Poglavlja:

HRVATSKA (prvi krug) UVOD 1. HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT FOR THE GENOCIDE IN CROATIA: THE DISSOLUTION OF THE SFRY 2. HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT FOR THE GENOCIDE IN CROATIA: THE ROLE OF EXTREMIST SERBIAN NATIONALISM 3. SERBIAN CONTROL OF THE JNA AND JNA CONTROL OF SERB FORCES IN CROATIA 4. THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION 5. EVIDENCE AND ISSUES OF PROOF 6. INTRODUCTION TO THE APPLICANT'S CASE ON THE FACTS 7. GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES IN THE OCCUPIED REGIONS OF CROATIA: EASTERN SLAVONIA, WESTERN SLAVONIA, BANOVINA, DALMATIA, KORDUN AND LIKA 8. SERBIAS GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES IN EASTERN SLAVONIA 9. SERBIAS GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES IN VUKOVAR 10. SERBIAS GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES IN KABRNJA AND SABORSKO 11. KILLINGS WITH INTENT TO DESTROY 12. RAPES, TORTURE, IMPRISONMENT AND DEPORTATIONS WITH INTENT TO DESTROY 13. ATTRIBUTION 14. LEGAL BASIS FOR RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RESPONDENT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION (TO BE CONTINUED) 15. JURISDICTION OVER EVENTS BEFORE 27 APRIL 1992
str. datum transkripta

16 23 30

03.03.3014.

42 60 12 30 43 54 03.03.2014. 04.03. jutro 04.03. jutro

10 28 48 10 20 32 49 13 37

05.03. jutro

06.03. jutro

06.03. jutro 07.03.2014. 07.03.2014.

HRVATSKA - odgovor na Srbiju (kraj prvog kruga) 16. INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 17. THE RESPONDENT'S EVOLVING COUNTER-CLAIM: OPERATION STORM 18. NO GENOCIDE AGAINST THE SERBS IN THE RSK AND NO RESPONSIBILITY OF CROATIA 19. CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM: A COMPARISON NO GENOCIDE WAS COMMITTED THROUGH OPERATION STORM HRVATSKA (drugi krug) 20. THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION AND THE 2007 BOSNIA JUDGMENT 21. FACTS AND EVIDENCE 22 LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY 10 28 45 20.03.2014. 21.03.2014 21.03.2014. 20.03.2014. 10 23 42 56 18.03.2014.

23. JURISDICTION OVER AND ATTRIBUTION OF CONDUCT TO 63 SERBIA (TO BE CONTINUED) 10 24. CLOSING REMARKS AND SUBMISSIONS (vidi i od 01.04.) HRVATSKA (odgovor i kraj) 25. SERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM: FACTS AND EVIDENCE 26. SERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM: THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS 27. SERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM: CLOSING REMARKS 28. SUBMISSIONS (vidi i od 21.03.) Ispitivanje svjedoka: transkripti od 04., 05. i 06.04. popodne 10 18 35 36 33

01.04.2014.

Sadraj:
HRVATSKA (prvi krug) Prof. Vesna Crni-Groti I Introduction II Outline of the present hearing III Conclusion Ms. Matelko Zgombi: HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT FOR THE GENOCIDE IN CROATIA: THE DISSOLUTION OF THE SFRY I II III IV V Introduction Serbia's repudiation of the SFRY Constitution Serbia's response to these facts The rebellion of Serbs supported by Belgrade Conclusion Ms. Law: HISTORICAL AND POLITICAL CONTEXT FOR THE GENOCIDE IN CROATIA: THE ROLE OF EXTREMIST SERBIAN NATIONALISM I The rise of extreme Serbian nationalism Mr. Crawford: SERBIAN CONTROL OF THE JNA AND JNA CONTROL OF SERB FORCES IN CROATIA I II III IV V VI Introduction The JNA falls under Serbian control The phoney policy of neutrality The JNA arms, controls and directs Serb forces in Croatia The mismatch with Croatian forces Conclusion Mr. Sands: THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION (to be continued) I Introduction II The evolution of the Genocide Convention a) The Second World War, Rafael Lemkin and the Nuremburg trials b) The negatiating history: 1946-1948 III The elements of the crime of genocide a) General defenition, Article II b) The actus reus c) Mens rea: specific intent d) In whole or in part IV The obligation to prevent and punish a) Obligation to prevent b) Obligation to punish V Conspiracy, incitement, attempt and complicity 16 19 22
str. datum transkripta

03.03.2014.

