Although he was arrested as early as April 29 1994 and accused of being one of the commanders of the Serbian camp Manjaca, Mirko Graorac still hasn't received a final verdict. Namely, on February 17 1998 the Supreme Court of Croatia accepted his appeal and annulled the sentence by the County Court in Split which had sentenced Graorac in April 1996 to 20 years in jail; the Supreme Court ordered a retrial, at the same time ordering that Graorac be kept under arrest until further notice.
The lower court's the sentence was not, however, annulled because of the problems with the evidence, new discoveries in the investigation or similar details related to Graorac's guilt in this case; no, the Supreme Court's decision does not question Graorac's guilt, as can be seen from the formulation that "it was established that the accused was the commander of the 'outer perimeter sentry kept by the reserve militia of the Republic of Srpska' in the concentration camp 'Manjaca' near Banja Luka," and that in "this particular case there is no need to establish the intent to commit war crimes, since the repeated occurrence of an act indicates systematic approach and premeditation". Mirko Graorac's guilt, based on the Supreme Court's opinion is not in doubt. Why was then the verdict annulled?
"Namely, the annulled verdict implies that the units of the so-called 'Republic of Srpska Army' in the concentration camp 'Manjaca' held prisoners of was captured during the clashes with the units of the Republic of Croatia Army and the Government of Bosnia-Hercegovina Army. Thus, the lower court, without any argumentation claims that the Republic of Croatia at the time participated in the war at the territory of another independent state, since the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina proclaimed independence on March 6 1992; this claim can have far reaching consequences" (italics D.P.).
Translated from legalese to plain English, the verdict was annulled because the lower court failed to suppress the fact that the members of the Croatian Army who testified against Graorac had been captured in the neighboring state at the time when that state was, unfortunately, already independent.
This is not an insignificant matter: the Supreme Court knows very well that a member of a foreign army can only be an aggressor in an independent state, unless his status had been regulated differently: these are the "far reaching consequences" mentioned at the end of the quoted sentences. That is why later in its opinion, the Supreme Court indirectly instructs the County Court in Split in the ways which can be used to camouflage the status of the witnesses; for example:
"The majority of Croatian forces was organized within HVO, although it is possible that other units, organized within other military formations were also active" (Which units? Whose units? author's remark)
Or:
"From the fact that some of the witnesses had been members of the Croatian Army before their capture, and after their release, which is not questionable, it is impossible to draw a conclusion about their status during the time they spent in captivity".
Or:
"The testimony of witnesses Vlado Ugrin and Zeljko Tole indicates that the two of them were captured in the Bugojno region where they had been sent to organize the defense of that part of Bosnia-Hercegovina; however, so far it hasn't been established whether they did that as the soldiers of the Croatian Army, based on the cooperation treaty between the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia-Hercegovina which was concluded during the war (the County Court will establish that this treaty was in force at the time), members of HVO or some other military formation active in the territory of Bosnia-Hercegovina, or whether they were in the Bugojno region as volunteers and civilians".
The lesson has been sent to the County Court: do as you see fit, say they were HVO soldiers, volunteers, civilians, humanitarian workers, international observers or smugglers; anything, but for God's sake, make sure you hide that they were captured as the members of the Croatian Army. That way, the five member Supreme Court council (Milan Gudelj, president, Ante Potrebica, Branko Zmajevic, Katica Jelic and Vesna Vrbetic) took the same approach as the film director whose actor appeared in the scene in a wrong costume: the scene must be repeated. In the legal sense, the analogy is somewhat wrier and goes like this: the Supreme Court has become an accomplice and conspirator in the incriminated act (aggression on another state), similar to that guy in the movie Pulp Fiction who works for the mob removing traces of a crime before police's arrival. The reasoning of the Supreme Court is simply a logical reflex to the motto which had been introduced into the Croatian legal theory by the present president of the Supreme Court, Milan Vukovic: since the Croatian soldiers were defending their country, they couldn't commit war crimes. In that context, judges of the Supreme Court decided that Croatian soldiers, since they were captured in Bosnia, couldn't have been defending their country; consequently, they were not Croatian soldiers.
"As the commander, the accused, true, was not absolutely responsible for all the actions committed by his subordinates, as the appeal points out; however, in that case he either shouldn't have known about the violations or had no control over them, which is not the case here, since the accused either participated in the systematic beatings of the prisoners, or was present during them, as was established by the County Court. The basic meaning of command is that the commander has the duty to control his subordinates and take all steps to make sure they follow the relevant laws. The claim that the accused didn't know who was entering the camp, although he was the commander of the outer perimeter sentry, can only point out that he couldn't control his subordinates which again does not release him from his responsibility."
Based on the above paragraph, and knowing the consistency of Croatian independent judiciary, one can be certain that both Dinko Sakic and Homeland's honor will be condemned. Those who disagree are slanderers and liars.
Translated on 10/22/98
Removing Evidence
Feral Tribune, Split, Croatia, August 31 1998
by Damir PilicCamouflage
The answer to that question can be found in the first two sentences of the last paragraph on the second page of the Supreme Court's opinion, which we quote:Rewriting Verdict
Life's a bitch, isn't it? The Supreme Court obviously intended to protect Homeland's honor but in the last few paragraphs they left a few formulations that some naughty journalist could quote in the context of the forthcoming trial to Dinko Sakic: