The conviction of Gen. Pavle Strugar today is a landmark in international
jurisprudence on the protection of cultural heritage. It is the first case
tried before the United Nations' International Criminal Tribunal for the
Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in which the charges centered on the violation of
international law on the protection of cultural property in time of armed
conflict. Another senior former Yugoslav officer, Admiral Miodrag Jokic,
had already entered a guilty plea on 27 Aug. 2003 to charges arising from
the 1991 siege and bombardment of the historic city of Dubrovnik, Croatia,
a UNESCO World Heritage site ( http://www.un.org/icty/glance/jokic.htm ).
But Gen. Strugar pleaded not guilty and the case went to trial, where
his defense vigorously contested the charges. In the end, the judges
found him guilty under Article 3(d) of the Tribunal's Statute, which
empowers the Tribunal to prosecute persons violating the laws or customs
of war, including the "(d) seizure of, destruction or wilful damage
done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the
arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science."
András Riedlmayer
Fine Arts Library
Harvard University
[log in to unmask]
=======================================================================
http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/2005/p932-e.htm
Press Release - Communiqué de presse
(Exclusively for the use of the media. Not an official document)
TRIAL CHAMBER
CHAMBRE DE 1ERE INSTANCE
The Hague, 31 January 2005
CT/P.I.S./932e
JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE THE PROSECUTOR v. PAVLE STRUGAR
PAVLE STRUGAR SENTENCED TO EIGHT YEARS' IMPRISONMENT
Please find below the summary of the Judgement delivered by Trial Chamber
II, composed of Judge Parker (presiding), Judge Thelin, and Judge Van Den
Wyngaert, as read out by the Presiding Judge.
SUMMARY
The Chamber is sitting today to deliver the Judgement in the trial of
Pavle Strugar.
For the purposes of this hearing, the Chamber will summarise briefly
its findings, emphasising that this is a summary only, and that the
only authoritative account of the Trial Chamber's findings, and of its
reasons for those findings, is to be found in the written Judgement,
copies of which will be made available to the parties and to the public
at the conclusion of this hearing.
Before turning to the merits, the Chamber wishes to thank the translators
and interpreters, the Court Management Section and the Victim and
Witnesses Section, as well as Counsel and the Chamber's legal support team
for having facilitated the conduct of this trial.
The Accused, Pavle Strugar, a retired Lieutenant-General of the then
Yugoslav Peoples' Army (JNA), is charged in the Indictment with crimes
allegedly committed on 6 December 1991, in the course of a military
campaign of the JNA in the area of Dubrovnik in Croatia in October,
November and December of 1991 . It is alleged that in the course of
unlawful artillery shelling by the JNA on the historic Old Town of
Dubrovnik on 6 December 1991, two people were killed, two were seriously
wounded and many buildings of historic and cultural significance in the
Old Town were damaged. These allegations support the six charges in the
Indictment of violations of the laws or customs of war under Article 3 of
the Statute of the Tribunal, namely murder, cruel treatment, attacks on
civilians, devastation not justified by military necessity, attacks on
civilian objects, and destruction of institutions dedicated to, inter
alia, religion, and the arts and sciences.
It is alleged that the Accused is guilty of each of these six counts
on two distinct bases. First, pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute,
that he personally ordered the shelling of the Old Town, and also that
he personally aided and abetted the shelling. Secondly, as a superior
responsible for the criminal conduct of the forces under his command
pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Statute. The Accused's liability is
alleged to arise out of the position he then held as commander of the
Second Operational Group (2 OG).
In September 1991, hostilities between the JNA and Croatian forces began
in the south coastal area of Croatia. A blockade of Dubrovnik was
established from 1 October 1991. It continued into 1992. The JNA forces
under the Accused's command launched combat operations to advance closer
on the city of Dubrovnik in particular from 23 to 26 October 1991 and from
9 to 13 November 1991. Both times, the wider city of Dubrovnik in general,
and its historic Old Town in particular, were shelled. By 13 November
1991, the JNA effectively held all the territory around the wider city
of Dubrovnik, except for Mount Srdj, the dominant topographical feature
of Dubrovnik immediately above the Old Town, where there is a fortress
from Napoleonic times.
In early December 1991, negotiations were held in an attempt to resolve
the problem of the blockade of Dubrovnik. Dubrovnik was but one of
several issues, arising out of the conflict in the then SFRY, with which
the highest Croatian and Serbian levels were occupied at the time. A
Croatian ministerial delegation, led by Minister Rudolf, and the JNA,
represented by Admiral Jokic, met in Cavtat on 5 December 1991. They
were to continue on 6 December 1991.
