1 Friday, 15 April 2011
3 [Open session]
4 [The accused entered court]
5 --- Upon commencing at 11.04 a.m.
6 JUDGE ORIE: Madam Registrar, would you please call the case.
7 THE REGISTRAR: This is case number IT-06-90-T, the Prosecutor
8 versus Ante Gotovina, Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac.
9 JUDGE ORIE: Thank you, Madam Registrar.
10 The Chamber is sitting today to deliver its Judgement in the case
11 of the Prosecutor versus Ante Gotovina, Ivan Cermak, and Mladen Markac.
12 For the purposes of this hearing, the Chamber will briefly
13 summarise its findings. I stress that it's a summary only. The
14 authoritative account of the Chamber's findings can be found in the
15 written Judgement which will be made available at the end of this
17 This case concerns crimes allegedly committed from at least
18 July 1995 to about the 30th of September, 1995, against the Krajina Serb
19 population and property owned or inhabited by Serbs in various
20 municipalities in the Krajina region. The crimes alleged by the
21 Prosecution include deportation and forcible transfer, plunder of public
22 and -- or private property, wanton destruction, murder, inhumane acts and
23 cruel treatment. The crimes alleged further include persecution,
24 including through unlawful attacks on civilians and civilian objects,
25 unlawful detentions and the imposition of restrictive and discriminatory
2 Ante Gotovina, Ivan Cermak, and Mladen Markac stood trial as
3 alleged participants in a joint criminal enterprise. The objective of
4 this alleged criminal enterprise was the permanent removal of the Serb
5 population from the Krajina region. According to the Prosecution, the
6 enterprise amounted to or involved the commission of the crimes of
7 persecution, deportation and forcible transfer, plunder, and destruction.
8 Alternatively, these crimes were a natural and foreseeable consequence of
9 the execution of the enterprise. In addition, the crimes of murder,
10 inhumane acts, and cruel treatment were also a natural and foreseeable
11 consequence of the execution of the alleged joint criminal enterprise.
12 According to the Prosecution, the members of this joint criminal
13 enterprise included, in addition to the three accused, Croatian President
14 Franjo Tudjman, Minister of Defence Gojko Susak, and the successive
15 chiefs of the Main Staff of the Croatian army, Janko Bobetko and
16 Zvonimir Cervenko. These members of the joint criminal enterprise
17 allegedly used or cooperated with others to facilitate or carry out the
18 crimes. These others included government officials and members of the
19 Croatian army, the military police, the special police, and the civilian
20 police. According to the Prosecution, the accused participated in and
21 acted in furtherance of the joint criminal enterprise in various ways.
22 According to the indictment, the accused were responsible for
23 having planned, instigated, ordered, or aided and abetted these crimes.
24 Finally, the Prosecution alleged that the accused were criminally liable
25 for having knowingly failed to prevent or punish criminal acts or
1 omissions of their subordinates.
2 This Trial Chamber heard and considered this case over a period
3 of more than three years. All of the parties, as well as the Chamber
4 itself, called witnesses during different phases of the case. In total,
5 145 witnesses were called to give evidence, and the Chamber admitted
6 written evidence of another 38 witnesses. In addition, the parties
7 introduced a vast amount of documentary evidence for the Chamber's
8 consideration. This included military documentation, reports from
9 international organisations active in Croatia during the indictment
10 period, and reports from various experts.
11 The parties and the Chamber dealt with numerous procedural
12 matters during the trial. One such procedural matter was the
13 Prosecution's request on the 13th of June, 2008, to order the
14 Republic of Croatia to produce certain documents or information; in
15 particular, a number of artillery documents. The Prosecution's search
16 for documents was initiated by requests for assistance to Croatia and was
17 followed up with extensive litigation in which the parties and Croatia
18 were involved. The Chamber also invited Croatia to a number of meetings
19 in an attempt to clarify whether certain artillery documents existed and,
20 if so, where they could be found. During this process, some documents
21 were provided to the satisfaction of the Prosecution, while others
22 surfaced only gradually. Others still were never provided. On the
23 26th of July, 2010, the Chamber, although recognising that a number of
24 questions with regard to the missing artillery documents remained without
25 definitive answers, denied the Prosecution's request to order the
1 Republic of Croatia to produce certain documents. The Chamber stressed
2 that Croatia was still under an obligation to cooperate with the
4 The Chamber notes that the events in this case took place in the
5 context of many years of tension between Serbs and Croats in the Krajina.
