Martic: Prosecutors Rest Their Case
Testimony concerning the 1995 shelling of Zagreb ends five months of evidence against former Croatian Serb leader.
Martic: Prosecutors Rest Their Case
Testimony concerning the 1995 shelling of Zagreb ends five months of evidence against former Croatian Serb leader.
Prosecutors wrapped up their case against the former leader of the rebel Serb authorities in Croatia, Milan Martic, this week by calling witnesses to speak about their memories of the alleged shelling of Zagreb by his forces in early May 1995.
The indictment against Martic says the assault on Zagreb was carried out in retaliation for Operation Flash, a successful attack by the Croatian army against Serb forces in Western Slavonia, and left seven people dead and some 200 wounded.
Rockets carrying “cluster bomb” warheads are alleged to have landed in the heart of the Croatian capital, in its central commercial district.
Allegations concerning this particular attack account for five of the 19 counts of crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war included in the indictment against Martic.
The remainder of the charge sheet includes claims that he was responsible for the detention, torture, persecution, killing and deportation of civilians, and the plunder and destruction of villages in the Croatian and Bosnian Krajina regions from August 1991 until August 1995.
“Up to that moment, Zagreb was a relatively safe and quiet city,” Raseljka Grmoja said of the Serb shelling of the capital this week. The witness, who was in her second year at high school at the time, added, “From then on I didn’t feel safe.”
Grmoja described how a shell that landed near her school had shattered window panes in the building, causing glass to penetrate her eye.
During cross-examination, she said her school was ten to 15 minutes’ walk from the nearest military facility.
Another witness, Mina Zunac, described how she was forced to undergo ten operations after she was hit by a metal ball and other shrapnel whilst walking in downtown Zagreb.
Grmoja and Zunac also spoke of the psychological trauma they suffered as a result of their experiences.
Since Martic’s trial got going in mid-January this year, the proceedings have been overshadowed by the death of one of the prosecution’s star witnesses – Milan Babic, a former close confidant of the accused. Having admitted his own responsibility for crimes during his time as a senior Croatian Serb politician in the early Nineties, Babic had agreed to cooperate with the prosecution and provide important insider testimony.
He committed suicide in March in the United Nations detention unit in The Hague, where he had returned from a prison abroad in order to give evidence against Martic. At the time of his death, he was in the process of being cross-examined by Martic’s lawyers.
Having led the armed rebellion by Serbs living inside Croatia in the early stages of the war there, Martic later overcame Babic in a power struggle to become the president of the self-declared Republika Srpska Krajina, RSK.
During his time in the witness stand, Babic told the court that as a rebel leader, Martic was the first to use armed force to provoke his Croat enemies, and that he had drawn the Yugoslav People’s Army, JNA, into the conflict to aid the Serb side.
Babic’s death was followed very soon after by that of Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav president, who suffered a heart attack in the same detention centre.
Even beyond Babic’s testimony in the Martic trial, the court cases of the three men had been closely linked. Babic had testified against Milosevic as a prosecution witness in 2002 and Martic was expected to appear as defence witness in the same trial.
After Milosevic died, Martic was unable to attend court as a result of what doctors described as “a temporary psychological crisis”. The problems recurred in May.
In the meantime, Martic’s lawyers have fought to have Babic’s testimony excluded from the evidence against their client, pointing out that they had not completed their cross-examination of him when he died.
The trial chamber disagreed that this made the whole of Babic’s evidence invalid, but has allowed the defence to appeal its decision. Acknowledging the significance of questions surrounding Babic’s testimony, the judges noted defence arguments that it is “the most important piece of evidence” against their client. The defence have argued that if the appeals chamber decides to exclude this evidence later, after a judgement has been issued against Martic, prosecutors could feel impelled to reopen their case.
The prosecution, on the other hand, has said that the Babic testimony was “corroborated by other evidence”. They have also underlined that the judges agreed that when determining Martic’s guilt, they would only take into account sections of Babic’s testimony which are backed up in this way.
The appeals chamber has not yet formally heard the arguments from each of the parties on the matter.
In the meantime, Martic’s lawyers have asked for material collected during an internal inquiry into Babic’s death to be made available to them in order to help them formulate their appeal. Having access to statements concerning Babic’s state of mind, they say, could help them to form arguments concerning the reliability and credibility of his evidence.
Other witnesses in the prosecution case included Peter Galbraith, who served as United States ambassador to Zagreb between 1993 and 1998. He gave testimony about how Martic refused to accept a peace plan that he and a Russian colleague tried to present in early 1995, which envisaged broad autonomy for the Serb population in the Krajina.
Later that year, Croatian forces launched Operation Storm, during which tens of thousands of Serbs fled their homes in the Krajina. If Martic had accepted, said Galbraith, there would have been no Operation Storm, the Serb population would still be in the Krajina and he would quite possibly not now be facing war crimes charges.
Prosecutors say Martic - who held various positions in the RSK between 1991 and 1995 - had command responsibility for the actions of a number of armed forces operating in the region. These include a police unit known as Martic’s Men, as well as territorial defence forces who have been blamed for torture and countless killings and rapes.
Witnesses gave graphic testimonies about vicious attacks on the villages of Saborsko and Skabrnja in mid-November 1991, which left at least 67 civilians dead, including many elderly people. According to the prosecution, these assaults were overseen by Martic as part of a campaign by Serb forces to ethnically cleanse non-Serb civilians from Croatia’s Krajina region. At the time, he was interior minister for an entity known as the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina, SAO Krajina.
A series of witnesses have also testified about the brutality of Serb police forces allegedly under the control of the accused, including the unit known as Martic’s Men. One witness, who was arrested in 1991 along with more than 100 other Croats, described how he was beaten and tortured in a detention facility in Knin that was run by police who answered to Martic.
In addition, the court has heard evidence that the various military and police forces operating in the RSK in Croatia were closely linked with the Serbian interior ministry and the police services of the Republika Srpska in Bosnia.
The judges have set out a strict timetable for the start of the defence case, which is due to take place before the tribunal begins its summer break in mid-July.
In the meantime, the defence have a standard opportunity to highlight any counts in the indictment which they think the prosecutors have failed to substantiate in the course of their case. If the defence are successful on this front, any such charges can be thrown out without the need to call evidence to counter them.
The judges will rule on submissions on this matter on 3 July.
A pre-defence conference will be convened in the case on July 7, and Martic’s lawyers are due to begin presenting their own evidence on July 11.
Janet Anderson is the director of IWPR’s International Justice Programme in The Hague.
The indictment against Martic says the assault on Zagreb was carried out in retaliation for Operation Flash, a successful attack by the Croatian army against Serb forces in Western Slavonia, and left seven people dead and some 200 wounded.
Rockets carrying “cluster bomb” warheads are alleged to have landed in the heart of the Croatian capital, in its central commercial district.
Allegations concerning this particular attack account for five of the 19 counts of crimes against humanity and violations of the laws or customs of war included in the indictment against Martic.
The remainder of the charge sheet includes claims that he was responsible for the detention, torture, persecution, killing and deportation of civilians, and the plunder and destruction of villages in the Croatian and Bosnian Krajina regions from August 1991 until August 1995.
“Up to that moment, Zagreb was a relatively safe and quiet city,” Raseljka Grmoja said of the Serb shelling of the capital this week. The witness, who was in her second year at high school at the time, added, “From then on I didn’t feel safe.”
Grmoja described how a shell that landed near her school had shattered window panes in the building, causing glass to penetrate her eye.
During cross-examination, she said her school was ten to 15 minutes’ walk from the nearest military facility.
Another witness, Mina Zunac, described how she was forced to undergo ten operations after she was hit by a metal ball and other shrapnel whilst walking in downtown Zagreb.
Grmoja and Zunac also spoke of the psychological trauma they suffered as a result of their experiences.
Since Martic’s trial got going in mid-January this year, the proceedings have been overshadowed by the death of one of the prosecution’s star witnesses – Milan Babic, a former close confidant of the accused. Having admitted his own responsibility for crimes during his time as a senior Croatian Serb politician in the early Nineties, Babic had agreed to cooperate with the prosecution and provide important insider testimony.
He committed suicide in March in the United Nations detention unit in The Hague, where he had returned from a prison abroad in order to give evidence against Martic. At the time of his death, he was in the process of being cross-examined by Martic’s lawyers.
