Sadržaj usmene rasprave Hrvatska v. Srbija u tužbi za genocid (ICJ) od 03.03.2014. do 01.04.2014

8/12/2019 Sadraj usmene rasprave Hrvatska v. Srbija u tubi za genocid (ICJ) od 03.03.2014. do 01.04.2014.

1/17

Poglavlja:

HRVATSKA (prvi krug) str. datum transkripta

UVOD 16 03.03.3014.

1. HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT FOR THEGENOCIDE IN CROATIA: THE DISSOLUTION OF THE SFRY

23

2. HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT FOR THEGENOCIDE IN CROATIA: THE ROLE OF EXTREMISTSERBIAN NATIONALISM

30

3. SERBIAN CONTROL OF THE JNA AND JNA CONTROL OFSERB FORCES IN CROATIA

42

4. THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION 6012

03.03.2014.04.03. jutro

5. EVIDENCE AND ISSUES OF PROOF 30 04.03. jutro

6. INTRODUCTION TO THE APPLICANT'S CASE ON THEFACTS

43

7. GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES IN THE OCCUPIED REGIONS OFCROATIA: EASTERN SLAVONIA, WESTERN SLAVONIA,BANOVINA, DALMATIA, KORDUN AND LIKA

54

8. SERBIAS GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES IN EASTERNSLAVONIA

10 05.03. jutro

9. SERBIAS GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES IN VUKOVAR 28

10. SERBIAS GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES IN KABRNJA ANDSABORSKO

48

11. KILLINGS WITH INTENT TO DESTROY 10 06.03. jutro

12. RAPES, TORTURE, IMPRISONMENT AND DEPORTATIONSWITH INTENT TO DESTROY 20

13. ATTRIBUTION 32

14. LEGAL BASIS FOR RESPONSIBILITY OF THERESPONDENT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE GENOCIDECONVENTION (TO BE CONTINUED)

4913

06.03. jutro07.03.2014.

15. JURISDICTION OVER EVENTS BEFORE 27 APRIL 1992 37 07.03.2014.


2/17

HRVATSKA - odgovor na Srbiju (kraj prvog kruga)

16. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 10 18.03.2014.

17. THE RESPONDENT'S EVOLVING COUNTER-CLAIM:OPERATION STORM

23

18. NO GENOCIDE AGAINST THE SERBS IN THE RSK ANDNO RESPONSIBILITY OF CROATIA

42

19. CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM: A COMPARISON NOGENOCIDE WAS COMMITTED THROUGH OPERATIONSTORM

56

HRVATSKA (drug i krug)

20. THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION AND THE 2007 BOSNIAJUDGMENT

10 20.03.2014.

21. FACTS AND EVIDENCE 28

22 LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY 45

23. JURISDICTION OVER AND ATTRIBUTION OF CONDUCT TOSERBIA (TO BE CONTINUED)

6310

20.03.2014.21.03.2014

24. CLOSING REMARKS AND SUBMISSIONS (vidi i od 01.04.) 33 21.03.2014.

HRVATSKA (odgovor i kraj)

25. SERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM: FACTS AND EVIDENCE 10 01.04.2014.

26. SERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM: THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS 18

27. SERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM: CLOSING REMARKS 35

28. SUBMISSIONS (vidi i od 21.03.) 36

Ispi tivanje svjedoka: transkripti od 04., 05. i 06.04. popodne


3/17

Sadraj:

HRVATSKA (prvi krug) str. datum transkripta

Prof. Vesna Crni-Groti 03.03.2014.

I Introduction 16II Outline of the present hearing 19III Conclusion 22

Ms. Matelko Zgombi:HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXTFOR THE GENOCIDE IN CROATIA: THE DISSOLUTION OF THESFRY 23 03.03.2014.

I Introduction 23II Serbia's repudiation of the SFRY Constitution 24

III Serbia's response to these facts 29IV The rebellion of Serbs supported by Belgrade 29V Conclusion 30

Ms. Law: HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT FOR THEGENOCIDE IN CROATIA: THE ROLE OF EXTREMIST SERBIANNATIONALISM 32 03.03.2014.

I The rise of extreme Serbian nationalism 32

Mr. Crawford: SERBIAN CONTROL OF THE JNA AND JNACONTROL OF SERB FORCES IN CROATIA 42 03.03.2014.

