OSIJEK COUNTY COURT PRESIDENT SPEAKS ABOUT E. CRO WAR CRIMINALS

( Editorial: --> 8482 ) OSIJEK, July 19 (Hina) - Osijek County Court president Petar Kljajic on Saturday confirmed that the Court, by applying the General Amnesty Law, recently discontinued imprisonment proceedings against Vojislav Seselj, Milan Paroski and Jovan Ostojic who were accused of inciting armed revolts, race and religious hatred, dissension and intolerance. Seselj, Paroski and Ostojic were tried in absentia at the Osijek Military Court in 1992 for the mentioned crimes and sentenced to several years in prison, but were in line with the General Amnesty Law recently amnestied. Kljajic said that despite the mentioned discontinuance of the imprisonment sentence against Seselj, the charges against him for war crimes against civilians still stand, as they do not fall under the General Amnesty Law. Paroski and Ostojic are not being tried at any other Croatian tribunal, Kljajic said. He added that the General Amnesty Law was applied to 13,500 people in the Osijek-Baranja and Vukovar-Srijem Counties in eastern Croatia. Klajic told Hina on Saturday that the Croatian Interior Ministry will be requested to arrest 19 members of the so called Sodolovci Group, after whom arrest warrants were issued following verdicts by the Osijek County Court in 1995. They were sentenced in absentia to 11 to 20 years in prison for war crimes against civilians. Given that 17 of the 19 sentenced remained in their village, Sodolovci, even after the Danube river region of eastern Croatia was reintegrated in January this year, they could have requested a renewed trial. They are still free. According to the Croatian Criminal Procedure Law a trial may be renewed if the person was tried in absentia, and on condition that the person attend the renewed trial and that the request to renew the trial be submitted within a year after hearing the verdict. The attorneys of the Sodolovci Group accused submitted this request to the Osijek County Court, but it was rejected on May 21 this year. A complaint was then sent to the Supreme Court, but a final decision has not yet been reached. The Osijek County Court refused to renew the trial with the explanation, among else, that only a prior arrest could guarantee the possibility of their attending a renewd trial. The fact that they were still free means they could leave their place of residence any time, the Court assessed. (hina) ha 191744 MET jul 98