Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 20416

 1                           Thursday, 30 May 2013

 2                           [Judgement]

 3                           [Open session]

 4                           [The accused entered court]

 5                           --- Upon commencing at 4.04 p.m.

 6             JUDGE ORIE:  Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.

 7             THE REGISTRAR:  Good afternoon, Your Honours.

 8             This is case IT-03-69-T, the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic

 9     and Franko Simatovic.

10             JUDGE ORIE:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

11             This Chamber is sitting today to deliver its judgement in the

12     case of the Prosecutor versus Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic.

13             For the purposes of this hearing, the Chamber will briefly

14     summarise its findings.  I stress that this is a summary only.  The

15     authoritative account of the Chamber's findings can be found in the

16     written judgement, which will be made available at the end of this

17     session.

18             This case concerns crimes allegedly committed between the

19     1st of April, 1991, and the 31st of December, 1995, against Croats,

20     Bosnian Muslims, Bosnian Croats, and other non-Serb civilians in large

21     areas of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.  The areas in Croatia were the

22     Serbian Autonomous Area of Krajina, or the SAO Krajina, and the Serbian

23     Autonomous Area of Slavonia, Baranja, and Western Srem, or the SAO SBWS.

24     The crimes charged by the Prosecution include persecution, murder,

25     deportation, and forcible transfer.


Page 20417

 1             Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic stood trial as alleged

 2     participants in a joint criminal enterprise.  The alleged objective of

 3     this enterprise was the forcible and permanent removal of the majority of

 4     non-Serbs from large areas of Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.  According

 5     to the Prosecution, the members of the criminal enterprise sought to

 6     accomplish this goal through the commission of the crimes of persecution,

 7     murder, deportation, and forcible transfer.  Alternatively, the common

 8     criminal purposes included the crimes of deportation and forceable

 9     transfer, and the crimes of persecution and murder were reasonably

10     foreseeable to the two accused as a possible consequence of the execution

11     of the joint criminal enterprise.

12             In addition to the accused, the Prosecution alleged that members

13     of the joint criminal enterprise included Serb political and military

14     leaders, such as Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Stojicic, Milan Martic,

15     Goran Hadzic, Milan Babic, Radovan Karadzic, and Momcilo Krajisnik,

16     Biljana Plavsic, Zeljko Raznatovic, also known as Arkan.

17             The Prosecution alleged that Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic

18     contributed to the achievement of the objective of the criminal

19     enterprise by their acts or omissions.  According to the indictment, the

20     accused shared the intent to further the common criminal purpose.

21             In addition to the charges of individual criminal responsibility

22     for committing crimes as part of a joint criminal enterprise, the

23     indictment charged each accused with having planned, ordered, and/or

24     aided and abetted in the planning, preparation, and/or execution of the

25     alleged crimes.


Page 20418

 1             The Prosecution alleged that as of 1991, Jovica Stanisic was the

 2     head of the Republic of Serbia's State Security Service, or the DB, and

 3     that Franko Simatovic functioned under his direct authority as a DB

 4     official throughout the indictment period.

 5             According to the indictment, Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic

 6     participated in the joint criminal enterprise through their interaction

 7     with, inter alia, a special unit of the Serbian DB known as the Special

 8     Purposes Unit or the Red Berets.  In this summary, I will refer to this

 9     formation as "the Unit."  Stanisic and Simatovic further participated

10     through their interaction with the Skorpions and the Serbian Volunteer

11     Guard, also known as Arkan's men.  In this summary, I will refer to the

12     Serbian Volunteer Guard as the SDG.

13             It is alleged that the accused secretly established these groups

14     as special units of the DB for the purpose of undertaking military

15     actions in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.  According to the

16     Prosecution, the accused directed the involvement of these units in

17     particular operations in these countries.  Furthermore, the accused are

18     alleged to have trained, supplied, financed, and supported them.

19             The Prosecution further alleged that the accused participated in

20     the joint criminal enterprise through their interaction with other Serb

21     forces, including the SAO Krajina police, and that they provided channels

22     of communication between core members of the criminal enterprise

23     throughout the indictment period.