I Introduction 42II The JNA falls under Serbian control 43III The phoney policy of neutrality 48IV The JNA arms, controls and directs Serb forces in Croatia 50V The mismatch with Croatian forces 57

VI Conclusion 58

Mr. Sands: THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION (to be continued) 60 03.03.2014.

I Introduction 60

II The evolution of the Genocide Convention 60a) The Second World War, Rafael Lemkin and the

Nuremburg trials 60b) The negatiating history: 1946-1948 62

III The elements of the crime of genocide 12 04.03.2014.a) General defenition, Article II 12b) The actus reus 12c) Mens rea: specific intent 14d) In whole or in part 17

IV The obligation to prevent and punish 12a) Obligation to prevent 24

b) Obligation to punish 27V Conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity 27


4/17

a) Complicity 27b) Conspiracy 29c) Direct and public incitement 29d) Attempt 29

VI Conclusion: The role of the Court under the Convention 29

Sir Keir Starmer: EVIDENCE AND ISSUES OF PROOF 30 04.03.2014.

I Intraduction 30II Burden and standard of proof 31III The significance of ICTY proceedings 32IV Lack of ICTY indictment for genocide 33

a) Presecutorial discretion 35b) The status of the decision to charge 38c) Distinguishing individual criminal responsibilaty and

State responsibility 40

Ms. Spero: INTRODUCTION TO THE APPLICANT'S CASE ONTHE FACTS 43 04.03.2014.

I Introduction 43II Overvien of the conflict 44III The factual findings of the ICTY establish the Applicant's factual

case 46Milan Marti 47Jovica Stanii and Franko Simatovi 47Mile Mrki, Miroslav Radi and Veselin ljivananin 47Milan Babi 48

a) What the facts establish 50b) Road map of the factual presentations 52IV Conclusion 53

Mr. Sands: GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES IN THE OCCUPIEDREGIONS OF CROATIA: EASTERN SLAVONIA, WESTERNSLAVONIA, BANOVINA, DALMATIA, KORDUN AND LIKA 54 04.03.2014.

I Introduction 54II The Respondents campaign in Croatia 54III The ethnic purpose of the Respondents campaign 56

(a) Demonization, denunciation and ethnic tagging 57(b)Anti-Croat abuse and the ubiquitous Ustasha label 58(c) Military orders to attack and destroy the Croat population 60

IV Destruction of Croat towns and villages 62V Serbias responsibility under the Genocide Convention 66

(a) Genocidal activities of the JNA 66(b) Genocidal crimes by Serb forces operating under the JNAscommand

66

(c) The Respondents support and co-operation 67(d) Serbias failure to prevent genocide 68

VI Conclusion 70

Ispitivanje sv jedoka 04.03. pop.


5/17

Ms. Ni Ghralaigh: SERBIAS GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES INEASTERN SLAVONIA 10 05.03.2014.

I Introduction 10II Eastern Slavonia in 1991 11

III The Serb forces in Eastern Slavonia 12IV Pattern and nature of the attacks under JNA command 13V The three phases of the attacks under JNA command 15

Phase 1: Encirclement, Artillery and Mortar attacks 15Tordinci, Nutar, Bapska, Sotin 16Lovas, Bogdanovci 17

Phase 2: Attack to seize control of village 20Tovarnik 21Lovas 22

Phase 3: Occupation of the village by paramilitaries andother Serb forces

24

VI Conclusion 26

Sir Keir Starmer: SERBIAS GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES INVUKOVAR 28 05.03.2014.

I Introduction 28

Ms. Sersic: SERBIAS GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES IN KABRNJAAND SABORSKO 48 05.03.2014.

I Introduction 48II kabrnja 49

III Saborsko 53IV Croat resistance in the villages 57V Conclusion 58

Ispitivanje svjedoka 05.03. pop.

Mr. Lapas: KILLINGS WITH INTENT TO DESTROY 10 06.03.2014.

Introduction 10I Killing members of the Croat ethnic group 11

II Mass and individual graves 18III Missing persons 20

Ms. Crni Groti:RAPES, TORTURE, IMPRISONMENT ANDDEPORTATIONS WITH INTENT TO DESTROY

20 06.03.2014.I Introduction 20

II Rape and preventing births 21III Torture 24IV Prison camps 26V Deportations and conditions of life calculated to bring about the

physical destruction of the group30

VI Conclusion 31


6/17

Mr. Crawford: ATTRIBUTION 32 06.03.2014.

