Table of contents:
5.1.1. Evidence of deportation.
P.1. Evidence of victims crossing a national border.
P.1.1. Evidence of taking victims across a national border.
P.1.2. Evidence of exchanging victims across a national border.
P.2. Evidence of displacement.
P.2.1. Evidence of displacement, not necessarily across a national border.
P.2.2. Evidence of transfer from one camp to another, not necessarily across a national border.
5.1.3. Evidence of displacement applicable in both deportation and transfer
P.3. Evidence of transporting victims out of an area.
P.3.1. Evidence of procuring transportation for victims out of an area.
P.3.2. Evidence of monitoring transportation of victims out of an area.
P.3.3. Evidence of ordering transportation of victims out of an area.
P.3.4. Evidence of convoys carrying victims out of the area.
P.3.5. Evidence of that the transfer was not a provisional measure.
P.4. Evidence of displacement gathered from population dynamics.
P.4.1. Evidence of total numbers of victims displaced.
P.4.2. Evidence of numbers of victims of certain ethnicities displaced.
P.5. Evidence of the creation of an infrastructure to facilitate displacement.
P.5.1. Evidence of facilitating applications for transfer or deportation.
P.5.2. Evidence of setting up agencies to facilitate displacement.
P.5.3. Evidence of setting up collection centres to oversee displacement.
P.6. Evidence of publicly announcing displacement.
P.6.1. Evidence of publicly announcing that displacement would take place.
P.6.2. Evidence of calling out residents names for future displacement.
Element:
5.1.1. Evidence of deportation.
P.1. Evidence of victims crossing a national border.
P.1.1. Evidence of taking victims across a national border.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Judgement (TC), 15 March 2002, paras. 474, 480:
"474. Deportation requires the displacement of persons across a national border, to be distinguished from forcible transfer which may take place within national boundaries.1429 This Trial Chamber does not accept as persuasive the only previous decision of this Tribunal which states to the contrary, and it notes that this decision did not follow fully litigated trial proceedings.1430 The Trial Chamber thus rejects the Prosecution submission that the mere fact that the detainees were taken out of the KP Dom, wherever else they may have been transferred to, constituted deportation.1431"
"1429. Krstić Trial Judgment, par 531; Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention refers to deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country and Article 70 refers to a prohibition on the deportation of nationals of the occupying power from the occupied territory. In the Nuremburg Judgment, it was stated that not only in defiance of well-established rules of international law, but in complete disregard of the elementary dictates of humanity [w]hole populations were deported to Germany for the purposes of slave labour upon defense works, armament production and similar tasks connected with the war effort (p 227) and Von Schirachs conviction for deportation as a crime against humanity was for his part in the deportation of Jews from Vienna to the ghettos of the East (pp 317-319); United States of America v Erhard Milch, Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No 10 (1952) Vol 2, Concurring Opinion by Judge Phillips, p 865; International Law has enunciated certain conditions under which the fact of deportation of civilians from one nation to another during times of war becomes a crime; United States of America v Alfried Krupp et al, Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No 10 (1952) Vol 9, part 2, pp 1432-1433; United States of America v Friedrich Flick et al, Trials of War Criminals before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No 10 (1952) Vol 6, p 681, ILC Draft Code 1996, Article 18, commentary (13): Whereas deportation implies expulsion from the national territory, the forcible transfer of population could occur wholly within the frontiers of one and the same state; Henckaerts, Deportation and Transfer of Civilians in Time of War, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol 26, 1993, p 472 (with respect to Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV); Presumably, a transfer is a relocation within the occupied territory, and a deportation is a relocation outside the occupied territory; Bassiouni, Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law (1999) p 312; Hall, Crimes against humanity para. 1(d) in Triffterer (ed) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1999), p 136, with respect to the two terms used in Article 7 of the Rome Statute: Unfortunately, the Statute does not expressly distinguish between deportation and transfer. However, given the common distinction between deportation as forcing persons to cross a national frontier and transfer as forcing them to move from one part of the country to another without crossing a national frontier, and given the basic presumption that no words in a treaty should be seen as surplus, it is likely that the common distinction was intended.
