Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Ferid Hodžić

Court	Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Section I for War Crimes, Appellate Division, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Case number	X-KRŽ-07/430
Decision title	Verdict
Decision date	19 May 2010
Parties	Ferid Hodžić Prosecutor's Office of Bosnia and Herzegovina Anđa Obradović
Categories	War crimes
Keywords	command responsibility, inhumane acts, Murder, rape/sexual violence, torture, War Crimes against Civilians, war crimes against prisoners of war
Links	Second Instance Verdict

Summary

In the present case, the Court refused the appeals filed by both the Prosecutor’s Office and the aggrieved party Anđa Obradović and upheld the first instance verdict of 29 June 2009. In this verdict, the accused Ferid Hodžić was acquitted of the charges for war crimes against civilians and prisoners of war in the period between May 1992 and 26 January 1993 taking place in the municipality of Vlasenica.

Procedural history

The main trial commenced on 12 March 2008. On 28 March 2008 the case of Ferid Hodžić was separated from the case of Veiz Bjelić(X-KR-07/430) and processed under the case number X-KR-07/430, while the proceedings against Veiz Bjelić was marked as X-KR-07/430-1.

On 29 June 2009, the verdict acquitting Ferid Hodžić of war crimes against civilians and war crimes against prisoners of war was pronounced. 0n 25 October 2010, the Appellate Division Panel refused the appeal filed by the Prosecutor’s Office and upheld the first instance verdict in its entirety.

More procedural information can be found here.

Legally relevant facts

The accused Ferid Hodžić was Territorial Defence Commander in the municipality of Vlasenica (eastern Bosnia) from May 1992 to 26 January 1993. According to the indictment, he ordered the unlawful arrest of Serb civilians, prisoners of war and members of the Army of the Serb Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and imprisoned them in the prison known as ‘Štala’ (stable) in the village of Rovaši, normally used for keeping cattle. The detainees were kept there for seven months in inhuman conditions and were exposed to inhuman treatment by the soldiers of the Territorial Defence of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Core legal questions

Has the First Instance Panel violated article 297(1)(k) of the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH?
Has the First Instance Panel violated article 297(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH?
Has the First Instance Panel erroneously established certain facts in violation of Article 299 of the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH?
Has the First Instance Panel violated the rights of the injured party Anđa Obradović?

Specific legal rules and provisions

Criminal Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina:

Article 173(1)(c) and (e) (war crimes against civilians).
Article 175(1)(a) and (b) (war crimes against prisoners of war).
Article 180(2) (individual criminal responsibility).

Criminal Procedure Code of Bosnia and Herzegovina:

Article 25(2)(a) (jinder of proceedings).
Article 185(2)(a)-(f) (types of costs).
Article 189(1) (costs of proceedings in case the proceedings are discontinued or a verdict is rendered acquitting the accused or rejecting the charges).
Article 198(3) (ruling on the claims under property law).
Article 281(2) (evidence on which the verdict is grounded).
Article 284(c) (verdict acquitting the accused).
Article 290(7) (the contents of the verdict).
Article 297(1)(k) and (2) (essential violations of the criminal procedure provisions).
Article 299(1) (incorrectly or incompletely established facts).
Article 304 (session of the panel).
Article 315 (revoking the first instance verdict).

Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Fourth Geneva Convention):

Article 27 (Treatment I. General observations).

Court's holding and analysis

The Court refused the appeals filed by the Prosecutor’s Office and the aggrieved party Anđa Obradović and found them ill-founded, upholding the verdict of 29 June 2009.

Regarding the first issue (the suicide of Dušan Čestić, the poor living conditions in Cerska, the assessment of witness credibility and the reference to article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention), it ruled that the First Instance Panel has complied with the Criminal Procedure Code in the evaluation of evidence, describing the facts upon which it relied, and describing the reasoning in support of the decisive facts (p. 5).

The Court did not find any violation regarding the second issue, involving the nine witnesses that were not considered, the testimonies of Sejfudin Hodžić and Salih Jusić, and Ćamil Talović and Esad Maljišević, the effective control over the prison guards, and the failure to evaluate the testimonies of six other witnesses.

Regarding the third issue, the Court found that the First Instance Panel has correctly applied the standards for reviewing allegations of incorrectly or incompletely established facts, by making a reference to the case of Prosecutor v. Mirko Todorović and Miloš Radić (para. 82).

Regarding the last issue, the Court found that the rights of Anđa Obradović have not been violated, as the First Instance Panel should not make any determination regarding the culpability of other persons, and that it acted in accordance by instructing her to pursue her claims under property law in a civil action (paras. 98-99).