1 - Dated 10 December 2003 (hereinafter “Indictment”).
2 - Expert report of Dr. John Allcock, filed 23 October 2003 (“Allcock Report”), p. 1.
3 - Allcock Report, p. 1.
4 - Dr. John Allcock, T. 467 – 470.
5 - Allcock Report, p. 6.
6 - Ibid., p. 2.
7 - Ibid., p. 3.
8 - Ibid., p. 5.
9 - Ibid., p. 16.
10 - See generally Dr. John Allcock, T. 461 – 464.
11 - Ibid., T. 472.
12 - Ibid.
13 - Indictment, paras 3 and 15.
14 - Prosecutor v Miodrag Jokic, Case No. IT-01-42/1-S, Sentencing Judgement, 18 March 2004. The Judgement is presently pending appeal. Admiral Jokic, Captain Kovacevic, the Accused and a fourth named indictee were originally charged together in February 2001 for violations of the laws or customs of war committed by alleged attacks on Dubrovnik between 1 October and 31 December 1991. The charges against the fourth individual were withdrawn in July 2001, and the cases against the remaining three were eventually separated.
15 - Hereinafter “Defence Motion”.
16 - Hereinafter “Prosecution Response”.
17 - Hereinafter “Defence Reply”.
18 - Prosecutor v Goran Jelisic, Case No. IT-95-10-A, Judgement, 5 July 2001 (hereinafter “Jelisic Appeals Judgement”), para. 37.
19 - See also Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic et al. (Celebici), Case No. IT-96-21-A, Judgement, 20 February 2001 (hereinafter “Celebici Appeal Judgment”), para. 434.
20 - Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Decision on Defence Motions for Judgement of Acquittal, 6 April 2000, para. 9.
21 - Regina v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039 at 1042, 73 Cr App R 124.
22 - Regina v Barker (1977) 65 Cr App R 287 at 288.
23 - Doney v The Queen (1990) 171 CLR 207 at 214-215.
24 - Jelisic Appeals Judgement, para. 55
25 - Ibid., para. 56.
26 - Admiral Jokic, T. 4040-42. A number of witnesses indicated that fire on Dubrovnik came from Zarkovica. See for example Slobodan Vukovic, T. 6018-21; Davorin Rudolf, T. 5564-65; Ivan Negodic, T. 5266. Admiral Jokic testified that the JNA unit positioned there was the 3rd battalion of the 472nd Motorised Brigade, T. 3935-54. See also Exhibit P132.
27 - See in particular, Witness B, T. 5035 – 5052. It is unnecessary in this decision to consider whether other forces actually inflicted damage on the Old Town in the course of the attack.
28 - As the Appeals Chamber ruled, “an armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to armed force between States or protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organised armed groups or between such groups within a State” (see Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, Decision on the Defence Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction, 2 October 1995 (hereinafter “Tadic Jurisdiction Decision”), para. 70.
29 - See, among other authorities, Prosecution v. Mladen Naletilic and Vinko Martinovic, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement, 31 March 2003 (hereinafter “Naletilic Trial Judgment”), para. 225. The Appeals Chamber considered that the armed conflict “need not have been causal to the commission of the crime, but the existence of an armed conflict must, at a minimum, have played a substantial part in the perpetrator’s ability to commit it, his decision to commit it, the manner in which it was committed or the purpose for which it was committed (see Prosecution v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic, Case No. IT-96-23-A, Judgement, 12 June 2002, para. 58).
30 - Indictment, para. 6 and the Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief, para. 126.
31 - Among others: Admiral Jokic, Per Hvalkof, Ljerka Alajbeg, Djordje Ciganovic, Nikola Samardzic.
32 - T. 361, T. 749, T. 2800-01, T. 3840-41.
33 - T. 310, T. 676, T. 2181.
34 - T. 993-95, T. 2854.
35 - E.g. evidence concerning ceasefire agreements: Slavko Grubisic, T. 1033, Per Hvalkof, T. 2148, 2181, Admiral Jokic, T. 4040; evidence relating to the presence of international organisations monitoring the implementation of such agreements: Per Hvalkof, T. 2236-37; evidence concerning the shelling of Dubrovnik in October, November and December 1991: Paul Davies, T. 577, Mato Valjalo, T. 1997-98, Nikola Jovic, T. 2924.
