THE HAGUE, Nov 21 (Hina) - The defence attorneys of General Tihomir Blaskic and the international war crimes tribunal's prosecution at Thursday's session of the tribunal's Appeals Chamber had a gruelling exchange of views about
whether new evidence introduced by Blaskic's attorneys in the appeals process was relevant to call for a retrial on some or all counts of the indictment.
THE HAGUE, Nov 21 (Hina) - The defence attorneys of General Tihomir
Blaskic and the international war crimes tribunal's prosecution at
Thursday's session of the tribunal's Appeals Chamber had a
gruelling exchange of views about whether new evidence introduced
by Blaskic's attorneys in the appeals process was relevant to call
for a retrial on some or all counts of the indictment. #L#
The president of the Appeals Chamber, Fausto Pocar, ended the
session without saying how much time the five appeals judges would
need to decide whether to quash the verdict against the former
commander of Central Bosnia Operation Zone, who was sentenced to 45
years in prison for crimes in the Lasva Valley, the most grave of
them being the slaughter of some hundred Moslems in the central
Bosnian village of Ahmici on April 16, 1993.
While the tribunal's prosecution said that a new trial was not
justified at this section of the process, estimating that the
Appeals Chamber would need up to four weeks to hear witnesses and
review the new evidence, the defence said that the newly introduced
evidence and unfair trial required a retrial before a different
trial chamber. This retrial could end in three to six months and
would not last as long as it would take the Appeals Chamber to
consider the new evidence, the defence believes.
Blaskic's U.S. attorney Russel Haymann said that the new evidence
brought into question the very essence of the verdict, i.e. the
conclusion that there had been no double chain of command, namely
that Blaskic had commanded all troops in Lasva valley and was thus
responsible for their actions.
The new evidence shatter this conclusion, he said, accusing the
prosecution of concealing evidence, in particular that which
pointed to the control which Dario Kordic, a political leader of
Bosnian Croats in this area, had over units which had committed the
crime in Ahmici.
Evidence was also withheld by the Bosnian secret service and that of
Croatia which thus protected the late Croatian President Franjo
Tudjman from accountability, Haymann said.
He pointed to the importance of a Croatian Intelligence Service
report on the investigation of the crime in Ahmici, which was not
available at the time the verdict was passed.
The prosecution said that the Statute and Rules of the tribunal gave
no authority to the Appeals Chamber to order a retrial at this
moment. The prosecution believes the Appeals Chamber must first
decide about the relevance of the new evidence.
If the Appeals Chamber does decide that in this phase of the appeals
process it may order a retrial, the prosecution holds the new
evidence not relevant for such a decision.
The prosecutor estimated that the defence's new evidence did not
bring into question the verdict on some counts of the indictment,
while Haymann said that this evidence, by the mere fact that it
challenged Blaskic's firm control over troops, brought into
question all counts of the indictment.
The Appeals Chamber has so far set aside some 50 pieces of evidence
which it found to be relevant and that could affect the change of the
verdict.
(hina) lml sb