The events directly relevant to 6 December 1991 are the subject of a great
deal of evidence. Much of it is inconsistent or conflicting. It has been
necessary for the Chamber to determine where the truth lies. Our reasons
are set out in detail in the written Judgement. The summary of material
events that follows reflects our findings as to what, in truth, did occur.
Well before sunrise, at around 0550 hours on the morning of 6 December
1991, residents of the Old Town of Dubrovnik awoke to the sound of
explosions. An artillery attack had commenced. While initially, the firing
was mainly concentrated on the area around Srdj, some shelling occurred
on residential areas of Dubrovnik, including the Old Town and the port of
the Old Town, virtually from the outset of the attack. However, the focus
of the attack came to shift from Srdj to the wider city of Dubrovnik,
including the Old Town. The most intense shelling occurred in the morning,
between 0900-0930 hours and about 1100 hours. At about 1115 hours, a
considerable drop in the frequency of the shelling occurred. This lull
was not long-lived however, and shelling picked up again to continue
though more sporadically. Shelling decreased noticeably a little after
1500 hours and had substantially ceased by a little after 1630 hours.
The shelling of Dubrovnik, including the Old Town, had continued for
over 10 and a half hours on 6 December 1991.
On 6 December 1991, the JNA attempted to capture Srdj. The attempt
commenced between 0500 and 0600 hours on 6 December 1991, under cover of
darkness. It was undertaken by two small infantry units of the 3/472 mtbr
of the JNA. Each had close tank support. Less than 40 soldiers made the
attack. Even so the defending Croatian forces on Srdj were outnumbered.
The JNA infantry and artillery actions that day were overseen and
coordinated by the commander of the 3/472 mtbr Captain Kovacevic,
who was located at his observation post on Zarkovica, a small plateau
about two kilometres to the southeast of the Old Town, with clear views
to the northwest of Dubrovnik, especially the Old Town, and Srdj.
A little before 0600 hours, more than half an hour before sunrise,
JNA units commenced the mortar and other artillery barrage. At first,
the principal target was Srdj. As the two attacking units approached Srdj,
they came under defensive fire from Srdj. In time Croatian 82mm mortar
and machine-gun fire was commenced from the wider city of Dubrovnik, but
not from the Old Town, against the attacking troops. As the JNA troops
attacking Srdj came under increasing fire, some JNA artillery fire was
targeted at Croatian firing positions in the wider city of Dubrovnik
in an attempt to neutralise them.
By about 0800 hours, the JNA attacking forces had approached sufficiently
close to Srdj to be themselves threatened by the JNA artillery barrage
on Srdj. The barrage of Srdj was called off so that the JNA troops
could continue to advance. They were, however, still under mortar attack
from Croatian positions in the wider city of Dubrovnik as well as
defensive fire from Srdj. While there had been some shelling by the JNA
of Dubrovnik, including the Old Town, virtually from the commencement of
fire by JNA batteries, from the time of the cessation of the JNA artillery
barrage on Srdj, at about 0800 hours, the full force of the active
JNA mortars and other artillery, including Maljutka rockets or missiles,
appears to have been directed at Dubrovnik, including the Old Town. There
was no adequate control and direction of the fire of the JNA mortars
and other weapons. Fire was not confined to Croatian military targets.
Instead, they fired extensively, deliberately and indiscriminately
at Dubrovnik, including the Old Town. This continued for many hours,
as has been indicated.
The infantry attack on Srdj was the scene of very intense and desperate
close combat by both Croatian and JNA forces. There were fatalities
and other casualties on both sides. The Croatian defenders withdrew
into positions underground in the stone fortress on Srdj and called in
Croatian mortar and other fire on the attacking JNA forces surrounding the
fortress. Attempts to overcome the Croatian defenders, or to force them to
capitulate, were made over many hours, but without success. Eventually,
after 1400 hours, the exhausted attacking JNA forces called off the
attempt to capture Srdj and withdrew with tank support under cover of
another JNA mortar barrage on Srdj. The withdrawal was completed by
a little after 1500 hours. The attempt to capture Srdj had failed.
The JNA artillery attack on Dubrovnik, including the Old Town, had
continued throughout the attempt to capture Srdj.
