Case No. IT-04-74-PT
Judge Carmel Agius, Presiding
Judge Kevin Parker
Judge Jean-Claude Antonetti
Mr. Hans Holthuis
14 March 2006
DECISION ON MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE OF ADJUDICATED FACTS PURSUANT TO RULE 94(B)
Office of the Prosecutor:
Mr. Kenneth Scott
Mr. Daryl Mundis
Defence Counsels for the Accused:
Mr. Michael Karnavas and Ms. Suzana Tomanovic for Jadranko
Ms. Senka Nozica for Bruno Stojic
Mr. Bozidar Kovacic and Ms. Nika Pinter for Slobodan Praljak
Ms. Vesna Alaburic for Milivoj Petkovic
Mr. Tomislav Jonjic for Valentin Coric
Mr. Fahrudin Ibrisimovic for Berislav Pusic
TRIAL CHAMBER II of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the former Yugoslavia since 1991 (“Tribunal”) is seised of a “Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts pursuant to Rule 94(B) of the Rules ” filed on 4 April 2005 (“Motion”), in which the Office of the Prosecutor (“Prosecution ”) requests the Trial Chamber to take judicial notice of 515 facts derived from several Trial Judgements, and hereby renders a decision (“Decision”) thereon.
1. On 4 April 2005, the Prosecution filed its Motion pursuant to Rule 94(B) and requested the Trial Chamber to take judicial notice of 515 facts derived from Trial and Appeal Chamber Judgements in the cases of Prosecutor v. Furundzija,1 Prosecutor v. Aleksovski,2 Prosecutor v. Kupreskic et al,3 Prosecutor v. Blaskic,4 Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez,5 and Prosecutor v. Naletilic and Martinovic.6
2. On 27 October 2005 and 5 December 2005, the Prosecution filed additional submissions in which nine facts of the previous list were withdrawn.7
3. On 18 April 2005, 7 November 2005, 19 December 2005 and 12 January 2006, the Accused Jadranko Prlic, Bruno Stojic, Slobodan Praljak, Milivoj Petkovic, Valentin Coric and Berislav Pusic (collectively “Accused”) responded, opposing the Motion and the further submissions made by the Prosecution.8
4. On 25 April 2005, the Prosecution filed a “Request to Reply”, incorporating its reply to the submissions made by the Accused,9 pointing out, inter alia, first that the Accused had misunderstood the difference between adjudicated and agreed facts and that an adjudicated fact did not require agreement between parties; and second, that according to the jurisprudence of the Tribunal, the legal consequence of a Trial Chamber taking judicial notice of adjudicated facts is not to remove the right of the opposing party to challenge such facts at trial.10
5. During the Status Conference held on 8 November 2005, the pre-trial Judge requested the parties to combine in a single document the responses of all Accused to the Motion and further submissions, to make clear those facts upon which agreement had been reached between the parties, if any.11
6. On 12 January 2006, the pre-trial Judge further requested the parties to formally file several written submissions which had been previously exchanged with the Senior Legal Officer of Trial Chamber I, but which had never been filed.12 The Prosecution filed its submission on 13 January 2006,13 and the Accused filed theirs on 18 and 20 January 2006.14
7. Rule 94 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Tribunal (“Rules”) provides that:
(A) A Trial Chamber shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof.
(B) At the request of a party or proprio motu, a Trial Chamber, after hearing the parties, may decide to take judicial notice of adjudicated facts or documentary evidence from other proceedings of the Tribunal relating to matters at issue in the current proceedings.
8. Rule 65 ter, paragraph (H) of the Rules provides that:
The pre-trial Judge shall record the points of agreement and disagreement on matters of law and fact. In this connection, he or she may order the parties to file written submissions with either the pre-trial Judge or the Trial Chamber.
9. Rule 94(B) of the Rules therefore gives a Chamber the discretion to take judicial notice of adjudicated facts and documentary evidence from previous proceedings.15 When a Chamber is considering whether to take judicial notice of an adjudicated fact relating to matters at issue in the current proceedings, the primary issue to be determined is whether the fact is truly “adjudicated.” There is no requirement of agreement between the parties on the fact, which is a matter for consideration in the context of Rule 65 ter (H) alone. However, the moving party carries the duty of demonstrating how the particular fact sought to be judicially noticed is related to the matters at issue in the current proceedings.16
10. It has been established in the jurisprudence of this Tribunal that, “by taking judicial notice of an adjudicated fact, a Chamber establishes a well-founded presumption for the accuracy of this fact, which therefore does not have to be proven again at trial, but which, subject to that presumption, may be challenged at that trial”.17 As a party may challenge, at trial, a fact that has been judicially noticed, it follows that a Chamber is not restricted to taking judicial notice of facts that are not the subject of dispute between the parties.18
11. Adjudicated facts that are judicially noticed by way of Rule 94(B) of the Rules remain to be assessed by the Trial Chamber to determine what conclusions, if any, can be drawn from them, which will require their consideration together with all of the evidence brought at trial. “Rule 94 of the Rules is not a mechanism that may be employed to circumvent the general Rules governing the admissibility of evidence and litter the record with matters which would not be admitted otherwise’.19
12. As noted above, while judicial notice of adjudicated facts is at the discretion of the Trial Chamber, it will not exercise its discretion unless it determines that the relevant facts are truly adjudicated, or if it considers that taking judicial notice of such facts would be unfair to the Accused. There is no general consensus in the Tribunal jurisprudence on the criteria to determine whether a fact is “adjudicated”.20 For these reasons, the Trial Chamber has assessed the proposed adjudicated facts submitted by the Prosecution to determine whether each fact:
1) is subject to an appeal or potentially subject to review;
2) is sufficiently clear (concrete, distinct, identifiable, and not mixed with accessory facts that serve to obscure the principal fact);
3) contains a legal characterisation; and
4) goes, or potentially goes, to the responsibility of any of the Accused.
13. Since the filing of the Motion, significant time and resources were spent by the Prosecution, the Defence and the Chambers legal staff to try to reach an agreement between the parties on the proposed adjudicated facts so that they might rather be considered as agreed facts falling within Rule 65 ter(H) of the Rules. However, despite these efforts, no agreement was reached between the Prosecution and all of the Accused on any of the 515 proposed adjudicated facts, although there was partial agreement between the Prosecution and one, or some, of the Accused on a number of them. In the absence of an agreement between all parties, the Trial Chamber shall determine the Motion on the basis of Rule 94(B) of the Rules and the above criteria, on the basis that a fact can only be considered as “agreed” if all of the Accused agree to it, which is not the situation in the present case.
14. Therefore, in a desire to promote judicial economy, the Trial Chamber analysed all of the material submitted, measuring the 515 proposed adjudicated facts against the criteria established for the present case, except those withdrawn by the Prosecution.21 For those facts that meet these criteria, the Trial Chamber also assessed whether judicial notice would in any way prejudice the rights of any of the Accused.
15. This process required a detailed analysis of the Judgements rendered in the six cases identified by the Prosecution. The Trial Chamber came to the following findings:
1. The Trial Chamber did not find any of the proposed facts in the list provided by the Prosecution in the Furundzija Trial and Appeal Judgements;
2. All of the facts taken from the Blaskic Trial and Appeals Judgements must be disregarded, as the content of the current review proceedings in that case are unknown and it is therefore impossible to determine which facts, if any, are in dispute in those proceedings;
3. Contrary to the submissions of the Accused, all of the facts contained in the Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement must not be automatically rejected. Rather, the Trial Judgement has been analysed along with the terms of the pending appeal, so that only those facts which are clearly not under appeal in that case, and may therefore be considered as having been finally adjudicated by the Trial Chamber, were taken into consideration;
4. Both Trial and Appeals Judgements in the Aleksovski, Kupreskic et al, and Kordic and Cerkez cases have been analysed and those facts that were finally adjudicated at either the trial or the appeal stage have been taken into consideration.
16. The Trial Chamber has not analysed facts which, according to the list contained in the Motion and further submissions from the Prosecution, do not correspond to the paragraphs quoted into the relevant Judgements, or which do not use exactly the same language as used in the original language of those Judgements. Facts numbered 381, 382, 434 are therefore excluded.
17. The Trial Chamber further finds that the following facts cannot be considered to be “adjudicated,” on the basis that they are under appeal, potentially under review, or might be connected to a fact potentially under review: facts numbered 13, 15, 17, 32, 43, 45, 50, 52, 53, 55, 60, 62, 63, 72, 73, 74, 75, 82, 83, 84, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 95, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102, 106, 107, 109, 111, 112, 114, 117, 124, 125, 133, 136, 143, 144, 146, 150, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164,165, 166, 167, 170, 171, 172, 173,174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 181, 182, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 193, 194, 195, 197, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 208, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 255, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277, 278, 280, 281, 282, 283, 284, 285, 286, 287, 288, 290, 291, 292, 293, 301, 303, 306, 307, 308, 309, 313, 316, 318, 321, 323, 326, 327, 328, 329, 330, 331, 332, 335, 336, 337, 338, 339, 340, 341, 342, 343, 344, 346, 347, 348, 349, 350, 356, 357, 358, 359, 360, 369, 371, 374, 377, 392, 393, 415, 421, 439, 446, 452, 454, 455, 457, 458, 459, 464, 465, 466, 467, 468, 470, 471, 472, 473, 474, 475, 476, 477, 478, 479, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485, 487, 488, 489, 492, 494, 495, 496, 497, 498, 499, 500, 501, 504, 505, 509, 510, 511, 512, 513. These facts are therefore not measured against the remaining criteria.
18. The Trial Chamber also finds that the following facts cannot be considered to be “adjudicated,” on the basis that the particular fact is not sufficiently clear (not distinct, concrete or identifiable):22 facts numbered 6, 24, 29, 31, 33, 34, 42, 44, 49, 54, 57, 67, 70, 76, 78, 101,103, 105, 110, 127, 130, 131, 132, 135, 137, 138, 142, 145, 153, 154, 163, 168, 169, 180, 183, 192, 196, 209, 213, 219, 220, 224, 227, 256, 289, 304, 311, 315, 310, 314, 317, 319, 320, 322, 333, 334, 345, 351, 353, 354, 370, 375, 376, 383, 384, 405, 406, 407, 428, 433, 435, 437, 469, 491, 493. These facts are therefore not measured against the remaining criteria.
19. The Trial Chamber further finds that the following facts cannot be considered to be “adjudicated,” on the basis that they contain legal characterisations: facts numbered 207, 218, 355, 365, 366, 372, 378, 388, 389, 390, 391, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 409, 410, 411, 412, 413, 414, 416, 418, 420, 424, 425, 426, 427, 430, 431, 432, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 447, 448, 449, 450, 451,453, 514, 515. These facts are therefore not measured against the remaining criteria.
20. Finally, the Trial Chamber finds that the following facts cannot be considered to be “adjudicated,” on the basis that they go, or potentially go, to the responsibility of one or several of the Accused: facts numbered 56, 66, 85, 86, 87, 96, 129, 198, 210, 302, 305, 324, 325, 367, 368, 379, 385, 386, 387, 419, 422, 423, 429, 438, 445, 456, 462, 490, 502, 506.
21. The remaining proposed adjudicated facts satisfy the criteria for judicial notice and the Trial Chamber concludes that judicial notice of them would not result in unfairness to the Accused. These facts are listed in the annex attached to the present Decision.
FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, the Trial Chamber, pursuant to Rules 54 and 94 (B) and 126 bis of the Rules, HEREBY
GRANTS leave to the Prosecution to file its Reply,
GRANTS the Motion in part, and takes judicial notice of the facts listed in the annex to this Decision, and
DENIES all remaining requests in the Motion.
Done in both English and French, the English text being authoritative.
Judge Carmel Agius
Dated this Fourteenth day of March 2006
At The Hague
[Seal of the Tribunal]
“The boundaries of the constituent Republics in this socialist federation tended to correspond closely to a sense of shared national identity.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 454.
“Though initially allied with the Soviet Union, Tito split with Stalin and the Comintern in 1948. Thereafter, he moved the system away from the Soviet-style of centralised government towards a system based upon the theory of workers’ self-management. This policy led to the decentralisation of economic control and a parallel process of decentralising political control to the constituent republics.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 455.