1430. In the Nikolic Rule 61 Decision, it is stated that the transfer of detainees from one camp to another within Bosnia and Herzegovina could be characterised as deportation and, accordingly, come under Article 5 of the Statute, par 23. No authority is cited for this proposition, and there was no examination of the authorities referred to in the previous footnote.
1431. Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief, par 349."
"480. In many of the incidents alleged by the Prosecution, the detainees taken out of the KP Dom were never heard from again. With respect to these incidents, the Chamber is not able to determine that the detainees were in fact displaced across a national border, and is therefore not satisfied that they were in fact deported or expelled."
Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Judgement (TC), 2 August 2001, para. 521:
"521. Both deportation and forcible transfer relate to the involuntary and unlawful evacuation of individuals from the territory in which they reside. Yet, the two are not synonymous in customary international law. Deportation presumes transfer beyond State borders, whereas forcible transfer relates to displacements within a State.1172"
"1172. See in particular the commentary on the ILC Draft Code, p. 122 Whereas deportation implies expulsion from the national territory, the forcible transfer of population could occur wholly within the frontiers of one and the same State."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.1.2. Evidence of exchanging victims across a national border.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Judgement (TC), 15 March 2002, paras. 482 - 483:
"482. On at least one occasion, detainees were taken across a national border. A group of approximately 55 men were taken for exchange in Montenegro around 30 August 1992, but the bus on which they were being transported was intercepted in Niksic, Montenegro, by Pero Elez, a Bosnian-Serb soldier, who sent the group back to the KP Dom. The group was then divided in two with approximately 20 younger men being taken away, possibly to Gorazde, and never seen again. The remaining group of 35 men, of which two witnesses in this case were part,1464 was taken to be exchanged in Roaj in Montenegro.1465"
"1464. FWS-54 and FWS-172.
1465. FWS-54 (T 783-785, 811-812); FWS-66 (T 1119-1120, 1150); FWS-86 (T 1535-1542); FWS-08 (T 1807); Dr Amir Berberkic (T 3814-3816); RJ (T 3904, 3907); FWS-69 (T 4095-4096); FWS-172 (T 4575-4578); FWS-109 (T 2425); FWS-119 (T 1968-1969)."
"483. The Chamber is satisfied that this group of 35 men was displaced across a national border to Montenegro."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.2. Evidence of displacement.
P.2.1. Evidence of displacement, not necessarily across a national border.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Judgement (TC), 2 August 2001, paras. 531-532:
"531. The Bosnian Muslim women, children and elderly assembled at Potocari were forcibly transferred to Kladanj, an area in the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina controlled by the ABiH, in order to eradicate all trace of Bosnian Muslims in the territory in which the Bosnian Serbs were looking to establish their own State. However, Bosnia-Herzegovina was the only State formally recognised by the international community at the time of the events. Since the Srebrenica civilians were displaced within the borders of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the forcible displacement may not be characterised as deportation in customary international law."
"532. The Chamber therefore concludes that the civilians assembled at Potocari and transported to Kladanj were not subjected to deportation but rather to forcible transfer. This forcible transfer, in the circumstances of this case, still constitutes a form of inhumane treatment covered under Article 5."
Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Judgement (TC), 15 March 2002, para. 476:
"476. The Trial Chamber considers it to be well established that forcible displacements of people within national boundaries are covered by the concept of forcible transfer.1439"
"1439. Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Judgement (TC), 2 August 2001,pars 531-532; Commentary on the ILC Draft Code, p 122."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.2.2. Evidence of transfer from one camp to another, not necessarily across a national border.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Judgement (TC), 15 March 2002, para. 477:
"477. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that groups of detainees were transferred from the KP Dom to other camps in Bosnia and Herzegovina, including the camps at Kula,1441 Kalinovik1442 and Rudo.1443 However, as the detainees were not displaced across a national border, the Trial Chamber is not satisfied that the detainees were deported or expelled."
