Table of contents:
P.13. Evidence inferred from an utterance, a document, or a deed of the perpetrator.
P.13.2. Evidence inferred from the perpetrator procuring transportation for forcible transfer.
P.13.3. Evidence inferred from the perpetrator espousing plans for forcible transfer.
P.13.4. Evidence inferred from the perpetrators presence during the forcible transfer.
P.13.6. Evidence inferred from the perpetrator supporting ideology necessitating forcible transfer.
Element:
P.13. Evidence inferred from an utterance, a document, or a deed of the perpetrator.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Judgement (TC), 2 August 2001, paras. 344, 353, 615:
"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. Later intercepts show Colonel Krsmanovic working throughout the day on the organisation of the buses. At 12:10, a conversation was intercepted in which General Krstić ordered Colonel Krsmanovic to start moving the buses "
"353. Witness F further said that the officers he saw, including General Krstić:
"615. The object of the joint criminal enterprise implemented at Potocari on 12 and 13 July was firstly the forcible transfer of the Muslim civilians out of Srebrenica. That General Krstić had the intent for this crime is indisputably evidenced by his extensive participation in it. Furthermore, the humanitarian crisis that prevailed at Potocari was so closely connected to, and so instrumental in, the forcible evacuation of the civilians that it cannot but also have fallen within the object of the criminal enterprise. When General Krstić marched triumphantly into Srebrenica alongside General Mladic on 11 July, he saw the town completely empty and soon found out, at least by the evening, that a huge number of the inhabitants had fled to Potocari and were crowded together in the UN compound and surrounding buildings. Although, by his own claim, he was the organiser of the military operation on Srebrenica, he had taken no action to provide food or water, nor to guarantee the security of the civilian inhabitants of the town. The Trial Chamber finds that General Krstić subscribed to the creation of a humanitarian crisis as a prelude to the forcible transfer of the Bosnian Muslim civilians. This is the only plausible inference that can be drawn from his active participation in the holding and transfer operation at Potocari and from his total declination to attempt any effort to alleviate that crisis despite his on the scene presence."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.13.2. Evidence inferred from the perpetrator procuring transportation for forcible transfer.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Judgement (TC), 2 August 2001, para. 344:
"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. Later intercepts show Colonel Krsmanovic working throughout the day on the organisation of the buses. At 12:10, a conversation was intercepted in which General Krstić ordered Colonel Krsmanovic to start moving the buses "
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.13.3. Evidence inferred from the perpetrator espousing plans for forcible transfer.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Duko Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Judgement (TC), 7 May 1997, para. 459:
"459. The accused's presence at the Trnopolje camp when the surviving prisoners were deported to Croatia is significant evidence with regard to the charge in this subparagraph. The question remains, however, whether when the accused was participating in the seizure and selection of non-Serbs, as established above, he knew that the majority of the prisoners who survived would be deported. His presence at the Trnopolje camp when thousands of prisoners were being removed is relevant in this regard, as is his description of himself in his work report as an "earnest SDS member and an enthusiastic supporter of the idea of creating Republika Srpska", both of which embrace the notion of an ethnically pure Serbian territory. Additionally, in his role as SDS President in Kozarac, he must have had knowledge of the SDS programme, which included the vision of a Greater Serbia. Witnesses including Witness AA provided evidence which not only showed that the accused knew of this goal but that he was an active supporter of it. Witness AA testified to an argument about politics that the accused had with Sefik Sivac shortly before the conflict in which the accused said that the area "would be a Greater Serbia, it would be theirs, and that we, Muslims, will not be there, that there will be no place for us there"."