It was a position advanced by the Defence at trial, as indeed it was
an explanation of the JNA attack on Srdj and the artillery attack
on the Old Town offered by the JNA in December 1991, that the attack
was undertaken solely on the decision of the Captain Kovacevic of
the 3/472 mtbr, a decision he made impulsively and contrary to superior
orders, early in the morning of 6 December 1991. The reason suggested
for this remarkable conduct was that during the night of 5 and 6 December,
Croatian forces at Srdj had offered provocations by firing at his troops,
killing one. He lost his self-control and ordered the attack in an
emotional response to the conduct of the Croatian forces.
It is the finding of the Chamber that this is entirely false. Late
in the afternoon on 5 December 1991, a meeting was held at the forward
command post of the 9 VPS at Kupari. The 3/472 mtbr was then under the
command of the 9 VPS commanded by Admiral Jokic. Senior 9 VPS staff
officers, including the Chief of Staff Warship-Captain Zec, the commander
of the 3/472 mtbr Captain Kovacevic, and the commanders of other 9 VPS
units, were present at the meeting. At the meeting a battle plan to
take Srdj the following morning and before 1200 hours was determined.
Srdj was the dominant feature and the one remaining position held
by Croatian forces on the heights above Dubrovnik. The plan involved
the use of mortars and other artillery against military targets,
including those in the wider Dubrovnik, as required, to support the
assault on Srdj. It involved 9 VPSunits other than the 3/472 mtbr.
The evidence establishes, in the Chamber's finding, that the attack
on Srdj was entirely preplanned and coordinated on 5 December 1991
by 9 VPS staff officers, and was not initiated by Captain Kovacevic
alone, in the early morning of 6 December 1991, in response to
provocations that night by the Croatian forces.
On 6 December 1991, repeated protests against the JNA artillery attack
on Dubrovnik, especially the Old Town, by Minister Rudolf leading the
Croatian ministerial delegation, the European Community Monitoring Mission
(ECMM) and the civil authorities of Dubrovnik, were made variously to the
9 VPS, to the Accused, and in Belgrade to the Federal Secretary of Defence
General Kadijevic. These were entirely ineffective to stop the artillery
attack.
In the Chambers finding, however, a protest by the ECMM to General
Kadijevic led him to telephone the Accused between 0600 hours and 0700
hours. The Accused in turn, at around 0700 hours, telephoned Admiral
Jokic. These events, and what passed between the Accused and Admiral Jokic
at that time and later in the day, are the subject of much controversy
in the evidence. It is unnecessary for present purposes to attempt to
summarise all the Chamber's consideration of these matters and its reasons
for the conclusions it has reached. The Chamber would particularly note
its finding, however, that at no time during the morning of 6 December
1991 did either the Accused or Admiral Jokic order that the JNA attack to
capture Srdj should cease. There were discussions between Admiral Jokic
and Minister Rudolf during the morning in which they agreed on a
cease-fire to take effect at 1115 hours. Following this, the Accused
did order a cease-fire. This order only went to some JNA units. In
particular there was no order given to the infantry units trying to
capture Srdj to cease their attack. As was inevitable, because the
JNA attack on Srdj continued and not all JNA artillery units ceased fire,
the cease-fire was ineffective and both sides continued firing.
No further steps were taken by either the Accused or Admiral Jokic
to stop the artillery attack on the Old Town, or any other aspect
of the JNA assault.
Instead, the Accused and Admiral Jokic flew together to Belgrade in the
afternoon. General Kadijevic had ordered them to do so that morning, when
the ECMM protest reached him. The three met in the afternoon, the Accused
and Admiral Jokic returning to their commands at about 1730 hours.
It is apparent that the JNA was in what is colloquially described as
"damage control mode" at that stage in respect of the attack Dubrovnik,
especially the Old Town. The attack had provoked virtually immediate and
strong adverse international reaction. Admiral Jokic was in immediate
command of all the JNA forces involved in the attack that day. He was also
in communication with the Croatian and international representatives.
He was assigned the task of trying to "repair the damage and sort things
out". He proposed an enquiry, which was an obvious step in deflecting
adverse international opinion. What followed, in the finding of the
Chamber, evidences the tenor and the effect of the understanding or
instructions Admiral Jokic took from the Belgrade meeting. The next
morning, he signed a ceasefire agreement. His immediate actions were to
give unqualified assurances, citing the authority of General Kadijevic,
of a thorough investigation and action to deal with the perpetrators,
to Minister Rudolf, the Dubrovnik Crisis Committee and the ECMM.
