Table of contents:
P.13. Evidence of fixed establishment and mobile medical units of the Medical Service.
P.14. Evidence of the material of mobile medical units of the armed forces.
P.16. Evidence of the real and personal property of aid societies.
P.17. Evidence of transports of wounded and sick or of medical equipment.
5.1.2. Evidence of property protected under the Geneva Convention II
P.18. Evidence of military hospital ships.
5.1.3. Evidence of property protected under the Geneva Convention III
P.23. Evidence of property belonging to prisoners of war.
5.1.4. Evidence of property protected under the Geneva Convention IV
P.24. Evidence of civilian hospitals.
P.27. Evidence of property of internees
P.28. Property within occupied territories.
P.28.2. Evidence of civilian hospitals.
P.28.3. Evidence of the material and stores of civilian hospitals.
P.29. Evidence of a place of worship or other religious building.
P.29.3. Evidence of a synagogue.
P.29.4. Evidence of a monastery
P.29.5. Evidence of a seminary.
P.29.6. Evidence of a tomb, tombstone or cemetery.
P.30. Evidence of a school or educational building.
P.31. Evidence of a historic monument.
P.32. Evidence of the cultural heritage of peoples.
P.33. Evidence of a hospital or place where the sick and wounded are collected.
P.33.1. Evidence of a hospital.
5.2.2. Evidence that the property was an undefended town, village, dwelling, or building.
5.2.3. Evidence that the property was situated in a hostile state that was occupied.
P.34. Evidence of private property.
P.35. Evidence of the property of a municipality.
P.36. Evidence of submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a neutral territory.
Element:
A. Evidentiary comment:
Both the relevant provisions of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations must be taken into account in order to determine what constitutes conduct which is unlawful under international law.
5.1. Evidence that the property was protected from destruction or seizure under theGeneva Conventions.
P.13. Evidence of fixed establishment and mobile medical units of the Medical Service.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949, art. 19:
Art. 19. Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict. Should they fall into the hands of the adverse Party, their personnel shall be free to pursue their duties, as long as the capturing Power has not itself ensured the necessary care of the wounded and sick found in such establishments and units.
The responsible authorities shall ensure that the said medical establishments and units are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety.
P.14. Evidence of the material of mobile medical units of the armed forces.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949, art. 33:
Art. 33. The material of mobile medical units of the armed forces which fall into the hands of the enemy, shall be reserved for the care of wounded and sick.
The buildings, material and stores of fixed medical establishments of the armed forces shall remain subject to the laws of war, but may not be diverted from their purpose as long as they are required for the care of wounded and sick. Nevertheless, the commanders of forces in the field may make use of them, in case of urgent military necessity, provided that they make previous arrangements for the welfare of the wounded and sick who are nursed in them.
The material and stores defined in the present Article shall not be intentionally destroyed.
P.16. Evidence of the real and personal property of aid societies.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949, art. 34:
Art. 34. The real and personal property of aid societies which are admitted to the privileges of the Convention shall be regarded as private property.
The right of requisition recognized for belligerents by the laws and customs of war shall not be exercised except in case of urgent necessity, and only after the welfare of the wounded and sick has been ensured.
P.17. Evidence of transports of wounded and sick or of medical equipment.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949, art. 35:
Art. 35. Transports of wounded and sick or of medical equipment shall be respected and protected in the same way as mobile medical units.
Should such transports or vehicles fall into the hands of the adverse Party, they shall be subject to the laws of war, on condition that the Party to the conflict who captures them shall in all cases ensure the care of the wounded and sick they contain.
The civilian personnel and all means of transport obtained by requisition shall be subject to the general rules of international law.
5.1.2. Evidence of property protected under the Geneva Convention II
P.18. Evidence of military hospital ships.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949, art. 22:
Art. 22. Military hospital ships, that is to say, ships built or equipped by the Powers specially and solely with a view to assisting the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, to treating them and to transporting them, may in no circumstances be attacked or captured, but shall at all times be respected and protected, on condition that their names and descriptions have been notified to the Parties to the conflict ten days before those ships are employed.
The characteristics which must appear in the notification shall include registered gross tonnage, the length from stem to stern and the number of masts and funnels.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949, art. 24:
Art. 24. Hospital ships utilized by National Red Cross Societies, by officially recognized relief societies or by private persons shall have the same protection as military hospital ships and shall be exempt from capture, if the Party to the conflict on which they depend has given them an official commission and in so far as the provisions of Article 22 concerning notification have been complied with.
These ships must be provided with certificates from the responsible authorities, stating that the vessels have been under their control while fitting out and on departure.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949, art. 25:
Art. 25. Hospital ships utilized by National Red Cross Societies, officially recognized relief societies, or private persons of neutral countries shall have the same protection as military hospital ships and shall be exempt from capture, on condition that they have placed themselves under the control of one of the Parties to the conflict, with the previous consent of their own governments and with the authorization of the Party to the conflict concerned, in so far as the provisions of Article 22 concerning notification have been complied with.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949, art. 27:
Art. 27. Under the same conditions as those provided for in Articles 22 and 24, small craft employed by the State or by the officially recognized lifeboat institutions for coastal rescue operations, shall also be respected and protected, so far as operational requirements permit.
The same shall apply so far as possible to fixed coastal installations used exclusively by these craft for their humanitarian missions.
5.1.3. Evidence of property protected under the Geneva Convention III
P.23. Evidence of property belonging to prisoners of war.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, art.18:
Art 18. All effects and articles of personal use, except arms, horses, military equipment and military documents, shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war, likewise their metal helmets and gas masks and like articles issued for personal protection. Effects and articles used for their clothing or feeding shall likewise remain in their possession, even if such effects and articles belong to their regulation military equipment[ ].
Badges of rank and nationality, decorations and articles having above all a personal or sentimental value may not be taken from prisoners of war.
Sums of money carried by prisoners of war may not be taken away from them except by order of an officer, and after the amount and particulars of the owner have been recorded in a special register and an itemized receipt has been given[ ].
The Detaining Power may withdraw articles of value from prisoners of war only for reasons of security; when such articles are withdrawn, the procedure laid down for sums of money impounded shall apply. [ ]
5.1.4. Evidence of property protected under the Geneva Convention IV
P.24. Evidence of civilian hospitals.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, arts. 18 , 19 and 57:
Art.18. Civilian hospitals organized to give care to the wounded and sick, the infirm and maternity cases, may in no circumstances be the object of attack but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict.
States which are Parties to a conflict shall provide all civilian hospitals with certificates showing that they are civilian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy are not used for any purpose which would deprive these hospitals of protection in accordance with Article 19.
Civilian hospitals shall be marked by means of the emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949, but only if so authorized by the State.
The Parties to the conflict shall, in so far as military considerations permit, take the necessary steps to make the distinctive emblems indicating civilian hospitals clearly visible to the enemy land, air and naval forces in order to obviate the possibility of any hostile action.
In view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives.
Art.19. The protection to which civilian hospitals are entitled shall not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian duties, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after due warning has been given, naming, in all appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit and after such warning has remained unheeded.
The fact that sick or wounded members of the armed forces are nursed in these hospitals, or the presence of small arms and ammunition taken from such combatants and not yet been handed to the proper service, shall not be considered to be acts harmful to the enemy.
