The main hearing in the criminal proceedings against the defendant Nenad Pejnović for a war crime against civilians, described and punishable pursuant to Article 120 paragraph 1 of the Basic Criminal Law of the Republic of Croatia (hereinafter: the OKZ RH) commenced on 24 February 2009 before the Karlovac County Court. 
The first instance verdict was pronounced on 3 April 2009. The defendant received a prison sentence in the duration of 6 years. The Supreme Court upheld entirely the verdict of the Karlovac County Court War Crimes Council. 

INDICTMENT (SUMMARY)

The indictment issued by the Gospić County State's Attorney's Office No. K-DO-4/08 dated 27 May 2008 charges Nenad Pejnović that on 4 October 1991 in the village of Vrhovine, hamlet Ćorci, at the time of armed conflict and occupation by rebel Serbs within the so-called "SAO Krajina", in late afternoon hours, as a member of militia of the so-called "SAO Krajina", pursuant to an agreement and together with other members of Serb paramilitary formations, unlawfully deprived of liberty the following villagers of Vrhovine of Croatian ethnicity: Martin Čorak, Mate Čorak, Kata Čorak, Stjepan Čorak, Vladimir Čorak and Slavko Čorak. The aforementioned persons were taken to the militia station in Vrhovine where they spent the night, and on the next day they were all taken to Ćurinka - Oštri Vršak area where they were killed,

- therefore, having breached the rules of the international law at the time of armed conflict and occupation, the defendant unlawfully detained and killed civilians, whereby he committed a war crime against civilians described and punishable pursuant to Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH.

You can see the indictment issued by the Gospić County State's Attorney's Office No. K-DO-4/08 dated 27 May 2008 here (in Croatian) (PDF, 967 KB).

GENERAL DATA

The Karlovac County Court

Case file number: K - 11/08

War Crime Council: Judge Ante Ujević - Council President, Judge Mladen Kosijer - Council member, Judge Vesna Britvec - Council member

The indictment issued by the Gospić County State's Attorney's Office No. K-DO-4/08 dated 27 May 2008

Prosecution: Zdravko Car, Deputy Karlovac County State's Attorney

Criminal act: war crime against civilians referred to in Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH

The defendant: Nenad Pejnović (in detention since 10 February 2008)

Defence counsels: Đuro Vučinić and Slađana Čanković, lawyers practising in Zagreb

Victims (killed): Martin Čorak, Mato Čorak, Kata Čorak, Stjepan Čorak, Vladimir Čorak and Slavko Čorak

REPORTS FROM THE TRIAL

On 18 June 2002, workers of "Plitvička jezera" National Park found several human body remains in the woods of Ćurinka - Oštri Vrh. During the on-site investigation and exhumation, conducted upon the order issued by the Investigating Centre of the Gospić County Court, several human body skeletons were found. Identification of dead bodies was performed on 15 November 2002 at the Medical Faculty of the Zagreb University, Department for Forensic Medicine, on which occasion the aforementioned victims were identified.

The Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia transferred the case from the Gospić County Court to Karlovac County Court because of formal reasons. Namely, in war crime cases, a court council must be comprised entirely of professional judges, and since it was not possible to comprise a council of judges who had not previously worked on that case at the Gospić County Court, the trial was transferred to the Karlovac County Court.

VERDICT

On 3 April 2009, the War Crime Council of the Karlovac County Court found the defendant Nenad Pejnović guilty of committing a war crime against civilians and sentenced him to six years in prison.

The defendant Pejnović was found guilty of unlawfully detaining civilians who were, on the next day, taken away by unidentified persons and killed.

The Council found no evidence that the defendant Pejnović participated in the liquidation of civilians.

Pursuant to Article 102, paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (ZKP), detention against the defendant was extended.

The Supreme Court upheld entirely the verdict of the Karlovac County Court War Crimes Council. You can see the verdict here. 

OPINION

On 3 April 2009, the War Crimes Council of the Karlovac County Court found the defendant Nenad Pejnović guilty of a war crime against civilians referred to in Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZRH and sentenced him to 6 years in prison.