He quickly conducted what the Chamber has found was a sham enquiry.
He reported briefly to the Federal Secretariat on the steps he took
and generally on the action of 6 December 1991, in a way which was
quite out of keeping with the facts as revealed by the evidence, so as
to put the conduct of the JNA forces in a more favourable light. The
next day, a "commission" of three 9 VPS officers visited the Old Town
to report on the damage. Admiral Jokic endorsed their report,
which sought to minimise the nature and extent of the damage and
deflect responsibility for its cause from the JNA. On the evening
of 6 December 1991, he removed one acting battallion commander,
Lieutenant-Colonel Jovanovic of the 3/5 mtbr, from his post.
Strangely, Lieutenant-Colonel Jovanovic had only held this acting post
for one day. He was returned to his normal duties without any adverse
disciplinary or other action. The 3/5 mtbr had no responsibility for
the shelling of the Old Town as the Old Town was beyond the range of
its mortars. He took no other disciplinary or administrative action
to better determine the truth of what had occurred, or to deal with
those responsible. The Chamber notes that no further investigative or
disciplinary action was taken by his immediate superior, the Accused,
or in turn the Accused's superior, General Kadijevic.
Numerous propositions were advanced as to why the Old Town came
to be shelled on 6 December 1991. In particular, in the course of
the Defence case the view was pursued that in truth there had been
little or no damage to the Old Town. The Chamber, however, is satisfied
by the evidence that there was extensive damage and that it extended
over substantial areas of the Old Town. One other position for which
the Defence contended is that any damage, alternatively some of the
damage, to the Old Town was in fact deliberately or accidentally
inflicted by the Croatian defending forces or other Croatian interests.
However, there is a clear and strong body of evidence, indeed an
overwhelming body, that the damage inflicted in and to the Old Town
of Dubrovnik on 6 December 1991 was caused by the JNAshelling. Yet
a further Defence submission, and one which is somewhat inconsistent
with the submissions that have just been considered, is that any damage
to the Old Town on 6 December 1991 was a regrettable butunavoidable
consequence of artillery fire of the JNA targeted at Croatian military
positions in and, in the immediate vicinity of, the Old Town. In part,
the JNA forces did target Croatian firing and other military positions,
actual or believed, in the wider Dubrovnik, but none of them were in
the Old Town. Despite some contrary evidence, these Croatian positions
were all too distant from the Old Town to put it in danger of unintended
incidental fall of JNA shells targeted at those Croatian positions.
It is the finding of the Chamber that the cause of the established damage
to the Old Town was extensive, deliberate and indiscriminate shelling
of the Old Town over some 10 1/2 hours on 6 December 1991, not only
by JNA mortars but also by other JNA weapons such as ZIS and recoilless
cannons and Maljutka rockets.
Turning to the specific charges, the Indictment alleges the murder of
two civilians in the course of the attack. In this respect, the Chamber
observes that where a town occupied by a civilian population is subjected
to a deliberate artillery attack, which results in civilian deaths, these
deaths may constitute murder when the perpetrators had knowledge of the
probability that the attack would cause deaths. The Chamber is satisfied
that the fact, and the cause, of death are established for both civilians.
The actual JNA perpetrators deliberately targeted the Old Town knowing
it had a civilian population. The elements of murder have been established
against those perpetrators.
The Indictment further alleges an offence of cruel treatment against
two victims. Similar allegations relating to a third victim were dismissed
in the Chamber's Decision on Rule 98 bis. The elements of the crime of
cruel treatment have been established against the actual JNA perpetrators.
Offences of unlawful attacks on civilians, and on civilian objects,
are also charged. On 6 December 1991, the evidence is unequivocal that
the Old Town was, as it still is, a living town. Though a protected
World Heritage site, it had a substantial resident population of
between 7,000 and 8,000. As stated earlier, the Chamber has found that
the Old Town was extensively targeted by JNA artillery and other weapons
on 6 December1991 and that no military firing points or other
objectives, real or believed, in the Old Town were targeted by the JNA.
In the Chamber's finding, the intent of the perpetrators was to target
the civilian population and civilian objects in the Old Town. The
elements of these two crimes have therefore been established against
the actual JNA perpetrators.
With respect to the crime of devastation not justified by military
necessity and the crime of destruction of cultural property, the
allegation against the Accused, following the Rule 98bis Decision, was
that damage or destruction was sustained by 116 specified buildings and
structures in the course of the 6 December shelling of the Old Town of
Dubrovnik. The Chamber finds that of these 116 buildings and structures,
it has been established that 52 were damaged, six of them being destroyed,
during the 6 December shelling of the Old Town by the JNA. The nature and
extent of the damage to these buildings varied. Moreover, while several of
the 52 buildings and structures had sustained some degree of damage from
earlier shelling in October and November, the Chamber is satisfied that
the previously damaged buildings sustained further and significant damage
during the 6 December attack. In relation to the charge of devastation,
the Chamber finds that the Old Town sustained damage on a large scale
on 6 December 1991. In relation to the charge of destruction of
cultural property, the Old Town of Dubrovnik in its entirety was
entered onto the World Heritage List in 1979, so that every building
of the Old Town, including its walls, are properly characterised as
cultural property. It has also been established that there were
no military objectives in the immediate vicinity of the 52 buildings
and structures destroyed or damaged on 6 December 1991, or in the
Old Town, or in its immediate vicinity, so that the destruction
or damage of property in the Old Town on 6 December 1991 was not
justified by military necessity. The elements of these two crimes
have been established against the actual JNA perpetrators.
The Chamber now turns to the crucial question whether the Accused is
proved to be personally criminally responsible for the artillery attack
on the Old Town, OR indirectly criminally responsible as commander of the
2 OG for the conduct of the JNA troops who were the actual perpetrators
of these offences. It is established that all the JNA forces involved in
the military action at Dubrovnik on 6 December 1991 were components of,
or subjugated to, the 9 VPS which was commanded by Admiral Jokic on
6 December 1991. Further, the 9 VPS was in turn under the operational
command of the 2 OG, which was commanded by the Accused. As their
superior commander, the Accused had both legal and effective control
of the JNA forces who conducted the military action at Dubrovnik,
including the shelling of the Old Town.
The evidence does not establish, however, that the Accused ordered the
shelling of the Old Town which occurred on 6 December 1991. What is
established is that the Accused did order the attempt to capture Srdj
which was undertaken on 6 December 1991. In the written Judgement the
Chamber has dealt with the evidence which establishes this, and also with
some evidence which sought to suggest that this was not so. In particular
the Chamber accepts the evidence of Colm Doyle, then in charge of the
ECMM monitors in Bosnia and Herzegovina, of a conversation he had with the
Accused on 6 December 1991, shortly after midday, the effect of which,
in the finding of the Chamber, was an admission by the Accused that he
had ordered the attack on Srdj. The actual words of the Accused could
be understood to suggest he ordered the shelling of the Old Town, but
for reasons set out in the written Judgement that is not the finding
of the Chamber. The Accused, however, left the detailed planning of
the attack on Srdj to the 9 VPS whose forces surrounded Dubrovnik, and
this is what occurred late on 5 December 1991.
While the circumstances known to the Accused, at the time of his order to
attack Srdj, can only have alerted him to the possibility that, as had
occurred in October and November, his forces would once again ignore
orders and resort to deliberate and indiscriminate shelling, especially of
the Old Town, it has not been established that it was known to the Accused
that at the time of his order, there was a substantial likelihood of this
occurring. It has not been proved therefore that the Accused is guilty of
ordering the attack on the Old Town.
The Chamber finds that it has not been proved that the Accused aided and
abetted the unlawful shelling of the Old Town. In particular, while the
Accused did not take all necessary and reasonable measures to ensure that
the shelling ceased, he did issue a cease-fire order to take effect at
1115 hours, although this order was not implemented effectively. Further,
the necessary mental element for aiding and abetting is not established.
It has not been proved, therefore, that the Accused is personally
criminally liable for the attack pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Statute.
We now deal with the Accused's responsibility as commander of the 2 OG
pursuant to Article 7(3). On 6 December 1991, the Accused had the
legal authority and the material ability to issue orders to the
3/472 mtbr, and all the other JNA forces involved in the attack on Srdj
and the shelling of Dubrovnik, including the Old Town, to ensure that
the Old Town was not shelled and that an existing attack ceased.
In the Chamber's finding, from about 0700 hours on 6 December 1991,
the Accused was on notice, because of events detailed in the written
Judgement, of the clear and strong risk that already his JNA artillery was
repeating its previous conduct and shelling the Old Town. By that time,
the risk that this was occurring was so real, and the implications were so
serious, that the Accused should have seen the urgent need to determine
whether the JNA artillery was in fact shelling the Old Town, without
justification, and if so to ensure the attack on the Old Town was stopped.