36 - Prosecution Response, paras 81-90, and the Prosecution’s Supplementary Authority to its “Response to Defence Motion for Acquittal” dated 17 June 2004.
37 - Indictment, para. 6.
38 - Prosecution opening statement, T. 271.
39 - See Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 137.
40 - E.g. Article 3 (1) (a) common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (see Tadic Jurisdiction Decision, para. 102 and Celebici Appeal Judgment, paras. 135 and 150) and Articles 51 and 52 of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (hereinafter “Additional Protocol I”) and Article 13 of Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (hereinafter “Additional Protocol II”) (see Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-AR72, Decision on an Interlocutory Appeal, 22 November 2002, paras 10 and 14, and Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-PT, Decision on Defence Preliminary Motion Challenging Jurisdiction, 7 June 2002, para. 21).
41 - Para. 16.
42 - See e.g. Prosecutor v. Momir Stakic, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgement, 31 July 2003, para. 584 (citing collected cases).
43 - Ibid. para. 581.
44 - Defence Motion, para. 33.
45 - See Prosecution Response, paras 16, 17 and 18.
46 - Ibid., para. 15.
47 - Ibid., para. 16.
48 - According to Witness A, who testified as to the intense shelling of the Old Town of Dubrovnik on 6 December, he had heard around 2 o’clock that day that Pavo Urban had been hit (T. 3632-33). See also Ivan Mustac, T. 1470-72. Nikola Jovic testified that a shell exploded nearby and minutes later he saw Tonci Skocko fall to the floor (T. 2941–43).
49 - T. 2745 (Pavo Urban) and T. 2838 (Tonci Skocko). See also Exhibit P70, item 15 (Pavo Urban) and item 11 (Tonci Skocko).
50 - T. 2747, T. 2837 (Pavo Urban); T. 2839 (Tonci Skocko).
51 - Nikola Jovic testified that Tonci Skocko was a civilian. T. 2933 – 34. According to Witness A, Pavo Urban was a professional photographer. T. 3628-30. Mato Valjalo testified that Pavo Urban was killed while filming the war. T. 2003. See also Exhibit P94 in which Pavo Urban can be seen wearing civilian clothes at the time of his death and carrying a camera.
52 - Infra, para. 57.
53 - Para. 16.
54 - See Celebici Appeal Judgment, para. 424; Prosecutor v. Mitar Vasiljevic, Case No. IT-98-32-T, Judgment, 29 November 2002, para. 234; Naletilic Trial Judgment, para. 246.
55 - Celebici Appeal Judgment, para. 424.
56 - Defence Motion, para. 33.
57 - Ibid., para. 34.
58 - Ibid, para. 41 and Defence Reply, para. 7.
59 - Defence Motion, para. 41.
60 - Ibid.
61 - Prosecution Response, paras 19 – 23.
62 - Ibid, paras. 19 – 23.
63 - Mato Valjalo, T. 2001-05.
64 - Mato Valjalo testified that in 1991 he was unarmed and wore civilian clothes. T. 1996.
65 - Ivo Vlasica, T. 3322-23. He testified that as a result of the shelling, he sustained an injury to his leg and was unable to walk properly until the wound had fully healed after about a month. T. 3323 and T. 3335.
66 - Ivo Vlasica testified that he was not in the Croatian military and that he was accorded the status of civilian war invalid on account of the injuries he sustained. T. 3557 and Exhibit P86.1.
67 - See Prosecutor v. Dragoljub Kunarac, Radomir Kovac and Zoran Vukovic, Case No. IT-96-23 and IT-96-23/1-T, Judgement, 22 February 2001 (hereinafter “Kunarac Trial Judgement”), paras 504 – 506 (citing Prosecutor v. Zlatko Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-T, Judgment, 25 June 1999 (hereinafter “Aleksovski Trial Judgment”))
68 - T. 2945.
69 - Infra, para. 57.
70 - The Prosecution opening statement, T. 263-7.
