1 Wednesday, 16 November 2005

2 [Judgement]

3 [Open session]

4 [The accused entered court]

5 --- Upon commencing at 10.02 a.m.

6 JUDGE LIU: Well, good morning, ladies and gentlemen. It has been

7 a long time since last we sat in this courtroom.

8 Mr. Court Deputy, would you please call the case.

9 THE REGISTRAR: Good morning, Your Honours. This is case number

10 IT-01-48-T, the Prosecutor versus Sefer Halilovic.

11 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

12 For the sake of the record, could we have the appearances, please.

13 For the Prosecution.

14 MR. WEINER: Good morning, Your Honours. For the Office of the

15 Prosecutor, Phil Weiner; with me to my left is Sureta Chana; behind us is

16 attorney David Re; attorney Manoj Sachdeva; and to my right is the case

17 manager, Ana Vrljic.

18 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

19 And for the Defence.

20 MR. MORRISSEY: Yes, may it please the Cour. My name is Peter

21 Morrissey I appear for Mr. Halilovic, and with me, Mr. Mettraux.

22 JUDGE LIU: Thank you.

23 Mr. Halilovic, can you follow the proceedings in a language that

24 you could understand?

25 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Yes. Yes, Your Honour. I can

1 understand the proceedings.

2 JUDGE LIU: I understand that you just come back from your

3 provisional release. How was your stay in Sarajevo?

4 THE ACCUSED: [Interpretation] Thanks to Your Honours' indulgence,

5 it was very pleasant and useful.

6 JUDGE LIU: Thank you very much. You may sit down, please.

7 Trial Chamber I, Section A is sitting today to render the

8 judgement in the case of Prosecutor versus Sefer Halilovic.

9 For the purposes of this hearing, the Trial Chamber will summarise

10 briefly its findings, emphasising that this is a summary only, that the

11 only authoritative account of Trial Chamber's findings and of its reasons

12 for those findings is to be found in the written judgement, copies of

13 which will be made available to the parties and to the public at the

14 conclusion of this hearing.

15 This trial against the accused, Sefer Halilovic, started on the

16 31st of January, 2005, and closed on the 31st of August, 2005. During

17 that time, the Trial Chamber heard the evidence of 41 live witnesses and

18 admitted the testimony of another 14 witnesses pursuant to Rule 92 bis.

19 The Trial Chamber admitted approximately 500 exhibits during the trial.

20 The alleged case:

21 The indictment against Sefer Halilovic concerns murders alleged to

22 have been committed by troops belonging to the Army of the Republic of

23 Bosnia and Herzegovina in the villages of Grabovica and Uzdol in the

24 Jablanica and the Prozor area in Herzegovina in September 1993 during a

25 military operation allegedly called "Operation Neretva." The Prosecution

1 alleges that Sefer Halilovic was the commander of this operation, and as

2 such, the troops involved in the Operation Neretva was under his command

3 and control.

4 The Prosecution alleges that the operation was commanded and

5 coordinated from a forward command post, or IKM, in Jablanica. One axis

6 of attack, which was in the area where Grabovica is situated, was

7 commanded by Zulfikar Alispago and involved parts of the units from the

8 ABiH 1st Corps. These units came from the 9th Motorised Brigade, the

9 10th Mountain Brigade, and the 2nd Independent Battalion.

10 Another axis of attack, which was in the area where Uzdol is

11 situated, involved the Prozor Independent Battalion and was commanded by

12 Enver Buza.

13 It is alleged that Sefer Halilovic, knowing of the 9th and 10th

14 Brigades' notorious reputations for being criminal and uncontrolled in

15 behaviour, ordered the deployment of parts of units of these brigades to

16 Herzegovina. It is further alleged between the 7th and the 8th of

17 September, 1993, the unit of the 9th Brigade and a part of the unit of the

18 10th Brigade as well as the 2nd Independent Battalion were billeted in the

19 village of Grabovica.

20 The indictment alleges that between the 8th and the 9th of

21 September, 1993, 33 Bosnian Croat villagers were killed in Grabovica. The

22 indictment further alleges that Sefer Halilovic had knowledge of the

23 criminal reputation of the 9th and 10th Brigades and had been present on

24 the 8th September when Vehbija Karic, a member of the inspection team,

25 told the troops that they should try those Bosnian Croat civilians

1 summarily and throw them into Neretva River if the villagers did not

2 allow the soldiers to be billeted in their houses. In light of this, the

3 indictment alleges that Sefer Halilovic, once notified during the night of

4 the 8th of September about killing of the civilians, was duty-bound to act

5 urgently to prevent the commission of any further crimes.

6 According to the Prosecution, Sefer Halilovic was ordered on the

7 12th of September by Rasim Delic to reconsider the scope of Neretva 93

8 operation, to isolate the perpetrators of the crimes in Grabovica, and to

9 take active measures and to immediately report on the measures he had

10 taken. It is alleged that Sefer Halilovic failed to implement the order

11 of Rasim Delic, resulting in a failure to punish the perpetrators of the

12 crime.

13 The indictment also alleges that on the 14th of September, 1993,

14 in the course of the operation, the Prozor Independent Battalion attacked

15 the village of Uzdol and killed 29 Bosnian Croat civilians and one HVO

16 prisoner of war.

17 The Prosecution alleges that Sefer Halilovic, by virtue of his

18 position and authority of commander of Operation Neretva had effective

19 control over the units subordinated to him, including the 9th Brigade, the

20 10th Brigade, the 2nd Independent Battalion, and the Prozor Independent

21 Battalion.

22 In view of these alleged facts, Sefer Halilovic is charged with

23 murder, punishable under Article 3 of the Statute as recognised by

24 Article 3(1)(a) of the Geneva Conventions. The indictment alleges that

25 Sefer Halilovic incurs criminal responsibility under Article 7(3) of the

1 Statute, since notwithstanding his duties as a commander, Sefer Halilovic

2 did not take effective measures to prevent the killings of civilians in

3 Grabovica and did not take steps to carry out a proper investigation to

4 identify the perpetrators of the killings in both Grabovica and Uzdol and

5 as commander of the operation to punish them accordingly.

6 The accused:

7 On the 25th of May, 1992, Sefer Halilovic was appointed by the

8 Presidency of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as commander of the

9 Territorial Defence. After July 1992, he was the chief of the General

10 Staff of the ABiH until 18 August, 1992, when the RBiH Presidency formed

11 five corps of the ABiH with Sefer Halilovic as chief of the Main Staff of

12 the ABiH. Sefer Halilovic served as the supreme ABiH commander until

13 8th June, 1993, when the president of the Republic of Bosnia and

14 Herzegovina issued a decision restructuring the ABiH supreme command

15 headquarters and creating a new position of commander of the Main Staff,

16 which was filled by Rasim Delic, while Sefer Halilovic retained the

17 position of chief of the Main Staff of the ABiH.

18 On the 18th July, 1993, Alija Izetbegovic issued a further

19 decision making the chief of the Main Staff a deputy commander, thus

20 increasing the number of the deputy commanders to three. According to the

21 decision, the deputy commanders would assume the duties of the chief of

22 the Main Staff on rotational basis.

23 Facts in relation to Grabovica:

24 The Trial Chamber has found that in order to conduct combat

25 operations in Herzegovina to lift HVO blockade of Mostar at the time

1 relevant to the indictment, units of the 9th Brigade, 10th Brigade, and

2 the 2nd Independent Battalion, and all subordinated to the ABiH 1st Corps,

3 were sent from Sarajevo to to the Jablanica sector. This was the area

4 where Grabovica was situated and it was at the time the area of

5 responsibility of the 6th Corps. The Trial Chamber found that those units

6 were deployed to Herzegovina following an order issued by Sefer Halilovic.

7 Grabovica was a village inhabited by Bosnian Croats. The Trial

8 Chamber notes that Grabovica had been under ABiH control since May 1993

9 and the relationship between the residents of Grabovica and the ABiH

10 soldiers who were stationed there was good and there was no other

11 accommodations available for the arriving troops. They were supposed to

12 be billeted with the inhabitants of the village.

13 The Trial Chamber has been provided with evidence concerning the

14 nature of the 9th and 10th Brigades, referred to in the indictment as

15 having notorious reputations of being criminal and uncontrolled. The

16 evidence shows that members of both brigades not only demonstrated a lack

17 of discipline, but also took civilians to dig trenches at the front line

18 and committed thefts and other forms of misappropriation. However, the

19 Trial Chamber found that these misconducts were not comparable to the

20 crimes committed in Grabovica. The Trial Chamber notes in this respect

21 the testimony of the 1st Corps commander, Vahid Karavelic, who, while

22 knowing of the breaches of discipline and the previous behaviour of

23 members of those brigades, said that it never occurred to him that they

24 might commit atrocities against civilians in Grabovica.

25 The Trial Chamber has been provided with the evidence as to

1 problems encountered by the troops when trying to accommodate themselves

2 with the inhabitants of Grabovica. The Trial Chamber has found the

3 evidence inconsistent as to the circumstances of the alleged statement of

4 Vehbija Karic, in particular when and where it took place and whether

5 Sefer Halilovic was present; and moreover, does not find the witnesses

6 reliable in this respect. The Trial Chamber has further found that it has

7 not been proven that Vehbija Karic made the alleged comments or that Sefer

8 Halilovic was present at the time.

9 The Trial Chamber has been presented with evidence that with the

10 arrival of the unit of the 9th Brigade the atmosphere in the village of

11 Grabovica changed and acts of violence started occurring. Throughout the

12 night of the 8th of September, shooting was heard in the village. One

13 witness testified that she heard women wailing and crying, and she was

14 just quiet sitting on the floor and awaiting her fate. The Trial Chamber

15 has established that by the early afternoon of the 9th of September, a

16 number of inhabitants has been murdered by members of the ABiH units

17 present in Grabovica at the time. The Trial Chamber takes particular note

18 of the callous way in which the member of the 9th Brigade shot Pero Maric

19 while sitting at a table, facing his victim. The Trial Chamber further

20 notes the brutal way with which Ljubica Zadro and Mladenka Zadro were

21 killed. Ljubica Zadro was carrying her 4-year-old daughter, Mladenka,

22 when both were shot at short distance by members of the 9th Brigade.

23 Facts in relation to Uzdol:

24 In 1993, Uzdol was a Bosnian Croat village, comprised of several

25 hamlets and with a total population of about 100 inhabitants. In

1 September 1993, the HVO had several positions in and around Uzdol. The

2 Trial Chamber found that in the early morning hours of the 14th of

3 September, the Prozor Independent Battalion gathered with some members of

4 the civilian police force of the Ministry of the Interior attacked the

5 headquarters of the HVO located in the school building of one of the

6 hamlets of Uzdol. Shortly after, the attack began. The HVO started

7 shelling Uzdol. The Trial Chamber has found that during the attack a

8 number of the inhabitants were killed by the troops under ABiH command.

9 The Trial Chamber notes that some of the killings committed in

10 Uzdol were particularly cruel in nature. The Trial Chamber notes in this

11 respect the killing of Anica Stojanovic, who was half-seated on the ground

12 next to her house when a soldier who was standing three metres away from

13 her killed her by a shot to the head. The testimony showed that she cried

14 out the name of her son before she was shot. The Trial Chamber also notes

15 the direct evidence concerning the manner of the killing of Ruza Zelic and

16 her two children who were 13 and 10 years old at the time of their deaths.

17 The three had tried to flee from the soldiers, but the soldiers caught up

18 by them. Ruza Zelic was begging the soldiers not to kill them, but all

19 three were shot.

20 Findings in relation to crimes charged:

21 As to the crimes committed in Grabovica, the Trial Chamber has

22 found that the fact that ABiH soldiers were billeted in Grabovica in

23 preparation for combat operations in Herzegovina played a substantial part

24 in the soldiers' ability to commit the crimes. As for the crimes in

25 Uzdol, the Trial Chamber has found that crimes were committed during

1 attack on Uzdol, which was part of military combat operations. The Trial

2 Chamber has therefore found that there was a nexus between the crimes

3 committed in Grabovica and Uzdol and the armed conflict in the area.

4 With regard to the crimes committed in Grabovica, the Trial

5 Chamber has found that it has been established beyond a reasonable doubt

6 that 13 inhabitants, taking no active part in hostilities, were murdered

7 in Grabovica by members of the 9th Brigade and unidentified members of the

8 ABiH on the 8th or the 9th of September, 1993. The Trial Chamber has

9 found that the Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that

10 14 persons listed in the indictment were killed by members of the ABiH in

11 Grabovica at the time relevant to the indictment. The Trial Chamber notes

12 that during the trial six of the alleged victims listed in the indictment

13 were withdrawn by the Prosecution.

14 With regard to the crimes committed in Uzdol, the Trial Chamber

15 has found that 25 inhabitants were killed by members of the units under

16 ABiH command in Uzdol on the 14th of September, 1993, and were persons

17 taking no active part in hostilities. The Trial Chamber has found that

18 the Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that two persons

19 listed in the indictment were taking no active part in hostilities at the

20 time of their death on the 14th of September, 1993. Moreover, the Trial

21 Chamber has found that the Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable

22 doubt that two other persons listed in the indictment were killed by

23 members of the units under ABiH command who attacked Uzdol on the 14th of

24 September, 1993. The Trial Chamber also notes that at the end of the

25 trial one of the alleged victims listed in the indictment was withdrawn.