6 In this regard, the parties agreed that a considerable number of crimes
7 had been committed against Croats in the Krajina. The events in this
8 case also took place in the context of an armed conflict in the territory
9 of the former Yugoslavia that had been ongoing for years. However, this
10 case was not about crimes happening before the indictment period, nor was
11 it about the lawfulness of resorting to and conducting war, as such.
12 This case was about whether Serb civilians in the Krajina were the
13 targets of crimes, and whether the accused should be held criminally
14 liable for these crimes.
15 The Chamber will now give a summary of its findings.
16 On the basis of the evidence before it, and in accordance with an
17 agreement between two of the Defence parties and the Prosecution, the
18 Chamber found that an international armed conflict existed throughout the
19 indictment period and area.
20 The Chamber received and considered evidence on a large number of
21 specific incidents of alleged murders. Much of this evidence came from
22 family members of victims and from international observers. For
23 instance, one witness testified that on the 7th of August, 1995, he heard
24 the sound of shooting and saw Croatian soldiers just outside his house in
25 Mokro Polje in Ervenik municipality. He overheard a conversation in
1 which somebody said, and I quote, "I killed another one," whereupon the
2 witness went downstairs and found his elderly mother and his mentally ill
3 brother who had both been shot. The Chamber found that they were
4 murdered by Croatian soldiers.
5 Another witness testified that on the 6th of August, 1995, she
6 witnessed Croatian soldiers taking five men out of the basement of a
7 house in or near Ocestovo, where she was also being held. One of the men
8 was her son. Shortly thereafter, gun-shots could be heard, and later the
9 five men were found dead by gun-shot wounds. The Chamber found that
10 members of the Croatian army murdered the five men.
11 The Chamber found that members of the Croatian military forces
12 and the special police committed a number of murders charged as war
13 crimes and crimes against humanity.
14 The Chamber further received and considered evidence on a number
15 of specific incidents of alleged cruel treatment and inhumane acts. One
16 witness stated that on a morning no later than the 12th of August, 1995,
17 in Palanka, Croatian soldiers searched his home, asked for money, and
18 then tied him to a tree. They then put some textiles beneath his feet
19 and set them alight. In pain from the fire, the witness kicked the
20 textiles away. In this and other incidents, the Chamber found that
21 members of the Croatian military forces or the special police committed
22 acts of cruel treatment and inhumane acts charged as war crimes and
23 crimes against humanity.
24 The Chamber further received and considered evidence on a very
25 large number of incidents of alleged plunder and destruction. As an
1 example, the Chamber refers to incidents reported in Gracac and Knin
2 municipalities. Witness Steenbergen testified to seeing extensive
3 destruction, such as burnt houses in Gracac on the 6th of August, 1995,
4 including houses which were, at the time, still on fire. Many witnesses,
5 such as Widen and Boucher, also testified to seeing military trucks
6 loaded with electronic equipment and furniture leaving Knin on the
7 6th of August, 1995, without being stopped at Croatian check-points. In
8 these and a number of other incidents, the Chamber found that members of
9 Croatian military forces or the special police committed acts of
10 destruction and plunder charged as war crimes and as underlying acts of
12 With regard to the unlawful attacks on civilians and civilian
13 objects as an act of persecution, the Chamber found that on the
14 4th and the 5th of August, 1995, artillery units fired artillery
15 projectiles at the towns of Knin, Benkovac, Gracac, and Obrovac. The
16 Chamber received evidence regarding the targets that the Croatian army
17 had identified in these towns from the chief of artillery of the
18 Split Military District, Marko Rajcic, and in the form of a number of
19 target lists and artillery reports. The Chamber notes that it may not
20 have received in evidence all artillery documents which were compiled at
21 the time. A number of international observers and Krajina Serb residents
22 who were present in these towns at the time of the shelling testified
23 about the location of impacts.
24 The Chamber carefully compared the evidence on the locations of
25 impacts in these towns with the locations of possible military targets.
1 Based on this comparison, and the relevant artillery orders and reports,
2 the Chamber concluded that the Croatian forces deliberately targeted in
3 these towns not only previously identified military targets, but also
4 areas devoid of such military targets. As such, the Chamber found that
5 the Croatian forces treated the towns themselves as targets for artillery
6 fire. The Chamber thus found that the shelling of Benkovac, Gracac,
7 Knin, and Obrovac on the 4th and the 5th August, 1995, constituted an
8 indiscriminate attack on these towns and an unlawful attack on civilians
9 and civilian objects.
