Najvažnije zaključke iz današnje presude pred Medjunarodnim sudom

O Hrvatskoj tuzbi protiv Srbije:

426.  "Sud se osvrće na zaključke MKSJ-a. Sud navodi da je, prema potonjem, politički cilj vodstva SAO Krajine i tadašnje Republike Srpske Krajine, koji je dijelilo i vodstvo Srbije i Republike Srpske u Bosni i Hercegovini, bio ujedinjenje srpskih područja u Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini sa Srbijom kako bi se uspostavio jedinstven teritorij, i uspostavljanje etnički srpskog teritorija iseljavanjem Hrvata i drugog ne-srpskog stanovništva kampanjom progona. Sud nadalje navodi da prema zaključcima MKSJ-a, djela koja čine actus reus genocida u smislu Članka II (a) i (b) Konvencije nisu bila počinjena s namjerom da se unište Hrvati već s namjerom da ih se prisili da napuste navedena područja da bi se mogla stvoriti etnički homogena srpska država. Sud se slaže s tim zaključkom."


O Srpskoj tuzbi protiv Hrvatske:

472. "Sud iz navedenog zaključuje da nije bilo neselektivnog granatiranja gradova u Krajini s namjerom izazivanja civilnih žrtava. Samo bi iznimno ovaj Sud mogao odstupiti od odluka Međunarodnog kaznenog suda za područje bivše Jugoslavije po ovom tipu pitanja. Srbija je doista skrenula pažnju suda na kontroverze koje su proizašle iz presude Žalbenog vijeća. Međutim, ovom Sudu nije predočen nikakav dokaz, prije ili nakon te presude, koji bi nedvojbeno pokazao da su hrvatske vlasti ciljano namjeravale granatirati civilna gradska područja koja su naseljavali Srbi. Točnije, takva se namjera ne može iščitati iz Brijunskih transkripata. Niti je moguće utvrditi da je takva namjera nedvojbeno ustanovljena na temelju izjava osoba koje su svjedočile pred Sudskim vijećem MKSJ-a u predmetu Gotovina, a koje su navedene kao svjedoci Srbije u ovom predmetu.''

The two most important findings in today's judgment in the Croatia v. Serbia case

Concerning Croatia's allegations against Serbia:

426. "The Court addresses the findings of the ICTY. It notes that, according to the latter, the political objective being pursued by the leadership of the Serb Autonomous Region (SAO) of Krajina and then the RSK, and shared with the leaderships in Serbia and in the Republika Srpska in Bosnia and Herzegovina, was to unite Serb areas in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina with Serbia in order to establish a unified territory, and to establish an ethnically Serb territory through the displacement of the Croat and other non-Serb population through a campaign of persecutions. The Court further notes that, according to the conclusions of the ICTY, the acts that constitute the actus reus of genocide within the meaning of Article II (a) and (b) of the Convention were not committed with intent to destroy the Croats, but rather with that of forcing them to leave the regions concerned so that an ethnically homogeneous Serb State could be created. The Court agrees with this conclusion."


Concerning Serbia's allegations against Croatia:

472. "The Court concludes from the foregoing that it is unable to find that
there was any indiscriminate shelling of the Krajina towns
deliberately intended to cause civilian casualties. It would only be
in exceptional circumstances that it would depart from the findings
reached by the ICTY on an issue of this kind. Serbia has indeed drawn
the Court’s attention to the controversy aroused by the Appeals
Chamber’s Judgment. However, no evidence, whether prior or subsequent
to that Judgment, has been put before the Court which would
incontrovertibly show that the Croatian authorities deliberately
intended to shell the civilian areas of towns inhabited by Serbs. In
particular, no such intent is apparent from the Brioni Transcript. Nor
can such intent be regarded as incontrovertibly established on the
basis of the statements by persons having testified before the ICTY
Trial Chamber in the Gotovina case, and cited as witnesses by Serbia
in the present case."

More lies from Savo Štrbac: MPRI is NOT offering the "Krajina" Serbs a Settlement

This weekend was marked by yet another bombastic claim by the discredited Savo Štrbac of Veritas, this time claiming that the American firm MPRI has "offered the [Krajina] Serbs a settlement" of their claims that Croatia's Operation Storm was a genocide.  (See link here).  I have previously written about how Mr. Štrbac continuously misrepresents the facts of that Krajina Serb lawsuit against MPRI in Chicago.  (See my blogs here and here).  His claims this weekend are also false:  MPRI has not "offered the Serbs a settlement."  I suspect that Mr. Štrbac puts out such wildly optimistic propaganda in the Serbian press in order to justify additional funding for his Veritas organization.

The facts are as follows:

1.  The lawsuit filed by the "Krajina" Serbs against the former MPRI (now known as Engility Corporation) is currently pending before Judge John Lee in the United States District Court in Chicago.  Judge Lee ordered the Krajina Serbs and MPRI to:

• Indicate whether any settlement discussions have occurred;
• Describe the status of any settlement discussions; and
• Whether the parties request a settlement conference.

(See Judge Lee's Standing Order, at Section IV, found here).

In other words, the Court in Chicago requires the parties in every case to consider the possibility of settlement.

2.  On 2 December 2014, the "Krajina" Serbs and the former MPRI responded to Judge Lee's order by advising that it was the Krajina Serbs who were proposing a mediation:

"Settlement discussions have not occurred.  Plaintiffs [the "Krajina" Serbs] have proposed an early mediation before the parties become fully engaged, and Defendant [Engility Corporation, the former "MPRI"] is considering its amenability to such an early mediation."  [See the "Joint Status Report" filed in the Chicago court, here at numbered page 6).

