10. [Mental element for Element 7] [Circumstance of extensiveness and wantonness:] The perpetrator was aware that such destruction or appropriation was conducted extensively and carried out wantonly.

P.59. Evidence inferred from an utterance, a document or a deed.

P.59.1. Evidence that the destruction occurred on a large scale.

P.59.2. Evidence of repeated commission / pattern of thefts.

P.59.3. Evidence of systematic plunder.

P.59.4. Evidence of pillage on a large scale.

P.59.5. Evidence of stealing from detainees or prisoners of war.

P.59.6. Evidence of the discriminatory character of the destruction.

P.59.7. Evidence that the destruction aimed at creating terror.

P.59.8. Evidence that military forces came to a village in trucks and tractors and carried away property belonging to the civilians who lived in the village

P.59.9. Evidence of appropriation through use of force/duress.

P.59.10. Evidence of threatening death.

P.59.11. Evidence of forcing a transfer of property.

P.59.12. Evidence of abducting.

P.59.13. Evidence of killing.

P.59.14. Evidence of violence in the looting.

P.59.15. Evidence that the appropriation was on the basis that such civilian belonged to a particular ethnic group.

P.59.16. Evidence that the appropriation’s aim was to create terror.

P.60. Evidence inferred from a circumstance.

P.60.1. Evidence of a policy of systematic destruction based on ethnicity.

P.60.2. Evidence of a policy of reprisals.

P.60.3. Evidence of a policy of reprisal through pillage.

P.60.4. Evidence of a practice of appropriation of property following eviction.

P.60.5. Evidence of instructions given to burn houses in reprisal against a resistance movement.

P.60.6. Evidence of an organized seizure of property undertaken within the framework of a systematic economic exploitation of occupied territory.

10. [Mental element for Element 7] [Circumstance of extensiveness and wantonness:] The perpetrator was aware that such destruction or appropriation was conducted extensively and carried out wantonly.

P.59. Evidence inferred from an utterance, a document or a deed.

P.59.1. Evidence that the destruction occurred on a large scale.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgement (AC), 17 December 2004, paras. 466, 557-558:

"466. In the absence of evidence as to the scale of the destruction and as to the lack of military justification, the Appeals Chamber finds that no reasonable Trial Chamber could have concluded that destruction not justified by military necessity occurred in Vitez/Stari Vitez in April 1993."

"557. The Trial Chamber found that Gomionica was shelled by the HVO⁷⁷³ and that HVO soldiers later set houses on fire, destroying 131 of its 159 houses along with the Mekteb and the Turbe⁷⁷⁴. Witness TW04 (based on transcripts from the Blaskic trial) testified that the burnings were committed in order to "destroy any proof of plundering".⁷⁷⁵ The witness further testified that no damage was done to the Catholic Church or to Croat homes and buildings.⁷⁷⁶"

"558. The Appeals Chamber thus finds that the destruction of property occurred on a large scale and was targeted against Muslims’ houses, while houses of Croats were not destroyed; therefore a reasonable trier of fact could have found that the destruction was not justified by military necessity and that the perpetrators acted with the intent to destroy the property in question. The Appeals Chamber upholds the Trial Chamber’s finding that wanton destruction not justified by military necessity was established in Gominonica, Count 38 (Kordic)."

"⁷⁷³. Trial Judgement, para. 665.
⁷⁷⁴. Trial Judgement, para. 806.
⁷⁷⁵. Blaskic, T. 9271.
⁷⁷⁶. Blaskic, T. 9273."

Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaskic, Case No. It-95-14-T3, Judgement (TC), 3 March 2000, para. 418:

"418. According to the Centre for Human Rights in Zenica, 180 of the existing 200 Muslim houses in Ahmici were burned during the attack ⁸⁶⁰ . […]. Prosecution exhibit P117 also showed that nearly all the Muslim houses had been torched, whereas all the Croat houses had been spared ⁸⁶² . […] According to the ECMM observer Morsink, practically all the Muslim houses in the villages of Ahmici, Nadioci , Pirici, Sivrino Selo, Gacice, Gomionica, Gromiljak and Rotilj had been burned ⁸⁶⁷ . He stated that the houses had all been set alight with petrol and oil ⁸⁶⁸ . Likewise, according to the witness Watters, the Muslim houses had been systematically burned in Nadioci, Ahmici and ?antici ⁸⁶⁹ . The witness Baggesen, ECMM observer, reported that "it was a whole area that was burning" ⁸⁷⁰ . The report of the Joint Busovaca Commission, dated 21 April, showed that the ICRC had made enquiries that afternoon in Ahmici and noted that all the Muslims situated in Ahmici-west had left and that 90% of the houses together with the area's mosque, had been destroyed ⁸⁷¹ . The report stated moreover that about 200 Muslim women and children were crowded into 3 houses in Novaci, and that half of them wished to be evacuated ⁸⁷² ."

