S/1994/674 (continued)

III. GENERAL STUDIES

A. The military structure of the warring factions and the strategies and tactics they employ

The military conflicts in the former Yugoslavia must be examined on the basis of their evolution, which involved different parties at various times, operating in separate, though frequently interrelated, theatres of operation.

The first phase involved the conflict in Slovenia. The conflict began when that Republic declared its independence from the former Yugoslavia on 25 June 1991. That conflict involved the Yugoslav People's Army (JNA), Slovenia Territorial Defence Forces - Slovenian troops who left JNA to join the newly created Slovenian Army - and local Slovenian Police. This phase lasted for only a few weeks, in June and July 1991.

The second phase of the conflict, involving Croatia, started before that Republic officially declared its independence on 25 July 1991. On one side, that conflict involved JNA, Serb militia in Krajina and in eastern and western Slavonia, special forces from Serbia (with the participation of Serb expatriates and mercenaries), local special forces, and Serb police and armed civilians from the same areas. On the other side, the newly formed Croatian Army consisted of Croatian troops who left JNA, the Croatian National Guard, local militia; special forces consisting of expatriate Croats and mercenaries, and local Croatian police and armed civilians. After November 1991, JNA formally withdrew from Croatia, but continued to support the newly formed, self-proclaimed "Serb Republic of Krajina" army. Meanwhile, the newly established Republic of Croatia had formed its army, the Croatian Army, which, along with Croatian special forces and others, continued the armed conflict in what became the United Nations protected areas (UNPAs) in Croatia.

The third phase of the conflict began in Bosnia and Herzegovina following its declaration of independence on 6 March It simultaneously involved fighting between Croatian and Bosnian Government forces, Bosnian Government and Serbian forces, and Croatian and Serbian forces. The Croatian Defence Council forces in the Bosnian and Herzegovina are supported by the Croatian Army, local Croatian police, volunteer civilians and "special forces" like the military wing of the Croatian Party of Rights (HOS) (named after the former Ustashis of the Second World War, who also fought against the Serbs in the Krajina area). Other Croatian armed civilian forces operate essentially in local areas. At first, the Bosnian Government and JNA opposed each other. This lasted from April to June 1992, during which time the JNA troops from Serbia and Montenegro "officially" withdrew from Bosnia and Herzegovina, leaving behind JNA Serbian troops from Bosnia and their equipment. They were supplemented by "special forces" from Serbia which consisted of expatriate volunteers and mercenaries, Bosnian-Serb militia and police, and Serb volunteers.

At the early stages of the conflict, most of the combatants, including those in the regular army, did not wear distinctive uniforms, emblems or insignias of rank. As a result, officers freely moved from army to militia and from one unit to another. To further complicate matters, at the early stages of the conflict between: (a) Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and other Serb forces within Croatia, and (b) between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and other forces within Bosnia and Herzegovina (in May 1992, JNA forces from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia officially withdrew from Bosnia), the "order of battle" of almost all army and militia units was not clearly established. The chain of command was significantly blurred, even to insiders. Consequently, the organizations' "command and control" structures were seriously eroded, which resulted in much confusion. The confusion was more pronounced in Bosnia among Serb combatants, but seems to have been purposely kept that way for essentially political reasons.

When each of the three Republics of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina respectively declared their independence, *21 they did not have a separate army. Previously, the Yugoslavian People's Army (JNA), also referred to as the Yugoslavian National Army, was a single unitary army for all members of the former Yugoslavia. The armies of the "warring factions" consisted mainly of military personnel and equipment of the former JNA.

Each of these republics had local territorial defence forces (TDF) *22 which were part of the total defence systems of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The republics also had local police forces consisting of personnel from their respective republics.

Upon the successive declarations of independence of these three republics, some of the military personnel of JNA (who had been located in each of these republics) left JNA and reconstituted themselves as part of the newly created national armies of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. *23 JNA "officially" withdrew from Croatia in November 1991 and from the Bosnia and Herzegovina between May and June 1992. Throughout this period, JNA was reorganized several times by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. As of May 1992, JNA - now called the Yugoslav Army - consisted essentially of troops from the Republics of Serbia and Montenegro. These two Republics form the successor federal union to the former Yugoslavia.

In addition to the regular armies mentioned above, there are three additional armies: the Bosnian-Serb Army, which operates in Bosnia and Herzegovina; the Serbian Army of Croatia, which operates in Croatia; and the Croatian Defence Council, which operates primarily outside the border of the Republic of Croatia, and mostly in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The first two were at one time and may still be armed and supported by JNA (now the Yugoslav Army) and the third may have been armed and supported by the Croatian Army.

The territorial defence forces (TDFs) are known as militia. In the case of Croatia, TDFs were known as the Croatian National Guard. The TDFs have a separate command structure from the regular army. Nevertheless, they join in the armed conflict, frequently operating with the regular army and under regular army officers' command. They also operate independently in certain geographic areas, usually where most of the personnel in these units came from.

In addition, two other types of paramilitary groups and formations are also engaged in military operations. They consist of: (a) what are called "special forces", and (b) local police forces augmented by local armed civilians. All the warring factions make use of such forces among their combatants, but the lines of authority and the structure of command and control are confusing, even to the combatants.

There are 45 reported special forces, which usually operate under the command of a named individual and apparently with substantial autonomy, except when they are integrated into the regular army's plan of action. *24 The special forces are supplied and often trained by the respective Governments that they serve. Many special forces answer only to senior political officials in the respective Governments. Such a relationship is frequently based on political allegiance and is not always publicly known. However, in time, information about the political sponsorship and support of these groups will become available. As these units usually operate independently and outside the apparent chain of command, their order of battle is not known. Notwithstanding the strong links between these units and the respective armies, the regular army failed to restrain them from the commission of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law. Among the most notorious of the special forces are Arkan's "Tigers" *25 and e elj's "White Eagles" (also referred to as "Chetniks"). *26 Lastly, many of these units operate throughout the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Thus, the Serbian units operate in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, and the Croatian units in Bosnia and Herzegovina. These special forces have committed some of the worst violations of international humanitarian law (see paras. 129 - 150, 236 - 237, and 216 - 231).

Some towns and villages formed paramilitary units, which are not to be confused with the special forces mentioned above. These local forces operate in the areas of their towns and villages. Occasionally, they also lend support to similar groups and other combatants in the same opstina (county) and neighbouring areas. Their command and control is local, and the chain of command difficult to establish, though characteristically these groups, like the special forces, have an identifiable leader. Frequently, the unit or group is called by the leader's name. Otherwise, the unit or group uses a politically significant name or the name of their town, village or area. The leadership is local, mostly consisting of political figures. These units, particularly among Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croats in Krajina, have, like the special forces, committed many violations of international humanitarian law (see paras. 129 - 150). The police, augmented by "volunteer" armed civilians, also participate in military activities. These forces operate within a given municipality. They are nominally under the overall control of the Ministry of Interior. Furthermore, the respective ministries of interior also have national and regional police units, which usually operate outside the boundaries of local municipalities. The relationship between national, regional and local police is not always clear and varies in each country, and sometimes within the regions of each country. During the early stages of the conflicts in Croatia and in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the police, augmented by "volunteer" armed civilians, operated without apparent command and control from the army. Their leadership was local and included many political figures. These forces acted with almost complete autonomy in their respective areas. They also share responsibility with the special forces described above.

The situation consists of a multiplicity of combatant forces (for example, regular armies, militias, special forces, police and armed civilians) operating within different structures or outside any structure. These forces sometimes operate under no command and control. They may be without uniforms, emblems or insignias. Frequently, these forces merge or combine in connection with certain operations. Probably the only factor common to all of these forces is their receipt of military equipment, ammunition and supplies from their respective armies and other governmental sources.