Art. 57. The Occupying Power may requisition civilian hospitals of hospitals only temporarily and only in cases of urgent necessity for the care of military wounded and sick, and then on condition that suitable arrangements are made in due time for the care and treatment of the patients and for the needs of the civilian population for hospital accommodation.
The material and stores of civilian hospitals cannot be requisitioned so long as they are necessary for the needs of the civilian population.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, art. 21:
Art. 21. Convoys of vehicles or hospital trains on land or specially provided vessels on sea, conveying wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases, shall be respected and protected in the same manner as the hospitals provided for in Article 18, and shall be marked, with the consent of the State, by the display of the distinctive emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, art. 22:
Art. 22. Aircraft exclusively employed for the removal of wounded and sick civilians, the infirm and maternity cases or for the transport of medical personnel and equipment, shall not be attacked, but shall be respected while flying at heights, times and on routes specifically agreed upon between all the Parties to the conflict concerned.
They may be marked with the distinctive emblem provided for in Article 38 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field of 12 August 1949.
Unless agreed otherwise, flights over enemy or enemy occupied territory are prohibited.
Such aircraft shall obey every summons to land. In the event of a landing thus imposed, the aircraft with its occupants may continue its flight after examination, if any.
P.27. Evidence of property of internees
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, art. 97:
Art. 97. Internees shall be permitted to retain articles of personal use. Monies, cheques, bonds, etc., and valuables in their possession may not be taken from them except in accordance with established procedure. Detailed receipts shall be given therefor.
[ ]
Articles which have above all a personal or sentimental value may not be taken away.
On release or repatriation, internees shall be given all articles, monies or other valuables taken from them during internment and shall receive in currency the balance of any credit to their accounts kept in accordance with Article 98, with the exception of any articles or amounts withheld by the Detaining Power by virtue of its legislation in force. If the property of an internee is so withheld, the owner shall receive a detailed receipt.
Family or identity documents in the possession of internees may not be taken away without a receipt being given. [ ].
P.28. Property within occupied territories.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blakić, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Judgement (TC), 3 March 2000, paras. 148-150:
148. Pursuant to Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the extensive destruction of property by an occupying Power not justified by military necessity is prohibited. According to the Commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention, this protection is restricted to property within occupied territories:
149. The Prosecution maintained that the property of the Bosnian Muslims was protected because it was in the hands of an occupying Power 297. The occupied territory was the part of BH territory within the enclaves dominated by the HVO, namely Vitez, Busovaca and Kiseljak. In these enclaves, Croatia played the role of occupying Power through the overall control it exercised over the HVO, the support it lent it and the close ties it maintained with it. Thus, by using the same reasoning which applies to establish the international nature of the conflict, the overall control exercised by Croatia over the HVO means that at the time of its destruction, the property of the Bosnian Muslims was under the control of Croatia and was in occupied territory. The Defence did not specifically address this issue.
150. Following to a large extent the reasoning of the Trial Chamber in the Rajic Decision 298, this Trial Chamber subscribes to the reasoning set out by the Prosecution.
296. Commentary, p. 301.
297. Prosecutors Summary, p. 7, para. 1.9.
298. Review of the indictment pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, The Prosecutor v. Rajic, Case no. IT-95-95-12-R61, 13 September 1996, para. 42.
P.28.2. Evidence of civilian hospitals.
P.28.3. Evidence of the material and stores of civilian hospitals.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949, arts. 53 and 57:
Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
Art. 57. The Occupying Power may requisition civilian hospitals of hospitals only temporarily and only in cases of urgent necessity for the care of military wounded and sick, and then on condition that suitable arrangements are made in due time for the care and treatment of the patients and for the needs of the civilian population for hospital accommodation.
The material and stores of civilian hospitals cannot be requisitioned so long as they are necessary for the needs of the civilian population.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1907 Hague art. 27:
Art. 27. In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes.
It is the duty of the besieged to indicate the presence of such buildings or places by distinctive and visible signs, which shall be notified to the enemy beforehand.
1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, art. 4(3):
Art. 4. 3. The High Contracting Parties further undertake to prohibit, prevent and, if necessary, put a stop to any form of theft, pillage or misappropriation of, and any acts of vandalism directed against, cultural property. They shall, refrain from requisitioning movable cultural property situated in the territory of another High Contracting Party.
1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, art.14.1:
Art. 14. 1. Immunity from seizure, placing in prize, or capture shall be granted to:
(a) cultural property enjoying the protection provided for in Article 12 or that provided for in Article 13;
(b) the means of transport exclusively engaged in the transfer of such cultural property.
P.29. Evidence of a place of worship or other religious building.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Judgement (TC), 31 January 2005, para. 320:
320. The Chamber also observes that among those buildings which were damaged in the attack, were monasteries, churches, a mosque, a synagogue and palaces.977 [ ]
977. E.g. Franciscan Monastery, Orthodox Church, St Vlaho (St Blaise) Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Onofrio Fountain, Cathedral etc. See Annex I, the buildings listed under Nos: J4, J16, J13, J19, J35, J7 and J12.
Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgement (AC), 17 December 2004, para. 589:
589. [ ] The Trial Chamber further relied on Witness TW12,823 who testified
The evidence of Witness TW12 show clearly that the mosque was deliberately set on fire.