24             During the trial, 95 fact and expert witnesses appeared before

25     the Chamber and almost 5.000 exhibits were admitted into evidence.  A


Page 20419

 1     large number of witnesses testified with protective measures, aimed at

 2     protecting the witnesses' personal safety and security, or that of their

 3     family.  This was the case for 54 of the 133 witnesses whose evidence the

 4     Chamber received.  The Chamber also granted applications from Serbia

 5     seeking protective measures to secure its national security interests,

 6     mostly in relation to redacting parts of exhibits.

 7             The Chamber will now give a summary of its findings.

 8             In accordance with an agreement between the parties, the Chamber

 9     found that there was an armed conflict in the territories of Croatia and

10     Bosnia-Herzegovina that extended throughout the period relevant to the

11     crimes charged in the indictment.

12             Considering that crimes were committed throughout the indictment

13     area over the course of many years and that victims of the crimes were,

14     with few exceptions, non-Serb civilians, the Chamber found beyond a

15     reasonable doubt that there was a widespread attack directed against the

16     non-Serb civilian population in the SAO Krajina, the SAO SBWS, and the

17     indictment municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

18             The Chamber has considered evidence on a significant number of

19     specific incidents of deportation and forcible transfer.  For instance,

20     two witnesses provided evidence on an incident of the 9th of April, 1992,

21     where members of the SDG and other armed men collected at least 90,

22     primarily elderly, Croats and Hungarians from Erdut and put them on buses

23     to Sarvas.  In Sarvas, the people were told to walk towards

24     Croat-controlled Osijek, which they did.  The Chamber found beyond a

25     reasonable doubt that these perpetrators committed the crime of


Page 20420

 1     deportation as a crime against humanity.

 2             The Chamber also received evidence relating to the departure of

 3     between 80.000 and 100.000 Croats and other non-Serb civilians from the

 4     SAO Krajina in 1991 and 1992.  The Chamber found that the people fleeing

 5     did so as a result of the situation prevailing in the region, which was

 6     created by a combination of the following factors:  Attacks on villages

 7     and towns with Croat population; killings; use of human shields;

 8     detention; beatings; forced labour; sexual abuse and other forms of

 9     harassment of Croat persons; and looting and destruction of property.

10             Noting that fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological

11     oppression, and other such circumstances may create an environment where

12     there is no choice but to leave, the Chamber found that those who left

13     the SAO Krajina as a result of the circumstances prevailing there were

14     forcibly displaced.  Based on the foregoing, the Chamber found that the

15     members of the SAO Krajina, the SAO Krajina Territorial Defence, and the

16     Yugoslav Peoples' Army, or the JNA, among other forces, in carrying out

17     the aforementioned acts of violence and harassment, committed the crime

18     of deportation as a crime against humanity.

19             The Chamber also found that the SDG, the Unit, the SAO Krajina

20     police, and other forces committed the crimes of deportation and forcible

21     transfer at numerous locations in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina

22     throughout the indictment period.

23             The Chamber further received and considered adjudicated facts and

24     evidence on numerous incidents of murder.  As an example, the Chamber

25     found that on or about the 20th of October, 1991, members of the


Page 20421

 1     SAO Krajina police rounded up local, mainly Croat, civilians and brought

 2     them to the fire station in Hrvatska Dubica.  The following day, at

 3     Krecane, near Bacin, members of the SAO Krajina police shot and killed

 4     39 Croat detainees, many of whom were elderly.  The Chamber found that

 5     members of the SAO Krajina police committed the crime of murder as a

 6     crime against humanity and as a violation of the laws and customs of war.

 7             The Chamber further found that the SDG, the Unit, the Skorpions,

 8     the SAO Krajina police, and other forces committed a large number of

 9     murders against Croats, Muslims, and other non-Serbs in Croatia and

10     Bosnia and Herzegovina.

11             Having examined the evidence and its findings with regard to the

12     incidents of murder, deportation, and forcible transfer, the Chamber

13     found that they had been carried out with discriminatory intent.  The

14     Chamber therefore concluded that they constituted persecution as a crime

15     against humanity.

16             The indictment charged the accused with individual criminal

17     responsibility for the crimes of murder, deportation, forcible transfer,

18     and persecution.  These charges were based on the accused's alleged

19     participation in a joint criminal enterprise, the object of which was the

20     forcible and permanent removal of the majority of non-Serbs from large

21     areas of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.  The Chamber will now

22     address whether the aforementioned crimes can be attributed to the

23     accused.