1 The Defence has submitted that the cause of death to the victims

2 in Uzdol was either shellings by the HVO or that they were caught in the

3 cross-fire between ABiH and HVO during the ABiH attack on Uzdol on the

4 14th of September, 1993. The Trial Chamber has found that the HVO shelled

5 hamlets comprising Uzdol intensively; however, the autopsy report of the

6 victims does not contain any evidence that the victims were killed or even

7 injured by shrapnel from the falling shells. Therefore, the Trial Chamber

8 has found that the evidence does not support the Defence submission in

9 this respect.

10 In relation to the Defence submission that the victims were caught

11 in cross-fire, the Trial Chamber notes that the evidence shows that there

12 was heavy fighting between the units under ABiH command and the HVO in the

13 Uzdol area during the attack. The evidence also shows that the

14 inhabitants of the area tried to save themselves by leaving their homes

15 and running for their lives. Contrary to the Defence submission, the

16 Trial Chamber has found that victims were killed intentionally and notes,

17 in particular, that several victims were shot at close range; two victims

18 were killed in their beds, one of whom was bed-ridden; that one victim had

19 been mutilated prior to being killed; and one victim was killed by being

20 brutally beaten to death over the head after having been shot first in the

21 chest and leg; another victim was killed by being beaten over the head

22 with an implement with sharp and blunt edges; and finally the Trial

23 Chamber notes that even children were killed.

24 Findings in relation to individual criminal responsibility of the

25 accused:

1 Having found that murders were committed both in Grabovica and

2 Uzdol, the Trial Chamber recalls that the purpose of a trial is not solely

3 to determine whether serious violations of international humanitarian law

4 were committed but ultimately is to determine whether the accused bears

5 individual criminal responsibility for those crimes. The Trial Chamber

6 has assessed the individual criminal responsibility of Sefer Halilovic

7 based on all the evidence presented to it during the trial.

8 As a preliminary matter, the Trial Chamber notes that it is not

9 convinced that the combat operation carried out in Herzegovina at the time

10 relevant to the indictment was called Operation Neretva. Except for a

11 map, no other exhibit presented to the Trial Chamber refers to the combat

12 operations as "Operation Neretva." However, the Trial Chamber notes that

13 several of the witnesses involved with ABiH at the time, including two

14 corps commanders, did not hear the use of this name during the combat

15 operations. However, for the purposes of this judgement, the Trial

16 Chamber used the term "Operation Neretva" to refer to the combat

17 operations which took place in Herzegovina at the time relevant to the

18 indictment.

19 The Trial Chamber has found that the participants of a meeting

20 held in Zenica on the 21st and the 22nd August 1993 and chaired by the

21 commander of the Main Staff, Rasim Delic, did not discuss

22 Operation Neretva. It was a briefing by the corps commanders on their

23 areas of responsibility at which they expressed their concerns on the

24 direction the conflict had taken and the future direction of the conflict.

25 The Trial Chamber has further found that neither Sefer Halilovic nor

1 anyone else was appointed commander of Operation Neretva or any other

2 operation at this meeting. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber has found that

3 subsequent to the Zenica meeting, Sefer Halilovic, among others, carried

4 out tasks of reorganisation and resubordination of units, and that was

5 done pursuant to an order issued by Rasim Delic on the 1st September.

6 The Trial Chamber has found that the Prosecution failed to

7 establish that Sefer Halilovic was appointed as commander of Operation

8 Neretva by virtue of an order issued by Rasim Delic on the 30th August, as

9 alleged in the indictment. Rather, by this order, Rasim Delic appointed

10 Sefer Halilovic as team leader of an inspection team not entrusted with

11 command authority, but with coordinating and monitoring functions in the

12 areas of responsibility of the 4th and the 6th Corps, which were the corps

13 that carried out military operations in the areas mentioned above, where

14 Grabovica and Uzdol were situated.

15 Furthermore, the Trial Chamber has found that the role of Sefer

16 Halilovic in the implementation of orders issued by Rasim Delic concerning

17 the reorganisation and the resubordination was consistent with his role as

18 team leader of the inspection team charged with monitoring and

19 coordinating functions.

