9.c [Mental element of Element 4] [Circumstance of destroying or seizing:] The perpetrator was aware that such property destroyed or seized was that of a hostile party.

P.56. Evidence inferred from a utterance, a document or a deed.

P.56.1. Evidence that property belonging to a certain ethnic group was targeted for destruction.

P.57. Evidence inferred from a circumstance.

P.57.1. Evidence of a framework of a systematic economic exploitation of occupied territory.

P.57.2. Evidence of the nationality of the victim of the destruction or seizure

P.57.3. Evidence of the nationality of the corporation destructed or seized.

9.c [Mental element of Element 4] [Circumstance of destroying or seizing:] The perpetrator was aware that such property destroyed or seized was that of a hostile party.

P.56. Evidence inferred from a utterance, a document or a deed.

P.56.1. Evidence that property belonging to a certain ethnic group was targeted for destruction.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Dario Kordić and Mario Čerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-A, Judgement (AC), 17 December 2004, para 485:

“485. Based on the same evidence discussed in the section on unlawful attack on civilian objects, the Appeals Chamber is of the view that a reasonable trier of fact could have found that damage to only Muslim houses was of such nature that it could not have been caused by the fighting and was thus not justified by military necessity and that the fact that soldiers were carrying around petrol canisters shows that it was deliberate. The Appeals Chamber upholds the Trial Chamber’s finding that wanton destruction, Count 38 (Kordic) was established.”

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 600, 608, 614, 626:

“600. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that in the period relevant to the Indictment, Bosnian Serb forces shelled towns and villages predominantly inhabited by Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats, causing extensive damage to houses and business premises. After the shelling, the Bosnian Serb forces entered the towns and villages, looting and setting on fire apartments, houses and business premises belonging to Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats. The Trial Chamber finds that the purpose of such attacks was to create terror, destroy these properties, cities, towns and villages and prompt non-Serbs to abandon their houses, viallges or towns and leave permanently.”

“608.The Trial Chamber finds that the town of Bosanka Krupa was shelled by Bosnian Serb forces on 22 April 1992. Houses predominantly inhabited by Bosnian Muslims were set on fire and destroyed.¹⁵³⁹”

“¹⁵³⁹. BT-56, T. 17496 (private session ); Jadranko Saran, T. 17289.”

“614. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that houses and shops belonging to Bosnian Muslims in the town of Celinac were shelled and set on fire by Bosnian Serb forces.¹⁵⁵⁶ Bosnian Muslim homes were also broken into and appliances and other valuables were taken away.¹⁵⁵⁷”

“¹⁵⁵⁶. Mehmet Talic, T. 24164; BT-90, T. 17072 (closed session); Radosava Dzombic, T. 23446, 23449; See, e.g . ex. P1991, “Morning news from Radio Banja Luka on 11 June 1992”, concerning four bomb attacks being carried out against private shops in Celinac. The town of Celinac was visited by the Trial Chamber and the Parties during the site visit which took place in March 2004.

¹⁵⁵⁷. BT-90, T. 17101-17102 (closed session).”

“626. […] Following the expiration of the ultimatum, the Bosnian Muslim village of Hambarine was shelled by Bosnian Serb forces for the entire day.¹⁵⁹⁵ Houses were targeted indiscriminately. Tanks passed through the village and shelled the houses causing civilian casualties. Houses were looted and set on fire.¹⁵⁹⁶”

“¹⁵⁹⁵. Hambarine was visited by the Trial Chamber and the Parties during the site visit which took place in March 2004 .

¹⁵⁹⁶. Muharem Murselovic, T. 12589 -12590, 2700-2701; Ivo Atlija, T. 5556; BT-33, T. 12667 (closed session); Elvedin Nasic, T. 12720; BT-35, ex. P563, T. 6808-6810 (under seal); BT-33, T. 4032-4033 (closed session).”

Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović, Case No. IT-98-34-T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003, paras. 583, 585, 701:

“583.The deliberate destruction of the houses in Sovici started on 18 April 1993 and continued until 23 April.¹⁴⁴⁸ In contrast to the shelling, the BH Muslim houses were now specifically targeted.¹⁴⁴⁹ Defence witness NN confirmed that BH Muslim houses were torched but denied that all houses were destroyed.¹⁴⁵⁰ A Report from the ECMM recounts that “during the fighting the HVO have systematically burn [sic] Muslim houses”.¹⁴⁵¹

“¹⁴⁴⁸ - Witness W, T 3180-3181; witness C testified that the houses were being set on fire on approximately 21 or 22 April 1993, witness C, T 862; witness X, T 3327; witness JJ, T 5004; exhibit PP 357 (confidential).
¹⁴⁴⁹ - Witness W testified “Can you tell the Chamber, please, what was the condition of the houses in Sovici when you passed through the village at that time? A. But I was passing by Croat houses all the time. Q. Well, what was the condition of those houses? A. Well, naturally like today. Nobody ever touched them, not a bullet nor anything else” witness W, T 3179-3181.
¹⁴⁵⁰ - Defence witness NN, T 12900, 12994.
¹⁴⁵¹ - Exhibit PP 344.”

585. The deliberate destruction of houses in Doljani occurred on 21 and 22 April 1993 and, as in Sovici, only BH Muslim houses were targeted.¹⁴⁵⁶”

“¹⁴⁵⁶ - Witness Falk Simang testified that KB set to fire all BH Muslim houses in Doljani after the death of Mario Hrkac (Cikota), witness Falk Simang, T 3809-3810. See also Rados Diary, exhibit PP 928, pp 78-79, where it is stated that after the death of Cikota on 20 April 1993, Tuta (Mladen Naletilic) ordered all Muslim houses in Doljani to be burnt down and that this continued at least until 22 April 1993.”

“701. The Chamber has already found that plunder was committed in Mostar after the attack of 9 May 1993 and that it formed part of a widespread and systematic attack on the BH Muslim population. Mladen Naletilić was found responsibly for plunder in Mostar as a violation of the laws and customs of war with command responsibility. The plunder was carried out on a discriminatory basis as only the property of BH Muslims was targeted. Mladen Naletilic knew that his subordinates carried out the plunder with the intent to discriminate. The Chamber is satisfied that Mladen Naletilic is responsible for persecution under Article 7(3) of the Statute.”

Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Judgement (TC), 3 March 2000, paras. 418, 425, 428:

“418. According to the Centre for Human Rights in Zenica, 180 of the existing 200 Muslim houses in Ahmici were burned during the attack ⁸⁶⁰ . The Commission on Human Rights made the same finding in its report dated 19 May 1993 ⁸⁶¹ . Prosecution exhibit P117 also showed that nearly all the Muslim houses had been torched, whereas all the Croat houses had been spared ⁸⁶² . The witnesses Bower ⁸⁶³ and Casim Ahmic ⁸⁶⁴ confirmed the information . The witness Nura Pezer stated, on this point, that the day before the attack, she had seen a Croat from the village, named Ivica Vidovic, who, in the presence of another man, was pointing out the Croat houses and the Muslim houses ⁸⁶⁵ . The British UNPROFOR battalion reported having seen houses burning in ?antici on 17 April ⁸⁶⁶ . According to the ECMM observer Morsink, practically all the Muslim houses in the villages of Ahmici, Nadioci , Pirici, Sivrino Selo, Gacice, Gomionica, Gromiljak and Rotilj had been burned ⁸⁶⁷ . He stated that the houses had all been set alight with petrol and oil ⁸⁶⁸ . Likewise, according to the witness Watters, the Muslim houses had been systematically burned in Nadioci, Ahmici and ?antici ⁸⁶⁹ . The witness Baggesen, ECMM observer, reported that "it was a whole area that was burning" ⁸⁷⁰ . The report of the Joint Busovaca Commission, dated 21 April, showed that the ICRC had made enquiries that afternoon in Ahmici and noted that all the Muslims situated in Ahmici-west had left and that 90% of the houses together with the area's mosque, had been destroyed ⁸⁷¹ . The report stated moreover that about 200 Muslim women and children were crowded into 3 houses in Novaci, and that half of them wished to be evacuated ⁸⁷² .”

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

⁸⁶¹ P184, p. 5, para. 20.

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

⁸⁶³ This witness, a member of the Prince of Wales Regiment in Bosnia Herzegovina (2nd British Battalion which succeeded the Cheshire Regiment), who remained in the area from April to November 1993, stated that some houses, where Croats lived, remained intact. PT p. 9361.