The outcome of such a structure and the strategies and tactics employed help to blur the chain of command and conceal responsibility. This concealment may well be intended by some of the parties to provide a shield of plausible deniability.

All parties to the conflict have specifically adhered to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Additional Protocols I and II thereto. *27 Furthermore, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is a signatory to these Conventions, and all of the parties to the conflict concede that they are also bound by these obligations under the international law of State succession.

The Federal Criminal Code of the former Yugoslavia embodied the international rules of armed conflict. JNA military personnel were instructed accordingly. Thus, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law are part of the applicable national laws of all warring factions.

All of the combatant forces, in significantly different degrees, have committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

The grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law occurring in this conflict are, in part, the product of the military structure that results in a lack of effective command and control. The violations are also the result of the strategies and tactics employed by the warring factions.

B. "Ethnic cleansing" *28

In its first interim report (S/25274), the Commission stated:
"55. The expression 'ethnic cleansing' is relatively new. Considered in the context of the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, 'ethnic cleansing' means rendering an area ethnically homogenous by using force or intimidation to remove persons of given groups from the area. 'Ethnic cleansing' is contrary to international law.

"56. Based on the many reports describing the policy and practices conducted in the former Yugoslavia, 'ethnic cleansing' has been carried out by means of murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extra-judicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, and wanton destruction of property. Those practices constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention.

"57. The Commission is mindful of these considerations in the examination of reported allegations."

Upon examination of reported information, specific studies and investigations, the Commission confirms its earlier view that "ethnic cleansing" is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. To a large extent, it is carried out in the name of misguided nationalism, historic grievances and a powerful driving sense of revenge. This purpose appears to be the occupation of territory to the exclusion of the purged group or groups. This policy and the practices of warring factions are described separately in the following paragraphs.

With respect to the practices by Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia, "ethnic cleansing" is commonly used as a term to describe a policy conducted in furtherance of political doctrines relating to "Greater Serbia". The policy is put into practice by Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia and their supporters in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The political doctrine consists of a complex mixture of historical claims, grievances and fears and nationalistic aspirations and expectations, as well as religious and psychological elements. *29 The doctrine is essentially based on ethnic and religious exclusivity and the dominance of Serbs over other groups in certain historically claimed areas. These views contrast with ethnic and religious pluralism. This doctrine breeds intolerance and suspicion of other ethnic and religious groups and is conducive to violence when it is politically manipulated, as has been the case.

It should be emphasized that this policy and the manner in which it is carried out is supported only by some Serbs. In addition, the Commission emphasizes that responsibility for criminal conduct must be determined on an individual basis. *30

The manner in which the policy of "ethnic cleansing" is carried out by Serbs in Bosnia is consistent throughout a certain geographic area represented by an arc ranging from northern Bosnia and covering areas in eastern and western Bosnia adjoining the Serb Krajina area in Croatia. *31 The practice of "ethnic cleansing" is carried out in strategic areas linking Serbia proper with Serb- inhabited areas in Bosnia and Croatia. This strategic factor is significantly relevant to understanding why the policy has been carried out in certain areas and not in others. *32

The coercive means used to remove the civilian population from the above-mentioned strategic areas include: mass murder, torture, rape and other forms of sexual assault; severe physical injury to civilians; mistreatment of civilian prisoners and prisoners of war; use of civilians as human shields; destruction of personal, public and cultural property; looting, theft and robbery of personal property; forced expropriation of real property; forceful displacement of civilian population; and attacks on hospitals, medical personnel and locations marked with the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem.

Many of these acts of violence are carried out with extreme brutality and savagery in a manner designed to instil terror in the civilian population, in order to cause them to flee and never to return. *33 This is evidenced by the large number of purposeful and indiscriminate killings, rape and sexual assaults, and other forms of torture committed against civilians and prisoners of war, both inside and outside detention facilities. These acts are also highly publicized by the perpetrators in order to achieve a terror-inspiring effect on others and cause them to flee.

Other noteworthy practices are widespread destruction of villages by systematically burning them to the ground and blowing up all the houses and structures in a given area. This includes cultural and religious monuments and symbols. The purpose of this destruction is to eradicate cultural, social and religious traces that identify the ethnic and religious groups. In the cases where the practices described above do not occur, these groups are forced to leave under duress by reason of a well-founded fear for their personal security.

Another recurring practice is to force civilian inhabitants to sign over their property as a condition of their departure or removal to other areas. Mayors and public officials, including the police, are frequently involved in this practice. *34

Two additional factors also indicate the existence of a policy of "ethnic cleansing": (a) the wholesale and surreptitious departure of the Serbian population living in certain areas, which are to be "ethnically cleansed", before the acts described above take place; *35 and (b) the practices reported occur under the supervision of a "crisis committee" (Krisni Stab), comprised of local political leaders, police and others, which made such decisions with the direct or indirect involvement and support of the Bosnian-Serb Army. *36

Special forces (see paras. 121 - 122) frequently carry out "ethnic cleansing". These forces clearly seem to be supported, equipped and supplied by the Governments they serve and are allowed to operate without control by the authorities in charge. Two particular groups of special forces that have committed the largest number of reported violations are Arkan's Tigers and e elj's White Eagles (see para. 121).

The study of the Prijedor district described in paragraphs 151 to 182 below, reveals the extent of the policy of "ethnic cleansing" and the manner in which it was systematically carried out together with the local and regional authorities. *37 The same patterns and practices described in the study on the district of Prijedor repeatedly occurred in many op tinas, such as Banja-Luka, Brko, Foca and Zvornik, about which the Commission received significant information supporting the above conclusions. *38

Three additional observations are noteworthy:

1. JNA and the Army of the so-called "Bosnian Serb Republic" *39 have been involved in carrying out and facilitating the policy and practices of "ethnic cleansing" in certain parts of the territory;
2. The practices implementing the policy, particularly in certain parts of Bosnia, have been carried out to a large extent by the most marginal social elements of that society;
3. The leaders of Bosnian Serbs influenced, encouraged, facilitated and condoned these social elements to carry out the crimes described above. The combination of these factors, stimulated by misguided nationalism, fanned by historical grievances and fuelled by reciprocal violence and revenge, has led to tragic consequences.

There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the practices of "ethnic cleansing" were not coincidental, sporadic or carried out by disorganized groups or bands of civilians who could not be controlled by the Bosnian-Serb leadership. Indeed, the patterns of conduct, the manner in which these acts were carried out, the length of time over which they took place and the areas in which they occurred combine to reveal a purpose, systematicity and some planning and coordination from higher authorities. Furthermore, these practices are carried out by persons from all segments of the Serbian population in the areas described: members of the army, militias, special forces, the police and civilians. Lastly, the Commission notes that these unlawful acts are often heralded by the perpetrators as positive, patriotic accomplishments.

The above-mentioned factors and others indicate the existence of an element of superior direction. At the very least, they indicate a purposeful failure by superiors to prevent and punish the perpetrators once their crimes become known to the responsible commanders. *40

Lastly, it should be noted that there was initially a link between local activities and activities of Serbs from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in Krajina, Croatia, and also involvement by JNA. This linkage existed until 2 January 1992, the date of the cease-fire between Serbs in Krajina and JNA and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and is evident in many ways. In fact, these links are not denied by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This is supported by the use of JNA in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina before the conversion of some of these forces into the army of the so-called "Serbian Republic of Bosnia". *41 Furthermore, there is a strong political, diplomatic and military influence on the part of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia over a wide range of decisions of the "Bosnian Serb Republic" and the "Serb Republic of Krajina".

Similar policies and practices of "ethnic cleansing" have occurred in the Serb-Krajina area and in eastern and western Slavonia in Croatia by Serbs against Croats and also by Croats against Serbs, as discussed below. *42 The patterns and practices of "ethnic cleansing" described above are the same in separate theatres of operation. This further substantiates the existence of a Serbian policy. One significant instance where this policy was carried out in Croatia is the destruction of the city of Vukovar in 1991. *43

Manifestations of "ethnic cleansing" have occurred throughout the territory of the former Yugoslavia, and similar practices have been committed at certain times and places by Croatian warring factions, as discussed in paragraph 147.

