Witness Speaks of Climate of Impunity in Herceg-Bosna

A witness at the trial of six Bosnian Croat leaders this week told the court officers bore responsibility for their troops’ crimes because they had created a climate in which orders could be ignored.



Retired British army general Andrew Pringle, who has studied the Yugoslav army’s military doctrine, said commanders could give the impression that there was no need to obey official injunctions to treat prisoners and civilians well.



The six men - Jadranko Prlic, Bruno Stojic, Slobodan Praljak, Milivoj Petkovic, Valentin Coric and Berislav Pusic - controlled a self-proclaimed Croat entity inside Bosnia called Herceg-Bosna, and are accused of playing key roles in the persecution of non-Croats in 1993. They face 26 counts of war crimes for the mistreatment, expulsion and murder of Bosnian Muslims, or Bosniaks, during the Croat-Bosniak conflict.



As an example, Pringle singled out a Croatian officer’s order that refers to Bosniaks by the defamatory term “Balije”, thereby giving a signal to the troops that Bosniaks could be mistreated.



“Everything that he says forms part of the commanding climate,” said Pringle, suggesting that some officers created an environment where the Geneva conventions on the treatment of prisoners could be ignored.



The conventions were part of the Yugoslav army doctrine, which formed the basis for that of the Herceg-Bosna troops. The rules set by the treaty explicitly forbid sending prisoners of war to dig trenches on the front line.



Despite this, the defendants are accused of sending imprisoned Bosniaks to build fortifications, dig trenches, carry munitions and collect bodies often in the middle of battles.



According to the indictment, many of the prisoners died or were badly wounded. Some of them were used as human shields or to attract enemy fire and thus reveal the location of the enemy forces.



Praljak in his defence argued that this doctrine only dated from 1988 so few soldiers had been able to become acquainted with it, but Pringle said its implications were timeless.



“The raping of women, the burning of houses….I don’t think there is a need to get information across about this,” said the witness.



He said it was possible to create an atmosphere where war crimes were not tolerated. He cited Croatian commander Ante Roso who, in November 1993, warned troops that anyone who committed murder, rape or pillage would be executed.



“The crimes of Muslim terrorists are no excuse. We should not let future generations of Croats be ashamed by their fathers’ acts,” said Roso.



From documents handed to him by the prosecution, Pringle concluded that the civilian government had wanted to pass blame for crimes committed onto the military. One document includes a command from June 1993 given by Petkovic in which he orders the disarming and detaining of Muslim soldiers in the Croatian ranks.



In another document from September 1993, Herceg-Bosna’s government, which was headed by Prlic, tried to distance itself from responsibility for the mistreatment of detained prisoners.



Praljak wanted to point out during cross-examination that the situation on the ground was different from the situation on paper, and explained that it was difficult to dismiss commanders because of a lack of staff.



“It is clear that when civilians are exposed to risk, an even greater responsibility is placed on the commanders to check that their men do not hurt them,” replied the witness, adding that unintentional killings of civilians “happens in war but that is different to deliberate attacks on civilians”.



The trial will resume next week.



Goran Jungvirth is an IWPR journalist in Zagreb.