⁸⁶⁴ PT of 1 October 1997 p. 3136.

⁸⁶⁵ Witness Nura Pezer, PT pp. 3883-3884.

⁸⁶⁶ 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-3.

⁸⁶⁷ Witness Morsink, PT pp. 9900-9901.

⁸⁶⁸ Witness Morsink, PT pp. 9901-9902.

⁸⁶⁹ Witness Watters, PT pp. 3602-3605.

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

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

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

“425. The methods of attack and the scale of the crimes committed against the Muslim population or the edifices symbolising their culture sufficed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the attack was aimed at the Muslim civilian population. An ECMM observer noted that, further to his visit to Ahmici on 22 April 1993, "apart from the systematic destruction and the religious edifices that had been dynamited, what was most striking was the fact that certain houses remained intact, inhabited even, and one wondered how those islands had been able to survive such a show of violence" ⁸⁹⁰ . Several international observers who went to the village a few days after the attack on Ahmici reported finding "a phenomenon of a ferocity and a brutality almost impossible to describe" ⁸⁹¹ . The accused went to Ahmici on the morning of 27 April and noted the scale of the damage: houses burnt , livestock slaughtered and an entirely deserted village ⁸⁹² . He conceded, both to the Commission on Human Rights representatives on 5 May 1993 ⁸⁹³ and in his testimony ⁸⁹⁴ before the Trial Chamber that crimes had been committed in Ahmici.

“⁸⁹⁰ PT p. 23584.

⁸⁹¹ Witness Thomas, PT pp. 2672 and 2674.

⁸⁹² Witness Blaškic, PT pp. 19036-19037.

⁸⁹³ P 184; witness Marin, PT p. 13631.

⁸⁹⁴ Witness Blaškic, PT pp. 19025-19026: "I toured a part of the village. I saw burned houses in the village, and there was still some embers. They may have been burned during the night or set fire to. I saw the minaret and mosque and other signs of destruction".”

“428. All that evidence enables the Trial Chamber to conclude without any doubt that the villages of Ahmici, Pirici, ?antici and Nadioci had been the object of a planned attack on the Muslim population on 16 April 1993.”

P.57. Evidence inferred from a circumstance.

P.57.1. Evidence of a framework of a systematic economic exploitation of occupied territory.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

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

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

P.57.2. Evidence of the nationality of the victim of the destruction or seizure

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, paras. 605, 613:

“605. The Trial Chamber is further satisfied that, during the period relevant to the Indictment, there were many incidents in Banja Luka of non-Serbs being forced to either sign over their property ¹⁵²⁴ or exchange their property for property in Croatia.¹⁵²⁵

“¹⁵²⁴. BT-20, T. 5255 (closed session ).

¹⁵²⁵. Muharem Krzic, T. 1484-1485.”

“613. Non-Serbs were forced to hand over their property, either by exchanging it with Bosnian Serbs who were coming to Bosanski Petrovac or by leaving it to the SerBiH.¹⁵⁵² In fact, actual exchanges seldom took place: non-Serbs transferred their property in exchange for nothing.¹⁵⁵³”

“¹⁵⁵². Ahmet Hidic, T. 16277-16283 ; Midho Druzic, T. 16805-16812.; ex. P1844, “Decision of the Petrovac Municipal Assembly”, dated 3 August 1992, providing that for citizens of Muslim nationality "the commission will establish who can leave the Petrovac Municipality and the condition will be for them to exchange property or give it to the state, that is, to the Serbian Municipality of Petrovac.”

¹⁵⁵³. Ahmet Hidic, T. 16277-16283 .”

P.57.3. Evidence of the nationality of the corporation destructed or seized.

A. Legal source/authority and evidence:

Andreas Zimmermann in Triffterer (ed.) Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, article 8, para. 148:

“In the case of physical persons, one has to therefore dertermine the nationality of the victim of the destruction or seizure,[…]. In the case of legal persons, state practice during World War II but also that during armed conflicts after 1945 has almost universally applied the so-called control test, i.e. States have determined the nationalist of a given corporation and accordingly eventually its enemy status according to the nationality of controlling shareholders, principal corporate officers and the presence of other substantial interests.” (Andreas Zimmermann in Triffter, para. 148).”