"Ethnic cleansing" practices committed by Bosnian Croats with support from the Republic of Croatia against Bosnian Muslims in Herzegovina are politically related. *44 Furthermore, Croatian forces also engage in these practices against Serbs in the Krajina area and in eastern and western Slavonia. The violence committed against Serbs in these areas appears, however, to have the more defined political aim of removing them from the areas. Croats have used the Croatian Defence Council, police, armed civilians and local special forces to carry out these acts in the areas mentioned above. They have committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, including the destruction of Serbian villages and churches, killing of innocent civilians, torture and forceful removal of the civilian population. In the Krajina area and in eastern and western Slavonia, the cycle of violence between Serbs and Croats started in the early part of 1991, before the war formally began. The violence continued well beyond the end of that war. *45 Similar practices were also, on occasion, carried out by Croats against Muslims in Bosnia and Herzegovina. *46 But, the Croatian authorities have publicly deplored these practices and sought to stop them, thereby indicating that it is not part of the Government's policy.

Bosnian Government forces have also committed the same type of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions against Serbs and Croats, but not as part of a policy of "ethnic cleansing". The number of these violations, as reported, is significantly less than the reported violations allegedly committed by the other warring factions.

The Commission is unable to determine the amount of harm and the exact number of violations committed by each of the warring factions. Nevertheless, it is clear that there is no factual basis for arguing that there is a "moral equivalence" between the warring factions.

It should be noted in unequivocal terms, however, that reprisals, retribution and revenge do not constitute a valid legal justification or excuse for committing grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law (see paras. 63 - 66). The Commission emphasizes that in addition to the individual criminal responsibility of perpetrators who commit violations, military and political leaders who participate in the making, execution and carrying out of this policy are also susceptible to charges of genocide and crimes against humanity, in addition to grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law.

IV. SUBSTANTIVE FINDINGS

A. The study of Opstina Prijedor, a district in north- western Bosnia: alleged genocide and massive violations of the elementary dictates of humanity *47

1. General description

Opstina Prijedor is a district located in north-western Bosnia in an area which is part of the Bosnian Krajina. It is located in between the town of Sanski Most (to the south), the Bosnian-Croatian border towns of Bosanski Novi (to the west) and Bosanska Dubica (to the north), and the regional capital of Banja Luka (to the east). Except for the area of Sanski Most, the other neighbouring districts had Serbian majority populations before the armed conflicts started in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

According to the 1991 census, Opstina Prijedor had a total population of 112,470 people, of whom 44 per cent were Muslims, 42.5 percent Serbs, 5.6 per cent Croats, 5.7 per cent "Yugoslavs" and 2.2 per cent others (Ukrainians, Russians and Italians). In early April 1992, the total population may have been approximately 120,000 people, augmented, inter alia, by an influx of people who had fled the destruction of their villages in areas to the west of Opstina Prijedor.

Comparing the 1991 census figures with the results of a population count of June 1993, as published in Serbian-controlled media, gives the following overall picture:

                1991     1993    Reduction  New arrivals
--------------------------------------------------------
Serbs     |   47 745   53 637       --         5 892
Muslims   |   49 454    6 124     43 330         --
Croats    |    6 300    3 169      3 131         --
Others    |    8 971    2 621      6 350         --
--------------------------------------------------------

Thus, the total number of killed and deported persons as of June 1993 is 52,811 (including limited numbers of refugees and people missing). Since then, the number of non-Serbs in the district have continued to decrease. The extreme persecution to which non-Serbs are subjected and their almost total lack of protection in the district is illustrated by the fact that ICRC and UNHCR asked permission from the Serbs, in March 1994, to evacuate all remaining non-Serbs from Opstina Prijedor.

The following factual findings of the Commission are based on 300 to 400 statements by surviving victims of the events in Opstina Prijedor currently living in different countries, local Serbian media reports of the events and research into the context of the events.

2. Serbs take power on 30 April 1992

According to Kozarski Vjesnik, a Serbian-controlled newspaper in Opstina Prijedor, of 9 April 1993:
"The man (Simo Drljaca), who the Serbian Democratic Party of the Opstina Prijedor put in charge of forming the Serbian police after half a year of illegal work, had done his job so well that in 13 police stations 1,775 well-armed persons were waiting to undertake any difficult duty in the time which was coming. In the night between 29 and 30 April 1992, he directed the takeover of power (by the Serbs), which was successfully achieved in only 30 minutes, without any shots fired. The assembly of the Srpske Opstine Prijedor, at the end of March last year (1992), appointed him Chief of the public security station (i.e., in charge of the secret police). He was in charge of this job during the most demanding period and remained in the position until January 1993. These days he has been appointed Vice-Minister of Internal Affairs of the Serbian Republic. He will commence his new function in Bijelina on Monday."

More than six months prior to the power change in 1992, the Serbs started to build up their own administration parallel to the legitimate authorities in Opstina Prijedor - what they called the Serbian Opstina Prijedor. This included, inter alia, a pure Serbian police force with secret service functions. The legitimate authorities in Op tina Prijedor had been lawfully elected, and the Prijedor Assembly reflected the ethnic composition of the district.

In early 1992, a very small Serbian paramilitary group took control of the television transmitter on the Kozara mountain in Opstina Prijedor, and as a consequence the population in the district could not receive television programmes from Sarajevo or Zagreb any longer, only from Belgrade and later Banja Luka. The television programmes from Belgrade insinuated that non-Serbs wanted war and threatened the Serbs.

Prior to the power change on 30 April 1992, Serbs secretly armed other Serbs in the district. Many soldiers from the Yugoslav People's Army withdrew from Croatia to north-western Bosnia in early 1992. Instead of demobilizing those who returned to Opstina Prijedor, the legitimate authorities were pressured to accept redeploying them to control all inroads to and exits from the district together with police and the territorial defence forces (TDFs). The pressure applied was an ultimatum. The legitimate authorities were invited for a guided sightseeing tour of two Croatian villages just north of Bosanska Gradiska which had been destroyed and left uninhabited. The message was that if the ultimatum was not met, the fate of Prijedor would be the same as that of these villages. The ultimatum was accepted.

3. Immediate consequences of the Serbs taking power

An immediate consequence of the Serbian takeover was severed communications between Opstina Prijedor and the outside world. It became more difficult to travel and the telephone system was no longer fully operational. A curfew was introduced in Prijedor town - the main town in the district - and travel permits were required in many areas even to move among local villages. Bus services were closed down.

In the wake of the power change, most non-Serbs were dismissed from their jobs, be it as police, public officials or even manual workers. In all key functions such as police and local administration, the empty posts were taken over by Serbs.

Even before 30 April 1992, Serbs had started to visit the non-Serbs who were licensed to hold weapons and demand that they give their weapons up. This process was intensified after the takeover and combined with a campaign in which non-Serbian police and TDFs were instructed to hand over their weapons and non-Serbian houses and villages were searched for arms.

Also, the local media, Radio Prijedor and Kozarski Vjesnik, joined in the anti-non-Serb propaganda. The media slandered former non-Serbian leaders by criticizing everything from their alleged lack of efficiency to their private lives. In addition, the media claimed that dangerous Muslim extremists were in the area, preparing genocide against the Serbs.

4. The major Serbian military operations in the district

Following an incident in which less than a handful of Serbian soldiers were shot dead under unclear circumstances, the village of Hambarine was given an ultimatum to hand over a policeman who lived where the shooting had occurred. As it was not met, Hambarine was subjected to several hours of artillery bombardment on 23 May 1992. The shells were fired from the aerodrome Urije just outside Prijedor town. When the bombardment stopped, the village was stormed by infantry, including paramilitary units, which sought out the inhabitants in every home. Hambarine had a population of 2,499 in 1991.