Pursuant to Article 102, paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, detention against the defendant was extended (he has been detained since 10 February 2008).

In the Indictment No. K-DO-4/08 of 27 May 2008, the Gospić ŽDO charged the defendant Nenad Pejnović that on 4 October 1991, as a member of the so-called SAO Krajina militia in the village of Vrhovine, hamlet Ćorci, based on the agreement and together with other members of Serb paramilitary formations, firstly, he unlawfully deprived of liberty villagers of Vrhovine of Croat ethnicity (Martin Čorak, Mato Čorak, Kata Čorak, Stjepan Čorak, Vladimir Čorak and Slavko Čorak) and then they took them to the Militia station in Vrhovine and left them to stay there over night. The following day, they took them to the area Ćurinke-Oštri Vršak and killed them - thus, he unlawfully captured and killed civilians and therefore he committed a war crime against civilians.

The defendant Pejnović was found guilty of unlawfully capturing civilians who were taken away and killed the following day by unidentified persons. The Council did not find it established that the defendant participated in liquidation of civilians.

The Supreme Court transferred jurisdiction over this case from the Gospić County Court to the Karlovac County Court because of insufficient number of judges at the Gospić County Court.

Since the jurisdiction over the case was transferred, we are of the opinion that the provisions of the Act on Applying the International Criminal Court Statute and Prosecution for Criminal Act against the International War and Humanitarian Rights Values (OG 175/039) should have been applied and the case should have been transferred to one of the four courts with territorial competence according to that Act.

Although the Council President thoroughly and patiently heard the witnesses during the evidence procedure and although he treated all participants in the trial with respect, we find that several mistakes were made during the trial which could eventually have affect not only on the validity of the conducted trial, but also on the viability of the verdict.

Despite the objections made by the defendant's defence counsel, the witness Snježana Valinčić was heard at the main hearing, although she, in her capacity as the injured party and as the daughter of the murdered Stjepan Čorak, was present during the interrogation of other witnesses in the investigation. Pursuant to Article 198, paragraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Official Gazette 110/97, 27/98, 58/99, 112/99, 58/02, 143/02, 115/06 and 152/08 - hereinafter: the ZKP), the injured person may be present at the interrogation of a witness only when it is likely that the witness shall not appear at the trial.

Moreover, the reminding or cautioning of the witnesses, within the meaning of the provision of Articles 324 and 236 of the ZKP, on several occasions was not properly conducted i.e. it was not presented orally to them at all or the cautioning was not presented clearly enough. Also, when individual witnesses were presenting their statements at the course of hearing, the Council President was frequently interrupting them. ¹

When entering the answers provided by the witnesses in the court records, the Council President did not enter individual answers separately. Instead, he subsequently inserted them into previously given testimony provided by individual witnesses. This can create an erroneous picture which facts the witness remembered and stated himself and which facts he recalled only after being asked about them. Although such dictation method of creating the records is in accordance with the existing legislation, such practice manifests many defects. The main disadvantage is a lack of possibility for a full reconstruction of the trial course necessary for the purposes of the Council, the Supreme Court, the parties and keeping of authentic statements from all participants in the trial. Therefore, we are of the opinion that courts should more frequently exercise the possibilities of audio (and visual) recording of a trial for the purpose of preparing transcripts.

Although it is not our interest to interfere with the institute of free judges' opinion that the court uses when assessing the evidence and establishing the facts, because in its nature it cannot be questioned, we are of the opinion that the first instance court could have confronted the witnesses, as well as interrogated individual witnesses at the main hearing (or at their homes, if it concerns witnesses who cannot appear before the court due to illness), instead of reading their testimonies provided during the investigation procedure. By doing so, the court could have established more precisely the facts which are essential in the trial - which could affect the viability of the verdict when assessed by the second-instance court.

^{1. The provision of Article 239 of the ZKP reads: "After general questions, the witness shall be called upon to state everything known to him about the case, whereupon questions shall be directed to him in order to check, complete or clarify his testimony." Therefore, first of all the witness should be given a possibility to state independently and uninterruptedly everything known to him about the case concerned.↩}

Zločin u Vrhovinama - Izvještaji sa suđenja

Tags: