Credibility of Srebrenica Witness Questioned
Credibility of Srebrenica Witness Questioned
Desperate to secure a plea agreement with the Prosecution, Momir Nikolic confessed to crimes he did not commit in connection with the Srebrenica massacre. Though he was involved in coordinating the forcible transfer of women and children, the separation and temporary detention of able-bodied men and their ultimate transfer for execution, he worried this was not enough. So he falsely told the Prosecutor he had also ordered the massacre of several hundred Bosnian Muslim prisoners being held at the Kravica Warehouse, as well as another smaller group of prisoners at Sandici. Shortly after he told these lies, he recanted. It was only after confessing his untruths that Mr. Nikolic secured the plea bargain he wanted.
In exchange for Mr. Nikolic pleading guilty to crimes against humanity, providing the prosecutor with information and testifying against two of his former co-accused and potentially in other trials, the Prosecutor dropped genocide charges against him and agreed to recommend that the Court sentence him to a period between 15 and 20 years in prison. His sentencing hearing will be held after he provides testimony in the Blagojevic trial, enabling the Court and the Prosecution to assess the degree and sincerity of his cooperation.
While Mr. Nikolic's false confession was acknowledged and revoked well before he appeared in Court to give his testimony, Michael Karnavas, Defense Counsel for Vidoje Blagojevic, focused on it as an event which undermines Mr. Nikolic's credibility. Both Defense counsel and the Court were curious how Mr. Nikolic arrived at the decision to confess to crimes he did not commit. The former Accused described his thinking as follows. 'I said when the conversations between me and the prosecution were in an advanced stage, I made the assessment that the agreement could be called in question and I feared that might happen because I had already told the prosecutor most of what [I knew]. I . . . believed the agreement was the best solution for me.'
When Mr. Karnavas asked why he thought the agreement might fall through, Mr. Nikolic revealed something of his emotional state at the time. 'It was just an impression. . . . This was a terrible period for me. I don't even wish to remember it let alone talk about it. I was admitting to something that really is hard, the crime that happened in Srebrenica. It is not easy to talk about it. Nor was it easy to confess to one's involvement in such a crime. All the circumstances created the impression in my mind that there could be some misunderstanding. I was convinced that most of what I had been saying to the Prosecutor, they already had the facts about. All this prompted me to come to the conclusion that all this may not be sufficient for an agreement.'
It was events, and his role in them, leading to the Srebrenica massacre of 7,000 to 10,000 Muslim men and boys that Mr. Nikolic wanted so desperately to avoid confronting that he was willing to assume guilt for crimes he did not commit. 'Everything that happened in and around Srebrenica was always present in my mind and I simply did not wish to go through that process again, to go on trial . . . ,' he told the Court.
But Mr. Nikolic did not only implicate himself in his false statements, he implicated others. In cross examination, Mr. Karnavas read from the witness's earlier false confession, 'He said [Ljubomir] Borovcanin arrived [at the Kravica warehouse] while the executions were underway and they spoke about what they should do about the bodies of those executed.' Mr. Nikolic said the way it was written in this OTP statement was not what he said. 'In regard to the execution and discussion about the bodies of those executed, I think we [he and the Prosecutor] did not talk along those lines. I said I had knowledge of what happened with the bodies and Borovcanin knew . . . .'
Defense counsel continued, 'Then you state that Borovcanin did nothing to prevent the shooting you had ordered.' Mr. Nikolic replied that all facts except his own presence and involvement in the massacre at Kravica were true. He had received information after the event -- about the massacre, Borovcanin's presence and his failure to do anything to stop it. To assure he got a plea agreement, he merely inserted himself into the events he learned about.
Mr. Nikolic's false confession is not trivial. It affects his credibility, as Mr. Karnavas suggested. If he was willing to lie by exaggerating his guilt, what else might he have been willing to lie about? Could he have exaggerated the role of his commanding officer, for example, Vidoje Blagojevic who sits in the dock? Does this call into question his testimony about Mladic's gesture, indicating all the men at Konjevic Polje would be killed?
On Mr. Nikolic's final day in the witness stand, Defense Counsel revealed the disclosure of another possible falsehood in his confession. Mr. Nikolic had told about a meeting with Ljubomir Beara, Miroslav Deronjic and others to discuss the security situation in Bratunac, which included an argument about the killing site -- whether it should be in Bratunac or Zvornik. According to Mr. Nikolic, Mr. Deronjic, appointed by Radovan Karadzic to his post, told the group that Karadzic wanted the Bosniak men and boys transported to Zvornik for execution. That is ultimately what happened. Mr. Nikolic testified that he was at the meeting. Mr. Deronjic, who pled guilty the day before to a non-Srebrenica related massacre, told the Prosecution that he didn't think Mr. Nikolic was at the meeting. Nevertheless, under questioning by Judge Carmen Maria Argibay, the witness insisted he attended the meeting where Zvornik was accepted as the killing site.