Having led the armed rebellion by Serbs living inside Croatia in the early stages of the war there, Martic later overcame Babic in a power struggle to become the president of the self-declared Republika Srpska Krajina, RSK.
During his time in the witness stand, Babic told the court that as a rebel leader, Martic was the first to use armed force to provoke his Croat enemies, and that he had drawn the Yugoslav People’s Army, JNA, into the conflict to aid the Serb side.
Babic’s death was followed very soon after by that of Slobodan Milosevic, the former Yugoslav president, who suffered a heart attack in the same detention centre.
Even beyond Babic’s testimony in the Martic trial, the court cases of the three men had been closely linked. Babic had testified against Milosevic as a prosecution witness in 2002 and Martic was expected to appear as defence witness in the same trial.
After Milosevic died, Martic was unable to attend court as a result of what doctors described as “a temporary psychological crisis”. The problems recurred in May.
In the meantime, Martic’s lawyers have fought to have Babic’s testimony excluded from the evidence against their client, pointing out that they had not completed their cross-examination of him when he died.
The trial chamber disagreed that this made the whole of Babic’s evidence invalid, but has allowed the defence to appeal its decision. Acknowledging the significance of questions surrounding Babic’s testimony, the judges noted defence arguments that it is “the most important piece of evidence” against their client. The defence have argued that if the appeals chamber decides to exclude this evidence later, after a judgement has been issued against Martic, prosecutors could feel impelled to reopen their case.
The prosecution, on the other hand, has said that the Babic testimony was “corroborated by other evidence”. They have also underlined that the judges agreed that when determining Martic’s guilt, they would only take into account sections of Babic’s testimony which are backed up in this way.
The appeals chamber has not yet formally heard the arguments from each of the parties on the matter.
In the meantime, Martic’s lawyers have asked for material collected during an internal inquiry into Babic’s death to be made available to them in order to help them formulate their appeal. Having access to statements concerning Babic’s state of mind, they say, could help them to form arguments concerning the reliability and credibility of his evidence.
Other witnesses in the prosecution case included Peter Galbraith, who served as United States ambassador to Zagreb between 1993 and 1998. He gave testimony about how Martic refused to accept a peace plan that he and a Russian colleague tried to present in early 1995, which envisaged broad autonomy for the Serb population in the Krajina.
Later that year, Croatian forces launched Operation Storm, during which tens of thousands of Serbs fled their homes in the Krajina. If Martic had accepted, said Galbraith, there would have been no Operation Storm, the Serb population would still be in the Krajina and he would quite possibly not now be facing war crimes charges.
Prosecutors say Martic - who held various positions in the RSK between 1991 and 1995 - had command responsibility for the actions of a number of armed forces operating in the region. These include a police unit known as Martic’s Men, as well as territorial defence forces who have been blamed for torture and countless killings and rapes.
Witnesses gave graphic testimonies about vicious attacks on the villages of Saborsko and Skabrnja in mid-November 1991, which left at least 67 civilians dead, including many elderly people. According to the prosecution, these assaults were overseen by Martic as part of a campaign by Serb forces to ethnically cleanse non-Serb civilians from Croatia’s Krajina region. At the time, he was interior minister for an entity known as the Serbian Autonomous District of Krajina, SAO Krajina.
A series of witnesses have also testified about the brutality of Serb police forces allegedly under the control of the accused, including the unit known as Martic’s Men. One witness, who was arrested in 1991 along with more than 100 other Croats, described how he was beaten and tortured in a detention facility in Knin that was run by police who answered to Martic.
In addition, the court has heard evidence that the various military and police forces operating in the RSK in Croatia were closely linked with the Serbian interior ministry and the police services of the Republika Srpska in Bosnia.
The judges have set out a strict timetable for the start of the defence case, which is due to take place before the tribunal begins its summer break in mid-July.
In the meantime, the defence have a standard opportunity to highlight any counts in the indictment which they think the prosecutors have failed to substantiate in the course of their case. If the defence are successful on this front, any such charges can be thrown out without the need to call evidence to counter them.
The judges will rule on submissions on this matter on 3 July.
A pre-defence conference will be convened in the case on July 7, and Martic’s lawyers are due to begin presenting their own evidence on July 11.
Janet Anderson is the director of IWPR’s International Justice Programme in The Hague.