On 24 May 1992, a large-scale attack on the entire Kozarac area east of Prijedor town, under the Kozara Mountain, was carried out with intensive bombardment from all directions by artillery, tanks and small firearms. The bombardment lasted for more than 24 hours, before the infantry and paramilitary groups stormed Kozarac and nearby villages and searched for people in every building. The affected area had a total population of almost 27,000 people.

On 30 May 1992, a group of less than 150 armed non-Serbs had made their way to the old town in Prijedor to regain control over the town. They were defeated and the old town was razed. In the central parts of Prijedor town, all non-Serbs were forced to leave their houses as Serbian military, paramilitary, police and civilians advanced street by street with tanks and lighter arms. The non-Serbs had been instructed over the radio to hang a white piece of cloth on their homes to signal surrender.

Starting on 20 July 1992, a large area of predominantly non-Serbian villages on the left bank of the River Sava (the larger Hambarine/Ljubija area) was attacked in a similar manner to the Kozarac area. However, it was predominantly infantry and paramilitary groups that carried out the destruction. At the time of the attack, the areas had a population of close to 20,000 people, including people who had come for shelter after their villages west of Opstina Prijedor had been destroyed.

Today the former homes of almost 47,000 people in the Kozarac and Hambarine/Ljubija areas are empty and destroyed. Some were hit by artillery shells, while others were set ablaze in the initial attack. All the homes were later pillaged and a large number blown up, one at a time from inside, destroying especially the inside and the roofs. Most of the artillery used during these attacks had been moved into position some time before the Serbs took power on 30 April 1992.

5. Concentration camps and deportations

As non-Serbs were attacked in the villages and Prijedor town, hundreds, possibly thousands, were killed in their home areas, frequently after maltreatment. The survivors that temporarily managed to flee or hide were divided. Females, boys under the age of sixteen (sometimes the age limit may have been lower) and elderly men (older than 60 or 65) made up one group, while the other men comprised the second group.

The second group - the men - were taken to hastily opened concentration camps in a ceramic tile factory, Keraterm, next to Prijedor town and on the premises of the iron ore mine and processing plant at Omarska. Massacres, torture and appalling living conditions quickly depleted the number of detainees.

In an interview printed in Kozarski Vjesnik on 9 April 1993, Simo Drljaca, present Deputy Minister of Interior of the "Serb Republic of Bosnia", stated that:

"In the collection centres 'Omarska', 'Keraterm' and 'Trnopolje' more than 6,000 informative talks were held. Of this number 1,503 Muslims and Croats were sent to the camp 'Manjaca' on the basis of solid documentation of active participation in the fighting against the Army of Republika Srpska ('Serb Republic of Bosnia'), and also participation in genocide against the Serbian people. Instead of letting them get their deserved punishment, the powerful men of the world expressing disdain forced us to release them all from Manjaca."

As the "informative talks" or interrogations basically took place in the Omarska and Keraterm camps, it can be concluded that more than 6,000 adult males were taken to these concentration camps in the short period they existed (from the end of May to the beginning of August 1992). Since only 1,503 were moved on to Manjaca camp according to Mr. Drljaca, a limited number transferred to the Trnopolje camp and almost none released, it may be assumed that the death toll was extremely high. The concentration camp premises were sometimes so packed with people that no more inmates could be crammed in. On at least one occasion this allegedly resulted in an entire busload of newly captured people being arbitrarily executed en masse. Some 37 women were detained in Omarska, while no women were kept over time in Keraterm.

The women were normally taken to the Trnopolje camp. In Trnopolje, the regime was far better than in Omarska and Keraterm. None the less, harassment and malnutrition was a problem for all the inmates. Rapes, beatings and other kinds of torture, and even killings, were not rare. Some of these detained women were released after a few days, as there was a lack of space in the Trnopolje camp as well.

On their way to the concentration camps, some captives were detained for shorter periods at improvised detention facilities, such as sports halls in schools and stadiums (notably in the Prijedor suburb of Tukovi and in Ljubija).

As soon as the Serbs had captured the first groups of non- Serbs, the large-scale deportations of the women started. Some were deported straight from the improvised detention facilities, the majority from the Trnopolje camp. The majority of deportees were cramped into buses or onto military trucks and sent towards Travnik. These deportees had to walk almost 30 km from where the trucks and buses dumped them in a desolate area in the outskirts of the Vlasic Mountain to reach non-Serb held areas in central Bosnia. A few were deported the safer way to Bosanska Gradiska. Sizeable numbers were taken by rail - many in cattle wagons - to Travnik. Some women were let off the trains in Doboj from where they were ushered ahead on foot in the direction of Tuzla. Some individuals perished during the transport owing to the mid-summer heat and to suffocating conditions both in cattle wagons and on closed military trucks, where the deportees were also deprived of food and water.

6. The strategy of destruction

The Serbs took power in Opstina Prijedor on 30 April 1992, after more than six months of careful planning. After this, the non-Serbs had their homes and communities destroyed and their families split and were deprived of their employment. The majority of non-Serbs were soon captured, thousands incarcerated in concentration camps, and even larger numbers deported. This all happened after the Serbs had sealed off most exits from the area. The non-Serbs represented no real threat to the Serbs under these circumstances, as the district of Prijedor was enclosed at the time by Serbian controlled and dominated areas (the non-Serb majority population in the Sanski Most district was purged simultaneously in Prijedor).

Despite the absence of a real non-Serbian threat, the main objective of the concentration camps, especially Omarska but also Keraterm, seems to have been to eliminate the non-Serbian leadership. Political leaders, officials from the courts and administration, academics and other intellectuals, religious leaders, key business people and artists - the backbone of the Muslim and Croatian communities - were removed, apparently with the intention that the removal be permanent. Similarly, law enforcement and military personnel were targeted for destruction. These people also constituted a significant element of the non-Serbian group in that its depletion rendered the group at large defenceless against abuses of any kind. Other important traces of Muslim and Croatian culture and religion, including mosques and Catholic churches, were destroyed.

7. The general lack of protection for non-Serbs

From the time when the Serbs took power in the district of Prijedor, non-Serbs, in reality, became outlaws. At times, non- Serbs were instructed to wear white arm bands to identify themselves. Non-Serbs were subjected to crimes without the new Serbian leaders attempting to redress the problem. Rape, for example, became a serious problem for many women who were left alone because their husbands had been detained. The impression was allowed to spread among Serbs that they would be exonerated if they made life difficult for non-Serbs so that the latter would ask permission to leave the district. According to new Serbian regulations, those leaving the district had to sign over their property rights to Serbs and accept never to return, being told that their names would simultaneously be deleted from the census.

8. Responsibility

When the Serbs took power in the district of Prijedor, they immediately declared the existence of a Krizni Stab Srpske Opstine Prijedor. Included in the membership of this crisis committee were the military commanders Colonel Vladimir Arsic and Major Radmilo Zeljaja, and other district leaders, such as Major Slobodan Kuruzovi ; the Chief of Police, Simo Drljaca; Mayor Milomir Staki ; the President of the Executive Board of the Assembly in Prijedor, Mico Kovacevic; the President of the Serbian Democratic Party in Prijedor, Simo Miskovic ; and the President of the Red Cross in Prijedor, Srdjo Srdic.

The military destruction of the non-Serbian habitations in Opstina Prijedor took place when the area was under the command of Colonel Vladimir Arsic and Major Radmilo Zeljaja in close cooperation with military superiors, at least in the regional capital Banja Luka. Units stationed outside of Opstina Prijedor assisted in the military destruction, as did paramilitary units whose attacks were timed to fit with the artillery attacks and the manoeuvres of the regular army units.