823. Based on transcripts from the Blakić trial.
824. Blaskic, T. 9532.
Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 644 657:
(ii) Bosanska Krupa
644. The Bosanska Krupa town mosque was mined by Bosnian Serb forces in April 1992. As a result of ensuing explosion, the minaret fell.1636 [ ] The mosque in the village of Arapusa was also destroyed by explosives.1638
(iii) Bosanski Novi
645. In early May or June 1992, the town mosque in Bosanski Novi was shelled and set on fire by Bosnian Serb soldiers.1639 The walls were badly damaged but the minaret remained standing. Heavy machinery was brought from Prijedor in order to knock down the minaret. When the mosque was destroyed, trucks arrived to remove the rubble from the mosque. The site was then flattened and used as a parking lot. The tombs of the cemetery were also removed.1640
646. Other Muslim institutions dedicated to religion in the municipality of Bosanski Novi were targeted by Bosnian Serb forces. The Vidorije mosque was burned down in May 1992.1641 The mosques in Prekosanje, Urije and Gornji Agici were also destroyed.1642 During an attack by Bosnian Serb forces on Suhaca, the two mosques in the village were badly damaged by the shelling.1643 The old wooden mosque in Blagaj Rijeka and its minaret was set on fire.1644 The mosque in Blagaj Japra was also damaged.1645 The minaret on the roof of the mosque in Donji Agici was blown off by an explosion and the roof structure collapsed.1646
(iv) Bosanski Petrovac
647. The mosques in the centre of Bosanski Petrovac town, named Donji Biscani and Srednji Biscani were damaged by Bosnian Serb forces in July 1992.1647 Following explosions, the minarets of the Donji Biscani and Srednji Biscani mosques fell to the ground. The following days the rubble was cleared away by trucks.1648 The minaret of the Rasinovac mosque was also blown up by Bosnian Serb forces.1649
(v) Celinac
648. The old wooden mosque in the town of Celinac was mined.1650 After the explosion, trucks cleared away what was left.1651 The smaller mosque in town and the little Catholic Chapel at the exit from town were also destroyed by Bosnian Serb forces. The latter was destroyed in mid 1992.1652
(vi) Donji Vakuf
649. The three mosques in the town of Donji Vakuf were targeted by Bosnian Serb forces.1653 The main mosque called Basdzamija was mined and as a result was completely destroyed.1654 The rubble of this mosque was loaded on trucks and thrown in the river Vrbas and on its banks. The location of the mosque was subsequently turned into a parking lot.1655 The other two mosques in town were set on fire.1656 A number of mosques were also destroyed by Bosnian Serb forces in the municipality. Three of the four mosques in the village of Prusac were damaged in August or September 1992. The mosques were riddled with bullets and some of the minarets were destroyed.1657 The mosque in the hamlet of Seherdzik was destroyed by men wearing JNA uniforms on 9 August 1992. Due to the explosion, the walls of the mosque collapsed but part of the minaret was left standing.1658 The mosque in the village of Sokolina was set on fire by men wearing olive grey uniforms in June 1992.1659
(vii) Kljuc
650. Mosques and other institutions dedicated to religion were destroyed in Kljuc by Bosnian Serb forces. The Kljuc town mosque and its minaret was destroyed in August 1992, during the night.1660 The Biljani Mosque was set on fire in the morning of 10 July 1992 when the village was attacked by Bosnian Serb forces.1661
(viii) Kotor Varos
651. During attacks on villages in Kotor Varos by Bosnian Serb forces in June and July 1992, the mosques in the villages of Vrbanjci and Hanifici were set on fire and mined.1662 [ ]
(ix) Prijedor
652. The most systematic and brutal infliction of damage to both Muslim and Catholic institutions dedicated to religion occurred in Prijedor. [ ]
653. In areas surrounding Prijedor town, institutions dedicated to religion were targeted by Bosnian Serb forces. [ ] In Kamicani, the mosque was set on fire.1667 The Mutnik mosque in Kozarac was destroyed in mid 1992.1668 The minaret of the mosque in Kozarusa was badly damaged.1669 The mosque in Gornji Puharska was razed to the ground.1670 The new mosque in Kevljani was completely destroyed by mines. The minaret and the mosque were blown up with explosives.1671 The Gornji Jakupovici mosques minaret was badly damaged by mines.1672
(x) Prnjavor
654. The town mosque in Prnjavor was targeted twice. On the first occasion it was damaged, and on the second it was razed to the ground.1673 Attacks by Bosnian Serb forces also took place in Prnjavor municipality. The mosque in Lisnja was damaged by shelling and set on fire in 1992, by Bosnian Serb forces. 1674 The mosque in Puraci was blown up.1675
(xi) Sanski Most
655. Mosques in Sanski Most were also subject to major damage by Bosnian Serb forces. The mosques in the villages of Capalj, Hrustovo, Lukavice, Kamengrad and Tomina were destroyed in 1992 by the Bosnian Serb forces.1676
(xii) Sipovo
656. In Sipovo, the Staro Sipovo, Besnjevo and Pljeva mosques were bombed during the night on 7 August 1992 by Bosnian Serb forces. The mosques and their minarets were completely destroyed and the tombstones in the vicinity were also damaged.1677
(xiii) Teslic
657. [ ] The mosques in the surrounding villages of Barici and Ruzevici were also destroyed by Bosnian Serb forces.1679
1636. Muho ]ehic, ex. P1913, 92bis statement, 02907042; BT-56, T. 17498.
[ ]
1638. Muho ]ehic, ex. P1913, 92bis statement, 02907043.
1639. BT-81, T. 13787-13788; Colin Kaiser, T. 16470-16471.
1640. Malik Kapetanovic, ex. P1912 , 92bis statement, 02907027; Colin Kaiser, T. 16470-16471. See, e.g., ex. P1183.2., Supplement to the Report on the Damaging and Destruction of Muslim and Roman Catholic Sacral Buildings in the Municipalities of Bosanski Novi, Donji Vakuf, Kljuc, Kotor Varos, Prijedor and Sanski Most in the 1992-95 War, with specific reference to 1992.
1641. Malik Kapetanovic, ex. P1912 , 92bis statement, 02907027.
1642. Malik Kapetanovic, ex. P1912 , 92bis statement, 02907027; Colin Kaiser, T. 16470-16471; BT-83, T. 14087 .
1643. BT-50, ex. P1641, 92bis statement, 00672857 (under seal); BT-82, T.13969, 14012.
1644. Midho Alic, T. 13881; BT-49 , T.14223 (closed session).
1645. Midho Alic, T. 13881.
1646. Colin Kaiser, T. 16408; BT- 83, T. 14087
1647. Ahmed Hidic, T. 16254; Jovo Radojko, T. 20194; See, e.g., ex. P1863 which is a report prepared by a Muslim organisation in 1997 recording the total amount of destruction in Bosanki Petrovac during the war. The three mosques listed in the report were destroyed in July 1992 : Ahmed Hidic, T. 16254; Dzemal Fazlic, ex. P1978, 92bis statement, 00942944 ; Alem Jaganjac, ex. P1910, Rule 92bis Statement, 02907001.
1648. Alem Jaganjac, ex. P1910, 92bis statement, 02907001.
1649. Alem Jaganjac, ex. P1910, 92bis statement, 02907001; ex. P1863, Report, Information on dead, wounded, displaced and missing persons, dated 25 March 1997, p. 6.
1650. Mehmet Talic, T. 24164; BT- 90, T. 17073 (closed session); Boro Mandic, T. 21374. See, e.g., ex. P1992 , News item, dated 12 June 1992, which provides: [I]n Celinac, at one oclock in the morning, one or more unknown perpetrators attacked the building of the Mosque Board with hand grenades. See, e.g., ex. P1788 which states [ ] an Muslim place of worship in Prnjavor has been demolished. Some time before that, the one in Celinac was also demolished[ ]
1651. BT-90, T. 17089 (closed session ).
1652. BT-90, T. 17074 (closed session ); Mehmet Talic, T. 24164.
1653. BT-103, T. 19954 (closed session); See, e.g., ex. P1750 Document, reporting that the mosques in Donji Vakuf,, where Moslems had lived in harmony with their Serbian neighbours for generations, are now empty and destroyed [ ]; Dzevad Doslic, T. 14859-60.
1654. BT-103, T. 19954 (closed session ); BT-89, T. 14810-11 (closed session); Colin Kaiser, T. 16469.
1655. Dzevad Doslic, T. 14859-14860 .
1656. Dzevad Doslic, T. 14857-14862 ; Colin Kaiser, T. 16469.
1657. Senad Alkic, T. 14996.
1658. Hamdija Begovic, ex. P1908, 92bis statement, 02907117.
1659. Avdo Habib, ex. P1909, 92bis statement, 02907140.
1660. Samir Dedic, T. 10443-10444 .
1661. Dzevad Dzaferagic, 92bis statement, 02061866. The mosque was visited by the Trial Chamber and the Parties during the site visit which took place in March 2004.
1662. BT-74, ex. P2046, 92bis statement, 01076158 (under seal); Redjo Alagic, ex. P1915, 92bis statement , 02119435; Idriz Alekic, ex. P1895, 92bis statement, 02119431. Hanifici mosque was visited by the Trial Chamber and the Parties during the site visit which took place in March 2004.
[ ]
1667. Nerim Karagic, T. 6249.
1668. Ivo Atlija, T. 12035; BT-38 , ex. P556, T. 1650 (under seal); see, e.g., ex. P1128.35 Photograph of the Mutnik mosque.
