Serb General Gets 20 Years for Sarajevo Siege

Wow- 20 years time for overseeing the deaths of 10,500 lives, and over 50,000 injuries... Somehow this doesn't seem fitting... Too bad the Hague can't impose the death penalty.

Twenty years for 10,500 lives is steep sentence indeed. In fact, it comes to massive 16 hours and 41 minutes for each life taken.

That's what I was thinking as well, though I was too lazy to do the math. Thanks!

Note how the apologists ignore this thread, yet they post articles where a Serb is beaten up in a remote Kosovo or Croation neighborhood. It would be hysterical is it wasn't so disgraceful.

Don't worry - they're just warming up their "it's not a legitimate court and the Muslims were shelling themselves" engines.

Nice to see the court examined the '94 Markale incident in close detail - there's just too much idiocy on the web regarding that particular event.

>>>>>Nice to see the court examined the '94 Markale incident in close detail - there's just too much idiocy on the web regarding that particular event.<<<<

Yes, it is the good thing indeed. Two judges, one of them Muslim, ignored the opinion of the third, Judge Nieto-Navia about Markale not being proven beyond the reasonable doubt.

The principle of in dubio pro reo is one of the foundational precepts of criminal law . But ICTY is not the court of law but political circus, so in dubio pro reo does not apply to the ICTY judgements.

No wonder this is not reported by the media and the entire judgement is swept under the rug.

This judgement is the key evidence of the nature of the ICTY, for those who were not following it closely enough. P> From the ICTY's own material:

Judge Nieto-Navia will now read a summary of his dissenting opinion.

Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Nieto-Navia

I regret to have to speak separately today as a dissenting Judge on many of the factual and legal conclusions reached by a majority of this Trial Chamber.

The principle of in dubio pro reo is one of the foundational precepts of criminal law which can be found in domestic and international legal systems as well in the jurisprudence of the Tribunal. According to this principle, the Prosecution must prove a fact aimed at a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

I indicated to the Majority my concerns and doubts about the evidence relating to 8 out of 23 scheduled sniping incidents, 3 out of 5 scheduled shelling incidents - including the Markale incident which is discussed in detail in my opinion - as well as certain unscheduled incidents.

I considered these doubts to be reasonable. I had expected this plural Trial Chamber to accept my doubts as sufficient to establish that the Prosecution has failed to prove an allegation beyond a reasonable doubt. The Majority did not share this expectation and I have been obliged to express separately my disagreement with its assessment of the evidence.

The Prosecution has alleged that the SRK "conducted a protracted campaign of shelling and sniping upon civilians areas of Sarajevo and upon by the civilian population." An army characterized by the level of competence and professionalism ascribed to the SRK by the Prosecution would be expected, when conducting during 23 months a campaign of purposefully targeting civilians living in a city of 340,000, to inflict a high number of civilian casualties in relation to the city’s total population. The results obtained by the Prosecution’s demographic experts based on an analysis of extensive sources indicate otherwise. Furthermore, the monthly number of civilian casualties dropped significantly over the 23 months of the Indictment Period. This evidence leads me to conclude that the SRK forces under the command of General Galic did not engage in a campaign of purposefully targeting civilians in Sarajevo throughout the Indictment Period. Such a conclusion accords with the evidence regarding the conduct of the SRK leadership, which relinquished voluntarily control of the airport, authorized the establishment of "blue routes" to allow for the distribution of humanitarian supplies and the safe passage of civilians in and out of the city, entered into anti-sniping agreements under the auspices of the United Nations and agreed to the establishment of the "Total Exclusion Zone".

I now consider issues related to the applicable law and legal findings. The Majority has reached the conclusion that the offence of inflicting terror on a civilian population falls within the jurisdiction of this Trial Chamber. When proposing the establishment of this Tribunal, the U.N. Secretary-General explained that the application of the criminal law principle of nullum crimen sine lege would require that this international Tribunal apply rules which are beyond any doubt part of customary law. This principle has been consistently recognized in the jurisprudence of this Tribunal as requiring that a Trial Chamber verify that an offence alleged in an indictment reflects international customary law.