10 With regard to the alleged forcible transfer and deportation, the
11 Chamber considered that on the 4th and 5th of August, 1995, large numbers
12 of persons left the towns of Benkovac, Gracac, Knin, and Obrovac and went
13 to Bosnia and Herzegovina and Serbia. The Trial Chamber considered that
14 although there were Krajina Serb evacuation plans for certain
15 municipalities, the extent to which they were implemented varied.
16 Moreover, the population was already on the move by the time the Serb
17 municipal authorities took action and when Serb Krajina President Martic
18 ordered an evacuation late in the afternoon of the 4th of August. The
19 Trial Chamber concluded that the evacuation plans and orders of the
20 Krajina Serb authorities had little or no influence on the departure of
21 Krajina Serbs. With respect to Benkovac, Gracac, Knin, and Obrovac, the
22 Chamber concluded that the fear of violence and duress caused by the
23 shelling created an environment in which those present there had no
24 choice but to leave. For instance, one witness testified that the
25 shells, which fell everywhere in Knin, appeared to have been aimed at
1 scaring people and made everyone feel like they had to flee. Many
2 persons sought refuge at the UN compound, a number of whom were
3 eventually transferred to Serbia.
4 The Chamber further found that crimes, including murder,
5 destruction, plunder, and inhumane acts, committed by members of the
6 Croatian military forces and special police caused duress and fear of
7 violence in their victims and those who witnessed them. These crimes
8 added to the creation of an environment in which these persons had no
9 choice but to leave. The Chamber found that the forcible displacement
10 committed by members of the Croatian military forces and special police
11 by the unlawful attacks on towns in the Krajina on 4th and
12 5th of August, 1995, and by the commission of other crimes later in
13 August 1995, constituted deportation. Among the many Serbs who left the
14 Krajina during and after Operation Storm, the Chamber concluded that at
15 least 20.000 were deported in this manner in August 1995.
16 With regard to the alleged imposition of discriminatory measures
17 as an act of persecution, the Chamber considered a number of Croatian
18 legal instruments related to property which came into force after
19 Operation Storm. The Chamber found that the motive underlying these
20 legal instruments, as well as their overall effect, was to provide the
21 property left behind by Krajina Serbs in the liberated areas to Croats,
22 and thereby deprive these Serbs of the use of their housing and property.
23 The Chamber found that this imposition of restrictive and discriminatory
24 measures with regard to housing and property, considered in conjunction
25 with deportation and other crimes against Krajina Serbs, constituted
2 In conclusion, the Chamber found that Croatian military forces
3 and the special police committed acts of murder, cruel treatment,
4 inhumane acts, destruction, plunder, persecution, and deportation, as
5 charged in the indictment. Considering the large number of crimes
6 committed against the Serb population of the Krajina region in a
7 relatively short period of time, the Chamber further found that there was
8 a widespread and systematic attack directed against the Serb civilian
10 As mentioned, the Prosecution alleged that the three accused were
11 participants in a joint criminal enterprise. The objective of this
12 alleged joint criminal enterprise was the permanent removal of the
13 Serb population from the Krajina region.
14 In assessing whether there was a joint criminal enterprise, the
15 Chamber carefully considered the discussions at the Brioni meeting of the
16 31st of July, 1995, a few days before the launching of Operation Storm.
17 At this meeting, President Tudjman met with high-ranking military
18 officials to discuss the military operation. The Chamber found that the
19 participants at this meeting also discussed the importance of the
20 Krajina Serbs leaving as a result and part of the imminent attack.
21 Responding to a statement by President Tudjman to this effect,
22 Mr. Gotovina stated, and I quote:
23 "A large number of civilians are already evacuating Knin and
24 heading towards Banja Luka and Belgrade. That means that if we continue
25 this pressure, probably for some time to come, there won't be so many
1 civilians, just those who have to stay, who have no possibility of
3 The Chamber carefully reviewed the statements of high-ranking
4 Croatian officials at this and other meetings, and in public. The
5 Chamber considered these statements in the context of its findings on the
6 deportation, unlawful attacks on civilians and civilian objects, and the
7 imposition of discriminatory measures, all of which were directed against
8 Krajina Serbs.
9 The Chamber found that certain members of the Croatian political
10 and military leadership shared the common objective of the permanent
11 removal of the Serb civilian population from the Krajina by force or
12 threat of force, which amounted to and involved deportation, forcible
13 transfer, and persecution through the imposition of restrictive and
14 discriminatory measures, unlawful attacks against civilians and civilian
15 objects, deportation, and forcible transfer.