1669. BT-63, ex. P1968 T.11054-55 (under seal).
1670. Nusret Sivac, T. 6608.
1671. Colin Kaiser, T. 16404-05. This location was visited by the Trial Chamber and the Parties during the site visit which took place in March 2004.
1672. Colin Kaiser, T. 16408.
1673. Jasmin Odobasic, T. 15128; BT-51, ex. P1784, 92bis statement, 00635471 (under seal); see, e.g., ex. P1788, Report, dated 22 June 1992, which states: an Muslim place of worship in Prnjavor has been demolished. See, e.g., ex. P1789, Document dated 6 August 1992, which states in para. 2: All places of worship not belonging to the Serbian Orthodox Church are being demolished in the Teslic and Prnjavor areas.
1674. BT-91, T. 15898; Rusmir Mujani c, T. 16017.
1675. Jasmin Odobasic, T. 15130; Rusmir Mujanic, T. 16015-16018.
1676. BT-21, T. 8621-8623 (closed session); Rajif Begic, T. 6373-6375, 6394-6395; BT-93, T. 20428 (closed session); BT-23, T. 6422, 6444.
1677. BT-105, T. 19103. See, e .g., ex. P2404, Document mentioning the destruction of the Staro Sipovo, Besnjevo and Pljeva mosques. BT-92 heard only about the destruction of the mosque in Besnjevo, T. 19856.
[ ]
1679. Mehmed Tenic, T. 16902-16903.
Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003, para. 607:
607. There is no dispute that the mosque in Sovici was blown up and destroyed.1486 The date of the destruction of the mosque is unclear; from the evidence presented at trial, however, the Chamber is satisfied that the mosque was destroyed between 18 and 20 April 1993.1487 Both the mosque in Sovici and the one in Doljani were destroyed.1488
1486. Naletilic Final Brief, p 33, states that [t]he Defence does not dispute the Sovici mosque was blown up and destroyed, but there has not been evidence beyond reasonable doubt that this was accomplished under the command, order or direction of Naletilic. See also witness NN, T 12899-12900 and witness NW, T 14965-14966, both testifying for the Defence of Mladen Naletilic. In the earlier stages of the trial the Defence seems to have argued that the mosque was not recognisable as a mosque, see inter alia, witness A, T 550-552.
1487. Witness W testified that he learned in Ljubuski prison, i.e. after 18 April 1993, that the mosque had been destroyed, witness W, T 3180-3181. On 17 April 1993, the mosque was still intact, witness A, T 500. On 20 April, witness D heard a blast, and they later learned that the mosque had been destroyed; witness D, T 912 and T 945. Witness X could see the mosque burning from the Sovici school, witness X, T 3326, 3342 (confidential), in drawing conclusions form the rest of her testimony the day she saw the mosque burn was most probably 19 or 20 April 1993. Defence witness NW testified that the mosque was blown up on 18 April 1993, Defence witness NW, T 14965-14966. Witness B testified that during the night, he heard a very loud explosion and later he learned that the mosque had been blown up, witness B, T 790-791. Defence witness NN testified that the mosques in Sovici and Doljani had been blown up on 17, 18 or 19 May 1993, Defence witness NN, T 12899-12900, 12934 Witness Y testified that on 18 April 1993 he saw that the mosque was damaged, T 3389. Witness A testified that the mosque was not damaged on 17 April 1993, witness A, T 500-501; witness B, T 790-791. Exhibits PP 333 and PP 333.1 state that the mosque was destroyed after the hostilities.
1488. Witness Said Smajkic, T 4086-4087; exhibits PP 333, PP 333.1. See also exhibit PP 6.6, which is an aerial photograph of the destroyed mosque in Sovici; exhibits PP 8.6, PP 8.7, which are aerial photographs of the destroyed mosque in Doljani.
Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Judgement (TC), 26 February 2001, paras. 804, 806 807, 809:
804. The Prosecution produced a video recording made in 1996 showing the damage to the villages of the Lasva Valley and surroundings.1707 The recording was taken from a helicopter and prepared by Lt. Colonel Jean-Pierre Capelle, who gave evidence about it.1708 [ ] In Kiseljak the minaret of the mosque has disappeared. The helicopter then travelled north, up the valley, over [ ] Hercezi, with a destroyed mosque; [ ] Svinjarevo, with a damaged mosque. [ ] The helicopter then travelled up the Kacuni corridor, south-east of Busovaca (held by the ABiH during the war), passing over [ ]Ahmici, where there were many destroyed houses as well as some intact ones inhabited by Croats and where the minaret had fallen on the roof of the mosque. [ ]
1707 - Ex. Z2799.
1708 - Lt. Col. Jean-Pierre Capelle, T. 13308-43.
806. The evidence about the Kiseljak municipality was as follows. [ ] Witness TW12 described the attack on Grahovci, where the HVO came into the village to set fire to houses; he saw the HVO stealing cars, buses and cattle and saw HVO soldiers set fire to the mosque. Visnjica was attacked on 18 April 1993 and houses were set on fire.1717 [ ] The mosque was also looted.1719 [ ] The HVO attacked Svinjarevo on 18 April 1993. The mosque was burnt down and about 100 houses were destroyed. [ ] The Han Ploca mosque was set on fire first and then the houses.1727 [ ]
807. The evidence about the Vitez municipality may be summarised as follows:
[..]
(ii) Stari Vitez: [ ] Edib Zlotrg heard Pero Skopljak say that he ordered the shelling of the minaret at Stari Vitez because a Muslim sniper was operating from there.1733 Four mosques and one Muslim junior seminary were destroyed in Vitez municipality.1734
(iii) Ahmici: In the attack on 20 October 1992, the HVO used incendiaries on three to four houses and damaged 15 others. The top of the minaret of the mosque was hit by a shell.1735 On 17 April 1993 the rest of the mosque was destroyed.1736 On his visit to Ahmici on 22 April 1993, Colonel Bryan Watters saw burnt houses with charred remains inside, and destruction to the minaret and mosque.1737 [ ]
1717 - Witness D, T. 2057-58.
[ ]
1719 - Witness TW25, T. 6639.
[ ]
1727 - Witness TW08, T. 9003.
[ ]
1733 - Edib Zlotrg, T. 1703.
1734 - Ex. Z2715.
1735 - Abdulah Ahmic, T. 3551-53.
1736 - Abdulah Ahmic, T. 3588.
1737 - Ex. Z1504-1523; Dan Damon, T. 6632-33; Charles McLeod, T. 2688-90.
809. Likewise (in respect of the offence of destruction of institutions dedicated to religion or education alleged in Counts 43 and 44), the HVO deliberately targeted mosques and other religious and educational institutions. This included the Ahmici mosque which the Trial Chamber finds was not used for military purposes but was deliberately destroyed by the HVO. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber finds that the underlying offences in Counts 43 and 44 are made out (save in relation to the locations deleted at the close of the prosecution case). [ ]
Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blakić, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Judgement (TC), 3 March 2000, para. 351, 418-423, 511, 600, 618, 626:
351. [ ]The witness Abdullah Ahmic explained that the HVO had first of all fired on the minaret of the Donji Ahmici mosque after the Muslims had used the mosque to call for the Croats to surrender their arms 597 . [ ]
597 - Witness Abdullah Ahmic, PT p. 3722.