“Under this decentralised system, the largely autonomous republics were free to evolve distinct identities, which, more often than not, were constructed along lines of national identity.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 455.
“Thus, while the communists sought to supplant ethnic identity with a broader, unifying, Yugoslav identity, the structure of predominantly ethnically-based republics operating with a fair degree of autonomy within a federal system only served to reinforce national identities within Yugoslavia as a whole.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 455.
“The 1974 Constitution of the SFRY gave the republics an even greater role within the federation and established the Presidency as the key political institution at the federal level; a collective body which represented each of the six republics and the two autonomous provinces (Kosovo and Vojvodina). When Tito died in 1980, the constitution provided for the president of that body to be appointed on a rotating basis from among the representatives of the republics.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 457.
“In December 1987, Slobodan Milosevic took over as President of the League of Communists in Serbia. Through a shrewd manipulation of nationalist sentiment, Milosevic succeeded in ousting the leaders of the two autonomous provinces, Kosovo and Vojvodina, and replaced them with loyal supporters. Consequently, as of 1990, with the help of Montenegrin support, he effectively controlled four out of the eight seats in the Federal Presidency, and was thus capable of paralysing that critical centralised institution. As the federal political machinery began to collapse, nationwide elections in the SFRY scheduled for 1990 were cancelled and, instead, elections were held in each of the republics.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 459.
“Bosnia, in addition to hosting the most ethnically diverse population, was unique among the republics in that it had no majority ethnic population.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 461.
“The 1991 census indicates that approximately 43.7 per cent of the population in Bosnia were Muslims, 31.3 per cent Serbs and 17.3 per cent Croats.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 461.
“The decline of the League of Communists as a unifying force in Bosnian politics led to the emergence of new political parties, many of which based their policies upon a nationalist agenda.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 461.
“Meanwhile, in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which subsequent to elections held in November 1990 was governed by a coalition consisting of the “Muslim Party of Democratic Action”, the “Croatian Democratic Union” and the “Serbian Democratic Party”, tension was rising.” Aleksovski Trial Judgement, para. 22.
“The results from the 1990 elections in the Bosnian republic reveal that most individuals chose to vote along lines of national identity. Out of a total of 240 seats in the Bosnian Parliament, the Serbian party (the “SDS”) won 72 seats, the Muslim party (the “SDA”) won 86 seats and the Croatian party (the “HDZ”) won 44 seats. Alija Izetbegovic, leader of the SDA, was appointed President of the Bosnian Presidency, while Radovan Karadzic was the leader of the SDS and Stjepan Kljuic was head of the HDZ.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 461.
“With the Federal Presidency virtually deadlocked, and the spectre of Serbian domination looming, the federation itself began to unravel.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 462.
“The European Commission sought to establish a framework for the likely break-up of Yugoslavia and agreed, in principle, to recognition of the secessionist republics.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 462.
“In 1991, Slovenia and Croatia took the first steps towards independence, their populations confirming popular support for secession in national referendums.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 462.
“In mid-1991, both of these former federal republics [Slovenia and Croatia] declared their independence. Serbia attempted to intervene militarily to prevent Slovenia’s secession, but met with fierce resistance from the Slovenes, and in view of Slovenia’s negligible Serb population, they quickly withdrew. Croatia, however, with a Serbian population numbering approximately 600,000, was to suffer a different fate.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 462.
“Throughout the summer of 1991, the incidence of provocations between Croat and Serb forces increased and, in August of that year, full-scale conflict broke out on the territory of Croatia.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 463.
“On 2 January 1992, Croatia and Serbia signed a cease-fire agreement which provided, among other things, for the deployment of a lightly-armed United Nations peace -keeping force, designated UNPROFOR, to monitor the parties’ compliance.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 463.
“At the request of the European Commission, on 29 February-1 March 1992, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina held a referendum on independence.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 465.
“Despite the Serb boycott Sof the referendum of 1992C, the motion for independence was carried with overwhelming support from both Croats and Muslims.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 465.
“On 6 March 1992 independence was declared by Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 474.
“On 6 April [1992,] the European Community Declaration on the Recognition of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (RBiH) was issued.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 483 (a).
“On 7 April [1992,] the Republic of Croatia recognised RBiH.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 483 (b).