I Introduction 32II The JNA was a de facto State organ of Serbia 34III Serbia was in statu nascendi before 27 April 1992 39

IV Conduct by other Serb forces in Croatia 44V Conclusion 48

Sir Keir Starmer: LEGAL BASIS FOR RESPONSIBILITY OF THERESPONDENT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE GENOCIDECONVENTION (TO BE CONTINUED) 49 06.03.2014.

Ispitivanje svjedoka 06.03. popodneI Introduction 49

II The significance of ICTY findings 51III The Respondents case stripped back 56

(a) Whether the JNA was a de facto State organ of Serbia 56(b) The role of the JNA in the campaign 57

(c) Whether the JNA exercised direction and control over the Serbforces and paramilitary groups

58

(d) Whether the atrocities were simply the excesses of an otherwiselegitimate armed conflict

58

(e) Conclusion on these aspects of the case 61IV Genocidal intent 62

(a) The way the Applicant puts its case on intent 62(b) The meaning of destroy and in whole or in part 13 07.03.2014.(c) Genocide and ethnic cleansing 15(d) The distinction between motive and intention 18(e) The evidence of intent 19

(i) Context 21(ii) The patterns of behaviour 24(iii) Opportunity 27(iv) Conclusion on context, patterns of behaviour andopportunity

30

(f) The lack of ICTY genocide convictions 32(g) Conclusion on the specific intent for genocide 32

V Failure to prevent genocide 33VI Conspiracy, attempt and complicity 35VII Failure to punish 36

Mr. Crawford: JURISDICTION OVER EVENTS BEFORE 27APRIL 1992 37 07.03.2014.

I Introduction 37II Jurisdiction ratione personae 38III Jurisdiction ratione temporis 41

(1) Obligations generally applicable to a nascent State 41(2) Temporal scope of the substantive provisions of the

Convention44

(3) Temporal scope of the compromissory clause 47(4) Does it nonetheless matter when Serbia was formally

proclaimed?48

IV The date of Croatias independence is irrelevant 52V Conclusion 53


7/17

SRBIJA (prvi krug)

Mr. Obradovi 10.03.2014.

Introduction 10Historical significance of the case at hand 10The Applicants claim 13The counter-claim 15The Serbian legal team 17The schedule of presentation 17

Mr. Schabas: INTERPRETATION OF THE GENOCIDECONVENTION IN LIGHT OF THE 2007 JUDGMENT OF THEINTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE BOSNIA CASE

AND SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS 18 10.03.2014.

European Court of Human Rights 26International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda 28International Criminal Court 33International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia 41Concluding observations 50

Mr. Obradovi: THE ISSUE OF EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THEAPPLICANT 54 10.03.2014.

I Introduction 54II The Applicants odd approach to the method of proof 55

2.1. Documents prepared by a party especially for the case oughtto be treated with caution 562.2. The lack of information about the circumstances under whichdocuments have been generated 562.3. Hearsay is not conclusive evidence 572.4. The testimony of State officials in favour of their Governmentscannot be taken as reliable 572.5. Who can be an expert witness before the Court? 58

III The lack of signatures on the originals of affidavits produced byCroatia 59

IV Documents prepared by the Croatian police 61V Conclusion 62

Answer to the question posed by Judge Bhandari 63A general view to the applicant's factual allegations 64

Mr. Zimmermann 11.03.2013.

I Introduction 10II STRUCTURE AND CHARACTER OF SERBIAS RATIONE

TEMPORIS OBJECTION12

III BASIC JURISDICTIONAL PARAMETERS 13A) Croatias status as a party of the Genocide Convention 13

B) Serbias status as a party of the Genocide Convention 14C) Extent of the Courts jurisdiction ratione materiae 15


8/17

D) Temporal scope of obligations under the Genocide Convention 18IV ISSUES OF STATE SUCCESSION 20

Mr. Tams 11.03.2014.

A Introduction 22B RETROACTIVITY 23I. Croatias argument as based on the retroactive application of theGenocide Convention

25

II. The Genocide Convention as such does not apply retroactively 27III. Article IX of the Convention does not extend the Conventionstemporal scope of application to events predating 27 April 1992

35

C RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT PRE-DATING 27 APRIL 1992CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO SERBIA

39

I. The content of Article 10 (2) ILC Articles did not, as of 1992,represent customary international law

41

II. The conditions for the application of Article 10 (2) of the ILC

Articles are not fulfilled

45

D CONCLUDING COMMENTS 49

Mr. Zimmermann 49 11.03.2014.