23 23 24 29 29 30

03.03.2014.

32 32

03.03.2014.

42 42 43 48 50 57 58 60 60 60 60 62 12 12 12 14 17 12 24 27 27

03.03.2014.

03.03.2014.

04.03.2014.

a) Complicity b) Conspiracy c) Direct and public incitement d) Attempt VI Conclusion: The role of the Court under the Convention Sir Keir Starmer: EVIDENCE AND ISSUES OF PROOF I II III IV Intraduction Burden and standard of proof The significance of ICTY proceedings Lack of ICTY indictment for genocide a) Presecutorial discretion b) The status of the decision to charge c) Distinguishing individual criminal responsibilaty and State responsibility Ms. Spero: INTRODUCTION TO THE APPLICANT'S CASE ON THE FACTS I Introduction II Overvien of the conflict III The factual findings of the ICTY establish the Applicant's factual case Milan Marti Jovica Stanii and Franko Simatovi Mile Mrki, Miroslav Radi and Veselin ljivananin Milan Babi a) What the facts establish b) Road map of the factual presentations IV Conclusion Mr. Sands: GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES IN THE OCCUPIED REGIONS OF CROATIA: EASTERN SLAVONIA, WESTERN SLAVONIA, BANOVINA, DALMATIA, KORDUN AND LIKA

27 29 29 29 29 30 30 31 32 33 35 38 40 04.03.2014.

43 43 44 46 47 47 47 48 50 52 53

04.03.2014.

54

04.03.2014.

I Introduction 54 II The Respondents campaign in Croatia 54 III 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 62 V Serbias responsibility under the Genocide Convention 66 (a) Genocidal activities of the JNA 66 (b) Genocidal crimes by Serb forces operating under the JNAs 66 command (c) The Respondents support and co-operation 67 (d) Serbias failure to prevent genocide 68 VI Conclusion 70 Ispitivanje svjedoka 04.03. pop.

Ms. Ni Ghralaigh: SERBIAS GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES IN EASTERN SLAVONIA I II III IV V Introduction Eastern Slavonia in 1991 The Serb forces in Eastern Slavonia Pattern and nature of the attacks under JNA command The three phases of the attacks under JNA command Phase 1: Encirclement, Artillery and Mortar attacks Tordinci, Nutar, Bapska, Sotin Lovas, Bogdanovci Phase 2: Attack to seize control of village Tovarnik Lovas Phase 3: Occupation of the village by paramilitaries and other Serb forces VI Conclusion Sir Keir Starmer: SERBIAS GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES IN VUKOVAR I Introduction Ms. Sersic: SERBIAS GENOCIDAL ACTIVITIES IN KABRNJA AND SABORSKO I II III IV V Introduction kabrnja Saborsko Croat resistance in the villages Conclusion Ispitivanje svjedoka Mr. Lapas: KILLINGS WITH INTENT TO DESTROY Introduction I Killing members of the Croat ethnic group II Mass and individual graves III Missing persons Ms. Crni Groti: RAPES, TORTURE, IMPRISONMENT AND DEPORTATIONS WITH INTENT TO DESTROY I II III IV V VI

10 10 11 12 13 15 15 16 17 20 21 22 24 26

05.03.2014.

28 28

05.03.2014.

48 48 49 53 57 58

05.03.2014.

05.03. pop. 10 10 11 18 20 06.03.2014.

20 Introduction 20 Rape and preventing births 21 Torture 24 Prison camps 26 Deportations and conditions of life calculated to bring about the 30 physical destruction of the group Conclusion 31

06.03.2014.