24             The Chamber found that as of the 31st of December, 1991,

25     Jovica Stanisic was the head of the Serbian DB and that Franko Simatovic


Page 20422

 1     was employed in the Second Administration of the DB throughout the

 2     indictment period.

 3             The Chamber has received a substantial amount of evidence

 4     regarding the role of the accused vis-a-vis the Unit, other alleged

 5     special units of the Serbian DB, and other Serb forces, often from former

 6     members of the same formations or through official DB documentation.

 7             Turning first to the Unit, also known as the Red Berets and later

 8     as the JATD, the Chamber found that in the period from May to

 9     August 1991, Jovica Stanisic and Franko Simatovic formed a Serbian DB

10     unit consisting of around 25 to 30 persons.  From late April or early May

11     to July 1991, Franko Simatovic co-operated with others in the

12     establishment and operation of a training camp at Golubic, where training

13     commenced in May 1991.  Following meetings in Belgrade between Martic and

14     Stanisic and between Simatovic and Captain Dragan, instructors

15     Captain Dragan and Dragan Filipovic provided training at Golubic,

16     together with, among others, Zivojin Ivanovic, and upon completion of

17     their training, a number of trainees from Golubic became training

18     instructors themselves.

19             The Chamber found that the training at Golubic was of a military

20     character and included weapons and ambush training, as well as the

21     treatment of prisoners of war and the treatment of civilians in armed

22     conflict.  A total of between 350 and 700 members of the SAO Krajina

23     police and the SAO Krajina Territorial Defence were trained at Golubic

24     between April and August 1991.  Men who had trained at Golubic set up

25     further units and trained other people in the SAO Krajina.  They also


Page 20423

 1     participated alongside Simatovic, Captain Dragan, and Zivojin Ivanovic in

 2     operations in the SAO Krajina between June and August 1991.

 3             The Chamber found that the Golubic camp was the first of a number

 4     of similar camps where the Unit trained new recruits and other Serb

 5     forces.  The Unit also deployed its members the various operations of a

 6     military character with the support and under the control of the accused.

 7     From late 1991, these camps included the Lezimir camp at Mount

 8     Fruska Gora, from where the Unit was deployed to operations in the SBWS

 9     in September 1991.  In 1992, the camps included the Pajzos camp at Ilok,

10     from where members of the Unit were deployed to participate in the

11     take-over of Bosanski Samac in May 1992, as well as the Mount Ozren and

12     Vila camps, from where members of the Unit were deployed to participate

13     in the Doboj operations in April-July 1992.  The Chamber found that

14     members of the Unit committed the crimes of murder, deportation, and

15     forcible transfer in Bosanski Samac municipality and deportation and

16     forcible transfer in Doboj municipality in 1992.

17             In 1993, the Unit's training activities continued at the Tara

18     camp and at the Skelani and Bratunac camps from which the Unit took part

19     in combat and mop-up operations in the Skelani area in March and

20     April 1993, and in the Bratunac area in the first part of 1993.  Training

21     of the Unit continued in 1995 at the Bilje camp and the Sova camp and the

22     Pajzos camp.

23             In 1997, the accused attended a ceremony marking the anniversary

24     of the Unit's formation, during which Simatovic raised the Unit's

25     achievements in, as he put it, protecting national security in


Page 20424

 1     circumstances where the existence of the Serbian people was directly

 2     jeopardised throughout its entire ethnic area.  On this occasion,

 3     Stanisic presented awards to several members of the Unit.

 4             In conclusion, the Chamber found that the accused directed and

 5     organised the formation of the Unit, organised its involvement in a

 6     number of operations in Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina, and directed and

 7     organised its financing, logistical support, and other substantial

 8     assistance or support throughout the indictment period.  From at least

 9     September 1991, the accused were in command of the Unit and controlled

10     its deployment and training activities through leading Unit members.  As

11     of August 1993, the Unit formally became a part of the Serbian DB when it

12     was formalised as the JATD.

13             With regard to the other alleged special units of the DB, the

14     Chamber considered that the ties between these formations and the accused

15     were less substantial.  For example, the Chamber was unable to conclude

16     that the accused directed or organised the formation of the SDG or the

17     Skorpions, or directed them in any particular operations.  Moreover, the

18     Chamber made only a limited number of findings that the accused provided

19     support to these two formations.