"⁸⁶⁰ P242, "Report on inter-ethnic violence in Vitez, Busovaca and Zenica in April 1993", Annex N to ECMM H/S 720, 15 May 1993. Meeting with the Centre for Human Rights in Zenica, p. N-2.

⁸⁶² - Witnesses Abdullah Ahmic, PT p. 3768; M, PT p. 4410; Elvir Ahmic, PT p. 3255-3256.

⁸⁶⁷ Witness Morsink, PT pp. 9900-9901.

⁸⁶⁸ Witness Morsink, PT pp. 9901-9902.

⁸⁶⁹ Witness Watters, PT pp. 3602-3605.

⁸⁷⁰ Witness Baggesen, PT of 22 August 1997 p. 1928.

⁸⁷¹ This information appears also in the report of the ECMM whose team accompanied the ICRC team. P242, "Report on inter-ethnic violence in Vitez, Busovaca and Zenica in April 1993", Annex N to ECMM H/S 720, 15 May 1993. Events reported by ECMM and UN, 13-30 April 1993, Annex R to ECMM H/S 720, 15 May 1993, p. R-7.

⁸⁷² P696: report of the Joint Busovaca Commission dated 21 April (witness Morsink), para. D."

P.59.2. Evidence of repeated commission / pattern of thefts.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

"¹⁵²⁰. Witness U, T 2927-2928.

¹⁵²². Witness WW, T 7014-7021. When witness WW returned to her apartment around mid-June, she found it emptied of valuables, witness WW, T 7032. These testimonies are corroborated by witnesses participating in the attack on Mostar. Witness Falk Simang, a mercenary fighting in the KB, admitted that after the attack on Mostar KB soldiers drove BH Muslims out of their homes and took away all valuables they could carry, witness Falk Simang, T 3830. Witness Q, a Danish mercenary fighting with the Vinko [krobo ATG, described an instance when soldiers from his unit met at Mladen Naletilic headquarters and went to loot valuables in Muslim houses using civilian cars, witness Q, T 2375."

"620. Two reports by the Military Police in Mostar recount that, on 13 June 1993, Vinko Martinovic with 40 armed soldiers was expelling BH Muslims from their apartments in the DUM area on Mladen Naletilic’s orders. During these expulsions, apartments were robbed; the looting did not stop even after the police had inquired into the situation.¹⁵²³ Witness GG was dispossessed of his car and other belongings by six HVO soldiers between the end of May and middle-June 1993 in the DUM area.¹⁵²⁴ Exhibits PP 456.4 and PP 458.1 show protests from the ABiH 4th Corps Commander Arif Pacalic for large evictions of civilians from the DUM area on 13 and 14 June 1993; the first of these documents also reports robbery from ousted people.¹⁵²⁵ Witness P testified that in the days before 14 June 1993 violent evictions of BH Muslim residents in Mostar involved robbery of private property.¹⁵²⁶ A memorandum by an international observer states that evictions of BH Muslims on 12 and 13 June 1993 took place in upper middle-class neighbourhoods where the most desirable properties were to be found. In particular, on 13 June 1993 around 5 p.m., thirty soldiers evicted BH Muslims from their apartments, and proceeded to take away the name-plates on the doors.¹⁵²⁷ An ECMM report of 14 June 1993 also corroborates these findings, describing expulsions and dispossession of apartments in the DUM and Vatikana areas of Mostar.¹⁵²⁸"

"621. Between the end of July and 17 September 1993, Witness OO was repeatedly forced by the Vinko [krobo ATG, under the overall authority of Vinko Martinovic, to carry looted household appliances in areas of Mostar far away from the combat zones of the Bulevar.¹⁵²⁹ Witness F testified that in the period between July 1993 and March 1994 he was once forced to loot apartments in an area under the responsibility of Vinko Martinovic, loading the booty on trucks that soldiers would drive away. Vinko Martinovic’s soldiers were there and he recognised Zubac, a subordinate of Martinovic, acting as commander.¹⁵³⁰ According to witness II, Vinko Martinovic was never present during the plunder and it was his subordinates, who chose the prisoners.¹⁵³¹

622. Witness Sulejman Hadisalihovic, after being captured by the HVO on 25 June 1993,¹⁵³² was forced by HVO soldiers to loot apartments in Mostar together with other prisoners, mostly at night.¹⁵³³ This testimony is consistent with the statement of witness AC that Baja and other men were taking property away at night from BH Muslim apartments.¹⁵³⁴ Witness F was forced to loot apartments after June 1993, loading the booty on trucks that soldiers would drive away.¹⁵³⁵ Witness II was frequently ordered by soldiers from the Vinko [krobo ATG to loot abandoned apartments between the end of July and December 1993.¹⁵³⁶ Witness AB testified that he was forced to loot apartments many times from mid-August 1993 onwards;¹⁵³⁷ in one of these instances, Vinko Martinovic was present and, while not explicitly ordering the looting, did nothing to prevent or stop it.^1538"

"¹⁵²³. Exhibits PP 456.1, PP 456.2. The latter document explicitly defines the course of conduct by Vinko Martinovic as "pillage".