20 The Trial Chamber has found that the evidence presented by the

21 Prosecution is insufficient to support a finding that the location where

22 the inspection team was accommodated in Jablanica was an IKM from which an

23 operation in Herzegovina was commanded, as alleged in the indictment. The

24 Trial Chamber notes that the term "IKM" was used as jargon to denote the

25 location of senior officers.

1 The Trial Chamber considers the evidence presented to it as to

2 Sefer Halilovic's alleged position as commander of Operation Neretva to be

3 inconsistent. The Trial Chamber notes in particular that some of the

4 lower-ranking soldiers who testified before the Trial Chamber considered

5 Sefer Halilovic to be commander of Operation Neretva. However, the Trial

6 Chamber has found that testimony of some lower-ranking soldiers to that

7 effect is only indicative of the respect which Sefer Halilovic enjoyed as

8 a senior officer and one of the founders of the ABiH. The Trial Chamber

9 cannot find this evidence per se is sufficient to support the

10 Prosecution's allegation that Sefer Halilovic was commander of

11 Operation Neretva.

12 The evidence provided by higher-ranking ABiH officers is more

13 consistent in showing that Sefer Halilovic was not a commander of

14 Operation Neretva, but rather was tasked with coordinating combat

15 activities.

16 The Trial Chamber also notes that at a meeting on the 4th of

17 September in Donja Jablanica, Rasim Delic signed and approved the

18 documents for the operation. Rasim Delic's signature can be seen on the

19 map entitled "Operation Neretva." The Prosecution alleges that the

20 signatures on this map, Rasim Delic's on the top left and Sefer

21 Halilovic's on the bottom right, indicate that Halilovic was the commander

22 responsible for the operation. The Trial Chamber has found, however, that

23 contrary to the Prosecution's allegation, the signatures on this map are

24 inconclusive as to who was the commander of the operation.

25 Having examined the evidence presented as to the role of Sefer

1 Halilovic in the field in Herzegovina in September 1993, the Trial Chamber

2 has found that Sefer Halilovic carried out tasks consistent with his role

3 as team leader of an inspection team tasked with reviewing combat

4 readiness and coordinating combat operations, as set out in the order

5 issued by Rasim Delic on the 30th August, 1993. The Trial Chamber notes

6 that the authority of Sefer Halilovic to issue orders was limited in two

7 ways: By the 30th August order, first in that for any drastic proposals,

8 Sefer Halilovic had to consult with Rasim Delic; and secondly, by this

9 order, Sefer Halilovic only had the power to issue orders in keeping with

10 his authority. The Trial Chamber notes in this regard that the position

11 of Sefer Halilovic within the structure of the Main Staff was

12 circumscribed as a result of the order of the 8th June and 18th July

13 issued by Alija Izetbegovic. The Trial Chamber also notes that the

14 evidence does not contain a prior order from Sefer Halilovic ordering the

15 start of combat operations on the axes of attack. Moreover, analysis of

16 the evidence concerning orders issued by Sefer Halilovic and the

17 information sent to him from the field indicates that orders issued by

18 Sefer Halilovic were issued under the overall authority of Rasim Delic, as

19 commander of the ABiH, and the orders by Sefer Halilovic were, in general,

20 implementing the instructions of Rasim Delic.

21 The Trial Chamber notes that the evidence only contains one order

22 concerning combat operations issued by Sefer Halilovic after the

23 establishment of the inspection team, namely that of 15th of September,

24 1993. The Trial Chamber has found this evidence is in itself insufficient

25 to support a finding that Sefer Halilovic was in command of combat

1 operations in Herzegovina. Moreover, the Trial Chamber is of the opinion

2 that this order can be seen as part of the inspection team's coordination

3 function.

4 In conclusion, the Trial Chamber found that the Prosecution failed

5 to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sefer Halilovic was either de jure

6 or de facto commander of the alleged operation called Operation Neretva.

7 Moreover, the Trial Chamber has found the following.

8 Concerning Grabovica, the Trial Chamber notes that order of the

9 start of combat operations in the axis in that area was issued by Zulfikar

10 Alispago, as commander of that axis. The Trial Chamber notes, in

11 particular, that the unit of the 9th Brigade was under the command of

12 Zulfikar Alispago at the time the crime was committed. The Trial Chamber

13 has found that the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that

14 Zulfikar Alispago was subordinated to Sefer Halilovic.

15 The Trial Chamber has further found that Sefer Halilovic knew of

16 the crimes committed in Grabovica in the evening of the 9th of September.