For the first time in the history of this Tribunal, this Trial Chamber has had to consider whether the offence of inflicting terror on a civilian population falls within its jurisdiction. I would have therefore expected the Trial Chamber to confirm whether such an offence existed as a form of liability under international customary law, attracting individual criminal responsibility under that body of law. The Majority did not do so and, instead, relied on an argument based on conventional law to conclude that the Trial Chamber may consider such an offence. In my view, such an approach does not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of this Tribunal. Since I am not aware of an established state practice regarding the criminalization of such an offence sufficient to prove the latter’s customary nature, I conclude that the offence of inflicting terror on a civilian population does not fall within this Trial Chamber’s jurisdiction. By concluding otherwise without establishing that the offence of inflicting terror on a civilian population attracted individual criminal responsibility under international customary law, or even under the conventional rule which it invokes, the Majority is furthering a conception of international humanitarian law which I do not support.

The Majority also concludes that General Galic ordered his forces to attack civilians in Sarajevo deliberately, thereby finding him criminally responsible under Article 7(1) of the Statute. Its conclusion rests entirely on inferences though, since no witness testified to hearing General Galic issue such orders and no written orders were tendered which would indicate that he so instructed his troops. There is significant evidence which explicitly establishes the opposite: written orders signed by General Galic instructing his troops to respect the Geneva Conventions and other instruments of international humanitarian law, the testimonies of 16 SRK soldiers and officers posted throughout Sarajevo during the Indictment Period confirming that they had received orders not to target civilians, as well as other written evidence indicating that General Galic launched some internal investigations on a number of occasions when alerted by UN representatives about possible attacks on civilians by his forces. Based on the available evidence, I conclude that the Trial Record does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that General Galic issued orders to target civilians and dissent from the Majority’s conclusion on this issue.

Despite my aforementioned disagreements with the Majority, I share in the conclusion that the Prosecution has proved that, in a number of instances, the SRK either deliberately or recklessly fired upon civilians in Sarajevo during the Indictment Period, thereby committing the crimes of attacks on civilians, murders and inhumane acts. I also note that the evidence presented at trial establishes that General Galic, as the commander of the SRK, knew or had reason to know of these crimes, but did not take all the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent their commission or to punish the perpetrators. I therefore conclude that General Galic is guilty of the crimes of unlawful attacks against civilians, murder and inhumane acts under Article 7(3) of the Statute.

In light of this finding, I would sentence General Galic to 10 years’ imprisonment.

I don't doubt some civilians were killed by the Serbs, but blaming all deaths in Sarajevo on Serbs is ridiculous. A good portion of those 10,500 deaths were Serbian civilians killed by mujahiden. The rest were mostly combat deaths. Very few muslim civilians were killed in this siege, if you can even call it a siege. The Serb army was not actually in Sarajevo itself, so the mujahids were free to do what they wanted.

The Muslims WERE shelling themselves. That has already been proven. Read Philip Corwin's book Dubious Mandate. (You do know who Corwin is, right?)

The Serb army was not actually in Sarajevo itself, so the mujahids were free to do what they wanted.

Serb snipers in Sarajevo. But Serb army was not in city. No, Serb army was in hills overlooking city, which fired artillery that shelled civilians. 10,500 dead.

You have read this sentence? This is not statement of innocence, I think?

In light of this finding, I would sentence General Galic to 10 years’ imprisonment.

bttt

The ICTY has taken note of the principle of in dubio pro reo in previous judgments, so you're just talking more ignorant trash, DTA.

The Serbs shelled Sarajevo, killed civilians, and Galic is being held accountable.

Sucks to be you.

You are ignorant and repeating propaganda. Serbs comprised 30% of the Sarajevo population before the war and Sarajevo was divided in sections. The frontlines between the Serbs and Muslims ran near the Holiday Inn near the middle of the city:

The Serb-controlled part of the city? That must sound strange to the untrained ear. Before I went to Bosnia, I read everything I could about Sarajevo. The message I got was that the city was controlled by the Muslims and the surrounding mountains were occupied by Serb "hill-people" who fired down on the city. I even had a map from a Japanese magazine showing that the Muslims controlled the entire city core.
I was therefore surprised when I was able to walk straight down to the river that divides the city several hundred meters from the well-known Sarajevo Holiday Inn. I had to take care moving toward the city center, because behind me on the Debelo Brdo or "Fat Hill," Muslim snipers had been shooting at civilians in the Serb part of Sarajevo.
From: Holiday in Bosnia

The principle of in dubio pro reo is one of the foundational precepts of criminal law . But ICTY is not the court of law but political circus, so in dubio pro reo does not apply to the ICTY judgements.