418. [ ] 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. [ ]
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.
419. Several religious edifices were destroyed. The Defence did not deny the destruction of the mosque at Donji Ahmici or of the matif mesjid873 at Gornji Ahmici. However, it did maintain that the reason for this destruction was that "the school and church in Ahmici became locations of fighting following the attack by the Fourth Military Police Battalion" 874 .
420. Conversely, the Prosecutor contended that "both mosques were deliberately mined and given the careful placement of the explosives inside the buildings, they must have been mined after HVO soldiers had control of the buildings" 875.
421. The Trial Chamber notes at the outset that according to the witness Stewart, it was barely plausible that soldiers would have taken refuge in the mosque since it was impossible to defend 876. Furthermore, the mosque in Donji Ahmici was destroyed by explosives laid around the base of its minaret877. According to the witness Kaiser, this was "an expert job" which could only have been carried out by persons who knew exactly where to place the explosives878. The witness Zec stated that he had heard a Croatian soldier speaking on his radio asking for explosives "for the lower mosque in Ahmici"879. The destruction of the minaret was therefore premeditated and could not be justified by any military purpose whatsoever. The only reasons to explain such an act were reasons of discrimination.
422. The Trial Chamber notes that that mosque had just been built. The inhabitants of Ahmici had collected the money to build it and were extremely proud of its architecture 880.
423. It is undeniable that the matif mesjid in Gornji Ahmici was destroyed 881. The ECMM also noted the destruction of the mosque in the eastern quarter of the village 882.
873 - Mosque with no minaret. P47
874 - Defence Brief, book X, p. 490.
875 - Prosecutor's Brief, book V, p. 45.
876 - Witness Stewart, PT p. 23864.
877 - Witness Thomas, PT pp. 2645-2650; PT p. 23660.
878 - Witness Kaiser, PT p. 10663. See also witness Thomas, PT p. 2650.
879 - Witness Zec, PT p. 4286-4287.
880 - Witness Baggesen, PT of 22 August 1997 p. 1931; Abdullah Ahmic, PT pp. 3769-3770.
881 - See in particular P47/49, P47/77, P47/78, P47/80, and P47/81.
882 - P242, "Report on inter-ethnic violence in Vitez, Busovaca and Zenica in April 1993", Events reported by ECMM and UN, 13-30 April 1993, Annex R to ECMM H/S 720, p. R-7.
511. The explosion occurred near houses belonging to civilians, thus causing numerous civilian victims together with many possessions of a civilian or religious nature, such as the roof of the mosque. [ ]
600. The HVO soldiers pillaged 1343 and torched the Muslim homes of the village and drove away their inhabitants. They slightly damaged the mosque by setting fire to it 1344.
1343. Witness LL, PT pp. 8062-8064.
1344 - Witness LL, PT p. 8031.
618. [ ] The Han Ploca mosque was burned 1416 and its imam killed 1417. [ ]
1416 - Witness QQ, PT p. 8937; witness TT, PT pp. 9328-9329; witness UU, PT pp. 9532-9533.
1417 - Witness QQ, PT p. 8950; witness RR, PT pp. 8979-8980.
626. [ ] The mosques in Behrici, Gomionica, Gromiljak, Visnjica and Han Ploca were also looted, damaged or demolished.
Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadić and Ratko Mladić, Case No. IT-95-5-R61 and IT-95-18-R61, Decision on rule 61 (TC), 11 July 1996, para.15:
15. Throughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina under their control, Bosnian Serb forces also destroyed, quasi-systematically, the Muslim and Catholic cultural heritage, in particular sacred sites. According to estimates provided at the hearing by an expert witness, Dr Kaiser, a total of 1,123 mosques, 504 Catholic churches and five synagogues were destroyed or damaged,17 for the most part, in the absence of military activity or after the cessation thereof.18
This was the case in the destruction of the entire Islamic and Catholic heritage in the Banja Luca area which had a Serbian majority and the nearest area of combat to which was several dozen kilometers away. All of the mosques and Catholic churches were destroyed. Some mosques were destroyed with explosives and the ruins were then leveled and rubble thrown in the public dumps in order to eliminate any vestige of Muslim presence.19
Aside from churches and mosques, other religious and cultural symbols like cemeteries and monasteries were targets of the attacks.20
17. Oral testimony of Kr. Kaiser, 2 July 1996, p.40, French version of the provisional transcripts
18. Confirmation case-file (IT-95-5-I) p.77
19. Confirmation case-file (IT-95-5-I) pp 78-80; Oral testimony of John Ralston, 28 June 1996, p.85, French version of the provisional transcripts; exhibits 57 and 58
20. Confirmation case-file (IT-95-5-I) p.79
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Judgement (TC), 31 January 2005, para. 320:
320. The Chamber also observes that among those buildings which were damaged in the attack, were monasteries, churches, a mosque, a synagogue and palaces.977 [ ]
977. E.g. Franciscan Monastery, Orthodox Church, St Vlaho (St Blaise) Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Onofrio Fountain, Cathedral etc. See Annex I, the buildings listed under Nos: J4, J16, J13, J19, J35, J7 and J12.
Prosecutor v. Enver Hadihasanović and Amir Kubura, Case No. IT-01-47-T, Decision on rule 98 bis motions (TC), 27 September 2004, para. 155:
155. There is sufficient evidence that the church in the town of Travnik in the zone under ABiH control was damaged in June 1993.268 Consequently, the Chamber concludes that there is sufficient evidence to allow a Trial Chamber to find that the crime of destruction or wilful damage to institutions dedicated to religion in the town of Travnik set out in Count 7 has been proved.
268. See in particular the testimony of Mirko Ivkic as well as P 388.
Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 644, 648, 651-652, 657:
(ii) Bosanska Krupa
644. [ ] The Roman Catholic Church in town was also destroyed.1637 [ ]
1637. BT-56, T. 17498.
(v) Celinac
648. [ ] The smaller mosque in town and the little Catholic Chapel at the exit from town were also destroyed by Bosnian Serb forces. The latter was destroyed in mid 1992.1652
1652. BT-90, T. 17074 (closed session ); Mehmet Talic, T. 24164.
(viii) Kotor Varos
651. [ ] The Roman Catholic Church in the town of Kotor Varos was also set on fire.1663
1663. BT-71, T. 17651. See, e.g. ex., P2185, Extract from the Minutes of the 53rd session of Crisis Staff held on 2 July 1992. This location was visited by the Trial Chamber and the Parties during the site visit which took place in March 2004.
(ix) Prijedor
652. The most systematic and brutal infliction of damage to both Muslim and Catholic institutions dedicated to religion occurred in Prijedor. In late August 1992 Bosnian Serb soldiers broke into the Roman Catholic Church in Prijedor to plant explosives in it. At 0100 hours the explosives detonated and destroyed the church.1664 The police appeared indifferent to the reports on the events.1665
1664. Nusret Sivac, T. 6607-07; BT -28, ex. P557, 92bis statement, 01799804 (under seal); Kerim Mesanovic, T . 11247, 11255-11256.