20             The Chamber found that the accused, among others, directed and

21     organised the formation of the SAO Krajina police, in co-operation with

22     Milan Martic.  Furthermore, they contributed to the financing of the

23     SAO Krajina police in 1990 and 1991, and organised logistical support in

24     the form of weapons and communication equipment between December 1990 and

25     May or June 1991.  The Chamber also found the SAO Krajina police


Page 20425

 1     committed murders in 1991 and deportation in 1991 and 1992 in the

 2     SAO Krajina.

 3             The Chamber finally considered the allegations that the accused

 4     provided "channels of communication" between and among the core members

 5     of the joint criminal enterprise in Belgrade, in the specific regions,

 6     and locally, throughout the indictment period.  Based on the evidence

 7     before it, the Chamber found that the accused were in direct and frequent

 8     contact with many of the alleged members of the joint criminal

 9     enterprise.  It further found that, on occasion, Stanisic acted in a

10     liaison capacity at least in the contacts between Milosevic and Martic,

11     as well as Milosevic and Karadzic.  However, the evidence also indicated

12     that there was regular direct contact between Milosevic, Martic,

13     Karadzic, and Babic.  The majority, Judge Picard dissenting, did not

14     consider that Jovica Stanisic had acted as a channel of communication.

15     Further, the Chamber could not conclude that Franko Simatovic had acted

16     as a channel of communication between and among core members of the joint

17     criminal enterprise.

18             The Chamber finally considered the question of whether the

19     accused shared the intent of the alleged joint criminal enterprise to

20     forcibly and permanently remove the majority of non-Serbs from large

21     areas of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina through the commission of

22     murder, deportation, forcible transfer, and persecution.  For both

23     accused, the Chamber first reviewed direct evidence indicating that they

24     shared the intent.  This included evidence on actions taken and words

25     uttered, and in this respect the Chamber paid particular attention to


Page 20426

 1     evidence the Prosecution had pointed to in its final trial brief.  The

 2     Chamber then proceeded to examine what if anything, could be inferred

 3     with regard to the intent from the actions by the accused.

 4             With regard to Jovica Stanisic, the Prosecution pointed to a few

 5     instances of words uttered and actions taken by him that, in its view,

 6     would indicate that he shared the intent.  For example, according to one

 7     witness's testimony, in September 1991 Stanisic arrived at the SAO SBWS

 8     government building in Dalj, yelling at people and berating them because

 9     Vukovar had not surrendered yet.  Stanisic then called a meeting with,

10     among others, Hadzic, representatives of the JNA, and Territorial Defence

11     commanders.  Following this meeting, Stanisic returned to Belgrade.  The

12     Chamber noted that it had not received evidence about what was discussed

13     at the meeting called by Stanisic.  The majority, Judge Picard

14     dissenting, considered that Stanisic's action in relation to Vukovar

15     could reasonably be interpreted as support for a successful military

16     take-over of Vukovar.

17             Having reviewed this and other direct evidence regarding

18     Stanisic's intent, the majority, Judge Picard dissenting, did not

19     consider it sufficient to establish Stanisic's intent to further the

20     alleged common criminal purpose through the commission of crimes.

21             Absent direct evidence, the Chamber examined whether intent could

22     be inferred from Stanisic's actions during the indictment period.  In

23     this respect, the Chamber considered in particular the accused's actions

24     in relation to the Unit, the SAO Krajina police, the SDG, and the

25     Skorpions.


Page 20427

 1             With regard to the Unit, the Chamber first recalled its findings

 2     that this formation had committed the crimes of murder, deportation, and

 3     forcible transfer first in Bosanski Samac and then of deportation and

 4     forcible transfer in Doboj in 1992.  The Chamber had further found that

 5     the accused organised the involvement of the Unit in the operations in

 6     these municipalities.  However, the evidence did not establish that the

 7     accused personally directed the Unit during these operations or that they

 8     had issued orders or instructions to commit the aforementioned crimes.