"1441. Ahmet Hadzimusic (T 1974, 1983, 2009, 2014); Rasim Taranin (T 1700, 1737, 1740); FWS-139 (T 412); FWS-111 (T1283); FWS-162 (T 1409); FWS-08 (T 1794); FWS-138 (T 2097); FWS-144 (T 2323); FWS-109 (T 2409); FWS-71 (T 2894, 2916); FWS-146 (T 3083); FWS-73 (T 3291, 3318, 3418); Dr Amir Berberkic (T 3970); FWS-249 (Ex P 161 T 4488); FWS-89 (T 4710); Muhamed Lisica (T 4987); Lazar Stojanovic (T 5711).
1442. Dzevad Lojo (T 601); FWS-182 (T 1648); FWS-104 (T 2194); FWS-144 (T 2296);
Dr Amir Berberkic (T 3970); FWS-69 (T 4148); FWS-137 (T 4750).
1443. FWS-66 (T 1133); FWS-08 (T 1767); Dzevad S Lojo (T 2591); FWS-146 (T 3079-3080); Lazar Divljan (T 6009)."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
5.1.3. Evidence of displacement applicable in both deportation and transfer
P.3. Evidence of transporting victims out of an area.
P.3.1. Evidence of procuring transportation for victims out of an area.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (TC), 31 July 2003, para. 698:
"698. In a television interview with British Channel 4 by the end of 1992, the Accused explained that a good number of [the detainees in the Trnopolje camp] wish to leave this area.1366 The Accused elaborated:
"1366. Exh. S187-1.
1367. Exh. S187-1, emphasis added."
Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003, para. 525:
"525. Defence witness NW testified, in relation to the transfer on 4 May 1993 that "there were talks with civilians. They had no objections".1370 The Chamber refutes much of Defence witness NWs testimony. An overall consideration of the evidence shows that the civilians did not have a "real choice" and no consent was expressed to the transfer. The Chamber considers the general situation in Sovi ci following the attack is that the women, children and older men were detained for at least ten days prior to the transfer; buses were provided by the HVO for the transfer and there was a general discriminatory threat from the HVO directed against the BH Muslims in Sovici."
"1370. Defence witness NW, T 14966-14968."
Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Judgement (TC), 15 March 2002, para. 49:
"49. The expulsion, exchange or deportation of non-Serbs, both detainees at the KP Dom and those who had not been detained, was the final stage of the Serb attack upon the non-Serb civilian population in Foca municipality. Initially there was a military order preventing citizens from leaving Foca.159 However, most of the non-Serb civilian population was eventually forced to leave Foca. In May 1992, buses were organised to take civilians out of town,160 and around 13 August 1992 the remaining Muslims in Foca, mostly women and children, were taken away to Rozaje, Montenegro.161 "
"159. Ex D 40, Zoran Mijovic.
160. Ekrem Zekovic (T 3615); Juso Taranin (T 3030-3041).
161. FWS-104 (T 2198-2199)."
Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Judgement (TC), 2 August 2001, paras. 293, 344, 431:
"293. When the plan to transport the Bosnian Muslim population out of Potocari was devised, the Drina Corps were called upon to procure the buses. Drina Corps personnel were also present in Potocari, overseeing the transportation operation, knowing full well that the Bosnian Muslims were not exercising a genuine choice to leave the area."