¹⁵²⁴. Witness GG, T 4757 (confidential).

¹⁵²⁵. Exhibits PP 456.4, PP 458.1.

¹⁵²⁶. Witness P, T 2280-2281 (confidential).

¹⁵²⁷. Exhibit PP 456.

¹⁵²⁸. Exhibit PP 456.3."

¹⁵²⁹. Witness OO, T 5943.

¹⁵³⁰. Witness F, T 1106-1108.

¹⁵³¹. Witness II, T 4962.

¹⁵³². Witness Sulejman Hadisalihovic, T 1222.

¹⁵³². Witness Sulejman Hadisalihovic, T 1222.

¹⁵³³. Witness Sulejman Hadisalihovic, T 1247.

¹⁵³⁴. Witness AC, T 7912.

¹⁵³⁵. Witness F, T 1106.

¹⁵³⁶. Witness II, T 4962.

¹⁵³⁷. Witness AB, T 7867. The Prosecution Final Brief, p 121, refers instead to witness ZZ.

¹⁵³⁸. Witness AB, T 7880-7881."

"627. With regard to the incidents occurring in the DUM area on 13 June 1993, it has been established that a large-scale operation of plunder, in connection with evictions, was carried out by soldiers acting under the supervision of Vinko Martinovic. Vinko Martinovic ordered the modalities of the evictions; such modalities included plunder of BH Muslim property in the neighbourhood. He organised his men during this operation and took no action even after police had inquired about the events.¹⁵⁴⁸ Vinko Martinovic is therefore responsible under Articles 3(e) and 7(1) of the Statute."

"1548. Exhibit PP 456.1."

"630. Plunder was carried out by HVO soldiers directly¹⁵⁵⁷ or forcing prisoners to do it for them.¹⁵⁵⁸ In this respect, Mladen Naletilic was giving specific orders as to the modalities of the operations.¹⁵⁵⁹"

"1557. Witness U, T 2927-2928; witness GG, T 4756.

1558. Witness Sulejman Hadzisalihovic, T 1246; Witness II, T 4962; witness CC, T 4423-4426.

1559. Exhibits PP 456.1, and PP 456.2. These exhibits are reports by two different officials at the Command of the HVO 1st Military Police Battalion in Mostar, alleging that soldiers participating in the operation were "Tuta’s men" acting on "Tuta’s orders." See also witness AC, T 7907-7911, stating that his unit, the Benko Penavic ATG under the authority of Mladen Naletilic, was often divided into groups, one of which had the task to ethnically cleanse a portion of Mostar. Specific instructions were given that plunder of Muslim property was part and parcel of these cleansing operations."

P.60.5. Evidence of instructions given to burn houses in reprisal against a resistance movement.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

F Holstein and Twenty Three Others, UNWCC, LRTWC, vol. VIII, p. 22-23:

"According to the evidence presented by the prosecution, the accused took part in combined operations against members of the French resistance movement: The operations were decided upon and planned at a conference held at Dijon under the auspices of General Hederich, Feldkommandant and " Befehlshaber Nord-Ost Frankreich " (G.O.C., North-East, France), in June, 1944. Six of the accused attended in their respective commanding capacities : Irmisch, Hippe, Major, Hulf, Kruger and Verfurt. They were to provide the troops and issue instructions, and all had to take personal part in the operations at the head of their units. The conference decided that the French resistance movement in the area was to be suppressed and annihilated, and that severe measures were to be taken against them and the population " in reprisals " for their struggle against the occupying authorities or assistance given in this respect. In the light of some of the evidence, such measures were to consist in executing on the spot every member of the resistance, captured with arms, pursuant to Hitler’s orders to kill all "terrorists" or "saboteurs "; in the burning down of three farms for every German soldier killed, and of one farm for every German soldier wounded. The events described by the Prosecution showed that, in carrying out the above instructions, the accused killed a large number of inhabitants, destroyed by fire many buildings in various localities, and pillaged property of the population."

P.60.6. Evidence of an organized seizure of property undertaken within the framework of a systematic economic exploitation of occupied territory.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Zejnil Delalic, Zdravko Mucic, Hazim Delic and Esad Landžo, Case No. IT-96-21-T, Judgement (TC), 16 November 1998, para. 590:

"590. In this connection, it is to be observed that the prohibition against the unjustified appropriation of public and private enemy property is general in scope, and extends both to acts of looting committed by individual soldiers for their private gain, and to the organized seizure of property undertaken within the framework of a systematic economic exploitation of occupied territory. […]"