“Once the results of the referendum were known, and Bosnia had declared itself independent, the Bosnian Serbs began to attack Bosnia and Herzegovina in earnest, sweeping westwards from the Serbian border. Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 465.
“On 8 April [1992,] the RBiH Presidency proclaimed an imminent threat of war.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 483 (c).
“On 20 June [1992,] the President of the RBiH was to declare a state of war.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 483 (e).
The [BiH] government responded Sto the Bosnian Serb attacksC by forming an army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina (“ABiH”) in the summer of 1992, which replaced the former territorial defence (“TO”).” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 465.
“There were three principal governmental or quasi-governmental entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1992-1993: the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina based in Sarajevo, the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna based in Mostar and the Republika Srpska based in Pale.” Kupreskic Trial Judgement, para. 126.
“Corresponding to these governmental or quasi-governmental divisions, there were various armed forces, Military Police, civilian police, paramilitary formations and village guards operating in central Bosnia in 1992-1993, which were at different times either joint or formed along ethnic lines. There was, first, the Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or the BiH army, which was perceived by certain Croats and Serbs to be Muslim-dominated. On the Croat side was the [Croatian Defence Council (“HVO”)] and its armed forces. The Serbs fought in Bosnia through the JNA and later through their own Bosnian Serb army. There was also the Territorial Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina which was essentially a Muslim force and which was later incorporated, at least on paper, into the BiH army.” Kupreskic Trial Judgement, para. 126.
“There was a split between Croats and Muslims in 1992.” Kupreskic Trial Judgement, para. 80.
“On 26 August 1991, the HDZ-BiH imposed a state of emergency within the HDZ-BiH because of Serb aggression and stated that the HDZ municipal boards should be linked to each other in a unified system of defence.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 472 (b).
“At a meeting of the Main Board of HDZ-BiH in August 1991, there was mention of the possible linking of municipalities with majority Croat population and of a “ special plan” should there be an attack on the Croatian people.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 472(a).
“On 18 September 1991, the HDZ-BiH established a Crisis Staff, numbering Stjepan Kljuic, Mate Boban and Dario Kordic among its members: Crisis Staffs were to be formed immediately for three regional communities, including Travnik.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 472 (c).
“On 12 November 1991, the Joint Meeting of the Crisis Staffs of Herzegovina and Travnik Regional Communities, chaired by Mate Boban and Dario Kordic was held.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 472 (d).
“The SCroatianC Community Sof Herceg-BosnaC consisted of 30 municipalities (including those in Central Bosnia) and was described as a “political, economic and territorial integrity.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 472 (e).
“... the HZ H-B was founded with the intention that it should secede from Bosnia and Herzegovina and with a view to unification with Croatia.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 491.
“In the interview of 7 March 1992 Kordic said that the main reason for forming the Croatian Community Sof Herceg-BosnaC was the fact that Serb forces occupied Bosnia and Herzegovina: The Croatian people are bound to protect the minimum area that historically belongs to them with the banovina borders. The HZ represents 30 naturally connected municipalities … on the territory where the Croatian population was and is in the majority. This entitles the Croatian people to organise relations to everybody’s satisfaction, respecting the right of Muslims, Serbs and other peoples in the area.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 479.
“On S8 April 1992,C the Presidency of the HZ H-B, at an emergency session, issued a decision establishing the HVO as the “supreme defence body of the Croatian people ” in HZ H-B.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 483 (d).
“[On 8 April 1992], its military force the “Croatian Defence Council” was formed.” Aleksovski Trial Judgement, para. 22.
On 5 September 1992 a meeting of the HDZ Travnik Presidency was held with Kordic and Kostroman representing the HZ H-B, The minutes record that only one HVO government existed for the Croatian people in the municipality and the Croatian people did not accept a unitary State of BiH.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 522 (d).
“On 30 September 1992 Kordic, as Vice-President of HZ H-B, was present at a meeting of the Presidency of the Kakanj HVO, a neighbouring municipality to Vares.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 522 (e).
“On 28 August 1993 the HZ H-B instituted the new Croat Republic of Herceg-Bosna (HR H-B) with Mate Boban as President.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 732.