16 The joint criminal enterprise came into existence no later than
17 the end of July 1995 and continued throughout the indictment period. The
18 Chamber further found that the common objective did not amount to, or
19 involve, the commission of the crimes of persecution through
20 disappearances, wanton destruction, plunder, murder, inhumane acts,
21 cruel treatment, and unlawful detentions, or destruction, plunder,
22 murder, inhumane acts, and cruel treatment.
23 The Chamber found that Franjo Tudjman, who was the main political
24 and military leader in Croatia before, during, and after the indictment
25 period, was a key member of the joint criminal enterprise. Tudjman
1 intended to repopulate the Krajina with Croats and ensured that his ideas
2 in this respect were transformed into policy and action through his
3 powerful position as president and Supreme Commander of the armed forces.
4 The Chamber further found that other members of the joint criminal
5 enterprise included Gojko Susak, who was the minister of defence, and a
6 close associate of Tudjman's, and Zvonimir Cervenko, the chief of the
7 Croatian army Main Staff. The members of the joint criminal enterprise
8 also included others in the Croatian political and military leadership
9 who participated in presidential meetings and were close associates of
11 At the Brioni meeting, Tudjman and high-ranking military
12 officials discussed how the military forces should be used to ensure that
13 not only the Serb Krajina army, but also the Serb civilian population,
14 would leave the Krajina. The Chamber found that high-ranking Croatian
15 military officials, including Tudjman, Susak, and Cervenko, used the
16 Croatian military forces and the special police to commit the crimes
17 within the objective of the joint criminal enterprise. The Croatian
18 military forces included the Croatian army and military police, as well
19 as Bosnian Croatian army units which had been subordinated to Croatian
20 army commanders. The Chamber did not find that the police forces, with
21 the exception of the special police, were used by members of the joint
22 criminal enterprise to commit crimes.
23 The Chamber will now address whether criminal responsibility for
24 the crimes of persecution, deportation, destruction, plunder, murder,
25 inhumane acts, and cruel treatment is to be attributed to the accused.
1 The Chamber found that Ante Gotovina held the rank of
2 colonel-general in the Croatian army and was the commander of the
3 Split Military District during the indictment period. By virtue of this
4 position, Mr. Gotovina commanded all units of the Split Military
5 District, as well as those attached to it. Units of the military police
6 in the Split Military District were subordinated to Mr. Gotovina in
7 relation to regular military police tasks. The Chamber further found
8 that crime prevention and crime processing were not excluded from
9 Mr. Gotovina's authority over the military police.
10 The Chamber found that the shelling of Benkovac, Knin, and
11 Obrovac on the 4th and 5th of August, 1995, which were ordered by
12 Mr. Gotovina, constituted unlawful attacks on civilians and civilian
13 objects. The unlawful attacks formed an important element in the
14 execution of the joint criminal enterprise. The Chamber further found
15 that Mr. Gotovina participated in the Brioni meeting and contributed to
16 the planning and preparation of Operation Storm. Moreover, Mr. Gotovina
17 failed to make a serious effort to prevent and follow up on crimes
18 reported to have been committed by his subordinates against
19 Krajina Serbs. Mr. Gotovina's failures had an impact on the general
20 attitude towards crimes in the Split Military District. Based on these
21 considerations, the Chamber found that Mr. Gotovina's conduct amounted to
22 a significant contribution to the joint criminal enterprise. The Chamber
23 further found that Mr. Gotovina's orders to unlawfully attack civilians
24 and civilian objects amounted, in and of itself, to a significant
25 contribution to the joint criminal enterprise.
1 Based on Mr. Gotovina's acts and conduct, including his
2 participation in, and statements at, the Brioni meeting, the Chamber
3 found that he had the state of mind that the crimes forming part of the
4 objective should be carried out. The Chamber therefore established that
5 Mr. Gotovina was a member of the joint criminal enterprise, and thus
6 intended that his actions contribute to this enterprise. The Chamber
7 further found that other charged crimes, although not part of the common
8 purpose, were natural and foreseeable consequences of the execution of
9 the joint criminal enterprise, and foreseeable also to Mr. Gotovina.