1665. BT-28, ex. P557, 92bis statement, 01799805 (under seal).
(xiii) Teslic
657. In the town of Teslic, the Roman Catholic Church was demolished during an attack by the Serb forces in mid 1992.1678 [ ]
1678. Mehmed Tenic, T. 16902.
Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadić and Ratko Mladić, Case No. IT-95-5-R61 and IT-95-18-R61, Decision on rule 61 (TC), 11 July 1996, para.15:
15. Throughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina under their control, Bosnian Serb forces also destroyed, quasi-systematically, the Muslim and Catholic cultural heritage, in particular sacred sites. According to estimates provided at the hearing by an expert witness, Dr Kaiser, a total of 1,123 mosques, 504 Catholic churches and five synagogues were destroyed or damaged,17 for the most part, in the absence of military activity or after the cessation thereof.18
This was the case in the destruction of the entire Islamic and Catholic heritage in the Banja Luca area which had a Serbian majority and the nearest area of combat to which was several dozen kilometers away. All of the mosques and Catholic churches were destroyed. Some mosques were destroyed with explosives and the ruins were then leveled and rubble thrown in the public dumps in order to eliminate any vestige of Muslim presence.19
Aside from churches and mosques, other religious and cultural symbols like cemeteries and monasteries were targets of the attacks.20
17. Oral testimony of Kr. Kaiser, 2 July 1996, p.40, French version of the provisional transcripts
18. Confirmation case-file (IT-95-5-I) p.77
19. Confirmation case-file (IT-95-5-I) pp 78-80; Oral testimony of John Ralston, 28 June 1996, p.85, French version of the provisional transcripts; exhibits 57 and 58
20. Confirmation case-file (IT-95-5-I) p.79
P.29.3. Evidence of a synagogue.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Judgement (TC), 31 January 2005, para. 320:
320. The Chamber also observes that among those buildings which were damaged in the attack, were monasteries, churches, a mosque, a synagogue and palaces.977 [ ]
977. E.g. Franciscan Monastery, Orthodox Church, St Vlaho (St Blaise) Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Onofrio Fountain, Cathedral etc. See Annex I, the buildings listed under Nos: J4, J16, J13, J19, J35, J7 and J12.
Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadić and Ratko Mladić, Case No. IT-95-5-R61 and IT-95-18-R61, Decision on rule 61 (TC), 11 July 1996, para.15:
15. Throughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina under their control, Bosnian Serb forces also destroyed, quasi-systematically, the Muslim and Catholic cultural heritage, in particular sacred sites. According to estimates provided at the hearing by an expert witness, Dr Kaiser, a total of 1,123 mosques, 504 Catholic churches and five synagogues were destroyed or damaged,17 for the most part, in the absence of military activity or after the cessation thereof.18
17. Oral testimony of Kr. Kaiser, 2 July 1996, p.40, French version of the provisional transcripts
18. Confirmation case-file (IT-95-5-I) p.77
P.29.4. Evidence of a monastery
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Judgement (TC), 31 January 2005, para. 320:
320. The Chamber also observes that among those buildings which were damaged in the attack, were monasteries, churches, a mosque, a synagogue and palaces.977
977. E.g. Franciscan Monastery, Orthodox Church, St Vlaho (St Blaise) Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Onofrio Fountain, Cathedral etc. See Annex I, the buildings listed under Nos: J4, J16, J13, J19, J35, J7 and J12.
Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 643:
643. On 9 April 1992, the Franciscan Monastery in Petricevac was damaged. The investigations carried out established that the Monastery was hit by a missile from a hand held rocket launcher.1635
1635. Ex. P144, Report from the Banja Luka SJB, dated 9 April 1992.
Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadić and Ratko Mladić, Case No. IT-95-5-R61 and IT-95-18-R61, Decision on rule 61 (TC), 11 July 1996,para.15:
15. [ ] Aside from churches and mosques, other religious and cultural symbols like cemeteries and monasteries were targets of the attacks.20
20. Confirmation case-file (IT-95-5-I) p.79
P.29.5. Evidence of a seminary.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Judgement (TC), 26 February 2001 para. 807:
807. The evidence about the Vitez municipality may be summarised as follows:
(ii) Stari Vitez: [ ] Four mosques and one Muslim junior seminary were destroyed in Vitez municipality .1734
1734 - Ex. Z2715.
P.29.6. Evidence of a tomb, tombstone or cemetery.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 656:
656. [ ] The mosques and their minarets were completely destroyed and the tombstones in the vicinity were also damaged.1677
1677. BT-105, T. 19103. See, e .g., ex. P2404, Document mentioning the destruction of the Staro Sipovo, Besnjevo and Pljeva mosques. BT-92 heard only about the destruction of the mosque in Besnjevo, T. 19856.
Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Judgement (TC), 26 February 2001, para.806:
806. [ ] The village was plundered and 131 of its 159 houses were destroyed , along with the Mekteb and the Turbe.1721
1721 - Witness TW04, T. 9262, 9264-64, 9269-72, 9278, 9280, 9311-15.
Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadić and Ratko Mladić, Case No. IT-95-5-R61 and IT-95-18-R61, Decision on rule 61 (TC), 11 July 1996, para.15:
15. [ ] Aside from churches and mosques, other religious and cultural symbols like cemeteries and monasteries were targets of the attacks.20
20. Confirmation case-file (IT-95-5-I) p.79
P.30. Evidence of a school or educational building.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-T, Judgement (TC), 26 February 2001, paras. 91 92, 806 807:
91. [ ] Article 1 of the Hague Convention of 1954 refers to property which is of great importance to the cultural heritage and not as in Article 53 of Additional Protocol I, to objects which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage. The Commentary on the Additional Protocols states that despite this difference in terminology, the basic idea is the same, and that the cultural or spiritual heritage covers objects whose value transcends geographical boundaries, and which are unique in character and are intimately associated with the history and culture of a people.102
92. The Appeals Chamber cannot see how all educational buildings fulfil these criteria. Therefore, the Appeals Chamber finds that the Trial Chamber erred when it considered that educational institutions are undoubtedly immovable property of great importance to the cultural heritage of peoples.103 The Trial Chamber did not consider whether and under which conditions the destruction of educational buildings constituted a crime qua custom at the time it was allegedly committed. Although Hague Convention IV is considered by the Report of the Secretary-General as being without doubt part of international customary law,104 it does not explicitly refer to buildings dedicated to education. The same applies to Article 53 of Additional Protocol I and it is suggested that the adjective cultural used in Article 53 applies to historic monuments and works of art and cannot be construed as applying to all institutions dedicated to education such as schools. Schools are, however, explicitly mentioned in Article 52 of Additional Protocol I, which relates to schools, places of worship and other civilian buildings. Article 23(g) of the Hague Regulations states that it is especially forbidden to destroy ( ) the enemys property, unless such destruction ( ) is imperatively demanded by the necessities of war. The Report of the Secretary-General states that the above instrument and the Regulations annexed thereto have beyond doubt become part of international customary law.105 There is no doubt that the crime envisaged of destruction of educational buildings was part of international customary law at the time it was allegedly committed.
102. Commentary on the Additional Protocols, p. 646.
103. Trial Judgment, para. 360.
104. Report of the Secretary-General, para. 35.
105. Report of the Secretary-General, para. 35.
806. [ ] Gomionica was also attacked on 18 April 1993. The village was plundered and 131 of its 159 houses were destroyed , along with the Mekteb and the Turbe.1721 [ ]
807. The evidence about the Vitez municipality may be summarised as follows:
(iv) Veceriska Donja Veceriska: The village was destroyed by explosives and fire during the HVO attack on 16 April 1993.1739 In Gacice the Muslim houses were burned and the Mekteb destroyed in the HVO attack of 20 April.1740
1721 - Witness TW04, T. 9262, 9264-64, 9269-72, 9278, 9280, 9311-15.
1739 - Witness V, T. 10391-96.
1740 - Witness AP, T. 15876-77; photographs, Ex. Z1760-63.
P.31. Evidence of a historic monument.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Judgement (TC), 31 January 2005, paras. 313, 320:
313. The Accused must answer charges that at least some degree of damage or destruction was sustained by 116959 buildings and structures in the course of the 6 December attack on the Old Town of Dubrovnik. These are listed in the Annex to the Rule 98bis Decision.960 They include the six buildings alleged to have been completely destroyed in the attack: namely: Palace Od Sigurate 1 (Festival Palace), Palace Od Sigurate 2, Palace Martinusic Sv. Josipa 1, Palace Od Puca 11, Palace Od Puca 16, Palace Sorkocevic Miha Pracata 6.961 In addition, the Prosecution submits that it has proven damage to the Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments (C1), a building not listed in the Annex, resulting from the 6 December attack on the Old Town.962
959. In the course of the Rule 98bis Decision, the original list of 450 buildings listed in Schedule II to the Indictment, which had been allegedly destroyed and damaged as a result of the 6 December shelling, was substantially reduced.
960. Rule 98bis Decision, Annex: Part A listed 96 buildings and structures identified in Schedule II of the Indictment; Part B listed 20 buildings and structures that could not be readily identified in Schedule II of the Indictment but which were located in the Old Town.
961. Indictment, para 23.
962. Prosecution Final Brief, paras 193-194.
320. The Chamber also observes that among those buildings which were damaged in the attack, were monasteries, churches, a mosque, a synagogue and palaces.977 [ ]
977. E.g. Franciscan Monastery, Orthodox Church, St Vlaho (St Blaise) Church, Mosque, Synagogue, Onofrio Fountain, Cathedral etc. See Annex I, the buildings listed under Nos: J4, J16, J13, J19, J35, J7 and J12.
P.32. Evidence of the cultural heritage of peoples.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Pavle Strugar, Case No. IT-01-42-T, Judgement (TC), 31 January 2005, paras. 21, 327:
21. The Old Town of Dubrovnik is endowed with an exceptional architectural heritage, including palaces, churches and public buildings.35 The city first rose to prominence as a significant trading centre in the 13th century,36 and the oldest buildings in the Old Town date from this period.37 The fortifications of the Old Town, begun in the 12th century and completed in the mid 17th century, are widely regarded as some of the finest examples of city fortifications in Europe.38 Demilitarisation of this historic area was a precondition to the recognition of the Old Town as a World Heritage site by UNESCO in 1979.39 One of the unique features of the Old Town is that it has remained a living city. In fact, in 1991, the Old Town had an estimated population of between 7,000 and 8,000 residents.40 Within its city walls, the Old Town is fairly densely populated. Its palaces, which would previously have housed not more than a single noble family, have been divided up into flats and line the narrow streets of the Old Town. Stradun is the main street bisecting the Old Town on a west east axis.41
35. Exhibit P14, p 6.
36. Exhibit P14, p 2.
37. Exhibit P14, p 3.
38. Exhibit P14, p 5.
39. Exhibit P14, p 16.
40. See generally, John Allcock, T 461-464.
41. John Allcock, T 472.
327. In relation to Count 6 specifically, the Chamber observes that the Old Town of Dubrovnik in its entirety989 was entered onto the World Heritage List in 1979 upon the nomination of the SFRY.990 The properties inscribed on the World Heritage List include those which, because of their architecture, their homogeneity or their place in the landscape, are of outstanding universal value from the point of view of history, art or science.991 The Chamber is of the view that all the property within the Old Town, i.e. each structure or building, is within the scope of Article 3(d) of the Statute. The Chamber therefore concludes that the attack launched by the JNA forces against the Old Town on 6 December 1991 was an attack directed against cultural property within the meaning of Article 3(d) of the Statute, in so far as that provision relates to cultural property.
989. The Old Town comprised: The urban historical complex of Dubrovnik includes all the buildings erected from the XIIth to the XVIth century, within the precincts of the fortified walls. It covers an area of 15,2 ha [ ] The boundaries of the historical urban complex are precisely defined by the fortified walls, the former moats and, on the southern side, by the steep coast-line., P63/2, p 1.
990. Colin Kaiser, T 2378-2379, Exhibits P63/2, P63/7; Exhibit P14, p 11.
991. Convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, adopted by the General Conference at its seventeenth session, Paris, 16 November 1972, Exhibit P63/11, Article 1.
Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blakić, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Judgement (TC), 3 March 2000, para. 411:
411. Although the village of Ahmici had no strategic importance which justified the fighting, it was however of particular significance for the Muslim community in Bosnia. Many imams and mullahs came from there. For that reason, Muslims in Bosnia considered Ahmici to be a holy place. In that way, the village of Ahmici symbolised Muslim culture in Bosnia. The witness Watters was certain that Ahmici had been chosen as a target for that reason.
B. Evidentiary comment:
The ICTY has referred to article 27 of the Hague Regulations, article 53 of Additional Protocol I and the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict in interpreting which institutions are protected under article 3(d) of its statute: see Kordic Trial Judgment, ICTY, paras. 359-362; Kordic Trial Judgment para. 89-92; Brjdanin Trial Judgment, ICTY, paras. 595-598.
Article 53 of Additonal Protocol I protects historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples.
The 1954 Convention protects cultural property, which is defined in article I as:
The UNESCO Declaration concerning the Intentional Destruction of Cultural Heritage, which in recalls articles 8(2)(b)(ix) and 8(2)(e)(iv), is expressed as addressing the intentional destruction of cultural heritage including cultural heritage linked to a natural site. (article II(1)).
P.33. Evidence of a hospital or place where the sick and wounded are collected.