"344. The Trial Record also indicates that General Krstić played a principal role in organising the buses for the evacuation throughout the day of 12 July 1995. A radio intercept, at 0735 hours on 12 July 1995, shows General Krstić ordering Lieutenant Colonel Krsmanovic, the Drina Corps Transport Officer, to procure 50 buses from Pale, Visegrad, Rogatica, Sokolac, Han Pijesak, Vlasenica, Milici, Bratunac and Zvornik.910 Later intercepts show Colonel Krsmanovic working throughout the day on the organisation of the buses.911 At 12:10, a conversation was intercepted in which General Krstić ordered Colonel Krsmanovic to start moving the buses.912 Shortly thereafter, General Mladic was also recorded conversing with an unidentified person about the movement of the buses. That person told General Mladic that the buses had left ten minutes earlier.913 At 1305 hours, General Krstić was heard talking to Lt. Colonel ?obot, the Personnel and Mobilisation Officer for the Drina Corps Rear Services. General Krstić asked how many buses were on the road, and ?obot answered, "Twenty." General Krstić then asked to be connected to the Vlasenica Brigade and requested Colonel Kosoric, the Drina Corps Chief of Intelligence, who was not there. The evidence shows that Colonel Kosoric was also involved in organising buses for Potocari.914 General Krstić then told "Savo" from the Vlasenica Brigade to secure the road "up to the tunnel thats where theyll be disembarking."915 In the context of the events happening contemporaneously with this conversation, the Trial Chamber accepts that General Krstić was speaking of the Bosnian Muslim women, children and elderly from Potocari. Survivors who were amongst those transported from Potocari speak of going through a tunnel along the road from Luke to Kladanj when they left the buses and continued their journey towards Bosnian Muslim held territory on foot.916 Several other intercepts also appear to connect General Krstić with the organisation of transport for Potocari.917 These intercepts , showing General Krstićs involvement in the organisation and planning of transferring the civilian population from Potocari, are consistent with the organisational role expected of the Chief of Staff of a Corps engaged in an operation such as the transport of tens of thousands of people out of Potocari."
"910. P 435, Butler, T. 4827-4828
911. P 404 fn.130; and P 438.
912. P 440.
913. P 404 fn 132; and P 445.
914. See the discussion supra paras. 143.
915. P 446; Butler, T. 4839-4840.
916. See generally, Butler, T. 4842.
917. See for example, P 359, and Butler T. 4831-4832 (showing General Krstić involved with the issue of fuel); P 440, and P 443 (referring to fuel and stating that "Krsto" (a shortened name for General Krstić, (See Butler T. 4834) ordered it). P 448 (intercept at 1848 hours on 12 July 1995 between two Main Staff personnel and referring to "Krle" who the Prosecutions military expert, Butler, believes to be a reference to General Krstić given the context of the conversation. Butler, T. 4848)."
"431. The Drina Corps was instrumental in procuring the buses and other vehicles that, on 12 and 13 July 1995, were used to transport the Bosnian Muslim women, children and elderly out of the Potocari compound, as well as the fuel needed to accomplish that task (para. 142)."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.3.2. Evidence of monitoring transportation of victims out of an area.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Judgement (TC), 2 August 2001,paras. 293, 432, 464:
"293. When the plan to transport the Bosnian Muslim population out of Potocari was devised, the Drina Corps were called upon to procure the buses. Drina Corps personnel were also present in Potocari, overseeing the transportation operation, knowing full well that the Bosnian Muslims were not exercising a genuine choice to leave the area."
"432. Drina Corps Command officers and units were present in Potocari monitoring the transportation of the Bosnian Muslim civilians out of the area on 12 and 13 July 1995 (para. 144)."