Mr. Crawford: ATTRIBUTION I II III IV V Introduction The JNA was a de facto State organ of Serbia Serbia was in statu nascendi before 27 April 1992 Conduct by other Serb forces in Croatia Conclusion Sir Keir Starmer: LEGAL BASIS FOR RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RESPONDENT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION (TO BE CONTINUED) Ispitivanje svjedoka 06.03. popodne Introduction The significance of ICTY findings The Respondents case stripped back (a) Whether the JNA was a de facto State organ of Serbia (b) The role of the JNA in the campaign (c) Whether the JNA exercised direction and control over the Serb forces and paramilitary groups (d) Whether the atrocities were simply the excesses of an otherwise legitimate armed conflict (e) Conclusion on these aspects of the case Genocidal intent (a) The way the Applicant puts its case on intent (b) The meaning of destroy and in whole or in part (c) Genocide and ethnic cleansing (d) The distinction between motive and intention (e) The evidence of intent (i) Context (ii) The patterns of behaviour (iii) Opportunity (iv) Conclusion on context, patterns of behaviour and opportunity (f) The lack of ICTY genocide convictions (g) Conclusion on the specific intent for genocide Failure to prevent genocide Conspiracy, attempt and complicity Failure to punish Mr. Crawford: JURISDICTION OVER EVENTS BEFORE 27 APRIL 1992 I Introduction II Jurisdiction ratione personae III Jurisdiction ratione temporis (1) Obligations generally applicable to a nascent State (2) Temporal scope of the substantive provisions of the Convention (3) Temporal scope of the compromissory clause (4) Does it nonetheless matter when Serbia was formally proclaimed? IV The date of Croatias independence is irrelevant V Conclusion

32 32 34 39 44 48

06.03.2014.

49 49 51 56 56 57 58 58 61 62 62 13 15 18 19 21 24 27 30 32 32 33 35 36

06.03.2014.

I II III

IV

07.03.2014.

V VI VII

37 37 38 41 41 44 47 48 52 53

07.03.2014.

SRBIJA (prvi krug) Mr. Obradovi Introduction Historical significance of the case at hand The Applicants claim The counter-claim The Serbian legal team The schedule of presentation Mr. Schabas: INTERPRETATION OF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION IN LIGHT OF THE 2007 JUDGMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE BOSNIA CASE AND SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS European Court of Human Rights International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda International Criminal Court International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Concluding observations Mr. Obradovi: THE ISSUE OF EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPLICANT I Introduction II The Applicants odd approach to the method of proof 2.1. Documents prepared by a party especially for the case ought to be treated with caution 2.2. The lack of information about the circumstances under which documents have been generated 2.3. Hearsay is not conclusive evidence 2.4. The testimony of State officials in favour of their Governments cannot be taken as reliable 2.5. Who can be an expert witness before the Court? III The lack of signatures on the originals of affidavits produced by Croatia IV Documents prepared by the Croatian police V Conclusion Answer to the question posed by Judge Bhandari A general view to the applicant's factual allegations Mr. Zimmermann I Introduction II STRUCTURE AND CHARACTER OF SERBIAS RATIONE TEMPORIS OBJECTION III BASIC JURISDICTIONAL PARAMETERS A) Croatias status as a party of the Genocide Convention B) Serbias status as a party of the Genocide Convention C) Extent of the Courts jurisdiction ratione materiae 10 12 13 13 14 15 10 10 13 15 17 17 10.03.2014.

18 26 28 33 41 50

10.03.2014.

54 54 55 56 56 57 57 58 59 61 62 63 64

10.03.2014.

11.03.2013.