71 - See Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 March 2000 (hereinafter “Blaskic Trial Judgment”), para. 180, Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic and Mario Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Judgement, 26 February 2001 (hereinafter “Kordic Trial Judgement”), para. 328 and Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galic, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Judgement, 5 December 2003 (hereinafter “Galic Trial Judgment”), para. 62.
72 - See Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 180. In the Blaskic and Kordic Trial Judgements an additional condition is mentioned, that the attack was launched not through military necessity (Ibid.). The Trial Chamber in the Galic case observed, however, that Article 51 (2) of Additional Protocol I states in clear language that civilians and the civilian population as such should not be the object of attack and does not mention any exceptions, in particular that provision does not contemplate derogating from that rule by invoking military necessity (Ibid., para. 44).
73 - See Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Judgement, 7 May 1997 (hereinafter “Tadic Trial Judgement”), para. 638 and Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 214.
74 - Defence Motion, para. 35.
75 - Defence Reply, para. 12.
76 - Defence Motion, para. 42.
77 - Prosecution Response, para. 43.
78 - Ibid., para. 45.
79 - Ibid., para. 46.
80 - Among many others: Per Hvalkof T. 2188-2207, Slavko Grubisic, T. 1036-38, Ivo Grbic; T. 1357-69, 1443-44; Nikola Jovic, T. 2932-35; Exhibit P34; see also supra para. 23.
81 - See Sections III.B.1 and 2.
82 - Slavko Grubisic, T. 1030, 1031 and 1039; Ivo Grbic T. 1370-71; Ivan Mustac, T. 1476-77, 1511, 1520-21; Mato Valjalo, T. 2011-12, 2054; Nikola Jovic, T. 2966; Zineta Ogresta, T. 3493; Per Hvalkof, T. 2218-19; Ivan Negodic, T. 5240-41.
83 - Djordje Ciganovic, T. 2902.
84 - Defence Motion, para. 42.
85 - Adrien Stringer describes a discussion with the Accused at which the issue of evacuation of people from Dubrovnik was mentioned (T. 342); Ambassador Fietelaars referred to a meeting of the EU ambassadors with Admiral Brovet from the JNA, when they expressed their concern about attacking a civilian population allegedly as a response to a military threat (T. 4191); Witness B mentions some JNA soldiers who were wondering why the Old Town was being targeted when not a single shell from there fell on Zarkovica (T. 5040); Admiral Jokic says the JNA was aware that there were civilians living and working in the Old Town (T. 3921-22).
86 - Witness B, T. 5046-47; Ivan Negodic, T. 5267.
87 - See supra paras 24-28.
88 - Kordic Trial Judgement, para. 346. This definition has also been endorsed by the Trial Chamber in the Naletilic Trial Judgement, paras 578-579. See also Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 183, where the only difference in the definition was the mens rea requirement, that “the devastation must have been perpetrated intentionally or have been the foreseeable consequence of the acts of the accused” as opposed to “intent” or “reckless disregard”.
89 - The Chamber has jurisdiction over the Accused under customary international law as recognised in Article 52 of the Additional Protocol I. See supra footnote 40.
90 - See supra para. 50; Additional Protocol I, Article 51, paras 4 and 5.
91 - Additional Protocol I, Article 52, para. 1.
92 - Ibid., para. 2.
93 - Ibid., para. 3.
94 - Kordic Trial Judgement, para. 328.
95 - Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 180. The Kordic Trial Judgement held that the damage should be “extensive” ibid., para. 328.
96 - Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 180. Additionally, the Blaskic Trial Chamber held that “civilian property covers any property that could not be legitimately considered a military objective.” (emphasis added). In the Blaskic and Kordic Trial Judgements an additional condition is mentioned, that the attack was launched not through military necessity. Ibid.; For the latter condition see discussion at supra footnote 72.
97 - Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 185; Naletilic Trial Judgement, para. 605. Both judgements dealt only with the destruction of an institution dedicated to religion and therefore limit the definition to this object.
98 - Naletilic Trial Judgement, para. 605. The Kordic Trial Chamber, relying on Article 27 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, held that “protection of whatever type will be lost if cultural property, […], is used for military purposes.”, para. 362.