Mr. Nikolic testified over eight days. Despite the discrepancies, he provided specific and detailed information about implementation of a plan to ethnically cleanse Bratunac and commit genocide against Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica. There is no question that he was there and that he played a significant role. The question of his credibility will enter into the judges' consideration of the evidence he provided. But it will not stand alone. The Court will consider evidence from other parties and documents that tend to corroborate or discredit his testimony. Mr. Blagojevic will not be convicted, if he is, on the testimony of one witness alone.
In exchange for Mr. Nikolic pleading guilty to crimes against humanity, providing the prosecutor with information and testifying against two of his former co-accused and potentially in other trials, the Prosecutor dropped genocide charges against him and agreed to recommend that the Court sentence him to a period between 15 and 20 years in prison. His sentencing hearing will be held after he provides testimony in the Blagojevic trial, enabling the Court and the Prosecution to assess the degree and sincerity of his cooperation.
While Mr. Nikolic's false confession was acknowledged and revoked well before he appeared in Court to give his testimony, Michael Karnavas, Defense Counsel for Vidoje Blagojevic, focused on it as an event which undermines Mr. Nikolic's credibility. Both Defense counsel and the Court were curious how Mr. Nikolic arrived at the decision to confess to crimes he did not commit. The former Accused described his thinking as follows. 'I said when the conversations between me and the prosecution were in an advanced stage, I made the assessment that the agreement could be called in question and I feared that might happen because I had already told the prosecutor most of what [I knew]. I . . . believed the agreement was the best solution for me.'
When Mr. Karnavas asked why he thought the agreement might fall through, Mr. Nikolic revealed something of his emotional state at the time. 'It was just an impression. . . . This was a terrible period for me. I don't even wish to remember it let alone talk about it. I was admitting to something that really is hard, the crime that happened in Srebrenica. It is not easy to talk about it. Nor was it easy to confess to one's involvement in such a crime. All the circumstances created the impression in my mind that there could be some misunderstanding. I was convinced that most of what I had been saying to the Prosecutor, they already had the facts about. All this prompted me to come to the conclusion that all this may not be sufficient for an agreement.'
It was events, and his role in them, leading to the Srebrenica massacre of 7,000 to 10,000 Muslim men and boys that Mr. Nikolic wanted so desperately to avoid confronting that he was willing to assume guilt for crimes he did not commit. 'Everything that happened in and around Srebrenica was always present in my mind and I simply did not wish to go through that process again, to go on trial . . . ,' he told the Court.
But Mr. Nikolic did not only implicate himself in his false statements, he implicated others. In cross examination, Mr. Karnavas read from the witness's earlier false confession, 'He said [Ljubomir] Borovcanin arrived [at the Kravica warehouse] while the executions were underway and they spoke about what they should do about the bodies of those executed.' Mr. Nikolic said the way it was written in this OTP statement was not what he said. 'In regard to the execution and discussion about the bodies of those executed, I think we [he and the Prosecutor] did not talk along those lines. I said I had knowledge of what happened with the bodies and Borovcanin knew . . . .'
Defense counsel continued, 'Then you state that Borovcanin did nothing to prevent the shooting you had ordered.' Mr. Nikolic replied that all facts except his own presence and involvement in the massacre at Kravica were true. He had received information after the event -- about the massacre, Borovcanin's presence and his failure to do anything to stop it. To assure he got a plea agreement, he merely inserted himself into the events he learned about.
Mr. Nikolic's false confession is not trivial. It affects his credibility, as Mr. Karnavas suggested. If he was willing to lie by exaggerating his guilt, what else might he have been willing to lie about? Could he have exaggerated the role of his commanding officer, for example, Vidoje Blagojevic who sits in the dock? Does this call into question his testimony about Mladic's gesture, indicating all the men at Konjevic Polje would be killed?
On Mr. Nikolic's final day in the witness stand, Defense Counsel revealed the disclosure of another possible falsehood in his confession. Mr. Nikolic had told about a meeting with Ljubomir Beara, Miroslav Deronjic and others to discuss the security situation in Bratunac, which included an argument about the killing site -- whether it should be in Bratunac or Zvornik. According to Mr. Nikolic, Mr. Deronjic, appointed by Radovan Karadzic to his post, told the group that Karadzic wanted the Bosniak men and boys transported to Zvornik for execution. That is ultimately what happened. Mr. Nikolic testified that he was at the meeting. Mr. Deronjic, who pled guilty the day before to a non-Srebrenica related massacre, told the Prosecution that he didn't think Mr. Nikolic was at the meeting. Nevertheless, under questioning by Judge Carmen Maria Argibay, the witness insisted he attended the meeting where Zvornik was accepted as the killing site.
Mr. Nikolic testified over eight days. Despite the discrepancies, he provided specific and detailed information about implementation of a plan to ethnically cleanse Bratunac and commit genocide against Bosnian Muslims in Srebrenica. There is no question that he was there and that he played a significant role. The question of his credibility will enter into the judges' consideration of the evidence he provided. But it will not stand alone. The Court will consider evidence from other parties and documents that tend to corroborate or discredit his testimony. Mr. Blagojevic will not be convicted, if he is, on the testimony of one witness alone.
