The war crime at Velepromet 2

On 26 November 2008, the Vukovar County Court announced a non-valid verdict in which the defendant Žarko Leskovac was acquitted of charges that he had committed a war crime against civilians referred to in Article 120, paragraph 1 of the Basic Criminal Law of the RoC (hereinafter: the OKZ RH) in the detention facility at the Velepromet company in Vukovar, to the detriment of Slađana Curnić and Ljubica Tepavac.

 The VSRH upheld the first instance verdict.

INDICTMENT (SUMMARY)

The defendant is charged that on an unspecified date in 1991 in Vukovar, during the armed aggression and following the occupation of the city on 18 November 1991 by the so-called JNA and associated paramilitary formations, in the detention camp at the premises of the Velepromet company to which Croatian defenders and civilians were brought, as a member of the so-called territorial defence wearing a JNA uniform, at the moment when civilian Ljubica Tepavac was giving bread and tea to an unknown elderly female, he hit her strongly three times on the head with a rubber baton and then he also hit Slađana Curnić on the head twice, because of which they lost consciousness and fell to the ground, whereby he tortured and inhumanely treated civilians and cause them large suffering and injuries to physical integrity.

You can read the indictment issued by the Vukovar County State’s Attorney’s Office (hereinafter: theŽDO) here (pdf, 1,88 MB). (in Croatian)

At the court hearing held on 24 November 2008, the Deputy Vukovar County State’s Attorney modified the indictment in relation to the time of commission of the criminal act. In the enacting terms of the indictment, after the wording: ” on an unspecified date “, the wording: “in the period between the first half of November 1991 and the end of February 1992” was added.

GENERAL DATA

Vukovar County Court

Case number: K-9/05

War Crimes Council: Judge Nikola Bešenski, Council President; Judge Stjepan Margić, Council member; Judge Jadranka Kurbel, Council member

Indictment: issued by the Vukovar ŽDO, No. K-DO-10/03, on 11 February 2005, modified at the main hearing held on 24 November 2008

Prosecuting attorney: Vlatko Miljković, Deputy Vukovar County State’s Attorney

Criminal act: war crime against civilians referred to in Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZ RH

Defendant: Žarko Leskovac (defends himself at large)

Defence counsel: Zlatko Jarić, a lawyer practising in Vukovar

Injured parties: Ljubica Tepavac and Slađana Curnić

MONITORING REPORTS

The main hearing commenced on 20 February 2006. A total of 18 court hearings were held, whereby on 12 December 2006 the main hearing had to start anew due to the adjournment which lasted for more than two months.

In the course of the main hearing witnesses-injured parties Ljubica Tepavac and Slađana Curnić were heard (both of them testified at the main hearing for the first time), as well as witnesses Terezija Geršić, Lazar Stanković, Ivica Miškić, Ružica Hodnik, Franjo Riman, Petar Brozović, Eržebet Kremerenski, Milovan Cvetičanin, Zlatko Martinović, Ivka Konjetić, Manda Mišić, Mira Lorberger, Ivica Kruljac, Franjo Riman, Stevan Curnić, Ivan Sablić, Marko Milić, Gena Bandić, Anka Švaljek, Ljubica Balić, Milan Milić and Vinko Gažo.

A partial reconstruction of the event was also performed.

At the court hearing held on 1 July 2008, a video recording shot on the day of fall of Borovo Naselje was shown, where Ljubica Tepavac, an injured party in this procedure, was taped while providing a statement about the events in Vukovar until the city’s occupation.

At the hearing held on 24 November 2008, the Deputy Vukovar County State’s Attorney modified the indictment by specifying the time of commission of the act, while the defendant Žarko Leskovac pleaded not guilty regarding the modified indictment. He presented his defence, describing the event pertaining to Slađana Curnić and her stay in the basement of the Velepromet company. He said that he had heard about Ljubica Tepavac, but he saw her for the first time when this procedure was instigated. 
The Deputy Vukovar County State’s Attorney stated in his closing argument that the standpoint of the prosecution was that the defendant had committed the criminal act which he was charged with and moved to pronounce him guilty and sentence him according to the Law.

In his closing argument, the defendant’s defence counsel stated that none of the witnesses who were detained at the Velepromet confirmed to have seen the event described by Slađana Curnić. For Ljubica Tepavac, he said that she was definitely at the Velepromet, but not in the status of a detainee. Therefore he moved to acquit his client of all charges.

MONITORS’ OBSERVATIONS

During the evidence procedure, several witnesses (Terezija Geršić, Lazar Stanković, Ivica Mikšić, Eržebet Kremerenski and Stevan Curnić) testified that they used to see Slađana Curnić at the Velepromet. Almost all witnesses heard in the procedure were detained at the Velepromet. Even the witnesses Franjo Riman and Ivica Kruljac mentioned a person who, according to their description, could be Slađana Curnić. However, only some of the heard witnesses (Anka Švaljek, Milan Milić, Vinko Gažo), except for the injured party Slađana Curnić and the injured party Ljubica Tepavac, testified that Ljubica Tepavac was at the Velepromet as well, but they did not say that she had the status of a detainee.

VERDICT 

The procedure against Žarko Leskovac, charged that at the end of 1991 or beginning of 1992 in the detention facility at the Velepromet company in Vukovar he was beating civilians Ljubica Tepavac and Slađana Curnić, in which manner he tortured and inhumanely treated them and caused them large suffering and injuries to physical integrity, whereby he committed a war crime against civilians referred to in Article 120, paragraph 1 of the OKZ RH, was ended on 26 November 2008 with a non-final verdict of acquittal passed by the War Crimes Council of the Vukovar County Court.

The Council tried to examine the case thoroughly and, after the evidence procedure, it reached a verdict in which the defendant was acquitted of charges that he had committed the subject criminal act.

The Council accepted the testimony of the defendant in a part in which he described what had happened between him and Slađana Curnić in the basement of the detention facility within the premises of the Velepromet company, the reasons for her stay and the conflict that arose between them when she attempted to escape and he stopped her. The Council did not accept the testimony of Ljubica Tepavac, nor the part of the testimony of Slađana Curnić in which she described the manner in which the defendant treated her and Ljubica Tepavac. The Council also deemed that Ljubica Tepavac was not a detainee at the Velepromet.

In his brief oral explanation given after the announcement of the verdict, the Council President stressed that the Council did not consider the conduct of the defendant towards other detainees nor his role at the Velepromet, because it was not the matter of examination in this procedure.

The main hearing in this procedure commenced on 20 February 2006. It started anew on 18 July 2007 due to the adjournment which lasted for more than two months. Trial sessions were rarely scheduled, mostly to be careful not to exceed the two-month deadline between the two court sessions. In two years and nine months between the opening of the main hearing and the announcement of the verdict, only 18 court sessions were held, at which 23 witnesses were heard and a rather few pieces of evidence were presented.

Notwithstanding the engagement of the Council President and Council members in other cases, it is our opinion that the main hearing should be conducted more efficiently and over a shorter period of time.