99 - Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 185.
100 - Naletilic Trial Judgement, para. 605. See also Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 185 and Kordic Trial Judgement, para. 361. In the Kordic Trial Judgement, it was held that while this offence overlaps to a certain extent with the offence of unlawful attacks on civilian objects, when the acts in question are directed against cultural heritage, the provision of Article 3 (d) is lex specialis, para. 361.
101 - Defence Motion, para. 36.
102 - Ibid., para. 37 with reference to the Kordic Trial Judgement, para. 346. However, as pointed out supra, the Kordic Trial Judgement identifies the mens rea element as “intent or reckless disregard of the likelihood”. The Defence seems to have misquoted the case.
103 - Defence Motion, para. 37.
104 - Ibid., para. 38.
105 - Ibid., para. 39, referring to Kordic Trial Judgement, para. 362.
106 - Ibid. See also supra para. 51.
107 - Ibid., para. 42.
108 - Ibid., para. 43.
109 - The Defence provided a list of 356 buildings and structures for which it is contended “there is no proof of any damage whatsoever”; for some of those 356 buildings and structures the Defence indicated double entries; Defence Motion, para. 46 and pp. 18-20. In its Reply the Defence identified damage to five additional buildings and structures which, in its submission, was not supported by any evidence. Defence Reply, paras 29-31.
110 - Cf. Prosecution Response, section VII.
111 - Prosecution Response, para. 24.
112 - See supra para. 52.
113 - Prosecution Response, para. 42.
114 - Ibid., para. 38.
115 - Ibid., para. 25.
116 - Ibid., para. 34. The Prosecution attaches an Annex II to their Response, which lists references to evidence of the alleged damage in relation to 145 buildings.
117 - The Indictment in para. 24 charges the Accused with destruction or damage to the buildings and structures which are listed in Schedule II but is not limited to those listed.
118 - See supra para. 53.
119 - The Chamber notes the evidence of the witnesses who testified generally about the damage sustained to the buildings and structures in the Old Town but not specifically relating to a particular building, e.g. Luciana Peko, T. 1966-67, Lars Brolund, T. 879, 881, Nikola Jovic, T. 3034-35.
120 - Defence Motion, pp. 18-20; Defence Reply, para. 30; Prosecution Response, Annex II.
121 - Ibid.
122 - See Annex, Part A. The Chamber has given sequential numbers to all 450 buildings and structures as they appear in Schedule II to the Indictment and uses these sequential numbers for the purposes of identification. Reference to the evidence, which the Chamber deems as being sufficient for the purposes of this 98 bis decision, is made in the Annex in the footnotes to the relevant contested buildings and structures.
123 - See Annex Part A, Nos A9, A10, A11, A57, A59 and A78 and para. 23 of the Indictment.
124 - See Annex, Part B.
125 - See Annex Part A, e.g. Nos A11, A15, A18, A20, A22, A92.
126 - The Chamber notes that among those 52 dismissed are the buildings and structures which were double entries in Schedule II.
127 - See supra paras 55 and 58.
128 - Dr. Kaiser, T. 2378-79, Exhibit P63/2.
129 - Exhibit P63/8, paras 6 and 23.
130 - E.g. Franciscan Monastery, Orthodox Church, St. Vlaho Church, Mosque, Onofrio Fountain, Cathedral, Rector’s Palace, Synagogue, etc. See Annex Part A, the buildings listed under Nos A4, A28, A14, A39, A7, A13, A93; and Part B, building B3.
131 - See supra para. 57.
132 - See supra para. 57.
133 - See supra para. 80.
134 - The video evidence shows clearly visible emblems indicating that the buildings and the structures within the Old Town were protected, e.g. Minceta Fort. P78 (13.11-13.20, 13.05-13.10, 17.19-17.27, 38.21-38.32). See especially evidence of Witness B, a JNA soldier positioned at Zarkovica during the attack on the Old Town on 6 December 1991. He testified that, on 6 December 1991, he observed some flags flying over the buildings. He personally did not know what the flags meant, “but the others were saying that those flags were there to protect the section of the town in the sense that that portion of the town was not to be targeted”. Witness B, T. 5048.