In the above-mentioned interview printed in Kozarski Vjesnik on 9 April 1993, Simo Drljaca stated:

"(T)hey (the police force, including the secret services) carried out my orders and the orders of the CSB (the Public Security Centre) Banja Luka and the Minister of Interior.
...
"... the cooperation was excellent with the Army of Republika Srpska and with the officers of that army. The cooperation was manifested in the joint cleansing of the terrain of traitors, joint work at the checkpoints, a joint intervention group against disturbances of public order and in fighting terrorist groups."

The secret police and the military police provided the concentration camps with interrogators and guards. For some of the most gruesome torture and killings of detainees, the assistance of paramilitary units and some locals was also called upon. Quasi-military intervention units were used to trace and capture the non-Serbian leadership. The latter units killed prisoners arbitrarily during transport to the Manjaca camp and arranged mass-killings of "deported" prisoners in the Vlasic Mountain area.

The other members of the crisis committee ran the community in which all these violations occurred. They participated in the administrative decision-making. The gains on different levels of the systematic looting of non-Serbian property were shared by many local Serbs.

The Commission of Experts possesses the names of hundreds of alleged perpetrators at different levels and in a variety of capacities.

9. Conclusions

It is unquestionable that the events in Opstina Prijedor since 30 April 1992 qualify as crimes against humanity. Furthermore, it is likely to be confirmed in court under due process of law that these events constitute genocide.

B. The battle and siege of Sarajevo *48

The battle and siege of Sarajevo began on 5 April 1992, the eve of European Community recognition of Bosnia and Herzegovina as an independent State. On that date, thousands of people took to the streets in spontaneous peace marches. The largest body of demonstrators headed towards the Parliament building and other buildings reportedly seized by Serb forces. Unidentified gunmen were then reported to have fired into the crowd. One protestor was confirmed dead. Since that date, the siege and relentless bombardment from the hills surrounding Sarajevo has taken a tremendous physical toll on the city and its inhabitants.

1. Structure and location of forces in and around the city

Since the beginning of the siege, the first Corps Sarajevo has served as the defensive force of the Bosnian Government in and around Sarajevo. Most assessments characterize the first Corps Sarajevo as superior in infantry numbers as compared to the besieging forces, but clearly deficient in firepower. The first Corps Sarajevo headquarters is located at Sarajevo. The Croatian Defence Council and the first Corps forces fought together in defence of the city throughout much of the siege despite opposing one another in Mostar and in other parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, on 10 November 1993, the Croatian Defence Council Brigade was disbanded and part of its personnel joined a new Croatian brigade of the first Corps.

The Sarajevo Romanija Corps is the Bosnian-Serb force of the Bosnian-Serbian Army. The Corps has surrounded the city since the beginning of the siege. *49 It is the successor of the unit of JNA that occupied the same positions until May 1992. The Romanija Corps headquarters are located overlooking the city at Lukavica. The command structure has for the most part remained the same throughout the siege. Three succeeding Generals have commanded that Corp since 1992.

Although the Serbian forces surrounding the city have superior firepower, it has been observed that it is unlikely that they could effectively take control of the city. This observation is based, in part, on the fact that the Bosnian forces have more combatants. In addition, controlling the city and its numerous buildings and streets could prove an overwhelming task for the Serb forces. The Serb forces have, therefore, concentrated their efforts on weakening the city through constant bombardment from the surrounding hillsides. A possible explanation for the shifting of firing sites from the mountainous areas surrounding Sarajevo may be that artillery personnel move from one emplacement to the other. Another explanation for this phenomenon could be the pattern of delivery of munitions. There were, however, no apparent munitions shortages.

2. Location and nature of the artillery

Many reports in the chronology described shelling as generally coming from artillery, mortars and tanks located in the hills surrounding the city. Some reports described various Serb-held areas and deployment of forces. Reports of the besieging artillery and other heavy-to-medium weapons employed in the siege vary from 600 to 1,100 pieces, but no verified account is available. These estimates do not include tanks. Some of the weapons were in fixed emplacements such as bunkers in the wooded hills and mountains surrounding Sarajevo and its suburbs. On account of the dense foliage, the emplacements were hard to detect from the air, particularly in the summer. Although the bunkers were difficult to see from the roads, the direction from which artillery and heavy mortar shells were fired revealed their emplacement. However, it was difficult to determine whether the bunkers also had snipers with rifles or personnel with small arms.

3. Frequency of shelling

UNPROFOR and city officials indicate that the daily shelling of the city ranges from 200 to 300 impacts on a quiet day to 800 to 1,000 shell impacts on an active day. The chronology confirms that the city has been relentlessly shelled. On the days where a total shelling count was documented, Sarajevo was hit by an average of 329 shell impacts per day. The range of shelling activity on these days varied from a low of two impacts on both 17 and 18 May 1993 to a high of 3,777 impacts on 22 July 1993.

4. Systematic shelling of specific targets

An examination of the range of destruction in Sarajevo reveals a pattern of specific targeting. The following targets were documented in the chronology as being among the most frequently targeted sites in the city: the Kosevo Hospital; the Sarajevo radio and television stations; the Oslobodenje Newspaper building, which is still in operation; the public transportation system; the Presidency and Parliament buildings; the main city brewery; the flour mill; the main bakery; the Olympic complex; the industrial area of Alipasin Most near the railway station and main television tower; the Jewish cemetery; the Lion Cemetery; the city airport; the tobacco factory; the Dobrinja apartment complex; the central district; Bascarsija (the old quarter of mosques); the Stari Grad Section; New Sarajevo; the main thoroughfare on Marshal Tito Street; and the shopping district at Vase Miskina.

The chronology confirms that certain areas of the city have also been systematically shelled throughout the course of the siege, particularly cultural and religious structures and public utilities. The city centre, the airport and southwestern suburbs had consistently been the most often targeted areas. The historic old town area had also been heavily shelled.

5. Patterns of random shelling

A review of the incidents in the chronology also indicates a random process of shelling throughout the civilian areas of the city. The shelling, which occurs at different times of the day without any apparent pattern or specific target, has a terror- inspiring effect on the civilian population. It is particularly telling that deaths, injuries and destruction have occurred in various parts of the city and in such well-known non-military settings as schools, open streets, public parks, football and athletic fields, cemeteries, hospitals, and even bread, water and relief lines in the city.

6. Link between shelling activity and political events

A review of the incidents in the chronology reveals a pattern of heavy shelling prior to and during the various peace conferences, and other negotiations, suggesting a political link to the attacks. *50 There are also indications that shell fire has increased or decreased in reaction to statements by local and international political leaders and Governments. *51

On 5 February 1994, at least 68 persons were killed and 200 others were wounded in the shelling of a market in the city centre. In reaction to that attack, NATO issued an ultimatum on 9 February which gave Bosnian Serb and Bosnian forces 10 days, starting on 11 February, to withdraw their heavy weapons from a designated exclusion zone or face heavy airstrikes. Very little progress was made with regard to the ultimatum until 17 February, when the Russian Federation announced that it was sending a contingent of 400 troops to the city, and persuaded Bosnian Serb forces to comply with the NATO ultimatum. On 20 February, NATO announced that there had been virtual compliance with the ultimatum and that there was no need for airstrikes "at this stage". Since that date, artillery fire has substantially decreased in Sarajevo.

The cumulative effect of the number of civilian casualties, the destruction of non-military structures, attacks upon and destruction of protected targets, such as hospitals, cultural property and other impermissible targets, evidence a consistent and repeated pattern of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of international humanitarian law. The length of time over which these violations took place and their recurrence clearly establish that, in at least a large number of incidents, those ordering and carrying out these actions committed such violations. Command responsibility also clearly exists.

