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

38545on this evidence and the finding above on when artillery projectiles fell on Gračac, theTrial Chamber finds that sometime between 5 a.m. on 4 August and the evening of thesame day, one or more artillery projectiles struck this house. Based on map D1900, theTrial Chamber finds that this house was located in western Gračac, and was not in oneof the locations the Trial Chamber has identified above as having been impacted byartillery. The evidence does not establish what use, if any, was made of the house.However, based on maps D1900, P88, D135 and (for scale) D439, the Trial Chamberfinds that it was located at a distance of approximately 300 metres from the railwaystation (marked F on P88) and a mill (marked A on D135).1459. According to evidence from Steenbergen, by 6 August 1995 there were betweenten and twenty craters around the intersection marked “D” on maps P537 and D439. Inthis regard, the Trial Chamber also notes that this was one of three intersections inGračac that were marked by Rajčić as planned targets on map P2329. Based on thisevidence, and its finding above on when artillery projectiles fell on Gračac, the TrialChamber finds that sometime between 5 a.m. on 4 August 1995 and the evening of thesame day, between ten and twenty artillery projectiles landed on and around intersection“D”. The Trial Chamber notes the evidence of Hill that on 10 August 1995 he sawartillery holes in the fields leading into Gračac. Based on photographs P523 and P524taken by Steenbergen, which show holes in the fields around intersection “D”, and mapP307, which shows the route taken by Hill into Gračac, the holes seen by Hill werelikely the same as those seen by Steenbergen in the fields surrounding intersection “D”.The Trial Chamber further notes UNMO report P111 stating that artillery impacts werelocated around a main junction in Gračac, and the evidence of Steenbergen, Vurnek,Cvrk and Herman that by 6 August 1995 there were craters or similar shelling-relateddamage on several roads and two or more intersections in Gračac. Based on thisevidence, the Trial Chamber finds that by 6 August 1995, artillery projectiles had struckseveral roads and intersections, including intersection “D”, in Gračac.1460. The Trial Chamber further finds, based on evidence from Cvrk and its findingabove on when artillery projectiles fell on Gračac, that ‘the enemy command building’,which the Trial Chamber understands to refer to the command post of the GračacBrigade, and the police station were hit by artillery on 4 August 1995.1461. The Trial Chamber notes the evidence of Steenbergen that after 5 a.m. on 4August 1995, shells fell close to the houses of other UNMO team members, which were770Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `

38544located in various parts of Gračac town, and that UNMO observed shell cratersthroughout Gračac on 6 August 1995, and the evidence of Sovilj that several areas ofGračac town were shelled. While this evidence is suggestive of widespread shelling, theTrial Chamber has received insufficient evidence indicating the location of the otherUNMO houses, and the locations in which UNMO and Sovilj saw artillery impacts. TheTrial Chamber further notes that Steenbergen testified that it was difficult to distinguishbetween damage caused by shelling and damage caused by arson and recalls its findingin chapter 4.2.7 that sometime between the afternoon of 5 August and 6 August 1995,there was an increase in the number of buildings which were burnt or on fire.Consequently, the Trial Chamber is unable to conclude where in Gračac these artilleryprojectiles fell, and whether the locations were the same as the others identified above.Further evidence from Steenbergen, Herman, Roberts and Cvrk indicates that by 6August 1995, several buildings in Gračac had been hit by artillery. However, theevidence is insufficient for the Trial Chamber to establish which specific buildings, ifany, were hit by artillery in addition to those identified above and, if so, where inGračac town they were located and what use, if any, was made of them.1462. The Trial Chamber has considered the evidence of Janić and Vurnek indicatingthat Gračac had little, if any, artillery damage on the afternoon of 5 August 1995.However, in light of the other evidence considered above and without furtherinformation as to where and how thoroughly Janić and Vurnek looked for artillerydamage in Gračac, the Trial Chamber finds that their observations do not prevail overthe other evidence pertaining to artillery damage in Gračac. According to SVK combatreport D1521, from 5 a.m. on 4 August 1995, Croatian forces launched artillery attacksmainly on civilian objects in inhabited areas of Gračac and elsewhere. However, it isunclear for the Trial Chamber to which objects this report was referring, and on whichbasis the report qualified the objects as “civilian”. The Trial Chamber will therefore noton the basis of this report adopt the conclusions contained therein.1463. The Trial Chamber finally turns to civilian and/or military presence in Gračac on4 August 1995. In relation to military presence, the Trial Chamber notes the evidence ofMrkšić, Novaković, Steenbergen and Roberts indicating that there were no SVKmilitary units, including the Gračac Brigade, in Gračac town at the relevant times.Similarly, according to Sovilj, with the exception of a few individuals in the policestation and municipal assembly building, all Serbs of military age who were able to hold771Case No.: IT-06-90-T 15 April 2011 `

38544located in various parts of Gračac town, and that UNMO observed shell cratersthroughout Gračac on 6 August 1995, and the evidence of Sovilj that sever<strong>al</strong> areas ofGračac town were shelled. While this evidence is suggestive of widespread shelling, theTri<strong>al</strong> Chamber has received insufficient evidence indicating the location of the otherUNMO houses, and the locations in which UNMO and Sovilj saw artillery impacts. TheTri<strong>al</strong> Chamber further notes that Steenbergen testified that it was difficult to distinguishb<strong>et</strong>ween damage caused by shelling and damage caused by arson and rec<strong>al</strong>ls its findingin chapter 4.2.7 that som<strong>et</strong>ime b<strong>et</strong>ween the afternoon of 5 August and 6 August 1995,there was an increase in the number of buildings which were burnt or on fire.Consequently, the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber is unable to conclude where in Gračac these artilleryprojectiles fell, and wh<strong>et</strong>her the locations were the same as the others identified above.Further evidence from Steenbergen, Herman, Roberts and Cvrk indicates that by 6August 1995, sever<strong>al</strong> buildings in Gračac had been hit by artillery. However, theevidence is insufficient for the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber to establish which specific buildings, ifany, were hit by artillery in addition to those identified above and, if so, where inGračac town they were located and what use, if any, was made of them.1462. The Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber has considered the evidence of Janić and Vurnek indicatingthat Gračac had little, if any, artillery damage on the afternoon of 5 August 1995.However, in light of the other evidence considered above and without furtherinformation as to where and how thoroughly Janić and Vurnek looked for artillerydamage in Gračac, the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber finds that their observations do not prevail overthe other evidence pertaining to artillery damage in Gračac. According to SVK combatreport D1521, from 5 a.m. on 4 August 1995, Croatian forces launched artillery attacksmainly on civilian objects in inhabited areas of Gračac and elsewhere. However, it isunclear for the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber to which objects this report was referring, and on whichbasis the report qu<strong>al</strong>ified the objects as “civilian”. The Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber will therefore noton the basis of this report adopt the conclusions contained therein.1463. The Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber fin<strong>al</strong>ly turns to civilian and/or military presence in Gračac on4 August 1995. In relation to military presence, the Tri<strong>al</strong> Chamber notes the evidence ofMrkšić, Novaković, Steenbergen and Roberts indicating that there were no SVKmilitary units, including the Gračac Brigade, in Gračac town at the relevant times.Similarly, according to Sovilj, with the exception of a few individu<strong>al</strong>s in the policestation and municip<strong>al</strong> assembly building, <strong>al</strong>l Serbs of military age who were able to hold771Case 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!