"464. General Krstić ordered the procurement of buses for the transportation of the Bosnian Muslim population out of Potocari on 12 and 13 July 1995, issued orders to his subordinates about securing the road along which the busses would travel to Kladanj and he generally supervised the transportation operation (para. 347)."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.3.3. Evidence of ordering transportation of victims out of an area.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Judgement (TC), 2 August 2001,para. 464:
"464. General Krstić ordered the procurement of buses for the transportation of the Bosnian Muslim population out of Potocari on 12 and 13 July 1995, issued orders to his subordinates about securing the road along which the busses would travel to Kladanj and he generally supervised the transportation operation (para. 347)."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.3.4. Evidence of convoys carrying victims out of the area.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 557, 570:
"557. The Trial Chamber is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a number of deportations to Karlovac and forcible transfers to Travnik originating in the ARK took place during the period relevant to the Indictment. Convoys passed through Banja Luka1425 in the direction of Travnik;1426 at least one such convoy contained women, children and elderly Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats.1427 At least 5,000 people a year were transported by the Agency in the direction of Travnik alone.1428"
"1425. Muharem Krzic, T. 1488-1494 ; Amir Dzonlic, T. 2420. See also ex. P449 Report from Banja Luka Party of Democratic Action to the UN, 30 September 1992.
1426. Amir Dzonlic, T. 2404, gave evidence that he heard that a few convoys from Prijedor and Bosanski Novi had passed through Banja Luka in the direction of Travnik and remember[s] that one of these convoys fared very badly at the Koricanske Stijene near Travnik. They came from the direction of Prijedor and went through Banja Luka and they were killed over there.
1427. BT-13, T. 4726 (closed session ).
1428. Amir Dzonlic, T. 2401."
"570. In the Municipality of Bosanski Petrovac, a mass departure of Bosnian Muslims from the area occurred on 13 September 1992, including a column of seven buses with a special police patrol escorting them that departed from the village of Bisanci, in the direction of Travnik.1470 A smaller convoy of two buses had also left and gone via Mt. Vlasic to Travnik prior to this particular convoy.1471"
"1470. Ahmet Hidic, T. 16276-16278 . See also ex. P1848, "Radio Bosanski Petrovac broadcast regarding moving out of Muslims from Bosanski Petrovac", 13 September 1992. The convoy was in fact turned back, as passage was not allowed through Karinovac. The people then returned to Bosanski Petrovac: ex. P1849, "Report on escort and security provided for the convoy of Bosnian Muslims on 13 September 1992"; Jovo Radojko, T. 20200-20202.
1471. Ahmet Hidic, T. 16277-16278 ."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.3.5. Evidence of that the transfer was not a provisional measure.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
"1362. The Commentary to the Geneva Convention IV holds "[unlike] deportation and forcible transfer, evacuation is a provisional measure", p 280. The Chamber sees this as indicative of that deportation and forcible transfer are not by their nature provisional, which implies an intent that the transferred persons should not return."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.4. Evidence of displacement gathered from population dynamics.
P.4.1. Evidence of total numbers of victims displaced.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (TC), 31 July 2003, paras. 706, 711:
"706. On 2 July 1993, Kozarski Vjesnik ran an article called Who are we and how many which reported the unofficial census results for Prijedor municipality from a recent census in the municipalities of the Republika Srpska. The article states that of the 65,551 inhabitants in the municipality 53,637 were Orthodox, 6,124 Muslim and 3,169 Catholic.1382 The Trial Chamber is of the opinion that the above figures, undisputed by the Defence, show how horrifically effective the SDS-induced deportation campaign of the non-Serb population was. Not only was the total population in the municipality reduced by almost 60% but the Muslim and Croat ethnical groups were also decimated by 87.6% and 49.8%, respectively."
"1382. Exh. S229."
"711. ECMM representative accompanying the CSCE Rapporteurs mission wrote in his personal notes that the Muslim population is not wanted, and is being systematically kicked out by whatever method (that( [sic] is available. The massive scale on which these deportations were carried out, also from the very centre of Prijedor town close to the Accuseds office in the Municipal Assembly building, clearly supports the finding that the Accused himself was instrumental in the plan to expel the non-Serb population."