From this document it is clear that it is the "Krajina" Serbs who are proposing a discussion about settlement, and not MPRI.  Furthermore, it is clear that as of 2 December 2014, MPRI had not agreed to such settlement discussions.  If MPRI later agreed to participate in a settlement discussion, this would not be unusual, because they may simply want to hear what the "Krajina" Serbs would like to propose.  For example, if the "Krajina" Serbs propose to dismiss the case if MPRI pays them $100,000, this might be something that MPRI would consider because it will cost MPRI $100,000 in attorney's fees to have the case dismissed.   But this is a much different situation than Savo Štrbac has described.  

The truth is that it is the "Krajina" Serbs and Mr. Štrbac who are looking for a settlement, not MPRI.  All MPRI has said is that it is willing to listen to their proposal.

My Grandfather's Story: Stipe Čuvalo Veža

Seventy years ago, my grandfather on my mother’s side, Stipe Čuvalo nicknamed Veža, left the family village seeking safety in advance of the arrival of Yugoslav partisan and communist forces in the village.  He was never to be seen by his family again. Witnesses tell us that he was executed in mid-1945 along with thousands of others after the war. His body was never recovered, and the communist authorities never acknowledged that he was executed.  Stipe Čuvalo was 38 years old when he was murdered.

My grandfather left behind my grandmother and four children under the age of nine, including my mother Iva, who was two years old at the time and the only girl in the family.  This fact forever left her with the nickname among her fellow villagers as “Cura”, i.e. “Girl,” because she was alone with four brothers.  A fifth child, my uncle, history professor Ante Čuvalo, was a month away from being born at the time their father disappeared.

The victims of these communist and partisan crimes had their voices silenced.  The memories of those witnesses who did live, and who can tell us what happened to these victims, are also fading away as their generation now grows into their late 80’s and beyond.  For this reason, my uncle professor Čuvalo decided to interview the remaining survivors and to publish their memories about the plight of the victims of these crimes, so that their memories of these terrible events can be preserved forever.  The book is titled, “Od Bleiburga do Ljubuškog – svjedočenja preživjelih” (From Bleiburg to Ljubuski: The Testimony of the Survivors).  You can order a copy of the book in Croatian by emailing the publisher at [LUKA'S NEW NOTE: THE BOOK HAS NOW SOLD OUT].

The book tells the individual stories of 83 victims, including the story of my grandfather, as told from the perspective of my uncle Ante.  I have taken the liberty of having that portion translated into English so that you can read it.  See below.

Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord.  And let perpetual light shine upon them.

_________________________

STIPE ČUVALO – VEŽA

                       

It’s the end of October, 1944. As the autumn evening’s sun is slowly beginning to set, a fire is crackling in the hundred-year-old fireplace in the family house. Sitting around the fireplace are Grandfather Nikola (born in 1872), Grandma Mara-Biluša (1875), Aunt Iva-Majuša, called Nina (1903) (whose husband Stojan went to Argentina in 1926 and stayed there, and her son Franjo (1925) was on one of the battlefields in Northern Croatia at the time and had most likely ended up in the pits of Kočevski Rog), Aunt Iva (1910) whose beloved went to war and she remained unwed, Anđa-Grbavuša (1914) and her four children: the eldest Vlatko (1935), Kamilo (1937), Mladen (1939) and Iva (1942) [nota bene from Luka Misetic:  this is my mother, Iva], and the fifth was “on the way”. This was me, born a month later. Our father Stipe (1906), called Veža, went toward the town of Široki Brijeg with a couple of more men from the village the day before – to hide until “this evil passes” [translator’s remark: reference to the “evil passing” is to the arrival of communist/partisan forces in the area].

The gathered children of the house said their evening prayer: the Angelus; prayer recommendations; “the acts” /tr. remark: four acts - act of faith, act of hope, act of love and act of charity/; the Soul of Christ…, and remained seated without speaking. There was no supper. There was nothing to put on the table. There was only a little piece of corn bread covered with a cloth on the wooden peel covering the old and empty wooden dough bowl and this was kept only for the children. The house, the family house and the one some hundred feet away are empty, as is the pojata /tr. remark: small ancillary facility for storing straw, wood logs and such/, and the pigsty. Everything is empty. The clothing set aside for Aunt Iva’s dowry and all of the clothing from the “srg” /tr. remark: wooden pole attached to the roof timbers for drying clothes/ had been taken.

Grandma Biluša’s, Nina’s and Anđa’s chests which they had brought with them to the Čuvalo’s village when they were wed were also emptied. And one old chest, perhaps from Great-grandmother Lozuša, which was standing on the “sopa” /tr. remark: deposited soil/ behind the fireplace, was recently filled with dry walnuts. But they were also gone, taken. The old and well-known “Biluša’s walnut tree” is the largest tree in the village and it has a good yield every year. Its fruits are somewhat small but always healthy and tasteful. It was probably planted by Great-grandfather Mate, called Big. Its branches covered the central crossroads in the Čuvalo’s mahala /tr. remark: “mahala” is a word for neighborhood or section of a settlement, hamlet/. The young would meet beneath it every night; they would socialize there, sing, tell jokes and learn to “court”. The elders would meet beneath it to “deliberate” on matters when needed. There would sometimes be as much as 100 kilos of dry walnuts on the walnut tree. The yield was high this year as well, but there aren’t any walnuts left anymore – they were taken by the “people’s army and government” [tr. remark: reference is to communist/partisan forces].