C. Sarajevo investigation*52

From 20 June to 9 July 1993, the Commission sent an investigative mission to Sarajevo, then under siege, to undertake a law-of-war study of a specific incident in the battle of Sarajevo and an analytical law-of-war survey of the battle of Sarajevo. The mission included a group of Canadian military lawyers and police investigators.

The mission participants met with a wide range of local officials, including the Bosnian State War Crimes Commission, city officials, medical officials and military officers.

The objective of the incident study was to analyse in depth a specific incident which occurred during the siege of Sarajevo, to identify specific violations of the law of war (particularly violations in which civilian casualties have occurred) to analyse the circumstances of the incident and to assess the feasibility of identifying and prosecuting alleged offenders (particularly the military commanders). The report is based on information that could be obtained in and around Sarajevo.

No incident was chosen prior to arrival in Sarajevo. Criteria to be considered in selecting an incident included: number of casualties, number of projectiles fired, sources and, to a lesser extent, time elapsed since the incident. It was hoped that it would be possible to get information from Bosnian, UNPROFOR and Serbian sources. The rationale for preferring an incident in which more than one projectile was fired was that multiple projectiles would give a stronger indication of intent to commit an offence.

Bosnian State War Crimes Commission authorities were requested to provide evidence concerning six incidents of their choice, on the understanding that those incidents would be considered, but not necessarily chosen, for in-depth investigation. The evidence could not be compiled by the Commission within a short period of time and, as a result, an alternative approach was decided upon. Bosnian authorities suggested six incidents about which they believed a reasonable amount of information would be available. Two of these incidents, the shelling of a soccer game on 1 June 1993 and the shelling of a funeral in mid-June 1993, were selected for the possible in-depth investigation. Preliminary investigation indicated information on the shelling of the funeral would only be available from one source, as heavy rains the day after had washed away the evidence which UNPROFOR had intended to gather.

The incident finally selected for in-depth investigation was the mortar shelling of a soccer game in the Dobrinja suburb of Sarajevo on 1 June 1993. The investigators interviewed several witnesses on the Bosnian side, and also reviewed the crater analysis produced by UNPROFOR. Investigators were unable to interview witnesses on the Serbian side.

On the basis of the investigation it is reasonable to conclude that:

1. Two mortar shells landed at the soccer tournament at approximately 10.30 a.m. on 1 June 1993;
2. Thirteen persons were killed and 133 injured by the shells;
3. The shells were fired from the Serbian side, approximately 300 m south of Lukavica barracks;
4. The weather was clear and sunny with good visibility;
5. The area where the shelling occurred was exclusively residential;
6. The game site could not be seen from the Serbian side because it was surrounded by apartment buildings, but the cheering could be heard at the front line;
7. No projectiles had landed in the area for several months.

On the basis of the above factors, it is reasonable to conclude that a prima facie case exists that persons on the Serbian side deliberately attacked civilians and, therefore, committed a war crime. With the information available, it is not possible to identify the probable offenders at present.

In connection with the analytical law-of-war survey and of the battle of Sarajevo, the study team visited several incident sites in Sarajevo. The shelling and sniping precluded an in-depth survey of property damage. The team, however, met with a wide range of officials of the Bosnian Government and UNPROFOR officers and obtained documentary material from them. The team was unable to meet with Serbian officials in Pale, even though it attempted to do so.

The report prepared by the investigation team is a non- exhaustive survey of law of armed conflict issues arising during the siege of Sarajevo. The team did not have an opportunity to visit the Bosnian Serb Army forces during the investigation and received no allegations of Bosnian Government misconduct during the siege except for allegations from UNPROFOR sources concerning positioning of and firing by Bosnian Government forces. The report focuses on combat-related offences, unlawful targeting and the use of unlawful means and methods of warfare. It concluded that it is unlikely that weapons that are illegal per se were used during the siege, or that there was unauthorized use by personnel of the Bosnian Serb Army of vehicles carrying United Nations markings - which could be viewed as perfidious conduct. If persons were killed or wounded as a result of perfidious action, a grave breach of Protocol I would be established. Somewhat similarly, it would have to be established that named individuals attacked or authorized attacks on United Nations forces for these persons to be charged with violating the laws or customs of war, as set out in article 3 of the statute of the International Tribunal, in that they would be committing a grave breach of article 85, paragraph 3 (a), of Protocol I by making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack. In the Sarajevo context, United Nations peace-keepers are non-combatants and entitled to be treated as civilians. The tendency of both sides to control food, water and electricity for publicity purposes, the intermingling of military forces and the civilian population and the fact that no one appears to have died during the siege from starvation, dehydration or freezing, combine to make difficult the establishment of a solid case that starvation is being used as a method of warfare. The conduct of this matter has been deplorable, but its criminality is debatable.

Most of the war crimes committed in Sarajevo have involved attacks on civilian persons and objects and destruction of cultural property. An accurate list of persons killed and seriously injured during the siege of Sarajevo needs to be established. It will also have to be determined if, at the time of death, they were combatants or non- combatants and when, where and how they were killed or injured. Once this information is available, it will be possible to distinguish military and civilian casualties. It may also be possible to determine where the projectiles causing casualties came from in such a way that one can establish that they were caused by a particular unit. It will also be possible to determine how many of the civilian casualties were caused by some form of sniper fire. Irrespective of the rule of proportionality, it is reasonable to presume that civilian casualties caused by sniper fire are the result of deliberate attacks on civilians and not the result of indiscriminate attacks, as may be the case in shelling.

The compilation of a chronological and quantitative survey of damage to civilian objects in Sarajevo was not attempted by the study team. *53 Its preliminary observations follow. It is obvious that damage has been caused to certain religious, cultural and medical buildings. There is a strong possibility that there has been a deliberate attempt to target certain types of objects. For example, a detailed study of the shelling of the Kosevo medical facility or of the National Library would probably indicate these objects had been deliberately targeted. There is also a strong possibility that a deliberate effort has been made to target religious facilities. The concealment of Bosnian Government forces among civilian property may have caused the attraction of fire from the Bosnian Serb Army which may have resulted in legitimate collateral damage. There is enough apparent damage to civilian objects in Sarajevo to conclude that either civilian objects have been deliberately targeted or they have been indiscriminately attacked.

There have been incidents in the past where substantial civilian casualties have been caused and substantial military advantage gained by a particular military action. In those cases, one might attempt to quantify both military advantage and civilian losses and apply the somewhat subjective rule of proportionality. As a general statement, however, the rule of proportionality is not relevant to the sniping activities of the Bosnian Serb Army forces, and it is of questionable relevance to many of the artillery bombardments. The Bosnian Serb Army forces are deliberately targeting the civilian population of Sarajevo, either as a measure of retaliation or to weaken their political resolve. Attacking the civilian population is a war crime.

It will probably be very difficult to link particular individuals to specific incidents in which civilians or civilian objects have been deliberately attacked or subjected to indiscriminate attacks. However, it may be less difficult to identify specific units. It may be possible to localize incidents in such a way that it is clear that a certain unit under a particular commander was the cause of a number of incidents. Whether or not it is possible to develop a firm case against individual soldiers or unit commanding officers, it should be quite practicable to develop a prima facie case against the officer or officers responsible for the Bosnian Serb Army forces that have been surrounding Sarajevo from the beginning of the siege.

It is the view of the Commission that:

1. The study of a specific incident in the battle of Sarajevo established with a reasonable degree of certainty that the civilian population had been deliberately targeted, but it was not practicable to identify the perpetrators;
2. The general study on the law of armed conflict and the battle of Sarajevo assessed a range of information sources and, relying on the doctrine of command responsibility, provided support for the suggestion that it would be possible to develop a prima facie case against the commander of the Bosnian-Serb forces surrounding Sarajevo for deliberately attacking the civilian population (see annex VI.A).