P.33.1. Evidence of a hospital.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Judgement (TC), 5 December 2003, paras. 244 245:
244. Lastly, as concerns non-scheduled incidents of sniping and shelling, international observers and senior hospital staff testified that the State Hospital, located in Marin Dvor,556 was regularly fired upon during the Indictment period from SRK-controlled territory resulting in injuries to patients and staff and significantly damaging the hospital infrastructure. Ashton, who lived at the State Hospital from the end of 1992 until the beginning of 1993, testified to this fact.557 According to the witness, every day during that period began with the shelling of the hospital from Mount Trebevic. Anti-aircraft weapons were also used in these attacks.558 Ashton recalled one particularly intense shelling incident on 23 September 1992 which seriously damaged three parts of the hospital.559 On that occasion, from the fourth floor of the main hospital building, he saw in the direction of Pale the firing of heavy-weapons from SRK-controlled territory.560 He also observed shells being fired on the hospital from SRK-controlled positions above the Jewish cemetery in Grbavica.561 In October 1992 he saw a tank fire three times at the hospital from SRK-controlled territory on the road leading to Pale.562 Attacks from Grbavica against the hospital were launched also in October 1992, December 1992, and January 1993.563 Another witness, Van Lynden, recalled being at the hospital towards the end of 1992 when a large explosion, which he attributed to tank fire, rocked the facility and damaged an elevator shaft.564 Sometime in March 1993, Ashton witnessed a member of the medical staff being injured by shrapnel in the arm and leg while bringing patients in through the front of the hospital.565
245. Milan Mandilovic, surgeon at the State Hospital, testified that throughout the Indictment period, infantry fire caused great damage to the hospital.566 The entire south facade, the east one as well, and partially the west, it was all bullet riddled from small arms.567 According to the witness the fire came from the slopes of the Trebevic mountain, the Jewish Cemetery, and the Vrace part of Grbavica settlement. [...] Those are the zones that would correspond to the south easterly, southern, and south western side.568 Patients and hospital staff were wounded whilst in the hospital by sniper fire from those areas.569 He said that all twelve floors were damaged to some extent as result of shelling.570 The south side of the building, directly visible from SRK positions, was most severely shelled.571 Patients had to be moved to the north wing and to lower floors to be protected from the attacks.572 Bakir Nakas, the administrator of the State Hospital since May 1992,573 testified that the southern facade of the hospital, which faced the SRK-held territories of Vrace and Trebevic,574 was most exposed to fire, almost 85 to 90 percent of hits were on that side.575 Nakas recalled that, in October 1992, a large bullet from an anti-aircraft gun injured his secretary in her office.576 In August 1993 a bullet struck his office.577 According to the witness, these attacks originated in the areas of Vrace and Mount Trebevic.578 Carl Harding, a UNMO in Sarajevo from July 1992 until January 1993, inspected the State Hospital on 31 December 1992579 and found that all three hospital buildings had been damaged from shelling. A 155 mm shell had damaged the ground floor of the casualty reception building, while other fire had destroyed parts of the upper floors of the main building.580 The third building of the hospital, the annex, also bore the scars of artillery attacks.581 By January 1993, shelling had reduced the bed capacity of the hospital to 200 from its pre-conflict level of 480 beds.582
556. Kupusovic, T. 664-5; Nakas, T. 1123; Ashton, T. 1282; Eterovic, T. 8844; P3645 (Map of Sarajevo marked by Ashton). This institution was also referred to at times as the French hospital, the Army hospital or the Citizens hospital, Kupusovic, T. 664-5; Harding, T. 4346-7.
557. Ashton, T. 1231.
558. Id.
559. Id.
560. Ashton, T. 1231 and 1235-6. Later, in 1994, Ashton visited the area of Pale where the fire had come from and was shown by SRK soldiers heavy weapons which were positioned in the vicinity, Ashton, T. 1236-7.
561. Ashton, T. 1232-3, 1243-4.
562. Ashton, T. 1244-5. In October 1992, he photographed the extensive damage done both to the fa?ade and rooms inside the hospital facing Grbavica, Ashton, T. 1393-4; P3641 (Selected photographs taken by Ashton).
563. Ashton, T. 1244. He was at the hospital during another shelling incident sometime in 1993; he climbed to one of the upper floors of the main building, peered towards Grbavica with his camera lens and saw a tank firing onto the hospital. T. 1394. Ashton had on hand a camera with high-definition lens he normally used for his profession, which enabled him to see at a distance, Ashton, T. 1245.
564. Van Lynden, T. 2140. Van Lynden also remembered going to the State hospital in May 1992 and observing that the medical facility had been very badly shot up at that stage [of the conflict], Van Lynden, T. 2089-90.
565. Ashton, T. 1266.
566. Mandilovic, T. 1090.
567. Mandilovic, T.1033-4
568. Mandilovic, T. 1034.
569. Mandilovic, T. 1034, 1036.
570. Mandilovic, T. 1013.
571. Mandilovic, T. 1013-4.
572. Mandilovic, T. 1020, 1036. The entire southern wing of the hospital was not operational throughout the war. All activities had to be transferred to the northern wing. During the intensive shelling, everything had to be transferred to the lower floors. The higher floors, that is, from the 5th to the 12th floor, were not operational. When the intensity of the shelling subsided, the activities of the hospital would move again to higher floors, T. 1090-1091.
573. Nakas, T. 1122-3.
574. Nakas, T.1123, 1129.
575. Nakas, T. 1126. After the first shelling of the hospital on 13 May 1992, the medical staff placed a large white flag with the Red Cross emblem in the southern section of the hospital facing Trebevic and the hill of Vrace, Nakas, T. 1123, 1182; Harding, T. 4348-50. The staff later took down this flag in September 1992 because exposure to gunfire had reduced it to tatters, Nakas, T. 1123-4.
576. Nakas, T. 1126-7.
577. Nakas, T. 1127. Judging by the location of the first impact, the witness concluded that the hits originated from the slope of Trebevic, which is an extension of Vrace hill, Nakas, T. 1127. He also testified that fragments from tank, artillery and mortar explosives were recovered at the hospital after shelling incidents, Nakas, T. 1190.
578. Nakas, T.1189-90.
579. P3661 (Battle damage assessment of State hospital dated January 1993 by Carl Harding).
580. Id.
581. Id.
582. Id.
5.2.2. Evidence that the property was an undefended town, village, dwelling, or building.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, art. 25:
25. The attack or bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings which are undefended is prohibited.
5.2.3. Evidence that the property was situated in a hostile state that was occupied.
P.34. Evidence of private property.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blakić, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Judgement (TC), 3 March 2000, para. 157:
157. An occupying Power is prohibited from destroying movable and non-movable property except where such destruction is made absolutely necessary by military operations. To constitute a grave breach, the destruction unjustified by military necessity must be extensive, unlawful and wanton.
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, arts. 46 and 52:
Art. 46. [ ]Private property cannot be confiscated.
Art. 52. Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.
P.35. Evidence of the property of a municipality.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, art. 56:
Art. 56. The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.
All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings.
P.36. Evidence of submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a neutral territory.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, art. 54 :
Art. 54. Submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a neutral territory shall not be seized or destroyed except in the case of absolute necessity. They must likewise be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made.
P.37. Evidence of public immovable property
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, art. 55:
Art. 55. The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural estates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accordance with the rules of usufruct.
B. Evidentiary comment:
The Hague Regulations provide detailed rules with respect to contributions in kind and services, known as requisitions, demanded from the population and authorities of the occupied territory to satisfy the needs of the occupying forces (ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules, p. 181):
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, art. 52:
Art. 52. Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military operations against their own country.
Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of the commander in the locality occupied.
Contributions in kind shall as far is possible be paid for in cash; if not, a receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon as possible.
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, art. 53:
Art. 53. An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of arms, means of transport, stores and supplies, and, generally, all movable property belonging to the State which may be used for military operations.
All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases governed by naval law, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds of munitions of war, may be seized, even if they belong to private individuals, but must be restored and compensation fixed when peace is made.
Furthermore, it is important to point out Article 54 of Additional Protocol I, which changed the ruling of the List and Others Case concerning scorched earth policies. This practice consists in ordering complete devastation in order to leave nothing to assist the hostile army in its pursuit. In the List case, the tribunal recognized that these policies (in this case, the context being the retreat from Finland to Western No rway) were legitimate if required by imperative military necessity. Article 54 of Additional Protocol I now states that in case of imperative military necessity a belligerent power may in extreme case destroy objects (such as bridges, railways, roads, airports, ports, etc.) in that part of the territory which is under its control, but not in parts which are not, but this cannot affect, for example, foodstuffs, crops, drinking water or livestock. (D?rmann, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, p. 255-256).