That day, in the morning hours, the “liberators” [tr. remark: word was used by communist/partisan forces to refer to themselves] visited the “Bilušinas,” that is what they called our family, and “liberated” the house of everything, absolutely everything. They took the horse, the cow, the donkey, two or three goats, some twenty sheep, and Vlatko cried only for his favorite, for his Gala, the black sheep. It was difficult for him to part from it. The comrades didn’t want to bother with the fattened pig so they ordered that one of the members of the household take it to Medić’s house in Donji Radišići that morning. The pig, which had never left the pigsty and its small backyard in front of it, doesn’t obey when it’s “on the loose”. Whether you’re nice or strict, nothing works. Mother Anđa (Grbavuša) would often tell tales of how much trouble she had getting the pig over to them. Luckily, our good neighbor Luka, called Luksan, helped her take the willful pig and hand it over to the “people’s authorities” so that she could contribute to her “liberation” in this manner as well! Back then, you had to go from Čuvalo’s fields in the valley across Spajić’s houses in Radišići and then down Draga to the main road, which is about a kilometer long. Mother had to do all this even though she was eight months pregnant.

But that wasn’t the end of it. When the “liberators” took everything away, they promised to return that night and set the house and lot on fire. One should believe them; it was plain to see that they were trained in terrorizing innocent folk. Everyone in the house has been thinking about this deadly promise all day. The sun is setting, all of the children are in the house around the fireplace, the grown-ups are silent, and they don’t know what’s ahead. And the children can see and feel that serious things are happening. The silence was disturbed by voices from the west side; they heard the murmur and clattering of the army from Zovak’s houses, and then the partisan songs. Singing, they’re moving closer and closer. Everyone in the house is listening to where they will turn. If they keep moving above our garden toward Radišići, they can rest easy, but if they turn right under our walnut tree, it’s clear; they’re coming to set the house on fire! That’s what they promised this morning and they will probably keep their promise. In a few moments, it seemed as if nobody was breathing, everyone was expecting where the “people’s army” was going to go. They turned right! Here they come!

Grandpa Nikola coughed and said to my mother: “Daughter-in-law, take the kids and leave the house; hide somewhere. And the rest of you also go to the neighborhood. I was born in this house and I will die in it.” Nikola never spoke much, but everyone knew that he was always a man of his word. Grandma Mara-Biluša, given she was always resolute and brave, raised her voice and ‘ordered’: “Daughter-in-law, you stay here, you and the kids! If we are to burn, we will all burn together!” She said it and immediately lay on the right side of the fireplace, where she usually had her cot. She lay down and started to shake; shake as if she had the worst fever. She said: “Daughter-in-law, cover me, I’m cold!” She was shaking with fear not for herself but because of the responsibility she had assumed upon herself. She ordered everyone not to leave the house, be what may. Everyone is silently crying, only Grandpa Nikola was staring at the fire that was breaking the darkness in the house. Darkness of the night and fear… And the fire seemed to be encouraging the children that were scared to death; it’s easier when at least the fire’s crackling, giving warmth and glimmering.

Everything was happening very quickly because there is only a two-minute walk from the walnut tree to our house. They’re trudging along, they’re coming, and here they are in front of the old oak wood door covered in soot. Then someone spoke: “Biluša, Biluša!” They’re not calling grandfather but Grandma Biluša. The man behind the door said: “It’s Nikola Tica, open the door; don’t be afraid, we didn’t come to burn the house!” Grbavuša, my mother, was the youngest of the women and she opened the door.

Nikola, our fellow-villager, entered together with an officer. They said again that they didn’t come to burn the house down; instead they asked if the soldiers who are with them could spend the night in the barn and other rooms. They’re polite; they even ask if they can spend the night! They spent the night and moved on the next day! And the house and the barn were left empty. Not only that, after they robbed everything they ordered the neighbors that no one is to give any food or provide any help to the Bilušinas. Most of them didn’t have anything to give as it was, and the others followed the instructions.

God does care after all

When the partisans left in the morning, everybody in the house breathed a little easier – at least they didn’t burn down our house. The roof over our heads is still here. Rain started falling in the afternoon; you could say it was pouring. While the members of the household were sitting in the family house around the fireplace, an unknown man knocked on the door and entered. “Praised be Jesus.” “Now and Forever” He’s all wet. He said: “Forgive me; here I am storming into your house to get out of the rain. I am Franjo Radišić from Grljevići and I am on my way home from Ljubuški.’’ Grandma told him to sit down, to get warm and dry. “I would offer you something to eat and drink, but, brother; there is nothing in the house. The partisans took everything yesterday and they ordered everyone not to give us anything. They have condemned us to die of hunger.” The man looked around and saw that there really wasn’t anything in the house. When he heard what had happened, he said that he has enough food and that he will bring a sack of flour and some other things tonight through the woods belonging to the villagers of Grljevići and that someone from the house should sneak out and get it. As one might guess, Grbavuša (my mother) went and Nina Majuša with her. They put a rope across their shoulders and in the evening hours headed across the hill to the arranged spot, a little further from Šošić’s houses. Franjo was already there. They took over the food and secretly brought it home. This “secret route” was open during these worst of times. But more than food, Franjo’s family and ours have become true friends and, naturally, family members were each other’s godparents many times. Everything had passed, but the friendship and the love remained.