D. Medak Pocket investigation*54

On 9 September 1993, Croat forces attacked the Medak Pocket, a collection of small rural villages and hamlets forming a finger of Serb-controlled land in Sector South jutting into Croat territory. The Croats quickly killed or routed the few Serb defenders and overran the area. Within several days, however, Croatian authorities indicated a willingness to withdraw to their 8 September positions and to turn over the vacated territory to UNPROFOR. The withdrawal was completed by 17 September. As United Nations forces entered the Pocket, they found every building burning or demolished. There were hundreds of such buildings in the several villages and hamlets. None were habitable. Special sweep teams assessed and recorded damage, searched for survivors and collected bodies. The teams included UNPROFOR medical officers, civil police (CIVPOL) monitors and soldiers. Very substantial reports were prepared on the Medak Pocket incident by UNPROFOR. To some extent, these reports duplicated one another but, considered together, they provided an excellent basis for a subsequent investigation focusing on legal and forensic issues.

The Commission sent a team consisting of Canadian military personnel and a forensic expert from Physicians for Human Rights to visit the area and the destroyed villages from 27 to 31 October 1993, and to review reports and photographs provided by UNPROFOR and "Serb Republic of Krajina" authorities.

Their investigations concluded that, although some of the dead probably were murdered, no individual could at the time be identified to be directly responsible. Furthermore, there was no strong unambiguous pattern of criminal killing sufficient at the time to affix responsibility upon the Croat commanders for deliberate killing of civilians.

At the same time, this investigation resulted in the following findings concerning wanton destruction:

1. Unlike the evidence concerning the deaths arising from the Medak Pocket operation, there was a clear, obvious and overwhelming pattern of wanton destruction. Hundreds of homes were destroyed; hundreds of other buildings were destroyed; most animals were killed or taken; virtually all personal property was destroyed or taken; all vehicles and farm equipment were destroyed or taken; haystacks were set on fire; and many wells were polluted. Devastation was total;
2. The timing of the destruction was inconsistent with any legitimate military conduct and not of military necessity. The bulk of this destruction occurred on 16 September, according to the many eyewitnesses. The sounds of the explosions, the rising of the smoke from fires and the fact that many buildings were still on fire as United Nations personnel entered the Pocket establish this;
3. The destruction occurred well after all Serb resistance had ended. There was no Serb resistance in the areas from which the explosions were heard and the rising smoke seen. All effective Serb forces had fled the area at the time of the bulk of the destruction. The devastation was wrought in an unopposed withdrawal, not a contested advance or retreat. Even the Croatian liaison officer was forced to use an excuse not involving legitimate combat activity by the opposing forces. The scattered nature of the buildings, with the brief and desultory original Serb defence, does not explain this level of destruction;
4. The widespread destruction by demolition and fire is also generally inconsistent with legitimate military operations. If buildings are contested, then demolition charges cannot usually be placed inside them. There was no other evidence to show how these buildings were destroyed other than by enemy forces being present in them;
5. Various contradictory excuses given by the Croats for the destruction suggest the lack of any legitimate excuse for such widespread destruction.

It is the view of the Commission that the Medak Pocket investigation report provides exceptionally strong support for the suggestion that prima facie cases can be developed against named Croatian senior officers for the wanton destruction of civilian property.

The report prepared for the Commission and contained in annex VII as a result of the investigation includes suggestions for draft charges, synopses of evidence and trial plans for the possible prosecution of named Croatian senior officers.

*22       The TDFs, however, existed in varying degrees of strength and readiness in the various republics. However, in most cases, they were poorly organized and staffed. Croatia organized a National Guard in April 1991 to replace the territorial defence force. The National Guard consisted mostly of former JNA military personnel from Croatia.

*23       It should be noted that the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina includes among its ranks Croatian and Serbian personnel. Also, Croatian Defence Council units have on occasion either been part of Bosnian Government operations or have fought alongside the Bosnian Government Forces against the Bosnian Serb Army.

*24       Some of these special forces operate in localized areas, while others move freely to different theatres of operation, frequently going from one state to another within the territory of the former Yugoslavia. Several of the special forces come from Serbia proper or have close links to Serbia, like Arkan's "Tigers", Seselj's "White Eagles", Captain Dragan's forces, Serb Falcons (Sinisa Uucinic) and others. The Serbian People's Renewal Party also had a paramilitary organization which interrelated with the White Eagles. Serbian special forces from Krajina, like "Martic's Militia", operate predominantly in the UNPAs (Croatia). Other special forces from Croatia are tied to the Croatian Government's political and army figures. The HOS, which is reminiscent of the Second-World-War Ustachi, for example, have been substantially absorbed into the Croatian Defence Council. The mujahidin operate independently of the Bosnian Government Army. Muslims from Bosnia and Herzegovina formed paramilitary units in 1991. Two such Muslim groups are called Green Berets and the Patriotic League of the People. All special forces have expatriate volunteers and some use foreign mercenaries.

*25       Arkan's name is Zeljko Raznjatovic. Interpol has several outstanding warrants for his arrest. The warrants are for a variety of crimes, including bank robbery and investigations relating to political assassination in different European countries. He escaped from prison on bank robbery charges in the Netherlands and Sweden, where he is currently a wanted criminal. He is reputed to have been involved in murder for hire and to have connections with organized crime in Europe. His group has committed the entire range of crimes described above and in other parts of this report in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Tigers have used expatriates and mercenaries in the commission of these crimes. JNA seems to arm and support the Tigers. The crimes committed by this group started in 1991 in the war in Croatia. In 1992, Arkan was elected to the Kosovo "parliament" and ran in the 1994 parliamentary election of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in Belgrade. He has reportedly acquired substantial wealth in Sector East UNPA Croatia and in Belgrade which it is believed he derived from looting and contraband.

*26       Seselj was a member of the parliament of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and leader of the ultra-nationalist Serbian Radical Party, which at one time held one third of the votes. e elj's group follows the pre-Second- World-War group called the "Chetniks" who were known for their ultra-right wing monarchial politics. The Second-World-War Chetniks wore the special monarchial emblems with the double headed eagle. The present forces wear the same emblem and also call themselves Chetniks. Like Arkan's Tigers, Seselj's White Eagles committed the crimes referred to above and in other parts of this report. The group seems to have been armed and supported by JNA. Moreover, since mid-1993, the group is believed to have been under the direct control of JNA. The crimes committed by this group started in 1991 in the war in Croatia. During the 1994 elections in Belgrade, Seselj and President Slobodan Milosevic publicly traded charges of war crimes and hinted at knowledge of war crimes. This was publicly reported in the media of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in October 1993. It was also reported that President Milosevic ordered some forty associates of Seselj to be prosecuted for rape, and other war crimes. It should also be noted that there were several groups of Chetniks that were not under e elj's control. One such unit operated in the Krajina area in Croatia in 1991, and then in Bosnia in 1992, where the group took position around Sarajevo in the fall. The unit is under the command of Slavko Aleksic who operated under the command of the Bosnian Serb Army. (See annex III.A for more detail regarding special forces.)

*                       Protocol I      Geneva Conventions      Protocol II
Yugoslavia              (Ratification)     21 April 1950          11 June 1979
Slovenia                (Succession)       26 March 1992          26 March 1992
Croatia                 (Succession)       11 May 1992            11 May 1992
Bosnia and Herzegovina  (Succession)       31 December 1992       31 December 1992

*29       Serbian contemporary reality is particularly affected by history, which is vividly recalled, even when it goes as far back as the battle of Kosovo in 1389. But, more recent events arising out of the Second World War are even more significant in popular perception.

*30       Several reports indicate that individual Serbs acted with courage and generosity in helping persons of other ethnic or religious groups to flee to safety or shield such persons from certain harm. But, in almost all these reports, it is clear that those concerned persons did so surreptitiously, thus emphasizing the overall climate of fear and even terror inspired by those in control.