I ART. 10 (2) OF THE ILC ARTICLES ON STATE RESPONSIBILITYCANNOT PROVIDE FOR SERBIAS RESPONSIBILITY FORVIOLATIONS OF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION NOR CAN ITENDOW THE COURT WITH JURISDICTION AS TO ACTS PRE-DATING APRIL 27, 1992 UNDER ART. IX OF THE GENOCIDECONVENTION 49

(1)Introduction 49(2) Art. 10 (2) of the ILC Articles State Responsibility cannotprovide for Serbias responsibility for violations of the GenocideConvention allegedly committed prior to 27 April 1992 50(3) Article 10 (2) of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility cannotendow the Court with jurisdiction as to acts pre-dating 27 April 271992 under Article IX Genocide Convention 57

II THE 27 APRIL 1992 DECLARATION CANNOT EFFECT ATRANSFER OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY FROM THE SFRY TOTHE FRY/SERBIA 60

III ALLEGED CONTINUOUS VIOLATIONS UNDER THEGENOCIDE CONVENTION 64

IV CROATIAS LACK OF STANDING CONCERNING ACTS PRE-DATING 8 OCTOBER 1991 65

V THE SO-CALLED TIME GAP ARGUMENT 67VI CONCLUSION 68

Mr. Schabas odgovori na nae optube 12.03. jutro

RESPONSE TO THE CLAIM OF THE APPLICANT ALLEGINGTHE COMMISSION OF GENOCIDE

10

NATURE OF THE DESTRUCTION AND MEANING OF THEWORDS WITH INTENT TO DESTROY IN THE DEFINITION OF

GENOCIDE IN THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION

13

No evidence of a plan or policy to commit genocide or othermanifestations of genocidal intent

16


9/17

No evidence of a pattern of events on the basis of which genocidalintent could be inferred 17ICTY materials 18The Marti case 23Alleged inference of genocidal intent 26

Allegations concerning Eastern Slavonia and other regions47 28Alleged incitement and hate speech54 29Failure to punish? 30Concluding remarks 30

Mr. Luki 12.03. jutro

THE QUESTION OF THE STATE RESPONSIBILITY 33

1. The alleged control of the Respondent over the JNA 33Introduction 33Attribution on the basis of Customary international Law 34

The JNA was not an organ of the Respondent 38The JNA did not act on the instructions of, under the direction orcontrol of the Respondent

43

Role of the JNA in the commission of the alleged crimes accordingto ICTY findings

44

Conclusions advanced by the Respondent in the light of the ICTYfindings

49

Conclusion 50

Mr. Ignjatovi 50 12.03. jutro

THE QUESTION OF THE STATE RESPONSIBILITY 502. Alleged Responsibility for Other Participants in the Conflict 502.1. Alleged control exercised by the JNA 53Relationship between the JNA and Croatian Serb forces 53

Alleged control of the JNA over the paramilitary units 10 12.03.2014.popodne

2.2. The Status of the Territorial Defence of Serbia 162.3. Alleged control of the Respondent over the forces of CroatianSerbs and the paramilitaries

17

Alleged control before 27 April 1992 17Alleged control of the Respondent over the RSK and its armedforces after 27 April 1992

21

Conclusion 213. Alleged violation of the obligation to prevent and punish thecrime of genocide

21

3.1. Obligation to prevent 213.2. Obligation to punish 22Co-operation with the ICTY 22Domestic War Crimes Trials 24

Mr. Obradovi 12.03. pop.

THE APPLICANTS ARGUMENTS ON SERBIAN EXPANSIONISM 24

1. Introduction 242. The idea of a Greater Serbia did not include the genocidal intent 26


10/17

3. No evidence that the Serbian leadership accepted eeljspolitical program

27

4. The Applicant equates the idea of Greater Serbia withYugoslavia

28

5. The borders issue 316. Was there an idea of a Greater Croatia? 33

THE COUNTER-CLAIM 34

Evidence produced by the Respondent 36Brioni Minutes 36The ICTY testimonies in Gotovina 37Declarations and affidavits produced by the Respondent 38The CHC Report 39The Veritas report and list of victims of Operation Storm 40

Mr. Jordash 12.03. pop.