Veža in retreat

            My father Stipe – Veža left at the end of October and stayed in the town of Široki Brijeg for a time. Some surviving soldiers and civilians had seen him there. Mijo Penavić, who came to Canada after the war, told me that he was with Veža at the beginning of 1945 and that he had spent time with him in Široki. They had known each other since before the war. Recently Ivan Marić from Radišići had also told me that he used to see him in Široki Brijeg. When and how he had moved on is unknown. People his age would also sometimes be “recruited” to provide assistance to the less able refugees in retreat. It wasn’t until a conversation with Ante Zlopaša – Skokušina from the village of Proboj in 2013 that I heard that my father had gone all the way to Bleiburg in Austria. Namely, Ante said to me: “My friend, I saw your dad in Maribor (Slovenia) when we were on our way back from Bleiburg. When we were separated, he was with the elderly, and we young people were on the other side. I couldn’t miss him, he was almost 6 ft 5 and already completely grey. He had a pouch of some kind on his shoulder.”

            We never learned what had happened to him from Maribor to Mostar. As most prisoners, he must have passed through various camps. But, we do know that he ended up in the infamous Ćelovina prison (in Mostar) of which we heard firsthand accounts.

In Ćelovina

            Brothers Branko (born in 1912) and Ivan (born in 1914) Boras from Gornji Proboj were also in Ćelovina together with my father Stipe, among others. Their father was Mate, but everyone had called them Vida’s /Vidini/ after their mother Vida. Together with them in their retreat was a third brother, Ante. He was a salesman and somewhat fat and so his brothers told him to get a ride with a truck and they would go on foot, which he did. Afterwards Ante ended up in a camp in Austria and afterwards left to Canada where he died. Branko and Ivan made it to Bleiburg in Austria, then returned on the Way of the Cross[1] and were brought to Ćelovina.

            Before the war, Branko lived in Mostar where he got married in 1941. He lived as a tenant in a house owned by Branko Mijan, called Bane, in Matije Gupca Street, not far from Malta. Bane was also on the Way of the Cross and he also ended up in Ćelovina. My father, who was with them there, had also known Bane from before the war. Namely, my father Veža was one of the more active members of the Croatian Peasant Party and he went to Mostar on several occasions. He was friends with Bariša Smoljan, his secretary Stanko Tomić, Minister Lavrić and others. Each time he would come to Mostar he would stay with a fellow villager, friend and colleague from the party, Branko Boras. That’s where he met and became friends with Bane Mijan as well. Now they found themselves together in this infamous camp.

            Branko’s wife Zora would come to visit her husband, Branko Boras. Her son Mate remembers well how his mother would tell him about these visits and the horrendous circumstances the prisoners had been in. Aside from Branko, she would see her brother-in-law Ivan and she would bring him food as well. The last time she saw Ivan was on 27 June 1945. She arrived the next day and brought some food but Ivan wasn’t there. She asked: “Where is Ivan?” The guards responded: “He isn’t here.” “What do you mean he isn’t here when I was here yesterday and gave him some food?” Her husband signaled her with his eyes: “Don’t ask!” She later found out from her husband that his brother Ivan was taken outside in the night of June 27 and killed. But, he wasn’t alone; a larger number of prisoners were slaughtered that night. The Serbs were “celebrating” their St. Vitus Day (28 June) and the Neretva River was flowing red with blood that morning! Branko lived, but after Ćelovina he was convicted to four years of imprisonment in the high-security prison and the loss of all of his civil rights for three years. He did all four years.

            It’s fairly easy to guess who was making the decisions in our village of Proboj as to which of the imprisoned villagers in Mostar would be killed and which would be left alive. Mijo Čuvalo, better known for his bad reputation as Žic (“Wire”), was the one who had the final say in the village. Of course, he had helpers.

            Žic was the first “great Croat” in the village and a supporter of the Croatian Peasant Party. It was April, 1941, he was the first “Ustasha” and he started gathering young people for the Ustasha army. He also later became the first partisan in the village, and they needed his kind! He and his wife Aleruša were the rulers of the village during those worst of times. Everyone knew that he was a dishonorable man and in the end the partisans later hid him in (the far away town of) Zenica. He would sometimes come to our native village and even ask my mother how she and the children were. One time he told her: “If your husband Veža had been a little bit wiser, he could have stayed alive,” to which she responded: “Listen, Žic, I prefer that he died with honorable men than that he had lived with dishonorable men!” He stood silent and left without a word.  

Godfather Bane

            My father Veža found out through Zora Brankinica that his fourth son was born after leaving Proboj. Since he was friends with Bane Mijan, they agreed that he was going to be my godfather at my Confirmation since he couldn’t be my godfather when I was baptized. And that’s how it was, and Bane later told us the following about my father and himself.

            The executioners /dželati, from the Turkish word cellat/ of Ćelovina prison would come every night and separate, based on what criteria he didn’t know, a group of around 20-30 men. They would not come back! My father Stipe was also taken in one of those groups. Several days later, Bane was also taken. It was just before midnight and they were brought to the east side of the river. The men knew what was ahead, but they were all quiet. No one lamented or asked for mercy. They ordered them to stand in a line after which fire from machine guns followed. After some time, Bane woke up and saw the dead bodies of his fellow sufferers around him. He was surprised to be alive. He was wounded in the head but not seriously. There wasn’t a soul in sight. By the looks of it, they came early the next morning to throw the dead bodies in the Neretva River or in one of the pits. Luckily, Bane woke up before the “second shift” had arrived and after swimming across the Neretva managed to come home. His wife cleaned up his wound after which he went into hiding, mostly in a tomb at the cemetery not far from his house. After some six months he came out of hiding and he was no longer of interest to the authorities. They let him be. Bane was a carpenter and a civilian, and through no fault of his own, he was taken to be shot and miraculously stayed alive.