“President Tudjman, as the leader of the HDZ, sought to promote a Croatian identity by appealing to Croatia as a distinct and historically continuous entity.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 460.
“Multiple references to the “natural borders” of Croatia can be found in Tudjman’s speeches. Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 135.
“The view that President Tudjman harboured territorial ambitions in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina, despite his official position to the contrary, is strengthened by reports of discussions held between Tudjman and Milosevic, against the backdrop of the break-up of the Yugoslav federation in 1991.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 136.
“Ties between President Tudjman, as head of the HDZ in Croatia, and the leadership of the HZ H-B, were strong throughout the conflict.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 139.
“Croat nationalism and discrimination against Muslims was on the increase in central Bosnia in 1992-1993.” Kupreskic Trial Judgement, para. 54.
“BH Croats could with ease obtain Croatian passports, enjoy Croatian nationality and vote in elections in the Republic of Croatia.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 198.
“In January 1993 the active peace initiative was the so-called Vance-Owen Plan, which involved the establishment of 10 provinces in Bosnia and Herzegovina.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 19.
“On 2 January 1993, Peace Talks, attended by President Izetbegovic, Dr Karadzic, Mr Boban, President Tudjman and the President of the FRY, Mr Cosic, took place in Geneva.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 559.
“[On 2 January 1993] Mr Vance and Lord Owen put forward a peace plan and a proposed provincial map.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 559.
“The Vance-Owen Peace Plan (as it was called) involved the establishment of 10 provinces or cantons in Bosnia and Herzegovina, each containing a provincial government headed by the representatives of the ethnic majority in the canton: interim provincial governments were to be set up on the basis of the composition of the population according to the 1991 census.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 559.
“The idea [of the Vance-Owen Plan] was that during an interim period, these different provinces would be administered jointly by the three groups but with the dominating group appointing the Governor.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 19.
“The BH Croats would be in a majority in three of the provinces, which in the [Vance -Owen] plan were referred to as number 3, 8 and 10.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 19.
“[According to the Vance-Owen Peace Plan, the] Bosnian Croats would be in a majority in three of the provinces, numbered 3, 8 and 10.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 559.
“Central Bosnia would form Province 10 and would include the municipalities of Travnik, Novi Travnik, Vitez, Busovaza, Fojnica, Gornji Vakuf and part of Kiseljak.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 559.
“Mate Boban, the leader of the HDZ-BiH, immediately agreed to the terms of the [Vance Owen Peace] plan, as it promised huge gains in territory for the Bosnian Croats.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 464.
“Mate Boban signed the Vance-Owen Plan on behalf of the BH Croats on 2 January 1993. Neither the BH Serb nor the BH Muslim representatives had signed the plan at this stage.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 20.
(Busovaca, January 1993) “On 25 January 1993, at about 5.30 or 6 a.m., the HVO attacked Kadica Strana, the Muslim part of Busovaza.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 569.
“According to the 1991 census the population of Gornji Vakuf municipality was 25,000 with 5,000 in the town itself: the Muslims accounted for 56 per cent of the total population and the Croats 43 per cent.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 561.
“Gornji Vakuf is a town of strategic importance at a crossroads en route to Central Bosnia. It is 48 kilometres from Novi Travnik and about one hour’s drive from Vitez in an armoured vehicle.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 561.
“The negotiations around the Vance-Owen Plan continued in February and March 1993.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 21.
“President Izetbegovic signed the [Vance-Owen] plan on behalf of the BH Muslims on 25 March 1993. The BH Serb representative still did not agree to the plan.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 21.
“On 3 April 1993, the HVO leadership met in Mostar to discuss the implementation of the Vance-Owen Peace Plan.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 603(c).
“Mostar is the largest town in South-eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina and the historic capital of Herzegovina. According to the 1991 census the population of the municipality of Mostar was comprised of 126,628 inhabitants, of which 34.6% were BH Muslims, 33.9% BH Croats and 18.8% Serbs. The remainder were “Yugoslavs” and others.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 37.
“As a result of the conflict in 1992 between the BH Croats and BH Muslims on one side and the Serbs on the other side, most Serbs had left or been driven out of Mostar.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 37.