D) Temporal scope of obligations under the Genocide Convention IV ISSUES OF STATE SUCCESSION Mr. Tams A Introduction B RETROACTIVITY I. Croatias argument as based on the retroactive application of the Genocide Convention II. The Genocide Convention as such does not apply retroactively III. Article IX of the Convention does not extend the Conventions temporal scope of application to events predating 27 April 1992 C RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT PRE-DATING 27 APRIL 1992 CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO SERBIA I. The content of Article 10 (2) ILC Articles did not, as of 1992, represent customary international law II. The conditions for the application of Article 10 (2) of the ILC Articles are not fulfilled D CONCLUDING COMMENTS Mr. Zimmermann I ART. 10 (2) OF THE ILC ARTICLES ON STATE RESPONSIBILITY CANNOT PROVIDE FOR SERBIAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION NOR CAN IT ENDOW THE COURT WITH JURISDICTION AS TO ACTS PREDATING APRIL 27, 1992 UNDER ART. IX OF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION (1)Introduction (2) Art. 10 (2) of the ILC Articles State Responsibility cannot provide for Serbias responsibility for violations of the Genocide Convention allegedly committed prior to 27 April 1992 (3) Article 10 (2) of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility cannot endow the Court with jurisdiction as to acts pre-dating 27 April 27 1992 under Article IX Genocide Convention II THE 27 APRIL 1992 DECLARATION CANNOT EFFECT A TRANSFER OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY FROM THE SFRY TO THE FRY/SERBIA III ALLEGED CONTINUOUS VIOLATIONS UNDER THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION IV CROATIAS LACK OF STANDING CONCERNING ACTS PREDATING 8 OCTOBER 1991 V THE SO-CALLED TIME GAP ARGUMENT VI CONCLUSION Mr. Schabas odgovori na nae optube

18 20 11.03.2014. 22 23 25 27 35 39 41 45 49 49 11.03.2014.

49 49

50

57 60 64 65 67 68 12.03. jutro 10 13 16

RESPONSE TO THE CLAIM OF THE APPLICANT ALLEGING THE COMMISSION OF GENOCIDE NATURE OF THE DESTRUCTION AND MEANING OF THE WORDS WITH INTENT TO DESTROY IN THE DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE IN THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION No evidence of a plan or policy to commit genocide or other manifestations of genocidal intent

No evidence of a pattern of events on the basis of which genocidal intent could be inferred ICTY materials The Marti case Alleged inference of genocidal intent Allegations concerning Eastern Slavonia and other regions47 Alleged incitement and hate speech54 Failure to punish? Concluding remarks Mr. Luki THE QUESTION OF THE STATE RESPONSIBILITY 1. The alleged control of the Respondent over the JNA Introduction Attribution on the basis of Customary international Law The JNA was not an organ of the Respondent The JNA did not act on the instructions of, under the direction or control of the Respondent Role of the JNA in the commission of the alleged crimes according to ICTY findings Conclusions advanced by the Respondent in the light of the ICTY findings Conclusion Mr. Ignjatovi THE QUESTION OF THE STATE RESPONSIBILITY 2. Alleged Responsibility for Other Participants in the Conflict 2.1. Alleged control exercised by the JNA Relationship between the JNA and Croatian Serb forces Alleged control of the JNA over the paramilitary units 2.2. The Status of the Territorial Defence of Serbia 2.3. Alleged control of the Respondent over the forces of Croatian Serbs and the paramilitaries Alleged control before 27 April 1992 Alleged control of the Respondent over the RSK and its armed forces after 27 April 1992 Conclusion 3. Alleged violation of the obligation to prevent and punish the crime of genocide 3.1. Obligation to prevent 3.2. Obligation to punish Co-operation with the ICTY Domestic War Crimes Trials Mr. Obradovi THE APPLICANTS ARGUMENTS ON SERBIAN EXPANSIONISM 1. Introduction 2. The idea of a Greater Serbia did not include the genocidal intent

17 18 23 26 28 29 30 30 12.03. jutro 33 33 33 34 38 43 44 49 50 50 50 50 53 53 10 16 17 17 21 21 21 21 22 22 24 12.03. pop. 24 24 26 12.03. jutro

12.03.2014. popodne

3. No evidence that the Serbian leadership accepted eeljs political program 4. The Applicant equates the idea of Greater Serbia with Yugoslavia 5. The borders issue 6. Was there an idea of a Greater Croatia? THE COUNTER-CLAIM Evidence produced by the Respondent Brioni Minutes The ICTY testimonies in Gotovina Declarations and affidavits produced by the Respondent The CHC Report The Veritas report and list of victims of Operation Storm Mr. Jordash

27 28 31 33 34 36 36 37 38 39 40 12.03. pop.