 9     Nonetheless, given their role vis-a-vis the Unit and the scope of the

10     crimes, the Chamber found that the accused must have known that Unit

11     members had committed crimes in Bosanski Samac and that it may have been

12     reasonably foreseeable to them that Unit members would commit crimes in

13     Doboj.  The Chamber further considered the Unit's involvement in other

14     operations for which the accused had organised its involvement.  These

15     included reconnaissance activities and operations undertaken in response

16     to military attacks by opposing forces.  With the exception of the Doboj

17     and Bosanski Samac operations, the Chamber did not find that Unit members

18     committed crimes during the operations in which they were involved.

19             In conclusion, the majority, Judge Picard dissenting, did not

20     consider that the only reasonable inference from Stanisic's actions with

21     regard to the Unit was that he shared the intent to further the alleged

22     joint criminal enterprise.  Similarly, with regard to Stanisic's actions

23     with regard to training of Serb forces, the majority, Judge Picard

24     dissenting, did not consider that the only reasonable inference from the

25     evidence was that he shared the intent to further the alleged joint


Page 20428

 1     criminal enterprise.

 2             With regard to the SAO Krajina police, the Chamber found that the

 3     members of this formation committed murders in the SAO Krajina in 1991

 4     and deportation of between 80.000 and 100.000 Croats in the same area in

 5     1991 and 1992.  The Chamber further found that the accused had been

 6     closely involved with the formation, logistical and financial support of

 7     the SAO Krajina police.  The accused had also co-operated closely with

 8     Milan Martic who had authority over this formation and whose intent to

 9     deport non-Serbs must have been known to the accused.

10             The Chamber found that in continuing to support the SAO Krajina

11     police and co-operate with Milan Martic from April 1991, Stanisic took

12     the risk that the SAO Krajina police would commit crimes when

13     establishing and maintaining Serb control over large areas of Croatia.

14     However, the Chamber found that knowledge and acceptance of such a risk

15     is insufficient for the first form of joint criminal enterprise

16     liability.  The majority, Judge Picard dissenting, did not consider that

17     the only reasonable inference from Stanisic's actions with regard to the

18     SAO Krajina police was that he shared the intent of the alleged joint

19     criminal enterprise.

20             The majority, Judge Picard dissenting, reached the same

21     conclusion concerning Stanisic's actions with regard to the SDG and the

22     Skorpions.

23             In making the foregoing findings, the majority, Judge Picard

24     dissenting, allowed for the reasonable possibility that Stanisic's intent

25     in relation to the Unit, including the training of other Serb forces, the


Page 20429

 1     SAO Krajina police, the SDG, and the Skorpions was limited to

 2     establishing and maintaining Serb control over large areas of Croatia and

 3     Bosnia-Herzegovina.

 4             Based on the foregoing, the majority, Judge Picard dissenting,

 5     could not conclude that the only reasonable inference from the evidence

 6     on Stanisic's actions was that he shared the intent to further the common

 7     criminal purpose of forcibly and permanently removing the majority of

 8     non-Serbs from large areas of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina through

 9     the commission of murder, deportation, forcible transfer, and persecution

10     from at least April 1991 through 1995.

11             With regard to Franko Simatovic, the Chamber first considered the

12     evidence with regard to his specific actions or words uttered.  In this

13     respect, the Chamber found that Simatovic participated in a discussion of

14     the objectives of the attack on Lovinac which included the objective to

15     have as much of the local population leave as possible in order to

16     establish a purely Serb territory.  According to the Chamber, the

17     evidence indicated that Simatovic was at least aware of Martic's intent,

18     and may have shared it, to forcibly remove Croat civilians from the

19     village of Lovinac in June 1991, even if the evidence did not establish

20     whether persons actually left Lovinac during or immediately following the

21     attack.

22             Concerning the Vukovar operations, the Chamber found that

23     Simatovic was present at a meeting prior to, and a celebration following,

24     the fall of Vukovar.  Considering that the contents of the meeting was

25     unknown to the Chamber, and noting that members of the Unit did not


Page 20430

 1     participate in the attack, the majority, Judge Picard dissenting, allowed

 2     as a reasonable interpretation that Simatovic's intent was limited to

 3     support for the successful military take-over of Vukovar.

 4             The Chamber further considered evidence on Simatovic's acts in

 5     relation to other military operations.  This evidence indicated that

 6     these operations had been military actions directed against opposing

 7     forces and it did not indicate that any crimes had been committed during

 8     these operations.

