Lukic Alleges Mistaken Identity
Defence contends witnesses who claimed to have seen accused at crime scenes misidentified him.
Lukic Alleges Mistaken Identity
Defence contends witnesses who claimed to have seen accused at crime scenes misidentified him.
Lawyers for convicted Bosnian Serb war criminal Milan Lukic claimed in an appeals hearing this week that the case against him was based on mistaken identity and rumour.
“In times of conflict, certain individuals become infamous by reputation,” defence lawyer Tomislav Visnjic said. “Rumours spread by wildfire…myths are created. A face is perceived when it could not in reality be present.”
Milan Lukic, a former reserve policeman, was found guilty in July 2009 of personally killing at least 132 Bosniak civilians in the eastern Bosnian town of Visegrad during the summer of 1992, more than 100 of whom were trapped in two barricaded houses and burned alive.
He was also convicted of abusing detainees in the Uzamnica prison camp and killing 12 Bosniak men by the banks of the Drina river. While he is widely thought of as a wartime paramilitary leader, judges found there was not enough evidence presented during the trial to substantiate this claim.
Milan Lukic was sentenced to life in prison. His cousin Sredoje Lukic was found guilty of aiding and abetting murder in one of the house burnings and for mistreated detainees in the Uzamnica camp. He was given a 30-year prison sentence.
“The perpetration by Milan Lukic and Sredoje Lukic of crimes in this case is characterised by a vicious and callous disregard for human life,” judges said in the 2009 verdict. The two house burnings, they said, “exemplify the worst acts of inhumanity that a person may inflict upon others”.
This week, Milan Lukic, 44, maintained his innocence when judges allowed him to give a brief personal statement to the court.
“Before you are sitting innocent persons,” Lukic said, in reference to himself and his cousin Sredoje.
“Please look at my face and my eyes,” he instructed the bench. “Do I look like a monster? Like someone capable [of] killing children, women and the elderly?”
“I never mistreated anyone, nor did my colleagues,” Lukic said, claiming the prosecution “fabricated the charges” against him.
In addition, Lukic claimed that Bakira Hasecic - a prominent advocate on behalf of wartime rape victims - mistreated Serbs in Visegrad and then “fled to Sarajevo with her gang”. Hasecic has publicly alleged that Lukic raped her during the war, but those charges were not included in the indictment against him.
“Whenever the prosecution needed statements, she would fabricate stories,” Lukic claimed.
“Muslims are my brothers,” Lukic said, as the bench urged him to conclude. “I don’t hate them.”
When it was his turn to speak, Sredoje Lukic bristled at being mentioned in his cousin’s statement.
“Nobody has the right to speak in my name except myself and my lawyers,” he told the bench. “As for whether I am guilty or not, I leave it up to you to judge.”
Before the defendants took the floor, their respective lawyers gave lengthy arguments and urged the appeals bench to overturn the convictions on several grounds.
Milan Lukic’s defence contended that witnesses who claimed to have seen the accused at crime scenes misidentified him, and that trial judges accepted their evidence without applying “key legal principles” governing identification evidence.
“The trial chamber accepted claims of recognition made years later without examining the basis,” Visnjic said.
In addition, the defence challenged the way witnesses were asked to identify the perpetrators while they were testifying.
“Being asked to pick out the accused in the courtroom artificially reinforced [the idea] that it was the accused who they saw commit the crime,” Visnjic said.
However, they also brought up the fact that a key prosecution witness, Zehra Turjacanin, who survived the house burning on Pionirska street, could not identify the defendant in court even though she said she knew him before the conflict.
“The [trial judgement] didn’t explain how they could ignore Zehra’s inability to identify Milan in court,” Visnjic said. “We are left to scratch our heads.”
In addition, the defence claimed that Mitar Vasiljevic – who stood trial at the tribunal in 2001 for some of same crimes – only implicated Lukic in the shooting of seven Muslim men by the Drina river to get himself “off the hook” and minimise his own involvement in the incident. Vasiljevic was ultimately sentenced to 15 years in prison but was granted early release in March 2010.
“Your honors, Milan and others were notorious in Visegrad in 1992 because they fought and killed many Bosnians in combat,” he said.
“There were other numerous accusations flying around—most of them were untried and untested,” Visnjic continued. “Allegations about Milan Lukic snowballed, fueled by fears of an escalating ethnic conflict. This does not lessen the burden of the tribunal to ensure the necessary standard of proof is applied equally and to ensure the right people are held responsible for the right atrocity.”
The prosecution rejected these arguments and said the appeal should be dismissed.
“Milan Lukic essentially submits that this was a case of mistaken identity,” prosecuting lawyer Peter Kremer said. “However, the chamber heard compelling evidence placing him at each of the crime sites. The witnesses and victims that recognised him included former school mates, acquaintances, and other members of the small community that he came from.”
Kremer also maintained that the trial judges gave “detailed treatment” to the issue of identification evidence in their judgement, contrary to defence contentions, and also used “common sense” to determine that a “witness who had prior knowledge or familiarity with the accused is generally more reliable than evidence from witnesses who see the accused for the first time at crime scene”.
As for Sredoje Lukic - who was found guilty of aiding and abetting murder in the Pionirska house burning - his lawyers claim that he wasn’t there, and even if he was, his actions didn’t legally constitute aiding and abetting. One trial judge in the 2009 judgement agreed with the defence on this point, dissenting from the majority.
The prosecution rejected the argument, and said this week that the defence would “have you believe this is case of an innocent bystander”.
“[Sredoje Lukic] actively helped to herd a large group of victims into the execution house where they burned alive,” Kremer said.
The appeals judgement will be delivered in “the best possible time” said presiding judge Mehmet Guney at the end of the hearing.
Rachel Irwin is an IWPR reporter in The Hague.
