Former infantry commander in the Croatian Armed Forces Main Staff Rudolf Brlecic, who was a member of the former Yugoslav People's Army (JNA) until May 1991, testified today, saying that the group of captured enemy soldiers was an advance contingent of the enemy forces which planned to occupy Karlovac.
Brlecic said that before joining the Croatian Armed Forces he had seen enemy plans according to which the occupation of Korana Bridge was part of the plan to occupy Karlovac. After that, Serb forces were to join the units that were headed to Jastrebarsko and together launch an attack on Zagreb, said Brlecic who was an officer in the areas of Karlovac and Jastrebarsko in 1991.
In one of the longest trials in the history of Croatia's judiciary also read were the findings of a court ballistic expert Josip Skavic who, according to Hrastov's lawyer proved the defence thesis that there were more wounds on the bodies of the POWs than empty bullet cases found at the scene, fired from a machine gun owned by Hrastov.
The defence has been claiming from the beginning that the victims were killed by different calibre bullets which indicated that shots had been fired from all sides.
The trial is scheduled to resume on May 21 and 22 when Hrastov's fellow soldiers, Alenko Ribic, and three other eyewitnesses, are expected to take the stand.
Hrastov has been acquitted three times and convicted twice in one of the longest cases in the history of the Croatian judiciary.
In May 2009, after the Supreme Court last questioned the witnesses, Hrastov was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. After an appeal, the sentence was reduced by one year. However, since the Supreme Court did not make the ruling public, the Constitutional Court quashed it and Hrastov was released from prison in December 2010.
In nearly 21 years, the Karlovac County Court acquitted Hrastov three times, while the Supreme Court quashed two acquittals and ordered retrials.
Hrastov has denied the charges from the beginning, with defence counsel claiming he fired in self-defence at captured enemy soldiers who had attacked a fellow fighter of his and that, contrary to the prosecution's claims, it was not a case of unconditional surrender of disarmed enemy soldiers.