OVERVIEW OF TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES CALLED BY THE RESPONDENT 42 Testimony of Captain Hill; 27 May 2008: Gotovina et al. 43 Testimony of General Leslie; 22 & 23 April 2008: Gotovina et al. 47 Bozo Susa: Witness Statement of 23 May 2012 51 Mile Sovilj: Witness Statement of 20 March 2013 55 Mr. Luki OVERVIEW OF TESTIMONIES OF WITNESSES CALLED BY 58 THE RESPONDENT PART II Testimony of Jela Ugarkovi 58 Testimony of Ilija Babi 59 Testimony of Mirko Mrkobrad 61 Testimony of expert witness Savo trbac 62 Conclusion 65 Mr. Obradovi OPERATION STORM: FACTS AND EVIDENCE 1. Factual background of Operation Storm 1.1. Significance of the historical and political events 1.2. Massive crimes against Serbs in Croatia, 1991-1995 1.3. Context of National, Ethnic and Religious Hatred 2. Transcript of the Brioni Meeting as Evidence of Intent to Destroy the Group of Krajina Serbs as such 3. Geneva Negotiations 4. Military Aspects of Operation Storm 5. Shelling 6. Attacks on refugee columns 7. Mass killing of Serbs who remained in Krajina 8. Overall data about victims killed during and after Operation Storm 9. Facts about killing confirm the intent to destroy the group of Krajina Serbs as such 10 10 10 11 16 18 25 26 29 33 37 46 49 13.03.2014. 12.03. pop.

10. Causing serious bodily and mental harm to members of the group of Krajina Serbs 11. Conditions of life inflicted to the Serbs who remained in Krajina 12. Statements that expressed mens rea of the crime of genocide 13. Imposing legal barriers to the return of the Serb refugees 14. Krajina Serbs as a substantial part of the Serb national and ethnic group in Croatia 15. Rebuttal to the counter-allegations 15.1. Alleged murders committed by the Bosnian Serbs army 15.2. Objection concerning the killing committed by the army of Bosnia-Herzegovina 15.3. Objection concerning the killing committed on the territory of Bosnia-Herzegovina 15.4. The issue of evacuation Mr. Jordash OPERATION STORM Legal basis for responsibility of the Applicant for violations of the Genocide Convention The Respondents case in summary How the Respondent puts its case Phase One: the genocidal plan Phase Two: the execution of the plan (between 4 and 8 August) Phase Three: The attacks on those that remained Phase One: The genocidal plan The Croatian political and military leaderships mindset at the time of the Brioni planning meeting The Maslenica Attack: 22 January 1993 The Medak Pocket: 9 September 1993 Operation Flash: 1 May 1995 The inextricable link between the displacement planned and destruction: the automatic consequence Conclusion: Phase One Reasons: Motive and Intent Significance of the Gotovina et al. Appeal Judgment Phase Two: The execution of the plan Phase Three: the attacks on those that remained Concluding Remarks Article III of the Genocide Convention Article IV: failure to punish Genocide Mr. Schabas O hrvatskim argumentima vezanim za srpsku protutubu

50 52 53 56 57 58 58 59 60 62 14.03.2014. 10 10 10 11 12 13 15 15 17 21 22 23 25 27 27 28 30 34 38 39 39

14.03.2014.

REBUTTAL TO CROATIAS ARGUMENTS SERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM The Gotovina Judgements Authority of the Appeals Chamber The crime against humanity of persecution The 200-metre issue Brioni Krajina Serbs as an ethnic group

CONCERNING 41 43 44 47 50 54 60

Reasons for military intervention in the Krajina and the goals of 61 Operation Storm Conclusion 67 Mr. Obradovi Conclusion Hrvatski odgovor na srpske argumente (kraj prvog kruga) Ms. Crni-Groti: INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND I II III IV 68 . 14.03.2014.

10

18.03.2014

General observations 10 Gotovina Trial Chamber findings 12 Appeal Chamber findings 14 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 before 19 President Tuman was elected (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. 24 25 26 26 28 30 31 34 39 39 41

I Events preceding Operation Storm II Planning and preparation for Operation Storm III Conduct of Operation Storm (1) Shelling during Operation Storm (2) The departure of the Serbs (3) Response to claims about the victims of Storm (a) Croatia did not target fleeing Serb civilians (b) The Serbs that remained were not systematically killed (4) Response to Allegations of Looting and Destruction of Serb Property (5) The Serbs were not Targeted after Operation Storm IV Conclusion Sir Keir Starmer: NO GENOCIDE AGAINST THE SERBS IN THE RSK AND NO RESPONSIBILITY OF CROATIA I Introduction II The Gotovina case III The Brioni Minutes: no genocidal intent Mr. Sands: CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM: A COMPARISON NO GENOCIDE WAS COMMITTED THROUGH OPERATION STORM I Introduction II Substantial areas of difference

42 42 42 51

18.03.2014.