17 The Trial Chamber notes in relation to the investigation of the crimes in

18 Grabovica, Sefer Halilovic, in the evening of the 9th of September,

19 instructed Namik Dzankovic, a member of the inspection team and of the

20 ABiH Main Staff Security Service, to work together with the MUP as well as

21 with other members of the SVB in order to investigate the crimes and to

22 keep Sarajevo, rather than himself, informed. The evidence shows that at

23 this point in time investigations were already underway. The evidence

24 does not show that Sefer Halilovic initiated the investigations or that

25 the investigations were in any way carried forward through his actions.

1 The evidence also shows that the 6th Corps Security Service, the

2 Military Police Battalion of the 6th Corps, and the Military Police of the

3 44th Brigade, which were located in Jablanica, were involved in the

4 investigations into the events in Grabovica. The chief of security of the

5 ABiH Main Staff, Jusuf Jasarevic, was informed of the results of their

6 investigations. The Trial Chamber has found based on the evidence it

7 cannot be concluded that Sefer Halilovic had the material ability to

8 punish the perpetrators of the crimes committed in Grabovica.

9 Having examined all the evidence presented to it and in light of

10 its factual findings, the Trial Chamber has found that the Prosecution did

11 not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Sefer Halilovic had effective

12 control over the troops in Grabovica on the 8th and the 9th of September,

13 1993, who the Trial Chamber has found committed the crimes.

14 Concerning Uzdol, the Trial Chamber has found that the crimes were

15 committed by members of the units under ABiH command taking part in the

16 attack on HVO positions in and around Uzdol. The Trial Chamber has found

17 these units were the Prozor Independent Battalion and members of the

18 civilian police forces of the MUP, both under the command of the Prozor

19 Independent Battalion commander, Enver Buza. The Trial Chamber has found

20 that the evidence presented is insufficient to establish that Enver Buza

21 was subordinated to Sefer Halilovic.

22 Furthermore, the Trial Chamber considered the evidence presented

23 to it did not show that Sefer Halilovic had any role in the investigation

24 concerning the crimes committed in Uzdol. These investigations were

25 conducted by the security services of the 6th Corps and the Prozor

1 Independent Battalion. Once again, the chief of the security of the Main

2 Staff, Jusuf Jasarevic, was informed of the results of the investigation.

3 The Trial Chamber has found based on the evidence presented, it

4 cannot be concluded that Sefer Halilovic had the material ability to

5 punish the perpetrators of the crimes committed in Uzdol.

6 Having examined all the evidence presented to it and in light of

7 its factual findings, the Trial Chamber has found that the Prosecution has

8 not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Sefer Halilovic had effective

9 control over the units under ABiH command, which the Trial Chamber has

10 found committed the crimes in Uzdol.

11 Finally, the Trial Chamber has found Sefer Halilovic possessed a

12 degree of influence as a high-ranking member of the ABiH and as one of its

13 founders. However, the Trial Chamber considers that Sefer Halilovic's

14 influence falls short of the standard required to establish effective

15 control. It is a principle of international criminal law that a commander

16 cannot be held responsible for the crimes of the persons who were not

17 under his command at the time the crime was committed. The Trial Chamber

18 has found that the Prosecution filed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

19 that Sefer Halilovic was either de jure or de facto commander of an

20 operation called Operation Neretva, which the Prosecution alleges was

21 carried out in Herzegovina.

22 The Trial Chamber has also found that the Prosecution has failed

23 to establish that Sefer Halilovic had effective control over the troops

24 which committed the crimes in the area of Grabovica and Uzdol at the time

25 the crimes were committed. The Trial Chamber has further found that the

1 Prosecution failed to establish that Sefer Halilovic was responsible under

2 Article 7(3) of the Statute of the murder committed in Grabovica and

3 Uzdol.

4 Now we come to the last part of disposition.

5 Mr. Halilovic, would you please stand up.

6 [The accused stands]

7 JUDGE LIU: For the foregoing reasons, the Trial Chamber has

8 decided that the accused, Sefer Halilovic, is found not guilty and

9 therefore acquitted of murder, a violation of the laws or customs of war,

10 as charged in the indictment.

11 Pursuant to Rule 99 of the Rules, the Trial Chamber orders that

12 Sefer Halilovic be released immediately from the United Nations Detention

13 Unit after the necessary practical arrangements are made.

14 You may sit down, Mr. Halilovic.

15 [The accused sits down]

16 JUDGE LIU: Well, that's all for this summary of the judgement.

17 The hearing of this case is adjourned.

18 --- Whereupon the hearing at 10.49 a.m.

19

20

21

22

23

24

25