OVERVIEW OF TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES CALLED BYTHE RESPONDENT 42Testimony of Captain Hill; 27 May 2008: Gotovina et al. 43Testimony of General Leslie; 22 & 23 April 2008: Gotovina et al. 47Bozo Susa: Witness Statement of 23 May 2012 51Mile Sovilj: Witness Statement of 20 March 2013 55

Mr. Luki 12.03. pop.

OVERVIEW OF TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES CALLED BY

THE RESPONDENT PART II

58

Testimony of Jela Ugarkovi 58Testimony of Ilija Babi 59Testimony of Mirko Mrkobrad 61Testimony of expert witness Savo trbac 62Conclusion 65

Mr. Obradovi

OPERATION STORM: FACTS AND EVIDENCE 10 13.03.2014.

1. Factual background of Operation Storm 101.1. Significance of the historical and political events 101.2. Massive crimes against Serbs in Croatia, 1991-1995 111.3. Context of National, Ethnic and Religious Hatred 16

2. Transcript of the Brioni Meeting as Evidence of Intent to Destroythe Group of Krajina Serbs as such

18

3. Geneva Negotiations 254. Military Aspects of Operation Storm 265. Shelling 296. Attacks on refugee columns 337. Mass killing of Serbs who remained in Krajina 378. Overall data about victims killed during and after Operation Storm 46

9. Facts about killing confirm the intent to destroy the group of KrajinaSerbs as such

49


11/17

10. Causing serious bodily and mental harm to members of the groupof Krajina Serbs

50

11. Conditions of life inflicted to the Serbs who remained in Krajina 5212. Statements that expressed mens rea of the crime of genocide 5313. Imposing legal barriers to the return of the Serb refugees 56

14. Krajina Serbs as a substantial part of the Serb national and ethnicgroup in Croatia 5715. Rebuttal to the counter-allegations 58

15.1. Alleged murders committed by the Bosnian Serbs army 5815.2. Objection concerning the killing committed by the army ofBosnia-Herzegovina

59

15.3. Objection concerning the killing committed on the territory ofBosnia-Herzegovina

60

15.4. The issue of evacuation 62

Mr. Jordash 14.03.2014.

OPERATION STORM 10Legal basis for responsibility of the Applicant for violations of theGenocide Convention

10

The Respondents case in summary 10How the Respondent puts its case 11Phase One: the genocidal plan 12Phase Two: the execution of the plan (between 4 and 8 August) 13Phase Three: The attacks on those that remained 15Phase One: The genocidal plan 15The Croatian political and military leaderships mindset at the timeof the Brioni planning meeting

17

The Maslenica Attack: 22 January 1993 21The Medak Pocket: 9 September 1993 22Operation Flash: 1 May 1995 23The inextricable link between the displacement planned anddestruction: the automatic consequence

25

Conclusion: Phase One 27Reasons: Motive and Intent 27Significance of the Gotovina et al. Appeal Judgment 28Phase Two: The execution of the plan 30Phase Three: the attacks on those that remained 34Concluding Remarks 38Article III of the Genocide Convention 39Article IV: failure to punish Genocide 39

Mr. Schabas O hrvatskim argumentima vezanim za srpskuprotutubu 14.03.2014.

REBUTTAL TO CROATIAS ARGUMENTS CONCERNINGSERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM

41

The Gotovina Judgements 43Authority of the Appeals Chamber 44The crime against humanity of persecution 47The 200-metre issue 50

Brioni 54Krajina Serbs as an ethnic group 60


12/17

Reasons for military intervention in the Krajina and the goals ofOperation Storm

61

Conclusion 67

Mr. Obradovi 14.03.2014.

Conclusion 68

Hrvatski odgovor na srpske argumente (kraj prvog kruga) .

Ms. Crni-Groti:INTRODUCTION AND FACTUALBACKGROUND 10 18.03.2014

I General observations 10II Gotovina Trial Chamber findings 12III Appeal Chamber findings 14IV Issues of proof and evidence 18

(1) Factual background: the reasons for Operation Storm 19(a) Plans for the creation of Greater Serbia started well beforePresident Tuman was elected

19

(b) Serbian refusal of peaceful settlement 20(c) Operation Flash 21

V V. Conclusion 23

Mr. Singh: THE RESPONDENTS EVOLVING COUNTER-CLAIM:OPERATION STORM 18.03.2014.