10 The Chamber now turns to Ivan Cermak.
11 The Chamber found that the formal appointment and title of
12 Mr. Cermak was commander of the Knin garrison, but that his
13 responsibility went beyond those of a garrison commander. The evidence
14 established that Mr. Cermak had some influence over the civilian and
15 military police, but not that he was in charge of, and had legal
16 authority for, maintaining law and order. Mr. Cermak did not have
17 effective control over Croatian army units outside of his own
18 subordinates at the garrison, and the Chamber found no reliable evidence
19 that those subordinates committed any crimes.
20 The Chamber found that the activities of Mr. Cermak included
21 dealing with members of the international community, cleaning up Knin,
22 improving hygenic conditions, providing a public soup kitchen, making the
23 hospital operational, reconnecting water and electricity to the town,
24 reactivating public services, improving transportation conditions,
25 restoring factories and other businesses, and de-mining Knin and its
2 The evidence did not establish that Mr. Cermak knew or intended
3 that his activities contribute to any goal of populating the Krajina with
4 Croats rather than Serbs.
5 As for Mr. Cermak's conduct with regard to crimes committed on
6 the ground, the Chamber found that he denied and concealed the crimes
7 committed in Grubori on the 25th of August, 1995. It further found that
8 Mr. Cermak, in general, provided misleading assurances to the
9 international community that action to stop the crimes against Serbs were
10 being or would be taken. However, apart from this, the Chamber found
11 that the Prosecution did not prove its allegations that Mr. Cermak
12 permitted, minimised, denied, or concealed crimes against Serbs, nor that
13 he provided false, incomplete or misleading information or false
14 assurances to the international community.
15 The Chamber concluded that the evidence did not establish that
16 Mr. Cermak was a member of the joint criminal enterprise, or made any
17 intentional and significant contribution to it. The Chamber also found
18 that Mr. Cermak was not liable under any other mode of liability charged
19 against him.
20 Finally, the Chamber turns to Mladen Markac.
21 The Chamber found that, during the indictment period, Mr. Markac
22 held the position of Assistant Minister of Interior in charge of special
23 police matters. While the special police was normally part of the
24 Croatian Ministry of Interior, during Operation Storm and the following
25 search operations, approximately 2.200 special policemen, including
1 members of the Lucko Anti-Terrorist Unit, were subordinated to the
2 Croatian army Main Staff and took part in the military operations. By
3 virtue of his position, Mr. Markac had overall control over the
4 special police forces, and throughout Operation Storm and the following
5 search operations, he commanded them in accordance with the orders of the
6 chief of the Main Staff. Mr. Markac also commanded part of the artillery
7 assets of the Croatian army artillery group, TS-5, which were attached to
8 the special police on the 3rd of August, 1995, for operational purposes.
9 The Chamber found that Mr. Markac participated in the
10 Brioni meeting, contributing to the planning and preparation of
11 Operation Storm. It also found that he ordered the special police's
12 shelling of Gracac on the 4th and 5th of August, 1995, which constituted
13 an unlawful attack on civilians and civilian objects, and brought about
14 the forcible displacement of persons. The order to shell Gracac
15 amounted, in and of itself, to a significant contribution to the joint
16 criminal enterprise.
17 The Chamber also found, Judge Kinis dissenting, that
18 special police members took part in the destruction of a substantial part
19 of Gracac on the 5th and 6th of August. The Chamber found that they also
20 participated in the destruction and looting of Krajina Serb property in
21 Donji Lapac on the 7th and 8th of August, 1995. The Chamber found that
22 Mr. Markac knew about the involvement of his subordinates in the
23 commission of these crimes but that he did not take any steps to identify
24 the perpetrators in order to take appropriate action against them, nor
25 did he take any step to prevent the commission of further crimes.
1 On the 25th of August, 1995, members of the special police
2 murdered several elderly villagers in the hamlet of Grubori. On that and
3 the following day, the same unit also burned property in Grubori and
4 Ramljane village. Mr. Markac advanced false stories and participated in
5 the cover-up of crimes committed by his subordinates against Krajina Serb
6 persons and property.
7 With regard to the commission of crimes by special police
8 members, the Chamber found that, if Mr. Markac received information
9 concerning crimes allegedly committed by his subordinates, he was
10 duty-bound to inform the criminal police for further investigation.
11 Mr. Markac could also request the suspension of special police members
12 from duty.
13 The Chamber has concluded that, through his acts and omissions,
14 Mr. Markac created a climate of impunity amongst his subordinates, which
15 encouraged the commission of crimes against Krajina Serb persons and
17 Based on these considerations, the Chamber found that
18 Mr. Markac's conduct amounted to a significant contribution to the
19 joint criminal enterprise.