Confirmation

            While coming to visit his family in Proboj, Branko Boras would stop by our house as well saying that Bane Mijan was sending his regards and that my mother Grbavuša should let him know when my Confirmation was going to be because he had promised my father Veža that he was going to be my godfather. And so, the preparations were underway for Confirmation in the church in Vitina in 1950. I was prepared for my Confirmation together with my brother Mladen and sister Iva even though I was a little too young. I learned all of the kolince /tr. remark: catechism, the ‘kolince’ usually consisted of the Angelus prayer, Ten Commandments, Five things before confession, Three things before Confirmation, Five Commandments of the Church, Seven Sacraments etc/ and responses from catechism and I passed the test before the pastor, Fr. Sebastian Lesko.

            Mother sent word to Bane through the Borases when Confirmation was going to take place. But, since she didn’t know Bane, she wasn’t sure whether this unknown man from the city was going to come, and so she prepared a “back-up” godfather, just in case. But Bane did not fail. A man’s word is his word! Friendship is permanent.

            I remember. It’s the night before Confirmation. It’s already dark. Someone is knocking on the door. It was Bane. He arrived by the bus that was passing through the village in the evening from Mostar and was heading toward Imotski. Someone had given him directions to our house and there he was, the man who was the last to see my father alive. As soon as he came in, he asked who Vežinica (i.e. the wife of Veža) was. He hugged and kissed her and then, with tears in his eyes, asked for me. I don’t even know what is going on and there he is hugging me and crying. Naturally, everyone else in the house is crying. It seemed to me that this lasted for some time. My godfather was of shorter build but a man with a big and soft heart.

            The next day it was Sunday, 19 November 1950. Godfather Bane brought me a white sailor suit for my Confirmation. He told my mother that he couldn’t buy it, times were hard, and that he had borrowed it instead. In any case, I was dressed above all expectations. You have to remember that these were the early fifties! Everyone was very poor. Bishop Petar Čule was in prison, and Don Andrija Majić performed the sacrament of Confirmation in his place. After the anointment with the sacred chrism, the foreheads of the other children were wrapped with an embroidered confirmation scarf, and godfather Bane put the Croatian tricolor as wide as the palm of the hand around my forehead. After the Mass he took it off and placed it across my shoulder on the white suit. I knew that I looked differently, and the elderly gazed at the Croatian tricolor with anguish and longing. It was a very brave thing to do in those days, but I suppose that someone who has already stared death in the face once wasn’t afraid of anything. I would visit godfather Bane after that and he and my godmother would always talk about Veža and emphasize that I should never forget where I come from and everything that had happened during those times after the war. I have written down these memories here in memory of them and all those innocent people who were killed or who suffered.

A postcard from her murdered husband

            At the beginning of the fifties my mother was a seasonal worker, weighing tobacco at the Tobacco station in Ljubuški. She would also work picking corn in Vojvodina (600km away) as well as picking olives in Konavle (150km away). The children needed to be fed!

            One day she received a postcard that had arrived addressed to her at the Tobacco station. Mother was a little surprised: who would be writing to her, and not at her home address in Proboj, but at her place of employment at the company instead. Since she was illiterate, she asked Ante Grbavac to read to her what was written and who had written to her. To her surprise, the postcard was supposedly written by her husband Stipe, Veža. He asked how she was, how the children were… He said that he was well and that he was working on bulrush fields but that he is going to the crop fields in Vojvodina with the other prisoners now. Bulrush and crop fields! The local OZNAs /tr. remark: reference is to communist secret police, i.e. “Oznaši” - members of OZNA – Odjeljenje za zaštitu naroda – Department of National Security/ thought they might torture a woman in such a dishonest and mean way.

            When my brother Vlatko was imprisoned for two months in 1980, mostly in solitary, in Mostar, he was questioned by young udbašići  /tr. remark: reference is to another branch of communist secret services, i.e. members of UDBA – Uprava državne bezbednosti – State Security Service, used derogatively/ and asked about my father. My brother told them: “You know what became of him. The last time we heard from him was a postcard he sent at the beginning of the fifties.” And they stood in wonder, what postcard? They knew that he was killed in Mostar in 1945.

            Just as his wife Anđa [Grbavuša] waited for him to return her whole life, his offspring is also waiting for him so that they can bury his earthly remains and light a candle on his grave.

            That is how it was and how it passed, and our elders used to say: “Whatever someone does, he does to himself as well!” That is how it was and how it always will be.

Ante Čuvalo Vežin

---

[1] “Way of the Cross” in Croatia refers to the 700-800 km long prisoner death marches in which prisoners captured by communist/partisan forces were forced to march.  Many were executed on the march; others died from illness or exhaustion. 

"Anto Nobilo mi poručio da lažno svjedočim protiv Kordića"

Svjedočenjem Krunoslava Pratesa pred Višim pokrajinskim sudom u Muenchenu danas je nastavljeno suđenje pripadnicima jugoslavenskih i hrvatskih tajnih službi Zdravku Mustaču i Josipu Perkoviću zbog sumnje u suučesništvo u ubojstvu Stjepana Đurekovića u Wolfratshausenu 1983. Svjedok Krunoslav Prates danas je potpuno promijenio iskaz dan tijekom suđenja na kraju kojeg je 2008. pred istom sudom osuđen na doživotnu kaznu zatvora.