I Events preceding Operation Storm 24

II Planning and preparation for Operation Storm 25III Conduct of Operation Storm 26(1) Shelling during Operation Storm 26(2) The departure of the Serbs 28(3) Response to claims about the victims of Storm 30

(a) Croatia did not target fleeing Serb civilians 31(b) The Serbs that remained were not systematically killed 34

(4) Response to Allegations of Looting and Destruction of SerbProperty

39

(5) The Serbs were not Targeted after Operation Storm 39IV Conclusion 41

Sir Keir Starmer: NO GENOCIDE AGAINST THE SERBS IN THE RSK AND NO RESPONSIBILITY OF CROATIA 42 18.03.2014.

I Introduction 42II The Gotovina case 42III The Brioni Minutes: no genocidal intent 51

Mr. Sands: CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM: A COMPARISONNO GENOCIDE WAS COMMITTED THROUGH OPERATIONSTORM 56 18.03.2014.

I Introduction 56II Substantial areas of difference 57


13/17

1. The temporal scope 572. The geographic scope 583. Purpose of the armed campaigns 594. The identity of the protagonists 595. Existence of a systematic pattern of attack 60

6. Instances of ethnically motivated killing, serious violence anddestruction 617. Evidence and materials 628. ICTY findings 639. Intent to destroy 64

III Conclusion 66

HRVATSKA (drugi krug)

Mr. Sands: THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION AND THE 2007BOSNIA JUDGMENT 10 20.03.2014.

I Introduction 10II The 1948 Convention 11III The Courts 2007 Judgment 17IV The Tolimir case 25V Conclusions 27

Ms. Ni Ghralaigh: FACTS AND EVIDENCE 28 20.03.2014.

Introduction 28I Evidential Challenges Mounted by the Respondent 29

A. Witness Statements 29

B. Hearsay 33C. Numbers of Victims 33(1) The Respondents challenge to the numbers of victims

asserted by Croatia33

(2) Numbers of missing people 34D. The Respondents challenges to Croatias expert witnesses 35

II The Respondents challenges to the JNAs role in Croatia 37A. Serbianization of the JNA 37B. Full command and control by the JNA over military operations

in Croatia38

(1) Flimsy evidence challenge 40(2) Factual enquiry limited to Ovara 41

III Conclusion 43

Sir Keir Starmer: LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY 45 20.03.2014.

I Introduction 45II Pattern 47III Opportunity 51IV Genocide against defenders 56V Failure to prevent 58

VI Conclusion 62

Mr. Crawford: JURISDICTION OVER AND ATTRIBUTION OFCONDUCT TO SERBIA (TO BE CONTINUED) 63 20.03.2014.


14/17

I Introduction 63

II Jurisdiction over events before 27 April 1992 65(1) The substantive application of the Genocide Convention 10 21.03.2014.(2) The application of Article IX of the Genocide Convention 12

(3) Succession to responsibility 20III Jurisdiction over events after 27 April 1992, including continuingbreaches 22

IV The statu nascendi principle 24V Other elements of the attribution of conduct to Serbia 28

VI Conclusion 32

Ms Crni-Groti 21.03.2014.

Odgovovor na pitanje suca vezan uz nepotpisane izjave/dokaze 33CLOSING REMARKS 34SUBMISSIONS (vidi submissions i od 01.04.2014.) 39

SRBIJA (drugi krug)

Mr. Obradovi: INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND ROUND OFORAL ARGUMENTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA 10 27.03.2014.

Schedule of presentation 10Reconciliation based on historical facts 11Issue of evidence in light of the question posed by JudgeGreenwood 13Allegation that Serbs killed the Serbs 15

Mr. Zimmerman(PART 1) 27.03.2014.

I Introduction 16II Croatias disregard for its own behaviour 19III Position taken by third States and the Court 21IV No gap in protection 22V The 27 April 1992 declaration 24

VI Succession to responsibility 26

Mr. Tams 27.03.2014.

Introduction 28RETROACTIVITY OF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION AND ITSARTICLE IX

28

The temporal scope of the Convention 28The temporal scope of Article IX 35CROATIAS ARGUMENTS RELATING TO ARTICLE 10 (2) ILCARTICLES

35

Issues clarified during the first round of oral argument 35Attribution of conduct allegedly directed or controlled by themovement

36

Article 10 (2) as a rule of attribution, not of responsibility 38

Mr. Zimmermann(PART 2) 27.03.2014.


