skip navigation

Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Sreten Lazarević, Dragan Stanojević a/k/a Janjié , Mile Marković a/k/a Cigo and Slobodan Ostojić

This case summary is being revised and will be updated soon

Court Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Case number X-KRŽ-06/243
Decision title Decision
Decision date 21 August 2009
Parties
  • Sreten Lazarević
  • Dragan Stanojević a/k/a Janjié
  • Mile Marković a/k/a Cigo
  • Slobodan Ostojić
  • Prosecutor’s Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Categories War crimes
Keywords forced labour, torture, command responsibility, Former Yugoslavia, Murder, pillaging, War Crimes against Civilians
Links
back to top

Procedural history

According to the indictment, as members of the Army of the Serb Republic of BiH – Reserved police force of the Zvornik Police Department, Sreten Lazarević, Dragan Stanojević, Mile Marković and Slobodan Ostojić were responsible for war crimes committed between May 1992 and March 1993. For their actions, inter alia, at a detention camp the accused were charged with murder, torture, inhuman treatment and other grave violations of the Geneva Conventions. See the initial indictment (27 September 2007) and the amended indictment (12 September 2008).

On 29 September 2008, the accused were found guilty of war crimes. Sreten Lazarević was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment, Dragan Stanojević to seven years of imprisonment, while Mile Marković and Slobodan Ostojić twere each sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

Following an appeal by the accused, the Court held on 21 August 2009 that the first instance verdict should be revoked.

back to top

Court's holding and analysis

On 21 August 2009 the Court held that the first instance verdict should be revoked. The Court held that the trial panel “had established the state of facts incorrectly and erroneously” and decided that the verdict contained “erroneous inferences on decisive facts, in addition to major violations of the criminal procedure provisions”. A new trial before the Appellate Panel was scheduled.