Judge Bakone Justice Moloto repeatedly interrupted defence counsel Predrag Milovancevic’s cross-examination of a prosecution military intelligence analyst to tell him that he was “not dealing with the issues that were before the court”, and was at times “very argumentative”.
The witness in question, Reynaud Theunens, appeared in court to give evidence on a report he had written about the organisation of the armed forces in the so-called Serb Autonomous District of Krajina, the SAO Krajina, and the accused’s involvement in these military structures during the Croatian conflict.
Martic, who held various leadership positions in the SAO Krajina, is charged with ten counts of crimes against humanity and nine of violations of the laws and customs of war for his alleged involvement in a joint criminal enterprise to expel non-Serbs from large areas of Bosnia and Croatia between 1991 and 1995.
These crimes include extermination, murder, imprisonment, torture and the destruction of villages.
Criticising Theunens’ focus on the actions of the Serb forces in Krajina, Milovancevic asked whether it was possible to study the role of one side in an armed conflict without also considering the role of the other.
“I think it is very well possible, because this is a report on a certain topic, and that topic has been explained,” replied the witness.
Milovancevic then proceeded to ask Theunens about the involvement of European Union politicians in Croatia’s secession from Yugoslavia in 1991, as well as the legal intricacies of the secession process. Theunens replied consistently that he was “not a legal expert” and was only sufficiently qualified to comment specifically on the subject of his report.
Undeterred, Martic’s lawyer continued to pose the same questions in different ways until Judge Moloto warned him that he was deviating from the case against the accused.
To this, Milovancevic replied, “The strategy of the defence is affected by the strategy of the prosecution, which delves into the politics of the joint criminal enterprise. We have to consider the acts of all parties and armed forces.”
The witness in question, Reynaud Theunens, appeared in court to give evidence on a report he had written about the organisation of the armed forces in the so-called Serb Autonomous District of Krajina, the SAO Krajina, and the accused’s involvement in these military structures during the Croatian conflict.
Martic, who held various leadership positions in the SAO Krajina, is charged with ten counts of crimes against humanity and nine of violations of the laws and customs of war for his alleged involvement in a joint criminal enterprise to expel non-Serbs from large areas of Bosnia and Croatia between 1991 and 1995.
These crimes include extermination, murder, imprisonment, torture and the destruction of villages.
Criticising Theunens’ focus on the actions of the Serb forces in Krajina, Milovancevic asked whether it was possible to study the role of one side in an armed conflict without also considering the role of the other.
“I think it is very well possible, because this is a report on a certain topic, and that topic has been explained,” replied the witness.
Milovancevic then proceeded to ask Theunens about the involvement of European Union politicians in Croatia’s secession from Yugoslavia in 1991, as well as the legal intricacies of the secession process. Theunens replied consistently that he was “not a legal expert” and was only sufficiently qualified to comment specifically on the subject of his report.
Undeterred, Martic’s lawyer continued to pose the same questions in different ways until Judge Moloto warned him that he was deviating from the case against the accused.
To this, Milovancevic replied, “The strategy of the defence is affected by the strategy of the prosecution, which delves into the politics of the joint criminal enterprise. We have to consider the acts of all parties and armed forces.”