Christopher Hall, "Article 7" in Otto Triffterer, ed, Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1999), 162:
"The forcible transfer of population within national frontiers appears to require the movement of a number of persons, or at least the intent to force such movement, rather than the unlawful transfer of a single individual, unless it was part of a systematic transfer."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.4.2. Evidence of numbers of victims of certain ethnicities displaced.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 570:
"570. In the Municipality of Bosanski Petrovac, a mass departure of Bosnian Muslims from the area occurred on 13 September 1992, including a column of seven buses with a special police patrol escorting them that departed from the village of Bisanci, in the direction of Travnik.1470 A smaller convoy of two buses had also left and gone via Mt. Vlasic to Travnik prior to this particular convoy.1471 Over a three-day period, more than 900 Bosnian Muslim men, women and children moved from the Petrovac area in the direction of Bihac and Travnik.1472 Approximately 2,500 Bosnian Muslim men, women and children were also transported to Travnik on 24 September 1992, following a public announcement made by the military police that all Bosnian Muslims would be transferred there.1473"
"1470. Ahmet Hidic, T. 16276-16278 . See also ex. P1848, "Radio Bosanski Petrovac broadcast regarding moving out of Muslims from Bosanski Petrovac", 13 September 1992. The convoy was in fact turned back, as passage was not allowed through Karinovac. The people then returned to Bosanski Petrovac: ex. P1849, "Report on escort and security provided for the convoy of Bosnian Muslims on 13 September 1992"; Jovo Radojko, T. 20200-20202.
1471. Ahmet Hidic, T. 16277-16278 .
1472. Ibid.
1473. Jovo Radojko, T. 20203-20209 . Ahmet Hidic, T. 16271-16283 gave evidence that they had to walk the last 20 km to Travnik."
Prosecutor v Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (TC), 31 July 2003, para. 706:
"706. On 2 July 1993, "Kozarski Vjesnik" ran an article called "Who are we and how many" which reported the unofficial census results for Prijedor municipality from a recent census in the municipalities of the Republika Srpska. The article states that of the 65,551 inhabitants in the municipality 53,637 were Orthodox, 6,124 Muslim and 3,169 Catholic.1382 The Trial Chamber is of the opinion that the above figures, undisputed by the Defence, show how horrifically effective the SDS-induced deportation campaign of the non-Serb population was. Not only was the total population in the municipality reduced by almost 60% but the Muslim and Croat ethnical groups were also decimated by 87.6% and 49.8%, respectively. The new census showed that Prijedor municipality had been transformed into a virtually purely Serb municipality with 96.3% Serbs. The common goal to create a Serb municipality had finally been achieved."
"1382. Exh. S229."
Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelac, Case No. IT-97-25-T, Judgement (TC), 15 March 2002, para. 49:
"49. The expulsion, exchange or deportation of non-Serbs, both detainees at the KP Dom and those who had not been detained, was the final stage of the Serb attack upon the non-Serb civilian population in Foca municipality. Initially there was a military order preventing citizens from leaving Foca.159 However, most of the non-Serb civilian population was eventually forced to leave Foca. In May 1992, buses were organised to take civilians out of town,160 and around 13 August 1992 the remaining Muslims in Foca, mostly women and children, were taken away to Rozaje, Montenegro.161 On 23 October 1992, a group of women and children from the municipality, having been detained for a month at Partizan Sports Hall, were deported by bus to Gorade.162 In exhumations conducted in the Foca area, 375 bodies were identified by the State Commission for the Tracing of Missing Persons. All but one of these were Muslim. The remaining one was a Montenegrin who had been married to a Muslim.163 In late 1994, the last remaining Muslim detainees at the KP Dom were exchanged, marking the end of the attack upon those civilians and the achievement of a Serbian region ethnically cleansed of Muslims. By the end of the war in 1995, Foca had become an almost purely Serb town. Foca was renamed "Srbinje" after the conflict, meaning "Serb town".164"
"159. Ex D 40, Zoran Mijovic.