135 - Kordic Trial Judgement, para. 388.
136 - Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 281; Kordic Trial Judgement, para. 388. In this respect, ordering “may be inferred from a variety of factors, such as the number of illegal acts, the number, identity and type of troops involved, the effective command and control exerted over these troops, the logistics involved, the widespread occurrence of the illegal acts, the tactical tempo of the operations, the modus operandi of similar acts, the officers and staff involved, the location of the superior at the time and the knowledge of that officer of criminal acts committed under his command”, Galic Trial Judgement, para. 171.
137 - Prosecutor v. Miroslav Kvocka et al, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, Judgement, 2 November 2001 (hereinafter “Kvocka Trial Judgement”), para. 252; Galic Trial Judgement, para. 172.
138 - Defence Motion, para. 18. The Defence referred to the Blaskic Trial Judgement, in which the Chamber stated that the person who perpetrated the actus reus of the crime “must have acted in furtherance of a plan or order”, Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 278.
139 - Kordic Trial Judgement, para. 387; Kvocka Trial Judgement, para. 252; Naletilic Trial Judgement, para. 60. The “but for” test was not adopted in this respect.
140 - Defence Motion, paras 18 and 19.
141 - Ibid., paras 22 and 23.
142 - Ibid., para. 21, footnote 20.
143 - Prosecution Response, para. 48.
144 - Ibid., para. 48.
145 - Ibid., para. 48.
146 - Ibid., para. 48.
147 - Colm Doyle, T. 1712-13.
148 - Colm Doyle, T. 1716.
149 - The fact that the shelling of 6 December was carried out by troops under the Accused’s command was supported also by the following evidence: Admiral Jokic, T. 4049; Witness B testified that the firing was carried out by Vladimir Kovacevic, T. 5035. A number of witnesses testified that the fire came from Zarkovica. See for example Slobodan Vukovic, T. 6019; Davorin Rudolf, T. 5565. Admiral Jokic testified that the JNA unit positioned there was the 3rd Battalion of the 472nd Motorised Brigade, T. 4014. See also Exhibit P132.
150 - Admiral Jokic, T. 4132.
151 - Admiral Jokic would not characterise the attack as a spontaneous attack. He testified that it could have been prepared on 5 December 1991, that Vladimir Kovacevic would have had to carry out preparations with his company commander and would have needed several hours to prepare the attack, T. 4130-31. See also, Davorin Rudolf, who testified that it was his impression that the attack was synchronised and touched all parts of the city but that he does not know whether it was the work of organised units of the JNA or of a renegade one, T. 5612-13.
152 - Admiral Jokic testified that on 6 December 1991 the 3rd Battalion of the 5th Brigade was firing at Babin Kuk and Lapad, T. 4092, 4944-45. See also Defence Exhibit D65, p. 2. Per Hvalkof testified that the shelling of 6 December 1991 was “from land and sea”, T. 2190.
153 - Admiral Jokic, T. 4040-41.
154 - Infra., para. 101.
155 - Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Case IT-94-1-A, Judgement, 15 July 1999 (hereinafter “Tadic Appeals Judgement”), para. 229; Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, Case No. IT-95-14/1-A, Judgement, 24 March 2000 (hereinafter “Aleksovski Appeals Judgement”), para. 164; Celebici Appeals Judgement, para. 352.
156 - Aleksovski Trial Judgement, para. 62. See also Kunarac Trial Judgement, para. 391; Kvocka Trial Judgement, para. 256.
157 - Aleksovski Appeals Judgement, para. 164.
158 - Tadic Appeals Judgement, para. 229; Aleksovski Appeals Judgement, para. 162, referring to Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, Case No. IT-95-17/1-T, Judgement, 10 December 1998, para. 249.
159 - Aleksovski Appeals Judgement, para. 162.
160 - Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic et al., Case No. IT-96-21-T, Judgement, 16 November 1998 (hereinafter “Celebici Trial Judgement”), para. 346. See also Kordic Trial Judgement, para. 401; Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 294; Kvocka Trial Judgement, para. 314.