*31       The arc goes from Gorazde at the bottom of the arc in the East (southeast) near the Drina River, then following the Drina River, north through such cities as Zvornik, Br ko and in a northward direction to the areas of Bjelina, Derventa, Slavonski Brod, Banja Luka and Prijedor. The Drina River is the border between Bosnia and Serbia. The arc continues along the Sava and Korenika Rivers, which are the boundaries with the Serb Krajina area, and follows along eastern and western Slavonia, which are also Serb-inhabited areas in Croatia.

*32       This strategic factor is evident in the attack against Gorazde in April 1994 and in the reports of military preparation for action in the Brko area.

*33       See, for example, E/CN.4/1994/20.

*34       However, even the involvement of public officials is frequently insufficient to ensure the safety of the forcefully removed civilian population. Some of those evicted were forced to walk across minefields, which resulted in many deaths and severe injuries. Additionally, troops along the confrontation lines opened fire on the civilians who were pushed across the lines.

*35       This is due to the fact that the Serb population is notified in advance of an attack. In some areas, this "ethnic cleansing" is done by "special forces" but frequently, it is the very civilian population which lives alongside the Bosnian Muslims in the areas described above who carry out or share in carrying out the criminal practices referred to elsewhere in this report, particularly the Prijedor study, paras. 151 - 182.

*36       For example, the Krisni Stab of Sanski Most (which is characteristic of other districts) consisted of the Mayor, the Chairman of the Serbian Democratic Party, the leader of the Serbian Democratic Party and the Commander of the Sixth Krajina Brigade.

*37       The evidence obtained in this study is the most specific and detailed of all the Commission's investigations. It was delivered to the Office of the Deputy Prosecutor of the International Tribunal along with other Commission material (see annex IV).

*38       See, for example, a special study undertaken by the Bolzmann Institute of Human Rights (Austria) for the Commission which evidences this conclusion. The study is incorporated in annex IV.

*39       Prior to the autumn of 1992, the Army of the "Bosnian Serb Republic" was referred to as the "Bosnian-Serb Army" (BSA).

*40       Command responsibility by commission and by omission exists (see paras. 55 - 60), even though the policy of "ethnic cleansing" is carried out in a way which tends to conceal the responsibility of superiors in the political and military hierarchy through a structural separation of army, militia, police and special forces (discussed in paras. 110 - 128). Considering, however, the extent of these violations, the vast areas over which they occurred and the length of time over which they took place, it is difficult to conceive how responsible commanders can claim ignorance of the violations that have occurred.

*41       This conversion kept local JNA military personnel in Bosnia and Herzegovina, using substantially the same equipment of the former JNA, and thereafter receiving support from Serbia across the Drina River.

*42       Serbs have inhabited the Krajina area and eastern and western Slavonia since the late 1300s and have had a particular historic presence since 1578. But during the Second World War, the Ustachi regime killed a large number of Serbs, whose numbers ranged from a low of 200,000 to a high of 700,000 most of them from these regions. The memory of this tragedy looms large over the apprehensions of Serbs and is a factor in the spiral of violence that took place in the region.

*43       Most of Vukovar was razed to the ground. One incident, in particular, will forever symbolize this terrible battle. It is the mass grave at Ovcara, where some 200 plus Croats are believed to have been taken by Serbs from the Vukovar Hospital and summarily executed and then left in a shallow mass grave. The Commission conducted several reconnaissance missions to the areas, discovered the existence of a large number of bodies, collected some evidence and started to exhume the bodies in October 1993. Representatives of the "local Serbian administration" prevented the Commission from continuing its work. The Commission could not undertake the Ovcara and other mass graves investigations. However, before it was obliged to terminate its work, all of the relevant evidence was communicated to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Tribunal. (For more detail see paras. 265 - 276 and annexes X, X.A and X.B.)

*44       They are related to the so-called "Herzeg-Bosna Republic". Under the February 1994 Washington Agreement between leaders of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia and Croat leaders from Bosnia and Herzegovina who are part of the so-called "Republic of Herzeg- Bosna", a federation is to be developed within Bosnia and Herzegovina. This was furthered by the Agreement reached between these two groups on 18 March 1994 and signals a positive transformation, hopefully leading to peace between the parties.

*45       Even though that conflict ended in January 1992, violence has continued since then. The evidence secured by the Commission, along with other evidence obtained from UNPROFOR concerning the destruction of the village of Medak in October 1993, was delivered to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Tribunal. On 19 March 1994, another agreement was reached between the Republic of Croatia and the so- called "Serb Republic of Krajina". (For the Medak study see annex VII.)

*46       This is evidenced by the Croatian Defence Council and Croatian police attacks on the villages of Ahmici-Vitez and Stupni Do in 1993. These attacks would be characterized as representing a certain policy. The first was investigated by the European Community Monitoring Mission and Mr. Mazowiecki, the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights. The second was investigated by UNPROFOR. All evidence was delivered to the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Tribunal.

*47       See annex V.

*48       See annex VI . The study on the battle and siege of Sarajevo presents a daily chronology, documenting events in the city from 5 April 1992 to 28 February 1994. The chronology is based on incidents reported in the database, other source materials and media reports. It details, in so far as information is available: daily combat and shelling activity; specific identified targets hit; known damage to targets hit; sniping activity; and total casualties reported. The chronology also contains a narrative of daily military activities and local and international events relating to the battle and siege. The purpose of the chronology is to describe the events and consequences of the battle and siege of Sarajevo and to determine patterns of violations of humanitarian law.

*49       There are indications that early in the siege and until late May 1992, the Yugoslav Army (JNA) was involved in the fighting in Sarajevo. Bosnian officials frequently charged that JNA tanks joined Bosnian-Serb forces in barrages, and that the JNA provided the Bosnian-Serb forces with logistical support and protection. In April 1992, the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina requested the withdrawal of all JNA forces from its soil. The Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia announced that it would withdraw from Bosnia and Herzegovina troops that were not residents of the Republic. Since most of the JNA troops in Bosnia and Herzegovina were Bosnian Serbs, the withdrawal of other troops had limited impact on the Serbian forces, as an estimated 80,000 Yugoslav soldiers were transferred with their equipment to the "Serb Republic of Bosnia".

*50       It has been observed that the besieging forces have often increased their artillery attacks on Bosnian Government-controlled areas of the city prior to and during international peace conferences or other negotiations. One explanation for this increased shelling activity is that the besieging forces are using the siege of Sarajevo presumably as a means to politically pressure the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to agree to terms which are important to the Bosnian-Serbs.

*51       It has been observed that the besieging forces have on many occasions increased shell fire in reaction to statements made by local political leaders. It has also been observed that the besieging forces seem to calculate events and the risks that they can take in relation to threats by third-party Governments and organizations. In this regard, when threats by third-party Governments or organizations are not perceived as immediate, the besieging forces increase or continue their shelling of the city. For example, Sarajevo was hit with a siege-high 3,777 shells on 22 July 1993 after the United States ruled out direct intervention to prevent the shelling of the city. The opposite behaviour was observed in August 1993, when President Clinton warned that the United States would consider bombing Serbian forces if the shelling of Sarajevo continued. When this threat appeared immediate, the attacks on Sarajevo diminished and Serbian troops were withdrawn from the surrounding mountains to the south- west. Likewise in reaction to the ultimatum by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) on 9 February 1994, which gave Bosnian Serb forces 10 days to withdraw their heavy weapons or face heavy airstrikes, the besieging forces substantially complied and curtailed their shelling of the city. This behaviour suggests that there is a centralized command and control of the besieging forces and that when there is pressure for the shelling to stop, it does.

*52       See annex VI.A.

*53       This research was conducted on the basis of information available in the database and reported in paras. 183 - 193. For a daily chronology, see annex VI.

*54       See annex VII.