The Trial Chamber will also investigate the material and mental elements of the criminal offense. Terror against the civilian population as a violation of the laws or customs of war (a) Introduction (a) Introduction. This section of the Judgment expresses the view of the majority of the Trial Chamber.
8 of the prosecution's final court proposal simply goes back to the statements in the pre-trial file. As mentioned in the previous section, by the end of the trial the defense appeared to have changed its position on the applicability of Additional Protocol I. The serious violations alleged in this case include both of the above components (intentional targeting of civilians resulting in death or serious injury and intent to terrorize).
When articulating the elements of the specific crime that are relevant to the handling of this case, the majority has. The discussion by the Trial Chamber of the offense of attacking civilians in the previous section is also relevant.
Offences Charged under Article 5 of the Statute
Widespread" refers to a large-scale attack with a large number of casualties,251 while "systematic" refers to the organized nature of the attack.252 The assessment of what constitutes a widespread or systematic attack is related to the civilian population being attacked.253 The Trial Chamber must first identify the population targeted by the attack and, in light of the means, methods, patterns, means, participation of officials or authorities and the outcome of the attack on that population, ascertain whether the attack has been widespread was or systematically.254. The Tribunal's case law has established that customary international law does not require that the attack be related to a policy or plan.255 However, evidence of a plan or policy can be used to show that the attack was widespread or systematic. 256. In addition to the intent to commit the underlying crime, the suspect must know that there is an attack against the civilian population and that the actions he or she has performed are part of that attack.257 Knowledge of the details of the attack is not necessary,258 and that is not required.
In order to assess the seriousness of an act or omission, all the facts of the case must be taken into account. These circumstances may include the nature of the act or omission, the context in which it occurred, the personal circumstances of the victim, including age, sex and health, and the physical, mental and moral effects of the act or omission on the victim .266. Because some of the charges in this indictment share the same underlying facts, the Trial Chamber will consider the law on cumulation of charges and sentences.
Cumulative Charging and Convictions
In this case, the criminal conduct charged against the accused is the same as for point 1 and points 4 and 7 under Article 3 of the Statute (violations of the laws and customs of war: terror against the civilian population and attack on civilians). The same alleged behavior is also the basis for points of Article 5 of the statute (crimes against humanity: murders and inhuman acts). In each case, the Trial Chamber must decide which charges are admissible for a conviction, if the legal elements of a crime are proven.
The Majority of the Trial Chamber found that the crime of terrorism in count 1 is defined as “1. Acts of violence directed against the civilian population or individual civilians not directly participating in hostilities, causing death or serious injury to body or health within the civilian population. Applying the aforementioned test, convictions for the crimes of terrorism and attack on civilians under Section 3 of the Statute based on the same conduct are not admissible. The Appeals Chamber stated that it is permissible to cumulate convictions for the same acts under Articles 3 and 5 of the Statute.272 Therefore, a conviction for the crime of terrorizing the civilian population (Article 3 of the Statute) and convictions for murder and inhuman acts (Article 5 of the Statute) can coexist. c) Article 5: The charges of murder and inhuman acts.
Theories of Responsibility under Article 7 of the Statute
FACTUAL AND LEGAL FINDINGS
In this third part, the Trial Chamber will examine what the special facts of the case are and whether these special facts support, beyond a reasonable doubt, the finding that the crimes alleged in the indictment, charged in accordance with articles 3 and 5 of the statute, and which examined in Part II, was committed.
General Remarks on Terminology and Evidence
In the silence of the defense as to the nature of the material, the Trial Chamber does not take this material into account and refrains from any decision on this matter. In light of this, the Trial Chamber understands the word "campaign" in the context of the Indictment to cover military actions in the Sarajevo area during the Indictment period that include widespread or systematic shelling and sniping of civilians resulting in the death or injury of theirs. The Trial Chamber finds that in the context of the present case, sniping must be understood as the direct targeting of individuals at a distance using any type of small-caliber weapon.