“After the Serbs had left in the summer of 1992, tensions between the BH Croats and the BH Muslims rose and sporadic incidents occurred in Mostar.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 38.
“Mostar was politically dominated by the BH Croats.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 37.
“On 15 April 1993, there was an armed incident between the HVO and an ABiH unit stationed in Hotel Mostar, which was on the separation line between the BH Croat and BH Muslim part of town.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 38.
“In May 1993, between 16,000 and 20,000 BH Muslim civilians fleeing fighting in other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina had taken refuge in Mostar. The presence of these BH Muslim refugees from outside Mostar created a BH Muslim majority.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 37.
“BH Muslim civilians crossed over to the Eastern side of Mostar in large numbers.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, paras. 50, 539.
“Following 9 May 1993, the fighting between the HVO and the ABiH was hard and bitter. The Bulevar, a main street in Mostar separated the two forces. Fighting for each meter and each building, both sides were constantly on guard against attacks and shooting from the other side. The opposing forces took up positions within shouting distance of each other.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 49.
“The population of East Mostar increased after 29 June 1993 from approximately 30,000 to 55,000.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 50.
“The humanitarian situation on the Eastern side of Mostar was horrific. There was no running water, electricity and food. The Eastern side was completely encircled. The bombardment was constant.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 50.
“The humanitarian conditions on the East bank of Mostar were appalling. While the Muslim population was swelling due to the intense expulsions from the West bank, water and electricity services were cut off and humanitarian organisations were denied access for weeks. Crucial public services, such as the hospital, were located on the West bank of Mostar and, thus, no longer accessible to the BH Muslim civilian population.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 240.
“The siege of East Mostar continued until the beginning of 1994.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 51.
“The village of Rastani is situated north of the town of Mostar and is located on the West Bank of the Neretva River. It consists of small hamlets of houses, silos and a hydroelectric dam located on the Neretva River and is essentially a suburb of Mostar. The ethnic composition of the village of Rastani was mainly BH Serb and BH Muslim in approximately equal number, with one BH Croat household.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 52.
“There had been a series of conflicts over control of Rastani between the ABiH and the HVO, possibly due to the strategic location of the hydroelectric dam. At the end of August 1993, the HVO gained control over Rastani. On 20 September 1993, the ABiH regained control over the village. The HVO launched a successful counter attack to capture Rastani on 22 September 1993 and 23 September 1993.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, paras. 53 and 54.
“Stupni Do is a village located in the hills about one kilometre south of the town of Vares, at a height of 1074 metres, with one principal road leading to it through a tunnel. The village lies above the main supply route to Vares (which itself lies at the head of a valley with mountains all round it.) Above the village is the Croat village of Mir. Before the war the inhabitants of Stupni Do were almost all Muslim (although there had been five or six Serb families who had left in 1992). The total population was about 224.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 740.
“Of the 38 dead as the result of the attack on Stupni Do, five or six were soldiers and the rest were civilians.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 746.
“Starting in mid-1992, tensions and animosity between Croats and Muslims rapidly escalated.” Kupreskic Trial Judgement, para. 125.
“The Jokers were a specialist, anti-terrorist unit of the Croatian Military Police based locally in the Bungalow in Nadioci.” Kupreskic Trial Judgment, para. 132.
(Behrici, April 1993) “Almost all houses in Behrici were destroyed.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 804.
“The deputy warden of Kaonik prison, the secretary of Aleksovski, the head of the guards themselves, were military policemen.” Aleksovski Trial Judgement, para. 99.
“[E]ven if it is acknowledged that some of the Croatians involved in the conflict were volunteers and their presence is discounted, this would not affect the general finding by the Trial Chamber that there were Croatian troops involved in the conflict.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 108 #3.
“General Bobetko was placed in command of all units of the Croatian army on the southern front of Croatia, which borders Bosnia and Herzegovina, by order of President Tudman on 10 April 1992.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 125.
“HVO commanders would address requests for ammunition to Gojko Susak directly.” Naletilic and Martinovic Trial Judgement, para. 199.
“Several of the exhibits provide evidence of training assistance from Croatia to the HVO.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 121.
“A number of the exhibits demonstrate cooperation between Croatia and the HVO in relation to the care of the wounded and sick.” Kordic and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 122.