Jezik / Language:
4 December 2014

Verdict against Ilija Pavic Appealed

Marija Tausan BIRN BiH Sarajevo

The Prosecution calls on the Supreme Court of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, FBiH, to increase the sentence against Ilija Pavic, who was sentenced to three years in prison for crimes in Livno, while the Defence calls for a verdict of release.

In their appeals the Prosecution and Defence proposed that the first instance verdict be quashed and trial renewed due to violations of the criminal proceedings.
The Livno Cantonal Court pronounced Pavic, former member of military police with the Second Battalion of the Croatian Defence Council, HVO, guilty of having killed Serb civilian Milorad Crncevic during a raid at night on August 8/9, 1992.
Federal Prosecutor Vlado Miskovic proposed that the verdict be revoked due to violations of the criminal proceedings, wrongly determined factual status and duration of sentence.
“In case the Supreme Court determines that the allegations about violation of the criminal proceedings are not justified, I propose that it pronounces longer sentence,” Miskovic said.
Under the first instance verdict, it was determined that Pavic and two of his colleagues entered Draginja Rosic’s house. It further says that, after Milorad Crncevic had left the house, he told him to stop several times and then shot him to his groins. Rosic died soon after that.
In its appeal the Defence pointed out that the indictee’s actions did not have any elements of war crimes against the civilian population, because he did not commit that crime with direct premeditation.
“The indictee warned the injured party to stop several times. He fired two bullets as a warning. He intended to disable Rosic, who was running away during the curfew hours at night, by firing the third bullet at him,” Defence attorney Ana Primorac said.
She mentioned that Pavic and his comrades did not check the persons’ ID cards, so the indictee could not have possibly known who was inside. Therefore, as she said, there was no intention to deprive the person of his life.
She said that the indictee was 19 at the time, suggesting that this could be some other crime, not war crime.
Addressing the Chamber of the Supreme Court, Pavic also expressed his dissatisfaction with the legal classification of the crime as a war crime.
“It was not a raid, but only patrolling in order to check whether people respected the curfew and a blackout obligation. I am sorry that this is classified as war crime,” Pavic said.
The Supreme Court will render a decision concerning the appeals at a later stage. 

comments powered by Disqus