Odvjetnik sutužiteljice Gizele Đureković, Markus Meissner, Pratesa je upitao je li ikada koristio usluge odvjetnika Ante Nobila, što je Prates prvo zanijekao, da bi na ponovljeno pitanja suca priznao da je njegovog odvjetnika u procesu vođenim 2008. protiv njega, odvjetnika Rosebrocka, poslao sam Perković uz posredovanje Ante Nobila. Imao sam dugogodišnji kontakt s Antom Nobilom, rekao je Prates na pitanje odvjetnika Meissnera navodeći da mu je Nobilo pomagao u traženju dokaza i svjedoka kako bi nakon osude dokazao vlastitu nevinost.

Na pitanje odvjetnika Josipa Perkovića, Ante Nobila, o trajanju te suradnje, Prates je rekao da je prestala uoči izručenja Perkovića u siječnju ove godine.

Današnje svjedočenje me podsjetilo na incident u slučaju Darija Kordića pred Haškim tribunalom:

Iz presude Kordiću:

http://www.icty.org/x/cases/kordic_cerkez/tjug/bcs/010226.pdf

627.  ... Svjedok je porekao da svjedoči u nadi da će mu kazna biti smanjena. Rekao je da nije napravio nikakav sporazum s optužbom, nego osjeća da više ne može živjeti u “mraku” skrivajući istinu. Istina je bila sakrivena, i oni među Hrvatima koji su željeli reći istinu nisu mogli biti stavljeni na liste svjedoka (odbrane). On je sam primio jedno pismo “kao neku vrstu pritiska da svjedoči za odbranu” putem g. Šuška (advokata suoptuženog na njegovom suđenju). To je pismo navodno poruka od g. Nobila (jednog drugog advokata) o tome kakvu proceduru valja slijediti prilikom davanja njegove izjave (a 

to treba hitno obaviti jer bi moglo doći do hapšenja i neko bi mogao progovoriti). U poruci se dalje kaže da bi njegova izjava trebala sadržavati sljedeće: da je u noći 15/16. aprila održan sastanak u Kordićevoj kući u Busovači gdje je donešena odluka da se spale kuće i pobiju Muslimani u Ahmićima, i da je, kad je rečeno da bi civili mogli poginuti, Kordić rekao “pa šta”. Svjedok je rekao da se on nije složio sa tom verzijom “jer nisam više mogao sve to držati tajnom” i “nisam 

mogao nastaviti s tim, bez obzira šta mi se dogodilo”.

http://www.hrt.hr/arhiv/2001/02/27/HRT0021.html

...S obzirom da je [svjedok] Šantić tek prošle godine odlučio progovoriti i da se Kordićeva odgovornost za Ahmiće temelji na njegovu svjedočenju, nije jasno na kakvim je dokazima do njegova pokajništva tužiteljstvo gradilo Kordićevu krivnju za Ahmiće. Šantić je, svjedočeći o okolnostima svoga pokajništva, rekao da je preko Luke Šuška, branitelja suoptuženoga Drage Josipovića, primio pismo kojim ga se pokušalo prisiliti da svjedoči u korist obrane. U poruci, koja se u presudi pripisuje Blaškićevu branitelju Anti Nobilu, upućivalo se Šantića da lažno posvjedoči da je Kordić na sastanku uoči Ahmića, na kojem je upozoreno da bi civili mogli stradati, rekao: Pa što onda. Ovaj dio sudske presude baca svjetlo na riječi Kordićeva branitelja Mitka Naumovskog koji je u svojim završnim riječima u prosincu izjavio kako je na djelu urota protiv njegova branjenika u koju su umiješani branitelji iz drugih predmeta i neki dužnosnici Republike Hrvatske. Nobilo je u telefonskom razgovoru iz Zagreba jučer navečer zanijekao da je Šantiću savjetovao lažno svjedočenje. 

KAKO ICTY JOŠ UVIJEK MOŽE SPASITI STVAR U SUĐENJU ŠEŠELJU

Piše: Luka Mišetić

Vojislava Šešelja po njegovom povratku u Srbiju ovoga tjedna dočekala je ''pobjedonosna'' dobrodošlica pristalica njegove Srpske radikalne stranke. S koje god strane gledali, suđenje Šešelju potpuna je katastrofa. Suđenje je trajalo više od jedanaest godina a presude još uvijek nema na vidiku. Šešelju je dozvoljeno da suđenje pretvori u pravi cirkus (1) redovitim vrijeđanjem tužitelja, sudaca, svjedoka i zaposlenika suda, (2) bespotrebnim odugovlačenjem postupka svojim neracionalnim ponašanjem poput štrajka glađu, te (3) zastrašivanjem zaštićenih svjedoka otkrivanjem njihovih identiteta suprotno nalozima suda. Usprkos tomu, sud je odbio ukloniti ga iz sudnice ili mu dodijeliti pravnog zastupnika. Rezultati pokušaja da se umiri Šešelja danas su poznati svima. 

Odgađanju donošenja presude Šešelju također je doprinjelo (posve opravdano) izuzeće suca Fredrica Harhoffa iz MKSJ-a nakon što je suđenje završeno ali prije donošenja presude. Time je Raspravno vijeće MKSJ-a u predmetu Šešelj (sada samo u sastavu sudaca Antonettija i Lattanzija) ostalo bez jednog suca i više nema tri potrebna člana raspravnog vijeća. Prošlo je više od godinu dana otkad je MKSJ imenovao suca Mandiayea Nianga iz Senegala kao zamjenu za suca Harhoffa. Sudac Niang izjavio je da će pregledati svaki pojedinačni dokazni materijal uveden u zapisnik, da će pogledati svaki video zapis svjedočenja svakog pojedinog svjedoka da bi mogao utvrditi njegovu ili njenu vjerodostojnost, te da će pročitati svaki transkript. Ne iznenađuje stoga što godinu dana nakon svog imenovanja to još uvijek nije uspio napraviti. Kad bi sudac Niang mogao biti spreman početi vijećati o presudi? Predsjednik MKSJ-a, sudac Meron, nedavno je pred Općom skupštinom UN-a rekao sljedeće:

Sudac Niang rekao je da će mu trebati najmanje do kraja lipnja 2015. da se upozna s ovim postupkom. Predsjedavajući sudac Antonetti naveo je da će napraviti sve što može da se vremenski period potreban za donošenje presude skrati nakon što sudac Niang dovrši svoj pregled predmeta.[1]

Obzirom da je sudac Niang rekao da neće moći dovršiti pregledavanje svih dokaza najmanje do lipnja 2015., tužitelj Serge Brammertz posve je ispravno rekao tijekom jednog intervjua ovoga tjedna da presuda u slučaju Šešelj neće biti donesena prije kraja 2015.[2]

Šešeljev rak jetre

Ono što MKSJ nije javno izrekao jest da, ako se presuda u slučaju Šešelj ne bude mogla donijeti do kraja 2015., malo je vjerojatno da će uopće biti donesena. Šešelj je privremeno pušten na slobodu zbog toga što je otkriveno da boluje od raka jetre. Stopa smrtnosti od raka jetre vrlo je visoka.[3]  Ako Šešelj umre prije nego što Raspravno vijeće donese presudu, tada će MKSJ izgubiti nadležnost nad tim slučajem a presuda nikada neće moći biti donesena.[4]

Može se pretpostaviti da je MKSJ zaključio da je Šešeljev rak jetre u uznapredovaloj fazi te da njegova dugoročna prognoza nije dobra. To zaključujem na osnovu dva čimbenika. Prvo, činjenica da je Raspravno vijeće bilo više nego spremno vratiti Šešelja u Srbiju po svaku cijenu, čak i bez da ga je pitalo da li on želi otići ili da li namjerava poštivati naloge MKSJ-a dok je na privremenoj slobodi (Šešelj bi naravno rekao da neće poštivati naloge suda), ukazuje na to da je Raspravno vijeće očajnički željelo izbjeći scenarij u kojem bi još jedan optuženik MKSJ-a mogao preminuti u Pritvorskoj jedinici UN-a (kao što je to bio slučaj sa Slobodanom Miloševićem, Slavkom Dokmanovićem, Milanom Kovačevićem, i Milanom Babićem).

Drugo, činjenica da tužitelj Serge Brammertz nije podnio prigovor na odluku za puštanje Šešelja – iako Šešelj ni u kojem trenutku nije obećao da će poštivati naloge suda ili da će poštivati mjere zaštite svjedoka – sugerira da gospodin Brammertz također nije htio snositi odgovornost u slučaju da g. Šešelj premine u pritvoru Ujedinjenih naroda. Na osnovu postupaka kako Raspravnog vijeća tako i g. Brammertza možemo pretpostaviti da su doktori utvrdili da g. Šešelj neće još dugo ostati među živima.

Da bi se zadovoljila pravda, presuda Šešelju trebala bi prvo biti donesena usmeno

Nakon jedanaest godina suđenja, MKSJ duguje žrtvama, kao i mnogim svjedocima koji su riskirali i svjedočili protiv Šešelja, pa i samom Šešelju, da donese konačnu presudu. MKSJ ne može jednostavno sjediti prekriženih ruku i nadati se da će se Šešelj oduprijeti raku jetre još godinu i pol dana, dovoljno dugo da se sudac Niang upozna s dokazima i da se donese presuda u pismenom obliku 2016. godine.

Raspravno vijeće moglo bi izbjeći ovakav scenarij sudnjeg dana u kojem bi Šešelj mogao preminuti prije nego što se donese presuda. Vijeće može svoju presudu donijeti usmeno, bez pismenog obrazloženja, i to gotovo istog trena kad se većina sudaca složi oko konačnog pitanja krivnje ili nevinosti g. Šešelja. Pravilo 98(C) ter Pravilnika o postupku i dokazima MKSJ-a kaže:

Presuda se donosi većinom glasova sudaca. Uz presudu se prilaže ili joj što je moguće prije slijedi pismeno obrazloženje kome se mogu dodati izdvojena ili suprotna mišljenja.[5]

Fraza “ili joj što je moguće prije slijedi” jasno ukazuje da Raspravno vijeće može prvo donijeti presudu usmeno, ako je to u interesu pravde, te pružiti pismeno obrazloženje presude čim je praktično moguće nakon toga. Tako je doista i napravljeno u predmetu Aleksovski u kojem su suci Raspravnog vijeća prvo donijeli presudu usmeno nakon što su zaključili da ''je u ovoj fazi postupka potrebno zakazati ročište koje će se održati u najskorijem roku u prisustvu optuženika, tužiteljstva i obrane na kojem će biti izrečena presuda.”[6]

U objašnjenju odluke Raspravnog vijeća da presudu donese usmeno, predsjedavajući sudac u predmetu Aleksovski rekao je sljedeće:

Vaše suđenje pred ovim Raspravnim vijećem počelo je dana 6. siječnja 1998., a završilo je 23. ožujka 1999. Od tog dana, moji kolege i ja smo vijećali, ispitujući i pregledavajući sve dokaze, podneske i zapisnike suđenja. Zaključci do kojih smo došli takve su prirode da su nam se činili sasvim opravdani da se organizira rasprava u što je kraćem roku moguće, bez čekanja da se konačna presuda donese u pismenom obliku. Ta će presuda biti objavljena što je prije moguće, no hitnost nam se činila tolika da nismo čekali povratak glavnog zastupnika optužbe, g. Granta Niemanna, kojem ja izražavam svoje štovanje i neka zna da iskreno žalimo što on danas nije s nama jer smo uvijek bili vrlo zadovoljni njegovim radom. Isto želim reći i za g. Mikuličiča: Vrlo nam je žao što ih ne vidimo ovdje danas.[7]

Raspravno vijeće u predmetu Aleksovski osudilo je optuženika na zatvorsku kaznu u trajanju od dvije godine i šest mjeseci. Međutim, budući da je vrijeme koje je optuženi proveo u pritvoru bilo duže od izrečene kazne, Raspravno vijeće naredilo je 7. svibnja 1999. da se on odmah pusti na slobodu.[8]  Pismena presuda donesena je tek 25. lipnja 1999.[9]

Raspravno vijeće u predmetu Šešelj trebalo bi se povesti presedanom Raspravnog vijeća u predmetu Aleksovski i iskoristiti svoje pravo sukladno Pravilu 98(C) ter da donese presudu čim većina sudaca donese odluku. Ako su sudac Antonetti i Lattanzi već donijeli odluku većinom glasova, čak i bez glasa suca Nianga, tada ih ništa ne sprječava da svoju usmenu odluku donesu odmah, zbog toga što Pravilo 98(C) ter izričito kaže da se presuda donosi ''većinom glasova sudaca'' a ne nužno glasovima svih sudaca. Oni ne moraju čekati suca Nianga ako su već donijeli odluku o presudi većinom glasova. Štoviše, čak i da su suci Antonetti i Lattanzi većinom glasova donijeli odluku o određenim točkama optužnice ali ne i o svim točkama, Pravilo 98(C) ter ne sprječava ih da donesu djelomičnu usmenu presudu o tim točkama.

Ako su suci Antonetti i Lattanzi u pat poziciji i imaju različita mišljenja o Šešeljevoj krivnji, tada će postupak doista morati biti na čekanju dok sudac Niang ne dovrši svoju pregled dokaza, započne vijećanje i donese svoj odlučujući glas. Međutim, čak i u takvom scenariju, Raspravno vijeće ne bi trebalo čekati da se pripremi pismeno obrazloženje presude da bi mogli donijeti presudu o Šešeljevoj krivnji. Čim sudac Niang glasuje, Raspravno vijeće trebalo bi odmah zakazati ročište za objavu usmene presude (uz malo sreće u ljeto 2015.) te donijeti svoju odluku o krivnji ili nevinosti usmeno. Ako Šešelj premine nakon toga, Raspravno vijeće i dalje bi zadržalo nadležnost za objavljivanje pismenog obrazloženja već usmeno donesene presude.

MKSJ morati će razmišljati izvan okvira i pozvati se na malo poznata pravila (poput Pravila 98(C) ter) ako želi izbjeći situaciju da Šešelj premine a da presuda nikada ne bude donesena. U tom slučaju, cijeli slučaj Šešelj ispao bi kompletna farsa. Šešelju je već dozvoljeno da postupak MKSJ-a protiv sebe pretvori u cirkus za života. Stoga mu ne bi trebalo dozvoliti da zacementira to nasljeđe tako da izbjegne presudu u smrti.

---

[1]http://www.icty.org/x/file/About/Reports%20and%20Publications/AnnualReports/annual_report_2014_en.pdfhttp://www.icty.org/x/file/About/Reports%20and%20Publications/AnnualReports/annual_report_2014_en.pdf , u točci 30.

[2]http://www.b92.net/eng/news/crimes.php?yyyy=2014&mm=11&dd=13&nav_id=92226

[3] http://www.cancer.org/cancer/livercancer/detailedguide/liver-cancer-survival-rates

[4] Vidi, npr., Tužitelj protiv Rasima Delića, Odluka o ishodu postupka, 29. lipnja 2010., na: http://www.icty.org/x/cases/delic/acdec/en/100629_1.pdf.

[5] Naglasak dodan.

[6] Tužitelj protiv Aleksovskog, IT-95-14/1-T, Nalog o rasporedu (5. svibnja 1999.); vidi također: ICTY Priopćenje za javnost, JL/PIU/399-E, “Presuda u predmetu Aleksovski biti će izrečena 7. svibnja 1999.” (5. svibnja 1999.); Tužitelj protiv Aleksovskog, IT-95-14/1-T, Presuda Raspravnog vijeća, točka 245. (25. lipnja 1999.).

[7] Tužitelj protiv Aleksovskog, IT-95-14/1-T, Transkript suđenja, T:4348:18 do T:4349:6 (7. svibnja 1999.).

[8] Tužitelj protiv Aleksovskog, IT-95-14/1-T, Nalog za trenutačno puštanje na slobodu Zlatka Aleksovskog  (7. svibnja 1999.).

[9] Tužitelj protiv Aleksovskog, IT-95-14/1-T, Presuda (25. lipnja 1999.).