160. Ekrem Zekovic (T 3615); Juso Taranin (T 3030-3041).
161. FWS-104 (T 2198-2199).
162. Ex P 291; See also Osman Subasic (Ex P 286, pp 4111-4112).
163. Amor Masovic (T 4239).
164. FWS-96 (Ex P 186, p 2499)."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.5. Evidence of the creation of an infrastructure to facilitate displacement.
P.5.1. Evidence of facilitating applications for transfer or deportation.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v Milomir Stakić, Case No. IT-97-24-T, Judgment (TC), 31 July 2003, para. 709:
"709. Other evidence corroborates the fact that the Crisis Staff took measures to facilitate the expelling of non-Serb citizens of the Prijedor municipality. In particular, a "Kozarski Vjesnik" article dated 10 July 1992 reports that, after considering the issue of people "voluntarily applying for moving out of the municipality" the Crisis Staff "agreed on accelerating all activities which make it possible to carry out this process in an organised fashion."1385
"1385. Exh. S248."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.5.2. Evidence of setting up agencies to facilitate displacement.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 580:
"580. Finally, the Trial Chamber is satisfied that the Accused aided and abetted the crime of forcible transfer of non-Serbs, by setting up through the ARK Crisis Staffs decision of 12 June 1992,1483 the Agency for the Movement of People and Exchange in Banja Luka, which, inter alia, arranged bus travel to Travnik, and about which it has already found that it constituted an integral part of the plan to ethnically cleanse the region.1484"
"1483. Ex. P241, "Decision of the ARK Crisis Staff", 12 June 1992. See also Ex. P227, "Conclusions of the ARK Crisis Staff", 26 May 1992. See also VI.D. supra.
1484. See para. 552 supra. See also VI.D., "The Role of the ARK Crisis Staff in the Implementation of the Strategic Plan", supra."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.5.3. Evidence of setting up collection centres to oversee displacement.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Duko Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Judgement (TC), 7 May 1997, para. 379:
"379. Several witnesses testified to the acts alleged in subparagraph 4.1 and to the accused's role therein. There are essentially three aspects to this charge: the attack; the collection and forced transfer to detention camps; and the killings and beatings. Considerable evidence has been presented regarding the attack on Kozarac and the hamlets in the surrounding area. Many witnesses testified that the attack on Kozarac began with heavy shelling on 24 May 1992 after the expiration of an ultimatum demanding the surrender of weapons and a pledge of loyalty. Ample evidence was also presented that after the Muslims of Kozarac surrendered, beginning on 26 May 1992, long columns of civilians from the outlying areas, almost entirely non-Serb with the great majority consisting of Muslims, moved through the centre of Kozarac to collection centres where they were then separated and transferred to one of the three principal camps operating in the opstina: Omarska, Keraterm or Trnopolje."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.6. Evidence of publicly announcing displacement.
P.6.1. Evidence of publicly announcing that displacement would take place.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 570:
"570. Over a three-day period, more than 900 Bosnian Muslim men, women and children moved from the Petrovac area in the direction of Bihac and Travnik.1472 Approximately 2,500 Bosnian Muslim men, women and children were also transported to Travnik on 24 September 1992, following a public announcement made by the military police that all Bosnian Muslims would be transferred there.1473"
"1472. Ibid. [Refers to 1471. Ahmet Hidic, T. 16277-16278.]
1473. Jovo Radojko, T. 20203-20209 . Ahmet Hidic, T. 16271-16283 gave evidence that they had to walk the last 20 km to Travnik."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.6.2. Evidence of calling out residents names for future displacement.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Duko Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Judgement (TC), 7 May 1997, para. 387:
"387. The Trial Chamber has found beyond reasonable doubt that the accused entered the villages of Sivci and Jaskici together with other armed men as charged in paragraph 12. In Sivci, the accused took part in the removal of the men from that village, who had been separated from the women and children, to the Keraterm camp and, in Jaskici, took part in the calling-out of residents, the separation of men from women and children and the beating and removal of the men."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