 9             Based on the foregoing, the majority, Judge Picard dissenting,

10     was unable to conclude from the evidence on Simatovic's actions, that he

11     shared the intent to further the common criminal purpose of forcibly and

12     permanently removing the majority of non-Serbs from large areas of

13     Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina through the commission of murder,

14     deportation, forcible transfer, and persecution from at least April 1991

15     through 1995.

16             The Chamber then considered the other modes of criminal liability

17     charged by the Prosecution.

18             The Chamber found that the Prosecution had not proven beyond a

19     reasonable doubt that the accused planned or ordered the crimes charged

20     in the indictment.

21             With regard to the allegations of responsibility for aiding and

22     abetting the crimes charged in the indictment, the Chamber primarily

23     considered whether the accused's acts vis-a-vis certain formations, in

24     particular the Unit, aided and abetted any crimes.

25             In this respect, and as stated before, the Chamber found that the


Page 20431

 1     accused directed and organised the formation of the Unit between May and

 2     August 1991, and that from at least September 1991, the accused were in

 3     command of the Unit and controlled its deployment and training activities

 4     through leading Unit members who acted on behalf of the accused and were

 5     immediately subordinate to them.

 6             The Chamber further recalled its findings that the accused

 7     organised the Unit's involvement during the Bosanski Samac and Doboj

 8     operations in 1992, organised the training of its members at the Doboj

 9     and Pajzos camps, and organised their financing.  The Chamber found that

10     these contributions of the accused assisted the commission of the crimes

11     in Bosanski Samac and Doboj.

12             The majority, Judge Picard dissenting, considered that the

13     accused's assistance to the Bosanski Samac and Doboj operations, and to

14     the Unit generally, was not specifically directed towards the commission

15     of the crimes of murder, deportation, forcible transfer, or persecution.

16     Rather, it allowed for the reasonable conclusion that the assistance was

17     specifically directed towards establishing and maintaining Serb control

18     over these areas.  The majority, Judge Picard dissenting, was thus unable

19     to conclude that the assistance rendered to the Unit by the accused aided

20     and abetted the commission of the crimes in Doboj and Bosanski Samac.

21             The Chamber found that there were certain links, albeit looser

22     when compared to the Unit, between the accused and other groups, for

23     example, with the SAO Krajina police.  The accused's contributions

24     vis-a-vis these other groups were of a similar nature, including

25     financing, supplying, organising involvement, supporting, and training.


Page 20432

 1     However, the Chamber recalled that in none of the incidents where members

 2     of these other groups committed crimes did the accused play any more

 3     specific role in providing assistance.

 4             Recalling its finding that the kind of assistance rendered to the

 5     Unit was insufficient to incur criminal responsibility as an aider and

 6     abettor, the majority, Judge Picard dissenting, was unable to conclude

 7     that the accused aided and abetted crimes perpetrated by the SDG, the

 8     SAO Krajina police, the Skorpions, or other groups.

 9             Mr. Stanisic, will you please stand.

10             For the reasons summarised above, the Chamber by majority,

11     Judge Picard dissenting, having considered all of the evidence and the

12     arguments of the parties, the Statute and the Rules, and based upon the

13     factual and legal findings as determined in the judgement, finds you not

14     guilty and therefore acquits you of all counts against you in the

15     indictment.  The Chamber orders that you be immediately released from the

16     United Nations Detention Unit after the necessary practical arrangements

17     are made.

18             You may be seated.

19             Mr. Simatovic, will you please stand.

20             For the reasons summarised above, the Chamber by majority,

21     Judge Picard dissenting, having considered all of the evidence and the

22     arguments of the parties, the Statute and the Rules, and based upon the

23     factual and legal findings as determined in the judgement, finds you not

24     guilty and therefore acquits you of all counts against you in the

25     indictment.  The Chamber orders that you be immediately released from the


Page 20433

 1     United Nations Detention Unit after the necessary practical arrangements

 2     are made.

 3             You may be seated.

 4             A dissenting opinion by Judge Picard and a separate opinion by

 5     me, Judge Orie, are appended to the judgement.

 6             This concludes the delivery of the judgement, which will now be

 7     made publicly available.  And the Chamber stands adjourned.

 8                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 4.50 p.m.

 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25