56 56 57

18.03.2014.

1. The temporal scope 57 2. The geographic scope 58 3. Purpose of the armed campaigns 59 4. The identity of the protagonists 59 5. Existence of a systematic pattern of attack 60 6. Instances of ethnically motivated killing, serious violence and 61 destruction 7. Evidence and materials 62 8. ICTY findings 63 9. Intent to destroy 64 III Conclusion 66 HRVATSKA (drugi krug) Mr. Sands: THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION AND THE 2007 BOSNIA JUDGMENT I II III IV V Introduction The 1948 Convention The Courts 2007 Judgment The Tolimir case Conclusions Ms. Ni Ghralaigh: FACTS AND EVIDENCE Introduction I Evidential Challenges Mounted by the Respondent A. Witness Statements B. Hearsay C. Numbers of Victims (1) The Respondents challenge to the numbers of victims asserted by Croatia (2) Numbers of missing people D. The Respondents challenges to Croatias expert witnesses II The Respondents challenges to the JNAs role in Croatia A. Serbianization of the JNA B. Full command and control by the JNA over military operations in Croatia (1) Flimsy evidence challenge (2) Factual enquiry limited to Ovara III Conclusion Sir Keir Starmer: LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY I II III IV V VI Introduction Pattern Opportunity Genocide against defenders Failure to prevent Conclusion Mr. Crawford: JURISDICTION OVER AND ATTRIBUTION OF CONDUCT TO SERBIA (TO BE CONTINUED)

10 10 11 17 25 27 28 28 29 29 33 33 33 34 35 37 37 38 40 41 43 45 45 47 51 56 58 62

20.03.2014.

20.03.2014.

20.03.2014.

63

20.03.2014.

I Introduction II Jurisdiction over events before 27 April 1992 (1) The substantive application of the Genocide Convention (2) The application of Article IX of the Genocide Convention (3) Succession to responsibility III Jurisdiction over events after 27 April 1992, including continuing breaches IV The statu nascendi principle V Other elements of the attribution of conduct to Serbia VI Conclusion Ms Crni-Groti Odgovovor na pitanje suca vezan uz nepotpisane izjave/dokaze CLOSING REMARKS SUBMISSIONS (vidi submissions i od 01.04.2014.) SRBIJA (drugi krug) Mr. Obradovi: INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND ROUND OF ORAL ARGUMENTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA Schedule of presentation Reconciliation based on historical facts Issue of evidence in light of the question posed by Judge Greenwood Allegation that Serbs killed the Serbs Mr. Zimmerman (PART 1) I II III IV V VI Introduction Croatias disregard for its own behaviour Position taken by third States and the Court No gap in protection The 27 April 1992 declaration Succession to responsibility Mr. Tams Introduction RETROACTIVITY OF THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION AND ITS ARTICLE IX The temporal scope of the Convention The temporal scope of Article IX CROATIAS ARGUMENTS RELATING TO ARTICLE 10 (2) ILC ARTICLES Issues clarified during the first round of oral argument Attribution of conduct allegedly directed or controlled by the movement Article 10 (2) as a rule of attribution, not of responsibility Mr. Zimmermann (PART 2)

63 65 10 12 20 22 24 28 32

21.03.2014.

21.03.2014. 33 34 39

10 10 11 13 15

27.03.2014.

27.03.2014. 16 19 21 22 24 26 27.03.2014. 28 28 28 35 35 35 36 38 27.03.2014.