He did not do so. In particular, the finding of the Chamber is that the
Accused did not give an order to Admiral Jokic at about 0700 hours on
6 December 1991 to stop the attack on Srdj. The Chamber has already
indicated that an order to cease fire with effect from 1115 hours was
given to some JNA artillery units, but not all, and the troops trying to
capture Srdj were not ordered to cease their attack at 1115 hours.
The evidence further establishes, in the Chamber's finding, and despite
strong submissions to the contrary, that after the attack, the Accused
at all times had full authority to act himself to investigate and take
disciplinary or other adverse action against the perpetrators of the
attack on the Old Town, and also to require Admiral Jokic to take more
effective measures. Despite this the Accused chose to take no action
of any type.
The Chamber is therefore satisfied that the elements required for
establishing the Accused's responsibility under Article 7(3) of the
Statute, as the superior commander of the JNA forces who perpetrated the
unlawful shelling of the Old Town on 6 December 1991, have been proved.
He failed to act to stop the attack on 6 December 1991 when he could and
should have done so, and afterwards he failed to ensure the perpetrators
were punished.
In the present case, the elements of each of the six counts in the
Indictment have been established. The Chamber observes, however, that the
essential criminal conduct was an artillery attack against the Old Town.
In the course of that attack civilians were killed and injured, and
protected buildings were damaged and destroyed. It is the view of the
Chamber, that the essential criminal conduct is directly and
comprehensively reflected in Counts 3 and 6, and that the interests of
justice and of sentencing are fully satisfied if convictions are recorded
only for those offences.
General Strugar, please stand up.
The Chamber finds you guilty pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Statute of
the following two counts:
Count 3: Attacks on civilians, a violation of the laws or customs
of war, under Article 3 of the Statute;
Count 6: Destruction or wilful damage done to institutions
dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences,
historic monuments and works or art and science, a violation of the laws
or customs of war, under Article 3 of the Statute.
While the Chamber is satisfied that the elements of the following four
counts have been established pursuant to Article 7(3) of the Statute, the
Chamber does not record a finding of guilty against you in respect of:
Count 1: Murder;
Count 2: Cruel Treatment;
Count 4: Devastation not justified by military necessity;
Count 5: Unlawful Attack on Civilian Objects.
Further, the Chamber does not find you guilty, pursuant to Article 7(1)
of the Statute, in respect of any of the six Counts.
The Chamber has set out in some detail in the written Judgement the
factors it has taken into consideration in determining sentence. In
particular, it has been conscious of the serious nature of the attack
on the Old Town of Dubrovnik, and the consequences for its inhabitants
and for the cultural properties damaged or destroyed in the attack. The
Chamber would emphasise that you are not to be sentenced for ordering
the attack on the Old Town. Your criminal liability arises because you
failed to take adequate measures to stop the shelling of the Old Town
and because you failed to ensure that those responsible for the attack
were disciplined.
In these regards you were not the immediate commander of those
responsible. That was Admiral Jokic. You were Admiral Jokic's superior,
and is therefore one step further removed. The Chamber takes into account
that Admiral Jokic has pleaded guilty to offences arising from his part in
the attack on the Old Town and has been sentenced to 7 years imprisonment.
The Chamber takes into account in particular your age and your health,
which is deteriorating, and other mitigating factors which are set out
in the written Judgement.
The Chamber hereby sentences you to a single sentence of eight years' of
imprisonment.
You may sit down.
The Accused has been in custody for 457 days. Pursuant to Rule 101(C) of
the Rules, he is entitled to credit for time spent in detention so far.
Pursuant to Rule 103(C) of the Rules, the Accused shall remain in the
custody of the Tribunal pending the finalisation of arrangements for his
transfer to the State where he shall serve his sentence.
The hearing is adjourned.
***
The full text of the Judgement is available upon request at the Public
Information Services and is also available on the Tribunal's Web site
http://www.un.org/icty
__________________________________________________________________
Mail submissions to [log in to unmask]
For information about joining ARLIS/NA see:
http://www.arlisna.org//membership.html
Send administrative matters (file requests, subscription requests, etc)
to [log in to unmask]
ARLIS-L Archives and subscription maintenance:
http://lsv.uky.edu/archives/arlis-l.html
Questions may be addressed to list owner (Kerri Scannell) at: [log in to unmask]