Milenko Inđi}, liaison officer of the SRK, referred to "sniping" even more broadly, indicating that all infantry weapons were called snipers during the war: T. At the same time, the Trial Chamber has paid no less attention to the evidence of unplanned incidents of sniping and shelling, as well as evidence of other aspects of the situation in Sarajevo. The Trial Chamber agrees with the Defense that the scale of the map admitted into evidence as Exhibit C2 is.
Events Leading to the Military Encirclement of Sarajevo in 1992
In September 1991, the Main Council of the SDS recommended the formation of Serbian autonomous regions. That day, Tarik Kupusovi}, a member of the town council, saw tanks approaching from Lukavica, a neighborhood in the southern part of Sarajevo, and opened fire on the Presidency building. Shooting took place at, among others, the Assembly of the Serbian People of BiH.
It would be located in the greater Sarajevo area, the former zone of responsibility of the 4th JNA Corps.363 JNA elements joined local Territorial Defense Forces364 and participated in organizing and manning the SRK.365. The Radinovi report (paragraph 19) states that professional soldiers of the VRS come from BiH, "while the bulk of the command cadre comes from the reserve cadre contingent." The assistance of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) to the VRS and the. Contacts of Bosnian Serbs with the Minister of Defense of the Republic of Serbia as early as autumn 1991 are discussed by the Guskova Report, p.
Each brigade headquarters included a staff whose structure replicated that of the Corps headquarters to facilitate communication. Three brigades from the earliest composition of the IV Corps of the APJ became part of the SRK: the 49th Motorized Brigade (reformed and renamed the 1st Sarajevo Motorized Brigade); 120th Light Infantry Brigade (renamed 2nd Sarajevo Light Infantry Brigade); The 216th Mountain Brigade (renamed the 1st Romanian Infantry Brigade), which was located east of Sarajevo in Pale; Radinović's report, para. An assessment of the positions of single SRK brigades in the Sarajevo region is provided by the Radinović Report, para.
The front line from Grbavica to Knjeginac was held by the forces of the 1st Infantry Brigade of Romania from the beginning of the war until the middle of 1993. 131; The SRK controlled the west and northwest of Vogo{}a, Raijlovac and Haxhi}i; to the south-east, Mount Trebevi}, Tucker, T. Confrontation lines surrounding the parts of the city under ABiH forces were in place until 10 September 1992, when General Gali} took over as commander of the SRK.
The report, as well as ABiH's strategic objective of "unblocking" the city.390 UNPROFOR members present in Sarajevo clearly describes the success of the SRK in creating the "encirclement".
Was there a Campaign of Sniping and Shelling by SRK forces against Civilians?
The Trial Chamber heard testimony that snipers were operating in the vicinity of Sarajevo's Jewish cemetery. The Trial Chamber accepts the description of the incident as related by the witnesses and is satisfied that the victim was a civilian. An official ballistics expert did not participate in the investigation, as it had been moved from the scene of the incident.
Witness DP16 testified that the site of the incident was not visible from SRK lines, Witness DP16, T. The witness did not know about the existence of any military facility in the area, Veli}, T. The conclusions in the following incident expresses the views of the Majority of the Trial Chamber.
UNMO reports932 and other witnesses had discovered that the Institute of the School for the Blind had a. The Trial Chamber heard evidence related to the shelling of the Alipa{ino Polje area. In the early stages of the conflict prior to the indictment period, it was isolated from the rest.
The victim was on the northwest side of the bridge when she was hit. D`evlan testified that at the time of the incident she was the only passerby in the area and was not carrying a weapon. He testified that the Faculty of Theology was one of the tallest buildings in Ne|ari}i.
1265 Fazliq testified that the line of confrontation was a few hundred meters away from the scene. The defense claims that the front line was only 50 meters away from the scene, Defense Closing Arguments, T. Based on the above, the majority finds that the water line of civilians in Dobrinje.
In court, the two witnesses indicated that the women came back from the well, Ramiza Kundo, T. They also assumed that the dimensions of the market were 36 by 30 meters, D1917 (Vili~i} Shelling Report).