DTA, you mis-read the dissent. The principle of in dubio pro reo or "beyond a reasonable doubt" applies. That is not the issue. The dissenting judge is simply stating that in his opinion, the evidence was not sufficient to prove one of the allegations "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Two judges, one of them Muslim, ignored the opinion of the third, Judge Nieto-Navia

Re-worded, this could read that one judge, Nieto-Navia, ignored the opinion of the other two. In any event, it is not uncommon to have judicial dissents or even non-unanimous juries.

I therefore conclude that General Galic is guilty of the crimes of unlawful attacks against civilians, murder and inhumane acts under Article 7(3) of the Statute. In light of this finding, I would sentence General Galic to 10 years’ imprisonment.

So we don't lose sight of the whole picture, in spite of the scrupulousness and skepticism with which Judge Nieto-Navia reviewed the evidence, he still found the case made "beyond a reasonble doubt" that Galic is guilty of murder and unlawful attacks against civilians.

This is the part that worries me: Since I am not aware of an established state practice regarding the criminalization of such an offence sufficient to prove the latter’s customary nature, I conclude that the offence of ... does not fall within this Trial Chamber’s jurisdiction. By concluding otherwise without establishing that the offence of ... attracted individual criminal responsibility under international customary law ... the Majority is furthering a conception of international humanitarian law which I do not support.

If I understand this correctly, Galic was charged with one offense which is not part of the body of international law and therefore, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ICTY. This appears to be international law judicial activism--courts or judges identifying conduct they do not like and then bending and stretching the law or their jurisdiction so they can rule on that conduct. Bad precedent--one of the reasons that as many of these cases as possible should be tried in national courts.

More from the same source, which mentions 2 Serb girls shot by Muslim snipers near the end of this quote. I'd bet scouring over the list of dead children's names - 1,800 - that more would be Serbian.

Holiday in Bosnia
In late May 1992, the London Times reported that Serbs had killed 16 people in a Sarajevo bread line just before a scheduled U.N. sanctions vote, but I could not understand why the Serbs would do something that was certain to bring sanctions against them. Three months later, the British newspaper, The Independent, published an article titled "Muslims Slaughter their own people." The Independent, cited U.N. sources as saying the Muslims had staged the bread line attack against their own civilians in order to get international sanctions imposed against the Serbs. The Independent's report created a trail of reasonable doubt that I have followed ever since.
It took two years before I made it to downtown Sarajevo to hear U.N. peacekeepers tell me directly that they had seen Muslims fire on their own people to influence foreign media. Along the way, I discovered first hand that the Western journalistic tradition is basically dead and that our rules of careful research and confirmation have largely been discarded. Reporters simply repeat the line taken by the side they support--no confirmation needed. Journalists in the region seldom report from the scene of the action. CNN's Christiane Amanpour stands in front of a camera in Sarajevo to tell the story of fighting in far-away Bihac, repeating Muslim government dispatches almost verbatim. The London Times report on the Sarajevo bread line massacre was filed from Belgrade using Muslim government sources.
...Time magazine lets the editor of the official Sarajevo Muslim newspaper Oslobodjenje write guest editorials, but doesn't identify him as an official spokesman, calling him merely a "Time contributor." In December 1994, Time ran one of his commentaries about a young boy shot in the face by an alleged Serb sniper. In the center of the page was a photo of the boy lying in a pool of blood beside a U.N. armored personnel carrier. I was in Sarajevo around the same time as the boy died, but I was hiding from Muslim snipers behind a U.N. armored personnel carrier in the Serb-controlled part of the city.
The Serb-controlled part of the city? That must sound strange to the untrained ear. Before I went to Bosnia, I read everything I could about Sarajevo. The message I got was that the city was controlled by the Muslims and the surrounding mountains were occupied by Serb "hill-people" who fired down on the city. I even had a map from a Japanese magazine showing that the Muslims controlled the entire city core.
I was therefore surprised when I was able to walk straight down to the river that divides the city several hundred meters from the well-known Sarajevo Holiday Inn. I had to take care moving toward the city center, because behind me on the Debelo Brdo or "Fat Hill," Muslim snipers had been shooting at civilians in the Serb part of Sarajevo.
I spoke to two little Serb girls about the same age as the boy who was shot on the other side. They said things had improved because the Muslims hadn't fired mortars recently, but they said they were still afraid of the snipers. When I set out on foot again I ran behind buildings because the mountain called Hum on the other side of the river was also held by the Muslims and their snipers had shot at Serbs as they lined up to get water.
When I got to the river, I reached the one bridge over which people can still cross with permission of both sides. It was on that bridge that I spoke with the French peacekeepers, who said they respected the Serbs and distrusted the Muslims. I was not expecting to hear that and asked them why they held that view. They each told me, one by one, that they had seen Muslim snipers fire at their own people to gain sympathy in the West.
Now, when I look at Time magazine's photo of the Muslim boy lying dead beside the armored personnel carrier, the only thing I can think about is that the Western media killed him. His name and his story were splashed around the world in hundreds of publications. By comparison, when two Serb girls were killed by Muslim snipers soon after, their deaths warranted a single sentence in a few news wire dispatches. We were never told their names...