15/17

I Obligation to punish genocide 40

II Obligation to prevent genocide 41III Croatias lack of standing as to events prior to 8 October 1991 42IV Concluding remarks 44

Mr. Jordash: RESPONSE TO THE APPLICANTS CLAIM INLIGHT OF THE ICTY JUDGMENTS 47 27.03.2014.

Introduction 47The Applicants proposed methodology: ICTY and non-ICTYevidence

48

ICTY jurisprudence 49The ICTY JCE judgements are inconsistent with legitimate armedconflict?

50

Marti 56Mrki 67

Conclusion: the Applicants robust platform 73Proposition one 73Proposition two 73Proposition three 73

Mr. Jordash(odgovor na hrvatske teze) 10 28.03. jutro

INTRODUCTION (Hrvatski pattern of purposeful action) 10I Context

a) The Applicants claim that the Croat population was unarmedand the helpless victims of the Serbian military 13

b) The claim that the Croat forces were not responsible for a myriadof similar crimes 17

Conclusion on context 17II Patterns of behaviour 20

Vukovar 24III Opportunity 28

CONCLUDING REMARKS 34

Mr. Schabas: RESPONSE TO THE APPLICANTS SECOND ROUND OFORAL PLEADINGS ALLEGING THE COMMISSION OF GENOCIDE 39 28.03. jutro

Introduction 39I The actus reus and the interpretation of Article 2 of the Genocide

Convention40

II The issue of missing persons 43III Standard of proof 45IV The Tolimir case 52

Conclusions 55

Mr. Luki: SERBIA CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTS OF THEJNA

5628.03. jutro

Introduction 56

I The Applicant has not shown that the JNA was a de facto organ ofthe Respondent

56


16/17

II The Applicant has not shown that the JNA was under direction andcontrol of the Respondent 60Conclusion 63

Mr. Ignjatovi:

THE QUESTION OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY IN LIGHTOF THE ACTS OF DIFFERENT PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONFLICT 64 28.03. jutro

I The ICTY indirect findings and their probative value in theseproceedings 64

II The Criteria set in Article 8 of the ILC Articles was not met theactions of other participants to the conflict cannot be attributed tothe Respondent 66

III Genocide case as presented by the Applicant example of theSerbian Volunteer Guard (SDG) 68

Mr. Schabas: REBUTTAL TO THE ORAL PLEADINGS OF CROATIA IN

RESPONSE TO SERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM 10 28.03. pop.

Introduction 10The planner of Operation Storm 10Jus ad bellum andjus in bello 14The ICTY Gotovina decisions (answer to the question posed byJudge Bhandari) 17The Applicants observations concerning the status of the ICTYAppeals Chamber 20The Brioni transcript 21Immediate context preceding Operation Storm 24

Targeting of refugee convoys 25Killing of those who stayed behind 27Other incriminating acts 29The issue of the returnees 30Evidentiary issues 31Impunity and Croatian trials 34Conclusions 36

Mr. Jordash: OPERATION STORM A GENOCIDAL CAMPAIGN INLIGHT OF THE APPLICANTS COMPARISON 39 28.03. pop.

Abandoning the law 41Camouflaging the facts 42Temporal framework 44Geographic scope 47Purpose of the armed campaigns 49The identity of the protagonists 50Evidence of a systematic pattern of attack 51Instances of ethnically motivated killing, serious violence anddestruction

53

Evidence and materials 54ICTY FINDINGS 55Intent to destroy 56

Mr. Obradovi: 58 28.03. pop.


17/17

CLOSING REMARKS 58SUBMISSIONS 62

HRVATSKA odgovor na drugi krug (kraj) 01.04.2014.

Sir Keir Starmer: SERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM: FACTS AND EVIDENCE 10 01.04.2014.

I Introduction 10II Shelling did not target civilians 10III No targeting of civilians in columns 14IV No genocidal campaign in the aftermath 15V Conclusion 18

Mr. Sands: SERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM: THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS 18 01.04.2014.

I Introduction 18II Missing persons 22III The 2007 Judgment and paragraph 373 23

Ms Crni-Groti: SERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM: CLOSING REMARKS 29 01.04.2014.

I Background to Operation Storm 31II The Gotovina Trial Chamber findings 34III President Tudjman 35

IV SUBMISSIONS (vidi submissions i od 21.03.2014.) 36 01.04.2014.