161 - Celebici Appeals Judgement, para. 195, referring to Celebici Trial Judgement, paras 370 and 371.
162 - Celebici Appeals Judgement, para. 256.
163 - Celebici Trial Judgement, para. 383, as endorsed by the Appeals Chamber in Celebici Appeals Judgement, para. 241. In particular, while knowledge cannot be presumed, it may be established by way of circumstantial evidence, in light of the following indicia: the number, type and scope of illegal acts, the time during which the illegal acts occurred, the number and type of troops involved, the logistics involved, the geographical location of the acts, the widespread occurrence of the acts, the speed of the operations, the modus operanti of similar illegal acts, the officers and staff involved and the location of the commander at the time. Celebici Trial Judgement, para. 386 referring to the Final Report of the United Nations Commission of Experts, S/1994/674, p. 17. See also, Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 307.
164 - Celebici Trial Judgement, para. 395. See also, Kordic Trial Judgement, para. 443-447.
165 - Defence Motion, para. 31.
166 - Ibid., para. 32.
167 - Ibid., para. 30.
168 - It refers inter alia to evidence establishing the structure of the 2nd Operational Group, including the fact that the 3rd Battalion of the 472nd Motorised Brigade was part of this group (Prosecution Response, paras 52, 53 and 58), to evidence on the role of the 2nd Operational Group in the Dubrovnik operation (Prosecution Response, paras 52 and 54), and to evidence establishing the Accused’s actual power of command over units within the 2nd Operational Group (Prosecution Response, paras 59 and 60).
169 - Prosecution Response, para. 67.
170 - Ibid., paras 69 and 70.
171 - Ibid., para. 71.
172 - Ibid., paras 73 to 76.
173 - Ibid., paras 77 and 78.
174 - Ibid., para. 78
175 - Defence Reply, para. 14.
176 - Ibid., paras 25 and 26.
177 - Ibid., para. 27.
178 - Ibid., para. 27.
179 - Admiral Jokic, T. 4092; 4944-45.
180 - Admiral Jokic, T. 3830-34; See also, Exhibit P100. Admiral Jokic further stated that according to the chain of command, he was receiving orders from and reporting to the Accused while issuing orders to his subordinate units, including the 3rd Battalion of the 472nd Motorised Brigade, T. 3856-58. See also, Exhibits P121 and P128. According to Prosecution expert witness Milovan Zorc, on 6 December 1991, the highest command of the 3rd Battalions of the 472nd Motorised Brigade and of the 5th Brigade was that of the 2nd Operational Group, the 3rd battalions being at the second level of subordination to the 2nd Operational Group, through the 9th VPS, T. 6689-91.
181 - Admiral Jokic, T. 3825; Adrien Paul Stringer also stated that the Accused took over the position of General Ruzinovski as commander of the 2nd Operational Group on 13 October 1991, T. 334; See also Exhibit P2.
182 - Admiral Jokic, T. 3825.
183 - Milovan Zorc, T. 6433.
184 - Admiral Jokic, T. 3829-30.
185 - See inter alia, Exhibit P119.
186 - Adrien Paul Stringer, T. 344.
187 - Admiral Jokic testified that in light of the indiscipline in the units, the Accused had the authority to require military police reinforcements, which he never did, T. 3904-06. Admiral Jokic further testified that the 3rd Battalion of the 472nd Brigade was never removed from the theatre of operations, T. 3837-38.
188 - Milovan Zorc testified that the commander has command responsibility for discipline and misconduct committed in the course of combat, T. 6445. There is evidence that when the Accused issued an order to implement measures aimed at improving discipline, such order went down the chain of command, see Exhibits P112 and P113.
189 - Prosecution witness Admiral Jokic testified that he spoke with the Accused on the phone in the morning of 6 December 1991, who told him that he had received a phone call from General Kadijevic of the General Staff who was furious about the attack and ordered both of them to come to Belgrade after having put an end to the attack, T. 4046-47. Prosecution witness Davorin Rudolf testified about his written communications with the Accused in relation to the 6 December 1991 attack, see Exhibits P23 and P61 (tab. 33). In particular, he mentioned that on 7 December 1991, he received a letter from the Accused apologising for the attack and stating that an investigation was being carried out, T. 5612-13. Per Hvalkof testified that on 6 December 1991, at around 4.10 p.m, he was informed by Davorin Rudolf that the Accused had ordered an immediate cease-fire, T. 2193.
190 - Admiral Jokic testified about the lack of discipline in the Trebinje Brigade, which included the non-compliance with orders and the uncontrolled use of weapons, T. 3851. See also Exhibits P108 and P109.
191 - Admiral Jokic, T. 3887-89.
192 - See, e.g. Ivo Grbic who testified about the Old Town being shelled around 23 and 24 October, T. 1347-50; Paul Davies testified about how the Old Town was shelled from 10 to 12 November 1991, T. 586-89. Admiral Jokic testified that after the combat operations on 23 to 25 October 1991, he received information that there had been impacts in the Old Town, T. 3959-60. See also, concerning the 10 November 1991 shelling, Exhibit P130, which is a letter of protest from the head of the International Monitoring Mission, Mr. Van Houten, addressed to the Accused. Per Hvalkof testified that he sent a letter to the Accused on 9 November 1991 asking him to stop the shelling of the Old Town, T. 2141-42 and Exhibit P61 (tab.17).
193 - Admiral Jokic, T. 3998. Admiral Jokic further stated that his attempts to have Vladimir Kovacevic removed after the November shelling failed, T. 3999-4000.
194 - Admiral Jokic, T. 4093; 5006-06.
195 - Milovan Zorc, T. 6484-86.
196 - Admiral Jokic, T. 4053.
197 - Milovan Zorc, T. 6503-06.
198 - Davorin Rudolf, T. 5800-01; See also Exhibit P61, Tab 33, a letter from Minister Davorin Rudolf to the Accused concerning the situation in Dubrovnik at the time, in which Davorin Rudolf invites the Accused to come and visit the town and see the damage; Per Hvalkof, T 2207.
199 - Admiral Jokic, T. 4116-17.
200 - Admiral Jokic, T. 4330.
201 - Admiral Jokic, T. 4120-22; see also Exhibit P133.
202 - Slobodan Vukovic, T. 5989-90; P61/39, para. 12; P145 (20.33-36).
203 - Objects were merged, because all three list the area of Pile, i.e. Pile gate and fortification at Pile (see also Defence Motion, fn. 63). The Chamber finds it unnecessary to keep these different parts of Pile separately, because most of the evidence does not make this distinction. The Chamber dismissed No. 25 and No. 40 (parts of city wall near Onofrio fountain), but does not exclude the possibility that those objects also form part of the area around Pile.
204 - Nikola Jovic, T. 3033-34; Slobodan Vukovic, T. 5830, 5920, 5958-59; P61/39, para. 12; P63/6, p. 37; P66 (37.34-37.40), P145 (14.57-15.02, 15.25); P178.
205 - The objects were merged, because each of them lists only a certain part of the same complex (see also Defence Motion, 28 May 2004, fn. 65-72). The Chamber finds it unnecessary to keep these different parts of the Monastery separately, because most of the evidence does not make this distinction.
206 - Where the Chamber has identified a building in the Schedule, which is also mentioned in para. 23 of the Indictment as one of the six destroyed buildings, it is emphasised in italics.
207 - Ivan Mustac, T. 1474, 1479; Lucijana Peko, T. 1966; Delo Jusic, T. 3088; Zineta Ogresta, T. 3472-74, 3477-80, 3482-83 (P87, P88); Slobodan Vukovic, T. 5825-26, 5917, 5937-39; markings on P39 (“B”), P81 (“i”), P89 (“X”); P66 (35.52, 36.34, 36.44), P78 (24.00-24.35); P145 (03.27-03.42); P63/9; P90. The Prosecution submits that there is no evidence supporting the destruction on this object in Schedule II. However, the Chamber has been able to identify this building as one of the six destroyed buildings from para. 23 of the Indictment located at Od Sigurate 2, the adjacent palace to the Festival Palace. In this respect the Chamber also notes the Prosecution’s submission in para. 28 of their Response.
208 - Ivan Mustac, T. 1474; Slavko Grubišic, T. 1036-37; Delo Jusic, T. 3076, 3086; Nikola Jovic, T. 2952; Ivo Grbic, T. 1375, 1377; Dorde Ciganovic, T. 2735; Zineta Ogresta, T. 3473, 3477-80 (P87, P88); Slobodan Vukovic, T. 5825-26, 5913-14; markings on P39 (“B”), P75 (“G”), P81 (“H”); P66 (36.40), P78 (23.36-24.03); P145 (12.00-12.50). The Prosecution submits that there is no evidence supporting the destruction on this object in Schedule II. However, the Chamber has been able to identify this building as one of the six destroyed buildings from para. 23 of the Indictment located at Od Sigurate 1, the Festival Palace. In this respect the Chamber also notes the Prosecution’s submission in para. 27 of their Response.
209 - Objects were merged, because both entries in Schedule II list “Drziceva Poljana Cathedral”; See also Defence Motion, footnote 79.
210 - Objects were merged, because both entries in Schedule II list Izmedu Polaca 10.
211 - Objects were merged, because both entries in Schedule II list Od Puca Street 11; See also Defence Motion, footnote 80.
212 - Ivan Mustac, T. 1474-75; Delo Jusic, T. 3096; Nikola Jovic, T. 2952, 2961; Ivo Grbic, T. 1376-77; Slobodan Vukovic, T. 5949-53, 6052-53, 6110-15; markings on P39 (“F”), P75 (“E”); P78 (29.54-31.10); P145 (13.23–14.39); P174.
213 - Slavko Grubisic, T. 1043.
214 - Colin Kaiser, T. 2712; P69.
215 - Slavko Grubisic, T. 1022, 1038; marked as “1.” on P30 (T. 1050).
216 - Delo Jusic, T. 3081-82; P63/6, p. 27, no. 19; p. 37.
217 - P63/6, p. 21, p. 27 (no. 18a).
218 - P63/6, p. 27 (no. 18b).
219 - Zineta Ograsta, T. 3471-72, 3542, marked on P89 with “A”.
220 - Slobodan Vukovic, T. 5916-17 (referring to it as a bookshop); P 66 (36.19); P78 (23.14-23.24); Colin Kaiser, T. 2451, P64.
221 - Slobodan Vukovic, T. 5939-40, 5954-58, 5961-62; P145 (04.16, 15.08-15.20); marked as “15” on P178.
222 - Ivan Mustac, T. 1474-75, 1481; marked as “H” on P39.
223 - Delo Jusic, T. 3084-85; P78 (22.38-22.42, 22.48-23.00); marked with “F” on P81.
224 - Slobodan Vukovic, T. 5965; P145 (17.36-17.40).
225 - Slobodan Vukovic, T. 5870-73; P174.
226 - Slobodan Vukovic, T. 5878-81; P174.
227 - Also called Klarisa/St. Klarisa Monastery; Slobodan Vukovic, T. 5944-46; P61/39, para. 8; P145 (11.20-11.51, 16.01-16.07); marked as “2” on P178.
228 - Ivan Mustac, T. 1481; marked with “i” on P39 (the marking lies in fact on the corner of Od Puca and Djordjiceva St., but the witness introduced it in his testimony as: “This is what we refer to as St. Joseph's Street.”, T. 1481)
229 - Slavko Grubisic, T. 1046, 1116; P61/39, para. 15.
230 - Slobodan Vukovic, T. 5883-84; P174; P63/6, p. 27, no. 29.
231 - Nikola Jovic, T. 2954-55, 3030-32; marked with “A” on P75.
232 - Lucijana Peko, T. 1843-44, 1914-17; marked with “X/A” on P50 (T. 1844, 1846).
233 - Accounts pointing to different parts of the city walls/walkways in the northern part of the Old Town were reviewed together, because the identification of the exact location of each part of the city wall was not possible. Slobodan Vukovic, T. 5963, 5988; P61/39, para. 12; P145 (17.10, 20.02).