And the deaths of Serbs by Muslim snipers in Sarajevo, like what happened to the two Serb girls the author describes, are added up to the tally to be blamed all on Serbs and not to the Muslim perpetrators. Muslims get off scot-free for so much of what they did and Serbs take on the blame for what Muslims did in many cases.

Predictably, you twist my words in order to deflect attention from what Judge Neves has said.

I did not say Gen. Galic is innocent. Driver who kills pedestrian is not innocent, but there is huge difference between manslugher and first degree murder.

I say that Merkale hoax is exposed in ICTY but it had no effect to the court decision. The Muslims shelled Sarajevo, killed civilians, and no Muslim is being held accountable.

Owing to Judge Neves, the quality of prosecution "evidence" in Galic case is now part of official ICTY record and you can not change that fact. Sucks to be someone like you.

Well said and to the point. "If I understand this correctly, Galic was charged with one offense which is not part of the body of international law and therefore, does not fall under the jurisdiction of the ICTY. This appears to be international law judicial activism-- courts or judges identifying conduct they do not like and then bending and stretching the law or their jurisdiction so they can rule on that conduct. Bad precedent--one of the reasons that as many of these cases as possible should be tried in national courts.

We agree on this 100%. The Galic case is dangerous precedent, has universal importance, regardless where one stands regarding the Balkans conflict. This is the preview of coming attractions. The reason why ICC, based on ICTY statute has to be banned and why US should use diplomatic muscle to convince those who are part of ICC to retract signature.

Actually, the Croat destruction of Mostar was much worse than that of Sarajevo, except that the media carefully avoided that carnage, so as to make depiction of the war, the killings and the destruction as one-sided as possible.

I have yet to see an indictment and a conviction of the Croat general who was suppliying his troops in Mostar. Or for the indictment of Nasir Oric.

But that would make ICTY "fair and balanced" and perhaps the war wouldn't seem so black-and-white. Way too much to expect from ICTY, its apologists, or Islamic sympathizers on this forum.

Good post joan.

This is a map of Sarajevo.

The Serb section was Grbavica. The airport was handed over to the UNPROFOR to be used for solely humanitarian reasons in June 1992. The PTT building was where headquarters of the UN Sector Sarajevo was stationed.

The were 40,000 Serbs trapped in Muslim controlled territory and the Muslims wouldn't allow them to leave, according to David Harland, who was the UN civil and political officer in Sarajevo.

It was also confirmed by Mr. Harland that the 40,000 Serb civilians who were trapped behind Muslim lines in Sarajevo were not allowed to leave the theatre of combat. It was observed that it is a serious violation of international law to hold a civilian inside of a combat area against their will.

Testimony from General Ganic's trial by Milorad Bukva who served under him states the same about Serbs not being allowed to leave while convoys of non-Serbs - Slovenians, Macedonians, etc. were:

Apart from the fact that he is an exceptional officer, I think that General Galic is a great humanist, a great humanitarian. Whenever the international forces would carry out humanitarian actions, whether it was the Red Cross or UNPROFOR, General Galic never obstructed such actions or put them into question. And on occasion, I think he even did far more than anyone else would have done. I would like to remind you that we are from Sarajevo and that after the Muslim powers let convoys of Slovenians and Jews and Macedonians and Romas pass through, and this was probably under the pressure of the international community, I have to remind you that not a single convoy of Serbs left Sarajevo. That I have to emphasise that I think that General Galic is a great humanitarian."

What he said about the airport:

That's quite clear, although after a political decision had been taken, we handed the airport over to UNPROFOR forces. In that document it said it can only be used for humanitarian reasons. But we have quite enough information to be able to claim that the airport runway was used for military purposes by the Muslims, mostly in order for the forces to regroup, to supply military equipment, ammunition, and other things that the forces in the town required.