20 Based on his acts in relation to the preparation of
21 Operation Storm, as well as his acts and omissions with regard to crimes
22 committed by members of the special police, the Chamber concluded that
23 Mr. Markac had the state of mind that the crimes forming part of the
24 joint criminal enterprise's objective should be carried out. The Chamber
25 therefore found that Mr. Markac was a member of the joint criminal
1 enterprise, and that through his acts and omissions he intended to
2 contribute to it. The Chamber further found that other crimes charged,
3 although not part of the common purpose, were natural and foreseeable
4 consequences of the execution of the joint criminal enterprise, and
5 foreseeable also to Mr. Markac.
6 Having summarised its findings, the Chamber will now give its
8 Mr. Gotovina, will you please stand.
9 For the reasons summarised above, this Chamber, having considered
10 all of the evidence and the arguments of the parties, the Statute, and
11 the Rules, and based upon the factual and legal findings as determined in
12 the Judgement, finds you guilty, as a member of a joint criminal
13 enterprise, of the following charges:
14 Count 1, persecution as a crime against humanity;
15 Count 2, deportation as a crime against humanity;
16 Count 4, plunder of public and private property, as a violation
17 of the laws or customs of war;
18 Count 5, wanton destruction as a violation of the laws or customs
19 of war;
20 Count 6, murder as a crime against humanity;
21 Count 7, murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war;
22 Count 8, inhumane acts as a crime against humanity; and
23 Count 9, cruel treatment as violation of the laws or customs of
25 The Chamber finds you not guilty on Count 3, inhumane acts
1 (forcible transfer) as a crime against humanity.
2 With respect to sentencing, the Chamber considered the gravity of
3 the offences, particularly the large number of crimes in a wide
4 geographical area, the vulnerability of the victims, and the abuse of
5 your position of authority. In mitigation, the Chamber considered your
6 behaviour in detention and in the courtroom. The Chamber further took
7 into consideration factors relating to sentencing practices in the former
9 For having committed these crimes, the Chamber sentences you,
10 Mr. Gotovina, to a single sentence of 24 years of imprisonment. You are
11 entitled to credit for the period of time you have been in custody, which
12 amounts to 1956 days.
13 You may be seated.
14 Mr. Cermak, will you please stand.
15 This Chamber, having considered all of the evidence and the
16 arguments of the parties, the Statute, and the Rules, and based upon the
17 factual and legal findings as determined in the Judgement, finds you
18 not guilty on all Counts of the indictment. The Chamber orders that you
19 be released from the United Nations Detention Unit after the necessary
20 practical arrangements are made by the Registrar.
21 You may be seated.
22 Mr. Markac, will you please stand.
23 For the reasons summarised above, this Chamber, having considered
24 all of the evidence and the arguments of the parties, the Statute, and
25 the Rules, and based upon the factual and legal findings as determined in
1 the Judgement, finds you guilty, as a member of a joint criminal
2 enterprise, of the following charges:
3 Count 1, persecution as a crime against humanity;
4 Count 2, deportation as a crime against humanity;
5 Count 4, plunder of public and private property as a violation of
6 the laws or customs of war;
7 Count 5, wanton destruction as a violation of the laws or customs
8 of war;
9 Count 6, murder as a crime against humanity;
10 Count 7, murder as a violation of the laws or customs of war;
11 Count 8, inhumane acts as a crime against humanity; and
12 Count 9, cruel treatment as a violation of the laws or customs of
14 The Chamber finds you not guilty on Count 3, inhumane acts
15 (forcible transfer) as a crime against humanity.
16 With respect to sentencing, the Chamber considered the large
17 number of crimes that occurred in a wide geographical area and over an
18 extended period of time and the vulnerability of the victims. The
19 Chamber further considered the abuse of your position of power in
20 aggravation. In mitigation, the Chamber considered your medical
21 condition. The Chamber further took into consideration factors relating
22 to sentencing practices in the former Yugoslavia.
23 For having committed these crimes, the Chamber sentences you,
24 Mr. Markac, to a single sentence of 18 years' of imprisonment.
25 You are entitled to credit for the period of time you have been
1 in custody, which amounts to 1477 days.
2 You may be seated.
3 This concludes the delivery of the Judgement, which will now be
4 made publicly available.
5 The Chamber stands adjourned.
6 --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 11.56 a.m.