. 4187 According toa statement taken from her grandson, with which the witness was confronted in court,Urukalo never told her grandson about any mistreatment by soldiers. 41881160. In relation to this incident, the Trial Chamber considers Draginja Urukalo’stestimony credible despite the contradictory claims in Joško Šiklić’s statement. Theevidence indicates that around 5 or 6 August or 12 or 13 August 1995 in Biskupija, anunknown number of persons fired shots at the house of Draginja Urukalo, a 73-year-oldSerb, and then forced her to strip down to her underwear and play basketball with anaked elderly neighbour named Dušan Urukalo. Based on the witness’s description ofthe persons as soldiers, the Trial Chamber is satisfied that the persons wore militarytypeuniforms. Further considering that they referred to the victim as a “Chetnik”indicates that they were Croatian. However, the above evidence does not establish towhich armed forces, if any, the alleged perpetrators belonged. The Trial Chamber hasnot received sufficient evidence about which armed forces, if any, were present in or inthe vicinity of Biskupija at the time. The Trial Chamber is therefore unable to draw any4183 P964 (Draginja Urukalo, witness statement, 3 September 2003), para. 4; Draginja Urukalo, T. 10091-10092.4184 P964 (Draginja Urukalo, witness statement, 3 September 2003), para. 4; Draginja Urukalo, T. 10091.4185 P964 (Draginja Urukalo, witness statement, 3 September 2003), paras 5-6; Draginja Urukalo, T.10092; P965 (Photographs of the basketball court in Draginja Urukalo’s yard).4186 P964 (Draginja Urukalo, witness statement, 3 September 2003), para. 6; Draginja Urukalo, T. 10093-10094.4187 P964 (Draginja Urukalo, witness statement, 3 September 2003), paras 6-7; Draginja Urukalo, T.10094.4188 See Draginja Urukalo, T. 10100-10102.592Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `

38722conclusions regarding the identity or affiliation of the alleged perpetrators. Under thesecircumstances, the Trial Chamber will not further consider this incident in relation toCounts 1, 8, and 9 of the Indictment.593Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `

38722conclusions regarding the identity or affiliation of the <strong>al</strong>leged perp<strong>et</strong>rators. Under thesecircumstances, the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber will not further consider this incident in relation toCounts 1, 8, and 9 of the Indictment.593Case 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!