Prosecutor v. Radoslav Brđanin, Case No. IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1 September 2004, para. 575:
"575. Furthermore, the Accuseds espousal of the Strategic Plan, of which the crimes of deportation and forcible transfer formed an integral part, and the implementation of which he coordinated in his position as President of the ARK Crisis Staff, and his awareness that it could only be implemented through force and fear, demonstrate that he intended to induce the commission of the crimes of deportation and forcible transfer. (See VIII.C.1., "The Accuseds espousal of the Strategic Plan", supra)"
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.13.4. Evidence inferred from the perpetrators presence during the forcible transfer.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Duko Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Judgement (TC), 7 May 1997, paras. 459, 461:
"459. The accused's presence at the Trnopolje camp when the surviving prisoners were deported to Croatia is significant evidence with regard to the charge in this subparagraph. The question remains, however, whether when the accused was participating in the seizure and selection of non-Serbs, as established above, he knew that the majority of the prisoners who survived would be deported. His presence at the Trnopolje camp when thousands of prisoners were being removed is relevant in this regard, as is his description of himself in his work report as an "earnest SDS member and an enthusiastic supporter of the idea of creating Republika Srpska", both of which embrace the notion of an ethnically pure Serbian territory. Additionally, in his role as SDS President in Kozarac, he must have had knowledge of the SDS programme, which included the vision of a Greater Serbia. Witnesses including Witness AA provided evidence which not only showed that the accused knew of this goal but that he was an active supporter of it. Witness AA testified to an argument about politics that the accused had with Sefik Sivac shortly before the conflict in which the accused said that the area "would be a Greater Serbia, it would be theirs, and that we, Muslims, will not be there, that there will be no place for us there"."
"461. Based on the presence of the accused at the Trnopolje camp when surviving prisoners were being deported, as well as his support both for the concept and the creation of a Greater Serbia, necessarily entailing, as discussed in the preliminary findings, the deportation of non-Serbs from the designated territory and the establishment of the camps as a means towards this end, the Trial Chamber is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the accused participated in the seizure, selection and transfer of non-Serbs to various camps and did so within the context of an armed conflict and that while doing so, he was aware that the majority of surviving prisoners would be deported from Bosnia and Herzegovina."
Prosecutor v. Radislav Krstić, Case No. IT-98-33-T, Judgement (TC), 2 August 2001, paras. 293:
"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."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Duko Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Judgement (TC), 7 May 1997,para. 459:
"459. The accused's presence at the Trnopolje camp when the surviving prisoners were deported to Croatia is significant evidence with regard to the charge in this subparagraph. The question remains, however, whether when the accused was participating in the seizure and selection of non-Serbs, as established above, he knew that the majority of the prisoners who survived would be deported. His presence at the Trnopolje camp when thousands of prisoners were being removed is relevant in this regard, as is his description of himself in his work report as an "earnest SDS member and an enthusiastic supporter of the idea of creating Republika Srpska", both of which embrace the notion of an ethnically pure Serbian territory. Additionally, in his role as SDS President in Kozarac, he must have had knowledge of the SDS programme, which included the vision of a Greater Serbia. Witnesses including Witness AA provided evidence which not only showed that the accused knew of this goal but that he was an active supporter of it. Witness AA testified to an argument about politics that the accused had with Sefik Sivac shortly before the conflict in which the accused said that the area "would be a Greater Serbia, it would be theirs, and that we, Muslims, will not be there, that there will be no place for us there"."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
P.13.6. Evidence inferred from the perpetrator supporting ideology necessitating forcible transfer.
A. Legal source/authority and evidence:
Prosecutor v. Duko Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Judgement (TC), 7 May 1997,para. 459:
"459. The accused's presence at the Trnopolje camp when the surviving prisoners were deported to Croatia is significant evidence with regard to the charge in this subparagraph. The question remains, however, whether when the accused was participating in the seizure and selection of non-Serbs, as established above, he knew that the majority of the prisoners who survived would be deported. His presence at the Trnopolje camp when thousands of prisoners were being removed is relevant in this regard, as is his description of himself in his work report as an "earnest SDS member and an enthusiastic supporter of the idea of creating Republika Srpska", both of which embrace the notion of an ethnically pure Serbian territory. Additionally, in his role as SDS President in Kozarac, he must have had knowledge of the SDS programme, which included the vision of a Greater Serbia. Witnesses including Witness AA provided evidence which not only showed that the accused knew of this goal but that he was an active supporter of it. Witness AA testified to an argument about politics that the accused had with Sefik Sivac shortly before the conflict in which the accused said that the area "would be a Greater Serbia, it would be theirs, and that we, Muslims, will not be there, that there will be no place for us there"."
[B. Evidentiary comment:]
