THE HAGUE, Dec 17 (Hina) - On the last day of the appeals hearing in the Tihomir Blaskic case at the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague, the prosecution and the defence confronted their arguments on whether the appeal was
founded.
THE HAGUE, Dec 17 (Hina) - On the last day of the appeals hearing in
the Tihomir Blaskic case at the UN war crimes tribunal in The Hague,
the prosecution and the defence confronted their arguments on
whether the appeal was founded. #L#
The day after its closing argument, the prosecution said on
Wednesday that there was evidence indicating Blaskic's
discriminatory intent to expel the Muslim population. The
prosecution went on to say that Blaskic ordered a systematic and co-
ordinated attack on the villages in Central Bosnia on April 16,
1993.
The defence dismissed the prosecutors' claims, saying that in some
villages clashes had started even three to four days later and that
in one case negotiations had been conducted for several days before
fighting broke out.
In his closing argument, prosecutor Norman Farell said the new
evidence introduced by Tihomir Blaskic's defence did not
corroborate the claims that the former commander of the Central
Bosnia Operations Zone did not have full control over the Croat
Defence Council (HVO) units that committed crimes.
Backing his claim about Blaskic's responsibility, Farell said
Blaskic knew that members of the units he led in military operations
were prone to criminal behaviour. The prosecutor also said that
testimonies during the trial proved beyond reasonable doubt that
Blaskic had the authority to discipline all soldiers.
The prosecution attempted to discredit the new evidence submitted
by the defence and questioned its credibility considering the fact
that it was provided by unnamed intelligence sources.
Some evidence that came from the Croatian President's Office, the
Croatian Intelligence Service and the Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina
indicates that former president of the Croat Community of Herceg-
Bosna Dario Kordic and his associates were also responsible because
they had control over the units that executed the crimes.
The prosecution partially allowed for the possibility of existence
of a parallel chain of command, but stressed that the fact that
Kordic had controlled the forces in central Bosnia did not mean that
Blaskic had not.
Evidence shows that Blaskic and Kordic communicated at the time the
crimes were committed, Farell said, adding that 16 Blaskic-Kordic
conversations had been recorded during and after the crime in
Ahmici.
Supporting his claim that Blaskic and Kordic were together behind
the massacre in Ahmici, the prosecutor said that during his
testimony before the ICTY, Blaskic did not charge Kordic with
anything.
Responding to the accusations made by Blaskic's defence, who said
that the prosecution had concealed acquitting evidence despite its
statutory obligation to hand it over to the defence team, Farell
said this happened on three occasions, and urged the judges to
penalise the Prosecutor's Office.
Blaskic's U.S. attorney Russell Hayman said the only cure for such a
violation was cancellation of the verdict, because it was
compromised by the concealment of crucial evidence.
In his closing argument, Hayman once again called on the five-
member Appeals Chamber to acquit his client of all counts of the
indictment.
(hina) it sb