I II III IV

Obligation to punish genocide Obligation to prevent genocide Croatias lack of standing as to events prior to 8 October 1991 Concluding remarks Mr. Jordash: RESPONSE TO THE APPLICANTS CLAIM IN LIGHT OF THE ICTY JUDGMENTS Introduction The Applicants proposed methodology: ICTY and non-ICTY evidence ICTY jurisprudence The ICTY JCE judgements are inconsistent with legitimate armed conflict? Marti Mrki Conclusion: the Applicants robust platform Proposition one Proposition two Proposition three Mr. Jordash (odgovor na hrvatske teze)

40 41 42 44

47 47 48 49 50 56 67 73 73 73 73 10 10

27.03.2014.

28.03. jutro

INTRODUCTION (Hrvatski pattern of purposeful action) I Context a) The Applicants claim that the Croat population was unarmed and the helpless victims of the Serbian military b) The claim that the Croat forces were not responsible for a myriad of similar crimes Conclusion on context II Patterns of behaviour Vukovar III Opportunity CONCLUDING REMARKS Mr. Schabas: RESPONSE TO THE APPLICANTS SECOND ROUND OF ORAL PLEADINGS ALLEGING THE COMMISSION OF GENOCIDE

13 17 17 20 24 28 34

39

28.03. jutro

I II III IV

Introduction 39 The actus reus and the interpretation of Article 2 of the Genocide 40 Convention The issue of missing persons 43 Standard of proof 45 The Tolimir case 52 Conclusions 55 Mr. Luki: SERBIA CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTS OF THE JNA 56 28.03. jutro

Introduction 56 I The Applicant has not shown that the JNA was a de facto organ of 56 the Respondent

II The Applicant has not shown that the JNA was under direction and control of the Respondent 60 Conclusion 63 Mr. Ignjatovi: T HE QUESTION OF STATE RESPONSIBILITY IN LIGHT OF THE ACTS OF DIFFERENT PARTICIPANTS IN THE CONFLICT I The ICTY indirect findings and their probative value in these proceedings II The Criteria set in Article 8 of the ILC Articles was not met the actions of other participants to the conflict cannot be attributed to the Respondent III Genocide case as presented by the Applicant example of the Serbian Volunteer Guard (SDG) Mr. Schabas: REBUTTAL TO THE ORAL PLEADINGS OF CROATIA IN RESPONSE TO SERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM Introduction The planner of Operation Storm Jus ad bellum and jus in bello The ICTY Gotovina decisions (answer to the question posed by Judge Bhandari) The Applicants observations concerning the status of the ICTY Appeals Chamber The Brioni transcript Immediate context preceding Operation Storm Targeting of refugee convoys Killing of those who stayed behind Other incriminating acts The issue of the returnees Evidentiary issues Impunity and Croatian trials Conclusions Mr. Jordash: OPERATION STORM A GENOCIDAL CAMPAIGN IN LIGHT OF THE APPLICANTS COMPARISON

64

28.03. jutro

64

66 68

10 10 10 14 17 20 21 24 25 27 29 30 31 34 36

28.03. pop.

39

28.03. pop.

Abandoning the law 41 Camouflaging the facts 42 Temporal framework 44 Geographic scope 47 Purpose of the armed campaigns 49 The identity of the protagonists 50 Evidence of a systematic pattern of attack 51 Instances of ethnically motivated killing, serious violence and 53 destruction Evidence and materials 54 ICTY FINDINGS 55 Intent to destroy 56 Mr. Obradovi: 58 28.03. pop.

CLOSING REMARKS SUBMISSIONS

58 62

HRVATSKA odgovor na drugi krug (kraj)

01.04.2014.

Sir Keir Starmer: SERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM: F ACTS AND EVIDENCE I II III IV V Introduction Shelling did not target civilians No targeting of civilians in columns No genocidal campaign in the aftermath Conclusion Mr. Sands: SERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM: THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS I Introduction II Missing persons III The 2007 Judgment and paragraph 373 Ms Crni-Groti: SERBIAS COUNTER-CLAIM: CLOSING REMARKS I Background to Operation Storm II The Gotovina Trial Chamber findings III President Tudjman IV SUBMISSIONS (vidi submissions i od 21.03.2014.)

10 10 10 14 15 18 18 18 22 23 29 31 34 35 36

01.04.2014.

01.04.2014.

01.04.2014.

01.04.2014.